Cornell sen Library
DA 195.L31 18

“Wun
A

HISTORY OF ENGLAND

UNDER THE

NORMAN KINGS.
A

HISTORY OF ENGLAND

UNDER THE
NORMAN KINGS,

OR,
FROM THE BATTLE OF HASTINGS

TO THE ACCESSION OF

THE HOUSE OF PLANTAGENET:

TO WHICH IS PREFIXED
AN EPITOME OF

THE EARLY HISTORY OF NORMANDY.

TRANSLATED FROM THE GERMAN

OF

é eh me, .
ee
4 ey a Pht

Dr. J. M. LAPPENBERG, For. F.8.A.

KEEPER OF THE ARCHIVES OF THE CITY OF HAMBURG.

BY
BENJAMIN THORPE,

WITH CONSIDERABLE ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS BY
THE TRANSLATOR.

OXFORD:
PRINTED BY JAMES WRIGHT, PRINTER TO THE UNIVERSITY.
SOLD BY JOHN RUSSELL SMITH,
36, SOHO SQUARE, LONDON.
M. DCCC. LVII.
nN
/CORNELLS
PUMIWERSIEY)

 

LIBRARY
PREFACE.

In sending forth this volume I do no more than fulfil
the intention I expressed in the Preface to Lappen-
berg’s History or ENGLAND UNDER THE ANGLO-SAaXxoNn
Kineo’s', namely, that, in the event of that work finding
a favourable reception, it should be followed by a
translation of the same author’s History or ENGLAND
UNDER THE NorMAN KINGS, OR, TO THE ACCESSION OF
THE HOUSE oF PLanTaGeneT. That work having now
been long in the hands of many, and repeatedly spoken
of in terms of commendation by those capable to ap-
preciate it, I feel no hesitation in offering its con-
tinuation to the judgment of the public. That I have
not limited my labour to that of a mere translator, will
be evident to every one who shall undertake the some-
what tedious task of comparing it with the German
original; on the contrary, as in the preceding volumes,
I have, as far as my means admitted, tested Lappen-
berg’s work by the old chroniclers, and where I found
his text abridged, in consequence of the necessity to be
concise, under which he was placed’, I have restored it
to its integrity; where the meaning of the chronicler

1 At the end of the volume are given a few pages of additions to and

corrections of the text and notes of that work.
2 See England under the Anglo-Saxon Kings, Pref. p. xiii.

,
vi PREFACE.

appeared to me incorrectly represented, I have cor-
rected the passage; besides which, my additions, both
to the text and notes, are neither few nor far between’.
What I have here stated applies generally to all the
four reigns contained in the volume, though more
especially to that of Stephen, which, although full of
incident and, on account of the mournful picture it
presents of the state of England during that period of
calamity, and of the romantic events with which it
abounds, is well worthy of the historian’s labour, has,
nevertheless, been hitherto more briefly and super-
ficially treated than any other reign during the middle
age. In the present volume much of it has been re-
written.

Hence I venture to entertain the hope, that the
work in its English dress will by every intelligent and
unprejudiced reader be classed if not as the best, at
least not among the worst records of England’s sad
story, during a period of tyranny, the natural result of
foreign conquest, exercised by alien sovereigns and an
alien aristocracy over the oppressed and impoverished
Anglo-Saxon population—a tyranny of which happily
but few traces are discernible at the present day.

The outline of early Norman history under the house
of Rolf cannot, I think, be otherwise than welcome to
many readers; to some the subject will, no doubt, be
new, while to none who feel an interest in the History
of England can it be matter of indifference, whence

1 My notes are here, as in the H. of E. under the A. S. Kings, distin-
guished by the letter T. My additions to and corrections of the text are
too intimately blended with the original matter to admit of distinction.
PREFACE. vii

those princes sprang, how they established themselves in
the Frankish province, and what were their exploits and
characters, who, directly or indirectly, have given a long
line of sovereigns to this country. As a supplement to
this “Outline,” in which much curious matter will be
found, I have added from Depping’, a chapter on the
conditions, manners, ete. of the Scandinavians and of
their offspring in France, better known to us under the
more familiar denomination of Normans, while under
their own counts or dukes; also a short paper, from
the same author, on local names in Normandy, showing,
in numerous instances, their exact identity with those
similarly applied in the Scandinavian North. I have, in
fact, to a certain extent, though unconsciously to my-
self, acted in conformity with Southey’s advice to his
brother, when the latter was meditating a work on the
Crusades: he writes, “Omit none of those little cir-
cumstances which give life to narration, and bring
old manners, old feelings, and old times before your
eyes.”

In my version and my additions, both to the text
and notes, I have anxiously endeavoured to be correct ;
that in this respect I have frequently failed, is highly
probable; but the gentle reader will, I hope, kindly
take the will for the deed, and regard with lenity those
errors and defects which he may detect in the course
of the work.

With this volume, ending at the death of Stephen,
Lappenberg’s labours terminate ; his original intention
of continuing them to the Reformation having unfor-

! See p. 5, note 2.
viii PREFACE.

tunately been frustrated by defective vision, under
which he has for some years been a sufferer; but the
long suspended work is, I rejoice to say, in the hands
of my friend Dr. REmNotp Pavtt, the able author of
the Life of King Alfred!, whose labours already reach
to the reign of Henry VIII. Dr. Pauli’s volumes merit
great praise, and are justly held in high estimation both
in England and Germany, as exhibiting deep research
not only among the old chroniclers of this and other
countries, but also among our hitherto too much neg-
lected national records, of which he has availed himself
with an earnestness of purpose that could not fail of
finding its reward in the rectification of many points in
our history, that had previously been set in a false
light. It is to be hoped that Dr. Pauli’s work will soon
appear in English from the pen of a competent trans-
lator.

To Mr. Wricut, the Printer to the University, I
have to offer my best thanks for his care and expe-
dition, while the volume was passing through the
Press.

BT.

1 Koenig Aelfred und seine Stelle in der Geschichte Englands, von Dr.
Reinold Pauli. Berlin, 1851. 8vo. There are two translations of it into
English, one published by Mr. Bentley, the other included in Mr. Bohn’s
« Antiquarian Library.” The latter, which is said to be by a lady, forms
a volume with king /Elfred’s Anglo-Saxon version of Orosius by the
present editor.
911

912 Origin of Normandy, by the treaty of St. ist mat Epte.

919

931

942

946

CONTENTS.

EARLY HISTORY OF NORMANDY.

Literary Introduction Say
Normandy under the Celts ~ Romans sb
The Saxon shore

Frankish rulers ...

The Districts ... a

First attacks of the Noatnie:. ane

ROLF, or ROBERT I.

Battle on the Eure, and death of Regnald of Le Maine...

Siege of Paris oh
Capture of Bayeux. =" ;
Huncdeus (Hunedée) baptized ...
Defeat of the Northmen at Chartres

—924 Enlargement of Normandy . sed :
Wars of the Normans of Rouen and on the Liahee.,
Adherence to the king of France
Death of Rolf .. “i ,
The title of Count of the Mpuitaiiy:
Propriety of land.—Peasantry
Nobility
Court officials... es
Investiture by the king
Riulf’s rebellion se
Matrimonial alliance with Bese ‘ead emnaniias ia
Return of king Lewis d’Outremer ...
Murder of count William by the Flemings
King Lewis gains possession of Rouen ...
Flight of the young count Richard ;
Alliance between count Hugh and the Normans ...
King Otto the Great before Rouen

Page
xix

Pp Ob =

9

10
ll

12
13

14
15
17
18
19

20
21
22

24
25

26
29
996

1006

1026

1035

CONTENTS.

RICHARD I.

Investiture and marriage of Richard

Dissensions with his step-father count Thibaut ..
Friendly relations with the kings Lothair and Hugh
Pious foundations by Richard

Death of Richard ...

RICHARD II.

Insurrection of the peasantry

of William of Hiesmes
Richard’s influence over king Robert...
Alliance with the emperor Henry II.
Emma married to king Athelred
King Svend Tveskizg’s visit to Rouen ... dies
Of Lagman the Swede, and Olaf the Norwegian
War on account of Dreux oh See: Ree
Tilliéres, ichues 3
Expedition in aid of Reinold te Upper Bargmiy..
Submission of Hugh count of Chartres
The Normans in Spain ... ...
Migrations to and establishments in n Lady
Death of Richard ahs. Sage
His pious foundations and efile: «:

 

RICHARD III.
War with his brother, and death

ROBERT II.

Contest with the archbishop of Rouen

Of Hugh bishop of Bayeux, and Alan of Tie:
King Henry’s flight to Fécamp ..

Acquisition of the Vexin 3
Robert’s pilgrimage to Jerusalem aad death

WILLIAM II.

Murder of count Gilbert of Eu
Insurrection of Roger of Toesny

Death by poison of Alan V. of Brittany
Loss of Tilliéres ...

Page

30

31
32

| & |

| Ss]
NS

38

39

4]
CONTENTS,

War with count Guy, and battle of Val-des-dunes...
William aids the king against Anjou...

Capture of Domfront

William’s visit to king Eadwar a the Confessor

His marriage with Matilda...

Of Lanfranc ‘ ;
Insurrection of William of shsrgee arid atliers: ai
Deposition of Mauger, archbishop of Rouen ...

Of archbishop Maurile

Battle at Mortemer...

Battle on the Dive

Recovery of Tilliéres

Acquisition of Le Maine ws

Expedition against Brittany, and death ae Conan, iY,
Earl Harold’s visit to Normandy

ON THE CONDITION, MANNERS, &c. OF THE SCANDINAVIANS

AND NORMANS IN GENERAL*.

Of the kings of Denmark and Norway, and colonization
of Iceland ... ... ce

Of Palnatoki and J pnabutg 2

Of the Christian missionaries and clergy

Of Iceland—its oe sagas, poetry ...

Of Greenland .. ‘

Christianity satahilisbed 3 in ie Nett, aad its eines on
the population... a tte ae

Subjugation of Iceland by dhs Nocyavnid:

Decay of their native literature and rise of capital
legends ... wed Bie. nee
Fraternity in Roecllde ie the: suppression of piracy ...

Changes in the North, the effect of Christianity
Emigrations to Constantinople 3

King Eadgar’s measures against the pirates

Of the Northmen in Ireland . og

King Olaf by threats converts the Grins :
Of the Norse tongue in the Orkney and Shetland ek
Ancient structures in the Orkney and Shetland isles...
Erection of churches and chapels in Normandy

* Addition by the translator.

oo
cn

or
2
xii SONTENTS.

ALD. Page
Of Norman castles... 0... 00. ee ee ee ee 10
Of the clergy ... ... 5 aon eyes es — ee 71
Dissoluteness of the dleray Miho GEM, estes see SS Se TAS
Profligacy in the cloisters ...0 60.0. eee vee ve 74
Of the “Peace of God”... 00.0 ce. cee tee ee tee FO
Of abbeys celebrated for learning ... ... «+ 76
Of duke Richard at the court of Laon... ... 0... 6) 77
Of Lanfranc and Anselm ... 0... ee eee eee ee —_—
Of the abbey of St. Evroult ... ...  . .. 78
The bishopric of Coutances without divine worship and

priests... 0... ne, eye Tee Use a 79
Of the Norman ivnborians ania poets Giese Sad .. 80
Introduction of literature, etc. among the Norsiins 81
Northern superstitions in the Shetland isles... ... ... 85
Of archbishop Maugeyr’s familiar Toret ...  ...  ... —_—
Of husbandry and rural economy ... ... ... «2... = 88
Of salt-works and fisheries... 0.50 00. ce, cee ue 89
Of Norman legislation ...  ... 0... ee ee OT
Depressed state of the peasantry Se Ges Gee) Hey 92
Of the ordeal and legal duel... 2. 0. ee 98
Of the Bayeux tapestry ... 2. ee 94
Of the introduction of chivalry ...0 ee 9S
Of the Norman exchequer and courts ae. ohity, aces 96
Of Local Names in Normandy* ...) 2. 0... u.. 97

WILLIAM THE FIRST, 1066-1087.

Dissolution of the Anglo-Saxon state... ... 0. ... 101
Capture of Dover and Canterbury ... ... 103
“Submission of London, of archbp. Btizand sind <othiorses 105
Coronation of William ... .. ae 89 107
Submission of Eadwine, Markers a ochens we oe =6108
Rewards to William’s followers sae Sue ake OAL 109
He builds a castle at Winchester... 2.000... 0.
Of William fitz Osben 2... ee 110

Creation of Norman earls... .. ms
1067 William’s return to Normandy sd festivity a Fan, 11]

* Addition by the translator.
A, D.

1068

1070

1071

CONTENTS.

The wealth of and arts in England ..

Oppression and emigration of the ‘engla Slatin us

Of king Svend Estrithson

Of Eadric the Forester and the Welsh...

Attempt on Dover by Eustace of Boulogne

Death of earl Copsi 4

Of earl Gospatric

William’s return to England

Resistance and siege of Exeter...

Court at Winchester : is

Of Matilda, Wido of Amiens, . nad Brihtric

Confederation of Eadwine, Morkere, Gospatric, ties sons
of Harold, and others with the Welsh king Blithwallon

Defection and capture of York shi

Submission of Aigelwine, archbishop of York «:

Return home of many Norman knights

Insurrection at Durham ...

Landing of the sons of Harold :

Landing of the Danes under the sons of due Bron)

Insurrection in the west of England

Defeat and withdrawal of the Danes

Of Asbiorn Jarl -

Deplorable state of the en of Buplanid

William at York .

His march to Cheukire vio Se:

Of Hugh Lupus, earl of Ghee ge

Invasion of the Scots under Malcolm

Of Eadgar Aitheling and his sisters

Submission of earl Waltheof

Plunder of the churches and monasteries

Introduction of foreign clergy .. ;

Comparison of the Anglo-Saxon with the Norman alex ey
and learning :

Council at Winchester anid savond coronation of William

Deposition of archbishop Stigand and other prelates.

Death of Stigand, and of bishop Agelric

Of Lanfranc ...

Contest between Lanifiaay ana Phony ar shhp: of York,
and with bishop Odo..

Appointments by Tanfrand

Death of William fitz Osbern

xiil
Page
113
114
116

117
118

1g

120
122

123
124
125
126
127
128
129
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141

142
143
144
145
147

192
153
154
xiv

Hye

1075

1080

1081

1084

1089

1091

CONTENTS.

Of Hereward ee

Flight of Eadwine sai ieee set

Submission of the insurgents

Murder of Eadwine

William’s expedition to Bedtland

Of Eadgar Aitheling

Insurrection in Le Maine and hostility wih Fulk coi
of Anjou

Pension to Eadgar Eiheling .

Conspiracy of Roger earl of bcetord, ‘Ralf of Guader,
and Waltheof se dae ees ates “Wad, “see

Landing of Cnut and Halen: ae es

Imprisonment of Roger earl of Hereford

Death of Waltheof ... bp

Transfer of episcopal sees to strong dovine is

Expedition to Brittany

Of prince Robert . os Gide

Murder of Walkere Titshop of Darhara: a

Expedition to Wales sia eS

Imprisonment of bishop Odo ... wy

William’s relations with Church and pope ...

Projected invasion by king Cnut

Outline of the feudal system *

Of Domesday-book . ‘

Statistic and political condition of Hapland,

Troubles in Le Maine and William’s death

His testament, revenue, etc. ...

His funeral :

His personal description and love of the ghitee:

His children

WILLIAM THE SECOND, 1087-1100.

His succession

Revolt of the barons ata bishop Gdo..

Death of Lanfranc.. aie He

Of Ranulf Tlambards i

Imprisonment of prince 3 Henay by duke Robert .
Intrigues in Normandy BSS. as
Henry besieged at Mont St. Michel

1092 Expedition to Scotland

* Addition by the translator.

Page

157
159
160
161
163
164

166

167
168
169
170
171
172
174
177
181
183
185
188
190
197
201
209
210
212
214
215

218
22)
224

227

230
233
“ALD.

1093

1098

1093

1095
1096

1007
1100

1097-

1101

1104
1106

1113
W114

CONTENTS.

Normanizing of Cumberland

Murder of king Malcolm ... se
War with Wales and Norman siienoaelnneads
Of Magnus Barféd, king of Norway...

Of the state of Wales ... ae
Ecclesiastical affairs ...

Of archbishop Anselm ...

War with duke Robert

Rebellion of Roger of Molbray

Pledging of Normandy by Robert

War with Le Maine ;

War on account of the ot ta

Death of William Rufus

Observations on his character, ete. ...

HENRY THE FIRST, 1100-1135.

Henry’s coronation and compact ...

His marriage nit

Imprisonment and escape ‘we Flambard

1100 Duke Robert’s crusade :

His marriage with Sibylla of Conversana a

Robert’s landing in England, and ia heweert thie
two brothers...

Robert’s second acdval in “Hapland BD CBA

Rebellion and character of Robert of Belesme...

Combination of the barons against Henry ...

Death of Sibylla of Conversana

Henry’s invasion of Normandy

Battle of Tinchebray...

Of Eadgar Atheling and duke Tesaks

Treaty with Flanders a a

Loss of Le Maine .. : ;

Visit of prince Lewis to Baglend

War with France . sie

War between the out of Blois and Lewis

Punishment of malcontent barons

Of William, son of duke Robert

Capture of Robert of Belesme

Treaty of peace at Gisors..

Marriage of Matilda with the emperor..

XV

Page
234
236
237
240
241
242
244
256
257
260
261
265
266
268

272
276
277
278
288

289
291
292
294
296

298
299
300
301
303
304
305

306
307
308
xvi

1109

T1H5

1119

1120
1118
1123

1127
1128

CONTENTS.

Disputes regarding investitures

Synod at Westminster ....

Of the bishopric of Ely

Anselm’s journey to Rome ... :
Settlement of the dispute regarding davestitures
Dispute regarding papal legates ...

Henry’s predilection for Normandy...

Homage to prince William ...

War with France

Death of Robert count of ‘Melon

Defection of many barons..

Of Henry’s daughter J iliac

William of Normandy’s betrothal to Matilda of dhe

Conflict at Brenneville

Council at Rheims

Loss of Henry’s children by dhtyereiic
Death and character of queen Matilda...
Rebellion of Norman barons

Of the trouvére Luke of Barré

The Flemish succession : ei
Death of William of Normandy se
Return of the empress Matilda..

Homage of the barons .

’ Marriage of Matilda with Geoffrey of Rei mi

1135

Dissension with count Geoffrey ... ......
Visit of the grand master of the-Templars
War with Wales ... ay

Of the Flemings in Wales

Of Griffith prince of Wales ...

Death of King Henry

Of his children ‘i

Of his person and ciueabier:

Of his home government

Of his religious foundations

Of the literature of his time...

STEPHEN, 1135—1154.

Accession of Stephen ...
Character of Stephen. .
His coronation

357
358
360
A.D.

1137

1138

1139

1140

CONTENTS.

Pacification of Scotland

Charter of Oxford...

Flemish and Breton mercenaries

Wars in Wales

Council at London ...

Seizure of Norwich castle by aes Bigot

Insurrection of Robert of Bathenton..

Insurrection of Baldwin of Redvers

Siege of Exeter.. :

Stephen’s visit to Normandy and fopesiine with ‘that
duchy..

Earldoms Suntewell by Stephene

Siege of Bedford .

Pretensions of the Scottish ing

Anglo-Saxon conspiracy .

War with the Scots ...

Battle of Clithero...

Battle of the Standard

Peace with Scotland Se: | He sh

Revolt in the southern and western counties ...

Bristol the head quarters of earl Robert

Atrocities of the Norman barons

Attempt on Bath by Matilda’s partisans

Siege of Bristol by Stephen we)

Capture of Shrewsbury castle by Stephen hes es

Imprisonment of the bishops of Salisbury and Lincola

Stephen seizes the bishops’ castles ...

Council at: Winchester ..

Rebellion of William of Mohun anid siege : of Dunster
castle seme oe

Rebellion of Willian fitz Oda. 3

Landing of Baldwin and siege of Corfe este

Landing of the empress and her brother

They proceed to Bristol ...

Sieges of Wallingford and Teowhuidee

Death of the bishop of Salisbury

Insurrection of the bishop of Ely... ;

Betrothal of prince Eustace with Constance of Feanoe

Stephen’s success in Cornwall .

Of Robert fitz Hubert at Deviess

Pillage and conflagration at Wei ueaanic

xvii

Page

361

366
369
370
371

373 |

375
376
377
379

380
382

387
388
390

392
323
394
395
397
399

403

404

405
406
408

410

411
412
413
414
416
xviii

1141

1143

1147
1149

1153

CONTENTS.

Page
Disputes regarding the vacant see of Salisbury ... 417
Fruitless negociations for peace i oa
Treachery of Ranulf earl of Chester 418
Battle of Lincoln and capture of Stephen... 419
The bishop of Winchester joins the empress ... ... ... 422
Meeting at Winchester and submission to the empress 423
Council at Winchester. ... 0... ee. we ee 424
Arrival of the empress in London. . 427
Her arrogant conduct a
Her flight from London 429
Siege of Winchester .. 430
Defeat and capture of tte earl of Gloucester’ 433
Liberation of the king and the earl .. 434
Council at Westminster . ste. «di =
Flight of Matilda from Oxford ...... 437
Defeat of Stephen by the earl of Poiiceatet at Wilton 439
Lamentable state of England —
Death of Milo earl of Hereford .. 441
Council at London.. 442
Of Geoffrey of Manneville.. nt sd —
Of John fitz Gilbert, William of Dover aia aitieas. 444
Of Stephen’s successes in various parts —_—
Of Turgis of Walden and Walter dominndant of
Malmesbury 5 446
Capture of the fort at Tete ; ‘ 447
Defection of Philip, son of earl Robert, ip Beephen.. 449
Imprisonment of the earl of Chester ... Beg 450
Return of the empress to France j y 451
Visit of prince Henry to the king of Sectland 453
Death of count Geoffrey .. xs 454
Marriage of Henry with Blew of Gueine —
Ecclesiastical dissensions—A ppeals .. #0 456
Arrival of prince Henry with an army and detest of
Stephen bo dbs 458
Death of prince Wustace 4 459
Pacification ... 460
Death of Stephen Sie natn Wiede Pach. 4s 463
Genealogies... ... So shee. cee “465, 6,7
Emendations and Additions to “ "“Hngland under the
Anglo-Saxon Kings.” 469
LITERARY INTRODUCTION.

THE early history of the Frankish province which, at a
subsequent period, bore the name of Normandy, is derived
chiefly from the same sources as those which constitute the
history of France itself, and which, even after the establish-
ment of the Norman principality, are still necessary to illus-
trate and correct the exclusive sources of the provincial
history. As essential sources of Frankish history, having
reference to Normandy and its settlers, we will here name only
the Annals of St. Bertin, with the Continuations of Prudentius
bishop of Troyes (835-861), and of Hinemar archbishop of
Rheims (861—882), and the Annals of St. Vedast ; from which
four works the Chronicon de Rebus gestis Normannorum is
compiled; the Annals of Xanten (640—-874); and the Annals
of Regino of Prim, to the year 906!. Particularly important
are the works of Frodoard (ob. 966). More abounding in
matter for our purpose than his Historia Ecclesia Remensis is
his Chronicon ; but in which we have to regret a large chasm,
from the year 877 to 9172. From the period when Frod-
oard closes, the Frankish annals are no longer to be re-
garded as the basis of Norman history, but, like Northern,
English, and Flemish chronicles, as well as the historic re-
cords of Brittany, Le Maine, and other states bordering on

1 Allin Pertz, Monumenta Historie Germ. i. and ii.
2 Both in the Recueil des Historiens de la France, viii.

b2
xx LITERARY INTRODUCTION.

Normandy, to be looked on in the light of auxiliaries, to which
we must occasionally have recourse.

The particular sources of the history of Normandy require
a more detailed specification, partly because some of them
have been but little known and incorrectly estimated ; partly
because they are, for the most part, very instructive also for
the history of England ; although, for that object, they have
hitherto been treated with unjustifiable slight. I hope there-
fore for indulgence, if the following notices should to some
appear superfluous.

Dudo, canon and dean of St. Quentin, must have stood
early in connection with the court of Rouen. In the year 986,
Adalbert count of Vermandois, sent him, at that time a
canon, with important diplomatic commissions to Richard L.,
count of Normandy, which he successfully executed. He re-
mained in familiar intercourse with count Richard, as well as
with his younger step-brother Ralf, count of Ivry. Two
years before his death, count Richard invited Dudo to com-
pose a work on the history of Normandy and his grandfather,
Rolf. After Richard’s death, his son, Richard II, renewed
the request, and count Ralf, by his oral communications,
supplied him with matter!. The work is dedicated to Adal-
bero, archbishop of Laon (977—1030), and has besides me-
trical dedications to the count Richard II., his brother,
Robert archbishop of Rouen, and count Ralf. This history,
which is interrupted by many graphic embellishments, and
swelling with dialectic and other kinds of erudition in vogue

! Dudonis versus ad Comitem Rodulfum, hujus operis relatorem :
Cujus quz constant libro hoc conscripta relatu,
Digessi....

Wil. Gemmet. lib. i. Epistola ad Willelmum regem:—“e Dudonis pe-
riti viri historia collegi, qui quod posteris propagandum charte com-
mendavit a Rudolfo comite, primi Richardi fratre, diligenter exquisivit.””
On the death of Richard I. Dudo says: “Hucusque digesta prout a Ro-
dulfo comite, hujus ducis fratre, magno et honesto viro, narrata sunt
collegi.”’
LITERARY INF RODUCTION. xxi

at the time, is divided into three books, the first of which
treats of the Normans before the landing of Rolf, particularly
of the expedition of Hasting to Luna, and his return to
France. The events of which Dudo here speaks, without
any dates, may, for the most part, be confirmed by trust-
worthy annals. With all its faults, Dudo’s work does not
deserve the contempt heaped on it by the learned Bene-
dictines, but may be said to follow traditions credible in the
main, though sometimes incorrectly transmitted, and adorned
with much false eloquence. His second book is exclusively
devoted to a life of Rolf. I have already had occasion to
show, that a true interpretation is all that is required for
Dudo’s justification’. In the outline of Rolt’s history, in the
beginning of this volume, I have endeavoured to give a right
interpretation of some points. The third book comprises
the Lives of the counts William I. and Richard I. Dudo’s
work is printed complete only in the collection of Du Chesne.

An epitome of Dudo’s work was made by William, sur-
named Calculus, a monk of Jumiéges, in four books, to which
he adds, in three books, a history of the successors of Richard I.
down to the battle of Senlac. His work is dedicated to
William the Conqueror. The first edition by Camden (An-
glica, Normannica, etc.) contains an eighth book, continuing
the Anglo-Norman history to 1137. The work of William of
Jumiéges has been much used. The Roman de Rou con-
sists principally of a free translation of it into French verse.
Ordericus Vitalis has also largely availed himself of it. Rad-
ulfus de Diceto, in his ‘ Abbreviationes Chronicorum,” John
Wallingford, Matthew of Westminster, and the Chroniques
de St. Denys, have likewise taken much from William of
Jumiéges. See Bouquet, x. p. 306, xi. p. 398.

The monk of the abbey of Bec, who composed the eighth

1 A case in point is the probable substitution of the West Saxon king
Aithelstan, for Guthrim A&thelstan, the Danish ruler of East Anglia. See
England under the A. S. Kings, ii. pp. 105 sq.
xxii LITERARY INTRODUCTION.

book above-mentioned, which is strictly a biography of king
Henry L., is, without doubt, Robert of Thorigny, in 1128 a
monk of Bec, afterwards, till 1154, prior there, and lastly
abbot of Mont St. Michel, whence his designation of Robert
de Monte. He died in 1186. To the chronicle of Sigebert
of Gemblours he added similar interpolations and appendices,
to the year 1182, in which he mentions his history of Henry I.
appended to the Chronicle of the Dukes of Normandy!: His
additions to Sigebert are, for the most part, excerped from
the chronicle of Henry of Huntingdon; while, on the other
hand, his most valuable matter has been extracted by Mat-
thew Paris.

The Chronica Normanniz ap. du Chesne, Seriptt. Norm. is_
only a bad and somewhat abridged transcript of Robert's ap-
pendix to Sigebert, from 1139 to 1168.

The Encomium Emme, daughter of count Richard I., and
wife of the Anglo-Saxon king Athelred IJ., and of Cnut the
Great, the work of an anonymous but contemporary author,
needs only a short notice. That the writer lived in the time
of Cnut, and was probably an inmate of the abbey of St. Ber-
tin at St. Omer’s, he informs us himself2. The first edition
of the Encomium is that in Du Chesne’s collection. It after-
wards appeared, with excellent annotations, in the 2nd vo-
lume of Langebek’s Scriptores Rerum Danicarum, 1773 ; and
a third time, with annotations by Baron Maseres, at London,
in 1783, 4to3.

1 Historia, quam de ipso rege noviter defuncto edidi, et gestis ducum
Normanniz adjeci. Prolog. Appendicis ad Sigebertum, coll. ibid. a. 1135.
Cf. also Recueil des Historiens de la France, xiii. Pref. No. xvi.

2 Page 173; edit. Maseres, p. 24.

3 In the same volume, edited with elaborate and valuable notes by the
venerable and learned Cursitor Baron, are contained portions of William
of Poitiers, Ordericus Vitalis, and other interesting original matter relative
to the Norman conquest. The title is ‘Historie Anglicane circa tempus
conquestus Angliz a Gulielmo Notho, Normannorum Duce, Selecta Monu-

menta, excerpta ex magno volumine, cui titulus est ‘Historie Normanno-
rum Scriptores antiqui,’ etc. cum notis plurimis, Anglico sermone, ad
LITERARY INTRODUCTION. XXxiii

The work of William of Poitiers, archdeacon of Lisieux,
chaplain to William the Conqueror, is instructive both for
the history of the Normans, and for the subversion of the
Anglo-Saxon dynasty. If in Dudo’s bombastic prose inter-
mingled with verse we recognise traces of old German and
Scandinavian composition, as in the Saxon Chronicle, and
later in Saxo Grammaticus and Snorri, so, on the other hand,
we find in William of Poitiers’ attachment to the Roman classics,
particularly Sallust, a new source of the degeneracy of his-
toric narrative, in which, “after the practice of eminent
Romans,” numerous imaginary speeches are interspersed by
the author, and half the truth is sacrificed to sparkling anti-
theses and other pompous rhetorical corruptions. Robert de
Monte was acquainted with the work of William of Poitiers’,
and Orderic has so largely drawn from it, that the chasm
between the years 1067 and 1070, at the end of the manu-
script of this writer, may, with tolerable certainty, be supplied
from the third book of Orderic. William of Malmesbury also
follows this work in the third book of his Gesta Regum, and
some passages from him have been turned into French verse
by Benoit de Ste More. William of Jumiéges appears also to
have made use of him?. -

A narrative poem on the battle of Hastings (De Bello
Hastingensi), in 835 hexameters and pentameters, greatly to
the praise of the Conqueror, was composed by Wido, or Guido,
bishop of Amiens (ob. 1075)3, and dedicated to archbishop
Lanfranc. This long-lost poem was some years ago recovered
by Dr. Pertz at Brussels. From the first two lines,

“Quem probitas celebrat, sapientia munit et ornat,
Erigit et decerat, L.... W.... salutat,”

illustrandum textum conscriptis, a Francisco Maseres, Anglo, Curie
Scaccarii Regis Magne Britannie in Anglia Barone quinto. London,
1807.” small 4to.—T.

1 Ord. Vitalis, pp. 503,521. Wil. Gemmet. lib. vii. c. 44.

2 Compare Wil. Gemmet. lib. vii. c. 8. with Guil. Pictav. pp. 178, 212.

3 Chron. Centulense S. Richarii ap. D’Achery, Spicileg. ii, Bouquet, xi.
p. 135, xii. p. 272.
xxiv LITERARY INTRODUCTION.

it had been concluded that Lanfranc was the author, and that
the work was dedicated to king William ; but the words both
of Robert de Monte and Orderic, with reference to the poem
of Guido of Amiens’, have led me to the foregoing conclusion.

Orderic, surnamed Vitalis, son of Odelerius?, born in 1075
at Attingesham on the Severn, or its tributary stream now
called the Tern, lived a monk in the monastery of St. Evroult
en Ouche (Uticum) in Normandy. Under the title of His-
toria Ecclesiastica, he has composed, in thirteen books, an
historical work treating chiefly of the acts of the Normans
subsequent to their settlement in France, not only in France
and England, but also in Italy and Palestine. Orderic was
prompted to this comprehensive theme—which proves his
deep-felt interest in those countries—by the circumstance
that Normandy, where he had dwelt from his tenth year, was
become his second native country®; while his whole life bound
him to the Church and its affairs, from his fifth year, in which
he was consecrated at Shrewsbury, in the church of St. Peter
and St. Paul, to the service of God. For his Anglo-Saxon
countrymen, with whose language, till his transfer to Nor-
mandy, he was alone acquainted, he ever entertained a true-
heartedness, which frequently manifests itself. He continued
his work to 1141, when he was in his sixty-seventh year,
which for the history of his time, both from the extent of his
ken, and his exertions to obtain accurate, particularly genea-
logical, information, is a highly important source of historic
knowledge for posterity. Also for the ancient history of
Normandy, and of individual monasteries in that duchy, his
work abounds in information, and deserves a stricter examina-

1 W. Gemmet. lib. vii. c. 44. Ord. Vital. p. 504. Comp. also p. 122 of
this volume.

2 His father was from Orléans, and a vassal of Robert earl of Shrews-
bury: “‘vir ingenio et facundia et litterarum eruditione prepollens; amator
wquitatis fervidus, utilisque comitis (Rogerii Scrobesburiensis) erat auri-
cularius.” After 1094 he became a monk, and died seven years later. See
Orderic. pp. 579—581.

3 See Introd. to book V. and the end of his work.
LITERARY INTRODUCTION. xxv

tion than it has hitherto undergone, which in proportion to
the difficulties arising from Orderic’s careless arrangement of
his matter, appears the more necessary.

Orderie divides his work into three parts, the first of which
contains books I. and II.; the second, books IIJ. and VL.; the
third, the remaining seven books. He named it Historia
Ecclesiastica, because, according to his own words in the
Prologus, he wished to confine it chiefly to ecclesiastical his-
tory; but of which object he not unfrequently loses sight. It
was written during no fewer than four lives. When it was be-
gun, Roger was living, who had been abbot of St. Evroult since
1091, by whose encouragement Orderic was induced to under-
take his praiseworthy task. Roger resigned, on account of ill
health, in 1125, and died three years after. To Guarin, his
successor, Orderic dedicates his History. When finishing the
last book, Guarin had already been succeeded, in 1137, by
Richard of Leicester, who in 1140 was followed by abbot
Ranulf?.

Orderic’s work appears to have been but little known in
the middle age. It has been excerped by an anonymous
author, in a tract published by Camden, in his Anglica Nor-
mannica, etc. (pp. 29—35), from an ancient manuscript be-
longing to the abbey of St. Stephen at Caen, under the title
De Willielmo Conquestore Fragmentum, which is nothing
more than the fragment of Orderic (lib. vii. pp. 646, 647, and
656—663) on the death and burial of William the Conqueror,
used by Wace and Benoit de Ste More; also by the author
of a Vita 8. Waltheofi, Comitis Northamptoniensis et Hun-
tingdoniensis, who transcribes whole passages verbatim from
Orderic (lib. iv. pp. 534 sq.), as well as from Florence of Wor-
cester and William of Malmesbury.

The Roman de Rou of Master Wace, or Gasse, a native of
Jersey, and canon of Bayeux (ob. 1184), is in the first half
a free metrical version of William of Jumiéges: it abounds,

1 Ord. Vital. pp. 873 sq., 910, 921.
Cc
XXVI LITERARY INTRODUCTION.

however, in traditions and narratives of its own. At vv. 2108
sqq-, Master Wace cites the historic ballads of the “ jugleors,”
which he had heard in his childhood.

A paraphrase of the Roman de Rou in French prose is
contained in the Chroniques de Normandie of the 13th cen-
tury, extracts from which are given in the Recueil des Histo-
riens de la France (xi. pp. 320 sq., xii. p. 220 sq.).

Of the English chroniclers, Bromton has made considerable
use of Wace.

The history of the dukes of Normandy, in about 48,000
French riming verses, composed by Master Benoit de Ste
More, reaching to the earlier years of the reign of Henry IT.,
has been printed from the only known manuscript, in the
British Museum, by M. Francisque Michel, under the aus-
pices of the then Minister of Public Instruction, M. Guizot.

Florence of Worcester. To the foregoing notice of this
chronicler!, it may here be added that, from his death in
1118, his work is continued to 1141 by an anonymous author,
most probably John, a monk of Worcester?.

Eadmer, abbot of St. Alban’s, a Benedictine of Canterbury,
the disciple and friend of archbishop Anselm, whom he ac-
companied to Rome, Lyons, etc., wrote a history (chiefly ec-
clesiastical) from the Conquest to the year 1122, in which
he treats largely of the dissensions between his patron, An-
selm, and the kings, William Rufus and Henry 1.3 Eadmer
was also elected to the see of St. Andrew’s, but resigned it on

' See England under the Anglo-Saxon Kings, i. Literary Introduction,
p. xlvil.

? This name we obtain from Ordericus Vitalis p. 504, (edit. Maseres,
p. 190), who was apparently ignorant of the author continued by John,
believing him to be Marianus Scotus. [The edition of Florence published
by the English Historical Society has ‘a further continuation to the year
1295, by John de Taxter and another monk of Bury St. Edmund’s.—T.]

3 In quo,” as John Bale elegantly informs us, “ plenis buccis bestize
Romane tuetur partes.” —T,
LITERARY INTRODUCTION. xxvil

refusing consecration except by the archbishop of Canterbury.
Eadmer’s history has been edited by John Selden’.

To the notice of William, a monk and librarian of Malmes-
bury abbey, already given®, may be here added, that his
Gesta Regum Anglorum, bringing the history down to 1120,
is succeeded by his Historia Novella, which concludes with
the year 1142, and, like his Gesta, is dedicated to his patron,
Robert earl of Gloucester, the illegitimate son of Henry I.

The Magnus Rotulus Scaccarii sive Pipe is also a source
of history not to be passed over without notice. The date of
this important roll, which had formerly been assigned to the
reign of Stephen, is justly fixed by its editor, the Rev. Joseph
Hunter, under the year 1131, or thirty-first of Henry I.

For the history of Stephen, the most abundant source of
information is the Gesta Stephani, the work of an ecclesiastic,
apparently a foreigner, warmly, though not blindly, attached
to that prince. This interesting and valuable ‘biographical
monograph has reached us only in one known and imperfect
manuscript. It is printed in Du Chesne’s collection, and
reprinted in a separate volume by the English Historical
Society’,

The first five years of Stephen’s reign (1135—1139) are
treated of in the short tract of Richard, prior of the Augus-
tines at Hexham. It is printed in Twysden’s collection+.

John, prior of Hexham, continued the chronicle of Simeon

1 Eadmeri Monachi Cantuariensis Historia Novorum, sive sui Seculi,
libri vi. Londini 1622, folio. To this edition a valuable body of notes is
subjoined by the learned editor, under the title: Johannis Seldeni ad Ead-
merum et Note et Spicilegium.—T.

2 See England under the A. S. Kings i. Lit. Introd. p. lili.

3 Gesta Stephani, Regis Anglorum et Ducis Normannorum, incerto
Auctore, sed Contemporaneo, olim, ex vetere codice M.S. Episcopattis
Laudunensis ab Andrea Duchesne edita, denuo recensuit, notisque illu-
stravit, Ricardus Clarke Sewel, D.C.L. Collegii Beate Magdalene apud
Oxoniam Socius. Londini: Sumptibus Societatis.

4 Historia Piz Memorize Ricardi Prioris Hagustaldensis Ecclesie, de
gestis Regis Stephani, et de Bello Standardii.
xxvii LITERARY INTRODUCTION.

of Durham from the year 1130 to 1156. In this continuation
the dates after 1140 are erroneously increased by 1. This is,
however, to be ascribed solely to the error of a copyist, who
has interpolated, after 1140 and under 1141, an account of
the council of Rheims, held in 1119, and then, instead of
1141, has continued with 1142, and so on. This is in Twys-
den’s collection.

Gervase, a Benedictine of Canterbury, compiled, in the be-
ginning of the 13th century, a chronicle from the year 1122
to 1199, the portion of which that here concerns us is made
up from the chronicles of John of Hexham and Henry of
Huntingdon, and also from some special acts of the Church
of Canterbury. It is in Twysden’s collection.

The chronicle of Henry of Huntingdon concludes, as we
have before mentioned, with the death of Stephen in 1154.
It is dedicated to one of the prelates so misused by Stephen,
Alexander bishop of Lincoln. :

EPITOME.
EPITOME

OF THE

EARLY HISTORY OF NORMANDY.

THE battle of Senlac, or of Hastings, as the Normans prefer
naming it, after the brightest scene in their historic remi-
niscences, had introduced new men and new masters into
England. Normandy was now an English province, but a
province of incalculable importance, and, in consequence of
its relations with the ecclesiastical and secular states of the
Continent, of vast influence. The Normans did not totally
extinguish the nationality of the Saxons, but grafted on it a
scion, which modified it as much as was possible without
annihilating it; and thus brought to England’s future their -
adventurous, domineering sons, their wars, their military
constitutions, their court poets, their legal language, their
dissoluteness, their fashions, in short, all which at all times
and in all parts of the earth distinguishes a ruling caste.

In the “History of England under the Anglo-Saxon Kings,”
it was necessary to cast an occasional glance at Normandy
and its inhabitants, in illustration of the earlier history of
England ; but it is now indispensable to present to the reader
an historic view of that country, as a chief, and even yet not
wholly extinct, element of English history during the middle
age.
2 EARLY HISTORY OF NORMANDY.

The great public importance of the line of coast where the
Continent lies most contiguous to the British Isles, has cast
into comparative obscurity the less favourably situated coast
lands, so that accounts of that part of Celtic Gaul, the “ Pro-
vincia Lugdunensis Secunda,” where, between the Somme
and St. Michael’s Bay, the British Channel is broken amid
innumerable rocks, have, with the exeeption of what concerns
the ports and points of transit, at all times, been but few,
and those seldom of any great general interest. To the
oldest known inhabitants of these parts, and their several
localities, in the times of Czesar and those immediately follow-
ing, the Lexovii, the Rothomagi, the Eburovici, the Abrin-
cati, the Baiocenses, the Viducassi, the Sesuvii, the towns of
Lisieux (Noviomagus Lexoviorum), Rouen, Evreux, Avranches,
Bayeux, Vieux! (not far from Caen), and Séez, bear witness.
Theatres, baths, and other edifices of the Romans are also
still to be traced in Lillebonne (Julia Bona) and Coutances
(Constantia Castra). Their druidism and common Celtic
‘origin maintained between these people and the British a
connection, which only the introduction of the Roman lan-
guage and theology slowly tended to weaken. A settlement,
however, of Roman allies, of that race of North Saxons that
had given name (Littus Saxonicum?) to the coast about Ba-
‘yeux, contributed to accelerate their separation. It cannot
be accurately determined when this defensive establishment,
which as early as the end of the third century was found
necessary for the protection of those coasts against the plun-
dering Saxons and Franks, and originating in an experiment
(fortunate at first) of the Romans, to combat an enemy
through himself, by founding the military colony of the Leti,
grew finally into a Germanic land. To what extent the
wanderings and expeditions of the Saxons and kindred

! For inscriptions found there see the Abbe Lebeuf in Histoire de
Y’Académie Royale des Inscriptions et Belles [ettres, t. xxi. pp. 489 sq.
2 See England under the Anglo-Saxon Kings, i. p. 44.
EARLY HISTORY OF NORMANDY. 3

nations to Britain increased the number of settlers on the
Gallic coast by new accessions of their countrymen!, whether
they carried with them many of the earlier settlers, how these
strangers maintained and conducted themselves, are questions
that must remain unanswered, owing to the dark oblivion in
which those events are enveloped. But that they did main-
tain themselves and held themselves apart, with respect both
to their language and nationality, is proved by the accounts
of the sixth century, of how the Bretons burned to quench
their Celtic hatred in Saxon blood (a. 578); how bishop
Felix of Nantes made the conversion of their stony hearts
his daily occupation, in which he succeeded only at the close
of his life. Even in the ninth century we find a small district
in those parts named the Lingua Sawonica, as other districts
were distinguished as the Langue d’oc and the Langue d’ouil?.
The Normandy of after times united itself but slowly with the
Frankish realm, though it acknowledged, but on a very in-
dependent footing, Childebert J. of Paris (511-558), and
later, after the death of Charibert (567), Chilperic I. of Sois-
sons and his successors, the kings of Neustria. Avranches,
like the Saxon Bayeux, appears, with its territory, to have
long enjoyed a distinguished independence. The slight con-
nection of these countries with the royal court is apparent
from the scantiness of the accounts of them that have been
preserved by historians, and which are limited to notices re-
lative to the archbishops of Rouen, the bishops of Bayeux,
Evreux, Lisieux, Coutances, Avranches and Séez, also of some

1 That frequently not a few Anglian and Frisian families peaceably
passed over to the Franks, we learn from Procopius, lib. iv. c. 20. Comp.
England under the A. S. Kings, i. p. 115.

2 Capit. Caroli Calvi.in Monum. Hist. Germ. i. p. 426. Others read
Otlingua. Is this the same word, or may it denote the country of the
Saxon Etheling? Comp., with reference to this district, Lebeuf ut sup.
p.507f. In the year 843, Otlingua Saxonica is called only a pagellus.
See document ap. Bouquet, viii. p. 446.

Ba
4 EARLY HISTORY OF NORMANDY.

monasteries, as Jumiéges, St. Wandrille (648), Fécamp, St.
Peter’s at Ouche (Uticum); and later, St. Evreuil, Le Bee,
St. Vedast and others.

The districts (pagi), into which this territory was divided,
are easily to be recognised in the departments which Charles
the Bald assigned to his miss?, according to the capitulary of
the year 853!, in the seventh of which is found united the
greater part of the later Normandy. In this were comprised :
the Aprincatum (Avranches), Constantinum (the Cotentin
round about Coutances), Bagisinum (Bayeux), Corilisum,
Otlingua Saxonica, Harduini, Oxinicum (L’Hiesmois) Lisui-
num (Lieuvin, the neighbourhood of Lisieux. In the sixth de-
partment we find together with Vimeu, Ponthieu, and Amiens,
appertaining hereto, Rotinense (Rouen), which also comprised
the smaller Calcensis pagus (Caux2), and Tellau (Talleu, Tal-
vois, on the river Yeres in Normandy). To the missi of the
eighth department, comprising Le Mans, Anjou, and Tours,
Sagisus (Séez) and Corbonisus (Le Corbonnois, between Tours
and Séez) were assigned. From the south-eastern, or ninth
department, between the Seine and the Loire, the pagus
Ebroicensis (Evreux) fell to the share of Normandy. Over
most of these departments special counts were appointed ;
and, in the ninth century, over Rouen®, Bayeux, Coutances,
Avranches, and Hiesmes.

Rouen on the Seine had, through its commerce, been always
a place of considerable importance, and, consequently, at an
early period became an object for the plundering expeditions
of the Northmen, which, although, for many years past,
oftenest directed to the British Isles, were, nevertheless, more
frequently turned towards Gaul than we find mentioned by

1 Older mention of many of these pagi occurs in the Gesta Abbatum
Fontanellensium, in Monum. Hist. Germ. t. ii.

2 Dudo, p.110.

3 Radulphus, comes Rothomagensis under Dagobert I. (ob. 638). Gesta
Abb. Fontanell. ¢. 1.
EARLY HISTORY OF NORMANDY. 5

the chroniclers}. When the bloody struggles of the sons of
Lewis the Pious had irresistibly drawn the flower of France
and her bravest nobles to the battle field of Fontenay, the
Northman Osker (Asker), with his band of barbarians, ap-
peared before Rouen (May 12th 841), which they plundered
and burnt; slew the bishop, and took possession of the abbey
of St. Ouen, whose relics were conveyed to Condé, a small
village in the neighbourhood of Paris; other relics were
carried into Lorraine. On the 16th May they evacuated
Rouen, but on their return to the coast, destroyed or laid
under contribution the towns and monasteries along the
Seine. On the 24th they burnt the abbey of Jumiéges,
founded by St. Philibert, in the seventh century, on a penin-
sula in the Seine, and inhabited by a numerous body of monks
and laymen. Having secretly buried a portion of their trea-
sures, the monks fled with the rest, together with their relics.
For thirty years this once flourishing abbey lay in ruins?.
The Northmen had destined the same fate for the abbey of
Fontenelle; but it redeemed itself for six pounds, but whether
of gold or silver is uncertain. The monks of the abbey of
St. Denis paid twenty-six pounds for the redemption of sixty-
eight captives. On the last day of May the pirates again
betook themselves to the sea. Four years later the eompa-
nions of Osker under Ragnar ventured to advance on Paris;
and in the year 851, he himself appeared, probably in the
plundering expedition of Godefrid the Dane on the Seine,
again at Rouen+. From that time the towns and monasteries

1 E.g. the Danes under Cochilaicus (the king Hygelac of Beowulf)
about the year 515. See Gregor. Turon. lib. iii. c. 3.

2 Wil. Gemmet. I. c.6. ann. 851. Chron. Fontanell. cited by Depping.
I use Prof. Petersen’s Danish translation of Depping (Histoire des Expé-
ditions Maritimes des Normands, etc.), which has many corrections of,
and some additions to, the original, by the translator, an eminent and
well-known Northern scholar.—T.

3 Annales Bertiniani cited by Depping.

4 Hoscheri and Hoseri. Fragm. Chron. Font. aa. 841 and 851. Annal.
6 EARLY HISTORY OF NORMANDY.

on the Seine and in the neighbouring country were exposed,
more than all the rest of France, to the incessantly repeated
attacks of the Northmen. Whether that Hasting, whom
Dudo, dean of St. Quentin, the chief source of the Norman
chronicles, places at their head, was ever in Normandy, is
by no means certain; according to the most trustworthy
chronicles we find him on the banks of the Loire!, afterwards
on the Somme at Argove?, below Amiens, a few miles from
St. Quentin. To the terror of the monks at this dreaded
proximity the impressions may derive their origin, which
have accumulated on Hasting the deeds of many of his com-
rades, and from traditions and songs have caused to be
sought out all that could add to his renown?. .

But the most formidable ally of the Northmen was to be
found in the weakness of the Christian kings themselves, who
were not only ever ready to buy the absence of those pirates,
but even submitted to grant them permanent settlements in
their kingdoms. Lewis the Pious had set the pernicious
example, when he ceded to the Danes, Klak-Harald‘+ and
Rorik, Dorstadt5 on the Rhine and the Kennemerland. His

Xantens. a. 845. Prudent. Trecens. aa. 841, 845, 851. Rudolf. Fuldens.
a. 850.
1 Annal. Vedast. a. 882. Hincmar Remens. a. 882.
2 Annal, Vedast. aa. 890, 891. Comp. also England under the A. S.
Kings, ii. pp. 74-80, 35.
3 That historic ballads on the Northmen existed in his time is confirmed
by Wace, Roman de Rou, Il. 2108 sqq.
[A jugléors oi en m’effance chanter
Ke Willame jadis fist Osmont essorber,
Et al Conte Riouf li dous oilz crever ;

* * *
Ne sai noient de ¢o, n’en poiz noient trover ;
* * *

On which M. Pluquet remarks: “Ce passage curieux nous apprend que,
du temps de Wace, les jongleurs chantaient des épisodes de notre histoire
de Normandie, et qu’ils y mélaient souvent des fables.”—T.]

4 He was a petty king of South Jutland, or Sleswig.—T.

5 The present Wyk te Duerstede.—T.
EARLY HISTORY OF NORMANDY. 7

son, Lothair, attempted to remove Rérik from this fief, who
found an asylum with Lewis the German, who permitted him
to dwell in Holstein until, with the aid of a body of his coun-
trymen, he regained possession of Dorstadt!. His nephew
or cousin, Godefrid, also succeeded, in the year 8590, in ex-
torting a portion of land from Charles the Bald2, the locality
of which is unknown. Either he, or a successor of the same
name at Dorstadt, in the year 882, received, together with
that fief, the hand of Gisele, a natural daughter of Lothair
the Second?. Many Northmen, whose names are unknown
to us, received fiefs, only by assuming the outward semblance
of being Christians. As early as the year 853, Charles the
Bald speaks of such grants to the Northmen!, but of which
the conditions of feudal fidelity and defence of the country
against the Danish pirates had not been fulfilled. Without
doubt the formidable Weland also received a fief, when, in the
year 862, he submitted to be baptized, in like manner with
Hasting, who, we are informed, received the county of
Chartres >.

ROLF, or ROBERT I.

Tue 17th November in the year 876° is named as the day
on which Rolf (Hrélfr), or (as he is usually called after the
Latin chroniclers) Rollo’, first landed in the territory subse-

1 Rudolf. Fuld. a. 850. Prudent. Trecens. eod. a.

2 Rudolf. Fuld. eod. a.

3 Annal. Vedast. a. 882. Annal. Fuld. a. 885.

4 Capitul. a. 853. April. ap. Pertz, p. 418.

5 Houard, Traité sur les Cout. Anglo-Norm. part i. Pref.

6 This date is given both by Florence and Ordericus Vitalis, (p. 368).
That the Normans arrived at the Seine in this year, is confirmed by the
Annales Vedastini.

7 [According to Snorri (Heimskringla, c. 24.) Rolf was a son of Rogn-
vald, jarl of Mori in Norway. He is described as being of so large a
stature that no horse could bear him, and he was compelled to go on foot,
hence his appellation of Hrdlfr gavngr, or Hrolf the ganger or walker.
For his plunderings (strandhug) on the coast of Norway, he was expelled
from that kingdom by king Harald Harfagri—T.] William of Malmes-
8 EARLY HISTORY OF NORMANDY.

quently known as Normandy. He was the chief of a band of
pirates, and had previously passed some time in England,
had there formed an alliance with Guthorm- or Guthrim-
ABthelstan, and subsequently attacked the isle of Walcheren
and invaded Hainaut. Dudo’s account of Rolf’s deeds is
founded on historic facts interwoven with fictions, but which
it is possible to elucidate by the abstraction of some mistakes
in the chronology. The archbishop of Rouen, Franco, is
said by Dudo to have received from Rolf the promise not to
lay waste the neighbouring country. This improbable story
contradicts itself, as that archbishop was not raised to the
dignity till afterwards; so that we must either regard Dudo’s
narrative here as very doubtful, or, to save his credit, suppose
the Rolf of the year 876 a different person from him who
appears on the scene more prominently twenty years later’.
Rolf, it is said, soon returned to England?, and was probably
in the succeeding years among the Northmen that committed
such dreadful ravages between the Scheldt and the Somme.
It is also probable that he was in the fleet of Northmen who
- erossed the Channel (878, 8'79), wintered at Fulham, and in
the latter of these years proceeded to Walcheren, and up the
Scheldt to Ghent? ; in the following year entered the Frank-
ish territory+, wintered in Courtray and plundered Cambrai ;
in 881 were defeated by Lewis III. at Vimeu, and in 883

bury (and from him Alberic) says of him, “ de nobili, sed per vetustatem
obsoleta prosapia Noricorum editus.”” Dudo (p. 70) calls him the son of
a downright free man, who for no feudal obligation would place his hands
between those of another. And (p. 82) “‘ Rollo superbo regum ducumque
sanguine natus.”

1 A bishop Franco of Liege (852-901), may have given occasion to the
confusion of the names, Annal. Lobiens. et Vedast.

2 See Engl. under the A. S. Kings, ii. p. 51.

3 Asser, Vita Ailfredi. Saxon Chron. aa. 879, 880. Annal. Vedast. a,
879. This last differs from the preceding by a year. Hincmar Remens.
agrees with the former. Comp. Engl. under the A. S. Kings, ii. p. 56.
Annal. Gandenses.

4 Asser. Sax. Chron. a. 881. Annal. Vedast. a. 880.
EARLY HISTORY OF NORMANDY. — 9

passed the winter at the abbey of Condé on the Scheldt, on
the southern frontier of Hainaut!. Proceeding northwards
from Walcheren, Rolf had Radbod to overcome at Aelmere?,
then, turning southwards by Condé, to encounter and defeat
Ragnar, surnamed Longneck, count of Hasbach and Hainaut.

Lewis III. had, in the last year of his life, prevailed on
Hasting to abstain from rapine and enjoy a peaceful investi-
ture®, consisting, we are informed, in the county of Chartres.
King Carloman also, proceeding in the course already adopted
by the Anglo-Saxons, entered, through the mediation of the
Dane Sigfred, into a negotiation with the enemy at Amiens,
where, in the year 883, they had passed the winter, and who,
in consideration of a tribute of twelve thousand pounds of
silver, engaged to remain tranquil till October‘; nevertheless,
on the 25th July in the year following, an army of Northmen
appeared at Rouen, who there embarked for the purpose of
proceeding up the Seine to Pont de Arche. These met with
the French posted on the Eure, who were defeated by them
with the loss of Regnald, duke of Maine.

The celebrated siege of Paris was now undertaken by the
Northmen, at which no Frankish chronicler, but Dudo alone,

1 The mention of Walcheren is from Dudo (p. 74); Condé is also
named by Dudo (p.74). Annal. Vedast, Asser, Sax. Chron. I depart
from the usual] chronology, and even from Dudo, who places the expedi-
tion to Walcheren and Condé before 876; though the accordance of so
many accounts must justify my statement.

2 Flavius Aelmere, in Dudo (p.74); stagnum Aelmere; Vita S. Boni-
facii, cc. 11. 12. fretum Aelmere, ib. The fishery and ship tax (cogschuld)
in Aelmere, a part of the present Zuyder zee, were among the revenues of
the see of Utrecht. See Heda, pp. 64, 84.

3 Annal. Vedast. a. 882.

4 Tbid. a. 883. Sax. Chron. a. 884.

5 Ibid. a. 885. Dudo, after speaking of Rolf’s expeditions to Wal-
cheren, Friesland and Hainaut, says that he afterwards, in the year 876,
embarked for the Seine, which is perhaps an error for 886, or a confound-
ing with the above account of 876. ‘To this time also the dreaded attack
on Jumiéges seems to belong, of which Balderic, in Chron. Camerac.
lib. 11. c. 29. makes mention.
10 ' EARLY HISTORY OF NORMANDY.

names Rolf as the commander. From the inaction of a pro-
tracted siege Rolf freed himself by incursions into Normandy.
He took Bayeux, although it defended itself with Old-Saxon
valour, and made Popa, the daughter of the count Berengar!,
his wife, according to the pagan Danish forms. Evreux also
he caused to be attacked, by which exploits he gained con-
siderable sums in the shape of tribute, and, inspired great
dread of his name?. The Northmen before Paris, having :
entered into a truce, proceeded, some along the Marne as
far as Chézy, others into Burgundy, sailing up the Yonne,
on the last day of November 886, to the archiepiscopal city
of Sens, plundering the neighbouring country and towns, to
Clermont (department of the Oise), and Provins (Seine and
Marne), southward to the Benedictine abbey of Fleury,
which they spared, thence to Etampes and Villeme on the
Eure. From this place, (in May 887) Rolf hastened back to
the siege of Paris, which not till the autumn of 889, through
the mediation of king Eudes, bought off the enemy’, who
returned to Normandy, where, after a long siege, they. took
St. Lo, near Coutances, and levelled it with the ground>.
The valiant Bretons, however, set a bound to their further
advance; whereupon the Northmen, some by sea, others by
land, proceeded eastward to Liége, Nymwegen, Louvain and
Utrecht®. Of the ulterior acts of a part of this army, which

'In the Chron. Rothomag. a. 911, in Labbei Biblioth., also in R. de
Diceto, Abbrev. Chron. col. 453. she is called a daughter of count Wido
of Senlis.

? Dudo. Chron. 8. Benigni Divion. ap. Bouquet, viii. 241. Comp. Engl.
under the A. S. Kings. ii. p. 75.

3 Sax. Chron. and Asser, a. 887. Annal. Vedast. aa. 886, 887. Regino,
a. 888. Annal. 8. Columbe Senonensis, a. 886. in Mon. Hist. Germ. i. p.
104. ‘To this time also belongs the account of the besieging of Le Mans
and the attempt on Tours by Rolf. Alberic. a. 882 from Helinand “ex
dictis Odonis abbatis Cluniacensis.”’

4 Annal. Vedast. a. 889. Regino, a. 890. Sax. Chron. a. 890.

> Annal Vedast. aa. 889, 890. Sax. Chron. and Regino, a. 890.

.6 Annal, Vedast. a. 890. Sax. Chron. and Regino, a. 891.
EARLY HISTORY OF NORMANDY. ll

passed over to England, and there remained till the year 896,
we have already spoken!. Under a leader, Hund (Hunedée),
who is called by the chroniclers Huncdeus, they then directed
their course along the Seine, while others embarked on the
Oise and the Meuse. For two years they plundered Neustria.
Hund, who had proceeded up the Seine with some ships, made
peace with king Charles, and submitted to baptism (897), a
circumstance the more worthy of notice, as on that account
he has at an early period been confounded with Rolf?.

In the years immediately following, we find neither accounts
of Rolf nor of Northmen at Rouen or in the later Normandy,
nor any particular notices of those bands, with whom, accord-
ing to the earlier accounts, Rolf appears to have been con-
nected. From the silence of the other chronicles it is highly
improbable that Rolf occupied the foremost place in all those
expeditions, which Dudo, the poetic author of the Norman
Chronicle, assigns to hin; even the early establishment at
Rouen, at which this chronicler hints, is either contrary to
fact, or it was afterwards abandoned. Not till the year
911 do we hear of a defeat which, on the 12th July, Rolf
sustained at Chartres, by dukes Richard of Burgundy and
Robert of France®, who fought under the special protection of
the Virgin Mary‘. In an intrenchment at Loches, formed of
the carcases and bloody hides of animals®, the barbarous sons

1 See Engl. under the A. S. Kings, ii. p. 75.

2 Annal. Vedast. aa. 896, 897. Chron. Norman. ap. Pertz, i. 536.

3 He was a brother of king Odo (or Eudes), and is sometimes styled
count of Paris.—T.

4 Annal. Colomb. Senon. a. 911. Comp. Dudo. Annal. Besuenses h. a.
in Mon. H. Germ. [* The good bishop, as soon as he had sung mass,
went forth, clad in his episcopal ornaments, the cross borne before him,
and he himself bearing on the point of a lance the Virgin Mary’s chemise,
which had been brought from Constantinople by Charles the Bald, and
was preserved in the cathedral of Chartres. All the clergy followed,
singing psalms in honour of the heavenly Virgin.” Depping, p. 352.
See Dudo, p. 80, W. Gemmet. p. 230, Rom. de Rou, wv. 1621 sqq.—T.]

5 Roman de Rou, vv. 1777 sqq.
12 / EARLY HISTORY OF NORMANDY.

of the North had long maintained themselves. It is probable
that Rolf, after the death or return of the other leaders, now
arrived at the supremacy among his countrymen, had for a
considerable time been fortified in Rouen or some place com-
manding the Seine, as well as in other towns of Normandy,
where king Charles the Simple, convinced of the impossibility
of prolonging the defence of his country, purchased trom the
enemy, by the cession of a considerable province of Neustria,
which from that time has borne the name of Normandy, the
safety of his kingdom in that quarter; only a century since
Charles the Great had fixed the Eyder as their boundary.
Flanders, that had in the first instance been offered to him,
the haughty conqueror rejected with scorn, as being too
marshy. The accounts of the treaty relating to this cession,
which was concluded at St. Clair-sur-Epte, in the year 912,
vary from each other. At first the Franks would grant to
Rolf Neustria from the Andelle to the sea; but, in a further
negotiation, the rivers Bresle and Epte were fixed as the
eastern boundary. But that the little river Coisnon, that
runs between Normandy and Brittany, could at that time
have been established as the western limit’, is refuted by the
history of the Norman acquisitions in the following years,
from which it appears much more ‘probable that the boundary
agreed on at St. Clair was drawn northwards from Evreux,
and in the west by or on this side of Caen. Of such an in-
considerable beginning was this cession, which was shortly to
become so important for France and England, and of the
former kingdom to raise up the mightiest vassal that the
world had ever known! The Northmen, however, maintained,
that Brittany also, or rather certain rights of suzerainty over
1 Malaterre Chronica. Guido (ap. Albericum, a. 912.) names the Epte
(Itta) as the boundary; also Frodoard. a. 923. “Itta fluvio transito, in-
gressus est terram, que dudum Nordmannis ad fidem Christi venientibus,

ut hane fidem colerent et pacem haberent, fuerat data.’ Eu (Auga) on
the Bresle belonged to the Normans, Frodoard. a. 925.

2 Dudo (p. 83). W. Gemmet. lib. ii. cc. 17,19. Comp. on this much
EARLY HISTORY OF NORMANDY. 13

that state, and the revenues arising therefrom, or that the
fiefs of Rennes and Dol were ceded to Rolf. One of Rolf’s
followers, named Gerlo, received from the king the fief of
Mont-de-Blois! ; another, Heribert, the county of Senlis. It
_ is probable that the Cotentin was also granted to one of these,
who, or whose son, named Riulf, afterwards made war on the
son of Rolf. Like Guthrim-Athelstén, Rolf immediately
became a convert to Christianity, and received baptism at
the hands of Franco, archbishop of Rouen. His sponsor was
Robert, duke of France, who gave him his own name, and
the king gave his natural daughter, Gisele, in marriage to his
new vassal?.

The Northmen of the Seine, for so were Rolf and his
followers still designated, soon strove to extend their do-
minion. It is probable that they took part in the attacks on
western Brittany, which proceeded from their countrymen
encamped on the Loire (a. 919), and in the course of two
years led to the cession of the desolated land, and of the dis-
trict of Nantes‘.

Two years later (a. 923) the Northmen of Rouen again
allied themselves with Ragenald, the leader of their brethren
on the Loire, for the purpose of plundering the neighbouring
districts of Beauvais and Arras. King Rudolf with an army
crossed the Epte, with the design of penetrating into their
country, whereupon the Northmen advanced into the unpro-
tected lands beyond the Oise, which they ravaged, in ex-

disputed point Daru, Geschichte der Bretagne translated by Schubert. t.
i. pp. 80-88. Licquet, H. de Normandie.

' Chron. Sithiense, a. 912. ap. Bouquet, ix. p. 76. Johann. Paris. ib. x.
p- 255, nd, 2 W. Gemmet. Rom. de Rou, 1914 sqq.

3 Charter of Charles the Simple, a. 918, ap. Bouquet, ix. p. 536. “ par-
tem quam adnuimus Nortmannis Sequanensibus, videlicet Rolloni suis
comitibus, pro tutela regni.”’

4 Frodoardi Chron. aa. 919,921. That Rolf’s companions received or
kept this land, appears from Frodoard, a. 924. “ Ragenoldus cum suis
Nordmannis, quia nondum possessionem intra Gallias acceperat.”’

£
14 EARLY HISTORY OF NORMANDY.

pectation of extorting the cession of larger territories on the
other side of the Seine. Seulf, archbishop of Rheims, and
Heribert, count of Vermandois, mediated a truce till May in
the following year; whereupon, after the pernicious example
already set both in France and England, a danegelt was paid
to the Northmen (924), whose territory was, moreover, en-
larged by the cession of Le Mans and the Bessin, or Bayeux}.
The latter was intrusted to Botho, the friend of Rolf?. Never-
theless, in the second year (925) Rolf availed himself of a
new expedition of Ragenald into Burgundy (in which the
latter was killed in the Passe Chailles), to violate the truce :
he marched eastwards. Among the casualties of this for-
midable expedition Amiens and Arras fell a prey to the
flames ; the suburb of Noyon was fired by the Northmen,
who were, however, repulsed by the townsmen. When in
this conjuncture intelligence was brought that the men of
Beauvais had crossed the Seine, the Parisians with count
' Hugo’s warriors had entered Rouen, and count Helgaud of
Ponthieu, or Montreuil, with his coast-Franks, was ravaging
the Norman districts, Rolf did not venture to cross the Oise,
but returned to his own territory. A thousand of his people,
whom he had sent to the frontier to support his fort at Eu5,
were, by Heribert and the vassals of the church of Rheims
and count Arnulf of Flanders, massacred without mercy,
which they themselves had never known. Duke Hugo con-
cluded a separate peace for himself with the Northmen, who
in the following year (926) slew count Helgaud at Arras, and
would have captured the wounded king Rudolf, but for the
timely aid of count Heribert. Eleven hundred Northmen

1 Frodoard. aa. 923, 924.

2 « Boton de Baex, Quens des Bessineiz.’’ Rom. de Rou, v. 2162.

3 Mons. Calaus. From the Itinerary of Albert of Stade (edit. Reineccii,
p. 183.), who calls it Mons Catus, it appears that this district lies between
La Chapelle and Chambery.

4 So we are, no doubt, to read instead of Frodoard’s Havent,

5 Frodoard. a. 925.

Be
EARLY HISTORY OF NORMANDY. 15

fell in one battle, and the survivers contented themselves
with a new danegelt from France and Burgundy, for which
they swore to refrain from hostilities under mutual oaths’.

In the following year (927) new wars led to the cession of
Nantes to the Northmen of the Loire. Rolf, on the other
hand, began now to connect himself more closely with the
other magnates and with the destinies of France. Count
Heribert, who for some years had held king Charles the
Simple in durance, having quarrelled with the rival king
Robert, respecting the investiture of the county of Laon, and
suffered his captive to re-appear with kingly dignity, Rolf
found it advantageous to let his son, William, receive investi-
ture from king Charles at Eu2, and to conclude a peace with
Heribert. Shortly after, this amicable alliance was extended
to duke Hugo, though Odo (Eudes), who was Rolf’s hostage,
was not restored to his father, until the latter had sworn his
oath of allegiance to king Charles.

Some years after these events Rolf died (931) + well stricken

| Frodoard a. 926.

2 Ibid. a. 927, “ Filius Rollonis Karolo se committit.”’

3 Ibid. aa. 927, 928.

4 [He was buried in the church founded by him at Rouen; but his
remains were afterwards deposited in a chapel of the present cathedral,
where his tomb is yet to be seen with the following epitaph, in the place
of an older one :—Hic positus est Rollo, Normannie attrite, vastate, resti-
tute primus dux, conditor, pater, a Francone, archiep. Rotom. baptizatus
anno 913, obiit anno 917 ; ossa ipsius in vetert sanctuario nunc capite navis
primum condita, translato altari, collocata sunt a B. Maurilio, archiepisc.
Rotom., an. 1063.—T.] _ Although Dudo (p. 86) relates that the death of
Rolf took place five years after the adoption of his son as co-regent, this
space of five years has, however, been reckoried from 912, the year of his
baptism ; and this error has been repeated not only by Florence of Wor-
cester, but, as may be seen above, in his epitaph at Rouen, and also by
Ordericus Vitalis, p. 459. ‘The Saxon Chronicle says “he ruled over
Normandy fifty years after his landing,” therefore till 926. The Chron.
Turon. has 931 for the year of his death, the Chron. Alberici, 928. A
later MS. of the Saxon Chronicle says, that a. 928, William began to
yeign, but without mentioning that Rolf died at that time.
16 EARLY HISTORY OF NORMANDY.

in years; the founder of a splendid race, which in the follow-
ing century was to be adorned with the ducal mantle and a
royal crown; the leader of the boldest bands, in which the
valour of the North and the culture of the South soon com-
bined to form the model of the knightly virtues of the middle
age. One consequence of the death of Rolf seems to have
been a rising of the West Bretons against the Northmen,
who, on St. Michael’s day 931, under their leader Felecan,
massacred all their oppressors. Berengar, and Alan, who
had returned from England, were, however, soon driven back !,
when Incon, the leader of the Northmen on the Loire, com-
bined with his countrymen at Rouen again to reduce Brittany
to subjection ®.

Rolf left his son, instead of the rude intrenchments, in
which he had passed the greater part of a life of plunder and
warfare, a formally acquired marquisate, charged with no
obligation, save that of defending his own territory against
an enemy, and already enlarged by successful enterprise ; for
such was the intent and character of his possession, but
which appears seldom so expressed. At first the ceded terri-
tory was transferred to the Northmen in joint possession, as
is confirmed by the language of a charter of king Charles the
Simple?. The king of France could not in fact recognise
any one of them as prince, as they themselves regarded all on
an equality’. Rolf, although certain of the result, left the
choice of his successor to the Northmen of the highest con-
sideration®, and contented himself with recommending to
them his son, who had been under the tuition of Botho, the

1 See England under the A. S. Kings, ii. p.113.

2? Frodoard. a. 931. Hugo Floriac. ap. Bouquet, viii. p. 319. Comp.
Dudo, p. 93.

3 Of the year 918. See p. 13, notes 2 and 3.

4 «Quo nomine vester (Danorum) senior fungitur?” Responderunt,
“Nullo, quia equalis potestatis sumus.”” Dudo, p. 76.

5 “ Vestro consilio vestroque judicio constituatur dux vobis.” Dudo,
p. 91.
EARLY HISTORY OF NORMANDY. iy

leader of his army (princeps militia). The title of this here-
ditary prince seems at that time not to have been fixed, nor
even at a later period. Dudo calls him Dusx', Protector,
Patricius, Comes; we afterwards find Rector?, Princeps 3,
Marchio*. In charters the title of Comes is the most usual,
and this was given by the king of France5; we also meet
with it in the charters of the Norman princes themselves, and
although the procem of the document, according to the arbi-
trary practice of the time, may be filled with pompous titles,
or rather attributes, we, nevertheless, find almost always in
the subscriptions, and always on the seals, the legally valid
title of Count®. The county was at first sometimes denomi-
nated from its most considerable city, Rouen’, and sometimes

1 Lib. 1. 86-91. Rotomagensium dux. Radulf. Glaber, Lib. 111. a. 942.
Also in the later Balderic. Chron. Camerac. lib. 1. ec. 33, 71, 114.

2 « Normannorum, divina ordinante providentia, dux et rector,’ Charter
of Robert, a. 1028—1036, in Monast. Ang]. vi. 1100.

3 Charter of 1024. Monast. Angl. vi. 1108. “ Dei nutu Normannorum
princeps.”

4 © Willelmus (I.) marchio.” Dudo, Preef. lib. 111. p. 105. ‘* Richardus,
comes; marchio, dux, patricius.’’ Ib. pp. 106,107,108. Richardus mar-
chisus.” Charter of K. Lothair, a. 966. Bouquet ix. p. 629. In a charter
of 968 he calls himself “‘Richardus Normannorum marchio.” Ib. p. 731.
So likewise his successor in 1014. Charter in d’Achery, Spic. xiii. p. 274:
and as “dux,” in a charter of 1003, cited in Chron. S. Benigni Divion. Ib.
i. p. 457.

5 Charters of K. Robert of 1005 and 1006, ap. Bouquet, x. pp. 586,587;
without date ap. Mabillon, Vet. Annal. iii. 441. William the Conqueror
calls his ancestor: ‘“ Ricardus Normannorum comes.” Monast. Ang. vi.
p. 1082. The Conqueror himself is in the Saxon Chronicle, a. 1051, called
* Willelm eorl ;” and by Ingulf,”’ comes Normannorum.”

§ In a charter e.g. of William II. of 1042. Mon. Angl. vi. p. 1073; in
a charter of Robert, s. a. “comes et dux ;” afterwards: “‘Robertus comes.”
Ib. p. 1108.—* Willelmus comes et Normannorum dux.” Ib. p.1101.
Comp. charters of Robert and others ib. pp. 1073, 1074. These numerous
references will not, it is hoped, be considered superfluous, when it is
recollected that both Thierry and Michelet (Histoire de France, i. p. 419.)
speak of the ducal title conferred on Rolf in 912.

7 <Robertus Rotomagensis” says Dudo (p. 86.) speaking of Rolf;
“comés Rodomi” of Richard II. Ademar Caban. a. 1008. Bouquet, x. p.

C
18 EARLY HISTORY OF NORMANDY.

from the race by which it was chiefly occupied ; but the name
of a county derived from that race first appears in the eleventh
century’.

Less clear to us than the history of the princely dignity are
the fortunes of the mass of the settlers, as well as those of
the earlier inhabitants. On the principal Northmen towns
and castles were bestowed, on others, villages, as is easily to
be seen in the names of the Norman aristocracy. According
to ancient accounts, the entire long-desolated country was by
Rolf measured out and distributed? among his followers, and
by these and many foreigners invited for the purpose, again
brought into cultivation. Yet the land cannot have been
given to the rugged warriors of the North for them to culti-
vate, but its occupiers must have accompanied the donation,
who paid to them a certain portion of the produce of their
labour for certain privileges of serfdom still continued to
them. We have no accounts to show that any free Franks
remained in the early heritage of the Northmen. Worthy of
notice is the appellation of hospites®, occurring also in the
records of the states occupied by the German conquerors,
which in earlier documents is frequently applied to the Nor-
man husbandmen, thus affording reason for inferring the
existence of similar, though, perhaps, less free and definite,
relations between the lords and the cultivators of the soil.
The same appellation occurs in the Frankish realm, and in
the same sense, in the ninth century, though apparently

151. He is also called “comes Rotomagensium” in a charter of 1024,
cited in Balderici Chron. Camerac. lib. 11. c. 29.

1 T have first found it in a charter of 1024 (Monast. Angl. vi. p. 1108.)
Of the insertion of the name of the country, instead of that of the name of
the people, in the title of the dukes, I know no older example than the
charter of Henry II. a. 1152. ap. Rymer, i. p.18. Wittekind, B. 2. a. 937
calls Rouen “ Rothomum Danorum ;” and Dudo still writes Northmanni.

2 Dudo, p. 85. “Tllam terram suis fidelibus funiculo divisit,” etc.

3 Charter of K. Robert, a. 1006: hospites, quos colonos vocant.’”? Bou-
quet, x. p. 586. Charter of duke Richard, a. 1024, et alibi.
EARLY HISTORY OF NORMANDY. 19.

limited to the north of France and Flanders}, where mutual
necessities created a peasant class, which enjoyed a small
possession with greater liberty than other serfs, and in respect
of military service were only immediately subject to the lord
of the soil2.

The uncertainty with regard to the first distribution of
landed property under the Northmen is the cause that great
obscurity hangs over the origin of their nobility and its several
degrees. We can, however, clearly perceive that a common-
wealth, as in Iceland, and perhaps also in Jomsburg, never
existed in Normandy, and that the leaders of the old warrior
bands and the court officials of the counts of Rouen soon
began to form a privileged, hereditary class of nobles. In the
times of the first Norman princes the majores were frequently
summoned to council, to whose decision the most important
matters were committed3, and the once asserted equality
became limited to a small and, perhaps, arbitrarily deter-
mined class. It is remarkable, that for a long period the
bishops and other prelates do not appear in the accounts of
important deliberations unconnected with spiritual concerns. -

The most influential official appears to have been the
Princeps militia or Princeps domus*. Of other court digni-
ties no mention occurs in documents anterior to the conquest
of England; though it is not to be assumed that seneschals,
constables, sewers, cupbearers, chamberlains, and other court
officers were wanting at Rouen in those early times’. If

1 Comp. Hincmar Rhem. Ann. a. 866. Du Cange voce Hospes. Rapsaet,
Recherches, ii. 358. Warnkonig, Flandrische Staats— u. Rechts-Ge-
schichte, i. 246.

2 Charter of 1165 in Mirai Opp. Diplom. i. 708. Coutumes de Senlis,
ap. Du Cange. Dudo, lib. 1.

3 “ Leges voluntate principum sancitas et decretas.”” Dudo, p. 85.
“ Convocatis Dacorum Britonumque principibus.” Ib. p. 86 b. “Convocat
majores Dacorum.” Ib. p. 82 b. (Willelmus I.) “ consultis Dacorum
principibus.” Ib. p.93 c. “Optimates regni consulturus.” Ib. p.114 c.

4 Dudo, pp. 91, 92, 98. W. Gemmet. lib. vir. c. 4. .

5 Dudo, p.105. mentions a camerarius.

cg
20 EARLY HISTORY OF NORMANDY.

Dudo’s expressions may be trusted, there was even a privy
council under the ancient dukes'.

The denomination of comites in the time of Rolf is not to
be considered as equivalent to counts. If to the prince or
leader no higher title than that of count was conceded, his
lieges, unless they belonged to his family, must of course bear
a subordinate one. Nor do the earlier documents make men-
tion of any other counts, but only of barons?, and proceres?.
The former counties of Neustria are, in the more precise
language of the. law, but seldom named, and usually appear
as divided into vicecounties +.

Of the particular legal institutions introduced by Rolf
there is very little to relate; although, as founder of the
Norman state and first Norman prince, the glory of an ordainer
of the legal constitution of his country may less justly be
denied him than similar glory to many a celebrated ruler of
other lands. We can, however, sufficiently perceive, what is
to us of more importance, that the institutions of the Frank-
ish state served as a model to the Northman, in like manner.
as its language and religion were soon adopted by his country-
men.

WILLIAM I.

SURNAMED LONGSWORD.

Tue young count William appears in the earlier years of
his reign to have been on terms of hostility with his neigh-
bour, king Rudolf. But in the year 933 he swore his oath
of homage between that king’s hands, from whom he received,

1 « Willelmus assumtis tribus fidis secretariis suis,” of whom Botho,
the princeps militiz, was one.

2 Charter of 1032. Monast. Angl. vi. p. 1073.

3 Charter s. a. Ib. 1073, 1074.

4 Charter of 1042. “ Vicecomitatus Constantini et Constanciarum :” i.e.
the Cotentin and its city, Coutances: “ Vicecomitatus Waureti.” Ib.
p- 1073. ‘‘Ranulphus vicecomes.”’ s. a. Ib. p. 1074. “ Ricardus, vicecomes
Abrincarum.” Ib. p. 1084.
EARLY HISTORY OF NORMANDY, 21

in addition to the possessions of his father, a maritime terri-
tory of the Bretons!. Under this denomination the Cotentin
seems to be understood, whereby Normandy first obtained
her western frontier. This grant was the cause, if, and with
greater probability, it may not be regarded as the conse-
quence, of a rebellion raised by Riulf, a Norman, count of tlie
Cotentin?, whose relation to Rolf had been one of brotherhood
rather than of vassalage, and who now demanded the cession
of the greater portion of Norman Neustria, consisting of the
country west of the river Risle, of which he, moreover, took
possession. William’s character exhibited a contrast, by no
means rare in life, to that of his father. The clergy, whose
duty it was to impart to the youthful count all that, exclusive
of skill in arms, was called education, had abused their in-
fluence over his mind to make of the successor of the ener-
getic Rolf another Lewis the Pious. Shut up by the enemy
in his city of Rouen, he was on the eve of surrender, and only
the threats of the brave old warriors to forsake him and re-
turn to their native North induced him to venture a battle,
which three hundred of his faithful vassals won for his salva-
tion, and to the complete overthrow of Riulf. Riulf himself
fled, but was delivered to the conqueror by his own son,
Anschetil, who suffered himself to be deceived by William's
assurances, and was punished with the loss of his eyes?. The
birth of his first son and successor, Richard, at Fécamp,
whither the mother, a Breton named Sprote, whom he had
espoused in the Danish manner, had fled, from the appre-
hension that Riulf might get possession of her child and send
it to England, gave additional gladness to the day which
restored the Norman state‘.. The boy was subsequently sent

1 Terram Britonum in ora maritima sitam.” Frodoard, a. 933.

2 Quens fu de Costentin entre Vire éla mer.” So he is styled by
Wace (v. 2123), who had heard the ballads of “ Jugléors” about him in
his infancy. (v. 2108.). Dudo, pp. 94 sgqg. W. Gemmet. p. 234,

3 Will. Malm. p. 230. edit. Engl. Hist. Soc.
4 Natus de concubina Britanna.” Frod. a. 942. Dudo, pp. 97, 110.
22. EARLY HISTORY OF NORMANDY.

for education to Bayeux, because Danish was still spoken in
that city, while in Rouen French had already quite superseded
the mother-tongue of the conquerors!; a striking fact, which
shows partly the small number of Northmen in Rouen, and
partly indicates an inverse proportion at Bayeux, the earlier
conquest of Rolf, and also sheds some light on the discord
which, after the death of Rolf, ensued between the Danish
inhabitants of that city and those of Rouen.

Brilliant festivals and hunting parties, in the following
years, shed lustre on the court of the young count, who, by
the marriage of his sister Gerloc, also named Adele, with
William, surnamed Téte d’Etoupe, count of Poitou, and by
the hand bestowed on himself of Leutgardis, daughter of
Heribert, the powerful count of Vermandois, as well as
through the friendship of the count of Paris, Hugh the
Great, had closely identified himself with Frankish interests.
Consequently, on the return of the king, Lewis d’Outremer,
he played a conspicuous part. The simultaneous return of
Alan of Brittany (936) proves that the count of Normandy
did not consider himself as superior lord of that territory,
although it was engaged to him for the performance of ser-
vices, which afforded ground for frequent wars?. be

In the war (939), which had for some years raged between
king Lewis and his vassals, William with his neighbours, the
eounts Heribert of Vermandois and Herluin of Ponthieu
(Montreuil), took part with Hugh, who was, moreover, sup-
ported by his brother-in-law, the German king, Otto I. We
here find him, through these relations, in hostility with king
Adthelstan of England and Arnulf count of Flanders; and
the ravaging of the territory of the latter called down the
excommunication of those French bishops, who adhered to
their sovereign, upon the son of Rolf. But such was not the
kind of warfare to terrify the Norman warriors, who, but

! Dudo, p. 112. Benoit de Ste More.
? See Engl. under the A. 8S. Kings, ii. p. 113.
EARLY HISTORY OF NORMANDY. 23

"chiefly those of the Cotentin, under the banner of count
Herluin, recovered the castle of Montreuil', which a short
time previously had been taken by the Flemings. Tetger,
William’s majordomo, was sent on a negotiation to king
Otto, who in return deputed to William Conrad the Wise,
count of Worms, who about that period was nominated duke
of the Franks?. William himself assisted at a meeting be-
tween Hugh, Heribert, and Arnulf with king Otto, which
appears to have taken place at Vouziers on the Aisne, be-
tween Laon and Verdun’. In the spring of the following
year (940) William did homage to king Lewis at Amiens;
but no sooner had the king confirmed to the bigoted, but
ferocious and faithless chieftain of Rouen‘ the land granted
him by his father, Charles, than he again leagued himself
with the foes of Lewis, and, with Hugh and his ecclesias-
tical and secular allies, besieged the archbishop of Rheims,
Artald, the friend of the king, in his city, which he captured.
From this place William with Hugh appeared before Laon,
but which, on receiving intelligence of the king’s approach,
they abandoned. Hugh and Heribert at this time are said
to have done homage to the German king at Attigny; the
Norman, it is true, did not follow their example in this in-
stance, though he continued in an alliance repeatedly renewed
with the party of Hugh and the king of Germany. Through
the mediation of the pope, Stephen IX, William was induced
to receive count Rotgar as an envoy from the king. Rotgar
died suddenly at the court of William almost immediately
after his arrival, though not before he had prevailed on the
count to receive the king in Rouen, whereupon a truce was
negotiated with the other belligerents, and the king and

1 Frodoard, a. 939. Dudo, p. 103.

2 T am disposed to identify him with Dudo’s “ Cono, dux Saxonum.”

3 Frodoard, a. 939.

4 «Willelmus, Rotomagensium dux ferocissimus.” Balderici Chron.
Camerac. lib. 1. c. 71.
24 EARLY HISTORY OF NORMANDY.

William, as also Hugh, sent hostages to Otto. After the
establishment of a general peace, several private feuds were
also to be accommodated, for which purpose William accepted
an invitation from the count of Flanders to meet him on an
island in the Somme near Péquigny (17th Dec. 942). The
contested points were settled with apparent mutual forbear-
ance, and the kiss of peace sealed the new alliance. When
already on his return home, William was called back by
Arnulf’s followers, and not bearing in mind that the pro-
unised safe-conduct was no longer valid, he returned without
suspicion, and was treacherously slain by the Flemings!. The
assassins were named Balzo the short, Eric, Robert, and
Ridulf, whom an old tradition represents as the avengers of
Anschetil, whom William had caused to be ensnared and
basely murdered 2.

The clergy bitterly deplored the death of William, who
had won their affection by the restoration of the abbey of
St. Philibert at Jumiéges, which had been destroyed by the
Northern pirates?. But by this unexpected event, the exist-
ence of the Normans in France was brought into the utmost
peril, to drive whom from their ill-gotten dominion would
have been an easy task to the magnates of France, had any
degree of unity prevailed among them; as the Anglo-Saxon
king Eadmund, at that time, and probably availing himself
of the weakness of the Danes in Normandy, had expelled
their kinsmen from the north of his realm+. Lewis also
was not wanting in attempts to obtain by craft what he

! Frodoard, aa. 942, 943. Flor. Wigorn. a. 942. Dudo, lib. iii.

* W. Malm. p. 230, and Rom. de Rou, vv. 2108 sqq., where by “ Baute
d’Espaigne” Balzo seems to be intended. “Blaso curtus, camerarius.”
Chron. Sithiens. ap. Bouquet, ix. p. 78.

3 Dudo, p.105. Charter of confirmation by K. Henry II. in Mon. Angl. vi.
p. 1087.

4 See Engl. under the A.S. Kings, ii. p- 121. That connections always
existed between the Normans and the Danes in England can hardly be
doubted.
EARLY HISTORY OF NORMANDY. 25

was unable to gain by the sword. William had taken care
to engage his countrymen to acknowledge’ his son Richard as
his successor’, and even Lewis, with loud expressions of in-
dignation at the base treachery of Arnulf, confirmed to the
boy of hardly ten years the land that had been ceded to the
Northmen; yet of the neighbouring barons, who had sworn
fidelity to the preceding counts, several now transferred their
allegiance to the king, others to count Hugh. The country
itself, too, fell into a state of anarchy, when fresh swarms of
heathen Northmen landed, to whom many of the old settlers,
casting off the inconvenient yoke of Christianity, attached
themselves. Even Rouen and Evreux fell into their hands.
The pagan king Sihtric, and the renegade Turmod endea-
voured also to force the youthful count Richard to apostasy,
and to slay king Lewis. The latter, however, succeeded@in
driving the pagans out of Rouen, the government of which he
intrusted to count Herluin, and, under the pretext of edu-
cating him, took the young Richard with him as a hostage.
Evreux also, of which count Hugh, with the aid of such of its
Norman inhabitants as had remained true to the Christian
faith, had obtained possession, was by him delivered to the
king. Herluin gained a victory over his own and the Nor-
mans’ foe, count Arnulf, slew Balzo the short, the assassin of
count William, and sent the severed hand of the murderer to
the vengeance-breathing inhabitants of Rouen. But their
minds were soon alienated from the king,in consequence of
his reconciliation with count Arnulf?. Osmund, to whom the
education of the young prince had been committed at the
court of Laon, contrived means for the liberation of his pupil.
He spread a report that the youth was sick, which was
followed by intelligence of his death, whereby those appointed

1 By a second and lawful marriage William had no children. His wife
was Leutgardis, a daughter, according to William of Jumiéges (p. 235) of
Heribert, count of Vermandois.

2 Frodoard. a. 943. Dudo, pp. 115, 116. W. Gemmet, lib. iv. ¢. 2.
26 EARLY HISTORY OF NORMANDY.

to keep watch over him were thrown off their guard. Then
having disguised himself, he threw the prince, concealed in a
truss of hay, across a horse, and with the aid of Ivo of Creully,
a royal archer}, passed out from the walls of Laon and con-
veyed him to the castle of Coucy?, the lord of which, Bernard
of Senlis, the young prince’s maternal uncle, easily prevailed
on count Hugh to afford protection to the fugitive.

