diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'old/67459-0.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | old/67459-0.txt | 37037 |
1 files changed, 0 insertions, 37037 deletions
diff --git a/old/67459-0.txt b/old/67459-0.txt deleted file mode 100644 index f9f1317..0000000 --- a/old/67459-0.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,37037 +0,0 @@ -The Project Gutenberg eBook of The Reign of William Rufus and the -Accession of Henry the First, Volume II (of 2), by Edward Augustus -Freeman - -This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and -most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions -whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms -of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at -www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you -will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before -using this eBook. - -Title: The Reign of William Rufus and the Accession of Henry the First, - Volume II (of 2) - -Author: Edward Augustus Freeman - -Release Date: February 21, 2022 [eBook #67459] - -Language: English - -Produced by: Carol Brown, MWS and the Online Distributed Proofreading - Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from - images generously made available by The Internet - Archive/Canadian Libraries) - -*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE REIGN OF WILLIAM RUFUS -AND THE ACCESSION OF HENRY THE FIRST, VOLUME II (OF 2) *** - - - - - -London - -HENRY FROWDE - -[Illustration: Printer’s Logo] - -OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS WAREHOUSE - -7 PATERNOSTER ROW - - - - -THE - -REIGN OF WILLIAM RUFUS - -AND THE - -ACCESSION OF HENRY THE FIRST. - -BY - -EDWARD A. FREEMAN, M.A., HON. D.C.L., LL.D. - -HONORARY FELLOW OF TRINITY COLLEGE. - -_IN TWO VOLUMES._ - -VOLUME II. - -Oxford: - -AT THE CLARENDON PRESS. - -1882. - -[_All rights reserved_.] - - - - -CONTENTS - - -CHAPTER V. - - THE WARS OF SCOTLAND, NORTHUMBERLAND, AND WALES. - 1093-1098. - -A. D. PAGE - - Events of the year 1093; relations between England - and Scotland; results of the war of 1093 3-4 - - Growth of the English power and of the English - nation under Rufus; the Scottish kingdom becomes - English 4-5 - - 1093 Death of Malcolm; first reign of Donald 5 - - 1094 Reign of Duncan; second reign of Donald 5 - - 1097 Establishment of Eadgar 5 - - 1095 Revolt of Robert of Mowbray 5-5 - - Affairs of Wales; comparison between Wales and - Scotland 6 - - Effects of the reign on the union of Britain; - comparison with Ireland and Normandy 6-8 - - § 1. _The last year of Malcolm._ 1093. - - Complaints of Malcolm against William Rufus; - effects on Scotland of the restoration of Carlisle; - other grounds of offence 8-9 - - March, 1093 Scottish embassy at Gloucester; Malcolm - summoned to Gloucester; Eadgar sent to bring him 9-10 - - Present favour of Eadgar with William 9-10 - - August Malcolm sets forth; he stops at Durham 11 - -August 11 He lays a foundation stone of the abbey; import of - the ceremony 11-12 - -August 24 Malcolm at Gloucester; William refuses to see him; - questions between the kings; William observes his - safe-conduct 13-14 - - Malcolm’s last invasion of England; he draws near - to Alnwick; history of the place 15-16 - - English feeling about Malcolm 16 - -Nov. 13 Malcolm slain by Morel 16-17 - - Burial of Malcolm at Tynemouth; history of Tynemouth; - his translation to Dunfermline 18-19 - - Local estimate of Malcolm’s death 19 - - Character of Margaret; Malcolm’s devotion to her; - her children and their education 20-22 - - Margaret’s reforms; Scottish feeling towards them 22-26 - - Her religious reforms 22-23 - - She increases the pomp of the court 23-24 - - English influence in Scotland; English and Norman - settlers 24-26 - -Nov. 27 Death of Margaret; different versions; her burial at - Dunfermline; Scottish feeling towards her 26-28 - - Donald elected king; he drives out the English; - meaning of the words 29-30 - - Margaret’s children driven out; action of the elder - Eadgar 30 - - Eadgyth and Mary brought up at Romsey; Malcolm - at Romsey; story of Eadgyth and William Rufus 31-32 - - Events of 1094; order of Scottish events 32-33 - -Christmas, Assembly at Gloucester; Duncan claims the Scottish -1093-1094 crown; his Norman education 33-34 - -1094 He receives the crown from William, and wins the - kingdom by the help of Norman and English - volunteers 34-35 - -May, 1094 Revolution in Scotland; the foreigners driven out 35 - -November Duncan slain and Donald restored 36 - -1094-1097 Second reign of Donald 36 - - § 2. _The revolt of Robert of Mowbray._ 1095-1096. - - Conspiracy against William Rufus; no general support - for the plot 37-40 - - Robert of Mowbray marries Matilda of Laigle 38 - - His dealings with Earl Hugh and Bishop William; - other conspirators; William of Eu 38-39 - - Designs on behalf of Stephen of Aumale 39-40 - - Earl Robert plunders the Norwegian ships; the - merchants complain to the King; Robert refuses - redress 40-41 - -March 25, Easter assembly at Winchester; Robert summoned, - 1095 but refuses to come 41 - -April 4 Falling stars 41-42 - - Messages between the King and Robert 42 - -May 13 Whitsun assembly at Windsor; Robert again refuses - to come 42 - - The King marches against Robert; his rebellion 42-43 - - The rebels expect help from Normandy 44 - - The King marches to Nottingham; Anselm’s command - in Kent 44-45 - - Robert’s fortresses; the New Castle, Tynemouth, - Bamburgh; taking of the New Castle 46-47 - - July Siege of Tynemouth; description of the site; - taking of Tynemouth 47-48 - - The castle of Bamburgh; Robert defends it against - the King 49-50 - - Failure of direct attacks; making of the _Malvoisin_; - the King goes away 51-52 - - Robert entrapped by a false message; he flees to - Tynemouth; he is besieged in the monastery, - taken, and imprisoned 52-53 - - Bamburgh defended by Matilda of Laigle 54 - -November She yields to save her husband’s eyes 54 - - Later history of Robert and Matilda 54-55 - - Morel turns King’s evidence 55 - -1095-1096 Christmas assembly at Windsor; all tenants-in-chief - summoned; constitutional importance of the meeting 56-59 - -January 13 The meeting adjourned to Salisbury; action of the - assembly; no general sympathy with the accused 56-59 - - Bishop William charged with treason and summoned - to take his trial; portents foretelling his death 59-61 - -Dec. 25, His sickness and death 61 -1095- -Jan. 1, 1096 - Debate as to his burial-place; he is buried in the - chapter-house 61-62 - - Sentences of the assembly; Earl Hugh buys his - pardon 62-63 - -January 13 William of Eu appealed by Geoffrey of Baynard, and - convicted by battle 63 - - He is blinded and mutilated; action of Earl Hugh 64-65 - - Story of Arnulf of Hesdin; his innocence proved by - battle 65 - - He goes to the crusade and dies 66 - - William of Alderi sentenced to death; the King - refuses to spare him 66-67 - - His pious end 67-68 - - Last days of William of Eu and of Morel 68-69 - - § 3. _The Conquest and Revolt of Wales._ - 1093-1097. - - Relations with Wales; character of the Welsh wars - of Rufus; effect of the building of castles 69-71 - - Welsh campaigns of Harold and William Rufus compared 71-72 - - Immediate failure and lasting success 71 - - Comparison of the conquest of Wales with the English - and Norman conquests; difference of geographical - conditions 72-74 - - Extension of England by conquest and settlement 74 - - Various elements in Wales; the Flemish settlements; - endurance of the Welsh language 74-75 - - The local nomenclature of Wales contrasted with that - of England 75-76 - - The Welsh castles; contrast with England; the - Welsh towns 76-77 - - Conquests before the accession of Rufus; Robert of - Rhuddlan; reigns of Rhys ap Tewdwr and Cedivor 77-78 - -1091 Saint David’s robbed by pirates 78 - -1093 Beginning of the conquest of South Wales; legend of - the conquest of Glamorgan 79-81 - - Story of Jestin and Einion; settlement of Robert - Fitz-hamon and his knights 80-81 - - Estimate of the story; elements of truth 81-82 - - History of Robert Fitz-hamon; his lands, marriage, - and settlement at Cardiff 82-83 - - His works at Gloucester and Tewkesbury; his grants - of Welsh churches to English monasteries 84 - - Distinction between Morganwg and Glamorgan; extent - of Glamorgan 85 - - The lords and their castles 86-87 - - The South-Welsh churches and monasteries 88-89 - - Saxon and Flemish settlements in South Wales; - foundation of boroughs 88 - - Conquest of Brecknock; Bernard of Newmarch and - his wife Nest 89-91 - -Easter, Defeat and death of Rhys at Brecknock; effects of -1093 his death 91-92 - -April 30 Cadwgan harries Dyfed 92 - -July 1 Norman conquest of Ceredigion and Dyfed 92-93 - - Tale of Rufus’s threats against Ireland 92-93 - - Acquisition of Saint David’s; Bishop Wilfrith 94 - - The Pembrokeshire castles 95 - - Pembroke castle begun by Arnulf of Montgomery; - second building by Gerald of Windsor; his wife - Nest 96-97 - - Earl Hugh in Anglesey; castle of Aberlleiniog 97 - - Advance of Earl Roger in Powys; castle of Rhyd-y-gors 97 - - Seeming conquest of Wales; Gower and Caermarthen - unsubdued 98 - - Effect of William’s absence; general revolt under - Cadwgan son of Bleddyn 98-100 - - Invasion of England 100 - - Deliverance of Anglesey; Aberlleiniog castle broken - down 101 - - Character of the war; action of Cadwgan in Dyfed; - Pembroke castle holds out 101-102 - - Question of a winter campaign; conquest of Kidwelly, - Gower, and Caermarthen 102 - -1099 Alleged West-Saxon settlement in Gower; the Gower - castles 103 - - Pagan of Turberville helps the Welsh 104 - - North Wales holds out; the Welsh take Montgomery 104-105 - -Michaelmas, William’s invasion of Wales 105 -1095 - -November 1 He reaches Snowdon; ill-success of the campaign 105 - -1096 The Welsh take Rhyd-y-gors; revolt of Gwent and - Brecknock 106 - - English feeling towards the war 106-107 - - Vain attempts to recover Gwent 107 - - Importance of the castles; the Welsh attack Pembroke; - defence of Gerald of Windsor 108-109 - -1097 Gerald takes the offensive against the Welsh 110 - -Easter, William’s second campaign; seeming conquest; fresh -1097 revolt under Cadwgan 110-111 - -June-Aug. 1097 William’s third campaign; his ill-success 111-112 - -October He determines to build castles 112-113 - - - § 4. _The Establishment of Eadgar in Scotland._ - 1097-1098. - -August, Decree for action in Scotland; the elder Eadgar -1097 commissioned to restore the younger 114 - - Story of Godwine and Ordgar; the Ætheling Eadgar - cleared by battle 114-118 - - Estimate and importance of the story 117-118 - -September The two Eadgars march to Scotland; exploits of - Robert son of Godwine; defeat and blinding of - Donald; later life of Eadmund 118-120 - -1097-1107 Reign of Eadgar in Scotland 120-123 - - Eadgar’s gifts to Robert son of Godwine 121 - -1099-1100 Eadgar and Robert go to the Crusade 121-122 - -1103 Exploits and martyrdom of Robert son of Godwine; - parallels and contrasts 122-123 - -1107-1124 Reign of Alexander in Scotland; friendship of the - Scottish kings for England; Turgot and Eadmer 124 - -1124-1153 Reign of David in Scotland; English influence in - Scotland; the Scottish kings of the second series 125-126 - - § 5. _The Expedition of Magnus._ 1098. - - Events of the year 1098; their wide geographical - range; Anglesey the centre of the story 126-127 - -Winter, Schemes of Cadwgan and Gruffydd; they take -1097-1098 wikings from Ireland into pay 127-128 - - The two Earls Hugh of Chester and Shrewsbury 129 - - The Earls enter Anglesey; they rebuild the castle - of Aberlleiniog 129-130 - - The Earls bribe the wikings; Cadwgan and Gruffydd - flee to Ireland 130-131 - - Cruelties of the Earls; mutilation and restoration - of Cenred 131-132 - -1093-1103 Reign of Magnus Barefoot in Norway; his surnames 133 - - He professes friendship for England; his treasure - at Lincoln 133-134 - - Harold son of Harold in his fleet 134-136 - - Designs of Magnus on Ireland; Irish marriage of his - son Sigurd; his voyage among the islands 136 - -1075-1095 Reign of Godred Crouan in Man and the Sudereys 136-137 - -1078-1094 His Irish dominion 136-137 - - His sons Lagman and Harold 137 - - Rulers of Man sent from Ireland and Norway; civil - war in Man 137-138 - - Legend of Magnus and Saint Olaf 138-140 - - Magnus seizes the Orkney earls and gives the - earldom to his son Sigurd 140 - - Further voyage of Magnus; he occupies Man; his - designs 140-142 - - He approaches Anglesey; preparations of the earls; - the fleet off Aberlleiniog 142-143 - - Death of Hugh of Shrewsbury; different versions 143-144 - - Peace between Magnus and Hugh of Chester 145 - - Anglesey and North Wales subdued by Hugh 145-146 - - Sigurd’s kingdom in the islands; dealings of - Magnus with Scotland 145-146 - - § 6. _The Establishment of Robert of Bellême in England._ - 1098. - -1098 Effects of the death of Hugh of Shrewsbury; Robert - of Bellême buys his earldom and his other - possessions; doubtful policy of the grant 147-149 - - Unique position of Robert in England; effects of his - coming; his cruelty and spoliations 149-151 - - His skill in castle-building; his defences in - Shropshire; early history of the Shropshire - fortresses 151-152 - -896-912 First works at the _Bridge_ 152-153 - - Quatford; Earl Roger’s house and chapel 153-154 - - Robert of Bellême removes to Bridgenorth and - Oldbury 155-158 - - The group of fortresses 158 - - Robert builds the castle of Careghova 158 - - Roger of Bully; his Yorkshire and Nottingham - estates 159-160 - - The castle of Tickhill; use of the names Tickhill - and Blyth 160-162 - -1088 The priory of Blyth founded by Roger of Bully 161 - - Death of Roger of Bully; his lands granted to Robert - of Bellême 162-164 - - - CHAPTER VI. - - THE LAST WARS OF WILLIAM RUFUS. 1097-1099. - -1097-1100 Character of the last years of William Rufus; his - designs on France 165-167 - -1097-1098 Beginning of the wars between France and Maine 167 - -Nov. 1097 William crosses the sea 167 - - Comparison of France and Maine; Philip and Helias; - advantage of the kingly dignity 168-170 - - Lewis son of Philip 170 - -Jan. 1098 Beginning of the war of Maine 170 - - § 1. _The Beginning of the French War._ 1097-1098. - -1092 King Philip; his adulterous marriage with Bertrada - of Montfort 171-172 - - Opposition of Ivo and Hugh of Lyons; excommunication - of Philip and Bertrada 173-174 - - Sons of Philip and Bertrada; she schemes against - Lewis 174 - - Philip invests Lewis with the Vexin 175 - -1097 William’s grounds of offence; he demands the cession - of the Vexin; his demand is refused 175-176 - -November William crosses to Normandy; excesses of his -11-30 followers in England 176-177 - - William and Lewis; difficulties of Lewis; fate of - the captives on each side 178-179 - - French traitors; Guy of the Rock; description of - Roche Guyon 179-182 - - Policy of Robert of Meulan; he receives William’s - troops; importance and description of Meulan 182-184 - - Prospects of William; failure of his plans 184-185 - - The castle of Chaumont-en-Vexin 185-186 - -1096 The castle of Gisors; its first defences - strengthened by Robert of Bellême 186-188 - - Castles of Trye and Boury 188-189 - - National feeling in the French Vexin 189-190 - - Prisoners on both sides; Gilbert of Laigle; Simon - of Montfort 190 - - § 2. _The First War of Maine._ 1098. - -November, Dates of the French war 191 -1097-1098 - -Jan.-Aug. War of Maine 191 -1098 - -1089 Robert suspects the loyalty of Maine; he asks help - of Fulk of Anjou; marriage of Fulk and Bertrada 191-194 - -1090 Movements in Maine; Hugh son of Azo sent for 194-195 - - Character of Helias of La Flèche; his descent; - his castles; he accepts the succession of Hugh 195-197 - -1090 Revolt of Maine; Hugh received at Le Mans 197-200 - - Bishop Howel imprisoned by Helias 197-199 - - Release of Howel; his dealings with Robert 199-200 - - Disputes between Hugh and Howel; disputes of - Howel with his chapter; he goes to England 201 - -June 28, 1090 Return of Howel; unpopularity of Hugh 202 - -February, Helias buys the county of Hugh 202-203 -1091 - -1091-1098 First reign of Helias; peace of the land 203-204 - -October 17, Translation of Saint Julian 204 -1093 - -November, Visit of Pope Urban to Le Mans 205 -1095 - -1095-1097 Sickness of Howel 205 - -1095-1096 Helias takes the cross; estimate of his conduct 205-207 - -Aug. 1096 William in Normandy; danger to Maine; negotiations - of Helias with Robert 207 - - Interview of William and Helias; mutual challenge - and defiance 208-210 - -1096-1097 William delays his attack 210 - -July 29, Death of Howel; disputed election to the bishopric 210-211 -1097 - -1097-1126 Hildebert Bishop of Le Mans 211-212 - - Claims of the Norman dukes over the bishopric; - anger of Rufus at the election of Hildebert 211-213 - -Nov. 1097 William in Normandy; his designs on Maine 213 - - Robert of Bellême attacks Maine; Helias strengthens - Dangeul; geographical character of the war 213-214 - -Jan. 1098 Robert of Bellême invites the King; guerrilla - warfare of Helias 214-215 - - William leaves Maine; Robert of Bellême continues - the war; castles held by him 216-219 - - Nature of the country and of the war; comparison - of Maine and England 219-221 - - Helias defeats Robert at Saônes; cruelty of Robert 221-223 - -April 28, 1098 Second victory of Helias; he is taken prisoner - near Danguel 223-224 - - Helias surrendered to the king; contrast between - William Rufus and Robert of Bellême 224-225 - - Hildebert and the council at Le Mans 225-226 - - William at Rouen; a great levy ordered; numbers - of the army 226-228 - -June, The army meets at Alençon; invasion of Maine; -1098 truce with Ralph of Fresnay 228-230 - - Dealings with the nobles of Maine 230-231 - -May 5 Fulk of Anjou at Le Mans; he leaves Geoffrey in - command 231-232 - - March of William Rufus; he approaches Le Mans by - Coulaines; he ravages Coulaines 232-234 - - Sally from the city; Rufus goes away; the siege of - Le Mans raised 234-236 - - Ballon betrayed to Rufus; occupied by Robert of - Bellême, and besieged by Fulk 235-236 - -July 20 William relieves Ballon; his treatment of the - captive knights 236-237 - -August Fulk goes back to Le Mans; convention between - William and Fulk; Le Mans to be surrendered and - Helias set free 237-238 - - Submission of Le Mans; William’s entry 238-241 - - William leaves Le Mans; general submission of - Maine 241 - - Meeting of William and Helias at Rouen; the offers - of Helias rejected; his defiance 242-243 - - Helias set free; illustration of the King’s - character 244-245 - - - § 3. _The End of the French War. September-December_, 1098. - -1097-1099 William on the Continent; extent of his conquest in - Maine; he begins, but does not finish 245 - -September He sets forth against France; the sign in the sky -27, 1098 246 - - He marches to Pontoise; position of the town and - castle; Pontoise his furthest point 247-248 - - Siege of Chaumont; castle not taken 248-249 - - Alliance between Normandy and Aquitaine; coming - of Duke William of Poitiers 249-250 - - Campaign to the west of Paris; valley of the Maudre; - the two Williams march against the Montfort - castles 250-252 - - The castles resist singly; Peter of Maule 252-253 - - The two Simons of Montfort; the castle of Montfort; - successful defence of the younger Simon 253-255 - -Christmas, William keeps Christmas in Normandy; truce with -1098-1099 France 255 - - Ill-success of the French war; illustrations of - William’s character 256 - - § 4. _The Gemót of 1099._ - -April 10, Easter assembly 256 -1099 - -May 19 Whitsun assembly in the new hall at Westminster 257 - - Buildings of William Rufus; they are reckoned - among the national grievances; probable abuses of - the law 257-260 - - Various grievances and natural phænomena 258 - - The wall round the tower, the bridge, and the hall; - growth of the greatness of London; relations of - London and Winchester 259-261 - - Westminster Hall; its two founders; its history 262-263 - - Object of the hall; personal pride of Rufus; the - Whitsun feast; the sword borne by the King of - Scots 263-264 - - Deaths of bishops and abbots; character and acts of - Walkelin of Winchester 265-266 - -April 8, The monks take possession of the new church of -1093 Winchester 266 - -1097-1098 Walkelin joint regent with Flambard; the King’s - demand for money 266-267 - -Jan. 3, Death of Walkelin 267 -1098 - Death of Turold of Peterborough and Robert of New - Minster 267 - - Abbot Baldwin of Saint Eadmund’s; rebuilding of - the church; the King forbids the dedication 267-269 - -April 30, Various details of Abbot Baldwin; translation of -1095 Saint Eadmund 268-270 - -Dec. 29, Death of Abbot Baldwin 270 -1097 - The bishopric of Durham granted to Randolf Flambard 271 - -June 5, Consecration of Flambard 271 -1099 - -1099- Character of the appointment; Flambard’s episcopate 271-274 -1128 - His works at Durham and Norham 272 - - Later events of the year 1099 274 - - § 5. _The Second War of Maine._ - _April-September, 1099._ - -Aug. 1098- Helias withdraws to La Flèche; he strengthens the -April, 1099 castles on the Loir 274-276 - -April, 1099 He attacks the castle held by the King 277 - -June He marches against Le Mans; battle at Pontlieue; - he recovers Le Mans 277-278 - - The castles still held for the King; the Normans - set fire to the city; comparison of Le Mans and - York 279-281 - - Vain operations against the castles; use of the - church towers; Robert of Bêlleme strengthens - Ballon 281-282 - - The news brought to William in the New Forest; - his ride to the coast 282-284 - - He crosses to Touques and rides to Bonneville; the - castle of Bonneville 284-287 - - His levy; he marches to Le Mans; Helias flees to - Château-du-Loir 287 - - William passes through Le Mans; he harries southern - Maine; Helias burns the castles 288-289 - - William besieges Mayet; observance of the Truce of - God; details of the siege; the siege raised 289-294 - - The land ravaged, but the campaign left unfinished 294-295 - - William at Le Mans; his good treatment of the - city; he drives out the canons 295-296 - -Sept. 1099 He goes back to England 296 - - Hildebert reconciled to the King; the King bids him - pull down the towers of Saint Julian’s; question - whether the order was carried out 297-300 - -1099 Revolt in Anglesey; return of Cadwgan and Gruffydd; - recovery of Anglesey and Ceredigion by the - Welsh 300-301 - -Nov. 3, The great tide in the Thames 302 -1099 - -December 3 Death of Bishop Osmund of Salisbury 302 - - - CHAPTER VII. - - THE LAST DAYS OF WILLIAM RUFUS AND THE ACCESSION - OF HENRY. 1100-1102. - -1000-1100 End of the eleventh century; changes in Britain - and in the world 303-307 - - Change from Æthelred to William Rufus; contradiction - in William’s position; his defeats not - counted defeats 307-308 - - The year 1100; lack of events in its earlier months; - comparison with the year 1000; vague expectations, - portents, and prophecies 308-310 - - § 1. _The Last days of William Rufus._ - _January-August, 1100._ - - The three assemblies of 1099-1100; no record of - these assemblies; continental schemes of Rufus 310-311 - - Return of Robert from the crusade; his marriage - with Sibyl of Conversana 311-313 - - William of Aquitaine; his crusade; he proposes to - pledge his duchy to Rufus; preparations for the - occupation of Aquitaine 313-314 - - Alleged designs of Rufus on the Empire 314 - -May, 1100 Portents; death of Richard son of Robert 315-316 - -June, July Warlike preparations 317 - -July 15 Consecration of Gloucester abbey 317 - -August 1 Visions and prophecies; Abbot Fulchered’s sermon - at Gloucester 317-321 - -August 1 William at Brockenhurst; his companions; Walter - Tirel; his history; his _gab_ with the King; - illustrative value of the story 321-325 - -August 2 Last day of William Rufus; various versions of his - death; estimate of the received tale 325-327 - - Versions of Orderic and William of Malmesbury 327-331 - - Versions which assert a repentance for Rufus 331-332 - - Version charging Ralph of Aix 333-335 - - Impression made at the time by the death of Rufus; - its abiding memory; local traditions; end and - character of Rufus 335-337 - - Accounts of William’s burial; the genuine story; his - popular excommunication; he is buried in the Old - Minster without religious rites 338-341 - -July 31 Portents at William’s death; dream of Abbot Hugh - of Clugny 341 - -August 1 Vision of Anselm’s doorkeeper 341 - -August 2 News brought to Anselm’s clerk; vision of Count - William of Mortain 341-343 - - § 2. _The First Days of Henry._ - _August 2-November 11, 1100._ - - Vacancy of the throne; claims of Robert by the - treaty of 1091; choice between Robert and Henry; - claims of Henry; his speedy election 343-345 - -August 2 Story of Henry on the day of the King’s death; he - hastens to Winchester 345-346 - - He demands the treasure and is resisted by William - of Breteuil; popular feeling for Henry 346-347 - -August 3 Meeting for the election; division in the assembly; - influence of Henry Earl of Warwick; Henry - chosen King 347-348 - - Henry grants the bishopric of Winchester to - William Giffard 349 - -August 5 Henry crowned at Westminster; form of his oath; - joy at his accession 349-351 - - He puts forth his charter; its provisions 352-357 - - Privilege of the knights and its effects 355-356 - - Renewal of the Law of Eadward 357 - - Witnesses to the charter 358 - -August 5 Appointments to abbeys; Robert of Saint Eadmund’s - and Richard of Ely; their later history 359-360 - -1100-1120 Herlwin Abbot of Glastonbury 360 - -1100-1117 Faricius Abbot of Abingdon 360 - - Imprisonment of Flambard 361-362 - - The King’s inner council 362-363 - - The news of the King’s death brought to Anselm; - his grief 363 - - Letters to him from his monks and from the King; - popular language of Henry’s letter 363-366 - - Intrigues of the Norman nobles with Robert; renewed - anarchy in Normandy 366-367 - -Sept. Return of Robert to Normandy; his renewed -1100 no-government 367-368 - - Henry keeps his own fief; war between Henry and - Robert 368 - -Sept. 23. Return of Anselm 368 - - Helias returns to Le Mans; the King’s garrison - holds out in the royal tower 370 - - Helias calls in Fulk; siege of the tower 370 - - Courtesies between Helias and the garrison; messages - sent to Robert and Henry; surrender of the - castle 370-373 - -1100-1110 Just reign of Helias; his friendship for Henry 373 - -1109 His second marriage; later history of Maine; descent - of the later English kings from Helias 374 - - Meeting of Anselm and Henry; comparison of the - dispute between Anselm and William Rufus and - that between Anselm and Henry 374-375 - - Henry calls on Anselm to do homage; Anselm refuses; - change in his views 375-377 - - Truce till Easter; the Pope to be asked to allow the - homage; the spiritual power strengthened through - Rufus’ abuse of the temporal power 375-378 - - The temporalities of the archbishopric provisionally - restored 378 - - Reformation of the court; personal character of - Henry; his mistresses and children; story of - Ansfrida and her son Richard 379-382 - - Henry is exhorted to marry; he seeks for Eadgyth - daughter of Malcolm; policy of the marriage 382-383 - - Objections to the marriage; Eadgyth said to have - taken the veil 384 - - Anselm holds an assembly to settle the question; - Eadgyth declared free to marry; other versions of - the story 384-387 - -November Marriage of Henry and Eadgyth; she changes her -11, 1100 name to Matilda 387-388 - - Anselm’s speech at the wedding; objections not - wholly silenced 388 - -1100-1118 Matilda as Queen; her children and character; - “Godric and Godgifu” 388-391 - - Guy of Vienne comes as Legate; his claims not - acknowledged 391 - -Nov. 18 Death of Thomas Archbishop of York 391 - -1100-1108 Gerard of Hereford Archbishop of York 392 - - § 3. _Invasion of Robert. January-August, 1101._ - - Likeness of the years 1088 and 1101; plots to give - the crown to Robert; a party in Normandy to give - the crown to Henry 392-393 - - Character of Robert and Eadgar; Robert as crusader; - his relapse on his return to Normandy 394 - - Parties in England and Normandy; Henry’s strict - rule distasteful to the nobles 394-395 - - Plots of Robert of Bellême and others; Duke - Robert’s grants to Robert of Bellême 395-396 - -Christmas Assembly at Westminster 396 -1100-1101 - Flambard escapes to Normandy; his influence with - Robert 396-398 - -April 21 Easter assembly at Winchester; the questions between - Henry and Anselm adjourned; growth of - the conspiracy 399 - -June 9 Whitsun assembly; its popular character; mediation - of Anselm; renewed promise of good laws 399-400 - - The Church and the people for Henry; England - united against invasion 401 - - Importance of the campaign of 1101; last opposition - of Normans and English; their fusion under Henry 401-402 - -July, 1101 Robert and his fleet at Tréport 401-403 - - Henry’s levée; Anselm and his contingent; the - English at Pevensey 403-404 - - The English fleet sent out; some of the crews desert - to Robert 404 - -July 20 Robert lands at Portchester; comparison with former - invasions 405-406 - - Robert marches on Winchester; Matilda in child-bed - in the city; he declines to attack Winchester 406 - - Estimate of his conduct; personal character of the - chivalrous feeling 406-408 - - Robert marches towards London; the armies meet - near Maldon 408-409 - - Desertion of Robert of Bellême and William of - Warren 408-409 - -July 26 Death of Earl Hugh 410 - - Anselm’s energy on the King’s side; zeal of the - English; exhortations of the King 410-411 - - Negotiations between Henry and Robert; their - personal meeting; they agree on terms 412-413 - - Treaty of 1101; Robert resigns his claim to England; - Henry gives up his Norman possessions, but keeps - Domfront; other stipulations 413-414 - -Michaelmas, Robert goes back; mischief done by his army 415 -1101 - - § 4. _Revolt of Robert of Bellême._ 1102. - - Continued disloyalty of the Norman nobles; Henry’s - plans for breaking their power 415 - - Flambard in Normandy; his dealings with the see - of Lisieux 415-416 - - Banishment and restoration of Earl William of Warren 416 - - Other banishments; trial of Ivo of Grantmesnil; his - bargain with Robert of Meulan 417-418 - -1102-1118 Robert of Meulan Earl of Leicester; his death; his - ecclesiastical foundations 418-421 - -Christmas, Assembly at Westminster; danger from Robert of -1101-1102 Bellême; the King watches him 420-421 - -April 6, Easter assembly at Winchester; Robert of Bellême -1102 summoned, but does not come 421-422 - - Second summons to Robert; the war begins 422 - - Robert and his brothers Arnulf and Roger; his - acquisition of Ponthieu; his dealings with Wales, - Ireland, and Norway 423-424 - - Condition of Wales; return of Gruffydd and Cadwgan 424 - - Alliance of Robert of Bellême with the Welsh 425 - - Arnulf’s dealings with Murtagh; the Irish king’s - daughter promised to him 425-426 - - Henry’s negotiations with Duke Robert; the Duke - attacks Robert of Bellême’s fortress of Vignats 426 - - Treason of Robert of Montfort; defeat of the - besiegers; general ravages 427-428 - - Robert of Bellême strengthens his castles; his - works at Bridgenorth 428 - - The King besieges Arundel; truce with the besieged 428-429 - - Robert and Arnulf harry Staffordshire 429 - - Surrender of Arundel 430 - - Surrender of Tickhill; its later history 431-432 - -Autumn, Henry’s Shropshire campaign; Robert of Bellême at -1102 Shrewsbury; the three captains at Bridgenorth 432-433 - - Story of William Pantulf; he joins the King; his - services 434-435 - - Siege of Bridgenorth; division between the nobles - and the mass of the army 435-437 - - Gathering of the mass of the army; they stand by - the King 437-438 - - William Pantulf wins over Jorwerth to the King 439-440 - - The captains at Bridgenorth agree to surrender 440-441 - - Arnulf goes to Ireland; Robert asks help of Magnus - in vain 442-443 - - The mercenaries at Bridgenorth refuse to surrender; - they are overpowered by the captains and the - townsmen 443-444 - - Surrender of Bridgenorth; the mercenaries march - out with the honours of war 444-445 - - Robert still holds Shrewsbury; his despair 445-446 - - The King’s march to Shrewsbury; zeal of the - English; clearing of the road 446-447 - - The King refuses terms to Robert; he submits - at discretion, and is banished from England 448-449 - - Joy at Robert’s overthrow; banishment of his - brothers; later history of Robert of Bellême 449-450 - -1103 Death of Magnus 451 - -1103 Later history of Jorwerth; his trial at Shrewsbury - and imprisonment 451-453 - - Assemblies held in various places under Henry 452 - -1104-1106 Establishment of Henry’s power; banishment of - William of Mortain; his imprisonment and alleged - blinding 453 - -1102-1135 Peace of Henry’s reign; its character; Henry the - refounder of the English nation 454-455 - -1107 The compromise with Anselm 455 - -1106 Battle of Tinchebrai 456 - - General character and results of the reigns of - William Rufus and Henry 456-457 - - -APPENDIX. - -NOTE A. The Accession of William Rufus 459 - - B. The Beginning of the Rebellion of 1088 465 - - C. The Share of Bishop William of Saint-Calais in the - Rebellion of 1088 469 - - D. The Deliverance of Worcester in 1088 475 - - E. The Attempted Landing of the Normans at Pevensey 481 - - F. The Bishopric of Somerset and the Abbey of Bath 483 - - G. The Character of William Rufus 490 - - H. The Ecclesiastical Benefactions of William Rufus 504 - - I. Chivalry 508 - - K. The Purchase of the Côtentin by the Ætheling Henry 510 - - L. The Death of Conan 516 - - M. The Siege of Courcy 519 - - N. The Treaty of 1091 522 - - O. The Siege of Saint Michael’s Mount 528 - - P. The Adventures of Henry after the Surrender of - Saint Michael’s Mount 535 - - Q. The Homage of Malcolm in 1091 540 - - R. The Earldom of Carlisle 545 - - S. The Early Life of Randolf Flambard 551 - - T. The Official Position of Randolf Flambard 557 - - U. The alleged Domesday of Randolf Flambard 562 - - W. The Dealings of William Rufus with vacant - Bishoprics and Abbeys 564 - - X. The Appointment of Herbert Losinga to the See of - Thetford 568 - - Y. The Letters of Anselm 570 - - Z. Robert Bloet 584 - - AA. The Mission of Abbot Geronto 588 - - BB. The Embassies between William Rufus and Malcolm - in 1093 590 - - CC. The Death of Malcolm 592 - - DD. The Burial of Margaret 596 - - EE. Eadgyth-Matilda 598 - - FF. Tynemouth and Bamburgh 603 - - GG. The Conquest of Glamorgan 613 - - HH. Godwine of Winchester and his son Robert 615 - - II. The Expedition of Magnus 618 - - KK. The Relations between Hildebert and Helias 624 - - LL. The Surrender of Le Mans to William Rufus 628 - - MM. The Fortresses of Le Mans 631 - - NN. The Dates of the Building of Le Mans Cathedral 632 - - OO. The Interview between William Rufus and Helias 640 - - PP. The Voyage of William Rufus to Touques 645 - - QQ. The Siege of Mayet 652 - - RR. William Rufus and the Towers of Le Mans Cathedral 654 - - SS. The Death of William Rufus 657 - - TT. The Burial of William Rufus 676 - - UU. The Election of Henry the First 680 - - WW. The Objections to the Marriage of Henry and Matilda 682 - - XX. The Treaty of 1101 688 - - - - -ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS. - - -VOL. II. - -p. 19, note 3. This picture of the two natives, most likely churls, -carrying the King’s body on the cart, is singularly like the story of -Rufus’ own end to which we shall come presently. - -p. 27, l. 5. I should not have said “_a_ relic,” as I find that the -black cross of Scotland is a relic of great fame, as indeed is almost -implied in the story. - -p. 27, note 5. See vol. i. p. 167. - -p. 28, note 5. Munch (Det Norske Folks Historie, ii. 471-475, for an -introduction to which I have to thank Professor Fiske of Cornell -University) connects this entry with the account of Magnus’ dealings -with Man, spoken of in p. 138, and with every likelihood supposes an -earlier expedition of Magnus in 1093, in which he appeared in both -Scotland and Man, and which the writers of the Sagas have confounded -with his expedition in 1098. We can thus understand the mention of -Godred, who was certainly alive in 1093, and certainly dead in 1098. -See also Anderson, Preface to Orkneyinga Saga, pp. xxxiii-xxxiv. - -p. 31, l. 14. Not “the Breton Count Alan,” at least not the Count of -the Bretons, but Alan of Richmond. See p. 602. - -p. 49, l. 22, for “south-western” read “north-western.” - -p. 62, note 5. Mr. Fowler writes to me that “what is left of William -of Saint-Calais is under the floor in the part of the chapter-house -still used. W. G. has one of his shoes. They began at the west end in -burying the bishops in the chapter-house, and gradually worked -eastward, ending with Kellow before the bishop’s seat at the east end. -Rites of Durham (Surtees Society ed. p. 47) gives the names as they -were ‘ingraven upon stone with the figure of the crosse + annexed to -every of their said names,’ i.e. on the chapter-house floor, and -between ‘Walcherus’ and ‘Ranulphus comes’. - - ‘Willielmus Episcopus.’ - -We found further east ‘Will. Secundus Episcopus’ [that is William of -Saint Barbara, bishop from 1143-1152]. Wyatt smashed them all more or -less.” - -p. 81, note 1. See p. 614. - -p. 88, l. 17. See below, p. 103. - -p. 93, note 2. I presume this is the same king of whom we shall hear a -great deal from p. 137 onwards. - -p. 97, l. 2 from bottom. I have been unable to fix the exact site of -Rhyd-y-gors; but I believe it is to be looked for in Caermarthenshire. - -p. 101, l. 13. I am also unable to fix the exact site of Yspwys. - -p. 134, l. 7 from bottom, for “Ulf” read “Wulf,” as in vol. i. p. 14. -The English spelling is the better, but I suppose I was carried away -by Scandinavian associations. - -p. 134, l. 11. Munch (Det Norske Folks Historie, ii. 511) oddly refers -to William of Malmesbury as making the companion of Magnus Barefoot, -not a younger Harold, but the Magnus whom we have already heard of as -our Harold’s son, as I suppose, by Eadgyth Swanneshals. But William of -Malmesbury distinctly says Harold, and I can see nothing about it in -the places in the Saga of Magnus and the Orkneyinga Saga to which he -refers. - -p. 136, l. 4 from bottom, for “Cronan” read “Crouan.” - -p. 138, note 1. This is placed in the year 1098. - -p. 144, l. 1. I know not by what carelessness I contrived, after -referring (see p. 131) to Giraldus’ account of the earlier doings of -the two Earls in Anglesey, to leave out all mention of his account of -Hugh of Shrewsbury’s death, which follows immediately (It. Kamb. ii. -7, vol. vi. p. 129) on the story of the desecration of the church of -Llantryfrydog. It agrees on most points very minutely with the -narrative of Orderic; but it does not seem to be borrowed from it; - - “Accesserant ad insulæ portum ab Orchadum insulis piratæ in - navibus longis; quorum adventum ubi comes audivit, statim - eis usque in ipsum mare, forti residens equo, animose nimis - occurrit. Et ecce navium princeps, cui nomen Magnus, primæ - navis in prora cum arcu prostans sagittam direxit. Et - quanquam comes a vertice capitis usque ad talum pedis, - præter oculos solum, ferro fideliter esset indutus, tamen - dextro percussus in lumine, perforato cerebro, in mare - corruit moribundus. Quem cum sic corruentem victor ab alto - despiceret, superbe in victum et insolenter invectus, - dixisse memoratur lingua Danica, ‘Leit loupe,’ quod Latine - sonat Sine salire. Et ab hac in posterum hora potestas - Anglorum in Monia cessavit.” - -The only difference between this story and Orderic’s is that, while -Orderic makes Magnus mourn when he learns whom he has slain, Giraldus -puts into his mouth two good Teutonic words of triumph, which sound a -great deal more natural. On the other hand we cannot accept Giraldus’ -account of the immediate result of the encounter as regards Anglesey, -which quite contradicts the witness of the Welsh writers. His -statement however is true in the long run, as Anglesey was delivered -again the next year. See p. 146. - -In the Orkneyinga Saga, c. xxix. (p. 55, Anderson), Magnus “takes a -psalter and sings during the battle.” Then, by his order, he and the -man from Hálogoland shoot at the same time, and hit “Hugh the Proud,” -much as in the other versions. He and “Hugh the Proud” are oddly -spoken of as “British chiefs.” - -p. 146, l. 17. See below, pp. 442, 623; but the words “and of other -parts of North Wales” had better be left out. - -p. 153, note 1, for “muentione” read “inuentione.” - -p. 174, l. 4, for “from” read “for.” - -p. 175, l. 3. I think we must accept this distinct statement as more -trustworthy than the flourish of Orderic a few pages later, which I -have quoted in p. 178, note 1. The present passage, besides its more -distinct character, has the force of a correction. - -p. 178, note 3. Suger is a discreet writer, or one might suspect him -of exaggeration in his figures both ways. If we take “milites” in the -strict sense of knights, the French numbers seem strangely small, and -the English strangely large. But any other sense of “miles” would make -the French numbers quite incredible. - -p. 181, note 1. And by the Loir too; see below, p. 276. - -p. 190, l. 9 from bottom, “superinducta” is the favourite epithet for -her. - -p. 201, note 2. “Fraterculus” is an odd word; but it most likely -points to Geoffrey as being one of the “canonici pueri” of whom we -hear sometimes (see below, p. 521). “Frater” did not get its special -meaning till the rise of the Friars, and we have seen the word -“fratres” applied to the canons of Waltham. One might for a moment -think that Geoffrey was a brother of the Bishop’s own, but this is -forbidden by the account of his kindred which directly follows. - -p. 207, note 1. This time, when William and Robert were together at -Rouen, can only have been about September, 1096, just after the -conference between the brothers spoken of in vol. i. p. 559, and just -before Robert set forth on the crusade. - -p. 230, last line, for “he” read “we.” - -p. 243, note 1. It is rather odd that exactly this same phrase of -“callidus senex,” here applied to Robert of Meulan, should be also -applied to the old Roger of Beaumont in the story told in vol. i. p. -194. We must remember that our present “callidus senex” had been -married, seemingly for the first time, only two years before (see vol. -i. p. 551), and that he lived till 1118. - -p. 250, l. 8. This is doubtless true, but the specially strange guise, -described in the passage of William of Malmesbury referred to in the -note, was not put on till William of Aquitaine had come back from the -crusade. See above, p. 113. - -p. 252, note 2. See above, p. 178, and the correction just above, p. -175. - -p. 260, note 3. See at the end of the chapter, p. 302, and note 1. - -p. 290, l. 2 from bottom. Yet see the piece of Angevin scandal quoted -in p. 609. - -p. 312, l. 10, for “both Rogers, the Duke of Apulia and the young -Count of Sicily, to be one day the first and all but the most famous -of Sicilian kings,” read “both Rogers, the Duke of Apulia and the -Count of Sicily, now drawing near to the end of his stirring life.” -The elder Roger was still alive, though he did not live long after. - -p. 343, l. 1. The abbey of Saint Alban’s was not vacant at this time, -see p. 666; and for “thirteen” and “twelve” read “twelve” and -“eleven,” see note. - -p. 347, note 2. Orderic is rather full on the circumstances of the -election than on the election itself; see p. 680. - -p. 359, l. 11, for “thirteen” read “eleven.” - -p. 360, note 1. It must have been at the same time that Abbot Odo of -Chertsey was restored to his abbey. See vol. i. p. 350. - -p. 380, note 4. We have had one or two other cases of a church tenant -like this Eadric or Godric, giving back his lease by way of a -benefaction. - -p. 389, l. 18. The imperial dignity of Matilda is greatly enlarged on -by the poet of Draco Normannicus, i. 4. Two lines are, - - “Suscipit Henricus sponsam, statimque coronat, - Hoc insigne decus maxima Roma dedit.” - -p. 396, l. 4. See vol. i. p. 184. - -p. 413, l. 6 from bottom, for “in a neighbour” read “a neighbour in.” - -p. 416, l. 1. I cannot admit the statement of Flambard’s Durham -biographer, who puts his restoration at this point. It is not so much -that he had no claim to restoration by the general terms of the -treaty, for he might have been specially included in it. But his -restoration at this time is quite inconsistent with Orderic’s account -of his dealings with the bishopric of Lisieux, which cannot be mere -confusion or invention. - -p. 450, l. 3. After the words “give thanks to the Lord God,” insert -“for thou hast now begun to be a free king.” - -p. 454, l. 13 from bottom, for “his” read “the King’s.” - -p. 472, l. 1. This grant of Northallerton must be the same as the -grant mentioned in the charter which I have quoted in p. 535; cf. pp. -299, 508. - -p. 487, ll. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. It does not appear that any of the regular -assemblies of the year 1101 was held at Windsor. The Whitsun assembly -(see p. 399) may have been held there, but it is hardly likely. But -the mere confirmation of an earlier grant need not have been made in a -regular gemót. - -p. 503, l. 13. For “hanc terram” read “hac terra.” - -p. 508. Several gifts of Rufus to the Abbey of Gloucester are recorded -in the Gloucester Cartulary, i. 68, i. 102, i. 115. This last, which -appears again in ii. 293, is a grant to the abbey of the right of -catching sturgeons. This cannot have been one of the grants made -during his sickness at Gloucester (see vol. i. p. 395), as it is dated -from Huntingdon; but in the grant in i. 102, it is expressly said that -it was made when the King was “apud Gloucestriam morbo gravi vexatus.” -In i. 238, 239, 240, Henry and Stephen confirm gifts of their brother -and uncle. The document in ii. 107, which in the index is referred to -William Rufus, clearly belongs to the Conqueror, and to the earlier -part of his reign, before the death of William Fitz-Osbern in 1071; it -refers to the lands of the church of Gloucester which were held by -Archbishop Thomas. See N. C. vol. ii. p. 690. - -In the Register of Malmesbury (p. 330) there is a singular charter in -favour of the Abbey of Malmesbury granted during his stay at Hastings -in 1094. It brings in several familiar names great and small, and -illustrates the relations between landowners of any kind and the King -and his huntsmen; - - “Willelmus rex Angliæ O. episcopo et W. Hosato, et C. - venatori, et A. falconario, salutem. Sciatis me abbati - Godefrido silvas suas ad custodiendum commendasse. Nolo ergo - ut aliquis forestarius meus de eis se intromittat. Et Croco - venatori præcipio ut de ix. sol. quos super homines suos - placitaverat eum et suos clamet quietos. Teste Willelmo - episcopo, et F. filio Hamonis, R. capellano, apud Hastinge.” - -p. 569, heading, for “Losinga” read “Herbert.” - -p. 585, l. 1. It is odd that William of Malmesbury should speak of the -all-powerful Roger of Salisbury as “alius quidam episcopus;” for we -see from the Chronicle (see p. 587) that it was no other. - -p. 592, l. 10, for “þaes” read “þæs.” - -p. 600, l. 6 from bottom. I seem in p. 30 to have taken “puellæ -nostræ” to mean the nuns; but it would rather seem, both here and in -the next page, to mean, other girls sent merely for education, like -Eadgyth herself. - -p. 605, l. 8 from bottom. I cannot get rid of a lurking notion that -this “Aldredi” should be “Alberici.” But I do not know how Alberic -could appear with the title of earl in the time of Waltheof. - -p. 611, l. 9 from bottom. See M. Paris, ed. Wats, Additamenta, p. 199. - - - - -THE REIGN OF WILLIAM RUFUS. - - - - -CHAPTER V. - -THE WARS OF SCOTLAND, NORTHUMBERLAND, AND WALES.[1] - -1093-1098. - - -[Sidenote: Events of the year 1093.] - -[Sidenote: Relations between England and Scotland.] - -[Sidenote: War of 1093.] - -[Sidenote: Its results.] - -[Sidenote: Growth of the English power] - -[Sidenote: and of the English nation under William Rufus.] - -[Sidenote: The Scottish kingdom becomes English.] - -The year of Anselm’s appointment to the archbishopric, that part of -the year which passed between the day when the bishop’s staff was -forced into his hand and the day when he received consecration from -Thomas of Bayeux, was a time full of stirring and memorable events of -quite another kind. It was now that some of the events of former years -were to bring forth fruit. The relations between England and Scotland -were of a kind which might lead to open warfare at any moment.[2] This -year the open warfare came. And it was a warfare which was far more -important in its direct results than mere plundering inroads on either -side of the border commonly were. The direct results of the warfare of -this year were in truth the crowning result of causes which had been -working for a whole generation. It was a singular irony of fate which -made William the Red in some sort a missionary, not only of the -political power of the English kingdom, but of the ascendency of the -English blood and speech. He began the later position of England as an -European power. He extended the boundaries of the kingdom of England -within his own island. And, more than this, he gave decisive help to a -work which wrought one of the greatest of victories, not so much for -England as a power as for the English-speaking folk in their -English-speaking character. That he gave kings to Scotland was a small -matter; that was done by other rulers of England before and after him. -What specially marks his reign is that in his day, and largely by his -agency, it was ruled that, of the three elements in Northern Britain, -British, English, and Scottish or Irish, the English element should -have the upper hand. It was ruled that the kingdom of Scotland, -whatever might be its relations towards the kingdom of England, -whether separate or united, whether dependent or independent, whether -friendly or hostile, should be itself truly an English kingdom, a -kingdom which was for some generations more truly English than the -southern England itself. - -[Sidenote: Summary of Scottish affairs.] - -[Sidenote: Death of Malcolm; first reign of Donald. 1093.] - -[Sidenote: Reign of Duncan.] - -[Sidenote: Second reign of Donald. 1094.] - -[Sidenote: Establishment of Eadgar. 1097.] - -[Sidenote: Revolt of Robert of Mowbray. 1095.] - -The Scottish affairs with which we shall have to deal in the present -chapter begin with the controversy between William Rufus and Malcolm -which led to the death of Malcolm in his last invasion of England. On -this follows that first outburst of the true Scottish nationality -which led to the election of Donald, followed by his overthrow and the -establishment of Duncan by the power of England. Then, after a short -interval, comes the second national uprising, and the restoration of -Donald. After a longer interval comes the second overthrow of Donald, -and the establishment of the younger Eadgar by the arms of the elder. -The question was now decided in favour of the line of Malcolm and -Margaret and of the form of English influence which was represented by -that line. And between these two last revolutions we may record, as a -kind of episode for which it is not easy to find a place in the -general run of any other narrative, the revolt and overthrow of the -great earl of Northern England which forms at least a poetical -sequence to the overthrow of Malcolm. Between the second establishment -and the second overthrow of Donald, I propose to tell, in its -chronological order, the tale of the slayers of Malcolm, of Earl -Robert of Mowbray and his kinsman Morel. There is little doubt that -their revolt was connected with movements in Normandy also; but it -would have been hard to describe it in a chapter in which Anselm is -the chief actor. It comes better in its moral and geographical -relation towards the affairs of Scotland. - -[Sidenote: Affairs of Wales.] - -[Sidenote: Comparison between Wales and Scotland.] - -[Sidenote: Disunion in Wales.] - -[Sidenote: Effects of the reign on the union of Britain.] - -[Sidenote: Its causes.] - -[Sidenote: Comparison with Ireland and Normandy.] - -But Scotland was not the only land within the four seas of Britain -with which the kingdom of England has much to do, especially in the -way of fighting, within the few years of this memorable reign. The -affairs of Wales are still more constantly coming before our eyes. -While the Red King is on the throne, Welsh warfare supplies, year -after year, no small part of the events which the chronicler of -England has to record. The Welsh history of this time is one of deep -interest on many grounds. But it is specially important as giving us -an example of a third type of conquest in our own island, a conquest -differing widely both from the English Conquest of Britain and from -the Norman Conquest of England. Nor do the affairs of Wales fail to -supply us with some instructive contrasts as compared with the affairs -of Scotland. Scotland and the other dominions of the Scottish king -seem throughout this time to act as a whole, at least as regards -England. The land is conquered, or it wins back its freedom; it -receives foreign influences, or it casts them out; but it seems to do -all these things as a whole. The union was perhaps very much on the -surface, but the events of this time bring whatever there was of union -to the front. The British story, on the other hand, is the story of -disunion in its strongest form. Alike in victory and in defeat, all is -local and personal; common action on the part of the whole nation -seems impossible. The result of English dealings with Wales during -these years may be summed up as immediate loss and final success, as -defeat in detail leading to substantial conquest. It is to this reign -more than to any other that we may trace up the beginning of the chain -of events which has gradually welded together England, Scotland, and -Wales, into the thoroughly united island of Great Britain. The remote -causes begin far earlier; now we begin to enter on the actual story -itself. And from that story we may perhaps draw another lesson. Three -nations, differing in blood and speech, once parted by bitter -enmities, have been worked together into one political whole, while -still keeping so much of old diversity as is really healthy, so much -as hinders a dull and lifeless uniformity, so much as sometimes -kindles to wholesome rivalry in a common cause. But this has been -because the facts of geography allowed and almost compelled their -union; it has been because the nature of the old enmities was such as -did not hinder union. England, Scotland, and Wales, have at various -times done one another a good deal of mischief; there has been no time -when any one of the three held either of the others in abiding Turkish -bondage. But these very facts may teach us that the same result cannot -be looked for in a land where the undying laws of nature and the -events of past history alike forbid it. Such union cannot be where the -boundaries of land and water on the map, where the memory of abiding -Turkish bondage in days not long passed by, join to hinder the same -process of welding together which has so happily taken place among the -three nations of the isle of Britain. William the Red did much for the -final union of Britain, because nature favoured that union. He brought -Normandy under the same rule as England, but only for the two lands to -be again parted asunder, because nature forbad their union. And if it -be true that from the rocks of Saint David’s he looked out on the dim -outline of distant Ireland, he did well to turn away from the -prospect, to bluster and threaten, it may be, but to keep the -practical exercise of his warfare and his policy for other lands. He -did well to keep it, as far as the island world was concerned, for -those lands which, as the event has shown, nature did not forbid to -be, in course of ages, fully united with his kingdom. - - -§ 1. _The Last Year of Malcolm._ 1093. - -[Sidenote: Complaints made by Malcolm.] - -[Sidenote: Effects on Scotland of the restoration of Carlisle.] - -[Sidenote: Probable wrong to Scotland.] - -[Sidenote: Other grounds of offence.] - -[Sidenote: Scottish embassy at Gloucester. March, 1093.] - -[Sidenote: Malcolm summoned to Gloucester.] - -[Sidenote: Eadgar sent to bring him.] - -We should be glad of a clearer account than we have of the immediate -causes which led to the open breach between William and Malcolm in the -year which followed the restoration of Carlisle. It is certain that -Malcolm complained through an embassy that the King of the English had -failed to carry out the provisions of the treaty made two years -before. Nothing is more likely; it was not the manner of William Rufus -to carry out his treaties with other princes, any more than his -promises to his subjects. Both alike, being parts of his everyday -duty, and not lighted up with the rays of chivalrous honour, were -reckoned by him under the head of those promises which no man can -carry out. But we should be well pleased to know whether the alleged -breach of treaty had anything to do with William’s Cumbrian conquest. -The strengthening of Carlisle, the annexation of its district, could -in no case have been agreeable to the King of Scots. And if, as there -seems every reason to believe, the land had been held by its late lord -Dolfin as a vassal of the Scottish crown, what William had done was a -distinct aggression on the rights of that crown. The superiority of -the English crown over both Scotland and Cumberland would in no way -justify the act; it would have been a wrong done to the Duke of the -Normans if the King of the French had annexed Ponthieu and -strengthened Saint Valery against Normandy. But we are not told -whether this was the ground of offence, or whether William had failed -to carry out any of the clauses of the treaty, those for instance -which secured to the King of Scots certain payments and possessions in -England.[3] What followed may perhaps suggest that, however much the -occupation of Carlisle may have rankled in the mind of Malcolm, the -formal ground of complaint was something of this last kind. Whatever -were his wrongs, the Scottish king sent to complain of them, and the -answer which he received was one which shows that, at this first -stage, Rufus was not disposed to slight the complaint. We are not told -the exact date of this first Scottish embassy. It may very well have -come during the short season of William’s reformation; his seeming -readiness to deal reasonably with the matter, as contrasted with his -conduct a few months later, may pass as one of the fruits of his -temporary penitence, along with the appointment of Anselm and the -promise of good laws. He sent an embassy to Scotland, inviting or -summoning the Scottish King to Gloucester, and giving hostages for his -safety. This looks very much as if the ground of complaint was the -refusal of some of the rights which had been promised to Malcolm -whenever he came to the English court. The Scottish King agreed to -come on these terms. William, in his present frame of mind, was -seemingly anxious to do all honour to the prince with whom he was -dealing. The Scottish ambassadors were sent back to bring their king, -and with them, as the most fitting of mediators, was sent the man who -had himself for a moment been a king, the brother-in-law of Malcolm, -the favoured guest of William, the Ætheling Eadgar.[4] - -[Sidenote: Eadgar in favour with William.] - -[Sidenote: His mission to Scotland.] - -We last heard of Eadgar somewhat more than a year before, when Robert -left England in anger, and Eadgar went with him.[5] This seems to -imply that the relations between William and Eadgar were at that -moment unfriendly. We have no account of Eadgar’s return to England; -but the duty on which he was now sent implies that he was now not only -in William’s formal favour, but in his real confidence. He who had -lately been Malcolm’s representative in a conference with William now -acts as William’s representative in a conference with Malcolm. Eadgar, -like his friend Duke Robert, was clearly one of those men who can act -better on behalf of others than on behalf of themselves.[6] In his -present mission he seems to have acquitted himself to William’s full -satisfaction; the King of Scots was persuaded to come to the English -court. If his coming did not prove specially lucky either to himself -or to the over-lord to whom he came, that was at all events not the -fault of Eadgar. - -[Sidenote: Events of the year 1093.] - -[Sidenote: Meeting at Gloucester. August 24, 1093.] - -[Sidenote: Malcolm sets forth. August, 1093.] - -While Eadgar was away on his mission to Scotland, he left behind him a -busy state of things in England. His embassy came in the midst of the -long delays between Anselm’s first nomination and his investiture, -enthronement, and consecration. It came in the time when William of Eu -was plotting,[7] and when, as we shall presently see, seeming conquest -was going on throughout Wales. The place and day for which Malcolm was -summoned to the King’s court was Gloucester on the feast of Saint -Bartholomew. This can hardly have been a forestalling of the regular -Christmas Gemót, for which, by the rule of the last reign, Gloucester -was the proper place. But this year, like most years when William -Rufus was in England, was a year of meetings. This cannot be the -meeting at which Anselm was invested and did homage, for that, as we -have seen, was at Winchester.[8] But, if Winchester was near to the -New Forest, Gloucester was near to the Forest of Dean, and would on -that account not be without its attractions for the Red King.[9] Or it -may well be that the presence of the King at Gloucester, both now and -earlier in the year, may have been caused by the convenience of that -city for assemblies in which action against the Britons might have to -be discussed.[10] Malcolm accordingly set forth, “with mickle -worship,” in the beginning of August as it would seem, to go to the -court of the over-lord by the Severn. - -[Sidenote: He stops at Durham.] - -[Sidenote: Rebuilding of the abbey.] - -[Sidenote: Malcolm lays a foundation stone. August 11, 1093.] - -[Sidenote: Much of Malcolm’s dominions in Durham diocese.] - -[Sidenote: Import of the ceremony.] - -On his way he tarried to take part in a great ecclesiastical ceremony, -his share in which was not without a political meaning. The Bishop of -Durham, William of Saint-Calais, now again the King’s chief -counsellor, already his partisan in the opening strife with -Anselm,[11] was ready to begin his great work of rebuilding Saint -Cuthberht’s abbey. The church of Ealdhun, which had escaped the flames -on the day of Robert of Comines,[12] could not really have been -ruinous beyond repair; but, after the fashion of the time, it was -doomed to make way for a building, built not only on a vaster scale, -but in an improved form of art surpassing every contemporary -building.[13] Of the mighty pile which still stands, the glory of -the Northern Romanesque, King Malcolm now laid one of the -foundation-stones, along with Bishop William and Prior Turgot.[14] The -invitation to take part in such a work was clearly meant as a mark of -honour and friendship on both sides. But it must surely have meant -more. The King of Scots could not on any showing have claimed any -authority at Durham. But he was something more than a mere foreign -visitor. As ecclesiastical geography was understood at Durham, Malcolm -was no stranger there; he was rather quite at home. At York he might -have been told that the whole of his dominions owed spiritual -allegiance to that metropolis. But the Bishops of Durham, practically -the only suffragans of the see of York and suffragans almost on a -level with their metropolitan, were at no time specially zealous for -the rights of the Northern Primate. But, as they drew the -ecclesiastical map, a great part of Malcolm’s dominions, his earldom -of Lothian, his Castle of the Maidens, perhaps even lands beyond those -borders, all came within their own immediate spiritual charge. To the -counsellor of King William Malcolm came as the highest vassal of the -English crown; to the Bishop of Durham he came as the highest layman -in his own diocese. As such, he was fittingly asked to take a share in -a work which concerned the kingdom and the church of which he was one -of the chief members. His consent, besides being a mark of friendship -alike towards King William and Bishop William, was doubtless taken as -an acknowledgement that he belonged to the temporal realm of the one -and to the spiritual fold of the other. And if Malcolm had learned any -of the subtleties of some of his contemporaries and of some of his -successors, he might have comforted himself with the thought that, -whatever the laying of the stone implied, it was laid only by the Earl -of Lothian and not by the King of Scots. - - * * * * * - -[Sidenote: Malcolm at Gloucester. August 24, 1093.] - -[Sidenote: Rufus refuses to see Malcolm.] - -[Sidenote: Dispute between the kings.] - -[Sidenote: Question of “doing right.”] - -[Sidenote: Probable pretensions of Rufus.] - -[Sidenote: William in the wrong.] - -[Sidenote: William observes his safe-conduct.] - -From Durham and its ceremonies Malcolm, Earl and King, went on to the -court of the over-lord at Gloucester. He had evidently come disposed -to make the best of matters, as William himself had been during his -time of sickness and penitence. But now in August Rufus was himself -again; he had repented of his repentance; he was more than ever puffed -up with pride and with the feeling of his own power. Out of mere -insolence, it would seem, in defiance of the advice of his counsellors -who wished for peace, he refused to have any speech with, or even to -see, the royal vassal and guest who had made such a journey to come to -his presence.[15] Whatever passed between the kings must have passed -by way of message through third parties. In one account we read -generally that Rufus would do nothing of what he had promised to -Malcolm.[16] In another version we are told, with all the precision of -legal language, that William demanded that Malcolm should “do right” -to him by the judgement of the barons of England only, while Malcolm -maintained that he was bound by ancient custom to “do right” only on -the borders of the two kingdoms, where the kings of Scots were wont to -“do right” to the kings of the English, and that by the judgement of -the great men of both kingdoms.[17] The meaning of these words is -plainly open to dispute, and it has naturally given rise to not a -little.[18] Their most natural meaning seems to be that William wished -to deal with the kingdom of Scotland as with an ordinary fief. Such a -claim would have been against all precedent, and it would be specially -dangerous when William Rufus was king and when Randolf Flambard was -his minister. On the other hand, Malcolm in no way denies the -superiority of the English crown; he stands simply on the ground of -ancient custom. He is ready to “do right,” a process clearly to be -done by an inferior to a superior; but he will do it only as by -ancient custom it was wont to be done. Because a kingdom acknowledged -the external superiority of another kingdom, it did not at all follow -that its king was bound to submit himself to the judgement of the -barons of the superior kingdom. The original commendation had been -made, not only by the King of Scots, but by the whole Scottish -people,[19] and their king might fairly claim that he should have the -advice and help of his own Wise Men in making answer to any charge -that was brought against him. This is one of the cases in which the -use of technical language, without any full explanation of the -circumstances, really makes a matter darker; and we must perhaps be -content to leave the exact point at issue unsettled. But it is plain -from the English Chronicle that William was in the wrong; he refused -to do something for Malcolm which he had promised to do. The -obligations of a treaty sat lightly on the Red King; but on one point -his honour was pledged. Malcolm had come under a safe-conduct――the -sending of hostages, if nothing else, shows it. And a safe-conduct -from Rufus might always be trusted. We cannot say that the two kings -parted in wrath, seeing they did not meet at all. But Malcolm -naturally went away in great wrath, and he left Rufus behind him in -great wrath also. He reached his own kingdom in safety; what he did -with the hostages we are not told.[20] - - * * * * * - - [Illustration: - Map - illustrating the - NORTHUMBRIAN CAMPAIGNS - A.D. 1093-95. - Edwᵈ. Weller - _For the Delegates of the Clarendon Press._] - -[Sidenote: Malcolm’s last invasion of England.] - -[Sidenote: He draws near to Alnwick.] - -[Sidenote: Alnwick castle.] - -[Sidenote: Alnwick and the Percies.] - -[Sidenote: The first Percy at Alnwick. 1309.] - -[Sidenote: The true Percies.] - -[Sidenote: The Vescies at Alnwick.] - -[Sidenote: 1174.] - -The silly pride shown by William Rufus at Gloucester led to a series -of events of the highest importance both as to the relations between -England and Scotland, and as to the internal affairs of the northern -kingdom. As soon as Malcolm reached Scotland, he gathered together his -forces, and began his fifth, and, as it happened, his last, invasion -of England. He entered the earldom of Northumberland, and harried -after his usual fashion as far as some point which, there is no reason -to doubt, was in the near neighbourhood of Alnwick. We may fairly -accept the tradition which carries him to the spot known as Malcolm’s -Cross, where a commemorative rood once stood, and where the ruins of a -Romanesque chapel may still be seen. The spot is on high ground -overlooking the river Alne, while on the opposite side of the stream a -lower height is crowned by the town of Alnwick, and by such remains of -its famous castle as modern innovation has spared. The neighbourhood -of that castle, the fame of the historic house which once held it, has -caused every place and every act into which the name of Alnwick or of -Percy can be dragged to be surrounded by an atmosphere of legend. It -needs some little effort to take in the fact that, as the Percies of -history have long passed away from Alnwick, so in the days of Malcolm -some centuries had to pass before the Percies of history reached -Alnwick. It needs some further effort to take in the further fact that -the true Percy, the Percy of Domesday, the Percy of Yorkshire, never -had anything to do with Alnwick or with Northumberland at all. And it -perhaps needs a further effort again to take in the fact that it is by -no means clear whether in the days of Malcolm there was any castle of -Alnwick in being. One may guess that the site had been fortified at -some earlier time; but the known history of Alnwick, castle and abbey, -begins with the works of the elder lords of Alnwick, the house of -Vescy, in the next century.[21] Of that date a noble gateway has still -been spared, which may well have looked on the captivity of the -Scottish William in the days of Henry the Second, but which assuredly -did not look on the death of Malcolm in the days of the Red King. The -height to which Malcolm’s harryings reached may have looked down on -some earlier fortress beyond the Alne, or it may simply have looked -down on the town of Alnwick, which was doubtless already in being. But -whatever was there at that time in the way of artificial defence, -there were stout hearts and a wary leader ready to meet the king who -was invading England for the fifth time. - -[Sidenote: English feeling about Malcolm.] - -[Sidenote: Death of Malcolm. November 13, 1093.] - -[Sidenote: Malcolm slain by Morel.] - -It is certainly strange that in not a few English writers, generally -indeed those who are parted from the event by some distance of time -and place, the overthrow of the invaders which now followed is told -with a certain feeling for the invader and with a certain feeling -against those who overthrew him. Malcolm perhaps drew to himself some -share of the national and religious halo which gathered round his -wife, while there was nothing attractive, either on national or on -personal grounds, in the men who at that time stood forth as the -champions of England. Yet it must have been the “good men” of two -years past[22] who now went forth under the cunning guidance of Earl -Robert of Mowbray. By some ambush or other stratagem, that skilful -captain led his forces on the Scottish King unawares, under -circumstances which are not detailed, but which have led even English -writers to speak of the attack as treacherous.[23] Malcolm was killed; -and with him died his son and expected heir Eadward. They fell on the -day of Saint Brice, ninety-one years after the great slaughter of the -Danes which has made that day memorable in the kalendar of -England.[24] The actual slayer of Malcolm was his gossip Morel, Earl -Robert’s nephew and steward, guardian of the rock and fortress of -Bamburgh. From him it would seem that Alnwick, or perhaps rather the -dale between Alnwick and Malcolm’s Cross, took the name of -_Moreldene_.[25] Morel was, it was noticed, the gossip, the -_compater_, of Malcolm, as William Malet was of Harold;[26] and it -seems almost to be implied, by writers far away from Alnwick, that -this spiritual affinity made the slaughter of the invader a crime. - -[Sidenote: Burial of Malcolm at Tynemouth.] - -[Sidenote: History of Tynemouth.] - -[Sidenote: Martyrdom of King Oswine.] - -[Sidenote: First church of Tynemouth.] - -[Sidenote: Invention of Saint Oswine. March 15, 1065.] - -[Sidenote: Tostig begins the new church.] - -[Sidenote: Tynemouth granted to Jarrow by Waltheof.] - -[Sidenote: Earl Robert grants Tynemouth to Saint Alban’s.] - -[Sidenote: Death of Abbot Paul. 1093.] - -[Sidenote: Translation of Saint Oswine. August 23, 1103.] - -[Sidenote: Malcolm translated to Dunfermline.] - -The body of Malcolm, like the bodies of Harold and Waltheof, received -a first burial and a later translation. It was first borne to the -church of Saint Oswine at Tynemouth, a place which was growing into -great reputation under the special favour of Earl Robert. Through his -bounty the walls of a new minster were rising within his fortress -which crowned the rocky height on the left bank of the mouth of the -great Northumbrian river. That fortress and that minster will again -play a memorable part in the chequered history of their founder. But -the church of Saint Oswine, the martyred King of Deira, did not owe -its first origin to Robert of Mowbray or to any other stranger.[27] -The body of the sainted king, slain by the practice of the Bretwalda -Oswin, was laid in a church which was said to have been first built of -wood by the Bretwalda Eadwine, and then rebuilt of stone by the -sainted Bretwalda Oswald. The position of Tynemouth marked it out as a -special point for attack and defence in the days of the Danish -invasions; but, after the havoc which they caused, the holy place had -been neglected and forgotten. In the days of Earl Tostig and Bishop -Æthelwine the pious care of the Earl’s wife Judith had led to the -invention of the martyr’s relics, and to the beginning of a new -church. Of that church Tostig laid the foundations in the year of his -fall, but men of another speech were to finish it. The unfinished -church was granted by Earl Waltheof to the monks of the newly restored -house of Jarrow, and his gift was confirmed by the Norman Earl -Alberic. A gift to Jarrow proved, as events turned out, to be the same -thing as a gift to Durham; but, before the change of foundation at -Durham, the monks of Jarrow had removed the relics of Saint Oswine -from Tynemouth to their own church. With the reign of Earl Robert a -change came. Out of devotion, and at the heavenly bidding, as was -believed at Saint Alban’s――out of a quarrel with Bishop William, as -was believed at Durham――but at all events out of a feeling for the -memory of Oswine which showed that he had learned some reverence for -the worthies of the land in which he had settled――Earl Robert deprived -the church of Durham of this possession, and refounded Tynemouth as a -cell to the distant abbey of Saint Alban. Abbot Paul came in person to -take possession, in defiance of all protests on behalf of Durham, -where it was believed that his death which soon followed was the -punishment of this wrong. Saint Oswine himself was not translated back -to Tynemouth till the power of Robert of Mowbray had passed away. But -the church on the rock became famous, and it fills a considerable -place in the local history of Saint Alban’s. There, in the chosen -sanctuary of his conqueror, the body of Malcolm lay for awhile. He was -afterwards moved to his own Dunfermline[28], where the pillars of his -minster, in their deep channellings, bear witness to an abiding tie, -at least of the artistic kind, between the royal abbey of Scotland and -the great church of Northern England of which a Scottish king laid the -foundation-stone. - -[Sidenote: Local estimate of Malcolm’s death.] - -But, if English writers in later times, and even men who wrote at the -time in distant parts of England, found some flowers to strew on the -tomb of the husband of the saintly daughter of the old kingly line, no -such feelings were shared by those who had seen Malcolm and his -invading host at their own doors. The chronicler who wrote nearest to -the spot stops, as he records the death of Malcolm, to mark the -judgement of God which cut off the merciless enemy of England. He -stops to reckon up all the times that Malcolm had laid waste the -fields of Northumberland, and had carried away the folk of -Northumberland into bondage.[29] He tells with glee how the invading -host utterly vanished; how they were either cut down by the sword of -the avenger, or swept away by the floods of Alne, swollen by the -winter’s rain beyond its wonted depth and strength.[30] He records the -burial at Tynemouth; but he takes care to tell how none of the -Scottish host was left to bury the Scottish king, but how the charity -of two men of the land bore him on a wain to the place of burial.[31] -And he adds the moral, equally applicable to all ambitious kings, that -he who had deprived so many of life and goods and freedom now, by -God’s just judgement, lost his life and his goods together.[32] - - * * * * * - -[Sidenote: Character of Margaret.] - -[Sidenote: Malcolm’s devotion to her.] - -[Sidenote: Margaret’s education of her children.] - -[Sidenote: Her sons;] - -[Sidenote: David;] - -[Sidenote: Eadmund.] - -The invading king was dead, and with him the son whom he had designed -to wear his crown after him was dead also. The saintly wife of Malcolm -and mother of Eadward was soon to follow her husband and her son. Of -the true holiness of Margaret, of her zeal, not only for a formal -devotion, but for all that is morally right, none can doubt.[33] A -woman evidently of great natural gifts and of a cultivation unusual in -her time, she deeply impressed all whom she came across, her own -husband most of all. To Malcolm his Margaret was indeed a pearl of -great price, to be cherished, almost to be worshipped, as already a -saint on earth. She taught him to share her devotions, till men -wondered at such piety in a man of this world.[34] It is touching to -read how the unlettered king loved to look with wonder on the books in -which his queen delighted; how those which she delighted in more than -others he would cherish and kiss like holy relics, how he would have -them adorned with gold and gems, and would then bring them back to his -wife in their new splendour, as sacred offerings.[35] Her prayers, her -fasts, her never-failing bounty to the poor, stand out in her -biography even more conspicuously than her gifts to churches, to -distant Iona among them.[36] It is perhaps a rarer merit that the -influence of her personal example hindered the slightest approach to -foul or profane speech in her presence,[37] and that her careful -education of her children handed on her virtues to another generation. -For Margaret was not one of those who sought for their own soul’s -health in neglecting the most obvious duties of the state of life to -which God had called them. In the petty and selfish devotion of her -great-uncle she had no share; called to be wife, mother, and queen, it -was by doing her duty as wife, mother, and queen that she won her -claim to a higher saintship than that of Æthelthryth at Ely or of -Eadgyth at Wilton. The witness of Margaret is in her children, -children many of whom bore the great and kingly names of her own -house. The careful training which the Conqueror gave to his children -showed its fruits in his daughters only; the teaching of Margaret -lived in her sons as well. Eadward died with his father; but in Eadgar -and Alexander and the more renowned David, she gave three kings to -Scotland, of whom the two latter were kings indeed, while all three -inherited the gentleness and piety of their mother, along with the -virtue so rare among the princes of that day, the strictest purity of -personal life.[38] David, son-in-law of Waltheof, who gave Scotland -worthy heirs to succeed him, surely ranks higher on the roll of royal -saints than Eadward, son-in-law of Godwine, who left England to the -chances of a disputed succession. One child only of this goodly stock -is spoken of as falling away from the bright example of his -parent.[39] Yet Eadmund, alone of the children of Margaret, lived to -become a cloistered monk; and he was perhaps deemed degenerate only -because he fell back on the character of a Scottish patriot of an -older type. - -[Sidenote: Margaret’s reforms.] - -[Sidenote: State of religion in Scotland.] - -[Sidenote: Malcolm acts as his wife’s interpreter.] - -[Sidenote: She increases the pomp of the Scottish court.] - -[Sidenote: Her early associations.] - -[Sidenote: Feeling of the Scots.] - -Had Margaret confined her cares to bringing up her own children in -strict piety and virtue, one of her sons would in all likelihood have -mounted his father’s throne immediately after the bloody day of -Alnwick. But in Malcolm’s kingdom she came, in her own eyes at least, -as the representative of a higher morality, a purer religion, and a -more advanced civilization, and she felt specially called on to play -the part of a reformer. The ecclesiastical condition of Scotland was -by no means perfect, according to the standard which Margaret had -brought with her. The Scots still kept Easter at a wrong time; they -said mass in some way which at Durham was deemed barbarous;[40] they -cared not for the Lord’s day; and they are said to have neglected the -most ordinary Christian rules in the matter of marriage. They took to -wife, after Jewish models, the widows of their brothers, and even, -after old Teutonic models, the widows of their fathers. All these -evils, ecclesiastical and moral, Margaret set herself zealously to -root out. Councils were gathered to work the needful reforms, and -Margaret found her husband an useful interpreter. For the king who had -been placed on the Scottish throne by the will of Eadward and the arms -of Siward naturally spoke the English tongue as readily as that of his -own people.[41] But Margaret was a queen as well as a saint; and she -either took a personal pleasure in the pomp of royalty or else she -deemed royal state to be wholesome in its effects on the minds of the -barbarous people. The King of Scots was taught to show himself in more -gorgeous apparel, to ride with a greater and more stately train, than -his forefathers had been wont to do. But the righteous queen knew -something of the evils which might come of a king’s great and stately -following, and she took care that the train of King Malcolm should -not, like the train of King William, pass among the fields and -households of his people like a blight or a pestilence[42]. That -Margaret should innovate in the direction of state and ceremony was -not wonderful. Daughter of kings, kinswoman, perhaps daughter, of -Cæsars, she had, in her childhood and youth, seen something of many -lands. She may have seen the crown of Saint Stephen, still in its -freshness, on the brow of a Magyar king, and the crown of Charles and -Otto on the brow of an Imperial kinsman. She had assuredly seen King -Eadward, King Harold, and King William, in all the glory of the crown -to which her husband’s crown owed homage. And we may be sure that the -kingly state of Scotland was mean besides that of Germany, of England, -and even of Hungary. Margaret might well think it a duty to herself -and to her husband to raise him in outward things nearer to a level -with his brother kings both of the island and of the mainland. But the -policy of such a course, among such a people as the Scots of that age, -may well be doubted. A fierce race, hard to control at any time, may -well have had no great love for an outward show of kingship, which -would be taken, and rightly, as the sign of a growth of the kingly -power such as agreed neither with their customs nor with their wishes. - -[Sidenote: English influence in Scotland.] - -[Sidenote: Scottish feeling towards Margaret.] - -[Sidenote: English and Norman settlers.] - -[Sidenote: Jealousy of the native Scots.] - -Margaret moreover was a stranger in Scotland. One can well believe -that the native Scots were already beginning to be jealous of English -influence in any shape. Before Margaret came, they must have felt that -the English element in the triple dominion was growing into greater -importance than their own. Lothian was becoming greater than the true -Scottish land beyond the Scots’-water. Fife, it may well be, was -already becoming as Lothian. Malcolm himself had been placed on the -throne by English arms; he had become the man of two kings who were -politically English, though they held England as a conquered realm. -His five invasions of England must have been quite needful to keep up -even Malcolm’s character among his own people. And his English queen, -bringing in English ways, trying to turn Scotland into another -England, stopping good old Scottish customs and good old Scottish -licence, tricking out the King of Albanach in some new devised foreign -garb, English, Norman, German, or Hungarian, must have been looked at -in her own time, by the Scots of her own day, with very different -feelings towards the living queen from those with which they soon -learned to look towards the national saint. She came too with her -English following, and her English following was only the first wave -of many which came to strengthen the English element which was already -strong in the land. While Malcolm and Margaret reigned, Scotland, the -land which had sheltered Margaret and her house in their days of -banishment, stood open to receive, and its king’s court stood open to -welcome, every comer from the south. Native Englishmen flying from -Norman oppression and Norman plunder,――Normans who thought that their -share in the plunder of England was too small――men of both races, of -both tongues, of every class and rank among the two races,――all found -a settlement across the Scottish border. The King spoke English; the -Queen most likely spoke French also; Englishmen and Normans alike -seemed civilizing elements among the people whom Margaret had to -polish and to convert. Both Normans and English kept Easter at the -right time, and neither Normans nor English thought of marrying their -step-mothers. Scotland and the court of Scotland were crowded with -English and Norman knights, with English and Norman clerks. They got -benefices, temporal and spiritual, in the Scottish land. They may have -converted; they may have civilized; but conversion and civilization -are processes which are not always specially delighted in by those who -are to be converted and civilized. Anyhow they were strangers, brought -into the land by kingly favour, to flourish, as men would naturally -deem, at the cost of the sons of the soil. The national spirit of the -Scottish people arose; the jealousy of the strangers established in -the land waxed stronger and stronger. It might be in some measure kept -down as long as novelty was embodied in the persons of the warrior -king and the holy queen. As soon as they were gone, the pent-up -torrent burst forth in its full strength. - - * * * * * - -[Sidenote: The news of Malcolm’s death brought to Margaret. -November 17, 1093.] - -[Sidenote: English version of her death.] - -[Sidenote: Turgot’s version.] - -[Sidenote: Her burial at Dunfermline.] - -The first to bring the news of the death of her husband and son to the -ears of Margaret was another of her sons, the future King Eadgar. As -the tale reached Peterborough, Worcester, and Saint Evroul, the Queen, -when she heard the tidings, became as one dead at heart; she settled -her temporal affairs; she gave gifts to the poor; then she entered the -church with her chaplain; she communicated at the mass which he sang; -she prayed that her soul might pass away, and her prayer was -granted.[43] This is a version which has already received a legendary -element. It is not, strictly speaking, miraculous, but is on the way -to become so. A person, seemingly in health, is made to die in answer -to prayer on the receipt of ill news. The tale, as told by an -eye-witness, is different. The Queen had long been expecting death; -for half a year she had never mounted a horse, and had but seldom left -her bed.[44] On the fourth day after her husband’s death, feeling -somewhat stronger, she went into her private oratory; she heard mass, -and communicated. Her sickness increased; she was taken back to her -bed, holding and kissing a relic known as the Black Cross of -Scotland,[45] and waiting for her end. She prayed and repeated the -fifty-first psalm,[46] with the cross in her hand. The agony was -already near when Eadgar came from the war. She was able to ask after -his father and brother. Fearing to distress his mother yet more, -Eadgar said that they were well.[47] Margaret conjured him as her son, -and by the cross which she had in her hand, to speak the truth. He -then told her the grievous tale. She murmured not, nor sinned with her -lips.[48] She could even give thanks for her sorrows, sent, as she -deemed, to cleanse her from her sins.[49] As one who had just partaken -of the holy rite, she began the prayer which follows communion, and, -as she prayed, her soul left the world. The deadly paleness passed -away from her face, and she lay, red and white, as one sleeping.[50] -The place of her death was Edinburgh, the castle of maidens;[51] her -body was borne to Dunfermline and buried there, before the altar of -the church of the Holy Trinity of her own rearing.[52] - - * * * * * - -[Sidenote: Scottish feeling towards her.] - -[Sidenote: A Scottish king to be chosen.] - -[Sidenote: Election of Donald.] - -[Sidenote: He drives out the English.] - -We read the touching tale with different feelings from those with -which it was heard at the moment by Scots who clave to old Scottish -ways, good or bad. We have even hints that the funeral of the sainted -queen could not go from Edinburgh to Dunfermline without danger. It -needed either a miracle or the natural phænomena of the country to -enable the body of the English lady to be carried out of one gate of -the Castle of the Maidens, while the champions of the old times of -Scotland were thundering at another.[53] Such a story may be legendary -in its details, but it is clearly no legend, but true tradition, as -regards the national feeling of the times which it describes. -Scotland, at the time of Malcolm’s death, was still torn by local and -dynastic factions;[54] but all parties in the old Scottish realm were -agreed on one point. They would have no more innovations from England -or from Normandy; they would have no more English or Norman strangers -to eat up their land in their own sight. They would have no son of -Margaret, no son even of Malcolm, to reign over them; they would again -have a king of the true stock of Albanach, who should reign after the -old ways of Albanach and none other. The settled English element south -of the Scots’-water would be weak against such a movement as this; or -indeed it may be that the men of Lothian were no more eager to be -reformed after Margaret’s fashion than the men of Scotland and -Strathclyde. Such a king as was needed was soon found in the person of -Donald Bane, Donald the Red――Scotland had her Rufus as well as -England――the brother of the late king and son of that Duncan who had -been cut off in his youth in the civil war between his house and the -house of Macbeth.[55] He was at once raised to the Scottish crown as -the representative of Scottish nationality. His first act was -emphatic; “he drave out all the English that ere with the King Malcolm -were.”[56] - -[Sidenote: Meaning of the words.] - -[Sidenote: Margaret’s children driven out.] - -[Sidenote: Action of the elder Eadgar.] - -[Sidenote: Malcolm’s daughters;] - -[Sidenote: Mary;] - -[Sidenote: Eadgyth or Matilda;] - -[Sidenote: her sojourn at Romsey.] - -[Sidenote: Malcolm at Romsey.] - -[Sidenote: Her relations with Henry.] - -[Sidenote: Tale of Eadgyth and William Rufus.] - -This is of course no more to be understood of a general driving out of -the settled English inhabitants of Lothian than the massacre of Saint -Brice is to be understood of a general slaughter of the settled Danish -inhabitants of Lincolnshire and Yorkshire.[57] The driving out was -confined to the newly come English, who filled the court of Malcolm -and Margaret, and who doubtless kept, or seemed to keep, many a -true-born Scot from the favour of his king. For these there was to be -no longer a place in the Scottish realm or in the other dominions of -its sovereign. They had to go and seek shelter in their own land. The -language of our guides suggests that they were mainly English in the -strictest sense; though we cannot but fancy that some Normans or other -strangers may have crept in among them.[58] One thing is certain; -among the English that ere with the King Malcolm were his own children -by his English wife held a place. Of his sons Eadmund and Æthelred we -cannot speak with certainty; but Eadgar, Alexander, and David, had to -flee, and the Scottish story describes their uncle the Ætheling Eadgar -as in some way helping their escape. He did it, we are told, by -stealth, that he might not kindle any suspicion in the Norman King of -England.[59] It is hard to see what Eadgar, who could not have been in -Scotland at the time of his sister’s death, could have done for her -children till they were at least within the English border, and there -is nothing to make us think that Eadgar had in any way lost that full -favour with William Rufus which he had enjoyed at the beginning of the -year. But the mere use of his name witnesses to the belief that he who -could do so little for himself was able to do a good deal for others. -In this story he is said to have sheltered his sister’s daughters as -well as her sons. More trustworthy accounts say that Eadgyth and Mary -had already been sent by their parents to be brought up in the abbey -of Romsey, where their aunt Christina was a nun.[60] Mary in time -married the younger Eustace of Boulogne, and was the mother of a Queen -of the English, that valiant Matilda who strove so well to keep the -English crown for her husband Stephen.[61] Eadgyth, in her loftier -destiny, will meet us again under the new name which she had to share -with her niece and to hand on to an Imperial daughter.[62] The second -Queen Matilda of our story, the good Queen Maud of tradition, had been -designed to be the bride of the Breton Count Alan.[63] That was not to -be her fate; neither was it to be her fate to embrace the holy calling -which her aunt Christina strove to force upon her. For the present she -remained unprofessed, loathing the veil which her aunt ever and anon -put upon her head, to shield her, as she said, from Norman -outrage.[64] When Christina’s back was turned, the lively girl tore -the veil from her head and trampled on it.[65] Her father too, on some -visit to England――could he have turned aside to Romsey before or after -his memorable visit to Gloucester?――saw the veil on her head with -anger; he had not designed her for that, but for the bridal of Count -Alan. It seems plain that her marriage with Henry was a marriage of -old affection on both sides, and one version even makes the Ætheling -seek for her as his wife in her father’s lifetime. One version, -strange indeed, but perhaps the more likely to have some truth in it -because of its strangeness, gives her an unlooked-for lover. We are -told that, for once, in the person of Eadgyth of Scotland, female -charms kindled in the heart of the Red King a passion which in his -case might be called virtuous.[66] He came to Romsey with a body of -his knights; the wily abbess, dreading his purpose, caused Eadgyth to -put on the veil. She then drew the King into the cloister to see her -roses and other flowers; but he caught a glimpse of the nuns as they -passed by; he saw the veil on the head of Eadgyth, and turned away. -She was then twelve years old. Presently her father came; he saw her -veiled; he tore the veil from her head, he trampled it under his feet, -and took away his daughter. Such a tale must be taken for what it is -worth; but the picture of William Rufus contemplating either maidens -or roses at least puts him in a light in which we do not meet him -elsewhere. - - * * * * * - -[Sidenote: Christmas, 1093-1094.] - -[Sidenote: Events of 1094.] - -[Sidenote: Order of Scottish events.] - -A series of events now follow which our guides seem to place within -the year of Malcolm’s death, but for which room can hardly have been -found in the few weeks of it which were still to come. The winter of -that year, it will be remembered, was a stirring winter. It saw the -consecration of Anselm; it saw the Gemót at Gloucester at which -William received the challenge from his brother in Normandy;[67] it -saw the first beginnings of fresh disputes between the King and the -Archbishop.[68] The next year was the year of William’s second Norman -expedition, and it is clear that his absence from England had an -influence on the affairs of Scotland, as it undoubtedly had on those -of Wales. The election of Donald and the driving out of the English -from Scotland may have followed as swiftly on the deaths of Malcolm -and Margaret as the election of Harold followed on the death of -Eadward or the election of Henry on the death of William Rufus. But we -can hardly find room for an English expedition to Scotland, for the -establishment of a new king, and for a domestic revolution limiting -his powers, between the driving out of the English and the last day of -the year. One is inclined to think that the Gemót of Gloucester saw a -discussion of the affairs of Scotland as well as of the affairs of -Normandy, and that the results of that discussion, direct consequences -as they were of the death of Malcolm and the election of Donald, were -set down under the year in which the chain of events began, though -some of them must, almost in the nature of things, have really -happened in the year which followed. - -[Sidenote: Gemót of Gloucester. Christmas, 1093-1094.] - -[Sidenote: Duncan claims the Scottish crown.] - -[Sidenote: Duncan’s Norman education.] - -[Sidenote: He receives the crown from William.] - -[Sidenote: 1054.] - -[Sidenote: 1332.] - -[Sidenote: He wins it by the help of Norman and English volunteers. -1094.] - -[Sidenote: Second revolution; the foreigners driven out.] - -[Sidenote: May? 1094.] - -I am inclined therefore to think that it must have been at the -Christmas assembly which decreed the war with Robert that a claimant -appeared to demand the Scottish crown at the hands of the southern -over-lord. This was Duncan, the son of Malcolm and Ingebiorg. He was -in truth the eldest of Malcolm’s children, and, though, under the -influence of a new set of ideas, it became usual to speak of him as a -kind of Ishmael, he was most likely as lawful an heir to the Scottish -throne as any of the three kings who were sons of the English -saint.[69] In itself the succession of Duncan would have seemed an -intermediate course between the succession of Donald and the -succession of Margaret’s son Eadgar. But Duncan, given years ago as a -hostage to William the Great,[70] had long been a follower of William -the Red. He lived in his court, and did him faithful service as his -man and his knight. He must have been unknown in Scotland, and his -feelings and habits must have been those of a Norman rather than those -of a Scot. He represented neither the old Scottish traditions which -were embodied in Donald nor yet the new foreign reformation which was -embodied in Margaret and her sons. It was no wonder then that no party -in his father’s kingdom thought of his claims at his father’s death. -But he now came to the King’s court; he set forth the usurpation of -his uncle Donald and his own rights; he demanded the crown of his -father, and did homage for it to the Monarch of Britain.[71] The event -is singularly like the earlier event which had placed Duncan’s own -father on the Scottish throne; it is still more like the later event -which gave Scotland a momentary king in Edward Balliol. The King’s -designs on Normandy hindered him from either marching himself to the -help of Duncan or sending any part of the regular forces of his -kingdom. But Duncan was allowed to get together a body of volunteers, -English and French――doubtless of any nation that he could find――at -whose head he marched into Scotland. He overthrew his uncle Donald, -and took possession of the throne by the help of his new allies.[72] -Details are lacking; the Scots must have been overthrown for a moment -by some sudden attack. What follows is instructive. The reign of -Duncan, as a king surrounded by a Norman and English following, was -but for a moment. But there was clearly no feeling in Scotland against -allowing him to reign, if he were willing to reign as a national Scot. -The people, startled for a moment, took heart again. A new movement -broke forth; the King was surrounded, and the foreigners who -accompanied him were this time, not driven out, but slaughtered. He -himself escaped with a few only.[73] But, this work once done, the son -of Malcolm was not less willingly received than his brother. Donald -was not restored; but Duncan was accepted as King of Scots on -condition of his allowing no English or French settlers within his -realm.[74] - -[Sidenote: Death of Duncan and restoration of Donald. November? 1094.] - -[Sidenote: Second reign of Donald. 1094-1097.] - -We may perhaps suspect that this national movement in Scotland was -timed so as to grasp the favourable moment when the King of the -English, with the mass of his forces, was beyond the sea. This is more -clearly marked in the next revolution, which took place towards the -end of the year. While King William was still in Normandy, while the -Welsh were in triumphant revolt, a powerful confederacy was formed -against Duncan. Donald now leagued himself with Malpeter, the Mormaor -of Mærne, the representative of the old party of Macbeth, and also -with Eadmund, son of Malcolm and Margaret. This last, their only -degenerate son, as he is called, joined with his uncle against his -half-brother. He was lured, it is said, by the promise of half the -kingdom.[75] Duncan was slain, by treachery, we are told, and Donald -began a second reign.[76] This revolution was perhaps among the causes -which brought William back from Normandy.[77] But both English and -Welsh affairs were in a state which forbade any immediate intervention -in Scotland. William had to put up with the insults which he had -received, the driving out of his subjects and the slaughter of the -king to whom he had given the kingdom. Donald was allowed to reign -without disturbance for three years. - - -§ 2. _The Revolt of Robert of Mowbray._ 1095-1096. - -[Sidenote: Events contemporary with Donald’s second reign.] - -The three years of Donald’s second reign were contemporary with much -that we have already told, with the whole dispute between William and -Anselm, with the preaching of the crusade, with the acquisition of -Normandy. They were contemporary with stirring events in Wales which -we shall speak of in another section. And they were contemporary with -events in England which, as I have said, have a kind of connexion with -the fate of Malcolm which makes it seem on the whole most natural to -speak of them at this point. We will now therefore go on to the chief -English event of the year which followed the second accession of -Donald, namely the revolt of Robert Earl of Northumberland. - -[Sidenote: Conspiracy against William Rufus.] - -[Sidenote: Robert of Mowbray marries Matilda of Laigle.] - -[Sidenote: His dealings with the Earl of Chester and the Bishop of -Durham.] - -[Sidenote: Other conspirators.] - -[Sidenote: William of Eu.] - -[Sidenote: Conspiracy in favour of Stephen of Aumale.] - -It is not the least strange among the strange events of this reign -that the only rebellion against William Rufus within his kingdom, -after that which immediately followed his accession, was directly -occasioned by one of the few good deeds which are recorded of him. The -King did a simple act of justice; one of his greatest nobles at once -openly rebelled, and the open rebellion of one brought to light the -hidden conspiracy of many more. We may be sure that there had long -been a good deal of lurking discontent which was waiting for even a -slight opportunity to break forth into a flame. The conspiracy was -devised among men of the highest rank and power, some of them near of -kindred to the King; and the open rebel was certainly the foremost man -of his own generation in the kingdom. There were in the days of Rufus -grounds enough for discontent and revolt among any class, and there -were special grounds which specially touched the men of highest rank. -They are said to have been offended by the King’s general harshness, -and, above all, by the strictness of his hunting-code.[78] The head -and author of the seditious movement was the stern guardian of the -northern frontier of the kingdom, Robert of Mowbray Earl of -Northumberland. He is said to have been specially puffed up to -rebellion by his successes against Malcolm and his Scots.[79] But, -great as he deemed himself, he held that he might become greater by a -powerful alliance. The gloomy Earl, with whom speech and laughter were -so rare, thought to help his projects by taking a wife. He married -Matilda of Laigle, the daughter of that Richer who died so worthily -beneath the keep of Sainte-Susanne,[80] the sister of that Gilbert -whom we have seen foremost in the work of slaughter among the -seditious citizens of Rouen.[81] Her mother Judith was the sister of -Earl Hugh of Chester; and Robert seems to have entangled his new uncle -in his rebellious schemes. One would have thought that Bishop William -of Durham had had enough of rebellion. He was now as high in the -King’s favour and counsels as any man in the realm. He was, or at -least had been, on bad terms with his neighbour Earl Robert;[82] and -it is hard to see what can have been his temptation to join in any -seditious movement. Yet we know that there were churchmen concerned in -the conspiracy;[83] it is certain that Bishop William lost the King’s -favour about this time; and there seems little doubt that he was at -least suspected of being in league with the Earl. Others concerned are -said to have been Philip of Montgomery, son of the late Earl of -Shrewsbury,[84] Roger of Lacy, great in Herefordshire and in several -other shires,[85] and one nearer to the royal house than all, William -of Eu, the late stirrer up of strife between the King and his brother. -The object of the conspiracy was said to be to put the King to death, -and to give the crown to Stephen of Aumale, the son of Adelaide, whole -sister of the Conqueror, by her third husband, Odo Count of Champagne -and lord of Holderness.[86] - -[Sidenote: No general support for the plot.] - -[Sidenote: No ground for Stephen’s claim.] - -In short, the two men who had been the first to put castles into the -King’s hands in Normandy were now plotting against him in England. -Stephen of Aumale was to receive the English crown at the bidding of -William of Eu. Such a conspiracy as this must have been merely the -device of a few discontented nobles; it could have met with no broad -ground of general support among men of any class. No doubt many men of -all ranks and of all races would have been well pleased to get rid of -William; but there must surely have been few who seriously hoped to -set up Stephen of Aumale as his successor. By a solemn treaty only -five years old, the reigning Duke of the Normans was marked out as the -successor to the English crown.[87] And if that arrangement was held -to be set aside by later warfare between the brothers, there was -nothing to bar the natural claims of Henry. Neither Norman nor English -feeling could have endured that the man who was at once Norman and -English should be set aside for a stranger from Champagne. Neither -Norman nor English feeling could have endured that all the sons of the -Conqueror should be set aside in favour of the son of his sister. -Truly men of any rank or any race had good reason to revolt against -William Rufus. But this was like the revolt of the Earls in the days -of the elder William,[88] a purely personal and selfish revolt, which -called forth no sympathy, Norman or English. Still a large party was -ready to revolt on any occasion. And the occasion was presently found. - -[Sidenote: Earl Robert plunders the Norwegian ships.] - -[Sidenote: The merchants complain to the King.] - -[Sidenote: Robert refuses redress.] - -[Sidenote: He is summoned to the King’s court.] - -It was found, as far as Earl Robert was concerned, in a wanton breach -of common right and of the law of nations, which it was assumed that -the King would treat as an act of defiance against his authority. Four -Norwegian trading ships had peacefully anchored in some Northumbrian -haven. Earl Robert, his nephew Morel, and their followers, wantonly -plundered the ships, and took away their whole cargoes. And the tale -is told as if the act of plunder was meant directly as an act of -rebellion against the King, whose peace was certainly broken in the -most outrageous way.[89] The merchants, despoiled of all that they -had, made their way to the King and laid before him their complaint -against the Earl of the Northumbrians.[90] Had such an act been done -by any of William’s own following, the injured men would most likely -have met with no redress. But plunder done by anybody else on his own -account was an outrage on the royal authority――one might perhaps say -an encroachment on the royal monopoly of oppression――with which the -Red King was not minded to put up. William straightway sent the -strictest and sternest orders to Earl Robert to restore at once all -that had been taken from the Norwegian merchants. The Earl scornfully -took no notice. The King then asked the amount of the merchants’ -losses, and made it good to them from his own hoard. He then summoned -the Earl to his court; but he refused to come.[91] - -[Sidenote: Gemót of Winchester. March 25, 1095.] - -[Sidenote: The falling stars. April 4.] - -[Sidenote: Messages between the King and Robert.] - -[Sidenote: Whitsun Gemót. Windsor, May 13, 1095.] - -Such is the story which reached the cloister of Saint Evroul, a story -altogether likely in itself, and which well fits in with and explains -the entries in our own Chronicle. These bring us into the thick of the -regular assemblies of this year of assemblies. The gathering at -Rockingham dealt wholly with the affairs of Anselm; to the regular -Easter assembly at Winchester which so soon followed it, Earl Robert, -though specially summoned, refused to come. The King was very wroth -against him, and sent word that, if he did not wish to be altogether -put out of the King’s peace, he must come to the court to be held at -Pentecost.[92] Signs in the heavens seem to have foretold that -something was coming. It was now, on the night of the feast of Easter -and again ten days later, that a crowd of stars was seen to fall from -heaven, not one or two, but so thickly that no man could tell -them.[93] If the stars fought against Malcolm on the day of Saint -Brice, it was only in their courses, and no chronicler has recorded -the fact. But it looks as if this special Easter shower, of which we -have elsewhere heard other meanings,[94] was by some at least held to -portend the fall of the great earl of the North. The time between -Easter and Pentecost, the time so busily occupied in another range of -subjects by the coming of Cardinal Walter and the acknowledgement of -Pope Urban,[95] was no less busily occupied by an exchange of messages -between the King and his undutiful subject. Robert, like Godwine -two-and-forty years before, demanded hostages and a safe-conduct, -before he would risk himself before the Assembly.[96] This the King -refused; Robert, arraigned on a definite charge of open robbery, had -no such claim to hostages as Godwine, as King Malcolm, or even as his -own neighbour Bishop William. The Whitsun-feast was held; the King was -at Windsor――not at Westminster――and all his Witan with him. Anselm was -there, to be received into the King’s favour, and to engage to observe -the customs of the realm.[97] But the Earl of the Northumbrians was -not there.[98] The two accounts fit in perfectly without contradiction -or difficulty. One gives us the cause of the special summons of Earl -Robert to the Gemót; the other gives us its exact date and form. - -[Sidenote: The King’s march.] - -[Sidenote: His motives.] - -[Sidenote: Robert resists.] - -Rufus, thus defied, at once took to arms. It would seem that he did -not wholly rely on his mercenaries, but called out the national force -of the kingdom.[99] He was again the King of the English, marching at -the head of his people. He was marching against the rebel fortresses -of the North, as he had once marched against Tunbridge, Pevensey, and -Rochester. But these great preparations were not made simply to avenge -the wrongs of the Norwegian merchants. Their wrongs were the outward -occasion, and that was all. The refusal of Earl Robert to come to the -King’s court was the counterpart of the more general refusal of the -Norman nobles to come to the Easter Assembly seven years earlier.[100] -The King knew, or had good reason to suspect, that there was again a -wide-spread conspiracy afloat to deprive him of his crown and life. Of -this conspiracy the open disobedience of Earl Robert was simply the -first outward sign; the affair of the Norwegian merchants had merely -brought matters to a head. Rufus may even have made use of their -wrongs as a pretext for proving Robert’s doubtful loyalty. Robert was -as yet the only open rebel. When the King drew the sword, he met with -no resistance anywhere save where the Earl of the Northumbrians was in -possession. Robert’s accomplices remained accomplices and -conspirators; they did not dare to risk the chances of open rebellion. -The Earl may have thought that the strength which had twice overcome a -King of Scots might defy a King of the English also.[101] At all -events, Robert of Mowbray withstood the King in arms, and a stirring -and varied campaign followed. - -[Sidenote: Help expected from Normandy.] - -[Sidenote: The King marches to Nottingham.] - -[Sidenote: Anselm’s command in Kent.] - -It appears however from an incidental notice that Earl Robert and his -fellows by no means trusted only to movements within the realm. It is -certainly strange that a conspiracy in which William of Eu could be -even suspected of taking a part should have found any support in -Normandy; yet in those times men changed sides so easily that it is -not impossible that he might have been again intriguing with Duke -Robert himself. It is still more likely that some intrigue was going -on, not with the Norman Duke but with the enemies of Rufus in Normandy -as well as in England. It is certain that an invasion of south-eastern -England was at this time daily dreaded;[102] and it is perhaps more -likely that William of Eu, Stephen of Aumale, and the rest, were -planning an expedition at their own risk than that Duke Robert was -designing anything with the regular forces of Normandy. The invasion -was plainly looked on as a serious danger; but there is no reason to -think that it ever took place. The King thought it needful to take -special means for guarding the coast. He had gone on his northern -march as far as Nottingham, accompanied not only, as we might expect, -by many of his nobles, but what we might less have looked for, by both -the archbishops and by the Cardinal Bishop of Albano.[103] One might -almost think that some special news was brought to the King at this -point; for it was now that Anselm, in this his short season of renewed -favour with the King, was sent back to guard his city and diocese. He -received the trust from the King’s own mouth; he went back to -Canterbury, whither a writ from the King followed him bidding him stay -in care of the city, ready at any moment, when news should be brought -from the threatened havens, at once to gather together horse and foot -for the defence of the land.[104] Anselm went back to his metropolis, -and there stayed, as we have seen, ready to discharge these unusual -duties, which, as the expected invasion never came, did not in the end -involve any military action on his part. - -[Sidenote: The King draws near to Northumberland.] - -[Sidenote: Confession of Gilbert of Clare.] - -Meanwhile the King went on, taking with him the Archbishop of York, -who at Nottingham was already in his own province and diocese. When -the march had gone on somewhat further, when the King and his host -were drawing near to the borders of the Northumbrian earldom, that is, -we may suppose, when they were near the banks of the Tyne, an incident -happened which showed that the enemies of Rufus had other schemes -besides those of open warfare either at home or abroad.[105] Gilbert -of Clare or of Tunbridge, of whom we have already heard as a rebel in -earlier days,[106] and who seems now to be looked on as a traitor in -the King’s camp, calls the King aside, and, to his amazement, falls at -his feet and craves his pardon for his offences. Let the King promise -him forgiveness, and he will do something which shall deliver him from -a great danger.[107] Rufus wonders and hesitates, but, after a little -debate in his own mind, he promises the pardon that is asked for. -Gilbert then warns the King not to enter a certain wood――have we again -the tale of the hunting-party as the scene of assassination?[108] He -was himself one of a body who had plotted the King’s death, and a -party of them were now in the wood ready to slay him. He told the King -their number and names;[109] but the story reads as if no immediate -action was taken against them. The conspirators are baulked of their -prey, and the King’s host marches on to attack the fortresses of the -rebel Earl.[110] - -[Sidenote: Defence of Robert’s fortresses.] - -[Sidenote: The New Castle.] - -[Sidenote: Tynemouth.] - -[Sidenote: Bamburgh.] - -[Sidenote: Taking of the New Castle.] - -Robert of Mowbray had made good preparations for defence. The main -body of his followers, among them the men highest in rank and most -trusted in valour, guarded the great frontier fortress of his earldom, -the New Castle which Duke Robert had reared to guard the way to the -further north by the old line of the Ælian Bridge.[111] Placed -opposite the scene of Walcher’s slaughter at Gateshead,[112] it rose -above the Tyne with far more of the usual position of a fortress than -would be dreamed by one who merely passes so strangely near to it on -the modern railway, or who lights almost by chance on gateway and -castle imbedded in the streets of the modern town. The gateway, even -the keep as it now stands, are both of later date than the time of our -story. But the days of Monkchester were passed; the New Castle was -already a place of arms, a strong post standing right in the way of -the King’s advance against the rebellious land. Lower down the tidal -stream, beyond the relics――they were then still something more than -relics――of the great Roman rampart which left its name at Wallknol, at -Wallcar, and at Wallsend[113]――fast by the mouth of the estuary whose -shores and whose waters are now so thickly set with the works of -modern industry――the Earl’s castle of Tynemouth at once sheltered the -rising monastery of Saint Oswine and guarded the approach to the river -and to all to which the river led. Tynemouth was held by the Earl’s -brother; Robert himself, far to the north, kept the great stronghold -of all, the old seat of Northumbrian power, which frowns over land and -sea from the basaltic rock of Bamburgh. The King’s first attack was -lucky; we have no details; but we read that the New Castle was taken, -and that all the men that were in it were kept in ward. The choicest -men of Earl Robert’s following were thus in the King’s hands; the -inland centre of his power was lost; but he and his brother still held -out in their fastnesses by the Ocean. - -[Sidenote: Siege of Tynemouth.] - -[Sidenote: Description of the site.] - -[Sidenote: The monastic peninsula.] - -[Sidenote: Taking of Tynemouth. July? 1095.] - -Tynemouth and Bamburgh both stood long sieges. The strong site of the -monastic stronghold enabled it to bear up for two months, while the -fortress of Ida remained, as far as any strictly military operation -was concerned, untaken during the whole war. Tynemouth, which had so -lately seen the burial of Malcolm, had now to endure the assaults of -the royal force in the cause of Malcolm’s chief enemy. The holy place -of Saint Oswine was strong alike by nature and art. At the mouth of -the great Northumbrian river, on that bank of it which lay within -Robert’s earldom, two headlands, divided by a small bay, stand forth -boldly to meet the waves of the German Ocean. In later times the -fortified precinct took in both points. Both came within the wall and -ditch which cut off the peninsulas from the mainland. The castle of -Tynemouth, strictly so called, covered the southern height immediately -above the river. The northern promontory was crowned by the church and -the monastic buildings, themselves sheltered by a vast gatehouse, -which itself grew into a castle. Such, there is reason to believe, was -the arrangement in the days of Malcolm and William. The castle of -Robert of Mowbray rose sheer above the estuary, on its left bank. To -the north, on the other headland, protected by a smaller fortress, -stood the church and monastery which were growing up at his bidding, a -tribute paid by the conquerors to the ancient worthies of the land. -The peninsula crowned by the monastic stronghold stretches forth into -the waters, like a miniature of that which is at once the oldest and -the newest Syracuse, since the art of man joined the island of Ortygia -to the mainland of Sicily. While the neck is strengthened by works of -defence, the rocky headland rises boldly from the waves on two sides. -To the south the ground rises more gently above the bay between the -two peninsulas, the bay to which the monastery above it gave the name -of the Prior’s haven. The town which grew up in after times sprang up -directly to the west of the approach to the northern headland; it now -spreads itself on all sides save only on the two headlands themselves. -The first attack must have been made from the older site of the town; -the small fortress, that most likely which guarded the neck of the -monastic headland, was taken. The main castle to the south fell at the -end of two months, and the Earl’s brother and the knights who defended -it shared the fate of the defenders of the New Castle. - -[Sidenote: The castle of Bamburgh.] - -[Sidenote: The relic of Saint Oswald.] - -[Sidenote: The keep.] - -[Sidenote: Robert defends Bamburgh against the King.] - -And now came the hardest struggle of all, the struggle for the old -home of Ida and Bebbe. _Bebbanburh_, Bamburgh――the royal city of -Bernicia, which its founder had fenced first with a hedge and then -with a wall or earthwork――the city small but strong, with its steep -height approached only by steps[114]――though its main purpose was -military and not religious, contained within its walls a sanctuary and -a relic as worshipful as aught that was sheltered by Tynemouth or -Jarrow or Durham itself. The ancient church of Bamburgh was honoured -by the presence of the wonder-working hand of the martyred Bretwalda -Oswald. That relic had in earlier days helped, along with the prayers -of Aidan, to save Bamburgh from the fires of Penda; we are not told -whether it was by the favour of the martyr that the elder Waltheof -sheltered himself within the impregnable walls, while his valiant son -marched forth to victory. The city, the small city which took in the -space only of a few fields, had doubtless by this time given way to -the Norman fortress, strengthened by all the arts which the Norman had -brought with him. The castle precincts, in their widest extent, -clearly cover the whole of the ancient site; at the south-western end -they are still approached by steps which doubtless represent those -which in the days of the old Northumbrian chronicler were the only -means of mounting the height. At Bamburgh, as elsewhere, we are met by -the never-failing difficulty which besets the student of the castles -of that age. Can any of the work at Bamburgh which bears the impress -of Norman art be safely assigned to the eleventh century? Or must we -give up all to the twelfth, and believe that no part of the great -centre of the building, the keep “huge and square,” was already in -being when Robert of Mowbray defied the Red King from his rock? On -such a point it is dangerous to be over-positive. The surrounding -walls are of all dates down to the basest modern imitations; the -chapel which guarded the relic of Saint Oswald, standing apart in the -great court with its eastern apse overlooking the sea, was clearly, -when perfect, no mean work of the next age. But whatever was the -character or the material of the defences of Robert’s day, they were -doubtless as strong as any skill within the Northumbrian earldom could -make them. There, from the castle raised on the land side on the -bulwarks of the rock out of which its walls and bastions grow, rising -on the sea side over deep and shifting hills of sand, the eye might -take in the long indented coast, the sea dotted with islands of which -many play a part in the sacred story of northern England,[115]――Farn -and its fellows hard by, hallowed by the abode and death of Saint -Cuthberht――Holy Island itself further to the north-west, the landscape -bounded in the far distance by the border hills of the two British -kingdoms, beyond which Malcolm no longer stood ready to ravage the -pastures of Northumberland. Within that ancient fortress, rich with so -many earlier associations, the proud and gloomy Earl now kept his -ground, adding a new and stirring page to the long history of -Bamburgh. His brother and his best knights were the King’s prisoners; -but, strong on his rocky height, the Earl of the Northumbrians, -heedless of the lesson of seven years earlier, dared to bid defiance -to the King of the English and to the whole strength of his kingdom. - -[Sidenote: Strength of the position.] - -[Sidenote: Direct attacks fail.] - -[Sidenote: Making of the _Malvoisin_.] - -[Sidenote: Its effects.] - -[Sidenote: Alleged despair of Robert.] - -[Sidenote: The castle still not taken.] - -And in truth the event proved that the rebellious daring of Robert of -Mowbray had better grounds than the daring of those who had held -Rochester and Pevensey, Tynemouth and the New Castle, against their -sovereign. The well of the purest water, hollowed out on the highest -point of the rock, and then, or at some later day, taken in within the -massive walls of the huge keep, made Robert safe from all such dangers -as threatened the Ætheling Henry when he held out on the rock of Saint -Michael.[116] All the power and skill of the Red King was brought to -bear upon the ancient stronghold; but all was in vain; the castle of -Bebbe was not to be taken by any open attack. William therefore took -to slower means of warfare. He made one of those towers which were so -often made in such cases, to act as a check on the besieged castle, to -form in fact an imperfect kind of blockade. This tower must have stood -on the land side, to cut off all hope of help from any friendly -quarter. It therefore could not have stood very far from the site of -the present village; and in the fields nearly south of the castle some -faint traces of earthworks seem not unlikely to mark the site of the -tower to which the King gave the significant name of _Malvoisin_. The -new work is described as exercising all the energies of the royal -army, and as striking such fear into the hearts of the besieged that -many of Robert’s party now forsook him and entered the King’s service. -We are even told that the fierce Earl looked out from the height of -Bamburgh in all fear and sadness, crying out to his accomplices by -name to be mindful of the traitorous oaths which they had sworn to -him. The King and his friends were merry as they heard, and none of -those who were appealed to, tormented as they were with fear and -shame, went back to share the Earl’s waning fortunes. Be this as it -may, as far as open force went, Bamburgh and its lord remained -unsubdued. To bring either of them under his power, the King and his -followers were fain to have recourse to false promises and cruel -threats. - -[Sidenote: The King goes away.] - -The Evil Neighbour of Bamburgh was built; it was well stocked with -guards, arms, and victuals. But Bamburgh itself was not taken any the -more. William did not in this case, as he did in some of his -continental enterprises, throw up the whole undertaking, because he -did not succeed in the first or second attack. So to have done would -have been pretty much the same as throwing up his crown; it would have -been to unteach the great lesson of his reign, and to declare that the -Earl of the Northumbrians was stronger than the King of the English. -He might turn away in wilfulness from this or that Norman or -Cenomannian fortress which he had attacked in wilfulness; but he knew -the art of reigning better than to leave Bamburgh in the possession of -a rebel earl. The work was to go on; but he was so far tired of it -that he left it to be done by others. When the _Malvoisin_ was well -strengthened, the King turned away, and appeared no more before -Bamburgh during the rest of the campaign. - -[Sidenote: Michaelmas, 1095.] - -[Sidenote: Robert entrapped by a false message.] - -[Sidenote: He flees to Tynemouth.] - -[Sidenote: He is besieged in the monastery,] - -[Sidenote: taken, and imprisoned.] - -When Rufus left Bamburgh, he went southward; he then went to the war -in Wales, and left the garrison of the _Malvoisin_ to keep watch over -their besieged neighbour. It may be left to casuists in chivalry to -judge whether the knightly king approved of the means which were now -taken in order to entrap the besieged earl. The garrison of the New -Castle, doubtless not without the knowledge of the garrison of the -_Malvoisin_, sent a false message to Robert, saying that, if he came -thither privily, he would be received into the castle. The Earl, -naturally well pleased at such a prospect of winning back his lost -stronghold, set forth by night for the New Castle at the head of -thirty knights. The men from the _Malvoisin_ watched and followed him, -and sent to the men of the New Castle to say that he was on the way. -Knowing nothing of what was going on, Earl Robert drew near to the New -Castle on a Sunday, expecting, it would seem, to be received there -with welcome. His hopes were vain; he was taken, and the more part of -his followers also were taken, killed, or wounded. The version which -goes most into detail says that, when he saw that he was betrayed by -the garrison of the New Castle, he fled, with a part at least of his -following, to his own monastery at Tynemouth. It is not easy to see -how this could be, unless he was able either to win back the small -fortress on the neck of the monastic peninsula, or else to climb up -from the seaside at some less steep or less strongly defended point of -the height. But the tale is so told that there must be at least some -kernel of truth in it. We read that the Earl stood something like a -siege in his own monastery. He was able, with his small party, to -defend himself in it for six days, and to kill and wound many of his -assailants. At last, on the sixth day, he himself received a severe -wound in the leg; the whole of his followers were taken, some of them -also as wounded men. The Earl, himself among the latter, contrived to -drag himself to the church of his own rearing, where still lay the -body of the Scottish King whom some looked on as his victim. If claims -of sanctuary were thought of, they were not allowed, and one who had -turned the consecrated precinct into a castle had perhaps little claim -to plead such privileges, even within his own foundation. Earl Robert -was dragged away from his own church, and was kept in prison to await -the King’s pleasure. - -[Sidenote: Bamburgh defended by Matilda of Laigle.] - -[Sidenote: November, 1095.] - -[Sidenote: She yields to save her husband’s eyes.] - -[Sidenote: Later history of Robert; two versions.] - -[Sidenote: Later history of Matilda; her second marriage and divorce.] - -A tale of twenty years back now repeats itself in our story. A strong -castle is again defended by a valiant bride. As Norwich, after the -revolt and flight of Ralph of Wader, was defended by Emma of Breteuil, -so Bamburgh, after the revolt and capture of Robert of Mowbray, was -defended by Matilda of Laigle. Married just as the revolt broke out, -she had had, we are told, but little taste of joyful or peaceful -wedlock; but she was at least zealous in the cause of her husband. She -had Morel to her counsellor and captain, and the two held out in the -ancient stronghold against all attacks. It was now winter, and King -William had come back from Snowdon, not covered with much glory. He -felt no mind to renew the siege of Bamburgh in his own person; but he -bade that the captive Earl should be taken thither, and led before the -walls, with the threat to his wife and nephew that, if the castle was -not at once given up, the eyes of its lord should be then and there -seared out in their sight. To this threat Matilda and Morel yielded, -and the gates of the unconquered fortress were thrown open to the -King’s forces. The valiant Countess thus saved her husband’s eyes; but -his eyes were all that she could save. Robert was sent back to prison -at Windsor, to live in bonds, at least for a season, and in no case to -return to the rights and duties of an earl or a husband. But there are -two widely different stories as to his later fate. The local history -of Saint Alban’s told how one who, however guilty towards others, was -at least a benefactor to that house, was allowed to spend his -remaining days as a monk within its walls. At Saint Evroul a widely -different tale was believed. It was there recorded by the contemporary -writer that Robert survived his capture thirty years, but that the -whole of that time was passed in hopeless imprisonment. If so, he must -have been looked on as dangerous by the calm prudence of Henry no less -than by the wrath or the revenge of Rufus. The story indeed runs that -his imprisonment was deemed so irrevocable that it was held to amount -to a civil death. The once proud Earl of Northumberland was counted to -have passed away from among men as much as if the grave had closed -over him alongside of Malcolm in his own Tynemouth. By a special -permission from Pope Paschal, Matilda was allowed to marry again, as -though she had been his widow and not his wife. Nigel of Albini became -her second husband; but, after the death of her brother Gilbert of -Laigle, he thought he could better himself by marriage in another -quarter. His marriage with Matilda was declared void, not on the -ground that Robert was alive, but because of some kindred, real or -alleged, between Robert and Nigel. The papal dispensation must have -been badly drawn, if it did not provide for the lesser irregularity as -well as for the greater. Of Matilda we hear no more; Nigel took him -another wife of the house of Gournay. Gerard had by that time died on -his way to the crusade;[117] his widow Eadgyth had married again, and -their son Hugh was lord of Gournay. Their daughter, who inherited the -name of Gundrada from her mother’s mother, took the place of the -forsaken Matilda, who was thus left in a strange plight, as the widow, -so to speak, of two living husbands. - -[Sidenote: Morel turns King’s evidence.] - -[Sidenote: Christmas Gemót of 1095-1096.] - -[Sidenote: Adjourned from Windsor to Salisbury. January 13, 1096.] - -Meanwhile her partner in the defence of Bamburgh, Morel, the nephew -and steward of the fallen Earl, made his peace with the King by naming -all who had any share in the late conspiracy. Not a few men of high -rank, clerical and lay, were accused by him.[118] The time of the -Midwinter Gemót drew nigh, at which the offenders would regularly be -brought for trial. The King’s prisons were full,[119] and he -determined that the gaol delivery should be a striking and a solemn -one. The Assembly of that Christmas-tide was to be a _Mickle Gemót_ -indeed, a Gemót like those which had gathered in King Eadward’s day -beneath the walls of London and in King William’s day upon the plain -of Salisbury. A summons of special urgency went forth, bidding all men -who held any land of the King, if they wished to be deemed worthy of -the King’s peace, to come to his court at the appointed time.[120] The -call was answered. The appointed place of meeting was Windsor, and -there the Assembly came together. But the business to be done needed a -longer time than the usual twelve days of Christmas, and the gathering -was greater than the royal castle and its courts could hold. The work -began at Windsor; but an adjournment was needed, and on the octave of -the Epiphany in the opening year we find the King and his Witan at -Salisbury.[121] The wide fields which had seen the great review and -the great homage in the days of the elder William could alone hold the -crowd which came together to share in the great court of doom which -was now holden by the younger. - - * * * * * - -[Sidenote: Constitutional importance of the meeting.] - -[Sidenote: Continuance of the old forms.] - -[Sidenote: Import of the summons.] - -[Sidenote: Tenants-in-chief only summoned.] - -[Sidenote: Their great number.] - -[Sidenote: Comparison with the Conqueror’s Gemót at Salisbury.] - -[Sidenote: Effects of the practice of summons.] - -[Sidenote: Action of the Assembly.] - -[Sidenote: No general sympathy with the accused.] - -The Gemót of this winter, and specially the strict general summons -sent forth by the King, are of high constitutional importance. They -show how, even under such a king as Rufus, the old constitutional -forms went on. They show how great is the error of those who dream -that the Norman kingship in England was as thorough a despotism in -form as it undoubtedly was in substance. In the eleventh century, as -in the sixteenth, the whole future of English history turned on the -fact that constitutional forms still went on, that assemblies were -still brought together, even if they came together for little more -than to register the edicts of the King.[122] So now Rufus himself, -when about to make a great display of kingly power, specially summons -no small part of the nation to take a share in his acts. On the one -hand, the need of the summons shows that, unless at some specially -exciting moment, men did not flock eagerly to such gatherings.[123] On -the other hand, the fact of the summons shows that kings then knew, -that Rufus himself knew, that the gathering of such an assembly was -both a sign and a source, not of weakness but of strength, on the part -of the kingly power.[124] But in the form of the summons we may see -that the assembly, though still large, is gradually narrowing. The -summons goes, not to all freemen, not to all land-owners, but only to -the King’s tenants-in-chief. These, it must be remembered, were a very -large body, including land-owners on every scale, from the greatest to -the smallest. And it must be further remembered that in this body a -vast majority of the influential members were strangers by birth, but -that a great numerical proportion, most likely a numerical majority, -were natives. The King’s thegn, who had kept a scrap of his old -estate, was as much a member of the court as Earl Hugh of Shrewsbury -or Earl Walter of Buckingham, though he was not so likely to be -listened to in any debate that might arise as Earl Hugh or Earl Walter -was. Still the special summons to the King’s tenants-in-chief marks a -change; it marks the growth of the new ideas. The immediate reason was -doubtless to be found in the main object for which the Assembly came -together. The main work of the earlier Gemót of Salisbury was that all -men in the realm, of whatever lord they held, should become the men of -the King. William the Great therefore summoned the men of other lords, -who had not up to that moment been his own men, who owed obedience to -him as head of the kingdom, but who was not bound to him by any more -personal tie. He summoned them in order that they might bind -themselves to him by that personal tie, that they might become his men -as well as his subjects. But the main work of the present Gemót was to -sit in judgement on a crowd of offenders, of various ranks and orders, -but all of whom were likely to be tenants-in-chief of the King. -According to the notions which were coming in, the right court -for their trial was the court of their peers, their fellow -tenants-in-chief. The King, who could summon whom he would, who -sometimes summoned few and sometimes many, this time, for this special -purpose, summoned the whole body of his tenants-in-chief, great and -small, and summoned no others. But, as every summons tends practically -to the exclusion of those who are not summoned, this summons of a -particular class marks a stage in the process by which the Assembly -shrank up from the crowd which decreed the restoration of Godwine to a -House of Lords of the reign of Henry the Eighth.[125] Still the actual -gathering, even of the summoned members only, must have been very -great. When it came together, the Assembly must have followed the same -law as all other assemblies of that age. Practically it decreed as the -King willed; only a few of the great men were likely to say anything -to guide the King’s will; the mass of the assembly were not likely to -do more than to make the King’s acts their own by crying Yea, Yea. We -must however remember that they had not the slightest temptation to -cry Nay, Nay. The mass of the inhabitants of the land, Norman and -English alike, were not likely to have the faintest sympathy with any -one who really had a share in the late treason. The only question was -whether any were accused who had no share in it. In the case of those -who were charged only with conspiracy and not with open revolt, this -might easily be. Otherwise the Red King, in the vengeance which he now -took, did no more than justice, as justice was deemed in his day. But -his justice was far sharper than the justice of the old kings, far -sharper than the justice of his father. And the tone in which the -story is told implies that men at the time felt that it was so. - - * * * * * - -[Sidenote: Sickness of the Bishop of Durham.] - -[Sidenote: Portents foretelling his death.] - -[Sidenote: His work at Durham. 1083. 1093.] - -[Sidenote: He is summoned to take his trial.] - -[Sidenote: He sickens and dies. December 25, 1095-January 1, 1096.] - -[Sidenote: His death-bed.] - -[Sidenote: Debate as to his burying-place.] - -[Sidenote: He is buried in the chapter-house.] - -One of the great men of the realm, who, whether guilty or not, seems -to have been at least suspected, died, while the Assembly was in -session, before any formal charge had been brought against him. Before -the Bishop of Durham came to Windsor, it was known in his own diocese -that he had not long to live. One of his knights, Boso by name, had, -while lying under a dangerous sickness, been favoured with trances and -visions, which told him much that was comforting about the monks of -Durham, and much that was fearful about other folk. He saw the old -inhabitants of the land, he saw the new French settlers, above all, he -saw the priests’ wives――these seem to be looked on as three classes of -offenders, gradually increasing in blackness――suffering each a -grievous doom.[126] His visions about the Bishop himself might perhaps -point to an intermediate destiny; at all events they were understood -as implying his speedy death.[127] His work perhaps was done. Thirteen -years before he had filled the church of Durham with monks;[128] three -years before he had begun the great work of its rebuilding; and, by -pressing it on with almost incredible speed, he had carried it on so -far as to set an example of unsurpassed grandeur in its own style, an -example which his own monks could not follow, but which Randolf -Flambard could.[129] William of Saint-Calais came to the Gemót, and -was summoned by the King to appear to take his trial.[130] He pleaded -sickness as his excuse for not appearing. Rufus declared, with his -usual oath, that the excuse was a feigned one.[131] It was however -thoroughly real. Bishop William was sick, and sick unto death. He was -smitten on the day of the Nativity, and died on the day of the -Circumcision.[132] He was comforted in his sickness by the presence -and exhortations of several of his brother bishops who had come -together for the business of the Assembly. There was Anselm whom he -had withstood at Rockingham; there was his own metropolitan Thomas; -there was Walkelin of Winchester; there was John of Bath, born, like -himself and Anselm, beyond the bounds either of England or of -Normandy. These prelates debated concerning the place of his burial. -They argued that he who had done such great things for Saint -Cuthberht’s abbey should be buried in the place of highest honour -within its walls. He himself declined any such place. He would be no -party to any breach of Saint Cuthberht’s own rule, which forbade that -any man should be buried within his minster.[133] The bishops -therefore ruled that he should be buried in the chapter-house, so that -his monks, when they came together, should have the tomb of their -founder ever before their eyes.[134] So it was; he was borne to -Durham, and there laid in the place which the bishops had chosen for -him, among the tears and wailings of the brotherhood which he had -founded, any one of whom, we are told, would gladly have died for -him.[135] - - * * * * * - -[Sidenote: Sentences of the Gemót.] - -[Sidenote: Hugh of Shrewsbury buys his pardon.] - -[Sidenote: Roger of Lacy.] - -[Sidenote: January 13, 1097.] - -[Sidenote: Combat of Geoffrey of Baynard and William of Eu.] - -This touching picture of the death which ended the varied life of -William of Saint-Calais comes as an episode in the middle of the stern -doings of the Gemót of Windsor and Salisbury. The Red King did not -bear the sword in vain. Yet, if his justice was sharp towards those -whom it did smite, it was certainly somewhat capricious, or at least -guided by expediency, with regard to those whom it smote and those -whom it failed to smite. Some of the offenders were men of the highest -rank, some even, it is implied, of the rank of Earl. But these -powerful rebels, ashamed and weakened by the fall of their brother of -Northumberland, were now deemed fitting objects of mercy. By the -advice of the Wise Men, they were spared a public trial;[136] but some -of them were made to pay a heavy price for being left safe in life, -limb, and estate. One is mentioned by name. Earl Hugh of Shrewsbury, -who was at least suspected of a share in the plot, was dealt with -privately by the King as his father had been at Arundel.[137] He -bought his restoration to favour at the high price of three thousand -pounds.[138] Roger of Lacy lost his lands and was banished, as he -would have been in the days of King Eadward, and his possessions were -given to his loyal brother Hugh. But heavier penalties, unknown in -King Eadward’s days, were in store for others of the conspirators, -including one of the loftiest descent. At the adjourned meeting at -Salisbury, Geoffrey of Baynard, bearing a name famous in London city, -appealed no less a man than William of Eu of treason against the King, -of conspiring to slay him, and to give his crown to Stephen of -Champagne.[139] The charge was denied, and, as both parties were -Frenchmen, the trial was, by the law of the Conqueror, referred to the -wager of battle. The judicial combat which followed is memorable in -the history of the time, and forms one of the landmarks in our early -jurisprudence. - -[Sidenote: Defeat of William of Eu.] - -[Sidenote: Sentence of mutilation on William of Eu.] - -[Sidenote: Urged by Hugh of Chester.] - -[Sidenote: Feeling with regard to mutilation.] - -On the plain of Salisbury the combatants met, and William of Eu was -overthrown.[140] By the laws of the combat his defeat was full -evidence of his guilt. But what was to be his punishment? Save the -case of the beheading of Waltheof, there was no precedent in the -ordinary jurisprudence either of England or of Normandy for any -sentence harsher than banishment, forfeiture, and imprisonment.[141] -The older English precedents went for banishment and forfeiture. The -precedents of Normandy and of Norman rule in England went for -imprisonment, such an imprisonment, it might be, as that of Robert of -Mowbray. For the course actually taken there was no precedent in -either land, unless it were the dealings of Harold the son of Cnut -with the Ætheling Ælfred.[142] The punishment decreed was that of -bodily mutilation. It is said that this course was proposed by Earl -Hugh of Chester, and that on a singular ground. William of Eu was the -husband of the Earl’s sister――her name is not mentioned. He had -neglected his wife, while he had three children by a mistress.[143] If -this was to be ground for the loss of eyes or limbs, the brothers of -the Countess Ermentrude would have had a right to demand that the -portly person of Earl Hugh should be cut down to a shapeless -trunk.[144] Mutilation, it should be remembered, was a familiar -punishment, a punishment which in that generation aroused no horror -when the persons so dealt with were held to be real criminals.[145] -But, with that common inconsistency which reverses the sound rule of -smiting the leaders and sparing the commons, mutilation, death, or any -heavy punishment, seems always to have aroused horror, or at least -amazement, when it was inflicted on any criminal of lofty rank. Such -things had been done in the isle of Britain and out of it, but hardly -by the solemn sentence of the King of the English at the head of his -Witan. But now William of Eu was blinded, and underwent a fouler -mutilation as well.[146] His sentence was seemingly carried out at -Salisbury, perhaps in sight of the assembly. Are we to infer that any -show of indignation was called forth by the bloody sight, when we read -directly afterwards that some of the lord of Eu’s fellow-sufferers -were taken to London, and were blinded or otherwise mutilated -there?[147] - -[Sidenote: Story of Arnulf of Hesdin.] - -[Sidenote: His innocence proved by battle.] - -[Sidenote: He goes to the Crusade,] - -[Sidenote: and dies.] - -If we may trust a tale to be found in one of those secondary writers -who often preserve scraps of truth, another accused man appealed to -the wager of battle with better luck than William of Eu. This was -Arnulf of Hesdin, a man whose name is familiar enough to us in -Domesday, though it does not call up any distinct personal idea like -the King’s unlucky kinsman.[148] He is set before us as a man of great -bodily stature, brave and active, and in the enjoyment of large -possessions, out of which he and his wife Emmeline had made gifts to -the abbey of Gloucester.[149] He was charged, unjustly and enviously -we are told, with the same crime as the rest.[150] He defended himself -by his champion, who proved his lord’s innocence by overthrowing a man -of the King’s who was matched against him.[151] But Arnulf was so -stirred up with wrath and grief at the unjust charge, that, -notwithstanding the King’s entreaties to stay, he threw up all the -lands that he held of him, and left England for ever.[152] Before the -end of the year, the Crusade offered him worthy occupation elsewhere. -He marched with the Christian host as far as Antioch; he there fell -sick, and declined all medical help; none should heal him save Him for -whose sake he had gone on pilgrimage. Arnulf, professing the opposite -doctrine to Asa of Judah, fared no better than that king. Antioch was -the last stage reached by the armed pilgrim of Hesdin.[153] - -[Sidenote: Confiscation of lands.] - -[Sidenote: William of Alderi is condemned to death.] - -[Sidenote: The King refuses to spare him.] - -[Sidenote: His pious end.] - -Arnulf, according to this story, became landless, as far as England -was concerned, by his own act. Others underwent the same loss by -sentence, it seems, of the Assembly. Count Odo of Champagne and many -others lost their lands.[154] In one case only does death seem to have -been inflicted. William of Alderi, cousin and steward of William of -Eu, was, as the Chronicle tells us, “hanged on rood.”[155] This -somewhat startling formula doubtless means nothing but ordinary -hanging; but it seemingly marks hanging of any kind as something which -was not ordinary. As to the guilt or innocence of William of Alderi we -have contradictory accounts. One weighty authority declares him to -have been a sharer in the plot.[156] Others class him among many brave -and guiltless men who were ruined by the charges brought by Morel and -by Geoffrey of Baynard.[157] Guilty or innocent, he was, we are told, -a man of high birth, goodly presence, and lofty spirit.[158] He was -moreover the King’s gossip, bound to him by the same tie which bound -Morel to Malcolm. We thus incidentally learn that there were those -whom William Rufus had held at the font, and for whose Christian faith -and Christian life he had pledged himself. But the spiritual kindred -went for nothing with the Red King. Many of the great men are said to -have earnestly begged for the life of William of Alderi, and to have -striven to move the King’s greed by a mighty bribe. The Conqueror had -refused Harold’s weight in gold as the price of his Christian burial; -his son refused three times the weight of William of Alderi, both in -gold and in silver, as the price of his life.[159] Why Rufus was so -bent on his death does not appear; but nothing could move him. It -marks the way in which the King’s will practically ordered everything, -even in so great an assembly of the realm as that which had now come -together, that William of Alderi was condemned and hanged without any -attempt to rescue him, though many believed him to be guiltless, and -though powerful men were eager to save him. When hope was gone, he -made an ending at once as pious and, according to the ideas of other -ages, more manly than the ending of Waltheof. He confessed his sins to -Bishop Osmund, and was, seemingly at his own asking, scourged in the -new-built minster and the other churches of the city on the waterless -hill.[160] Then he gave away his clothes to the poor, and went naked -or slightly clad to the place of hanging, staining his limbs with -blood by often kneeling on the rough stones.[161] The Bishop and a -crowd of people followed him to the place. He then made the most -solemn protestations of his innocence. The Bishop sprinkled him with -holy water, said the commendatory prayer, and then withdrew.[162] It -was not for Osmund of Salisbury, whatever it might have been for Odo -of Bayeux or Geoffrey of Coutances, to look on what was next to come. -The work of death was then done, and all who beheld wondered that not -a groan escaped the victim as death drew near, and not a sigh in the -act of dying.[163] - -[Sidenote: Last days of William of Eu.] - -[Sidenote: End of Morel.] - -There was thus a marked difference in the fate of the kinsmen and -chief officers of the two leaders, if leaders they both were, in the -conspiracy. The steward and cousin of William of Eu was done to death, -while his master underwent a fate which to modern ideas seems worse -than death. We are not told how long William of Eu lived on in -blindness and misery; but his punishment did not involve forfeiture, -at all events not corruption of blood; for a few years later we find -his son Henry in possession of his county.[164] The steward and nephew -of Robert of Mowbray seems to have gained but little by the act which, -if it were formally allowed to be loyalty to the King, was likely to -be far more commonly looked on as treason to his immediate lord. When -he saw that his kinsman and master was condemned to life-long bonds, -he left England, and died in banishment, poor and hated of all -men.[165] - - -§ 3. _The Conquest and Revolt of Wales._ - -1093-1097. - -[Sidenote: Relations with Wales.] - -[Sidenote: Nature of the Welsh wars of Rufus.] - -[Sidenote: Territorial advance and military ill-success.] - -[Sidenote: Effect of the building of castles.] - -These years, so rich in events in Scotland and on the English lands -nearest to the Scottish border, were at least equally rich in events -on the other border of the English kingdom, towards the lands which -were still held by the remnant of our British predecessors. Wars with -the Welsh may be looked for, as a matter of course, in every reign -during this period; but in the reign of William Rufus such wars form a -special feature, and the position which they hold is a little -singular. It is plain from the records of the time, it is still -plainer from the results, that this reign was a time of great and -lasting advance at the cost of the Britons. It was the time when large -parts of Wales were more or less fully brought under the authority of -the English crown. It is still more distinctly the time when Norman -adventurers, subjects of the English crown, carved out for themselves, -as its vassals, possessions and lordships within the British land. Yet -the first impression which we draw from the writers who record the -British warfare of this reign is that it was a time of ill success on -the English side, especially in those campaigns in which the King -himself took a part. The Chronicler records an expedition, and he -sends up a wail at its ill luck. Nothing came of it; horses and men -not a few were lost; the Welsh escaped to their moors and mountains -where no man might come at them. One chief is put to flight in a -battle, but the others go on doing mischief all the same.[166] The -same story comes almost every year; one would think that the warfare -of the Red King with the Welsh was a warfare than which none was ever -more bootless. And a historian who aspires to more of critical and -philosophical insight sums up the whole British warfare of the reign -as a distinct case of failure.[167] Yet it is clear from the result -that it was not so. And one passage in the Chronicle seems to give us -the key to the whole matter. “When the King saw that he could there -further nothing of his will, he came back into this land, and took -rede that he might let make castles on the borders.”[168] An -expedition which seemed mere failure, in which many men and horses -were lost, while the Welsh escaped to moors and mountains with hardly -any loss at all, was really successful in the long run, if it led to -the building of a border castle. The Britons fled unhurt to their -mountains; but while they lurked in the fastnesses where none might -come at them, the most valuable part of their land was taken from them -bit by bit. When they came down again from the mountains, they found a -castle built, they found so much land as the castle could protect -changed into a settlement of strangers. The lands might be harried; -the castle might at some favourable moment be broken down; but it was -sure to spring up again and again to do its work. The lasting -possession of the fertile land had passed away to the invaders; the -moors and mountains alone were left to the sons of the soil. - -[Sidenote: Welsh campaigns of Harold and of William Rufus.] - -[Sidenote: Use of horses.] - -[Sidenote: Immediate defeat and lasting success.] - -[Sidenote: Different objects of Harold and Rufus.] - -The mention of these Welsh wars naturally carries us back to the -thought of the great Welsh campaign of a generation earlier. We see -how true, from one point of view, was the saying of the next century -that none since Harold had known how to deal with the Welsh as Harold -had known.[169] As a matter of military success, the failures of -William Rufus stand out in marked contrast to the victories of Harold. -The Red King had no pillars to set up to mark where he had overcome -the Briton in open fight.[170] A single word helps us to at least one -part of the cause. Harold, in his victorious campaign, must have -undergone some loss of men, but he underwent no loss of horses. He -found that the English tactics were not suited for British warfare, -and he made his housecarls turn themselves into light-armed -Welshmen.[171] But the Norman tactics were still less suited for -British warfare than the English. There were places in the moors and -mountains which the mailed housecarl might reach, if with difficulty, -but which the mounted knight could not reach at all. But William Rufus -does not seem to have suited his tactics to the country as Harold had -done; the mention of horses suggests that he repeated the old mistake -of Ralph the Timid in a worse shape.[172] As a matter of fighting -then, Rufus failed where Harold had succeeded; but as a matter of -enduring conquest, the failures of Rufus did more than the successes -of Harold. Harold indeed had no general schemes of Welsh conquest. He -overthrew the Welsh; but, except in the districts which were -definitely ceded to England,[173] he made no attempt to occupy Wales. -He gave back the land whose people he had overcome to princes of their -own blood, bound to him simply by their oath of homage.[174] But -wherever Rufus or his lords planted a castle, there was at once a -piece of Welsh soil occupied, and a centre made ready for occupying -more. The object of Harold in short was simply the defence of England; -the object of William Rufus was the conquest of Wales. - -[Sidenote: Comparison of the conquest of Wales with the English and -Norman Conquests.] - -[Sidenote: Geographical conditions of the conquest.] - -[Sidenote: Extension of England by conquest and settlement.] - -[Sidenote: Various elements in Wales.] - -[Sidenote: The Flemings.] - -[Sidenote: Endurance of the Welsh language.] - -The conquest which now began, that which we may call either the -English or the Norman Conquest of Wales, differed widely both from the -English Conquest of Britain and from the Norman Conquest of England. -It wrought far less change than the landing at Ebbsfleet; it wrought -far more change than the landing at Pevensey. The Briton of those -lands which in the Red King’s day were still British was gradually -conquered; he was gradually brought under English rule and English -law; but he was neither exterminated nor enslaved nor wholly -assimilated. He still abides in his ancient land, still speaking his -ancient tongue. The English or Norman Conquest of Wales was not a -national migration, like the English Conquest of Britain. Nor was it a -conquest wrought under the guise of an elaborate legal fiction, like -the Norman Conquest of England. William Rufus did not ask the people -of Wales to receive him as their own lawful king; he did not give -himself out to all mankind as the true heir of Gruffydd the son of -Llywelyn, defrauded of his rights by perjured usurpers. Europe had -passed the stage at which a conquest of the earlier kind was possible; -and there was in this case no excuse or opportunity for a conquest of -the later kind. William Rufus was not a man to seek, like his father, -to justify his acts by legal fictions; nor had he the same room for -devising them as his father had. He had doubtless, with the crown of -the Old-English kings, inherited their claims to Imperial supremacy -over the whole island; he called himself “Monarch of Britain” no less -than the kings who had gone before him.[175] But that monarchy gave -him no claim to bring the lands of his subordinate princes under his -immediate rule. If an invasion of Wales needed any justification in -the eyes of William Rufus and his barons, that justification would -take the shape of reprisals. We may be sure that there was no moment -when the men on the border, either on the English or the Welsh side, -could not have brought some complaint against the other side which -might have been deemed to justify reprisals by a more scrupulous -prince than the Red King. But for men like the Norman adventurers of -his day it was enough that a land adjoining to the land which they had -made their own lay open to be conquered. Therein lay another great -difference between this conquest and either of the other two conquests -with which we have compared it, in the fact that the land to be won -lay adjoining to the land which was already won. The Angles and Saxons -wholly forsook their old homes beyond the sea, and, if the Normans in -England did not in the same way wholly forsake theirs, the sea at -least rolled between the old home and the new. But the Norman whose -lot was cast on the Welsh frontier of England had nothing to do but to -press on from the point where he already was. He had simply to add on -the next field to his own field, subject to such resistance as the -actual occupiers of the next field might be able to make. From this -geographical cause, while the Norman Conquest of England was in no -sense an extension of Normandy, the English or Norman Conquest of -Wales was in every sense an extension of England. The Normans in -England did not bring Normandy with them; they had from the very -beginning to put on more or less fully the character of Englishmen, -and to live according to English law. But the Norman who from England -went on into Wales had no thought of putting on the character of a -Welshman or of living according to Welsh law. Wherever he settled, he -most truly carried England with him, such as England had been made -through his own coming. But then for a long time he settled only here -and there in the British land. Where he did settle, the speech, the -laws, the national life, of the Briton passed away in such sort as the -speech, the laws, the national life, of the Englishman never at any -moment passed away from England. But alongside of these conquered -districts there long remained independent districts, where the natives -under their native princes still bade defiance to the invaders. -England had already an uniform aspect; it was the old England with -certain changes; its laws were the laws of King Eadward with the -amendments of King William. Wales, for a long while after the time -with which we are now dealing, was as far from uniformity as any land -east of the Hadriatic. Here was the castle of the Norman lord, with -his following, Norman, English, Flemish, anything but British. Here -was the newly-founded town, with its free burghers, again Norman, -English, Flemish, anything but British. Here again was a whole -district from which the Briton had passed away as thoroughly as he had -passed away from Kent or Norfolk, but which the Norman had not taken -into his own hands. He had found that it suited his purpose to leave -it in the hands of the hardy and industrious Fleming, the last wave of -Low-Dutch occupation in the isle of Britain. And alongside of all, -there was the still independent Briton, still keeping his moors and -mountains, still ready to pour down from them upon the richer lands -which had been his fathers’, but which had passed into the stranger’s -grasp. Those days have long passed away; for three centuries and more -Briton and Englishmen have been willing members of a common state, -willing subjects of a common sovereign. But the memory of those days -has not passed away; it abides in the most living of all witnesses. -England has for ages spoken a single tongue, her own ancient speech, -modified by the coming of the conquerors of eight hundred years ago. -But in Wales the speech of her conquerors, the speech of England, is -still only making its way, slowly and fitfully, against the abiding -resistance of that stubborn British tongue which has survived _three_ -conquests.[176] - -[Sidenote: Local nomenclature of Wales.] - -[Sidenote: Contrast with that of England.] - -[Sidenote: Teutonic and French names.] - -[Sidenote: Places bearing two names.] - -The results of this state of things, where so many contending elements -so long stood side by side, are still to be seen on the face of the -British land. The local nomenclature of Wales tells a wholly different -tale from that of England. In England the nomenclature is everywhere -essentially Teutonic; we might say that it is everywhere essentially -English; for the names given by the Danes form one class along with -those given by the Angles and Saxons, as opposed either to Celtic -survivals or to Romance intruders. Both these two last classes are in -England mere exceptions to the general law of Teutonic nomenclature. -But in Wales, while the great majority of the names are Celtic, the -Teutonic names are somewhat more than exceptions. In some districts, -as I have already said, they are the all but invariable rule. French -names, too, though not very common, are, I think, less rare than in -England. Nothing is more common than for a place to bear different -names, according as English or Welsh is spoken. And these names -sometimes translate one another, and sometimes do not. All this is -natural in a land where distinct and hostile races so long dwelled -side by side, each one a thorn in the side of the others. It marks a -kind of conquest different alike from the conquest where the conquered -vanish from the soil and from the conquest where they swallow up their -conquerors. - -[Sidenote: The Welsh castles.] - -[Sidenote: Lack of castles in England.] - -[Sidenote: Houses in England.] - -[Sidenote: Border castles.] - -[Sidenote: The Welsh towns.] - -There is again a visible feature, one so characteristic of the scenery -of Wales as to be all but a natural feature, which arises out of the -nature of the conquest with which we have now to deal. The traveller -who comes back, I will not say from the land of the Grey Leagues, but -from that nearer land of Maine with which our tale will soon have so -much to do, to one of the hilly districts of England, feels something -missing in the landscape, or in the memories called up by the -landscape. On the isolated hill, on the bluff which ends the long -ridge, he comes instinctively to look for the shattered castle or for -the lines which show that the castle once stood there. It is one of -the special signs of what English history has been, one of the signs -which should make us thankful that it has been what it has been, that -in England those bluffs, those island hills, on which the castle or -its traces can still be seen, are in truth few and far between. After -all that we hear of castles and castle-builders, the castle was, at -any moment of English history save the nineteen years of anarchy, a -rare thing in England compared to what it was in other lands. Save -where there was a town to protect or to keep in obedience, save where -there was some special post of military strength that needed to be -guarded, the lord of an English lordship, in whichever host his -forefather had fought on Senlac, found that a simple manor, sheltered -perhaps by some slight defence, served his purpose as well as the -threatening tower. On all the borderlands it was otherwise; the -pele-tower of the north is but the Norman keep on a miniature scale. -And, above all, Wales is, as every one knows, pre-eminently the land -of castles. Through those districts with which we are specially -concerned, castles, great and small, or the ruins or traces of such -castles, meet us at every step. It was needful to strengthen every -height, to guard every pass, while the moors and mountains, the -Asturias or the Tzernagora of the Cymry, still remained unsubdued. The -castles are in truth the leading architectural features of the -country; the churches, mostly small and plain, might themselves, with -their fortified towers, almost count as castles. The towns, almost -always of English foundation, were mostly small; they were military -colonies rather than seats of commerce. As Wales had no immemorial -cities like Exeter and Lincoln, so she had no towns which sprang up -into greatness in later times, like Bristol, Norwich, and Coventry. -Every memorial of former days which we see in the British land reminds -us how long warfare remained the daily business alike of the men of -that land and of the strangers who had made their way into it at the -sword’s point. - - * * * * * - -[Sidenote: Advance before the accession of Rufus.] - -[Sidenote: Robert of Rhuddlan.] - -[Sidenote: Rhys ap Tewdwr.] - -[Sidenote: Saint David’s robbed by pirates. 1091.] - -We have seen that neither the days of Eadward nor the days of the -elder William were days of peace along the Welsh border. The English -frontier had advanced during both reigns. Rhuddlan,[177] -Montgomery,[178] Cardiff,[179] had become border fortresses of -England. An indefinite tract of North Wales was held by Robert of -Rhuddlan;[180] Radnor was an English possession;[181] the followers of -Earl Roger of Montgomery had harried as far as the peninsula of -Dyfed.[182] The whole land seems to have made some kind of submission -to William the Great at the time when he made his pilgrimage to Saint -David’s, and set free so many of his captive subjects.[183] But real -conquest does not seem to have gone very far beyond the border -fortresses, as within the _march_ of the Marquess of Rhuddlan it did -not go very far from the coast. In the days of the rebellion we have -seen that the hearts of the Cymry rose again, and that they again -ventured on offensive warfare with no small effect. They and their -Scandinavian allies had broken the power and taken away the life of -the man who had so long kept their northern tribes in awe. In that -work we have seen that Rhys ap Tewdwr, the King of Deheubarth, whose -dominions took in the greater part of South Wales, had a hand.[184] -Under him Cedivor seems to have been the vassal prince of Dyfed. The -reign of Cedivor ended in a time of misfortune, ominous of greater -misfortunes to come. The shrine of Saint David was robbed. The holy -bishop Sulien died, and presently his church and city, the holy place -of Saint David, were again sacked by the pagans of the isles.[185] Is -this simply a traditional way of speaking of Scandinavian invaders, or -were there still any wild wikings who avowedly clave to the faith of -Odin? Then Cedivor himself died, and his sons revolted against their -over-lord Rhys, but were again overthrown.[186] This was the year of -the Red King’s siege of Saint Michael’s Mount, the year of his journey -to the North; and one account hints that the movements in Wales as -well as in Scotland had a share in bringing him back from the -mainland.[187] But it is not till two years later that Welsh warfare -began to put on enough of importance for its details to be recorded by -English writers. - - [Illustration: - Map illustrating the - WELSH WARS OF HENRY AND WILLIAM RUFUS. - _Edwᵈ. Weller_ - _For the Delegates of the Clarendon Press._] - -[Sidenote: Beginning of the Conquest of South Wales. 1093.] - -[Sidenote: Legend of the conquest of Glamorgan.] - -It seems to have been in the year of Anselm’s appointment, the year of -Malcolm’s death, that the conquest of South Wales began in earnest. It -seems now to have been for the first time taken up by the King as part -of the affairs of his kingdom. But the geography of the campaign shows -that a gradual advance must have already begun along the south coast. -Our public entries are concerned only with the land stretching nearly -due west, from the mountains of Brecknock and Abergavenny to the -Land’s End of Saint David’s. This leaves out the sea-land which, with -the bold curve of its coast, projects to the south, the land of -Morganwg or Glamorgan. Yet it may be taken as a matter of course that -this land was not left to be won later than inland Brecheiniog and far -distant Dyfed. The unlucky thing is that, while the conquest of -Brecheiniog and Dyfed is recorded in notices which, though meagre -enough, are fully trustworthy as far as they go, the conquest of -Morganwg, strangely left out in all authentic records, has become the -subject of an elaborate romance which has stepped into the empty place -of the missing history. The romance is, as usual, the invention of -pedigree-makers, working, after their manner, to exalt the glory and -increase the antiquity of this and that local family. This is perhaps -the meanest of the many forms of falsehood against which the historian -has to strive; but it is also one of the strongest and most abiding, -and one which is specially strong and abiding on the northern coast of -the Bristol Channel.[188] - -[Sidenote: Story of Jestin and Einion.] - -[Sidenote: Story of Robert Fitz-hamon and his knights.] - -[Sidenote: Einion recalls Robert.] - -[Sidenote: Division of Glamorgan.] - -[Sidenote: Share kept by the children of Jestin.] - -The legend pieces itself on to that point of the genuine history when -the sons of Cedivor were defeated by Rhys ap Tewdwr. A brother of -Cedivor, Einion by name, who had been in the service of either the -elder or the younger William, and had served the King in his -continental wars, now flees to another enemy of Rhys, Jestin son of -Gwrgan, described as prince of Gwent and Morganwg.[189] Jestin -promises his daughter to Einion with an ample estate, if he can obtain -help from England against the common enemy Rhys. This, it is supposed, -Einion’s friendship with the King and his knights will enable him to -do. Nor was Jestin’s hope disappointed. No less a man than Robert -Fitz-hamon hearkened to the invitation of Einion; he set out at the -head of a company of twelve knights and their followers to give help -to the prince of Morganwg. Their joint forces overcame Rhys in a -battle on the borders of Brecheiniog, and Rhys himself, flying from -the field, was taken and beheaded. His kinsmen and followers seem to -have been killed or dispersed, and we are told that Robert Fitz-hamon -and his companions, being well paid for their services by Jestin, went -away towards London. Then Einion demands his reward; but Jestin says -that he will not give either his daughter or his land to a traitor. -Then Einion persuades Robert and his companions to come back, and take -Jestin’s dominions for themselves. They are of course in no way -unwilling; and they are joined by some of Jestin’s Welsh enemies. -Jestin is driven out, and his land is partitioned. The rough mountain -land is assigned to Einion and his Welsh companions, and Einion also -marries Nest the daughter of Jestin. Robert Fitz-hamon and his twelve -knights divide the fertile vale of Glamorgan among them. Each man -establishes himself in a lordship and castle, and all do homage to -Robert as lord of Glamorgan, holding his chief seat in his castle of -Cardiff. But, while the traitor Einion obtains so sorry a portion, a -son of Jestin is admitted to a share in the rich vale, and is allowed -to hand on his lordship to his descendants. Another of the family, a -grandson of Jestin, Gruffydd son of Rhydderch, refuses to submit, -withstands the invaders in arms, contrives to defend Caerleon, and to -hand on to his son Caradoc a principality in Gwent, seemingly east of -the Usk. - - * * * * * - -[Sidenote: Estimate of the story.] - -[Sidenote: Elements of truth.] - -[Sidenote: Settlement of Robert Fitz-hamon at Cardiff.] - -[Sidenote: Legendary names in the list.] - -[Sidenote: Question of Jestin’s descendants.] - -Now how much of this story is to be believed? Jestin is a most shadowy -being, of whom personally nothing is recorded. But there is evidence -enough for the existence of his descendants, and for their retention -of an important lordship in Glamorgan.[190] This may make us inclined -to put some faith in the account of the transactions between Jestin, -Einion, and Robert Fitz-hamon. The general outline of the tale is -perfectly possible, except the very unlikely story that Robert or any -other Norman, when once standing in arms on British or any other -ground, simply marched out again after receiving a fair day’s wages -for a fair day’s work. That Robert Fitz-hamon did conquer Glamorgan -and establish himself at Cardiff cannot be doubted. The settlement of -some of his followers is equally historical; but the list of them as -given in the legend is untrustworthy, as containing names of families -which did not appear in the district till later. That the Normans were -invited by a Welsh prince to help him against his enemies, and that -they then took his lands to themselves, is quite possible, though the -story rests on no certain evidence. That the Norman invaders took the -valuable land, the fertile vale, to themselves, and left the rugged -mountains to the Britons, is doubtless a true description of the -general result, though it is not likely to have been caused by any -formal division. The only thing to suggest such a division is the -portion which was kept by the descendants of Jestin. But such an -anomaly as this last might be accounted for in various ways. The -defeat and death of Rhys in Brecheiniog is beyond doubt, and it is not -unlikely that Robert Fitz-hamon may have had a hand in it; but at all -events the date is utterly wrong.[191] The most unlikely part of the -story is that which describes a grandson of Jestin as founding a -principality in that part of Gwent which had already long been an -English possession. This story might almost seem to be a confusion -with an event of earlier times. We are tempted to think that the -Caradoc son of Gruffydd and grandson of Rhydderch, who now settles -himself in Gwent, is a mythical repetition of the Caradoc son of -Gruffydd and grandson of Rhydderch who destroyed King Eadward’s -hunting-seat at Portskewet.[192] - -[Sidenote: Robert Fitz-hamon;] - -[Sidenote: other notices of him.] - -[Sidenote: He holds the lands of Brihtric.] - -[Sidenote: He marries Earl Roger’s daughter.] - -[Sidenote: Marriage of his daughter to Robert of Gloucester.] - -[Sidenote: His works at Gloucester and Tewkesbury.] - -[Sidenote: Grant of Welsh churches to English monasteries.] - -[Sidenote: Conquest of Glamorgan.] - -[Sidenote: Building of castles.] - -Robert Fitz-hamon, conqueror of Glamorgan――for of his right to that -title there is no doubt――has his place in the history of this reign -and of the early years of the next. We have already heard of him as -one of the few faithful among the Normans in England at the time of -the great rebellion against the present King.[193] Son or grandson of -the famous rebel of Val-ès-dunes,[194] he had an elder brother of his -father’s name, who appears, with the title of _Dapifer_, among the -land-owners of eastern England.[195] He had himself, at one time in -the present reign, received those lands which had once been -Brihtric’s, which had then been Queen Matilda’s, and which had been -afterwards held or claimed by the Ætheling Henry.[196] These made him -great in the shires of Gloucester and Somerset, shires from which he -might look with a longing eye towards the lands beyond the Severn and -the Severn sea. To these, it appears, was added the honour of -Gloucester, or rather the lands of Brihtric were made into an honour -of Gloucester for his benefit.[197] He married a daughter of Earl -Roger, Sibyl by name,[198] and so had the privilege of being -brother-in-law to Robert of Bellême. His daughter Mabel, heiress of -her uncle as well as of her father,[199] became, as we have often had -occasion to notice, the wife of King Henry’s son Robert, with whom -Gloucester became an earldom. He founded the abbey of Tewkesbury, one -of the line of great religious houses along the Severn, where his work -may still be seen in the vast pillars and mysterious front of his -still surviving minster.[200] To the older abbey of Gloucester he was -a bountiful benefactor. And the nature of his gifts to these two -favoured houses would be almost enough of itself to enable us to set -down Robert Fitz-hamon as conqueror of Glamorgan. Gloucester and -Tewkesbury were enriched at the cost of the churches of Glamorgan, -proof enough that he who could thus enrich them had won great -possessions in Glamorgan. The holy places of the Briton, Llantwit and -Llancarfan, with a crowd of churches of lesser note, supplied the -conqueror with an easy means of being bountiful with no cost to -himself.[201] So again the mere fact that a man who held such a -position as that of Robert Fitz-hamon, one who, though not an earl, -ranked by possessions and connexions alongside of earls, plays so -small a part as he does in the recorded history of the reign, might -almost of itself suggest that he was busy on some enterprise of his -own, such as that which legend assigns to him. When the mound by the -swift and shallow Taff was crowned by the shell-keep of Cardiff, the -progress of invasion was not likely to tarry. The fertile lowlands -from the mouth of the Taff to the mouth of the Neath were a natural -accession to the lowlands of Gwent which were already won. They were -won; they were guarded by a crowd of castles. And the winning of the -land, the building of the castles, events about which the genuine -local history is strangely silent, were, there is not the slightest -reason to doubt, the work of Robert Fitz-hamon and of the men who -shared with him in that work. - -[Sidenote: Distinction between Morganwg and Glamorgan.] - -[Sidenote: Extent of Glamorgan.] - -[Sidenote: Cardiff castle.] - -[Sidenote: Bishopric of Llandaff.] - -[Sidenote: William of London.] - -[Sidenote: Kidwelly and Ogmore.] - -[Sidenote: Richard Siward.] - -[Sidenote: Pagan of Turberville at Coyty.] - -[Sidenote: Aberafan held by the children of Jestin.] - -In strict geographical accuracy the names _Morganwg_ and _Glamorgan_ -do not answer to one another.[202] Morganwg in the wider sense is said -to have taken in a vast district from the Severn to the Towy, while -Glamorgan, said to be called from a prince named Morgan in the tenth -century, was less than the present county, taking in only the vale. -The distinction between the two was preserved in the style of the -lords of “Morgania and Glamorgania.” But the country with which we -have now to deal may be practically looked on as answering to the -present county, somewhat cut short to the west and somewhat lengthened -to the east. It takes in the present Monmouthshire between Usk and -Rhymny; it does not take in the peninsula of Gower. This last, with -the town of Swansea on its isthmus, still forms no part of the diocese -of Glamorgan or Llandaff; it marks its formerly distinct character by -still belonging to the diocese of Saint David’s. Within this district -Robert Fitz-hamon and his successors the Earls of Gloucester held a -position like that of the Earl of Chester or the Bishop of Durham. -Without bearing their lofty titles, the Lord of Glamorgan practically -held, like them, a vassal principality of the crown. Like the other -lords marchers, he held most of the powers of kingship within his -lordship, and the position of his lordship enabled him to carry out -those powers more thoroughly than most of his fellows.[203] The chief -seat of the lord was at Cardiff on the Taff, where the castle had -been, as we have seen, founded in the Conqueror’s day.[204] A little -higher up the river was the seat of the bishopric of Glamorgan at -Llandaff, with its church, most unlike Le Mans or Durham, nestling by -the river at the foot of the hill. Under the chief lord settled -several lesser lords, tenants-in-chief, we may almost venture to call -them, within Glamorgan, who founded castles and families, and under -whom the land was again divided among a crowd of smaller tenants. Some -of these lesser lords held within their own lordships powers almost -equal to those of the lord of Glamorgan himself. First perhaps among -them was the house founded by William of London, better known under -the French form of _Londres_.[205] The name suggests some thoughts. -Who was a William of London in the days of William Rufus? A Norman -doubtless, but hardly a Norman of any very lofty rank in his own land. -May we follow the analogy of the great bearer of the same name in the -next age, and see in him the son of a Rouen citizen settled in London -in the very first days of the Conquest, or even in the days of the -Confessor? The house of London spread beyond the bounds of Glamorgan; -their chief seat was at Kidwelly; but within the lordship of -Fitz-hamon the square keep of Ogmore and the fortified priory of -Ewenny, one of the most precious specimens of the Norman minster on -the smallest scale, still remain as memorials of their presence. But -the name of Siward――its first bearer appears in the legend as Richard -Siward――bespeaks English or Danish descent, and we are tempted to see -in the colonist of Glamorgan a son or grandson of Thurkill of -Warwick.[206] Pagan of Turberville held Coyty, married a Welsh -heiress, and became the founder of a house whose feelings became -British rather than Norman or English. Aberafan, the fortress at the -mouth of the Glamorgan Avon, remained in the hands of the descendants -of Jestin, the only native line which, like such Englishmen as -Thurkill, Eadward of Salisbury, Coleswegen and Ælfred of Lincoln, -abode on its own ground on equal terms with the conquerors. They alone -shared the fertile plain with the strangers; the rest of their -countrymen, even those who held acknowledged lands and lordships, were -confined to the barren hills.[207] - -[Sidenote: The lords and their castles.] - -[Sidenote: The South-Welsh churches.] - -These few families have each something in their name and history which -entitles them to special notice. A few others were of really equal -eminence from the first, and the legend, to make up the full tale of -twelve peers, adds on several names of later date. These great lords, -and a crowd of smaller land-owners as well, built each man his castle; -in Glamorgan the peaceful manor-house, soon to become the rule in -England, seems to have been the reform of a much later day. The -castles with which we are to deal are of course for the most part -castles of the older and simpler type; it was not till long after the -times with which we are dealing that Caerphilly, with its mighty -gateway-towers, its princely hall, its lake wrought by the hand of -man, became the proudest of South-Welsh fortresses, the peer of -Caernarvon itself. Caerphilly lies indeed beyond our immediate range, -in the land still left to the natives, parted off by hills from -Cardiff and from the rich plain which the conquerors kept for -themselves. Not a few others of the famous castles of the district -belong to times far too late for us. From the castles the churches -also caught a military air, and kept it during the whole time of -mediæval architecture. The fortified towers of Glamorgan have the -military character less strongly marked than the towers of -Pembrokeshire; but it is marked quite strongly enough to strike the -English visitor as something altogether in harmony with the endless -traces of castles which meet him at every step. He sees at once that a -state of things which in England existed only during the first years -of the Conquest, or which more truly, unless during the nineteen years -of anarchy, never existed at all, went on in the half conquered -British land for ages. - -[Sidenote: Saxon settlements in South-Wales.] - -[Sidenote: The Flemings in Pembrokeshire.] - -[Sidenote: Foundation of boroughs.] - -The leaders in the settlement were of course mainly Norman. It has -been acutely remarked that they mostly came, as followers of Robert -Fitz-hamon most naturally would come, from the old lands of Brihtric -in Gloucestershire and Somerset. They doubtless brought with them an -English following, a strictly Saxon invasion of South Wales. Among the -Teutonic settlers in this district, it is not easy to distinguish the -Saxon from the Fleming. It must always be remembered that, while the -Flemish settlement in Pembrokeshire is matter of history, the Flemish -settlements in Gower and Glamorgan are merely matters of -inference.[208] The English and Flemish settlers were doubtless the -chief inhabitants of the boroughs which now began to arise under the -shadow of the castles. Cardiff, Kenfig, Aberafan, and Neath, arose on -the coast or on the rivers from which some of them took their names. -Cowbridge and Llantrissant lay in the inland part of the vale; the -last, a borough mainly British, was the only one which held at all a -commanding site among the hills. In later times these towns sank into -insignificance――Kenfig indeed well nigh perished under heaps of sand. -But some of them have in later times been called up to a new life by -the wonderful development of mineral wealth which has changed the -barren hills which were left to the Briton into one of the busiest -regions of our whole island. - -[Sidenote: Ecclesiastical affairs.] - -[Sidenote: Llandaff.] - -[Sidenote: Ewenny.] - -[Sidenote: Cistercian foundations.] - -[Sidenote: Neath. 1130.] - -[Sidenote: Margam. 1147.] - -In ecclesiastical matters the conquest of this district was for awhile -chiefly marked, as has been mentioned, by the spoliation of the -ancient British foundations, to the behoof of the conqueror’s -favourite monasteries at Gloucester and Tewkesbury. The bishopric of -Llandaff or Glamorgan kept its place, though it never became, either -in the extent of its possessions or in the fabric of its church, at -all the peer of Saint David’s. Ewenny arose, if not in the very first -days of the conquest, yet within the first or second generation. The -Cistercian movement reached this district early. The abbey of Neath -arose in King Henry’s time, under the patronage of Earl Robert;[209] -and in the last year of his life, while the anarchy still raged, the -same earl, the most renowned of the lords of Glamorgan, found means to -found the more famous abbey of Margam.[210] - - * * * * * - -[Sidenote: Conquest of Brecknock.] - -[Sidenote: Bernard Newmarch.] - -[Sidenote: The castle of Brecknock.] - -[Sidenote: Bernard’s gifts to Battle Abbey.] - -[Sidenote: His wife Nest.] - -[Sidenote: Defeat and death of Rhys at Brecknock. 1093.] - -[Sidenote: End of “the kingdom of the Britons.”] - -[Sidenote: Effect of the death of Rhys.] - -[Sidenote: Cadwgan harries Dyfed. April 30, 1093.] - -[Sidenote: Norman conquest of Ceredigion and Dyfed. July 1, 1093.] - -The conquest of Glamorgan thus stands out as an event which is -altogether unrecorded in authentic history, but of which it is not -hard to put together a picture from its results. Other parts of the -conquest of South Wales are more clearly entered in both British and -English annals. The mountain land of Brecheiniog must have been -occupied early in the reign of Rufus, if not earlier still. Its -conqueror, Bernard of Neufmarché, better known in the English form of -_Newmarch_, has already figured in our story;[211] and he was clearly -in possession when William Rufus lay sick and penitent at Gloucester. -His followers are then spoken of as the French who inhabited -Brecheiniog. By that time then the upper valley of the Usk, from -Abergavenny westward, must have been already subdued. The rich land of -the holy King Brychan, with his twenty-four sainted daughters――the -church where the worship of one of them turned the people of the land -into frenzies which offended the soberer devotion of the -Norman[212]――the rivers full of fish, the lake of marvels, the whole -pleasant valley cut off by its hills from the extremes of heat and -cold[213]――all had passed away from British rule. Bernard had -doubtless by this time reared on the hill of Aberhonwy at least some -rude forerunner of the castle of Brecknock, the fragments of which -still stand, facing the southern mountains, alongside of the massive -church of his own priory, the church which he made his far-off -offering to Saint Martin of the Place of Battle.[214] We know not -whether Bernard had by this time striven to confirm his power on -British soil by a marriage which connected him with the noblest blood, -alike British and English. His wife Nest united the blood of Gruffydd -with the blood of Ælfgar. We are not told the name or race of her -father;[215] but her mother was Nest the daughter of Gruffydd and -Ealdgyth, the stepdaughter of Harold, the half-sister of his twin -wanderers, the granddaughter of Ælfgar and his perhaps Norman -Ælfgifu.[216] Nest thus came on the spindle-side from Godgifu the -mirror of English matronhood; but the woman who shamelessly avowed to -King Henry that her son was not the son of her husband Bernard hardly -walked in the steps of her renowned ancestress.[217] During that -memorable Lent, while King William lay sick at Gloucester, the new -lord of Brecknock found it needful to gather his strength to withstand -an attack from the people whom he had despoiled. The Britons came -together under Rhys the son of Tewdwr, the king of whom we have often -heard, and who must have been at this time the most powerful prince of -South Wales.[218] He invaded the invaders; and in the very Easter -week, while matters were busy between William and Anselm on the one -hand, between William and Malcolm on the other hand, a battle took -place near Brecknock. There Rhys was killed, by the help, according to -the Glamorgan legend, of Robert Fitz-hamon. According to the same -legend, Rhys did not fall in open fight, but as a prisoner to whom -quarter was refused. Another account describes him as being slain by -the treachery of his own men. His death was marked as an epoch in the -history of Wales. With him, the native historian writes, fell the -kingdom of the Britons, a phrase which an English writer seems to have -misunderstood as meaning that after him no Welsh prince bore the -kingly title.[219] The overthrow of Rhys led to great movements in -other parts of South Wales. We can hardly doubt that, whether Robert -Fitz-hamon had a hand in the fight at Brecknock or not, his settlement -in Glamorgan was at any rate already begun. But the fall of Rhys laid -the lands to the south-west, the lands of Ceredigion and Dyfed, open -to invasion; and two sets of invaders were equally ready to make the -most of the chance which was now laid open to them. The British enemy -came first. Cadwgan son of Bleddyn, who had once before driven Rhys -from his throne,[220] seized the moment of his death to carry a -wasting inroad into Dyfed.[221] He was presently followed by invaders -who were to do something more than make a wasting inroad. “About the -kalends of July the French for the first time held Dyfed and -Ceredigion, and set castles in them, and thence occupied the whole -land.”[222] - -[Sidenote: Pembrokeshire.] - -[Sidenote: Tale of Rufus’ threats against Ireland.] - -These words of the British annalist mark a most important stage in the -occupation of his country. The campaign of this summer completed the -conquest of South Wales, so far as a land could be said to be -conquered which was always revolting, and where native chiefs still -kept, sometimes by their own strength, sometimes by formal -acknowledgement, such parts of the land as the invaders could not or -did not care to occupy. But it was now that a land was planted with -castles which is still pre-eminently the land of castles; it was now -that a land was brought under the power of those who bore rule in -England which was itself to become a new England beyond the line of -the Briton. Ceredigion, the land of Cardigan, the vale of Teifi with -its still abiding beavers,[223] the sites of the castles of -Aberystwyth and Cilgerran, of the abbey of Strata Florida and the -priory of Saint Dogmael, were added to the dominion of the conquerors. -Thence they pressed on to the extreme south-western land, and added -Dyfed by a new name to the possessions of the English crown. A tale -has been told how the Red King himself made his way to the most -western point of all, to the headland of Saint David’s; there, from -the treeless rocks, he looked over the sea to the land beyond, which -may now and then be seen on a cloudless evening. Then he boasted that, -lord as he was of Britain, he would be lord of Ireland too, how he -would gather round that headland the fleets of his whole kingdom, and -would make of them a bridge by which he might pass over and win the -great island for himself. The tale goes on to tell how, when the -threatening words were brought to King Murtagh,[224] he asked whether -the King of the English had added to his threat the words, “If God -will?”[225] The Red King had not used the formula which he hated to -hear even from the lips of others,[226] and the Irish prince at once -answered that he did not fear the coming of one who meant to come only -in his own strength, and not in that of the Most High.[227] - -[Sidenote: Estimate of the story.] - -[Sidenote: Acquisition of Saint David’s.] - -[Sidenote: Bishop Wilfrith.] - -[Sidenote: Milford Haven.] - -[Sidenote: The Pembrokeshire castles.] - -The tale is eminently characteristic of William Rufus; yet it sounds -somewhat like an echo of the real visit and the real schemes of the -great William translated into the boastful language of his son. The -Conqueror did visit Saint David’s;[228] he did plan the conquest of -Ireland;[229] but it is not likely that he threw the expression of his -designs into such a shape as that which William Rufus would have been -likely enough to choose. The younger William may have made his way to -Saint David’s; but it is not easy to find a time for his coming, -either in this year or in any other. But, whether through his coming -or not, Saint David’s itself passed under the obedience of the -conquerors. We presently find its bishop, a bishop spoken of as a -Briton, but bearing the English name of Wilfrith, acting in their full -confidence.[230] But the holy place, deep in its hollow, was left to -be guarded by its own holiness. No castle of king or earl or sheriff -invaded its precincts; the home of its bishop did not, as at Llandaff, -take the form of a castle looking down upon the minster, but that of a -peaceful palace resting by its side. The conquerors pressed on, -through the land of Cemaes and Emlyn and by the hills of Preseleu, -till they reached the south-western land, the land of creeks and -peninsulas, where the tides of Ocean rise and fall beneath the walls -of far inland towns and fortresses. In those waters the wandering -wiking had seen the likeness of his own fiords, and he had left his -mark here and there on a _holm_, a _gard_, a _thorp_, a _ford_, some -of them bearing names which seem to go back to the gods of -Scandinavian heathendom.[231] The Norman won the land, to hand it over -in the next reign to the Flemish settlers, who rooted out whatever -traces of the Cymry Northmen and Normans had left. Two of the chief -towns, Pembroke and Tenby, kept their British names in corrupt -forms.[232] Milford and Haverford would seem to have been already -named by the Northmen. On every tempting point overlooking the inland -waters, sometimes on points overlooking the Ocean itself, castles -arose, some of which grew into the very stateliest of their own class. -Tenby, Haverfordwest――Manorbeer, birthplace of Giraldus[233]――Caerau, -connected with so many famous names of later date[234]――and a crowd of -castles of lesser note, witness the means by which the conquerors knew -how to hold down the land which they had won. - -[Sidenote: Pembroke Castle.] - -[Sidenote: Pembrokeshire buildings.] - -[Sidenote: The castle begun by Arnulf of Montgomery.] - -[Sidenote: Second building of Gerald of Windsor. 1105.] - -[Sidenote: His wife Nest.] - -At the head of all stands the great fortress which gave its name to a -town, a shire, and a long line of earls, and in our own time to a -great workshop of the naval strength of the land. _Pen bro_, the head -of the sealand, grew into Pembroke, with its vast castle rising on a -peninsula above two arms of the inland sea――with its stately hall -looking down on the waters――with the deep cave underneath its walls, -with the huge mass of the round tower――with the one hill-side covered -by the houses and churches of the town, the other crowned by the long -line of the priory of Monkton, with its stern square tower and its now -roofless choir. The character of military strength and simplicity, -which is stamped in a lesser measure on the churches and houses of -Glamorgan, comes out in all its fulness in the churches and houses of -Pembrokeshire. Of all this the days of which we are speaking saw the -beginnings, but only the beginnings. On the tongue of land between the -two creeks a fortress was raised by Arnulf of Montgomery, son of Roger -and Mabel, a man of whom we have already heard and shall hear again. -But his defences were as yet small and feeble as compared with what -was to follow; the first castle of Pembroke was a mere earthwork with -a palisade.[235] Arnulf placed his work under the care of a valiant -knight named Gerald of Windsor, who afterwards was the beginner of a -castle of greater strength on the same spot.[236] In after times he -married a wife of the noblest British blood, yet another Nest, the -daughter of Rhys son of Tewdwr, and grandchild through her mother of -that Rhiwallon who had received a kingdom at the hands of Harold.[237] -Before her marriage she was the mother of one of the sons of King -Henry, though assuredly not of the great Earl of Gloucester.[238] In -later days, through another marriage, she became the grandmother of -Giraldus Cambrensis. - -[Sidenote: Hugh of Chester in Anglesey.] - -[Sidenote: Castle of Aberlleiniog.] - -[Sidenote: Advance of Earl Roger in Powys.] - -[Sidenote: Castle of Rhyd-y-gors.] - -The course of events in North Wales during these years is less easy to -mark with exact dates. But it is plain that the death of Robert of -Rhuddlan had been only a momentary triumph for the Cymry, and that it -had not given any real check to the Norman power. Earl Hugh of -Chester, strong on the border of the continental Britons, still held a -hand no less firm on their island kinsfolk. He even pressed on into -Anglesey, and there built a castle, most likely at Aberlleiniog on the -eastern coast of the island, a spot of which we shall have to speak -again more fully in recording a memorable day later in our story. Earl -Roger meanwhile, from his capital at Shrewsbury and his strong outpost -at his new British Montgomery,[239] pushed on his dominion into Powys. -The King at least approved, if he did not at this stage help in the -work; the castle of Rhyd-y-gors was built at the royal order by -William son of Baldwin.[240] - -[Sidenote: Seeming conquest of Wales.] - -[Sidenote: Gower and Caermarthen unsubdued.] - -[Sidenote: 1093-1094.] - -[Sidenote: Effects of William’s absence.] - -[Sidenote: Revolt of the Welsh. 1094.] - -The conquest of Wales was thus, to all appearance, nearly complete. -The two great earls were going on with their old work in the north, -while in the south the tide of conquest was advancing with such speed -as it had never advanced before. In the south-east Gwent and Morganwg -seemed to be firmly held, while in the south-west the torrent of -Norman invasion had rushed by a single burst from the hill of -Brecknock to the furthest coast of Dyfed. In the south at least the -only independent region left was that which lies between the conquest -of Robert Fitz-hamon and the conquest of Arnulf of Montgomery. Gower, -with its caves, its sands, its long ridge, where the name of Arthur -has made spoil of a monument of unrecorded times――with its Worm’s Head -looking out in defiance at the conquered land beyond the bay――the -whole range too of coast with its sandy estuaries, from the mouth by -Llwchr to the mouth by Laugharne――Kidwelly also, not yet crowned by -the gem of South-Welsh castles――Caermarthen and the whole vale of -Towy――were still unsubdued. Otherwise the Britons might truly say with -their chronicler that on the death of Rhys their kingdom passed away -from them. So things slept while Anselm received his archbishopric, -while Malcolm pressed on to die at Alnwick, while King William was -kept by the winds at Hastings. But when the king was beyond the sea, -when he and the great men of England were busy with Norman -affairs――when Argentan bowed to Robert and Philip and when the brother -of the conqueror of Pembroke was a prisoner[241]――when the great Earl, -the father of both of them, had died with the cowl on his head at -Shrewsbury――then the Britons deemed that the hour of deliverance was -come. The English Chronicler, though he does not at this stage help us -to the names of British men or of British places, paints the general -picture in his strongest colours; “The Welshmen gathered themselves -together, and on the French that were in Wales or the nighest parts -and had ere taken away their lands, they upheaved war, and castles -they broke and men they offslew, and as their host waxed, they -_todealed_ themselves into more. With some of those _deals_ fought -Hugh Earl of Shropshire and put them to flight. And none the less the -others all this year never left off from none evil that they might -do.”[242] - -[Sidenote: Cadwgan son of Bleddyn.] - -[Sidenote: Divisions of the Welsh.] - -[Sidenote: General revolt of Wales.] - -[Sidenote: Invasion of England.] - -[Sidenote: Deliverance of Anglesey.] - -[Sidenote: Aberlleiniog castle broken down.] - -In this version the Norman or English champion stands clearly forth. -We see that Earl Hugh had sharp work upon his hands from the moment -that he stepped into his father’s earldom. The British writers give us -a clearer sight of the geographical extent of the movement, and they -help us to the name of its chief leader. This was Cadwgan son of -Bleddyn, whom we last heard of as harrying Dyfed, and who even now -seems at least as anxious to make Dyfed a land subject to Gwynedd as -to drive Normans, English, or Flemings, out of either. Thus the -Britons were, as ever, in the words of the Chronicler, _todealed_; -they were divided into local and dynastic parties. Yet, as he puts it, -even this division, if it did not give strength, at least delayed -subjection. If Earl Hugh or any other leader of a regular force was -able to overthrow one _deal_, another _deal_ was ready all the same to -do as much evil as before. But it was in Gwynedd and under Cadwgan -that the work began. The Britons could not bear the yoke of the -French; they rose, they broke down the castles, and, as men commonly -do in such cases, they did by the invaders as the invaders had done by -them. It is not very wonderful if, in their hour of victory, they -revenged the reavings and slaughters done on them by the French with -new reavings and slaughters done on the French themselves.[243] And, -as our Chronicler hints, it was not only on the French within Wales, -but on those also in the nighest parts that they rose. By this time -the whole land had risen; South-Welsh and West-Welsh――that is now no -longer the men of the peninsula of Cornwall, but the men of the -peninsula of Dyfed――were in arms no less than the men of Gwynedd. -Gruffydd and Cadwgan burst into the neighbouring shires, Cheshire, -Shropshire, and Herefordshire; they burned towns, carried off plunder, -and slew Frenchmen and Englishmen alike.[244] The Saxon, the old -enemy, had not become less an enemy, because he had, through his own -conquest, become an accomplice in the invasions of his conquerors. -Gwynedd was now free; the deliverers crossed into Anglesey; they broke -down the castle at Aberlleiniog or elsewhere, and put an end for a -while to the foreign dominion in the island.[245] - -[Sidenote: Action of Cadwgan in Dyfed.] - -[Sidenote: Pembroke holds out.] - -The Britons now seemed to have altogether undone the work of the -invaders. It was now time for vigorous action on the other side. The -French――Hugh of Chester, Hugh of Shrewsbury, or any other――entered -Gwynedd with a regular force; but if one _deal_ was put to flight, -another, under Cadwgan himself, claims to have overcome the invaders -at Yspwys.[246] The path was now open for a march of the Britons to -the south. Late in the year a general attack was made on all the -castles throughout Ceredigion and Dyfed. Two only held out; Gerald of -Windsor successfully defended Pembroke; William the son of Baldwin -successfully defended Rhyd-y-gors.[247] But the warfare of Cadwgan was -waged in the interest of Gwynedd, not in that of Dyfed. By a harsh, -though possibly prudent policy, he enforced a migration somewhat in -the style of an Eastern despot. The men and the cattle of Ceredigion -and Dyfed――we must take so general a statement with those deductions -which the laws of possibility imply――were transported to the safer -region, and south-western Wales was made, so far as Cadwgan could make -it, a wilderness.[248] Gerald, in his castle among the creeks, was -left to lord it over whom he might find, and to feed himself and his -followers how he might, in the wasted land. As far as we can see, -Gwent, Morganwg, and Brecheiniog, remained in the hands of the -conquerors. The rest of the British land, from the isthmus of Gower to -the furthest point of Mona, was either free or a wilderness. - -[Sidenote: Question of a winter campaign.] - -[Sidenote: December 28,1094-January, 1095.] - -[Sidenote: Conquest of Kidwelly, Gower, and Caermarthen.] - -[Sidenote: 1099.] - -[Sidenote: Swansea Castle.] - -[Sidenote: The castles of Gower.] - -[Sidenote: Alleged West-Saxon settlement of Gower.] - -It is almost past belief that William Rufus could have found time for -a winter campaign against the Welsh in the few weeks, or rather days, -which passed between his return from Normandy at the end of December -and his interview with Anselm at Gillingham in the middle of -January.[249] But there was plenty of fighting in the course of the -year in Wales and elsewhere. The Britons seem to have kept their -independence in the newly liberated districts, while the Norman -conquerors of Glamorgan made a successful attack on the intermediate -lands which had not yet been subdued. “The French laid waste Gower, -Kidwelly, and the vale of Towy;” and we are further told that those -lands, as well as Dyfed and Ceredigion, remained waste.[250] But if -Normans laid waste, they did not simply lay waste, like the Welsh. -What they found it expedient to lay waste for a season they meant to -put in order some day for their own advantage. This was no doubt the -time when William of London established himself at Kidwelly, and made -the first beginnings of castle, church, borough, and haven.[251] It -was now too that the way was at least opened for the work of -colonization which made Gower a Teutonic land. According to an -authority to which we turn with a certain doubt, the actual settlement -dates from five years later. Castles were built, Abertawy or Swansea -guarding its own bay and the approach to the peninsula, Aberllwchr -guarding the sandy estuary between the peninsula and the opposite -coast to the north, Oystermouth, Penrice, Llanrhidian, on points -within the peninsula itself.[252] And in this version the settlement -is made, not by Flemings, according to the common tradition, but by -West-Saxons brought across the channel from Somerset.[253] It is -certain, as has been already said, that there is not the same -historical evidence for Flemings in Gower which there is for Flemings -in Pembrokeshire. But it is perhaps less important to fix the exact -origin of each Teutonic settlement along this coast than to insist on -the fact that, as compared with the native Cymry, any two branches of -the Nether-Dutch stock, whether Flemish or Saxon, came to very much -the same thing. - -[Sidenote: Pagan of Turberville joins the Welsh.] - -Along with this territorial advance on the part of the invaders, we -hear, from the same somewhat doubtful quarter, of a movement among the -invaders themselves which turned to the advantage of the natives. It -is characteristic of the outwardly legal nature of the Norman Conquest -of England that it gave no opportunity for a character not very rare -in less regular invasions, the invading chief who finds it to his -interest to separate himself from his own fellows and to place himself -at the head of those whom he has helped to subdue. In the conquests -both of Wales and of Ireland there was room for such a part to be -played, and the story sets before us one of the Norman conquerors of -Glamorgan as playing it with some effect. The lord of Coyty, Pagan of -Turberville, married to a wife of the house of Jestin, took the side -of his wife’s countrymen, and, we are told, went so far as to attack -Cardiff on their behalf. The result, it is said, was a confirmation of -the ancient laws of Wales on the part of the lord of Glamorgan. This, -it is added, led many to transfer their dwellings from the disturbed -parts of the country to the more settled lands under his rule.[254] - -[Sidenote: North Wales keeps its independence.] - -[Sidenote: Autumn, 1095.] - -[Sidenote: The Welsh take Montgomery.] - -[Sidenote: William’s invasion of Wales. Michaelmas, 1095.] - -[Sidenote: He reaches Snowdon. November 1.] - -[Sidenote: Ill-success of the campaign.] - -Meanwhile in the northern parts of Wales the Britons still kept the -independence that they had won by the struggle of the last year. They -had got the better of the local powers on their own borders, and the -King, busied with the peaceful opposition of Anselm and the armed -opposition of Robert of Mowbray, had little time to spare from -councils and sieges within his kingdom. At last, towards autumn, while -the siege of Bamburgh was going on, after he had himself turned away -from it, and left the _Evil Neighbour_ to do its work, William heard a -piece of news from the British border which at once stirred him to -action. One of the great fortresses of the march had fallen. In vain -had Earl Roger made his nest on the rock to which he gave the name of -his own Norman home.[255] Montgomery, _Tre_ _Baldwin_, was in the -hands of the Britons, and all Earl Hugh’s men within it were -slain.[256] William was wroth at the tidings, and he at once called -out the _fyrd_ of his realm, so much of it as was not needed for the -lingering leaguer-work in Northumberland.[257] Soon after Michaelmas -he entered Wales at the head of his host. He divided it into parties, -and caused them to go thoroughly through the land. At last, by the -feast of All-hallows, the whole army met together by Snowdon. If -merely marching through a country could subdue it, William Rufus had -now done a good deal towards the conquest of Gwynedd. But William -Rufus was not Harold; the master of continental chivalry could not -bring himself to copy Harold’s homely tactics. While the royal army -scoured the dales, the Welsh betook them to the moors and mountains -where no man might come at them.[258] Harold had found out the way to -come at them; but the Red King knew it not. All that he could do was -to go homeward, when he saw that he there in the winter might do no -more.[259] The British annalists, with good right, rejoice as they -tell how God their people sheltered in the strong places of their -land, and how the King and his host went away empty, having taken -nothing.[260] - -[Sidenote: 1096.] - -[Sidenote: The Welsh gain Rhyd-y-gors. 1096.] - -[Sidenote: Revolt of Gwent and Brecknock.] - -[Sidenote: English feeling towards the war.] - -[Sidenote: Vain attempt to recover Gwent.] - -The next year saw the bloody Gemót at Salisbury; it saw Europe pour -forth its forces for the deliverance of Eastern Christendom; it saw -the Red King become master of the Norman duchy. Among such cares, -William had no time, perhaps he felt no strong call, for another Welsh -campaign, either in winter or summer. But the lords of the marches -could not be thus idle; with them the only choice was to invade or to -be invaded. The year seems to have begun with another gain on the part -of the Britons. William son of Baldwin, who had kept the castle of -Rhyd-y-gors safe through all perils up to this time, now died. His -spirit did not abide in his garrison; they left the castle empty, a -prey to the enemy.