An alliance between Hugh and the Normans? was the im-
mediate consequence of this determination, and the result of
the alliance was an attack by the Normans on Brittany, where
many battles were fought with bitter animosity, in which the
recently arrived Danes particularly distinguished themselves.
These had for some time past taken up their quarters in the
Cotentin and Bayeux, and soon received a leader named
Harald, said to be the renowned Danish king, surnamed Bla-
tand (Black-tooth). Lewis with count Arnulf had made a
second inroad into Normandy and, after a feeble resistance,
rendered himself master of Rouen. Many Normans fied
across the sea, in search of other settlements or to procure
aid from their ancient home‘. Hugh had in the mean time
marched against Bayeux, which the king had granted to him,
provided he would aid him in subduing the Normans. To
avert the peril to which his country was thus exposed, Ber-
nard of Senlis devised the following stratagem. While his
emissaries were seeking aid in Denmark, he appeared before
the king, to bring him the homage of the Normans. Lewis
received him graciously, proceeded to Rouen, and even took
up his quarters in Bernard’s house. His troops had orders
to preserve the strictest discipline. In the mean while the

1 “Tvo de Credolio, regis balistarius.”” Ord. Vit. p. 619.

? Dudo, pp. 117 sq. W. Gemmet. lib. iv. c. 5. compared with Ord. Vitalis,
pp. 619 sg. Pluquet (Rom. de Rou, p. 161.) remarks that Coucy was a
castle belonging to the archbishop of Rheims; though, as Rheims itself
often was at that time, it might have been in the hands of the king’s
enemies.

3 Frodoard, a. 944. + Frodoard, 1. ¢. Dudo, p. 121.
EARLY HISTORY OF NORMANDY. 27

crafty Bernard persuaded Lewis to believe that the Normans
would rather be united under the crown of France than see
their country divided; that all would rather obey the king
than that a part of them should be under his vassal, Hugh.
Hereupon Lewis, in his eagerness to become master of all
Normandy, instantly commanded Hugh to withdraw his forces
from the country, and distributed several fiefs among his
Frankish courtiers. The count of Paris obeyed, but seeing
himself deprived of the fruits of his undertaking by a prince
who would reap them alone, he resolved on vengeance. He
had an interview with the count of Senlis and engaged to
labour for the young count’s re-establishment. While all this
was passing, the desired succours from Denmark arrived, or
had newly equipped themselves at Cherbourg, under Harald,
who, as we have seen, was no other than the Danish monarch
of that name!. Harald, we are informed, landed at the
mouth of the Dive, and was received as a deliverer. War-
riors from all sides hastened to unite themselves with the
chosen band brought by the Dane to the aid of their prince.
Harald’s progress was soon such as to compel the king to
march against him with his vanguard. The royal camp is
described as being most costly and splendid; but a body of
good troops would have rendered better service than tents
radiant with gold?. Not daring to hazard a battle, Lewis
had recourse to negotiation. Harald’s men had already
crossed the Dive, when the two kings met in a tent raised on
the river's bank. But the French knew not the foe they
were trusting. Some Normans, who observed, among the
followers of the king, the count of Ponthieu, Herluin, whose
side had been espoused by count William, and who had been
the innocent cause of his murder, upbraided him bitterly for
taking part with their enemy. From offensive words they
proceeded to violence. Herluin and his brother Lantbert

} Will, Gemmet. lib. iv. c. 6. 2 Benoit de Ste More.
28 EARLY HISTORY OF NORMANDY.

were slain, and the conflict between the followers of the two
kings became general. They slaughtered each other instead
of negotiating ; and the French, being taken by surprise, for

the most part perished. Lewis fell into the hands of the
Danes, but contrived to escape, and fled to an island in the
Seine; but no sooner was his hiding-place discovered than
he was recaptured, and would have remained long in durance,
had not count Hugh come to his aid, and had they not feared
the vengeance of the emperor Otto. He did not, however,
regain his liberty until, in a solemn assembly, he had sworn
to make no further claims to the government of Normandy,
and to require from the count only the simple homage!.
Lewis then returned home, leaving as hostages his sons,
Lothair and Carloman, the latter of whom died shortly after,
besides the bishops of Soissons and Beauvais and many French
lords. Some time after, Lewis acknowledged the indepen-
dence of Normandy in a yet more solemn assembly, in which
both nations were represented by those who constituted the
council of the two princes. Their last meetings had been
disgraced by base treachery; the Normans experienced per-
fidy on the Somme, they requited it on the Dive; but this
time, at St.Clair-sur-Epte, Richard remained on the Norman
bank and Lewis on the French side, and thus concluded an
agreement with the river between them. On the spot where
Normandy had been ceded to Rolf, the king of France re-
newed the cession to his grandson, in return for a simple
feudal homage?. Dukes, bishops, counts, and abbots of
France swore to the maintenance of this compact. On the
opposite bank, the lords of Normandy and Brittany swore
fealty to Richard. In his relation of this act, Dudo makes

1 Dudo, p. 123. W.Gemmet. p. 242, Wace,i. p. 188. Frodoard,
Benoit de Ste More.

2 Dudo (p. 128), makes Hugh to say: “‘Richardus nec regi nec duci
militat, nec ulli, nisi Deo, obsequi preestat. Tenet, sicuti rex, monarchiam
Northmannice regionis.”’
EARLY HISTORY OF NORMANDY. 29

mention of the higher clergy among the king of France’s fol-
lowers, while among the Normans he speaks only of laymen’.
This confirms the remark previously made with reference to
the members of the Norman council under the first princes.
One historian alleges, that, in virtue of this treaty, the fron-
tier of Normandy was extended from the Andelle to the
Epte?; but when they concluded the treaty on the Epte, as
in the time of Rolf, it is sufficiently evident that that river
was always the boundary of Normandy. Also when William
Longsword would leave the Normans to proceed to France,
Bernard the Dane declared that he would not follow him be-
yond the Epte, which plainly shews that the French territory
commenced at that river. The Normans now placed them-
selves under the count of Paris, who appointed as his repre-
sentative Radulf Torta, son of Gautier, bishop of Paris, but
who, in consequence of his excessive severity towards, and ill
treatment of Richard, was driven from Rouen3.

Soon after his liberation from the hands of the Normans,
the miserable Lewis fell into the power of count Hugh, by
whom he was imprisoned at Laon. On his release, through
the intervention of the king of England, Eadmund, he and
his queen, Gerberge, entered into a combination with her
brother, the German king Otto, the object of which was to
proceed against Paris, Senlis, and Rouen‘. In this they were
joined by the count of Flanders. At the head of a chosen
army Otto appeared before Rouen, of which, being strongly
defended by its position, he was unable to gain possession
before the severity of winter commenced, and compelled him

1 « Tpse (rex) et omnes episcopi, comites et abbates reverendi, princi-
pesque Francie regni...... ”:-and “ proceres Britonum et optimates
Northmanni.” Dudo, p. 126.

2 Additam. ad W. Gemmet. p. 316.

3 Dudo, p.127. W. Gemmet. lib. iv. c. 6. From these it appears that
he was neither a royal official, nor a Norman.

4 Dudo, p.130. Frodoard, a. 946. Wittekind, lib. iii. Contin. Regin.
a.946. Balderic, lib. i.
30 EARLY HISTORY OF NORMANDY.

to return to Saxony. In this expedition Otto sustained a
painful loss in the death of his nephew!, who fell under the
swords of the Normans. Yet this triumph did not immedi-
ately lead to the independence of Normandy, as Hugh still
appears as its suzerain, perhaps also as Richard’s guardian ®.

RICHARD I.
SURNAMED SANS PEUR.

Soon afterwards, an investiture took place, whereby, on
the bank of the Epte, Lewis confirmed to count Richard the
territories formerly granted to his ancestor Rolf%. After the
death of king Lewis IV. (954) and of Hugh the Great (956),
Richard received the hand of Emma, the daughter of the
latter’, and sister of the future king, Hugh Capet. But even
this connection did not establish a good understanding be-
tween the French princes and the Norman. Count Theobald
(Thibaut) of Chartres, Tours, and Blois, who had espoused
the lawful, but childless wife of William Longsword, raised
against him great dissensions with king Lothair, the son and
successor of Lewis d’Outremer, with the queen mother Ger-
berge, and her brother, the archbishop of Cologne. It is
said that even a plot was laid against the life of Richard5.
An assembly of the states at Soissons having been proclaimed
by Lothair, Richard attempted by violence to prevent their
meeting, but his people were dispersed and put to flight by
the faithful followers of the king. In the following year he
was more fortunate in totally defeating count Theobald, who
fled to Gerberge and her son for protection against Richard

1 His name does not occur.

2 In a charter of 968, Richard says: “cum assensu senioris mei Hu-
gonis, Francorum principis.” Bouquet, ix. p. 731. “ Hugo, collecta
suorum, Nordmannorumque manu, Suessionicam aggreditur urbem.”
Frod. aa. 948, 949. “Hugo, magnus princeps Francorum, Burgundio-
num, Britonum atque Northmannorum.” Annal. Floriac. a. 956.

3 Dudo, p. 126.

4 Frodoard, a.960. Dudo, p. 136. 5 Dudo, p. 137,
EARLY HISTORY OF NORMANDY. 31

and his powerful brother-in-law, the count of Paris!. Lothair
succeeded in taking the city of Evreux, which he granted to
the count of Chartres, and Theobald advanced as far as
Rouen, but was again defeated by Richard, who had in the
mean while had recourse to the Danes for aid. An armament
of these soon appeared in the Seine, and their presence accele-
rated the restoration of a long-desired peace. Evreux was
delivered back to Richard, and the newly arrived Danes pro-
ceeded to Spain, whence, after committing great devastation,
they are said to have crossed to Africa.

Richard appears now on friendly terms with Lothair, and
composed the difference between him and the younger Arnulf
of Flanders, when the king had already taken possession of
Arras and Douay, the abbey of St. Amand and all the country
as far as the Lys?.

Shortly after died Richard’s consort, Emma, by whom he
had no children; but the death of the countess caused no
interruption to his friendly relations with Hugh Capet, even
after the latter had assumed the kingly crown. Count Adel-
bert of Vermandois, who had refused to acknowledge the new
dynasty (986), but yet feared an attack from the king, was
induced by Richard, through the negotiations of his future
biographer, Dudo, dean of St. Quentin, to submit to the royal
authority.

The latter days of the long reign of Richard were dedicated
to the strengthening of the newly acquired lands. Even a
war with England (991) shows, through the mediation of the
pope’, that the thought of expelling the Normans from those
parts, whence they were soon to conquer the south of Italy
and threaten the Castle of St. Angelo itself, could be no
longer entertained. The intermixture of the northern set-

1 Frodoard, aa. 961, 962, Dudo, p. 141.

2 Dudo, p.155. Comp. with Frodoard, a. 965. Chron. Tornacense
S. Martini, a. 966. ap. Bouquet, viii. p. 284.

3 On this war see Engl. under the A. S. Kings, ii. p. 153 sq.
32 EARLY HISTORY OF NORMANDY.

tlers with Roman-Christian Europe may be inferred from
Richard’s great ecclesiastical foundations and donations. He
restored and enlarged the abbey of Fécamp, which a hundred
and fifty years before had been destroyed by the Northmen,
and to which he invited St. William, for the purpose of intro-
ducing the rule of Cluny’. William continued there thirty
years (ob. 1031), and became, after the superintendence of
other monastic institutions of the country had been intrusted
to him, the founder of the Benedictine rule in those parts.
At an earlier period, Richard, with the confirmation of king
Lothair and of pope John XIIL., restored the abbey of Mont
St. Michel?, and placed in it monks, instead of secular clergy.
He also reconstructed the church of St. Ouen at Rouen. ~To
the abbey of St. Denis he confirmed the village of Berneval
in the district of Talou, or Tellau (Arques), which his grand-
father, Robert, had bestowed on that foundation3. Even the
abbey of St. Benignus at Dijon received from him a village
with the church of St. Adelbert at Hiesmes‘.

Of the year of Richard’s death the notices are very varying,
a circumstance perhaps to be accounted for by the like name
of his successor. His death probably took place on the 20th
Nov. 996°; unless in that year he resigned the government
in favour of his son, and did not die until 1002. The preach-
ing of his monks had reduced the grandson of Rolf to a state

1 This took place only under Richard II. See Monast. Angl. vi. p.
1082; also Chron. S. Benigni Divion. ap. d’Achéry, Spiceleg. i. pp. 444
Sq., 450 sq.

2 See charter of king Lothair of 966 ap. Bouquet, ix. p. 629.

3 See charter in Bouquet, ix. p. 731, in which besides his wife, Emma,
his “ fideles Osmundus et Radulfus” are named.

4 Chron. S. Benigni, lib. i. p. 445.

® Necrolog. Fiscannense. A later MS. of the Sax. Chron, says 994.
996, Florent. Ademar Caban, ap. Bouquet, x. p. 146. Access. Rob. de
Monte, ib. 269. Chron. S. Michaelis in periculo maris, ib. 247, W.
Gemmet. lib. iv. c. 20. Ord. Vitalis, p. 459. Dudo alone has 1002.
Malmesbury (p. 269) places Richard’s death in the eighteenth year of the
reign of king Aithelred, i.e. 1006.
EARLY HISTORY OF NORMANDY. 33

of such deep contrition, that he considered himself unworthy
of a grave within the church, but desired to be buried with-
out the walls, under the eaves.

After the death of Emma, Richard espoused Gunnor, a lady
of a distinguished Danish race!. By her he had five sons
and three daughters, of whom may be mentioned: his suc-
cessor of the like name; Robert, count of Evreux, raised
while very young to the archiepisccpal see of Rouen; Emma,
to whom the distinction was allotted of becoming the wife of
an Anglo-Saxon king, Aithelred II., and afterwards, as that
prince’s widow, the still greater one of sharing the throne of
Cnut, the mighty ruler of the North; lastly Hedvige, the
consort of Geoffrey, count of Brittany.

RICHARD II.
SURNAMED THE GOOD.

Tue youth of Richard IJ. was to his country no less a
source of peril than that of his father had been, though
arising from a totally different cause. The exactions of the
Norman barons weighed heavily on the peasant, who still re-
membered the time when, bound to his lord only for services
and dues, he suffered little by imposts, tolls, privileges of the
chase, and otlier restrictions on traffic, as well as on the rights
of common. When the arbitrary will of the noble, which did
not find full scope for itself in the country, acquired greater
liberty after the death of the old count, the peasantry also
attempted, by a combination of their powers, to relieve them-
selves from their iniquitous burthens. They held meetings
in various parts of the country, from each of which they sent
two deputies to a place of assembly in a central spot. The
combination was discovered before it came to an outbreak.
Count Raoul, Richard’s uncle, surrounded and seized the

1 William of Jumiéges (Lib. viii. c. 36) relates that he did not marry her
till after the birth of several children, with whom Wace (Rom. de Rou,
vv. 5402-5766) agrees. Dudo is silent on the subject of Gunnor.

D
34 EARLY HISTORY OF NORMANDY.

deputies during their deliberations, caused their hands and
feet to be cut off, and sent them to their several villages as
living warnings to all similarly disposed!.

With equal success an insurrection meditated by William,
count of Hiesmes, an elder son of Richard I. by a concubine,
was suppressed?. In this instance, too, count Raoul’s ener-
getic conduct prevented a yet greater evil than the one already
mentioned, by causing the rebel to be seized and east into
the tower of Rouen; from which, five years after, he made
his escape, and availed himself of his liberty to seek his bro-
ther and prince at the chase, throw himself at his feet and
pray for pardon. Richard, whose proved goodness of heart
had earned for him the surname of the Good, received him
kindly, bestowed on him the county of Eu, together with the
hand of the beautiful Leceline, daughter of the noble Turketil ;
from which union descended an illustrious race.

The young count, from the beginning of his reign, followed
in the footsteps of his father, by closely attaching himself to
the king and the clergy, a policy which proved so successful,
that, through his influence over king Robert, he became
almost the ruler of France. When after the death of Henry,
duke of Burgundy, that duchy was claimed by king Robert,
it was Richard, who, with thirty thousand men, supplied him
the means of seizing it (1003%). Shortly after (1006) he
entered into an alliance with the king and the emperor,
Henry II., against Baldwin IV. of Flanders, and took part
in the siege of Valenciennes?.

While Richard appears as the chief stay of the new Capetian

1 W. Gemmet. lib.v. c.2. The Roman de Rou is here highly interest-
ing (see vv. 5975 sqq.).

2 In 998, according to the Histoire des Grands Officiers de la Couronne ;
or 997, according to M. Le Prevost, Roman de Rou, p. 313.

3 Rad. Glaberi, lib. ii. c.8. Hist. Episcop. Autisid. ap. Scriptt. Rer.
Franc. x. p.171. W. Gemmet. lib. v. ¢.15. Chron. Hugon. Floriac. lib. i.
p. 221. Chron. S. Petri Vivi Senon. ib. p. 222.

4 Sigebert. a. 1006. Balderici Chron. Camerac. lib. i. cc. 33, 114.
EARLY HISTORY OF NORMANDY. 35

dynasty and of the kingdom of France, he did not neglect to
strengthen his relations with the Northern kingdoms. The
hand of his sister Emma he had bestowed on king Aithelred,
and the massacre of the Danes on St. Brice’s night! did not
excite him to take an active part in their retributive expedi-
tions against England. To this he might feel the less dis-
posed, as the Danish pirates had not always spared his
shores?. Nevertheless, the visit of the Danish king, Svend
Tveskizeg, and his suite to Rouen, was received by the count
with the splendour befitting the brillianey of his court.
Richard would not engage in a war against the consort of his
sister, and saw a better prospect of reward for his exertions
in the pursuit of his interests in France. However, on the
strength of the Danish king’s promise on oath, that his war-
riors should not annoy the French coasts, he granted per-
mission to the Danes to dispose of their plunder in his
dominions, as well as the reception and entertainment by his
subjects of wounded Danes?.

In a war, which ensued on the death of Matilda, a sister
of Richard, who had been married to Eudes (Odo) count of
Chartres, on account of the restoration of the town of Dreux,
which had been assigned her as a dowry, Richard resolved on
calling to his aid two Northern chieftains, who had accom-
panied king Svend on his last expedition to England: one of
these was named Lagman, and called king of Sweden, the other
Olaf, called king of Norway’. A hundred years had passed

! See England under the A. S. Kings, ii. p. 165.

2 Sax. Chron. Flor. Wigorn. a. 1000.

3 W. Gemmet. lib. v. c. 7.

4 Comp. England under the A. S. Kings, ii. p.178. (Lagman is the
name of an office, Angl. lawman. The king of Sweden at this time was
Olaf Skotkonung. Depping and Prevost (Rom. de Rou, i. p. 346) er-
roneously take the Olaf here mentioned for Olaf Tryggvason, not recol-
lecting that he was slain in the year 1000. (This error is corrected in the
Danish translation.) These events must have taken place about 1013, and
Olaf, the future saint, did not attain the crown till 1015. He was, more-

p2
36 EARLY HISTORY OF NORMANDY.

since duke Rolf received holy baptism, when count Richard
and his brother Robert, archbishop of Rouen, prevailed on
king Olaf, son of Harald Greenski, and descendant of Harald
Harfagri, to enter, as his predecessor, Olaf Tryggvason, had
done in England, into the bosom of the church, in which he
afterwards acquired the glorious titles of saint and martyr.
How Richard gave a hospitable reception to his sister, queen
tlfgifu-Emma, and her sons, when a fugitive from England,
as well as to her consort, king Athelred, and how, through
the hand of Emma, he became the brother-in-law of the great
Anglo-Danish soveréign, has been already related!. Richard’s
friendly relation to the Danes proved also of service to the
French, a proof of which appears in the restoration, through
his influence, to her husband, count Wido of Limoges, of the
countess Emma, after a confinement of three years, who had
been captured by the Danes when on a pilgrimage to Mont
St. Michel 2.

Not long after the settlement of the quarrel between Ri-
chard and Eudes respecting Dreux, through the mediation of
king Robert, conformably to which the town was ceded to the
latter, but the surrounding land, together with Tilliéres (still
a frontier place of Normandy), was adjudged to the former,
a new war burst out between these if not kindred, yet closely
connected princely families. A vassal of count Eudes, a
knight named Walter, had contrived to gain possession of the
castle of Melun, belonging to count Burchard of Corbeil and
Melun, and had delivered it over to his feudal lord. The ©
king commissioned count Richard to settle the dispute, but
Eudes refused to appear at his summons, because he could
be judged only by an assembly of his peers. Hereupon

over, already a Christian, having been baptized in his infancy by his rela-
tive, king Olaf Tryggvason. The chieftains here in question were pro-
bably two petty Scandinavian potentates from Ireland.—T.}

1 See England under the A. S. Kings, ii. pp. 180, 199.

? Ademar. Caban. ap. Bouquet, x. p. 151.
EARLY HISTORY OF NORMANDY. 37

Richard with his Normans laid siege to Melun, which held out
for some time, but was at length compelled to yield to the
well-directed missiles of the besiegers, which played on them
both by day and night.

Even in his latter years Richard appears as the maintainer
of the tranquillity of France, and the avenger of injured
friends. His daughter, Adeliz, was married to count Reinold
of Upper Burgundy, son of the powerful Otto William, the
great ‘archeount’ on both sides of the Jura. By treachery
Hugh, count of Chartres and bishop of Auxerre, got posses-
sion of Reinold’s person (1024), cast him into strict confine-
ment, and dismissed with insult the envoys of Richard, who
demanded the release of the captive. Richard hereupon
assembled a considerable army, the command of which he
intrusted to his son of like name. A free passage to Bur-
gundy was effected by amicable negotiation, by which the
count of the Vexin acquired many considerable villages in
Normandy. But a brighter glory awaited the sacrifices and
subsequent exertions of the campaign. The capture of the
castle of Mirmande in the Alps was afterwards numbered
among the most brilliant feats of arms of the Normans; and
bishop Hugh, seeing further resistance vain, cast himself with
the profoundest humility and a horse’s saddle on his back,
at the feet of the youthful victor, and made vows and gave
hostages for the liberation of Reinold'.

Successfully as Richard thus strove to increase the strength
and consideration of his dominion, we must nevertheless ac-
knowledge that much of its most preeminent glory consisted
in its numerous and valiant chivalry, which, even without the
guidance of their prince, in the manner of their forefathers,
could gain brilliant military fame and rewards, even crowns
more precious than that of the count of Rouen. Among

1 W. Gemmet. lib. v. c. 16, says, “ Milinandum seu Milbrandum.”
Hen. Huntend. lib. vi. p. 762, and Rom. de Rou, v. 7340, “‘ Mirmande.”*
38 EARLY HISTORY OF NORMANDY.

these Roger of Toesny, son of Ralf, of the race of Malahulk’,
a paternal brother of Rolf, is the first to be named, who in
Spain, with unsurpassed valour, but unheard of cruelty, fought
against the Arabs, and obtained the hand of Stephania,
daughter of the count Raymond Borrel and the widowed
countess of Barcelona, Ermensede. Of this Roger contempo-
rary writers relate, that he caused his Moorish prisoners to
eat their fellow Moslems, after they had been slaughtered like
swine, cut into pieces and boiled. But fortune was not always
favourable to him; even in Barcelona he found enviers and
enemies; and count Richard felt that he had cause to call
him to account for the number of his faithful vassals that he
had sacrificed to his ambition. But Roger, nevertheless,
became reconciled with the count, before whose death he
returned to Normandy?.

Attended with greater results, although humbler in its
beginning, was the establishment of Radulf or Raoul’, another
Norman, in the south of Italy, whom a pilgrimage to Jeru-
salem led through that country and to the church on mount
Gargano, dedicated to St. Michael the archangel, the highly
venerated patron of Normandy. Here, with others invited
from Normandy, he was engaged in military service by two
native knights, Melo di Bari and Dattus, and, encouraged by
pope Benedict VIII., proceeded against Apulia, where, near
Capua, they gained a victory over the Greeks, but were after-
wards defeated by Basilius, and many of them sent prisoners
to Constantinople. This event afforded occasion to the mi-
gration of many other Normans to Naples, whose duke ceded
the town of Aversa to the Norman Rainolf. This cession was
followed by greater acquisitions, the beginning and extension
of which, as far as they concern the Franco-Normans, will be

1 See Genealogy No. I. at the end of the volume.

2 Ademar. Caban. ap. Bouquet, x. p. 151, Chron. St. Petri Vivi Senon.
Ib. p. 223.

3 Ademar. a.1016. Rad. Glaber. lib. iii. c.1. Chron. S. Petri Senon. lib. i.
EARLY HISTORY OF NORMANDY. 39

glanced at hereafter. Here, however, mention must be made
of Tancred of Hauteville, a knight attached to the court of
duke Richard, who, through the valour and might with which he
slew a wild boar, acquired both that prince’s favour and many
valiant followers, but his greatest fame through those sons,
whom he had formed after his own model, and to whom, as
meeds of valour, no less prizes were awarded than Apulia,
Calabria and Sicily. Robert Guiscard, William Iron-arm,
and Roger, were the sons of this fortunate man. Thus, as
Scandinavia. had, a century before, been an inexhaustible re-
eeptacle of plunderers, threatening the well-being of the
several European states, until Normandy afforded a home to
those fierce and restless spirits, so was now Normandy itself
in a similar condition, which threatened not only its own
prince, and all the more flourishing states, but most of all
France, with the greatest perils. Apulia was now the salva-
tion of Normandy, Benevento afterwards saved Apulia, and,
finally, England rescued France from the power of the Nor-
mans,

Richard died (1026) while still in the flower of life, after a
reign of thirty years? the vigour and wisdom of which needed
not the panegyrics of the monks, but which the benevolent
and pious disposition of the prince equally merited and re-
ceived. The abbey of St. Wandrille, or Fontenelle, that had
been destroyed by the Northmen, he caused to be rebuilt,
and richly endowed it; he founded the abbey of St. Maurice
at Evreux, and his wife, Judith®, that at Bernay. Foreign
churches also received from him valuable donations. Monks
from mount Sinai came annually to Rouen to fetch, from
him as well as from his predecessors, costly presents. To

1 Gaufred. Malaterra, lib. i. c. 40. |

2 Flor. Wigorn. a. 1026. Tigernach, a. 1027, where he is designated
“rex Francorum.”

3 Monast. Angl. vi. pp. 1063, 1107. Bouquet, x. p. 235. See also d’Achery,
Spicileg. i. p. 460.
40 EARLY HISTORY OF NORMANDY.

the monks at the grave of the Saviour in Jerusalem he gave
a hundred pounds in gold, and aided and protected all pious
pilgrims on their journey thither}. Seeing the end of his
days drawing nigh, he called to him his brother Robert, arch-
bishop of Rouen, and the Norman barons, at Fécamp. With
their counsel?, he conferred Normandy on his eldest son,
Richard, and the county of Hiesmes on Robert, his second
son. Both these were his children by Judith, a daughter of
Conan, count of Brittany, and sister of his brother-in-law,
Geoffrey, by whose pilgrimage to Jerusalem and premature
death (1008), the guardianship of his sons, Alan and Eudes,
devolved on Richard, who, consequently, ruled over that pro-
vince as his own®. In two other sons of Richard, the old
predilection of the Norman counts for the clergy manifested
itself in their choice of a vocation; of these, William died a
monk at Fécamp, Mauger, the other, succeeded his uncle in
the archbishopric of Rouen ; but of which he proved so little
worthy, that his deposition became a matter of necessity. Of
Richard’s daughters, one, the countess of Burgundy, has been
already mentioned; another was married to Baldwin, count
of Flanders. Mauger, and also a second William, count of
Archies, were sons by a second wife named Papia, whom
Richard espoused after the death of Judith in 1017+.

RICHARD III.

Tue reign of the youthful Richard III. was of short dura-
tion. His Burgundian campaign had afforded ground for the
most favourable hopes, and he appears to have flattered him-

1 Rad. Glaber, lib, i. c. 5.

2 « Consulta sapientum.” W. Gemmet. lib. v. c.17.

3 The marriage contract of Richard and Judith is preserved in Martene,
Anecdot. i. p. 122, and in extract in Scr. Fr. x. p.188. She founded a
cloister at Bernay near Lisieux, concerning which there is a charter of
Richard II. cited in Scr. Fr. x. p. 235. According to the Gesta Cons.
Andegav, Ibid. p. 255, Judith had been already married and was a widow.

4 Access, Rob. de Monte, ap. Scr. Fr. x. p. 270. Ord. Vitalis, lib. v. 45.
EARLY HISTORY OF NORMANDY. 41

self with the idea that the king of France, Robert, would
give him to wife his daughter, Adele, who had previously
been promised to Baldwin count of Flanders'. The refractory
spirit of his brother Robert compelled the count to besiege
him in his town of Falaise; but a peace was concluded
between them, and shortly after Richard died of poison?. The
general suspicion fell upon Robert, as the perpetrator or in-
stigator of the misdeed, on whom, after his brother’s death
(Aug. 6, 1028), the government of the state devolved3.
Richard left a very young son, named Nicholas, whom we
must regard as illegitimate, it being hardly credible that the
chroniclers of the time would have omitted all mention of
Richard’s lawful marriage. After his father’s death he was
placed in a monastery, and died as abbot of St. Ouen at
Rouen in 1092. [Illegitimacy would have been no bar to his
pretensions to the succession of his father ; but the cause of
his exclusion is, perhaps, rather to be sought for in the prin-
ciple which, setting minors aside, called the next relation of
mature age to the government of the state.

~ ROBERT IU.

SURNAMED THE DEVIL.

Roserr appears to have been sufficiently designated by
the surname of “The Devil,” which was bestowed on him
in an age when that name was not wont to be a subject
for jesting. At the outset of his government he met with
considerable opposition through and on the part of his
uncle, the archbishop of Rouen, who maintained himself

1 A marriage contract of January 1027 is printed in d’Achery, Spicileg.
iii. p. 390. Bouquet, x. p. 270. Richard here styles himself dux ; but in a
charter of 1024, in Monast. Angl. vi. p.1108: Ricardus filius comes.

2 W. Gemmet. lib. vi. c. 2. Ademar Caban. p. 161. The year of Richard's
death cannot be 1027, as his successor, Robert, in November 1032, was in
the fifth year of his reign. Monast. Angl. vi. 1073.

3 W. Malm. p. 294.
42 EARLY HISTORY OF NORMANDY.

against him with arms in Evreux, and, after the capture of
that place, fled to the king of France. Against William of
Belesme, who had fortified himself in Alencon, Robert was
more successful, that noble having made his submission in
the most humiliating manner, bearing a saddle on his back,
and barefooted; whereupon he was re-invested with his town'.
Hugh, bishop of Bayeux, a son of Raoul, count of Ivry, a step-
brother of count Richard I., also ceased from the resistance
he had offered to his authority, and laid down his arms. In
the meanwhile the king of France had given his daughter,
Adele, in marriage to the younger Baldwin of Flanders, who,
feeling elated at his fortune, drove the count his father, the
uncle of Robert, from his country. The old count took
refuge in Rouen, where he was kindly received by his nephew,
who performed the part of his avenger both willingly and
vigorously. Robert’s cousin also, Alan of Brittany, rose
against him, over whom Robert is said to have gained a
victory in Brittany, but which is liable to great doubt, as
Alan had invaded Avranches, but from which county he was
expelled by Néel of St. Sauveur and Auvrai-le-Géant?.

In his relations with the king of France, Robert followed
in the footsteps of his forefathers. When, on the death of
king Robert (1031), his widow, Constance, strove to place
her son Robert on the throne, instead of Henry, her first-
born, the latter fled to the count of the Normans at Fécamp.
Robert received his liege lord hospitably and honourably,
assembled his forces under his uncle Mauger, established the
king in his realm, and compelled his brother to be satisfied
with the dukedom of Burgundy. Count Robert received,
with the concurrence of count Drogo of Mantes, in recom-
pense for his services, the Vexin with Pontoise and Chaumont.
Corbeil was granted to the valiant Mauger?.

} W. Gemmet. lib. vi. c. 4, and Rom. de Rou, vv. 7591 sq.

2 Ibid. lib. vi. c, 8. Rom. de Rou, vv. 7755 sq.
3 Ibid. lib. vi.c.7. Ord. Vital. p. 655. Rom. de Rou, vv. 7685—7752.
EARLY HISTORY OF NORMANDY. 43

Less fortunate was Robert in his relations with England,
as has been already related!. But nothing in his whole career
appears more striking, and, at the same time, more completely
characterizes the violent religious excitement of the time,
than his resolve, in the company of a few knights, among
whom was the brother-in-law of the English king A‘thelred,
Drogo of Mantes?, to make a pilgrimage to Jerusalem, leaving
his duchy to his illegitimate son, William, of tender age, and
his counsellors, and to the protection of the king of France 3.
By the clergy, who were the cause of it, Robert’s determina-
tion was loudly extolled. He died, on his return from Jeru-—
salem, at Nice in Bithynia (July 22,1035), poisoned, according
to tradition, by Raoul, surnamed Mouin‘; whereby Normandy
was plunged into a state of most perilous confusion.

Robert’s violent passions, the suspicion, that hung over
him, of fratricide, his penitence, his romantic pilgrimage, but,
more than all, his renowned son, whom a concubine at Falaise
had borne him, have made him a subject for many stories,
the appreciation of.which we leave to the historians of the
country. In those characteristics, of which we are informed,
his courage, his liberality, his love of jest and merriment, his
sensuality, condescension, and readiness to serve his friends ;
above all his somewhat ostentatious contempt of money and
possessions—in all this the model of a Norman hero is pre-
sented to us. But we may no longer linger over his portrai-
ture, and will merely add, that the best panegyric on his
reign is, that the country, which at first suffered under his
many wars and follies, in his latter years again stood forth
in its pristine might®. His government was much under the
guidance of ecclesiastics, among whom Richard, abbot of

1 See Engl. under the A. S. Kings, ii. p. 217.

2 Ib. p. 231. 3 Rom. de Rou, v. 8127.

4°W. Malm. p. 295. Chron. Fontan. App. ii. ap. @’Achery, Spicileg. iii.
p. 264, edit. 4to.

5 Thid. c. 7.
44 EARLY HISTORY OF NORMANDY.

Verdun, is particularly distinguished!. The founding of a
new abbey, that of St. Vigor at Cerisy near Bayeux, by
Robert the Devil, ought therefore to excite no surprise?. To
the restoration of peace among his vassals the emigrations to
Apulia must have greatly contributed, which relieved the land
of a number of turbulent, ambitious spirits, and, by placing
them in a career of glory, exalted the fame of the Normans,
and rendered the alliances of their prince of greater import-
ance: even the expeditions of individual Normans into Spain
contributed not a little to the acquisition of glory and rich
rewards by valiant men, who were dissatisfied with their
narrow home. Among the most distinguished men that
remained in the country was Serlo, one of the sons of Tan-
cred of Hauteville. He had been banished by duke Robert,
and was a fugitive in Brittany, when that prince laid siege to
Tilligres. Deeply vexed at the prohibition of the duke to his
Normans to accept the challenge of a French knight, he ap-
peared, unknown to his countrymen, with closed visor, before
the champion. He overcame his formidable adversary, and
the duke was soon reconciled with so valiant and noble an
adherent?.

“WILLIAM II.

SURNAMED THE CONQUEROR.

As long as Robert’s return was expected, the Normans
had shown themselves obedient to the count Gilbert of Eu,
son of Godfrey, and a cousin of Robert, by an illegitimate
connection of Richard I.4, whom Robert had appointed go-
vernor of the state and guardian of his young son, William.
But no sooner was the intelligence of Robert’s death spread
abroad, than the before-mentioned Ralf Mouin attempted to

1 Hugonis Flavign. Chron. Verdunense in Ser. Rer. Fr. xi. p. 142.
2 Charter of 1032 in Monast. Angl. vi. p. 1073.

3 Gaufrid. Malaterra, lib. i. c. 38 sq.

4 Guil. Pictav. vii. 2. Ord. Vitalis, p. 656.
EARLY HISTORY OF NORMANDY. 45

seize on the government. If in the beginning his attempt
proved unsuccessful, he—unless it was another, Ralf of Gassy
(de Waceio), son of archbishop Robert, who died in 1036—
appears shortly after to have attained his object. At Ralf's
instigation, count Gilbert, together with other barons related
to him, also Turold, the prince’s instructor, fell by the hand
of the murderer; whereupon Ralf, supported by no incon-
siderable part of the Norman nobility, was appointed to the
guardianship of William. Still was the opposition of many
barons to the pretensions of these illegitimate branches of
the race of Rolf far from ended, and still less the anarchy
engendered by the never-ceasing feuds of the nobles with
each other. Roger of Toesny, sprung, as before related, from
the noblest Norman race, and who had gained the most re-
nowned name on this side of the Pyrenees, would not serve
the bastard. William was too feeble to extort obedience,
but Roger of Beaumont, son of Humphrey (de Vetulis) and
ancestor of the earls of Warwick®, whose father had suffered
great provocation from Roger, slew both him and his two
sons in a very bloody conflict. Alan V. also, duke of Brit-
tany, whom duke Robert had appointed one of the guardians
of his son, was poisoned during these dissensions; and this
murder, which affected the Normans indiscriminately, was
unjustly attributed to his youthful ward®.

William’s early days were passed amid manifold perils and
privations, which have at all times proved themselves the best
school of princes. Walter, his maternal uncle, sometimes
saved him, while a boy, from the machinations of his enemies,
by conveying him secretly by night from the princely cham-
ber, and concealing him in the huts of the poor. Osbern,
son of Herfast and the countess Gunnor, the prince’s house

1 W. Gemmet. lib. i. ce. 2, 4, 6. 2 Thid. ce. 3, 4.
_ 8 Ord. Vitalis, 9.567. Comp. W. Gemmet. lib. vii. c. 33. It is said
that Alan was poisoned in Brittany, but died in Normandy and was buried
at Fécamp.
46 EARLY HISTORY OF NORMANDY.

steward, was murdered in the apartment of the latter'. The
country was in a condition not less deplorable than that into
which it had been thrown by the murder of William I., only
that it now appeared stronger against external foes. Offensive
warfare was not to be thought of, and it ought not to appear
extraordinary that, while their countrymen were. making
brilliant conquests in the South, they did not more efficiently
support the ethelings, Eadward and /#lfred, the sons of
Emma?; an enterprise which, even under other circum-
stances, might have been more politic than grateful to the
Normans, as a friendly relation between Danes and Normans
had outlived even the Teutonic tongue of the latter.

A striking proof of internal weakness was not long want-
ing. King Henry I. of France availed himself of the oppor-
tunity of humiliating a vassal, whose very friendship and pro-
tection seemed dangerous to him, by demanding from the
Norman prince the demolition of the castle of Tilliéres.
Gilbert Crespin, who had been invested with the castle by
duke Robert, resisted this demand, with which, nevertheless,
the government at Rouen resolved to comply, and to join
their forces with the king’s, for the purpose of delivering into
his hand the key of their country. Gilbert Crespin was forced
to submit, and the king ordered the castle to be demolished,
after having given assurances on oath that it should not be
reconstructed within four years. But he very soon found
occasion for a war, invaded the country of Hiesmes, and
caused Tilliéres to be fortified anew. Falaise also seemed
on the eve of being lost, when Turstin, surnamed Goz, the
son of Anstrid the Dane, with the aid of the royal forces,
raised the standard of rebellion; but Ralf of Gassy, hasten-
ing to its relief with a body of valiant men, put him to

1'W. Gemmet. lib. vii. c. 2. “ Oshernus, procurator principalis domus.”
Ord. Vital. p. 655. “ Normanniz dapifer.”’

? See Engl. under the A. S. Kings, ii. p. 225.

3 W. Gemmet. lib. vii. c. 5.
EARLY HISTORY OF NORMANDY. 47

flight, and preserved the rock-built town to its youthful
master'.

The history of the endless feuds of the Norman barons
among themselves, during the minority of William the Bastard,
belongs to the provincial history of the country. Although
it may present to us the illustrious names of Montfort, Mont-
gomery, and other noble races, to contemplate whose splen-
dour in its first forth-bursting beams, must ever afford delight
to their latest posterity; yet is it instructive to us only by
showing how the Norman nobility, kept remote from all effe-
minacy, and passing their youth in the use of arms, never
lost the character of a warlike class. Of greater importance
was the war which Guy, the second son of Adelais, or Alix,
whom her brother, Richard III., had married to Rainaud,
count of Burgundy, raised against William. The partisans
of the latter had hoped to satisfy count Guy by the grant of
Brionne? and Vernon; but notwithstanding the customary
exclusion of the female line, the pretensions of the nearest
legitimate descendant found powerful support. Nigel, vis-
count of Coutances ; Ranulf, viscount of Bayeux ; Hamon-aux
Dents, lord of Thorigny; Grimoult of Le Plessis, and other
powerful barons, particularly from the independent territories
of the Cotentin and Bessin, declared in favour of Guy. But
king Henry, either from some remaining gratitude towards
the Norman prinees, or from a desire to maintain the ac-
knowledged right of succession, or, influenced by the wise
policy of not suffering the Burgundian house to become too
powerful, united his warriors with those of William. At Val-
des-Dunes, not far from Caen, the armies met (1047) and
fought with all the fury of civil strife. The king himself

? W. Gemmet. lib. vii. c. 6.

2 Not St. Brieuc (Dép. Cotes du Nord), as W. Gemmet. (p. 276) has it.

3 Guil. Pictav. p.179. H. Hunt. a.1047. W. Gemmet. lib. vii. c. 17.
W. Malm. p. 393. The Roman de Rou, v. 8743 sqq. is very circum-
stantial on this battle. ;
48 EARLY HISTORY OF NORMANDY.

was unhorsed by a knight of the Cotentin, but escaped un-
hurt, and won a decisive victory. Of thirty thousand parti-
sans of Guy a third part is said to have fallen, among whom
was Hamon. Nigel and Ranulf submitted to the young
count, who immediately besieged Guy in his strong castle of
Brionne, which was protected by the river Risle. After a
protracted siege, it is said of three years’ duration, Guy was
compelled to surrender, and was mildly treated by the con-
queror!; but finding himself an object of hatred and con-
tempt in Normandy, he voluntarily withdrew to Burgundy,
whence, having involved himself in contests with his elder
brother, the reigning count, he was soon expelled, and came
to an uncertain end?.

William soon had an opportunity of requiting the king for
the service rendered him, and of acquiring as much honour
and influence as had ever been enjoyed by any of his fore-.
fathers. He aided the French monarch against the powerful
Geoffrey II., surnamed Martel, count of Anjou, with a nume-
rous army, and displayed in this campaign, as often afterwards,
an almost fool-hardy bravery that excited the admiration of
his contemporaries, which manifested itself in presents of
horses and knightly equipments from the king of Spain, the
dukes of Gascony, the counts of Auvergne and other distant
princes. No long time, however, had elapsed before Geoffrey
sought to take vengeance on the Normans. He marched
through Le Maine, which he governed under the young count
Hugh, and after his death, as administrator during the mi-
nority of his son, Heribert II., and made himself master of
the Norman frontier fortress of Alencon. But William soon
recovered the place, and took cruel vengeance on the garrison,
who had ventured, by beating a skin hung out for show, to

' So Guil. Pictav. p.179. According to Ord. Vital. p. 657. Guy lost
his castles and was banished as an enemy to the country. '

2 Guil. Pictav. (p. 180) and from him W. Malm. p.394. Ord. Vital.
p- 687. :
EARLY HISTORY OF NORMANDY. 49

deride him for being the son of a skinner’s daughter, thereby
proving that the stain of his birth, although overlooked by
the nobility, was always ‘regarded as such by the lower class.
William did not content himself with merely recovering the
town, but entered Le Maine, where he took the strong town
of Domfront, which afterwards remained to Normandy!.
Previously to this war, for the commencement of which his
absence from Normandy (1051) had probably presented an
opportunity, William had visited king Eadward in England.
The moment chosen for this visit, immediately after Eadward’s
rupture with the family of Godwine and the repudiation of
the queen, was selected by William, with the crafty policy,
for which his countrymen are so distinguished, in the hope of
inducing his imbecile relative to make promises with regard
to the succession?. Shortly after, William concluded a mar-
riage (1053) with Matilda, a daughter of Baldwin V., count
of Flanders®, and of the daughter of king Robert, who had
probably been affianced to count Richard IIT., an alliance
which secured him against hostilities in the north of his
dominions, as well as against the prejudicial influence of the
house of Godwine over the court of Bruges. The canonical
obstacles which existed against this marriage, and which

1 W, Gemmet. lib. vii. c.18. G. Pictav. p. 187.

? See Engl. under the A. S. Kings, ii. p. 251.

3 Chron. Turon. a. 1053, [where a wonderful story is told of Williamn’s
method of wooing and winning his bride: “ Then William, duke of Nor-
mandy,” the said chronicle informs us, “ took the daughter of Baldwin,
count of Flanders, to wife, in this manner: after she had been often asked
by her father about receiving a husband, and William of Normandy had
above all others been lauded to her by her father, who had fora long time had
the care of him, she answered, that she would never receive a bastard for
ahusband. Having heard which, duke William, with a few companions,
secretly hastens to Bruges, where the maiden abode, and, as she was re-
turning from church, beats and chastises her with fists, heels, and spurs;
and so, having mounted his horse, returns with his companions to his
country. This having been done, the maiden grieving lies down on her
bed, when her father coming, interrogates and demands of her about

E
50 EARLY HISTORY OF NORMANDY.

called forth a papal interdict, were removed, in the usual way,
by tedious negotiations; they are, nevertheless, rendered
memorable by the circumstance, that the monk who declared
them inviolable was afterwards employed by William as his
negotiator and mediator at the papal court!, and became so
attached to that prince’s interests that, at length, as the
celebrated Lanfranc, he was not alone the only, but also the
all-sufficient, ally, which William, in his later and more active
days, constantly possessed. On the ducal pair was imposed as
an atonement the founding of two abbeys and four hospitals ;
the former, dedicated to St. Stephen and to the holy Trinity,
were erected in the city of Caen; the latter at Rouen, Caen,
Cherbourg and Bayeux.

The capture of Domfront soon gave birth to new quarrels.
The king of France must naturally disapprove of such vio-
lence, which might also afford a pretext to the discontented
vassals of the Norman chief to rise up against him. William,
his paternal uncle, a son of Richard II. and Papia, and bro-
ther of the evil-disposed archbishop Mauger, had been by

receiving a husband, who in answer says, that she will never have a hus-
band save William, duke of Normandy, which was done.”
Philip Mouskes, in his chronicle, tells the same story. According to
him, Matilda answered to her father’s proposal :
“La demoiselle vint avant
Si leur respondi maintenant,
‘J’aim mious estre nonne velée
Que jou soie 4 bastart donnée.

299

The tale, with a variation, has also found its way into the Saga of
St. Eadward, where, in answer to the duke’s proposal, Matilda says:
«« /Brr ertu vallare, er ba hyggr at ek, komin af kontinga ett, munu vilja
giptaz einum bastharse.” Thou art mad, clown, to think that I, sprung
From kings, will marry a bastard. Whereupon William, seizing her by
the hair, felled her to the ground and trampled her under foot, etc. Saga
Jatvardar Konings hins Helga, p. 12. ed. Copenh. 1852.—T.]

1 Lanfranc went to Rome on the business of the dispensation during
the papacy of Leo IX., whose death shortly after (April 1054) probably
withdrew attention from the object, which was only accomplished under
his successor, Nicholas II. (1059-1061.)
EARLY HISTORY OF NORMANDY. 51

him invested with the county of Talou, or Tellau, in which,
on the summit of a steep mountain, he fortified the castle of
Arques!. This turbulent and ambitious man had deserted
his nephew before Domfront, and having allied himself with
other powerful barons, and even with the king of France,
declared war against his nephew, while he was in the Co-
tentin. It cannot now be ascertained how far this war was
in connection with the rebellions of other Norman barons;
yet in these events we may perceive both the uncertain sway
as well as the sagacity and valour of duke William. The
count of Arques was compelled by famine to capitulate, and
ended his days as a fugitive at the court of Eustace, count of
Boulogne, whither he was accompanied by his wife, whose
brother Enguerrand, count of Ponthieu, had fallen at the
siege of Arques; while Hugh Bardolf and other powerful
barons, to the great humiliation of the king, were taken pri-
soners, and, bowed under the weight of a saddle on their
backs, submitted to the victor?.

But there still remained another opponent to be removed.
The archbishop of Rouen had supported his brother, and
William availed himself of this war, to his great benefit, by
deposing the prelate and banishing him to Mont St. Michel,
with the approval of pope Leo IX., who, shortly before his
death, after the unfortunate battle of Civitella (1053), was
obliged to show compliance with all the wishes of the Nor-
mans. A choice, alike favourable to the church and to the
interests of William, was made of Maurile as the successor
to Mauger, who, sprung from a noble family near Rheims,
had at Liege acquired a proficiency in the liberal arts, and
was afterwards teacher of rhetoric in the rich abbey of Hal-

1 Guil. Pictav. p. 184. Chron. Fontan. lib. i. W. Gemmet. lib. vii.
c.7. Ord. Vit. p. 606.

2 Guil. Pictav. p.186. W. Malm. p.398. W. Gemmet. lib. vii. c. 7.
Comp. Prevost, Rom. de Rou, v. 8653 note!. In Malmesbury the name
of Ingelram or Enguerrand is changed to Isembard.

EQ
52 EARLY HISTORY OF NORMANDY.

berstadt; subsequently, at Fécamp and Florence, professed
the strictest Benedictine rule, and thereby opened the path
to ecclesiastical dominion!.

This success was the more extraordinary as, during the
siege of Arques, William was deserted by many of his most
powerful vassals. One of these, Guimond2, delivered his
town of Moulins to the king, to whom the acquisition appeared
of such importance as to induce him to commit it to the
hands of Guy, count of Poitiers, who, through his sister
Agnes, was brother-in-law to the emperor Henry IIJ. The
moment appeared favourable to the French magnates for the
suppression of the Norman rule; and that restless foe of the
Norman name, Geoffrey Martel, count of Anjou, assembled
round the king an army so numerous, from Guienne, Gascony,
Burgundy, and other provinces, that the like had seldom been
seen united under the royal standard. The king’s brothers,
Eudes and Rainaud of Clermont, with the body of troops that
had been raised between the Rhine and the Seine, invaded
the county of Caux, but at Mortemer on the Haulne (1054)
were attacked and almost totally annihilated by the Normans
under Robert, count of Eu, Hugh of Gournay, Hugh of
Montfort, Walter Giffard, William Crespin, who on that day
laid the foundation of that military renown, which was des-
tined shortly after to shine with greater brilliancy beyond
the sea. Guy count of Ponthieu was taken prisoner, but
the greater number were slaughtered ; the remnant with
Eudes saved themselves by flight. William was bitterly irri-
tated at the escape of the leader of the royal forces, Ralf of
Mont Desiré, by the connivance of Roger of Mortemer, who
was bound to him by personal obligations, but paid for his
misdeed with the loss of the town from which he was desig-
nated, which was given to his and William’s relative, William

1 Acta Archiep. Rothom. ap. Mabillon, Vet. Analecta. W. Gemmet.

lib. vii. c. 24. Ord. Vital. p. 566 sq.
2 Guil. Pictav. p.186. Malmesbury (p. 398) calls him Walter.
EARLY HISTORY OF NORMANDY. 53

of Warenne!. With the consideration, which the politic
vassal always manifested towards his suzerain, and with the
view, by a sort of theatrical surprise, of increasing the terror
at such mournful tidings, and turning it to his own advantage,
William sent Ralf of Toesny, who, in the darkness of the
night, from the top of a tree in a spectral voice, announced
his defeat to the king, and commanded him to send carts to
Mortemer, to fetch away the corpses of his army. Henry
retired to the frontier of Normandy, across which he was
followed by the Normans, who two years after, by a treaty
of peace with the king, including a liberation of prisoners,
acquired the land taken from Geoffrey of Anjou, whereby was
probably meant only the small territory of Passais, the capital
of which, Domfront, had been taken at an earlier period.
William thereupon resolved to extend the frontiers of his
territory to Ambriéres, not far from Mayenne, and there to
erect a strong fortress. In the spirit of chivalry, or bravado,
he announced his design to the count of Anjou forty days
before its commencement. The fortress was completed, and
the combined forces of the count, of count William of Poitiers,
and duke Eudes of Brittany, were unable to capture it.
They therefore withdrew when duke William with his banner
appeared before them, and Geoffrey of Mayenne found him-
self under the necessity of placing his hands between those of
the conqueror and swearing fealty to him?.

But this victory of William’s had only new wars for its
consequences. As soon as fresh forces could be collected, for
which purpose some years seem hardly to have sufficed, king
Henry joined Geoffrey Martel in an invasion secretly planned
of Normandy, in which they ravaged with fire and sword
the county of Hiesmes, without meeting with any resistance.

1 Ord. Vital. pp. 639, 658. Huntingdon relates (a. 1054) that “Rad-
ulphus camerarius, princeps exercitus Francorum,” fell at Mortemer.

2 Guil. Pictav. p. 187 (Maseres, pp. 61, 62). W. Gemmet. lib. vii. cc. 18,
24. Rom. de Rou, vv. 9909 sqq.
54 EARLY HISTORY OF NORMANDY.

They were already boasting that they would march through
Normandy undisturbed as far as the coast and then abandon
it, when they reached the Dive, which a part of the royal
army crossed at a ford. Here William, availing himself of
the moment when the flood from the sea prevented the re-
mainder of the army from crossing, attacked those that had
passed over, and massacred them before the eyes of the king.
The astounded monarch fled together with the count of An-
jou. Neither of them saw Normandy again, both dying shortly
after (1060), when that country enjoyed some respite from
the horrors of war. A consequence of this disaster was the
restoration of Tilliéres to William, which had been taken by
the king many years before, and the destruction of which had
been attempted by the latter through the foundation of the
castle of Breteuil, which he intrusted to the brave William,
son of the deceased seneschal Osbern, whose valour had
already been proved at the taking of Domfront. Tilliéres
was again granted to the brave and trusty Gilbert Crespin,
in whose family it long continued '.

William now made an important acquisition in the county
of Le Maine, whose prince, Heribert, wearied with the supe-
riority of the counts of Anjou, which had long weighed heavily
on him and his predecessors, sought an alliance with William,
to which the latter readily assented, and confirmed by the
betrothment of his young daughter. Heribert died prema-
turely (1062) and before the intended marriage, but recom-
mended his subjects voluntarily to swear allegiance to duke
William, whom he appointed his heir, in order not to be
compelled by force to obey a sterner command. One party,
however, which had attached itself to Walter, surnamed the
Old, son of Drogo, count of Mantes, Pontoise, and Chaumont,
and nephew of king Eadward the Confessor, who had married
Biota, the paternal aunt of Heribert, opposed the last wish of

' De Nobili Genere Crispinorum, p. 53.
EARLY HISTORY OF NORMANDY. 55

that prince. William was sufficiently penetrating to feel re-
luctant to obtain a province, the possession of which he
earnestly coveted, by means of a destructive campaign; by
inroads, therefore, on a small scale, he possessed himself of
the strong castles, one by one, and at length reduced Walter
—who never received the aid promised him by the nephews
and successors of Geoffrey Martel—to surrender his strong
city of Le Mans. He and his wife were conducted to Falaise,
where they shortly after died of poison', by which in those
times so many individuals perished. Thus did William gain
—as he afterwards gained England—partly by inheritance,
partly by conquest, the territory of Le Maine, after having
repossessed himself of Le Mans, which had formerly been
possessed by Rolf. Margaret, the sister of Heribert, he be-
trothed to his son Robert, and sent her for further education
to Fécamp, where she shortly after died. The capture of
Le Mans was followed by that of Mayenne. This city, strong
by its position on steep rocks, and by a rapid river, and on
the opposite side fortified by strong walls, was, after all the
enginery of war had been applied in vain, at length reduced
by fire cast into it. In the confusion which ensued, the be-
siegers burst the gates, and streamed into the place, where
they found a rich booty in horses, arms, and other valuable
effects.

Thus was a vital wish of the house of Rolf attained—the
humiliation of the house of Anjou, and a possession which,
through its favourable position with regard to Brittany, pro-
mised, at no distant period, to place in the hands of the
valiant Normans the command over northern and western
France. But the fact that Le Maine now, (as little as Brittany
in other times,) could not be maintained by the conquerors of
the Anglo-Saxons, proves to us that national feelings, both
of aversion and predilection, remained powerful enough in

1 Guil. Pictav. p. 189. Ord. Vital. pp. 487, 534.
56 EARLY HISTORY OF NORMANDY.

France, long after the establishment of the several immi-
grants, not to be permanently quelled either by the intrigues
of the clergy!, which here also had been in full activity for
the Normans, nor even by the power of the sword.

The last considerable campaign undertaken by William
before his expedition to England was against Brittany, the
duke of which, Conan II., a son of that Alan who fell a sacri-
fice to Norman poison, in alliance with the count of Anjou,
had raised pretensions to Normandy, or perhaps, what seems
more probable, was only desirous of protecting himself against
William’s claims on Brittany. This prince, who had ventured,
at a most unpropitious moment, to molest William with his
legal claims, died suddenly. On him were found poisoned
gloves, near him a poisoned drinking horn; and even the
Norman writers do not attempt to clear William of the sus-
picion of being privy to this misdeed?.

At this period occurred Harold’s visit to Rouen, whence
he accompanied William in his campaign against the Bretons.
With reference both to his relations with the Anglo-Saxons,
as well as to his acts in France, we are now no strangers to
the character of William. We have seen him powerful and,
in the highest degree, crafty, shrinking from no crime that
could serve his ambition, hated alike by his allies and vassals,
whose opposition only served to steel anew his demoniacal
powers. The accounts of him, which have reached our
times, we get only through Normans, or members of cloisters
favoured by him; yet, nevertheless, scarcely does any other
character leave behind it so strongly the impression of an evil
spirit, appointed by the all-wise Governor of the world for the
attainment of grand objects, as this son of Robert the Devil,
whose wonderful energy and extraordinary sagacity—for both

| For the flight of the bishop of Le Mans, Gervasius, afterwards arch-
bishop of Rheims, to duke William, see Actus Pontificum Cenomann. ap.
-Mabillon, Vet. Analect. ili. p. 306.

2 W. Gemmet. lib. vii. c. 33.
EARLY HISTORY OF NORMANDY. 57

of these are the conditions of that which in great events leads
to suecess—brought him to that point, that subject and king,
lay and clerical, virtue and vice, obeyed him, so as to render
him the mightiest ruler of his age.

We will now cast a transient glance on the changes which
took place in the condition and manners of the Scandinavians,
while the Northmen, in another part of Europe, became
blended with the nation that had received them in its bosom.

In Denmark Gorm, and in Norway Harald Harfagri had
raised themselves to sole and absolute dominion. We have
already seen that Harald, the son of Gorm, came to the
assistance of duke Richard: he was afterwards deprived of
his throne by his son, Svend, surnamed Tveskizeg, and slain
‘by the viking-chieftain, Palnatoki. During Harald’s abso-
lute sway in Norway, the malcontents and vanquished emi-
grated in multitudes, some to the present Swedish provinces
on the frontiers of Norway, others to the new and thriving
commonwealth in Iceland, while others prosecuted a life of
piracy on the northern seas, or the coasts of Scotland, Ire-
land, England, and France. But they now encountered ob-
stacles which diminished both their hopes and their resources.
The king of Norway maintained a considerable fleet, and when
he had subjugated the Orkneys, the vikings had but a con-
tracted field of action. In France and England they found
colonies of their countrymen, but who, having adopted Christ-
ianity, had neither the inclination to resume a roving life, nor
to receive adventurers who had no native home. Hakon Jarl
and Eric were the last vikings of any note; but when old

1 What follows is not from Lappenberg, but is added from “‘ Norman-
nernes Sdtoge og deres Nedsettelse i Frankrig, etc. af G. B. Depping.
Med. adskillige Forandringer oversat af N. M. Petersen. Kobenhavn.”
It is hoped that it will be deemed sufficiently interesting to deserve a place
in the volume.—T.
58 EARLY HISTORY OF NORMANDY.

habits and antiquated customs are on the eve of being ex-
ploded for ever, we sometimes see them suddenly and for a
moment receive, as it were, a new life; and thus in the North,
in the tenth century, a republic of vikings arose, which called
into remembrance the most daring and formidable expeditions
of the Northmen. A man, whose lively imagination had
formed to itself the beau ideal of a viking, Palnatoki, was the
founder of such a commonwealth in Jomsburg as might serve
for a model to all future vikings. No one was admitted to be
a member of this community who had not distinguished him-
self by exploits on the sea; neither riches, friendship, nor
kinship gave any claim; no woman might abide in the town;
every Jomsburger pledged himself by oath to revenge the
death of a comrade as a brother’s. ‘The booty was in com-
mon, was exposed to public sale, and the money it produced
divided into equal parts!. This fraternity continued for some
time, but could not maintain the old Northern manners and
usages, which time itself had changed.

The kings of the North had begun to hold brilliant courts ;
their connection with England gave encouragement to com-
merce, industry, and arts; the peasants, no longer oppressed
by the independent jarls, again breathed freely, and cultivated
their lands to more advantage; the great body of the people
assumed gentler manners; the Christian missionaries, who
waited only for a favourable moment for the conversion of
those heathens, who had inflicted so much injury on the
clergy, were no longer driven away as previously; people
listened to them, although at first with reluctance; conver-
sions proceeded slowly, but went on increasing, and the time
was not far distant, when those overbearing men, who had
battled with the elements, and despised their own divinities,
bowed their necks under the ponderous yoke of the priest-
hood.

Iceland was peopled, it may be said, in a hurry. Freedom,

' Jomsvikingasaga, c. 24, ap. Fornmanna Sogur, xi. Kjob. 1828.
EARLY HISTORY OF NORMANDY. 59

which had been driven from Norway, there found an asylum ;
but the equality, which had sprung from common misfortune,
soon vanished. Those who carried with them to the island
wealth or talents, or by daring and good fortune had dis-
tinguished themselves as vikings, soon obtained an ascendency
over the other emigrants, and became their lords. Many of
these bore renowned names that inspired the others with
respect, who had been accustomed to consider them as leaders.
Such families, who in the midst of the new commonwealth
could not forget the pride of birth, composed the aristocracy
of the island, introduced an oligarchic constitution, and in-
jured the republic by seeking marks of favour from the court’
of Norway. They rejoiced in the remembrance of the noble
exploits of their forefathers, and encouraged the skalds to
preserve the memory of them. It was, moreover, grateful to
every Icelander both to hear and to sing the songs that had
delighted him in his childhood and honoured his countrymen.
While in Europe scholars were striving to regenerate the
classic poetry in a dead language, and in the monasteries were
heaping up insipid monkish legends, the simple, natural under-
standing and lively imagination of the Icelanders gave an im-
pulse to narrative composition and poesy, in their own mother-
tongue, such as had not till then been in the North: there
arose an Icelandic literature, to which we are chiefly indebted
for our information respecting the Northern vikings. Neither
the extreme severity of the climate, nor the barrenness of the
soil, nor the poverty of the islanders themselves could quell
this general enthusiasm; a phenomenon that will never appear
again.

A century after the colonization of Iceland, the Icelanders’
thirst after adventures led them to a continent of whose
existence they had not the slightest presentiment: they
discovered and peopled Greenland, whither new migrations
proceeded from Norway!. At the present day scarcely the

1 See Wormskjold om Gronlands, Vinlands og nogle flere af Forfeedrene
60 EARLY HISTORY OF NORMANDY.

poorest European would exchange with a Greenlander; but
the Scandinavians were inured to the most rigorous climate,
and proof against hardships and want; they could live every-
where where they could see the ocean; they related or listened
to sagas, and composed verses, in Iceland, and with the same
hilarity they passed over to the icy shores of Greenland.
Christianity at length struck root over all the North. Cnut
in Denmark and Olaf in Norway gained by their zeal in its
propagation the surname bestowed on them by the clergy of
saint. In Iceland Christianity was solemnly adopted in the
general assembly or Alting, only with the reservation, that
_ they might continue to eat horseflesh and expose their chil-
-dren!. Everywhere churches and monasteries were erected ;
the bishops gained great influence, and the priests preached
against piracy, and created a more pious feeling. But the
spread of Christianity was accompanied by the thraldom of
the great mass of the people. The nobility and clergy ren-
dered themselves the lords of the peasantry, which previously,
as a free and respected class, had constituted the strength of
the North. The agricultural population fell into contempt,
when the military began to form an hereditary order, and the
court followers appropriated to themselves all fiefs and dig-
nities. To escape from oppression, many peasants saw no
other course than to place themselves and their children
under the protection of a potent noble, or of the church. At
a remoter period the kings themselves could not rule an ari-
stocracy that was grown too powerful, without,as the kings —
of France, raising the burgher class as a counterpoise.
Ruggedness of manners gradually disappeared, culture more

kjendte Landes formeentlige Beliggende, in part x. of Skand. Lit. S. Skr.;
Schroder om Skandinavernes fordna uppticktresor till Nord-Amerika, in
part i. of Svea.

1 Finni Johannei Hist. Eccles. Islandiz. (Heimskringla, in St. Olaf’s
Saga, c. 56.)

? See on this subject Vedel Simonsens Danske Adels og Ridderstands
Hist. p. 181 sqq.
EARLY HISTORY OF NORMANDY. 6

and more gained ground, but, at the same time, the nation’s
- strength was impaired. Torn by internal dissensions, Iceland
was subjugated by the Norwegian kings. The old popular
poetry was silenced, and, instead of Icelandic sagas, Latin
legends came into vogue. The Faroes and Greenland shared
the same fate. Instead of enriching themselves by piracy,
men rather bestowed their possessions on churches and con-
vents; and the Northmen, who once had been so formidable
to other nations, became now, as it were, a stranger to them!.
With the zeal which usually animates those who adopt a new
religion, all old customs were exploded. In Roeskilde, under
king Cnut, there arose a sort of fraternity, whose object was
to make war on all pirates. Its members seized on ships
belonging to others, giving to the owners as an indemnity an
eighth of the booty ; before they went on board they took the
sacrament ; they lived soberly, exposed themselves to great
hardships, and had no superfluous followers; when in want of
money, they had recourse to a loan, either voluntary or forced,
from the citizens, whom, on their return, they requited with
half the booty. To the Christians found on board the cap-
tured vessels they gave liberty, clothed them and sent them
home. All Seeland shared in this undertaking, through
which, according to Saxo Grammaticus?, eight hundred vik-
ing ships were destroyed. A greater contrast cannot be
imagined than that exhibited in the North, as described in
the sagas during the time of heathenism, and as Adam of
Bremen found it. ‘ After the adoption of Christianity,” says
that church historian, “these people have learnt to love peace

1 On the progress of civilization in the North, see Nyerups Hist. Stat.
Skildring af Danm. og Norge, 18te D. also Lindhs Undersékning om
Folkmangden i Sverige fore Digerdéden, i Vitt. Hist. och Ant. Akad.
Handl. 11te D. Stokh. 1822.

2 Lib. xiv. He adds: “‘ Hic piraticee cultus, Roskildize cceptus, ab urbis
gremio etiam ad agrestes manavit, ab omni fere Sialandiz parte subsidia
mutuatus.... Primum tenuis, magna breviter incrementa contraxit; sed
neque ante redditam terris pacem ulla ex parte remissior fuit.”

a
62 EARLY HISTORY OF NORMANDY.

and gentler manners, and to be content with their humble
condition; they now dissipate what they before collected,
and collect what they before despised. Instead of addicting
themselves to scandalous magical arts, they now, like the
apostles, acknowledge only the crucified Jesus. They now
observe the greatest temperance, and love in a higher degree
than others abstemiousness and modesty. They hold priests
and churches in such respect, that those who every day, after
having heard mass, do not go to the offering, are not con-
sidered good Christians. Those who before were barbarians

_ now pay tithes,” ete. ‘‘ These exemplary manners,” adds the

good canon, ‘are obscured only, according to what I have

_ heard, by the avarice of the clergy.”

Arnold of Liibeck speaks also of the change that had taken
place in the manners of the Danes. “ Now,” says he in his con-
tinuation of Helmold’s chronicle', “‘now the Danes resemble
other people in dress and weapons. Formerly they were clad
as sailors, because of their humour to dwell on the sea; now
we see them in furs, purple, and fine linen. The annual
fishery off Scania supplies them with a considerable revenue ;
merchants from all the neighbouring countries bring them
gold and silver in exchange for herrings, which are caught in
great number. On their rich pastures they keep excellent
horses, and are distinguished for fighting on horseback and
by sea. They have also made progress in the liberal arts ;
the nobles send their sons to Paris for education, not only for
ecclesiastical offices, but also for secular employments.”

This chronicler makes no mention of the common people ;

_ but we have sufficient testimony to show that they were

reduced to serfdom in the north as well as in the south of
Europe, and that the feudal yoke pressed on the agricultural

' class, and bereaved it of all freedom and public spirit.

But as the inhabitants of the North still retained their

! Lib. iii. ¢. 5.
EARLY HISTORY OF NORMANDY. 63

thirst for adventures, a number of them found the way to
Constantinople, where they served in the body guard of the
Greek emperors, after their forefathers had for so long a
period ravaged the Western empire}.

If the inhabitants of Normandy cared little about their
northern native country, the inhabitants of the North, on
their part, almost forgot their fugitive kinsmen, who had
gained for themselves another home. But of some of these
heroes the names outlived this oblivion: on the shores of the
Baltic it was remembered with pride, that Hasting, Bjorn
Tronside, and Rolf were Northmen, and the deeds of the first
Norman duke were sometimes to be found, with those of the
most renowned Northern heroes, represented on the hangings
in the chieftain’s hall?.

To the attacks of the Northern vikings England was ex-
posed much longer than France, in consequence of the nume-
rous islands which there afforded them an almost unassailable
retreat. In the tenth century king Eadgar began to clear
his kingdom of the vikings, by sailing with his fleet twice a
year round the island, for the purpose of destroying the
piratical ships that plundered along the coasts. He subju-
gated the Norwegian jarl in the Isle of Man, where the
Northmen had settled at an early period, as may be seen by
the runic inscriptions found in that island3. For the purpose
of acting with the greater vigour against the Norwegians in
the Orkneys, Eadgar called the Danes to his aid; but they,

1 Under the name of Veringer or Vareger, according to Cedreni
Chron.—Erichsen, de vet. septentrionalium imprimis Islandorum pere-
grinationibus. (See Suhm, Hist. af Danm. 24 D. pp.91 sqq. Aum. a.)

2 For this the author adduces as an authority ‘ Nikulds Leikara-saga’,
but he could hardly have cited anything worse than this altogether fabu-
lous saga.— Petersen.

3 Speaking of the runic inscriptions in Man, Mr. Worsaae (from Prof.
Munch) observes, that the rune 4, which in most inscriptions signifies 0,
must in these always be read as b. Danes and Norwegians in England,
Scotland and Ireland.—T.
64 EARLY HISTORY OF NORMANDY.

who were as piratical as the Norwegians, plundered his king-
dom, after their expeditions against the other vikings. His
successor, AMthelred, endeavoured, as soon as possible, by
money, to get rid of these inconvenient allies.

Towards the end of the tenth century we find Norwegian
vikings plundering the Isle of Anglesey.

On the Scottish and Irish islands colonies of the vikings
continued for some time to maintain their independence.
On the coast of Ireland they possessed Dublin, Waterford,
Limerick and Cork. At Dublin resided the principal king of
the Northmen ; Waterford had also its kings. These colo-
nies, that sometimes made war on each other, and at others
combined together against the Irish or the English, preserved
their warlike spirit, by which, although possessing only a few
ports and a small portion of the interior, they were able to
maintain themselves for some centuries. Christianity had
encompassed them on every side, and in the eleventh century
they adopted it themselves. Towards the end of the twelfth
century, the English kings, themselves of Norman extraction,
were powerful enough to attack the old viking states in
Ireland, and to subjugate Dublin, Waterford, and the other
ports, which the Northmen had either conquered or created.
The Norman race did not mingle here so speedily as elsewhere
with the other nations: English, Irish, and Northmen formed
three distinct races; and we have a document of the be-
ginning of the thirteenth century, in which twelve men are
nominated from each nation, to ascertain what lands and
possessions belonged to the church in Limerick!; but at a
later period, mention occurs of two nations only, Irish and
English ; the Ostmen or Northmen having disappeared. The
Scandinavian state in the Orkneys and in the north of Secot-
land ceased at the same time. The last king, Harald, died
in 1206. About two hundred years previously, the Norwegian

1 Wareus de Hibernia et Antiquitatibus ejus. Lond. 1658. ¢. 24.
EARLY HISTORY OF NORMANDY. 65

king Olaf, landed at the Orkneys with soldiers and mission-
aries, to compel the king to allow himself to be baptized.
The astonished Sigurd vainly assured him that he was quite
content with the faith of his forefathers. Olaf threatened to
take his isles, if he did not adopt Christianity and allow the
missionaries to preach the Gospel. Sigurd yielded to neces-
sity and suffered himself to be baptized, and chapels imme-
diately rose on the barren rocks that were washed by the
foamy billows; habits became somewhat softened, although
they still retained much of the Scandinavian ruggedness.
But by degrees the sea-rovers of the Orkneys ceased to be
formidable, and to constitute a distinct people. On the
Hebrides there were some petty jarls, who preserved their
independence for two or three centuries later ; but when the
great Anglo-Norman vassals acquired those islands, the pos-
terity of the ancient chieftains sank into humble sub-tenants,
and disappeared among the mass of the people. ,

The Norse tongue was preserved in some of the isles long
after the dominion of the vikings had ceased. In the Orkneys
Norse was spoken in the sixteenth century, and at the end of
the seventeenth, it was still a living tongue in four parishes ;
but in the eighteenth, it became extinct, and only remains of
it are to be found in the language of the Orkney and Shetland
isles!. The islanders are said to have tales which are easily
understood by the Icelanders. Names of towns and villages
in these islands are for the most part old Norse, which has
left traces of itself on the shores of the Atlantic, from the
mouth of the Loire to the neighbourhood of the Frozen
Ocean.

Rolf and his companions were like those meteors which
traverse the air with incredible swiftness, and in vanishing

1 Barry’s History of the Orkney Islands. Lond. 1806. Hibbert’s de-
scription of the Shetland Islands. Edinb. 1821,

F
66 EARLY HISTORY OF NORMANDY.

leave behind them long streams of fire which the eye gazes on
with amazement. The Northmen who settled in Neustria
gradually became lost among the French, a mixture of Gauls
and Romans, Franks and Burgundians, West Goths and Sa-
racens, friends and foes, barbarians and civilized nations.
Ten sorts of language, and with them, perhaps, as many
forms of government were lost amid this mass of peoples.
French and foreigners have visited Normandy in search of
some traces of the old Scandinavian colonies, or at least of
some testimonial of their long sojourn there, and one or other
memorial characteristic of this daring people. All have ad-
mired the prosperity of the province, to which the fertility of
the soil and its manufactures and commerce have contributed;
but vainly have they sought for the original Northmen in the
present inhabitants: with the exception of some faint re-
seinblances}, they have met with nothing Norsk. On the
contrary, every thing appeared to them either French or of
a later time. We will now take a view of Normandy, and
consider its monuments, customs, language, poetry, chronicles,
and charters ; even if we do not discover many traces of the
Northmen, we shall, nevertheless, become acquainted with
the civilization, whose beneficent hand has obliterated all
traces of barbarism.

In the Orkney and Shetland islands, the Hebrides and the
north of Scotland, are yet to be found vestiges of ancient
fortifications, for the greater number so situated as to protect
the landing places, and which are there called Danish forts,
duns or burghs, just as the Icelanders call the old enclosures
formed of stones, which they now use for sheep-cots?, borgir.

1 See Estrups Bemeerkninger paa en Reise i Normandiet. Kjébenh. 1821.
This writer adduces as resemblances the general use of beer, which in
Normandy continued to the sixteenth century; the attention paid to the
breeding of horses; the head-gear in the Pays de Caux, which resembles
that of the Icelandic women, and, finally, sundry words of Northern origin.

2 The author’s “tours coniques, qui servent maintenant de granges”
roust be a mistake.—Petersen.
EARLY HISTORY OF NORMANDY. 67

In the Orkneys they call them wart- or wardhills. There are
whole rows of such towers, some of which are surrounded by
a ditch. The old fort of Snaburgh on the isle of Unst was
surrounded by two ditches, one of which was hewn out of the
rock. Round some of these forts similar small buildings were
erected, in which the islanders probably took refuge, when
the watchmen gave a signal that a viking fleet was approach-
ing!, The number of villages and single dwellings on these
islands, which are still called burghs, render it probable that
formerly there were many more of such forts. Some of these
ancient structures are built in a singular manner ; they are
circular, and have also a circular court, round which there is
a wall, which with the outer wall forms an enclosed circular
space; this is again divided into small spaces or galleries, one
of which is sometimes placed above another. These spaces
are exceedingly narrow, and the galleries very low ; the outer
wall sometimes inclines inwards. A low and narrow entrance,
which may easily be closed with a heavy stone, was the only
ingress to these extraordinary fastnesses, to which the people
probably fled, with their cattle and provisions, on the approach
of an enemy?.

1 Edmonstone’s Descript. of the Shetland Islands. Edinb. 1808.—Ency-
clopzdia Britannica, vii. voce Duns.

2 Pennant’s Tour in Scotland and voyage to the Hebrides. [On such
towers Mr. Worsaae observes: ‘‘The numerous round towers or castles
of loose flag stones laid together, which are often built on islands in lakes,
and which are called by many ‘ Danish Burghs,’ are of Pictish or Celtic
origin. They have no resemblance whatever to the old fortresses in the
Scandinavian North. ...The most that can be said is that the Norwegians
availed themselves of these buildings after their conquests and settlements
in these districts.” (Ut supra p.233.) ‘An ancient Celtic tower, which
tradition decidedly states to have been occupied by Norwegians, lies on
the little island of Mousa (the ancient Mésey.) The tower is fortunately
the best preserved one of the kind in the British islands. It rises to the
height of between forty and fifty feet, like an immense and perfectly round
stone pillar, but bulging out towards the middle. Its appearance from
without is quite plain, and no other opening can be perceived in the wall
than the entrance door, which even originally was so low that it was

rQ
68 EARLY HISTORY OF NORMANDY.

No remains of any such monuments are to be found in
Normandy, not even in Denmark or Norway, from whence
the Normans came; nor is it by any means proved that these
fortresses are the works of Northern vikings. This opinion
is founded merely on a popular tradition in Scotland; but
supposing them to be the works of vikings, it need excite no
surprise that similar works are not to be met with in Nor-
mandy; for piracy ceased in France nearly two centuries
earlier than in Scotland, where, moreover, the ancient monu-
ments built on the rocks must remain much longer than on
the banks of the Seine, which were liable to constant changes
and improvements.

Remains of ancient encampments are, however, found along
the Norman coasts and rivers, but it is difficult to distinguish
those ascribed to the Northmen from others. The vikings,
too, may occasionally have availed themselves of the old Ro-
man encampments. The only military work that can with
certainty be ascribed to the Northmen is the intrenchment
called Haguedike on the north-western end of the peninsula
of Cotentin. The extensive circumference of this camp con-
tains grave-mounds and remains of towers, in the vicinity of
the sea.

We must not look for the fine arts among the Northern
vikings. A people whose life was spent in destroying could
have but little sense of the beautiful. They had not even
money of their own; nor do we meet with any coins of the
necessary to creep through it... .The entire tower is about fifty feet in
diameter, and consists of two concentric stone walls, the innermost of
which encloses an open space of about twenty feet wide. The two con-
centric walls are each five feet thick, and stand at a distance of five feet
from each other. The small space between them formed the habitable
part of the tower. From the open yard we ascend a stone staircase, and
before we reach the top, seven divisions or stories are passed, separated by
large flag stones, which form a ceiling for one story and a floor for the
next. In the different compartments, which quite encircle the tower, are

small square openings or air-holes, one above the other, and looking out
into the inner yard.” Ib. pp. 234, 235.—T.]
EARLY HISTORY OF NORMANDY. 69

first Norman dukes. Clumsy dwellings and strong and mas-
sive forts are all the buildings they knew how to raise. As
heathens, they probably, like the Gauls, held their worship in
the open air or under the shade of aged oaks, before vast
blocks of stone, either upright or set one on another. Many
of this description are still found in the North!. It is not
known whether some of these stone masses in Normandy are
to be ascribed to the Northmen.

After their conversion to Christianity, the Normans found
great difficulty to get rid of the bad reputation they were in
as destroyers, although they caused an incredible number of
churches and chapels? to be erected.. The abbot of Saint
Benignus at Dijon, who, in the year 1001, was invited by the
duke of Normandy to reform the degenerate abbey of Fécamp,
refused to come, because he had heard say that the Normans
were rugged and savage, and more accustomed to demolish
churches than to build them, and rather laid waste than

gathered and preserved?. They became, however, so greatly —

changed, that there were none in France who so zealously
built churches and cloisters as they. By indulgences their
clergy encouraged all faithful souls to contribute to the cost ;
they even established conveyance fraternities for the erection
of churches ; people took the sacrament, reconciled themselves
with their enemies, and united for this object, choosing a
chief or king, under whose direction they drew carts loaded
with all kinds of building materials. Probably there were
also fraternities of masons‘.

There is scarcely any church dating from the tenth century

1 Thorlacius, Bemerkninger over de i Danmark endnu tilverende
Hedenolds-Hdéje og Stensztninger. Skand. Lit. S. Skr. 1809.

2 “ Unusquisque optimatum certabat in preedio suo ecclesias edificare,
et monachos, qui pro se Deum orarent, rebus suis locupletare.’” W. Gem-
met. lib. vi. c. 22.

_ 3 “Templa subvertere, non edificare solitos esse.”’ Gallia Christiana, ii.

4 See letter of archbishop Hugo of 1145. ap. Bessin, Concilia Rothom,
Prov. p. 29,
70 EARLY HISTORY OF NORMANDY.

that does not widely deviate from the Roman style of build-
ing, which was universal throughout France. Even in the
eleventh century, both buildings and sculpture were in a very
barbarous style ; as proofs of which may be cited, the little
church at St. Julian, and the so-called Clerk’s chamber and
tower in the garden of the Hétel de Ville at Rouen'. But
about this time ideas began to dilate, sculpture became more
perfect, and a beginning was now made with those bold struc-
tures in the so-called Gothic style, which, adorned and im-
proved, still excite our admiration. “If we are poor in
monuments of the tenth century,” says the Norman author
of an interesting work on the architecture of the middle age?,
“our country is, on the other hand, perhaps the richest in
the world in structures of the eleventh. In the arrondisse-
ments of Caen, Bayeux, and Valognes, no one can travel half
. a mile without meeting with such. The stone found in the
neighbourhood of these three towns is easy to work on, and
can without difficulty be used in sculpture, which favourable
circumstance sufficiently shows why these places are richer in
monuments than other parts.” I refer the reader to the
work of De Caumont for descriptions of churches of that
period, as well as for the successive development of the Gothic
style in Normandy. This style in the meantime became
prevalent in the religious architecture of the greater part of
Europe, without its being yet known for certain whence it
came. The Normans neither invented it nor introduced it
into France; but they adopted it at an early period.

The fortresses erected by them in England were distin-
guished by a tower of several stories (the donjon or keep) ;
this was placed either at the end of the works or on an emi-
nence in the middle of them?. We know not whether the

1 La Quériére, Descript. Historique des maisons de Rouen les plus
remarquables. Paris 1821. 8¥°,

2 De Caumont, Essai sur l’Architecture religieuse du moyen Age, par-

ticuligrement en Normandie. Caen 1825, with plates.
% Rees, Cyclop. art. ‘Norman Architecture.’
EARLY HISTORY OF NORMANDY. 71

first castles built by the Normans in France had also this
characteristic. Of that inhabited by the first dukes in the
neighbourhood of Fécamp there is not a trace remaining ;
even the spot on which it stood is hardly known. These
dukes dwelt also in the ancient Juliobona, now Lillebonne,
where they probably converted the remains of the old Roman
structures into a place of residence. The oldest part of the
ruins still remaining are not older than the Conqueror’s time,
consisting of the great quadrangular building which we see in
the south-west, and which is now roofless.

Not far from Lillebonne lies the old castle of Tancarville,
which belonged to the family of Harcourt, who trace their
origin from one of the Danish chieftains that accompanied
Rolf; but this castle is not from the earliest Norman times.
In general, there is little hope of finding any thing Scandina-
vian among the old monuments of Normandy.

Notwithstanding the conversion of Rolf, the clergy had not
at first so much influence in Normandy as in the other pro-
vinces of France. The Scandinavians were in fact of too
warlike a spirit. In the first century after their settlement,
no synod was held in Normandy, nor did the Norman bishops
attend those that were held elsewhere'. A distinction was
made between the clergy of Norman origin and the French.
Ordericus Vitalis, who was a monk of St. Evroult, complains,
in his Ecclesiastical History, that the highest dignities of the
church were bestowed on Norman priests.

The clergy were subject to the law of the land, and we
have already seen that they had no seat in the council of the
first dukes ; but if their acquisition of power proceeded slowly,
it was by so much the surer and more lasting. They eventu-
ally became masters over the rugged, warlike spirit of the
converted nation. In a synod held at Rouen it was resolved,

1 “Tum quod his necdum assueti essent duces nostri, tum ne forsitan
episcopi, quorum summa erat apud principem auctoritas, nonnihil adver-

sus politici regiminis rationem hac occasione molirentur.” D. Bessin,
Concil. Rothom. Prov. p. 35.

—_
72 EARLY HISTORY OF NORMANDY.

that priests, instead of doing homage to the secular lords of
whom they held fiefs, should only swear an oath of fidelity ;
but which decision was afterwards annulled by the resolute
William the Conqueror, when he commanded the bishops to
do him homage!.

By appealing to the holy see the clergy gradually contrived
to withdraw themselves from the civil judicature, and the
ecclesiastical writers celebrate as a victory the edict whereby,
in the year 1190, they were withdrawn from secular jurisdic-
tion?, except for the most flagrant crimes?. In many synods
and councils the prelates renewed the prohibition for the
priests to obey the citations of secular magistrates‘; bishops,
abbots, and chapters, were the only judges over priests and
ministers of the church®. Excommunications launched forth
warned the secular law not to interfere with that which con-
cerned the priestly caste. The law or custom known as the
cri de Haro bound every inhabitant of the country to watch
over the maintenance of good order; the clergy withdrew
themselves from this custom®; but, on the other hand, repre-
sented tithes as a law prescribed by the Gospel’. A multi-

1 Houard, Anc. Lois des Francais conservées dans les Coutumes An~
glaises. Rouen 1766, i. p. 117.

2 “ Monachi respondere, se non posse, quia meminissent soli apostolice
sedi subditos fore, et post suo abbati,” Notic. Excommunic. latz in Guil-
lelm. Rothom. Episc. a. 1089, in t. xi. Gallia Christ.

3 « Kodem fere anno liberata est ecclesia Normanniz a longo servitutis
jugo, quo premebatur, edietumque fuit, ne in posterum a secularibus
apprehendi possent clerici, nisi,” etc, Gallia Christ. il. p.52. Neustria
Pia, p. 99.

4 See Ecclesiastice libertatie in Normannia leges in ‘ Neustria Pia,”
p. 29.

5 “ Concessimus archiepiscopo omnia placita et omnem justitiam placi-
torum.” Charter confirmed by king John in 1200. Neustria Pia —‘Om-
nia placita de omnibus querelis hominum suorum, de incendio scilicet, de
murtro et de rapto...... in abbatis curia teneantur.”” Charter of Hen. I,
of 1108. Gallia Christiana, xi.

6 See Cone, ap. S. Mariam de Prato. Ib. p.171.

7 Introd. to a charter of donation to the church of Seez, a. 1060. Gall,
Christ. ii. p. 151.
EARLY HISTORY OF NORMANDY. 73

tude of serfs were compelled to sacrifice their whole life in
labouring for monasteries and churches; from all sides these
pious foundations were enriched at the cost of the well-being
of families and of the public.

Many councils and synods renewed the prohibition for
priests to have concubines, and to place their sons in their
own churches!. At the same time, when a provincial assem-
bly at Rouen (in the middle of the eleventh century) was
urging on the clergy the duty of chastity, the mistresses of
the priests were exhibiting the most shameless luxury, and
the priests had many children, who relieved their fathers in
their functions, or, more correctly, appropriated them to
themselves, to the great scandal of all.believers?. The pre-
lates even accepted money to shut their eyes to this abuse?.
At the synod of Rouen in 1119, archbishop Geoffrey severely
upbraided the priests in the assembly for their dissolute
course of life; but their murmuring soon gave him to under-
stand that they were more exasperated than touched by his
representations: one of the priests even stood up and an-
swered the prelate with bitterness. The bishop caused him
to be seized and committed to prison, whereupon the meeting
became so stormy that one of the presiding prelates ordered
his servants to enter, who dispersed it with their staves.
The priests’ concubines now raised a riot among the towns-
folk ; ecclesiastics and laymen ran in a body to storm the
church, but were driven back; and with this scene of outrage
the synod terminated‘. Many times it was found necessary
to reform chapters and monasteries, in consequence of the

1 See Bessin, Concil. Rothom. Prov. Rouen 1717. folio.

2 Bessin, Observ. in Conc. Rothom.

3 «Jam illud obsecro, quale est quod in plerisque dicecesibus rectores
parochianorum ex certo et conducto cum suis prelatis pretio passim et pub-
lice concubinas tenent.” Nic. de Clemengis, De corrupto Ecclesie Statu,
cited by Bessin, p. 73.

4 « Et sancta synodus in debacchationem et ludibrium conversa est.”
Ord. Vitalis, pp. 866, 867.
74 EARLY HISTORY OF NORMANDY.

dissolute manners that had found entrance among them. The
prelates themselves set a scandalous example, and few pro-
vinces have had so many profligate bishops as Normandy ;
the archbishops of Rouen, Robert and Mauger, and bishop
Odo of Bayeux, may be cited as examples of priests of loose
morals. The pope refused to confirm the nomination of
bishop Foulon of Avranches, because he had children in all
directions!.

The monasteries were sometimes a scene of frightful dis-
orders. A letter from the bishop of Lisieux to pope Alex-
ander III. gives a detailed description of one of these profli-
gate fraternities®. The abbey of Grestain was in bad repute
throughout the country: the monks asserted that they could
perform miracles, and publicly announced that the ice-cold
water of their abbey could restore all the diseased who plunged
into it seven times. A poor woman, who was simple enough
to believe them, died of cold under their hands. Dissipation,
hatred, and sanguinary vengeance polluted the abbey ; many
of the monks bore scars of the wounds which they inflicted
on each other with knives ; the cook was murdered by one of
the brotherhood, whom he had upbraided with paying secret
visits to his wife. The purveyor of the abbey, in a drunken
fit, attacked and stabbed with his knife two of the monks
and was killed by them. The bishop prayed for a speedy
reform of this profligate cloister. When the archbishop,
according to ancient usage, in 1073, would celebrate mass in
the abbey church of St.Ouen at Rouen, the monks dragged
him from the altar, rang the alarm-bell, armed the populace,
and pursued the prelate, whom they would probably have
sacrificed in their frenzy, if the vicomte had not protected
him with an armed force,

1 «Et cum filios habeat undecumque. Epist. Innoc.’’ ap. Bessin, Conc.
Rothom. Prov. p. 368.

? Epist. xxxii. Arnulphi Lexov. Episc. in Biblioth. Patrum, xii., and in
Neustria Pia, art. ‘ Grestanum.’

3 Chron. Cadomense ap. Bessini Conc. Rothom. Prov. p. 63.
EARLY HISTORY OF NORMANDY. 75

Excommunications, a weapon at that time the more dan-
gerous as being in the hands of an ignorant and fanatical
clergy, were grossly abused. Chapters were seen excommu-
nicating their bishops, and prelates barons, in quarrels alto-
gether secular. There is a very frank declaration of a count
of Auges, in which he says, that he is tired of hearing himself
every Sunday excommunicated from the pulpit; and hopes
that the monks will behave themselves better; if not, that he
will do them all the injury in his power!.

Disorder and infamy pervaded all classes. It was found
necessary to prohibit dancing in churches and churchyards?.
The pope authorized the chapter of Rouen to consecrate the
cathedral anew, after it had been desecrated by sanguinary
quarrels, or still more scandalous excesses?, As early as the
reign of duke Robert IJ. there was an overseer of the prosti-
tutes (gardien des courtisans) in the “bordel” at Rouen:
Baudry, the duke’s chief forester and marshal, had the ap-
pointment*. Violences and oppressions depopulated the
country; the ecclesiastical laws could alone keep them in
check. The peace of God was established, which forbade all

1 «Nolo amplius ferre sententiam excommunicationis, que proinde
super me singulis dominicis diebus datur,”’ etc. Gallia Christ. xi. p. 294.

2 « Prohibeant sacerdotes, sub poena excommunicationis, choreas induci
in coemeterio vel in ecclesiis.”” Praecepta Antiqua ap. Bessin, p.50. At
the synod of Bayeux, a. 1370, it was also forbidden: “Ne de ceetero fie-
rent ludi vocati Calmali seu Carmari Gallice, quod nonnulli iniquitatis
filii et perditionis alumni bonum matrimonii per vias indirectas impedire
satagentes soliti sunt exercere.”’ Ib. p. 243.

3 « Alexander Pape, preedecessori nostro, expositum fuerat, quod ple-
rumque contingeret ecclesiam predictam, quz in loco civitatis Rothomag.
magis populoso consistat, et in qua nonaginta misse celebrari consueve-
runt, sanguinis vel seminis effusione ex concursu pollui gentium diversa-
rum.” Ib. p. 91.

4 « Preedictus Baldricus...... custos ieretricum in lupanari de Rotho-
mago, et marescallus meus.” Letter of duke Robert II., cited under art.
“Custos Meretricum,’ in t. ii. of the Glossarium Manuale of Adelung.
Halle 1773. The Chartrier des Archevéques de Rouen makes mention of
exactions raised by the barons on the public houses. Houard, i. p. 19.
76 EARLY HISTORY OF NORMANDY.

attacks on the inhabitants, with the object of slaying or
plundering them, from Wednesday evening till Monday morn-
ing, also in Advent, Lent, and on the fast-days before Ascen-
sion-day, under pain of excommunication, fifty years’ penance,
and banishment. Solemn maledictions were pronounced on
those who broke this peace, and blessings on those who kept

it inviolate. Three or four times councils in Normandy pro-
claimed this peace of God!. On the last occasion, in the

year 1096, the festivals of the Holy Virgin and the apostles
were added to the other days named for the observance of
this peace. This council, at the same time, enjoined all
males, as soon as they had attained their twelfth year, to
declare on oath that they would observe this law.

In the first centuries after the establishment of the duchy,
we find in Normandy but few traces of popular superstitions,

_at least of such local superstitions as the French provinces at

that time abounded in, and which dated chiefly from the days
of paganism ; for the Normans knew nothing of the old
state of the country, and had forgotten their own native
land.

Although the clergy but too often set bad examples to the
people, it was, nevertheless, they who provided for their in-
struction and refined their manners, by inspiring them with a
taste for the arts and sciences. Among the numerous abbeys
founded or erected under the dukes, several were distin-

: guished for their erudition. Jumiéges, Saint Evroult, Bec,

Saint Wandrille, Fécamp, were nurseries for ecclesiastics and
learned men. Under the first dukes, says Ordericus Vitalis,
no Norman applied himself to study, nowhere was any in-
struction given; down to the time of William the Conqueror,
the Normans applied themselves more to war than to reading
and writing?.

1 See in Bessin the councils of Caen, 1042, the decrees of which were
renewed in 1061; of Lillebonne 1080, of Rouen 1096.
2 Hist. Eccles. lib. iii., iv., v.
EARLY HISTORY OF NORMANDY. 77

The court of the first dukes, though not exactly wanting in
splendour, was, nevertheless, by no means a school for what,
at that time, was regarded as refinement of manners. One
of the pretexts used by Louis d’Outremer for taking the
young duke Richard to his court was, that he might there
receive a better education!. Dudo relates so diffusely what
beautiful speech was taught to the young duke at the court
of Laon, that it would seem that the like was not to be found
in Normandy. Women appear to have had no influence at
the court of Rouen. The dukes were in great measure ruled
by the clergy ; instead of wives they had concubines.

In these times of barbarism and anarchy a considerable
step was made towards social order by application to the
sciences. With grateful acknowledgment, therefore, the
names of those Normans ought to be recorded who first
cultivated them, however imperfect may have been their
endeavours”.

After Lanfrane’s entrance into the abbey of Bee, a thirst
arose there for scientific instruction; men from all parts
flocked thither to hear theological lectures under so able a
professor. This learned monk, who afterwards became abbot
of St. Stephen’s at Caen, then recently founded by William
the Conqueror, and who had refused a bishopric, delivered
lectures also on jurisprudence. In the same century Richard
of Annebaut, a Norman, rendered the Institutes of Justinian
into verse. Evil tongues might say that the Normans’ taste
for law manifested itself at an early period.

Anselm, who succeeded the learned Lanfranc, provided the

1 Seniorem sinite mecum morari, ut facunde ubertatis colloquio edoctus,
discat definire et determinare verba scrupulose rei. Plurimarum rerum
notitiam melius discat in palatio meo quam commorans in sua domo.....
Notitiis regalibus palatinisque facundiis instrueretur...... Multimodis
illum sermonibus libenter insignibant, et mellifluo palatine sermonica-
tionis dulcamine erudierant. Dudo, lib. iii. p. 114.

2 Estrups Bidrag til Normandiets Kulturhistorie fra 10 de til 13 de
Aarh. in Bd. xvii. af Skand. Lit. 8. Skr.
78 EARLY HISTORY OF NORMANDY.

abbey of Bec with medical writings ; and an abbot of Fécamp,
named John, an Italian by birth, is cited, under the year
1028, for his knowledge in the healing art’.

The abbey of St. Evroult likewise contributed to the spread
of taste for study. This cloister was from its foundation o
school for civilization. St. Evroult, of a noble family at the
court of king Lothair, had chosen for his dwelling-place a
forest that was full of robbers and wild beasts; the robbers,
whom he had converted by his piety, were the first monks
and labourers in the wilderness; his philanthropic care of
the poor and sick could not but touch eventually the hearts
even of those men that were hardened by deeds of violence,
so that they found it pleasant to live by the labour of their
hands, under the rules of one of the benefactors of mankind.
After the destruction of the abbey by the Northmen, the spot
was again transformed into a wild forest, and every trace of
civilization obliterated, the name of the holy man being pre-
served only in that of a fountain in the neighbourhood. In
the reign of William the Conqueror, a few pious men erected
the abbey anew. Theodoric, its first abbot, had fortunately
a considerable taste for the sciences, and wrote a beautiful
hand, in those days an invaluable attainment. He collected
a few illiterate priests from the country, a gardener, and some
other well-meaning persons, caused them to transcribe books,
and so founded a small library and writing school. Young
persons were now instructed by these able copyists, and thus
books were dispersed among the other monasteries. Theodoric
related to his pupils, that a monk who had deeply sinned, but
with great assiduity had transcribed a large volume of God’s
law, was after his death condemned by our Lord; but that
against each of his sins angels had set one of the beautiful
letters from his book. Fortunately the number of letters ex-
ceeded by one that of his sins, and this circumstance freed

1 W. Gemmet. lib. VII. c. 23. Ord. Vital. pp. 460, 461,
EARLY HISTORY OF NORMANDY. 79

him from eternal damnation. Theodorie was ever repeating
to his monks and disciples : “‘ Avoid idleness as a pest; pray,
read, sing, and write!” His successors, almost without ex-
ception, had the same taste and zeal. One of them transcribed
and illuminated manuscripts with great elegance. In the time
of Ordericus Vitalis! the books written by this abbot were
still used in his abbey. Osbern, the third abbot, was not only
a transcriber, but also a musician and sculptor, and formed
his pupils both by words and blows?. He was a declared
enemy of all the ignorant and idle, and carried on a perpetual
war against them. The fourth abbot, Mainer, was a good
grammarian, rhetorician, and logician; he had ninety monks
under his authority, and caused the church to be rebuilt.
The fifth abbot, Serlo, had a hundred and fifteen monks, or,
more strictly, that number of pupils. The abbey had a species
of hospital for six lepers, one of the oldest of such establish-
ments known. A monk of this abbey, named Rudolf, who
had resided at Salerno, understood not only grammar, dia-
lectics, astronomy, and music, but was also a good physician.
It seems, in general, that the school of Salerno, through the |
Normans in Naples, had an influence on medical studies in
Normandy. Several Norman physicians are mentioned about .
this time, and William the Conqueror founded four hospitals
in the principal cities of the duchy.

Odo, bishop of Bayeux, who had a son at the court of
king Henry of England, maintained, nevertheless, good order
among his clergy, and sent young clerks to Liege to study
philosophy®. The bishopric of Coutances, in the tenth cen-
tury, had neither divine worship nor priests: the chroniclers
inform us that heathenism still prevailed there, whence it
would seem that not all the Normans who settled in Nor-

1 Hist. Eccles. lib. vi. Neustria Pia, art. Uticum.

2 « Juvenes valde coercebat, eosque bene legere et psallere atque scribere
verbis et verberibus cogebat.”’ lib. iii. p.485.

3 Ord. Vital. lib. vii. p. 665.
80 EARLY HISTORY OF NORMANDY.

mandy had with Rolf adopted Christianity. The bishop re-
moved his see to the church of St. Lo in Rouen; but towards
the middle of the eleventh century, bishop Geoffrey rebuilt
- the cathedral, provided it with ornaments and books, and
founded a school, to which he invited the most celebrated
grammarians and dialecticians, also skilful musicians, and re-
warded them liberally.

History was cultivated in the monasteries at an early period.
Dudo of St. Quentin, William of Jumiéges, Ordericus Vitalis,
William of Poitiers (born in Normandy, but educated in
Poitou) applied themselves to the history of the country.
They strove to imitate the great historic writers of antiquity,
but were incapable of raising themselves above the barbarism
of the times; instead of being simple and noble, their style is
inflated and bombastic. But barbarous as was their style,
they could flatter their masters as well as we can in a more
civilized age. There was not a duke of Normandy, who,
under their pen, did not appear as a model of greatness and
virtue ; those being especial objects of exaltation, in the esti-
mation of the monks, who most favoured their institutions.

The inmates of the cloister sometimes also displayed a
glimmering of imagination, and strove to cull the flowers of
poesy; but they applied the language of Virgil and Horace
to sing the praise of angels and saints. Aimar, abbot of St.
Pierre-sur-Dive, who not only made verses but set them to
music, wrote hymns in honour of St. Kilian and St. Catherine.
Thibaud of Vernon celebrated in song Robert, abbot of St.
Wandrille, and other anchorites.

These attempts in ecclesiastical poetry must, however, soon
_ give place to popular poetry, which availed itself of the French
tongue, to express national thoughts and feelings, to dissemi-
nate knowledge among the commonalty, to engage and amuse
them.

We have seen that the native tongue of the Normans was
partially lost under the second duke of Normandy, and spoken
EARLY HISTORY OF NORMANDY. 81

only in the Bessin and Cotentin, where paganism for a long
time maintained itself. In the country it must also have long
continued, as may be inferred from the names of places, of
such in particular as were at that time only villages or very
small towns, the names of which may in many cases be ex-
plained by the old Norse or Icelandic tongue'.

In the larger towns and the districts bordering on France,
intercourse with that kingdom, marriages with French women,
together with the influence which the clergy, the greater por-
tion of whom were French, had over the people, contributed
greatly to the diffusion of that language, which at length
became predominant in the country. It is, however, related,
that a Norman count named Henry, who came to the court of
William I., king of Sicily, who was also of Norman origin,
excused himself for being unable to speak French ; but this
count was from the Bessin or Cotentin?. In Rouen they un-
questionably spoke French at that time. We know from
history that Edward the Confessor, who took many Normans
with him from Normandy to England, introduced French man-
ners and the French language among his countrymen; this
tongue may, therefore, have been in general use in the first
half of the eleventh century. We know, too, that William
the Conqueror afterwards made French the predominant
tongue in England, until that of the vanquished, the Anglo-
Saxon, gained the ascendency, and from the blending of the
two the English language arose.

The first, no doubt, feeble attempts of Norman literature
are no longer known ; not until the conquest of England did
the ideas of the Normans begin to expand themselves; their
intercourse with other nations made them acquainted with
new branches of knowledge, and contributed to commerce and
industry. It was not till this time that the first really national

1 On this subject see more hereafter.
2 Fulcandus, cited by Bonamy, Dissert. sur les causes de la cessation
de la langue Tudesque en France, in Mem. de l’acad. des Inscript. xxiv.

G
82 EARLY HISTORY OF NORMANDY.

poets arose. William, it is true, had poets at his court; but
that which his minstrel or trouvére, Taillefer, sang at the
battle of Hastings was not a Norman song, but a Rolandic
ballad of French composition; and it may in general be
assumed, that from the first the French poets served as
models to the Normans. But the natural talent of the latter
soon displayed itself, and produced works of every class.
Poetry was long in vogue among the people, as several of the
poets themselves confirm.

Usages est en Normandie, A custom ’tis in Normandy,
Que qui hébergiez est, qu’il die That he who harbour’d is recite
Fable ou chanson a son oste, A song or fable to his host,

says the trouvére Jehan Chapelain', who lived in the thirteenth
century ; Robert Wace also relates that poems were read or
recited at banquets and other joyful assemblies.

But this golden age for poets could not have been of long
duration, for even Robert Wace pours forth a lament that
stories and poems (romanz 6 serventoiz) were no longer pro-
fitable, and that barons and noble dames had ceased from
making beautiful presents to

Cil ki li gestes escriveient, Those who wrote gests,

E ki li estoires faseient. And those who composed histories.

Saints, love, history, natural history, and romantic tales
were the subjects of Anglo-Norman poetry. Robert Wace
and Benoit de Ste More turned the Norman chronicles com-
posed in Latin into French verse; Geoffrey Gaimar produced
in the same tongue and in rime the history of the Anglo-
Saxons; Dourbault even turned the Coutumier (Law-book)

| Fabliau du Segretain (Sacristain) de Clugni.
That there were also tales in rime, that were recounted to friends, appears
from the conclusion of the fabliau ‘ Du Prétre qui ot Mere a force’:—
A cest most fenist cis Fabliaux,
Que nous avons en rime mis,
Pour conter devant vos amis.
See Fabliaux, etc. des Poetes Franc. Paris.1756. 'T. i.
EARLY HISTORY OF NORMANDY. 83

of Normandy into verse. Robert Wace, whom we have so
often cited, chose for a subject of his poetic elaboration, the
Life of St. Nicholas and the Institution of the Feast of the
immaculate Conception, works which during many centuries
excited much emulation among poets. Chardry, who seems
to have been a wandering trouvére, composed a poem of
five thousand verses on the Life of St. Josaphat, and also
another on the Lives of the seven holy sleepers. Landri of
Valognes, who resided at the little court of count Baldwin
of Guisnes, turned the Song of Solomon into Romance or
French verse’. .

Erotie and serious poems (sirventes), narratives and tales
(fabliaux) found more favour than even hymns and Lives of
Saints. Dionys Pirame, who in his younger days had enjoyed
the pleasures of this world, but in his advanced age had
piously celebrated in song the sainted king Edward, Richard
de Semilly, Rogerin d’Andelys, Gilles-le-Viniers, were the
forerunners of Olivier Basselin. Other poets would both
benefit and amuse. Thus William of Normandy wrote a
poem on animals (bestiaire), William Osmont one on birds
(volucraire), and on stones (lapidaire). Ladies gave en-
couragement to poems of whatever kind they might be.
Philip de Thaun dedicated to Adelaide, the queen of Henry I.
his Bestiaire; and while Wace was engaged on a metrical
chronicle for Henry II., at the same time he also translated
from the Latin the romance of Brutus, a fabulous Trojan
prince, and patriarch of the Gallic princes, which he dedicated
to the queen of the same king, Eleanor.

Ladies also applied themselves to poetry. The ‘ Lays
d’amour’ and Fabliaux of Marie of France belong to the most
interesting productions of Anglo-Norman poesy®. To escape

! See De la Rue, ‘ Diss. sur. quelques Trouvéres Anglo-Normands;’
and Pluquet, ‘Mem. sur les Trouvéres Normands,’ in Mém. de la Soc. des
Antiquaires de Normandie. Part. i. vol. ii.

2 See the edition of her poems by Roquefort. Paris 1820. 2 vols. 8vo.

G2
84 EARLY HISTORY OF NORMANDY.

from the rule of the French king, Philip Augustus, Marie
sought an asylum in England ; while, on the other hand, the
poet Alexander, born in Bernay, betook himself to the court
of that king, and, although a Norman, nevertheless flattered
the French monarch in an allegorical poem on Alexander the
Great.

But soon a wider field was opened for the Anglo-Norman
poets. The poems of Britain and Brittany, the heroic ex-
ploits of the Paladins of Charles the Great, the Eastern
fictions, brought to Europe by the Arabians and crusaders,
gave to the Anglo-Norman poetry a new impulse; it soared
into an imaginary world of wonders, and led people to forget
the cares of the real one. Hebert composed a romance
named Dolopathos, of Indian origin; Luce du Gast wrote an
imitation of the Latin romance of Tristan; Hélis and Robert de
Borron translated into French other tales of the Round Table.
The large poems, composed by the Anglo-Normans, are the
first, at least of that class, that French literature gave to the
world!.

In vain we seek herein imitations of the old Norse poesy,
or allusions to the history or customs of Scandinavia. There

-Inay, perhaps, exist some resemblance between the heroic
sagas of the North and the romances of chivalry of the south
of Europe, both having for subjects wonderful adventures, and
the praise of heroism and beauty; but from this resemblance
it cannot be concluded that the Anglo-Norman poets have
borrowed their fictions from the Northern skalds. We have
not a single proof that they were acquainted with any saga
or any skaldic composition. All remembrance of their na-
tional poetry was as completely obliterated among the posterity
of the Northmen in France as if, in traversing the ocean, they
had drunk of the water of Lethe. This total oblivion of

1 In this view the Normans have exercised an influence on the literature
of France. See Heeren ‘iiber den Einfluss der Normannen auf die Fran-
zosische Sprache und Literatur,’ in his Histor. Schriften. 24e7 Th.
EARLY HISTORY OF NORMANDY. 85

their original home they have in common with the West
Goths, who in Castilian poesy have not left the faintest trace
of their original manners and opinions. The same remark
has been applied to the Vareger, who founded a royal dynasty
in Russia, and to whom that country, as a Russian author
remarks, is not indebted for a single new idea. The causes
are here the same with those that effected a complete oblivion
_of their mother-tongue, namely their inferior civilization, their
intermixture with the natives, their marriages with the women
of the country, who knew no other traditions than those of
their native land. In Normandy, too, the Christian clergy
must have suppressed every memorial of the ancient mytho-
logy; though it would seem that the god Thor was not
totally forgotten, if it is true what Wace relates: that a
Norman chieftain, Raoul Tesson, at the battle of Val-des-
Dunes!, chose for his war-cry Tur aie! (that is, Thor aid !)
while, on the opposite side, William’s cry was Dex aie!
(God aid !)2

In the Shetland isles the Northern rovers propagated the
belief in Trolls and Dwarfs which is still to be found there.
This belief seems also to have been brought to France by
the Northmen, though it did not last long in that country.
Wace relates that the archbishop of Rouen, Mauger, who
excommunicated William the Conqueror, whom William de-
posed, and the chroniclers charge with bad morals and sor-
cery, had a familiar called Toret, who obeyed his commands,
but was invisible to all®. This was probably the name of

1 See p. 47. 2 Rom. de Rou, ii. pp. 32, 34.

3 Plusors distrent por vérité
Ke un deable aveit privé,
Ne sai s’esteit lutin u non,
Ne sai nient de sa fagon;
Toret se feseit apeler
E Toret se feseit nomer.
E quant Maugier parler voleit,
Toret apelout, si veneit ; Plusors
86 EARLY HISTORY OF NORMANDY.

some Northern sprite (Thor?) preserved in Normandy. The
belief in elves or fairies the Northmen had no occasion to
propagate in France, it existed there already. The poetess
Marie of France places the sojourn of the fairies in Brittany,
and Wace tells us very good-humouredly that he made a
journey into that province, for the purpose of ascertaining
whether it were true what was everywhere related about
fairies in the forest of Brecheliant, but that he was a fool |
for his pains!. It was Brittany, too, that the romance
writers of the middle age made the scene of their fairy-
narratives. De la Rue? has endeavoured to prove that the
belief in fairies has prevailed in Brittany from the first
century of our era, and that it was introduced neither by
Arabians nor Normans, and that the trouvéres, in the
twelfth, thirteenth, and fourteenth centuries, always borrowed
their poetic beings from the ancient Armorica, and never
from the North. They even sometimes declare that they
have the subjects of their romantic epics from the works of
the Bretons.

The Northmen, who established themselves in France,
must, with the language, naturally lose their old writing. In

Plusors les poeient oir,
Maiz nus d’els nes poet véir.
Rom. de Rou, v. 9713 sqq.

[Toret is, no doubt, meant as the diminutive of Thor. This is the opinion
also of M. Pluquet; “but another MS. reads ‘ Turie,’ and M. Le Provost
considers the latter to be the true reading, and that the cry was really

Thury, and most probably referred to the chief seat of Raol Tesson.” See
* Master Wace,” by Edgar Taylor. p. 20, note.—T.

1 La alai jo merveilles querre,

Vis la forest é vis la terre;

Merveilles quis, maiz nes’ trovai ;

Fol m’en revins, fol i alai,

Fol i alai, fol m’en revins,

Folie quis, por fol me tins.

Rom. de Rou, v. 11534 sqg.—T.

% Recherches sur les Ouvrages des Bardes de la Bretagne Armoricaine.
Caen 1815,
EARLY HISTORY OF NORMANDY. 87

Normandy no runic stones are to be found, as in the Northern
kingdoms; no Northman on the shore of his new country
has caused to be cut in stone the name of his father or of
the heroes of the land of his birth. When they had acquired
possessions in France they forgot both native land and kin-
dred ; and when they had also forgotten their mother-tongue,
what could they do with runes, which the priests would, no
doubt, regard as magical characters, or a device of the
devil ?

Whatever partiality the Normans may have entertained
for history, they, nevertheless, betrayed an almost perfect
indifference for their original country. The historians of
Normandy describe the heathen North as a den of robbers.
After an interval of two centuries, they knew nothing of the
events that had caused the founder of their ruling family to
forsake the North; they did not even know where Denmark
and Norway lay. Benoit de Ste More begins his chronicle
with a geographic sketch, in which he takes Denmark for
Dacia and places it at the mouth of the Danube, between
the extensive countries of the Alani and Getz, which are
always covered with ice, and surrounded by a chain of moun-
tains!.

Having thus taken a brief survey of the intellectual condi-
tion of the Frankish Normans, we will now proceed to a
review of their manner of living.

Husbandry, domestic and rural economy could not flourish
under a rule of violence. Almost all our knowledge of the
subject is derived from charters, whereby the greater portion

! Entre Alane, qui mult est lee,
Et Jece, qui n’est senz gelée,
Est Danemarche la plenére,
Lissi assise en telle maniére,
Que altre si est cume corone,
Fiéres montagnes le avironne.
Chron. de Norm. liv. i.

Comp. Dudo, de Mor. et Act. Norm, and W. Gemmet. lib. i. c. 2.
88 EARLY HISTORY OF NORMANDY.

of the produce of the soil is transferred to churches and con-
vents. The several sorts of grain were cultivated, also flax,
hemp, pulses and fruit!. The extensive oak and beech forests
yielded a superabundance of food for swine, of which frequent
mention occurs in the charters. A lord, at one time, allows
a monastery to send from sixty to a hundred swine into his
forest? ; at another, he grants to the monks a tithe of the
swine on his farms. An abbot of Cluny, whom duke Richard.
had sent for to reform the abbey of Fécamp, refused to come
unless the duke would allow the abbey free grazing in his
forests for swine and cattle?. Mention of oxen and cows is
not very frequent; in the earliest times swine’s flesh must
have been the most general food. The culture of the vine
must at that time have been more universal in Normandy
than it is in our days; it appears from the charters that.
most abbeys had vineyards4. Without doubt, this branch
of husbandry was in use there before the settlement of the
Northmen, and might have afforded the vikings an additional
motive for choosing that province. But as almost everything
was given to the churches, it is probable that the wine also
fell to the share of the monks, and that the people retained:
only beer and cider. Wace relates that the French gave the.
Normans the nicknames of bigots and beer-drinkers>.

Although the apple was cultivated in gardens, it seems
that the cider was made from the wild fruit. At least we
find by a charter of the year 1185, that the count of Meulan
allows the monks of J umiéges to gather apples in his forest,

1 Decimam annonz et vinearum, lini, cannabi, et leguminum. Chart. of
Henry to St. Evroult, 1128. Neustria Pia.

* Habeant monachi in eodem parco centum porcos, etc. Chart. of
donat. of K. Henry to the abbey of Essay. Neust. Pia, p. 618.

3 Mabillon, Annal. Bened. P. iv. Gallia Christ. P. xi.

4 Vineam de Tri—decimam vinearum in monte de Calvincourt—qua-
draginta agros ad vineam faciendam—vineam nostram in terra Jay, ete.
Charters in Neust. Pia.

® Et claiment bigoz é draschiers. Rom. de Rou, v. 9902.
EARLY HISTORY OF NORMANDY. 89

for the purpose of preparing beverages from them for their
own use'. Honey was also collected in the forests, no doubt.
from wild bees.
The chase was so productive that a tithe was laid on the
game. Rabbit-warrens and deer-parks are mentioned as
belonging to the great manors. There were also salt-works
or, rather, salt-pits, along the shore and the rivers, as far as
the sea-water reached at flood-tides?. At the present day it
is hardly possible to obtain salt in places along the coast,
where it was collected in abundance in the eleventh and
twelfth centuries, as the sea-water no longer reaches so far.
There was fishing in the rivers and along the coasts; but
the best fish were reserved for the monks: they had a tithe
of eels4, There is a charter of the count of Eu of 1036, in
favour of the abbey of Tréport, by which the porpoises are
reserved for St. Michael, that is the cloister of that name;
the donor, moreover, adds, that whenever a ‘ crassus piscis’>
was taken, one fin and half the tail should belong to the
monks®. Herrings were caught both in rivers and the sea,

1 « Preeterea dedi et in perpetuum concessi prefatis monachis poma
colligenda ad proprium potum eorum et servientium ipsorum per totam
forestam meam.” Chart. of Robert in Neust. Pia, p. 322.

2 « Decimam mellis ipsius forestz, venationis,” etc. Bull of P. Euge-
nius ITI. a.1152. Gallia Christ. xi. p. 134.

3 « Quatuor salinas apud Huneflotam—salinam apud Butellas—sali-
nam apud Girafrevillam—totum meum sal de Veduno.”’ Charters in
Neust. Pia.

4 Habeant monachi unam piscariam in mari et decimam anguillarum”
(Chart. in Neustr. Pia).—“ Decimas linguarum cenarum que capiuntur
inter Tar et Tarel fluvios.” Bull of Eugene ITI.

- 5 Tn the document entitled ‘ De Institutis Lundonie’ (Laws of K. Ethel-
red, ap. Ancient LL. and Inst. p. 127, fol. edit.) mention is made of the
toll to be paid at Billingsgate by the men of Rouen, who came with wine
or craspice, viz. the twentieth piece (frustum) of the said eraspice. The
fish here in question, called in other documents craspiscis, is supposed by
Spelman to be the grampus, the French name of which, grampoise, he
takes to be a contraction of grand poisson, or magnus (crassus) piscis.—T.

6 Quod si homines abbatis piscem qui vocatur Turium capiant, totus

erit Sancti Michaelis; crassus piscis si captus fuerit, ala una et medietas
90 EARLY HISTORY OF NORMANDY.

and there were abbeys and other pious foundations that were
annually supplied with them by thousands, particularly during
Lent!. Whether they salted them is not known. The
herring fishery is connected with the history of navigation.
It would be interesting to ascertain whether the Normans
introduced this branch of fishery and the method of salting
into France or not. Some literati have declared for the first
opinion2, because the catching and salting of herrings must
have been of much earlier date in the North than in France.
The history of the North, too, as early as the year 888, speaks
of the herring-fishery, and of sending a lading of herrings to
England®. But all the other accounts of the catching and
salting of herrings are of later date+. The oldest document
connected with this branch of industry, having reference to
the Baltic, is not earlier than the fourteenth century. As
the herrings went up the Seine, it would not be extraordinary
that the fishery was carried on before the arrival of the
Northmen in France; but with regard to the sea-fishery, it
is reasonable to suppose it commenced when that seafaring
people established themselves at the mouth of the Seine.
Love of fishing and a marine life was inherited by their pos-
terity; and at a subsequent period there issued from Nor-
mandy a multitude of seafarers, who extended the commerce,
civilization, and power of France. Dieppe was not founded

caudz erit monachis.’? Chart. of donation, in Neust. Pia, and Gallia
Christ. xi.

1 « Debent etiam habere vinum, milliare bonorum halectorum et trede-
cim paria sotularium.”’ Chart. to the Hétel Dieu at Lisieux, a. 1218.—
“*Ex dono Walteri comitis Giffardi, allecum sex millia apud Pontem Au-
demari.” Chart. of a.1169 in Neust. Pia et Gall. Christ. xi.

? Noél de la Moriniére, Statistique du Dép. de la Seine Infér. c. 9.
Hist. des Péches, i.

% Schénings Norges Hist. ii. pp. 139, 455.

4 Westenberg, Diss. de Piscaturis in oceano boreali; Humble, Diss.
de Pisc, Harengorum in Rdslagia. Upsal. 1745, and Enanders Afhandl.

om Svenska Sillfisket, etc. in t. vii. of Vitterh. Hist. och Ant. Akad.
Handl. Stockh. 1802,
EARLY HISTORY OF NORMANDY. 91

before the tenth century; but previously Harfleur, Cher-
bourg, Barfleur, and some other ports had been frequented
by foreign vessels, and even carried on a commerce by sea;
still later, other sea-ports enjoyed the same advantages. In
the first turbulent centuries, history rarely makes mention of
commerce ; there was, indeed, some intercourse with Flanders
and England, but certainly very little with the North. In
the interior of the country there were some markets for the
necessaries of life and other articles of trade.

Conquerors usually strive to force their laws on the van-
quished ; it might, therefore, be expected to find in the first
legislation of the Norman dukes vestiges of Scandinavian
customs. But of that legislation we have very little know-
ledge, and probably it was not of any great importance. We
have seen that those Northmen who emigrated to Iceland
established there a commonwealth; but in Normandy the
task was not so easy and simple; there was a new aristo-
eracy, consisting of the companions of Rolf, who had received
investments of land; perhaps too there was an older one of

‘the Frankish lords, who held already landed property in
Neustria, and of which they probably retained a part. There
were also a burgher class, a working class, and a sacerdotal
class; ancient laws and customs already existed there, which
in great part derived their origin from the Franks, and had,
no doubt, great resemblance to those of the North. It would
therefore be difficult to distinguish the legal provisions intro-
duced by the first Northmen from those that were already in
force when they established themselves in France. The
ancient Coutumier de Normandie}, the oldest law-book known

! Houard supposes this collection to contain the oldest laws of Nor-
mandy. “Basnage is of opinion that the ancient Coutumier would be
the old Norman law, if only it could be shown that its compiler wrote
before the time of Philip Augustus. But the accordance of this old cou-
tumier with Littleton’s collection of English laws is a far better proof that
it contains the old Norman law than the certainty of its compilation before
the time of Philip Augustus. This accordancé compels us to ascribe to
92 EARLY HISTORY OF NORMANDY.

of that province, but the origin of which is not sufficiently
clear, says, that when Rolf had become master of Neustria,
he collected the ancient customs, and, when he encountered
difficulties, made inquiry of the wisest men, who knew what
was law according to old custom and usage!. Rolf, who had
all his life been a rover on the ocean, could hardly have been
much skilled in Northern legislation, and must naturally have
found it far easier to continue the ancient customs that the
inhabitants had previously followed than to introduce others,
particularly if they were not in opposition to those of the
Northmen. From the eleventh century, therefore, we find
Normandy governed in nearly the same manner as the king-
_ dom of France. Counts and barons administered the law in
the towns and districts, at first in the name of the duke,
afterwards in their own. The rights of the lord, the duties
of the vassal, the feudal spirit, the pernicious consequences
of serfdom, were all nearly the same in the duchy as in the
kingdom. The police law, known by the name of clameur de
Haro, was, as I have already remarked, in use also among
the French, and yet more among the Anglo-Saxons. It was
a law required by necessity in those times of feudal anarchy.
The commonalty, more particularly the rural population,
were not more fortunate in Normandy than in other coun-
tries. After the disastrous result of the combination against
the barons in the time of duke Richard II.2, they no more
ventured on an attempt to cast off the galling yoke. They
were bound to the spot of earth on which they were born,
and human beings were given to churches and monasteries
like other property?. They were compelled to follow the

the customs collected in these two works a higher antiquity than the time
when the English became acquainted with them and adopted them.”
Houard, Anc. Lois des Francais, i. Introd.

1 Anc. Coutumier de Normandie, cc. 10, 53, 121. 2 See page 33.

3 In charters of donation in Neustria Pia we read: “‘ Unum hortula-
num cum terra sua.””—“duos homines et mensuras duas.—duos villa-
nos,’’ etc.
EARLY HISTORY OF NORMANDY. 93

banner of their lord, and shed their blood in wars and dissen-
sions that in no way concerned them, and the issue of which
made no change in their lot. They paid tithes to their lords
or to the church, and consumed in anxiety the bread they
were allowed to retain; being never sure of reaping the fruits
of their toil.

But notwithstanding all this, usage and habit had already
introduced forms sufficient for the protection of property and
personal security: according to Houard, written decisions
even were in general use in Normandy from the beginning of
the twelfth century, that is almost two hundred years earlier
than in the rest of France'. The burning-iron was deposited
in the church, blessed and consecrated by the priests, for the
purpose of burning, in the name of God, the hand of such as
were guilty of false accusation, or of denying their crimes?.
It was a great privilege for the churches to possess this iron
(ferrum judicii) and the jurisdiction connected with it; they
obtained this privilege from the duke, and disputes arose for
the possession of the formidable iron?. But the legal duel
was far more in accordance with the martial spirit of the
Normans than the ordeal-iron; nor was there any other pro-
vince of France where so many single combats took place,
both in closed lists (en champ clos) and the open field as in
Normandy; it was almost the single combat (holmgang) of
the Scandinavians transferred to the French soil. But in
Norway and Denmark they fought for booty and honour; in
Normandy they fought within lists, according to legal custom,

1 Anc. Lois des Frangais, i. Houard cites for his authority, ‘ Lettres
Historiques: sur les Parlemens, ii. pp. 32, 39.

2. © Querelam habuit Gilbertus (abbot of St. Wandrille) cum Guillermo,
archiep. Rothomag. de ferro judicii et jurisdictione in quatuor parochias,
que abbati a Wilhelmo R. adjudicata sunt anno 1082 apud Oxellum.”—
‘* Gilbertus perditam probationis ferri machinam anno eodem instauravit,
et a Guillelmo, Rothom. antistite, benedictione sacrandam curavit; qua
de re actum fuerat in concilio ejusdem anni.” Gall. Christ. xi.

3 Ord. Vitalis and other Norman chroniclers.—Capefigue, Essai sur les
Invasions maritimes des Normands dans les Gaules, pp. 340 sq.
SE ene 2

94 EARLY HISTORY OF NORMANDY.

and in the open field, consistently with the turbulent spirit or
love of danger, which the nation still retained, on which

account it with difficulty reconciled itself to the usages of

France'. The ill will borne by the Normans towards the
French appears evidently in the works of the earliest chro-
niclers. According to Wace, the Normans inveighed against
the French in their songs and histories, and he says himself
very candidly what he has at heart against them. This pre-
judice on the part of the Normans probably lasted as long
as their Northern physiognomy, their fair hair? and other
characteristics, whereby they were distinguished from the
French. William the Conqueror, who knew his people
thoroughly, is made to say, that they were proud, difficult to
govern, and fond of lawsuits®. Malaterra, who had studied
their character in Sicily, found them crafty, vindictive, domi-
neering, eager to leave their country for the sake of greater
gain abroad, dissembling, neither prodigal nor avaricious,
devoted to the study of eloquence, lovers of the chase, hawk-
ing, horses, arms, and beautiful attire; in short a people that
must be held in check by the laws‘.

The celebrated tapestry in the cathedral of Bayeux, wrought
by a princess Matilda, whether the wife of the Conqueror or
the daughter of Henry I. is uncertain, and intended to repre-
sent the conquest of England5, is the oldest authentic monu-
ment which makes us acquainted with the arms and military
costume of the Normans®. The arms and habits are iden-
tical with those of the Danes, as they appear in the miniature

1 Wace, Chron. ascend. des Ducs de Normandie.

2 ‘Wace informs us that some of the first dukes were fair-haired.

3 Rom. de Rou, v. 14253 sqq. 4 Carusii Bibl. hist. Siciliz, i. \

5 See Archeologia, xvii. [also xviii. and xix. Montfaucon, Monum.
Fr. i.—Mem. de l’Acad. des Insc. vi. and vii—Stukeley, Paleogr. Brit.
No, xi. 1746, 4t°.—Turner’s Tour in Normandy, ii. pp. 234-242.—Estrups
Reise i Norm. pp. 90 sq.—Dibdin’s Biogr. Tour, i. pp. 375-386.—P.] See
also the engravings from Stothard’s drawings in Monum. Vetusta.

6 Sam. Rush Meyrick, Critical Inquiry into Ancient Armour, i.
1824, 4to, :
EARLY HISTORY OF NORMANDY. 95

paintings of a manuscript of the time of king Cnut, preserved
in the British Museum’, namely shirts of mail, consisting of
simple iron rings sewed on the habit; helmets of various
forms, lances, swords, bows, iron maces, etc. With few ex-
ceptions, similar weapons are found among all the nations of
Europe in those early times. Muratori is of opinion, that
the Italians learned the art of war of the Normans: he would,
perhaps, have been nearer the truth, if he had said, the art
of fighting well; for that they understood in perfection, as
we have already seen, whereby they acquired duchies and
kingdoms.

To the Normans has been ascribed the introduction of
chivalry into France ; and from the foregoing it will, no doubt,
appear that the manners and habits of the Scandinavians,
rugged and barbarous as they were, had in them something
of the knightly character : in their enthusiastic love of valour
and glory, their foster-brotherhood, their carrying off of women,
their love of heroic poetry, and their indomitable passions,
they were in fact knights, though the Moors possessed the
same violent passions, which produce extraordinary deeds of
heroism. Hence ‘it is difficult to determine, whether the
spirit of chivalry spread itself over the middle of Europe from
the north or the south; it probably evolved itself there from
the same causes that gave it birth among the Moors and
Scandinavians. But Christianity and civilization so greatly
changed this spirit, that, at least in France, it became per-
fectly different from the rough valour of the barbarian na-
tions. We have already remarked that the heroic poetry of
France had nothing of a Scandinavian character.

The feudal system was unable to quell the haughty spirit
of the Normans; even during its existence they enjoyed
more freedom than any other province of France. “In the
other provinces,” says Houard?, “ the protection of a lord was

1 MS. Cott. Cal. A. vii. ? 2 Anc. Lois des Francais, i. p. 196.
96 EARLY HISTORY OF NORMANDY.

necessary to secure the commonalty against the loss of liberty ;
while in Normandy every man and every landed possession
were by law free; the duke alone having immediate juris-
diction over all his subjects; and it stood in the power of no
lord to alter the condition of the freeman or his possessions.”
There was formed, though it is not known at what time, a
supreme court, under the appellation of the Ewcheguer, con-
sisting of the duke, the seneschal, other judges chosen by the
duke, and the most eminent of the ministers of justice in the
courts of the nobles. These not only managed the domains
of the superior lord, but pronounced judgment in all cases of
bad administration by the officials, and other abuses, also
received appeals in private cases. The mass of the people
grew rich by commerce, arts, and seafaring, and thus became
conscious of their own importance. The communities de-
manded rights, or maintained them under the denomination
of privileges. The rights of the freemen were at first but
imperfectly made known, and the oldest charters no longer
exist. The oldest one known is of the year 1315). In this
it is provided that those Normans, who were independent of
a lord, were only bound to render to the sovereign certain
fixed services and imposts, besides which he could demand
nothing; that they were not liable to the torture, except
when suspected of capital crimes; that forty years’ prescrip-
tion gave right of possession ; that Normans should be judged
by their own native judges, ete. In such provisions, nearly
the same with those which the English prescribed to their
early kings, consisted the Normans’ charters of liberties; these
were at various times confirmed, together with their other
customs, especially when the authorities had intrenched upon
them, and after the most serious complaints on the part of
the people. But when the French kings, by a series of civil
and religious wars, had increased their power, and governed

Tt is printed in several works, as in Brussels, Traité des Fiefs; Dupuy’s
Collection ; Goubé’s Hist. du Duché de Normandie, ii., and elsewhere.
OF LOCAL NAMES IN NORMANDY. 97

more by their own will than with the states of the realm,
they issued their ordinances “ without regard to the clameur
de Haro and the Norman charters of liberties,” thus setting
at naught the express condition on which Normandy sub-
mitted to king Philip. Nevertheless, the province, according
to the last constitutional charter of the kingdom, gained
more than it had lost, if we except its ancient municipal
privileges.

OF LOCAL NAMES IN NORMANDY.

A number of local names in Normandy unquestionably
derive their origin from the Northmen: of these there are
several kinds : :

In the first place, local names ending in ville (Lat. villa)
consist for the most part of that termination with a foreign
word prefixed, which seems almost in every case to be the
name or surname of the Northman who either dwelt at the
ville or was owner of the village. I will take the first that
present themselves from the department of the Lower Seine,
where such names, formed with the Latin termination and a
Northern name, are very general, no doubt because Rolf
there particularly distributed possessions among his followers:
as Froberville, Beuzeville, Gauzeville, Grainbouville, Henne-
querville, Manniquerville, Rouville, Rolleville, Triguerville,
Bierville, Gueutteville, Houppeville, Tancarville, Varengeville;
Heugleville, Normanville, Norville, Gremonville, Toufreville,
Valliquerville, Alliquerville, Heugueville, Guicorville. In the
name Varengeville, as in Varangerfjord in Norway, we meet
with the word Varanger, Bapayyos, or the name of those
Northmen who served in the Greek emperor’s body guard,
and which is the same word with Veringer or Vareger, an
appellation that may be understood to signify all Northern
vikings in general. It is well known that the Northern people
that visited Russia were so called.

In the North itself there are likewise many local names

H
98 OF LOCAL NAMES IN NORMANDY.

composed of a personal proper name and the words sted, vig,
lev and the like, as Sigersted, Gjedsted, Heinsvig, Jelling,
Ormslev!.

Names of towns in fot, derived from the Anglo-Saxon or
Icelandic, are almost as frequent, as Yvetot, Raffetot, Gar-
netot, Criquetot, Houdetot, Louvetot. In the neighbour-
hood of Godarville, in the department of the Lower Seine,
most of the villages, as Noel remarks?, have this termination,
as Ansetot, Turretot, Sassetot, Eculetot, Tiboutot, Prétot,
Valletot, etc. The name Sassetot seems to signify a Saxon
settlement.

The termination bec is, without doubt, the O. Nor. bekr,
Dan. bee, Engl. beck (a brook). It is found in Bolbec, Bec,
Caudebec®, Foulbec, Carbec, etc. A little river that flows
through Rouen is named Robec. In Denmark there is also.
Holbek (Engl. Holbeach ?), Vedbek, etc.

Names in ew and eur, which are found so frequently along
the coast, as Ku, Cantaleu, are to be explained only by the
O. Nor. ey, Dan. 6 (isle), and aur, eyri, Dan. ér, dre (strand,
shore), which so frequently occur in the North‘. Those in
fleur, as Harfleur, Barfleur, Figuefleur, Vittefleur, in their
older form, bore a still closer resemblance to their Scan-
dinavian parents. Instead of Harfleur, for instance, it
was called Herifloium and Herosfluet ; Witeflue, instead of
Vitefleur; Harflue instead of Harfleur. Wace writes Barbe-
flue for Barbeflot5, and Benoit de Ste More Barreflo for

1 See Olufsens Bidrag til oplysning om Danmarks indvortes Forfatning
i de eldre Tider, in the Vid. S. phil. og hist. Afb. i. p. 377. [The termi-
nation Je is the A. S. hlew, Engl. low, Scot. law ; vig is Engl. wick (wich) ;
sted in Engl. stead.—T.]

2 Essai sur le Départ. de la Seine Infér. [There seems no need of re-
course to the Anglo-Saxon for the interpretation of tot: it is no doubt a
corruption of the O. Nor. and Dan. toft.—T.]

_ 3 Answering no doubt to the Engl. Coldbrook.—T.

4 Answering to the A.S. ig, Engl. ey (ea), as in Ceortes-ig, Chertsey,
Battersea.—T.

5 See Rom. de Rou, v. 6241.
OF LOCAL NAMES IN NORMANDY. 99

Barfleur. In Odericus Vitalis we find: “in portu qui Bar-
beflot dicitur ;” and in the Chron. Norm.: “Cum esset apud
Barbefluvium;” in R. Hoveden: “apud Barbeflet'.” All this
plainly points to the O. Nor. fijot, a river, A.S. flod, Engl. fleet,
_ asin Northfleet, Bamfleet, ete. But both the pronunciation
and orthography vary in various localities, so that the North-
ern ey, 6 in places on the coast of Normandy became ew, eur ;
in the names of the isles west of Normandy, ey, as Jersey,
Guernsey, Alderney, Chausey ; in the names of the Hebrides,
it is a, as Jura, Ila; of the Orkneys ay, as Ronaldsay,
Strathsay ; in Holland, perhaps, 0, as Boreulo, Hengelo,
Almelo, ete.?

The termination bewf, as in Painbeuf, Marbeuf, Criquebeuf,
Quittebeuf, Quillebeuf, corresponds unquestionably to the Dan.
by or 60 Engl. by (O. Nor. ber, ba). In former times Penteboe
was said instead of Painbeuf, also Dalboe, Balboe, Kilboe (for
Quillebeuf), which was likewise written Cuilebcef; Criquebot
and Criqueboe were also said for Criquebeuf.

The O. Nor. skégr, Dan. Skov, Engl. Scot. shaw, is found
in the name of the old forest of Eskoves, in the department
of the Lower Seine.

Some names have the Northern termination dal, (O. Nor.
dalr, dale). Besides the two dals to the right and left of
Sassetot (Dep. Lower Seine), which are especially called Dalles
(grandes Dalles and petites Dalles), we meet also with Oudales
near Beaucamp, Crodale, Danestal, Darnetal (Dep. Calva-
dos), Dieppedal, Croixdal, Bruquedalle (Dep. L. Seine).

The O. Nor. garér (Engl. garth, yard), which originally sig-
nified every kind of inclosure; and afterwards, a yard, court,
mansion, in town or country, is found also in Norman local

names, as Auppegard and Epegard (Dep. Eure).

! Noel, Essai sur le Départ. de Ja Seine Infér. ii. c. 4.

2 This is a mistake. Theo belongs to the second component: Borcu-lo,
Alme-lo, Ven-lo Wester-lo, etc. ‘‘ Loo, lo. inquit Becanus. Locus altus
adjacens stagnis, torrentibus aut paludibus.” Kilian, s. v.—T.

nu 2
100 OF LOCAL NAMES IN NORMANDY.

The point of land the Hoc at the mouth of the Lizard, also
the promontory of La Hogue, derive their name from the
Dan. huk, ax angle, hook. The Scandinavians have also the
word nes, of the same signification, whence probably are de-
rived the names of French and English promontories ending
in nez or ness, (naze), a8 Blanenez, Grisnez, Nez de Carteret,
Nez de Tancarville, Holderness, Sheerness, etc.

Houlme near Rouen is evidently the O. Nor. hélmi, Dan.
holm, an islet, as Bornholm, Stockholm.

Many other names of places are to be found in Normandy,
which derive their origin from the Old Norse: e.g. Terhoulde
(also Torholt in Flanders, anciently Turhold) Thor's holt?
Estrand (0. Nor. strénd, strand) ; Ebe (Ebbe), etc.?

1 For further information on this subject see Auguste Le Prevost,
Dictionnaire des anciens noms de lieu du département de l’Eure.—T.
A
HISTORY OF ENGLAND
UNDER THE

NORMAN KINGS.

WILLIAM THE FIRST,

SURNAMED THE CONQUEROR.

CONTEMPORARY SOVEREIGNS.

 

GERMANY. FRANCE. PAPACY. SCOTLAND. SPAIN.
Henry I, Philip I. | Alexander II. ob. 1073. | Malcolm III. | Sancho I. ob. 1072.
Gregory VII - 1085. Alphonso I.

 

 

 

Victor III. - 1087.

THE most decisive victory in a civil war, and such was the
war between the brothers Harold and Tostig, is not imme-
diately productive of peace and unity. The transitory union,

which had taken place against the invading foreigners, was
instantly dissolved, when Harold had fallen by the hostile
shaft. A vast number of Normans, not less, it is said, than
fifteen thousand, fell in the first pursuit of the fleeing Anglo-
Saxons, who knew how to take advantage of their knowledge
of the country'; but the panic caused by the loss of the
great battle operated on minds atill influenced by old dissen-
sions and mutual mistrust, to the bereavement of all energy
and moral strength. Not the government alone, but all
military command was dissolved, and the Anglo-Saxons took
refuge in the nearest towns, or by their domestic hearths
in the hundreds. Further measures for resistance were no-
where prepared, nor was there any one to devise them;
London alone, with its walls and towers and brave citizens,
armed itself for defence. There dwelt Ealdgyth, Harold’s

! Ord. Vitalis, p. 501., more circumstantial than Guil. Pictay. p. 203.
102 WILLIAM THE FIRST.

widow ; the young Eadgar A®theling, who, as the grandson
of king Eadmund Ironside, was the rightful heir to the crown.
Stigand and Ealdred, the archbishops of Canterbury and
York ; Wulfstan, bishop of Worcester, and other distin-
guished ecclesiastics, who had been the counsellors of Harold,
had also taken refuge there. The powerful earls, Eadwine
and Morkere, comely energetic young men, the favourites of
the Anglo-Saxon people, who, when too late, must have re-
pented of forsaking their brother-in-law, Harold, at Senlac,
entered London with a military force. These sons of A¢lfgar
strove, in the first instance, to obtain the guardianship of
their nephews, the sons of Harold, if not to gain for them-
selves the crown of their brother-in-law! ; but finding that —
their aspirations met with no favourable reception, they united
with the other witan, who, with the approval of the citizens
of London and the butse-carles, placed the crown on the head
of Eadgar. But Hadwine and Morkere, who were bound and
had promised to afford all the aid in their power, suddenly
left London with their forces, together with their sister, the
widowed queen, whom they sent to Chester?, filled with envy
and hatred towards the more fortunate claimant of the throne,
and probably in the hope of changing their earlship over the
north of England into an unlimited royal authority?. Thus
was London left almost wholly to the defence of its citizens
and soldiers*, under the brave Ansgar, its chief magistrate,
and heard with apprehension of the progress of the Norman
duke and his rapacious army.

The day following the battle of Senlac, William ssi
to Hastings, where he continued for five days, in the deceitful
hope that the Anglo-Saxons would immediately take steps to
apprize him of their subjection. On the contrary, the people

1 W. Malm. p. 421. 2 Flor. Wigorn. a. 1066. 3 W. Malm. p. 421.

4 Guil. Pictav. p. 205. “Cum solos cives habeat, copioso ac prestantia
militari famoso incolatu abundat.”’

5 Wido of Amiens, v. 690.
WILLIAM THE FIRST. 103

of Romsey opposed the landing of a considerable body of
Norman soldiers, who ignorant of the country attempted to
disembark there; thus proving that the Anglo-Saxon power
was not totally annihilated. But William no longer delayed
profiting by the confusion of the moment. He hastened to
Romney, to take vengeance on the inhabitants for the loss
sustained by his men, and thence proceeded to Dover, within
the bulwarks of which, that had been strengthened by the
labours of ages, a vast mass of people had sought protec-
tion from the enemy. But here, too, a man was wanting
capable of concentrating and employing the existing means ;
a state of things to which the circumstance probably con-
tributed, that the castle of that place, which had previously
belonged to Harold, and by him had been strongly fortified ',
must have been almost totally abandoned by its garrison,
who had, no doubt, hastened to the aid of their chief. Wil-
liam, whose followers had regarded it as impregnable, and
who must have been encouraged to the extremest exertions
by the promise of a rich booty, was no less rejoiced than
surprised when, before he had arrived in sight of the rocky
fortress, he was met by deputies from the town, who presented
him with its keys?. But this peaceful surrender did not
satisfy the Norman army, which was by no means disposed
to conquer England for the duke, but for spoil and enjoyment.
The accidental delay of some of the people in leaving the

! «Traditurus Doveram studio atque sumptu suo (scil. ducis Heraldi)
communitam.” Guil. Pictav. p.191.

2 Guil. Pictav. lib. i. Wido vv. 599 sq. The unequivocal expressions
of the contemporary writers forbid us to assume a siege of Dover: conse-
quently no importance is to be attached to Thierry’s “on ne connait point
les détails du siége.”” The more I admire the spirit and acuteness with
which this excellent work on the conquest of England is written, the more
I regard myself obliged to caution against the misrepresentation of many
facts, as well as the abuse of his authorities in the course of it, to which he
has been seduced by sympathy for the oppressed nation. Mackintosh
also allowed himself to be misled by the historian of the Conquest, when
he pronounced his citations as very accurate, and also speaks of a siege of
Dover.
104 WILLIAM THE FIRST.

fortress was used by the enemy as a pretext for plundering
them; for the safer accomplishment of which object, they set
fire to several of the houses. The town was almost totally
consumed, and the duke, who was unable either to prevent
the outrage, or to punish the perpetrators, could only offer
restitution and other compensations to his new subjects, for
their destroyed habitations. He spent a week in repairing some
defects in the fortress; then, leaving a strong garrison and
many sick behind, who were suffering from dysentery, caused
by the too abundant use of fresh meat and cold water, was
on the point of advancing to Canterbury, when the inhabitants
of that city also, and shortly after those of the neighbouring
towns, came and presented him with their homage, with hos-
tages, and valuable donations, Like hungry flies, that settle
in swarms on a bleeding wound—so a Norman expresses
himself !—the Anglo-Saxons hurried forward to offer their ser-
vices to the duke. From Canterbury he sent to the widowed °
queen Eadgyth, who was residing at Winchester, which city
had been assigned to her by her consort, king Eadward, as a
jointure, and assured her the possession of that large city, in
consideration of a tribute. At Canterbury he fell seriously
sick, and was compelled to remain there, or in the neighbour-
hood, during a whole month?. A delay by which the in-
fatuated country was incapable of profiting.

William had despatched five hundred horse to lay siege to
London, to shatter its walls by battering rams and subter-
ranean passages, to force the numerous population to surrender
by fire and famine, as well as by treason and bribery; while
he himself, as soon as he had recovered, overran the adjacent
counties of Sussex, Surrey, Middlesex, Hampshire, and Hertford-
shire?, where his army abandoned itself to the most unbridled

1 Wido v. 617.

‘* Et veluti musce, stimulo famis exagitate,
Ulcera densatim plena cruore petunt.”’
2? Fracta Turris. G. Pictav. p. 205.

3 Flor. Wigorn. a. 1066. Edit. E.H. Soc. The old editions and Simeon
of Durham have the erroneous reading Herefordensem.
WILLIAM THE FIRST. 105

eruelty and licentiousness, from which a multitude of unpaid
vassals, allies, and adventurers cannot be withheld. Those
well-meaning Anglo-Saxons at London, who had fostered the
hope of being able to defend their native country, were now
convinced that resistance was vain, and that a speedy sub-
mission was the best means for obtaining favourable con-
ditions. Archbishop Stigand, therefore, and Agelsine, abbot
of St. Augustine’s at Canterbury, whose possessions were
-among those that had most severely suffered, went to the
conqueror at Wallingford, as he was about crossing the
Thames, renounced the youth whom they had crowned, and
swore allegiance to the Norman duke!. William promised
what was demanded of him; for so rich a prize as the king-
dom of England there was no scruple about words, and a
change in the constitution, provided the imposts were adequate
to his wants, was not among the designs of a warrior as-
tounded at his own success. Shortly after, he was met at
Berkhamstead? by Ealdred, archbishop of York ; Wulfstan,
bishop of Worcester; the eetheling Hadgar himself, and the
citizens of London, which last, through the false representa-
tions of an agent, bribed by the crafty William, who had

1 Guil. Pictav. p. 205. The author here adds: “It is not improbable
that they came with a body of warriors ready to fight if William had not
granted to them a confirmation of their ancient rights and customs: per-
haps, too, the tradition is not unfounded, that the Kentish army, advancing
under the covering of branches from the trees, might have appeared to the
enemy as a wood until, standing in face of them and casting down their
leafy screen, they at once appeared threatening with sword and spear.”
For this story, which seems more at home in a note than in the text, the
author cites as his authority : Chron. W.Thorne ap. Savile, col.1768, and
a ballad of the 16th century in Thierry ii.; and adds: “the story of Birn-
ham Wood, known to every one, is to be found in Buchanan (Hist. Scot.
lib. vii.c.85.). But less known it is that a similar tradition is to be found
in the history of Holstein, where it is assigned to the 14th century.” See
Chron. Holsat. S. Presbyter. Bremens. c. 18.—T,

2 That Eadwine and Morkere were also present is evidently an error of
the Saxon Chronicle, as they had left London and, according to the account
of an eye-witness, did not appear before William till the meeting at Barking.
106 WILLIAM THE FIRST.

vainly endeavoured to shake the fidelity of Ansgar, had been
seduced to deliver up the city!. William confirmed the
rights and possessions of those who submitted to him, in-
cluding even Eadgar Aitheling, to whom he gave assurance
both of life and an honourable treatment. The word solemnly
pledged to the Anglo-Saxons, to restrain his soldiery from
pillage, he was unable to fulfil, as against the aversion of
the great body of the nation, notwithstanding the submission
of some of the most distinguished, which manifested itself on
every occasion, the good will of his Normans was indispensable.

No conqueror understood better than William of Normandy
the advantage of confirming the power and brilliancy of his
sword by a specious show of right. When scarcely master of a
tenth part of England, he resolved, by having himself crown-
ed as king, to secure the whole kingdom, that had devolved
on him, ostensibly by right of succession and transmission,
as well as through the favour of the pope. The obsequiousness .
of the English prelates, who considered themselves bound to
obey the court of Rome, seconded this scheme; nor was there
any lack on the side of William of well-sounding proclama-
tions? and assurances to the most influential Anglo-Saxons.
More difficult it was to gain the consent of the Normans,
whose desires were solely.bent on booty, and to whom the
elevation of their ducal leader might prove prejudicial.

In this conjuncture also William gave a proof of the crafti-
ness which distinguished his character. As if perfectly aware
of the weighty reasons which existed in favour of his assum-
ing the royal dignity, he artfully set them forth in the
strongest light ; but, at the same time, pretended, in his love
of repose and of his consort, with whom he must share the
crown, should God be pleased to bestow it on him, as well as

! Wido, vv. 681 sqq.

2 We probably still possess fragments of such in the first part of the
Charter “ De quibusdam Statutis per totam Angliam firmiter observandis.”
Rymer. i. p. 1.
WILLIAM THE FIRST. 107

in the uncertainty of the new conquest, to find reasons for at
least postponing the coronation. But, as William fitz Osbern
had acted on a former occasion!, a foreign knight, named
Aimery, of Thouars in Guienne, rendered him equally welcome
service on the present occasion, fascinating and gaining over
the multitude by the power of his eloquence. The leaders
were won by the prospect held out to them of counties and
baronies, together with lands for their younger sons. When
those that had been sent forward to London had erected a
strong-hold for the conqueror?, and all things were prepared
for the solemnity, William, who had been amusing himself in
hunting and hawking, proceeded to the capital of the Anglo-
Saxon realm, and on the first day of Christmas, in less than
three months from the day of his landing, caused himself to
be crowned by Ealdred, archbishop of York. The first metro-
politan, Stigand, attended in the procession, in the place of
honour belonging to him? ; though it would seem either that
that prelate had refused to place the crown on the head of
the Norman usurper, after having, within the space of a year,
acknowledged and anointed two pretenders to the Anglo-
Saxon throne?+, or that to William himself a consecration at
the hands of an ecclesiastic at variance with the papal and
Norman clergy did not appear satisfactory®. While the duke
was in the abbey chureh of Westminster, and the anthem
had ceased, Geoffrey, bishop of Coutances®, ascended the
pulpit, addressed the conquerors in French, and demanded of
1 See Engl. under the A. S. Kings, ii. pp. 282, 285.
2 Guil. Pictav. p. 205. (Maseres, p. 144.)
® According to Wido’s testimony, vv. 803, 804,
“ Tilius ad dextram sustentat metropolita,
Ad levam graditur alter honore pari.”
4 Will. Newburg. lib. i. c.1, and from him Bromton, p. 962.
5 « Quia multa mala et horrenda crimina predicabantur de Stigando,
noluit eam ab ipso suscipere, ne maledictionem videretur induere pro
benedictione.”” Eadmer, Hist. Novorum, p. 6.

6 Constantiensis, not “of Constance,” as Turner and Lingard have
rendered it.
108 WILLIAM THE FIRST.

them whether the king proposed were agreeable to them?
in which case he desired them to declare their consent by
a sign. With loud acclamations and clapping of hands the
lively Normans manifested their approbation. Hereupon
archbishop Ealdred applied in a similar manner to the Anglo-
Saxons!. A still louder cry now arose from both nations,
and a noise ensued, which the Normans assembled outside of
the church mistook, or pretended to mistake, for a tumult;
whereupon some of them hurried to London and set fire to
that city. Those in the church were soon aware of the con-
flagration and rushed forth, every one who possessed a house
there, or other property, considering it in peril. William re-
mained behind, abandoned by nearly all excepting the priests ;
but would hear of no delay; so with trembling and precipita-
tion the ceremony of anointing and crowning was completed.
Exasperated at the conduct of his licentious hordes, and
trembling for his life thus exposed in the moment when he
had reached the goal of his wishes, William was hardly able
to repeat, in the French tongue, the customary oath of the
Anglo-Saxon kings. His presence soon restored order, and he
imposed ou himself the duty of repressing, by the announce-
ment of severe punishments, and the appointment of rigid
judges, the disorder among the lower ranks of his army.
Nevertheless, this untoward event could not fail to increase
the hatred of the Anglo-Saxons to the Normans.

The king did not venture to take up his abode in London,
until he had constructed a new fortress there, and while that
was in progress, passed some time at Barking in Essex. Here
he soon received a proof how justly he had calculated on the
effects of a coronation. The earls Eadwine and Morkere
soon appeared before him, offering him their homage; and
Copsi? also, who had been Tostig’s deputy in Northumber-

1 Such is the account given hy Wido (vv. 817, 818), who describes the
particulars of the coronation more circumstantially than William of Poi-
tiers (pp. 205, 206). 2 Called by the Norman writers Coxo.
WILLIAM THE FIRST. 109

land, in which relation he might easily find a motive for
attaching himself to the destroyer of Harold. Here also the
submission took place of Turkell of Limes, of Siward and
Ealdred, sons of Atthelgar, a kinsman of the royal house, and
of Eadric, surnamed the Wild, or the Forester, a grandson
of the infamous Eadric Streona, and, consequently, related to
the family of Godwine. Their example was followed by many
rich and powerful men, actuated by the conviction, that a
country defended by so few strong places must infallibly,
after a decisive battle, become the reward of the victor.
Each of these individuals made separate terms with the new
sovereign, and every one hastened to get the start of the
others, in the hope of obtaining more favourable conditions.
To Eadwine the king promised the hand of one of his daugh-
ters, while Morkere was treated less leniently. Other Nor-
man ladies were married to Anglo-Saxons, whose sisters were
bestowed on Norman husbands.

Vast riches, arising from plunder and gifts, must have been
collected for the king, chiefly from the monasteries'. All
these treasures William sent to Rouen, at the same time that
he neglected no measures at home, either civil or military,
for the security of his newly acquired kingdom. The several
lands belonging to the crown, the rich inheritances of king
Eadward and the sons of Godwine, the royal treasure at Win-
chester, and Harold’s share of the booty at Stamford bridge?, -
were all taken by William as property rightfully devolving on
him, from which he distributed rewards among the bravest
of his followers. At Winchester, the ancient residence of the
West Saxon kings, the inhabitants of which he regarded as
dangerous, on account of their attachment to the old dynasty,
of their wealth and courage, he caused a new castle to be

1 Catalogues of these church-plunderings are to be found in the chro-
nicles of the English monasteries, as Thome Hist. Eliensis ; Hist. Abba-
tum S. Albani, and of Waltham (see Monasticon, vi. p. 56); of Worcester
(Hemming, Chart. p. 393). 2 Adam. Bremens. Schol. 66.
110 WILLIAM THE FIRST.

erected, which, together with the Isle of Wight and the
government of the whole north of England, he bestowed on
William fitz Osbern, whom he also created earl of Hereford',
a dignity with which king Eadward had formerly invested
his nephew, Ralf, as a possession equally honourable and
lucrative, and which, at later periods, we always find in the
hands of the bravest, coupled with the expressed permission
to extend their domain, with the help of their good sword,
beyond the Welsh border. Of all William’s vassals no one
had rendered him more essential services, particularly in the
conquest of England, than William fitz Osbern. Here we
again meet with king Eadward’s Norman favourite, Richard
fitz Scrob2, who possessed lands in those parts, and, like
many other so justly detested foreigners, in conjunction with
his newly arrived countrymen, strove for the oppression of
all those Anglo-Saxons, who struggled against the Norman
tyranny. At this time, or in the years immediately follow-
ing, William raised other Normans to English earldoms ;
Walter Giffard was created earl of Buckingham, on Roger of
Montgomery, a sagacious, upright, and pious nobleman, was

1 Flor. Wigorn. aa. 1067, 1070. Guil. Pictav. p. 209. Ord. Vital.
pp. 506, 521. ;

2 See Engl. under the A. S. Kings, ii. p.255. His heir was his son
Osbern. Doomsday, Worcester, fol. 176 b.

3 As supplementary to my note on Norman names, in “ Engl. under
the A.S. Kings,” ii. p. 283, it seems desirable here to remark that what is
there stated relative to the prefix fitz (son), is equally applicable to the
particle de, when set before local names, with which only at a later period,
when made transmissible, it can be said to form a surname in the modern
sense. At the period comprised in this volume the de was simply our of,
its regimen varying, if required, with the individual. When the same
local name was transmitted from one generation to another, then only
with its prefix de can it be said to form a surname, and is no longer to be
rendered ‘by of. Fitz, too, signifying son, when, with the baptismal name
of the individual’s father, it was made to form a permanent surname, was
applied both to sons and daughters, as Eleanor Fitz John = Eleanor John-
son. The Danish peasantry still retain the more rational, though less

convenient, usage; with them the daughter of Hans would be Maria or
Trina Hans datter, not Hansen, as in the higher grades.—T.
WILLIAM THE FIRST. 111

bestowed the city of Chichester, the castle of Arundel, and
the earldom of Shrewsbury ; on Robert of Moretain, the king’s
uterine brother, that of Cornwall; on Gherbod the Fleming
that of Chester, which, after his return to his native country,
was given to Hugh of Avranches. Odo (Eudes) of Champagne,
William’s brother-in-law, son of Stephen, count of Cham-
pagne, after whose death he had been driven from his rightful
inheritance by his brother, Theobald III., was invested with
the earldom of Holderness!; Ralf of Guader, son-in-law of
William fitz Osbern, with that of Norwich2.

William was now above all things desirous to return to his
French provinces as a king. The southern parts of England
he intrusted to the administration of his brother Odo, bishop
of Bayeux, under whom and William fitz Osbern he placed
several warriors of distinction, as William of Warenne, sub-
sequently invested with the earldom of Surrey, to whom he
gave his daughter Gundrada in marriage? ; Hugh of Grente-
maisnil, to whom was given the government of the Gewissi or
West Saxons‘, and afterwards the shrievalty of Leicester; Hugh
of Montfort, to whom the custody of Dover was committed 5,
together with other individuals, who, although proved in the
field, were for the most part ill qualified to conduct a peace-
able administration. While by these deputies he secured his
dominion in England, he availed himself of his visit to Nor-
mandy to render harmless those Anglo-Saxons whose position
excited his mistrust, by taking them, under the false pretence
of showing them honour, but in reality as hostages, with him
in his suit to Normandy. Of these the chief were: Hadgar

1 Ord. Vital. p. 509, calls his wife a daughter of duke Robert, contrary
to the usual account, viz. that she was the daughter of Harlette by a
second marriage. Comp. Rom. de Rou, ii. pp. 127, 234, and M. Prevost’s
notes.

2 Ord. Vital. p. 522.

3 Ellis (Introd. to Domesd. i. p. 506.) corrects the false statement of ‘<«

Ordericus Vitalis, who makes Gundrada a sister of Gherbod the Fleming.
4 Ord. Vital. pp. 512, 522. 5 W. Gemmet. lib. vii. c. 39.

Fase? oye
112 WILLIAM THE FIRST.

Attheling, archbishop Stigand, the earls Eadwine and Mor-
kere, Waltheof, son of Siward, to whom he had given his
niece Judith in marriage, together with his paternal earldom
of Northampton'; ®gelnoth, abbot of Glastonbury?, and
others.

William, on his departure for England, had left the govern-
ment and defence of Normandy to the duchess Matilda, aided
by certain men of experience, particularly by Roger of Beau-
mont. In Normandy William enjoyed a twofold triumph,
when, attended by a numerous and joyful train of knights
returning to their homes, and by his Anglo-Saxon hostages
from the conquered kingdom, he again found himself in his
patrimonial inheritance. He celebrated the Easter festival
(March 1067) at Fécamp, whither many French princes and
nobles were attracted, in honour of their former equal, now
by craft and the fortune of war exalted high above them.
Great was the wonder manifested by all on beholding the
young Anglo-Saxons with their long flowing locks, whose
almost feminine beauty excited the envy of the comeliest
among the youth of France. Nor was their admiration less
on seeing the garments of the king and his attendants, inter-
woven and encrusted with gold, causing all they had pre-
viously seen to appear as mean; also the almost numberless
vessels of gold and silver of surpassing elegance ; for in such
cups only, or in horns of oxen, decorated at both extremities
with the same metals, the numerous guests were served with
drink. Overwhelmed with the sight of so much magnificence,
the French returned home, all, but especially the clergy,
richly gifted, and celebrated both by their words and writings
the superabundant treasures of the new region, which their

1 Ord. Vital. p. 522.

2 Sax. Chron. a. 1066. Flor. Wigorn. 1067. Ordericus Vitalis has
“Egelnodum, Cantuariensem satrapam.” Lingard, though citing Guil.
Pictav. and Ordericus, calls him ‘“ Egelnoth, abbot of St. Augustine’s.”
By Guil. Pictay. he is not named at all.—T.
WILLIAM THE FIRST. 113

hero, greater than Ceesar, more bountiful than Titus, the lord
of the Normans in Apulia and Sicily, at Constantinople and
Babylon, had acquired without the loss of a single knight of
eminence, within a few hours, under the papal benediction.
The inhabitants of the country were liberally indemnified for
the supplies furnished by them for this visit, and also for the
burthens laid on them on account of the war. Thus the
most wonderful of all spectacles presented itself to the con-
temporaries: the homes of the peasants were not plundered,
their harvests not reaped by the forager, nor trodden down
by cavalry; even an unarmed defenceless man might ride in
all directions without fear of the soldiery’.

The following account of the state of the wealth and arts
in England at this period, from the pen of the Conqueror’s
chaplain, will no doubt both surprise and amuse some of the
readers. “In abundance of the precious metal that country
by far surpasses the Gauls; for while by its exuberance of
corn it may be called the granary of Ceres, from its quantity
of gold it may be termed a treasury of Arabia...... The
English women are eminently skilful with their needle, and in
the weaving of gold; the men in every kind of artificial work-
manship. Moreover, several Germans, most expert in such
arts, are in the habit of dwelling among them; and merchants,
who in their ships visit distant nations, introduce curious
handiworks?.”

But a different spectacle from that described above pre-
sented itself on the opposite side of the Channel?. The
oppression of new burthens, and the yet greater of foreign
pillagers, rendered more licentious by the absence of their

1 Guil. Pictav. pp. 211 sq. (Maseres, p. 162.) “ Provincialium tuto ar-
menta vel greges pascebantur, seu per campestria, seu per tesqua: segetes
falcem cultoris intactee expectabant, quas nec attrivit superba equitum
effusio, nec demessuit pabulator. Homo imbecillus aut inermis equo can-
tans, qua libuit vectabatur, turmas militum cernens, non exhorrens.”—T.

2 Guil. Pictav. p. 210 (Maseres, p. 157).—T.

3 Sax. Chron. a. 1067.
114 WILLIAM THE FIRST.

masters, excited repeated commotions among the sunken
people, whose noblest defenders had been basely carried off,
and who thus manifested a disposition which, under better
guidance, and supported by the secular and ecclesiastical
aristocraey, might have freed the land of the foreign intruders.
Of the wealthier class many fled, some in the hope of one
day returning, provided a miracle, or the energy of others,
should restore them to their inheritances; some to solicit aid
from the Danes against the Normans; others for ever, seek-
ing a new home, where valour and hatred of the Normans
would insure them both pay and booty. Of the first-men-
tioned many sought refuge in Flanders, while many turned
‘to the home of their forefathers, the Saxon lands on the
banks of the Elbe. History makes mention of a count of
Stade, the son of a noble Saxon lady who had fled thither’.
The Seottish cloisters of the Continent gave shelter to many
a fugitive?. To the last-mentioned class belong those Anglo-
Saxons who fled to Constantinople, where they found a
welcome reception, and by the emperor Alexius Comnenus L.,
who feared their too immediate neighbourhood, were settled
first at Chevetot (Kibotus near Helenopolis) on the opposite
shore of the Sea of Marmora, but were afterwards employed
by that prince against Robert Guiscard and the Normans of
Apulia, for the deliverance of his realm from those dangerous
enemies who had invaded it. The Normans recognised their
bitterest foes3, and not in vain directed their shafts against
them. They were, nevertheless, forced to abandon the
country, and a body of Anglo-Saxons, with some Danes and
other Veeringer, whom we find at an earlier period in the

1 Frederic, who in the year 1095 possessed the county of Stade, was
grandson and son of two ladies, who, departing in a vessel from England,
were there driven on land. For an account of their posterity see Alberti
Stadensis Chronica, edit. Reineccii, p.153 sq.

2 Chron. S. Martini Colon. in Monum. Hist. Germ. t. ii.

3 Ord. Vital. p. 508. (Maseres, p. 204.) Comp. also Torfeus, P. iii.
lib. vi. c. 3. Anna Comnena, v. Villehardouin, Ixxxix.
WILLIAM THE FIRST. 115

Greek service, maintained, as a body-guard, under the deno-
mination of Ingloi, with powerful arm, bright battle-axes and
harness, the Grecian emperors in that consideration and se-
curity, which the enervated race of their own subjects was
incapable of affording. While the fate of these brave Saxons
in the East, who, warring with a more than janissaries’ valour
and Swiss fidelity, thus proving themselves the firmest sup-
port of the throne, claims our warmest sympathy, we cannot
forbear reflecting on the wonderful complications of worldly
affairs, through which to fugitives from a fallen state, one in-
finitely more vast, as well as more rotten, was indebted for its
preservation. Wonderful, too, does it appear that the last
emigration of the Anglo-Saxons was destined to protect the
brightest spot of the ancient world against a Kurepean race
which, if not the most distinguished, was high-minded and sus-
ceptible of the most refined civilization, that it might one day
fall a prey to the most obtusely barbarous of Asiatic hordes’.

Equally fallacious were the hopes of those Anglo-Saxons
who strove to obtain foreign aid for the liberation of their
country. In France not even the faintest prospect of sup-
port presented itself; the king of France had already proved
his indifference or weakness, in tamely witnessing the aggran-
dizement of his most dangerous vassal. The German em-
peror, Henry IV., was too deeply engaged in warfare with
the Slavic nations, and still more deeply in the frivolities and
sensual pleasures of a court, to see in a conqueror, who did
not immediately endanger his own frontiers, the violator of
the peace of Europe; although those Norman adventurers,
who beset Europe at almost every point, threatened to make

1 Some interesting particulars relating to the Anglo-Saxons at Con-
stantinople are contained in the ‘ Chronicon ab Origine Mundi ad a. 1218;”
MS. in the rich and valuable collection of sir Thomas Phillipps at Middle-
hill, where it stands as N° 1880. It was formerly N° 785 of Meermann’s
collection, and is the work of a Premonstratensian born in England, from
which the editors of the Recueil des Historiens de la France (t. xiii. p. 677,
and t. xvili. p. 702), have extracted some passages relating to France.

rg
116 WILLIAM THE FIRST.

a Normandy of all that portion of the globe. William, too,
was vigilant, and indefatigable in engaging in his interest
some of the most influential men at the imperial court, for
which object the means, irresistible in those times, were sup-
plied him from the wealth of his newly acquired dominion.
The chief counsellor of the emperor, Adalbert, archbishop of
Bremen, was, by his largesses, bribed to intrigue for the
security of the munificent conqueror, and it must have proved
an easy task to suppress an excitement in the imperial court
against William, to him who, for the same object, did not
shrink from the attempt to influence his friend, the Danish
king, Svend Estrithson!, although the inclination of that
prince lay in the opposite direction. With Svend, neverthe-
less, the representations of the Anglo-Saxons found a favour-
able reception?. The nephew of Cnut the Great had not
attempted to claim from its Anglo-Saxon rulers the kingdom
of England as his inheritance; though the death of Harold
brought to maturity the thought, to which the death of Ead-
ward must have given birth,.of asserting his pretension to
the throne of his uncle and his deceased childless cousin.
But after vainly waiting till the despair of the Anglo-Saxons
and their intense hatred of the Normans should work wonders
in his favour, the Danish monarch contented himself with
sending one of his nobles to William, to demand his homage
for his realm of England, the investiture of which he was not
unwilling to grant him, in consideration of a yearly tribute.
William, instead of angrily or scornfully refusing this de-
mand, listened to the envoy with all the sly serenity charac-
teristic of the Normans; nor was it enough to lull the envoy
by feastings and presents; a costly embassy, composed of

' Adam Brem. lib. iv. c.16. Both Turner and Lingard unaccountably
call this prince Sveno Tiuffveskegg, confounding him with Svend Tve-
skieg (Sveinn Tjaguskégg) the father of Cnut, who died in 1014. The
prince here spoken of was Cnut’s nephew, the son of his sister Estrith,

married to Ulf Jarl. See Engl. under the A. S. Kings, ii. pp. 181, 208.—T.
2 Guil. Pictav. p. 212 (Maseres, p. 163).
WILLIAM THE FIRST. 117

four men of eminence, among whom was A%gelsine, abbot of
St. Augustine’s at Canterbury, on whom king Eadward had
formerly bestowed the abbey of Ramsey, embarked, as soon
as the season permitted, for Seeland, charged with an abun-
dance of fair promises as well as valuable presents, which
could not fail of convincing king Svend and his court of the
wealth and power, and also of the good will of the possessor
of the claimed fief. To Olaf, king of Norway, William like-
wise sent an embassy, in a vessel freighted by Norwegian
merchants at Grimsby, who must have found it no difficult task
to obtain from the natural foe of Harold the rejection of the
solicitations of the Anglo-Saxons, and to canclude a treaty of
friendship between the two sovereigns !.

The Anglo-Saxons were thus left to their own resources
and to the aid of their neighbours, the Welsh. Hadric, sur-
named the Forester2, could no longer endure the yoke of the
stranger: he attacked the garrison of Hereford, by whom
and the hated Richard fitz Scrob his lands had frequently
been ravaged, and, in conjunction with Blethgent and Rith-
walon, kings of the Welsh, having laid waste the county of
Hereford as far as the bridge of the river Lug, returned with
an immense booty?. An insurrection raised by Meredith
and Ithel, sons of Griffith ap Llewelyn, in North Wales, pre-
vented the British princes from following up this advantage‘.
William was not slow to prize the valour of the bold Forester,
and preferred gaining him as a friend to overcoming him as
an enemy; we, consequently, find the only Anglo-Saxon, who
had defeated and chastised the Normans, in possession, at a
later period, of extensive landed estates.

But the Anglo-Saxons found an unexpected ally in the dis-

1 Knyghton, col. 2343; Langebek, ili. pp. 252 sq. Ellis, Introd. to
Domesd. ii. pp. 98 sqq. Hist. Rames. c. 119. Sim. Dunelm. a. 1074.

2 Ord. Vital. pp. 506, 514 (Maseres, pp. 195, 223), where he is called
Edricus Guilda.—T.

3 Flor. Wigorn. a. 1067. 4 Powel, History of Wales, p. 101.
5 See Domesday under the name of Eadric.
118 WILLIAM THE FIRST.

content of several Norman and French nobles, whose private
interest they considered not to have been sufficiently con-
sulted by William in his distribution of lands in England.
Of these one of the most dissatisfied was Eustace, the power-
ful count of Boulogne, the brother-in-law of the late king
Eadward, who, as the smallest. reward for the auxiliaries he
had supplied, as well as for the personal service he had ren-
dered to the duke im the field of Senlac, expected at least to
receive the town of Dover, which had once before slipped
through his hands!. A moment was chosen, when the com-
manders of that fortress, bishop Odo and Hugh of Montfort,
together with the best men of the garrison, had passed the
Thames, for crossing the Channel in the stillness of the night,
and with a body of French and Kentish men proceeding to
Dover. There, however, they met with more precaution and
more determined valour than they expected. Count Eustace
was indebted for his life, as he had been twenty-six years
before, to the swiftness of his horse, his knowledge of the
road, and a vessel in readiness to receive him. His grand-
son, a brave youth, fell into the hands of the pursuing gar-
rison. The king caused his faithless friend and vassal to be
cited before a court composed of Normans and Anglo-Saxons,
and the heavy charge to be brought against him, which ad-
mitted of no defence. All his fiefs in William’s states were,
consequently, confiscated ; to whose policy, however, which
sought to gain over those who evinced the courage to oppose
him, it appeared more advisable to reconcile his hot-headed,
daring companion in arms, and propitiate him with new in-
vestitures?.

By another tribunal, that of popular hatred, fell earl Copsi,
whose reasons for siding with the Normans were regarded by

1 See Engl. under the A. S. Kings, ii. pp. 247, 249.

2 Both his widow, Ida, and his son, Eustace, received lands in Eng-
land. See Ord. Vital. p. 523 (Maseres, p. 256) and Ellis, Introd. to
Domesd. i. pp. 384, 416.
WILLIAM THE FIRST. 119

his relations and vassals as disgraceful selfishness and short-

sighted self-interest. Proscribed as a traitor by the unani-
mous voice of his people, he fell a sacrifice to rash national
hate!. Earl Morkere had transferred the administration of
Bernicia, or the northern part of Northumberland, which had
been bestowed on him after the expulsion of Tostig?, to the
young Osulf, son of ear] Eadulf, who had been slain by Siward,
but which William restored to his devoted adherent, Copsi?.
Such an appointment, in a province where no Norman had
yet set foot, could not reckon on acknowledgment; Osulf
was, consequently, expelled by violence from his office and
castle. For some weeks the proscribed earl wandered about
in the woods, sustaining life with difficulty, until, assured of
the good will of the people, he surprised Copsi at Newburn
on the Humber, while at his repast, who fled for refuge to
the neighbouring church, which being set on fire, Copsi, in
endeavouring to escape, was slain by Osulf at the door of the
sacred edifice (March 12th, 1067). The king had just de-
parted for Normandy, and there was no one to oppose the
return of Osulf to his earldom, who, with the fatality which
pursued the Anglo-Saxons, perished by the spear of a robber.
Gospatric, a grandson of earl Uhtred of Northumberland,
(ob. 1017,) and AX lfgifu, a daughter of king Aithelred, then
laid claim to the earldom by hereditary right, which was
granted him in consideration of a large sum of money‘.

In the meantime intelligence reached the king in Normandy
of the disordered state of the kingdom and the unfitness for

1 Here the instructive (notwithstanding its partiality and rhetorical
garb) work of William of Poitiers terminates, as we do not possess the
end in original; we have, nevertheless, a probably almost verbal extract
of the last pages in Ordericus Vitalis.

2 See Engl. under the A. S. Kings, ii. p. 271. 3 See p. 108.

4 Simeon Dunelm. a. 1072. ejusd. Hist. Dunelm. iii.14. Gospatric
held the earldom as early as 1067, as we are expressly informed by Simeon.
The Sax. Chron. styles him ‘earl’ in 1067, yet Palgrave (Commonw. ii.
p. ccexxii.) places his appointment under 1069.
pened se

120 WILLIAM THE FIRST.

the civil administration of the country of those to whom he
had intrusted it. The Anglo-Saxon commonalty threatened
to be more dangerous to him than the nobles. The wealthy
and well fortified city of Exeter, in which both Britons and
Saxons lived in concord and flourishing under a free civic
constitution, was little disposed to submit to a foreign domi-
nation. The presence of the nobility of Devonshire, and
more particularly of the mother of king Harold, confirmed
this adverse disposition. The citizens strengthened their
walls and towers, sent deputations to the neighbouring towns,
summoning them to a general resistance, and retained all
foreign traders residing in their city, if capable of bearing
arms. Some Norman troops, who had been driven into that
port by a storm, had been treated with scorn and cruelty ;
and the king was convinced that his presence alone could
prevent an unfavourable issue. Intrusting, therefore, the
administration of his hereditary dominions to his consort
Matilda, and his eldest son Robert, assisted by experienced |
ecclesiastics and valiant knights, he embarked with his late
vicegerent, Roger of Montgomery, from Arques, at the mouth
of the river Dieppe}, for the opposite port of Winchilsea?, on
a December evening (Dec. 6th 1067), in spite of the storms
of winter. He hastened to London, where he kept the Christ-
mas festival, and sought by numerous proclamations, abound-
ing in fair promises, tending to lull the Anglo-Saxons, and
by kindly giving ear to their complaints 3, to palliate not only
the misconduct of his followers, but also a heavy contribution
which he laid on the impoverished nation‘.

The citizens of Exeter, in answer to his message, demand-

1 Now the Bethune.—T.

2 Portus Wicenesium. Ord, Vital. p. 509.

3 “«Ipse omnes officioso affectu demulcebat, dulciter ad oscula invitabat,
cunctis affabilitatem ostendebat ; benigne, si quid orabant concedebat,” ete.
Ib. p. 509 (Maseres, p. 209).

4 Sax. Chron. Flor. Wigorn. a. 1067. .

® For Exoniam some MSS. of Malmesbury read Oxoniam. That the
WILLIAM THE FIRST. 121

ing their oath of allegiance, declared that they would swear
no oath to him, nor would they admit him into their town;
that they would only pay him tribute, according to ancient
custom. William replied that he was not accustomed to have
subjects on such conditions, and, without further delay, drew
near to the city, the English being placed in the front of his
army. On his approach he was met by a deputation of the
principal inhabitants, suing for peace, assuring him that their
gates stood open to receive him, and that they were ready to
submit to his will. To secure their fidelity, William de-
manded a number of hostages, which were delivered to him.
On their return to the city, it would seem that they found
the bulk of the inhabitants in no wise disposed to partake of
the weakness of their superiors, but resolved on defending
their rights and hearths to the utmost. But they little knew
the artifices of the besieger, nor were they sufficiently guarded
against treachery within their walls.

William, who had encamped about four miles from the
place, now approached with a body of five hundred horse,
for the purpose of reconnoitering. Finding the gates closed
and the works densely manned, he ordered his entire army to
advance, and the eyes of one of the hostages to be put out
close to one of the gates; but the inhabitants were not yet
to be intimidated. After a siege of eighteen days, and when
their walls had been undermined, they surrendered!. The
citizens and clergy, bearing the sacred Scriptures, went out
to meet the king, who treated them with clemency, sparing
their effects, and placing a strong guard at each gate, to pre-
vent his soldiery from plundering. Within the city he caused
a strong castle to be erected, and having left a powerful
latter reading is erroneous seems hardly to admit of a doubt, yet see W.
Malm. p. 421. edit. E. H. Soc. and Hardy’s note; R. Wendover, ii. p. 4;
and Ellis, Introd. to Domesd. i. p. 194.—T.

1 And hig him ba burh ageafon, for han ba Segenas heom geswicon

hefdon.” And they surrendered the city to him, because the thanes had
deceived them. Sax. Chron. a, 1067.—T.
122 WILLIAM THE FIRST.

garrison under the command of Baldwin of Moles, a son
of count Gilbert of Brionne, he proceeded into Cornwall,
for the purpose of pacifying that county!. The old countess
Gytha, with many ladies of distinction and great treasure,
fled from Exeter to Steepholm, a small island in the
Bristol channel, near the mouth of the Severn, where they
continued for some time, awaiting probably the result of
an expedition from Ireland, commanded by Eadmund and
Magnus, sons of the late king Harold?. But seeing her
hopes frustrated, Gytha embarked for Flanders and found
an asylum at St. Omer’s3.

The king availed himself of this interval of apparent tran-

. quillity to celebrate the Easter festival (a.1068) at Winchester,

and to send for his consort, the countess Matilda, from Nor-

“mandy, who, at the following festival of Whitsuntide, was

solemnly crowned queen at Westminster, by the hands of

archbishop Ealdred+. She was attended from Normandy by

a numerous train of noble knights and ladies, and, among
others, by the bishop of Amiens, Wido or Guido, to whose
muse we are indebted for a poem of no small value, in neat
hexameters and pentameters, on the battle of Senlac and the
succeeding events, to the coronation of the Conqueror®’. The
queen, as well as the other new comers, received their share
of the spoil, and {n a manner which shows manifestly the
spirit of the conquest. In her youth, Matilda had seen, at
the court of her father at Bruges, a young Anglo-Saxon of
rank named Brihtric, son of Ailfgar, to whom, it appears, she

! Ord. Vital. p. 510 (Maseres, p. 210.)

2 Of her seven sons by earl Godwine, we have recorded the death of five:
Sweyn, Tostig, Harold, Gyrth and Leofwine. Of the two survivors, Ailfgar
became a monk at Rheims, and Wulfnoth at Salisbury. See Engl. under
the A. S. Kings, ii. pp. 255, 280, 301. Ord. Vital. p. 502 (Maseres, p. 186).