[261] The spirit of the Britons, even in the lands -which seemed most thoroughly subdued, now rose. Within the bounds of -the present Glamorgan the favourable composition of the last year -seems to have kept men quiet; but the lands to the east, parts of -which had been so long under English rule, were now encouraged to -strike another blow for independence. The natives were in arms along -the whole line of the Usk; Brecheiniog, Gwent, and Gwenllwg, the land -between Usk and Wye and the land between Usk and Rhymny, threw off, as -their own writers say, the yoke of the French.[262] The marchers had -now to act in earnest. Our own Chronicler says mournfully how “the -head men that this land held ofttimes sent the _fyrd_ into Wales, and -many men with that sorely harassed, and man there sped not, but -man-marring and fee-spilling.”[263] We see that the old duty of every -man to fight for the land when called on had come to awaken some of -the feelings which attach to a conscription. Men were, we may believe, -ready for a campaign in Normandy or Maine, where plunder was to be -had, and where there was most likely still some satisfaction felt in -fighting against French-speaking enemies, even under French-speaking -captains. To drive back Malcolm would come home to every man’s heart -as a national duty; to dispose of Malcolm’s crown under the leadership -of an English Ætheling might call up long-forgotten feelings of -national pride. But who could be tempted by the prospect of a march to -Snowdon, even in the fairest weather? What interest had the men of -perhaps far-off English shires in rivetting the dominion of a Norman -lord on the men of Brecknock or Pembroke? No doubt every Englishman -was ready to drive back the Briton from Shropshire and Herefordshire; -but it was an irksome and bootless work to go and attack him in his -own land, a land from which even conquerors could draw so little gain. -Even to win back Gwent, the conquest of Harold, was an enterprise -which would lead mainly to man-marring and fee-spilling. Into Gwent -however they were marched; but nothing was done; the land was not -subdued; the army was even attacked on its retreat, and after great -slaughter put to flight.[264] A second greater attempt came to nothing -more. The grandsons of Cadwgan, Gruffydd and Ivor, attacked this army -too on its return, and cut it also off at Aberllech.[265] - -[Sidenote: Effects of the castle-building.] - -[Sidenote: Pembroke castle holds out.] - -[Sidenote: The Welsh attack Pembroke. 1096.] - -[Sidenote: Resistance of Gerald of Windsor.] - -[Sidenote: His devices.] - -[Sidenote: His dealings with Bishop Wilfrith.] - -[Sidenote: Offensive action of Gerald.] - -[Sidenote: 1097.] - -The British chronicler here makes a comment which fully explains the -final issue of these wars. The Normans or English, whichever we are to -call the hosts of England under the Red King, had thus for three years -met with nothing but defeat. Yet they had in truth won the land. “The -folk stayed in their homes, trusting fearlessly, though the castles -were yet whole, and the castlemen in them.”[266] The fortresses might -be hemmed in for a moment; but, as long as they stood whole with the -castlemen in them, the newly won freedom of the open country was -liable to be upset at any moment. In Gwent and Brecheiniog at least -the natives might for the moment stay fearlessly in their homes; they -might at some favourable point surprise and cut to pieces the armies -that were sent against them; they might withdraw to moors and -mountains when the invading force was too strong for them; but, as -long as the castles stood firm, the real grasp of the stranger on the -land was not loosened. How long a castle could stand out we see by the -example of this very year’s campaign. All the castles of Dyfed and -Ceredigion had been destroyed two years before, save Pembroke and -Rhyd-y-gors; and Rhyd-y-gors was now in the hands of the Britons. -Pembroke, the castle of earth and wood, the outpost cut off from all -help, still stood through the whole of these two years, the one -representative of Norman dominion in the whole region of which it had -become the head. No wonder that the Britons, victorious everywhere -else, resolved on one great attack on this still unconquered -stronghold of the enemy. A host led by several chieftains of the house -of Cadwgan, Uhtred son of Edwin,――one whom we should rather have -looked for in Northumberland,――and Howel son of Goronwy, set forth and -fought against Pembroke. Gerald of Windsor was hard pressed. One -night, fifteen of his knights, despairing of resistance, made their -escape from the castle in a boat. Their esquires were more faithful, -and Gerald at once gave them the arms of knighthood, and also -granted――or professed to grant to them――the fiefs of their recreant -lords.[267] We read too how Gerald, to hide his real plight from the -enemy, betook himself to some of those simple devices of which we hear -in so many times and places. He had four swine in the castle; he cut -them in pieces, and threw them over to the besiegers.[268] The next -day he wrote or caused letters to be written sealed with his seal, -saying that there was no need to trouble Earl Arnulf――he is made to -bear the title――for any help for four months to come. These letters he -took care should be found near a neighbouring house of Bishop Wilfrith -of Saint David’s, as if they had been lost by their bearer.[269] They -were read out in the Welsh army. The Britons, we are told, having no -mind for a four months’ siege, marched away.[270] They claim to have -marched away without loss, with much booty, especially with all the -cattle belonging to the castle.[271] But the castle was not taken; it -stood there to do its work; and early in the next year Gerald was -harrying in his turn as far as the borders of Saint David’s.[272] -Friendship for the Bishop perhaps kept him from harrying the holy soil -of Dewisland itself. - -[Sidenote: Easter, 1097.] - -[Sidenote: William’s second Welsh campaign.] - -[Sidenote: Seeming conquest.] - -[Sidenote: Fresh revolt.] - -[Sidenote: Cadwgan.] - -[Sidenote: William’s third campaign. June-August, 1097.] - -[Sidenote: The King’s ill-success.] - -[Sidenote: He determines to build castles. October, 1097.] - -This year, the King, as he had done two years before, deemed the -affairs of Wales to call for his own presence, and for a greater -effort on his part than ever. He had come back from taking possession -of the mortgaged land of Normandy; he had held the Easter Assembly at -Windsor somewhat after the regular time.[273] At that Assembly Welsh -affairs must have formed a subject of discussion, as the King -presently set out for Wales with a great host. This was the time when -the knights sent by the Archbishop were deemed so unfit for their -duty.[274] The King’s coming appears to have led to a seeming, perhaps -a pretended, submission. Led by native guides, he passed through the -whole country,[275] and he clearly believed that he had brought Wales -to a state of peace. So he deemed when he came back to hold the -Whitsun Assembly, the assembly in which Anselm for the first time that -year craved leave to go to the Pope.[276] But he was called back by a -fresh revolt. The Welsh, in the emphatic phrase of our Chronicler, -“bowed _from_ the King.”[277] They had once bowed _to_ him; now they -bowed _from_ him; they cast away his authority; perhaps they formally -_defied_ him in the strict feudal sense; certainly they defied him in -the more general sense which that word has now come to bear. And now, -for the first time in these wars, the English Chronicler gives us the -name of a Welsh leader, a name which from British sources has long -been familiar to us. “They chose them many elders of themselves; one -of them was Cadwgan hight, that of them the worthiest was; he was -brother’s son of Gruffydd the King.”[278] The name of the great prince -who had ruled all Wales, who had won the battle by the Severn,[279] -who had put Earl Ralph to flight[280] and burned Hereford town and -minster,[281] the prince whom it needed all the strength and all the -arts of Harold to overthrow, was still famous even among Englishmen. -The nephew of Gruffydd had this time too to dread no such tactics as -had worn down his uncle on his own soil. King William set forth with a -host of horse as well as of foot, vowing to put to death every male of -the rebel nation.[282] Again the pomp and pride of Norman chivalry was -shivered against the natural defences of the land which was so rashly -attacked. The Britons seem, by their own account, to have made the war -a religious one; perhaps, like the Irish king, they deemed that higher -powers would fight for them against the blasphemer. Strengthened by -prayers, fastings, and other pious exercises, the Welsh took to their -woods and rocks and mountains, while the Red King’s host marched and -rode bootlessly through the valleys and plains.[283] “Mickle he lost -in men and in horses, and eke in many other things.”[284] This state -of things went on from midsummer to August.[285] Then the King came -back to hold two assemblies at unusual times, in the second of which -he and Anselm met for the last time.[286] And now it was that he took -that wise resolution which I have quoted above.[287] As invasions by -mounted knights led to nothing but losing both the knights and their -horses, he would build castles on the borders. This Harold, who knew -so much better than William Rufus how to carry on a Welsh campaign, -had not done. But then the objects of Harold and the objects of -William Rufus were not the same. - -[Sidenote: Action of Robert of Bellême. 1098-1102.] - -We should have been well pleased to know what was the immediate result -of the resolve for the building of the border-castles. What were the -fortresses which were built, as surely some must have been built, in -obedience to it? This is the last entry which connects Rufus -personally with Welsh affairs. But we can hardly help connecting this -resolve with the building, a little time later, of several fortresses -in the lands threatened by the Welsh, specially of one, the greatest -of them all. In the next year one part of the British land becomes the -scene of a series of events of far-reaching interest and importance, -but also of a local interest quite as great in its own way. We shall -then see that, if the Red King did not do much in the way of building -border-castles himself, much was done by others, of course with his -approval, most likely by his order. Our next year’s tale brings -Robert of Bellême to the Welsh border, and, where he was lord, -castle-building went on with all vigour. - -[Sidenote: Affairs of Scotland.] - -But before we enter on a branch of our story which touches all parts -of the British islands, and many lands beyond the British islands, it -may be well to take up the thread of our Scottish narrative at a point -where the affairs of Scotland and those of Wales seem again to be -brought into some measure of connexion. The year which saw that wise -resolution of the Red King with regard to the Welsh castles, a -resolution which really meant the final union of Wales with the -English realm, saw also the end of those revolutions whose final -result was, not the union of Scotland with the English realm――that was -not to come about till long after, and by other means――but the -extension of English influence within the kingdom of Scotland till it -might be looked on as in truth a second English realm. - - -§ 4. _The Establishment of Eadgar in Scotland._ - -1097-1098. - -[Sidenote: Decree for action in Scotland. August, 1097.] - -[Sidenote: Designs of the Ætheling Eadgar.] - -It must have been at one of the later assemblies of the year which we -have now reached, most likely at the August gathering,[288] that the -resolution was taken for vigorous action in Scotland. The King himself -had had enough of Welsh warfare; he must have been already looking -forward to those French and Cenomannian campaigns which form the main -feature of the next year; he was in the middle of his final dispute -with Anselm. But William Rufus seems always to have been well pleased -to set others in motion, even on enterprises in which he did not share -himself. So he gladly hearkened to the proposals of the Ætheling -Eadgar for an expedition into Scotland. Its object was to overthrow -the usurper Donald, as the chosen of Dunfermline was deemed at -Winchester, to restore the line of Malcolm and Margaret, and to bring -the Scottish kingdom once more into its due obedience to the over-lord -in England. - -[Sidenote: Relations between Eadgar and the King.] - -[Sidenote: Story of Godwine and Ordgar.] - -Our last certain notice of Eadgar sets him before us as enjoying the -fullest confidence on the part of the reigning King, as sent by him on -the important errand of negotiating with Malcolm and bringing him to -William’s court at Gloucester.[289] One hardly knows what to make of -the tale which describes him as awakening a certain amount of -suspicion in the King’s mind later in the same year;[290] but that, -either before or after this time, he was in some such danger appears -from another tale in the details of which there may or may not be a -legendary element, but which undoubtedly brings before us real persons -and a real state of things. To this tale I have already referred -elsewhere, as having that kind of interest which belongs to every -story in which we see any one of those who are recorded in the Great -Survey as mere names stand forth as a living man, playing his part in -the world of living men. However obscure the man, however small his -deeds, there is always an interest in finding any part of the dry -bones of Domesday clothed with flesh and blood. And the interest -becomes higher when the man thus called forth out of darkness is a man -of native English birth, and the father of one whom England may well -be glad to reckon among her worthies.[291] - -[Sidenote: Eadgar accused by Ordgar.] - -[Sidenote: The ordeal and the battle.] - -[Sidenote: Godwine volunteers to fight for Eadgar.] - -[Sidenote: Notices of him in Domesday.] - -[Sidenote: Duel of Godwine and Ordgar.] - -[Sidenote: Victory of Godwine, and acquittal of Eadgar.] - -The story runs then that a knight of English birth, Ordgar by name, -seeking favour with the King, brought a charge against the English -Ætheling. He told William that Eadgar, trusting to his own descent -from ancient kings, was seeking to deprive the reigning king of his -crown. William hearkened to the accuser, and some grievous doom――would -it have been the doom of William of Eu?――was in store for Eadgar, if -his guilt――his ambition or patriotism――could be proved. But how was -the charge to be proved or disproved? By Old-English law the appeal to -the judgement of God in doubtful cases was by the ordeal; and, as -between Englishman and Englishman, this rule had not been changed by -the laws of the Conqueror.[292] But we can well believe that -Englishmen who were admitted to a place in the Red King’s court had -largely put on the ideas and feelings of Normans. They would doubtless -look down on the ancient practice of their fathers, and they would be -more inclined to follow the fashion of their Norman companions in -better liking the more chivalrous test of the wager of battle. It -seems in the present story to be taken for granted that the trial will -be by wager of battle. But who will do battle for Eadgar, when the -royal favour is so clearly shown on behalf of Eadgar’s accuser? The -Ætheling was sad at heart, forsaken, as it seemed, of all men. But at -last one stepped forward who was ready to dare the risk on behalf of a -man to whom he was bound by a double tie. As an Englishman he was -stirred to come to the help of the descendant of the ancient kings, -and he was further bound to Eadgar by the special tie which binds a -man to his lord. He was a knight of noble English descent, known as -Godwine of Winchester. We know him in Domesday as a tenant of the -Ætheling for lands in Hertfordshire, and the Survey further suggests -that he may have had a private grudge against the opposite champion. -There were lands in Oxfordshire which were held by an Ordgar, and -which had been held by a Godwine. The matter is to be decided by the -hand-to-hand fight of the two English knights. For they so far cleave -to the customs of their fathers that they fight on foot and deal -handstrokes with their swords. Ordgar comes forth in splendid armour, -surrounded by a crowd of courtiers.[293] Godwine has nothing to trust -to but his sword and his good cause. But there was at least no attempt -made to hinder a fair fight――so to do would have been altogether -foreign to the spirit of the chivalrous king. The herald and the -umpire do their duty;[294] the knights take their oath to forbear the -use of all weapons but those which were needed in the knightly duel. A -long and hard fight follows, the ups and downs of which are described -with Homeric minuteness. Ordgar at last, sorely wounded, is pressed to -the ground, with the foot of the victorious Godwine upon him.[295] As -a last resource, he strives, but in vain, to stab Godwine with a knife -which, in breach of his oath, he had treacherously hidden in his -boot.[296] Godwine snatches the knife from him; Ordgar confesses the -falsehood of his charge, and presently dies of his wounds.[297] -Godwine now becomes an object of universal honour, and receives from -the King the lands of the slain Ordgar, while Eadgar rises higher than -ever in the King’s favour. - -[Sidenote: Estimate of the story.] - -[Sidenote: Its general truth.] - -[Sidenote: Englishmen under Rufus.] - -[Sidenote: Robert son of Godwine.] - -I see no reason to doubt the main outline of this story, which rests -on the evidence of undesigned coincidences. Men of no special renown, -about whom there was no temptation to invent fables, are made to act -in a way which exactly agrees with what we know from the surest of -witnesses to have been their real position. Without pledging ourselves -to the details of the combat, which have a slightly legendary sound, -we may surely believe that we have here the record of a real wager of -battle, like those which happened at no great distance of time in the -cases of William of Eu and Arnulf of Hesdin. We may surely believe -that Eadgar was wrongfully accused, and that Godwine cleared his lord -in the duel. We see then that in the Red King’s day there was nothing -to hinder men of Old-English birth, exceptionally lucky men doubtless, -from holding an honourable rank and a high place in royal favour. But -we learn also, as we might expect to find, that such Englishmen found -that it suited their purposes to adopt Norman fashions. Of Godwine we -hear no more; but his son, as I have noticed elsewhere, bears, -according to a very common rule, the Norman name of Robert.[298] Had -we chanced to hear of him without hearing the name of his father, we -might not have known that the hero and martyr was a man of our own -blood. - - * * * * * - -[Sidenote: The Eadgars march to Scotland. September, 1097.] - -[Sidenote: The comet.] - -We now follow the Ætheling to a warfare in which Robert the son of -Godwine is his companion. Eadgar set out about Michaelmas to place his -nephew and namesake on the Scottish throne. He had a bright comet and -a shower of falling stars to light him on his way.[299] But Donald was -hardly of importance enough for the heavenly powers to foretell his -fall; the shining and departure of the comet was rather understood to -mark the approaching day when Anselm, the light of England, turned -away from our land and left darkness behind him.[300] The force of the -Ætheling seems to have been of much the same kind as the force which -Duncan had led on the same errand three years before. He went with the -King’s approval and support, but certainly without the King’s personal -help, perhaps without any part of the royal army.[301] That army, as -we have lately seen, was just then coming together for another -errand.[302] - -[Sidenote: Vision of the younger Eadgar.] - -[Sidenote: Exploits of Robert son of Godwine.] - -[Sidenote: Defeat and blinding of Donald.] - -[Sidenote: Fate of Eadmund;] - -[Sidenote: he becomes a monk at Montacute.] - -The host then marched northward. On the way, we are told, the younger -Eadgar was honoured by a vision of Saint Cuthberht, who bade him take -his banner from the abbey at Durham――the abbey now without a -bishop――and he should have victory in the battle.[303] The banner was -borne before the army; the fight in which it was unfurled was long and -hard; but the valour of the men who fought under its folds was not to -be withstood. Without binding ourselves to details which may well be -legendary, we may believe that Robert son of Godwine was foremost in -the fight, and that the victory in which Donald was the second time -overthrown was largely owing to his personal prowess.[304] Little -mercy was shown to the vanquished; Donald spent the rest of his days -blinded and a prisoner;[305] his confederate Eadmund lived to become -somewhat of a saint. He put on the garb of Clugny in the priory of -Montacute, at the foot of that hill of Saint Michael where the castle -of Robert of Mortain now covered the spot which had beheld the finding -of England’s Holy Cross.[306] But as that house did not arise till -some years later, at the bidding of Count William the son of -Robert,[307] we may gather that Eadmund spent the intermediate time in -some harsher captivity. When he died, he was buried, at his own -request, in chains, as a sign of penitence for his share in his -half-brother’s death.[308] - -[Sidenote: Eadgar King of Scots.] - -[Sidenote: Character of the year 1098.] - -[Sidenote: Eadgar’s gifts to Durham and to Robert son of Godwine.] - -[Sidenote: Action of Eadgar, Robert, and Randolf Flambard; after 1099.] - -The younger Eadgar now reigned over Scotland as the sworn liegeman of -King William of England.[309] The elder Eadgar went back to England, -to end there a year of heavy time, a year of evil weather, a year in -which men could neither till the earth nor gather in its tilth, and -when the folk was utterly bowed down by unrighteous gelds.[310] His -valiant comrade abode for a while in the dominions of the Scottish -King. Eadgar was grateful to all who had helped him in heaven or in -earth. The battle had been won by Saint Cuthberht and Robert son of -Godwine. Saint Cuthberht, in the person of the monks of his abbey, -received the lands of Coldingham, the seat in ancient times of a house -of nuns famous in the days of Danish warfare.[311] A little later――for -it was when Durham had again a bishop――he received, in the person of -his own successor, the greater gift of the town of Berwick.[312] -Robert, by the leave of his own sovereign, received a fief in the same -land of Lothian, and began the building of a castle. But, while King -Eadgar went to do service to his over-lord in England, the bishop――it -was already Randolf Flambard――and the barons of the bishopric, whom -Robert’s fortress seems in some way to have offended, attacked it and -made its lord a prisoner.[313] King Eadgar came back with letters from -his over-lord, ordering the release of their common subject. The -Bishop and his barons obeyed; but the King of Scots withdrew his gift -of Berwick from the bishopric, as a punishment for the wrong done to -the man to whom he owed his crown.[314] - -[Sidenote: Eadgar and Robert go to the Crusade.] - -[Sidenote: 1099.] - -[Sidenote: Robert in Palestine.] - -[Sidenote: 1103.] - -[Sidenote: His exploits and death.] - -[Sidenote: Modern parallels and contrasts.] - -[Sidenote: Robert of Saint Alban’s.] - -Robert the son of Godwine was presently called to a nobler work. His -lord the Ætheling went to the Holy War. Eadgar was not one of those -who marched first of all with the two Roberts of Normandy and -Flanders. He was one of that second party who set forth about the time -of the siege of Antioch, and joined the Norman Duke in his ignoble -retreat at Laodikeia.[315] Robert the son of Godwine, if he stayed in -Britain long enough to have any dealings with Flambard in his -character of Bishop of Durham, must have set out later still. He could -have had no share in the leaguer of Nikaia or of Antioch; most likely -he had no share in the rescue of the Holy City. He could hardly have -reached Syria till Jerusalem was again a Christian kingdom under its -second king. Godfrey, the mirror of Christian knighthood, was gone. -His successor was his less worthy brother Baldwin, he who had told the -dream of his calling to Dame Isabel in the hall of Conches.[316] But -there was still work to be done; the land which had been won had to be -defended. King Baldwin was besieged in Rama by the misbelievers.[317] -The King, attended by five knights only, made a sally to cut his way -through the besiegers. The valiant Englishman rode in front of him, -cutting down the infidels on each side with his sword. As Robert -pressed too fiercely on, his sword fell from his hand; he stooped to -grasp it again; he was overpowered by numbers, and was carried off a -prisoner.[318] He was led to the Egyptian Babylon; he was offered his -choice of death or apostasy; he clave to his faith; placed as a mark -in the market-place, like the East-Anglian Eadmund, he died beneath -the arrows of his merciless captors.[319] Such men could England, even -in her darkest day, send forth for the relief and defence of -Christendom in the Eastern world. Such men she could send forth even -in the days of our fathers, to draw the sword for right in the haven -of Pylos or beneath the akropolis of Athens. Now the men who go forth -from England to the same quarter of the world seem to share more of -the spirit of another Robert who, a century later, went forth from the -same shire as the son of Godwine on another errand. In our own story -we come across no renegade or traitor save the single name of Hugh of -Jaugy.[320] But in the course of the twelfth century we see the -forerunners of a class of men whose names stain the annals of our own -time. The glory of Robert son of Godwine is balanced by the shame of -Robert of Saint Alban’s, English by birth and blood, the apostate -Templar who joined the host of Saladin and mocked the last agonies of -the defenders of the Holy City.[321] Of the earlier Robert our century -has seen the true successors in the honoured names of Gordon and -Church and Hastings. Of the later Robert it has seen the successor in -the Englishman who sells his soul and his sword to keep down the yoke -of the barbarian on the necks of his Christian brethren. It has seen -him in the Greek who sells his soul and his glib tongue to argue in -the councils of Europe against the deliverance of his own people. - - * * * * * - -[Sidenote: Reign of Eadgar in Scotland. 1097-1107.] - -[Sidenote: Alexander. 1107-1124.] - -[Sidenote: Friendship of the Scottish kings for England.] - -[Sidenote: Turgot and Eadmer.] - -[Sidenote: Effects of the reign of David. 1124-1153.] - -[Sidenote: His English position;] - -[Sidenote: his earldoms.] - -[Sidenote: English influence in Scotland.] - -[Sidenote: His invasion of England.] - -[Sidenote: The Scottish kings of the second series.] - -[Sidenote: The English or Norman candidates for the Scottish crown.] - -With the accession of Eadgar to the Scottish crown the direct -connexion between English and Scottish affairs comes to an end, as far -as concerns the period with which we have immediately to do. Eadgar -reigned in peace, as far as his own kingdom was concerned, for ten -years, earning the doubtful praise of being in all things like to his -remote uncle the Confessor.[322] At his death the Scottish dominions -were divided between his two more energetic brothers. Alexander took -the kingdom; David, by a revival of an ancient custom,[323] held as an -appanage that part of Strathclyde or Cumberland which still belonged -to the Scottish crown. Both princes maintained strict friendship with -England, and both sought wives in England. Alexander married a natural -daughter of King Henry, Sibyl by name;[324] the wife of David was, -more significantly, the widowed daughter of Waltheof.[325] Alexander -had to strive against revolts in the North,[326] and his reign marks a -great period in the ecclesiastical history of Scotland. It is the time -in which we meet with the familiar names of Turgot and Eadmer, the one -as bishop, the other as bishop-elect, of the first see in -Scotland.[327] The influence of the reign of Eadgar told wholly in -favour of the process by which Scotland was becoming an English -kingdom. The reign of Alexander told perhaps less directly in favour -of things specially English,[328] but it worked strongly towards the -more general object of bringing Scotland into the common circle of -western Christendom. The succession of David reunited the Scottish -dominions, and his vigorous rule of twenty-nine years brought to -perfection all that his parents had begun. That famous prince was -bound to England by every tie of descent, habit, and affinity. Brother -of her Queen, uncle of her Imperial Lady,[329] David was an English -earl in a stricter sense than any king of Scots who had gone before -him. He was not only Earl of Lothian, which was becoming fast -incorporated with Scotland――or more truly was fast incorporating -Scotland with itself――nor yet only of Northumberland and Cumberland, -with which the same process might easily have been carried out.[330] -He was Earl also of distant and isolated Huntingdon, an earldom which -could not be held except on the same terms as its fellows of Leicester -or Warwick. Under David, the great reformer, the great civilizer, but -at the same time the king who made the earlier life of Scotland a -thing of the past, all that was English, all that was Norman, was -welcomed in the land which was now truly a northern England. If David, -like his father, appeared as an invader of England, if, in so doing, -he made England feel that he had subjects who were still far from -being either English or Norman,[331] he did so only as a benevolent -mediator in the affairs of England, as the champion of the claims of -one of his nieces against the claims of the other. With the three sons -of Malcolm and Margaret begins the line of those whom we may call the -second series of Scottish kings, those who still came in the direct -line of old Scottish royalty, but under whom Scotland was a disciple -of England, and on the whole friendly to England. They stand -distinguished alike from the purely Celtic kings who went before them, -and from the kings, Norman or English as we may choose to call them by -natural descent, who were politically more hostile to England than the -old Malcolms and Kenneths. Eadgar and Alexander died childless; the -later kings were all of the stock of David. Of that stock――and thereby -of the stock of Waltheof and Siward and their forefathers of whatever -species――came that motley group who in after days wrangled for David’s -crown. Bruce, Balliol, Hastings, Comyn, all came by female descent of -the line of David and Matilda. In every other aspect all of them were -simply English nobles of the time. It is an odd destiny by which, -according as they supported or withstood the rights of their own -prince over the kingdom which they claimed, some of them have won the -name of Scottish traitors and others the name of Scottish patriots. - - -§ 5. _The Expedition of Magnus._ 1098. - -[Sidenote: Events of the year 1098.] - -[Sidenote: Their wide geographical range.] - -[Sidenote: Magnus of Norway.] - -[Sidenote: Anglesey the centre of the story.] - -[Sidenote: The Earls of Shrewsbury.] - -The events of the year which followed the last revolution in Scotland -amount to a general stirring of all the lands which could in ordinary -times have any influence on the affairs of England. We shall see in -the next chapter that it was the busiest of times in the Gaulish -mainland, where the designs of Rufus, now undisputed master of -Normandy, spread far beyond anything that had been dreamed of by any -earlier holder of the Norman duchy. For warfare or for alliance, the -range of our story during this most stirring year stretches from the -fiords of Norway to the gorges of the Pyrenees. In the present section -we have to look to the northern side of this tangled drama, and to -take the specially British aspect of it as our centre. A mighty -undertaking, which moved the whole of north-western Europe, which -touched England, Scotland, Ireland, Wales, and the smaller islands -which lie between and around them, comes home to us mainly as it -touches that one among those islands which might almost pass for a -part of the mainland of southern Britain. The great warfare of Magnus -of Norway mainly concerns our story so far as it almost casually -became a part of warfare in Wales, and specially of warfare in -Anglesey. And, as regards England itself, the most important aspect of -a movement which stirred every northern land was that it indirectly -lifted one man who was already great beyond endurance in Normandy and -its border lands into a place of greatness even less endurable in -England and its border lands. We have to tell a tale spreading over -many lands and seas, a tale full of personal pictures and personal -exploits. To Englishmen of the last years of the eleventh century and -the first years of the twelfth, its most practical aspect was that it -took away Earl Hugh of Shrewsbury and set his brother Robert in his -place. - -[Sidenote: The winter of 1097.] - -[Sidenote: The war of Anglesey. 1098.] - -[Sidenote: Schemes of Cadwgan and Gruffydd.] - -[Sidenote: The Welsh take wikings from Ireland into pay.] - -We must now look back to the moment, late in the last year, when the -Welsh seemed to have completely won back their freedom, except in -Glamorgan and at the single point covered by the unconquered fortress -of Pembroke.[332] It is startling to find in our next notice that the -Britons, without any mention of any fresh loss, are beginning to stand -on the defensive, and to seek out as it were a last shelter. The war -is now shifted to a quarter of which we have hitherto heard less than -of some other parts of Wales, and it becomes connected with movements -in other parts of the world which carry us back a generation. The -island off the north-west corner of Wales, that Mona or Mevania to -which half-forgotten English conquests had given the name of -Anglesey,[333] became now, as in the days of Roman invasion, the -chief――at the time it may have seemed the last――stronghold of British -resistance. The island, parted from the British mainland by the narrow -strait――the Hellespont――of Menai, lying within sight of the fortress -of Robert of Rhuddlan at Dwyganwy, seems for the last four years to -have been left untouched by any Norman invader. But now we read that -the princes of Gwynedd, Cadwgan son of Bleddyn, their worthiest elder, -and Gruffydd the slayer of Robert, with the general assent of the -Britons of the north, agree in council, as one of their own -chroniclers puts it, to save Mona.[334] This form of words seems to -imply less trust in their own resources than we might have looked for -in the elders of the Britons after their late successes. If Mona -needed to be saved, one would think that they must already have found -that there was little real chance of saving Gwynedd or Dyfed. And the -way by which they sought to save Mona was hardly a wise one, though it -was one which might have been defended by many precedents. Just as -Gruffydd had done ten years before, they took into their pay a fleet -of pirates from Ireland, wikings doubtless from the Scandinavian -settlements, whom one Welsh writer, perhaps more from habit than as -meaning his words to be taken in their full force, speaks of as -heathens.[335] With these allies, and with the main body of their own -forces, the British leaders withdrew into Anglesey. - -[Sidenote: The two Earls Hugh, of Chester and Shrewsbury.] - -[Sidenote: Rebuilding of the castle of Aberlleiniog.] - -[Sidenote: Traces of the castle.] - -[Sidenote: The earls bribe the wikings.] - -The news of this alliance was thought serious enough to call for -vigorous action on the part of the two earls of the border. Both now -bore the same name. Hugh of Avranches still ruled at Chester――we last -heard of him as counselling the cruel punishment of William of Eu; -Hugh of Montgomery was drawing near to the end of his short dominion -over Shropshire. The Scandinavian writers couple the two Hughs -together, and they distinguish the elder by the well-earned surname of -Hugh the Fat, and the younger by that of Hugh the Proud.[336] They -gathered their forces, Norman and English, and crossed over to -Anglesey. The first step towards the occupation of the island was the -usual Norman means, the building of a castle. In this case they had -not to build for the first time, but to build up afresh what the Welsh -had destroyed in the moment of victory. It will be remembered that, -four years before, the Britons in their great revolt had won back -Anglesey and broken down the castle.[337] There seems no reason to -doubt that the site of the old work was the site of the new, and that -that site marks at once the landing-place of the two earls and the -scene of the fall of one of them. It lies on the eastern side of the -island, quite free from the strait, and nearly due west from the scene -of the Marquess Robert’s death at Dwyganwy.[338] It lies about half -way between the priory of Penmon――the head of Mona――parts of whose -simple and venerable church must be nearly contemporary with our -times,[339] and the great fortress of later days at Beaumaris, the -head of the island shire. A small expanse of flat and marshy ground -marks the spot where the small stream of Lleiniog, mere brook as it -is, makes its independent way into the sea. On its left bank the -careful enquirer will find, what he will certainly not see at a -glance, a castle-mound with its ditches, now, after the usual -senseless and provoking fashion, masked with trees. But he who makes -his way within will find, not only the mound, but the square tower -crowning it, though he will hardly deem this last to be a work of the -two earls. In front of the castle, immediately above the sea, a slight -natural height seems to have been improved by art into a smaller -mound. The earthworks at least the earls doubtless found ready to -their hand, whether they had been thrown up in the earlier invasion of -the island, or whether the invaders had then taken advantage of mounds -thrown up by men of earlier times. Here we have beyond doubt the -remains of the castle of Aberlleiniog, the castle which Hugh the Fat -and Hugh the Proud designed to hold Anglesey in check.[340] But it was -not only to the craft of the engineer that the two Hughs trusted. The -earls of the Red King’s day had learned to practise the special arts -of their master. The wikings were bribed with the gold of England to -betray the cause of their British allies, and they gave the earls -valuable help in making good their entrance into Anglesey.[341] - -[Sidenote: Cadwgan and Gruffydd flee to Ireland.] - -[Sidenote: Cruel treatment of the Welsh captives.] - -[Sidenote: Desecration of the church of Saint Tyfrydog.] - -[Sidenote: Mutilation of Cenred.] - -[Sidenote: Restoration of his speech.] - -It was in strange contrast with the vigour which for several years had -been shown by the Welsh leaders, and with the success which had -commonly waited on their arms, but quite in harmony with their last -action of all, when Cadwgan and Gruffydd, seeing the turn which things -had taken, threw up the common cause altogether and fled to Ireland to -secure their own safety.[342] Anglesey was now left to the mercy of -the two earls. The character for gentleness which Hugh of Shrewsbury -bears, and which he may have deserved in the government of his own -earldom, brought no lessening of suffering to British enemies. -Wherever the two Hughs marched, men were slaughtered, or were, in -modern eyes at least, worse than slaughtered. They were blinded, -deprived of hands and feet, or made to undergo the other mutilations -usual at the time.[343] In some cases at least the earls trampled on -every privilege of holy places and holy persons. It may be deemed a -lesser matter that one of them caused his hounds to pass a night in -the church of Saint Tyfrydog, and found them all mad in the -morning.[344] The privileges of the Church could not shelter even her -human and priestly servants. One special victim was an aged priest, -who is said to have taken a leading part in the war by the advice -which he gave to the Welsh. His name Cenred bespeaks English birth; -the form of the name is Mercian; if he had passed from the earldom of -either Hugh to the side of the Welsh, he would naturally be looked on -as a traitor, and his treason would explain the excessive harshness -with which he was treated. The old man was dragged out of a church; -besides more shameful suffering, one eye was torn out, and his tongue -was also cut out.[345] This last form of mutilation seems to have been -confined to himself, and it may have been meant as specially befitting -one who had used that dangerous member to give counsel to the enemy. -And now, according to our story, happened one of those signs and -wonders which were at the time naturally deemed miraculous, but for -which modern times have supplied, if not an explanation, at least a -parallel. Cenred fared like the victims of Gelimer of old, like the -victims of Djezzar in modern times; three days after the loss of his -tongue, his speech came back to him.[346] Four days later again, so -men deemed at Worcester, came vengeance on one at least of the two -earls for the cruel deed which they had wrought on him.[347] - - * * * * * - -[Sidenote: Expedition of Magnus Barefoot.] - -[Sidenote: Character of his reign. 1093-1103.] - -[Sidenote: His surnames.] - -[Sidenote: 1093-1098.] - -[Sidenote: He professes friendship for England.] - -[Sidenote: His treasure at Lincoln.] - -If wikings from Ireland had betrayed the cause of the Britons, a far -mightier wiking was now afloat, if not to give help to the Britons, at -least to act as a minister of wrath upon their enemies. The tale of -Stamfordbridge seems to come over again on the western, instead of the -eastern, side of the British islands. For a grandson of Harold -Hardrada shows himself at the head of a power almost equalling that of -his grandfather; he brings a grandson of Godwine in his train, he -overcomes two Mercian earls, and finds his own doom, not indeed in -Yorkshire, but in Ireland. But the enterprise which recalls so many -points in the enterprise of two-and-thirty years earlier was not in -any strict sense an invasion of England. Magnus, the son of that -peaceful Olaf of whom we have heard in the Conqueror’s day,[348] now -reigned in Norway in the spirit of his grandfather rather than in that -of his father. He bore various surnames, as the Tall and the -Lover-of-Strife; but his name has gone down in history with the -special epithet of Magnus Barefoot――more strictly it would seem -Bare-leg――a name which is said to have been given to him as one of the -results of the enterprise of which we have now to speak. After showing -himself for five years as a mighty warrior in his own peninsula, -Magnus set forth to bring more western lands under his obedience. -Against England he professed to have no designs, and the little that -we casually hear of him in connexion with England seems to imply -friendly relations. His son Sigurd, afterwards famous as the Crusader, -was the child of an English captive. Her name of Thora witnesses to -her Scandinavian descent;[349] but her captivity could not have been -the work of the arms of Magnus. Either now or at some later time, he -entrusted a great treasure, twenty thousand pounds of silver, to the -keeping of a rich citizen of Lincoln,[350] a sign of the high place -which was still held by the city of the Danish Lawmen, and of the -connexion which its citizens still kept up with the kingdoms of the -North.[351] - -[Sidenote: Harold son of Harold in his fleet.] - -But, peaceful as might be the professions of Magnus toward England, -there was one in his fleet whose presence could not fail to call up -thoughts of deeds which had been done, or which might again be done, -on English ground. We learn from one of the most casual of notices -that Magnus had with him a man who, if the course of things had gone -otherwise a generation earlier, might then himself have been the -wearer of the English crown, who would at least have stood nearer to -it than either the Ætheling of the blood of Cerdic or the Ætheling of -the blood of Rolf. It could hardly have been without an object that -the grandson of Harold the son of Sigurd brought with him the son of -Harold the son of Godwine. Strange indeed was the fate of the twin -sons of the doubly widowed Ealdgyth.[352] Each flashes across our -sight for a moment, and only for a moment. Ulf we have seen the -prisoner of the Conqueror; we have seen him sent forth by the -Conqueror’s son to go in freedom and honour, but to go we know not -whither.[353] And now, for once in the course of a life which must -have been a chequered one, we hear the name of his brother. Some ship -in the fleet of Magnus bore, as its guest or as its captain, Harold -the son of Harold King of the English.[354] Whence he came, whither he -went, before and after that one voyage to the shores of Britain, we -know not. Grandson of Godwine, grandson of Ælfgar, begotten, but not -born, to the kingship of England, the child of the widow did not see -the light in the City of the Legions till his father had found his -cairn upon the rocks of Hastings, perhaps his tomb before the altar at -Waltham. What friendly hand saved him, when his brother came into the -Conqueror’s power, we know not, any more than we know the later -fortunes of his mother. But now the younger Harold came, the guest of -one whose grandfather had felt the might, as his father had felt the -mild-heartedness, of the elder Harold.[355] His voyage brought him not -near to either the most glorious or the most mournful memories of his -father. The fleet of Magnus kept aloof alike from the shores of -Yorkshire and from the shores of Sussex. But the younger Harold came -to look for a moment on the land where his mother had dwelled as a -queen, and which his father had filled with the trophies of his -conquest.[356] He came to see the British shores lined with English -warriors, but to see them under the rule of the Norman leaders who had -divided between them so great a part of the earldom of his mother’s -house, and the elder of whom reigned as all but a king in the city of -his own birth. Son and nephew of the three who died on Senlac, he saw -from the Norwegian ship the fall of the son of the man who led the -charge which first broke down the English palisade upon that hill of -doom.[357] And then, his name once spoken, he passes away into utter -darkness. Of Ulf, the knight of the Norman duke, of Harold the comrade -of the Norwegian king, we have no tale to tell save that they were -such. - - * * * * * - -[Sidenote: Magnus’ designs on Ireland.] - -[Sidenote: His alleged Irish marriage.] - -[Sidenote: Irish marriage of his son Sigurd.] - -[Sidenote: His voyage among the islands.] - -[Sidenote: Dominion of Godred Cronan.] - -[Sidenote: 1075-1091.] - -[Sidenote: 1078.] - -[Sidenote: Godred driven out of Dublin. 1094.] - -[Sidenote: His death.] - -[Sidenote: 1095.] - -[Sidenote: His sons, Lagman and Harold.] - -[Sidenote: Donald sent by Murtagh to the Sudereys.] - -[Sidenote: Ingemund sent by Magnus.] - -[Sidenote: Civil war in Man.] - -One version of our tale speaks of Ireland as the main object of the -expedition of Magnus, as it certainly was the object of his last -expedition some years later. He had, it is said, married the daughter -of an Irish king, but his father-in-law had failed to carry out the -marriage-contract.[358] There is nothing of this in the Norwegian -account, which speaks only of a later marriage between Sigurd son of -Magnus and a daughter of King Murtagh.[359] But it seems clear from a -comparison of the various accounts that Magnus did, at some stage of -the present voyage, make an attack on Ireland; it seems reasonable -therefore to suppose that Irish enterprise formed part of his scheme -from the beginning.[360] Our own narrative is more concerned with his -course along the shores of our own island, in which however he seems -to have barely touched Britain itself, in either its Scottish or its -English regions. His exploits lay among the smaller islands of the -British seas, most of which had at that moment more to do with Ireland -than with either England or Scotland. It is not easy to call up from -among many conflicting statements an exact picture of the state of -things at the time. In the interval between the expedition of Harold -Hardrada and the expedition of his grandson, Godred the son of Harold, -surnamed Cronan, he whom we have heard of at Stamford bridge,[361] had -raised up a considerable dominion of which Man was the centre. He -ruled over Dublin and the greater part of Leinster, and over the -Sudereys or Hebrides; and, if the chronicle of his own island may be -believed, he drove the Scots to a singular treaty, the object of which -must have been to hinder Scotland from becoming a naval power.[362] We -may guess that some of the piratical adventurers of whom we have heard -once or twice in our Welsh notices, as for instance in the story of -Robert of Rhuddlan and again in the tale which we have just told, were -in truth subjects of Godred. But the dominion of Godred was one of -those powers which seem as it were casually founded, and which seldom -long outlive the reign of their founder. His Irish dominion did not -last even so long as his own life. After seventeen years of -possession, he was driven out of Dublin by Murtagh, and in the next -year he died, leaving three sons, Lagman, Harold, and Olaf, of whom -Lagman succeeded to his island dominion. In the Manx version of the -tale, Lagman, disturbed by a rebellion of his brother Harold, took a -frightful revenge by inflicting on him the usual cruel mutilations. -Then, smitten with remorse, he made the pilgrimage to Jerusalem and -died there.[363] The chief men of the Sudereys, hearing of his death, -asked King Murtagh for a ruler during the minority of Olaf. This would -almost look as if Murtagh had not only driven Godred out of Ireland, -but had established some kind of supremacy over Man itself. But the -ruler sent, Donald by name, proved a tyrant, and was driven out.[364] -Then we are told that Magnus himself sent one Ingemund to take the -crown of the Isles, that the chief men came together in Lewis to make -him king but that his outrages on their wives and daughters made them -change their purpose. Instead of crowning him, they burned him in his -house, and slew all his followers with fire and sword.[365] Directly -after, we read of a civil war in the isle of Man itself, in which the -leaders of both parties were killed.[366] The Norwegian story tells us -nothing of all this; it conceives Godred as still living at the time -of the expedition of Magnus, and Lagman as acting under his -father.[367] The Manx version, though confused in its chronology and -mixed up with some legendary details, gives the more intelligible -story of the two. We see a time of confusion in Man, Ireland, and the -Sudereys, which the Norwegian King tries to turn to his own advantage. -The slaughter of his candidate for the island crown might have been -looked on as ground for war by princes more scrupulous in such matters -than Magnus Barefoot. - -[Sidenote: Signs and wonders.] - -[Sidenote: Legend of Magnus and Saint Olaf.] - -[Sidenote: His fleet.] - -A King of the Northmen could hardly set out on a great enterprise -without signs and wonders; but the signs and wonders which marked the -expedition of Magnus are of a different kind from those which marked -the expedition of Harold Hardrada. Or rather, one of the two elements -which we see in the tale of Harold had, in the thirty years which had -passed, waxed strong enough to drive out the other. In the days of -Harold the omens and visions still savour of the old times of -Scandinavian heathendom. Saint Olaf indeed appears in his character of -a Christian martyr, to remind us that we are reading the deeds of -baptized men; but the general tone is that of the worshippers of Thor -and Odin.[368] But the tale which is now told of Magnus is a mere -piece of every-day mediæval hagiology. It reminds us of some of the -tales which are told of William the Great and of others.[369] Magnus, -great-nephew of Saint Olaf, is seized with an irreverent longing to -test the truth of the boast that the body of his martyred kinsman had -not seen corruption. The body, first buried in a sandhill near Nidaros -or Trondhjem, was soon, like those of our own Harold and Waltheof, -translated to a worthier place in the great church of Nidaros. Its -incorruption had been already proved, and in their new place the holy -remains wrought wonders of healing and deliverance.[370] But now, -heedless of the remonstrances of the bishop and his clergy, Magnus -bade that the shrine should be opened, that he might see whether it -was even as the tale went. He saw and believed; and he not only -believed but trembled. He rushed out of the church, smitten with -sudden fear. In the night the martyr appeared to him and gave him his -choice of two forms of punishment. He must either lose his kingdom and -his life within thirty days, or else he must set forth from Norway and -never see the land again. Magnus gathered together his wise men; he -told them the vision, and by their advice, he chose the second -alternative, by far the less terrible to a king of the seas.[371] He -set forth, but it was on an errand of conquest, at the head of a fleet -of a hundred and sixty ships, a number far less than that of the -mighty armada which had come together at the bidding of his -grandfather.[372] - -[Sidenote: Magnus at Orkney.] - -[Sidenote: He seizes the earls.] - -[Sidenote: He gives the earldom to Sigurd.] - -[Sidenote: Magnus among the Sudereys;] - -[Sidenote: in Cantire;] - -[Sidenote: his dealings with Galloway.] - -[Sidenote: His fruitless design on Ireland.] - -[Sidenote: He occupies Man.] - -[Sidenote: His designs.] - -The teller of this tale has either misplaced the date of the real or -supposed vision, or else he has mixed up the present voyage of Magnus -with a later one. Magnus certainly saw Norway again after that one of -his expeditions which alone directly touches English history. He first -sailed to the Orkneys, where the brother earls, the sons of Thorfinn -and Ingebiorg, the half-brothers of Duncan of Scotland, still -reigned.[373] Their reign now ended. On what ground we are not told, -Paul and Erling, the allies of his grandfather, were dealt with by -Magnus as enemies. They were made prisoners, and were sent to Norway, -where they afterwards died.[374] His own young son Sigurd was -established in the rule of the earldom, with a council to advise -him.[375] Magnus then sailed among the Sudereys, plundering, burning, -and slaying. His minstrels and sagamen boast of his doings in this way -in the islands of Lewis, Uist, Skye, Mull, and Islay. But he -spared――the new faith of the Northmen prevailed thus far――the holy -island of Saint Columba, all whose inhabitants were freely received to -his peace.[376] The only part of the isle of Britain itself which he -seems to have touched was the long peninsula of Cantire, which might -pass rather for another island than for part of the mainland, and -which in truth formed a part of the insular realm. Thence, we are -told, he plundered such parts of the Irish and Scottish coasts as lay -within reach.[377] We read also in other versions that he made the men -of Galloway become hewers of wood for fortresses to be raised, perhaps -along their own shores.[378] We read too that at this stage he -designed a more deliberately planned attack on Ireland, but that he -shrank from carrying it out when he saw how strongly the Irish coasts -were guarded.[379] His next point was Man, which one narrator of his -exploits strangely describes him as finding forsaken, and as peopling -with inhabitants, from what quarter we are not told.[380] The local -chronicler tells us, doubtless with far greater truth, that he landed -on the island of Saint Patrick,――Holm Peel, the place of the famous -castle and cathedral church――that he was pleased with the land, and -built fortresses therein, meaning――so at least it was believed in -Man――to make the island his own dwelling-place.[381] Man, once -established as the seat of a great Northern empire, would certainly -have been a standing menace to all the regions and races of the -British islands. But the dominion of Magnus over Man was not handed on -to any successor of his own house, and during the few years which he -still lived, he did not make Man the centre of his power. - - * * * * * - -[Sidenote: Version of Orderic.] - -[Sidenote: He approaches Anglesey.] - -[Sidenote: Preparations for resistance.] - -[Sidenote: The fleet off Aberlleiniog.] - -We now come near to that point in the expedition which brings it -immediately within the range of our present history. The writer who -gives us most detail deems the exploits of Magnus so great that he -lashes himself up to his highest flight of classical rhetoric. He -paints the Norwegian king as the conqueror of the Kyklades――not those -Kyklades of the Ægæan which his grandfather may well enough have -visited, but the other Kyklades in the great sea, lying as it were -outside the world.[382] To match this unlooked-for definition of the -Western islands, the winds which filled the sails of Magnus are -honoured with unusual names; and, by a sad relapse into paganism -Amphitritê seems to be called up as a special guardian of the English -shore.[383] Of the two islands which bore the name of Mevania, both of -which had obeyed the Bretwalda Eadwine, Magnus was already master of -one; he now drew near to the other. We are told that he sent a small -part of his fleet, consisting of six ships, to some unnamed point of -the more strictly English shore, bearing a red shield as a sign that -their purposes were peaceful.[384] But the people of Britain of all -races seem to have put little faith in the peaceful purposes of the -Northmen. A vast host, French and English, presently came together -from all parts of the dominions of the two Mercian earls. The -meeting-place is said to have been at Dwyganwy on the peninsula -opposite Anglesey, the scene of the fall of Robert of Rhuddlan.[385] -But there can be no doubt that the scene of the tale which we have to -tell lies on the opposite shore of Anglesey, and seemingly hard by the -newly restored castle of Aberlleiniog. Most likely the sea then came -in further over the low and marshy ground, and nearer to the -castle-mound, than it does now. Both the earls were on the spot; the -younger Hugh of Shrewsbury had been the first to come, and he had had -to wait some days for his allies. At last the Norwegian ships were -seen at sea near the coast, and the inhabitants were running to and -fro for fear. By this time the forces of Hugh of Chester must have -come up; but it is Hugh of Shrewsbury, the younger and more active of -the pair, who plays the chief part in the story. He mounted his horse, -and rode backwards and forwards along the shore, bringing his -followers together, lest the invaders should land and overcome them -piecemeal.[386] In his zeal he rode so near to the water as to come -within reach of the advancing tide and within bow-shot of the -Norwegian ships. Two archers on the ship of King Magnus spied him out, -and took aim. His body was so well guarded by his coat of mail that it -was his face only that supplied a mark for the archers. Of these one -was King Magnus himself; the other was a warrior from Halagoland, the -most northern part of the strictly Norwegian shore. The arrow shot by -the King’s comrade struck and turned aside from the nose-piece of the -Earl’s helmet. The shaft sent by the King’s own hand went yet more -truly to its mark; it pierced the eye of Hugh and went through his -head. Hugh the Proud sank, and perished amid the advancing waves.[387] -He died by a stroke like that by which the elder Harold fell on -Senlac; and we could almost wish that it had been the hand of the -younger Harold that sent the shaft. - -[Sidenote: Norwegian and Welsh versions.] - -[Sidenote: Peace between Magnus and Hugh of Chester.] - -[Sidenote: Burial of Hugh of Shrewsbury.] - -That shaft was, according to the monk of Saint Evroul, sent by the -hand of Magnus, but by the special instigation of the devil. To the -minstrels of Norway the death of Earl Hugh seemed a worthy exploit. -They sang, not of a single shot, but of a fierce battle, in which the -Norwegian king, lord of the islands, met the Welsh earls[388] face to -face. They told how the arrows rattled on the coats of mail, and how -the King’s own arrow overthrew Earl Hugh the Proud by the waters of -Anglesey.[389] The British chronicler too tells us, if not of the -fierce struggle described by the Northern poet, yet of arrows shot on -both sides, alike from the ships and by the defenders of the -land.[390] All agree that it was by the royal hand that the Earl fell. -But it is only from Saint Evroul that we hear that Magnus shot Hugh -unwittingly, and that he mourned when he knew who it was whom he had -slain. It is added that he at once made full peace with the surviving -Earl Hugh of Chester, declaring that he had no hostile purposes -against England, but that he only wished to wage war with Ireland, and -to assert his dominion over the islands.[391] The body of Earl Hugh of -Shrewsbury was sought for with pains by Normans and English, and was -found at last, as the tide went back.[392] The only gentle one among -the sons of Mabel[393]――gentle, we may easily believe, to all but the -Britons, perhaps cruel to them only under the evil influence of his -elder namesake――was mourned by all, and was buried the seventeenth day -after his death in the cloister of his father’s abbey at -Shrewsbury.[394] - -[Sidenote: Designs of Magnus on Anglesey.] - -[Sidenote: Anglesey and North Wales subdued by Hugh.] - -The words which we have just seen put into the mouth of Magnus are -words of doubtful meaning, and they might imply a claim to Anglesey, -as well as to the other islands. That Magnus came thither with -purposes of conquest we may set down as certain; it is less clear -whether those purposes were carried out, even for a moment. In Norway -it was believed that the overthrow of Earl Hugh put the King of the -Northmen in possession of Anglesey, which is strangely spoken of as a -third of the British land.[395] In Man it was said that Magnus, having -slain one earl and put another to flight, occupied Anglesey, but that -he was persuaded by the Welsh, on the payment of a heavy ransom, to -leave the island and sail back to Man.[396] Certain it is that, if -Magnus took any real possession of Anglesey, it was a momentary -possession indeed. According to the British chroniclers, he sailed -away at once, so that his coming and the death of one of the earls did -not really hinder the joint work of the two. For a moment Anglesey, -and with it seemingly the greater part of North Wales, was brought -more thoroughly than ever under Norman or English rule. The phrase by -which the Welsh writer sets forth the result has a strange sound; but -it does not badly describe the final work of these endless wars. The -French, he says, made the people become Saxons.[397] But for the -present this work was done only for a moment. In the course of the -next year, Anglesey was again, neither in French nor in Saxon, but in -British hands.[398] - -[Sidenote: Sigurd’s kingdom.] - -[Sidenote: Occupation of Cantire.] - -[Sidenote: Dealings of Magnus with Scotland.] - -We shall hear again of Magnus in the revolutions both of Anglesey and -of other parts of North Wales. For the present, satisfied with the -glory of having carried the Norwegian arms further south in the -British islands than any of his predecessors had done,[399] he seems -to have sailed, first to Man and then to Ireland. There he made a -truce with Murtagh, and, at a later time, he married the daughter of -the Irish king to his own son Sigurd. This youth was now entrusted -with the rule of all the Orkneys and Hebrides, and that with the -kingly title.[400] Of his kingdom Cantire formed a part; the peninsula -had been formally taken possession of by the Norwegian king. This was -done by a symbolic rite, which well expressed the dominion of a king -of the seas over the land. Magnus was drawn in a ship across the -isthmus which joins Cantire to the mainland. The occupation of Cantire -was, according to the Norwegian writer, the result of a treaty with -Malcolm King of Scots;[401] but the expedition of Magnus took place -during the reign of Eadgar. Magnus then went back to Norway, to -receive his surname from the dress of the islanders, the use of which -he and his followers brought into their own land. He then occupied -himself for a while with Scandinavian affairs, till his restless -spirit again brought him within the range of our story. - - -§ 6. _The establishment of Robert of Bellême in England._ 1098. - -[Sidenote: Effects of the death of Hugh of Shrewsbury.] - -[Sidenote: Robert of Bellême Earl of Shrewsbury. 1098.] - -[Sidenote: He buys his brother’s possessions.] - -[Sidenote: Extent of his estates.] - -[Sidenote: Doubtful policy of the grant.] - -[Sidenote: Position of Robert on the continent.] - -Of the two earls who had crossed over to Anglesey to meet with such -singular ups and downs of fortune, it was the elder who came back -alive. Hugh of Chester, Hugh the Fat, had still to rule for a few -years longer till he died a monk at Saint Werburh’s. But the -short-lived reign of Hugh the Proud at Shrewsbury and Arundel had come -to an end, and his death led to important changes in all those parts -of England with which he had had to deal, but above all in his own -earldom on the Welsh border. A large part of that district, a district -the most important of all in a military point of view, passed under -the rule of the man who was at once the most merciless of oppressors -and the most skilful of military engineers. The Red King and his -minister had now an opportunity of carrying out their doctrines with -regard to the redemption of lands on a grand scale. The King was -doubtless ready to be the heir of Earl Hugh, as of all other men; but, -as in the case of other men, he was willing to allow the next kinsman -to redeem the inheritance, if he offered a becoming price. So now, -when Robert of Bellême claimed the earldom and lands of his deceased -brother, he obtained a grant of them on a payment of three thousand -pounds.[402] This was nearly half the sum for which William Rufus had -made himself master of all Normandy; but it was perhaps not too great -a price to pay for the great earldom of Shropshire with its endless -castles and lordships, for Arundel and Chichester and the other -South-Saxon lands of Roger of Montgomery, and for the rest of his -possessions scattered over many English shires. Robert of Bellême, -specially so called as the son of his mother, but who was no less -Robert of Montgomery as the son of his father, and who now became no -less Robert of Arundel and of Shrewsbury, thus joined together in his -own person three inheritances, any one of which alone might have set -him among princes. One might doubt whether William the Conqueror would -have been tempted by any price to allow the accumulation of such vast -powers in the hands of one man, and that a man whose homage was not -due to himself only. But with William the Red the services and the -payments of Robert of Bellême together outweighed any thought of the -policy which might have led him rather to bestow the vacant earldom -and other lands on some other among the sons of Earl Roger. Robert was -now at the height of his power and his fame――such fame as his -was――beyond the sea. We shall read in the next chapter of his doings -in Maine this very year, the doings of which he now received the -reward. To the Norman heritage of his father, to the marchlands which -he had inherited from his mother, to the lands which mother and son -had snatched from so many Norman and Cenomannian holders, Robert now -added all that his father had received from the Conqueror’s grant -among the conquered English, and all that his father had won for -himself among the half-conquered Welsh. - -[Sidenote: His new position in England.] - -[Sidenote: Comparison with the Counts of Mortain.] - -[Sidenote: Comparison of Robert of Bellême and Hugh of Chester.] - -[Sidenote: Unique position of Robert.] - -The establishment of Robert of Bellême in England marks an epoch in -our story. Though we have already so often heard of him, not only in -continental affairs but in the affairs of our own island, he had not -yet, as far as we can see, held any English possessions at all; -certainly he had none which put him on a level with the great Norman -land-owners. From this time he is something more than merely one among -them; he at once begins to play the part of the foremost among them, -foremost alike in power and in ambition. His namesake, Robert of -Mortain and of Cornwall, had held as great a number of English acres, -and his death had handed over the vast heritage to his son. But -neither of the Counts of Mortain had any personal gifts which could -win for them the personal position which was held by Robert of -Bellême. The father was sluggish; the son was turbulent; neither of -them was the peer of the great captain and engineer who was now to -lord it over the British march. Nor did the nature and position of his -estates give to the grandson of Herleva the same advantages which -belonged to the son of Mabel. The one was, bating the title of Earl, -as great in Cornwall as the other was in Shropshire; but the lord of -Cornwall might, if he chose, sleep idly, while the lord of Shropshire -was driven to constant action against a restless enemy. Each had a -great position in Sussex; but the position of the lord of Arundel and -Chichester was practically higher than that of the lord of Pevensey. -The vast scattered possessions held by the Count of Mortain throughout -England added more to his wealth than to his political power. Earl -Hugh of Chester was in his own earldom even greater than Robert was in -his; but Earl Hugh was growing old, and ambitious as he was, he seems -to have kept his ambition within certain geographical bounds, in those -regions of Normandy and of Britain which destiny seemed to have set -before him. There can be no doubt that, at this moment, Robert of -Bellême held a position in England which he shared with no rival in -the island, and which was backed by a power beyond sea which put him -rather on a level with sovereign dukes and counts than with ordinary -nobles. - -[Sidenote: Effects of his coming.] - -[Sidenote: Robert a stranger in England.] - -[Sidenote: Cruelty of the new earl.] - -[Sidenote: His spoliations.] - -To the men of the borderland, of whatever race, the change of masters -was a frightful one. To the settled inhabitants, Norman and English, -it must have been like yet another foreign conquest. The change is -marked in the change of name; the surname of the new lord comes from -the lands of his mother which lay beyond the bounds either of England -or of Normandy. Hugh of Montgomery is exchanged for Robert of Bellême. -The new master from the march of Normandy and Maine must, twenty-nine -years after the conquest of Shropshire, have seemed a stranger, not -only to Englishmen, but to Normans of the first settlement, still more -so to men who were of Norman parentage but of English birth. In its -personal aspect the change of lords must have been a matter of -shuddering. The rule of Earl Roger had been tolerable; the four years -of Earl Hugh we have seen spoken of as a reign of special mildness, at -least for his own people. But now they had a lord of another kind. -English and Welsh, we are told, had smiled at the tales of the deeds -of Robert in other lands; they listened to them as to the song of the -bard or the gleeman, deeming that, if such things were done, they were -at least done far away from themselves. But now they found in their -own persons that those tales were true, when, in the strong words of a -writer of those times, they were flayed alive by the iron claws of -Earl Robert.[403] The Earl himself, great as he was in power and -wealth, was only puffed up by what he had to hanker after yet more. He -spared no man, of whatever race or order, whose lands lay conveniently -to his hand, nor did he scruple to take away from the saints -themselves what the men of the elder time had given to them.[404] - -[Sidenote: His skill in castle-building.] - -[Sidenote: His defence of Shropshire.] - -[Sidenote: 1094.] - -[Sidenote: Early history of the Shropshire fortresses.] - -[Sidenote: 896.] - -[Sidenote: Æthelflæd fortifies Bridge (north). 912.] - -But Robert of Bellême was something more than an ordinary plunderer; -he was a man of genius in his way; whatever he either inherited or -seized on was sure to be strengthened by the best engineering skill of -his time.[405] In the gradual work of planting both England and -Normandy with castles he had no small share; and his skill is nowhere -more to be admired than in the way in which he adapted his designs to -the varying circumstances of different places. He built at Bridgenorth -and he built at Gisors; there is little that is alike in the two -fortresses, because there is little that is alike in the position of -the two points which those fortresses severally had to defend. The -former, Robert of Bellême’s great creation on English ground, held a -most important place in the defences of the middle course of the -Severn. The Welsh wars of this reign had brought that whole line of -country into renewed importance. If the power of England under her -Norman masters was stretching further and further over the British -lands, that very advance laid the English lands more and more open to -passing and occasional British ravages. The experience of such warfare -within the English border was quite fresh. When Robert of Bellême took -his earldom, four years only had passed since Shropshire and -Herefordshire had been laid waste,[406] just as in the old days when -Gruffydd smote the Saxon at Rhyd-y-Groes.[407] The new Earl of -Shropshire therefore found it needful to strengthen the whole line of -defences of the Severn. Strong as was the capital of his earldom on -its peninsular height, it was well to have, in the rear of Shrewsbury, -another great fortress on a lower point of the river, a point whose -importance is witnessed by its name; it is emphatically the _Bridge_. -The whole region had been carefully fortified, perhaps in earlier days -still, certainly in the days when the Dane as well as the Briton had -to be guarded against. In the last campaign of Ælfred, the Danes, -finding it expedient to leave the neighbourhood of London, had marched -across the whole breadth of England from Thames to Severn, and had -_wrought_ a _work_ beside that river at _Quatbridge_.[408] Sixteen -years later, the victorious Lady, the guardian of the Mercian land, -had _timbered_ the _burh_ at _Bridge_. At a somewhat lower point, the -enemy against whom Ælfred and his daughter had to strive has left his -memory in the name of Danesford. The _Bridge_ was the site of the -chosen stronghold of Robert of Bellême. But when his discerning eye -marked the spot for a great military centre, he did but do afresh what -had been already done by the native guardian of England. The fortress -of Robert of Bellême was but a calling into fresh being, a -strengthening with new works, of the older fortress of Æthelflæd.[409] - - [Illustration: - Map - illustrating the - SHROPSHIRE CAMPAIGN. - A.D. 1102. - Edwᵈ. Weller - _For the Delegates of the Clarendon Press._] - -[Sidenote: Older mound of Quatford.] - -[Sidenote: Quatford Castle.] - -[Sidenote: Earl Roger’s house.] - -[Sidenote: His chapel.] - -It is somewhat singular that in the line of defence traced by Robert’s -father so commanding a site as that of the Bridge did not hold the -first place. The strong place of Roger of Montgomery lies between -three and four miles lower down the river. There, on the left, the -English, side of the Severn, we meet with the first――first to one -going up the stream――of our present group of fortresses. A bold -height, of no very great positive elevation, marks the position of the -church and mound of Quatford, standing side by side, as is so often -seen both in our own island and beyond sea. The mound is a natural -height rising close above the river, ditched and scarped as was -needed, but raised only slightly above its original height. This elder -fortification, the dwelling-place of some English thegn of the old -time, seems to have given way, either before or after the coming of -the Norman, to a stronghold a little way further up the river, which -still bears the name of Quatford Castle. A sandstone hill, standing -isolated, near to the river but not immediately on its banks, was, -like the smaller and older post, improved and raised into a castle -mound, perhaps by Earl Roger himself, perhaps by some earlier holder. -There the Survey records his new house and his borough; and we may -fairly see his work in the well which still remains bored deep in the -heart of the rock.[410] In the days of King Eadward the lordship of -Eardington had been held by Saint Mildburh of Wenlock. But, if Earl -Roger, who passes for the refounder of that house,[411] did any wrong -to its patroness, he may be held to have atoned for it by the -collegiate chapel which he raised at Quatford. It was founded at the -request of his wife, not the proud and cruel Mabel, but her pious and -gentle successor Adeliza. A pleasing legend is told of the origin of -the chapel and of the house, a legend which, if it contains any kernel -of truth, points to Earl Roger as having been the first to occupy -Quatford Castle as a dwelling, and which may account for the -restoration of the far more tempting site of the old fortress of the -Lady being left to be the work of his son.[412] - -[Sidenote: Robert of Bellême removes to Bridge (north).] - -[Sidenote: Oldbury.] - -[Sidenote: Oldbury and Bridgenorth.] - -The new rule now began, and the home of Roger and Adeliza was forsaken -by Earl Robert for the far stronger point higher up the river, and on -the opposite, the right or Welsh bank.[413] Here, in contrast to the -mere fords at other points, to Quatford itself and to the Danesford -above it, stood the _bridge_ which still forms so marked a feature, -and which had given the spot its name. _Bridge_ then, the stronghold -of Æthelflæd, became the stronghold of Robert of Bellême; and now, -perhaps from its position with regard to his father’s dwelling at -Quatford, it came to be specially distinguished as _Bridgenorth_. A -steep cliff overhangs the river at a point where the opposite ground -is high, where the stream is far wider than it again becomes lower -down, and where the channel is divided by an island, such as those by -which the Danes loved to anchor, whether in the Seine or in the -Severn. And, as the Danes are recorded to have _wrought_ a _work_ in -clear distinction from the _burh_ which the Lady afterwards -_timbered_, we are tempted to see that work in a mound not far from -the bridge, and on the same side as the river, but not rising -immediately above the river’s banks. A natural height has been -ditched, scarped, and raised to a level somewhat lower than that of -the cliff immediately above the stream, the cliff which was chosen for -the fortress, first of the Lady and then of the rebel Earl. It is -plainly in opposition to this last that the place had, before the time -of Domesday, received the name of Oldbury, which is still borne by the -parish in which it stands.[414] The cliff itself, the site of the -castle and town of Bridgenorth, has a peninsular shape so strongly -marked that it is hard to believe that the river runs on one side of -it only, and that Bridgenorth and Oldbury are divided, not by a -stream, but by a dry valley, in those days doubtless not dry, but -marshy. The sites of the older and the newer fortress still look on -one another, though the older has again become only a grassy mound, -while the younger grew into a fortress, parish, and town, and still -remains a parliamentary borough. - -[Sidenote: Bridgenorth castle;] - -[Sidenote: Robert’s keep.] - -[Sidenote: The churches and town of Bridgenorth.] - -[Sidenote: The group of fortresses.] - -[Sidenote: Burf Castle.] - -The position of the great fortress of the oppressor is a noble one. -The mere height of the cliff at Bridgenorth is so much lower than many -of the surrounding hills of that lovely region that it makes less show -than might have been looked for in the general view. But, as we stand -close under it on the other side of the river, we feel that -Bridgenorth needs only buildings of equal majesty on its height to -make it rank with Lincoln, with Le Mans, almost with Laon itself. But -against the proud minsters of those cities Bridgenorth has nothing to -set in its general view save two church towers, one of them modern, -whose ugliness is not relieved by the fact that it represents the -castle church, the college of Bridgenorth, transferred thither by -Robert of Bellême, when he moved castle, church, and everything from -their older home at Quatford. But Bridgenorth still keeps one object -of surpassing interest in our present story, that which is of a truth -the very cradle and kernel of the place, the shattered keep of Robert -of Bellême. There we have the good luck which we enjoy but seldom in -examining the military remains of this age, the strongholds of the men -of the Conquest and their immediate successors. Most commonly we light -on little more than the mere site, or the works of earlier or of later -times; it is only now and then that we actually see, in however -imperfect a state, some piece of genuine masonry belonging to the time -with which we are dealing. This satisfaction we have in no small -measure at Bridgenorth. There is the square keep of the terrible -founder of the fortress, broken down, riven asunder by some explosion -in the warfare of later times――what is left of it driven to overhang -its base like the tower of Caerphilly or the _Muro Torto_ of Rome――but -still keeping its main and distinctive features, still showing, in its -flat pilasters, its double-splayed windows,[415] the traces of its -double-sloped roof with the deep gutter,[416] what that stern, hard, -tower was when the Devil of Bellême first called it into being. We can -just trace the gateway which the keep commanded between the inner and -outer courts of the castle, and we can see the ruins of the advanced -building which sheltered the actual entrance of the keep itself. The -square tower, so characteristic of Norman military work, is after all -so rare in this its earlier form that every such fragment as this of -Bridgenorth calls for most attentive study. Here we see the highest -advances in the art of defence, as practised by the man whose name -makes us shudder through almost every page of our story. At -Bridgenorth nature had done almost everything. The tall and steep -cliff called for nothing to be done in the way of mounds and ditches. -It was enough to fence in the height――that the Lady had doubtless done -after the fashion of her age――and to raise the keep――the distinctive -feature of Earl Robert’s age――as the last shelter in case of attack -from the land side. We can trace the inner and outer courts, the -latter containing the unsightly church which represents the college -within the castle. The other church stands nearly on a level with the -castle, parted from the castle hill by a dip which takes the form of a -steep road――_Cartway_ is the name it still keeps――leading down from -the town to the river. Few stronger or more striking sites of its own -scale could have been found. The Castle by the Bridge is not a -mountain fortress; far higher hills than the hill of Bridgenorth or -the hill of Quatford come within the general view. But the stronghold -of Æthelflæd and Robert served better than any loftier point could -have done for its own immediate work. No other point could have served -so well to guard the most important point of the river, and to shelter -the older borders of England against any desperate attempt of the -Britons to carry their endless warfare far within her later borders. -The whole group, Bridgenorth, Oldbury, the two Quatfords, are a -succession of strongholds which form a whole. All are within sight of -one another, though it might be hard to find a point which directly -commands all four at once. A little further inland, on the Quatford -side of the river, a broad hill, fenced in by a slight earthwork, and -known as Burf Castle, commands the widest and most striking view of -all, the round back of the Wrekin, the sharp rise and fall of the -Titterstone, with a boundless view over the lower country to the -north-east. This is undoubtedly the site of an early stronghold, which -may have played its part in the days of the Lady or in the old time -before her. But there is no sign that it entered into the military -reckoning of Roger of Montgomery or of Robert of Bellême. - - * * * * * - -[Sidenote: Robert builds the castle of Careghova.] - -[Sidenote: His Yorkshire and Nottinghamshire estates.] - -[Sidenote: Roger of Bully.] - -[Sidenote: His Yorkshire estates.] - -[Sidenote: Position of Tickhill.] - -[Sidenote: The castle.] - -The great engineering works at Bridgenorth seem to have occupied the -mind of Earl Robert during the whole of the few remaining years of his -English career. We shall find that they were not fully finished four -years later. At the same time, while he fenced in Bridgenorth in the -rear of the capital of his earldom, he raised another stronghold in -advance of it, within the later Welsh border, at Careghova, -immediately on Offa’s Dyke.[417] And he was at the same time extending -his possessions in a more peaceful region, where no inroads of Britons -or Northmen were to be feared. On the borders of Yorkshire and -Nottinghamshire stood a chief seat of one who, in the extent of his -possessions, ranked as one of the foremost men in England. This was -Roger of Bully, who took his name from a Norman lordship in the land -of Braye, lying west of what was to be the New Castle of King Henry, -on the high ground which overlooks the forest of Saint-Saen, the home -of the faithful Helias. The name of Roger of Bully――the spellings of -the name are endless――is less commonly mentioned in our tale than we -might have looked for. He was a great land-owner in Yorkshire; he was -one of the greatest land-owners in Nottinghamshire, and he held -considerable estates in other parts of England. He had supplanted two -English earls in their special homes; he sat by the hearth of Eadwine -and by the hearth of Waltheof; in another spot, the holdings of ten -English thegns had been rolled together into a single lordship to -enrich the fortunate stranger.[418] Among his Yorkshire estates -he held the exceptionally favoured lands of Sprotburgh and -Barnburgh, which had remained untouched in the general harrying of -Northumberland.[419] He seems to have won the special favour of the -greatest ladies of the Conqueror’s court; if he held the hall of -Hallam, the hall of Waltheof, it was by the gift of Waltheof’s widow -Judith;[420] and an estate which he held in distant Devonshire is set -down as the gift of Queen Matilda herself.[421] Yet this man, who -holds so great a place in the Survey, plays no visible part in -history; he lives only in the record of Domesday and in his still -abiding work in a minster and a castle of his own rearing. Just within -the borders of Yorkshire, at no great distance from the shires both of -Nottingham and Lincoln, Roger had occupied an English dwelling-place, -entered in the Survey as Dadesley, but which afterwards grew into -greater note by the name of Tickhill.[422] Like many other -dwelling-places of English lords, Dadesley or Tickhill must have been -chosen simply as a convenient centre for the estates of its owner. It -is no natural stronghold; the post seems to have no special military -advantages; it crowns no steep, it commands no river, it bars the -entrance to no valley. A low hill of sandstone was improved by art -into one of the usual mounds, and it had been in King Eadward’s day -the possession of Ælfsige and Siward. The mound, as in other places, -was in after time taught to bear a polygonal keep, and its sides were -themselves strengthened by masonry. The keep, of which the foundations -only are left, was of later date than the days with which we are -concerned. And we may fully believe that parts at least of the circuit -wall of the castle, and still more, that the elder parts of the -gatehouse, with a face of ornaments and sculptures which almost remind -us of the work of the great Emperor’s day at Lorsch, are due to the -taste, such as it was, of the first Norman lord of Tickhill. - -[Sidenote: The priory of Blyth, founded 1088.] - -[Sidenote: Name of Blyth and Tickhill used indiscriminately.] - -[Sidenote: Death of Roger of Bully.] - -[Sidenote: The lands of Roger of Bully granted to Robert of Bellême.] - -[Sidenote: Impolicy of the grant.] - -[Sidenote: Greatness of Robert of Bellême.] - -The nomenclature of the lands of Roger of Bully has been singularly -shifting. Dadesley gave way to Tickhill. But Tickhill is not the only -name borne by Roger’s stronghold. It not uncommonly takes the name of -a more certain memorial of him which lies only a few miles off, but -within the bounds of another shire. In the year of the first rebellion -of the Red King’s reign, Roger of Bully had founded a monastery -dependent on the abbey of the Holy Trinity at Rouen. It was reared on -a point of his possessions known as Blyth, lying within the borders of -Nottinghamshire, and near a river which joins the old historic stream -of the Idle.[423] The nave of Roger’s church still stands; there is no -mistaking the distinguishing marks of the earliest Norman style, even -in a building whose loftiness and narrowness have more in common with -later forms of art.[424] Blyth became at least as famous as Tickhill. -The castle, with the honour of which it formed the head, is called by -both names, and we shall find as we go on that the same incident in -our story is placed by some of our authorities at Blyth and by others -at Tickhill.[425] Roger, founder of both castle and monastery, seems -to have died about the time when Robert of Bellême was strengthening -himself at Bridgenorth and Careghova. His lands went at once to swell -the possessions of the terrible Earl. On some plea of kindred, Robert -demanded them of the King. William was as ready to grant him the lands -of Blyth and Hallam as he had been to grant him the earldom of -Shropshire and the other possessions of his father. But he was no more -inclined than he was then to grant anything without a consideration. -Earl Robert was allowed to redeem the heritage of his kinsman, but to -redeem it only on payment of a great sum.[426] We may again doubt -whether William the Great would have allowed such a redemption, even -in the days when he had fallen into covetousness and greediness he -loved withal. With the Conqueror neither greediness nor anything else -ever came before policy. He whose policy it had been to separate -Norman and English estates in the second generation, who had taken -care that no son of his own chosen friend should hold Breteuil and -Hereford in a single hand,[427] would surely never have allowed any -one man to have reached the gigantic height of wealth and power which -was now reached by Robert of Bellême. The gathering together of such -vast possessions in Normandy and England in the hands of one who had -some pretensions to rank as a prince beyond the bounds of Normandy and -England almost amounted to a direct challenge to their owner to -dispute the great lesson of Rochester, and to see whether there was -not at least one subject in England whom the King of England could not -control. - -That question had yet to be tried, and to be tried in the person of -the new lord of Tickhill. But it was not raised during the short -remnant of the days of William the Red. The two powers of evil -contrived to pull together in friendly guise as long as the days of -unlaw and unright lasted. And the longer those days lasted, the -blacker and the bitterer they grew. The greater the power and wealth -which was gathered together in the hands of Robert of Bellême, the -greater, we are told, was the pride and cruelty of that son of -Belial.[428] He may by this time have grown weary of oppression in the -familiar scenes of his evil deeds on both sides of the sea. The death -of Robert of Bully opened to him a new and wide human hunting-ground -in Nottinghamshire and Yorkshire. But his hold on all that he had -within our island was fated to be short. We are drawing near to the -end of the reign and the life of William Rufus, and, when the reign -and life of William Rufus were over, the English power of Robert of -Bellême did not last long. - - * * * * * - -But before we come to the last days of the Red King in his island -kingdom, we must again cross the sea, to follow the warlike campaigns -of his latest days, to trace out the wide-reaching schemes of dominion -which filled his restless soul, his fitful energy in beginning -enterprises, his strange waywardness in leaving them half done. And -now will come the living contrast between unright, as embodied in -William Rufus, and right, as embodied this time, not in a man of the -church and the cloister, but in a man of his own order, a layman, a -prince, a soldier. We have had one chapter where the main interest has -gathered round Anselm of Aosta; we are now coming to another in which -the main interest will gather round Helias of La Flèche. - - - - -CHAPTER VI. - -THE LAST WARS OF WILLIAM RUFUS.[429] - -1097-1099. - - -[Sidenote: Character of the last years of Rufus. 1097-1100.] - -[Sidenote: Little to record at home, and much abroad.] - -[Sidenote: Temper and schemes of Rufus.] - -[Sidenote: His designs on France.] - -The latter years of the reign of the Red King, beginning from the -departure of Anselm, are far richer in foreign than in domestic -events. Even within the isle of Britain we have, as we have already -seen, chiefly to deal with the lands which lie beyond the actual -English kingdom. Scotland has received a king at the bidding of the -over-lord in England. A deep plan has been laid for the better -subjugation of the seemingly unconquerable Welsh. A Norwegian king has -slain an earl of England in strife on the shore of a Welsh island. But -within England itself the greatest event which we have had to record -has been the immediate result of that distant strife in the succession -to an English earldom. When Robert of Bellême became the most powerful -subject in England, it was undoubtedly an event of no small importance -both at the moment and in its results. It added perceptibly to the -evils even of the reign of unlaw. Still it was not in itself an event -on the same scale as the rebellion of Odo or the rebellion of Robert -of Mowbray, or as the beginning or the ending of the dealings between -Anselm and the King. And the same character of the time goes on to the -end. There is in England itself nothing to record besides the great -architectural works of the King, a few ecclesiastical deaths and -appointments, and those natural portents and phænomena which are -characteristic of the whole time, and which come thicker upon us as we -draw nearer to the end. Beyond sea, on the other hand, this time of -less than three years is the most stirring time of the whole reign. -King of England, over-lord of Scotland, not in form Duke of the -Normans, but master of Normandy as his brother never was, the Red King -goes on to greater schemes. Rufus seems to have been always puffed up -by success, but never cast down by bad luck. His personal failure in -Wales was really a marked contrast to the success of Eadgar in -Scotland. But Rufus seems to have had the happy gift of plucking out -of all states of things whatever tended to gratify his pride, and of -forgetting all that looked the other way. He, or others in his name, -had set up a king at Dunfermline. This was enough to make him put out -of sight all thought that he had in his own person marched to Snowdon -and taken nothing by his march. He felt himself more than ever Monarch -of Britain, King of kings within his own island. We can believe that -it rankled in his soul that, outside that island, he was less than a -king. The lord of Normandy had in any case a formal over-lord in the -French King, and William Rufus was lord of Normandy only by an -anomalous and temporary title. He held the duchy only as a merchant -holds a pledge. We can well understand how such a man would chafe at -the thought that he had anywhere even a nominal superior. Such an one -as William deemed himself was dishonoured by being, even in the most -nominal way, the man of such an one as Philip. And the noblest way of -escaping from the acknowledgement of a superior was by himself taking -that superior’s place. The Monarch of Britain would be also Monarch of -Gaul, of so much at least of Gaul as in any sense admitted the -over-lordship of Paris. The lord of Winchester and Rouen would be lord -of Paris also. William wished for a war with France, and a war with -France could at any moment be had. The eternal question of the Vexin -stood always awaiting its solution. - -[Sidenote: Wars with France and Maine.] - -[Sidenote: Beginning of war. 1097-1098.] - -[Sidenote: William crosses the sea.] - -But a war with France was not the only war which William Rufus had now -to wage on the Gaulish mainland. He had to strive against a noble -city, a valiant people, ruled by a prince worthy of his city and his -people. Besides striving with France and Philip, he had to strive -against Maine, he had to strive against Helias. The war with France -was doubtless the object with which he crossed the sea; but mischief -had long been brewing in the troublesome land to the south of -Normandy, and about the time when the French war began, the standing -Cenomannian difficulty grew into open war also. William had thus two -wars to wage at once. These two wars, with France and with Maine, are -told in our narratives as if they were altogether distinct, and had no -bearing on one another. Yet the two were going on at the same time at -no great distance from one another, and some of the chief actors on -one side were flitting to and fro between the two. It is hard to say -in which region the first actual fighting took place. In both it must -have begun in the winter after Anselm had gone on one errand into -Burgundy and Eadgar on another into Scotland. It was then that King -William crossed the sea also, with the object doubtless of making war -on France. The Cenomannian war was thrown in as something incidental. -The war with Maine has in itself, as a tale, by far the greater charm -of the two. But it is needless to say that far higher interests were, -or might have been, at stake in the war with France. Of the -wide-reaching schemes of William Rufus, and of their remarkable -position among those things which might have been but which were not, -I have spoken at some length elsewhere.[430] But it is only in its -latest stage that the war showed even any likelihood of growing beyond -the scale of a border struggle. It was, in profession at least, a war -for the Vexin, and it was in the Vexin that it was mainly waged. - -[Sidenote: Comparison of the two wars.] - -[Sidenote: Comparative position of France and Maine.] - -[Sidenote: Helias and Philip.] - -[Sidenote: Advantage of the kingly dignity.] - -The result of the war was widely different in the two cases. We may -sum it up by saying that Maine was subdued and that France was not. -Maine was at least held to be subdued. In the first Cenomannian war -the capital was taken; the prince was made a prisoner; so much of the -land as was really attacked was subdued. In the second war the capital -was taken and the prince was driven out. But against France no real -advantage at all seems to have been gained. To modern ideas this -difference may seem no wonderful result of the difference between the -invasion of a county and the invasion of a kingdom. But in the -eleventh century the resources of Maine could not have been very -greatly inferior to the resources of France. In one sense indeed the -resources of Maine were by far the greater of the two, inasmuch as -Helias reigned at Le Mans and Philip reigned at Paris. But in truth -the comparison between a county and a kingdom is not a fair one. The -France of those days was not a kingdom; it was simply that small part -of a great kingdom which was held to obey――which under Philip -certainly did not obey――the nominal king of the whole. The king was -simply that one among the princes of the kingdom who always claimed, -and who sometimes received, the homage of the others. We must never -underrate the vast moral advantage which the king drew from his kingly -dignity;[431] but, on the other hand, we must not be thereby led to -overrate the material strength of the king’s actual dominion. -Supposing that the resources of Maine and of France had been -positively equal, if Helias had the advantage over Philip that the one -was Helias and that the other was Philip, this advantage was far more -than counterbalanced by the fact that Philip was a king while Helias -was only a count. That he was a count of doubtful title, always -threatened by a neighbour more powerful than himself, was of course a -further incidental disadvantage; but the essential difference is -inherent in the position of the two princes and their dominions. The -king, even though the king was Philip, was a king, and men had -scruples about personally attacking one who was at once their own lord -on earth and the anointed of the Lord of Heaven. William Rufus -doubtless had no such scruples about that or about any matter; but -such scruples had been felt by his father; they were to be felt in -times to come by Henry of Le Mans and of Anjou, of Normandy and of -England.[432] Such scruples would not be felt by Normans withstanding -French aggression on their own land; we may remember how a lance -from the Côtentin had laid Philip’s father on the ground at -Val-ès-dunes.[433] They would not be felt by native Englishmen, to -whom Normandy, France, and Maine, were all alike foreign and hostile -lands. But we may suspect that there was many a knight in William’s -host who, when he went forth to invade the lands of the lord of his -lord in an utterly unprovoked quarrel, did not go forth with quite so -light a heart as that with which he went forth to win back for his -lord a land of which his lord had some shadow of ground for professing -that he had been robbed by one of his own men. - -[Sidenote: Lewis son of Philip.] - -Maine then was, in a sense, conquered; France was not conquered in any -sense. Le Mans was taken; Paris was hardly threatened. And this, we -may believe, was at least partly owing to the fact that Le Mans was -only the city of a count, while Paris was the city of a king. Both -lands had a champion in whom we may feel a personal interest. While we -follow the steps of an old acquaintance in Count Helias, we gladly -watch the beginnings of a new acquaintance, not indeed in King Philip -himself, but in his gallant son the Lord Lewis.[434] He has his -special biographer, and we only wish that the minute detail in which -we can read his actions in dealing with the immediate vassals of the -French duchy had been extended to the greater though shorter strife -which he had to wage against the sovereign of Normandy and England. - -[Sidenote: Beginning of the war of Maine. January, 1098.] - -It is not easy to tell the story of these two wars in exact -chronological order. The early part of the French war is told without -any dates, while we know when the actual fighting began in Maine. This -was in the January which followed William’s crossing to the continent, -the January of the year in which Earl Hugh was killed in Anglesey. -Whether there was any fighting on the French border earlier than that -we cannot tell. For a later stage of the French war we have dates, and -its dated stage clearly follows the end of the first Cenomannian war. -If we go back to the causes of the two struggles, it is equally hard -to find the beginning. In both cases there was a standing quarrel, -which might have broken out into war at any time. But the French war -has a certain right to precedence, inasmuch as it was doubtless rather -to attack France than to attack Maine that William Rufus crossed the -sea. It may therefore be our best course, first to trace out the -earlier undated part of the French war down to the point where there -is a clear break in the story. We may then follow the fortunes of Le -Mans and Maine, till we reach the later dated part of the French war -which followed their first momentary conquest. - - -§ 1. _The Beginnings of the French War._ - -1097-1098. - -[Sidenote: King Philip;] - -[Sidenote: his adulterous marriage with Bertrada of Montfort.] - -[Sidenote: He puts away his first wife.] - -[Sidenote: Philip and Bertrada;] - -[Sidenote: their alleged marriage by Odo. 1092.] - -Of Philip King of the French, the fourth king of the house of Paris, -we have often heard already, and from what we have heard we shall -hardly expect him to take any leading part either in war or in -council. He is chiefly memorable for his adulterous marriage with -Bertrada of Montfort, the wife of Fulk Rechin of Anjou. He had got rid -of his first wife, the daughter of Count Florence of Friesland and -step-daughter of that Count Robert of Flanders who bore the Frisian -name. The mother of his son Lewis and his daughter Constance was put -away by Philip on some plea of kindred, and was shut up in the castle -of Montreuil.[435] Some years later Bertrada became her successor. Of -her and Fulk we shall hear again in our Cenomannian story; she was in -some sort given to Fulk as the price of Cenomannian bondage. But, as -Fulk had at least one wife living, the validity of the marriage might -have been fairly called in question. If the scandal of the time may be -trusted, Bertrada, wearying of Fulk, and fearing that he might deal by -her as he had dealt by others, offered herself to King Philip to -supply the place which he had made vacant.[436] She won his heart, so -far as he had any, and she seems to have been the only thing that he -really cared for. But she who had been a countess at Angers would not -be less than queen at Paris, and a ceremony of marriage was gone -through. More than one prelate was charged with the uncanonical deed. -The version which most concerns us is that which tells how, when no -prelate in France would thus profane the sacraments of the Church, the -King looked beyond the border, and found one less scrupulous in the -person of the Bishop of Bayeux. The churches of Mantes, it is said, -were Odo’s reward for his thus pandering to the misdeeds of his royal -neighbour.[437] - -[Sidenote: Scandal occasioned by the marriage.] - -[Sidenote: Opposition of Ivo and Hugh of Lyons.] - -[Sidenote: Excommunication of Philip and Bertrada.] - -Much scandal and searching of heart followed on the pretended -marriage, scandal which spread throughout all France, throughout all -Gaul, throughout all Christendom. The famous Bishop Ivo of Chartres -protested in many letters to the King and others.[438] If a council of -the prelates of France, gathered by the King’s authority at Rheims, -was inclined to deal gently with the royal sinner, there were higher -ecclesiastical powers who were more unbending. Archbishop Hugh of -Lyons, Primate of all the Gauls, no subject of Parisian dukes or -kings, but a prince of that Imperial Burgundy which knew no king but -Cæsar, gathered an assembly which spoke in another voice. The friend -of Anselm, the friend of Urban, called together the bishops of the -Gauls at Autun, and their voice denounced the offence which the -bishops of France alone had been inclined to pass over.[439] Higher -powers still spoke at Piacenza and at Clermont. Philip and Bertrada -were excommunicated often and absolved now and then. None would eat at -their table; the dogs were said to refuse the morsels which fell from -it. Wherever they went, the public exercise of Christian worship -stopped, though, by a somewhat inconsistent indulgence, they were -allowed to have a low mass said before them in a private chapel.[440] -It would seem as though, in spiritual as well as in temporal things, -subjects were to suffer from the crimes of kings, while the kings -themselves went unscathed. But when Philip and Bertrada left any town, -the bells at once struck out. Then, with allusion no doubt to the -supposed power of the bells to chase away thunder and pestilence, the -King would say to his companion, “Do you hear, my beauty, how they -drive us away?”[441] For fifteen years, allowing perhaps for -occasional times of reconciliation, the King of the French never wore -his crown or his kingly robes or appeared in royal state at any public -ceremony.[442] - -[Sidenote: Sons of Philip and Bertrada.] - -[Sidenote: Bertrada’s schemes against Lewis.] - -[Sidenote: Philip invests Lewis with the Vexin. 1092.] - -By this second marriage or adultery, which was held to be in no way -done away by the death of the lawful Queen in prison,[443] Philip had -two sons, Philip and Florus. Bertrada wished to be the mother of a -king, and in after times the lawful heir Lewis was said to have been -the object of not a few plots on the part of his step-mother, if even -step-mother she is to be called. But at this stage Philip seems to -have kept sense enough to see the merits of his son, and to place full -trust in him. By the consent of his realm, he made Lewis the immediate -ruler and defender of the exposed frontier of the royal dominions. He -granted him in fief the towns of Mantes and Pontoise, and the whole -French Vexin.[444] But Lewis was made more than this. Practically, -whether by any formal act or not, Lewis became the ruler of France, so -far as France just then had any ruler. Philip, scorned and loathed of -all men, with the curses of the Church hurled over and over again -against him, withdrew from ruling, fighting, or anything else but his -own pleasures, and threw the whole burthen of the government and -defence of his kingdom on the shoulders of his young and gallant son. - - * * * * * - -[Sidenote: Question of the Vexin.] - -[Sidenote: Grounds of offence on the part of Rufus.] - -[Sidenote: William demands the French Vexin. 1097.] - -We are not told at what exact moment the old question of the Vexin was -again first stirred. Philip was not likely to stir it, neither was -Robert; William Rufus might not care to stir it while he was lord only -of part of Normandy, and not of the whole. But when all Normandy -became his, the old dispute naturally came up again in his mind. He -would not have been William Rufus if he had not sought to win all that -his father had held, all that his father had claimed, and among the -rest the place where his father found his death-wound. The special -acts of authority exercised by Philip in the Vexin, the grant of the -land as his son’s fief, the grant of the churches of Mantes, the -churches which were rebuilding out of his father’s dying gifts, to his -own rebellious uncle Odo, would be likely to stir him up still more to -put forward his old claim. At last, after reflecting, we are told, on -the wars and the fate of his father in that region, he sent, in the -year of the departure of Anselm, solemnly to demand the cession of the -whole Vexin, specially naming the towns and fortresses of Pontoise, -Chaumont, and Mantes.[445] Of these Mantes and Chaumont were in the -strictest sense border fortresses; Pontoise――the bridge on the Oise, -as its name implies――lies far nearer the heart of the King’s -territory; Pontoise in an enemy’s hand would indeed be a standing -menace to Paris. The demands of the Red King almost amounted to a -demand for the surrender of the independence of the French kingdom. - - [Illustration: - Map illustrating - the - FRENCH CAMPAIGN. - A.D. 1098. - Edwᵈ. Weller - _For the Delegates of the Clarendon Press._] - -[Sidenote: The demand is refused.] - -[Sidenote: William crosses to Normandy. November 11-30, 1097.] - -[Sidenote: Excesses of the King’s followers.] - -[Sidenote: Silence of English writers as to the French war.] - -It is needless to say that the demand was refused. Lewis and -his counsellors declined to give up the Vexin or any of its -fortresses.[446] King William accordingly crossed the sea to assert -his rights, and the French campaign possibly began before the end of -the year. It is wonderful, when we remember that it is chiefly from -our own writers that we get the details of William Rufus’ Norman -campaigns, how little they tell us about his French campaigns. Of the -war of Maine to which we shall presently come they tell us little -enough. Still the name of Maine does appear in their pages, while the -name of France at this stage does not. We learn indeed that in the -November of this year the King crossed into Normandy, but with what -object we are not told.[447] What we are told is eminently -characteristic of the Red King and his reign. As so often happened, -his crossing was delayed by the weather; meanwhile his immediate -followers carried out to the full that licence which the King’s -immediate followers were wont to allow themselves till Henry and -Anselm found sharp means to check them.[448] “His _hired_ in the -shires there they lay the most harm did that ever _hired_ or _here_ in -_frithland_ should do.”[449] If the army at large is meant, the -expression is a strange one. The _hired_ is the King’s household, -taking in doubtless household troops in personal attendance on the -King, like the old housecarls, but not surely the whole force, -national or mercenary. But it was the King’s household whose excesses -were specially complained of; and this casual outburst of bitterness -is a speaking comment on the general pictures of their misdoings which -we have already come across.[450] But it is only of damage done in -England by the King’s household that our Chronicler tells us anything. -Of warlike exploits on the other side of the Channel neither he nor -any other English writer tells us at this stage a single word.[451] - -[Sidenote: William and Lewis.] - -[Sidenote: Chief men on William’s side.] - -[Sidenote: Difficulties of Lewis.] - -[Sidenote: Fate of the captives on each side.] - -If from the silence of our own writers we turn to our chief authority -on the French side, we shall find a vivid general picture of the war, -but hardly any account of particular events. We get indeed one of the -most striking of personal contrasts. Though the war which was now -waged by Rufus was in every sense a war waged against France, yet it -could hardly be called a war personally waged against the nominal -ruler of France. It was a war for the Vexin, waged against the lord of -the Vexin, and, in its first stages at least, mainly confined to the -Vexin. The struggle between William and Lewis, as it is set forth by -the biographer of the French prince, was an unequal one. William had -his old weapons at command――the wealth of England, the traitors whom -that wealth could bribe, the mercenaries whom that wealth could -hire.[452] He had his own experience in war; he had his veteran troops -and their veteran commanders. Next under the King, comparatively young -in years, but first of all in daring as in wickedness, was Robert of -Bellême. Then came the King’s brother Henry, and the well-known names -of Count William of Evreux, Earl Hugh of Chester, and the old Earl -Walter of Buckingham.[453] These were formidable foes for an untried -youth like Lewis; the aged warrior who was old on the day of Senlac -must have been a strange contrast indeed to the gallant lad on whom -the fortune of France now rested. Lewis had, we are told, neither men -nor money nor allies; he had to pick up all where and how he could. -Whenever, often by running to and fro as far as the borders of Berry -or Auvergne or Burgundy, he had got together three hundred, or perhaps -five hundred, knights, he met King William of England marching against -him with ten thousand.[454] Here was little room for pitched battles; -Lewis could not risk a meeting with such an enemy in the open field. -He had often to retire, sometimes openly to fly.[455] And the -different state of the hoards of the two princes showed itself in an -effect on their military operations which is characteristic of the -time. When warriors on the English side――we must use the language of -our French informant――fell into French hands, the price of their -ransom was speedily paid. When French warriors were made prisoners by -the forces of Rufus, there was no money to ransom them. They had to -languish in bonds with only one hope of deliverance. Those only were -set free who were willing to become the men of the King of England and -to bind themselves by oath to fight against their own natural -lord.[456] - -[Sidenote: French traitors.] - -[Sidenote: Guy of the Rock.] - -[Sidenote: Norman possessions beyond the Epte.] - -[Sidenote: Roche Guyon.] - -[Sidenote: The castle bored in the rock.] - -[Sidenote: Guy submits to Rufus.] - -Some then at least of the native subjects of the French crown, who had -no conflicting engagements to plead, did not scruple, in the -extremities in which they found themselves, to take service on behalf -of the invader against their own lord. It is therefore the less -wonderful if another class of men, whose interests and whose duties -were more doubtful, deemed, when they had to choose between two lords, -that Rufus was the lord to be chosen. Others again were found of baser -mould, who simply took the money of the Red King, and for its sake -turned against their own people on behalf of strangers. Among these -one is specially marked, one who by his geographical position was -called on to be among the foremost champions of France against Norman -invasion. This was one of the lords who commanded the fortresses on -the Seine, a man whose possessions lay close to the Norman border, Guy -of the Rock, the Rock which has taken its name from him and which -still is known as _La Roche Guyon_.[457] The position of his chief -stronghold made his adhesion of no small importance. The stream of -Epte, flowing during a great part of its course through a deep valley, -seems designed by nature to part Normandy and France; but, as we have -seen, the frontier was ever disputed, and here and there the Norman -held small portions of territory on the left bank of the river. One of -these Norman holdings on the French side lies by the small village of -Gasny, where the boundary, surviving in that of the modern department, -is still marked at some distance up the opposite hill. A slight -further ascent brings the traveller in sight of one of the noblest -bends of the Seine, where the great river, with all its islands, runs -immediately below a long line of chalk hills, with their white spurs -jutting out in endless fantastic shapes. The windings of the Seine -have in fact left at this point little more than a narrow isthmus -between itself and its lowlier tributary. Just within the French -territory at this point, and commanding this important sweep of the -great French river, lay the domains of the lord of the Rock. The ridge -on which the traveller stands ends in a bluff to the south-east. -There, where the hills open for another tributary of the Seine, close -by the island of Lavancourt, stood Guy’s now vanished fortress of -Vetheuil. But, as we now gaze, by far the most prominent object in the -whole curved line of the hill, placed like the imperial seat in the -centre of an ancient amphitheatre, rising over the church, the more -modern castle, the town, and the airy bridge which modern art has -thrown across the river, soar the relics of the fortress which still -bears Guy’s name. A spur of the hill is crowned by a small keep, with -a round tower attached to a square mass within its compass. But in the -days of the Red King, the Guy’s Cliff of the Vexin, now the site of a -castle so preeminently visible, was specially known as the site of the -stronghold that was invisible. The lords of the rock had, like the -Kenite of old, literally made their nest in the rock itself. The chalk -is to this day habitually bored to make houses, churches,[458] any -kind of excavation that may be needed. In days before our time this -custom had been applied to a more dangerous use; the plundering chiefs -of the rock had scooped themselves out a castle in its side. More than -one of the chambers remain――comfortless to our eyes, but perhaps not -more comfortless than the chambers within many a tower of timber or -masonry――whence these troglodyte barons looked out to mark the craft -upon the Seine, and to exact, by a custom which lingered on till late -times, a toll from every passer by. Guy of the Rock now submitted to -the island king, and his submission supplied a new fetter to pen up -the king of the mainland within his havenless realm. At the very -entrance of the French territory on this side, Guy’s Rock, Vetheuil, -and all that is implied in the possession of Vetheuil and of the Rock, -passed from the obedience of the lord of Paris to the obedience of the -lord of Winchester and Rouen. - -[Sidenote: Policy of Robert of Meulan.] - -[Sidenote: He receives William’s troops.] - -[Sidenote: Importance of the position of Meulan.] - -[Sidenote: Description of Meulan.] - -While Guy thus sold to the invader the very entrance-gate of the -French kingdom, the Red King found another ally in a far more famous -man who held a position of at least equal importance higher up the -Seine. At the head of the nobles who held lands of both kings stood -the acknowledged master of all subtle policy, Count Robert of Meulan. -We have been so long familiar with his name, whether as the youthful -warrior of Senlac or as the experienced counsellor of the Red King, -that we may have almost forgotten that the title by which we call him -is French, and that he was as great a lord in France as he was in -England or in Normandy. We find it hard to think of him as one of -those who had thus to choose between two lords, and that he might -conceiveably have chosen the cause of Philip――or rather of -Lewis――against William. We cannot fancy that he took long to decide. -He may have argued that William, lord both of Normandy and of England, -had two parts in him, while Philip of France had only one. He received -the troops of the Red King into his castles, and his adhesion was held -to have been of special help to his undertaking. He opened, we are -told, a clear path for the English into France.[459] The words sound -as if they belonged to the fourteenth, fifteenth, or sixteenth century -rather than to the last years of the eleventh. And they are clothed -with a strange significance when we remember that the man who now -opened a way into France for the combined host of Normandy and England -was the same man who, two-and-thirty years before, had opened a way -into the very heart of England for the combined host of Normandy and -France.[460] But in a geographical point of view the expression is -fully justified. In a war between the lord of Rouen and the lord of -Paris, no man’s friendship could be more valuable to either side than -the friendship of the Count of Meulan. A man weaker in fight and less -wary in council than the Achitophel of his day might, if he kept the -Seine barred as the lord of Meulan could bar it, have gone far to hold -the balance between the contending kings. As at Mantes, as at Rouen, -as at Paris itself, the islands so characteristic of the Seine are at -Meulan also brought into play for purposes of habitation and defence. -Meulan indeed is, what neither Paris nor Rouen is, at once a -hill-fortress and a river-fortress. At a point of the river lying -between Mantes, the seat of the Conqueror’s death-wound, and Poissy, -the spot where he went to crave help of his lord before the day of -Val-ès-dunes, a hill which the surrounding valleys gird as with a -natural fosse rises from the right bank of the river. A group of -islands is formed at this spot by the branches of the winding stream, -fit places for the landing of the forefathers of the Normans in their -pirate days. The spot was seized on for defence. A castle arose on the -side of the hill, with a town at its foot sloping swiftly down to the -river. There a bridge of some antiquity joins the right bank to a -central island, which is joined again to the left bank by another -bridge. The island, once strongly fortified, still keeps the -significant name of the Fort. The bridge which joins the island to the -left bank of the river, where lies the suburb known as _Les Mureaux_, -was, at least in later times, defended by a tower bearing the name of -_La Sangle_. A considerable extent of the outer walls of the castle -may be traced, and a specially diligent inquirer may thread his way to -a small fragment of the castle itself, and may there mark work of a -somewhat later date than the time with which we have to do. It is more -easy to trace out a large part of the defences of the Fort, and to -mark the churches, surviving and desecrated, one of which, high on the -hill side, also belongs, like so many others, to the age next -following. As in so many other places, so at Meulan, we cannot lay our -hand on anything which we can positively affirm to be the work of its -most famous lord. But we can well see that the strength of the spot, a -spot which in later times played no small part in the wars of the -League, was well understood in the days of our story, and that so -important a position was strengthened by all the art of the time. When -Count Robert received the forces of Normandy and England on the height -and in the island of Meulan, he did indeed open a way for those forces -into the heart of France. It was a way which might have been expected -to lead them straight to the city which then, as ever, might be deemed -to be more than the heart of France, to be France itself. - -[Sidenote: William’s prospects.] - -Count Robert was doubtless guided, then and always, by policy. Many of -his neighbours who found themselves in the like case followed his -lead. They could not serve two masters; so they made up their minds to -serve the master who was strongest either to reward or to punish, him -whose purse was the deeper and whose spirit was the fiercer.[461] -Altogether the odds seemed frightfully against the French side. Rufus -might indeed have small chances of carrying out his grand scheme of -uniting Paris――perhaps Poitiers and Bourdeaux――under the same lord as -Winchester and Rouen; but things at least looked as if the conquest of -the disputed lands was about to advance the Norman frontier most -dangerously near to the French capital. Above all, when the Seine was -barred both at Roche Guyon and at Meulan, we ask how things stood in -the border town which lay between them, the town which was one of the -special subjects of William’s demands on Philip. How fared it at -Mantes when the stream both above and below was in the hands of the -enemy? To this question we get no answer; but we see that, in any -case, the King of the French was more closely shut up than ever in the -central prison-house of his nominal realm. - -[Sidenote: Failure of William’s plans.] - -[Sidenote: Pontoise and Chaumont not taken.] - -[Sidenote: Castle of Chaumont.] - -But, small as seemed young Lewis’s means of defence, weakened as he -further was by treason among his own or his father’s vassals, the -resistance made by the French to the Norman or English invasion was -valiant, stubborn, and, we may add, successful. William Rufus was much -further from conquering France than Henry the Fifth, or even than -Edward the Third, was in after times. With all his wealth, all his -forces, he could not conquer the land; he could not even take the -fortresses to which he specially laid claim. He could not conquer the -Vexin; he could not take either Pontoise or Chaumont. While we hear -nothing of Mantes, we know that both these two last-named fortresses -successfully withstood his attacks. Of the three fortresses which were -the special objects of the war, one, that of Chaumont, became in some -sort its centre. The Chaumont with which we have to deal is -still distinguished from other places of the same name as -Chaumont-_en-Vexin_. It stands about five miles east of the Epte, at -the point where the frontier stream of Rolf is joined by the smaller -stream of the Troesne, and makes a marked turn in its course from -nearly due south to south-west. The region is a hilly one, though it -contains no heights of any remarkable elevation. The Bald Mount -itself, which――unluckily for the inquirer――is bald no longer, is a -wide-spreading hill crowned with a mound which stands out prominently -to the eye on every side. The line of the wall which it supported may -still be easily traced, and in a few places it is actually standing. -On the steep north-eastern side of the hill the small town of Chaumont -nestles at its foot, while the stately church of the later days of -French architecture soars above the town as the castle again soars -above the church. Of the part played in the war by this stronghold we -shall hear a little later. - -[Sidenote: The castle of Gisors.] - -[Sidenote: Its first defences. 1096.] - -[Sidenote: Strengthened by Robert of Bellême.] - -[Sidenote: Gisors under Henry the Second.] - -[Sidenote: Present appearance of Gisors.] - -The height of Chaumont commands a vast prospect on all sides; the eye -stretches far away over the friendly land to the south, towards the -hills bordering on the Seine; but the special rival of Chaumont, the -fortress at the junction of the Epte and Troesne, is shut out from -sight by a near range of hills which follow the line of the smaller -stream. Where the two rivers join, the Epte, like the greater Seine, -divides to form a group of islands at the foot of a low hill on the -right, the Norman, bank. Here stands the town and fortress of Gisors, -the chief bulwark of Normandy towards the north-eastern corner of the -Vexin. Once a dependency of the neighbouring Neauflé, whose mound and -square tower form a prominent object in the landscape, Gisors had now -become a stronghold indeed. It had been first fenced in about two -years before by Pagan of Gisors, a man of whom we shall hear in the -course of the war.[462] Somewhat later William gave orders that the -border post should be made into a fortress of the greatest possible -strength, and he committed the work to the most skilful engineer at -his command. All the craft and subtlety of the Devil of Bellême were -employed to make Gisors a stronghold which might shelter the eastern -frontier of Normandy against all enemies. As far as one can see, the -islands in the Epte and the hill which rises above them near to the -right bank of the main river were united in one common plan of -defence. The town itself, taking in the islands, was walled, either -now or at a later time, and defended with a ditch throughout those -parts of its circuit which were neither sheltered by the river nor by -the castle hill. In the great defences of this last we see the fruit -of the engineering skill of Robert of Bellême, and we better learn -what in those days was deemed a specially strong fortress. On all -sides save that where town and castle join, the hill is girded by a -deep ditch, and on the north, the side which lies away from both town -and river, the ditch is doubled, and the chief entrance on this side -is defended by an outpost between the two. The ditch fences in a vast -walled space, in the middle of which art has improved nature by piling -up a vast artificial mound crowned by a shell keep. The earthworks are -most likely older than either Robert of Bellême or Pagan of Gisors. -The outer wall and the shell keep may well be part of Robert’s design, -if they are not actually his work; but the towers which now rise so -proudly over Gisors, not only the round tower, precious in local -legend, but the vast octagon on one side of the keep which bears the -name of the martyr of Canterbury, must all be of later date than our -time. A graceful chapel within the keep, where the visitor is told -with special emphasis that Saint Thomas once said mass, has thus much -to show in favour of the legend that it is clearly a work of Henry the -Second’s days. His days were stirring days at Gisors as well as the -days of Rufus, and a hundred years of sieges had brought new -improvements into the art of fortification. All in short that strikes -the eye as the traveller draws near to Gisors, the castle towers, no -less than the strange and striking outline of one of the stateliest of -those churches which boasted no bishop or abbot at their head, belongs -to later days than those of the Red King’s campaign of Chaumont. Of -the defences of the town below little can now be traced, and that part -of the defences of the castle on which the historian looks with the -deepest interest is carefully hidden from distant view. The tower of -Saint Thomas and its lower fellow both seem to rise from the midst of -a wood――a wood artificially planted, seemingly for the express purpose -of robbing Gisors of its characteristic feature, of shutting out from -sight the mighty _motte_ and keep which Robert of Bellême made ready -at the Red King’s bidding to be the strongest bulwark of the Norman -land. - -[Sidenote: Castle of Trye.] - -[Sidenote: Primæval and later antiquities.] - -Near as Gisors stands to Chaumont, another fortress barred the way -between them. The road between the two towns passes through -Trye――distinguished from its neighbour Trye-_la-Ville_ as -Trye-_Château_――which appears in our story along with Chaumont as one -of the French fortresses which Gisors was specially meant to keep in -check. Yet Trye must have been itself specially meant as an outpost -against Gisors. Close by Gisors is one of the points where the Norman -frontier overlaps the Epte; so that Trye, lying between two and three -miles from Gisors, is yet nearer than Gisors to the actual frontier. -Trye does not lie, like Chaumont, hidden behind the hills; it stands -boldly in the teeth of the enemy, clearly seen from the hill of -Gisors, and barring the main road between Gisors and Chaumont, a road -which led over level ground and neither over hill nor swamp. Otherwise -the site has not, like Gisors and Chaumont, any marked advantages of -ground, nor, at present at least, are any earthworks visible. In our -time, though a gate and a tower of later date than our story recall -the days of the military importance of Trye, the attractions of the -spot are chiefly of other kinds. Between Trye and Chaumont a cromlech, -known as the Three Stones, calls up the thought of days and men which -were as mysterious in the time of Rufus as they are now. More than one -fragment of mediæval architecture may be lighted on by the way, and -Trye itself stands conspicuous for the singular and beautiful -Romanesque work――again too late for our immediate time――to be found -both in its ecclesiastical and its secular buildings. - -[Sidenote: Castle of Boury.] - -[Sidenote: National feeling in the French Vexin.] - -[Sidenote: Prisoners on both sides.] - -[Sidenote: Gilbert of Laigle.] - -[Sidenote: Simon of Montfort.] - -Chaumont and Trye may practically be looked on as one piece of -defence. A third fortress, that of Boury,[463] lay further apart to -the south-west, hidden from Gisors, like Chaumont, by another line of -hills. All three castles seem to have remained unsubdued through the -whole war. The valour of the French resistance is dwelled on with -pleasure by our Norman or English guide. Did the monk of Saint Evroul, -the young scholar of the Severn side, remember that, after all, his -father belonged neither to the land of his birth nor to the land of -his adoption, but was in truth a Frenchman from Orleans?[464] The -French Vexin was inhabited by a valiant race, in whom, if we are not -pressing too far the words of our story, a distinct feeling of French -nationality was strong. They were ready to run all risks――it is not -said for their King, but for the defence of their country, for the -glory of their nation, for the honour of the French name.[465] Valiant -men, mercenaries it would seem――but who was to pay them?――from all -parts of Gaul, or at least of France, pressed to their help, and a -brave and successful defence was made. Prisoners on both sides -underwent the two different fates which were already spoken of. The -name on the Norman side which is best known to us is that of the -fierce Gilbert of Laigle; with him we hear of the former lord and -fortifier of Gisors.[466] Among the captives on the French side the -national historian records one who bore a far loftier name, but one -which at that moment was hardly a name of honour. Two of the long line -of Simons of the French Montfort are heard of in the course of our -story, father and son, father and brother of her who in our -authorities appears commonly as the woman from Anjou, but who on the -Strong Mount of her fathers may have been deemed a Queen of the -French. One Simon is now spoken of as a prisoner; both are found -somewhat later fighting stoutly in the cause of France. We have heard -that the Red King let none free who would not undertake to fight on -his side. Are we to infer that a forefather of our own deliverer had -learned the lesson of Harold, that an extorted oath is of no strength? - - -§ 2. _The First War of Maine._ - -1098. - -[Sidenote: Dates of the French war. November, 1097――September, 1098.] - -[Sidenote: War of Maine. January――August, 1098.] - -[Sidenote: History of Maine. 1089-1098.] - -These events on the French side, of which thus far we have but a vague -account, would seem to have happened during the first half of the year -with which we are dealing. But all that we can say for certain is that -they happened between the November of one year and the September of -the next. Of the struggle which was going on at the same time in -Maine, the dates are far more clear. It began in January and it was -deemed to be over in August. But its immediate occasion arose the year -before, and its general causes go much further back. Fully to -understand the war of William and Helias, more truly the war of Helias -and Robert of Bellême, we must trace out the events of several years. -While we have been following the fates of England, Normandy, Scotland, -and Wales, much of high interest has been going on in Maine which had -no connexion with the affairs of any part of Britain, and which had -but little influence on Norman affairs either. But now that England -and Normandy have again a common ruler, the affairs of England, or at -least the affairs of her King, have again a close connexion with the -affairs of Maine. We have now therefore to take up the tale of that -noble city and county from the days when we had to tell of Duke -Robert’s campaign before Ballon and Saint Cenery.[467] - - * * * * * - -[Sidenote: Robert suspects the loyalty of Maine. 1089.] - -[Sidenote: He asks help of Fulk of Anjou.] - -[Sidenote: Fulk asks for Bertrada of Montfort.] - -[Sidenote: Bertrada brought up by Heloise.] - -[Sidenote: William of Evreux’s bargain about his niece.] - -The submission of Maine to the Norman Duke which then took place -lasted only till the next favourable opportunity for asserting the old -independence of the city and county. No great time after he had taken -possession, Robert began to suspect the loyalty of his Cenomannian -subjects. A strange story follows, which connects itself in a way yet -stranger with the tale of the royal household of France which we have -lately been telling. Robert, it seems, was sick at the moment when he, -or some one else for him, thought it needful to take action against -impending revolt in Maine. He sent messengers and gifts to Count Fulk -of Anjou, the famous _Rechin_, praying him to come to him.[468] Fulk, -it will be remembered, claimed the over-lordship of Maine, and Robert -himself had, long before, at the peace of Blanchelande, done a formal -homage to Fulk for the county.[469] The Angevin Count was supposed to -have influence with the people of Maine, influence which might be -enough to hinder them from revolting. That influence Robert now prayed -Fulk to use. The Angevin agreed on one condition, namely that the -Norman would use his own influence in quite another quarter, for quite -another purpose. Fulk wanted a wife. As the story is told us, he is -said to have had two living wives already; but that seems not to have -been the case.[470] His first wife, the daughter of a lord of -Beaugency, died, leaving a daughter. He then married Ermengarde of -Bourbon――a description not to become royal for some ages――the mother -of his son Geoffrey Martel. Her he put away on the usual plea of -kindred, and now it was that he appeared as the wooer of that Bertrada -of whom we have already spoken of in her later character. The daughter -of Simon of Montfort was the niece of Count William of Evreux, through -her mother Agnes, Count William’s sister. Her mother would seem to -have been dead, and she was brought up in her uncle’s house, under the -schooling of Countess Heloise.[471] The Count of Anjou, no longer -young, driven to strange devices as to his shoes,[472] and burthened -with a former wife whose divorce might be called in question, felt -that he was hardly likely to win favour as a lover in the eyes either -of Bertrada herself or of her guardians. But the _Rechin_ was skilful -at a bargain. He would engage to keep Maine in the Duke’s obedience, -if the Duke would get him the damsel of Montfort to wife.[473] Robert -set off for Evreux in person, and pleaded Fulk’s cause with Count -William. The Count of Evreux was duly shocked, and set forth the -obvious objections to the marriage. But he too was open to a bargain; -he would get over his scruples if the Duke would restore to him -certain lordships to which he asserted a right, and would grant -certain others to his nephew William of Breteuil. These lands had been -the possession of his uncle Ralph of Wacey, guardian of the Great -William in his early days, who it seems was sportively known as Ralph -with the Ass’s Head.[474] Let the Duke give him and his nephew back -their own, and Bertrada should be, as far as the Count of Evreux was -concerned, Countess of Anjou. - -[Sidenote: Robert consents.] - -[Sidenote: His counsellors.] - -[Sidenote: Fulk marries Bertrada.] - -[Sidenote: Maine kept quiet for a year.] - -The Duke did not venture to answer without the advice of his -counsellors. But the combined wisdom of Robert of Bellême, lately a -rebel but now again in favour,[475] of the Ætheling Eadgar, and of -that monastic William of Arques of whom we have already heard,[476] -advised the acceptance of Count William’s terms. The whole county of -Maine was of more value than the lordships which the Count of Evreux -demanded as the price of his niece.[477] The power and the will of -Fulk to do what he promised about Le Mans and Maine seems not to have -been doubted. The double bargain was struck, and it was carried out -for a season. Count William and his nephew got all that they asked, -except that one lordship passed to Gerard of Gournay. Fulk too got -what he asked, namely Bertrada, till such time as King Philip took her -away. She had time to quarrel with her stepson Geoffrey, and to become -the mother of Fulk, afterwards Count of Anjou and King of Jerusalem, -and grandfather of the first Angevin King of England. And Count Fulk -was able, by whatever means, to keep the Cenomannian city and county -in a formal allegiance to the Norman Duke, till such time as the -temptations to revolt became too strong to be withstood. - -[Sidenote: Movements in Maine.] - -[Sidenote: Hugh son of Azo sent for. 1090.] - -[Sidenote: Union of Geoffrey and Helias.] - -Our story however seems to imply that the submission of Maine to -Robert was wholly on the surface, and that all this while schemes were -going on for shaking off the hated Norman yoke. The present movement -took the same form which had been taken by the movement in the -Conqueror’s day.[478] The avowed object of Cenomannian patriotism was -now, as then, the restoration of the ancient dynasty. The valour and -energy of the citizens of Le Mans are constantly spoken of; but we -hear nothing this time of the _commune_. The rule of some prince seems -to be assumed on all hands, and for a while all seem to have agreed in -seeking that prince in the same quarter in which they had sought a -prince already. Little indeed of good for Le Mans or Maine had come of -the former application to Azo and Gersendis; but their son Hugh had -now reached greater years and experience, and the men of Maine again -sent into Italy to ask for him to reign over them.[479] The -application was supported both by Geoffrey of Mayenne, of whom we have -so often heard during the last thirty years, and by Helias of La -Flèche, who might well have asserted his own claims against those of -the distant house of Este.[480] - -[Sidenote: Helias of La Flèche.] - -[Sidenote: His character] - -[Sidenote: and descent.] - -[Sidenote: His castles.] - -[Sidenote: His possible claim on the county.] - -[Sidenote: He accepts the succession of Hugh.] - -Helias now becomes the hero of the Cenomannian tale. He is one of the -men of his time of whom we can get the clearest idea. We see him alike -in his recorded acts and in his elaborately drawn portrait; and by the -light of the two we can hail in him the very noblest type of the age -and class to which he belonged. We see in him a no less worthy -defender of the freedom of Maine than Harold was of the freedom of -England. He stands before us with his tall stature, his strong, thin, -and well-proportioned frame, his swarthy complexion, his thick hair -cropped close after Norman or priestly fashion.[481] Brave and skilful -in war, wise and just in his rule in peace, ready and pleasant in -speech, gentle to the good and stern to the evil, faithful to his -word, and corrupted neither by good nor evil fortune, a man withal of -prayer and fasting, the bountiful friend of the Church and the poor, -Helias stands forth within the narrow range of a single county of Gaul -as one who, on a wider field, might have won for himself a place among -the foremost of mankind.[482] With the house of the old Counts of -Maine he had a twofold connexion. The male line of Herbert Wake-dog -had come to an end; but in the female line Helias came of it in two -descents, while Hugh came in one only. Not only was his mother Paula -one of the sisters of the younger Herbert, but his father John of La -Flèche was son of a daughter of Wake-dog himself.[483] To his father’s -Angevin fief of La Flèche, among the islands of the Loir, his marriage -with Matilda, a grand-niece of Archbishop Gervase of Rheims, known to -us better as Bishop of Le Mans,[484] had added a string of castles in -the south of Maine. Two of these, Mayet and the one which is specially -called the Castle of the Loir, fill a prominent place in our -story.[485] Helias was plainly the greatest lord of eastern Maine, the -modern department of Sarthe, as Geoffrey of Mayenne was the greatest -in western Maine, the modern department which still bears the name of -his own fortress.[486] One might have thought that the position of -Helias as a great local chief might, when the elders of Maine were -called on to choose a prince, have outweighed any slight genealogical -precedence on the part of the stranger Hugh. But the great men of the -county may not have been disposed to place one of themselves over -their own heads. Anyhow Helias, like his father before him,[487] -waived his own claim to the succession. Along with the lord of Mayenne -and the great mass of the people of the city and county, he welcomed -the Ligurian prince――such is the geography of our chief guide――when he -came to take possession of the dominion to which the voice of the -Cenomannian people had called him a second time.[488] - - * * * * * - -[Sidenote: Negotiations with Hugh.] - -[Sidenote: Revolt of Maine. 1090.] - -[Sidenote: Invitation to Hugh.] - -We are to suppose that the negotiations with the house of Este were -going on during the year when Count Fulk contrived to keep Maine -outwardly quiet. But when the quarrel between William and Robert broke -out, when Normandy was divided and dismembered, the Angevin -over-lord’s influence gave way. The time for action was clearly come. -Le Mans and all Maine now openly rose against the Norman dominion. -Duke Robert’s garrisons were driven out;[489] the Cenomannian land was -again free. But the first act of restored freedom was to invite Hugh -of Este, descendant of the ancient counts, to come at once to take -possession, and to rule in the palace on the Roman wall which fences -in the Cenomannian hill. - -[Sidenote: Opposition of Bishop Howel.] - -[Sidenote: Howel imprisoned by Helias.] - -[Sidenote: Interdict of Le Mans.] - -[Sidenote: Liberation of Howel on Hugh’s coming.] - -The chief opponent of the movement for independence was, as before, -the Bishop. The throne of Saint Julian was still filled by the Breton -Howel, the nominee of the Conqueror, and he stood firm in his loyalty -to his patron’s eldest son.[490] He withstood the revolt by every -means in his power, and scattered interdicts and anathemas against the -supporters of the newly-elected Count.[491] Hugh had not yet come, and -the opposition of the Bishop was felt to be dangerous. Helias -therefore, whose piety did not lead him to any superstitious reverence -for ecclesiastical privileges, dealt with Howel as an enemy, or at -least as one whom it was well to keep out of the way for a season. As -the Bishop was going through his diocese with a train of clergy, in -the discharge of some episcopal duty, Helias seized him, carried him -off, and put him in ward at La Flèche.[492] The great grievance seems -to have been that Howel was denied the company of his attendant -clergy, and was allowed the services only of one unlettered rustic -priest. The fear was lest the Bishop and his more learned companions -would, in their Latin talk, plot something which their keepers would -not understand.[493] This very complaint shows that the Bishop’s -imprisonment was not of a very harsh kind. But the cause of the -captive prelate was zealously taken up by his clergy. Le Mans and its -suburbs were put under a practical interdict; divine worship ceased; -the bells were silent; the doors of the churches were stopped up with -thorns.[494] Great, it is said, was the joy when the Bishop was set -free and came back to his city. We are told by a writer in the -episcopal interest that Helias set him free in a fit of penitence, in -answer to many intercessions from nobles, clergy, and neighbouring -bishops. Howel was gracious and forgiving, and let his wrongs be -forgotten on the restoration of whatever had been taken from him.[495] -All this is possible; but the more definite statement that Howel was -kept in ward till Hugh came shows that his captivity was a matter of -policy, and that he was set free as soon as it seemed that no object -could be gained by prolonging it. - -[Sidenote: Hugh reaches Le Mans.] - -[Sidenote: Howel flees to Robert.] - -[Sidenote: Robert’s carelessness as to his loss.] - -[Sidenote: He cleaves to his rights over the bishopric.] - -[Sidenote: Dispute between Hugh and Howel.] - -[Sidenote: Howel refuses to acknowledge Hugh as _advocatus_.] - -[Sidenote: Howel and his Chapter.] - -[Sidenote: Disputes about the deanery.] - -[Sidenote: Howel comes to England.] - -[Sidenote: Return of Howel. June 28, 1090.] - -Meanwhile Hugh was on the road. At the border fortress of La Chartre -he was met by the magistrates of Le Mans――the city seems, as often in -Cenomannian history, to act for the whole county――who swore oaths to -him, counting, it is added, their former oaths to Duke Robert for -nought.[496] The Bishop, determined not to acknowledge the revolution, -fled to the court of the prince whom he did acknowledge. But he found -little help there. The idle and luxurious Robert seemed not to care, -he seemed almost to rejoice, that so noble a part of his dominions had -fallen away from him.[497] One thing only he would not give up; he -would at all hazards cleave to his rights over the Cenomannian -bishopric. Robert bade Howel to go back to Le Mans, but to do nothing -which could be taken as an admission of Hugh as temporal lord of the -bishopric.[498] Howel went home, and found the new Count, for whatever -reason, quartered in the episcopal palace. He had himself to live in -the abbey of Saint Vincent, just outside the city. A long dispute -followed between the Breton Bishop and the Italian Count, and then -came a still fiercer dispute between the Bishop and a party in his own -Chapter. One or two points are of constitutional interest, and remind -us of questions which we have just before heard of in our own land. -The Count called on Howel to acknowledge himself as his feudal -superior for the temporalities of the bishopric.[499] He refused and -left the city, on which Hugh seized the temporalities of the -bishopric. Worse even than the Count were the Bishop’s clerical -enemies, one Hilgot at their head. By a cruel subtlety they had -persuaded him to appoint as Dean a mere boy from his own land, -Geoffrey by name, of the age of twelve years only――so it is said. Now -they turned about, found fault with the appointment, and set up an -anti-dean of their own.[500] The Bishop crossed over to England for -help, and, strange to say, he found a friend in the King.[501] But -meanwhile all kinds of wrongs were done to his people, even to -branding an innocent boy in the face.[502] At last a reconciliation -between the Count and the Bishop was brought about, partly because of -the turn taken by public feeling. Saint Julian’s, in the absence of -its chief pastor, was forsaken, while crowds flocked to keep the -feasts of the Church at the Bishop’s monastic retreat. This was at the -priory of Solêmes, near Sablé, lying south-west of the city, towards -the Angevin border.[503] At last the prelate came back amidst -universal joy, and the Count made good all wrongs and losses that he -had undergone.[504] - -[Sidenote: Unpopularity of Hugh.] - -[Sidenote: February, 1091.] - -[Sidenote: Danger of Maine.] - -[Sidenote: Helias buys the county.] - -But happier days were to come for the Bishop and the people of Maine. -It was not only to Howel and his clergy that the Italian Count had -made himself hateful. He had none of the qualities which were needed -in the ruler of a high-spirited people in a time of danger. Idle, -timid, weak of purpose, he had no power among the men over whom he was -set; and he had not, as seems to have been hoped for, brought with him -any store of money from the south.[505] His wife, a daughter of Robert -Wiscard, a woman of a lofty spirit, was too much for him. He put her -away, and was excommunicated by Pope Urban for so doing.[506] Despised -of all men, he was thinking of flight.[507] It was now moreover the -moment when the Norman power had again become specially dangerous to -Maine. The sons of the great William, lately at variance, were now -reconciled, and the subjugation of Maine was one of the terms of their -agreement.[508] Helias saw his opportunity. He set forth the dangers -of the land to his cousin. Hugh said that he wished to sell his county -and be off.[509] Helias argued that, in that case, he ought to sell it -to no one but himself. He set forth his right by birth; he said that -it was no easy place that he was seeking. But his just rights and a -love for the freedom of the land called him to it, and he trusted that -God would help him in his post of danger.[510] A bargain was soon -struck. For a sum of ten thousand Cenomannian shillings Hugh agreed to -abdicate in favour of his cousin. The coronet of Maine passed from the -son of Gersendis to the son of Paula. Hugh went back into Italy with -his money, and Helias was received without opposition as Count of -Maine.[511] - - * * * * * - -[Sidenote: First reign of Helias. 1091-1098.] - -[Sidenote: His strong and just rule.] - -[Sidenote: His friendship for Howel.] - -[Sidenote: Peace of the land.] - -[Sidenote: 1096.] - -The reign of Helias over Le Mans and Maine lasted for about twenty -years, with a break of three years of warfare of which we shall -presently have to speak. First came a time of seven or eight years, -during which the Cenomannian people might indeed be objects of envy to -the people either of Normandy or of England. The new prince, by every -account of his actions, showed himself the model of a ruler of those -times. He did justice and made peace; as far as a prince of those days -could do so, he sheltered the weak from the oppressions of the -strong.[512] His personal piety was not lessened, nor was his devotion -to the Church less zealous, now that the ecclesiastical power was no -longer a political enemy. Strong in the friendship of his late gaoler, -Bishop Howel could rule his diocese in peace, and could carry on his -works of building, both in the city itself and in his neighbouring -lordship of Coulaines.[513] And these happy years were years of peace -without as well as within. The rule of Helias was undisputed; Maine -saw neither revolt within her own borders nor invasion from any power -beyond them. Whatever designs either Robert or William may have -cherished against the independence of Maine, those designs did not for -the present take the shape of any overt act. Robert seems to have done -absolutely nothing; the first signs of impending evil showed -themselves soon after William’s acquisition of Normandy; but there was -no open warfare for two years longer. - -[Sidenote: Translation of Saint Julian. October 17, 1093.] - -[Sidenote: Visit of Pope Urban to Le Mans. November or December, 1095.] - -[Sidenote: Sickness of Howel. 1095-1097.] - -In these times of exceptional quiet there is little to record beyond -ecclesiastical ceremonies. It was a bright day at Le Mans when Bishop -Howel was able to translate the body of the venerated patron of the -city to the place of honour in his new building.[514] That was the -time when Anselm, already enthroned, was waiting for consecration, and -when Malcolm had turned away from Gloucester to plan his last invasion -of Northumberland.[515] In these years too Howel must have finished -the two stately towers of Saint Julian’s minster, of which we shall -before long have a tale to tell. But Le Mans presently saw a greater -day than all, as it seemed at least in the eyes of the biographer of -her bishops. After the days of Piacenza and Clermont, Pope Urban -honoured the Cenomannian city with his presence. For three days the -sovereign Pontiff was the guest of Howel, and we are told that, though -it was a year of scarceness, yet the Bishop of Le Mans was able to -entertain the Pope and his following right bountifully.[516] Howel, it -is said, appeared among his fellow-bishops conspicuous for the gifts -of both mind and body. Men rejoiced with him on the happiness of -receiving such a guest, and deemed from his health and vigour that he -might long enjoy his honours.[517] Before long he fell sick, and his -sickness was unto death, although his end did not come till nearly two -years after the preaching at Clermont. The visit of Urban, the death -of Howel, led to important events in the history of Maine. - -[Sidenote: Helias takes the cross. 1095-1096.] - -[Sidenote: Estimate of his action.] - -[Sidenote: Sigurd and Eystein.] - -[Sidenote: Argument in favour of the Crusade.] - -The preaching of the crusade, above all the presence, and doubtless -the preaching, of the crusading Pope in his own city, stirred up the -same impulse in the heart of Helias which was stirred up in the hearts -of so many other men of his day. Young and strong, devout and valiant, -he would go and fight to win back the sepulchre of his Lord from the -misbelievers and to deliver his Christian brethren in other lands from -their cruel bondage. By the counsel of the Pope, the Count of Maine -took the cross, and made ready to go on the armed pilgrimage along -with his neighbours, with Robert of Normandy and Stephen of -Chartres.[518] Our feeling perhaps is that Helias, like Saint Lewis, -had a stronger call to stay at home than to go on the crusade. A -certain part of mankind, a small part certainly, but that part among -which his immediate duty lay, was peaceful and happy under his rule as -they were not likely to be under the rule of any other. Could it be -right, we might argue, for him to leave a work which none could do but -himself, a work which he had taken on his shoulders of his own free -will, for another work, however noble, which others could do as well -as himself? Let Robert go and win honour abroad instead of dishonour -at home. Normandy was in such a case that the coming even of Rufus was -a happy change. Let Stephen of Chartres go; he left his royal-hearted -Adela behind him. Let King Philip go, if he could go; his son Lewis -would rule his realm far better than he. But let Helias stay, and keep -for his land and city that well-being which he had given and which -another might take away. An argument nearly the same as this was -actually pressed on the crusading Sigurd by his stay-at-home brother -Eystein. While Sigurd was warring far away, Eystein had done a great -deal of good to his own people in Norway.[519] But there are moments -in the world’s history, moments when all has to be sacrificed to a -great cause, when arguments like these, so sound against ordinary -warfare, sound above all against the utterly purposeless warfare of -those days, cannot be listened to. If Western Christendom was to arm -for a crusade, it was well that that crusade should be headed by the -noblest men in Western Christendom. The work would not be done, if it -were only left to lower souls. If Godfrey was to march, it was fit -that Helias should march beside him. Godfrey went; Helias did not go. -He had now a neighbour who made it vain for him to think of leaving -his own land in jeopardy, even to carry out his promise to Pope Urban -and to go on the holy war. - -[Sidenote: William in Normandy. August (?), 1096.] - -[Sidenote: Danger to Maine.] - -[Sidenote: Importance of Norman neutrality.] - -[Sidenote: Helias and Robert.] - -[Sidenote: Helias and William.] - -[Sidenote: He professes himself William’s vassal.] - -[Sidenote: Answer of Rufus; he demands the cession of Maine.] - -[Sidenote: Challenge of Helias.] - -[Sidenote: Rufus lets Helias go with a defiance.] - -The bargain between William and Robert had just been struck. The two -brothers were together at Rouen. Robert was about to set out for -Jerusalem; William had come to take possession of Normandy. It would -have been the height of rashness for Helias to join in the enterprise -of Robert, unless he could make his county safe during his absence -against any aggression on the part of William. According to Norman -doctrines, Maine was simply a rebellious province. Robert had done -nothing to stop the rebellion, but he had never acknowledged either -Hugh or Helias as lawful Prince of the Cenomannians. Where Robert had -done nothing, William would be likely to act with vigour. The claims -which Robert had simply not acknowledged William might be inclined to -dispute with the sword. It was therefore of the utmost moment for the -Count of Maine to secure the friendship, or at least the neutrality, -of the new ruler of Normandy. Helias doubtless knew that, if William -bound himself by his knightly promise, that promise would be -faithfully kept, and he perhaps hoped that towards one who was bound -on a holy errand, an errand during which he would be harmless and -powerless as far as Maine and Normandy were concerned, the chivalrous -king might be disposed to pledge such a promise. He therefore went to -Rouen, and sought interviews with both brothers. He first took counsel -with the Duke.[520] Robert, we know, could give counsel to -others,[521] and he had no temptation at this moment to give -unfriendly counsel to Helias. By his advice, the Count of Maine went -to the King; he addressed him reverently, and, if his words be rightly -reported, acknowledged himself his vassal. So to do was no -degradation, and the acknowledgement might turn the King’s heart -towards him. He set forth his purpose of going to the crusade; he said -that he wished to go as the King’s friend and in his peace.[522] Then -Rufus burst forth in a characteristic strain. Helias may go whither he -thinks good; but let him give up the city and county of Maine; -whatever his father held it was William’s will to hold also.[523] -Helias answers that he holds his county by lawful inheritance from his -forefathers, and that he hopes by God’s help to hand it on to his -children. But if the King has a mind to try the question in a peaceful -pleading, he is ready to maintain his right before kings, counts, and -bishops, and to abide by their judgement.[524] Rufus tells him that he -will plead against him with swords and spears and countless -arrows.[525] Then Helias spoke his solemn challenge. He had wished to -fight against the heathen in the name of the Lord, but he had found -the enemies of Christ nearer to his own doors. The county which he -held was his by the gift of God;[526] he would not lightly give it up, -nor leave his people to the wolves as sheep without a shepherd. Let -the King and all his nobles hear. He bore the cross of a pilgrim; that -cross he would not lay aside; he would bear it on his shield, on his -helmet, on the saddle and bridle of his horse. Under the protection of -that sign he would go forth to defend himself against all who might -attack him, that all might know that those who were fighting against -him were fighting against a warrior of the cross. He trusted in Him -who ruled the world and who knew the secrets of his heart, that a day -would come when he would be able to discharge his vow according to the -letter.[527] The Red King bade him go whither he would and do what he -would; he had no mind to fight against crusaders, but he would have -the city which his father had once won.[528] Let Helias get together -workmen to repair his broken walls.[529] He would presently visit the -citizens of Le Mans, and would show himself before their gates with a -hundred thousand pennoned lances.[530] He would send cars drawn by -oxen, and laden with arrows and javelins. But before the oxen could -reach Le Mans, he would be there with many legions of armed men.[531] - -[Sidenote: Helias makes ready for defence.] - -[Sidenote: William delays his attack. 1096-1097.] - -Such was the threatening message which Helias was bidden to receive as -the most certain truth and to go back and tell his accomplices――that -is, we may understand, his faithful subjects. He went back to his -capital, and began to put his dominions into a state fit to withstand -an attack. But as yet no attack came; for a year or more neither king -nor legions nor oxen were seen before the gates of Le Mans. William -was busy with many matters, with the dispute with Anselm, with -the Welsh war, with the affairs of Scotland. We are told, -characteristically enough, that in the midst of all these affairs he -forgot Maine altogether. Helias meanwhile remained in actual -possession of the county, not attacked or disturbed by Rufus, but in -no way acknowledged by him, with the King’s threats hanging over him, -and knowing that an attack might come at any moment. At last this -armed neutrality came to an end. An event happened which called the -King’s mind back to Cenomannian affairs in a manner specially -characteristic of Cenomannian history. - - * * * * * - -[Sidenote: Affairs of the bishopric.] - -[Sidenote: Death of Howel July 29, 1097.] - -[Sidenote: Helias nominates Geoffrey.] - -[Sidenote: The canons choose Hildebert.] - -[Sidenote: Helias accepts the election.] - -[Sidenote: Geoffrey Archbishop of Rouen. 1111.] - -[Sidenote: Hildebert Bishop of Le Mans. 1097-1126.] - -[Sidenote: Archbishop of Tours. 1126-1134.] - -Again, as so often in our story, the bishopric of Le Mans becomes the -centre of the drama and the subject of dispute among the princes of -the world. In the middle of the summer, shortly before the council of -Winchester, Bishop Howel died, seemingly of the same sickness which -had come upon him soon after the visit of Pope Urban. Helias, like -Hugh, deemed himself, as the reigning Count, to be the temporal lord -of the bishopric, and he at once nominated to the vacant see. His -choice was the Dean of Saint Julian’s, that same Geoffrey who had been -placed by Howel in the deanery in his childhood, and who, if the dates -be right, must still have been wonderfully young for a bishop.[532] -But the canons of Saint Julian’s stood upon their right of free -election, and chose a man of greater name, their Chancellor and -Archdeacon, the famous Hildebert.[533] They placed him at once, -seemingly against his own will, on the episcopal throne.[534] At first -Helias was wroth, and was minded to set aside this direct slight to -his authority. But the rights of the Chapter were set before him, and, -unlike our own Confessor under less provocation, he yielded, and -accepted the election.[535] The Dean, deeming himself sure of the -bishopric, had made ready a great feast; but his dainties were spread -and eaten to no purpose.[536] His time of promotion was only deferred. -Fourteen years later, Geoffrey succeeded William the Good Soul in the -archbishopric of Rouen. So his now more successful competitor was not -fated always to remain in the second rank of prelacy. One of the great -scholars of his day, renowned for his writings both in prose and -verse, a diligent writer of letters and thereby one of the authorities -for our history, a builder, a reformer, an enemy of heresy who could -yet deal gently with the heretic,[537] a model in short, we are told, -of every episcopal virtue, Hildebert ruled the church of Le Mans for -more than twenty-nine years, and then for the last nine years of his -long life was removed to the metropolitan throne of Tours.[538] - -[Sidenote: Claims of the Norman Dukes over the bishopric.] - -[Sidenote: Anger of Rufus at the election of Hildebert.] - -All the elements of the Cenomannian state, prince, clergy, and people, -had joined in the elevation of Hildebert. But there was one to whom -any free election or nomination by any of the local powers was in its -own nature distasteful. It was perhaps because their claim was very -doubtful that the princes of the Norman house clave with such special -obstinacy to their rights over the temporalities of the see of Le -Mans. The bishopric was the one thing in Maine which even the careless -Robert cared about.[539] And to William Rufus, who so deeply cherished -his father’s memory, it would seem a crowning indignity that a bishop -appointed by his father, a special and loyal friend of his father, -should be succeeded by any one, whether the choice of count, chapter, -or _commune_, in whose election he himself had no share. When the King -heard of the election of Hildebert, he was very wroth. He forbade his -consecration, seemingly under threats of open war.[540] Hildebert was -consecrated none the less, and the war which Rufus had hitherto -planned in his heart, broke out in action.[541] - - * * * * * - -[Sidenote: William in Normandy. November, 1097.] - -[Sidenote: His designs on Maine.] - -[Sidenote: Robert of Bellême attacks Maine.] - -[Sidenote: Helias strengthens the castle of Dangeul.] - -[Sidenote: Its position.] - -When William crossed the sea in the November following the election of -Hildebert, we may believe that the wrong which he held to have been -done to him in the matter of that election was in his mind as a -secondary cause of action, along with his demand of the Vexin from the -King of the French. He came for war with France; he was ready for war -with Maine also. But we do not hear of any actual military operations -till the next year had begun. And, when warfare began, it was at first -warfare carried on, just as often happened in Wales and even in -Scotland, by the King’s licence indeed, but not by the King himself. -The immediate danger lay on the side of the county which was -threatened by the constant enemy of Maine and of Helias, Robert of -Bellême. From him came the first acts of warfare. It was against him -that Helias now found it needful to strengthen his castle of -Dangeul.[542] This point lies to the north-east of Ballon, at only a -few miles’ distance. The castle stands on a height nearly equal to -that of Ballon, though Dangeul does not take the same marked form of a -promontory, but rather stands on the edge of a wide expanse of high -ground sinking by stages down to the plain below. The fortress has -wholly vanished; but its site may be traced within the grounds of the -modern _château_ which has taken its place, and which represents, in a -figure, the stronghold of Helias. The view which the spot commands -shows how well the site was chosen. The eye ranges as far as the -height of Sillé-le-Guillaume on one side, as far as the Norman -Chaumont on the other. Dangeul stood right in the way of an advance of -the arch-enemy, whether from his own home at Bellême or from any of -his Norman or Cenomannian fortresses. - -[Sidenote: Geographical character of the war; waged chiefly with Robert -of Bellême.] - -The war of Maine is largely a war between Helias and Robert of -Bellême. This gives the war its special geographical character. The -immediate possessions of Helias lay in the south-eastern part of the -county; the fortresses of the enemy threatened him from the -north-east. The capital lay between them. The result is that the seat -of war is confined to the eastern part of Maine, the modern department -of Sarthe, and that Le Mans itself is its special centre. Of western -Maine, the modern department of Mayenne, we hear nothing. There is no -news from the old battle-field of Domfront, Ambrières, and Mayenne -itself, though of the lord of Mayenne we still continue to hear. -There is nothing this time to tell of Sainte-Susanne or of -Sillé-le-Guillaume.[543] The war takes up such an area as is natural -when the strife is waged mainly for the city of Le Mans, when it is -waged between the lord of La Flèche and the lord of Bellême. The enemy -advances from Alençon and Mamers; he is checked by the fortification -of Dangeul. - - [Illustration: - Map illustrating - the - CAMPAIGN OF MAINE - A.D. 1098. - _Edwᵈ. Weller_ - _For the Delegates of the Clarendon Press._] - -[Sidenote: Effects of the occupation of Dangeul.] - -[Sidenote: Robert of Bellême invites the King. January, 1098.] - -[Sidenote: William and Robert against Helias.] - -[Sidenote: _Guerrilla_ warfare of Helias.] - -[Sidenote: William leaves Maine.] - -The occupation of this last strong post by Helias was not without -effect. He did not indeed win back any of the castles which were held -by Robert of Bellême; but the garrison of Dangeul kept the invader in -check, and hindered him from carrying his accustomed ravages through -the whole country. This move of Helias seems even to have convinced -Robert that the conquest of Maine was an undertaking too great for his -own unassisted power. In January he went to the King, and stirred him -up to a direct attack on Helias. With a lover of warfare like Robert -winter went for nothing; it would be just the time to take the enemy -by surprise, while they were not expecting any attack. The King, we -are told, was unwilling. It is hard to understand why this should be, -unless he was too busily occupied with the war in the Vexin. He was -ashamed however――the chivalrous feeling again comes in――to shrink from -any warlike enterprise which was proposed to him.[544] The King and -the Count of Bellême set forth; but they found the Count of Maine -fully their match. He knew how war was to be carried on in his own -land against an enemy stronger than himself. He planted detachments at -every convenient post; he lined the hedges and defences of every kind -with men; he guarded the passages of the streams, and the difficult -approaches of the woods. Against this kind of skirmishing warfare the -mighty Rufus and all his knights were able to do as little as they -were able to do against the light-armed Welsh.[545] The King waxed -fiercer than ever against the men of Maine and their Count; but he -withdrew his own personal presence, betaking himself doubtless to the -other seat of war. - -[Sidenote: Robert of Bellême continues the war.] - -[Sidenote: Castles held by him in Maine.] - -Meanwhile Robert of Bellême was left to carry on the struggle with -Helias. He was ordered by Rufus to bring together as large a force as -he could in his own fortresses, nor did the King forget to supply him -with abundance of money for that purpose.[546] On such a bidding as -this, Robert of Bellême, Robert the Devil on Cenomannian lips, set to -work with a will which fully bore out his surname. He built new -fortresses, he strengthened the old ones with deep ditches.[547] He -had already occupied nine castles, besides fortified houses, on -Cenomannian ground.[548] The list is given as Blèves, Perray, -Mont-de-la-Nue, Saônes, Saint Remy-du-plain, Lurçon, Allières, Motte -de Gauthier-le-Clincamp, and Mamers. All these lie in the -north-eastern part of the county, the part immediately threatened from -Alençon and Bellême. They occupy nearly the whole of the land between -the Cenomannian Orne and the upper course of the Sarthe above Alençon, -lying on each side, north and south, of the great forest of Perseigne. -The line of the Sarthe from Alençon to Le Mans remained untouched, -while Ballon stood as the advanced guard of the capital, and Dangeul -was a yet further outpost of Helias, in the very teeth of the invader -from Bellême. Perray, alone among the points held by Robert, stands as -far south as the lower course of the Orne. - -[Sidenote: Mamers.] - -[Sidenote: Blèves.] - -[Sidenote: Allières.] - -[Sidenote: Saint Remy-du-plain.] - -[Sidenote: Saônes.] - -[Sidenote: Small architectural remains of the eleventh century.] - -Several of the castles on this list occupied marked sites, and have -left considerable traces. Mamers and Blèves were strictly border -fortresses, points which Robert had seized just within the Cenomannian -border; the others were more advanced points in the heart of the -Cenomannian land. Mamers, with its streets sloping down to the young -Orne, is the only one of the places on our list which is now at all a -considerable town. But the only signs of its fortifications which are -to be seen are found in the names of its streets, which suggest the -former presence of a fort by the river and of a castle on somewhat -higher ground. Mamers, due west from Bellême, may well have been -Robert’s first conquest, and its occupation may have marked his first -advance into the dominions of his neighbour. But he must also, early -in his career, have made himself master of Blèves. This is a point -which has no natural advantages of height, but which, standing in the -very north-east corner of Maine, separated from Perche by a small -tributary of the Sarthe, is important from its border position and as -commanding a bridge. A mound which once stood there has been levelled; -a graceful _Renaissance_ house near its site is the present -representative of the castle; but parts of the ditches may still be -seen; the church, near but not within the enclosure, contains work -which may have been looked on by Hildebert and Helias, and ancient -masonry still remains at the manorial mill. Blèves lies north of the -forest of Perseigne; at Allières, on its eastern verge, all actual -traces of the castle have vanished; but the church again contains some -small parts which seem contemporary with our story, and the site of -the fortress may well be marked by the modern _château_ on the -hill-side commanding a wide view to the south. But more speaking -witnesses of this war may be seen at two points lying south of the -forest and directly west of Mamers. Saint Remy, distinguished as Saint -Remy _du Plain_ from a namesake to the south-east known as Saint Remy -_du Mont_, stands, not indeed in the plain, but on the edge of the -high ground. It commands an extensive view, reaching to the point -which bounds most of the views in northern Maine, the _butte_ of -Chaumont. A site of the like kind, but with a less wide prospect, is -held by Saônes at a short distance to the south, hard by that unusual -feature in these lands, a small lake. Saônes is now a small village, -but it was once of importance enough to give its name to the -surrounding district of _Saosnois_ or _Sonnois_. In both these cases -the castle-mound rises immediately to the west of the church, the -latter at Saint Remy being a late building of more pretension than is -usual in the neighbourhood. Each mound has its surrounding ditch, -which at Saint Remy is of most striking depth; each has its encircling -wall; each has its inner tower, that at Saônes of an irregular -four-sided shape, that of Saint Remy octagonal without and round -within. Here are two unmistakeable and most striking sites of the -fortresses which the invader from Perche rent away from the -Cenomannian county. But, with such small remains of walls as are still -left, it is hard to say in each case how much may be the work of -Robert of Bellême himself. The mounds――natural hills improved by -art――and their ditches are doubtless far older than his day; the walls -must often be far later. There is little architectural detail left to -decide such points; we are left to the less certain evidence of -masonry. Some of the masonry in the inner building at Saônes certainly -has the air of work of the eleventh century. In any case, whatever may -be the exact amount of his work among the existing remains, everything -bears witness to the impression which Robert’s invasion made on the -district and to the reputation which he left behind him. Not far from -Saônes, some remains of dykes, of the age or object of which it would -be rash to speak with certainty, still keep the name of Robert the -Devil. - - * * * * * - -[Sidenote: Nature of the country and of the war.] - -[Sidenote: Teaching of the landscapes in Maine.] - -[Sidenote: The castles.] - -[Sidenote: Their object private war.] - -[Sidenote: Contrast with England.] - -[Sidenote: Comparative rarity of castles in England.] - -[Sidenote: State of the Cenomannian castles.] - -A visit to the scene of this war, a look-out from any of the chief -fortified points, brings forcibly home to us the nature of that kind -of struggle with which we are dealing. Nothing but an actual sight of -Italy and Greece fully brings home to the mind the state of things -when each city was a sovereign commonwealth, armed with all the powers -of war and peace. Till we take in the fact with our own eyes, we do -not thoroughly understand how men felt and acted when they constantly -lived with rivals, rivals who might at any moment become enemies, -within sight of their own territory. The out-look from any of the -Cenomannian heights, the out-look from the home and centre of mischief -on the hill of Bellême, brings home to us another state of things with -equal force. Had the _commune_ of Le Mans lived on, had other -neighbouring cities followed its example, the older Greek, the later -Italian, model might have been seen in all its fulness on the soil of -northern Gaul. And warfare between Le Mans and Tours, between Le Mans -and Alençon, carried on with that mixture of lofty and petty motives -which is characteristic of warfare between rival cities, would have -been ennobling compared with the state of things which actually was. -For here we see every available point seized on to make what, at least -in the hands of Robert of Bellême, was a mere den of robbers.[549] -From his own scarped mound at Bellême the destroyer could see far -enough into the Cenomannian land to give a keen whet to his appetite -for havoc. Within the land which thus lay open to his attack, we see -from every height the sites, not of one or two only, but of a whole -crowd of strongholds which have passed away. A very few only of these -strongholds could ever have been needed for the protection of any town -or for the general defence of the country. They were strongholds which -had been first raised for the purpose of private war, and which, in -the hands of their present master, were turned to the purpose of -general oppression. One wonders how, in such a state of things, when -almost every village was overshadowed by its robber’s nest, a single -husbandman could till his field, or a single merchant carry his wares -from town to town. And we must remember that, unless during the -nineteen years of anarchy, this state of things never existed in -England. Our forefathers raised their wail over the building of the -castles and over the evil deeds which were wrought by those who built -them. But at no time in England, save on the borders which were -exposed to the foreign enemies of the kingdom, did castles stand so -thick on the ground as they did in the land on which we now look. The -eye which has been used to track out the scenes of the Cenomannian war -comes back to an English landscape of the same kind, to mark the steep -bluff or the isolated mount, which seems designed to be girt with a -ditch and crowned with a donjon, and almost to wonder that no ditch or -donjon ever was there. And, as we gaze on the land where they crowned -every tempting site, we better understand the joy and thankfulness -with which men hailed the reign of any prince who put some curb on the -pride and power of the knightly disturbers of the peace and gave to -smaller men some chance of possessing their own in safety. We can -understand how in such a prince this overwhelming merit was held to -outweigh not a few vices and crimes in his own person. We can -understand how, at the beginning of every period of restored order, a -general sweeping away of castles was as it were the symbolic act of -its inauguration. And perhaps the thought comes all the more home to -the mind, because the Cenomannian castles are, to so great an extent, -a memory and not a presence. They are not like those castles by the -Rhine which have come to take their place as parts of a picturesque -landscape. As a rule, it is not the castles themselves, but the sites -where we know that they once stood, which catch the eye as it ranges -from Mamers to Sillé, from Ballon to Alençon. But when we see how many -spots within that region had been made the sites of these dens of -havoc――when we think how many of them had, in the hands of Robert of -Bellême, become dens of havoc more fearful than ever――we shall better -understand how men cherished the names of William the Great and of his -youngest son; we shall better understand the work which had now to be -done in the Cenomannian land by one nobler than either the son or the -father. - - * * * * * - -[Sidenote: Wrong and sacrilege of Robert of Bellême.] - -[Sidenote: Helias defeats Robert at Saônes.] - -[Sidenote: Cruelty of Robert.] - -In the minds of Helias and his contemporaries the occupation of so -large a part of their country was yet more keenly embittered by the -despite done to holy places and the wrong wrought on men who enjoyed -exceptional respect even in the fiercest times. Some of the -strongholds of Robert the Devil were planted on lands belonging to the -Church, especially to the abbeys of Saint Vincent and La Couture -without the walls of Le Mans. The peaceful tenants of these religious -houses, accustomed to a milder rule than their neighbours, groaned -under the oppressions of their new masters.[550] Stirred up by this -wrong and sacrilege, the Count of Maine marched forth to protect his -people. Now that the King was gone, he even ventured on something like -a pitched battle. He met Robert of Bellême at the head of a superior -force near the lake and castle of Saônes, not far, it may be, from the -dyke which specially bears the tyrant’s name. The pious Count and his -followers, calling on God and Saint Julian, attacked the sacrilegious -invaders and put them to flight.[551] Several of the nobles of -Normandy were wounded or taken prisoners. Robert of Courcy, a name not -new to us,[552] lost his right eye. William of Wacey and several -others were taken, and were released on the payment of heavy -ransoms.[553] Helias, in short, carried on a defensive warfare in the -spirit of a Christian knight. Not so his enemy. Robert of Bellême -carried on a war of aggression in the spirit of a murdering savage. -All the worst horrors of war were let loose upon the land. Robert’s -treatment of prisoners was not that which the captive Normans met with -at the hands of Helias. In the holy season of Lent, when other -sinners, we are told, forsook their sins for a while, the son of Mabel -only did worse than ever. Three hundred prisoners perished in his -dungeons. Large ransoms were offered for their release; but Robert -would not forego for money the pleasure of letting them die of cold, -hunger, and wretchedness.[554] - -[Sidenote: April, 1098.] - -[Sidenote: Second victory of Helias. April 28, 1098.] - -[Sidenote: Helias taken prisoner near Dangeul.] - -The war thus went on till the end of April. On the Wednesday in the -last week of that month Helias made an expedition against Robert. The -exact point of attack is not told us; but doubtless it was some of the -fortresses held by the enemy. It was perhaps Perray, the hostile point -furthest to the south, perhaps Saônes, the scene of his own former -victory over the invaders. The starting-points of the Count’s -operations were the two points which he held as outposts of the city -against attacks from the north, Ballon and his own immediate -dwelling-place at Dangeul. From these castles Helias led forth his -forces. The day’s skirmish was successful; the pride of Robert the -Devil received another check.[555] But fortune soon turned from the -better to the worse cause. The Count bade the main body of his -followers march on to Ballon, while he himself, with seven knights -only, was minded to halt at his own castle of Dangeul. As he drew near -to the fortress, he saw a few men lurking among the trees and -bushes.[556] Trees and bushes are still there in abundance, -surrounding the modern house which in a figure represents the castle -of Helias. The presence of liers-in-wait so near his own home was -threatening. Helias rode against them and scattered them; in so doing -he also scattered his own small party. But the few men in the thickets -were only the advanced guard of a larger body. The arch-fiend Robert -was himself near in ambush. At the lucky moment he sprang forth; his -comrades seized the Count, along with his standard-bearer Hervey of -the Cenomannian Montfort,[557] and the more part of his small -following. The few who escaped made their way to Ballon, to turn the -joy of their comrades into sorrow at the news that Count Helias was a -prisoner.[558] - - * * * * * - -[Sidenote: Contrast between Robert of Bellême and William Rufus.] - -[Sidenote: Helias surrendered to the King.] - -[Sidenote: William and Helias.] - -[Sidenote: Helias kept at Rouen.] - -The noblest man in Gaul was now at the mercy of the vilest. Helias was -helpless in the hands of Robert of Bellême. The tale which follows is -picturesque in itself, and it is specially valuable as throwing light -on the mixed character of the Red King. With all his evil deeds, he -was at least not the worst man with whom we have to do. We now see -what mere chivalry could do and what it could not do. It could not -raise a man to the level of Helias; but it kept him from sinking to -the level of Robert of Bellême. Helias was far too important a captive -to be left to die a lingering death in the dungeons of Robert. He was -taken to Rouen, and handed over to the King; and in the King’s hands -he at least ran no risk as to life or limb. William Rufus might -perhaps not understand a patriot fighting for his city and country. He -could perhaps understand a prince fighting for the inheritance of his -fathers. He could most fully understand and admire a gallant and -honourable knight fighting manfully in any cause, even though his -gallantry was directed against himself. In one or other of those -characters, Helias extorted a kind of respect from the King who was so -bitterly enraged against him. The fortune of war had gone against the -defender of Maine, but William was not disposed to press his advantage -harshly. Helias was kept in the castle of Rouen, a prisoner, but a -prisoner whose durance was, by the King’s express order, relieved by -honourable treatment.[559] - - * * * * * - -[Sidenote: State of things at Le Mans;] - -[Sidenote: the new municipality.] - -[Sidenote: Bishop Hildebert and the Council.] - -[Sidenote: William’s council at Rouen.] - -[Sidenote: His speech.] - -[Sidenote: A great levy ordered.] - -One element of the Cenomannian state, and that the highest, was thus -lost to it. But at Le Mans the prince was only one element in the -state; the ecclesiastical and the civic powers appear alongside of him -at every stage. As soon as the Count was in the hands of the enemy, -another power, perhaps not the old _commune_, yet some form of -republican or municipal government, at once sprang up. Bishop -Hildebert appears at the head of a council or assembly of some kind -which devised measures daily for the safety of the commonwealth.[560] -We must not build too much on the expressions of rhetorical writers -who loved to bring in classical allusions; still, considering what Le -Mans had been, a momentary burst of the old freedom is no more than we -might reasonably look for. If so, the restored commonwealth had, at -its first birth, to brave the full might of the younger William, as -the former commonwealth had had to brave the full might of the elder. -We can only tell the tale as we have it, and we have no means of -connecting what was going on in Maine with what was going on at the -same time in the Vexin. Yet one is a little surprised to find William, -at this stage of the year, sitting quietly at Rouen, holding a -council, and presently sending forth orders for the levying of a great -army, as if two wars were not already waging. In his council of the -Norman barons the Red King is made to express himself in a humane and -devout strain. Hitherto he had been careless about winning back the -heritage of his father; he had been unwilling, for the mere sake of -enlarging his dominions, to trouble a peaceful population or to cause -the death of human beings.[561] Now however God, who knew his right, -had, without any knowledge of his, delivered his enemy into his hands; -what should he do further?[562] The writers of these times do indeed -allow themselves strange liberties in putting speeches, and sometimes -very inappropriate speeches, into the mouths of the actors in their -story. But surely to put words like these into the mouth of William -Rufus, as something uttered in seriousness, would be going beyond any -conceivable licence of this kind. Considering his better authenticated -speeches, one is tempted to believe that we have here the memory of -some mocking gibe. He, King William, had not laid waste the fields of -Maine nor caused men to die of hunger in prison. It was only Robert of -Bellême who had done such things. It would be quite in character with -Rufus, as with Jehu, to ask, Who slew all these?[563] Nor is such -brutal mockery in any way inconsistent with the display of chivalrous -generosity whenever any appeal is made personally to himself in his -knightly character. Anyhow we are told that the barons advised that a -summons should go forth bidding the whole force of Normandy to come -together for an expedition to win back the land of Maine. They -themselves would come, willingly and with all daring, in their own -persons.[564] - -[Sidenote: Numbers of the army.] - -All this reads strangely in a narrative which, a page or two before, -had told us of the warfare around Gisors which, one would think, must -have been going on at this very moment. But we read that the -messengers went forth, and that the host came together. Not only from -Normandy, but from Britanny and Flanders, from Burgundy and -France――not a word as to the treason implied in this last name――men -flocked to the banners of the prince who was so bountiful a -paymaster.[565] At some stage of their march, an aged French warrior, -a survivor of the wars of King Henry――one therefore who could remember -the ambush of Varaville and the flames of Mortemer, perhaps even the -clashing of lances at Val-es-dunes――Gilo de Soleio by name, beheld the -host from the top of a high hill. He had seen many and great -gatherings of men, but never on this side the Alps――had he fought then -in Apulia or at Dyrrhachion?――had he seen so vast an army. He told the -number of the men at fifty thousand.[566] Be the figures trustworthy -or not as to this particular army, this is one of several hints which -help to show us what passed in those days for an army of unusual -numbers.[567] - - * * * * * - -[Sidenote: The army meets at Alençon. June, 1098.] - -[Sidenote: The army at Fresnay.] - -[Sidenote: The castle and church of Fresnay.] - -[Sidenote: Beaumont-le-Vicomte.] - -[Sidenote: The Viscount Ralph asks for a truce.] - -[Sidenote: Rufus grants it.] - -[Sidenote: Action of Geoffrey of Mayenne.] - -The trysting-place of this great host was at Alençon, the border town -and fortress of Normandy, where the Sarthe divides the Norman and -Cenomannian lands.[568] Once famous as the town whose people had felt -so stern a vengeance for their insults to the great William, it was -now a stronghold of Normandy against Maine, at all events a stronghold -of Robert of Bellême against those who still maintained the cause of -the captive Helias. There the army met in June.[569] Rufus, in -invading Maine, was repeating an exploit of his father. He entered by -the same road, and began by threatening the same fortress. The words -of our authorities may lead us to think that he himself tarried at -Alençon, while his army, or the bulk of it, marched to Fresnay.[570] -Fresnay-le-Vicomte, Fresnay-on-Sarthe, was the first castle in Maine -to which the Conqueror had laid siege, and under its walls Robert of -Bellême had been girt with the belt of knighthood.[571] At that time -Fresnay, along with Beaumont lower down the river, had dared to -withstand the invader. Both fortresses stand on heights overlooking -the Sarthe; Fresnay, seated on a limestone rock rising sheer from the -stream, might seem well able to defy any enemy. Of the ancient part of -the castle nothing is left but shattered walls and a stern gateway of -a later age. The church, a gem of the art of an age nearly a hundred -years later, contains only a small part which can have been standing -in the days of Rufus. Beaumont is not mentioned in our present story. -But its square keep must have already looked down on the Sarthe and -its islands, while a mound on each side of the town, one seemingly -artificial, one by the river-side only improved by art, may perhaps -mark the sites of besieging towers raised by the Conqueror to bring -town and castle into subjection.[572] The then lord of Fresnay and -Beaumont, the Viscount Hubert, had at a later stage forsaken both his -castles on the Sarthe, to defy, and that successfully, the whole might -of William the Great from his more inaccessible donjon on the rock of -Sainte-Susanne.[573] His successor, the Viscount Ralph, felt no call -to run any such risks. When the army drew near to Fresnay, when no -hostilities beyond a little skirmishing had as yet taken place, Ralph -went to the King at Alençon and asked for a truce. He pleaded that he -was but one member of a body; he could not take on himself the duties -of the head of that body; he could not without dishonour be the first -man in Maine to yield his castle without fighting. The council of -Maine was sitting in the city; he, Ralph, was bound by their resolves; -let the King go on to Le Mans and negotiate; as he should find peace -or war at Le Mans, he should find peace or war at Fresnay.[574] Rufus, -always ready to answer any appeal to his personal generosity, praised -the proposal of Ralph, and granted him the truce which he asked -for.[575] He did the like to others whose lands lay on his line of -march. Among these we hear of Rotrou of the Cenomannian Montfort, and -of one whose name has for so many years been sure to meet us the first -moment he set foot on Cenomannian soil, the now surely aged Geoffrey -of Mayenne.[576] - -[Sidenote: Estimate of their conduct.] - -[Sidenote: Fulk Rechin at Le Mans.] - -[Sidenote: May 5, 1098.] - -[Sidenote: He is received.] - -[Sidenote: Fulk’s son Geoffrey left at Le Mans.] - -The conduct of these lords seems to show lukewarmness, to say the -least, in the cause of Cenomannian independence. We are again reminded -of the days of the _commune_, of the unwillingness of the nobles to -accept the republican government, of the special treason of Geoffrey -himself.[577] We can understand that many of the lords of castles -throughout Maine, though they might prefer their own count to the king -who came against them, might yet prefer the king to any form of -commonwealth. The local historian does not scruple to use strong -language on the subject. For we can hardly doubt that Geoffrey, Ralph, -Rotrou, and others in the like case, are the persons who are referred -to as the faithless men by whose consent Rufus was led to hasten to -the city.[578] But the King had another motive to call him thither. By -this time there was no longer a commonwealth to be dealt with; Le Mans -had again a prince, though no longer her native prince. In the very -week after Helias was taken prisoner, Fulk of Anjou came to Le Mans, -and brought with him his son Geoffrey. He himself came in his -character of superior lord,[579] while Geoffrey, to whom Eremburga, -the only child of Helias, was betrothed, might pass in some sort for -the heir of the county.[580] The citizens, we are told, received the -Angevin count willingly; any master was better than the Norman. Fulk -put garrisons in the fortresses of La Mans, with his son in command. -He then left the city, seemingly for operations in other parts of -Maine.[581] - - [Illustration: - LE MANS - _E. Weller_ - _For the Delegates of the Clarendon Press._] - -[Sidenote: March of Rufus.] - -[Sidenote: Castle of Bourg-le-roi.] - -[Sidenote: Rufus at Montbizot] - -[Sidenote: and Coulaines.] - -[Sidenote: View of Le Mans.] - -[Sidenote: Rufus ravages Coulaines.] - -Against this new enemy William Rufus set out from Alençon. He had to -overtake the host which was already at Fresnay. He crossed the Sarthe; -he continued his course along its left bank, and stopped for the first -time at Rouessée-les-fontaines.[582] This point is no great distance -from Alençon, and it is still some way north of Fresnay. The present -village of Rouessée contains no signs of any castle or mansion fitted -for a king’s reception. One suspects that the exact spot meant must be -the neighbouring castle of Bourg-le-roi, a castle said to take its -name from Rufus himself. Here a ruined round tower, with walls of -amazing thickness and girded by a deep ditch, looks down from a small -hill on what seems to be the preparation for a large town which has -never been built. A small village and church are sheltered within -walls of vast compass, pierced by gates of later date than the days of -Rufus and Helias. His next stage is distinctly spoken of as an -encampment. The King had now joined his army. That night his camp was -pitched at Montbizot, in the peninsula between the Sarthe and the -Cenomannian Orne.[583] On the third day he encamped in the meadows, by -the Sarthe, hard by the village of Coulaines.[584] He was still on the -left bank of the river, the same bank as the city itself, though the -bend which the stream makes immediately under the hill of Le Mans -gives the city almost the look of standing on the other side. Wide -meadows spread from the village of Coulaines to the foot of the hill; -they were now covered by the tents of Rufus. Right before the eyes of -the army, high on its hill, rose the city which they were come to -attack, and it rose so as to bring at once before their leader’s eyes -the objects which would specially stir up his wrath. As Le Mans is -seen from the meadows of Coulaines, the city and its hill lie almost -out of sight to the south-west. The prominent objects are those which -stand in the north-east corner of the city and in the adjoining -suburb. Highest of all, rising above the city itself, soared the abbey -of Saint Vincent without the walls, the house whose tenants had been -so cruelly oppressed by Robert of Bellême.[585] Saint Julian’s, on its -lower ground, almost closes in the view on the other side. When Rufus -drew nigh, the twin towers of Howel rose high in all the freshness of -their newly-finished masonry, to remind the King that the chair of the -prelate whom his father had appointed was now filled by a successor in -whose choice no regard had been paid to his own pleasure. Between the -two minsters rose the royal tower, the tower of his father, the -fortress which had passed away from him and from his father’s house, -held no longer even by a rebellious vassal, as he might deem Helias, -but by the invading stranger from Anjou. How deeply one at least of -these feelings rankled in the mind of Rufus is shown by his dealings -with the immediate neighbourhood of his encampment. The village of -Coulaines was an episcopal lordship. For the churl chivalry taught no -mercy; in his wrath against Hildebert, the King burned the church and -the whole village, and cruelly laid waste the neighbouring lands.[586] - -[Sidenote: Sally from the city.] - -[Sidenote: Rufus goes away.] - -[Sidenote: Ballon betrayed to Rufus and occupied by Robert of Bellême.] - -[Sidenote: The siege of Le Mans raised.] - -But however fiercely Rufus might wreak his spite on the unlucky lands -and tenants of the bishopric without the walls, the flock of Hildebert -within the city was safe for a while. Le Mans was not to pass into the -King’s hands just yet, and Ralph of Beaumont and Geoffrey of Mayenne -might still keep their bat-like nature for some while longer. For it -is at this stage that the local historian places an exploit of the -citizens of Le Mans which reminds us of the way in which our own -Godwine was said to have won the special favour of Cnut for himself -and his fellow-Englishmen.[587] The men of the city marched -forth――whether under Angevin leadership we are not told――to attack the -King’s camp at Coulaines. Rufus, deeming that some treachery was on -foot, marched off in the night with his army. In the morning the -citizens occupied the camp and found no one there.[588] It is hard to -say what we are to make of this story, which has a somewhat mythical -sound. But it has at least thus much of truth in it, that Rufus was -obliged to break up the siege of Le Mans for a while. The castle of -Ballon, of which we have already so often heard, was betrayed to Rufus -by its lord Pagan of Mont-Doubleau, and it was held that this strong -position, nearly due north of the city, almost put the city itself -into the King’s power. Robert of Bellême was put in command at Ballon, -with three hundred knights. At his bidding the land was ravaged in -every way; the vines were rooted up and the crops were trampled down. -But at last the invaders began to feel the effects of the damage they -themselves had done. A failure of provisions, especially of oats for -the horses, hindered the Red King from keeping on the siege.[589] He -went away into Normandy, bidding his men go home and see to their -harvests, and come again when the crops were reaped.[590] Nothing is -more natural in the case of the native Normans, who would feel in such -a case very much as Englishmen felt; but one can hardly believe that -William allowed his great mercenary force to be wholly broken up. And -again, the question keeps always presenting itself, What was going on -in the Vexin? Was there any moment when so eager a warrior, with two -wars on his hands at once, left both of them to take care of -themselves? Throughout this story the relations between the French and -the Cenomannian wars form a never-ceasing puzzle. But we presently -come to an incident of the campaign which is the most characteristic -in the whole history of William Rufus. - -[Sidenote: Fulk attacks Ballon.] - -[Sidenote: Successful sally of the besieged.] - -[Sidenote: William at Ballon, c. July 20, 1098.] - -[Sidenote: His treatment of the captive knights.] - -[Sidenote: Illustration of the chivalrous spirit.] - -While William was away, Count Fulk, at the head of a mixed host, -Angevin and Cenomannian, laid siege to the newly-betrayed castle of -Ballon. The attack went on for some days; a message was sent to the -King for help. To meet this fresh danger, the nobles of Maine and -Anjou pressed in greater numbers to help the Count and his force. The -defenders of the castle planned a sally. Beggars went out as spies, -and brought in news that the besiegers were busy dining at the hour of -tierce. The sally was made; the besiegers were surprised in the midst -of their meal;[591] a hundred and forty knights and a crowd of -foot-soldiers were taken prisoners. The rest took to flight and left a -rich spoil of arms, clothes, and furniture as a prey to the Normans. -Many of the captives were men of high rank and great possessions. The -story almost reads as if Robert of Bellême condemned them to die of -hunger; if so, Rufus came before hunger had done its work; cold would -no longer be a means of torture. It was now not Lent, but the third -week in July, when King William with a great force came to Ballon. A -cry presently reached him from the prisoners, “Noble King William, set -us free.” The chivalrous King, who had no mercy for the peasants of -Coulaines, felt his heart stirred towards the captive knights of -Anjou. He ordered that a meal should be made ready for them along with -his own followers, and he set them free on their parole till the meal -was ready. Some of his companions suggested to him that, in the crowd -and confusion, they might easily escape. Rufus cast aside such a -suggestion with scorn. He would never believe that a good knight would -break his word; he who should do so would have punishment enough in -the scorn of all mankind that would follow him.[592] Here we see the -chivalrous character in all its fulness. Justice and mercy go for -nothing; the law of God and the law of man go for nothing; the oath of -the crowned king, the promise of a prince and a brother, go for -nothing; but the class tie of knighthood is sacred; the promise made -under its guaranty is sacred. As a good knight, William Rufus is -faithful to his own word pledged as such to others; as a good knight, -he will not believe that a brother of his order can be other than -faithful to his word pledged as such to him. - - * * * * * - -[Sidenote: Fulk goes back to Le Mans.] - -[Sidenote: Negotiations for peace.] - -[Sidenote: Share of Helias.] - -[Sidenote: Convention between William and Fulk. August, 1098.] - -[Sidenote: Le Mans to be surrendered.] - -[Sidenote: Helias to be set free.] - -The siege of Ballon was at an end. Fulk, we are told, betook himself -to the city, and there stayed in some of the monasteries, waiting to -see what would happen.[593] But the defenders of Le Mans, both native -and Angevin, had now made up their minds that resistance to the power -of Rufus was hopeless; their object was to treat for peace. The -captive Helias was allowed a share in the negotiations; he was -specially fearful that Fulk might make some agreement by which he -himself might be cut off from Maine for ever.[594] By the King’s -leave, Bishop Hildebert and some of the chief men of the city visited -Helias, and they agreed on terms which were put into the form of an -agreement between Rufus and Fulk. It was rather a military convention -than a treaty of peace, and it left all the disputed questions -unsettled. Nothing was said either as to the general question about -the bishopric or as to the particular election of Hildebert. Nor was -it at all ruled who was to be looked on as lawful Count of Maine. It -was not even agreed that hostilities were to cease. The actual terms -are conceived in words which seem to come from Rufus himself. The -memory of his father is put prominently forward. Le Mans and all the -fortresses which had been held by the late King William were to be -surrendered to King William his son. Helias and all other prisoners on -both sides were to be set free.[595] All sides, we are told, rejoiced -at this agreement. To William and his followers it was a great -immediate triumph. To the people of Le Mans it was at least immediate -deliverance from a wasting struggle. And wary men may have seen that -the liberation of Helias was not too dearly bought even by the -surrender of his capital. If the valiant Count were set free, free -alike from fetters and from promises, he would win back his lost city -and dominion before long. - -[Sidenote: Submission of Le Mans.] - -[Sidenote: The castles occupied by the King’s troops.] - -But for the present all went according to the pleasure of the Red -King. Rufus, as his father had twice done, entered Le Mans without -bloodshed, amidst at least the outward welcome of its inhabitants. And -it may well be that, if Helias was not to be had, they may have looked -on William as a more promising master than Fulk. The convention was -formally accepted, and it was immediately carried out. Robert the son -of Hugh of Montfort, that Hugh whom we have already heard of on Senlac -and at Dover,[596] was sent at the head of seven hundred chosen -knights, full armed in their helmets and coats of mail, to occupy the -fortresses of Le Mans.[597] They met with no opposition; the -garrisons, native or Angevin, marched out; the Normans took -possession. All the strong places of the city――the ancient palace of -the counts on the Roman wall――the donjon of William the Great, the -royal tower, standing so dangerously near to the north wall of Saint -Julian’s minster――the other fortress of the Conqueror, the tower of -Mont Barbet on its height, overlooking the city from the side of Saint -Vincent’s abbey――all that the father had either subdued or called into -being――now passed without a blow into the hands of the son. The King’s -banner――what was the ensign wrought upon it?――was hoisted amid shouts -of victory on the highest point of the royal tower. King William the -Red had achieved the object which in his thoughts came nearest to the -nature of a duty. He had brought under his hand all that had ever been -under the hand of his father.[598] - -[Sidenote: William’s entry into Le Mans.] - -[Sidenote: His reception by Hildebert.] - -[Sidenote: The church of Saint Julian.] - -On the day of the military occupation followed the day of the joyous -entry. The Red King entered, doubtless by the northern gate, the gate -between Saint Vincent’s abbey and the royal tower. His new subjects -welcomed him with shouts and songs, and were received by him to his -full peace.[599] Bishop Hildebert, seemingly now admitted to favour, -with his clergy and people, met the King with psalms and processions. -They led him by the royal tower, with his own banner floating on its -battlements, to the cathedral church, now a vaster and more splendid -pile than when the first Conqueror had been led to it with the same -pomp.[600] The twin towers of Howel soared in their freshness; the -aisles which we still see, with their abiding Roman masonry, had risen -at his bidding; it may well have been by the mighty portal of his -rearing that Rufus entered within the hallowed walls. Within, the -sight was different in every stone, in every adornment, from that on -which we now gaze. The columns and arches of Saint Julian’s nave were -still the columns and arches of the basilica which Aldric had raised -when Le Mans was a city of the Empire of the pious Lewis.[601] It may -be that of those columns we can here and there spell out some faint -traces amid the finer masonry and gorgeous foliage of the next age. -But of the works to the east, still new when Rufus came, the splendid -reconstructions of later times have left us no signs. The choir of -Arnold still blazed in all its freshness with the rich decorations -which had been added by the skill and bounty of Howel. The first bloom -had not passed away from the painted ceiling, from the rich pavement, -from the narrow windows glowing with the deep richness of colour which -no later age could surpass. Through all these new-born splendours of -the holy place the scoffer and blasphemer was solemnly guided to the -shrines of Saint Julian and of all the saints of Le Mans. And there -were moments when the heart of Rufus was not wholly shut against -better thoughts. As at Saint Martin of the Place of Battle, so at -Saint Julian in newly-won Le Mans, we may deem that some dash of -thankfulness was mingled with his swelling pride, as he felt that he -had finished his father’s work. - - * * * * * - -[Sidenote: William leaves Le Mans.] - -[Sidenote: General submission of Maine.] - -The stay of William at Le Mans does not seem to have been long. The -government of the city was put into the hands of Count William of -Evreux and of Gilbert of Laigle. The royal tower, well provisioned, -stocked with arms and with all needful things, was placed under the -immediate command of Walter the son of Ansgar of Rouen.[602] The -nobles of Maine now came in to make their submission and to receive -the King’s garrisons into their castles. Among them were Count -Geoffrey of Mayenne and the Viscount Ralph of Beaumont. The terms of -their engagement were fulfilled. Their castles were to follow the -fortune of Le Mans, and Le Mans now was King William’s.[603] - - * * * * * - -[Sidenote: Meeting of William and Helias.] - -[Sidenote: Proposals of Helias.] - -But he who had lately been the lord of them all was waiting for the -benefits of the convention to be extended to himself. We are a little -surprised when we presently find the King at Rouen, and when we -further find that Helias, who had been lately in ward in the castle -there, had now to be brought hither from a prison at Bayeux.[604] The -King and his captive met face to face. The contrast between the -outward look of the two men was as striking as the difference in their -inward souls. Before the victorious King, short, bulky, ruddy, fierce -of countenance, hasty and stammering in speech, stood the captive -Count, tall, thin, swarthy, master of eloquent and winning words. -Something of bodily neglect marked, perhaps not so much the rigour of -his confinement as a captive’s carelessness of wonted niceties. His -hair, usually neatly trimmed, was now rough and shaggy.[605] The King -seems to have begun the dialogue;[606] “I have you, Sir.” Helias -answered with dignity and respect, as a man of fallen fortunes -speaking to a superior in rank, and yet not stooping to any unworthy -submission. He called on the King, in the name of his might and his -renown, to help him. He had once, he said, been a count, lord of a -noble county. Fortune had now turned against him, and he had lost all. -He asked leave to enter the King’s service, to be allowed to keep his -rank and title of count, but pledging himself not to make any claim to -the Cenomannian county or city, till by some signal exploit on the -King’s behalf he should be deemed worthy to receive them as a grant -from the King’s free will. Till then it would be enough for him to -have his place in the royal following and to enjoy the royal -friendship. - -[Sidenote: William disposed to accept Helias’ proposal.] - -[Sidenote: He is hindered by Robert of Meulan.] - -[Sidenote: Defiance of Helias.] - -[Sidenote: Answer of Rufus.] - -[Sidenote: Helias set free.] - -Such an appeal as this went straight to the better part of William’s -nature, and he was at once disposed to agree to the proposal of -Helias. But then stepped in the selfish prudence of Robert of Meulan, -who measured other men by himself. He was now the King’s chief -adviser, and he jealously grudged all influence which might fall to -the lot of any one else.