3 Sax. Chron. Ord. Vital. p. 513 (Maseres, p. 221), who erroneously
places Gytha’s flight in 1069.

4 Sax. Chron. a. 1067.

5 The poem is printed in the Materials for the History of Britain, under
the title of “ De Bello Hastingensi Carmen.”—T.
WILLIAM THE FIRST. 123

formed a warm attachment, but which was not reciprocated.
While engaged in the consecration of a chapel, Brihtric was
seized by the Normans, at his manor of Hanley, and dragged
to Winchester, where he died in prison childless: his lands,
which escheated to the crown, were bestowed partly on Robert
fitz Hamon and partly on queen Matilda}.

About this time, the Anglo-Saxon nobles, whom William
had taken with him to Normandy, having returned to Eng-
land, he thought he might now permit them to go from
place to place without restraint. When again in their native
country, they could not avoid seeing the fate that awaited it
under the Norman aristocracy, and ere long Eadwine (who
had received a personal injury in William’s refusal to give
him his daughter in marriage, according to his promise), Mor-

kere, the nobles of Northumberland, the new earl Gospatric, '
Merlesweyn?, the sons of king Harold, Blithwallon, king of |

North Wales, and many others, formed a league with the

1 The following note is from Ellis’ Introd. to Domesday, ii. p. 54.—
« Kelham, from Rudder’s Gloucestershire, p. 739, says, ‘ Brihtric had the
honour of Gloucester, which was a noble seigniory, and many other great
estates, by inheritance from his grandfather Hailward (A%gilweard, A®thel-
weard?) Snow; but having incurred the displeasure of Maud, queen to
William the Conqueror, and daughter to Baldwin earl of Flanders, by re-
fusing to marry her, when he was ambassador at her father’s court, she
revenged the insult by procuring his imprisonment and the confiscation of
all his possessions. Ilustr. p. 165’.”” See Monast. vi. p. 62.

“The anonymous continuator of Wace, who wrote in the reign of
Henry III., and who says he translated his poem at Amesbury in Wilt-
shire, is perhaps the oldest authority for the story of Matilda’s disappoint-
ment. He states Brictric to have died in prison at Winchester, without
heir, and that his property in consequence escheated and was disposed of
by the Conqueror, in part to his Queen! and in part to Robert Fitz Haimon.
But the honour of Gloucester, which had been Brictric’s, was really be-
stowed upon Robert Fitz Haimon by king William Rufus: so that Wace’s
continuator is guilty of at least one anachronism.”

2 This and the preceding name are by Ordericus Latinized into Caius

Patricius and Marius Suevus !

1 There is no mention of this in the extract as given by Ellis.—T,

aad ae aie
124 WILLIAM THE FIRST.

object of expelling the Normans from the country. But the
want of plan and unanimity among the Anglo-Saxons, which
had so greatly contributed to their defeat at Senlac, now even
to a greater degree led to the firmer establishment of the
intruders. Eadwine and Morkere, when they found them-
selves opposed to the king in arms near Warwick, could not
resolve on risking the fate of a battle, and again placed them-
selves at the mercy of the Conqueror!. Godwine, Eadmund,
and Magnus, the youthful sons of Harold, who had found an
asylum with Dermot, king of Leinster, landed in the mouth
of the Avon, from an Irish fleet, that had been long looked
for by the fugitives on Steepholm; but the people of Bristol,
with an eye to their tranquillity and trifling commerce, opposed
a vigorous resistance to the invaders, though Eadnoth, an
Anglo-Saxon, who had been master of the horse to their
father, Harold, marching forth against them, was totally
defeated and slain. Seeing then, in consequence probably
of the defection of Eadwine and Morkere, no prospect of
support from the interior of the country, they proceeded to
ravage Devonshire and Cornwall, and, loaded with booty, re-
turned to Ireland?. The king now caused a castle to be built
at Warwick, the custody of which he bestowed on Henry, son
of Roger of Beaumont; also another castle at Nottingham,
which he intrusted to the keeping of William Peverel3.

In Northumberland, whither Eadgar AXtheling had also
fled, the bitterest hatred prevailed towards the foreigners.
The citizens of York, through the defection of the archbishop
from the national cause, were only the more exasperated,
and his authority was not of the least avail in appeasing
those who dwelt in his immediate neighbourhood. Forests,
marshes, towns, whatever, in short, could be so applied, were
transformed into fortresses, intrenchments, and barricades.

) Ord, Vital. p.511 (Maseres, pp. 214, sqq.)

? The Sax. Chron. places this expedition under the year 1067,
3 Ord. Vital. p. 511 (Maseres, p. 216.)
WILLIAM THE FIRST. 125

Many swore never to sleep in a house until the enemy was
driven out of the kingdom. A multitude of hardy warriors
lived in tents and huts constructed in haste, whom it pleased
the Normans to scoff at as savages (salvages, silvatici). The
etheling Eadgar, earl Gospatric, and Meerlesweyn fled with
Agatha, Eadgar’s mother, and his sisters, Margaret and
Christina, to king Malcolm ITI., surnamed Canmore, of Scot-
land, who, captivated by the attractions of Margaret, who had
probably been previously betrothed to him, was the more easily
induced to adopt the policy of assailing the enemy who was
already threatening his frontier. Nevertheless, York, the only
strong bulwark of their country’s defenders, yielded to the
Normans. The keys of the city, and the noblest hostages,
were delivered to William; and Archil! also, the most power-
ful of the Northumbrians, made his peace with the king, and
gave him his son as a pledge of his fidelity. Two strong
castles were erected at York, and committed to the custody
of William Malet and Robert fitz Richard, with five hun-
dred horsemen. Aigelwine also, bishop of Durham, hastened
to the Conqueror, who, knowing how to value the spiritual
ally, received him benignantly. A‘ gelwine was forthwith sent
with a mission, consisting of William’s son Robert, the abbot
of Abingdon, and other prelates, to the camp of the king of
Scotland, whom he induced to send an embassy back with
him to William, for the purpose of swearing to the latter the
fealty of the Scottish king, which, no doubt, comprised his
homage for the lands held by him in England?.

By this act the conquest of England may be regarded as

1 Many possessions of Archil are recorded in Domesday, T. R. E.
(Tempore Regis Edwardi), which are most probably referrible to this
person.

2 Ord. Vit. p. 511. (Maseres, pp. 216-218); lib. Abingd. (MS. Cott.
Claud. c. ix. p.135.) ap. Palgrave, ii. p. cccxxxi. The value of this latter
unprinted authority I am unable to estimate; though the mention of
Robert, to whom the king, a short time before, had committed the govern-
ment of Normandy, appears hardly credible.
126 WILLIAM THE FIRST.

completed, and William now, by the right of the sword and
oaths acknowledging his authority, was in possession of the
entire dominion of the last Anglo-Saxon king. But this
sagacious prince was fully aware how unstable is a govern-
ment that has no root in the hearts of the natives, and, there-
fore, on his return to the south, took care to erect castles at
. Lincoln, Huntingdon, and Cambridge. It would seem that
_ there was a scarcity of trustworthy persons of consideration,
_ to whom the king might commit the keeping of so many
places of importance, and that he found himself, contrary to
his better judgment, compelled to intrust many considerable
shrievalties and garrisons to rugged, violent, and rapacious
men, who could not understand, much less carry out his
subtle, conciliatory policy. Many of his older knights were
dissatisfied with their share of the booty, which, generally
speaking, on account either of its insignificance or supposed
insecurity, was so far from tempting, that it fell to the share
not of the first-born, but usually of the younger branches.
The greater number of the Normans did not yet venture to
send for their wives, and as, during their two years’ absence
from their country, they heard only anxious complaints from
them, and but too often bad accounts of improprieties that
had taken place, many of the most distinguished men, as
Hugh of Grentemaisnil, his sister’s son, Humfrey of Telleuil,
to whom the castle of Hastings had been intrusted, and
others, heedless of the threatened loss of their English fiefs,
resolved to return to Normandy. The threats alluded to
were not, however, always carried into effect}, particularly
as the king could not easily dispense with men like Hugh,
who, it appears, soon returned, with his wife Adeliz, to his

' Domesday refutes the erroneous assertion of Orderic, p. 512. (Maseres,
p- 217), who says: “ Sed honores, quos jam nactos hac de causa relique-
runt, ipsi, vel heredes eorum, nunquam postea recuperare potuerunt.”” .
See Ellis, Introd. i. p. 429, under “ Grentemaisnil,” and p. 502, under
“Uxor H. de Grentemaisnil,” also p. 364.
WILLIAM THE FIRST. 127

castle at Leicester. On the other hand, in consequence of
the increasing misery of the country, desolated by famine and
its attendant, pestilence, by fire and plunderings, the king
found it advisable to discharge and send back to their homes,
richly rewarded, many of his soldiers, whose services were
available only on a day of battle.

Still these praiseworthy measures, in a state of such great
excitement, were not sufficient. In the beginning of the
following year (1069), he sent Robert of Comines! to the
Scottish border with seven hundred horse2, to administer the
county of Durham. Full of confidence in himself, the king,
and the strong walls of the place, he rode, in spite of: the
warnings of the bishop, Aigelwine, with the Norman banner,
into the city of Durham. He would not, even for a moment,
repress the insolence of his soldiers, who treated the city as
a conquered place, and even massacred many ecclesiastics.
In the following night, when the gates were closed, and the
Normans, defenceless and suspecting no danger, were either
merry-making or sleeping, the fire-staff passed from village
to village between the Tees and the Derwent, and a multitude
breathing vengeance secretly beset the city. On the 28th
of January, when at early morn the gates were opened, the
men of the country burst in, quickly joined themselves to the
townsmen, assailed the new earl (who, with his knights,
valiantly defended himself in the episcopal palace, in which he
had taken up his abode, and when it was set on fire, perished
in the flames) and massacred the entire Norman squadron,

f 1 Ancestor of the historian, Philip de Comines, and of the Scottish
family of Comyn, or Cumin.

2 So Sim. Dunelm. The Sax. Chron. (a. 1068) has 900; Orderic says
500, a number apparently used by him to signify-a large body. Thierry,
who has overlooked the genuine authorities, making use of their epitomi-
zers only, Alfred of Beverley and Hemingford, speaks besides of “1200
chevaliers complétement armés, mais on ne sait pas au juste combien de
gens de service et de fantassins les accompagnaient.”” Such exaggerations
should be banished from the province of history.
128 WILLIAM THE FIRST.

with the exception of two swift-footed fugitives, who carried
the intelligence of the disaster to the king.

Nothing spreads itself more widely around than an excited
popular animosity. Only a few days after the above-men-
tioned occurrence, Robert fitz Richard was slain with a con-
siderable number of his followers. In the other castle, how-
ever, William Malet still maintained himself, and not only
communicated to the king information of this new calamity,
but also of the approach of the Anglo-Saxons from Scotland,
under Eadgar Atheling, Gospatric, and Meerlesweyn, against
whom he felt himself unable to hold out. And these soon
began their attack; but the king arriving suddenly at the
place, dispersed the besiegers, and provided the garrison thus
relieved with a reinforcement, under the command of his best
general, William fitz Osbern. The king himself returned to
Winchester, there to celebrate the Easter festival, according
to royal custom!. How well William could rely on fitz Osbern
appears also on this occasion, After his departure, the Anglo-
Saxons lost no time in assembling and marching upon York ;
but were met by fitz Osbern, who, after an obstinate engage-
ment, returned with many prisoners, leaving only corpses and
despairing fugitives behind him.

Some months after, (the end of June,) either too late or too
early, as it usually happened in these struggles of the Anglo-
Saxons, two of Harold’s sons, with the aid of Dermot, king of
Leinster, again landed, from sixty-four ships, at the mouth
of the Tavy in Devonshire, and from Tavistock proceeded to
Exeter, ravaging all the neighbouring country, but were sur-
prised by Brian, son of Eudes, count of Brittany, and William
Gualdi, and in two battles, fought on one day, lost the greater

1 A charter of donation and confirmation, dated from the monastery of
St. Swithin, on the 2nd day of Easter, by William, king of England, and
count (see p.15) of Normandy and Le Maine, in the third year of his
reign, in favour of the abbey of St. Denys, is still preserved among the
archives at Paris. It is, perhaps, the oldest charter of William the Con-
queror extant. :
WILLIAM THE FIRST. 129

part of their followers. The remaining few returned in two
small vessels to Ireland'.

Tranquillity had hardly been re-established in the south,
when, in the mouth of the Humber?, arrived the formidable
Danish fleet, so long hoped for by the natives, so feared by
William, who, foreseeing the coming storm, had sent his
queen back to Normandy. This fleet, consisting of two
hundred and forty ships, was under the command of the
two elder sons of king Svend Estrithson, Harald and Cnut 3,
of their uncle Asbiérn+, who had formerly been banished from
England, and of the jarl Thorkell. Bishop Christian of
Aarhuus, afterwards of Ribe, together with other ecclesi-
astics, was also with the fleet, both to fight and give counsel.
They had previously made an attempt to land at Dover,
which seems sufficiently to show that their object was to
act in common with the sons of Harold, and that the several
pretenders were at least unanimous in the intention of ex-
pelling the Normans with their combined forces. On their
course northwards they landed at Sandwich, where they were

1 Sax. Chron. Flor. Wigorn. a. 1064. W. Gemmet. lib. vii. c. 41. Ord.
Vital. p. 531 (Maseres, p.219.) Thierry errs in placing the expedition of
the three sons of Harold, and that of the two sons, which was not under-
taken till after Midsummer in the year following, both in last mentioned
year. He has, generally speaking, paid too little attention to Florence.
[William of Jumiéges and Orderic give 66 as the number of ships.—T.]

2 Sim. Dunelm, Ante Nativitatem Mariz, (Sept. 8th). Lingard was
probably thinking of the Assumption, when he made the landing of the
Danes in the Humber in the beginning of August, and, consequently, at
Dover in July.

3 The Saxon Chronicle (a. 1069) makes three sons of Svend in this ex-
pedition, but without giving their names. The Chronicle in these years
is very incorrect.

4 See Engl. under the A. S. Kings, ii. p. 242. The identity of this
person is undoubted, although disregarded by the older authors, while the
later wholly pass over Asbidrn’s share in the expedition, or disfigure his
name so as to render it no longer recognisable ; as Lingard, copying from
Domesday, writes it ‘Sbern’. [Both he and Turner have also ‘Sveno’
for Svend.—T.]

K
130 WILLIAM THE FIRST.

repulsed by the Normans. At Ipswich, where they next
landed, they were attacked and put to flight by the inhabi-
tants, while engaged in ravaging and plundering the neigh-
bourhood; but at Norwich a still worse fate befell them.
Having landed at that city, they were encountered by Ralf
of Guader, when many perished by the sword and many were
drowned, the remainder being driven to their ships. On their
arrival in the Humber, they were joined by Gospatric, Mer-
lesweyn, Waltheof, Archill, who had deserted the cause of
William, and other Anglo-Saxons'. Eadgar A®theling was,
with some troops, gone southwards on a predatory expedition,
and was attacked by the garrison of Lincoln, who captured
all his men with the exception of two, who escaped with their
leader?. When archbishop Ealdred, who had so zealously
espoused the cause of the Conqueror, received intelligence of
the invasion of the Danes, he was so stricken with consterna-
tion and grief, that he fell sick, and in a few days died®.
King William was engaged in the diversion of the chase in
the forest of Dean*, when intelligence was brought him of the
landing of the Danes at Norwich. He instantly despatched
a messenger to York, counselling his officers there to take
their measures with caution, and to send for him, should they
deem his presence necessary. They answered, that the com-
manders of the garrisons would not require aid for a year, as
the number of Normans there was above three thousand.
Their precautionary measures they carried so far as to burn
those houses of the citizens that lay round the castles, the
flames from which, having caught the city, the greater part
of it, together with the minster of St. Peter, in which the

1 «* Elnocinus et quatuor filii Karoli.”’ Ord. Vital. p. 513 (Maseres,
p. 223). Carl appears to have been a inan of considerable property in
Yorkshire and other counties. See Ellis, Introd. ii. p. 65.

2 Ord. Vital. p. 513. (Maseres, p. 222.)

3 Flor. Wigorn. a. 1069.

4 «Dana sylva.” Ord. Vital. p. 513. (Maseres, p. 222.)
WILLIAM THE FIRST. 131

body of the archbishop had just been deposited, was laid in
ashes (19th Sept.). The Danish fleet had in the meanwhile
sailed up the Ouse, and saw from afar the blazing conflagra-
tion which, driven by a storm, within a few hours consumed
the wood-constructed city!. On the third day the Anglo-
Saxons appeared before the walls of York, and so well-planned
was their attack, so unceasing their impetuosity, that on the
same day they succeeded in taking the castles by storm. The
garrisons, with the exception of William Malet and his family,
of Gilbert of Ghent? and a few others, whose lives were saved
for the sake of the ransom, were put to the sword 3,

The insurrection of the Anglo-Saxons had in the meantime
taken a wider range, although, from lack of adequate guidance,
with little result. In Somersetshire the count of Mortain and
Cornwall had caused a strong castle to be erected, and named
it from its position Montagut+ (Monsacutus, Montagu). The
people of the district, with those of Dorsetshire and other
neighbouring parts, rose while count Robert was staying with
the king his brother, for the purpose of attacking the de-
tested structure. The men of the castle, however, repelled
the assault, till Geoffrey, bishop of Coutances, came to their
relief, with forces from London, Winchester, and Salisbury.
The prisoners taken on this occasion were by the Normans,
according to their barbarous custom, cruelly mutilated. In
Shropshire the people had assembled under EHadrie the
Forester and other unconquered patriots, and, with the
men of Cheshire and the neighbouring Welsh, united to

! Ord. Vital. ut sup. Sim. Dunelm. col. 198. Flor. Wigorn. a. 1069.
2 «Dugdale has given a long account of Gilbert of Ghent in his Baron-
age, i. p. 400. He was son to Baldwin earl of Flanders, whose sister the

Conqueror had married. He was the refounder of Bardney abbey in Lin- !

colnshire, and is believed to have died about the year 1094. See also
Kelham, p. 78, and the ‘‘ Descensus de Gant,” in the account of the abbey
of Vaudey, in the Monast. Anglic. v. p.491.” Ellis, Introd. i. p. 422.—T.
3 Ord. Vital. p. 512 (Maseres, p. 223.) Flor. Wigorn. a. 1069.
4+ Domesday, i. fol. 93.
K2
132 WILLIAM THE FIRST.

surprise the castle of Shrewsbury. The town was burnt,
and when the counts William Gualdi and Brian, son of
Eudes of Brittany, hastened to chastise the insurgents, they
avoided the encounter. They durst not follow them into
the mountain passes; for the men of Devonshire also, and
the British population from the extremity of Cornwall, had
combined together to capture the Norman barons and their
followers in Exeter. But the defenders of the city, in a
sudden sortie, succeeded in driving off their assailants who,
in their flight, were met by the royal forces from Shrewsbury,
under the two counts above mentioned, and routed with great
slaughter !.

King William had in the meanwhile hastened into Stafford-
shire, the inhabitants of which, like those of Cheshire, had
followed the example of their earls, Eadwine and Morkere.
But these movements were by his powerful arms soon quelled,
and William then proceeded to Northumbria. There the
Danes had spread themselves over the land south of York,
and many of them had crossed the Humber to the opposite
shore of the rich district of Lindesey, where, however, they
were attacked by Robert, count of Mortain, and Robert.
of Eu, and, after suffering considerable loss, with difficulty
reached their ships. The king in the meanwhile continued
to march forwards. At Pontefract he found the Are so
swollen, that it was not passable at any of the usual fords.
In this conjuncture he was by some advised to return; to
others, who would persuade him to construct a bridge, he
answered, that it would not be prudent, lest the enemy should
suddenly attack them while engaged on the work. For three
weeks he was detained there, until a valiant soldier, named
Lisois des Moustiers?, after much labour, discovered a ford,

1 W. Gemmet. lib. vii. c. 41. Ord. Vital. p. 513 (Maseres, p. 223.)

2 Perhaps the “ Lisoisus in Essex” of Domesday, fol. 496. [Ellis. ii.
p. 349. “De Monasteriis,” as he is named by Orderic, p. 514 (Maseres,

p- 224) is, no doubt, Des Moustiers, or Des Modtiers Latinized. See
Maseres, ut sup.—T.]
WILLIAM THE FIRST. 133

where, at the head of sixty horse, he crossed the river. On
the opposite shore he was assailed by a numerous body of the
enemy, whom, however, he repulsed. On the following day,
having returned to the camp, he showed them the ford, by
which the whole army crossed without delay. They had now
to pass through forests and across morasses, over mountains
and through valleys, and ways where two were unable to
march abreast. On reaching York they found that the
Danes had abandoned it}. With all his rancour towards
his enemies, William did not forget that he could inflict on
them much greater injury by other and more effectual means
than by the sword. The object of the jarl Asbidrn in engaging
in the expedition was gain, and this he found in the rich pre-
sents of gold that William caused to be made to him, and for
which he engaged to hold his countrymen in a state of inac-
tion on the coast till the spring, and then return with them
to Denmark. Many of them had in fact already returned,
on account of want of provisions, and not a few had perished
by storm. Asbidrn’s return to Seeland was delayed until
July of the following year. On his arrival he was met by a
sentence of banishment?. William now gave the reins to his
insatiable vengeance. He sent some of his chieftains with a

! It was probably on this occasion, if on any, that, according to
Malmesbury (p. 427), Waltheof is said to have slain so many Normans
with his own hand: “ Siquidem Weldeofus in Eboracensi pugna plures
Normannorum solus obtruncaverat, unos et unos per portem egredientes
(ingredientes?) decapitans.” The story, if not a fiction, strongly resem-
bles one.—T.

In the Registrum Honoris de Richmond (edited by Gale) there is a
charter of William’s dated “In obsidione coram civitate Ebor.” The
genuineness of this document, in which William designates himself “Ego
Willielmus cognomine Bastardus,’’ is doubted by Gale. See Ellis, Introd.
1, p. 366.

2 The Peterborough MS. of the Saxon Chronicle and Hugonis Candidi
Historia Coenobii Burgensis relate that king Svend himself, in the year
1070, landed in the Humber, and afterwards concluded a peace with king
William; both which accounts are contrary to the most trustworthy
authorities.
134 WILLIAM THE FIRST.

body of troops to York to restore the ruined castles, leaving
others to oppose the Danes on the banks of the Humber,
while he himself went in pursuit of the enemy, who had taken
refuge in thickly wooded and almost inaccessible places. Corn,
cattle, utensils, and every species of food he ordered to be
heaped together and burnt. The famine that had already
raged for more than a year, was by such execrable proceed-
ings so aggravated, and so horrible was the misery, that the
wretched inhabitants were compelled to subsist on horses,
cats, and even on human flesh. Hunger forced many to sell
themselves and families into perpetual slavery to their op-
pressors. During this calamitous state of things, it is sup-
posed that no less than a hundred thousand human beings
perished. Many who, with some little property, had forsaken
their country, in the hope of finding an asylum in a foreign
land, perished ere they could reach the wished-for shore.
Appalling was it in the silent houses, in the lonely streets,
and public roads, to see the corpses rotting, covered with
myriads of worms, in an atmosphere insufferably redolent of
putrefaction. For the last duty, that of burial, no one sur-
vived to perform it in the desolated land. Those whom the
sword and the famine had spared, had fled from the scene of
ruin. Even Aigelwine, the bishop of Durham, and other
innocent ecclesiastics durst not venture to remain at home;
for the sword of the avenger knew no difference among Anglo-
Saxons. Northumbria and the parts adjacent were become
one vast desert, where no one for the next ten years would
settle, with the object of cultivating the land; and even after
the lapse of more than half a century, tracts of above sixty
miles in extent were still in a state of desolation. On the
once frequented road from York to Durham, as far as the
eye could reach, not a single inhabited village was to be seen.
In ruins and caverns dwelt only crews of robbers and wolves,
for the destruction of the traveller’.

1 Simeon Dunelm. a. 1069. W. Malm. de Gest. Pont. lib. iii. Proleg.
WILLIAM THE FIRST. 135

But William was not content with having spread his fame
as a warrior, or, more correctly perhaps, his infamy as a
destroyer, he was also desirous of displaying his royal dignity
before the eyes of his neighbours. He caused the crown and
other regalia to be brought from Winchester to York, where
he kept the Christmas festival. Large districts in Yorkshire,
particularly the possessions of the earls Eadwine and Mor-
kere, were now bestowed on his adherents. Alan Fergant
(the Red), count of Brittany, received, in Yorkshire, the
lands on which he erected the castle of Richmond’, Gilbert
of Lacy received Pontefract, a Fleming, Drogo Bruiére, Odo
of Champagne, Gamel, son of Ketil of Meaux, and others
received vast grants of land, but which scarcely afforded
them a scanty subsistence. He then marched as far as the
Tees, where he spent a fortnight, during which time earl
Waltheof appeared before him, for the purpose of making his
submission. Gospatrie renewed his oath of fealty by proxy,
and was reinstated in possession of his earldoms. Eadgar
and the other Anglo-Saxon chieftains took shipping at Wear-
mouth for Scotland, whither also digelwine, bishop of Dur-
ham, who (sensible of the impossibility of intercourse with
people speaking a foreign tongue and of still more foreign

[His words are: “Qui [Willielmus] urbanis [Eboraci] iratus, quod Danis
adventantibus receptui et consultui fuissent, prius inedia, mox flamma
civitatem confecit ; regionis etiam totius vicos et agros corrumpi, fructus
et fruges igne vel aqua labefactari jubet. Ita provincia quondam fertilis
nervi, preeda, incendio, sanguine succisi. Humus per lx. et eo amplius
milliaria omnifariam inculta, nudum omnium solum ad hoc usque tempus.
Urbes olim preclaras, turres proceritate sua in cceelum minantes, agros
letos pascuis, irriguos fluviis, si quis videt modo peregrinus, ingemit; si
quis vetus incola, non agnoscit. In aliquibus tamen parietum ruinis, qui
semiruti remansere, videas mira Romanorum artificia, velut est in Luga-
balia civitate triclinium lapidum fornicibus concameratum, quod nulla
unquam tempestatum contumelia, quinetiam nec appositis ex industria
lignis et succensis valuit labefactari.”’

Malmesbury wrote in the middle of the twelfth century —T.]

1 The charters are still at Nantes. See Daru, Hist. de la Bretagne, i.
p. 106, Ellis, Introd. i. p. 366.
136 WILLIAM THE FIRST.

ideas) had resolved on going to Cologne, was driven by a
storm. William returned to York}, by a way until then
never trodden by an army, where, while the adjacent country
was rejoicing in vernal mildness, the mountain-tops and the
deep valleys were thickly covered with snow. But William
prosecuted his march, during an intensely hard frost, cheering
his soldiers by his alertness. During his progress a great
number of his horses perished. Every one was anxious only
for his own safety, recking little for his chief or his friend.
In this state of difficulty, the king, attended only by six
knights, lost his way, and passed a whole night without
knowing where to find his army. On his return to York, he
caused several castles to be restored, and the necessary mea-
sures to be taken for placing things on a better footing in
the city and neighbourhood. He then proceeded with his
army against the men of Cheshire and the Welsh, who, in
addition to their other offences, had laid siege to Shrewsbury.
But the army, which had already undergone so many hard-
ships, was fearful that still more and greater awaited them in
this expedition. They dreaded the rugged ways, the severity
of the winter, the scarcity of provisions, and the terrific fero-
city of the enemy. The Angevins, Bretons, and those of Le
Maine, who were in the pay of William, were, as they said,
oppressed beyond endurance by intolerable duties ; they
therefore pertinaciously demanded their dismissal. The king
did not vouchsafe to retain them either by entreaties or pro-
mises; but boldly continued his march, commanding those
bands that were faithful to follow him, and looking with con-
tempt on the deserters, as spiritless, cowardly, and weak.
Unwearied he pursued his march by ways never before ex-
plored by cavalry, over lofty mountains and through deep
valleys, across streams and rivers, in rain and hail. The king

1 Orderic, p.515 (Maseres, p. 226) has: “Rex Guillelmus Haugustal-
dam (Hexham) revertabatur a Tesia;”’? no doubt a mistake for Eboracum,
as is manifest from the context. See Maseres ut sup.—T.
WILLIAM THE FIRST. 137

himself frequently led the way on foot, readily lending aid to
those in difficulty. At length he brought his army safely to
Chester, and suppressed by force every hostile movement in
the province of Mercia. At Chester and also at Stafford
he caused castles to be erected'. The county of Chester (in
which that part of Lancashire which lies between the Ribble
and the Mersey, as well as some adjacent Welsh districts,
was comprised), which Gherbod the Fleming, preferring his
inheritance in his native country?, had resigned, was now
granted to Hugh, surnamed Goz, also Lupus, or the Wolf3,
son of Richard, surnamed Goz, a man abandoned to the
grossest sensuality and most unbounded extravagance. This
earldom he received to be held as freely by the sword as the
king held England by his crown; and even the other pos-
sessors of fiefs there did not, as in other provinces, hold them
of the king, but immediately from the earl. We may here
perceive the same policy which is to be found in other states .

1 Besides those mentioned in the text, William caused castles to be
erected at the following places: Pevensey, Hastings, Iondon (the Tower),
in 1066; Winchester, 1067; Chichester, Arundel, Exeter, Warwick, Not-
tingham, York, Lincoln, Huntingdon, Cambridge, 1068; a second at
York, Chester, Stafford, 1070. Maseres’ note to Orderic, p. 228.—T.

2 There does not appear to have been much preference in the case.
Orderic, p. 522 (Maseres, p. 253), speaking of Gherbod, says: “Cestram
et comitatum ejus Gherbodo, Flandrensi, jamdudum rex dederat, qui magna
ibi et difficilia tam ab Anglis quam a Guallis adversantibus pertulerat.
Deinde legatione coactus suorum, quos in Flandria dimiserat, et quibus
hereditarium honorem suum commiserat, eundi citoque redeundi licentiam
a rege acceperat: sed ibi adversa illaqueatus fortuna, in manus inimico-
rum inciderat, et in vinculis coercitus, mundanaque felicitate privatus,
longe miserize threnos depromere didicerat.”—T.

3 Orderic, p. 598 (Maseres, p. 253) gives a very indifferent character of
Hugh Lupus: “ Hic non dapsilis, sed prodigus erat: non familiam se-
cum, sed exercitum semper ducebat. In dando vel accipiendo nullam
rationem tenebat. Ipse terram suam quotidie devastabat, et plus aucupi-
bus ac venatoribus, quam terre cultoribus, vel cceli oratoribus applaude-
bat. Ventris ingluviei serviebat ; unde nimiz crassitiei pondere pregra-
vatus, vix ire poterat. E pellicibus plurimam sobolem utriusque sexus
genuit, que, diversis infortuniis absorpta, pene tota periit.”—T.
138 WILLIAM THE FIRST.

of Europe, where the Margraves frequently obtained very ex-
tensive powers, as well as the privilege of holding as their
own such lands as they might win by the sword, by way of
inducement to guard and extend the frontier the more vigi-
lantly and valiantly. Hugh the Wolf availed himself of this
right, and, even in his latter years, when the mass of his fat
almost deprived him of the faculty of locomotion, conquered
the isle of Anglesey. But the real margrave would appear
to have been his lieutenant, Robert, son of Humphrey of
Telleuil, who had in his youth already served his apprentice-
ship in the art of war in England, probably in Hereford
against the Welsh!. To him the king gave permission to
erect a castle at Rhuddlan, in Flintshire, whence he derived
the designation of ‘de Roelent,” and invested him with North
Wales, in consideration of an annual payment of forty pounds
of silver 2.

But a new calamity was reserved for the unhappy north of
England, and from a quarter whence it was not expected.
Malcolm, king of Scotland, at the head of a numerous army,
marched through his province of Cumberland, then, turning
eastward, laid waste and depopulated the whole of Teesdale
and the adjacent country, under the pretext of aiding the
cause of Eadgar Aitheling. At ‘“ Hundredeskeld,” after
massacreing some of the principal inhabitants, Malcolm sént
back a part of his army, laden with immense booty, craftily
anticipating that the miserable people, who had concealed
themselves and their little remaining property, would, sup-
posing the enemy to have departed, emerge from their hiding
places, and thus fall an easy prey to the invader. And so it
proved. For after partially ravaging Cleveland, he burst
into ‘‘ Heortnisse,” whence he overran the lands of St. Cuth-
bert, slaughtering and plundering wherever he came. Nu-

' See Engl. under the A. S. Kings, i. p. 246, n2.
2 Domesday, i. fol. 269. Ellis, Introd. i. p. 479. Orderic, p. 670, re-
peatedly calls him Marchio, Marchisus.
WILLIAM THE FIRST. 139

merous churches, together with: those who had sought refuge
in them, were burnt by his soldiers, among others that of
St. Peter at Wearmouth, while Malcolm himself looked on.
As he was riding along the bank of the river, and from an
elevated spot glutting his eyes with the desolation he had
eaused, intelligence was brought him that Eadgar Atheling
and his sisters, with many fugitives of distinction, had landed
at Wearmouth. Malcolm received them with kindness, and
promised them a safe and permanent asylum in Scotland. In
the meanwhile, Gospatric, who had bought of William the
earldom of Northumberland, burst with an army into Cum-
berland, which he laid waste with fire and sword, and re-
turned with a rich booty to his castle of Bamborough, whence
he made frequent irruptions, to the great detriment of the
enemy. ‘This retaliation served only to increase Malcolm’s
fury, who now gave orders not to spare one of English race,
but to slay or drive into perpetual slavery the entire popula-
tion. In consequence of these orders, the aged, both male ,
and female, were mercilessly massacred; infants torn from —
the breast were thrown on high, and in falling received on
the points of the spears. The young of both sexes, and all
who appeared capable of labour, were driven bound before
their enemies into perpetual bondage. Many, through the
fatigue and misery of being thus driven, fell dead by the way.
But Malcolm, so far from being moved by the prayers and
groans of his victims, ordered them to be urged on the faster.
Scotland thus became filled with English slaves of both sexes;
so that long afterwards there was scarcely a farm or even a
cottage, in which the posterity of these English slaves was
not to be found in the condition of serfs.

When Malcolm returned to Scotland, Eadgar A&theling
and his before-mentioned relations and friends had already
arrived there; also bishop A‘gelwine, who, on his passage to
Cologne, had, as we have seen, by adverse winds been driven
to Scotland. Malcolm now made the offer of his hand to
140 WILLIAM THE FIRST.

Margaret, but met with a refusal both from herself and her
relations, it being her wish to lead a life of celibacy devoted
to the service of her Creator. But Malcolm’s importunities
finally prevailed on Eadgar, who gave his consent to the
union, nor, in fact, could he well persist in refusing it; for,
as it is observed by the chronicler, “ they were come into his
power.” Malcolm was, and had good reason to be, contented
with his choice; and had sagacity enough to profit by his
consort’s exhortations and example; so that from a blood-
thirsty barbarian, he became a mild and just sovereign. By
Margaret he had six sons: Eadward, Eadmund, Eadgar,

afterwards king, AXthelred, Alexander, and David, the two

last-mentioned also kings of Scotland; and two daughters:
Matilda, married to king Henry the First, and Mary, the
consort of Eustace, count of Boulogne!.

A loss more prejudicial than a defeat the Anglo-Saxon
cause suffered at this time, through the determination of earl
Waltheof to submit to the Conqueror. He visited William
on the bank of the Tees, and not only met with a gracious
reception, but received from him the earldoms of Northamp-
ton and Huntingdon, together with the hand of Judith, the
daughter of his half-sister by her consort, the earl of Albe-
marle?; and shortly after, the county of Northumberland,
which had been taken from Gospatric.

William’s thoughts were now engrossed by the means of
firmly establishing his power in England. An ancient cus-
tom of depositing in churches and monasteries treasures and

1 Sim. Dunelm. col. 201. Sax. Chron. a. 1067. Flor. Wigorn. a. 1068.
Alured. Riv. 130. Vita 8. Marg. ap. Pinkerton, Vite SS. Scotiz.

2 Her mother was the daughter of Arlette, by her husband, Herluin of
Conteville. W. Gemmet. viii. 37. Cf. Ord. Vital. p. 522 (Maseres, p. 254).
She was not, as Ellis (Introd. i. p. 440) supposes, the daughter of Odo of
Champagne, who married a daughter of Robert, duke of Normandy. Ac-
cording to another account in ‘Libello de Vita Gualdevi’ (Leland, Iti-
nerar. iv. 140), she was the daughter of count Lambert of Lens, and sister
of Stephen count of Albemarle.
WILLIAM THE FIRST. 141

documents of importance had, during these years of trouble,
by Anglo-Saxons of wealth and rank, been much resorted to.
To gratify his rapacity, and, at the same time, enfeeble his
enemies, by depriving them of their pecuniary resources,
William, by the advice of William fitz Osbern (a. p. 1070),
ordered the churches and monasteries to be ransacked, and
the booty thus found, together with many charters of immu-
nity and much church property, not sparing even the plate ©
for the service of the altar, to be seized and conveyed to his
own treasury. The bishoprics and abbeys, which until then
had been exempt from every secular service, he compelled
to render military service, arbitrarily fixing the number of
soldiers to be furnished by each bishopric and abbey in time
of war!. For as he could not be otherwise than sensible that
if, from the first moment of his landing, he was an object of
hatred to the whole nation, the Anglo-Saxon clergy in parti-
cular must, on longer acquaintance, from day to day, enter-
tain an increased aversion towards both himself and _ his
martial prelates; a heavy, yet, for their past obsequiousness
and flattery, not unmerited punishment was, therefore, des-
tined for them, which had been deferred only till the king
felt himself sufficiently strong to carry it into effect. Hence
not satisfied with the confiscation of their treasures, William
now began to depose and banish those whose hostility was
known to, or only suspected by, him, supplying their places,
as he had already done those of the earls and other lay offi-
cials, with Normans; a proceeding quite in accordance with
existing circumstances and the policy of the Conqueror, but
most pernicious in its influence on the Anglo-Saxon people.
For although the Anglo-Saxon church had not risen in repu-
tation since the death of Cnut the Great, it had, in the inter-
mediate space, at least maintained its individual character
and integrity ; but by this measure its peculiar character was

1 Sax. Chron. a.1070. Sim. Dunelm. col. 200. Mat. Westm. p. 226.
R. Wendov. ii. p.7.
142 WILLIAM THE FIRST.

entirely destroyed, and the instruction of the people, particu-
larly of the higher classes, which was wholly in the hands of
the clergy, assumed a different nature. Such a change of
language and habits in the priesthood must to the people
have been almost tantamount to a suppression of the church,
and have wrought a still greater disregard of all religious
feelings, had not the complicated miseries of the nation served
to raise its thoughts to the Supreme, and direct its hopes to
His protection, and to a better future, more immediately and
efficiently than the priesthood with its exotic service could
accomplish. An inevitable consequence of the introduction
of a clergy speaking a foreign tongue was, that the conquerors,
the future nobility of the country, adhered exclusively to their
native French, and the subjugated inhabitants corrupted the
pure Germanic speech of their forefathers, and before many
years had elapsed only imperfectly understood it. The col-
lective fruits of the intellectual exertions and experience of
the Anglo-Saxon race, deposited in a literature richer than
that of any of their Germanic brethren, either in expressive
prose or artificially constructed, alliterative, rhythmical poesy;
the wisdom of hoar antiquity, all the learning, every ani-
mating, warning, exhilarating example in national tradition,
became lost to the people. Such a loss we should with reason
deplore, even had it been supplanted by something nobler and
better: but that which the Normans brought with them was
certainly far from being an equivalent, even in point of mere
learning. Those Norman bishops, at the head of their squa-
drons, in a war of attack and conquest, afford us a spectacle
as instructive as rare, even in the days of heathenism; and a
very slight inquiry suffices to show, that the highly cultivated
men, whose names, before and during the time of William,
are enumerated among those of the Normans, do not belong
to that people. No poem, no national historic work, no ser-
mons, no essays, no collection of laws, from the pen of a native,
have the Normans, before their military occupation of Eng-
WILLIAM THE FIRST. 143

land, either transmitted to posterity, or to which they can
refer. We may, therefore, fairly assume, when we see the
English nation, after ages of depression, again vigorously
flourishing, that this resurrection, but for the Norman con-
quest, would have taken place much earlier and more com-
pletely ; and that the civilization of southern Europe, which
the clergy of those migratory ages spread abroad, would have

‘ shed its influence more benignly over Anglo-Saxon life, with-
out the transplanting of the court of Rouen to England. By
some, indeed, the fraternizing of the English clergy with their
continental brethren has been regarded as the greatest, if not
the only, benefit resulting from the Conquest, as if, when
casting a glance at the consequences, the too close harmony,
which the Romish church strove to effect, did not manifestly
appear as the chief cause of their later separation; as if,
when we look at its origin, so bloody a conquest, such rugged
means must not cast a suspicion over every pretended spiritual
advantage.

From the burning and ravaging in the northern part of
England, and the violation of sanctuaries, William, laden with
church plunder, proceeded at Easter to Winchester, (oct.
Easter, Apr. 4), where a great council was appointed to be
holden, consisting of Norman barons and Anglo-Saxon thanes,
as well as of ecclesiastics, both from this and the opposite
side of the Channel, and where the legates of his great ally,
pope Alexander IJ., Ermenfred, bishop of Sion, who had
already been employed on a mission to England in the time
of the Confessor’, and the cardinals John and Peter2, awaited
him. William, on this occasion, allowed himself, by a new
coronation, at the hands of the two cardinals, to receive the
papal ratification of his royal dignity’. He was conscious

! Flor. Wigorn. a. 1062.
2 So Florence, though Lanfranc (Ep. i.) names one of these cardinals
Hubert.

3 Vita S. Lanfranci, c. 6. ““Coronam capiti ejus imponentes, in regem
144 ; WILLIAM THE FIRST.

that he enhanced the supposed value of this ceremony the
more important he himself appeared to consider it. For
nearly a year he entertained the legates in the most honour-
able manner; promised, and constantly appeared, to follow
their counsel, and did, in fact, follow it, as far as it had refer-
ence to the introduction of a stricter church-discipline. So
great, indeed, was his veneration for them, that he listened to
_ their discourse as if they were angels from heaven}. But how-
ever craftily he played his part in this respect, he proved
himself no less firm in maintaining the rights of his crown in
essential matters, and the pope made the discovery that he
had wasted banners, holy water, benedictions, and crowns to
no purpose, the moment he would exact from the most recent
of kings more than what every other sovereign willingly con-
ceded to the papal chair.

The most essential object of the council of Winchester,
both for the pope and the king, was the deposition of the
stubborn archbishop of Canterbury. Stigand, in a constant
state of dissension with the Romish court, had also more and
more incensed the king by occasional compliance and subse-
quent opposition®. The accusation that, together with his
archbishopric, he unlawfully held the see of Winchester, not
alone appearing of sufficient importance to justify his deposi-

Anglicum confirmaverunt.” Ord. Vital. p. 516 (Maseres, p. 231) “ ubi
(Guentee) cardinales Romanz ecclesiz coronam ei solemniter imposue-
runt.”’ Orderic either copies from the above-mentioned Life, or the au-
thority common to both, the Vita Herluini. It is remarkable that only
these two writers mention this second coronation.

! « Audiens et honorans eos tanquam angelos Dei.” Ord. Vital. p. 516
(Maseres, p. 231).—T.

2 Matt. Paris, a. 1070 (R. Wendover, ii. p.7) relates that Stigand to-
gether with Alexander, bishop of Lincoln, fled to Scotland. [This is
evidently a mistake, as there was no bishop of Lincoln of that name
until 1153; nor was the see transferred from Dorchester to Lincoln in
1070.—T.]

3 The Normans falsely charge him with holding two bishoprics besides
the archbishopric (Milonis Crispi Vita Lanfranci, c.6. Rob. de Monte,
WILLIAM THE FIRST. 145

tion; not less criminal was it—adds the accusation—that he
had received his pall from the anti-pope Benedict, who had
been excommunicated, and, until it arrived, had celebrated
mass in that of the expelled archbishop Robert. Stigand was
deprived of his dignity; his wealth, at least as much as could
be discovered, was confiscated ; but his person, as even royal
promises cannot be broken at once, was left at liberty.
Walkelin, one of the royal chaplains, an ambitious man, who
robbed his own church', and was long an object of hatred to
the monks, until he conciliated them by his prodigality and
love of building, received the see of Winchester. The see
of East Anglia was taken from Adgelmeer, the brother of Stig-
and, and bestowed on Herfast, another royal chaplain, whose
ignorance had long been a subject of derision in Normandy,
where it was doubted whether he knew his letters?. Many
abbots also were deposed, and their rich benefices disposed
of in a similar manner. Thomas, a canon of Bayeux, received
the archbishopric of York, on the decease of archbishop Eald-
red*, In a synod held by the two cardinals, besides many
other abbots, AXgelric, a friend of Stigand’s, previously a
monk of Christ-church Canterbury, and for thirteen years the
blameless bishop of Selsey, was degraded in defiance of the
canons; and, without any proved delinquency, was by the
king committed to strict custody at Marlborough, and his
bishopric given to the royal chaplain Stigand. The pope
took offence at this violation of the law in the person of

Chron. a. 1070); but he had long lost that of E. Anglia, or Elmham, and
that he ever possessed the see of Sussex, or Selsey, is a gross error of
Malmesbury (De Pont. p. 238), which he himself rectifies at p. 257.

1 « Peccavit, ad trecentas libratas terras monachis auferens.” Malm. de
Pont. p. 246.

2 W. Malm. ib. p. 238. See p. 148.

3 Malmesbury is eloquent in praise of archbishop Thomas, on account
of his liberality, the elegance of his manners and his mental accomplish-
ments. De Pont. p. 238.—T.

4 «Unus (Walkelinus) in loco depositi (Stigandi), alter defuncti (Ald-
vedi).”” 15.—T.

i
146 WILLIAM THE FIRST.

gelric, and demanded his immediate reinstalment, and a
new investigation of the charges brought against him. It
does not, however, appear, in this case, in which the accusa-
tion was probably that of high treason, that any attention
was paid to the precept of the papal court'. Remigius, a
monk of Fécamp, was rewarded with the see of Dorchester,
after the death of bishop Wulfwine, in 1067, having, for his
able command of the soldiers furnished by his abbey, received
a promise from the king of the first bishopric that fell vacant.
Such a remuneration for military service, together with
glaring simony, excited general indignation, and Gregory
VIL., the successor of Alexander, felt it incumbent on him
to cite the culprit before his tribunal; but the affair seems to
have fallen to the ground, and, at a subsequent period, we
find Remigius lauded as the mirror of virtues, the gem and
light of the priesthood !

Archbishop Stigand ended his days at Winchester. His
great wealth, to which his contemporaries ascribed the real
motive of his persecution, was seized by the king; much, it is
said, was discovered only after his death. A small quantity
of the gold left by the deposed prelate William gave to the
church of Winchester®. For a similar reason, Adgelric, the

1 Flor. Wigorn. aa. 1057,1070; Rymer, Foedera, i. p. 1.

2 Giraldus Cambrensis de Vitis Episc. Lincoln. Procem. and cap. i.
Eadmer, Hist. p. 7. W. Malm. de Pont. lib. iv. p. 290. ‘ Wilhelmus
habuit a Romo vel Rumi, elemosinario Fescanni, postea episcopo Lincolni-
ensi, unam navem cum xx. militibus,” says the list given by Taylor.
Thierry’s account (ii. p. 135.) of one large and sixty small ships furnished
by Remigius may be passed over without comment; but not his state-
ment, that Remigius first had the see of Dorchester, and then that of Lin-
coln. He transferred the former to the latter city.

3 W. Malm. p. 449.; De Pont. p. 205. He relates that Stigand was con-
fined in chains; but Thomas Rudborne (Hist. major Winton. in Anglia
Sacra, i. p. 250) corrects him, saying that Stigand was allowed to go at
large within the walls of the castle. Even the story told by Malmesbury
himself, that he carried the key of his treasures concealed in his clothes as
long as he lived, renders the tale of the fetters in the highest degree im-
probable.
WILLIAM THE FIRST. 147

former bishop of Durham, who, on his dismissal from that
see twelve years before, had secretly conveyed a treasure
which he had found there to the monastery of Peterborough,
was seized in that sanctuary and dragged to Westminster,
where he ended his days in prison?. One of Aigelric’s crimes
was, no doubt, his being the brother of AXgelwine, his suc-
eessor in the see of Durham, a man whom the king regarded
with feelings of bitter hostility.

But the most important act in thus providing for the king's
Norman chaplains, which has very arbitrarily been called a
reform of the Anglo-Saxon elergy, was the appointment to
the primacy and archbishopric of Canterbury. The choice
made by the king on this occasion, with the advice of the
papal legates, appeared the more happy the more it stood in
contrast with his other nominations. Among the Anglo-
Saxons a man fit for this exalted dignity was of course not
to be looked for; though William admitted that neither any
of his military prelates nor any other illiterate and sensual
Norman’ ecclesiastic was competent to the office. The eyes
of all those discerning men, who were conscious of the higher
requirements of religion, were turned towards one who had
resided in Normandy for the last thirty years, and was on an
equally friendly footing with the courts of Rouen and of Rome
—the celebrated Lanfranc, abbot of St. Stephen’s at Caen.

The magister Lanfranc, of an eminent family in Pavia, and
son of a magistrate of that city, had in his youth greatly dis-
tinguished himself by his profound knowledge of the law, both
as a teacher and advocate, and gained a reputation, which
his scholars had spread abroad far beyond the limits of his
native city2. So great was his fame for jurisprudence, that

! Hist. Eccles. Dunelm. iii. cc. 7,9. Simeon de Gestis Regum, a. 1056.
Sax. Chron. aa. 1069-1072, where it is said that “he had been conse-
crated bishop of York, but that was unjustly taken from him, and the
bishopric of Durham given to him.”

2 The principal source of Lanfranc’s history is his biography by Milo
Crispus, composed soon after the death of that prelate, extracted partly

Le
148 WILLIAM THE FIRST.

tradition ascribes to him and the celebrated Garnerius the
first scientific commentary on the then recently discovered
Justinian Pandects (a.1032)!. In the year 1040, for rea-
sons unknown to us, he quitted his native country, and, ac-
companied by many devoted disciples, proceeded across the
Alps to the northern coast of France, where, at Avranches,
he for some time followed his early profession, as a teacher
among the Normans. This residence he soon changed for
the needy abbey of Bec, just then founded by Herluin, where
for three years, by his retired life and the strictness of his
manners, he ennobled, in the eyes of his contemporaries, both
himself and the newly founded monastery. By his fellow
monks he was persecuted from jealousy; but threatening to
leave them, he availed himself of the apprehension he thereby
excited to get himself chosen prior of the monastery, with
the same worldly craft, which, at a later period, from being a
stern opposer of duke William’s marriage with Matilda of
Flanders, on account of their too near relationship, trans-
formed him into that prince’s ambassador to the pope, for the
purpose of procuring the necessary dispensation. The cha-
racter of the man, whose shrewdness let slip no means not
absolutely unlawful, and whose presence of mind never failed
him, is admirably shown in the anecdote, how when banished
from the court, at the instance of the duke’s chaplain, Herfast,
and riding towards the frontier on a lame jade, he met the
irritated prince, whom in a pleasant joke he entreated to be-
stow on him a better horse for the journey he had ordered
him to take. By which unexpected request, and through
the mediation of William fitz Osbern, the duke was inclined

from the biography of Herluin, first abbot of Bec. Both are printed in
D’Achery’s edition of Lanfrane’s works. Paris, 1648. folio.

1 This account of Robert de Monte (Accessiones ad Sigebertum, a. 1032),
(who, until the year 1054, when he became abbot of Mont St. Michel, was,
like many of his predecessors, a monk of the abbey of Bec), if not true to
the letter, yet, with reference to Lanfranc, is not without internal proba-
bility, and has more extrinsic credibility than half of our history.
WILLIAM THE FIRST. 149

to listen to his application, and again receive him into
favour!. The prior Lanfranc was at this time regarded
throughout christendom as one of the most learned theolo-
gians, and a support of the papal throne. An ecclesiastic of
Tours, named Berengar, had orally defended the doctrine of
Johannes Scotus, that in the holy eucharist the bread and
wine, after consecration, were merely a symbol of, but not the
real body and blood of Christ. Lanfrane not only declined
the invitation of Berengar to declare in favour of his opinion,
but even triumphantly, at Rome, where he at that time hap-
pened to be, defended the old faith of the church, which, at
the council of Vercelli, the provincial synod of Tours, in the
time of pope Victor II. (a.1055.), and also at Rome, under
Nicholas II. (a. 1059.), where Lanfranc was present, and in
the great ecclesiastical warfare took an active part, received
new confirmation. The dispute between Lanfrane and Be-
rengar, which was once regarded as a brilliant point in the
life of the former, forms now, since the discovery and dis-
cussion by Lessing, of Berengar’s answer to the treatise of
Lanfranc, “De corpore et sanguine Domini,” rather a dark
spot. Even if we feel disposed to consider Lanfrane as per-
fectly sincere in his defence of the Church’s faith ; if we for-
give him for accusing at Rome, and persecuting, through a
succession of years, one holding opinions differing from his
own, who approached him cordially and respectfully, until the
sagacious Gregory VII. put a stop to their hostilities; if we
ascribe no malice to him, he, nevertheless, manifests in his
writing a passionate precipitancy, that in so exalted a man is.
painful to us, and in such important questions must appear
both culpable and contemptible. Lanfrane’s first journey to
Rome, when Berengar was only orally defending the doctrine
of Johannes Scotus, took place in the year 1049; his work,
still extant, against that of Berengar, after the latter’s with-

1 W. Malm. de Pont. p.148; D’Achery, ud sup,
150 WILLIAM THE FIRST.

drawn recantation, was not composed till twenty years later,
as he did not send it to pope Alexander till the year 1070’.
During his stay at Rome in the year 1059, Lanfranc obtained
for his prince the dispensation for the canonical obstacle to his
marriage, through the promised erection of a monastery of
monks and one of nuns. The abbatial mitre of the first of
these richly endowed houses, erected at Caen, was the reward
for the successful negotiation of the able theologian, the jurist,
the ascetic, and man of the world, who, only after apparent
resistance, allowed it to be forced upon him by the pious
violence of his grateful sovereign®. From this time Lanfranc
appears as William’s most intimate and confidential counsellor
in ecclesiastical affairs?, as William fitz Osbern was in secular
concerns. On the death of the archbishop of Rouen, Mau-
rile, in September 1067, the vacant see was, it is said, offered
to the abbot of Caen, and by him refused. He even sent to
Rome, to the new pope, to request the pall for Jobn, bishop
of Avranches. The offer of king William and his nobles of
the primacy of England, supported by queen Matilda and
prince Robert, he, filled with holy indignation and pious
affliction, at first rejected; whereupon the legates, bishop
Ermenfrid and cardinal Hubert, passed over to Normandy

! See G. E. Lessing, Berengarius Turonensis, 1770, among his works,
Th. xiii. This treatise of Berengar “ De Sacra Cena, adversus Lanfran-
cum, liber posterior,” has been reprinted by A. F. and F. Th. Vischer,
Berlin, 1834. 8vo. The account in the Chronicon Beccense, under 1051,
of Lanfranc’s treatise, appears to refer not to its date, but to the beginning
of the dispute with Berengar.— Highly worthy of notice is the considera-
tion in which the heretic Berengarius was held by his contemporaries in
the latter years of his life. See W. Malm. De Gestis, pp. 462-466., and
the verses there by bishop Hildebert.

2 Robert de Monte, Access. a 1063., with whom the Vita Lanfranci, c. 5,
W. Gemmet. vi. c. 9, and, from the tone of his narrative, also Guil. Pictav.
p- 194 (Maseres, p. 97). The date of 1066 assigned by Orderic (p. 494)
as that of Lanfranc’s investiture with the abbatial dignity, we must set
down among that writer’s mistakes.

8 Guil. Pictav. 194 B., whose words are in part to be found also in
Lanfrane’s biographer, v. ¢. 7,
WILLIAM THE FIRST. 151

and assembled a synod of the bishops and abbots of that
duchy, in which Lanfranc, by the authority of the pope, was
invited to accept the proffered dignity. In vain he alleged
his infirm powers, the lowliness of his manners, his igno-
rance of the speech of the barbarous nation. The approval of
such reasons was not to be expected, as it would have implied
too severe a reproach to other foreigners in the English
church. Lanfranc was, therefore, compelled to undertake an
office, which—unless we regard him as an ambitious hypocrite—
with a sincere inclination for solitude and tranquillity, must
have been distasteful to him, or which, through impending
misunderstandings with his former superiors, the bishop of ,
Bayeux and other prelates, appeared not free from danger. —
Even after his acceptance of the dignity, he addressed him-
self to the pope, whom he implored by the Supreme Being,
by his soul, by the services rendered to him, to his predeces-
sors, to his relations and messengers, when travelling in Nor-
mandy, to free him from the bonds laid on him, and restore
him to the quiet of monastic life!. If Lanfranc mistook his

1 Lanfranci Epist. 1. [More steadfast and, we suspect, more sincere
was the refusal of Lanfranc’s disciple, the venerable and celebrated monk
Guitmond, who, when solicited by William to reside in England and await
a favourable opportunity for promotion, alleged in excuse his infirmities
mental and bodily, his inability to preside over those of whose barbarous
tongue he was ignorant, and whose fathers and relatives had been either
slain by William, or expatriated, or imprisoned, or reduced to servitude.
He reminds the king that none of his forefathers had bornea royal diadem,
and that he himself had not attained to that dignity by hereditary right ;
that Eadgar Aitheling and others were the nearer heirs to the crown. He
prays him to examine the Scriptures, and see whether it be sanctioned by
the law that a pastor chosen by its enemies be placed over the Lord’s flock
by violence; that an ecclesiastical election should be first truly made by
the people, and afterwards solemnly confirmed by the fathers [of the
Church]. On his return to Normandy the king offered him the arch-
bishopric of Rouen, but which, in consequence of the hostility his frank-
ness had raised against him, he declined, and proceeded to Rome, where
he was made a cardinal, and raised to the metropolitan see of Aversa.
Ord. Vital. pp. 524, sqq. (Maseres, pp. 264, sq.)—T.]
152 WILLIAM THE FIRST.

own character, his friends judged of it more correctly. He
effected much ; the great name, the exalted and restless zeal
of this spiritual hero, have shed a mitigating, if not a recon-
ciling light on the Conquest in the eyes of contemporaries,
among whom, not a voice, not even an Anglo-Saxon one, was
heard against him; and posterity must not condemn, but
must strive to understand, that which inspired our forefathers
with veneration.

On the day of the Assumption (Aug. 15th) the king
solemnly invested Lanfrane with the highest dignity of his
kingdom. On St. John’s day (Aug. 29th) he was consecrated
by two bishops!, who had been canonically ordained by pope
Nicholas, Giso of Wells and Walter of Hereford, both natives
of Lorraine. Immediately afterwards, Thomas was by Lan-
franc consecrated archbishop of York. But Lanfranc, in con-
sequence of the pretensions of archbishop Thomas, soon had
occasion both to maintain the right of his Church to the
primacy of all England?, and to humiliate that prelate, by
espousing against him the cause of bishop Wulfstan of Wor-
cester® (the possessions of whose see had been appropriated
by the late archbishop Ealdred, and retained by his successor,
Thomas); as well as by a well-conducted contest with the
king’s uterine brother, Odo, bishop of Bayeux and earl of
Kent, and other Norman nobles, for the restoration to the
church of Canterbury of its secular privileges, which had
been greatly abridged by those individuals: a contest rendered
the more difficult by the loss of the charters of that cathedral,
which had perished in a recent conflagration‘.

Lanfrane’s first acts betoken at once the new spirit of disci-

1 Sax. Chron., where eight suffragan bishops are mentioned. Flor.
Wigorn. a. 1070.

2 Lanfranci Epist. ili. The unfavourable judgments on this affair are
from the later work of ‘Thomas Stubbs, col. 1707. Bromton, p. 976.

3 Wil. Malm. Vita B. Wulfstani lib. ii. c. 1. in Anglia Sacra, t. ii.

4 Kadmer, pp. 7-11. Selden in Spicel. pp. 197-199.
WILLIAM THE FIRST. 153

pline and of subjection to Rome, by which the Church was
thenceforward to be governed. The see of Rochester, which,
by the death of its possessor, had fallen vacant immediately
after the arrival of the Normans, and in the storms of the
period was greatly decayed, was bestowed on Arnost, from
that house of rigid discipline, the abbey of Bee; and, on his
sudden death, on a monk named Gundulf!, a man deeply
skilled both in law and divinity. He would not allow the
aged bishop of Salisbury, Heriman, to retire into an inactive
monastic life, which he so ardently desired; nor, without the
command of the pope, notwithstanding the sanction of the
legates, would he venture to ratify the deposition of Peter, a
Norman, from the see of Lichfield, and the appointment of
another in his stead; although that prelate, by his notoriously
loose morals, and the circumstance of his openly having a wife
and children, had brought great scandal on the Church. The
pope approved of the archbishop’s conduct, and both bishops
continued in their sees till their death?.

In the number of excellent men whom Lanfranc appointed
to English prelacies, must be reckoned also Robert, a native
of Lorraine, whom he raised to the see of Hereford, become
vacant by the death of bishop Walter, who had fallen a sacri-
fice to his unconquerable lust?. Robert has claims to our
respect as a man of learning, and a skilful mathematician and

1 Flor. Wigorn. a. 1070. W. Malm. de Pont. lib. i.

2 Lanfranci Epist. ii, W. Malm. lib. i, p.249. Heriman remained in
his see until his death in 1077.

3 W. Malm. de Pont. Jib. iv. “Erat in villa muliercula, quam, nescio
quo infortunio, ex occursu visam, multo arsit tempore. Ignorabat illa
flammas pontificis ; et si sciret, contemneret. Interea szepe cogitans pon-
tifex quod nihil est miserius quam senex amans, luctabatur, pro etatis et
gradus reverentia, morbum depellere. Probeque jam convaluerat, et victus
furor terga dederat, cum ex occasione, quam diaboli fraus administravit,
intra cubiculum illam accersiit. Subjecerat causam ut cubiculariis vestes
incideret. Dicebatur enim officii perita. Ila ingressa, et operi propter
quod venerat intenta, clientes secretorum conscii, agmine facto discedunt.
Tum, ne multis morer, episcopo post obsceena dicta vim inferre paranti,
154 WILLIAM THE FIRST.

astronomer, also as the abridger and introducer into England
of the great chronicle of Marianus Scotus; but, perhaps,
above all, for his friendship towards the Anglo-Saxon bishop
Wulfstan of Worcester, which ended only with the death of
that venerable prelate. Osmond also, the successor of Heri-
man in the see of Salisbury, must, with several others, be
numbered among these distinguished dignitaries. Against
those who appeared unworthy of the confidence placed in
them, Lanfranc was not backward in launching the severest
reprehension!, Yet not unfrequently do we meet with ap-
pointments of highly unworthy persons to abbeys; but such
nominations were usually the act of the king, who made a
sale of those dignities.

The arrival of Lanfranc in England, and his elevation to a
post which brought him into such close connection with the
king, appear the more important through the almost simul-
taneous loss of the most faithful and most sagacious coun-
sellor which that prince had ever possessed, his seneschal,
William fitz Osbern, a man, whose influential character, and
prominence in all the events connected with the conquest of
England, raised him far above all the other instruments of
William. A relationship to the ducal house—Herfast, his
grandfather was a brother of count Richard the First’s second
wife,—the office enjoyed by his father, who had been sene-
schal of Normandy?; vast riches, to which the founding of a
monastery at Lyre, where his wife Adeliza lies buried, and

femina forcipibus, quas tenebat, inguina suffodit. Rumor criminis et
ultionis totam pervagatus Angliam regis quoque aures attigit.”—T.

Malmesbury, 1. c. erroneously assigns Walter’s death to the fifth year of
king William. In 1075 Walter assisted at the synod of London, and
Robert is first mentioned in1079. Knyghton (col. 2347) calls him William;
misled by which error, Thierry (ii. p. 135) ascribes Walter’s misdeed to
one of the newly arrived Normans. But Walter was the Lotharingian
chaplain of queen Eadgyth, wife of the Confessor, and made bishop of
Hereford in 1060. See Flor. Wigorn. h. a.

1 See his letter to Robert, bishop of Chester, Epist. xxix.

2 W, Gemmet. vii. c. 2., viii. c. 15.
WILLIAM THE FIRST. 155

another at Cormely, where he himself is interred, bear witness ;
his near connection with the Anglo-Saxon royal race; pro-
bably an earlier residence in England, his brother, the chap-
lain Osbern, having also resided at the Saxon court; intimate
connections with other neighbouring princes :—all these cir-
cumstances combined tended to form of the talented youth a
judicious and influential man, who more calmly than his
prince could conduct and execute the ambitious schemes of
the latter’. His youthful energies had been proved in war-
fare: he had mainly contributed to the capture of Domfront,
and afterwards held out the newly erected castle of Breteuil
against the king of France, and thence acquired his designa-
tion of “de Breteuil?.” To his just discrimination the duke
was indebted for the acquisition of the exiled Lanfranc, and
thereby the friendship of the papal chair, and that alliance,
in consequence of which the head of christendom leagued
himself with the potentate of Rouen against the Anglo-
Saxons, as he had already done with the Normans of Aversa
and Capua against the Greeks and Saracens. William fitz
Osbern was William’s first confident in his warlike designs
after the death of king Eadward, and it was he who disposed
the Norman barons, against their inclination, to give a
favourable ear to them. To his presence of mind the salu-
tary words are ascribed, when the duke had shown himself
over-hasty, while, at the same time, he held him aloof from
the opposite fault of delay. The most important and difficult
posts were intrusted to him: the conquest of the Isle of
Wight, protected by rocks and fortresses, was his work. He
was invested with the earldom of Hereford, and afterwards

1 He is possibly first named in a charter of the year 1024, in the
Monast. Anglic. v. p.1108. “ Willerinus fi]. Osberni.”’ William of Poitiers
under the year 1054, calls him and Roger of Montgomery, “ambo juvenes
ac strenui.” [The former mention can hardly refer to our William fitz
Osbern, who is denominated juvenis thirty years later.—T.].

3 W. Gemmet. vii. c. 25.
156 WILLIAM THE FIRST.

with the government of the north of England, which, during
that crisis, might easily have been made instrumental to the
establishment of an independent principality. His great
liberality to the military, whereby he preserved the people
from pillage, and, at the same time, rendered them well-dis-
posed towards him, had gained him such universal esteem,
that the king, although mistrustful and irritated against him,
yet durst not venture to counteract him; and his laws, al-
though at variance with those of the rest of England, were
regarded as valid after the lapse of a century. From York
the king soon removed him, and appointed him, conjointly
with queen Matilda, to the government of Normandy. We
cannot question his fidelity, nor even harbour the slightest
suspicion of it, in consequence of the acts of his relations
after his death; although we cannot but be sensible that he
was actuated by the most dangerous ambition, which brought
his life to an untimely end. Baldwin VI., count of Flanders,
the brother of queen Matilda, had nominated William fitz
Osbern and the king of France, Philip I. as guardians of his
sons, Arnulf and Baldwin, whereby the former was seduced to
form the design of marrying Richilde, the widow of the count.
Abandoning himself to this scheme, he with a number of
knights attached himself to the king of France, and took an
active part in the war, in which the young count Arnulf was
engaged, against his paternal uncle Robert, surnamed the
Frisian, who was supported by the king of Germany, Henry
IV., and fell in an ambush laid by Robert, either shortly be-
fore or in the battle of Cassel (1071. 20th Feb.), which made
count Robert master of Flanders. The fall of the first of
their barons, whose brilliant valour, whose bounty, and lively
humour had won for him the affection of all, incensed his
countrymen to the utmost, so that it required all the energy
of the king to prevent the outbreak of a war with Flanders,
which at that moment might have been perilous to him.
William fitz Osbern’s rich inheritance was, according to the
WILLIAM THE FIRST. 157

usage at that time, divided. His eldest son, named also
William, had his father’s fief in Normandy, Breteuil in Pacy,
with other possessions there and privileges; the younger son,
Roger, succeeded to the earldom of Hereford, and all that his
father had acquired in England!.

Although the conquest of England was completed before
the death of William fitz Osbern, yet there was not wanting
a considerable number of unsubdued and valiant hearts that
had in appearance only yielded to superior force, for the
purpose of awaiting a favourable moment for the salvation of
the Anglo-Saxon name. Many of these had assembled in
the Isle of Ely, in the neighbourhood of which, in conse-
quence of the inclination of the land, many rivers collect
themselves towards the bay called the Wash, whence proceed
inundations and mists which, from want of dikes, transform
the land there into vast swamps. In this neighbourhood,
accessible to the sea by its waters, and through the nature of
the ground hardly approachable to the Norman cavalry, the
patriots found a central point in the celebrated and valiant

1 W. Gemmet. lib. vii. c.15. Ord. Vital. pp. 526 sg. (Maseres, pp. 270,
271). W. Malm. pp. 431, 432. Rom. de Rou, ii. pp. 122-126.

Thierry’s account of a conspiracy directed by the three prelates,
Frederic abbot of St. Alban’s, Wulfstan bishop of Worcester, and Walter
bishop of Hereford, of an insurrection of the Londoners, and the conse-
quent proclamation of the laws of king Hadward at Berkhampstead in the
year 1071, appears to me quite groundless. That the only authority for
such important matter should be the “ Vite Abbatum S. Albani’ must, of
itself, render the story very suspicious. I see in it only a misunderstood
repetition of what has been related under the year 1066, when, in the
transactions at Berkhampstead, the presence of Wulfstan (who in 1070
was protected by the Normans in the rights of his see against the arch-
bishop of York) is expressly mentioned by Florence, and where the neigh-
bouring abbot of St. Alban’s would hardly have failed to be preseut.
Walter, a Lorrainer, belonged, moreover, to the favoured clergy, and had
just assisted at the consecration of Lanfranc; he was also at Berkhamp-
stead in 1066, as we learn from Rad. de Diceto, Abbrev. Chron. h. a.
What is related in the Chroniclé of St. Alban’s about the abbot Frederic is
matter for much doubt, as be held his abbey tll the year 1077.

2 About Hereward see Hallam Mid. Ages, ii. p. 304 note.
158 WILLIAM THE FIRST.

Hereward. This chieftain was the son of Leofric, lord of
Brunne in Lincolnshire, of an ancient race', and of Kadgifu,
a descendant of Oslac, the great earl of Northumberland in
the time of king Eadgar. His father was unequal to the
task of restraining the turbulent disposition of Hereward,
and was himself the author of his banishment by king Ead-
ward. The chivalrous youth then betook himself to those
parts where he hoped to find the stoutest adversaries in the
battle-field, Northumberland, Cornwall, Ireland. Thence he
proceeded to Flanders, and within a short space aequired the
character of a most fortunate and valiant warrior. The fame
of his heroic deeds had already reached England, and had
there become the theme of song?; and the hand of a noble
Flemish lady, named Turfride, was reconciling him to a life
of domestic tranquillity, when the news reached him of his
father’s death, and that his inheritance had been given by
the king to a Norman, and that his mother had been exposed
to insult and injury. On receipt of these tidings, Hereward,
accompanied by his wife, hastened back to England, and in-
stantly expelled the foreign intruder from his paternal estates.
In the abbey of Peterborough he received, according to
Anglo-Saxon usage, which required ecclesiastical consecration
and ceremonies, the dignity of knight, at the hands of the
abbot Brand, his paternal uncle. Placed at the head of the
exiles and-fugitives there assembled, he gloriously achieved,

1 Morkar, lord of Brunne, is mentioned in 870. (Ingulf, p. 492 edit.
1596, and Chron. Petroburg.) It is one of Ingulf’s gross blunders (p. 511),
when he speaks of Radinus (Radulf) the great earl of Hereford, who mar-
ried king Eadward’s sister, Goda. Goda, as is well known, was the
mother of Radulf. Ingulf was probably thinking of Leofric III., earl of
Hereford and Chester, the husband of Godive (Godgifu) the daughter of
a prefect of Lincoln. I must also consider it a mistake when Leofric earl
of Mercia, is given as the father of Hereward (Ellis, Introd. ii. p. 146);
for then Hereward must be taken for a younger brother of Ailfgar, and
uncle of Kadwine and Morkere.

2 «Cum ejus gesta fortia etiam Angliam ingressa canerentur.” Ingulph.
p. 67 (p.511 ©. ed. 1596).
WILLIAM THE FIRST. 159

to the detriment of the Normans, numberless bold adven-
tures, which failed not to excite the admiration of his adver-
saries. But if the Normans were unable to extirpate the
band of Hereward, the latter were too few to inflict any very
serious injury on their adversaries. The Danes under Asbiérn
had at this time betaken themselves to Ely, which they quitted
after a short stay. Of this opportunity—why not earlier we
are not informed—the earls Eadwine and Morkere, who for
two years had been living amid the pomp of the royal court,
although really in a state of durance, availed themselves to
flee from that and greater evils to be apprehended. Not
finding the general disposition favourable to a revolt, Morkere
fled to Ely, where Hereward had constructed a fort of wood,
which served as a place of refuge and a gathering spot for
his adherents. Morkere found here the bishop of Durham,
/Kgelwine, who had returned from Scotland, probably also
Frederic, abbot of St. Alban’s!, also Siward Barn and others,
who had either not sworn fealty to the conqueror or, in con-
sequence of his breach of faith, considered themselves released
from their oath?. They prepared themselves to pass the
winter here, protected by the inaccessibility of the place,
when the king, perceiving the danger with which the trans-

1 Hist. Abb. S. Albani. Thom. Eliens. Hist. in Anglia Sacra, i. p. 609,
where, under the name of Egfridus, abbot Frederic is, no doubt, meant.
In the same place it is also related, that Willelmus, Herefordensis episco-
pus, suggested to the king measures against Ely, where the editors emend
William into Walter, whereby the foregoing statement relative to this
bishop would receive a new refutation. I should, however, be more in-
clined to change episcopi into comitis, as Walter was not among the inti-
mate friends of the king, while William fitz Osbern is known also as the
adversary of the Anglo-Saxon monasteries.

2 Thierry infers the presence of Stigand from Thomas of Ely. But it
is hardly credible that the Anglo-Saxons would not have mentioned the
circumstance with praise, and that the Normans would not have reckoned
it among his transgressions. Some ground for the supposition is, indeed,
afforded by the Annales Wintonienses, where it is said that Stigand was
not imprisoned till the year 1072. But this is too late to be connected
with Morkere’s capture.
ee ete

160 WILLIAM THE FIRST.

formation of an asylum of a few outlaws into a rendezvous of
the old nationality threatened him, spared neither promises,
nor threats, nor preparations to dissolve the Anglo-Saxon
confederacy. On the east of the isle he posted his “ butse-
carls,” for the purpose of obstructing all egress on that side.
On the west he caused a large causeway to be thrown up,
two miles in length, to enable him to send his cavalry against
the insurgents. Yielding to the sapient counsel of one of his
commanders, Yvo Taillebois, from Anjou, lord of Holand,
William caused a sorceress to cast her spells over the be-
siegers; but who was burnt by the bold Hereward and his
men, together with the wooden tower in which she had been
drawn near to the fort. Many a daring exploit was achieved
by the brave adventurer, which afforded delight even to the
Normans themselves. Among others, it is related how Yvo
Taillebois with a numerous army, with which he boastingly
swore he would drive the banditti from their forests and
lurking places, entered their retreat on one side, while Thor-
old, the Norman successor of Brand, with several persons of
note, remained behind, all of whom Hereward, issuing forth
and coming round from the other side, captured without
difficulty, and did not release them until he had received a
ransom of three thousand marks weight of silver’. But the
weakness of the Anglo-Saxons soon again appeared manifest.
Morkere was seduced by the fair promises of the king to re-
turn to him. Bishop A¢gelwine and the rest, with the ex-
ception of Hereward and his band, surrendered to William 2,
who, in violation of his word, ordered them to be treated as
rebels, and, only sparing their lives, to be cast into prison, or

; sent home, either blinded or with the loss of hands and feet.

Bishop Agelwine was imprisoned at Abingdon, where he died

! Petri Blesensis Cont. ad Ingulphi Hist. p. 125.

? Sax. Chron. Flor. Wigorn. a.1071. It is singular that Orderic Vita-
lis, p. 521 (Maseres, p. 248), represents Morkere as less culpable, and the
king as more treacherous than the above Anglo-Saxon authorities.
WILLIAM ‘THE FIRST. 161

the following winter. Morkere was committed to the custody
of Roger of Beaumont, in whose castle in Normandy! he
passed a miserable life in chains. Eadwine, bitterly exasper-
ated by this new treachery, resolved on avenging his brother
and his people. He gathered a band of faithful Anglo-
Saxons and leagued himself with Scots and Welsh. Exalted
birth, wealth derived from his forefathers, great personal
beauty, liberality, kindness of disposition—all these combined
to render Eadwine, more than any other Anglo-Saxon, be-
loved by the Normans, who had been in the habit of regard-
ing him as one of themselves: and William, since his corona-
tion, had no other adversary to fear than this. Of this care
he was relieved by treachery. Eadwine, after having for six
months striven to find partisans, to incite, unite, and order
them, was betrayed by three brothers among his “ huscarls”
to the Normans, who surprised him with twenty of his war-
riors on their way to Scotland, not far from the sea, when
being arrested in their progress by the swell of a rivulet at
flood-tide, they were all massacred?. The king confiscated the
vast estates of both earls, yet did not venture to applaud the
murder, but feigned to share in the general sympathy for the
fate of these unfortunate victims, by banishing the disap-
pointed, rapacious assassins. Of A‘lfgar’s race there still re-
mained a daughter, whom the king, according to the feudal
law, bestowed, as his ward, on Yvo Taillebois, the most
detested of the foreigners, together with the family posses-
sions of that race in Holand.

Hereward strove for some time to maintain himself in his
isolated warfare. Finding help and friends in all the country
people, he frequently succeeded in deceiving the Normans

1 At Beaumont-le-Roger, dep. Lower Seine.

2 It is a mistake that Eadwine was slain in the Isle of Ely (Palgrave,
Engl. Comm. ii. p. cexcii.), or, as Thierry says, that he sojourned there.
We must also notice another of his errors, viz. that he places this event in
the year 1072, and in the same year makes the Danes leave England, who

took their departure in 1070.
M
162 WILLIAM THE FIRST.

and causing them sensible loss. When Gilbert of Clare and
William of Warenne, the king’s son-in-law, had made them-
selves masters of Ely, Hereward fled to the fens of Lincoln-
shire. Fishermen conveyed him and his adherents in their
boats, concealed under heaps of straw, into a fort there occu-
pied by the Normans. The well-known fishermen were re-
ceived with welcome by the garrison, and a repast was pre-
pared of their capture. But scarcely had the men of the fort
sat down to their meal, when Hereward and _ his followers
started up from the straw, slew their unarmed adversaries,
and mounted their ready-saddled horses!. Not until he felt
convinced that all his efforts were vain, did Hereward, to-
gether with Eadric the Forester and other right-minded,
valiant men, demand and obtain an honourable capitulation
from the Conqueror. lfthryth, a rich Anglo-Saxon lady,
captivated by his fame, offered him her hand, and allured him
to the enjoyment of a more tranquil life®. But her love does
not seem to have had the influence it merited over this rest-
less man: he fled again®, but after a while returned to his
country, which after a lapse of many years, received his bones
in her maternal lap at Crowland+. His memory appears to
have been soon effaced in England, and has been preserved
chiefly in the chronicles of some monasteries in the neighbour-
hood of Ely>.

The subjugation of these desultory enemies William left to

1 Geoffroy Gaimar, in Michel, Chroniques Anglo-Normandes, t. i.
Rouen, 1836.

2 Geof. Gaimar. [History is silent as to the fate of his first wife.—T.]

3 Herewardum die que aufugit—Terram S. Guthlaci....... Vichel
abbatem commendasse eam ad firmam Herewardo....sed abbas resaisivit
eam antequam Herewardus de patria fugeret, eo quod conventionem non
tenuisset. Clamores de Chetsteven in Domesday, i. fol. 376 °., 377.

4 Ingulph. p.511 >. edit.1596. According to Gaimar, he was, during an
armistice or safe-conduct granted by the king, attacked while at dinner
by some Normans and slain.

5 Crowland, Peterborough, and Ely. An old narrative, “De Gestis
Herewardi,” is mentioned by Cooper on the Public Records, ii. p. 165.
WILLIAM THE FIRST. 163

his knights and to time, while he himself strove to destroy the
hotbed of every important conspiracy, the asylum of all his
foes. In the following year (1072), therefore, he marched
with a strong army, composed chiefly of cavalry, to Scotland’,
to the coast of which he had also despatched a fleet. He
met with no considerable resistance, and when he had ad-
vanced, across the Forth, as far as Abernethy on the Tay,
he was met by king Malcolm Canmore with offers of submis-
sion and hostages for his fidelity, among which was his own
son2. On his return William passed through Durham, where
he found the successor, whom he and Lanfranc had appointed
to bishop AXgelwine, named Walchere, a man highly esteemed
for his upright life and his knowledge, of a family of consider-
ation, in Lorraine, though he had previously lived at Liege? ;
and for which reason was, perhaps, nominated to a see but
little suited to a Norman. At Durham the king caused a
new castle to be constructed, and, in the place of Gospatric,
whom he banished, under the pretext, that, three years be-
fore, he had secretly instigated the murder of Robert Cumin,
and taken an active part in the insurrection at York against
the Normans, bestowed the earldom on Waltheof, the son of
Siward, who had recently submitted to his authority. Gos-
patric fled to king Malcolm, who at first did not receive him ;
but, after he had passed some time in Flanders, bestowed on
him Dunbar, with its demesne lands in Lothian. His pro-
perty in England does not appear to have been all confiscated,
as at a later period we find much of it as fiefs held either by
himself or his sons, Dolfin and Gospatric, though not in every
case immediately of the king. His other son, Waltheof

' He was accompanied by Eadric the Forester. Flor. Wigorn. h.a.

2 Among the homages rendered by the Scottish kings, this one is par-
ticularly a subject of difference; though the chronicles, although not ex-
plicit as to the extent of the subjection, yet leave no doubt with regard to
the fact itself and the other circumstances. See Lingard, ii. c.1. Palgrave
Commonw. ii. pp. 331 sg. Ann. Ulton. a.1072; Allen, Vindic. p. 47.

3 Sax. Chron. Flor. Wigorn. Sim. Dunelm. a. 1071.

M2
164 WILLIAM THE FIRST.

(Gallev) was a monk at Crowland, of which abbey he became
abbot !.

The more William’s attention was engaged on his kingdom,
the more his adversaries sought occasion to disturb him in
his hereditary states, and in his relations with France. Eadgar
fEtheling had been invited by the French king, Philip I. to
come to France, and take up his abode in the castle of Mont-
reuil, from which he could easily make incessant war on the
Normans. Previously Eadgar, in the hope of getting support
at the court of his sister, had visited Scotland; but Malcolm,
who had probably sent him an invitation, when his oath taken
at Abernethy no longer allowed him to afford active aid to
his brother-in-law, could only give him a friendly reception,
and, with costly habits and other effects, shortly after (8th
July) dismiss him.

While in France the arrival of the legitimate claimant of the
Anglo-Saxon crown was expected, Le Maine had for a year
or more been in a state of insurrection against William, ex-
cited chiefly by Fulk, count of Anjou, who could not forget
the ancient claims of his house to that province. William
was therefore under the necessity of employing his earliest
leisure in subjugating the insolent Manceaux, and availed
himself of this revolt to employ the warlike Anglo-Saxons,
who, obeying the commands of their common oppressor, ma-
nifested no repugnance mercilessly to ravage the country of
those with whom similar relations, similar hate, similar misery
closely united them. To the powerful army led by the king
himself the several fortresses soon surrendered. Hubert de-
livered up his towns of Fresnay and Beaumont?; Sille also

1 Simeon, a, 1072. Ellis, Introd. ii. pp. 131, 331, andi. pp. 405, 428,
Sir Walter Scott (History of Scotland) commits a palpable error in desig-
nating this Anglo-Saxon as Cospatric, or Comes Patricius, one of the
Norman barons who fled to Malcolm. I suspect that the nationality of other
Normans, under William the Conqueror, is not much better founded.

2 This Hubert was son-in-law of William, count of Nivernais. See
“ more concerning him under a. 1087., where he is styled viscount.—T.
WILLIAM THE FIRST. 165

was yielded up by its governor. The citizens of Le Mans had
established among themselves one of the first of those unions
called communes, which were half guilds, half armed fraterni-
ties, out of which has proceeded the development of free
civic constitutions in the greater part of Europe. With
ardent enthusiasm and the magnanimous sacrifice of much
property, they had fortified their city, and ravaged the pos-
sessions of such nobles as were favourably disposed towards
the Normans; yet, on the appearance of the conqueror before
their gates, they presented him with the keys of the place,
met with a gracious reception, and thus preserved their
former rights and privileges'. The subjection of the other
Manceaux followed shortly after; yet, nevertheless, William
returned to Normandy without having revenged himself on
his great foe, the count of Anjou. But an opportunity is
rarely wanting to him who seeks for it. A powerful and
noble Angevin, John of la Fleche, who had married Paula,
a daughter of Hugh, count of Le Maine2, revolted against
count Fulk, and applied to William for support, which the
latter instantly sent him, consisting of some of his bravest
warriors. Fulk, aided by Hoel count of Brittany, besieged
the castle of his vassal. William, thinking himself justified
by the danger of his friends, moved at the head of an army,
which fame has augmented to the incredible number of sixty
thousand cavalry, towards the besiegers, who, however, did
not flee, but crossing the Loire and burning their vessels,
boldly awaited the conflict. The providential presence of a
eardinal and some monks, as well as the aversion of the
young count William of Evreux, Roger of Montgomery and
other Normans to a war, which to them appeared unjust, led
to a peace at Blancaland (La Bruere), by which William ac-
knowledged Fulk’s suzerainty over Le Maine, and the latter in-

! Ord. Vital. p. 532 (Maseres, p. 290); Sax. Chron. a.1073, Acta Pon-

tific Cenoman. lib. i.
2 Ord. Vital. p. 532 Maseres, p. 292).
166 WILLIAM THE FIRST.

vested William’s eldest son, Robert, after having taken the
customary oaths, with that province, and all the possessions
and right that had been assured to him by count Heribert’.
While affairs in France were so arranged as to give pro-
mise of a lasting peace, William was anew favoured by fortune
in England. Eadgar Atheling had with his treasures been
wrecked on the coast of France. With his followers, partly
wretchedly mounted and partly on foot, he again appeared at
the Scottish court, where he found a favourable reception
from his royal brother-in-law and sister, who again loaded
him with presents, in compensation for the treasures he had
lost. Maleolm, however, it would seem, now lost all hopes of
a cause, for the success of which the character of the etheling
was aa ill adapted as his fortune was unpropitious ; he there-
fore persuaded him to make a voluntary submission to Wil-
liam, and by that act give peace and quiet to himself, his
friends, and his country. Eadgar, who felt neither energy nor
hope in himself, had no alternative but compliance, as soon as
foreign aid was withdrawn from him. He, therefore, pro-
ceeded to the English border, and at Durham was received
by the sheriff of Yorkshire, Hugh the son of Baldrie?, who,
no doubt to secure him no less against his own wavering than
the insolence of the Normans, accompanied him the whole
way to Rouen, where he was received by William with all the
outward tokens of respect due to his high birth, and was
maintained for several years at the court there, receiving a
daily allowance of a pound of silver. A life passed in inac-
tivity, and the most ordinary knightly recreations was highly
prejudicial to him, and contributed, if not to render him con-
temptible, to make him sooner forgotten than if his early
death had excited an unsatisfied but affectionate longing after

1 See pp. 51, 52.

2 The name occurs on another occasion in Simeon, col. 206. See also
Ellis, Introd. i. p. 436.

3 W. Malm. p. 424.
WILLIAM THE FIRST. 167

him, and, accompanied by a fair image, hallowed his name in
the memory of the nation.

All these successes must have rendered the name of Wil-
liam the Bastard one of the most exalted and feared in Eu-
rope. To what degree he influenced the relations of the
neighbouring states, of France, Flanders, Germany, is diffi-
cult to determine; although we know that at times he did
- influence them. Of his relations to the last mentioned country,
it may be adduced, that he was most probably in an under-
standing with Anno, archbishop of Cologne, in consequence of
which the emperor Henry IV., at that time at Ratisbon, was
astounded by the report that the king of England had raised
a large army for the purpose of proceeding to Aix-la-Cha-
pelle’. Events, however, took place, which rendered the
execution of such plans, even if they were ever entertained,
impracticable.

In seven years the conquest of England was completed,
and William saw his boldest wishes attained in the most
brilliant manner. He was now to experience the usual lot
of conquerors, the hostility of his brothers in arms and their
mutual dissensions. At his court no knight considered him-
self more entitled to an independent position than Roger, son
of William fitz Osbern, who had succeeded his father in the
earldom of Hereford. In defiance of the prohibition of the
king, his feudal lord, he had given his sister Emma in mar-
riage to the earl of East Anglia, Ralf of Guader®. At the
nuptial festivities, which were held at Ixning in Cambridge-
shire, a conspiracy was formed against the king, into which
both earls strove to draw earl Waltheof. Taken by surprise
or compelled, Waltheof promised to join the confederacy, ac-

1 Lambert Schafnaburg, a. 1074.

2 According to the Saxon Chronicle, a. 1075, Ralf was the son of an
Anglo-Saxon of the same name and of a Breton (Bryttisc) mother, and
not as Matthew Paris (R. Wendover, ii. 15) renders it a Welsh woman (ex

matre Wallensi). His father was probably Radulf the ‘stallere,’ wha had
large possessions in Norfolk and Suffolk. T. R, E.
168 WILLIAM THE FIRST.

cording to which one of the three was to be raised to the
throne, and the two others to be the king’s principal nobles’.
But soon calling to mind the fealty he had sworn, Waltheof
‘divulged the plans of the conspirators to archbishop Lanfranc,
and by his advice hastened to Normandy, for the purpose of
revealing to the king all that had taken place, and imploring
his clemency. Lanfranc, too, by written representations, to
which he endeavoured to add also verbal persuasions, strove
to induce the Norman Roger to remain faithful to the king.
When these were found of no avail, the gentler spiritual
weapon of excommunication was employed against him?: it
was deemed sufficient to hold him in check: with his Norman
chivalry, therefore, Wulfstan, bishop of Worcester, opposed
him on the Severn, and thus prevented him from forming a
junction with his brother-in-law. More rigorous measures
were taken against Ralf of Guader. He had encamped
near Cambridge, towards which place Odo, bishop of Bayeux,
with a numerous army, together with Geoffrey, bishop of
Coutances?, had marched to encounter him. Ralf, without
risking a battle+, fled with his newly married wife to Norwich,
and thence, leaving his consort behind, to Denmark, where
he found support from king Svend Estrithson. Cnut, the
king’s son, and the jarl Hakon®> proceeded with two hundred
ships to England, where, at least on the southern coast, they
durst not venture to land; and as in the north, Bishop Walc-

1 Flor. Wigorn. a. 1074. W. Malm. p. 430. Ord. Vital. p. 534 (Maseres,
p- 307).

2 Lanfranci Epist. 39-41.

3 Ord. Vital. p. 523, (Maseres, p. 255,) styles him ‘ magister militum.’

4 Flor. Wigorn. a. 1074. Lanfranci Epist. 34. “ totus exercitus ejus
(Radulphi traditoris) in fugam versi fuerunt et nostri cum infinita multi-
tudine Francigenarum et Anglorum eos insequebantur.”’

5 Suhm’s conjecture seems by no means improbable, that this Hakon
was the son of Sweyn, the brother of Harold, and grandson of earl God-
wine. (Historie af Danmark, iv. 440.) See also “ England under the A. S.
Kings,” ii. p. 267.
WILLIAM THE FIRST. 169

here, by the direction of the king and Lanfranc!, had taken
every precaution against their progress, after having plun-
dered the cathedral of York, they betook themselves to Flan-
ders?. On Hakon rests the charge that he, like Asbiérn
before him, allowed himself to be bribed by William, on ’
which account he also, after his return to Denmark, was
banished from the country by king Svend3. The strong city
of Norwich was soon forced to surrender, and the Bretons,
vassals of Ralf, of whom the garrison chiefly consisted, had
their lives spared only under the conditions of renouncing
the fiefs they had acquired in England, and of quitting the
country within forty days. The mercenaries were compelled
to leave at a shorter notice. Bishop Geoffrey, William of
Warenne, who with Richard of Bienfait, the son of earl
Gilbert, the chief justiciary and representative of the king
during the absence of the latter, Robert Malet, and three
hundred men at arms with engineers* remained in Norwich.
The king himself also now embarked for England, as the
measures adopted by Lanfrane had not proved sufficient to
reduce Roger to subjection. On his arrival William cited
the rebellious vassal before his court. Roger hesitated not to
appear, relying on his near relationship to the king, who,
however, soon gave him to understand how futile had been
his confidence. According to the Norman law, he was de-
clared to have forfeited all his honours and possessions, and
condemned to perpetual imprisonment. Even then his haughty
spirit did not desert him, but served to exasperate the king
still more against him. For when William on Easter day had
sent him a rich suit of clothes, he ordered a large fire to be
kindled and burnt them. He outlived the king, and died in
prison and in fetters. Many of the rebels were banished,
many hanged, some were blinded®, others underwent mutila-

1! Lanfranci Epist. 25. 2 Sax. Chron. a. 1075, erroneously for 1074.
3 W. Malm. p. 437.
4 -*Balistarii et machinarum artifices.”’ Lanfranci Epist. 35.
5 Dr. Ingram, suo more, thus ludicrously renders the words of the Sax.
170 WILLIAM THE FIRST.

tion of their hands and feet. But of none was the fate so
deplored, and proved so lasting a reproach to the king as that
of earl Waltheof.

This individual had thrown himself on the king’s mercy and
carried none of his traitorous designs into effect. His wife
Judith, the king’s niece, came forth, it is said, as his accuser ;
yet whatever her disclosures may have been, the accusation
can have been founded only on wishes, words, and plans, as
Waltheof had not, like the other conspirators, risen in arms
against the king immediately from the nuptial festivity. Even
the Norman nobles found no severer punishment for him than
close imprisonment and the forfeiture of his posts; a punish-
ment certainly too rigorous, being the same as that awarded
to Roger of Hereford. But the general sympathy manifested
for Waltheof roused the mistrust of the tyrant, who was tor-
tured by dread and anxiety, and by which he was at length
driven to the resolution, by the murder of the Anglo-Saxon,
of bringing to his fancied earthly peace and security the offer-
ing of a deed, of which a deadened conscience, savage ven-
geance, and blind fear caused him to overlook the conse-
quences for his own mind, the reproach of his contemporaries,
and the indelible stain on his fame in the judgment of after
ages'. In the following year (1075, 31st May) Waltheof
was brought from his prison at Winchester, at early dawn, to
the spot without the city, where the church of St. Giles was
afterwards erected, where his head was struck off while he
was in the act of repeating the Lord’s prayer, which indecent

Chron. h. a. “ealle ba Bryttas be weron et pam bryd-ealod zt Nordwic,
sume hy wurdon ablende, and sume of land adrifene, and sume getawod
to scande.” “All the Britons (r. Bretons) were condemned who were at
the bride-ale at Norwich. Some were punished with blindness; some
were driven from the land; and some were towed to Scandinavia” [!!!].
—L.T.

Lappenberg considers the meaning to be expressed by Matt. Paris (R.
Wendover, ii. p. 15) in the words: “nonnullos patibulo fecit suspendi.”
I rather think to scande getawian means fo treat with ignominy.—T.

' Comp. Ord. Vital. p. 544 (Maseres, p. 345).
WILLIAM THE FIRST. 171

hurry on the part of the executioners arose from their appre-
hension that the citizens might awake and rush to the rescue
of a man held in such high veneration. His body was at first
ignominiously cast into a pit and covered with turf, but after
the lapse of a fortnight, at the request of Judith and with
the king’s permission, it was conveyed to Crowland by the
abbot Ulfkytel and honourably interred in the chapter house
of that monastery}. Judith continued in possession of the
earldoms of Huntingdon and Northampton, until she refused
obedience to the king’s mandate, to give her hand to a noble-
man named Simon of Senlis, whose high lineage appeared in
her estimation no idemnity for a lameness in one of his legs.
Enraged at her disobedience, the despot deprived her of the
two earldoms, which he bestowed on Simon, who afterwards
married Judith’s eldest daughter ®.

At this time a measure was adopted, which, although it
proceeded from the great council held by Lanfranc at London,
yet probably originated with the king himself?; namely the
decree for the translation to cities of such bishops as still
resided in villages. For the letter of this decree speak the
obsolete canons of popes Damasus and Leo, but which, when
speaking of villages, could hardly have had in view such places
as were now the subject. But it was highly desirable for
William to transfer his Norman bishops to cities, where they
could be protected by the castles he had caused to be built,
and where those few Anglo-Saxon prelates, who had not been
displaced, could be more easily watched and held under con-
trol. By virtue of this decree, the see of Sherborne was
transferred to Sarum, that of Selsey to Chichester, and that
of Lichfield to Chester. Sarum—after the founding of the
neighbouring city of Salisbury, known as Old Sarum—-was
little more than a fortress in a lofty situation, and well en-

1 It was afterwards, by abbot Ingulf, taken thence and buried near the
high altar. Ord. Vital. p. 543 (Maseres, p. 343).—T.
2 Ingulph. p. 513%, 3 Wilkins, Concil. i. p. 363.
172 WILLIAM THE FIRST.

compassed by walls; citizens it at that time had none!.
Chichester had been granted by the king to Roger of Mont-
gomery, earl of Arundel and Shrewsbury: the number of
houses there had increased, although only nine burghers
are recorded there in Domesday; whence it seems to follow
that the Anglo-Saxons had been expelled from a city lying
so conveniently for the Normans, at no great distance from
their home, and their places supplied by the new settlers.
Chester, with its Roman walls, which have been partially pre-
served to the present day, offered a similar asylum to the
Norman bishops. In the same spirit, bishop Remigius also
transferred his see from the old town of Dorchester to the
well-fortified Lincoln; bishop Herfast his from Elmham to
Thetford. In those places which retained their bishops,
strong, well-appointed castles had been erected by the Nor-
mans, as at Durham, Rochester, Exeter, etc. It may be here
worth remarking, that these measures seemed to have their
model in the half Normanized reign of the Confessor, when
bishop Leofric, a Lorrainer, previous to the expulsion of the
Norman favourites, in the year 1050, transferred his see from
Crediton to the strong city of Exeter.

With Waltheot’s death the king’s good fortune appears to
have forsaken him: irascibility, sudden outbreaks of anger,
and all those storms which insensibly tend to impair the judg-
ment, allowed none of his later undertakings to succeed. Even
in punishing the principal culprit in the plot, on account of
which Waltheof was put to death, he signally failed. He had
followed Ralf of Guader into Brittany, where he besieged
him in the town of Dol, which he solemnly swore he would
never quit until he had taken it. But Alan Fergant count
of Brittany, and a body of troops sent by Philip king of
France?, hastening to the relief of the place, the haughty

1 «Est vice civitatis castellum locatum in edito, muro vallatum non

exiguo.” Malm. de Pont. lib. ii. Domesday.
? Sax. Chron. a, 1076. Flor, Wigorn. a.1075. W. Malm. p.433. That
WILLIAM THE FIRST. 173

monarch found himself compelled to raise the siege, leaving
all his tents, baggage, and treasure behind him, to the value,
at that time, of fifteen thousand pounds sterling’, and to flee
before the approaching enemy. William now found that he
must seek for allies, and not scorn to look for such even
among the hereditary foes of his house. He accordingly made
an offer of peace to the count of Brittany, together with the
hand of his daughter Constance, which the count joyfully ac-
cepted. This union fulfilled its object of establishing peace-
able relations between the Bretons and Normans; and, al-
though the amiable, mediating countess died fifteen years
afterwards childless, the amicable feeling established by her
efforts continued to subsist both between the reigning families
and the people.

With mortification, yet without fear, William had seen the
king of France’s banner in the ranks of his enemies. The
intimate connection with the court of Rouen, which the weak-
ness and policy of that of Paris had in earlier times so often
sought, was broken, and the king of France discovered when
too late that the acquisition of a kingdom, far from removing
a formidable vassal, only augmented the danger of his liege
lord. The wish to allay the natural jealousy of the latter was
probably one of the reasons which induced William, a short
time before the battle of Senlac, and on a subsequent occa-
sion, to declare his eldest son Robert the heir to his paternal
dominions, and cause the Norman barons to pay homage to
him. For the same reason his claims on Le Maine had been
secured not to the father but to the son. William was,

Florence’s date is correct appears from the words of the council held at
London in 1075; “regis, qui in transmarinis partibus tunc bella gerebat.”
Ord. Vital. p. 544. (Maseres, p. 346.)

1 According to Baron Maseres (Monum. p. 347), equivalent to more
than nine hundred thousand pounds sterling at the present day.—T.

2 Ord. Vital. p. 544 (Maseres, p. 347). Daru represents these events
very differently (T. i. pp. 107-109), but is not borne out by the authorities
which he cites.
174 WILLIAM THE FIRST.

however, very far from intending to renounce either these or
any other rights to this or any other son, but, on the contrary,
_ held them all in such restraint, that of the vast possessions
' acquired in England, not a single hide of land was granted to
one of them'. For the withholding of Le Maine a reason
appears in the early death of Margaret, who had been be-
trothed to Robert?. Robert, well practised in arms, valiant
and, after the manner of his nation, eloquent, yet vehement
and prodigal, had hardly reached the age of majority when
he resolved no longer to serve as a puppet in his father’s
political show, but to turn the intentional deception into
reality. In the year 1074, and therefore probably not un-
connected with the pretensions of the young Norman nobles
in England, dissensions arose between prince Robert and his
father which led to the most lamentable consequences. Robert

demanded Normandy and Le Maine of his father, and was
~ answered by long speeches and references to Absalom and
his counsellors, Ahithophel and Amasa. But the haughty
young prince replied, that he was not come to hear wise
speeches, with which he had of old been surfeited to loathing
by his pedantic teachers. He demanded the honours that
were due to him, as he would no longer serve as a mercenary
among mercenaries. The father, however, declared himself
wholly averse to renouncing any part of the dominion. be-
stowed on him by God and confirmed to him by his earthly
vicar. The prince, who, from his preceptors, had learned
some rhetorical flowers, replied in a determined tone, that he
would then, like the Theban Polynices, go and serve in a
foreign land, there to seek the honour which his paternal
lares had denied him: may he there meet with another
Adrastus, who would one day gladly reward his fidelity?!
4 Ellis, Introd. i. p. 321.

2 Guil. Pictav. p.190. Ord. Vital. p. 545 (Maseres, p. 349). See also
p. 55.

3 Ord. Vital. pp. 569. sq. If these classical allusions are really Robert’s
own, and not imagined for him by Orderic (who by the way is not in the
WILLIAM THE FIRST. 175

An accidental quarrel with his brothers, who appeared to
him to be preferred by his father, while he was his mother’s
favourite, prompted Robert to such a forgetfulness of his
duty that he attempted to make himself master of the eastle
of Rouen, an attempt which was, however, frustrated by the
vigilance of the castellain, Roger of Ivery, the king’s cup--
bearer!. Robert now fled from Normandy, accompanied by
many of the chief of the young nobility, among whom we find
the names of Robert of Belesme, son of Roger of Montgomery,
earl of Shrewsbury, of Ralf of Conches, standard-bearer of
Normandy, of William of Breteuil, son of William fitz Osbern
and brother of Roger earl of Hereford, of Roger, son of Ri-
chard of Bienfait, of Robert of Molbray, William of Molines,
William of Ruperia and others. Hugh of Neufchatel, a
brother-in-law of Robert of Belesme, received the fugitives,
whose possessions William instantly confiscated,—and opened
to them his castles of Neufchatel, Raimalast and Sorel. The
king of France, too, declared in favour of Robert, and all
those countries that stood in immediate connection with Nor-
mandy wavered as to whether they should side with the father
or the son. But William induced the greater number to
decide in his favour, by concluding a peace with Rotrou,
count of Mortagne?, and, with his aid, laying siege to the

 

habit of introducing such) we may suppose they were supplied him by the
recollection of his school-boy days. [Robert is thus described by Orderic,
p. 545 (Maseres, p. 350): “Erat loquax et prodigus, audax et in armis
probissimus, fortis certusque sagittarius, voce clara et libera, lingua diserta,
facie obesa, corpore pingui, brevique statura, unde vulgo Gambaron cog-
nominatus est, et Brevis-ocrea.”—T.

1 The event Related by Orderic at the end of his fourth book (p.570)
belongs to the same period as that which he recounts in his fifth. (Maseres,
p. 352.)

2 This Rotron seems to have been a sort of freebooter. Orderic’s words
concerning him are: that he was in the habit of plundering the lands be-
longing to the church of Chartres, and though frequently reprehended by
the bishop and clergy, was at length excommunicated, and as a Divine
punishment became deaf, and so continued till his death. William bought
his services. Ord. Vital. p. 546 (Maseres, p. 353),—T.
176 WILLIAM THE FIRST.

castle of Raimalast'. After Hugh’s violent death?, the castle
was surrendered by his son Gulfer, and Robert with his
friends fled to his mother’s brother, Robert the Frisian, count
of Flanders. Thence he proceeded to Udo, archbishop of
Treves?, and from him to other dukes, counts, and castellains
in Lorraine, Alamannia, Guienne, and Gascony, everywhere
uttering bitter complaints against his father, and seeking aid.
He received many valuable presents, which he squandered on
parasites, jugglers, and harlots, and was consequently soon
reduced to beggary, and compelled to contract debts. At
length, the king of France resolved on giving him an asylum.
He granted him half the castle of Gerberoi in the Beauvoisis,
from which he made frequent irruptions into his father’s ter-
ritory, ravaging the country. William besieged him for some
weeks in this castle. In a sally of the garrison, the horse on
which the king rode was killed under him, and Tokig, the
son of Wiggod, who brought him another, was slain by an
arrow’. By a knight from the opposite ranks he was assailed,
wounded in the arm, and thrown from his horse. An ex-

1 At this time (Aug. 14th) London was so burnt as it had never been
before, says the Sax. Chron. a. 1077.—T.

2 The text of Orderic is by no means clear on this point, viz. “ Interea,
dum quadam die Aimericus de Vilereio dapiferum regis Francorum, qui ad
eum diverterat, deduxisset, et cum tribus militibus ad castrum suum, ubi
hostes regis tutabantur, remearet, forte de regia phalange quatuor equites
exierunt, eique obviantes aditum jam proxime munitionis suze obturave-
runt, ipsumque percutientes illico peremerunt.”’ If for Aimericus we read
Aimericum, which, indeed, the context seems to require, the verbs diverterat
and dedusisset will naturally and aptly refer to Hugh of Neufchatel, and
that is he who was slain on his return from conducting back his guest,
Aimeric of Villeroy, the French king’s steward, and not Aimeric, who was
slain on his return from conducting the dapifer.—T.

3 Orderic, p. 570 (Maseres, p. 270) errs in making this Udo, who was a
son of count Eberhard ex gente Alemannorum (See Gesta Trevirorum, c.
58), a brother of Robert count of Flanders.

4 Sax. Chron. a.1079. According to Orderic, (p. 570,) “ per extera
regna ferme quinque annis pervagatus est.” He must, therefore, have
fled in 1074 or the beginning of 1075.
WILLIAM THE FIRST. 177

elamation of pain and for aid escaped him, which his anta-
gonist hearing, leaped from his horse and offered it to his too
late recognized father. William raised the siege and returned
to Rouen, where Roger earl of Shrewsbury and other Norman
barons, whose sons and relations were among the followers of
the prince, prevailed on him to make over to his son the long-
promised duchy of Normandy. After a short interval, during
which Robert was sent on an expedition against Scotland’,
the father and son were again at variance, and the latter re-
turned to France, where he continued until his father sent to
him earl Aubrey with the renewed offer of Normandy 2.

A more instructive example can hardly be given for the
purpose of showing the condition of the European states than
the reign of William the Conqueror. A foreign nation by
which he was held in abhorrence; his nobles in rebellion
against him; his eldest son for years at the head of a party
striving to deprive him of his continental possessions ; hardly
a powerful neighbour, who was not ready at every moment to
take up arms against him; one war and insurrection after
another—such were the adverse circumstances of his reign in
England, and yet were they all so unconnected and so void of
a common object, that the king had no cause for apprehen-
sion, lest he should sink under such general hate and enmity.
How fiercely this hatred continued to boil in the breasts of
the Anglo-Saxons is manifest from the events which about this
time took place in Northumberland. Since the death of Wal-
theof the earldom had been bestowed on the bishop of Durham,
Walchere, who had, in great measure, committed the adminis-
tration of temporal matters to a relation named Gilbert, while
at the same time he acted chiefly by the advice of Leobwine,
the dean of Durham. Both these functionaries abused the
power thus placed in their hands, to the great injury of the
natives, whom they mercilessly oppressed, and the principal
men among whom they persecuted and not unfrequently caused

! Flor. Wigorn. a. 1079. 2 Ord. Vital. pp. 572.573.
N
178 WILLIAM THE FIRST.

to be murdered'. It happened that a noble Saxon named
Liulf, a relation of the earls Ealdred and Waltheof, had been
driven from the possessions which he held in many parts of
England, by the injustice and tyranny of the Norman officials,
and taken refuge at Durham, where he gained the esteem of
the bishop, who frequently had recourse to his advice. Leob-
wine, highly exasperated at this connection so prejudicial to
his avarice and tyranny, prevailed on Gilbert to effect the
murder of Liulf. This deed was soon noised abroad and
engendered the bitterest rage in the yet unsubdued minds of
the Northumbrians. The bishop was aware of the danger
which threatened himself and all the Normans there, espe-
cially Leobwine the cause of it. He banished Gilbert and his
associates, and with this sentence, at the same time caused it
to be declared throughout the country that he was ready to
clear himself, according to the ecclesiastical law, of suspicion
of complicity in the murder. The ferment in the minds of
the people was thus in a certain degree allayed, and it became
epossible to grant a safe-conduct to Gilbert, that he might
arrange in the county court respecting a pecuniary atonement
with the relations of his victim. But the familiarity con-
stantly displayed by Walchere towards Leobwine, together
with the welcome reception which he gave to Gilbert on his
return, again excited the indignation of the people, which
soon showed itself in so significant a manner, that Walchere,
not daring to preside at a tribunal in the open air, decided
on transferring the proceedings to the neighbouring church of
Gateshead (1080, May 14th). But Liulf’s relations and other
Northumbrians led by Eadulf Rus, of the family of the former
earl Uhtred, being convinced of Gilbert’s guilt and of the
bishop’s injustice, would listen to no composition, and slew
the messengers of the latter, together with all the bishop’s
men whom they found standing before the church, with the
exception of some Anglo-Saxons. Walchere now prevailed on

1 Hist. Episc. Dunelm. in Anglia Sacra, i. p. 703.
WILLIAM THE FIRST. 179

Gilbert to present himself, escorted by the bishop’s body
guard, to the multitude; but no sooner had they issued from
the gate than the whole party fell under the spears and
swords of the assembled people. The enraged multitude now
ealled for Leobwine, whom Walchere had vainly endeavoured
to prevail on to leave the church. The bishop himself then
stept to the threshold to beg for his own life, which he found
to be very insecure. Trusting to the sanctity of his office,
and wrapping his head in the episcopal mantle, he impru-
dently quiited the sacred asylum, and strove to make his
way through the multitude; but when only a few paces from
the church he was stricken down by the swords of the exas-
perated people. Yet even now no one ventured to enter the
sacred edifice for the purpose of slaying Leobwine, when on a
sudden the roof of the church burst out in flames above his
head, caused by torches that had been hurled upon it. The
fire soon reached the walls!. Nevertheless, Leobwine there
stood firm in the consecrated place, until half burnt and stupi-
fied with agony, he rushed without the churchyard’s pale on
to the naked swords of his enemies, and fell hewed into a
thousand pieces®. The Anglo-Saxons then hastened to Dur-

! The church was probably built of wood with a roof of shingles.—T.

2 In the above narrative I have followed Simeon (aa. 1080, 1072) as the
most authentic in all matters relating to Durham. With him W. Malm. -
(De Gestis, p. 451, and De Pont. lib. iii.) agrees in the main. Lingard
mixes up parts from another account, but without referring to it, which
Thierry has adopted, giving, however, his authority, viz. the much later
Matthew Paris, who places the murder of Walter[!], bishop of Durham
in the year 1075[!!]. [Lingard’s prejudice has in this instance (by no
means a solitary one) prompted him to treat the character of an ecclesi-
astic of his church with a tenderness not justified by the authorities. He
says of him: ‘“‘The bishop was of a mild and easy disposition: his hu-
manity revolted from the idea of oppressing the inhabitants himself; but
indolence prevented him from seeing or from restraining the oppressions
of his officers.” Let us see what Wendover (ii. p.17) says of Walchere:
« Walcherus....contra dignitatem pontificalem curis se immiscens secu-
laribus, a Willelmo emit Northanhumbrie comitatum; et, vicecomitis
agens vices, ad laica se recedit judicia atque ab omnibus provincialibus,

nQ
180 WILLIAM THE FIRST.

ham, for the purpose of massacreing the Norman garrison
there, and rendering themselves masters of the city. But the
Normans were beforehand, and behind their recently fortified
walls were well able to defend themselves, until relieved,
against an unorganized and inexperienced multitude'. The
looked-for relief and with it the royal vengeance were soon at
hand, and the unhappy province must again atone for the
very natural lawless spirit that prevailed among the cruelly
injured inhabitants. Another earl, bishop Odo, now pro-
ceeded to Durham, not to hold a court of justice, but to lay
waste and slay with fire and sword wherever the wretched
people could not instantly pay their ransom and the contri-
butions laid on them. A friend of Odo, William, abbot of
St. Karileph’s, and afterwards of St. Vincent’s, received the
vacant see?, a man, who, like the other Norman ecclesiastics,
attained to power in the church, not through his spiritual
endowments, but through the talents of the courtier, of the
attorney, of the soldier. But such men were indispensable
to the Conqueror, who saw, even in the monk, only a military
tool to prevent the dismembering of England into several

tam nobilibus quam servis, insolenter retorsit pecuniam infinitam. Popu-
lus tandem, assiduis episcopi ac ministrorum ejus exactionibus ad extre-
mam perductus inopiam, indignabatur valde sese ad tam gravem redem-
ptionem sine intermissione compelli...... Cumque paulo post ad placita
consueta omnes comprovinciales, ut prelocutum fuerat, satis animose ad-
venissent, et de diversis injuriis sibi justitiam fieri exegissent, episcopus
nimis crudeliter respondit, quod de nulla injuria vel calumnia ipsis justi-
tiam exhiberet antequam sibi libras quadringentas monete optim nume-
rassent.”? Malmesbury’s words (p. 451) on the same subject are: “ Fusus
ibi non paucus numerus Lotharingorum, quod presul ipse nationis ejus
erat. Causa ceedis hee fuit: erat episcopus, preter pontificatum, custos
totius comitatus; preefeceratque rebus forensibus Gislebertum cognatum,
interioribus Leobinum clericum, ambos in rebus commissis strenuos sed
effreenes. Tolerabat episcopus eorum immodestiam, gratia strenuitatis
inductus; et, quia eos elevarat, cumulum benignitatis augebat. Indulget
enim natura sibi, placidoque favore suis arridet ipsa muneribus.”—T. ]

1 Simeon Dunelm. a. 1072. Ejusd. Hist. Dunelm. iii. 24.

2 He established monks at Durham. W. Malm. pp. 451,452. Flor.
Wigorn. a. 1080.
WILLIAM THE FIRST. 181

states. Thenceforth, however, the earldom continued sepa-
rate from the bishopric, and was, in the first instance, com-
mitted to Aubrey, a Norman, but of whose name there is no
further mention; and afterwards to Robert of Molbray!.
King Malcolm did not fail to profit by this state of things on
his frontier, but the marching of a Norman army under duke
Robert sufficed to quell all further hostilities?.

After the last victories gained by William over his enemies
in the subjugated land, as well as over his own barons, he
found leisure for an expedition to Wales (1081). The Welsh,
although embroiled in unceasing contests, on account of the
succession of their princely houses, yet, protected by their
mountains, made repeated incursions into England, where,
in the county of Gloucester, they left behind them lamentable
traces of their ravages®, though frequently compelled to re-
tire before Hugh, the Norman palatine of Chester, and other
Norman knights. William, fully aware that this enemy, too
securely protected by nature, was only to be gradually humbled
by incursions, had, with this object, not merely invested the
earldom of Chester with such great power‘, but granted also,
to other knights on the borders of Wales—as to William of
Ogy, at Wollerton in Shropshire and Tuderham—the liberty -
of wresting, with their good swords, whatever they could from
the Welsh’. Robert of Avranches, a valiant, active, and
eloquent knight, of old Danish lineage, who had already had
experience in those wars®, in the time of king Eadward, sur-
named, from his castle, Robert of Rhuddlan (Roelent), first
officer of earl Hugh Lupus, had put to flight (ob. cirea 1073),
the most considerable prince of Wales, Blethyn ap Confyn, and
whose successor, Trahaern ap Caradoc, together with the

“1 Sim. Hist. Dunelm. col. 52.

2 Idem, de Gestis Regum Angliz, a. 1080.

3 Domesday ascribes them to Caradoc, probably Trahaern ap Caradoc
is meant.

4 See page 137. 5 Monasticon Anglicanum.

6 Ord. Vital. p. 669.
182 WILLIAM THE FIRST.

kings, Hoel and Griffith, had fallen into his hands'. At a
subsequent period, Trahaern appears as related to Norman
knights, whom as allies he repeatedly conducted into South
Wales, as far as Dyved and Cardigan (a. 1071), though that
prince’s early death interrupted these relations, and king
William had the satisfaction of extorting from the kinsmen
of the hated Britons both the oath of homage and hostages.
Not without a smile can we read in the Welsh writers, that
the king of England made at this time a pilgrimage to St.
David’s, for the sake of praying at the relics of that holy
bishop; but that he was attended by thousands of armed
men, and many hundreds fell of both nations?. The English
chroniclers scarcely notice this expedition? ; it is, therefore,
probable, as earl Hugh and Robert of Rhuddlan vigorously
and vigilantly attended to their office in North Wales, that
it was confined to the southern Welsh states.

1 Ord. Vital. p. 671. 2 Powell, p.110.

3 The chief authority is the Sax. Chron. a.1081: “Se cyng ledde
fyrde into Wealan. and beer gefreode fela hund manna:” The king led an
army into Wales, and there freed many hundred men. Neither Florence
nor Simeon have adopted this passage. H. Huntingdon merely says:
“Rex W. duxit exercitum in Walliam et eam sibi subdidit ;” and from
him word for word Radulf. de Diceto, a. 1080. ap. Twysden, p. 487. Like-
wise Bromton, a. 1080. Annal. Waverl. a. 1080, adds: “et multi ex utra-
que parte perierunt.” Matt. Paris (R. Wendover, ii. 20), a.1079: “ W.
duxit in Walliam exercitum copiosum, et eam sibi subjugavit, et a regulis
illius ditionis homagia et fidelitates accepit :” with which his namesake of
Westminster almost verbally agrees; a.1079. [To the above may be
added, in corroboration, the following: Sax. Chron. a. 1087, “ Brytland
him wees on gewealde, and he berinne casteles gewrohte, and bet mancynn
mid-ealle gewealde :”” Brytland (Wales) was in his power, and he wrought
castles therein, and completely subdued that nation. Ingram prints ‘ Man-
cynn’ and suo more translates: and ruled Anglesey withal[/|—T.] The
Annal. Waverl. have correctly: ‘“‘ Habuit etiam Britanniam in potestate
sua, et in ea castella fecit, et gentem illam sibi acclivem fecit.”” H. Hunt-
ingdon, who seems in doubt as to the meaning of Brytland, translates :
“ Britanniam sibi acclivem fecerat...... Walliamque rebellantem in suam
acceperat ditionem ;” for so, (from Bromton’s excerpt, p. 981) Savile’s
senseless reading: “ Walliamque reverendus in suam acceperat,’’ etc.
seems to require emendation.
WILLIAM THE FIRST. 183

William, it appears, thought it either more advisable or
more agreeable to abide in Normandy, while his brother,
bishop Odo, conducted the government of England in his
stead. As the latter appeared true to his trust, and the
Anglo-Saxons became more enduring from year to year,
William let him follow his own course in extorting vast trea-
sures as booty, imposts, and judicial fees. Still his extensive
power and almost fabulous wealth, which he well knew how
to augment by parsimony, did not content this ambitious
man. The raising of Lanfrane to the primacy he regarded,
it would seem, as a slight to himself, and the wish of attain-
ing to higher ecclesiastical dignities displayed itself in him
more manifestly every day. If we call to mind the relations
of the Normans in the south of Italy, and their multifarious
connections with their kinsmen in Normandy and England,
it will appear to us less striking, that Odo should cherish the
hope, by dint of craft, money, and power, of one day obtain-
ing the papal chair. Ifwe cast a glance at the position of
Gregory VII., who, although allied with the Normans of
Apulia, had with difficulty been able to withstand the second
siege of Rome by the German king, Henry IV., and through
his agents was incessantly seeking aid in every land of Europe,
it will appear far from improbable, that the crafty pontiff
would, through his emissaries, secretly strive to allure to him,
as a condottiere, for the defence of Rome against the Ger-
mans, the powerful bishop, who had contributed to the sub-
jugation of the despicable Anglo-Saxons, even by holding out
the prospect of one day succeeding to the papal throne. In
Rome, too, a prophecy was abroad, that Hildebrand’s suc-
cessor would be an Odo, and which was, in fact fulfilled, as
the bishop of Ostia of that name, soon after the death of
Gregory and the short reign of Victor III., received, as
Urban II., the ring of the fisherman. But the bishop of
Bayeux applying the prophecy to himself, caused a palace to
be bought for him at Rome, which he decorated with astonish-
184 WILLIAM THE FIRST.

ing magnificence, and, by means of costly presents, gained the
good will and voice of many Roman senators. He prevailed
on Hugh of Avranches, the powerful earl of Chester, and
many other knights, to attend him across the Apennine.
Thus did insatiable thirst after gain and glory, and an un-
quenchable love of adventure combine together a band of
valiant men under the leadership of Odo, who, without the
king’s permission, resolved on leaving England. They had
already embarked for the expedition, and reached the Isle of
Wight, when William, who had received intelligence of their
plan, came unexpectedly upon them. To his clear-sighted-
ness the project of his brother must have appeared imprac-
ticable, and even its success he probably thought hardly to
be desired; the threatened misunderstanding with the Ger-
man king must by William, already surrounded by enemies,
have been regarded as perilous; but the manner in which
Odo deserted the land committed to his guardianship was
high treason. The king brought this accusation of his brother
before his barons, and when no one else seemed disposed to
arrest him, he was the first to lay hands on him, not, as he
said, on the bishop of Bayeux, but on the earl of Kent!. Odo
was laid in fetters, deprived of his dignities and possessions
in England, and remained until William’s death a prisoner in
the tower of Rouen. His immense treasures, which in part
were found in sacks hidden in the bed of the river, were con-
fiscated for the benefit of the crown. Gregory did not fail to
complain of a proceeding so deeply injurious to the spiritual
authority, and, after the deliverance of Rome, in the year
1084, by duke Robert Guiscard, demanded, in very mild

1 The distinction, as we are informed by Malmesbury (p. 487), was sug-
gested by Lanfranc, which seems highly probable.—His words are : “ Cum
olim Willelmus senior apud Lanfrancum quereretur se a fratri deseri, ‘Tu’
inquit, ‘prende eum et vinci.’ ‘Et quid,’ respondit ille, ‘quia clericus
est?? ‘unc archiepiscopus lepida hilaritate, ‘Non,’ dixit, ‘episcopum
Baiocarum capies, sed comitem Cantie custodies.’ °—T.
WILLIAM THE FIRST. 185

terms, the liberation of the imprisoned bishop, which, how-
ever, he did not obtain!.

In all cases affecting the doctrines of the church and the
customary rights of the papal court, William had ever proved
himself an obedient son, and to pope Gregory personally con-
tinued so faithful, that he refused to receive the delegates of
the antipope Guibert. His compliance, however, suffered a
great diminution after he found himself firm in his possession
of England; even Lanfranc had no influence over him, when
Gregory demanded of him what appeared detrimental to his
secular authority. As during the king’s long absence in
France, his representatives in England had allowed the col-
lection of the Peter-pence from the impoverished Anglo-Sax-
ons and the avaricious Norman barons to be much neglected,
Gregory sent his legate named Hubert. The cause of com-
plaint with regard to the Peter-pence was speedily and rea-
dily removed?; but when Hubert made the extraordinary

1 W. Malm. p.457. Ord. Vital. p. 647. Flor. Wigorn. a.1082. Re-
gistrum Gregorii VII. lib. xi. ep. 2, and a fragment of a letter of Gregory
to his friend Hugo, archbishop of Lyons. Wace knows nothing of Odo’s
designs on the papacy, but represents him as aiming at the kingly power,
as others, overlooking their relation to the contemporary events in Italy,
have also supposed. Nor have they called to mind that earl Hugh, if
those plans had been directed against the crown, could not have continued
in possession of his honours. [Wace says of Odo:

En Visle de Wic l’aveit pris,
Et 4 Roem en prison mis;
Malicios ert, co diseit,

E coveitos plus ne poeit.
Pose out esté ses seneschals,
A totes genz cruels é mals;
Tote Engleterre se plaigneit,
Povres é riches raenmeit.
Privéement aveit enquiz

E demandé a ses amis,

Se ja Eveske Reis sereit,

Ne se ja estre Reis porreit ;
Reis esperout k’il devendreit,
Se li Reis ainz de li morreit. vv. 14302-14315,—T. ]

2 In foreign countries William had thereby gained great fame: “ Wil-
186 WILLIAM THE FIRST.

demand that the king should swear the oath of homage to
the proud ecclesiastical sovereign and his successors, he re-
fused it in the most decided terms!. Even the representa-
tions, which the pope did not disdain to make through queen
Matilda, and his application to duke Robert, for the purpose
of effecting a restoration of amicable feeling towards his fa-
ther, brought him no nearer to his chief object. Equally
fruitless was a letter, which Gregory, in the zenith of his
power, (24 April 1080) addressed to William, when he had a
second time sent forth the ban of excommunication against
the king Henry IV, and yet was striving to raise secular aid
against him, in which, after acceding to many of his wishes,
he reminds him of the great services which, even before his
elevation to the tiara, he had rendered him in acquiring his
kingly crown; and, with boundless promises and flatteries,
endeavoured to prevail on him to show obedience to the pa-
pal chair?.

William’s conduct to the rest of the clergy was perfectly
consistent with that which he had observed towards its head.
In the nomination to vacant abbeys he acted very arbitrarily,
rather following the counsel of his barons than that of the
heads of the church®. The praise bestowed on him by Gre-
gory, that he never sold such appointments, must, if not
ironical, have been given in the hope of exciting the wish and
the endeavour to deserve it. From the Norman cloisters he
took the most unfitting monks, to intrust to them the richest
Anglo-Saxon abbeys. Among numerous instances, we may
cite that of Thurstan, a monk of Caen, whom the king raised

lelmus Rex, qui totam Anglorum terram Romano pontifici tributariam fe-
cit, nec aliquem in sua potestate aliquid emere vel vendere permisit quem
apostolicze sedi inobedientem deprehendit.” Bertholdi Constantienis Chron.
a. 1084.

1 Lanfranci Epist. 7, 8.

2 Registrum Gregorii VII. lib. vii. ep. 23, 26, 27.

3 See the letter of the abbot of Fécamp to the king, in Mabillon, Anal.
1, p. 228,
WILLIAM THE FIRST. 187

to the headship of the old abbey of Glastonbury. This man
with his countrymen squandered the accumulated wealth of
the monastery, while, not content with holding the monks to
the strictest. observance of the rule of their order, he even let
them suffer privation. An arbitrary change of the old Gre-
gorian chant, in place of which he strove to introduce one
composed by John, abbot of Fécamp, gave occasion, together
with his profane violences, to a disastrous conflict in the
church, at the altar of which some of the monks were slain
and many wounded. As a punishment, Thurstan merely for-
feited his abbey, and was sent back to his Norman cloister.
To archbishop Lanfranc even this penalty seemed too severe,
and he counselled the abbot to offer a pecuniary atonement
to the king, and not to be disheartened, even should it be re-
jected. The result was, that Thurstan immediately recovered
the abbey of Glastonbury from William’s successor, for five
hundred pounds of silver?.

Occurrences of this kind frequently took place, although
with their details but seldom recorded. One merit only is
wont to be ascribed to the greater number of these prelates
of Norman origin, that of having employed great exertions
and much care in the erection and restoration of abbeys,
churches, and other structures connected with them. This
merit belongs unquestionably to the Normans, to whose love
of architecture we are indebted for many grand and beautiful
monuments, that will long bid defiance to the destroying
hand of time, and continue to excite our admiration. Yet, in
appreciating their founders, it must be borne in mind, that
this, like other styles of architecture, rose out of given and
imperative circumstances’, and the wonder-exciting, castle-
like abbey was no other than the fortress, in which the war-

1 Sax. Chron. Flor. Wigorn. a. 1083, Lanfranci Epist. 53.

2 Lappenberg here is of course speaking of the massive Norman archi-
tecture, which is evidently a barbarous imitation of the Roman, and closely
resembling the Anglo-Saxon, though somewhat less rude.—T.
188 WILLIAM THE FIRST,

like abbots were compelled to defend themselves against the
violence of the neighbouring hostile laity. But here, as in
the rest of Europe, not one of the larger and more splendid
structures is wholly the work of its first founder, though the
almost lightless, strong walls of hewn stone, with few and
narrow entrances, may still be easily traced, and which, even
without ditch and rampart, protected the spiritual castellain
and his monks.

Nearly twenty years had now passed since the conquest of
England, and the children of Harold had saved themselves
by flight to the neighbouring kingdoms. William’s tranquil
possession of the country seemed no longer endangered by
any commotion, when, on a sudden, intelligence was received
that the Danish king, Cnut, afterwards distinguished as “the .
Saint,” the second son of king Svend Estrithson, either to
avenge his expelled kinsmen’s or his own former failure, or to
make good his pretensions to the crown, was preparing for an
expedition against England (1085). He had, as we are in-
formed, assembled a fleet of more than a thousand vessels in
the Limfiord (a firth on the north-west of Jutland?); and
his father-in-law, Robert the Frisian, count of Flanders, was
ready to support him with six hundred sail. The Norwegian
king, too, Olaf Kyrre, who had to avenge on England the
death of his father, Harald Hardrada, at Stamford Bridge®,
sent him sixty ships completely equipped‘.

William, who had never placed any trust in the good dis-
position of the Anglo-Saxons, and much less than formerly in
that of the Normans in England, assembled numerous bands
of mercenaries from Normandy, Le Maine, and the rest of

1 See page 129.

2 Lingard forgets to make mention of the thousand or more Danish
ships, merely saying that “he obtained a fleet of sixty ships from Olave,
king of Norway, and a promise of another six hundred sail from his fa-
ther-in-law, Robert, earl of Flanders.’’—T.

3 See Engl. under the A. S. kings, ii. p. 280.

4 W. Malm. Flor. Wigorn. a.1084. Snorri, Olaf Kyrri’s Saga, cap. 8.
WILLIAM THE FIRST. 189

Franee, and even from Spain. Many noble knights, too,
and among them Hugh, the king of France’s second brother,
joined him, and accompanied him to England, where, dis-
persed over the country, they were a heavy burden to the
inhabitants, who were charged with their maintenance’. Be-
sides this, the old tax of Dane-gelt, at the rate of six shillings
the hide2, was re-imposed, to defray the expenses of the pre-
parations, but which the Norman lords again extorted from
their Anglo-Saxon vassals*. All the land on the coast, where
a landing might be expected, was laid waste, that nothing
might be left to the enemy whereon to seize+. The inhabit-
ants were even forbidden to wear their native garb, that their
Danish friends might not so easily recognize them; and were,
moreover, commanded to shave off their long beards; though
few, it is said, complied with this mandate>. It was probably
the great and efficient measures adopted by William for the
defence of the country, which inclined Cnut to deliberate be-
fore venturing further; and, in the following year, when a
rebellious spirit had spread itself among his followers, and his
army was tired of the long delay, induced him to abandon the
enterprise®. His brother, Olaf, who was the instigator of the
rebellion, he caused to be arrested, ignominiously bound, and
sent to his father-in-law, the count of Flanders. Here again,
the golden missiles, which William never spared, together
with those of steel, most probably fulfilled their mission; and
of the Dane-gelt, no inconsiderable portion found its ultimate
destination at king Cnut’s court in Haithaby (Sleswig). The
murder of the Danish king, which took place shortly after,

1 Ingulphus, p. 516.

2 We still have notices respecting the produce of these exactions in the
Inquisitio Geldi, in. the Exeter Domesday.

3 Sax. Chron. a. 1085. Flor. Wigorn. a. 1084.

4 Sax. Chron. a. 1085.

5 Elnothi Vita Canuti, cap. 12 sq. apud Langebek, SS. Rer. Dan. iii.

6 Flnoth. 1. c, Saxo Gram. edit. Miiller. p. 585.
190 WILLIAM THE FIRST.

assured William against any future attempts on his kingdom
from that quarter.

Of William’s civil acts, after the conquest of England, the
most prominent is the introduction of the Feudal System.
This was the natural and necessary consequence of a revolu-
tion, by which all the landed property of the country was
wrested from its native holders, and bestowed on those fo-
reign chieftains, who had aided in the subjugation of the
land, who naturally looked for a share of the spoil, and were
to constitute its aristocracy; while these, in like manner, had
to provide for their followers, by a subdivision of the estates
conferred on them by the crown. Hence the distinctions of
tenants in chief, (tenentes i capite), and under tenants ; the
former being those who held their lands immediately of the
king ; the latter those who held of the great immediate hold-
ers, or tenants in chief.

The lands thus bestowed by the king consisted at first
either in the demesne lands of the crown, or of those native
proprietors, who had fallen in battle, or had preferred volun-
tary exile to submission; but gradually, in consequence of
forfeitures, (the penalty of resistance to a foreign yoke), and
other causes, nearly the whole landed property of the king-
dom passed into the hands of the Normans.

Although these landed possessions were bestowed for past
services, they were, nevertheless, subject to certain obligations
to the lord paramount, of whom they were held; to the king,
in the case of tenants in chief; and to the tenant in chief, in
that of an under tenant. Of these obligations, the most ho-
nourable was that of Anight-service, or the obligation to fur-
nish a certain number of cavaliers completely armed for the
king’s service, and to maintain them in the field for forty
days. This service was extended to all tenants in chief, both
lay and ecclesiastical, including monasteries and other reli-
gious foundations, with the sole exception of those who held
by frankalmoign, or free alms.
WILLIAM THE FIRST. 191

Thus all the landed property of the kingdom was held ei-
ther by the sovereign, or by a tenant in chief, holding imme-
diately under him. In the distribution of lands, each of such
feudal possessions was divided into two parts, one of which
was doled out to the under-tenants, consisting of Norman
officials and others, military and civil, or of such Anglo-Sax-
ons as had been ousted from the possession of the estate, and
were now reduced, from the degree of thane, to the condition
of simple freeholders, or franklins. The other portion the
Norman lord retained in his own hands, under the denomina-
tion of his demesne lands, which he either farmed out to the
cultivators of the soil, or cultivated for his own benefit, by
the hands of his villeins, or serfs.

Besides military service, the great tenants of the crown
were required to attend the king’s court at the three grand
festivals, of Christmas, Easter, and Whitsuntide; and at all
other times when summoned. They constituted the great
legislative body of the kingdom}.

On succeeding to a fief at the death of the possessor, the
heir was required to pay a certain sum to the lord of whom
he held. In the Norman times this was called a relief, and
originally, like the heriot of the Anglo-Saxons, consisted of
certain chattels, as horses, hauberks, helmets, lances, ete. ;
but which was afterwards commuted into a pecuniary fine?.
In addition to the relief, payments (aids) were exacted from
the tenant; 1. when the lord paid the relief of his fief to his
superior lord; 2. when his eldest son was made a knight;
3. on the marriage of his eldest daughter; 4. when he was
captured by an enemy 3.

A fief could not be devised by will, or otherwise alienated
by its holder; but must descend to the legal heir, subject to
the same burthens, on payment of the customary relief.

1 Lingard, ii. p. 46. edit. 1837.

2 Anc. Laws and Inst. p. 204, fol. edit. and (pp. 72, 73) Cnut’s laws
‘ Be Hergeate,’ of which William’s is only a modification.

3 Hallam, Middle Ages, i. p. 178, edit. 1855.
192 WILLIAM THE FIRST.

With the descent of fiefs in England were connected ward-
ships and marriages. When the heir was a minor, he was
considered incompetent to hold the fief, being incapable of
military service ; in which case the lord entered into posses-
sion, and either appropriated the revenues to his own use, or
let them out to farm. The heir he took under his own charge,
for the purpose of having him educated in a manner qualify-
ing him for military service. All the expenses of the ward
devolved on the lord, who was bound to deliver over the es-
tate, without a relief, when the ward had completed his twen-
ty-first. year.

When the heirs were females, and, consequently, incapable
of military service, they might not be disposed of in marriage
without the lord’s sanction; for the refusal of which he was,
however, bound to assign a valid reason. On the death of a
tenant, the fief descended to the daughter, or, if more than
one, to the daughters in common. Like the heirs male, these
were under the wardship of the lord. On completing the age
of fourteen, the lord could compel his female ward to marry
any man he might select; and if, after that age, he allowed
her to remain single, she could not marry without the consent
of the lord and guardian. The husband of an heiress entered
on all the rights of a male heir, and performed all the services
due to the lord’.

Besides the profits accruing to the lord from the before-
mentioned sources, there was that derived from escheats, of
which there are two cases, viz. 1. a fief escheated, or fell
back to the lord when the holder died, leaving no heirs; and,
2. if the holder was convicted of treason or felony 2.

The confirming of a fief was accompanied by three forms
or ceremonies, viz. 1. homage; 2. the oath of fealty ; 3. inves-
titure.

1. Homage (hominium, homagium) was the form, according
to which the homager became the vassal, or man (homo) of

' Lingard, ut sup. p. 51. | Blackstone, ii. p. 72, edit. 1830.
WILLIAM THE FIRST. 193

his lord. In doing homage, the vassal’s head was uncovered,
his belt ungirt, his sword and spurs laid aside; then kneeling
he placed his hands between those of the lord, and promised
to become his man from thenceforward; to serve him with
life and limb and worldly honour, faithfully and loyally, in
consideration of the lands which he held under him. None
but the lord in person could accept homage, which was usually
concluded with a kiss.

2. The oath of fealty, though indispensable, was taken with
less formality than the performance of homage, and might be
received by proxy.

3. Investiture, or the actual conveyance of feudal lands,
was of two sorts, proper and improper. The first was an
actual putting in possession on the ground, either by the lord
or his deputy, which is called in our law livery of seizin. The
second was symbolical, and consisted in the delivery of a turf,
a stone, a wand, a branch, or whatever else might have been
made usual by the caprice of local custom}. Upon investiture
the duties of the man or vassal commenced?.

A knight’s fee was fixed in England at the annual value of
£20. Every estate supposed to be of this value, and entered
as such in the rolls of the exchequer, was bound to contribute
the service of a soldier, or pay an escuage, or scutage, to the
amount assessed upon a knight’s fee.

Under the Anglo-Saxon kings, the oath of a man to his
hlaford, or lord, contained no reservation of fealty or obe-
dience to the king: and the question naturally occurs, what
was the duty of a man, who had contracted that obligation,
when a quarrel arose between the king and his immediate lord ?
When such cases occurred, and in those remote times they
were not unfrequent, it is probable that in England, as on
the Continent, the men ranged themselves on one side or the
other, as interest, fear, or affection dictated. The law of
England appears to have continued in this unsettled state

1 See Grimm, Rechtsalterthtimer. 2 Hallam, ut sup. pp. 169 sq.
o
194 WILLIAM THE FIRST.

till the Norman conquest was completely established. One of
the Conqueror’s laws obliges every freeman in his dominions
to take an oath of fealty to his person, without reserve or

qualification ; and in the latter part of his life, he assembled

all the landholders of any account throughout England, whose
men soever they were, and compelled them to become his
men, and to swear fealty to him against all persons whatever,
without any exception’.

Besides the tenure of knight-service properly so called,
there were other species, such as the tenure by grand ser-
jeanty (per magnum servitium), whereby the tenant was bound,
instead of serving the king generaily in his wars, to do some
special honorary service to the king in person; as to carry
his banner, his sword, or the like; or to be his butler, cham-
pion, or other officer, at his coronation. It was in most other
respects like knight-service, only he was not bound to pay aid
or escuage; and when tenant by knight-service paid five
pounds for a relief on every knight’s fee, tenant by grand
serjeanty paid one year’s value of his land, were it much or
little. Tenure by cornage, which was to wind a horn, when
the Scots or other enemies entered the land, in order to warn
the king’s subjects, was (like other services of the same
nature) a species of grand serjeanty 2.

Lands were also given by the king to persons for meaner
‘services; as to his woodwards, foresters, huntsmen, falconers,
cooks, chamberlains, goldsmiths, bailiffs of manors in his own
hands, and many other officers, which in Domesday-book are
ealled “terre thanorum regis,” and sometimes “ servientium
regis.” Such tenures were held by petit seryeanty ; and what-
ever the notion of petit serjeanty now is, I doubt not, says
Tyrrell, that this holding of lands was the true tenure; not but
presenting the lord with a bow and arrow, a pair of spurs
every year, etc. might also be called petit sergeanty, though

1 Allen on the Royal Prerogative, pp. 69, 70, edit. 1849.
2 Blackstone, ii. pp. 72, 73.
WILLIAM THE FIRST. 195

not so properly as the other. Tenants in petit serjeanty were
subject to wardship, marriage (maritagium), and relief".

Socage, in its most general and extensive signification, seems
to denote a tenure by any certain and determinate service, in
which sense it is by our aneient writers constantly put in
opposition to chivalry or knight-serviee, where the render
(service) was precarious and uncertain. Thus Bracton: “if
a man hold by rent in money, without any escuage or ser-
jeanty, “id tenementum dici potest socagium.” But if you
add thereto any royal service or escuage, to any, the smallest
amount, “illud dici poterit feodum militare.” Socage was of
two sorts: free socage, where the services are not only certain,
but honourable; and villein socage, where the services, though
certain, are of a baser nature?.

Another important enaetment of William’s was the separa-
tion of the ecclesiastical court from that of the hundred?.

Great as was the revolution produced in the country by
the introduction of the feudal system, whereby almost every
native landholder was either wholly despoiled of his posses-
sions, or reduced to hold them, or a part of them, as the man
of some powerful or favoured Norman; yet were the kingly
and legislative functions less changed in form than in spirit.
The oath taken by the king was the oath of the Anglo-Saxon
kings. The Witena-gemét, or grand national assembly,
under the ancient dynasty, may be said to have been con-
tinued by the Conqueror and his sons under the name of the

=

Great Council. The twelf-hynd and six-hynd-men, the ealdor- .

men, eorls, and thanes had, it is true, disappeared, but their
places were occupied by Norman prelates and the great vassals
or tenentes in capite; though a few of the highest class of
Anglo-Saxon nobles might, in the early part of the Con-
queror’s reign, have been among the members of this supreme
council,

1 Tyrrell, Bibl. Politica, p.318, edit.1727. 2 Blackstone, ii. p. 79.
3 See the document in Anc. Laws and Inst. p. 213.

02
196 WILLIAM THE FIRST.

For the guidance of these and other Norman legal func-
tionaries, an edition of the Confessor’s laws was issued, both
in Latin and French, with such modifications as in the new
state of things were deemed desirable. This, it is evident,
was a measure of necessity, as the judges in a court composed
solely, or with very few exceptions, of Normans, could hardly
be familiar with the language of the natives. That the plead-
ings were in French, follows as a matter of course. The old
setr-mét (shire-moot) still continued under its synonymous
Normanized denomination of County-court ; although its pre-
sident and chief assessors were, no doubt, Normans. In the
Hundred-court the judges were most probably English, and

_its proceedings must naturally and necessarily have been con-
ducted in the vernacular tongue.

Among the legal innovations introduced! by the Conqueror
may be mentioned the trial by battle, or judicial combat, as
being more congenial to the martial spirit of his followers
than the ordeal of the Anglo-Saxons. By William it was
enacted, that if an Englishman challenged a Frenchman to
the “ ornest,” or battle, for theft, homicide, or anything for
which a battle ought to take place, he was at full liberty so
to do. Should the Englishman refuse the ornest, let the
Frenchman clear himself with his witnesses by oath, accord-
ing to Norman law. If a Frenchman challenged an English-
man to battle for the like charges, the latter was at liberty to
defend himself by battle, or, if he preferred it, by the iron
ordeal. If, on account of infirmity or other causes, he de-
clined the combat, he might choose a legal substitute to do
battle for him. If a Frenchman accused an Englishman of

1 “The trial by battle does not seem to have been usual in England be-
fore the Conquest, though, without doubt, originating in the kingdoms of
the North, where it was practised under the name of holmgang, from the
custom of fighting duels on a holm, or small island.” Anc. LL. &. Inst.
Glossary, v. Ordeal. The word eornest or ornest, signifying this kind of
combat (Ohg. ernust, Mhg. ernest, battle) though undoubtedly Anglo-
Saxon, is not extant in any A.S. work hitherto printed. —T.
WILLIAM THE FIRST. 197

perjury, murder’, theft, homicide, etc., the latter might defend
himself either by ordeal or ornest. In all cases involving out-
lawry, an Englishman might clear himself by ordeal; but if
an Englishman preferred a like charge against a Frenchman,
which he was ready to make good, the Frenchman might de-
fend himself by battle. If the Englishman declined the battle,
the Frenchman was to clear himself by oath.

For the security of his power in England, a strong military
force seemed to William now no longer necessary ; the foreign
mercenaries were, therefore, dismissed. Shortly after (1086)
Eadgar Altheling having received permission to leave Nor-
mandy, with two hundred warriors proceeded to Apulia?.
In this year, when keeping Whitsuntide with his court at
Westminster, William solemnly dubbed his son Henry a
knight, and, for the first of August following, commanded
an assembly of the estates of the realm to be holden at
Salisbury. This, from the number of summonses issued, was,
in fact, a grand review, at which his warriors still remaining
in England were estimated at sixty thousand?. William, at
this time caused his vassals to take the oath of allegiance,
which, during the period of conquest, must have been fre-
quently neglected, and confirmed to them their possessions
in England. For this object it is probable that Domesday-
book‘, which was completed in this year (1086), was first
called into requisition. By this name is designated a detailed
register, drawn up in the several counties, by juries impa-

' “Murdritus homo dicebatur antiquitus cujus interfector nesciebatur,
ubicunque vel quomodocunque esset inventus; nunc adjectum est, licet
sciatur quis murdrum fecerit, si non habeatur intra VII. dies.’’? LL. Hen.
I. xcii. §. 5.

2 So Flor. Wigorn. a. 1086. The words of the Saxon Chronicle, ‘ beah
fram him,’ are wrongly rendered by Ingram, revolted from him.

3 Ord. Vital. p. 649.

4 In consequence of an address of the Upper House, king George III.
caused an edition of this most important and ancient national monument

to be undertaken, which, in the year 1783, issued from the press in 2 vo-
lumes folio. A volume of very useful commentaries upon it was composed

ere
198 WILLIAM THE FIRST.

nelled by royal commissioners, showing the extent, division,
and nature of the landed property in each, the tenants hold-
ing immediately of the king, or tenants in chief (tenentes in
capite); the under-tenants, the freeholders and serfs, the
nature of the tenure, the revenues, and their amount previous
to and at the time of the Conquest, and the possibility of in-

by Kelham (Domesday Book illustrated). Alphabetical indexes of the
local and personal names contained in it were formed by (Sir) Henry Ellis,
who, at the same time, under the authority of the Record Commission,
composed a highly meritorious dissertation on it, by way of introduction
(first printed in folio, 1813). This work, with notices of individuals named
in the document, and much augmented, was again published in the year
1833, in 2 vols. 8vo. In the opinion expressed by its editor we most sin-
cerely participate: ‘A patient comparison of Domesday Book with the
Registers of our earliest Abbeys is the surest way to accomplish its
thorough illustration: and this is to be effected, not merely by the exami-
nation of charters and partial surveys, but by the scattered details of an
historical kind with which many of them abound. No archives but those
of our ancient ecclesiastical establishments throw light te any great extent
upon the Domesday survey.” Pref. pp. xv. xix. The said Commission
published also the Exeter Domesday, the Inquisitio Eliensis, the Liber
Wintoniensis and the Boldon Book, in the year 1810, of which the first two
appear to be more copious original inventories of the royal commissioners
than those given in the great collective Domesday-book. In these, too,
the cattle are registered, which in Domesday are noticed only in East
Anglia, from the mention of which in the Saxon Chronicle (a. 1085) we
may perhaps infer that its author was a resident at Peterborough in that
province. ‘The third of the above-mentioned works is a Winchester
Domesday-book (a. 1107-1128), the last, of the county of Durham of the
year 1183. Later extracts from Domesday exist in manuscripts in the
King’s Remembrancer’s office, also one in the Chapter House at West-
minster, where the original is also deposited. [Domesday-book consists of
2 volumes, the first ‘‘is a large folio of vellum, and in 382 double pages,
written in a small character, contains thirty-one counties, beginning with
Kent, and ending with Lincolnshire. The other is a quarto volume of 450
double pages in a large character, but contains only the counties of Essex,
Norfolk, and Sussex. ‘There is no description of the four northern coun-
ties, but the West Riding of Yorkshire is made to comprehend that part of
Lancashire which lies to the north of the Ribble, with some districts in
Westmoreland and Cumberland: while the southern portion of Lancashire
is included in Cheshire. Rutland is similarly divided between Notting-
hamshire and Lincolnshire.’ Lingard.—T.]

.
WILLIAM THE FIRST. 199

creasing the income ; the property in cattle, woods and forests,
fisheries, mines, and, in general, everything that was deemed
requisite for an accurate cadastre and rental of the kingdom.
The idea of this work was borrowed from no preceding one;
the tradition of a similar one having been composed by /EIf-
red, being void of proof, and is, moreover, not mentioned in
the Domesday-book of William; nor does it appear to have
found a model in any of the then existing states. It would
rather seem that while until then only isolated rentrolls of
royal monastic and other possessions, terriers of cities and
towns, and lists of a similar kind were in existence, the
defects of which were supplied by tradition or public know-
ledge, the need felt by the Conqueror of possessing trust-
worthy and accurate information on the state of property in
a foreign land gave the original impulse to an undertaking,
which the improvements, however slow, that domestic policy
was making in other states, also rendered highly desirable.
The security of the king’s revenue and the administration of
justice were the objects chiefly in view, as the confiscation of
the property of the Anglo-Saxons, the desolation of whole
counties, the flight of the native landowners, the contentions
between the rapacious Normans and the cloisters under them,
the uncertainty of inheritance even among the Normans them-
selves, whose kin lived dispersed in Britain, France, and Italy,
together with other circumstances, arising from the violent
change of proprietorship, through the Conquest, greatly aug-
mented the insecurity of possession. Domesday-book was
with other treasures preserved at Winchester, whence it is
sometimes called ‘ Rotulus Wintoniz ;’ though it occasionally
accompanied the king or his justiciaries on their judicial pro-
gresses. The northern counties, Northumberland, Lancaster,
Cumberland, Westmoreland, and Durham are not comprised
in it, on account probably of their desolate condition, though
some southern tracts of those counties are included in Cheshire
and Yorkshire. London, Winchester, and other cities of im-
200 WILLIAM THE FIRST.

portance are also omitted, possibly because all the information
required regarding them, as far as the king was interested,
was already to be found in the royal chancery or treasury.
Many of the returns are partially composed in favour of Nor-
man cloisters; other inaccuracies may be assigned to the
shortness of the time allowed for the completion of the work.
Hence, in the times immediately following, we find many
similar works commenced, though always for particular dis-
tricts only, yet not one superior i value to the great Domes-
day-book of king William. This will ever be found an in-
exhaustible source of information respecting the Anglo-Saxon
and Norman constitutions, particularly the rights and re-
venues of the kings and their vassals, the relations of cities
and towns, statistic accounts of various kinds, families and
their landed members, together with innumerable matters
highly interesting to inquiring posterity, but unnoticed by
the chroniclers of those times, either as too well known or as
worthless. An intimate acquaintance with Domesday should
supply the basis of every historical account of England,
particularly of its special history during the middle age.
Such a portraiture, consisting in great part of figures, will
not admit of a reduced sketch of the whole, but serves us
rather as a voucher for and illustration of the law-books and
chronicles. Still it will not be out of place here from this (not-
withstanding its defects and imperfections) rich description
of the political condition of England before the end of the
reign of William the Conqueror, to give in a collected shape
some essential statistic and political notices, which may afford
us an insight into the misery of the country and the relations
of its oppressors.

In every county we meet with frequent mention of lands
usurped by Normans, although the king or earlier Norman
possessors laid claim to them (elamores et invasiones). Often
too, even when the property was not disputed, the commis-
sioners had to remark, that the new possessor had neither
WILLIAM THE FIRST. 201

charter nor seal to show for his assumed fee, and that he had
not been legally inducted into it by the sheriff.

The vassals holding immediately of the king (tenentes in
capite) together with the ecclesiastical corporations, amounted
scarcely to fourteen hundred. Of these the majority were
holders of one fee, while others, as the brothers of the king,
had vast possessions in almost every part of England: those
of the bishop of Bayeux lay in seventeen, of Robert of
Mortain in nineteen counties, and also in Wales. Eudes,
the steward or sewer (dapifer) had fees in twelve counties;
Hugh of Avranches, surnamed Lupus, or the Wolf, had con-
siderable possessions, exclusive of those in his own county of
Chester, in twenty-one shires.

Of mesne lords, or under tenants, the number was about
eight thousand, though exactness with regard to these is not
attainable, so many of them being registered only by their
Christian names, without the addition either of patronymic
or any locality whereby to distinguish them. The number of
other tenants recorded in Domesday was about two hundred
and fifty thousand!. The serfs were twenty-five thousand.
The monks in the cloisters, the garrisons of the fortresses,
and the burghers of the cities, where the royal commissioners
did not set foot, are not specified. Among these there are
about a thousand priests (presbyteri), and eight thousand
burgesses. Above ten thousand are mentioned as free men
(liberi homines) ; above two thousand are named as free men
under patronage or protection (commendati), though neither
of these classes are to be regarded as consisting solely of ab-
solutely free proprietors?. Both of them are found almost
exclusively in the old East Anglia, or the counties of Norfolk
and Suffolk; about three hundred in Essex, and about fifty

1 See England under the A. S. Kings (ii. p. 320) respecting the slaves
in England.

2 «Tn dominio sunt...... III. liberi homines cum III, carucis
unus liber homo cum una caruca et IT. bordariis.”” Domesd. i. fol. 183 b.

 
202 : WILLIAM THE FIRST.

in Cheshire and Staffordshire: a circumstance that may per-
haps be explained by the numerous Danish population that
were settled in the ancient kingdom of Guthrum.

Next in degree to the free were the Socmen (Sochemanni),
who, in consideration for a holding heritable by their sons,
who were considered in their majority at the age of fifteen,
and which the lord could not resume at will, took the oaths
of fealty and of homage (homagium), and thereby bound
themselves to military service, to a relief on the inheritance,
and to certain stipulated services and imposts!. That they
were not on a level with the above-mentioned Free, is mani- °
fest from the circumstance that soemen are named also in
Norfolk and Suffolk, in the first-mentioned county as many as
4600, being a fifth part of the whole number (23,072) of per-
sons included under that denomination in the record. But it
is very striking to find no free men mentioned in the neigh-
bouring county of Lincoln, nor even in Kent, where they
would seem proverbially to belong; but, on the other hand,
the half of all the socmen in England. In Suffolk we find
above 1000, and as many in Northamptonshire ; above 1500
in Nottinghamshire, above 1900 in Leicestershire, in Essex
520, in the desolated extensive Yorkshire not quite 450. The
remaining socmen are found in very small numbers in the
counties like those just mentioned, lying to the north of the
Watling Street, excepting Cheshire and Staffordshire. South
of this great road there is no mention of socmen?.

1 Fleta, lib. i. c.8. Britton, c. 66. A proof may be found in the Rotul.
Magn. Pipe Henrici 1. a. 31.: “decem marce argenti de Sochemannis
de Oswardesbec.”

2 As an exception, perhaps, may be regarded 44 socmen in Kent and
20 in Buckinghamshire ; though these counties, lying partly to the north
of the Watling Street, were possibly comprised in the northern district of
the commissioners. But another exception, as it would seem by the list
in Ellis (Introd. ii. p. 445), appears to be groundless, viz. that of six soc-
men in Gloucestershire. The words of Domesday (fol. 169 b.) unus homo
reddit vi. sochs. cannot surely mean that there were six socmen. More
probable, it seems, that for sochs. we should read soccos. In corrobora-
WILLIAM THE FIRST. 203

In the western counties we meet with a class of men called
Cortserti1; the number of whom in Wiltshire, where they are
most numerous, amounts to 260; but their whole number to
858. This class would seem identical with that of the soc-
men, as the two denominations never occur together in the
same county!; and as their name is not to be met with in any
unquestionably genuine Latin document of any Anglo-Saxon
cloister prior to the Conquest, it seems not unreasonable to
suppose it to have been applied to the socmen by some
of the Norman commissioners, as more usual in their native

‘country. This supposition is rendered still more probable
by the circumstance that coliberti are never named in Anglo-
Saxon law authorities.

In these mention occurs of a class called Genuras or Bures
(Boors). Of which we meet with G4 only in Domesday, and
those in six counties south of the Watling Street, viz.
Buckingham, Oxford, Hereford, Berks, Worcester, and Devon.
Co-existent with the socmen they are found in no county
excepting that of Buckingham, their common boundary ; but
to regard them as identical with these and the coliberti is not
tenable, from their occurrence with the latter in the counties
of Berks, Devon, Hereford, and Worcester®. They belong
to the class of which the greater and freer portion are de-
tion of this conjecture may be cited the following: Fol. 139 b. De pastura
et silva II. solidos et ILI. soccos; Fol.1676. In Gloucestre I. burgensis
reddit IV. soccos; Fol. 179 b. Ad Hereford sunt IV. burgenses huic
manerio reddentes XVIIT. socos (pro) carucis.

1 The small number of these coliberti compared with that of the socmen
renders this ingenious hypothesis of the author somewhat doubtful. In
the twelve counties where coliberti occur the total number is only 858,
giving on an average about 72 to each county ; while 23,066, the number of
socmen in the sixteen counties where they occur gives an average of 1048

to each; a difference that could hardly exist if the classes were identi-
cal.—T.

2 See Du Cange, Glossarium.

3 A gloss in Domesday, fol. 38. under Hamptonshire, of ‘vel bures”
written over the word coliberti, can hardly be cited against the many
places in the text.
204 WILLIAM ‘THE FIRST.

signated as Villani, amounting in all to about 109,000’, of
whom those in Kent alone are estimated at 6597, or above
the half of all the classes mentioned in that shire. In Lin-
colnshire, out of a total of 25,305, are 7723 villeins ; and in
Devonshire, out of a total of 17,434 are 8070 villeins together
with 3294 serfs (servi). The class of the rural population
distinguished by the Norman name of villeins, was probably
at an earlier period comprised in the Anglo-Saxon one of
ceorls, although, together with the other peasantry, in general,
they may probably be considered as posterity of the old Roman-
British population, while the slaves are found in the provinces
conquered at a later period by the Anglo-Saxons. It does
not appear that the Normans made any change in the legal
position of this class so burthened with divers imposts and
services; but rather that their previous condition, through
the harsh coercion and unfeeling orders of their new masters,
assumed a more unhappy character.

Distinguished from the villeins we find, 1749, Corsrrzan,
Coscurs (Coscez, Cozets, Cozez). These, with the exception
of 9 in Shropshire, are met with only among the West Saxon
races of the Wilszetas (among whom there are no fewer than
1418), the Defenszetas, the Dorszetas, and the Sumorsetas.
They were less free than the villeins, but bound to fewer
services than the geburas.

A more numerous class is that of the Corarn, of whom
there are 5054. heir Anglo-Saxon name nowhere appears.
They are met with in almost all the counties south of the
Watling Street, also in those where no coliberti are men-
tioned, as, for instance, 765 in Sussex. Among these counties,
they are wanting in Cornwall, Gloucester, Hants, and Oxford,
but not in those bordering on the Watling Street, Berks,
Hertford (in which are 837), and Middlesex. Beside these

‘ In the Rectitudines Singularum Personarum (Anc. Laws and Instit.)
the term of Villanus is made to correspond with the A. S. Geneadt.—T.
WILLIAM THE FIRST. 205

there are 736 in Cambridgeshire, and 16 at Tateshale in York-
shire.

The Rapcuenistrri, under which denomination we find 196,
and under that of Rapmanyi 369, are, with the exception of 5
of the first mentioned in Hampshire, all found in the counties
bordering on Wales, as 137 radchenistri in Gloucestershire,
47 in Herefordshire ; 167 radmen in Shropshire, 145 in Che-
shire, 24 in Herefordshire, 33 in Worcestershire; consequently
collectively in the districts of the Mageseetas, or the Hecanas
and Hwiccas. Their relative position seems to be between
the free and the villeins.

As a peculiarity of Cheshire, dating no doubt from the
conquests of the Danes, we find in that county a class of
Drencus, a name originally applied to sons, but afterwards
given to servants. Mention of them occurs occasionally for
some centuries later, and on the Scottish border! they corre-
spond to the radchenistri on the marches of Wales.

Passing over some classes of minor importance?, we have
yet to notice 82,609 Borparu (including 490 Borparm pav-
PERES?), whom we meet with in all the counties contained in
the Domesday survey, in a tolerably equal proportion to the
sum total of the inhabitants recorded in that document.
They form a class usually named after the villeins and before

! Domesday, i. fol. 269 b. Before the Conquest there were forty-nine
of them there. See Grimm, D. R. A. p. 305. Jamieson, Scottish Dic-
tionary ; also Rotulus Magn. Pipe, 31 Hen. I. pp. 28,132. In the year
1292 we find them at Tyndal. See Rot. orig. in Curia Scaccar. Abbrev.
i. 70. The Dingi dwelling in the house of Gamel, a vassal (homo) at York,
do not appear to have been drenghs, but subordinate servants like the
pardingi in Legg. Henr. I. 29.

- 2 On this subject, see “Engl. under the A. S. Kings.” ii. p. 357, sq. and
‘* Rectitudines Singularum Personarum” in Anc. Laws and Instit.

3 With the exception of ten in Herefordshire, the bordarii pauperes
(“ qui propter pauperiem nullam reddunt consuetudinem”’), all in Norwich,
which had severely suffered, ‘‘ partim propter foris facturas Rogerii comi-
tis, partim propter arsuram, partim propter geltum regis, partim propter
Waleranum.”” Domesday, ii. fol. 117 b.
206 WILLIAM THE FIRST.

the slaves. Their name, if explained by the hut, provided
with a small garden or kale-yard, in which they dwelt, would
agree with that of the cotsetlan and the cotarii; but in
Domesday all the three classes are distinguished one from
another. This denomination does not seem to occur in
any ancient, unquestionable Anglo-Saxon document, while in
France it was cominon. Hence we may assume that this
appellation was transferred to the Anglo-Saxons by the Nor-
mans, or that the bordarii were themselves Normans, that
had stood in the same relation in their own country, and
lived on the estate and in the hall of their lord, and originally
fed at his table or bord!. In favour of this opinion, we may
mention, that it does not appear how the shoals of Normans
of the lower classes, that came over to England, were disposed
of, while the number of bordarii well corresponds to that of
the army of sixty thousand men, after deducting the slain,
and doubling the remainder, in consequence of the masses
that flocked over in the following years. In some places we
find them in round numbers, which seems corroborative of
the opinion that they were but recently established there®.
Tt is, moreover, obvious that the Anglo-Saxon ceorls could
not always be displaced by the herd of Normans and followers,
particularly as these must constantly be under arms, and,
consequently, incapacitated from devoting much time to field
labour. Still a conclusive opinion on this subject is not
possible, as, even under the Anglo-Saxon rulers, in conse-
quence of the increase of an indigent population and the in-
cessant wars with the Danes, similar relations could easily
exist.

1 Bord, Dan. and Anglo-Sax. Engl. board. The bordarii are not men-
tioned in the “ Rectitudines S. P.”’; but borda, signifying hut, is found in
a questionable charter of king Eadgar, in Monast. Angl. i. p. 209. Cod.
Diplom. iti. p. 179.

2 Extra burgum (Warwick) C. bordarii cum hortulis suis reddunt L.
solidos. Domesd. i. fol. 238. Sub eis (civibus Huntingdon) sunt C. bor-
darii. Ib. fol. 203. In Norwich there were 480, in Thetford 20 bordarii.
WILLIAM THE FIRST. 207

The total number of persons registered in Domesday-book,
after allowing for the repetition of numerous tenants in several
counties and hundreds, amounts to about two hundred and
eighty-three thousand, which, with the addition of the counties
and cities omitted in Domesday, will form a total of at least
three hundred thousand heads of families. That other taxable
classes have been omitted must appear highly improbable,
when we call to mind that the grand object of the composition
of Domesday was the benefit of the royal treasury. That
church property was exempt from all imposts, appears only
as a rare exception. Monks, on the other hand, because not
personally taxable, are only incidentally mentioned. It has
been supposed that frequently whole classes of the lower
rural population have not been registered, because in several
counties, in which the rearing of swine was an object of
industry, no mention is made of swineherds. But these
were, no doubt, frequently taken from the serfs. If then we
would estimate the total number of inhabitants of England at
that time, two millions might seem a number rather too great
than too little.

The extent of the forests in England was very considerable,
enormous tracts were waste, and others of great magnitude
had latterly been desolated or abandoned. The villages were
very small, on which aceount several, at a later period, were
united into one. Yorkshire was desolated more than any
other part; in four hundred and eleven manors in that
county, there were found only thirty-five villeins and eight
bordarii. The cities and towns had few and only very small
houses. Previous to the Conquest, London and York alone
numbered above ten thousand resident inhabitants, and only
the former many above that number. The greater number
of the towns had severely suffered, partly by plundering and
fire, partly through the construction of fortresses, for which
purpose many houses were demolished. In Exeter, of 463
houses existing at the time of the Confessor, above 50 were
208 WILLIAM THE FIRST.

destroyed ; in Dorchester, of 172, and in the wealthy city of
Norwich, (the burgesses of which possessed 43 chapels,) of
1320, the half. In Lincoln, of 1150 houses, 166 were sacri-
ficed to the erection of the castle, and 100 others no longer
inhabited. In Cambridge 27 houses were destroyed to make
room for the castle; in Chester, of 487 houses, 205 were de-
stroyed; in Derby, of 243, no fewer than 103; the remainder
were inhabited by 100 great and 40 small burgesses. In
Stafford, of 131 houses, 38 were destroyed ; in York, of 1800,
or thereabouts, 800 were probably no longer standing. But
no city suffered more than Oxford, where geld was paid by
243 houses, while 478 were so ruined that they could no
longer pay it. One town only, Dunwich, showed any sign of
increase after the Conquest, where the number of burgesses,
in the time of the Confessor, 120, was, at the time of the sur-
vey, augmented to 236; a phenomenon easily explained by
the decay of the neighbouring city of Norwich.

The total amount of the yearly revenue of the king of
England, as enjoyed by Eadward the Confessor, has, at a
later period, been estimated at sixty thousand marks of silver;
but by donations to the church and other gifts, this amount,
according to the expressions of the discontented eldest. son
and immediate successor of the Conqueror, was diminished to
the half. A century after the Conqueror, it is said to have
amounted to a fifth only, or twelve thousand marks, the
trifling value of which will appear the more striking, on call-
ing to mind that the revenue of the German emperor, at the
last-mentioned time, was estimated at three hundred thou-
sand marks!.

While the power of William in England was every year
becoming more firmly established (1087), the state of things
in France was a source to him of unceasing trouble, which
claimed his constant attention, and finally led to the cause of

1 Giraldus Cambrensis, De Institutione Principis, Distinct. iii. c. 28, in
Recueil des Historiens Francais, tom. xviii.
WILLIAM THE FIRST. 209

his death. After the decease of queen Matilda, who had by
her prudence contributed to the better government of Nor-
mandy, as well as to the calming of the differences with the
neighbouring states, the turbulent nobles of Le Maine again
rose in arms against William. Among these his most dan-
gerous adversary was the viscount Hubert, son-in-law of
William, count of Nivernais. This individual, leaving his
castles of Beaumont and Frenay, fortified himself, on the
boundary of Le Maine and Anjou, in the castle of Ste Susanne,
situated on a steep rock, where, at the head of the malcon-
tents and many knights, collected from Guienne and Burgundy,
he for three yearg plundered and captured the Normans and
the inhabitants of Le Mans, and slew them, if they resisted
him with arms; until the king, at length, after fruitless sieges
and the loss of many of his most distinguished warriors,
listening to the representations of the Normans, agreed to a
reconciliation with the fortunate rebel, on terms prescribed
by himself.

William’s chief motive for this concession lay in the dissen-
sions with the king of France, which had at that time broken
out afresh. The vassals of Mantes on the Seine, Hugh, sur-
named Stavelus, Ralf Mauvoisin and others had entered the
Norman territory and committed great depredations in the
diocese of Evreux. William availed himself of this oppor-
tunity to demand the restoration of the Vexin, which, after
the death of the count Drogo of Mantes, had been re-united
to the crown of France, together with the towns of Pont
Ysére, Chaumont, and Mantes, and supported this frivolous
demand, in contravention of the feudal law and in contempt
of a possession confirmed through the course of half a century,
by the most violent threats!. ’

A joke of the French monarch reported to William served
as fuel to the anger that was burning within him. Alluding
both to William’s corpulency and to his delay in carrying his

1 Ord. Vital. p. 664 sq.
210 WILLIAM THE FIRST.

threats into effect, Philip, as we are told, observed, that the
king of England was lying-in at Rouen. On hearing this,
the latter swore by God’s splendour, that, when he went to
mass after his delivery, he would offer a hundred thousand
candles in the kingdom of France. The new flight of his
eldest son added to his exasperation, and shortly after, he
made an inroad into the Vexin, and surprised Mantes, which,
together with its churches, he reduced to ashes. While, ex-
ulting in his vengeance, he was riding over the ruins, his
horse trod on some of the burning materials, and plunging
cast its rider on the pommel. A dangerous rupture was the
consequence. William was conveyed to Rouen; but after-
wards, on account of the noise in so populous a city, he de-
sired to be removed to the church of St. Gervais in one of the
suburbs'!. The danger he was in was not concealed from
him, and he strove to overcome the fear of death by tran-
quillizing his conscience. Great donations were without delay
sent for the restoration of the ruined churches of Mantes ;
by a last testament, drawn up by notaries, he distributed
treasures to cloisters, churches, ecclesiastics, and the poor.
The unfortunate Anglo-Saxons, Morkere, Siward Barn, and
king Harold’s brother Wulfnoth, who had long’ been languish-
ing in prison, also Roger, the son of his friend, William of
Breteuil, he ordered to be.restored to liberty?. To the valiant
knight Balderic fitz Nicholas, whose estates he had confis-
cated, because he had, without permission, deserted the king’s
service for the sake of fighting against the Mohammedans in
Spain, he restored his fee and inheritance®. Last of all, and
not without much opposition, and yielding only to the con-
viction that, after his death, it would be done by others, he
also liberated his brother, bishop Odo, from confinement.
To his eldest son Robert, who was at that time sojourning

1 Rom. de Rou, vv. 14181 sqq. Bromton, col. 979.

2 According to Malmesbury (p. 430) the order was not obeyed.—T.

3 Ord. Vital. p.660. Of the feats of individual Normans in Spain, see
more at p. 44.
WILLIAM THE FIRST. 211

in the dominions of the king of France, even if he was not
in arms against his native country’, he left his paternal in‘
heritance of Normandy, with his other possessions and rights
in France. To William, his second son, he bequeathed his
realm of England. Henry, his youngest son, had only a
legacy of five thousand pounds of silver?; but, on the prince
complaining that he had received no land, his father, as we
are told, assured him that, on the death of his brothers, he
would inherit the dominions of both. Both were at the time
childless. According to Orderic, William’s revenue amounted
to no less than the incredible sum of a thousand and sixty-
one pounds, ten shillings and three half-pence sterling per
day, exclusive of royal gifts, fines, or commutations, ete. ;
‘which, as in the Conqueror’s reign the pound sterling was a
pound weight of silver, contained more than thrice as much
as a pound sterling at thisday. Therefore the king’s revenue
must have been 365 times £3185, or £1,162,525 3.”

William died early in the morning of the 9th September,
1087, while his physicians were regarding the tranquil night

1 Flor. Wigorn. a. 1087. Ord. Vital. p.659. W. Malm. p. 460.

2 Of William’s rapacity the chronicle makes repeated mention, as,
a. 1086: “According to his custom, he collected a very large sum from
his people, either justly or otherwise, if he could find any pretext.” And
a. 1087: ‘“ The king and the head men loved much and over much covet-
ousness in gold and in silver, and recked not how sinfully it was gotten,
provided it came to them. The king sold his land as dearly as he possibly
could. Then would a second come and bid more than the other had
before given, and the king let him have it who had bidden more. Then
would a third come and bid yet more, and the king would let him have it
who bade most of all.” —T.

3 See Baron Maseres’s note, p. 258, who adds: “If we suppose the
value of money at this time to have been only about 20 times as great as
it is in the present year 1787, so that an ounce of silver would have bought
only twenty times as much bread, or corn, or meat, as it will at this day
(which I take to be a very reasonable and moderate supposition, and
rather under than over the true difference of the value of money then and
now,) this revenue will have been equivalent to a revenue of 20 times
£1,162,525, or £23,250,500 a year at this day,” exclusive of that arising
from escheats, forfeitures, mulcts, wardships, &c.—T’.

PQ
212 WILLIAM THE FIRST.

he had passed as a sign of his recovery. On hearing the
sound of a bell, he inquired the occasion of it, and on being
informed that it was tolling the hour of prime, he said,
stretching forth his arms, ‘‘ Then I commend my soul to my
Lady, the mother of God, that by her holy prayers she may
reconcile me to her Son, my Lord Jesus Christ,” and imme-
diately expired. The treatment of his corpse aids us in form-
ing a striking picture of the social condition of the time, and
a still more striking and more instructive one, for all times,
of the vanity of earthly greatness. The bishops, physicians,
and others belonging to the court, on hearing of his unex-
pected death, lost all self-command: those among them who
possessed any property, instantly throwing themselves on
their horses, hastened to their habitations, for the purpose
of protecting or concealing themselves and all belonging to
them. Those of a lower grade, finding themselves relieved
from all restraint, rushed to the palace, and plundered it of
all they could find of clothing, vessels, and royal furniture.
The body of the king, the mightiest commander of his age,
when scarcely cold, was left for many hours on the floor
almost in a state of nakedness. The citizens of Rouen, ap-
prehensive of a general pillage, hurried in all directions in
the utmost confusion; of William’s sons not one was on the
spot to take charge of the government, or pay the last duties
to their parent. The eldest was still among his father’s
adversaries ; of the two younger one had already hastened to
England, to assume the government, the other was gone to
get possession of his treasure. At length, some considerate
monks assembled together to form a procession, for the pur-
pose of performing a mass, in the church of St. Gervais, for
the soul of the departed ; and the archbishop of Rouen gave
orders for the removal of the body to the abbey of St. Stephen,
that had been founded by the king. But no one appeared on
whom this duty should devolve. Of the brothers, the rela-
tives, the courtiers of the king, even of his body guard, not
WILLIAM THE FIRST. 213

one was to be seen. At last, a simple knight, dwelling in the
neighbourhood, named Herluin, for the honour of God and
the Norman name, resolved to provide for the costs of the
conveyance, hired a carriage and the requisite people, had
the body borne to the Seine, put on board a vessel, and then
accompanied it himself by land to Caen. There the clergy
of the abbey were prepared to give it an honourable recep-
tion; but the funeral service had scarcely begun, when a fire
broke out in one of the houses of the city, and both clergy
and laity hurried away to extinguish the wide-spreading
flames. Thus was this solemnity, like that of his coronation
at Westminster, attended with a conflagration, and brought
to a conclusion by a few monks. When at length the inter-
ment of the body in the abbey-church was about to take
place, many ecclesiastics of distinction had there assembled,
the stone coffin was already sunk in the earth, and the corpse
lying on the bier was ready to be placed in it, Gilbert, bishop
of Evreux, held a funeral discourse, which, after extolling the
virtues of the deceased monarch, he closed by beseeching
those present to pray for the soul of the departed, and if he
had done injury to any one among them, to grant him for-
giveness. At this moment a vavassor, named Ascelin fitz
Arthur, pressed forward and declared that the ground on
which the assembled multitude was standing had been the
property of his father, of which he had been robbed by the
king, that he solemnly demanded its restitution, and forbade,
in the name of God, the interment of the king in that place.
The justice of this charge was so incontestably proved by the
neighbours, that the prelates assembled resolved to pay im-
mediately to Ascelin sixty shillings for the burial spot, and
to guarantee him a sufficient indemnity for the land!. The

1 According to Malmesbury (p. 461), prince Henry, who was present at
the funeral, was content to pay the claimant a hundred pounds of silver.
His words are: ‘‘ Quocirca volente Henrico filio, qui solus ex liberis

aderat, centum libre argenti litigatori persolutee audacem calumniam
compescuere.”’—T,
214 WILLIAM THE FIRST.

corpse was now lifted, for the purpose of being deposited in
the vault; but another mishap was to follow. The grave,
lined with masonry, was too narrow to admit the corpse,
which, in the act of pressing it, burst and filled the bystanders
with the most insupportable exhalation of corruption: the
officiating priests could with difficulty perform their duty to
its conclusion!.

William possessed an extraordinary degree of bodily
strength. His bow, which no other could bend on foot, he
was able to draw while riding at full speed. For the savage
diversion of the chase his passion knew no bounds, and his
recklessness and barbarity in its gratification were as bound-
less. The numerous forests of Normandy and England were
insufficient for him. A. district of seventeen thousand acres,
comprising above sixty parishes, in the most thriving part of
England, lying between Winchester and the coast, he assign-
ed for the enlargement of the ancient forest of Ytene, and
the formation of the New Forest ; and the royal hunter mer-
cilessly caused churches and villages to be burnt down within
its circuit?. He also enlarged Windsor Forest®. His chase-
and forest-laws were barbarous to an extreme. If any one
slew a hart or hind, his eyes were put out. He forbade the
killing of even wild boars and hares. ‘ He loved the high
game,” said his contemporaries, “as if he were their fa-
ther +.”

What distinguishes William from all similar characters, is
the security in which he placed his acquisitions, although the
means employed by him for that end always created him new
enemies among both his nobles and the people. The severity

! Ord. Vital. pp. 660 sg. Eadmer, p. 13.

2 Flor. Wigorn. a.1099. W. Gemmet. viii. c. 9. Ellis, Introd. i. pp.
105-110, who has, however, overlooked Ord. Vital. p. 781.

3 MS. apud Ellis, Introd. p. 107.

4 Sax. Chron. a. 1087. [This year the cathedral of St. Paul, with many
monasteries and the greater and best part of London, were destroyed by
fire. Sax. Chron, Flor. Wigorn.—T.]
WILLIAM THE FIRST. 215

he exercised towards his barons and nearest connections,

must not unfrequently have caused him to appear in their -

eyes as hateful as he must ever have done to the subjugated
people.

His consort, Matilda, died a few years before him (3rd
Nov. 1083) at Caen. She had borne him four sons, Robert,
Richard, William, and Henry. Of his daughters, we know of
Cecilia, an abbess at Caen; Constance, married to Alan Fer-
gant, count of Brittany and earl of Richmond, who died child-
less ; Agatha, first betrothed to the Anglo-Saxon king Ha~-
rold, and afterwards to Alphonso king” of Gallicia, but died
before her marriage; Adela, married to Stephen count of
Blois, whose third son, named after his father, afterwards
made a conspicuous figure in the annals of England; Adeliza,
who died a nun!; and Gundrada, married to William of
Warenne, earl of Surrey?. One praise, and a rare one among

1 W. Malm. pp. 455,sqg. W. Gemmet. viii. c. 34. Ord. Vital. pp. 512,
573. [In Domesday i. fol. 49, mention occurs of a daughter of William
named Matilda—<‘ Goisfredus, filie regis camerarius, tenet de rege Heche
Meas Goisfredus vero tenet eam de rege, pro servitio quod fecit Mathildi
ejus filie.” Of a daughter thus named we find no trace in the chronicles ;
but Mr. Blaauw (Archzolog. xxxii. p. 119.) suggests, that Gundrada and
Matilda may be the Dano-Norman and Flemish names of the same indi-
vidual; an identity of which I hardly entertain a doubt, the components
of either name being synonymous with those of the other, though in
inverse order, viz. Goth. gunbs, Ohg. kund, O. Nor. gunnr, bellum ;
O. Nor. rad, vires, might ; and Goth. mahts, Ohg. maht, might; Goth.
hilds, A. S. hild, dellum. In corroboration of this supposition, I will re-
mind the reader, that the Norman Emma assumed the name of A®lfgifu,
on her marriage with Aithelred; and Eadgyth that of Matilda, on her
marriage with Henry I. Gundrada (O. Nor. masc. Gunnrasr) is in fact a
translation of Matilda.

2JIn a charter (Monast. V. p.12. Rymer, i. p. 3) William calls her his
daughter; and William of Warenne, on the occasion of founding the
priory at Lewes, names queen Matilda as her mother. A document of
the pair, from a chartulary of the abbey of Cluny, is cited in C. G. Hoff-
mann, Nova Scriptorum ac Monumentorum Collectio, tom. i. Lips. 1731.
The chroniclers ignore her, except Orderic, who calls her a sister of Gher-
bod the Fleming. See Orderic, p. 522. (Maseres, p. 254.) Documentary
216 WILLIAM THE FIRST.

the princes of his family, is due to William—that of conti-
.nence. Even the voice of slander has been unable to utter

evidence of their posterity exists in the charter of Castleacre Priory in
Norfolk. See Monast. Angl. v. pp. 49, sg. [The following notes, chiefly
from Ellis’s Introduction to Domesday, (vol. i. p. 507) will, it is hoped,
be thought of sufficient interest to justify their insertion. “ Gundreda was
really a daughter of the Conqueror. William de Warren’s second charter
of foundation, granted to Lewes priory, in the reign of Rufus, states this
fact distinctly: ‘ Volo ergo quod sciant qui sunt et qui futuri sunt, quod
ego Willielmus de Warrena, Surreie comes, donavi et confirmavi Deo et
Sancto Pancratio et monachis Cluniacensibus, quicunque in ipsa ecclesia
Sancti Pancratii Deo servient imperpetuum, donavi pro salute anime
mee et anime Gundrede uxoris mez et pro anima domini mei Willielmi
regis, qui me in Anglicam terram adduxit, et per cujus licentiam monachos
venire feci, et qui meam priorem donationem confirmavit, et pro salute
domine mez Matildis reginz, matris uxoris mez, et pro salute domini mei
Willelmi regis, filii sui, post cujus adventum in Anglicam terram hanc
cartam feci, et qui me comitem Surregie fecit.’