[607] The admission of Helias to the King’s -friendship and councils would of all things be the least suited for -Robert’s purposes. He could not bear that any man, least of all a man -of a spirit so much higher than his own, should be so near the throne -as Helias threatened to be. The men of Maine, said the Count of -Meulan, were a cunning and faithless race. All that the captive Helias -sought by his offers was to insinuate himself into the King’s favour, -to learn his secrets, that he might be able, when a fitting moment -came, to rise up against him with more advantage and join himself to -his enemies with greater power. The purpose of Rufus was changed by -the malignant counsel of Count Robert. The petition of Helias was -refused; it was again made; it was again refused. Then the Count of -Maine spoke his defiance. “Willingly, Sir King, would I have served -you, if it had been your pleasure; willingly would I have earned -favour in your sight. But now, I pray you, blame me not, if I take -another course. I cannot bear with patience to see mine inheritance -taken from me. All right is denied to me by overwhelming violence; -wherefore let no man wonder if I again renew my claim, if I strive -with all my might to win back the honour of my fathers.” Rufus was -beside himself with wrath at words like these; but it was in words -only that his wrath spent itself. He stammered out, “Scoundrel, what -can you do? Be off, march, take to flight; I give you leave to do all -you can, and, by the face of Lucca, if you ever conquer me, I will not -ask you for any grace in return for my favour of to-day.” Even after -this outburst, the Count had self-command enough to ask for a -safe-conduct, and the King had self-command enough to grant it. Helias -was guided safely through the Norman duchy, and made his way, to the -delight of his friends, to his own immediate possessions on the -borders of Maine and Anjou.[608] - -[Sidenote: Illustration of the King’s character.] - -Of all the stories of the Red King there is none more characteristic -than this. His first impulse is to accept a generous and confiding -offer in the spirit in which it was made. For a moment he seems to -rise to the level of the man who stood before him. Even when his -better impulse is checked by an evil counsellor, he does not sink so -low as many would have sunk in the like case. In the wildest wrath of -his insulted pride, he does not forget that his word as a good knight -is pledged to the man who has defied him. Rufus was bound by all the -laws of chivalry to let Helias go this time, whatever he might do if -he caught him again. And the laws of chivalry Rufus obeyed in the -teeth of temptations of opposite kinds. A meaner tyrant might have -sent Helias at once to death or blinding. A calmer or more wary -prince, even though not a tyrant, might have argued that it was unsafe -for him and his dominions to let the man go free who had uttered such -a challenge. He might further have argued that a speech which was so -like an open declaration of war at once set aside the conditions of -peace. But William Rufus, when once on his point of honour, was not -led away from it either by the impulse of vengeance or by the -calculations of prudence. His knightly word was pledged that Helias -should go free. Free therefore he went, after his defiance had been -answered by a counter defiance, each alike emphatically characteristic -of the man who uttered it. - - -§ 3. _The End of the French War_. - -_September-December_, 1098. - -[Sidenote: William on the continent. 1097-1099.] - -[Sidenote: Extent of William’s conquests in Maine.] - -[Sidenote: He begins, but does not finish.] - -The war of Maine was, or seemed to be, over. And, just at this point -we get a chronology clear enough to enable us to fix the connexion of -the two works which were going on at once. We have seen William in his -Norman capital at a time when we should rather have looked for him on -one or other of his Norman frontiers. But it seems plain that he spent -the whole year on the mainland, and that he did not cross to England -at any time between the two Christmas feasts which he is specially -said to have kept in Normandy. Helias was set free in August, and we -are led to believe that Rufus now deemed that the war of Maine was -over, or at least that he could afford to despise it in its present -stage. We shall presently see that the war of Maine was by no means -over, and that William’s Cenomannian conquests hardly reached beyond -the capital and the lands north of the capital. We are inclined to -wonder that a warlike prince like Rufus took no further heed to a -campaign which was manifestly unfinished, while an active enemy was -again at liberty and was still in possession of a strong line of -castles. But this is neither the first nor the last time in which we -find William the Red much more vigorous in beginning a campaign than -in ending it. And in this case he may, with two wars on his hands, -have not unreasonably thought that, after so great a conquest as that -of the capital of Maine, he could afford to turn his thoughts to the -other seat of warfare. In the month after Helias was set free, he made -up his mind for a special effort against the stubborn border-land of -France. - -[Sidenote: William sets forth. September 27, 1098.] - -[Sidenote: The sign in the sky.] - -[Sidenote: Its meaning.] - -[Sidenote: He marches to Pontoise.] - -Two days before Michaelmas, William set forth, from what head-quarters -we are not told, at the head of a great army. On his way to the seat -of war he enjoyed the hospitality of Ralph of Toesny on the hill of -Conches. That night there was a sign in the heavens; the whole sky -blazed and seemed as red as blood. At other times such a portent in -the heavens might not have seemed too great to betoken some great -victory or defeat on the part of one or other of the contending kings -of the West. But, while Christendom was on its march to the eastern -land, the heavens could tell of nothing meaner than the ups and downs -of the strifes between two continents and two creeds. If the sky was -red over Conches and Evreux and the whole western world, it was -because at that moment Christians and heathens met in battle in the -eastern lands, and by God’s help the Christians had the victory.[609] -But William Rufus cared little for signs and wonders, even when he -himself was deemed to be the subject of their warning. His heart was -not in Palestine, but on the French border; and his present business -was a march against the most distant of the three fortresses to which -he laid claim. Chaumont and Trie still held out; but their garrisons -could not hinder him from carrying a destructive raid into districts -far more distant from his head-quarters at Gisors. He marched to the -south-east, burning, plundering, and carrying off prisoners from the -whole French territory as far as Pontoise.[610] - -[Sidenote: Castle and town of Pontoise.] - -[Sidenote: Strong position of the town.] - -[Sidenote: Pontoise the furthest point of the raid.] - -The invading King had now reached a point of French soil nearer to -Paris than the spot where Count Robert kept the Seine barred at -Meulan. At Pontoise, as the name implies, was the bridge spanning the -Oise, the tributary which joins its waters with those of the Seine at -Conflans――the Gaulish _Confluentes_――between Paris and Meulan. Here a -precipitous rock rises above the stream, a rock which, strengthened -and defended by art in every way, was crowned by the vast circuit of -the castle of Pontoise. Here is no town sloping down from the castle -to the river. The castle rock rises sheer――it rose most likely from -the water itself, till the Oise, like the Seine at Rouen, was curbed -by a quay. In the view from the bridge, the castle, shorn as it is of -its towers and of all that can give stateliness to such a building, -still lords it over everything. The town of Pontoise seems to crouch -by the side of the rock; the great church of Saint Maclou, with its -lofty tower of late architecture, is wholly hidden from sight. It is -only at some distance beyond the river, in the suburb known as that of -Saint Ouen _l’Aumône_, that we begin to see that the church stands on -ground not much lower than the site of the castle. We then learn that -the town of Pontoise, standing on a height separate from the -castle-rock, well walled, and with streets as steep as those of Le -Mans or Lincoln, was in itself no contemptible fortress. As usual, -there is little or nothing in town or church or castle that we can -positively assign to the period of our story. But the main features of -the spot must be the same now as they were when the Red King led his -plundering host as far as the bridge of the Oise. It is plain that -this was the end of his course on this side; it is plain that Pontoise -was not added to the list of fortresses which were taken by him or -betrayed to him. But we have nothing to explain why he turned back at -this point, whether he met with any repulse in an attack on Pontoise -or whether he attacked Pontoise at all. We only know that Pontoise -marks in one sense the furthest point of the French campaigns of -William Rufus. We shall presently find him on another side at a -greater distance from his own dominions; but Pontoise marks his -nearest approach to the capital of France. Had Pontoise been William’s -as well as Meulan, Paris would indeed have been threatened. But this -south-eastern journey was clearly, in its effect at least, a mere -plundering raid, from which Rufus came back to attempt a more regular -attack on the nearer enemy at Chaumont. - -[Sidenote: Siege of Chaumont.] - -[Sidenote: The archers of Chaumont shoot the horses only.] - -[Sidenote: Chaumont not taken.] - -The siege of Chaumont is described to us in greater detail than the -march on Pontoise, but we do not, any more than at Pontoise, get a -really intelligible account. It is plain that the siege was a -considerable enterprise, one to which Rufus led his whole army. It is -also plain from the result that its issue must have an important -effect on the turn of affairs. But of the siege itself all that we -hear is one of those strange stories by which we are sometimes met, -stories which must have some meaning, which must be grounded on some -fact, and which yet, as they stand, pass all belief. We are told that -the defenders of Chaumont were valiant men, strong to defend the -battlements of their own castle. But to defend their own castle was -all that they could do; their numbers were not enough to enable them -either to meet William’s great army in open battle, or even to hinder -his plunderers from laying waste the neighbouring lands. But the -defence of Chaumont itself was stout, and, as it turned out, -successful. Yet we are told that the garrison of Chaumont, out of the -fear of God and out of tenderness towards men, stood strictly on the -defensive, or took the offensive only towards brute beasts. In taking -aim at the besiegers, they avoided the persons of the riders, and -aimed all their blows at the horses. Seven hundred horses of great -price fell under the arrows and darts of the men of Chaumont, and -their carcases made a rich feast for the dogs and birds of prey of the -Vexin.[611] The virtue of these scrupulous warriors did not go -unrewarded. Our story breaks off somewhat suddenly; but we see that at -all events Chaumont was not taken. - - * * * * * - -[Sidenote: Rare notices of southern Gaul.] - -[Sidenote: Coming of William of Poitiers.] - -[Sidenote: Alliance of Normandy and Aquitaine.] - -The war now takes a turn of special interest, which makes us specially -regret the very unsatisfactory nature of our materials. The field of -our story is suddenly enlarged; but events do not crowd it at all in -proportion to its enlargement. It is but seldom that our tale brings -us into any direct dealing with the lands and the princes south of the -Loire. We have seen the tongue of _oil_ supplant the Danish tongue in -Normandy, and we have seen it appear as a rival to our own speech in -our own island. But we have been seldom called on to listen to the -accents of the tongue of _oc_. But at this moment the chief potentate -of that tongue suddenly appears on the field of our story, an -appearance from which we naturally look for great events. The young -lord of the Vexin and heir of France had to meet a new enemy, almost -as powerful, and quite as reckless and godless, as the old one. -Another William, William of Poitiers and Aquitaine, came to the help -of William of Normandy and England.[612] He was in the end to go to -the crusade――to go not exactly in the guise of Godfrey or Helias.[613] -But he had not yet set out; and, before he went, he came to strike a -blow on behalf of the prince to whom he was said to have sold the -reversion of his dominions. The mighty dukes of the North and the -South might seem to have utterly hemmed in the smaller realm of the -king whose men they were or should have been.[614] The final results -of their alliance were not memorable, but the coming of the southern -duke had the immediate effect of carrying the war into districts -little used to the presence of English or even of Norman warriors. - -[Sidenote: Campaign to the west of Paris.] - -[Sidenote: Valley of the Maudre. - -[Sidenote: Maule.] - -[Sidenote: Montfort-l’Amaury.] - -[Sidenote: Neauphlé-le-Château.] - -[Sidenote: Epernon.] - -[Sidenote: The two Williams march against the Montfort castles.] - -[Sidenote: Seat of war affected by the coming of William of Poitiers.] - -It can hardly fail to have been the march of William of Aquitaine -which led to a campaign carried on in the lands west and south-west of -Paris, within the triangle which may be drawn between the three points -of Mantes, Paris, and Chartres. One side of this triangle is formed by -the Seine itself, and here the adhesion of the Count of Meulan must -have effectually guarded the seat of war from the north. Somewhat to -the west of Meulan, between that fortress and Mantes, the small stream -of the Maudre empties itself into the Seine. The course of this stream -and the valley through which it flows formed the chief seat of warfare -at this stage, seemingly after the attacks on Chaumont had proved -fruitless. Small as the Maudre is, its course makes a clearly marked -valley, running nearly north and south. About the middle of it lies -Maule, the fortress of Peter of Maule, the benefactor of the house of -Saint Evroul, and therefore high in favour with its historian. Further -to the south, where the stream is a mere brook, the valley widens into -a plain between hills, and here some of the strongest points are -occupied by the strongholds of the French house of Montfort, numbering -among them the spot which gave that house its ever-memorable name. -Here rose the hill which above all others glories in the name of the -Strong Mount, the home of the Simons and the Amalrics. Under the name -of Montfort-l’Amaury it still keeps the less illustrious of the two -names, one or other of which was always borne by its successive -counts. To the north-east of the cradle of their race, on the other -side of the Maudre, the Counts of Montfort had planted another -stronghold on a height, which, though all traces of a fortress have -passed away, still keeps the name of Neauphlé-_le-Château_, as -distinguished from another place of the same name, Neauphlé-_le-Vieux_. -Much further to the south-west, on the upper course of the Drouelle, a -tributary of the Eure, stood Epernon, another fortress of the house of -Montfort, a border fortress of the strictly French territory towards -the lands of the Counts of Chartres. On this district now fell the -heavy wrath of the two Williams, who led a mighty multitude against -Montfort and Epernon and laid waste the whole surrounding land. They -had traitors in their service; they came under the guidance of Almaric -the Young and of Nivard of Septeuil.[615] This last place lies in the -valley of the Vaucouleurs, a stream running almost parallel with the -Maudre and joining the Seine at Mantes. Such a position, lying nearly -due west from Maule, and at a greater distance north-east from -Montfort, marks a dangerous outpost thrown out from the Norman side -into the heart of the French territory. Of the line of march of the -Poitevin duke we have no account; but it must have been his coming -which caused the seat of war to be changed from the north-west of the -threatened capital of France to the south-west, a region so much -better suited for an invader from the south. - -[Sidenote: No special mention of Lewis.] - -[Sidenote: The castles resist singly.] - -[Sidenote: Peter of Maule.] - -[Sidenote: The two Simons of Montfort.] - -[Sidenote: The elder Simon defends Neauphlé.] - -[Sidenote: The castle of Montfort.] - -[Sidenote: The church.] - -[Sidenote: Defence of the younger Simon.] - -[Sidenote: Interest of the defence.] - -It is somewhat singular that, while we have so striking a general -picture of the courage and conduct of the young Lewis during this -struggle, we hear nothing of any particular exploit of his, we hear -nothing of any help given by him to any of the threatened fortresses. -It is their own lords, each for himself, who withstand, and -successfully withstand, the attacks of the powers of North and South. -Our chief informant――English, Norman, and French, all at -once――enlarges on the failure of Philip to give any help to his -vassals; but we should never learn from him that his place was -supplied by his son.[616] Every man, it would seem, fought for his own -hand. We are told this of a crowd of unnamed lords defending unnamed -fortresses. But we are not left to guess at the name of the friend of -Saint Evroul, Peter of Maule, who, with his sons Ansold and Theobald, -successfully defended his fortress in the valley of the Maudre.[617] -We must suppose that the forces of the two Williams were scattered and -frittered away in a series of desultory attacks against strongholds -scattered all over the country. But to us at least the main interest -of the campaign gathers round the dwellings of the house of Montfort. -We should be well pleased to have even such details of a warfare which -affected them as we have had of the sieges of Chaumont and as we shall -presently have of the siege of Mayet. But we hear only of the result, -how the arms of the two Simons, elder and younger, defended all the -possessions which looked up to the Strong Mount as their head. The -elder guarded the height of Neauphlé, where a curve in the hills, -theatre-shape, awakens some faint remembrance of the kingly mount of -Laon.[618] But the _Mons fortis_ itself, the hill from whence, in -after times, Simon the father went to work the bondage of Toulouse and -Simon the son to work the freedom of England, must have been among the -strongholds which were saved by the energy of the younger bearer of -the name which was to be so fearfully and so gloriously renowned. High -on its peninsular hill, still keeping some small traces of elder -towers along with one graceful fragment of far later days, the castle -of Montfort looks down over church and town, over hills and plains, -bidding defiance to foes on every side, but bidding the most direct -defiance of all to any foe who should advance by the path which must -have been trodden by the Aquitanian duke. For of all the outlooks from -the height of Montfort the widest and the most striking is that by -which the eye looks out towards those southern lands which came so -near to forming a South-Gaulish realm for its own lords. The church -stands beneath on a lower point of the steep. The works of later -times, which have filled its windows with the painted forms of the -basest of the later Valois, have spared one side of the more ancient -central tower, preserving to us forms which were looked on, not indeed -by the Simons of our own immediate story, but by the Simon of Muret -and the Simon of Evesham. A gate at the base of the castle mound, -though the actual building must be of later date, still keeps the name -of that Hugh Bardolf, himself joined by a tie of affinity to the house -of Montfort, of whom we have heard elsewhere as one of the most -abiding of the enemies of Normandy.[619] Here, while the father -defended Neauphlé, the son defended the cradle of their race, and -their other outlying possessions. Not a detail is given us; but our -historian emphatically tells us that it was by the help of God that -the lords of Montfort kept their fortresses safe from the twofold -enemy.[620] And, though a King of the English marched against them, -though doubtless there was no lack of native English warriors in his -train, yet we may join in the pious thankfulness of our guide at Saint -Evroul. It was not good for English interests in any wide or lasting -sense that the sovereign of England should even hold his ancestral -Normandy, much less that he should inherit Aquitaine and conquer -France. When the lords of Montfort in the eleventh century beat back -from their strongholds all the efforts of England and Normandy, of -Poitiers and Aquitaine, they were in truth working in the same cause -as their glorious descendant in the thirteenth. Unknowingly and -indirectly, they were, no less than he, fighting for the freedom and -the greatness of what in their eyes seemed hostile England. - -[Sidenote: The war lingers on.] - -[Sidenote: Christmas, 1098.] - -[Sidenote: No successes of the two Williams.] - -[Sidenote: A truce agreed to.] - -The war seems to have lingered on through another winter, the second -of those when King William kept his Christmas feast in Normandy. But -no successes are recorded either of William of England or of William -of Aquitaine. The Red King had really done nothing, either alone or in -company with his Poitevin ally. The gallant resistance of the men of -the French borderland had beaten him back at every point. He was now -glad to conclude a truce, which the events which followed made -practically a peace.[621] - - * * * * * - -[Sidenote: Survey of the French war. Its ill-success.] - -[Sidenote: Illustration of William’s character.] - -It is not at first easy to understand why so very little came of such -great preparations as those which William Rufus made for the French -war. The strength of two great states, during the later stages of the -war the strength of three great states, was broken by efforts which, -even allowing as much as we can for the energy of young Lewis, were -mainly those of the nobles and people of a single district. England, -Normandy, and Aquitaine, were baffled by the men of the French Vexin. -It is true indeed that the war of Maine was far from being really -ended, but Rufus seems at this stage to have thought little of the -efforts of the man whom he had bidden to do his worst against him. Nor -was there anything this year in England, as there was the year before, -to draw off the King’s attention from continental affairs. Scotland -was quiet under a king of his own naming; Magnus did not really -threaten England; the Welsh border might be left to Robert of Bellême -or those whom he had left in charge. All that we can do is to record -this singular break-down of a great force, without being able fully to -explain it. One remark may be made. Men of the temper of Rufus often -get simply weary of undertakings which bring little success, and in -which there is nothing to call forth any special point of personal -vengeance or personal honour. Rufus claimed the Vexin; but his heart -does not seem to have been set on its possession, as it clearly was -set on the possession of Le Mans. There was no one on the French -border who had stung him personally to the quick as Helias had done. -The want of success in the joint undertaking of the two Williams is -certainly hard to understand; but we can quite understand how William -of England and Normandy might, in sheer disgust, throw up an -undertaking in which he did not at once succeed. When he was once more -wounded in the most sensitive part, he was, as we shall presently see, -all himself again. - - -§ 4. _The Gemót of 1099._ - -[Sidenote: William keeps Christmas in Normandy. 1098-1099.] - -[Sidenote: Easter Gemót. April 10, 1099.] - -[Sidenote: Whitsun Gemót in the new hall at Westminster. May 10, 1099.] - -William, master of Le Mans, but hardly to be called master of Maine, -and assuredly not master of the Vexin, stayed in Normandy during the -winter which followed the double war in those regions. The time of his -absence is spoken of as a time of special oppression in England, a -time when the exactions of Flambard and his fellows grew worse and -worse, on account of the great sums which had to be sent over the sea -for the King’s wars.[622] The Christmas feast was again kept in -Normandy, in what city or castle we are not told, but such incidental -notices as we have seem to point to Rouen as his usual head-quarters -when he was in the duchy. He came back to England in time for the -Easter feast; the feast implies the assembly; but we have no account -of its doings; there was no longer in England either an Anselm to -afford subjects for discussion or an Eadmer to report the debates. The -next festival was of greater importance, if only on account of the -place where it was held, a place ever-memorable in the history of -England from that day to this. “At Pentecost the King William held his -court for the first time in the new building at Westminster.”[623] - -[Sidenote: Buildings of William Rufus.] - -[Sidenote: They are reckoned among national grievances.] - -[Sidenote: Various grievances.] - -[Sidenote: Complaints in 1096,] - -[Sidenote: in 1097.] - -[Sidenote: Signs and wonders in 1098.] - -[Sidenote: Bad weather of 1098.] - -[Sidenote: The great buildings in London. 1097.] - -The architectural works of William Rufus form a marked feature in his -reign; but the place which they hold in the national annals is -singular. They are set down among the grievances of that unhappy time. -Besides the bad weather, which was not the Red King’s fault, and the -bad harvests which were deemed to be in some measure his fault, there -were the unrighteous taxes and the other forms of unlaw which were -directly his fault; lastly there were the great buildings which are -set down as not the least among his ways of oppressing the people. We -have heard some of the wails which the Chronicler sends up year by -year. The year of the purchase of Normandy was a year when the land -was pressed down by manifold gelds and by a heavy time of hunger.[624] -The next year, the year of Anselm’s going, was a year of signs in the -heavens, and of _ungelds_ and _unweather_ below.[625] The next year, -the year of Maine, the year of the Vexin, the year of Anglesey, had -also its physical wonders. In the summer a pool at Finchampstead in -Berkshire was said to have welled up blood.[626] At Michaelmas the -heaven seemed well-nigh all night as if it were burning.[627] That was -a very grievous year, through manifold _ungeld_ and through mickle -rains that all the year never stopped; and――what came home to -those who could look back to the bright days of the Golden -Borough――well-nigh all tilth in the marsh-land died out.[628] Such are -the mournful voices to which we listen year by year; but in the -central year of the three another grievance is added. “Eke many shires -that with work to London belonged were sorely harassed through the -wall that they wrought around the Tower, and through the bridge that -well nigh all flooded away was, and through the King’s hall-work that -man in Westminster wrought, and many men therewith harassed.”[629] - -[Sidenote: Earlier parallels.] - -[Sidenote: Abuse of the old law.] - -[Sidenote: The bridge and the Tower.] - -[Sidenote: Question as to the hall.] - -This was the light in which three great works of building on which -Englishmen of later days learned to look with national pride were -looked on by the men of the time when they were wrought. We hear the -cry of the Hebrew in the brick-field toiling to rear up the -treasure-cities of the Pharaohs. We hear the cry of the Roman -plebeian, as the proud Tarquin constrained him to give the sweat of -his brow to fence in the seven hills with walls or to burrow beneath -the ground to lay the foundations and turn the arches of the great -sewer.[630] So it was in the days of the Red King with the Tower of -London, the bridge of London, the hall of Westminster. We may believe -that, as so often happened, the old law of England was turned to -purposes of oppression. The repair of bridges and fortresses was the -universal burthen on the Englishman’s _eðel_, the duty which he owed, -not to a personal lord, but to the commonwealth of which he was a -member.[631] In one case at least we know that the defences of the -local capital were laid by local law upon the people of the whole -shire.[632] What was law at Chester would seem from the words of the -Chronicler to have been law in London also. There were certain “shires -that with work to London belonged.” William Rufus may therefore have -been quite within the letter of the ancient law in calling on the -people of certain shires to contribute in money or labour to any works -which were needed for either the Tower or the bridge of London. But it -is clear that this is the kind of law which opens the way to a great -amount of oppression in detail, and that the law itself supplies -temptations to extort more than the law gives. The bridge at least was -an useful work, and if the men of London thought that the Tower stood -by their walls rather to overawe them than to defend them, that was an -argument which could not be openly brought forward. But it is by no -means clear whether the ancient law about bridges and fortresses could -be stretched so as to take in works at the King’s palace. Anyhow the -burthen laid on the people was frightfully oppressive, and those who -felt the burthen bitterly complained. And, if we rightly understand -the Chronicler, the grievance of building the bridge was doubled by a -flood which swept away the unfinished work, and made it needful to -build it over again.[633] - -[Sidenote: Growth of the greatness of London.] - -[Sidenote: Relations of London and Winchester.] - -Thus, amid the toils and groans of the people, three mighty works -arose, to hand down the name of William Rufus to after ages as a great -builder. While Rufus was harrying the land of Maine, a land which but -for him might have remained peaceful and happy under a righteous -ruler, while he was striving in vain to bring the heights of Chaumont -and Montfort under his power, the people of a large part of England -were giving their strength and their money to make London put on a new -face, to make all things ready for the time when the King should again -come to his island kingdom to wear his crown in or hard by its -greatest city. All these works point, among other things, to the -steady growth of the greatness of London. The city had grown fast in -importance during the whole century which was now drawing to an end, -and at no time faster than during Harold’s nine months of little -stillness.[634] London had become the city of the King; Winchester was -left to be the city of the Old Lady.[635] The attractions of the New -Forest drew the Conqueror, specially after the death of Eadgyth, back -again to the old West-Saxon capital; but this preference of Winchester -as the head-quarters of sport in no way checked the advance of London -as the real head of the kingdom. Harsh as may have been the means by -which the Red King raised his great buildings, richly as he and they -may have earned the curses of his subjects at the time, we can say -nothing against either the taste or the policy which led him to the -defence and the adornment of the great city and of the palace which -lay under its shadow. - -[Sidenote: The wall round the Tower.] - -[Sidenote: London Bridge.] - -[Sidenote: Westminster Hall.] - -[Sidenote: Its two founders.] - -[Sidenote: Its architecture.] - -[Sidenote: Recasting by Richard the Second.] - -[Sidenote: Legal position of the reign of Rufus.] - -[Sidenote: History of the hall.] - -Notwithstanding any momentary checks, the works went on and prospered. -The great tower of Gundulf――strange work for the meek follower of -Anselm――was fenced in with a surrounding wall. The river was spanned -by its first stone bridge, that long range of narrow arches, itself a -thickly-peopled city over the stream, of which the last traces -vanished in our own early days. But above all there now arose that -famous hall of Westminster whose name has come to be another name for -the law of England. Strange founder for such a pile might seem the -prince whose reign was before all others the reign of unlaw. And yet -it was not wholly unfitting that the Prytaneion of England should -first arise at the bidding of William the Red, and should take a new -form at the bidding of a later king in whose days unlaw was again -mighty. The great hall arose at the bidding of Rufus, in the stern and -solemn form of the art of his day――the day, be it remembered, of -William of Saint-Calais and the choir of Durham――with its low massive -walls, its two ranges of pillars and arches, far removed, we may be -sure, from the graceful forms which had been at Spalato and which were -to be again at Oakham, but standing firm in their strength, bearing -the full impress of the style whose leading feature is that of simple, -changeless, abiding, rest.[636] At the bidding of Richard of Bourdeaux -the walls were cased, and pierced with windows of forms unknown in the -days of the Red King; his pillars and arches were swept away; the -central space and its aisles were thrown into a single body; the -timber roof of wondrous span and wondrous workmanship leaped boldly -from wall to wall, with a daring which might have pleased the swelling -pride of Rufus himself. Thus, at the word of two despotic kings, arose -the pile which may claim, no less than its neighbours, Saint Peter’s -chapter-house and Saint Stephen’s chapel, to be the chosen home of -English freedom. For in England law has ever grown out of unlaw. The -despotism of Normans and of Tudors only paved the way for the -outbursts of freedom in the thirteenth century and in the seventeenth; -a reforming Henry dogged the steps alike of Rufus and of Richard. And -if from one side the reign of Rufus was a reign of unlaw, from another -side it was a reign of overmuch law. It saw the beginning of those -legal subtleties, that web woven by the wicked skill of Flambard, -which makes the Red King’s day a marked epoch in legal history. His -reign bridges the space between the days when we had laws but when we -had no lawyers, and the days when lawyers had grown so many and so -subtle that the true ends of law were sometimes forgotten among them. -If from one side the hall of Westminster has been one of the cradles -of English freedom, from another side it has been the special home of -that form of unlaw by which men have been sent to a wrongful doom -under the outward forms of justice. Of all that is good and bad in the -history of the law of England the hall of Rufus is the material -embodying. Within no other building reared by the hand of man has so -great a share of English history been wrought. - -[Sidenote: Object of the hall.] - -[Sidenote: Personal pride of Rufus.] - -[Sidenote: Legends of the hall.] - -[Sidenote: Alleged sayings of Rufus.] - -[Sidenote: The Whitsun feast.] - -[Sidenote: The sword borne by the King of Scots.] - -But it was not directly as the dwelling-place either of law or of its -opposite that Rufus first reared his hall. It was built rather as a -trophy of his own swelling pride. The home of the Confessor, the home -of the Conqueror, was not stately enough for the Red King. He would be -lodged, at least in that special home of kingship, as better became -the idea which he had formed of his own greatness. It was the hall of -the king, rather than the hall of the kingdom, the centre and crown of -his own house, the place for the display of his own splendour, which -Rufus sought to call into being. When the work was done, other men -deemed that it was as great, perhaps greater, than even so great a -king could need. But its founder was not satisfied. Nero, when he had -finished his Golden House, allowed that he was at last lodged like a -man. Rufus, when he had outdone the works of all that had gone before -him, hardly deemed that he was lodged like a man in his palace of -Westminster. The new hall, when it was done, was not half so great as -he had meant it to be.[637] Some add a wilder saying, that he would -build a house on such a scale that the great hall should be but one of -its bed-chambers.[638] But the hall, such as it was, vast in the eyes -of other men, small in the eyes of its master, was ready for use by -the day of the Pentecostal feast. Then the assembly came together; -then the accustomed rites were gone through in the West Minster; then -the banquet and the council were held, as was wont, under its shadow, -in the accustomed place, but within new walls and under a new roof. -Within those walls, beneath that roof, men for the first time saw King -William of England, lord, as he deemed, of Scotland, Normandy, and -Maine, in all his own greatness and glory, in all the greatness and -glory of his new work. One feature in that great gathering might -indeed have helped to swell his heart even higher than it had ever -before been swollen. The crown was, as usual, placed on his head in -the minster and worn in the hall. And on that day at least he must -have felt that the crown which was placed on his head was in truth an -imperial diadem. William the Red was not indeed rowed on the Thames by -vassal kings, like Eadgar the Giver-of-peace. But in the pomps of that -day he saw a king march before him as his vassal, a king who had -received his crown at his own bidding. When King William of England -wore his _cynehelm_ in church and hall, King Eadgar of Scotland, first -of his men in rank and honour, bore the sword of state before his -lord.[639] Was that day of pride and pomp merely a day of pride and -pomp, or were any of the great affairs of William’s kingdom and empire -dealt with in the joint presence of the Monarch of Britain and his -kingly vassal? One thing only we know; one act alone of that gathering -is recorded. But that act is one which has no small fitness as the one -act which we know that the Red King did in his new building. - - * * * * * - -[Sidenote: Deaths of bishops and abbots.] - -[Sidenote: Walkelin of Winchester. January 3, 1098.] - -[Sidenote: Character and acts of Walkelin.] - -[Sidenote: The monks take possession of Walkelin’s church. -April 8, 1093.] - -[Sidenote: Walkelin joint-regent with Flambard. 1097.] - -[Sidenote: The King’s demand for money. Christmas, 1097-1098.] - -The hands of Randolf Flambard must have been just then full of work, -and the coffers of King William must have been just then well filled -with wealth flowing in from the usual sources. Bishops and abbots had -for some time been dying most conveniently for the King and his -minister. Within the first few days of the year of Le Mans and -Chaumont died the friend, some said the kinsman, of the Conqueror, the -Norman Walkelin, the successor of English Stigand in the see of -Winchester.[640] Though he had appeared as an adversary of -Anselm,[641] though he had once designed to supplant the monks of the -Old Minster by secular canons,[642] though he was said to have -lessened the revenues of the monks to increase those of the -bishopric,[643] he still left behind him a good name in the monastic -annals of his church, both for the austerity of his own life and for -the affection which he afterwards learned to show to the -brethren.[644] Winchester tradition loved to tell of the pious fraud -by which he had cajoled the Conqueror out of the whole timber of a -great wood towards the rebuilding of his church.[645] It told how, in -the year of the King’s temporary penitence, the monks had, in the -presence of well-nigh all the prelacy of England, taken possession of -the church of Walkelin’s building, and how they had presently gone on -to rase to the ground the church of Æthelwald which had been deemed so -stately a pile not much more than a hundred years before.[646] It told -how, when the King set forth for the French war, the Bishop of -Winchester was left as joint-ruler of the realm with the mighty -chaplain and Justiciar.[647] And it told the last tale, how, when he -had barely entered on his new office, on the very Christmas morning, -while the holiest rite of Christian worship was going on, the King’s -messenger came to demand two hundred pounds without delay. The Bishop, -like Anselm, knew that he could raise no such sum without robbery of -the Church and oppression of the poor. He prayed that he might be set -free from a world of which he was weary. Two days later his prayer was -answered; while the Red King warred at Chaumont and Mayet, Randolf -Flambard remained sole ruler of England.[648] - -[Sidenote: Death of Turold of Peterborough,] - -[Sidenote: and of Robert of New Minster.] - -[Sidenote: Death of Baldwin of Saint Eadmund’s. December 29, 1097.] - -[Sidenote: Acts of Baldwin.] - -[Sidenote: Rebuilding of the Church.] - -[Sidenote: Miracles of Saint Eadmund.] - -[Sidenote: Osgod Clapa.] - -[Sidenote: Bishop Herfast.] - -[Sidenote: Robert of Curzon.] - -[Sidenote: Completion of the Church. 1094.] - -[Sidenote: The King forbids the dedication.] - -[Sidenote: Translation of Saint Eadmund. April 30, 1095.] - -[Sidenote: Baldwin’s relation to the English.] - -On the death of Bishop Walkelin presently followed the deaths of two -other heads of great monastic bodies. One was Turold, the martial -abbot of Peterborough, of whom we heard in the days of Hereward;[649] -the other was Robert of New Minster, he whose staff had been bought -for him by his too dutiful son the Bishop of Norwich.[650] And, a few -days before the death of Walkelin, another great abbot passed away who -was, in a way in which none of those three was, a link with earlier -days. Abbot Baldwin of Saint Eadmund’s, the skilful leech of King -Eadward, if not himself of English birth, had at least received his -staff from an English King. His house had been growing in wealth and -fame ever since the penitent devotion of Cnut had changed the secular -canons of Beadricsworth into the monks of Saint Eadmund’s. We have -already heard of Baldwin’s medical skill and of his strivings for the -privileges of his church against the East-Anglian bishopric.[651] He -won fame also, like other abbots of his day, as the rebuilder of his -church, the church which, besides his royal patron, sheltered the -relics of the holy abbot Botolf and the valiant ætheling Jurwine.[652] -The latest research has added largely to our knowledge of Baldwin and -his house, and has brought to light several details which illustrate -the reign of the Red King and the characters of some of the chief -actors in it. Saint Eadmund had long ago begun to work signs and -wonders. In King Eadward’s day he had avenged himself on our old -friend Osgod Clapa, reverenced at Waltham but not reverenced at Saint -Eadmund’s, because he had thrust himself into the holy place with his -Danish axe in warlike guise on his shoulder.[653] In the days of the -elder William, when the dispute was going on between the abbey and the -bishopric, the saint had directly interfered to bring Bishop Herfast -to a better mind by a bodily chastisement.[654] He had even appeared, -as he had done to the tyrant Swegen,[655] mounted and lance in hand, -to smite, and in smiting to reform, a courtier of the Conqueror’s, -Randolf by name.[656] But we are more concerned with stories which -directly bear on our own history. When Roger Bigod did so much evil in -eastern England in the days of the general rebellion, Saint Eadmund -did not fail to defend his own lands, and to smite with madness a -certain Robert of Curzon to whom the rebel had presumed to grant a -manor belonging to the abbey.[657] We read too how, when the new -church was finished, King William, seemingly in the assembly at -Hastings, by what caprice is not explained, gave permission for the -translation of the martyr, but forbade the dedication of the -church.[658] Meanwhile, a rumour, of which we have heard the like more -than once, is spread abroad that the body of Saint Eadmund is not -really there, and that the precious things which adorned the empty -shrine might well be applied to the objects of the King’s warfare. The -danger passed away, and, notwithstanding some opposition from Bishop -Herbert, a solemn translation, in the presence of Bishop Walkelin of -Winchester and of Randolf the chaplain, removed all doubts.[659] Abbot -Baldwin survived this triumph two years and a half. His career had -been a long and a busy one. In the course of his warfare with the -East-Anglian bishops, he had found it needful to visit Rome, and he -too, like others, found how great was the strength of gold and silver -at the threshold of the Apostles.[660] He had gone on that journey -with English companions, and when he died, during the Christmas feast -which followed the departure of Anselm, he was mourned by men of both -races.[661] - -[Sidenote: Vacancy of Durham.] - -[Sidenote: The bishopric granted to Flambard.] - -[Sidenote: Consecration of Flambard. June 5, 1099.] - -We cannot, as these stories alone show, go very far in the reign of -Rufus without coming across the name of Randolf Flambard, chaplain and -Justiciar. We are now about to hear of him in a new character. The -churches of the prelates who so opportunely died, remained unfilled; -their temporalities passed into the King’s hands; their revenues were -to be gathered in, their tenants were to be squeezed as might be -needful, by the zealous care of the faithful Randolf. But one church, -of higher dignity than all these, which had stood vacant longer than -all these, was at last to have a shepherd. The careful guardian of -them all was at last to have his reward. The reward was a great one, -but in the course of his long service he had doubtless gathered enough -into his private hoard to pay the price even for such a gift. The hall -was built; the Witan were assembled in it; and, as the one recorded -act of the assembly, the King gave the bishopric of Durham to Randolf -his chaplain, that ere drave all his gemóts over all England.[662] In -the new hall of Westminster, the hall of justice, often the hall of -injustice, the man who had wrought so much of real injustice, but who -had raised the name of justice, in its official meaning, to the high -place which it has ever after kept――the Justiciar Randolf Flambard, -the founder of the greatness of his office, the creator of the feudal -law of England――received one of the greatest of the prizes to which -men of his class could look forward. The driver of gemóts, the -_exactor_ of the moneys of rich and poor, became, not only lord of -strong castles and of barons and knights not a few, but also shepherd -of souls in a great diocese, abbot of monks in a monastery too young -as yet to have wholly lost its first love. The new successor of Saint -Cuthberht, Randolf Bishop of Durham, was presently consecrated in -Saint Paul’s minster by his metropolitan Archbishop Thomas. But the -local patriotism of Durham takes care to put on record that, as his -predecessor William of Saint-Calais had made no profession, so neither -did he.[663] - -[Sidenote: Character of the appointment.] - -[Sidenote: Flambard’s episcopate. 1099-1128.] - -[Sidenote: His works at Durham.] - -[Sidenote: The castle of Norham. 1121.] - -[Sidenote: His personal character.] - -[Sidenote: 1106?-1128.] - -The appointment of Randolf Flambard to a great bishopric, as it is the -last recorded kingly act of Rufus in England, was the crowning act of -that abuse of the royal power in ecclesiastical matters, that bringing -low of the Church and her ministers, which is so marked a feature of -his reign.[664] To place the bishop’s staff in the hands of Randolf -Flambard was going a step further than to place it in the hands of -Robert Bloet. Yet Flambard showed himself in some ways, in all -temporal ways, as a great prelate. A mighty builder, he joined his -efforts with those of his monks to carry on Saint Cuthberht’s abbey on -a plan as noble as that on which William of Saint-Calais had begun it, -and with greater richness of detail.[665] He strengthened the -fortifications of his castle and city; he laid out the green between -the castle and the abbey. At the extreme border of what was now the -English kingdom, not on the extreme border of his own diocese, he -founded the famous castle of Norham. It was built, we are told, as a -defence alike against border thieves and against attacks of invading -Scots.[666] But this last motive was hardly needed in the days of -Eadgar, Alexander, and David. Every temporal right of his church he -defended to the uttermost.[667] Still eager to be first, pretending -with voice and gesture more of wrath than he really felt, we see in -the mighty Bishop of Durham essentially the same man as the royal -officer who made sad the enthronization day of Anselm.[668] As to his -life and conversation strange tales are told. The Bishop is said to -have wantonly exposed his monks to temptations most contrary to -monastic rule, to have entertained them in the episcopal hall along -with guests most unbecoming for an episcopal castle, and to have -marked as hypocrites all who refused to join in his unseemly -revelries.[669] But the mass of Flambard’s doings as bishop, good or -bad, belong to the reign of Henry, to his own second episcopate. Our -own story will show him, after a short occupation of his see, an -exile, an exile after the type of William of Saint-Calais rather than -after the type of Anselm. From that exile he came back, as his -predecessor came back, to go on with his great work, to rule, with -unabated strength of mind and body, to extreme old age, and to die -with every sign of penitence.[670] - -[Sidenote: Later events of the year. 1099.] - -The appointment of Flambard is the last recorded act of the Red King -on English ground. We take leave of him, as far as the affairs of our -own country are concerned, in the new hall of Westminster, placing the -bishop’s staff in a hand which doubtless grasped it more readily than -the hand of Anselm. But we have still to see somewhat of him in two -other characters, in either of which he was more at home than in that -of the civil ruler. We have to look at him as the hunter and as the -warrior. From the great ceremony at Westminster he seems to have -straightway taken himself to enjoy the sports of the woods in -Wiltshire. The prince who ruled on both sides of the channel had come -back to his island realm to busy himself both with English affairs and -with English pleasures. While thus engaged, his thoughts were once -more suddenly called to matters beyond the sea. - - -§ 5. _The Second War of Maine._ - -_April-September 1099._ - -[Sidenote: Action of Helias. August, 1098-April 1099.] - -[Sidenote: August, 1098.] - -[Sidenote: Helias withdraws to La Flèche.] - -[Sidenote: He strengthens the castles on the Loir.] - -[Sidenote: La Chartre.] - -[Sidenote: La Flèche.] - -[Sidenote: Château-du-Loir.] - -[Sidenote: Preparations of Helias. August 1098-April 1099.] - -[Sidenote: April 10, 1099.] - -In the August of the last year William had given Helias of Maine his -full leave to do what he could against him, reserving doubtless to -himself the like power to do what he could against Helias. In the -months which had since passed the Count of Maine had shown that he -could do a good deal; but it seemingly was not till he had shown the -full range of his powers of doing that the King felt himself called on -once more to try his own powers against him. William did not stir -himself till the news came that Helias was again in Le Mans, and then -he stirred himself indeed. Helias, when he was set free in August, -went at once to his own immediate possessions on the border of Maine -and Anjou. If he was no longer Count of Maine, he was still lord of La -Flèche. If he could no longer reign on the Cenomannian height, in the -palace on the Roman wall or in the tower before whose rising strength -the Roman wall itself had given way, he could at least keep his own -native town and castle. At La Flèche, and in the whole southern part -of the county, Helias still reigned, undisputed and unthreatened. He -was still lord of the whole line of fortresses which guarded the -course of the Loir, the tributary of the greater stream with which its -name is so easily confounded. The castles along that river, reared -doubtless to guard the Cenomannian border against attacks from the -south, served, now that things had so strangely turned about, to -protect the southern districts of Maine against attacks from its own -capital. In front of the land to be guarded stood the castles of Mayet -and Outillé. Along the Loir itself stood a formidable line of -defences; La Chartre guarded one end, La Flèche the other; between -them lay La Lude and the fortress which is still specially known as -the Castle of the Loir. The stream flows below the hill-fort of La -Chartre, once held by Geoffrey of Mayenne,[671] but the name of this -castle is not mentioned in our present story. The omission is -singular, as La Chartre must always have been a post of special -importance, guarding Maine towards the land of Chartres as well as -towards the now Angevin land of Tours. It rises, like Bellême and -Saint Cenery, on the bluff of a promontory where two mounds with their -fosses mark the site of the fortress, and where the rocky sides of the -hill are pierced, like the hill of Nottingham, like so many hills -along the greater Loire, with the dwelling-places of man. Much lower -down the Loir is Helias’ own special home of La Flèche, where all -traces of his day have vanished, but where the castle of John and -Paula must have stood, on a site most unlike that of La Chartre, on -one of the rich and grassy islands which are there formed by the -branching of the stream. Château-du-Loir lies between the two, and the -river from which it takes its name is a far less prominent feature -there than at either La Flèche or La Chartre. The fortress which is -specially called the Castle of the Loir stands at a greater distance -from its waters than either of the other two. But of the stronghold -itself it has more to show than either. The castle stands half-hidden -in the midst of the small modern town, and the approaches to it have -been carefully defaced and levelled. But the stump of a tower of -irregular shape still remains, which may well be a fragment of the -stronghold of Helias; the neighbouring church too still keeps under -its choir a crypt which must be far older than his day. Still in -possession of a considerable part of his dominions, master of a -district so strongly guarded, the undisputed lord of La Flèche began -to make everything ready for a campaign which might make him once more -Count of Le Mans. From August till April, Helias kept within his own -lands――like a bull in the hiding-places of the woods, says the local -writer[672]――strengthening his own fortresses and making alliances -wherever he could. The whole line of castles, together with the -fortified villages in the neighbourhood, had by Easter-tide been made -ready for defence against the attacks of any enemy.[673] - -[Sidenote: Helias begins operations.] - -[Sidenote: He marches against Le Mans. June, 1099.] - -[Sidenote: Junction of Sarthe and Huisne.] - -[Sidenote: Battle at Pontlieue.] - -[Sidenote: Victory of Helias; he recovers Le Mans.] - -Helias now deemed that the time was come for offensive operations -against the invaders of Maine. He began to attack the posts which were -occupied by the King’s forces, and to lay waste the lands in their -possession. In this work he was secretly favoured by the people of the -country,[674] and before long a large body of his friends and -neighbours had openly joined his banner. In June he set forth at the -head of a great force for an enterprise against the city itself.[675] -We should like to know what, in such a case, was deemed a great force; -but we may suspect that the following of Helias would largely consist -of irregular levies, not well fitted, unless with the advantage of -very superior numbers, to measure themselves with the picked and tried -mercenaries of Rufus. The army marched northwards towards Le Mans. A -little to the south-west of the city the Sarthe is joined by the -Huisne, the stream which, with its tributaries, waters the whole -north-eastern part of Maine. The river is at this point shallow and -weedy, with woody banks and small islands in its bed. Two old lines of -road lead from the south towards the lower course of the Huisne. One -leads towards the bridge of Pontlieue, a bridge which has a history in -modern times.[676] The other leads to a ford less than a mile lower -down the stream, now known as the ford of Mauny. One of our accounts -distinctly makes Helias cross by a ford; the other seems less -distinctly to imply that he crossed by a bridge.[677] At any rate he -crossed in this quarter, immediately south of Le Mans. He challenged -the King’s troops in the city to come forth. The challenge was -accepted, and a battle followed on the ground between the Huisne and -the city. Pontlieue may now pass as a suburb of Le Mans, and not its -least busy suburb. In those days the flat ground was doubtless all -open; the hospital reared by Henry the Second in the neighbourhood of -his native city must have been placed there as in a rural retreat. The -fight was stout; the King’s troops fought valiantly; but they were put -to flight by the greater numbers of the liberating host. The beaten -garrison sought shelter in the city; fliers and pursuers streamed in -together; the gates could not be shut; Count Helias was again in Le -Mans at the head of a conquering army.[678] - -[Sidenote: Joy of the citizens.] - -[Sidenote: The castles still held for Rufus.] - -[Sidenote: Comparison with the deliverance of York in 1069.] - -[Sidenote: The Normans set fire to the city.] - -[Sidenote: Discouragement of the citizens.] - -The joy of the citizens of Le Mans was indeed great at his -coming.[679] Their own lord, their native count, the happiness of -whose former reign they remembered in its fair contrast with the -Norman dominion, was again amongst his faithful people. The formal -welcome which had greeted the coming of Rufus was exchanged for -heartfelt delight at the coming of Helias. But there was still work to -be done. Helias was in Le Mans; but the garrison of Rufus was in Le -Mans also. The garrison had not been able to hinder the Count’s -followers from entering the city; but the Count’s followers had not -been able to hinder the garrison from securing themselves in the -fortresses of the city, in the King’s tower and in Mont-Barbet.[680] -And now the story reads almost word for word like a famous scene in -our own history just thirty years before.[681] Helias entered Le Mans -as Eadgar and Waltheof entered York. And at Le Mans, as at York, the -native deliverers occupied the city while the foreign garrison still -held the castles. The Normans at Le Mans betook themselves to the same -means of defence as the Normans at York, the familiar means of defence -of their nation. Whether he would or not, the joyous entry of Helias -was to be celebrated with the same kind of offerings as the crowning -and the churching of the Conqueror. Westminster, York, Mantes, had -felt the Norman power of destruction; the turn of Le Mans was now -come. Walter the son of Ansgar set his engineers to work, and, when -the evening came, flaming brands and hot cinders were hurled from -their engines upon the houses of the city. It was summer; all things -were dry; a strong east wind was blowing, and all Le Mans was -presently in a blaze.[682] How the great minster, so near to the -King’s tower, escaped without damage does not appear. But, as the -church stands between the castle and the main part of the city, we may -conceive that the fiery bolts launched by the engines from the tower -might fly over the roof of its nave without doing harm. In any case, -before the end of the day on which Helias entered, a large part of the -city and suburbs was burned. The true prince was again in his own -city; but he had nothing there to reign over, except smoking ruins -commanded by a hostile fortress. And we are told that the love of the -citizens for their count was somewhat lessened by this mischance of -warfare, which was surely no fault of his. We are significantly told -that they were less eager to fight for him in the evening than they -had been in the morning.[683] Wooden houses indeed could easily be -rebuilt; it may even be that that day’s fire cleared the space for -those noble domestic buildings of a little later date, some of which -the official barbarism of our own day has deigned to spare, and of -which those that still remain count among the choicest treasures of Le -Mans.[684] But at the moment the effect must have been disheartening, -and the change in the feelings of the people is in no way wonderful. - -[Sidenote: Operation against the castles.] - -[Sidenote: The castles besieged in vain.] - -[Sidenote: Question of the church towers.] - -[Sidenote: Robert of Bellême strengthens Ballon.] - -At Le Mans, as at York in the like case, the business of the moment -was the assault of the castles; but at Le Mans the enterprise of the -deliverers was less fortunate than it had been at York. The citizens -of Le Mans were not, like the citizens of York, to have the pleasure -of breaking down the stronghold of the stranger. Helias himself, after -all, was a French prince of the eleventh century, and he would hardly -have been so ready as Waltheof was to encourage such a work. He had -never, during his earlier reign, thought of playing Timoleôn in that -special fashion. But in any case the fortresses were first to be -taken. Walter the son of Ansgar seems to have been a more wary captain -than William Malet and Gilbert of Ghent. He did not risk a sally, and -Helias had not the same opportunity as Waltheof of showing his -personal prowess by cutting off Norman heads in the gate.[685] He was -driven to a formal siege of the castle. Amid the ashes of the burned -city he planted his engines to play upon the royal tower. We may -almost suspect, from a story which we shall come to presently, that -the new towers of Saint Julian’s were profaned to warlike uses, and -were made, as they well might be, to play a part in the attack. But in -any case the attack was in vain. The strength of the fortresses, the -skill with which their defenders brought engines to answer engines, -were too great for all the battering-works of Helias.[686] The King’s -tower and Mont Barbet both held out, and Robert of Bellême took the -further precaution of strengthening the defences of Ballon.[687] - - * * * * * - -[Sidenote: The news sent to the King.] - -[Sidenote: The news brought to him in the New Forest.] - -But it was not enough for the garrisons to hold out. They served a -master beyond the sea; and that master had yet to learn either that -they were holding out or that there was any enemy for them to hold out -against. We are in this story doubtless dealing with the work of a -very few days. The fight by the ford, the entry of Helias, and the -fire, all took place on the same day. The siege of the castles would -begin at the first moment that any engines could be brought up. -Whether Helias had brought them with him, or whether he had to send -for them, we are not told. We may be sure that there was no great -delay in sending the news to the King; but the messenger did not start -till he had something more to tell than that Le Mans, or what was left -of it, was in the hands of its own count. A Norman Pheidippidês, -Amalchis by name, the special courier of Robert of Bellême, was sent -with the news.[688] He crossed the sea; he hastened to the King’s -hunting-seat of Clarendon, and met William and a party of his -favourite companions going forth to hunt in the New Forest. The King -asked the messenger what the news was. The news was speedily told; Le -Mans was taken by treason. But Amalchis could add some words of -comfort, how his own lord held Ballon, how the King’s troops in the -city, though besieged and attacked by the enemy, still held out in the -fortresses, how they were longing for the King to come in person to -their help.[689] We can hardly believe that Rufus had heard nothing of -the general movements of Helias in southern Maine; but all that had -happened since the Count set forth for Pontlieue came to his ears in a -single message. - - * * * * * - -[Sidenote: William rides to the coast.] - -[Sidenote: He crosses to Touques.] - -At the hearing of such a tale as this William the Red did not tarry. -He waited for no counsellors. His words were only, “Let us go beyond -the sea and help our friends.” When those around him bade him wait -till a force could be made ready, he answered, “I will see who will -follow me. Do you think that I shall be left without men? I know well -the youth of my lands, they will hasten to come to me, even at the -risk of shipwreck.” So saying, without following, without preparation, -he loosened his bridle, he put spurs to his horse, he rode straight to -the sea-shore at Southampton, and at once trusted himself all alone to -an old crazy ship which he found there. The sky was cloudy; the wind -was contrary; the blasts tossed up huge waves; the sailors prayed him -to wait till the winds and the waves should be more inclined to peace -and mercy. “I never heard of a king being drowned,” cried Rufus; “make -haste, loose your cables; you will see the elements join to obey me.” -He set sail, and the next morning he reached the haven of Touques, -God, we are told by the monk of Saint Evroul, being his guide.[690] - -[Sidenote: Touques in Rufus’ time.] - -[Sidenote: Landing of the King.] - -[Sidenote: His ride to Bonneville.] - -The spot where William landed must, especially at the moment of -William’s landing, have had a widely different look from that which it -bears in our own day. The river from which the town of Touques takes -its name, flowing down from Lisieux to its mouth by the modern -pleasure-town of Trouville, has had its course shifted by modern -improvements; but it has perhaps not greatly changed in width or bulk -of stream since the time of our story. Touques lies a few miles -inland; but a high tide would easily bring up the small vessels of -that day to the point which was once a busy haven, but which now -affords at the most a landing-place for barges. The single long -street, full of picturesque wooden buildings of later times, and -containing a striking disused church of the days of Rufus or his -father, now turns away from the stream, as if to show that the days of -Touques as a haven have passed away. In those days the inland port, -placed in the rich vale of the stream, under the shadow of the hills, -those to the right forming the forest-land of Touques, was a -frequented spot; and at the moment when the ship came which bore Rufus -and his fortunes, it presented a busy scene. As was usual in the -summer-tide, a crowd of persons, both clerical and lay, was gathered -at the riverside.[691] When they saw a ship coming from England, they -pressed to ask what the news might be. Specially they asked how the -King fared. And lo, the King was there as his own messenger to answer -them.[692] He returned their greetings in merry mood, and all wondered -and were glad.[693] We must remember that Normandy had better reason -to be glad at the presence of Rufus than either England or Maine. The -King landed; he sprang on the first beast that he could find, a mare -belonging to a priest, and so took the road which led towards the -south-east to the castle of Bonneville, on the slope of the hills -which overlook and guard the haven. The distance is short, and most of -it is uphill, and the speed of the priest’s mare was most likely not -equal to the speed of the King’s own horse which had borne him from -Clarendon to Southampton. A loyal crowd, clerks and peasants, were -thus able to follow him on foot, cheering their sovereign as he rode -up the hill-side to the castle.[694] - -[Sidenote: The castle of Bonneville.] - -[Sidenote: Early history and legends of Bonneville.] - -The headlong rush by land and sea was now over, and the Red King again -found himself in one of the chief strongholds of Normandy. The castle -of Bonneville, placed, not on the top of the hill, but on a small spur -projecting from its side, was in fact the citadel of Touques. It -specially guarded the inland haven; otherwise one might rather have -looked for the site of such a fortress on the hills which overlook the -sea and guard the actual mouth of the stream. Yet from the towers of -Bonneville we look out on a wide and a goodly prospect. Almost at the -foot of the hill lies Touques itself. The river stretches away to its -mouth at Deauville; on the right the valley is fenced in by the high -ground of the forest, on the left by the hill crowned by the castle of -Lassay, famous in later times, with the small priory of Saint Arnold, -still keeping work of the Conqueror’s day, nestling on the hill-side. -But at Bonneville itself no strictly architectural work remains which -can have served the Red King as a resting-place after his fierce -journey. The existing castle, a shell-keep strengthened by round -towers, seems to be in all parts later than the days of Rufus, later -than the days of Norman independence. A single gateway only could -possibly be placed even within the latter years of the twelfth -century. But the site is an ancient one; the castle is girded by a -ditch, and the ditch is in some parts further strengthened by an -embankment, which seem more likely to have been taken advantage of by -the Norman dukes than to be their original work. Bonneville had been -one of the dwelling-places of William the Great, and it is one of the -many towns and castles which claim to have been the scene of the oath -of Harold.[695] Though the existing buildings are later, the hill -itself and its earthworks are there, as when Rufus drew breath among -them. He there rested for a moment, after being borne with the -swiftest speed of his own age from the sports of the West-Saxon forest -to the serious business which pressed on a ruler of Normandy when Le -Mans was again held by a hostile power. - - * * * * * - -[Sidenote: William at Bonneville.] - -[Sidenote: His levy.] - -[Sidenote: He marches towards Le Mans.] - -[Sidenote: Helias flees to Château-du-Loir.] - -The castle which Rufus had now reached, the nearest fortress in -Normandy to the spot in England from which he had so wildly rushed, -now became the starting-point of a campaign which, in its beginning, -was not unskilfully planned. At Bonneville the King began to make his -preparations for the recovery of Le Mans. He sent his messengers to -and fro, and soon gathered a large force. He then began his march -southward; he crossed the frontier, and pressed on towards Le Mans, -harrying the land as he went.[696] The effect of his coming was -immediate. When the news came that the King was on his way, the forces -of Helias began to fail him; he no longer dared to go on with the -siege of the castles; he no longer dared even to hold the city.[697] -He fled from Le Mans, and hastened to the defence of his immediate -possessions in the southern part of the county. Here he took up his -head-quarters in his own fortress specially known as the Castle of the -Loir. Within its walls the Count of Maine again waited for better -days, while the hosts of Normandy drew near to his capital.[698] - -[Sidenote: Flight of the citizens.] - -[Sidenote: William passes through Le Mans.] - -[Sidenote: His camp beyond the Huisne.] - -Meanwhile despair reigned in Le Mans. A crowd of the citizens, with -their wives and children and all that they had, followed their -prince.[699] When Rufus heard of the flight of Helias, he was still -north of Le Mans. He pressed on to overtake his enemy; he reached the -city; but, like Harold on the march to Stamfordbridge, he did not deem -it a time to tarry even a single night within its walls. And in the -mind of Rufus there was doubtless another motive at work besides -either military precaution or even simple military ardour. With him it -would be a point of honour to occupy, at the first moment that he -could, the ground on which his choice troops had been put to flight by -the hasty levies of Helias. He marched through the city, over the -battleground of Pontlieue; he crossed the bridge of the Huisne, and -pitched his camp on the broad plain[700] to the south of the stream. -He had thus passed into what might seem the immediate dominions of his -rival, as his rival had passed at the same point to attack the city -which he claimed as specially his own. - -[Sidenote: He harries southern Maine.] - -[Sidenote: Helias burns the castles.] - -[Sidenote: Helias keeps on the defensive.] - -From his camp on the left back of the Huisne Rufus began a deliberate -and fearful harrying of the whole southern part of Maine. But before -his troops could reach the strongholds of the enemy, they found the -land laid waste before them. Even two castles, those of Outillé and -Vaux-en-Belin,[701] were set fire to by the Count’s own partisans. -Robert of Montfort――the Norman Montfort――pressed on with five hundred -knights, put out the fire at Vaux, repaired the fortress, and held it -for the King.[702] Helias meanwhile was biding his time in the Castle -of the Loir. His force was still strong; but he deemed it no time for -any attack on his part. Perhaps he knew Rufus well enough to feel sure -that against him the tactics of Fabius were the tactics which were -most likely to prevail. - -[Sidenote: William besieges Mayet.] - -[Sidenote: Observance of the Truce of God.] - -For in this campaign, exactly as in the earlier campaign in Maine and -in the campaign in the Vexin, the thing which most strikes us is the -way in which it ends, or, more truly, the way in which it comes to no -end at all. While Helias held out at Château-du-Loir, William, instead -of attacking him, laid siege to Mayet. At this last point, lying some -way north of Château-du-Loir, we find the scene of some of the most -remarkable anecdotes in our whole story, and it is here that the last -serious warfare of the Red King seems to have taken place.[703] The -siege was not a long one, and its result was strange and unexpected; -but the few days which it took are crowded with incident, and they set -William Rufus before us in more than one character. He first appears -in a mood which may be thought wholly unexpected; perhaps as touched -by devotion himself, at all events as hearkening readily to the -devotional scruples of others. The King’s host appeared before Mayet -on a Friday, and he gave orders for a general attack on the castle on -the next day.[704] The sabbath morning dawns; the warriors are vying -with one another in girding on their weapons and making ready for the -attack.[705] Then a pious scruple, a scruple which seems to have -occurred to no man on the day of Senlac, touched the hearts of some of -the elders of the host. Certain unrecorded wise men crave of the King -that, out of reverence for the Lord’s burial and resurrection, he will -spare the besieged both that day and the next, and will grant them a -truce till Monday. In other words, they demand the observance of the -Truce of God.[706] The King gives glory to God, and gives orders that -it shall be as they wish; nothing shall be done against the castle on -either Saturday or Sunday; on Monday the attack shall be made.[707] - -[Sidenote: No bribery in Maine.] - -[Sidenote: Preparations of the besieged.] - -[Sidenote: The castle attacked on Monday.] - -[Sidenote: Story of Robert of Bellême.] - -[Sidenote: Illustrations of chivalry.] - -[Sidenote: The besiegers fill the ditch with wood.] - -We now get a glimpse within the walls. The defenders of Mayet, we are -told, were men of proved valour and endurance, faithful to their lord -and ready to fight for him to the death.[708] It is worth notice that, -through the whole story, the Red King’s favourite arms are never heard -of within the bounds of Maine. The wealth of England, which carried -such weight within Normandy and France, which proved such an -unanswerable argument in the mind of King Philip, goes for nothing on -the banks of the Sarthe and the Loir. It seems never to enter into any -man’s mind that it was worth trying to buy over any man who owned -Helias as his lord. So now in the Red King’s camp steel lies idle on -the holy days of the older and the newer law; and gold seems to lie -idle no less. But those days were not days of idleness within the -bulwarks of Mayet. The gallant defenders of the castle were making -ready for the attack. One special means of defence was to place wicker -crates along the walls in order to break the force of the stones -hurled by the King’s artillery.[709] At last Monday came, and the -assault began. The deep and wide ditch of the castle was found to be -no small hindrance to the besiegers. A wild story is told that the -King ordered the ditch to be filled up with horses and mules, the -beasts seemingly of draught and burthen.[710] For them, as the -villains of the brute world, there was no mercy; the _destrier_ of the -knight was, in knightly hearts, entitled to some share of the respect -due to his rider. But the tale adds that Robert of Bellême, the man so -hateful in Cenomannian memory, improved on the King’s order, and bade -the ditch be filled, not only with horses, but with human villains -also.[711] Such an order would really be thoroughly in the spirit of -chivalry. It would have come well from the mouths of those French -gentlemen who called at Crecy for the slaughter of the so-called -peasants whom they had hired from Genoa.[712] But William the Red had -learned beneath the walls of Rochester what the churls of one land at -least could do, and he was not likely to carry his knightly ideal -quite so far as this. The tale, we may suspect, is a bit of local -Cenomannian romance, part of the popular tale of the devil of Mamers. -Those who tell it add that the effect of the order was to cause the -immediate flight of all the members of the despised class who were -within hearing.[713] But the most trustworthy narrative of the siege -of Mayet tells us nothing of any of these strange ways of filling up a -ditch. There we read only of vast piles of wood which were hurled into -it, and of a path raised on piles which the besiegers strove to make -level with the palisade of the castle. - -[Sidenote: The besieged burn the wood.] - -[Sidenote: Narrow escape of William.] - -[Sidenote: William’s captains advise a retreat.] - -[Sidenote: The siege raised on Tuesday.] - -[Sidenote: The land ravaged.] - -But the devices of the garrison of Mayet were at least equal to the -devices of their enemies. They hurled down masses of burning charcoal, -and so, by the help of the summer heat, they burned up the piles of -wood with which the besiegers were filling up the ditch.[714] All -Monday both sides strove with all their might against one another, and -the King began to be grieved and angry that all his efforts had -availed nothing.[715] While he was thus troubled in mind, a stone was -aimed at him from a lofty turret. It missed William himself, but a -warrior who stood by him was crushed to pieces by the falling -mass.[716] Then there rose a loud shout of mockery from the wall; “Lo, -the King now has fresh meat; let it be taken to the kitchen and made -ready for his supper.”[717] We might have looked to hear that for such -scorn as this the Red King vowed a vengeance like his father’s -vengeance at Alençon. But either Rufus and his counsellors were -strangely cowed, or else they were glad of any excuse to throw up an -enterprise one day of which seems to have been enough to weary them. -The lords and high captains of the King’s host impressed on their -master’s mind that the defences of Mayet were very strong, that its -defenders were very brave, that, sheltered as they were behind their -strong walls, they had a great advantage over besiegers encamped in -the open air.[718] These sound strange arguments in an age when -warfare chiefly consisted in attacking and defending strong places. -They sound strangest of all when they are addressed to a king who, so -short a time before, had taken it for granted that not only men and -walls, but the winds and the waves, would yield to his will. But the -reasoning of these prudent warriors is said to have carried conviction -to the King’s mind. Rufus saw that the best thing that he could do was -to march off while he was still safe. There were other ways besides -besieging castles by which more damage could be done to the enemy with -less risk to his own followers.[719] Orders were given to march to -Lucé with the first light of Tuesday. The host arose early, and went -on, making a fearful harrying as they went. Vines were rooted up, -fruit-trees cut down, walls and houses overthrown. The whole of that -fertile land was utterly laid waste with fire and sword.[720] - - * * * * * - -[Sidenote: No real success on the King’s part.] - -[Sidenote: Illustration of Rufus’ character.] - -[Sidenote: The campaign unfinished.] - -[Sidenote: William satisfied by the recovery of Le Mans.] - -This seems a somewhat paltry ending for a campaign which began with -the King’s breathless rush from the New Forest to Bonneville. Not very -much had come of the headlong ride or of the sail in the crazy ship. -William Rufus had gained no real success, military or political. He -was as far as ever from the real possession of the whole land of -Maine. He had rooted up a great many vines and cut down a great many -fruit trees; but he had neither won a battle nor taken a fortress. His -garrisons at Le Mans and at Ballon had held out; Helias had left Le -Mans open to him; at Vaux Robert of Montfort had overcome, not Helias, -but the flames. On the other hand, Helias himself was safe, in full -command of most of his southern castles; from the only one of them -which the King had actually attacked, he had turned away baffled after -one day’s fighting. In all these cases it would seem as if the fiery -impulses of Rufus soon spent themselves, as if all depended on the -first rush. If that failed, he never had perseverance to go on. In his -strangely mingled nature, he could be either a ruler or a captain when -the fit to be either took him. He had not steadiness to be either for -any long time together. Certain it is that he left all his continental -campaigns unfinished; and this one, which was begun with such a -special blaze of energy, was left more utterly unfinished than any of -the others. And yet perhaps, after all, William Rufus had succeeded in -the chief wish of his heart. Le Mans was the special prize of his -father; its castles were the work of his father. But his father had -had no special dealings with Mayet or Château-du-Loir. He might be -satisfied to do without such small and distant possessions, he might -be satisfied even to undergo defeat before them, as long as the city -which his father had twice won, as long as the royal tower which his -father had reared, were his beyond dispute. - - * * * * * - -[Sidenote: William’s good treatment of Le Mans.] - -[Sidenote: He enters the city.] - -[Sidenote: He stops the oppressions of his garrison.] - -[Sidenote: He drives out the canons.] - -[Sidenote: He leaves garrisons and returns to England. September, 1099.] - -But it is at least to William’s honour that, in his last entry at Le -Mans, he showed himself a benefactor to the city which had suffered so -much. Rufus had, as we have seen in the case of Robert of Bellême, men -about him who were worse than himself. Or rather, putting aside such -exceptional sinners as Robert of Bellême, he had men about him who -simply did, as a matter of course, according to the fashion of the -time, without either rising or sinking to those parts of the character -of Rufus which are special to himself. So now the citizens of Le Mans -found in the Red King himself a deliverer from the oppressions done by -his officers. Those among the inhabitants who had stayed in the city -and had not followed their Count in his flight, had suffered every -kind of wrong-doing at the hands of the King’s garrisons. The tale, -according to the local historian, was too long and sad to tell in -full.[721] But matters grew better when the King came himself. William -again entered Le Mans in triumph, a triumph won chiefly over vines and -apple-trees, certainly not over the garrison of Mayet.[722] Anyhow he -came in a merciful mood. He checked the excesses of his soldiers; it -was owing to his bounty only that the city was saved from utter -ruin.[723] But on one class of its inhabitants his hand was harder -than on the rest. The canons of Saint Julian’s, or so many of them as -had agreed to the election of Hildebert, were driven out by the King’s -order.[724] William then disbanded his army,[725] leaving garrisons in -the castles of Le Mans, and doubtless in that of Ballon also. He then -left the mainland for the last time, and, after an absence of three -months, came back to England about the time of the feast of -Michaelmas.[726] - -[Sidenote: William and Hildebert.] - -[Sidenote: Hildebert reconciled to the King.] - -[Sidenote: Charges brought against him.] - -[Sidenote: William bids Hildebert pull down the towers of Saint -Julian’s.] - -[Sidenote: Dialogue between William and Hildebert.] - -[Sidenote: The southern tower.] - -[Sidenote: Appearance on the north side.] - -But, if William Rufus, on his last visit to Le Mans, saved the -inhabitants of the city from ruin, he presently deprived the city -itself of one of its chief material ornaments. It was the election of -Hildebert which had first stirred up his wrath, and he had picked out -the lands of the bishopric, as the lands of a personal enemy, for -special havoc.[727] Yet we read that, at some very early stage of his -march, before he had yet crossed the frontier of Normandy and Maine, -Hildebert met the King, and was received as a friend, on showing that -he had had no hand in bringing about the occupation of the city by -Helias.[728] But, after William had again entered Le Mans, the charge -was once more brought against the Bishop by some of the clergy of -Saint Julian’s who had opposed his election from the beginning. It was -by Hildebert’s counsel, they said, that Helias had been received, and -that the King’s castles had been besieged; nay, the towers of the -minster itself, the twin towers of Howel, had been used, as they well -might be, for the attack on the royal tower. William hearkened to the -enemies of Hildebert, and gave him his choice, either to pull down the -towers which were so liable to abuse, or else to follow him at once -into England.[729] To the Bishop of Le Mans the sea-voyage itself -seemed frightful;[730] and when its dangers were passed, when -Hildebert had reached the shores of our island, his enemies, who seem -to have crossed also, again began to accuse him to the King.[731] A -strange dialogue followed between the two. William, in his craft, -offered to purchase the destruction of the towers at a price which -would have greatly increased the internal splendour of the church. Let -the Bishop agree to pull down the towers, and he, King William, will -give him a vast mass of gold and silver for the adornment of the new -shrine of Saint Julian.[732] But the Bishop had his craft also. He was -in the land so famous for gold and silver work, the land where Otto -and Theodoric were doubtless still plying their craft. They had no -such goldsmiths at Le Mans; let the King keep his precious ingots for -works within his own kingdom.[733] Still the destruction of the towers -is pressed upon him; all that he can gain, and that with difficulty, -is a little delay. Hildebert at last went back to Le Mans, taking with -him, not indeed the King’s great ingots, but some lesser ornaments for -his church.[734] The burning of the city, the dispersion of his -canons, the havoc wrought in his own lands, all weighed him down. He -poured forth the full bitterness of his soul in his extant letters. -The unrepealed order for the pulling down of the two towers still hung -over him. Was it ever carried out? Our author does not say distinctly. -We might rather infer from his story that the death of Rufus and the -return of Helias saved the Bishop from his difficulties.[735] Yet the -appearance of the building itself looks the other way. As the church -of Saint Julian now stands, the southern tower of Howel has its -existing representative. It is slender, and, if it stood against a -building of ordinary height, it would be tall. Its upper part belongs -to the late rebuilding of the transepts, but the lowest stage belongs -to the latest and richest style of Romanesque, contemporary with the -great recasting of the nave. It is no work of Howel or even of -Hildebert; but it is the work of one who wished to reproduce, with the -richer detail of his own day, the general likeness of what Howel’s -tower had been. On the north side this tower has no fellow; the space -at the end of the transept which answers to it is occupied by a ruined -building of earlier Romanesque, which may well be the stump of the -original tower of Howel.[736] Are we to infer that the bidding of -Rufus was carried out――that the towers, or their upper stages, were -actually destroyed――that every later ruler of Le Mans, the devout -Helias among them, deemed the northern tower too near to the royal -fortress to allow of its rebuilding, but that the rebuilding of the -more distant tower on the southern side was begun in the earlier and -finished in the later recasting of the church? May we look on the -shattered building which joins hard to the northern transept of Saint -Julian’s as being truly the remnant of a tower which Howel reared with -the good will of William the Great, and which Hildebert, with a heavy -heart, pulled down at the bidding of William the Red? If it be so, I -know of no spot where architectural evidence speaks more strongly to -the mind, where walls and columns and arches bring us more directly -into the presence of the men who made and who unmade them. Among all -the wonders of Saint Julian’s minster――beside the nave which is -inseparably bound up with so many living pages of our story――beside -the choir which in itself concerns not the historian of Norman kings -and Cenomannian counts, but on which we gaze in breathless wonder as -one of the noblest of the works of man――no spot comes more truly home -to us than that where we see the small remnants of what once was there -and is there no longer. Alongside of the soaring apse to the east, of -the wide portal to the west, the northern tower of Howel is indeed -conspicuous by its absence. - - * * * * * - -[Sidenote: Robert at Jerusalem. July, 1099.] - -[Sidenote: Death of Pope Urban. July 29.] - -[Sidenote: Revolt in Anglesey. 1099.] - -[Sidenote: Return of Cadwgan and Gruffydd.] - -[Sidenote: Recovery of Anglesey and Ceredigion by the Welsh.] - -The second war with Maine is the only event beyond the bounds of -England which our own annalists record under this year, except indeed -those œcumenical events besides which the affairs of Maine, and even -the affairs of England, seem for the moment but as trifles. In the -same month of July in which William made his way into Le Mans, his -brother Robert, in quite another warfare, made his way into -Jerusalem.[737] Presently, before he could have heard of his own work, -the great preacher of the crusade, Pope Urban the Second, passed -away.[738] With the affairs of Maine these events have a direct -connexion. It was not the fault of Count Helias that he did not obey -the teaching of Urban, that he did not enter the Holy City alongside -of Robert and Godfrey. But it needs an effort to turn away either from -Jerusalem or from Le Mans to record the last counter-revolution in -Anglesey. Yet it is not amiss to remember that two lands were at the -same moment striving for freedom against the Red King, and that the -Briton and the Cenomannian had to hold their own against the same -enemy. He who ruled at once at Bellême and at Shrewsbury was terrible -to both alike. We may believe that the Britons marked their time while -the fierce Earl had his hands full beyond the Channel, to strike -another blow to win back their land, and specially to win back the -island which had been the scene of the warfare of the last year. But -it would seem that, in some parts at least of the land, there was -little need for blows. The two princes who had fled to Ireland, -Cadwgan son of Bleddyn and Gruffydd son of Cynan, now came back. -Cadwgan obtained a peaceful settlement in Ceredigion; Gruffydd got -possession of Anglesey, perhaps as the price of warfare. A son of -Cadwgan, Llywelyn, was presently killed by the men of Brecheiniog, -that is doubtless by the followers of Bernard of Newmarch.[739] -Another Welsh prince, Howel by name, had to flee to Ireland.[740] We -may infer that the central border-land was still firmly held by the -conquerors, but that, though the French had constrained the Britons of -Anglesey to become Saxons,[741] French and Saxons alike had to yield -to the returning Britons both in Anglesey and in Ceredigion. Gruffydd -and Cadwgan, names which are by this time familiar to us, are again -established in Britain. Both of them play a part in the later history -of their own land, and Cadwgan at least will appear again within the -range of our own story. - - * * * * * - -[Sidenote: Natural phænomenon.] - -[Sidenote: The great tide. November 3, 1099.] - -[Sidenote: Death of Bishop Osmund of Salisbury. December 3, 1099.] - -These Welsh matters find no place in the English Chronicles, which -find so little space even for the deeds of Helias. Most likely they -made no great impression on the mind of Rufus, now that, not Maine -indeed, but at least Le Mans, was again his. He came back to England, -a conqueror doubtless in his own eyes, about the feast of Saint -Michael. The year did not end without one of those natural phenomena -in which the reign is so rich. This time it was the wonderful -flood-tide which, in the beginning of November, on a day of new moon, -came up the Thames, flooded the land, overwhelmed houses and villages, -and swept away men, oxen, and sheep.[742] A month later a new source -of revenue began to flow into the Red King’s coffers. Bishop Osmund of -Salisbury, the founder alike of the elder church and of the abiding -ritual of his diocese, died early in December.[743] His temporalities -passed, like those of Canterbury and Winchester, into the King’s -hands. The Bishop of Durham had doubtless bade farewell to such -duties; but the race of _exactores_, of clerical _exactores_, had not -died out. There were still plenty of men in the Red King’s court who -were ready to help in wringing the last penny out of the lands of -bishops till they had wrung enough to buy bishoprics for themselves. -The end is now drawing nigh; but till the end came, the groans of the -Church, of the tenants of the Church, and of the whole people of the -land, went up with a voice ever louder and louder. - - - - -CHAPTER VII. - -THE LAST DAYS OF WILLIAM RUFUS AND THE ACCESSION OF HENRY. - -1100-1102.[744] - - -[Sidenote: End of the eleventh century.] - -[Sidenote: Changes in Britain. 1000-1100.] - -[Sidenote: Internal changes.] - -[Sidenote: Changes in foreign relations.] - -[Sidenote: Scotland.] - -[Sidenote: Wales.] - -[Sidenote: Fusion of elements in Britain begins.] - -[Sidenote: Ireland.] - -The last year of the eleventh century had now come. The course of -those hundred years had wrought many changes in the world. To our eyes -the changes which it had wrought in the isle of Britain seem great and -wonderful, and great and wonderful they were. At the beginning of the -century Englishmen were struggling for their country and their homes -against the invading Dane. The Dane had won the land; he had given us -one foreign ruler who became one of ourselves. The days of foreign -rule had passed away, only, as the event proved, to pave the way for a -foreign rule which was to be far more abiding. A foreign rule which, -by adopting national feelings, in some sort deadened them paved the -way for a foreign rule which, by seeming for a moment to crush the old -life of the nation, really called it up again in new shapes. But the -rule of the Norman could not, like the rule of Cnut, itself become -national during the life-time of the Conqueror or of his first -successor. There was indeed a change between the England of Æthelred -and the England of William Rufus. The outward aspect of the land -itself must have changed, now that well-nigh every English mound was -crowned by its Norman castle, now that well-nigh every English minster -was giving way to a successor built after Norman patterns. But, if -things had changed, men had changed also. Compare the signatures to a -charter of Æthelred and the signatures to a charter of William. The -change which had come over the land is marked by the difference -between the list of English names among which it may be that some -follower of the Norman Lady has crept in, and the list of Norman names -among which it may be that some unusually lucky Englishman has -contrived to hold his place. England had thus changed indeed in her -internal state; she had changed no less in her relations to other -lands. Within her own island she had made what it is no contradiction -to speak of as a peaceful conquest made at the sword’s point. The -elder Eadgar had placed the younger on the Scottish throne as the work -of warfare. So far as Eadgar’s work was the political submission of -Scotland, its results were but for a moment. So far as it led to the -peaceful change of Scotland into a second and separate English -kingdom, its results have been indeed abiding. Towards Wales, amidst -much of seeming ill-success, the work of conquest had in truth begun; -the Red King had found out the true way to curb those bold spirits -which he could not overcome in the field. Much indeed had the eleventh -century done, in different ways, towards welding the three elements of -the isle of Britain into one political whole. Ages had to pass before -the work was finished; but it was in the eleventh century, above all, -in the reign of Rufus, that it really began. Towards the impossible -work, forbidden by geography and history, of welding another great -island into the same whole, whatever either William may have -dreamed――yet to the Conqueror we may not dare to ascribe mere -dreams――neither had done anything. So far as the two great islands of -the Ocean had begun to draw near to one another, it was as yet wholly -through the advances which the princes and people of Ireland had made -in spiritual things to the Pontiff of the other world, the Patriarch -of all the nations beyond the sea. - -[Sidenote: Britain ceases to be another world.] - -[Sidenote: Marriages of Ælfgifu-Emma and Eadgyth-Matilda.] - -[Sidenote: England becomes part of the Latin world.] - -[Sidenote: Advance of the Latin world in the eleventh century.] - -[Sidenote: Conversion of the North.] - -[Sidenote: The Crusade.] - -[Sidenote: The struggle in Spain.] - -[Sidenote: Decline of the Eastern Empire.] - -[Sidenote: Renewed advance.] - -[Sidenote: Sicily.] - -But one great work of the times over which we are casting our eyes was -that Britain was now fast ceasing to deserve its ancient name of -another world. The earliest and the latest years of the century are -each marked by a marriage, by a change of name on the part of the -bride, which puts the change before us in a living way. A new epoch of -intercourse with other lands had begun when, on her marriage with a -King of the English of her day, Norman Emma had to become English -Ælfgifu. How greatly things had turned the other way was shown when, -on her marriage with a King of the English of her day, English Eadgyth -had to become Norman Matilda. The land which was to be the realm of -Henry and Matilda was, through the chain of events which began with -Emma’s marriage, fast changing from the separate world of Æthelred’s -day into a part of the larger world of Western Europe, the world of -_Latinitas_, of Latin speech and of learning, the world which, amidst -all the struggles of rival Popes and Emperors, still deemed itself the -world of Rome. And in few ages had that world done more to extend -itself than in the age which began with Æthelred and ended with Henry. -At the beginning of the century northern Europe was still largely -heathen; England was fighting the battle of Christendom against the -Danish renegade. Now the kingdoms of the North had passed into the -Christian fold. The change between the beginning of the century and -the end is best marked by saying that before its end the crusades had -begun, that the first crusade had been crowned with the greatest of -crusading victories. But, in looking at the crusades of the East, the -abiding crusade of the West must not be forgotten. Our own Chronicler -has not failed to tell us somewhat of the great strife of Christian -and Saracen in the south-western peninsula,[745] and if the taking of -Toledo was followed by reverses of the Christian arms, it was only by -dint of help from Africa. Here is a sign that the tide was turned, and -that it was only by such help from beyond the straits, by a new -passage of Africa into Europe, that Islam could maintain itself in the -once Roman and Gothic land. In the Eastern world, the crusade should -not make us forget the causes of the crusade. At the beginning of the -century we saw the Eastern Rome in her full might, the might of -Saracenic victories which were already won, of Bulgarian victories -which were winning. But now, as the Western Mussulman has to call in -help from Africa, so the Eastern Christian has to call in help from -Western Europe. The Christian frontier in Asia has indeed frightfully -gone back since the beginning of the century; but it has again begun -to advance; Nikaia, Antioch, Jerusalem itself, are restored to the -Christian world, and Nikaia is restored, not only to the Christian -world but to the obedience of the Eastern Augustus. And, by not least -memorable change among so many, the great Mediterranean island, the -battle-field of Greek and Saracen, has passed away from the rule of -either, while remaining the flourishing dwelling-place of both. Sicily -has entered within the range of Western Christendom, and Palermo, like -Winchester, has entered within the range of Norman dominion. When -Æthelred reigned at Winchester and Richard at Rouen, a bishop of -Evreux could not have performed the funeral rites of a bishop of -Bayeux within the walls and between the havens of the Happy City. - -[Sidenote: Change from Æthelred to William Rufus.] - -[Sidenote: Schemes of Rufus.] - -Changes then had been great in east and west and north and south -during the century which carries us from Otto the Wonder of the World -and Basil the Slayer of the Bulgarians to what at first sight seems -the lower level of Henry the Fourth and Alexios Komnênos. And when in -our own land the same space carries us from Æthelred to William Rufus, -the gap seems wider still. And it was at least not the fault of -William Rufus that the changes wrought by the eleventh century were -not greater still. Æthelred, the man without rede, was not likely to -change the face of the world, unless by passively supplying the means -for Swegen and Cnut to change it. But William Rufus had no lack of -rede of one kind, though it was perhaps of a kind which better -deserved to be called _unrede_. But it was _unrede_ of a more active -kind than the _unrede_ of Æthelred. William was eager enough to change -the face of the world for his own behoof. To win, after a sort, the -submission of Scotland and Maine, to plan the conquest of Ireland and -France, to negotiate for the purchase of Aquitaine――here alone are -far-reaching plans enough, plans which could not have been carried out -without some large result on the history of mankind. That result could -never have been the lasting establishment of that Empire of Gaul and -Britain of which Rufus seems to have dreamed. But had his continental -plans been successful, they might have led, as the marriage of Lewis -and Eleanor in the next century might have led, to the formation of a -kingdom of France in the modern sense some ages before its time. - -[Sidenote: Contradiction in William’s position.] - -[Sidenote: His defeats not counted defeats.] - -The strange thing is that a man who schemed so much, who filled so -great a place in the eyes of his own generation, after all did so -little. Almost more strange is the way in which he sees all his great -plans utterly shattered, and yet seems to feel no shame, no -discouragement, no shock to his belief in his own greatness. He comes -back really defeated; he has twice won Le Mans, and that is all; but -if he has won Le Mans, he cannot win Mayet. So far from winning Paris, -he cannot win Chaumont. So far from reigning on the Garonne, he cannot -keep even the frontier of the Loir. But what would have been counted -defeat in any one else does not seem to have been counted defeat in -William Rufus. Beaten at all points but one, he still keeps the air of -a conqueror; he still seems to be looked on as a conqueror by others. -From the beginning to the end, there is a kind of glamour about the -Red King and all that he does. He has a kind of sleight of hand which -imposes on men’s minds; like the Athenian orator, when he is thrown in -the wrestling-match, he makes those who saw his fall believe that he -has never fallen.[746] We might even borrow a word from the piebald -jargon of modern diplomacy; we might say that the reign of the Red -King was the highest recorded effort of _prestige_. - - * * * * * - -[Sidenote: The year 1100.] - -[Sidenote: Lack of events in its earlier months.] - -[Sidenote: Contrast with the year 1000.] - -[Sidenote: Vague expectations afloat.] - -[Sidenote: Portents and prophecies.] - -And now we have entered on the last year of the reign and of the -century. It is a year whose earlier months are, within our own range -at least, singularly barren of events, while its latter months are -full of matter to record. It is a kind of tribute to the importance of -William Rufus that there is at once so much to record the moment he is -out of the way. When he is gone, a large part of the world feels -relief. But about the lack of events earlier in the year there is -something strange and solemn. The last year of the eleventh century -was not marked by that general feeling of awe and wonder and looking -forward to judgement which marked the last year of the tenth century. -But, at least within the range of the Red King’s influence, that year -seems to have been marked by that vague kind of feeling of a coming -something which some of us have felt before the great events of our -own times. Whatever may be the cause, it is certain that, as the news -of events which have happened sometimes travels with a speed which -ordinary means cannot account for,[747] so the approach of events -which have not yet happened is sometimes felt in a way which we can -account for as little. Coming events do cast their shadows before -them, in a fashion which, whether philosophy can explain it or not, -history must accept as a fact. And coming events did preeminently cast -their shadows before them in the first half of the year 1100. In that -age the feeling which weighed on men’s minds naturally took the form -of portent and prophecy, of strange sights seen and strange sounds -listened to. There is not the slightest ground for thinking that all -these tales are mere inventions after the fact, though they were -likely enough to be improved in the telling after the fact. The -frightful state of things in the land, unparalleled even in those evil -times, joined with the feeling of expectation which always attends any -marked note of time, be it a fresh week or a fresh millennium――all -worked together to bring about a looking for something to come, partly -perhaps in fear, but far more largely in hope. Things could hardly get -worse; they might get better. Men’s minds were charged with -expectation; every sight, every sound, became an omen; if some men -risked prophecies, if some of their prophecies were fulfilled, it was -not wonderful. The first half of the year, blank in events, was rich -in auguries; in the second half the auguries had largely become facts. -In its first months men were saying with hope, “Non diu dominabuntur -effeminati.”[748] Before the twelvemonth was out, they were beginning -to say with joy, “Hic rex Henricus destruxit impios regni.”[749] - - -§ 1. _The Last Days of William Rufus._ - -_January――August, 1100._ - -[Sidenote: The three assemblies of 1099-1100.] - -[Sidenote: Christmas at Gloucester. 1099-1000.] - -[Sidenote: Easter at Winchester. April 1, 1100.] - -[Sidenote: Pentecost at Westminster. May 20, 1100.] - -[Sidenote: No record of these assemblies.] - -[Sidenote: Death of Urban.] - -This year the King, occupied by no warfare beyond his realm, was able -to hold all the assemblies of the year at their wonted times and in -their wonted places.[750] At Christmas William Rufus wore his crown at -Gloucester, the place of his momentary repentance and of his wildest -insolence. He had there given the staff to Anselm; he had there sent -away Malcolm from his court without a hearing. At Easter he wore his -crown at Winchester, the city which had first received him after the -death of his father, where he had first unlocked his father’s -treasures, and had put in bonds those whom his father had set free. At -Whitsuntide he wore his crown at Westminster, and again held the -assembly and the banquet in the mighty hall of his own rearing. We -have no record of the acts of any of these three assemblies. The two -former at least may well have been gatherings which came together more -for the display of kingly magnificence than for the transaction of any -real business of the realm. All things seemed to be as glorious as -ever for the defeated of Mayet and Chaumont. In the death of Urban -Rufus saw the removal of an enemy, at least of a hindrance in his way. -He had indeed found that Urban could be won to his will by a bribe. -Still he was a Pope, a Pope whom he had himself acknowledged, a Pope -whom it might be needful to bribe. Better far was it to come back to -the happy days before he had been cajoled by Cardinal Walter, before -he had been frightened into naming Anselm, the happy days when he was -troubled by no archbishop in the land and no pope out of it. Those -days were come again. Anselm was far away; Urban was dead; Paschal he -had not acknowledged. The last recorded words of Rufus before the day -of Lammas and its morrow were those in which he set forth his fixed -purpose to use as he would the freedom which was his once more.[751] - -[Sidenote: Continental schemes of Rufus.] - -But if we have no record of the three assemblies of the year, if we -have no traditional sayings of the King, if we have no record of -anything that really happened during these months, we can see that -great schemes were planned; great preparations were making, which must -have been the matter of deep debates at the Pentecostal assembly. Our -own Chroniclers are silent; our tidings come from our familiar teacher -at Saint Evroul. Though the Red King kept himself so close in his -island kingdom, he was planning greater things than ever beyond the -sea. He had Normandy to keep and he had Aquitaine to win. For such -objects he had need of both gold and steel, and we cannot doubt that -in the assembly held at Whitsuntide within the new hall of Westminster -King William demanded no small store of both to enable him to carry -out the schemes of his overweening pride. - -[Sidenote: Robert’s return from the crusade.] - -[Sidenote: His marriage with Sibyl of Conversana.] - -[Sidenote: His reception in south Italy.] - -[Sidenote: Character of the Duchess Sibyl.] - -[Sidenote: His funds for buying back the duchy.] - -Normandy was to be kept. Duke Robert, the bold crusader, was coming -back from the lands where his name, once so despised in his own duchy, -had been crowned with unlooked-for glory. He was coming back by the -path by which he had gone, through the Norman lands of southern Italy. -And he was coming with a companion whose presence promised something -in the way of amendment alike of his private life and of his public -government. He brought with him a wife, Sibyl of Conversana, daughter -of Geoffrey lord of Brindisi, and grand-niece of Robert Wiscard. He -had been welcomed by his southern countrymen with all honours and with -precious gifts; both Rogers, the Duke of Apulia and the young Count of -Sicily, to be one day the first and all but the most famous of -Sicilian kings, were zealous in showing their regard. But from the -house of the Count of Conversana he took away the most precious gift -of all in a woman who is described as uniting all merits and beauties -within and without, and who was certainly far better fitted to rule -the duchy of Normandy than he was.[752] His father-in-law and his -other friends gave him great gifts in money and precious things -towards redeeming his dominions from his brother.[753] But William -Rufus had no thought of restoring the pledge; he had Normandy in his -grasp, and he had no mind to let it go. - -[Sidenote: William of Aquitaine;] - -[Sidenote: his crusade;] - -[Sidenote: He proposes to pledge his duchy to Rufus.] - -[Sidenote: Preparations for occupation of Aquitaine.] - -But besides this, Aquitaine was to be won. It was indeed to be won in -a peaceful sort, as far as the engagements of its sovereign went. Duke -William of Poitiers, the ally of William of England in his French -campaign, was at last ready for his crusade. Strange warrior of the -cross, strange comrade for Godfrey or even for Robert, was he who, -after his return from the Sepulchre, spared the life of a holy bishop -who rebuked him on the ground that he hated him too much to send him -to paradise, who brought together the monastic harem at Niort, and who -marched to battle with the form of his adulterous mistress painted on -his shield.[754] But now he was setting forth for the holy war. Thirty -thousand warriors――the conventional number everywhere――from Aquitaine, -Gascony, and other lands of southern Gaul, were ready, we are told, to -follow in his train.[755] But Duke William, like Duke Robert, lacked -money. He sent therefore to the master of the hoard which seemed open -to all comers, seeking to pledge his duchy, as Robert had pledged -his.[756] We cannot help suspecting that some such arrangement had -been made at an earlier time, when the two Williams joined their -forces together against France; but, if not made then, it was made -now. King William readily agreed to an offer which would practically -make him master of the greater part of Gaul. He was lord of Normandy; -he held himself to be master of Maine; he was about to become lord of -Aquitaine. Maine and Poitou indeed did not march on each other; but -Anjou might be won by some means. Fulk could not hold out against a -prince who hemmed him in on either side. Either gold or steel would -surely open the way to Angers, as well as to Rouen and to Bourdeaux. -Prepared for all chances, William was gathering money, gathering -ships, gathering men, for a greater work than fruitless attacks on -Mayet and Chaumont, for the great task of enlarging his dominion,――our -guide says to the Garonne; he should rather have said to the Pyrenees. -Robert was to be kept out of Normandy; to restore to the debtor his -pledge was the dull virtue of the merchant or the Jew; such duties -touched not the honour of the good knight. No man could perform all -his promises, and the restoration of Normandy was a promise of the -class which needed not to be performed. Aquitaine was to be peacefully -bought; but possibly arms might be needed there also. All who should -dare to withstand the extension of William’s dominion to the most -southern borders of Gaul were to be brought to obedience at the -sword’s point. - -[Sidenote: His alleged designs on the Empire.] - -I have said “dominion;” but the word in the writer whom I follow is -_Empire_.[757] That name, one not unknown to us in the history of -Rufus, may have been dropped at random; but it may have been meant to -show that mightier schemes still were at work in the restless brain of -the Red King. We may couple the phrase with vague hints dropped -elsewhere, which show that, whether Rufus really thought of it or not, -men gave him credit for dreams of dominion greater even than the -supplanting of Fulk of Angers, of William of Poitiers, and of Philip -of Paris all at once. The doctrine that Britain was a land fruitful in -tyrants was to be carried out on a greater scale than it had been in -the days of Carausius or Maximus or the later Constantine. The father -had once been looked for at kingly Aachen;[758] the son, so men -believed, hoped to march in the steps of Brennus to imperial -Rome.[759] He would outdo the glory of all crusaders, of princes of -Antioch and kings of Jerusalem. Geoffrey, Bohemund, his own brother, -had knelt as vassals in the New Rome; he would sit as an Emperor in -the Old. Then he would have no question about acknowledging or not -acknowledging popes; he would make them or refuse to make them as he -thought good. The patrimony of Saint Peter might be let to farm, along -with the estates of Canterbury and Winchester and Salisbury. Whether -such thoughts really passed through the mind of William Rufus we can -neither affirm nor deny. That men could believe that they were passing -through his mind shows that they believed, and rightly, that he was -capable of dreaming, of planning, of attempting, anything. - -[Sidenote: Portents.] - -[Sidenote: Death of young Richard. May, 1100.] - -[Sidenote: William, natural son of Robert.] - -But while the preparations were making, the portents were gathering. -First came a stroke which reads like a rehearsal of his own end. While -Robert was coming back with his Sibyl to found a new and legitimate -dynasty in the Norman duchy, a blow fell on one of the children of his -earlier wanderings.[760] One Richard had already fallen in the haunted -shades of the New Forest,[761] and his death opened the path for his -younger brother to reign at Winchester and Rouen and Le Mans, and to -dream of reigning at Dublin, Paris, Poitiers, and Rome. Another -Richard, the natural son of Duke Robert, who must have been enrolled -in the service of his uncle, was cut off on the same fatal ground -early in May, shortly before the Westminster assembly. The King’s -knights were hunting the deer in the forest; one of them drew his bow -to bring down a stag; the arrow missed the intended victim, and -pierced Richard with a stroke which brought him dead to the -ground.[762] Great grief followed his fall; his unwitting slayer, to -escape from vengeance, fled and became a monk.[763] Young Richard thus -died while his uncle was making ready to keep his father out of the -dominions which he was pledged to restore. His brother William, the -other son of Robert’s vagrant days, seems to have followed the -fortunes of his father, till, after Tinchebrai, he went to Jerusalem -and died fighting in the Holy War.[764] - - * * * * * - -[Sidenote: Wonders and apparitions.] - -[Sidenote: Warlike preparations. June-July, 1100.] - -[Sidenote: Consecration of Gloucester Abbey. July 15, 1100.] - -[Sidenote: Vision and prophecies.] - -The death of Richard might be a warning. It might be taken as a sign -that some special power of destiny hovered over the spot where the -dwellings of man and the houses of God had been swept away to make -clearer ground for sports where joy is sought for in the wanton -infliction of death and suffering. Still it was no portent out of the -ordinary course of nature. But portents of this kind too were not -lacking. The pool of blood in Berkshire welled again;[765] the devil -was seen openly in many places, showing himself, it would seem, to -Normans only, and talking to them of their countrymen the King and the -Bishop of Durham.[766] Strange births, stranger unbirths, were told as -the news of the day to a visitor from another land.[767] As the day -approaches, a crowd of vivid pictures seems to pass before us. June -and July passed amidst preparations for war, but July saw also one -great ecclesiastical ceremony. Abbot Serlo’s minster of Gloucester was -now near enough to perfection for its consecration to be sought for. -Whether all the lofty pillars of the nave were as yet reared or not, -at least that massive eastern limb with its surrounding chapels, which -may still be seen through the lace-work of later times, was already -finished. The rite of its hallowing was done by the diocesan Samson -and three other bishops, Gundulf of Rochester, Gerard of Hereford, and -Hervey the shepherd of the stormy diocese of Bangor. The zeal of the -monks and their visitors was stirred up by the ceremony, and the house -of Saint Peter at Gloucester became a special seat of vision and -prophecy. One godly brother[768] saw in the dreams of the night the -Lord sitting on his throne, with the hosts of heaven and the choirs of -the saints around him. A fair and stately virgin stood forth and knelt -before the Lord. She prayed him to have pity on his people who were -ground down beneath the yoke of King William of England. The dreamer -trembled, and understood that the suppliant was the holy Church of -Christ, calling on her Lord and Saviour to look down on all that her -children bore from the lusts and robberies and other evil deeds of the -King and his followers.[769] Serlo, filled with holy zeal, set down -the vision in writing, and sent the message of warning to the -King.[770] - -[Sidenote: Abbot Fulchered’s sermon at Gloucester. August 1, 1100.] - -But the visions of the night were not all. A more open voice of -prophecy, so men deemed, was not lacking. A few days after the monk’s -vision, on the day of Lammas, a crowd of all classes was gathered in -Saint Peter’s church at Gloucester to keep the feast of Saint -Peter-in-Chains.[771] Fulchered, Abbot of Earl Roger’s house at -Shrewsbury, once a monk of Earl Roger’s house at Seez, an eloquent -preacher of the divine word, was chosen from a crowd of elders[772] to -make his discourse to the people. A near neighbour of the terrible son -of his own founder, none could know better than he under what woes the -land was groaning. Fulchered mounted the pulpit of the newly-hallowed -minster, and the spirit of the old prophets came upon him.[773] In -glowing words he set forth the sins and sorrows of the time, how -England was given as an heritage to be trodden under foot of the -ungodly. Lust, greediness, pride, all were rampant, pride which would, -if it were possible, trample under foot the very stars of heaven.[774] -The words have the ring of the words of Eadward on his deathbed; but -Eadward had to tell of coming sorrow, and of only distant deliverance. -Fulchered could tell of a deliverance which was nigh, even at the -doors. A sudden change was at hand; the men who had ceased to be men -should rule no longer.[775] And then in a strain which seems to carry -us on to the days of Naseby and Dunbar, he told how the Lord God was -coming to judge the open enemies of his spouse. He told how the -Almighty would smite Moab and Edom with the sword of vengeance, and -overthrow the mountains of Gilboa with a fearful shaking. “Lo,” he -went on, “the bow of wrath from on high is bent against the wicked, -and the arrow swift to wound is drawn from the quiver. It shall soon -smite, and that suddenly; let every man that is wise amend his ways -and avoid its stroke.”[776] - -[Sidenote: The alleged dream of the King.] - -[Sidenote: Exhortation of Gundulf.] - -Such is the report of Abbot Fulchered’s sermon, as it is told us by -one who no doubt set down with a special interest the words of the -first prelate of the minster into which the humble church of his own -father had grown.[777] Other stories tell us how on the night of that -same Wednesday a more fearful dream than that of the monk of -Gloucester disturbed the slumbers of some one. In the earlier version -the seer is a monk from beyond sea; in its later form the terrible -warning is vouchsafed to the King himself.[778] The story, as usual, -puts on fresh details as it grows; but its essential features are the -same in its simplest and in its most elaborate shape. The King, with -his proud and swelling air, scorning all around him, enters a church. -In one version it is a chapel in a forest; in another it is a minster -gorgeously adorned. Its walls were robed with velvet and purple, -stuffs wrought by the skill of the Greek, and with tapestry where the -deeds of past times lived in stitch-work, like the tale of Brihtnoth -at Ely and the newer tale of William at Bayeux.[779] Here were goodly -books, here were the shrines of saints, gleaming with gold and gems -and ivory, a sight such as the eyes of the master and spoiler of so -many churches had never rested on. At a second glance all this bravery -passed away; the walls and the altar itself stood bare. At a third -glance he saw the form of a man lying bare upon the altar. A cannibal -desire came on him; he ate, or strove to eat, of the body that lay -before him. His victim endured for a while in patience; then his face, -hitherto goodly and gentle as of an angel, became stern beyond words, -and he spoke――“Is it not enough that thou hast thus far grieved me -with so many wrongs? Wilt thou gnaw my very flesh and bones?” One -version gives the words another turn; the stern voice answers simply, -“Henceforth thou shalt eat of me no more.” In those accounts which -make the King the dreamer, Rufus tells the vision to a bishop――one -tale names Gundulf――who explains the easy parable. The exhortation -follows, to mend his ways, to hold a synod and to restore Anselm. The -King, in one account, in a momentary fit of penitence, promises to do -so. But his better feelings pass away; in defiance of all warnings, he -goes forth to hunt on the fatal ground, the scene of the wrong and -sacrilege of his father――in some of these versions the scene of -further wrong and sacrilege of his own. - - * * * * * - -[Sidenote: William at Brockenhurst. August 1, 1100.] - -[Sidenote: His companions.] - -[Sidenote: Henry.] - -[Sidenote: Walter Tirel.] - -[Sidenote: His father the Dean of Evreux.] - -[Sidenote: His lordships and marriage.] - -The details of some of these stories I shall discuss elsewhere. If -they prove nothing else, they prove at least the deep impression which -the Red King’s life and the Red King’s end made on the men of his own -days and of the days which followed them. One thing is certain; on the -first day of August, while Fulchered was preaching at Gloucester, King -William was in the New Forest, with his head-quarters seemingly at -Brockenhurst.[780] He had with him several men whose names are known -to us, as Gilbert of Laigle, once so fierce against William’s cause at -Rouen, Gilbert and Roger of Clare, the former of whom had won his -forgiveness by his timely revelations on the march to Bamburgh.[781] -Henry, Ætheling and Count, if not one of the party, was not far off; -he too had, if not his visions, at least his omens.[782] But chief -among the company, nearest, it would seem, to the King in sportive -intercourse, was one who was perhaps his subject in Normandy by birth, -perhaps his subject in England by tenure, but whose chief possessions, -as well as his feelings, belonged to another land.[783] This was a -baron of France, whom we once before heard of in better company, but -whom the fame of the Red King’s boundless liberality had led into his -service. In days before the stern laws of Hildebrand were strictly -enforced, a churchman of high rank, Fulk, Dean of Evreux, was, -seemingly by a lawful marriage, the father of a large family. Walter, -one of his sons, bore the personal surname of _Tirel_, _Tyrell_, in -many spellings, pointing perhaps to his skill in drawing the bow. He -became, by whatever means, lord of Poix in Ponthieu, and of Achères by -the Seine between Pontoise and Poissy; at the former of these -lordships, it would seem, he had once been the host of Anselm.[784] He -was not, in the days of the Survey at least, a land-owner of much -account in England. A small lordship in Essex, held under Richard of -Clare, is the only entry under any name by which he can be conceived -to be meant. He had married a wife, Adelaide by name, of the great -line of Giffard, who seems to have lived till the latter days of King -Henry. He was now a near friend of the Red King’s, a special sharer -with him in the sports of the forest, so much so that, when legend -came to attribute the laying waste of Hampshire to the younger instead -of the elder William, Walter Tirel was charged with having been the -adviser of the deed.[785] - -[Sidenote: _Gab_ of the King and Walter Tirel.] - -[Sidenote: Walter jeers at the king.] - -[Sidenote: William’s alleged subjects and allies.] - -[Sidenote: The King’s answer; he will keep Christmas at Poitiers.] - -[Sidenote: Angry words of Walter.] - -On the Wednesday of Fulchered’s sermon, the King and his chosen -comrade were talking familiarly. Walter fell into that kind of -discourse which is called in the Old-French tongue by the expressive -words _gaber_ and _gab_.[786] He began to talk big, to jeer at the -King for the small results of his own big talk. But the matter of the -discourse sounds a little strange, if it was really uttered at a -moment when such great preparations were making for the defence of -Normandy, for the purchase of Aquitaine, perhaps for the conquest of -Anjou, to say nothing of schemes greater and further off. The lord of -Poix asked the King why he did nothing; with his vast power, why did -he not attack some neighbour? Great as the Red King’s power was, -Walter is made to speak of it as a good deal greater than the truth, -so much so indeed that we can read the speech only as mockery. All -William’s men were ready at his call, the men of Britanny, of -Maine,[787] he adds of Anjou. The Flemings held of him――we have heard -of his dealings with their Count;[788] the Burgundians held him for -their king; Eustace of Boulogne would do anything at his bidding.[789] -Why did he not make war on somebody? Why did he not go forth and -conquer some land or other? The King answers that he means to lead his -host as far as the mountains――the Alps, we may suppose, are meant. He -will thence turn back to the West, and will keep his next Christmas -feast at Poitiers.[790] The mocking vein of Walter Tirel now turns to -anger; he bursts forth in wrathful words. It would be a great matter -indeed to go to the mountains and thence back to Poitiers in time for -Christmas. Burgundians and French would indeed deserve to die by the -worst of deaths, if they became subjects to the English.[791] - -[Sidenote: Illustrative value of the story.] - -This talk, put into the mouth of the King and his chosen comrade by a -writer of the next generation, is in every way remarkable. The King’s -boast that he would keep Christmas at Poitiers is found also in an -earlier writer, and it is almost implied in his preparations for -taking possession of Aquitaine.[792] The words about French and -Burgundians becoming subject to the English might sound more in -harmony with the next generation; but we have already seen examples -which show that, even so soon after the Norman Conquest of England, -the English name was beginning to be applied on continental lips to -all the subjects of the English crown. The armies of William Rufus -were English in the same sense in which the armies of Justinian were -Roman. The threat of a King of England, speaking on English ground, to -overrun all the provinces of Gaul is conceived as calling forth a -feeling of patriotic anger in the lord of Poix and Achères. Yet, while -we might have expected such an one to fight valiantly for Ponthieu or -the Vexin against a Norman invader, we might also have expected him to -be quite indifferent to the fate of Poitiers, indifferent at all -events to its transfer from the Aquitanian to the Norman William. The -speech is followed by words which imply that the King’s boast was -taken more seriously than it was meant, and which almost suggest a -plot on Walter’s part for the King’s destruction.[793] In the crowd of -conflicting tales with which we are now dealing, we must not insist on -any one as a trustworthy statement of undoubted facts; but the -dialogue which is put into the mouths of William Rufus and Walter -Tirel is almost as remarkable if we look on it as the invention of the -rimer himself as if we deem it to have been, in its substance, really -spoken by those into whose mouths it is put. - - * * * * * - -[Sidenote: Last day of William Rufus. August 2, 1100.] - -[Sidenote: Statement of the Chronicle.] - -[Sidenote: Other versions; Walter Tirel mentioned in most.] - -[Sidenote: Ralph of Aix.] - -[Sidenote: The charge denied by Walter.] - -[Sidenote: Estimate of the received tale.] - -[Sidenote: The statement of the Chronicle the only safe one.] - -[Sidenote: Wonder that he was not killed sooner.] - -Of the events of the next day we may say thus much with certainty; -“Thereafter on the morrow after Lammas day was the King William in -hunting from his own men with an arrow offshot, and then to Winchester -brought and in the bishopric buried.”[794] These words of our own -Chronicler state the fact of the King’s death and its manner; they -suggest treason, but they do not directly assert it; they name no one -man as the doer. Nearly all the other writers agree in naming Walter -Tirel as the man who drew the bow; but they agree also in making his -act chance-medley and not wilful murder. Yet it is clear that there -were other tales afloat of which we hear merely the echoes. One -tradition attributed the blow, not to Walter Tirel, but to a certain -Ralph of Aix.[795] As the tale is commonly told, the details of the -King’s death could have been known from no mouth but that of Walter -himself; yet it is certain that Walter himself, long after, when he -had nothing to hope or fear one way or the other, denied in the most -solemn way that he had any share in the deed or any knowledge of -it.[796] The words of the Chronicler, though they suggest treason, do -not shut out chance-medley; they leave the actor perfectly open. There -is nothing in the received tale which is in the least unlikely; but it -is the kind of tale which, even if untrue, might easily grow up. -William may have died by accident by the hand of Walter Tirel or of -any other. He may also have died by treason by the hand of Walter -Tirel or of any other. In this last case there were many reasons why -no inquiries should have been made, many reasons why the received tale -should be invented or adopted. It was just such a story as was wanted -in such a case. It satisfied curiosity by naming a particular actor, -while it named an actor who was out of reach, and did not charge even -him with any real guilt. In favour of the same story is the statement, -which can hardly be an invention, that Walter Tirel fled after the -King’s death. But this was a case in which a man who was innocent even -of chance-medley might well flee from the fear of a suspicion of -treason. And Walter’s own solemn denial may surely go for as much as -any mere suspicion against him. Guesses in such a case are easy; the -slayer may have been a friend of Henry, a friend of Anselm, a man -goaded to despair by oppression――all such guesses are likely enough in -themselves; there is no evidence for any of them. All that can be said -is that the words of the Chronicle certainly seem to point out the -actor, whether guilty or only unlucky, as belonging to the King’s -immediate following. “The King William was in hunting from his own men -by an arrow offshot.” Beyond that we cannot go with certainty. But the -number of men of every class who must have felt that they would be the -better, if an arrow or any other means of death could be brought to -light on the Red King, must have been great indeed. The real wonder -is, not that the shaft struck him in the thirteenth year of his reign, -but that no hand had stricken him long before. - - * * * * * - -[Sidenote: Accounts of the King’s last day.] - -Of the last day of the Red King, Thursday, the second day of August, -we have two somewhat minute pictures which belong to different hours -of the day. There is no contradiction between the two; the two may be -read as an unbroken story; but we have that slight feeling of distrust -which cannot fail to arise when it is clear that he who records the -events of the afternoon knew nothing of the events of the morning. The -details of such a day would be sure to be remembered; for the same -reason they ran a special chance of being coloured and embellished. We -shall therefore do well to go through the details of the earlier hours -of that memorable day as we find them written, not forgetting the -needful cautions, but at the same time not forgetting that the tale -has much direct evidence for it and has no direct evidence against -it.[797] - -[Sidenote: Morning of August 2.] - -[Sidenote: William’s dreams.] - -[Sidenote: Robert Fitz-hamon tells the monk’s dream.] - -[Sidenote: William’s mocking answer.] - -[Sidenote: His disturbance of mind.] - -[Sidenote: His morning.] - -The King then, even according to those who do not assign the specially -fearful vision to himself, passed a restless night, disturbed by -dreams which, on this milder showing, were ugly enough. He dreamed -that he was bled――a process which in those days seems to have passed -for a kind of amusement――and that the blood gushed up towards heaven, -so as to shut out the light of day.[798] He woke suddenly with the -name of our Lady on his lips; he bade a light to be brought, and bade -his chamberlains not to leave him.[799] He remained awake till -daybreak. Then, according to this version, came Robert Fitz-hamon, -entitled to do so as being in his closest confidence,[800] and told -him the dream of the monk from beyond sea. William was moved; but he -tried to hide his real feelings under the usual guise of mockery; “He -is a monk,” he said with his rude laugh, “he is a monk; monklike he -dreams for the sake of money; give him a hundred shillings.”[801] Here -we see the boasted liberality which recklessly squandered with one -hand what was wrung from the groaning people with the other. Seriously -disturbed in mind, William doubted whether he should go hunting that -morning; his friends urged him to run no risk, lest the dream should -come true. He therefore, to occupy his restless mind, gave the -forenoon to serious business;[802] there was enough of it on hand, if -he was planning a march to Rome or even a march to Poitiers. The early -dinner of those days presently came; he ate and drank more than usual, -hoping thus to stifle and drown the thoughts that pressed upon -him.[803] In this attempt he seems to have succeeded; after his meal -he went forth on his hunting. - -[Sidenote: He sets forth to hunt.] - -[Sidenote: The new arrows.] - -[Sidenote: He gives two of them to Walter Tirel.] - -[Sidenote: Abbot Serlo’s letter.] - -[Sidenote: William’s mockery.] - -[Sidenote: His sneers at English regard for omens.] - -At this point we take up the thread of the other story. The King, -after his meal, has regained his spirits, and, surrounded by his -followers and flatterers, he is making ready for the chase. He was -putting on his boots――boots doubtless of no small price――when a smith -drew near, offering him six new _catapults_, arrows, it would seem, -designed, not for the long bow, but for the more deadly arbalest or -cross-bow.[804] The King joyfully took them; he praised the work of -the craftsman; he kept four for himself, and gave two to Walter Tirel. -“Tis right,” he said, “that the sharpest arrows should be given to him -who knows how to deal deadly strokes with them.”[805] The two went on -talking and jesting; the flatterers of the King joined in admiringly. -Suddenly there came a monk from Gloucester charged with a letter from -Abbot Serlo. The letter told the dream of the monk, in which the Holy -Church had been seen calling on her Lord for vengeance on the evil -deeds of the King of the English. The letter was read to the -King[806]――there was a future king not far off who could read letters -for himself. William burst into his bitter laugh; he turned to his -favourite comrade; “Walter, do thou do justice, according to these -things which thou hast heard.” “So I will, my lord,” answered -Walter.[807] Then the King talks more at length about the Abbot’s -letter. “I wonder at my lord Serlo’s fancy for writing all this; I -always thought him a good old abbot. ’Tis very simple of him, when I -have so much business about, to take the trouble to put the dreams of -his snoring monks into writing and to send them to me all this way. -Does he think I am like the English, who throw up their journey or -their business because of the snoring or the dreams of an old -woman?”[808] This speech has a genuine sound; it should be noticed as -being the only speech put into the mouth of William Rufus which can be -construed as expressing any dislike or scorn for his English subjects -as such. Yet the words are rather words of good-humoured raillery than -expressive of any deeper feeling. The Red King oppressed and despised -all men, except his own immediate following. Practically his -oppression and scorn must have fallen most heavily on men of native -English birth; but there is no sign that he purposely picked them out -as objects of any special persecution. - -[Sidenote: William and his companions go to the hunt.] - -[Sidenote: The King and Walter Tirel.] - -[Sidenote: The King shot by an arrow.] - -[Sidenote: Various versions.] - -[Sidenote: Alleged devotion of the King at the last moment.] - -In the version which records this speech the sneer at the English -regard for omens are the Red King’s last recorded words. He now -mounted his horse and rode into a wooded part of the forest to seek -his sport, the sport of those to whom the sufferings of the wearied, -wounded, weeping, beast are a source of joy. Count Henry the King’s -brother,[809] William of Breteuil, and other nobles, went forth to the -hunt, and were scattered about towards different points. The King and -the lord of Poix kept together, with a few companions, some say; -others say that they two only kept together.[810] The sun was sinking -towards the west when an arrow struck the King; he fell, and his reign -and life were ended. This is all that we can say with positive -certainty. That the arrow came from the bow of Walter Tirel is a -feature common to nearly every account; but all the details differ. In -one highly picturesque version, not only the King and Walter -Tirel,[811] but a company of barons are in a thickly wooded part of -the forest near a marsh. The herd of deer comes near; the King gets -down from his horse to take better aim; the barons get down also, -Walter Tirel among them. Walter places himself near an elder-tree, -behind an aspen. A great stag passes by; an arrow badly aimed pierces -the King; by whose hand it was sent the teller of the tale knew not; -but the archers who were there said that the shaft came from the bow -of Walter Tirel. Walter fled at once; the King fell. He thrice cried -for the Lord’s body. But there was none to give it to him; the place -was a wilderness far from any church. But a hunter took herbs and -flowers and made the King eat, deeming this to be a communion. Such a -strange kind of figure of the most solemn act of Christian worship was -not unknown.[812] Our author charitably hopes that it might be -accepted in the case of the Red King, especially as he had received -holy bread――itself a substitute of the same kind――the Sunday before. - -[Sidenote: Another version;] - -[Sidenote: William unwilling to go to the hunt.] - -[Sidenote: He is shot by accident by a knight unnamed.] - -[Sidenote: He dies penitent.] - -In this version there is no mention of the warning dreams either of -the King or of any other person. The scene in the wood follows at once -on the boasting discourse with Walter Tirel. In another version the -King has the frightful dream; he receives, and receives in a good -spirit, the warning interpretation of the Bishop.[813] His companions, -knights and valets, make ready for the chase; they are mounted on -their horses; the bows are ready; the dogs are following; the dogs -bark; the horns blow; all is ready that could stir up the soul of the -hunter. The King is unwilling to stir; his companions tempt him, -entreat him, jeer at him; it is time to set out; he is afraid. He -tells them solemnly that he is sick and sad a hundredfold more than -they wot of. The end is come; he will not go to the forest. They think -that he is mocking, and at last constrain him to come. The chase is -described; the King seems to be alone with one unnamed companion. The -King calls on his comrade to shoot; he is frightened as being too near -the King. He shoots; the devil guides the barbed arrow so that it -glances from a bough, and pierces the King near the heart. He has just -strength enough to bid the knight to flee for his own life, and to -pray to God for him who has lost his life by his own folly, and who -has been so great a sinner against God. The knight rides off in bitter -grief, wishing a hundred times that he had himself been killed instead -of the King. - -[Sidenote: Tenderness towards Rufus in these two versions.] - -[Sidenote: Other versions mention Walter Tirel.] - -In these versions, both written in the Red King’s own tongue, the -details are very remarkable. They seem to come from a kind of wish, -like the feeling which strewed flowers on the grave of Nero, to make -the end of the oppressor and blasphemer one degree less frightful. -Other versions know nothing of this conversion at the last moment. In -one of them, the two, the King and Walter, are alone; the King shoots -at a stag; he hits the beast, but only with a slight wound. The stag -flies; the King follows him with his eyes, sheltering them with his -hand from the sun’s rays. Walter Tirel meanwhile aims at another stag, -misses him, and strikes the King. Rufus utters no word; like Harold, -he breaks off the shaft of the arrow; he falls on the ground, and -dies. Walter comes up, finds him lifeless, and takes to flight.[814] -Or again, the stag comes between his two enemies; Walter shoots; the -King at the same moment shifts his place; Walter’s arrow flies over -the stag’s back, and pierces the King.[815] In another version the -arrow, as we have already heard, glances from a tree;[816] in another -the King stumbles and falls upon it.[817] In later but not less -graphic accounts the string of the King’s bow breaks; the stag stands -still in amazement; the King calls to Walter, “Shoot, you devil,” -“Shoot, in the devil’s name; shoot, or it will be the worse for you.” -Walter shoots; his arrow, perhaps by a straight course, perhaps by -glancing against a tree, strikes the King to the heart.[818] - -[Sidenote: Dunstable version.] - -[Sidenote: The dream with new details.] - -[Sidenote: The prior of Dunstable warns the King.] - -[Sidenote: The King shot by Ralph of Aix.] - -In all these versions the arrow comes from the bow of a known -companion, and in all but one that companion is said to be Walter -Tirel. In another form of the story the general outline is the same, -but the persons are different. The vision which in the other version -is seen at Gloucester is moved to Dunstable, and is seen there by the -prior of that house. The change of place is unlucky, as the priory of -Dunstable was not yet founded.[819] The Prince on his throne, and the -fair woman complaining of the deeds of William Rufus, are seen, with -some differences of detail, but quite a new element is brought in. A -man all black and hairy offers five arrows to the Prince on the -throne, who gives them back again to him, saying that on the morrow -the wrongs of the suppliant woman shall be avenged by one of them. The -Prior has the vision explained to him much as in the other versions of -the story, but with the addition that, unless the King repented, the -woman――the Church――would be avenged by one of the arrows on the -morrow. The Prior starts from his sleep, and midnight as it was, he -sets out at once on a journey to the New Forest, as swift and headlong -as the King’s own ride to Southampton the year before. He reaches the -place at one in the afternoon, and finds the King going forth to hunt. -As soon as William sees him, he says that he knows why he is come, and -orders forty marks to be given to him. For, it is added, the King, who -destroyed other churches throughout all England, had a love for the -church of Dunstable and its prior, and had even built the minster -there at his own cost. The Prior says that he has come on much greater -and weightier matters; he takes the King aside; he tells him his -dream, and warns him on no account to go into the forest, but at once -to begin to repent and amend his ways. The Prior has hardly ended his -discourse when a man, like the man whom he had seen in his dream, -comes and offers the King five arrows, like the arrows of the dream. -The King gives them――not to Walter Tirol, who is not mentioned, but to -Ralph of Aix, to take with him into the forest. The Prior meanwhile -prays him not to go, but in vain. He goes into the wood, and is -presently shot with one of those arrows by the hand of Ralph. No -details are given, nor is it implied whether the King’s death was an -act of murder or of chance-medley. - - * * * * * - -[Sidenote: Impression made at the time by the death of Rufus.] - -[Sidenote: Its abiding memory.] - -[Sidenote: Local traditions.] - -[Sidenote: Impressive character of the death of Rufus.] - -[Sidenote: Rufus and Charles the First.] - -[Sidenote: The words of the Chronicle.] - -[Sidenote: End and character of Rufus.] - -[Sidenote: Judgement on the reign of Rufus.] - -These varying tales, whose very variety shows the impression which the -event made upon men’s minds, may make us glad to come back to the safe -statement of the Chronicler, that the Red King was shot from his own -men. The place and circumstances of the death of Rufus were such as -could not fail to stamp themselves upon men’s minds. We see the proud -and godless King, in the height of his pride and godlessness, with his -heart puffed up with wilder plans and more swelling boasts than any of -his plans and boasts in former years. He goes forth, in defiance of -all warning――for some kernel of truth there must surely be in so many -tales of warning――to take his pleasure in the place which men had -already learned to look on as fatal to his house, the place where his -brother had died by a mysterious death, where his nephew had died only -a few weeks before his own end. He goes forth, after striving first to -quiet his restless soul with business, and then to quench all thoughts -and all warnings in the wine-cup. In the midst of his sport, he falls, -by what hand no man knows for certain. One writer rejoices to tell us -how the oppressor of the Church died on the site of one of the -churches which had been uprooted to make way for his pleasures.[820] -Others rejoice to tell how the King whose life and reign had been that -of a wild beast, perished like a beast among the beasts.[821] And the -impression was not only at the time; it has been abiding. The death of -William Rufus is one of those events in English history which are -familiar to every memory and come readily to every mouth. His death -lives in the thoughts of not a few who have no clear knowledge of his -life. The arrow in the New Forest is well known to many who know -nothing of the real position of the Red King’s reign in English -history. The name of Walter Tirel springs readily to the lips of many -on whose ears the names of Randolf Flambard and Robert of Bellême, of -Helias of Maine and Malcolm of Scotland, nay the name of Anselm -himself, would fall like unwonted sounds. No keener local remembrance -can be found than that which binds together the name of Rufus and the -name of the New Forest. At the scenes of the great events of his -reign, at Rochester and Bamburgh and Le Mans, local memory has passed -away, and the presence of the Red King has to be called up by -book-learning only. In a word, in popular remembrance William Rufus -lives, not in his life but in his death. Nor is this wonderful. In the -widest survey of his reign, we can only say that his death was the -fitting ending of his life; in a life full of striking incident, it is -not amazing that the last and most striking incident of all should be -the best remembered. Of all the endings of kings in our long history, -the two most impressive are surely the two that are most opposite. -There is the death of the king who fell suddenly in the height of his -power, by an unknown hand in the thickest depths of the forest; and -there is the death of the king who, fallen from his power, was brought -forth to die by the stroke of the headsman, before the windows of his -own palace, in the sight of his people and of the sun. The striking -nature of the tale is worthy of its long remembrance; but one could -almost wish that the name of the supposed actor in the death of Rufus -had never attached itself to the story. The dark words of the -Chronicle are in truth more impressive than the tale, true or false, -of Walter Tirel. Rufus was shot in his hunting from his own men. That -is enough; his day was over. A life was ended, stained with deeds -which, in our history at least, stand out without fellow before or -after, but a life in which we may here and there see signs of great -powers wasted, even of momentary feelings which might have been -trained into something nobler. As it is, the career of William the Red -is one of which the kindest words that we can say are that he always -kept his word when it was plighted in a certain form, and that he was -less cruel in his own person than many men of his time, than some -better men than himself. But, however we judge of the man, there is -but one judgement to be passed on the reign. The arrow, by whomsoever -shot, set England free from oppression such as she never felt before -or after at the hand of a single man. - - * * * * * - -[Sidenote: Alleged final penitence of Rufus.] - -[Sidenote: The other version prevails.] - -[Sidenote: Accounts of William’s burial.] - -One tale of the death of Rufus, it will be remembered, charitably -describes him as seeking at the last for the mercy of the God whom he -had so often defied. Others paint him as stubborn to the end, and put -the name of the fiend in his mouth as his last words. The latter -version is the one which left its abiding remembrance; it is the one -which all men accepted at the time as the true picture of the -oppressor whose yoke was broken at that memorable Lammas-tide. But the -versions which try to assert a repentance for William Rufus at the -last moment try also to claim for him a solemn and honourable burial -amid the tears of mourning friends. One story goes so far as to place -at the head of the assembly the late Bishop of the diocese, Walkelin -of Winchester, whose body was already resting in the Old Minster, -while the revenues of his see were in the hands of the King. This -version gives us a vivid picture of the scene which followed the -King’s death.[822] A company of barons gather round the corpse. There -were the sons of Richard of Bienfaite, pointedly distinguished, the -one as _Earl_, the other only as _Lord_.[823] There were Gilbert of -Laigle and Robert Fitz-hamon, names familiar to us, and William of -Montfichet, a name afterwards well known, but which is not enrolled in -Domesday. These lords weep and rend their hair; they beat themselves -and wish they were dead; they could never have such another lord. -Gilbert of Laigle at last bids them turn from vainly lamenting the -lord who could not come back to them to paying the last honours to -what was left of him. The huntsmen make a bier; they strew it with -flowers and fern; they lay it on two palfreys; they place the corpse -on the bier and cover it with the new mantles of Robert Fitz-hamon and -William of Montfichet. Then they bear him to the minster of Saint -Swithhun, where bishops, abbots, clerks, and monks, a goodly company, -are come together. Bishop Walkelin, strange to say, watches by the -body of the King till the morning. Then it is buried with such -worship, such saying of masses, as no man had ever heard before, such -as no man would hear again till the day of doom. - -[Sidenote: The genuine story.] - -[Sidenote: Popular canonizations.] - -[Sidenote: Popular excommunication of Rufus.] - -[Sidenote: He is buried in the Old Minster without religious rites.] - -[Sidenote: Fall of the tower. 1107.] - -Such is the tale of those who would soften down the story; but the -version which bears on it the stamp of truth gives us quite another -picture. The King, forsaken by his nobles and companions, lay dead in -the forest, as little cared for as his father had been when he lay -dead in his chamber at Saint Gervase. Those who had been his comrades -in sport hastened hither and thither to their own homes, to guard them -against troubles that might arise, now that the land had no longer a -ruler. Only a few churls of the neighbourhood, men of the race at whom -Rufus had sneered for heeding omens and warnings, were, now that omens -and warnings had proved too true, ready to do the last corporal work -of mercy to the oppressor. They laid the bleeding body on a rustic -wain; they covered it as they could, with coarse cloths, and then took -it, dripping blood as it went, to the gates of Winchester. He who had -so dearly loved the sports of the woods was himself borne from the -woods to the city, like a savage boar pierced through by the -hunting-spear.[824] And now took place one of the most wonderful -scenes that our history records.[825] That history records not a few -cases of popular canonization; neither pope nor king could hinder Earl -Waltheof and Earl Simon from working signs and wonders on behalf of -the folk for whom they had died.[826] But nowhere else do we read of a -popular excommunication. William Rufus, as I have more than once -remarked, had never been openly cut off from the communion of the -Church. He had died indeed unshriven and unabsolved, but so had many a -better man in the endless struggles of those rough days. There was no -formal ground for refusing to his corpse or to his soul the rites, the -prayers, the offerings, which were the portion of the meanest of the -faithful. But a common thought came on the minds of all men that for -William Rufus those charitable rites could be of none avail. His foul -life, his awful death, was taken as a sign that he was smitten by a -higher judgement than that of Popes and Councils. A crowd of all -orders, ranks, and sexes, brought together by wonder or pity――we will -not deem that they came in scorn or triumph――met the humble funeral -procession, and followed the royal corpse to the Old Minster. The dead -man had been a king; the consecrating oil had been poured on his head; -his body was therefore allowed to pass within the hallowed walls, and -was laid with all speed in a grave beneath the central tower. But in -those rites, at once sad and cheerful, which accompany the burial of -the lowliest of baptized men, the lord of England and Normandy had no -share. No bell was rung; no mass was said; no offerings were made for -the soul which was deemed to have passed beyond the reach even of -eternal mercy. No man took from the hoard which Rufus had filled by -wrong to win the prayers of the poor for him by almsgiving. Men deemed -that for him prayer was too late; no scattering abroad of the treasure -by the hands of others could atone for the wrong by which the treasure -had first been brought together. Many looked on; but few mourned. None -wept for him but the mercenaries who received his pay, and the baser -partners of his foul vices. They would gladly have torn his slayer in -pieces, but he was already far away out of their reach. Thus unwept, -unprayed for, a byeword, an astonishment, and a hissing, the Red King -lay beneath the pavement of the minster of St. Swithhun. A few years -later the tower under which he lay crumbled and fell. Men said that it -fell because so foul a corpse lay beneath it.[827] - - * * * * * - -[Sidenote: Portents at William’s death.] - -[Sidenote: Dream of Abbot Hugh of Clugny. July 31, 1100.] - -[Sidenote: Vision of Anselm’s doorkeeper. August 1.] - -[Sidenote: News brought to Anselm’s clerk. August 2.] - -[Sidenote: Vision of Count William of Mortain. August 2.] - -But as portents had gone before the fall of the Red King, so portents -did not wait for the crumbling of Walkelin’s tower to startle men in -strange ways with the news that he had fallen. That news, so say the -legends of the time, was known in strange ways in far-off places, long -before the tidings could have been brought by the utmost speed of man; -sooner, it would seem, than the moment when the arrow hit its designed -or unwitting mark. Already on the last day of July, the holy abbot -Hugh of Clugny was able to tell Anselm that he had seen in a dream the -King of the English brought before the throne of God, accused, judged, -and condemned to eternal damnation.[828] The next day, the night of -the kalends of August, a bright youth stood before Anselm’s -door-keeper at Lyons, as he strove to sleep, and asked if he wished to -hear the news. The news was that the strife between King William and -Archbishop Anselm was over.[829] The next day, the day of the King’s -death, one of the Archbishop’s clerks was at the matin service, -singing with his eyes shut. He felt a small paper put into his hand -and a voice bade him read. He looked up; the bearer of the paper was -gone; but he read the words, “King William is dead.”[830] Within our -own island the news was said to have been spread abroad in yet -stranger ways. At the same hour when King William went forth to hunt -in the New Forest, his cousin Count William of Mortain went forth for -his sport also in some of his hunting-grounds in Cornwall. He too -found himself by chance alone, apart from any of his comrades. No -archer from Poix crossed his path, but a sight far more fearful. A -huge goat, shaggy and black, met him, bearing on his back a king――how -was his kingship marked?――black and naked, and wounded in the midst of -his breast. The Count adjured the beast in the holiest name to say -what all this meant.[831] The power of speech was not lacking to the -monster. “I bear,” he answered, “your king, rather your tyrant, -William the Red, to his doom. For I am the evil spirit, I am the -avenger of the wickedness with which he raged against the Church of -Christ, and I brought about his death, at the bidding of the blessed -Alban, protomartyr of England, who made his moan to the Lord, because -this man sinned beyond measure in the island which he had been the -first to hallow.”[832] From what mint this wild tale comes it is -needless to add. The house of Saint Alban was only one of thirteen -abbeys which the King had kept vacant to receive their revenues.[833] -But the other twelve were less rich in that special growth both of -legend and of genuine history which adorns the house of the -protomartyr. - - -§ 2. _The First Days of Henry._ - -_August 2――November 11, 1100._ - -[Sidenote: Vacancy of the throne.] - -[Sidenote: Claims of Robert by the treaty of 1091.] - -[Sidenote: Such claims little regarded.] - -[Sidenote: Choice confined to the house of the Conqueror.] - -[Sidenote: No thought of either Eadgar.] - -[Sidenote: Choice between Robert and Henry.] - -[Sidenote: Claims of Henry; the only son of a king.] - -[Sidenote: His personal merits.] - -[Sidenote: Speedy election of Henry.] - -The throne was again vacant; and now came the question which -Englishmen knew so well whenever the throne was vacant, Whom should -they choose to fill it? There was indeed an instrument in being, dated -nine years before, by which it had been agreed that, if either Robert -or William died without lawful issue, the survivor should succeed to -the dominions of his brother.[834] But Englishmen had never allowed -their most precious birthright to be thus lightly signed away -beforehand. And many men of Norman birth must by this time have put on -the feelings of Englishmen on this point as on many others. With the -great mass of both races there could have been no doubt at all as to -the right man to place upon the vacant throne. By this time, we may be -sure, all thought had passed away of choosing outside the line of the -Conqueror; and if such a thought had come into the head of any man, -there was no candidate who could have been brought forward. The elder -Eadgar was far away on his crusade, and no one was likely to think of -sending to Scotland to offer the crown to his nephew. His nieces were -near at hand; but the thought of a female ruler did not come into -men’s minds till the next generation. Within the house of the -Conqueror there were two claimants. Robert had whatever right the -treaty could give him, a better right undoubtedly than any which he -could put forward as the eldest son of his father. But a paper claim -of this kind went for little when the man who asserted it was far -away, and when, had he been at hand, everything except the letter of -the treaty was against him. It went for naught when there, on the very -spot, was the man whom every sign marked out for kingship. There among -them was the only man――unless indeed they had gone to Norway to seek -for the younger Harold――who was the son of a crowned King of the -English. There was the one man of the reigning house who, born on -English soil of the Norman stock, could be looked on as a countryman -by Normans and English alike. There was the man who, while his -brothers had, in different ways, so deeply misgoverned on their -several sides of the sea, had shown, by his wise rule of a small -dominion, how far better suited he was than either of them to be -entrusted with the rule of a mighty kingdom. The Count of the -Côtentin, Henry the Ætheling, Henry the Clerk, was the man whose name -spoke alike to English and to Norman hearts. To the Normans he was the -son of their conquering Duke, the descendant of the dukes that had -been before him, the man who had made one spot of Norman ground -prosperous while anarchy tore the rest in pieces. To the English he -was their own Ætheling, the one son of their king, their countryman, -as they fondly deemed, speaking the tongue of Ælfred, sent to renew -the law of Eadward. With such a candidate at their doors, the bit of -diplomatic parchment was torn to the winds. No time was to be lost; -the land could not go without a king. The work was done speedily and -decisively. The record which tells how the late king died in the midst -of his unright, without shrift, without atonement, goes on to say, “On -the Thursday was he slain and on the morrow was he buried; and, after -that he buried was, the Witan that nigh at hand were his brother Henry -to king chose.”[835] - - * * * * * - -[Sidenote: Story of Henry on the day of William’s death.] - -[Sidenote: Henry hastes to Winchester.] - -[Sidenote: William of Breteuil maintains the claim of Robert.] - -[Sidenote: Popular feeling for Henry.] - -[Sidenote: Formal meeting for the election. August 3.] - -On the day of the Red King’s fall Count Henry was hunting in the New -Forest, but not in the same immediate part of it as his brother. The -tale ran that the string of his bow broke, that he went to the house -of a churl to get wherewithal to mend it. While the bowstring is -mending, an old woman of the house asks one of the Count’s companions -who his master was. He answers that he is Henry, brother of the king -of the land. She tells them that she knows by augury that the King’s -brother shall soon be king himself, and bids them remember her -words.[836] Henry turns again to his sport, but, as he draws near to -the wood, men meet him, one, two, three, then nine and ten, telling -him of the King’s death.[837] In this account, he goes in grief to the -place where the corpse lay;[838] a more likely version carries him -straight to the hoard at Winchester, where, as lawful heir of the -kingdom, he demands the keys at the hands of the guard.[839] The tale -reminds us of Cæsar and Metellus.[840] William of Breteuil withstands -the demand. He pleads the elder birth of Robert and the homage which -both Henry and himself had done to him. Robert had waged wars far off -for the love of God; he was now on his way to take his crown and -kingdom in peace.[841] A fierce strife arose; a crowd swiftly -gathered, and it was soon seen on which side the feelings of the -people lay. Men pressed together from all quarters to swell the -company of him who in their eyes was the lawful heir claiming his -right. The voice of England――so much of England as had heard the -news――rose high against the stranger who dared to withstand the -English Ætheling, the son of a crowned king born in the land. Thus, -four-and-thirty years after the great battle, Englishmen still looked -on the son of William Fitz-Osbern, nay on the son of William the Great -born to a duke in Normandy, as outlandish men. But the son of William -the Great, born to a king in their own land, they claimed as their own -countryman. Strengthened by the favour of the people, the Ætheling put -his hand on his sword’s hilt; he would endure no vain excuses to keep -him out of the inheritance of his father.[842] A stop seems to have -been put to this open strife, perhaps by night, perhaps by the coming -of the lowly funeral pomp of the fallen king on the Friday morning. -The unhallowed ceremony over, the Witan came together in a more -regular assembly for the formal choice of a king. - -[Sidenote: Division of the assembly;] - -[Sidenote: English and Norman supporters of Henry;] - -[Sidenote: supporters of Robert.] - -[Sidenote: Comparison with the assembly after the death of Cnut. 1035.] - -[Sidenote: The divided kingdom now impossible.] - -[Sidenote: Henry chosen;] - -[Sidenote: influence of Henry Earl of Warwick.] - -The place of their meeting, whether in the minster or in the king’s -palace, is not recorded.[843] Wherever it was, other voices were now -to be heard besides those of the Englishmen of Winchester and the -coasts thereof. These called with one voice for their own Ætheling; -but the voices of the Norman lords were by no means of one accord. -Some of the immediate companions of the late king had hastened at once -on his fall to pledge themselves to the cause of Henry. But in the -assembly which now came together a strong party, Normans we may be -sure to a man, supported the cause of Robert. There are few assemblies -of which we would more gladly hear the details than of this, in which -the claims of two candidates for the crown were debated, not without -fierce strife, but at least without bloodshed. We are reminded of the -assembly which, sixty-five years before, peaceably decided between the -claims of Harthacnut and the first Harold.[844] But then the question -was settled by a division of the kingdom; now such a thought is not -breathed. The Conqueror had made England a realm one and indivisible; -it was doubtful to which of his sons it was to pass, but, to whichever -it passed, it was to pass whole. Unluckily, when debates concerned the -kingdom only, without touching any ecclesiastical question, no Eadmer -or William Fitz-Stephen was found to report them. We know only the -result. Henry was chosen, and he largely owed his election to one -special friend. This was his namesake Henry, Earl of Warwick, the -younger son of the old Roger of Beaumont and brother of the more -famous Count of Meulan, soon to be Earl of Leicester. Earl Henry and -his wife Margaret of Mortagne bear a good character among the writers -of their time, and they seem to have been designed for a more peaceful -age than that in which their lot was cast. Chiefly by the influence of -Henry of Warwick, Henry of Coutances and Domfront was chosen to the -English crown. The work was almost as speedy as the burial of Eadward, -the election and the crowning of Harold. Quite as speedy it could not -be, when the Gemót of election was held at Winchester, while the -precedents of three reigns made it seem matter of necessity that the -unction and coronation should be done at Westminster. Before the sun -set on the day after the death of Rufus, England had again, not indeed -a full king, but an undisputed king-elect. - -[Sidenote: The hoard opened to the king-elect.] - -[Sidenote: He grants the bishopric of Winchester to William Giffard.] - -[Sidenote: Consecrated 1107; died 1129.] - -Against a king-elect the gates of the hoard could no longer be shut. -Not five thousand pounds only, but the whole treasure of the kingdom -was now Henry’s. His first act was to stop one of the many sources by -which the hoard was filled. One of them was found in the revenues of -the vacant bishopric of the city in which they were met. Henry, still -only chosen and not crowned, took on him to do one act of royal -authority which all men would hail as a sign that the new reign was -not to be as the last. As the uncrowned Ætheling Eadgar had confirmed -the election of Abbot Brand by the monks of Peterborough,[845] so the -uncrowned Ætheling Henry bestowed the staff of the see of Winchester -on the late king’s Chancellor, William Giffard, doubtless a kinsman of -the aged Earl of Buckingham. In his appointment we may perhaps see a -wish on the part of a king who was emphatically the choice of the -English people to conciliate at once the Norman nobles and the royal -officials.[846] But seven years were to pass before the bishop-elect -appointed by the king-elect became a full bishop by the rite of -consecration. And what we should hardly have looked for in a minister -of the Red King, some of those years were years of confessorship and -exile endured by the new prelate on behalf of an ecclesiastical -principle.[847] - -[Sidenote: Need for hastening the coronation.] - -[Sidenote: Henry crowned at Westminster. August 5, 1100.] - -[Sidenote: Form of his oath.] - -[Sidenote: He swears to undo the evils of his brother’s reign.] - -[Sidenote: Joy at Henry’s accession.] - -But Henry, Ætheling and Count, was not long to remain a mere -king-elect. The interregnum ended on the fourth day. It was not a time -to tarry; it was needful that the land should have a full king at the -first moment that the rite of his hallowing could be gone through. It -was known that Robert was on his way back from Apulia, and Henry and -his counsellors feared lest, if the Duke should show himself in -England or even in Normandy before the crown was safe on the new -king’s brow, the Norman nobles in England might repent of an election -in which it is clear that they had not very heartily agreed.[848] From -Winchester therefore Henry went to London with all speed, in company -with Count Robert of Meulan, who kept under the new reign the same -post of specially trusted counsellor which he had held during the -reign of Rufus.[849] On the Sunday after that memorable Thursday, -Count Henry was admitted to the kingly office in the West Minster. As -the Primate was far away, the rite of consecration was performed by -the highest suffragan of his province, Maurice Bishop of London.[850] -The form of Henry’s coronation oath seems, like the oaths of his -father and his brother,[851] to have had a special reference to the -circumstances of the time. It is the oath of a reformer, of a king who -has to bring back right after a season of wrong. As the memory of -Rufus had been branded in his burial as the memory of no other king -ever was, so it was branded no less in the coronation rites of his -successor. The new king swore, as usual, to hold the best law that on -any king’s day before him stood; but he swore further to God and to -all folk to put aside the unright that in his brother’s time was.[852] -These weighty promises made, Bishop Maurice of London hallowed Henry -to king, and, according to the great law of his father, all men in -this land bowed to him and sware oaths and became his men.[853] The -work was now done; the diplomatic meshes of nine years before had been -broken asunder by the strong will of the English people. England had -again a king born on her own soil, a king of her own rearing, her own -choosing, King of the English in a truer sense than those who went -either before him or after him for some generations. Great was the -gladness as the news spread through the length and breadth of the -land. The long hopes of the English, the dark sayings of the Britons, -were fulfilled in the coming of the king sworn before all things to -undo the wrongs of the evil time. The good state was brought back; the -golden age had come again; the days of unlaw had passed away; the Lion -of Justice reigned.[854] - -[Sidenote: He puts forth his Charter.] - -[Sidenote: Its provisions.] - -[Sidenote: The Church to be free;] - -[Sidenote: ecclesiastical vacancies.] - -Before the Sunday of his consecration had passed, King Henry had put -the solemn promises which he had made before the altar into the shape -of a legal document. That very day he set forth in writing that famous -charter which formed the groundwork of the yet more famous charter of -John.[855] I have commented on its main provisions elsewhere, and I -have tried to show how it at once establishes the new doctrines as to -the tenure of land, and promises to reform the abuses to which they -had already led.[856] I will now go through its main provisions in -order. First, Henry, King of the English, does his faithful people to -wit that he has been crowned king by the common counsel of the barons -of the whole realm of England.[857] He had found the realm ground down -with unrighteous exactions. For the fear of God and for the love which -he has to his people, he first of all makes the Church of God free. He -will not sell the Church nor put her to farm.[858] When an archbishop, -bishop, or abbot, dies, he will take nothing during the vacancy from -the demesne of his church or from its tenants. And he will put away -the evil customs with which the realm of England was oppressed, which -evil customs he goes on to set down in order. - -[Sidenote: Reliefs.] - -Secondly, he touches the question of reliefs. The heir of lands held -in chief of the crown shall no longer, as was done in his brother’s -time, be constrained to _redeem_ his land at an arbitrary price; he -shall _relieve_ it by a just and lawful relief.[859] And as the King -does by his tenants-in-chief, he calls on his tenants-in-chief to do -in their turn by their under-tenants. - -[Sidenote: Marriage.] - -Thirdly, he comes to the abuse of the lord’s rights in the matter of -marriage.[860] He will take nothing for licence of marriage, nor will -he meddle with the right of his tenants to dispose of their daughters -or other kinswomen, unless the proposed bridegroom should be the -King’s enemy. The rights of the childless widow are also secured. - -[Sidenote: Wardship.] - -The fourth clause touches the case of the widow with children. The -mother herself or some fitting kinsman shall have the wardship.[861] -And as the King does by his barons, so shall they do in the case of -the daughters and widows of their men. - -[Sidenote: The coinage.] - -Fifthly, the coinage is to be brought back to the state in which it -was in the days of King Eadward, and _justice_ is denounced against -false moneyers and other retailers of false coin.[862] Sharp justice -it was, as we know from the annals of Henry’s reign. - -[Sidenote: Debts and suits.] - -Sixthly, The King forgives all debts owing to his brother, and stops -all suits set on foot by him. This is not the first time in which it -is presumed that claims made by the crown must be unjust. Henry -excepts debts arising out of the ordinary farming of the crown lands; -he excepts also anything that any man had agreed to pay for the -inheritances or other property of others.[863] Does this refer to -property confiscated and sold by the King? Payments which had been -made in relief for a man’s own inheritance are specially -forgiven.[864] - -[Sidenote: Wills.] - -Seventhly, he confirms the free right of bequest of personal property. -If a man, through warfare or sickness, dies intestate, his wife, -children, kinsfolk, and lawful men, are to dispose of his money as -they may think best for his soul.[865] - -[Sidenote: Amercements.] - -The eighth provision goes back a step further than the others. It -cancels the practice of both Williams, and goes back in the most -marked way to earlier times. If one of the King’s barons or other men -incurred forfeiture, he should not bind himself to be at the King’s -mercy, as had been done in the time of his father and brother; he -should be fined a fixed amount according to custom, as was done in the -days of the kings before his father.[866] - -[Sidenote: Murders.] - -Ninthly, the King forgives all _murders_ up to the day of his -coronation. That is to say, he forgives all payments due from the -hundreds according to the special law made by his father for the -protection of his foreign followers.[867] For the future the payment -shall be according to the law of King Eadward.[868] - -[Sidenote: The forests.] - -Tenthly comes the one illiberal provision in the document. “By the -common consent of my barons, I have kept the forests in my own hands, -as my father held them.”[869] Here, where the King’s personal pleasure -was concerned, we hear nothing of the law of King Eadward or of the -practice of yet earlier kings. - -[Sidenote: Privilege of the knights.] - -[Sidenote: Effect of the provision.] - -[Sidenote: Growth of the country gentry.] - -[Sidenote: Policy of Henry towards the second order.] - -The eleventh clause is a remarkable one. It does not speak, like the -others, of reforming abuses or of going back to the practice of some -earlier time. The King, of his own free will, bestows a certain -privilege on one class of his subjects. Knights who held their lands -by military service are to be free, as far as their demesne lands are -concerned, from all gelds and other burthens. This the King grants to -them as his own gift. In return for so great a boon, he calls on them -to stand ready with horses and arms for his service and the defence of -his kingdom.[870] This boon seems meant for a class whom it was very -important for Henry to attach to his interest, the men namely of both -races who were of knightly rank but not higher. Many of them were his -tenants-in-chief; those who held only of other lords were still his -men by virtue of the law of Salisbury. It was his policy to strengthen -both classes in opposition to the great nobles whom he knew to be -disaffected to him. It may not be too much to see in this clause of -Henry’s charter an important stage in the developement of an idea -which is peculiar to England, the idea of the gentleman who has no -pretensions to be a nobleman. The knights of Henry’s charter are the -representatives of the thegns of Domesday, the forerunners of the -country gentlemen of later times. Holding a place between the great -barons and the mass of the people, and again between the greatest and -the smallest of the king’s tenants-in-chief――largely Norman by -descent, but also largely English――they were well suited to become the -leaders of the people, as they worthily showed themselves in our early -parliaments. Their existence and importance, as a class separate from -the great barons, did much to establish that distinctive and happy -feature of English political life, which spread freedom over the whole -land, instead of shutting it up within a few favoured towns. The -existence of the knight, as something separate from the baron, -secured, not only his own freedom, but the freedom of land-owners -smaller than himself. It helped to hinder the growth of the hard and -fast line which in France divided the _gentilhomme_ from the -_roturier_. It was part of the policy of Henry to raise particular men -of this second rank, while he broke the power of the great barons of -the Conquest. This clause shows that it was also his policy to -strengthen and to win to his side this class as a class. - -[Sidenote: The King’s Peace.] - -[Sidenote: The Law of Eadward.] - -[Sidenote: The Conqueror’s amendments.] - -[Sidenote: The alleged Laws of Henry.] - -Of the other three clauses of the charter, the first two are general, -the last is temporary. The twelfth clause establishes firm peace -through the whole kingdom. The thirteenth expresses that mixture of -old things and new which marks the time. Henry lays down the great -basis of all later English jurisprudence; “I restore to you the law of -King Eadward, with those amendments which my father made with the -consent of his barons.”[871] The law of Henry was to be the old law of -England, traditionally called by the name of the king to whose days -men looked back as to the golden age, but modified by the changes, or -rather additions, which were brought in by the few genuine statutes of -the Conqueror.[872] Here, as throughout, Henry sets forth his full -purpose to reign as an English king, and he carefully puts forward the -nature of his kingship as a strict continuation of the kingship of -Eadward and of the kings before Eadward. We have seen that the -collection which goes by the name of the Laws of Henry is no real code -of Henry’s issuing.[873] But it breathes the spirit of this clause and -of the other clauses of the charter. It shows how English, in theory -at least, the government of Henry was meant to be. - -[Sidenote: Amnesty.] - -The fifteenth and last clause is a kind of amnesty for any -irregularity which might have happened during the short interregnum. -Two days and parts of two other days had passed after the peace of -King William――if we may so speak of the days of unlaw――had come to an -end, and before the peace of King Henry had begun. If any man had -during that time taken anything which belonged to the King or to any -one else, he might restore it without any fine; if he kept it after -the proclamation, he was to be heavily fined.[874] - - * * * * * - -[Sidenote: Witnesses to the charter.] - -Such was the famous charter of Henry, the document to which Stephen -Langton appealed as the birthright of English freemen.[875] It was -witnessed on the day of the crowning by the bishop who had officiated, -Maurice of London, by Gundulf Bishop (of Rochester), William -Bishop-elect (of Winchester), Henry Earl (of Warwick), Simon Earl (of -Northampton), Walter Giffard, Robert of Montfort, Roger Bigod, and -Henry of Port.[876] Such names look forward and backward. There is -already a Bigod, forefather of the Earl who would neither go nor -hang.[877] There is a Simon, and if the likeness of names is merely -accidental, the tradition is carried back in another way when we -remember that Earl Simon of Northampton was the son-in-law of -Waltheof.[878] The fewness of the names may perhaps show that the -coronation of Henry, celebrated as it was amidst a burst of popular -joy, was but scantily attended by the great men of the realm. The -whole thing was almost as sudden as the death of Eadward and the -election of Harold, and it did not, like those events, happen while -the Witan were actually in session. The summons, or even the news, -could have gone through a very small part only of the kingdom. One -would be glad to know how men heard in distant shires, in Henry’s own -Yorkshire for instance, not only that the oppressor was gone, but that -the new king was crowned, pledged by his oath and his seal to give his -land a new time of peace and righteousness. - - * * * * * - -[Sidenote: Appointments to abbeys.] - -[Sidenote: Saint Eadmund’s and Ely.] - -[Sidenote: Herlwin Abbot of Glastonbury. 1100-1120.] - -[Sidenote: Faricius Abbot of Abingdon. 1100-1117.] - -The new King had taken upon himself to undo the evils of his brother’s -reign, to bring back the days of Eadward, to reign as an English king. -One step towards the restoration of the good state was to fill the -churches which his brother had sacrilegiously kept vacant. The see of -Winchester he had filled already; he now began to fill the thirteen -abbeys which Rufus had held in his hands on the day of his death. -Several were filled before the year was out; two at least were filled -on the very day of his coronation. These were the abbey of Saint -Eadmund, void by the death of its abbot Baldwin, and that of Ely, -which had stood void for seven years since the death of the aged abbot -Simeon.[879] The staff of Saint Eadmund was now placed in the hand of -Robert, a young monk of Bec, who is described as a son, seemingly a -natural son, of Earl Hugh of Chester.[880] That of Ely was given to -Richard, another monk of Bec, son of Richard of Clare.[881] In these -appointments and in some others we again see the need in which Henry -stood of pleasing the great nobles, even at the cost of sinning -against ecclesiastical rule. In the case of the appointment to Saint -Eadmund’s we are distinctly told that the King’s nomination was made -against the will of the monks, and a little later Anselm thought it -his duty to remove both Robert and Richard from their offices. Two -other prelates, appointed before any long time had passed, are of -greater personal fame. The name of Herlwin of Caen, who now received -the staff of Glastonbury, lives in local memory as a great -builder.[882] And the Italian Faricius, now placed in the vacant stall -of Abingdon, figures among the most renowned abbots of his house, -famous amongst his other merits for his skill in the healing art. -Oddly enough, his skill in this way kept him back from higher honour. -Had Faricius been less cunning in leechcraft, he might have been -Archbishop of Canterbury.[883] - -[Sidenote: Anselm and Flambard.] - -[Sidenote: Flambard imprisoned in the Tower.] - -[Sidenote: The King’s inner council.] - -[Sidenote: Roger, afterwards Bishop of Salisbury.] - -But to undo the evils of the days of unlaw and to reign as an English -king, something more was needed than to put men of Norman, or even -Italian, birth in possession of English abbeys. Towards carrying out -the former of these objects, Henry had a criminal to punish and a -sufferer to restore. Towards carrying out the second, he had a wife to -marry. These three events pretty well filled up the rest of the year. -Henry had two bishops to deal with, who needed to be dealt with in two -very different ways. They were between them the living representatives -of the late rule of unright. The one was the embodiment of what its -agents did, the other was the embodiment of what its victims -underwent. The King had promised to put away the unrighteousnesses of -his brother and of Randolf Flambard; he began by putting away their -surviving author. By the advice of those about him, the Bishop of -Durham, the dregs of wickedness, as he is called in the vigorous words -of one of our writers, was sent as a prisoner to the Tower of -London.[884] This was most likely not the first case, but it is the -first recorded case, in which the great fortress of the Conqueror was -used as a state-prison for great and notable offenders. Randolf -Flambard heads the long list of its unwilling inmates, few of whom -better deserved their place there than he did. We hear nothing of any -claim of ecclesiastical privilege on behalf of the man who had brought -God’s Church low. Flambard was not allowed the advantage of any of the -legal subtleties which his predecessor in his see had known how to -play off so skilfully, and which, one would think, he could have -played off more skilfully still. We do not even hear whether the -Bishop of Durham was summoned before any court of any kind. The -accounts read rather as if his imprisonment was simply a stretch of -the royal power in answer to a popular demand. The Tower may even have -been the best place for Flambard’s safety, as it was the best place -for the safety of Jeffreys, as understood by Jeffreys himself.[885] -The words which say that the act was done by the advice of those about -the King are also worthy of notice. The King’s inner council must -certainly have contained the two Beaumont brothers, the subtle Count -of Meulan and the upright Earl of Warwick. It contained Roger the -Bigod, more honoured in his descendants than in himself. It contained -too some of Henry’s old friends from his Norman fief, Richard of -Redvers and Earl Hugh of Chester. We are told that as soon as the news -of the death of Rufus was known in Normandy, several of the great men -who were there, specially the Earls of Chester and Shrewsbury, -hastened to England to acknowledge Henry.[886] We do not find Robert -of Bellême among Henry’s inner counsellors; we do find Hugh of -Avranches. And to the list we may also most likely add the -bishop-elect of Winchester, William Giffard, a tried court official, -though one who afterwards showed that he could suffer for a principle. -And a man who was to be more famous than all of them, the patriarch of -the long line of English Justiciars and Judges, the poor clerk who was -to be presently the all-powerful Bishop Roger of Salisbury, may have -already given his voice among men who were as yet so far above him in -worldly place. - - * * * * * - -[Sidenote: The news of the King’s death brought to Anselm.] - -We are told that the imprisonment of the Bishop of Durham was one of -two acts which the new King did in order that nothing might be wanting -to the universal joy at his accession.[887] The other was the recall -of the Archbishop of Canterbury. We have seen that, in legendary -belief at least, the death of Rufus was very speedily made known, if -not to Anselm himself, at least to his friends.[888] The news was -presently brought to him in a more ordinary way by two monks, one of -Bec, one of Canterbury. His head-quarters were now at Lyons, but he -was at the moment staying at a monastery called God’s House.[889] -There the messengers met him, and told him that King William was dead. -Anselm was overwhelmed at the tidings, and burst forth into the -bitterest weeping. Those who stood by wondered; but he told them with -a voice broken with sobs that, by the truth which a servant of God -ought not to transgress, he would far rather have died himself than -that William should die as he had died.[890] - -[Sidenote: He is invited to come back by his own monks,] - -[Sidenote: and by the King.] - -[Sidenote: Importance of Henry’s letter.] - -[Sidenote: Its popular language.] - -[Sidenote: Signatures to the letter.] - -Anselm now went back to Lyons, where another monk of Canterbury met -him, bringing with him a formal letter from the convent of the -metropolitan church, praying him, now that the tyrant was dead, to -come back without delay to comfort his children.[891] He took counsel -with his friend Archbishop Hugh, and by his advice began his return to -England, to the great grief, we are told, of the whole city of Lyons -and all the lands thereabouts.[892] He had not reached Clugny when he -was met by a still more important bearer of tidings. A messenger came -in the name of the new King of the English and his lords, bearing a -royal letter, calling on Anselm to come back, and even blaming his -delay in not coming sooner.[893] We have its text, every word of which -deserves to be studied, as showing how popular the constitution of -England still was in theory, and what was the kind of language which -had to be used by one who was called on to play the part of a popular -king. Henry, in setting forth his right to the crown, uses more -popular language than is to be found in the charter itself. There he -spoke of the choice of the barons; in the letter to Anselm he tells -the Archbishop that his brother King William is dead, and that he is -chosen king by the will of God and by the clergy and people of -England.[894] He excuses his hasty coronation in the Archbishop’s -absence on the ground of the urgency of the time. He would more gladly -have received the blessing at his crowning from him than from any one -else; but the necessity of the moment forbade; enemies had arisen -against him and against the people whom he had to rule; his barons -therefore and his whole people had thought that the coronation could -not be delayed. He had therefore, against his will, received the rite -from Anselm’s vicars, and he trusted that Anselm himself would not be -displeased.[895] Himself and the whole people of England, all whose -souls were entrusted to Anselm’s care, prayed him to come back with -all speed to give them the benefit of his counsel.[896] He committed -himself and the whole people of England to the counsel of Anselm and -of those who ought to consult with Anselm for the common good.[897] He -would have sent messengers with money of his own for Anselm’s use; -only since the death of his brother the whole world is so stirred -against the kingdom of England that he could not send any one with any -safety.[898] Anselm is earnestly prayed not to pass through Normandy, -but to sail from Whitsand and land at Dover. There some of the King’s -barons shall be ready to meet him with money which will enable him to -pay anything that he may have borrowed.[899] The letter ends in a -pious and imploring strain; “Hasten then, father, to come, lest our -mother the church of Canterbury, so long tossed and desolate for your -sake, should any longer suffer the loss of souls.” The signatures to -the letter should be noticed. It is said to be signed by other bishops -and barons as well, but the actual names are Gerard Bishop of -Hereford, William Bishop-elect of Winchester, William of Warelwast, of -whom we have heard so often, Henry Earl of Warwick, in some sort a -milder king-maker, Robert Fitz-hamon, and his brother Hamon the -_dapifer_.[900] It is worth notice that the Achitophel of Meulan does -not set his name either to this letter or to the charter. Was it to -give as national a character as might be to both documents that -Robert, as yet only a French count and not an English earl, abstained -from putting his name to them? One can fancy no other reason for its -absence from the earlier document. By the time the letter to Anselm -was sent, the Count of Meulan’s presence may well have been needed in -Normandy. - - * * * * * - -[Sidenote: Dangers of the King and kingdom.] - -[Sidenote: Intrigues of the Norman nobles with Duke Robert.] - -[Sidenote: Renewed anarchy in Normandy on William’s death.] - -The dangers which, according to King Henry’s letter, beset the kingdom -of England may have been somewhat exaggerated in his picture of them; -but they were perfectly real. And no description of them could be -better than that which the King gave when he spoke of them specially -as dangers which beset the King and the people whom he had to rule. It -was most truly the King and the people of England who were threatened -by the intrigues of the great Norman nobles with the restored ruler of -Normandy――if ruler he may be called. The effects of the Red King’s -death were exactly opposite in Normandy and in England. In England his -reign of unright was at once changed for a rule as strong and more -righteous. In Normandy, which had seen the better side of him, where -he had brought back peace of some kind after the anarchy of Robert’s -first reign, anarchy came back again the moment the news of his death -came. Within a week the forces of Evreux and Conches were again in -motion, this time indeed not in order to attack one another, but for a -joint raid against the lands of the Norman Beaumont, the possessions -of the Count of Meulan. The Count, we are told, had abused his -influence with Rufus to do both of them some wrongs, which, while -Rufus lived, they were unable to avenge.[901] They now took the law -into their own hands; so did everybody else. Normandy again became the -same confused field of battle, with every man’s hand against every -other man, which it had been before William the Red at least did it -the service of putting one tyrant in the room of many.[902] - -[Sidenote: Return of Robert to Normandy. September, 1100.] - -[Sidenote: His renewed no-government.] - -[Sidenote: Henry keeps his own fief.] - -[Sidenote: War between Henry and Robert.] - -[Sidenote: Intrigues of the Normans in England with Robert.] - -[Sidenote: Return of Anselm. September 23, 1100.] - -To this disturbed land Duke Robert came back in the month of -September, bringing with him his wise and beautiful Duchess from -Conversana. They went to Saint Michael in-Peril-of-the-Sea to give -thanks for their safe return,[903] and Robert was held to have again -taken possession of his duchy. The English Chronicler says that he was -received blithely;[904] it was certainly not the interest of those -whom a ruler like Henry would have checked in their evil ways to make -any opposition to his fresh acknowledgement. As soon as Robert was -again in his native land, all the energy and conduct which he had -shown in the East once more forsook him. The old idleness, the old -wastefulness, came back again. He had already squandered all the money -which he had received from his father-in-law; luckily the death of -Rufus relieved him from the necessity of repaying the sum for which -the duchy had been temporarily pledged. It had not been alienated for -ever, and Henry had no claim to it during Robert’s life. Robert -therefore had no difficulty in taking possession――such possession as -he could take――of all Normandy, except the districts which formed the -fief which Rufus had granted to Henry. There, in the lands of -Coutances, Avranches, and Bayeux, King Henry’s men still kept the land -for him, and withstood all Robert’s attempts to dislodge them.[905] A -border warfare thus began between the brothers almost from the first -moment of the reign of Henry, the second reign of Robert. And it would -seem that, though there was no open outbreak till the next year, the -turbulent Norman nobles in England were, from the very beginning, -making Robert the centre of their intrigues against a prince whose -rule was eminently inconvenient for them.[906] The Lion of Justice was -exactly the kind of ruler for whom they did not wish; Robert, who -would put no check upon them, was far more to their tastes. Could they -only put him on the throne, they might have their own way in all -things in England as well as in Normandy. The same schemes which -disturbed the second year of the reign of Rufus disturbed the reign of -Henry from the very beginning. It was in the midst of all these -disorders, directly after Robert’s return, that Henry’s letter was -sent to Anselm. It was therefore not without reason that the King -warned the Archbishop not to come back through Normandy, but to make -his way to Whitsand. To Whitsand Anselm accordingly came, and crossed -safely to Dover a few days before Michaelmas.[907] The whole land from -which he had been now nearly three years absent received him with a -burst of universal joy.[908] - - * * * * * - -[Sidenote: Connexion of Anselm with Norman history.] - -The chief points in the primacy of Anselm had all along had a singular -connexion, by way of coincidence at least, with the changes of things -in the Norman duchy. It was when William was making ready for his -second Norman expedition that Anselm had first drawn on himself the -Red King’s anger by the alleged smallness of his gift towards its -cost.[909] It was just before the King set out that the Primate had -given him his most memorable rebuke.[910] The return of William was at -once followed by the interview at Gillingham[911] and the great -assembly at Rockingham. The collection of money for the final -occupation of the duchy did not directly lead to the second -dispute;[912] but the connexion of time is still marked. Rufus comes -back from Normandy to find fault with Anselm’s contingent of troops -for the Welsh war;[913] and he does not go again to the mainland for -the French and Cenomannian wars till after he has driven Anselm from -England. Now that the Red King is dead, everybody seems to come back -to his old place. Robert comes back to Rouen; Anselm to Canterbury. -And along with them, a third actor in our story, whom, like them, -Rufus had dispossessed, came back also. Before the year was out, Maine -was again free; Helias had won back city and castle without slash or -blow. - - * * * * * - -[Sidenote: Helias returns to Le Mans.] - -[Sidenote: The King’s garrison holds out in the royal tower.] - -[Sidenote: Helias calls in Fulk of Anjou.] - -[Sidenote: Siege of the tower;] - -[Sidenote: courtesies between besieged and besiegers.] - -[Sidenote: Conference between Walter and Helias.] - -[Sidenote: The garrison know not whose men they are.] - -[Sidenote: A truce is made; they apply to Robert,] - -[Sidenote: and to Henry.] - -[Sidenote: Surrender of the castle.] - -As soon as the news of his enemy’s fall reached the Count of Maine in -some of those southern possessions from which he had never been -driven, he at once gathered a force and marched to Le Mans. But no -force was needed; the loyal city received its banished prince with all -joy.[914] But possession of the city did not give Helias possession of -the royal tower; that was still held by the garrison which had been -placed in it by the Red King. One of their commanders was a man whom -we know already, Walter of Rouen, the son of Ansgar.[915] The castle -was well provided with arms and provisions, and all that was needed -for defence. Helias, before undertaking a siege, sought the alliance -and help of Fulk of Anjou, whom he acknowledged as over-lord of -Maine.[916] The two counts sat down before the castle of the -Conqueror; but no strictly warlike operations followed. Besieged and -besiegers seem to have been on the most friendly terms. They sometimes -exchanged threats, but more commonly jokes. It was agreed between the -two parties that Count Helias should, whenever he chose, put on a -white tunic, and should, by the name of the White Bachelor, be -received within the tower.[917] Such was the chivalrous confidence -shown on both sides that the Count of Maine went in and out as he -chose, and much that was sportive and little that was hostile went on -between the two parties. At last Walter and his colleague -Haimeric[918] opened their minds to Helias. They were in exactly the -opposite case to the Confessor when he told the churl that he would -hurt him if he could.[919] They explained to their supposed enemy that -they could hurt him if they would, but that they had no mind to do so. -The ground and the defences of the castle gave them the stronger -position. They were not afraid of his artillery, and they could shower -down stones and arrows upon him at pleasure.[920] But they had no mind -to fight against one for whom they had a deep regard, especially as -they did not know for whom they were fighting. They had been the men -of the late King William; they did not now know whether they were the -men of King Henry of England or of Duke Robert of Normandy. They -proposed a truce, during which they might send messengers to both -their possible lords; when they got answers, they might settle what to -do.[921] The messenger came to Robert, and asked him whether he wished -to keep the royal tower of Le Mans or not. If he wished to keep it, he -must send a strong force to rescue it from its Angevin and Cenomannian -besiegers. The Duke, tired, we are told, with his long journeyings and -more anxious for the repose of his bed than for the labours of -war,[922] is made to give two somewhat contradictory reasons for -leaving matters alone. On the one hand, he was satisfied with the -duchy of Normandy; on the other hand, the nobles of England were -inviting him to come and take the crown of that kingdom. He told them -that they had better make an honourable peace with the besiegers. The -messenger, without going back to Le Mans, crossed to England, and told -King Henry exactly how matters stood. Henry was too busy at the moment -to meddle in affairs beyond the sea.[923] He rewarded the messenger, -he sent his thanks to the garrison, and left them to their own -discretion. When the answer came, a message was sent to the White -Bachelor, asking him to visit the tower. The day was now come when he -might rejoice in the possession of that for which he had long wished. -If he had any money in his hoard, he might now make a fine bargain. He -asked what they meant. They told him that he had not conquered them, -that they were quite able to withstand him, but that they had no lord -to serve and were quite willing to give up the castle to him. They -knew his worth and valour; they chose him of their own free will, and -made him that day truly Count of Maine.[924] They gave up the castle -and all that was in it; Helias of course treated them with all honour, -and gave them a strong guard to shelter them from any attacks on the -part of the citizens whose houses they had burned the year -before.[925] - -[Sidenote: Last reign of Helias. 1100-1110.] - -[Sidenote: His friendship for Henry.] - -[Sidenote: His second marriage. 1109.] - -[Sidenote: Later fortune of Maine.] - -[Sidenote: Descent of the Angevin kings from Helias.] - -Thus, after all struggles, Helias of La Flèche was at last undisputed -lord of the Cenomannian city and county. He reigned, in all honour and -seemingly in perfect friendship with Bishop Hildebert,[926] for ten -years longer. He was the firm friend, and in some sort the vassal, of -King Henry of England, and did him good service at Bayeux and at -Tinchebrai.[927] Under his second reign Maine seems to have been -peaceful; but there must have been some wars and fightings on its -borders, as we find Rotrou Count of Perche a prisoner in the -Conqueror’s tower.[928] The year before his death Helias married a -second wife, Agnes, the daughter of Duke William of Aquitaine and -widow of Alfonso King of Gallicia.[929] But his only child was -Eremberga, the daughter of his first wife Matilda of Château du Loir. -Helias, as he was the worthiest, was also the last, of the counts who -held Maine as a separate sovereignty, and who had for some generations -filled no small place in their own quarter of the world. Maine became -the heritage of his daughter, and passed to her husband the younger -Fulk, Count of Anjou and King of Jerusalem,[930] and to her son -Geoffrey Plantagenet. Thus Maine became an appendage to Anjou, to -Normandy, to England. And every sovereign of England, from the first -Angevin king onwards, could boast that he had in his veins, besides -the blood of William and Cerdic, the blood, less famous it may be, but -assuredly not less worthy, of Helias of Le Mans. - - * * * * * - -[Sidenote: Meeting of Anselm and Henry;] - -[Sidenote: beginning of fresh difficulties.] - -[Sidenote: Changes in Anselm.] - -[Sidenote: Comparison of the dispute between Anselm] - -[Sidenote: and Rufus and the dispute between Anselm and Henry.] - -[Sidenote: Henry calls on Anselm to do homage.] - -Anselm landed in England after Helias had been received at Le Mans, -but before he had won back the royal tower. The King and the Primate -soon met, and difficulties at once arose between them. The truth is -that Anselm had come back, in some things, another man. Or rather the -man was the same; his gentleness, his firmness, his perfect -single-mindedness, had not changed a whit. But he had learned -doctrines at Rome and at Bari which had never been revealed to him at -Bec or at Canterbury. The tale of Anselm’s dispute with Henry, his -second banishment, his second return, goes beyond the prescribed -limits of our story, and I have pointed out its leading features -elsewhere.[931] There is hardly anything in which the difference -between William Rufus and Henry the First stands out more strongly. -But we are here concerned only with the very earliest stage of the -dispute, if indeed it is to be called a stage of the dispute at all. -Henry and Anselm met at Salisbury. The King received the Archbishop -with joy; he again excused himself by the necessities of the time for -having received the royal unction from another prelate. Anselm fully -admitted his excuses.[932] There was less agreement between them on -the next point which the King started. Henry called on Anselm to do -homage to him after the manner of his predecessors, and, in the -language of the time, to receive again the archbishopric at his -hands.[933] - -[Sidenote: Phrase of receiving the archbishopric.] - -[Sidenote: Effect of the new teaching on Anselm’s mind.] - -This last phrase has, I think, sometimes been misunderstood. It has -nothing in common with the fresh commissions which the bishops of -Edward the Sixth’s day took out after the death of Henry the Eighth. -It has nothing whatever to do with the spiritual office; in this -phrase, as in so many others, by the “archbishopric” is to be -understood simply the temporalities of the see. These were at this -moment in the King’s hands through their seizure in the days of Rufus. -Since then a new reign had begun; England had a new king; her -inhabitants had a new lord; for the archbishop, like any other -subject, to become the man of the new king was simply according to the -law of Salisbury. For him to receive back his lands was his right; for -him to receive them as a fief was no more than he had already done at -the hands of the Red King. Anselm had then done without scruple all -that he was now asked to do. But since then the decrees of Piacenza -and Clermont, above all the decrees of Bari and Rome, where he had -been himself present, had been put forth. And by those decrees the -ancient customs of England were condemned, and the censures of the -Church were denounced against all who should conform to them. Anselm -deemed it his duty, in all single-mindedness, to obey the bidding of -Rome rather than the law of England. We may regret, but we can neither -wonder nor blame. Anselm, after all, was not an Englishman; he could -not help looking at things with œcumenical rather than with insular -eyes. He fairly told the king’s counsellors how matters stood; he was -bound by the new decrees. If Henry would accept them, there might be -perfect peace between them.[934] If not, he himself could be of no use -in England; he would have to refuse to communicate with any to whom -the King might give bishoprics or abbeys in the ancient fashion; he -could not stay in England on the terms of disobeying the Pope. He -asked of those to whom he spoke that the King would consider the -matter, and tell him his decision, that he might know which way to -turn himself.[935] - -[Sidenote: Difficulties of Henry.] - -[Sidenote: A truce made till Easter;] - -[Sidenote: the Pope to be asked to allow the homage.] - -[Sidenote: No personal scruple on Anselm’s part.] - -[Sidenote: Effects of the reign of Rufus.] - -[Sidenote: Abasement of the kingly power.] - -Henry was now, at the very beginning of his reign, in a great strait. -He was naturally unwilling to give up one of the chief flowers of his -crown, one which had been handed down from all the kings before -him.[936] To give up the investiture of the churches and the homage of -their prelates would be to give up the half of his kingdom. On the -other hand, he felt that it would not do to quarrel with the -Archbishop at the very moment of his return to England, or to allow -him to leave England while he himself was not yet firm on his throne. -He feared――doing Anselm, we may be sure, utter injustice――that, if -Anselm left England, he might go to Robert, and take up his cause. It -would be perfectly easy, as he knew very well, to persuade Robert to -accept the new decrees. And on those terms, Anselm might, so the words -run, make Robert King of England[937]――that is, he might bestow on him -a consecration more regular than that which Henry had himself received -from the Bishop of London. It was therefore agreed on both sides to -make a truce or adjournment of all questions till the next Easter. -Meanwhile both King and Archbishop should send messengers to the Pope, -to pray him so to change his decrees as to allow the ancient customs -of the kingdom to stand.[938] We here see, on the one hand, that -Anselm still had no kind of scruple of his own about the homage and -investiture; it was with him simply a question of obedience to a -superior. Let Paschal withdraw the decrees of Urban, and Anselm was -perfectly ready to do by Henry as earlier archbishops had done by -earlier kings. On the other hand, we see how the temporal power had -been weakened and the spiritual power strengthened through the late -King’s abuse of the temporal power. Rufus had given the foreign -dominion a moral advantage, of which Henry now felt the sting. Men had -come to look on the King as the embodiment of wrong, and on the Pope -as the only surviving embodiment of right. The King of the English was -driven to ask the Bishop of Rome to allow the ancient laws of England -to be obeyed. True this was while the King’s hold on his crown was -still weak; when his position was more assured, he took a higher tone; -but it marks the change which had happened that an English king, and -such a king as Henry, should be driven so to abase himself even for a -moment. - -[Sidenote: The truce agreed to; provisional restoration of the -Archbishop’s temporalities.] - -By the terms of the truce, things were to remain as they were for the -present. Anselm was to be restored to his temporalities without homage -or other conditions; but, if Paschal could not be brought to yield on -the matter of the decrees, they were to pass to the King again.[939] -Anselm looked on all this as useless; he knew the temper of the papal -court better than the King and his friends did. But he agreed for the -sake of peace; he wished to avoid the slightest suspicion of any wish -to disturb the King in the possession of his kingdom.[940] The truce -was therefore agreed to; the messengers were sent, and Anselm, when -the court broke up, went once more in peace to his metropolitan city -or to some other of his many houses. - - * * * * * - -[Sidenote: Reformation of the court.] - -[Sidenote: Personal character of Henry.] - -[Sidenote: Henry’s mistresses and children.] - -[Sidenote: Robert Earl of Gloucester.] - -[Sidenote: Henry son of Nest.] - -[Sidenote: Matilda Countess of Perche.] - -[Sidenote: Robert son of Eadgyth.] - -[Sidenote: Henry’s daughter by Isabel of Meulan.] - -[Sidenote: Richard son of Ansfrida.] - -[Sidenote: Story of his mother and her husband Anskill.] - -[Sidenote: Henry’s son Richard.] - -But, besides settling the affairs of his Church and realm, Henry had -other more distinctly domestic and personal duties to discharge. He -had to reform the household which he had inherited from his brother; -he had also――so we are told that the bishops and others strongly -pressed upon him――to reform his own life.[941] The vices of Henry were -at least not the vices of Rufus; inclination as well as duty led him -to cleanse the court of its foulest abuses, to make a clean sweep of -the works of darkness.[942] But it was only in a wholly abnormal state -of things that Henry the First could have been hailed as a moral -reformer. His private life was very unlike the life of his father. -Unmarried, like both of his brothers till the recent marriage of -Robert, he was already the father of several children by mothers of -various nations. Of his eldest and most famous son, Robert, afterwards -the renowned Earl of Gloucester, the mother is unknown; but she -appears to have been French.[943] The British Nest, of whom we have -often heard, the daughter of Rhys ap Tewdwr, had, before her marriage -with Gerald of Windsor, borne a son to Henry who bore his own -name.[944] Two of his mistresses bore the characteristic English name -of Eadgyth. One was the mother of Matilda Countess of Perche, who died -in the White Ship;[945] the other, who afterwards, like Nest, obtained -an honourable marriage with the younger Robert of Ouilly, was the -mother of a Robert who plays a part in the civil wars forty years -later.[946] His birth therefore most likely came long after the times -of which we are speaking, as did the birth of the daughter whom Henry -is said to have had by a woman of a Norman house of the loftiest rank, -Isabel, daughter of his chief counsellor, Robert Count of Meulan and -Earl of Leicester.[947] The list of Henry’s natural children is not -yet exhausted――we have no account of the mother of the valiant -Juliana; but the birth of one who is second in personal fame to Earl -Robert of Gloucester had already taken place, and it is connected with -a characteristic story which is worth telling. A wealthy man of -Berkshire, Anskill by name, was one of the chief tenants of the church -of Abingdon. As far as his name is concerned, he might be Norman; he -might be English or rather Danish. His enemies brought a charge -against him to the Red King, who caused him to be kept in so sharp a -prison that before long he died of his hardships.[948] He left a -widow, whose name is given as Ansfrida, and a son named William. The -King then seized on the manor of Sparsholt, which Anskill had held of -the abbey, and gave it――or perhaps only its wardship――to one of his -officers named Toustain, without reserving any service to the -Church.[949] By this grant both the young William and the church of -Abingdon were wronged. For the wardship of its tenant would even, by -Flambard’s own law, go to the abbey. The widow, by what instinct we -are not told, betook herself to Henry to ask his intercession with his -brother the King. Young William did not get back his land, which was -recovered for the abbey at a later time. But his mother presently gave -him a half-brother, Richard, who afterwards distinguished himself in -the French wars, and died in the White Ship.[950] The interest of -Henry, if it did not get back Sparsholt for its lawful tenant, was -enough to secure for his new mistress the safe possession of her -dower, and to provide for her legitimate son by an advantageous -marriage.[951] Ansfrida herself was in the end buried in the minster -of Abingdon with honours of which Saint Hugh would hardly have -approved, and her lawful son did not fail to give gifts to the place -of his mother’s burial.[952] - -[Sidenote: Henry is exhorted to marry.] - -[Sidenote: He seeks for Eadgyth daughter of Malcolm.] - -[Sidenote: Policy of the marriage.] - -[Sidenote: Eadgyth looked on as English.] - -[Sidenote: Henry’s descent from Ælfred.] - -Henry then, if he was fully entitled to reform the worst abuses of his -brother’s household, stood in some need of reformation himself. His -counsellors exhorted him to mend matters by giving himself a wife and -his kingdom a queen. He had not far to look for one when policy and -inclination led him the same way. Notwithstanding all his -irregularities, we are told that he had long loved Eadgyth or Matilda, -the daughter of Malcolm, and it is further implied that his love was -returned on her part.[953] It is not clear where she was at this -moment, but seemingly no longer with her aunt Christina in her -monastic shelter at Romsey.[954] She was now about twenty years old, -some say of remarkable beauty, at all events of a pleasing face, and -mistress of an amount of learning which must have equalled or exceeded -that of her clerkly lover.[955] She had no great worldly -possessions;[956] but she came of a stock which made a marriage with -her the most politic choice which the King could make at the moment. -Eadgyth had lived so long in England that men seem to have forgotten -that she was the daughter of Malcolm, and to have remembered only that -she was the daughter of Margaret. As such she was held to be of the -right kingly kin of England,[957] marked out as the most fitting bride -for a king whose purpose was to reign as an Englishman. True she came -of the blood of Cerdic only by the spindle-side, and by the -spindle-side Henry came of the blood of Cerdic himself.[958] But no -one was likely to remember that a daughter of Ælfred was a remote -ancestress of Henry’s mother, while everybody remembered that Eadgyth -was the daughter of Margaret, the daughter of Eadward, the son of -Eadmund, the son of Æthelred, the son of Eadgar. It was for the -English King to take an English Lady, and to hand on the English crown -to kings born in the land and sprung of the true blood of its ancient -princes. - -[Sidenote: Objections made to the marriage.] - -[Sidenote: Eadgyth said to have taken the veil.] - -[Sidenote: Anselm holds an assembly to settle the question.] - -[Sidenote: Eadgyth declared free to marry.] - -So thought the people; so thought the King; so seemingly thought the -daughter of Malcolm herself. But not a few mouths were opened to -denounce the marriage as contrary to the laws of the Church. Eadgyth, -they alleged, was a consecrated virgin, and a marriage with her would -be sacrilege. She had, they said, taken the veil at Romsey, when she -was dwelling there with her aunt Christina.[959] She appealed to the -Archbishop, to whom all looked to decide the matter.[960] She told her -story, as we have already heard it, and called on Anselm to judge her -cause in his wisdom. The Archbishop called together at Lambeth――the -manor of his friend the Bishop of Rochester――an assembly of bishops, -abbots, nobles, and religious men, before whom he laid the matter, and -the evidence bearing on it.[961] There was the evidence of the maiden -herself; there was the evidence of two archdeacons, William of -Canterbury and Humbald of Salisbury, whom Anselm had sent to the -monastery, and who, after inquiries among the sisters, reported that -there was no ground to think that Eadgyth had ever been a veiled -nun.[962] The Archbishop then left the assembly, and the rest, who are -spoken of as the Church of England gathered into one place,[963] -debated the question in his absence. Much stress was laid on the case -of those women who, in the first days of the Conquest, had sought -shelter in the cloister from shame and violence, but who had not taken -religion upon themselves.[964] The late Archbishop had declared them -free to marry, and the judgement of the assembly was that the same -rule applied to the case of the daughter of Malcolm.[965] Anselm came -back, and the debate and the decision were reported to him. He -declared that he assented to the judgement, strengthened as it was by -the great authority of Lanfranc.[966] Then Eadgyth herself was brought -in, and heard with a pleased countenance all that had passed.[967] She -then offered to confirm all that she had said by any form of oath that -might be thought good. She did not fear that any one would disbelieve -her; but she wished that no occasion should be left for any one to -blaspheme.[968] Anselm told her that no oath was needed; if any man -out of the evil treasure of his heart should bring forth evil things, -he would not be able to withstand the amount and strength of the -evidence by which her case was proved.[969] He gave her his -blessing,[970] and she went forth, we may say, Lady-elect of the -English. - -[Sidenote: Other versions of the story.] - -[Sidenote: Anselm made to object.] - -[Sidenote: Story of Rufus and the Abbess.] - -[Sidenote: Decision in favour of the marriage.] - -[Sidenote: Anselm’s scruples and warning.] - -In another version, also contemporary but not resting on the same high -authority, things are made to take another turn. The King bids Anselm -perform the marriage rite between himself and the nameless daughter of -Malcolm, called in this version David.[971] Anselm refuses on the -ground that, having worn the veil of a nun, she belonged to a -heavenly, not to an earthly bridegroom. The King says that he has -sworn to her father to marry her, and that he cannot break his oath, -unless it can be shown by a canonical judgement that the marriage is -unlawful.[972] Anselm is therefore bidden to summon the Archbishop of -York, and the rest of the bishops, abbots, and other ecclesiastical -persons of all England, to come together and examine the matter.[973] -The Abbess is brought before them, and she tells the story of the Red -King’s visit to her flowers.[974] The King bids Anselm call on the -synod for its judgement. The assembled fathers debate; canons are -read, and it is judged that the maiden is free to marry, chiefly on -the ground that, if she was veiled, it was while she was under age and -without her father’s consent.[975] The King asks Anselm whether he -objects to this decision; Anselm says that he has no fault to find -with it. Henry then asks Anselm to marry them at once. Anselm pleads -that, though the judgement is right, yet, as the maiden had somehow or -other worn the veil, it were better that she should not marry; there -were others, daughters of kings and counts, one of whom the King might -marry instead. Henry still insists; Anselm performs the ceremony; but -with a warning that England would not rejoice in the offspring of the -marriage.[976] The fate of the White Ship and the wars of Stephen and -Matilda are quoted as a proof of Anselm’s prophetic power. - -[Sidenote: Later fables.] - -The tone of this story is quite unlike that of the more trustworthy -version; yet there is perhaps no actual contradiction between them. -But the foreign writer stumbles greatly in his names and pedigrees, -and writes by the light of forty years later. We may see in his -version the beginnings of the wild stories of later times, where -Eadgyth is pictured as forced into the marriage against her will, and -even as devoting her future offspring to the fiend.[977] - -[Sidenote: Marriage of Henry and Eadgyth. November 11, 1100.] - -[Sidenote: She takes the name of Matilda.] - -[Sidenote: The wedding and coronation.] - -[Sidenote: Anselm’s speech.] - -[Sidenote: Objections not wholly silenced.] - -A few days later, on the feast of Saint Martin, the marriage was -celebrated by Anselm, and Matilda, as we must now call her, was -hallowed to Queen.[978] It is only a guess that this was the time of -her change of name. One hardly sees its motive; it was Henry’s policy -at this moment to be as English as possible, and the name of his bride -was one of the few English names which the Normans now and then -adopted. Could it be Henry’s abiding reverence for his mother which -made him wish to place another Matilda on his throne? Be this as it -may be, the new Queen bears no other name. All the great men of the -kingdom and a crowd of folk of lower degree came together to her -wedding and crowning. At the door of the West Minster, as the -multitude thronged towards the King and his bride, the Archbishop -stood on high and harangued the people. He told them how the whole -matter had been settled, and on what grounds. And he once again called -on any one who had aught else to say against the marriage to stand -forth and say it.[979] The only answer was a general shout of assent -to the judgement and the marriage.[980] The rite was done. But there -were still some who blamed Anselm for the course that he had -taken;[981] and years afterwards the validity of Matilda’s marriage, -and the consequent legitimacy of her children, was called in question -by those whose political objects it suited to do so.[982] - -[Sidenote: Novelty of a queen.] - -[Sidenote: Regular life of the King and Queen.] - -[Sidenote: “Godric and Godgifu.”] - -[Sidenote: 1100-1118.] - -[Sidenote: Children of the marriage.] - -[Sidenote: William;] - -[Sidenote: the Empress Matilda.] - -[Sidenote: Later life of Henry and Matilda.] - -[Sidenote: Her character.] - -[Sidenote: “Good Queen Mold.”] - -It is somewhat singular that Matilda practically stepped into the -place of the Lady whose name she had forsaken. There had been no queen -constantly living in England since the elder Eadgyth. The elder -Matilda had been but little in England; William Rufus had been -pre-eminently the “bachelor king.” It must have been a wonderful -change when the riot and foul excess of the Red King’s court gave way -to a household presided over by a devout and virtuous woman. For a -time at least Henry as well as his wife lived a sober and regular -life. As a generation back the strict conduct of Henry’s father had -called forth the jeers of the profligate scoffers of his day, so now -the profligate scoffers of another generation jeered at the decorous -court of Henry and Matilda, and mocked the English King and his -English Lady by the characteristic English names of Godric and -Godgifu.[983] The married life of Matilda reached over eighteen years -only; of her two children, both born early in her wedlock, she did not -live to see her son, the Ætheling William, cut off in the White Ship; -she did live to see her daughter of her own name raised to a place -which had never before been filled by a daughter of England, sitting -as a crowned Augusta in the seat of Livia and Placidia.[984] After a -while Henry seems to have fallen back into his old courses; some at -least of his natural children must have been born after his marriage; -and the same kind of language which was used about his first marriage -was used about his second.[985] The Queen, for whatever reason, ceased -to follow the endless wanderings of the court; and lived in all royal -pomp at Westminster.[986] Her piety rivalled that of her mother; it -was shown in all the usual forms of the time; and her brother David, -not an undevout prince, went so near to a scoff as to ask his sister -whether King Henry would care to kiss the lips which had kissed the -ulcers of the lepers.[987] Her boundless liberality to the poor, to -clerks, scholars, and strangers of every kind, was perhaps not the -less amiable for a manifest touch of vanity.[988] We read that the -means for her lavish bounty in this way had to be found by harsh -exactions from her tenants; but, here as ever, the blame is laid upon -the reeves rather than on their mistress.[989] The memory of “good -Queen Mold” was long cherished, and we can hardly doubt that her -presence by Henry’s side did much to help the fusion of Normans and -English in her husband’s kingdom. - - * * * * * - -[Sidenote: Guy of Vienne comes as Legate.] - -[Sidenote: Earlier Legates.] - -[Sidenote: Guy’s pretensions not acknowledged.] - -Two ecclesiastical events wind up the last year of the eleventh -century. One of them showed that there were limits to Anselm’s -submission to the see of Rome. Guy Archbishop of Vienne came into -England, professing to be papal Legate throughout all Britain. Legates -had been seen in England before, but not with such a commission as -superseded the authority of an acknowledged Primate. They had come -both under Eadward and under William the Great; but they came in the -doubtful days of Stigand, and the last time they came to set Stigand -finally aside.[990] One Legate had come under William the Red; but it -was to bring the pallium to Anselm.[991] But now all men were amazed -at a foreign prelate claiming to exercise powers which had hitherto -been held to belong to none but the Patriarch of the island -world.[992] Legates waxed mightier before Henry’s reign was out;[993] -this time Guy went back as he came. We get no details; but we read -that no one acknowledged him as Legate, and that he was not able to -discharge any legatine function.[994] - -[Sidenote: Death of Archbishop Thomas. November 18, 1100.] - -[Sidenote: The see of York given to Gerard of Hereford. Archbishop -1100-1108.] - -The other event was the death of Archbishop Thomas of York, after an -episcopate of thirty years. He died a few days after the King’s -marriage, leaving a good name behind him as the honoured rebuilder of -his church and legislator of its chapter.[995] This was the first -prelacy which had fallen vacant since Henry’s accession. To deal with -the vacant see after his brother’s fashion would have been in the -teeth of all the new King’s promises. He therefore soon gave the -church of York another shepherd. But his choice fell on a man of a -character widely different from either Thomas or Anselm. The new -archbishop was Gerard Bishop of Hereford, of whom we have already -heard a good deal, and heard some things that are passing -strange.[996] He held the throne of the northern metropolis for eight -years, and, when he died, he had some difficulty in finding a -resting-place in his own minster.[997] - - -§ 3. _The Invasion of Robert._ - -_January-August, 1101._ - -[Sidenote: Likeness of the years 1088 and 1101.] - -[Sidenote: Action of the Bishop of Durham,] - -[Sidenote: of the sons of Earl Roger.] - -[Sidenote: Plots to give the crown to Duke Robert.] - -[Sidenote: A party in Normandy for Henry.] - -The first year of the twelfth century was a stirring time for England, -though it was not crowded with great and striking events like the last -year of the eleventh. It reads like an earlier chapter of our story -coming over again. We have now again to tell well nigh the same tale -which we told at the beginning of the reign of Rufus. Again we have a -Norman rebellion on English soil; again we have a Norman invasion; -again the English people cleave steadily to the king whom they have -chosen; again the Primate and the bishops in general take the side -which was at once the side of the King and of the people. And, as if -to make the likeness square in the smallest details, a bishop set free -from bonds is the foremost stirrer up of mischief, and again three -sons of Earl Roger are the most active leaders of the revolt. The part -of Bishop Odo of Bayeux in the former rebellion is in the present -played to some extent by Bishop Randolf of Durham; the part of Robert -of Bellême is played again in more than all its fulness by Robert of -Bellême himself. There is again a party eager to place the Duke of the -Normans on the throne of England; but this time that party is balanced -by another which in the other tale does not appear till later, a party -eager to place the King of the English in the ducal chair of Normandy. - -[Sidenote: Character of Robert and Eadgar.] - -[Sidenote: Robert as crusader.] - -[Sidenote: His relapse on his return to Normandy.] - -[Sidenote: His renewed misgovernment.] - -Robert, like his chosen companion Eadgar, could play an active and -honourable part anywhere save in his own country. Both alike show to -far greater advantage in Palestine and in Scotland than in Normandy or -in England. The seeming inconsistency is not hard to understand. -Neither of them perhaps lacked mere capacity――Robert certainly did -not. And Robert most certainly did not lack generous feeling. But both -lacked that moral strength without which mere feeling and mere -capacity can do very little. Such men can act well and vigorously now -and then, by fits and starts, when some special motive is brought to -bear upon them. They can act better on behalf of others than they can -on behalf of themselves, because, when they act for others, a special -motive is brought to bear upon them. Their own cause they may, if they -like, neglect or betray――forgetting that, when a prince betrays his -own cause, he commonly betrays the cause of many others; but it is a -point of honour not to betray or to neglect the cause of another which -is entrusted to them. Thus it was that both Robert and Eadgar, who -could do nothing for themselves, could do a good deal for others, -whether as counsellors, as negotiators, or as military commanders. The -crusade had brought out all Robert’s best qualities; but we have seen -that, even on the crusade, he had yielded to any great and sudden -temptation. Amidst so many noble and valiant comrades, he could not -shrink from the siege or the battle; and, once brought up to the siege -or the battle, he showed himself, not only a daring soldier, but a -skilful captain. But at Laodikeia he had been the same man that he was -at Rouen. Now that he was again at Rouen, Antioch and Jerusalem passed -away; it was all Laodikeia with him. The dream of winning the English -crown floated before his eyes, and at last stirred him up to action. -Otherwise he sank into his old listlessness, his old lavishness, his -old vices and follies of every kind. It may be an overdrawn picture -which paints him as lying in bed till noon, and neglecting to attend -mass, because he had no clothes to go in; the base persons of both -sexes who surrounded him had carried them all off. Some odd chance -that happened once must have been spoken of as a habit.[998] But there -is no ground for doubting the general description of Robert’s -misgovernment or rather no-government, both before he went to the -crusade and after he came back from it. - -[Sidenote: Parties in England and Normandy.] - -[Sidenote: Henry’s strict rule distasteful to the Norman nobles.] - -It may at first sight seem a paradox that there should be at the same -moment a party in Normandy anxious to hand over the duchy to Henry and -a party in England anxious to hand over the kingdom to Robert. But -quiet men in Normandy, who wished their country to enjoy some peace, -would naturally wish to place it under the rule of Henry, while the -kind of men who, at the accession of Rufus, had wished to bring Robert -into England would equally wish to bring him now. They had perhaps -already found out that where Henry reigned none might misdo with -other, and to misdo with other was to a large part of the Norman -nobles the very business of life. - -[Sidenote: Their plots against him.] - -[Sidenote: Robert of Bellême and his brothers.] - -[Sidenote: Robert of Pontefract.] - -[Sidenote: Ivo of Grantmesnil.] - -[Sidenote: Earl Walter.] - -[Sidenote: Duke Robert’s grants to Robert of Bellême.] - -[Sidenote: He gives back Gisors to Pagan.] - -The greater part of those nobles were now beginning to plot against -the King. The estates which most of them held in Normandy gave them -special opportunities for so doing, by giving them excuses for going -to and fro between England and Normandy. Of this they were not slow to -take advantage. The three sons of Earl Roger of Shrewsbury, Robert of -Bellême and his brothers Arnulf and Roger, were busy in this work; so -was Robert the son of Ilbert of Lacy, beginning to be known as Robert -of Pontefract; so was Ivo of Grantmesnil, son of the deceased Sheriff -of Leicestershire, himself best known as the rope-dancer of Antioch. -And we are somewhat surprised to find on the same list, now at the -very end of his long life, the aged Walter Giffard, lord of -Longueville and Earl of Buckingham. All these were in secret -communication with the Duke.[999] But none of them, Robert of Bellême -least of all, was inclined to serve the Duke or any other lord for -naught. Duke Robert distributed castles and lands among them, and -promised to give them greater gifts still when he should be king of -England.[1000] To Robert of Bellême he granted the forest of Gouffers, -and the castle of Argentan of whose siege we heard seven years -before;[1001] he further confirmed him in a claim very dear to the -house of Bellême, by granting him the ducal right of advowson over the -bishopric of Seez.[1002] And, strangest of all, the Duke gave back the -fortress of Gisors, the bulwark of his duchy, to its former holder -Theobald or Pagan, because he had once hospitably entertained -him.[1003] Did not Robert of Bellême ask that, if his own master-piece -of engineering was to pass out of the hands of the prince, it should -pass into no hands but his own? Thus Duke Robert’s way of making ready -for the conquest of England was to squander the resources of Normandy. -Every inch of his territory, every stone of his fortresses, stood -ready to be granted away, almost to any one who would take the trouble -to ask for them. - - * * * * * - -[Sidenote: Christmas Gemót at Westminster. 1100-1101.] - -[Sidenote: Escape of the Bishop of Durham.] - -[Sidenote: Adventures of his mother.] - -[Sidenote: His reception by Duke Robert; he stirs him up against Henry.] - -Things were thus brewing through the winter without any open outbreak. -At Christmas King Henry wore his crown at Westminster.[1004] That was -a better place than Gloucester for watching movements beyond the sea. -And soon after the feast and assembly the cause of Robert was -strengthened by an unexpected helper, whose coming seems to have put a -new life into his supporters. The Bishop of Durham, Randolf Flambard, -suddenly showed himself in his native land of Normandy. We saw him but -lately shut up, to the joy of all men, in the Conqueror’s Tower. His -keeper, William of Mandeville, may have been negligent; at all events -his captivity was easy.[1005] The King clearly did not mean it to be -harsh, as he allowed him two shillings a day for his keep. Flambard, -with all his sins, was a pleasant and liberal companion, and he kept -many friends, even in his fall.[1006] He was allowed the company of -those friends; with them he made merry in his prison, and gave costly -banquets to them and to his keepers.[1007] At last the means of escape -were given to him; a rope was brought hidden in a vessel of water or -wine. The Bishop made a feast for his keepers, and plied them well -with the wine. When they were snoring in their drunken sleep, Flambard -tied his rope to the small column which divided one of the double -windows usual in the architecture of his day.[1008] Even at such a -moment, he did not forget that he was now a bishop; he took his -pastoral staff with him, and began to let himself down by the rope. -But he had forgotten another, and at that moment a more useful, part -of the episcopal dress. He left his gloves behind; so his hands -suffered sadly in his descent. Moreover the Bishop was a bulky man and -his rope was too short; so he fell with a heavy fall, and lay groaning -and half dead.[1009] But his friends and followers were at the foot of -the Tower ready to help him. How they came there it is not easy to -see, unless there was treason in the fortress; they should surely have -been kept out by the wall with which Rufus, at such cost to his -people, had surrounded his father’s Tower.[1010] So however the tale -is told. The Bishop’s faithful helpers had got good horses ready and -his treasure all safe. They set sail for Normandy; Flambard went in -one ship, his witch mother with the treasure in another. This second -vessel was seized by pirates and the treasure carried off; the old -woman and the crew reached Normandy despoiled and sad.[1011] Flambard -made his way to the court of Duke Robert, became his chief counsellor, -and worked hard to stir him up by every means to an invasion of -England.[1012] - -[Sidenote: Easter Gemót. April 21, 1101.] - -[Sidenote: The questions between the King and Anselm adjourned.] - -[Sidenote: Growth of the conspiracy.] - -[Sidenote: The few faithful.] - -Meanwhile King Henry held the Easter feast at Winchester. The only -recorded business of the meeting is that, as the messengers who had -been sent to the Pope had not come back, the matters in dispute -between the King and the Archbishop were adjourned till their -return.[1013] But meanwhile most of the chief men of Norman birth in -England were, of their mickle untruth, the Chronicler says, plotting -with the Duke against the King.[1014] Any excuse was enough for -treason; if Henry refused to make lavish grants after the manner of -his brother, the refusal made another traitor.[1015] Instead of a list -of the conspirators, we get a list of the few who remained faithful. -These were the two Beaumont brothers, Roger Bigod, Henry’s old friend -Richard of Redvers, and the lord of Gloucester and Glamorgan, Robert -Fitz-Hamon.[1016] To these we ought surely to add old Earl Hugh; but -he was drawing near to the end of his days. The rest sent secret -messages to Robert, and mocked openly at Godric and Godgifu. It would -seem however that there was as yet no open rebellion on English -ground. - -[Sidenote: Whitsun Gemót. June 9, 1101.] - -[Sidenote: Popular character of the assembly.] - -[Sidenote: Advice of Robert of Meulan.] - -[Sidenote: Mediation of Anselm.] - -[Sidenote: Renewed promise of good laws.] - -[Sidenote: The Church and the people for Henry.] - -[Sidenote: England united against Norman invasion.] - -The King next kept the Whitsun feast; the place is not mentioned, but -it was doubtless Westminster; and the malecontents do not seem to have -followed the old tactics of refusing to appear in the assembly. This -Pentecostal gathering is spoken of as a vast assemblage both of the -nobles and of the people in general.[1017] In an assembly held close -to London the popular element would, as in the days of Stephen, be -better able to make itself felt than at Winchester and Gloucester. And -it was on the popular element that the King relied. We are told that -his subtle counsellor from Meulan taught him that, at such a moment as -this, he must be lavish of promises, even to the length of promising -London or York, if they should be asked for.[1018] He must promise -now, and, when peace comes again, he may take all back again.[1019] In -the assembly, King and nobles met with mutual suspicions. The common -voice of all ranks put Anselm forward as the mediator between the -nation and its sovereign. It was indeed his constitutional place, a -place which in the late reign Anselm had never been able to fill, but -in which he was now called on to act, and in which he acted honourably -and vigorously. A second promise of good laws was the result.[1020] -Parties were now divided very much as they had been at the beginning -of the reign of Rufus. Anselm played the part of Lanfranc; the bishops -were all loyal; the English people clave unswervingly to the king of -their own choice, the king born on their own soil, the king who could -speak to the hearts of Englishmen in the English tongue. They, we are -emphatically told, knew nothing of the rights of any other -prince.[1021] They were for the English king, son of a king; they had -no part or lot in the foreign duke, son of a duke. And it is implied -that, not only the English by descent, but that men of all classes and -all races, except the few great men who had a vested interest in -anarchy, were with one consent steady in their loyalty to the King and -ready to fight for him against any invader. There was again an united -nation, a nation perhaps more united than it had been five-and-thirty -years before, ready to withstand the new, the last attempt, at a -Norman conquest of England. If a few earls and great lords played a -game of yet more active treason than had been played by Eadwine and -Morkere, they were not able, as Eadwine and Morkere had been able, to -keep back any part of the force of England from joining the national -standard. - - * * * * * - -[Sidenote: Importance of the campaign of 1101.] - -[Sidenote: Fusion of Normans and English under Henry.] - -[Sidenote: Last opposition of Normans and English.] - -[Sidenote: Warfare of 1102.] - -[Sidenote: Peace of King Henry. 1102-1135.] - -[Sidenote: English feeling about Tinchebrai. 1106.] - -The campaign which now followed, if campaign is the right word when -armies merely look at one another without fighting, marks an important -stage in the process which it was the work of Henry’s reign finally to -carry out, the fusion of Normans and English in England. The siege of -Rochester was the last time when Normans and Englishmen, by those -names, met in arms as enemies on English ground. Now, at Pevensey and -at Portsmouth, we for the last time hear of Englishmen on English -ground spoken of in such a way as to imply that there were other -dwellers in England who were not English. In the first year of Henry -such language was still true; to go no further, the chief counsellor -of the King was the man who had been the first to break down the -English barricade on Senlac. Long before the last year of Henry, the -men who had fought on Senlac on either side had passed away; the sons -and grandsons of the conquerors had put on the nationality of the -conquered. The struggle which did not come to blows this year did come -to blows in the next; the fighting which was found not to be needed -against Robert of Normandy was found to be needed against Robert of -Bellême. Then for thirty-three years there was peace in the island, -though there was often war on the mainland. Englishmen believed that -the old score was wiped out when they won Normandy for an English -king; and the belief, if partly a delusion, was not wholly so. On -English ground the distinction of races died out during the long peace -of Henry; when the anarchy came, men tore one another in pieces on -other pretences. But now Englishmen still go forth to withstand a -Norman invasion, Englishmen marked off by the English name, not only -from men of other lands, but also, though for the last time, from men -who were not English within the English kingdom itself. - - * * * * * - -[Sidenote: Robert’s fleet. July, 1101.] - -[Sidenote: Henry’s levy.] - -[Sidenote: Anselm and his contingent.] - -[Sidenote: The English at Pevensey.] - -[Sidenote: William Count of Mortain.] - -[Sidenote: The English fleet sent out.] - -[Sidenote: Some of the crews desert to Robert.] - -[Sidenote: Alleged agency of Flambard.] - -Meanwhile the exhortations of the Bishop of Durham had had their -effect on the sluggish mind of the Norman Duke. In the course of July -the fleet which was to win England for Robert was ready at -Tréport.[1022] The ducal navy bore the force that was designed for the -new conquest, horsemen, archers, and foot-soldiers of other kinds. -King Henry meanwhile brought together the hosts of England. As of old, -the _fyrd_ flocked together from all parts, pressing on with a good -will to the defence of England and her King. Henry now, like his -brother thirteen years before, had on his side the two great moral -powers, the people and the Church. There was no need this time to -throw scorn on the men who came as the military contingent of the see -of Canterbury. With them Anselm came in person,[1023] not surely to -wield weapons with his own hands; but doubtless to bring about peace, -if so he could, and, failing that, to exhort his flock to the last and -most terrible of duties, to fight without flinching in a righteous -war, when peace has become hopeless. It was not Anselm’s first sight -of warfare; but he might now learn the difference between Duke Roger’s -war of aggression against Capua, and the war which the English people -were ready to wage for their native land and their native king.[1024] -The King and the Primate, the national force ready to act at their -bidding, the stranger nobles ready to betray them to the invader, -gathered once more on the old battle-ground of Pevensey.[1025] There -two invading Norman fleets had already shown themselves, with widely -different results from their invasions. The third was looked for on -the same spot, perhaps all the more because of the very doubtful faith -of the new lord of Pevensey, Count William of Mortain. For that same -reason it was all the more needful to secure such a post against the -invaders. At Pevensey then, under the ancient walls and the new -donjon, the army came together, waiting for the coming of the hostile -fleet. But Henry took means to check them on their voyage. He sent -forth his ships to watch the coasts, to watch the enemy and to hinder -them from landing.[1026] But here we are met with a somewhat strange -fact. This is not the first time that we have found Englishmen at sea -less faithful than Englishmen on land. Tostig found allies among the -sailors who were sent to meet him;[1027] so now did Robert. Some of -the crews threw aside their allegiance, joined the invaders, and -guided them to land. This piece of treason is attributed to the craft -and subtlety of the Bishop of Durham, perhaps only, as in the case of -Eadric, from the general belief that, whatever mischief was done, he -must have been the doer of it.[1028] - -[Sidenote: Coming of Robert and his fleet.] - -[Sidenote: Comparison with his former attempt.] - -[Sidenote: Comparison of Harold and Henry.] - -[Sidenote: Robert lands at Portchester. July 20, 1101.] - -[Sidenote: Portchester castle and church.] - -[Sidenote: Robert marches to besiege Winchester.] - -[Sidenote: He declines to attack the city because of the Queen.] - -This time the landing-place was not Pevensey, but it was a kindred -spot. One writer contrasts Robert’s invasion with that of his father. -William made his way into the land by his own strength, Robert only by -the help of traitors.[1029] But it might have been only fair to -contrast Robert’s former attempt, when he sent others to land at -Pevensey, but made no attempt to land anywhere himself, and this -present attempt, when he came in his own person and actually landed on -English ground. And the first and the third invasion have one point of -likeness as distinguished from the second. The second invasion, that -in the days of Rufus, was beaten back, because the attempt was made on -Pevensey when Pevensey was well defended. But as the Conqueror was -able to land at Pevensey because Harold was far away in Yorkshire, so, -because Henry was carefully guarding Pevensey, Robert was able to land -elsewhere. The traitors guided his fleet along the narrow seas which -had seen the Saxon landings which came next after those which made -Anderida a wilderness. As the father had made his way to England -almost in the wake of Ælle and Cissa, so the son made his way into -England more nearly in the wake of Cerdic and Cynric. The Norman fleet -sailed up the haven of Portsmouth, and the Duke and his army landed as -safely beneath the Roman walls of Portchester as his father and his -army had landed beneath the Roman walls of Pevensey. Those walls at -least were there; the massive keep most likely was not yet; the priory -of Austin canons, whose church, little altered, still abides within -the castle walls, was the work of Henry himself.[1030] From -Portchester the invader naturally marched towards Winchester; there -was the royal seat; there was the royal hoard. He pitched his camp in -a fit place for a siege;[1031] but, in one of his fits of generosity, -he refused, on a purely personal ground, to attack the city. His -godchild and sister-in-law Queen Matilda was already lying there in -child-bed of her first child, either the Ætheling or the future -Empress. Was the West-Saxon capital her morning-gift also, as it had -been with Emma and the elder Eadgyth? When Robert heard of the Queen’s -case, he turned away, saying that it would be the deed of a villain to -assault the city at such a time.[1032] - -[Sidenote: Estimate of his conduct.] - -In this story we see the better side of Robert, that spirit of true -personal kindliness, which, like his dealings with his brother Henry -at the siege of Saint Michael’s Mount, calls forth a personal liking -for him in spite of all his follies and vices. But one and the same -fallacy runs through all these stories of passing personal generosity. -War cannot be carried on without causing much distress to many people, -to besieged garrisons suffering from thirst, to women in child-bed, -and others. Therefore war should never be undertaken, except for some -public object so great and righteous as to outweigh the distress -caused to individuals. Therefore too he who is carrying on a war on -what he believes to be adequate grounds, should not turn aside from -any operation which will promote the cause which he has in hand, -merely on account of the distress which it may cause to individuals. -We can hardly fancy that Robert himself would have turned away from -the siege of Jerusalem or Antioch out of thought for any single -person, even a brother or sister. He would have felt such an act to be -treason to the common cause of Christendom. At Saint Michael’s Mount -and at Winchester he had no cause to betray; he was simply fighting -for his own interests, which he might, if he chose, forbear to assert. -The morality of his age, perhaps the military morality of any age, -fails to see that what this proves is that he should not have been -attacking Winchester or the Mount at all. Unless war is so high a duty -as to outweigh all personal considerations, it is a crime. - -[Sidenote: Personal character of the chivalrous feeling.] - -Again, in all these stories we see how the chivalrous spirit thinks of -those only whose rank or kindred or some other personal cause brings -their distress directly home to its thoughts. Others on the Mount were -thirsty besides Henry; Winchester must have contained other women in -child-bed besides Matilda. But Robert thinks only of those who are -personally connected with himself. Of course that abstract way of -looking at the matter which strict morality dictates is quite foreign -to the notions of the eleventh century or of many later centuries, and -must therefore not be pressed too far. And undoubtedly the personal -kindliness which is always shown by Duke Robert is quite enough to put -him on another moral level from a monster like Robert of Bellême. It -is also enough to put him on another level from William Rufus, whose -generosity is simply a form of pride. Yet, after all, the Red King’s -abiding duty and reverence towards his father, alive and dead, comes -nearer to a moral principle than Robert’s momentary outbursts of -kindly feeling. - - * * * * * - -[Sidenote: Robert’s march from Winchester.] - -[Sidenote: The armies meet near Alton.] - -[Sidenote: Desertion of the Earls of Shrewsbury and Surrey.] - -[Sidenote: William of Warren’s enmity to the King.] - -[Sidenote: His jests on the King’s love of hunting.] - -[Sidenote: Doubtful truth of other nobles.] - -[Sidenote: Death of Earl Hugh. July 26, 1101.] - -From Winchester Robert is said to have turned towards London, under -the belief that Henry was there.[1033] This is somewhat strange, as -one would think that the sea-faring men who had guided him to -Portchester must both themselves have known, and would take care to -let him know, that the King was at Pevensey. But nothing would be more -natural than that Robert should march on London while the King was -known to be elsewhere. And the point where, in the only account which -attempts any geographical detail, the armies are said to have met, -suggests a march of Robert towards London, and a march of Henry from -Pevensey designed to meet him on the road before he should reach -London. Robert was by the wood of Alton when news was brought to him -that his brother’s force was near, on the other side of the -wood.[1034] This seems a likely point for the armies to meet, when the -one was going north-east from Portchester and the other going -north-west from Pevensey. Wherever the spot was, the two hosts met -face to face and made ready for battle. But, either then or earlier, -many of the Norman barons in Henry’s army openly forsook the King’s -cause and went over to the invaders. Two of the traitors are mentioned -by name. Robert of Bellême, who was a little time before plotting in -Normandy in his character of lord of Montgomery, must now have been -again in England to work this open treason in his character of Earl of -Shrewsbury. The other was the King’s cousin, the Earl of Surrey, the -younger William of Warren, who is spoken of as a bitter personal enemy -of the King.[1035] Henry had, even in his charter of liberties, kept -the forests in his own hands; for, besides his wars, his studies, and -his love-intrigues, he found time for an indulgence in hunting, which -even surpassed, it would seem, the measure of his fellows. This drew -on him the mockery of Earl William, who jeered at his deer-slaying -exploits, and bestowed on him the nickname of _Hartsfoot_.[1036] To -mockery he now added treason, and Henry did not forget either. While -these great lords forsook the King, other Norman nobles still clave to -him outwardly, but only with a feigned heart. His trust was in the -small band of faithful Normans, in the Primate and the bishops, and -above all in the English people. One of his oldest Norman friends was -gone; Earl Hugh had ended his long and turbulent life as a -three-days’-old monk in the house of Saint Werburh, the house which -was the joint work of himself and Anselm.[1037] - -[Sidenote: Anselm’s energy on the King’s side.] - -[Sidenote: Henry’s promises to Anselm.] - -[Sidenote: Zeal of the English.] - -[Sidenote: Exhortation of the King.] - -Meanwhile every motive of religion, loyalty, and patriotism, was -brought to bear on the minds of the royal army. While some among the -barons were openly falling off, while the good faith of others was -doubtful, the King put his whole trust in Anselm only. The Primate was -set to exhort, publicly and privately, all whose defection was -feared.[1038] And exhort he did, and with good success, hindering at -least any further open revolt. Robert himself was alarmed at the -threat of excommunication which Anselm held over him.[1039] In the -belief of Anselm’s biographer, the King at this moment owed his crown -to the Archbishop.[1040] It is added that, in this moment of danger, -Henry promised, not only to let Anselm exercise his full jurisdiction -undisturbed, but also to obey in his own person all the decrees and -orders of the Apostolic See.[1041] The former part of the promise -Henry cannot be fairly charged with breaking; the latter engagement, -if it was ever made at all, must surely have been made under some -qualification, or else it must be referred to the same class of -promises as the suggested grants of London and York. Still there can -be no doubt that Anselm served the King well and loyally, and that his -help went far to keep many wavering souls in their allegiance. But the -mass of the English army hardly needed exhortation to keep them in -their duty. They would perhaps be more deeply stirred by the voice of -the King himself than even by that of the Primate. Never yet since the -day of Senlac had Englishmen harnessed for the battle heard a crowned -king call on them in their native tongue. But now we see Henry -marshalling his ranks in the old tactics, and speaking to his -Englishmen as Brihtnoth or Harold might have spoken. The lifeless -Latin catches some spark or echo from the song of Maldon, when King -Henry rides round the wedge of warriors, and bids them meet the charge -of the Norman knights by standing firm in the array of the ancient -shield-wall. No wonder that their hearts were stirred; no wonder that -they shouted loud for the battle, and told their King with one voice -that they were ready for the work, and feared not a Norman in the -invading host.[1042] - -[Sidenote: Negotiations between Henry and Robert.] - -[Sidenote: Message of Henry.] - -[Sidenote: Robert’s answer.] - -[Sidenote: His claim of elder birth.] - -[Sidenote: Personal meeting of the brothers.] - -[Sidenote: They agree on terms.] - -But the merits of the Norman lance and the English battle-axe were not -again to be put to the trial on English ground. Harold and William had -tried negotiation before the final appeal to arms; how much more then -should the brothers Henry and Robert? The King of the English first -sent a herald to the invader to ask why he had dared to enter his -kingdom in arms. Robert sent word back again that it was the kingdom -of his father which he had entered, and that he demanded it as his due -by the right of elder birth.[1043] In English ears this appeal to the -new-fangled notions of other lands must have sounded meaningless. To -whom could a crown be due but to him to whom the folk of his land had -given it? What was Robert and his elder birth to them? He, the -stranger-born, might, for aught they knew, be the eldest son of Duke -William of Normandy; but King Henry, the countryman of his people, was -the only son of King William of England. Other messages followed; wise -men on both sides sought to bring about a reconciliation between the -brothers; others sought war rather than peace.[1044] We read on the -one hand that, after many messages had gone to and fro, the King found -that he could trust no negotiator but himself.[1045] Yet we hear also -of Henry being represented by Robert Fitz-hamon, who was surely -faithful, while the representatives of Robert are somewhat strangely -said to have been two of Henry’s own rebels, the Earl of Shrewsbury -and the lord of Cornwall.[1046] However this may be, those on both -sides who shrank from a war of brothers brought about a personal -interview between the rival princes. Nothing could be more to the -advantage of the calm genius of Henry. Robert, able to negotiate for -others, was sure not to be able to negotiate for himself. The hosts of -Normandy and England stood marshalled in all their pride of war, while -the King and the Duke went forth alone into the plain between them. -The brothers talked together; after a while they embraced and -kissed.[1047] Terms of agreement had been come to which were to save -the blood of the subjects of both. - - * * * * * - -[Sidenote: The treaty of 1101.] - -[Sidenote: Robert gives up all claim to England; Henry gives up his -Norman possessions.] - -[Sidenote: He keeps Domfront.] - -[Sidenote: Henry and Helias neighbours.] - -[Sidenote: Yearly payment to Robert.] - -[Sidenote: Stipulation as to the succession.] - -[Sidenote: Dying out of the legitimate male line of both brothers.] - -[Sidenote: Natural sons of Henry.] - -[Sidenote: Earl Robert.] - -[Sidenote: Richard.] - -[Sidenote: Henry released from his homage to Robert.] - -[Sidenote: Each prince to restore the partisans of the other.] - -[Sidenote: The treaty sworn to.] - -[Sidenote: Robert and his army go back. Michaelmas, 1101.] - -[Sidenote: Mischief done by the Norman army.] - -By the treaty now sworn to Robert gave up all claim to the kingdom of -England. Henry, on his part, gave up to Robert his county of -Coutances, and all that he possessed within the borders of Normandy. -One continental possession alone, a small and isolated one, he kept. -He might give up the lands which he had once bought of Robert and -which he had afterwards received in fief of William. But he could not -give up the town and castle of Domfront, whose people had of their own -free will chosen him as their lord, and had received his oath never to -give them over to any other lord. Domfront therefore, the border post -of Normandy and Maine, once the solitary possession of the wanderer, -now remained the solitary continental possession of the island -king.[1048] Thus, in his small dominion on the mainland, Henry had in -a neighbour his friend and ally Count Helias, a neighbourhood which -had some influence on the events of a few years later. Besides the -territorial cessions, the Duke was to receive a yearly payment of -three thousand pounds from his brother. The vain provision was again -inserted that, if either brother died without lawful issue in the -lifetime of the other, the survivor should succeed to his dominions. -Such a provision might seem even vainer than ever, now that both -brothers were lately married to young and fruitful wives. Yet it is -strange to look forward, and to see how each brother outlived his son, -and how short a time the younger brother outlived the elder. Neither -Robert nor Henry could have dreamed that the succession of both would -pass to the son of their sister at Chartres. Anyhow the arrangement -shut out those who afterwards showed themselves to be, in personal -qualities, the most worthy to reign. These were the natural sons of -Henry. Robert, the son of the unknown French mother, came to fill no -small place in history as the renowned Earl of Gloucester; and the -short life of Richard, the son of the Berkshire widow, showed him as a -gallant soldier and something more. Thus the relations and the -succession of the two states of Normandy and England were settled. But -a personal matter still remained between the princes. At some earlier -time, most likely when he first received the Côtentin, Henry had -become the man of Robert. But now Henry was a king; Robert was to -remain only a duke. It was not becoming for a crowned and anointed -king to be the man of a mere duke. Henry was therefore released from -all personal obligations of homage towards his brother. Lastly, a -provision borrowed from the elder treaty was inserted, seemingly only -for form’s sake. Each prince bound himself to restore the lands and -honours of all men who had suffered forfeiture for supporting the -cause of the other. The treaty thus agreed to was, like the elder one, -confirmed by the oaths of twelve of the chief men on each side.[1049] -Part of the Duke’s army at once left England; part stayed till he -himself went back at Michaelmas. He tarried till then as his brother’s -guest, treated with all honour, and enriched with many gifts. But it -is recorded that the part of his army which stayed with him did much -harm in the land.[1050] - - -§ 4. _The Revolt of Robert of Bellême._ - -1102. - -[Sidenote: Continued disloyalty of the Norman nobles.] - -[Sidenote: Henry’s plan for breaking the power of the great barons.] - -King Henry was now made fast in his kingdom; but he still had enemies -to strive against. The allegiance of many of the chief men of Norman -birth in England was still not a little doubtful. They had to be fully -brought under the royal power before either the King or his kingdom -could be safe. Henry, there can be little doubt, cold and calculating -as he was, formed a settled plan for breaking the power of those great -barons who, at least if they joined together, might easily make -themselves dangerous to the peace of the land. It was not his policy -to hurry, nor to make over-many enemies by attacking all the dangerous -men at once. The work was to be done bit by bit; opportunities were to -be found as they offered themselves, to settle matters with those who -had been traitors once and who were likely to be traitors again. - -[Sidenote: The treaty does not apply to Flambard.] - -[Sidenote: Death of Gilbert Bishop of Lisieux. August, 1101.] - -[Sidenote: Fulcher, Flambard’s brother, holds the see. June 1102-January -1103.] - -[Sidenote: Flambard receives the revenues under cover of his son.] - -To some of the most dangerous traitors of all the provisions of the -late treaty did not apply. The Bishop of Durham had lost nothing in -the cause of Duke Robert. He had been imprisoned, and his -temporalities had been seized, on the ground of his old offences, -before Robert’s claims had been heard of. He had no claims to -restoration, nor did he as yet find any favour. He went back to -Normandy, and there, in his banishment to his native land, he found -means to provide for himself at the cost of one of its bishoprics. -Gilbert Maminot, the skilful leech whom the Conqueror had placed in -the see of Lisieux,[1051] died in August, while Duke Robert was in -England. The see was not filled till the next June, when it was given -to Flambard’s brother Fulcher, who was consecrated and held the -bishopric with a good reputation for liberality till his death seven -months later. Then Flambard caused the see to be bestowed on a young -son of his own, Thomas by name. As far as a not very intelligible -account can be made out, Thomas remained unconsecrated, while his -father received the revenues. It was not till after Henry’s conquest -of Normandy that a more regular appointment to the bishopric was -made.[1052] - -[Sidenote: Banishment of the Earl of Surrey.] - -[Sidenote: His restoration.] - -Earl William of Warren too paid the penalty of rebellion, rebellion -aggravated by personal gibes against the King. If our accounts are -correct, he was disinherited so soon that he went away to Normandy in -company with Duke Robert. He is said to have had other companions in -the same case.[1053] He was afterwards restored at Robert’s -intercession; but the chronology is confused, and we may guess that -his fall did not happen quite so soon as is said. If he did suffer -forfeiture directly after the treaty, it must have been on some other -ground, and not that of taking Robert’s side during the quarrel, which -would have been covered by the treaty. On Earl William chastisement -had a good effect; he came back to be a loyal subject and special -friend of King Henry during the rest of his reign.[1054] - -[Sidenote: Henry’s rewards and punishments.] - -[Sidenote: Banishment of Robert Malet;] - -[Sidenote: of Robert of Pontefract.] - -[Sidenote: Private war unlawful in England.] - -[Sidenote: Ivo of Grantmesnil harries his neighbours’ lands.] - -[Sidenote: His trial, and conviction.] - -[Sidenote: He asks help of Robert of Meulan.] - -[Sidenote: Bargain between them.] - -Other dangerous persons were got rid of one by one, as occasion -served. Henry rewarded bountifully all who served him faithfully; but -no enemy escaped him; no traitor avoided forfeiture or heavy -fines.[1055] Forfeiture came before long on some men who were, after -the earls, among the greatest of the men of Norman birth in England. -Such was Robert Malet, son of the gossip of King Harold, a man great -in the east of England. Such was one equally great in the north, -Robert of Pontefract, the son of Ilbert of Lacy. Charges were brought -against them in the King’s court, and forfeiture and banishment -followed.[1056] In another case we know the exact nature of the -charge, nor can we condemn the punishment, except so far as it was -turned to the private advantage of a favourite. It was our boast in -England that we needed not the Truce of God, that, alike before and -after King William came into England, private war, the dearest -privilege of the continental noble, was always a crime against the -law.[1057] But now Ivo of Grantmesnil, the rope-dancer of Antioch, -took upon him to bring the licence of Normandy into England, and to -lay waste the lands of some of his neighbours. This was a deed which -could not be passed by in the days of the King who had come to make -peace in the land. A trial, and a huge fine on conviction, -followed.[1058] Ivo, on the verge of ruin, betook himself to Count -Robert of Meulan. Let the Count reconcile him to the King, and he -would again go to the crusade, and try to wipe out the shame of his -former pilgrimage.[1059] A bargain was struck; Count Robert was to -give Ivo five hundred marks towards his journey to Palestine, and was -in return to take possession of all Ivo’s lands for fifteen years. -Then they were to go back to his son Ivo, now a child, who was to -marry the Count’s niece, the daughter of the Earl of Warwick.[1060] -The elder Ivo went on his second crusade with his wife, the daughter -of Gilbert of Ghent, and died on his pilgrimage. With him ended the -short-lived greatness of the house of Grantmesnil in England. The -inheritance of his father and grandfather passed away from the younger -Ivo to swell the fortunes of the chief counsellor of the King.[1061] - -[Sidenote: Origin of the earldom of Leicester.] - -[Sidenote: Ivo’s relations with Leicester.] - -[Sidenote: Other lords in Leicester.] - -[Sidenote: Robert Earl of Leicester. 1103.] - -[Sidenote: Dies, 1118.] - -[Sidenote: His college at Leicester. 1107.] - -[Sidenote: Its endowments transferred to Leicester abbey. 1143.] - -[Sidenote: 1530.] - -The subtlety of the Count of Meulan was famous, and it enabled him to -change his fifteen years’ possession of the lands of Ivo of -Grantmesnil into a great hereditary earldom. A chief part of Ivo’s -position came from his relations to the town of Leicester. He had -succeeded his father as Sheriff of the shire and farmer of the royal -revenues. He was also castellan of the fortress above the Soar, the -fortress which the elder Eadmund won back for England and for -Christendom,[1062] where a mound older than Æthelflæd[1063] looks down -on the church of Robert of Meulan and the hall of Simon the Righteous. -But the lordship of the house of Grantmesnil over the old Danish -borough was not complete; besides the King and the Bishop of Lincoln, -some rights in Leicester belonged to Earl Simon of Northampton.[1064] -The cunning Count of Meulan contrived to unite all claims in himself, -and became the first of the Earls of Leicester,[1065] that title which -has passed to so many names, and which has drawn to itself alike the -glory of a Montfort and the shame of a Dudley. Earl Robert kept his -office and his prosperity for the remaining fifteen years of his life, -and then died, fifty-two years after the great battle, with the wrongs -of Ivo of Grantmesnil upon his conscience.[1066] Married, as we have -seen, somewhat late in life,[1067] he was the father of two sons, both -of whom were brought up with such care that they could, while still -young, hold logical disputations with cardinals.[1068] Of these -brothers, Robert, the elder, became a prosperous Earl of Leicester in -England, while his brother Waleran became an unlucky Count of Meulan -beyond the sea.[1069] Of one of his daughters we have already heard as -helping to swell the irregular household of King Henry.[1070] The Earl -himself remained the King’s counsellor, keeping on friendly terms with -Anselm, while cleaving steadfastly to the ancient law of England in -the matter of investitures.[1071] He too was an ecclesiastical -benefactor, though on no very great scale. He founded or restored a -college of canons within the castle of Leicester, where the small -church of his building may still be seen embedded in the greater -fabric into which it has grown.[1072] But the greater part of its -endowments were taken by the second Earl Robert to enrich the abbey of -our Lady of his own foundation, the abbey where a more famous cardinal -than those with whom its founder had disputed came to lay his -bones.[1073] - - * * * * * - -[Sidenote: Christmas Gemót. 1101-1102.] - -[Sidenote: Danger from Robert of Bellême.] - -[Sidenote: The King watches him.] - -[Sidenote: Easter Gemót. April 6, 1102.] - -[Sidenote: Robert asks a licence to be accompanied by his men.] - -[Sidenote: The licence is given.] - -[Sidenote: Robert does not come.] - -[Sidenote: The King’s proclamation.] - -[Sidenote: He again summons Robert, who refuses to come.] - -[Sidenote: The war begins.] - -King Henry had thus overthrown several of his open or secret enemies, -and he doubtless wore his crown at the Christmas Gemót at Westminster -with a greater feeling of safety. But the greatest work of all had -still to be done. There was still one man in England whose presence -was utterly inconsistent with the rule of any king whose mind was to -give peace to his kingdom. Peace, in Henry’s sense of the word, could -not be in a land where Robert of Bellême was, to say the least, the -mightiest man after the King. Henry knew his man; he knew that, sooner -or later, the struggle must come between himself and such a subject. -For a whole year he kept his eye upon the Earl of Shropshire and all -his doings. Spies sent from the King watched all that he did; every -blameworthy act was carefully reported and set down in writing.[1074] -A bulky volume, one would think, must have been added to the library -of the learned King. At last the moment came when Henry thought that -it was time to act, and the form of action which he took was one which -followed more than one precedent in earlier reigns. The Easter Gemót -was to be held at Winchester. The King summoned Earl Robert to appear -before the Assembly, and to answer openly on forty-five distinct -charges of offences done either against the King or against his -brother the Duke.[1075] We do not read that Robert, like others in the -like case on earlier occasions, demanded a safe-conduct to go and to -return; but we do read that he demanded――and it is implied that the -demand was an usual one――a licence to come accompanied by his men. -They were to serve, we may suppose, either as compurgators or as -defenders by the strong hand, as things might turn out.[1076] The -demand was granted; Earl Roger set forth; the King and his barons were -waiting for his coming at Winchester; but he came not. On the road he -changed his mind; he knew that the result of any legal trial must be -against him; he deemed, and doubtless with truth, that he would be -safer in his own strong castles than he could be in the King’s court. -He fled, we are told, breathless and afraid, a description which does -not savour much of the fierce lord of Bellême. But at any rate the -King’s messenger had to report that the Earl of Shropshire had gone -elsewhere, and was not on his way to obey the King’s summons.[1077] -Henry did not hurry; he put forth a proclamation, declaring that the -Earl, lawfully charged with various crimes, had not come to make his -defence, and that, if he did not come at once to do right――to abide -his trial――he would be declared an outlaw.[1078] Along with the issue -of the public proclamation, the King, clearly anxious to give no -occasion for any man to say that the Earl had been harshly or -informally treated, sent him a second personal summons to appear -before the Assembly. This time Robert directly refused to come,[1079] -and open war broke out. The work of King Henry, as we have already -heard, was to destroy the ungodly within his kingdom.[1080] He had to -begin by doing that useful work on an offender whose ungodliness was -on the grandest scale of all. - - * * * * * - -[Sidenote: Greatness of Robert’s possessions.] - -[Sidenote: His acquisition of Ponthieu.] - -[Sidenote: His brothers Arnulf and Roger.] - -[Sidenote: Wide range of warfare and negotiation.] - -[Sidenote: Welsh alliance of Robert.] - -The overweening greatness of the house of Montgomery or Bellême, and -the personal energy of its members, is shown in the range both of -warfare and of negotiation which was opened by what was in its -beginning a mere legal process on the part of the King of the English -against an offending subject. We must always remember that, whatever -Robert was at Shrewsbury or at Montgomery, at Bellême he was something -more than an ordinary vassal of either king or duke. He had lately -increased his continental power by taking possession of the county of -Ponthieu, the inheritance of his son, who bore the name of his own -maternal grandfather, the terrible William Talvas.[1081] The Earl of -Shrewsbury was thus entitled to deal with princes as one of their own -order. He and the two best known of his brothers, those whom we have -already seen leagued with him, Arnulf of Montgomery, lord of Pembroke, -and Roger of Poitou, once lord of the land between Mersey and Ribble, -were now again firmly joined together against the King.[1082] And they -contrived to draw no small part of Northern Europe into a partnership -in their private quarrel. That Robert of Bellême should be able to get -together a large body of Welsh allies is in no way wonderful. He was -indeed the sternest enemy of their nation; but, among that divided -people, enmity on the part of one tribe or dynasty was a claim to -support on the part of another, and all tribes and dynasties forgot -every enmity and every wrong when there was a chance of harrying the -fields and homes of the Saxon. Welsh allies of the rebel Earl play an -important part in the story, and the more distant powers of Ireland -and Norway are also brought within its page. - -[Sidenote: Revolt in Gwynedd.] - -[Sidenote: Settlement of Gruffydd and of Cadwgan and his brothers.] - -[Sidenote: Robert calls on the Welsh for help;] - -[Sidenote: his gifts and promises.] - -Just at this time the Welsh seem to have been stronger and more united -than usual. We have seen that their momentary subjugation after the -death of Earl Hugh of Shropshire had led to a successful movement -while his successor was busy on the continent.[1083] The men of -Gwynedd could not bear Norman rule; whether it took the form of law or -of unlaw, it was equally against the grain. Their leader now was Owen -son of Edwin, who, we are told, had been the first to bring the French -into Mona.[1084] This was before the end of the year of Earl Hugh’s -death; it was in the next year that Cadwgan and Gruffydd came back -from their Irish shelter.[1085] The phrase of the Welsh writer, that -they came to terms with “the French,” must be understood as referring -to their relations with Robert of Bellême. Cadwgan kept Ceredigion and -a part of Powys, for which he and his brothers Jorwerth and Meredydd -became the men of the Earl of Shropshire. Gruffydd seems to have held -Anglesey as a wholly independent prince; there is at least no mention -of vassalage in his case.[1086] Earl Robert now called on his British -vassals to help him in his struggle with the King. As there is no sign -that they had become the men either of King Henry or of any earlier -king, the law of Salisbury did not apply to them. The promises of -Robert of Bellême were splendid; so were his gifts; he almost seems to -have won the help of the Britons by a promised restoration of complete -freedom to their country.[1087] In the allies thus drawn to his -banners he professed the most boundless trust. He put into their -hands――so the Welsh writer tells us――his wealth and his cattle, -perhaps also, what a Norman lord would specially value, the horses of -noble breed which he had brought over from Spain, and whose race -flourished in the land of Powys long after.[1088] A great and motley -host was thus got together, which entered zealously into the cause of -the Earl, and did not pass by so good an opportunity of finding great -spoil.[1089] - -[Sidenote: Arnulf’s dealings with Murtagh.] - -[Sidenote: Negotiation with Magnus.] - -[Sidenote: Murtagh sends his daughter to Arnulf.] - -Meanwhile the Earl’s brother Arnulf at once strengthened the castle of -Pembroke and looked further for allies than the land of Ceredigion and -Powys. By the hands of his steward at Pembroke, Gerald of Windsor, he -sent to Ireland to King Murtagh, to ask for the king’s daughter in -marriage and for help in the struggle.[1090] From what followed, and -from the connexion between Murtagh and Magnus, we can hardly doubt -that the negotiations of Arnulf reached to Norway as well as to -Ireland, and that Magnus himself was a party to the course which was -at once followed by Murtagh. The Irish king promised his daughter to -the lord of Pembroke, in some sort his neighbour, and actually sent -her to her affianced husband on board a great fleet designed to -support the rebel cause.[1091] - -[Sidenote: Henry’s negotiation with Duke Robert.] - -[Sidenote: Duke Robert besieges Vignats.] - -[Sidenote: Treason of Robert of Montfort and others.] - -[Sidenote: Victory of the besieged.] - -[Sidenote: Ravage of the Hiesmes.] - -King Henry had thus plenty of foes to strive against in his work of -bringing back the reign of law and order in his kingdom. But he too -could negotiate beyond sea; he could stir up a diversion against the -Count of Bellême and Ponthieu, which might do something to weaken the -power of the Earl of Shropshire and lord of Arundel. The King sent -letters to his brother Duke Robert, setting forth how Earl Robert had -incurred forfeiture in the dominions of both of them, and how he had -treasonably refused to appear in the general Assembly of England. He -called on his brother to do as he was doing himself, and to smite the -man who was a traitor to both his lords with the vengeance that was -his due.[1092] The Duke attempted something after his fashion, that is -his fashion in Normandy and not his fashion in Syria. The man who had -been foremost in the crusading host had on his native soil sunk again -into the feeble and half-hearted ruler whom we knew of old. Yet he did -make an attempt to subdue the castles which held out for Robert of -Bellême in the land of Hiesmes. He laid siege to Vignats, a castle -lying south-east of Falaise, on a height looking to the north, not far -from one of the tributaries of the Dive. It was an old possession of -the house of Talvas, and in the next generation it became the site of -an abbey of Benedictine nuns.[1093] It was now held on behalf of -Robert of Bellême by a captain named Gerard of Saint Hilary. The -garrison, if their state of mind is rightly described, wished the -besiegers to make a fierce assault that they might have an excuse for -surrendering without dishonour.[1094] But, under the generalship of -Duke Robert on Norman ground, no fierce assault followed. There were -even traitors in the Duke’s camp. Robert of the Norman Montfort, whom -we have heard of in the wars of Maine,[1095] and other lords in the -Duke’s army, being, it would seem, in league with the rebels, burned -their quarters and fled, no man pursuing them. They even constrained -the loyal part of the army to flee with them.[1096] It was not -wonderful then that the garrison of Vignats plucked up heart, made a -vigorous sally, and chased the voluntary fliers with loud -shouts.[1097] A war followed, in which the whole land of Hiesmes was -laid waste. Not only Vignats, but Fourches, Argentan, and -Château-Gonthier further down the river, were all held by the rebels. -The loyal lords on both sides of the Oudon, Robert of Grantmesnil, the -other son of the old Sheriff of Leicestershire, his brother-in-law -Hugh of Mont-Pizon, and his other brother-in-law, Robert of Courcy, -strove in vain to defend their lands. But the rebels were too strong -for them, and the whole of that district of Normandy was laid waste -with havoc of every kind.[1098] - - * * * * * - -[Sidenote: Robert of Bellême strengthens his castles.] - -[Sidenote: Works at Bridgenorth.] - -[Sidenote: The King’s plans.] - -[Sidenote: He besieges Arundel.] - -[Sidenote: Truce with the besieged.] - -[Sidenote: Robert and Arnulf harry Staffordshire.] - -[Sidenote: Terms of the surrender of Arundel.] - -King Henry managed matters better in his island. The rebel Earl put -all his castles in a state of defence. Arundel, Shrewsbury, and -Tickhill, were all garrisoned, all supplied with provisions. So too -was the Castle by the Bridge, where, as well as at Careghova, the -works, still, it would seem, not wholly finished, were pressed on by -day and night.[1099] The King had to choose which fortress he would -attack first. His plan seems to have been first to cut off Robert’s -outlying possessions, before he made any attack on the strongholds of -his power on the Welsh border. And, first of all, he led his -force――the host of England it is emphatically called――to the siege of -the Earl’s great South-Saxon castle, that which lay open to the chance -of help from the supporters of the rebel cause in Normandy.[1100] The -King marched to Arundel; he set up, after the usual fashion, two evil -neighbours to keep the fortress in check.[1101] He then gave part of -his army leave of absence while the work of blockade went on.[1102] -The zeal of the defenders of Arundel in the cause of their rebel lord -does not seem to have been strong; but they had a keen sense either of -the honour of soldiers or of the duty of vassals. This last, to be -sure, was a mistaken sense, according to the laws of England, above -all according to the great law of Salisbury. They craved a truce, -during which they might ask Earl Robert either to send them help or to -give them leave to surrender. Robert was far away in his Mercian -earldom, busy on two works. The defences of Bridgenorth were -strengthening day by day, and Robert and Arnulf, at the head of their -_Gal-Welsh_ and _Bret-Welsh_ forces――it is significantly hinted that -Englishmen had no share in the evil work――were harrying the -neighbouring parts of Staffordshire. A great booty of cattle, and some -human captives, were carried off into Wales, the price of the help -given by Cadwgan and his brother.[1103] The messengers from Arundel -found their lord at some stage of these employments, and set forth to -him the danger in which they stood from the King’s leaguer. Mournful, -but feeling himself unable to send help to so distant a post, Robert -of Bellême gave his garrison of Arundel full leave to make what terms -they could with the King.[1104] They surrendered at once and with -great joy; but they honourably stipulated that their lord Earl Robert -should be allowed to go safe into Normandy. The King received them -graciously and rewarded them with rich gifts.[1105] Arundel passed -into the royal hands, to become in the next reign the seat of a more -abiding earldom in the hands of the famous houses of Aubigny and -Fitzalan, and to pass through them to the more modern, but perhaps -more English, line of Howard.[1106] - -[Sidenote: Surrender of Tickhill.] - -[Sidenote: Question of the King’s presence.] - -[Sidenote: Action of Robert Bloet.] - -[Sidenote: Later history of Tickhill.] - -The surrender of Arundel took away all fear lest any help should come -to Robert of Bellême from his Norman partisans. But before the King -made any movement towards the lands on the Severn, he marched far to -the north-east, to the lands watered by the tributaries of the -northern Ouse, on the borders of Yorkshire and Nottinghamshire. Here -the mound of Tickhill was still held for the rebel Earl, and the new -gate-house of his predecessor’s building still frowned defiance in the -teeth of any advancing enemy.[1107] But Tickhill proved yet an easier -conquest than Arundel. It needed no _Malvoisin_, no messages sent to -Shrewsbury or Bridgenorth, to persuade its garrison to surrender. -According to one version, the siege was not even deemed worthy of the -royal presence. While Henry himself marched to the greater enterprise -at Bridgenorth, a spiritual lord was deemed to be captain enough for -the siege of Tickhill. The work to be done there was entrusted to the -hands of Bishop Robert of Lincoln.[1108] According to another version, -which is perhaps not quite inconsistent with the other, the King -himself appeared before Tickhill, and the garrison at once marched -forth with all readiness to meet their natural lord――_cynehlaford_ to -Normans and Englishmen alike, _cynehlaford_ above all to Yorkshiremen, -if he was really born in their shire――and received him with all -fitting joy.[1109] The castle of Tickhill or Blyth passed back again -for a while to the kinsfolk of its former owner, and afterwards became -a possession of the Crown.[1110] A collegiate chapel was founded -within its walls by the first Queen Eleanor, and in the reign of her -son Richard the ground between Tickhill and Blyth became the special -scene of fantastic displays of chivalrous rashness.[1111] There was no -licensed tournament-ground at Tickhill or elsewhere in the days of the -King who made peace for man and deer.[1112] - -[Sidenote: Henry’s Shropshire campaign. Autumn, 1102.] - -[Sidenote: Robert of Bellême at Shrewsbury.] - -[Sidenote: Defence of Bridgenorth.] - -[Sidenote: The three captains.] - -[Sidenote: Robert son of Corbet.] - -[Sidenote: Robert Neville?] - -[Sidenote: Wulfgar the huntsman.] - -[Sidenote: Action of the Welsh princes.] - -The more distant possessions of the rebel Earl were thus brought under -the King’s obedience. The peace of King Henry reigned in Sussex, in -Yorkshire, and in Nottinghamshire. Now came the time for attacking the -special strongholds of Robert’s own earldom; the stage of attacking -himself was to come last of all. After the surrender of Arundel and -Tickhill, the King allowed his men a breathing-time;[1113] then, in -the course of the autumn, he gathered together the forces of all -England for the final overthrow of the rebellion. Robert of Bellême -had chosen his capital of Shrewsbury as the post which he would defend -himself. His new fortress of Bridgenorth he placed in the hands of -three chosen captains, at the head of eighty mercenary knights, -attended doubtless by a fitting following of lower degree.[1114] Of -the three leaders, Robert son of Corbet――a name which was to become -abiding in those parts――was a hereditary follower of the house of -Montgomery; he appears in Domesday as the holder of a large estate -under Earl Roger.[1115] To another captain, Robert _de Nova Villa_, we -have no certain clue; Neuvevilles and Newtons abound in Normandy and -England; he may or he may not have been a forefather of the historic -Nevilles. The third awakens more interest; his name seems to be -English; he is Wulfgar the huntsman.[1116] Nor is there the slightest -reason to think that Robert of Bellême would reject the services of a -born Englishman in any post, if the man himself seemed likely to suit -his purpose. These three, with the regular force at their command, had -to defend the Castle by the Bridge; the Welsh princes, Cadwgan and -Jorwerth, with their less disciplined bands, were planted in the -neighbourhood, to annoy the King’s troops, as they might find -occasion.[1117] - -[Sidenote: Robert of Bellême seizes the land of William Pantulf.] - -[Sidenote: He rejects his services.] - -[Sidenote: William Pantulf joins the King.] - -[Sidenote: He commands at Stafford;] - -[Sidenote: his services.] - -But, while Earl Robert knew how to make use of the services of Robert -the son of Corbet, he had the folly to make an enemy of another old -follower of his father. He had already, for what cause we are not -told, seized the lands of William Pantulf, who appears in Domesday as -holding under Earl Roger a great estate in Shropshire, a small one in -Staffordshire, and an empty house in the town of Stafford.[1118] He -was a tried and valiant warrior, and he now, forgetting his late -wrongs, offered his services to the son of his old benefactor in his -time of need. Earl Robert thrust him aside with scorn, on which -William betook himself to the King, by whom his merits were better -valued. Henry had known him of old, and now gladly received him. -William Pantulf was sent at the head of two hundred knights, to -command the castle of Stafford, a castle which had risen and fallen in -the days of the Conqueror, and which must have by this time risen -again.[1119] The local knowledge and interest of William Pantulf in -the two neighbouring shires seems to have stood him in good stead. He -acted vigorously against the lord who had scorned him, and no one, we -are told, did more towards bringing about the final overthrow of the -proud Earl.[1120] - - * * * * * - -[Sidenote: Relation of Normans and English.] - -[Sidenote: Division of feeling in the army.] - -[Sidenote: Siege of Bridgenorth.] - -[Sidenote: The King builds a _Malvoisin_.] - -[Sidenote: The great men lean to Robert of Bellême.] - -And now we get one of our most instructive pictures of the time, and -of the difference of feeling among men of the time. We distinctly see -the difference of feeling between Normans and English. But they are no -longer labelled as Normans and English, as they were only a year -before. They are spoken of simply as different classes in one army. -Six-and-thirty years after the day of Senlac, we are but seldom -dealing with the men who fought for Harold or for William; we have -come to their sons or even their grandsons. But the great men of the -army and the small men, of whom the former class would be all but -wholly Norman, while the latter would be Normans and English -intermingled in various proportions, had quite different views as to -the proper policy for King Henry to follow. And King Henry’s own views -agreed with the views of the small men, and not with the views of the -great. The army was gathered before Bridgenorth, and a regular siege -was opened. The King brought up his engines of war; he built a fort to -check the approach of any relief to the castle[1121]――was it on -Oldbury, was it on the northern side, beyond the surviving gate of the -town, or did it guard the river from the opposite side of the bridge? -The siege lasted three weeks;[1122] and the course of events shows -that it cannot have been at any very late stage of it that King Henry -found that he had in his camp two widely different classes of men. -There were in it men who were working honestly in his service, men who -strove heartily for his success, knowing that the interests of King -and people were the same. There were also men there to whom the -interests of their own order were dearer than those of either King or -people, and who feared that the overthrow of the power of the Earl of -Shropshire might tend to the lessening of their own power, perhaps of -their own possessions. We have seen the same division of feeling -before the walls of Rochester;[1123] we now see it beneath the cliff -of Bridgenorth. The earls and great men of the kingdom who were in the -army came together in separate consultations. They argued that it was -not for their interest that the power of Robert of Bellême should be -utterly broken. If the King dealt so with the greatest of his nobles, -he might deal in the like sort with the rest, and might tread them -under his feet like servants and handmaidens.[1124] It would suit them -far better to bring about a peace between the King and the Earl. It -would have been, one may guess, a peace by which Robert of Bellême -should keep his earldom and the castles within his earldom, but should -leave to the King the castles and lands which the King had already -won. In this way they would put an end to disputes, and would make -both the King and the Earl their debtors.[1125] - -[Sidenote: The smaller men, Normans and English, faithful to the King.] - -[Sidenote: Meeting of the nobles.] - -[Sidenote: Gathering of the mass of the army.] - -[Sidenote: Appeal of the army to the King.] - -[Sidenote: Henry’s faith pledged for Robert’s life.] - -So reasoned the great men, the Norman nobles, the men to most of whom -Robert of Bellême was a countryman and a comrade, and none of whom -were likely to have felt the grip of his iron claws[1126] in their own -persons. So reasoned not the sons of the soil; so reasoned not men of -any race who were lowly enough to feel that in the power of the -King――that is in Henry’s days, the power of law――lay their only hope -of shelter against smaller oppressors. The great men came together in -a field――perhaps in the meadows beside the Severn――and there held a -_parliament_ with the King――a meeting, one might say, of the Witan -from which the land-sitting men were shut out――and earnestly pressed -peace upon the King.[1127] Henry’s own feelings were clearly the other -way; and those who were shut out from the counsels of the great ones -now came to his help. Three thousand men of the mass of the army, men -seemingly of the shire most nearly concerned, who were stationed on -one of the neighbouring hills, knew, by whatever means, the counsel of -the leaders, and were minded to have their voice in the matter -too.[1128] If the King chose to hold a military Gemót, an assembly of -the armed nation,[1129] they had a right to be heard as well as men of -higher degree. At Rochester too the English soldiers had spoken their -minds; but to the Red King they must have spoken them through an -interpreter. But Henry knew the tongue of his people, and we may fancy -him not unwilling to listen to counsels which he could hear and weigh, -while the mass of those of whom he had reason to be jealous understood -not what was said. A vigorous speech, which doubtless fairly -represents the feelings of the moment, is put into the mouths of the -three thousand or their leaders; “Lord King Henry, trust not those -traitors. They do but strive to deceive you, and to take away from you -the strength of kingly justice. Why do you listen to them who would -have you spare the traitor and leave unpunished the conspiracy of -those who seek your death? Behold we all stand by you faithfully; we -are ready to serve and help you in all things. Attack the castle -vigorously; shut in the traitor on all sides, and make no peace with -him till you have him alive or dead in your hands.”[1130] The speakers -do not call, as the English before Rochester called in the case of -Odo, for the judicial death of the traitor. The faith of Henry was -pledged to the garrison of Arundel that Robert of Bellême should be -allowed to go safe into Normandy.[1131] But the three thousand clearly -cherished a hope, perhaps that Robert’s own men might turn against -him, certainly that, when Bridgenorth should fall and Shrewsbury -should be beleagued, then some lucky bolt from an arrow or a mangonel -might light on him before the time of surrender came, or, best of all -for those who had felt his iron claws, that he might fall beneath one -of their own axes in a sally or a storm. - -[Sidenote: Henry seeks to detach the Welsh from Robert.] - -[Sidenote: Dealings of William Pantulf with Jorwerth.] - -[Sidenote: Henry’s great promises to Jorwerth.] - -[Sidenote: Jorwerth makes the Welsh change sides.] - -The King listened to the counsels of his advisers of lower degree, but -of more honest hearts. King and people were one, and the designs of -the traitors in the camp were brought to naught.[1132] First of all, -Henry determined to weaken the strength of Robert, and no doubt to -relieve his own army from a never-ending annoyance, by detaching the -Welsh force from the cause of the rebels. William Pantulf, who was -doubtless well known to the Britons, acted as the King’s agent with -Jorwerth son of Bleddyn. We are not told why he was thought more easy -to win over than his brothers; but it seems plain that the negotiation -was carried on with him only, unknown to Cadwgan and Meredydd.[1133] -The King invited Jorwerth to his presence, with the assurance that he -would do more for him than Earl Robert and his brothers could -do.[1134] Jorwerth came; the gifts of King Henry were acceptable; his -promises were magnificent indeed. As long as Henry lived――it was wise -not to bind his successor――the British prince should have, free of all -homage and all tribute, Powys, Ceredigion, half Dyfed with the castle -of Pembroke, the vale of Teifi, Kidwelly, and Gower.[1135] Such a -dominion would give its holder a seaboard on two seas; it would leave -under English rule little beyond the central and southern lands of -Brecheiniog, Gwent, and Morganwg, and the outlying land of Pembroke, -which would thus be most distinctly “Little England beyond Wales.” We -are not told what was to be the fate of Cadwgan when Jorwerth received -this great inheritance; but Jorwerth himself naturally caught at such -a prospect. And it seems that his power over his countrymen was so -great that, while his brothers knew nothing of what was going on, -Jorwerth was able to turn the whole British force which had come to -the Earl’s help to the side of the King. The Welshmen now harried the -lands of the Earl and his friends instead of those of his enemies, and -carried off a vast booty.[1136] In any case the lands of some one were -harried, and for the Britons that was doubtless enough. - -[Sidenote: Henry’s dealings with the captains at Bridgenorth.] - -[Sidenote: Mediation of William Pantulf.] - -[Sidenote: The captains promise to surrender.] - -Having thus relieved himself of the enemy who hung upon his flanks, -Henry began to deal directly with the defenders of Bridgenorth. Three -of the leaders――we may safely guess that Roger son of Corbet, Robert -of Neville, and Wulfgar, are the three meant――were invited to the -King’s presence. They doubtless had a safe-conduct for that once; but -they had to take back an ugly message to their comrades. The King -swore in the hearing of all men that, unless they surrendered the -castle within three days, he would hang every man of the garrison that -he could catch.[1137] The three captains, whose necks were in as much -danger as those of their followers, began to consult for their own -safety. They asked William Pantulf, as their neighbour, to act as a -mediator between them and the King.[1138] At their request, he came to -them, and made them a set speech on the duty of surrendering the -castle to the lawful king. And his eloquence was backed by one special -argument which shows that, in one point at least, Henry had made some -progress in the school of Rufus. William was commissioned to swear in -the King’s name that submission should be rewarded by an addition to -the estates of each of the captains of lands of a hundred pounds’ -worth.[1139] Moved, we are told, by a sense of the common good, the -captains agreed, and, to avoid all further danger, submitted to the -King’s will.[1140] They were allowed to send a message to Earl Robert -to say that they could hold out no longer against the invincible power -of King Henry.[1141] - -[Sidenote: Position of Robert.] - -[Sidenote: His dealings with Ireland and Norway.] - -[Sidenote: Arnulf goes to Ireland.] - -[Sidenote: Magnus in Anglesey.] - -[Sidenote: His castle-building in Man.] - -[Sidenote: Robert vainly asks help of Magnus.] - -[Sidenote: Failure of the Irish scheme.] - -[Sidenote: Robert of Bellême left alone.] - -Robert of Bellême was now nearly at the end of his hopes and of his -wits. His distant castles were lost; Bridgenorth, his own work, his -newest work, was as good as lost; William Pantulf, able and active, -had turned against him; his Welsh allies had failed him; Cadwgan and -Meredydd were still at his side;[1142] but they were useless guests -now that Jorwerth had turned the whole power of the Britons to the -other side. He still held Shrewsbury; but it was hard to defy the -strength of the whole kingdom from within the walls of a single -fortress. In his despair, he caught at the hope of making his peace -with the King;[1143] he caught also at the most distant chances of -stirring up enemies against the King. The Britons had proved a broken -reed; he would try the Irish and the Northmen. The Irish fleet was -said to be actually coming; Arnulf was sent, or went of his own -accord, to hasten the pace of these new allies, who, beside such help -as they might give to Robert, were to bring Arnulf himself a wife who -might one day give him a crown. But as Arnulf took his own men with -him, Robert was yet further weakened by his going.[1144] At this -moment one more chance seemed to offer itself. The Norwegian King was -once more afloat, and that for the last time. His course was much the -same as on his former voyage. He sailed by the Orkneys and the -Sudereys to Man, and thence once more to Anglesey.[1145] Here, we are -told, he busied himself in cutting down timber for the repair of -certain castles in Man which he had formerly destroyed. It must have -been at this stage of the voyage of Magnus that Earl Robert sent a -message craving help at his hands. It must have cost Robert somewhat -of an effort to ask help of the slayer of his brother, and, unless we -attribute to the Norwegian King a general interest in confusion -everywhere, it is hard to see on what ground Magnus could be expected -to help Robert of Bellême against King Henry. The Northman refused all -help. It would seem too that the Irish alliance came to nothing; one -version at least makes this the moment when the daughter of Murtagh -was given to Sigurd the son of Magnus, and not to Arnulf of -Montgomery.[1146] Every chance of help far and near had failed the -once mighty lord of so many lands and castles; his old friends had -turned against him; his strivings to win new friends had failed. As -far as England was concerned, Earl Robert seemed to be left alone on -the mound of Shrewsbury. - -[Sidenote: Divisions in Bridgenorth;] - -[Sidenote: the captains and the townsmen for surrender;] - -[Sidenote: the mercenaries wish to hold out.] - -[Sidenote: They are overpowered.] - -[Sidenote: Surrender of Bridgenorth.] - -[Sidenote: The mercenaries march out with the honours of war.] - -And yet for a moment one hope seemed left to him. The message of the -three captains which announced the speedy surrender of Bridgenorth was -premature. Roger, Robert, and Wulfgar, had promised more than they -could do at the moment. There was a wide difference of interest -between two classes of men who stood side by side on the height of -Bridgenorth. The captains and the burgesses of the town――for such a -class had already in the space of four years sprung up at the gate of -Earl Robert’s castle[1147]――were of one mind, the mercenary soldiers -were of another. The three captains, the townsmen, and doubtless any -of the Earl’s soldiers of whatever rank who were English by birth or -settlement, any who had any stake on English soil, were eager to come -to terms with the King. So to do was their manifold interest and -manifest duty; it was a special interest and duty of the captains who -had promised so to do, and who looked for such rich rewards for so -doing. But to the mercenary soldiers of Earl Robert, professional -fighting men picked out from many lands, things had another look. They -had no stake in England; they cared nothing for King Henry and for the -peace of his kingdom. The more the peace of England was likely to be -disturbed, the better it would be for them. Any glimmering of duty -which found a place in their minds would be a feeling of rude -faithfulness to the master whom they served, the rebel Earl whose -bread they had eaten. The mercenaries therefore cried out loudly -against the submission to which, without taking them into their -counsels, the captains and the townsmen had agreed. They seized their -arms, and strove to hinder the carrying out of the surrender which had -been promised.[1148] But the captains, with the townsmen and the loyal -party in the garrison, were too strong for them; they were themselves -made prisoners and shut up within some one part of the castle.[1149] -The surrender was now carried out; the gates were opened; the royal -troops marched up the path which led to the castle, and the banner of -England again floated over the height crowned by the stronghold of -Æthelflæd.[1150] The joy of the men of Bridgenorth was great, and on -that day of deliverance no man was inclined to harshness. King Henry -could honour the faithfulness of the Earl’s mercenaries to their own -lord, even though that faithfulness was, in the eye of the law, -treason to himself and his kingdom. They were allowed to go forth with -the honours of war, with their arms and their horses. Whither they -went we are not told. They may even have entered the King’s service. -The prudence of Henry might be trusted not to let them go anywhither -where they were likely to be dangerous. And, as they came forth -between the ranks of the besiegers, they were allowed to tell their -tale in the hearing of all men. It was not, they said, to be turned to -the shame of their calling that the Castle by the Bridge had been -given up without a blow. They were guiltless; the deed was done by the -guile of faithless captains and of unwarlike townsmen.[1151] King and -people might admire, in truth there is something to admire, in the -mistaken faithfulness of these men, even to an evil cause. But King -and people had still work on their hands; the arch-enemy had still to -be found, alive or dead, in the last stronghold which held out for -him. - - * * * * * - -[Sidenote: Robert still holds Shrewsbury.] - -[Sidenote: Shrewsbury castle.] - -[Sidenote: Despair of Robert.] - -[Sidenote: The King’s march to Shrewsbury.] - -[Sidenote: Gathering of the English army.] - -[Sidenote: Zeal of the troops.] - -[Sidenote: Nature of the road.] - -[Sidenote: The road is cleared.] - -And now came the last act of the drama, the last stage of the -struggle which was to make Henry truly king, and to give England -three-and-thirty years of peace under his rule. With the news of the -fall of Bridgenorth all hope passed away from the heart of Robert of -Bellême. One strong fortress indeed was still his. Earl of the -Mercians, Earl of Shropshire, he could call himself no longer; lord of -Shrewsbury he still was, while he still kept the castle of his capital -as the last abiding seat of rebellion. All the distinctive features of -Shrewsbury in later times, town, churches, castle, abbey, were all -there. On the neck of the peninsula girded by the Severn, on ground -high in itself though lower than some points of the hill town behind -it, the mound of Old-English days which had supplanted the old seat of -British kingship, and which was now crowned by the fortress of his -father, still was his.[1152] Its towers rose as high as the loftiest -buildings of the town which they kept in awe; from their height he -might look forth on the mountain land which had been won for his -earldom by his father’s power; he might look down on the broad and -rushing river, and on his father’s minster beyond its stream.[1153] -But the mountain land, so lately his ally, had now turned against him; -the stream of Severn brought no help to the beleaguered fortress; no -prayers, we may be sure, went up for the son of Mabel from the altars -whose guardians had seen the virtues and tasted the bounty of Adeliza. -The stern earl, thus utterly forsaken, lost his fierce and defiant -spirit; he groaned for sorrow; he knew not which way to turn for help -or counsel.[1154] And soon he felt that his hour indeed was come, when -he saw the royal banners draw near to his last stronghold. As soon as -Bridgenorth had fallen, the march on Shrewsbury began. A mighty host -it was which set forth on the errand of deliverance. We take the -figures as merely the conventional expression of a vast number, when -we read that sixty thousand Englishmen gathered around the standard of -King Henry of England.[1155] They marched with a will, eager to meet -the great oppressor face to face, to bring the last stronghold of -wrong under the dominion of law, to join in their king’s work of -rooting out the ungodly that were in the land. Englishmen had gone -forth with a will to the siege of Rochester, perhaps to the siege of -Bamburgh; but then they had gone forth at the bidding of a king who -was wholly a stranger. Now they gathered around a king, born indeed of -the foreign stock, but a king of their own choice, born on their own -soil, cheering them on in their own tongue, a king whom they might -well deem a truer Ætheling than the grandson of Ironside born in -distant Hungary or than the son of Harold brought up among the wikings -of the North. The road by which they had to march was one which had -dangers of its own. It was a road among hills, sometimes rough with -stones; in one part it was for a mile’s space a mere hollow way, -overhung by a thick wood, a path so narrow that two horses could -hardly pass, a path which men called the _Evil Hedge_. Among the trees -on either side archers might easily lurk, to the no small loss of the -host which had to march between two fires.[1156] The King accordingly -first sent forward his pioneers to clear the way for his army and for -all travellers along that road for ever. The wood was cut down on both -sides, the path was widened, and the evil hedge became a broad road -along which the great host of England could march in safety.[1157] - -[Sidenote: Robert sends to ask for peace.] - -[Sidenote: The King refuses terms.] - -[Sidenote: Robert submits at discretion.] - -[Sidenote: He is sent out of England.] - -Along the new-made road King Henry marched to a bloodless conquest. He -had no need to throw up a bank or to shoot an arrow against the mound -and the towers of Shrewsbury. On his way he was met by an embassy from -Earl Robert, asking for peace. The terms are not told us, but the -answer implied that Robert still asked for terms. He may have hoped, -shut out as he was from everything else, still to keep the capital of -his earldom, perhaps as a means for one day winning back all that he -had lost. But the King and his host were in no mood to listen to -terms; they longed for the last attack on the arch-enemy. The answer, -the decree, as we read it, of the armed Gemót, was that Robert of -Bellême must hope for no mercy, unless he came and freely threw -himself into the King’s hands.[1158] In that case, it will be -remembered, the King’s word was pledged for his life and his safe -passage to Normandy. Robert consulted the few friends whom he had -left, and their advice at last bent his proud heart to an -unconditional submission. Nine days had passed since the surrender of -Bridgenorth[1159] when the royal force drew near to Shrewsbury. Robert -of Bellême came forth in person to meet them; he knelt, we may -suppose, before the King; he confessed his treason, and placed in the -King’s hands the keys of Shrewsbury, city and castle. He thus gave up -for ever his last English possession, the head of that great earldom -which his father had received from the hands of the King’s -father.[1160] As far as England was concerned, the lord of Bellême, a -moment before lord of Shrewsbury, was a landless man. The King -strictly kept his word to the suppliant; but he would not grant him -the slightest favour beyond what his word bound him to. Robert was -untouched in life and limb, he received a safe-conduct to the -sea-shore, and he was allowed to keep his arms and horses, a needful -defence in case of irregular attack.[1161] And so the land was free -from its worst enemy; the devil of Bellême was cast out of the realm -of England. Evil men no doubt were left behind; but none, we may -believe, who would refuse to ransom his prisoners, for the mere -pleasure of seeing them die of hunger or of torture. - -[Sidenote: Joy at Robert’s overthrow.] - -[Sidenote: The song of deliverance.] - -[Sidenote: Banishment of Arnulf and Roger.] - -[Sidenote: The King’s hatred towards the whole family.] - -[Sidenote: Later history of Robert of Bellême.] - -The work was done; the host of victorious Englishmen marched back to -their homes.[1162] The joy of the land at the great deliverance was -beyond words. The tyrant was overthrown, the King was now king indeed. -The national joy is set before us as bursting forth in a kind of -rhythmical song, which reminds us of those fragments of primæval -poetry which remain imbedded in the history of the Hebrews. We hear -the same strain as that which denounced woe to Moab and rejoiced in -the undoing of the people of Chemosh,[1163] when Englishmen are -described as gathering round their King, and shouting the hymn of -victory. “Rejoice, King Henry, and give thanks to the Lord God, now -that thou hast overthrown Robert of Bellême and hast driven him from -the borders of thy kingdom.”[1164] Nor was he driven forth alone. The -King had good grounds for the banishment of his chief accomplices, his -two brothers Arnulf and Roger, and for the seizure of their -lands.[1165] His hatred towards the whole house of Montgomery, or -rather towards the whole house of Talvas, had become so great that he -would not endure that any member of it should hold lands or honours in -his kingdom. Robert of Bellême himself went over to Normandy, to raise -new disturbances there. At a later time he was again twice to visit -England, once as an ambassador, and again as a prisoner, a prisoner in -a prison so strait that no man knew whether he lived or died.[1166] -But his part, a part only of four years, as an English earl and -perhaps the greatest of English land-owners, was played out for ever. - - * * * * * - -[Sidenote: Death of Magnus. 1103.] - -[Sidenote: A Giffard in his fleet.] - -[Sidenote: Later history of Jorwerth.] - -[Sidenote: War between Jorwerth and his brothers.] - -[Sidenote: Meredydd imprisoned.] - -[Sidenote: Jorwerth cedes Ceredigion to Cadwgan.] - -[Sidenote: The King does not fulfil his promises to Jorwerth.] - -[Sidenote: Grant of Gower and other lands to Howel.] - -[Sidenote: Jorwerth tried at Shrewsbury and imprisoned. 1103.] - -[Sidenote: Gemóts held in various places under Henry.] - -[Sidenote: Shrewsbury a former place of meeting.] - -[Sidenote: The earldom of Shrewsbury.] - -[Sidenote: Trial of Jorwerth.] - -[Sidenote: His conviction and imprisonment.] - -[Sidenote: His later history.] - -Of the other chief actors in the events of those four years, King -Magnus died the year after the fall of Robert of Bellême, in his last -and greatest attack on Ireland.[1167] It awakens some interest when we -read that he had in his host a stranger who bore the great Norman name -of Giffard.[1168] Was he an accomplice, was he a messenger, of Earl -Robert of Shropshire? Towards the Welsh prince Jorwerth, who had done -so much on both sides in the course of the rebellion, Henry was, -according to the Welsh writers, far from keeping his word. It is not -wonderful that enmity arose between Jorwerth and his brothers after -his conduct during the siege of Bridgenorth. He seems to have waged -open war with them in the King’s name. For we are told that he seized -his brother Meredydd and handed him over to the King or imprisoned him -in a royal prison.[1169] But with Cadwgan he made peace, giving up to -him a large share of his promised dominions, namely the lands which -Cadwgan had before held of Robert of Bellême, Ceredigion and part of -Powys. It was perhaps this agreement with an enemy which offended -Henry. When Jorwerth came, seemingly to receive his grant from the -King’s hands, he received nothing. Dyfed and the castle of Pembroke, -far too precious a stronghold to be left in the hands of any Briton, -was entrusted to a knight named Saer, from whom it afterwards passed -to Gerald of Windsor, a man who had already bravely defended it, and -whom the King had his own reasons for promoting.[1170] But the -remainder of the promised possessions of Jorwerth, the vale of Teifi, -Gower, and Kidwelly, were, by a breach of promise which must have been -yet more galling, granted to another Welsh lord, Howel son of -Goronwy.[1171] The next year Jorwerth was summoned before an assembly -at Shrewsbury, the place renowned for the trial of a more famous Welsh -prince of later days. The choice of the place is characteristic of the -reign of Henry, under whom national assemblies were held in various -parts of the kingdom, and were no longer confined to the three places -to which custom had confined them under Eadward, Harold, and the two -Williams.[1172] It was but a return to older custom; Shrewsbury had -been the seat of more than one memorable assembly in earlier -times;[1173] but this was the first time that Shrewsbury in its new -form had seen a great national gathering; it was the first assembly -that had been held since the English mound had become the kernel of -Earl Roger’s castle, and since Earl Roger’s abbey had arisen beyond -the river. Earls had now passed away from Shrewsbury; no such title -was heard again till the days of the famous Talbot, when it was in -French and not in English ears that the name was terrible. After the -four years’ rule of Robert of Bellême, there was doubtless much to -settle in his former earldom and along the whole Welsh border. In the -assembly held for that end Jorwerth appeared and was put upon his -trial. We should be well pleased to have as full an account of the -proceedings against the British prince as we have of the proceedings -against Bishop William of Durham. But the story was not deemed worth -recording by any English writer; the Welsh, who bitterly complain of -the injustice of the court, tell us how, after a day’s pleading, -Jorwerth was declared guilty and committed to prison.[1174] He was -afterwards set free, and again played a part among his own people; but -a patriotic Welsh chronicler laments that the hope, the fortitude, the -strength, and the happiness of all the Britons failed them when -Jorwerth was put in bonds.[1175] - - * * * * * - -[Sidenote: Establishment of Henry’s power.] - -[Sidenote: Banishment of William of Mortain, 1104.] - -[Sidenote: His imprisonment after Tinchebrai. 1106.] - -[Sidenote: His alleged blinding.] - -[Sidenote: Peace of Henry’s reign. 1102-1135.] - -[Sidenote: Henry and Roger of Sicily.] - -[Sidenote: Character of Henry’s reign.] - -[Sidenote: Its promises how far fulfilled.] - -[Sidenote: The reign of law.] - -[Sidenote: Effects of Henry’s reign.] - -[Sidenote: Henry the Second.] - -[Sidenote: Fusion of Normans and English under Henry.] - -[Sidenote: Henry the refounder of the English nation.] - -[Sidenote: He embodies the process of fusion.] - -King Henry had at last done his work. When Robert of Bellême was cast -out, his throne remained safe and his kingdom peaceful. Two years -later indeed there was another enemy to cast out; but the ease with -which the work was now done showed how thoroughly the harder work had -been done before Bridgenorth and Shrewsbury. When the King’s near -kinsman and bitter enemy, Count William of Mortain, would fain have -had the earldom of Kent and have been another Odo in it, there was no -need of a siege of Pevensey or of Montacute. A simple legal process -was enough to send him out of the land without slash or blow.[1176] He -lived to try the chance of slash and blow at Tinchebrai, and to meet -with a heavy doom, live-long bonds, perhaps borne in blindness, at the -hands of his offended cousin and sovereign.[1177] His ambition could -not disturb the peace of the land for a single day; the might of armed -unlaw had been broken when the gates of Shrewsbury opened to receive -King Henry. From that day for three-and-thirty years, a wonder in -those days, a whole kingdom saw neither civil war nor foreign -invasion. As Italy rested of old under Theodoric, as Sicily rested -under his contemporary Roger, so England rested under Henry. The two -Norman and insular kings, lords of the great island of the -Mediterranean and of the great island of the Ocean, had each his wars -to wage. But each kept his battle-ground on the mainland, while his -island realm abode in peace. The bright promises with which the reign -of Henry opened, the dreams of an English king reigning over an -English people, were not wholly fulfilled. The fair dawn was in some -measure clouded over; the winning promises were not in everything -carried out. Still things were not under Henry as they had been under -his brother. The dawn was never changed into the blackness of -darkness; the promises of righteous and national rule were never -utterly trampled under foot. Under the strong hand of the Lion of -Justice such deeds as those of Robert of Bellême became impossible. -The complaints of exactions in money go on throughout his reign. The -more grievous complaints of the wrongs done by his immediate followers -are not heard of after the stern statute by which Henry and Anselm -joined together to check their misdoings. Under Henry law did not -always put on a winning shape; but it was felt that the reign of law -in any shape was better than the reign of unlaw. It may be that the -very restraint under which the powers of evil were kept down during -the reign of Henry led to a fiercer outbreak when they were set free -at his death. But the same process had given the nation life and -strength to bear up through the frightful years of anarchy, and to be -ready at their close to welcome another Henry again to do justice and -make peace. But above all, the rule of Henry wiped out the distinction -which, at his accession, had divided the conquerors and the conquered. -Under him Normans born on English ground grew up as Englishmen. They -felt as Englishmen, when the second restoration of the reign of law -brought with it, as its dark side, the preference of men from beyond -the sea to the sons of the soil of either race. With all his faults, -his vices, his occasional crimes, Henry the Clerk, the first of the -new line who was truly an English Ætheling, must rank before all other -kings as the refounder of the English nation. He is himself the -embodiment of the process by which the Norman on English soil washed -off the varnish of his two centuries’ sojourn by the Seine, and came -back to his true place in the older Teutonic fellowship of Angle, -Saxon, and Dane. When Henry gave back to his people the laws of King -Eadward with the amendments of King William, he wrote in advance the -whole later history of England. The old stock was neither cut down nor -withered away; but a new stock was grafted upon it. And it was no -unworthy fruit that it bore in the person of the King in whose days -none durst misdo with other. - - * * * * * - -[Sidenote: The compromise with Anselm. 1107.] - -[Sidenote: The war with Robert.] - -[Sidenote: 1106.] - -[Sidenote: The reign of Rufus how far an episode.] - -[Sidenote: Problem of reconciling England to the Conquest.] - -[Sidenote: Not solved under Rufus,] - -[Sidenote: but solved by Henry.] - -[Sidenote: England no longer a conquered land.] - -[Sidenote: The Conquest at once confirmed and undone.] - -[Sidenote: Import of the surrender of Shrewsbury.] - -With the firm establishment of Henry’s rule by the fall of Robert of -Bellême my immediate story ends. Of the memorable time which followed, -a time memorable for many things, but memorable above all as being, -within the English kingdom, a perfect blank in military history, I -have sketched the outline in another volume. I there traced out the -leading features of the reign and discussed its leading results. I -there traced the later stages of the career of Anselm, his dispute -with Henry, his second departure and second restoration, the final -compromise which to the wisdom of Henry and the single-mindedness of -Anselm was not impossible. I traced out also the various matters in -dispute between Henry and Robert till the time when, as men fondly -deemed, England, after forty years, paid back the day of Senlac on the -day of Tinchebrai. I could have been well pleased to carry on in -detail to their end two stories of which I have had to tell so large a -part. But my immediate subject ends when King Henry is made fast on -his throne by the overthrow of the rebel Earl of Shrewsbury. Earlier -than that point the tale could not stop. Deep as is the importance of -the reign of William Rufus in so many ways, there is a certain way of -looking at things in which the reign of William Rufus is a kind of -episode. Or rather it is an attempt at a certain object which, when -tried in the person of Rufus, failed, and which had to be again tried, -with better luck, in the person of Henry. The problem was to reconcile -the English nation to the Norman Conquest, to nationalize, so to -speak, the Conquest and the dynasty which the Conquest had brought in. -The means thereto was to find a prince of the foreign stock who should -reign as an English king, with the good will of the English people, in -the interest of the English people. William Rufus might have held that -place, if he had been morally capable of it. His crown was won for him -from Norman rebels by the valour and loyalty of Englishmen, when for -the last time they met Normans on their own soil as enemies. But Rufus -forsook his trust; he belied his promises; if he did not strictly -become an oppressor of Englishmen as Englishmen, it was only because -he became the common oppressor and enemy of mankind. Thirteen years -later the same drama was acted over again. Henry, who reigned by a -more direct choice of the English people than William, owed his crown -also to the loyalty of Englishmen whose valour against Norman enemies -it was found needless to test in the open field. This time the problem -was solved; if Henry did not bring back the days of Ælfred or even the -days of Cnut, he at least brought in a very different state of things -from what men had seen in the days of his brother. After the election -at Winchester, the conference at Alton, the fight at Tinchebrai, -England could no longer be called a conquered land. The work of the -Norman Conquest was from one side confirmed for ever, from another -side it was undone for ever. The last act of the struggle, an -afterpiece more stirring than the main drama, was when Robert of -Bellême came forth, shorn of his power to do evil, to surrender the -stronghold of Shrewsbury to his sovereign. The surrender of Chester to -the elder William marked that the first struggle was over, and that -the Norman was to rule in England. The surrender of Shrewsbury to his -youngest son marked that the second struggle was over, the struggle -which ruled that, though the Norman was to reign in England, he was to -reign only by putting on the character of an English king, called to -his throne by the voice of Englishmen, and guarded there by their -loyalty against the plots and assaults of Norman rebels. - - - - -APPENDIX. - - -NOTE A. Vol. i. p. 11. - -THE ACCESSION OF WILLIAM RUFUS. - -The remarkable thing about the accession of William Rufus is that it -is the one case in those days in which a king succeeds without any -trace of regular election, whether by the nation at large or by any -smaller body. The ecclesiastical election which formed part of the -rite of coronation was doubtless not forgotten; but there is no sign -of any earlier election by the Witan, or by any gathering which could -call itself by their name. Lanfranc appears as the sole actor. One -account, the Life of Lanfranc attached to the Winchester Chronicle, -speaks of the archbishop in so many words as the one elector; “Mortuo -rege Willielmo trans mare, filium ejus Willielmum, sicut pater -constituit, _Lanfrancus regem elegit_, et in ecclesia beati Petri, in -occidentali parte Lundoniæ sita, sacravit et coronavit.” The words of -Eadmer (Hist. Nov. 13) are almost equally strong; - - “Defuncto itaque rege Willielmo, successit ei in regnum, - Willielmus filius ejus, qui cum regni fastigia fratri suo - Roberto præripere gestiret, et Lanfrancum, _sine cujus - accensu in regnum ascisci nullatenus poterat_, sibi in hoc - ad expletionem desiderii sui _non omnino consentaneum_ - inveniret, verens ne dilatio suæ consecrationis inferret ei - dispendium cupiti honoris,” &c. - -William of Malmesbury too (iv. 305) goes so far as to say; - - “A patre, ultima valetudine decumbente, in successorem - adoptatus, antequam ille extremum efflasset, ad occupandum - regnum contendit, moxque _volentibus animis provincialium - exceptus_, et claves thesaurorum nactus est, quibus fretus - totam Angliam animo subjecit suo. Accessit etiam favori - ejus, _maximum rerum momentum_, archiepiscopus Lanfrancus, - eo quod eum nutrierat et militem fecerat, quo auctore et - annitente,… coronatus,” &c. - -Neither of these writers follows any strict order of time. The willing -assent of the people may mean either their passive assent at his -coming, or their more formal assent on the coronation-day. The general -good-will shown towards the new king is set forth also by Robert of -Torigny (Cont. Will. Gem. viii. 2; “susceptus est ab Anglis et -Francis”), by the author of the Brevis Relatio (11) in the same words, -and by the Battle writer (39); “omnium favore, ut decebat, magnifice -exceptus.” - -If then we accept Eadmer’s words in their fulness, the only objection -made at the time to Rufus’ accession came from his special elector, -Lanfranc himself. This incidental notice, implying that Lanfranc did -hesitate, is very remarkable. We are not told the ground of his -objections. But of whatever kind they were, they were overcome by the -new King’s special oath, in which the formal words of the coronation -bond seem to be mixed up with oaths and promises of a more general -kind; - - “Cœpit, tam per se tam per omnes suos quos poterat, fide - sacramentoque Lanfranco promittere justitiam, æquitatem, et - misericordiam, se per totum regnum, si rex foret, in omni - negotio servaturum; pacem, libertatem, securitatem, - ecclesiarum contra omnes defensurum, necne præceptis atque - consiliis ejus per omnia et in omnibus obtemperaturum.” - -We may compare the special promise of Æthelred on his restoration (N. -C. vol. i. p. 368) to follow the advice of his Witan in all things. - - * * * * * - -The first signs of any thought of usurpation or the like in the -accession of Rufus may be dimly seen in the Hyde writer (298); where -however stronger phrases are, oddly enough, applied to Robert; - - “Defuncto rege Willelmo et sepulturæ tradito, Willelmus - filius ejus in Angliam transvectus regnum _occupat, regemque - se vocari omnibus imperat_; Robertus quoque frater ejus - regressus a Gallia, Normanniam _invadit_, et nullo - resistente ditioni suæ supponit.” - -By the time of William of Newburgh men had found out the hereditary -right of the eldest son. He says, first (i. 2), that Robert succeeded -in Normandy, William in England, “ordine quidem præpostero, sed per -ultimam patris, ut dictum est, voluntatem commutato.” Directly after, -the rebels of next year favour Robert, “tanquam justo hæredi et -perperam exhæredato” (cf. Suger, Duchèsne, iv. 283, “Exhæredato majore -natu Roberto fratre suo”). And presently, we hear of “frater senior -Robertus, cui nimirum ordine naturali regni successio competebat.” All -this is odd, when we remember how well in the next chapter (see vol. -i. p. 11) the same author understands the position of Henry, as the -only true Ætheling, son of a king. Oddly enough, Thomas Wykes (Ann. -Mon. iv. 11) gives this last position to Rufus, “quem primum genuit -[Willelmus le Bastard, rex Angliæ] postquam regnum adquisivit.” - -Matthew Paris (Hist. Angl. i. 34, 35), as usual, gives the story a -colouring of his own, which may be compared with his version of the -accession of Henry the First (see N. C. vol. v. p. 845). He has told -us that the Conqueror, in bequeathing his kingdom to his second son, -gave him special advice as to its rule; - - “Willelmo Rufo filio suo Angliam, scilicet conquestum suum, - assignavit; supplicans ut Anglos, quos crudeliter et veluti - ingratus male tractaverat, mitius confoveret.” - -He crosses to England, “utilius reputans regnum sibi firmare vivorum -quam mortui cujuscumque exsequiis interesse.” Then we read; - - “Willelmus, cognomento Rufus, filius regis Willelmi primi, - veniens in Angliam, consilio et auxilio Lamfranci - Cantuariensis archiepiscopi, qui ipsum a primis annis - nutriverat et militem fecerat, sine moroso dispendio Angliam - sibi conciliatam inclinavit, nec tamen totam. Sed ut - negotium regis optatum cito sortiretur effectum, ipsum die - sanctorum Cosmæ et Damiani, _etsi cum sollemnitate - mutilata_, coronavit, veraciter promittentem ut Angliam cum - modestia gubernaret, leges sancti regis Edwardi servaturus, - et Anglos præcipue tractaret reverenter.” - -These remarkable words must be taken in connexion with what -immediately follows, which is in truth a very rose-coloured version of -the rebellion of 1088, which is made immediately to follow, or rather -to accompany, the coronation. For the next words are; - - “Verumtamen quamplures Anglorum nobiles, formidantes et - augurantes ipsum velle patrissare, noluerunt ei obsecundare, - sed elegerunt potius Roberto, militi strenuissimo, militare, - et tamquam primogenito ipsi in regem creato famulari, quam - fallacibus promissis Rufi fidem adhibere. Sed Lamfrancus hæc - sedavit, bona promittens.” - -Still the new King sees that many of the nobles of the kingdom are -plotting against him. By the advice of Lanfranc therefore he gathers a -secret assembly of English nobles (“Anglorum nobiliores et fortiores -invitando secretius convocavit”); he promises with an oath on the -Gospels to give them good laws and all the old free customs -(“pristinae libertatis consuetudines”). He then wins over Roger of -Montgomery, according to the account in vol. i. p. 61. Then, again by -Lanfranc’s advice, he divides and weakens the English by his promises -(“omnes Anglos, quos insuperabiles, si fuissent inseparabiles, -cognoverat, talibus sermocinationibus et promissis dissipatos et -enervatos sibi conciliavit”). A few only resist; against those he -wages a successful war at the head of the nation generally (“eorum -conamina, universitatis adjutus viribus, quantocius annullavit”), and -confiscates their goods. - -It is clear that Matthew Paris had the elder writers before him, but -that he did not fully understand their language with regard to the -appeal of Rufus to the English. We must remember the time when he -wrote. In his day the immediate consequences of the Conquest had -passed away; the distinction of “Angli” and “Franci,” so living in the -days of Rufus, was forgotten. But men had not yet begun to speculate -about “Normans and Saxons,” as Robert of Gloucester did somewhat -later. Moreover Matthew was used to a state of things in which a king -who, if not foreign by birth, was foreign in feeling, had to be -withstood by an united English nation, indifferent as to the remoter -pedigree of each man. He therefore told the story of the reign of -Rufus as if it had been the story of the reign of Henry the Third. All -are “Angli;” the distinction drawn by the Chronicler between the -“French” who rebelled against the King and the “English” to whom he -appealed, is lost. The English people whom he called to his help -against the Norman nobles become English nobles whom he cunningly wins -over in secret. Matthew understands that England was a conquered -country with a foreign king; he does not understand the relations of -foreigners and natives in the island, and that the foreign king -appealed to the natives against his own countrymen. The passage is -most valuable, not as telling us anything about the reign of William -Rufus, but as showing us how the reign of William Rufus looked when -read by the present experience of the reign of Henry the Third. - -At the same time Matthew Paris must have had something special in his -eye, when he spoke of the coronation rites of William Rufus as being -in some way imperfect. Was there any tradition that, as John did not -communicate at his coronation, so neither did William? Men may have -argued from one tyrant to another. - -On the whole we may say that William Rufus, like Servius Tullius (Cic. -de Rep. ii. 21), “regnare coepit, non jussu, sed voluntate atque -concessu civium.” - - * * * * * - -Besides these accounts, given by contemporary or nearly contemporary -writers, or founded on their statements, there is another version of -William’s accession, which I take to be wholly mythical. This is -preserved in the local history of Colchester abbey (Monasticon, iv. -607). In this the accession of Rufus is said to have been almost -wholly brought about by Eudo the _dapifer_, the son of Hubert of Rye. -It seems to be a continuation of another legend (see N. C. vol. iii. -p. 683), in which Hubert is made the chief actor in the bequest of the -crown which Eadward is said to have made in favour of the elder -William. It is in short a family legend, devised in honour of the -house of Rye. The same part is played in two successive generations; -the father secures the crown for the elder William, the son for the -younger. First of all, we are told of the way in which Eudo gained his -office of _dapifer_, an office which the witness of Domesday shows -that he really held. The story is almost too silly to tell; but it -runs thus. William Fitz-Osbern, before he set out to seek for crowns -in Flanders, held the post of “major domus regiæ.” In that character -he was setting a dish of crane’s flesh before William, and, as it was -ill-cooked (“carnem gruis semicrudæ adeo ut sanguis exprimeretur”), -the King aimed a blow at him. Eudo, as though he had been Lilla saving -Eadwine from the poisoned dagger of Eomer, thrust himself forward and -received the blow which was meant for the Earl of Hereford. William -Fitz-Osbern accordingly resigns his office, asking that Eudo may -succeed him in it. We hear no more till William’s death, when Eudo -appears as exhorting William Rufus to hasten and take possession of -the English crown (“Eudo, arrepta occasione ex paterna concessione, -Willelmum juniorem aggreditur, et ut negotio insistat hortatur”). They -cross over together, and are made to land at _Worcester_――_Portchester_ -must be meant, through some confusion of _p_ and ƿ. Thence they go to -Winchester, and get the keys of the treasure-house by favour of its -keeper, William of Pont de l’Arche, a person whom I cannot find in -Domesday (“In Angliam transvecti, appliciti _Worcestriæ_ comparato -sibi favore Willielmi de Ponte-arce, claves thesauri Wintoniæ -suscipiunt quarum idem Willielmus custos erat”). Not only the coming -of the younger William, but the death of the elder, is carefully kept -secret, while Eudo goes to Dover, Pevensey, Hastings, and the other -fortresses on the coast. Pretending orders from the King, he binds -their garrisons by oaths to give up the keys to no one except by his -orders (“fide et sacramento custodes obligat nemini nisi suo arbitrio -claves munitionis tradituros … prætendens regem in Normannia moras -facturum, et velle de omnibus munitionibus Angliæ securitatem habere, -per se scilicet qui senescallus erat”). He then comes back to -Winchester; the death of the King is announced, and, while the peers -of the realm are in Normandy debating about the succession to the -crown, William Rufus is, through the diligence of Eudo, elected and -crowned (“acceleratoque negotio, Wintoniam redit; et tunc demum regem -obiisse propalat. Ita dum cæteri proceres de regni successione -tractant in Normannia, interim studio et opera Eudonis, Willielmus -junior in regem eligitur, consecratur, confirmatur, in Anglia”). The -story goes on to say that the people of Colchester petitioned the new -King that they might be put under the care of Eudo. To this William -gladly agreed, and Eudo ruled the town with great justice and mercy, -relieving the inhabitants from their heavy burthens, seemingly by the -process of taking to himself a large amount of confiscated land and -paying the taxes laid upon the town out of it (“causas cœpit -inquirere, sublevare gravatos, comprimere elatos, et in suis -primordiis omnibus complacere. Terras damnatorum, exlegatorum, et pro -culpis eliminatorum, dum nemo coleret, exigebantur tamen plenaliter -fiscalia, et hac de causa populus valde gravabatur. Has ergo terras -Eudo sibi vindicavit, ut pro his fisco satisfaceret et populum eatenus -alleviaret”). - -The share taken by Eudo in the accession of William seems to be pure -fiction. His good deeds at Colchester are perfectly possible; but the -latter part of the story seems to be a confusion or perversion of an -entry in Domesday (ii. 106), which rather reads as if Eudo had become -possessor, and that in the time of the elder William, of the common -land of the burgesses (“Eudo dapifer v. denarios et xl. acras terræ -quas tenebant burgenses tempore R. E. et reddebant omnem consuetudinem -burgensium. Modo vero non reddunt consuetudinem nisi de suis -capitibus”). This looks as if the burgesses had hitherto paid the -royal dues out of their corporate estate, but that, when that estate -passed to Eudo, a poll-tax had to be levied to defray them. - - -NOTE B. Vol. i. p. 24. - -THE BEGINNING OF THE REBELLION OF 1088. - -Of the great revolt of the Normans in England against William Rufus we -have three accounts in considerable detail, in the Chronicle, in -Florence, and in Orderic. The Chronicle and Florence do not follow -exactly the same arrangement, but I do not see any contradiction -between them. Florence simply arranges his narrative in such a way as -to give special prominence to his own city and his own bishop. But -Orderic, from whom we get a most vivid, and seemingly quite -trustworthy, account of certain parts of the campaign, seems to have -misconceived the order of events in the early part of the story, -especially with regard to the time of Bishop Odo’s coming to England. -According to him, Odo did not come to England till after Christmas. He -then comes, along with Eustace of Boulogne and Robert of Bellême, as -the agent of a plot already devised in concert with Duke Robert for -the death or deposition of his brother. The others join them, and the -rebellion begins. - -In the other version, that of the Chronicle and Florence, illustrated -in various points of detail by William of Malmesbury, Henry of -Huntingdon, and other writers, Odo comes to England much sooner, in -time for the Christmas assembly. He brings no treasonable intentions -with him; he takes to plotting only when he finds that his power in -England is less than he had hoped that it would be. Eustace and Robert -of Bellême do not come to England till a later stage, when the -rebellion has fully broken out, and when Odo is holding Rochester -against the King. They are then sent by Duke Robert, who is -represented (see p. 56) as hearing for the first time of the revolt in -his favour after Rochester was seized by Odo. - -Orderic begins his story (665 D) with an account of seditious meetings -held by the nobles of Normandy and England, and of speeches made at -them. It is not said where they were spoken or by whom, but the -context would seem to imply that they were spoken by Odo in Normandy. -For immediately after the speech follow the words (666 C); - - “Hoc itaque consilium Odo præsul Baiocensis et Eustachius - comes Boloniensis atque Robertus Belesmensis aliique plures - communiter decreverunt, decretumque suum Roberto duci - detexerunt.” - -Then the consent of Robert is given, as in p. 56, and the three -ringleaders cross to England, and begin the revolt; - - “Igitur post natale Domini prædicti proceres in Angliam - transfretaverunt, et castella sua plurimo apparatu - muniverunt, multamque partem patriæ contra regem infra breve - tempus commoverunt.” - -I have ventured (in p. 25) to work the substance of the speech into -the text, as it contains arguments which suit the circumstances of the -case, and which are specially suited to speakers in Normandy. But the -speech cannot really have been spoken by Odo in Normandy. For it is -impossible to resist the evidence which brings Odo over to England -before the Christmas Assembly, and which makes his enmity to the King -arise out of things which happened after he came to England. We have, -first, the direct statement (see p. 19) of Henry of Huntingdon that -Odo was present at the Christmas Gemót. And this statement is the more -valuable, because it is not brought in as part of the story of Odo; it -reads rather as if it came from some official source, perhaps from a -list of signatures to some act of the Assembly. But the words of -William of Malmesbury (iv. 306) come almost to the same thing; - - “Cum ille, solutus a vinculis, Robertum nepotem in comitatu - Normanniæ confirmasset, Angliam venit, recepitque a rege - comitatum Cantiæ.” - -The Midwinter Gemót was the obvious time for such a grant, and Odo’s -restoration to his earldom is asserted or implied everywhere. Thus in -the Chronicle we read a little later how “Odo … ferde into Cent to his -eorldome,” and Florence speaks of him as “Odo episcopus Baiocensis, -qui et erat comes Cantwariensis.” Orderic himself (666 C) says, “Odo, -ut supra dictum est, palatinus Cantiæ consul erat, et plures sub se -comites virosque potentes habebat,” seemingly without seeing that his -version hardly gives any opportunity for the restoration of the -earldom. Henry of Huntingdon (214 Arnold), almost alone, speaks of him -as “princeps et moderator Angliæ,” without reference to his special -office of earl. William of Malmesbury goes on (see p. 23) to give the -reason for Odo’s discontent, the greater authority of the Bishop of -Durham. The Chronicle and Florence (see pp. 23, 24) mention only the -great authority enjoyed by Bishop William, and the revolt of Odo, -without mentioning Odo’s motive. That is, they simply state the facts, -while William of Malmesbury supplies the connecting link. If we accept -Orderic’s version that Odo did not come to England till after -Christmas, we have hardly time for the events as they are stated in -our other authorities. For we have to find time for Odo’s -re-establishment in his earldom, for his hopes and for his -disappointment, all leading up to the seditious gatherings during -Lent. And in some parts of the kingdom, as we shall see in the next -Note, these gatherings took the form of an open outbreak somewhat -earlier than we should have been led to think from the account in the -Chronicle. - -Now there can be no doubt as to the truth of the version in which the -Chronicle, Florence, and William of Malmesbury substantially agree. -All that Orderic has done has been to place the voyage of Odo to -England at a wrong time, and it is easy to see how the mistake arose. -He makes Odo, Eustace, and Robert of Bellême cross together soon after -Christmas. Now it is quite clear that Eustace and Robert did not come -to England till after the rebellion had fully broken out, when Odo was -holding Rochester against the King. The Chronicle simply says (see p. -57) that they were at Rochester with Odo. Florence (see p. 56) tells -us more fully how they came to be there, namely, because they had been -sent by Robert in answer to Odo’s request. Nothing was more easy than -for Orderic to mistake this for a crossing in company with Odo. In his -version, Odo, Eustace, and Robert, all cross with a commission from -Duke Robert. In the true version Odo crosses long before to receive -his English earldom, but with no purpose of disturbing the new -settlement of England. He becomes discontented on English ground; he -rebels, he asks help of Duke Robert, and Eustace and Robert of Bellême -come in answer to his asking. - -The Hyde writer, as usual, has a version of his own, which however, as -far as Odo is concerned, follows that of Orderic. As soon as Robert -has taken possession of his duchy, he calls a council, and sends over -an army under his two uncles Bishop Odo and Count Robert, to take away -the English crown from his brother. They cross the sea, winning a -naval victory over a pirate fleet; they seize Rochester and Pevensey, -and begin the rebellion seemingly before the end of the year 1087. -This account (298) runs thus; - - “Robertus … convocatis principibus et consilio habito, duos - avunculos suos, comitem Moritanii et episcopum Baiocensem, - cum valida manu transmittit, omnimodis decertatis _Waltero_ - [sic] fratri regnum auferre sibique conferre. Qui vela - ventis committentes, et cum piratis obsistentibus in mari - viriliter decertantes, Angliam veniunt, urbemque Roffensem - et castellum Pevenesellum intrantes, rebellare contendunt.” - -We easily see from the later history of the rebellion how this writer -has taken some of its most striking incidents and, as it were, crushed -them up together. As Orderic confounds the crossing of Odo with the -crossing of Eustace and Robert of Bellême, so the Hyde writer seems to -confound both with the later expedition from Normandy (see p. 74), -which did not occupy Pevensey after a victory, but was driven back by -the King’s English troops in an attempt to land at Pevensey. - -The account given incidentally by Robert of Torigny (Cont. Will. Gem. -viii. 3) has points in common with this version, though it may be more -easily reconciled with the true story. He records the peace between -William and Robert in 1091, and adds; - - “Licet regnum Angliæ ipse Robertus facillime paullo ante - potuisset habere, nisi minus cautus esset. Siquidem - Eustachius comes Boloniæ, et episcopus Baiocensis et comes - Moritolii patrui ejus, et alii principes Normanniæ, cum - magno apparatu militum mare transeuntes, Rovecestriam et - alia nonnulla castella in comitatu Cantuariensi occupantes - et tenentes ad opus illius, dum ipsum Robertum ducem - exspectant, qui tunc temporis ultra quam virum deceat in - Normannia deliciabatur, obsessi diu a rege Willelmo, dum - ille cujus causa tantum discrimen subierant, non subvenit, - cum dedecore ipsas quas tenebant munitiones exeuntes ad - propria sunt reversi.” - -As for the object of the rebellion, the transfer of the English crown -from William to Robert, we may hear William of Newburgh, who, though -he believes (see above, p. 461) in Robert’s right of succession, yet -says that he “in minori administratione, scilicet ducatus Normannici, -claruit quod regno amplissimo administrando nunquam idoneus fuerit.” - - * * * * * - -What could M. de Rémusat (Anselme, 113) have meant when he said that -the revolt of the Norman nobles “força le roi à se rapprocher de ses -sujets _bretons_”? Then “il fit appel à la noblesse indigène.” This -last may come from Matthew Paris; but the Welsh, the nearest approach -to Bretons, joined the rebels. - - -NOTE C. Vol. i. pp. 28, 89. - -THE SHARE OF BISHOP WILLIAM OF SAINT-CALAIS IN THE REBELLION OF 1088. - -There are few more glaring contradictions to be found in history than -the picture of Bishop William of Saint-Calais as drawn by the southern -writers, and his picture as drawn by his own hand or that of some -local admirer in the Durham document printed in the Monasticon, i. -245, and in the old edition of Simeon. No one would know the meek -confessor of this last version in the traitor whom the Chronicler does -not shrink from likening to the blackest of all traitors. Yet, if the -narratives are carefully compared, it may seem that, with all the -difference in colouring, there is much less contradiction in matter of -fact than we are led to think at first sight. The opposition is simply -of that kind which follows when each side, without asserting any -direct falsehood, leaves out all that tells on behalf of the other -side. We read the Bishop’s story; we see no reason to suspect him of -stating anything which did not happen; under the circumstances indeed -he could hardly venture to state anything which did not happen. But we -see that the statement, though doubtless true as a mere record of -facts, is dressed up in a most ingenious way, so as to put everything -in the best light for his side, while everything that was to be said -on the other side is carefully left out. But, on the other hand, while -the Chronicler, Florence, and William of Malmesbury, clearly leave out -a great deal, there is no reason to think that they leave it out from -any partisan wish to pervert the truth. They believed, and doubtless -on good grounds, that the Bishop of Durham was a chief actor in the -rebellion, and they said so. But there was nothing to lead them to -dwell on his story at any special length. Their attention was chiefly -drawn to other parts of the events of that stirring year. Orderic -indeed, whose account of some parts of the story is so minute, does -not speak of Durham or its bishop at all. - -Some of the passages from the Chronicle have been quoted in the text. -The Bishop of Durham is there mentioned three times. First comes the -record of his influence with the King, and his treason against him; - - “On þisum ræde wæs ærest Oda bisceop and Gosfrið bisceop and - Willelm bisceop on Dunholme. Swa wæll dyde se cyng be þam - bisceop þæt eall Englaland færde æfter his ræde, and swa swa - he wolde, and he þohte to donne be him eall swa Iudas - Scarioð dide be ure Drihtene.” - -Then, after the account of the deliverance of Worcester, Bishop -William is named at the head of the ravagers in different parts of the -country; “Se bisceop of Dunholme dyde to hearme þæt he mihte ofer eall -be norðan.” - -Lastly, at the end of the whole story, when Odo has come out of -Rochester and gone beyond sea, we read; - - “Se cyng siððan sende here to Dunholme, and let besittan - þone castel, and se bisceop griðode and ageaf þone castel, - and forlet his biscoprice and ferde to Normandige.” - -Florence, writing seemingly with the Chronicle before him, changes the -story so far as to make, not Bishop William but Count Robert (see p. -33), the chief accomplice of Odo. He then gives the list of the other -confederates, at the end of which, after Robert of Mowbray, Bishop -Geoffrey, and Earl Roger, we read, “quod erat pejus, Willelmus -episcopus Dunholmensis,” followed by the passage (see p. 23) in which -he describes the Bishop’s influence with the King. After this, he says -nothing more about him till he records his death in 1096. - -Henry of Huntingdon (215), also writing with the Chronicle before him, -leaves out the first passage of the three and translates the two -others. The third stands in his text; - - “Mittens rex exercitum Dunhelmiæ obsedit urbem, donec - reddita est ei. Episcopus vero multique proditorum propulsi - sunt in exilium.” - -William of Malmesbury, in the Gesta Regum (iv. 306), first mentions -the influence of Bishop William and the envy which Odo felt at it. -Then, in reckoning up the Conspirators, he adds; - - “Quinetiam Willelmus Dunelmensis episcopus, quem rex a - secretis habuerat, in eorum perfidiam concesserat; quod - graviter regem tulisse ferunt, quia, cum amissæ charitatis - dispendio, remotarum provinciarum frustrabatur compendio.” - -At the end of the story, after Odo is gone, he adds; - - “Dunelmensis episcopus ultro mare transivit, quem rex, - verecundia præteritæ amicitiæ, indemnem passus est effugere. - Cæteri omnes in fidem recepti.” - -In the Gesta Pontificum (272) he introduces Bishop William as “potens -in sæculo,” and “oris volubilitate promptus, maxime sub Willelmo rege -juniore.” This almost sounds as if he had read the debates at the -bishop’s own trial, but it is more likely that he had his dealings -with Anselm before his mind. He then goes on; - - “Quapropter, et amicorum cohorti additus, et Angliæ - prælatus, non permansit in gratia. Quippe nullis principis - dictis vel factis contra eum extantibus, ab amicitia - descivit, in perfidia Odonis Baiocensis et ceterorum se - immiscens. Quapropter, victis partibus, ab Anglia fugatus, - post duos annos indulgentia principis rediit.” - -Simeon of Durham, in his History (1088, at the end of the year), says -simply, “Etiam Dunholmensis episcopus Willielmus vii. anno sui -episcopatus, et multi alii de Anglia exierunt.” This omission is the -more to be noticed, as he clearly had Florence and the Chronicle -before him. In the History of the Church of Durham (iv. 8) we get a -fuller account; - - “Hujus [Willielmi regis], sicut et antea patris, amicitiis - antistes præfatus adjunctus, familiariter ei ad tempus - adhærebat: unde etiam Alvertoniam cum suis appenditiis rex - illi donavit. Post non multum vero temporis, _per aliorum - machinamenta orta inter ipsos dissensione_, episcopus ab - episcopatu pulsus ultra mare secessit, quem comes - Normannorum, non ut exulem, sed ut patrem suscipiens, in - magno honore per tres annos quibus ibi moratus est, habuit.” - -In these accounts almost the only direct contradiction as to matters -of fact comes in at the end, about the surrender of the castle of -Durham to the King. The Chronicle certainly seems to imply a siege; -and, reading the Chronicle only without reference to anything else, we -should have thought that the Bishop himself was besieged there. -William of Malmesbury, on the other hand, makes the story wind up -between the King and the Bishop in a wonderfully friendly way. But on -this point we can have little doubt in accepting the version which I -have followed in the text (see p. 114), namely that the Bishop was not -at Durham, that the castle was surrendered after a good deal of -haggling, and perhaps a little plundering, on both sides, but with -nothing that could be called a regular siege. In short, the Chronicler -makes a little too much of the fact that the castle was surrendered to -a military force. William of Malmesbury, on the other hand, makes a -little too much of the fact that the Bishop was not, strictly -speaking, driven from England by a judicial sentence, but that he -rather went by virtue of a proposal of his own making. The only other -question of strict fact which could be raised is as to the ravages -which the Chronicler says were wrought by the Bishop. The picture in -William of Malmesbury of the Bishop turning against the King without -any provocation on his part, and the picture in the History of the -Church of Durham of the men who stirred up strife between the King and -the Bishop, are merely the necessary colouring from opposite sides. -The only important point on this head is that the disposition to make -the best of the Bishop’s conduct seems to have been general at Durham, -and that it is not confined to the narrative which must have been -written either by himself or under his immediate inspiration. But we -must remember that the general career of William of Saint-Calais at -Durham, his bringing in of monks and his splendid works of building, -were sure to make him pass into the list of local worthies, so that -local writers, both at the time and afterwards, would be led to make -the best of his conduct in any matter. - -Of the Bishop’s own story, or at least the story of some local writer -who told it as the Bishop wished it to be told, I have given the -substance in the text. And, as its examination does not involve any -very great amount of comparison of one statement with another, I have -given the most important illustrative passages in the form of notes to -the text. I have said that, after all, there is little real -contradiction in direct statements of fact between this version and -that of the southern writers. We find the kind of differences which -are sure to be found when we have on one side a general narrative, -written without any special purpose, a narrative doubtless essentially -true, but putting in or leaving out details almost at random, while we -have on the other side a very minute and ingenious apology, enlarging -on all points on which it was convenient to enlarge, and leaving out -those which might tell the other way. But the truth is that the -Bishop’s own statement of his services done to the King (see pp. 29, -111), and the charge which was formally brought against him by the -King (see p. 98), do not really contradict one another. They may be -read as a consecutive story, according to which the Bishop continued -to be the King’s adviser, and to do him good outward service, after he -had made up his mind to join the rebels and while he was waiting for -an opportunity of so doing. It is most likely this special -double-dealing which led the Chronicler to his exceptionally strong -language with regard to the Bishop’s treason. The only point where -there seems any kind of contradiction in fact is with regard to the -dates. From the Chronicler and the other writers on the King’s side we -should have thought that there was no open revolt anywhere till after -Easter, whereas it is plain from the Durham story that a great deal -must have happened in south-eastern England much earlier in the year. -On this point the Durham version, a version founded on documents and -minutely attentive to dates, is of course to be preferred. With the -other writers the Bishop’s affairs are secondary throughout, and the -affairs of Kent and Sussex are secondary in the first stage of the -story. Till they come to the exciting scenes of the sieges of -Tunbridge and Pevensey, the attention of the Chronicler, Florence, and -the others, is mainly given to the affairs of the region stretching -from Ilchester to Worcester. We may infer from them that the -occupation of Bristol and the march against Worcester did not happen -till after Easter, while we must infer from the Durham account that -the movements in London, Kent, and Sussex, had happened not later than -the beginning of March. There is in short no real contradiction; there -is only that kind of difference which there is sure to be found when -one writer gives a general view of a large subject with a general -object, while another gives a minute view of one part of the subject -with a special object. - -We can have little doubt in accepting the fact of the Bishop’s -treason, not only on the authority of the Chronicler and the other -writers who follow him, but on the strength of the proceedings in the -King’s court. In the Bishop’s own story a definite charge is brought -against him, and he never really answers it. He goes off into a cloud -of irrelevant questions, and into a statement of services done to the -King, a statement which most likely is perfectly true, but which is no -answer to the indictment. The great puzzle of the whole story, namely -why Bishop William should have turned against the King at all, is not -made any clearer on either side. - - * * * * * - -It is certainly strange that this whole story of Bishop William, so -minutely told as it is and illustrating so many points in our law and -history, should have drawn to itself so little attention as it has -done. Thierry takes no notice of it. It would indeed be hard to get -anything about “Saxons and Normans” out of it. For, though the -“indocta multitudo” may fairly pass for “Saxons,” yet these same -“Saxons,” if hostile to the Cenomannian Bishop, are loyally devoted to -the Norman King. Lappenberg also passes by the story altogether. Sir -Francis Palgrave (Normandy and England, iv. 31, 46) makes some -references to it which are provokingly short, as it is the kind of -story to which he could have done full justice. Dr. Stubbs (Const. -Hist. i. 440) has given a summary of the chief points in debate. But I -believe that I may claim to be the first modern writer who has told -the tale at full length in a narrative history. There are very few -stories which bring the men and the institutions of the latter part of -the eleventh century before us in a more living way, while the conduct -of William of Saint-Calais at this stage must specially be borne in -mind when we come to estimate his later conduct in the controversy -with Anselm. - - -NOTE D. Vol. i. p. 47. - -THE DELIVERANCE OF WORCESTER IN 1088. - -The story of the deliverance of Worcester is one of those stories in -which we can trace the early stages of legendary growth. It is one of -the tales in which a miraculous element appears, but in which we can -hardly say that there is any distortion of fact. The story is told in -a certain way, and with a certain colouring, with which a modern -writer would not tell it. Effects are attributed to causes to which a -modern writer would not attribute them. But this is all. The mere -facts are perfectly credible. There is no reason to doubt that -Wulfstan exhorted the royal troops and excommunicated the rebels. -There is no reason to doubt that the rebels were utterly defeated by -the royal troops. And we may well believe that, in a certain sense, -the defeat of the rebels was largely owing to the exhortations and -excommunications of Wulfstan. The only legendary element in the story -is to treat a result as miraculous which, under the circumstances, was -thoroughly natural. - -We have several accounts from contemporary or nearly contemporary -writers. First comes the Peterborough Chronicler. After the passage -quoted in p. 48, he goes on; - - “Ðas þing geseonde se arwurða bisceop Wlfstan wearð swiðe - gedrefed on his mode, forðig him wæs betæht þe castel to - healdene. Ðeahhweðer his hiredmen ferdon ut mid feawe men of - þam castele, and þurh Godes mildheortnisse and þurh þæs - bisceopes geearnunga ofslogon and gelæhton fif hundred - manna, and þa oðre ealle aflymdon.” - -Here is nothing miraculous, only a very natural tendency to ascribe -the deliverance to the prayers and merits of the Bishop. The version -of Simeon of Durham (1088) gives us the “yearning” of Wulfstan in the -more dramatic shape of a spoken prayer; - - “Perrexerunt usque Wigornam, omnia ante se vastantes et igne - consumentes. Cogitaverunt etiam quod castrum et ecclesiam - vellent accipere, quod videlicet castrum tunc temporis - commendatum erat Wlstano venerabili episcopo. Quando - episcopus ista audivit, valde contristabatur, et cogitans - quid consilii inde haberet, vertit se ad Deum suum, et rogat - ut respiciat ecclesiam suam et populum suum ab hostibus - oppressum. Hæc eo meditante, familia ejus exiliit de castro, - et acceperunt et occiderunt ex eis quingentos viros, et - alios in fugam verterunt.” - -In the version of Henry of Huntingdon (p. 215, Arnold) we again find -only the prayer; but it is told with a picturesque description of the -Bishop lying before the altar, while the loyal troops go forth, and, -by a somewhat bold figure, the discomfiture of the enemy is made to be -the work of Wulfstan himself. The number of the slain is also -increased tenfold; - - “Principes Herefordscyre et Salopscyre prædantes - combusserunt cum Walensibus provinciam Wireceastre usque ad - portas urbis. Cum autem templum et castellum assilire - pararent, Wlstanus episcopus sanctus quendam amicum - familiarem summis in necessitatibus compellavit, Deum - videlicet excelsum. Cujus ope coram altari jacens in - oratione, paucis militibus emissis, quinque mille hostium - vel occidit vel cepit; ceteros vero mirabiliter fugavit.” - -William of Malmesbury in the Gesta Regum (iv. 306) gives the prayer -the form of a blessing on the King’s troops; - - “Rogerius de Monte Gomerico, exercitum suum a Scrobesbiria - cum Walensibus mittens, coloniam Wigorniensem prædabatur; - jamque Wigorniam infestus advenerat, cum regii milites qui - prætendebant, _freti benedictione Wulstani episcopi_, cui - custodia castelli commissa erat, pauci multos effugarunt, - pluribusque sauciis et cæsis, quosdam abduxerunt.” - -Orderic (666 D) cuts the matter very short; but it is in his version -that we first hear of Wulfstan cursing the rebels, as well as blessing -the King’s troops. Having mentioned Osbern and Bernard (see pp. 33, -34), he merely adds; “In territorio Wigornensi rapinis et cædibus, -_prohibente et anathematizante viro Dei Wlfstano episcopo_, nequiter -insistebant.” - -Here one might almost think that the anathema was of none effect. It -is quite otherwise in the version which William of Malmesbury gives in -the Gesta Pontificum (285)――in his special Life of Wulfstan he leaves -out the story altogether; - - “Rogerius comes de Monte-gomerico, perfidiam contra - principem meditatus, cum ejusdem factionis complicibus arma - movebat infestus. Jamque, a Scrobbesberia usque Wigorniensem - coloniam omnibus vastatis, urbem ipsam appropinquabat; cum - regii milites, qui prætendebant, periculum exponunt - episcopo. Is, maledictionis fulmen jaculatus in perfidos qui - domino suo fidem non servarent, jubet milites properare, Dei - et ecclesiæ injurias ulturos. Mirum quis dixerit quod - subjiciam, sed auctoritati veracium narratorum cedendum? - Quidam enim adversariorum, regiis conspectis, timore inerti - perculsi, quidam etiam cæcati, victoriam plenam, et qualem - sperare nequibant, oppidanis cessere. Multi enim a paucis - fugati, pars cæsi, pars saucii abducti.” - -We have here only the cursing without the blessing; the point is that -the curse is pronounced before the royal army sets out. The anathema -in this version has its full effect; the legendary element appears in -the story of the blindness of the enemy. - -Lastly, we come to the account to which William most likely alludes -when he speaks of the “veraces narratores,” that is, to the minute -account given by Florence, which I have mainly followed in the text. -His local knowledge and special interest in the story led him to tell -it in much fuller detail than is found anywhere else. On the other -hand, he gives a greater prominence than is given by any one else to -the wonder-working effects of Wulfstan’s curse. This is only what was -natural; it was in his own city, and above all in his own monastery, -that the merits and miracles of the saint would be most fondly dwelled -on, and most firmly believed in. At Worcester, if anywhere, the tale -of the deliverance of Worcester was likely to grow. It is therefore in -the local writer from whom we get our most trustworthy details that we -also find the first approach to a really legendary element, though -that element seems to go no further than a slight change in the order -of events which brings out the saint’s powers more prominently. As we -read the other versions, above all the fuller one of William of -Malmesbury in the Gesta Pontificum, we should certainly infer that -whatever Wulfstan did in the way of praying, blessing, or cursing, was -done before the royal troops marched out of Worcester. In Florence the -blessing and the cursing stand apart. The Bishop goes into the castle -(see pp. 49, 50); the royal troops of all kinds make ready for battle, -and meet the Bishop on his way to the castle, offering to cross the -river and attack the enemy, if he gives them leave. He gives them -leave, and promises them success (see p. 50). They then cross the -bridge, and see the enemy afar spoiling the lands of the bishopric. On -hearing of this, Wulfstan is persuaded to speak his anathema, which at -once takes effect in the wonderful overthrow of the enemy. - - “Res miranda, et Dei virtus et viri bonitas nimis in hoc - prædicanda; nam statim hostes, ut sparsi vagabantur per - agros, tanta membrorum percutiuntur debilitate, tanta - exteriori oculorum attenuantur cæcitate, ut vix arma - valerent ferre, nec socios agnoscere, nec eos discernere qui - eis oberant ex adversa parte. Illos fallebat cæcitatis - ignorantia, nostros confortabat Dei et episcopalis - benedictionis confidentia. Sic illi insensati nec sciebant - capere fugam, nec alicujus defensionis quærebant viam; sed - Dei nutu dati in reprobum sensum, facile cedebant manibus - inimicorum.” - -Now this is a legend of the very simplest kind; or rather it is not -strictly a legend at all, but only a story on the way to become a -legend. Beyond a slight change in the order, there is no reason to -suspect that the facts of the case are at all misrepresented; they are -simply coloured in the way in which it was natural that the successful -party should colour them. There is in strictness no miraculous element -in the story; it has merely reached the stage at which the germs of a -miraculous element are beginning to show themselves. That Wulfstan -would encourage his people to fight in a good cause, that he would -pray for their success, we may feel certain. That his exhortation -might take the shape of a promise――perhaps only a conditional -promise――of victory is no more than was natural. And an anathema -pronounced against the rebels is as natural as the blessing pronounced -on the royal troops. We may be sure that men stirred up by such -exhortations and promises would really fight the better for having -heard them. And if the fact that Wulfstan had pronounced an anathema, -or even that he was likely to pronounce an anathema, anyhow came to -the knowledge of the rebels, it is hardly less certain that they would -fight the worse for hearing of it. The only thing in which there is -even the germ of miracle is the statement that the invaders were -smitten with lameness or blindness or something like it, at the very -moment when the Bishop pronounced his excommunication. Now, in all -stories of this kind, we must bear in mind that mysterious power of -φήμη [phêmê] (see vol. ii. p. 309), which I do not profess to explain, -but which certainly is a real thing. News certainly does sometimes go -at a wonderful pace; and the rebels might really hear the news of -Wulfstan’s excommunication so soon that it would be a very slight -exaggeration to say that it wrought an effect on them at the very -moment when it was uttered. A body of men who had already broken their -ranks and were scattered abroad for plunder hear that a sentence has -been pronounced against them by a man whose office and person were -held in reverence by all men, French and English――for the Britons I -cannot answer. At this news they would surely fall into greater -confusion still, and would become an easy prey to the better -disciplined troops who had the Bishop’s exhortations and promises -still ringing in their ears. To say that such men, confused and -puzzled, not knowing which way to turn, were struck with sudden -blindness and lameness would be little more than a poetical way of -describing what really happened. That all this was owing to the -prayers and merits of Wulfstan would of course be taken for granted; -that the victory was owing to his prayers and merits is taken for -granted in those versions of the story which do not bring in the least -approach to a miraculous element. One change only in the story itself -would seem, as I have already hinted, to come from a legendary source. -I have in my own text, while following the details of Florence, not -scrupled so far to depart from his order as to make the Bishop’s -anathema come before, instead of after, the march of the royal troops -from the city. That is, I have made the blessing and cursing take -place at the same time. This seems better to agree with the account in -the Gesta Pontificum. And, following, as it seems to me, the words of -the Chronicle (geseonde), I have ventured to make Wulfstan actually -see the havoc wrought by the invaders, while we should infer from -Florence, as from Simeon, that he only heard of it. It is of course -part of the wonder that his anathema should work its effect on men at -a distance. By making these two small changes――which the other -accounts seem to bear out――in the narrative of Florence, we get a -version in which there is really no legendary element at all, beyond -the pious or poetical way in which the discomfiture of the enemy is -spoken of. To say that the enemy were smitten with blindness and -lameness was an obvious figure of speech. To say that they were so -smitten by virtue of the Bishop’s anathema was, in the ideas of those -times, no figure of speech at all, but a natural inference from the -fact. To say that they were smitten, while still at a distance, at the -very moment when the Bishop pronounced the anathema was an -improvement, perhaps rather a devout inference, so very obvious that -it hardly marks a later stage in the story. The tale is as yet hardly -legendary; it is only on the point of becoming so. But it is the kind -of story which one would have expected to grow. Yet those later -writers who mention the matter seem simply to copy Florence, without -bringing in any further improvements of their own. It is strange that, -in the local Annals, as in the Life of Wulfstan, the deliverance of -Worcester is left out altogether. - - * * * * * - -The story of the deliverance of Worcester may be compared with the -story of the overthrow of Swegen at Gainsburgh. See N. C. vol. i. p. -366. But the Worcester story is in an earlier stage than the -Gainsburgh story. The main difference is that the hero of the one -story was dead, while the hero of the other story was alive. The -living Bishop of Worcester could not, even in a figure or in a legend, -be brought in as acting as the dead and canonized King of the -East-Angles could be made to act. The utmost that could be done in -this way was when Henry of Huntingdon speaks of the exploits of the -loyal army as the personal exploits of the Bishop whom he describes as -lying before the altar. Wulfstan, notwithstanding his youthful skill -in military exercises (see N. C. vol. ii. p. 470), could not be -brought in as smiting the enemy, lance in hand, as Saint Eadmund did -Swegen. - -Another story of an army smitten with blindness is that of the Normans -at Northallerton in 1069 (see N. C. vol. iv. p. 241). And a scene not -unlike the scene before Worcester, though the circumstances are all -different, and the position of the bishop in the story is specially -different, is to be found in the rout of the Cenomannian army before -Sillé in 1073 (see N. C. vol. iv. p. 553). - - * * * * * - -Two small questions of fact arise out of the comparison of our -authorities. The expressions of the Chronicler (“forðig him was betæht -þe castel to healdene”), of Simeon, and of William of Malmesbury in -the Gesta Regum (“cui custodia castelli commissa erat”) would -certainly lead us to think that Wulfstan was actually commanding for -the King in the castle when the rebellion began. The detailed -narrative in Florence makes him go to the castle only at the special -request of the garrison when the enemy are on their march. There is -perhaps no formal contradiction. Wulfstan had before now held military -command (see N. C. vol. iv. p. 579), and he might have the command of -the castle without being actually within its walls. But the story in -Florence does not set Wulfstan before us as an actual military -commander, but rather as a person venerated of all men whose approval -of the course to be taken was sought by those who were in command. It -is safest to take the detailed story in Florence, and to take the -words of the Chronicler and of Simeon and William as the laxer way of -speaking used by men who did not aim at the same local precision. The -Bishop might in some sort be said to have the castle entrusted to him -when the garrison had asked him to come into it. - -The other point is that William of Malmesbury in both his versions -seems to make Earl Roger present in person before Worcester. But the -language of the other accounts (see p. 47) seems carefully to imply -that, though he joined in the “unrede,” and though his men were -engaged in the revolt on the border, yet he had not himself any -personal share in that campaign. It is certain that, when we next hear -of him (see p. 58), it is in quite another character and in quite -another part of England. - - * * * * * - -A lately published record brings in a new actor in the defence of -Worcester. This is the “Annales de ecclesiis et regnis Anglorum” in -Liebermann’s “Ungedruckte Anglo-Normannische Geschichtsquellen,” 22. -This contains an account of the deliverance of Worcester, enlarged -from Florence, in which Abbot Guy of Pershore appears as Wulfstan’s -military lieutenant; “Intererat quidam consilio providus Wido -Persorcusis abbas. Hunc ultro se offerentem jus pontificale creans ad -tempus militem, statuit belli ducem totum in Deo et in orationibus -episcopi confidentem.” Guy was the successor of Thurstan (see N. C. -vol. iv. pp. 384, 697) who died in 1087. He was one of the abbots -deposed by Anselm in 1102. As Anselm himself had held a military -command, the deposition could hardly have been on the ground of Guy’s -exploits on this day. - - -NOTE E. Vol. i. p. 74. - -THE ATTEMPTED LANDING OF THE NORMANS AT PEVENSEY. - -It is with some hesitation that I have spoken as I have done in the -text, because it is hard to reconcile our authorities without -supposing that the siege of Pevensey was accompanied by a sea-force on -the part of the King. No ships have been spoken of before; none are -distinctly mentioned now; some of the descriptions might be understood -only of a land-force lining the shore; but operations on the water -seem implied in some of the accounts, and they may be understood in -any. There is no need to think of a great fleet; the sea-faring men of -the neighbourhood could surely do all that is recorded to have been -done. - -The words of the Chronicler, of William of Malmesbury, and of Henry of -Huntingdon, might be understood merely of a land-force employed to -keep the enemy from landing; but their expressions may be quite as -naturally taken of operations on the water as well. The Chronicler is -emphatic on the exploit of the English; - - “Ac þa Englisce men þe wærdedon þære sæ gelæhton of þam - mannon and slogon, and adrengton ma þonne ænig man wiste to - tellanne.” - -So Henry of Huntingdon (215); “Anglici mare custodientes occiderunt et -submerserunt ex illis innumerabiles.” - -The details come from William of Malmesbury, iv. 306; - - “Inter has obsidionis moras, homines regis mare custodientes - quosdam quos comes Normanniæ in auxilium perfidorum miserat, - partim cæde, partim naufragio, oppressere: reliqui fugam - intendentes et suspendere carbasa conati, moxque vento - cessante destituti, ludibrio nostris, sibi exitio, fuere; - nam, ne vivi caperentur, e transtris se in mare - præcipitarunt.” - -It is Simeon of Durham (1088) who more distinctly brings out the -features of a fight by sea; - - “Rex Willelmus jam mare munierat suis piratis, qui venientes - in Angliam tot occiderunt et in mare merserunt, ut nullus - sit hominum qui sciat numerum pereuntium.” - -This seems to come from the Chronicle; but “þa Englisce men þe -wærdedon þære sæ” are distinctly sent on board vessels of some kind by -the name of “piratæ.” - -The “pirates” too and the sea-fight come out more distinctly in the -narrative of the Hyde writer quoted above (see p. 76). His tale must -really mean the attack on Pevensey with which we are now dealing, -though he has strangely confused times, places, and persons. - -Roger of Wendover (ii. 34) gives the narrative of William of -Malmesbury a new turn, and specially puts the “perfidi” of his version -in an unlooked-for light; - - “Inter has obsidionis moras, ministri regis mare - custodientes quosdam quos dux Robertus in auxilium - prædictorum miserat _schismaticorum_, partim cæde et partim - naufragio oppresserunt: quorum quidam fugam meditantes vento - destituuntur, et sic ludibrio Anglis sibique exitio - exstiterunt, nam, ne vivi caperentur, ultro sese fluctibus - submerserunt.” - -Florence (see p. 74) gives an animated account of the operations by -land; but he wholly leaves out the coming of the Norman fleet. - - -NOTE F. Vol. i. p. 137. - -THE BISHOPRIC OF SOMERSET AND THE ABBEY OF BATH. - -William of Malmesbury (Gest. Pont. 194) has got wrong in his -chronology when he makes John already bishop before the death of the -Conqueror, but unable to carry out his scheme for the removal of the -bishopric till the accession of Rufus. “Minoris gloriæ putans si in -_villa_ [should this be some form of _Wells_?] resideret inglorius, -transferre thronum in Bathoniam animo intendit. Sed cum id inaniter, -vivente Willelmo patre, cogitasset, tempore Willelmi filii effecit.” -Gisa certainly did not die till 1088, and John was consecrated in July -of that year. “Qui cum rex excellentissimus Willielmus senior, qui -xxij. annis regnaverat, fine laudabili vitam conclusisset, et -Willielmus junior filius ejus pro eo regnaret, consecratus est -episcopus in Julio.” (Historiola, 21.) - -The transfer of the bishopric to Bath and the union of the abbey with -the bishopric are undoubted facts; as the writer of the Historiola -says, “Statim cathedram pontificis transtulit de Wella Bathoniæ.” The -charter of William Rufus making this grant is printed in the -Monasticon, ii. 266; the original is preserved in the chapter library -at Wells. It is in two handwritings, the former part containing the -first grant of 1088, while the second consists of a confirmation of -1090, or rather 1091. The substance of the grant is contained in the -words; - - “Ego Willelmus Willelmi regis filius, Dei dispositione - monarches Britanniæ, pro meæ meique patris remedio animæ, et - regni prosperitate, et populi a Domino mihi collati salute, - concessi Johanni episcopo abbatiam sancti Petri Bathoniæ, - cum omnibus appendiciis, tam in villis quam in civitate et - in consuetudinibus, illis videlicet, quibus saisita erat ea - die qua regnum suscepi. Dedi, inquam, ad Sumersetensis - episcopatus augmentationem, eatenus præsertim ut inibi - instituat præsuleam sedem.” - -On the use of the title “monarches Britanniæ,” see N. C. vol. i. p. -561. It is somewhat singular that, when Henry of Huntingdon (211) -speaks of the Conqueror as leaving “_regnum_ Angliæ” to his second -son, Robert of Torigny, in his own Chronicle, 1085, changes it into -“_monarchiam_ Angliæ.” - -The date of the first grant is thus given; - - “Lanfranco archipræsule machinante, Wintoniæ factum est - donum hujus beneficii, mill. lxxxviiiᵒ. anno ab incarnatione - Domini, secundo vero anno regni regis Willelmi filii prioris - Willelmi.” - -The second year of William Rufus takes in from September 26, 1088, to -September 26, 1089. It is perhaps not necessary to suppose that this -first grant was made in an assembly at all. If it was, we must either -suppose an extraordinary assembly in the autumn of 1088 (for we have -seen by the story of Bishop William of Durham that the Christmas -assembly of that year was held as usual at Westminster, see p. 116), -or else we must suppose that it was done in the Easter assembly of -1089. Yet it is rather straining chronology, even if we begin the year -at Easter, to reckon that assembly to 1088. (In 1089 Easter-day fell -on April 1st.) But that the dates of this charter begin the year at -some time later than the 1st of January is plain from the -confirmation, which was made at Dover “anno Dominicæ incarnationis -mill. xc. regni vero mei iiii. indictione xiii. vi. kal. Febr. luna -iii.” This must mean the January of 1091, as the January of 1090 comes -in the third, not in the fourth, year of Rufus. Also the charter is -signed by Ralph Bishop of Chichester and Herbert Bishop of Thetford, -who did not become bishops till 1091, and who thus seem to have been -consecrated very early in the year. The confirmation would thus seem -to have been made just before William Rufus crossed into Normandy in -1091 (see p. 273), when Dover was a likely place to find him at. A -long list of signatures was made ready, though some only of the names -actually received the cross from the signer’s own hand. Among these -indeed are the names of Ralph and Herbert themselves, as well as those -of Saint Wulfstan and Bishop Geoffrey of Coutances. Bishop Howel of Le -Mans signs with his own hand, and after the abbots comes the unsigned -name of “Gosfridus Mala Terra” without any further description. Can -this be the historian of the Apulian wars? The earls and counts whose -names are given are Roger (of Shrewsbury), Robert (of Mortain or of -Meulan?), Simon (of Northampton), Hugh (of Chester), Alan (of Britanny -and Richmond), Henry, Walter, and William. Of these, Roger, Simon, and -Alan actually sign. Earl Walter must be Walter Giffard, created Earl -of Buckingham by Rufus (see Stubbs, Const. Hist. i. 361). Henry must -be Henry Earl of Warwick, brother of Robert of Meulan (see Will. Gem. -vii. 4; Ord. Vit. 676 A; Will. Malms. v. 393; Stubbs, u. s.), and -William must be the younger William of Warren, Earl of Surrey, that -is, if his father died as is asserted by the Hyde writer, or even so -soon as we should infer from Orderic (680 D). The signatures to this -charter thus help us in fixing the dates of the creation of these -earldoms. “Robertus cancellarius” is the future Bishop of Lincoln. -“Samson capellanus,” who does not sign though his name is there, must -surely be he who refused the bishopric of Le Mans (see p. 205), or -else he who was afterwards Bishop of Worcester (see p. 542), if the -two are not the same. Among smaller lay names are many with which we -are familiar. The name of Robert Fitz-hamon stands apart after the -earls, marking his special position in the King’s favour. The name of -Randolf Peverel, whom we have met with in the story of Bishop William -(see p. 109), is followed in the original by that of William Peverel, -which is left out in the Monasticon. The Sheriff Aiulf (see N. C. vol. -iv. p. 163) and Ælfred of Lincoln (see N. C. vol. iii. p. 778) are the -only names which can be those of Englishmen. So soon were the promises -of the Red King forgotten. - -It was almost needless on the part of Roger of Wendover (ii. 42), or -whoever he followed, to say that the change was made “consensu -Willelmi regis, _albo unguento manibus ejus delibatis_,” a phrase -which reminds one of “candidi nummi” in Domesday, 164. - -Of the two societies which this change so deeply affected, we hear the -moan of the monks of Bath in William of Malmesbury (Gest. Pont. 195), -and that of the canons of Wells in the local Historiola (22). Of -Bishop John’s doings at Bath we read; - - “Primo aliquantum dure in monachos agebat, quod essent - hebetes et ejus æstimatione barbari, et omnes terras, - victualium ministras, auferens, pauculumque victum per - laicos suos exiliter inferens. Sed, procedentibus annis, - factis novis monachis, mitius se agere, aliquantulum - terrarum, quo se hospitesque suos quoquomodo sustentarent, - priori indulgens. Multa ibi nobiliter per eum incepta et - consummata, in ornamentis et libris, maximeque monachorum - congregatione, qui sunt scientia literarum et sedulitate - officiorum juxta prædicabiles…. Obiit grandævus, qui nec - etiam moriens emolliri potuit, ut plena manu monachorum - terras redderet, successoribus suis non imitandum præbens - exemplum.” - -The Wells tale forms a very remarkable piece of local history, the -main features of which are given in the local Historiola (22), and -which has been illustrated by Dr. Stubbs. - -Our more general history is chiefly concerned with the undoing of the -work of Gisa; - - “Domiciliis quoque canonicorum quæ Gyso venerabilis - construxerat, refectorio scilicet et dormitorio necnon et - cellario et aliis officinis necessariis, cum claustro - dirutis, canonici foras ejecti coacti sunt cum populo - communiter vivere, quos Gyso docuerat regulariter et - religiose cohabitare.” - -He afterwards, we are told, repented; but the canons of Wells did not -recover their property till the days of Bishop Robert (1136-1166), -who, though himself a monk, settled the constitution of the church of -Wells after the usual pattern of secular chapters. - -The later Wells writer in Anglia Sacra, i. 560, tells this story, that -is the story of the Historiola, with a few further touches. We read -how John, “inconsultis canonicis Wellensibus et præter eorum -consensum, transtulit sedem episcopalem Wellensem in abbatiam -Bathoniensem … et dimisso nomine episcopatus Wellensis, primus omnium -fecit se Bathoniensem episcopum appellari.” This last charge is -doubtless true; but it may be doubted whether the bishopric of the -Sumorsætan, though its bishopsettle was at Wells, had ever been know -by the local style of bishopric of Wells (see N. C. vol. ii. pp. 606, -608). He tells the story of the destruction of the canonical -buildings, with the addition that “fundum in quo prius habitabant sibi -et suis successoribus usurpavit, palatiumque suum episcopale ibidem -construxit.” One is almost inclined to think that there is here some -confusion between John’s two sets of victims, at Bath and at Wells. -The use of the word “palatium” is later than the days of John; but he -doubtless did build his chief house at Bath, and it may very likely -have been at the cost of the monks. He is not at all likely, when -forsaking Wells, to have built himself a house there, and, unless -Bishop Robert in the next century altogether changed the site of the -church, no cloister can ever have stood on the site of the present -palace of Wells. Yet the building of the house supplies a motive for -pulling down the cloister, which otherwise seems to be lacking. - - * * * * * - -The grant of the city of Bath to Bishop John was first made by William -Rufus, and was afterwards confirmed by Henry the First. The first -grant is recorded in the Historiola (21); - - “Cum in multis et magnis obsequendo regis familiaritatem - obtineret, impetravit ab ipso sibi civitatem Bathoniæ.” - -The confirmation by Henry is recorded by Florence (1122), and by -William of Malmesbury, Gest. Pont. 194; - - “Nec eo contentus, totam etiam civitatem in suos et - successorum usus transtulit, ab Henrico rege quingentis - libris argenti mercatus urbem, in qua balnearum calidarum - latex emergens auctorem Julium Cæsarem habuisse creditur.” - -(He goes on with more about the Bath waters and the history of the -place.) - -The Monasticon contains several charters bearing on this matter (ii. -267, 268). There is first the charter of Rufus, addressed “O[smundo] -episcopo Saresbergensi et T[urstano] abbati, Glastoniensi et A[iulfo?] -vicecomiti, _omnibusque baronibus Francigenis et Anglis_ de Sumerseta -et de Wiltunscire,” which grants “totam civitatem Bathoniæ in -eleemosynam et ad augmentationem pontificalis sedis suæ … ut cum -maximo honore pontificalem suam habeat sedem.” Then comes one of -Henry’s grants at Windsor in 1101, when he says, “Renovavi donum quod -fecerat frater meus Willelmus rex de civitate Bathoniæ, et eamdem -civitatem donavi Deo et beato Petro apostolo et Johanni episcopo, cum -omnibus consuetudinibus et appendiciis quæ ad ipsum pertinent, -civitatem constitui et concessi, ut ibi deinceps sit caput et mater -ecclesia totius episcopatus de Sumersete.” - -Another charter of Henry, confirming various privileges, is granted at -Bishop’s Waltham in 1111 “in transitu regis in Normanniam” (see the -Chronicle, 1111, and N. C. vol. v. p. 182). It says, “Eam donationem -quam donavi Deo et sancto Petro in Batha, ubi frater meus Willielmus -et ego constituimus et confirmavimus sedem episcopatus totius -Summersetæ, quæ olim erat apud villam quæ dicitur Wella, scilicet -ipsam urbem et omnia pertinentia ad firmam ejusdem civitatis, dono et -confirmo ipsi Domino nostro Jesu Christo et beato apostolo Petro et -Johanni episcopo ejusque successoribus jure perpetuo et hæreditario.” - -Another from Geddington in 1102 is addressed to a string of great men, -“omnibusque baronibus Francigenis et Angligenis de Sumerset et de omni -Anglia.” - -The wording of these charters illustrates a crowd of points which we -have come across at various times, as the name of the land of -Somerset, the use of “jus hæreditarium,” and specially the “barones -[þegnas] Angligenæ.” Among the signatures the charter of 1111 has the -unsigned names of two Romans, “Johannes Tusculanus episcopus” and -“Tyberius dapifer et legatus.” (This Tiberius is spoken of again in a -letter of Anselm to Gundulf, Ep. iii. 85, and in a letter to King -Henry, iii. 86, therefore before 1108, the date of Gundulf’s death, -but after the promotion of Gerard to the archbishopric of York; he was -in England on business about the Romescot.) The second has the name of -“Johannes Baiocensis,” seemingly the son of Bishop Odo. Naturally -neither King makes any mention of the five hundred pounds which, -according to William of Malmesbury, the Bishop paid for the grant. - -Lastly, there is Bishop John’s charter of 1106 (“regnante Henrico -filio magni Willelmi _Northmannorum ducis_ et Anglorum regis”), which -records his own acts, and makes some restitution at least to the -monks; - - “Notum vobis facio quod ad honorem Dei et sancti Petri - elaboravi et ad effectum perduxi, _cum decenti auctoritate_, - ut caput et mater ecclesia totius episcopatus de Sumerseta - sit in urbe Bathonia in ecclesia S. Petri. Cui beato - apostolo et servitoribus ejus monachis reddidi terras eorum - quas aliquamdiu injuste tenueram in manu mea, ita integre et - libere sicut Alsius abbas ante me tenuit.” - -He grants them certain lands which he had bought, amongst others the -estate of Hugh or Hugolin with the Beard, a purchase mentioned also in -the Historiola, where the price is given at sixty pounds. A comparison -of the three places in Domesday 49 _b_, 50 _b_, and 99 seems to show -that Mr. Hunter (p. 38) is right in making “Hugo barbatus” in -Hampshire and “Hugolinus interpres” the same man. But he leaves out -his third description in 50 _b_ as “Hugo latinarius.” It is some -comfort to learn from Mr. Hunter that the “taini regis” were “a very -respectable class;” but it is perhaps more important to note that we -have here a “tainus Francigena” to match the “barones Angligenæ.” Some -of Hugh’s lands had been held of Earl Tostig by one Siward. - - * * * * * - -In the Monasticon (ii. 264) and the Codex Diplomaticus (vi. 209-211) -are some English documents, chiefly sales and manumissions, done at -Bath in the days of Abbot Ælfsige and Bishop John. As usual in these -private documents, there is a great mixture of Norman and English -names among the signatures. Take such a list as this in Cod. Dipl. vi. -210; - - “Osward preóst, and Willelm ðe clerce, and Hugo ðe - postgerefa, and Beóring, and Leófríc, and Heoðewulf, and - Burchhard, and Wulwi, and Geosfræi, and Ælfword ðe smið, and - Eádwi se rédes sune, and Rodberd ðe Frencisce.” - -Here we have one of our puzzling Domesday Ælfreds (see N. C. v. 737, -777) witnessing a manumission of Bishop John; - - “Her swutelað on ðisse Cristes béc ðæt Lifgið æt Forda is - gefreód and hire twa cild for ðone biscop Iohanne and for - ealne ðone hired on Baðon on Ælfredes gewitnesse Aspania.” - -Again in Monasticon, ii. 265 (cf. p. 269), we have a somewhat puzzling -mention of an Abbot Wulfwold as well as Ælfsige; - - “Her geswytelað on þysan gewrite þa forefarde þa Willelm - Hosatt geworhte wið Wlfwold abbod, and wið Ælfsige abbod and - wið eall þone hired on Baðan.” - -All this must be a little startling to those who believe that the -Conqueror ordered all documents to be drawn up in French. - -There is also a Latin document printed in the Archæological Journal, -No. 145, p. 83, in which William of Moion, the first Norman lord of -Dunster, grants the church of Dunster to Bishop John and his monks -(“ecclesiæ beati Petri de Bathonia et Johanni _episcopo ejusdem -monasterii_ et monachis tam præsentibus quam futuris”). William of -Moion’s witnesses seem to be all Normans; but we get some English -names among those on the part of the Bishop; “Gireuuardus monachus et -Girebertus archidiaconus et Dunstanus sacerdos et Gillebertus sacerdos -et Willelmus clericus et Adelardus dapifer et Turaldus et Sabianus.” - -There is a letter of Anselm (Ep. iii. 151) addressed to John Prior of -Bath and the monks, but it contains no historical information. John -was the first Prior after the change of foundation. - - -NOTE G. Vol. i. p. 144. - -THE CHARACTER OF WILLIAM RUFUS. - -Some of the main points in the character of William Rufus are not -badly hit off by Giraldus (de Inst. Princ. iii. 30), though there are -features on which he does not dwell; - - “Erat rex ille strenuus in armis et animosus, sed tyrannus, - adeo militiam diligens ecclesiamque Dei exosam habens ut - monasteria cuncta domosque religiosas ab Anglis olim per - Angliam fundatas et ditatas, cum terris omnibus et - possessionibus, vel ex majori mutilare vel in militares - feodos convertere proposuisset.” - -These last words are of importance for another part of our inquiry -(see p. 346); but the general phrase “militiam diligens,” a phrase -capable of more meanings than one, is, in all its meanings, strictly -applicable to Rufus. - -Part of the character of him given by the Hyde writer (299) has been -already quoted (see p. 353). He is brought in as follows, with the -further note that he was “nimis amator pecuniæ;” - -“Willelmus rex animo ferus, corpore strenuus, defensor quidem patriæ -cœpit esse, sed non satis idoneus procreator [protector? or is a -“nursing-father” meant?] ecclesiæ. Si enim ita studeret religioni quam -vanæ curiositati, nullus ei profecto deberet princeps comparari.” - -Geoffrey Gaimar (Chron. Ang. Norm. i. 30) brings him on the stage with -some respect; - - “Willam out non come son père, - Et cil refut mult allosé. - Englois, Normanz, l’ont honuré; - Tant come le duc ala conquere, - Le firent roi en Engleterre; - Et il la tint et bien regna, - Normanz, Englois, fort justisa, - Tote la terre mist en peès.” - -(For “honuré” another reading is “coroné.”) He then goes on to the war -in Maine, so closely that he reaches Seez on his march soon enough for -the name of that city to rime with “peès.” - -But, after the picture in the Chronicles (1100), the character of -William Rufus is best studied in the two works of William of -Malmesbury. On the account in the Gesta Regum I have of course drawn -largely; it is in fact, with some help from Orderic, our main -storehouse. The tone which its writer takes throughout is very -remarkable; he tries to make the best of things without directly -contradicting the facts. In his prologue to the fourth book he -complains of the difficulty, one which has not lessened since his -time, of telling the exact truth about recent matters, especially when -kings are concerned; and he at last lays down a rule which would -forbid any _suggestio falsi_, but would allow a good deal of -_suppressio veri_; - - “Dicam in hoc libro … quidquid de Willelmo filio Willelmi - magni dici poterit, ita ut nec veritas rerum titubet, _nec - principalis decoloretur majestas_.” - -He brings William Rufus in in the beginning of the book itself; - - “Incomparabilis proculdubio nostro tempore princeps, si non - eum magnitudo patris obrueret, nec ejus juventutem fata - præcipitassent, ne per ætatem maturiorem aboleret errores - licentia potestatis et impetu juvenili contractos.” - -Certainly Rufus, like many other sinners, might have reformed; but the -charitable hope is made less likely by the general witness, including -that of the writer himself, that he grew worse and worse. For William -of Malmesbury (iv. 312) says himself; - - “Excellebat in eo magnanimitas, quam ipse processu temporis - nimia severitate obfuscavit; ita in ejus furtim pectus vitia - pro virtutibus serpebant ut discernere nequiret. Diu - dubitavit mundus quo tandem vergeret, quo se inclinaret, - indoles illius. Inter initia, vivente Lanfranco - archiepiscopo, ab omni crimine abhorrebat, ut unicum fore - regum speculum speraretur; quo defuncto, aliquamdiu varium - se præstitit æquali lance vitiorum atque virtutum, jam vero, - postremis annis bonorum gelante studio, incommodorum seges - succrescens incaluit. Et erat ita liberalis quod prodigus, - ita magnanimus quod superbus, ita severus quod sævus. Liceat - enim mihi, pace majestatis regiæ, verum non occuluisse, quia - iste parum Deum reverebatur, nihil homines.” - -He then gives some details, most of which I have quoted already, and -adds an elaborate discourse on real and false liberality. He is -obliged to allow (ib. 313) that the liberality of William Rufus was of -the latter kind; - - “Quidam, cum non habeant quod dent, ad rapinas convertuntur, - majusque odium assequuntur ab his quibus auferunt quam - beneficium ab his quibus contulerunt; _quod huic regi - accidisse dolemus_.” - -Some way on, after more about his liberality, followed by the -description of the vices of the court, of which more anon, and a short -reference to Anselm and Eadmer, comes (iv. 316) a most singular -passage; - - “Vides quantus e liberalitate quam putabat fomes malorum - eruperit. In quibus corrigendis quia ipse non tam exhibuit - diligentiam quam prætendebat negligentiam, magnam et vix - abolendam incurrit infamiam; immerito, credo, quia nunquam - se tali supponeret probro qui se tanto meminisset prælatum - imperio. Hæc igitur ideo inelaborato et celeri sermone - convolvo, quia de tanto rege mala dicere erubesco, in - dejiciendis et extenuandis malis laborans.” - -Then come the anecdotes, the annals of the reign, and the account of -the King’s death. Then (iv. 333) we get another small picture of him, -how he was - - “Ingentia præsumens, et ingentia, si pensa Parcarum evolvere - vel violentiam fortunæ abrumpere et eluctari potuisset, - facturus.” - -Lastly, he is dismissed with this general character; - - “Vir sacrati ordinis hominibus, pro damno animæ cujus - salutem revocare laborent, maxime miserandus; stipendiariis - militibus pro copia donativorum mirandus; provincialibus, - quod eorum substantias abradi sinebat, non desiderandus.” - -The _Gesta Regum_ was the courtly book, written for courtly readers, -and dedicated to Earl Robert, the Red King’s nephew. The subject -demanded that the writer should say something about the Red King; he -had no mind to tell actual lies; so he made the best of him that he -could without telling any. But William of Malmesbury also wrote the -_Gesta Pontificum_ for ecclesiastical readers. In that book bishops -were the main subject; kings came in only incidentally. But, when he -did speak of them, he was not under the same necessity as he was in -his other work of speaking of them with bated breath. In this work he -treated William Rufus very much as he treated several bishops, -William’s own Flambard among them. He first wrote a most severe -character of him, and then cut it out altogether. The passages which -thus perished in the second edition are printed in Mr. Hamilton’s -notes, pp. 73, 79, 84, 104. In the first place (73) he tells us how -the King, “abjecto respectu omnis boni, omnia ecclesiastica in fiscum -redegit.” He was “juvenili calore et regio fastu præfervidus, humana -divinaque juxta ponderans et sui juris æstimans.” But he has spoken of -his ways elsewhere――doubtless in the _Gesta Regum_――he will now speak -of them only as occasion serves. In the next place (79) he wrote at -first; - - “Licet nulla Dei consideratio, nulla cujuscunque hominis - sanctitas, ejus proterviam sedare possent, adeo cuncta quæ - sibi dicebantur vel turbida ira vel facetis, ut sibi - videbatur, salibus eludebat.” - -This was too strong; in the second edition things are put in another -light; - - “Hoc in rege magnificum videri debet, quod qui omnia pro - potestate facere posset, magis quædam joco eludebat, ad - sales multa extra judicium animi transferens.” - -The third passage (84) comes in the story of Anselm; the part of it -which concerns us here runs thus; - - “Rex in eum [Anselmum] et in omnes venabatur lites, - commentabatur caussas quibus congregaret pecunias. In - exactionibus sævus, in male partis dispertiendo prodigus, - ibi harpyiarum ungues, hic Cleopatræ luxum, in utroque - impudentiam prætendens. Si quis ei sponte quid obtulisset, - nisi quantitas dati suæ conveniret menti, statim obliquo - intuitu exterrebat quoad illum ad quas liberet doni - conditiones adduceret.” - -The last passage (104) also comes in the story of Anselm. William’s -character is thus drawn; - - “Protervus et arrogans, æque in Deum ut in homines rebellis, - religioni Christianæ magis ex usu quam amore addictus, ut - qui plures Judæos Christianos factos ad Judaismum pecuniis - corruptus revocaret. Omnia fato agi credulus, nullum - sanctorum nos posse adjuvare credebat et dicebat, subinde - increpitans et dicens, scilicet ea cura jam olim mortuos - sollicitat ut nostris intersint negotiis. Proindeque, si ab - apostolico excommunicaretur, in secundis haberet, qui - quantum suæ conscientiæ interesset, non multum curaret si - totis annis sacramentorum expers esset.” - -This last passage is remarkable, as seeming to show that Rufus rather -wondered that he was not excommunicated (see p. 611). And one wonders -too, on reading this passage and some others (see p. 166), that no -controversialist has ever claimed Rufus as a premature Protestant. -Even Sir Richard Baker, a yet more loyal apologist than the author of -the _Gesta Regum_, did not hit upon that. - -William of Malmesbury then goes on to tell the story of the accused -deer-stealers――doubtless from Eadmer, to whom he so often refers――and -then gives some reasons for not enlarging further on the evil doings -of Rufus. One is “quod non debeam defunctum meo premere judicio qui -habet judicem præfata [sic], cui judicanti omnis attremit creatura.” -The other is that it is better, for the sake of edification, to pass -by evil doings, especially some kinds of evil doings; “Adulterium -discitur dum narratur, et omne crimen faciendum menti male inculcatur, -dum qualiter ab alio factum sit studiosius explicatur.” - - * * * * * - -Orderic is in this case less elaborate in his portrait-painting than -William of Malmesbury. Some of his sayings bearing on the character of -William Rufus have been already quoted. He sometimes brings him in, -after his fashion, with some epithet, appropriate or quaint――“liberalis -rex,” “turgidus rex,” “pomposus sceptriger,” and the like. But he -twice gives something like a full-length picture. The first is at 680 A; - - “In diebus illis lucerna veræ sanctitatis obscurius micabat - pene cunctis in ordinibus, mundique principes cum subjectis - agminibus inhærebant tenebrosis operibus. Guillelmus Rufus - Albionis rex juvenis erat protervus et lascivus, quem nimis - inhianter prosequebantur agmina populorum impudicis moribus. - Imperiosus et audax atque militaris erat, et multitudine - militum pompose tripudiabat. Militiæ titulis applaudebat, - illisque propter fastum secularem admodum favebat. Pagenses - contra milites defendere negligebat, quorum possessiones a - suis tironibus et armigeris impune devastari permittebat. - Tenacis memoriæ et ardentis ad bonum seu malum voluntatis - erat. Terribilis furibus et latrunculis imminebat, pacemque - serenam per subjectam regionem servari valenter cogebat. - Omnes incolas regni sui aut illexit largitate, aut - compressit virtute et terrore, ut nullus contra eum auderet - aliquo modo mutire.” - -This comes just before the pious and humane speech (see p. 223), in -which Rufus proposes the first war in Normandy. Towards the end of the -reign of Rufus (763 C), Orderic takes up his brush again; - - “Guillelmus Ruffus, militia clarus, post mortem patris in - Anglia regnavit, rebelles sibi fortiter virga justitiæ - compressit, et xii. annis ac x. mensibus ad libitum suum - omnes suæ ditioni subjugavit. Militibus et exteris largus - erat, sed pauperes incolas regni sui nimis opprimebat, et - illis violenter auferebat quæ prodigus advenis tribuebat. - Multi sub ipso patris sui proceres obierunt, qui proavis - suis extraneum jus bellicose vendicaverunt, pro quibus - nonnullos degeneres in locis magnatorum restituit, et amplis - pro adulationis merito datis honoribus sublimavit. Legitimam - conjugem nunquam habuit, sed obscœnis fornicationibus et - frequentibus mœchiis inexplebiliter inhæsit, flagitiisque - pollutus exemplum turpis lasciviæ subjectis damnabiliter - exhibuit.” - -There is also an earlier passage (669 A) which sets forth how William -kept the peace of the land. He records the surrender of Rochester, and -adds; - - “Omnium qui contra pacem enses acceperant nequam commotio - compressa est. Nam iniqui et omnes malefactores, ut audaciam - regis et fortitudinem viderunt, quia prædas et cædes aliaque - facinora cum aviditate amplexati fuerant, contremuerunt, nec - postea xii. annis quibus regnavit mutire ausi fuerunt. Ipse - autem callide se habuit et vindictæ tempus opportunum - exspectavit.” - -This of course refers to disturbers on a larger scale than common -robbers. But one law applied to all. King William kept down all -evil-doers, save himself and his own company. - -Henry of Huntingdon (vii. 22) mainly translates the Chronicle; but he -adds some touches of his own, and strengthens some of the epithets, -“invisus rex nequissimus et Deo et populo,” &c. His general picture -is; - - “Nec respirare potuit Anglia miserabiliter suffocata. Cum - autem omnia raperent et subverterent qui regi famulabantur, - ita ut adulteria violenter et impune committerent, quicquid - antea nequitiæ pullulaverat in perfectum excrevit, et - quicquid antea non fuerat his temporibus pullulavit.” - -He makes also, improving the words of the Chronicler, an important -addition; - - “Quicquid Deo Deumque diligentibus displicebat hoc regi - regemque diligentibus placebat. Nec luxuriæ scelus tacendum - exercebant occulte, sed ex impudentia coram sole.” - -This represents the English words (Chron. Petrib. 1100), “And þeah þe -ic hit lang ylde, eall þet þe Gode wæs lað and rihtfulle mannan, eall -þæt wæs gewunelic on þisan lande on his tyman.” - -Somewhat later again the discerning William of Newburgh (i. 2) thus -paints the Red King; - - “Factum est ut … Willelmus in principio infirmius - laboriosiusque imperaret, et ad conciliandos sibi animos - subditorum modestior mitiorque appareret. At postquam, - perdomitis hostibus et fratre mollius agente, roboratum est - regnum ejus, exaltatum est illico cor ejus, apparuitque, - succedentibus prosperis, qualis apud se latuisset dum - premeretur adversis. Homo vecors et inconstans in omnibus - viis suis; Deo indevotus et ecclesiæ gravis, nuptiarum - spernens et passim lasciviens, opes regni vanissima - effusione exhauriens, et eisdem deficientibus subditorum - fortunas in hoc ipsum corradens. Homo typo immanissimæ - superbiæ turgidus, et usque ad nauseam vel etiam derisionem - doctrinæ evangelicæ, temporalis gloriæ fœdissima voluptate - absorptus.” - -This description, after all, is very much that of William of -Malmesbury translated into less courtly language. The “magnanimitas” -has now fully developed into “immanissima superbia.” - - * * * * * - -From putting together all these descriptions we get the portrait of -William Rufus as one of those tyrants who keep a monopoly of tyranny -for themselves and their immediate servants. He puts down other -offenders, and strictly keeps the general peace of the land. His -justice, in the technical sense, is strong, with of course the special -exceptions hinted at by William of Malmesbury (see p. 143). There is -no charge of cruelty in his own person; but he allows his immediate -followers, his courtiers and mercenaries, to do any kind of wrong -without punishment. He oppresses the nation at large by exactions for -the pay of his mercenaries. He is withal a warlike and chivalrous -king. We must take in the full sense of phrases like “militiam -diligens,” which mean more than simply “warlike;” the technical sense -of “miles” and “militia” often comes in. He was bountiful to his -mercenaries, and generally lavish. He was renowned for a quality -called “magnanimitas.” He was irreligious and blasphemous. Lastly, he -and his immediate company were noticed for specially foul lives, of a -kind, it would seem, out-doing the every-day vices of mankind. - -Some of these points call for a more special notice. The -“magnanimitas” of William of Malmesbury is not exactly “magnanimity” -in the modern sense, which generally means a certain grand and stately -kind of mercy. The magnanimous man nowadays chiefly shows his -magnanimity, not so much in forgiving wrongs as in passing them by -without notice; they have hardly moved him enough for forgiveness to -come in. There is something approaching to this in the “magnanimitas -Willelmi” (iv. 309) shown to the knight who unhorsed him before Saint -Michael’s Mount (see p. 289). But the “præclara magnanimitas” (iv. -320) shown in his voyage to Touques is of another kind. Then it is -that we have the wonderful comparison, or rather identification of -William Rufus and Cæsar, of which more in a later note (see Note PP). -William of Malmesbury clearly means the word for praise; and it is at -least not meant for dispraise when Suger, at the beginning of his life -of Lewis (Duchèsne, iv. 283), speaks of “egregie magnanimus rex -Anglorum Guillelmus, magnanimioris Guillelmi regis filius Anglorum -domitoris.” But the word seems to have reached a bad sense when (p. -302) Count Odo is called “tumultuosus, _miræ magnanimitatis_, caput -sceleratorum” (see N. C. vol. v. p. 74). And it is surely a fault, -though it seems to be recorded with admiration, that the first Percy -who held Alnwick “fuit vir magnanimus, quia noluit injuriam pati ab -aliquo sine gravi vindicta” (see the Chronicle of Alnwick in the -second volume of the Archæological Institute at Newcastle, Appendix, -p. v). And, as it is not exactly our “magnanimous,” neither is it -exactly the μεγαλόψυχος [megalopsychos] of Aristotle (Eth. iv. 3)――ὁ -μεγάλων αὐτὸν ἀξιῶν ἄξιος ὤν [ho megalôn auton axiôn axios ôn]――though -it comes nearer to it. William of Malmesbury’s “magnanimus” is perhaps -Aristotle’s μεγαλόψυχος [megalopsychos] verging towards the χαῦνος -[chaunos]. The essence of the character is self-esteem, self-confidence; -a step will change him from William’s “magnanimus” into Orderic’s -“turgidus.” And this comes pretty much to the τετυφωμένος -[tetyphômenos] of the New Testament (2 Tim. iii. 4), who is not unlike -William Rufus, only that he has at least a μόρφωσις ὐσεβείας -[morphôsis eusebeias]. Here our version has “high-minded”―― the -Revised Version has “puffed up”――just as in the departed service for -January 30 the slayers of Charles the First were called “high-minded” -by those who certainly did not mean to praise them. This again is not -quite the “magnanimitas” with which we have to do, which is still a -virtue, though a dangerous one. Perhaps we may say that William the -King really was “high-minded” in this sense, and that William the monk -used a slightly ambiguous word, in order to pass him off for -“high-minded” in the other sense. - - * * * * * - -The mercenary soldiers, the excesses wrought by them, and the -extortion by which their pay and largesse were supplied, all come out -in the words of the Chronicler that the land was vexed “mid here and -mid ungylde.” That they were chiefly foreigners appears from Orderic’s -phrase “advenæ,” which is doubtless opposed, not only to the “Angli -naturales,” but to the companions of the Conqueror and their sons. The -“advenæ” are opposed to the “incolæ,” whether the “incolæ” have been -settled for one generation or twenty. So says William of Malmesbury -(iv. 314); - - “Excitabat ergo totum occidentem fama largitatis ejus, - orientem usque pertendens; veniebant ad eum milites ex omni - quæ citra montes est provincia, quos ipse profusissimis - expensis munerabat; itaque cum defecisset quod daret, inops - et exhaustus ad lucra convertit animum.” - -Of their doings he tells us that, “soluta militari disciplina, -curiales rusticorum substantias depascebantur, insumebant fortunas.” -But the fullest account of their misdeeds is that given by Eadmer -(Hist. Nov. 94), when he records the statute passed by Henry, when he -and Anselm give their minds “qualiter aliquo modo mala quæ pauperes -maxime deprimebant mitigarentur.” - - “Tempore siquidem fratris sui regis hunc morem multitudo - eorum qui curiam ejus sequebantur habebat, ut quæque - pessumdarent, diriperent, et, nulla eos cohibente - disciplina, totam terram per quam rex ibat devastarent. - Accedebat his aliud malum; plurimi namque eorum sua malitia - debriati dum reperta in hospitiis quæ invadebant, penitus - absumere non valebant, ea aut ad forum per eosdem ipsos - quorum erant pro suo lucro ferre et vendere, aut supposito - igne cremare, aut si potus esset, lotis exinde equorum - suorum pedibus, residuum illius per terram effundere, aut - certe alio aliquo modo disperdere solebant. Quæ vero in - patres-familias crudelia, quæ in uxores et filias eorum - indecentia, fecerint, reminisci pudet. Has ob causas quiqui, - præcognito regis adventu, sua habitacula fugiebant, sibi - suisque quantum valebant in silvis vel aliis locis in quibus - se tutari posse sperebant, consulentes.” - -Here doubtless the misdeeds of courtiers, soldiers, and camp-followers, -are all mixed together; but all were in the train of the King. In -short, the march of the second William through his own kingdom must -have done at least as much harm as the march of the first William when -he was only seeking to make it his kingdom. All these horrors -undoubtedly fell on the native English more heavily than on anybody -else; only I see no reason to think that, when the houses of a small -English and a small Norman landowner, or the houses of the English and -Norman tenants of a great landowner, stood near together, the Norman -house would be respected, while the English house was plundered. The -plunderers would hardly touch the house of Thurkill of Warwick any -more than that of Roger of Ivry; but, among their smaller neighbours, -William and Matilda would hardly fare better than Godric and Godgifu. -Indeed William of Malmesbury a little further on (iv. 319) speaks of -the general oppression of Rufus as one that touched all classes, “Non -pauperem tenuitas, non opulentum copia, tuebatur.” - -The mercenaries of the days of Rufus forestall the mercenaries of the -days of Stephen and John; but, unless we are to reckon a man of the -rank of Walter Tirel, we do not get such a clear notion of any -particular persons among them. The phrase of Orderic, in one of the -passages already quoted (see above, p. 495), about the promotion of -“degeneres” in the room of the nobles of the Conqueror’s day might -make us think that some of them were put in high places. But no such -instances seem to be recorded. And the word “restituit” might suggest -the restoration of native Englishmen, a process which may really (see -p. 88) have happened to some extent after the suppression of the -rebellion in 1088. But “Ordericus Angligena” would never speak of the -“Angli naturales” as “degeneres.” - - * * * * * - -The dress, manners, and morals of the court of William Rufus stand out -clearly in several descriptions. “Tunc effeminati passim in orbe -dominabantur” says Orderic (682 B, cf. 781 D), following the remark -with stronger and plainer words. He is eloquent on their womanish -fashion of dressing and wearing the hair; - - “Ritus heroum abjiciebant, hortamenta sacerdotum deridebant, - barbaricumque morem in habitu et vita tenebant. Nam capillos - a vertice in frontem discriminabant, longos crines velut - mulieres nutriebant et summopere curabant, prolixisque - nimiumque strictis camisiis indui tunicisque gaudebant. Omne - tempus quidam usurpabant, et extra legem Dei moremque - patrium pro libitu suo ducebant…. In diebus istis veterum - ritus pene totus novis adinventionibus commutatus est. - Femineam mollitiem petulans juventus amplectitur, feminisque - viri curiales in omni lascivia summopere adulantur…. Humum - pulverulentam interularum et palliorum superfluo scirmate - verrunt, longis latisque manicis ad omnia facienda manus - operiunt; et his superfluitatibus onusti celeriter ambulare - vel aliquid utiliter operari vix possunt. Sincipite - scalciati sunt ut fures, occipite autem prolixas nutriunt - comas ut meretrices…. Crispant crines calamistro. Caput - velant vitta sine pileo. Vix aliquis militarium procedit in - publicum capite discooperto legitimeque secundum apostoli - præceptum tonso.” - -Yet, with all this aping of female manners, the gallants of Rufus’ -court did in one respect follow the law of masculine nature more -closely than their immediate _antecessores_, either Norman or English; - - “Nunc pene universi populares cerriti sunt et barbatuli, - palam manifestantes specimine tali quod sordibus libidinis - gaudent, ut fœtentes hirci.” - -Bishop Serlo in the sermon (816 A, B) enlarges on this last comparison -with much greater strength of language; and brings in another -likeness, and a reason which certainly has an odd sound; - - “Barbas suas radere devitant, ne pili suas in osculis amicas - præcisi pungant, et setosi Saracenos magis se quam - Christianos simulant.” - -Seemingly the shaving of the ancient heroes of Normandy was but rare, -perhaps weekly, like the bath of their Danish forefathers (see N. C. -vol. i. p. 651). - -Of the long hair, and what Anselm thought of it, we hear again in the -course of our story (see p. 449). William of Malmesbury also (iv. 314) -has his say about the courtiers; - - “Tunc fluxus crinium, tunc luxus vestium, tunc usus - calceorum cum arcuatis aculeis inventus; mollitie corporis - certare cum feminis, gressum frangere, gestu soluto et - latere nudo incedere, adolescentium specimen erat. Enerves, - emolliti, quod nati fuerant inviti manebant, expugnatores - alienæ pudicitiæ, prodigi suæ. Sequebantur curiam - effeminatorum manus et ganearum greges.” - -A various reading in a note in Sir T. D. Hardy’s edition is stronger -still. - -In the Life of Wulfstan (Anglia Sacra, ii. 254) William tells us of -the strictness of that saint in this matter, in which he gave Bishop -Serlo his model; - - “Ille vitiosos, et præsertim eos qui crinem pascerent, - insectari, quorum si qui sibi verticem supponerent, ipse - suis manibus comam lascivientem secaret. Habebat ad hoc - parvum cultellum, quo vel excrementa unguium vel sordes - librorum purgare consueverat. Hoc cæsariei libabat - primitias, injungens per obedientiam, ut capillorum - ceterorum series ad eandem complanarentur concordiam. Si qui - repugnandum putarent, eis palam exprobrare mollitiem, palam - mala minari.” - -But it is rather hard when William of Malmesbury forgets that all this -belongs to the last years of Wulfstan’s episcopate and not to the -first, and when he goes on to say that the fashion of wearing long -hair led to a decay of military prowess in England, and thereby to the -Norman Conquest. This can be paralleled only with those astounding -notions of Matthew Paris about our beards which I have spoken of in N. -C. vol. iv. p. 686. - -As the practice could be put down for a moment only, whether by -Wulfstan, Anselm, or Serlo, William has to come back to it again in -the Historia Novella, i. 4, where he tells of a momentary reform in -1129. See Sir T. D. Hardy’s note. - -Some of these descriptions carry us back to earlier times, as to the -picture of the “molles” at Carthage down to Saint Augustine’s day -(Civ. Dei, vii. 26), “qui usque in hesternum diem madidis capillis, -facie dealbata, fluentibus membris, incessu femineo, per plateas -vicosque Carthaginis etiam a populis unde turpiter viverent exigebant” -(only the “molles” of the Red King’s day took what they would by -force). Cf. Lucan, i. 164; - - “Cultus gestare decoros - Vix nuribus rapuere mares.” - -About the shoes much has been written, and the fashion, in one shape -or another, seems to have lasted for several ages. Orderic is quite as -wrathful at this seemingly harmless folly, as he is at the other evil -fashions which seem more serious. But perhaps the force lies in the -passage where he says (682 C), “Pedum articulis, _ubi finis est -corporis_, colubrinarum similitudinem caudarum imponunt, quas velut -scorpiones præ oculis suis prospiciunt.” The practice seems to have -been looked on as a profane attempt to improve the image of God, an -argument which surely told no less strongly against the practice of -the ancient heroes when they shaved themselves. With Count Fulk (682 -A) one cannot help feeling some sympathy. “Quia pedes habebat -deformes, instituit sibi fieri longos et in summitate acutissimos -subtolares, ita ut operiret pedes, et eorum celaret tubera quæ vulgo -vocantur uniones.” Yet this is very gravely set down among his many -evil deeds. Then seemingly another stage took place, when (682 B) -“Robertus quidam nebulo in curia Rufi regis prolixas pigacias primus -cepit implere stuppis, et hinc inde contorquere instar cornu arietis. -Ob hoc ipse Cornardus cognominatus est.” - - * * * * * - -A number of hints in the above passages seem to show us that the vices -of Rufus were literally the works of darkness, works which even his -own more outspoken age shrank from dwelling on in detail. It is hardly -a metaphor when Orderic says (680 A), “In diebus illis lucerna veræ -sanctitatis obscurius micabat.” For, among the reforms of Henry the -First (Will. Malms. v. 393), “effeminatos curia propellens, lucernarum -usum noctibus in curia restituit, qui fuerat tempore fratris -intermissus.” That Henry the First could be looked on as a moral -reformer is the best sign of what he had to reform. Henry, with his -crowd of mistresses and bastards, is described as loathing the -profligacies (“obscœnitates,” a word which seems used in a special -sense) of his brother (Will. Malms. iv. 314, and specially the -wonderful passage, v. 412, as to the force of which there can be no -doubt), and as making it his first business on his accession to clear -the court of its foulest abuses. (Cf. Mrs. Hutchinson’s account of -Charles the First’s reforms, i. 127.) We must remember that no -mistresses or children of Rufus are mentioned or hinted at. Orderic’s -phrase of “mœchus rex” is quite vague, perhaps euphemistic, and when -the Welsh chronicler (Ann. Camb. 1100) says that “concubinis usus, -sine liberis obiit,” he may be sheltering himself under an ambiguous -word. In the Chronicle of Hugh of Flavigny (Pertz, viii. 496) is a -strange legend of what the writer truly calls “inauditum seculis -omnibus monstrum,” but one which could not have been devised except in -the state of things which William of Malmesbury and Eadmer describe. -After all (see Hen. Hunt. vii. 32; N. C. vol. v. p. 195), the reform -wrought by Henry seems to have been only for a season. It is some -slight comfort to hear from the mouth of Anselm, in his first protest -to the King (Eadmer, Hist. Nov. 24), that the presence of Eastern -vices in England was something new――“noviter in hac terram -divulgatum.” - - * * * * * - -Of the blasphemies of William Rufus several instances have been given -in the text. He had also, like everybody else of his time, his own -special oath. As his father swore “par la resplendar Dé,” as other -kings swore “per oculos Dei,” “per pedes Dei,” “per dentes Dei,” -William Rufus swears (“sic enim jurabat,” says William of Malmesbury, -iv. 309) “per vultum Dei,” or more commonly “per vultum de Luca.” Some -of the older writers oddly mistook this for an oath by Saint Luke’s -face. But the true meaning of the “vultus de Luca” was long ago -explained by Ducange under the word “vultus,” where he refers to the -then manuscript “Otia Imperialia” of Gervase of Tilbury, iii. 24, -which will be found in Leibnitz’s collection of Brunswick writers, i. -967. The “vultus Lucanus” was held to have been made by Nicodemus from -the impression of our Lord’s face taken on linen immediately after the -crucifixion. This it was by which the Red King swore. In French the -oath takes the form “Li vo de Luche” (Roman de Rou, line 14920). M. -Charles de Rémusat (St. Anselme de Cantorbéry, 133) remarks, “Il se -peut même que ce ne soit pas précisément celui de Lucques; car on -appela Saint Voult-de-Lucques, vulgairement et par corruption Saint -Godeln, tout crucifix habillé semblable à celui-là tel que ceux qu’on -voyait jadis à Saint-Etienne-de-Sens, au Sépulcre à Paris.” But it is -strange that Lappenberg (Geschichte von England, ii. 172), when -telling the story of the Red King’s “magnanimitas” before Saint -Michael’s Mount (see p. 289 and Appendix N), brings in the oath “per -vultum de Luca” in Wace’s story, where it is not found, in the form -“bei dem heiligen Antlitz zu Lucca,” and afterwards in William of -Malmesbury’s story in the form “bei St. Lucca’s Antlitz.” - - -NOTE H. Vol. i. p. 168. - -THE ECCLESIASTICAL BENEFACTIONS OF WILLIAM RUFUS. - -I think that an examination of the cases in which William Rufus has -the credit of an ecclesiastical benefactor will show that in most of -them, if not in all, there is a direct or implied reference to the -memory of his father. In the case of Battle and Saint Stephen’s this -is plain on the surface. Of his moveable gifts to Battle some have -been mentioned already (see p. 18); he also gave (Chron. de Bello, 40) -considerable gifts in real property, specially the royal manor of -Bromham in Wiltshire, valued at forty pounds yearly. One year’s income -then was to be got back by converting the young Jew back to Judaism -(see p. 163). At the dedication of Battle he gave (Chron. de Bello, -41; Mon. Angl. iii. 246) a number of churches, “pro anima patris mei -regis Willielmi, et matris et omnium parentum nostrorum qui ibi in -bello ceciderunt, et aliorum omnium.” The local writer, who records -none of his evil deeds, gives him this character (42); - - “Tantopere memoratus rex eandem amabat, excolebat, - tuebaturque ecclesiam, ejusque dignitates et regales - consuetudines conservabat, ut quemadmodum patris ejus - tempore nullus ei adeo adversari præsumeret, ipse quoque - quotiens casu vicinia peteret, ex dilectionis abundantia - sæpius eam revisere, fovere, et consolari solitus fuerat.” - -As for Saint Stephen’s, there is a charter in Neustria Pia, 638, of -William Rufus of 1088 granting various lands in England, among them -Coker in Somerset and Wells in Norfolk, with the church of Corsham in -Wiltshire and other tithes. The signatures show that it is very -carelessly copied or printed; but among them is “Willelmus -cancellarius,” that is, William Giffard, afterwards Bishop of -Winchester; see vol. ii. p. 349. We read how “glorioso patri gloriosus -filius Willelmus in regnum successit,” and how he made his gifts, -“prædicti cœnobii utilitati prospiciens, habito procerum et -religiosarum personarum Angliæ et Normanniæ consilio.” - -The Waltham writer (De Inv. c. 22) has another way of looking at -things. Of the Conqueror he speaks most respectfully, but adds; - - “Successit ei filius Willelmus Ruphus cognomento, hæres - quidem beneficiorum, sed degener morum, cui breves annos - credimus indultos, quia concessis sibi beneficiis a Domino - minus aptus nec ecclesiæ devotus sicut expediret, nec - justitiæ strenuus executor, sed vir desideriorum eisque - indulgens semper exstitit.” - -The wrongs which Rufus did to Waltham are told with great fervour of -declamation; and specially why he did them, namely, - - “Vilia censens Anglorum instituta, nec eousque valitura quin - eis eligeret ditare prædecessorum sepulturas, et ecclesiam - Cadomensem ex rapina ornare, et spoliis Walthamensis - ecclesiæ salubre remedium credens animarum patris et matris - ibi quiescentium, si de alieno et quasi ab uno altari - distracto aliud ornatur, et quasi munus gratum et valde - preciosum alicui patri offerantur præcisa proprii membra - filii.” - -The words about English customs are meant, with whatever truth, to -contrast William the Red with his father, who is praised for observing -them. The plunder transferred from Waltham to Caen consisted of -moveable wealth of every kind, among other things books, valued -altogether at the incredible sum of 6666 pounds. The King afterwards -repented, and, though the spoil stayed in the two minsters at Caen, he -gave back, after the death of Bishop William of Durham (who is -confounded with Walcher), that is in 1096 or later, during the -vacancy, the lands which had been given to the bishopric (see N. C. -vol. iv. p. 664). Dr. Stubbs (p. 50) prints a writ of William Rufus -addressed “vicecomitibus suis et ministris [þegnas],” confirming to -the canons of Waltham all “terras suas et consuetudines” which they -held in his father’s time. It is a mere writ; but it must, as Dr. -Stubbs suggests, be the occasion of the burst of joy in c. 23; - - “Laudamus præsentem hunc Willelmum, qui ob reconciliandam - sibi crucifixi gratiam quam offendisse plurimum non - dubitamus in hujus perpetratione spoliationis, qui eam carta - sua ecclesiæ confirmavit, et sub prædicto anathematis - edicto, assistentibus archiepiscopis, episcopis, et universo - clero, communiter roboravit.” - -Dr. Stubbs (De Inv. 14) suggests, with great likelihood, that this -robbery of the moveable wealth of Waltham was not done for the -enriching of Saint Stephen’s, but that it was part of the general -robbery of all churches to pay the price of Normandy in 1096 (see p. -358). And this is the more likely, because the 6666 pounds (= 10,000 -marks) said to have been taken from Waltham was actually the sum paid -to Robert. The Waltham writer has made some confusion in his -reckoning. Still the general picture of the Red King robbing Waltham -and enriching Caen holds good. For we have seen that he was a -benefactor to Saint Stephen’s, and the writ seems to imply some -meddling with the lands, as well as the treasures, of Waltham. - - * * * * * - -The curious story about the hospital of Saint Peter, afterwards Saint -Leonard, at York, all about Æthelstan and the Culdees, and the grant -of the thrave of corn which became memorable in the fifteenth century -(see Lingard, iv. 163), will be found in the local history in the -Monasticon, vii. 608. We read how the Conqueror confirmed everything, -and then―― - - “Willelmus Rufus, filius Conquestoris prædicti, rex - immediate succedens, fundavit seu mutavit situm dicti - hospitalis in locum regium ubi nunc situatur,… et dedit et - confirmavit dictas travas hospitali prædicto, sicut fecit - pater ejus Conquestor.” - -So Leland speaks of “Gulielmus junior, rex Angliæ, fundator -hospitalis, qui etiam ecclesiolam ibidem construxit et S. Petro -dedicavit.” - -So the hospital of God’s House at Thetford is attributed to William -Rufus, Mon. Angl. vii. 769. He is also said to have founded the -nunnery of Armethwaite in Cumberland, and the foundation charter is -printed in the Monasticon, iii. 270. But it is spurious on the face of -it. The date given is January 6, 1089; yet Rufus is made to give -grants in Carlisle which he did not yet possess, and to call himself -“dux Normannorum.” He appears too in the Abingdon History, ii. 26, -284, as granting the church of Sutton to the abbey of Abingdon on the -petition of Abbot Reginald. The grant has three somewhat -characteristic witnesses, Robert Fitz-hamon, Robert the Chancellor, -that is Robert Bloet, and our old friend Croc the Hunter. - -He is also called a benefactor to the church of Rochester; but it is -not clear that he actually gave anything of his own cost. In the local -histories (Mon. Angl. i. 161, 162, 174) we read that Rufus “reddidit -et restituit Lamhethe et dedit Hedenham ecclesiæ Roffæ;” “dedit -Lamtheam [hetham] et Aedenham ad victum monachorum,” &c. In p. 163 is -his writ granting the manor of Stone to the church of Saint Andrew and -Bishop Gundulf; and in 173, 174 he grants Lambeth and Hedenham. But -Henry’s charter in the same page speaks of Lambeth and Hedenham as -gifts of Bishop Gundulf to the monks, and in p. 165 Stone is held by -Ralph the son, and Osmund the son-in-law, of Gilbert, who becomes a -monk at Rochester. The brothers find the King a harsh lord (“ambo -regis exactionibus tantum fuerunt gravati ut vix amplius hoc possent -ferre. Erant enim illis diebus consuetudines regis gravissimæ atque -durissimæ per totum regnum Angliæ”); they therefore suggest that the -Bishop should get the manor of the King, and they will hold it of him. -“Quo audito, episcopus quam citius potuit regem impigre adiit, -amicorum itaque apud regem usus auxilio, tandem obtinuit quod petiit; -dedit ergo episcopus Willielmo regi, magni regis Willielmi filio, xv. -libras denariorum et unam mulam quæ bene valebat c. solidos.” Ralph -and Osmund become the Bishop’s men for the manor――a very good case of -round-about commendation――but presently, by an exchange of lands -between them and the Bishop, Stone becomes a direct possession of the -see. We have also heard something about Hedenham in N. C. vol. iv. p. -366, and William of Malmesbury also (Gest. Pont. 137) speaks of it as -bought by Gundulf――“ex suo villam coemptam.” Lambeth may have been a -free gift. It afterwards, as all the world knows, passed by exchange -to the see of Canterbury. - -There is a very curious document in the Monasticon (ii. 497) from the -cartulary of Tavistock in which Rufus――“inclitæ recordationis secundus -Guillielmus”――confirms in 1096 to the abbey a manor, Wlurintun, which -some said belonged to the crown. The grant of course takes the form of -a gift. But the only thing which Rufus really seems to have given was -an ivory knife, a symbol which is also met with in other cases; - - “Sciant omnes quod rex per cultellum eburneum quod in manu - tenuit et abbati porrexit hoc donum peregit apud curiam … - qui quidem cultellus jacet in feretro sancti Rumoni.” - -The witnesses are Bishop Walkelin of Winchester, Bishop John of Bath, -and Abbot Thurstan of Glastonbury. The demand had been made before -commissioners sent in Lent to Devonshire, Cornwall, and Exeter――the -local capital stands apart――“ad investiganda regalia placita.” They -were Bishop Walkelin, “Randulfus capellanus” (Flambard), William -_Capra_ (see him in Domesday, 110, as _Chievre_; he is _Capra_ in -Exon), and “Hardinus Belnoldi filius.” Is not “Belnoldus,” a strange -name, a miswriting for _Ednodus_? See N. C. vol. iv. p. 756. - -Lastly, we have elsewhere seen (see N. C. iv. 411) that William -granted the manor of Bermondsey to the foundation of the Englishman -Ælfwine Child. See the charter in Monasticon, v. 100. It is witnessed -by the founder Ælfwine, also, between the bishops and Eudo _dapifer_, -by “Johannes de Sumbresetta.” Is this the Bishop of Bath, not yet used -to his new title? - - * * * * * - -A crowd of writs securing churches in rights already possessed, as -well as simple confirmations of the grants of others, do not bear upon -the matter. And we must not forget that he showed a degree of -tenderness to the monks of Durham during the banishment of their -bishop (see p. 299) which he failed to show to other monks. Still, in -any case, the gifts of William Rufus make a poor show between the -gifts of the founder of Battle and those of the founder of Reading. - - -NOTE I. Vol. i. p. 169. - -CHIVALRY. - -I refer to the remarkable passage of Sir Francis Palgrave, Normandy -and England, iv. 438; - - “Are we not told that ‘the Spirit of Chivalry was the parent - and offspring of the Crusades?’ again that in ‘the - accomplished character of the Crusader we discover all the - virtues of a perfect Knight, the true Spirit of Chivalry, - which inspired the generous sentiments and social offices of - man?’――the Historian might reply in the words of a great - Teacher, whose voice already resounds in History――‘I confess - that if I were called upon to name what Spirit of evil - predominantly deserved the name of Antichrist, I should name - the Spirit of Chivalry: the more detestable for the very - guise of the Archangel ruined, which has made it so - seductive to the most generous spirits――but to me so - hateful, because it is in direct opposition to the impartial - justice of the Gospel, and its comprehensive feeling of - equal brotherhood, and because it so fostered a sense of - honour rather than a sense of duty.’… Take the huge folio of - the _Gesta Dei per Francos_――search it boldly and honestly, - turn over its fifteen hundred pages, examine their contents - according to the rules of moral evidence, the praises the - Writers bestow, and more than their praises, their blame; - their commentaries upon deeds of cruelty, and more than - their commentaries, their silence――and try how much you can - extract which will justify any one of the general positions - which the popular enthusiasts for Chivalry have maintained.” - -The extract is from a letter of Arnold to Archdeacon Hare in 1829 -(Life and Correspondence, i. 255). A note adds; - - “‘Chivalry,’ or (as he used more frequently to call the - element in the middle ages which he thus condemned) - ‘feudality,’ is especially Keltic and - barbarian――incompatible with the highest virtue of which man - is capable, and the last at which he arrives――a sense of - justice. It sets up the personal allegiance to the chief - above allegiance to God and law.” - -Nothing can be better; only it is not quite clear what Arnold meant by -“Keltic;” continental chivalry must be carefully distinguished from -devotion to the chief of the clan, though there is much analogy -between the two feelings. But, as I have said elsewhere (N. C. vol. v. -p. 483), chivalry is Norman rather than English and French rather than -Norman; so in that sense it may be called “Keltic.” - -Sir Francis Palgrave goes on to discuss one of the stories of the -boasted generosity of Bayard. Like some others, it merely comes to -this, that he did not act a part which would have been singularly -shameful. - -About chivalry and other kindred matters, I had my own say in an -article on the Law of Honour in the Fortnightly Review, December 1876. -But I must decline to pledge myself to Sir F. Palgrave’s condemnation -of the crusades. All that he says is perfectly true of the crimes and -follies in detail with which the crusades were disgraced. And in those -days it would have been hard to carry out a crusade without a large -measure of those crimes and follies. And this might be in itself a -fair argument, though not one which the age would have understood, -against undertaking any crusade at all. But I must hold that the -general idea of the crusade itself was something high above all -chivalry. I must hold that all the crusades before the fourth, -whatever we say of the way in which they were carried out, were in -themselves fully justifiable, both in morality and in policy. Surely, -in all that bears on this matter, it is Cohen rather than Palgrave -that speaks. With all his learning and acuteness, with all his lofty -and Christian morality, his deep and wide-reaching sympathy with right -and hatred of wrong in every shape, my illustrious predecessor in -Norman and English history was still, as a man of the East, unable -thoroughly to throw himself into the Western side of a great struggle -between East and West. - - -NOTE K. Vol. i. p. 196. - -THE PURCHASE OF THE CÔTENTIN BY THE ÆTHELING HENRY. - -I have told this part of my story as I find it in Orderic, whose -account seems to me to be probable, and to hang well together, while -it is confirmed, not indeed in every detail, but in its leading -outlines, by the account in the Continuation of William of Jumièges; -that is, by Robert of Torigny. But William of Malmesbury and Wace give -quite different versions. That of William is found, not in the part of -his work where he records the events of the reign of William Rufus, -but at the beginning of his fifth book (v. 392), where he introduces -the reign of Henry with a sketch of his earlier life. While the -rebellion of 1088 is going on in England, and while Robert is -waiting――waiting, our historian says, for a favourable wind――to go to -help his supporters there, Henry, by the Duke’s order, goes away into -Britanny (“Henricus in Britanniam ejus jussu abscesserat”). Meanwhile -Robert spends on his mercenaries the money which the Conqueror had -left to Henry, which is here cut down from 5000 pounds to 3000 -_marks_――a mistake partly arising from a confusion between the whole -sum left to Henry and the sum paid for the Côtentin (“Ille, occasione -aucupata, omnem illam pecuniarum vim testamento patris adolescentulo -legatam, quæ erat trium millium marcarum, in stipendiarios suos -absumpsit”). Then follows a very confused story, how Henry came back -and passed over the wrong in silence (“Henricus reversus, licet -forsitan ægre tulisset, taciturna præteriit industria”); the reason -given being the restoration of peace in England (“enimvero, nuntiata -pacis compositione in Anglia, deposita militia ferias armis dedere”). -He then goes away into some quarter where the Duke had given or -promised him lands, but he is at the same time entrusted with the -keeping of the castle of Rouen (“comes in sua, junior in ea quæ frater -suus dederat vel promiserat, discessit; namque et in acceptum promissa -referebat, custodiens turrim Rotomagi in ejus fidelitatem.” Or can -these last words mean that Henry kept the castle of Rouen in pledge -till the promised lands were actually put into his hands?). Presently, -on the accusation of some very bad people――if the Bishop of Bayeux was -one of them, he is not mentioned by name――Henry is unjustly kept in -ward for half a year in this same tower of Rouen (“delatione -pessimorum cessit in adversum fidelitas, et nulla sua culpa in ipso -eodem loco Henricus libere custoditus est, ne servatorum diligentiam -[who are the “servatores”?] effugio luderet”). Then he goes by -William’s invitation to England, and enters the King’s service; there -William keeps him for a year, making promises which he never fulfils. -Robert meanwhile sends a message promising redress, on the strength of -which Henry goes back to Normandy (“post medium annum laxatus, fratri -Willelmo invitanti serviturum se obtulit; at ille, nihilo modestius -ephebum remunerans, plus anno inanibus sponsionibus agentem distulit. -Quapropter, Roberto emendationem facti per nuntios promittente, -Normanniam venit”). There he was exposed to intrigues on the part of -both his brothers, which are very darkly described; but he escapes -from all danger, and, by seizing Avranches and some other castles, -compels Robert to make peace with him (“amborum fratrum expertus -insidias; nam et rex, pro repulsa iratus, ut retineretur frustra -mandarat; et comes, accusatorum lenociniis mutatus, voluntatem -verterat ut blanditiis attrectatum non ita facile dimitteret. Verum -ille, Dei providentia et sagaci sua diligentia cuncta evadens -pericula, occupatione Abrincarum et quorundam castellorum coegit -fratrem libenter paci manum dedere”). Then comes the invasion of -Normandy by William, the sedition at Rouen, the death of Conan by -Henry’s own hand (see p. 257). Robert then ungratefully drives Henry -from the city (“parum hic labor apud Robertum valuit, virum animi -mobilis, qui statim ad ingratitudinem flexus, bene meritum urbe cedere -coegit”). Then, without any explanation, comes the siege of Saint -Michael’s Mount, which he had already described elsewhere (iv. 308). -Of Domfront and Saint James we hear nothing. - -There is in this account a greater attempt at chronological precision -than is usual with William of Malmesbury, especially when he tells a -story out of its chronological place. And the dates do not hang badly -together. Henry is put in ward late in 1088 for six months. On his -release he goes to England for a year, comes back, and seizes -Avranches. This brings us well into 1090, the year of the vicarious -invasion of Normandy by Rufus, of the sedition at Rouen, and of the -death of Conan. But these dates do not agree with the more exact -chronology of Orderic. According to him (672 D), Henry went to England -in the summer of 1088, and came back to Normandy in the autumn of the -same year (“In æstate, postquam certus rumor de Rofensis deditione -citra mare personuit … transfretavit … deinde in auctumno regi -valefecit”). He is at once imprisoned, and is released, as far as one -can see, about February 1089. At least Orderic mentions his release as -happening about the same time as the death of Durand Abbot of Troarn, -on February 3 in that year (676 B, C). Moreover the order of events, -both with regard to the voyage and imprisonment, is altogether -changed, and the whole story is told in a different way from that of -Orderic. The story about Robert taking Henry’s money contradicts the -express statement of Orderic (659 D) that Henry had put his money in -safe keeping; it contradicts too the implied statements of Orderic and -all the other writers who describe the cession of the Côtentin to -Henry as a sale, or at least as a pledge, as something in either case -by which Henry paid down money and received land. And it may be hard -to reconcile William of Malmesbury’s narrative here with his own -statement just before (v. 391), that Henry was “paterna benedictione -et materna hæreditate, simul et multiplicibus thesauris, nixus.” Nor -has William of Malmesbury any distinct mention of the Côtentin, or of -any other possessions of Henry, till after his release from prison. -And then he represents Henry as obtaining them by force, a story which -most likely comes from some confusion with the later events, mentioned -in p. 286. The visit to Britanny on the part of Henry which comes -earlier in the story is most likely his visit to Britanny after the -siege of Saint Michael’s Mount (see p. 294) moved out of its place. -The whole narrative is dark and perplexed throughout, in marked -contrast to the clear and careful statement of Orderic. And among the -points on which William differs from Orderic the only one on which he -is at all borne out by any trustworthy authority is, as we shall -presently see, that by which he makes Rouen the place of Henry’s -imprisonment. Yet there are one or two points on which we might almost -think that William had some narrative like that of Orderic before him. -Though Robert gets possession of Henry’s money in different ways in -the two stories, yet in both he takes it for the same purpose, that of -paying his mercenaries. And there is a certain likeness in the -pictures which they both give of Henry as exposed to the enmity of -both his brothers at once. It is possible that William’s version may -really be an unsuccessful attempt to put together the detached facts -of Orderic’s story, not necessarily of Orderic’s text. - -Wace tells the story in a yet more confused way than William of -Malmesbury, and with the events strangely transposed throughout. But -he gives one or two details, bringing in persons of whom we hear -elsewhere, which are likely enough to be authentic. When Robert is -planning the invasion of England, he wants money, and for that end, -pledges (14505-14520), not grants or sells, the Côtentin to Henry. - - “Henris li a l’aveir presté, - Si come il li out demandé: - Costentin en gage reçut, - E tant lunges aveir le dut - Ke li dus li soen li rendist, - E del tot son gréant en fist.” - -He adds that Richard of Reviers, or Redvers, left Robert’s service for -that of Henry, in answer to a special request made by Henry to his -brother. This is likely enough. Richard of Redvers appears once in -Domesday (Dorset 83), and his pedigree is set forth in a special note -by Mr. Stapleton (ii. cclxix), who corrects the belief (see Prevost on -Wace, ii. 307; Ellis, i. 377) that he was a son of Baldwin of Exeter -(see Norman Conquest, iv. 161). He appears in Orderic (689 C) and the -Continuation of William of Jumièges (viii. 4), along with Earl Hugh of -Chester, as one of Henry’s supporters in the Côtentin, and we see -throughout that he was an important person in Henry’s reign (see vol. -ii. p. 362. Cf. Orderic, 783 D, 833 D; Mon. Angl. v. 105, in the -account of Saint James’ priory near Exeter). The words in which the -Duke bids Richard leave his service for that of Henry (14534-14545) -are curious, and throw light on the many expressions in Domesday about -the grant or _invasio_ of a freeman and the like (see N. C. iv. 723; -v. 751; - - “Jo ne sai ke Richart pensa, - Mais semblant fist ke li pesa - K’il deveit del duc tot partir - E son frère Henris servir. - Richart, dist li dus, si fereiz, - Henris mon frere servireiz, - _Vostre fieu è vos li otrei_; - N’est pas meinz gentil hom de mei; - Sis hoem seiez; jel’ vos comant; - Servez le bien d’ore en avant: - Vos n’arez jà de li hontage, - Nos somes andui d’un parage.” - -We may compare the story in Orderic, 814 B, C, where Duke Robert -grants Count William of Evreux to his brother (“ei Guellelmum consulem -Ebroarum cum comitatu suo et omnibus sibi subjectis concessit”), and -where the Count is amazed at finding himself likened to a horse or an -ox (“præclarus comes, ut se quasi equum vel bovem dandum audivit”). -The thoughts of Richard, which Wace did not know, may have been much -the same as those of Count William. - -Robert then goes on his invasion of England, but leaves off on -William’s engaging to pay him five thousand pounds yearly -(14548-14871). This, I need hardly say, is pure fiction; or rather it -is Robert’s expedition in the reign of Henry carried back to the reign -of Rufus. On coming back to Normandy, Robert quarrels with Henry, it -is not easy to see why, while William is also angry with him on -account of the help in money given by him to Robert. Robert then takes -possession of the Côtentin, and does not repay Henry his money -(14874-14887); - - “Robert out l’aveir despendu, - E Costentin a retenu, - Ne Henris Costentin n’en out, - Ne ses deniers aveir ne pout.” - -Henry then defends himself on Saint Michael’s Mount, and the account -of the siege follows. Henry’s voyage to England, and his imprisonment, -which is said to be at Rouen, are placed later still (14754-14759). - -On the other hand, the short account given by Robert of Torigny in the -Continuation of William of Jumièges (viii. 2) is much more nearly in -agreement with Orderic. He records the bequest of five thousand pounds -to Henry, with the addition that it was in English money (N. C. vol. -iv. p. 854). He then mentions the cession of the Côtentin to Henry, -but he is uncertain whether to call it a grant, or, with Wace, a -pledge (“Robertus frater suus dedit illi comitatum Constantiensem, -vel, ut alii volunt, invadiavit”). He says nothing about Henry’s -voyage to England in 1088; but he mentions the slanders against Henry -and his consequent imprisonment by Robert. Here comes in his only -point of difference from Orderic. Orderic (672 D, see above, p. 199) -makes Henry come back from England in company with Robert of Bellême; -they are both seized on the sea-shore, and are shut up in different -prisons; - - “Quidam malevoli discordiæ satores eos anticipaverunt, et, - falsa veris immiscentes, Roberto duci denuntiaverunt quod … - cum rege Rufo essent pacificati, et ad ducis damnum - sacramenti etiam obligatione confœderati. Dux igitur … cum - Baiocensi episcopo consilium iniit et præfatos optimates - præoccupavit. Nam antequam aliquid molirentur, quum securi - ad littus maris de navibus egrederentur, valida militum manu - missa eos comprehendit, vinculis coarctavit, et unum Baiocis - aliumque Noilleio sub manu Baiocensis tyranni custodiæ - mancipavit.” - -Robert of Torigny, on the other hand, like Wace, makes Rouen the place -of arrest; but he does not go on to say with William of Malmesbury -that it was the place of imprisonment (“Inventis quibusdam vilibus -occasionibus, per malorum tamen hominum suggestiones, ipsum nihil tale -meditantem apud Rothomagum capiens, quod dederat indecenter -extorsit”). These last words of course refer to the Côtentin, and -imply an occupation of it by Robert during Henry’s imprisonment. Later -events follow in much the same order as in Orderic. - -The author of the Brevis Relatio, who wrote in Henry’s reign, must -have drawn from the same sources as the Continuator, as the words of -his short account (11) are to some extent the same. He gives -a clear and terse summary of the fortunes of Henry during the reign of -Rufus, which is almost his only mention of that reign. The words which -at present concern us are these; “Henricus remansit in Normannia cum -Roberto fratre suo, qui dedit ei quamdam terram in Normannia, sed non -diutius inde gaudium habuit [“Non diutius inde gavisus est,” says the -Continuator]. Non multo enim tempore, inventis quibusdam vilibus -occasionibus, ei illam abstulit.” - -The agreement between Orderic and Robert of Torigny is the more -valuable, because they clearly write from independent sources, and, as -we shall see presently, fill up gaps in one another. William of -Malmesbury brings in his story incidentally, and has made confusions. -Wace, as is not at all wonderful, is less accurate at this part of his -narrative than he was at an earlier stage. The expedition of the -Conqueror was his main subject, and on that he evidently bestowed the -greatest care, not only in gathering information from all quarters, -but very often in sifting it. He is now dealing with the kind of time -which most men in all ages know least about, the times a little before -and a little after his own birth. I must confess, for my own part, -that there is no part of English history in which I feel so little at -home as in the administration of the Earl of Liverpool. - - * * * * * - -Anyhow William of Newburgh speaks with great truth when, after (i. 2) -sketching the character of William and Robert, he adds; “Porro -Henricus frater junior, laudabilem præferens indolem, duris et infidis -fratribus militabat.” - - -NOTE L. Vol. i. p. 257. - -THE DEATH OF CONAN. - -The death of Conan suggests the death of Eadric (see N. C. vol. i. pp. -415, 740); only, while the story of Eadric’s death has grown into -several mythical forms, we have only two versions of the death of -Conan. These are given us by Orderic (689) and by William of -Malmesbury (v. 392). Both of these are contemporary writers in the -sense of having been born at the time――Orderic was about -fourteen――though neither could have written his account till a good -many years after. Orderic’s account is remarkably clear and -circumstantial; and, if the sharp interchang of sentences between -Henry and Conan is open to suspicion of another kind, it is not open -to the same kind of suspicion which attaches to rhetorical speeches in -Orderic or anywhere else. No one but Henry himself could have told the -story in the first instance, and stories of this kind, coming under -the head of personal anecdote, commonly get improved as they pass from -mouth to mouth. But there is no reason to suspect any invention on the -part of Orderic himself, which in a long speech we always may suspect. -With these prudent allowances, we may surely accept the tale as it -stands in Orderic. The version of William of Malmesbury reads like a -rather careless summary of some account to the same general effect as -Orderic, but with some differences of detail. But the dramatic effect -of Orderic’s dialogue has wholly passed away from William’s -abridgement. - -I will mention the chief differences between the two accounts. -According to Orderic, Duke Robert was all this time on the other side -of the Seine; William, who knows nothing about his flight, keeps him -still at Rouen. Here Orderic’s version is clearly to be preferred. The -story of Robert’s flight is either true, or else direct invention. I -do not mean an invention of Orderic, but an invention of Robert’s -enemies at the time. But if William had never heard that story, he -would conceive the Duke to be at Rouen as a matter of course. William -then makes Robert wish to put Conan in prison; but Henry demands that -he should be given over to himself (“Conanum quendam, proditionis apud -comitem insimulatum, quem ille vinculis irretire volebat, arbitratus -nihil calamitosius posse inferri misero quam ut exosum spiritum in -ergastulo traheret――hunc ergo Conanum Henricus suæ curæ servatum iri -postulavit”). Robert here seems to wish for Conan’s imprisonment, not -out of the merciful feeling which Orderic attributes to him when he -comes back to the city, but rather as deeming imprisonment worse than -death. In either case Henry goes on the principle that “stone dead -hath no fellow.” - -In the summary of the dialogue, William brings in one or two points -which are not in Orderic. As Henry shows the view to Conan, he -promises in mockery that all shall be his; “sua per ironiam omnia -futura pronuntians.” This differs altogether from “quam pulcram tibi -patriam conatus es subjicere.” One is half tempted to see in William’s -version a touch of legend worked in from the Gospels. - -Instead of Henry’s characteristic oath by the soul of his mother, -which must surely be genuine, William puts into his mouth a discourse -on the duty of the vassal, and his punishment if faithless, which -seems a little too long for the time and place; “Nullam vitæ moram -deberi traditori: quoquo modo alieni hominis posse tolerari injurias, -illius vero qui tibi juratus fecerit hominium, nullo modo posse -differri supplicium si fuerit probatus perfidiæ.” - -From the narrative of Orderic, one would certainly infer that Henry -and Conan were alone together in the tower, Henry doubtless armed and -Conan unarmed. William of Malmesbury gives Henry companions who help -to throw Conan down; “comitibus qui secum aderant pariter -impellentibus.” The exact spot also seems differently conceived by the -two writers. William of Malmesbury makes Conan fall into the river; -“inopinum ex propugnaculo deturbans in subjectam Sequanam -præcipitavit.” This seems quite inconsistent with Orderic, whose words -(690 D) are; - - “Contemptis elegi supplicationibus, ipsum ambabus manibus - impulit, et per fenestram turris deorsum præcipitavit. Qui - miserabili casu in momento confractus est, et _antequam - solum attingeret_ mortuus est. Deinde cadaver illius jumenti - caudæ innexum est, et per omnes Rothomagi vicos ad terrendos - desertores turpiter pertractum est.” - -From this it seems clear that Conan fell on dry ground. And though the -river, before the quays were made, certainly came nearer to the walls -of the castle than it now does to their site, one can hardly fancy -that it came so close to the foot of the great tower that Conan could -actually fall into the water. William too conceives those -concerned――whether two or more――as standing on the top of the tower, -whence Conan is thrust down from a battlement (“propugnaculum”) to -which he clings. Orderic seems to conceive him as pushed out of a -window (“fenestra”) in one of the upper rooms “solaria”) of the tower. -It is possible however that by “fenestra” Orderic may mean the -embrasure of a battlement. There is not so much difference between the -two things as might seem at first sight. When the towers (see -Viollet-le-Duc’s Military Architecture, _passim_) were covered with -roofs fitting down on the battlements, the embrasure was in fact a -window. In no case must we fancy Henry and Conan standing together in -the open air on the top of a flat-roofed tower. - - -NOTE M. Vol. i. p. 274. - -THE SIEGE OF COURCY. - -The siege of Courcy by Duke Robert (Ord. Vit. 692) is remarkable for -some picturesque details, which are interesting in themselves, and -throw light on the times, though they do not directly concern the -history of William Rufus. I was at Courcy in 1875; but I cannot find -any notes on the castle. As far as I remember, it does not stand on -any remarkable height, and does not contain among its remains any -marked features of the eleventh century. There is however at Courcy a -remarkably fine church of the twelfth. - -Among the allies who came to the help of the besieged were several -French knights, two of whom bore epithets which show that, in the days -of the chivalrous King, we are getting near to the times of chivalry. -Among the defenders of Courcy were the White Knight and the Red -Knight; - - “Ad conflictus istorum convenerunt Mathæus comes de - Bellomonte et Guillelmus de Garenna, aliique plures, ut in - tali gymnasio suas ostentarent probitates. Ibi Tedbaldus - Gualeranni de Britolio filius et Guido Rubicundus occisi - sunt. Quorum prior, quia cornipes et omnia indumenta ejus - candida erant, Candidus Eques appellabatur. Sequens quoque - Rubeus, quia rubeis opertus erat, cognominabatur.” - -Of these persons, the younger William of Warren, son of the elder -William and Gundrada, elder brother of the Reginald whom we have met -at Rouen, belongs to our home circle. Count Matthew of the French -Beaumont in the modern department of Oise――to be distinguished alike -from our Norman and our Cenomannian Beaumont――a kinsman of Hugh of -Grantmesnil’s wife (Ord. Vit. 691 D), appears again twice in Orderic, -836 B, 854 B, the second time at the battle of Noyon. Both times he -appears in company with his neighbour Burchard of Montmorency. Guy the -Red Knight appears in the former passage as an intended father-in-law -of the future King Lewis; - - “In juventute sua Ludovicus filiam Guidonis Rubei comitis de - Rupeforti desponsavit, et hereditario jure competentem - comitatum subjugare sibi sategit. Capreosam et Montem - Leherici, et Bethilcurtem aliaque oppida obsedit, sed multis - nobilibus illi fortiter obstantibus non obtinuit, præsertim - quia Lucianam virginem quam desponsaverat Guiscardo de - Belloloco donaverat.” - -This Rochefort is in the department of Seine and Oise, between -Montfort l’Amaury and Montl’hery. The redness of its Count and the -whiteness of Theobald land us in quite another state of things from -the personal whiteness and redness of Fulk the Red, Wulfward the -White, and others. We seem to be in the fourteenth century rather than -in the eleventh. But we must remember that at the battle of Noyon, -twenty-eight years later, the French knights at least had armorial -bearings (Ord. Vit. 855 B, C; see N. C. v. 189). All these things are -French to begin with; they spread from France into Normandy, and from -Normandy into England. - -In this siege we meet with an instance, of which I shall have to speak -again (see Note FF), of the wooden tower employed against a fortified -place; not a moving tower, it would seem, but one of those of which we -have so often heard. Yet it is spoken of as “ingens machina quam -_berfredum_ vocitant” (Ord. Vit. 692 C, cf. 878 C). So in Will. Malms. -iv. 369, “pro lignorum penuria turris non magna, in modum ædificiorum -facta; _Berfreid_ appellant, quod fastigium murorum æquaret.” This is -the _beffroi_, whose English form of _belfry_ has got quite another -use. It was made at Christmas, seemingly by order of Robert of -Bellême. But one day, when the arch-enemy was driven back, a daring -esquire, a kind of land Kanarês, climbed into it, and set it on fire -(“Justo Dei judicio machina combusta est, quæ tyrannico jussu in -diebus sanctæ nativitatis Domini proterve fabricata est;” 693 A). We -have a story something like this in the legend of our own Hereward -(see N. C. vol. iv. p. 472). The castle being newly built, they had -not been able to build an oven inside it (“pro acceleratione -obsidionis in novo munimento construere furnum oppidanis fas non -fuerat”). They had therefore to make use of one which stood outside -the castle, commanded by the _beffroi_ (“Clibanus extra munitionem -inter machinam oppidique portam stabat, ibique panificus [surely -Eurysakês by the _Porta Maggiore_ would have liked so sounding a -title] ad subsidium inclusorum panes coquebat”). The _beffroi_ then -was not brought up immediately against the wall. There was therefore -much fighting over the loaves, and many men were killed at this -particular point. In one day’s fight twenty men were killed and many -wounded. These last had a scruple; “de panibus emptis cruore suo non -gustaverunt.” Notwithstanding the _beffroi_ and the fighting, Duke -Robert kept very bad watch; “In conspectu obsidentium commilitones -obsessorum in castellum quotidie intrabant, et armis ac alimentis _non -curante duce_ socios ne deficerent confortabantur.” - -The bishop of the diocese, Gerard of Seez (1082-1091), came and took -up his quarters in the neighbourhood, in the abbey of Saint -Peter-on-Dive, and tried to bring about peace (“ut dissidentes -parrochianos suos pacificaret”); but in vain. A boy of noble birth in -the Bishop’s service (“puer quidam qui præsuli ministrabat; idem puer -Ricardus de Guaspreia, filius Sevoldi, vocitabatur”), who is -afterwards described as “clericus” and “imberbis clericus,” rides -about the camp in boyish fashion (“dum per exercitum puerili more -ludens equitabat”). The boy’s family are among those who had to defend -themselves against the devil of Bellême (“cujus parentela contra -Robertum sese jamdudum defendere totis viribus nitebatur”). So, when -young Richard appears in the camp, Robert pushes him from his horse, -puts him in prison, takes the horse to himself, and threatens his -master the Bishop (“Robertus injuriam ei [Gerardo] maximam fecit, -eumque minis contristavit. Nam puerum … ejectum de equo comprehendit -et in carcere trusit, sibique cornipedem retentavit”). The Bishop -threatens the whole army with interdict, unless his beardless clerk is -restored, which is done after a few days. The Bishop by this time is -sick; he goes to Seez and dies, January 23, 1091, in the same week, -according to Orderic (693 B), in which William Rufus crossed the sea. -His successor was the more famous Serlo, who so vigorously sheared the -locks of the Lion of Justice and his court. - -The boy of high birth serving in the bishop’s household, and counted -as belonging to the clerical order――he may even have held preferment, -as “pueri canonici” were not unknown――is worth notice. The incredible -tale told by Giraldus of William Longchamp (iv. 423) at least -witnesses to the existence of “pueri nobiles ad mensam ministrantes” -in a bishop’s court. - -Lastly, it must not be forgotten that it was during the siege of -Courcy, on the first day of the year 1091 (“in capite Januarii”), that -a priest of the diocese of Lisieux, Walchelm by name, saw that -wonderful vision of souls in purgatorial suffering, including many of -his personal acquaintance and several respectable prelates, for Bishop -Hugh of Lisieux and Abbot Mainer of Saint Evroul (see N. C. vol. iii. -p. 383, vol. iv. p. 655) were there also, which is told so graphically -by Orderic (693 C). A rationalistic mind may be tempted to see in the -supernatural procession another of the endless forms of the Wild -Huntsman; but a Defoe-like feeling of reality is given to the picture, -when he reads that Walchelm thought that they were the following of -Robert of Bellême going to besiege Courcy. He had gone to visit a sick -parishioner at a great distance; “unde dum solus rediret, et longe ab -hominum habitatione remotus iret, ingentem strepitum velut maximi -exercitus cœpit audire, et familiam Roberti Belesmensis putavit esse, -quæ festinaret Curceium obsidere.” - - -NOTE N. Vol. i. p. 275. - -THE TREATY OF 1091. - -On the whole, though with some hesitation, I accept Caen as the place -of the treaty between William Rufus and Robert. Orderic (693 B) places -the meeting of the brothers at Rouen; “Duo fratres Rothomagum pacifice -convenerunt, et in unum congregati, abolitis prioribus querimoniis, -pacificati sunt.” The meeting at Caen and the mediation of the King of -the French come from the Continuation of William of Jumièges (viii. -3). The passage stands in full thus; - - “Facta est tandem inter eos apud Cadomum, ut diximus, - adminiculante Philippo rege Francorum, qui in auxilium ducis - contra Willelmum regem apud oppidum Auci ingenti Anglorum et - Normannorum exercitu tunc morantem venerat, qualiscumque - concordia, et quantum ad ducem Robertum spectat probrosa - atque damnosa.” - -The story is here told in a hurried and inverted way, as the whole -tale is from the beginning of the chapter; but there is nothing -strictly to be called inaccurate in the story. It may be that the -mention of Philip now is merely a confusion with his former appearance -at Eu; but an intervention of Philip is not unlikely in itself; Caen -too as the place of meeting is less obvious than Rouen, and so far the -statement in favour of it is to be preferred. But the point is not of -much importance, and the evidence is fairly open to doubt. - -In any case William of Malmesbury (iv. 307, 308) is mistaken in -speaking of the peace as agreed and sworn to before William crossed -into Normandy. He gives a picture of the anarchy of Normandy which is -true enough; only he seems to conceive it too much after the pattern -of the later anarchy of England. King Philip (see the passage quoted -in p. 239) has got his money and has gone back to his banquet; - - “Ita bello intestino diu laboravit Normannia, modo illis, - modo istis, vincentibus; proceres utriusque furorem - incitabant, homines levissimi, in neutra parte fidem - habentes.” - -Now in the days of Stephen the anarchy at least took the form of a war -between rival claimants of the crown. Men really fought for their own -hands; but they at least professed to fight for King or Empress. But -the special characteristic of the Norman anarchy is that everybody is -already fighting with everybody else, and that the invasion of the -country makes no difference, except so far as it adds a new element of -confusion. Ralph of Conches goes over to William only because Robert -fails to defend him against a local enemy; William’s name is not -mentioned at all in the war of Courcy, till his actual coming -frightens both sides alike. William of Malmesbury misses the special -point of the whole story, namely that the strife between William and -Robert stands quite distinct from the local struggles which still went -on all over the country, except when the two got intermingled at -particular points. He then adds; - - “Pauci quibus sanius consilium, consulentes suis commodis - quod utrobique possessiones haberent, mediatores pacis - fuere; ut comiti rex Cinomannis adquireret, comes regi - castella quæ habebat et Fiscannum cœnobium concederet. - Juratum est hoc pactum, et ab utrorumque hominibus - sacramento firmatum. Nec multo post rex mare transiit, ut - fidem promissorum expleret.” - -Florence (1091) puts the case much better; - - “Mense Februario rex Willelmus junior Normanniam petiit, ut - eam fratri suo Rotberto abriperet; sed dum ibi moraretur, - pax inter eos facta est.” - - * * * * * - -It will be seen that William of Malmesbury gives only a very imperfect -statement of the terms of the treaty. They are nowhere so fully and -clearly given as in our own Chronicle; only the English writer is not -quite so exact with regard to the territorial cessions as those -writers who wrote in Normandy. The brothers meet――the place is not -mentioned――and agree on the terms, which are given in words which -sound like the actual words of the treaty, which was likely enough to -be set down in an English as well as a Latin copy. They stand thus; - - “þæt se eorl him to handan let Uescam and þone eorldom æt - Ou, and Kiæresburh. And þærto eacan þes cynges men sæclæs - beon moston on þam castelan þe hi ær þes eorles unþances - begiten hæfdon. And se cyng him ongean þa Manige behet þa ær - heora fæder gewann, and þa fram þam eorle gebogen wæs - gebygle to donne, and eall þæt his fæder þær begeondan - hæfde, butan þam þe he þam cynge þa geunnen hæfde; and þæt - ealle þa þe on Englelande for þam eorle æror heora land - forluron hit on þisum sehte habban sceoldan and se eorl on - Englelande eallswa mycel swa on heora forewarde wæs.” - -The emphatic references to his father are preeminently characteristic -of the Red King. We seem to hear his very words, the words of the -dutiful son, granting, not without some sarcasm, to the rebel, the -heritage of the father against whom he had rebelled. This emphatic -feature disappears in the other versions, even in the abridged Latin -version of Florence. To the list of places in Normandy to be given up -he adds “abbatiam in monte sancti Michaelis sitam,” and the last -words, which are certainly not very clear, he translates “et tantum -terræ quantum conventionis inter eos fuerat comiti daret.” This can -only refer to something which William was to grant to Robert as a free -gift. Domesday shows that there were no older English possessions of -Robert to be given back to him. See N. C. vol. iv. p. 629. - -Besides William of Malmesbury, only the Chronicler and Florence -mention the stipulation about Maine. This is again a sign that in the -Chronicle we are dealing with an actual document. For, as nothing came -of that clause, no part of the treaty was more likely to be forgotten. -William of Malmesbury seems to have caught up the first words of the -treaty, and to have got no further. Thus Maine gets in his text an -undue prominence, which may possibly account for a statement of his -which follows, and which has nothing at all like it anywhere else. The -King and the Duke are going to attack Maine the very first thing after -the conclusion of the treaty; only they are hindered by the campaign -against Henry; “Ergo uterque dux ingentes moliebantur conatus ut -Cinomannis invaderent; sed obstitit jam paratis jamque profecturis -Henrici fratris minoris animositas.” - -It may be needful to point out that the Chronicle really does mention -Maine; for Mr. Earle seems to have been the first of its editors to -find out the fact. Gibson, Ingram, and Thorpe all print “þa manige,” -with a small _m_, and explain it “the many,” “the many castles,” -“multa castella.” But, if there were no other reason, the words which -answer to it in Florence, “Cenomannicam vero provinciam,” are enough -to show that we should read with Mr. Earle “þa Manige,” the county of -Maine. The French idiom, whatever may be its origin, which, as is -always the case in Wace, adds the article to _Le_ Mans, _Le_ Maine, is -here found in English. So it is in 1099, 1110, 1111, 1112. The earlier -entry in 1073, “þæt land Mans,” is less clear. - -Those who wrote in Normandy say nothing about Maine; but they more -distinctly define the cessions in Normandy itself. Thus Robert of -Torigny in his Continuation (Will. Gem. viii. 3); - - “Quidquid rex Willelmus in Normannia occupaverat, _per - infidelitatem hominum ducis, qui eidem regi suas munitiones - tradiderant, quas suis militibus ipse commiserat ut inde - fratrem suum infestarent_, impune permissus est habere. - Munitiones illæ quas hoc modo tenebat fuerunt, Fiscannum, - oppidum Auci _quod Willelmus comes Aucensis cum reliquis - suis firmitatibus illi tradiderat; similiter Stephanus comes - de Albamarla, filius Odonis comitis de Campania, Willielmi - autem regis Anglorum senioris ex sorore nepos, fecerat, et - alii plures ultra Sequanam habitantes_.” - -The words in Italics are the writer’s backward way of recording the -events of 1090 among the clauses of the treaty of 1091. In his own -chronicle (1091) Robert of Torigny has nothing to say, except “ut -castra illa quæ frater ab eo acquisierat regi remanerent.” This not -very clear account comes from Henry of Huntingdon (vii. 2, p. 215 ed. -Arnold), with the omission of an important word. But though Robert -mentions no particular places in his summary of the treaty, yet, in -copying Henry of Huntingdon’s account of the places occupied by -William’s troops in 1090, to Saint Valery which alone are mentioned by -Henry, he adds, not only Eu like our authorities, but also Fécamp. The -Chronicle, as we have seen, mentions Fécamp among the places which -were to be ceded to William in 1091; no one else mentions it among the -places which were occupied in 1090. - -Orderic has three references to the cessions; but he nowhere mentions -either Fécamp or Saint Michael’s Mount. In his first account (693 B, -C) he says only “Robertus dux … ei [regi] Aucensem comitatum et -Albamarlam, totamque terram Gerardi de Gornaco et Radulfi de Conchis, -cum omnibus municipiis eorum eisque subjectorum concessit.” In 697 C -he says only “Robertus dux magnam partem Normanniæ Guillelmo regi -concessit.” - - * * * * * - -It is the Chronicle again which seems to give us the real text of the -clauses about the succession; - - “And gif se eorl forðferde butan sunu be rihtre ǽwe, wære - se cyng yrfenuma of ealles Normandig. Be þisre sylfan - forewarde, gif se cyng swulte, wære se eorl yrfenuma ealles - Englalandes.” - -It is perhaps worth notice that these words taken strictly do not -contemplate the possibility of William Rufus leaving children. This is -slightly altered in Florence; - - “Si comes absque filio legali in matrimonio genito - moreretur, hæres ejus esset rex; _modoque per omnia simili_, - si regi contigisset mori, hæres illius fieret comes.” - -Henry of Huntingdon (vii. 2, p. 215 ed. Arnold), who, as we have seen, -is followed with some changes by Robert of Torigny, seems to abridge -the account in the Chronicle. After speaking of the events of 1090, he -adds; - - “Anno vero sequenti rex sequens eos concordiam cum fratre - suo fecit. Eo tamen pacto ut castra illa quæ frater ab illo - injuria acquisierat, regi remanerent, rex autem adjuvaret - eum ad omnia quæ pater suus habuerat conquirenda. Statutum - etiam, si quis eorum moreretur prior altero sine filio, quod - alter fieret hæres illius.” - -A good deal of the diplomatic exactness of the Chronicle is lost here, -and it is not easy to see what castles Robert had taken from William, -unjustly or otherwise. Robert of Torigny hardly mends the matter by -leaving out the word “injuria.” - -Henry is not mentioned in any account of the treaty; but his -possessions come by implication under the head of the lands which -William was to win back for Robert, with the exception of Cherbourg -and Saint Michael’s Mount――if we are right in adding the Mount on the -authority of Florence――which William was to keep for himself. The -shameful treatment of Henry by his brothers naturally calls forth a -good deal of sympathy on the part of some of our writers, though they -do not always bring out the state of the case very clearly. They speak -of his brothers refusing him a share in his father’s dominions, rather -than of their depriving him of the possessions which one of themselves -had sold to him. Hear for instance the author of the Brevis Relatio -(11), writing in Henry’s own reign; - - “Concordiam adinvicem fecerunt Willelmus secundus rex Angliæ - et Robertus comes Normanniæ, et quum fratrem suum Henricum - debuissent adjuvare, eique providere ut honorabiliter inter - illos sicut frater eorum et filius regis vivere posset, non - hoc fecerunt, sed de tota terra patris sui expellere conati - sunt.” - -The same words are used by Robert of Torigny, in the Continuation of -William of Jumièges, viii. 3. - -William of Malmesbury (iv. 308), in a passage which follows that which -has been already cited about Maine, after the words “Henrici fratris -minoris animositas,” adds, “qui frenderet propter fratrum avaritiam, -quod uterque possessiones paternas dividerent, et se omnium pene -expertem non erubescerent.” - -The treaty takes a very strange form in Matthew Paris, Hist. Angl. i. -39. The brothers are reconciled by wise friends, who say to them, -“Absit, ne Franci fraternas acies, alternaque regna profanis decertata -odiis, derideant subsannantes.” And the reason is given; “Franci enim -eo tempore multa super ducem occupaverant.” This hardly means the -Vexin; it is more likely to be a confused version of Philip’s -intervention. - - * * * * * - -The only writers who mention the driving out of Eadgar are the -Chronicler and Florence. The former brings it into connexion with the -treaty, without seeming to make it exactly part of the treaty itself. -Having given the clauses of the treaty, and mentioned its confirmation -by the oaths on both sides, he adds; “Onmang þisum sæhte wearð Eadgar -æþeling belandod of þam þe se eorl him æror þær to handa gelæten -hæfde.” The measure seems to have had something to do with the treaty -without being one of its clauses. Were such things as secret or -additional articles, or agreements which were to go for nothing -because they were not written on the same paper as other agreements, -known to so early a stage of diplomacy? - -The Chronicler does not mention the siege of Saint Michael’s Mount; -but, immediately after the confiscation of Eadgar’s lands in Normandy, -he mentions his voyage to Scotland and the events which followed on -it. Florence puts his account of the siege of the Mount directly after -the treaty and the oaths of the twenty-four barons. He then goes on; - - “At rex cum obsidionis diutinæ pertæsus fuisset, impacatus - recessit, et non multo post Eadgarum clitonem honore, quem - ei comes dederat, privavit et de Normannia expulit.” And a - little way on he speaks of “clito Eadgarus, quem rex de - Normannia expulerat.” These expressions make the treatment - of Eadgar more distinctly William’s own act than one would - infer from the words of the Chronicle, and they might - suggest that Eadgar’s Norman estates lay within the - districts which were ceded to William. But it may only mean - that Robert sent Eadgar away on William’s demand. - - -NOTE O. Vol. i. p. 285. - -THE SIEGE OF SAINT MICHAEL’S MOUNT. - -The primary account of the siege which Henry endured at the hands of -his brothers is the short one in Orderic, which I have chiefly -followed in the text. There are still shorter notices in Florence of -Worcester and in the Continuation of William of Jumièges. The shortest -of all is in the local Annals; - - “1090. Obsessio montis hujus, quæ facta est a Guillelmo Rufo - rege Anglorum et a Roberto comite Normannorum, Henrico - fratre eorum in hoc monte incluso.” - -There is no objection to this date, as the writer seemingly begins the -year at Easter. The accession of Harold is placed under 1065. - -The account in Florence is noteworthy, as seeming to supply a reason -for the attack made by the two older brothers upon the younger. After -the treaty between William and Robert, he goes on; - - “Interim germanus illorum Heinricus montem Sancti Michaelis, - ipsius loci monachis quibusdam illum adjuvantibus, cum - omnibus militibus quos habere potuit, intravit, regisque - erram vastavit, et ejus homines quosdam captivavit, quosdam - exspoliavit. Eapropter rex et comes, exercitu congregato, - per totam quadragesimam montem obsederunt, et frequenter cum - eo prœlium commiserunt, et homines et equos nonnullos - perdiderunt. At rex, cum obsidionis diutinæ pertæsus - fuisset, impacatus recessit.” - -This account is true in a sense; it gives the purely military history, -except that the words “impacatus recessit” would hardly suggest -Henry’s honourable surrender. But no one would find out from -Florence’s version that Henry occupied the Mount simply as the last -spot left to him in his dominions. As a matter of warfare, it -doubtless may be said that William and Robert besieged Henry because -he occupied the Mount, and because he was, as we can well believe, -driven to harry the neighbouring lands. But he occupied the Mount and -harried the lands only because he was driven out of the rest of his -county. That Florence misunderstood the matter is plain from his use -of the words “regis terra,” which cannot apply to any land which could -be reached from the Mount. - -Wace has a long account, very confused in its chronology and in the -sequence of events; but I have trusted to his local knowledge for some -topographical details. William of Malmesbury twice refers to the -siege. He tells it under the reign of Rufus (iv. 308); but seemingly -wholly for the purpose of bringing in two famous anecdotes about -William and Robert. The second time is in his sketch of Henry’s early -life (v. 392). In the first account he at least puts the siege in its -right place after the Treaty of 1091. In the second he seems, -strangely enough, to make the siege immediately follow the death of -Conan, or at least to follow Henry’s driving out of Rouen (see above, -p. 512), which he places just after Conan’s death; - - “Illud fuit tempus quo, ut supra lectum est, apud montem - sancti Michaelis ambobus fratribus Henricus pro sui salute - simul et gloria restitit.” - -And, as Orderic (see p. 294) is careful to insist on the wholesome -effect which the season of exile which followed had on Henry’s -character, so William insists on the wholesome effect of the siege -itself; - - “Ita, cum utrique germano fuerit fidelis et efficax, illi - nullis adolescentem possessionibus dignati, ad majorem - prudentiam ævi processu penuria victualium informabant.” - -The Red King’s way of schooling a brother was not quite so harsh as -that by which Gideon taught the men of Succoth; but it is essentially -of the same kind. - -Nothing can be more confused than the way in which Wace brings in the -story (see Pluquet’s note, ii. 310). I have already (see above, p. -514) mentioned the course of his story up to that point. Robert, -without any help from William, has deprived Henry of the Côtentin, -while William is angry with Henry for having paid the purchase-money -to Robert. Henry then goes to the Mount (14588); - - “Por sei vengier se mist el munt - U li muignes Saint Michiel sunt.” - -Then, having no place of shelter anywhere, he gathers a large company -of nobles and others who serve him willingly (14598); - - “N’alout mie eschariement, - Asez menout od li grant gent - Des plus nobles è des gentilz, - Mena od li freres è filz; - E tuit volentiers le servient, - Kar grant espeir en li aveient.” - -He thinks of seeking a lasting shelter in Britanny; but he is -entertained by Earl Hugh at Avranches, with whom he has much talk, and -who one day counsels him to occupy the Mount and to make a castle of -the monastery. This is without any reference to the lines just quoted -in which Henry is made to have been there already. But the speech of -the Earl is well conceived (14624); - - “Li munt Saint Michiel li mostra: - Veiz tu, dist-il, cele roche là; - Bel lieu è forte roche i a, - Ke jor ke noit ja ne faldra; - Flo de mer montant l’avirone, - Ki à cel lieu grant force done.” - -Henry will do well to get together Bretons and mercenaries, and hold -the rock against the Normans (14625); - - “Bretuns mandasse è soldéiers, - Ki gaaignassent volentiers, - Mult méisse gent en grant esfrei; - Jà Normant n’éust paiz vers mei.” - -Henry adopts Hugh’s advice, rides off at once, occupies the Mount, and -sends a defiance to Robert (14646); - - “Maiz Henris est sempres monté, - Et el munt est sempres alé. - Del munt Saint Michiel guerréia, - Robert son frere desfia. - Ja mez, ço dist, sa paiz n’areit, - Se son aveir ne li rendeit.” - -Henry ravages the neighbouring lands (see above, p. 529, and p. 286); -then the King and the Duke come to besiege him, without any hint how -William came to be in Normandy, or how the two brothers, who were -enemies less than a hundred lines before, have now come to be allies. - -It is plain that the striking event of the occupation of the Mount of -which he would hear a good deal in his childhood, if it did not -actually come within his own childish days, was strong in Wace’s -imagination, but that he took very little pains to fit the tale into -its right place in the history. It is specially hard to reconcile his -picture of the action of Earl Hugh with the facts of the case. There -is perhaps no literal contradiction. Hugh, while giving up his castles -to Robert (see p. 284), may have given Henry secret advice, and the -words of Robert of Torigny in the Continuation of William of Jumièges -(see p. 323) may be taken as implying that Henry looked on him as -having been on the whole faithful to him. But Wace could hardly have -conceived Hugh as giving up the castle of Avranches to Robert. - -The ending of the siege is still more thoroughly misconceived than the -beginning. The brothers are all reconciled; Henry gets the Côtentin -back again (14740); - - “De l’acordement fu la fin - K’à Henri remest Costentin, - K’en paiz l’éust tant è tenist, - Ke li Dus li suen li rendist.” - -William goes back to England, whereas we know (see p. 293) that he -stayed in Normandy for six months. Robert goes to Rouen. Henry pays -off his mercenaries――out of what funds we are not told, and the other -accounts do not speak of his followers as mercenaries. He then follows -Robert to Rouen (14750); - - “Henris sis soldeiers paia, - As uns pramist, as uns dona - Al terme k’il out establi; - A li Duc a Roem sui.” - -There the Duke imprisons Henry; that is, the imprisonment which -happened long before (see p. 199) is moved out of its place. But Wace -cannot tell why he was imprisoned, or how it was that he was released -and made his way to France (14754); - - “Ne voil avant conter ne dire - Par kel coroz ne par kele ire - Henris fu poiz a Roem pris, - E en la tur à garder mis; - Ne coment il fu delivrez, - E de la terre congéez, - E coment il ala el Rei, - Ki en France l’out poiz od sei.” - -In opposition to all this, Orderic’s account of the siege, its -beginning and its ending, is perfectly straightforward, and hangs well -together. He alone puts everything in its place, and gives an -intelligible reason for everything. Robert of Torigny, in the -Continuation (viii. 3), preserves the fact that Henry surrendered on -honourable terms, but he is in rather too great a hurry to get him to -Domfront; - - “Unde accidit ut quadam vice ipsum obsidione cingerent in - monte sancti Michaelis. Sed illis ibidem incassum diu - laborantibus, et _ad ultimum inter se dissidentibus_, comes - Henricus inde libere exiens oppidum munitissimum nomine - Danfrontem sagacitate cujusdam indigenæ suscepit.” - -The words in Italics may perhaps refer to the story about the water; -but William and Robert were in any case sure to quarrel about -something. And it was quite in William’s character to get tired of a -fifteen days’ siege, as he is represented both here and by Florence -(see p. 292); only Florence is not justified in saying that at once -“impacatus rediit.” William of Malmesbury too (iv. 310) tells his -story about the water, and then adds; - - “Ita rex, deridens mansueti hominis ingenium, resolvit - prælium; infectaque re quam intenderat, quod eum Scottorum - et Walensium tumultus vocabant, in regnum se cum ambobus - fratribus recepit.” - -On these last words, which are so startling at first sight, I have -spoken in the next Note. - - * * * * * - -The two anecdotes of William and Robert seem, in William of -Malmesbury’s first account (iv. 308), to be his chief or only reason -for mentioning the siege at all; - - “In ea obsidione præcluum specimen morum in rege et comite - apparuit; in altero mansuetudinis, in altero magnanimitatis. - Utriusque exempli notas pro legentium notitia affigam.” - -Then come the two stories “De Magnanimitate Willelmi” and “De -Mansuetudine comitis Roberti,” which I have told in the text after -him. Both of them are also told by Wace; that is, if the story “De -Magnanimitate Willelmi” is really the same story as the corresponding -story in Wace. Every detail is different; but both alike set before us -the self-confidence of the Red King. In this version he is unhorsed -and wounded; but he keeps hold of his saddle, and fights on foot with -his sword (14672); - - “E li reis i fa abatuz, - De plusors lances fu féruz. - Li peitral del cheval rompi - E li dui cengles altresi; - Od sa sele li reis chaï, - Maiz bien la tint, ne la perdi, - Delivre fu, en piez sailli; - Od s’espée se desfendi, - Unkes la sele ne leissa, - Bien la tint è bien la garda.” - -We hear nothing of any discourse with Henry’s followers, nothing of -any dealings with the knight who had unhorsed him. But he calls to his -vassals, Normans and English, who do not appear in the other story, -but who in this press to his help, and, after many blows, take him off -safely; - - “Tant cria chevaliers léals, - Ke la presse vint des vassals, - E li Normanz le secorurent - E li Engleiz ki od li furent, - Maiz maint grant colp unt recéu - Ainz k’il l’éussent secoru. - Mené l’en unt à salveté.” - -Then his own men, not those of Henry, talk merrily with him about his -defence of his saddle. He answers in the like strain, telling them -that it is a shame if a man cannot keep his own, and that it would -have grieved him if any Breton had boasted that he had carried off his -saddle; - - “Poiz unt li reis asez gabé - De la sele k’il desfendeit, - E des granz colps ke il soffreit. - E li reis diseit en riant - K’il debveit estre al suen garant; - Hunte est del suen perdre è guerpir; - Tant com l’en le pot garantir: - Pesast li ke Brez s’en vantast - De la sele k’il emportast.” - -If this is the same story as that in William of Malmesbury, it is a -very inferior version of it. Lappenberg (Geschichte von England, ii. -172) takes the two for distinct stories and tells them separately. -(See above, p. 503.) But it is strange that his translator (p. 232) -should tell both stories after his original, should give the reference -to Wace, and should then, at the end of William’s story, remark, -giving the same reference again――“Wace gives a version of the -occurrence totally different from the above as related by Malmesbury.” - -The “Normanz” and “Engleiz” of Wace appear in Lappenberg as “Normannen -und Angelsachsen.” This involves the old question about the force of -the word “Angli,” which is very hard to answer at this particular -stage. In a narrative actually written in 1091, I should certainly -understand the words as Lappenberg does, and should see in the -“Engleiz” men of the type of Tokig son of Wiggod and Robert son of -Godwine. But, as Wace, if he were already born in 1091, did not write -till many years after, it is more likely that we ought to take the -words “Normanz” and “Engleiz” in the sense which they took in the -course of Henry the First’s reign. That is, by “Normanz” we should -understand those only who were “natione Normanni,” and by “Engleiz” -all who were “natione Angligenæ,” even though many of them were -“genere Normanni.” See N. C. vol. v. p. 828. - -Whatever we make of the relations between the two stories, the -reference to the “Brez” in Wace’s version has a very genuine ring. -That name came much more home in Jersey, or even at Bayeux, than it -did in Wiltshire. - -The story “De Mansuetudine comitis Roberti” connects itself with the -fact stated by Orderic――who does not tell either of the anecdotes――that -the besieged really did suffer for want of water (see p. 292). William -of Malmesbury, whom I have followed in the text, tells the story -straightforwardly enough from that point of view. Wace does casually -speak of the water, but his main thought is of wine (see p. 291). -Henry thus states his case to Robert (14704); - - “Quant Henris out lunges soffert, - Soef manda al Duc Robert, - Ke de vin aveit desirier, - D’altre chose n’aveit mestier.” - -Robert then sends him the tun of wine, of the best they have in the -host, and throws in a truce to take water daily seemingly of his own -free will (14712); - - “E tot li jor a otréié - E par trièves doné congié, - Ke cil del munt ewe préissent, - E li munt d’ewe garnessissent, - U k’il volsissent la préissent - Séurement, rien ne cremissent. - Dunc veissez servanz errer, - Et à veissels ewe aporter.” - -The King is angry at all this, and sets forth his principles of -warfare (14729); - - “Il les déust fere afamer - E il les faisoit abevrer.” - -He is inclined to give up the siege (“Del siege volt par mal torner”); -but he listens to Robert’s excuse; - - “Torné me fust à félonie, - E joféisse vilanie - De li néer beivre è viande, - Quant il méisme le demande.” - -Here we have nothing of the argument in William of Malmesbury, an -argument essentially the same as that which is so thoroughly in place -in the mouth of the wife of Intaphernes in Herodotus (iii. 119), and -so thoroughly out of place in the mouth of the Antigonê of Sophoklês -(892). But the words are very like those which we shall find Wace -putting into the mouth of Robert at a later time. (See 15456, and vol. -ii. p. 406.) - - -NOTE P. Vol. i. p. 293. - -THE ADVENTURES OF HENRY AFTER THE SURRENDER OF SAINT MICHAEL’S MOUNT. - -That Henry was in possession of Domfront in 1094 is certain from the -witness of the Chronicle under that year; “Se cyng W. sende æfter his -broðer Heanrige, se wæs on þam castele æt Damfront.” But we have no -hint when he got possession of it. Florence has no mention of Henry -between his account of the siege of Saint Michael’s Mount――from which -William “impacatus recessit”――and his election as king. William of -Malmesbury (see p. 293) brings him to England with William and Robert -in August 1091. As I have already said, such is William of -Malmesbury’s carelessness of chronology that I should not have -ventured to accept this statement on his showing only. But it has a -piece of the very strongest corroborative evidence in the form of the -Durham charter of which I have spoken in the text (see p. 305). This -is the one which is printed at p. xxii of the volume of the Surtees -Society called “Historiæ Dunelmensis Scriptores Tres,” a document -which has every sign of genuineness. It is a grant by Bishop William -of the churches of Northallerton, Sigston, and Brunton to the convent -of Durham, and confirms the picture given by Simeon (see p. 508) of -William Rufus as a benefactor to Durham; - - “Hæc omnia, præcipiente domino meo Willielmo rege, domini - mei magni regis Willielmi filio, feci, qui Alvertonescire - sancto Cuthberto et episcopis ejus in perpetuum dedit. Has - vero ecclesias monachis sancto Cuthberto servituris pro - salute animæ suæ dedit, et mihi donare præcepit.” - -I have shown that the deed must belong to a time after the -pacification with Malcolm, but before Christmas, 1091. At no other -time could we have had the signatures of Robert and Eadgar, nor -probably that of Duncan. And the signature of Henry shows that William -of Malmesbury is right, and that Henry was in England at this time. -There was then some assembly held in the autumn of 1091, and that -seemingly at Durham or somewhere in the North. Its object would -probably be to confirm the treaty with Malcolm. Indeed, except a few -bishops and abbots, most of the men who sign would naturally be in the -camp. The signatures are in two columns. That to the right contains -the names of Bishop William, King William (signum Willielmi regis -secundi), his brothers (signum Rodberti fratris regis, signum Henrici -fratris regis), Robert Bloet (Roberti cancellarii regis cognomento -Bloet), Duncan (Dunechani filii regis Malcolmi), Earl Roger, Randolf -Flambard (Ranulphi thessarii――thesaurarii?), three local priests, -Merewine (Mervini), Eglaf (Ælavi; in another document, p. xx, we get -the dwelling-places of these priests, Eglaf of Bethlington and -Merewine of Chester――that is of course Chester-le-Street), and Orm, -Robert “dispensator regis” (see p. 331), Siward Barn, and Arnold of -Percy. The left-hand column contains Archbishop Thomas, the Bishops -Remigius of Lincoln, Osmund of Salisbury, and John of Bath, the Abbots -Guy of Saint Augustine’s, Baldwin of Saint Eadmund’s, and Stephen of -Saint Mary’s at York, Earl Hugh, Philip son of Earl Roger, Earl -Robert, “signum Eadgari clitonis,” Roger Bigod, “signum Morealis -vicecomitis,” William Peverel, “signum Gileberti dapiferi.” - -This list, though singular and startling, is perfectly possible. This -cannot be said of some of those in the same volume. Thus in the -document just before this one, John Bishop of Bath is made to sign in -the time of the Conqueror, and in that which follows (p. xxvii), -Lanfranc and Abbot Ælfsige are made to sign in 1093. - -The evidence of this charter, combined with the notice in William of -Malmesbury, seems conclusive. Henry was in England during part of -1091. We therefore cannot accept the obvious meaning of Orderic’s -story which makes Henry a wanderer from the time of the surrender of -the Mount till his reception at Domfront. In this version he leaves -the Mount, and spends two years, or somewhat less, in a very poor case -(697 B); - -“Per Britanniam transiit, Britonibus, qui sibi solummodo adminiculum -contulerant, gratias reddidit, et confines postmodum Francos expetiit. -In pago Vilcassino nobilis exsul non plenis duobus annis commoratus, -diversa hospitia quæsivit. Uno tantum milite unoque clerico cum tribus -armigeris contentus pauperem vitam exegit.” - -In another place (698 C) we find a date given to the occupation of -Domfront, and a duration assigned to Henry’s wanderings, which at -first sight seems not to agree with this version; - - “Anno ab incarnatione Domini MXCII. Indictione XV. Henricus - Guillelmi regis filius Danfrontem oppidum, auxilio Dei - suffragioque amicorum, obtinuit, et inde fortiter - hereditarium jus calumniari sategit. Nam idem, dum esset - junior, non ut frater a fratribus habitus est, sed magis ut - externus, exterorum, id est Francorum et Britonum, auxilia - quærere coactus est, et quinque annis diversorum eventuum - motibus admodum fatigatus est. Tandem Danfrontani nutu Dei - ærumnis tam præclari exsulis compassi sunt, et ipsum ad se - de Gallia accersitum per Harecherium honorifice susceperunt, - et, excusso Roberti de Belesmo, a quo diu graviter oppressi - fuerant, dominio, Henricum sibi principem constituerunt. - Ille vero contra Robertum Normanniæ comitem viriliter arma - sumpsit, incendiis et rapinis expulsionis suæ injuriam - vindicavit, multosque cepit et carceri mancipavit.” - -The five years mentioned in the above extract must be meant to take in -all Henry’s adventures, lucky and unlucky, from the death of his -father in 1087 to his settlement at Domfront in 1092. From his -surrender of the Mount in February 1091 to his settlement at Domfront -Orderic makes, as we have seen, somewhat less than two years; that is, -Henry came to Domfront quite at the end of 1092. - -In 706 C (under 1094, see p. 319) he says; - - “Henricus Guillelmi Magni regis Anglorum filius Danfrontem - possidebat, et super Robertum [de Belesmo], cui præfatum - castellum abstulerat, imo super fratres suos regem et ducem - guerram faciebat, a quibus extorris de cespite paterno - expulsus fuerat.” - -In 722 D he says; - - “Henricus frater ducis Danfrontem fortissimum castrum - possidebat, et magnam partem Neustriæ sibi favore vel armis - subegerat, fratrique suo ad libitum suum, nec aliter, - obsecundabat.” - -This is in 1095, and it is meant as a summary of Henry’s course up to -that year. Lastly, the promise of Henry never to give up Domfront to -any other master comes quite incidentally in Orderic’s account (788 B) -of the treaty between Robert and Henry in 1101 (see vol. ii. p. 413). -By that treaty Henry ceded to Robert everything that he held in -Normandy “præter Danfrontem.” The reason for the exception is added; - - “Solum Danfrontem castrum sibi retinuit, quia Danfrontanis, - quando illum intromiserunt, jurejurando pepigerat quod - numquam eos de manu sua projiceret nec leges eorum vel - consuetudines mutaret.” - -This is Orderic’s account, in which I see no difficulty at all in -accepting all that concerns Domfront. Henry was in England late in -1091; but he may have been in France or anywhere else late in 1092. -And Henry may have had a time of distress and wandering in the Vexin, -either between March and August 1091 or at any time in 1092. Where -Orderic goes wrong, it is through forgetting Henry’s visit to England -in 1091, which was of no importance to his story. He therefore -naturally spreads the season of wandering in the Vexin over the whole -time from the surrender of the Mount early in 1091 to the occupation -of Domfront late in 1092. - - * * * * * - -Robert of Torigny, in the Continuation of William of Jumièges (viii. -3), is in a still greater hurry to get Henry to Domfront (see above, -p. 532). The passage, as far as it concerns the relations between -Henry and Domfront, runs thus; - - “Comes Henricus, inde [from the Mount] libere exiens, - oppidum munitissimum nomine Danfrontem sagacitate cujusdam - indigenæ suscepit. Indignabatur enim prædictus indigena, - utpote vir nobilis et dives, oppressiones amplius perpeti - quas Robertus de Belismo, homo ferox et mentis inhumanæ, - sibi et aliis convicaneis inferebat, qui tunc temporis illud - castrum possidebat. Quod tanta diligentia Henricus exinde - custodivit ut usque ad terminum vitæ illius in suo dominio - habuerit.” - -The “indigena nobilis et dives” of this account is of course the same -as the Harecherius of Orderic. And the statement that Henry kept -Domfront all his days agrees with Orderic’s statement about his -promise. Wace (14762-14773) gives us some, perhaps legendary, details -of the way in which Henry was brought from Paris――from the French -Vexin, one would have thought, from Orderic’s account――to Domfront; -but he is clearly wrong in making any Robert, whether the Duke or him -of Bellême, turn Henry out of Domfront; - - “Ne coment Haschier le trova - A Paris donc il l’amena, - _Ki se fist un des oilz péier, - Ke l’en nel’ péust encercier_, - Ne voil dire par kel savoir - Haschier li fist Danfront aveir, - Ne coment il fu recéuz - Quant il fu à Danfront venuz, - Ne coment il cunquist Passeiz - E le toli as Belesmeiz; - Ne coment Robert le cunquist, - E de Danfront partir le fist.” - -The covering of one of Henry’s eyes with pitch by way of disguise may -be believed or not; but the “savoir” of Haschier answers to the -“sagacitas” of the “indigena nobilis et dives.” Passeiz, Passais (see -Pluquet, Wace, ii. 319; Neustria Pia, p. 423), is the district which -contains Domfront and the abbey of Lonlay, a district which lay in the -ancient diocese of Le Mans, but which was added to Normandy by -William’s conquest. - -This name “Haschier” or “Harecherius” is supposed by Le Prévost -(Pluquet, ii. 319) to be the same name as “Achardus,” the name of one -of the witnesses to the foundation charter of Lonlay abbey in 1026. He -signs as “Achardus dives, miles de Donnifronte.” This document is -contained in an _inspeximus_ of Peter, Count of Alençon (1361-1377), -contained in an _inspeximus_ of Henry, King of France and England -about 1423 (Neustria Pia, p. 424). The founder is the old William of -Bellême, father of William Talvas and grandfather of Mabel. There is a -certain interest in a document relating to Domfront and Lonlay before -they became Norman, when lands there could be granted “usque in -Normaniæ commarchiam.” Among the signatures are those of the founder’s -brother Avesgaud Bishop of Le Mans (994-1036, see N. C. vol. iii. p. -191), Siegfried Bishop of Seez (1007-1026), the founder and his wife, -“Guillelmus princeps [in the body of the document he is “Guillelmus -Bellismensis, provinciæ principatum gerens”] et Mathildis uxor ejus,” -and this “Achardus _dives_” whom Le Prevost takes for a forefather of -the “indigena nobilis et _dives_.” - -Orderic says that Henry obtained Domfront “suffragio amicorum.” Robert -of Torigny, in the next chapter of his Continuation (viii. 4), tells -us who his friends a little later were. He is established at Domfront; -then we read; - - “Redeunte Willelmo rege in Angliam, Henricus haud segniter - comitatum Constantiniensem, qui sibi fraudulentia ante - præreptus fuerat, _consensu Willelmi regis_ et auxilio - Richardi de Revers et Rogerii de Magna-villa, ex majori - parte in ditionem suam revocavit.” - -He then goes on with the passage about Earl Hugh and the grant of -Saint James to him, quoted in p. 323. - -I think that this distinct assertion that Henry was now in William’s -favour outweighs the vague expressions of Orderic about Henry making -war on both his brothers. By 1093, the earliest date for these -exploits, William was again scheming against Robert, and his obvious -policy would be to ally himself with Henry. - -Henry, as we have seen in the extracts from Orderic, carried on war in -the usual fashion. But he at least treated his prisoners better than -Robert of Bellême did. We have (698 D) a picture of one Rualedus――a -Breton Rhiwallon, or what?――who is carried off from the lands of Saint -Evroul to the castle of Domfront. It was winter; but he was not left -to die of cold and hunger for Count Henry’s amusement; we see him -sitting comfortably by the fire (“quum sederet ad focum; hiems enim -erat”). On the road he had fallen from the horse on which he was tied, -and had suffered some hurt. But, after prayer to Saint Evroul, -followed by a comforting dream, he wakes, and, as his keeper’s back is -turned, he gets up, unbars the door, walks into the garden, and, after -some further adventures, gets back to Saint Evroul. He was a man -“legitimus et laudabilis vitæ;” so Orderic, who heard the story from -his own mouth, believes it. There seems no reason why anybody should -disbelieve it; as the only part of the tale which sounds at all -incredible is the very bad guard which Henry’s men kept over their -prisoner. - - -NOTE Q. Vol. i. p. 302. - -THE HOMAGE OF MALCOLM IN 1091. - -The account of Malcolm’s homage to William Rufus which is given by -Orderic (701 A) is treated with some contempt by Mr. E. W. Robertson -(Scotland under her Early Kings, i. 142), while it is naturally not -forgotten by Sir Francis Palgrave (English Commonwealth, ii. -cccxxxii). The main fact of the homage itself, paid to the second -William on the same terms on which it had been paid to the first, is -abundantly proved by the Chronicle. Nothing is gained by disproving at -this stage the exaggerated account of Robert’s expedition in 1080 -which is to be found in the local History of Abingdon (see N. C. vol. -iv. pp. 671, 790). The only question is, whether, accepting the -general fact from the Chronicle, we can or cannot accept any of the -very curious details with which Orderic tells the story. - -First of all, while Orderic’s geography is right, his topography is -wrong. The mention of the “magnum flumen quod _Scotte watra_ dicitur” -must come from some genuine source. “Ordericus Angligena” heard the -tale from some one who told it him in English. And, if there could be -the shadow of a doubt, this shows that “Loðene” in the Chronicle means -Lothian, and nothing else. Mr. Burton (Hist. Scot. i. 412) insists on -carrying Malcolm to Leeds; but he cannot make the Aire to be the -“Scotte watra.” But Orderic, who plainly got his account from some -quite different source from the Chronicler, failed to take in the -actual position of the two armies. He failed to see that Malcolm, -having crossed the Scots’ Water into Lothian and therefore into -England, was necessarily on the south side of the Scots’ Water. He -fancied that the two kings were on opposite sides of the firth. -William reaches the Scots’ Water; “sed, quia inaccessibilis transitus -erat, super ripam consedit. Rex autem Scottorum e regione cum -legionibus suis ad bellandum paratus constitit.” So he doubtless did; -only they were both south of the water. The Chronicle shows plainly -that Malcolm, as soon as he heard of William’s coming, determined that -the invader should not, as his father had done, cross into the proper -Scotland to Abernethy or elsewhere, but that he would meet him, for -peace or for war, in the English part of his dominions. - -This topographical confusion does not affect the main story, nor does -it greatly matter whether the picturesque details of Robert’s visit to -Malcolm literally happened or not. It is further plain that Orderic -has left out one of the two mediators, namely Eadgar. But he records -the main fact of the homage no less than the Chronicler. The question -is whether we can accept the curious conversation between Robert and -Malcolm, in which Malcolm makes two statements, which are perhaps a -little startling in themselves, which are not mentioned elsewhere, but -which certainly do not contradict what we find elsewhere. - -First, Malcolm asserts that King Eadward gave him the earldom of -Lothian, seemingly as the dowry of Margaret; “Fateor quod rex -Eduardus, dum mihi Margaritam proneptem suam in conjugium tradidit, -Lodonensem comitatum mihi donavit.” Now it is certainly true that King -Eadward, or Earl Siward in his name, gave Malcolm the earldom of -Lothian; only he gave him something else too, namely the kingdom of -Scotland. And I have mentioned elsewhere (see N. C. vol. iv. p. 785) -that a betrothal of Margaret to Malcolm, when Malcolm received the -kingdom from Siward, though recorded nowhere else, is perfectly -possible. - -Secondly, Malcolm’s strong point is that he does owe a homage to -Robert, but that he owes none to William. This he asserts in his first -message; “Tibi, rex Guillelme, nihil debeo, nisi conflictum si a te -injuriis lacessitus fuero. Verum si Robertum primogenitum Guillelmi -regis filium videro, illi exhibere paratus sum quicquid debeo.” -Afterwards, in his conference with Robert, he is made to say, after -mentioning Eadward’s grant of Lothian, “Deinde Guillelmus rex quod -antecessor ejus mihi dederat concessit, et me tibi primogenito suo -commendavit. Unde quod tibi promisi conservabo. Sed fratri tuo nihil -promisi et nihil debeo. Nemo, ut Christus ait, potest duobus dominis -servire.” To this Robert agrees; “Ut asseris, ita est. Sed mutationes -rerum factæ sunt, et statuta patris mei a pristina soliditate in -multum vacillaverunt.” I do not know that a homage of Malcolm to -Robert is recorded anywhere else, unless we so understand the confused -Abingdon story about the expedition of 1080. But nothing was more -likely than that William the Conqueror should at Abernethy call on -Malcolm to pledge himself, as was so often done, not only to himself -but to his son after him. In 1072 there could have been no reason for -looking to any one but Robert as the probable successor; least of all -could any one have thought of William the Red. He was not even the -second son, as Richard was still alive. And the time when King William -renewed the gift of his predecessor Eadward must surely be the day of -Abernethy, and none other. - -There is then really nothing in Orderic’s story which gainsays any -known facts, and it is hard to see what should have made him think of -a betrothal of Margaret, a homage to Robert, and the rest, unless he -had some ground for them. And the general argument put into Malcolm’s -mouth seems exactly in place. It is of a piece with the arguments of -Scottish disputants long after Orderic’s day. Something is admitted, -that something is perhaps specially insisted on, in order to avoid the -admission of something else. Lothian is the special personal gift of -Eadward to Malcolm himself, though it is certain, on any view of the -cession of Lothian, that predecessors of Malcolm had held it of -predecessors of Eadward. That gift of Eadward, renewed by William the -Great, is allowed to carry with it a personal duty to William the -Great and to his personal heir. But the denial of any duty to William -the Red implicitly denies any duty to the King of the English as such. -Still this question is in words left open; so is all that relates to -the proper Scotland left open. Malcolm at last consents to do homage -to William for something; but, in Orderic’s story at least, it is not -very clear for what. (The Chronicler, we may be sure, felt so certain -of its being for Scotland that he did not think it needful to say so.) -All this is exactly like later controversies on the same subject. When -the two kingdoms were on friendly terms, it often suited both sides -that the homage should be general, leaving it open to each side to -assert its own doctrine the next time there should be any dispute (see -N. C. vol. v. p. 209). And we must remember that by this time it is -quite possible that Rufus might make claims which Malcolm would, on -the principles of an earlier time, do quite right in refusing. -Strictly feudal ideas were growing, and when a King of the English -demanded homage for the kingdom of Scotland, he may well have meant -more than had been meant when the king and people of the Scots sought -Eadward the Unconquered to father and lord. Certainly, when the whole -thing had stiffened into a question of ordinary feudal law, Edward the -First, if judged by the standard of the tenth century, asked more than -his historic rights over Scotland, less than his historic rights over -Lothian. See Historical Essays, Series I. p. 65; N. C. vol. i. p. 128. - - * * * * * - -I am therefore inclined to believe that Orderic has, in this case, as -in some others, incidentally preserved facts of which we have no -record elsewhere. But I am not anxious strongly to insist upon this. -The general course of the history is the same, whether Margaret had or -had not been betrothed to Malcolm before his marriage――or whatever it -was――with Ingebiorg; it is the same whether Malcolm had or had not -done an act of homage to Robert. And I must allow that, as Orderic has -misunderstood some points at the beginning of the story, so he has -more thoroughly misunderstood some points at the end of the story. For -he makes Malcolm go into England――Florence would have said into -Wessex――with William and Robert; “Deinde reges agmina sua remiserunt, -et ipsi simul in Angliam profecti sunt.” This comes, as we shall -presently see, from rolling together the events of the years 1091 and -1093. - - * * * * * - -The twelve “villæ” which, according to Florence, were to be restored -to Malcolm are, I suppose, the same as the “mansiones” which the kings -of Scots are said to have held in England in times both earlier and -later than those with which we are dealing. This comes from Roger of -Wendover’s account (i. 416; cf. N. C. vol. i. p. 584) of the grant of -Lothian by Eadgar to Kenneth. It was given “hac conditione, ut annis -singulis in festivitatibus præcipuis, quando rex et ejus successores -diadema portarent, venirent ad curiam, et cum cæteris regni -principibus festum cum lætitia celebrarent; dedit insuper ei rex -mansiones in itinere plurimas, ut ipse et ejus successores ad festum -venientes ac denuo revertentes hospitari valuissent, quæ usque in -tempora regis Henrici secundi in potestate regum Scotiæ remanserunt.” -The slighter mention in Florence gives some confirmation to the story -in Roger. And though it was not likely that the King of Scots, or even -the Earl of Lothian, should regularly attend at the great festivals, -yet it was doubtless held that it was the right thing that he should -do so; and we find Malcolm himself coming to the King’s court not long -after (see vol. ii. p. 13), and his son Eadgar after him (see vol. ii. -p. 265). - - * * * * * - -There is not much to be got from the other writers. William of -Malmesbury twice refers to the matter, but as usual without much -regard to chronology. It is seemingly this submission of Malcolm to -which he refers in iii. 250, where, having said that Malcolm, in the -days of the elder William, “incertis et sæpe fractis fœderibus ævum -egit,” adds “filio Willelmi Willelmo regnante, simili modo impetitus, -falso sacramento abegit.” He must also refer to this time in iv. -310-311, where he says that, after the siege of Saint Michael’s Mount, -he went back to England, “quod eum Scottorum et Walensium tumultus -vocabant.” There was (see vol. ii. pp. 78, 79) a considerable -“Walensium tumultus” this year; but it does not seem that the King -himself did anything in those parts till later in his reign. William -however says; - - “Primo contra Walenses, post in Scottos, expeditionem - movens, nihil magnificentia sua dignum exhibuit, militibus - multis desideratis, jumentis interceptis.” - -He then goes on to speak more at large of Welsh matters, and comes -back to speak of the action of Robert in Scotland (see p. 301). The -old friendship which he there speaks of between Malcolm and Robert -falls in with Orderic’s story, and specially with Orderic’s way of -telling it. We shall hear of it again in Notes BB, EE. - -Henry of Huntingdon (vii. 2, p. 216) tells the story thus; - - “Interea Melcolm rex Scotorum prædatum veniens in Angliam - validissime vexavit eam. Venientes igitur in Angliam rex, et - cum eo Robertus frater suus, direxerunt acies in Scotiam. - Itaque Melcolm, nimio terrore perstrictus, homo regis - effectus est et juramento fidelitatis ei subjectus.” Matthew - Paris (Hist. Angl. i. 40) has a wonderful version in which - the invasion is altogether left out. Malcolm, hearing of the - peace between the brothers, begins to fear for his own - kingdom. He therefore comes to William and makes a very - humble homage indeed; “Veniens ad regem Angliæ Willelmum, - humilitate sua regis flexit ferocitatem, asserens se nullum - hostium suorum receptasse vel recepturum fore, nisi tali - intentione, ut ipsos dominum suum recognoscentes, regi, - persuasionibus suis mediantibus, redderet pacificatos et - fideliores.” - - -NOTE R. Vol. i. p. 313. - -THE EARLDOM OF CARLISLE. - -It is certainly a singular fact that, so lately as 1873, a long -controversy raged in the Times newspaper as to the reason why -Cumberland and Westmoreland were not surveyed in Domesday. The dispute -was kept up for some time among men who seemed to have some local -knowledge; but, till Dr. Luard kindly stepped in to set them right, -every reason was guessed at but the true one. No one seemed to grasp -the simple facts, that no part of England was known at the time of the -Survey by the name Cumberland or Westmoreland――that so much of the -shires now bearing those names as then formed part of the kingdom of -England is surveyed under the head of Yorkshire――that the reason why -the rest is left unsurveyed is because it formed no part of the -kingdom of England. The whole matter had long before been thoroughly -sifted and set right by two local writers, who, I am tempted to -suspect, were only one writer; yet the received local confusions were -just as strong as ever. - -The general history of Cumberland, and of this part of it in -particular, was very minutely examined in the Introduction to the -volume published in 1847 by the Society of Antiquaries of -Newcastle-upon-Tyne under the name of “The Pipe-Rolls or Sheriffs’ -Annual Accounts of the Revenues of the Crown for the Counties of -Cumberland, Westmorland, and Durham, during the Reigns of Henry II, -Richard I, and John.” After this, in 1859, a paper was read by Mr. -Hodgson Hinde at the Carlisle meeting of the Archæological Institute, -“On the Early History of Cumberland,” which appeared in the -Archæological Journal, vol. xvi. p. 217. These two essays have pretty -well exhausted the piece of Cumbrian history with which I have now to -deal, and they contain a great deal more with which I am not -concerned. - - * * * * * - -The word _Cumberland_, I need not say, is a word of many meanings, and -at the present moment we have not to do with any of them. We have to -do only with the city and earldom of _Carlisle_, which does not answer -to Cumberland in either the older or the later sense. The confusion -which has immediately to be got rid of is the notion that Carlisle and -its district already formed an English earldom in the time of the -Conqueror. Thus we read in Sir Francis Palgrave (English Commonwealth, -i. 449); - - “‘Cumberland’――for we must now call the Dominion by its - modern appellation――was, as I have observed, retained by the - Conqueror; Malcolm had invaded the country; but he could not - defend the territory against William, who granted Cumberland - to Ranulph de Meschines, one of his Norman followers; and - the border Earldom became wholly assimilated, in its - political character, to the other great baronies of - England…. Carlisle was always excepted from these grants. - The city, and the territory of fifteen miles in circuit, had - become English by Ecgfrid’s donation, and probably was - always held, either by the Kings or Earls of Bernicia or of - Northumbria. Little further is known concerning ‘merry - Carlisle,’ the seat of Arthur’s chivalry. Until the reign of - William Rufus, this city, desolated by the Danes, was almost - void of inhabitants. William completed the restoration of - its walls and towers, which his father had begun.” - -This comes primarily from a passage in the so-called Matthew of -Westminster under the year 1072; - - “Rex Gulihelmus cum grandi exercitu Scotiam ingressus est, - et obviavit ei pacifice Malcolmus rex Scotorum apud Barwicum - et homo suus devenit. His temporibus regebat comitatum - Carleoli comes Ranulphus de Micenis, qui efficax auxilium - præbuit regi Gulihelmo in conquestu suo Angliæ. Hic urbem - Carleoli cœpit ædificare, et cives ejusdem plurimis - privilegiis munire. Sed rediens rex Gulihelmus a Scotia per - Cumbriam, videns tam regale municipium, abstulit illud a - Ranulpho comite, et dedit illi pro eo comitatum Cestriæ, - multis honoribus privilegiatum. Carleolum vero precepit rex - Gulihelmus turribus propugnaculisque muniri firmissimis. Rex - vero Gulihelmus Conquestor in redeundo de Scotia apud - Dunelmum novum ibidem construxit castellum contra - irruptiones Scotorum.” - -There is also printed in the Monasticon, vol. iii. p. 584, a -genealogical document called “Chronicon Cumbriæ,” which comes from the -Register of Wetheral priory. This begins by saying that - - “Rex Willielmus, cognomine Bastardus, dux Normanniæ, - conquestor Angliæ, dedit totam terram de comitatu Cumbriæ - Ranulpho de Meschines, et Galfrido fratri ejusdem Ranulphi - totum comitatum Cestriæ, et Willielmo fratri eorundem terram - de Copland, inter Duden et Darwent.” - -The source of error here is that Matthew of Westminster, so to call -him, mixed up the Scottish expedition of the Conqueror in 1072 with -the Scottish expedition of William Rufus in 1091, and made the -restoration of Carlisle a work of the father and not of the son. He -also brings in Earl Randolf, with whom we are not as yet concerned; -but it is to be noticed that he says nothing about an earldom of -_Cumberland_, but speaks only of an earldom of _Carlisle_. It is only -in the Wetheral document that an earldom of _Cumberland_ is carried -back to the days of the Conqueror. Sir Francis Palgrave failed to -notice this distinction; but he knew his books far too well to pass by -the entries in the Chronicle and Florence under 1092. He therefore -tried to reconcile them with the passages in Matthew of Westminster -and the Wetheral chronicle by supposing an earldom of Cumberland which -did not take in Carlisle and its district. The error and its source -were first pointed out by Lappenberg (ii. 175 of the German original, -p. 234 of Mr. Thorpe’s Anglo-Norman Kings, where, as usual, some of -Lappenberg’s notes and references are left out). Lappenberg notices -the difference between Matthew’s story and Palgrave’s; he suggests -that Matthew has further confounded the events of 1072 and 1092 with -those of 1122; and he gives a summary of the whole matter in the -words; - - “Wichtig aber ist es wahrzunehmen, dass erst Rufus und nicht - sein Vater Cumberland zu einer wirklichen Provinz des - normannischen Englands machte.” - -Here is the root of the matter, so far as we have got rid of the -notion of the Conqueror having done anything at Carlisle or -thereabouts. Still Lappenberg should not have spoken, as I myself -ought not to have spoken (N. C. vol. v. p. 118), of _Cumberland_ now -becoming an English earldom. The district with which we are concerned -forms only a very small part of the old kingdom of Cumberland, while -it does not answer to the modern county of Cumberland, which does not -appear by that name till 1177 (see Pipe Rolls of Cumberland, p. 18; -Archæological Journal, xvi. 230). The land with which we are concerned -bears the name of the city. It is the land and earldom, not of -_Cumberland_, but of _Carlisle_. - -The point to be clearly taken in is that the district with which we -are concerned was not part of England till 1092; more accurately -still, it ceased to be part of England in 685, and became so again in -1092. For those four centuries, Carlisle, city and district, had as -much or as little to do with England as the lands immediately to the -north of it, the lands which formed that part of Cumberland in the -wider sense which became in the end part of the kingdom of Scotland. -This district of Carlisle does not answer to any modern shire, and it -is of course not surveyed in Domesday. But it does answer to the -diocese of Carlisle, as it stood before late changes. That diocese -took in part of modern Cumberland and part of modern Westmoreland. The -rest of those shires, with Lancashire north of Ribble and the -wapentake of Ewecross (Pipe Rolls, p. xlii), formed the Domesday -district of Agemundreness (see Domesday, 301 _b_), forming part of -Yorkshire, as it formed part of York diocese till the changes under -Henry the Eighth. Mr. Hinde suggests (Arch. Journal, xvi. 227) that -this district was conquered by Earl Eadwulf, the great enemy of the -Britons (see N. C. vol. i. p. 526), a position which it might be hard -either to prove or to disprove. Before the death of Henry the First, -the Carlisle district was divided into two shires, Carlisle and -Westmoreland (_Chaerleolium_ and _Westmarieland_, Pipe Roll Hen. I. -pp. 140, 143). This last consisted of the barony of Appleby, specially -known as Westmoreland. Enlarged by the barony of Kirkby Kendal in -Yorkshire, it became the modern county of Westmoreland. So the shire -of Carlisle took the name of _Cumberland_ in 1177, and, enlarged by -the part of Yorkshire north of the Duddon, it became the modern county -of Cumberland. But these added lands remained part of the diocese of -York, till Henry the Eighth removed them to his diocese of Chester. -This last diocese must not be confounded with the diocese of -Chester――otherwise of Lichfield or Coventry――with which we have to do -in our story. That diocese did not reach north of the Ribble, and its -seat at Chester was in Saint John’s minster, while the new see of -Henry the Eighth was planted in Saint Werburh’s. - -The earldom of Carlisle brings us among old acquaintances. It was -granted early in the reign of Henry the First (see Arch. Journal, xvi. -230, 231) to Randolf called Meschines, _de Micenis_, and other forms, -who in 1118 became Earl of Chester, on the death of Earl Richard in -the White Ship (see N. C. vol. v. p. 195), on which he gave up -Carlisle. He died in 1129, being the second husband of the younger -Lucy (see N. C. vol. ii. p. 682; vol. iii. p. 778), daughter of Ivo -Taillebois. Ivo himself, at some time after the drawing up of Domesday -(Carlisle Pipe Rolls, p. xliii) appears in the same part of the world -as lord of Kirkby Kendal. After 1118 the earldom of Carlisle or -Cumberland remained in the crown, till it was granted to David of -Scotland in 1136 (see N. C. vol. v. p. 259). - -The name of the city and earldom of Carlisle is the best comment on -its history. Alone among the names of English cities, it remains -purely British, not only in its root, but, so to speak, in its -grammar. The British idiom, I need hardly say, places the qualifying -word second; the Teutonic idiom places it first. Thus _Caer Gwent_ and -_Caer Glovi_ have become _Winchester_ and _Gloucester_. But _Caer -Luel_ has not changed; it remains _Carlisle_, and has not become -something like _Lilchester_. The reason is doubtless because the first -English occupation of Caer Luel did not last long enough to give it a -lasting English name. In 1092 nomenclature had lost the life which it -had in 685, and a foreign tongue moreover had the upper hand. No one -then thought of turning the name of Carlisle about, any more than of -doing so by the names of Cardiff (Caerdydd), Caermarthen, or the -Silurian _Caerwent_ and _Caerleon_. - - * * * * * - -As for the colonists brought from the south, I have assumed them to be -a strictly Saxon element added to the already mixed population of the -border. And there may have been a Flemish element too, as I was -inclined to think when I wrote N. C. vol. v. p. 119. The point is not -of much importance, as the two kindred elements would easily fuse -together; but it strikes me now that, if any part of the settlers had -come from beyond sea, the Chronicler would not have so calmly spoken -of them as churlish folk from the south. That phrase however is one -well worthy of notice. The words “hider suð” can hardly have been -written at Peterborough. That abbey certainly lies a long way south of -Carlisle; but Peterborough would hardly speak of itself in this -general way as “south.” (In 1051 Worcester, which lies south of -Peterborough, counted itself to be “at this north end”――“ofer ealre -þisne norð ende” says the Worcester Chronicle. See N. C. vol. ii. p. -620.) The suggestion that these “churlish folk” (“multi villani” in -the translation in the Waverley Annals) were the men who had lost -their lands at the making of the New Forest has high authority in its -favour. It seems to have been first made by Palgrave (English -Commonwealth, i. 450), and it is supported by Lappenberg (ii. 175, -Thorpe 235). Still it is a simple guess, and I cannot say that to my -own mind it has any air even of likelihood. It arises, it seems to me, -from an exaggerated notion of the amount of havoc done at the making -of the New Forest, combined with a forgetfulness of the time which had -passed since that event. We cannot fix its exact date, but the Survey -shows that whatever was done in the New Forest, much or little was -fully done before 1085, and we are now in 1092. - - * * * * * - -The earliest official notice of Carlisle and Westmoreland, the Pipe -Roll of the 31st year of Henry the First, contains several interesting -entries. The city wall was building. There are entries, “in -operationibus civitatis de Caerleolio, videlicet in muro circa -civitatem faciendo” (p. 140), “in operatione muri civitatis de -Caerleolio” (p. 141), and (p. 142) “in liberatione vigilis turris de -Penuesel,” which needs a local expounder. Both in this roll and in the -rolls under Henry the Second we notice a mixture of personal -nomenclature, Norman, Danish, English, and Scottish, which is just -what we should look for. Distinctly British names I do not see. In the -first few pages of the roll of 1156 we find at least three Gospatrics. -One is very fittingly the son of Orm; another is the son of Beloc (6), -whose nationality may be doubted; a third is the son of Mapbennoc, a -clear Pict or Scot. So again we have Uhtred son of Fergus (p. 5), -William son of Holdegar, Æthelward [Ailward] son of Dolfin, hardly the -dispossessed prince. Swegen son of Æthelric [Sweinus fil. Alrici] in -the roll of Henry the First (142) is a local man; but Henry son of -Swegen, who comes often under Henry the Second, is the unlucky -descendant of Robert son of Wymarc. See N. C. vol. iv. p. 735. There -are a good many entries about the canons of Saint Mary of Carlisle who -were founded before the bishopric, in 1102 (see Haddan and Stubbs, ii. -13). There is a notice in 1156 (p. 3) of the Bishop of Candida Casa or -Whithern. That see was (Haddan and Stubbs, ii. 25) revived about 1127, -as suffragan of York, and 1156 is the date of the death of Æthelwulf -the first Bishop of Carlisle. - - -NOTE S. Vol. i. p. 329. - -THE EARLY LIFE OF RANDOLF FLAMBARD. - -I quoted some of the passages bearing on the early life of Randolf -Flambard in N. C. vol. iv. p. 521. I mentioned there that he had a -brother named Osbern, who appears in the Abingdon History. He had -another brother Fulcher, of whom we shall hear again. See Ord. Vit. -788 D, and vol. ii. p. 416. He had also a son Thomas. I do not feel -quite so sure as I did then, or as Dr. Stubbs seems to be (Const. -Hist. i. 348), that he really did hold lands in England T. R. E. The -entry which looks like it is the second of the three in Domesday, 51, -which stands thus in full; - - “Isdem Ranulfus tenuit in ipsa villa i. hidam, et pro tanto - se defendebat T. R. E. modo est tota in foresta exceptis - iiii. acris prati terra fuit iiii. carucatarum. Hæ duæ terræ - valebant iiii. libras.” - -It appears then that Flambard lost the arable part of this hide at the -making of the New Forest, as he also lost another hide, with the same -exception of four acres of meadow, which had been held T. R. E. by one -Alwold. A third hide, of which it is said that “duo alodiarii -tenuerunt,” he kept, as well as his holdings in Oxford and -Oxfordshire. Dr. Stubbs suggests that these lands were “possibly -acquired in the service of the Norman Bishop William of London.” Sir -F. Palgrave (England and Normandy, iv. 52) makes the most of this -despoiling of a Norman holder. But I am not clear that the words of -the entry which I have given in full necessarily imply that the land -was held by Flambard himself T. R. E. And, if we need not suppose -this, his story becomes a great deal simpler. Above all, we need no -longer suppose that a man who lived till 1128, and whose mother was -living in 1100 (see vol. ii. p. 398), had made himself of importance -enough to receive grants of land at some time before 1066. - - * * * * * - -The account of Flambard which is given by Orderic (678 C) would -certainly not suggest that he had been in England in the time of -Eadward; - - “Hic de obscura satis et paupere parentela prodiit, et - multum ultra natales suos ad multorum detrimentum sublimatus - intumuit. Turstini cujusdum plebeii presbyteri de pago - Bajocensi filius fuit, et a puerilibus annis inter - pedissequos curiales cum vilibus parasitis educatus crevit, - callidisque tergiversationibus et argutis verborum - machinationibus plusquam arti literatoriæ studuit. Et quia - semetipsum in curia magni regis Guillermi arroganter - illustribus præferre ardebat, nesciente non jussus, multa - inchoabat, infestus in aula regis plures procaciter - accusabat, temereque majoribus quasi regia vi fultus - imperabat.” - -It is not easy to reconcile this with the version which makes Flambard -pass into the King’s service from that of Bishop Maurice, who did not -become bishop till Christmas, 1085. The story of his service with -Maurice appears in the account of him which is printed in Anglia Sacra -(i. 705), and also along with Simeon (249 ed. Bedford, and X Scriptt. -59). It is much more likely that the name of the bishop should be -wrongly given than that his service with some bishop of London should -be mere invention. If so, he may have passed into the service of the -Conqueror at almost any time of his reign, while still so young that -it becomes an easy exaggeration on the part of Orderic to say that he -was in the King’s service from his childhood. The passage in the Life -which continues Simeon stands thus; - - “Fuerat autem primo cum Mauritio Lundoniensi episcopo; sed - propter decaniam sibi ablatam orto discidio, spe altioris - loci se transtulit ad regem.” - -This must surely refer to something which really happened; and in the -Register of Christchurch Twinham (Mon. Angl. vi. 303) we distinctly -read of Flambard, “qui Randulphus antea fuerat decanus in ecclesia -Christi de Twynham.” But this is directly followed by another extract -from the same register which denies that the heads of the church of -Twinham ever bore the title of dean, and which connects Flambard with -Twinham in quite another way. According to this story, there were at -Twinham in the time of William Rufus twenty-four canons under a chief -named Godric (“Hunc Godricum sui tunc temporis clerici, non pro -decano, quasi nominis ignorantes, sed pro seniore ac patrono -venerabantur”). Flambard, already bishop of Durham, obtains a grant of -Twinham and its church from William Rufus (“Randulfus episcopus hanc -ecclesiam cum villa a rege Willielmo impetravit”). If I rightly -understand a very corrupt text, Flambard enriches the church and -designs to rebuild it, and then to put in monks instead of canons; -meanwhile he keeps the prebends vacant as they fall in. This Godric -opposes; but in the end Flambard rebuilds the church, and keeps the -prebends in his own hands till there are only thirteen left. Then -comes his own banishment, and the grant of the church to one Gilbert -de Dousgunels, after which Flambard seems to have had nothing more to -do with it. - -It is odd that so many prebends should have become vacant in the -single year during which Flambard held the bishopric for the first -time, and one would not have expected him to have been a favourer of -monks. But I can get no other meaning out of the words “cupiens et -disponens … præfatam ecclesiam … funditus eruere, et meliorem -decentioremque cuilibet ædificare religioni.” What comes after seems -plainer still; - - “Fregit episcopus illius loci primitivam ecclesiam, novemque - alias quæ infra cimiterium steterant, cum quorundam domibus - canonicorum prope locum ecclesiæ cimiterii, et officinarum - compenciorem [?] faciendum et canonicis in villa congruum - immutationem [sic] ut dominus adaptavit locum. Fundavit - equidem hanc ecclesiam episcopus Randulfus quæ nunc est apud - Twynham, et domos et officinas cuilibet religioni. Obeunte - canonicorum aliquo, ejus beneficium in sua retinebat - potestate, nulli tribuens alii, volens unamquamque dare - præbendam religioni, si eos omnes mortis fortuna in suo - tulisset tempore.” - -Now all this can hardly have happened between Flambard’s consecration -in 1099 and his imprisonment in 1100. But he may have had the grant of -Twinham before he was bishop. Again, in two charters (Mon. Angl. vi. -304), granted by the elder Baldwin of Redvers, we hear of deans of -Twinham and of “Ranulfus decanus,” which seems to mean Flambard -himself. The lands of the canons of Twinham are entered in Domesday, -44; but there is no mention of Flambard. - -We thus have the absolutely certain fact that Flambard held lands near -Twinham. In two independent sources he is said to have been dean of -Twinham. In another independent source he is said to have held and -lost some deanery not named. In yet another story he is described, not -as dean of Twinham, but as doing great things at Twinham in another -character. These accounts cannot literally be reconciled; but they -certainly point to a connexion of some kind between him and the church -of Twinham. - -We must indeed mourn the loss of the primitive church of Twinham with -its nine surrounding chapels, something like Glendalough or -Clonmacnois. The nave of the present church may well be Flambard’s -work; but it has no special likeness to his work at Durham. But this -may only prove that he built it before he went to Durham, and there -learned the improvements in architecture which had been brought in by -William of Saint-Calais (see N. C. vol. v. p. 631). The seculars of -Twinham made way for Austin canons about 1150. - -While speaking of Twinham, I must correct a statement which I made -long ago with regard to one of the chief worthies of my earlier story. -I said (N. C. vol. ii. p. 33) that Earl Godwine was “nowhere enrolled -among the founders or benefactors of any church, religious or -secular.” I find him enrolled among the benefactors of Twinham. And -here again we mark that, as with his wife (see N. C. vol. ii. p. 358) -and his son, his bounty goes to the seculars. The passage, in one of -the charters of the elder Baldwin of Redvers granted to Hilary Dean of -Twinham (Mon. Angl. vi. 304), stands thus; - - “Ecclesiam de Stoppele cum omnibus quæ ad eam spectant; unam - virgatam terræ cum appendiciis in eadem villa _ex dono - Godwini comitis_, quam Orricus de Stanton eidem Christi - ecclesiæ violenter surripuit.” - -I cannot identify this “Orricus de Stanton” in Domesday, nor do I know -anything as to the genuineness of the charter. But no one in the -twelfth century or later would be likely to invent a benefaction of -Earl Godwine. - - * * * * * - -Orderic, in the passage quoted above (678 C), distinctly speaks of -Randolf as having been in the service of the Conqueror, and it must -have been in his court that he got the surname which, in so many -forms, has stuck to him, and which we find even in Domesday (see N. C. -vol. iv. p. 521). The way in which he came by it is thus -described――his false accusations have just been mentioned; - - “Unde a Roberto dispensatore regio Flambardus cognominatus - est, quod vocabulum ei secundum mores ejus et actus quasi - prophetice collatum est. Flamma quippe ardens multis factis - intulit genti novos ritus, quibus crudeliter oppressit - populorum cœtus, et ecclesiæ cantus temporales mutavit in - planctus.” - -In this last piece of rhetoric we seem to lose the real reason why he -was called _Flambard_, which is not very clear: still less do we get -any explanation of the form “_Passe_flambard.” Lappenberg (ii. 167) -says “er habe den Beinamen von der Fackel wegen seiner schon früh -bewährten Habsucht erhalten.” But one has some fellow-feeling with his -translator (225)――if he would only have written English to match -Lappenberg’s German――“It is not easy to conceive how the sobriquet of -_Flambeau_ could be given to an individual on account of his -covetousness.” Nor is it quite clear that it is covetousness strictly -so called of which Orderic speaks. He says elsewhere (786 D); “Erat -sollers et facundus, et, licet crudelis et iracundus, largus tamen et -plerumque jocundus, et ob hoc plerisque gratus et amandus.” - -In a letter to Pope Paschal (Epp. iv. 2) Anselm seems quite carried -out of his usual mildness of speech by the thought of Flambard, -especially by the thought of his being made a bishop. The letter must -have been written just after Paschal and Flambard had received their -several promotions. We get the same derivation of the name as in our -other extracts; “Quando de Anglia exivi, erat ibi quidem professione -sacerdos [see p. 330], non solum publicanus, sed etiam publicanorum -princeps infamissimus, nomine Ranulphus, propter crudelitatem similem -flammæ comburenti, promine Flambardus; cujus flamma qualis sit, non in -Anglia solum, sed in exteris regnis longe lateque innotuit.” - -Lappenberg, in the passage quoted above, refers to Thierry’s wonderful -account of Flambard (ii. 141); - - “Renouf Flambard, évêque de Lincoln, autrefois valet de pied - chez les ducs de Normandie, commettait, dans son diocèse, de - tels brigandages, que les habitants souhaitaient de mourir, - dit un ancien historien, plutôt que de vivre sous sa - puissance.” - -I cannot find that Thierry speaks of Flambard anywhere else. The -“valet de pied” must come from the bit in Orderic about the -“pedissequi curiales.” The rest, including the wonderful confusion -which makes him bishop of Lincoln, comes, as Lappenberg points out, -from a passage in the Winchester Annals, 1092 (cf. 1097), which I -shall presently have to refer to. But it is really amazing that -Flambard’s loss of property in the New Forest did not cause him to be -brought in at some stage or other as an oppressed Saxon. - - -NOTE T. Vol. i. p. 333. - -THE OFFICIAL POSITION OF RANDOLF FLAMBARD. - -The exact formal position held by Flambard under William Rufus has in -some measure to be guessed at, as the rhetoric of our authorities -sometimes veils such matters in rather vague language. Thus his -biographer (Anglia Sacra, i. 706) describes him; - - “Admixtus enim causis regaliorum negotiorum, cum esset - acrioris ingenii et promptioris linguæ, brevi in tantum - excrevit ut adepta apud regem familiaritas totius Angliæ - potentes et natu quoque nobiliores illum superferret. Totius - namque regni procurator constitutus, interdum insolentius - accepta abutens potestate, cum negotiis regis pertinacius - insisteret, plures offendere parvi pendebat. Quæ res - multorum ei invidiam et odium contraxerat. Crebris - accusationibus serenum animi regalis ei obnubilare, et locum - familiaritatis conabantur interrumpere.” - -Here we have a vague description of a position of great influence, -without the bestowal of any official title whatever. Orderic (678 B), -in first introducing him, comes somewhat nearer to a formal -description; - - “His temporibus quidam clericus nomine Rannulfus - familiaritatem Rufi regis adeptus est, et super omnes regios - officiales ingeniosis accusationibus et multifariis - adulationibus magistratum a rege consecutus est.” - -What then was the formal description of this office which set its -holder above all other officers of the King? Lappenberg (ii. 168, p. -226 of the English translation) and Stubbs (Const. Hist. i. 347) both -rule, and seemingly with good reason, that the office held by Flambard -was really that of Justiciar. Official names were at this time still -used so vaguely that it seems to be only in another passage of Orderic -(786 C, see p. 559) that he is directly called so; but, as Lappenberg -says, his office is distinctly marked by the words of the Chronicler -(1099), when he says that the King “Rannulfe his capellane þæt -biscoprice on Dunholme geaf þe æror ealle his gemot ofer eall -Engleland draf and bewiste.” The same office seems to be meant when -Florence (1100) says, “Cujus astutia et calliditas tam vehemens -extitit, et parvo tempore adeo excrevit, ut _placitatorem_ ac totius -regni _exactorem_ rex illum constitueret.” Henry of Huntingdon uses -the same word, when (vii. 21, p. 232 ed. Arnold) he seems to be -translating the entry in the Chronicle; “Anno illo [1099] rex Ranulfo -_placitatori_ sed perversori, _exactori_ sed exustori, totius Angliæ, -dedit episcopatum Dunhelme.” Florence himself, in his entry under the -same year, calls him “Rannulfus, quem negotiorum totius regni -_exactorem_ constituerat.” (In 1094 he is “Rannulphus _Passe_flambardus.”) -Dr. Stubbs (Const. Hist. i. 348) remarks that these “expressions -recall the ancient identity of the _gerefa_ with the _exactor_, and -suggest that one part of the royal policy was to entrust the functions -which had belonged to the præfectus or high steward to a clerk or -creature of the court.” In the Gesta Pontificum (274) William of -Malmesbury, like the Biographer, calls him “totius regni -_procurator_;” in Eadmer (Hist. Nov. 20), he is more vaguely “Ranulfus -regiæ voluntatis maximus _executor_.” - -We have seen that Randolf Flambard was a priest (see above, p. 556), -and he is spoken of in a marked way as the King’s chaplain. His -biographer (Angl. Sac. i. 706) says that “propter quandam apud regem -excellentiam, singulariter nominabatur capellanus regis.” And we have -seen that he is so called in the Chronicle. The word is found in only -one other place in the Chronicle, namely in 1114, where it is said of -Thurstan Archbishop of York, “Se wæs æror þæs cynges capelein.” We -must remember that, with all the Red King’s impiety and blasphemy, he -seems never to have formally renounced the fellowship of Christians, -as he was never formally cut off from it. But his choice of an -immediate spiritual adviser is at least characteristic. - - * * * * * - -Some of the passages describing the administration of Flambard are of -special importance. That given by William of Malmesbury (iv. 314) I -have had occasion to quote piecemeal; but it may be well to give it as -a whole; - - “Accessit regiæ menti fomes cupiditatum, Ranulfus clericus, - ex infimo genere hominum lingua et calliditate provectus ad - summum. Is, si quando edictum regium processisset ut - nominatum tributum Anglia penderet, duplum adjiciebat, - expilator divitum, exterminator pauperum, confiscator - alienarum hæreditatum. Invictus causidicus, et tum verbis - tum rebus immodicus, juxta in supplices ut in rebelles - furens; subinde cachinnantibus quibusdam ac dicentibus,” &c. - -The last words of this extract are of special importance (see p. 332). -Florence (1100) speaks to much the same effect; “Tanta potestate -adepta, ubique locorum per Angliam ditiores ac locupletiores quosdam, -rerum terrarumque ablatione, multavit, pauperiores autem gravi -injustoque tributo incessanter oppressit, multisque modis, et ante -episcopatum et in episcopatu, majores et minores communiter afflixit, -et hoc usque ad regis ejusdem obitum.” - -Orderic, in his second description (786 C), thus speaks of him; - - “Hic nimirum de plebeia stirpe progressus Guillelmo Rufo - admodum adulatus est, et machinationibus callidis illi - favens super omnes regni optimates ab illo sublimatus est. - Summus regiarum procurator opum et justitiarius factus est, - et innumeris crudelitatibus frequenter exercitatis exosus, - et pluribus terribilis factus est. Ipse vero contractis - undique opibus, et ampliatis honoribus, nimis locupletatus - est, et usque ad pontificale stemma, quamvis pene - illiteratus esset, non merito religionis, sed potentia - seculari provectus est. Sed quia mortalis vitæ potentia - nulla longa est, interempto rege suo, ut veternus patriæ - deprædator a novo rege incarceratus est.” - -Henry imprisons him, he goes on to say, “pro multis enim injuriis, -quibus ipsum Henricum aliosque regni filios, tam pauperes quam -divites, vexaverat, multisque modis crebro afflictos irreverenter -contristaverat.” The tradition of him in later times remained to the -same effect, as we see by the description of him in Roger of Wendover -(ii. 165), which is copied with some improvements by Matthew Paris -(Hist. Angl. i. 182); - - “Tenuit autem eo tempore rex in custodia Ranulphum, - episcopum Dunelmensem, hominem perversum et ad omne scelus - pronum et paratum, quem frater ejus rex Willelmus episcopum - fecerat Dunelmensem et regni Angliæ _apporriatorem_ et - potius subversorem, nam vir fuit cavillosus. Qui cum regi - jam dicto nimis fuisset familiaris, constituerat eum rex - W[illelmus], quia quilibet sibi similes quærit questores, - procuratorem suum in regno, ut evelleret, destrueret, - raperet et disperderet, et omnia omnium bona ad fisci - commodum comportaret.” - -In this extract the “apporriator,” a queer word enough, but the -meaning of which is plain, the “vir cavillosus,” and the “quæstores,” -all come from Matthew’s own mint. - - * * * * * - -The Biographer of the Durham bishops has a story to tell of Flambard -at this time of his life. Some of those who had suffered by his false -accusations and his other devices, seemingly persons about the court, -make a plan to get rid of him altogether. A certain Gerald undertakes -the task. He meets the Chaplain――Flambard is so called in a marked way -throughout the story――in London, and tells him a feigned tale that his -old master Bishop Maurice is lying at the point of death in one of his -houses on the banks of the Thames――Stepney perhaps; it cannot be -Fulham (see Domesday, 127 _b_) as the story shows――and wishes greatly -to see Flambard once more before he dies. He himself had been sent by -the Bishop with a boat to bring him with the more speed. Flambard, -suspecting no harm, enters the boat with a few followers. The boat -goes down the river to a distance which puzzles the Chaplain, who is -put off with false excuses. At last he sees a larger vessel anchored -in the middle of the stream, and clearly waiting for his coming. He -now understands the plot. He is carried into the ship, which he finds -full of armed men. With admirable presence of mind, he drops his ring, -and his notary (“notarius suus”) drops his seal (“sigillum illius”), -into the middle of the river――somewhat after the manner of James the -Second――that they may not be used to give currency to any forged -documents (“ne per hæc ubique locorum per Angliam cognita, simulata -præcepta hostibus decipientibus transmissa rerum perturbarent -statum”). Then his men are allowed to go on shore, on taking an oath -that they will tell no one that their lord has been carried off. The -ship puts out to sea, and presently goes with full sail southward. The -Chaplain sits in the stern, while the sailors debate what kind of -death he shall die. Two sons of Belial are chosen, who, for the wages -of the fine clothes which Flambard has on, will either throw him into -the sea or brain him with clubs (“Eliguntur duo filii Belial, qui -illum in fluctus projicerent, vel fracto fustibus cerebro enecarent, -habituri pretium sceleris optimas quibus tunc indutus fuerat vestes”). -The would-be murderers dispute who shall have his mantle, and this -delay saves his life. By this time the wind changes; a storm comes -from the south, night comes on, the ship is dashed about hither and -thither; there is no hope save to try to go back in the direction by -which they have come. At this point they again debate the question of -Flambard’s death. There is now a fear lest he should escape and avenge -the wrong done to him. But, as is usual in such stories, one was found -who was of milder mood; his name is not given, but he held the place -in the ship next after Gerald (“quidam secundus in navi a Geraldo -tantum exhorrens scelus”). He is struck with remorse; he confesses his -crime to Flambard, and says that, if he will grant him his pardon, he -will do what he can for him and stand by him as his companion in life -or death. Then Flambard, whose spirit we are told always rose with -danger, speaks to Gerald in a loud voice; Gerald is his man, whose -faith is pledged to him; he will not prosper if he ventures on such a -crime as this (“Tunc ille, sicut magnanimus semper erat in periculis, -ingenti clamore vociferans, quid tu, inquit, Geralde, cogitas? Quid de -nobis machinaris? Homo meus es; fidem mihi debes; hanc violare non -tibi cedet in prosperum”). He calls on him to give up his wicked -purpose; let him name his reward, and he shall have it; he will give -him his hand as a sign of his own good faith (“Pete quantum volueris. -Ego sum qui plura petitis præstare potero; et ne discredas promissis, -ecce manu affirmo quod polliceor”). Gerald, having less faith in his -promises than fear of his power, agrees. He goes back to the haven, -and receives Flambard in his own house near the shore (“Ille non tam -promissis illectus, quam potentia viri exterritus, consentit, -eductumque de navi jam in portum repulsa honorifico in sua domo quæ -litori prominebat procuravit apparatu”). But, still not trusting -Flambard, he took himself off for ever (“Nequaquam credulus -promissorum fugæ præsidium iniens æterno disparuit exilio”). Flambard -goes back to London with a great array (“Ranulphus vero accitis -undique militibus multa armatorum manu grandique strepitu deducitur -Lundoniam”). All are amazed to see him whom they had believed to be -dead. He takes his old place in the King’s counsels; he rises higher -in the King’s favour than ever, and no man dares to form any more -schemes against him as long as the King lives. - -There seems no reason why this story should not be true; true or -false, it is characteristic. Just as in the later case of Thomas of -London, we see the greatness to which men of the class of Randolf -Flambard could rise――their wealth, power and splendour, their numerous -and even knightly following. One is tempted to ask something more -about Gerald the author of this daring plot against Flambard’s life. -Except that he is said to have gone away for ever, one would be -tempted to think that he must be the same as Gerard――the two names are -easily confounded――afterwards Bishop of Hereford and Archbishop of -York, a man seemingly of much the same class and disposition as -Flambard himself, and who appears (see pp. 524, 543) as a ready -instrument of the will of William Rufus. - - -NOTE U. Vol. i. p. 332. - -THE ALLEGED DOMESDAY OF RANDOLF FLAMBARD. - -I suppose that the story about a new Survey of England, to which Sir -Francis Palgrave attached such great importance, may be held to be set -aside by the remarks of Dr. Stubbs, Const. Hist. i. 302, 348. He rules -that in all likelihood Flambard had a hand in the real Domesday, and -that Orderic simply made a mistake as to the date, which he is not at -all unlikely to have done. Long before Dr. Stubbs wrote, I had come to -the conclusion that the story in Orderic, as it stood, could not be -accepted. It is found in Orderic’s first account of Flambard (678 C), -where he tells us that he persuaded William Rufus to make a new Survey -of England. He measured, we are told, by the rope――according, as it -would seem, to the measure of Normandy instead of the measure of -England――in order in some way to increase the King’s revenue. The -words stand thus; - - “Hic juvenem fraudulentis stimulationibus inquietavit regem, - incitans ut totius Angliæ reviseret descriptionem, - Anglicæque telluris comprobans iteraret partitionem, - subditisque recideret, tam advenis quam indigenis, quicquid - inveniretur ultra certam dimensionem. Annuente rege, omnes - carucatas quas Angli hidas vocant, funiculo mensus est et - descripsit; postpositisque mensuris quas liberales Angli - jussu Eduardi regis largiter distribuerant imminuit, et - regales fiscos accumulans colonis arva retruncavit. Ruris - itaque olim diutius nacti diminutione et insoliti vectigalis - gravi exaggeratione, supplices regiæ fidelitati plebes - indecenter oppressit, ablatis rebus attenuavit, et in nimiam - egestatem de ingenti copia redegit.” - -I do not profess to know exactly what Flambard is here supposed to -have done. Sir Francis Palgrave goes into the matter at some length, -both in his English Commonwealth (ii. ccccxlvii) and in his History of -Normandy (iv. 59). If I rightly understand his meaning, the _carucata_ -in the valuation of the Conqueror was not an unvarying amount of the -earth’s surface, but differed according to the nature of the land. A -carucate of good land would consist of fewer acres than a carucate of -bad. Flambard, we are to understand, measured out the land by the rope -into carucates of equal size, and exacted from each the full measure -of the geld. That is to say, an estate consisting mainly of poor land -would be reckoned at many more carucates, and therefore would have to -pay a much higher tax, than it had before. I do not say that this may -not be the meaning; but the words of Orderic read to me as if they -applied to an actual taking away of land, as well as to a mere -increase in its taxation. One might almost fancy that, if a man had -land of greater extent than answered to his number of carucates -according to the new reckoning, the overplus was treated as land to -which he had no legal claim, and was therefore confiscated to the -crown. But the real question is whether anything of the kind happened -at all. It is not mentioned by any writer except Orderic, and it is -the kind of thing about which Orderic in his Norman monastery might -not be very well informed. It should be remembered, as Lappenberg (ii. -168 of the original, 226 of the English translation) remarks, that -Orderic makes no distinct mention of the real Domesday Survey, and -this statement may very well have arisen from a confusion between the -great Survey of the Conqueror and some of the local surveys of which -there were many. Sir Francis Palgrave believed that he had found a -piece of Flambard’s Domesday in an ancient lieger-book of Evesham -abbey, which the mention of Samson Bishop of Worcester fixes to some -date between 1096 and 1112. Of the genuineness of the document there -is no doubt; but I cannot see, any more than Lappenberg did, any -reason for supposing it to be anything more than a local survey. The -passage printed by Sir Francis Palgrave, which he compares with the -corresponding part of the Exchequer Domesday――to which it certainly -has no likeness――relates wholly to the two towns of Gloucester and -Winchcombe, so that it gives no means of seeing whether the number of -carucates in any particular estate differs in the two reckonings. - -I cannot believe with Lappenberg that “Henricus comes,” who appears -among a crowd of not very exalted people as the owner of one burgess -at Gloucester, is the future King; it is surely Henry Earl of Warwick. - -Dr. Stubbs, while rejecting Orderic’s story altogether, further -rejects Sir Francis Palgrave’s explanation of it. He merely hints that -Orderic “may refer to a substitution of the short hundred for the long -in the reckoning of the hide of land.” But it is safer to look, as he -does, on the whole story as a misapprehension. - -Of this way of measuring by the rope――whence the _Rapes_ in -Sussex――several examples are collected by Maurer, Einleitung zur -Geschichte der Mark- Hof- Dorf- und Stadtverfassung, 72. 135. Cf. -Herodotus, vii. 23; ὤρυσσον δὲ ὧδε· δασάμενοι τὸν χῶρον οἱ βάρβαροι -κατὰ ἔθνεα, κατὰ Σάνην πόλιν σχοινοτενὲς ποιησάμενοι. [ôrysson de -hôde; dasamenoi ton chôron hoi barbaroi kata ethnea, kata Sanên polin -schoinotenes poiêsamenoi.] In Sussex itself we have (see above, p. 68) -the story of the measuring of the _lowy_ of Lewes by the rope, which -is at least more likely than the story told by the same writer (Will. -Gem. viii. 15) that the earldom of Hereford passed in this way to -Roger of Breteuil; “Cui comitatus Herefordi funiculo distributionis -evenit.” - -The practice, in short, was so familiar that in the Glossary of -Rabanus Maurus (Eckhardt, Rer. Franc. Or. ii. 963) “funiculum” is -explained by _lantmarcha_ (cf. Du Cange in “funiculus”). So Suger (c. -15, Duchèsne, iv. 296) says how the Epte “antiquo fune geometricali -Francorum et Danorum concorditer metito collimitat.” - - -NOTE W. Vol. i. p. 337. - -THE DEALINGS OF WILLIAM RUFUS WITH VACANT BISHOPRICS AND ABBEYS. - -The chief point to be insisted on is that the appropriation of the -revenues of vacant bishoprics and abbeys by the King was an innovation -of William Rufus on the suggestion of Flambard. Such a thing may -possibly have happened before, though I am not prepared at this moment -with an instance; but, if so, it was merely a case of the irregular -way in which Church property, and all property, was often dealt with -by those who had the power. It was not a logical deduction from any -legal principle, such as it at once became when Flambard had -established the doctrine that the greater Church benefices were fiefs -held of the King by military service. The passage in the Chronicle -which I have quoted at p. 348 does not say in so many words that the -practice was an invention of Rufus or his minister, though the tone of -the passage certainly implies that their doings were something new. -Other writers speak more distinctly. - -Next in authority to the Chronicler comes Eadmer, who is naturally -full on the subject. He tells us in detail (Hist. Nov. 14) how Rufus -dealt with the Church of Canterbury after the death of Lanfranc, -speaking more lightly of other cases as being of the same kind; - - “Cuncta quæ juris illius erant, intus et extra per clientes - suos describi præcepit, taxatoque victu monachorum inibi Deo - servientium, reliqua sub censu atque in suum dominum redigi - jussit. Fecit ergo ecclesiam Christi venalem: jus in ea - dominandi præ cæteris illi tribuens, qui ad detrimentum ejus - in dando pretium alium superabat. Unde misera successione - singulis annis pretium renovabatur. Nullam siquidem - conventionem Rex stabilem esse sinebat, sed qui plura - promittebat excludebat minus dantem; nisi forte ad id quod - posterior offerebat, prima conventione vacuata, prior - assurgeret. Videres insuper quotidie, spreta servorum Dei - religione, quosque nefandissimos hominum regias pecunias - exigentes per claustra monasterii torvo et minaci vultu - procedere, hinc inde præcipere, minas intentare, - dominationem potentiamque suam in immensum ostentare.” - -He goes on to tell of the sufferings of the monks and of their lay -tenants; - - “Quidam ipsi ecclesiæ monachi malis ingruentibus dispersi ac - missi sunt ad alia monasteria, et qui relicti multas passi - tribulationes et improperia. Quid de hominibus ecclesiæ - dicam qui tam vasta miseria miseraque vastatione sunt - attriti, ut dubitarem, si sequentia mala non essent, an - salva vita illorum possent miserius atteri.” - -He then mentions the like dealings with other churches, and adds the -emphatic words; - - “Et quidem ipse primus hanc luctuosam oppressionem ecclesiis - Dei indixit, nullatenus eam ex paterna traditione excipiens. - Destitutas ergo ecclesias solus in dominio suo tenebat. Nam - alium neminem præter se substituere volebat quamdiu per suos - ministros aliquid quod cujusvis pretii duceret ab eis - extrahere poterat.” - -William of Malmesbury (iv. 314) is no less distinct as to the -difference between the practice of the two Williams, and as to the -agency of Flambard. Having given his character of him (see above, p. -558) he goes on; - - “Hoc auctore sacri ecclesiarum honores, mortuis pastoribus, - venum locati; namque audita morte cujuslibet episcopi vel - abbatis, confestim clericus regis eo mittebatur, quo omnia - inventa scripto exciperet, omnesque in posterum redditus - fisco regio inferret. Interea quærebatur quis in loco - defuncti idoneus substitueretur, non pro morum sed pro - nummorum experimento; dabaturque tandem honor, ut ita dicam, - nudus, magno tamen emptus.” - -He then goes on to contrast in a marked way the conduct of Rufus in -these matters with that of his father; “Hæc eo indigniora videbantur, -quod, tempore patris, post decessum episcopi vel abbatis omnes -redditus integre custodiebantur, substituendo pastori resignandi, -eligebanturque personæ religionis merito laudabiles; at vero pauculis -annis intercedentibus omnia immutata.” - -Orderic has two passages on the subject. One of them (763 C) is a mere -complaint; “Defunctis præsulibus et archimandritis satellites regis -ecclesiasticas possessiones et omnes gazas invadebant, triennioque seu -plus dominio regis omnino mancipabant. Sic nimirum pro cupiditate -reddituum, qui regis in ærario recondebantur, ecclesiæ vacabant, -necessariisque carentes pastoribus Dominicæ oves lupinis morsibus -patebant.” In the other (678, 679) he distinctly speaks of Flambard’s -innovation, and goes more at length into the matter than any of the -other writers. He has given one of the descriptions of Flambard which -has been already quoted (see p. 559); and then goes on; - - “Hujus consilio juvenis rex, morientibus prælatis, ecclesias - cum possessionibus olim sibi datis invasit, et tam in - abbatiis cœnobitas quam in episcopiis episcopales decanos et - canonicos cuilibet satellitum suorum subegit. Parcam autem - ad victum suum distributionem rerum eis delegabat, et - reliquos redditus suæ ditioni mancipabat. Sic avaritia regis - in ecclesia Dei nimis exarsit, et nefarius mos, _tunc - incœptus usque in hodiernum diem perseverans_, multis - animabus exitio fit. Hac enim de causa cupidus rex pastores - ecclesiis imponere differebat, et populus rectore et grex - pastore carens lupinis dentibus patebat, et multimodarum - toxicatis missilibus culparum sauciatus interibat.” - -He then goes on to contrast the greediness and sacrilege of William -Rufus with the bounty of the ancient kings and nobles from Æthelberht -onwards. He again records and moralizes on the special innovation of -Rufus with regard to the treatment of ecclesiastical properties during -vacancies; - - “Antequam Normanni Angliam obtinuissent, mos erat, ut dum - rectores ecclesiarum obirent, episcopus cœnobiorum quæ in - sua diocesi erant, res sollicite describeret et sub ditione - sua, donec abbates legitime ordinarentur, custodiret. - Similiter archiepiscopus episcopii res, antistite defuncto, - servabat, et pauperibus vel structuris basilicarum, vel - aliis bonis operibus, cum consilio domesticorum ejusdem - ecclesiæ distrahebat. Hunc profecto morem Guillelmus Rufus - ab initio regni sui persuasione Flambardi abolevit et - metropolitanam Cantuariæ sedem sine pontifice tribus annis - esse fecit ejusque redditus suis thesauris intulit. Injustum - quippe videtur, omnique rationi contrarium, ut quod Deo - datum est fidelium liberalitate principum, vel solertia - dispensatorum ecclesiasticæ rei laudabiliter est auctum, - denuo sub laicali manu retrahatur, et in nefarios sæculi - usus distrahatur.” - -One effect of this practice must have been to make the monks and -canons of the cathedral churches specially anxious to establish their -distinct property in some part of the estates of the local church, -separate from the property of the bishop. Under Flambard’s system, all -the estates of the church were during a vacancy seized by the King, -who allowed the monks or canons only such a pittance as he thought -good. When episcopal and capitular estates were divided, when the body -of canons held certain estates, and each canon by himself held certain -others, all in _frank-almoign_, the seizure into the King’s hands of -the estates which the bishop held by military tenure made no -difference to the incomes of the canons. - - -NOTE X. Vol. i. p. 354. - -THE APPOINTMENT OF HERBERT LOSINGA TO THE SEE OF THETFORD. - -I have said something of the appointment of Bishop Herbert in N. C. -vol. iv. p. 420. The notices in our authorities are a little puzzling. -The Chronicle contains no mention of his appointment, but we read in -1094 (see p. 448) of his staff being taken from him by the King -(“Herbearde Losange þam bisceop of Theotfordan his stæf benam”). This -passage, of which I shall have to speak again, seems to have been -misunderstood by a copyist of Florence, who, instead of his genuine -text, has inserted the words which I have quoted in N. C. vol. iv. p. -420. This account would imply that Herbert bought both the bishopric -for himself and the abbey for his father in 1094. Then follows a -passage which is found in nearly the same words in both the works of -William of Malmesbury (Gest. Reg. iv. 339; Gest. Pont. p. 151); - - “Verumtamen erroneum impetum juventutis abolevit pœnitentia, - Romam profectus severioribus annis; ubi loci simonicum - baculum et annulum deponens, indulgentia clementissimæ sedis - iterum recipere meruit. Domum vero reversus, sedem - episcopalem transportavit ad insignem mercimoniis et - populorum frequentia vicum nomine Nordevic, ibique - monachorum congregationem instituit.” - -This would place the journey to Rome after 1094. But there can be no -doubt that Herbert received the bishopric in 1091, and that his -repentance and journey to Rome took place between that year and 1094. -He signs as bishop the charter of Osmund Bishop of Salisbury in 1091. -And if any suspicion is thought to attach to that instrument, the -profession rolls at Canterbury, as certified by Dr. Stubbs, are -evidence enough of his consecration and his profession to a future -archbishop. His consecration by Thomas of York is also recorded by T. -Stubbs, Scriptt. 1707. The true story is given in another manuscript -of Florence, the reading of which is given by Mr. Thorpe in a note, -and in which the entry of 1094 stands thus; “Ubi etiam Herebertum, -Theotfordensem episcopum, pastorali baculo privavit. Latenter enim -Urbanum papam adire, et ab eo pro episcopatu quem sibi, et abbatiam -quam patri suo Rotberto, ab ipso rege Willelmo mille libris emerat, -absolutionem quærere voluit.” The case seems quite clear. Herbert buys -the bishopric of the King; he repents, goes to Rome, and is reinvested -by the Pope. The King looks on this as an insult to the royal -authority and takes his staff from him. But he must have made his -peace with the King within the next two years. For at the end of that -time he began the translation of his see from Thetford to Norwich. The -Annals of Bartholomew Cotton (Anglia Sacra, i. 397) give 1091 as the -date of his appointment to Thetford, 1094 as the year of his -translation to Norwich, and 1096 as the beginning of the foundation of -the church of Norwich. And it appears from the local Annals of Saint -Eadmund’s (Liebermann, 275) that he was acting as bishop in -East-Anglia, whether by the style of Thetford or of Norwich, in 1095. -I cannot help thinking that the date assigned to the translation by -Bartholomew Cotton is really a confusion with the date of his -temporary deprivation. In either case he ceased to be Bishop of -Thetford in 1094; most likely he did not become Bishop of Norwich till -1096. It seems from the Norwich documents in Anglia Sacra (i. 397, -407; Mon. Angl. iv. 13-15) that he began to build the church of -Norwich in 1096, and planted monks there in 1101. The local writers -are full of panegyrics on his virtues. His letters are printed in the -series called Scriptores Monastici, but they do not contain much that -is of importance for our history. He has a few correspondents with -English names, one of whom, Ingulf by name, was Prior of the newly -founded monastery of Norwich. - - * * * * * - -A third manuscript of Florence, the text of which is printed by Mr. -Thorpe in a note, seems to follow the version which was acceptable at -Norwich and leaves out the deprivation in 1094; “Hoc anno [1094] -venerabilis Herbertus, Theotfordensis episcopus, a Roma cum -benedictione apostolica rediit: et a Willelmo rege impetravit ut sedes -episcopalis in Norwicensi ecclesia firmaretur, ubi ipse, Christi -juvante gratia, pulcherrimam congregationem monachorum ad honorem -Sanctæ Trinitatis adunavit.” - -The account in William of Malmesbury (Gesta Regum, iv. 338, 339) is -evidently meant to make a striking rhetorical contrast between the -unregenerate Herbert who bought the see of Thetford and the converted -and sanctified Herbert who founded the church of Norwich. He becomes a -special enemy of the simony which he had himself once practised; -“Sicut tempore istius regis symoniæ causidicus, ita posterius -propulsator invictus, neque ab aliis fieri voluit quod a se præsumptum -quondam juvenili fervore indoluit.” His fuller picture in his earlier -state is that he was “magnus in Anglia symoniæ fomes, abbatiam -episcopatumque nummis aucupatus; pecunia scilicet regiam -sollicitudinem inviscans, et principum favori non leves promissiones -assibilans.” Then follow the well-known verses containing the lines - - “Surgit in ecclesia monstrum, genitore Losinga. - - * * * * * - - “Filius est præsul, pater abbas, Symon uterque.” - -William of Malmesbury (iv. 339) makes one very singular remark in -recording the restoration of Herbert to his see by the Pope; - - “Iterum recipere meruit; quod Romani sanctius et ordinatius - censeant ut ecclesiarum omnium sumptus suis potius marsupiis - serviant quam quorumlibet regum usibus militent.” - -The fling at Roman greediness is in the true English style of all -times; but, in the connexion in which it stands, the idea which it -suggests is that Herbert, who had once bought his bishopric of the -King, bought it again of the Pope. - -On the name _Losinga_ see De Rémusat, Anselme, 199; Diez, -Etymologisches Wörterbuch, i. 255. It seems to come from _laudare_. - - -NOTE Y. Vol. i. p. 374. - -THE LETTERS OF ANSELM. - -The letters of Anselm throw so much light on the events of the time, -they open to us so many bits of local and personal detail, both in -England and in Normandy, that we are not only thankful for the help -which they give us for this period, but sometimes feel a certain -grudge that we have no help of the same kind for earlier periods. -Anselm’s correspondents are found in all lands and in all ranks. All -his letters are of course in Latin, a tongue which must, one would -think, have in many cases needed to be interpreted to those to whom -the letters came. A touch or two in any natural language, whether -English, French, or whatever may have been the exact form of Romance -spoken at Aosta, would have been, not only a relief, but a precious -source of knowledge. But for this of course we must not look in these -times, whether from Anselm or from any one else. - -In several places in the text I have used the letters of Anselm among -my most important materials. They form one of our sources for the -details of his own appointment to the archbishopric (see p. 400), -while his correspondence with Cardinal Walter has given us (see p. -537, and vol. ii. p. 41) some details not found elsewhere with regard -to the campaign against Robert of Mowbray. We have also had, in one of -his letters to Archbishop Hugh of Lyons (iii. 24, see p. 419), -Anselm’s fullest account of the questions which led to the Assembly at -Rockingham. The correspondence of course goes on into the reign of -Henry, and many of the letters which pass between the King and the -Archbishop are in fact state papers, and are, as such, inserted by -Eadmer in his history. The immediate historical value of these belongs -of course to a time later than that dealt with in the present volume. -But the whole series is full of matter bearing on English affairs, and -on the affairs of other persons and places in which we are interested. -I will therefore go on to mention some of the matters connected with -our own and kindred subjects which are suggested by the letters here -and there. Many are addressed to Lanfranc, Gundulf, Priors Henry and -Ernulf of Canterbury, and others who play parts of more or less -importance in our story. A good many are to princes of various lands, -many to devout ladies, with the names of some of whom, as those of -Countess Adela, the daughter of the Conqueror, and Countess Ida of -Boulogne, we are already familiar. There are also the special “ladies -and mothers” (dominæ et matres) of the church of Bec, who, without -embracing the monastic profession, had given themselves to a devout -life under the shadow of the monastery (Chronicon Beccense, Lanfranc, -ed. Giles, i. 202; De Nobili Crispinorum Genere, ib. 347; Anselm, Epp. -ii. 26, 51; iii. 138). These were Basilia the wife of Hugh of -Gournay――who himself, with Hugh of Meulan, the father of the famous -Count Robert, became a monk at Bec――her niece Amfrida, and Eva, the -widow of William Crispin. There are also a crowd of letters to -prelates, nobles, monks, nuns, and persons of all kinds, which throw -incidental light on various points in the history of the time. - -The close connexion between Bec and England comes out very early in -the series. It is perhaps not inappropriate that the earliest mention -of England concerns its money, which was so much sought after beyond -sea. This is in i. 13, where a moneyer of Arras, who wishes to turn -monk, but who has first to pay his debts, is sent by Anselm, not yet -abbot, to Lanfranc, already archbishop, who will give him a hundred -shillings of English money towards paying them. In i. 15 he writes to -Henry, seemingly the future Prior of Christ Church, who was already in -England, with a piece of advice which we should hardly have expected -from Anselm. Being a monk, he is not to go into Italy to try to defend -his sister whom a certain rich man unjustly claims as a slave or -villain (“ire de Anglia in Italiam sororem tuam defendere, quam audis -quemdam divitem indebitæ servituti calumniose subjicere”). (It is less -unreasonable when (iii. 127) he counsels the nun Matilda not to go and -visit her lay kinsfolk.) In another letter (i. 35) Anselm speaks of -the number of Normans who were crossing into England, and how few of -them there were whom he could trust with a letter (“Licet multi -Northmanni ad Anglos transeant, paucissimi tamen sunt qui, me sciente, -hoc faciant; in quibus paucissimis vix est aliquis quem nostrum -legationem sine dilatione et non negligenter facturum confidam”). This -is written to Maurice, a monk of Bec, who, with some others, had moved -to Canterbury. Of the English monks at Bec (i. 65) I have already said -something (see p. 375). When Anselm becomes abbot, and has to deal -with the possessions of the monastery in England, the references to -English matters naturally thicken, as in ii. 3, 4, 5, 6. This last is -addressed to Richard of Clare and his wife Rohais or Rohesia, the -daughter of Walter Giffard, of whose name the old commentator Picard -oddly says, “insuper nomen Rohais pleno gutture personat Anglismum.” -The next letter (iii. 7) shows that some of the Normans who passed -into England did not always choose the best parts of our character to -copy. For a monk named Henry is rebuked for drinking to excess at -gild-meetings. Here an English word thrusts itself in, and we read, -“audio quia in multis inordinate se agit, et maxime inbibendo, ita ut -in _gildis_ cum ebriosis bibat et cum eis inebrietur.” In ii. 9 Anselm -records one of his own journeys to England, and his reception at -Lyminge by Lanfranc. We have more references to his own English -journeys and those of others in ii. 13, 18, 19, 26 (a most remarkable -one, of which I have spoken in N. C. vol. iv. p. 440), 27, 30, 45, 46 -(where he prays for the forgiveness of a runaway monk called Moses of -Canterbury), 47, 53. - -Anselm’s letters as archbishop are of course yet fuller of the English -history of the time. The first part of the third book is wholly taken -up with the correspondence following on his appointment to the -archbishopric. The second letter in this book is a most remarkable -letter from Anselm’s friend Osbern (see p. 374) strongly exhorting him -to accept the archbishopric. He is not to set up his own will against -the will of the whole English Church which calls for him as its chief; - - “Ut enim in offenso dulcissimo mihi amore tuo loquar, aut - cunctis, quod non credimus, meliorem te fateberis, quippe - cui soli revelatum est quod universæ Anglorum ecclesiæ fas - non erat revelari; aut facias necesse est quod universalis - Anglorum ecclesia suadet, hoc est, ut pontificalis infulæ - principatum inter beatos apostolos sustinere non renuas.” - -Osbern goes on to say that Anselm has already proof enough that it is -God’s will that he shall take the offered post. In so doing, he gives -a vivid picture of the circumstances of the appointment and of the Red -King’s momentary reform; - - “Quid insignius ad te eligendum ostenderet Deus, quam, ut tu - promovereris, regem triumphis nobilem, severitate cunctis - formidabilem, lecto decubuisse, ad mortem usque ægrotavisse, - te autem provecto, statim eundem respiravisse, convaluisse, - atque ex fero et immani mitissimum pariter et mansuetissimum - redditum fuisse? Quid, inquam, aut effectum dulcius, aut ad - innocentiam præstantius, quam te ante lectum ægrotantis - violenter pertractum, dextram aliorum dextris impudenter de - sinu abstractam, sinistram, ne sororem juvaret, fortiter - retentam, virgam, ceteris digitulis pertinaciter occlusis, - pollici atque indici crudeliter impactam, post hæc toto - corpore e terra te elevatum, episcopalibus brachiis ad - ecclesiam deportatum, ibique adhuc te reclamante, et - importunis nimis obsistente, Te Deum laudamus esse cantatum? - Quid, inquam, vel ad divinas laudes magnificentius vel ad - humana spectacula gaudentius, quam quod in tua electione, - exclusis omnibus transactæ tempestatis afflictionibus, omnia - ad proprii juris possessionem veluti jubileo termino - cucurrerunt, dum vincti ad expeditionem, carcerati ad lucem, - captivi ad libertatem, oppressi dirissimis exactorum - furoribus redierint ad erectionem.” - -Osbern clearly had an eye for the comic element in the amazing scene -at Gloucester. He then goes on, among other things, to enlarge on the -dignity of the church of Canterbury. By a bold figure, he conceives -Anselm at the last day called before the judgement-seat, because he -had slain thousands of men, while seeking for the safety of a few -(“cur non cogitabas infinita hominum millia te occidisse, dum paucorum -volebas saluti consulere”). The church of Canterbury, the bride of -Christ, consecrated from the beginning by the blessing of his Apostle -Peter――the same story which we have heard at Westminster (see N. C. -vol. ii. p. 511), and which is told in a slightly different, and still -more daring, shape at Glastonbury――enriched by the privileges of so -many popes, and to which, saving the authority of the Roman church -alone, all the other churches round about were used to look for the -defence of their freedom (“ad quam, salva Romanæ et apostolicæ sedis -auctoritate, omnium circa regionum ecclesiæ in suis oppressionibus -confugere atque ab ea tuendæ libertatis præsidia expetere simul ac -suscipere solebant”), now called on Anselm to come to the succour of -her liberties, and he refused. Osbern draws out this bold metaphor at -great length, and at last disposes of Anselm’s scruples about his -allegiance to the Norman Duke and to the church of Bec (“præmonstravi -oraculis, comprobavi miraculis; verum tu mihi prætulisti Normanniæ -comitem, Deo vermem, viventi mortalem, latitudini Anglorum angustæ -solitudinis nidum”). He draws largely on Canterbury legends about -Laurence and Dunstan, in order to set forth that church as specially -under the divine favour. He, Anselm, had been called in a special way -to be their successor (“cum neque sis privata gratia exhibitus, neque -mercenarius, neque Simonis discipulus, sed quem et divina vocavit -electio et apostolica informavit institutio”), and that call he was -bound to obey. - -The word “mercenarius” in the extract just made is perhaps meant to -contrast the palpable purity of Anselm’s nomination with the -appointment of those bishops who, whether they actually bought their -sees or not, at least received them us the reward of temporal -services. There is another letter (iii. 5) from Osbern to Anselm, -which is simply an earnest prayer that he will no longer put off his -full admission to the archbishopric. - -There are also several letters of Anselm (iii. 1, 4, 7), and one of -Gundulf (iii. 3), to the monks of Bec, to which some references have -already been made (see pp. 405, 406). There is also one (iii. 6) from -the monks of Bec to Anselm, announcing their consent to his acceptance -of the archbishopric. It describes the division in the convent, how -each monk gave his vote at the call of the president, whom, from this -form of words, we may suppose not to have been the prior (“omnes in -unum congregati sumus, unusquisque nostrum de sua sententia ab eo qui -præsidebat nominatim est requisitus”). The party which opposed -Anselm’s removal is described as “suo potius quam vestro utens atque -fidens consilio, ardentiori, atque, ut sibi videtur, rectiori, amoris -vestri zelo.” The monk Lanfranc, nephew of the Archbishop, a person -who is often mentioned in the letters, is to give Anselm a fuller -account (“quæ pars alteram aut numero aut ratione præponderet, domnus -Lanfrancus, qui interfuit, et omnia hic apud nos gesta sive dicta et -vidit et audivit, plenissime per seipsum et sufficienter vobis -dicit”). We have here a trace of that odd appeal from the “major pars” -to the “sanior,” which seems so utterly to upset every notion of real -election, but which is so often heard of in the ecclesiastical debates -of the time. The letter of the monks however, though not very -positively expressed, seems to have been taken as a release. Other -letters follow, in which Anselm recommends (iii. 8) William of -Montfort (see Vitæ Abbatum Beccensium, i. 313, Giles) as his successor -in the abbacy, and commands the Prior Baldric to keep his place, -whoever may be chosen abbot. In another letter (iii. 15) he announces -to the monks his coming consecration, and tells them that the King has -promised to protect all their rights in England as long as they live -according to Anselm’s counsel (“Rex Anglorum vobis mandat salutem et -auxilium suum et custodiam rerum vestrarum quæ sunt in sua potestate, -quamdiu meo consilio agetis et vivetis. Si autem illud spreveritis, in -illo proficuum non habebetis”). He writes also a letter (iii. 10) to -Bishop Gilbert of Evreux, of whom we have often heard, but who in -Migne’s text is strangely changed into “Eboracensis episcopus,” -explaining his motives for accepting the archbishopric. He writes to -the same effect (iii. 11) to Fulk Bishop of Beauvais. - -Once settled in the archbishopric, Anselm has to write about other -matters. The affairs of his province bring much correspondence. Thus -he writes (iii. 20) to Bishop Osbern of Exeter and his canons on -behalf of the monks of Battle (“monasterium quod vulgo dicitur de -Batailla”), who held the church of Saint Olaf at Exeter (see N. C. -vol. ii. p. 350, vol. iv. pp. 166, 406; Eadmer, Hist. Nov. 64). He -urges that they may be allowed to ring their bells. In a letter (iii. -23) to Ralph Abbot of Seez, afterwards Anselm’s own successor, we get -a mention of Bishop Herewald of Llandaff (see N. C. vol. ii. pp. 447, -692), who, it seems, like his brother bishop Wilfrith of Saint David’s -(see p. 534), had been suspended from the episcopal office; - - “De fratre illo quem dicitis esse ordinatum a quodam - episcopo, quia a nobis est interdictus, hoc respondeo, quia - si ordinatus est ab episcopo de Walis, qui vocatur - Herewardus, nec illis ordinibus, quos ab illo accepit, - nostra concessione aliquando utetur, nec ab ullo episcopo - reordinari debet.” - -The same letter contains Anselm’s views, not on any matter touching -Norman or English history, but on a point of obvious morality which -had been dealt with long ago by the singer of the Odyssey (i. -260-263); - - “De altero vero fratre, qui herbas quæsivit mulieri, quibus - virum suum interficeret, quamvis prope vos habeatis de hac - re in Northmannia sufficiens consilium, tamen quia a me hoc - petitis, nostrum negare non debeo sensum. Si monachus noster - esset, et vir ille cujus morti quæsivit herbas ipsis - interfectus esset, nunquam ad diaconatum per me, vel ad - sacerdotium ascenderet.” - -Next follows the great letter to Archbishop Hugh of Lyons, to which I -have often referred; and not long after come the important letters -(iii. 35, 36), of which also I have often spoken. In iii. 29 Anselm -writes to Prior Henry and the rest of the monks of Christ -Church――among them Anthony, Ernulf, and Osbern, all names known to -us――charging them to leave off disputes, and to enforce holy -obedience. Next (iii. 30) comes a letter to Matilda Abbess of Wilton -(Wintoniensis in Migne), urging obedience to the diocesan Bishop -Osmund of Salisbury. The house of Saint Werburh at Chester, in whose -foundation Anselm had had a hand, comes in several times for his -notice (iii. 34, 49). A crowd of letters bearing on points in the -history later than our time may be passed by, but there are two very -singular ones which throw a curious light on English nomenclature. In -iii. 133 we have a letter thus addressed; - - “Anselmus archiepiscopus amico et filio carissimo Roberto, - et sororibus et filiabus suis dilectissimis Seit, Edit et - Hydit, Luverim, Virgit, Godit, salutem et benedictionem Dei - et suam, si quid valet.” - -In the second letter, numbered in Migne iv. 110, the heading is, -“Anselmus archiepiscopus, Roberto, Seyt, Edit, carissimis suis filiis, -salutem et benedictionem Dei, quantum potest.” The persons addressed -seem to have been devout women of some kind, living under the -spiritual care of their confessor Robert. The letters tell us nothing -as to the position of the persons addressed; they contain nothing but -good advice which might be useful in any time or place; but the names -seem to have greatly perplexed the German and French biographers of -Anselm. Hasse (Anselm von Canterbury, i. 502) says, “Interessant ist -besonders ein Brief an die Nonnen eines Klosters in Wales, wie es -scheint,” and he adds in a note; - - “Ich schliesse dies aus den Namen ‘Seit, Edit, Hydit, - Luverim, Virgit, Godit’ die in der Ueberschrift genannt - werden. Ob es wohl _weibliche_ Namen sind? In dem Briefe v. - 16 [iv. 110, Migne] werden nämlich dieselben Personen als - _filii_ (wenn dies nicht ein Druckfehler ist) angeredet, die - hier [iii. 133, Migne] _filiæ_ heissen. Ein _celtisches_ - Kloster war es jedenfalls; doch kann es auch in Irland oder - Schottland gewesen sein.” - -M. de Rémusat (S. Anselme de Cantorbéry, 177) had yet further lights; - - “On suppose qu’une lettre adressée à Robert _son ami et son - fils très cher, et à ses sœurs et filles bien-aimées_, qui, - toutes, portent de bizarres noms, a pour objet d’encourager - et de guider une congrégation de femmes qui, sous la - direction de quelques missionnaires, essayait de se former - dans une province Galloise.” - -There is really something very amusing in the difficulties of these -scholars over a list of people one of whom bears the very commonest of -English female names at the time. M. de Rémusat at least knew the -earlier name of Queen Matilda, and can bring it in where it is not to -be found in his authorities. For he makes the abbess in the story of -Hermann of Tournay (see vol. ii. p. 32, and Appendix EE) enlarge on -“la beauté de la jeune Edithe,” though in that story she bears no name -at all. “Godit” too, that is “Godgyth” or “Godgifu,” is clear enough; -and a little knowledge of English nomenclature will carry us through -most of the others, even though some of them may be rare or unique. -“Seit” must he “Sigegyth,” a perfectly possible name. “Virgit” would -seem to be “Wergyth,” also quite possible, while “Luverim,” which the -manuscripts write in two or three ways, is surely a wild miswriting of -Leofrune, of a bearer of which name we have heard something in N. C. -vol. i. p. 352. “Hydit” is the only name on the list about which there -can be any real difficulty; it is clearly one of the _-gyth_ names, -though it is not easy to see what the first half of the name is. It is -perhaps a little odd when Anselm addresses Robert and his sisterhood -as “filii” in the second letter, but the form is surely a lawful -shortening of “filius et filiæ.” There is, one would think, a certain -pleasing international unity in this picture of a company of -Englishwomen, directed, it would seem, by a Norman priest, and so -lovingly addressed by a Burgundian archbishop. Anyhow there is no need -to doubt of the sex of Eadgyth and Godgyth, or to carry them off to -Wales, Scotland, Ireland, or anywhere but the land of their own -speech. - - * * * * * - -Anselm had other nuns and other devout women to write to and about, -besides the bearers of these supposed puzzling names. There are -several letters, as iii. 125, to a certain Abbess Eulalia. In iii. 70 -he writes (in Henry the First’s time) to Athelis or Adeliza, Abbess of -Wilton (it is again Wi_n_tonia in Migne’s text), comforting her during -the banishment of William Giffard, bishop-elect of Winchester (see -vol. ii. p. 349). More important is the letter (iii. 51) in which he -sends the Archdeacon Stephen to hinder the abbess and nuns of Romsey -from paying the worship of a saint to some person lately dead (“Tunc -ex toto prohibeant ut nullus honor, qui alicui sancto exhiberi debet, -exhibeatur ab illis, aut permittant ab aliquo exhiberi mortuo illi -quem quidam volunt pro sancto haberi”). This reminds one of the story -of Abbot Ulfcytel and the worship of Waltheof (see N. C. vol. iv. p. -598); but we need not suppose, with the old commentator in Migne, that -the person worshipped was Waltheof himself. For it is added that the -son of the dead man is to be driven out of the town, and Waltheof left -no son. In iii. 84 he writes to Matilda, the first abbess of the house -of the Trinity at Caen (see N. C. vol. iv. p. 630), about her intended -resignation of her abbey. On other monastic affairs there are several -letters, as iii. 61, 118, about the affairs of the abbey of Saint -Eadmund, whose prior bears the English name of Ælfhere. He speaks of -their tribulations and the patience with which they bore them; the -letters therefore most likely refer to the difficulties which followed -the appointment of Abbot Robert (see p. 359). There are two letters -(iii. 100, 108) addressed to a monk Ordwine, in the latter of which he -is coupled with two others, Farman――can he be the aged friend of -Eadmer?――and Benjamin, which last name we should hardly have looked -for. The first letter is a very important one; it deals with the -subject of investitures, and distinctly shows that Anselm had no -objection of his own to investiture by the King; - - “Non ego prohibeo per me a rege dari investituras - ecclesiarum, sed quia audivi apostolicum in magno concilio - excommunicare laicos dantes illas investituras et - accipientes, et qui accipientes sacrabunt, nolo communicare - excommunicatis nec fieri excommunicatus.” - -This letter contains also a good deal about the relations of laymen to -churches as patrons or “custodes” (see p. 455, and N. C. vol. v. p. -501). In iii. 83, when already Archbishop, Anselm writes to Eustace, -the father of Geoffrey a monk of Bec, at his son’s instance, rebuking -him for a singular kind of bigamy. His wife, the mother of Geoffrey, -had become a nun, and he himself had taken a vow; but had nevertheless -married a second wife. Anselm argues that, whether he had taken a vow -or not, still, though his wife had become a nun, it is unlawful for -him to marry again during her lifetime. Of a more strictly domestic -nature are the letters to his sister Richera or Richeza, and her -husband Burgundius (iii. 63, 66, 67). Burgundius is meditating a -pilgrimage to Jerusalem; and he exhorts him so to order his affairs -before he goes that his wife may not lose her estate in case he dies -by the way. - - * * * * * - -Anselm’s correspondence with royal and princely persons in various -parts is very large. There are many letters to King Henry, in one of -which (iii. 79) he cannot keep himself from the established pun on the -name of Henry’s people. He prays, “Ut Deus vos et vestra sic regat et -protegat in gloria temporalis regni super Anglos, quatenus in æterna -felicitate regnare faciat inter angelos.” - -He writes (iv. 81) a letter of rebuke to his old friend Earl Hugh, -about the captivity of one monk of Clugny, and the irregular burial of -another. He warns the Earl frankly; “Familiariter dico vobis, sicut -homini cujus honorem et utilitatem multum amo, quia si non feceritis -quod dico, inde blasphemabimini; et ego etiam si non fecero quod -ecclesiastica disciplina præcipit inde fieri, a multis blasphemabor.” -To his former enemy Count Robert of Meulan he writes a letter during -his second exile which is given by Eadmer (Hist. Nov. 82), where the -Count is addressed as “dominus et amicus;” in another (iv. 99) he is -advanced to “dominus et amicus carissimus,” and is addressed as -“vestra dilectio.” The subject of the letter is the endless dispute -between York and Canterbury. The mention of the younger Thomas as -archbishop-elect fixes the date to about 1108. - - * * * * * - -Among foreign kings and princes there is (iii. 65) a graceful letter -to his native sovereign, Humbert Count and Marquess, written, it would -seem, at the time of his first passing into Italy. Nearer to his -Norman and English dwelling-places, we find him receiving during his -exile a letter from King Philip (iv. 50) offering his sympathy and -help, and praying for a visit in his dominions, chiefly for the sake -of Anselm’s bodily health; - - “Cæterum quia in loco corporeæ sanitati contrario exsulatis, - rogamus vos quatenus Galliam nostram vestro adventu visitare - dignemini, ibique affectum mentis meæ experiemini, et vestræ - consuletis sanitati. Valete.” - -A letter to the same effect, which must belong to Anselm’s second -exile, follows from Philip’s worthier successor, Lewis (iv. 51). - -Both the famous chiefs of the Cenomannian state came in for a share of -Anselm’s correspondence. In iv. 11 we have one letter of Anselm to -Hildebert, but it contains no historical information. There are -several (iii. 53, 160, 161, 162) from Hildebert to Anselm, all -theological, and in which we could have wished that the Bishop of Le -Mans could have brought himself to speak more civilly of the eastern -half of Christendom. More interesting is a letter (iv. 98) addressed -“Domino et amico, et in Deo dilectissimo Eliæ comiti,” full of praise -and affection for the noble Count, and granting him absolution for -some fault not described (“Absolutionem nostram, quam per eundem -fratrem, sicut ipse mihi retulit, a me petitis, et corde, et ore, et -scriptura dilectioni vestræ mitto, et quotidie pro vobis oro”). - -To Countess Ida of Boulogne (see pp. 374, 384) he writes as an -intimate friend (iii. 56, 58). In the former of these we hear of her -chaplain Lambert, who was in England in her service. He seems to have -been a canon of some chapter, and to have been in danger of losing -part of the income of his prebend on account of his absence. To -Countess Clemence of Flanders, wife of Count Robert of Jerusalem and -niece of Pope Calixtus, he writes (iii. 59), praising her and her -husband, because certain abbots in Flanders are admitted without the -Count’s investiture; - - “Relatum mihi est quosdam abbates in Flandria sic - constitutos ut comes vir vester nullam cis manu sua daret - investituram. Quod sicut non sine ejus prudenti _clementia_ - ita non esse æstimo factum absque vestra _clementi_ - prudentia.” The play on the Countess’s name reminds one of - King Robert and “O constantia martyrum.” In iv. 13 there is - a letter to Count Robert, to the same effect as that to his - wife. - -But the care of Anselm extended to more distant, at least less known -lands. He has two letters (iii. 142, 147) to King Murtagh in Ireland; -but they deal only with the reforms needed in Murtagh’s own island. -So, at a later time than ours, he writes (iii. 132) a letter to -Alexander King of Scots, in which he mentions certain monks whom he -had sent into Scotland at the request of the late King Eadgar, of whom -he speaks most highly. When in a letter to a King of Scots we read -that “quidem reges, sicut David, sancte vixerunt,” we are apt to -forget that, in Alexander’s reign, the reference must still be to the -King of Israel. Where such a reference would have been strictly to the -merits of a predecessor, namely, in two letters to King Baldwin of -Jerusalem (iv. 10, 36), it is not found; and the exhortations are very -general. - - * * * * * - -Nor does Anselm forget the Scandinavian lands. He writes (iv. 92) a -letter of good advice to Hakon Earl of Orkney, who had received the -earldom of his father Paul after the death of Magnus of Norway. He -writes about the religious ignorance of the people, which he hopes -will be reformed by the bishop who had lately been sent to them. As -Hakon only received his earldom in 1105, this letter must belong to -the last years of Anselm’s life. The murder of Saint Magnus by Hakon, -followed by the murderer’s repentant pilgrimage to Jerusalem, did not -happen till after Anselm’s death (see Torfæi Orcades, p. 86, where the -date of Magnus’s murder is fixed to 1110). He has two letters (iii. -143, iv. 90) about the newly-founded archbishopric of Lund in Denmark. -At another end of Christendom he writes to Diacus, Bishop of Saint -James of Compostella. The Spanish Bishop asks for English help against -the Saracens, and he answers that England is so beset by wars at home -that he fears that no help can be given. - -To the Popes Urban and Paschal he naturally writes some very important -letters, some of which have been already referred to. There is one -(iii. 37) to Urban, in which he sets forth his strong desire to come -to Rome, and alleges the wars which were raging everywhere as the -cause of the King’s unwillingness to let him go. - -“Quia bellis undique quatimur, hostiles impetus indesinenter et -insidias adversantium metuimus, dominus noster rex extra regnum me -procedere hactenus non permisit, nec adhuc procedere posse ullatenus -assensit…. Sed inter hæc, quo labore, quaque anxietate gravatus, iter -arripere conarer, si omnipotens Deus et in regno Anglorum bella -sedaret, et in regnis et regnorum provinciis, per quas ad vos est -eundum, illam pacem tribueret, quemadmodum oporteret et expediret iter -ipsum explere liceret.” - -This letter one would have been inclined to place in 1097; but, unless -we can understand the “regnum Anglorum” as taking in Wales, the -mention of wars would seem to fix it to the time of the rebellion of -Robert of Mowbray in 1095, when the war did indeed affect Anselm’s -movements. In the same letter he makes intercession for Fulk Bishop of -Beauvais, one of the prelates to whom he had written at the time of -his own appointment to the archbishopric (see iii. 11, and above, p. -576), on account of some matter which is not explained. - -To Paschal he writes a most important letter (iii. 40) at some time -during the short interval between Paschal’s election and William’s -death; here he sets forth his own case very distinctly; - - “Videbam in Anglia multa mala quorum ad me pertinebat - correctio, quæ nec corrigere nec sine peccato meo tolerare - poteram. Exigebat enim a me rex ut voluntatibus suis, quæ - contra legem et voluntatem Dei erant, sub nomine - _rectitudinis_ assensum præberem. Nam sine sua jussione - apostolicum nolebat recipi aut appellari in Anglia, nec ut - epistolam ei mitterem aut ab eo missam reciperem, vel - decretis ejus obedirem. Concilium non permisit celebrari in - regno suo ex quo rex factus jam per tredecim annos. Terras - ecclesiæ hominibus suis dabat; in omnibus his et similibus - si consilium petebam, omnes de regno ejus etiam suffraganei - mei episcopi negabant se consilium daturos nisi secundum - voluntatem regis.” - -Here we have Anselm’s grievances very clearly set forth, and without -any kind of exaggeration or strong language of any kind. We may also -mark the legal term “rectitudo.” He next goes on to describe the -council of Winchester; - - “Hæc et multa alia, quæ contra voluntatem et legem Dei sunt, - videns, petii licentiam ab eo sedem adeundi apostolicam, ut - inde consilium de anima mea et de officio mihi injuncto - acciperem. Respondit rex me in se peccasse pro sola - postulatione hujus licentiæ, et proposuit mihi ut aut de hac - re, sicut de culpa, satisfacerem, et securum illum redderem - ne amplius peterem hanc licentiam, nec aliquando apostolicum - appellarem, aut de terra ejus cito exirem.” - -He then describes the dealings of the King with the estates of the see -after he was gone, and speaks of the dealings of Urban with the King, -in the style in which it was perhaps becoming to speak to a Pope of -the dealings of his predecessor; - - “Rex, mox ut de Anglia exivi, taxato simpliciter victu et - vestitu monachorum nostrorum, totum archiepiscopatum invasit - et in proprios usus convertit. Monitus et rogatus a domino - papa ut hoc corrigeret contempsit, et adhuc in hoc - perseverat.” - -He then asks the Pope that he may not be commanded to return to -England, “nisi ita ut legem et voluntatem Dei et decreta apostolica -voluntati hominis liceat mihi præferre: et nisi rex mihi terras -ecclesiæ reddiderit, et quidquid de archiepiscopatu propter hoc quia -sedem apostolicam petii, accepit.” - -Presently a wholly new set of questions was opened by the accession of -Henry and the second controversy. Anselm’s account, it will be seen, -strictly agrees with the narrative of Eadmer, and we may again mark -that he does not speak of lay investitures as a grievance. That is to -say, William Rufus had not been to blame, or at least Anselm had not -found out that he was to blame, for continuing the ancient custom of -his kingdom. Henry was to blame because he claimed to continue that -right in the teeth of the new decrees, and of the new lights which -Anselm had learned from them. - - -NOTE Z. Vol. i. p. 395. - -ROBERT BLOET. - -There is something startling in the simple way in which the Chronicler -(1093) puts together the appointment of Anselm and that of Robert -Bloet; “And þæt arcebiscoprice on Cantwarbyrig, þe ær on his agenre -hand stód, Anselme betæhte, se wæs ær abbot on Bǽc, and Rodbeard -his cancelere þæt biscoprice on Lincolne.” Florence translates, with a -word or two of explanation inserted; “Insuper Anselmo Beccensi abbati -qui tunc _in Anglia morabatur_, Dorubernensem archiepiscopatum, et -cancellario suo Rotberto, _cognomento Bloet_, Lindicolinensem dedit -præsulatum.” But this way of speaking is quite of a piece with the -small amount of notice which the Chronicler seems throughout to give -to Anselm and his affairs. That is, we are used to read the story of -Anselm in Eadmer in the minutest detail, and we are surprised to find -his story told in the Chronicle only on the same scale as the stories -of other people. - -We have heard of Robert Bloet before, as one high in the confidence of -both Williams, father and son (see vol. i. p. 13). As a bishop, he is -one of those persons of whom William of Malmesbury wrote an account -which he afterwards found it expedient to alter. In his received text -(Gest. Pont. 313) he is brought in in a singular and sneering way. The -writer had just recorded the death of Remigius before he was able to -consecrate the minster, and he then gives this account of his -successor; - - “Rem dilatam successor ejus non graviter explevit, utpote - qui in labores alterius delicatus intrasset; Rotberto Bloet - homini nomen. Vixit in episcopatu annis paulo minus xxxᵗᵃ, - decessitque procul a sede apud Wdestoche, cum regio lateri - cum alio quodam episcopo adequitaret, subito fato - interceptus. Cetera satis suis hilaris et parum gravis, - negotiorum scientia secularium nulli secundus, - ecclesiasticorum non ita. Ecclesiam cui sedit ornamentis - pretiossissimis decoravit. Defuncti corpus exinteratum, ne - tetris nidoribus vitiaret aerem. Viscera Egnesham, reliqua - Lindocolinæ sepulta sunt. Monachos enim qui apud Stou - fuerunt vivens Eglesham [Egnesham] migraverat.” - -Here we have the implied picture of a bishop of the more worldly sort, -and we can see that he was not in good favour with monks. But no -particular fault is brought against him. But in the earlier version, -the text, after the words “homini nomen,” reads, “Qui nihil unquam -pensi fecerit, quominus omnis libidinis et infamis et reus esset. In -cunctam religionem protervus, monachos Stou summoveri et apud Egnesham -locari jussit. Gratis malus et gloriæ antecessoris invidus, a vicinis -monachis sua commoda præverti causabatur. Quocirca, si monachi -Egneshamnenses Dei dono pulchrum incrementum acceperint, procul illi -gratias, quibus eximium se gloriabatur commodum inferre si vel illos -sineret vivere.” - -There is enough here to show that Robert Bloet was thoroughly disliked -by the monks everywhere on account of his dealings with their brethren -at Stow in removing them to Eynsham. His dislike to monks is also -witnessed by the Chronicler, 1123, in recording the election of -William of Corbeuil to the see of Canterbury (see N. C. vol. v. p. -236); “Ðis wæs eall ear gedon ðurh se biscop of Seresbyrig, and þurh -se biscop of Lincolne, ær he wære dead, forði þet næfre ne luueden hi -munece regol, ac wæron æfre togænes muneces and here regol.” - -On the other hand, Robert Bloet has not been without his admirers and -defenders both in his own time and since. Henry of Huntingdon, who was -brought up in his court, always speaks of him with the deepest -affection; and in our time he has found a gallant champion in Mr. -Dimock in his preface to the seventh volume of Giraldus, pp. xxiii. et -seq. Henry, like Florence, has the Chronicle before him in recording -the appointments of Anselm and Robert, and he too makes (vii. 3. p. -216) his insertions. With him the passage stands thus; - - “Dedit [junior Willelmus] archiepiscopatum Cantuariæ Anselmo - abbati, viro sancto et venerabili. Roberto quoque cognomento - Bloet cancellario suo, dedit episcopatum Lincoliæ, quo non - erat alter forma venustior, mente serenior, affatu dulcior.” - -Further on he records his death in 1123 (p. 244), and gives him a -splendid epitaph. He is “pontificum Robertus honor,” and his special -virtues fill two elegiac couplets; - - “Hic humilis dives, (res mira,) potens pius, ultor - Compatiens, mitis cum pateretur erat. - Noluit esse suis dominus, studuit pater esse, - Semper in adversis murus et arma suis.” - -He speaks of him again in the letter “de Contemptu Mundi” (p. 299), -where he gives a glowing description of the splendour of his court, -and speaks of him as “ipse quasi pater et deus omnium æstimatus,” and -as “justitiarius totius Angliæ et ab omnibus summe formidatus.” He -then goes on to quote him as an example, like so many others, of the -uncertainty of earthly prosperity. He tells how he was troubled before -his death by law-suits brought by some inferior justiciar, and then -records his death at Woodstock. He adds, “Fuit autem Robertus præsul -mitis et humilis, multos erigens, nullum deprimens, pater orphanorum, -deliciæ suorum.” Further on (p. 305) we learn that Robert Bloet had a -son named Simon, who was born before he was Bishop, but whom he made -Dean of Lincoln while he was very young. Simon’s prosperity and -unhappy end are also among the instances which are to lead to -“contemptus mundi.” He is thus brought in; - - “Decanum nostrum Simonem non prætereo, qui filius Roberti - præsulis nostri fuit; quem genuerat dum cancellarius - Willelmi magni regis esset. Qui, ut decebat, regaliter - nutritus, et adhuc impubis decanus noster effectus, in - summam regis amicitiam et curiales dignitates mox provectus - est.” - -We may be sure that it was the existence of this son which caused -Bishop Robert to be reproached with looseness of life. Yet Simon may -very likely have been born in lawful wedlock, though it is hardly safe -to assume with Mr. Dimock that he certainly was. But, when Robert had -once become an object of monastic dislike, stories grew as usual; it -was found out that his tomb in Lincoln minster was haunted. So says -the so-called Bromton (X Scriptt. 