“ Gundreda is also acknowledged by the Conqueror himself as his
daughter, in the charter, by which he gave to the monks of St. Pancras
the manor of Walton in Norfolk, the original of which is preserved in the
Cott. MS. Vesp. F. III. fol.1. He gives it ‘ pro anima domini et ante-
cessoris mei regis Edwardi...... et pro anima Gulielmi de Warenna, et
uxoris suze Gundrede, filie mea, et heredibus suis.’ :

“Gundreda died in child-bed at Castle Acre in Norfolk, May 27th 1085,
and was interred in the chapter-house of Lewes priory. Her tomb was
found in 1775 in Isfield church in Sussex, (forming the upper slab of the
monument of Edward Shirley, cofferer to Henry VIII.) whither it was
supposed to have been taken at the dissolution of Lewes priory. It was
removed in that year to the church of Southover. It was ornamented in
the Norman taste, and the inscription was obscure and mutilated; the
names of Gundreda and St. Pancras, however, appeared upon it. See
Sir William Burrell’s Collections for the History of the Rape of Lewes in
Sussex, MS. Donat. Brit. Mus.

“William de Warren himself died June 24th 1088. The Register of
Lewes priory, MS. Cott. Vesp. A. HV. preserves the epitaph which was
formerly upon his tomb, also at Lewes.”

The following is from the Atheneum, No. 940. ‘“ On Tuesday morn-
ing, as the workmen employed by the Brighton, Lewes, and Hastings
Railway Company were removing the earth in the priory grounds at
Lewes, their progress was arrested by a stone, on the removal of which
they discovered two cists, or coffers, side by side. On the lid of one was
the word ‘ Gundreda,’ perfectly legible; and on the lid of the other,
WILLIAM THE FIRST. 217

- more than one ill-founded reproach against him!. At all
events, we know of no illegitimate offspring left by him.

‘Willus.’ On removing the lids, the remains appeared to be quite per-
fect, and the lower jaw of William, earl de Warren, in extraordinary pre-
servation. The cists in which the bodies were deposited were not more
than three feet in length, and about two feet wide, and there is no doubt
that they had been removed from some other place, and re-interred ; and,
according to tradition, the bodies of William de Warren and Gundreda
his wife were re-interred two hundred years after their decease. These
interesting and ancient relics were removed to Southover church, in which
there is a very ancient tablet to the memory of ‘Gundreda,’ and it is in-
tended to place the remains near this tablet.”

“Tt is obvious,” writes Mr. Blaauw, (Archeolog. xxxi. p. 439,) “ that
the bodies have been transferred from their original sepultures to these
cists at some period not recorded, but probably on their being found de-
cayed, when, in the progress of the buildings of the priory, the chapter-
house, in which they were buried, was completed.’ For an interesting
account of Gundrada, the reader is recommended to consult the two valu-
able papers by Mr. Blaauw, above referred to.—T.

1 Will. Malm. p. 453. [** Non desunt qui ganniant eum...... voluta~
tum cum cujusdam presbyteri filia, quam per satellitem, succiso poplite,
Matildis sustulerit, quapropter illum exheredatum, illam ad mortem freno
equi cesam.”—T. |
A

HISTORY OF ENGLAND

UNDER THE

NORMAN KINGS.

WILLIAM THE SECOND,

SURNAMED RUFUS.

CONTEMPORARY SOVEREIGNS.

GERMANY, | FRANCE, SCOTLAND. SPAIN.
Henry IV. Philip I. Malcolm III. ob. 1093. | Alphonso VI.
hs Donald Bane, dep. 1094,
Duncan ob. 1094.

Donald Bane —_—1097. wer
Edgar 1097. :
POPES.

Urban II. ob. 1099. | Paschal II.

In nothing did the complete triumph of William the Con-
queror more manifestly display itself than in the succession
to the English throne established solely in conformity with
his wish. So entirely broken was the power of the Anglo-
Saxons, that neither the claims of the royal race, represented
by Eadgar A‘theling, and not denied by the Normans them-
selves, were of any avail; nor was any regard paid to the
sons of Harold, at that time sojourning beyond sea. Neither
the right nor the semblance of an election was conceded to
the Norman and Anglo-Saxon chieftains, and even that of
primogeniture was violated. The bequest of Normandy to
the eldest son was in accordance with the feudal law of
France, to violate which the Conqueror would, at the same
time, have scrupled as little as any of the other French
princes, who entertained consideration for their suzerain only
when it suited them. The assignment of England to the
second son may have appeared illegal to the Anglo-Saxons!,
yet not so to the Normans, as we have already remarked,

' Kadmer, p. 13.
WILLIAM THE SECOND. 219

that among them the paternal inheritance in Normandy
descended to the eldest son, while the frequently greater,
though less secure, acquisitions by conquest in Apulia, Brit-
tany, and other provinces, fell to the share of the younger’.
More probable, however, than reasons founded on right, are
those deducible from William’s knowledge of the characters
and capabilities of his sons; and even if he judged too favour-
ably of his second son, and had constantly preferred him to
his elder brother, it was, at the same time, but too evident,
that Robert, weak-minded, wavering, fondly priding himself
in eloquence, valour, and other knightly accomplishments, was
unequal to the task of ruling England, and to the struggle
with its inhabitants.

The yoliiger’ son, William, who, at his father’s death, had
not attained his twenty-fifth year, had been educated and
knighted? by Lanfrane, and had distinguished himself by his
courage and bodily activity. The alacrity with which he at-
tended to every intimation of a wish on the part of his father,
combined with the qualities just mentioned, gained him the
affection of that dark and suspicious prince. On his death-
bed, William gave him a letter to the archbishop of Canter-
bury, in which he conferred on that prelate the office of
crowning his son William king of England. Even before the
prince could embark at Witsand, the intelligence of his fa-
ther’s death overtook him. To the most influential and inti-
mate friend of the Conqueror, this his last wish could be no
matter of surprise. He caused his royal pupil to promise,
that as king he would ever practise justice, equity, and mercy;
defendt he Church, and ever follow his precepts and counsel.
Whereupon, preventing all discussions about an election,
after a lapse of eighteen days only from the death of the

1 Examples: the sons of William fitz Osbern (see p. 156); of Roger of
Montgomery, whose eldest had Belesme and Alengon; the second, Hugh,
the earldom of Shrewsbury.

2 The ceremony of knighting at that time is thus described by Orderic,
p- 665: ‘ Eum lorica induit, et galeam capiti ejus imposuit, eique militiz
cingulum in nomine Domini cinxit.”—T.
220 WILLIAM THE SECOND.

Conqueror, Lanfrane consecrated and crowned him, in the
abbey-church of Westminster, as king William the Second.
The Normans settled in England, and the Anglo-Saxons, to
whom the establishment of England as a separate kingdom,
independent of the duke of Normandy, must appear in the
highest degree welcome, submitted to the anointed of the
Church, and swore to him the oath of allegiance. The young
king then proceeded to Winchester, where the well-filled trea-
sury of the Conqueror was opened, and, in compliance with
his last. wishes, for the benefit of his soul; gifts, some amount-
ing to ten marks of gold, were bestowed on every cloister and
church in England, and to every shire a hundred pounds in
gold were given for their respective poor!; a sum which must
call to mind how considerably the number of poor must have
increased since the Conquest, but, at the same time, seems to
show that a secular provision for them still continued?. Pre-
cious stones, gold and silver, were also taken from the hoard,
to be applied by Otto the goldsmith in the erection of a costly
mausoleum to the memory of the deceased 3.

William brought with him to England the captives, earl
Morkere and Wulfnoth, the brother of Harold, but who only
exchanged one prison for another, as they were committed to
close custody immediately on their arrival at Winchester ;
though it seems that Wulfnoth afterwards recovered his liberty,
as we are told he died a monk at Salisbury. Ulf, a son of
king Harold, and Duncan, son of Malcolm king of Scotland,
also received their liberty and the honour of knighthood from
duke Robert +.

While the winter was well employed by the king in esta-
blishing himself on the throne and in the minds of the people,
under the guidance of his older and more experienced coun-

1 Saxon Chron. a. 1087.

2 See England under the Anglo-Saxon kings, i. pp. 198 sq.

3 Ord. Vital. lib. viii. init. This Otto aurifaber was a tenant in chief of
lands in Essex. See Ellis, i. p. 462.

4 Flor. Wigorn. a.1087. Ord. Vital. ed. Maseres, p. 186. Engl. under the
A. S. Kings, ii. p. 267. See also p. 163.
WILLIAM THE SECOND. 221

sellors, the great vassals of Normandy, availing themselves of
the weakness of his elder brother, expelled the garrisons that
had been placed in their castles by the Conqueror, and, at the
same time, extorted new enfeoffments from his less formidable
successor. If similar attempts were made in England, they
speedily miscarried, though the Norman barons were in want
only of a leader, (who soon presented himself in the paternal
uncle of their prince, bishop Odo (1088)), to rise up with
words and deeds against the separation of the country con-
quered with their blood from the smaller hereditary state, a
separation in many respects so prejudicial to their interests.
Duke Robert allowed himself to be flattered with the prospect
of dominion over the whole of his father’s territories. With
bishop Odo, who had again received the palatinate of Kent,
were combined two other bishops, Geoffrey of Coutances and
William of Durham, together with the brother of Odo, Robert
count of Mortain and earl of Cornwall; Roger of Mont-
gomery, earl of Shrewsbury; his eldest son, Robert of Belesme,
together with two younger ones; Hugo of Grentemaisnil, earl
of Leicester, his nephew, Robert of Rhuddlan; Eustace the
younger, count of Boulogne; Osbern, son of Richard Scrope,
and others of illustrious name. For the king declared them-
selves his brother-in-law William of Warenne, Hugh earl of
Chester; Robert of Molbray, earl of Northumberland!, and
Robert fitz Hamon. But the best protection the king had
to look for was in the Anglo-Saxon population. Of this he
was fully aware, and caused his men to be summoned, parti-
cularly the Anglo-Saxons. To these he promised just and
mild laws, such as had never been known to their forefathers,
and the abolition of all unjust imposts ; even the immunities of
the chase and forest, of which they had been deprived under

1 Orderic (p. 667) names him, for whom also speaks the silence of the
Saxon Chronicle and even of Simeon of Durham; while Florence and
William of Malmesbury name him among the accomplices of Odo, which
is hardly probable, as we find him, several years after, in possession of his
extensive earldom.
222 WILLIAM THE SECOND.

his father, he restored to the inhabitants. The Anglo-Saxons,
to the number of thirty thousand, assembled under Norman
leaders, marched straightways to Rochester, where the earl-
bishop Odo had strongly fortified himself, and whence he had
plundered the possessions of his bitter enemy, archbishop
Lanfranc, as well as those of the citizens of London. The
war was, however, carried on more with words than with
swords and missiles. Roger of Montgomery who, feigning
treachery, had come to the king, was, partly by William’s
seeming submission to the old counsellors of his father, and
the promises of presents, partly by the consideration, that
those who denied the rights of the king attacked, at the
same time, the validity of all the Norman possessions in
England that were the grant of the Conqueror, seduced to
follow the banner of William!. He nevertheless, did not
prove faithful, but secretly favoured the conspirators®. On
receiving intelligence that Odo had withdrawn to the castle
of Pevensey, which was held by Robert of Mortain, the king
himself proceeded thither, of which, as also that of Tun-
bridge, he made himself master, though stoutly defended by
its owner, Gilbert fitz Richard, grandson of the count of
Brionne, Gilbert Crespin. After a long siege, impelled by
hunger, and vainly looking for the arrival of his confederates
from Normandy, many of whom had been slain by the English
on the coast or, bereft of their ships, driven back into the
waves of the ocean, Odo appeared ready to deliver Rochester
to the king. After agreeing on the conditions in the royal
camp, Odo accompanied the king’s knights into the castle,
for the avowed purpose of carrying the surrender into effect,
when count Eustace and the other conspirators, who had
adroitly availed themselves of the time spent in negotiating, in

1 W. Malm. p. 488. [“ Nec minori astutia Rogerium de Monte Gome-
rico, secum dissimulata perfidia equitantem, circumvenit. Seorsum enim
ducto magnam ingessit invidiam, dicens: Libenter se imperio cessurum,
si illi et aliis videatur quos pater tutores reliquerat.”—T. ]

2 Ord. Vital. p. 667.
WILLIAM THE SECOND. 223

gaining intelligence and procuring supplies, caused the draw-
bridge to be raised, making captives of the royal delegates
and, for the sake of appearance, of the treacherous bishop
himself. It was therefore necessary to renew the siege, and
as his adversaries had also gained possession of some other
strong places, the king issued another general summons, for
the purpose of reinforcing his army. The threat, that who-
ever remained behind should be held as a “ nithing!,” proves
that an appeal to the feelings of the Anglo-Saxons was deemed
desirable. Nor in other parts of England did the conspirators
find any support. Bishop Geoffrey saw his operations limited
to predatory incursions from Bristol to Bath and into Wilt-
shire ; his followers had been repulsed from Ilchester. At
Worcester bishop Wulfstan directed the defence of the ad-
jacent provinces, which Bernard of Neumarch, Roger of Lacy,
and Ralph of Mortimer, had attempted to lay waste. William
of Eu had ravaged the royal possessions at Berkeley, and the
plains and vineyards of Gloucestershire. Roger Bigot had
made himself master of the castle at Norwich, yet found no
adherents, but only an opportunity for predatory excursions?.
Earl Roger, finding his treachery no longer a secret, deserting
the royal camp, hastened not to any settled place of meeting,
but to his own castle at Arundel, there to await the coming
of duke Robert. But that prince, occupied with the enjoy-
ment of his new dignities and treasures, found the road in
England too rough for a triumphal procession to Westminster
abbey, and shrank from the difficulty and uncertainty of a
struggle, which bade fair to be a civil, a national, and frater-
nal contest. In the beginning of the summer, bishop Odo,
sensible that Rochester could no longer hold out, surrendered

1 Sax. Chron. a. 1088. [‘‘He (Willelm) “sende ofer eall Engla lande,
and bed pet ele man be were unniSing sceolde cuman to him”’—He
(William) sent over all England, and bade that everyman who was ‘unnithing’
should come to him.”? W. Malm. p. 489. “jubet ut compatriotas advocent
ad obsidionem venire, nisi si quivelint sub nomine ‘ni¥ing,’ quod nequam
sonat, remanere.”—T.

2 Flor. Wigorn. Sim. Dun. a. 1088.
224 WILLIAM THE SECOND.

it to the king, on the condition of a free passage to Bayeux.
It was with difficulty that William consented to spare the
lives of the garrison; but the request of Odo, that at his
departure the besiegers should abstain from every demonstra-
tion of triumph, was contemptuously refused. The moment
he appeared, the trumpets were ordered to sound: and as he
passed through the ranks, the English cried out: “Halter and
gallows.” He slunk away, muttering threats of vengeance.
This decisive step was soon followed by the termination of
the whole war. Earl Roger was not tardy in making his
peace with his sovereign, who, on his part, was sensible that
leniency towards the old vassals of his father was the wisest
policy. A powerful army was sent to Durham, which city
bishop William, likewise on condition of leaving England
under a safe escort, surrendered to the royal forces (Sept.11).
The remaining French adversaries of the king fled, leaving
their lands and castles as a reward to his adherents’.

With prince Henry, to whom his brother Robert, urged by
his necessities, had pledged or sold the Cotentin for three
thousand pounds, but who was now in England endeavouring
to make good his claims to a share of the lands that had been
possessed by his mother, but which after her death his father
had not divided among her children, the king too found means
of. compromise; the lands in question having been granted
to Robert fitz Hamon2, and, consequently, no longer at the
king’s disposal. This agreement between his two pupils, a
work dictated by the best judgment, seems to have been the
last act of archbishop Lanfranc, who died in the May following
(24 May 1089), and with him the only man who was able to
exercise a wholesome influence over the king, and to curb his
ever more and more unbridled, brutal passions. Into Lan-
frane’s place in the king’s confidence insinuated himself an

! Sax. Chron. a. 1088. Ord. Vital. pp. 667-669. Sim. Dunelm. col.215.
W. Malm. pp. 489, 490. Alur. Bev. 137.

2 Ord. Vital. pp. 665 sq. According to Ellis, Introd. i. p. 432, who,
however, cites no authority, the king gave him the Honour of Gloucester.
WILLIAM THE SECOND. 225

ecclesiastic named Ranulf Flambard!, who served him especi-
ally as a tool whereby to enrich the royal treasury out of the
possessions of the Church. Pernicious as his influence over
his master unquestionably was, yet in his instance traces of
the calumny of his contemporaries are visible, particularly of
the monkish chroniclers, whose fraternity he had so sensibly
injured. These, among other reproaches, revile him with being
of most abject birth, the son of Turstin, a low-born priest of :
Bayeux, and with having acquired the surname of Flambard
(Flambeau) in consequence of his early manifested covetous- —
ness?. Under this name, however, we find him not only repeat-
edly mentioned among both the mesne and immediate tenants
of the Conqueror, and on the road to some influence at court,
but also noticed as a proprietor in Hampshire, under king
Eadward the Confessor?. As his plan, and which is said to
have excited great hatred towards its author, is mentioned
that of causing a more accurate measurement by the line of
the hides throughout England; the Anglo-Saxon measure
being, it was alleged, too incorrect, thereby to gain for the
king either land or an increase of revenue; a proceeding
which could infringe the rights of no one. This statement,
however, may not improbably originate in a substitution for
the survey according to the Winchester Domesday of the
Conqueror of one of the many special and more accurate
surveys; for, if such a re-measurement of the whole country

1 The Sax. Chron. (a. 1128) and Flor. Wigorn. (a. 1094) call him
Passeflambard.

2 W. Malm. p. 497: “Accessit regiz menti fomes cupiditatum, Ran-
nulfus clericus, ex infimo genere hominum lingua et calliditate provectus
ad summum.” See also ejusd. de Pont. lib. iii. Ord. Vital. p. 678. Thierry,
T. ii. lib.1. “ Renouf Flambard, évéque de Lincoln, autrefois valet de pied
chez le duc de Normandie. He had merely the administration of the
church property of the vacant see of Lincoln. [It is not easy to conceive
how the sobriquet of Flambeau could be given to an individual on account
of his covetousness.—T. |

3 Domesday, i. p.51. Ord. Vital. p.678, As royal chaplain, see docum.
of a. 1088, in Monast, ii. p. 266.

Q
226 WILLIAM THE SECOND.

had taken place, we should unquestionably be in possession
of some further notices of the transaction, which must neces-
sarily invalidate the original Domesday as a legal authority’.
The office held by Flambard at the court of the youthful
king we are unable accurately to designate; that of chan-
cellor, sometimes assigned to him, we find in the hands of
another royal chaplain, Robert Bloet, and, at a later period,
of William Giffard? ; and are therefore rather disposed to
regard him as filling the very comprehensive one of chief
justiciary 3.

The history of England is at this time so intimately inter-
woven with that of Normandy, the hereditary land of the
royal house and the nobility, that it is often requisite to cast
a glance at that country, even when no immediate connection

! Ord. Vital. p. 678, a. 1089 is the only authority for this account, who,
on the other hand, instead of the real Domesday survey of the elder
William, mentions only the number of men able to bear arms, but nothing
of the more accurate subsequent measurement of the hides. Palgrave
(Origin and Progress, ii. p.449) believes in an old Lieger Book of Evesham
abbey to have discovered, in a fragment relative to Gloucestershire, a por-
tion of Flambard’s record. J have no more doubt than he has that the
era of its compilation is between 1096 and 1112, though there seems but
little ground for the opinion that it is a part of the very comprehensive
work in question. [The fragment is in MS. Cott. Vesp. B. xxiv. pp.
53-60.—T.]

2 Sax, Chron. Flor. Wigorn. a. 1093. Ord. Vital. p.783.

3 Flor. Wigorn. a. 1099: “ negotiorum totius regni exactor.”? Alured.
Beverl. p.144: “‘placitor et totius regni eractor.”” W. Malm. de Pont.
“totius regni procurator.”’ Petri Blesensis Hist. p.110: “ exactor cru-
delissimus, regis consiliarius preecipuus.” Eadmer, p.20: “quidam nomine
Ranulphus, regize voluntatis maximus executor.’ Hen. Hunt. a. 1099:
“ placitator sed perversor, exactor sed exustor totius Anglic.” Orderic,
p. 786: summus regiarum opum procurator et justitiarius. That this
Ranulf composed a work de legibus Anglie may, as long as we have no
more trustworthy testimony than the Chronicon Johannis de Séi Petri
Burgo (a.1099), be regarded as a mistake for the work of Ranulf de
Glanvile; but that he was the king’s justiciary is also evident from the
Sax. Chron. a. 1099; “be éror ealle his gemét ofer eall Engleland draf
and bewiste,” who previously had conducted and directed all his councils
over all England.
WILLIAM ‘THE SECOND. a0).

between it and England is apparent. Thus, when prince
Henry with Robert of Belesme, who had also made his peace
with king William, returned to Normandy, certain evil-dis-
posed persons deluded duke Robert with the false representa-
tion, that both had entered into an engagement with William
for his ruin, who thereupon taking council of bishop Odo,
caused the prince and his companion to be arrested, as soon as
they trod the Norman shore, and sent the latter to Bayeux and
the former to Neuilly in strict custody. The father of Robert,
however, arriving shortly after from England, for the pur-
pose of securing the several castles that belonged to his house,
the duke found himself compelled to summon the nobility of
Le Maine to his aid, with the object of reducing those castles
under his own power. Yet, although the aid was not denied
him, and the castles began gradually to fall into his hands,
the slothful prince dismissed the army and, at Roger’s solici-
tation, released his son from prison, and, on the representa-
tions of his nobles, his brother Henry also}.

The king of England did not neglect the favourable oppor-
tunity offered him by the weakness of Robert (1090), whose
vassals, Walter of St. Valery and Odo of Albemarle (Aumale),
or his son Stephen2, delivered to him their castles, in which
he stationed forces, for the purpose of reducing to subjection
the neighbouring country as well as other castles on the right
bank of the Seine. William scrupled not to enter into a
compact with a wealthy citizen of Rouen, named Conan, son
of Gilbert the Hairy, for the traitorous delivery of the city.
Conan persuaded the majority of his fellow-citizens that their
privileges and commerce would be more secure and thriving
under the more powerful prince than under one who only de-
manded taxes, without the ability to afford them protection
and free activity; that they should, therefore, admit the

1 Ord. Vital. pp. 672.673 sqq.
2 Florence (a. 1090) says the former, William of Jumiéges (vill, 3) the
latter.
Qk
228 WILLIAM THE SECOND.

forces of the king from the neighbouring town of Gournay,
and make him master of the metropolis of Normandy. The
preparations for this plan under the eyes of the duke, then
dwelling in the castle of Rouen, were not unobserved, who
thereupon lost no time in conciliating his brother Henry and
his disaffected vassals, William count of Evreux, Robert of
Belesme, William of Breteuil and Gilbert of L’Aigle. Henry
hastened to the aid of his brother, and (Nov. 3d) Gilbert like-
wise led a body of men to his relief, approaching the city on
the south side, while from another direction Reginald of
Warenne appeared at the Cauchois gate; whereupon one
portion of the citizens ran to oppose Gilbert, while another
strove to open the west gate, to admit Reginald and his force.
Some of the royal troops had already found entrance, and
were impatiently awaiting the issue of the insurrection.
While this military and civic contest was taking place, the
duke with his brother Henry sallied from the castle for the
purpose of succouring his friends; but seeing the tumult and
confusion, and unable to distinguish friend from foe, he was
persuaded to take flight and seek shelter in a suburban
village; then, crossing the Seine, he proceeded to the church
of St. Marie aux Champs, and there awaited the result of the
contest. When Gilbert, supported by Henry and the loyal
portion of the townsmen, had obtained possession of the south
gate, a fearful slaughter ensued within the city, and Conan’
was soon captured, when all resistance was at an end. Many
of the richest traders were taken by the ducal knights and
cast into the castle dungeons, until they redeemed themselves
with immense sums extorted from them in every possible
way. From one wealthy individual, William son of Ansgar,
William of Breteuil extorted three thousand pounds. On
that same day Conan was conducted to the top of the tower,
whence prince Henry showed him in derision the beautiful
fields, the fortresses, the Seine abounding in fish and covered
with shipping, the wealthy city with its castles and churches,
WILLIAM THE SECOND. 229

in short, the land he had wished to conquer. Conan, who
was well aware to what the bitter mockery tended, offered all
that he and his family possessed as an atonement. But
Henry, apprehending the dangerous lenity of his brother,
that merciless mercy!, which was the ruin of his country,
swore by the soul of his mother, that nothing should save
the traitor, and without granting the suppliant the last spi-
ritual consolation, he grasped him with both hands and pre-
cipitated him through the window into the depth below. The
corpse, bound to a horse’s tail, was afterwards dragged through
the city and the neighbouring villages?.

Although William’s intrigues with the citizens had thus
failed, it was, nevertheless, no difficult task to continue them,
to the injury of his brother, with the vassals of the latter.
Hugh of Grentemaisnil and Richard of Curci, both barons
possessed of large estates also in England, commenced
hostilities against Robert of Belesme, in whose cause the
duke took up arms. But he failed in his endeavours to
subdue these and other rebellious vassals, who had delivered
up their castles to the king. In his state of helplessness
Robert then had recourse to his superior lord, the French
king, Philip I., who at first made some preparations for be-
sieging one of the castles ; but certain purses of English gold
arriving soon after, the short-sighted monarch returned to
his sensual enjoyments, and suffered the castles of his feeble
vassal to fall into the hands of a stronger and most dangerous
adversary. In the beginning of the following year (1091)
king William in person embarked for Normandy, where he
commenced the siege of Eu, but soon, under the personal
mediation of the king of France, he concluded at Caen a

1 Ralf of Caen says of him: “ Misericordiam ejus immisericordem
sensit Normannia, dum eo consule per impunitatem rapinarum nec homini
parceret nec Deo licentia raptorum.” Radulphi Cadom. Gesta Tancredi,
ap. Muratori SS. Rerum. Ital. T. vi.

2 Ord. Vital. pp. 689, 690. W. Malm. p. 618.
230 WILLIAM THE SECOND.

highly advantageous treaty of peace with the duke, by which
he acquired the county of Eu, Fécamp, the country about
Gournay and Conches, the abbey of Mont St. Michel, and
Cherbourg. On the other hand, William engaged to conquer
Le Maine for Robert, and the towns that had revolted from
him, also to restore to the Normans banished from England
their fiefs in that country. Whichever of the two brothers
should die first without legitimate issue should be succeeded
by the other in all his states. This convention was sworn
to by twelve barons on the part of the king, and the like
number on that of duke Robert’.

By some of the above-mentioned cessions the rights of the
youngest brother were grossly prejudiced, and they were op-
posed by him accordingly; but being forsaken by the greater
number of his former adherents, on account of his poverty,
and supported only by a few Bretons, he withdrew to Mont
St. Michel, where he was besieged by his brothers, now for
the first time acting in concert. Connected with this siege
some stories are related of the two elder brothers too graphi-
eally descriptive of times and character to be passed wholly
in silence. In a skirmish the girths of the king’s saddle burst
asunder and he fell to the ground. His adversaries vigor-
ously pressed on him, but springing up he seized the saddle
and defended himself with his sword, until his faithful knights,
Normans and Anglo-Saxons, whom he had summoned to his
aid, had with great difficulty rescued him. On his return home-
ward his knights jested with him on the danger to which he
had exposed himself for his saddle. “ By the holy face of
Lucca?!” answered he, “one must be able to defend one’s

1 Sax. Chron. Flor. Wigorn. a. 1091.

? Upon this oath M. Pluquet has added the following notes (Rom.
de Rou, ii. p. 328). ‘ C’était son jurement habituel. comme celui de
Guillaume-le-Conquérant était: Par la resplendor Dé (par la splendeur de
Dieu). Le savant auteur de [Histoire des Anglo-Saxons, M. Sharon
Turner, a cru qu’il s’agissait ici de saint Luc, et a constamment traduit
cette formule, si souvent répétée dans Guillaume de Malmesbury, par ces
WILLIAM THE SECOND. 231

own! It would be shameful to lose it as long as one could
defend it. The Bretons would have bragged prettily with
my saddle!.” In another encounter there, the king, mounted
on a horse he had just purchased, rushed alone against a
multitude of enemies, when his horse, mortally wounded by
an arrow, threw him to the ground, and he was dragged by
the foot a considerable distance, yet, owing to the goodness of
his armour, sustained no injury. When the soldier who had
unhorsed him was preparing to strike, the king exclaimed:
“Stop, rascal, I am the king of England!’ The soldiers
around trembled at the well-known voice, and, respectfully
raising him from the ground, brought him another horse.
Waiting for no aid, the monarch leaped into the saddle, and
casting a sharp glance at those about him, ‘“ Which of you,”
cried he, “ struck me down?” All were silent, when a warrior
stept forward, saying: “It was I: I took you for a knight,
not for the king.” Whereupon William with a placid coun-

mots: By the face of St. Luke. Voyez Hist. of Engl. during the Middle
Ages, i. ch. v.” (A Le Prevost).

“On entend ordinairement par un Saint-Voult, une effigie représentant
la face du Christ, couronné d’épines et baignée de larmes et de sang, telle
enfin qu’elle était représentée sur le voile de sainte Véronique ou Bérénice;
mais le Saint-Voult de Lucques est un Christ revétu d’habits précieux et
couronné de pierreries. On en trouve une gravure dans le Voyage de
Misson en Italie, ii. p. 321 (E. H. Langlois).”

To the above may be added Mr. Hardy’s note to W. of Malmesbury
(p. 492) relating to the same oath.

Per vultum de Luca.] These words have been frequently mistranslated
into ‘ By St. Luke’s face !’ whereas it means ‘By the face at Lucca!’ Lord
Lyttleton says, ‘There is at Lucca in Tuscany an ancient figure of Christ,
brought there miraculously, as they pretend. They call it “Il santo volto
di Lucca:” it is stamped on their coins with this legend, ‘Sanctus vultus
de Luca.”?? In an Italian book, called ‘Il Forestiere informato delle cose
di Lucca,’ this legend is given in great detail. ‘The author states that it
was the work of Nicodemus of the Gospel. See further on this subject
in the Rev. J. K. Tyler’s interesting volume entitled ‘ Oaths, their Origin,
Nature, and History ;’ London, 8vo. pp. 289-296.—T.

1 Rom. de Rou, vv. 14670, sqq.
232 WILLIAM THE SECOND.

tenance exclaimed: “ By the holy face of Lucca! thou shalt
henceforth be mine, and, entered on my roll, shalt receive the
recompense of praiseworthy bravery!.”

Of duke Robert's goodness of heart there is only one though
striking instance recorded. The besieged suffered from want
of water, and on Henry’s representation, that the element
which was common to all ought not to be denied them, and
that a contest should not so be decided, but by the arm of
the most valiant, Robert commanded his soldiers to be less
strict, that his brother might not suffer from want of water.
When this was reported to the king, he reproached his soft-
hearted brother, saying: ‘Truly a fitting one art thou to
conduct a war, who allowest thy enemies an abundance of
water. How are we to overcome them, if we indulge them
with victuals and drink ?’ But he gently answered: ‘‘ What!
shall we allow our brother to die of thirst? and where shall
we find another, if we lose him??” But William was made of
sterner stuff, and not to be attuned to such soft, measures.
He, therefore, took care that the besieged should obtain no
further supply of water, and prince Henry found himself
compelled to surrrender the fortress together with his other
possessions, on condition of a free departure. He fled to
Brittany, there to return thanks to his generous friend, the
count, and thence to France, where he found no aid. For
two years the future powerful monarch of England lived in
the Vexin, attended only by one knight, a priest, and three
esquires, and, in this school of privation, learnt the first of
kingly virtues, self-command, as well as the true wants of
men, and to know their hearts far better than in the sensual
habitations and riotous banquetings of his brothers. Some
time after, the inhabitants of Domfront placed themselves

1 W. Malm. p. 491. [Wace gives a verson of the occurrence totally
different from the above as related by Malmesbury. See Rom. de Rou, vy.
14670, sqq.—T.]

2 W. Malm, p. 492. Rom. de Rou, vv. 14672, sqq.
WILLIAM THE SECOND. 233

under his government, on condition that he would not change
their laws and customs, and that he would never surrender
his claims to Domfront to any one}.

For his liberty Henry was less indebted to the good will
of his royal brother than to an inroad of the Scots, whose
king, Malcolm Canmore, had entered the country as early as
May. It was probably in his anger at this hostility that
William caused Eadgar A{theling, Malcolm’s brother-in-law,
to be deprived of his fiefs in Normandy, that had been granted
him by Robert, and driven from the duchy. In August
William returned to England and proceeded northwards, with
the intention of punishing the Scots. At Durham, in con-
sequence of negotiations at Caen, he re-established the ex-
pelled bishop William. But he had not yet crossed the
border, when intelligence reached him, just before Michael-
mas, that in the first of those storms, for which that year
was distinguished, nearly his whole fleet had perished. Many
also of his cavalry had died of hunger in those desert regions,
that had so recently been harried by the Scots, and not a few,
probably French, had fallen victims to the intense cold.
When, therefore, Malcolm came to meet him in the county
of Lothian with an army of Gaels better provided than his
own, inured to the northern air and soil, William was not
sorry to find a mediator in his brother Robert. For the
lands held by him in England Malcolm engaged to render
homage to William, as he had before rendered it to his
father; while William, on the other hand, promised to re-
store to him the twelve manors in England which he had
held under his father, and to give him twelve marks of gold
annually ?.

' Ord. Vital. pp. 696, 698. Rom. de Rou, 14708, sqq.

2 Flor. Wigorn, a.1091. The details concerning these manors (ville)
and the payment in gold are unfortunately wanting. As there is no men-
tion of these vills in Domesday, we ought not probably with Lingard

(ii. 2) to regard them as habitations for the kings of Scotland, while on
their way to their superior lord, as granted by king Eadgar to Kenneth of
234 WILLIAM THE SECOND.

While on this expedition, the king could not fail to observe
how cruelly the northern parts of his realm had suffered
through the previous devastations, and that even as a defence
against enemies a prosperous population is better than barren
heaths and deserts. He proceeded with a strong force to
Carlisle, and having expelled the nominal under-tenant pro-
bably of the king of Scotland, Dolfin, a son perhaps of Gos-
patric, the former earl of Northumberland}, whose Anglo-
Saxon lineage but ill fitted him for the wardenship of the
marches, he restored that city, which had been laid in ruins
by the Danes two hundred years before, built a castle there,
and divided the wasted lands among a large number of
peasants who had been sent thither with their wives and
cattle, consisting probably, for the greater part, of those who,

Scotland. Matthew of Westminster (a. 975), on whose words alone the
supposition is founded, speaks merely of certain “mansiones in itinere,”
which were possessed by the kings of Scotland to the time of Henry II.
[With regard to this very obscure point, I confess [am by no means
adverse to the opinion of Lingard, which appears at least countenanced by
the words of Matthew of Westminster, that seem worth quoting: “ Eo-
dem quoque tempore, A5lfsius episcopus, et comes Eadulfus Kinedum,
regem Scotorum, ad regem Eadgarum conduxerunt. Quem cum per-
duxissent ad regem, multa donaria a regia largitate suscepit, inter que
contulit ei centum uncias auri purissimi, cum multis sericis ornamentis et
annulis, cum lapidibus preeciosis. Dedit praeterea eidem regi terram totam,
quee Laudian (Lothian) patria lingua nuncupatur, hac conditione, ut annis
singulis, in festivitatibus prcipuis, quando rex et ejus successores dia-
dema portarent, venirent ad curiam, et cum ceteris regni principibus
festum cum leetitia celebrarent. Dedit insuper ei rex mansiones in itinere
plurimas, ut ipse et ejus successores ad festum venientes, ac denuo rever-
tentes, hospitari valuissent, quee usque in tempora regis Henrici Secundi
in potestate regum Scotiz remanserunt.”—T. ]

1 See page 150. <A son of earl Gospatric, the father, or of the brother of
Dolfin of the same name, Waltheof,.and also his son, Alan, are frequently
mentioned in documents relating to Cumberland and York. See Monast.
ili. pp. 583 sq. vi. p. 144.

2 Sax. Chron. Sim. Dunelm. a.1092. We must here call attention to
the apparently erroneous statement of Matthew of Westminster, a. 1072,
as Palgrave, i. p.449 receives it as true, viz. that the Conqueror (a. 1072)
had created an earl of Cumberland in the person of Ranulf of Meschines.
WILLIAM THE SECOND. 235

in consequence of the destruction of the villages around
Winchester, were made houseless. Whether William intrusted
this castle to the keeping of Ranulf of Meschines, whom, ac-
cording to spurious traditions, the Conqueror is said to have
already placed at Carlisle, or whether this appointment only
took place under his successor, must remain undecided. It
is, however, of importance here to notice, that William Rufus,
and not his father, first made Cumberland a complete pro-
vince of Norman England.

In this Normanizing, as it were, of Cumberland the English
king had left unheeded the rights and claims which the Scot-
tish monarchs had till then possessed over that county. For
the adjustment of the complaints preferred by Malcolm, that
prince accepted the invitation of William, after the delivery
of hostages, and accompanied by Eadgar Aitheling, to attend
the court at Gloucester. He arrived there on the 8th of
August, but William refused to see his royal vassal until,
according to the judgment of the Norman barons, he would
consent to “do him right.” This Malcolm refused to do,
contending, that by ancient custom he was not bound to “do
right” to the king of England, except on the frontiers of the
two kingdoms, and by judgment of the nobility of both’.
Without having been admitted to the presence of William,
But if we remark that Matthew represents Ranulf as earl of Carlisle,
which city the Conqueror then ordered to be fortified, and that, having
deprived Ranulf of Carlisle, he gave him the earldom of Chester (which is
known to have been held by Hugh of Avranches), it seems highly pro-
hable that the above-mentioned chronicler has confounded the seizure
of the fortress of Carlisle by William Rufus, and its fortifying under
Henry I. in 1122, and the appointment of the viscount of Bayeux, Ranulf,
as earl of Chester in 1122, with the events of 1072, in consequence pos-
sibly of one of those frequent clerical errors of C for L (MLXXII for
MCXXII). [This year (1092) a considerable part of London was
destroyed by fire. Flor. Wigorn.—T.]

' Sax. Chron. Flor. Wigorn. a.1093. The precise meaning of the ex-
pression “rectitudinem facere” seems far from certain. Lingard under-

stands by it “to answer for any alleged failure in the performance of feudal
services.” Allen (Vindication, p. 48) leaves it unexplained.—T.

Retype
236 WILLIAM THE SECOND.

Malcolm in indignation left the English court, collected a
large army in his own kingdom, and burst into England.
Searcely, however, had he advanced as far as Alnwick when,
in an ambuscade laid for him by Robert of Moubray, earl of
Northumberland, he was treacherously slain by a pretended
deserter, who feigned to deliver to him the keys of that
castle (13th Nov. 1093). With him also perished, in the
confusion which ensued, his eldest son, Edward!. The death
of both these princes by treachery was lamented and blamed
even by their adversaries. The name of Morel of Bam-
borough, the nephew and steward of earl Robert, and by
spiritual ties connected with Malcolm, is preserved as that
of the perpetrator. The good queen Margaret, the Anglo-
Saxon, Malcolm’s consort, died shortly after of grief, and his
brother, Dufenald (Donald Bane) expelled all the English
employed in the court from his kingdom. Duncan, an illegi-
timate son of Malcolm, who was at that time residing as a
hostage at the English court, having been knighted by Wil-
liam and sworn to him the fealty required, was by that prince
enabled to proceed to Scotland with a considerable body of
Anglo-Saxons and French®, and succeeded in expelling his
uncle from that kingdom, which William might now flatter
himself with having reduced to the condition of a Norman pro-
vince. But those short-sighted supporters of the young king,
the foreign knights who had accompanied him, excited so
much discontent among the people, that they were nearly all
slain by them, and Duncan himself was permitted to remain
on the throne only under the promise that he would bring no
more Anglo-Saxons nor Normans into the kingdom. But
Dunean could not wholly detach himself from the Norman
court, and’in the following year was slain by the Scots, and
Donald replaced on the throne?. A few years after, William,
availing himself of a favourable juncture, sent Eadgar A&thel-

1 Sax. Chron. Flor, Wigorn. a.1093. Forduni Scoti-Chron. v. 20.
? Sim. Dunelm. a. 1093. 3 Thid. a. 1094.
WILLIAM THE SECOND. 237

ing with an army into Scotland, who having expelled Donald,
who was subsequently captured and died of grief in prison,
caused Eadgar, a third son of Malcolm, to be crowned king
in vassalage to the English monarch’.

After these advances in the northern parts of his kingdom,
the wish must naturally be excited in the mind of William to
reduce the Welsh also completely under the yoke of his do-
mination. No disquietude in the interior of the realm, no
war on the other frontier ever took place of which the Welsh
did not avail themselves for the purpose of assailing the Nor-
mans. During Odo’s rebellion, Robert of Rhuddlan had been
recalled to his march, in consequence of the inroads of the
North Welsh into the earldom of Chester, under their king
Griffith ap Conan. Too great precipitation, however, led
the ardent warrior unarmed into the proximity of his foes, by
whose missiles he perished?. Through his death the Welsh
enjoyed some repose on their border, though internal dissen-
sions soon arose. Llewelyn and Eineon from Dyfed had ex-
cited Jestyn ap Gurgant, lord of Morgannwg, to rise in arms
against Rhys ap Tewdor, king of South Wales, and invited
Robert fitz Hamon and twelve other Norman knights, by
tempting promises, to their aid. King Rhys fell, by the
treachery of his people, in a battle near Brecknock, and in
him perished the last king of South Wales of the ancient
royal stock®. A considerable portion of the country then
fell into the hands of Norman barons, though the old princely
families were neither extirpated nor expelled, and were in
general much more gently treated than the Anglo-Saxons of
rank. The Normans left them, both then and afterwards,
always a part of their old honours and revenues, as they were
indispensable to them as mediators with a people of foreign
tongue. Hence they strove gradually, by marriages of Nor-

1 Sim. Dunelm. a. 1097. Ethelred. col. 344.
2 Ord. Vital. pp. 670, sq.
3 Flor. Wigorn. a. 1093. Giraldi Cambrens. Itin. lib. i. c. 12.
238 WILLIAM THE SECOND.

? mans with Welsh heiresses, and other successive acquisitions,
to bring every possession into the hands of the Norman ari-
stocracy. Robert fitz Hamon retained the lordship of Gla-
morgan, and of the eighteen castles, thirty-six knight’s fees,
and other smaller lordships belonging to the greater one, dis-
tributed some among his companions in arms!. The lordship
of Brecknock was conquered by Bernard of Neumarch, who,
by his marriage with Nesta, of an ancient Welsh princely
house, gained the good will of his new dependents. But his
son, Mahael, did not succeed to his father’s fief, his mother,
through hatred, having denounced him to the king as unlaw-
fully born?. Henry of Newburgh, son of Robert of Beau-
mont, conquered the district of Gower. These acquisitions
were not, however, cheaply bought; for, after the death of
Rhys, the Welsh formed a combination against their false
friends, demolished the castles that had been erected in West
Wales, and made repeated destructive inroads into the coun-
ties of Chester, Hereford, and Salop. Even in Anglesey
they succeeded in wresting from the Normans the castle and
the power over the isle. And although Hugh of Montgomery,
earl of Shrewsbury, was able to annihilate some bands of
Welsh, others still remained protected by the nature of the
country, as well as by their skill in availing themselves of it;
and king William, in the year 1095, believed it incumbent on
him personally to undertake a campaign against the Welsh?.

Here again it was made manifest that against mountaineers
it is seldom productive of glory to contend with a large force.
After a great loss both of men and horses, the king made a
speedy retreat. The Welsh, emboldened by this success as
well as by the dissensions then prevailing among the Norman
nobility, assaulted the castle of Montgomery and put Hugh’s

1 For their names and acquisitions see the essay of Gryffith ap Conan
prefixed to Powell’s History of Wales.

2 Ord. Vital. p. 606. Giraldi Cambrens. Itin. lib. i. c. 2.

3 Sax. Chron. Flor. Wigorn. a. 1094.
WILLIAM 'THE SECOND, 239

garrison to the sword. This outrage embittered the king yet
more, who, highly incensed, again marched against the Welsh
after the Michaelmas festival, but only in the same year to
be twice scorned and beaten by a little band of despised an-
cient Britons!. The incursions which the barons incessantly
made on the border, though less discreditable, were unat-
tended by any lasting results, and cost much blood and trea-
sure. Cadogan, son of Blethyn, and nearly related to king
Griffith, had brought the Welsh to a state of unity, which to
a defensive warfare is indispensable, and, consequently, in the
year 1097, they again succeeded, after a campaign of more
than four months, in repelling king William Rufus. Instead,
therefore, as he had promised, of massacreing every man in
Wales, he discovered that the reduction of the country must
be left solely to the guerilla warfare of the border barons,
and accordingly sought to stimulate the noblest and bravest
of his vassals, to the conquest of that country by the grant
of districts on the border. Roger of Montgomery, conse-
quently, did homage for Powys, where he had won the castle,
afterwards from his family name, called Baldwin, so also for
Cardigan; and his son, Arnulf, for Dyfed, where some years
after he built the castle of Pembroke, at first of trunks of
trees and earth-works?; so Hugh of Lacy for the small dis-
trict of Ewias; Eustace of St. Omer’s and Ralph of Mortimer,
(who, besides other rich possessions, had the castle of Wig-
more; together with other knights of illustrious name) for
other districts, which they were partly to defend partly to
conquer®. Earl Hugh, after several years of exertion (a. 1098),
recovered Anglesey, and exercised on his prisoners a more
cruel vengeance than was usual even in those times; after the

1 Sax. Chron. Flor. Wigorn. a.1095. The latter, as also Simeon of
Durham, mention two campaigns by the king against the Welsh in 1095,
the Saxon Chronicle one only.

2 Giraldi Cambrens. Itin. lib. i. c. 12.

3 Powell, p.117, who in this section errs in the chronology only.
240 WILLIAM THE SECOND.

amputation of their hands and feet, they were emasculated
and blinded.

But now, unforeseen, like the lightning’s flash, there sud-
denly rose up to the Welsh a helper and avenger, yet also,
like the lightning, without further influence on the course of
events. King Magnus III. of Norway, surnamed Barfod,
was in several ways connected with the British islands. He
had married a noble Anglo-Saxon lady, a captive, by whom
he had the future king Sigurd, surnamed Jorsalafar, so famed.
for his exploits against the infidels in Palestine and else-
where!. Magnus had given a hospitable reception to many
fugitive Anglo-Saxons; the Orkneys, the Hebrides, the Isle
of Man were subject to him. His marriage with the daughter
of an Irish king had been a source of dissension, which the
restless Norwegian had resolved on settling with the sword
in Dublin itself. On his way thither the crews of some of his
ships landed at Anglesey, where their appearance caused the
greatest consternation among the Normans there, although the
red shield suspended on the mast ought to have convinced them
of the friendly disposition of the strangers. The intelligence
also that Harold, the son of the last Anglo-Saxon king, was
in the Norwegian fleet?, caused them to be regarded as more
than ordinary pirates. The Norman earls speedily collected
their people, and, while both parties were mistrustfully re-
garding each other, it happened that Hugh of Montgomery,
for the purpose of checking some of his cavalry, who had
advanced too far, rode to the summit of a rock on the sea,
and in the proximity of the Norwegians; when Magnus, in

1 The nickname of Barfod or Barbeen (Barefoot, Bareleg) was given to
Magnus in consequence of his having adopted the costume of the Scottish
Highlanders. The mother of king Sigurd Jorsalafar was named Thora, and
therefore not likely to have been an Anglo-Saxon. See their Sagas in
Snorri. The narrative given in the text is from Orderic, p. 767, and
differs in many other points from Snorri’s.—T.

2 W. Malm. p. 506, [who considers Magnus to have intended an in-
vasion of England.—T.]
WILLIAM THE SECOND. 241

a viking’s wanton mood, aimed an arrow at the steel-cased
knight, and struck him in the right eye’. He sank down
and fell into the sea. The Norwegian insulted the fallen. “Let

»

him run,” cried he; yet was shocked on learning whom his
arrow had struck, it not having been his desire to slay a
friend of the English king. He therefore instantly gave as-
surances to Hugh the Fat, earl of Chester, of peace and pro-
tection. This event, however, was of no small importance
with reference to its influence on the people there, and was,
moreover, the last collision with the Northmen. The Britons
long maintained themselves in Mona against the Normans?
Hugh of Montgomery’s earldom was bought of the king, for
the large sum of three thousand pounds, by his elder brother,
Robert of Belesme, whose unheard-of cruelty, avarice, and
pride not only sorely afflicted the Anglo-Saxons and Welsh,
but rendered him an object of detestation to the Normans
themselves. Wales was now more and more hemmed in by

Norman castles, which the Conqueror had begun to erect of .

large hewn stones and after a uniform model. Of forty-nine
castles mentioned in Domesday, nearly a sixth part lay in
Herefordshire, viz. Wigmore, Monmouth (which afterwards
gave name to the county taken from the Welsh), Clifford,
Caerleon (Monmouthsh.), Ewias, ete. In Shropshire also
may be noticed a similar strong permanent encampment
against the Welsh, in the castles of Shrewsbury, Luvre, Stan-
ton, and that erected by earl Roger, and named after his
paternal dwelling, Montgomery, whose walls harboured a
valiant garrison, which gradually took from the Welsh the

1! According to Snorri, both Magnus and a Norwegian standing by him
aimed at Hugh; the latter struck the nasal of his helmet and forced it on
one side.

2 Sax. Chron. Flor. Wigorn. a. 1098. Ord. Vital. pp. 767 sq. Chron.
Mannie, h.a. Giraldi Cambrens. Itin. lib. ii. c.7. ‘Theodor. Monach. de
Reg. Norveg. c.31. This last mentioned errs, however, in placing the
occurrence in Cornwall, as well as in mistaking Hugh the Fat for the earl
shét by Magnus. Comp. also Th. Torfeei Hist. Norveg. vii. 4.

R

\
‘

d
242 WILLIAM THE SECOND.

country that subsequently formed the district known thence-
forward as Montgomeryshire.

The military reign of William Rufus was also fated to
be the starting-point, as it were, of the ecclesiastical quarrels,
which were destined long to influence the fortunes of Eng-
land. The dissensions on the subject of the investiture of
bishops and abbots, provoked by Gregory VII., and carried
on with the German emperor, Henry IV., to the great scandal
of Christianity, were in England, under the mighty Conqueror
and the prudent pope, through the mediation of the expert
Lanfrane, productive of no rupture. Distance from Rome,
the complete separation, through its insular position, from
the temporal interests of Italy, and the heterogeneous culture
more Germanic than Roman, gave a character to the contest
between the crown and the church of England widely different
from that which it assumed on the Continent. It began
later, but was, by some English ecclesiastics, maintained
with perhaps greater zeal than even in Rome itself. Royalty
in England hardly ever appeared to greater disadvantage
than in this warfare, while the belligerent prelates not unfre-
quently contended with the abnegation of all earthly, selfish
interests and with exalted constancy. The dissensions be-
tween pope Gregory VII. and the emperor Henry IV., as
well as the election caused in 1080 by the latter of the anti-
pope Guibert, under the name of Clement III., appear to have
been unheeded in England, and to have had no influence on
the relations subsisting between that pontiff and the Con-
queror. Even in the last year of his life, we find Gregory in
friendly coanection with William. That after the death of
Gregory (a. 1085) a change in the king’s sentiments took
place in favour of Guibert, is improbable. Of the short reign
of Victor III. all accounts of interest are wanting; but of
Urban IT. (1088-1099) we know that he was acknowledged
by Normandy; while, on the other hand, Guibert was perse-
euted by the Italians. During the life of Lanfranc, it is
WILLIAM THE SECOND. 243

highly probable that Urban II. was at least tacitly acknow-
ledged in England. But with the contempt in which the
clergy were held by William Rufus, as well as with his ava-
rice, it was in perfect keeping to take advantage of the divi-
sion in the Church, for the sake of acknowledging neither of
the popes, and, under pretext of that dissension, to plunder
it without restraint. The filling of the vacant bishoprics and
abbacies had been long delayed, and the large produce of
their revenues paid to the royal treasury. The king fre-
quently expressed his indignation, that the crown had lost
half its revenues through the Church, and we know of but
two religious establishments founded anew by him, viz. St.
Mary’s abbey at York, and a convent of nuns at Arma-
thwaite!, both in the first year of his reign, while he was en-
deavouring to conciliate friends. Even the primacy of Eng-
land, after the death of Lanfranc, was not filled up, and the
revenues of his well-endowed see, which had been expended
by him in the erection of some of the most considerable
monuments of middle-age architecture, the cathedral church
of Canterbury, the abbey of St. Alban’s, and many hospitals,
were now destined to supply the deficiencies caused by a most
deplorable administration, unnecessary wars, and a dissolute
court. Four years had passed, during which the spiritual
government of England became more and more lax; no pope
was acknowledged ; on the contrary, it was maintained, that
it was a privilege of the king of England, over that of all
other kings, to acknowledge the pope or not, according as it
might seem good to him?. No correspondence with the
Roman court was permitted, no vacant ecclesiastical benefice
of value filled, when the king, in the beginning of the year
1093, was seized at Gloucester with a malady that every one
considered mortal. The resolve was now wrung from him to
supply the vacancies in the Church. For the see of Lincoln,
however, no better choice was made than of his friend and

} Monast. Angl. ° Eadmer, p. 29.
R2
244 WILLIAM THE SECOND.

chancellor, Robert Bloet. For the archbishopric the selec-
tion was less easy.

A man for his profound learning honoured by the clergy,
through his humility and exemption from all pretension not
unwelcome to the higher classes, through a long sojourn
among them enjoying the confidence of the Normans—such
a man, in short, as there seemed to be in Anselm, the cele-
brated abbot of Bec, appeared to William a most fitting sub-
ject for filling the vacant dignity. But he little knew the
character of the Piedmontese—Anselm was a native of Aosta,
—and still less the power which spiritual superiority, even
when obscured by an over-valued dialectic and display of
book-learning, can exercise over contemporaries. Anselm,
born in 1033, was the son of Gundulfo, a Lombard of con-
sideration, (who, having squandered all his wealth, became a
monk,) and of Ermenburg, who trained up her beloved son to
piety and study’. After his mother’s death the youth was
inspired with a craving after secular things, which when his
father sternly strove to suppress, he forsook both father and
country. He first travelled to Avranches, where Lanfrane
had formerly taught, and shortly after proceeded to that dis-
tinguished man himself, at that time prior of the abbey of
Bec. Fascinating in an extraordinary degree must have been
the talents and character of the individual, who in a land,
which at that period, like no other in all Europe, resounded
with the clash of arms and warlike deeds, where to every
knightly sword its conquest seemed promised, where even the
dignitaries of the Church gave an example of a secular and

1 See the work *‘ De Vita S. Anselmi libri duo,”? by Eadmer, a monk
of Canterbury, who has also given his political life in his Historia Novo-
rum. Both are printed at the end of Gerberon’s edition of Anselm’s
works (Paris 1675, 2nd edit. 1721. folio), the last-mentioned work was
also published at London in 1624, with illustrations by John Selden. The
Vita S. Anselmi by John of Salisbury, as well as what is related of Anselm
by William of Malmesbury and others, is composed almost wholly of
literal extracts from Eadmer’s writings.
WILLIAM THE SECOND. 245

military life, which could confer no honour on the laical order
and brought disgrace on their own—who, under such circum-
stances, was able, in those days and in that land, to create an
unrivalled seat of science and piety. The young and ener-
' getic Anselm among others was smitten with the brilliancy
and depth of Lanfrane and his doctrines: in his twenty-
seventh year he renounced the world, entered the Benedictine
order, and became a member of the community at Bec, of
which he was elected prior after Lanfranc’s removal to Caen,
and abbot after the death of Herluin in 1078.

Not less distinguished by solid mental endowments, the
scientific cultivation of which has entitled him to a high rank
among the profoundest doctors of the scholastic philosophy,
than by ardour and kindness of disposition, Anselm enjoyed,
in a remarkable degree; the esteem and veneration of the
most eminent of the laity and the clergy. His counsel was
repeatedly sought on the occasion of erecting monasteries and
the restoration of discipline in them. The great, whether
French, Norman, or English, even the haughty, reserved
Conqueror himself evinced towards him the most flattering
courtesy. So also the sick, prostrate earl of Chester, Hugh,
the Fat, when engaged in the transformation of the nae
nastery in that city, formerly founded by king Eadgar to the \
honour of St. Werburg, into a Benedictine abbey, invited him
to come over to England, to which country he was no stranger,
having visited it on former occasions, and to bring with him
some monks from Bee, to abide in his new foundation. But
the real object of the earl and of other Normans of rank was,
through Anselm to put a stop to the system of Church plunder
carried on by the king, and obtain his nomination to the pri-
macy that had been for four years vacant. For a long time
Anselm refused to come over; for he suspected the latter
object, and sincerely wished to avoid its fulfilment. Anselm
we believe, in this instance, to have been thoroughly sincere,
as well as in his subsequent refusals to accept the arch-
246 WILLIAM THE SECOND.

bishopric. However erroneous the views of the Romish
court, which he defended, may appear to us, he, no doubt,
believed in their soundness, and defended them without
thrusting himself forward in their defence, or from motives of
self-interest. Anselm was one of those heroes of love and
humility which Christianity has produced in every age, and
which only the narrow views of a time sunk in selfishness, or
occupied in contemptible speculations, can mistake. How
greatly the weight of years—he was already a sexagenarian—-
and a just estimation of the great difficulties which the cha-
racter of the king and court opposed to all his better ex-
ertions, how far a habit of three and thirty years of successful
labour in his sacred avocation and in scientific pursuits may
have operated on him—for the ascertaining of all this
more exact details are required; but how he knew and esti-
mated all the difficulties of his later position, may be under-
stood from the presence of mind and firmness with which he
encountered and defied them. If we must expose the weak
point in the conduct of Anselm, it does not appear to us to
lie in an ostentatious humility before the acceptance of his
high dignity, but in his acceptance of it contrary to his own
higher views, founded on a not altogether sincere submission
to the wishes of his many friends and reverers.

It was only after a resolution of the monks of Bec, charging
him with the management of their conventual affairs at the
royal court, that Anselm was induced to cross over to Eng-
land'. The king received him with distinction; but the

1 On the 7th Sept. 1092 he was at Canterbury. The chronology, and
therefore the whole course of events, is to be ascertained only by careful
comparison of the Vita S. Anselmi with the Historia Novorum, the former
having been written by Eadmer as a supplement to the latter. Alford
therefore (Annales Eccles. Anglic. iv. p.114) errs in referring Anselm’s
letter (Epist. i. ii. c. 18.) wherein he speaks of his arrival in England in
the middle of Lent to the journey above mentioned. Eadmer previously
speaks of his earlier journeys in the time of Lanfranc: “ Anglia, prout
diversitas causarum ferebat, ab eo frequentata.”’
WILLIAM THE SECOND. 247

abbot availed himself of an opportunity of seeing him alone
to represent to him the many loudly expressed reproaches of
his subjects against him}. Their parting seems not to have
been friendly, as the affairs of the abbey of Bec were not
discussed. Anselm hastened to Chester, where he found earl
Hugh already recovered, and passed the following winter in
the erection of the new convent. At the court held at Christ-
mas, the nobles of the realm took into consideration the
destitute condition of the Church, and unanimously adopted
the extraordinary resolution, humbly to beseech the king to
permit prayers to be addressed to God in the churches of
England, that He would fill the king with his grace, so that
after the appointment of a worthy shepherd, the Church
might rise from her depressed state. William listened to
this petition with displeasure, yet granted it. Anselm, in
spite of his reluctance to encroach on the office of some one
of the bishops, was compelled, at the entreaty of the English
prelates, to draw up a form of supplication, which, after the
dissolution of the court, was read in all the churches of the
realm. But all this was, on the part of William, only a pro-
fane mockery both of that which is most sacred and of his
people. When one of his nobles praised the abbot Anselm,
as a man loving God alone, and desirous of nothing transitory,
he answered sarcastically : “‘ Nothing, except only the arch-
bishopric of Canterbury. He will come running to me re-
joicing with hands and feet, and clasp me round the neck,
if I give him the faintest hope of it. But, by the holy face of
Lucca, neither he nor any other shall be archbishop besides
myself.” Shortly after this utterance, the king, who daily
abandoned himself more and more to the grossest passions,
was seized with a malady which inspired him with thoughts
of death and indescribable mental anguish. He now promised
sincere amendment and penitence, but above all, clemency

1 Vita S. Anselmi, lib. ii.
248 WILLIAM THE SECOND.

* and justice. His bishops, as his sureties, were compelled to
' make this vow for him before the high altar at Gloucester.
A proclamation sealed with the royal seal announced that
“captives should be freed, debts forgiven, all offences against
his person pardoned and for ever forgotten. Good, holy laws,
such as were in the golden days of king Eadward, were anew
promised to the people; offenders and oppressors of the
inferior people should, without consideration of nation or
rank, be punished with inflexible severity.” How the well-
meaning people rejoiced at the unexpected conversion, exulted
in the joyous future, and thronged to the churches, to pray
for the recovery of the excellent father of his country! The
king was moreover induced to give a shepherd again to the
bereft Church, and, contrary to the expectation of every one,
he named Anselm, a choice that was confirmed by universal
approbation. At this intelligence Anselm turned pale; he
represented to the importunate bishops how unfitting, it would
be for the abbot of a state, where he was bound by allegiance
to its prince, to accept such a dignity in a foreign country ;
that he, an old man of sixty, who, after he had entered a
cloister, had shunned all worldly concerns, and felt a true joy
in that vocation, was in the highest degree unqualified for an
office in which he knew not how to be useful. Even the
king’s entreaties failed to prevail on him. When, at William's
command, all present knelt before Anselm, he himself fell on
his knees before them, and prayed them to spare him that
cup, declaring, at the same time, that he would rather die
than yield to their prayer. When conducted to the king’s
bedside, he refused to receive the episcopal staff, and when
the bishops endeavoured to force him to take it, he held his
hand so clenched that they could only place it near him. He
was dragged into the cathedral, where, notwithstanding his
refusal to both king and clergy, thanks were given to the
Most High for the election that had taken place. With a
clearness and self-denial, which can proceed only from true
WILLIAM THE SECOND. 249

humility, he continued to represent to his friends his view of
their desire: “Consider, ye imprudent men,” said he, “what
it is ye are striving for. England’s plough is drawn by two
supereminent oxen, the king and the archbishop of Canter-
bury, the one by secular justice and authority, the other by
divine doctrine and instruction. Of these oxen one is dead,
and the other, fierce as a savage bull is yoked young to the
plough ; and in place of the dead ox, ye would yoke me, an
old feeble sheep, with the wild bull. I tell you that, if ye
desist not from your purpose, I, from whom some might have
wool, and the milk of God’s word, and lambs, shall sink under
royal ferocity, and your joy shall be turned to sorrow.” The
king now commanded everything that had been possessed
by Lanfranc, namely, the city of Canterbury and the abbey
of St. Alban’s, to be transferred to Anselm, and immediately
caused application to be made to duke Robert, the archbishop
of Rouen, and the monks of Bee, for Anselm’s discharge. When,
after a long delay, Anselm’s release from his Norman connection
arrived in England, the king was recovered and had relapsed into
all his oldvices. The given promises were unfulfilled, the released
prisoners again confined, the remitted debts again exacted,
the courts served only for oppression and greedy extortion.
When Gundulf, bishop of Rochester, exhorted him to live
more in conformity to the will of God, he answered : ‘‘ Hear,
bishop, by the holy face of Lucca, the Lord shall find no good
one in me for all the evil he has inflicted on me.”
the king’s state of mind, Anselm might well expect a release
from the dignity conferred on him, when he demanded that,
when all the lands had been restored to the see of Canterbury,
which it possessed in the time of Lanfranc, a judicial inquiry
and decision should take place, with regard to others, of which
it had been deprived at an earlier period. He, moreover, in-
formed the king that he had already acknowledged pope Urban,
and should ever yield him obedience, although still unacknow-
ledged by William. On both these points he desired a decla-

Such being
250 WILLIAM THE SECOND.

ration from the king, who, after having summoned his council
together, informed him that all the lands possessed by the
Church under Lanfranc should, as before said, be restored to
it; but, with regard to those which it did not possess under
him, no agreement could then be made; but that both this
and other matters should soon be settled. The king after-
wards strove to induce Anselm to confirm to his barons
many lands that he had granted them after the death of
Lanfranc', though in this instance he was compelled to yield;
i and Anselm, in an assembly of the nobles at Winchester, and,
' after the example of his predecessor, became, according to
usage, the king’s vassal, and was directed to take possession
of the archbishopric as it was in the time of Lanfranc
(25th Sept.). When he at length reached Canterbury, his
solemn reception was disturbed by the arrival of Ranulf Flam-
bard, who, in the king’s name, commenced a process regard-
ing certain claims of the Church; and not until some months
had passed was Anselm, in the presence of all the bishops of
the realm at Canterbury, consecrated as archbishop (4th Dec.).
He afterwards proceeded to the royal court, where he was
joyfully received. As the king, through his efforts to obtain
possession of Normandy, was in a state of the greatest pecu-
niary embarrassment, the new archbishop, following the counsel
of his friends, offered him a present of five hundred pounds
of silver. The king required the double of that sum, but
Anselm, who “ would not bargain for the king’s favour as for
a horse or an ass,” refused it, gave the intended present to
the poor, and thereby exasperated the king to the utmost,
who, when too late, declared his willingness to accept it.

If in Anselm we have hitherto revered the pious, learned,
and modest monk, and if the worth of such a man is rendered
the more prominent by contrast with a tyrant brutal almost

' Epist. lib. iii. c. 24, Anselm’s letters are of less value than almost any
other similar authority, Eadmer having evidently most carefully availed
himself of them. Eadmer, pp. 15, sqq.
WILLIAM THE SECOND. 251

to frenzy, it greatly increases our reverence to see him, under
the most trying self-denial, faithful to his duty, indefatigably,
heroically administering the charge he had undertaken, while
a king and son of a king, who had dispossessed his elder brother
of a throne, was reckless of every princely duty and of every
promise. While Anselm, in every direction, with the approval
and advice of the elder clergy of England, was defending the
rights of his Church, he set his colleagues an example of
resistance to the pervading luxury and effeminacy of the
court. We may well imagine that an acute thinker and calm
observer, like Anselm, would not have regarded the long hair
of the courtiers, or their long-beaked shoes, at that time in
vogue, as soul-destructive', but he saw how these manners, in
the new generation, engendered among the sons of the heroes
of the Conquest an effeminate, trifling disposition, which but
too clearly manifested itself in the increasing passion for
show. With the object of repressing transgressions of deeper
die, especially one of the deepest, which unhappily prevailed
among the Normans in England, he applied to the king, before
his departure for Normandy (1094 Feb.) for the assembling of
a synod, but who harshly refused not only this request, but
also one relative to the filling of the vacant abbacies?.

The present temper of the king, as well as his journey to
Normandy, must necessarily cause a suspension of all applica-
tions to him on the subject of obtaining the pall for the new
primate. Scarcely, however, at the close of the year, had

1 See W. Malm. p. 498, and note.—T.

2 W. Malm. p. 498. “ Enerves, emolliti, quod nati fuerant inviti mane-
bant ; expugnatores alienz pudicitiz, prodigi sue. Sequebantur curiam
effoeminatorum manus et ganearum greges.”” Hadmer. p. 24. “ Nefandis-
simum Sodome scelus, (ut illicita consanguineorum connubia, et alia
multa rerum detestandarum facinorosa negotia taceam,) scelus, inquam,
Sodome noviter in hac terra divulgatum jam plurimum pullulavit, mul-
tosque sua immanitate foedavit. Cui fateor nisi districtius a te prodiens
sententia judicii, et ecclesiastics vigor discipline celerius obviet, tota terra
non multo post Sodoma fiet.” The above are Anselm’s words to the
king.—T.

see
252 WILLIAM THE SECOND.

William returned to England, when Anselm applied to him
for permission to solicit the pontiff, namely Urban, for his
pall, to whom, as the king well knew, he had done homage
before his call to England. But William maintained that
neither his father nor himself had allowed any one of their
bishops to choose a pope for himself; that such an attempt
would be tantamount to endeavouring to deprive him of his
crown. It was only in the preceding year that the king had
taken from Herbert of Losinga the episcopal staff, that he had
bought of him for a thousand pounds of silver, because he was
desirous of proceeding to Rome, for the purpose of getting
absolution from the pope for the crime of simony!.

That England continued for nearly ten years without ac-
knowledging any pope, is a circumstance that deserves some
consideration, though it will no more be found that England
was a gainer by this separation from the universal regimen,
than that the motives for such a procedure are to be sought
for in a purer view of Christianity operating, though indirectly,
on the court. The best excuse for the delay in this matter can
be sought for only in the distance from Rome, and the lack
thence arising of trustworthy accounts respecting the legitimate
possessor of the ring of the fisherman. The king, however,
could not avoid submitting the demands of Anselm to the court
which he summoned to assemble at Rockingham? (March
1095). On this occasion William displayed even more than
his usual violence, being excited by Flambard, who had hoped
to obtain the archbishopric for himself. The other bishops

1 Sax. Chron. a.1094. More fully in Simeon, h. a. Florence makes
no mention of the taking away of the staff by the king, but says (also
Malmesbury p. 517,) that Herbert resigned it at Rome, and that.it was
there restored to him.—T.

2 Kadmer, p. 26. Anselm, Epist. lib. iii. 35, speaks without doubt of
the same place, although the printed text reads Notingeham. Wilkins,
Concil. t.i., Lingard and others place the assembly at Nottingham in
1094; but from Kadmer’s narrative it clearly follows that it was not held
until after the king’s return from France. The day of his return (29th
Nov. 1094) are given both by the Saxon Chronicle and Florence.
WILLIAM THE SECOND. 253

declared that Anselm could not be deposed, but that at the
king’s command they were ready to renounce all obedience
to and friendly intercourse with him. On this compliance
of a set of dastardly priests and courtiers, the king resolved
to withdraw from Anselm his protection and confidence, and
to treat him no longer as archbishop or his spiritual father.
The Jay nobles, at whose head stood the most excellent and
eminent man of the English court, Robert count of Meulan’,
acted far more honourably: they declared, that while they
lived they would not abandon Anselm, their archbishop, the
director of all religious concerns, as he had rendered himself
guilty of no crime. It was Anselm’s wish to be relieved from
the burthen of his office, but the principal laity mediated a
delay of any determination on either side. The archbishop
then received instructions not to leave the county of Kent,
ostensibly for the purpose of keeping watch, that the coast
might not be infested by enemies roaming about the sea?.
The king availed himself of this interval partly in annoying
the archbishop, by driving some of his faithful clergy from
England, and partly in awaiting the return of two of his
chaplains, William of Warlewast and Girard, whom in the
preceding year he had secretly sent to Rome for the purpose
of ascertaining the state of papal affairs and of prevailing on
the pope to send to him the pall for the archbishop of Canter-
bury, without mention of his name, so that there might be
no restriction on any arbitrary measure he might resolve on.
Urban acquiesced in this plan, and sent over Walter, bishop
of Albano, to England with the desired pall. The legate
rode unnoticed through Canterbury to the king, who was
holding a court at Windsor, and who was desirous of surpris-
ing Anselm into an acceptance of the pall from his hands.
But the primate proved himself a stouter champion for the

1 Eadmer, p. 30, names, as mouthpiece of the “ principes, Robertus
quidam, ipsi regi valde familiaris.”” That it was the above-mentioned
count whom we again meet with under William’s successor, is hardly to
be doubted. 2 Epist. lib. iii, 35, 37.
254 WILLIAM THE SECOND.

rights of the Church than the pope, and on his refusal to
receive the pall from the secular power, the expedient was
adopted, that the legate should lay it on the high altar at
Canterbury, and Anselm take it thence. as it were, from the
hands of St. Peter?.

By this act the Church for some time seemed restored to
its old order. Some of the bishops, who had previously
spoken against Anselm, stricken with remorse, caused them-
selves to be absolved by him; and the king bestowed the
sees of Worcester and Hereford, rendered vacant by the death
of Wultfstan and Robert, on his chaplain before mentioned,
Girard, and Samson, and his episcopal staff was restored to
Herbert of Thetford. The bishops of Wales and Ireland ac-
knowledged Anselm as their primate, and the papal legate
made himself so beloved, that he collected an abundant Peter-
pence, such as Rome had not for a length of time received
from England2.

Anselm now found confirmed, what he had long foreseen,
that with the means he possessed, calm wisdom, profound
scientific knowledge, and purity of life, the struggle with the
tyrant was too unequal. A dispute respecting the alleged
insufficient equipment, both as to arms and provisions, of the
men supplied by the archbishop for an expedition against the
Welsh, brought Anselm’s resolve to maturity, to leave Eng-
land at any cost, and go to the pope, with the object of en-
lightening the pontiff on the real state of things, of which he
had received an account not over faithful from the king’s
agents, and, at the same time, of obtaining peace and quiet
for himself, and for his Church protection against plunder,
blasphemy, and every kind of outrage. It was only by the
greatest firmness that Anselm obtained permission for his
journey to Rome from the king (1097, 15th Oct.), who im-
mediately seized on the revenues of the archbishopric. In
obedience to the mandate of Him whom he confessed, he

! Eadmer, p. 34. 2 Sax. Chron. a. 1095.
WILLIAM THE SECOND. 255

offered to the king, at his departure, as primate of the realm,
God’s and his own blessing. William received him with sur-
prise, yet declined not his benediction; but, nevertheless,
caused the venerable man to be persecuted to the last mo-

ment of his stay in England. Two monks only, Baldwin, who \

afterwards followed him in the primacy, and Eadmer, his
faithful biographer!, accompanied him in his voluntary exile.
On the Continent Anselm’s journey was a triumphal proces-
sion; both clergy and laity rejoicing, and with flags waving
received the revered philosopher and divine, now hallowed by
an unheard-of martyrdom. He was obliged to avoid Nor-
mandy. From Witsand he proceeded to the abbey of St.
Bertin (St. Omer’s), where he again enjoyed the exhilarating
feeling of being able to serve only the Lord. Odo, the pious
duke of Burgundy, with Hugh, archbishop of Lyons, then
engaged, at the instance of St. Robert, in founding the abbey
of Citeaux, received him with the greatest joy. He visited
the monks of Cluny and sojourned at Lyons, until a message
from the pope summoned him to Rome. The favourable re-
ception which he found there, as well as from Roger duke of
Apulia, proves that king William Rufus, even in those parts,
notwithstanding new deputations to Urban, was held in just
estimation. Anselm employed his leisure in completing some
theological and philosophical works. He also assisted at the
council of Bari (1st Oct. 1098), where he had the happiness
of acting a distinguished part in the discussions on a point
at that time of vital importance, whether the Holy Ghost pro-
ceeded solely from the Father. In a council held shortly after
at Rome (25th April 1099) the affairs of the English Church
were discussed, and a general anathema was pronounced on
those laymen who conferred or received ecclesiastical investi-
tures, as well as on those who for ecclesiastical offices became

1 « Eramus quippe tres monachi...... dominus videlicet et pater An-
selmus, Baldvinus, et ego qui hee scribo, frater Eadmerus.’’ Eadmer,
p- 45.—T.
256 WILLIAM THE SECOND.

the vassals of laymen, and on others offending against the views
of the Church. Urban, however, did not deem it advisable
to aceuse king William of these transgressions, but appears
rather to have restrained the zealous partisans of the arch-
bishop from the adoption of any violent measures. Anselm,
too, himself, on his knees, implored the council not to pass a
sentence of excommunication against the king. Some months
after, Urban died, and shortly after the accession of Paschal
to the papal chair, accounts arrived of the death of William,
which caused Anselm to return to England’.

During these dissensions, the king was engaged in many
more weighty secular affairs, chiefly in consequence of his
incessant craving after the possession of Normandy and the
neighbouring provinces. Notwithstanding his compact with
duke Robert, he strove to gain over the vassals of Normandy,
and, by means of great presents and promises, succeeded in
seducing from his allegiance William count of Eu2. Robert
now found himself compelled to declare to the king, that he
neither could nor would abide by so partial and ill-observed a
‘compact. On this occasion William deemed it expedient to
cross over to Normandy and have a conference with his bro-
ther, but which ended in no concord. The sureties of the
compact were then summoned to decide with reference to its
violation, and their decision was against William, who, highly
exasperated, refused to submit to it; but proceeding to Eu,
he thence directed the intrigues of the Norman nobles against
his brother, and captured the castle of Bures. Duke Robert
had in the meantime obtained the support of the French
king Philip, with which, by stratagem, he took the castle of
Argences, though defended by Roger of Poitou with seven
hundred knights; and although king Philip, bribed by Eng-
lish gold3, soon returned to his own dominions, Robert,

* Eadmer, pp. 15 sqq. Ord. Vital. pp. 682,773. Anselmi Epist.
2 Flor. Wigorn. a. 1093.
3 Robert de Monte, a.1094. W. of Malmesbury, the Norman writers,
WILLIAM THE SECOND. 257

nevertheless, succeeded in taking the castle of La Houlme
defended by William Peverel. William had ordered twenty
thousand foot soldiers from England, but when they were on
the point of embarking, he caused the ten shillings that had
been given to each for his subsistence to be taken away,
through his tool, Ranulf Flambard, and all of them to be
sent home. The money thus obtained he employed in buying
off the French, who threatened Eu with a siege, and had al-
ready advanced as far as Longuevile!. Hugh earl of Chester,
was then despatched to fetch prince Henry from Domfront,
who accompanied him, but, instead of coming to Eu, they
both crossed over to Southampton, and celebrated the Christ-
mas festival at London. William, too, not feeling at ease in
his position, returned, and sent prince Henry to prosecute the
war against his brother.

More dangerous for William than the disgraceful contest
with his brother, or his rash quarrel with Anselm, was a re-
bellion now raised by some of his most considerable barons.
Robert, son of Roger of Molbray, earl of Northumberland,
was one of the most valiant but proudest knights, harsh to-
wards his dependents, cold and reserved towards his asso-
ciates, arrogant to his superiors. After the death of his
uncle, Geoffrey bishop of Coutances, William had confirmed
to him two hundred and eighty villages, which that prelate,
chiefly on account of his military services, had received from
the Conqueror. Robert, probably because the transactions
with Scotland after the death of Malcolm, were not to his
satisfaction, entered into a conspiracy against the king’s
crown and life with the count of Eu, who but a short time
before had passed over to the side of William. Their pro-
and even Orderic himself, make no mention of this campaign, and appear
to confound it with the earlier. The last-mentioned is very confused in
the chronology of the years 1091-1095.

1 Near Vernon in Normandy, not Luneville, as Ingram supposes,

2 Ord. Vital. pp. 523, 703. These possessions must have lain for the
most part in the shires of England not included in Domesday.

Ss
258 WILLIAM THE SECOND.

fessed object was to place on the throne Stephen of Albe-
marle, a cousin of the king, who had previously been a faith-
ful adherent to him!. Stephen was the son of a half-sister
of the Conqueror, married to Odo count of Champagne, to
whom she had borne this count Stephen?, Judith, the consort
of the unfortunate earl Waltheof, and William of Alderi,
the king’s steward or sewer®, The paternal uncle of Stephen
and many other barons of consideration joined in the con-
spiracy. The cause of its premature outbreak was the re-
fusal of earl Robert to appear before the king’s court at
Windsor, without the delivery of hostages or other pledge
for his security, to answer a charge against himself and his
nephew, Morel, of having detained and plundered four Nor-
wegian merchantmen‘. William thereupon assembled an
army, and had already nearly reached the county of his re-
fractory vassal, when Gilbert of Tonbridge fell at his feet,
praying him not to enter the forest, where there was an
ambush stationed, and to pardon him, an accomplice in the
conspiracy’. William then laid siege to Tynemouth, which
the brother of earl Robert bravely held out against him for
two months. Earl Robert himself was shut up in Bam-
borough castle, opposite to which the king had caused a
fortress to be constructed, to which he gave the appropriate
name of Malveisin (the bad neighbour). The king’s persever-
ance was overcome by the obstinacy of the besieged; but
while he was gone on an expedition against the Welsh,

1 Ord. Vital. p. 681, a. 1089.

2 For this relationship see W. Gemmet. lib. viii. c. 3. Orderic (p. 522)
calls the mother “filiam Roberti ducis;’’ W. Gemmet. (lib. viii. c. 37)
“ Comitissa de Albemarla, soror uterina Wilhelmi regis Anglorum.” This
is correct; she was full sister of bishop Odo; her name seems to have
been Adeliza.

3 Sax. Chron. Flor.Wigorn. a. 1096. Ingram renders modrie, maternal
aunt (though here in the Chronicle used erroneously for paternal aunt) by
step-mother ; thus making Odo of Champagne the king’s son-in-law.

4 «Quatuor naves magne, quas canardos vocant.” Ord. Vital. p.703.—T.

» Ord. Vital. p. 703.
WILLIAM THE SECOND. 259

Robert was tempted to leave his strong-hold, the garrison of
Neweastle having falsely promised that they would open their
gates to him. Issuing then from Bamborough in the dead of
the night, accompanied by only thirty horsemen, he was im-
mediately followed by the garrison of Malveisin, and on
reaching Neweastle found the gates closed. Finding himself
thus deceived, the earl fled to the monastery of St. Oswine
at Tynemouth, that had been richly endowed by him, in which
he defended himself for six days, when he received a severe
wound in the leg, and fell into the hands of his enemies.
William ordered him to be led before the walls of Bam-
borough, which was still stoutly defended by Matilda, the
young wife of Robert, and Morel. Being invited to a parley,
the countess saw her consort in bonds with an executioner
at his side ready to put out his eyes, if the castle were not
forthwith surrendered. This threat had the desired effect.
Morel purchased his life by revealing to the king all the
details of the conspiracy; he was, nevertheless, banished,
and died abroad in penury and detestation. Earl Robert
languished for thirty years a captive at Windsor; but his
countess, having procured a papal dispensation, became the
wife of Nigel of Albini (Aubigni), whom she afterwards faith-
lessly abandoned. When the crisis was over, many of the
most eminent barons were betrayed to theking as accom-
plices in the plot. The count of Eu denied his guilt, but
being vanquished in judicial combat by Geoffrey Bainard,
though chiefly, perhaps, because he had Hugh earl of Chester
for an enemy, was sentenced to the loss of his eyes and muti-
lation!. The royal sewer, William of Alderi, who was like-
wise the king’s relation and godfather, after having confessed
to bishop Osmund and been scourged in all the churches of
Salisbury, underwent the ignominious death of hanging,
although he strongly protested his innocence of the conspiracy

1 Sax. Chron. Flor. Wigorn. a. 1095, 1096. Ord. Vital. p. 704. W.
Malm. p. 501. ‘* Willelmus de Ou cecatus et extesticulatus est.”

sQ2
260 WILLIAM THE SECOND.

to the last!. Roger of Lacy was declared to have forfeited
his large estates to the benefit of his brother Hugh, and
banished?. The king’s uncle, the aged Odo of Champagne,
and Philip, son of Roger earl of Shrewsbury, were thrown
into prison’. Even Hugh earl of Shrewsbury could not clear
himself of the charge of complicity; but, like others whom
William, on account of their connections in Normandy,
deemed it prudent to treat with lenity, was permitted to re-
deem himself with a large sum of money’. With greater
moderation than we are accustomed to find in William, he
confirmed the donations made by Robert of Molbray to pious
foundations>.

An unlooked-for and, we may be allowed to say, unmerited,
turn of fortune brought William from the brink of ruin to
the consummation of the wish for which he had, during the
whole term of his rule, striven with every exertion, every in-
justice, every prodigality to attain. With every year duke
Robert found himself deprived of a portion of his paternal
inheritance. Domfront, his strongest town, was in the pos-
session of prince Henry, who from that fortress had extended
his territory by dint of arms, and gained many adherents
among Robert’s followers. King William also held more
than twenty castles in Normandy, and the most influential
nobles were bound to him, partly by reason of possessions
held by them in England, partly by other obligations. Robert
was, in fact, deprived of all power, of the greater part of his
revenues, and, in consequence of the weakness of his cha-
racter, of all means and prospect of ever recovering them.
At this juncture the trump of the holy war resounded on a
sudden from Clermont, and among the many whom unpro-
pitious circumstances impelled to obey the inspiring call was
duke Robert. What still remained to him of Normandy he

1 Flor. Wigorn. a. 1096. 2 Ord. Vital. p. 704.
3 Flor. Wigorn. a. 1096. 4 Ord. Vital. p. 704.
5 Monast. Anglic. iti. p. 313.
WILLIAM THE SECOND. 261

transferred, for five years, to his brother William, in con-
sideration of a loan of ten thousand marks of silver'. ‘The
raising of this money was in all haste recommended to the
chief persons of England. Bishops and other Church digni-
taries were compelled to break up the church plate, and melt
it for coining money. Barons plundered their vassals and
peasantry, to take gold and silver to the king. In September
William embarked for Normandy, made peace with his bro-
ther, and paid him the sum required of 66663 pounds of
silver, in consideration of a pledge of tenfold greater value’.
This possession was employed by William in several at-
tempts to secure and extend the acquisitions of his house in
France. In the following years we find him occupied with
the French and Bretons, ‘and also with the Flemings?, though
of these disputes and transactions few accounts or traces are
extant. The count of Flanders, Robert IT., in the year 1093,
came to a conference with William at Dover, the object of
which was probably the restoration of the old feudal relations,
according to which the counts of Flanders received for mili-
tary service a yearly revenue from England of three hundred
marks of silver, which settlement having been revoked, in
consequence of the hostilities of count Robert the Frisian,
was renewed with his son by king William, in consideration
of their relationship‘, The Bretons, under count Alan Fer-
gant, who was related to duke Robert, probably assisted the
king, as they previously had his brother *, in his war with the
county of Le Maine. Duke Robert had laid claim to Le Maine,
though founded merely on his betrothal to the second daughter
of count Hugh, but who died before marriage®. This frivolous
pretension was opposed by Hélie, the son of John of la Fléche,

! Ord. Vital. pp. 723, 724.

2 Sax. Chron. Flor. Wigorn. a. 1096. Ord. Vital. pp. 713, 764. W.
Malm. p.500. Al. Bev. p.142. W. Hemingb. p. 30. ed. E.H.S.

2 Ord. Vital. p.769. 4 Eadmer, p.19. W. Malm. p. 573.

> Daru, Histoire de la Bretagne, ‘I’. i. § See page 55.
262 WILLIAM THE SECOND.

who had married Paula, the third or youngest daughter of
Hugh, and sister of Heribert, the last count, and who, subse-
quently to the year 1090, had bought from the son of the
eldest, by Azo marquis of Liguria, his claims on Le Maine
for ten thousand shillings'. Notwithstanding the support of
Fulk count of Anjou, Robert had never been able to keep
possession of Le Maine; and William either would not or
could not proceed more vigorously, yet he for some months
harboured Hoel, the bishop of Le Mans, who had fled to
England, in consequence of some dissensions at home. But
when Hélie, previously to the departure of duke Robert, came
to William, for the purpose of obtaining from him an assurance
of peace during his intended absence on the crusade, he re-
fused it scornfully, saying : Hélie might go whithersoever he
would: he would not fight against crusaders, but would re-
cover the province taken from his father with a hundred
thousand lances, swords, and innumerable engines; and would
soon settle matters with the cowherds of Le Maine?. Not-
withstanding these and similar vaunts, and although the
Manceaux had recently put to flight Robert of Belesme, from
his grandfather likewise surnamed Talevas, who had erected
castles in their territory, and had captured other Normans
of consideration, William was unable immediately to take the
field against Le Maine}. Not until February 1098, at the
instigation of Robert of Belesme, was he induced to proceed
against Hélie, who at Dangeuil had erected a castle against
him. But the severity of the season came to the aid of the
Manceaux, and the king was compelled to retire to Rouen,
and for the moment content himself with reinforcing his
vassals and soldiers and other means for the security of his
castles. Hélie, however, fell shortly after into his hands. He

1 Acta Episcoporum Cenom. ap. Mabillon. Vet. Anal. iii. pp. 290-299,

2 Ord. Vital. p. 769.

3 « Differens per biennium.” Ord. Vital. p. 770. Only under the suc-
cessor of bishop Hoel, who died in July 1097.
WILLIAM THE SECOND. 263

had entered a wood accompanied by only seven knights, and
was there made prisoner by Robert Talevas. He was con-
ducted to Rouen, where the king commanded that he should
be treated as a knight, but detained him as a prisoner.
William then convoked and deliberated with the barons of
Normandy, and as the proposed undertaking met with their
approval, he proceeded with a numerous force against Le
Mans. But that city was so stoutly defended by the inha-
bitants under the command of Fulk IV. surnamed Rechin
(Morose), count of Anjou, and his valiant son, Geoffrey, sur-
named Martel, that William returned to Rouen, but through
the mediation of Hildebert, the bishop of Le Mans, obtained
the surrender of the city, in consideration of the liberation of
Hélie, who was apprehensive lest Fulk might enter into some
compact with William to his detriment. Hélie now endea-
voured by pliancy to the conqueror to recover a portion of
what he had lost, and offered to become his vassal. The king

was inclined to grant his request, but Robert count of Meulan, ‘
who ever appears as a far-sighted counsellor of his sovereign’, ;

dissuaded him from so hazardous a step. Thereupon Hélie
could not refrain from declaring that, as he was so despised,
he would strive in every way to recover his inheritance. “Go
now,” answered William, “do what thou canst; if thou over-
comest me, thou shalt not be punished for it?.” Le Mans
was then committed to a very strong garrison, under the
command of William count of Evreux, Gilbert of L’Aigle,
and other warriors, who soon, by their oppressions and se-
verity caused the citizens doubly to regret the loss of their

1 Ord. Vital. p.773. Comp. Eadmer, pp. 20-40. See also p. 218.

2 Ord. Vital. p.773. [What Malmesbury (p. 503) reports as William’s
words is at least highly characteristic: on Hélie saying: “ Fortuitu me
cepisti, sed si possem evadere, novi quid facerem,” he answered: ‘Tu,
nebulo! tu, quid faceres? Discede, abi, fuge! concedo tibi ut facias
quicquid poteris: et, per vultum de Luca! nihil, si me viceris, pro hac
venia tecum paciscar.”—T. ]
264 WILLIAM 'THE SECOND.

former lords. In the following year (1099) Hélie succeeded
in raising a considerable force, in defeating his enemies in
Le Maine, and in driving them into the fortress of Le Mans,
the inhabitants of which town had joyfully joined his fol-
lowers. But the Normans one evening, taking advantage of
a strong gale, set fire to the houses lying nearest to them,
which communicating itself to others, the greater part of the
city was soon a prey to the flames. The besieging engines
raised by Hélie produced no effect, and the inhabitants, who
had already sustained great damage and were threatened with
still greater calamity, lost all courage. Soon, too, intelligence
was brought, that William, while hunting in the New Forest,
had, on receiving information by a messenger of what had
taken place at Le Mans, instantly ridden to the sea-shore,
and in a presumptuous vaunt that a king could not be drowned,
cast himself into a miserable vessel he found lying there, crossed
over, and, notwithstanding the tempestuous weather, arrived
safe at Touques, and was the first to announce his arrival to
the astonished Normans!. Heélie now deemed it advisable
to abandon the unfortunate city, and not expose himself and
people to the anger of the king. The inhabitants had been so
cruelly oppressed, that only the king’s arrival could check the
most unbridled licentiousness and prevent their total de-
struction. The tower of the cathedral, which had been used
to good purpose by the citizens during the struggle, he ordered
to be demolished, and took with him to England the refrac-
tory bishop Hildebert?, whom he even required to clear him-
self from the suspicion of treason by the ordeal of hot iron?®.
Of the warfare of this time some idea may be formed from the

1 Ord. Vital. p. 775. W. Malm. p. 502.

2 Acta Episcop. Cenom. Sax. Chron. a. 1099, the Rom. de Rou is very
circumstantial though inaccurate on this war with Le Maine; Wace, and
Malmesbury, who often agrees with him, make the capture of Hélie only
after the conquest of Le Mans.