988), who is copied by Knighton -(2364); - - “Episcopatum Lincolniensem, per mortem sancti Remigii - vacantem, Roberto cognomento Bloet cancellario suo, viro - quidem libidinoso, dedit, qui prædictam ecclesiæ - dedicationem Lincolniensis postea segniter explevit. Hic - demum apud Wodestoke a latere regis recedens obiit et - exenteratus est, cujus viscera apud monasterium de Eynesham - quod ipse fundaverit, cetera apud Lincolniam sunt humata, - ubi satis constabat loci custodes nocturnis umbris esse - agitatos, quousque ille locus missis et eleemosynis - piaretur.” - -The reputation which Bishop Robert left behind him at Lincoln we learn -from Giraldus and John of Schalby in the seventh volume of Dimock’s -Giraldus. Giraldus himself (p. 31) brings him in as “prudentia et -probitate conspicuus.” He records his gifts to his church, and his -doubling the number of its prebends. From a Lincoln point of view, he -highly approves of the translation of the monks of Stow to Eynsham; -but he seems not to like the separation of Ely from the diocese of -Lincoln (see N. C. vol. v. p. 229), and he speaks of Robert’s -“inconsiderata largitio” and “alia sui deliramenta” in charging his -see with the gift of a mantle of sable, worth a hundred pounds, to the -King. John of Schalby (195) copies Giraldus, but abridges him, and -leaves out some of his epithets both of praise and blame. - - * * * * * - -The death of Bishop Robert in 1123 is recorded by several of our -writers, but there is no account so graphic as that in our own tongue. -The King is riding in his deerfold at Woodstock with the two bishops, -Robert of Lincoln and Roger of Salisbury, on either side of him. The -three ride and talk. The Bishop of Lincoln suddenly sinks, and says to -the King, “Lord King, I die (Laferd kyng, ic swelte).” The King gets -down from his horse, lifts him in his arms, and has him carried into -the house, where he soon dies (“Se king alihte dune of his hors, and -alehte hine betweox his earmes, and let hine beran ham to his inne, -and wearð þa sone dead”). Does this “inne” mean the King’s own house -at Woodstock, or any separate quarters of the Bishop, like the -“hospitium” of Anselm at Gloucester and elsewhere? - - * * * * * - -There is something odd in the Bishop’s last words being given in -English. The King knew that tongue, and the Bishop may very likely -have done so; but we can hardly fancy that they spoke it to one -another. - -The name “Bloet,” according to M. de Rémusat (Anselme, 160), is the -same as “blond.” - - -NOTE AA. Vol. i. p. 553. - -THE MISSION OF ABBOT GERONTO. - -I am not aware that this mission of the Abbot of Dijon has hitherto -found any place in any narrative history of the times of William -Rufus. And I confess that it is not without a certain misgiving that I -bring it in. It is certainly remarkable that our own writers should -with one consent pass by an event of this kind; but it would be yet -more amazing if it were sheer mistake or invention on the part of the -foreign writer who records it. It is one of those cases in which, -without any actual contradiction, it is very hard to bring a certain -statement into its right place. There is nothing in the story told by -Hugh of Flavigny which is really inconsistent with the narrative of -Eadmer; our only difficulty is how it came that, if these things -happened, Eadmer, who could not fail to have known of them, did not -think them worthy of any place in his very minute narrative. This -difficulty we must get over how we can. Otherwise the evidence of Hugh -of Flavigny is in a certain sense as good as that of Eadmer himself. -He stood to Abbot Geronto in much the same relation in which Eadmer -stood to Anselm. In his narrative, Geronto is sent by the Pope on a -mission to Normandy and England, and Hugh himself, a monk of Geronto’s -monastery, comes with him. For the mere facts therefore of Geronto’s -mission Hugh is as good a witness as Eadmer; but, as a foreigner on a -short visit, he could not be expected to have the same thorough -knowledge of English affairs as Eadmer, or any other English, or even -Norman, writer. There is to us at least something very strange in his -tone towards Anselm, or rather in the lack of any mention of Anselm at -all. He never speaks of him by name, and the only fact which he -records of him is the very strange one which I have mentioned in p. -535, that at some time, seemingly at the reception of the pallium, -Anselm took an oath to the Pope, with a reservation of his duty to the -King. One hardly sees how far he means to blame Anselm. The person -chiefly blamed is Cardinal Walter; Anselm comes in, in a strange -casual way, between the King and the Cardinal. - -I have given the whole or nearly the whole of Hugh’s story in the -foot-notes to those parts of the text which are founded upon his -account. He goes on a little later in his story (Pertz, viii. 495, -496) to record the death of William Rufus, and to say something more -about English affairs in general. It is plain that his friends in -England found him perfectly ready to believe the wildest tales that -they chose to tell him. At the same time, the tales that they did tell -him are such as could hardly have come into any man’s head to tell, -except in the reign of William Rufus. It is Hugh of Flavigny who tells -us those specially amazing stories to which I have referred in vol. i. -p. 544 and p. 503. He has also (496) some odd notices of the dogs of -the city of London, which were small, but very fierce, and which -gathered together by night in front of Saint Paul’s church, so that no -one could dare to pass by. He has also a good deal to say about those -natural phænomena of the reign of which we have heard a good deal from -other writers. He tells the story of the storm which visited the -church of Saint Mary-le-bow, with some further embellishment, that -“quadros super muri altitudinem sitos, supra quos tectum stabilitum -erat, usque ad septem milliaria evolare fecit.” And while two servants -of the church were sleeping in one bed, a beam was driven down between -them into the earth without doing them any harm, except nearly -frightening them to death; “In eadem etiam ecclesia jacebat quidem -ædituus cum alio quodam in lecto uno, et inter medium eorum, cum -jacerent distante inter se spacio, una trabium vento acta per medium -lecti terram intravit, ut vix summitas ejus appareret, nec læsit -jacentes, nisi quod timore pene exanimati sunt.” - -Hugh’s Chronicle, in two books, reaches from the Christian æra to the -year 1102. He was born at Verdun in 1065. He was a monk, first at -Verdun, then at Flavigny in the diocese of Toul, then at Dijon, and -lastly Abbot of Flavigny. Jarento or Geronto――I hardly know how to -spell his name――was in the close confidence of Gregory the Seventh and -his successors. There is a letter of Anselm’s (iii. 87) addressed to -Geronto; but it contains nothing bearing on his mission to England. It -is all concerned with the affairs of certain monks at Dijon and -Chartres. - - -NOTE BB. Vol. ii. p. 9. - -THE EMBASSIES BETWEEN WILLIAM RUFUS AND MALCOLM IN 1093. - -The fullest and clearest narrative of the transactions between William -Rufus and Malcolm which led to their rupture at Gloucester in 1093 -comes from the Chronicle, while some particular points are given at -greater length by Florence. In the Chronicle the story runs thus; - - “Ða æfter þisson sende [se] cyng of Scotlande and þære - forewarde gyrnde þe him behaten wæs, and se cing W. him - steofnode to Gloweceastre and him to Scotlande gislas sende, - and Eadgar æþeling æfter, and þa men syððan ongean, þe hine - mid mycclon wurðscipe to þam cynge brohtan. As þa þa he to - þam cynge com, ne mihte he beon weorðe naðer ne ure cynges - spæce ne þæra forewarde þe him ær behatene wæron, and forði - hi þa mid mycclon unsehte tohwurfon.” - -Here we have very clearly an embassy of complaint sent by Malcolm to -William――an invitation or summons, whichever it is to be called, to -the Gemót at Gloucester sent by William to Malcolm and accompanied by -hostages for his safety――a second embassy from William to Malcolm, -with Eadgar at its head, in whose company Malcolm’s ambassadors went -back to Scotland and Malcolm himself came to England. All this is cut -short by Florence, who however distinctly affirms the going to and fro -of some embassies, while it is from him that we get the date and a -fuller account of what happened at Gloucester. His narrative stands -thus; - - “Rex Scottorum Malcolmus, die festivitatis S. Bartholomæi - Apostoli [24 Aug.], regi Willelmo juniori, ut prius per - legatos inter eos statutum fuerat, in civitate Glaworna - occurrit, ut, sicut quidam primatum Angliæ voluerunt, pace - redintegrata, stabilis inter eos amicitia firmaretur; sed - impacati ab invicem discesserunt; nam Malcolmum videre aut - cum eo colloqui, præ nimia superbia et potentia, Willelmum - despexit.” - -_Colloqui_ is the technical word which we so often come across. The -meeting of the two kings would have been a _colloquium_ or -_parliament_. It is from Florence again that we get all the technical -law. His account goes on thus; - -“Insuper etiam illum [Malcolmum] ut secundum judicium tantum suorum -[Willelmi] baronum, in curia sua rectitudinem ei faceret, constringere -voluit; sed id agere, nisi in regnorum suorum confiniis, ubi reges -Scottorum erant soliti rectitudinem facere regibus Anglorum, et -secundum judicium primatum utriusque regni, nullo modo Malcolmus -voluit.” - -William of Malmesbury (iv. 311) loses the fact of the embassies and -the summons in a cloud of words; - - “Multis controversiis utrobique habitis, et fluctuante - propter utrorumque animositatem justitia, Malcolmus ultro - Gloecestram venit, æquis duntaxat conditionibus, multus pro - pace precator.” - -With regard to more modern discussions, I do not know that I can do -more than give the reader the same references which I gave in N. C. -vol. v. p. 120. But Mr. Robertson (i. 144 note) certainly has reason -when he says that “it does not follow that Malcolm spoke feudal Latin -because Florence wrote it.” One would be glad to have the actual words -in French, English, or, more precious than all, Irish. (This sets one -thinking what languages Malcolm may have spoken. We know that he -understood English, whether he learned it at the court of Eadward, or -afterwards from his wife. In one or other of those schools he would -most likely also pick up French. Margaret herself may also have -learned High Dutch, and possibly Magyar, from her parents.) But I can -make nothing of Mr. Robertson’s strange comment that “it is singular -to mark how nearly all the English authorities accuse Malcolm of ‘a -breach of faith’ because he resented the conduct of William, whilst -they pass over without notice the glaring ‘breach of faith’ on the -part of their own king.” Who charges Malcolm with any breach of faith, -except William of Malmesbury in the almost casual passage, iii. 250? -And what more could he wish the Chronicler and Florence to say against -William Rufus than what they do say? Mr. Robertson’s criticism is more -to the purpose when he attacks the words of William of Malmesbury, iv. -311; “Nec quicquam obtinuit, nisi ut in regnum indemnis rediret, -dedignante rege dolo capere quem virtute subegisset.” He remarks that -“the safe-conduct and the hostages detract something from this much -vaunted magnanimity, but Malmesbury would sacrifice a good deal for -the sake of a well-turned period.” It is certainly hard to see what -William had done to Malcolm which could be called “virtute subegisse;” -but Mr. Robertson fails to notice that this particular scruple is -characteristic of William Rufus. Careless of his faith in so many -other cases, he is always careful to observe a safe-conduct. - - -NOTE CC. Vol. ii. p. 16. - -THE DEATH OF MALCOLM. - -The last invasion of England by Malcolm was clearly made in reprisal -for the treatment which he had received at Gloucester. The words of -the Peterborough Chronicler are very remarkable. They seem to describe -a war which is acknowledged to be just in itself, but which is carried -on with needless cruelty; - - “And se cyng Melcolm ham to Scotlande gewænde. Ac hraðe þaes - þe he ham com he his fyrde gegaderode.” - -Most of the other writers fail to bring out the connexion both of time -and of cause and effect between the scene at Gloucester and the -invasion which led to Malcolm’s death at Alnwick. Perhaps we may count -Matthew Paris, the zealous panegyrist of Malcolm, as an exception. He -has nothing to tell us about Malcolm’s coming to Gloucester; but, -having mentioned William’s sickness there, which he wrongly places in -1092, he goes on (i. 43); - - “Eodem anno pius rex Scotorum Malcolmus, cujus actus in - benedictione vivunt immortales, cum non immerito contra - tirannum Willelmum II. regem sibi injuriantem guerram - movisset, interceptus est subito et, positis insidiis, - interemptus.” - -So in a later passage (i. 47) he speaks of Robert of Mowbray -overcoming Malcolm “proditiose.” Moreover several even of the English -writers seem to imply that there was something treacherous about the -way in which Malcolm met his death. The words of the Chronicler are, -“hine þa Rodbeard se eorl of Norðhymbran mid his mannan unwæres -besyrede and ofsloh.” And directly after he describes the grief of -Margaret on hearing “hyre þa leofstan hlaford and sunu þus -_beswikene_.” William of Malmesbury mentions the death of Malcolm -twice, and in rather different tones. The first time (iii. 250) he -seems to jumble up together Malcolm’s two invasions, leaving out all -about the meeting at Gloucester. He had said that through the whole -reign of the Conqueror Malcolm “incertis et sæpe fractis fœderibus -ævum egit,” and adds; - - “Filio Willelmi Willelmo regnante, simili modo impetitus, - falso sacramento insequentem abegit. Nec multo post, dum - fidei immemor superbius provinciam inequitaret, a Roberto de - Molbreia comite Northanhimbriæ, cum filio cæsus est.” - -In the second place (iv. 311), after describing the meeting at -Gloucester, he adds; “Idem proxima hyeme, ab hominibus Roberti comitis -Humbrensium, magis fraude quam viribus occubuit.” No one would think -from this that Malcolm had gone back to Scotland, got together his -army, and invaded Northumberland. It would rather suggest the idea -that he was attacked on his way back from Gloucester. And this comes -out more strongly in the very confused account of Orderic, 701 C. He -mixes up the events of 1091 and 1093. After the first conference by -the Scots’ water, the two kings go quietly together into England; then -we read; - - “Post aliquod tempus, dum Melcoma rex ad sua vellet remeare, - muneribusque multis honoratus a rege rediret pacifice, prope - fines suos Rodbertus de Molbraio, cum Morello nepote suo et - militibus armatis occurrit, et ex insperato inermem - interfecit. Quod audiens rex Anglorum, regnique optimates, - valde contristati sunt, et pro tam fœda re, tamque crudeli, - a Normannis commissa, nimis erubuerunt. Priscum facinus a - modernis iteratum est. Nam sicut Abner, filius Ner, a Joab - et Abisai, de domo David pacifice rediens, dolose peremptus - est, sic Melcoma rex, de curia Guillelmi regis cum pace - remeans, a Molbraianis trucidatus est.” - -This is one of those sayings of Orderic by which we are now and then -fairly puzzled. He gets hold of a scriptural or classical parallel, -and seems to be altogether carried away by it. It is hard to see the -likeness between the cases of Malcolm and Abner; but it is harder to -see why the deed is in a marked way attributed to “Normanni,” who seem -to be distinguished from the “rex Anglorum regnique optimates.” In -what sense were Morel and Robert of Mowbray Norman, in which the King -and the great mass of the “optimates” were not Norman just as much? - -Confused as these two last accounts are, they still suggest that there -was something about the way in which Robert and Morel contrived the -death of Malcolm which William Rufus would have looked on as not quite -consistent with the character of a “probus miles.” The one word -“beswikene” in the Chronicle doubtless goes for more than any amount -of Latin rhetoric, though its force is a little weakened by its not -occurring in the actual narrative of Malcolm’s death, but in the -account of Margaret’s grief at hearing of it, at which point most of -our writers put on more or less of the tone of hagiology. But the only -writer who gives us any details is Fordun (v. 20), in a passage which -professes to come from Turgot, on which see the remarks of Mr. Hinde -in his Simeon, p. 261. In his story we read how Malcolm, - - “Cum maximam prædam ex Anglia, more solito, ultra flumen - These, de Clefeland, Richemond, et alibi sæpius adduceret, - castrumque de Aylnwick, sive Murealden, quod idem est, - obsideret, obsessosque sibi rebellantes oppido affligeret, - hi, qui inclusi fuerant, ab omni humano excludebantur - auxilio.” - -The besieged, having no other chance, take to treachery. One man -offers himself to go on the desperate venture; he makes his way to the -Scottish camp, and asks for the King; - - “Quærentibus causam inquisitionis dixit, se castrum regi - traditurum, et in argumentum fidei claves ejusdem in hasta - sua coram omnibus portavit oblaturus. Quo audito rex, doli - nescius, incaute a tentorio inermis exiliens et minus - provide, occurrit proditori; at ille, quæsita opportunitate, - inermem regem armatus transfixit, et, latibula silvæ vicinæ - festinanter ingressus, eorum manus evasit.” - -Then follows the death of the King’s son Eadward; - - “Turbato igitur exercitu, dolor dolorem accumulat: nam - Eadwardus regis primogenitus a Northumbris lethaliter - vulneratur.” - -He dies three days later “apud Eardwardisle foresta de Jedwood,” and -was buried at Dunfermline “juxta patrem.” - -It is really impossible that this can be a genuine bit of Turgot. -There is nothing anywhere else about a siege of Alnwick, and Mr. Hinde -pertinently raises the question whether there was anything at Alnwick -to besiege. At any rate, it is strange that the defenders of Alnwick, -or anybody else whom Malcolm might come across in Northumberland, -should be called “rebellantes” against him. There is a very mythical -sound about the alleged form of Malcolm’s death. In the Tapestry (see -N. C. vol. iii. p. 240) keys are handed to a victorious besieger on -the point of a spear; but it is from the walls of the besieged place, -and they are received in the like sort. They surely would not be -presented in this way in the King’s own camp. And, if Malcolm was -killed in this way, how came Eadward to be mortally wounded? Mr. Hinde -adds; - - “The ridiculous tale of the person who pierced the king’s - eye, receiving from that exploit the designation of ‘Piercy, - quod Anglice sonat perforare oculum,’ is interpolated in - some MSS. of Fordun. This story must necessarily have been - invented after the Percy family became the possessors of - Alnwick, and so gave point, if not probability, to the - fiction.” - - * * * * * - -I suspect that Malcolm was killed in some ambush or in some other way -unlike open battle. Then sympathy for Margaret called up――except at -Durham and other parts more nearly concerned――sympathy for Malcolm. -Then the Chronicler, in this state of mind, used the harsh word -“beswikene,” and so a tale of actual treachery grew up. The version in -Fordun gives us the story in the form of a detailed legend; in Orderic -the tale itself is still vague; but the events which went before are -so altered as to make any attack on Malcolm treacherous. In that -version, he is going home from the King’s court in the King’s peace. -In the true version, he is invading England, perhaps on just grounds -in his own eyes, certainly on grounds which made his invasion by no -means wonderful. Still resistance to him was a rightful operation of -war, unless there was any actual treachery in the form which the -attack took. That such there was we have no direct evidence; but there -must have been something or other to account for the tone of so many -writers. Florence is colourless; so is Henry of Huntingdon. - - * * * * * - -The Hyde writer, as usual, takes a line of his own. He speaks (301) of -“quidam Robertus Northamhumbrorum comes, vir dives et potens, qui -regem Scotorum Malcolmum, patrem Matildis reginæ, bellando cum toto -pene exercitu interfecit.” It is not unlikely that the fact that -Malcolm was not only the husband of the sainted Margaret, but also the -father of the popular Queen Eadgyth-Matilda, won for him a measure of -sympathy after his death which he had not enjoyed while he was alive. -Indeed we get this relation distinctly set forth by the Continuator of -William of Jumièges (viii. 8), who after recording the life-long -imprisonment of Robert of Mowbray, adds, “Dictum est a pluribus, hanc -talionem sibi redditam fuisse, quia regem Scotiæ, patrem videlicet -nobilissimæ Mathildis postea reginæ Anglorum, dolose peremerat.” - - * * * * * - -Alnwick, as the place of Malcolm’s death, and of the capture of -another Scottish king in the next century, awakens a certain amount of -real interest beyond the range of mere legend and misapplied -sentiment. The late Mr. Hartshorne wrote with a strange feeling of -devotion towards anything that did profess and call itself Percy; but -he gives us the facts. All that need be known about Alnwick will be -found in his papers in the Archæological Institute’s second Newcastle -volume, p. 143. Robert of Veci appears in Domesday in several shires -as far north as Lincoln, but of course we cannot track him in the -unsurveyed parts of Northumberland. Of the original Percy we have -heard something in various parts in N. C. vol. iv. pp. 215, 295, 789; -vol. v. p. 773. The second set of Percies, those of Louvain, got to -Alnwick by a grant from Bishop Antony Beck in 1309 (Hartshorne, ii. -150, 152). Very little can be made of the Alnwick Chronicle printed in -Mr. Hartshorne’s Appendix. What can we say to a “William Tisonne” who -dies on the English side at Senlac, and who is the brother of Richard -Tisone who founds chapels in the year 1000, as his father “Gisbright” -founded abbeys before him? In this story the first Norman lord of -Alnwick is Ivo of Veci, who is described as “miles de secretariis,” -whatever that may mean, to the Conqueror, and he gets Alnwick along -with the daughter of the slain William Tisonne. Alnwick may quite -possibly have passed to a Norman lord by marriage with an English -heiress, but assuredly her father was not called William and did not -bear an hereditary surname, and it is much to his credit if, in the -teeth of his Earl, he found his way to the great battle from a point -so far north as Alnwick. - - -NOTE DD. Vol. ii. p. 28. - -THE BURIAL OF MARGARET. - -I do not wish to commit myself to any view as to the authorship of the -writings attributed to Turgot. It is sometimes, as I have more than -once remarked, hard to believe that the passages which are worked into -the text of Fordun, and which are printed at the end of the Surtees -Simeon as Turgot’s writing, can really come from a contemporary -writer. Still, whether Turgot’s or not, they contain fragments of real -information for which, in the great meagreness of our notices of -Scottish matters, we may well be thankful. In this case, it is from -one of these passages that we learn for certain, what we might for -ourselves have been inclined to guess, that Margaret, so deeply -reverenced in England then and in Scotland in later times, was not -popular in Scotland in her own day. Of her death, as we have seen, we -have several accounts, the fullest and most trustworthy being in her -own Life by Turgot. Again, we have several notices, though somewhat -meagre ones, of the national Scottish movement which placed Donald on -the throne. But it is only from one of these other bits of Turgot (if -it be Turgot) that we could find out that the two things had anything -to do with one another, and that the first thing which the national -party did was to attempt to disturb the burial of the holy Queen. -There is nothing of this in the Life, a fact which may possibly mark -the difference between Turgot writing hagiography, though I believe -truthful hagiography, and the same Turgot writing ordinary history. In -the former character, he does not invent or pervert; he simply leaves -out an unpleasant fact which in the other and humbler character he -records. - -The account of Margaret’s burial in the Life (Surtees Simeon, p. 254) -stands thus; - - “Corpus ipsius honorabiliter, ut reginam decebat, involutum, - ad Sanctæ Trinitatis, quam ipsa construxerat, ecclesiam - deportavimus, ibique, sicut ipsa jusserat, contra altare et - sanctæ crucis (quod ibidem erexerat) venerabile signum, - sepulturæ tradidimus.” - -These words cannot come directly from Turgot himself, who was not -there, but from the priest (see p. 27) who told him the story. Again, -Turgot’s readers would most likely understand that by the church of -the Holy Trinity was meant the church of Dunfermline. Otherwise one -might easily read the passage as implying that Margaret was buried in -the same place in which she died, though no name is given for either. -It is from the other account (Fordun, v. 21) that we learn that the -death happened at Edinburgh and the burial at Dunfermline. Here we get -a picture of Donald at the head of the insurgents or patriots, or -whatever we are to call them, entering Edinburgh by one gate, while -the body of Margaret is carried out by the other. The story runs thus; - - “Cum adhuc corpus sanctæ reginæ esset in castro [puellarum] - ubi illius felix anima ad Christum quem semper dilexerat - migravit, Donaldus Rufus vel Bane, frater regis, ejus audita - morte, regnum multorum manu vallatus invasit, et prædictum - castrum, ubi regis justos et legales sciebat heredes, - hostiliter obsedit. Sed quia locus ille natura sui in se - valde munitus est, portas solummodo credidit custodiendas, - eo quod introitus aut exitus aliunde non de facili pateat. - Quod intelligentes qui intus erant, docti a Deo, meritis, ut - credimus, sanctæ reginæ, per posticum ex occidentali plaga - sanctum corpus deferebant. Ferunt autem quidam, in toto - itinere illo nebulam subnubilam omnem familiam illam - circumdedisse, et ab omnibus aspectibus hostium miraculose - protexisse, ut nec itinerantibus terra vel mari nihil - obfuit, sed ad optatum prospere locum, ecclesiam scilicet de - Dunfermlyn, ubi nunc in Christo requiescit, sicut ipsa prius - jusserat, pervenientes deportarunt.” - -In the story of the mist we may clearly see a natural phænomenon set -down as a miracle (see Robertson, i. 156). But there seems no reason -for doubting the general outline of the story, namely, that Margaret -was unpopular with the party headed by Donald, and that they would -have gladly disturbed her burial. By comparing this story with the -Life we see how easy it is to leave out an important part of a tale -without bringing in anything that contradicts it. - - -NOTE EE. Vol. ii. p. 31. - -EADGYTH-MATILDA. - -That the daughter of Malcolm and Margaret who afterwards became the -wife of Henry the First by the well-known name of Matilda was baptized -by the name of Eadgyth, rests wholly on the authority of Orderic, who -mentions it twice. After recording the death of Malcolm (702 A), he -gives an account of his daughters; - - “Duas filias, Edith et Mariam, Christianæ, sorori suæ, quæ - Rumesiensis abbatiæ sanctimonialis erat, educandas, - sacrisque litteris imbuendas miserat. Illic diutius inter - monachas enutritæ sunt, et tam litteratoriam artem quam - bonorum observantiam morum edidicerunt, nubilemque ætatem - pertingentes, solatium Dei devotæ virgines præstolatæ sunt.” - -And directly after he calls her “Mathildis quæ prius dicta est Edith.” -It is a point on which Orderic was likely to be well informed, as he -is always careful and scrupulous in matters of nomenclature, and often -helps us to double names, as we have seen in the case of Mark -Bohemond. And the name Eadgyth is much more in harmony than Matilda -with the other names of Margaret’s children. Orderic however does not -mention the implied change of name where one might have looked for it, -namely where he records her marriage in 784 A. She is there only -“generosa virgo nomine Mathildis;” but in recording her death (843 B), -he again says “Mathildis regina, quæ in baptismate Edit dicta fuit.” -M. Francisque Michel, in his note on Benoît, iii. 344, refers also to -the Waverley Annals, 1086, for the earlier name; but there is nothing -of the kind there. There is Eadward and Eadgar, but not Eadgyth. Is -one English name held to be as good as another, even when a confusion -of sex is involved? - -In Eadmer, Hist. Nov. 56, where he describes the discussions which -went on before the marriage of Henry the First, we get Eadgyth’s own -story. She was brought up by her aunt Christina, of whom we have -already heard (see N. C. vol. iv. p. 695, where I carelessly spoke of -Christina as abbess), in the abbey of Wilton――it should surely be -Romsey. She was not a nun, nor designed to be one, but she was -compelled by her aunt to wear the veil to shelter her from the -violence of the Normans. Whenever her aunt’s back was turned, she tore -it from her head, and trampled upon it, for which the stern nun gave -her niece a good deal of blows and bad language; - - “Cum adolescentula essem, et sub amitæ meæ Christianæ, quam - tu [Anselmus sc.] bene nosti, virga paverem, illa servandi - corporis mei causa contra furentem et cujusque pudori ea - tempestate insidiantem Normannorum libidinem nigrum - panniculum capiti meo superponere, et me illum abjicientem - acris verberibus et nimis obscœnis verborum conviciis sæpe - cruciare simul et dehonestare solebat. Quem pannum in ipsius - quidem præsentia gemens ac tremebunda ferebam, sed mox ut me - conspectui ejus subtrahere poteram, arreptum in humum - jacere, pedibus proterere, et ita quo in odio fervebam, - quamvis insipienter, consueveram desævire.” - -Then her father comes, sees her with the veil, tears it from her head, -and says that he does not mean her to be a nun, but to be the wife of -Count Alan (“Pater meus cum me, quemadmodum dixi, velatam forte -vidisset, furore succensus, injecta manu velum arripuit, et dissipans -illud, odium Dei imprecatus est ei qui mihi illud imposuit, contestans -se comiti Alano me potius in uxorem quam in contubernium -sanctimonialium prædestinasse”). - -Here we are not told how she came under her aunt’s care, nor what -became of her after her father’s death. And there is something odd in -the general reference to the “Normans,” unless it is meant as part of -the outburst of special English feeling in the later months of the -year 1100. Another version, instead of Normans in general, attributes -the danger to a particular Norman whom we should hardly have looked -for. This version is to be found in a most singular story, to which I -have slightly referred in the text (see p. 32) and also in N. C. vol. -v. p. 169, in the Narratio Restaurationis Abbatiæ S. Martini -Tornacensis (D’Achery, ii. 893). The story is brought in at the same -point at which it is brought in by Eadmer, at the time when -Eadgyth――if that is to be her name――is sought in marriage by King -Henry. The writer, Hermann, Abbot of Saint Martin’s, says that he had -heard the story as a young man from Anselm himself. As Eadmer reports -Eadgyth’s own statement, Hermann reports the statement of the -abbess――“abbatissa in cujus monasterio puella illa fuerat nutrita.” If -any trust can be put in the uncertified list of abbesses of Romsey in -the Monasticon, ii. 507, the head of the sisterhood at that time would -seem to have been an English Æthelflæd. The maiden herself also is -without a name, and her brother is confounded with her father. She is -“puella quædam, filia David regis Scotiæ.” The Abbess’s story is that -the Scottish King entrusted his daughter to her care, not to become a -nun, but simply for education (“Rex David pater ejus mihi eam -commendavit, non ut sanctimonialis fieret, sed ut solummodo in -ecclesia nostra propter cautelam cum ceteris puellis nostris coætancis -suis nutriretur et literis erudiretur”). When the girl is about twelve -years old (“cum jam adolevisset,” which is explained afterwards to -mean “duodennis”), the Abbess hears that king William (defined as “rex -Willelmus, domini mei regis Henrici germanus”) has come to see her -(“propter eam videndam venisse”). In the case of any decent king such -a visit would surely have been neither scandalous nor wonderful. The -King is at the abbey-gate with his knights, and asks to have it -opened. The Abbess fears that he may conceive some bad purpose towards -the maiden, but hopes that he will respect her if she wears the -monastic veil. She therefore persuades Eadgyth to wear the veil for -the time; - - “Hæc audiens, nimiumque perterrita, ne forte ille, ut - juvenis et rex indomitus, qui omne quod animo sibi - occurrisset illico facere volebat, visa pulcritudine puellæ - aliquam ei illicitam violentiam faceret, qui tam improvisus - et insperatus propter eam videndam advenisset, in secretius - cubiculum eam introduxi, rem ei sicut erat aperui, eaque - volente velum unum capiti ejus imposui, quatenus eo viso rex - ab illicito complexu revocaretur.” - -The King goes into the cloister, as if to look at the flowers “quasi -propter inspiciendas rosas et alias florentes herbas”). He sees -Eadgyth with the veil, and goes away, showing, according to the -Abbess, that his visit had been on her account only (“mox ut eam vidit -cum ceteris puellis nostris velum capite gestantem, claustro exivit et -ab ecclesia recessit, aperte ostendens se non nisi propter eam -venisse”). Within a week King David came; seeing his daughter with the -veil on her head, he was very angry; he tore it from her head, -trampled it under-foot, and took his daughter away. - -As the Abbot’s memory clearly failed him on one point, it may have -failed him in others. This is, as far as I know, the only time in -history or legend in which William Rufus is brought into connexion -with the name of any woman. It may well be that Abbess Æthelflæd――if -that was her name――did not know the secrets of the Red King’s court, -and reckoned him among ordinary, instead of extraordinary, sinners. - - * * * * * - -The accounts of Orderic and Hermann assert, and that of Eadmer seems -to imply, that Eadgyth at least, most likely Mary also, was sent to be -brought up by their aunt when they were quite children. But there is -something a little odd in the appearance of Malcolm both in Eadmer and -in Hermann, where he is spoken of as if it were an every-day thing for -a King of Scots to show himself at Romsey. We may here perhaps help -ourselves to a date. The visit of Malcolm must surely have been when -he was in England in 1093. Eadgyth then, according to Hermann, was -about twelve years old. Now, it seems from William of Malmesbury (iv. -389) that she had a godfather whom we should hardly have looked for in -the person of Duke Robert. When could Robert have been godfather to a -daughter of Malcolm and Margaret? Surely when he was in Scotland in -the autumn of 1080 (see N. C. vol. iv. p. 671). That was therefore the -time of Eadgyth’s birth; she would then be under thirteen when her -father came into England. (Since this note was printed, I see that M. -Gaston Le Hardy, p. 41, takes this date for granted.) - -The fact that Malcolm and Margaret themselves sent their daughters -into England seems to dispose of the account in Fordun (v. 21; see p. -30), according to which their uncle Eadgar somehow contrived to bring -them to England after the death of their parents. The only way in -which the two versions could be reconciled would be by supposing that, -when Malcolm, according to Hermann, took Eadgyth away from Romsey, he -took her back to Scotland. - -In Eadgyth’s own statement in Eadmer, she says that her father meant -her to marry Count Alan. So Orderic (702 A) says; - - “Alanus Rufus Britannorum comes Mathildem, quæ prius dicta - est Edith, in conjugem sibi a rege Rufo requisivit; sed - morte præventus non obtinuit.” - -Mr. Robertson (i. 152) makes merry over this passage, and takes the -opportunity to sneer at Orderic. How, he asks, could Alan, who -outlived Eadgyth-Matilda and died in 1119――she died in 1118――have been -prevented by his own death from marrying her? He objects also that -Alan married the second time (see N. C. vol. iv. p. 647) in 1093, -“before Matilda could have sought refuge in England.” He adds, “Alan, -however, was once a suitor for the hand of Matilda, but to her own -father Malcolm (according to her own words), not to Rufus,” and goes -on to tell about Orderic’s “gossip,” “infinity of error,” and what -not. But though Orderic has made a slight slip, Mr. Robertson’s own -error is much greater. There can be little doubt that the Alan meant -is not the Alan of Britanny who married first Constance the daughter -of the Conqueror and then Ermengarde of Anjou, but Alan the Black the -second lord of Richmond (see N. C. vol. iv. p. 294, and Mrs. Green, -Princesses, i. 25), a much more likely husband for the Scottish King -to think of for his daughter. Now this Alan died in 1093, just about -the right time. Orderic has put _Rufus_ instead of _Niger_, which is -about the extent of his offence――perhaps confounding Alan the Black -with his brother Alan Fergeant, the first lord of Richmond. But Mr. -Robertson quite forgot that Malcolm sent his daughters into England -long before 1093. Thierry (ii. 152) saw clearly which Alan it was. - -William of Malmesbury (v. 418) has a singular passage, where he tells -us that “Matildis, filia regis Scotorum, a teneris annis inter -sanctimoniales apud Wiltoniam et Rumesium educata, literis quoque -fœmineum pectus exercuit. Unde, ut ignobiles nuptias respueret -plusquam semel a patre oblatas, peplum sacratæ professionis index -gestavit.” - -But who could look on a marriage with Count Alan as “ignobilis”? - - -NOTE FF. Vol. ii. pp. 17, 47, 49, 53. - -TYNEMOUTH AND BAMBURGH. - -The history of Tynemouth, and of Saint Oswine in relation to -Tynemouth, comes largely from the Life of Saint Oswine in the -Miscellanea Biographica published by the Surtees Society. This is the -work of a monk of Saint Alban’s who went to Tynemouth in 1111. There -are also several Saint Alban’s documents printed in the Monasticon, -iii. 312. There is a large history of Tynemouth by Mr. W. S. Gibson, -from which much may be learned, though the valuable facts and -documents have largely to be dug out of a mass of irrelevant matter. - -According to the Saint Alban’s writer, Eadwine built a wooden church -at Tynemouth, and there his daughter _Rosella_ took the veil. The name -is strange enough, but we may perhaps see a confused tradition of a -_British_ name, when we read that “locus ubi nunc cœnobium -Tinemuthense est, antiquitus a _Saxonibus_ dicebatur Penbalcrag, i.e. -caput valli in rupe. Nam circa hunc locum finis erat valli Severiani.” -This building must be the same as that which is referred to in the -Life, p. 11; “Delatus est ad ostium Tynæ fluminis, locum videlicet ab -incolis regionis ob imminentis rupis securitatem ab hostibus celebrius -frequentatum. Sed ob reverentiam gloriosæ Virgini Mariæ inibi -exhibitam tenerius amatum, ibique sepultus est in oratorio ejusdem -Virginis, quod constructum erat ad aquilonem fluminis.” He goes on to -tell how Oswald rebuilt the wooden church of stone, and how the -monastery was more than once destroyed by the Danes. The Saint Alban’s -writer (Mon. Angl. iii. 312) speaks more specially of the Danes. The -biographer carries us at once to the time of Tostig; - - “Memoria sancti martyris Oswini, obsoleta et penitus deleta, - funditus ab hominum notitia evanuit. Jacuitque per multa - annorum curricula gleba sancti corporis sub abjectiori - cespite tumulata et usque ad tempora Thostii comitis et - Ægelwini præsulis Dunelmi, incuriæ pariter et ignorantiæ - neglectu, debita veneratione est fraudata.” - -The writer has a curious remark to account for the neglect of the -saint; “Genti prædictæ nunc fideles, nunc infideles principabantur, et -juxta principum instituta, varia divinus cultus in subjectarum plebium -studiis sensit dispendia.” This is doubtless true of Deira, hardly so -of Bernicia, where no heathen prince reigned, though passing heathens -did a good deal of damage. - -He then gives a long account of the invention of the saint’s body, -which came about through the vision of a monk named Eadmund. Judith, -according to the character which she bears elsewhere (see N. C. vol. -ii. p. 391), appears as “devota Deo famula,” “præpotens et devota -femina,” “veneranda comitissa.” Of Tostig we are told that he -succeeded Siward, “non testamenti beneficio, sed sancti regis Ædwardi -dono regio.” He is described as beginning the new church which the -monks of Saint Alban’s afterwards finished (p. 15); “Cujus tamen -fundamenti initia, ut dicitur, comes Thostius jecerat, a fundamentis -ædificaverunt.” But his deposition and death seem to be looked upon as -a judgement for not being present in person at the invention (“Quia -prædixtus comes Thostius interesse sanctæ inventioni in ditione sua -factæ noluit, eodem anno culpis suis exigentibus ab Anglorum regno -expulsus,” &c.), the exact date of which is given, March 15, 1065. It -is added, “Thostio comite proscripto, hæreditas ejus devoluta est ad -fiscum regium.” - -Simeon in his History of the Church of Durham, iv. 4, puts the acts of -Tostig and of Waltheof together under the head of Northumbrian earls; -“Ecclesiam sane sancti Oswini in Tinemuthe, jamdudum donantibus -Northymbriæ comitibus, monachi cum adhuc essent in Gyrvum possederant, -unde etiam ipsius sancti ossa ad se transferentes in ecclesia sancti -Pauli secum non parvo tempore habuerunt, quæ postmodum ad priorem -locum retulerunt.” He then goes on to record the confirmation by Earl -Alberic, who “hoc donum renovavit, ipsamque ecclesiam cum suo -presbitero ecclesiæ sancti Cuthberti perpetuo possidendam adjecit.” - -It would seem that the fall of Tostig hindered the completion of his -church, and that at the time of Waltheof’s grant it was still without -a roof; for he goes on to say, “Quæ cum jam per quindecim annos velut -deserta sine tecto durasset, eam monachi culmine imposito renovarunt, -et per tres annos possederunt.” On receiving the confirmation of -Alberic, a monk with a good Danish name was sent to put things in -better order (Simeon, Gesta Regum, 1121); “Ex capituli totius -sententia monachus noster _Turchillus_ illuc mittitur, qui renovato -ecclesiæ ipsius culmine, per multum tempus habitavit ibidem.” - -I have referred to the charter of Waltheof and to the entry in Simeon -(Gesta Regum, 1080) in N. C. vol. iv. p. 666. It is printed, along -with a charter of Bishop William confirming it, dated April 27, 1085, -in the time of Earl Alberic, whose confirmation is recorded, in the -Surtees book called Historiæ Dunelmensis Scriptores Tres, pp. xviii, -xix. The signatures to both are nearly all English, with the single -exception of two to the charter of Waltheof. These are Gilbert, the -nephew (see N. C. vol. iv. p. 665) of Bishop Walcher, and an unknown -Walter. We meet with several other men that we know, as Morkere’s -father Ligulf and his brother Uhtred, and Leofwine, written -“Leobwinus,” the Dean of Durham. We notice also “Ernan Biscope sune,” -and three Englishmen with the knightly title “Alwinus miles,” -“Wlstanus miles,” and “Kinewlfus miles,” but I do not understand -“signum Aldredi comitis.” Earl Ealdred, the common grandfather of -Waltheof and young Morkere, had been murdered long ago, as the sons of -Carl found to their cost. The story is told again in Simeon, Gesta -Regum, 1121. - -The next stage in the story is the taking away of Tynemouth from the -church of Durham. It is amusing to contrast the ways in which this -story is told at Durham and at Saint Alban’s. Simeon, in the chapter -just quoted, tells us that Earl Robert made the gift to Saint Alban’s -“propter inimicitias quæ inter episcopum et ipsum agitabantur” (cf. -Gesta Regum, 1121). The cause of their ill-will, a dispute about -lands, comes out in the next chapter. Roger of Wendover (ii. 39), who -is copied by Matthew Paris (Hist. Ang. i. 41, and Chron. Maj. ii. 31), -tells us how Earl Robert――“vir quidem Deo devotus,” Matthew says――gave -Tynemouth to Saint Alban’s “divina inspiratione tactus.” The Gesta -Abbatum (i. 57) add that it was done “regis et archiepiscopi Lanfranci -benevolentia.” It would seem that under Durham rule Tynemouth had been -simply an impropriate church, while in the hands of Saint Alban’s it -became a cell. The judgement on Abbot Paul is recorded in the Durham -History, iv. 4. The Gesta Abbatum, which record much about him, both -good and evil, say nothing about this. The Life of Oswine, p. 15, -gives a full account of the ceremony of the translation of Saint -Oswine, with the date. Bishop Randolf of Durham was there, Abbot -Richard of Saint Alban’s, and “Abbas _Salesberiensis_ Hugo,” where we -may see (see Mon. Angl. iii. 495) the old confusion (see N. C. vol. -iv. p. 799) between Salisbury and Selby. - -Tynemouth then, at the time when the revolt of Robert of Mowbray began -(see p. 47), was already a monastery and a cell to Saint Alban’s, -though the monks of Durham still held that they had been wrongfully -deprived of it. But it appears from the narrative that, besides the -monastery, there was also a castle. The account in the Chronicle is, -“And þone castel æt Tinemuðan besæt oððet he hine gewann, and þæs -eorles broðer þærinne and ealle þa þe him mid wæron.” Florence says, -“Rex exercitu de tota Anglia congregato, castellum prædicti comitis -Rotberti, ad ostium Tinæ fluminis situm, per duos menses obsedit; et -interim, _quadam munitiuncula expugnata_, ferme omnes meliores comitis -milites cepit, et in custodia posuit; dein obsessum castellum -expugnavit, et fratrem comitis, et equites, quos intus inveniebat, -custodiæ tradidit.” Florence seems to me to have confounded the sieges -of Tynemouth and of the New Castle. By the “castellum ad ostium Tinæ” -he would seem to mean the New Castle, and by his “munitiuncula” he -would seem to mean the Earl’s fortress at Tynemouth. Now what was the -relation between the castle and the monastery? As things now stand, -castle and monastery are one. That is to say, the deserted church――or -more strictly the two deserted churches, monastic and parochial, once -under one roof (see Archæological Journal, vol. xxxvii. p. 250, No. -147, 1880)――standing on the northern promontory is now surrounded by -military buildings and the great gate-house. I get my notion of the -early arrangements of Tynemouth from several old plans collected by -Mr. Gibson. There is one which seems to be of the sixteenth century, -and, as the names are written in a curious mixture of English, Latin, -and Italian, it struck me that it might be the work of an officer of -those Italian mercenaries who were employed in the civil wars of -Edward the Sixth. This is the only one which distinctly shows “the -Castle,” on the southern promontory, though all mark that point as -taken in within the lines of defence. It seems to me that the southern -promontory must have been the site of the original castle, and that -the name of _Castle_ has shifted to the great gate-house, which fairly -deserves it. - - * * * * * - -With regard to the order of the sieges, Orderic, who gives us so full -an account of the siege of Bamburgh, tells us nothing about the -others. I gather from the words of the Chronicle that the New Castle, -which we find in the King’s hands directly after, was the point which -was first taken; “Sona þes þe he þider [to Norðhymbran] com, he manege -and forneah ealle þa betste of þes eorles hirede innan anan fæstene -gewann, and on hæftene gedyde.” Florence, as I have said, seems to -have misunderstood the words of the Chronicler, and to have confounded -Tynemouth and the New Castle. This last would surely be, as the -Chronicle implies, the first point of attack after the army entered -Northumberland in the sense which that word now bears. Next in the -narrative of the Chronicle follows the siege and capture of Tynemouth, -and then the great siege of Bamburgh. Of this famous fortress I found -something to say long ago in N. C. vol. i. p. 410, where Bamburgh -appears as marking one stage in the art of fortification. Bæda (iii. -16) witnesses that the place took its name “ex Bebbæ quondam reginæ -vocabulo;” so also the Northumbrian writer copied by Simeon of Durham, -774; - - “Bebba civitas urbs est munitissima, non admodum magna, sed - quasi duorum vel trium agrorum spatium, habens unum - introitum cavatum, et gradibus miro modo exaltatum. Habet in - summitate montis ecclesiam præpulcre factam, in qua est - scrinium speciosum et pretiosum. In quo involuta pallio - jacet dextera manus sancti Oswaldi regis incorrupta, sicut - narrat Beda historiographus hujus gentis.” - -The reference here is to Bæda, iii. 6, where he tells the story of -Oswald’s bounty and the prophecy of Aidan, and adds how his hand and -arm, cut off after his death in the battle by Penda, “in urbe regia -quæ a regina quondam vocabulo Bebba cognominatur, loculo inclusæ -argenteo in ecclesia sancti Petri servantur, ac digno a cunctis honore -venerantur.” So again, iii. 12, where Bamburgh is simply “regia -civitas.” He goes on to speak of the well; “Est in occidente et in -summitate ipsius civitatis fons miro cavatus opere, dulcis ad potandum -et purissimus ad videndum.” Florence also refers to the origin of the -name; with him it is “Bebbanbyrig, id est, Urbs Bebbæ reginæ;” and -Orderic (704 A) draws a little picture of the spot; “Munitissimum -castrum, quod Babbenburg dicitur, obsederunt. Et quoniam illa munitio -inexpugnabilis erat, quia inaccessibilis videbatur propter paludes et -aquas, et alia quædam itinerantibus contraria, quibus ambiebatur, rex -novam munitionem ad defensionem provinciæ et coartationem hostium -construxit, et militibus, armis, ac victualibus implevit.” This last -fact, the making of the _Malvoisin_, is recorded by the Chronicler and -Florence, both of whom give the name. The Chronicler says; “Ac þa þa -se cyng geseah þæt he hine gewinnan ne mihte, þa het he makian ænne -castel toforan Bebbaburh and hine _on his spæce_ Malueisin het, þæt is -on Englisc yfel nehhebur, and hine swiðe mid his mannan gesætte, and -syððan suðweard for.” So Florence; “Ante Bebbanbyrig in quam comes -fugerat, castellum firmavit, id que Malveisin nominavit, et in illo -militibus positis, in Suthymbriam rediit.” We may here note the way in -which the Chronicler assumes French as the language of William Rufus, -and also Florence’s somewhat archaic way of speaking of “Suthymbria,” -where the Chronicler says simply “suðweard.” It is something like his -mention of West-Saxonia in 1091 (see vol. i. p. 305). - -The _Malvoisin_ was clearly such a tower as we often hear of, -temporary and of wood, but still not moveable, as is implied in -Florence’s word “firmavit.” But the name seems afterwards to have been -transferred to moveable towers; see Du Cange in Malveisin, where he -refers to the passage about the siege of Dover in Roger of Wendover, -iii. 380; “Misso prius ad patrem suum propter petrariam, quæ -‘Malveisine’ Gallice nuncupatur, qua cum machinis aliis Franci ante -castrum locata muros acriter crebris ictibus verberabant.” In his -account of the siege of Bamburgh (ii. 46) Roger says, “Cum castellum -inexpugnabile advertit, ante castellum illud castellum aliud _ligneum_ -construxit, quod Malveisin appellavit, in quo partem exercitus sui -relinquens inde recessit.” Matthew Paris copies this in the Chronica -Majora in the Historia Anglorum, i. 48; his words are, “Ante castellum -illud aliud sed _ligneum_ construxit, ad præcludendum illis exitum, -quod patria lingua _Maleveisine_ appellavit.” Viollet-le-Duc (Military -Architecture of the Middle Ages, 24, Eng. trans.) seems to imply that -moveable towers were known earlier than this time, but he seems (p. -30) to bring the petraria from the East. - -As for the details of the siege, the Chronicler and Florence tell us -nothing till we come to the escape of Robert from Bamburgh. It is -Orderic who gives us the picture of the state of mind of Robert and -his companions, which, if it belongs to any period of the siege, must -belong to the time before the King went southward. We see the loyal -troops busily working at the making of the _Malvoisin_; - - “Conscii autem perfidiæ et fautores eorum detegi verentes - conticuerunt, et metu exsangues, quia conatus suos nihil - valere perpenderunt, regiis cohortibus immixti, ejus - servitium, cujus exitium optaverant, prompte aggressi sunt. - Interea, dum rex in armis cum agminibus suis ad bellum - promptus constaret, et chiliarchos ac centuriones, aliosque - proceres Albionis, cum subditis sibi plebibus, operi novæ - munitionis indesinenter insistere compelleret, Rodbertus de - propugnaculis suis contrarium sibi opus mœstus conspiciebat, - et complices suos alta voce nominatim compellebat, ac ut - jusjurandum de proditionis societate conservarent, palam - commonebat. Rex autem cum fidelibus suis hæc audiens - ridebat, et conscia reatus publicati mens conscios et - participes timore et verecundia torquebat.” - -Then the King goes away; in Orderic’s phrase, “rege ad sua prospere -remeante, et de moderamine regni cum suis amicis solerter tractante,” -a rather odd description of the war in Wales. Now comes Robert’s -escape from Bamburgh. Orderic, who seems to have no clear idea of any -place except Bamburgh, merely says that Robert, “longæ obsidionis -tædio nauseatus, noctu exilivit, et de castro in castrum migrare -volens in manus inimicorum incidit.” The Chronicle is fuller; “Ða sona -æfter þam þe se cyng wæs suð afaren feorde se eorl anre nihte ut of -Bebbaburh towardes Tinemuðan, ac þa þe innan þam niwun castele wæron -his gewær wurdon, and him æfter foran and onfuhton and hine -gewundedon, and syððan gelæhton, and þa þe mid him wæron sume ofslogan -sume lifes gefengon.” But it is from Florence that we get the detailed -account. His story runs thus; - - “Post cujus discessum, comiti Rotberto vigiles Novi Castelli - promisere in id se permissuros illum intrare, si veniret - occulte. Ille autem lætus effectus, quadam nocte cum xxx. - militibus ut id perageret exivit. Quo cognito, equites qui - castellum custodiebant illum insequentes, ejus exitum - custodibus Novi Castelli per nuntios intimaverunt. Quod ille - nesciens, die dominica tentavit peragere cœpta, sed - nequivit, deprehensus enim erat. Eapropter ad monasterium S. - Oswini regis et martyris fugit, ubi sexto die obsessionis - suæ graviter in crure est vulneratus dum suis adversariis - repugnaret, quorum multi perempti, multi sunt vulnerati, de - suis quoque nonnulli vulnerati, omnes sunt capti; ille vero - in ecclesiam fugit, de qua extractus, in custodia est - positus.” - -Here now comes the obvious difficulty as to the way in which the Earl -could have got into the monastery at Tynemouth after the castle had -been taken. The Chronicler indeed does not necessarily imply that he -got into Tynemouth at all. The fight which he describes might have -happened somewhere else and not at Tynemouth. And if any one chooses -to move the site of Robert’s resistance and capture from Tynemouth to -some unknown spot, there is only the statement of Florence against -him. That Robert was taken, and taken after a stout resistance, is -plain. - -With Robert’s capture, Orderic ends his story, as far as military -operations are concerned. “Captus a satellitibus regis, Rodbertus -finem belli fecit.” In a very general way this is not untrue; it was -the capture of Robert which brought about the end of the war. But it -is odd that he should have left out the striking story of the captive -Earl being brought under frightful threats before the castle which his -wife was defending. This stands out clearly in the Chronicle; “Ða þa -se cyng ongean com, þa het he niman þone eorl Rotbeard of Norðymbram, -and to Bæbbaburh lædan, and ægðer eage ut adon, buton þa þe þærinne -wæron þone castel agyfan woldan. Hine heoldan his wif and Moreal, se -wæs stiward and eac his mæg. Ðurh þis wearð se cartel þa agyfen.” -Florence translates this. - - * * * * * - -Lastly comes the great difference of all as to Earl Robert’s last -days. The Chronicler and Florence merely record his imprisonment at -Windsor, without saying how long it lasted. Florence says only, “Comes -forti custodiæ mancipandus ad Windlesoram est ductus,” followed by the -passage about Morel quoted in p. 55. He says nothing about the many -accusations brought by Morel, or about the special summons of all the -tenants-in-chief to the trial, of which the Chronicler speaks (see p. -56). The Chronicler, after recording them, says; “And þone eorl -Rotbert hét se cyng to Windlesoran lædan, and þær innan þam castele -healdan.” This is consistent with any later destiny, with release and -monastic profession or with lifelong imprisonment. This last is -asserted by several authorities. Thus Orderic (704 A) says; -“Rodbertus…. fere triginta annis in vinculis vixit, ibique scelerum -suorum pœnas luens consenuit.” He then sets forth the sad state of his -wife; “Mathildis uxor ejus, quæ cum eo vix unquam læta fuerat, quia in -articulo perturbationis desponsata fuerat, et inter bellicas clades -tribus tantum mensibus cum tremore viri thoro incubuerat, maritali -consolatione cito caruit, multisque mœroribus afflicta diu gemuit.” -The Continuator of William of Jumièges (viii. 8), who has nothing to -say about Matilda, equally bears witness to Robert’s lifelong -imprisonment; “Captus a militibus Willelmi regis, ipsoque jubente in -ipsis vinculis diutius perseverans; regnante jam Henrico rege, tandem -in ipso ergastulo deficiens mortuus est.” So William of Malmesbury, -iv. 319; “Captus et æternis vinculis irretitus est.” - -On the other hand, there clearly was a story according to which Robert -was released some time or other, and died a monk at Saint Alban’s. It -is somewhat remarkable that there is no mention of this in any of the -chief writings of Matthew Paris, neither in the Historia Major nor the -Historia Anglorum, nor the Lives of the Abbots. But we find the story -implied in the extract from his Additamenta in the Monasticon, iii. -312; “Ibidem [at Tynemouth] monachos congregavit de domo sancti -Albani, tanquam ab electissima domo inter omnia cœnobia Angliæ, ubi -etiam se vovit monasticum habitum suscepturum, et sepulturam in loco -memorato. Quæ omnia, Deo sibi propitio, feliciter consummavit.” So in -the Abbreviatio Chronicorum (Hist. Angl. iii. 175), a marginal note is -added to the name of Earl Robert; “Sepultus est apud sanctum Albanum.” -But, oddly enough, the most distinct statement that he became a monk -comes, not from any Saint Alban’s writer, but from one manuscript of -the “De Regibus Saxonum Libellus” at the end of the Surtees Simeon, p. -214. King Henry keeps Robert of Mowbray some while in prison; then -“rogatu baronum suorum eundem resolvens, concessit illi mutare vitam -habitumque sæcularem. Qui ingressus monasterium Sancti Albani sub -professione monastica ibidem vitam finivit.” - -The story about Matilda’s second marriage and divorce comes from -Orderic. His story runs thus; “Vir ejus, ut dictum est, in carcere -vivebat, nec ipsa, eo vivente, secundum legem Dei alteri nubere -legitime valebat. Tandem, permissu Paschalis papæ, cui res a curiosis -enucleata patuit, post multos dies Nigellus de Albineio ipsam uxorem -accepit, et pro favore nobilium parentum ejus, aliquamdiu honorifice -tenuit. Verum, defuncto Gisleberto de Aquila fratre ejus, vafer -occasionem divortii exquisivit, eamque, quia consanguinei sui conjux -fuerat, repudiavit, et Gundream, sororem Hugonis de Gornaco, uxorem -duxit.” If all this happened at all, it must have happened between -1099 and 1118, the years which mark the reign of Paschal. - -Matilda of Laigle could not well have been the sister of William the -Chaplain to whom Bishop Herbert Losinga writes his third letter (Ep. -Herberti, p. 5). He there says; “De matrimonio sororis vestræ non -aliud respondeo vobis, quam id quod præsens ex ore meo audivistis, suo -videlicet ut vivente viro, secundum evangelium et secundum sanctorum -canonum usum, alii viro nubere non potest.” But the person spoken of -could hardly have been thinking of such a marriage, unless she had -some special excuse, like this of Matilda. - -The second wife of Nigel appears both as “Gundrea” and as “Gundreda.” -There is a great deal about her husband Nigel and her son Robert, the -founder of Byland Abbey, in the Monasticon, v. 346-351. The marriage -of Nigel and Gundreda took place after Tinchebrai, and as King Henry -gave Nigel the castle of Mowbray, and much else in Normandy and -England which had belonged to Earl Robert, their son Roger called -himself Roger of Mowbray. Such a description was likely to lead to -confusion, and it may have led some to fancy that later bearers of the -name of Mowbray had something to do with the famous Bishop and Earl of -our story. The artificial Percy is indeed connected with the real one -by grandmothers; but the artificial Mowbray was purely artificial. -This Roger of Mowbray appears also in the Continuator of William of -Jumièges, viii. 8, who tells us that Nigel himself became a monk at -Bec. - - * * * * * - -As Walknol has been casually mentioned in the text (p. 47) there may -be some interest in a document in the Cartulary of Newminster -published by the Surtees Society, p. 178. The date must be after 1137, -the date of the foundation of Newminster. The number of English names, -and specially the two bearers of scriptural names who are sons of -English-named fathers, illustrate points of which I have often had to -speak; - - “De terra de Walknol in castro. Johannes filius Edwyni - fabri, salutem. Sciatis me concessisse, dedisse, et hac - præsenti carta mea confirmasse, Bartholomæo filio Edricii - illam terram totam quæ jacet in australi parte cimiterii - capellæ beati Michaelis, in longitudine a curtillo Eadmundi - clerici usque ad terram quæ fuit Johannis Stanhard, et in - latitudine a cimiterio capellæ beati Michaelis usque ad - antiquam communem viam subtus versus austrum. Habendum et - tenendum eidem Bartholomæo et hæredibus suis de me et - hæredibus meis et assignatis in perpetuum, libere, quiete, - et pacifice, pro duabus marcis arg. quas michi dedit idem - Bartholomæus in manu in mea magna necessitate.” - - -NOTE GG. Vol. ii. p. 79. - -THE CONQUEST OF GLAMORGAN. - -I gave a note to the conquest of Glamorgan in the Appendix to vol. v. -of the Norman Conquest, p. 820. I look, as I did then, upon the -account in what I find it convenient to call the later Brut as -thoroughly legendary in its details, though I am perhaps inclined to -put rather more faith in the general story than I was then. And I am -not so much inclined as I was then to draw the same wide distinction -as Mr. Floyd draws between the expeditions led by the King himself and -those which partook more or less of the character of private -adventure. There was doubtless a difference, when it was King William -who called the whole force of England to his standard, and when it was -only either Earl Hugh or Robert Fitz-hamon who set out on an -expedition on his own account. But both processes were parts of the -same general undertaking. Whatever individual lords conquered, they -conquered with the King’s approval, to be held by them as his vassals -and subjects. He himself stepped in only on great occasions, when the -Welsh seemed to be getting too strong for the local lords. The same -general work must have been going on all over the country. The only -strange thing is that the conquest of Glamorgan, of whose general -results there can be no doubt, and of which we have so very full a -legendary account, is left out altogether in every really trustworthy -history. - -Jestin ap Gwrgan must be accepted as a real man, on the strength of -his real sons and grandsons (for his sons see N. C. vol. v. p. 821); -but that is all that can be said of him. We can hardly carry our faith -so far as Mr. John Williams ab Ithel, the Editor of the Brut in the -Chronicles and Memorials, who asks us (xxiii) to “consider the great -age of the prince of Glamorgan when he died. He is said to have -married his first wife A.D. 994”――it is perhaps prudent to mention the -æra――“and to have died at the age of 111, according to others 129.” We -Saxons do not venture to believe in the kindred tales of our own -Harold and Gyrth. But we learn from Mr. Williams himself, at the very -beginning of his Preface, that “the voice of Tradition would not lead -us to suppose that the ancient Britons paid any very particular -attention to the study of chronology previous to the era of Prydain, -son of Aedd the Great, which is variously dated from the year 1780 to -480 before the nativity of Christ.” If centuries went for so little in -the days of Prydain, it is not wonderful that decades did not go for -much in the days of Jestin. Nor are we surprised to find that Mr. -Williams knew the exact number of the descendants of Jestin, who were, -like those of Attila, “pene populus.” All that we can say of Jestin’s -story, in relation to Robert Fitz-hamon and his companions, is that -there is no trustworthy evidence either for or against the story of -his invitation to the Norman knights, but that the tale has a -legendary sound, and that the date is in any case wrong. If we should -be inclined, according to one or two indications (see p. 84), to place -the conquest of Glamorgan several years earlier, perhaps even before -the death of the Conqueror, we are only carried away yet further from -the perfectly certain date of the death of Rhys ap Tewdwr. All that we -can say is that the general story may be true, but that the list of -settlers given in the later Brut (72 to 75) is largely due to family -vanity. The Stradling family, for instance, had nothing to do with the -original conquest. - -The best account of the whole matter is to be found in Mr. Clark’s -first paper on “The Land of Morgan,” in the Archæological Journal, -xxxiv. 11. I cannot however admit with him (p. 18) that “it seems -probable that to the early Vikings, and not to the later settlements -of Flemings or English, is due the Teutonic element which prevails in -the topography of lower Pembroke and Gower.” I am quite ready (see p. -95) to admit a certain Scandinavian element; but the Flemish -settlement in Pembrokeshire is undoubtedly historical (see N. C. vol. -v. p. 855), while we have fair legendary evidence for making the -settlement in Gower West-Saxon (see p. 103). The name of _Worm’s Head_ -given to the great promontory of Gower, in marked distinction to the -Scandinavian _Orm’s Head_ in North Wales, goes a long way to show that -the Teutonic settlers in Gower were either Flemish or Saxon, and not -Scandinavian. - - -NOTE HH. Vol. ii. p. 115. - -GODWINE OF WINCHESTER AND HIS SON ROBERT. - -I gave a short note to the history of Robert son of Godwine in N. C. -vol. v. p. 819. On going again more minutely through the story, I am -even more struck than before by the singular way in which different -notices of Robert and Godwine hang together. It is one of the best -cases that I know of the argument from undesigned coincidences. -Besides the interest of the story in itself, it teaches us, like many -other stories, how, if we work with a proper caution, we may dig truth -out of quarters where we should hardly have looked for it, and it may -specially suggest matter for thought as to the value of those pieces -of Scottish history which one hardly knows whether to call the -writings of Turgot or Fordun, or of any one else. I suspect that, if -we simply read the story of Godwine and Robert as it stands in Fordun, -we should be inclined to cast it aside altogether. The story -undoubtedly has a legendary air, and the details of the single combat -are likely enough to have received some legendary colouring even at -the time. Some might even be a little startled at the appearance of -Englishmen of knightly rank at the court of William Rufus. But we see -from Domesday on the one hand, and from William of Malmesbury on the -other, that Godwine and Robert were real men, and we see that the part -which they play in Fordun’s story is exactly in accordance with their -real position. - -I have mentioned elsewhere (see N. C. vol. iv. p. 571; vol. v. p. 819) -that there was a Godwine holding lands in Hertfordshire of the -Ætheling Eadgar. We also have in two places in William of Malmesbury -(iii. 251; iv. 384) notices of “Robertus Anglus,” “Robertus filius -Godwini miles audacissimus,” who goes to the crusade with the -Ætheling, and who does the exploits which I have spoken of in p. 122. -Now if circumstantial evidence is ever good for anything, one can -hardly doubt that the Godwine of Domesday is the same as the Godwine -of William of Malmesbury and as the Godwine of Fordun, and that the -Robert son of Godwine in Fordun is the same as the Robert son of -Godwine in William of Malmesbury. The three accounts are wholly -independent, but all bring Godwine and Robert into connexion with -Eadgar. It is almost inconceivable that Fordun’s story should be mere -invention, when it makes men of whom so little is known act exactly in -character with the little that is known of them. - -In the account in Fordun (ii. 22, Surtees Simeon 263), Ordgar, -“Orgarus,” is described in the one text as “miles degener Anglicus,” -in the other as “miles de genere Anglico,” which is clearly the better -reading. - -The name of Ordgar appears only twice in Domesday. In Oxfordshire, -161, Ordgar, a king’s thegn, holds two hides of the worth of forty -shillings. He had two slaves on his domain, and half a carucate was -held by two villains or churls. We then read, “Godwinus libere -tenuit.” This is pretty sure to be our Ordgar, and it may very well be -our Godwine, though we can say nothing for certain about so common a -name. If they are the same, here is great likelihood, though no proof, -that Godwine may have had other ground for willingness to fight -Ordgar, besides his loyalty to the Ætheling. Ordgar, on the other -hand, appears in Somerset, 93, as holding a hide which had passed to -Robert of Courcelles, and which, with a good deal more, was held by -Anschitil. Ordgar was not the only Englishman who, among the endless -forfeitures and grants――to say nothing of ordinary sales, bequests, -and exchanges, which went on T. R. W. as well as T. R. E.――lost in one -part of England and gained in another. - -In Fordun’s story Eadgar is described as “clito Eadgarus, viz. genere -gloriosus, nam sic ipsum nominabant.” “De genere gloriosus,” it will -be marked, is a more literal translation of “Clito” than it is of -“Ætheling.” William is inclined to hearken to Ordgar, “quia Eadgarus -de regia stirpe fuerat progenitus, et regno, jure Anglico, proximus.” -We then read, “nec incerta de Eadgaro jam poterat esse sententia, si -crimen impositum probari potuisset.” Eadgar is in great trouble for -fear of not finding a champion, when Godwine steps forward; “Miles de -Wintonia, Anglicus natione, genere non ignobilis, nomine Godwinus, -veteris parentelæ ipsius non immemor, opem se præstiturum in hac re -tam difficili compromisit.” - -The two knights now go forth, as I have described in the text, and we -have a significant comment on the lack of English patriotism shown by -Ordgar; - - “Hinc etiam calumniatorem cum justa animadversione increpat, - qui Anglicus genere existens naturæ videretur impugnator, - quem enim ut dominum venerari debuerat, utpote de jure - generis existens cui se et omnia sua debuisset.” - -Then come the details of the combat. We hear no more of Godwine after -his victory and reward, which last is thus told; “Superati hostis -terras et possessiones hereditario jure rex ei concederet -possidendas.” “Hereditario jure” most likely simply means, as usual, -that the land was to go on to Godwine’s heirs. It need not refer to -the probable fact that part at least of Ordgar’s lands had once -belonged to Godwine. - -Robert first appears in Fordun, v. 25, on the march to Scotland (see -p. 119). He is introduced as “quidam miles, Anglicus genere, Robertus -nomine, filius antedicti Godwini, paternæ probitatis imitator et -hæres.” Then come his exploits and adventures in Britain, as I have -told them in the text. Afterwards must come his crusading exploits as -described by William of Malmesbury. In the earlier of his two accounts -(see p. 122) one might almost have thought that King Baldwin had no -companion except Robert. The second passage, which gives them four -other companions, has therefore the force of a correction; “Rex … -quinque militibus comitatus, in montana rependo, insidiantes elusit. -Militum fuit unus Robertus Anglus, ut superius dixi; cæteros notitiæ -nostræ fama tam longinqua occubuit. Ille cum tribus comprehensus est; -unus evasit cum rege.” Another point which is worth notice is that the -period of the crusade at which Robert is brought in exactly agrees -with the story of his doings in Scotland and Northumberland. A man who -had difficulties with Flambard after he became bishop in 1099 could -not have been with the first crusaders at Antioch and Jerusalem; he -might have been quite in time to help Baldwin at Rama. - - * * * * * - -It would be worth the while of some Hertfordshire antiquary to see -whether anything can be made out as to the descent of the lands held -by Godwine, or as to any descendants of him and Robert. But I saw a -little time back a newly published history of that county, which was -eloquent about the grandmothers of various obscure persons of our own -time, but which had not a word to say about the champion of Eadgar or -the comrade of Baldwin. - - -NOTE II. Vol. ii. p. 133. - -THE EXPEDITION OF MAGNUS. - -The expedition of Magnus, which, by leading him to the shores of -Anglesey, had a not unimportant bearing on English affairs, is not -spoken of at any great length by our own writers. The Chronicler does -not name the Norwegian king; but he does not fail to mention the death -of Earl Hugh of Shrewsbury, and, what was practically its most -important result, the succession of his brother Robert. His words are; -“And Hugo eorl wearð ofslagen innan Anglesege fram ut wikingan and his -broðer Rodbert wearð his yrfenuma, swa swa he hit æt þam cynge -ofeode.” Florence is fuller; - - “Eo tempore rex Norreganorum Magnus, filius regis Olavi, - filii regis Haroldi Harvagri, Orcadas et Mevanias insulas - cum suo adjecisset imperio, paucis navibus advectus illuc - venit. At cum ad terram rates appellere vellet comes Hugo de - Scrobbesbyria, multis armatis militibus in ipsa maris ripa - illi occurrit, et, ut fertur, mox ab ipso rege sagitta - percussus … interiit.” - -Florence, it will be seen, here makes the same confusion between the -names _Hardrada_ and _Harfagra_ which he made in 1066, and which so -many others made beside him. To the account in William of Malmesbury, -iv. 329, I have referred in p. 134. He alone it is who mentions the -presence of the younger Harold in the fleet of Magnus. His words, -which I quoted in p. 124, seem to come from the same source as the -account in Florence; but he gives the story a different turn by -distinctly making Magnus design an attack on England; - - “Jam Angliam per Anglesiam obstinatus petebat; sed - occurrerunt ei comites, Hugo Cestrensis et Hugo - Scrobesbiriensis; et antequam continentem ingrederetur, - armis eum expulerunt. Cecidit ibi Hugo Scrobesbiriensis, - eminus ferreo hastili perfossus.” - -Henry of Huntingdon would seem to translate the Chronicle; but he -makes a confusion as to the persons by whom Earl Hugh was slain; “Hugo -consul Salopscyre occisus est ab Hibernensibus. Cui successit Robertus -de Belem frater ejus.” - -If we could suppose that the Archdeacon of Huntingdon had paid so much -attention to British affairs, we might fancy that he confounded the -fleet of Magnus with the wikings from Ireland whom Cadwgan and -Gruffydd hired a little time before. See p. 128. - -The Welsh writers naturally tell the tale as part of their own -history. The Earls have come into Anglesey; then comes Magnus. There -are two different accounts in two manuscripts of the Annales Cambriæ; -that which the editor follows in the text runs thus; - - “Francis in insula morantibus, Magnus rex Germaniæ cum - exercitu venit in insulam volens. Sed ei nolenti Franci ei - occurrentes se invicem sagittis salutaverunt, hi de terra, - illi de mari, alter comes sagitta in facie percussus - occubuit. Quo facto, Magnus abivit.” - -The other manuscript reads; - - “Francis in insula morantibus, Magnus rex Germaniæ ad - insulam Mon venit et prœlium cum consulibus commisit; sed - alter consulum vulneratus in facie cecidit; alter vero cum - majoribus insulam dereliquit. Postea vero Magnus rex insulam - Mon repente reliquit.” - -The Brut says; - - “The French entered the island, and killed some of the men - of the island. And whilst they tarried there, Magnus, King - of Germany, came, accompanied by some of his ships, as far - as Mona, hoping to be enabled to take possession of the - countries of the Britons. And when King Magnus had heard of - the frequent designs of the French to devastate the whole - country, and to reduce it to nothing, he hastened to attack - them. And as they were mutually shooting, the one party from - the sea, and the other party from the land, Earl Hugh was - wounded in the face, by the hand of the King himself. And - then King Magnus, with sudden determination, left the - borders of the country.” - -It will be seen that both versions of the Annals call Magnus “rex -Germaniæ.” In the text of the Brut he is “Magnus brenhin Germania.” -Another manuscript, worse informed as to his name, better informed as -to his kingdom, calls him “Maurus brenhin Norwei.” This odd -description of a Norwegian king as king of Germany has been met with -before in the Brut, 1056; but it is not found in the Annals for that -year. But it must have been by a kindred flight that the annalist in -1066 called Harold Hardrada “rex Gothorum.” - - * * * * * - -Our fuller accounts of the course of Magnus come from Orderic, from -the Manx Chronicle, and from the Saga of Magnus Barefoot (Johnstone, -231; Laing, iii. 129). Orderic, as we have seen, looks upon the -expedition as being directly designed against Ireland. The Norwegian -writer mentions Ireland only quite incidentally. Magnus plunders in -Ireland, as everywhere else, on his way to Man, but the object of the -expedition is clearly marked as being Man and the other islands which -were so closely connected with it, a connexion which is also most -strongly set forth in the pompous words of Orderic (767 D). We can -have little doubt in accepting the Manx writer’s version of the -history of his own island, rather than that of the Norwegian writer, -to whom the internal affairs of the island were of no great interest, -or the wild statement of Orderic (see p. 141) that Man was at this -moment a desert island. On the other hand, the Saga is the best -authority for the actual voyage of Magnus, though it is the Manx -writer who preserves the fact or legend of the irreverent dealings of -Magnus towards his sainted kinsman. As to what happened in Anglesey, I -have already quoted the accounts of the English and Welsh writers, and -the Manx chronicler does not go into any greater detail; - - “Ad Moiniam insulam Walliæ navigavit, et duos Hugones - comites invenit in ea; unum occidit, alterum fugavit, et - insulam sibi subjugavit. Wallenses vero multa munera ei - præbuerunt, et valedicens eis ad Manniam remeavit.” - -The detailed accounts of the death of Earl Hugh come from the Saga and -from Orderic. Orderic, it must be remembered, is writing on a subject -of special interest to him, on account of his close connexion from -childhood with the house of Montgomery. On the other hand, as we have -seen (see p. 143), he does not well understand the geography, and -seems to fancy that Dwyganwy was in Anglesey. But it will be at once -seen that he conceives the death of Earl Hugh in a quite different way -from the author of the Saga. In Orderic’s story, though there is a -great deal of preparation for fighting, there is no actual fighting at -all, except the one shot sent from the bow of the Norwegian King. His -version stands thus; - - “Quadam vero die, dum supra littus indigenæ turbati - discurrerent, seque contra Nordicos, quos in navibus suis - sævire contra Anglos videbant, præpararent, Hugo comes, - equum calcaribus urgens, cœtus suos congregabat, et contra - hostes, ne sparsim divisi invaderentur, principali rigore - coercebat. Interea barbarus Nordwigena, ut comitem agiliter - equitantem prospexit, instigante diabolo stridulum missile - subito direxit, egregiumque comitem, proh dolor! percussit. - Qui protinus corruit, et in fluctibus maris jam æstuantis - exspiravit. Unde dolor ingens exortus est.” - -This really seems hardly possible, and the Welsh account, as well as -the Norwegian, distinctly records fighting and shooting of arrows on -both sides. The Saga gives us the details, both in prose and verse. -The shooting of the King and the other archer is described in prose as -I have told it in p. 144, and both the death of Earl Hugh and the -general picture of the battle are given in vigorous verse from the -minstrelsy of Biorn Cripplehand (Biörn inn Krepphendi). Besides the -verses which Laing translates, the Saga gives others from another -poet, Gisl, who vigorously describes the fight between the King and -those whom he calls the _Welsh_ Earls (Valsea Jarla), meaning -doubtless rather Gal-Welsh than Bret-Welsh; - - “Margan hŏfdo - Magnuss lidar - Biortom oddi - Baugvang skotit. - Vard hortoga - Hlif at springa - Kapps vel skiput - Fyrer konongs darri. - Bodkenner skaut - Badom hŏndum - Allr va hilmis - Herr prudliga - Stucku af almi - Þeims iŏfr sueigdi - Hvitmylingar - Adr Hugi felli.” - -The relations between Magnus and the Irish King Murtagh are very -puzzling. Orderic must have made some mistake when he attributes the -expedition of Magnus to a dispute with an Irish king whose daughter he -marries and sends back again (767 C, D). This must surely be a -confusion between Magnus himself and his son Sigurd, who, according to -the Saga, did marry the Irish king’s daughter. But it is possible that -Orderic’s story about the Irish princess being sent back again, -because her father did not fulfil the marriage contract, may be true -of Sigurd, though not of his father. We should thus better understand -the transactions which go on a little later about the marriage of a -daughter of Murtagh, seemingly the same, to Arnulf son of Earl Roger -(see p. 442). The Manx writer has nothing to say about these -marriages, but he fills up the space between this expedition of Magnus -and that in which he fell with some very strange dealings between -Magnus and Murtagh. Magnus sends his shoes to the Irish king, bidding -him bear them on his shoulders in public as a sign of subjection to -their owner (“Murecardo regi Yberniæ misit calceamenta sua, præcipiens -ei ut ea super humeros suos in die natalis Domini per medium domus suæ -portaret in conspectu nunciorum ejus, quatinus intelligeret se -subjectum esse Magno regi”). The Irish are naturally angry; but their -king takes matters more quietly. He would willingly not only carry the -shoes but eat them, sooner than a single province of Ireland should be -laid waste. So he did as he was bid (“rex, saniori consilio usus, non -solum, inquit, calceamenta ejus portare, verum etiam manducare mallem, -quam Magnus rex unam provinciam in Ybernia destrueret. Itaque -complevit præceptum et nuncios honoravit”). The Irish writers of -course know nothing about the shoes; but the Chronicon Scotorum -records a year’s peace made in 1098 between Murtagh and Magnus -(“Magnus ri Lochlainne”). The Manx chronicler also goes on to say that -a treaty followed the ceremony of the shoes, but that the ambassadors -of Magnus gave such a report of the charms of Ireland, that he -determined to invade it again in breach of the treaty. - -This brings us to the date of the last expedition of Magnus. The -Chronicon Scotorum records the death of Magnus (“Magnus ri Lochlainne -ocus na Ninnsit”) in 1099 in an attack on Ulster. But this date must -be too early. The Norwegian account places the second expedition of -Magnus nine years after his accession in Norway (Laing, iii. 143, -Johnstone, 239). This would fix its date to 1102. This is the date -commonly given, with 1103, as the year of his death. The Manx writer -places the death of Magnus six years after his first expedition -(“regnavit in regno insularum sex annis,” p. 7), which would put his -death in 1104. But he gives 1102 as the date of his successor in the -island kingdom, Olaf the son of Godred Crouan (see p. 137). He was, it -seems, at the English court; “Quo [Magno] mortuo, miserunt principes -insularum propter Olavum filium Godredi Crouan, de quo superius -mentionem fecimus, qui tunc temporis degebat in curia Henrici regis -Angliæ filii Willelmi, et adduxerunt eum.” - -The date of 1102 exactly falls in with the account of the attempt of -Robert of Bellême to obtain help from Magnus in that year (see p. -442). For this I have followed the account in the Brut (1100; that is -1102). But it would seem that the Welsh writer was mistaken in saying -that Magnus “sent over to Ireland, and demanded the daughter of -Murchath for his son; for that person was the chiefest of the -Gwyddelians; which he joyfully obtained; and he set up that son to be -king in the Isle of Man.” His death is recorded in the next year, 1101 -(1103), when “Magnus King of Germany” (“Vagnus vrenhin Germania”) is -made to invade Britain and be killed by the Britons, who are said to -have come “from the mouths of the caves in multitudes like ants in -pursuit of their spoils.” Another manuscript for “Prydein” reads -“Llẏchljẏn,” that is Denmark, which does not make matters much better. -The followers of Magnus are called in the one manuscript “Albanians” -(“yr Albanóyr”), meaning doubtless Scots; in the other manuscript they -are men of Denmark (“gwyr Denmarc”). The Annales Cambriæ do not -mention the dealings between Robert of Bellême and Magnus; but there -is an entry under 1103; “Magnus rex apud Dulin [Dublin?] occiditur.” - -The death of Magnus in his second Irish expedition is told with great -detail in the Saga (Johnstone, 239-244; Laing, iii. 143-147). Orderic -also tells the story in p. 812. The Irish, according to this account, -call in Arnulf of Montgomery to their help; but, when Magnus is -killed, the Irish try to kill Arnulf and his Norman companions. -Murtagh now takes away his daughter from Arnulf, and marries her, -according to the irregular fashion of the country, to a kinsman -(“ipsam petulantem cuidam consobrino suo illicite conjunxit”). But -twenty years later, Arnulf, by that time an old man, is reconciled to -Murtagh, marries his daughter, and dies the next day. This carries us -beyond the range of my story, and I must leave Irish, Norwegian, and -Norman enquirers to see to it. It concerns me more that it is now that -Orderic mentions the great treasure which Magnus had left with a rich -citizen of Lincoln. (See p. 134.) The Lincoln man seems to have -thought that the death of the Norwegian king gave his banker a right -to his money; but King Henry thought otherwise, and took the twenty -thousand pounds to his own hoard. - - -NOTE KK. Vol. ii. pp. 196, 199, 211. - -THE RELATIONS BETWEEN HILDEBERT AND HELIAS. - -There is a remarkable difference of tone between Orderic and the -Biographer of the Bishops of Le Mans in their way of speaking of -Helias. That the Count should be blamed for making Bishop Howel a -prisoner (see p. 198) is in no way wonderful; the thing to be noticed -is the way in which he several times speaks of Helias during the -episcopate of Hildebert; still more remarkable is the way in which -Hildebert speaks himself. Orderic always puts the acts of Helias in -the best light; the Biographer, during certain parts of his story at -least, seems well-pleased to throw in any little insinuation against -him. Perhaps the strangest case of all is the way in which he leaves -out all mention of the double appointment to the see of Le Mans on the -death of Howel (see p. 211), and of the action of Helias in that -matter. One would have thought that, even from an ecclesiastical point -of view, the story told more for Helias than against him. He put forth -a claim which any other prince of his time would have equally put -forward; he withdrew it in a way in which very few princes of his time -would have withdrawn it. But the Biographer (see p. 297) lets us into -the fact that there had been an opposition to Hildebert’s election in -the Chapter itself. Could his enemies have been special partisans of -Helias, and supporters of his candidate? If so, it is rather strange, -though quite possible, that they should have been the accusers of -Hildebert to Rufus, when the charge brought against him was that of -being a confederate with Helias. - -The Biographer is quite loyal to Helias during the campaign of 1098. -He brings out prominently (see p. 213, note) the cause of the war, -namely the election of Hildebert by the Chapter and his acceptance by -the Count, without any regard to the alleged claims of the Norman -Dukes. Helias was in fact fighting on behalf of Hildebert. When Helias -is taken prisoner, he raises a wail――“proh dolor” (see above, p. -223)――which almost reminds us of Florence’s wail over the death-wound -of Harold. He brings out strongly the Red King’s wrath against -Hildebert, as shown in his ravages at Coulaines (see p. 234). He -brings out also, what Orderic does not mention, the friendly relations -between Hildebert and Helias which are shown in the negotiations which -led to the Count’s release (see p. 238). We may perhaps infer that, -during this stage, the friendship between the Count and the Bishop -remained unbroken, and that the Biographer remains the Count’s friend -so long as the Bishop does. - -During the campaign of 1099 the Biographer’s tone becomes quite -different. He has not a word to say about the zeal of the citizens of -Le Mans on behalf of Helias, which comes out so strongly in Orderic, -and after him in Wace (see p. 279). He rather implies that they fought -against him. The enemies who meet him at Pontlieue are “milites regis -_cum populo_” (see p. 278, note 2). It is quite possible that, as the -Normans had military possession of the city, its levies may have been -made, even against their will, to take their place in the Norman -ranks, and the presence of such unwilling allies may have very likely -helped to bring about the Norman defeat. Still the insertion of the -words without any comment or qualification gives the Biographer’s -story a different turn from that of Orderic. Yet the Biographer -himself after all allows that Helias entered Le Mans with the -good-will of the citizens, when he allows (see p. 297) the accusers of -Hildebert to say “quando Helias comes _consentientibus civibus_ -civitatem occupavit.” He next leaves out the fact recorded by Orderic -(see p. 297) that, before William Rufus had crossed the frontier, -Hildebert met him and was received to his peace, on affirming that he -had no share in the enterprise of Helias. There is nothing wonderful -in this. It is a case which often happens. The original cause of a war -is forgotten, and the fault of the original enemy is forgiven, when a -new enemy has given fresh offence. William was so wroth at Helias for -seizing Le Mans, that he forgot any quarrels of earlier date. If -Hildebert was clear on that score, William could pass by all that had -gone before. He was therefore at this moment ready to forgive -Hildebert in his wrath against Helias. But the old enemies of -Hildebert in the Chapter were ready, for the sake of the old grudge, -to turn against Helias. The chances are that Hildebert had nothing to -do with the return of Helias, but that the towers of the cathedral -were turned by Helias to military uses. Hildebert most likely -deemed――and, as events proved, more wisely than either the Count or -the citizens――that the enterprise of Helias was rash, and therefore -unjustifiable. This would turn him, at least for the time, into an -enemy of Helias, if not into a partisan of Rufus. The Biographer takes -up this tone. It may be with a little feeling of spite that he records -(see p. 281) the way in which the loyalty of the citizens towards the -Count not unnaturally cooled after the fire. There is certainly such a -feeling in the passage (see p. 287) where he speaks of Helias as -flying, “saluti suæ consulens,” while Orderic rather describes him as -swept away in a general flight. But this tone lasts only through the -year 1099. When Helias comes back in 1100, all seems to be made up -again; we now hear (Vet. An. 309, 311) of the “liberalitas” of the -“liberalis comes;” the Normans are “hostes” and Helias brings back -peace. That is to say, as the story shows, the Count and the Bishop -were again reconciled, and the Biographer follows the lead of the -Bishop. - -But we need not wonder at the tone of the Biographer, if we know the -tone of the Bishop himself. In a letter printed in Duchèsne’s French -collection, iv. 247, Hildebert speaks of a space of three years, -“peractum triennium,” within which time Le Mans has had six counts, -all of them enemies to peace (“tam modico tempore sex in urbe -sustinuimus consules, quorum nullus pacificum prætendens ingressum, -gladiis et igne curtam sibi vendicavit potestatem.” It is certainly -very hard to reckon up six counts in three years, seemingly the years -1096-1099. In twelve years (1087-1099) not more than five -counts――William the Great, Robert, Hugh, Helias, William Rufus――can be -made out, unless Helias, with his two reigns, is reckoned twice over. -Hildebert then goes on; - - “Plebe coacta in favorem, tyrannum suscepit ex necessitate, - non ducem ex lege: in susceptum studia simulavit, non - exhibuit. Fidem reperit in ea, quia superior. Consul vero - tanto gravius dominatus est quanto brevius. Miles ejus - simulatis usus injuriis, eos scelerum judicavit expertes - quos rerum. Et quia non parcit populis regnum breve, finem - rapinis inopia posuit, non voluntas.” - -This certainly reads most like a description of the reign of Hugh; but -in what follows we surely see the events of 1098 and 1099; - - “Ea clades usque ad sanctuarium Domini pervagata est, et - primo _quidquid extra muros nostræ fuerat potestatis_, vel - evanuit in favillas vel dissipatum est in rapinam. Deinde - similibus cecidere præjudiciis episcopales domus et ecclesiæ - non paucæ. In reliquis quibus ignis pepercit æque - periclitata est et facultas pauperum et reverentia - sacerdotum. Omnia confracta sunt, omnia direpta, omnia - contaminata. Nihil eorum manus evasit qui gratis ad - flagitium discurrunt, ad honestum nec pretio.” - -To what does all this refer? It reads most like a description of the -Red King’s harryings at Coulaines in 1098 (see p. 234); but no one is -mentioned, whereas the “Rex Anglicus” and his “tyrannis” are openly -spoken of further on in the letter. And it is strange, if in all this -there is no reference to the fire of 1099. Did Hildebert attribute the -fire to Helias, and does that account for any enmity towards him? Yet -the version of the Biographer as clearly makes the fire the work of -the Normans as the version of Orderic. Helias is not mentioned by -name, nor is any recorded act of his distinctly mentioned. The passage -is obscure, most likely purposely obscure. It might be so construed as -to attribute all mischief to Helias; it might be so construed as not -to lay any particular act to his charge. But in any case Helias would -at least come under the general condemnation which is pronounced upon -all the counts of Maine, be they six or fewer. No friend of Helias -could have so spoken; and it is plain that, when Bishop Hildebert -wrote the letter, he was――very naturally――not a little angry, if not -with Helias in particular, yet at least with a class of men among whom -Helias must be reckoned. - -Of the rest of the letter I shall have to speak in another Note. - - -NOTE LL. Vol. ii. p. 238. - -THE SURRENDER OF LE MANS TO WILLIAM RUFUS. - -It is not very easy at first sight to reconcile our accounts of the -negotiations which led to the surrender of Le Mans in August 1098. Yet -there seems to be no direct contradiction of any moment. It seems not -impossible that the difference is merely one of those cases where one -writer gives prominence to some feature in the story which another -writer leaves out. - -According to all accounts, Le Mans was at this time in the possession -of Fulk of Anjou. Orderic (see p. 237) makes him personally present in -the city; the Biographer of the Bishops does not say whether he was -there or not. But in any case the city had admitted his authority in -May and had not yet thrown it off. Fulk was therefore fully in a -position to negotiate with William, while Helias, who was a prisoner -in William’s hands, was not strictly in a position to negotiate with -anybody. Yet the Biographer makes no mention of Fulk as an actor or a -party to the treaty, but only as one of whose devices Helias was -afraid. In his version Bishop Hildebert and some of the chief men of -Le Mans first, by the King’s leave, visit the captive Count, and agree -on terms with him; then they draw up a treaty with the King according -to those terms. The tale runs thus (Vet. An. 306); - - “Helias timens ne Fulco comes proscriptioni ejus intenderet, - manduvit ad se episcopum et quosdam ex primoribus civitatis - ex consensu regis, et cœpit agere cum eis, eosque - suppliciter deprecari, quatenus casibus illius condolentes, - modis omnibus niterentur, qualiter civitatem regi traderent, - ipsumque a vinculis liberarent. Timebat enim quod Fulco - comes, regis deceptus muneribus, cum eo pacem faceret, atque - civitate tradita perpetuo damnaretur exsilio. Episcopus - autem et qui cum eo venerant, ejus angustias miserantes, cum - rege de ejus liberatione locuti, cum eo tale pactum - fecerunt, ut si eorum consilio atque ingenio sibi civitas - traderetur, ipse Heliam comitem quietum et liberum abire - permitteret.” - -He adds, hurrying matters a little; “Quod negotium industria præsulis -celerius quam sperabatur effectum, eodemque tempore et regi civitas et -consuli abeundi libertas reddita est.” - -Orderic, on the other hand (772 D), has a version in which there is no -mention of any dealings with Helias, but which makes William and -Fulk――the latter, it would seem, under some pressure――agree on terms -substantially the same as those stated in the other account. His -version runs thus; - - “Andegavenses autem cum Cenomannis consiliati sunt, et sese - Normannis in omnibus inferiores compererunt, unde colloquium - inter regem et consulem procuraverunt. Ibi tunc, auxiliante - Deo, necessaria pax inter eos facta est, et inde multis pro - pluribus causis utriusque populi gaudium ingens exortum est. - Requisitum est et concessum ut Helias comes et omnes qui - capti fuerant ex utraque parte redderentur, et Cenomannis et - _omnia castra quæ Guillelmus rex habuerat Rufo filio ejus - subjugarentur_.” - -The joy of which Orderic speaks clearly did not extend to Angers. The -Chronicle of Saint Albinus (1098) puts things in quite another light; -“Quam [Cenomanniam urbem] tribus mensibus retentam, Cenomanensibus, -more suo, sibi fraudantibus et a se deficientibus, reddidit eam in -amicitia præfato regi Anglorum, qui ipsam urbem _magis pecunia quam -viribus impugnabat_ jamque pene possidebat.” - -Here we have no mention of Helias or of any dealings with him, nothing -of any agreement between Fulk and William. The citizens of Le Mans -fall away from the Angevin Count and betray their city to the King. -And they fall away through the temptation which the Red King knew well -how to bring to bear upon his other enemies, but of which there is no -recorded instance in the whole history of the war of Maine. See p. -290. - -The tone and effect of these stories is very different, and yet they -seem quite capable of being put together. It is simply that each -writer enlarges on the persons and things which he cares most about. -The Biographer of the Bishops of course enlarges on the part taken by -Hildebert; next to Hildebert, he has to tell of Helias. A mission of -Hildebert to Helias was a thing which he could not leave out; the fact -that the terms were settled between his own Bishop and his own Count -was more interesting to him than the fact that those terms were put in -the form of a formal treaty between two foreign princes. He cannot -leave out the Norman king, but he can and does leave out the Angevin -count. He speaks of a treaty between William and Fulk as a thing which -was likely to happen; he leaves out the fact that it actually did -happen. The Angevin Chronicler is angry at the loss of Le Mans, and is -glad to speak of its loss as due altogether to Cenomannian treason or -fickleness. Orderic alone, who is, more strictly than either of the -others, telling the history of the campaign, and who is less -influenced by local passion one way or another, brings out the -diplomatic fact that the treaty was formally agreed to in a meeting -between King William and Count Fulk. It must have taken the shape of -an agreement of some kind between them, unless Fulk and his troops had -been driven out of Le Mans by force. But this in no way shuts out the -possibility of the dealings between Hildebert and Helias which are -described by the Biographer. The state of things would seem to be -this. The people of Le Mans, tired of Fulk, unable to have Helias, -think that the best thing is to submit to William, but on terms which -will secure at least the personal freedom of their native prince. -Hildebert and his companions are allowed by William to confer with -Helias. The results of the conference are put into the shape of a -treaty between William and Fulk. Fulk is in no condition to resist -William and the Cenomannian people together; he therefore accepts the -treaty, doubtless against his will. Thus the accounts of Orderic and -the Biographer seem simply to fill up gaps in one another. The Angevin -chronicler simply gives a short and snarling summary of the actual -result. - - -NOTE MM. Vol. ii. p. 239. - -THE FORTRESSES OF LE MANS. - -A great deal about the walls and the castle of Le Mans, as well as -about several other points in the county of Maine, will be found in M. -Hucher’s book, _Études sur l’Histoire et les Monuments du Département -de la Sarthe_ (Le Mans and Paris, 1856). M. Hucher however hardly -carries his researches beyond the city itself; so that, while his -remarks and the documents which he quotes tell us much about the -“regia turris,” the castle close to the cathedral, he has but little -to tell us about the fortress of Mont-Barbé, which is for our purpose -of at least equal interest. - -I have quoted elsewhere (N. C. iii. 207) some of the passages which -record the building of at least two castles by the Conqueror, the -royal tower and that of Mont-Barbé. In the extract from William of -Jumièges for “_p_onte Barbato” we must read “_m_onte.” Benoît, oddly -enough, knew the name of Mont-Barbé, but did not know that of the -royal tower (35735); - - “Por ce i ferma deus chasteaus - Hauz, defensables, forz e beaus; - Li uns en out non Monbarbé: - Mais que issi fu apelé - Ne sai retraire ne ne truis.” - -Wace, on the other hand (15014), in his wild chronology of all -Cenomannian matters, makes William Rufus build this castle in -the expedition of 1099; - - “Li Reis vint el Mans fièrement, - Son hostel prist vers Saint Vincent. - Por grever cels de la cité - Fist la mote devant Barbé.” - -But this story, though utterly out of its place, may possibly preserve -a fact. The royal tower was undoubtedly built by the Conqueror after -he had taken Le Mans in 1063 in order to secure the possession of the -city. But Mont Barbé looks rather like one of the besieging castles -made in order to get possession. Nothing is now left but the mound. -William may conceivably have found this mound ready made. If not, his -building of 1063 must have been of wood, though it may very likely -have had a stone successor. The mound, not far from Saint Vincent’s -abbey, stands in a private garden, and the visitor to Le Mans, unless -he has local guidance, may very likely fail to find it. I missed it at -my first visit in 1868, which must be my excuse for the rather vague -language in the third volume of the Norman Conquest. I saw it for the -first time in 1876, through the kindness of M. Henri Chardon, and -again in 1879 with Mr. Parker and Mr. Fowler. - -The question remains, Was there a Mons _Barbatulus_ as well as a Mons -_Barbatus_? The passages quoted from Orderic and William of Jumièges -(N. C. vol. iii. p. 207) seem to imply it; only the odd thing is that -the words of William of Jumièges seem to leave out the royal tower, -and to speak of _Barbatus_ and _Barbatulus_ only. And one might take -the words of Wace, “La mote _devant_ Barbé,” to mean _Barbatulus_ -rather than _Barbatus_; only it would be hard to find another _mota_. -_Barbatulus_ is conjecturally, but with every likelihood, placed on -the site of the present Lyceum, between _Barbatus_ and the city. - -The royal tower was built just outside the Roman wall, two of whose -bastions, known as _La Tour Margot_――after Margaret, the promised -bride of Robert?――and _La Tour du Cavalier_, were taken into its -precinct. All these must be distinguished from the palace of the -Counts (see N. C. vol. iii. p. 205) which stands on the Roman wall, -almost in a line with the east end of the cathedral. It contains a -window of the twelfth century, of great width, a feature -characteristic of Le Mans. In this palace was the _sainte chapelle_ of -the Counts. - - -NOTE NN. Vol. ii. p. 240. - -THE DATES OF THE BUILDING OF LE MANS CATHEDRAL. - -I have more than once, in the History of the Norman Conquest, had to -speak of the dates of the various parts of the church of Saint Julian -at Le Mans. The subject is so closely connected with so many names -which appear in our story that an inquiry of this kind can hardly be -thought out of place. My later visits to Le Mans have enabled me to -examine and consider several points again; and I am now inclined to -think that there is very little, if anything, standing in the present -church of an earlier date than William the Conqueror’s first taking of -Le Mans in 1063. I have got some help from a local book, called -“Recherches sur la Cathédrale du Mans. Par L’Abbé….” (Le Mans, 1872); -but its architectural criticism is not of a high order. Another local -book, “L’Ancien Chapitre Cathédral du Mans, par Armand Bellée, -Archiviste de la Sarthe” (Le Mans, 1875), is a very thorough piece of -capitular history, but it throws little light on the architecture. - -The earliest church of which we have any certain account was a -basilica of the ninth century. Saint Aldric, bishop from 832 to 856, -rebuilt the cathedral church, of which he consecrated the eastern part -in 834 and the rest in 835. I have for these dates to trust the author -of the “Recherches sur la Cathédrale du Mans,” who quotes from a -manuscript life of Aldric in the library at Le Mans. (I have seen the -volume, and I could wish that it was in print.) The time allowed for -the building is wonderfully short; but Aldric, if he did all that is -attributed to him by the Biographer of the Bishops (Vet. An. 276), -must have been a man of wonderful energy. There is nothing said -directly of his works at Saint Julian’s; but they might almost be -taken for granted when we hear of the many churches which he built and -restored (“Ædificia quæ prædictus pontifex multipliciter a novo -operatus est, et ecclesias sive nonnulla monasteria quæ a novo -fundavit atque perficere et ornare studuit, necnon et restaurationes -aliorum monasteriorum et ceterarum ecclesiarum,” &c. &c. &c). In -the days of the next Bishop Robert (856-885) Le Mans was sacked by the -Northmen and the church burned. We are of course met by the usual -difficulty as to the amount of destruction which is implied in words -of this kind; but it naturally led to a restoration, and to a new -dedication, on which last point however it seems to have been thought -needful to consult the Pope (“Matrem ecclesiam, a paganis incensam, -diligenti studio renovavit, et ex consilio Romani antistitis jam denuo -celeberrime consecravit;” 287*). We hear again (296*) of a dedication -under Bishop Mainard (940-960); but not of any rebuilding, just as in -some of the intermediate episcopates (Vet. An. 288* et seqq.) we hear -a good deal about havoc and desecration, but nothing about actual -destruction. The church of Aldric, allowing for the restorations of -Robert and any later repairs, seems plainly to have stood till the -days of Vulgrin (1055-1067), the earliest Bishop of Le Mans who has -even an indirect share in the building of the present church. No work -of his, unless possibly the merest fragments, seems to be now -standing; but he was the beginner of a great work of rebuilding which -gave us what we now see. - -In the Life of Vulgrin (Vet. An. 312*) we are simply told that in 1060 -he began the foundations of a new church on a greater scale (“Quinto -ordinationis suæ anno fundamenta matris ecclesiæ ampliora quam -fuerant, inchoavit, sed morte inopina superveniente perficere non -potuit”). His foundations were badly laid and his work was unskilful; -so that, while attempts were making under his successor Arnold -(1067-1082) to prop it up, it fell down. Arnold accordingly destroyed -the whole work of Vulgrin, and began again from a new foundation. The -extent of his work is clearly marked. He finished the eastern limb, as -far as its walls and outer roof were concerned; its internal -adornments he left for his successor. Of the transepts with their -towers he merely laid the foundations; - - “Fabrica novæ ecclesiæ quam præsul Vulgrinus inchoaverat, - fundamentorum mobilitate atque lapidum debilitate corrupta, - innumera crepidine ruinam suam cœpit terribiliter minitari; - quam dum artifices fulcire conantur, repentino fragore - nocturno tempore collapsa est…. Inde … episcopus totam cœpti - operis fabricam usque ad ima fundamenta destruens, denuo - ipsam ecclesiam fundamento firmiori et solidiori lapide - construere cœpit, et parti superiori quæ vulgo cancellum - nominatur etiam tectum imposuit, membrorum quoque quæ cruces - vocantur atque turrium solidissima fundamenta antequam - moreretur instituens” (313*). - -That he added only the outer roof is plain from what we read of his -successor Howel (Vet. An. 289). As Howel adorned the “cancellum” with -a pavement and stained glass windows, he also added a painted ceiling; - - “Cancellum quod ejus antecessor construxerat pavimento - decoravit et cœlo, vitreas quoque per ipsum cancellum, per - quod cruces circum quoque laudabili sed sumptuosa nimium - artis varietate disponens.” - -So again, p. 299; - - “Cœpit … superiores partes ejusdem basilicæ diligenti - sollicitudine laborare, oratorium scilicet quod chorum - vocitant sedemque pontificalem, altaria congrua dimensione - disponere, pavimenta substernere, columnas ac laquearia - gratissima varietate depingere, parietes per circuitum - dealbare.” - -Howel also finished the transepts and towers of which Arnold had -merely laid the foundations (Vet. An. 289); - - “Fabricam novæ ecclesiæ … tanto studio aggressus est - consummare ut cruces atque turres, quarum antecessor ipsius - … jecerat fundamenta brevi tempore ad effectum perduxit.” - -We see then what the work of Vulgrin and Arnold was. It touched the -eastern part only; Aldric’s nave was left alone. The original church -was a basilica, most likely with three apses, but without transepts. -The new design was to rebuild the eastern part on a greater scale with -transepts, transept towers (like Geneva and Exeter), and a choir -ending in an apse with a surrounding aisle and chapels――as is shown by -the mention of many altars. The arrangement was that of the two other -great churches of Le Mans, _La Couture_ and Saint Julian in the -Meadow, with the single exception of the towers, which do not appear -in either of those churches. Arnold built the choir, and began the -transepts and towers; Howel adorned the choir and finished the -transepts and towers. There is nothing to imply that either of them -touched the nave. The arcades of Aldric’s basilica were therefore -still standing when William the Great came in 1063 and again in 1073. -The work of Vulgrin in the eastern part was doubtless going on at the -earlier of those two dates, and that of Arnold at the later. - -It must be plain to every one who has seen the building that the work -of these bishops in the eastern part of the church has given way to -the later choir and transepts. The choir was built between 1218 and -1254, and its great extension to the east involved, as at Lincoln, the -destruction of part of the Roman wall. The transepts were built at -several times from 1303 to 1424. They are among the very noblest works -of the architecture of those centuries; but we may be allowed to -rejoice that, as the works of Vulgrin and Arnold left Aldric’s nave -standing, so the great works of the thirteenth century and later have -left the nave which succeeded that of Aldric. With all its artistic -loveliness, the work of the later day cannot share the historic -interest of the works of the times of William and Howel, of Helias and -Hildebert. - -In the present nave it is plain at the first glance that there are two -dates of Romanesque; a further examination may perhaps lead to the -belief that there are more than two. It is easy to see outside that -the aisles and the clerestory are of different dates. The masonry of -the aisles is of that Roman type which, in places like Le Mans, where -Roman models were abundant, remained in use far into the middle ages, -and which in some places can hardly be said to have ever gone out of -use at all. The masonry of the clerestory is ashlar. The difference is -equally clear between the plain single windows of the aisles and the -highly finished coupled windows of the clerestory. Inside, the eye -soon sees that the design has undergone a singular change. Without the -pulling down of any part, the church put on a new character. Columns -supporting round arches after the manner of a basilica were changed -into a series of alternate columns and square piers supporting -obtusely pointed arches. Each pair of arches therefore forms a -couplet, and answers to a single bay of the pointed vaulting and a -single pair of windows in the clerestory. The object clearly was to -give the building as nearly the air of an Angevin nave, like that of -La Couture (see N. C. vol. v. p. 619), as could be given where there -were real piers and arches. Now this reconstruction, one which brings -in the pointed arch, cannot possibly be earlier than the episcopate of -William of Passavant, Bishop from 1143 to 1187. He was a great -builder; he translated the body of Saint Julian (Vet. An. 366); he -celebrated a dedication of the church (Ib. 370), which my local book -fixes, seemingly from manuscripts, to 1158, a date a little early -perhaps for such advanced work, but not impossible. To William of -Passavant then we must attribute the recasting of the nave, and -whatever else seems to be of the same date. To this last head belongs -the great south porch, and, I should be inclined to add, the lower -part of the southern, the only remaining, tower, though some assign it -to Hildebert. The question now comes, What was the nave which William -of Passavant recast in this fashion, and whose work was it? - -We have seen that we cannot attribute any work in the nave to any -prelate earlier than Howel. He must have found the nave of the ninth -century still standing. Did he do anything in that part of the church? -He performed a ceremony of dedication in 1093 (Vet. An. 300); but that -would be fully accounted for by his works in the eastern part. On the -other hand, Hildebert celebrated in 1120 (Vet. An. 320) a specially -solemn dedication, and the words used seem to imply that the church -was now complete in all its parts. The words of Orderic (531 D) seem -express. Howel began to build the church (“episcopalem basilicam … -condere cœpit”); Hildebert finished it (“basilicam episcopii quam -prædecessor ejus inchoaverat, consummavit, et cum ingenti populorum -tripudio veneranter dedicavit”). It is doubtless not strictly true -that Howel began the church, words which shut out the work of Vulgrin -and Arnold; but the time when Orderic wrote makes him a better -authority for Hildebert’s finishing than for Howel’s beginning, and -the expression might easily be used if Howel began that particular -work, namely the nave, which Hildebert finished. I do not think that -we need infer from certain expressions of the Biographer that -Hildebert left the nave, or any essential part of the building, -unfinished. He says indeed (Vet. An. 320); - - “Hildebertus opus ecclesiæ, quod per longa tempora - protractum fuerat, suo tempore insistens consummare, - dedicationem ultra quam res exposcebat accelerans, multa - inibi necessaria inexpleta præteriit.” - -Comparing this with the words of Orderic, this surely need not mean -more than that, though the fabric was perfect, yet much of the -ornamental work was left unfinished. Hildebert, in short, left the -nave much as Arnold left the choir. At least the nave was in this case -when he dedicated the church. For he had time after the dedication to -make good anything that was imperfect. - -We should then infer from Orderic that the nave which William of -Passavant recast was begun by Howel and finished by Hildebert. This -may give us the key to a passage in the Biographer on which we might -otherwise be inclined to put another meaning. After describing Howel’s -building of the transepts in the words quoted above in p. 635, he goes -on (289); - - “Eisque [crucibus] celeriter culmen imponens, exteriores - etiam parietes, quos alas vocant, per circuitum - consummavit.” - -One might have been tempted to take this of transept aisles; but, -weighing one thing with another, it seems to be best understood as -meaning that Howel rebuilt the whole of the outer walls of the nave -and its aisles. This would give to him the whole extent of the -_quasi_-Roman work of the aisles, together with the great western -doorway. The interior work of the aisles seems also to agree with his -date. We must therefore suppose that Howel rebuilt the nave aisles -only, still leaving the arches of Aldric’s basilica. Then Hildebert -rebuilt or thoroughly restored the nave itself, with the columns and -arches and whatever they carried in the way of triforium and -clerestory. We may therefore suppose that the existing columns, as -distinguished from the square piers, are his work, though the splendid -capitals of many of them must have been added or carved out of the -block in the recasting by William of Passavant. - -There is however one fragment of the nave arcades which is older than -Hildebert, very likely older than Howel. This is to be seen in the -first pier from the east. I need not say that the eastern bay of a -nave often belongs to an older work than the rest, being in truth part -of the eastern limb continued so far――perhaps for constructive -reasons, to act as a buttress――perhaps for ritual reasons, to mark the -ritual choir――very often for both reasons combined. One of the best -examples is that small part of the nave of Durham abbey which belongs -to the work of William of Saint-Calais (see N. C. vol. v. p. 631). At -this point then in the nave of Le Mans, we find half columns with -capitals and bases of a strangely rude kind, more like Primitive -Romanesque (see N. C. vol. v. pp. 613, 618, 628) than anything either -Norman or Angevin. These are assuredly not the work of Hildebert. -There is one argument for assigning them to Howel, namely that -something of the same kind is to be found in the remains of the -northern tower of which I shall speak in another Note (see below, Note -RR). But if any one holds them to be the work of Arnold or of Vulgrin, -or even looks on them as a surviving fragment of the basilica of the -days of Lewis the Pious, I shall not dispute against him. - -I must add however that, between Hildebert and William of Passavant, -we have, according to the use of Le Mans, to account for two -fires――“solita civitatis incendia,” as the Biographer (Vet. An. 349) -calls them――and their consequences. In 1134 there was a fire which, -according to the Biographer (350), was more fearful than any which had -ever happened at Le Mans since the city was built, not even excepting -the great one of 1098. Everything perished. “Tota Cenomannensis -civitas cum omnibus ecclesiis quæ intra muros continebantur, evanuit -in favillas.” We read of the “matris ecclesiæ destructio” and -“combustio,” all the more lamentable because of its beauty――“ipsa enim -tam venustate sui quam claritate tunc temporis vicinis et remotis -excellebat ecclesiis.” So Orderic (899 B); “Tunc Cenomannis -episcopalis basilica, quæ pulcherrima erat, concremata est.” The then -Bishop, Guy of Étampes (1126-1136), spent two hundred pounds in trying -to repair the damage; “Ad cujus restaurationem cc. libras -Cenomannenses dedit, sine mora contulit, et omnibus modis desudavit -quomodo ipsa ad perpetuitatem decenter potuisset restaurari.” Under -the next Bishop, Hugh of Saint-Calais (1146-1153), there was another -fire, the account of which is very curious (Vet. An. 349); - - “Ignis circa meridiem a vico sancti Vincentii prosiliens, - sibi opposita usque ad muros civitatis et domos episcopales, - tegmenque sacelli beati Juliani adhuc stramineum, cum - fenestris vitreis concremavit et macerias, et in summis - imagines sculptas lapidibus deturbavit.” - -The people break open the shrine of Saint Julian in order to save his -body, which they carry to the place where the Bishop was. The Bishop -seems to have repaired the episcopal buildings before he touched the -church, and the details have some interest in the history of domestic -architecture (“domum petrinam ex parte sancti Audoëni positam, decenti -solariorum interpositu numerosas fenestras habentium cum sua camera -continuavit”). Presently we read; - - “Beatissimum patrem nostrum Julianum ipso die a lignea - basilica in occidentali membro ecclesiæ intra macerias - facta, post incendium in qua fere triennio requieverat, in - redivivam sollenniter, clero cantibus insultante, populo - congaudente, transtulerunt ecclesiam.” - -We do not hear of any more building, but there is a long list (Vet. -An. 354) of the ornaments which Bishop Hugh gave to the Church. - -Some of the expressions used in these passages are very odd. “Sacellum -beati Juliani” is a strange phrase for the cathedral church, and yet -the thatched roof and the glass windows must be spoken of a building -and not of a mere shrine. It is Saint Julian’s church itself whose -roof and windows are spoken of. But the phrase “lignea basilica,” -which makes one think of Glastonbury, must not lead us to think that -any wooden church of early days was then standing at Le Mans. The -whole story seems quite intelligible, without supposing any really -architectural work between Hildebert and William of Passavant. The -language of the Biographer in describing the fire of 1134 is, as so -often happens, very much exaggerated. His own account shows that the -walls of the church were left standing. It looks on the whole as if -the roof was destroyed in 1134. It was hastily repaired with thatch. -It was burned again, and the clerestory (“fenestræ vitreæ”) with it, -at the next fire in 1146-1153. The whole church perhaps remained for a -while unfit for divine service. Then some wooden structure (“lignea -basilica”) was raised within the walls of the nave (“in occidentali -membro ecclesiæ intra macerias facta”). Meanwhile Bishop Hugh repaired -the choir (“rediviva ecclesia”), seemingly doing nothing to the nave. -Bishop William, finding things in this state, rebuilt the clerestory -and vaulted it Angevin fashion. So to do required that every alternate -column of the nave should be built up into a square pier. This again -required a change in the line of the arches, and, according to the -fashion just coming in, they were made obtusely pointed. If any one -thinks that the superb foliage of the nave capitals must be later than -1158, he may hold that they were cut out afterwards, or he may even -hold that Bishop William’s dedication in that year belongs only to the -eastern parts――where something was clearly done in his time or -thereabouts――and that the whole recasting of the nave came later in -his long episcopate. - - * * * * * - -I am not writing an architectural history of the church of Saint -Julian, and I have perhaps, as it is, gone more into detail than my -subject called for. I think that any one who has been at Le Mans will -forgive me. But there are many architectural points in this wonderful -church on which I have not entered. There is much also in the other -two minsters of Le Mans which throws much light on the work at Saint -Julian’s. I have merely tried in a general way to assign to their most -probable dates and founders the different parts of a church which so -often meets us in our present history. - - -NOTE OO. Vol. ii. p. 242. - -THE INTERVIEW BETWEEN WILLIAM RUFUS AND HELIAS. - -We have two chief accounts of this remarkable interview, one in -Orderic, 773 B, the other in William of Malmesbury, iv. 320. As with -some of the other anecdotes of William Rufus, Orderic tells the story -in its place as part of his regular narrative, while William of -Malmesbury brings it in, along with the story of his crossing to -Touques, as a mere anecdote, to illustrate the King’s “præclara -magnanimitas.” And he tells the tale very distinctly out of its place, -for he puts it after the voyage to Touques, that is in the campaign of -1099, whereas it is clear that it happened during the campaign of -1098. One’s feelings are a little shocked when he speaks of “auctor -turbarum, Helias _quidam_,” which reminds one of the meeting between -the Count’s earlier namesake and another tyrant (“venit Achab in -occursum Eliæ. Et cum vidisset eum, ait; Tune es ille, qui conturbas -Israël?” 3 Regg. xviii. 16). To be sure he does afterwards speak of -the “alta nobilitas” of the Count of Maine. - -There is a good deal of difference in the details of the dialogue in -the two accounts. That in William of Malmesbury is much shorter, and -consists wholly of an exchange of short and sharp sayings between the -speakers, which are certainly very characteristic of William Rufus. -There is nothing in this version of the offer of Helias to enter the -King’s service, or of the counsel given by Robert of Meulan. In -Orderic’s version Helias speaks first, with the offer of service, -beginning “Rex inclute, mihi, quæso, subveni pro tua insigni -strenuitate;” and we read, “Liberalis rex hoc facile annuere decrevit, -sed Rodbertus Mellenticus comes pro felle livoris dissuasit.” Then, -after speeches on both sides which are not given, comes the defiance -of Helias, in these words; - - “Libenter, domine rex, tibi servirem, si tibi placeret, - gratiamque apud te invenirem. Amodo mihi, quæso, noli - derogare, si aliud conabor perpetrare. Patienter ferre - nequeo quod meam mihi ablatam hæreditatem perspicio. Ex - violentia prævalente omnis mihi denegatur rectitudo. - Quamobrem nemo miretur si calumniam fecero, si avitum - honorem totis nisibus repetiero.” - -All this is represented in William of Malmesbury by two sentences; - - “Cui [Heliæ] ante se adducto rex ludibundus, ‘Habeo te, - magister,’ dixit. At vero illius alta nobilitas quæ nesciret - in tanto etiam periculo humilia sapere, humilia loqui; - ‘Fortuitu,’ inquit, ‘me cepisti; sed si possem evadere, novi - quid facerem.’” - -This is very characteristic of Rufus; is it equally so of Helias? -Surely the two speeches given to him by Orderic――allowing for a little -improvement in the process of turning them into Latin――much better -suit his character and position. And we can hardly fancy that Helias’ -offer to enter William’s service, the King’s inclination to accept it, -and the evil counsel given by Robert of Meulan――all likewise -thoroughly characteristic――are all mere invention. - -The last speech of Rufus is much fuller in William of Malmesbury than -in Orderic. Orderic simply says, “Cui turgidus rex ait, ‘Vade, et age -quidquid mihi potes agere.’” In the other version this becomes; - - “Tum Willelmus, præ furore extra se positus, et obuncans - Heliam, ‘Tu,’ inquit, ‘nebulo, tu, quid faceres? Discede, - abi, fuge; concedo tibi ut facias quidquid poteris; et, per - vultum de Luca, nihil, si me viceris, pro hac venia tecum - paciscar.’” - -He adds, without any mention of a regular safe-conduct, - - “Nec inferius factum verbo fuit, sed continuo dimisit - evadere, miratus potius quam insectatus fugientem.” - - * * * * * - -I have in the text followed the version of Orderic, venturing only to -add the eminently characteristic words with which William of -Malmesbury begins and ends. They in no way disturb the main dialogue -as given by Orderic. But I must add that William of Malmesbury warns -us against supposing that William Rufus, either in this speech or in -his speech on the voyage to Touques, knowingly quoted Lucan. His words -are curious; - - “Quis talia de illiterato homine crederet? Et fortassis erit - aliquis qui, Lucanum legens, falso opinetur Willelmum hæc - exempla de Julio Cæsare mutuatum esse: sed non erat ei - tantum studii vel otii ut literas unquam audiret; immo calor - mentis ingenitus, et conscia virtus, eum talia exprimere - cogebant. Et profecto, si Christianitas nostra pateretur, - sicut olim anima Euforbii transisse dicta est in Pythagoram - Samium, ita possit dici quod anima Julii Cæsaris transierit - in regem Willelmum.” - -That is to say, Cæsar and William Rufus, being the same kind of men, -uttered the same kind of words. The passage of Lucan referred to is -where Domitius (ii. 512) is brought before Cæsar at Corfinium; - - “Vive, licet nolis, et nostro munere, dixit, - Cerne diem, victis jam spes bona partibus esto, - Exemplumque mei: vel, si libet, arma retenta, - Et nihil hac venia, si viceris ipse, paciscor.” - -That William Rufus should quote Lucan, as his brother Henry could most -likely have done, was so very unlikely that William of Malmesbury need -hardly have warned us against such a belief. At the same time it does -not seem impossible that he might have heard of Cæsar without having -read Lucan. But we must remember that whatever William Rufus said was -said in French, and not in Latin. Without supposing either that Rufus -had read Lucan or that the soul of Cæsar had passed into his body, we -may believe that William of Malmesbury or his informant could not -resist the temptation of translating his speech into the words of a -really appropriate passage of a favourite author; then, when he had -done this, the singular apology which I have quoted might seem -needful. - - * * * * * - -It must be remembered that William of Malmesbury puts this story -altogether out of place. It is put yet further out of its place by -Wace (15106), who makes the capture of Helias follow the siege of -Mayet (see p. 289). His version brings in some new details. Helias, -having been taken prisoner, makes (15120) a boastful speech to his -keepers, swearing by the patron saint of his city that, if he had not -fallen by chance into an ambuscade, he would soon have driven the King -of England out of all his lands beyond the sea (15120); - - “Mais or vos dirai une rien: - Par monseignor Saint-Julien, - Se jo ne fusse si tost pris, - Mult éust poi en cest païs. - El rei eusse fait tant guerre, - Ke dechà la mer d’Engleterre - Plein pié de terre n’en éust, - Ne tur ne chastel ki suen feust; - Maiz altrement est avenu, - Il a cunquis è jo perdu.” - -When this is told to the King, he causes Helias to be brought before -him; he gives him a horse, and bids him mount and ride whither he -will; only he had better take care that he is not caught again, as he -will not be let out of prison a second time; - - “Dunc le fist li reis amener, - E des buies le fist oster, - Son palefrei fist demander - E mult richement enseler; - El conte dit: Dans quens, muntez - Alez kel part ke vos volez, - Fetes al mielx ke vos porrez, - Maiz altre feiz mielx vos gardez; - Kar se jo vos prene altre feiz, - Jamez de ma prison n’iestreiz. - Ne voil mie ke vos kuideiz - Ke de guerre sorpris seiz, - Mais vos n’ireiz jà nule part, - Ke jo près dos ne vos gart.” - (vv. 15134-15147.) - -In this version the horse is something new, though not at all out of -place, as Helias could not well get away without a horse, and he could -not have had any horse at his command at the moment. We may note also -that William is here made, whether seriously or in mockery, to give -Helias the title of Count, “Dans quens.” But the story has very much -come down from the level of either of the other versions. The boastful -speech to the keepers is not at all in the style of Helias, and it is -a poor substitute either for the dignified offer and defiance in -Orderic or for the lively dialogue in William of Malmesbury. This last -we should gladly have had in Wace’s version, as there would have been -some faint chance of recovering a scrap or two more of the original -French to match the “Dans quens,” which has a genuine ring on the one -hand, as the “magister” and the “nebulo” of William of Malmesbury have -on the other. - - * * * * * - -Geoffrey Gaimar too (Chroniques Anglo-Normandes, i. 37) has a version -in which Helias, when a prisoner, makes a boastful speech to the -effect that, if it had not been by an ambush, he would never have been -taken; - - “Li quiens des Mans ert en prison, - Aüner voleit grant rançon; - Mès ceo diseit que, s’il séust - Qe l’om issi prendre le deust, - Tut autrement se contenist, - Li rois les Mans jà ne préist.” - -He is brought before the King, to whom he says that he is much beloved -in his land, and that, if he were only able to assemble his men, no -king could subdue him in it. William lets him go to see what he can -do, and gives up to him Le Mans and all the castles of the country; - - “Quant fut conté devant le roi, - Si le fist mener devant soi; - Par bel amur li ad demandé - S’il estoit issi vaunté - Cil respondit: ‘Sire, jo’l dis, - Mult sui amé en cest païs. - Il n’ad souz ciel si fort roi, - Si par force venist sus moi, - Qu’il ne perdist, si jeo le seusse, - Pur quei ma gent assemblé eusse.’ - Li rois, quant l’ot, si prent à rire: - Par bel amur et nient par ire, - Li comanda q’il s’en alast, - Préist les Mans, s’il guerreiast. - Et cil fui lez, si s’en ala. - Touz ses chastels renduz li a - Li rois par bone volonté, - Rendit les Mans la forte cité.” - -Helias calls on his barons to help him in war with the King; but they -decline, and advise him to give up the city and all the castles, and -to become the King’s man. He does so; otherwise the poet says that the -King would have thrown aside his friendship, and that he would have -taken the castles and put all concerned to a vile death; - - “Et cil manda pur ses barons, - Moveir voloit les contençons, - Mès si baron li ont loé - Qu’il rende au roi la cité - Et les chasteus de son païs, - Son hom lige seit tuz dis. - Li quens Elyes issi fist, - Onc ses homes n’en contredist. - Et s’il issi ne l’éust fet - Mult fust entre els en amur plet; - Li rois par force les préist - Et de vile mort les occeist.” - -I need hardly stop to show how utterly unhistorical all this is. But -the “bel amur,” the challenge, the release of the Count and the -surrender of the city and the castles, the general looking on war as a -kind of game, are all highly characteristic of the chivalrous King. -The last words indeed give us the other side of chivalry; but I -confess that they seem to me to be unfair to William Rufus, however -well they might suit Robert of Bellême. Geoffrey Gaimar lived to see -times when the doings of Robert of Bellême, exceptional in his own -day, had become the general rule. - - -NOTE PP. Vol. ii. p. 284. - -THE VOYAGE OF WILLIAM RUFUS TO TOUQUES. - -This story is told by a great many writers; but, as in the story of -the interview of William Rufus and Helias, our two main versions are -those of Orderic (775 A) and of William of Malmesbury (iv. 320). And, -as in the case of that story, with which William of Malmesbury couples -it, he tells it simply as an illustrative anecdote, while with Orderic -it is part of his regular narrative. And again William throws one of -the speeches into the form of a familiar classical quotation, and the -curious apology quoted in the last note is made to apply to this story -as well as to the other. At the same time there is no actual -contradiction between the two versions. The messenger――Amalchis -according to Orderic――reaches England and finds the King in the New -Forest. He thus (775 A) describes the delivery of the message; “Ille -mari transfretato Clarendonam venit, regi cum familiaribus suis in -Novam Forestam equitanti obviavit, et alacriter inquirenti rumores, -respondit, Cœnomannis per proditionem surrepta est. Verum dominus meus -Balaonem custodit, et regalis familia omnes munitiones sibi assignatas -sollerter observavit, auxiliumque regalis potentiæ vehementer -desiderat, in hostile robur quod eos undique includit et impugnat.” -William of Malmesbury (iv. 320) does not mention the place; “Venationi -in quadam silva intentum nuntius detinuit ex transmarinis partibus, -obsessam esse civitatem Cinomannis, quam nuper fratre profecto suæ -potestati adjecerat.” This is a somewhat inadequate summary of the -Cenomannian war. - -Now comes the King’s answer, in which I have ventured in the text to -bring in both the speeches which are attributed to Rufus on first -hearing the news of the loss of Le Mans. In Orderic the story stands -thus; - - “His auditis, rex dixit, ‘Eamus trans mare, nostros - adjuvare. Eodem momento inconsultis omnibus equum habenis - regiravit, ipsumque calcaribus urgens ad pontum festinavit, - et in quandam vetustam navim quam forte invenit, sine regio - apparatu velut plebeius intravit et remigare protinus - imperavit. Sic nimirum nec congruentem flatum nec socios nec - alia quæ regiam dignitatem decebant exspectavit; sed omnis - metus expers fortunæ et pelago sese commisit, et sequenti - luce ad portum Tolchæ, Deo duce, salvus applicuit.’” - -He then goes on with the graphic details of the landing at Touques and -the ride to Bonneville, which find no place in William of Malmesbury. -William’s version is as follows; - - “Statim ergo ut expeditus erat retorsit equum, iter ad mare - convertens. Admonentibus ducibus exercitum advocandum, - paratos componendos, ‘Videbo,’ ait, ‘quis me sequetur; - putatis me non habiturum homines? si cognovi juventutem - meam, etiam naufragio ad me venisse volet.’ Hoc igitur modo - pene solus ad mare pervenit. Erat tunc nubilus aer et ventus - contrarius; flatus violentia terga maris verrebat. Illum - statim transfretare volentem nautæ exorant ut pacem pelagi - et ventorum clementiam operiatur. ‘Atqui,’ inquit rex, - ‘numquam audivi regem naufragio interiisse.’ Quin potius - solvite retinacula navium, videbitis elementa jam conspirata - in meum obsequium. Ponto transito, obsessores, ejus audita - fama, dissiliunt.” - -Then follows the interview with Helias, quite out of place. - -Here we have several separate details in each version; but they quite -fit into one another. Of Rufus’ two speeches before he rides off, each -seems to need the support of the other. The speech to the sailors -lurks as it were in the words of Orderic, “remigare protinus -imperavit,” and his other words, “fortunæ et pelago sese commisit,” -suggest the same general idea which comes out in them. They suggest -the well-known story of Cæsar which William of Malmesbury seems to -have in his head, which is told by Florus (iv. ii. 37), Appian (Bell. -Civ. ii. 57), and Plutarch (Cæsar, 38). The Latin writer says only -“Quid times? Caesarem vehis?” while the two Greek writers bring in the -word τύχη [tychê] (Ἴθι, γενναῖε, τόλμα καὶ δέδιθι μηδέν. Καίσαρα -φέρεις καὶ τὴν Καίσαρος τύχην συμπλέουσαν). ([Ithi, gennaie, tolma kai -dedithi mêden. Kaisara phereis kai tên Kaisaros tychên sympleousan]). -Our writers are not likely to have read either of the Greek books, and -there is enough about “Fortuna” in the passage of Lucan (v. 577-593) -which William of Malmesbury at least must have had in his eye, and -where the few words of Appian and the fewer of Florus grow into a -speech of many lines. The odd thing however is that the actual words -do not seem to come from anything in Lucan, but to be in a manner made -up out of two passages of Claudian. We get the sentiment in one (De -III Cons. Hon. 96); - - “O nimium dilecte Deo, cui fundit ab antris - Æolus armatas hiemes, cui militat æther, - Et conjurati veniunt ad classica venti.” - -But the actual words come nearer to the other (De IV Cons. Hon. 284); - - “Nonne vides, operum quo se pulcherrimus ille - Mundus amore ligat, nec vi connexa per ævum - Conspirant elementa sibi?” - -Just as in the other story, we may suppose that Rufus said something -which, in the course of improving into Latin, suggested the words of -the two Latin poets. The saying that he had never heard of a king -being drowned surely has the genuine stamp of the Red King about it. -And it is to be remembered that there is a passage which evidently -refers to the same story in a grave contemporary, who takes his -quotations, not from heathen poets but from the New Testament. Eadmer -(54) attributes to William Rufus, as a general privilege, something -like what in our own day we have been used to call “Queen’s weather;” - - “Ventus insuper et ipsum mare videbantur ei obtemperare. - Verum dico, non mentior, quia quum de Anglia in Normanniam - transire vel inde cursum prout ipsum voluntas sua ferebat, - redire volebat, mox, illo adveniente, et mari - appropinquante, omnis tempestas, quæ nonnunquam immane - sæviebat, sedabatur, et transeunti mira tranquillitate - famulabatur.” - -It is worth notice that the same idea is found, besides Lucan and -Claudian, in a third Latin writer, who is much less likely to have -been known to either Orderic or William of Malmesbury. This is in the -Panegyric addressed by Eumenius to the elder Constantius (Pan. Vet. v. -14). He is describing the voyage of Constantius to Britain to put down -Allectus, when, as in the cases of Cæsar and William Rufus, the -weather was bad; - - “Quis enim se, quamlibet iniquo mari, non auderet credere, - te navigante? Omnium, ut dicitur, accepto nuntio - navigationis tuæ, una vox et hortatio fuit; ‘Quid dubitamus? - quid moramur? Ipse jam solvit, jam provehitur, jam fortasse - pervenit. Experiamur omnia, per quoscumque fluctus eamus. - Quid est, quod timere possimus? Cæsarem sequimur.’” - -Eumenius of course had the story of the earlier Cæsar in his mind. - -In all these versions the saying of William Rufus seems to be quoted -as an instance of his pride and irreverence. Matthew Paris alone -(Hist. Angl. i. 166) gives his speech an unexpectedly pious turn. To -the shipman, who addresses him as “hominum audacissime” and asks -“numquid tu ventis et mari poteris imperare?” he answers, “Non -frequenter [no longer “never” but “hardly ever”] auditum est, reges -Christianos Deum invocantes fluctibus fuisse submersos. Aliqui de -oppressis et obsessis apud Cenomannem orant pro me, quos Deus, etsi -non me, clementer exaudiet.” Matthew also makes the news be brought to -the King, not when he is hunting, but when he is at a feast. - - * * * * * - -The story is found, in one shape or another, in all the riming -chronicles. Wace (14908), who tells the whole story of Helias’ entry -into Le Mans with great spirit, but utterly out of place, gives a -vivid picture of the coming of the messenger; - - “En Engleterre esteit li reis, - Mult out Normanz, mult out Engleis; - Brachez aveit fet demander, - En boiz voloit aler berser. - Eis vus par là un sergeant - Ki d’ultre mer veneit errant; - Li reis l’a mult tost entercié; - El Mans garder l’aveit leissié, - Crié li a è dist de luing; - Ke font el Mans, out il busuing? - Sire, dist-il, li Mans est pris, - Li quens Helies s’est enz mis, - La cité a Helies prise, - E la tor ad entor assise; - Normanz ki dedenz sa defendent.” - -The passage in its general effect, and to some extent in its actual -words, recalls the better known description (10983; cf. N. C. vol. -iii. p. 258) of the news of Eadward’s death and Harold’s election -being brought to William the Great. It is perhaps to make the two -scenes more completely tally that Rufus, who, in Orderic and William -of Malmesbury, is already engaged in hunting, is in this version -merely going out to hunt. Of his father it was said; - - “Mult aveit od li chevaliers - E dameisels et esquiers.” - -But the son, - - “Mult out _Normanz_, mult out _Engleis_.” - -This reminds us of the other passage (see above, p. 533) where -“Normans” and “English” are made to help the fallen Rufus before Saint -Michael’s Mount. And the question again presents itself; What did Wace -exactly mean by Normans and English? We must remember his position. -Wace was a writer locally Norman, the chronicler of the Norman -Conquest, writing when, in England itself, the distinction of races -had nearly died out. His way of thinking and speaking, as that of one -accustomed to past times, would most likely be different both from -that of the time of which he is writing and from that which would be -familiar to either Normans or English――whether _genere_ or -_natione_――in his own time. In Rufus’ day “Normanz et Engleiz” would -have meant “Normanni et Angli _genere_,;” but it is not likely that -many “Angli _genere_” would be in the immediate company of the King. -In Wace’s own day, “Normanz et Engleiz” already meant “Normanni et -Angli _natione_;” only there would hardly have been any occasion for -using the phrase. Wace very likely used the phrase in a slightly -different sense in the two passages. Before the Mount, in describing a -warlike exploit, he most likely meant simply Norman and English -_natione_. In the present passage his mind perhaps floated between the -two meanings. - -The King hears the news brought by the sergeant; he gives up his -purpose of hunting that day, and swears his usual oath by the face of -Lucca that those who have done him this damage shall pay for it; - - “Li reis mua tot son corage - Dès ke il oï li message. - Li vo de Luche en a juré - Ke mult sera chier comperé. - Cest serement aveit en us, - Ne faiseit nul serement plus.” - -He bids the messenger to cross the sea as fast as he can, to go to Le -Mans and to tell his forces there that by God’s help he will be there -to help them in eight days; - - “D’ore en wit jors el Mans serai, - Dunc se Dex plaist les secorrai.” - -He then――being in England, it must be remembered――asks the nearest way -to Le Mans. On the direct line which is shown him, there is a -well-built house. He says that he will not for a hundred marks of -silver turn a hundred feet out of the way. So he has the house pulled -down, and rides over the site to Southampton――not alone, in this -version, but with a following; - - “Une maiziere li mostrerent, - Ço distrent ke il Mans ert là, - E ço dist ke par la ira; - Por cenz mars d’argent, ço diseit, - Del Mans cenz piez n’esluingnereit - De là, ù il ses piez teneit, - Quant li besuing del Mans oeit, - Dunc fist abatre la maiziere, - Ki mult esteit bone et entiere; - La maiziere fu abatue - E fete fu si grant l’issue - Ke li Reis Ros è li vassal - I passerent tuit à cheval.” - -Absurd as this story is, and utterly irreconcileable with the earlier -versions, there is still a ring of William Rufus about it. And we may -safely accept Southampton as the haven from which he set out. But the -zeal for taking the straightest road which was so strong on him by -land seems to have passed away by sea, as he goes not to Touques but -to Barfleur, certainly not the nearest point for getting from -Southampton to Le Mans. The story of the voyage is told in much the -same way as in William of Malmesbury, the speech to the sailors -standing thus; - - “Unkes, dist-il, n’oï parler - De Rei ki fu néié en mer; - Fetes vos nés el parfont traire, - Essaïez ke porreiz faire.” - -Geoffrey Gaimar (Chroniques Anglo-Normandes, i. 32) makes the -messenger bring a letter, which the King seemingly gives to Randolf -Flambard to read; - - “‘Tenez cest bref, sire reis.’ - Li reis le prist, tost le fruissat, - Ranulf Flambard le bref baillat.” - -He sends the messenger back with a letter; he rides to Southampton, -orders a force to be got together to follow him, and himself crosses -with a company of twelve hundred rich knights. Otherwise the tale is -essentially the same. But it is worth noticing that Geoffrey, when he -gets among sea-faring folk, uses two English words (the steersman we -have already met with in his English garb in Domesday; see N. C. vol. -v. p. 763); - - “Et il od mesnée privée, - Vint à la mier, si l’ad passée, - Encontre vent la mier passa. - Le _stieresman_ li demanda - S’il voleit contre vent aler - Et périller enz en la mier. - Li rois respont; ‘N’estœt parler, - Onques ne veistes roi néer, - Ne jéo n’ierc jà le primer. - Fetes vos _eschipes_ nager.’ - Tant ont nagé et governé - Q’en Barbefloe e sont arivé. - Il out de privée meisnée - Mil-et-ii cenz à cele fiée. - Tuit erent riches chevaliers; - Sacez, li rois les out mult chers.” - -Benoît (v. 40379) gives no details peculiar to himself; but he is -worth comparing with the others as a piece of language; - - “Si fu de passer corajos, - Volunteris e desiros: - Mais mult furent li vent contraire - E la mers pesme e deputaire.” - -But the central speech about a king being drowned is in much the same -words as in the other riming versions; - - “E li reis corajos e proz - Responeit e diseit a toz - C’unques n’aveit oï parler - De ré qui fust neiez en mer, - N’il ne sera jà li premiers.” - -This writer does not mention Southampton, Touques, Barfleur, or any -particular port. - - * * * * * - -The doctrine that kings were never drowned might seem to be -contradicted by the popular interpretation of the fate of the Pharaoh -of Exodus. But the text certainly does not imply that the Pharaoh -himself was drowned. On the other hand, there is somewhere the story -of an Irish king who, setting out with his fleet, was met by Noah’s -flood――conceived seemingly as something like the bore in the -Severn――and was drowned. - -It is worth while comparing this story of William Rufus with the -behaviour of our next king of the same name in a case somewhat like -this, when he too was sailing from England to the land of his birth. -When William the Third was in danger in an open boat off the isle of -Goree, we read (Macaulay, Hist. Eng. iv. 2); - - “The hardiest mariners showed signs of uneasiness. But - William, through the whole night, was as composed as if he - had been in the drawing-room at Kensington. ‘For shame,’ he - said to one of the dismayed sailors: ‘are you afraid to die - in my company?’” - -The difference between the two speeches is characteristic. But the -parallel of Cæsar was seized on in both cases. Among the pageants when -William entered the Hague (iv. 5), when the events of his own life -were represented, this scene was shown; - - “There, too, was a boat amidst the ice and the breakers; and - above it was most appropriately inscribed, in the majestic - language of Rome, the saying of the great Roman, ‘What dost - thou fear? Thou hast Cæsar on board.’” - - -NOTE QQ. Vol. ii. p. 289. - -THE SIEGE OF MAYET. - -I visited Mayet with Mr. Fowler and Mr. Parker in July, 1879, when we -examined many other of the castles and sites of castles in that -neighbourhood. But we could not pitch on the actual site of the siege -of Mayet with the same confidence with which we fixed most of the -sites of our present story. The evidence is by no means so clear as it -is in the case of most of the Cenomannian towns and fortresses. There -are in truth too many sites to choose from. - -The small town of Mayet is not rich in antiquities. Its ancient church -has been, first desecrated, and then swept away. Nor is the town -itself immediately commanded by any fortress, like those of Fresnay, -Beaumont, and Ballon. But two spots lie to the east of the town which -cannot fail to have had some share in our history. A large house of -the _Renaissance_, with portions of an earlier castle worked into it, -stands at the foot of a low hill at some distance from the town, and -with a good deal of swampy ground lying between them. This boasts -itself to be the site of the fortress where the second Cenomannian -expedition of William the Red came to so strange and lame an ending. -But there are no traces of eleventh-century work remaining, and the -site itself is most unlike the site of an eleventh-century fortress. -The hill immediately above the house, far lower than Ballon or any of -its fellows, does make some feeble approach to the favourite -peninsular shape, and fancy at least has traced, amid the havoc made -by the plough, some faint signs of ditches and made ground. On the -high ground on the other side of the swamp, less completely cut off -from the town, rises a mound, of whose artificial construction and -military purpose there can be no doubt, and where ancient objects of -various kinds are said to have been found. But this mound seems far -too small to have been the site of such a stronghold as the castle of -Mayet appears in our story. Could we believe it to have been thrown up -during William’s siege, as a besieging mound, like those of which we -have so often heard, its interest as regards our story would be almost -as great as if it were the site of the head castle itself. But it -seems too far off for any purpose save that of keeping the garrison in -check; if the besieged castle stood on the opposite hill or at its -foot, the stress of the siege must have taken place at some point much -nearer to its site. The siege of Mayet is so singular a story, and so -important in the history of this war, that it is disappointing not to -be able to fix its topography with any confidence. But it is unluckily -true that he who traces out the siege of Mayet cannot do so with the -same full assurance that he is treading the true historic ground which -he feels at Ballon and Fresnay. - - * * * * * - -In the details of the siege I have strictly followed Orderic, save -that I have ventured to bring in the very characteristic story of -Robert of Bellême which is told by Wace. But it cannot well have had -the effect which Wace (15074) attributes to it, that of causing the -army to disperse, and so making the King raise the siege; - - “Partant sunt del siège méu - A peine fussent retenu. - Li siège par treis dis failli, - Li reis si tint mal bailli - Del siège k’il ne pout tenir, - E de l’ost k’il vit despartir. - Ne pout cels de l’ost arester - Ne il n’oserent retorner; - Par veies fuient è par chans, - Dunc est li reis venu el Mans.” - -The order of events in Wace is really wonderful. After Robert has gone -to the East, William Rufus reigns in peace, seemingly over Maine as -well as Normandy. Helias seizes Le Mans; the news is brought to -William; he sails to Barfleur; he recovers Le Mans (having on his road -the singular adventure described in 14998 of Pluquet’s text, 9899 of -Andresen’s); he besieges Mayet; he returns to Le Mans; he ravages the -land; Helias is taken prisoner; he is brought before the King and -released, and then William goes back to England to be shot by Walter -Tirel. - - -NOTE RR. Vol. ii. p. 297. - -WILLIAM RUFUS AND THE TOWERS OF LE MANS CATHEDRAL. - -Was the bidding of William Rufus actually carried out in this matter? -Did Bishop Hildebert pull down the towers or not? Unluckily Orderic -tells us nothing about the story, and the language of the Biographer -seems to me to be purposely obscure. - -Hildebert himself mentions the matter in a passage which I quoted in -the text (p. 298), in which he complains of the horrors of a voyage to -England. He says (Duchèsne, iv. 248); - - “Longum est enarrare quam constanti tyrannide rex Anglicus - in nos sævierit, qui, temperantia regis abjecta, decreverit - non prius pontifici parendum quam pontificem compelleret in - sacrilegium. Quia etenim turres ecclesiæ nostræ dejicere - nolumus,” &c. - -One can make no certain inference from this, except that Hildebert was -not disposed to pull down the towers when he wrote the letter, -seemingly in England. The Biographer is fuller. I have quoted (see p. -298) the passages which describe the commands and offers of Rufus; we -then read; - - “Verumtamen Hildebertus magnis undique coartabatur - angustiis, quia sibi et de regis offensione periculum, et de - turris destructione sibi et ecclesiæ suæ imminere grande - prævidebat opprobrium: propter quod a rege dilationem - petebat, donec super his consilium accepisset. Qua vix - impetrata, cernens sibi nequaquam esse utile in illis - regionibus diutius immorari, breviter ad suam reversus est - ecclesiam…. Interea præsul de præcepto regis vehementer - anxius, de urbis incendio, de domorum et omnium rerum suarum - destructione, de civium expulsione; primo tamen de - clericorum, quos violentia regis ab urbe eliminaverat, - dispersione, mæstissimus, Dei omnipotentis clementiam - jugiter precabatur, ut ab ecclesia et populo sibi commisso - iram indignationis suæ dignaretur avertere.” - -He then goes on to tell how wonderfully God saved them all by the -sudden death of Rufus and the final coming of Helias. But he does not -directly say whether the towers were pulled down or not. His way of -telling the story might suggest the thought that the towers were -pulled down, but that he did not like to say so. - -To my mind the appearances of the building look the same way. We have -seen that the towers of Howel were clearly at the ends of the -transepts. Of the single tower now standing at the end of the south -transept, the lower part is of the twelfth century; most likely the -work of William of Passavant (see above, p. 636). The ruined building -at the end of the other transept has columns and capitals of a much -earlier character, agreeing with the work of Howel. A base of the same -early kind as the single pair of piers spoken of in the nave (see -above, p. 638) may be the work of Howel; it may be either a relic of -Arnold’s foundations or a scrap of something much earlier. It has been -objected that this ruined building does not seem to have been a tower. -And I must allow that it must have been a tower of a somewhat unusual -kind. But the appearances are quite consistent with the notion of a -transept with aisles, and with its main body ending in an _engaged_ -tower. - -If these ruins are not the remains of one of Howel’s towers, his -towers must have stood nearer to the body of the church than the -existing southern tower stands, and the ruins to the north-west must -belong to the episcopal palace or some other building. If this be so, -something of the interest of the place is lost, but the argument seems -almost stronger. It would have been nothing wonderful if the later -rebuilding of the transepts had swept away all trace of the work of -the eleventh and twelfth century, so that the fabric should in no way -show whether any Romanesque towers were ever pulled down or ever -built. But it is not so. We see that a late Romanesque tower was built -to replace one of the towers of Howel, while the other, according to -this view, has vanished without trace or successor. This would seem to -point even more strongly than the other view to the belief that two -towers were built, that both were pulled down, that afterwards one was -rebuilt and the other not. - - * * * * * - -It is the business of the topographer of Le Mans rather than of the -historian of William Rufus to settle what the remains at the end of -the north transept are, if they are not the remains of Howel’s tower. -But it may be noticed that Howel was a considerable builder or -restorer in the adjoining palace (Vet. An. 298), and that the palace -itself had a tower hard by the church. William of Passavant (Vet. An. -373) made certain arrangements about the three chapels of the -palace――Saint David’s itself has only two――one of which is described -as “tertia altior, quæ in turri sita ecclesiam cathedralem vicinius -speculabatur.” In any case this group of buildings and ruins at the -north-east corner of Saint Julian’s is one of the most striking to be -found anywhere. There are these puzzling fragments of the days of the -counts and bishops of our story; there is the mighty eastern limb of -the present church, begun when Maine had passed away from all -fellowship with Normandy and England, when Le Mans was the city of a -Countess, widow of Richard, vassal of Philip. There is the northern -transept, begun when Maine and Normandy were wholly swallowed up by -France, finished at the very moment when Maine had again an English -lord (Recherches, p. 122). And earlier than all, there is the Roman -wall which the vast choir has overleaped, but which still remains -outside the church. And, as if to bring together the earliest and the -latest times, one of its bastions is strangely mixed up with work of -an almost English character, which seems plainly to proclaim itself as -belonging to the reign of Henry, Sixth of England and Second of -France. Truly, setting aside exceptional spots like Rome and Athens, -like Spalato and Trier and Ravenna, no city of Christendom is fuller -of lessons, alike in art and in history, than the city of Helias, the -birth-place of Henry Fitz-Empress. - - -NOTE SS. Vol. ii. p. 320. - -THE DEATH OF WILLIAM RUFUS. - -I have briefly compared the chief versions of the death of William -Rufus, and the writers from whom they come, in Appendix U. in the -fifth volume of the Norman Conquest. I will now go somewhat more fully -into the matter. - -I still hold, as I held then, that no absolute certainty can be come -to as to the actor, intentional or otherwise, in the King’s death. Our -only sure statement is to be found in the vague and dark words of the -Chronicle, which look most like an intentional murder, but which do -not absolutely imply it. If Rufus was murdered, it is hopeless to seek -for any record of his murderer. We may guess for ever, and that is -all. At any rate there can be no ground for fastening a charge of -murder on Walter Tirel; for, if we except the dark hint in Geoffrey -Gaimar (see p. 325), all those who make him the doer of the deed make -it a deed done by accident. And the consent in favour of the belief -that Rufus died by an accidental shot of Walter Tirel is very general -and very weighty. It is the account of all our highest authorities, -except the very highest of all. And even with the version of the -Chronicle it does not stand in any literal contradiction. We have to -set against it Walter’s own weighty denial (see below, p. 674), and -the fact that there were other versions which named other persons. We -have also to set against it the circumstance that, if Rufus did die by -any conspiracy, never mind on whose part, it was obviously convenient -to encourage belief in such a story as the received one. (See p. 326.) -If there were anywhere English or Norman murderers, nothing could -better serve their purpose, or the purpose of any who encouraged or -sheltered them, than to attribute the deed to one who was French -rather than either English or Norman, and to describe it as accidental -on his part. And if, as one can hardly doubt, Walter Tirel was known -to have been in the King’s near company on the day of his death, he -was an obvious person to pick out for the character of the accidental -slayer. - -I can therefore do nothing but leave the doubtful story to the -judgement of the reader. To that end I have given a summary of the -chief versions in the text. The account of the early part of the day, -as given by William of Malmesbury (iv. 333), which I have followed in -p. 327, fits in perfectly well with the account in Orderic (782 A), -which begins only after dinner. Nor is there any difference, except in -details of no importance, between the accounts of the King’s actual -death as given by William and by Orderic (see p. 333). In both the -King dies by a chance shot of Walter’s, but William makes the King and -Walter shoot at two different stags, while in Orderic’s version they -both shoot at the same stag. It is from William of Malmesbury that we -get the graphic detail of the King sheltering his eyes from the sun’s -rays. His whole account stands thus; - - “Jam Phœbo in oceanum proclivi, rex cervo ante se - transeunti, extento nervo et emissa sagitta, non adeo sævum - vulnus inflixit; diutile adhuc fugitantem vivacitate - oculorum prosecutus, opposita contra violentiam solarium - radiorum manu. Tunc Walterius pulcrum facinus animo - parturiens, ut, rege alias interim intento, ipse alterum - cervum qui forte propter transibat prosterneret, inscius et - impotens regium pectus (Deus bone!) lethali arundine - trajecit. Saucius ille nullum verbum emisit; sed ligno - sagittæ quantum extra corpus extabat effracto, moxque supra - vulnus cadens, mortem acceleravit. Accurrit Walterius; sed, - quia nec sensum nec vocem hausit, perniciter cornipedem - insiliens, beneficio calcarium probe evasit.” - -Orderic is shorter; - - “Cum rex et Gualterius de Pice cum paucis sodalibus in - nemore constituti essent, et armati prædam avide - expectarent, subiter inter eos currente fera, rex de statu - suo recessit, et Gualterius sagittam emisit. Quæ super - dorsum feræ setam radens rapide volavit, atque regem e - regione stantem lethaliter vulneravit. Qui mox ad terram - cecidit, et sine mora, proh dolor! expiravit.” - -Florence really adds nothing to the account in the Chronicle, except -so far that he adds the name of Walter Tirel. He brings in the event -with some chronological pomp, but he cuts the actual death of the King -short. He is in a moralizing fit, and takes up his parable at much -greater length than is usual with him; - - “Deinde iv. non. Augusti, feria v., indictione viii., rex - Anglorum Willelmus junior, dum in Nova Foresta, quæ lingua - Anglorum Ytene nuncupatur, venatu esset occupatus, a quodam - Franco, Waltero cognomento Tirello, sagitta incaute directa - percussus, vitam finivit, et Wintoniam delatus, in veteri - monasterio, in ecclesia S. Petri est tumulatus. Nec mirum, - ut populi rumor affirmat, hanc proculdubio magnam Dei - virtutem esse et vindictam.” - -He then goes on with a great deal of matter, much of which I have -referred to in various places. He speaks of the making of the New -Forest, of the death of young Richard, the natural phænomena of the -reign, the recent appearances of the devil, and the iniquities of -Randolf Flambard. It is here that he notices (see p. 335) that a -church had once stood on the spot where the King died. Henry of -Huntingdon too brings in the event with some stateliness, as the last -act of a great drama. But he gives no special details, beyond bringing -in, like Orderic, Florence, and William, the name of Walter Tirel; - - “Millesimo centesimo anno, rex Willelmus xiii. regni sui - anno, vitam crudelem misero fine terminavit. Namque cum - gloriose et patrio honore curiam tenuisset ad Natale apud - Glouecestre, ad Pascha apud Wincestre, ad Pentecosten apud - Londoniam, ivit venatum in Novo foresto in crastino kalendas - Augusti, ubi Walterus Tyrel cum sagitta cervo intendens, - regem percussit inscius. Rex corde ictus corruit, nec verbum - edidit.” - -He then goes on to describe at length the evils of the reign, partly -in his own words, partly in those of the Chronicle, and records what -followed in a kind of breathless haste, keeping the Chronicle before -him, but giving things a turn of his own; - - “Sepultus est in crastino perditionis suæ apud Wincestre, et - Henricus ibidem in regem electus, dedit episcopatum - Wincestriæ Willelmo Giffard, pergensque Londoniam sacratus - est ibi a Mauricio Londoniensi episcopo, melioratione legum - et consuetudinum optabili repromissa.” - -The object of piling facts on one another in this fashion is to bring -the record of Henry’s promised reforms as near as may be to the -picture of the evil doings of Rufus. - -By the time that Wace wrote, there were several stories to be chosen -from. The King gives arrows to his companions, and specially to Walter -Tirel. They go out to hunt in the morning, contrary to the accounts -both of Orderic and of William of Malmesbury (15164 Pluquet, 10069 -Andresen); - - “A un matin qu’il fu leuez, - Ses compaignons a demandez, - A toz a saetes donees, - Que li esteient presentees. - Gaulter Tirel, un cheualier - Qui en la cort esteit mult chier, - Une saete del rei prist - Donc il l’ocist si com l’en dist.” - -He distinctly says that he does not know who shot the arrow, but that -it was commonly said to be Walter Tirel, with some of the variations -in detail which we have already seen, as for instance whether the -arrow glanced from a tree or not; - - “Ne sai qui traist ne qui laissa, - Ne qui feri, ne qui bersa, - Mais co dist l’en, ne sai sel fist, - Que Tirel traist, le rei ocist. - Plusors dient qu’il trebucha, - En sa cote s’empeecha, - E sa saete trestorna - E al chaeir el rei cola. - Alquanz dient que Tirel uolt - Ferir un cerf qui trespassout. - Entre lui e le rei coreit: - Cil traist qui entese aueit; - Mais la saete glaceia, - La fleche a un arbre freia, - E la saete trauersa, - Le rei feri, mort le rua. - E Gauter Tirel fost corut - La ou li reis chai e iut.” - -The other French rimers are this time, though certainly less -trustworthy than Wace, of more importance in one way, as showing that -there was in some quarters, as there well might be in Normandy, a more -charitable feeling towards the Red King than we find in the English -writers. I have given in the text the substance of the accounts of -Geoffrey Gaimar and Benoît de Sainte-More. The version of Geoffrey -Gaimar (Chroniques Anglo-Normandes, i. 54) I do not remember to have -ever seen referred to, except in M. Michel’s note to Benoît. It is so -curious in its details that it is worth giving at length. It is -absolutely impossible to believe it in the teeth of opposite -statements of so much higher authority, yet it is strange if all its -graphic touches are a mere play of fancy; - - “En la foreste estoit li rois, - En l’espesse, juste un maroi. - Talent li prist d’un cerf berser - Qu’en une herde vist aler, - Dejuste une arbre est descendu, - Il méisme ad son arc tendu. - Partut descendent li baron, - Li autre ensement d’environ. - Wauter Tirel est descenduz; - Trop près de roi, lez un sambuz, - Après un tremble s’adossa. - Si cum la herde trespassa - Et le grant cerf a mes li vint, - Entesa l’arc qu’en sa main tint, - Une seete barbelée - Ad tret par male destinée. - Jà avint si qu’au cerf faillit - De ci qu’au queor le roi férit. - Une seete au queor li vint - Mès ne savom qi l’arc sustint; - Mès ceo distrent li autre archer - Qu’ele eissi del arc Wauter. - Semblant en fut, car tost fuit; - Il eschapa. Li rois chéit, - Par iij. foiz s’est escriez, - Le corps diũ a demandez; - Mès n’i fut qui le li donast, - Loingnz fut del mouster en un wast; - Et nequedent un venéour - Prist des herbes od tut la flour, - Un poi en fist au roi manger, - Issi le quida acomunier. - En Dieu est ço et estre doit: - Il avoit pris pain bénoit - Le dimenge de devant: - Ceo li deit estre bon garant.” - -Geoffrey, it should be noticed, has nothing to say about dreams and -warnings; the _gab_ between the King and Walter Tirel seems in his -version to take their place (see p. 322). But in the other account -which deals kindly with Rufus, that of Benoît de Sainte-More (see p. -332), the warning dream, in this case assigned to the King himself, -plays an important part. So also does Gundulf, the expounder of the -dream. His presence is thus explained (40523); - - “Veirs est e chose coneue - C’une haors avoit eue - Od l’evesque de Rovecestre, - Qui chapelains est e deit estre - L’arcevesque de Cantorbire: - E por c’ert vers le rei en ire - Que _Saint Anseaume_ aveit chacié - E fors de la terre essilié. - Cil evesque de Rovecestre - Ert à lui venuz à Wincestre - Por pais requerre e demander, - Mais ne la poeit pas trover; - E li bons hom plein de pitié - Out mult Nostre-Seignor preié - Que de cele grant mesestance - Eust e cure e remembrance.” - -We may note that Anselm, not yet canonized, is already called _saint_ -in a formal way. - -The King is to hunt the next day in the New Forest; in the night he -has the dream, which is told with a singular variation. He first sees -the dead body of a stag on the altar; then it changes into that of a -man (40560); - - “Quant il regardout sor l’autel, - Si i veeit, ce li ert vis, - Un mult grant cerf qui ert ocis, - Por eschiver le grant renei - Que il voleit faire de sei, - Alout e si ’n voleit manger; - Kar c’erent tuit si desirer. - La où il i tendeit la main, - Si li ert vis s’ert bien certain, - Que c’ert cors d’ome apertement - Ocis e nafré et sanglent.” - -Gundulf, “li evesques, li sainz hom,” then preaches a sermon of some -length, which the King listens to with unexpected docility; he -promises amendment of life, and receives absolution; - - “Simple e od bone volunté - Out li reis en pais esculté, - Bien sont e conut la raison - De cele interpretation, - Assez pramist amendement - Donc de sa vie doucement - Al saint evesque a pardoné - Tote sa male volonté - Quant sa grace out e son congé. - Mult s’en torna joios e lié.” - -In this version there is no special mention of Anselm and the synod; -the exhortation of Gundulf is quite general. In the account given by -Giraldus (De Inst. Prin. p. 174)――who, it must be borne in mind, has -two dreams, one dreamed by the King, and another by a premature canon -of Dunstable――this is strongly brought out. The bishop, whose name is -not given, exhorts the King at much less length than Gundulf does in -the rimes of Benoît, and the promise of reformation stands thus; - - “Cum episcopus consilium ei daret quatenus, convocatis - illico episcopis regni sui et clero universo, eorundem - consilio se Domino per omnia conciliaret, missisque statim - nuntiis venerabilem sanctumque virum Anselmum Cantuariensem - archiepiscopum, quem ea tempestate, quod libertates ecclesiæ - tueri volebat, exulare compulerat, ab exilio revocaret, - respondens rex se cum regni sui proceribus consilium inde in - brevi habiturum.” - -In Benoît’s version the King’s companions now urge him to go out to -hunt. The description is very graphic; - - “E si vaslet furent hoesé - E en lor chaceors munté, - Les arcs ès mains, gamiz e presz, - E detrès eus lor bons brachez; - Abaient chens e sonent corns, - Monté atendent le rei fors.” - -He refuses for a while, and sets forth his troubled mind with some -pathos; - - “Avoi! fait-il, seignors, avoi! - Uncor sui-je plus maus assez - E plus cent tant que vos ne quidez; - Mais c’est la fin, remis m’en sui, - Que je n’irai mais en bois ui. - Ne voil por rien qu’alé i seie - Ne que jamais la forest veie.” - -He goes forth, and, as I have said in the text (p. 332), is shot by -the arrow glancing from a tree. Benoît knew through what agency; - - “Mais tant li mostre li reis Ros - Que c’il r’a d’aïr entesée - Une sajette barbelée, - E deiables tant l’a conveié[e] - Qu’à un gros raim fiert e glaceie. - Le rei feri delez le quor.” - -His speech to his accidental slayer is most pious; - - “Va-t’en, fui-tei senz demorer, - Kar mort m’as par ma grant enfance. - Ci a Deus pris de mei venjance: - Or li cri merci e soplei - Qu’il ait oi merci de mei - Par sa sainte chere douçor, - Kar mult sui vers lui peccheor.” - -In the earlier of Giraldus’ two stories, one which has much in common -with this of Benoît, the arrow strikes the King accidentally, but -there is nothing about its glancing from a tree. As he looks on -William Rufus as the maker of the New Forest, he describes his going -forth to hunt there with some solemnity; - - “Protinus contra dissuasionem in prædictam forestam, ubi tot - ecclesias destituerat, totosque fideles qui glebæ ibidem ab - antiquo ascripti fuerant immisericorditer exheredaverat, - venatum ivit. Nec mora, soluta per interemptionem - contentione ubi deliquit, casuali cujusdam suorum ictu - sagittæ letaliter percussus decubuit; miles enim directo in - feram telo, nutu divino cælum pariter et telum regente, non - feram eo sed ferum et absque modo ferocem, transpenetravit.” - (Cf. the extracts in p. 337.) - -Having got thus far, pretty nearly in Benoît’s company, Giraldus goes -on to tell his other story which brings in the Prior of Dunstable. But -Dunstable, in its own Annals, did not claim an earlier founder than -Henry the First. We are therefore left to guess as to the origin of a -story which speaks of the priory of Dunstable as already existing in -the time of Rufus, and even as enjoying exceptional favour at his -hands. The “miles quidam” of the former story here becomes Ralph of -Aix, who is brought in after much the same fashion in which Walter -Tirel is in those versions of the story which mention him. - - * * * * * - -These are the chief varieties in the story of the death of Rufus; but -the tale is so famous, it has taken such a hold on popular imagination -from that day to our own, that it may be well to do as we have done in -some earlier cases, and to trace some of the forms which the story -took in the hands of writers of later times. - -The Hyde writer (302), who always has notions of his own about all -matters, has nothing special to tell us about the death of -Rufus――“Norman-Anglorum rex Willelmus,” in his odd style――but the -story of the dream takes a new shape. A monk in Normandy, in extreme -sickness, sees the usual vision of the Lord and the suppliant woman, -here called less reverentially “puella vultu sole speciosior,” who -complains of the evil doings of Rufus and asks for vengeance -(“celerrimam de eo expetiit vindictam, asserens se a canibus ejus et -lupis potius quam ministris diu esse laniatam”). He has a further -dream about the sins of his own abbot, whom he rebukes, and causes a -letter to be sent to the King. The King mocks, but less pithily and -characteristically than he does in Orderic (“Quicumque sorti vel -somniis crediderit, sicut semper vivet suspiciosus et inquietus, ita -semper revertitur”). On this manifestation of unbelief follows the -judgement (“Deus Omnipotens telum quod diu vibraverat misericorditer, -tandem super regem projecit terribiliter”). He is shot casually in his -hunting (“venatum pergens, _venatus est_, et ex improviso sagitta -percussus;”――where surely “venatus est” is meant to be passive). He -dies without confession or communion; he is buried, and Henry reigns -in his stead. Then, as a kind of after-thought, comes in the mention -of Walter Tirel; - - “Fertur autem quod eodem die venatum pergenti obtulit munus - sagittarum quidam adveniens, quarum unam Waltero Tirello - viro Ponteiensi in munere dedit secumque venire coegit. - Denique silvam ingressi, dum gregem bestiarum accingunt et - invicem trahunt, eadem sagitta, idem Walterus regem vicinus, - ut aiunt, percussit et subito extinxit.” - -The author of the “Brevis Relatio” (Giles, 11) cuts the actual death -of Rufus very short, and mentions no particular actor, but he connects -it in a somewhat singular way with the presence of Henry; - - “Contigit vero postea ut Robertus comes Normanniæ - Hierosolymam iret, totamque Normanniam fratri suo Willelmo - regi Anglorum invadiaret, et tunc Henricus fratri suo omnino - se conferret atque cum eo ex toto remaneret. Dum itaque cum - eo esset post aliquantum temporis contigit ut quadam die rex - Willelmus venatum iret, ibique, nescio quo judicio Dei, a - quodam milite sagitta percussus occumberet. Quem statim - frater suus Henricus Wintoniam referri fecit, ibique in - ecclesia Sancti Petri ante majus altare sepulturæ tradidit.” - -The introduction of Henry in the former part of the extract is the -more remarkable, because the writer has either copied the account -given by Robert of Torigny in the Continuation of William of Jumièges -(viii. 9), or else he has borrowed from the same source. Robert’s -words are; - - “Igitur, sicut supra diximus, cum Robertus dux Normannorum - anno ab incarnatione Domini mxcvi, Hierusalem perrexisset, - et ducatum Normanniæ Willelmo fratri suo regi Anglorum - invadiasset: contigit post aliquantum temporis, ut idem rex - quadam die venatum iret in Novam forestam, ubi iv. nonas - Augusti missa sagitta incaute a quodam suo familiari in - corde percussus, mortuus est anno ab incarnatione Domini mc. - regni autem sui xiii…. Occiso itaque Willelmo rege, ut - præmisimus, statim frater suus Henricus corpus ejus - Wintoniam deferri fecit ibique in ecclesia sancti Petri ante - majus altare sepulturæ tradidit.” - -The words which I have left out record the death of the elder Richard, -the son of the Conqueror, in the New Forest――the younger Richard, the -son of Robert, is not mentioned――and the belief that the deaths of the -two brothers were the punishment of the destruction of houses and -churches done by their father. One phrase is remarkable; “Multas -villas et ecclesias _propter eandem forestam amplificandam_ in -circuitu ipsius destruxerat.” Here is nothing about Walter Tirel or -any one else by name, and this is the more to be noticed, because in -his own Chronicle, where he seems to have had before him the account -of Henry of Huntingdon, who mentions Walter Tirel, he leaves out the -name. Henry’s words are; “Ivit venatum in Novo foresto in crastino -kalendas Augusti, ubi Walterus Tyrel cum sagitta cervo intendens, -regem percussit inscius. Rex corde ictus corruit, nec verbum edidit.” -This in Robert’s version becomes “Willelmus rex Anglorum in Nova -Foresta, sibi multum dilecta, cum sagitta incaute cervo intenderetur, -in corde percussus interiit, nec verbum edidit.” He then goes on to -copy part of Henry of Huntingdon’s description of the doings of Rufus -somewhat further on. - -Among the monastic chroniclers and annalists, the History of Abingdon -(ii. 43) seems to see in the Red King’s death a judgement on him for -some dealings connected with the lands of that abbey. A man described -as Hugo de Dun had, by the help of the Count of Meulan (“Comitis -Mellentis Rotberti senioris ope adjutus”), got into his hands some -lands of the abbey at Leckhampsted, as had also the better known Hugh -of Buckland, Sheriff of Berkshire (“eo quod et Berchescire vicecomes -et publicarum justiciarius compellationum a rege constitutus -existeret”). The writer then goes on; - - “Quadam itaque die rex Willelmus dum cibatus venatum - exerceret, suorum unus militum, quasi ad cervum sagittam - emittens, regem e contra stantem sibique non caventem eadem - sagitta in corde percussit. Qui mox ad terram corruens - exspiravit.” - -The legend received at Saint Alban’s (Gesta Abbatum, i. 65) seems to -have rolled together the dream of the monk at Gloucester and the -revelation of William’s death to the abbot of Clugny (see p. 343). -Anselm at Clugny has a vision in which many of the saints of England -bring their complaints against King William before the tribunal of -God. Then the story takes a local turn; - - “Iratus Altissimus respondit,――Accede, Anglorum protomartyr. - Et accedente Albano, tradidit Deus sagittam ardentem, - dicens; vindica te, et omnes sanctos Angliæ, læsos a - tyranno. Accipiens autem Albanus sagittam de manu Domini, - projecit eam in terram, quasi faculam, dicens; Accipe, - Satan, potestatem in ipsum Willelmum tyrannum. Et eadem die, - mane, obiit rex transverberatus per medium pectoris sagitta. - Dixit autem arcitenenti, Trahe, diabole. Erat tunc temporis, - episcopo Wolstano defuncto, episcopatus Wygorniæ nimis - afflictus sub manu regis, et multæ aliæ ecclesiæ, sedente - tunc Paschali papa.” - -I do not know why the Saint Alban’s writer should have specially -mentioned the church of Worcester, which certainly had a Bishop (see -vol. i. p. 542) at the time of William’s death. But neither should I -at p. 43 of this volume have mentioned Saint Alban’s among the -churches vacant at that time. For the four years’ vacancy which -followed the death of Paul was ended in 1097 by the election of -Richard. “Determinata lite quæ in conventu exorta fuerat inter -Normannos, qui jam multiplicati invaluerunt, et Anglos, qui, jam -senescentes et imminuti, occubuerant” (Gest. Abb. i. 66). Here is a -glimpse of the internal state of the convent which would be most -precious if it came from a writer of the year 1097, but which must be -taken for what it may be worth in the mouth of Matthew Paris or one -whom he followed. This abbot Richard was on good terms with Rufus as -well as with his successor (“Willelmi Secundi et Henrici Primi regum, -amicitia familiari fultus, multos honores et possessiones adeptus est, -et adeptas viriliter tuebatur”). Presently we get a second shorter -entry of the Red King’s death; - - “Tempore quoque hujus abbatis Ricardi, Willelmus rex――immo - tyrannus――ultione divina, obiit sagittatus.” - -The Winchester Annals which really should, just as much as the Hyde -writer, have given us something original at such a moment, have -nothing more to tell us than that “hoc anno rex a sagitta perforates -est in Nova Foresta a Waltero Tirel et sepultus in ecclesia Sancti -Swithuni Wintoniæ.” The Margam Annals merely mark that “hoc anno -interfectus est rex Angliæ Willelmus junior, rex Rufus vulgo vocatus, -non. Augusti, anno regni sui xiii. cum esset annorum plus xl.” This -reckoning falls in with what I said in vol. i. p. 141, and N. C. vol. -iii. p. 111. Dunstable, which is so strangely dragged into the tale by -Giraldus, and Bermondsey, which has some special things to record -during the reign, have nothing fresh to tell us, only Dunstable -mentions Walter Tirel and Bermondsey does not. Osney and Worcester -merely copy the usual story. Thomas Wykes has been quoted already. -Roger of Hoveden simply copies Florence. Ralph the Black and Roger of -Wendover at least give a little variety by copying the account in -William of Malmesbury. It is not till we get to the English and French -rimers, Robert of Gloucester and Peter Langtoft, that we come to -anything worthy of much notice or anything showing any imagination. -Robert of Gloucester tells the story of the dream, attributing it to a -monk, but not saying of what monastery. The appearance on the altar -loses perhaps somewhat of its awfulness when it is made into the -ordinary rood of the church. - - “Þat þe kẏng eode into a chẏrche, as fers man and wod, - And wel hokerlẏche bẏ held þe folc þat þere stod. - To þe rode he sturte, and bẏgan to frete and gnawe - Þe armes vaste, and þẏes mẏd hẏs teþ to drawe. - Þe rode ẏt þolede long, ac suþþe atte laste - He pulte hẏm wẏt vot, and adoun vp rẏgt hẏm caste.” - -This is surely no improvement on the older version of the story. -Robert does not forget the bodily appearances of the devil recorded by -Florence, but at his distance of time he does not draw the national -distinction which the earlier writer drew; - - “Vor þe Deuel was þer byuore þer aboute ẏseẏe - In fourme of bodẏ, and spec al so mẏd men of þe countreẏe.” - -He then goes on to tell the story, clearly after William of -Malmesbury, but everywhere with touches of his own. They have the -interest of being in any case the earliest detailed account, true or -false, of the story in our own tongue. Thus the account of the King’s -not going to hunt before dinner takes this shape; - - “So þat þe kẏng was adrad and bẏleuede vor such cas - To wende er non an honteþ, þe wule he vastyng was. - Ac after mete, þo he adde ẏete and ẏdronke wel, - He nom on of hẏs priues, þat het Water Tẏrel, - And a uewe oþere of hẏs men, and nolde non lenger abẏde, - Þat he nolde to hẏs game, tẏde wat so bẏtẏde.” - -The actual account of his death stands thus; - - “He prẏkede after vaste ẏnou toward þe West rẏgt. - Hẏs honden he huld byuore hẏs eẏn vor þe sonne lẏgt. - So þat þẏs Water Tẏrel, þat þer bysẏde was neẏ, - Wolde ssete anoþer hert, þat, as he sede, he seẏ. - He sset þe kẏng in atte breste, þat neuer eft he ne speke, - Bote þe ssaft, þat was wẏþoute, grẏslẏch he to brec, - And anowarde hẏs wombe vel adoun, and deẏde without spech, - Wẏþoute ssrẏft and hosel, anon þer was Gode’s wreche. - Þo Water Tẏrel ẏseẏ, þat he was ded, anon - He atornde, as vaste as he mẏgte, þat was hẏs best won.” - -Peter of Langtoft (i. 446) has some touches of his own. Among other -things, the days of the week have got wrong, in order to bring in a -precept as to the proper observance of the weekly fast-day. We also -get a purely imaginary Bishop of Winchester; - - “Par un Jovedy à vespre le ray ala cocher - En la Nove Forest, où devayt veneyer. - Si tost fu endormy, comença sounger - K’il fust en sa chapele, soul saunz esquyer, - Les us furent fermés k’yl ne pout passer; - Si graunt faym avayt, ke l’estout manger, - Ou mourir de faym, ou tost arager. - Il n’ad payn ne char, ne pessoun de mer; - Il prent et devoure le ymage sur le auter, - La Marye et le fiz, saunz rens là lesser. - Al matyn, kaunt il leve, le eveske fet maunder, - Ode de Wyncestre, et ly va counter - Tut cum ly avynt en sun somoyller. - Le eveske ly dist, ‘Sir rays, Deus est rays saunz per; - Tu l’as coroucez, te covent amender - Par penaunce, et desore plus sovent amer. - Par Vendredy en boys ne devez mes chacer, - Ne à la ryvere of faucoun chuvaucher; - Tel est ta penaunce, et tu le days garder.’ - Le eveske ad pris congé, et vait à sun maner; - Après la messe oye, ala le rays juer, - Sa penaunce oblye, fet maunder ly archer, - Walter Tirel i fust, ke set del mister, - Ad sun tristre vayt, la beste va wayter, - Un cerf hors de l’herd comença launcer; - Et ly Frauncays Tyrel se pressayt à seter, - Quide ferir la beste, et fert le rays al quer - Kaunt le eveske l’oyt dire, fist trop mourne cher. - Le cors à, Wyncestre fist le eveske porter, - Et mettre en toumbe al mouster saynt Per. - [Prioms qe sire Dieu pardoun li voile doner.]” - -This last line, fittingly according to the belief of William’s own -time, is wanting in some manuscripts. - -From the writer known as Bromton we might have looked for some new -form of the legend, but he gives us (X Scriptt. 996) only the usual -story about Walter Tirel, with a rhetorical character of William and -an account of his evil doings. One or two expressions however are -remarkable; - - “In quodam loco ubi priscis temporibus ecclesia fuerat - constructa, et tempore patris sui cum multis aliis - ecclesiis, et quatuor domibus religiosis, et tota illa - patria in solitudinem redacta, vitam crudelem fine miserrimo - terminavit. Jure autem in medio injustitiæ suæ inter feras - occiditur, qui ultra modum inter homines ferus erat. Nam - stabilitis contra malefactores silvarum, forestarum, et - venationis, legibus duris, zelotepia sua agente, custos - boscorum et ferarum pastor communiter vocabatur.” - -To Knighton’s curious account I have referred already (see p. 333). -But he tells the story twice. His first version (X Scriptt. 2372) -contains nothing remarkable; the second (2373) is quite worth notice. -He attributes to Rufus the making of the New Forest, which he -describes in words which are not, as far as one can see, copied from -any of the usual sources. He enforced the forest laws with great -harshness, “quod pro dama hominem suspenderet, pro lepore xx._s._ -plecteretur, pro cuniculo x._s._ daret.” Then the last scene is -brought in with some solemnity; but the age which he assigns to the -Red King is quite impossible; - - “Igitur, ut ante dictum est, iii. nonarum Augusti, per - Cistrensem [sic] anno gratiæ MC. regni sui xiii. ætatis - liii. venit in novum herbarium suum, scilicet novam - forestam, cum multa familia stipatus, venandi gratia set - sibi gratia dura. Cum arcubus et canibus stetit in loco suo, - et quidam miles sibi nimis familiaris Walterus Tyrel nomine, - prope eum ex opposito loco, ut moris est venantium, - cæterique sparsim unusquisque cum arcu et sagitta in manu - expecteoli [sic] pro præda capienda. Interea accidit miræ - magnitudinis cervum præ cæteris præstantiorem regi - appropinquare, videlicet inter regem et dictum militem, at - rex tetendit arcum volens emittere sagittam, credens se - interficere cervum, set, fracta corda in arcu regis, cervus, - de sonitu quasi attonitus, restitit circumcirca respiciens, - et inde rex aliqualiter motus dixit militi ut cervum - sagittaret. Miles vero se sustinuit. At rex objurganter cum - magno impetu præcepit ei, dicens, ‘Trahe, trahe, arcum ex - parte diaboli, et extendas sagittam, alias te pœnitebit,’ At - ille emisit sagittam, volens interficere cervum, percussit - regem per medium cordis, et occidit eum, ibidemque - expiravit. Walterus evasit, nemine insequente. Rex vero - vehitur apud Wyntoniam super redam caballariam impositus. In - cujus sepultura luctus defuit. Omnes gaudium de ejus morte - arripiunt, adeo quod vix erat quispiam qui lacrimam - emiserit, sed omnes de morte ejus lætati sunt.” - -This is well told; but how much more men knew about the matter at the -end of the fourteenth century than they did in the last year of the -eleventh. - - * * * * * - -To turn to foreign writers, the Annales Cambriæ say simply that -“Willelmus rex Angliæ, a quodam milite suo cervum petente sagitta -percussus, interiit”――or, in another manuscript, “Willelmus rex -Anglorum, _improviso ictu_ sagittæ a quodam milite in venatu -occubuit.” The difference is to be noted. The Brut records the death -of William the Red, King of the Saxons (Gẃilim Goch, brenhin y -Saeson), and says that “as he was on a certain day hunting, along with -Henry, his youngest brother, accompanied by some of his knights, he -was wounded with an arrow by Walter Tyrell, a knight of his own, who, -unwittingly, as he was shooting at a stag, hit the king and killed -him.” - -The Annales Blandinienses in Pertz, v. 27, record how “secundus -Willelmus rex Anglorum in venatione ab uno milite suo ex improvisu -sagitta vulneratus obiit; cui successit Henricus frater suus.” The -Saint Denis History (Pertz, ix. 405) has a further touch; “Willelmus -Rufus, rex Anglorum, venationi intentus sagitta incaute emissa -occiditur. Cui Henricus frater ejus _velocissime successit_, ne -impediretur a Roberto fratre suo, jam de Hierosolimitana expeditione -reverso.” Another writer in the same volume (ix. 392), Hugh of Fleury, -has a remarkable account, quite in the spirit of the English writers, -but seemingly not directly copied from any of them; - - “Rex Anglorum Guillelmus, magnifici regis Guillelmi - successor et filius, dum venationem exercet in silva quæ - adjacet Vindoniæ urbi, a quodam milite sagitta percussus - interiit. Ille tamen miles qui sagittam jecit illum - inscientem percussit. Cervam quippe sagittare parabat, sed - sagitta retrorsum acta regem insperate percussit, et illum - inopinabiliter interemit. Quod divino nutu contigisse non - dubium est. Erat enim rex ille armis quidem strenuus atque - munificus, sed nimis lasciviens et flagitiosus. Verum - antequam interiret, magnis sibi signis præostensis, si - voluisset, corrigi debuisset. Nam dum sibi subitus, peccatis - suis exigentibus, immineret interitus, in eadem insula in - qua manebat sanguinis unda fœtida per spatium unius diei - emanavit, _ipso præsente_, quod dicebatur ejus portendere - mortem. Ipso etiam tempore apparuerunt alia signa stupenda - in eadem insula, quibus, sicut jam dictum est, terreri et - vitam suam corrigere debuisset. Quæ juventa stolidus et - honore superbus contempsit, et semper incorrigibilis mansit. - Unde Dei justo judicio subite et intempestiva morte - preventus occubuit. Cui successit frater ejus junior - Henricus, vir sapiens atque modestus.” - -Hugh of Flavigny, whom we have already had often to quote, adds -(Pertz, viii. 495) one detail which I do not think appears elsewhere. -The King goes to see the well which sent up blood (the event is -wrongly put under 1099); - - “Anno inc. dom. 1099 obiit Urbanus papa, successit - Paschalis. Obiit etiam Willelmus junior rex Anglorum. Quo - etiam anno in Anglia fons verum sanguinem olidum et putentem - manare visus est. Ad quod spectaculum cum fere tota insula - cucurrisset, insolita rei novitate stupefacta, rex præfatus - advenit et vidit, nec tamen ei profuit vidisse. Autumabat - vulgus promiscuum portentum istud mortem regis portendere, - quod etiam ei dicebatur a referentibus; sed homo secularis - et in quem timor Dei non ceciderat, voluptatibus carnis et - superbiæ deditus, divinorum præceptorum contemptor et - adversarius, qui tamen satis regii fuisset animi, si non - Deum postposuisset fastu regni inflatus, nec cogitabat se - moriturum.” - -He carries on this vein a little further, and then gives the account -of his death; - - “Quia Deum deseruit, sanctam ecclesiam opprimens et eam sibi - ancillari constituens, a Deo quoque derelictus est; in silva - quæ adjacet Wintoniæ civitati, dum venationem exercet, - sagitta a quodam percussus, quo lethali vulnere decidit et - exanimatus est, pœnitentia et communione carens, et apud - eamdem urbem sepultus.” - -The Angevin chroniclers record the death of Rufus without comment or -detail. The Biographer of the Bishops of Le Mans (Vet. An. 309), who -looks at the matter chiefly with reference to Bishop Hildebert, -moralizes at some length; but his statement of fact is no more than -this; - - “Dum quadam die in silvam venandi gratia perrexisset, ab uno - ex militibus qui secum ierant sagitta percussus, interiit.” - -This is really hardly more than the few words of the English -Chronicler. Alberic of Trois Fontaines, from whom we might have looked -for something, merely copies William of Malmesbury and others. Gervase -of Tilbury (ii. 20, Leibnitz, i. 945) mentions another agent in the -death-blow; - - “Defuncto patre successit Guillelmus _primogenius_ in - regnum, vir impius, ecclesiarum persecutor, immisericors - circa imbelles, qui archiepiscopum Cantuariensem plurimum - persecutus, _ab angelo percutiente peremtus_, Guintoniæ - sepultus est, sub infamiæ perpetuo monumento.” - - * * * * * - -As for Walter Tirel, he has his place in ordinary memory so thoroughly -as the slayer of William Rufus and as nothing else, that it is rather -hard to take in that his position as the slayer of William Rufus is -very doubtful, while there are undoubted, though meagre, notices of -him in other characters. We have already seen him entertaining Anselm -in one of his Picard dwellings. The fullest account of his family -comes from Orderic, who, when he is commenting on the laxity of the -Norman clergy and bishops in his time, gives us the story of Walter’s -father (574 D). Dean Fulk was a pupil of Bishop Ivo of Chartres, and -inherited a knight’s fee from his father. Then we read how “illius -temporis ritu, nobilem sociam nomine Orieldem habuit, ex qua copiosam -prolem generavit.” Walter was one of a family of ten, seemingly the -youngest of eight sons. He was “cognomento Tirellus,” clearly a -personal and not a hereditary or local surname. - -If the Dean of Evreux kept proper residence, his son would be Norman -_natione_, whatever he was _genere_; but most accounts of Walter -connect him with France rather than with Normandy. Abbot Suger, who -knew him personally, speaks of him (Duchèsne, iv. 283 C) as -“nobilissimus vir Galterius Tirellus.” In Florence (1100) he is simply -“quidam Francus, Walterus cognomento Tirellus.” William of Malmesbury -(iv. 333) says that, on the day of the King’s death, he was “paucis -comitatus, quorum familiarissimus erat Walterius cognomento Tirel, qui -de Francia, liberalitate regis adductus, venerat.” His possession of -Poix appears from Orderic, 782 A, where he is described as “de Francia -miles generosus, Picis et Pontisariæ dives oppidanus, potens inter -optimates et in armis acerrimus; ideo regi familiaris conviva et -ubique comes assiduus.” Walter Map (De Nugis Cur. 222) calls him -“miles Achaza juxta Pontissaram Franciæ,” which I suppose means -Achères. (But in Orderic, 723 B, we have another Walter and also a -Peter brought into connexion with Achères.) Walter’s connexion with -that district suggests that the King had bought him over to his side, -or had taken him prisoner during the campaign in the Vexin. Geoffrey -Gaimar (Chron. Anglo-Norm. i. 51) dwells on his possession of Poix; - - “Wauter estoit un riches hom, - De France ert per del région. - Piez estoit soen un fort chastel, - Assez avoir de son avel. - Au roi estoit venu servir - Douns et soudées recoverir, - Per grant cherté ert recuilliz, - Assez ert bien del roi chériz. - _Pur ceo q’estranges homs estoit, - Le gentil roi le chérissoit._” - -His marriage comes from Orderic (783 A); “Adelidam filiam Ricardi de -sublimi prosapia Gifardorum conjugem habuit, quæ Hugonem de Pice, -strenuissimum militem, marito suo peperit.” - -The question now comes whether Walter Tirel appears in Domesday. There -is in Essex (41) an entry, “Laingaham tenet Walterus Tirelde. R. quod -tenuit Phin dacus pro ii. hidis et dimidia et pro uno manerio.” This -comes among the estates of Richard of Clare, and I suppose that “R.” -in the entry should be “de R.” as in several others. If this be our -Walter Tirel, his estate was not very great, and he did not hold as a -tenant-in-chief. One cannot make much out of the extract from an -East-Saxon county history in Ellis, ii. 394. Lappenberg (ii. 207) has -more to say about this entry and other bearers of the name of Tirel. -It cannot much matter that “der Name Tirrel ist in der Liste der -Krieger zu Battle Abbey.” It is of more importance when he refers to -the Pipe Roll of Henry (56), where we read, “Adeliz uxor Walteri -Tirelli reddit compotum de x. marcis argenti de eisdem placitis de La -Wingeham.” This comes in Essex, and I suppose that the “Laingaham” of -Domesday and the “La Wingeham” of the Pipe Roll are the same place. If -so, the two entries, combined with the notice in Orderic, look very -much as if they all belong to one Walter and one Adelaide. If this be -so, Walter Tirel was a landowner in England, though on no great scale; -and whatever was his own case, his wife or widow was living and -holding his land in 1131. - -Walter’s denial of any share in the King’s death comes from the -personal knowledge of Abbot Suger (Duchèsne, iv. 283); “Imponebatur a -quibusdam cuidam nobilissimo viro Galterio Tirello, quod eum sagitta -perfoderat. Quem cum nec timeret, nec speraret, jurejurando sæpius -audivimus, et quasi sacrosanctum asserere, quod ea die nec in eam -partem silvæ in qua rex venabatur, venerit, nec eum in silva omnino -viderit.” - -John of Salisbury in his Life of Anselm, c. xii (Giles, v. 341), -refers to this denial on the part of Walter. He speaks of the fate of -Julian, likening Anselm to Basil, and goes on; “Quis alterutrum -miserit telum, adhuc incertum est quidem. Nam Walterus Tyrrellus ille, -qui regiæ necis reus a plurimis dictus est, eo quod illi familiaris -erat et tunc in indagine ferarum vicinus, et fere singulariter -adhærebat, etiam quum ageret in extremis, se a cæde illius immunem -esse, invocato in animam suam Dei judicio, protestatus est. Fuerunt -plurimi, _qui ipsum regem jaculum quo interemptus est misisse -asserunt_; et hoc Walterus ille, etsi non crederetur ei, constanter -asserebat.” He adds a comment which might be taken in two senses; “Et -profecto quisquis hoc fecerit, Dei ecclesiæ suæ calamitatibus -compatientis dispositioni fideliter obedivit.” - -The very confused story which makes William Rufus the maker of the New -Forest, and Walter Tirel the adviser of the deed, comes from Walter -Map’s account (De Nugis, 222) of the death of William Rufus, where a -good many things are brought close together; “Willielmus secundus, rex -Angliæ, regum pessimus, Anselmo pulso a sede Cantiæ, justo Dei judicio -a sagitta volante pulsus, quia dæmonio meridiano deditus, cujus ad -nutum vixerat, onere pessimo levavit orbem. Notandum autem quod _in -silva Novæ Forestæ_ [cf. N. C. vol. iv. p. 841], quam ipse Deo et -hominibus abstulerat, ut eam dicaret feris et canum lusibus, a qua -triginta sex matrices ecclesias extirpaverat, et populum earum dederat -_exterminio_. Consiliarius autem hujus ineptiæ Walterus Tyrell, miles -Achaza juxta Pontissaram Franciæ, qui, non sponte sua sed Domini, de -medio fecit eum ictu sagittæ, quæ feram penetrans cecidit in belluam -Deo odibilem.” “Exterminium” must of course be taken, not of a -massacre, but of a mere driving out. Giraldus too (De Inst. Princ. -173) attributes the making of the New Forest and the driving out of -the people to William Rufus; - - “Hic Novam in australibus Angliæ partibus Forestam, quæ - usque hodie durat, primus instituit; multis ibidem - ecclesiis, in quibus divina ab antiquo celebrari obsequia et - ipsius præconia sublimari, desertis omnino et destitutis - multisque ruricolis et glebæ ascriptis a paternis laribus et - agris avitis miserabiliter profugatis et proscriptis.” - -We have seen already (see p. 337) how this confusion was further -improved in the thirteenth century at the hands of Thomas Wykes, and -what rhetorical use of it was made later still by Henry Knighton. - - * * * * * - -As usual, so-called local tradition knows a vast deal about the -matter. The exact place where Rufus fell is known, and is marked by a -stone. The tree from which, in some versions, the arrow is said to -have glanced, is also known, and its site, or a successor, may be -seen. It is of course impossible to say that these things are not so; -but one knows too much of the utter worthlessness of the modern -guesses which commonly pass for local tradition to attach much value -to such stories. I have been on the spot; but, when there is no real -evidence to fix the event to one spot rather than another of a large -district, it is another matter from tracing out the signs of real -history at Le Mans and at Rochester, at Bamburgh and at Saint Cenery. -There is also a wild story about a payment made by some neighbouring -manor as a penalty, because some one shod Walter’s horse instead of -stopping him. The payment is doubtless real enough; the alleged cause -for it shows a knowledge of details beyond that of Knighton or -Geoffrey Gaimar. The critical historian, after making his way through -all these tales, can only come back to the safe statement of the -English Chronicler with which he set out. - - -APPENDIX TT. Vol. ii. p. 338. - -THE BURIAL OF WILLIAM RUFUS. - -Some of the accounts of William’s burial have been already mentioned -in the text, or in the last Note. It may have been noticed that some -of them seem anxious to claim for Henry a share in the burial of his -brother. The singular narrative of Geoffrey Gaimar (i. 56), where he -follows up his attempt to make out a late repentance for Rufus by -giving him a specially solemn and Christian burial, has been given in -brief in the text. The barons and the rest are mourning, when Gilbert -of Laigle bids them stop (“Taisez, seigneurs, pur Jhésu Xpist”) and -turn to burying their master. Then the story goes on; - - “Donc véissez valez descendre - Et venéours lur haches tendre. - Tost furent trenche li fussel - De quai firent li mainel. - Deus blertrons troevent trenchez; - Bien sont léger et ensechez, - Ne sont trop gros, mès longs estoient; - Tut à mesure les conreient, - De lur ceintures e de peitrels - Lient estreit les mainels, - Puis firent lit en la bière. - De beles flours et de feugère, - Ij palefreis ont amenez, - Od riches freinz, bien enseelez; - Sur ceus ij. couchent la bière; - N’ert pas pesante mès légère; - Puis i estendent un mantel - Qui ert de paille tut novel. - Le fiz Aimon le défoubla, - Robert, qi son seignur ama, - Sur la bière cuchent le roi, - Qe portoient le palefroi. - Enséveli fu en un tiret, - Dont Willam de Montfichet. - Le jour devant ert adubbé, - N’avoit esté k’un jor porté, - Le mantel gris donc il osta.” - -After some more lamentations, they set out on their journey and reach -Winchester; - - “Tresque Wincestre n’ont finé, - Iloeques ont le roi posé - Enz el mouster Seint-Swithun. - Là s’assemblèrent li baron. - Et la clergié de la cité - Et li évesque et li abbé. - Li bons évesques Walkelin - Gaita le roi tresq’au matin. - O lui, moigne, clerc et abbé, - Bien ont léu et bien chanté - Leudemain font cele départie. - Tiele ne vit homme de vie, - Ne tant messes ne tiel servise - N’ert fet tresq’au jour de juise - Pur un roi, come pur li firent. - Tut autrement l’ensévelirent - Qe li baron n’avoient fet. - Là où Wauter out à lui tret. - Qui ceo ne creit aut à Wincestre, - Oïr porra si voir pœt estre.” - -This is a pretty story enough; but we may be sure that all its other -details are as mythical as the part assigned to the dead Bishop -Walkelin. The only question of any importance is whether there is any -contradiction between the two more important narratives, that of -Orderic and that of William of Malmesbury in the place where he is -directly telling the story. The Chronicler and Florence simply mention -the burial without detail or comment. The account of William of -Malmesbury is the shorter of the two. The King has been shot, and -Walter Tirel has fled. Then the story goes on (iv. 333); - - “Nec vero fuit qui persequeretur, illis conniventibus, istis - miserantibus, omnibus postremo alia molientibus; pars - receptacula sua munire, pars furtivas prædas agere, pars - regem novum jamjamque circumspicere. Pauci rusticanorum - cadaver, in rheda caballaria compositum, Wintoniam in - episcopatum devexere, cruore undatim per totam viam - stillante. Ibi infra ambitum turris, multorum procerum - conventu, paucorum planctu, terræ traditum.” - -Orderic (782 D) tells very much the same story; - - “Mortuo rege, plures optimatum ad lares suos de saltu - manicaverunt, et contra futuras motiones quas timebant res - suas ordinaverunt. Clientuli quidem cruentatum regem vilibus - utcunque pannis operuerunt, et veluti ferocem aprum, - venabulis confossum, de saltu ad urbem Guentanam detulerunt. - Clerici autem et monachi atque cives, duntaxat egeni, cum - viduis et mendicis, obviam processerunt, et pro reverentia - regiæ dignitatis in veteri monasterio Sancti Petri celeriter - tumulaverunt.” - -The words of William of Malmesbury, it will be noticed, are quite -general. They do not assert the usual religious ceremony, but neither -do they exclude it. It is Orderic who in a marked way asserts the -popular excommunication. His words are; - - “Porro ecclesiastici doctores et prælati, sordidam ejus - vitam et tetrum finem considerantes, tunc judicare ausi - sunt, et ecclesiastica, veluti biothanatum, absolutione - indignum censuerunt, quem vitales auras carpentem salubriter - a nequitiis castigare nequiverunt. Signa etiam pro illo in - quibusdam ecclesiis non sonuerunt, quæ pro infimis - pauperibus et mulierculis crebro diutissime pulsata sunt. De - ingenti ærario, ubi plures nummorum acervi de laboribus - miserorum congesti sunt, eleemosynæ pro anima cupidi quondam - possessoris nullæ inopibus erogatæ sunt.” - -Here is no contradiction; only Orderic asserts a very remarkable -feature in the case of which William takes no notice. To me it seems -more likely that William of Malmesbury, whose business it clearly was -(see above, p. 491) to make out as good a case for William Rufus as he -could without asserting anything positively false, should leave out a -circumstance which told so much against the King, than that Orderic, -or those from whom he heard the story, should invent or imagine it. On -the other hand, the very fact that the story of the popular -excommunication is so very striking and solemn and in every way -befitting does make us tremble the least bit in admitting it as a -piece of authentic history. - -We must not however forget that William of Malmesbury in a later -passage (v. 393) does seem to imply that the burial of Rufus was -accompanied by the ordinary ceremonies. In recording the election of -Henry, he says that it happened “post justa funeri regio persoluta.” -But it may fairly be doubted whether an _obiter dictum_ of this kind -is entitled to the same weight which would undoubtedly have belonged -to a direct statement in his regular narrative. The words are, after -all, somewhat vague, and if we compare this passage in William of -Malmesbury with the entry in the Chronicle, it sounds very much as if -it were merely a translation in a grander style of the simple words -“syðþan he bebyrged wæs.” The same feeling as that which is expressed -in Orderic’s account comes out in a singular passage of the Saxon -Annalist (Pertz, vi. 733); “Willehelmus rex de Anglia sagitta -interfectus est. Heinricus vero frater ejus in eodem loco pro remedio -animi sui volens monasterium constituere, prohibitus est. Apparuit -enim ei, et duo dracones ferentes eum, dicens, nichil sibi prodesse, -eo quod suis temporibus omnia destructa essent, quæ antecessores sui -in honorem Domini construxerant.” - -I suppose that there need be no difficulty about the “clientuli” of -Orderic as compared with the “rusticani” of William, though the word -“clientuli” by itself might rather have suggested some of the King’s -inferior followers. But one is amazed to find Sir Francis Palgrave -(iv. 686, 687) telling us the name of the churl who brought in the -body, “a neighbouring charcoal-burner, Purkis.” And he goes on to say; - - “We are not told that Purkis received any reward or thanks - for his care. His family still subsists in the - neighbourhood, nor have they risen above their original - station, poor craftsmen or cottagers. They followed the - calling of coal-burners until a recent period; and they tell - us that the wheel of the Cart which conveyed the neglected - corpse was shown by them until the last century.” - -I have often heard of this local legend about Purkis, but really so -palpable a fiction ought not to have found its way into the pages of a -scholar like Sir Francis Palgrave. There are some stories which need -no argument against them, but which the evidence of nomenclature at -once upsets. Purkis is on the face of him as mythical as Crocker and -Crewis and Copleston――I am not sure whether I have remembered the -first two names right, and it is not worth turning to any book to see. -By the way in which the story is told, one would fancy that Purkis is -meant for a surname, and it may be that those who believe in him think -that he was baptized John or Thomas. In inventing legends it is at -least better to invent legends which are possible. If any one chooses -to say that the cart was driven by Godwine or Æthelstan, we cannot say -that it was not. - - * * * * * - -It is after this that Orderic goes on to speak of the classes of -people who did mourn for the Red King, and how gladly they would have -done summary vengeance on his slayer, if he had not been far out of -their reach; - - “Stipendiarii milites et nebulones ac vulgaria scorta - quæstus suos in occasu mœchi principis perdiderunt, ejusque - miserabilem obitum, non tam pro pietate quam pro detestabili - flagitiorum cupiditate, planxerunt, Gualteriumque Tirellum, - ut pro lapsu sui defensoris membratim discerperent, - summopere quæsierunt. Porro ille, perpetrato facinore, ad - pontum propere confugit, pelagoque transito, munitiones quas - in Gallia possidebat expetiit, ibique minas et maledictiones - malevolentium tutus irrisit.” - - -NOTE UU. Vol. ii. p. 347. - -THE ELECTION OF HENRY THE FIRST. - -The details of the accession of Henry come chiefly from Orderic (782 -D), though, oddly enough, he does not record the election in so many -words. But there can be no doubt as to the fact of a regular, though -necessarily a very hasty, election. The words of the Chronicle are -distinct; “And syðþan he bebyrged wæs þa witan þe þa neh handa wæron, -his broðer Heanrig to cynge gecuran.” So Henry of Huntingdon; -“Henricus, ibidem in regem electus.” Florence strangely slurs over the -election, saying only, “successit junior frater suus Heinricus.” -William of Malmesbury (v. 393) is quite distinct; - - “In regem electus est, aliquantis tamen ante controversiis - inter proceres agitatis atque sopitis, annitente maxime - comite Warwicensi Henrico, viro integro et sancto, cujus - familiari jamdudum usus fuerat contubernio.” - -Here we hear only of “proceres;” but we get the important facts of the -division among the electors, and of the special agency of the Earl of -Warwick, which falls in with the notice of Orderic (783 B) that the -Count of Meulan accompanied the King-elect to London. The Beaumont -brothers act together. But Orderic, in his zeal to describe the -picturesque scene between Henry and William of Breteuil, leaves out -any distinct record of the election. It is however implied in the -words which follow the passage quoted in p. 347; - - “Tandem, convenientibus amicis et sapientibus consiliariis, - hinc et inde lis mitigata est, et saniori consultu, ne pejor - scissura fieret, arx cum regalibus gazis filio regis Henrico - reddita est.” - -The assembly which settled the matter, and which gave up the royal -treasury to Henry, was beyond all doubt the assembly which, according -to William of Malmesbury, elected Henry king. It was only to a king or -king-elect that they would decree the surrender of the treasure. -Indeed one might be tempted to make a slight change in the order of -events as told by Orderic. One is tempted to suspect that the assembly -voted the election of Henry, that he went, armed with this vote, to -demand the treasure, and that it was then that William of Breteuil -withstood him. This however is simply conjecture. But there can be no -doubt as to the election of Henry by such an assembly as could be got -together at the moment. Nor do I see any reason to doubt Orderic’s -story as to the scene between Henry and William of Breteuil. At all -events, Orderic has made it the occasion of putting forward some very -sound constitutional doctrine, which is just as valuable, even if any -severe critic should reject the story as a fact. - - * * * * * - -I have spoken elsewhere (see N. C. vol. v. p. 845) of two tales in -Matthew Paris with regard to Henry’s accession, of which Thierry made -a characteristic use. I have nothing to add to what I said then. - - * * * * * - -There can, I think, be no doubt that the celebrant at Henry’s -coronation was Maurice Bishop of London. The Chronicler, Florence, -Orderic, and Henry of Huntingdon, all mention Maurice and no other -prelate, though of course some other bishops would take a secondary -part in the ceremony. The Archbishop of York would have been the -regular celebrant during the vacancy of Canterbury; but, as Thomas -died so soon afterwards, the natural inference is that he was too sick -to come. And indeed, if he was in his own province, he could not, even -if he had been in the best of health, have come to Westminster at such -short notice. Even Thomas Stubbs does not claim the consecration of -Henry for his namesake, unless indeed he means (X Scriptt. 1707) to -insinuate it in a very dark way. He mentions the vacancy of Canterbury -after the death of Lanfranc, and adds; - - “Ex antiquo tamen extitit consuetudo inter duos Angliæ - metropolitanos, ut altero defuncto alter in provincia - defuncti archiepiscopalia faceret, utpote episcopos - consecrare, regem coronare, coronato rege natalis domini, - paschæ et pentecostes majorem missam cantare. Hæc interim - fecit Thomas archiepiscopus, nec quisquam episcoporum erat - qui hæc in sua ipsius diocesi præsente archiepiscopo præsumeret.” - -He then mentions the bishops whom Thomas consecrated, Hervey of -Norwich――that is, Herbert of Thetford――Ralph of Chichester, and Hervey -of Bangor. If he had really thought that Thomas had crowned a king, he -would surely have said so distinctly. I can therefore attach no -importance to the strange statement of the two Ely writers (Anglia -Sacra, i. 613; Stewart, Liber Eliensis, 284) that Henry was -consecrated by Maurice, but crowned by Thomas (“a Mauritio Lundoniensi -episcopo in regem est consecratus, sed a Thoma Eboracensi coronatus”). -But the distinction between consecration and coronation may be worth -the attention of ritual students. - - * * * * * - -It was an easy mistake of a Welsh writer (see the Brut, 1098, that is -1100) to transfer the election from Winchester to London; “From thence -[Winchester] he went to London, and took possession of it, which is -the chiefest and crown of the whole kingdom of England [Lloeger]. Then -the French and Saxons [Ffreinc a Saeson] all flocked together to him, -and by royal council appointed him king in England [vrenhin yn -Lloeger].” - - -APPENDIX WW. Vol. ii. p. 384. - -THE OBJECTIONS TO THE MARRIAGE OF HENRY AND MATILDA. - -Our two fullest accounts of this matter are those of Eadmer and of -Hermann of Tournay (D’Achery, ii. 894, see above, p. 600). Eadmer’s is -the account, not only of a contemporary, but, we cannot doubt, of an -eye-witness. Hermann wrote in another land, long afterwards, when the -wars of Stephen and Matilda and the pleadings in the papal court (see -N. C. vol. v. p. 857) had called men’s minds back to the story of the -marriage of Matilda’s parents. His memory, as we see, failed him as to -details. He did not remember either of the names of Eadgyth-Matilda; -he mistakes her brother David for her father; he makes her (D’Achery, -ii. 894) the mother of both the sons of Henry who were drowned in the -White Ship. It is quite plain that his remembrance of what he had -heard from Anselm forty or fifty years before was coloured by later -ways of looking at things. - -It is quite plain from Eadmer’s account that Eadgyth herself had not -the slightest feeling against the marriage, but that she was eager for -it; she disliked neither King Henry nor his crown. Nor has Anselm any -objection, as soon as the evidence shows that no rule of the Church -would be broken by the marriage. That he was strict in requiring such -evidence was only natural and right; “Affirmabat nulla se unquam -ratione in hoc declinandum ut suam Deo sponsam tollat et eam terreno -homini in matrimonium jungat” (Eadmer, Hist. Nov. 56). But when the -evidence shows that Eadgyth was not “Dei sponsa,” he makes no further -objection. Nothing is proved by his use of a negative form, “judicium -vestrum non abjicio” (Hist. Nov. 58). The sentimental objection which -Hermann puts into his mouth seems quite out of character. Anselm takes -the common-sense view; If she is a nun, she must not marry; if she is -not a nun, she may. One can believe that Anselm would in his heart -have preferred that any virgin should abide in the state which he -deemed the higher. But he would hardly have stooped to say; “This -marriage is perfectly lawful; but the veil has touched her head; so -you had better marry somebody else.” In this and in the prophecy we -surely see the beginning of the growth of a legend. Some legends of -Anselm seem to have arisen in his life-time. This one could not, as no -ill-luck happened to the children of the marriage till after Anselm -was dead. - -I am not sure that a very slight touch in the same direction may not -be seen in the account of William of Malmesbury, v. 418; the words -follow the passage quoted above, p. 603; “Cum rex suscipere vellet eam -thalamo, res in disceptationem venit; nec nisi legitimis productis -testibus, qui eam jurarent sine professione causa procorum velum -gessisse, archiepiscopus adduci potuit ad consentiendum.” - -William, it is to be noticed, does not repeat the English pedigree, on -which in his former notice (v. 393) he was less emphatic than Eadmer. -I do not know what can be meant by “ignobiles nuptiæ.” Hardly Count -Alan; hardly Earl William of Warren or Surrey, who is also spoken of. - - * * * * * - -Thierry (ii. 152) has an elaborate romance, in which the father of -Western theology comes in casually as “un moine du Bec, nommé -Anselme.” Here Eadgyth dislikes the marriage, but sacrifices herself -for the good of her people. All this comes from Matthew Paris, who has -two amazing stories. In one (Hist. Angl. i. 188), though Malcolm and -Margaret have been killed off at the proper time, they appear again in -full life when King Henry seeks their daughter――“filia elegantissimæ -speciei, et, quod pluris erat, vitæ sanctissimæ.” She was brought up -in a monastery, perhaps as a nun (“in sanctimonialium claustro propter -honestatem educata, et, ut dicitur, velo sacro Deo dicato ac jam -professa”). King Henry woos her with much fervour of passion (“ipsam -propter ipsius mores et faciei venustatem sitienter adoptavit, et -instanter petiit in uxorem”). The parents dare not withstand such a -lover; they go to ask their daughter’s own wishes. She rebukes them in -fearful and mysterious words for speaking of any such matter -(“increpans patrem et matrem de zelotipiæ præsumptione, nec ipsos -debere de corpore suo fructum mortalitatis exposcere, vel fructum -posteritatis infructuosum”). At this the father is sad; the mother is -pleased by the decision of her daughter (“matri propositum puellare -complacuit”). The King’s passion only waxes warmer; like Balak, he -sends more honourable messengers; he commands, prays, promises, till -he stumbles into a hexameter “missis sollemnioribus nuntiis, urgentius -adolescentulam in reginam expostulans, imperium, promissa, preces, -confudit in unum”). Malcolm, knowing that his wife will never agree to -the marriage, turns, without her knowledge, to the abbess by whom his -daughter had been brought up. The reverend mother is prevailed on to -argue the point at length, and to set forth every possible argument, -personal and political, on behalf of the marriage; - - “Proponens utilitatem inde proventuram, scilicet regnorum - fœdera, regum mutuam dilectionem, pacis tranquillitatem, - propagationis posteritatem, reginalem dignitatem, honoris - magnificentiam, divitiarum affluentiam, amoris desiderium, - amatoris pulcritudinem.” - -Father and abbess together are too much for the “beata virgo Matilda.” -She yields, but only “maledicens fructui sui ventris affuturo.” Anselm -marries them, “nuptiis sollemniter, ut decuit, celebratis;” but a -contemporary note in the margin is added, “Nota nuptias illicitas.” -And we are told that the disturbances which presently followed, the -invasion of Robert and anything else, were all judgements on this -unlawful marriage; - - “Facta est commotio magna in regno, quasi Deo irato, quoniam - rex Henricus zelotipaverat, et, sicut fratrem Robertum de - regno supplantando alienaverat, sic Christum de sponsa sua - defraudaverat.” - -It is to be noticed that the writer who brings in all this action of -Malcolm under the year 1101 had long before (i. 43) recorded his death -in its proper place, or rather before its proper place, as he puts it -in 1092 instead of 1093. - -The other account comes in the Chronica Majora, ii. 121. It is chiefly -remarkable for two speeches, the second of which is put into the mouth -of Matilda herself. Matthew had just copied a business-like bit from -Roger of Wendover (ii. 169), recording the marriage without comment; -he then goes on to say that Matilda was married against her will, -being won over by the importunity of kinsfolk and friends. The words -are, “parentum et amicorum consiliis vix adquiescens; tandem tædio -affecta, adquievit.” (“Parentes” may be taken by the charitably -disposed in the wider French sense, but it must be remembered that in -the other version Malcolm and Margaret are brought in as living in the -year 1100.) This version is quite certain that Matilda had made a vow, -but leaves it open whether she had actually taken the veil (“Cum -Christiana matertera sancta sanctissime in claustro religionis educata -fuerat, et votum virginitatis Deo spoponderat, et, ut multi perhibent, -velum susceperat professæ religionis”). The kinsfolk and friends make -a solemn appeal on patriotic grounds; - - “O mulierum generosissima ac gratissima, per te reparabitur - Anglorum genialis nobilitas, quæ diu degeneravit, et fœdus - magnorum principum redintegrabitur, si matrimonio prælocuto - consentias. Quod si non feceris, causa eris perennis - inimicitiæ gentium diversarum, et sanguinis humani - effusionis irrestaurabilis.” - -Matilda, “virgo clementissima,” gets angry, and, in the bitterness of -her soul, uses yet stronger language than she does in the other -version; - - “Ex quo sic oportet fieri, utcunque consentio, sed fructum - ventris mei, quod est horribile dictu, diabolo commendo. Me - enim Deo vovi, quod non sinistis, immo sponsum meum, quem - elegi, ausu temerario, immemores causæ sancti Matthæi - apostoli, zelotipatis.” - -We are then told of the vehement love of the King for the wife whom he -had thus wrongfully married; - - “Sic igitur nuptiæ magnifice, ut decuit, celebrabantur, et - tanto ardentius exarsit rex in ipsius amorem, quanto - scelestius adamavit. Secundum illud poeticum - - “Nitimur in vetitum semper.” - - Peccato igitur exigente, facta est commotio subito in regno.” - -From this point Matthew goes on copying Roger of Wendover’s account of -Robert’s invasion, but putting in bits of colouring of his own. When -Henry sends his fleet to meet that of Robert, we are told that he does -it “conscientiam habens multipliciter cauteriatam.” And when some of -the sailors (see p. 404)――who are enlarged by Robert of Wendover into -“pars major exercitus”――go over to Robert, the reason for their so -doing is said to be “quia rex jam tyrannizaverat.” - -There is something very strange in this echo at so late a time of -objections which one would have thought that both common sense and the -authority of Anselm would have set aside for ever. Was there any -lurking wish in the thirteenth century to weaken the title of the -Angevin kings, even on so stale a ground as the doubtful validity of -the marriage of so distant an ancestress? We must remember that -something of the kind really happened in Scotland long after. The -right of the Stewarts was murmured against at a very late time on the -ground of the doubtful marriage of Robert the Second. And we have seen -that in an intermediate time, during the reign of Stephen, the -validity of the elder Matilda’s marriage, and the consequent -legitimacy of the younger Matilda, were called in question by -Stephen’s supporters in arguments before the papal court. See N. C. -vol. v. p. 857. - - * * * * * - -There is something singular in the way in which the marriage is -entered in the Winchester Annals (1100), among a crowd of other facts -not put in exact chronological order; “Matildis, Malcolmi regis filia -Scotiæ, de monacha Wiltoniæ non tamen professa, regina Angliæ facta -est.” One almost thinks of the wild story about Eadgyth of Wilton -which I have spoken of in N. C. vol. i. p. 267. But the words have a -parallel in the language of the Brut (1098, that is 1110), which, -after the account of Henry’s election, adds, - - “And immediately he took for his wife Mahalt, daughter of - Malcolm, king of Prydyn, by Queen Margaret her mother - [‘Vahalt uerch y Moel Cólóm, brenhin Prydein’――another - manuscript more reasonably has ‘y Pictieit’――‘o Vargaret - urenhines y mam’]. And she, by his marrying her, was raised - to the rank of queen; for William Rufus [Gúilim Goch] his - brother, in his lifetime, had consorted with concubines, and - on that account had died without an heir.” Cf. p. 503. - - * * * * * - -I have said, what is perfectly true, that Orderic is the only writer -who directly mentions that Matilda had once borne the name of Eadgyth. -But I think that I have lighted on a most curious trace of the fact in -a later writer. Peter Langtoft (i. 448) mentions the return of Robert, -and adds; - - “La femme le duk Robert fu en proteccioun - Le counte de Cornewaylle, fillye [fu] Charloun - Seygnur de Cecylle, Egyth la dame ad noun; - Robert la prent e mene à sa possessioun.” - -The name appears in various spellings in different manuscripts, -Edgith, Egdith, and what not. It was perhaps not very wonderful that, -in Peter Langtoft’s day, a Count of Conversana should grow into a lord -of Sicily, and that a lord of Sicily should be thought to be of -necessity called Charles. But why should Sibyl be turned into Edith? I -can think of no reason except that the next lines are; - - “Cel houre en Escoce un damoysele estait, - Fillye al ray Malcolme, de ky maynt hom parlayt. - Taunt fu bone et bele, ke Henry le esposayt, - Ray de Engleterre, Malde home l’appelayt.” - -Surely the poet had read somewhere that Matilda had been called Edith, -and then mixed up her and Sibyl together. But why Sibyl should be in -the protection of the “Count of Cornwall”――meaning, if anybody, -William of Mortain――it is not easy to see. Had he read in Orderic (784 -B, C) that Robert and Sibyl went together to “mons sancti Michaelis -archangeli de periculo maris,” and took it for the Cornish mount? -Robert of Brunne (i. 95, Hearne) translates; - - “Noþeles þe erle of Cornwaile kept his wife þat while - Charles douhter scho lord of Cezile, - _Dame Edith bright as glas_: Roberd þouht no gile, - Bot com on gode manere tille his broþer Henry, - He wife þat soiorned here he led to Normundie.” - - -NOTE XX. Vol. ii. p. 412. - -THE TREATY OF 1101. - -I do not know that there is any necessary contradiction between the -detailed narrative of Orderic (788), who alone speaks of the personal -interview between the brothers, and the shorter accounts of the other -writers, who have more to say about the action of the wise men on each -side. Nothing is more likely than that the terms of the treaty should -be discussed by commissioners on both sides, and then finally agreed -on in a personal meeting of the two princes. The only point of -difficulty is that Orderic seems to imply that nobody on either side -could be trusted, except the princes themselves. He begins with -Henry’s message to ask why Robert had entered his kingdom (“cur Angliæ -fines cum armato exercitu intrare præsumpserit”). Robert’s answer -reminds one of the answer of Edward son of Henry the Sixth to Edward -the Fourth (Hall, 301; Lingard, iv. 189). His words are; “Regnum -patris mei cum proceribus meis ingressus sum, et illud reposco debitum -mihi jure primogenitorum.” - -The armies are now face to face, and the negotiations begin. In the -Chronicle the reconcilation clearly seems to be the work of the head -men; “Ac þa heafod men heom betwenan foran and þa broðra gesehtodan.” -So Florence; “Sapientiores utriusque partis, habito inter se salubri -consilio, pacem inter fratres composuere.” William of Malmesbury (v. -395) adds a special reason for peace; “Satagentibus sanioris consilii -hominibus, qui dicerent pietatis jus violandum si fraterna necessitudo -prælio concurreret, paci animos accommodavere; reputantes quod, si -alter occumberet, alter infirmior remaneret, cum nullus fratrum præter -ipsos superesset.” There is here nothing to throw any doubt on the -good faith of anybody, and no negotiators are mentioned by name. It is -Wace (15508 Pluquet, 10423 Andresen) who mentions negotiators on -Robert’s side whom we certainly should not have looked for; - - “Conseillie out comunement - Qu’il le feront tot altrement; - Les dous freres acorderont, - Ia por els ne se combatront. - Robert, qui Belesme teneit - E qui del duc s’entremeteit, - E cil qui Moretoig aueit, - Qui a s’enor aparteneit - ――Will, co dient, out non―― - E Robert, qui fu filz Haimon, - Ouoc altres riches barons, - Donc io ne sai dire les nons, - Qui del rei e del duc teneient - E amedous seruir deueient, - De l’accorder s’entremeteient, - Por la bataille qu’il cremeient. - Del rei al duc souent aloent - E la parole entre els portoent; - La pais aloent porchacant - E la concorde porparlant.” - -It is Orderic alone who implies that Henry asked for a personal -interview, and gives his reason; - - “Seditiosi proditores magis bellum quam pacem optabant. Et - quia plus privatæ quam publicæ commoditati insistebant, - versipelles veredarii verba pervertebant, et magis jurgia - quam concordiam inter fratres serebant. Porro sagax Henricus - istud advertit, unde fratris colloquium ore ad os petiit; et - convenientes fraterni amoris dulcedo ambos implevit.” - -He then goes on to describe the meeting of the brothers; - - “Soli duo germani spectantis in medio populi collocuti sunt, - et ore quod corde ruminabant sine dolo protulerunt. Denique - post pauca verba mutuo amplexati sunt, datisque dulcibus - basiis, sine sequestro concordes effecti sunt. Verba quidem - hujus colloquii nequeo hic inserere, quia non interfui, sed - opus, quod de tantorum consilio fratrum processit, auditu - didici.” - -He then gives the terms of the treaty, and adds; - - “Remotis omnibus arbitris soli fratres scita sua sanxerunt, - et, cunctis in circumitu eos cum admiratione spectantibus, - decreverunt quod sese, ut decet fratres, invicem adjuvarent, - et omnia patris sui dominia resumerent, scelestosque litium - satores pariter utrinque punirent.” - -The colouring of Orderic in these passages can hardly be reconciled -with the other accounts. They clearly speak of the terms as agreed -upon between the chief men of both sides, while Orderic implies that, -on account of their untrustworthiness, the princes met and settled -matters for themselves. But it is possible to accept Orderic’s fact -without accepting his colouring. Or we may suppose that there were -among the negotiators some who wished to hinder peace, but that those -who laboured for it got the better in the end. Then, we may suppose, -they agreed upon terms, and the King and the Duke met to ratify the -treaty. As for the terms of the treaty, they are, as usual, given in -the best and most formal way in the Chronicle. The brothers agree, - -“On þa gerád þet se cyng forlet eall þæt he mid streangðe innan -Normandig togeanes þam eorle heold, and þæt ealle þa on Englelande -heora land ongean heafdon, þe hit ær þurh þone eorl forluron, and -Eustaties eorl eac eall his fæderland her on lande, and þet se eorl -Rotbert ælce geare sceolde of Englalande þreo þusend marc seolfres -habban, and loc hweðer þæra gebroðra oðerne oferbide wære yrfeweard -ealles Englalandes and eac Normandiges, buton se forðfarena yrfenuman -heafde be rihtre æwe.” - -Florence says nothing about the mutual succession of the two brothers, -nor does he mention Eustace by name. He also leaves out the cession of -Henry’s Norman dominions; - - “Pacem inter fratres ea ratione composuere ut iii. mille - marcas, id est MM. libras argenti, singulis annis rex - persolveret comiti, et omnibus suos pristinos honores quos - in Anglia pro comitis fidelitate perdiderant, restitueret - gratuito, et cunctis quibus honores in Normannia causa regis - fuerant ablati, comes redderet absque pretio.” - -Nothing in the treaty seems to have struck William of Malmesbury, -except the yearly payment of three thousand marks by the King to the -Duke. And even that he brings in quite incidentally, as if to account -for its being very shortly given up; - - “Sed et trium millium marcarum promissio lenem comitis - fallebat credulitatem, ut, procinctu soluto, de tanta - pecunia menti blandiretur suæ, quam ille posteriori statim - anno voluntati reginæ libens, quod illa peteret, - condonavit.” - -One is reminded of the story which William elsewhere (iii. 251) tells, -without any date, of Robert’s friend Eadgar; “Quantula simplicitas ut -libram argenti, quam quotidie in stipendio accipiebat, regi pro uno -equo perdonaret.” No doubt in both cases the horse and the gift to the -Queen were mere decent pretences for stopping the payment; but the -gift to Matilda is quite of a piece with Robert’s conduct to her at -Winchester (see p. 406). The Chronicler two years later (1103) records -Robert’s surrender of his pension; - - “Ðises geares eac com se eorl Rotbert of Normandig to - sprecene wið þone cyng [the common Domesday form in English] - her on lande, and ær he heonne ferde he forgeaf þa þreo - þusend marc þe him _seo cyng_ Heanrig be foreweard ælce - geare gifan sceolde.” - -Here we have no mention of Matilda, unless she anyhow lurks in the -feminine article so oddly assigned to her husband. - -Orderic helps us to the more distinct resignation by Robert of his -claims on the English crown, which is however implied in all the other -accounts――to the release of Henry from his homage to Robert――and to -the stipulation about Domfront, which was naturally more interesting -to him than it was to those who wrote in England. He does not mention -the mutual heirship of the brothers. He also confounds marks and -pounds; - - “In primis Rodbertus dux calumniam quam in regno Angliæ - ingesserat fratri dimisit, ipsumque de homagio, quod sibi - jamdudum fecerat, pro regali dignitate absolvit. Henricus - autem rex tria milia librarum sterilensium sese duci - redditurum per singulos annos spopondit, totumque - Constantinum pagum et quidquid in Neustria possidebat, - præter Danfrontem, reliquit. Solum Danfrontem castrum sibi - retinuit, quia Danfrontanis, quando illum intromiserunt, - jurejurando pepigerat quod nunquam eos de manu sua - projiceret, nec leges eorum vel consuetudines mutaret.” - - * * * * * - -I am glad to end with the mention of one of the noblest spots of which -I have had to speak in my story, and with one of the most honourable -features in the history of King Henry. - - - [1] In this chapter we have to make more use than usual of the - Scottish, British, and Northumbrian writers. I do not - undertake to go very deeply into any purely literary questions - about them. I have simply used them for facts, and have dealt - with their statements according to the usual rules of - criticism. The Scottish and Northumbrian writers will be found - in Mr. Skene’s edition of Fordun and in the Surtees Society’s - edition of Simeon. This last contains, among other things, - Turgot’s Life of Saint Margaret and the passages from Fordun - which profess to be extracts from Turgot. The Surtees’ text - and Mr. Skene’s text do not always agree, but their - differences are not often of much importance for my purposes. - It is certainly strange if some of these passages really come - from a contemporary writer. For Welsh matters we are, to my - mind, better off. Unhappily I do not know enough of the Welsh - tongue really to make use of the originals, though I am not - utterly at the mercy of the translator as to proper names and - technical terms. In the Chronicles and Memorials are two - volumes of most valuable matter which need a fresh editor. It - is not my business to enter into any questions as to their - authorship, how far it is due to Caradoc of Llancarfan or - anybody else. In any case the Latin _Annales Cambriæ_, meagre - as they are, form a thoroughly good and trustworthy record, - but the Editor seems in many places to have been unable either - to read his manuscript or to construe his Latin. Many of the - readings too which are most valuable historically are thrust - into notes. The Welsh _Brut y Tywysogion_, published in the - same series by the same Editor, is a fuller version of the - Annals, and also I believe essentially trustworthy. I have - been obliged to quote this in the translation, though often - with some doubts as to its accuracy. In the preface a good - deal of matter by the late Mr. Aneurin Owen is reprinted - without acknowledgement. There is also another _Brut y - Tywysogion_, otherwise “The Gwentian Chronicles of Caradoc of - Llancarvan,” translated by Mr. Owen and published by the - Cambrian Archæological Association. Here we have the - translating and editing of a really eminent Welsh scholar, but - the book, as a historical authority, is very inferior to - either the Latin Annals or the other Brut. A great deal of - legendary matter, some of which must be of quite a late date, - has been thrust in. I quote the more trustworthy Brut in the - Chronicles and Memorials as the _elder_, and that published by - the Cambrian Archæological Association as the _later_ Brut. - - [2] Chron. Petrib. 1093. See Appendix BB. - - [3] See vol. i. p. 304. - - [4] Chron. Petrib. 1093. See Appendix BB. - - [5] See vol. i. p. 307. - - [6] See vol. i. p. 298. - - [7] See vol. i. p. 410. - - [8] See vol. i. p. 421. - - [9] See N. C. vol. iv. p. 259. - - [10] See N. C. vol. ii. p. 355. - - [11] See vol. i. p. 417. - - [12] See N. C. vol. iv. p. 237. - - [13] See N. C. vol. v. p. 629. - - [14] So says the Northern interpolator of Florence whom we - are used to call Simeon, 1093; “Ecclesia nova Dunelmi est - incepta tertio idus Augusti feria quinta, episcopo Willelmo - et Malcholmo rege Scottorum et Turgoto priore ponentibus - primos in fundamento lapides.” Fordun (v. 20) says the same - in a passage which purports to come from Turgot, and of - which we shall have to speak again. It is certainly - remarkable, as Mr. Hinde remarks in his note on the passage - in the Gesta Regum (i. 104), that in the History of the - Church of Durham (iv. 8) Simeon makes no mention of Malcolm. - “Eo die episcopus, et qui post eum secundus erat in ecclesia - prior Turgotus, cum cæteris fratribus primos in fundamento - lapides posuerunt. Nam paulo ante, id est, iiii. Kal. - Augusti feria vi. idem episcopus et prior, facta cum - fratribus oratione, ac data benedictione, fundamenta - cœperant fodere.” - - [15] Chron. Petrib. 1093. See Appendix BB. - - [16] Ib. - - [17] This is from Florence. See Appendix BB. - - [18] See Appendix BB. - - [19] See N. C. vol. i. pp. 58, 119, 576, 579. - - [20] Chron. Petrib. 1093. See Appendix BB. - - [21] See Appendix CC. - - [22] See vol. i. p. 297. - - [23] See Appendix CC. - - [24] See N. C. vol. i. pp. 315, 648. - - [25] See Appendix CC. - - [26] Chron. Petrib. 1091. “Hine sloh Moræl of Bæbbaburh se - wæs þæs eorles stiward and Melcolmes cinges godsib.” See N. - C. vol. iii. pp. 456, 777. - - [27] On the history of Tynemouth, see Appendix FF. - - [28] Will. Malms. iii. 250. “Humatus multis annis apud - Tinemuthe, nuper ab Alexandro filio Scotiam ad Dunfermlin - portatus est.” - - [29] Sim. Dun. Gesta Regum, 1093. “In cujus morte justitia - judicantis Dei aperte consideratur, ut videlicet in illa - provincia cum suis interiret, quam sæpe ipse vastare - avaritia stimulante consuevit, quinquies namque illam atroci - depopulatione attrivit, et miseros indigenas in servitutem - redigendos abduxit captivos.” - - [30] Ib. “Exercitus illius vel gladiis confoditur, vel qui - gladios fugerunt inundatione fluminum, quæ tunc pluviis - hiemalibus plus solito excreverant, absorti sunt.” - - [31] Ib. “Corpus regis, cum suorum nullus remaneret qui - terra illud cooperiret, duo ex indigenis carro impositum in - Tynemuthe sepelierunt.” - - [32] Sim. Dun. Gesta Regum, 1093. “Sic factum est ut, ubi - multos vita et rebus et libertate privaverat, ibidem ipse - Dei judicio vitam simul cum rebus amitteret.” - - [33] I am sorry that Mr. Burton (Hist. Scotland, i. 416) - should have thought it necessary to tell the story of - Margaret and her biographer in somewhat mocking tones. I can - see nothing but what is exquisitely beautiful and touching - in her life as written by Turgot, for Turgot I suppose it - really is. - - [34] Turgot, Vit. Marg. vi. (Surtees Simeon, p. 241), - enlarges on this head; “Fateor, magnum misericordiæ Dei - mirabar miraculum, cum viderem interdum tantam orandi regis - intentionem, tantam inter orandum in pectore viri sæcularis - compunctionem.” He adds, “Quæ ipsa respuerat eadem et ipse - respuere, et quæ amaverat, amore amoris illius amare.” - William of Malmesbury (iv. 311) speaks to the same effect; - Malcolm and Margaret were “ambo cultu pietatis insignes, - illa præcipue.” - - [35] So witnesses Turgot in the chapter just quoted; “Libros - in quibus ipsa vel orare consueverat vel legere, ille, - ignarus licet literarum, sæpe manu versare solebat et - inspicere: et dum ab ea quis illorum esset ei carior - audisset, hunc et ipse cariorem habere, deosculari, sæpius - contrectare.” Then follows about the bindings. - - [36] Turgot is of course full on this head throughout, and - we have a further witness from our own Florence (1093) and - Orderic (701 D). From the last we get her bounty to - Iona――that barbarous name is more intelligible than any - other. In his words it is “Huense cœnobium quod servus - Christi Columba, tempore Brudei, regis Pictorum, filii - Meilocon, construxerat.” - - [37] Turgot, in his fourth chapter, enlarges on the strict - order which Margaret kept in her household, especially among - her own attendant ladies. “Inerat enim reginæ tanta cum - jocunditate severitas, tanta cum severitate jocunditas, ut - omnes qui erant in ejus obsequio, viri et feminæ, illam et - timendo diligerent et diligendo timerent. Quare in præsentia - ejus non solum nihil execrandum facere, sed ne turpe quidem - verbum quisquam ausus fuerat proferre. Ipsa enim universa in - se reprimens vitia, cum magna gravitate lætabatur, cum magna - honestate irascebatur.” - - [38] Orderic (703 B, C) has his panegyric on the three - brothers, and specially on David; but it is William of - Malmesbury (v. 400) who is especially emphatic on the - unparalleled purity of life of all three. “Neque vero unquam - in acta historiarum relatum est tantæ sanctitatis tres - fuisse pariter reges et fratres, maternæ pietatis nectar - redolentes; namque præter victus parcitatem, eleemosynarum - copiam, orationum assiduitatem, ita domesticum regibus - vitium evicerunt, ut nunquam feratur in eorum thalamos nisi - legitimas uxores isse, nec eorum quenquam pellicatu aliquo - pudicitiam contristasse.” - - [39] Will. Malms, ib. “Solus fuit Edmundus Margaritæ filius - a bono degener.” We shall hear of him and his doings - presently. - - [40] Turgot, viii. p. 243. “Scottorum quidam, contra totius - ecclesiæ consuetudinem, nescio quo ritu barbaro missam - celebrare consueverunt.” - - [41] Ib. viii. (Surtees Simeon, p. 243). “Qui [Malcolmus] - quoniam perfecte Anglorum linguam æque ac propriam noverat, - vigilantissimus in hoc concilio utriusque partis interpres - extiterat.” - - [42] Ib. vii. (p. 242). “Obsequia regis sublimiora - constituit, ut eum procedentem sive equitantem multa cum - grandi honore agmina constiparent, et hoc cum tanta censura, - ut quocumque devenissent, nulli eorum cuiquam aliquid - liceret rapere, nec rusticos aut pauperes quoslibet quolibet - modo quisquam illorum opprimere auderet vel lædere.” He - describes at some length the new-fashioned splendour which - she brought into the Scottish court, and adds; “Et hæc - quidem illa fecerat, non quia mundi honore delectabatur, - sed, quod regia dignitas ab ea exigebat, persolvere - cogebatur.” - - [43] Take for instance our own Chronicle, 1093; “Da þa seo - gode cwen Margarita þis gehyrde, hyre þa leofstan hlaford - and sunu þus beswikene, heo wearð oð deað on mode - geancsumed, and mid hire prestan to cyrcean eode, and hire - gerihtan underfeng, and æt Gode abæd þæt heo hire gast - ageaf.” Florence and Orderic are much to the same effect. - - [44] These details come from Turgot, chap. xii, xiii. He was - not himself present, having seen her for the last time some - while before her death, but late enough to bear witness - (chap. xii.) to her expectation of death. The story of her - last moments was told to Turgot by a priest who was - specially in the Queen’s favour, who was present at her - death, and who afterwards became a monk at Durham as an - offering for her soul. “Post mortem reginæ, pro ipsius anima - perpetuo se Christi servitio tradidit; et ad sepulchrum - incorrupti corporis sanctissimi patris Cuthberti suscipiens - habitum monachi, seipsum pro ea hostiam obtulit.” - - [45] Turgot, ib. “Ipsa quoque illam, quam Nigram Crucem - nominare, quamque in maxima semper veneratione habere - consuevit, sibi afferri præcepit.” Another manuscript has - “Crucem Scotiæ nigram.” - - [46] “Quinquagesimum psalmum ex ordine decantans;” that is - the fifty-first in our reckoning. - - [47] “Ille quod verum erat dicere noluit, ne audita morte - illorum continuo et ipsa moreretur; nam respondebat, eos - benevalere.” - - [48] “Sed in omnibus his non peccavit labiis suis, neque - stultum quid contra Deum locuta est.” We must always - remember the common habit of reviling God and the saints - which it was thought rather a special virtue to be free - from. See N. C. vol. ii. p. 24, note. - - [49] “In laudem et gratiarum actionem prorupit, dicens: - ‘Laudes et gratias tibi, omnipotens Deus, refero, qui me - tantas in meo exitu angustias tolerare, hasque tolerantem ab - aliquibus peccati maculis, ut spero, voluisti mundare.’” - - [50] The place is not mentioned by Turgot in the Life. - According to Fordun (v. 21), who professes to copy Turgot, - Margaret died “in castro puellarum;” see the Surtees Simeon, - p. 262. - - [51] “Quod mirum est, faciem ejus, quæ more morientium tota - in morte palluerat, ita post mortem rubor cum candore - permixtus perfuderat, ut non mortua sed dormiens credi - potuisset,” Cf. the picture of her uncle Eadward. See N. C. - vol. iii. p. 15. - - [52] See Appendix DD. - - [53] See Appendix AA. - - [54] Three parties are clearly described by Mr. E. W. - Robertson, i. 155. There were the remnants of the partisans - of the house of Moray, the house of Macbeth, the party of - the North, and the partisans of the reigning house, divided - into a strictly Scottish and an English party. The success - of Donald must have been owing to a momentary union of the - first two of these parties. I hardly know what to make of - the statement in the Turgot extracts (Simeon, p. 262) that - Donald arose “auxilio regis Norwegiæ.” - - [55] He appears in Fordun (v. 21) as “Donaldus Rufus vel - Bane, frater regis.” One cannot too often remind oneself of - the true position of Macbeth. I was perhaps a little hard on - him in N. C. vol. ii. p. 55. - - [56] Chron. Petrib. 1093. “Þa Scottas þa Dufenal to cynge - gecuron, Melcolmes broðer, and ealle þa Englisce út - adræfdon, þe ǽr mid þam cynge Melcolme wæron.” So - Florence; “Omnes Anglos qui de curia regia extiterunt de - Scottia expulerunt.” - - [57] See N. C. vol. i. p. 315. And compare the alleged - design for a massacre of Normans, N. C. vol. v. p. 281. - - [58] In the passages just quoted only English are mentioned. - We hear of English and French directly afterwards, when the - strangers are driven out in Duncan’s time. This difference - may be accidental, or it may be meant to mark a specially - Norman element under Duncan which had not shown itself under - Malcolm. - - [59] Fordun, v. 21. “Filios et filias regis et reginæ - sororis suæ congregatos in Angliam secum secretius traduxit, - et eos per cognatos et cognitos, non manifeste sed quasi in - occulto nutriendos, destinavit. Timuit enim, ne Normanni, - qui tunc temporis Angliam invaserant, sibi vel suis malum - molirentur, eo quod Angliæ regnum eis hereditario jure - debebatur.” - - [60] See Appendix EE. - - [61] See N. C. vol. v. pp. 244, 294-309. - - [62] See N. C. vol. v. p. 169. - - [63] See Appendix EE. - - [64] See Appendix EE. - - [65] Eadmer, Hist. Nov. 57. “Quem pannum in ipsius quidem - præsentia gemens ac tremebunda ferebam, sed mox ut me - conspectui ejus subtrahere poteram, arreptum in humum - jacere, pedibus proterere, et ita quo in odio fervebam, - quamvis insipienter, consueveram desævire. Isto, non alio - modo, teste conscientia mea, velata fui.” - - [66] See Appendix EE. - - [67] See vol. i. p. 435. - - [68] See vol. i. p. 438. - - [69] See N. C. vol. iv. p. 517; vol. v. p. 121. Will. Malms. - v. 400; “Ille [Willelmus] Duncanum, filium Malcolmi nothum, - militem fecit.” So Fordun, v. 24; “Duncanus, Malcolmi regis - filius nothus, cum obses erat in Anglia cum rege Willelmo - Rufo, armis militaribus ab eo insignitus.” See N. C. vol. - iv. p. 785. - - [70] See vol. i. pp. 13, 305. - - [71] Chron. Petrib. 1093. “Da þa Dunecan Melcolmes cynges - sunu þis eall gehyrde þus gefaren, se on þæs cynges hyrede - W. wæs, swa swa his fæder hine ures cynges fæder ær to gisle - geseald hæfde, and her swa syððan belaf, he to þam cynge - com, and swilce getrywða dyde, swa se cyng æt him habban - wolde.” So Florence; “Quibus auditis, filius regis Malcolmi, - Dunechan, regem Willelmum, cui tunc militavit, ut ei regnum - sui patris concederet petiit, et impetravit, illique - fidelitatem juravit.” William of Malmesbury (v. 400) perhaps - goes a step too far in saying that William “Duncanum … regem - Scottorum mortuo patre constituit.” Fordun (v. 24) takes - care to leave out the homage; Duncan is “ejus [Willelmi] - auxilio suffultus;” that is all. - - [72] Chron. Petrib. 1093. “And swa mid his unne to Scotlande - fór, mid þam fultume þe he begytan mihte, _Engliscra and - Frenciscra_ [see note, vol. i. p. 30], and his mæge Dufenal - þes rices benam, and to cynge wærð underfangen.” So - Florence; “Ad Scottiam cum multitudine Anglorum ac - Normannorum properavit.” - - [73] “Ac þa Scottas hi eft sume gegaderoden, and forneah - ealle his mænu ofslogan, and he sylf mid feawum ætbærst.” So - Florence. - - [74] “Syððan hi wurdon sehte on þa gerád, þæt he næfre eft - _Englisce ne Frencisce_ into þam lande ne gelogige.” So - Florence; “Post hæc illum regnare permiserunt, ea ratione ut - amplius in Scottiam nec Anglos nec Normannos introduceret, - sibique militare permitteret.” Mr. Robertson (i. 158) fixes - the date of this revolution to May, 1094, which is very - likely in itself. But it seems to come from the confused - statement of Fordun (v. 24) that Donald reigned six months - (November 1093-May 1094), and then Duncan a year and six - months, which is a year wrong anyhow. - - [75] See Robertson, i. 158, without whose help I might not - have recognized a Mormaor in the person described by Fordun - (u. s.) as “comes de Mesnys, nomine Malpei, Scottice - Malpedir.” William of Malmesbury (v. 400) witnesses to the - share of Eadmund, “qui Duvenaldi patrui nequitiæ particeps, - fraternæ non inscius necis fuerit, pactus scilicet regni - dimidium.” See above, p. 22. - - [76] Chron. Petrib. 1094. “Ðises geares eac þa Scottas heora - cyng Dunecan besyredon and ofslogan, and heom syððan eft - oðre syðe his fæderan Dufenal to cynge genamon, þurh þes - lare and totihtinge he wearð to deaðe beswicen.” So - Florence; “Interim Scotti regem suum Dunechan, et cum eo - nonnullos, suasu et hortatu Dufenaldi per insidias - peremerunt, et illum sibi regem rursus constituerunt.” - Fordun adds the place of his death and burial; “Apud - Monthechin [Monachedin on the banks of the Bervie, says Mr. - Robertson] cæsus interiit et insula Iona sepultus.” - - [77] See vol. i. p. 474. - - [78] Orderic (703 A, B) brings in his account of the - rebellion of Earl Robert with a general remark on the pride - and greediness of the Normans who had received large estates - in England. He then describes their dissatisfaction with the - rule of William Rufus in words which are not altogether - discreditable to the King; “Invidebant quippe et dolebant - quod Guillelmus Rufus audacia et probitate præcipue vigeret, - nullumque timens subjectis omnibus rigide imperaret.” That - is to say, such justice and such injustice as he did――and in - the case of Robert of Mowbray we shall find him doing - justice――were both dealt out without respect of persons. - Orderic does not specially mention the hunting-laws; but - William of Malmesbury (iv. 319) speaks of their harshness, - and adds, “Quapropter multa severitate quam nulla condiebat - dulcedo, factum est ut sæpe contra ejus salutem a ducibus - conjuraretur.” He then goes on to speak of Robert of - Mowbray. I hardly see the ground for the word “sæpe.” - - [79] Hen. Hunt. vii. 4. “Robertus consul Nordhymbra, in - superbiam elatus, quia regem Scottorum straverat.” - - [80] See N. C. vol. iv. p. 654. - - [81] See vol. i. pp. 249, 256. - - [82] See above, p. 16. - - [83] See the extract from the Chronicles in p. 55, note 2. - - [84] He is on the list in Florence, 1096. - - [85] Ord. Vit. 704 C. See vol. i. p. 33. - - [86] So says Florence, 1095. “Northymbrensis comes Rotbertus - de Mulbrei et Willelmus de Owe, cum multis aliis, regem - Willelmum regno vitaque privare, et filium amitæ illius, - Stephanum de Albamarno, conati sunt regem constituere, sed - frustra.” On the pedigree, see N. C. vol. ii. p. 632. - - [87] See vol. i. p. 279. - - [88] See N. C. vol. iv. p. 576. - - [89] Ord. Vit. 703 C. “Primus cum complicibus suis futile - consilium iniit, et manifestam rebellionem sic inchoavit. - Quatuor naves magnæ quas canardos vocant, de Northwegia in - Angliam appulsæ sunt. Quibus Rodbertus et Morellus nepos - ejus ac satellites eorum occurrerunt, et pacificis - mercatoribus quidquid habebant violenter abstulerunt.” - - [90] Ib. “Illi autem, amissis rebus suis, ad regem - accesserunt, duramque sui querimoniam lacrimabiliter - deprompserunt.” - - [91] Ord. Vit. 703 C. “Qui mox imperiose mandavit Rodberto - ut mercatoribus ablata restitueret continuo. Sed omnino - contempta est hujusmodi jussio, magnanimus autem rex - quantitatem rerum quas amiserant inquisivit, et omnia de suo - eis ærario restituit.” - - [92] Chron. Petrib. 1095. “And þa to Eastran heold se cyng - his hired on Winceastre, and se eorl Rodbeard of Norðhymbran - nolde to hirede cuman, and se cyng forðan wearð wið hine - swiðe astyrod, and him to sænde, and heardlice bead, gif he - griðes weorðe beon wolde, þæt he to Pentecosten to hired - come.” - - [93] Ib. “On þisum geare wæron Eastron on viii. kal. Ap[~r]. - and þa uppon Eastron, on S[~c]e Ambrosius mæsse night, þæt - is ii. noñ Ap[~r]. wæs gesewen forneah ofer eall þis land, - swilce forneah ealle þa niht, swiðe mænifealdlice steorran - of heofenan feollan, naht be anan oððe twam, ac swa þiclice - þæt hit nan mann ateallan ne mihte.” - - [94] See vol. i. p. 478. - - [95] See vol. i. pp. 527 et seqq. - - [96] See N. C. vol. ii. pp. 149, 621. - - [97] See vol. i. p. 530. - - [98] Chron. Petrib. 1095. “Hereæfter to Pentecosten wæs se - cyng on Windlesoran, and ealle his witan mid him, butan þam - eorle of Norðhymbran, forðam se cyng him naðer nolde ne - gislas syllan ne uppon trywðan geunnon, þæt he mid griðe - cumon moste and faran.” - - [99] Ib. “And se cyng forði his fyrde bead, and uppon þone - eorl to Norðhymbran fór.” Orderic (703 D) seems also to mark - the presence both of the national force and of mercenaries; - “Tunc rex, nequitiam viri ferocis intelligens, exercitum - aggregavit et super eum validam militiæ virtutem conduxit.” - - [100] See vol. i. p. 32. - - [101] See the extract in note 1, p. 38. The same seems to be - the idea of the Hyde writer, p. 301; “Malcolmum … bellando - cum toto pene exercitu interfecit, dum bellare contra regem - Willelmum temptat fortuito, ab eo est captus et carceri - mancipatus.” - - [102] See vol. i. p. 537. This fact comes out only in the - two letters from Anselm to Walter of Albano; Epp. Ans. iii. - 35, 36. In the first he says “quotidie expectamus ut hostes - de ultra mare in Angliam per illos portus, qui Cantuarberiæ - vicini sunt, irruant.” He speaks to the same effect in the - next letter. They were “in periculo vastandi vel perdendi - terram.” - - [103] The presence of the Archbishop of York and the - Cardinal comes from the second letter. There the Cardinal - and Anselm part from the King and Thomas. From the former - letter we see that the place was Nottingham. - - [104] Ep. iii. 35. “Dominus meus rex ore suo mihi præcepit, - antequam ab illo apud Notingeham discederem, et postquam - Cantuarberiam redii, mihi mandavit per litteras proprio - sigillo signatas, ut Cantuarberiam custodiam, et semper - paratus sim ut quacunque hora nuntium eorum qui littora - maris ob hoc ipsum custodiunt audiero, undique convocari - jubeam equites et pedites, qui accurrentes violentiæ hostium - obsistant.” So in Ep. 36; “Rex mihi præcepit ut illam partem - regni sui in qua maxime irruptionem hostium quotidie - timemus, diligenter custodirem, et quotidie paratus essem - hostibus resistere si irruerent.” - - [105] Ord. Vit. 703 D. “Ut rex finibus Rodberti - appropinquavit.” - - [106] See vol. i. p. 68. - - [107] Ord. Vit. u. s. “Gislebertus de Tonnebrugia, miles - potens et dives, regem seorsum vocavit, et pronus ad pedes - ejus corruit, eique nimis obstupescenti ait,” &c. - - [108] See N. C. vol. i. p. 327. - - [109] Ord. Vit. 703 D. “Præfato barone indicante, quot et - qui fuerant proditores, agnovit.” - - [110] Ib. 704 A. “Delusis itaque sicariis, qui regem - occidere moliti sunt, armatæ phalanges prospere loca - insidiarum pertransierunt.” - - [111] See N. C. vol. iv. p. 672. - - [112] Ib. p. 667. - - [113] Wallsend is often mentioned in the Durham charters, - beginning with the grants of Bishop William to his own - monks; Scriptores Tres, iv. _Wallcar_――that is, in local - language, the meadow by the wall――has got sadly degraded - into _Walker_. See Appendix CC. - - [114] On Bamburgh, see Appendix FF. - - [115] The Farn Islands, close off Bamburgh, must not be - confounded with Lindisfarn, some way to the north. Bæda - (Vit. Cuthb. 17) carefully distinguishes them; “Farne - dicitur insula medio in mari posita, quæ non, sicut - Lindisfarnensium incolarum regio, bis quotidie accedente - æstu oceani, quem rheuma vocant Græci, fit insula, bis - renudatis abeunte rheumate littoribus contigua terræ - redditur, sed aliquot millibus passuum ab hac semi-insula ad - eurum secreta, et hinc altissimo et inde infinito clauditur - oceano.” See Hist. Eccl. iii. 16, iv. 27, 29, v. 1. It is - spoken of as “insula Farne, quæ duobus ferme millibus - passuum ab urbe [Bamburgh] procul abest.” - - [116] See vol. i. p. 291. - - [117] Will. Gem. viii. 8. See vol. i. p. 552. - - [118] Florence says only, “Moreal vero factæ traditionis - causam regi detexit.” The Chronicler is fuller; “Moreal - wearð þa on þes cynges hirede, and þurh hine wurdon manege, - ægðer ge gehadode and eac læwede, geypte þe mid heora ræde - on þes cynges unheldan wæron.” - - [119] Chron. Petrib. 1095. “Þa se cyng sume ær þære tíde hét - on hæftneðe gebringan.” - - [120] Ib. “Syððan swiðe gemahlice ofer eall þis land beodan, - þæt ealle þa þe of þam cynge land heoldan, eallswa hi friðes - weorðe beon woldan, þæt hi on hirede to tide wæron.” - - [121] The change of place seems clear from the Chronicle. - The entry for 1096 begins; “On þison geare heold se cyng - Willelm his hired to X[~p]es mæssan on Windlesoran, and - Willelm biscop of Dunholme þær forðferde to geares dæge. And - on Octab’ Epyphañ wæs se cyng and ealle his witan on - Searbyrig.” Florence is to the same effect. See vol. i. p. - 542. - - [122] See N. C. vol. v. pp. 394, 406. - - [123] Ib. vol. i. p. 102; vol. v. p. 415. - - [124] Ib. vol. v. p. 420. - - [125] See N. C. vol. v. p. 408. - - [126] The vision of Boso fills the ninth chapter of the - fourth book of Simeon’s Durham history. He sees first, “Per - campum latissimum totius hujus provinciæ indigenas - congregatos, qui equis admodum pinguibus sedentes, et - longas, sicut soliti sunt, hastas portantes, earumque - collisione magnum facientes strepitum, multa ferebantur - superbia.” One might have taken these mounted spearmen for - Normans; but we read, “Multo majori quam priores superbia - secuti sunt Francigenæ, qui et ipsi frementibus equis - subvecti et universo armorum genere induti, equorum - frementium sonitu et armorum collisione immanem late - faciebant tumultum.” Lastly came the worst class of all; - “Deinde per extensum aliquot miliariis campum innumeram - feminarum multitudinem intueor, quarum tantam turbam dum - admirarer, eas presbyterorum uxores esse a ductore meo - didici. Has, inquit, miserabiles et illos qui ad - sacrificandum Deo consecrati sunt, nec tamen illecebris - carnalibus involvi metuerunt, væ sempiternum et gehennalium - flammarum atrocissimus expectat cruciatus.” But how vast - must have been the number of priests in the bishopric, if - their wives, seemingly not on horseback, filled up so much - room. The monks of Durham, on the other hand, were seen in a - beautiful flowery plain, all except two sinners, whose names - are not given, but who were to be reported to the Prior in - order that they might repent. - - [127] The nature of the omen does not seem very clear; “In - loco vastæ ac tetræ solitudinis, magna altitudine domum - totam ex ferro fabrifactam aspexi, cujus janua dum sæpius - aperiretur sæpiusque clauderetur, ecce subito episcopus - Willelmus efferens caput, ubinam Gosfridus monachus esset a - me quæsivit.” This monk Geoffrey must surely be the same as - the one we heard of before as concerned in Bishop William’s - former troubles (see vol. i. p. 116). This gives the - confirmation of an undesigned coincidence to that story. - - [128] See N. C. vol. iv. p 674. - - [129] Ib. vol. v. p. 631. - - [130] It is curious that, while the Durham writer implies - the summons by the use of the word “placitum” in the account - of Boso’s vision, he gives no account of the summons in his - own narrative. The gap is filled up by William of - Malmesbury, Gest. Pont. 273; “Non multo post orto inter - ipsum et regem discidio, ægritudine procubuit apud - Gloecestram. Ibi tunc erat curia, et jussus est episcopus - exhiberi, ut causam suam defensaret.” The place of King - William’s sickness in 1093 is here confounded with the place - of Bishop William’s sickness in 1096. But Gloucester was the - right place for holding the Gemót, though it was held at - Windsor. - - [131] Will. Malms. u. s. “Cui cum responsum esset - infirmitate detineri quo minus veniret: ‘Per vultum de Luca - fingit se,’ inquit. Enimvero ille vera valitudine correptus - morti propinquabat.” - - [132] Sim. Dun. Hist. Eccl. Dun. iv. 10. We have already had - the date of his death in the Chronicle. He died “instante - hora gallicantus.” - - [133] See Simeon, u. s., and Will. Malms. Gest. Pont. 273. - The names of the bishops come from Simeon. - - [134] Simeon, u. s. “Placuit ergo illis, ut in capitulo - tumulari deberet, quatenus in loco quo fratres cotidie - congregarentur, viso ejus sepulchro, carissimi patris - memoria in eorum cordibus cotidie renovaretur.” William of - Malmesbury speaks to the same effect. But no amount of good - works could save him from being crushed by Wyatt and the - Durham Chapter. - - [135] Simeon is eloquent on the grief at his death; “Nullus - enim, ut reor, tunc inter illos erat, qui non illius vitam, - si fieri posset, sua morte redimere vellet.” The puzzling - contradictions as to the character of this bishop follow him - to the grave. - - [136] Orderic (704 D) speaks of the “consules et consulares - viri,” who were known to have had a share in the conspiracy, - and were now ashamed of themselves; “Porro hæc subtiliter - rex comperiit, et _consultu sapientum_ hujusmodi viris - pepercit. Nec eos ad judicium palam provocavit, ne furor in - pejus augmentaretur,” &c. - - [137] See vol. i. p. 61. - - [138] Ord. Vit. 704 C. “Hugonem, Scrobesburensium comitem, - privatim affatus corripuit, et acceptis ab eo tribus - millibus libris, in amicitiam callide recepit.” - - [139] Chron. Petrib. 1096. “Þær beteah Gosfrei Bainard - Willelm of Ou þes cynges mæg, þæt he heafde gebeon on þes - cynges swicdome.” So Florence. Stephen’s name is not here - mentioned; but we have already seen (see p. 39) what the - exact charge was, and Odo, Stephen’s father, is - significantly mentioned just after. - - [140] The Chronicle seems to make the accuser the - challenger; “And hit him ongefeaht, and hine on orreste - ofercom, and syððan he ofercumen wæs, him het se cyng þa - eagan ut adón, and syþðan belisnian.” But perhaps the - meaning is really the same as in the account of William of - Malmesbury (iv. 319); “Willelmus de Ou, proditionis apud - regem accusatus delatoremque ad duellum provocans, dum se - segniter expurgat, cæcatus et extesticulatus est.” Orderic - says merely, “palam de nequitia convictus fuit,” without - saying how. - - [141] Unless anything special was done, or meant to be done, - to Grimbald after the siege of Brionne. See N. C. vol. ii. - pp. 270-273. - - [142] See N. C. vol. i. pp. 490, 491, 496. - - [143] Ord. Vit. 704 C. “Hoc nimirum Hugone Cestrensium - comite pertulit instigante, cujus sororem habebat, sed - congruam fidem ei non servaverat.” - - [144] See his character in N. C. vol. iv. p. 490. - - [145] See N. C. vol. v. p. 159. - - [146] All the accounts agree as to the punishment. Florence - says specially, “oculos _eruere_ et testiculos abscidere;” - so it was the worst form of blinding. The Hyde writer (301) - employs an euphemism; “Rex oculis privavit et per omnia - inutilem reddidit.” - - [147] Chron. Petrib. 1093. “And sume man to Lundene lædde, - and þær spilde.” This last word seems to imply mutilation of - any kind, whether blinding or any other. - - [148] See N. C. vol. iv. p. 30. - - [149] Their names come over and over again in the Gloucester - Cartulary. See the Index. - - [150] Liber de Hyda, 301. “Ernulfus de Hednith [sic], - statura procerus, industria summus, possessionibus - suffultus, apud regem tam injuste quam invidiose est - accusatus.” - - [151] Ib. “Denique cum se bello legitimo per unum ex suis - contra unum ex hominibus regis facto defendisset atque - vicisset.” - - [152] Liber de Hyda, 301. “Tanto dolore et ira est commotus - ut, abdicatis omnibus quæ regis erant in Anglia, ipso rege - invito et contradicente, discederet.” - - [153] Ib. 302. “Vincit Dominus, quare medicus me non - continget, nisi ille pro cujus amore hanc peregrinationem - suscepi.” - - [154] Chron. Petrib. 1096. “Ðær wearð eac Eoda eorl of - Campaine, þæs cynges aðum, and manege oðre, belende.” - Florence says; “Comitem Odonem de Campania, prædicti - scilicet Stephani patrem, Philippum Rogeri Scrobbesbyriensis - comitis filium, et quosdam alios traditionis participes, in - custodiam posuit.” - - [155] Ib. “And his stiward Willelm hætte se wæs his modrian - sunu, het se cyng on rode ahón.” - - [156] Flor. Wig. 1097. “Dapiferum illius Willelmum de - Alderi, filium amitæ illius, traditionis conscium, jussit - rex suspendi.” - - [157] Will. Malms. iv. 319. “Plures illa delatio involvit, - innocentes plane et probos viros. Ex his fuit Willelmus de - Alderia, speciosæ personæ homo et compater regis.” So the - Hyde writer (301); “Willelmum etiam de Aldriato, ejusdem - Willelmi dapiferum, de eadem conjuratione injuste, ut aiunt, - accusatum patibulo suspendi præcepit.” - - [158] Liber de Hyda, 302. “Erat enim idem corpore et animo - et genere præclarus.” - - [159] Ib. “Cum principes dolore permoti … de ejus vita regem - rogassent, volentes eum ter auro et argento ponderare, rex - nullis precibus, nullis muneribus, ab ejus morte potuit - averti.” - - [160] Will. Malms. iv. 319. “Is patibulo affigi jussus, - Osmundo episcopo Salesbiriæ confessus, et per omnes - ecclesias oppidi flagellatus est.” The account in the Hyde - Writer is to the same effect as that of William, but - shorter, and without any verbal agreement. - - [161] Ib. “Dispersis ad inopes vestibus, ad suspendium nudus - ibat, delicatam carnem frequentibus super lapides - genuflectionibus cruentans.” - - [162] Ib. “Tunc dicta commendatione animæ, et aspersa aqua - benedicta, episcopus discessit.” - - [163] Ib. “Ille appensus est admirando fortitudinis - spectaculo, ut nec moriturus gemitum, nec moriens produceret - suspirium.” - - [164] Will. Gem. viii. 34; Ord. Vit. 814 A. - - [165] Ord. Vit. 704 C. “Morellus, domino suo vinculis - indissolubiter injecto, de Anglia mœstus aufugit, multasque - regiones pervagatus pauper et exosus in exsilio consenuit.” - - [166] See very emphatically in the Chronicle, 1097. - - [167] Will. Malms. iv. 311. “Contra Walenses … expeditionem - movens, nihil magnificentia sua dignum exhibuit, militibus - multis desideratis, jumentis interceptis. Nec tum solum, sed - multotiens, parva illi in Walenses fortuna fuit, quod cuivis - mirum videatur, cum ei alias semper alea bellorum - felicissime arriserit.” This last is hardly true of his - French and Cenomannian campaigns. The writer goes on to - attribute the failure of Rufus in Wales mainly to the nature - of the country, and to say that Henry the First found out - the right way of dealing with the Welsh, by planting the - Flemings in their country. - - [168] Chron. Petrib. 1097. “Ac þa ða se cyng geseah þæt he - nan þingc his wiiles þær geforðian ne mihte, he ongean into - þison lande fór, and hraðe æfter þam, he be þam gemæron - castelas let gemakian.” - - [169] See N. C. vol. ii. p. 478. - - [170] Ib. p. 481. - - [171] Ib. p. 479. - - [172] Ib. p. 396. - - [173] See N. C. vol. ii. pp. 483, 707. - - [174] Ib. p. 483. - - [175] See vol. i. p. 164. - - [176] “That stubborn British tongue which has survived _two_ - conquests,” is, I think, a phrase of Hallam’s. - - [177] See vol. i. p. 122, and N. C. vol. iv. p. 489. - - [178] See N. C. vol. iv. p. 501. - - [179] Ib. p. 676. - - [180] Ib. vol. iv. p. 489; v. p. 109. - - [181] Ib. vol. ii. p. 708; v. p. 777. - - [182] See N. C. vol. iv. p. 501. - - [183] See vol. iv. pp. 676, 777. - - [184] See vol. i. p. 121. - - [185] Ann. Camb. 1088, 1089 [1089-1091]. “Menevia fracta est - a gentilibus insulanis.” The Brut is to the same effect, and - has a warm panegyric on the bishop. The dates in the Welsh - Chronicles are here wrong, but only by the fault of the - editor. The entries are made quite regularly year by year, - and they agree with those in the English writers. - - [186] Brut y Tywysogion, 1089; it should be 1092. - - [187] Will. Malms. iv. 310. “Quod eum Scottorum et Walensium - tumultus vocabant, in regnum se cum ambobus fratribus - recepit.” See vol. i. p. 295. - - [188] See Appendix GG. - - [189] See Appendix GG. - - [190] The descendants of Jestin appear very clearly in - Giraldus, It. Camb. i. 6 (vol. vi. p. 69); “Quatuor Caradoci - filii Jestini filiis, et Resi principis ex sorore nepotibus, - his in finibus herili portione, sicut Gualensibus mos est, - pro patre dominantibus, Morgano videlicet, et Mereducio, - Oeneo, Cadwallano.” Morgan appears soon after (p. 69) as - guiding Archbishop Baldwin and his companion Giraldus over - the dangerous quicksands of his Avon. - - [191] See Appendix GG. - - [192] See N. C. vol. iv. p. 186. - - [193] See vol. i. p. 62. - - [194] See N. C. vol. ii. p. 250. - - [195] He has an entry to himself in Essex (Domesday, ii. 54 - _b_). He appears again in 100 _b_, and in the town of - Colchester (106) he holds “i. domum, et i. curiam, et i. - hidam terræ, et xv. burgenses.” A building with some trace - of Romanesque work used to be shown as “Hamo’s Saxon hall or - curia.” Why more “Saxon” than everything else in that Saxon - land it was not easy to guess. In Ellis he is made to be the - same as “Haimo vicecomes” who appears in Kent and Surrey - (Domesday, 14, 36). This last witnesses a letter of Anselm’s - (Epp. iii. 71) to the monks of Canterbury, along with - another Haimo, “filius Vitalis,” “Wimundus homo - vicecomitis,” and a mysterious “Robertus filius - Watsonis”――what name is meant? In Epp. iv. 57 a letter is - addressed to him by Anselm, complaining of damage done by - his men to the Archbishop’s property at Canterbury and - Sandwich. Or is this “vicecomes” in Kent the same as Haimer - or Haimo――he is written both ways――the “vicecomes” (in - another sense) of Thouars, who plays an important part - before and after the great battle? See N. C. vol. iii. pp. - 315, 457, 551. - - [196] See vol. i. p. 197. - - [197] In this way we may put a meaning on the account in the - Tewkesbury History quoted in N. C. vol. iv. p. 762. Brihtric - had not any honour of Gloucester. - - [198] See Ord. Vit. 578 D; William of Malmesbury, Hist. Nov. - i. 3. She was “spectabilis et excellens fœmina, domina tunc - viro morigera, tunc etiam fœcunditate numerosæ et - pulcherrimæ prolis beata.” She was the mother-in-law of his - patron. - - [199] See Mr. Clark, Archæological Journal, vol. xxxv. p. 3 - (March, 1878). - - [200] Will. Malms. v. 398. “Monasterium Theochesbiriæ suo - favore non facile memoratu quantum exaltavit, ubi et - ædificiorum decor, et monachorum charitas, adventantium - rapit oculos et allicit animos.” - - [201] See the Gloucester History, i. 93, 122, 223, 226, 334, - 349; ii. 125. The gift of the church of Saint Cadoc at - Llancarfan is mentioned over and over again. At i. 334 there - is an alleged confirmation of this gift by William the - Conqueror in 1086. Can this be trusted so far as to make us - carry back the conquest of Glamorgan into his day, or are we - to suppose that a wrong date has crept in? In the - Monasticon, ii. 67, is a charter of Nicolas Bishop of - Llandaff (1148-1153) confirming the grants of a crowd of - churches in Glamorgan to the abbey of Tewkesbury. Among them - is “ecclesia de Landiltwit,” that is Llaniltyd or Llantwit - Major. - - [202] See Mr. Clark, Archæological Journal, xxxiv. 17. - - [203] See Mr. Clark. Archæological Journal, xxxiv. 25. - - [204] See N. C. vol. iv. p. 676. - - [205] In the second Brut he appears as Wiliam de _Lwndwn_ in - 1088 (p. 72), Wiliam de _Lwndrys_ in 1094 (p. 78). - - [206] See N. C. vol. iv. p. 782. - - [207] See Mr. Clark, Archæological Journal, xxxiv. pp. 22, - 30. - - [208] See N. C. vol. v. pp. 854, xxxix. - - [209] See the Margam Annals, 1130 (Ann. Mon. i. 13), and - Mon. Angl. v. 258. - - [210] Margam Annals, 1147; Ann. Mon. i. 14. - - [211] See vol. i. p. 34. - - [212] See the wonderful story in Giraldus, It. Camb. i. 2 - (vol. vi. p. 32). - - [213] Ib. p. 36. The wonders of the lake, now known as - Llangorse pool, fill up more than two pages. - - [214] Chron. de Bello, 34. He is described as “vir - magnificus Bernardus cognomento de Novo Mercato.” His gift - is “ecclesia … sancti Johannis Evangelistæ extra munitionem - castri sui de Brecchennio sita.” But the gift was made only - “ejusdem prædictæ ecclesiæ Belli monachi, nomine Rogerii, - apud eum aliquamdiu forte commanentis, importuna - suggestione.” - - [215] We have seen (see vol. i. p. 34) Bernard spoken of as - son-in law of the old enemy Osbern of Herefordshire. Could - Osbern have married the elder Nest, perhaps as a second - wife? Or was the younger Nest a second wife of Bernard? - - [216] See N. C. vol. ii. p. 679; vol. iii. pp. 710, 777. - - [217] See the story in Giraldus, It. Camb. ii. 2 (vol. vi. - p. 29). The son was disinherited, and the honour of - Brecknock passed to the husband of the daughter, whom her - mother allowed to be Bernard’s child. He speaks of her as - “Nesta nomine, quam Angli vertendo _Anneis_ vocavere.” In - the Battle Chronicle (35) she appears as a benefactress by - the name of _Agnes_. She gave to Battle “de propria - hereditate quamdam villulam extra Walliam in Anglia sitam - [in Herefordshire], quæ Berinton vocatur.” She gave it - “forte invalitudine tacta.” - - [218] See above, p. 78. - - [219] Brut y Tywysogion, 1091 (1093). “And then fell the - kingdom of the Britons.” (Teyrnas y Brytanyeit.) Florence, - recording the same event, adds; “Ab illo die regnare in - Walonia reges desiere;” but he himself in 1116 says, “Owinus - rex Walanorum occiditur.” Cf. Ann. Camb. in anno, where the - royal title is not given to Owen. Indeed in the present - entry the Annals call Rhys only “rector dextralis partis;” - that is, of South Wales. - - [220] See vol. i. p. 121. - - [221] Ann. Camb. 1091 (1093). “Post cujus obitum Cadugaun - filius Bledint prædatus est Demetiam pridie kalendarum - Maii.” - - [222] Brut y Tywysogion. So Ann. Camb. “Circiter Kalendas - Julii Franci primitus Demetiam et Keredigean tenuerunt, et - castella in eis locaverunt, et abinde totam terram Britonum - occupaverunt.” - - [223] On the beavers in the Teif, see a long account in - Giraldus, It. Camb. ii. 3. Cp. Top. Hib. i. 26. He discusses - the lawfulness of eating the beaver’s tail on fast-days, - without coming to so decided a conclusion as when he rules - (Top. Hib. i. 15) that the barnacle might not be eaten. - - [224] It is very hard to put Irish kings in their right - places; but there is no doubt that this Murtagh――I take the - shortest way of spelling his name――is the same as the - Murtagh of Connaught, head King of Ireland, though Giraldus - calls him King of Leinster, of whom we shall hear a good - deal before long. - - [225] It. Camb. ii. 1 (vi. 109). “Rex Rufus … Kambriam suo - in tempore animose penetrans et circumdans, cum a rupibus - istis Hiberniam forte prospiceret, dixisse memoratur: Ad - terram istam expugnandam, ex navibus regni mei huc - convocatis, pontem adhuc faciam.” The Irish king, when he - hears, “cum aliquamdiu propensius inde cogitasset, fertur - respondisse: Numquid tantæ comminationis verbo rex ille ‘Si - Deo placuerit’ adjecit?” - - [226] See vol. i. p. 166. - - [227] It. Camb. u. s. “Tanquam prognostico gaudens - certissimo, Quoniam, inquit, homo iste de humana tantum - confidit potentia, non divina, ejus adventum non formido.” - - [228] See N. C. vol. iv. p. 676. - - [229] Ib. p. 526. - - [230] On Bishop Wilfrith, see N. C. vol. v. p. 209, and vol. - i. p. 534. We shall hear of him again. - - [231] I refer to such names as Hasgard and Freystrop. The - _fords_ in this district are of course _fiords_. The names - of Hereford and Haverfordwest have sometimes been - confounded, but the _ford_ comes from a different quarter in - the two names. - - [232] See N. C. vol. v. p. 75. - - [233] He does justice to his birthplace in It. Camb. i. 12 - (vol. vi. p. 92), and proves by a _sorites_ “ut Kambriæ - totius locus sit hic amœnissimus.” “Pembrochia” here appears - as part of Demetia. - - [234] Sir Rhys ap Thomas, the hero of Carew (Caerau) in - Henry the Seventh’s time, is chiefly of local fame. But his - name has made its way into general history. See Hall’s - Chronicle, p. 410, and several other places. - - [235] It. Camb. i. 12 (vol. vi. p. 89). “Provincia - Pembrochiensis principale municipium, totiusque provinciæ - Demeticæ caput, in saxosa quadam et oblonga rupis eminentia - situm, lingua marina de Milverdico portu prosiliens in - capite bifurco complectitur. Unde et Pembrochia _caput - maritimæ_ sonat. Primus hoc castrum Arnulfus de Mungumeri, - sub Anglorum rege Henrico primo, ex virgis et cespite, tenue - satis et exile construxit.” The date is of course wrong, as - the castle of Pembroke appears both in the Annales Cambriæ - and in the Brut in 1094, and as Giraldus himself describes - the castle as in being soon after the death of Rhys ap - Tewdwr. He perhaps confounds Arnulf’s first rude work with - the stronger castle built by Gerald on the same site in - 1105. This, according to the Brut, was fortified with a - ditch and wall and a gateway with a lock on it. - - [236] Giraldus describes his namesake, the husband of his - grandmother, as “vir probus prudensque, Giraldus de - Windesora, constabularius suus [Arnulfi] et primipilus.” - - [237] See N. C. vol. ii. p. 482. - - [238] I have discussed this matter at length in Appendix BB. - (p. 851) of the fifth volume of the Norman Conquest. Miss - Williams (History of Wales, p. 209), like Sir Francis - Palgrave, knows more about Nest than I can find in any book. - But the tale in the Brut of her being carried off by Owen in - 1106 (see N. C. vol. v. p. 210) is very graphic. - - [239] See N. C. vol. iv. p. 501. - - [240] So says the Brut, 1094 (1096). Is this William the son - of that Baldwin from whom Montgomery took its Welsh name? - - [241] See vol. i. p. 464. - - [242] Chron. Petrib. 1094. “Eac on þisum ylcan geare þa - Wylisce men hi gegaderodon, and wið þa Frencisce þe on Walon - oððe on þære neawiste wæron and hi ǽr belandedon, gewinn - úp ahofon, and manige festena and castelas abræcon, and men - ofslogon, and syððan heora gefylce weox, hí hí on ma - todældon. Wið sum þæra dæle gefeaht Hugo eorl of Scrobscire, - and hi aflymde. Ac þeah hweðer þa oðre ealles þæs geares - nanes yfeles ne geswicon þe hi dón mihton.” - - [243] Brut y Tywysogion, 1092 (1094). The translation runs; - “Whilst William remained in Normandy, the Britons resisted - the domination of the French, not being able to bear their - cruelty, and demolished their castles in Gwynedd, and - _iterated_ their depredations and slaughters among them.” - The Latin annalist says only; “Britanni jugum Francorum - respuerunt. Wenedociam, Cereticam et Demetiam ab iis et - eorum castellis _emundaverunt_.” Both these writers have - oddly mistaken the state of things in Normandy. One - manuscript of the Annales says that William went into - Normandy, and that the revolt happened, “ibi morante et - fratrem suum expugnante,” while the Brut says more wildly - that “King William Rufus [Gwilim Goch], who first by a most - glorious war prevailed over the Saxons, went to Normandy to - keep and defend the kingdom [teyrnas] of Robert his brother, - who had gone to Jerusalem [Kærcesalem] to fight against the - Saracens and other barbarous nations and to protect the - Christians, and to acquire greater fame.” - - [244] Flor. Wig. 1094. “Ad hæc etiam primitus North-Walani, - deinceps West-Walani et Suth-Walani, servitutis jugo, quo - diu premebantur, excusso, et cervice erecta, libertatem sibi - vindicare laborabant. Unde collecta multitudine, castella - quæ in West-Walonia firmata erant frangebant et in - Cestrensi, Scrobbesbyriensi, et Herefordensi provincia - frequenter villas cremabant, prædas agebant, et multos ex - Anglis et Normannis interficiebant.” The names of Gruffydd - and Cadwgan come from the later Brut, which copies Florence - or comes from the same source. - - [245] Flor. Wig. 1094. “Fregerunt et castellum in Mevania - insula, eamque suæ ditioni subjiciebant.” This confirms the - statement of the later Brut about the building of the castle - of Aberlleiniog (see p. 97); but he says nothing about - Anglesey here. - - [246] “In the wood of Yspwys,” says the Brut. - - [247] So both the Annales and the Brut. The name of William - son of Baldwin comes from the Brut two years later. - - [248] Brut y Tywysogion, 1092 (1094). “And the people and - all the cattle of Dyved they brought away with them, leaving - Dyved and Ceredigion a desert.” - - [249] See vol. i. p. 476. - - [250] Ann. Camb. 1095. “Franci devastaverunt Gober et - Kedweli et Stratewi. Demetia, Ceretica, et Stratewi deserta - manent.” - - [251] I have no better direct authority for this than the - later Brut, which says under 1094――the chronology is very - confused――that “the Frenchmen led their forces into Gower, - Cydweli, and the Vale of Tywi, and devastated those - countries, and William de Londres [William de Lwndrys] built - a strong castle in Cydweli.” - - [252] This comes under the year 1099, and is attributed to - “Harry Beaumont [Harri Bwmwnt].” Is this the Earl of - Warwick? I know no other “Henricus de Bello Monte.” - - [253] This is from the same entry in the later Brut. After - mentioning the castles, it is added that Harry Beaumont - “established himself there and brought Saxons from - Somersetshire [Saeson o wlad yr Haf] there, where they - obtained lands; and the greatest usurpation of all the - Frenchmen was his in Gower.” Nothing can be made of this - writer’s dates, even when we accept his facts with a little - trembling. - - [254] This account comes only from the younger Brut (79). It - is in fact part of the legend of the conquest of Glamorgan. - But that legend, as we have seen, has elements of truth in - it, and this particular story seems to fit in well with the - general course of events. The men of Morganwg and - Gwaenllwg――that is the modern Wentloog, the land between - Rhymny and Usk――rose and destroyed the castle, Pagan of - Turberville leading them. - - [255] See N. C. vol. iv. p. 501. - - [256] It is strange that the mention of this great British - success comes only from the English accounts. Just after the - King had left Bamburgh, he heard (Chron. Petrib. 1095) “þæt - þa Wylisce men on Wealon sumne castel heafdon tobroken - Muntgumni hatte, and Hugon eorles men ofslagene, þe hine - healdon sceoldan.” - - [257] Chron. Petrib. ib. “He forði oðre fyrde hét fearlice - abannan.” - - [258] Ib. “And æfter S[~c]e Michaeles mæsse into Wealan - ferde, and his fyrde toscyfte, and þæt land eall þurhfor, - swa þæt seo fyrde eall togædere com to Ealra Halgena to - Snawdune. Ac þa Wylisce a toforan into _muntan_ and moran - ferdan, þæt heom man to cuman ne mihte.” On the use of the - word _muntas_ see N. C. vol. v. p. 517. - - [259] Ib. “And se cyng þa hamweard gewende, forþam he geseah - þæt he þær þes wintres mare don ne mihte.” - - [260] Ann. Camb. 1095. “Mediante autumno rex Anglorum - Willielmus contra Britones movit exercitum, quibus Deo - tutatis, vacuus ad sua rediit.” - - [261] Ann. Camb. 1096. “Willielmus filius Baldewini in - domino (?) Ricors obiit, quo mortuo castellum vacuum - relinquitur.” - - [262] Brut y Tywysogion, 1094 (1096). The words are most - emphatic in the manuscript of the Annales quoted as C; - “Britones Brecheniauc et Guent et Guenliauc jugum Francorum - respuunt.” - - [263] Chron. Petrib. 1096. “Eac on þison geare þa heafod men - þe þis land heoldan oftrædlice fyrde into Wealon sendon, and - mænig man mid þam swiðe gedrehtan, ac man þær ne gespædde, - butan man myrringe and feoh spillinge.” - - [264] Ann. Camb. C. “Franci exercitum movent in Guent, et - nihil impetrantes vacui domum redeunt, et in Kellitravant - versi sunt in fugam.” The name of the place is given in the - text of the Annals as “Celli Darnauc;” the Brut as “Celli - Carnant.” I do not know its site. - - [265] Ib. “Iterum venerunt in Brechinauc et castella - fecerunt in ea, sed in reditu apud Aberlech versi sunt in - fugam a filiis Iduerth filii Kadugaun.” The Brut gives their - names as Gruffydd and Ivor. - - [266] So says the Brut, 1094 (1096). - - [267] These details of the siege of Pembroke come from - Giraldus, It. Camb. i. 12. As he has mistaken the date of - the whole matter by putting it in the reign of Henry, so he - has mistaken the special date of the siege, which he places - soon after the death of Rhys ap Tewdwr, that is in 1093. His - stories may belong to the movement of 1094; but they seem to - come more naturally here. When the knights have deserted, - “ex desperatione scapham intrantes navigio fugam - attemptassent, in crastino mane Giraldus eorum armigeris - arma dominorum cum feodis dedit, ipsosque statim militari - cingulo decoravit.” - - [268] They are brought “ad ultimam fere inediam.” Then - Gerald, “ex summa prudentia spem simulans et solatia - spondens, quatuor qui adhuc supererant bacones a - propugnaculis frustatim ad hostes projici fecit.” - - [269] Ib. “Die vero sequente ad figmenta recurrens - exquisitiora, literas sigillo suo signatas coram hospitio - Menevensis episcopi, cui nomen Wilfredus, qui forte tunc - aderat, tanquam casu a portitore dilapsas inveniri - procuravit.” I suppose this means that the Bishop was in a - house outside the besieged castle; otherwise it is not clear - how the Welsh could have got hold of the letter. It seems - also to imply that the Bishop was on friendly terms with the - besieged. But the whole story is a little dark. - - [270] Ib. “Quo per exercitum literis lectis audito, statim - obsidione dispersa ad propria singuli sunt reversi.” - Directly after――“nec mora”――Gerald marries Nest. If we could - at all trust her grandson’s chronology, this would throw - some light on her relation to Henry. - - [271] Ann. Camb. 1096. “Penbrochiam devastaverunt et - incolumes domum redierunt.” The cattle come from the Brut. - - [272] Ann. Camb. 1097. “Geraldus _præfectus_ de Penbroc - Meneviæ fines devastavit.” In the other manuscript he is - _dapifer_, and in the Brut _ystiwart_. - - [273] See vol. i. p. 572. - - [274] Ib. - - [275] Chron. Petrib. 1097. “Se cyng Willelm … mid mycclum - here into Wealon ferde, and þæt land swiðe mid his fyrde - þurhfór, þurh sume þa Wyliscean þe him to wæron cumen, and - his lædteowas wæron.” Eadmer (Hist. Nov. 37), to whom the - details of a Welsh war did not greatly matter, makes - overmuch of these seeming successes; “Rex … super Walenses - qui contra eum surrexerant excercitum ducit, eosque post - modicum in deditionem suscipit, et pace undique potitus - est.” - - [276] See vol. i. p. 582. - - [277] Chron. Petrib. 1097. “Ða Wylisce men syððon hi _fram_ - þam cynge gebugon.” - - [278] Ib. “Heom manege ealdras of heom sylfan gecuron. Sum - þæra wæs Caduugaun gehaten, þe heora weorðast wæs: se wæs - Griffines broðer sunu cynges.” On the use of “sum,” see - Earle, Parallel Chronicles, p. 357. It is surely a little - hard when Giraldus (It. Camb. i. 2. p. 28) speaks of his - grandmother’s grandfather as one “cujus tyrannis totam - aliquamdiu Gualliam oppresserat.” - - [279] See N. C. vol. i. p. 506. - - [280] Ib. vol. ii. p. 396. - - [281] Ib. p. 399. - - [282] Flor. Wig. 1097. “Post pascha”――he seems to have mixed - up the two expeditions of the year――“cum equestri et - pedestri exercitu secundo profectus est in Waloniam, ut - omnes masculini sexus internecioni daret; at de eis vix - aliquem capere aut interimere potuit.” Cf. N. C. vol. ii. p. - 481. - - [283] The Brut here waxes so spirited that one is sorry not - to have a better knowledge of the original. “The French - dared not penetrate the rocks and the woods, but hovered - about the level plains. At length they returned home empty, - without having gained anything; and the Britons, happy and - unintimidated, defended their country.” The Annals say, - “Willelmus rex Angliæ secundo in Britones excitatur, eorum - omnium minans excidium; Britones vero divino protecti - munimine in sua remanent illæsi, rege vacuo redeunte.” The - other MS. has, “nihil impetrans vacuus domum rediit.” - - [284] Chron. Petrib. 1097. “Þærinne wunode fram middesumeran - forneah oð August.” - - [285] Ib. “And mycel þærinne forleas on mannan and on horsan - and eac on manegan oðran þingan.” Florence softens a little; - “De suis nonnullos, et equos perdidit multos.” - - [286] See vol. i. pp. 572, 575. - - [287] See above, p. 71. - - [288] See vol. i. p. 583. - - [289] See above, p. 9. - - [290] See above, p. 30. - - [291] On the story of Godwine and Ordgar, see Appendix HH. - - [292] See N. C. vol. iv. p. 620. - - [293] Fordun, v. 22 (vol. i. p. 221, Skene). “Fit mox hinc - inde magnus armorum apparatus, pugnaturi conveniunt; Orgarus - favore regis elatus, regiis satellitibus hinc inde vallatus, - insignibus etiam armorum ornamentis splendidus procedit.” - - [294] Ib. “Silentio per præconem omnibus imposito, et vadiis - utrorumque a judice in certaminis locum projectis, ut Deus, - secretorum cognitor, hujus causæ veritatem ostenderet, - proclamante, postremo res armis, et causa superno judici - committitur.” - - [295] There is no need to go through all the details. The - strangest is when the hilt of Godwine’s sword breaks off; - the blade drops; he picks it up, but naturally cannot use it - without cutting his fingers. It is an odd coincidence that - his son drops his whole sword in his exploit at Rama. - - [296] Fordun, v. 22. “Abstracto namque cultro qui caliga - latebat, ipsum perfodere conatur; cum ante initum congressum - juraverit se nihil nisi arma decentia militem in hoc duello - gestaturum.” - - [297] “Mox perjurii pœnas persolvit. Cultro siquidem erepto, - cum spes reum desereret, crimen protinus confitetur. Attamen - hæc confessio nihil ad vitam illi profuit elongandam, - undique vero, vulnere succedente vulneri, perfodebatur, - donec animam impiam vis doloris et magnitudo vulnerum - expelleret.” - - [298] See N. C. vol. v. pp. 561, 893. - - [299] Chron. Petrib. 1097. “Ða uppon S[~c]e Michaeles mæssan - iiii. noñ Octobre, ætywde án selcuð steorra, on æfen - scynende, and sona to setle gangende. He wæs gesewen - suðweast, and se leoma þe him ofstód wæs swiðe lang geþuht, - suðeast scinende, and forneah ealle þa wucan on þas wisan - ætywde, manige men leton þæt hit cometa wære.” Here the - comet shines very brightly, but it shines alone. William of - Malmesbury (iv. 328) adds; “apparuerunt et aliæ stellæ quasi - jacula inter se emittentes.” (We had shooting stars two - years before; see p. 41.) Florence adds yet another portent; - “Nonnulli signum mirabile et quasi ardens, in modum crucis, - eo tempore se vidisse in cælo affirmabant.” - - [300] Both the Chronicler and Florence mark that the - departure of Anselm soon followed the appearance in the - heavens; but it is William of Malmesbury who is most - emphatic; “Ille fuit annus quo Anselmus lux Angliæ, ultro - tenebras erroneorum effugiens, Romam ivit.” - - [301] So I should understand the words of the Chronicle, - “ferde Eadgar æþeling mid fyrdes þurh þæs cynge fultum into - Scotlande.” But Florence says that the King “clitonem - Eadgarum ad Scottiam cum exercitu misit.” Fordun (v. 5) - makes him go, “collectis undique ingentibus amicorum copiis, - auxilioque Willelmi regis vallatus.” - - [302] See above, p. 111. - - [303] Fordun tells this tale (v. 25); the younger Eadgar - tells the vision to the elder, who acts accordingly. - - [304] We have surely passed the bounds of history when - Robert, accompanied by two other knights, charges the enemy, - slays the foremost (“fortissimi qui ante aciem quasi - defensores stabant”), puts Donald and the rest to flight, - “et sic incruentam victoriam, Deo propitio, meritis sancti - Cuthberti feliciter obtinuit.” The Chronicler says that - Eadgar “þet land mid stranglicum feohte gewann.” - - [305] Fordun, v. 26. “Ab ipso quidem ipse Donaldus captus - est et cæcatus, ac carceri perpetuo damnatur.” “Ipso” is the - younger Eadgar; this treatment of Donald would have been - more pardonable in the elder. See more in Robertson, i. 159. - - [306] See Robertson, i. 159, and N. C. vol. i. p. 529; vol. - ii. p. 449; vol. iii. p. 431; vol. iv. p. 170. - - [307] See Mon. Angl. v. 163, 165. - - [308] Will. Malms. v. 400. “Captus vel perpetuis compedibus - detentus, ingenue pœnituit; et ad mortem veniens, cum ipsis - vinculis se tumulari mandavit, professus se plexum merito - pro fratricidii delicto.” Cf. the burial of Grimbald in N. - C. vol. ii. p. 273. - - [309] Chron. Petrib. 1097. “Eadgar æþeling … þone cyng - Dufenal út adræfde, and his mæg Eadgar, se wæs Melcolmes - sunu cynges and Margarite þære cwenan, he þær _on þæs cynges - Willelmes heldan_ to cynge sette.” I do not find the words - in Italics represented either by Fordun or by Mr. Robertson. - They are not forgotten by Sir F. Palgrave, English - Commonwealth, ii. cccxxxiv. - - [310] The Chronicler tells us that Eadgar “syþþan ongean - into Engleland fór.” And he had just before drawn a vivid - picture of the state of England; “Ðis wæs on eallon þingan - swiðe hefigtyme geár, and ofer geswincfull on ungewederan, - þa man oððe tilian sceolde oððe eft tilða gegaderian, and on - ungyldan þa næfre ne ablunnon.” - - [311] Fordun, v. 26. - - [312] Ib. This grant is made “episcopo et suis successoribus - Dunelmensibus,” in distinction to the grant of Coldingham, - which was “monachis Dunelmensibus.” - - [313] Ib. “De licentia regis ad terram a rege sibi datam in - Laudonia moratus est, et dum castellum ibidem ædificare - niteretur, a provincialibus subito et baronibus tandem - Dunelmensibus circumventus, eodem Ranulfo episcopo agente, - captus est; in qua tamen captione magnam suæ virtutis - memoriam apud totius regionis incolas dereliquit.” - - [314] Ib. “Quod rex Edgarus rediens ut audivit, illum ex - præcepto regis Angliæ liberatum, secum in Scociam reduxit - cum honore, et quicquid ante episcopo donaverat, omnino sano - consilio sibimet reservabat.” - - [315] See vol. i. p. 564. - - [316] See vol. i. p. 269. - - [317] This siege and sally is described by William of Tyre, - x. 17, 18, Gesta Dei per Francos, 786. - - [318] Will. Malms. iii. 251. “Qui [Baldwinus] cum obsidionis - injuriam ferre nequiret, per medias hostium acies effugit, - solius Roberti opera liberatus præuntis, et evaginato gladio - dextra lævaque Turchos cædentis; sed cum, successu ipso - truculentior, alacritate nimia procurreret, ensis manu - excidit; ad quem recolligendum cum se inclinasset, omnium - incursu oppressus, vinculis palmas dedit.” Cf. iv. 384. - - [319] Ib. “Inde Babylonem (ut aiunt) ductus, cum Christum - abnegare nollet, in medio foro ad signum positus, et - sagittis terebratus, martyrium sacravit.” - - [320] See vol. i. p. 565. - - [321] The story of Robert of Saint Alban’s is told in - Benedict, i. 341, R. Howden, ii. 307. - - [322] Fordun, v. 26. “Erat autem iste rex Edgarus homo - dulcis et amabilis, cognato suo regi sancto Edwardo per - omnia similis, nihil durum, nihil tyrannicum aut amarum in - suos exercens subditos, sed eos cum maxima caritate, - bonitate, et benevolentia rexit et correxit.” - - [323] See Robertson, i. 163. The passage in Æthelred of - Rievaux to which he refers comes in the speech of Robert of - Bruce to David (X Scriptt. 344; see N. C. vol. v. p. 269). - It seems to imply that David needed English help to keep his - principality. “Tu ipse rex cum portionem regni quam idem - tibi frater moriens delegavit, a fratre Alexandro - reposceres, nostro certe terrore quidquid volueras sine - sanguine impetrasti.” - - [324] Mr. Robertson gives her the name of Sibyl. William of - Malmesbury, v. 400, gives an odd account of her; “Alexandrum - successorem Henricus affinitate detinuit, data ei in - conjugium filia notha; de qua ille viva nec sobolem, quod - sciam, tulit nec ante se mortuam multum suspiravit; defuerat - enim fœminæ, ut fertur, quod desideraretur, vel in morum - modestia, vel in corporis elegantia.” I cannot find her in - the list of Henry’s daughters in Will. Gem. viii. 29. - - [325] See N. C. vol. iv. p. 602; vol. v. p. 209. - - [326] See Robertson, i. 172. - - [327] See N. C. vol. v. pp. 237, 238. - - [328] See Robertson, i. 123 et seqq. - - [329] See N. C. vol. v. p. 305. - - [330] Ib. pp. 260-263. - - [331] Ib. p. 267. - - [332] See above, p. 109. - - [333] Eadwine, as Bæda witnesses (ii. 5), held the two - _Mevaniæ_. But _Mona_ appears as Welsh whenever the island - is spoken of in either British or English Chronicles. - Nennius (or the writer who goes by that name) has a heading - (Mon. Hist. Brit. 52 D) of “Monia insula quæ Anglice - Englesei vocatur, id est, insula Anglorum.” In our - Chronicles it is _Mon-ige_ in the year 1000. Our present - story (1098) happens “innan Anglesege.” - - [334] I get this phrase from the elder Brut, but I follow - the order of events in the Annales Cambriæ, 1098. “Omnes - Venedoti in Mon insula se receperunt, et ad eos tuendos de - Hibernia piratas invitaverunt, ad quos expugnandos missi - sunt duo consules, Hugo comes urbis Legionum, et alter Hugo, - qui contra insulam castrametati sunt.” - - [335] One manuscript of the Annals has “Gentiles de - Ybernia.” See vol. i. pp. 121, 122. - - [336] They are “Hugi Prúdi oc Hugi Digri” in the Saga - (Johnstone, p. 234). In the younger Brut, p. 84, the earls - are called “Huw iarll Caerllion a Huw goch [red] o’r - Mwythig.” By Caerleon is of course meant Chester. The elder - Brut confounds the two earls. The bulk of Earl Hugh of - Chester we have long known. In Orderic’s account (768 B) he - is “Hugo Dirgane, id est, Grossus.” - - [337] See above, p. 97. - - [338] See vol. i. p. 124. - - [339] The priory of Penmon was described in 1849 by Mr. - Longueville Jones in three articles in the Archæologia - Cambrensis, vol. iv. pp. 44, 128, 198, and in an earlier - article in the Archæological Journal, i. 118. The date of - the original building cannot be very far off either way from - the times with which we are dealing. The tower-windows are a - kind of transition from Primitive Romanesque to Norman. A - doorway of later Norman character seems to be an insertion. - - [340] There is a minute description of the castle, by Mr. - Longueville Jones, in Archæologia Cambrensis iii. 143. The - building of a castle at this time is distinctly asserted in - one manuscript of the elder Brut. But the other Brut under - 1096 speaks of Earl Hugh of Chester as already lord of - Aberlleiniog (Arglwydd Aberlleiniawc). - - [341] One manuscript of the Annals (1098 C) seems to make - them builders of the castle; “Gentiles pretio corrupti - consules in insulam introduxerunt et castra ibi fecerunt.” - - [342] Ann. Camb. u. s. “Relicta insula, Hiberniam - aufugerunt.” The elder Brut adds that it was “for fear of - the treachery of their own men.” - - [343] Here Florence (1098) comes to our help. “Interea - comites Hugo de Legeceastra et Hugo de Scrobbesbyria - Mevaniam insulam, quæ consuete vocatur Anglesege, cum - exercitu adierunt, et multos Walanorum quos in ea ceperunt - occiderunt, quosdam vero, manibus vel pedibus truncatis - testiculisque abscisis, excæcaverunt.” - - [344] Giraldus, It. Camb. ii. 7 (vi. 129 ed. Dimock). “Est - in hac insula ecclesia sancti Tevredauci confessoris, in qua - comes Hugo Cestrensis, quoniam et ipse fines hos Kambriæ suo - in tempore subjugaverat, cum canes nocte posuisset, insanos - omnes mane recepit, et ipsemet infra mensem miserabiliter - exstinctus occubuit.” The two Hughs are here confounded, as - Hugh of Chester was certainly not killed. But the story of - the hounds sounds specially like him, as he seems to have - been even more given to the chase than other men of his day. - See N. C. vol. iv. p. 491. - - A little earlier in the same chapter Giraldus has a tale - about Hugh of Shrewsbury and a wonderful stone, which must - belong to this same expedition, though Giraldus places it in - the time of Henry the First. - - [345] Flor. Wig. 1098. “Quendam etiam provectæ ætatis - presbyterum, nomine Cenredum, a quo Walani in iis quæ - agebant consilium accipiebant, de ecclesia extraxerunt, et - ejus testiculis abscisis et uno oculo eruto, linguam illius - absciderunt.” - - [346] Ib. “Die tertia, miseratione divina illi reddita est - loquela.” See Milman, Latin Christianity, i. 332, 478. - - [347] Florence, directly after, notes that Hugh of - Shrewsbury “die vii. quo crudelitatem in præfatum exercuerat - presbyterum, interiit.” - - [348] See N. C. vol. iv. pp. 122, 663, 684. - - [349] Ord. Vit. 767 B. “De legali connubio Eustanum et - Olavum genuit, quibus regnum magnamque potentiam dimisit. - Tertium vero, nomine Segurd, Anglica captiva sed nobilis ei - peperit, quem Turer, Inghevriæ filius, regis Magni - nutritius, nutrivit.” The Saga however (Laing, 339) calla - Eystein “the son of a mean mother,” and gives the name of - Sigurd’s mother as Thora. - - [350] See Ord. Vit. 812. - - [351] Compare the story of Turgot in N. C. vol. iv. p. 662. - - [352] Ib. 143, 317, 754. - - [353] See vol. i. p. 14. - - [354] The only mention of Harold the son of Harold which I - have come across occurs in William of Malmesbury’s account - (iv. 329) of the invasion of Magnus, where “rex Noricorum - Magnus cum Haroldo filio Haroldi regis quondam Angliæ, - Orcadas insulas et Mevanias, et si quæ aliæ in oceano - jacent, armis subegit.” - - [355] See N. C. vol. iii. p. 326. - - [356] Ib. vol. ii. p. 481. - - [357] Ib. vol. iii. pp. 476, 487. Roger of Montgomery was in - command of the French contingent, though it is the personal - exploits of Robert of Meulan which are specially spoken of. - - [358] Ord. Vit. 767 D. “Hic filiam regis Irlandæ uxorem - duxerat. Sed quia rex Irensis pactiones quas fecerant non - tenuerat, Magnus rex stomachatus filiam ejus ei remiserat. - Bellum igitur inter eos ortum est.” - - [359] Laing, iii. 133. This is placed after the death of - Earl Hugh. - - [360] See Appendix II. - - [361] See N. C. vol. iii. pp. 347, 373. - - [362] Chron. Manniæ, 4. “Scotos vero ita perdomuit, ut - nullus qui fabricaret navem vel scapham ausus esset plus - quam tres clavos inserere.” Mr. E. W. Robertson (i. 165) - adds; “Such are the words of the Chronicle; their exact - meaning I do not pretend to understand.” Neither do I, but - Mr. Robertson was more concerned in the matter than I am. - - [363] Chron. Man. p. 4. His repentance is thus described; - “Post hæc Lagmannus, pœnitens quod fratris sui oculos - eruisset, sponte regnum suum dimisit, et signo crucis - dominicæ insignitus, iter Jerosolimitanum arripuit, quo et - mortuus est.” This is singularly like the story of Swegen - the son of Godwine. - - [364] Chron. Man. 5. “Omnes proceres insularum, audientes - mortem Lagmanni, miserunt legatos ad Murecardum Obrien, - regem Yberniæ, postulantes ut aliquem virum industrium de - regali stirpe in regem eis mitteret, donec Olavus filius - Godredi cresceret.” Murtagh sends Donald with a great deal - of good advice; but we read that. “postquam ad regnum - pervenit, parvi pendens præcepta domini sui, cum magna - tyrannide abusus est regno, et multis sceleribus - perpetratis, tribus annis enormiter regnavit.” Then the - leaders conspire, and drive him out. - - [365] See Appendix II. - - [366] Chron. Manniæ, 1098 (p. 5). “Eodem anno commissum est - prœlium inter Mannenses apud Santwat, et aquilonares - victoriam obtinuerunt. In quo bello occisi sunt Other comes - et Macmarus, principes ambarum partium.” From the names, - this sounds like a war between Scandinavians and Celts. May - we translate “aquilonares” by “Northmen,” or does it mean - merely the northern part of the island? - - [367] See Appendix II. - - [368] See N. C. vol. iii. p. 344. - - [369] Ib. vol. iv. p. 520. - - [370] See the story in Laing, ii. 347, 352. Ælfgifu of - Northampton, who was then in Norway with her son Swegen (see - N. C. vol. i. p. 480), was naturally inclined to unbelief. - - [371] This story is told by the Manx Chronicler, 6. - “Episcopo et clero resistente, ipse rex audacter accessit, - et vi regia aperiri sibi scrinium fecit. Cumque et oculis - vidisset, et manibus attrectasset incorruptum corpus, subito - timor magnus irruit in eum et cum magna festinatione - discessit.” This is singularly like the story of William and - Saint Cuthberht, which I have just referred to. - - [372] See N. C. vol. iii. p. 341. - - [373] Ib. p. 345. - - [374] Laing, iii. 129, 133. - - [375] Ib.; Johnstone, 231. “En hann setti eptir Sigurd son - sinn til _höfdingia_ ysir eyonom, oc seck hönom rádoneyti.” - It is as well to have the exact Norsk titles of the governor - and his council. - - [376] Johnstone, 232. “Magnus konongr kom Eidi sino vid eyna - Helgo, oc gaf þar grid oc frid öllum mönnum oc allra manna - varnadi.” A not very intelligible story follows, how he - opened the door of the little church, but did not go in, but - at once locked the door and ordered that no one should ever - go in again, which was faithfully obeyed. Here, as ever in - Celtic holy places, we find the group of several churches. - - [377] Johnstone, ib.; Laing, iii. 130. - - [378] Chron. Man. p. 6. “Galwedienses ita constrinxit, ut - cogeret eos materias lignorum cædere et ad litus portare ad - munitiones construendas.” - - [379] Ord. Vit. 767 D. “Hiberniam ingredi voluit; sed, - Irensibus in maritimis littoribus ad bellum paratis, alias - divertit.” - - [380] Ib. “Insulam Man, quæ deserta erat, inhabitavit, - populis replevit, domibus et aliis necessariis ad usus - hominum graviter instruxit.” - - [381] Chron. Man. 6. “Cum applicuisset ad insulam sancti - Patricii, venit videre locum pugnæ, quam Mannenses paulo - ante inter se commiserant, quia adhuc multa corpora - occisorum inhumata erant. Videns autem insulam pulcherrimam, - placuit in oculis ejus, eamque sibi in habitationem elegit, - munitiones in ea construxit, quæ usque hodie ex ejus nomine - nuncupantur.” - - [382] Ord. Vit. 767 D. “Alias quoque Cycladas, in magno mari - velut extra orbem positas, perlustravit, et a pluribus - populis inhabitari regio jussu coegit.” - - [383] Ib. “Maritimæ vero plebes, quæ in Anglia littus - infiniti Amphitritis incolebant in boreali climate, ut - barbaricas gentes et incognitas naves viderunt ad se - festinare, præ timore nimio vociferatæ sunt, et armati - quique de regione Merciorum convenerunt.” - - [384] Ord. Vit. 767 D. “Quondam princeps militiæ Magni regis - cum sex navibus in Angliam cursum direxit, sed rubeum - scutum, quod signum pacis erat, super malum navis erexit.” - - [385] Ib. 768 A. “Maxima multitudo de comitatu Cestræ et - Scrobesburiæ congregata est, et in regione Dagannoth secus - mare ad prœlium præparata est.” - - [386] See Appendix II. - - [387] See Appendix II. - - [388] See Appendix II. - - [389] See Appendix II. - - [390] See Appendix II. - - [391] Ord. Vit. 768 B. “Cujus mortem Magnus rex ut - comperiit, vehementer cum suis planxit, et Hugoni Dirgane, - id est Grosso, pacem et securitatem mandavit. Exercitum, - inquit, non propter Anglos sed Hibernos ago, nec alienam - regionem invado, sed insulas ad potestatem meam pertinentes - incolo.” - - [392] Ib. “Normanni tandem et Angli cadaver Hugonis diu - quæsierunt, pontique fluctu retracto, vix invenerunt.” - - [393] Ib. “Hic solus de filiis Mabiliæ mansuetus et amabilis - fuit, et iv. annis post mortem Rogerii patris sui paternum - honorem moderatissime rexit.” - - [394] Ib. - - [395] Johnstone, 236. “Aunguls-ey er þridiongr Brettlandz,” - This is strange measurement even if Wales alone is meant, - much more if by “Brettlandz” we are to understand the whole - isle of Britain. - - [396] See Appendix II. - - [397] Brut y Tywysogion, 1096. “So the French [y Freinc] - reduced all, as well great as small, to be Saxons [Sæson].” - But in the Latin Annals, 1098, the words are, “Franci vero - majores et minores secum ad Angliam perduxerunt.” - - [398] Johnstone, 236; Laing, iii. 132. - - [399] The treaty is noticed by the Irish writers. Chronicon - Scotorum, 1098. “A year’s peace was made by Muircertach Ua - Briain with Magnus, King of Lochlann.” On the marriage, see - above, p. 136. - - [400] Johnstone, 237. “Oc gaf hönom konongs nafn, oc setti - hann yfir Orkneyar oc oni Sudreyar, oc seck hann i hendur - Hák Pálssyni frænda sinom.” - - [401] “Mælkolf Skota konong” he appears in the Norsk text - (236). The ceremony of crossing the isthmus is minutely - described, and it is said that ships were often drawn across - it. - - [402] Ord. Vit. 768 C. “Quo [Hugone] defuncto, Robertus - Belesmensis, frater ejus, Guillelmum Rufum requisivit, eique - pro comitatu fratris iii. millia librarum sterilensium - exhibuit. Et comes factus, per quatuor annos immania super - Gualos exercuit.” - - [403] Ord. Vit. 768 C. “Angli et Guali, qui jamdudum ferales - ejus ludos quasi fabulam ridentes audierunt, nunc ferreis - ejus ungulis excoriati, plorantes gemuerunt, et vera esse - quæ compererant sentientes experti sunt.” - - [404] Ib. “Ipse quanto magis opibus et vernulis ampliatus - intumuit, tanto magis collimitaneis, cujuscunque ordinis - fuerint, auferre fundos suos exarsit, et terras quas prisci - antecessores sanctis dederant, sibi mancipavit.” - - [405] Orderic bears him this witness, 766 B, C, in recording - the fortification of Gisors, of which we shall have to speak - presently, “_ingeniosus artifex_ Rodbertus Belesmensis - disposuit.” - - [406] See above, p. 100. - - [407] See N. C. vol. i. p. 506. - - [408] See the Chronicles, 895. In Winchester, Canterbury, - and Abingdon the name is Quatbridge. “Þæt hic gedydan æt - Cwatbrycge be Sæfryn and þæt geweorc worhtan.” Worcester has - “æt Brygce.” - - [409] This is distinctly marked by Florence, 1101. “Arcem - quam in occidentali Sabrinæ fluminis plaga, in loco qui - Brycge dicitur lingua Saxonica, Ægelfleda Merciorum domina - quondam construxerat, fratre suo Eadwardo Seniore regnante, - Scrobbesbyriensis comes Rotbertus de Beleasmo, Rogeri - comitis filius, contra regem Heinricum, ut exitus rei - probavit, muro lato et alto summoque restaurare cœpit.” The - work of the Lady is recorded in the Canterbury and Abingdon - Chronicles, 912. “Her cóm Æþelflæd Myrcna hlæfdige on þone - halgan æfen muentione S[~c]e Crucis to Scergeat, and þar ða - burh _getimbrede_, and þæs ilcan géares þa æt Bricge.” It - was therefore not a mere earthwork to be _wrought_, but a - wall of some kind, whether of wood or of stone, to be - _timbered_. This marks the position of Bridgenorth itself as - distinguished from the earthwork at Oldbury. - - [410] Domesday, 254. “Ipse comes tenet Ardintone; Sancta - Milburga tenuit T. R. E. Ibi … nova domus, et burgum - Quatford dictum. Nil reddit.” - - [411] See N. C. vol. iv. p. 499. - - [412] A singular story is preserved in Bromton (X Scriptt. - 988). When Earl Roger’s second and better-behaved wife - Adeliza was coming for the first time to England, she was in - danger of shipwreck. Her chaplain, who was on board, had a - vision, in which a certain matron told him that, in order to - lull the storm, his lady must vow to build a church to Saint - Mary Magdalene on the spot where she should first meet her - husband, a spot which was to be marked in a manner not - unknown either at Glastonbury or at Alba Longa; “Præcipue - ubi concava quercus cum tugurio porcorum crescit.” The vow - is made; the Countess meets the Earl hunting; “apud - Quatford, quæ tunc deserta fuit, in loco ubi dicta quercus - crescebat venanti domino suo primo occurrit.” The church was - founded and endowed; but it afterwards became annexed to the - collegiate chapel in the castle at Bridgenorth. Some further - details about this college are given. See also Mon. Angl. - viii. 1463. The foundation at Bridgenorth is attributed to - Robert of Bellême. - - [413] Ord. Vit. 768 C. “Oppidum de Quatfort transtulit, et - Brugiam, munitissimum castellum, super Sabrinam fluvium - condidit.” - - [414] It appears in Domesday, 255, in the form of - “Aldeberie.” - - [415] These windows are a distinct case of traces of the - primitive Romanesque even in a military building, just as in - Oxford Castle. See N. C. vol. v. p. 636. - - [416] Just as in the case of Conan at Rouen, we must get rid - of the notion of anybody standing on the top of a flat - tower. An English traveller on the continent is struck by - seeing military towers with high roofs; but it is simply - because in England the roofs have been destroyed. - - [417] I have not myself seen this site. Mr. Clark writes to - me; “The township of that name is within the Shropshire - parish of Llan y-mynech but a part of an island of Denbigh. - The site, coveted on account of some silver mines, was - conquered soon after the Great Survey, and annexed to the - palatine earldom of Salop, though after the conquest of - Wales it was transferred to Denbigh. The castle stood upon - Offa’s Dyke, and was protected on the immediate south by the - Vyrnwy, and a mile or two to the west by its tributary the - Tarrat. Three British camps to the north and west show how - at least as early as the Mercian days the position had been - watched.” - - [418] His lands in Nottinghamshire (Domesday, 284) cover - more than five pages. At one place, Ættune, we read, - “habuerunt x. taini quisque aulam suam.” In other places, - 285, 286, we have entries of the same kind of five thegns, - six thegns, and seven thegns. Land in Nottinghamshire would - seem to have been greatly divided T. R. E. The first entry - in Yorkshire, 319, in “Lastone and Trapum,” we read, “ibi - habuit comes Edwinus aulam; nunc habet Rogerius de Busli ibi - in dominio.” In 320, in Hallun, for which we may read - Sheffield, it is said, “ibi habuit Wallef comes aulam.” - - The Norman lordship of Roger is written in many ways; he - appears as “Rogerus de Buthleio,” “de Busli,” and other - forms. In the French Ordnance map the name of the place is - given as _Bully_. - - [419] See Domesday, 319, and N. C. vol. iv. p. 290. - - [420] Domesday, 320. “Hanc terram habet Rogerius de Judita - comitissa.” - - [421] Domesday, 113. This is Sanford in Devonshire, which - had been held by a Brihtric, whether the son of Ælfgar or - any other. “Regina dedit Rogerio cum uxore sua.” Very unlike - lands in Yorkshire, it had doubled its value since - Brihtric’s time. - - [422] Domesday, 319. It is “Tyckyll” in Florence, 1102. The - history of the place may be studied in Mr. John Raine’s - History of Blyth. - - [423] Bæda, ii. 12. “In finibus gentis Merciorum, ad - orientalem plagam amnis qui vocatur Idlæ.” There Eadwine - smote Æthelfrith. Bæda’s description marks Nottinghamshire - as Mercian. - - [424] I have had to mention Blyth in my paper on the Arundel - case in the Archæological Journal, xxxvii. 244 (1880). The - monastic part at the east end is gone, and the effect of the - parochial part strangely changed by later additions. No one - would think from the first glance at the outside that the - nave of a Norman minster lurked there. - - There are two notices of Blyth in the Normanniæ Nova - Chronica under 1088 and 1090. The first merely records a - grant of the church to the Trinity monastery (also called - Saint Katharine) at Rouen; “a viro venerabili Rogerio de - Bully et ab Munold [sic] uxore sua.” The second records the - gift a second time, and adds, “ibi constituit xiii. - monachos.” He had had dealings with the house before. In the - cartulary of the monastery, No. xliii. p. 444, he sells the - tithe of Bully [Buslei], “quemadmodum sibi jure hæreditario - competebat,” for threescore and twelve pounds and a horse - (“pro libris denariorum lx. et xii. et i. equo”). The - signatures, besides those of Duke William and Count Robert - of Eu, are mainly local, as “Hernaldi cujus pars decimæ,” - “Huelini de Brincourt,”――Neufchâtel that was to be. Mr. A. - S. Ellis suggests that this sale was to supply the lord of - Bully with the means of crossing in 1066. It is odd that - there is no mention of Blyth in the cartulary. - - [425] Compare Florence, 1102, with Orderic, 806 C. No one - without local knowledge would guess that “Blida” and - “Tyckyll” meant the same place. - - [426] Ord. Vit. 768 C. “Blidam totamque terrain Rogerii de - Buthleio cognati sui jure repetiit, et a rege grandi pondere - argenti comparavit.” Mr. A. S. Ellis, in a paper reprinted - from the Yorkshire Archæological Journal, headed - “Biographical Notices on the Yorkshire Tenants named in - Doomsday Book,” suggests that what Robert really bought was - the _wardship_ of Roger’s son. The history of the family - will be found in Mr. Raine’s book and in Mr. Ellis’s paper. - - [427] See N. C. vol. iv. p. 537. - - [428] Ord. Vit. 768 C. “Sicut idem vir multis possessionibus - in terris est locupletatus, sic majori fastu superbiæ sequax - Belial inflatus, flagitiosos et crudeles ambiebat - insatiabiliter actus.” There is no need to take - “flagitiosus” in the special sense. - - [429] The authorities for this chapter take in such French - and Cenomannian records as we have. Suger’s Life of Lewis - the Sixth, in the fourth volume of the French Duchèsne, - gives us but few facts as to the French war, but he draws a - vivid general picture. For Maine we have the Lives of - Bishops Howel and Hildebert in the History of the Bishops of - Le Mans in Mabillon’s Vetera Analecta. The accounts there - given have to be compared throughout with the narrative of - the French and Cenomannian wars in Orderic. The strictly - English writers tell us nothing about France, next to - nothing about Maine. Something may be gleaned from the - writers in French rime, as Wace and Geoffrey Gaimar; but - Wace has by no means the same value now which he had during - the actual time of the Conquest. - - [430] See N. C. vol. v. p. 99. - - [431] See N. C. vol. i. p. 249. - - [432] See N. C. vol. iii. p. 130. - - [433] See N. C. vol. ii. p. 263. - - [434] Lewis is in Suger constantly spoken of as “Dominus - Ludovicus;” special titles for kings’ sons had not yet been - invented. - - [435] William of Malmesbury tells the story (iii. 257); - “Pacem cum Philippo rege comparavit [Robertus Friso], data - sibi in uxorem privigna, de qua ille Lodovicum tulit qui - modo regnat in Francia; nec multo post pertæsus connubii - (quod illa præpinguis corpulentiæ esset), a lecto removit, - uxoremque Andegavensis comitis contra fas et jus sibi - conjunxit.” The reason here given for separation seems a - strange one, especially on the part of Philip. Henry the - Eighth, according to some accounts, is said at one stage to - have sought for a wife of his own size. The Queen appears in - Orderic (699 B) as “generosa et religiosa conjux.” It - appears from Geoffrey Malaterra (iv. 8) that Philip next - wished to marry Emma, the daughter of Count Robert of - Sicily; but the trick was found out. It was not easy to - entrap a Sicilian Norman. - - [436] This is Orderic’s story. The three wives of Fulk are - carefully reckoned up in the Gesta Consulum (Chroniques - d’Anjou, i. 140) and in the Gesta Ambasiensium Dominorum (i. - 191). Bertrada therefore had some reason when we read, - “Bertrada Andegavorum comitissa, metuens ne vir suus quod - jam duabus aliis fecerat sibi faceret, et relicta contemptui - ceu vile scortum fieret, conscia nobilitatis et - pulcritudinis suæ fidissimum legatum Philippo regi Francorum - destinavit, eique quod in corde tractabat, evidenter - notificavit. Malebat enim ultro virum relinquere aliumque - appetere quam a viro relinqui, omniumque patere despectui.” - Some details of the elopement of Bertrada from Tours are - given in the Gesta Consulum, i. 142, and in the acts of the - Lords of Amboise, i. 192. She appears there as “pessima uxor - Fulconis comitis.” - - [437] William of Malmesbury (v. 404) lays the blame in a - quarter which we should not have looked for; “Adeo erat - [Philippus] omnibus episcopis provinciæ suæ derisui, ut - nullus eos desponsaret præter Willelmum archiepiscopum - Rotomagensem, cujus facti temeritatem luit multis annis - interdictus, et vix tandem aliquando per Anselmum - archiepiscopum apostolicæ communioni redditus.” (See De - Rémusat, Anselme, 355.) It is hard to have to believe this - of the Good Soul, and one rather takes to Orderic’s version - (699 C); “Odo Baiocensis episcopus hanc exsecrandam - desponsationem fecit, ideoque dono mœchi regis pro - recompensatione infausti famulatus ecclesias Madanti oppidi - aliquamdiu habuit.” Orderic waxes very eloquent on Philip’s - crime. - - [438] See his letters in Duchèsne, iv. 2, 3, 4, 7. Ivo - distinctly refuses to have anything to do with the marriage; - but it seems that Philip pretended to have been divorced by - a council under Reginald Archbishop of Rheims. - - [439] Betholi Constantiensis Chron., Bouquet, xi. 27, 28. - “1094. In Galliarum civitate quam vulgariter Ostionem - (Augustodunum) dicunt, congregatum est generale concilium a - venerando Hugone Lugdunensi archiepiscopo et sedis - apostolicæ legato cum archiepiscopis, episcopis et abbatibus - diversarum provinciarum xvii. cal. Nov. in quo concilio - renovata est excommunicatio in Heinricum regem et in - Guibertum sedis apostolicæ invasorem et in omnes eorum - complices. Item rex Galliarum Philippus excommunicatus est, - eo quod, vivente uxore sua, alteram superinduxerit.” - - [440] Ord. Vit. 669 C. “Permissu tamen præsulum, _quorum - dominus erat_, pro regali dignitate capellanum suum habebat, - a quo cum privata familia privatim missam audiebat.” - - [441] Ib. “In quodcunque oppidum vel urbem Galliarum rex - advenisset, mox ut a clero auditum fuisset, cessabat omnis - clangor campanarum, et generalis cantus clericorum.” William - of Malmesbury, v. 404; “Quocirca ab apostolico - excommunicatus, cum in villa qua mansitabat nihil divini - servitii fieret, sed discedente eo, tinnitus signorum - undique concreparent, insulsam fatuitatem cachinnis - exprimebat, ‘Audis,’ inquiens, ‘bella, quomodo nos - effugant.’” - - [442] Ord. Vit. u.s. “Quo tempore nunquam diadema portavit, - nec purpuram induit, neque sollennitatem aliquam regio more - celebrabat.” - - [443] Her death is recorded in the year 1094 in the - Chronicle of Clarius or of Saint Peter at Sens (D’Achery, - ii. 477), which gives some curious details of the council of - that year, and how the Archbishop of Sens was allowed to sit - on a level with the Archbishop of Rheims. - - [444] Ord. Vit. 700 A. “Ludovico filio suo consensu - Francorum Pontisariam et Madantum totumque comitatum - Vilcassinum donavit, totiusque regni curam, dum primo flore - juventutis pubesceret, commisit.” - - [445] Ord. Vit. 766 A. “Guillelmus Rufus, ut patris sui - casus et bellorum causas comperit, Philippo Francorum regi - totum Vilcassinum pagum calumniari cœpit, et præclara - oppida, Pontesiam et Calvimontem atque Medantum, poposcit,” - - [446] Ib. “Francis autem poscenti non acquiescentibus, imo - prœlianti atrociter resistere ardentibus, ingens guerra - inter feroces populos exoritur, et multis luctuosa mors - ingeritur.” - - [447] Chron. Petrib. 1097. “And se cyng þeræfter uppon - S[~c]e Martines mæssan ofer sǽ intó Normandig fór.” - - [448] See N. C. vol. v. p. 159. - - [449] Chron. Petrib. 1097. “Ac þa hwile þe he wederes abád, - his hired innon þam sciran þær hi lágon þone mæston hearm - dydon þe æfre hired oððe here innon friðlande don sceolde.” - - [450] See vol. i. p. 154. - - [451] It is hardly an exception when William of Malmesbury - (iv. 320) tells the story of William Rufus’ dialogue with - Helias, which belongs to this time, altogether out of place, - and as a mere illustrative anecdote. - - [452] Suger, 283 A. “Similiter et dissimiliter inter eos - certabatur, similiter cum neuter cederet, dissimiliter cum - ille maturus, iste juvenculus, ille opulentus et Anglorum - thesaurorum profusor, mirabilisque militum mercator et - solidator; iste peculii expers, patri qui beneficiis regni - utebatur parcendo, sola bonæ indolis industria militiam - cogebat, audacter resistebat.” Orderic (766 A) says, in a - somewhat different strain, “Philippus rex piger et - corpulentus belloque incongruus erat; Ludovicus vero filius - ejus puerili temeritudine detentus, adhuc militare - nequibat.” This strange statement comes before that quoted - in p. 175. - - [453] Orderic (766 A) waxes very eloquent on William, his - host, and its captains, how they could have met Cæsar, and - what not. He gives the list in the text, with the notice, - “Robertus Belesmensis princeps militiæ hujus erat, cujus - favor erga regem et calliditas præ cæteris vigebat.” - - [454] Suger, 283 A. “Videres juvenum celerrimum, modo - Bituricensium, modo Arvernorum, modo Burgundionum, militari - manu transvolare fines; nec idcirco tardius si ei ignotescat - Vilcassinum regredi, et cum trecentis aut quingentis - militibus præfato regi Guillelmo cum x. millibus fortissime - refragari.” - - [455] Suger, 283 A. “Ut dubius se habet belli eventus, modo - cedere, fugare modo.” - - [456] Ib. B. “Angliæ captos ad redemptionem celerem - militaris stipendii acceleravit anxietas, Francorum vero - longa diuturni carceris maceravit prolixitas, nec ullo modo - evinculari potuerunt, donec, suscepta ejusdem regis Angliæ - militia, hominio obligati regnum et regem impugnare et - turbare jurejurando firmaverunt.” So Pyrrhos proposed to his - Roman prisoners to enter his service. - - [457] Suger (287, 291) has much to say about “Guido de - Rupe-forti, vir peritus et miles emeritus.” In p. 297 he - describes the castle; “Supersistitur promontorio ardui - litoris magni fluminis Sequanæ horridum et ignobile castrum, - quod dicitur Rupes Guidonis, in superficie sui invisibile, - rupe sublimi incaveatum, cui manus æmula artificis in devexo - montis, raro et misero ostio, maximæ domus amplitudinem rupe - cæsa extendit, antrum ut putatur, fatidicum.” He goes on to - quote Lucan. Orderic (766 B) witnesses to Guys treason; - “Guido de Rupe, Anglorum argenti cupidus, eis favit, et - munitiones suas de Rupe et Vetolio dimisit. Sic alii - nonnulli fecerunt, qui suis infidi exteris avide - obtemperaverunt.” - - [458] Cf. N. C. vol. iv. p. 200, for the same state of - things at Nottingham. The like may be seen along the banks - of the Loire. - - [459] Ord. Vit. 766 B. “Rodbertus comes de Mellento in suis - munitionibus Anglos suscepit, et patentem eis in Galliam - discursum aperuit, quorum bellica vis plurima Francis damna - intulit.” “Angli” here must take in all the subjects of - Rufus. “Gallia,” I need hardly say, is high-polite for - France, and does not take in Normandy. - - [460] See N. C. vol. iii. p. 486. - - [461] Ord. Vit. 766 B. “Plerique Francorum qui binis - cogebantur dominis obsecundare, pro fiscis quibus abunde - locupletati sub utriusque regia turgebant ditione, anxii - quia nemo potest duobus dominis servire, animis acriorem - opibusque ditiorem elegerunt, et cum suis hominibus - municipiisque favorabiliter paruerunt.” - - [462] Among the Norman prisoners Suger (283 A) counts - “Paganum de Gisortio, qui castrum idem primo munivit.” - Orderic (766 C) gives him, like several other people, a - double name; he appears as “Tedbaldus-Paganus de Gisortis.” - This first fortification of Gisors must be that which is - referred to by Robert of Torigny under the year 1096; “Rex - Willermus fecit quoddam castellum, Gisorth videlicet, in - confinio Normanniæ et Franciæ.” See below, p. 190. - - [463] Orderic, 766 B. “Guillelmus rex firmissimum castrum - Gisortis construi præcepit, quod usque hodie contra - Calvimontem et Triam atque Burriz oppositum, Normanniam - concludit, cujus positionem et fabricam ingeniosus artifex - Rodbertus Belesmensis disposuit.” See above, p. 151. - - [464] See N. C. vol. iv. p. 494. - - [465] Ord. Vit. 766 C. “Illi nimirum insignem Francorum - laudem deperire noluerunt, seseque pro defensione patriæ et - gloria gentis suæ, ad mortem usque inimicis objecerunt.” - This is said specially of the knights of the Vexin; “In illa - quippe provincia egregiorum copia militum est quibus - ingenuitas et ingens probitas inest.” - - [466] Suger gives the list, 283 A. Orderic (766 C) also - speaks of the captivity of “Tetbaldus-Paganus de Gisortis,” - and some others. Suger calls Gilbert of Laigle “nobilis et - Angliæ et Normanniæ seque illustris baro.” But his English - estates (Domesday 36, ii. 263) in Surrey and Norfolk were - not very large. Another prisoner was “Comes Simon, nobilis - vir;” that is, I suppose, Simon of Senlis, Earl of - Northampton. See N. C. vol. iv. p. 602. - - [467] See vol. i. p. 211. - - [468] Ord. Vit. 681 B. “Audientes Cenomanni dissidium - Normannorum cogitaverunt fastuosum excutere a se jugum - eorum, quod olim facere multoties conati sunt sub Guillelmo - Magno rege Anglorum. Hoc Robertus dux ut comperiit, legatos - et exenia Fulconi Andegavensium satrapæ destinavit, obnixe - rogans ut Cenonannos a temerario ausu compesceret, ac in - Normanniam ad se graviter ægrotantem veniret.” - - [469] See N. C. vol. iv. p. 562. We shall meet him again in - this character. - - [470] See above, p. 172. Orderic’s words (681 D) are, - “viventibus adhuc duabus uxoribus tertiam desponsavit.” But - the accounts of the Angevin writers do not bear this out. - - [471] Fulk is made to say (Ord. Vit. 681 C), “Amo Bertradam - sobolem Simonis de Monteforti, neptem scilicet Ebroicensis - comitis Guillermi, quam Heluissa comitissa nutrit et sua sub - tutela custodit.” Presently Count William himself speaks of - her as “neptis mea, quæ adhuc tenera virago est, quam - sororius meus mihi commendavit nutriendam.” Here the word - “virago,” the use of which is a little doubtful, seems - equivalent to “virgo,” unless it is meant that Bertrada had - graduated in the school of her aunt. But see Ducange in - _Virago_. - - [472] See Appendix C. - - [473] Ord. Vit. 681 C. “Si mihi quam valde cupio rem feceris - unam, Cenomannos tibi subjiciam, et omni tempore tibi ut - amicus fideliter serviam.” - - [474] Ib. “Radulfus patruus meus, qui pro magnitudine - capitis et congerie capillorum jocose cognominatus est Caput - asini.” We have heard of him as the murderer of Gilbert of - Eu and the guardian of William the Great. See N. C. vol. i. - pp. 196, 202. - - [475] See vol. i. p. 220. Orderic gives the list of - counsellors. - - [476] See vol. i. pp. 220, 256. - - [477] Ord. Vit. 681 D. “Ex consultu sapientum”――Duke Robert - had his Witan――“decrevit dare minora ne perderet majora.” - - [478] See N. C. vol. iv. p. 545. - - [479] Orderic tells the tale, 683 B, C. “Qui vivente - Guillelmo rege contra eum rebellare multoties conati sunt, - ipso mortuo statim de rebellione machinari cœperunt, - legationem igitur filiis Azsonis marchisi Liguriæ - direxerunt.” Then they set forth their story, “non pro amore - eorum, sed ut aliqua rationabili occasione jugum excuterent - a se Normannorum, quod fere xxx. annis fortiter detriverat - turgidas cervices eorum.” - - [480] Orderic (683 C, D) makes “Gaufridus Madeniensis et - Helias aliique cives et oppidani” join in the reception of - Hugh, therefore seemingly in the mission to him. The - biographer of the Bishops (Vet. An. 292) makes the embassy - the work of Geoffrey only. - - [481] Orderic draws his outward likeness, 769 D. “Erat - probus et honorabilis, et multis pro virtutibus amabilis. - Corpore præcellebat, fortis et magnus, statura gracilis et - procerus, niger et hirsutus, et instar presbyteri bene - tonsus.” - - [482] Ib. “Eloquio erat suavis et facundus, lenis quietis et - asper rebellibus, justitiæ cultor rigidus, et in timore Dei - ad opus bonum fervidus.” He goes on with details of his - devotions. There is another shorter panegyric in 768 D. - - [483] Ib. 684 C. Helias there sets forth his own pedigree; - “Filia Herberti comitis Lancelino de Balgenceio nupsit, - eique Lancelinum Radulfi patrem et Johannem meum genitorem - peperit.” - - [484] Ib. 769 A. “Generosam conjugem Mathildam filiam - Gervasii accepit, qui Rodberti cognomento Brochardi fratris - Gervasii Remensis archiepiscopi filius fuit.” On Bishop - Gervase see N. C. vol. iii. pp. 193-196. - - [485] Ord. Vit. 769 A. “Helias de paterna hereditate - Flechiam castrum possedit, quatuor vero castella de - patrimonio uxoris suæ obtinuit, id est, Ligerim et Maiatum, - Luceium et Ustilliacum.” We shall hear of these places - again. - - [486] Not that the department is called from the town, but - from the river. - - [487] See N. C. vol. iv. p. 545. - - [488] Ord. Vit. 683 C. “Gaufridus Madeniensis et Helias, - aliique cives et oppidani, venientem Hugonem susceperunt, - eique ad obtinendum jus ex materna hereditate competens - aliquamdiu suffragati sunt.” - - [489] Ib. B. “Anno ab Incarnatione Domini m.xc. Indictione - xiii. Cenomanni contra Normannos rebellaverunt, ejectisque - custodibus de munitionibus, novum principem sibi - constituerunt.” - - [490] See vol. i. p. 205. Cf. N. C. vol. iv. p. 546. - - [491] Ord. Vit. 683 D. “In quantum potuit truculentam - recalcitrationem dissuasit, pertinaces verum interdixit, - pontificali jure anathematizavit, et a liminibus sanctæ - matris ecclesiæ sequestravit. Quapropter rebellionis - incentores contra eum nimis irati sunt, et injuriis eum - afficere terribiliter comminati sunt.” - - [492] I am here following Orderic, whose account (683 D) - runs thus; “Interea dum per diocesim suam cum clericis suis - equitaret, et episcopali more officium suum sollerter - exerceret, Helias de Flechia eum comprehendit, et in - carcere, donec Hugo in urbe Cenomannica susceptus fuisset, - vinctum præsulem tenuit.” The biographer of the Bishop (Vet. - An. 291) is of course much more angry with Helias, and seems - quite to misconceive the state of things. Very soon after - the death of the Conqueror, Helias seizes Ballon and makes - war on Le Mans; “Surrexit quidam nobilis adolescens, qui - erat de genere Cenomannensium consulum, Helias nomine, et - cœpit calumniari ipsum comitatum, ingressusque castrum quod - Baledonem nominant, regionem undique devastabat, maximeque - adversus civitatis habitatores, qui ei viriliter - resistebant, multis insidiis assiduisque deprædationibus - grassabatur.” The Bishop opposes him in the interest of Duke - Robert, and then, “Quorumdam perversorum consilio, in tantam - prorupit audaciam ut in christum Domini manum mittere, - eumque apud castrum patrimonii sui, quod Fissa dicitur, in - custodia ponere non timeret.” “Fissa” is La Flèche. This - writer says nothing of the message to Hugh till after the - imprisonment of Howel. It is then set on foot by Geoffrey of - Mayenne, who is described as “Ratus se opportunum tempus - invenisse, quo regionem denuo perturbaret.” We must remember - that Orderic is here writing the history of Maine, while the - biographer is merely writing the history of Howel; but for - that very reason we may trust him as to the details of the - Bishop’s imprisonment. - - [493] Vet. An. 291. “Clericos suos ita ab ipsius fecit - præsentia removeri, ut cum nullo eorum nec familiare nec - publicum posset habere colloquium, rusticumque presbyterum - ejus obsequio deputavit, ne custodum calliditas Latina - posset confabulatione deludi.” - - [494] This comes from Orderic (683 D), who has some curious - details; “Domini sanctas imagines cum crucibus, et sanctarum - scrinia reliquiarum, ad terram deposuit, et portas - basilicarum spinis obturavit.” The biographer of the Bishops - mentions only the thorns, and he seems to imply that only Le - Mans and its suburbs were thus treated; “Matris ecclesiæ - omniumque ejusdem civitatis vel suburbii ecclesiarum - januas.” - - [495] All this is told at some length, Vet. An. 291. - “Helias, pœnitentia ductus, pontificisque genibus - provolutus, veniam precabatur.” - - [496] Vit. An. 292. “Cum esset apud castrum quod Carcer - dicitur, occurrerunt ei proceres civitatis, sacramenta - fidelitatis quæ Roberto comiti promiserant pro nihilo - reputantes.” - - [497] Ib. “Rotbertus ultra modum inertiæ et voluptati - deditus, nihil dignum ratione respondens, quæ Cenomannenses - fecerant, pro eo quod inepto homini nimis onerosi - viderentur, non multum sibi displicuisse monstravit.” This - is important, now that an attempt is made to saddle Orderic - with the invention of the received character of Robert. - - [498] Ib. “Non curare videbatur, nisi ut episcopatus tantum - in ejus dominio remaneret. Unde præcepit episcopo ut ad - ecclesiam quidem reverteretur, de episcopatu vero nullatenus - Hugoni marchisio responderet.” On the advowson of the see of - Le Mans, see N. C. vol. iii. p. 194; vol. iv. p. 544. - - [499] Vet. Ann. 292. “Comes malo ingenio episcopum - circumvenire cupiens, postulabat ut ab ipso donum - episcopatus acciperet.” That is, Howel is to do homage to - the new prince, much as Henry the First, as we shall see in - a later chapter, demanded the homage of Anselm. Howel’s - objection seems simply to be that Robert was the lawful - lord, not that it was unlawful to accept the benefice from - any temporal lord. - - [500] The troubles of the Bishop are set forth at length by - his biographer (Vet. An. 292 et seqq.). This device of his - enemies in the Chapter was the cruellest of all. Finding no - fault in him, but wishing that some fault should be found, - “sub specie veræ amicitiæ persuaserunt ei ut fraterculum - duodennem qui necdum perfecte litterarum elementa didicerat, - in ejus [decani] loco constitueret, et contra ecclesiastica - instituta inductum prudentibus puerulum senioribus - anteferret.” Geoffrey was a Breton, brother of Judicail――the - name familiar in so many spellings――Bishop of Saint Malo. - See Ord. Vit. 770 C. There was much disputing between him - and the other candidate for the deanery. This was Gervase, - nephew of the former Bishop Gervase (see N. C. vol. iii. p. - 193), who had on his side the memory of his uncle, and the - special favour of his brothers with Count Hugh (“quia - fratres ejus eo tempore nimia familiaritate principis - uterentur”). - - [501] Vet. An. 294. “Ad regem Anglorum se contulit, ejusque - liberalitate levamen maximum suæ persecutionis accepit.” - - [502] The story is told in Vet. An. 294. Howel stayed four - months in England; ib. 295. - - [503] Ib. 297. - - [504] A great number of grants and privileges are reckoned - up in Vet. An. 298. Among them several exemptions were - granted to the episcopal lordship of Coulaines, a place of - which we shall hear again. - - [505] According to Orderic (684 A) the people of Maine found - him “divitiis et sensu et virtute inopem.” The Biographer - (299) calls him “propter inconstantiam suam bonis omnibus - infestus,” and says that he went away, “omnibus quæ habere - poterat in pecuniam redactis.” - - [506] Ord. Vit. 684 A. - - [507] Orderic (u. s.) graphically sets forth the fears of - one who was “inscius inter gnaros et timidus inter animosos - milites consul constitutus.” He and his countrymen are - “Allobroges,” which seems odd; the men of Maine are - “Cisalpini.” - - [508] Ord. Vit. 684 A. See vol. i. p. 277. According to - Helias or Orderic, the reconciled princes could muster a - hundred thousand men. It was, so Helias is made to think, - chiefly for the conquest of Maine that Rufus had crossed the - sea. - - [509] Ord. Vit. u. s. - - [510] Ib. “Me quoque libertatis amor nihilominus stimulat, - et hereditatis avitæ rectitudo dimicandi pro illa fiduciam - in Deo mihi suppeditat.” - - [511] Both Orderic and the Biographer record the sale; the - Biographer throws some doubt on its validity; “Heliæ cognato - suo ipsam civitatem totumque comitatum, _quantum in ipso - erat_, vendidit.” Orderic names the price. - - [512] Ord. Vit. 684 D. “Hic in accepta potestate viam suam - multum emendavit, et multiplici virtute floruit. Clerum et - ecclesiam Dei laudabiliter honoravit, et missis servitioque - Dei quotidie ferventer interfuit. Subjectis æquitatem - servavit pacemque pauperibus _pro posse suo_ tenuit.” He - comes in again for the like praise in 768 D, and more fully - in 769 D. - - [513] His works are described by the Biographer, Vet. An. - 299, 300. - - [514] Vet. An. 299. - - [515] See above, p. 15, and vol. i. p. 227. - - [516] Vet. An. 301. “Ei [papæ] cum omni comitatu suo per - triduum cuncta necessaria hilariter et abundantissime - ministravit, quamvis eodem anno non solum annonæ, sed et - omnium quæ ad cibum pertinent, maximum constet exstitisse - defectum.” The Biographer is naturally eloquent on the - Pope’s visit. - - [517] He appeared (Vet. An. ib.) “facie hilaris, colore - vividus, ingenio perspicax, cibo et potu sobrius, membrisque - omnibus incolumis.” - - [518] Orderic (769 A) makes Helias say, “Consilio papæ - crucem Domini pro servitio ejus accepi.” He does not mention - the visit of Urban to Le Mans, nor does the Biographer - mention the crusading vow of Helias; but the two accounts - fit in together. - - [519] See their dialogue in Laing, iii. 178. - - [520] Orderic (769 A) describes the agreement between - William and Robert, and the payment of the pledge-money (see - vol. i. p. 559). Then he adds; “Helias comes ad curiam regis - Rothomagum venit. Qui postquam diu cum duce consiliatus - fuit, ad regem accessit.” - - [521] See vol. i. pp. 175, 302. - - [522] Ord. Vit. 769 A. “Domine _mi_ rex … amicitiam, _ut - vester fidelis_, vestram deposco, et hoc iter cum pace - vestra inire cupio.” - - [523] Ib. “Quo vis vade; sed Cenomannicam urbem cum toto - comitatu mihi dimitte, quia quidquid pater meus habuit volo - habere.” - - [524] Ib. 769 B. “Si placitare vis, judicium gratanter - subibo, et patrium jus, secundum examen regum, comitumque et - episcoporum, perdam aut tenebo.” I cannot see with Sir - Francis Palgrave (iv. 633) that this proposal “indicates - that Helias assumed the existence of a High Court of Peers, - possessing jurisdiction over the whole Capetian - monarchy――that realm to which the name of _France_ can - scarcely yet be given.” Surely Helias simply means to refer - the matter to arbitration. - - [525] Ord. Vit. u. s. “Ensibus et lanceis innumerisque - missilibus tecum placitabo.” - - [526] Ord. Vit. 769 C. “Ipse mihi Cænomannorum præposituram - dignatus est commendare.” The strictly feudal language is - worth noticing; but “præpositura” is an odd word to express - the countship of Maine. - - [527] I give the substance of the speech in Orderic, 769 B, - C. - - [528] Ib. “Ego contra cruciferos prœliari nolo, sed urbem - quam pater meus in die transitus sui nactus erat mihi - vendicabo.” - - [529] Ib. “Tu igitur dilapsos aggeres munitionum tuarum - summopere repara, et cœmentarios lapidumque cæsores lucri - cupidos velociter aggrega, vetustasque neglectorum ruinas - murorum utcumque resarciendo restaura.” - - [530] Ib. “Cinomannicos enim cives quantocius visitabo, et - centum milia lanceas cum vexillis ante portas eis - demonstrabo; nec tibi sine calumnia hæreditatem meam - indulgebo.” - - [531] Ord. Vit. 769 C. “Currus etiam pilis atque sagittis - onustos illuc bobus pertrahi faciam. Sed ego ipse cum multis - legionibus armatorum bubulcos alacriter boantes ad portas - tuas præcedam. Hæc verissime credito et complicibus tuis - edicito.” All this talk is at least very characteristic of - William Rufus. - - [532] Ord. Vit. 770 C. “Helias comes Goiffredum Britonem, - decanum ejusdem ecclesiæ, ad episcopatum elegit.” See above, - p. 201. - - [533] Vet. An. 303. “A domno Hoello venerabilis memoriæ - episcopo Cenomannensis ecclesiæ scholarum magister et - archidiaconus factus.” He was “ex Lavarzinensi castro, - mediocribus quidem sed honestis exortus parentibus.” On his - relations to Helias see Appendix KK. - - [534] Ord. Vit. 770 C. “Præveniens clerus Hildebertum de - Lavarceio archidiaconum in cathedra pontificali residere - compulit, et altæ vocis cum jubilatione tripudians cantavit - Te Deum laudamus, et cetera quæ usus in electione præsulis - exposcit ecclesiasticus.” An. Vet. 303. “Post discessum - ipsius [Hoelli] proper scientiæ et honestatis suæ meritum, - _communi cleri plebisque assensu_ in ejus loco substitutus - est.” - - [535] Ord. Vit. u. s. “Quod Helias ut comperiit, valde - iratus resistere voluit. Sed clericis dicentibus illi, - Electionem tuam ecclesiasticæ præferre non debes electioni, - reveritus, quia Deum timebat, siluit et, ne letale in - membris ecclesiæ schisma fieret, canonicis consensit.” For - Saint Eadward’s opposite conduct in the like case, see N. C. - vol. ii. p. 120. - - [536] Ib. “Goiffredus quippe de præsulatu securus erat, - jamque copiosas dapes pro sublimatione sui præparaverat. - Paratæ quidem dapes ab avidis comessoribus absumptæ sunt. - Sed ipsum Cenomanni episcopum habere penitus recusaverunt.” - He then mentions his promotion to Rouen. - - [537] The story of Hildebert’s dealings with the heretic - Henry are told at large by the Biographer, 312 et seqq. See - also Milman, Latin Christianity, iv. 176. - - [538] Vet. An. 326. He became Archbishop, “concedente - Ludovico rege Francorum, Cenomannensibus et Turonensibus - clericis et populis devotum præbentibus assensum.” The King - therefore kept at Tours the right of advowson which he had - lost at Le Mans. But had Hildebert, like Anselm (see vol. i. - pp. 397, 404), to get leave from his church to go away, or - had Cenomannian electors any share in choosing the - Metropolitan? Orderic (770 D) says that he was chosen “a - clero et populo,” seemingly of Tours, and “nutu Dei.” He - does not mention any action on the part of Le Mans. - - [539] See above, p. 200. - - [540] Vet. An. 305. “Eo tempore inter regem Anglorum et - Heliam comitem bellum gravissimum exortum est, pro eo - scilicet quod idem rex Cenomannensem episcopatum - calumniabatur [cf. N. C. vol. iii. p. 194], ideoque - ordinationi episcopi moliebatur obsistere.” - - [541] Ib. “Cum eum ordinatum audisset, inimicitiarum quas - dudum mente conceperat manifestis bellorum incursibus - patefecit.” He gives no details of the war till the capture - of Helias. - - [542] Ord. Vit. 770 A. “Helias castrum apud Dangeolum contra - Rodbertum Talavacium firmavit, ibique satellites suos ad - defensandos incolas terræ suæ collocavit.” - - [543] See N. C. vol. iv. pp. 552, 652. - - [544] Ord. Vit. 770 A. “Inde præfatus tyrannus, quod vicina - passim depopulari arva non posset, contristatus est. - Intempestivus igitur mense Januario regem inquietavit.” Then - comes his speech; and then, “invitus rex pluribus ex causis - expeditionem inchoavit, sed Rodberto instigante et prospera - pollicente, differre, ne ignavus putaretur, erubuit.” - - [545] Ib. “Principalis ordinatio provinciales competentibus - armaturis munitos adscivit, et ad transitus aquarum - sepiumque difficilesque aditus silvarum in hostes coaptavit. - Tunc rex inimicis nihil nocere potuit.” He now gives his - orders to Robert of Bellême, and we hear no more of him - personally in Maine till after the capture of Helias. - - [546] Ord. Vit. 770 A. “Rex … rancore stomachatus ferocior - in illos exarsit, et Rodberto ingentem familiam bellatorum - suis in municipiis adunare præcepit, et copiosos pecuniæ - sumptus erogavit, unde municipia ejus vallis et muris et - multiplicibus zetis undique clauderentur et bellicosis larga - stipendiariis donativa largirentur.” - - [547] Ib. B. “Oppida nova condidit, et antiqua præcipitibus - fossis cingens admodum firmavit.” - - [548] Ib. “Novem in illo comitatu habuit castra, id est - Blevam et Perretum, Montem de Nube et Soonam, Sanctum - Remigium de Planis, et Orticosam, Allerias et Motam Galterii - de Clincampo, Mamerz, et alias domos firmas quamplurimas.” - On “domus firmæ,” see N. C. vol. ii. p. 625. - - [549] Ord. Vit. 770 B. “Hæc siquidem regio censu argutus - artifex sibi callide præparavit, et in his bestialis sævitiæ - colonos vicinisque suis malefidos collocavit, per quos - arrogantiæ suæ satisfaceret, et atrocem guerram in - Cænomannos exercuit.” Our own chronicler in Stephen’s day - goes even beyond Orderic’s rhetoric. The “devils and evil - men” outdo even the “bestialis sævitiæ coloni.” - - [550] Orderic tells all this out of place, 768 C, D. “Terras - quas prisci antecessores sanctis dederant, sibi mancipavit. - Is jamdudum in Cænomannico consulatu castra violenter in - alieno rure construxit, in possessionibus scilicet sancti - Petri de Cultura et sancti Vincentii martyris, quibus - colonos graviter oppressit.” - - [551] Ib. They fought “in nomine Domini, invocato sancto - Juliano pontifice.” - - [552] See vol. i. p. 273, and Appendix M. - - [553] Ord. Vit. u. s. “Pro quibus Cænomannenses maximas - redemptiones habuerunt, et sic injurias sanctorum et damna - suorum ulti sunt.” - - [554] Ord. Vit. 770 B. “In quadragesima, dum peccatores - cælitus compuncti prava relinquunt, et ad medicamentum - pœnitentiæ pro transactis sceleribus trepidi confugiunt, in - carcere Rodberti plusquam trecenti vinculati perierunt. Qui - multam ei pecuniam pro salute sua obtulerunt, sed crudeliter - ab eo contempti, fame et algore aliisque miseriis - interierunt.” - - [555] I infer as much from the somewhat vague words of - Orderic, 771 A; “Helias comes hebdomada præcedente - rogationes expeditionem super Robertum fecit, et facto - discursu post nonam suos remeare præcepit.” - - [556] Ord. Vit. u. s. “Illis autem redeuntibus, comes cum - septem militibus a turma sua segregatus, prope Dangeolum - divertit, ibique in condensis arboribus et frutectis - latitantes quosdam advertit, in quos statim cum paucis - sodalibus irruit.” So the Biographer (Vet. An. 305); “Dum - comes Helias … hostes qui adversus eum venerant incautius - sequeretur, ab ipsis, proh dolor! comprehensus est.” Wace, - who tells the whole story in the wildest order, and makes - the capture of Helias follow the siege of Mayet, preserves - (15100) the memory of the ambush; - - “Mais Normanz par une envaïe - Unt retenu li conte Helie - Li conte unt pris è retenu - Et el rei l’uat tot sain rendu.” - - [557] Ord. Vit. 771 A. “Rodbertus in insidiis ibi latitabat. - Qui ut paucos incaute discurrentes vidit, vafer militiæque - gnarus ex improviso cum plurimis prosiluit, comitemque mox - et Herveum de Monteforti signiferum ejus et pene omnes alios - comprehendit.” - - The Angevin version (Chron. S. Alb. Andeg. 1098) is somewhat - different; “Helias comes Cenomannorum captus est a Rotberto - de Belesma, _defectione suorum_, iv. kal. Maii, feria iv. et - redditus Willelmo secundo regi Anglorum.” There is nothing - in the fuller story of Orderic to bear out the charge in - Italics; but it might be an easy inference from the Count’s - small attendance. - - [558] Ord. Vit. 776 A. “Prævii exercitus, postquam Balaonem - alacres pervenerunt, per eos qui evaserunt captum esse - audierunt, subitoque post inanem lætitiam ingenti mœrore - pariter inebriati sunt.” - - [559] Ord. Vit. 771 B. “Rodbertus deinde regi Heliam - Rothomagum præsentavit, quem rex honorifice custodiri - præcepit.” I do not think that this is set aside by the - words of the Biographer (Vet. An. 305); “Rotomagum usque - productus, in arce ipsius civitatis in vincula conjectus - est.” For “vincula,” like Orderic’s own “carcer” in 771 B, - is a vague kind of word which need not be always taken - literally. Orderic adds; “Non enim militibus erat crudelis, - sed blandus et dapsilis, jocundus et affabilis.” This, with - the proper emphasis on “militibus,” is the very picture of - the Red King. Wace however, who is also strong about the - fetters, seems to have mistaken it for a character of Helias - (15106); - - “Li reis à Roem l’envéia - E garder le recomenda; - En la tour le rova garder - Et en bones buies fermer. - Helies fu boen chevaliers, - Bels fu è genz è bien pleniers,” &c. - - He goes on with a speech of Helias to his guardians, which - seems to be made out of his speech to the King in Orderic, - 773 B. - - [560] See below, p. 230, note 2. - - [561] Ord. Vit. 771 B. “Felici fortuna rex Guillelmus sibi - arridente tripudiavit, et convocatis in unum Normanniæ - baronibus, ait, Hactenus de nanciscenda hæreditate paterna - negligenter egi, quia pro cupiditate ruris augendi populos - vexare vel homines perimere nolui.” - - [562] Ord. Vit. 771 B. “Nunc autem, ut videtis, me - nesciente, hostis meus captus est, Deoque volente, _qui - rectitudinem meam novit_, mihi traditus est.” Here we get - the sentiment of the wager of battle. - - [563] 2 Kings x. 9. - - [564] Ord. Vit. u.s. “Communi consilio, domine rex, - decernimus ut jussione vestra universus Normannorum - aggregetur exercitus, cum quo nos omnes ad obtinendam - Cænomannorum regionem audacter et alacriter ibimus.” - - [565] Ord. Vit. 771 B. “Franci ergo et Burgundiones, Morini - et Britones, aliæque vicinæ gentes ad liberalem patricium - concurrerunt, et phalanges ejus multipliciter auxerunt.” - - [566] Ib. D. “Gilo de Soleio, de nobilissimis Gallorum - antiquus heros, de familia Henrici regis Francorum, qui - multas viderat et magnas congregationes populorum, in arduo - monte stans, turmas armatorum undique prospexit, et - quinquaginta millia virorum inibi esse autumavit, nec se - unquam citra Alpes tantum insimul exercitum vidisse - asseruit.” - - [567] Cf. N. C. vol. v. p. 268. - - [568] I have quoted Wace’s accurate bit of geography on this - head, N. C. vol. ii. p. 291. - - [569] Ord. Vit. 771 C. “Mense Junio Guillelmus rex per - Alencionem exercitum duxit, multisque millibus stipatus, - hostium regionem formidabilis intravit.” Yet, after his - dealings with Ralph and the others, we read (ib. D), “Prima - regis mansio in terra hostili apud Ruceiam [see below, p. - 232] fuit.” This surely means that his head-quarters still - remained at Alençon, though he doubtless made raids on the - Cenomannian side of the river. - - [570] Ib. “Militum vero turmæ regio jussu Fredernaium - repente adierunt, et cum oppidanis equitibus militari - exercitio ante portas castri aliquantulum certaverunt.” - - [571] See N. C. vol. iv. p. 558. - - [572] See N. C. vol. ii. pp. 269, 624. - - [573] See N. C. vol. iv. p. 652. - - [574] Ord. Vit. 771 C. “A sublimitate vestra requiro, domine - rex, inducias, donec salvus de Cænomannis redeas. Illic enim - præsul et senatorum concio consistit, ibique communis - quotidie de statu reipublicæ tractatus et providentia fit. - Quidquid ibi pactum fuerit vobiscum nos gratanter - subsequemur, et jussionibus vestris in omnibus obsequemur. - Hæc idcirco, domine rex, loco majorum natu consilio, quia, - si sine bello primus defecero pariumque meorum desertor - primus pacem iniero, omni sine dubio generi meo dedecus et - improperium generabo. Membra caput subsequi debent, non - præcedere; et faceti legitimique vernulæ magis optant - obsequi domino quam jubere.” The words here especially the - “faceti legitimique vernulæ,” are doubtless Orderic’s; but - surely the very strangeness of the proposal is almost enough - to show that he is recording a real transaction. - - [575] Ib. D. “Hæc et plura similia dicentem rex laudavit, et - quæ postulata fuerant annuit.” - - [576] Ord. Vit. 771 D. We first heard of Geoffrey as long - ago as 1055. See N. C. vol. ii. p. 167. - - [577] See N. C. vol. iv. p. 553. - - [578] The Biographer (Vet. An. 305) says nothing of the - bargain with Ralph and the other lords; but he says that - “rex Anglorum, cernens civitatem principis sui præsidio - destitutam, quorumdam perfidorum civium assensu illuc - accedere properavit.” We need not take “cives” too strictly; - and if anything like the _commune_ had been set up again, - the lords would be “cives.” - - [579] Chron. S. Alb. And. 1098. “Fulco Andegavorum comes, - Rechin cognominatus, Cenomanniam urbem _ut suam_ sequenti - sabbato recepit.” The date is reckoned from the capture of - Helias. So Ord. Vit. 772 A. “Fulco cognomento Richinus, - Andegavorum comes, ut Heliam captum audivit, Cænomannis, - _quia capitalis dominus erat_, actutum advenit, et a civibus - libenter susceptus, munitiones militibus et fundibulariis - munivit.” The local writer (Vet. An. 305) is silent about - Fulk’s lordship, but remembers the family connexion between - him and Helias; “Quo comperto, Fulco Andegavorum comes - protinus cum filio suo Gaufrido, cui filia Heliæ comitis jam - desponsata fuerat, in civitatem advenit, et consensu civium - in munitionibus civitatis custodiam posuit.” The “consensus - civium” sounds like a formal act of the municipal body. - - [580] Eremburga, who afterwards married the younger Fulk, - seems to have been at an earlier time promised to his - half-brother Geoffrey. See Gesta Consulum, Chroniques - D’Anjou, i. 143. - - [581] Vet. An. 305. “Ibi relicto filio ad alia negotia - properavit.” - - [582] See above, p. 229, note 1. - - [583] Ord. Vit. 771 D. “Sequenti die rex ad Montem Bussoti - castra metatus pernoctavit.” - - [584] Ib. “Tertia die Colunchis venit, et in pratis Sartæ - figi multitudinis tentoria imperavit.” - - [585] See above, p. 221. - - [586] Vet. An. 305. “Circa Colonias vicum episcopalem cum - magno exercitu consedit, ipsumque vicum cum ecclesia quæ - ibidem erat igne concremavit, et omnia quæ ibi episcopus - habebat crudeliter devastavit. Oderat enim illum … pro eo - quod contra calumniam illius episcopatum acceperat.” - - [587] See N. C. vol. i. p. 423. - - [588] Vet. An. 306. “Cives cum bellico apparatu de civitate - egressi, contra ejus exercitum viriliter obsidere - conabantur. Rex autem, perfidorum consilio se intelligens - deceptum, facto vespere, cum imminentis noctis profundum - silentium advenisset, cum exercitu suo clam discessit et - castra vacua hostibus dereliquit. Cives autem mane - surgentes, cum semetipsos ad pugnam præparare cœpissent, - comperto regis abscessu, castra illius invaserunt, et - neminem ibi reperientes ad propria reversi sunt.” Orderic - (772 A) substitutes a drawn battle by daylight, and mentions - the occupation of Ballon; but they both agree in the main - fact that Rufus, for whatever cause, withdrew from before Le - Mans for a season. Ballon is spoken of as “fortissima mota, - per quam totum oppidum adversariis subactum paruit.” - - [589] Some of Orderic’s expressions (772 B) are worth - notice. “Diuturnam obsidionem tenere nequivit. Nam egestas - victus gravis hominibus et equis instabat, quia tempus inter - veteres et novas fruges tunc iter agebat. Sextarius avenæ - decem solidis Cænomannensium vendebatur, sine qua cornipedum - vigor _in occidentalibus climatibus_ vix sustentatur.” Such - a straw as this shows how the crusades had made the East and - its ways present to men’s minds. - - [590] Ord. Vit. ib. “Rex legiones suas relaxavit, et messes - suas in horreis recondi præcepit, atque ut post collectionem - frugum obsidere hostium castra parati essent, commonuit.” - - [591] Ord. Vit. 772 C. “Dum comes et exercitus in tentoriis - suis pranderent, et mendici de oppido accepta stipe obsessis - renuntiarent quod obsidentes tunc, videlicet circa tertiam, - comederent, in armis ordinatæ acies militum subito - prosilierunt, et inermes ad mensam residentes ex insperato - proturbaverunt, et pluribus captis omnes alios fugaverunt.” - He gives the numbers with a few names, and enlarges on their - greatness. - - [592] Ord. Vit. 772 D. “Jussit omnes protinus absolvi [they - are just before called ‘vinculati’], eisque cum suis in - curia foris ad manducandum copiose dari, et per fidem suam - usque post prandium liberos dimitti. Cumque satellites ejus - objicerent quod in tanta populi frequentia facile - aufugerent, rex illorum duritiæ obstitit, et pro vinctis eos - redarguens dixit, Absit a me ut credam quod probus miles - violet fidem suam. Quod si fecerit, omni tempore velut exlex - et despicabilis erit.” - - [593] Ib. “Fulco comes de obsidione ad urbem confugerat, et - in cœnobiis sanctorum exitus rerum exspectabat.” - - [594] See Appendix LL. - - [595] See Appendix LL. - - [596] See N. C. vol. iii. p. 498; vol. iv. p. 73. - - [597] Ord. Vit. 773 A. “Milites electos loricis et galeis et - omni armatura fulgentes.” - - [598] Ib. “Protinus illi, custodibus egressis, cunctas urbis - munitiones nacti sunt, et in principali turre vexillum regis - cum ingenti tropæo levaverunt. In crastinum rex post illos - mille præclaros milites direxit, et pro libitu suo datis - legibus totam civitatem possedit. Regia turris et Mons - Barbatus atque Mons Barbatulus regi subjiciuntur, et - _merito, quia a patre ejus condita noscuntur_.” In these - last words Orderic throws himself fully into the position of - Rufus. The Biographer (Vet. An. 306) says; “Rex recepta - civitate et positis in munitionibus ejus copiosis virorum, - armorum, escarumque præsidiis, _in Angliam transfretavit_.” - This last statement is clearly wrong. - - On the fortresses of Le Mans, see Appendix MM. - - [599] Ord. Vit. 773 A. “Omnes cives in pace novo principi - congratulantur plausibus et cantibus variisque gestibus. - Tunc Hildebertus præsul et clerus et omnis plebs obviam regi - cum ingenti gaudio processerunt, et psallentes in basilicam - sancti Gervasii martyris perduxerunt.” See Appendix LL. - - The joy, one would think, was a little conventional, and - there is no sign of it in the native writer. Cf. N. C. vol. - iii. p. 550. - - [600] See N. C. vol. iii. p. 206. - - [601] See Appendix NN. - - [602] Ord. Vit. 773 D. “Guillelmo Ebroicensium comiti et - Gisleberto de Aquila, aliisque probis optimatibus urbem - servandam commisit, et regiam turrem armis et cibis et - omnibus necessariis opime instructam Galterio Rothomagensi - filio Ansgerii commendavit.” Is this Walter the brother of - the William of whom we heard above? - - [603] Ib. “Radulfus vicecomes et Goisfredus de Meduana, - Robertusque Burgundio, aliique totius provinciæ proceres - regi confœderati sunt, redditisque munitionibus, datis ab eo - legibus solerter obsecundarunt.” - - [604] Ord. Vit. 773 B. See Appendix OO. - - [605] Ib. “Niger et hispidus.” See above, p. 196. - - [606] See Appendix OO. - - [607] Ord. Vit. 773 B. “Callidus _senex_ regalibus consiliis - et judiciis præerat. Quapropter in prætorio principali parem - seu potiorem perpeti metuebat.” See vol. i. pp. 186, 551. - “Senex” seems too strong a word. - - [608] Ord. Vit. 773 C. “Helias conductum per terram regis ab - illo requisivit, quo accepto liber ad sua gaudentibus amicis - remeavit.” - - [609] Ord. Vit. 766 D. “In ipsa nocte terribile signum mundo - manifestatum est. Totum nempe cælum quasi arderet, fere - cunctis occidentalibus rubicundum ut sanguis visum est. - Tunc, ut postmodum audivimus, in eois partibus Christiani - contra ethnicos pugnaverunt, Deoque juvante triumpharunt.” - - [610] Ord. Vit. 766 D. “Guillelmus rex in Galliam usque - Pontesiam discurrit, incendiis et prædis hominumque - capturis, omnium ubertate rerum nobilem provinciam - devastavit.” - - [611] Ord. Vit. 767 A. “Illustres oppidani propugnacula - quidem sua vivaciter protexerunt, sed timoris Dei et humanæ - societatis immemores non fuerunt. Insilientium corporibus - provide benigniterque pepercerunt, sed atrocitatem iræ suæ - pretiosis inimicorum caballis intulerunt. Nam plusquam - septingentos ingentis pretii equos sagittis et missilibus - occiderunt, ex quorum cadaveribus Gallicani canes et alites - usque ad nauseam saturati sunt. Quamplures itaque pedites ad - propria cum rege remeant, qui spumantibus equis turgidi - equites Eptam pertransierant.” - - [612] There is something strange in the casual way in which - Orderic (767 A) brings in so mighty an ally; “Guillelmus rex - cum Guillelmo duce Pictavensium, ductu Almarici juvenis, et - Nivardi de Septoculo, contra Montemfortem et Sparlonem - maximam multitudinem duxit, circumjacentem provinciam - devastavit.” The bargain between the two Williams, of which - this was surely an instalment, comes later, 780 B. - - [613] See Will. Malms. v. 439. - - [614] Had either William ever done personal homage to - Philip? There is no sign of it in the case of William of - England. - - [615] Ord. Vit. 767 A. See note 1 on p. 250. Who is young - Almaric or Amalric? Surely not an unworthy member of the - house of Montfort. I have never made my way to Epernon, - which gives a title to one of the minions of the last - Valois. - - [616] It is odd, after the account in Suger, to read in - Orderic (766 A), “Ludovicus puerili teneritudine detentus - adhuc militare nequibat.” It is just possible that Lewis was - not eager to help the kinsfolk of Bertrada. - - [617] Ord. Vit. 767 B. “Petrus cum filiis suis Ansoldo et - Tedbaldo Mauliam, aliique municipes quos singillatim nequeo - nominare, firmitates suas procaciter tenuere.” On the house - of Maule and its works, see Ord. Vit. 587 et seqq. Peter is - described as “filius Ansoldi divitis Parisiensis.” - - [618] Ord. Vit. 767 A. “Simon juvenis munitiones suas - auxiliante Deo illæsas servavit. Simon vero senex servavit - Neëlfiam.” See the marriage of the younger Simon with Agnes - of Evreux, Ord. Vit. 576 C, and his exploits, 836 C. Of him - in the fourth generation came our own Simon. But, according - to the Art de Vérifier les Dates, “Simon senex” was dead - before this time. - - [619] See N. C. vol. iii. p. 133. - - [620] See note 2 on p. 253. - - [621] Ord. Vit. 767 B. “Interea, dum Guillelmus rex pro - regni negotiis regrederetur in Angliam, treviis utrobique - datis, serena pax Gallis dedit serenitatis lætitiam.” - - [622] Orderic (773 D), immediately after recording the - submission of the Cenomannian castles, goes on to draw a - harrowing picture of the sufferings of England during the - King’s absence; how “Rannulfus Flambardus jam Dunelmi - episcopus, aliique regis satellites et gastaldi, Angliam - spoliabant, et latronibus pejores, agricolarum acervos, ac - negotiatorum congeries immisericorditer diripiebant, nec - etiam sanguinolentas manus a sacris cohibebant.” He then - goes on to describe the special wrongs of the Church, and - adds, “Sic immensi census onera per fas perque nefas - coacervabant, et regi trans fretum, ut in nefariis seu - commodis usibus expenderentur, destinabant. Hujusmodi utique - collectionibus grandia regi xenia præsentabantur, quibus - extranei pro vana laude ditabantur.” They then cried to God - who had raised up Ehud to slay the “rex pinguissimus” Eglon, - which sounds rather like a prayer for the coming of Walter - Tirel. But the chronology is utterly confused. The time of - which Orderic is speaking is the year 1098; yet he makes - Flambard already Bishop of Durham, which he was not till - 1099, and he makes Anselm withstand all these oppressions - and go away because he could not hinder them. But, as we - well know, Anselm was already gone in 1097. - - Henry of Huntingdon also (vii. 20) notices the special - oppression during the continental war. The King “in - Normannia fuit, semper hosticis tumultibus et curis armorum - deditus, tributis interim et exactionibus pessimis populos - Anglorum non abradens sed excorians.” - - [623] Chron. Petrib. 1099. “Se cyng Willelm … to Eastron - hider to lande com and to Pentecosten forman siðe his hired - innan his niwan gebyttlan æt Westmynstre heold.” - - [624] See vol. i. p. 557. - - [625] Chron. Petrib. 1096. “Ðis wæs swiðe hefigtime gear - geond eall Angelcyn ægðer ge þurh mænigfealde gylda, and eac - þurh swiðe hefigtymne hunger, þe þisne eard þæs geares swiðe - gedrehte.” - - [626] This prodigy is put by the Chronicler under two years, - 1098 and 1100. Florence and William of Malmesbury (iv. 331) - place it under the latter year only. See above, p. 246. - - [627] Chron. Petrib. 1098. “Toforan S[~c]e Michaeles mæssan - ætywde eo heofon swilce heo forneah ealle þa niht byrnende - wære.” - - [628] Ib. “Ðis wæs swiðe geswincfull gear þurh manigfealde - ungyld and þurh mycele renas, þe ealles geares ne ablunnon - forneah ælc tilð on mersclande forferde.” - - [629] Chron. Petrib. 1097. “Eac manege sciran þe mid weorce - to Lundenne belumpon wurdon þærle gedrehte, þurh þone weall - þe hi worhton onbutan þone Tur, et þurh þa brycge þe forneah - eall toflotan wæs, and þurh þæs cynges healle geweorc, þe - man on Westmynstre worhte and mænige men þær mid gedrehte.” - This is connected by Henry of Huntingdon (vii. 19) with the - other oppressions of the time and with the departure of - Anselm; “Anselmus vero archiepiscopus recessit ab Anglia, - quia nihil recti rex pravus in regno suo fieri permittebat, - sed provincias intolerabiliter vexabat in tributis quæ - numquam cessabant, in opere muri circa turrim Londoniæ, in - opere aulæ regalis apud Westminstre, in rapina quam familia - sua hostili modo, ubicunque rex pergebat, exercebant.” The - other side of the story comes out in William of Malmesbury - (iv. 321); “Unum ædificium, et ipsum permaximum, domum in - Londonia incepit et perfecit, non parcens expensis dummodo - liberalitatis suæ magnificentiam exhiberet.” We see here how - the “liberalitas” of the Red King looked in the eyes of - those who had to pay for it. But it is hard to understand - Sir T. D. Hardy’s note on the passage of William of - Malmesbury; he is speaking not of the Tower of London, but - of Westminster Hall. - - [630] See Livy, i. 56, 59. - - [631] See N. C. vol. i. pp. 93, 601. - - [632] See N. C. vol. iv. p. 310. - - [633] See note on p. 259. - - [634] See N. C. vol. iii. pp. 64, 340. - - [635] See N. C. vol. i. pp. 306, 317; vol. iii. pp. 66, 540, - 640; vol. iv. p. 59. - - [636] See N. C. vol. v. p. 600. - - [637] Hen. Hunt. vii. 21. “Quam [novam aulam] cum - inspecturus primum introisset, cum alii satis magnam vel - æquo majorem dicerent, dixit rex eam magnitudinis debitæ - dimidia parte carere. Qui sermo regi magno fuit, licet parvi - constasset, honori.” This is copied by Robert of Torigny, - the Waverly Annalist, Bromton, and most likely others. - - [638] Matthew Paris (Hist. Ang. i. 165) copies Henry of - Huntingdon with a few touches, and adds, “nec eam esse nisi - thalamum ad palatium quod erat facturus.” The foundations of - the wall which he designed extended “scilicet a Tamensi - usque ad publicam stratam; tanta enim debuit esse - longitudo.” - - [639] Ann. Wint. 1099. “Rex venit de Normannia, et regis - diademate coronatus est apud Londoniam, ubi Edgarus rex - Scotiæ gladium coram eo portavit.” The authority is not - first-rate; but it is the kind of thing which can hardly - have been invented. - - [640] The Chronicler (1098) records the deaths of Walkelin, - Baldwin, and Turold. Florence (1097, 1098) adds that of - Robert, and in one manuscript that of Abbot Reginald of - Abingdon, who (Hist. Ab. ii. 42) would seem to have died - somewhat earlier, in the year 1097. This prelate is said to - have been in the King’s good graces, and to have been - employed by him in the pious and charitable distribution - from his father’s hoard at the beginning of his reign (see - vol. i. p. 17). There is also just before in the local - History (ii. 41) a writ of Rufus to Peter Sheriff of - Oxfordshire, witnessed by Randolf the chaplain, in which the - Sheriff is bidden to let the Abbot and his monks enjoy all - that they had T. R. E. and T. R. W., and specially to make - good the wrongs done by his reeve Eadwig and others his - officers. Here are the reeves again; but this time an - English reeve oppresses a Norman abbot. - - [641] See vol. i. p. 586. - - [642] See N. C. vol. iv. pp. 372-816. - - [643] Will. Malmb. Gest. Pont. 172, copied in Ann. Wint. - 1098. - - [644] William of Malmesbury (u. s., and see N. C. vol. iv. - p. 817) marks the change in him. The local annalist who - copies him gives Walkelin a warm panegyric; “Erat vir - perfectæ pietatis et sanctitatis, immensæque prudentiæ, et - tantæ demum abstinentiæ ut nec carnes nec pisces comederet.” - (His brother Simeon (Ann. Wint. 1082), afterwards Abbot of - Ely (see N. C. vol. iv. pp. 481, 833), had taught the monks - to give up flesh.) “Semper secum monachos habebat … non enim - minus conventum suum diligebat quam si omnes dii essent.” - This somewhat pagan way of talking has its contradictory in - the words of Hugh of Nonant, Bishop of Coventry (Ric. Div. § - 85); “Ego clericos meos deos nomino, monachos dæmonia.” - - [645] The well-known trick by which Walkelin cut down the - king’s wood at Hempage is recorded in Ann. Wint. 1086. Cf. - Willis, Winchester, 17. - - [646] Ann. Wint. 1093. See Willis, Winchester, 6, 17. - - [647] Ann. Wint. 1097. “Hoc anno transfretavit rex, et - regnum Walkelino et Radulfo Passeflabere commisit.” - - [648] The exact date comes from Ann. Wint. 1098. He dies ten - days after his receipt of the king’s message, which comes - “die natalis Domini post inceptum missarum officium.” - - [649] See N. C. vol. iv. p. 456. - - [650] See vol. i. p. 355. I there carelessly followed the - date, 1093, given in the Monasticon, ii. 431, as the year of - the death of Robert of New Minster. It must be a misprint or - miswriting for 1098. - - [651] See N. C. vol. iv. p. 407. - - [652] On this early hero, son of King Anna of East-Anglia, - whose name has gone through endless corruptions, see - Liebermann’s note (Ungedruckte Anglo-Normannische - Geschichtsquellen, p. 277) to Heremann’s Miracles of Saint - Eadmund. William of Malmesbury (Gest. Pont. 156) writes him - “Germinus,” and not unnaturally says that he knows very - little about him, save that he was brother of Saint - Æthelthryth. His editor turns him into Saint German of - Auxerre; he then wonders that William should know so little - of Saint German of whom he had found a good deal to say - elsewhere, but he does not himself seem the least surprised - to hear Saint German spoken of as brother of Saint - Æthelthryth. - - [653] This and the following stories come from the work of - Heremann just mentioned (Dr. Liebermann’s collection - contains also the Annals of Saint Eadmund’s). This story of - Osgod comes at p. 242. He enters the church, “armillas - bajulans in brachiis ambobus superbe [see N. C. vol. iv. p. - 288], Danico more deaurata securi in humero dependente;” and - presently, “non sincere conatur securim a collo deponere, - vel se arroganter super eam appodiare.” On the way of - carrying the axe, see N. C. vol. iii. p. 767. - - [654] Liebermann, 248 et seqq. Herfast is described as - “duarum Eastengle vicecomitatuum episcopus.” A branch runs - into his eye as he is riding through a wood. A document is - referred to which is witnessed by Hugh of Montfort, Roger - Rigod, Richard of Tunbridge, “et cum eis Lincoliensis - Turoldus simul et Hispaniensis Alveredus.” Liebermann finds - this Turold in the Norfolk Domesday, 172; but as he is - “Lincoliensis,” we should rather look for him in the company - discussed in N. C. vol. iii. p. 778; only Ælfred of Spain - (see N. C. vol. v. pp. 737, 777) is not Ælfred of Lincoln. - - [655] See N. C. vol. i. p. 366. - - [656] Liebermann, 265. “Natione Normannicus cum rege - Willelmo priore quidam fuerat aulicus, Rannulfus quidem - nomine, ceu tunc moris erat, militari perversus in opere.” - This cannot mean Randolf the chaplain. In his vision, - “somniat quod equitans fugam ineat, et sanctus martyr eques - insequutor fiat ejus armatus.” - - [657] Ib. 268. “Robertus de Curzun” is in Domesday R. de - Curcun or Curcon. He appears several times in Domesday in - both the East-Anglian shires (175 _b_, 181 _b_, 187, 299 - _b_, 331 _b_, 336), always as an under-tenant, and commonly - under Roger Bigod. - - [658] The date is given (Liebermann, 274) as 1094, and the - King presently crosses the sea; this fixes it to the - assembly at Hastings. Baldwin has finished the eastern part - of his church (“ad unguem perduxerat suæ novæ et inceptæ - ecclesiæ presbiterii opus, multifariam compositum modis - omnibus, quale decuit esse regium decus”). The King first - grants leave for both ceremonies; then “regia voluntas - alterata prædicto patri Baldwino mandat in hæc verba; - translationem sancti martyris se concedere, dedicationem - vero minime fieri debere.” - - [659] Compare the story of Saint Olaf, above, p. 139. - Flambard here appears in a marked way as “Rannulfus - capellanus,” “capellanus;” see Appendix S. - - [660] “Omnia Romæ venalia,” says Heremann (Liebermann, 251); - but the story is rather of an attempt of Bishop Herfast to - bribe the Conqueror. - - [661] Florence at least (1097) sends him out of the world - with very kindly feelings; “Eximiæ vir religionis, - monasterii S. Eadmundi abbas Baldwinus, natione Gallus, - artis medicinæ bene peritus, iv. kal. Jan. feria iii. in - bona senectute decessit.” He uses the same formula of Earl - Leofric forty years earlier. Several English names occur in - Heremann’s story; among them (Liebermann, 259) “domnus - Eadricus præpositus et cum eo presbyter Siwardus,” who are - spoken of in connexion with the Abbot’s journey to Rome. - - [662] Chron. Petrib. 1099. “Se cyng Willelm … to Pentecosten - forman siðe his hired innan his nywan gebyttlan æt - Westmynstre heold, and þær Rannulfe his capellane þæt - biscoprice on Dunholme geaf, þe æror ealle his gemót ofer - eall Engleland draf and bewiste.” See vol. i. p. 333. - - [663] The date, place, and consecrator are given by his - biographer in Ang. Sac. i. 707, who adds that it was done - “sine ulla exactione professionis, sicut et Willelmus - quondam prædecessor illius.” - - [664] William of Malmesbury (Gest. Pont. 274), after - describing Flambard’s former doings, adds emphatically; - “Quibus artibus fretus, episcopatum Dunelmensem meruit.” But - he scratched out what he at first went on to say――“meruit ut - sanctius ingrederetur, _datis mille libris_.” One would have - looked for a larger sum. - - [665] See N. C. vol. v. p. 631. But it would seem from the - words of the biographer (X Scriptt. 62; Ang. Sac. ii. 709) - that the work was not quite finished till after his death; - “Eo tempore [in the five years’ vacancy that followed] navis - ecclesiæ Dunelmensis monachis operi instantibus peracta - est.” This can hardly mean the vault, which seems later - still. The biographer also describes his other local works, - specially how “urbem hanc, licet natura munierit, muro ipse - reddidit fortiorem et augustiorem.” William of Malmesbury - (Gest. Pont. 274) records new buildings for the monks among - his better deeds. - - [666] The biographer (u. s.) says, “Condidit castellum in - excelso præruptæ rupis super Twedam flumen, ut inde latronum - incursus inhiberet et Scotorum irruptiones. Ibi enim, - _utpote in confinio regni Anglorum et Scotorum_, creber - prædantibus ante patebat incursus, nullo ibidem quo - hujusmodi impetus repelleretur præsidio locato.” From - Simeon’s Gesta Regum we find that the place was Norham and - the date 1121. The words in Italics should be noticed. By - the time of this writer the older position of Lothian was - beginning to be forgotten; it had passed to Northumberland. - The building of the castle suggests to the biographer a - remark on Flambard’s character; “Taliter impulsu quodam - impatiente otii de opere transibat ad opus, nil reputans - factum, nisi factis nova jam facienda succederent.” - - [667] “Jura libertatis episcopii secundum vires contra - extraneos defendebat,” says the biographer. - - [668] “Inerat ei episcopo _magnanimitas_ quam quondam - procurator regni contraxit ex potentia, ut in conventu - procerum vel primus vel cum primis semper contenderet esse, - et inter honorificos honoris locum magnificentius obtineret. - Vastiori semper clamore vultuque minaci magis simulare quam - exhibere.” In all this the servant is very like his master. - - [669] According to William of Malmesbury (Gest. Pont. 274), - he first behaved well for fear of Saint Cuthberht, but - finding that some smaller misdeeds went unpunished, he - presently ventured on greater. But in the existing text he - mentions only that Flambard dragged criminals out of - sanctuary, “ausus scelus omnibus retro annis inauditum.” - William had written, but he found it expedient to strike - out, how the Bishop not only set forbidden food before his - monks, but, “ut magis religionem irritaret, puellas - speciosissimas quæ essent procatioris formæ et faciei eis - propinare juberet, strictis ad corpus vestibus, solutis in - terga crinibus.” - - [670] The details of a very penitent end are given by the - biographer. Among other confessions of sin, the Bishop says. - “plus volui illis nocere quam potui”――the complaint of the - Confessor. The persons who were to be hurt seem to be the - monks and men of the church of Durham. - - [671] See N. C. vol. iv. p. 544. - - [672] Vet. An. 306. “Quasi taurus in latebris silvarum.” - - [673] Ib. “Helias apud castrum Lid et in castris - circumpositis morabatur, atque vires suas … ad nova - certamina, in quantum poterat, reparabat, castella sua vallo - atque fossa muniendo, et sibi vicinorum amicitias atque - auxilia consciscendo.” So Orderic, 773 C; “Quinque oppida - sua cum adjacentibus vicis instruxit, sollicita procuratione - damna supplevit, propriisque negotiis sedulus institit. Ab - Augusto usque ad pascha in pace siluit. Interim tamen quasi - specimine nisus suos hostibus ostenderet, callide cogitavit, - et multotiens cum fidis affinibus tractavit.” - - The five castles may be Château-du-Loir, Lude (Lit), Mayet, - Outille, and Vaux. La Flèche is perhaps taken for granted. - All these, except Lude, are mentioned as we go on. - - [674] Ord. Vit. 774 C. “Sequenti anno Helias post pascha - iterare guerram cœpit, et clam consentientibus indigenis, - depopulari confinia et militiam regis lacessere sategit.” - - [675] Ib. “Mense Junio cum insigni multitudine militum - venit.” Vet. An. 307. “Sequenti æstate magno vicinorum atque - amicorum exercitu congregato.” - - [676] Of the two bridges side by side, the elder is useless, - two arches having been broken down by the Vendeans in 1793. - But there has been fighting not far off in still later - times. - - [677] Ord. Vit. 774 C. “Venit ad Planchias Godefredi, vadum - Egueniæ fluminis pertransivit, regiosque pugiles qui urbem - custodiebant ad conflictum lacessiit.” Vet An. 307. “Non - longe a civitate improvisus advenit; cui milites regis simul - cum populo usque ad Pontem Leugæ hostiliter occurrentes quum - ejus impetum sustinere non possent in fugam conversi sunt. - Ille vero amne transmisso, eos viriliter insecutus,” &c. - These two accounts seem to place the fighting on different - sides of the river. I incline to Orderic’s version on this - ground. A version which carries men across by a ford is - always to be preferred to one which carries them across by a - bridge, as likely to preserve the older tradition. The - bridge may always have been built between the time of the - event and the time of the writer, and he may easily be led - to speak as if it had been there at the earlier time. - Orderic himself speaks of the bridge in 775 B. - - [678] Ord. Vit. 774 C. “Audaces Normanni foras proruperunt, - diuque dimicaverunt, sed numerosa hostium virtute prævalente - in urbem repulsi sunt. Tunc etiam hostes cum eisdem ingressi - sunt, quia eorum violentia coerciti municipes portas - claudere nequiverunt; sed per urbem fugientes vix in arcem - aliasque munitiones introire potuerunt.” Vet. An. 307. “Ille - [Helias] cum suo exercitu civitatem nullo prohibente - audacter ingressus, eos qui in munitionibus erant repentina - obsidione conclusit.” - - [679] Ord. Vit. 774 C. “Cives Heliam multum diligebant, - ideoque dominatum ejus magis quam Normannorum affectabant…. - Porro Helias a gaudentibus urbanis civitate susceptus est.” - Wace (14884) strongly brings out the general zeal for - Helias, though he has his own explanation for it; - - “Cil del Mans od li se teneient, - D’avancier li s’entremetteient, - E li homes de la loée - Esteient tuit à sa criée. - E li baron de la cuntrée - Orent por li mainte medlée; - Mult le preisoent et amoent, - Et à seignor le desiroent, - _Com costumes est de plusors, - Ki conveitent novels seignors_. - Par espeir des veisins chastels - E par consence des Mansels, - Helies el Mans s’embati, - E cil del Mans l’unt recoilli.” - - Helias however was not a new lord, a fact which Wace’s - confused order puts out of sight. On the somewhat different - tone of the Biographer of the Bishops, see Appendix KK. - - [680] Ord. Vit. u. s. “Municipes qui munimenta regis - servabant omnibus necessariis pleniter abundabant, et - idcirco usque ad mortem pro domini sui fidelitate prœliari - satagebant.” - - [681] See N. C. vol. iv. p. 266. - - [682] Ord. Vit. 774 D. “Galterius Ansgerii filius custos - arcis jussit fabris quos secum habebat operari, scoriam - quoque candentem super tecta domorum a balistariis impetuose - jactari. Tunc rutilus Titan sublimes Geminos peragrabat, et - ingenti siccitate mundus arebat, flammeusque turbo - imbricibus aularum insidebat. Sic nimius ignis accensus est, - quo nimium prævalente tota civitas combusta est.” Vet. An. - 307. “Illi qui erant in arce, facto vespere ignem maximum - incendentes, in subjectas domos ardentes faculas summa - instantia jactare cœperunt. Ignis vero flante Euro - convalescens totam civitatem cum magna parte suburbiorum - consumpsit.” For Bishop Hildebert’s view of the matter, see - Appendix KK. - - [683] Vet. An. 307. “Quo incendio populus stupefactus atque - in mœstitiam conversus non satis fidum comiti præstabat - auxilium.” - - [684] The work of destruction which has been done in modern - times at Paris and Rouen seems a trifle compared to the - merciless havoc wrought at Le Mans. It amounts almost to a - physical destruction of the city. The hill has been cut - through to make a road from the modern part of the town to - the river. This has involved breaking through the Roman - walls, cutting through the _Vielle Rome_ and the other - ancient streets, sweeping away the finest of the Romanesque - houses, dividing in short the hill and the ancient city into - two parts severed by a yawning gap. The mediæval wall has - further been broken down and made into a picturesque ruin. - When I was first at Le Mans in 1868, the city was still - untouched; in 1876 the havoc was doing; by 1879 it was done. - Some conceited mayor or prefect doubtless looks on all this - brutal destruction as a noble exploit. - - [685] See N. C. vol. iv. p. 267. - - [686] Vet. An. 307. “Comes contra munitiones machinas atque - tormenta ad jactandos lapides erigens, eos qui intus erant - summo conamine expugnare nitebatur. At illi contra machinas - ejus machinas facientes, omnia ejus molimina frustrabant.” - Ord. Vit. 774 D. “Helias et sui frustra machinis et - assultibus valde laboraverunt; sed contra inexpugnabiles - munitiones nihil prævaluerunt.” So Wace, 14898; - - “Li Mans li unt abandoné, - Tot, forz la tor de la cité. - La tor se tint, Mansels l’asistrent, - Tot environ li borc porpristrent.” - - [687] Ord. Vit. 774 D. “Rodbertus Belesmensis Balaonem - munivit.” - - [688] Ord. Vit. 774 D. “Cursorem suum Amalchisum confestim - ad regem in Angliam direxit.” We do not get the name - anywhere else. Wace (14902) well brings out the opposition - of “Normanz” and “Mansels;” - - “Normanz ki la tor desfendirent - Quant la force des Mancels virent, - En Engleterre unt envéié, - De secors unt li reis préié, - L’adventure li unt mandée, - E des Mansels la trestornée.” - - [689] See Appendix PP. It is _Normant_ and _Mansels_ in the - new edition of Andresen, 9803. - - [690] See Appendix PP. - - [691] Ord. Vit. 775 A. “Ibi, ut moris est in æstate, plures - utriusque ordinis adstabant, et visa rate de Anglia - velificante, ut aliquid novi ediscerent, alacres - exspectabant.” - - [692] Ib. “In primis de rege sciscitantibus ipse certus de - se adfuit nuntius.” So in Greek, αὐτὸς ἄγγελος [autys - angelos]. - - [693] Ib. B. “Et quia ex insperato respondit ridens, - percunctantibus admiratio exorta est, mox et lætitia - omnibus.” - - [694] Ib. “Deinde cujusdam presbyteri equa vectus, cum magno - cœtu clericorum et rusticorum qui pedites eum cum ingenti - plausu conducebant, Bonamvillam expetiit.” - - [695] See N. C. vol. iii. pp. 241, 696. As commonly happens - with so-called local tradition, a tower not earlier than the - thirteenth century is shown as the place of Harold’s - lodging, while in another tower the wide splay of a narrow - window is shown as the strait prison-house of Robert of - Bellême. - - [696] Ord. Vit. 775 B. “Tandem directis legationibus - ingentem exercitum in brevi aggregavit, et hostilem - provinciam depopulatum festinavit.” - - [697] Ib. “Agmen hostium cum Helia duce suo, statim ut regem - citra fretum venisse comperit, absque procrastinatione - fugiens invasam urbem multo pejorem quam invenerat - deseruit.” The turn in the Biographer (Vet. An. 307) is - somewhat different; “Cernens quia nihil proficeret, et quod - ejus paulatim dilaberetur exercitus, regisque timore - perterritus, qui cum maximo exercitu suis properabat - succurrere, propriæ saluti consulens, relicta obsidione - repente a civitate discessit.” In Orderic Helias might be - thought to be carried away by the flight of his followers; - in the Biographer he almost seems to forsake them. - - [698] Ord. Vit. 775 C. “Tunc Helias cum ingenti militia - castro Ligeri morabatur, seseque ad meliora tempora - reservans, exitum rei præstolabatur.” - - [699] Vet. An. 307. “Quo comperto, quatenus timor simul ac - stupor animos civium invaserit, et quanta populi multitudo - cum mulieribus et parvulis relictis omnibus quæ habebant eum - secuta sit … miserum est audire.” - - [700] Ord. Vit. 775 B. “Animosus rex, hostium audito - recessu, pedetentim eos sectatus est, et Cænomannis nec una - nocte eum hospitari dignatus est. Verum concrematam urbem - pertransiens vidit, et ultra pontem Egueniæ in _epitimio_ - spatioso tentoria figi præcepit.” This strange word - “epitimium” must be the same as that which he uses in 659 B, - where the site of the great battle is placed “in _epitumo_ - Senlac.” I there took it to mean a hill, and I gave Orderic - credit for knowing that Senlac was a hill; but I fear that I - must withdraw that praise, as here the word can only mean a - plain. See Ducange in Epitumum. It must be from this word - that some local blunderer first drew the notion, which I - have seen repeated since I wrote my third volume, that - Senlac was once called _Epiton_. - - [701] Ib. This was done, “ne malivoli prædones … _domata_ - ubi ad capessendam quietem strata sibi coaptarent.” Orderic - adds, “sic profecto Valles et Ostilliacum consumpta sunt, - aliaque quamplurima oppida et rura penitus pessumdata sunt.” - Helias, after all, was not Harold. - - [702] Ord. Vit. 775 B. “Robertus de Monteforti princeps - militiæ cum quingentis militibus agmina præcessit, incendium - castri de Vallibus extinxit, munitionemque ad opus regis - confirmavit.” - - [703] On the site of Mayet, and the versions of the siege, - see Appendix QQ. Wace brings it in thus; I quote the text of - Andresen, 9929 (15026 of Pluchet); - - “Li quens Helies s’en parti, - Al chastel del Leir reverti. - Donc ueissiez guerre esmoueir - Del Mans e del chastel del Leir - E de Maiet, un chastelet, - Ou Mansel orent pris recet. - Tresqu’al borc que l’endit la Fesse - Fu la guerre forte e espesse.” - - [704] Ord. Vit. 775 C. “Feria vi. rex Maiatum obsedit, et in - crastinum expugnare castrum exercitui jussit.” - - [705] Ib. “Sabbato, dum bellatores certatim armarentur, et - acrem assultum castrensibus dare molirentur.” - - [706] See N. C. vol. ii. p. 243. - - [707] Ord. Vit. 775 C. “Rex consultu sapientum [mid his - witena geþeaht] Deo gloriam dedit, et pro reverentia - Dominicæ sepulturæ et resurrectionis hostibus pepercit, - eisque trevias usque in Lunæ diem annuit.” - - [708] Ib. “Erant viri constantes dominoque suo fideles, - ideoque pertinaciter pro illo usque ad mortem pugnaces, et - exemplo probabilis probitatis prædicabiles.” - - [709] Ord. Vit. 775 C. “Interea ipsi castrum interius toto - annisu munierunt, et in assultum virgeas crates ictibus - missilium lapidumque opposuerunt.” - - [710] Wace, 15038; - - “Maiet ert bien clos de fossé - Tot environ parfont è lé; - Li reis ros por mielx assaillir - Volt li fossé d’atrait emplir.” - - Robert of Bellême then counsels him; - - “Cil dist el rei k’atrait falleit, - E ke attait querre estueit, - Jà li chastel nel cunquerreit, - Se li fossé d’atrait n’empleit.” - - The King gives his orders; - - “E li reis li dist, en gabant, - Ke à chescun chevalier mant - Roncin, mule, ou palefrei, - Ne pot aveir altre charrei, - Trestuit quant k’il porra baillier, - E fossé fasse tresbuchier.” - - [711] Ib. - - “Robert s’en torna sorriant, - Et à plusors de l’ost gabant - Ke li reis aveit comandé - Ke l’en getast tot el fossé, - Kank’as servanz veindreit as mains, - Tuit li chevals è li vilains.” - - [712] Froissart, i. 152. ed. 1559. “Quand le roy de France - veit les Génevois retourner, il dit, Or tost tuez ceste - ribaudaille; car ils nous empescheront la voye sans raison.” - Compare also the language of Bayard about the German - _roturiers_ quoted in vol. i. p. 173. - - [713] Wace, 15066; - - “Par tels semblanz è par tels diz - Fu li pople tot estormiz. - Del siège s’en torment fuiant, - E plusors vunt par gap criant: - Filz a putains, fuiez, fuiez, - Toz estes morz s’un poi targiez; - Se ci poez estre entrepris, - Jà sereiz tut el fossé mis.” - - [714] Ord. Vit. 775 D. “Cum forinseci pugnatores admodum - insudarent, ut ingenti strue lignorum cingentem fossam - implerent, viamque sibi usque ad palum pluribus - sustentamentis magnopere substratis publice præpararent, - oppidani _flascas prunis ardentibus plenas_ desuper - demittebant, et congestiones rerum quæ ad sui damnum - accumulatæ fuerant, adminiculante sibi æstivo _caumate_ - prorsus concremabant.” What was the exact form of the - “flascæ”? - - [715] Ord. Vit. 775 D. “Hujusmodi conflictu feria ii. mutuo - vexabantur, et hæc videns rex nimis anxiabatur.” - - [716] Ib. “Porro dum ira et dolore torqueretur quod omnes - ibidem conatus illius cassarentur, quidam ad illum de - sublimi zeta lapidem projecit, nutu Dei non illum sed - adstantis athletæ caput immaniter percussit, et ossa cerebro - non parcente ictu commiscuit.” - - [717] Ib. “Illo itaque coram rege miserabiliter occumbente, - subsannatio castrensium continuo facta est, cum alto et - horribili clamore: ‘Ecce rex modo recentes habet carnes; - deferantur ad coquinam, ut ei exhibeantur ad cœnam.’” - - [718] Ib. 776 A. “Prudentes enim consiliarii provide - considerabant quod in munitione validissima magnanimi - pugiles resistebant, munitique firmis conclavibus contra - detectos multiplicibus modis facile prævalebant.” This - argument, one would think, might have been brought against - every military undertaking of the time. - - [719] Ord. Vit. 776 A. “Alio ulciscendi genere inimicus - puniret, et sic suæ genti sospitatem et hostium dejectionem - callide procuraret.” - - [720] Ib. “Mane celeres surrexerunt, ac diversis ad - desolationem hostilis patriæ ferramentis usi sunt. Vineas - enim exstirpaverunt, fructiferas arbores succiderunt, - macerias et parietes dejecerunt, totamque regionem, quæ - uberrima erat, igne et ferro desolaverunt.” - - [721] Vet. An. 307. “Hi qui in civitate remanserant quam - crudeliter et quam inhumane ab hostibus sint oppressi, et - miserum est audire et nimis tædiosæ prolixitatis exponere.” - - [722] Ord. Vit. 776 A. “Rex Cenomannis triumphans accessit.” - - [723] Vet. An. 307. “Nisi regis liberalitas prædonum - sævientium rapacitatem compesceret, diebus illis pro certo - civitas nostra ad extremum pervenisset excidium.” - - [724] This appears from the account of Hildebert’s troubles - somewhat later (Vet. An. 309); first among which comes - “clericorum quos violentia regis ab urbe eliminaverat - dispersio mœstissima.” - - [725] Ord. Vit. 776 A. “Multarum tribubus provinciarum - licentiam remeandi ad sua donavit.” - - [726] Vet. An. 307. “Denique rex civitate pro suo potitus - arbitrio, et positis in ea custodiis, iterum in Angliam - reversus est.” Our own Chronicler (1099) sums up the whole - campaign; “And sona þæræfter [after Pentecost] ofer sǽ - fór, and þone eorl Elias of þære Manige adraf, and bi syððan - on his gewealde gesætte, and swa to S[~c]e Michaeles mæssan - aft hider to lande com.” - - [727] See above, p. 234. - - [728] Ord. Vit. 775 B. “Ildebertus pontifex in Normannia - regem humiliter aggressus est, et ab eo ut familiaris amicus - benigniter susceptus est. Non enim consilio neque præsentia - sui prædictis perturbationibus interfuerat.” - - [729] An. Vet. 308. “Quidam ex clericis a principio - promotioni præsulis invidentes, et dolos tota die contra eum - meditantes, illum apud regem graviter accusabant, nuntiantes - eum conscium fuisse proditionis quando Helias comes - _consentientibus civibus_ civitatem occupavit et milites - regis in munitionibus obsedit. Unde eum rex suspectum - habens, et contra eum semper occasiones quærens, instanter - atque pertinaciter ab eo exigebat ut aut turres ecclesiæ, - _unde sibi damnum illatum fuisse querebatur_, dirui - præciperet, aut post ipsum remota omni occasione in Angliam - transfretaret.” - - [730] Ann. Vet. 308. “Qui licet invitus, regis tamen urgente - imperio, vellet nollet, maris pericula subire coactus est.” - He is himself (Duchèsne, iv. 248) specially eloquent on this - head; “Quia turres ecclesiæ nostræ dejicere nolumus, - transmarinis subjiciendi judiciis, coacti sumus injurias - pelagi sustinere, singularem scilicet molestiam itineris - atque _unicam totius humanæ compaginis dissolutionem_.” - - [731] Vet. An. 308. “Ibique eum rex iterum stimulantibus - æmulis de turrium destructione cœpit vehementer urgere, - eique ob hanc causam intolerabilem inferre molestiam.” - - [732] Ib. “Obtulit pontifici maximum pondus auri et argenti, - unde sepulcrum beati Juliani honorifice, immo ad ignominiam - sempiternam, fieri potuisset. Nam talis instabat conditio ut - statim turres ecclesiæ delerentur.” He calls this a “pactio - toxicata.” - - [733] Ib. “Nos caremus in partibus nostris artificibus qui - tantum opus congrue noverint operari; exhinc regiæ congruit - dispositioni tam diligens opera et impensa, in cujus regno - et mirabiles refulgent artifices et mirabilem operantur - cælaturam.” See N. C. vol. iv. pp. 41, 85, 86, 93. - - [734] Ib. “Detulit plane duo pretiosa cimbala, et optimam - cappam de pallio et duas pelves argenteas cum aliis - ornamentis.” - - [735] See Appendix RR. - - [736] See Appendix RR. - - [737] See vol. i. p. 566. - - [738] See vol. i. p. 622. - - [739] The true text of the Annales Cambriæ, 1099, is clearly - that which the editor thrusts into a note; “Cadugaun filius - Bledin de Hibernia rediens, pacificatus est cum Francis et - partem regni sui accepit. Lewelin filius Cadugaun ab - hominibus de Brecheiniauc occiditur. Grifud filius Kenan - Moniam obsedit.” - - The Brut might imply a peaceful settlement of Gruffydd. - - [740] Ann. Camb. 1099. - - [741] See above, p. 146. - - [742] Chron. Petrib. 1099. “Ðises geares eac on S[~c]e - Martines Mæssedæg, asprang up to þan swiðe sæ flod, and swa - mycel to hearme gedyde swa nan man ne gemunet, þæt hit æfre - æror dyde and wæs þæs ylcan dæges luna prima.” This is - translated in the Roman annals in Liebermann, p. 47. - - [743] Chron. Petrib. 1099. “And Osmund biscop of Searbyrig - innon aduent forðferde.” Florence gives the exact date, - December 3. - - [744] There is nothing special to note as to the authorities - for this chapter. Our main story still comes from the same - sources from which it has long come. Possibly the importance - of Orderic, long growing, grows yet greater at the very end - of our tale. And we still make a certain use of Wace. The - story of the death of William Rufus is one of those in which - it is desirable to look in all manner of quarters to which - we should not commonly think of turning, not so much in - search of facts, as to see how such a story impressed men’s - minds, and what forms it took in various hands. - - [745] See the entry in the Chronicle, 1087. - - [746] See Plutarch, Periklês, 8. - - [747] See N. C. vol. iii. p. 161. - - [748] Ord. Vit. 781 D. We shall come to this again. - - [749] Ann. Burton, 1100. - - [750] The three assemblies are recorded in the Chronicle in - a marked way; “On þison geare se cyng W. heold his hired to - X[~p]es mæssa on Gleaweceastre, and to Eastron on - Winceastre, and to Pentecosten on Westmynstre.” - - [751] See vol. i. p. 623. - - [752] The portrait of Sibyl is drawn by William of - Malmesbury, iv. 389, where she appears as “Filia Willelmi de - Conversana, quam rediens in Apuliam duxerat, cujus - elegantissimæ speciei prodigium vix ullius disertitudinis - explicabit conatus.” So Orderic, 780 A; “Hæc nimirum bonis - moribus floruit, et multis honestatibus compta, his qui - noverant illam amabilis extitit.” The continuator of William - of Jumièges (viii. 14) goes further; “Fuit vero prædicta - comitissa pulcra facie, honesta moribus, sapientia præclara, - et aliquando absente duce ipsa melius per se negotia - provinciæ, tam privata quam publica, disponebat, quam ipse - faceret si adesset.” Wace (15422) calls her Sebire, and - speaks only of her personal beauty. She was the mother of - William Clito who plays so conspicuous a part in Henry’s - reign. According to William of Malmesbury she died at his - birth in 1103, but Orderic (810 A) tells a strange story how - she was poisoned by Agnes the widow of the old Earl Walter - Giffard, who hoped to marry the Duke. The more general - statement in the continuation of William of Jumièges is to - the same effect. - - [753] Will. Malms, iv. 389. “Pecuniam infinitam, quam ei - socer dotis nomine annumeraverat, ut ejus commercio - Normanniam exueret vadimonio, ita dilapidavit ut pauculis - diebus nec nummus superesset.” - - [754] All these stories are told by William of Malmesbury, - v. 439. - - [755] Orderic (780 B) allows only thirty thousand. In - William of Malmesbury (iv. 349, 383) they have grown into - sixty thousand. Figures of this kind, whether greater or - smaller, are always multiples of one another. - - [756] Ord. Vit. 780 B. “Is nimirum decrevit Guillelmo Ruffo, - regi Anglorum, Aquitaniæ ducatum, totamque terram suam - invadiare, censumque copiosum abundanter ab illius ærario - haurire, unde nobiliter expleret iter, quod cupiebat inire. - Eloquentes itaque legatos ad regem direxit eique quod mente - volvebat per eosdem insinuavit.” - - [757] Orderic (780 C) describes the ambition of the - “pomposus sceptriger” whose yearning for dominion was like - the thirst of a dropsical man, and then tells us, “Maximam - jussit classem præparari, et ingentem equitatum de Anglia - secum comitari, ut pelago transfretato, in armis ceu leo - supra prædam præsto consisteret, fratrem ab introitu - Neustriæ bello abigeret. Aquitaniæ ducatum pluribus argenti - massis emeret, et, obstantibus sibi bello subactis, usque ad - Garumnam fluvium _imperii sui_ fines dilataret.” - - [758] See N. C. vol. iv. p. 539. - - [759] I have quoted the passages in N. C. vol. v. p. 99. - - [760] See N. C. vol. iv. p. 640. - - [761] See N. C. vol. iv. pp. 609, 650, 843. - - [762] See N. C. vol. iv. p. 843. Orderic’s account (780 C) - is; “Tunc circa rogationes lugubris eventus in Nova-foresta - contigit. Dum regii milites venatu exercerentur, et damulas - vel cervos catapultis sauciare molirentur, quidam miles - sagittam, ut agrestem feram vulneraret, emisit, egregiumque - juvenem Ricardum Rodberti ducis filium casu percussit.” - - [763] Orderic goes on to say, “Eques, infortunio gravi - territus, ad sanctum Pancratium statim confugit, ibique mox - monachus factus genuinam ultionem ita evasit.” “Sanctus - Pancratius” means Lewes, the foundation of William of - Warren. - - [764] So says Orderic, u. s. - - [765] See above, p. 5. - - [766] Florence (1100) gives a long list of wonders. Among - others, “Multis Normannis diabolus in horribili specie se - frequenter in silvis ostendens, plura cum eis de rege et - Rannulfo et quibusdam aliis locutus est.” Orderic (781 B) - does not draw this national distinction, and speaks of - visions in holier places; “Mense Julio (1100), dum regia - classis regalis pompæ apparatu instrueretur, et ipse - pervicaciter, immensa pretiosi metalli pondera undecunque - congerens, prope fretum præstolaretur, horrendæ visiones de - rege in cœnobiis et episcopiis ab utrisque ordinibus visæ - sunt, unde in populis publicæ collocutiones in foris et - cœmeteriis passim divulgatæ sunt, ipsum quoque regem minime - latuerunt.” - - [767] See that strangest of all stories which I have - referred to in Appendix G. - - [768] The consecration and the bishops who had a hand in it - are recorded by Florence, 1100. But he does not mention the - other Gloucester stories; these come from Orderic, who does - not mention the consecration. The two accounts thus fit in - to one another. We see why the monks of Gloucester should be - in a special fit of exalted devotion. - - [769] Ord. Vit. 781 B, C. The dreamer was “quidam monachus - bonæ famæ, sed melioris vitæ.” He at last understands - “sanctæ virginis et matris ecclesiæ clamores pervenisse ad - aures Domini, pro rapinis et turpibus mœchiis, aliorumque - facinorum sarcina intolerabili, quibus rex et pedissequi - ejus non desistunt divinam legem quotidie transgredi.” - - [770] Ib. “His auditis, venerandus Serlo abbas commonitorios - apices edidit, et amicabiliter de Gloucestra regi direxit, - in quibus illa quæ monachus in visu didicerat luculenter - inseruit.” This letter of Serlo’s will appear under various - shapes. - - [771] Ib. C, D. - - [772] “Fulcheredus, Sagiensis fervens monachus, - Scrobesburiensis archimandrita primus, in divinis - tractatibus explanator profluus, de grege seniorum electus, - in pulpitum ascendit.” - - [773] “Quasi prophetico spiritu plenus, inter cætera - constanter vaticinatus dixit.” - - [774] “Effrenis enim superbia ubique volitat, et omnia, si - dici fas est, etiam stellas cæli conculcat.” - - [775] See above, p. 310. - - [776] “Ecce arcus superni furoris contra reprobos intensus - est, et sagitta velox ad vulnerandum de pharetra extracta - est. Repente jam feriet, seseque corrigendo sapiens omnis - ictum declinet.” I tell the tale as I find it; it is easy to - guess that the Abbot’s preaching put it into some one’s head - to shoot the King; it is equally easy to guess that the - story of the sermon is a legend suggested by the fact that - the King was shot. - - [777] See N. C. vol. iv. p. 498. - - [778] On these various stories of the death of Rufus and of - the warnings which went before it, see Appendix SS. - - [779] See N. C. vol. i. p. 276. - - [780] As to the New Forest all accounts agree. I get - Brockenhurst as the immediate spot from Geoffrey Gaimar, - Chroniques Anglo-Normandes, i. 51; - - “Li rois estoit alé chacer - Vers Bukerst od li archer: - C’est en la Noeve-Forest - Un liu qi ad non Brokeherst.” - - For _Bukerst_ in the second line another MS. has _Brokehest_. - - [781] See above, p. 45. - - [782] See below, p. 345. - - [783] See Appendix SS. - - [784] See vol. i. p. 380. - - [785] See Appendix SS. - - [786] Geoffrey Gaimar (Chroniques Anglo-Normandes, i. 52); - - “Ensemble vout amdiu parlant, - De meinte chose esbanoiant, - Tant qe Wauter prist à gaber - Et par engin au roi parler; - Demanda lui en riant - A quei il sojournoit tant.” - - [787] Geoffrey Gaimar, Chron. Anglo-Norm. i. 52; - - “Breton, Mansel et Angevin.” - - [788] See vol. i. p. 411. - - [789] Geoffrey Gaimar, u. s.; - - “Cil de _Boloine_ te tienent roi. - Eustace, cil de Boloigne, - Poez mener en ta besoigne.” - - Another manuscript reads, - - “Cil de _Burgoine_ te unt pur roi.” - - [790] Ib. - - “D’ici q’as monz merrai ma guet, - En occident puis m’en irrai, - A Peiters ma feste tendrai. - Si jo tant vif, mon fié i serra.” - - [791] Geoffrey Gaimar, Chroniques Anglo-Normandes, i. 52; - - “De male mort pussent morir - Li Burgoinon et li François, - Si souzget soient as Englois!” - - Cf. the use of the word _English_ in Orderic and Suger which - I have commented on in N. C. vol. v. p. 835. - - [792] Will. Malms. iv. 333. “Tanta vis erat animi, ut - quodlibet sibi regnum promittere auderet. Denique ante - proximam diem mortis interrogatus ubi festum suum in natali - teneret, respondit Pictavis, quod comes Pictavensis, - Jerosolymam ire gestiens, ei terram suam pro pecunia - invadaturus dicebatur.” See above, p. 313. - - [793] Geoffrey Gaimar, u. s.; - - “Li rois par _gab_ li avoit dit; - Et cil come fel le requit - En son queor tint la félonie, - Purpensa soi d’une estoutie: - S’il jà lui veeir porreit, - Tut autrement le plait irroit.” - - [794] Chron. Petrib. 1100. “And þæræfter on morgen æfter - Hlammæsse dæge wearð se cyng Willelm on huntnoðe fram his - anan men mid anre fla ofsceoten and syððan to Winceastre - gebroht, and on þam biscoprice bebyrged.” The _bishopric_ of - course means the Old Minster, the _episcopium_. - - [795] “Radulphus de Aquis,” says Giraldus, De Inst. Princ. - 176. See below, p. 335. We are not told which of all the - places called Aquæ is meant. - - [796] See Appendix SS. - - [797] On the different versions of the death of Rufus, see - Appendix SS. - - [798] William of Malmesbury (iv. 333) describes the process - with some pomp of words; “Pridie quam excederet vita, vidit - per quietem se phlebotomi ictu sanguinem emittere, radium - cruoris in cælum usque protentum lucem obnubilare, diem - interpolare.” But the common word for being bled is - “minuere” (see Ducange in voc.), and the many monastic rules - which forbid the practice of bleeding except at stated times - would seem to imply that the process, if not liked in - itself, was at least made use of as an excuse for idleness. - - [799] Ib. “Lumen inferri præcipit.” This is a comment on the - reform of Henry (v. 393), “Lucernarum usum noctibus in curia - restituit, qui fuerat tempore fratris intermissus.” - - [800] Ib. “Quod ei a secretis erat.” Robert is also - described as “vir magnatum princeps.” - - [801] Ib. “Monachus est et causa nummorum monachaliter - somniat; date ei centum solidos.” - - [802] “Seriis negotiis cruditatem indomitæ mentis eructuans” - is the odd phrase of William of Malmesbury. - - [803] Will. Malms. v. 333. “Ferunt, ea die largiter - epulatum, crebrioribus quam consueverat poculis frontem - serenasse.” This phrase is almost equally odd with the last. - - [804] Ord. Vit. 782 A. “Cum hilaris cum clientibus suis - tripudiaret, ocreasque suas calcearet, quidam faber illuc - advenit, et sex catapultas ei præsentavit.” - - [805] “Justum est, ut illi acutissimæ dentur sagittæ, qui - lethiferos inde noverit ictus infigere.” - - [806] “Abbatis sui litteras regi porrexit, _quibus auditis_, - rex in cachinnum resolutus est.” - - [807] Ord. Vit. 782 A. “Gualteri, fac rectum de his quæ - audisti. At ille: Sic faciam, domine.” I do not quite see - what these words mean. - - [808] “Ex simplicitate nimia, mihi tot negotiis occupato - somnia stertentium retulit, et per plura terrarum spatia - scripto etiam inserta destinavit. Num prosequi me ritum - autumat Anglorum, qui pro sternutatione et somnio vetularum - dimittunt iter suum seu negotium?” - - [809] He is brought in as “Henricus comes frater ejus.” - - [810] “Cum rex et Gualterius de Pice cum paucis sodalibus in - nemore constituti essent,” says Orderic; “Solus cum eo - [Walterio] remanserat,” says William of Malmesbury. - - [811] This is the version of Geoffrey Gaimar. See Appendix - SS. - - [812] Thus the English took each a morsel of earth in their - mouths before the battle of Azincourt. See Lingard, v. 498. - - [813] This is the version of Benoît de Sainte More. See - Appendix SS. - - [814] So William of Malmesbury. See Appendix SS. - - [815] So Orderic. See Appendix SS. - - [816] As in Benoît’s account. So Matthew Paris in the - Historia Anglorum. See Appendix SS. This seems to have - become the most popular version. - - [817] This is one of two accounts which reached Eadmer. - Hist. Nov. 54. “Quæ sagitta, utrum, sicut quidam aiunt, - jacta ipsum percusserit, an, quod plures affirmant, illum - pedibus offendentem superque ruentem occiderit, disquirere - otiosum putamus.” - - [818] This tale, some of the details of which have become - popular, is preserved by Matthew Paris, and in a fuller form - by Knighton. See Appendix SS. - - [819] This is from Giraldus Cambrensis. See Appendix SS. - - [820] This is the line taken by Florence. It is at this - point that he brings in his account of the making of the New - Forest (see N. C. vol. iv. p. 841), and of the deaths of the - two Richards in it. He then adds; “In loco quo rex occubuit - priscis temporibus ecclesia fuerat constructa, sed patris - sui tempore, ut prædiximus, erat diruta.” Sir Francis - Palgrave naturally makes the most of this, and with fine - effect; iv. 9, 680, 682. - - [821] Orderic (782 D) says that they brought his body, - “veluti ferocem aprum venabulis confossum.” We get the same - idea a little improved in William of Newburgh (i. 2), who - says, “Quippe _in venatione sagitta proprii militis_ homo - ferocissimus pro fera confossus interiit.” (The words in - Italics must be a translation of the Chronicle.) The full - developement comes in Thomas Wykes (Ann. Mon. iv. 13), who - must surely have had William of Newburgh before him. He, - like Giraldus and others (see above, p. 322), looked on - Rufus as the maker of the New Forest, if not as the inventor - of forests in general. “Rex Willelmus Angliæ, dictus Rufus, - qui pro eo quod accipitrum et canum ludicris quasi se totum - dederat, totum fere regnum Angliæ in multorum perniciem et - omnium regnicolarum dispendium primus afforestavit, - propellentibus eum ad interitum peccatis suis, a quodam - milite suo Waltero Tyrel, in Nova Foresta, tanquam pro fera, - confossus sagitta quadam, vulneratus interiit.” - - [822] This is Geoffrey Gaimar’s story (i. 55). See Appendix - TT. - - [823] - “Li filz Ricard erent cil dui, - Quens Gilebert e dan _Roger_, - Cil furent preisé chevaler.” - - But _Roger_ ought to be _Richard_. - - [824] This is from Orderic, whose story is essentially the - same as that of William of Malmesbury. See Appendix TT. - - [825] This is all brought out most plainly by Orderic; but - the less distinct words of William of Malmesbury and others - in no sort contradict Orderic, and in truth look the same - way. - - [826] See N. C. vol. iv. p. 599. - - [827] See Appendix TT. - - [828] Eadmer, Vit. Ans. ii. 6. 55. “Intulit idem venerabilis - abbas sub testimonio veritatis proxime præterita nocte - eumdem regem ante thronum Dei accusatum, judicatum, - sententiamque damnationis in eum promulgatam.” - - [829] Ib. 56. “Juvenis ornatu ac vultu non vilis” speaks to - the clerk, “qui prope ostium cameræ jacebat, et necdum - dormiens, oculos tamen ad somnum clausos tenebat.” The - message runs thus; “Pro certo noveris quia totum dissidium - quod est inter archiepiscopum Anselmum et Willelmum regem - determinatum est atque sedatum.” - - [830] Eadmer, Vit. Ans. ii. 6. 56. “Sequenti autem nocte - inter matutinas unus nostrum clausis oculis stabat et - psallebat. Et ecce illi quidam chartulam admodum parvam - legendam exhibuit. Aspexit, et in ea, obiit rex Willelmus, - scriptum invenit. Confestim aperuit oculos, et nullum vidit - præter socios.” None of these stories are found in the - Historia Novorum, but they are copied by Roger of Wendover, - ii. 159. - - [831] Matthew Paris, Hist. Angl. i. 71. “Eadem hora comes - Cornubiæ in silva ab illa qua hoc acciderat per duas dietas - distante, dum venatum iret, et solus casu a suis - derelinqueretur sodalibus, obvium habuit unum magnum pilosum - et nigrum hircum ferentem unum regem nigrum et nudum, per - medium pectoris sauciatum.” - - [832] Ib. “Et adjuratus hircus per Deum trinum et unum, quid - hoc esset, respondit, Fero ad judicium suum regem vestrum, - imo tyrannum, Willelmum Rufum. Malignus enim spiritus sum, - et ultor malitiæ suæ, qua desævit in ecclesiam Christi; et - hanc necem suam procuravi, imperante prothomartire Angliæ - beato Albano, qui conquestus est Domino quod in insulam - Britanniæ, cujus ipse fuit primus sacrator, supra modum - grassaretur. Comes igitur hæc statim sociis enarravit.” - Wonders, though not quite so wonderful as this, reached - Devonshire as well as Cornwall. Walter Map (223) tells us, - “Eadem die Petro de Melvis, viro de partibus Exoniæ, persona - quædam vilis et fœda, telum ferens cruentum, cursitans - apparavit dicens, Hoc telum hodie regem vestrum perfodit.” - - [833] Chron. Petrib. 1100. “Swa þæt þæs dæges þe he gefeoll - he heafde on his agenre hand þæt arcebiscoprice on - Cantwarbyrig, and þæt bisceoprice on Winceastre, and þæt on - Searbyrig, and xi. abbotrices, ealle to gafle gesette.” This - is copied by various writers. - - [834] See vol. i. p. 279. - - [835] Chron. Petrib. 1100. “On þæne Þunresdæg he wæs - ofslagen, and þæs on morgen bebyrged. And syðþan he bebyrged - wæs, þa witan þe þa neh handa wæron his broðer Heanrig to - cynge gecuran.” - - [836] This story, to which we have already referred (see - above, p. 321), is told by Wace, 15194 et seqq. The words of - the prophetess are; - - “Amis, dist-el, or sai, or sai, - Une novele te dirai; - Henris iert Reis hastivement, - Se mis augures ne ment; - Remembre tei de ço k’ai dit, - Ke cil iert Reis jusqu’à petit; - Se ço n’est veir ke jo te di, - Dire porras ke j’ai menti.” - - Here again I can only tell the story as I find it in a - writer whose authority at this stage is not first-rate. It - is easy to say (see N. C. vol. v. p. 824) that it points to - a known plot for the King’s murder. It is equally easy to - say that the story is a mere fable suggested by what - followed. In short, where there is no real evidence, it is - easy to make any guesses that we think good. - - [837] Wace, 15194 seqq.; - - “Jà esteit près del boiz venuz, - Quant un hoem est del boiz issuz, - Poiz vindrent dui, poiz vindrent trei, - Poiz noef, poiz dis à grant desrei, - Ki li distrent la mort li rei.” - - Wace’s way of piling up numbers reminds us of his arithmetic - at the assembly of Lillebonne. See N. C. vol. iii. p. 295. - - [838] Ib. - - “Et il ala mult tost poignant - La à il sout la dolor grant, - Dunc crust li dols, dunc crust li plors, - E crust la noise è li dolors.” - - [839] Ord. Vit. 782 C. “Henricus concito cursu ad arcem - Guentoniæ, ubi regalis thesaurus continebatur, festinavit, - et claves ejus, ut genuinus hæres, _imperiali_ jussu ab - excubitoribus exegit.” - - [840] See the story in Plutarch, Cæsar, 25; Merivale, ii. - 154. - - [841] Ord. Vit. u. s. “Legaliter, inquit, reminisci fidei - debemus, quam Rodberto duci, germano tuo, promisimus. Ipse - nimirum primogenitus est Guillelmi regis filius, et ego et - tu, domine mi Henrice, hominium illi fecimus. Quapropter tam - absenti quam præsenti fidelitas a nobis servanda est in - omnibus.” “Legaliter” is of course to be construed - “loyally.” - - [842] Ord. Vit. 782 C. “Inter hæc aspera lis oriri cœpit, et - ex omni parte multitudo virorum illuc confluxit, atque - præsentis hæredis qui suum jus calumniabatur virtus crevit. - Henricus manum ad capulum vivaciter misit et gladium exemit, - nec extraneum quemlibet per frivolam procrastinationem - patris sceptrum præoccupare permisit.” - - Not only is all this graphically told; but every word is of - political importance. Whether the exact words which are put - into the mouth of William of Breteuil are his or Orderic’s, - they clearly set forth the doctrines which were creeping in. - Orderic himself speaks for the English people, as the - English people doubtless did speak. - - [843] Orderic and William of Malmesbury are the fullest on - the election; but it is distinctly marked everywhere. See - Appendix UU. - - [844] See N. C. vol. i. p. 486. - - [845] See N. C. vol. iii. p. 529. - - [846] The speed with which events happened is strongly - marked by the Chronicler. As soon as Henry is chosen, “he - þærrihte þæt biscoprice on Winceastre Willelme Giffarde - geaf, and siþþan to Lundene for.” The appointment is also - recorded by Florence and Henry of Huntingdon. William of - Malmesbury (Gest. Pont. 110) says, when speaking of a - somewhat later time, “Willelmus fuerat adhuc recenti - potestate Henrici violenter ad Wintoniensem episcopatum - electus, nec electioni assentiens, immo eligentes asperis - convitiis et minis incessens.” Henry of Huntingdon (De - Contemptu Mundi, 315) speaks of him as “vir nobilissimus.” - Orderic (783 C) marks his former office; “Guillelmo - cognomento Gifardo, qui defuncti regis cancellarius fuerat, - Guentanæ urbis cathedram commisit.” - - [847] See the references in N. C. vol. v. p. 225. - - [848] Will. Malms. v. 393. “Hæc eo studiosius celebrabantur, - ne mentes procerum electionis quassarentur pœnitudine, quod - ferebatur rumor Robertum Normanniæ comitem ex Apulia - adventantem jam jamque affore.” - - [849] Ord. Vit. 783 B. “Henricus, cum Rodberto, comite de - Mellento, Lundoniam properavit.” - - [850] Maurice is mentioned as the consecrator by Orderic, - 783 B, and by the Chronicler. Orderic is wrong when he gives - as a reason not only that Anselm was absent, but that Thomas - of York was dead. But he was hard to get at, and as he died - three months later, he may very likely have been sick. On - the alleged consecration by Thomas, see Appendix UU. - - [851] See vol. i. p. 16, and N. C. vol. iii. p. 561. - - [852] Chron. Petrib. 1100. “On þan Sunnandæge þæræfter - toforan þam weofode on Westmynstre Gode and eallan folce - behét ealle þa unriht to aleggenne þe on his broðer timan - wæran, and þa betstan lage to healdene þe on æniges cynges - dæge toforan him stodan.” So more briefly Henry of - Huntingdon; “Sacratus est ibi a Mauricio Londoniensi - episcopo, melioratione legum et consuetudinum optabili - repromissa.” This is the promise, the charter published the - same day was its first fulfilment. These special provisions - must have been an addition to the ordinary coronation oath, - which was taken by Henry in the form prescribed in the - office of Æthelred. Stubbs, Select Charters, 95. - - [853] Chron. Petrib. “And hine syððan æfter þam se biscop of - Lundene Mauricius to cynge gehalgode, and him ealle on - þeosan lande to abugan, and aðas sworan, and his men - wurdon.” - - [854] William of Malmesbury (v. 393) is emphatic on the - popular joy; “Lætus ergo dies visus est revirescere populis, - cum, post tot anxietatum nubila, serenarum promissionum - infulgebant lumina.” He adds that Henry was crowned - “certatim plausu _plebeio_ concrepante.” The adjective is - important. Orderic (783 C, D) takes the opportunity for an - elaborate panegyric on Henry and his reign. He had already - (782 D), before William is buried, said, “Hoc antea dudum - fuit a Britonibus prophetatum, et hunc Angli optaverunt - habere dominum, quem nobiliter in solio regni noverant - genitum.” The prophecy is given in full in 887 D (see N. C. - vol. v. p. 153); “Succedet Leo justitiæ, ad cujus rugitum - Gallicanæ turres et insulani dracones tremebunt.” For an - “insularis draco” of the same class, see vol. i. p. 124. - - [855] Florence marks the charter as granted on the day of - the coronation. He gives a good summary; - - “Qui consecrationis suæ die sanctam Dei ecclesiam, quæ - fratris sui tempore vendita erat et ad firmam erat posita, - liberam fecit, ac omnes malas consuetudines et injustas - exactiones quibus regnum Angliæ injuste opprimebatur, - abstulit, pacem firmam in toto regno suo posuit, et teneri - præcepit: legem regis Eadwardi omnibus in commune reddidit, - cum illis emendationibus quibus pater suus illam emendavit: - sed forestas quas ille constituit et habuit in manu sua - retinuit.” - - [856] See vol. i. pp. 335-341, and N. C. vol. v. pp. - 373-381. - - [857] Select Charters, 96. “Sciatis me Dei misericordia et - communi consilio baronum totius regni Angliæ ejusdem regni - regem coronatum esse.” - - [858] Ib. 97. “Sanctam Dei ecclesiam imprimis liberam facio, - ita quod nec vendam nec ad firmam ponam.” - - [859] See vol. i. p. 338. - - [860] See N. C. vol. v. p. 374. - - [861] Ib. p. 376. - - [862] Select Charters, 97. “Monetagium commune quod - capiebatur per civitates et comitatus quod non fuit tempore - regis Edwardi, hoc ne amodo fiat omnino defendo. Si quis - captus fuerit sive monetarius sive alius cum falsa moneta, - justitia recta inde fiat.” - - [863] See vol. i. pp. 345, 394. - - [864] Select Charters, 97. “Et si quis pro hæreditate sua - aliquid pepigerat, illud condono, et omnes relevationes quæ - pro rectis hæreditatibus pactæ fuerant.” - - [865] See vol. i. p. 338. - - [866] Select Charters, 98. “Si quis baronum sive hominum - meorum forisfecerit, non dabit vadium in misericordia - pecuniæ, sicut faciebat tempore patris mei vel fratris mei, - sed secundum modum forisfacti, ita emendabit sicut - emendasset retro a tempore patris mei, in tempore aliorum - antecessorum meorum.” - - [867] See N. C. vol. i. p. 758; vol. v. pp. 444, 881. - - [868] Select Charters, 98. “Murdra etiam retro ab illa die - qua in regem coronatus fui omnia condono: et ea quæ amodo - facta fuerint, juste emendentur secundum lagam regis - Edwardi.” - - [869] Ib. “Forestas communi consensu baronum meorum in manu - mea retinui, sicut pater meus eas habuit.” - - [870] Ib. “Militibus qui per loricas terras suas defendunt, - terras dominicarum carrucarum suarum quietas ab omnibus - gildis, et omni opere, proprio dono meo concedo, ut sicut - tam magno allevamine alleviati sint, ita se equis et armis - bene instruant ad servitium meum et ad defensionem regni - mei.” We have had an example of this tenure “per loricam” in - the case of an Englishman T. R. W. in N. C. vol. iv. p. 339. - - [871] Select Charters, 98. “Lagam Edwardi regis vobis reddo - cum illis emendationibus quibus pater meus eam emendavit - consilio baronum suorum.” The half-English, half-Latin, form - “laga” should be noticed. - - [872] See N. C. vol. iv. p. 325. - - [873] See N. C. vol. v. p. 149. - - [874] Select Charters, 98. “Si quis aliquid do rebus meis - vel de rebus alicujus post obitum Willelmi regis fratris mei - ceperit, totum cito sine emendatione reddatur, et si quis - inde aliquid retinuerit, ille super quem inventum fuerit - mihi graviter emendabit.” - - [875] Roger of Wendover, iii. 293. “Producta est in medium - charta quædam regis Henrici primi, quam iidem barones a - Stephano, Cantuariensi archiepiscopo, ut prædictum est, in - urbe Londoniarum acceperant. Continebat autem hæc charta - quasdam libertates et leges regis Eadwardi sanctæ ecclesiæ - Anglicanæ pariter et magnatibus regni concessas, exceptis - quibusdam libertatibus quas idem rex de suo adjecit.” - - [876] See the list in Select Charters, 98. Why does not - Walter Giffard sign as Earl? Or is it his son? William of - Malmesbury (v. 393) seems to speak of a general oath to the - charter on the part of the nobles; “Antiquarum moderationem - legum revocavit in solidum, sacramento suo et omnium - procerum, ne luderentur corroborans.” - - [877] See N. C. vol. ii. p. 295; iii. p. 590; v. p. 893. - - [878] See N. C. vol. v. p. 602. - - [879] On Abbot Simeon, see N. C. vol. iv. pp. 481, 833. - According to the local writers (Anglia Sacra, i. 612; - Stewart, 284) he reached his hundredth year. They have much - to tell of the troubles of the abbey during the vacancy at - the hands of Flambard (Stewart, 276-283). But it seems that - Flambard needed to be stirred up by a local enemy, who, we - are sorry to find, bears an English name and a singular - surname; “vir Belial Ælwinus cognomento Retheresgut, id est - venter pecudis.” - - [880] Orderic (783 C, D) mentions all these appointments to - abbeys along with the appointment of William Giffard to - Winchester and that of Gerard to York. It will be remembered - that he fancied that Archbishop Thomas was dead before the - coronation. “Eliense cœnobium dedit Ricardo, Ricardi de - Benefacta filio, Beccensi monacho, et abbatiam Sancti - Edmundi regis et martyris Rodberto juveni Uticensi monacho, - Hugonis Cestrensis comitis filio. Glastoniam quoque commisit - Herluino Cadomensi, et Habundoniam Farisio Malmesburiensi.” - That the appointments were made on the day of the coronation - appears from the two local histories, the Annals of Saint - Eadmund’s in Liebermann, 130, and the two Ely histories, - that in Anglia Sacra, i. 613, and the Liber Eliensis - (Stewart, 284), which largely copies Florence. As Richard - the second Earl of Chester was “filius unicus Hugonis - consulis” (Hen. Hunt. De Contemptu Mundi, 304), and as - Orderic (787 C) calls him “Pulcherrimus puer, quem solum ex - Ermentrude filia Hugonis de Claromonte genuit [Hugo],” it - would follow that Abbot Robert was one of the many natural - children of Earl Hugh. See N. C. vol. v. p. 490. He was - appointed, say the local Annals, “renitentibus monachis.” - - [881] Orderic, as we have seen, calls Abbot Richard a son of - Richard of Bienfaite, while the Ely writers call him the son - of Count Gilbert, which must be wrong. Yet they have much to - say about his family, who are oddly spoken of as the - “Ricardi,” along with the “Gifardi.” They tell at length the - story of his deposition, but attribute it to the King rather - than to Anselm. But see Florence, 1102; Eadmer, 67; Ans. Ep. - iii. 140. - - [882] See Willis, Glastonbury, p. 9. - - [883] Faricius fills a large space in the history of his - abbey. He was a native of Arezzo, and had been cellarer at - Malmesbury; Hist. Ab. ii. 44, 285. He was kept back from the - archbishopric by the scruples of Robert (Bloet) Bishop of - Lincoln and Roger Bishop of Salisbury; Hist. Ab. ii. 287. - - [884] William of Malmesbury (v. 393) puts the whole story - emphatically enough; “Ne quid profecto gaudio accumulato - abesset, _Rannulfo nequitiarum fæce_ tenebris ergastularibus - incluso, propter Anselmum pernicibus nuntiis directum.” - Florence also joins the imprisonment of Flambard and the - recall of Anselm; “Nec multo post Dunholmensem episcopum - Rannulfum Lundoniæ in turri custodiæ mancipavit, et - Dorubernensem archiepiscopum Anselmum de Gallia revocavit.” - In the Chronicle we get the Tower named in our own tongue, - as in 1097; “And se cyng sona æfter þam be þære ræde þe him - abutan wæran, þone biscop Rannulf of Dunholme let niman, and - into þam Ture on Lundene lét gebringon and þær healdan.” - - [885] See Macaulay, ii. 557. - - [886] Ord. Vit. 783 D. “Hugo Cestrensis comes, et Rodbertus - Belesmensis, ac alii optimates, qui erant in Normannia, - audito casu infortunati principis, rerumque mutatione - subita, compositis in Neustria rebus suis, iter in Angliam - acceleraverunt, novoque regi debitam subjectionem - obtulerunt, eique hominio facto, fundos et omnes dignitates - suas cum regiis muneribus ab eo receperunt.” Directly after - he gives a list of the inner council; “Rodbertum scilicet de - Mellento et Hugonem de Cestra, Ricardum de Radvariis et - Rogerium Bigodum, aliosque strenuos et sagaces viros suis - adhibuit consiliis, et quia humiliter sophistis - obsecundavit, merito multis regionibus et populis - imperavit.” - - [887] See the extract in the note at p. 361. - - [888] See above, p. 341. - - [889] Eadmer, 55. - - [890] Ib. “Singultu verba ejus interrumpente, asseruit in - ipsa veritate quam servum Dei transgredi non decet, quia, si - hoc efficere posset, multo magis eligeret seipsum corpore - quam illum sicut erat mortuum esse.” So in the Life, ii. - 658. - - [891] Eadmer, 55. “Ecce alius e fratribus ecclesiæ - Cantuariensis advenit, literas deferens, preces offerens, - quibus obnixe ab Anglorum matre ecclesia interpellatur, - quatenus, extincto tyranno, filios suos, rupta mora, - revisere, consolarique, dignetur.” - - [892] Ib. “Ipso pontifice et toto populo terræ super hoc - dolente, et nisi rationi contrairet, modis omnibus, ne - fieret, prohibere volente.” - - [893] Ib. “Alter nuncius ex parte novi regis Anglorum, et - procerum regni patri occurrens, moras ejus in veniendo - redarguit, totam terram in adventu ejus attonitam, et omnia - negotia regni ad audientiam et dispositionem ipsius referens - pendere dilata.” - - [894] Ep. Ans. iii. 41. “Nutu Dei, a clero et a populo - Angliæ electus, et quamvis invitus propter absentiam tui, - rex jam consecratus.” - - [895] Ep. Ans. iii. 41. “Precor ne tibi displiceat quod - regiam benedictionem absque te suscepi; de quo, si fieri - posset,… libentius eam susciperem quam de alio aliquo … hac - itaque occasione a tuis vicariis illam accepi.” - - [896] Ib. “Requiro te sicut patrem, cum omni populo Angliæ, - quatenus mihi filio tuo et eidem populo cujus tibi animarum - cura commissa est, quam citius poteris, venias ad - consulendum.” - - [897] Ib. “Me ipsum quidem ac totius regni Angliæ populum, - tuo eorumque consilio qui tecum mihi consulere debent, - committo.” - - [898] Ib. “Sed necessitas fuit talis quia inimici insurgere - volebant contra me et populum quem habeo ad gubernandum; et - ideo barones mei, et idem populus, noluerunt amplius eam - protelari; hac itaque occasione a tuis vicariis illam - accepi. Misissem quidem ad te a meo latere aliquos per quos - tibi etiam de mea pecunia destinassem, sed pro morte fratris - mei circa regnum Angliæ ita totus orbis concussus est, ut - nullatenus ad te salubriter pervenire potuissent.” - - [899] Ib. - - [900] Ep. Ans. iii. 41. “Et aliis tam episcopis quam - baronibus meis.” - - [901] Ord. Vit. 784 B. “Pro quibusdam injuriis, quas ipse - suis comparibus ingesserat, per fraudulenta consilia, quæ - Ruffo regi contra illos suggerere jamdudum studuerat.” - - [902] The expressions of Orderic which follow the words last - quoted are very remarkable. They show that, in Normandy at - least, William the Red did in some sort go on with the work - of his father. “Similiter alii plures iram et malivolentiam, - quas olim conceperant, sed propter rigorem principalis - justitiæ manifestis ultionibus prodere non ausi fuerant, - nunc habenis relaxatis toto nisu contra sese insurrexerunt, - et mutuis cædibus ac damnis rerum miseram regionem rectore - carentem desolaverunt.” - - [903] Ord. Vit. 784 B, C. - - [904] “Sona swa se eorl Rotbert into Normandig com, he wearð - fram eallan þam folce bliþelice underfangen.” - - [905] “Butan þam castelan þe wæron gesætte mid þæs cynges - Heanriges mannan, togeanes þan he manega gewealc and gewinn - hæfde.” - - [906] Will. Malms. v. 394. “Quo audito [Robert’s return to - Normandy], omnes pene hujus terræ optimates fidei regi - juratæ transfugæ fuere; quidam nullis extantibus causis, - quidam levibus occasiunculis emendicatis, quod nollet iis - terras quas vellent ultro pro libito eorum impertiri.” - - [907] Chron. Petrib. 1100. “Ða toforan S[~c]e Michaeles - mæssan com se arcebiscop Ansealm of Cantwarbyrig hider to - lande, swa swa se cyng Heanrig, _be his witena ræde_ him - æfter sende, forþan þe he wæs út of þis lande gefaren, for - þan mycelan unrihte þe se cyng Willelm him dyde.” Everything - is thoroughly constitutional just now. - - [908] Eadmer, Hist. Nov. 55. “Prosperrimo itaque cursu - marina pericula transvecti nono kl. Octobris Dofris - appulimus, et ingenti gaudio totam terram in adventu Anselmi - exultantem reperimus. Quædam etenim quasi novæ - resurrectionis spes singulorum mentibus oriebatur, qua et ab - oppressione calentis adhuc calamitatis se quisque liberandum - et in statum optatæ prosperitatis aditum sibi pollicebatur.” - The short English Chronicle printed by Liebermann, 5, gives - a rather odd name to Anselm’s absence; “Ansælm ærcebiscop - com fram peregrinatione.” - - [909] See vol. i. p. 437. - - [910] Ib. p. 450. - - [911] Ib. p. 481. - - [912] Ib. p. 559. - - [913] Ib. p. 572. - - [914] Ord. Vit. 784 C. “Ut rumores _quos optaverat_ audivit, - Guillelmum videlicet regem occubuisse veraciter agnovit, cum - armatorum turma Cœnomannis venit, et ab amicis civibus [see - Migne’s text] voluntarie susceptus, urbem pacifice - obtinuit.” The Biographer (309) says merely “sine mora cum - populo qui eum secutus fuerat ad civitatem venit.” - - [915] See above, pp. 241, 281. As he was “Rothomagensis,” he - would seem to be a brother of the William son of Ansgar of - whom we heard in vol. i. p. 261. - - [916] Ord. Vit. u. s. “Fulconem Andegavorum comitem dominum - suum accersiit, a quo adjutus arcem diu obsedit.” The - Biographer says nothing about Fulk. - - [917] Ord. Vit. 784 D. “Heliæ comiti privilegium dederunt ut - quotienscumque vellet, albam tunicam indueret, et sic ad eos - qui turrim custodiebant, tutus accederet.” Presently we read - of the “candida tunica, pro qua Candidus Bacularis solitus - est ab illis nuncupari.” The story is told in full detail. - - [918] Ib. 784 C. “Haimericus de Moria.” I can give no - further account of him. - - [919] See N. C. vol. ii. p. 26. - - [920] Ord. Vit. 784 D. “Lædere quidem vos lapidibus et - sagittis possumus, quia in eminentiori prætorio constituti - vobis prævalemus.” - - [921] Ib. 785 A. “Donec legatus noster redeat a dominis - nostris, Angliæ et Normanniæ principibus, qui postquam - reversus fuerit, faciemus prout ratio nobis intimaverit.” - - [922] Ord. Vit. 785 A. “Dux longæ laboribus peregrinationis - fractus, et magis quietem lecti quam bellicum laborem - complecti cupidus.” - - [923] “Rex Albionis … transmarinis occupatus negotiis regni, - callide maluit sibi debita legaliter amplecti quam - peregrinis præ superbia et indebitis laboribus nimis - onerari.” - - [924] “Naturali hero caremus, cui strenuitatis nostræ - servitium impendamus. Unde, strenue vir, probitatem tuam - agnoscentes, te eligimus, et, arce reddita, te principem - Cœnomannorum hodie constituimus.” This time no one would - (see N. C. vol. iv. p. 575) think of translating “strenue - vir” by “valiant Saxon;” yet, as there were Saxons in Anjou, - the lord of La Flèche may have had more right to the name - than the Earl of the Northumbrians. - - [925] Ord. Vit. 785 D. “Ne a civibus quorum domos præterito - anno combusserant læderentur, alacriter protexit.” The - Biographer (309) cuts the whole matter much shorter; but it - is from him that we learn the three months’ length of the - siege. The garrison, having no hope, “tandem coacti de - munitionibus egressi sunt, et consulis liberalitate - membrorum et vitæ impunitate donati, in patriam [where was - that?] reversi sunt.” - - [926] See Appendix KK. The Biographer tells us now; “pacata - igitur civitate et hostibus inde effugatis, Hildebertus - Romam proficiscitur.” - - [927] Ord. Vit. 785 D. “Fœdus amicitiæ cum Rodberto duce et - Henrico rege postmodum copulavit, eorumque bellis viriliter - interfuit, unique multum nocuit, alterique ingens suffragium - contulit.” He records instances in 818 C, 820 B, 821 A, B. - In this last case, at Tinchebrai, Helias commands Bretons as - well as his own people. Cf. the Chronicle of Saint Albinus - of Angers, 1105, 1106, and that of Saint Sergius, 1106. - Orderic (822 B) records a curious discourse between Helias - and his old enemy Robert of Bellême, who calls himself “tuus - homo.” - - [928] We read casually in the Biographer (311) of a time - “dura comes Rotrodus Perticencis in turri Cenomannica captus - teneretur, et episcopus ad eum trepidum mortis accessisset.” - But the story is all about Hildebert, not about Helias. It - is taken from a letter of Hildebert himself (Duchesne, iv. - 279), who speaks of Rotrou as “in vinculis.” We find that - Count Rotrou’s mother gave the Bishop the kiss of peace, - which the Lady Eadgyth had refused to receive from Abbot - Gervinus. See N. C. vol. ii. p. 544. - - [929] Orderic seems to complain that “defuncta conjuge sua, - cælibem vitam actitare renuit.” Was it because of this - backsliding that, when he dies, he becomes, notwithstanding - all his good deeds, merely “cadaver” and not “soma”? On the - other hand, our own Chronicler records his death in 1110, - and the Angevin Chronicler of Saint Sergius thinks the event - worthy of a heavenly phænomenon; “Apparuit cometa, atque - ilico mortuus est Helias, Cenomannensis comes.” - - [930] Orderic, 785 C, notes that Helias made Fulk his heir; - “Ipsum Cœnomannis dominum sibi successorem constituit.” Cf. - 818 C. - - [931] See N. C. vol. v. pp. 220, 225. - - [932] Eadmer, Hist. Nov. 56. “Cum post paucos sui reditus - dies Serberiam ad regem venisset, et ab eo gaudenter - susceptus, rationi illius qua se excusavit cur in - suscipienda regiæ dignitatis benedictione, illum cujus juris - eam esse sciebat, non expectaverit, adquievisset.” - - [933] Ib. See N. C. vol. v. p. 220. - - [934] Eadmer, Hist. Nov. 56. “Cum ille nequaquam se aut - velle aut posse assensum præbere responderet, - interrogantibus quare, statim quid super his et quibusdam - aliis in Romano concilio acceperit, manifesta relatione - innotuit, itaque subinferens ait, si dominus rex ista - suscipere, et suscepta servare voluerit, bene inter nos et - firma pax erit.” - - [935] Ib. “Nec ea de causa Angliam redii, ut, si ipse Romano - pontifici obedire nolit, in ea resideam. Undo quid velit - precor edicat, ut sciam quo me vertam.” - - [936] Ib. “Grave quippe sibi visum est investituras - ecclesiarum et hominia prælatorum perdere; grave nihilominus - Anselmum a regno, ipso nondum in regno plene confirmato, - pati discedere.” - - [937] Eadmer, Hist. Nov. 56. “In uno siquidem videbatur sibi - quasi dimidium regni perderet, in alio verebatur ne fratrem - suum Robertum … Anselmus adiret, et eum _in apostolicæ sedis - subjectionem deductum, quod facillimum factu sciebat_, regem - Angliæ faceret.” These words make us see how unknown the new - doctrines had hitherto been in Normandy as well as in - England. The dukes up to this time had not been in - subjection to the Holy See, as subjection was understood by - Paschal, and, at Paschal’s bidding, by Anselm. - - [938] Ib. “Induciæ usque pascha petitæ sunt, quatenus - utrinque Romam mitterentur qui decreta apostolica _in - pristinum regni usum_ mutarent.” Rome and Bari had not - wholly eaten the Englishman out of our Eadmer. - - [939] Eadmer, Hist. Nov. 56. “Interim ecclesiis Angliæ in - quo erant statu manentibus, Anselmus redditis terris quas - rex mortuus ecclesiæ Cantuariensi abstulerat, suis omnibus - revestiretur, sicque fieret, ut si a sententia flecti papa - nequiret, totius negotii summa in eum quo tunc erant statum - rediret.” - - [940] Ib. “Hæc Anselmus, quamvis frivola esse, et in nihil - utile tendere sciret, atque prædiceret, tamen ne novo regi - seu principibus ullam contra se suspicionem de regni - translatione aut aliunde incuteret, precibus illorum passus - est vinci.” - - [941] Will. Malms. v. 393. “Suadentibus amicis, et maxime - pontificibus, ut, remota voluptate pellicum, legitimum - amplecteretur connubium.” Orderic (783 D) gives the same - idea a more grotesque turn; “Princeps quarto mense ex quo - cœpit regnare, nolens ut equus et mulus, quibus non est - intellectus, turpiter lascivire, generosam virginem nomine - Mathildem regali more sibi desponsavit.” So in the - continuation of William of Jumièges, viii. 10; “Ut idem rex - _legaliter_ viveret, duxit venerabilem Matildem.” - “Legaliter” must here be taken in the older, not in the - chivalrous sense. - - [942] Will. Malms. u. s. See Appendix G. - - [943] See N. C. vol. v. p. 852. - - [944] Ib. p. 853. - - [945] Ib. p. 843; vol. iv. p. 733. - - [946] See N. C. vol. iv. p. 731; v. p. 306. - - [947] See vol. i. p. 187, and N. C. vol. v. p. 844. - - [948] Hist. Ab. ii. 36. “Optimatum hujus loci ea tempestate - virorum Anskillus erat unus, cujus juri pertinebant - Suvecurda [Seacourt] et Speresholt, et Baigeuurtha - [Bayworth] et apud Merceham [Marsham] hida una. Hunc contra, - suorum delatione osorum, ita regis exarsit iracundia, ut - vinculis arctatum carcerali præciperet custodiæ macerandum. - Ubi insolito rigore deficiens post dies paucos interiit.” - - [949] It was held by the new grantee and his son till it was - got back from King Henry by Abbot Faricius (Hist. Ab. ii. - 288), “retracto inde ecclesiæ in hoc temporis spatio - servitii omni genere” (Ib. ii. 37). This seems to be the - Sparsholt of which I spoke in N. C. vol. iv. p. 726, as - being held by “Godricus unus liber homo,” a different person - from Godric the Sheriff. He is distinguished in the Abingdon - History (i. 477) as “Godricus Cild,” and his Sparsholt is - said to be “juxta locum qui vulgo Mons Albi Æqui - nuncupatur.” In Domesday (59) we find Anschil holding - Sparsholt of the Abbot. It had been held T. R. E. by Eadric. - Eadric and Godric are clearly the same man, and there must - be a mistake of name in one place or the other, just as in - Domesday, 146, _Ead_wine Abbot of Westminster is miscalled - _God_wine. But a most curious entry follows, from which it - appears that Eadric or Godric had given the lordship for the - support of his son as a monk in the abbey as long as he - lived, after which it was to come back to himself. The shire - therefore threw a doubt on the right of the abbey to its - possession. They had seen no writ or seal of King William - granting it to the abbey; but the abbot and all his monks - produced a writ and seal of King Eadward, from which it - appeared that Eadric had given the manor to the abbey; - “Abbas testatur quod in T. R. E. misit ille manerium ad - ecclesiam _unde erat_, et inde habet brevem et sigillum R. - E. attestantibus omnibus monachis suis.” The words “unde - erat” show that Eadric or Godric held the lordship of the - abbey (for its possession of Sparsholt see Hist. Ab. i. 283, - 478), but that he gave up his rights in it to the church. It - was then again granted to Anskill. - - [950] Hist. Ab. ii. 37. “Cum hæc agerentur, uxore Anskilli - jam defuncti domo exclusa, filio vero ejus, nomine Willelmo, - a rebus paternis funditus eliminato, eadem mulier fratrem - regis Henricum, tunc quidem comitem, suffragiorum suis - incommodis gratia frequentans, ex eo concepit, et filium - pariens Ricardum vocavit.” On this Richard, see N. C. vol. - v. pp. 188 (note), 195, 843. - - [951] He married the sister of Simon, the king’s dispenser, - and niece of Abbot Reginald, who succeeded Æthelhelm in - 1083. As Reginald died in 1097 (see p. 265), the whole - story, including the birth of Richard, must have happened - before that year. - - [952] Hist. Ab. ii. 122. “Ansfrida, qua concubinæ loco rex - ipse Henricus usus ante suscepti _imperii monarchiam_, - filium Ricardum nomine genuit, ac _per hoc_ celebri - sepultura a fratribus est intumulata, videlicet in claustro - ante ostium ecclesiæ ubi fratres intrant in ecclesia et - exeunt.” Why was a doubly imperial style needed on such a - matter? - - [953] Ord. Vit. 784 A. “Sapiens Henricus, generositatem - virginis agnoscens, multimodamque morum ejus honestatem - jamdudum concupiscens, hujusmodi sociam in Christo sibi - elegit.” So William of Malmesbury, v. 393; “Cujus amori - jampridem animum impulerat, parvi pendens dotales divitias, - dummodo diu cupitis potiretur amplexibus.” So Eadmer (Hist. - Nov. 56) mentions the story of the veil, and adds, “quæ res, - dum illa jam olim dimisso velo a rege amaretur, plurimorum - ora laxaret, et _eos_ a cupitis amplexibus retardaret.” In - the genuine story she certainly seems anxious for the - marriage. The story of her dislike to it is a mere legend. - See Appendix WW. - - [954] This seems implied in the whole story, especially in - the words of Eadmer, “dimisso velo.” Her father, it will be - remembered, is said to have taken her away from Romsey in - 1093. See Appendix EE. - - [955] Sir Francis Palgrave (iv. 366), countersigned by Dean - Church, Anselm, 243, assures us that “Edith was very - beautiful.” Mr. Robertson (i. 153, note) will not allow that - she was more than “rather pretty.” The Abbess in Hermann of - Tournay witnesses to her beauty at the age of twelve, but - all that William of Malmesbury (v. 418) can say of her is - that she was “non usquequaque despicabilis formæ.” We have - already heard of her studies at Romsey, and in her letters - to Anselm (Epp. iii. 55, 119) the display of scriptural and - classical learning might have satisfied Orderic himself. It - is more comforting to find in the second letter that she - wishes to bestow the abbey of Malmesbury on one bearing the - English name of Eadwulf. Anselm refuses his consent, because - Eadwulf sent him a cup, which seemed like an attempt at - simony. Eadwulf however did in the end become abbot. - - [956] Will. Malms. v. 393. “Erat illa, licet genere - sublimis, utpote regis Edwardi ex fratre Edmundo abneptis, - modicæ tamen domina supellectilis, utroque tunc parente - pupilla.” - - [957] Chron. Petrib. 1100. “And siðþan sona heræfter se cyng - genam Mahalde him to wife, Malcolmes cynges dohter of - Scotlande, and Margareta þære goda cwæne, Eadwardes cynges - magan, and of þan rihtan Ænglalandes kyne kynne.” Eadmer - (Hist. Nov. 56) traces up the pedigree to Eadgar, but he - does not forget that she was “filia Malcholmi nobilissimi - regis Scotorum.” - - [958] See N. C. vol. ii. p. 308. - - [959] See above, p. 31, and Appendix EE. Eadmer, Hist. Nov. - 56. “Siquidem eadem Mathildis, inter sanctimoniales in - monasterio ab infantia nutrita et adulta, credebatur a - multis in servitium Dei a parentibus oblata, eo quod publice - visa fuerat earum inter quas vivebat more velata.” - - [960] Ib. “Ipsa Anselmum cujus in hoc nutum omnes - expectabant adiit.” - - [961] Ib. 57. “Differt Anselmus sententiam ferre et causam - judicio religiosarum personarum regni determinandam - pronunciat. Statuto itaque die coeunt ad nutum illius, - episcopi, abbates, nobiles quique, ac religiosi ordinis - viri.” Anselm’s Convocation thus admitted lay members. - - [962] The archdeacons are sent “Wiltuniam, ubi illa fuerat - educata,” but Romsey must surely be meant. See Appendix EE. - - [963] Ib. “Remoto a conventu solo patre, ecclesia Angliæ quæ - convenerat in unum de proferenda sententia tractat.” - - [964] See N. C. vol. iv. pp. 564, 835. - - [965] Hist. Nov. 58. The members of the Assembly say that - they remember the judgement of Lanfranc, and that they hold - that the present case is still stronger than that which he - decided. “Licet enim sciamus causam illarum istius esse - leviorem dum illæ sponte, ista coacta, pari de causa velum - portaverit.” They add their protest, “nequis nos favore - cujusvis duci existimet.” - - [966] Ib. “Ego judicium vestrum non abjicio, sed eo securius - illud suscipio quo tanti patris auctoritate suffultum - audio.” - - [967] Ib. “Gesta comi vultu audit et amplectitur.” - - [968] Ib. “Quod non propterea facturam fatetur quasi sibi - non creditum esse putet, sed ut malevolis hominibus omnem - deinceps blasphemandi occasionem amputet.” - - [969] Ib. “Si malus homo de malo thesauro cordis sui - protulerit mala, dicto citius opprimetur ipsa veritate jam - tantarum personarum adstipulatione probata et roborata.” - - [970] Ib. “Allocutione posthæc et benedictione Anselmi - potita abiit.” - - [971] This is the version of Hermann of Tournay (D’Achery, - ii. 893) referred to in Appendix EE, WW; “Confirmatus in - regno voluit conjugem habere puellam quamdam filiam David - regis Scotiæ, dixitque D. Anselmo, tunc temporis - Cantuariensis urbis venerabili archiepiscopo, ut eam sibi - benediceret et solemnibus nuptiis benedictam in conjugium - sociaret.” - - [972] Ib. “Ideoque pro conservando juramento suo se non eam - dimissurum, nisi canonico judicio fuisset determinatum.” - - [973] Ib. “Præcepit ut, adscito archiepiscopo Eboracensi, - congregaretur consilium episcoporum et abbatum totiusque - Angliæ ecclesiasticarum personarum ad diffiniendum - ecclesiastica censura tantum negotium.” Thomas of York, it - must be remembered, must have been now on his deathbed; at - least he died a few days later. The lay nobles of Eadmer’s - account are left out in this version. - - [974] See above, p. 32, and Appendix WW. - - [975] D’Achery, ii. 894. “In communi judicaverunt propter - hujusmodi factum non ei prohibendum conjugium, quoniam, - quamdiu infra legitimam ætatem sub tutela patris fuerat, - nihil ei sine ejus assensu facere licuerat.” See the answer - of Harold, N. C. vol. iii p. 265. - - [976] D’Achery, ii. 894. “Vos quidem, domine rex, consilio - meo prætermisso, facietis quod vobis placuerit, sed qui - diutius vixerit, puto quod videbit non diu Angliam gavisuram - de prole quæ de ea nata fuerit.” - - [977] See Appendix WW. - - [978] Chron. Petrib. 1100. “And siðþan sona heræfter se cyng - genam Mahalde him to wife, Malcolmes cynges dohter of - Scotlande, and Margareta þære goda cwæne Eadwardes cynes - magan of þan rihtan Ænglalandes kynekynne. And on S[~c]e - Martines mæssedæg heo wearð him mid mycelan weorðscipe - forgifen on Westmynstre, and se arcebiscop Ansealm hi him - bewæddade and siððan to cwene gehalgode.” Florence notes - that, at the wedding, “rex Anglorum Heinricus majores natu - Angliæ congregavit Lundoniæ.” Orderic (784 A) makes Gerard - of Hereford the consecrator of the Queen. Her descent from - the “right _cynecyn_ of England” stirs him up to a grand - flight, going up to the very beginnings of things. We there - read how “Angli de Anglo insula, ubi Saxoniæ metropolis est, - in Britanniam venerunt, et, devictis, seu deletis, quos modo - Gualos dicunt, occupatam bello insulam, Hengist primo duce, - a natali solo Angliam vocitaverunt.” - - [979] Eadmer, Hist. Nov. 58. See N. C. vol. v. p. 169. - - [980] Ib. “Cunctis una clamantibus rem juste definitam nec - in ea quid residere unde quis nisi forte malitia ductus jure - aliquam posset movere calumniam, legitime conjuncti sunt, - honore quo decuit regem et reginam.” - - [981] It is so implied by Eadmer, who of course gives his - own very distinct witness in favour of the righteousness of - all that Anselm did. - - [982] See N. C. vol. v. pp. 251, 857. - - [983] See N. C. vol. v. p. 170. The note in Sir T. D. - Hardy’s edition of William of Malmesbury is very strange. - Ages after, Knighton (X Scriptt. 2375) gives these English - names an odd turn; “Multi de proceribus clam vel palam a - rege Henrico se subtraxerunt, fictis quibusdam occasiunculis - vocantes eum _Godrych Godefadyr_, et pro Roberto comite clam - miserunt.” In his day Godric, in his various spellings, was - doubtless, as now, in familiar use as a surname. Godgifu - must have been pretty well forgotten, except in the form - which she takes at Coventry, though I suppose that she too - survives in the surname _Goodeve_. - - [984] See N. C. vol. v. p. 184. - - [985] The Continuator of Florence (1121) tells us how Henry, - “legalis conjugii olim nexu solutus, _ne quid ulterius - inhonestum committeret_,” by the advice of Archbishop Ralph - and his great men, marries Adeliza. Orderic (823 B) - witnesses that Henry’s bad habits in this way went on to old - age. - - [986] Will. Malms. v. 418. “Æquanimiter ferebat, _rege alias - intento_, ipsa curiæ valedicere, Westmonasterio multis annis - morata. Nec tamen quicquam ei regalis magnificentiæ deerat,” - &c. - - [987] William of Malmesbury gives many details of her piety, - with the curious remark that she was “in clericos bene - melodos inconsiderate prodiga” [that is surely the right - reading, and not “provida”]. He tells how she kissed the - wounds of the lepers. The half-profane saying of David comes - from Æthelred of Rievaux (X Scriptt. 367; Fordun, v. 20; - Surtees Simeon, 267), who had the story from David himself. - Matilda wished her brother to follow her example, which he - refused; “Necdum enim sciebam Dominum, nec revelatus fuerat - mihi Spiritus ejus.” One is reminded of the story of Saint - Lewis and John of Joinville, when the seneschal refuses to - wash the feet of the poor. It is twice told in his Memoirs, - pp. 8, 218, ed. Michel, 1858. - - [988] “Very vain,” says Mr. Robertson, who is determined to - be hard upon her. - - [989] There is an important passage of William of Malmesbury - about the reeves, of whom we have heard so often; “Eo - effectum est ut prodige donantium non effugeret vitium, - multimodas colonis suis deferens calumnias, inferens - injurias, auferens substantias, quo bonæ largitricis nacta - famam, suorum parvi pensaret contumeliam. Sed hæc qui recte - judicare volet, consiliis ministrorum imputabit, qui, more - harpyarum, quicquid poterant corripere unguibus, vel - infodiebant marsupiis vel insumebant conviviis, quorum - fœculentis susurris aures oppleta, nævum honestissimæ menti - contraxit.” In all this we learn the more to admire the - constant care of Anselm that no wrong should be done to his - people. - - The story of Matilda and David is told also by Robert of - Gloucester (ii. 434, 435, Hearne), who preserves the popular - memory of “Mold þe god quene” in several passages. Perhaps - the strongest is, - - “Þe godenesse þat god Henry & þe quene Mold - Dude here to Engelond ne may neuere be ytolde.” - - [990] See N. C. vol. iv. p. 329. - - [991] See vol. i. p. 527. Abbot Jeronto was hardly a Legate - in the same sense as Walter of Albano. - - [992] Eadmer, Hist. Nov. 58. “Quod per Angliam auditum in - admirationem omnibus venit, inauditum scilicet in Britania - cuncti scientes quemlibet hominum super se vices apostolicas - gerere nisi solum archiepiscopum Cantuariæ.” - - [993] See N. C. vol. v. p. 236. - - [994] Eadmer, u. s. “Quapropter sicut venit ita reversus - est, a nemine pro legato susceptus, nec in aliquo legati - officio functus.” - - [995] See N. C. vol. iv. p. 370. Our English Florence sends - him out of the world with a special panegyric; “Venerandæ - memoriæ et vir religionis eximiæ, affabilis, omnibusque - amabilis, Eboracensis archiepiscopus Thomas.” William of - Malmesbury (Gest. Pont. 258) is more copious to the same - effect. T. Stubbs (X Scriptt. 1709) gives us his epitaph. - - [996] See vol. i. p. 543. - - [997] William of Malmesbury (Gest. Pont. 260), after - mentioning some of the stories against him, adds; “Certe - canonici Eboracenses ne in ecclesia sepeliretur - pertinacissime restitere, vix ignobilem cespitem cadaveri - præ foribus injici passi.” - - [998] Ord. Vit. 786 A, B. “Pro penuria vestitus, usque ad - sextam de lecto non surrexit, nec ad ecclesiam, quia nudus - erat, divinum auditurus officium, perrexit. Meretrices enim - et nebulones qui, lenitatem ejus scientes, eum indesinenter - circumdederunt, braccas ejus et caligas et reliqua ornamenta - crebro impune furati sunt.” - - [999] The list is given by Orderic (786 A). - - [1000] Ord. Vit. 786 A, “Multis, si rex foret, majora quam - dare posset, promisit.” - - [1001] See vol. i. p. 463. - - [1002] Ord. Vit. 786 A. “Rodberto de Belismo Sagiensem - episcopatum et Argentomum castrum, silvamque Golferni - donavit,” On the phrase of granting the bishopric, compare - the passages referred to in p. 200, note 4. - - [1003] “Tedbaldo Pagano, quia semel eum hospitatus fuerat, - tribuit.” On this Theobald, see above, p. 186. - - [1004] The Christmas and Easter meetings are marked by the - Chronicler, who adds to his record of the former, “And þa - sona þæræfter wurdon þa heafod men her on lande wiðerræden - togeanes þam cynge, ægðer ge for heora agenan mycelan - ungetrywðan, and eac þurh þone eorl Rodbert of Normandig þe - mid unfriðe hider to lande fundode.” - - [1005] The escape of Flambard is oddly recorded by the - Chronicler at the end of the year, after he had mentioned - all that his escape led to. But he gives the date; “Ðises - geares eac se bisceop Rannulf to þam Candelmæssan út of þam - Túre on Lunden nihtes oðbærst, þær he on hæftneðe wæs, and - to Normandige fór.” Florence (1101) tells us how - “Dunholmensis episcopus Rannulfus, post nativitatem Domini, - de custodia magna calliditate evasit, mare transiit.” - William of Malmesbury (v. 394) gives some details, but the - full story comes from Orderic (786). Flambard was to be - “custodiendus in vinculis,” a phrase which seems to show - that the fetters in this and many other cases were - metaphorical. - - [1006] Ord. Vit. 786 D. “Exitum callide per amicos - procuravit. Erat enim sollers et facundus, et, licet - crudelis et iracundus, largus tamen et plerumque jucundus, - et ob hoc plerisque gratus et amandus.” - - [1007] Ib. “Quotidie ad victum suum duos sterilensium - solidos jussu regis habebat. Unde cum adjumentis amicorum in - carcere tripudiabat, quotidieque splendidum sibi suisque - custodibus convivium exhiberi jubebat.” - - [1008] Orderic and William of Malmesbury both mention the - bringing in of the rope in a vessel, which Orderic calls - “lagena vini,” while William of Malmesbury rather implies - that it was brought in water; “Funem minister aquæ bajulus - (proh dolus!) amphora immersum detulit.” Orderic well marks - the double window; “Funem ad columnam, quæ in medio fenestræ - arcis erat, coaptavit.” - - [1009] “Fune ad solum usque non pertingente, gravi lapsu - _corpulentus flamen_ ruit, et pene conquassatus, flebiliter - ingemuit.” William of Malmesbury makes merry over his - troubles; “Ille muro turris demissus, si læsit brachia, si - excoriavit manus, parum curat populus.” - - [1010] See above, p. 261. - - [1011] It is now that Orderic tells the wonderful tales of - Flambard’s mother which I have quoted in vol. i. p. 331. He - now brings her on the scene; “In alia nave cum filii - thesauro sui per pelagus in Neustriam ferebatur, et a sociis - ibidem pro scelestis incantationibus cum derisoriis gestibus - passim detrahebatur. Intereo totum piratis occurrentibus in - ponto ærarium direptum est, et venefica cum nauderis et - epibatis anus nuda mœrensque in littus Normanniæ exposita - est.” - - [1012] The influence which Flambard obtained over Robert is - marked in all our writers, beginning with the Chronicle; - “þurh þes macunge mæst and tospryttinge se eorl Rotbert - þises geares þis land mid unfriðe gesohte.” Florence (1101) - and Orderic (787 A) are to the same effect; William of - Malmesbury (v. 394) gets metaphorical; “Normanniam evadens, - comiti jam anhelanti, et in fervorem prælii prono, addidit - calcaria ut incunctanter veniret.” - - [1013] Eadmer, Hist. Nov. 58. - - [1014] See the passage in p. 396. - - [1015] See the extract from William of Malmesbury in p. 368. - - [1016] This is William of Malmesbury’s (v. 394) list of - those who “justas partes fovebant.” Orderic (787 B) says, - “Rodbertus de Mellento et Ricardus de Radvariis, aliique - multi barones strenui regem suum vallaverunt.” - - [1017] The Whitsun Gemót is described by Eadmer, 58, 59; “Ad - sponsionem fidei regis ventum est, tota regni nobilitas _cum - populi numerositate_.” Before this he has some remarkable - expressions which seem to point to debates in an inner - council, before the general assembly was summoned; “In - solemnitate Pentecostes adventus comitis Roberti fratris - regis in Angliam prævia fama totam regalem curiam commovit, - et quorundam animos, ut postmodum patuit, in diversa - permovit. Rex igitur principes et principes regem suspectum - habentes, ille scilicet istos ne a se instabili, ut fit, - fide dissilirent, et isti illum formidando ne undique pace - potitus in se, legibus efferatis desæviret, actum ex - consulto est ut certitudo talis hinc inde fieret, quæ - utrinque quod verebatur excluderet.” - - [1018] Orderic (787 C, D) puts a long and pious speech into - Count Robert’s mouth. The most emphatic words are; “Cunctos - milites tuos leniter alloquere, omnibus ut pater filiis - blandire, promissis universos demulce, quæque petierint - concede, et sic omnes ad favorem tui sollerter attrahe. Si - Lundoniam postulaverint vel Eboracam, ne differas magna - polliceri, ut regalem decet munificentiam.” - - [1019] I suppose this is the meaning of the words which come - soon after; “Cum ad finem hujus negotii auxiliante Deo - prospere pervenerimus, de repetendis dominiis quæ temerarii - desertores tempore belli usurpaverint, utile consilium - suggeremus.” He goes on to set forth the doctrine of - confiscation for treason. - - [1020] Eadmer, Hist. Nov. 59. “Anselmum inter se et regem - medium fecerunt, quantus ei vice sui manu in manum porrecta - promitteret, justis et sanctis legibus se totum regnum quoad - viveret in cunctis administraturum. Hoc facto sibi quisque - quasi de securitate applaudebat.” - - [1021] Ord. Vit. 787 B. “Omnes Angli, alterius principis - jura nescientes, in sui regis fidelitate perstiterunt, pro - qua certamen inire eatis optaverunt.” Cf. the passages - quoted in pp. 347, 352. William of Malmesbury (v. 395) bears - the same witness; “Licet principibus deficientibus, partes - ejus solidæ manebant; quas Anselmi archiepiscopi, cum - episcopis suis, simul et omnium Anglorum tutabatur favor.” - - [1022] It is rather curious that it is Florence who notices - at what Norman haven the fleet came together; “Comes - Nortmannorum Rotbertus, equitum, sagittariorum, et peditum, - non parvam congregans multitudinem, in loco, qui Nortmannica - lingua dicitur Ultresport, naves coadunavit.” Eadmer (Hist. - Nov. 59) is more general; “Postquam certitudo de adventu - fratris sui regi innotuit, mox ille, coacto exercitu totius - terræ, ipsi bello occurrendum impiger statuit.” - - [1023] Eadmer, Hist. Nov. 59. “Exercitus grandis erat atque - robustus, et circa regem fideliter cum suis in expeditione - excubabat pater Anselmus.” - - [1024] See vol. i. p. 614. Orderic (774 B) has another - mention of the siege of Capua; “Papa nimirum ibi tunc - admodum occupatus erat, quia Capuanos, qui contra Richardum, - principem suum, Jordani filium rebellaverant, eidem - pacificare satagebat; quos idem juvenis, auxilio et - animositate Rogerii senis, avunculi sui, Siculorum comitis, - ad deditionem pertinaciter compulerat.” He goes on to say - that Anselm was now “inter Italos, de quorum origine - propagatus fuerat.” Eadmer (see vol. i. p. 367) knew the - geography of Aosta better, unless indeed we are to excuse - Orderic by calling in the Lombard origin of Anselm’s father. - - [1025] The Chronicle mentions the place; “Ða to middesumeran - ferde se cyng út to Pefenesæ mid eall his fyrde togeanes his - broðer and his þær abád.” Florence says only, “Innumerabili - exercitu congregato de tota Anglia, non longe ab Heastinga - castra posuit in Suth-Saxonia; autumabat enim pro certo, - fratrem suum illis in partibus nave appulsurum.” - - [1026] Chron. Petrib. 