3 Ivonis Carnot. Ep. 74. Hildebert, Ep. lib. ii. 8.
WILLIAM THE SECOND. 265

circumstance, that it was found impracticable to take all
Hélie’s castles, and that the king himself was obliged to raise
the siege of Mayet', derided by the besieged and almost de-
serted by his army?.

Equally fruitless, yet, on account of the higher interests
involved in them, worthy of some notice, were the wars which
William, as mortgagee of Normandy, commenced with the
king of France. The demand made by the Conqueror in the
last year of his life for the restoration of the Vexin, which
had been taken from him, during his youth, by king Henry,
had not been persevered in by duke Robert ; but William did
not delay reclaiming not only that province, but also the
towns, of Pontoise, Chaumont, and Mantes, and meeting with
a refusal from Philip (1097) forthwith assembled an army
from his dominions on both sides of the Channel. Of the
French, many who held fiefs also in Normandy did not dare
to oppose him, while others who were imprisoned were in-
duced to enter the English service, and many were bought by
English gold. The French prince Lewis, afterwards king
Lewis VI., frequently fought valiantly and successfully against
the English?; but William, with William VIII. duke of

1 A castle in the arrondissement of La Fléche. M. Le Prevost, note to
Rom. de Rou, v. 15027.—T.

2 The following particulars of this siege are interesting. They are from
Orderic, translated by M. Le Prevost (Rom. de Rou, ii. p. 336): “Le roi aprés
avoir accordé aux assiégés une espéce de tréve de Dieu, depuis le samedi
jusqu’au lundi, voyant qu’ils avaient passé ce temps a palissader leurs
murailles, pour amortir les coups qu’on voudrait leur porter, chercha a
combler les fossés avec des fascines; mais on réussit toujours a s’en
débarrasser par le moyen du feu. Au moment out il se désespérait du peu
de succés de ses mesures, une pierre lancée des remparts vient fracasser la
téte d’un guerrier placé prés de lui. Alors les assiégés s’écriérent: ‘ Voila
de la viande fraiche pour le roi; qu’on la porte a la cuisine, et qu’on
Vappréte pour son souper.’ Guillaume découragé renonca au siége, fit
aux vignes, aux vergers et aux maisons une guerre d’extirpation, et s’en
revint triomphant, dit Vhistorien au Mans, ov il licencia son armée. Ces
événemens se passérent dans le mois de juillet.”—T’.

3 Sugerii Vita Ludovici Grossi, c. 1. Historia Francie Fragm. ap. Bou-
quet, xi. p. 5.
266 WILLIAM THE SECOND.

Guienne and count of Poitiers, with whom he had formed an
alliance, advanced slowly but surely, and was not till the
following year (1098), probably alarmed by the defection of
Nivard of Septeuil, to be prevailed on to accede to a truce!.
William was on the eve of gaining an extension of influence
as far as the banks of the Garonne, in consequence of the
intention of the duke above-mentioned to pledge to him his
rich dominions and proceed to the Holy Land?. In France
the apprehension prevailed that William, whose ambition
knew no bounds, was aiming at the French crown, and
collecting suffrages and support in case of the death of Lewis,
the only legitimate heir of Philip, whose sons by Bertrade, the
seduced countess of Anjou, could not be acknowledged as such3.

The ever more and more complicated plans, the incessant
striving after aggrandizement, the important successes of king
William were destined to a sudden end. The chase in those
days was ‘followed so passionately, that it not unfrequently
exacted a bloody sacrifice. In the New Forest, which had
been enlarged by the Conqueror with such glaring cruelty
towards the numerous inhabitants of those parts, Richard, an
elder brother of William Rufus, and, shortly after, a son of
duke Robert, named also Richard, had already fallen. On
the 2nd August 1100 the king rode into the forest to hunt,
his attendants were gradually dispersed, and about sunset he
was found lying dead on the earth and pierced with an arrow.
Many authorities concur in stating, that Walter Tirel, a
French knight, to whom William was much attached, had,
with the intention of striking a boar that rushed past them,
inflicted the fatal wound, with an arrow given him by
the king himself, as being the better marksman. His in-
stantaneous flight to France, and a pilgrimage to the holy
grave, undertaken by him at a later period certainly counte-
nance this narrative*. Yet Tirel, whom we find mentioned

! Ivon. Carnot. Ep. 71. Ord. Vital. p. 767.
2 Ord. Vital. p. 780. 3 Suger, lib. i.
4 Ord. Vital. p. 782. W. Malm. p. 509. Flor. Wigorn. a, 1100. Hugo
WILLIAM THE SECOND. 267

as a venerator of Anselm!, declared to Suger, the celebrated
abbot of St. Denys, and offered to confirm it on oath, that
the rumour was false, and that he had not even entered the
forest on that day?. But who can say that it was not an
Anglo-Saxon arrow that pierced the tyrant? or that one of
so many that he had injured, stimulated possibly by a higher
direction, was not the perpetrator? The warnings given to
the king by Robert fitz Hamon, in consequence of the counsel
of a monk, that he should not go to the chase on that day,
and the prophecy imparted to prince Henry, declaring his
speedy accession to the throne, together with the complete
desertion of his attendants, greatly strengthen the suspicion of
a premeditated plan. But there is also another story worthy
of notice: that the king, in stooping to take up an arrow
lying on the ground, stumbled, and thus forced the arrow into
his breast. This belief appears to have been very current in
in England shortly after the king’s death’, though. that im-
plicating Walter Tirel found most favour with the multitude.
At a later period it was also said, that it was not Tirel, but

Floriac. De Modernis Francorum Regibus, xii. p. 798. Petri Blesens. Cont.
Huntend. p. 378. W. Gemmet. lib. vii. c.9. Gaimar entertains greater
suspicion against Tirel.

1 Eadmer, Vita Anselmi, p. 6.

2 Suger, lib. i. Joh. Salisbur. Vita Anselmi, c. 12. Hist. Francie Fragm.
ap. Bouquet, xii. p.5. Walter Tirel was one of ten children that Fulco
of Guarlemville, dean of Evreux, had with the boautiful Orielde sprung
from a distinguished race. Ord. Vital. p. 574. Tirel was lord of Poix in
Picardy. The warriors of Poix were at Hastings, Rom. de Rou, v. 12793.

3 Sax. Chron. a.1100 may be cited for this view of the case, which re-
lates that the king was shot while at the chase by an arrow from one of his
own people, without any allusion to an accident: so likewise Acta Episc.
Cenom.

4 Eadmer (Hist. Nov. p. 54.) says: “ plures affirmant.” Wace (vv. 15180,
sqq-) also mentions this belief :

(Plusors dient k’il tresbucha,

En sa cote (robe) s’empéescha,

E la saete (Hécke) trestorna,

Et li acier el rei cola, (coula vers le roi.)—T.]
268. WILLIAM THE SECOND.

Ralf of Aix, to whom William, against the counsel of the
abbot of Dunstable, handed five arrows, with one of which
he shot him?.

Never did a ruler die less regretted than William Rufus,
although still young, being little above forty, not a usurper,
bold, and successful in his undertakings. He was never mar-
ried, and besides the crafty and officious tools of his power,
was surrounded only by a few Normans of quality and har-
lots. In his last struggle with the clergy, the most shameless
rapacity is especially prominent, and so glaring, that, not-
withstanding some exaggerations and errors that may be
pointed out in the chronicles, he still appears in the same
light?, Effeminacy, drunkenness, gluttony, dissoluteness, and
unnatural crimes, were the distinguishing characteristics of
his court?. He was himself an example of incontinence.
Kindness towards valiant knights, even the conquered, and
trust in a. knightly word, as is related of him, are less proofs
of good feeling than of a knowledge of the character of his
time. The warlike talents displayed by him in his youth, in
which bodily strength and valour founded on it were chiefly.
conspicuous, have been over-valued; and at a later period,
his successes were usually obtained without his personal co-
operation, while he shone chiefly through the rich rewards he
bestowed on his faithful followers, and the still more profuse

! Giraldus Cambrens. De Instructione Principis, c. 30. ap. Scriptt. Rer.
Gall. xviii.

2 Thus Peter of Blois appears to be in error when he asserts that at the
king’s death one archbishopric and four bishoprics were vacant. The
archbishoprics were filled, and of the bishoprics, Winchester only from
1098, and Salisbury from December 1099, appear to have been vacant.
See Sax. Chron. and Flor. Wigorn. a. 1100.

3 See the unanimous testimonies of Orderic, pp. 763, 782; Malmesbury,
p. 510; Eadmer, p. 94; Will. Newburg. lib.i.c.2; Huntingdon. Hugo
Floriac. (De Modernis Francorum Regibus, lib. i.) a contemporary, says :

“‘armis quidem strenuus atque munificus, sed nimis lascivus et flagitio-
»
sus.
WILLIAM THE SECOND. 269

bribes on his adversaries!. His ambition as well as his course
of life required great resources, and both clergy and people
were oppressed with a rigour as offensive as it was senseless.
His officials durst not flinch from any expedient to supply the
royal treasury; the delinquent could always redeem himeelf
from the cord that entwined him, if he could but show thereby
a gain to the exchequer?. To the people he usually appeared
with repulsive coldness and affected indifference, threatening
looks, and a fierce tone of voice?.

Among the memorials of his reign, some architectural
works could hardly be wanting, in an age so devoted to and
skilled in the art of building. At London he built a new
bridge across the Thames, surrounded the Tower by a wall},
the strength of which tradition ascribes to the cement used
for the purpose being mixed with the blood of animals, and
the great hall at Westminster, in which, the year before his
death, he held a numerous court’.

His ecclesiastical foundations are, as we have sie ob-

1 Suger, lib. i. ‘ Ile opulentus Anglorum thesaurorum mereator et
solidator.”

2 Tbid. lib. i. “ Pauperum intolerabilis oppressor.” H. Hunt. aa. 1098,
1099, ** Nihil recti rex pravus in regno suo fieri permittebat, sed provin-
cias intolerabiliter vexavit in tributis, que nunquam cessabant. . . . tributis
et exactionibus pessimis populos Anglorum non abradens, sed excorians.”
And from him, Robert de Monte and Chron. Beccense: “ pauperes in-
colas regni sui omnes opprimebat, et illis violenter auferebat, que prodigus
advenis tribuebat.” Ord. Vital. p. 763. Sax. Chron. a. 1100.

3 In such descriptions Maimesbury (p. 495) is particularly happy ; he
says: “Erat is (Willelmus) foris et in conventu hominum tumido vultu
erectus, minaci oculo astantem defigens, et affectato rigore feroci voce col-
loquentem reverberans.” The beau ideal of a baron of many lands and
times !

4H. Hunt. a. 1098, “im opere muri circa turrim Londonie.”

5 Sax. Chron. a. 1099. “ To Pentecosten forman si%e his hired innan
his niwan gebyttlan wt Westmynstre heold.” HH. Hunt. a.1098. “in
opere aule regalis apud Westminster.” To this also Malmesbury (p. 504)
undoubtedly refers: “‘ Unum edificium, et ipsum per maximum, domum
in Londonia incepit et perfecit, non parcens expensis, dummodo liberali-
tatis sue magnificentiam exhiberet.”’
270 WILLIAM THE SECOND.

served, but few, and belong to the early part of his reign. In
his time occurs the donation of the city of Bath to the bishop
of Somerset. At a later period, the only good deeds recorded
of him are the founding of some hospitals at York and Thet-
ford. Any patronage of science and art, notwithstanding his
pretended education by Lanfranc, is hardly to be expected
from William Rufus. Hence, in his dissensions with Anselm,
he has found no defender; no panegyrist, rife as they were in
those days; no biographer; probably not even one to dedi-
cate a book to him!.

1 The medical work, Schola Salernitana, is said to be dedicated to him;
though the editor, Z. Sylvius, has shown that, if not a later king, William’s
brother, duke Robert, is intended.
A
HISTORY OF ENGLAND
UNDER THE

NORMAN KINGS.

HENRY THE FIRST,

SURNAMED BEAUCLERC.

CONTEMPORARY SOVEREIGNS.

 

 

 

GERMANY. FRANCE. SCOTLAND. SPAIN.
Henry IV. 1106. | PhilipI. 1108. | Edgar 1107. | Alphonso VI. 1109.
Henry V. 1125. | Lewis VI. Alexander I. 1124, | Alphonso VII. 1134.
Lothair IT. | David I. Alphonso VIII.
POPES.

Paschal II, 1118. | GelasiusII. 1119. | Calixtus II. 1124.
Honorius II. 1130. | Innocent IL.

THE Red King, with other tall deer, had fallen on a
Thursday, and his carcase, as a wild boar’s, only covered
with miserable rags, was conveyed in a cart to Winchester,
where, on the following day, attended by a few monks,
townsfolk, and beggars, he received the little that was
granted of last honours and offices to the king of the pre-
ceding day, in his royal residence. He was interred in the
cathedral, but the solemn knell, which was wont to express
or supply the last lament of the survivors, was, on this occa-
sion, silent in almost every church. No one was there who
thought of distributing the customary alms for the repose of
his soul, out of the vast treasures of the departed. On the
other hand, there resounded from every side a loud, stern,
damnatory judgment, on the dead. No priest ventured to
absolve or reconcile the worthless tyrant, whom God had thus
suddenly summoned before him!.

1 Ord. Vital. p. 782.
272 HENRY THE FIRST.

Prince Henry, who was present at that hunting in the
New Forest, (or Ytene wald), was no sooner apprized of his
brother’s death, than, clapping spurs to his horse, he rode at
full speed to the castle of Winchester, to demand the keys as
next heir to the throne. But William of Breteuil, who had
outridden him, opposed the delivery of them, on behalf of
duke Robert, the first-born son of the Conqueror, to whom,
by right of primogeniture and by treaty, the crown of Ing-
land belonged, to whom all had sworn fealty, and to whom,
on his return from his glorious warfare for Christ, God would
give the crown to which he was born. Henry had already
drawn his sword against the unwished-for champion of strict
legality ; but the friends of both, and the counsellors of the
late king, who had hastened to the spot, declared themselves
unanimous in favour of the younger and more energetic bro-
ther, who must be considered as the next heir, if Robert’s
exclusion by his father were to be regarded as valid, and the
legality of William the Second’s reign acknowledged, to deny
which would be to sow the seeds of irremediable confusion.

On the Sunday immediately following his brother’s death,
Henry, at that time in his thirtieth year, was crowned at
Westminster by Maurice, bishop of London (5th Aug. 11003.)
The prompt services of his party he did not, however, obtain
without considerable donations, and gained over the more
intelligent and well-disposed by promises and concessions,
which, as far as they concerned the general interest, he
swore, previously to being anointed, to observe, before God
and the whole people, at the altar at Westminster. William
Giffard, the chancellor of his predecessor, was immediately
appointed to the see of Winchester. The archbishopric of
York was bestowed on Girard, bishop of Hereford; the va-

1 The surname of ‘ Beauclerc,’ bestowed on him, on account either of
his superior education or beautiful handwriting, occurs first in Grafton.

The epithet of ‘Le Clerc,’ applied to him, is not mentioned earlier than
Bromton,
HENRY THE FIRST. 273

cant abbacies were filled by the sons of the Norman aristo-
cracy, or by other ecclesiastics of that province. With the
object of conciliating the clergy, William’s great opponent,

and Henry’s early instructor, Anselm, was immediately and ,

reverently summoned back to England. But infinitely more
important, both for the present and the future, was a procla-
mation issued by the new king, in which he pledged himself
to remedy the abuses of the preceding government, and to
maintain the old Anglo-Saxon constitution, or, according to
the phraseology of the time, the laws of king Eadward. This
compact (for so, on consideration of the circumstances under
which it was called forth, it may justly be termed, and as
being ouly the written record of what he had sworn to only a
few days before,) was by Henry’s successors always confirmed
anew, and became thereby the fundamental law of the state,
until, after the lapse of more than a century, it was found
necessary to check new encroachments on the part of the suc-
cessors of the Conqueror, by the exaction of further conces-
sions, as embodied in the Great Charter, when a rude consti-
tutional structure was raised on this foundation-stone!.

The provisions of this charter, by which Henry purchased
his right to the throne and the good will of his subjects, are
the following : Through the mercy of God and with the com-
mon advice and consent of the Barons of England (who are
here mentioned for the first time in place of the old ‘ Witan’),
being crowned king, he will, as the realm was oppressed by
illegal exactions, before all things liberate God’s Church, so
that he will neither sell nor farm, nor on the death of an
archbishop or bishop or abbot, accept anything from the
possessions of the Church, or its tenants, until the entrance
of a successor. And will abolish all oppressive imposts (malee
consuetudines), so that if any of his barons, earls, or other
person dies, who holds immediately of him, his heir shall not
redeem his land as in the time of his brother, but with a law-

1 Sax. Chron. a.1100. Eadmer, p. 55.
,
274 HENRY THE FIRST.

ful and just relief. In like manner, the tenants of his barons
shall redeem their lands from their lords. And if any one of
his barons or vassals wishes to give his daughter, niece, etc.
in marriage, he shall speak with him (the king); who will,
however, accept nothing for the permission, nor forbid the
marriage, unless he wishes to bestow her on his (the king’s)
enemy. And on the death of a baron or other vassal of the
king, if he leaves an heiress, he (the king) will give her in
marriage, together with her land, with the advice of his
barons. If a widow is left childless, she shall possess her
dowry and “maritatio”!, and not be given in marriage, ex-
cept with her consent. If she is left with children, she shall
possess her dowry and “maritatio” as long as she leads a
spotless life, and shall not be given in marriage but with her
own consent; and the wife, or other relation of upright cha-
racter, shall be the guardian of the land and children. And
the king’s barons shall act in like manner towards the sons,
or daughters, or wives of their tenants. And the common
mintage (monetagium?), which was levied in the cities and
counties, and which did not exist in the time of king Eadward,
is thenceforth prohibited. If any moneyer or other be taken
with false money, he shall be brought to justice. All fines
(placita) and all debts owing to his brother he remits, ex-
cepting his just farms, and those that were settled for other
inheritances or for those things which more justly affected
others. And if any one has stipulated anything for his in-
heritance, he remits it, as well as all reliefs that have been
stipulated for just inheritances. And if any of his barons or
tenants falls sick, as he shall give or be disposed to give his
money, he grants that it be so given. But if, prevented by

1 In what this consisted is by no means certain: it was probably the
foster-lean of the Anglo-Saxon Laws.—T.

2 «Td quod monetarii, seu monete fabricatores, domino, cujus est
moneta, exsolyunt ex monetarii fusionis et signature proventibus.” Du
Cange.—T.
HENRY THE FIRST. : 275

arms or infirmity, he shall neither have so given nor disposed
of his money, then his wife, or children, or relatives, or vassals
legally authorized shall distribute it for the good of his soul
as to them shall seem good. If any of his barons or vassals
incurs a penalty, he shall not give a surety to the amount of
all his money, as in the time of his father and brother; but,
according to the amount of the penalty, let him be amerced,
as he would have been before the time of his father and bro-
ther, in the time of his other predecessors. But if he be
convicted of perfidy or crime, let him make such compensa-
tion as is just. “Murders”! also he pardons up to the day
of his coronation, and for those committed from that time
just reparation shall be made, according to the law of king
Eadward. The forests, with the consent of his barons, he
retains in his own hands, as his father held them. To knights
holding their lands by military service (per loricas) he grants
exemption from all payments and all works. Finally he re-
stores the laws of king Eadward, with those emendations
which they received from his father, with the consent of his
barons?,

While the king was thus endeavouring to conciliate not
only the great and inferior vassals, but also the lower orders
of burghers and peasants, he, nevertheless, reserved to himself
all the rights of the chase and forest, as they had existed
under his father and brother, thereby manifesting that pas-
sion for hunting, which induced William of Warenne, who

! The crime of ‘murdrum’ is not to be taken in the modern sense of
murder. In Legg. Henrici I. xcii. §. 5. it is said: “Murdritus homo
dicebatur antiquitus cujus interfector nesciebatur, ubicumque vel quomodo-
cunque esset inventus; nunc adjectum est, licet sciatur quis murdrum
fecerit, si non habeatur intra vii. dies.”

2 The several readings of this document are very varying. The copy in
the Statutes of the Realm has many variations. It is to be found also in
Matt. Paris (R. Wendover) and Ric. Hagustald. a.1100, and the Textus
Roffensis, edit. Hearne, p.51. The copy here given is from Legg. Hen. I.
ap. “ Ancient Laws and Institutes of England.”

rQ
276 HENRY THE FIRST.

was never well disposed towards him, to bestow on him the
nick-name of ‘ Pied de Cerf’!. Copies of this charter were
sent into all the counties, and deposited in the several
abbeys?.

A step taken by Henry of perhaps even greater moment
for its immediate effet, was his marriage with the grand-
daughter of prince Eadward, son of Kadmund Ironside, the
niece of Eadgar Etheling, and daughter of his sister Mar-
garet and her consort, king Malcolm Canmore. By this con-
nection he not only formed a friendly relation with her bro-
thers, the kings of Scotland, and restored a better state of
morals and greater decorum to the court, but also established
a joyful association, as it were, with the greater, or Anglo-
Saxon, portion of the people, who saw the crown revert to
their beloved royal race, and awaited the realization of a
beautiful picture, conjured up in their imagination, of golden
days, in the supposed return of the good old times of their
forefathers. We would fain ascribe to the excellent Anselm,
who, in consequence of a summons of the king and his barons,
had hastened back to England, a considerable share in all
these measures of liberality and wise policy; but the happy
idea of the marriage cannot have originated with that pre-
late, who, on the contrary, opposed it on the ground that

| Matilda, to escape from the violence of the Normans, had
formerly taken refuge with her aunt Christina in the abbey
' of Wilton, and had, moreover, worn the veil, to avoid a mar-
_ riage with Alan earl of Richmond. He yielded, however, to

1 Li quens Willame le gabout;

Pié de cers par gab ’apelout.—Rom. de Rou, v. 15650.
which see for other curious particulars, illustrative of the time, relative to
Henry.

2 Matt. Paris (R. Wendover, ii. p. 164). Henry also granted a charter
to the citizens of London, which is printed in Rymer, and at the beginning
of his Laws (Anc. Laws and Institt. of Engl.).

3 Her baptismal name was Eadgyth, which on her marriage was changed
to Matilda. Ord. Vital. lib. viii. Ann. Waverl. p. 133.
HENRY THE FIRST. 277

the explanations given’, and the marriage was solemnized in
the same year. Characteristic of the time, in which min-
strelsy was coming into vogue, and love, with valour and
piety, formed the chief materials for the poet, is the contem-
porary tradition, that Henry had long loved the Anglo-Saxon
daughter of kings, and, regardless of her scanty portion, de-
sired her before all the richly endowed daughters of princes ?.
The good-natured Anglo-Saxon, while enjoying with his
family the fire on his hearth, which under the two preceding
kings he had been compelled to quench at nightfall, readily
gave credit to the tale, which proved more beneficial to the
Norman king than the possession of many strong castles ;
while on the Normans the event produced a contrary effect.
Popular wit is always ready, and among those people was
chiefly distinguished by its aptitude in the invention of nick-
names and epithets, and so the king and queen were called
by the Normans by the Anglo-Saxon names of Goderie and
Godithe, in allusion probably to some lost love story ; which
appellations drew from the king himself peals of laughter.
Yet neither by the offensive wit nor the dangerous malice
of many of his vassals was the king to be diverted from the
course on which he had entered, but persisted in following
the counsels of the faithful friend of his youth, Henry earl of
Warwick, son of Robert of Beaumont, whose name appears
as first lay witness to the charter granted to the English.
Simultaneously with the publication of this charter, the indi-
vidual, whose oppressions it chiefly put an end to, Ranulf
Flambard, bishop of Durham, was arrested, conveyed to the
Tower of London, and committed to the custody of William
of Manneville. Here he lived in luxury on the allowance
made him from the exchequer and the liberality of friends ;
by his wit and pleasantry conciliating the good will, and
lulling the vigilance of his keepers. In the beginning of

1 Eadmer, Hist. Nov. p. 56. 2 W. Malm. p.619.
3 Thid. p. 618,
278 HENRY THE FIRSY.

February (1101) his sewer contrived to convey to him a rope .
concealed in a vessel of wine, by means of which the corpu-
lent prelate, while his guards, after their potations, were sunk
in sleep, glided down from the window of his prison and, with
hands sorely flayed, effected his escape to Normandy!, where
Robert bestowed on him the bishopric of Lisieux >.

Duke Robert had now returned to his paternal inheritance.
The crusade with its rapid succession of strange spectacles,
important events, pleasing and exalting sensations, had on
' Robert, as on the other participators, shed a lustre which he
previously had not possessed and never afterwards sustained.
His high birth greatly increased the impression which the
courage and bodily strength of the short and somewhat cor-
pulent hero had made’. But his renown was shared by
many of his countrymen, whose influence in the origin and
success of the crusade neither the duke knew how to turn to
advantage, nor posterity justly to appreciate. Among no
other contemporary people do we perceive so strong an in-
clination for pilgrimages, arising partly from enthusiasm,
partly from love of travel; nor among any other that success-
ful thirst after conquests. As early as the beginning of the
century, a pilgrim knight of Normandy had delivered the
chair of the successor of St. Peter from the power of the
Saracens, and acquired, as a kingdom for his posterity, some
of the fairest lands of Europe. Between Rouen and Jeru-
salem reciprocal intercourse, both through priests and lay-
men never ceased. And they were Normans, who first in
the spring of the year 1096, with Peter de Acheris® (com-
monly called of Amiens) the hermit, went forth on the cru-

1 Sim. Dunelm. a.1100. W. Malm. p. 620. Ord. Vital. p. 786.

2 At which the good Yvo of Chartres expresses his indignation.

3 Guibert. Gestor. Dei per Francos, lib. ii. c. 7.

4 W. Malm. p. 607.

5 The family name of this individual has hitherto been overlooked,
though preserved by Orderic (p. 723), while the locality of his cell has
been sought in vain.
HENRY THE FIRST. 279

sade, through Germany and Hungary. Among these were
Walter of Pacy! and his four nephews, Walter Saunzaveir,
William, Simon, and Matthew. That among the fifteen
thousand pedestrians led by them there were many Normans,
ean hardly be doubted. Duke Robert, who left Normandy
in September, was joined by Hugh the Great, count of Ver-
mandois and brother of the king of France; Hugh count of
St. Pol; his brother-in-law, Stephen count of Blois and
Chartres? ; his cousin, Stephen count of Aumale (Albemarle),
who had formerly aspired to the English crown; his uncle,
Odo, the notorious bishop of Bayeux, who died on his way at
Palermo ; Philip le Clerc, son of the count Roger of Mont-
gomery; Rotrou, son of Geoffrey count of Mortain; Walter
of St. Valery, a descendant of Richard II. duke of Normandy,
with his son Bernard; Girard of Gournay; the Breton Ralf '
of Guader, who twenty years before had planned the con- |
spiracy against the Conqueror at Norwich, and his son Alan ;
Yvo and Aubrey, sons of Hugh of Grentemaisnil? ; Roger of
Barnevile ; William of Ferriéres; Alan Fergant ; Conan,
son of count Geoffrey of Brittany, and others, whose deeds
have shed the most glorious splendour on their names?.
Duke Robert proceeded with his forces, through France and
Lombardy, to Lucca, where he met with pope Urban, and
received his blessing’. In Apulia, whether compelled by the

1 De Pexeio. Ord. Vital. p. 723. Paxeium, Pacy on the Eure was a fief
of the lord of Breteuil. Ord. Vital. pp. 527, 655, 705. ‘The identity of
Pexeium and Paceium is maintained by the editors of the Recueil des
Hist. de la France, xii. p. 814. A sire de Pacie fought at Hastings. See
Rom. de Rou, v. 13655. [Pacy seems at the Conquest to have belonged
to William fitz Osbern; but there certainly was a William de Pacy in 1080,
who possibly held under him. See Taylor, ‘ Master Wace,’ p. 230.—T. ]

2 He died in the East in 1102. Fulcher. Carnot. p. 414.

3 Their brother William, who married the daughter of Robert Guiscard,
we no longer count among the followers of duke Robert.

4 Ord. Vital. p. 724.

5 For Robert’s journey comp. Fulcher. Carnut., who accompanied his
count, and, consequently, duke Robert.
280 HENRY THE FIRST.

storms of winter, or seduced by indolence and frivolity, we
are unable to decide, Robert and Stephen of Blois made
some stay, although count Robert of Flanders had found
means to embark from Bari without delay. By the duke of
Apulia, Roger Borsat!, the son of Robert Guiscard, and
brother-in-law of William of Grentemaisnil, the first-born of
his old princely house, was received as his native sovereign,
and these exalted personages, forgetful of their vow, passed
the time in a round of revelry, while of the lower orders many
resolved to return home; and this state of things continued
till the following year (1097), when, in the month of April,
Robert embarked at Brindisi. He landed at Durazzo, and
proceeded, through Bulgaria and Macedonia, to Constanti-
nople, before the walls of which the crusaders had to content
themselves with good cheer and permission to enter the city
one by one.

The princes, Robert and Stephen, like most of those who
had preceded them, having performed the required homage
to the emperor Alexius Comnenus I. for the conquests they
were to make in Asia, were supplied with money (of which
Robert, notwithstanding his frugality at the outset, was now
greatly in need*), and other necessaries, and forthwith de-
spatched to Nica. Already, under the walls of that city, a
successful battle had been fought by the princes Godfrey and
Hugh (who had been joined by the count of Flanders, Ray-
mond count of Toulouse, Baldwin of Mons? and others) with

1 «Borsat,’ Lat. Marsupium, a sobriquet given him by his father, on
account of his love of money. W. Malm. p. 598. “ Rogerius cognomento
Bursa.”’ Ord. Vital. p. 724.—T.

2 Radulf. Cadom. lib. i.

3 « Baldwinus de Monte castello, Hamaicorum comes et princeps, vir
illustrissimus in omni militari actione.” Albert. Aquens. lib. ii. c. 22,
Petrus Tudebod. p.1. He had accompanied Godfrey. Balderic. p. 91.
Wilken overlooks him entirely until his return (i. p. 230), when he does
not recognise in him the count of Hainaut or Mons. Gesch. der Kreuz-
ziige, 1. p. 70; he seems to confound him with the much later Baldwin of
Rames, and this latter again with Baldwin de Bourg (of Mons), the son of
HENRY THE FIRST. 281

the Seljuk sultan, Kilidsh Arslan (or the Lion); yet Robert
with his band arrived, in the beginning of June, early enough
to take a glorious share in the capture of the city. He after-
wards joined the body of the army, in which were Boemund
of Tarentum, his nephew Tancred, and Richard del Princi-
pato’. In the attack which this force sustained from the
Turks at Doryleum (1st July), the salvation of the Christians
is chiefly to be ascribed to the presence of mind, the valour,
and eloquence of Robert. Early in the battle Boemund re-
signed the command to him, and it was he, who, seizing the
golden standard with his right hand, placed himself in front
of the fleeing Christians, showed them the impossibility of
safety by flight; and, in the hope of falling gloriously and in
fulfilment of his duty, once again raised the inspiring ery of
Deus le volt,” and led them to a victorious resistance?.
On their onward march Robert remained with the grand
army, to which the Armenians submitted without resistance,
and, with the consent of the other princes, bestowed the town
of Alfia on a knight named Simeon, a native of those parts,
that from thence he might preserve the country in faith to
God, the holy sepulchre, and the army of the cross®.

When the host arrived in the neighbourhood of Antioch,
the vanguard was placed under the command of duke Robert,
who valiantly sustained a conflict at the bridge of Ifrin, until

Hugh of Rethel. Baldwin of Rames, of unknown origin, appears to have
received his surname from the town in Galilee.

1 Erroneously in Wilken called ‘de Principaute.’ He was a grandson
of Tancred of Hauteville, by his second marriage, and son of William. See
Malaterra, lib. i. cc. 12, 15.

2 Radulf. Cadom. lib.i. cc. 20-22. Henry of Huntingdon’s account of
this crusade has been overlooked by its historians, while they make use of
the meagre extract from it by Robert de Monte. Comp. Petr. Tudebod.
Rob. Monach. lib. iii. p.41. W. Malm.

3 The duke of Normandy is named as the donor by H. of Huntingdon.
Balderic (lib. ii.) supplies the name of the place, and Orderic from him.
Both they and Guibert supply the name of Simeon. ‘The rest is found in
Petr. Tudebod. and Robert. Monachus.
282 HENRY THE FIRST.

the advance of fresh troops to his aid!. At the siege of the
city (from Oct. 18th 1097) he displayed at first his wonted
courage, and often with a very small forece?; but on the ap-
pearance of famine in the camp, the prince, accustomed to
sensual enjoyments, was missing3. It is to us particularly
interesting to receive from a contemporary and subject of
Robert the account that, from dread of advancing enemies,
those Anglo-Saxons, who had formerly fled from his father,
and whom the Greek emperor had sent to the defence of
Laodicea, had summoned the Norman duke to their help and
guidance. Robert was so delighted with the abundance of
the necessaries and luxuries of life, and the wines, with which
that city was supplied from the isle of Cyprus, that in the
enjoyment of them he sank into a state of complete inactivity,
and it was only after a thrice-repeated threat of the anathema
from the representative of the holy father, Ademar bishop of
Puy, that he could be prevailed on to return’, Although in
this instance he had suffered himself to be seduced by his un-
conquerable addiction to sensuality, yet did his inborn valour
again shine forth, when the Turks from Aleppo, Emesa, and
Hamah, had assembled at the castle of Harem, for the pur-
pose of relieving Antioch. On one day he, with Eustace of
Boulogne, defended the camp of the crusaders against a sally
of the besieged ; on the day following (9th Feb. 1098) he led
six bodies of troops against the new enemies®. The capture
of Antioch took place at length (3rd June), after a siege of
more than seven months, through treachery, yet were valiant
men required for the execution of the plan, and here also is
Robert’s name recorded as that of the second who ascended
‘the hostile wall®. Antioch was now acquired, and with it a

1 Alb. Aquens. lib. ii. c. 83. * Raimund. de Agilis, p. 143.

3 Ib. p.144. Will. Tyr. lib. iv. c. 18. 4 Rad. Cadom. lib.i. ¢. 58.

» Petr. Tudebod. p. 13. H. of Hunt.

6 Wilken, i. p. 200. According to Raimund (p. 151), this second was
Robert’s namesake, the count of Flanders; according to Albert. Aquensis
(lib. iv. c. 19), it was his men.
HENRY THE FIRST. 283

new Christian principality in the East ; though the immediate
consequence of its capture was only by new hardships to steel
the pilgrims for further deeds of valour. After a few days,
the prince of Mousul, Kerboga Cavem ed Daula, appeared
before the walls of the city. Roger of Barnevile, a Norman
knight, was the first victim of the attack of the Moslem be-
siegers!. Many knights fled, clandestinely leaving the city,
by letting themselves down from the wall by ropes, whence,
even in their home, the opprobrious epithet of rope-dancers
was for ever attached to them. Among these were even the
brothers of Grentemaisnil, and William viscount of Melun?2,
noted alike for faithlessness and strength of arm, whereby he
was able to cleave iron as it were soft wood, and thence ac-
quired the appellation of William the Carpenter. But duke
Robert, on the other hand, saved the city from the first as-
sault of Kerboga by his obstinate defence of the castle at the
bridge gate. He was one of the princes, who mutually bound
themselves by oath. never to the last gasp of breath, in any
case, to abandon the defence of the city?. His perseverance
found a glorious reward in the defeat and dispersion of the
besiegers (28th June). Although he had lost his last war-
horse, he borrowed that of count Raymond, then confined by
sickness, and, with Philip le Clere of Montgomery and Warin
of Taneye, pursued the enemy until he had slain one of the
leaders+. After the relief of Antioch, Robert, who was among
those princes who, true to their oath, had originally refused
to bestow the city on Boemund, would deliver it up to the
Greek emperor.

1 Petr. Tudebod. Alb. Aquens. lib. iv. c. 37. Guibert. lib. v. ¢. 15.

2 « De regali prosapia et vicecomes cujusdam regii castelli, quod Mili-
dunum dicitur, olim extitit.”” Rob. Monach. lib. iv. c.48. This formidable
hewer of iron had previously fled from the leaguer before Antioch, and
was noted in Spain on account of similar treachery. Guibert. lib. iv. c. 4.

3 Guibert. lib. v. c. 18.

4 Malmesbury (p. 608) takes this for Kerboga himself, but he had fled
to Aleppo. See Kemaleddin ap, Wilken, ii. Beilagen, p. 41.
284 HENRY THE FIRST.

During the time that the other princes had separated until
the beginning of winter, either for the sake of refreshing their
soldiers, or making foraging excursions, we lose sight of the
Norman duke. Probably he had returned to Laodicea, where
Winemar of Boulogne’, a notorious pirate during the last eight
years, had previously with his followers landed from ships pre-
tending to be from Antwerp, Thiel, and Friesland, combined
with some Provengals, under the pretext of a pilgrimage?.
With these was also Eadgar “theling, to whom the defence
of Laodicea had been intrusted, which he afterwards deli-
vered up to duke Robert; who subsequently lost it through
an insurrection of the inhabitants, who, exasperated at the
exactions of the prodigal duke, drove out his people, and even
prohibited the money of Rouen from passing current in their
markets?. When the march of the crusading army to Jeru-
salem was resolved on (24th Nov.), duke Robert, while the
others hesitated, joined Raymond of St. Giles, and with him
besieged and captured the city of Marra (12th Dec.). Ray-
mond offered Robert ten thousand shillings (solidi), if, united
with him, he would proceed to Jerusalem‘; an offer, which
Robert, who was ever in need of money, hardly refused. He
accompanied Raymond’s army to Kafertabad (10995), and
thence to the siege of Arka. In the dissensions which here

1 De terra Bulone et de domo comitis Eustachii, magnifici principis
ejusdem terre.”” Alb. Aquens. lib. iii. c. 14. lib. vi. c.55. Therefore not
of Bologna, as Wilken (i. p. 254) supposes; but is identical with him,
whom (i. p. 163) he calls Guinemer aus Bouillon, misled by William of
Tyre’s Guinerus Boloniensis. lib. vii. ¢. 15.

2 Ord. Vital. p.778. It seems to me not improbable that these ships
are the thirty which Raimond de Agilis (p. 173) calls English. He relates
of the English what the older writers do of Winemar; and the time and
place of landing agree. Albert of Aix (lib. vi. c. 55) places the services of
the squadron of Winemar along with those of the Genoese and Pisans, as
Raimond does of those whom he calls English.

3 Guibert. lib. vii. c. 35,

4 Raim. de Agilis, p. 161. Balderic. lib. iv. c.1. Guibert. lib. vi. c. 8.

5 Petr. Tudebod. c. 34.
HENRY THE FIRST. 285

arose between Raymond and Tancred, Robert sided with the
latter, and it was his chaplain, Arnulf,who convinced the army
of the spuriousness of the lance found by Raymond at An-
tioch!. Robert, after the example of duke Godfrey, having
burnt his tents before Arka, detached himself from the south-
ern French, and continued as before, and as both natural
and spiritual affinity seemed to point out, more closely united
with the northern French and the Italian Normans. At this
time Robert found a companion in arms in Hugh Budvel, son
of Robert de la Roche d’Igé (de Rupe Jalgeii), a Norman, for
many years resident in the East, having been exiled from his
country on account of the murder of the barbarous and ty-
rannical countess Mabil of Montgomery, who, through his
knowledge of the manners and habits of the Mohammedans,
proved of great utility?. At the siege of Jerusalem, Robert
had joined his camp with that of the count of Flanders, be-
fore the gate of St. Stephen; had, together with that prince,
engaged in many a glorious conflict; and both had succeeded,
by means of their military engines, in breaking through the
walls of the city. Deeply impressed with those religious feel-
ings which constituted the peculiar ornament of those war-
riors, they humbly implored the favour of victory, and were

1 «Domini Normannorum comitis familiaris et capellanus, vir quidem
literatus, sed immunde conversationis et scandalorum procurator.” Will.
Tyr. lib. vii. c.18. He had formerly been the friend and heir of bishop
Odo. Guibert. lib. viii. c. 1.

2 « Justus arbiter, qui peccatoribus pie parcit et impcenitentes districte
percutit, crudelem feminam, que multo sanguine madebat, multosque
nobiles violenter exheredatos per externa mendicare coegerat, permisit per-
ire gladio Hugonis, cui castrum quod in rupe [algeii situm est abstulerat,
et sic eum injuste paterna hereditate privaverat. Ile nimirum meerens
audaciam vehementem arripuit, junctis sibi tribus fratribus suis, qui mili-
tari probitate pollebant, noctu ad cameram comitissz accessit, ipsamque
in municipio super Divam quod Buris dicifur, in lecto post balneum deli-
ciantem, pro recompensatione sui, ense detruncavit.”’ Ord. Vital. pp. 578,
753.—T.
286 HENRY THE FIRST.

soon so fortunate as to be among the foremost who from duke
Godfrey's tower rushed into the holy city! (15th July).

On the election of a king for the new state, we are told
that the crown was offered to Robert, as being the son of a
king?. But he was too self-indulgent, and probably reckoned
too much on the prospect of one day obtaining secure pos-
session of both Normandy and England, to accept this fair,
though thorny, diadem. Robert’s influence in the army and
the council is apparent from the circumstance, that his chap-
lain and companion, Arnulf, attained to the high dignity of
chancellor, and, at a later period, to that of patriarch of Je-
rusalem?; and, at an earlier period, the first episcopal see
founded by the crusaders at Lidda was bestowed on a Nor-
man named Robert. Here also, as in every place where he
felt at ease, he was very well disposed to stay, and from that

1 Fulcher. p. 398. Balderic. p.131. Guibert. lib. vii. c. 6.

2 Will. Malm. p. 608. H. Hunt. pp. 377—379. See also ‘“ Continua-
tion du Brut,” and ‘‘ Chronique de P. Langtoft,” ap. Michel, pp. 100, sq.
and 160, sg. Gervas. Tilb., Otia Imper. ii. 20, has the erroneous account
that Robert was already informed of his brother’s death. His character,
as drawn by Ralf of Caen (lib. i. c. 15), may here find a place :—“ Rober-
tus, Normannie comes, Wilhelmi regis et expugnatoris Angliz filius, ge-
nere, divitiis, facundia quoque non secundus duci (Godofredo), sed supe-
rior; par in his que Cesaris sunt, que Dei, minor; cujus pietas largitas-
que valde fuissent mirabiles, sed quia in neutra modum tenuit, in utraque
erravit. Siquidem misericordiam ejus immisericordem sensit Normannia,
dum eo consule per impunitatem rapinarum nec homini parceret, nec Deo
licentia raptorum. Nam sicarii manibus, latronum gutturi, meechorum
caudz salaci, eandem quam suis se reverentiam debere consul arbitraba-
tur. Quapropter nullus ad eum vinctus in lacrymis trahebatur, quin so-
lutus mutuas ab eo lacrymas continuo impetraret. Ideo, ut dixi, nullis
sceleribus freenum, imo omnibus additum calcar ea tempestate Normannia
querebatur. Hujus autem pietatis sororculam eam fuisse patet largitatem,
que accipitrem sive canem argenti qualibet summa comparabat. Cum
interim mensa consularis unicum haberet refugium rapinam civium, atque
heec tamen intra patriam, verum fines patrios egressus, magna ex parte
luxum domuit, cui ante per magnarum opum affluentiam succubuerat.”

3 Albert. Aquens. lib. vi. c. 39 sq.
HENRY THE FIRST. 287

cause even again attached himself to his old rival Raymond}.
But having yielded to the representations of king Godfrey, he
fought with his wonted and oft-proved valour in the battle of
Ascalon (14th August). All the chroniclers of the time una-
nimously celebrate a deed which long shed lustre on Robert’s
aame, both in the east and west. On catching a glimpse of
the enemy’s silver standard, adorned with a golden knob, he
instantly rushed towards it, and sorely wounded the banner-
bearer. He could not, however, seize the standard himself,
but rewarded one of his warriors, who had gained possession
of it, in a manner befitting his usual munificence, with a do-
nation of twenty silver marks, for the purpose of offering it at
the holy grave.

Shortly after this battle, duke Robert, the counts of Flan-
ders, Boulogne, and Toulouse, Cuno of Montagu2, and other
knights, announced to Godfrey, in the camp at Cesarea, their
intention, having fulfilled their vow, of returning to their se-
veral states. Those faithful brothers in arms parted from
each other with tears; the noble-hearted, pious king remain-
ed behind, to defend the land of his faith against the ferocity
of the infidels. The duke and count Robert made a pilgrimage
to the Jordan, bathed in its sacred waters, and gathered palm
branches in Abraham’s garden at Jericho. With twenty
thousand pilgrims they proceeded to Laodicea, whence the
two princes embarked for Constantinople’. From that city

! Balderic. p. 136. Guibert. lib. vii. c. 17.

2 Guibert. lib. vii. c.18 sq. Balderic. p.136. Raimond. p.183. Albert.
Aquens. lib. vi. c.50. Among the glass paintings, representing the prin-
cipal events of the first crusade, which the contemporary abbot Suger
caused to be executed for the church of St. Denys, there is one represent-
ing either this or some similar feat of Robert’s. It is given in Montfaucon,
Monumens de la Monarchie Francoise, tom. i.

3 This Cuno of Montagu (de Monte acuto) had accompanied duke God-
frey (Albert. Aquens. lib. ii. c. 11), and belonged probably to the Norman
families of that name, whom we find in Domesday among the tenants in
chief of the Conqueror.

4 Fulcher. p. 400, Albert. Aquens. lib. vi. c. 54.
288 HENRY THE FIRST.

the duke passed to Apulia, where he continued the greater
part of the year; there he espoused Sibylla, the beautiful and
accomplished daughter of Geoffrey count of Conversana, a
near relation of duke Robert Guiscard. The rich count by
the dowry, and other friends by loans, supplied Robert with
a considerable sum of money, with which he hoped to redeem
his dukedom out of the hands of his brother!. In the intoxi-
cation of a happiness almost unutterable, he returned home, ..
the lord and heir of powerful states, in the prime of manhood,
covered with fresh, well-earned laurels, supplied with the trea-
sure that he so greatly needed, gifted with the hand of exqui-
site beauty, combined with rare judgment.— Who could have
predicted how, in a few short years, so much happiness passed
away from this most thoughtless of mortals?

While on his homeward journey, the intelligence reached
him of the death of William, and of the treachery of his bro-
ther Henry?. The news affected him but slightly. Received
with festivities by the Normans, the money he had brought
with him was in a few weeks squandered away in so culpable
and frivolous a manner, that at times, because his clothes
had been stolen from him by harlots and other rabble, he was
unable to leave his bed. Besides the pecuniary aid he had
brought with him, he had also lost the respect and good-will
of the Normans, when Ranulf Flambard and other Anglo-
Normans, discontented with Henry’s severe measures, insti-
gated him to wrench England from his brother by arms. A
year was spent in the mere preparations for war. Le Maine
in the meanwhile fell again into the hands of the expelled
count Hélie, and Robert in his indolence even treated with
contempt the opportunity offered him by the faithful vassals

1'W. Gemmet. lib. vii. c. 4. Ord. Vital. p.780. W. Malm. p.609. Rom.
de Rou, vv. 15419 sqq.

2 As he arrived in Normandy in August 1100 (according to Rob. de
Monte in September, according to Orderic, p. 784), that intelligence can-
not have induced him to leave Apulia.

3 Ord, Vital. p.786. W. Malm. p. 609.
HENRY THE FIRST. 289

of holding the castle of Le Mans'. While the most distin-
guished Normans, Robert fitz Hamon, Richard of Reviers,
Roger Bigot, the influential count of Meulan, and his brother
Henry, seceded from the duke, there joined him of the nobles
in England Robert of Belesme, his brothers Roger of Poitiers
and Arnulf, William of Warenne, earl of Surrey, whom the
king disliked on account of his witticisms; Walter Giffard,
Robert of Pontefract, son of Ibert of Lacy; Robert Malet, and
the duke’s former companion in arms, Ivo of Grentemaisnil?. |
Of these, Robert of Belesme had already fought for duke Robert
in his wars with his father; the house of Grentemaisnil had
declared for him on the usurpation of the throne by William
Rufus; the count of Warenne and Robert fitz Hamon were
at that time disaffected towards him®. In the summer of the
following year (20th July 1101) the duke embarked at Tré-
port for Portsmouth. The ‘“ butsecarls” sent by Henry—
who with his army awaited his brother in the neighbourhood
of Hastings—to watch the coast, went over to Robert, who
found many Normans well disposed towards him at Winches-
ter. For Henry, however, was the whole Anglo-Saxon popu-
lation, which adhered faithfully to the consort of their Godithe.
But the most effectual support Henry found in Robert of
Meulan, son of Roger of Beaumont, shortly afterwards earl
of Leicester. This highly distinguished and illustrious knight
had in his youth signalized himself by his deeds at Hastings ;
and subsequently, by the political sagacity displayed by him
as counsellor to William Rufus, had acquired the reputation
of being the wisest statesman between London and Jerusalem,
and arbiter of peace or war between England and France.
His counsels allayed the dissensions between the laity and
clergy. By the latter he was held in the highest considera-
tion, while the former regarded him as their oracle in all se-
cular affairs, and even as a pattern for imitation in habits,

1 Ord. Vital. p. 784. Acta Cenoman. p. 309.
2 Ord. Vital. pp. 785 sq., 804. W. Malm. p. 620. 3 See p. 221,
U
290 HENRY THE FIRST.

clothing, entertainments, and, in short, the entire business of
life’. Hence it was almost decisive against duke Robert, who
had once detained him as a prisoner, and, at a later period,
was unable to protect him against the injustice of his ene-
mies, that the count of Meulan was ill-disposed towards him.
It was to his address and eloquence that Henry was chiefly
indebted for the preservation of his throne, the chief support
of which, Robert. of Meulan,—who was to the sons what Wil-
liam fitz Osbern had been to the father,—continued to be
until his death in the year 1118. With a feeling not unusual
in that chivalric age, Robert refused to take possession of
Winchester, thereby risking his chance of a kingly crown,
that he might not cause annoyance to his sister-in-law,
Henry’s consort, at that time on the eve of her accouche-
ment?. Shortly after, without a battle, at an interview with
his brother, Robert, awed by the threat of excommunication
from archbishop Anselm, allowed himself to be persuaded to
release Henry from the oath he had taken to him with re-
ference to the crown, in consideration of the cession of the
Cotentin, possessed by Henry, and of his other possessions in
Normandy, with the exception of Domfront, and of a yearly
pension of three thousand marks, or two thousand pounds
sterling. The vassals of one brother were mutually absolved

! Guil. Pictav. p. 202. Ord. Vital. pp. 686 sg., 709, 784. See also pp.
253, 263. Hen. Hunt. de Contemptu Mundi, apud Wharton, Angl. Sac.
ii. p. 697. W. Malm. p. 636. John of Salisbury also mentions of the
“Comes Legestriz Robertus, modeste proconsulatum gerens apud Bri-
tannias,” an expression which bears witness to his kindly disposition,
“that true majesty is of God alone, and that the crimen lesz majestatis
is so called only because the king is God’s image on earth.”” The scanty
notices existing of such men cannot be too carefully collected, as showing
that every country, even in the darkest and most troubled times, if it be
not hastening to its downfall, has possessed wise and benevolent states- —
men.

2 Roman de Rou, vv. 15456 sq.

Et il dist ke vilain sereit,
Ki dame en gésine assaldreit.
HENRY THE FIRST. 291

from all crimination on account of the aid they had afforded
to the other, and the confiscated estates were restored. The
article also, as usual, was added, that in the event of one
brother dying without lawful issue, the survivor should suc-
ceed to his states on both sides of the Channel. Twelve of
the most influential barons on each side swore to enforce the
fulfilment of this compact}. Robert with his army continued
for some months in England, to the great hardship of the in-
habitants of those parts.

The duke had hardly left England, when Henry, reckless
of the promised amnesty, summoned before his court and
severely punished those barons, who, by their desertion to —
Robert, had most offended him. Among these was that Ivo
of Grentemaisnil, who had acquired for himself the unenvia-
ble sobriquet of the rope-dancer of Antioch?, and now, appre-
hensive of the implacable vengeance of the king, had pledged
to the crafty, overreaching count of Meulan, his share of the
earldom of Leicester, and, with his wife, departed on a new
pilgrimage, on which they both died. Among the other op-
ponents of the king, Robert of Belesme had been yet more
dangerous and hateful to him, as, in addition to his earldoms
of Alengon and Shrewsbury®, he had, by the death of his *
father-in-law, Guy count of Ponthieu, acquired that county,
and had, moreover, from duke Robert, received the posses-
sions of his father in Normandy. Henry also deprived his
own brother-in-law, William of Warenne, of the earldom of
Surrey, who thereupon hastened to Robert, whom he seduced
very imprudently to cross over to England, in the hope of
persuading Henry to other measures. But Henry soon gave
his brother to understand, that, by such a step, he exposed
his liberty, and even life, to no small peril; and, under the
deceitful mask of kind feeling, remonstrated with him for har-
bouring traitors, in contravention of their agreement. Robert

1 Sax. Chron. Flor. Wigorn. a. 1101, Ord.Vital. p.788. Eadmer, p. 49.

2 See p. 283. 3 See page 241.
uQ

~
292 HENRY THE FIRST.

was now fully aware of the net in which he had entangled
himself by his visit to England, and it was from apprehension,
rendered yet stronger by the insidious mediation of the count
of Meulan, rather than in a fit of perverted, prodigal gal-
lantry, that he was induced, at the request of the young
queen, to relinquish the pension promised him in considera-
tion of his renunciation of the throne. At this price assu-
rances of royal favour were readily given him by his brother,
and he received not only a safe-conduct for his return home,
but also the restoration of the earldom of Surrey to their
common brother-in-law!.

In the meanwhile Robert of Belesme, who imagined him-
self powerful enough to contend single-handed with the king,
caused his castles in various parts of England, as Shrewsbury,
his newly-erected one at Bridgenorth, Arundel, and Tickhill,
to be strongly fortified. This nobleman, although he had
generally attached himself to the vanquished side, had, by
availing himself of extraordinary events, as well as through
the fear which he knew how to inspire, and by skilful working
on the selfishness of those in power, succeeded in acquiring
vast influence. His contemporaries are unanimous in de-
scribing him as one of the most detestable characters known
in history, to whom the most unheard-of barbarities were not
merely a means, not merely acts of revenge, but an insatia-
ble enjoyment. In Le Maine the memory of this monster
still lives, where the ramparts erected by him are yet shown
as those of Robert the devil. Justly, it is said, did he bear
his grandfather's surname of Talevas? (man-crusher). He
scorned the rich ransoms offered by his numerous captives,

1 W. Malm. pp. 609, 621. Ord. Vital. p. 804. Wace (vv. 15680 sqq.)
is very circumstantial here. According to him, Robert’s visit took place
in 1102, which is rendered probable by the circumstance that William of
Warenne does not appear among the later opponents of the king. Ac-
cording to the Saxon Chronicle and its translation it took place in 1103.

2 Talevas signifies a shield that covers the whole man. See Roquefort,
in voce.
HENRY THE FIRST. 293

that, like another Phalaris, he might torture them by new-
invented instruments. The mutilation of hands and feet, and
putting out of eyes, usual in those times, he disdained, but
found delight in seeing men and women empaled and strug-
gling in the agonies of death. Of a little boy, to whom he
was godfather, he thrust out the eyes, while pretending to
play with him under his mantle, because the father of the
child had given him some trivial offence and escaped from
his vengeance. As talents in which he excelled, were his arts
of dissimulation, by which he often deceived his victims, and
his knowledge of the art of war, which he promoted by the
invention of many military engines'. Against this vassal, a
like object of abhorrence, both to those of his own rank and
those of an inferior degree, whose preparations had been long
regarded with suspicion, the king had caused forty-five arti-
cles of accusation to be drawn up, all founded on his actions
during the last year, and summoned him to appear before his
court. Probably not aware of this preliminary step, he ap-
peared before the king with his wonted ease and affected
submission; but no sooner had he heard the well-supported
charges, than, under the pretext of consulting his friends, ac-
cording to the usage of that time, he withdrew, flung himself
on a horse, and fled with all speed to his castle of Bridge-
north. He was now declared contumacious, and a convicted
traitor. The king assembled an army, and proceeded in per-
son against Arundel, which, after a siege of three months,
capitulated with the sanction of its lord. Tickhill was taken
by Robert, the warlike bishop of Lincoln. From Arundel,
Henry passed into Nottinghamshire, where the castle of
Blythe, which, as well as Tickhill, Robert, as heir of Roger
of Busli, had recovered from William Rufus, gladly surren-

1 W. Gemmet. lib. viii. c. 35. Ord. Vital. pp. 675, 707, 768. W.
Malm. p. 621. Roman de Rou, vv. 15042-15050. H. Hunt., de Contemptu
Mundi, ap. Wharton. p. 698.
294 HENRY THE FIRST.

dered to him!. The king now disbanded a part of his troops
during the harvest, after which he marched against Bridge-
north, with the object of subduing Robert himself, together
with the Welsh, under their princes Caducan and Gervatus,
the sons of Rhys, on whose aid he chiefly relied. Here, how-
ever, the contest was very easy, as the ranks of the Welsh
gave ground, not so much from the arrows, as through the
influence of English silver?; so that at the end of thirty days,
that strong and curiously constructed fortress, which was re-
garded as impregnable, was delivered into the hands of the
king,

But Henry’s most important victory was that which he
wrested from his aristocracy. When the barons saw how
their dreaded chief had been forced to yield before the power
of the king, the thought seized them that he might soon an-
nihilate them also as so many feeble women. Hereupon they
formed a combination, with the object of laying before their
liege lord all the reasons which spoke in favour of lenity to-
wards his enemy. Henry was wavering, when three thousand
peasant soldiery* assembled, disclosed to him what to their
unprejudiced judgment appeared manifest, the treason of his
nobility, and promised to shed the last drop of their blood
in overthrowing the detested magnates. Henry obeyed the
voice of the good people, and had no cause to repent of
having done so.

Tn this struggle no one was more useful to him than William
Pantolf, a Norman of rank, immediately holding of the king,
whom Roger of Montgomery had placed over the earldom of
Shrewsbury, but afterwards, on account of suspected participa-
tion in the murder of his countess, Mabil of Belesme®, had
persecuted. Notwithstanding his proved innocence, Robert

1 Domesday, Ord. Vital. pp. 768, 806.
2 Ord. Vital. pp. 806, 807. Flor. Wigorn. a. 1102.
3 Domesday, Ord. Vital. pp. 583 sq. p. 807.

4 Pagenses milites. Ord. Vital. p.807.—T. 5 See page 285.
HENRY THE FIRST. 295

had subsequently deprived him of the fief he held of him, who,
thereby exasperated and imbued with feelings of the bitterest
revenge, found, for.the general good, the means of wreaking
it in his increased loyalty to the king. Robert had fled to
Shrewsbury, where he considered himself the more secure, as
‘ the only approach to it for the king’s troops seemed tu be a
narrow pass strongly occupied by his followers. But the
royal army cleared itself a way through the dense forest,
felling its aged trees with the sharp axe, and by its unlooked
for arrival struck terror into the furious count. The towns-
men then caused the keys of their gates to be delivered to
the king by the hands of Ralf abbot of Séez, and shortly
after, the count also submitted, on condition of a free depar-
ture from England for himself and his brother, Arnulf of
Montgomery—who, through his marriage with the daughter |
of the king of Ireland, hoped to obtain the crown of that
realm—and Roger of Poitou, so designated from his wife’.
- The king could now be regarded as the real master of his
realm: he had also demanded of his brother the observance
of the compact between them, a strict adherence to which |
could alone ensure the tranquillity of both states, by the one
not harbouring exiles from the dominions of the other. But,
although the duke had successfully fought against the vassals
of Robert of Belesme, although the whole of Normandy had
risen against the detested count, and even his brother Arnulf,
with many followers, had passed over to the duke, yet, never-
theless, through that prince’s inactivity, the dread in which
count Robert was held by the people, the discord that pre-
vailed among the nobles, and, finally, through the good for-
tune that so often attends the worst of men, and which now
1} For these events Orderic (pp. 806 sg.) is the most circumstantial and,
through his family connections, our most trustworthy informant. The
Sax. Chron. and Florence (a. 1102) speak as if Robert surrendered at
Bridgenorth. Malmesbury (p. 622) relates that from Bridgenorth Robert

went to Arundel, and from thence crossed over to Normandy. See also
Langtoft, apud Michel, pp. 156-158.
296 HENRY THE FIRST.

placed in his hands, as prisoners, William of Conversana, the
duke’s brother-in-law, with other Normans of rank, he at
length succeeded in effecting a treaty with the duke, by which
he was restored to all his father’s possessions in Normandy’.
A most unfortunate occurrence both for the country and its
prince was the death of his consort, Sibylla, who had borne
him an heir, count William, and through her prudence, had
been able to preserve many friends to him. It was asserted
that poison was the cause of her death, and suspicion ascribed
it to Agnes, the widow of the recently deceased earl of Buck-
ingham, Walter Giffard, and a sister of Robert’s companion
in arms, Anselm of Ribemont?, who had received the duke’s
promise, that after Sibylla’s death, he would make her his
duchess?. That promise, however, was never fulfilled, as
Robert’s difficulties, which were now thickening upon him,
forbade all thoughts of such a connection and of a new
household.

Shortly after, Henry, enraged at the treaty made with
Robert of Belesme, sent troops over to Normandy, for the
purpose of taking possession of certain castles, as well as of
occupying Domfront, which belonged to him, and of strength-
ening himself in the Cotentin, to which, it was said, Robert
had raised pretensions'. He also banished from England,

) Ord. Vital. p. 811. a.1103. Sax. Chron. a. 1104.

2 «De Ribode Monte,” “ Riburgis Monte.” There is by bim an ac-
count of the first crusade extant, in which he himself fell a sacrifice at the
siege of Arka, at the foot of Lebanon, in the year 1099. He was the
founder of the monastery of Anchin, near St. Quentin. Ribemont is in
the department of L’Aisne, between St. Quentin and Laon.

3 Ord. Vital. pp. 809 sq. W. Malm. (p. 609), ascribes her death to im-
proper treatment in her confinement: [‘‘deceptam, ut dicunt, obstetricis
consilio, que pro affluentis lactis copia, puerperee mammas stricta prece-
perat illigari fascia.” —T. ]

4 Sax. Chron. a.1104. According to Orderic (p. 813), Henry himself
went to Domfront. M. Le Prevost must have overlooked this passage,
when he regards as pure invention what Wace (vv. 15846 sqq.) relates on
this occasion.
HENRY THE FIRST. 297

Robert count of Mortain and earl of Cornwall, who, on his
mother’s side, a nephew of Robert of Belesme, had laid claim
to the earldom of Kent, which had been held by bishop Odo,
the brother of his father, Robert'. In the following spring
Henry himself crossed the sea, and with little difficulty took
Bayeux and Caen, two of his brother's best cities. The latter
had closed its gates against the duke, who had already ap-
peared there as a levier of contributions, from whom they
had to conceal their property in the church, but now only as a
erafty borrower and beggar?. There seems, therefore, to have
been hardly any need of the bribery and treachery, by which
the city fell into the power of Henry®. The siege of Bayeux
required greater exertions, the castle being valiantly defended
by Gunther of Aunay (de Alneio). The single combat of a
brave ducal knight, Robert of Argouges, with one of the
king’s named Brun, who fell in the contest, is one of the
memorable incidents of the siege. It was only with the aid
of Hélie count of Le Maine, and the count of Anjou, that
Henry attained his object, and that not without a great
sacrifice of religious feeling and of humanity, by the burning
of the cathedral and churches and those houses to which the
besieged had fled for safety+. In the autumn the king again

' His father was, consequently, a half-brother of William the Con-
queror and son of Herluin. The county of Mortain (Moritolium, Mori-
tonium, Moretoign, Moretun), in the south of the department of La
Manche, is frequently confounded with the also Norman county of Mor-
tagne (Mauritania, Moritonia), in the south of the department of L’Orne.
William the Conqueror had given the former to Robert, after the expul-
sion of William, surnamed Werleng, the son of Mauger; while the latter
(better known at a later period under the name of Perche), belonged at
that time to count Geoffrey, his son Rotrou, and their successors of like
name.

2 Rom. de Rou, vv. 16000 sqg. W. Malm. p. 610.

3 H. Hunt. a.1105. Ord. Vital. p. 818d. Rom. de Rou, vv. 16270 sqq.

4 Rom. de Rou, vv. 16042-16238. H. Hunt. Ord. Vital. p.818. By
Serlo, the bishop of Séez expelled by Robert of Belesme (ob. 1124) there
are extant 838 Leonine verses: De capta Baiocensium Civitate, which are
printed in Notices et Extraits des Manuscrits de Ja Bibliothéque du Roi
298 HENRY THE FIRST.

embarked for Normandy, and compelled his brother to cede
to him one of his chief vassals, William count of Evreux,
with his county and all his tenants. The count, although
mortified at being treated as a horse or an ox, yet soon be-
eame reconciled to his lot by the simplifying of his former
double services, and served his new lord firmly and faithfully.
That by these measures Henry conferred real benefit on the
country, and materially promoted its tranquillity, although
he omitted the most important one of all, namely to place his
brother under a guardianship, is apparent from the attempts
made by Robert of Belesme to enter again into his favour
(1106), though he failed in effecting a reconciliation. Equally
fruitless was an attempt by duke Robert, in a visit to his
brother’s court at Northampton, to obtain from him the resti-
tution of his possessions. In the same year the king made
an attempt to repress the rebellious vassals. He laid siege
to Tinchebray, a fortress belonging to the count of Mortain;
whereupon the troops in the neighbourhood of the counts of
Mortain and Belesme, of Robert of Estoutevile, William of
Ferriéres, William Crespin, and, at length, of duke Robert,
which had also been joined by the queen’s uncle, Eadgar
/Etheling, who had returned from Palestine later than
Robert}, formed a junction; and against them the royal
forces, among which those of the count Hélie of Le Maine,
of the counts of Evreux, Warenne, and Meulan, and others of
high rank are mentioned by name. Men of right feeling were
desirous of avoiding the scandal of a conflict, and Henry
himself went so far as to offer his brother the revenues of
half Normandy, and a compensation, in the shape of an an-
nuity, for the other half, if he would resign the government

t.xi; also in Recueil des Historiens, t. xix. A W. de Brun appears in
Domesday. Suffolk, fol. 377.

1 His valiant friend and companion, Robert, son of Godwine, was taken
prisoner by the Mohammedans in king Baldwin’s flight from Rama, in
May 1102, and, refusing to renounce his faith, was shot to death with
arrows. W. Malm. p. 425.
HENRY THE FIRST. 299

of the duchy, of his incapacity for which he must be fully
aware!. Those about the duke were but too successful in
prevailing on him to refuse these conditions, and the fraternal
conflict took place on the day, on which, forty years before, \
the battle of Hastings was fought by their father (28th Sept.).
Victory soon declared itself in the king’s favour; a great
number fell by the sword, and about four hundred knights
were taken; of the leaders, Robert of Belesme was the only
one that escaped; the duke himself was made prisoner by
Galdric, one of the king’s chaplains; the count of Mortain
by some Bretons?. This noble and some other barons were
condemned to perpetual imprisonment. Eadgar d‘theling
and Robert of Estoutevile were set at liberty. The former,
who, from love of his native land, had declined the invitations
of the German and Greek emperors to pass the remainder of
his days at their court, retired to some remote corner of
England, where he lived solitary and unheeded, and, it is
supposed, died at an advanced age in the latter years of
Henry’s reign®. Flambard was restored to his see on re-
signing that of Lisieux, conferred on him by duke Robert.
Duke Robert’s lot seems to claim our commiseration, on
calling to mind how much fortune had seemed willing to be-
stow on him; though it can hardly be pronounced lament-
able, if we take into consideration the welfare of his subjects
and his own imbecility. At first he was held in captivity at
Falaise, and afterwards in England, though treated as a

1 Ord. Vital. p. 820.

2 A letter on this battle from the king to archbishop Anselm is given
in Malm. de Pont. lib. i. and Eadmer, p.90. [The chaplain, Galderic, was
rewarded with the bishopric of Llandaff. Having incurred the hatred of
the townsmen, he, with five of his prebendaries, was murdered in a field.
Ord. Vital. p. 821.—T.]

3 Malmesbury (p. 425) speaks of him as still living: [‘ Eadgarus,
fatua cupidine illusus, Angliam rediit, unde, ut superius dixi, diverso
fortune ludicro rotatus, nunc remotus et tacitus canos suos in agro con-
swumit.”—T.]
300 HENRY THE FIRST.

prince, and in full enjoyment of every luxury’. He lived in
indolence twenty-eight years, and died at Cardiff?. Henry
now, as his father is said to have foretold, added the dominion
of Normandy to that of England; although it-would seem
that, notwithstanding his having received the investiture from
the king of France, he observed the forms of etiquette to-
wards his brother so far that, while Robert lived, he never
assumed the title of duke of Normandy‘.

It seems remarkable that these wars, regarding a fief of
the French crown, were carried on by two of its vassals, with-
out any interposition on the part of the king of France. We
find, indeed, intimations of negotiations between that mon-
arch and Henry®, yet no traces worthy of notice of any act
or expression of will on the part of the powerless suzerain.
A very different spirit of foresight and activity prevailed in
the council of Henry. No prince could be more useful to
England than the count of Flanders, who also possessed the
power, by his proximity to Normandy, of being a troublesome
and dangerous neighbour, and, in consequence of his double
vassalage, to the king of France and the German emperor,
was the better able to maintain his independence. Henry,
under many more defined conditions, renewed with count Ro-
bert an old treaty, based originally on the relations subsist-
ing between the Conqueror and his father-in-law, count Bald-
win V., by which, in consideration of a yearly stipend of four
hundred marks of silver, that prince engaged, as far as his
feudal obligations to the Roman and French realms permitted,
to supply the king of England, at his desire, within forty days,

1 Ord. Vital. p. 823. “Omnibus deliciis abundanter pavit.”” W. Malm.
p. 611. Also Joh. Saresbur. Polycrat. lib. v. c. 18. “captum in custodia
publica, habita tamen estimatione dignitatis sanguinis.”’

2 Ord. Vital. p. 893. Flor. Wigorn. Cont. a. 1134.

3 Suger. lib. i. p. 28.

4] do not find the title in any document of Henry’s; for that in Rymer

of the year 1132 belongs evidently to Henry III. and to the year 1248,
* Ord. Vital. p.816, a. 1105,
HENRY THE FIRST. 301

with a thousand horse soldiers, each with three horses, in
England, with an equal number in Normandy, and five hun-
dred in Le Maine. Should count Robert be bound, with king
Philip of France, to make an attack on England, he promised
with the smallest number, ten knights only, to proceed against
Normandy. He moreover bound himself to the king to aid
him not only against foreign enemies, but also against rebels.
The further, more circumstantial provisions of this treaty, in
which the count of Flanders appears half as an independent
prince, and half as a mercenary of England, conclude with
the engagement of twelve of the highest Flemish barons, viz.
~ Robert of Bethune, the constable Amauri, Hugo of Aubigny,
the castellains of Bruges, Mons, Lisle, ete., who, in case the
count should not fulfil his obligations to king Henry, promise
to pay that sovereign twelve hundred marks of silver, under
the penalty of confinement in the Tower of London. On the
other part, the king gave eight sureties for the payment of
the annual stipend promised by him?!. After the death of
king Philip, this treaty was renewed, with some modifica-
tions, and with express reference to any hostilities that
might take place between Henry and the successor of Philip,
Lewis V12.

Less definite was the relation in which the county of Le
Maine stood to England. At the intelligence of king Wil-

1 Rymer, Feed. i. p.7. The treaty is placed in the beginning of March
1103. It was concluded at Dover. Eadmer (p. 69) mentions the meet-
ing. See also England under the A. S. Kings, ii. p. 287, and this volume,
p- 261.

2 Rymer, i. p. 6, under the date 1101, erroneously, as king Lewis is
named ; therefore between 1108, when that prince succeeded to the throne,
and 1111, when count Robert died. The first of these years is probable,
not only from all the circumstances, but is almost confirmed by the fact,
that Robert of Belesme appears as one of the deputies and sureties for the
king, which seems imaginable only, in the brief space between his recon-
ciliation with Henry and his new defection in favour of the son of duke
Robert. A similar treaty of the year 1163 is given in the Foedera,
lib. i. p. 22.
302 HENRY THE FIRST.

liam’s death, count Hélie instantly hastened to Le Mans, the
inhabitants of which came joyfully to meet him. With these
and those knights who had faithfully adhered to him in his
exile, together with the auxiliaries he had demanded from
Fulk count of Anjou, as his feudal lord, he laid siege to the
castle, which was stoutly defended by two Norman knights,
Haimeric of Moria and Walter fitz Ausger, of Rouen. But
the besieged, who could not be ignorant of the perplexed
condition of their prince, entered into an armistice, for the
object of obtaining, from the princely brothers, through the
medium of deputies, instructions for their future measures.
Duke Robert, just returned from Palestine, and called upon
to strive for the crown of England, thanked his knights for
their willingness to preserve Le Maine for him, but, at the
same time, declared that, for the present moment, he was
compelled to leave them to their fate. From the English
monarch, who had still greater reason not to divide his forces,
they received a similar answer’. At the end of three months
the place was surrendered to Hélie, who from that time kept
undisturbed possession of the county of Le Maine until his
death eight years afterwards. While drawing the bond of
union with Anjou still more closely, by marrying his daughter
Erenburg to count Fulk, he entered into more intimate rela-
tions with king Henry, to whom he afforded aid in his wars
in Normandy. The circumstances, under which the feudal
relation of Le Maine to England was renewed under Hélie,
are unknown ; it might possibly have been in virtue of a,treaty
similar to that before mentioned with Flanders’. That after
Hélie’s death no feudal relationship existed is beyond all
doubt 3.

! Ord. Vital. pp. 784 sqg. Acta Cenoman. p. 309.

2 Ord. Vital. p. 818. a. 1106.

3 It is the Sax. Chron. only (a.1110) which states that Hélie held Le
Maine of K. Henry. [I add the passage: “Dises geares forSferde Elias
eorl, be ba Mannie of b4m cynge Heanri geheold, and on cweow.” ‘The
last word has sadly puzzled the translators: Bp. Gibson says: “ Lectio
HENRY THE FIRST. 303

Henry’s relations with France were, in the beginning of
his reign, on a most friendly footing, as on his part the power,
on the other both the power and the inclination, to enter on
a border-warfare were wanting. Prince Lewis, the heir to
the French crown, even visited Henry at London. Soon
after his arrival Henry received a letter, written, in the name
of king Philip, by the countess Bertrade of Anjou, in which
he is requested to consign the prince, her step-son, to per-
petual imprisonment. A proposition of such importance
could not be decided on without the consent of the barons,
who were instantly called together. But hospitality pre-

--vailed over the delusions of self-interest, and a companion of
the prince, William of Buschely, who, suspecting something
of what was in agitation, had, as it were in joke, thrust him-
self into the meeting of the nobles, was commissioned to
disclose the proposed treachery to his master. Henry dis-
missed the prince with rich presents, who vainly demanded
vengeance at the hands of his father, and was even exposed
to murderous machinations on the part of the royal harlot’.
To appease his resentment, his father conferred on him Pon-
toise and the Vexin, by which act the design of bringing him

fortasse vitiosa: certe vocabuli significatio me latet.” Ingram adds:
“The territory was not a fee simple, but subject to tillage or taxation ;
“and that particular species is probably here intended which is called in old
French en quewage, an expression not very different from that in the text
above.” Perhaps without rendering myself liable to the charge of over-
rashness, I may venture on reading oncneow, agnovit, in place of the no-
meaning on cweow. That is, he held of, and acknowledged, Henry (as his
feudal lord).—T.]

! Sim. Dunelm. a. 1101. Ord. Vital. p.813. [After his return Bertrade
attempted his destruction by secret arts, and for that purpose employed
three sorcerers (malefici de numero clericorum), one of whom divulged the
plot and rendered it abortive. She then suborned poisoners, and the
prince, taking to his bed, for some days could neither eat nor sleep. When
the French physicians had exerted their skill in vain, a shaggy individual
from a barbarous land (hirsutus de Barbarie) came, and, by his me-
dicaments, saved the patient’s life, but who remained an invalid ever
after.—T’.]
304 HENRY THE FIRST.

into hostile collision with the Normans and king Henry is
not to be mistaken. Nor was it long after the acquisition
of Normandy by Henry and the accession of Lewis VI. to the
throne of France, that an old dissension respecting Gisors
again burst out, (1109). Notwithstanding the treaty, that
this town, lying on the Epte and on the boundary of the two
states, should not be occupied by the troops of either king,
Henry had contrived to seduce it from its possessor, Payen
of Gisors. A war of two years’ duration was the consequence
of this step, and king Lewis, attended by his most powerful
vassals, among whom was count Robert of Flanders, at. the
head of four thousand men, took the field in person against
_the king of England. Their armies met at Neaufle, where a
very ruinous bridge led across the river. Lewis at first had
recourse to negotiation, and offered to prove the justice of
his pretensions by the encounter of a certain number of their
barons, among whom appeared count Robert himself. This
proposal was rejected by the Normans, who professed a pre-
ference for a judicial decision. Lewis afterwards offered to
engage with Henry in single combat ; but the position of the
two armies on each side of the river rendered their meeting
with safety impracticable. A proposal made in jest that the
kings should fight in the middle of the ruinous bridge, was
thoughtlessly and rashly entertained by Lewis, but declined
by Henry, who said that he was not to be moved by such
idle talk to run the risk of losing a noble and strong town.
If Lewis should meet him where he must defend himself, he
would not flinch from him. Hereupon all flew to arms,
though the river prevented a conflict. On the following day
the armies met at Gisors, when the English and Normans
were driven back into the town, with considerable loss on
both sides.
While the reign of Lewis evinces an earnest endeavour

to correct the mischiefs that had arisen from his father’s
negligence, and, as far as it was practicable, to hold his proud
HENRY THE FIRST. 305

Norman vassal within the bounds of duty, and both kings
were, consequently, keeping a jealous watch over their ancient
or pretended rights, the exertions of both to curb the inso-
lence of their own vassals, and, with powerful hand to punish
their disobedience, supplied an inexhaustible source of dis-
sension between them. Le Maine, Evreux, the Vexin, Blois,
Belesme, Alengon, and other frontier districts were subject to
a constant change of lords and claims; and the faithless
vassal could with confidence rely on the protection of that
king, who, for the moment, did not happen to be his feudal
superior. From this cause blood flowed in streams, countless
treasure was squandered, a more useful application of which
was never dreamed of by the political economy of those days.
It was in this year particularly that Theobald, the young
count of Blois, son of count Stephen, who had fallen before
Ramla, and Adela, a daughter of William the Conqueror,
maintained a constant warfare against king Lewis, in which
he was supported by his uncle Henry. A battle near Meaux,
(1108), which took place not long after the engagement
before mentioned at Gisors, was followed by an immediate
cessation of hostilities in that neighbourhood '.

Since the battle of Tinchebray Henry had resided in Eng-
land, and repeatedly held splendid courts there. To Winchester
he was less attached than his predecessors, as the proximity
to the daily increasing and flourishing London offered greater
facilities for the gratification of luxury. The Whitsuntide
of the year 1110 was solemnized in the new palace of the
ancient royal residence of Windsor. But here the king did
not live solely for the pleasure of the chase and other diver-
sions. The insolence and revolting spirit of his barons he
repressed instantly and severely; and, in this year, Philip of
Braiose, William Malet, and William Bainard, although all
men of noble blood and of approved fidelity to the royal
house, were sentenced to banishment. To the first one alone,

' Suger, p. 36. Ord. Vital. p.837. W. Malm. p. 633.
x
306 HENRY THE FIRST.

after a lapse of some years, was permission to return granted’.
The name of the last-mentioned disappeared from that time
from among the noble races of England, and his memory is
preserved only in the name of one of the wards of London,
where, on the river’s bank, stood Bainard’s castle, until swept
away by the great conflagration of 1666.

A new cause for apprehensions, both immediate and re-
mote, had in the meantime arisen on the opposite side of the
Channel. After the defeat of Robert, William, a child of five
years, the only son of that unhappy prince by Sibylla of Con-
versana, was brought to him. Henry caressed the weeping boy,
and that no evil suspicion might attach itself to him, should
any mischance befal the child in his tender infancy, he as-
signed him to the guardianship of Hélie of St. Saens, who
had married an illegitimate daughter of Robert, and to whom
that prince had already intrusted the education of a son born
before his marriage, and bestowed on him the county of
Archies?. Soon, however, on the warning of his counsellors,
Henry was sensible that the choice he had made was not a
prudent one, and he endeavoured to have the boy conveyed to
England. But Heélie fled with his charge, and soon succeeded
in exciting the sympathy of his Norman friends for the fair
child of their captive prince. To no one was this occurrence
more welcome than to Robert of Belesme, who clearly saw
what a weapon was placed in his hands, in the person of the
legitimate successor of the Conqueror. All means were soon
attempted, by letters, agents, and visits, to excite the king of
France, the dukes, William of Guienne, Henry of Burgundy,
Alan of Brittany, and other powerful princes to active inter-
vention in favour of the young pretender3.

Henry soon found a pressing occasion again to cross the

1 Sax. Chron. aa. 1110, 1120. Rotul. magn. Pipe, 31 Hen. I.

2 Ord. Vital. p. 821. Mackintosh’s account, that Henry seems to have
struggled with murderous thoughts, is picturesque, but quite unhistorical.

3 Ord. Vital. p. 838.
HENRY THE FIRST. 307

sea, in the refusal of count Fulk of Anjou, son-in-law of the
deceased count Hélie of la Fléche, instigated chiefly by his
uncle, Amauri of Montfort, to acknowledge the king of England
and duke of Normandy as superior lord of Le Maine (1111).
Other vassals, also, had committed acts of rebellion. Henry’s
contemporaries remarked in him the art, which they often
erroneously ascribed to cowardice, of sparing the lives of his
faithful vassals and warriors?. External enemies he was said
to overcome oftener with silver than with steel; but his own
subjects, more frequently than either of his predecessors,
to bring, without warfare, before his courts, and pay atten-
tion to their demands. Count William of Evreux, whom his
beautiful and ambitious wife, Helvise of Nivernais, had in-
stigated to transgression against the king, was banished,
with some others (1112). At the end of the year Henry was
so fortunate as to capture Robert of Belesme at Bonneville,
where, although he had never obeyed the repeated citation of
the court, yet, trusting to a commission undertaken for king
Lewis to Henry, he ventured to appear before him. It was
no violation of the law of nations, when Henry refused to
extend to his rebellious subject the inviolability of an envoy
from a foreign prince; yet, in consideration of the occasion
of his coming, he granted him his life. In the following year,
Robert was conveyed to the castle of Wareham, where, in
gravelike stillness and frantic despair, forgotten by those
who did not execrate his detested memory, he passed many
years®.

While Henry was thus engaged in quelling his rebellious
vassals, count Theobald was so fortunate as to put Lewis to
flight at Puysac. Henry, too, himself took the town of Alen-

1 Sax. Chron. Flor. Wigorn. h. a. Ord. Vital. p. 840, a. 1113.

2 Ord. Vital. p. 840d. “ipsis sine eorum sanguine deculcatis.”” W. Malm.
p. 642: “‘libentius bellabat consilio quam gladio: vincebat, si poterat,
sanguine nullo, si aliter non poterat, pauco.”

3 Ord, Vital. pp. 841,858. H. Hunt. ‘De Contemptu Mundi.’

x 2
308 HENRY THE FIRST.

gon (1113), and skilful negotiators prevailed on the count of
Anjou to swear fealty to him for Le Maine, and betroth his
daughter to the young prince William, who was wont to be
designated by the Anglo-Saxon title of @theling. William of
Evreux, Amauri of Montfort, and his nephew, William Cres-
pin, all fugitives to the court of Angers, were pardoned by
the king. In a few weeks after, peace took place with France,
which, on terms very favourable to Henry, was concluded and
sworn to at a meeting of both kings at Gisors, (end of Mar.)
Lewis resigned to Henry the rights he had till then reserved
to himself over Le Maine, Belesme, and the whole of Brittany.
This last concession was the more desirable to Henry, as he
had destined his own daughter in marriage to Conan, son of
the prince Alan Fergant!. Of Robert’s son no mention is
made. Thus did peace, through these alliances, seem for a
long time established, and the garrison of Belesme, which had
refused to deliver that fortress to the king, was compelled to
surrender to the now united forces of Le Maine, Blois, and
Normandy. In the summer the king was enabled to return to
England.

Five years of Henry’s reign now succeeded, which, although
not in perfect, yet in almost unbroken tranquillity, with re-
gard to foreign countries, were passed by him in England.
In the year immediately following (1114. 7 Jan.), the mar-
riage of his daughter Adelaide—who afterwards bore the
then more loved name of Matilda?—with the German emperor
Henry V. was solemnized at Mentz. The match had been
settled as far back as 1109, and a marriage contract con-
cluded at Westminster, whereby Henry assigned to his

1 The English historians have either omitted to mention, or very slightly
noticed, this treaty of peace, so important, at least in a political point of
view. Lingard places it by two years too late. See Suger, p. 21. Ord.
Vital. p. 841, who also notes the date, which accurately agrees with what
the English chroniclers relate of Henry’s abode in Normandy.

2 In the Sax. Chron. a. 1127 she is still called Athelic, and also by
the North English chronicler, Joh. Hagustald. aa. 1139, 1142.

oe
HENRY 'THE FIRST. 309

daughter a portion of ten thousand marks of silver. In the
following spring, the young princess, who had scarcely at-
tained her seventh year, was conducted to Utrecht by Bure-
hard, bishop of Cambrai, where the emperor saw her, and
was solemnly betrothed to her. Shortly after, she was, at
Mentz, consecrated queen of the Germans. A swarm of
Norman knights, ever ready to migrate, accompanied her,
deluded probably with the hope of rising to be lords in the
land of their young princess, like their forefathers in the suite
of Emma in England, or of Sichelgauda in Apulia!. Among
these was the valiant and expert Roger of Bienfaite, son of
Richard of Tonbridge, who was himself a son of count Gilbert,
and, consequently, a relative of the king?. But the emperor
was not slow in discovering the object of his guests, whose
services, in his contests with Rome, must appear to him of
a very dubious character. Loading them, therefore, with
honourable presents, he lost no time in dismissing them.
During the wars in Normandy, England was suffering
under an ecclesiastical warfare, which was probably more
deplorable on account of the disorders and laxity of the
clergy, to which it indirectly led, than important with refer-
ence to its object, still less to its result. The religious ex-
citement which the first crusade had called forth in Europe,
and the favourable accounts which resounded from the East,
were highly serviceable to the Roman court in its plans for
strengthening and extending its power. The pope Urban
II., as well as his successor, Paschal IJ, renewed, in most of
the states under subjection to their Church, the dissension
respecting the investiture of bishops and abbots with the ring
and crosier. In England, as in other states, the usage for the
prelates to receive this investiture at the hands of the king

1 Sax. Chron. aa.1109, 1110. Ann. Hildeshem. a.1110. Ord. Vital. p.838.
W. Gemmet. viii. 11. Rom. de Rou, v.13366. [Sichelgauda was a daughter
of Gaumar, prince of Salerno, and second wife of Robert Guiscard.—T. ]

2 W. Gemmet. viii. 15, 37. Ord. Vital. p. 686.

i

|

i
310 HENRY THE FIRST.

was so decided, that Anselm, known to him as the opinions
were so fiercely maintained by Gregory VII., offered no ob-
jection to it at his nomination.. His last sojourn in Italy had,
however, instilled into him other views, and he considered
himself bound to give validity in England to the decrees of
the council of Rome, and, consequently, to abolish for ever
the investiture with staff and ring by the king, as well as
what was then regarded as inseparable from it, the homage
and oath of fealty, performed, and sworn on their part by
the prelates. The position of Henry at that time, who saw a
war with his brother impending, was particularly favourable
for the extorting from him of promises and compacts; yet,
even among the Anglo-Norman clergy, Anselm found but
little sympathy, and from the king’s counsellors strong oppo-
sition, especially from Robert of Meulan, who would not
suffer that the half of the realm, which was in the hands of
the bishops and abbots, should be entirely withdrawn from
the crown. But as Henry had confirmed to the Church of
Canterbury all the lands, revenues, and privileges it had pos-
sessed at his father’s death, and with the honest object not to
aggravate the existing uncertain state of the kingdom, the
archbishop gave his consent to the proposal of applying to the
pope for the repeal of the decrees on the subject of investiture,
with regard to England. Before the return of the deputation,
the attempt of Robert on England (a. 1101), had taken place,
on which occasion Anselm gave effectual support to his sove-
reign by summoning the men of Kent, by negotiating with
the wavering barons, and even by the threat of excommuni-
cating the pretender, a step not easily to be justified, when
taken against one who, as a valiant crusader, had defended
the interests of the pope! ; thus incontrovertibly showing that,
by the sincerest attachment to Henry’s cause, he would secure
both the tranquillity of the country and the interests of the

' See a letter on the occasion of the pope to Anselm. Anselmi Epist.
lib. ili. 42.
HENRY THE FIRST. 311

Chureh. Shortly after, the king received an answer to his
message from the then pope Paschal II., in which that pon-
tiff expressed himself very bitterly against the claim of in-
vestiture by laymen. In his letter many reasons and authori-
ties are adduced, among the latter—what was not likely to
appear of much weight to Henry—that of the emperors Con-
stantine and Justinian!; chiefly for the purpose of proving
that spiritual jurisdiction did not belong to the laity, and,
consequently, could not be conferred by them, nor ecclesi-
astics be nominated by them. These principles were, how-
ever, at the time, in general, either not or only partially
contested, while the principal point, the fealty of the bishops
and abbots for the lands of their churches, was left untouched.
The letters of the king have not, as those of the ecclesiastics,
been preserved, we can, therefore, only surmise that, with
reference to the fealty of the prelates, he expressed himself
in a manner to render all opposition fruitless. As Paschal also
did not mention the subject, and seemed tacitly to acquiesce
in that point, Henry summoned the archbishop to take the
oath of fealty to him, and to consecrate those on whom he had
conferred bishoprics and abbeys; or, in case of his refusal, to
leave England. After new negotiations between the ecclesias-
tical and secular chiefs and the king, a deputation was again
sent to the pope, of three bishops on the part of Henry, and
two ecclesiastics on that of Anselm, to make known the king’s
determination. The verbal answer brought back by the bi-
shops it was difficult to reconcile with the letter to the arch-
bishop, in which he was pressingly urged to perseverance ;
while the prelates unanimously declared that the pope had
charged them to announce to the king, that so long as in
other respects he conducted himself as a good prince, he
would not be adverse to him on account of the investiture,
and not excommunicate him for that reason, provided he

1 The words of the latter are from the Novella vi. c. 1, 3, though so as
they appear in Julian’s Epitome Constitut. xxiv, xxvi.
312 HENRY THE FIRST.

bestowed the spiritual staff on pious men; but that he could
not give this promise in writing, lest-it should be used against
him by other princes. While some declared themselves in
- favour of the written document, or for the declarations of
the monks, others rejected the latter, because monks, after
they had renounced the world, were incapacitated from bear-
ing witness in secular concerns; and the former, because a
sheep-skin blackened with ink and loaded with a lump of lead
was not to be put in competition with the declaration of three
bishops and living witnesses. Anselm’s representatives had
nothing better to answer than that the affair was not a se-
cular one, and that the Gospels were also written on sheep-
skins. Anselm was plunged into the greatest embarrassment
by this ambiguous conduct of the pope, who evidently wished
to throw all responsibility on the bishops, and avoid coming
to a rupture with the king; he probably saw through the
conduct of the pontiff, and, consequently, durst not question
the veracity of the bishops, which was, moreover, hardly ad-
visable, in order not to cause a still greater scandal in the
Chureh. Therefore, after the before-mentioned deputations,
there remained for him no alternative but to undertake a
journey to Rome, for the purpose of coming to a better under-
standing with the pope, and to leave the king to act in eccle-
siastical affairs according to his own views, though without
any sanction on his part.