1101. “And se cyng syððan scipe ut on - sǽ sende his broðer to dære and to lættinge.” - - [1027] See N. C. vol. iii. p. 327. - - [1028] So says Florence; “Ille [Rotbertus] consilio Rannulfi - episcopi, quosdam de regis butsecarlis adeo rerum diversarum - promissionibus fregit, ut, fidelitate quam regi debebant - postposita, ad se transfugerent, et sibi ad Angliam duces - existerent.” But the Chronicler says only, “Ac hi sume æft - æt þære neode abruðon, and fram þam cynge gecyrdon, and to - þam eorle Rotberte gebugan.” Is the cause of this difference - between sea-folk and land-folk to be found in the fact that - the sailors must always have been a professional class, - coming one degree nearer to the nature of mercenaries than - the land forces? - - [1029] Such is the comment of Orderic (787 B); “Classis ejus - Guillelmi patris sui classi multum dispar fuit quæ, non - exercitus virtute, sed proditorum procuratione, ad portum - Portesmude applicuit.” - - [1030] All our accounts take Robert to Portsmouth, but that - vaguer name may take in the whole haven, so that we may - accept the more definite statement of Wace, 15450; - - “O grant gent et o grant navie, - Et od noble chevalerie - Passa mer, vint à Porecestre.” - - On the castle and church of Portchester, see the Winchester - Volume of the Archæological Institute. The Chronicler gives - the date as “xii. nihtan toforan Hlafmæssan,” which would be - July 20. Florence says “circa ad Vincula S. Petri,” that is - August 1; and William of Malmesbury says “mense Augusto.” It - is safer to keep to the more definite statement in the - Chronicle. - - [1031] Flor. Wig. 1101. “Statim versus Wintoniam exercitum - movens, apto in loco castra posuit.” So Wace, as we shall - see presently. Orderic says more vaguely, “Protinus ipse dux - a proceribus regni, qui jamdudum illi hominium fecerant, in - provinciam Guentoniensem perductus, constitit.” - - [1032] Wace, 15453; - - “D’iloc ala prendre Wincestre; - Maiz l’en li dist ke la réine - Sa serorge esteit en gésine, - Et il dist ke vilain sereit, - Ki dame en gésine assaldreit.” - - [1033] Wace, 15458; - - “Vers Lundres fist sa gent torner, - Kar là kuidont li reis trover.” - - [1034] Our geography comes from Wace, whom I must now quote - in the new edition of Dr. Andresen (10373, answering to - 15460 in the edition of Pluquet); - - “Al bois de _Hantone_ esteient ia - Quant li dus un home encontra, - Qui li dist que li reis ueneit, - Ultre le bois l’encontrereit; - Ultre le bois li reis l’atent.” - - Here the word is _Hantone_ in both texts, but directly after - (10393) we read in Andresen, “Al bois de _Altone_ - trespasser,” where Pluquet has _Hantone_. This he explains - to be “_Hampton_, dans le comté de Middlesex.” If _Hantone_ - were the right reading, it would of course mean - _Southampton_, but we may be quite sure that Andresen’s - second reading _Altone_ is what Wace wrote in both places. I - had myself thought of _Alton_ before I saw the new text, but - I must confess that I have not studied this Hampshire - campaign on the spot, as I have studied those of Maine, - Northumberland, Sussex, and Shropshire. - - [1035] Both Robert of Bellême and William of Warren are - marked by Orderic (787 B) as traitors, but seemingly a - little earlier; but the account in Florence reads as if some - at least of the nobles deserted at this stage, or at all - events after Robert had landed; “Cujus adventu cognito, - quidam de primoribus Angliæ mox ad eum, ut ante - proposuerant, transfugere, quidam vero cum rege ficta mente - remansere: sed episcopi, milites gregarii, et Angli, animo - constanti cum illo perstitere, unanimiter ad pugnam parati - cum ipso descendere.” Eadmer (Hist. Nov. 59) is to the same - effect. - - [1036] See Wace, 15622 et seqq. in Pluquet’s edition, 10537 - Andresen. “Li quens de _Waumeri_,” who, Pluquet saw, must be - the Earl of Warren or Surrey, appears in the new text as “Li - quens de Warenne.” His “gab” against the King is described - at great length. The special lines run thus; - - “Li quens Guill. le gabout, - Pie de cerf par gap l’apelout, - E sovent sore li meteit - E sovent par gap li diseit - Que al pas de cerf conoisseit - De quanz ramors li cers esteit.” - - [1037] Ord. Vit. 787 B. “Interea Hugo Cestrensis comes in - lectum decidit, et, post diutinum languorem, monachatum in - cœnobio, quod idem Cestræ construxerat, suscepit, atque post - triduum, vi. kalendas Augusti obiit.” - - [1038] Eadmer, Hist. Nov. 59. “Rex ipse non modo de regni - amissione sed et de vita sua suspectus, nulli credere, in - nullo, excepto Anselmo, fidere valebat. Unde sæpe ad illum - venire; principes quos magis a se labi timebat illi - adducere; quatenus, audito verbo illius, et ipse a formidine - relevaretur, et illis metus, si a fide quam sibi - spoponderant, aliquatenus caderent, incuteretur.” - - [1039] Ib. “Robertus igitur amissa fiducia quam in principum - traditione habebat, et non levem deputans excommunicationem - Anselmi, quam sibi ut invasori (nisi cœpto desisteret) - invehi certo sciebat, paci adquievit et in fraternum amorem - reversus est, exercitusque in sua dimissus.” - - [1040] Ib. “Quapropter in dubia licet assertione fateri, - quoniam si post gratiam Dei fidelitas et industria non - intercessisset Anselmi, Henricus rex ea tempestate - perdidisset jus Anglici regni.” - - [1041] Eadmer, Hist. Nov. 59. “Ipse igitur Anselmo jura - totius Christianitatis in Anglia exercendæ se relicturum, - atque decretis et jussionibus apostolicæ sedis se perpetuo - obediturum summopere promittebat.” - - [1042] Wace has a good deal of vivid description at this - stage, but this specially stirring picture, which almost - suggests a ballad, comes from William of Malmesbury (v. - 395); “Quapropter ipse provincialium fidei gratus et saluti - providus, plerumque cuneos circuiens, docebat quomodo - militum ferociam eludentes, clypeos objectarent et ictus - remitterent, quo effecit ut ultroneis votis pugnam - deposcerent, in nullo Normannos metuentes.” - - This is really almost a translation of the lines in the song - of Maldon quoted in N. C. vol. i. p. 272. - - From Orderic too (788 B) we get one vivid sentence strongly - bringing out the nationality of the two armies; “Nobilis - corona ingentis exercitus circumstitit, ibique terribilis - decor Normannorum et Anglorum in armis effulsit.” - - [1043] See Appendix XX. - - [1044] See Appendix XX. - - [1045] See Appendix XX. - - [1046] See Appendix XX. - - [1047] See Appendix XX. - - [1048] See Appendix XX. - - [1049] See Appendix XX. - - [1050] “Quibus pacatis,” says Florence, “regis exercitus - domum, comitis vero pars in Normanniam rediit, pars in - Anglia secum remansit.” The mischief done comes from the - Chronicle; “And se eorl syððan oððet ofer S[~c]e Michaeles - mæsse her on lande wunode, and his men mycel to hearme æfre - gedydon swa hi geferdon, þa hwile se eorl her on lande - wunode.” Orderic (788 D) says nothing about the army, but - records the “regalia xenia” which Henry gave to Robert. - - [1051] See N. C. vol. iv. p. 656. - - [1052] Ord. Vit. 789 A. Fulcher is described as “pene - illiteratus,” but “dapsilitate laudabilis.” He was “ad - episcopatum procuratione fratris sui de curia raptus.” Of - the second appointment we read, “Luxoviensem pontificatum - filio suo Thomæ puero suscepit, et per triennium, non ut - præsul, sed ut præses, gubernavit.” - - [1053] Ib. 788 D. “Robertus dux in Neustriam rediit, et - secum adduxit Guillelmum de Guarenna pluresque alios pro se - exhæredatos.” - - [1054] Ord. Vit. 805 A. “Guillelmus autem, postquam paternum - jus, quod insipienter amiserat, recuperavit, per xxxiii. - annos, quibus simul vixerunt, utiliter castigatus, regi - fideliter adhæsit, et inter præcipuos ac familiares amicos - habitus effloruit.” - - [1055] Ib. 804 C. “Proditores … paulatim ulcisci conatus - est, nam … quamplures ad judicium submonuit, nec simul, sed - separatim, variisque temporibus et multimodis violatæ fidei - reatibus implacitavit.” - - [1056] The names are given in the passage just quoted. They - are coupled with “potentior omnibus aliis Rodbertus de - Belismo.” So again in 805 C. - - [1057] See N. C. vol. ii. pp. 238, 241. - - [1058] Ord. Vit. 805 C. “Ivonem quoque, quia guerram in - Anglia cœperat, et vicinorum rura suorum incendio - combusserat, quod in illa regione crimen est inusitatum nec - sine gravi ultione fit expiatum, rigidus censor accusatum, - nec purgatum, ingentis pecuniæ redditione oneravit, et - plurimo angore tribulatum mœstificavit.” - - [1059] Ib. “Imprimis erubescebat improperia quæ sibi fiebant - derisoria, quod funambulus per murum exierat de Antiochia.” - - [1060] The temporary possession is expressed by the words, - “totam terram ejus usque ad xv. annos in vadimonio - possideret.” - - [1061] Ib. “Hæreditas ejus alienis subdita est” is a comment - of Orderic. - - [1062] See the song on the recovery of the Five Boroughs in - the Chronicle, 941, 942. - - [1063] The expressions of the Chronicler under the year 918 - are remarkable. It is not said that the Lady _wrought_ or - _timbered_ anything at Leicester; she found the stronghold, - whatever it was, ready made; “Her heo begeat on hyre geweald - mid Godes fultume on foreweardne gear þa burh æt - Ligranceastre.” - - [1064] Ord. Vit. 805 D. “Urbs Legrecestria quatuor dominos - habuerat.” He then names them. - - [1065] Ib. “Præfatus consul de Mellento per partem Yvonis, - qui municeps erat et vicecomes et firmarius regis, callide - intravit, et auxilio regis suaque calliditate totam sibi - civitatem mancipavit, et inde consul in Anglia factus, omnes - regni proceres divitiis et potestate præcessit, et pene - omnes parentes suos transcendit.” - - [1066] Orderic remarks, “Inter tot divitias mente cæcatus, - filio Yvonis jusjurandum non servavit, quia idem adolescens - statuto tempore juratam feminam, hæreditariamque tellurem - non habuit.” On the deathbed of Earl Robert, see vol. i. p. - 187. - - [1067] See vol. i. p. 187. Orderic, it may be noticed, calls - him “senex” even at the time of the release of Helias. See - above, p. 243. - - [1068] See the story in William of Malmesbury, v. 406. - Besides these better known sons, Orderic gives him another, - “Hugo cognomento pauper.” - - [1069] See the Chronicle, 1123; N. C. vol. v. p. 197. - - [1070] See above, p. 380. Orderic gives him four other - daughters. - - [1071] See vol. i. p. 186. The words of William of - Malmesbury (v. 417) are remarkable; “Comes de Mellento qui, - in hoc negotio magis antiqua consuetudine quam recti tenore - rationem reverberans, allegabat multum regiæ majestati - diminui, si, omittens morem antecessorum, non investiret - electum per baculum et annulum.” - - [1072] See Mon. Angl. viii. 1456. The changes by which Earl - Robert’s church was enlarged into the present church of - Saint Mary are singular indeed. The three churches of Our - Lady in and by Leicester must be carefully distinguished. - - [1073] For the abbey of Leicester, or rather St. Mary de - Pré, see Mon. Angl. vi. 462. - - [1074] Ord. Vit. 806 A. “Diligenter eum fecerat per unum - annum explorari, et vituperabiles actus per privatos - exploratores caute investigari, summopereque litteris - adnotari.” - - [1075] Ib. “Anno ab incarnatione Domini mcii. indictione x. - Henricus rex Rodbertum de Belismo, potentissimum comitem, ad - curiam suam ascivit, et xlv. reatus in factis seu dictis - contra se vel fratrem suum Normanniæ ducem, commissos - objecit, et de singulis eum palam respondere præcepit.” - - [1076] Ord. Vit. u. s. “Cum Rodbertus licentiam, ut moris - est, eundi ad consilium cum suis postulasset, eademque - accepta.” It is possible that the “licentia” means the - safe-conduct, but the other interpretation seems more - natural. - - [1077] Ord. Vit. 806 A. “Egressus, purgari se de objectis - criminibus non posse cognovisset, equis celeriter ascensis, - ad castella sua pavidus et anhelus confugit, et, rege cum - baronibus suis responsum exspectante, regius satelles - Rodbertum extemplo recessisse retulit.” - - [1078] Ib. “Rodbertum itaque publicis questibus impetitum, - nec legaliter expiatum, palam blasphemavit, et nisi ad - judicium, rectitudinem facturus, remearet, publicum hostem - judicavit.” - - [1079] “Iterum rebellem ad concionem invitavit, sed ille - venire prorsus refutavit.” All these important details of - the legal process are given by Orderic only, but the - Chronicler directly connects the dispute between the King - and Robert with the holding of the regular assemblies, and - the writer takes the opportunity to draw a picture of the - greatness of the Earl of Shropshire; “On þisum geare to - Natiuiteð wæs se cyng Heanrig on Westmynstre, and to Eastron - on Winceastre, and sona þæræfter wurdon unsehte se cyng and - se eorl Rotbert of Bælæsme, se hæfde þone eorldom her on - lande on Scrobbesbyrig, þe his fæder Roger eorl ær ahte, and - micel rice þærto, ægðer ge beheonon sǽ ge begeondon.” - - It is worth noticing that the Chronicler here uses the - English form, “Rotbert _of_ Bælæsme;” in 1106 he changes to - the French, “Rotbert _de_ Bælesme.” - - [1080] See above, p. 310. - - [1081] Ord. Vit. 675 C, 708 B, 897 D. - - [1082] Arnulf and Roger are both mentioned by Orderic, 808 - C, and William of Malmesbury, v. 396, as having to leave - England with their elder brother. They were therefore his - accomplices; but it is only from the Brut y Tywysogion that - we learn how great a share Arnulf had in the whole matter. - - [1083] Brut, 1096 [1098]. “And when the Gwyneddians could - not bear the laws and judgements and violence of the French - over them, they rose up a second time against them.” - - [1084] Brut, ib. This may refer either to the expedition of - the two Hughs or to the earlier expedition of Hugh of - Chester (see pp. 97, 129). But there seems to be no mention - of Owen in the Welsh writers at either of those points. - - [1085] See above, p. 301. The Brut couples Gruffydd with - Cadwgan. - - [1086] The words of the annals quoted in p. 301 look as if - Gruffydd held Anglesey strictly as a conqueror. The portion - assigned to Cadwgan comes from the Brut, which distinctly - asserts their vassalage in its account of Robert’s rebellion - (1100 [1102]). “Robert and Arnulf invited the Britons, who - were subject to them, in respect of their possessions and - titles, that is to say, Cadwgan, Jorwerth, and Maredudd, - sons of Bleddyn, son of Cynvyn, to their assistance.” - - [1087] So says the Brut, at least in the English - translation; “They [Robert and Arnulf] gladdened their - country with liberty.” - - [1088] So says Giraldus, It. Camb. ii. 12 (vol. vi. p. 143); - “In hac tertia Gualliæ portione, quæ Powisia dicitur, sunt - equitia peroptima, et equi emissarii laudatissimi, de - Hispaniensium equorum generositate, quos olim comes - Slopesburiæ Robertus de Beleme in fines istos adduci - curaverat, originaliter propagati.” - - [1089] So again witnesses the Brut; but we hardly need - witnesses on such a point. - - [1090] So the Brut tells the tale. Orderic mentions the - betrothal, which with him becomes a marriage, somewhat later - (808 C); “Arnulfus filiam regis Hiberniæ nomine Lafracoth - uxorem habuit, per quam soceri sui regnum obtinere - concupivit.” - - [1091] So says the Brut (p. 69), which adds that the - marriage “was easily obtained,” and that “the Earls buoyed - themselves up with pride on account of these things.” - - [1092] Ord. Vit. 806 C. “Interea rex legatos in Neustriam - direxit, ducique veridicis apicibus insinuavit, qualiter - Rodbertus utrisque forisfecerit, et de curia sua furtim - aufugerit. Deinde commonuit ut, sicut pepigerant in Anglia, - utrique traditorem suum plecterent generali vindicta.” - - [1093] Ord. Vit. 806 C. Vignats is mentioned by Wace (8061) - long before when he speaks of - - “Li vieil Willame Talevaz - Ki tint Sez, Belesme è Vinaz.” - - On the abbey founded in 1130, see Neustria Pia, 749. - - [1094] This seems to be the meaning of Orderic’s words, “Non - enim sese sine violentia dedere dignabantur, ne malefidi - desertores merito judicarentur.” - - [1095] See above, p. 289. - - [1096] Orderic’s way of telling this is curious; “Quia dux - deses et mollis erat, ac principali severitate carebat, - Rodbertus de Monteforti, aliique seditionis complices, qui - vicissim dissidebant, mappalia sua, sponte immisso igne, - incenderunt, totum exercitum turbaverunt, et ipsi ex - industria, nemine persequente, fugerunt, aliosque, qui - odibilem Rodbertum gravare affectabant, turpiter fugero - compulerunt.” Of all the Roberts concerned, it would seem to - be he of Montfort who was “odibilis” at the present moment. - - [1097] Ord. Vit. u. s. “Cum ululatu magno post eos - deridentes vociferati sunt.” - - [1098] Ord. Vit. 806 D. “Per totam ergo provinciam pagensium - prædas rapiebant, et direptis omnibus, domos flammis - tradebant.” - - [1099] Orderic (806 B) implies that the works at Bridgenorth - were still going on; “Brugiam, munitissimum castrum, super - Sabrinam fluvium construebat.” But Florence is still more - emphatic; “Muros quoque ac turres castellorum, videlicet - Brycge et Caroclove, die noctuque laborando et operando, - perficere modis omnibus festinavit.” The Brut speaks - obscurely of some earlier dealings about Bridgenorth, of - which we have no record elsewhere; “Brygge, concerning which - there had been war, against which the whole deceit was - perpetrated, and which he had founded contrary to the order - of the King.” The rebels are described generally as - fortifying their castles and surrounding them with ditches - and walls, which are expressed in the Welsh text by the loan - words “O ffossyd a muroed.” - - [1100] Orderic and the Brut stand alone among our - authorities in mentioning all the four castles, Arundel, - Tickhill, Bridgenorth, and Shrewsbury. The Chronicle and - William of Malmesbury leave out Tickhill. Florence and the - Chronicle both leave out Shrewsbury. William of Malmesbury - (v. 396) further confounds the siege of Arundel with that of - Shrewsbury. From Orderic we get a clear and full account, - while the Brut supplies many details as to the Welsh side of - the business. Orderic opens his story in a becoming manner; - “Rex exercitum Angliæ convocavit, et Arundellum castellum, - quod prope litus maris situm est, obsedit.” - - [1101] The _Malvoisins_ before Arundel seem to have struck - all our writers. We get them in the Chronicle; “Se cyng - ferde and besæt þone castel æt Arundel, ac þa he hine swa - hraðe gewinnan ne mihte, he let þær toforan castelas - gemakian, and hi mid his mannan gesette.” They appear also - in Florence, William of Malmesbury, and Henry of Huntingdon. - They were doubtless of wood; but it is only from Roger of - Wendover (ii. 170), who is followed by Matthew Paris (Hist. - Angl. i. 190), that we get the direct statement, “castellum - aliud ligneum contra illud construxit.” - - [1102] So I understand the words of Orderic, 806 B; “Ibi - castris constructis, stratores cum familiis suis tribus - mensibus dimisit.” - - [1103] Flor. Wig. 1102. “Idcirco mox _Walanis et - Nortmannis_, quot tunc habere potuit, in unum congregatis, - ipse et suus germanus Arnoldus partem Staffordensis pagæ - vastaverunt, ac inde jumenta et animalia multa, hominesque - nonnullos in Waloniam abduxerunt.” - - [1104] Ord. Vit. 806 B. “Audiens defectionem suorum - ingemuit, eosque a promissa fide, quia impos erat adjutorii, - absolvit, multumque mœrens licentiam concordandi cum rege - concessit.” - - [1105] So Orderic; I add the stipulation about Robert from - William of Malmesbury; “Egregia sane conditione, ut dominus - suus integra membrorum salute Normanniam permitteretur - abire.” William’s account just here is very confused; but - this condition seems to have struck him, and it explains - some things which come later. He goes on to make this - strange statement; “Porro Scrobesbirienses per Radulfum tum - abbatem Sagii, postea Cantuariæ archiepiscopum, regi misere - castelli claves, deditionis præsentis indices, futuræ - devotionis obsides.” Now Orderic has, as we shall see, a - wholly different account of the surrender of Shrewsbury, and - Abbot Ralph, a victim of Robert of Bellême (see vol. i. p. - 184), is not at all likely to have been in one of his - castles. Can it be that William has got hold of the wrong - castle and the wrong Ralph? Did Bishop Ralph of Chichester - act by any chance as mediator between the King and the - garrison of Arundel, a place in his diocese? - - [1106] The name of Howard is not heard till the time of - Edward the First, and it is not noble till some generations - later. If it really be the name of an English office, - _Hayward_ or _Hogward_, and not a Norman _Houard_, then - Arundel, already a castle T. R. E., has fittingly come back - to the old stock. - - [1107] See above, p. 160. Tickhill appears as “Tyckyll” in - Florence, as “Blida” in Orderic, as “Blif” in the Brut. The - editor of this last, who carefully translates “Amúythia” as - Shrewsbury, seems not to have known that “Blif” and - “Bryg”――there seem to be several readings――meant Blyth and - Bridgenorth. - - [1108] So Florence; “Rotbertum, Lindicolinæ civitatis - episcopum, cum parte exercitus Tyckyll obsidere jussit - [rex]: ille autem Brycge cum exercitu pene totius Angliæ - obsedit.” - - [1109] “Unde,” says Orderic――that is from Arundel――“rex ad - Blidam castrum, quod Rogerii de Buthleio quondam fuerat, - exercitum promovit. Cui mox gaudentes oppidani obviam - processerunt, ipsumque naturalem dominum fatentes, cum - gaudio susceperunt.” Yet it may be that Bishop Robert, like - Joab and Luxemburg, fought against the castle, and that - Henry, like David and Lewis the Fourteenth, came to receive - its submission. - - [1110] The succession of the lords of Tickhill is traced by - Mr. John Raine in his history of Blyth. - - [1111] See Raine, p. 168. - - [1112] See N. C. vol. v. p. 488. - - [1113] Ord. Vit. 806 B. “His ita peractis, rex populos - parumper quiescere permisit, ejusque prudentiam et - animositatem congeries magnatorum pertimuit.” - - [1114] Ord. Vit. 807 A. “Rodbertus autem Scrobesburiam - secesserat, et præfatum oppidum Rogerio, Corbati filio, et - Rodberto de Novavilla, Ulgerioque Venatori commiserat, - quibus lxxx. stipendiarios milites conjunxerat.” - - [1115] Corbet――“Corbatus”――appears in Orderic (522 B, C), - along with his sons Roger and Robert, as a chief man in - Shropshire under Earl Roger. He must have died before the - Survey, as only his sons appear there. The lands which - Corbet’s son Roger held of Earl Roger fill nearly two - columns in Domesday, 255 _b_; they are followed by those of - his brother Robert in 256. Several of Roger’s holdings had - been held by Eadric, and in one lordship of Robert’s he is - distinctly marked as “Edric Salvage.” Several of Roger’s - under-tenants are mentioned, of whom “Osulfus” and - “Ernuinus” must be English, while another lordship had been - held by _Ernui_. If these names mean the same person, then - Earnwine or Earnwig had held two lordships, one of which he - lost altogether, while the other he kept in the third - degree, holding it under Roger son of Corbet, who held it - under Earl Roger. I suppose that these sons of Corbet have - nothing to do with “Robertus filius Corbutionis” who appears - in the east of England and whose name is said to be - “Corpechun.” See Ellis, i. 478. I cannot find Robertus de - Novavilla in Domesday. - - [1116] I cannot find Wulfgar in Domesday, unless he be the - Vlgar who appears as an antecessor in 256, 257 _b_. Some - other huntsmen, fittingly bearing wolfish names, as Wulfgeat - (50 _b_) and Wulfric (50 _b_, 84), appear in Domesday as - keeping land T. R. W., but no Wulfgar. - - [1117] The action of the Welsh appears in all our accounts, - but most fully in Orderic and the Brut. The Annales Cambriæ - say only “Seditio [magna] orta est inter Robertum Belleem et - Henricum regem.” William of Malmesbury says spitefully, - “Wallensibus pro motu fortunæ ad malum pronis.” But he seems - somehow to connect them specially with Shrewsbury. Florence - is emphatic, and brings out the feudal relation between them - and Earl Robert (see above, p. 424); “Walanos etiam, _suos - homines_, ut promptiores sibique fideliores ac paratiores - essent ad id perficiendum quod volebat, honoribus, terris, - equis, armis incitavit, variisque donis largiter ditavit.” - From the Brut we get the names of all three, Cadwgan, - Jorwerth, and Meredydd. Orderic leaves out Meredydd, and - calls them sons of Rhys instead of Bleddyn. He adds, “Quos - cum suis copiis exercitum regis exturbare frequenter - dirigebat.” - - [1118] Ord. Vit. 807 A. “Guillelmum Pantolium, militarem - probumque virum, exhæreditaverat, et multa sibi pollicentem - servitia in instanti necessitate penitus a se - propulsaverat.” Orderic had mentioned him already in 522 B, - C, by the name of “Guillelmus Pantulfus,” as one of Earl - Roger’s chief followers in Shropshire. His Shropshire - holdings fill a large space in Domesday, 257, 257 _b_, where - he appears as Pantulf and Pantul; and the history of one of - them has been commented on in N. C. vol. iv. p. 737. Many of - them were waste when he received them. His Staffordshire - lordship is entered in p. 248, with the addition “in - Stadford una vasta masura.” See N. C. vol. iv. p. 281. I do - not know why Lappenberg (ii. 234, p. 294 of the translation) - makes William Pantulf to have been persecuted (“verfolgt”) - by Earl Roger on account of a share in the murder of Mabel. - If he had lost his lands then, he would hardly have appeared - in Domesday, and, according to Orderic, it was not Earl - Roger, but Robert of Bellême himself, who disinherited him. - - [1119] See N. C. vol. iv. p. 316. Orderic calls it - “Staphordi castrum, quod in vicino erat.” - - [1120] Orderic tells us, “Hic super omnes Rodberto nocuit, - et usque ad dejectionem consiliis et armis pertinaciter - obstitit.” - - [1121] The _Malvoisin_ at Bridgenorth comes from Florence; - “Machinas ibi construere et castellum firmare cœpit.” - - [1122] “Totius Angliæ legiones in autumno adunavit, et in - regionem Merciorum minavit, ibique Brugiam tribus septimanis - obsedit.” So says Orderic, 807 A. When Florence says, “infra - xxx. dies civitate omnibusque castellis redditis,” he must - take in Shrewsbury, though he does not mention its name. - Bridgenorth could not be called “civitas;” Shrewsbury is so - called in Domesday, where the name does not imply a bishop’s - see. - - [1123] See vol. i. pp. 83, 86. - - [1124] Ord. Vit. 807 B. “Consules et primores regni una - convenerunt, et de pacificando discorde cum domino suo - admodum tractaverunt. Dicebant enim, Si rex magnificum - [μεγαλοπράγμονά τε καὶ κακοπράγμονα [megalopragmona te kai - kakopragmona]] comitem violenter subegerit, nimiaque - pertinacia, ut conatur, eum exhæreditaverit, omnes nos ut - imbelles ancillas amodo conculcabit.” - - [1125] Ord. Vit. 807 B. “Pacem igitur inter eos obnixi - seramus, ut hero comparique nostro legitime proficiamus, et - sic utcunque perturbationes sedando debitorem nobis - faciamus.” - - [1126] See above, p. 151. - - [1127] Ord. Vit. 807 B. “Regem omnes simul adierunt, et in - medio campo _colloquium_ [see N. C. vol. iv. p. 688] de pace - medullitus fecerunt, ac pluribus argumentis regiam - austeritatem emollire conati sunt.” - - [1128] Ib. “Tunc in quodam proximo colle tria millia - _pagensium militum_ stabant, et optimatum molimina satis - intelligentes, ad regem vociferando clamabant.” The word - “milites” is qualified by “pagenses;” so we are not to - conceive three thousand English “chivalers” or “rideras,” - least of all in a shire where no King’s thegns were left. - - [1129] See N. C. vol. ii. pp. 104, 105, and below, p. 448. - - [1130] I have here simply translated Orderic. The words are - doubtless his own; but the matter is quite in place. - - [1131] See above, p. 430. - - [1132] Ord. Vit. 807 B. “His auditis, rex animatus est, - _eoque mox recedente_, conatus factiosorum adnihilatus est.” - I do not quite see the force of the words in Italics. Does - it mean simply leaving the place of the “colloquium”? It - cannot, from what goes before and after, mean changing the - quarters of the whole army. - - [1133] Ib. B, C. “Præfatos Gualorum reges per Guillelmum - Pantolium rex accersiit, eosque datis muneribus et promissis - demulcens, hosti caute surripuit suæque parti cum viribus - suis associavit.” The detailed narrative comes from the - Brut, to whose author the different conduct of the brothers - was naturally more interesting than it was to Orderic. He - speaks of the message as “sent to the Britons,” and - specially to Jorwerth, without mentioning Cadwgan and - Meredydd. He is the best authority for what went on among - his own people, while we may trust Orderic for the name of - the negotiator on the King’s side. Florence speaks quite - generally; “Interim Walanos, in quibus fiduciam magnam - Rotbertus habuerat, ut juramenta quæ illi juraverant irrita - fierent, et ab illo penitus deficerent in illumque - consurgerent, donis modicis facile corrupit.” The gifts - actually given may have been small, but the promises were - certainly large. - - [1134] The Brut makes the King “promise him more than he - should obtain from the earls, and the portion he ought to - have of the land of the Britons.” This is then defined as - the districts mentioned in the text. - - [1135] “Half of Dyved,” says the Brut, “as the other half - had been given to the son of Baldwin.” That Jorwerth’s half - was to take in Pembroke Castle appears from the words - towards the end of this year’s entry, where the King “took - Dyved and the castle from him.” “The castle” in Dyfed can - only be Pembroke. - - [1136] The Brut tells this at some length, speaking rather - pointedly of “the territory of Robert his lord.” See above, - pp. 424, 434. - - [1137] Ord. Vit. 807 C. “Tres quoque præcipuos municipes - mandavit, et coram cunctis juravit quod nisi oppidum in - triduo sibi redderent, omnes quoscunque de illis capere - posset, suspendio perirent.” These “municipes,” the - “oppidani” of the rest of the story, must be the three - captains, Roger, Robert, and Wulfgar. Odd as it seems, both - “oppidanus” and “municeps” are often used in this sense. See - Ducange in Municeps. - - [1138] “Guillelmum Pantolium, qui affinis eorum erat.” - “Affinis” in the language of Orderic often means simply - neighbour, as in 708 A. - - [1139] “Facete composita oratione ad reddendam legitimo regi - munitionem commonuit, cujus ex parte terra centum librarum - fundos eorum augendos jurejurando promisit.” - - [1140] “Oppidani, considerata communi commoditate, - acquieverunt, et regiæ majestatis voluntati, ne resistendo - periclitarentur, obedierunt.” - - [1141] “Se non posse ulterius tolerare violentiam invicti - principis mandaverunt.” - - [1142] So says the Brut, adding, “without knowing anything - of what was passing.” - - [1143] The embassy at this stage comes only from the Brut, - but as the later one (see below, p. 448) is mentioned also, - we may accept it. The Welsh writer naturally makes the most - of his countrymen, and makes Robert despair on the secession - of Jorwerth. “He thought he had no power left since Jorwerth - had gone from him, for he was the principal among the - Britons, and the greatest in power.” This may not be an - exaggeration, as he lost with Jorwerth all power of doing - anything in the open field. - - [1144] The journey of Arnulf at this particular time comes - only from the Brut, but it quite fits in with the rest of - the story. - - [1145] On the second voyage of Magnus, see Appendix II. - - [1146] See Appendix II. - - [1147] Ord. Vit. 807 C. “Stipendiarii autem milites pacem - nescierunt, quam oppidani omnes et burgenses, perire - nolentes, illis inconsultis fecerunt.” The appearance of the - “burgenses,” a class who must have grown up speedily, as - Bridgenorth is no Domesday borough, mark yet more distinctly - the true meaning of “oppidani.” - - [1148] “Cum insperatam rem comperissent, indignati sunt, et - armis assumptis inchoatum opus impedire nisi sunt.” - - [1149] “Oppidanorum violentia in quadam parte munitionis - inclusi sunt.” - - [1150] “Regii satellites cum regali vexillo, multis - gaudentibus, suscepti sunt.” - - [1151] “Deinde rex, quia stipendiarii fidem principi suo - servabant, ut decuit, eis liberum cum equis et armis exitum - annuit. Qui egredientes, inter catervas obsidentium - plorabant, seseque fraudulentia castrensium et magistrorum - male supplantatos palam plangebant, et coram omni exercitu, - ne talis eorum casus aliis opprobrio esset stipendiariis, - complicum dolos detegebant.” The use of the words may seem - odd; but “magistri” must mean the captains, and “castrenses” - the burgesses. - - [1152] See N. C. vol. iv. pp. 272, 492. We may here again - mark the accuracy of Orderic’s local descriptions in his own - shire (807 D); “Scrobesburiam urbem in monte sitam, quæ in - ternis lateribus circumluitur Sabrina flumine.” - - [1153] See N. C. vol. iv. p. 498. - - [1154] Ord. Vit. 807 D. “Robertus de Belismo, ut - munitissimum Brugiæ castrum, in quo maxime confidebat, regi - subactum audivit, anxius ingemuit, et pene in amentiam - versus, quid ageret ignoravit.” - - [1155] Ord. Vit. 808 A. “Plus quam lx. milia peditum erant - in expeditione.” - - [1156] Ib. 807 D. “Rex phalanges suas jussit Huvel-hegem - pertransire…. Angli quippe quemdam transitum per silvam - _huvelge-hem_ dicunt, quem Latini _malum callem_ vel - _vicum_, nuncupare possunt. Via enim per mille passus erat - cava, grandibus saxis aspera, stricta quoque quæ vix duos - pariter equitantes capere valebat, cui opacum nemus ex - utraque parte obumbrabat, in quo sagittarii delitescebant, - et stridulis missilibus vel sagittis prætereuntes subito - mulctabant.” - - [1157] Ib. 808 A. “Rex jussit silvam securibus præcidere, et - amplissimam stratam sibi et cunctis transeuntibus usque in - æternum præparare. Regia jussio velociter completa est, - saltuque complanato latissimus trames a multitudine - adæquatus est.” - - [1158] Ord. Vit. 808 A. “Severus rex memor injuriarum, _cum - pugnaci multitudine decrevit_ illum impetere nec ei - ullatenus nisi victum se redderet parcere.” - - [1159] For the date, see above, p. 435. - - [1160] Ord. Vit. u. s. “Tristis casus sui angore contabuit, - et consultu amicorum regi jam prope urbem venienti obviam - processit, et crimen proditionis confessus, claves urbi - victori exhibuit.” This time the keys were doubtless not - handed on the point of a spear. - - [1161] Ord. Vit. 808 A. “Ipsum cum equis et armis incolumem - abire permisit, salvumque per Angliam usque ad mare - conductum porrexit.” - - There is nothing very special in the other accounts. On the - story about Bishop Ralph in William of Malmesbury, see - above, p. 430. But William adds (v. 396) a remarkable - condition to Robert’s banishment; “Angliam perpetuo - abjuravit; sed vigorem sacramenti temperavit adjectio, nisi - regi placito quandoque satisfecisset obsequio.” - - [1162] The native Chronicler alone notices this point. His - account of the siege of Bridgenorth――leaving out - Shrewsbury――runs thus; “Se cyng … syððan mid ealre his fyrde - ferde to Brigge, and þær wunode oððe he þone castel hæfde, - and þone eorl Rotbert belænde, and ealles benæmde þæs he on - Englalande hæfde, and se eorl swa ofer sǽ gewát, _and seo - fyrde siððan ham cyrde_.” Men might stay at home during the - rest of Henry’s days, unless they were called to go beyond - sea themselves. - - [1163] Numbers, xxi. 29. - - [1164] “Omnis Anglia exsulante crudeli tyranno exsultavit, - multorumque congratulatio regi Henrico tunc adulando dixit, - Gaude, rex Henrice, Dominoque Deo grates age, quia tu libere - cœpisti regnare, ex quo Rodbertum de Belismo vicisti, et de - finibus regni tui expulisti.” - - [1165] Orderic and William of Malmesbury record the - banishment of both brothers. Florence mentions Arnulf only. - “Germanum illius [Rotberti] Arnoldum paulo post, pro sua - perfidia, simili sorte damnavit.” To the author of the Brut - the departure of Arnulf was of special importance. The King - gives him his choice, “either to quit the kingdom and follow - his brother, or else”――I can only follow the - translation――“to be at his will with his head in his lap.” - “When Ernulf heard that, he was most desirous of going after - his brother; so he delivered his castle [of Pembroke] to the - King, and the King placed a garrison in it.” - - [1166] See N. C. vol. v. pp. 173, 184. See Chron. Petrib. - 1105, 1112; Flor. Wig. ib. Cf. Hen. Hunt de Cont. Mundi, - II. “Qui cæteros carcere vexaverat, in carcere perenni a - rege Henrico positus, longo supplicio sceleratus deperiit. - Quam tantopere fama coluerat dum viveret, in carcere utrum - viveret vel obisset nescivit, diemque mortis ejus - obmutescens ignoravit.” - - [1167] See Appendix II. - - [1168] See Appendix II. - - [1169] The latter is the story in the Brut; the Annales - Cambriæ say; “Jorwert filius Bledint Maredut frater suum - cepit, regi tradidit;” or, in another reading, “Cepit - fratrem suum Mareduch, et eum in carcerem regis trusit.” - - [1170] See above, pp. 98, 108. - - [1171] Brut, p. 75. - - [1172] See N. C. vol. v. p. 160. - - [1173] Ib. vol. i. pp. 327, 333. - - [1174] The account in the Brut is that in 1101 (that is - 1103) he “was cited to Shrewsbury, through the treachery of - the King’s council. And his pleadings and claims were - arranged; and on his having come, all the pleadings were - turned against him, and the pleading continued through the - day, and at last he was adjudged to be fineable, and was - afterwards cast into the King’s prison, not according to - law, but according to power.” Again I should like to be able - to judge of the translation. The Annals say in one copy, - “Iorward filius Bledint apud Saresberiam a rege Henrico - injuste capitur;” in another, “captus est ab hominibus regis - apud Slopesburiam.” Shrewsbury is of course the right - reading. - - [1175] So says the Brut. The Annals also call him “decus et - solamen Britanniæ.” - - [1176] His story is told among others by William of - Malmesbury, v. 397, 398. - - [1177] The question of his blinding has a bearing on the - question of the blinding of Duke Robert. See N. C. vol. v. - p. 849.] - - - - - INDEX. - - A. - - Aaron, the Jew, i. 160 (_note_). - - Abbeys, - sale of, by William Rufus, i. 134, 135, 347, 349; - vacancies of, prolonged by him, i. 134, 135, 347, 350, ii. 564; - Englishmen appointed to by him, i. 352; - in what sense the king’s, i. 455. - - Aberafan, - held by the descendants of Jestin, ii. 87; - foundation of the borough, ii. 88. - - Aberllech, English defeat at, ii. 107. - - Aberlleiniog Castle, ii. 97; - destroyed by the Welsh, ii. 101; - rebuilt, ii. 129; - modern traces of, ii. 130; - fleet of Magnus off, ii. 143. - - Aberllwehr Castle, ii. 103. - - Abingdon Abbey, dealings of Hugh of Dun and Hugh of Buckland with, - ii. 665. - - Adela, daughter of William the Conqueror, her correspondence with - Anselm, i. 374, ii. 571. - - Adelaide, - wife of Walter Tirel, ii. 322, 673; - her tenure of lands in Essex, ii. 674. - - Adeliza, Queen, wife of Henry I, ii. 389 (_note_). - - Adeliza (Atheliz), abbess of Wilton, Anselm’s letter to, ii. 578. - - Adeliza, wife of Roger of Montgomery, legend of her vow, ii. 154. - - Adeliza, wife of William Fitz-Osbern, i. 266. - - _Advocatio_, _advowson_, right and duty of, i. 420. - - Ælfgifu-Emma. _See_ Emma. - - Ælfheah, Archbishop of Canterbury, Anselm asserts his right to the - title of martyr, i. 377. - - Ælfhere, Prior of Saint Eadmund’s, ii. 579. - - Ælfred, King, Henry I descended from, ii. 383. - - Ælfred of Lincoln, ii. 485. - - Ælfsige, Abbot of Bath, his death, i. 136. - - Ælwine Retheresgut, ii. 359 (_note_). - - Æthelflæd, Lady of the Mercians, fortifies Bridgenorth, ii. 152, 153 - (_note_). - - Æthelflæd, Abbess of Romsey, her alleged outwitting of William - Rufus, ii. 32, 600. - - Æthelnoth the Good, Archbishop of Canterbury, his gift of a cope to - the Archbishop of Beneventum, i. 610. - - Æthelred II., compared with William Rufus, ii. 307. - - Æthelward, son of Dolfin, ii. 551. - - Agnes of Ponthieu, - wife of Robert of Bellême, i. 180; - his treatment of her, i. 183; - escapes from him, i. 183 (_note_). - - Agnes, wife of Helias of Maine, ii. 373. - - Agnes, widow of Walter Giffard, said to have poisoned Sibyl of - Conversana, ii. 312 (_note_). - - Aiulf, Sheriff of Dorset, ii. 485. - - Alan the Black, lord of Richmond, - part of Bishop William’s lands granted to, i. 90; - his agreement with the Bishop, i. 93; - intervenes on his behalf, i. 109, 117, 120; - Rufus bids him give the Bishop ships, i. 114; - seeks Eadgyth-Matilda in marriage, ii. 602; - his death, _ib._ - - Albanians, followers of Magnus so called, ii. 623. - - Alberic, Earl of Northumberland, confirms the grant of Tynemouth to - Jarrow, ii. 18, 605. - - Alberic of Grantmesnil, - goes on the first crusade, i. 552; - called the “rope-dancer,” i. 565 (_note_). - - Aldric, Saint, Bishop of Le Mans, his buildings, ii. 240, 633. - - Alençon, garrison of, - driven out by Robert of Bellême, i. 193; - surrenders to Duke Robert, i. 218; - the army of William Rufus meets at, ii. 228. - - Alexander the Great, William Rufus compared to, i. 287. - - Alexander II., Pope, his excommunication of Harold, i. 612. - - Alexander, King of Scotland, - son of Malcolm and Margaret, ii. 22; - driven out of Scotland, ii. 30; - his accession, ii. 124; - marries a daughter of Henry I, _ib._; - Anselm’s letter to, ii. 581. - - Alexios Komnênos, Eastern Emperor, - appeals for help to the Council of Piacenza, i. 545; - Duke Robert does homage to, i. 564. - - Allières, castle of, ii. 216, 217. - - Almaric the Young, ii. 251. - - Alnwick, - history of the castle and lords of, ii. 15, 596; - death of Malcolm III. at, ii. 16, 592. - - Alton, meeting of Henry I and Robert near, ii. 408. - - Alvestone, sickness of William Rufus at, i. 390. - - Amalchis, brings news to William Rufus of the victories of Helias, - ii. 283, 645-652, 785. - - Amalfi, siege of, i. 562. - - Amalric of Montfort, gets possession of the county of Evreux, i. 268 - (_note_). - - Amercements, provision for, in Henry’s charters, ii. 354. - - Amfrida, her correspondence with Anselm, ii. 571. - - Anglesey, - advance of Hugh of Chester in, ii. 97; - deliverance of, ii. 101; - war of 1098 in, ii. 127 et seq.; - fleet of Magnus off, ii. 143; - his designs thereon, ii. 145; - subdued by Hugh of Chester, ii. 146; - recovered by the Welsh, ii. 301; - second visit of Magnus to, ii. 442. - - _Annales Cambriæ_, ii. 3 (_note_). - - Anselm, - his biographers, i. 325 (_note_), 369; - his birthplace and parentage, i. 366; - compared with Lanfranc, i. 368, 456; - his friendship with William the Conqueror, i. 368, 380; - not preferred in England by him, i. 368; - his character, i. 369; - his childhood and youth, i. 370, 371; - leaves Aosta, sojourns at Avranches, and becomes a monk at Bec, - i. 371; - elected prior and abbot, i. 372; - his wide-spread fame, i. 373; - his correspondence, i. 374, ii. 570 et seq.; - his desire to do justice, i. 377; - his first visit to England, _ib._; - asserts Ælfheah’s right to the title of martyr, _ib._; - his friendship with the monks of Christ Church, i. 378; - with Eadmer, i. 369, 378, 460; - his popularity in England, i. 378; - his preaching and alleged miracles, i. 379; - his friendship for Earl Hugh, i. 380; - entertained by Walter Tirel, i. 380 (_note_); - regarded as the future Archbishop, i. 381; - refuses Earl Hugh’s invitation to Chester, i. 383; - yields at last, at the bidding of his monks, i. 384; - hailed at Canterbury as the future Archbishop, i. 385; - his first interview with William Rufus, _ib._; - rebukes him, i. 386; - goes to Chester, i. 387; - the King refuses him leave to go back, i. 388; - his form of prayer for the appointment of an archbishop, i. 390; - the King’s mocking speech about, _ib._; - sent for by him, i. 393; - named by him to the archbishopric, i. 396, ii. 584; - his unwillingness, i. 396; - Rufus pleads with him, i. 398; - invested by force, i. 399; - his first installation, i. 400; - his prophecy and parable, i. 401; - has no scruple about the royal right of investiture, i. 403; - later change in his views, i. 404; - stays with Gundulf, i. 406; - his interview with William at Rochester, i. 412; - conditions of his acceptance, i. 413-416; - refuses to confirm William’s grants during the vacancy, i. - 418-421; - states the case in a letter to Hugh of Lyons, i. 419, ii. 571, - 576; - receives the archbishopric and does homage, i. 422; - his friendship with Abbot Paul of Saint Alban’s, i. 423; - the papal question left unsettled, i. 424, 432; - his enthronement, i. 427; - Flambard’s suit against him, i. 428; - his consecration, i. 429-432; - professes obedience to the Church of Rome, i. 432; - attends the Gemót at Gloucester, i. 434; - his unwilling contribution for the war against Robert, i. 437, - 438; - his gift refused by the King, i. 439; - his dispute with the Bishop of London, i. 440; - at the consecration of Battle Abbey, i. 444; - insists on the profession of Robert Bloet, i. 446; - rebukes the courtiers, i. 449; - appeals to Rufus for reforms, i. 451; - asks leave to hold a synod, _ib._; - protests against fashionable vices, i. 452; - prays the King to fill vacant abbeys, i. 453; - his claim to the regency, i. 457; - attempts to regain the King’s favour, _ib._; - refuses to give him money, i. 458-460; - leaves Hastings, i. 460; - his interview with the King at Gillingham, i. 481; - asks leave to go to Urban for the pallium, i. 481-484; - argues in favour of Urban, i. 484; - asks for an assembly to discuss the question, i. 485; - insists on the acknowledgement of Urban, i. 486; - states his case at the assembly at Rockingham, i. 492; - how regarded by the King’s party, i. 493; - advice of the bishops to, i. 494; - sets forth his twofold duties, i. 495, 496; - compared with William of Saint-Calais, i. 497; - not the first to appeal to Rome, _ib._; - his speech to Rufus, i. 498; - sleeps during the debate, _ib._; - the King’s message and advice of the bishops, _ib._; - schemes of William of Saint-Calais against, i. 500; - speech of Bishop William to him, i. 502; - Anselm’s challenge, i. 505; - popular feeling with him, i. 507; - speech of the knight to, i. 508; - renounced by the King and the bishops, i. 512; - supported by the lay lords, i. 514; - proposes to leave England, i. 516; - agrees to an adjournment, i. 518; - his friends oppressed by the King, i. 520; - summoned to Hayes, i. 530; - refuses to pay for the pallium, i. 531; - reconciled to Rufus, _ib._; - refuses to take the pallium from him, i. 532; - absolves Bishops Robert and Osmund, i. 533; - restores Wilfrith of Saint David’s, i. 534; - receives the pallium at Canterbury, _ib._; - his alleged oath to the Pope, i. 535, ii. 588; - his letters to Cardinal Walter, i. 536, 538, ii. 41, 571; - entrusted with the defence of Canterbury, i. 537, ii. 44; - his canonical position objected to by the bishops, i. 539; - his dealings with his monks and tenants, i. 541; - attends Bishop William on his deathbed, i. 542, ii. 61; - consecrates English and Irish bishops, i. 544; - his letters to King Murtagh, i. 545 (_note_), ii. 581; - his contribution to the pledge-money, i. 558; - complaints made of his contingent to the Welsh war, i. 572; - position of his knights, i. 573; - summoned to the King’s court, i. 574; - change in his feelings, i. 575; - his yearnings towards Rome, i. 575-577; - new position taken by, i. 577; - determines to demand reform, i. 579, - and not to answer the new summons, _ib._; - favourably received, i. 581; - asks leave to go to Rome, i. 582, 583, - and is refused, _ib._; - renews his request, i. 584; - again impleaded, _ib._; - alternative given to by William, _ib._; - his answer to the bishops and lords, i. 585; - to Walkelin, i. 587; - charged with breach of promise, i. 589; - alternative given to him, _ib._; - his discourse to the King, i. 589-591; - the barons take part against him, i. 591; - his answer to Robert of Meulan, i. 592; - terms on which he is allowed to go, i. 592, 593; - his last interview with Rufus, i. 593; - blesses him, i. 594; - his departure from Canterbury, _ib._; - his departure foretold by the comet, ii. 118; - William of Warelwast searches his luggage, i. 595; - crosses to Whitsand, _ib._; - his estates seized by the King, _ib._; - his acts declared null, i. 596; - compared with Thomas of London and William of Saint-Calais, i. - 598 et seq.; - does not strictly appeal to the Pope, i. 598; - does not assert clerical privileges, i. 599; - effects of his foreign sojourn on, i. 606; - writes to Urban from Lyons, i. 612; - alleged scheme of Odo Duke of Burgundy against, i. 606, - and of Pope Clement, i. 607; - his reception by Urban, _ib._; - known as “the holy man,” i. 608; - writes to Rufus, i. 613; - his sojourn at Schiavia, i. 615; - writes his “Cur Deus Homo,” _ib._; - plots of William Rufus against, _ib._; - his reception by Duke Roger, _ib._; - his kindness to the Saracens, i. 616; - forbidden to convert them, i. 617; - Urban forbids him to resign his see, _ib._; - defends the _Filioque_ at Bari, i. 609, 618; - pleads for William Rufus, _ib._; - Urban’s dealings with him, i. 621; - made to stay for the Lateran Council, i. 621; - special honours paid to, i. 607, 622; - goes to Lyons, i. 622; - hears of the death of Rufus, ii. 34, 363; - the monks of Canterbury beg him to return, ii. 363; - Henry’s letter to, ii. 364-366; - returns to England, ii. 369; - his connexion with Norman history, _ib._; - his meeting with Henry, ii. 374; - his dispute with Henry compared with that with Rufus, ii. 375; - his refusal to do homage and receive investiture, ii. 375, 376; - the question is adjourned, ii. 377, 378, 399; - no personal scruple on his part, ii. 377; - provisional restoration of his temporalities, ii. 378; - refuses his consent to the appointment of Eadwulf as abbot of - Malmesbury, ii. 383 (_note_); - Eadgyth appeals to, concerning her marriage with Henry, ii. 384; - holds an assembly on the matter, and pronounces in her favour, - ii. 384, 385, 683; - other versions of the story, ii. 385, 387; - celebrates the marriage, ii. 387; - his speech thereat, ii. 388; - mediates between Henry and his nobles, ii. 400; - his contingent against Robert, ii. 403; - his energy on behalf of Henry, ii. 410; - threatens Robert with excommunication, _ib._; - Henry’s compromise with, ii. 455; - called Saint before his canonization, ii. 661. - - Ansfrida, mistress of Henry I, - story of, ii. 380; - buried at Abingdon, ii. 382. - - Anskill of Berkshire, - story of, ii. 380; - notice of in Domesday, ii. 381 (_note_). - - Anthony, Sub-Prior of Christ Church, appointed Prior of Saint - Augustine’s, i. 140. - - Antioch, - “rope-dancers” at, i. 565; - death of Arnulf of Hesdin at, ii. 66. - - Aosta, birthplace of Anselm, i. 366. - - Aquitaine, Duke William proposes to pledge it to William Rufus, - ii.313. - - Archard. _See_ Harecher. - - Archbishop of Canterbury, - special position of, i. 358; - the parish priest of the Crown, i. 414 (_note_). - - Archbishopric, meaning of the phrase “receiving” it, ii. 375. - - Argentan Castle, - held by William Rufus, i. 462; - siege of, i. 463; - surrenders to Duke Robert, i. 464; - granted to Robert of Bellême, ii. 396; - held by him against Henry I, ii. 428. - - Armethwaite Nunnery, alleged foundation of, by William Rufus, ii. 506. - - Arnold, Bishop of Le Mans, his buildings, ii. 240, 634. - - Arnold of Saint Evroul, translates Robert of Rhuddlan’s body to - Saint Evroul, i. 128. - - Arnold of Escalfoy, poisoned by Mabel Talvas, i. 215. - - Arnold of Percy, signs the Durham charter, ii. 530. - - Arnold, Dr., on chivalry, ii. 508. - - Arnulf of Hesdin, - his alleged foundation at Ruislip, i. 376 (_note_); - his gifts to Gloucester Abbey, ii. 65; - his innocence proved by battle, _ib._; - goes to the crusade and dies, ii. 66. - - Arnulf of Montgomery, - son of Earl Roger of Shrewsbury, i. 57 (_note_); - begins Pembroke Castle, ii. 96; - plots against Henry, ii. 395; - his share in Robert of Bellême’s rebellion, ii. 423; - his dealings with King Murtagh, ii. 425, 622, 624; - and with King Magnus, ii. 426; - harries Staffordshire, ii. 429; - goes to Ireland, ii. 442; - his banishment, ii. 450. - - Arques Castle, held by Helias of Saint-Saens, i. 236. - - Arundel, - held by Earl Roger, i. 58; - position of, _ib._; - castle of, built T. R. E., _ib._; - priory founded at, by Earl Roger, i. 59 (_note_); - besieged by Henry I, ii. 428; - terms of its surrender, ii. 430; - its later fortunes, _ib._ - - Arundel, Earl of, origin of the title, i. 60 (_note_). - - Ascalon, battle of, i. 623. - - Ascelin Goel, his war with William of Breteuil, i. 243 (_note_). - - Assemblies, frequency of, under William Rufus, i. 487. - - Aumale Castle, - surrendered to William Rufus, i. 228; - strengthened by him, i. 229. - - Auvergne, mention of in the Chronicle, i. 547 (_note_). - - Avesgaud, Bishop of Le Mans, signs the foundation charter of Lonlay - Abbey, 539. - - Avon, at Bristol, i. 37. - - Avranchin, bought by Henry of Robert, i. 196, ii. 510-516. - - - B. - - Baldwin of Boulogne, King of Jerusalem, - his dream, i. 269, ii. 122; - its fulfilment, i. 270; - marries Godehild of Toesny, i. 270 (_note_); - goes on the first crusade, i. 551; - besieged in Rama, ii. 122; - Anselm’s letters to, ii. 581. - - Baldwin, Abbot of Saint Eadmund’s, - rebuilds his church, ii. 268; - translates Saint Eadmund’s body, ii. 270; - his journey to Rome, _ib._; - his death, ii. 267, 270; - his signature to the Durham charter, ii. 536. - - Baldwin of Tournay, monk of Bec, - his advice to Anselm, i. 399; - driven out of England by William Rufus, i. 520; - recalled, i. 542; - leaves England with Anselm, i. 595. - - Ballon, - castle of, i. 209; - siege and surrender of, i. 209-211; - betrayed to William Rufus and occupied by Robert of Bellême, - ii. 235; - Fulk’s unsuccessful attempt on, ii. 236; - William’s treatment of the captive knights, ii. 237, i. 171; - strengthened by Robert of Bellême, ii. 282. - - Bamburgh Castle, ii. 47, 607; - relic of Saint Oswald at, ii. 49; - question as to the date of the keep, _ib._; - held by Robert of Mowbray against William Rufus, ii. 50, 607; - effect of the making of the Malvoisin tower, ii. 51, 608; - siege abandoned by Rufus, ii. 52, 609; - Robert’s escape from, ii. 53, 609; - defended by Matilda of Laigle, ii. 54, 610; - surrender of, ii. 54. - - Bari, Archbishop of, - Wulfstan’s correspondence with, i. 479; - Council of (1098), i. 608, 618. - - Barnacles not to be eaten on fast-days, ii. 93 (_note_). - - Basilia, wife of Hugh of Gournay, her correspondence with Anselm, - ii. 571. - - Bath, - burned by Robert of Mowbray, i. 41; - see of Wells moved to, i. 136, ii. 483; - temporal lordship of, granted to John of Tours, i. 137, ii. 487; - dislike of the monks to Bishop John’s changes, i. 138; - buildings of John of Tours at, i. 138, ii. 486; - church of, called _abbey_, i. 139; - later charters concerning, ii. 487; - sales and manumissions done at, ii. 489. - - Battle Abbey, - gifts of William Rufus to, i. 18, 168, ii. 504; - consecration of the church, i. 443; - gifts of Bernard of Newmarch to, ii. 90. - - Bayard, Chevalier, at the siege of Padua, i. 173. - - Beaumont-le-Roger, i. 185. - - Beaumont-le-Vicomte, ii. 229. - - Beavers, lawfulness of eating their tails on fast-days, ii. 93 - (_note_). - - Bec Abbey, - fame of, under Anselm, i. 373; - its intercourse and connexion with England, i. 374-376, ii. 572; - Gundulf’s letter to the monks, i. 405; - monks of, object to Anselm’s accepting the primacy, i. 406. - - _Belfry_, origin of the name, ii. 520. - - Bellême, - surrenders to Duke Robert, i. 218; - site of the old castle, i. 218 (_note_). - - Benefices, - vacant, policy of William Rufus with regard to, i. 134, 336, - 337, 347, 348, ii. 564; - sale of, under Rufus, i. 134, 347, 349; - sale of, not systematic before Rufus, i. 348. - - Beneventum, Archbishop of, - sells the arm of Saint Bartholomew to the Lady Emma, i. 609; - Æthelnoth’s gift of a cope to, i. 610. - - Benjamin the monk, ii. 579. - - Bequest, right of, confirmed by Henry I, i. 338, ii. 354. - - Berkeley, - harried by William of Eu, i. 44; - its position and castle, i. 45. - - Berkshire pool, portent of, ii. 258, 316. - - Bermondsey Priory, its foundation, ii, 508. - - Bernard of Newmarch, - rebels against William Rufus, i. 34; - his conquest of Brecknock, ii. 89-91; - his gifts to Battle Abbey, ii. 90; - marries Nest, granddaughter of Gruffydd, _ib._ - - Bertrada of Montfort, - brought up by Countess Heloise, ii. 193; - sought in marriage by Fulk of Anjou, ii. 192; - marries him, ii. 194; - her adulterous marriage with Philip of France, i. 548, ii. 171, - 172; - Bishop Ivo of Chartres protests against, i. 559 (_note_); - denounced by Hugh of Lyons, ii. 173; - excommunicated, i. 549, ii. 173; - her sons, ii. 174; - schemes against Lewis, _ib._ - - Berwick, granted to and withdrawn from the see of Durham, ii. 121. - - Bishops, - their power in the eleventh century, i. 138; - no reference to the Pope in their appointment, i. 425; - order of their appointment then and now, i. 425-427; - theories of the two systems, i. 426; - why the peers’ right of trial does not extend to, i. 604 - (_note_). - - Bishoprics, - sale of, under William Rufus, i. 134, 347, 349; - vacant, his policy with regard to, i. 134, 336, 337, 347, 350, - ii. 564. - - Blasphemy, frequency of, i. 166. - - Blèves, castle of, ii. 216, 217. - - Blindness, armies smitten with, ii. 478, 480. - - Blyth Priory, - founded by Roger of Bully, ii. 161; - granted to Saint Katharine’s at Rouen, ii. 162 (_note_). - - Bofig, his lordship of Rockingham, i. 490. - - Bohemond, Mark, brother of Roger of Apulia, - besieges Amalfi, i. 561; - goes on the crusade, i. 562; - origin of his name, i. 562 (_note_). - - Boleslaus King of Poland, i. 611. - - Bonneville, - castle of, ii. 285; - early history and legends of, ii. 286. - - Boso of Durham, his visions, ii. 59. - - Botolph, Abbot of Saint Eadmund’s, ii. 268. - - Bourg-le-roi, castle of, ii. 232. - - Boury, castle of, ii. 189. - - Brecknock, - conquest of, ii. 89-91; - castle of, ii. 90; - revolt of, ii. 106. - - Bribery under William Rufus, i. 153, 344. - - Bridgenorth, - fortified by Æthelflæd, ii. 152, 153 (_note_); - fortress of Robert of Bellême at, ii. 155-158; - churches and town of, ii. 157; - defence of, against Henry I, ii. 428, 432; - siege of, ii. 435 et seq.; - dealings of the captains with Henry, ii. 440; - divisions in, ii. 442; - surrender of, ii. 444. - - Brihtric, son of Ælfgar, lands of, held by Robert Fitz-hamon, ii. 83. - - Brionne, - said to be exchanged for Tunbridge, i. 68 (_note_); - granted to Roger of Beaumont, i. 194; - taken by Duke Robert, i. 244. - - Bristol, - its position in the eleventh century, i. 37; - castle of that date, i. 37, 38; - later growth of, i. 39; - occupied by Bishop Geoffrey, i. 40. - - Britain, - effects of the reign of William Rufus on its union, ii. 6; - causes of the union, ii. 7; - English conquest of, compared with Rufus’s conquest of Wales, - ii. 72; - changes in, in the eleventh century, ii. 303 et seq.; - fusion of elements in, ii. 304; - ceases to be another world, ii. 305. - - Brockenhurst, William Rufus at, ii. 321. - - Bromham, grant of, to Battle Abbey, ii. 504. - - Brunton, church of, granted to the monks of Durham, ii. 535. - - _Brut-y-Tywysogion_, the two versions of, ii. 3, 4 (_note_). - - Brychan, King, his daughters, ii. 90. - - Buckler, Mr., on Ilchester, i. 43 (_note_). - - Bulgaria, use of the name, i. 563. - - Bures, - castle of, i. 236; - taking of, i. 463. - - Burf Castle, ii. 158. - - Burgundius, brother-in-law of Anselm, ii. 579. - - - C. - - Cadulus, Anselm’s advice to, i. 372. - - Cadwgan, son of Bleddyn, - drives out Rhys ap Tewdwr, i. 12; - harries Dyfed, ii. 92; - his revolt, ii. 99; - his action in Dyfed, ii. 101; - mentioned in the Chronicle, ii. 111; - schemes to save Anglesey, ii. 128; - flees to Ireland, ii. 131; - returns to Wales, ii. 301, 424; - his settlement with Robert of Bellême, ii. 424; - his action on his behalf, ii. 433, 442; - Ceredigion ceded to, by Jorwerth, ii. 451. - - Caen, - treaty of, i. 275 et seq., ii. 522-528; - its short duration, i. 283. - - Caerau. _See_ Carew. - - Caermarthen, conquest of, ii. 102. - - Caerphilly Castle, ii. 87. - - Cæsar, C. Julius, his speech compared with that of William Rufus, - ii. 497, 647, 652. - - _Candida Casa._ _See_ Whithern. - - Canonization, popular, instances of, ii. 339. - - Canterbury, citizens of, - side with the monks of Saint Augustine’s against Guy, i. 139; - monks from Christ Church sent to Saint Augustine’s, i. 140; - vengeance of William Rufus on, i. 141; - the city granted to the archbishopric, i. 423; - Anselm’s enthronement and consecration at, i. 427, 429; - his dealings with the monks, i. 540; - their rights confirmed by William Rufus, i. 423; - rebuilding of the choir, i. 597; - its consecration under Henry I, _ib._ - - Canterbury, Archbishopric of, - policy of William Rufus in keeping the see vacant, i. 328, 360, - ii. 565; - Flambard’s action in the matter, i. 363 (_note_); - effects of the vacancy, i. 357, 363-365; - its special position as metropolitan, i. 357; - no attempt at election, i. 362; - feeling as to the vacancy, i. 381; - prayers for the appointment of the Archbishop, i. 389; - the Archbishop the parish priest of the Crown, i. 414 (_note_). - - Cantire, - Magnus at, ii. 141; - part of Sigurd’s kingdom, ii. 146; - its formal occupation by Magnus, ii. 147. - - Capua, siege of, i. 614, ii. 403. - - Caradoc, son of Gruffydd, ii. 81, 82. - - Cardiff, - castle of, ii. 77, 84, 86; - Robert Fitz-hamon’s settlement at, ii. 81, 84; - borough of, ii. 88. - - Careghova Castle, - built by Robert of Bellême, ii. 158; - history of the site, ii. 159 (_note_); - strengthened by Robert, ii. 428. - - Carew Castle, ii. 95. - - Carlisle, - its cathedral church called _abbey_, i. 139 (_note_); - history and character of, i. 314, 317; - destroyed by Scandinavians, i. 315; - conquered by William Rufus, i. 4, 313-315, 318; - Saxon colony in, i. 316, ii. 550; - earldom of, i. 317, ii. 545-551; - its analogy with Edinburgh and Stirling, i. 317; - wall and castle of, i. 318; - see founded by Henry I, _ib._; - effects of its restoration on Scotland, ii. 8; - not an English earldom under the Conqueror, ii. 546; - shire of, ii. 549; - its purely British name, ii. 550; - entries of, in the Pipe Roll, ii. 551. - - Castles, - building of, in Normandy, i. 192; - garrisoned by William the Conqueror, _ib._; - building of, in Wales, ii. 70, 76, 77, 93, 108, 112; - rarity of, in England, as compared with Maine, ii. 220. - - Caux, obtained as dowry by Helias of Saint-Saens, i. 235. - - Cedivor, Prince of Dyfed, ii. 78. - - Cenred the priest, - his mutilation, ii. 132; - restoration of his speech, _ib._ - - Ceredigion, - conquest of, ii. 92, 93; - action of Cadwgan in, ii. 101; - recovered by the Welsh, ii. 301; - ceded to Cadwgan by Jorwerth, ii. 451. - - Charma, M., his Life of Anselm, i. 325 (_note_). - - Château du Loir, ii. 275, 276; - Helias flees to, ii. 287. - - Château-Gonthier, ii. 428. - - Château-Thierry, monks of Saint Cenery flee to, i. 213. - - Chaumont-en-Vexin, - claimed by William Rufus, ii. 176; - castle of, ii. 185; - siege of, ii. 248. - - Cherbourg, ceded to William Rufus, i. 276. - - Chester, - Robert of Rhuddlan buried at, i. 127; - his gifts, i. 127 (_note_); - Earl Hugh’s reforms at, i. 127 (_note_), 381, 382; - Anselm at, i. 387. - - Chivalry, - growth of, under William Rufus, i. 169; - its true character, _ib._; - Palgrave and Arnold on, i. 169, ii. 508; - its one-sided nature, i. 172; - practical working of, _ib._; - illustrations of, i. 173, 291, ii. 237, 406, 534; - tenure in, systematized by Flambard, i. 335; - personal character of, ii. 407. - - Christina, Abbess of Romsey, her treatment of Eadgyth-Matilda, - ii. 31, 32, 599. - - Chronicle, the, witness of, to Flambard’s system of feudalism, - i. 335. - - Church, R. W., his Life of Anselm, i. 326 (_note_), 370. - - Church, Sir Richard, paralleled with Robert son of Godwine, ii. 123. - - Church lands, - revenues of, appropriated by William Rufus, i. 336, 337, 347, 349; - feudalization of, i. 346; - nature of Rufus’s grants of, i. 419. - - Churches, plundered to raise the pledge-money for Normandy, i. 558. - - Clare, Suffolk, priory of, a cell of Bec, i. 376. - - Clarendon, news of the loss of Le Mans brought to Rufus at, ii. 283, - 645. - - Clark, G. T., - on Malling tower, i. 70 (_note_); - on Rochester, i. 79 (_note_); - on the site of Careghova Castle, ii. 159 (_note_); - on “The Land of Morgan,” ii. 615. - - Clemence, Countess of Boulogne, Anselm’s letters to, ii. 581. - - Clement, - Anti-Pope, i. 415; - his position, i. 488; - excommunicated at the Council of Clermont, i. 549; - his alleged scheme against Anselm, i. 607. - - Clergy, - their exemption from temporal jurisdiction asserted by William - of Saint-Calais, i. 97; - not asserted by Anselm, i. 599; - their corruption under William Rufus, i. 363. - - Clerks, - the king’s, preferments held by, i. 330; - their position and power, i. 342, 343. - - Clermont, - Council of (1095), i. 545; - decrees of, i. 548; - crusade preached at, i. 549. - - Coinage, false, issue of, punished by Henry I, ii. 353. - - Coker (Somerset), grant of, to Saint Stephen’s, Caen, ii. 504. - - Colchester, story of Eudo’s good rule at, ii. 464. - - Coldingham, lands of, granted to Durham, ii. 121. - - Comet, foretells the departure of Anselm, ii. 118. - - Commons, House of, foreshadowed by the outer council of the Witan, - i. 603. - - Conan of Rouen, - his wealth, i. 246; - his treaty with William Rufus, i. 247, 248; - exhorts the citizens against Gilbert of Laigle, i. 253; - taken prisoner by Henry, i. 256; - his death, i. 257-259, ii. 516-518. - - Conches, - besieged by William of Evreux, i. 261, 266, ii. 627; - its position, i. 262, 264; - abbey and castle of, i. 265. - - Conrad, - son of the Emperor Henry the Fourth, i. 522; - receives Urban at Cremona, i. 525; - his marriage, i. 526. - - Constantius I, Emperor, his voyage to Britain, ii. 648. - - Corbet, his lands in Shropshire, ii. 433 (_note_). - - Cornelius the monk, i. 545 (_note_). - - Corsham (Wilts), grant of, to Saint Stephen’s, Caen, ii. 504. - - Cosan the Turk, joins the crusaders, i. 565. - - Côtentin, bought by Henry of Robert, i. 196, ii. 510-516. - - Coulaines, - William Rufus encamps at, ii. 233; - ravaged by him, ii. 234, 625, 627. - - Courcy, - siege of, i. 274, ii. 519-522; - church of, ii. 522. - - Cowbridge, ii. 88. - - Coyty, held by Pagan of Turberville, ii. 87. - - Cricklade, entry of, in Domesday, i. 480 (_note_). - - Croc the huntsman, signs the foundation charter of Salisbury - Cathedral, i. 309 (_note_). - - Croset-Mouchet, M., - his life of Anselm, i. 325 (_note_); - on Anselm’s parentage, i. 366 (_note_). - - Crusade, the first, - its bearing on English history, i. 546; - no kings take part in, _ib._; - a Latin movement, _ib._; - argument in favour of, ii. 207; - success of, ii. 306. - - Crusades, Palgrave’s condemnation of, ii. 509. - - Cumberland, - why not entered in Domesday, i. 313, ii. 547 et seq.; - Scandinavians in, i. 315; - earldom of, a misnomer, ii. 548; - origin of the modern county, ii. 549. - - _Curia Regis_, the, i. 102. - - Cuthberht, Saint, appears to Eadgar of Scotland, ii. 119. - - - D. - - Dadesley. _See_ Tickhill. - - Danesford, ii. 152, 155. - - Dangeuil Castle, - strengthened by Helias, ii. 213; - site of, ii. 214; - effects of his occupation, _ib._; - Helias taken prisoner near, ii. 223. - - David, King of Scots, - son of Malcolm and Margaret, ii. 22; - driven out of Scotland, ii. 30; - divides the kingdom with Alexander, ii. 124; - marries Matilda, daughter of Waltheof, ii. 124; - effects of his reign on Scottish history, ii. 125; - his English position, _ib._; - invades England on behalf of the Empress Matilda, _ib._; - his mocking speech to Eadgyth-Matilda, ii. 390; - earldom of Carlisle granted to, ii. 549. - - Deverel (Wilts), lordship of, held by Bec, i. 375. - - Diacus, Bishop of Saint James of Compostella, his correspondence - with Anselm, ii. 582. - - Dimock, J. F., his defence of Robert Bloet, ii. 585. - - Dolfin, son of Gospatric, lord of Carlisle, driven out by William - Rufus, i. 315. - - Domesday, alleged new version of, by Randolf Flambard, i. 332, - ii. 562. - - Domfront, - enmity of Robert of Bellême to, i. 183, 319; - men of, choose Henry to lord, i. 319, ii. 538; - position of, i. 319; - kept by Henry I, ii. 413, 691. - - Donald Bane, King of Scots, i. 475; - story of his attempting to disturb Margaret’s burial, ii. 28, - 597; - his election, ii. 29; - drives out the English, _ib._; - driven out by Duncan, ii. 34; - his restoration, ii. 36; - dethroned and imprisoned by Eadgar, ii. 119. - - Donald, - sent by King Murtagh to the Sudereys, ii. 137; - driven out, ii. 138. - - Dress, new fashions in, i. 158, ii. 500-502. - - Drogo of Moncey, marries Eadgyth, widow of Gerard of Gournay, - i. 552. - - Duncan, King of Scots, son of Malcolm, - set free by Robert, i. 13; - signs the Durham charter, i. 305, ii. 536; - claims the Scottish crown, ii. 33; - his Norman education, ii. 34; - receives the crown from William Rufus, i. 475, ii. 5, 34; - overthrows Donald, _ib._; - his death, ii. 36; - his burial, ii. 36 (_note_). - - Dunfermline, - Malcolm translated to, ii. 18; - Margaret’s burial at, ii. 28, 597. - - Dunstable, Prior of, - his alleged warning to William Rufus, ii. 334; - minster of, founded by Henry I, ii. 663. - - Dunster, church of, granted by William of Moion to the church of - Bath, ii. 490. - - Durham, cathedral church of, - called _abbey_, i. 139 (_note_); - evidence of, in charters, i. 305, ii. 535; - rebuilding of the abbey, ii. 11; - Malcolm takes part in laying the foundation, ii. 11, 12; - works of Bishop William of Saint-Calais at, ii. 60; - gifts of King Eadgar to, ii. 121; - works of Randolf Flambard at, ii. 272; - monks of, favourably treated by William Rufus, i. 298, ii. 508; - building of the refectory, i. 299; - Bishop William restored to, _ib._ - - Durham castle, surrendered to William Rufus, i. 114. - - Dwyganwy, - peninsula and castle of, i. 123, 124; - attack made by Gruffydd on, i. 24; - meeting of Magnus and the two Earls Hugh at, ii. 143. - - Dyfed, - harried by Cadwgan, ii. 92; - conquest of, _ib._; - action of Cadwgan in, ii. 101; - grant of, by Henry I, ii. 451. - - Dyrrhachion, Duke Robert crosses to, i. 563. - - - E. - - Eadgar Ætheling, - banished from Normandy, i. 281, ii. 527; - policy of William Rufus towards, _ib._; - goes to Scotland, i. 282; - mediates between Rufus and Malcolm, i. 301, ii. 541; - reconciled to Rufus, i. 304; - signs the Durham charter, i. 305, ii. 536; - returns to Normandy with Robert, i. 307; - his mission to Malcolm, ii. 9, 10, 590; - protects Malcolm’s children, ii. 30, 31; - his designs as to the Scottish crown, ii. 114; - Ordgar’s charge against, ii. 115, 617; - his acquittal by ordeal, ii. 117; - estimate of the story, ii. 117, 615; - marches to Scotland, ii. 118; - and wins the crown for his nephew Eadgar, ii. 120; - goes on the crusade, ii. 121; - not thought of to succeed William Rufus, ii. 344; - his character, ii. 393. - - Eadgar, King of Scots, - son of Malcolm and Margaret, ii. 22; - brings the news of his father’s death, ii. 27; - driven out of Scotland, ii. 30; - his vision, ii. 119; - dethrones and imprisons Donald, _ib._; - his gifts to Durham and to Robert son of Godwine, ii. 121; - his action towards Robert Flambard, _ib._; - his peaceful reign, ii. 123; - his death, ii. 124; - bears the sword before William Rufus at his Whitsun feast, - ii. 265; - results of his succession, ii. 304. - - Eadgyth, wife of Henry I _See_ Matilda. - - Eadgyth, mistress of Henry I and mother of Matilda Countess of - Perche, ii. 379. - - Eadgyth, mistress of Henry I and wife of Robert of Ouilly, ii. 379. - - Eadgyth, - wife of Gerard of Gournay, i. 230; - goes on the first crusade, i. 552; - her second marriage, i. 552 (_note_). - - Eadmer, - his belief in the ordeal, i. 166 (_note_); - his Life of Anselm, i. 325, 369; - his friendship with Anselm, i. 369, 378, 460; - references to in other writers, i. 370; - on the Norman campaign of 1094, i. 474; - leaves England with Anselm, i. 595; - recognizes the cope of Beneventum at Bari, i. 609, 610; - bishop-elect of Saint Andrews, ii. 124. - - Eadmund, Saint, king of the East-Angles, - his miracles, ii. 268; - translation of his body, ii. 270. - - Eadmund, - son of Malcolm and Margaret, ii. 22; - helps Donald against Duncan, ii. 36; - becomes a monk at Montacute, ii. 120; - his burial in chains, _ib._ - - Eadmund the monk, his vision, ii. 604. - - Eadric the Wild, marked as “Edric Salvage,” ii. 433 (_note_). - - Eadric the Provost, ii. 270 (_note_). - - Eadward the Confessor, his law restored by Henry I, ii. 357. - - Eadward, son of Malcolm and Margaret, killed at Alnwick, ii. 16, 21, - 594. - - Eadwine, King of the Northumbrians, builds a church at Tynemouth, - ii. 603. - - Eadwulf, Abbot of Malmesbury, ii. 383 (_note_). - - Eardington, lordship of, ii. 154. - - Earle, John, on Bath, i. 42 (_note_). - - Earthquake of 1089, i. 176. - - Edinburgh, Margaret’s death at, ii. 28, 597. - - Edward the Black Prince and the massacre of Limoges, i. 173; - his twofold character, _ib._ - - Eginulf of Laigle, i. 243 (_note_). - - Eglaf of Bethlington, priest, signs the Durham charter, ii. 536. - - Einion, - story of him and Jestin, ii. 80; - estimate of the story, ii. 81, 614. - - Eleanor of Aquitaine, her foundation at Tickhill, ii. 432. - - Emma (Ælfgifu), the Lady, - buys the arm of Saint Bartholomew of the Archbishop of - Beneventum, i. 610; - changes her name on her marriage, ii, 305. - - Emma, daughter of Count Robert of Sicily, sought in marriage by - Philip of France, ii. 171 (_note_). - - Emma, wife of Ralph of Wader, goes on the first crusade, i. 552. - - Emmeline, wife of Arnulf of Hesdin, her gifts to Gloucester Abbey, - ii. 65. - - Empire, Western, - advance of, in the eleventh century, ii. 305, 306; - alleged designs of William Rufus on, ii. 314. - - Empire, Eastern, decline of, ii. 306. - - England, - extension of, under William Rufus, i. 4; - beginning of her rivalry with France, i. 5, 228, 240; - her wealth, _ib._; - her European position, _ib._; - unity of, i. 81; - how indebted to foreigners, i. 365; - in what sense feudal, i. 341; - compared with Normandy, i. 468; - wretchedness of, under Rufus, i. 474; - position of, towards the Popes, i. 496; - her relations with Sicily, i. 526; - Welsh inroad into, ii. 100; - rarity of castles in, as compared with Maine, ii. 220; - oppression in, during William’s absence in Normandy, ii. 256; - various grievances in, ii. 258; - changes in, in the eleventh century, ii. 303 et seq.; - becomes part of the Latin world, ii. 305; - united under Henry I against Norman invasion, ii. 401. - - English, - accept William Rufus as king, i. 7, 16, 20, 66, 131; - their loyalty to him, 18, 64, 65, 130; - their hatred of Odo, i. 67, 86; - their position under Rufus, i. 133; - native, not specially oppressed by him, i. 341; - growth of their power and nationality under Rufus, ii. 4. - - English and Normans, fusion of, i. 130, 134, ii. 401, 455. - - English Conquest, compared with that of Wales, ii. 72. - - Englishmen, - the fifty charged with eating the king’s deer, i. 155, 614, - ii. 494; - acquitted by ordeal, i. 156. - - Epernon, castle of, ii. 251. - - _Epitumium_, Orderic’s use of the word, ii. 288 (_note_). - - Erling, Earl of Orkney, - taken prisoner by Magnus, ii. 140; - his death in Norway, _ib._ - - Ermenberga, daughter of Helias, - betrothed to Geoffrey of Anjou, ii. 232; - married to Fulk of Anjou, ii. 232 (_note_), 374. - - Ermenberga, mother of Anselm, her pedigree, i. 366 (_note_). - - Ermengarde of Bourbon, second wife of Fulk of Anjou, ii. 192. - - Ernan, “Biscope sune,” ii. 605. - - Erneis of Burun, his action in the case of Bishop William, i. 114. - - Ernulf, Bishop of Rochester, his buildings at Christchurch, - Canterbury, i. 597. - - Ernulf of Hesdin. _See_ Arnulf of Hesdin. - - Etard, Abbot of Saint Peter on Dives, his appointment, i. 570. - - Eu, castle of, Philip and Robert march against, i. 238. - - Eudo of Rye, - story of his share in the accession of William Rufus, ii. 463; - how he became _dapifer_, _ib._; - his good deeds at Colchester, ii. 464, 465. - - Eulalia, Abbess, Anselm’s letters to, ii. 578. - - Eustace III. Count of Boulogne, - sent over to England by Duke Robert, i. 56, ii. 465 et seq.; - agrees to surrender Rochester, i. 80; - pleading made for, i. 84; - goes on the first crusade, i. 551. - - Eustace, monk of Bec, i. 399. - - Eustace, father of one Geoffrey, Anselm rebukes him for bigamy, - ii. 579. - - Eustace, son of William of Breteuil, i. 268 (_note_). - - Eva, widow of William Crispin, her correspondence with Anselm, - ii. 571. - - Everard of Puiset, goes on the first crusade, i. 551. - - Evreux Castle, - garrisoned by William the Conqueror, i. 192; - its position and history, i. 262-264. - - Ewenny, priory of, ii. 86, 89. - - Exmes, Robert of Bellême driven back from, i. 242. - - Eynesham, monks of Stow moved to, ii. 585, 587. - - Eystein, brother of Sigurd, does not go on the crusade, ii. 206. - - - F. - - Faricius, Abbot of Abingdon, - his appointment, ii. 360; - why not appointed to the see of Canterbury, _ib._; - recovers the manor of Sparsholt, ii. 380 (_note_). - - Farman the monk, ii. 579. - - Farn Islands, ii. 50. - - Fécamp, ceded to William Rufus, i. 276. - - Feudalism, developement of, - under Rufus, i. 4; - systematized by Randolf Flambard, i. 324, 335 et seq., 341. - - Feudal tenures, - mainly the work of Flambard, i. 335, 336; - abolished in 1660, _ib._ - - Finchampstead, portent at, ii. 258, 316. - - Flanders, her share in the first crusade, i. 547. - - Flemings, - their settlement in Pembrokeshire, ii. 70 (_note_), 74, 88, 615; - whether also in Gower and Glamorgan, ii. 88, 103. - - Florus, son of Philip and Bertrada, ii. 174. - - Forest laws, - become stricter under William Rufus, i. 155; - enforced by Henry I, ii. 355. - - Forfeiture, provision as to, in Henry’s charter, ii. 354. - - Fourches, castle of, ii. 428. - - France, - beginning of her rivalry with England, i. 5; - effects of the war with, i. 7; - her rivalry with Normandy, i. 201; - her first direct dealings with England, i. 240; - her relations with England and Normandy, _ib._; - designs of William Rufus on, ii. 167; - his war with, ii. 167, 171, 175 et seq.; - its position compared with that of Maine, ii. 168-170. - - Francis I of France, compared with William Rufus, i. 173. - - _Frank-almoign_, tenure of, i. 350. - - _Franks_, Eastern name for Europeans, i. 546. - - Fresnay-le-Vicomte, castle and church of, ii. 229. - - Freystrop, ii. 95 (_note_). - - Frome (river) at Bristol, i. 38. - - Fulcher, - brother of Randolf Flambard, ii. 552; - receives the see of Lisieux, ii. 416. - - Fulchered, Abbot of Shrewsbury, his sermon at Gloucester, ii. 318. - - Fulcherius Quarel, i. 215 (_note_). - - Fulk, Abbot of Saint Peter on Dives, his deposition and restoration, - i. 570. - - Fulk, Bishop of Beauvais, Anselm intercedes for, ii. 582. - - Fulk, Rechin, Count of Anjou, - Robert does homage to, for Maine, i. 204; - patronizes pointed shoes, i. 159, ii. 502; - his wives, ii. 172 (_note_), ii. 192; - Robert seeks help from him, _ib._; - seeks Bertrada of Montfort in marriage, _ib._; - marries her, ii. 194; - garrisons Le Mans, ii. 232, 628; - his unsuccessful attempt on Ballon, ii. 236; - returns to Le Mans, ii. 237, 628; - his convention with William, ii. 238, 628-630; - helps Helias to besiege the castle of Le Mans, ii. 370. - - Fulk, Count of Anjou, King of Jerusalem, marries Ermenberga daughter - of Helias, ii. 374. - - Fulk, Dean of Evreux, father of Walter Tirel, ii. 322, 672. - - - G. - - Gaillefontaine, castle of, surrendered to Rufus, i. 230. - - Galen, story of, i. 151 (_note_). - - Galloway, dealings of Magnus with, ii. 141. - - Gausbert, Abbot of Battle, i. 443. - - Gentry, growth of, under Henry I, ii. 356. - - Geoffrey, Archbishop of Rouen, - his appointment to the deanery of Le Mans, ii. 201; - nominated bishop by Helias, ii. 210; - set aside by the chapter, _ib._; - appointed to the see of Rouen, _ib._ - - Geoffrey, Bishop of Coutances, - rebels against William Rufus, i. 27, 34, ii. 470; - occupies Bristol, i. 40; - notices of his estates, _ib._; - his relation to Bristol, _ib._; - his speech on behalf of William of Saint-Calais, i. 100; - charges the Bishop’s men with robbing his cattle, i. 113; - his death, i. 444. - - Geoffrey, Bishop of Chichester, his death, i. 135. - - Geoffrey, monk of Durham, charge brought against him, i. 116, - ii. 60 (_note_). - - Geoffrey of Baynard, his combat with William of Eu, ii. 63. - - Geoffrey Martel, - son of Fulk Rechin and Ermengarde, ii. 192; - betrothed to Ermenberga daughter of Helias, ii. 232; - left by his father in command of Le Mans, _ib._ - - Geoffrey, Count of Mayenne, i. 205; - submits to Duke Robert, i. 209; - founds the castle of Saint Cenery, i. 214; - accepts the succession of Hugh, ii. 195, 197; - truce granted to him by Rufus, ii. 230; - estimate of his conduct, ii. 231; - submits to Rufus, ii. 241. - - Geoffrey Plantagenet, his parentage, ii. 374. - - Geoffrey, Count of Perche, - enmity of Robert of Bellême to, i. 183, 242; - Orderic’s estimate of, i. 242 (_note_). - - Gerald, Abbot of Tewkesbury, visits Wulfstan, i. 479. - - Gerald of Windsor, - his wife Nest, ii. 97, 110 (_note_); - builds Pembroke Castle, ii. 96; - defends it against the Welsh, ii. 101, 108; - his devices against them, ii. 109; - his mission to King Murtagh, ii. 425; - grant of Henry I to, ii. 451. - - Gerald, story of his attempt on Randolf Flambard’s life, ii. 560. - - Gerard, Bishop of Hereford and Archbishop of York, - his mission to Pope Urban, i. 524, 525; - returns with Legate Walter, i. 526; - his appointment and consecration, i. 543, 544; - present at the consecration of Gloucester Abbey, ii. 317; - signs Henry’s letter to Anselm, ii. 366; - appointed to the see of York, ii. 392. - - Gerard, Bishop of Seez, - story of the capture of his clerk by Robert of Bellême, ii. 521; - his death, _ib._ - - Gerard of Gournay, - submits to William Rufus, i. 229; - his castle, i. 230; - supports Rufus, i. 472; - goes on the first crusade, i. 552; - his death, ii. 55. - - Germinus. _See_ Jurwine. - - Geronto, Abbot of Dijon, - his mission to William Rufus, i. 553, ii. 558; - rebukes him, i. 554; - overreached by him, _ib._; - Anselm’s letter to, ii. 589. - - Geroy, history of his descendants, i. 214. - - Gervase, Archbishop of Rheims, ii. 196. - - Gervase, nephew of Bishop Gervase of Le Mans, ii. 201 (_note_). - - _Gevelton._ _See_ Yeovilton. - - Giffard, in the fleet of Magnus, ii. 451. - - Gilbert, Bishop of Evreux, - goes on the first crusade, i. 560; - goes to Sicily, i. 562; - attends Odo on his deathbed, i. 563; - Anselm’s letter to, ii. 575. - - Gilbert Maminot, Bishop of Lisieux, his death, ii. 416. - - Gilbert of Clare, - holds Tunbridge Castle against William Rufus, i. 68; - surrenders, i. 69; - his gift of the priory of Clare to Bec, i. 376; - his confession to Rufus, ii. 45; - with him in the New Forest, ii. 321. - - Gilbert of Laigle, - drives back Robert of Bellême, i. 242; - his descent and kindred, i. 243 (_note_); - comes to Robert’s help at Rouen, i. 249, 253; - enters Rouen, i. 256; - taken prisoner by Lewis, ii. 190; - charged with the government of Le Mans, ii. 241; - with William Rufus in the New Forest, ii. 321; - legend of his share in the burial of Rufus, ii. 338, 676. - - Gilbert, nephew of Bishop Walcher, ii. 605. - - Gillingham, - meeting of Anselm and William Rufus at, i. 477-481; - written _Illingham_ by Eadmer, i. 477 (_note_). - - Gilo de Soleio, beholds William’s army on its way to Maine, ii. 228. - - Giraldus Cambrensis, - born at Manorbeer, ii. 95; - his parentage, ii. 97. - - Gisa, Bishop of Somerset, his death, i. 136. - - Gisors Castle, - its first defences by Pagan or Theobald, ii. 186; - strengthened by Robert of Bellême, ii. 151, 187; - under Henry II., ii. 188; - its present appearance, _ib._; - restored to Pagan by Duke Robert, ii. 396. - - _Givele._ _See_ Yeovil. - - Glamorgan, - legend of the conquest of, ii. 79-81, 613; - estimate of the story, ii. 81; - settlement of, by Robert Fitzhamon, ii. 81, 84; - distinguished from Morganwg, ii. 85; - its extent, _ib._; - military character of its churches, ii. 88. - - Gloucester, - sickness of William Rufus at, i. 391; - Anselm’s first installation at, i. 400; - meetings at, ii. 10, 13, 33. - - Gloucester Abbey, - gifts of Arnulf and Emmeline of Hesdin to, ii. 65; - works of Robert Fitz-hamon at, ii. 84; - grant of Welsh churches to, _ib._; - consecration of, ii. 317; - Abbot Fulchered’s sermon there, ii. 318. - - Gloucestershire, ravaged by William of Eu, i. 41, 44. - - Godehild, daughter of Ralph of Toesny, her marriages, i. 270 (_note_). - - _Godgifu_, nickname given to Matilda, ii. 389. - - Godred Crouan, - his dominion, ii. 136; - his expulsion and death, ii. 137; - his sons, _ib._ - - _Godric and Godgifu_, nicknames given to Henry I and Matilda, ii. 389. - - Godricus _unus liber homo_, holds Sparsholt, ii. 380 (_note_). - - Godwine, Earl, a benefactor of Christ Church, Twinham, ii. 555. - - Godwine of Winchester, - story of his duel with Ordgar, ii. 116, 617; - notices of him in Domesday, ii. 116, 616; - estimate of the story, ii. 117, 615. - - Godfrey of Lorraine, goes on the first crusade, i. 552. - - Goodeve, surname, a corruption of Godgifu, ii. 389 (_note_). - - Gordon, General, parallelled with Robert son of Godwine, ii. 123. - - Gosfridus Mala Terra, ii. 485. - - Gospatric, son of Beloch, ii. 551. - - Gospatric, son of Mapbennoc, ii. 551. - - Gospatric, son of Orm, ii. 551. - - Gournay, castle and church of, i. 230. - - Gower, - no part of Glamorgan, ii. 85; - conquest of, ii. 102; - castles built in, ii. 103; - alleged West-Saxon settlement of, ii. 103, 615; - granted to Howel, ii. 451. - - Gruffydd, son of Cynan, - his Irish allies, i. 122; - attacks Rhuddlan, _ib._; - at Dwyganwy, i. 124; - invades England, ii. 100; - schemes to save Anglesey, ii. 128; - fails to hold it and flees to Ireland, ii. 131; - returns to Wales, ii. 301, 424; - his settlement with Robert of Bellême, ii. 424. - - Gruffydd, grandson of Cadwgan, defeats the English, ii. 107. - - Gruffydd, son of Rhydderch, ii. 81. - - Gundrada of Gournay, marries Nigel of Albini, ii. 55, 612. - - Gundulf, Bishop of Rochester, - his buildings at Rochester, i. 54 (_note_); - his tower at Malling, i. 70; - sent to punish the monks of Saint Augustine’s, i. 140; - his friendship with Anselm, i. 374; - his letter to the monks of Bec, i. 405; - Anselm’s visit to, i. 406; - blasphemous speech of William Rufus to, i. 407; - present at the consecration of the church of Battle, i. 444; - question as to his action in the council of Rockingham, - i. 516 (_note_); - present at the consecration of Gloucester Abbey, ii. 317; - his signature to Henry’s charter, ii. 358; - expounds William Rufus’s dream to him, ii. 661. - - Gundulf, father of Anselm, i. 366. - - Guy of Etampes, Bishop of Le Mans, his rebuilding after the fire, - ii. 639. - - Guy, Abbot of Pershore, his share in the defence of Worcester, - ii. 481. - - Guy, Abbot of Saint Augustine’s, - sent with a summons to Bishop William, i. 90; - driven out by the monks and citizens, i. 139; - signs the Durham charter, ii. 536. - - Guy, monk of Christ Church, i. 140 (_note_). - - Guy, Count of Ponthieu, i. 180. - - Guy of the Rock, - his fortress of Roche Guyon, ii. 180; - submits to William Rufus, ii. 181. - - Guy of Vienne, Legate, his pretensions not acknowledged, ii. 391. - - Guy the Red Knight, - helps to defend Courcy, ii. 519; - his daughter betrothed to King Lewis, _ib._ - - Gwenllwg, revolt of, ii. 106. - - Gwent, revolt of, ii. 106; English defeat in, ii. 107. - - Gwynedd, revolt in, ii. 424. - - - H. - - Haimericus de Moria, his conference with Helias, ii. 371. - - Hair, long, fashion of, i. 158, ii. 500. - - Hakon, Earl of Orkney, - Anselm’s letter to, ii. 581; - his murder of Saint Magnus and repentance, ii. 582. - - Hallam, held by Roger of Bully, ii. 160. - - Hallam, Henry, on Henry VIII., i. 173 (_note_). - - Hamon, Viscount of Thouars, notices of his lands, ii. 83 (_note_). - - Hamon the _Dapifer_, signs Henry’s letter to Anselm, ii. 366. - - Harecher, or Archard, of Domfront, - revolts against Robert of Bellême, i. 319, ii. 538; - signs the foundation charter of Lonlay Abbey, ii. 539. - - Harold, son of Godwine, - case of his excommunication, i. 612; - his Welsh campaign compared with that of William Rufus, ii. 71, - 105. - - Harold, son of Harold, with the fleet of Magnus, ii. 134-136, 619. - - Harold, son of Godred Crouan, ii. 137. - - Harrow, church of, dispute as to its consecration, i. 440. - - Hartshorne, Mr., - on Rochester, i. 53 (_note_), 54 (_note_); - on Alnwick, ii. 592. - - Hasgard, ii. 95 (_note_). - - Hasse, M., his Life of Anselm, i. 325 (_note_). - - Hastings, castle of, - held by Robert of Eu, i. 229; - assembly at, i. 441; - consecration of Robert Bloet at, i. 445. - - Hastings, Frank Abney, paralleled with Robert son of Godwine, - ii. 123. - - Haverfordwest Castle, ii. 95. - - Hebrides. _See_ Sudereys. - - Hedenham, grant of, to Rochester, ii. 506. - - Helias of La Flèche, - contrasted with Rufus, i. 171; - enmity of Robert of Bellême to, i. 183; - his character and descent, i. 205, ii. 195, 196; - submits to Duke Robert, i. 209; - his position compared with that of King Philip, ii. 169; - his castles, ii. 196; - his wife Matilda, _ib._; - his possible claim on the county of Maine, ii. 195, 197; - imprisons and sets free Bishop Howel, ii. 198, 199, 624; - buys the county of Hugh, ii. 203; - excellence of his reign, ii. 204; - his friendship for Bishop Howel, _ib._; - prepares to go on the crusade, ii. 205; - estimate of his action, ii. 206; - his interview with Robert and with William Rufus, ii. 207-210; - challenges Rufus, ii. 208; - makes ready for defence, ii. 210; - his action in the appointment to the bishopric, ii. 211, 624; - his acceptance of Hildebert the cause of the war, ii. 213, 625; - strengthens Dangeul Castle, ii. 213, 214; - his guerilla warfare, ii. 215; - defeats Robert of Bellême at Saônes, ii. 222; - his second victory over him, ii. 223; - taken prisoner near Dangeul, ii. 223, 224, 625; - surrendered to William Rufus, ii. 225; - honourably treated by him, _ib._; - Hildebert negotiates for his release, ii. 238, 625, 628-630; - William agrees to release him, ii. 238, 628; - his interview with William at Rouen, ii. 242-245, 640-645; - defies him, ii. 243, 641; - is set free, ii. 244, 642, 643; - his renewed action, ii. 275; - marches against Le Mans, ii. 277; - his victory at Pontlieue, ii. 278; - recovers Le Mans, _ib._; - besieges the castles in vain, ii. 282; - flees to Château-du-Loir, ii. 287; - burns two castles, ii. 288; - returns to Le Mans, ii. 370; - his dealings with the garrison of the castle, ii. 370, 371; - called the “White Bachelor,” ii. 371; - his conference with Walter of Rouen, _ib._; - surrender of the castle to, ii. 373; - his last reign, _ib._; - his friendship with Henry I, ii. 373, 413; - his second marriage, _ib._; - descent of the Angevin kings from him, ii. 374; - notices of his death, ii. 374 (_note_); - Anselm’s letter to him, ii. 581. - - Helias of Saint-Saens, - married to Robert’s daughter, i. 235; - his descent, _ib._; - importance of his position, i. 236; - his fidelity to Robert, i. 237. - - Heloise, Countess of Evreux, - her rivalry with Isabel of Conches, i. 231-234, 245; - Orderic’s account of her, i. 237 (_note_); - her banishment and death, i. 270; - Bertrada of Montfort brought up by, ii. 193. - - Henry IV., - Emperor, i. 549; - excommunicated at the Council of Clermont, i. 549, 611. - - Henry I, - his familiar knowledge of English, i. viii; - the one Ætheling among William’s sons, i. 11, ii. 461; - an alleged party favours his immediate succession, i. 11 - (_note_); - difficulties in the way of it, i. 20; - refuses a loan to Robert, i. 196; - buys the Côtentin and Avranchin of him, i. 196, ii. 510-516; - his firm rule, i. 197, 221; - goes to England and claims his mother’s lands, i. 195, 197; - William Rufus promises them to him, i. 197; - brings Robert of Bellême back with him, i. 199; - imprisoned by Duke Robert, _ib._; - set free, i. 220; - strengthens his castles, i. 221; - comes to Robert’s help at Rouen, i. 248; - sends him away, i. 254; - takes Conan, i. 256; - puts him to death with his own hand, i. 257-259, ii. 516-518; - policy thereof, i. 260; - William and Robert agree together against, i. 278, ii. 527; - excluded from the succession by the treaty of Caen, i. 280; - his position as Ætheling, i. 281; - William’s policy towards, _ib._; - strengthens himself against his brothers, i. 283; - besieged by them at Saint Michael’s Mount, i. 284-292, - ii. 528-535; - Robert’s generosity to, i. 291, ii. 534; - surrenders, i. 293; - accompanies William to England, i. 293, 295; - his alleged adventures, i. 294, ii. 535-540; - signs the Durham charter, i. 305, ii. 536; - chosen lord of Domfront, i. 319, ii. 538; - restored to William’s favour, i. 321; - wars against Robert, _ib._; - gets back his county, _ib._; - occupies the castle of Saint James, _ib._; - grants it to Earl Hugh, i. 323; - alleged spoliation of, by Flambard, i. 334, 357; - helps Robert, grandson of Geroy, against Robert of Bellême, - i. 469; - summoned by William to Eu, _ib._; - goes to England, i. 470; - reconciled to William, _ib._; - returns to Normandy and wars against Robert, _ib._; - William’s grants to, i. 567; - story of him on the day of William’s death, ii. 321, 345, 346; - his claims to the throne, ii. 344; - his speedy election, ii. 345, 680; - William of Breteuil withstands his demand for the treasure, - ii. 346, 680; - popular feeling for him, ii. 346, 351; - his formal election, ii. 347, 348; - fills up the see of Winchester, ii. 349; - his coronation, ii. 350, 681; - goes to London with Robert of Meulan, ii. 350, 680; - form of his oath, ii. 350; - his charter, i. 336, 338, 342, 344, ii. 352-357; - his statute against the mercenaries, i. 154, ii. 498; - his policy towards the second order, ii. 356; - his alleged laws, ii. 357; - his appointments to abbeys, ii. 359; - imprisons Randolf Flambard, ii. 361; - his inner council, ii. 362; - recalls Anselm, ii. 364; - Norman intrigues against, ii. 367, 368, 393, 395; - his war with Robert, _ib._; - the garrison of Le Mans send an embassy to, ii. 372; - his friendship with Helias, ii. 373, 413; - his meeting with Anselm, ii. 374; - his dispute with him compared with that of Rufus, i. 605, - ii. 374; - calls on Anselm to do homage, ii. 375; - the question is adjourned, ii. 377, 378, 399; - his reformation of the court, ii. 379, 502; - his personal character, ii. 379; - his mistresses and children, ii. 97, 110 (_note_), 380, 381, - 389, 414; - seeks Eadgyth-Matilda in marriage, ii. 382, 684; - his descent from Ælfred, ii. 383; - objections to the marriage, ii. 384, 683-688; - later fables about his marriage, ii. 387, 684, 685; - his marriage, ii. 387; - his nickname of _Godric_, ii. 389; - his children by Matilda, _ib._; - appoints Gerard to the see of York, ii. 392; - his rule distasteful to the Normans, ii. 395; - plots against him, ii. 395, 399; - his Whitsun gemót, ii. 399; - loyalty of the Church and people to, ii. 401, 410, 411; - fusion of Normans and English under, ii. 401, 455; - peace of his reign, ii. 402, 454; - his levy against Robert’s invasion, ii. 403; - desertion of some of his fleet, ii. 404, 686; - and of certain of the nobles, ii. 409; - his nickname of _Hartsfoot_, _ib._; - his trust in Anselm, and promises to him, ii. 410, 411; - his exhortation to his army, ii. 411; - his negotiations with Robert, ii. 412; - their personal meeting and treaty, ii. 412-415, 538, 688-691; - his schemes against the great barons, ii. 415; - his rewards and punishments, ii. 417; - his action against Robert of Bellême, ii. 421, 422; - negotiates against him with Duke Robert, ii. 426; - besieges Arundel, ii. 428; - Arundel and Tickhill surrender to him, ii. 428, 429; - his faith pledged for Robert of Bellême’s life, ii. 430, 438; - his Shropshire campaign, ii. 432 et seq.; - besieges Bridgenorth, ii. 435-444; - division of feeling in his army, ii. 437; - appeal of his army to, ii. 438; - his dealings with the Welsh, ii. 439, 451-453; - surrender of Bridgenorth to, ii. 444; - his march to Shrewsbury, ii. 446-448; - Robert of Bellême submits to, ii. 448; - banishes him and his brothers, ii. 449, 450; - his later imprisonment of Robert of Bellême, i. 184, ii. 450; - banishes William of Mortain, ii. 453; - character and effects of his reign, ii. 454, 457; - the refounder of the English nation, ii. 455; - his compromise with Anselm, _ib._; - England reconciled to the Conquest under, ii. 456; - his correspondence with Anselm, ii. 579; - see of Carlisle founded by, i. 318; - at the consecration of Canterbury Cathedral, i. 597 (_note_); - his settlement of Flemings in Pembrokeshire, ii. 70 (_note_); - his second marriage, ii. 389 (_note_); - seizes on the treasure left by Magnus at Lincoln, ii. 624. - - Henry II., - his blasphemy, i. 167; - question of the legatine power granted to, i. 526 (_note_); - estimate of his dispute with Thomas, i. 605. - - Henry VIII. compared with Francis I, i. 173 (_note_). - - Henry of Beaumont, - earldom of Warwick granted to, i. 472; - his influence in favour of the election of Henry I, ii. 348, 680; - his signature to Henry’s charter, ii. 358; - one of his inner council, ii. 362; - signs Henry’s letter to Anselm, ii. 366; - the owner of a burgess at Gloucester, ii. 564. - - Henry of Huntingdon as a contemporary writer, i. 9 (_note_). - - Henry of Port, his signature to the charter of Henry I, ii. 358. - - Henry, son of Nest and Henry I, ii. 379. - - Henry, son of Swegen, ii. 551. - - Heppo the _balistarius_, given as a surety to Bishop William, i. 114, - 120. - - Herbert Losinga, Bishop of Thetford, - buys the see for himself, i. 354, ii. 568; - and the Abbey of New Minster for his father, i. 355; - repents, and receives his bishopric from the Pope, i. 355, - ii. 568; - anger of Rufus thereat, i. 356, ii. 569; - not present at Anselm’s consecration, i. 429; - deprived by Rufus, i. 448, ii. 569; - restored to his see, i. 449, ii. 569; - moves the see to Norwich, _ib._ - - Hereditary right, growth of, i. 280. - - Hereford, seized by Robert of Lacy, i. 46. - - Herfast, Bishop of Thetford, his encounter with Saint Eadmund, - ii. 268. - - Herlwin, Abbot of Glastonbury, his appointment, ii. 360. - - Hervey, Bishop of Bangor, at the consecration of Gloucester Abbey, - ii. 317. - - Hiesmois, war in, ii. 428. - - Hildebert, Bishop of Le Mans, - his election accepted by Helias, ii. 211, 625; - his character, ii. 212; - anger of William Rufus at his election, ii. 213, 625; - negotiates for the release of Helias, ii. 238, 625, 628-630; - at the head of the municipal council of Le Mans, ii. 226, 238; - welcomes William Rufus into Le Mans, ii. 240; - reconciled to him, ii. 297, 626; - charges brought against, _ib._; - ordered to pull down the towers of Saint Julian’s, ii. 297, 298, - 654; - receives the kiss of peace from Rotrou’s mother, ii. 373 (_note_); - translated to the see of Tours, ii. 212; - Anselm’s letters to, ii. 580. - - Hildebert II., Abbot of Saint Michael’s Mount, his buildings, i. 284. - - Hilgot of Le Mans, ii. 201. - - Holm Peel, Island of, Magnus at, ii. 141. - - Honour, law of, - as practised by William Rufus, i. 85, 92, 169, 408, ii. 14, 237, - 244; - Palgrave on, ii. 508. - - Hook. W. F., his estimate of Anselm, i. 326 (_note_). - - Howard, family of, ii. 430 (_note_). - - Howel, Bishop of Le Mans, - his loyalty to Duke Robert, i. 205, 208, ii. 198; - story of his appointment, i. 205; - consecrated at Rouen, i. 207, 208; - his conduct during the famine, i. 208; - imprisoned by Helias, ii. 198, 624; - liberated by him, ii. 199; - flees to Robert and is bidden to return, ii. 200; - his disputes with Hugh and with his chapter, ii. 201; - comes to England, _ib._; - his reconciliation and return, ii. 202; - his friendship with Helias, ii. 204; - translates Saint Julian, _ib._; - his buildings, ii. 205, 634 et seq., 656; - entertains Urban, ii. 205; - his sickness, _ib._; - and death, ii. 210; - foundation charter of Salisbury Cathedral signed by, i. 309 - (_note_). - - Howel, Welsh prince, flees to Ireland, ii. 301. - - Howel, son of Goronwy, - besieges Pembroke, ii. 108; - grants to, by Henry I, ii. 452. - - Hubert of Rye, his alleged share in the accession of William the - Conqueror, ii. 463. - - Hucher, M., on Le Mans, ii. 631. - - Hugh, Archbishop of Lyons, - denounces Philip’s adulterous marriage, ii. 173; - advises Anselm to return after the death of Rufus, ii. 364; - Anselm’s letter to, i. 419, ii. 571, 576. - - Hugh, Saint, his foreign origin, i. 365. - - Hugh of Saint-Calais, Bishop of Le Mans, his buildings at and gifts - to Le Mans, ii. 639, 640. - - Hugh, Abbot of Clugny, his dream about William Rufus, ii. 341, 666. - - Hugh, Abbot of Flavigny, - his story of the mission of Abbot Geronto, ii. 588; - marvellous tales told by, ii. 589; - his chronicle and career, _ib._ - - Hugh or Hugolin with the Beard, ii. 489. - - Hugh the Great, brother of King Philip, goes on the first crusade, - i. 350. - - Hugh of Avranches, Earl of Chester, - his loyalty to William Rufus, i. 34, 62; - supports Henry, i. 221; - surrenders his castle to William, i. 283; - his alleged advice to Henry, ii. 530; - joins Henry, i. 320; - castle of Saint James granted to, i. 323, ii. 540; - his friendship with Anselm, i. 380; - his changes at Saint Werburh’s at Chester, i. 381, 382; - seeks help from Anselm, i. 382; - his sickness and messages to Anselm, i. 383; - summoned by William Rufus to Eu, i. 469; - goes to England, i. 470; - his share in the conspiracy of Robert of Mowbray, ii. 38; - urges the mutilation of William of Eu, ii. 64; - his advance in Anglesey, ii. 97; - his last expedition to Anglesey, ii. 129-146, 619; - bribes the wikings, ii. 130; - his cruelty to the captives, ii. 131, 132; - makes peace with Magnus, ii. 145; - Anglesey and North Wales subdued by, ii. 146; - compared with Robert of Bellême, ii. 150; - hastens to acknowledge Henry I as king, ii. 362; - one of Henry’s inner council, _ib._; - his death, ii. 410; - his signature to the Durham charter, ii. 536; - Anselm’s letter of rebuke to, ii. 580. - - Hugh Bardolf, gate of Montfort Castle named after, ii. 254. - - Hugh, of Beaumont, - reads the charge against Bishop William, i. 98; - defies him, i. 101. - - Hugh, Earl of Bedford, i. 98 (_note_), ii. 419 (_note_). - - Hugh of Buckland, Sheriff of Berkshire, his dealings with Abingdon - Abbey, ii. 665. - - Hugh of Dun, his dealings with Abingdon Abbey, ii. 665. - - Hugh of Este, son of Azo, - sent for by the men of Maine, ii. 195, 198; - his succession accepted by Helias, ii. 197; - reaches Le Mans, ii. 200; - his dispute with Bishop Howel, ii. 201; - reconciled to him, ii. 202; - his unpopularity, _ib._; - puts away his wife and is excommunicated, _ib._; - bought out by Helias, ii. 203. - - Hugh of Evermouth, i. 571. - - Hugh of Grantmesnil, - rebels against William Rufus, i. 34; - his ravages, i. 36; - strengthens his castle against Robert of Bellême, i. 274; - his death and burial, i. 473. - - Hugh of Jaugy, i. 565, ii. 123. - - Hugh of Lacy, grant of his brother’s estates to, ii. 63. - - Hugh, Count of Meulan, i. 185. - - Hugh of Montgomery, Earl of Shrewsbury, - rebels against William Rufus, i. 57; - succeeds his father in England, i. 473; - buys his pardon of Rufus, ii. 62; - his expedition into Anglesey, ii. 129-144, 619; - bribes the wikings, ii. 130; - his cruelty to the captives, ii. 131, 132; - his death, ii. 144, 618-621; - his burial, ii. 145; - effects of his death, ii. 147, 150, 618. - - Hugh of Port, i. 117, 120. - - Humbald, Archdeacon of Salisbury, ii. 384. - - Humbert, Count of Maurienne, Anselm’s letter to, ii. 580. - - - I. - - Ida, Countess of Boulogne, her correspondence with Anselm, i. 374, - 384, ii. 571, 581. - - Ilchester, - description of, i. 43; - besieged by Robert of Mowbray, _ib._ - - Ingemund, - sent by King Murtagh to the Sudereys, ii. 138; - his death, _ib._ - - Ingulf, prior of Norwich, ii. 569. - - Investiture, - royal right of, i. 345, 346; - not questioned by Anselm, i. 403; - change in his views in regard to, i. 404; - forbidden by the Council of Clermont, i. 548; - dispute between Henry I and Anselm, ii. 375 et seq.; - Anselm’s letters about, ii. 579, 584. - - Iona, isle of, - Margaret’s gifts to, ii. 21; - Duncan buried at, ii. 36 (_note_); - spared by Magnus, ii. 141. - - Ireland, - designs of William the Conqueror on, ii. 94; - of William Rufus on, ii. 93; - of Magnus of Norway on, ii. 136, 141, 620. - - Irish, help Rhys and Gruffydd, i. 121, 122. - - Isabel or Elizabeth of Vermandois, daughter of Hugh the Great, - married to Robert of Meulan, i. 187 (_note_), 551; - her marriage denounced by Bishop Ivo of Chartres, i. 551 - (_note_); - her second marriage, i. 187 (_note_). - - Isabel, daughter of Robert of Meulan, mistress of Henry I, i. 187 - (_note_), ii. 380. - - Isabel of Montfort, wife of Ralph of Conches, - her rivalry with Heloise of Evreux, i. 231-234, 245; - her character, i. 233; - takes the veil, i. 233 (_note_), 271. - - Isabel, daughter of William of Breteuil, given in marriage to Ascelin - Goel, i. 243, 268 (_note_). - - Ivo, Bishop of Chartres, - his advice to Anselm, i. 367 (_note_); - denounces the marriage of Isabel and Robert of Meulan, i. 551 - (_note_); - protests against the marriage of King Philip and Bertrada, i. 559 - (_note_), ii. 173. - - Ivo of Grantmesnil, - goes on the first crusade, i. 552; - called the “rope-dancer,” i. 565 (_note_); - plots against Henry, ii. 395; - harries his neighbours’ lands, ii. 417; - his trial and conviction, _ib._; - his bargain with Robert of Meulan, ii. 418; - his relations with Leicester, _ib._ - - Ivo, son of Ivo of Grantmesnil, ii. 418. - - Ivo Taillebois, - his action in the case of Bishop William, i. 114, 115; - holds Kirkby Kendal, ii. 549. - - Ivo of Veci, lord of Alnwick, ii. 596. - - Ivor, grandson of Cadwgan, defeats the English, ii. 107. - - Ivry, - granted to William of Breteuil, i. 194; - lost by him, i. 243; - claimed by Robert of Meulan, _ib._ - - - J. - - Jarrow, Tynemouth granted to, ii. 18, 605. - - Jeronto, Abbot. _See_ Geronto. - - Jerusalem, kingdom of, said to have been refused by Duke Robert, - i. 566. - - Jerusalem, Patriarch of, Wulfstan’s correspondence with, i. 479. - - Jestin, son of Gwrgan, - story of him and Einion, ii. 80; - estimate of the story, ii. 81, 614; - his descendants, ii. 81 (_note_), 82, 87; - his alleged long life, ii. 614. - - Jews, - settle in England, i. 160; - their position, _ib._; - favoured by Rufus, i. 161; - compared with the Sicilian Saracens, _ib._; - dispute between their rabbis and English bishops, _ib._; - converts forced to apostatize by Rufus, i. 162, 614, ii. 504. - - John, King, his devotion to the shrine of Wulfstan, i. 481. - - John of Tours, - bishopric of Somerset granted to, i. 136, ii. 483; - removes the see to Bath, _ib._; - his doings at Wells and at Bath, i. 138, ii. 486; - his architectural works, i. 138; - assists Osmund to consecrate Salisbury cathedral, i. 309; - at the consecration of the church of Battle, i. 444; - Anselm confers with him at Winchester, i. 586; - at the deathbed of William of Durham, ii. 61; - his signature to the Durham charter, ii. 536. - - John, Bishop of Tusculum, ii. 488. - - John, Abbot of Telesia, i. 615. - - John, Prior of Bath, letter of Anselm to, ii. 490. - - John, son of Odo of Bayeux, ii. 488. - - John of La Flèche, father of Helias, ii. 196. - - Jones, Longueville, on Penmon and Aberlleiniog, ii. 130 (_note_). - - Jorwerth, son of Bleddyn, - becomes the man of Robert of Bellême, ii. 424; - his action on behalf of Robert, ii. 433; - promises of Henry I to, ii. 439; - influences the Welsh on his behalf, ii. 440, 442; - his war with his brothers, ii. 451; - Henry’s want of faith to, _ib._; - his trial and imprisonment, ii. 452; - his later history, ii. 453. - - Judith, wife of Tostig, her invention of Saint Oswine’s body, - ii. 18, 604. - - Julian, Saint, translation of his body, ii. 204. - - Juliana, natural daughter of Henry I, i. 201, ii. 380. - - Jurwine, son of King Anna of East-Anglia, ii. 268 (_note_). - - _Justice_, technical use of the word, i. 191 (_note_). - - Justiciarship, growth of the office under Flambard, i. 331. - - - K. - - Kenfig, borough of, ii. 88. - - Kidwelly, ii. 86; - conquest of, ii. 102; - granted to Howell, ii. 451. - - Kings, doctrine of their immunity from drowning, ii. 284, 647, 648, - 651. - - Kirkby Kendal, held by Ivo Taillebois, ii. 549. - - Knights, - privileges granted to, by Henry I, ii. 355; - effect of this grant, ii. 356. - - - L. - - La Chartre, castle of, ii. 275. - - La Ferté Saint Samson, castle of, surrendered to Rufus, i. 230. - - La Flèche, - Helias withdraws to, ii. 275; - castle of, ii. 276. - - La Houlme, castle of, - held by Rufus, i. 462; - taken by Robert, i. 465. - - La Lude, castle of, ii. 275. - - La Roche Guyon, castle of, ii. 180, 181. - - Lagman, son of Godred Crouan, ii. 137. - - Laigle, town of, i. 73 (_note_). - - Lambert, chaplain to Ida of Boulogne, ii. 581. - - Lambeth, - grant of, to Rochester, ii. 506; - given in exchange to Canterbury, _ib._ - - Land, tenure of, Flambard’s theory of, i. 337. - - Lanfranc, - his special agency in the accession of William Rufus, i. 10, - 12, ii. 459; - his grief at the death of William the Conqueror, i. 15; - crowns William Rufus, _ib._; - binds him to follow his counsel, i. 16, ii. 460; - attends the Christmas assembly at Westminster, i. 18; - Odo’s hatred towards, i. 24, 53 (_note_); - his loyalty to William, i. 63; - his part in the meeting at Salisbury, i. 95, 119; - his view of vestments, i. 95; - his position as regards that of Bishop William, i. 97; - his answer to Bishop Geoffrey, i. 100; - to Bishop William, i. 105, 110; - interposes on his behalf, i. 113; - his death, i. 140; - its effect on William Rufus, i. 141, 142, 148 (_note_); - his position in England and Normandy, i. 141; - buried at Christ Church, i. 142; - his relations with William the Conqueror, i. 328; - compared with Anselm, i. 368, 456; - advises Anselm to become a monk of Bec, i. 371. - - Lanfranc, nephew of Archbishop Lanfranc, ii. 575. - - Laodikeia, Eadgar and Robert at, i. 564. - - Lateran, - Council of (1099), i. 607, 621; - destruction of the apse, i. 607 (_note_). - - Leckhampsted, lands at, taken from Abingdon Abbey, ii. 665. - - Legitimacy, growth of the doctrine of, i. 280. - - Le Hardy, - M. Gaston, quoted, i. 145 (_note_); - his apology for Duke Robert, i. 175 (_note_). - - Leicester, - college at, founded by Robert of Meulan, ii. 420; - foundation of the abbey, _ib._; - churches at, ii. 420 (_note_). - - Leicester, earldom of, its origin, ii. 418. - - Le Mans, - temporal relations of the bishopric, i. 207; - under an interdict, ii. 199; - claims of the Norman dukes over the bishopric, ii. 200, 212; - Howel’s buildings at, ii. 205; - Pope Urban’s visit to, _ib._; - welcomes Duke Robert’s host, i. 209; - new municipality of, ii. 226; - garrisoned by Fulk, ii. 232, 628; - besieged by Rufus, ii. 233-235; - siege of, raised, ii. 235; - submits to Rufus, ii. 238, 628; - fortresses of, ii. 239, 631; - entry of Rufus into the town, ii. 240; - description of the church, _ib._; - recovered by Helias, ii. 278; - the castles still held for Rufus, ii. 279; - compared with the deliverance of York, _ib._; - burning of, ii. 280; - modern destruction at, ii. 281 (_note_); - William’s march against, ii. 287; - flight of the citizens, ii. 288; - William’s treatment of, ii. 295, 296; - orders the destruction of the towers of Saint Julian’s, ii. 297, - 654; - description of the towers, ii. 299, 655; - return of Helias to, ii. 370; - action of the garrison, ii. 370-373; - palace of the counts at, ii. 632, 656; - dates of the building, ii. 632-639, 656; - burning of, ii. 638. - - Leofwine, Dean of Durham, ii. 605. - - Lewes, - held by William of Warren, i. 59; - customs of, i. 59 (_note_); - William of Warren’s death and burial at, i. 62 (_note_), 76. - - Lewis VI. of France (the Fat), ii. 170; - Bertrada’s schemes against him, ii. 174; - grant of the Vexin to, ii. 175; - refuses to cede the Vexin to William Rufus, ii. 176; - his difficulties in the war with William, ii. 178; - betrothed to a daughter of Guy the Red Knight, ii. 519; - his letter to Anselm, ii. 580. - - Lewis IX. of France (Saint Lewis), - his ordinance against blasphemy, i. 167; - his walls at Rouen, i. 252. - - Ligulf, father of Morkere, ii. 605. - - Limoges, massacre of, i. 173 (_note_). - - Lincoln, - its connexion with Norway, ii. 134; - Jews at, i. 160 (_note_); - prevalence of the slave-trade at, i. 310; - completion of the minster, _ib._; - Thomas of York claims jurisdiction over, i. 311, 433; - consecration delayed by the death of Remigius, i. 312; - see kept vacant by Rufus, i. 356, 381; - jurisdiction over again claimed by Thomas of York, i. 433; - compromise concerning, i. 447. - - Lindesey, jurisdiction of, claimed by Thomas of York, i. 311. - - Lindisfarn, Isle of, ii. 50 (_note_). - - Llancarfan, church of, granted to Gloucester abbey, ii. 84. - - Llandaff, see of, ii. 86, 89. - - Llanrhidian Castle, ii. 103. - - Llantrissant, ii. 88. - - Llantwit, church of, granted to Tewkesbury, ii. 84. - - Llywelyn, son of Cadwgan, his death, ii. 301. - - Loir, Castle of the. _See_ Château-du-Loir. - - London, - Jews settle in, i. 160; - great wind and fire in, i. 308; - buildings of William Rufus in, ii. 258, 261; - growth of its greatness, ii. 261; - dogs of, mentioned by Hugh of Flavigny, ii. 589. - - London Bridge, ii. 259, 260, 261. - - London, Tower of. _See_ Tower of London. - - Longueville, castle of, surrendered to Rufus, i. 231. - - Lonlay Abbey, foundation charter of, ii. 539. - - Lords, House of, - foreshadowed by the inner Council of the Witan, i. 603; - gradual developement of, ii. 58. - - _Losinga_, origin of the name, ii. 570. - - Lothian, question as to the homage of Malcolm for, i. 303, ii. 541 - et seq. - - _Luca, per vultum de_, - favourite oath of William Rufus, i. 108, 112, 164, 289, 391, 511 - (_note_), ii. 61 (_note_), 503, 650; - meaning of the phrase, ii. 503. - - Lucan, whether quoted by Rufus, ii. 642, 647. - - Lugubalia. _See_ Carlisle. - - Lund, archbishopric of, ii. 582. - - Lurçon, castle of, ii. 216. - - - M. - - Mabel, wife of Earl Roger, poisons Arnold of Escalfoi and seizes on - Saint Cenery, i. 215. - - Mabel, daughter of Robert Fitz-hamon, marries Robert of Gloucester, - ii. 83. - - Maelgwyn, i. 124. - - Magnus Barefoot, king of Norway, - his expedition into Britain, ii. 133 et seq., 617-624; - character of his reign, ii. 133; - his surnames, _ib._; - professes friendship for England, _ib._; - his sons, _ib._; - his treasure at Lincoln, ii. 134, 624; - his designs on Ireland, ii. 136, 141, 620; - his alleged Irish marriage, ii. 136, 622; - his voyage among the islands, ii. 136, 140-142; - legend of him and Saint Olaf, ii. 139; - seizes the Earls of Orkney, ii. 140; - grants the earldom to Sigurd, _ib._; - his dealings with Galloway, ii. 141; - occupies Man, _ib._; - approaches Anglesey, ii. 143, 619, 621; - kills Hugh of Shrewsbury, ii. 144, 620, 621; - makes peace with Hugh of Chester, ii. 145; - his designs on Anglesey, _ib._; - his dealings with King Murtagh, ii. 146, 622; - and with Scotland, ii. 147; - Arnulf of Montgomery negotiates with, ii. 426; - his second voyage round Britain, ii. 442; - his castle-building in Man, _ib._; - refuses help to Robert of Bellême, ii. 443, 623, 624; - his death, ii. 451; - described as “rex Germaniæ,” ii. 619, 620. - - Magnus, Saint, murdered by Hakon, ii. 582. - - Maine, - history of, under the Conqueror, i. 203; - dissatisfaction in, under Robert, i. 204; - alleged derivation of its name, i. 205; - submits to Robert, i. 209; - stipulation about, in the treaty of Caen, i. 277, ii. 524; - men of, send for Hugh son of Azo as their ruler, ii. 195; - revolts against Robert, ii. 197; - peace of, under Helias, ii. 204; - cession of, demanded by William Rufus, ii. 208; - his designs on, ii. 213; - attacked by Robert of Bellême, _ib._; - geographical character of the war, ii. 214; - beginning of the war of William Rufus in, ii. 167, 215; - castles of Robert of Bellême in, ii. 216; - teaching of its landscapes, ii. 219; - castles of, ii. 219-221; - contrasted with England, ii. 220; - general submission of, to William Rufus, ii. 241; - extent of his conquests in, ii. 245; - southern part harried by Rufus, ii. 288; - no bribery in, ii. 290; - later fortune of, ii. 374. - - Malchus, Bishop of Waterford, consecrated by Anselm, i. 544. - - Malcolm III., King of Scots, - invades Northumberland, i. 295; - driven back, i. 296; - his relations with Robert, i. 297; - meets William Rufus at _Scots’ Water_, i. 301; - negotiates with him through Robert, i. 302; - two versions of the negotiations, i. 302-304, ii. 540-545; - his alleged homage to Robert, i. 302, ii. 542; - question as to his earlier betrothal to Margaret, i. 303, - ii. 542; - as to the homage for Lothian, i. 303, ii. 541 et seq.; - does homage to Rufus, i. 304, ii. 541; - his correspondence with Wulfstan, i. 479; - his complaints against Rufus, ii. 8; - summoned to Gloucester, ii. 9, 590; - lays one of the foundation-stones of Durham Abbey, ii. 11; - much of his dominions in Durham diocese, ii. 12; - Rufus refuses to see him at Gloucester, i. 410, ii. 13, 590; - dispute between them, ii. 13; - returns to Scotland, ii. 14; - invades England, ii. 15, 592; - English feeling towards, ii. 16, 595; - slain at Alnwick, i. 410, ii. 5, 16, 592; - alleged treachery towards him, ii. 16, 592 et seq.; - his burial at Tynemouth, ii. 17; - translated to Dunfermline, ii. 18; - local estimate of his death, ii. 19; - his devotion to Margaret, ii. 20; - acts as her interpreter, ii. 23; - his visit to Romsey, ii. 31, 600; - what languages he spoke, ii. 591. - - Malling, Gundulf’s tower at, i. 70. - - Malpeter, Mormaor of Mærne, ii. 36. - - _Malvoisin_, towers so called, use of, ii. 51, 435, 520, 608. - - Mamers, castle of, ii. 216, 217. - - Man, - the centre of Godred Crouan’s dominion, ii. 136; - civil war in, ii. 138; - occupied by Magnus, ii. 141, 619; - his designs with regard to, ii. 142, 620; - his castle-building in, ii. 442. - - Manorbeer Castle, birthplace of Giraldus, ii. 95. - - Mantes, - granted to Lewis by Philip, ii. 175; - claimed by William Rufus, ii. 176. - - Margam Abbey, ii. 89. - - Margaret, daughter of Eadward, - question as to her earlier betrothal to Malcolm, i. 303, ii. 542; - her correspondence with Wulfstan, i. 479; - her character, ii. 20; - her influence on Malcolm, ii. 20, 23; - her education of their children, ii. 21; - her reforms, ii. 22; - increases the pomp of the Scottish court, ii. 23; - Scottish feeling towards, ii. 25, 28, 597; - hears of her husband’s death, ii. 26, 592, 594; - versions of her death, ii. 26-28; - her burial at Dunfermline, ii. 28, 597. - - Margaret of Mortagne, wife of Henry of Warwick, ii. 348. - - Marriage, lord’s right of, - growth of, under Rufus, i. 336; - peculiar to England and Normandy, i. 340; - restrained by the charter of Henry I, ii. 353. - - Mary, daughter of Malcolm, - brought up in Romsey Abbey, ii. 31, 598; - marries Eustace of Boulogne, ii. 31. - - Matilda of Flanders, Queen, - lands of, claimed by Henry, i. 195, 197; - they are granted to Robert Fitz-hamon, i. 198. - - Matilda, or Eadgyth, Queen, wife of Henry I, - her sojourn at Romsey, ii. 31, 599; - her relations with Henry, _ib._; - tale of her and William Rufus, ii. 32, 600; - sought in marriage by Alan of Richmond, ii. 602; - sought in marriage by Henry, ii. 31, 382; - her beauty and learning, ii. 382; - policy of the marriage, ii. 383; - wishes to appoint Eadwulf abbot of Malmesbury, ii. 383 (_note_); - objections to the marriage, ii. 384, 683; - appeals to Anselm, _ib._; - declared free to marry, ii. 385; - other versions of the story, ii. 385-387, 683 et seq.; - later fables about her marriage, ii. 387, 684, 685; - her marriage and coronation, ii. 387, 388; - takes the name of Matilda, ii. 305, 388; - her nickname of _Godgifu_, ii. 389; - her children, _ib._; - her character, ii. 390; - known as “good Queen Mold,” ii. 391; - Robert’s generosity to her, ii. 406; - baptized by the name of Eadgyth, ii. 598; - god-daughter of Duke Robert, ii. 602. - - Matilda, Empress, daughter of Henry I and Matilda, ii. 389. - - Matilda, wife of Stephen, and granddaughter of Malcolm, ii. 31. - - Matilda, Abbess of Caen, Anselm’s letter to, ii. 579. - - Matilda, Countess of Perche, natural daughter of Henry the First, - ii. 379. - - Matilda, wife of Helias of La Flèche, ii. 196. - - Matilda of Laigle, - marries Robert of Mowbray, i. 243 (_note_), ii. 38; - holds out at Bamburgh, ii. 54, 609; - yields to save her husband’s eyes, ii. 54; - her second marriage and divorce, ii. 55, 612. - - Matilda, wife of William of Bellême, signs the foundation-charter - of Lonlay Abbey, ii. 539. - - Matilda, daughter of Waltheof, marries David of Scotland, ii. 124. - - Matilda of Wallingford, her foundation at Oakburn, i. 376 (_note_). - - Matthew, Count of Beaumont, helps to defend Courcy, ii. 519. - - Matthew Paris, his version of the accession of William Rufus, - ii. 461. - - Maule, fortress of, ii. 251, 253. - - Maurice, Bishop of London, - his dispute with Anselm, i. 440; - crowns Henry I, ii. 350, 681; - his signature to Henry’s charter, ii. 358; - false story of his approaching death brought to Flambard, ii. 560. - - Mayet Castle, ii. 196; - strengthened by Helias, ii. 275; - siege of, ii. 289-294, 652; - raising of the siege, ii. 294, 653; - description of, ii. 652. - - Mediolanum. _See_ Evreux. - - Mercenaries, - employment of under William Rufus, i. 134, 153, 226, ii. 496; - their presence tends to promote the fusion of English and - Normans, i. 134; - their wrong-doings, i. 154, ii. 498; - statute of Henry I against, _ib._ - - Meredydd, son of Bleddyn, - becomes the man of Robert of Bellême, ii. 424; - his action on his behalf, ii. 442. - - Merewine of Chester-le-Street, signs the Durham charter, ii. 536. - - Meulan, importance of its position, ii. 183. - - Mevania. _See_ Anglesey. - - Milford Haven, ii. 95. - - Mona. _See_ Anglesey. - - Monacledin, Duncan slain at, ii. 36 (_note_). - - _Monarches_, use of the title, ii. 484. - - Montacute (near Saint Cenery), castle of, besieged by Duke Robert - and destroyed, i. 469 (_note_). - - Montacute Priory, ii. 120. - - Mont Barbé, castle of, at Le Mans, i. 239, 361. - - Montbizot, ii. 232. - - Mont-de-la-Nue, castle of, ii. 216. - - Montfort l’Amaury, - fortress of, ii. 251, 253; - church of, ii. 254; - defended by the younger Simon, _ib._ - - Montgomery (in Wales), - castle of, ii. 77; - taken by the Welsh, ii. 104. - - Morel, - slays Malcolm, ii. 16, 593; - plunders Norwegian ships, ii. 40; - holds out at Bamburgh, ii. 54, 610; - turns king’s-evidence, ii. 55; - his end, ii. 69; - his signature to the Durham charter, ii. 536. - - Moreldene, ii. 17. - - Morgan, son of Jestin, ii. 81 (_note_). - - Morganwg, - distinguished from Glamorgan, ii. 85; - conquest of, _see_ Glamorgan. - - Morkere, son of Ælfgar, - re-imprisoned by William, i. 13, 14; - his signature to a charter of William of Saint-Calais, i. 14 - (_note_). - - Moses of Canterbury, ii. 573. - - Motte de Gauthier-le-Clincamp, castle of, ii. 216. - - Mowbray Castle, granted to Nigel of Albini, ii. 612. - - Murtagh, Muirchertach, or Murchard, - calls himself king of Ireland, i. 544; - Anselm’s letters to, i. 545 (_note_), ii. 581; - his answer to the threat of William Rufus, ii. 94; - drives Godred Crouan out of Dublin, ii. 137; - sends Donald to the Sudereys, _ib._; - his dealings with Magnus of Norway, ii. 146, 622, 624; - marries his daughter to Sigurd, ii. 136, 146, 443, 622; - Arnulf of Montgomery’s dealings with, ii. 425, 426, 442. - - Mutilation, feeling with regard to, i. 548 (_note_), ii. 64. - - - N. - - Neath, borough and abbey of, ii. 88, 89. - - Neauphlé-le-Château, ii. 251; - defended by the elder Simon of Montfort, ii. 253. - - Nest, wife of Bernard of Newmarch, - her descent, ii. 90; - her faithlessness to her husband, ii. 91; - her grant to Battle Abbey, ii. 91 (_note_). - - Nest, - wife of Gerald of Windsor, ii. 97, 110 (_note_); - her relations with Henry I, ii. 97, 110 (_note_), 379. - - Nest, daughter of Jestin, marries Einion, ii. 80. - - Neufchâtel-en-Bray, i. 236 (_note_). - - Neuilly, Robert of Bellême imprisoned at, i. 199. - - Newcastle-upon-Tyne, - defended by Robert of Mowbray, ii. 46; - taken by William Rufus, ii. 47, 607. - - New Forest, - its supposed connexion with the Saxon colony at Carlisle, i. 316, - ii. 550; - death of Richard son of Duke Robert there, ii. 316; - various versions of the death of William Rufus in, ii. 325 et seq. - - Nicolas, Bishop of Llandaff, his charter, ii. 84 (_note_). - - Nidaros. _See_ Trondhjem. - - Nigel of Albini, - his marriages, ii. 55, 612; - Mowbray Castle granted to, ii. 612. - - _Nithing_ Proclamation of William, i. 78. - - Nivard of Septeuil, ii. 252. - - Nomenclature of Wales compared with that of England, ii. 75. - - Nomenclature, personal, illustrations of, ii. 489, 551, 577. - - Norham Castle, founded by Flambard, ii. 272. - - Norman Conquest, - at once completed and undone under Rufus and under Henry I, - i. 3, 7, 130, ii. 456; - England reconciled to it by Henry I, ii. 456; - compared with that of Wales, ii. 72. - - Norman nobles, - revolt against William Rufus, i. 22 et seq., ii. 465 et seq.; - refuse to attend the Easter Gemôt, i. 32; - amnesty granted to, by Rufus, i. 88; - accepted as Englishmen, i. 132; - some loyal to Rufus, i. 62; - second revolt of, ii. 37. - - Normandy, - chief seat of warfare in the reign of Rufus, i. 178; - contrasted with England, _ib._; - temptations for the invasion of Rufus, i. 188; - under Robert, i. 189, 190; - spread of vice in, i. 192; - building of castles in, _ib._; - its rivalry with France, i. 201; - Rufus’s invasion of, agreed to by the Witan, i. 222-224; - its relations with England and France, i. 240; - private wars in, i. 241-244; - Orderic’s picture of, i. 271; - Rufus crosses over to, i. 273; - compared with England, i. 468; - her share in the first crusade, i. 547; - pledged to Rufus by Robert, i. 555; - Rufus takes possession of, i. 566; - his rule in, i. 567, 569, 570; - renewed anarchy in, on his death, ii. 366. - - Normannus. _See_ Northman. - - Normans and English, - fusion of, i. 130, 134, ii. 401, 455; - use of the words, ii. 649. - - Northallerton, church of, granted to the monks of Durham, i. 535. - - Northampton, - architectural arrangements of the castle, i. 601; - constitution of the Council of 1164, i. 602. - - Northman, monk of Christ Church, i. 140 (_note_). - - Northumberland, invaded by Malcolm, i. 296. - - Norwich, see of Thetford moved to, i. 449; ii. 569. - - - O. - - Oakburn, a cell of Bec, i. 376 (_note_). - - Odo, Bishop of Bayeux, - restored to his earldom, i. 19, ii. 467; - his discontent and intrigues, i. 23, 24, ii. 465; - his hatred towards Lanfranc, i. 24, 53 (_note_); - his harangue against William Rufus, i. 26, ii. 466; - his ravages in Kent, i. 52; - occupies Rochester Castle, i. 55; - invites Robert over, i. 56; - hated by the English, i. 67, 86; - moves to Pevensey, i. 70; - besieged therein by Rufus, i. 72-76; - surrenders on favourable terms, i. 76; - his treachery at Rochester, i. 77; - besieged therein, i. 79; - agrees to surrender, i. 80; - Rufus refuses his terms, i. 81; - pleadings made for, i. 83; - terms granted to, by Rufus, i. 85; - his humiliation and banishment, i. 85-87; - his influence with Duke Robert, i. 199; - his exhortation to him, i. 200; - marches with him into Maine, i. 208; - his further schemes, i. 211; - goes on the first crusade, i. 560; - his death and tomb at Palermo, i. 563, 571, ii. 307; - said to have married Philip and Bertrada, ii. 172. - - Odo, Abbot of Chertsey, - resigns his abbey, i. 350; - restored by Henry, _ib._ - - Odo of Champagne, lord of Holderness, - part of the lands of the see of Durham granted to, i. 90; - his agreement with the Bishop, i. 93; - intervenes on his behalf, i. 109, 117, 120; - confiscation of his lands, ii. 66. - - Odo, Duke of Burgundy, his alleged scheme against Anselm, i. 606. - - Ogmore Castle, ii. 86. - - Olaf, Saint, legend of him and Magnus, ii. 139. - - Olaf, son of Godred Crouan, ii. 137, 623. - - Oldbury, ii. 155. - - Omens, William Rufus sneers at the English regard for, ii. 330. - - Ordeal, - contempt of William Rufus for, i. 157, 165; - Eadmer’s belief in, i. 166 (_note_). - - Orderic, - writes Robert of Rhuddlan’s epitaph, i. 128; - his picture of Normandy, i. 271; - dictates his writings, i. 272 (_note_); - his account of the expedition of Magnus, ii. 142; - the only writer who mentions Eadgyth-Matilda’s change of name, - ii. 687. - - Ordgar, - his charge against Eadgar Ætheling, ii. 115, 617; - story of his duel with Godwine, ii. 115-117, 617; - estimate of the story, ii. 117, 615; - notices of, in Domesday, ii. 616. - - Ordwine, monk, Anselm’s letters to, ii. 579. - - Orkneys, invaded by Magnus, ii. 140. - - Orm, priest, signs the Durham charter, ii. 536. - - Orm’s Head, the, origin of the name, i. 123 (_note_). - - Orricus de Stanton, ii. 555. - - Osbern, monk of Bec, various bearers of the name, i. 374 (_note_). - - Osbern, brother of Flambard, ii. 551. - - Osbern of Orgères, companion of Robert of Rhuddlan, i. 126. - - Osbern of Richard’s Castle, rebels against William Rufus, i. 33. - - Osgod Clapa, his irreverence towards Saint Eadmund, ii. 268. - - Osmund, Bishop of Salisbury, - sent with a summons to Bishop William, i. 116; - consecrates his cathedral, i. 309; - helps at the consecration of the church of Battle, i. 444; - absolved by Anselm for his conduct at Rockingham, i. 533; - Anselm confers with him at Winchester, i. 586; - receives William of Alderi’s confession, ii. 68; - not present at his hanging, _ib._; - his death, i. 351, ii. 302; - his signature to the Durham charter, ii. 536. - - Oswald, Saint, King of the Northumbrians, - rebuilds the church of Tynemouth, ii. 17, 604; - his relic at Bamburgh, ii. 49, 608. - - Oswine, King of Deira, - his martyrdom, ii. 17; - invention of his relics, ii. 18, 603; - his translation, ii. 18, 606. - - Outillé Castle, - strengthened by Helias, ii. 275; - burned by him, ii. 288. - - Owen, son of Edwin, ii. 424. - - Oystermouth Castle, ii. 103. - - - P. - - Padua, siege of, i. 173 (_note_). - - Pagan or Theobald, - fortifies Gisors, ii. 186; - taken prisoner by Lewis, ii. 186 (_note_), 190; - Gisors restored to, ii. 396. - - Pagan of Montdoubleau, - holds Ballon against Duke Robert, i. 209; - Orderic’s tale of his forsaking Saint Cenery, i. 469 (_note_); - betrays Ballon to William Rufus, ii. 235. - - Pagan of Turberville, - holds Coyty, ii. 87; - joins the Welsh, ii. 104. - - Palermo, death and tomb of Odo of Bayeux at, i. 563, 571, ii. 307. - - Palgrave, Sir F., - on chivalry, ii. 508; - his condemnation of the crusades, ii. 509; - on the alleged Domesday of Randolf Flambard, ii. 562-564; - his belief in the legend about Purkis, ii. 679. - - Pallium, - elder usage as to, i. 482; - not needful for the validity of archiepiscopal acts, i. 483. - - Papacy, English feeling as to the schism in, i. 415. - - Paschal II., Pope, - speech of William Rufus on his election, i. 623; - Anselm’s letters to, ii. 582. - - Paul, Abbot of Saint Alban’s, - Anselm’s friendship with, i. 424; - his death, i. 424, ii. 18. - - Paul, Earl of Orkney, - taken prisoner by Magnus, ii. 140; - his death in Norway, ii. 140, 581. - - Paula, mother of Helias of La Flèche, ii. 196. - - Peckham manor, - mortgaged by Anselm to the monks of Christ Church, i. 559; - kept by the monks, i. 596. - - Peers, their right of trial, i. 604 (_note_). - - Pembroke Castle, - description of, ii. 96; - begun by Arnulf of Montgomery, _ib._; - later castle, _ib._; - defended by Gerald of Windsor, ii. 101, 108; - surrendered to Henry I by Arnulf, ii. 450 (_note_); - grant of, by Henry I, ii. 451. - - Pembrokeshire, - Flemish settlement in, ii. 70 (_note_), 74, 88, 615; - building of castles in, ii. 93; - military character of its buildings, ii. 96. - - Penmon Priory, ii. 129, 130 (_note_). - - Penrice Castle, ii. 103. - - Percy, house of, beginning of its connexion with Alnwick, ii. 15, 596. - - Perray, castle of, ii. 216. - - Peter of Maule, ii. 252. - - Peterborough, monks of, buy a _congé d’élire_ of Rufus, i. 352. - - Pevensey, - held by Robert of Mortain, i. 53, 62; - Odo moves to, i. 70; - castle of, i. 72; - besieged by William Rufus, i. 73-76; - attempted landing of the Normans at, i. 74, ii. 468, 481; - surrenders, i. 76; - Henry I gathers his fleet at, ii. 404. - - Philip I of France, - marches with Robert against Eu, i. 238; - bought off by William Rufus, i. 239; - historical importance of this bribe, _ib._; - mediates between William Rufus and Robert, i. 275, ii. 522; - helps Robert against William, i. 463; - returns to France, i. 464; - bought off by William, i. 466; - his position compared with that of Helias of Maine, ii. 169; - rebuked by Bishop Ivo of Chartres, i. 559 (_note_); - puts away his first wife, ii. 171; - seeks Emma of Sicily in marriage, ii. 171 (_note_); - his adulterous marriage with Bertrada of Montfort, i. 548, - ii. 171, 172; - denounced by Hugh of Lyons, ii. 173; - his excommunication, i. 549, ii. 173; - his pretended divorce, ii. 173 (_note_); - his sons by Bertrada, ii. 174; - grants the Vexin to Lewis, ii. 175; - his letter to Anselm, ii. 580. - - Philip, son of Philip and Bertrada, ii. 174. - - Philip of Braose, supports William Rufus, i. 472. - - Philip, son of Roger of Montgomery, - goes on the first crusade, i. 552; - conspires against William Rufus, ii. 38; - signs the Durham charter, ii. 536. - - Piacenza, - Council of, i. 522, 545; - no mention of English affairs at, i. 522. - - Pipe Rolls, notices of nomenclature in, ii. 551. - - Poix, lordship of Walter Tirel, ii. 673. - - Ponthieu, acquired by Robert of Bellême, ii. 423. - - Pontlieue, victory of Helias at, ii. 278. - - Pontoise, - granted to Lewis by Philip, ii. 175; - claimed by William Rufus, ii. 176; - withstands William Rufus, ii. 185; - castle and town of, ii. 247; - the furthest point in the French campaign of William Rufus, - ii. 248. - - Pope, - William of Saint-Calais appeals to, i. 103, 109; - first appeal made to, i. 119; - not to be acknowledged without the king’s consent, i. 414; - Anselm insists on the acknowledgement, i. 416; - question left unsettled, i. 424; - no reference to, in the case of English episcopal appointments, - i. 425; - position of England towards, i. 496. - - Porchester, - Duke Robert lands at, ii. 405; - church and castle of, ii. 406 (_note_). - - Powys, advance of Earl Roger in, ii. 97. - - Prisoners, ransom of, i. 464. - - Purkis, the charcoal-burner, legend of, ii. 679. - - - Q. - - Quatford, - Danish fortification at, ii. 152; - castle of, ii. 153; - Earl Roger’s buildings at, ii. 154; - legend of the foundation of the church, ii. 154 (_note_). - - - R. - - Radegund, wife of Robert of Geroy, i. 469 (_note_). - - Radnor, ii. 77. - - Ralph Luffa, - Bishop of Chichester, i. 353; - at the consecration of the church of Battle, i. 444; - whether a mediator between Henry I and the garrison of Arundel, - ii. 430 (_note_). - - Ralph, Bishop of Coutances, at the consecration of the church of - Battle, i. 444. - - Ralph, Abbot of Seez, afterwards Archbishop of Canterbury, - driven out by Robert of Bellême, i. 184, 242; - his alleged share in the surrender of Arundel, ii. 430 (_note_). - - Ralph of Aix, death of William Rufus attributed to, ii. 325, 334, 663. - - Ralph of Fresnay and Beaumont, - truce granted to, by William Rufus, ii. 230; - estimate of his conduct, ii. 231; - submits to William Rufus, ii. 241. - - Ralph of Mortemer, - rebels against William Rufus, i. 34; - submits to him, i. 231. - - Ralph Paganel, Sheriff of Yorkshire, - his treatment of William of Saint-Calais, i. 31; - founds Holy Trinity Priory, York, _ib._; - his action in regard to Bishop William’s lands, i. 90; - at the meeting at Salisbury, i. 111. - - Ralph of Toesny, or Conches, - drives out the ducal forces, i. 193; - joins Robert’s expedition into Maine, i. 209; - his feud with William of Evreux, i. 231, 233, 245; - asks help in vain from Duke Robert, i. 234; - submits to Rufus, _ib._; - his treaties with William of Evreux, i. 267, 270; - wars against Robert of Meulan, i. 270; - supports William Rufus in his second invasion, i. 472; - his death, i. 270; - entertains William Rufus, ii. 246. - - Ralph of Toesny, the younger, i. 233, 271. - - Ralph of Wacey, his nickname, ii. 193. - - Ralph of Wader, goes on the first crusade, i. 552. - - Rama, siege of, ii. 117 (_note_), 122. - - Randolf Flambard, Bishop of Durham, - feudal developement under, i. 4; - his early history, i. 329, ii. 551; - said to have been Dean of Twinham, i. 330, ii. 553; - his parents, i. 331; - origin of his surname, i. 331, ii. 555; - his financial skill, i. 331; - his probable share in Domesday, i. 331, ii. 552; - his alleged new Domesday, i. 332, ii. 562; - Justiciar, i. 333, ii. 557; - his loss of land for the New Forest, i. 333; - his systematic changes and exactions, i. 333, 339, 346, 348; - his alleged spoliation of the rich, i. 334, 341; - systematizes the feudal tenures, i. 336 et seq.; - his theory of land tenure, i. 337; - extent of his changes, i. 340; - the law-giver of English feudalism, i. 341; - suggests the holding of the revenues of vacant sees, i. 345 et - seq., ii. 564; - his action in keeping the see of Canterbury vacant, i. 363 - (_note_); - his suit against Anselm, i. 428; - attacks and imprisons Robert son of Godwine, ii. 121; - King Eadgar’s action towards, _ib._; - his exactions, ii. 256; - joint regent with Bishop Walkelin, ii. 266; - see of Durham granted to, ii. 271; - his consecration, _ib._; - character of the appointment, ii. 272; - his buildings at Durham, ii. 60, 272; - founds Norham Castle, _ib._; - his personal character, ii. 273; - his penitent end, ii. 274; - his dealings with Saint Alban’s Abbey, ii. 359 (_note_); - imprisoned by Henry, ii. 361; - his escape, ii. 397; - adventures of his mother, ii. 398; - stirs Duke Robert up against Henry, _ib._; - said to have brought about desertions to Duke Robert, ii. 404; - receives the revenues of the see of Lisieux under cover of his - son, ii. 416; - his signature to the Durham charter, ii. 536; - entries about, in Domesday, ii. 553; - his official position, ii. 557; - story of the attempt on his life, ii. 560; - his measurement by the rope, ii. 563. - - Randolf Meschines, Earl of Chester, grant of the earldom of Carlisle - to, ii. 549. - - Randolf Peverel, ii. 485. - - Randolf, his encounter with Saint Eadmund, ii. 269. - - Ransom, growth of the custom, i. 464. - - Rapes, in Sussex, origin of the name, ii. 564. - - Raymond, Count of Toulouse, refuses to do homage to Alexios, i. 564 - (_note_). - - Redemption of land, - as devised by Flambard, i. 337; - as reformed by Henry I, i. 338, 353. - - Reginald, Abbot of Abingdon, - said to have helped in distributing the Conqueror’s treasure, - ii. 265 (_note_); - his death, ii. 265 (_note_), 381 (_note_). - - Reginald of Saint Evroul, adorns Robert of Rhuddlan’s tomb, i. 128. - - Reginald of Warren, comes to Robert’s help at Rouen, i. 249, 253. - - Reingar, Bishop of Lucca, his protest in favour of Anselm, i. 622. - - Relief, - Flambard’s theory as to, i. 337, 338; - enforced by Henry’s charter, i. 338, ii. 353. - - Remigius, Bishop of Lincoln, - denounces the slave trade, i. 310; - completes the minster, _ib._; - his dispute with Thomas of York, i. 311; - wins over William Rufus, _ib._; - his death, i. 312; - alleged miracles at his tomb, i. 312 (_note_); - his signature to the Durham charter, ii. 536. - - Rémusat, Charles de, his Life of Anselm, i. 325 (_note_). - - Rhuddlan, - attacked by Gruffydd, i. 122; - castle of, ii. 77. - - Rhyd-y-gors Castle, - built by William Rufus, ii. 97; - defence of, ii. 101; - gained by the Welsh, ii. 106. - - Rhys ap Tewdwr, King of Deheubarth, - driven from and restored to his kingdom, i. 121; - his attack on Rhuddlan Castle, i. 122, ii. 78; - his defeat and death at Brecknock, ii. 91; - effect of his death, ii. 92. - - Rhys ap Thomas, Sir, ii. 95 (_note_). - - Richard I, compared with William Rufus, i. 290. - - Richard II., recasts Westminster Hall, ii. 262. - - Richard the Good, Duke of the Normans, i. 169. - - Richard, son of Duke Robert, his death, ii. 316. - - Richard, - son of Henry I and Ansfrida, ii. 314, 380; - dies in the White Ship, ii. 381. - - Richard, Abbot of Saint Alban’s, ii. 166. - - Richard, Abbot of Ely, - his appointment, ii. 360; - removed by Anselm, _ib._ - - Richard of Courcy, - besieged by Duke Robert and Robert of Bellême, i. 274; - supports William Rufus, i. 472. - - Richard of Montfort, his death before Conches, i. 266. - - Richard of Redvers, - supports Henry, i. 221; - surrenders to William Rufus, i. 283; - joins Henry, i. 320; - one of Henry’s inner council, ii. 362; - his loyalty to Henry, ii. 399; - granted to Henry by Robert, ii. 513. - - Richard Siward, ii. 86. - - Richard Tisone, ii. 596. - - Richer of Laigle, i. 243 (_note_). - - Richera (Richesa), sister of Anselm, his letters to, ii. 579. - - Robert, Duke of the Normans, - assertion of his hereditary right, i. 11 (_note_), ii. 460; - releases Duncan and Wulf, i. 14; - his gifts for his father’s soul, i. 18; - compared with William Rufus, i. 20, 226; - arguments of the rebels in his favour, i. 24 et seq.; - invited to England by Odo, i. 56; - sends over Robert of Bellême and others, _ib._; - delays his coming, i. 71, 74; - his childish boasting, i. 71; - his promises to Odo, i. 72; - welcomes Bishop William, i. 117; - M. le Hardy’s apology for him, i. 175 (_note_); - William of Malmesbury’s estimate of him, _ib._; - character of his reign foretold by his father, i. 189; - anarchy under him, i. 190, 191; - his character, i. 190, 298, ii. 393; - spread of vice under him, i. 192; - his lavish waste, i. 195; - sells the Côtentin and Avranchin to Henry, i. 196, ii. 510-516; - imprisons Henry and Robert of Bellême, i. 199; - Earl Roger makes war on him, _ib._; - Odo’s exhortation to him, i. 200; - does homage to Fulk of Anjou for Maine, i. 204; - Maine submits to him, i. 209; - Ballon surrenders to him, i. 210; - besieges Saint Cenery, i. 211; - blinds Robert Carrel, i. 216; - grants Saint Cenery to Robert, grandson of Geroy, i. 217; - Alençon and Bellême surrender to him, i. 218; - frees Robert of Bellême and Henry, i. 220; - asks King Philip to help him against William, i. 237; - suspects the loyalty of Maine, ii. 191; - asks help of Fulk of Anjou, ii. 192; - bargains for the marriage of Fulk and Bertrada, ii. 193, 194; - Maine revolts again, ii. 197; - his carelessness as to his loss, ii. 200; - cleaves to his rights over the bishopric, _ib._; - marches on Eu, i. 238; - a party in Rouen in his favour, i. 248; - Henry and Robert of Bellême come to his help, _ib._; - sent away from Rouen by Henry, i. 255; - is brought back, i. 260; - his treatment of the citizens, _ib._; - helps Robert of Bellême in his private wars, i. 273; - his treaty with William, i. 275-281, ii. 522, 528; - marches against Henry, i. 283; - besieges Saint Michael’s Mount, i. 285-292, ii. 528-535; - story of his clemency towards Henry, i. 291, ii. 534; - accompanies William to England, i. 295, 297; - his relations with Malcolm, i. 297, ii. 541 et seq.; - mediates between William and Malcolm, i. 301; - former homage of Malcolm to him, i. 302, ii. 542; - signs the Durham charter, i. 305, ii. 536; - his fresh dispute with William, i. 306; - leaves England, i. 307; - Henry wars against him, i. 321; - consents to Anselm’s acceptance of the primacy, i. 406; - his challenges to William, i. 435, 436; - his meeting with him, i. 461; - calls on Philip for help, i. 463; - takes La Houlme, i. 465; - besieges Montacute, i. 469 (_note_); - Henry again wars against him, i. 470; - his eagerness to go on the crusade, i. 552; - forced to apply to William for help, i. 553; - Abbot Geronto mediates between them, i. 553-555; - pledges Normandy to William, i. 555, ii. 506; - his conference with William, i. 559; - sets forth, i. 560; - his conduct as a crusader, i. 560, 564, 565, 566, ii. 394; - blessed by Urban at Lucca, i. 561; - goes to Rome, _ib._; - welcomed by Roger of Apulia, _ib._; - crosses to Dyrrhachion, i. 563; - does homage to Alexios at Constantinople, i. 564; - his presence at Laodikeia and Jerusalem, i. 564, 565, ii. 300; - said to have refused the crown of Jerusalem, i. 566; - marries Sibyl of Conversana, ii. 312; - his reception in Southern Italy, _ib._; - returns to Normandy, i. 566, ii. 311, 367; - gives thanks at Saint Michael’s for his safe return, ii. 367; - his renewed misgovernment, ii. 367, 394; - his claims to the English throne, ii. 343, 344, 346; - supported by William of Breteuil and other Normans, ii. 346, 347; - Norman nobles intrigue with, against Henry I, ii. 366, 368; - beginning of his war with Henry, ii. 368; - his reply to the garrison of Le Mans, ii. 372; - plots on his behalf, ii. 395; - his grants and promises, _ib._; - his fleet, ii. 402; - desertions to, ii. 404, 409, 686; - lands at Portchester, ii. 405; - estimate of his conduct in not besieging Winchester, ii. 406; - meets Henry near Alton, ii. 409; - threatened with excommunication by Anselm, ii. 410; - negotiates with him, ii. 412; - personal meeting and treaty between the brothers, ii. 412-415, - 538, 688-691; - returns to Normandy, ii. 414; - Henry negotiates with him, against Robert of Bellême, ii. 426; - besieges Vignats, _ib._; - said to have stood godfather to Eadgyth-Matilda, ii. 602. - - Robert, Bishop of Hereford, - foretells the death of Remigius, i. 312; - receives Wulfstan’s confession, i. 479; - Wulfstan appears to him, i. 480; - absolved by Anselm for his conduct at Rockingham, i. 533; - Wulfstan appears to him again, _ib._ and _note_; - his death, i. 535. - - Robert Bloet, Bishop of Lincoln, - accompanies William Rufus to England, i. 13; - his appointment, i. 395, ii. 584; - his character and offices, i. 395, 447, ii. 584 et seq.; - Thomas of York claims the right to consecrate him, i. 433; - consecrated by Anselm, i. 445-447; - bribes Rufus, i. 446; - his death, i. 448, ii. 587; - local legends about, i. 448, ii. 586; - said to have besieged Tickhill, ii. 431; - signs the Durham charter, ii. 536; - not in good favour with monks, ii. 585; - his son Simon, ii. 586; - meaning of his name, ii. 588. - - Robert, Bishop of Bath, restores the canons of Wells, ii. 487. - - Robert Losinga, Abbot of New Minster, - the abbey bought for him by his son, i. 355; - his death, ii. 265 (_note_), 267. - - Robert, Abbot of Saint Eadmund’s, - his appointment, ii. 359; - removed by Anselm, ii. 360. - - Robert of Bellême, - sent over to England by Duke Robert, i. 57, ii. 465 et seq.; - agrees to surrender Rochester, i. 80; - pleadings made for him, i. 84; - his history and greatness, i. 179, 180; - his character, i. 181; - his cruelty and enmities, i. 182-184, ii. 151, 222; - drives out the ducal garrisons, i. 193, 201; - sent against Rufus by Robert, i. 57; - returns to Normandy and is imprisoned, i. 199, 219; - exhortation of Odo against him, i. 201; - released at his father’s prayer, i. 219, 220; - his subsequent action, i. 242; - drives away Abbot Ralph of Seez, i. 184, 242; - comes to the help of Duke Robert, i. 248; - helped by Robert against his neighbours, i. 273, 274; - his oppression at Domfront, i. 319; - succeeds to the Norman estates of his father, i. 180, 473; - to his English estates, i. 180, ii. 148; - men of Domfront revolt against, i. 319; - his action in Wales, ii. 113; - extent of his estates, ii. 148, 163; - his position on the continent and in England, ii. 149, 150; - compared with the Counts of Mortain, ii. 149, and with Hugh of - Chester, ii. 150; - his oppression, ii. 151; - his skill in castle-building, _ib._; - his defences in Shropshire, ii. 152; - removes from Quatford to Bridgenorth, ii. 155; - builds Careghova Castle, ii. 158; - his Yorkshire and Nottinghamshire estates, ii. 159; - lands of Roger of Bully granted to, ii. 162; - strengthens Gisors Castle, ii. 187; - attacks Maine, ii. 213; - stirs up William Rufus to war, ii. 215; - carries it on, ii. 216; - his nickname of “Robert the Devil,” ii. 216, 219; - his castles in Maine, ii. 216; - wrong and sacrilege done by him, ii. 221, 222; - defeated by Helias, ii. 222, 223; - takes Helias prisoner, ii. 224; - contrasted with William Rufus, _ib._; - occupies and strengthens Ballon Castle, ii. 235, 282; - story of him at the siege of Mayet, ii. 291; - hastens to acknowledge Henry I as king, ii. 362; - calls himself the “man” of Helias, ii. 373 (_note_); - plots against Henry, ii. 395; - Duke Robert’s grants to, _ib._; - deserts from Henry, ii. 409; - said to have negotiated between Henry and Robert, ii. 412; - charges brought against, ii. 421; - does not appear before the assembly, _ib._; - proclamation against, ii. 442; - again summoned, but refuses to come, _ib._; - greatness of his possessions, ii. 423; - his acquisition of Ponthieu, _ib._; - his Welsh and Irish allies, ii. 423-426; - strengthens his castles, ii. 428; - harries Staffordshire, ii. 429; - Henry’s faith pledged for his life, ii. 430, 438; - seizes the land of William Pantulf, ii. 434; - feeling in the army on his behalf, ii. 436; - his dealings wth Murtagh and with Magnus, ii. 442; - holds out at Shrewsbury, ii. 445; - his despair, ii. 446; - sues for peace, and submits, ii. 448; - his banishment, ii. 449; - joy at his overthrow, _ib._; - his later history, i. 184, ii. 450. - - Robert Carrel, - holds Saint Cenery against Duke Robert, i. 215; - blinded by him, i. 216. - - Robert of Conteville, i. 115. - - Robert the Cornard, his device of pointed shoes, i. 159, ii. 502. - - Robert of Courcy, - marries Rohesia of Grantmesnil, i. 273 (_note_); - wounded at Saônes, ii. 222. - - Robert of Curzon, Saint Eadmund’s dealings with, ii. 269. - - Robert the Dispenser, - signs the foundation charter of Salisbury Cathedral, i. 309 - (_note_); - invents the surname _Flambard_, i. 309 (_note_), 331. - - Robert Count of Eu, submits to Rufus, i. 229. - - Robert Fitz-hamon, - his loyalty to William Rufus, i. 62; - Matilda’s lands granted to, by Rufus, i. 198; - his foundation at Tewkesbury, i. 479; - story of him and Jestin, ii. 80; - estimate of the story, ii. 81, 614; - his conquest of Glamorgan and settlement at Cardiff, ii. 81, - 84; - other notices of, ii. 82; - marries Earl Roger’s daughter, ii. 83; - his works at Gloucester and Tewkesbury, ii. 84; - said to have taken part against Rhys, ii. 91; - tells the monk’s dream to William Rufus, ii. 328; - legend of his share in the burial of Rufus, ii. 338, 676; - signs Henry’s letter to Anselm, ii. 366; - his loyalty to him, ii. 399; - said to have negotiated between Henry and Robert, ii. 412. - - Robert Fitzharding, his probable origin, i. 46 (_note_). - - Robert the Frisian, Count of Flanders, - his interview with William Rufus, i. 411; - his expedition to the East, _ib._; - his help to the Emperor Alexios, _ib._; - his death, _ib._ - - Robert of Jerusalem, Count of Flanders, - succeeds his father, i. 412; - goes on the first crusade, i. 551, 560; - Anselm’s letter to, ii. 581. - - Robert, Earl of Gloucester, - natural son of Henry I, ii. 379, 414; - marries Mabel, daughter of Robert Fitz-hamon, ii. 83. - - Robert, natural son of Henry I and Nest, ii. 379. - - Robert Malet, his banishment, ii. 417. - - Robert, Count of Meulan, - son of Roger of Beaumont, i. 184; - his possessions, i. 185; - his exploits at Senlac, _ib._; - his fame for wisdom, _ib._; - claims Ivry, i. 243; - his imprisonment and release, _ib._; - advises Rufus as to Anselm’s conditions, i. 417; - supports William Rufus, i. 472; - his description of Anselm, i. 511; - marries Isabel of Vermandois, i. 187 (_note_), 551; - his marriage denounced by Bishop Ivo of Chartres, i. 551 (_note_); - his answer to Anselm’s discourse, i. 591; - his policy towards William Rufus, ii. 182, 184; - receives his troops, ii. 182; - counsels William Rufus to reject Helias’s offer of service, - ii. 243, 641; - accompanies Henry to London, ii. 350, 680; - one of his councillors, i. 186, ii. 350, 362, 420; - does not sign Henry’s charter or letter to Anselm, ii. 366; - Norman raid against his lands, ii. 367; - his advice to Henry I, ii. 400; - his bargain with Ivo of Grantmesnil, ii. 418; - becomes Earl of Leicester, ii. 419; - his death, i. 187, 419; - his sons, _ib._; - his college at Leicester, ii. 420; - Anselm’s letters to him, ii. 580. - - Robert, Earl of Leicester, - son of Robert of Meulan, i. 187, ii. 419; - founds Leicester Abbey, ii. 420. - - Robert of Montfort, - repairs and holds Vaux-en-Belin for William Rufus, ii. 289; - his signature to Henry’s charter, ii. 358; - his treason to Duke Robert, ii. 427. - - Robert, Count of Mortain, - rebels against William Rufus, i. 33, ii. 470; - holds Pevensey against him, i. 53, 62; - exhorted by Odo to hold out, i. 70; - besieged by William Rufus in Pevensey, i. 73, 76; - surrenders, i. 76. - - Robert of Mowbray, Earl of Northumberland, - rebels against William Rufus, i. 35; - burns Bath, i. 41; - besieges Ilchester without success, i. 42, 44; - drives back Malcolm, i. 297; - his expedition against him, ii. 16, 592; - grants Tynemouth to Saint Alban’s, ii. 19, 605; - grounds for his conspiracy, ii. 37, 40; - marries Matilda of Laigle, ii. 38; - his second revolt against William Rufus, ii. 38, 43; - plunders Norwegian ships, ii. 40; - refuses redress, ii. 41; - summoned to the king’s court, _ib._; - demands a safe-conduct, ii. 42; - his open rebellion, ii. 42, 43; - defence and sieges of his fortresses, ii. 46; - holds Bamburgh against Rufus, ii. 50, 607; - his alleged despair, ii. 51; - his escape from Bamburgh, ii. 52, 609; - said to have been taken at Tynemouth, ii. 53, 610; - threatened with blinding, ii. 54, 610; - versions of his later history, ii. 54, 611. - - Robert of Neville, - one of the defenders of Bridgenorth, ii. 433; - his negotiations with Henry I, ii. 440, 443. - - Robert of Pontefract, - plots against Henry I, ii. 395; - his banishment, ii. 417. - - Robert, Marquess of Rhuddlan, - rebels against William Rufus, i. 34; - attack made on his lands by Gruffydd, i. 122, 124; - his probable change of party, i. 123; - returns to North Wales, _ib._; - his death at Dwyganwy, i. 126; - buried at Chester, i. 127; - his gifts to Chester, i. 127 (_note_); - his connexion with Saint Evroul, _ib._; - translated thither, i. 128; - Orderic’s epitaph on, _ib._; - his lands in North Wales, ii. 77; - extension of his possessions, ii. 78. - - Robert of Saint Alban’s, his apostasy, ii. 123. - - Robert of Torigny, his Chronicle, i. 9 (_note_). - - Robert of Veci, first lord of Alnwick, ii. 596. - - Robert, son of Corbet, - one of the defenders of Bridgenorth, ii. 432; - notices of his estates in Domesday, ii. 433 (_note_); - his negotiations with Henry I, ii. 440, 443. - - Robert, - son of Godwine, ii. 117 (_note_), 118; - his exploits in Scotland, ii. 118, 617; - King Eadgar’s gifts to, ii. 121; - attacked and imprisoned by Randolf Flambard, _ib._; - goes on the crusade, ii. 122, 617; - his exploits and martyrdom, _ib._; - modern parallels and contrasts with, ii. 123; - notices of, in Fordun and William of Malmesbury, ii. 616, 617. - - Robert, son of Harding, i. 45 (_note_). - - Robert, son of Hugh of Montfort, sent to occupy the fortresses of - Le Mans, ii. 239. - - Robert, son of Nigel and Gundrada, founder of Byland Abbey, ii. 612. - - Robert, son of Geroy, his rebellion and death, i. 214. - - Robert, grandson of Geroy, - Saint Cenery granted to, i. 217; - loses the castle, i. 469; - Henry Ætheling comes to his help against Robert of Bellême, _ib._ - - Robertson, E. W., on Malcolm’s homage to William Rufus, ii. 540. - - Roche Guyon, La, castle of, ii. 180, 181. - - Rochester, - its early history and position, i. 53, 54; - later sieges of, i. 53; - occupied by Odo, i. 55; - the garrison refuse to surrender to William Rufus, i. 77; - siege of, i. 79-85; - surrenders, i. 85; - benefactions of Rufus to the church, ii. 506. - - Rockingham, - Council of (1095), i. 487 et seq.; - position and history of the place, i. 489, 490; - the castle, i. 490; - importance of the council, i. 519; - its constitution, i. 602. - - Roger, Count of Sicily, - legatine power granted to, i. 525 (_note_); - marriage of his daughter, i. 526; - besieges Amalfi, i. 561, and Capua, i. 614; - forbids conversions of the Saracens, i. 161, 617; - contrasted with Henry I, ii. 454. - - Roger, Duke of Apulia, - welcomes Duke Robert, i. 561; - besieges Amalfi, i. 562; - besieges Capua, i. 614; - receives Urban and Anselm in his camp, i. 615. - - Roger, Bishop of Salisbury, possibly one of Henry’s inner council, - ii. 363. - - Roger, Abbot of Saint Michael’s Mount, i. 284. - - Roger of Beaumont, - father of Robert of Meulan, i. 184; - Brionne granted to, by Duke Robert, i. 194; - obtains the release of his son, i. 243; - his death, i. 472. - - Roger Bigod, - rebels against William Rufus, i. 34; - his ravages, i. 36; - his action at the meeting at Salisbury, i. 98; - signs Henry’s charter, ii. 358; - his loyalty to Henry, ii. 399; - his signature to the Durham charter, ii. 536. - - Roger of Bully, - greatness of his estates, ii. 159, 161; - founds the priory of Blyth, ii. 161; - his death, ii. 162; - his lands granted to Robert of Bellême, _ib._ - - Roger of Clare, with William Rufus in the New Forest, ii. 321. - - Roger of Lacy, - rebels against William Rufus, i. 33; - seizes on Hereford, i. 46; - his second rebellion, ii. 39; - his trial and sentence, ii. 63. - - Roger of Montgomery, Earl of Shrewsbury, - rebels against William Rufus, i. 33, ii. 470; - his action in the rebellion, i. 47, 57; - his alleged presence before Worcester, ii. 481; - at Arundel, i. 58; - founds the priory of Saint Nicolas at Arundel, i. 59 (_note_); - won over by William, i. 61, ii. 462; - his action at the siege of Rochester, i. 80; - makes war on Duke Robert, i. 199; - his fortresses, i. 200; - obtains his son’s release, i. 219; - his advance in Powys, ii. 97; - his death, i. 473; - his buildings at Quatford, ii. 154; - his foundation at Wenlock, _ib._; - his signature to the Durham charter, ii. 536. - - Roger of Mowbray, son of Nigel and Gundrada, ii. 612. - - Roger of Poitou, son of Earl Roger, - rebels against William Rufus, i. 57; - his agreement with Bishop William, i. 93; - intervenes on his behalf, i. 109, 117, 120; - holds Argentan for William Rufus, i. 463; - surrenders to Robert, i. 464; - plots against Henry I, ii. 395; - his share in the rebellion of Robert of Bellême, ii. 423; - his banishment, ii. 450. - - Roger of Toesny, son of Ralph and Isabel, - county of Evreux settled on, i. 268; - his character, _ib._; - his dream, i. 269; - his death, i. 270. - - Roger, son of Corbet, notices of, in Domesday, ii. 433 (_note_). - - Rohais, wife of Richard of Clare, ii. 572. - - Rohesia, daughter of Hugh of Grantmesnil, marries Robert of Courcy, - i. 273 (_note_). - - _Romania_, use of the word, i. 564 (_note_). - - Rome, - Pope Urban on the unhealthiness of, i. 367 (_note_); - treatment of Duke Robert at, i. 561. - - Rope, measurement by, i. 68 (_note_), ii. 562, 564. - - Rosella, daughter of Eadwine, ii. 603. - - Rotrou of Montfort, - Orderic’s tale of his forsaking Saint Cenery, i. 469 (_note_); - truce granted to, by Rufus, ii. 230; - estimate of his conduct, ii. 231. - - Rotrou, Count of Perche, - goes on the first crusade, i. 551; - imprisoned in the castle of Le Mans, ii. 373; - his mother gives the kiss of peace to Bishop Hildebert, ii. 373 - (_note_). - - Rouen, - municipal spirit in, i. 246; - the citizens favour William Rufus, i. 247; - Henry comes to Robert’s help at, i. 248; - its position in the eleventh century, i. 250; - ducal castles at, _ib._; - cathedral and other churches of, i. 252; - its gates and suburbs, i. 252, 253; - Robert sent away from, i. 255; - taken by Henry, i. 256; - treatment of the citizens, i. 260; - council held by William Rufus at, ii. 226. - - Rouen, - synod of, i. 568; - small results of, i. 569. - - Rualedus, story of his treatment by Henry, ii. 540. - - Ruislip, Middlesex, said to have been a cell of Bec, i. 376 (_note_). - - - S. - - Saer, holds Pembroke Castle, ii. 451. - - Saint Alban’s, - Jews at, i. 160 (_note_); - the abbey granted to the see of Canterbury, i. 423; - four years’ vacancy of, i. 424; - grant of Tynemouth to, ii. 18, 605; - Flambard’s dealings with, ii. 359 (_note_). - - Saint Augustine’s, Canterbury, - disturbances at, on Guy’s appointment, i. 139; - vengeance of William Rufus on, i. 140. - - Saint Cenery, his relics, i. 213 (_note_). - - Saint Cenery-le-Gerey, - castle besieged by Duke Robert, i. 211, 215; - the former monastery, i. 212; - foundation of the castle, i. 214; - seized by Mabel, i. 215; - surrenders to Robert, _ib._; - mutilation of its defenders, i. 216; - granted to Robert, grandson of Geroy, i. 217; - taken by Robert of Bellême, i. 469. - - Saint David’s, - robbed by pirates, ii. 78; - tale of William Rufus’s visit to, ii. 93. - - Saint Eadmundsbury, - Jews at, i. 160 (_note_); - church of, rebuilt by Abbot Baldwin, ii. 268; - William Rufus forbids the dedication, ii. 269. - - Saint Evroul, - connexion of Robert of Rhuddlan with, i. 127; - his translation to, i. 128; - burial of Hugh of Grantmesnil at, i. 473. - - Saint Gervase, Rouen, priory of, i. 252. - - Saint James, - castle of, occupied by Henry, i. 321; - position and remains of, i. 321, 322; - granted to Earl Hugh, i. 323, ii. 540. - - Saint Julian, translation of his body, ii. 204. - - Saint Mary-le-bow, roof of the church blown down, i. 308, ii. 589. - - Saint Michael’s Mount, - bought of Robert by Henry, i. 196; - cession of, demanded by William Rufus, i. 277, ii. 524; - buildings on, i. 284; - Henry besieged at, i. 284-292, ii. 528-535; - its position, i. 285; - later sieges of, i. 286; - surrenders to William, i. 292. - - Saint Oswald’s, Worcester, granted to the see of York, i. 447. - - Saint Ouen, Rouen, abbey of, i. 252. - - Saint Remy-du-plain, castle of, ii. 216, 218. - - Saint Saens, its position, i. 235. - - Saint Stephen’s, Caen, gifts of Rufus to, i. 168, ii. 504-506. - - Saint Tyfrydog, desecration of the church, ii. 131. - - Saint Valery, - submits to Rufus, i. 227; - historical importance of the fact, i. 228. - - Salisbury, assembly at (1096), - case of William of Saint-Calais heard at, i. 94 et seq.; - constitutional importance of, ii. 56, 57; - compared with that of 1086, ii. 58; - sentences passed at, ii. 62. - - Salisbury Cathedral, - consecration of, i. 308; - fall of the tower roof, i. 309; - signatures to the foundation charter, i. 309 (_note_) - - Samson, canon of Bayeux, - his appointment and consecration to the see of Worcester, - i. 542-544; - his great appetite, i. 543 (_note_); - consecrates Gloucester Abbey, ii. 317. - - Samson, chaplain to the Conqueror, story of his refusing the - bishopric of Le Mans, i. 206. - - Samuel, Bishop of Dublin, consecrated by Anselm, i. 544. - - Sanctuary, right of, decree of the council of Clermont as to, i. 548 - (_note_). - - Sanford (Devonshire), held by Roger of Bully, ii. 160 (_note_). - - Saônes, - castle of, ii. 216, 218; - Helias defeats Robert of Bellême at, ii. 222. - - Saracens in Sicily, - compared with the Jews, i. 161; - Anselm’s dealings with, i. 616; - conversion of, forbidden by Duke Roger, i. 617; - in Spain, mentioned in the Chronicle, ii. 306. - - Scandinavians, - in Cumberland, i. 315; - destroy Carlisle, _ib._ - - Schiavia, Anselm retires to, i. 615. - - Scotland, kingdom of, - becomes English, ii. 5; - compared with Wales, ii. 6; - effects of the Cumbrian conquest on, ii. 8; - Margaret’s reforms in, ii. 23; - growth of English influence in, ii. 24-26; - party feeling in, on Malcolm’s death, ii. 28; - dealings of Magnus with, ii. 147; - English influence in, under David, ii. 125; - results of Eadgar’s succession, ii. 304. - - Scotland, Abbot of Saint Augustine’s, - his death, i. 136; - disturbances consequent on, i. 139. - - Seez, enmity of Robert of Bellême to its bishops and abbots, i. 183. - - Seit, and others, letter of Anselm to, ii. 577. - - Selby Abbey, granted to the see of York, i. 447. - - Serlo, - Bishop of Seez, ii. 521; - excommunicates Robert of Bellême, i. 184. - - Serlo, Abbot of Gloucester, - visits Wulfstan, i. 479; - his warning to William Rufus, ii. 318, 329. - - Shoes, pointed, i. 158, ii. 502. - - Shrewsbury, - burial of Earl Hugh at, ii. 145; - Robert of Bellême holds out in, ii. 445; - castle of, ii. 446; - Henry I marches against, ii. 446, 447; - surrender of, ii. 448, 457; - Gemóts held at, ii. 452; - earldom of, _ib._ - - Shropshire, defences of, - strengthened by Robert of Bellême, ii. 152; - early history of its fortresses, _ib._ - - Sibyl of Conversana, - marries Duke Robert of Normandy, ii. 312; - her character, _ib._; - tales of her death, ii. 312 (_note_); - called Edith, ii. 687. - - Sibyl, daughter of Henry I, marries Alexander of Scotland, ii. 124. - - Sibyl, daughter of Earl Roger, marries Robert Fitz-hamon, ii. 83. - - Sicilian monarchy, the, i. 525. - - Sicily, - its relations with England, i. 526; - under the Normans, ii. 306. - - Siegfried, Bishop of Seez, signs the foundation charter of Lonlay - Abbey, ii. 539. - - Signs and wonders, i. 176, ii. 246, 258, 302, 316. - - Sigston, church of, granted to the monks of Durham, ii. 535. - - Sigurd, - son of Magnus and Thora, ii. 133; - earldom of Orkney granted to, ii. 140; - his kingdom, ii. 146; - his Irish marriage, ii. 136, 146, 443, 622; - goes on the crusade, ii. 206. - - Sillé, siege of, compared with the deliverance of Worcester, ii. 480. - - Simeon, Abbot of Ely, ii. 359. - - Simon, son of Robert Bloet, Dean of Lincoln, i. 448, ii. 586. - - Simon of Montfort, the elder and the younger, ii. 190, 253, 254. - - Simon of Montfort, Earl of Leicester, - his siege of Rochester, i. 53 (_note_); - his ancestry, ii. 253. - - Simon of Senlis, Earl of Northampton, - taken prisoner by Lewis, ii. 190 (_note_); - his signature to Henry’s charter, ii. 358. - - Simony, not systematic before Rufus, i. 348. - - Siward Barn, signs the Durham charters, i. 305, ii. 536. - - Siward the priest, ii. 270 (_note_). - - Slave trade, denounced by Remigius, i. 310. - - Solêmes, priory of, ii. 202. - - Somerset, - ravaged by Robert of Mowbray, i. 41, 42; - bishopric of, removed to Bath, i. 136, ii. 483 et seq.; - use of the name, ii. 488. - - Spain, Saracens in, mentioned in the Chronicle, ii. 306. - - Sparsholt, manor of, - seized by William Rufus, ii. 380; - recovered by Abbot Faricius, ii. 380 (_note_); - notices of, in Domesday, ii. 381 (_note_). - - Stafford, commanded by William Pantulf, ii. 434. - - Stars, shooting, notices of, i. 478 (_note_), ii. 41, 118. - - Stephen Langton, Archbishop of Canterbury, appeals to the charter - of Henry I, ii. 358. - - Stephen, Abbot of Saint Mary’s, York, signs the Durham charter, - ii. 536. - - Stephen, Archdeacon of Romsey, Anselm’s letter to, ii. 578. - - Stephen of Aumale, - submits to Rufus, i. 228; - one of his Norman supporters, i. 472; - conspiracy in his favour, ii. 39, 63; - no ground for his claim, ii. 39. - - Stephen of Chartres and Blois, - goes on the first crusade, i. 551, 560; - decamps for awhile, i. 566 (_note_). - - Stephen, the Jewish convert, story of, i. 163-165. - - Stigand, Bishop of Chichester, his death, i. 135. - - Stoke, priory of Clare moved to, i. 376. - - Stone, manor of, ii. 507. - - Stoppele, church of, granted to Twinham, ii. 555. - - Stow, monks of, moved by Robert Bloet to Eynesham, ii. 585, 587. - - Streatham, lands of Bec at, i. 376. - - Stubbs, William, on the alleged Domesday of Flambard, ii. 562. - - Sudereys, disturbances in, - on the death of Godred Crouan, ii. 137, 138; - invaded by Magnus, ii. 140. - - Sulien, Bishop of Saint David’s, his death, ii. 78. - - Summons, effect of the practice of, ii. 58. - - Sussex, Earls of, i. 60 (_note_). - - Sutton, church at, granted to Abingdon Abbey, ii. 506. - - Swansea Castle, ii. 103. - - Swegen, son of Æthelric, ii. 551. - - Swegen, King, his overthrow at Gainsburgh compared with the - deliverance of Worcester, ii. 480. - - Swinecombe, held by Bec, i. 375. - - - T. - - Tancard, Abbot of Jumièges, his appointment, i. 570. - - Tenby Castle, ii. 95. - - Tewkesbury Abbey, - founded by Robert Fitz-hamon, i. 479, ii. 84; - grant of Welsh churches to, _ib._ - - Thames, great tide in the, ii. 302. - - _Theningmannagemót_, the, i. 604. - - Theobald of Gisors. _See_ Pagan. - - Theobald, the White Knight, helps to defend Courcy, ii. 519. - - Thetford, hospital at, - founded by William Rufus, ii. 506; - the see moved to Norwich, i. 449, ii. 569. - - Thierry, Augustin, on the punishment of the monks of Saint - Augustine’s, i. 140 (_note_). - - Thomas of London, Archbishop of Canterbury, case of, - at Northampton, i. 95; - general surprise at his appointment, i. 359; - his case compared with those of Anselm and of William of - Saint-Calais, i. 597 et seq. - - Thomas of Bayeux, Archbishop of York, - at the meeting at Salisbury, i. 95, 102; - claims jurisdiction over Lindesey, i. 311, 433; - present at Anselm’s consecration, i. 429; - asserts his metropolitan rights, i. 431; - compromise agreed to, i. 447; - at the deathbed of William of Durham, ii. 61; - not present at the coronation of Henry I, ii. 350 (_note_), 681; - his death, ii. 391; - his signature to the Durham charter, ii. 536; - his alleged coronation of Henry, ii. 682. - - Thomas, - son of Flambard, ii. 552; - his appointment to the see of Lisieux, ii. 416. - - Thora, mother of Sigurd, ii. 133. - - Thurstan, Abbot of Glastonbury, restored by William Rufus, i. 135. - - Tiberius, Emperor, William Rufus compared to, i. 148. - - Tiberius, Legate, ii. 488. - - Tickhill (Dadesley) Castle, ii. 160; - name used indiscriminately with Blyth, ii. 162; - surrenders to Henry I, ii. 431; - its later history, ii. 432. - - Tinchebrai, English feeling about the battle, ii. 402. - - Toledo, taking of, ii. 306. - - Tooting, lands of Bec at, i. 376. - - Tostig, his works at Tynemouth, ii. 18, 604. - - Touques, - William Rufus sets sail from, i. 13; - his voyage to, ii. 284; - its present appearance, _ib._ - - Toustain, manor of Sparsholt granted to, ii. 380. - - Tower of London, - surrounded by a wall, i. 261; - first recorded case of its use as a state prison, ii. 361. - - Tréport, Robert’s fleet at, ii. 402. - - Trondhjem, Saint Olaf’s body translated to, ii. 139. - - Truce of God, - confirmed by the synod of Rouen, i. 568; - observed by William Rufus, ii. 290. - - Trye, castle of, ii. 188. - - Tunbridge Castle, - holds out against William Rufus, i. 53; - its position, i. 68; - not in Domesday, i. 68 (_note_); - granted to Richard of Clare in exchange for Brionne, _ib._; - taken by William Rufus, i. 69. - - Turgot, Prior of Durham and Bishop of Saint Andrews, - favourably received by William Rufus, i. 298; - joins in laying the foundation stone of Durham Abbey, ii. 11; - appointed to the see of Saint Andrews, ii. 124; - as to the writings attributed to him, ii. 596. - - Turold, Bishop of Bayeux, his appointment, i. 571. - - Turold, Abbot of Peterborough, his death, ii. 267. - - Twinham, - connexion of Randolf Flambard with, ii. 553; - church of, ii. 554; - Earl Godwine a benefactor of, ii. 555. - - Tynemouth, - Malcolm’s burial at, ii. 17; - history of, ii. 17-19, 602 et seq.; - besieged by William Rufus, ii. 47, 606; - description of, ii. 48, 606; - taking of, ii. 48, 607; - alleged escape of Robert of Mowbray to, ii. 53, 609. - - - U. - - Uhtred, brother of Morkere, ii. 605. - - Uhtred, son of Edwin, besieges Pembroke, ii. 108. - - Uhtred, son of Fergus, ii. 551. - - Ulf, son of Harold and Eadgyth, ii. 134, 135. - - Urban II., Pope, - advises Anselm against going to Rome, i. 367 (_note_); - English feeling as to his claim to the papacy, i. 415; - Anselm claims to acknowledge him, i. 416; - the question left unsettled, i. 424; - his correspondence with Wulfstan, i. 479; - his acknowledgement insisted on by Anselm, i. 486; - position of the rival Popes, i. 488; - no real objection on William’s part to acknowledge him, i. 489; - holds a Council at Piacenza, i. 522, 545; - mission of William Rufus to him, i. 524; - received at Cremona by Conrad, i. 525; - acknowledged by Rufus, i. 528; - holds the Council of Clermont, i. 545-547; - preaches the crusades, i. 549; - sends Abbot Jeronto on a mission to William Rufus, i. 553, - ii. 588; - bribed by William, i. 554; - sends his nephew, _ib._; - blesses Duke Robert and his companions, i. 561; - his reception and treatment of Anselm, i. 607, 608, 621; - in Roger’s camp at Capua, i. 615; - Eadmer’s way of speaking of him, i. 616 (_note_); - forbids Anselm to resign, i. 617; - holds the Council of Bari, i. 608, 618; - his dealings with William of Warelwast, i. 619, 620; - threatens William Rufus with excommunication, i. 619; - is bribed to give him a respite, i. 620; - his treatment of Anselm, i. 621; - holds the Lateran Council, i. 607, 621; - his death, i. 622, ii. 300, 311; - Anselm’s letters to him, i. 612, ii. 582. - - Urse of Abetot, Sheriff of Gloucester and Worcester, at the trial - of William of Saint-Calais, i. 94. - - - V. - - Vacancies, ecclesiastical, - policy of William Rufus with regard to, i. 135, 336, 337, 347, - 348, ii. 564; - older practice as to, i. 350; - later instances, i. 351 (_note_); - provision of Henry’s charter with regard to, ii. 353. - - Vaux-en-Belin, - castle of, ii. 277 (_note_); - burnt by Helias, ii. 288; - repaired and held by Robert of Montfort, ii. 289. - - Vescy, house of, ii. 15. - - Vestments, Lanfranc’s view of, i. 95. - - Vetheuil, fortress of, ii. 181. - - Vexin, the French, - granted to Lewis by Philip, ii. 175; - its cession demanded by William Rufus, _ib._; - national feeling in, ii. 189. - - Victor III., Pope, i. 415. - - Vignats, - siege of, ii. 426; - foundation of the abbey, ii. 427. - - Vulgrin, Bishop of Le Mans, his buildings, ii. 634. - - - W. - - Wace, his use of the words “Normans and English,” ii. 649. - - Walchelm, priest, his vision, ii. 521. - - Waleran, Count of Meulan, i. 186, ii. 419. - - Wales, - civil wars in, i. 121; - alleged campaign of William Rufus in (1094-1095), i. 476; - type of conquest in, ii. 6; - disunion in, ii. 6, 99; - nature of Rufus’s wars in, ii. 69 et seq.; - effect of castle-building in, ii. 70, 76, 77, 108; - campaigns of Harold compared with those of Rufus, ii. 71; - its conquest compared with the English and Norman Conquests, - ii. 72; - various elements in, ii. 74; - local nomenclature of, ii. 75; - earlier wars in, ii. 77-79; - beginning of the conquest, ii. 79; - revolt in, ii. 99, 100; - general deliverance of, ii. 101; - first campaign of William Rufus in, ii. 105; - English feeling as to the war, ii. 106; - his second and third campaigns, i. 572, 583, ii. 110, 111. - - Wales, North, subdued by Hugh of Chester, ii. 146. - - Wales, South, Saxon settlements in, ii. 88. - - Walkelin, Bishop of Winchester, - sent with a summons to William of Saint-Calais, i. 117; - sent to punish the monks of Saint Augustine’s, i. 139; - assists Osmund to consecrate Salisbury cathedral, i. 309; - at the consecration of the church of Battle, i. 444; - his speech to Anselm at the Winchester assembly, i. 586; - at the death-bed of William of Saint-Calais, ii. 61; - his character and acts, ii. 266; - joint regent with Flambard, _ib._; - William Rufus demands money of, ii. 267; - his death, i. 351, ii. 265, 267; - legend of his share in the burial of Rufus, ii. 338. - - Wall, Roman, traces of the name, ii. 47. - - Walker (Wallcar), ii. 47 (_note_). - - Wallknoll, ii. 47, 613. - - Wallsend, i. 47. - - Walter of Corbeuil, Archbishop of Canterbury, his works at Rochester, - i. 53, 54 (_note_). - - Walter, Bishop of Albano, - received by William Rufus as Papal Legate, i. 527, ii. 391; - brings the pallium, i. 527; - refuses to depose Anselm, i. 528; - gives the pallium to Anselm, i. 534; - stays in England, i. 535; - objects of his mission, i. 536; - his letters to Anselm, i. 536, 538, ii. 41, 571; - accompanies William Rufus to Nottingham, ii. 44. - - Walter of Eyncourt, i. 113. - - Walter Giffard, Earl of Buckingham, - submits to Rufus, i. 231; - supports Rufus against Robert, i. 472; - signs Henry’s charter, ii. 358; - plots against him, ii. 395; - his death, i. 473. - - Walter Tirel, - entertains Anselm, i. 380 (_note_), ii. 322; - his friendship with William Rufus, ii. 321, 322; - his parentage, ii. 322, 672; - his lordships and marriage, ii. 321, 322, 673; - his alleged share in the making of the New Forest, ii. 322, 674; - his discourse with the King, ii. 322-325, 661; - mentioned in most versions as his slayer, ii. 325; - his solemn denial of the charge, ii. 326, 674; - no ground for the charge, ii. 657; - whether the Walter Tirel of Domesday, ii. 673; - legend about the shoeing of his horse, ii. 676. - - Walter of Saint Valery, i. 228 (_note_); - goes on the first crusade, i. 551. - - Walter, son of Ansgar, - in command at Le Mans, ii. 241, 370; - sets fire to Le Mans, ii. 280; - confers with Helias, ii. 371. - - Waltham, church of, plundered by Rufus, i. 168, ii. 505, 506. - - Waltheof, Earl of Northampton and Huntingdonshire, grants Tynemouth - to Jarrow, ii. 18, 604. - - War, private, unlawful in England, ii. 417. - - Wardship, the lord’s right of, - established by Flambard, i. 336, 339; - oppressive working of, i. 338; - peculiar to England and Normandy, i. 340; - provision for, in Henry’s charter, ii. 353. - - Weedon Beck, Northamptonshire, said to have been a cell of Bec, - i. 376 (_note_). - - Wells (Norfolk), grant of, to Saint Stephen’s, Caen, ii. 504. - - Wells (Somerset), see of, - moved to Bath, i. 136, ii. 483; - dislike of the canons to Bishop John’s changes, i. 138, ii. 486; - they recover their property under Bishop Robert, ii. 486; - charter of William Rufus preserved at, ii. 483. - - Welsh language, endurance of, ii. 75. - - Wenlock, Earl Roger’s foundation at, ii. 154. - - Westminster Hall, - its foundation by William Rufus, ii. 259, 262; - he holds his Whitsun feast there, ii. 257, 264, 271; - recast by Richard II., ii. 262. - - Westmoreland, - why not entered in Domesday, i. 313, ii. 547 et seq.; - entries of, in the Pipe Rolls, ii. 551. - - Whithern, see of, ii. 551. - - Wido. _See_ Guy. - - Wilfrith, Bishop of Saint David’s, - suspended and restored, i. 534; - sides with William Rufus, ii. 94; - Gerald of Windsor’s dealings with, ii. 109. - - William the Conqueror, - his informal nomination of William Rufus, i. 9, 11; - his advice to him, ii. 461; - distribution of his treasures, i. 17, 18; - compared with Rufus by Odo, i. 26; - his ecclesiastical supremacy, i. 105; - compared with Rufus, i. 158, 456; - foretells the character of Robert’s reign, i. 189; - garrisons the castles of the nobles, i. 192; - his ecclesiastical position, i. 328; - his relations with Lanfranc, _ib._; - his friendship with Anselm, i. 380; - use of his “days” as a note of time, i. 569; - his visit to Saint David’s and his designs on Ireland, ii. 94. - - William Rufus, - character of his reign, i. 3; - feudal developement under him, i. 4; - character of his accession, i. 9-11, 19-21, ii. 459-465; - his informal nomination by his father, i. 9, 11, ii. 461; - not formally elected, i. 9, ii. 459; - sets sail from Touques, i. 13; - re-imprisons Morkere and Wulfnoth, i. 14; - his meeting with Lanfranc, i. 15; - his coronation, _ib._; - his special oath, i. 16, ii. 460; - his coronation rites said to have been imperfect, ii. 461; - his distribution of gifts, i. 17; - restores Odo to his earldom, i. 19; - revolt of the Norman nobles against, i. 22 et seq., ii. 465 - et seq.; - compared with his father by Odo, i. 26; - seizes the temporalities of William of Saint-Calais, i. 30; - summons him to his court, i. 31; - lays waste his land, i. 32; - wins over Earl Roger, i. 61, ii. 462; - loyalty of the bishops towards him, i. 63; - his appeal and promises to the English, i. 63, 64; - their loyalty to him, i. 64, 65, 66; - their motives for supporting him, i. 65; - accepted as their king, i. 66, 131; - marches against the rebels, i. 67; - takes Tunbridge Castle, i. 69; - marches on Pevensey, i. 72, and takes it, i. 76; - his _Niðing_ Proclamation, i. 78; - besieges Rochester, i. 79; - Odo surrenders to him, i. 80; - at first refuses terms to the besieged, i. 81; - his answer to the pleadings for them, i. 83; - grants terms, i. 85; - his confiscations and grants, i. 88; - his amnesty to the chief rebels, _ib._; - again summons William of Saint-Calais, i. 89; - grants him a safe-conduct, i. 91; - refuses him the privileges of his order, i. 92; - holds a meeting at Salisbury, i. 94; - his speeches thereat, i. 98, 107, 110; - his offers to Bishop William, i. 111, 114; - his answer to Ralph Paganel, i. 112; - Durham castle surrendered to, i. 114; - summons Bishop William again, i. 116; - grants him leave to depart, i. 117; - estimate of his behaviour in the case, i. 119, 605; - his breach of his promises, i. 132; - position of the English under, i. 133; - mocks at omens, i. 133 (_note_); - his employment of mercenaries, i. 134, 153, 226, ii. 496, 498; - early charge of simony against, i. 135; - his charter to John of Tours, i. 138; - suppresses the disturbances at Saint Augustine’s, i. 139; - effects of Lanfranc’s death on him, i. 142, 148, 343; - description and character of, i. 5, 143 et seq., ii. 244, 256, - 337, 490 et seq.; - his surname of _Rufus_, i. 144; - his filial zeal, i. 145; - general charges against him, i. 147; - his lack of steadfastness, i. 149; - his unfinished campaigns, _ib._; - his “magnanimity,” i. 149, ii. 497; - trick played on, by his chamberlain, i. 150; - his “liberality,” i. 151, ii. 492; - his extortions, i. 153, ii. 498; - his strict government, i. 153, ii. 496; - his stricter forest laws, i. 155; - dress and manners at his court, i. 158, ii. 500-502; - his special vices, i. 157, 159, ii. 497, 502; - contrasted with his father, i. 158, 456; - his irreligion, i. 159; - favours the Jews, i. 161; - question as to his scepticism, _ib._; - makes the Jewish converts apostatize, i. 162, 614, ii. 504; - his dispute with Stephen the convert, i. 163-165, ii. 504; - his blasphemies, i. 165-167, ii. 503; - his favourite oath, i. 108, 112, 164, 289, 391, 511 (_note_), - ii. 61 (_note_), 503, 650; - redeeming features in his character, i. 168; - his respect for his father’s memory, i. 168, ii. 505; - his ecclesiastical benefactions, _ib._; - his chivalry, i. 169-171; - law of honour as practised by, i. 85, 92, 169, 408, ii. 14, 237, - 244; - his schemes against Duke Robert, i. 221; - obtains the consent of the Witan to an invasion of Normandy, - i. 222-224; - his constitutional language, i. 223; - his policy against Normandy, i. 224; - his position compared with that of Robert, i. 226; - his employment of money, i. 226, 227; - joined by the Norman nobles, i. 228 et seq.; - bribes Philip of France, i. 237, 239; - his position compared with that of his father, i. 240; - result of his dealings with Philip, i. 241; - his treaty with Conan of Rouen, i. 247; - crosses to Normandy, i. 273; - his treaty with Robert, i. 275-279, ii. 522-528; - his probable object in the spoliation of Henry, i. 279; - his policy towards Henry and Eadgar, i. 281; - joins Robert against Henry, i. 283; - besieges Saint Michael’s Mount, i. 285-292, ii. 528-535; - personal anecdotes of, i. 287-292, ii. 497, 532; - compared to Alexander the Great, i. 287; - contrasted with Robert, i. 290; - returns to England, i. 293, 295; - sets forth against Malcolm, i. 298; - his favourable treatment of the monks of Durham, i. 298, ii. 508; - Bishop William reconciled to, i. 299; - meets Malcolm at the _Scots’ Water_, i. 301; - his treaty with Malcolm, i. 304; - receives the homage of Malcolm, i. 304, ii. 541; - signs the Durham charter, i. 305, ii. 536; - his fresh dispute with Robert, i. 306; - orders the consecration of Lincoln minster, i. 312; - his conquest and colonization of Carlisle, i. 313-318; - character of the early years of his reign, i. 325; - his relations with Anselm, i. 328; - his policy in keeping the see of Canterbury vacant, i. 328, - 359, 360; - influence of Randolf Flambard on him, i. 329, 332 et seq.; - his dealings with vacant bishoprics and abbeys, i. 336, 347, - 350, ii. 565; - his dealings with church lands, i. 345 et seq.; - charges of simony brought against, i. 348; - story of his appointment to a vacant abbey, i. 352; - his first interview with Anselm, i. 385; - rebuked by him, i. 386; - refuses him leave to return to Normandy, i. 388; - petitioned by the Witan to appoint an archbishop, i. 389; - his mocking speech about Anselm, i. 390; - his sickness, i. 391; - repents and sends for Anselm, i. 392, 393; - his proclamation of reforms, i. 393; - names Anselm archbishop, i. 396; - prays him to accept the see, i. 398; - invests him by force, i. 400; - orders the restitution of the temporalities, i. 403; - his recovery and relapse, i. 407; - keeps his engagement to Anselm, i. 408; - his interview with Robert of Flanders, i. 411; - with Anselm at Rochester, i. 412 et seq.; - his answer to Anselm’s conditions, i. 417; - asks Anselm to confirm his grants of church lands, i. 418; - renews his promises and receives Anselm’s homage as archbishop, - i. 422; - his writ, _ib._; - receives Anselm at Gloucester, i. 434; - challenged by Robert, i. 435; - his dealings with the contributions offered for the war, i. 437; - refuses Anselm’s gift, i. 438; - gathers his forces at Hastings, i. 441; - present at the consecration of Battle Abbey, i. 443, 444; - upholds Anselm against Robert Bloet, i. 446; - deprives Herbert Bishop of Thetford, i. 448, ii. 569; - his interview with Anselm at Hastings, i. 450 et seq.; - no synod held under him, i. 452; - his answer to Anselm’s prayer to fill the vacant abbeys, i. 455; - attempts to get more money out of Anselm, i. 458-460; - sets sail for Normandy, i. 460; - vain attempts to settle the dispute between him and Robert, - i. 461; - castles held by him, i. 462; - his levy of English soldiers, i. 465; - trick played on them, i. 466; - buys off Philip, _ib._; - summons Henry and Earl Hugh to Eu, i. 469; - returns to England and is reconciled to Henry, i. 470; - his Norman supporters, i. 471-474; - causes for his return, i. 474; - his alleged Welsh campaign in 1094-1095, i. 476; - refuses Anselm leave to go for the pallium, i. 483, 484; - will acknowledge no Pope, i. 484; - frequency of assemblies under him, i. 487; - summons an assembly at Rockingham, i. 487-519; - estimate of his conduct in this dispute, i. 488; - his Imperial claims, i. 503; - bids the bishops renounce Anselm, i. 512; - withdraws his protection from him, _ib._; - his appeal to the lay lords, i. 513; - his examination and treatment of the bishops, i. 515, 516; - summons Anselm before him, i. 517; - adjourns the assembly, i. 518; - oppresses Anselm’s friends, i. 520; - his fresh schemes against him, i. 523; - his mission to Urban, i. 524-526; - Walter of Albano’s mission to, i. 527; - acknowledges Urban, i. 528; - forced to be reconciled to Anselm, i. 529, 531; - Anselm refuses the pallium at his hands, i. 532; - his position as regards the crusade, i. 553; - Abbot Jeronto’s mission to him, _ib._; - Normandy pledged to him, by Robert, i. 555; - his taxation for the pledge-money, i. 556-559, ii. 506; - his conference with Robert, i. 559, ii. 207; - takes possession of Normandy, i. 566, ii. 207; - his grants to Henry, i. 567; - his rule in Normandy, i. 567-570; - his appointments to Norman prelacies, i. 570; - returns to England, i. 571; - his expeditions against Wales, i. 572, 583, ii. 69 et seq.; - complains of Anselm’s contingent, i. 572; - summons him to his court, i. 574; - refuses him leave to go to Rome, i. 582, 583, 584; - holds an assembly at Winchester, i. 584 et seq.; - his conditional leave to Anselm, i. 592; - his last interview with Anselm, i. 593; - blessed by him, i. 594; - seizes on the estates of his see, i. 595; - estimate of his behaviour towards William of Saint-Calais and - towards Anselm, i. 605; - Anselm pleads against his excommunication, i. 611, 618; - probable effect of an excommunication, i. 611, 612; - Anselm’s and Urban’s letters to, i. 613; - his mission to Urban, i. 613, 619; - threatened with excommunication, i. 619; - bribes Urban, i. 620; - his words on Urban’s death and Paschal’s election, i. 623, - ii. 311; - growth of the English power and nation under, ii. 4; - effects of his reign on the union of Britain, ii. 6; - complaints made against, by Malcolm, ii. 8; - sends Eadgar to invite him to Gloucester, ii. 9, 590; - refuses to see him, ii. 13, 590; - dispute between them, _ib._; - his probable pretensions, _ib._; - observes his safe-conduct, ii. 14, 591; - story of him and Eadgyth-Matilda, ii. 31, 600; - grants the Scottish crown to Duncan, ii. 34; - revolt of Robert of Mowbray against him, ii. 37 et seq.; - orders Robert to make good his plunder of the merchants, ii. 41; - summons him to his court, _ib._; - refuses him a safe-conduct, i. 42; - marches against him, i. 537, ii. 43; - takes Newcastle, ii. 47, - and Tynemouth, ii. 48, 606; - besieges Bamburgh, ii. 50, 607; - makes the _Malvoisin_ tower, ii. 51, 608; - leaves Bamburgh, ii. 52, 609; - holds an assembly at Salisbury, ii. 56; - refuses to spare William of Alderi, ii. 67; - nature of his Welsh wars, ii. 69 et seq.; - builds castles in Wales, ii. 70, 112; - his campaign compared with that of Harold, ii. 71, 105; - his alleged designs on Ireland, ii. 93; - his first Welsh campaign, ii. 105; - his second and third campaigns, i. 572, 583, ii. 110, 111; - his relations with Eadgar Ætheling, ii. 114; - doubtful policy of his grant to Robert of Bellême, ii. 148, 162; - character of his last years, ii. 163; - his designs on France, ii. 167; - demands the cession of the Vexin, ii. 175; - crosses to Normandy, ii. 167, 176; - excesses of his followers in England, ii. 176; - chief men on his side, ii. 178; - his treatment of his prisoners, ii. 179, 190; - his prospects, ii. 184; - failure of his plans, ii. 185; - befriends Bishop Howel of Le Mans, ii. 201; - his interview with Helias, ii. 208-210; - delays his attack on him, ii. 210; - his anger at the election of Hildebert, ii. 213, 625; - his designs on Maine, ii. 613; - stirred up to war by Robert of Bellême, ii. 215; - contrasted with him, ii. 224; - his treatment of Helias, ii. 225; - his speech at the council of Rouen, ii. 226; - levies an army, ii. 227; - invades Maine, ii. 229; - grants a truce to Ralph of Fresnay, ii. 230; - his march onwards, ii. 232; - arrives at Le Mans, ii. 233; - ravages Coulaine, ii. 234, 625, 627; - raises the siege of Le Mans, ii. 234; - his treatment of the knight at Ballon, ii. 237; - Le Mans submits to, ii. 239; - his entry, ii. 240; - receives the general submission of Maine, _ib._; - his interview with Helias, ii. 242-245, 640-645; - his seeming quotation from Lucan, ii. 642; - sets Helias free, ii. 244, 628, 642, 643; - extent of his conquests in Maine, ii. 245; - invades the Vexin, ii. 246; - besieges Chaumont, ii. 248; - agrees to a truce, ii. 255; - ill-success of his French war, _ib._; - his gemóts in 1099, ii. 257; - his architectural works a national grievance, ii. 257-260; - legal position of his reign, ii. 263; - his object in building Westminster Hall, _ib._; - holds his Whitsun feast there, ii. 257, 264; - demands money of Bishop Walkelin, ii. 267; - forbids the dedication of Saint Eadmund’s, ii. 269; - hears of the recovery of Le Mans by Helias, ii. 283, 645; - his ride to the coast, ii. 283; - his voyage to Touques, ii. 284, 645-652; - his speech to the sailors compared with that of Julius Cæsar, - ii. 497, 647; - his ride to Bonneville, ii. 285, 646; - marches against Le Mans, ii. 287; - passes through it and harries southern Maine, ii. 288; - besieges Mayet, ii. 289-294, 653; - observes the Truce of God, ii. 290; - his narrow escape at Mayet, ii. 293; - raises the siege, ii. 294, 653; - failure of the campaign, _ib._; - his treatment of Le Mans, ii. 295; - leaves garrisons and returns to England, ii. 296; - Hildebert reconciled to, ii. 297, 626; - bids Hildebert pull down the towers of Saint Julian’s, ii. 297, - 654; - compared with Æthelred, ii. 307; - his schemes of conquest, ii. 307, 311; - contradiction in his character, ii. 308; - his chivalrous feelings, ii. 237; - illustrations of his character, ii. 244, 256; - his dealings with William of Aquitaine, ii. 313; - prepares to occupy Aquitaine, ii. 314; - his alleged designs on the Empire, i. 7, ii. 314; - Abbot Serlo’s warning to, ii. 318, 329; - his alleged dream, ii. 319-321; - his discourse with Walter Tirel, ii. 322-325; - his death, ii. 325; - whether accidental, ii. 325, 657; - various versions thereof, ii. 327, 657-676; - its immediate impression and abiding memory, ii. 335, 336, 663; - his death looked on as a judgement, ii. 665; - contrasted with that of Charles I, ii. 337; - his end and character, _ib._; - his alleged penitence, ii. 331, 332, 337; - accounts of his burial, ii. 338-340, 676-680; - his popular excommunication, ii. 340; - portents at his death, ii. 341; - advantage given to the Popes by his reign, ii. 377; - effect of his reign on the fusion of races, ii. 456. - - William III., his fearlessness in danger compared with that of - William Rufus, ii. 652. - - William Ætheling, son of Henry I and Matilda, ii. 389. - - William Clito, son of Robert and Sibyl, ii. 312 (_note_). - - William, natural son of Robert, ii. 316. - - William _Bona Anima_, Archbishop of Rouen, - consecrates Bishop Howel, i. 208; - consents to Anselm’s acceptance of the primacy, i. 406; - said to have married Philip and Bertrada, ii. 172 (_note_). - - William of Saint-Calais, Bishop of Durham, - his influence with William Rufus, i. 23; - his treason against him, i. 28, 30; - different statements of his conduct, i. 28, ii. 469-474; - his alleged services to William, i. 29, 111, ii. 473; - his temporalities seized, i. 30, ii. 470; - his letter to the King, i. 30; - summoned before him, i. 31; - treatment of, by Ralph Paganel, _ib._; - evidence against him, i. 35, ii. 470; - again summoned by William, i. 89; - complains of Ralph Paganel, i. 90; - comes with a safe-conduct, i. 91; - asserts his ecclesiastical claims, _ib._; - goes back to Durham, i. 92; - further ravaging of his lands, _ib._; - his agreement with the Counts Alan and Odo, i. 93; - his conduct at the meeting at Salisbury, i. 95; - denies the authority of the court, i. 96, 97; - formal charge against him, i. 98, ii. 473; - his answer, i. 99; - debates on the charge, i. 101-103; - appeals to Rome, i. 103, 109; - sentence pronounced against him, i. 106; - renews his appeal, _ib._; - William demands the surrender of Durham castle, i. 107; - appeals to Alan and Odo, i. 108; - final sentence against, i. 110; - asks for an allowance, _ib._; - surety for the ships demanded of him, i. 111; - new charges against, i. 113, 116; - Lanfranc interferes on his behalf, i. 113; - conditions and difficulties about his sailing, i. 114-116; - surrender of Durham castle, i. 114, ii. 472; - Odo and Alan interfere on his behalf, i. 117; - allowed to depart to Normandy, _ib._; - importance of the story, i. 117-120; - scarcely noticed by modern historians, ii. 474; - restored to his bishopric, i. 299; - his renewed influence with William, i. 300; - his grant to the church of Durham, i. 305, ii. 535; - advises Rufus as to Anselm’s conditions, i. 417; - at the consecration of the church of Battle, i. 444; - assists in the consecration of Robert Bloet, i. 445; - plots against Anselm, i. 497, 500; - aspires to the primacy, i. 501; - his promises to William and speech to Anselm, i. 502; - recommends force, i. 510; - his case compared with those of Anselm and Thomas, i. 597 et seq.; - his rebuilding of his church, ii. 11, 60; - invites Malcolm to the foundation ceremony, _ib._; - probably concerned in Robert of Mowbray’s rebellion, ii. 38; - portents foretelling his death, ii. 59; - summoned to take his trial, ii. 60; - his death, i. 478 (_note_), 542, ii. 61; - debate as to his burying-place, ii. 61; - substitutes monks for canons, ii. 60. - - William of Warelwast, Bishop of Exeter, - his first mission to Urban, i. 524, 525; - returns with the Legate Walter, i. 526; - searches Anselm’s luggage at Dover, i. 595; - his second mission to Urban, i. 613, 619; - his secret dealings with him, i. 620; - signs Henry’s letter to Anselm, ii. 366. - - William of Passavant, Bishop of Le Mans, his buildings, ii. 636, - 640, 656. - - William, Bishop of Thetford, his death, i. 354. - - William Giffard, Bishop of Winchester, - his appointment to the see, ii. 349; - later notices of, ii. 349, 578; - his signature to Henry’s charter, ii. 358; - probably one of Henry’s inner council, ii. 362; - signs Henry’s letter to Anselm, ii. 366. - - William, Archdeacon of Canterbury, sent to inquire into the matter - of Eadgyth-Matilda, ii. 384. - - William of Alderi, his sentence and death, ii. 66-68. - - William of Albini, defends Rochester, i. 53 (_note_). - - William, Duke of Aquitaine, - helps William Rufus against Lewis, ii. 250, 251; - seat of war affected by his coming, ii. 250, 252; - his crusade, ii. 313; - proposes to pledge his duchy to Rufus, _ib._ - - William of Arques, monk of Molesme, i. 220 (_note_), 256. - - William of Bellême, founds Lonlay Abbey, ii. 539. - - William of Breteuil, - son of Earl William Fitz-Osbern, drives out the ducal forces, - i. 193; - Ivry granted to, by Duke Robert, i. 194; - joins Robert’s expedition into Maine, i. 209; - his war with Ascelin Goel, i. 243; - comes to Robert’s help at Rouen, i. 249; - imprisons William son of Ansgar, i. 261; - marches against Conches, i. 261, 266; - his imprisonment and ransom, i. 267; - settles his estates on Roger of Toesny, i. 268; - his natural children, i. 268 (_note_); - maintains Robert’s claim to the throne, ii. 346, 680. - - William _Capra_, ii. 508. - - William, son of Robert Count of Eu, - rebels against William Rufus, i. 33; - his ravages in Gloucestershire, i. 41, 44; - submits to William, i. 229; - suggests an invasion of Normandy, i. 411; - supports William Rufus, i. 472; - conspires against him, ii. 39, 44; - his combat with Geoffrey of Baynard and defeat, ii. 63; - sentenced to mutilation, ii. 64, 65, 68; - his faithlessness to his wife, ii. 64. - - William, Count of Evreux, - drives out the ducal forces, i. 193; - his feud with Ralph of Toesny, i. 231, 233, 245; - comes to Robert’s help at Rouen, i. 249; - marches against Conches, i. 261, 266; - makes Roger of Toesny his heir, i. 268; - his later treaty with Ralph of Toesny, i. 270; - wars against Robert of Meulan, _ib._; - his bargain about Bertrada’s marriage, ii. 193; - charged with the government of Le Mans, ii. 241; - granted to Henry by Robert, ii. 514; - his banishment and death, i. 270. - - William Fitz-Osbern, story of him and Eudo of Rye, ii. 463. - - William of London or _Londres_, his settlement at Kidwelly, - ii. 86, 102. - - William of Malmesbury, his _Gesta Regum_ and _Gesta Pontificum_, - ii. 492. - - William of Mandeville, ii. 397. - - William of Moion, his grant of Dunster church, ii. 489. - - William of Montfichet, legend of his share in the burial of Rufus, - ii. 338, 676. - - William of Montfort, recommended by Anselm as his successor at Bec, - ii. 575. - - William, Count of Mortain, - founds Montacute priory, ii. 120; - his vision of William Rufus, ii. 342; - doubts as to his loyalty to Henry I, ii. 404; - his banishment, ii. 453; - his imprisonment and alleged blinding, _ib._ - - William Pantulf, - Robert of Bellême’s dealings with, ii. 434; - joins Henry, _ib._; - commands at Stafford, _ib._; - notices of, in Domesday, ii. 434 (_note_); - negotiates with Jorwerth, ii. 439; - mediates at Bridgenorth, ii. 441. - - William Peverel, - holds La Houlme for William Rufus, i. 463; - surrenders to Robert, i. 465; - signs the Durham charter, ii. 536. - - William of Pont de l’Arche, ii. 464. - - William Talvas, his capture of Geoffrey of Mayenne, i. 214. - - William Tisonne, ii. 596. - - William of Wacey, taken prisoner by Helias, ii. 222. - - William of Warren, Earl of Surrey, - his loyalty to William Rufus, i. 59; - receives the earldom of Surrey, i. 60, 62 (_note_); - his death and burial at Lewes, i. 62 (_note_), 76. - - William of Warren the younger, Earl of Surrey, - helps to defend Courcy, ii. 519; - deserts from Henry I, ii. 409; - his enmity towards him, _ib._; - his banishment, ii. 416, - and restoration, ii. 417. - - William, son of Ansgar, i. 247; - his imprisonment and ransom, i. 261. - - William, son of Anskill, - his estates seized by William Rufus, ii. 380; - his marriage, ii. 381 (_note_). - - William, son of Baldwin, - builds Rhyd-y-gors castle, ii. 97; - defends it, ii. 101; - his death, ii. 106. - - William, son of Geroy, rescues Geoffrey of Mayenne from William - Talvas, i. 214. - - William, grandson of Geroy, poisoned, i. 469 (_note_). - - William, son of Holdegar, ii. 551. - - Williams, John, on Jestin ap Gwrgan, ii. 614. - - Wills. _See_ Bequest. - - Winchcombe, fall of the tower, i. 307. - - Winchester, - wealth of the treasury at, i. 17; - Jews at, i. 160 (_note_); - special gemót at (1093), i. 422; - its position under the Norman kings, ii. 261; - burial of Rufus at, ii. 340; - fall of the minster tower, ii. 341; - Duke Robert declines to besiege it, ii. 406. - - Witenagemót, - held three times a year, i. 222 (_note_); - gradually becomes less popular, i. 602; - lessened freedom of speech in, i. 603; - inner and outer council of, _ib._ - - Witsand, William Rufus said to have set sail from, i. 13 (_note_). - - _Wlurintun_, grant of the manor, ii. 507. - - Worcester, - rebel nobles march against, i. 47; - its position, i. 48; - its deliverance by Wulfstan, i. 48-51, ii. 475-481. - - Worm’s Head, name of, ii. 615. - - Wulf, son of Harold, set free by Robert, i. 14. - - Wulfgar the huntsman, - one of the defenders of Bridgenorth, ii. 433; - his negotiations with Henry I, ii. 440, 443. - - Wulfgeat the huntsman, ii. 433 (_note_). - - Wulfnoth, son of Godwine, - reimprisoned by William Rufus, i. 13, 14; - signs a charter of William of Saint-Calais, i. 14 (_note_); - signs the foundation charter of Salisbury Cathedral, i. 309 - (_note_). - - Wulfric the huntsman, ii. 433 (_note_). - - Wulfstan, Saint, Bishop of Worcester, - attends the Christmas assembly at Westminster, i. 18, 19 (_note_); - defends Worcester against the rebels, i. 48-51, ii. 475-481; - excommunicates them, i. 51; - legendary growth of the story, ii. 477; - decides between Anselm and Bishop Maurice, i. 440; - his sickness, i. 478; - his dinner with “good men,” _ib._; - his correspondence, i. 479; - confesses to Robert of Hereford, _ib._; - his death, i. 477, 480; - entry as to his death, i. 478 (_note_); - appears to Bishop Robert of Hereford, i. 480, 533 (_note_); - his burial, i. 480; - honour paid to him by King John, i. 481; - his action against the fashion of wearing long hair, ii. 501. - - - Y. - - Yeovil, i. 43 (_note_). - - Yeovilton, i. 43 (_note_). - - York, Priory of Holy Trinity at, - founded by Ralph Paganel, i. 31; - massacre of Jews at, i. 160 (_note_); - Saint Peter’s Hospital at, gifts of Rufus to, i. 168, ii. 506; - its deliverance in 1069 compared with that of Le Mans, ii. 279. - - -END OF THE SECOND VOLUME. - - - - -Transcriber’s Note: - -Footnotes were renumbered sequentially and were moved to the end of -the book. - -Obvious printing errors, such as backwards, upside down, or partially -printed letters and punctuation, were corrected. Final stops missing -at the end of sentences and abbreviations were added. Duplicate -letters at line endings or page breaks were removed. Letters with -diacriticals not available in UTF-8 are displayed within brackets, -like this: [~c]. Elipses were standardized. Descriptive text contained -within maps was added as a caption to illustrations. - -Duplicate sidenotes, repeated over page breaks, were removed. -Transliteration of words in Greek are presented within brackets -following the Greek. Use of punctuation in the index was made -consistent. - -Obsolete words, spelling variations, inconsistent hyphenation, and -misspelled words were not changed. - -*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE REIGN OF WILLIAM RUFUS AND -THE ACCESSION OF HENRY THE FIRST, VOLUME II (OF 2) *** - -Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions will -be renamed. - -Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright -law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, -so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the -United States without permission and without paying copyright -royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part -of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm -concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, -and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following -the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use -of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for -copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very -easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation -of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project -Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away--you may -do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected -by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark -license, especially commercial redistribution. - -START: FULL LICENSE - -THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE -PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK - -To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free -distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work -(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full -Project Gutenberg-tm License available with this file or online at -www.gutenberg.org/license. - -Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works - -1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to -and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property -(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all -the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or -destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your -possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a -Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound -by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the -person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph -1.E.8. - -1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be -used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who -agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few -things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See -paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this -agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below. - -1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the -Foundation" or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection -of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual -works in the collection are in the public domain in the United -States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the -United States and you are located in the United States, we do not -claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, -displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as -all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope -that you will support the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting -free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm -works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the -Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with the work. You can easily -comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the -same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg-tm License when -you share it without charge with others. - -1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern -what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are -in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, -check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this -agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, -distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any -other Project Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no -representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any -country other than the United States. - -1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: - -1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other -immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear -prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work -on which the phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the -phrase "Project Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, -performed, viewed, copied or distributed: - - This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and - most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no - restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it - under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this - eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the - United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where - you are located before using this eBook. - -1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is -derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not -contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the -copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in -the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are -redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply -either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or -obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg-tm -trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted -with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution -must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any -additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms -will be linked to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works -posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the -beginning of this work. - -1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm -License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this -work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. - -1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this -electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without -prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with -active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project -Gutenberg-tm License. - -1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, -compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including -any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access -to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format -other than "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official -version posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm website -(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense -to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means -of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original "Plain -Vanilla ASCII" or other form. Any alternate format must include the -full Project Gutenberg-tm License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. - -1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, -performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works -unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing -access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -provided that: - -* You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from - the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method - you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed - to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he has - agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid - within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are - legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty - payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in - Section 4, "Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg - Literary Archive Foundation." - -* You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies - you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he - does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm - License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all - copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue - all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg-tm - works. - -* You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of - any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the - electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of - receipt of the work. - -* You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free - distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. - -1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work or group of works on different terms than -are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing -from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of -the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the Foundation as set -forth in Section 3 below. - -1.F. - -1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable -effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread -works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project -Gutenberg-tm collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may -contain "Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate -or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other -intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or -other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or -cannot be read by your equipment. - -1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right -of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project -Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all -liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal -fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT -LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE -PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE -TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE -LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR -INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH -DAMAGE. - -1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a -defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can -receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a -written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you -received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium -with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you -with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in -lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person -or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second -opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If -the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing -without further opportunities to fix the problem. - -1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth -in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS', WITH NO -OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT -LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. - -1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied -warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of -damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement -violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the -agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or -limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or -unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the -remaining provisions. - -1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the -trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone -providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in -accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the -production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, -including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of -the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this -or any Project Gutenberg-tm work, (b) alteration, modification, or -additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any -Defect you cause. - -Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm - -Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of -electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of -computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It -exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations -from people in all walks of life. - -Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the -assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's -goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will -remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure -and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future -generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see -Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at -www.gutenberg.org - -Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation - -The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit -501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the -state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal -Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification -number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by -U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. - -The Foundation's business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, -Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up -to date contact information can be found at the Foundation's website -and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact - -Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg -Literary Archive Foundation - -Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without -widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission of -increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be -freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest -array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations -($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt -status with the IRS. - -The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating -charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United -States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a -considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up -with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations -where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND -DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular -state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate - -While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we -have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition -against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who -approach us with offers to donate. - -International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make -any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from -outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. - -Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation -methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other -ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To -donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate - -Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works - -Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project -Gutenberg-tm concept of a library of electronic works that could be -freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and -distributed Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of -volunteer support. - -Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed -editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in -the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not -necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper -edition. - -Most people start at our website which has the main PG search -facility: www.gutenberg.org - -This website includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, -including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to -subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. |