But before this resolution was carried into effect, Anselm
presided at a synod at Westminster (1102), to which, by his
desire, the chief persons of the realm were also summoned, to
assure the execution of its decrees. From these we perceive
but too evidently how seriously the cause of religion had
suffered amid the quarrels of the Church. Three abbots,
convicted of simony, were deposed, three for other crimes
deprived, and three not yet consecrated turned out of their
abbeys. It was again enacted, that priests and other eccle-
siastics should not have wives ; that the sons of priests should

s
HENRY THE FIRST. 313

not inherit their churches; that ecclesiastics should not ad-
dict themselves to drinking, nor clothe themselves in an un-
seemly manner; that bishops should not hold secular courts ;
that new chapels be not erected without the bishop’s consent ;
that churches be not consecrated till all necessaries be pro-
vided for both priest and church; that no one attribute
reverence or sanctity to a dead body, or a fountain, or other
thing (as it sometimes is), without the bishop’s authority ;
that no one exercise the wicked trade, then usual in England,
of selling men like beasts. In this synod profligate, obstinate
sodomites, both lay and clerical, were stricken with anathema'.
These and other decrees of the same synod bear honourable
testimony to Anselm’s fitness for the practical duties of his
office. The firmness with which he refused to consecrate
those bishops who had allowed themselves to receive the ring
and crosier from the king, could not fail of gaining to him
many partisans among both clergy and laity. Roger bishop
of Hereford, when on his death-bed, sent to implore conse-
eration at his hands, a request which supposed an inconse-
quence in Anselm, and could, therefore, only raise a smile in
him?. William Giffard, the new bishop of Winchester, de-
clared that he could receive the pastoral staff only from the
archbishop of Canterbury ; but the king would not permit his
consecration, and strove to procure consecration for all the
bishops nominated by him through Gerard archbishop of
York. One of these, Reinhelm, the newly invested bishop of
Hereford, who had previously been chancellor to the queen,
shrank from these ulterior steps to which his compliance had
led him, and brought back to the king the insignia he had
received from him, whereupon he was punished with banish-
ment from the court. William, who had consented to receive
consecration from the archbishop of York, declared at the

1 Spelman. Conc. ii. p. 23. Wilkins, i. p. 382. Johnson, Ecclesiastical
Laws, ii. p. 24. edit. Baron.—T,
2 W. Malm. de Pont. lib. iv.
314 HENRY THE FIRST.

moment of the solemn act, that he would never lend himself
to such a desecration of the mystery of the episcopal succes-
sion. He was banished from the realm, but returned shortly
after.

This seems a fitting place to mention the erection of the
see of Ely, although strictly belonging to an earlier period.
The plan of raising the abbey there to a bishopric, and of in-
demnifying the bishop of Lincoln for the cession of a portion
of his diocese was not new, though only carried into effect,
through the exertions of Anselm, on the death of the abbot
in 1101'. The measure is chiefly interesting because it seems
to have originated in political considerations, namely, by the
establishment there of a higher official, to maintain a stricter
watch over the refractory inhabitants of the fens. With this

| object, therefore, the bishop was invested with royal privi-

leges, or regalities, within the isle of Ely. Although the

| bishopric of Ely does not appear, like that of Durham, to
have been a palatinate, it, nevertheless, possessed unlimited
jurisdiction in criminal and civil causes. Henry, it is pro-
bable, did not contemplate the great extension of their pri-
vileges which, at a later period, the crafty policy of the bishops
contrived to effect. Among the privileges granted by Henry,
that alone seems extraordinary, that in the castle and isle of
Ely, the bishop, by his soldiers, should keep watch and ward.
The privilege of having his own soldiers could very soon lead
to the exclusion of the king’s, and so of all the royal rights.

Anselm resolved with reluctance to proceed to Rome, and
having embarked at Witsand, stayed several months at Bec
with the celebrated jurist, bishop Yvo of Chartres. On his
arrival at Rome he found there the emissary of the English
court, William of Warlewast, bishop elect of Exeter, to
whose representations on the subject of investitures the pope
did not yield, although he granted the king certain immuni-

' See Monasticon, i. p. 483. Eadmer, p. 96, and Selden’s notes.
HENRY THE FIRST. 315

ties which are not more particularly specified', and even pro-
mised him support against Anselm, if, on his return to Eng-
land, he should proceed to too great lengths?. Anselm, on
the other hand, that his journey might not appear wholly
fruitless, received a general confirmation of the privileges of
his Church; and thus, ill supported, if not faithlessly aban-
doned, by the court for which he had contended with all his
energies, he tarried, in his state of helplessness, with his friend
Hugh, archbishop of Lyons. On the arrival of William of
Warlewast from Rome, Henry appropriated to himself all .
the revenues of the province of Canterbury, the collection of |
which he intrusted to two of the archbishop’s vassals. Some |
time after, Anselm received a letter from the king, forbidding ,
him to return to England, unless he would promise faithfully
to comply with all the usages observed under his father and |
brother. Anselm rejected the condition, and, despoiled of his
resources, prolonged his stay for a year and four months with
his venerable friend the archbishop?. He, however, succeeded
in extorting from the pope some more vigorous measures, as
the excommunication, in the council of the Lateran, of the
count of Meulan (1105), and of the counsellors who defended
the investiture by the king, as well as of those who had re-
ceived investiture from him. But as no excommunication
was known to have been pronounced against the king, and
the pope rather let it appear that he was expecting an envoy
from him, Anselm resolved to employ the moment in an at-
tempt to bring about a settlement of the dispute. On the
road to Cluny he learned that the countess Adela of Blois,
the king’s sister, lay sick at her castle of Blois. Like others

1 « Romanorum consilio papa nonnullos paternos usus regi concessit.””
Eadmer, p. 73.

2 Paschal wrote to the king: “ Revoca pastorem tuum, revoca patrem
tuum ; et si quid, quod non opinamur, adversus te gravius gesserit, siqui-
dem investituras aversatus fueris, nos juxta voluntatem, quantum cum

Deo possumus, moderabimur.” Eadmer, p. 74.
3 Eadmer, p. 76. R. Wendover, ii. p. 176.
316 HENRY THE FIRST.

of his profession, Anselm loved to exercise influence over the \
female mind’, and, therefore, hastening to her, succeeded in
prevailing on her to accompany him to the king, who, at that
time, engaged in triumphant warfare against his brother, a
short time before the capture of the latter, was sojourning at
L’Aigle. As Anselm now no longer refused to return to Eng-
land, the king did not hesitate to assure him the possession
of the archiepiscopal property, if he would only hold inter-
course with the bishops and abbots who had received investiture
from him. After many messengers had been sent across the
Alps?, on account of the negotiations then pending, a settlement
rather, perhaps, through the mediation than with the consent
of the pope, was effected in the following year (25th Aug. 1106)
at Bec, between the king and the archbishop, whereby the
former consented to renounce, as insignificant, the investiture
with ring and staff, having no desire to impair the ecclesias-
tical tribunals, but that the essential oaths of fealty and
homage should be taken to him, as they had formerly been
: to his father?. Every one now hastened to remove the re-
maining points in dispute. The king abandoned the iniquitous
taxation of the churches, to which his predecessor had had
recourse, and of which Henry himself, in consequence of the
expenses of his Norman wars, had once availed himself‘; the
archbishop of York performed the usual obligations to his
brother of Canterbury; consecration was bestowed on the
bishops nominated in the last years, including Anselm’s old
opponent at the Roman court, William of Warlewast, to
whom the king had given the bishopric of Exeter. The dispute
between the crown and the national Church in England was

1 See his letters to queen Matilda, the countess Clementia of Flanders,
and others.
2 See a letter of the pope to Anselm, of the 23rd March, in Eadmer,
v p-87. Many letters relating to these matters are inserted under wrong
dates in Wilkins, Concil. They are all to be found in Eadmer.
3 Eadmer, p. 91.
4 Jbid. p. 83, who is very partial in his representation of this matter.

 

 
HENRY THE FIRST. 317

now settled for a long time, sixteen years earlier than it was
afterwards at Worms, on similar principles, yet less favour-
able to the crown, between Henry’s son-in-law and pope
Calixtus IT. But Anselm did not long enjoy the re-esta-
blished peace. In less than three years after the compromise
at Bec, in the seventy-sixth year of his pious life, and in the
sixteenth of his anxious administration of the Church, Anselm
was removed to the higher community of spirits, by few of
his contemporaries so serenely contemplated as by him (21st
April 1109).

Together with the dispute about investitures, there was
also another subject of contention between England and
Rome, which very nearly concerned the archbishop person-
ally. In the eleventh century the popes had been in the
habit of sending legates more frequently than previously into
the several countries of Europe, for the purpose of remedying
by means of councils and synods, the errors of doctrine and
defects of discipline that had crept in. To the remote realm
of England, however, few legates had been sent', probably
because the popes, in the peculiar circumstances of that
country, thought that such supervision might be intrusted to
the archbishops of Canterbury; so that the opinion became
firmly rooted, that since the days of Augustine there had
been no legate in Britain, because the legatine power in the
country had been exclusively appropriated to him and his
successors in the see of Canterbury. It excited, consequently,

! About the year 678 a legate was sent by pope Agatho. Beda, lib. iv.
c.18. Nevertheless, in 785 the two legates sent by pope Adrian to the
council of Cealchythe write to that pontiff: ‘“‘ Quia, ut scitis, a tempore
S. Augustini pontificis, sacerdos Romanus nullus illuc missus est, nisi
nos.” Wilkins, Concil. i. p.146. But this ought not to excite wonder,
since more than three centuries later they, in their turn, were also for-
gotten in England, especially by the Norman clergy. Eadmer (p. 58)
writes : “ Inauditum scilicet in Britannia cuncti scientes, quemlibet homi-
num super se vices apostolicas gerere, nisi solum archiepiscopum Cantu-
arie.””
318 HENRY THE FIRST.

as much sensation as dissatisfaction, when, immediately after
Henry’s accession, Guido archbishop of Vienne, a son of
William Téte-hardie, duke of Burgundy, and a relative of
the dukes of Normandy}, landed and announced that the
legatine authority over this district had been conferred on
him. Notwithstanding the dissensions that had already arisen
between the king and Anselm, neither of them were disposed
‘to seek an ally in the person of the legate, who, unacknow-
ledged, recrossed the Channel. Anselm, personally offended,
applied to the pope, who deemed it advisable for the moment
to confirm the primate in all his rights, and also to promise,
that during his life no legate should be placed over him.
There was, in fact, no legate again sent to England by the
papal court for many years after the death of Anselm, when
his nephew, named like himself, who had numerous friends in
England, and possessed accurate knowledge of the state of
things there, and who a short time before had brought over
the pall to archbishop Ralf?, appearing particularly well
adapted to make the attempt, was employed for the purpose
accordingly. Nevertheless, although loaded with costly pre-
sents, his mission was regarded with such universal displea-
sure, that both laity and clergy prevailed on the primate
Ralf to obtain permission of the king to proceed to Rome,
for the purpose of explaining and establishing the rights of
the English Church®. These attempts of the papal court
were the more to be looked on with distrust, as a legate had
already entered France, and excommunicated the bishops of
Normandy, for their non-appearance at a council appointed
by him; whereupon the king sent to Rome his old agent Wil-
liam of Warlewast, now bishop of Exeter, who was already
well known to the pope‘. Ralf, who had been detained by
illness, arrived in Italy at an unfortunate moment (111%),

* William was a son of duke Rainald and Adeliza, a daughter of Ri-
‘chard II. of Normandy. Ord. Vital. p. 848.
2 Kadmer, p. 112. 3 Tb. p.118, 4Jb. p. 116.
HENRY THE FIRST. 319

when the emperor, Henry V, was there with his army; yet
obtained from Paschal, both for himself and the king, new
bulls respecting the preservation of the ancient rights of the
Church of Canterbury, in terms as plain as the provident
papal chancery is in the habit of employing on such occa-
sions. Under the immediate successor of Paschal, then re-
cently deceased, Gelasius, who did not long enjoy an uncon-
tested sway, the ecclesiastical affairs of England made no
progress; yet, when archbishop Guido, who as legate to
England had formerly been disavowed and dismissed, ascend-
ed the papal chair under the name of Calixtus IT (Jan. 1119),
they were again vehemently agitated. Calixtus, both with
address and firmness, followed up the plan of depriving the
primate of England of his too extensive privileges, which
were obstructive to the papal authority. To this end he sup-
ported Thurstan, the archbishop of York, in his endeavours
to withdraw himself from obedience to Canterbury, and seru-
pled not to consecrate Thurstan archbishop, notwithstanding
his breach of promise to the king, not to do anything preju-
dicial to the dignity of the see of Canterbury, (Nov.); and,
in an interview which took place at Gisors, even to make an
abortive attempt on the more upright nature of the latter to
induce him also to a breach of faith. “ But who would,” said
Henry, “ ever place faith in the word of man, if I, the king,
should allow myself to be released from my promise by the
pope!!” Although Calixtus, on this occasion, assured the
king that he would never permit a legate to pass to England,
excepting at the king’s own request, he, nevertheless, a few
years after, conferred the legatine authority over France,
England, Ireland, and the Orkneys, on the cardinal Peter,
the grandson of Leo*, a rich Jew, and Roman proselyte,

1 Kadmer, pp. 124, 125, 126. W. Malm. de Pont. lib. iv.

2 Thid. p.137. Of this pope, Gibbon (c. Ixix.) says: “ In the time of
Leo IX., a wealthy and learned Jew was converted to Christianity; and
honoured at his baptism with the name of his godfather, the reigning
320 HENRY THE FIRST.

known afterwards as the antipope Anaclet IT., as was his
fellow-legate, Gregory of St. Angelo, as pope, under the
name of Innocent II. Peter found the same opposition as
his predecessors, but consoled himself with an honourable
reception and liberal presents. Calixtus, nevertheless, ap-
pointed a new legate in the person of the cardinal of Crema,
who, on the death of Calixtus, which happened shortly after,
was confirmed by his successor, Honorius IT. The dissolution
of the marriage, so distasteful to Henry, of Robert’s son
William, with Sibylla of Anjou’, effected through this legate,
could not fail to secure him a friendly reception at the Eng-
lish court, though the yet unabated dissension between the
archbishops must, in a yet greater degree, tend to nourish
the hope of realizing the schemes of the papal court, which
for his own interest were supported by Thurstan. He re-
quired a council, under the presidency of the legate, to be
held at Roxburgh, of those Scottish bishops who were par-
tially subjected to his diocese ; and the archbishop of Can-
terbury, at a similar synod held in London (1126), did not
deem it advisable to refuse his sanction. Among its decrees2,
the old prohibitions of simony and the pretensions by the

pope. The zeal and courage of Peter, the son of Leo, were signalised in
the cause of Gregory VII., who intrusted his faithful adherent with the
government of Adrian’s mole, the tower of Crescentius, or, as it is now
called, the castle of St. Angelo. Both the father and the son were the
parents of a numerous progeny ; their riches, the fruits of usury, were
shared with the noblest families of the city; and so extensive was their
alliance, that the grandson of the proselyte was exalted by the weight of
his kindred to the throne of St. Peter.”’ :

‘The origin and adventures of this Jewish family are noticed by Pagi
(Critica, tom. iv. p. 435. A. D. 1124. N°. 3, 4), who draws his information
from the Chronographus Maurigniacensis, and Arnulphus Sagiensis de
Schismate (in Muratori, Script. Ital. tom. iii. p. i. p. 423-432.). The fact
must, in some degree, be true.’” See also “ Recueil des Historiens,”’
t. xii. passim.—T.

1 Epist. Calixti, a. 1124, Aug. 26th. Simeon Dunelm. col. 251.

2 Wilkins, Concil. i. p. 408.
HENRY THE FIRST. 321

sons of priests to their fathers’ churches were, for the most
part, repeated; the plurality of benefices forbidden ; the pro-
hibition of marriage extended to kinship in the seventh de-
gree. But this mission of the cardinal rendered him an object
of dislike in England ', and we must in justice hesitate to be-
lieve all that the tongue of calumny, envenomed by the strict
inculeation of celibacy, relates of the profligate conduct of
the legate2.

Shortly afterwards Honorius conferred on the archbishop
of Canterbury, William, the legatine authority in England
and Scotland3, which was, at a later period, (1132) confirmed
by Innocent II.*, the principal ground for which step may
probably be found in Henry’s firm position on the throne
during the latter years of his reign. In fact, the Church had
in Henry, if not a warm friend, yet a well-disposed ally, as
long as it made no attack on the inherited rights, which to
his electors and defenders he had sworn to maintain. On the
death of a prelate, he sometimes applied to his own use the
demesnes of the see for some years; yet the zealous adherent
of his Church, Eadmer, who had scorned to accept the bi-
shopric of St. Andrew’s, through his abhorrence of royal in-
vestiture®, bears testimony, that neither the government of

' Gervasii Acta Pontif. Cantuar. col. 1663.

2 Hen. Hunt. [‘ Cum igitur in concilio severissime de uxoribus sacer-
dotum tractasset, dicens summum scelus esse a latere meretricis ad corpus
Christi conficiendum surgere: cum eadem die corpus Christi confecisset,
cum meretrice post vesperam interceptus est. Res apertissima negari non
potuit, celari non decuit. Summus honor ubique habitus in summum de-
decus versus est. Repedavit igitur in sua, Dei judicio confusus et inglo-
rius.”” R. Hoveden, Matt. Westmon. and others, repeat the story.—T’.]

3 See the bull, 25 Jan. in Wharton, Anglia Sac. i. p. 792.

4 W. Malm. Hist. Nov. p. 699.

5 Wadmer, p.138. [The vacant sees of which Henry appropriated the
revenues to his own use, were: Canterbury, Durham, and Hereford, for
five, and Norwich and Ely for three years. From William Giffard, his
chancellor, whom he had promoted to the see of Winchester, he extorted
eight hundred marks; from Roger, three thousand marks, before he
would nominate him to Lichfield. Ina
322 HENRY THE FIRST.

the Church nor the administration of other Church property
had thereby suffered, but that both had been in the hands of
respectable ecclesiastics, and indirectly intimates, that the
churches during that interval might have been enlarged by
the monks!. Even the ecclesiastical chroniclers hardly com-
plain of these vacancies, and we should, perhaps, do well to
consider, whether those prelates might not sometimes have
been indebted to the king for undischarged feudal obliga-
tions, as well as the reasons and pretexts which, through the
schisms in the papacy, the contests between the English
archbishops, and their as well as the king’s frequent absence
from England, at a time when modern financial expedients
were unknown, might but too easily and temptingly present
themselves.

The circumstance most prejudicial to the internal happiness,
although perhaps not to the external glory, of Henry’s govern-
ment, was his oft-repeated and protracted residence in France.

In a council held at Westminster by archbishop Anselm, in 1102, it was
enacted, that no archdeacon, priest, or deacon, should take a wife, or, if
taken, retain her; but a subdeacon, who was not a canon, if he married after
having made profession of chastity, should be bound by the same rule. During
Anselm’s exile, this rule was violated by many, who resumed their wives,
thereby affording the king a pretext for extorting money, and who accord-
ingly ordered his ministers to implead the offenders, and to receive money
as an atonement for the crime; but as a great number were proved to be
innocent, the sum so obtained fell far beneath expectation, whereupon a
certain sum was exacted from every parish priest, whether guilty or not.
Hence arose much trouble, some being unable, others unwilling to pay so
unjust a demand. The consequence was, that they were incarcerated and
tortured. Henry being at that time in London was met, on his way to
the palace, by about two hundred priests barefooted in their albs and
stoles, who, casting themselves at his feet, with one voice implored his
mercy; but he was deaf to their prayers, and ordered them to be driven
from his sight. They then betook themselves to the queen, praying for
her intercession. She, it is said, was moved to tears, but withheld by fear
from intervening in their favour. Eadmer, pp. 67, 83, 84.—T.]

1 Eadmer, p.109. Simeon Dunelm. col. 62. The abbot of St. Denys
calls him “ ecclesiarum liberalis ditator et eleemosynarum dapsilis dispen-
sator.”? Suger, lib. i, 44.
HENRY THE FIRST. 323

Of the thirty-five years of his reign, he passed not less than
the half in that kingdom. The English in general were of
opinion that this arose from an aversion to their country ;
while others accused the count of Meulan of imparting to the
king his hatred towards them'. But it cannot be denied that
the critical condition of Normandy, as well as the hostile
neighbours by whom it was so constantly threatened, rendered
the presence of the sovereign in his newly acquired province
indispensable.

- After the peace of Gisors it was Henry’s earnest endea-
vour to secure for his son William an undisputed succession
to the throne. For this object, as soon as a war with the
Welsh permitted him, he crossed over to Normandy, (Sept.
1115,) and prevailed on the chief persons of the duchy to do
homage in the following year to his son then scarcely twelve
years old?, It seems not improbable that king Lewis had
previously received the young prince’s homage for the French
provinces of the kings of England, on which oceasion the
French monarch ceded to him the often disputed town of
Gisors. After.acknowledgment in the hereditary states of his
grandfather, William had no difficulty, in the following year,
in obtaining the oaths of homage and fealty of the barons of
England, which they performed on a great court-day held at
Salisbury (19th Mar. 1116).

A few weeks afterwards Henry again embarked for Nor-

1 According to the respectable authority of Eadmer (p. 110), the Eng-
lish had good reason for entertaining such an opinion; he says: “ Si
Anglus erat, nulla virtus, ut honore aliquo dignus judicaretur, eum poterat
adjuvare. Si alienigena, solummodo que alicujus boni speciem, amicorum
testimonio pretenderent, illi adscriberentur, honore precipuo illico dignus
judicabatur.”—T.

2 Sax. Chron. a.1115. His age appears from a letter of the pope in
Eadmer, p. 74.

% Suger, p. 29. Recueil des Hist. Malmesbury (pp. 634, 652) places
William’s homage to Lewis later; but he is notoriously unworthy of trust
in such details, and the homage of the Norman barons to William would
have been of no force if not preceded by the other.

¥2
324 HENRY THE FIRST.

mandy, where he remained nearly five years. The dissensions
between his nephew Theobald count of Blois and the king of
France claimed his immediate attention, and led to an in-
cessant border warfare between the two kings. Lewis himself,
with the count of Flanders, appeared at one time at the head
of a body of French warriors not far from Rouen'. On his
side fought the count Fulk of Anjou, on that of Henry his
nephew, the brother of Theobald, Stephen of Blois, who by
his valour in those wars earned his later pretensions to
the throne of England. Henry’s adversaries combined in
a plan for recovering his paternal inheritance for William,
the son of duke Robert; but throughout a number of years
their wars consisted more in a series of adventures than
of results. King Lewis himself had, on one occasion, dis-
guised as a monk, together with some warriors muffled in
black cloaks, taken by surprise the town of Le Gué Nicaise,
on the Epte, and, in the cell of St. Quen, erected a strong
castle there?. In this neighbourhood there was much con-
tention both with the sword and with wit, and Henry con-
structed many new castles, which retained the nicknames of

1 Sax. Chron. aa.1116,1117. W. Malm. p. 634. Orderic, in passing
from the 11th to the 12th book, omits the events of the years 1113—1118
with the extraordinary remark, that in these five years, profound peace
took place with Henry’s neighbours.

2 Ord. Vital. p.842. Suger, p. 43. [According to Suger, Lewis only
sent forward a body of men, disguised as travellers to occupy the place.
In the Chroniques de St. Denis, it is said that the king “envoia avant soi
de ses genz, les hauberz vestus desoz les chapes et les espées ceintes, et
descendirent ou comun chemin ausi comme se ce fusent paisanz, vers une
vile qui a non li Guez-Nicaise.” p.175. In the Chronica Regum Fran-
corum (p. 211) they are described as vine-dressers : “in habitu viticolarum
fecit capi villam.”’ It is to Orderic alone that we owe the more romantic,
though probably less veracious, account adopted in the text: ‘ Porro Lu-
dovicus Vadum Nigasii, quod Vani vulgo vocatur, fraudulenter adiit, ac
veluti monachus cum sociis militibus, qui nigris cappis amicti erant, ex
insperato intravit; ibique in cella monachorum S. Audoeni castrum muni-
vit, et in domo Domini, ubi solummodo preces offerri Deo debent, spelun-
cam latronum turpiter effecit.””—T.]
HENRY THE FIRST. 325

“Mal-assis',’ ‘Gite de liévre?,’ and the like. On a sudden, how-
ever, many losses rendered this war extremely critical for
Henry. Within a few weeks died count William of Evreux,
whose county Amauri of Montfort, having failed to obtain it
at his request, sought to acquire by arms, and contrived to
alienate many Norman barons from the king. Queen Matilda
also died at this time, who had inclined the hearts of many,
particularly English, towards her consort; and, lastly, he
whose loss was the most sensibly felt by the state, the sa-
gacious minister of the king, Robert of Meulan, who by his
- counsel and influence appeared as the chief support of the
threne. King Henry was also at this time forsaken by many
of his most powerful barons: by Henry count of Eu, Stephen
count of Aumale, Hugh of Gournay, and Eustace of Pacy, a
natural son of William of Breteuil, who was married to Ju-
liana, a natural daughter of the king?. Eustace had obtained
from the king a grant of the castle of Ivry, belonging to the
ducal demesne; but Henry having some doubts of his fidelity,
had received from him, as a pledge of his allegiance, his two
daughters by Juliana, while the son of Ralf Harenc, the
governor of the castle, was given as a hostage to Hustace,
who, at the instigation of Amauri of Montfort, barbarously
deprived the boy of sight ; whereupon the king, whose anger
had by the unhappy father been raised to fury, allowed Harene
to put out the eyes and amputate the noses of the innocent
daughters of Eustace, his own grandchildren, and, moreover,
loaded him with presents. Juliana’s agony and thirst of ven-
geance naturally knew ne bounds. At a parley granted her
by her father she endeavoured to kill him by a projectile.
This first attempt failed. With an arrow also that she aimed
at him she was equally unsuccessful. When at length com-
pelled to surrender Ivry to her father— Eustace had pre-
viously escaped—he allowed his daughter no other means of

1 Til-placed. 2 Hare’s form.—T.
3° W. Gemmet. vii. c.15. Ord. Vital. p. 810.
326 HENRY THE FIRST.

departure than to wade through the ditch of the fortress, at
that time—it was the month of February—filled with ice,
into which, as he had caused the drawbridge to be removed,
she was compelled to let herself down from the rampart,
exposed to the gaze and mockery of the soldiery!. In this
excited state of the passions of hate, rage, and vengeance, the
king’s life was not safe in his own palace ; he durst no longer
trust his chamberlains, frequentlywganged his bed, having his
sword and shield constantly .at his side. A chamberlain
named Henry, son of one of his treasurers, sprung from a
plebeian race, whom the king’s partiality had greatly favoured
and promoted, was convicted of a plot to assassinate him.
The king spared his life, but, as an appalling example, caused
him to be blinded and emasculated?.

Henry was now so pressed on all sides, that the moment
appeared not far distant when he should be compelled to
renounce his favourite Normandy, and withdraw to the foggy
northern island, when an unexpected occurrence and skilful
negotiations restored to him his ancient good fortune. The
count of Flanders, who had been foremost among the pro-
tectors of the young William of Normandy, had in an attack
on the town of Eu, been stricken with an arrow by a Breton
(Sept. 1118), the wound from which, owing to his intemper-
ance, laid him on a bed of sickness, and, in the following
midsummer, caused his death®. Of still greater importance
was it, that Fulk of Anjou, whom the king of France imagined
he had just bound to his interest by the office of seneschal of
the kingdom, and who had promised the county of Le Maine,
together with his daughter Matilda, to the son of duke Robert,
deserted to the enemy, and, seduced by English gold, affianced
the bride to Henry’s son William (June 1119), transferred Le

1 “ Nudis natibus usque in profundum fossati cum ignominia descendit.’’
Ord. Vital. p. 849.—T. :

2 W. Malm. p. 642. Suger, p.44. Ord. Vital. p. 848.

8 Ord. Vital. p. 843. Suger, p.45. W. Malm. p. 630.
HENRY THE FIRST. 327

Maine to him and, in the event of his not returning from his
intended pilgrimage to Jerusalem, which at a later period
‘gained him the crown of that kingdom, also the county of
Anjou itself’.

In the state of things then prevailing, an engagement
between very small bodies, yet consisting of knights of re-
nown, was decisive. The king with five hundred of his most
distinguished knights wag»riding in the vicinity of Noyon
(20th Aug.), where he had attended mass, when his scouts
descried the king of France with four hundred chosen knights,
and among them William of Normandy, approaching from
Andely by way of Brenneville. Neithar king would listen to
his counsellors, dissuading from a confhet, which threatened
much personal danger without the prospect of any important
result. Only a hundred Norman knights, under Richard, an
illegitimate son of Henry, had mounted their horses, the king
himself with the rest of the company fought on foot. The
first onset of Burchard of Montmorency and Guy of Clermont
with eighty knights shook the ranks of the Normans and
English, and William Crespin with the men of the Vexin
appeared at first to force them to give ground; but by a
skilful movement of Henry they were soon surrounded. Wil-
liam Crespin, perceiving the king, brake rashly through those
around him, and struck him violently on the head, but the
goodness of his helmet effectually protected him. A hundred
and forty French knights fled, the bravest were taken, three
only were slain, which small number is to be explained rather
by the personal consideration entertained by the opponents
for each other, than by the hope of ransom for the prisoners.
The remaining French fled towards Andely; some escaped
by mingling among the conquerors, where, joining in the ery
of victory, they passed for brothers in arms. King Lewis
himself wandered long about the forest alone, until he was

1 Suger, p.45. Ord. Vital. p. 851, Sax. Chron. a. 1119. W. Malm.
p. 634.
328 . HENRY THE FIRST.

guided to Andely by a Norman peasant who, fortunately for
the king, little thought what a price Henry would have paid
him for the wanderer. His banner fell into the hands of
Henry, his saddled charger also, which the king of England
sent him back, as his son William did his also to his cousin Wil-
| liam of Normandy. Even some prisoners, who were vassals of
“both kings, were dismissed by Henry without ransom’.

After this engagement some inconsiderable attempts only
were made to carry on the war. The king of France had
recourse rather to pope Calixtus, for the purpose of settling
the quarrel with England, while the pontiff was at Rheims,
on account of the council summoned to meet in that city
(October). Lewis, who was not deficient in eloquence, pre-
ferred his complaints in person against the king of England,
and set in a prominent light that prince’s treatment of his
brother Robert, who had been left unprotected by king Philip.
The flight of the young William of Normandy was represented
as a banishment, the imprisonment of the execrable Robert
of Belesme as a violation of the ambassadorial privileges ;
and other occurrences in a similar fashion, as adversaries,
with more or less consciousness, are apt to sin against im-
partiality and truth. This harangue found so much favour
with the assembly, that it was impossible for the archbishop
of Rouen to conduct the defence of the king of England-.

Henry had in the meanwhile been engaged in terminating
some of the misunderstandings with his vassals. ‘To Amauri
of Montfort he had ceded the county of Evreux, had become
reconciled with Eustace of Breteuil and Juliana, received the
submission of Hugh of Gournay, Stephen of Aumale, and
other rebels. When therefore Henry and the pope after-
wards met at Gisors, it was not difficult for the former to

1 Ord. Vital. p. 853. Suger, p. 45. In Camden’s Remains are some
Latin verses on this battle (apnd Nugentum) which are erroneously as-
signed to an earlier one,

2 Ord. Vital. p. 858.
HENRY THE FIRST. 329

place in a totally different light, if not completely refute, the
charges brought against him at Rheims, and, at the same
time, adduce many circumstances in his own favour, which
turned the mind of the pope to his advantage; and also to
conclude a peace with France on the easiest conditions, viz.
the restoration of his possessions to each of the kings, and
the liberation of the prisoners. The interest of William
of Normandy was completely abandoned: he neither re-
ceived his father’s land nor the earldoms that Henry had
formerly promised him in England. With the count of
Flanders, Charles the Good, a friendly intercourse was soon
restored. William Talevas, son of Robert of Belesme, re-
ceived, through the mediation of Fulk of Anjou, confirmation
of the county of Ponthieu!.

Thus was Henry’s grand object attained. After twenty
years of strife he saw all his adversaries overcome, himself in
firm possession of all the lands over which his father had
ruled, and his son acknowledged as his successor. Exulting
in his prosperity Henry embarked at Barfleur (25 Nov. 1120.)
and returned to England. His son William, attended by
numbers of the young nobility, followed with the royal treasure
in another vessel named the White Ship, for the purpose of
giving satisfaction to one Thomas the son of Stephen, its
owner, who claimed the conveyance of the king as an here-
ditary right, his father having conveyed the Conqueror on
his expedition against Harold. All who loved pleasure and |
merriment rushed on board this vessel, which at the same
time, promised the greatest security, and in which nearly
three hundred persons were collected. Among them were
Richard, a natural son of the king, distinguished for his
valour; the king’s natural daughter Matilda, the consort of
Rotrou count of Perche; Richard the young earl of Chester,
with lis countess and his brother; Otuel the tutor of the

} Sax. Chron. a. 1120, Ord. Vital. p. 848.
330 HENRY THE FIRST.

young prince; the daughter of the count Theobald of Blois ;
Theodrie, a nephew of the emperor Henry V.; with many
young nobles, for the purpose of receiving investiture of their
estates in England; besides a hundred and forty knights,
and eighteen ladies, nearly related to the king or the chief
nobility. The ship was so heavily laden that count Stephen
of Blois left it and returned to land, and his example was
followed by some monks and several more prudent elderly
persons. In the exuberance of his gaiety, prince William
caused three barrels of wine to be distributed among the fifty
rowers. Thomas, the master, in a state of drunkenness, and,
unconscious of the helplessness of his crew, in the evening
made the signal for departure, and now all exerted them-
selves to the utmost to overtake the other vessel. Suddenly
those on board the king’s ship and those on shore heard a ery
which, as they learned on the following day, proceeded from
the White Ship. This vessel, owing to the haste with which
it was rowed, and the drunken condition of the steersman,
was, notwithstanding the bright moonlight, driven on the
rocks of the Catteraze, wrecked and quickly filled with the
rushing water. There was scarcely time to put out a boat,
into which the prince was lowered, when, hearing the cries of
his beloved sister, the countess of Perche, from the fast-
sinking ship, he could not resist her supplications to receive
her. Together with her rushed a multitude of despairing
beings from the vessel into the boat, which, borne down by
the weight, instantly disappeared in the mass of waters. Of
all who were on board the White Ship only two still held by
the mast, the young Geoffrey of L’Aigle and Berold, a poor
butcher of Rouen. Thomas, the master, rose once from the
water and inquired after the prince. On hearing that he
and all the others had perished with the vessel, he cried ;
“Then it is of no use for me to live longer!” and sank into
the abyss. Geoffrey, stiffened with the cold, sank soon after
him, Berold alone, the obscure, humble individual, with whom
HENRY THE FIRST. 331

not one of those on board would have changed condition,
survived the dreadful night, protected from the cold by raw
sheepskins. On the following morning he was found by some
fishermen, to whom he related the appalling catastrophe.
The royal treasure was afterwards recovered ; of the corpses
very few were found.

The sad intelligence was soon spread on the English coast,
but there was no one venturous enough to announce it to the
king, who believed at first that his son had landed at some
other port, yet with increasing anxiety made hourly inquiries
after him. There was hardly one at the court who had not
lost some friend or relative through this disaster ; all were
stricken most poignantly, and could with difficulty refrain
from tears. On the second day a youth, the son of count
Theobald of Blois, was commissioned to cast himself at the
king’s feet and disclose to him the cause of the general
sorrow, the loss of the White Ship. Henry, convulsed with
the acutest pain at the destruction of all his hopes, fell speech-
less to the earth ; nor until he was conveyed to his chamber
did he recover his consciousness, only to burst forth in the
most mournful wailings. Though with a faculty character-
istic of the Normans he was able to repress his feelings and
conceal them beneath an assumed austerity, he was never
seen to laugh afterwards'. In the general loss of the Anglo-
Norman nobility, no one’s death was more painfully felt than
that of William the A&theling; for he had assumed that
title to give pleasure to the native population. The sudden
bereavement of the father could kindle no hope in the Anglo-
Saxons, who had now served their conquerors above half a
century, of recovering their ancient independence; both races,
as the duration of Henry’s life could not be ascertained, must
only dread the uncertainty of the succession to the throne ;
since no one would accept of duke Robert, and a few only of his

1 Ord. Vital. p. 867. W. Malm. p. 653. Flor. Cont. a. 1120. Sim.
Dunelm. h. a.
332 HENRY THE FIRST.

son; the empress Matilda had no heir, and the miraculously
saved Stephen of Blois was little thought of. The clergy
profited by an event which so impressively called to mind the
instability of all things earthly, while even the possibility of
earthly repentance and atonement was cut off; nor did the
pride of princes and the vices of the court escape without
animadversion!.

The queen Matilda had, as we have already stated, died
two years before her son. Not alone on the gravestone in
the royal burial place at Westminster, but also in the hearts
of the people was engraved the name of the good queen
Molde?. After the birth of her second and last child, and
while the king-was engaged in war and knightly pursuits in
Normandy, she had retired to Westminster. Here, yielding
to the impressions of her early cloister-days, she devoted
herself to pious meditations and works of charity. Clad in
hair-cloth under the garb of royalty, she would, during the
days of Lent, visit the churches bare-footed; she would also
wash the feet of the sick, and shrank not from touching their
ulcers; would imprint kisses on their hands, and set meat
before them?. A monument of the industry of herself and
maidens we probably possess in the tapestry belonging to the
cathedral of Bayeux. But her cell ever continued a palace.
Her kindness and liberality attracted ecclesiastics and
strangers from all countries. Poets, who recited before her

' Henry of Huntingdon (a.1120) speaks of them as a loathsome set ;
and of prince William, Bromton, col. 1013 (as he says from Malmesbury)
says: ‘quod ille Willielmus, regis primogenitus, palam Anglis fuerat
comminatus, quod si aliquando super eos regnaret, faceret eos ad aratrum
trahere quasi boves.” The passage does not appear in Malmesbury.—T.

2 Rudborne, Hist. major Winton. p. 276.

3 For this excess of humility, or its opposite, she was, as we are told by
Robert of Gloucester (p. 435), one day reproved by one of her knights:

‘Madame, he seyde, vor Gode’s loue, ys bys wel ydo,
hat bou bys unclene lymes handlest and cust so?
Vyl wolde myn louerd pe kyng telle, wan he by moub cust,
bat so vylyche yuyled ys, me byngh, gyf he yt wuste.”—T.
HENRY THE FIRSY. 333

any new works in the language of the court, were nobly re-
warded ; even yet more lavish was she towards those melodi-
ous minstrels who charmed her well-practised ear with their
songs. Yet the good intention of her prodigality did not
screen her from its natural consequences, nor hallow the
means of satisfying it. She was ever in debt, and the pea-
sants on her lands groaned under the most intolerable exac-
tions of her agents, and uttered maledictions on their lady,
who, although their countrywoman, appeared to them inex-
orable; while the French poet, clad in new silk and costly
furs, gently lisped his tender valedictory lay, and the well-fed
singer, in joyful, jeering mood, carried off the heavy, easily
earned bag of sterling money!. Henry had not entered into
a second marriage; though after this loss it appeared advis-
able, without delay, to form an engagement, which might
insure the future stability of his kingdom. His choice fell
on Adela, the young and beautiful daughter of Godfrey VII.
count of Louvain?, by favour of the emperor Henry V. also
duke of Lower Lorraine and marquis of Antwerp, who after-
wards became and died duke of Brabant. But this marriage
was unproductive of the fruits for the sake of which it was
contracted, and, with the exception of some not very import-
ant relations of foreign policy, of no influence on England 3.
The return of count Fulk of Anjou from the Holy Land
soon gave occasion to new wars. This ambitious prince was

1 W. Malm. p. 650.

2 Kadmer, p.136. Flor. Cont. a.1121. W. Gemmet. viii. c. 29. It is
perhaps to more than monkish simplicity we may ascribe what the monk
of Worcester says of the object of this marriage, viz. “ne quid ulterius
inhonestum committeret.” [After Henry’s death, Adela married William
of Albini, the first earl of Arundel. Carte.—T.

3 We must here call attention to the erroneous chronology of Orderic,
who places the prince’s shipwreck in 1119, and Henry’s second marriage
in 1120, both a year too early; but, on the other hand, the death of the
archbishop, Ralf of Canterbury, in 1123, a year too late. Conf. Sax. Chron.
aa. 1120, 1122. Flor. Cont., whose accuracy is confirmed both by an
eclipse of the moon and other accounts,
334 HENRY THE FIRST.

as fully sensible as Henry of the importance to each of an
alliance between their respective states; though in such alli-
ance each consulted only his own selfishness and ambition.
Henry had retained his intended daughter-in-law in England
and, on the return of her father, refused to relinquish her
dowry!. The princess herself, spontaneously renouncing the
world and its treasures, at the age of twelve years, devoted
herself to a life of piety, and ten years after took the veil in
the convent of Fontevrauld, where her tender frame soon
sank under the strict ecclesiastical discipline of the place?.
But her father, now on terms of hostility with Henry, sought
to increase the future power of his race by the marriage of
his second daughter Sibylla, with the young William of Nor-
mandy, instigated chiefly by his uncle, the old enemy of
Henry, Amauri of Montfort, count of Evreux, with whom
other Norman nobles of high rank were associated in favour
of William. Among these were Hugh of Montfort, Hugh,
son of Gervase of Neuchatel, and even their uncle Waleram,
son of Robert of Meulan. The names of these men disclose
to us the character of this combination against the king, of
which the real object was simply to exchange a rigid and
powerful lord for one more docile and indulgent.

The intrigues of his Norman barons could not long remain
unknown to Henry, who, after an absence of some years, had
returned to Normandy, where, while passing his time at
Rouen, apparently in perfect security, he prepared measures
for the suppression of the rebellion (Whitsuntide 1123). He
collected forces from all quarters, and commanded Hugh of
Montfort to his presence, whom, without betraying his anger,
he ordered to deliver up the castle whence he derived his
name. But Hugh outwitted the king, who had expected to
obtain the castle without striking a blow. He promised im-

1 Sax. Chron. a.1121, W. Malm. p.654. Ord. Vital. p. 875. Sim.
Dunelm. a. 1123.

2 Ord. Vital. p. 875.
HENRY THE FIRST. 335

mediate compliance with the will of his sovereign, and rode
away with the knights appointed by the king to receive the
fortress. He soon, however, contrived to withdraw from
them by a side way, which led him to Montfort before the
arrival of those who followed the high road. Here he com-
mitted the defence of the castle to his wife, Adeline, a
daughter of Robert of Meulan, and to his brother, while he
himself hastened to Brienne, to his brother-in-law, count
Waleram, for the purpose of beginning open warfare against
his sovereign. To the children of his former friend, Robert
of Meulan, Henry offered unconditional pardon for the past,
provided they would return to their duty, and also lead back
Hugh as a faithful friend and vassal. But the petulant young
man was not to be moved to submission, and the king found
himself compelled to sacrifice both time and force in besieging
the several castles of the insurgents. Before the end of the
year he had gained Pont-Audemer from Waleram, a strong
fortress defended by a hundred and forty knights; but a
tower of wood, twenty-four feet higher than the walls, being
raised before it, the archers from its summit so galled the
garrison, that, after a siege of seven weeks, it was compelled
to surrender. Nevertheless, the war threatened to become
more serious, as the king of France was beginning to take an
~ active part against Henry, on behalf of William and his ad-
herents!. Henry hereupon prevailed on the emperor, his
son-in-law, over whom, in concerns of state, he exercised no
inconsiderable influence, to undertake an expedition against
France, to which he had long borne a grudge?. This attack
compelled Lewis to hold himself at. a distance from Nor-

1 Ord. Vital. p. 879. “ Foedus inter reges ruptum et rediviva guerra
feraliter inordescens utrobique exorta est.”” Also Sax. Chron. a. 1124.

2 Conf. Stenzel, Frankische Kaiser, b. i. p.716. Suger, lib. i. p. 50.
Otto Frising, Chron. Ursperg. h.a. To the king of England is ascribed
a plan of his son-in-law to make the German empire tributary. See Otto,

ut sup. ‘
336 HENRY THE FIRST.

mandy, where, even before the emperor had crossed the
frontier, Henry, while residing at Caen, had the unhoped-for
good fortune to get into his power his chief adversary, count
Waleram, the two Hughs, and twenty-five other knights, who
on an ineautious march were attacked by Ralf of Bayeux
and William of Tancarvile!. The battle was gained chiefly
by the aid of forty English archers, by whom the foremost
horses of their opponents were slain, those following falling
over them, so that eighty knights lay prostrate, and among
them the leaders of the rebellion (26th Mar. 1124). Five
years after, these were set at liberty; Waleram, probably
less through respect for his father than from inclination for
his sister, who had yielded to Henry’s embraces and borne him
a daughter, received back all his possessions, with the excep-
tion of his castle, and was afterwards restored to Henry’s full
confidence?. Hugh of Montfort, however, even during the
succeeding reign, continued sunk in his miserable lot. The
prisoners were punished with revolting cruelty, chiefly by
mutilation. Among them Luke of Barré, a knight and poet,
who, more than through his fierce valour, had by his gift of sa-
tire, oftentimes so fatal to its possessor, and by his lampoons
against Henry, so embittered that merciless prince against
him, that, giving no ear to intercession, he sentenced him to
the loss of his eyes. In his agony the poet, breaking from
the hands of his tormentors, dashed out his brains against a
walls,

In the intended advance against France, the king was still
opposed by count Amauri, and in the following year the un-
expected death of the emperor (23 May a. 1125) put an end
to a contest reluctantly and inertly conducted on both sides’.

' Ord. Vital. p. 880. Sax. Chron. a.1124. H. Hunt. Rob. de Monte,
a. 1124,
2 Sax. Chron. a. 1129. 3 Ord. Vital. p. 880.
4 From his union with the daughter of the king of England may have
originated the Chester tradition, that the emperor tortured by remorse on
HENRY THE FIRST. 337

William of Normandy was abandoned by the count of Anjou
and his other French adherents, and the dissolution of his
engagement with Sibylla, on the pretended plea of too near
consanguinity, through the intrigues of Henry at Rome and
in Anjou, confirmed'; the good understanding between the
two kings restored; and we soon after find English troops,
under the banner of France, in an expedition against the
rebels in Auvergne?.

William of Normandy was in the meanwhile wandering
from monastery to monastery and among his adherents, to
whom, through his pretensions and claims, he had become
extremely burthensome. But king Lewis soon found it politic
to patronise him, and not suffer so formidable a weapon against
Henry to slip from his hands. He therefore gave him in
marriage the countess Jane, a daughter of Giselas, the queen’s
mother, by her second marriage with Regnier count of Mont-
ferrat, at the same time investing him with the territory of
the Vexin and the towns of Pontoise, Chaumont, and Mantes
(Jan.1127)3. After some weeks William’s lot became changed
in a most unexpected manner. The count of Flanders, Charles
the Good, had been assassinated while at his devotions in the
church of St. Donatus at Bruges. William, burgrave of
Ypres, was probably the instigator of this barbarous murder,
of which he was fully capable, and his motive for which may
be found in his pretensions to the Flemish throne. He was a
natural son of Philip, son of Robert II., and, consequently, a
nephew of Baldwin VII , on whose death he had endeavoured
to make good his claim to Flanders. After the death of

account of the imprisonment of pope Paschal, became a voluntary exile
and ended his days in a wilderness there. Such is the story told sixty
years after the emperor’s death by Giraldus Cambrensis (Itiner. lib. ii. c.
11.) from an impostor, who assumed the emperor’s name, and died as a
monk at Cluny. See Ricardi Pictav. Chron. Turon. a. 1139.

1 Sax. Chron. a. 1128. Bulls of popes Calixtus II. and Honorius II.,
relating to this affair, may be seen in D’Achery. Spicileg. iii. p. 149.

2 Suger, p. 53. 3 Ord. Vital. p. 884.
%
338 HENRY THE FIRST.

Charles he immediately assumed the title of count of Flanders,
for which, however, he had many competitors, among whom
it may suffice to mention the king of England, his nephew
William of Normandy—both on account of their descent
from Matilda, the wife of the Conqueror—and Diederik count
of Alsace, who was the son of the sister of the last count’s
mother, and undoubtedly the nearest heir!. But the sudden
resolution of the king of France, the superior lord of the
greater part of Flanders, who instantly proceeded to Arras,
induced the Flemish burgraves and cities to declare in favour
of William ; an occurrence which plunged Henry into a state
of the greatest anxiety. His attempt, by sending a force
under Stephen count of Blois and Mortain, who by his mar-
riage was also count of Boulogne, a Flemish fief, proved a
failure. But Henry would most willingly have renounced all
claim to Flanders for himself, could he only have set aside his
nephew?2. He now lost no time in completing the measures we
shall presently relate for securing his daughter’s succession and
inheritance ; when death, which had so cruelly bereft him of his
greatest joy, now as unexpectedly relieved him from his for-
midable youthful rival3. William, who in consequence of the
rigour with which he pursued the murderers of Charles and
their adherents, as well as through the firmness with which—
herein resembling his uncle—he strove to maintain the public
tranquillity, had raised up many enemies among his new sub-
jects, was forsaken by a vast number of them, while count
Stephen persisted in refusing his homage for his fief of Bou-
logne. Count Diederik, supported by king Henry, was called
in by the Flemings, who even made an inroad into France,
and near Epernon (dep. Eure and Loire) for some time de-
tained king Lewis himself; when William, although victorious

1 Warnkonig, Flandrische Rechts- und Staatsgeschichte, i. p. 138.

2 Helinand, in Chron. Alberici, a. 1127. Gualteri Vita Caroli, c. 66.

3 Hen. Hunt. a. 1128. Guil. de Nangis, aa. 1127, 1128. Chronica, c.
32. in “ Flandria Generosa.”’
HENRY THE FIRST. 339

against him in a battle, died of the consequences of a slight
wound in the hand, before Alost, which he was besieging in
conjunction with his new ally, Godfrey of Louvain'. From
his death-bed in the abbey of St. Bertin at St. Omer’s, whither
he had been conveyed (24 July 1128), he sent a conciliatory
letter to his uncle, commending to his clemency those Nor-
mans who had been faithful followers of their lawful prince.
Having nothing more to fear from the claims of his nephew,
Henry complied with his request, and granted an amnesty to
his adherents, with permission to return to Normandy, where-
by he cheaply gained the good will of the Normans. Henry
still continued to support count Diederik both by counsel and
deeds?, compelling his own nephew, Stephen of Boulogne, and
other Normans, holding possessions in Flanders, to submit to
him. He, moreover, induced the count to take to wife Sibylla
of Anjou, who had been betrothed to his predecessor, and
neglected nothing that might conduce to bind him firmly to
his interest; while Diederik, although to obtain the investi-
ture of Flanders, he must necessarily subject himself to
France, entered into a secret league with Henry?.

The king had long been firmly resolved that his nephew
should not be his heir, a resolution, in which we can recognise
only the caprice of an exasperated relative rendered yet more
obdurate by the consciousness of the illegality of his own pos-
session‘. His daughter, the empress, had passed her year of
mourning in Germany, and then, by her father’s desire, pro-
ceeded to Normandy, where he at that time was residing.
William’s marriage (1126) had rendered a speedy execution
of Henry’s plans in the highest degree necessary. In the
autumn, therefore, accompanied by his daughter, he crossed
over to England, whither also the king of Scotland had been

1 Ord. Vital. p.886. Sax. Chron, Sim. Dunelm, Anselm. Gemblac. Al-
beric. a. 1128.

2 Simeon of Durham (col. 256) asserts, that Henry had received Flan-
ders from the king of France.

% Ord. Vital. p. 886. 4 Hen. Hunt. Epist. lib. i. ap. Wharton.
a2
340 HENRY ‘THE FIRST.

invited. At the Christmas festival, a numerous assemblage
of clergy and laity met at the royal court at Windsor. These,
after a long opposition to the proposed departure from the
ancient usage of the land, and chiefly out of regard, most
strongly dwelt on, for the descent of his daughter Adelaide or
/Ethelic—such, as we have seen, was her original name—
from the old royal stock of the island, as well as by the pro-
mise that she should not again marry a stranger, he prevailed
on to engage that, in the event of his death without male off-
spring, they would acknowledge her as queen of England and
duchess of Normandy. Willian archbishop of Canterbury,
and after him all the prelates present down to the lowest abbot,
swore to this effect; in like manner the laity, at whose head
stood the king of Scotland; him followed Stephen of Mortain,
the king’s nephew, after a dispute respecting precedence with
Robert earl of Gloucester, a natural son of the king. Ste-
phen and many others took the oath with seeming alacrity,
as they had no belief in its fulfilment. But far more was all
trust in it shaken, when Matilda, attended by earl Robert and
Brian fitz Count, son of the count of Brittany, embarked for
Normandy, whither her father soon followed (26 Aug. 1127),
and was there betrothed to Geoffrey the young count of
Anjou, son of Fulk, who, as the count his father was on the
eve of marriage with the daughter of the queen of Baldwin II.
king of Jerusalem, and for the prospect of whose crown had
renounced his hereditary states, was virtually their ruler’.
Thus was the king’s long-cherished wish attained, of seeing
Anjou and England united; a project at the time universally
blamed, it being thought derogatory to the rank of the em-
press to marry a young count of fifteen; but chiefly because

1 Sax. Chron. a.1127. Sim. Dunelm. h. a. Ord. Vital. a.1129. Of
the courtship, knighthood and betrothal many particulars are given in
Johannis Monachi Majoris Monasterii Historia Gaufredi Ducis Norman-
norum, lib. i. The chronology is apparent from the birth-day of Geoffrey,

24th Aug. 1113., and the account of his age (in his sixteenth year) at his
marriage.
HENRY THE FIRST. 341

such a union could hardly, or rather impossibly be of long
duration. But Henry and his ministers, and also many of his
contemporaries, were sensible that this connection with Anjou
not merely secured to the English crown the possession of
certain provinces, but they well comprehended what an in-
fluential position with regard to France and, consequently, to
the whole political system of Europe, England might through
them obtain. But Henry had soon to experience that the
realization of great ideas only too easily miscarries through
the personality of those concerned in executing them. Scarcely
had Henry reached England after the termination of the
Flemish dissensions and the settlement of matters in Nor-
mandy connected with them, when, shortly after the mar-
riage which had taken place at Whitsuntide (15 July 1129)
he received intelligence that his daughter had been contume-
liously put away by her young consort, and had returned to
Rouen!. The uncertainty of Matilda’s succession, which was
generally acknowledged, must, no doubt, have tended to ag-
gravate the misunderstanding between them. In the follow-
ing year (8 Sept. 1130) Henry summoned a great council
of the nobles to attend him at Northampton, for the purpose
of deliberating on the request made by count Geoffrey for
the return of his consort. This was agreed to, and, at the
same time, the oath, which assured to Matilda the succession
to the crown, was renewed, and also taken by those who had
not sworn on the former occasion. Henry thereupon pro-
ceeded with his daughter to Normandy, where count Geoffrey
received his wife in an honourable manner?. In the following
years, the birth of two children was for some time a source
of domestic pleasure, and brought Henry repeatedly and at
length for several years back to Normandy. But Geoffrey’s
demands for certain castles in Normandy, promised to him on
his marriage, but which the king refused to deliver to him,
his wars against the king’s relations, and lastly, his demand,

! Sim. Dunelm. a. 1129. 2 Hen. Hunt, a. 1130. W. Malm. p. 698.
342 HENRY THE FIRST.

in the name of his children, as heirs to Henry, of valid se-
curity for the possession of the English and Norman castles,
produced so violent a quarrel—which the ambition of Matilda
tended greatly to aggravate—that Henry had resolved on
bringing her back with him to England, when death surprised
him in the midst of his plans’.

The connection with count Fulk very soon brought the
English into closer intercourse with the settlements of the
crusaders in the Hast. : After the return of his brother from
Palestine, Henry had striven to check the journeys of his
knights to that land, that he might not be bereft of those
forces which were necessary for the support of his own
power. On this account he had kept at a distance from
England Boemund of Antioch, who, after his liberation from
captivity among the Saracens, was desirous of visiting the
king, and even crossed over to Normandy for the purpose of
seeing him there. Individual knights only were not to be
hindered, or, on account of their restless spirit, were per-
mitted. Yearly sendings of arms and other munitions he
liberally allowed, and granted lands in Avranches to the
Templars, with many privileges®. But after tranquillity had
been restored in Normandy, and peace concluded with the
neighbouring states, Henry appears to have seen with plea-
sure the arrival of the grand master of the Templars, Hugh
of Payens. In Normandy he loaded him with rich presents,
and allowed him to proceed to England, where he likewise
collected many donations. A considerable number of warriors
was permitted to accompany the grand master to Jerusalem?,

1 Ord. Vital. p. 900. Hen. Hunt. aa. 1128, 1129.

2 W. Gemmet. lib. viii. c. 32. The tradition that the Templars in
Henry the First’s time had built a church in England, in which the king
wished to be buried, is a mistake. See Wilken, Gesch. der Kreuzziige,
ii. Beilage VIII.; where, however, the bishop of Chichester is mistaken
for him of Chester,

3 Sax. Chron. a. 1128. Hen. Hunt. aa. 1128, 1129.
HENRY THE FIRST. 343

whose turbulent spirits and military ardour must in times of
peace have appeared to the king somewhat dangerous.

The death of pope Honorius II., which happened in this
year (1130), plunged Europe, both secular and ecclesiastical,
into a state of excitement. The majority of the cardinals,
together with the Romans and the Normans of Italy, declared
for Peter Leonis, who assumed the tiara under the name of
Anaclet II.!; while the clergy of France, to whom king Lewis
had left the decision, were in favour of his opponent Gregory,
who styled himself Innocent II. The French ecelesiastics had
been influenced in their choice by St. Bernard, the celebrated
abbot of Clairvaux. This powerful supporter of Innocent
proceeded also to Normandy, where Henry was_then residing,
and whom the English prelates, many of whom had been
gained over to Peter Leonis during his stay in England, had
predisposed in his favour. But Bernard’s eloquence pre-
vailed, and Henry was induced to accompany the abbot to
Chartres, where he cast himself at the feet of Innocent, as
the supreme head of Christendom, and presented him with
royal gifts (18th Jan. 11312). Some months later, the pontiff
visited the king at Rouen, where he found a most honourable
reception?, and it is probable that the solicitations for aid,
made by St. Bernard to Henry, were not needless, as the em-
peror Lothair had not been able to effect the acknowledgment
of Innocent at Rome‘.

It is now incumbent upon us to cast a glance at the state
of things in Wales during the reign of Henry. From a na-
tionality as vivid and tenacious as that possessed by the na-
tives of the principality at the present day, it was hardly to

1 See p. 319, note 2.

2 Ord. Vital. p. 895. Suger, lib. i. p. 58. Guillelmi Vita Bernardi in
Opp. S. Bernardi Clarvall. edit. Mabillon, t. ii. Neander, Der H. Bern-
hard, p.72. Arnulf Sagiens. De Schismate, c. vi. apud Muratori Seriptt.
iil. p. 430. :

3 W. Gemmet. vill. c. 30, confirmed hy a document issued by Innocent
from Rouen, dated May 9th 1131.

4S. Bernardi Epist. 138,
344 HENRY THE FIRST.

be expected that, even weakened as they were by the settle-
ment of Norman barons in the midst of their country, they
would, during so long a reign, continue either peaceful sub-
jeets or neighbours. Already in the insurrection of Robert
of Belesme they took part with the rebels. Availing himself
therefore of a year when he was not engaged in foreign war-
fare, Henry adopted an apparently peaceful, although in the
execution perhaps, severe method of confirming the subjection
of the Welsh, and, at the same time, rendering harmless an
enemy of the public tranquillity that he was harbouring in
the midst of his realm. His father, the Conqueror, had been
followed to England by many Flemings, the greater number
of whom sojourned in the northern counties, as most conge-
nial both to their habits and native climate. Many of these
also dwelt dispersed over all the other parts of England, and
were very vexatious to the inhabitants!. Other bodies of
Flemings had been driven from their country by inundations
(1106), the greater number of whom had sought shelter in
Germany, while others had betaken themselves to England ?.
To these Henry had at first assigned the desolated lands on
and beyond the Tweed. Jt is not improbable that it was
owing to his connection with the emperor Henry, that the
thought occurred to him of planting Flemish colonies among
the Welsh, after the example set him in Germany of employ-
ing them to curb the Slavish nations and in the culture of the
land}. Henry collected all those Flemings settled in England,
who had not previously acquired more considerable posses-
sions, and sent them to the western parts of Wales, to the
land of Rhos, and the neighbourhood of Haverford and

1 W. Malm. p. 628.

2 The account of this second immigration of Flemings has by Bromton
been assigned to the year 1106, and from him by Knyghton, p. 2377, and
by Powel, History of Wales, p. 128.

3 In the year 1106 the “ privilegium” of the Flemish colonists was
granted by the archbishop Adelbero of Hamburg. See Lindenbrog,
Scriptt. Rer. Septent.
HENRY THE FIRST. 345

Tenby'. Antiquaries have imagined that the posterity of
these colonists may, both by their manners and language, be
recognised down to the latest times®. They were advan-
tageous to the kingdom, if not, as elsewhere, for the con-
struction of dikes, yet through the weaving of wool and their
knowledge of husbandry, though at first chiefly as military
mercenaries. The land ceded to them was the western point
of Wales, where Milford-haven afforded the best place for
embarkation to England, and where. Arnold of Shrewsbury
had already availed himself of his acquired territory in an
attempt on the royal crown of Ireland. After his expulsion
from England, his constable, Gerald of Windsor, defended
the castle of Pembroke, which was assailed by the Welsh,
with as much valour as artifice, and caused them to retire at
the moment when his provisions failed, by casting to them, on
the preceding day, as a present over the wall, the small por-
tion still remaining, accompanied by vaunting words, and by
a letter which he had caused to fall into their hands, in which
it was stated that he could well hold out for four months
longer. He afterwards espoused Nesta, the daughter of Rhys
ap Theodor, the last king of South Wales, sister of prince
Griffith, and one of the numerous mistresses of king Henry,
to whom she had borne two sons, one named after his father,
and Robert earl of Gloucester®. A. grandson of Gerald and
Nesta was the noted Gerald, to whose numerous writings we are
indebted for the best accounts of the ancient state of Wales.
Notwithstanding the valour of his vassals and colonists in
Wales, Henry was unable to secure peace and tranquillity in
that country. Dissensions among the several tribes never
ceased, through whose mutual support of each other violent.

1 Flor. Wigorn. a. 1111. W. Malm. p. 493. Bromton, col. 1003.

2 Giraldi Cambrens. Itiner. lib.i. c. 11. and H. Lluyd on Powell’s note ;
also Rot. Magn. Pipe 31 Hen. I. pp. 136 sq. contains mention of the
Flemings in Pembrokeshire.

3 Giraldi Cambrens. Itiner. lib. ii. c. 7.
346 HENRY THE FIRST.

wars sometimes burst forth, which not unfrequently required
the armed interposition of the king. A short time before the
planting of the Flemish colony in Rhos, Henry had been
compelled to enter the country, cn which oceasion even the
aid of king Alexander of Scotland is said to have been de-
manded (1111). But still more serious was the appearance
of Griffith, son of that Rhys, who had been slain twenty
years previously. Griffith, who had been reared in Ireland,
excited by his return to his native country the minds of all
the South Welsh. He succeeded in taking Caermarthen from
the Normans, and found considerable support in Cardigan,
the castle of which was held by Gilbert Strongbow, earl of
Strigul. Gerald of Windsor and the Flemings were thereby
completely cut off from the rest of the English, and Henry
found it necessary, for the safety of his barons there, to lead
his warriors to Wales in person (1114). Under his direction
his brave son, Robert of Gloucester, suppressed the insurrec-
tion, and a number of new castles and forts were erected,
and distributed among the Normans and Flemings?, of whom
many of the latter had been sent to Cardigan, which was held
by Richard of Clare3. In two years after this a new rebellion
was raised+. The noble-hearted Griffith retained only a small
part of the cantref Mawr, in Caermarthenshire, in his posses-
sion; yet did the natives of the ancient Deheubarth pay him
the respect due to the old princes of their country, a respect
allowed even by Henry himself. In the summer following the
king’s second marriage, a new expedition against Wales was
found necessary (1122), during which, in Powys, he was
stricken with an arrow, but which was fortunately arrested

' Powell, pp. 139 sg. The English chroniclers make no mention of the
king’s presence in Wales in this year.

2 Sax. Chron. h.a. Powell, lib. i., who does not, however, mention the
king’s presence.

3 Giraldus, lib. i. c. 4.

4 Flor. Wigorn. a, 1116.
HENRY THE FIRST. 347

by his chain-armour!. Fora series of years we hear of no
further disturbances of magnitude; the natives were held
down by the iron hand of foreigners, who, like the Flemings
in Germany, may have been followed by numbers of their
wandering and adventurous countrymen. By these strangers
the Welsh were expelled from one possession after another,
and those who resisted stricken down like dogs. The people,
thus provoked beyond endurance, again rose in the latter
years of Henry’s reign (1134), burned Caus, a castle of Payne
fitz John, sheriff of Hereford and Shrewsbury, one of the
king’s most distinguished counsellors and scribes, and wreak-
ed most barbarous vengeance on their captives. Henry here-
upon resolved to leave his beloved Normandy, for the purpose
of proceeding once more against the never totally subdued
ancient Britons; but thrice did the wind drive him back on
the coast of his paternal home, which death, that overtook
him shortly after, did not permit him again to leave?.

By dissensions with his son-in-law, Henry found himself
detained still for some months in Normandy. At Lions, near
Rouen, he had been enjoying his favourite diversion of the
chase, on his return from which he was suddenly seized with
illness, the consequence, it is said, of a surfeit of lampreys,
which, in a few days, terminated in death (1st Dec. 1135).
Time and quiet were afforded him for the adoption of many
measures of mercy and beneficence. He recalled the exiled,
remitted pecuniary mulcts, restored to their paternal inherit-
ance those who had been displaced; sixty thousand pounds
of silver he caused to be distributed among his servants, his
mercenaries, and the poor. His body, according to his desire,

1 Sax. Chron. h.a. Giraldus, lib. i. c. 2. W. Malm. p. 628. Eadmer,
p. 138. Powell, p. 152, who erroneously places this expedition in the year
1118.

2 Ord. Vital. p. 900. Gesta Stephani, edit. E.H.S8. p. 9. Payne was
lord of Ewias. [A. D. 1132 a considerable part of London, together with
St. Paul’s cathedral, was consumed by fire. Fl. Wigorn.—T.]
348 HENRY THE FIRST.

was conveyed to England, and interred in the abbey of Rea-
ding, which he had founded'.

His daughter Matilda did not see him again before his
death. Of his numerous natural children, Robert of Gloces-
ter? alone was present, whom he had married to Mabil, a
daughter of the distinguished knight, Robert fitz Hamon. Of
his other children, we know of Richard, the son of Amice, a
daughter of Ralf of Guader?, whose early death by shipwreck,
as also his sister’s, Matilda, the wife of Rotrou, count of
Perche, has been already noticed; Reginald of Dunstanvile,
afterwards earl of Cornwall'; a second Robert, borne to him
by Eda‘; Gilbert ; William of Tracy®, who died soon after his
father; and Henry, also born of the Welsh princess Nesta ;
also another Matilda, married to Conan III. count of Brit-
tany’; Juliana, already mentioned as the wife of Eustace of
Pacy. There were also four other daughters married: one
born to him by Elizabeth, sister of Waleram count of Meulan,
to Alexander, king of Scotland*; one named Constance, to

1 Ord. Vital. p. 901.

2 Giraldus tells a singular story respecting the paternity of Robert of
Gloucester, making him the son of Nesta by one Stephen: his words are:
‘** Fuerunt autem duo nobiles viri, ut ejus qui scripsit hac avunculi, Hen-
ricus scilicet, regis Henrici Primi filius, et Secundi avunculus, ex nobili
Nesta, Resi filia, in australi Cambria Demetiz finibus oriundus, et Robertus
Stephani filius, Henrici frater non germanus sed uterinus.—T.

3 According to Carte, Richard’s mother was the widow of Anschil, a
nobleman near Abingdon.—T.

4 His mother was Sibylle, a daughter of sir Robert Corbet of Alcester
in Warwickshire.—Carte.—T.

5 Joh. Hagust. a.1142, col. 270. [‘ Eda, or Edith, was a daughter of
Forne, a great baron in the north. She afterwards married Robert of Oily,
baron of Hokenorton in Oxfordshire. There is still preserved a charter
of this Robert, being a grant of the manor of Porlock to Hugh de Ralegh,
and another of lands beyond the Exe to Richard Floyer, among the
writings of the families of Chichester and Floyer; and in the tenth box in
the Duchy office is a charter likewise of his wife Maud, under her seal.”—
Carte.—T.

6 Probably by the same mother as Reginald, being in the Red Book of
the Exchequer styled his brother.-Carte.—T.

7 Ord. Vital. p. 544. 8 Ib. p. 702.
HENRY ‘THE FIRST. 349

Roscelin, viscount of Beaumont in Le Maine; a third, named
Aline, to Matthew, a son of Bourcard of Montmorency ; a
fourth, named Eustacia, to William of Gouet, a Norman
baron!.

Henry was of middling stature, strong-breasted and of great
muscular power; black hair overshadowed his forehead, be-
neath which beamed eyes expressive of serenity. He always
appeared joyous, even when engaged in affairs of importance.
Less a warrior than a leader, he reminded his contemporaries
of the saying of Scipio Africanus: “ Imperatorem me mea
mater, non bellatorem peperit.” His moderation in all en-
joyments, except in that of the chase, has been celebrated by
the chroniclers; though not with strict regard to truth, as is
manifest from his numerous illegitimate offspring®.

Besides the exertions made by Henry to quell the open
rebellions of his barons, we find him incessantly engaged in
endeavours to break their power. While he maintained all
the old royal castles in good and strong condition, with trust-
worthy garrisons, he allowed those of his barons, which through
death or other accidents had fallen into his hands, to go to
ruin. His strict administration of the law, which procured
for him the appellation of the “lion of justice,” described in
the prophecies of Merlin, is the more deserving of notice, as
it was rigorously exercised against the nobility? The crime
of debasing, or diminishing the weight of, the public money
he punished with the utmost severity, the penalty affixed to

1 Other illegitimate children are ascribed to Henry, particularly a daugh-
ter married to William of Chaumont. Ord. Vital. p. 856.—T.

2 Henry’s praise is nowhere more loudly sounded than in the Acta
Cenoman. p. 345; but the testimony of the abbot Suger is weightier:
“ prudentissimus Henricus, cujus tam admiranda quam predicanda animi
corporis strenuitas quam scientia,” etc. Cf. also H. Huntingd. 1. viii. init.
ejusdem epistola ‘De Contemptu Mundi. Sim. Dunelm. a. 1135. Ricard.
p- 310.

3 W. Gemmet. lib. viii. c. 13. Bromton, p. 998. Joh. Sarisb. Polyc.
vi. 16. Galfr. Monom. Ord. Vital. p. 888.
350 HENRY THE FIRST.

which being the loss of the right hand, or the eyes, and cas-
tration. This crime had become so general, that it was
found necessary to summon all the moneyers of the realm to
appear before the chancellor, the bishop of Salisbury, at
Winchester, when not less than fifty were condemned to
undergo the penalty prescribed by the law’.

One great benefit he conferred on the oppressed people,
by an ordinance relative to the royal claim of purveyance,
by which he set bounds to the avidity and outrages of
the royal officers, when the king was on a progress in
the country. On these occasions, the court followers were
supplied gratis by the inhabitants of the places through
which they passed, when the disgusting atrocities perpetrated
by those miscreants exceed all belief. The consequence was
that, whenever it became known in a place that the king was
coming, the inhabitants fled from their dwellings, and took
refuge in the woods and forests, or wherever they could find
shelter. To remedy this crying evil, Henry decreed to those
found guilty of such outrages, the loss of hands, or feet, or
other members. By this severity, those who valued their
bodily integrity were, on seeing these examples, deterred
from injury to others. By the same ordinance it was stated
how much was to be supplied by the peasantry gratis, and
how much at a fixed rate. He also prohibited the false ell
in use among’ traders, fixing the length of his own arm as a
standard throughout England?.

1 Sax. Chron. a, 1125. Flor. Wigorn. aa. 1108, 1124. W. Malm. p. 641.
H. Hunt. a. 1125, Sim. Dunelm. h. a. W. Gemmet. lib. viii. c. 23. [H..
Hoved. a.1108. “ Et quoniam seepissime dum denarii eligebantur, flecte-
bantur, rumpebantur, respuebantur, statuit ut nullus denarius vel obolus,
quos et rotundos esse jussit, aut etiam quadrans, si integer esset, respue-
retur.”—T. ]

2 W. Malm. p. 641. Eadmer, p.94. [Tempore siquidem fratris sui
regis hunc morem multitudo eorum qui curiam ejus sequebantur habebat,
ut queeque pessundarent, diriperent, et nulla eos cohibente disciplina,
totam terram, per quam rex ibat, devastarent. Accedebat his aliud ma-
lum ; plurimi namque eorum, sua malitia debriati [inebriati], dum reperta
HENRY THE FIRST. 351

Sometimes, indeed, his zeal for the strict administration of
the law was carried to too great an extreme, as was the case
with a number of robbers at Huncot, in Leicestershire, forty-
four of whom the justiciar, Ralf Basset, condemned to death,
and six to the loss of eyes and castration; although it was the
~ general belief that some of them suffered unjustly’. These
severities, however, prevailed chiefly in the earlier part of
his reign, and latterly gave way to pecuniary mulcts?.

But he attained his great object, the tranquillity and se-
curity of the country. Even the Anglo-Saxons must have
prized a state of things which enabled a traveller, laden with
gold and silver, to pass through the Jand in safety?. It must
not, however, be imagined that it was the severity of the
punishments and the inflexibility of the judge alone that in
those days reproduced this wonder of the golden age ; it was
the strict police, grafted by the Normans on the Anglo-Saxon
institutions.

In the times immediately succeeding the Conquest, the
kings received the rents of the crown lands in kind, from
which source the royal household was supplied with neces-
saries ; and such was the usage till the time of Henry]. But
latterly, when that king was much engaged abroad, he had
need of payments in ready money; in consequence of which
querulous multitudes assembled at the court, or, what was
yet more serious, were frequently to be met on the ways,
offering their ploughs, in token of their ruined husbandry ;
for they were overwhelmed with difficulties on account of

in hospitiis que invadebant, penitus absumere non valebant, ea aut ad
forum, per eosdem ipsos quorum erant, pro suo lucro ferre ac vendere,
aut supposito igne cremare, aut, si potus esset, lotis exinde equorum
suorum pedibus, residuum illius per terram effundere, aut certe aliquo alio
modo disperdere solebant. Que vero in patresfamilias crudelia, que in
uxores ac filias eorum indecentia fecerint, reminisci pudet.”’ From this
burthen of purveyance (A. S. feorm-fultum), which had existed under the
Anglo-Saxon kings, the people were relieved by Cnut. See his Secular
Laws, tit. 70. in “ Ancient Laws and Institutes.”—T’]
} Sax. Chron. a. 1124. 2 W. Malm. p. 641. 8 Tb. a, 1135.
352 HENRY THE FIRST.

their produce, which had now to be conveyed for sale from
their homes to many destinations. Whereupon the king
appointed certain officials to visit the several lands, for the
purpose of valuing the produce payable by each, and reducing
the amount into money; the sum total of the several pay-
ments in each county to be paid by the sheriff into the ex-
chequer!.

But notwithstanding these measures, adopted for the relief
of his own tenantry, the miseries of the people, during his
reign continued with little mitigation. “It is not easy,” says
the chronicler, “to relate the miseries of this land, which it
was suffering at this time through various and manifold
wrongs and imposts, that were never intermitted or ceased ;
and ever, when the king journeyed, there was plunder and
destruction by his followers of the wretched people, and but
too often burnings and murders.” And again: “ First they
(the wretched people) are bereft of their property, and then
they are slain.” The tax of Danegelt was continued during
the whole of Henry’s reign, at the rate of twelve pence the
hide; and an aid of three shillings the hide was demanded on
the marriage of his daughter with the emperor. “ What and
what grievous oppressions the whole of England suffered is
difficult to narrate. In raising money to complete the subju-
gation of Normandy, no mercy was shown by the collectors.
Those who had nothing to give were driven from their humble
dwellings, or the doors being torn down and carried off, their
habitations were left open to be plundered; or their miserable
chattels being taken away, they were reduced to the extreme
of poverty, or in other ways afflicted and tormented ; while
against those who were thought to possess something, certain
new and imaginary offences were alleged, when, not daring to
defend themselves in a plea against the king, they were stript
of their property and plunged into misery?.”

1 Selden, Spicel. ad Eadmey, p. 216, from the Dialogus de Scaccario.—T.

2 Sax. Chron. aa.1104, 1124. H. Hunt.a.1108. Eadmer, p. 83. Bromton
p- 1001.
HENRY THE FIRST. 353

Less content must the people have been with the system of
taxation. The numerous wars required much money. Of
the endeavours after order in the management of accounts
we possess no mean example in the book yet extant of
receipts and disbursements by the royal exchequer'. The
existing traces also of renewals and completions of the
Domesday-book are a proof of such endeavours. Moreover,
if we consider the collection bearing the title of the Laws of
Henry I.2, we may, perhaps, recognize that England, even at
that early period, availed itself of its insular position and the
peculiar relation of the conqueror to the conquered, for the
obtaining of a more regular administration and regard of
justice than had been possessed by any people since the mi-
gration of nations.

That Henry not only frequently bestowed rich donations
on many monasteries and churches, but also founded several,
is the worthier of notice, as this tendency in him proceeded
from no slavish subjection to the clergy, but from a well-
founded sense of their relation to the state, and of respect for
higher spiritual interests. The noble abbey of St. Mary at
Reading, was founded by him for monks of the order of
Cluny®; for regular canons of the Augustine order he founded
a monastery and a church dedicated to St. John, at Ciren-
cester, and a monastery at Dunstable; he also founded an
abbey at Wellaw near Grimsby, and one at Anglesey in Cam-
bridgeshire! ; also a religious house at Creke in Norfolk; to

1 The Magnus Rotulus Scaccarii sive Pips, edited by the Rev. Jos.
Hunter for the late Record Commission, 1833.

2 The best edition of this collection is that in the “ Ancient Laws and
Institutes of England,” published by authority of the late Record Com-
mission.

3 The dotation is dated 1121. Monast. Anglic. iv. p. 28.

4° W. Gemmet. lib. viii. c. 32. The deed of foundation of Reading
abbey see in Monast. vi. p.175. Joh. Hagust. col. 258. R. Hagust. col.
310. R. de Diceto. col. 505. Knyghton, col. 2384. Chron. de Dunstap.
col. 677. [Allthe chronicles agree in the reading of Cirecestra (Cirécestra?).
Anglesey abbey is in the hundred of Stane.—T’.]

AQ
354 HENRY THE FIRST.

the monks of Bec he gave an alien priory at Steventon near
Abingdon; to the abbey of St. Valery one at Takely in
Essex. He also appears as a joint founder of the priories
of Augustine canons at Carlisle, and at Merton in Surrey ;
and, finally, as the founder of many large hospitals’. The
founding of the majority of these appears to have taken place
in the last fifteen years of his reign, after the loss of his son.
That Normandy, in this respect, was not neglected by him
needs hardly be mentioned. We will here notice only the
beautiful church at Evreux as his foundation. Towards
foreign churches and hospitals he was frequently not less mu-
nificent; the church at Cluny he almost entirely built, and
bestowed on it large possessions in England, also the church
of St. Martin aux Champs at Paris. The rich possessions of
the monks of the abbey of St. Remy at Rheims he not only
religiously protected, but also augmented?. The hospital for
the sick at Chartres, at that time distinguished both for its
extent and as a work of art, was completed through his
liberality. His numerous donations to the cloisters that lay
on the road of pilgrims to Rome, facilitated the way over the
Alps and Appenine to the metropolis of Christendom.

One who so munificently favoured monasteries operated
also indirectly on the promotion of knowledge and civiliza-
tion; but on the part of Henry Beauclere a more direct in-
fluence may be traced. If his consort Matilda rewarded
minstrels and melodious songsters, he gave proofs of his mu-
nificence to men like the Benedictine “Ethelhard of Bath3,
a distinguished philosopher and investigator of nature, who
translated the Elements of Euclid from the Arabic version

' Monast vi. passim.

2 Monast. vi. p. 1099. Domesday. Rot. magn. pipe, p. 74. W. Gemmet.
lib. VIII. c.32. For other donations by the first Norman kings to the
abbey of Cluny, see C. G. Hoffmann, Nova Scriptorum Monumentorum
Collectio. i. pp. 340 sq.

3 Rot. magn. pipe. p. 22. His “ Quaestiones naturales perdifficiles”’ are
in the Cottonian Library, Galba E. IV.
HENRY THE FIRST. 355

into Latin. Medieval Latinity, both prose and verse, as well
as familiarity with the Roman classics, reached in his time a
height from which, in England, they shortly afterwards fell.
During his reign flourished and wrote Eadmer, Ingulf, Jeffrey
of Monmouth, William of Malmesbury, William of Jumiéges,
Florence of Worcester, Simeon of Durham. -Henry of Hun-
tingdon’s earlier days fall also within this period. Of the
epigrams of the excellent Godfrey, prior of St. Swithin’s
at Winchester’, a native of Cambray, many are preserved.
The poems of Radulfus Tortarius? and of Serlo bishop of
Séez, which are known to us, excite the wish to possess those
still hidden from us. The earliest traces of dramatic repre-
sentations in northern Europe are met with, under the reign
of Henry, in the monastic school of Dunstable®, where he
sometimes held his court’. Geoffrey, the master of the
school there, was the director of these spiritual plays or
miracles, the model of which he borrowed from his former
residence, Paris, but which were known in Germany some
centuries earlier in the Latin poems of the nun Hroswithe.

Henry took great delight in wild beasts from distant re-
gions, as lions, leopards, lynxes, camels, etc., among which
particular mention is made of a porcupine. These were kept
in the park which he had enclosed at Woodstock, one of his
favourite places of abode®. He had also a similar establish-
ment at Caen, in which were placed beasts from all the known
parts of the world®.

At this period the Anglo-Saxon tongue began rapidly to
decline, being expelled from the halls of the noble and power-

! He died in 1107. See W. Malm. p. 678. Camden’s Remains, p. 421,
edit. 1674. Warton, H. E. P. p. exi. edit. 1840. Camden has preserved
several of his epigrams.

2 Histoire de Académie des Inscriptions, xxi. pp. §11 sq.

3 Matt. Paris, Hist. Abbat. p. 56. Warton ut sup. p. cxii.

4 Sax. Chron. a. 1122.

5 «*Wodestoc, regis Henrici familiarem privati secreti recessum. Gesta
Stephani,” p. 87.

6 W. Malm. p.638. Radulf Tortarius. A vivarium regis at Brichestoc
is mentioned in the Rotul. magn. pipe, p. 88. probably at Bristol.

Aa
356 HENRY THE FIRST.

ful, and corrupted among the people by an influx of Norman-
French. This latter was the language of the law and of the
court, and was also cultivated by the poets; of whom we will
here make mention, on account of their particular relation to
England, only of Philip of Thaun! and Geoffrey Gaimar?.

Of educational establishments there was no lack, either in
England or Normandy. The abbatial school of Bec was at-
tended by students from all parts of Europe. The schools
of Canterbury, York, Oxford, Abingdon, where king Henry
is said to have been educated, Winchester, Peterborough,
and others enjoyed a high reputation. But many English
also visited the learned foundations of other lands, and we
find them not only at Paris, Pavia, and Salerno, but also in
the lecture halls of the Arabians at Cordova and Salamanca,
imbibing, at the same time, copious draughts from the wells
of knowledge and of the errors of scholastic logic. The
system of the foreigner also found admission into the acade-
mic institutions of England. Thus Joffrid, abbot of Crow-
land, formerly prior of St. Evroult in Normandy, invited
teachers from Orléans, where he had been educated, and
established them at Cotenham, a manor belonging to his
abbey, by whose aid a school arose in the neighbouring town
of Cambridge, from which the university of that place may
probably ‘date its origin. Priscian’s grammar with the com-
mentary of Remigius, Aristotle’s logic, the rhetorical works of
Cicero and Quinctilian, together with theology, engrossed the
attention of scholars both then and many centuries later.

1 There are several manuscripts extant of this writer, the most ancient
of which Mr. Wright states to be that in the Cotton Library (Nero A.V.).
See Popular Treatises on Science, by T. Wright. London 1841, pref.
pp. ix. seg.—T.

2 See England under the A. S. Kings i. Liter. Introd. p. lvi. and the
epilogue to his Estorie des Engles, where he speaks of Robert, earl of
Gloucester, Walter Espec, and other contemporaries. Cf.(F. Wolf) Wiener
Jahrbiicher, 1836.

3 Petrus Blesens. Contin. p.114. The mention of Averroes (ob. 1206)
shows, however, that this passage is not free from interpolation.
A

HISTORY OF ENGLAND

UNDER THE

NORMAN KINGS.

STEPHEN.

CONTEMPORARY SOVEREIGNS.

 

 

 

GERMANY. FRANCE. SCOTLAND. SPAIN.
Lothair I. 1138. | Lewis VI. 1137. | David I. 1153. } Alphonso VIII.
Conrad IIT. 1152. | Lewis VII. Malcolm IV.

Frederic 1.
POPES.

Innocent I. 1143, | Celestine II. 1144. | Lucius II, 1145.
Eugenius III. 1153 | Anastatius IV.
THE death of Henry was productive of great disorder in his
states. It was the opinion of almost every one, that the
oaths which the late king had caused to be taken, with the
object of securing the throne to his daughter Matilda, were
not binding. Royalty was still too near its origin in Europe,
to admit of its being forgotten that its most prominent attri-
bute was the supreme command in war, which could not be
held by a woman. Neither among the Anglo-Saxons, with
one very unfavourable exception, had queens, nor among the
Normans countesses or duchesses, ever ruled the land. By
the violation too of the assurance given by the king, that his
daughter should marry no Frenchman, the obligation was
cancelled also on his part. Count Geoffrey was, moreover,
held in great aversion by the Normans, which his incessant
contentions with his father-in-law did not tend to mitigate.
It is, indeed, far from improbable, that Henry himself in his
anger may have harboured the thought of excluding his
358 STEPHEN.

daughter from the promised succession to the throne ;
and Hugh Bigot asserted on oath, that Henry, in his last
moments, in his presence, released the chiefs of the realm
from the oath they had taken in favour of Matilda, while
others at least affirmed that he had heartily repented of it’.
The son of Matilda was little more than two years old, and to
acknowledge him as successor to the throne would have been
equivalent to delivering the kingdom over to his parents
under the name of a regency. The next male heir was Theo-
bald, son of Stephen, count of Blois and Chartres, and Adela,
a daughter of William the Conqueror, a valiant prince, who
had ever proved himself a faithful ally of Henry against the
king of France, and for his piety and beneficence was highly
esteemed by all?. Many Normans, consequently, flocked
together at Neubourg, with the object of raising him to the
vacant dignity ; but while they were discussing the subject, a
messenger arrived from England with the intelligence, that
Theobald’s younger brother, Stephen, had been there elected
king, and was already crowned. This prince had constantly
enjoyed the favour of Henry, had been educated by him, and
about thirty years previously received knighthood at his
hands, and afterwards been invested with the county of Mor-

1 Gesta Stephani, p.7. (“Ad ipsam heredandam imperioso illo, cui
nullus obsistebat, oris tonitruo, summos totius regni jurare compulit po-
tius quam precepit. Et quanquam eosdem invite jurare, juramentumque
haud ratum fore prenosceret, voluit tamen, more Ezechielis, in diebus
pacem reformare, perque unius mulieris conjugium multa hominum millia
ad concordiz adsciscere glutinum. Utque patenter agnosceremus, quod ei
in vita certa de causa complacuit, post mortem ut fixum foret displicuisse,
supremo eum agitante mortis articulo, cum et plurimi astarent, et veram
suorum erratuum confessionem audirent, de jurejurando violenter baroni-
bus suis injuncto apertissime pcenituit.’—T.] H. Hunt. a. 6 Steph.,
where the assertion of the release from the oath by Henry is virtually re-
futed by the partisans of Matilda. Gervasius, a.1135. Rad. de Diceto,
Abbrev. Chron. col. 505.

2 W. Gemmet. viii. c. 34. Ord. Vital. pp. 902-905. Girald. Cambrens.
de Instr. Prin. in Recueil des Historiens, t. xviii. Anselmi Gemblac.,
Chron. a. 1134. .
STEPHEN. 359

tain. His marriage with the daughter and heiress of count
Eustace of Boulogne had, after the death of that prince, put
him in possession not only of that county, but also of vast
estates in England?. From Boulogne he had frequently in-
terfered in the Flemish dissensions, as he never let slip an
opportunity for gratifying his love of arms and increasing his
military renown. But yet more was he distinguished for
kindness, courtly manners, an amiable serenity of character,
and a condescension which had long gained him the hearts of
many among all conditions of people?. On the other hand,
he often proved himself imprudent, rash, and on his fairest
promises no reliance could be placed. In short, he exhibited,
in all its traits, a complete specimen of the accomplished
French knight of those days, who, although capable of enact-
ing many parts excellently well, was, nevertheless, but ill
qualified to rule over a kingdom. On the news of his uncle’s
death, Stephen, with a few followers, set sail from Witsand,
and landed on the coast of Kent, whence, without loss of
time, he proceeded to London. His pretensions to the crown
of England were favoured by the general aversion of the
people towards Anjou, but more particularly by the influence
of his brother Henry bishop of Winchester. Roger bishop
of Salisbury also, and William of Pont-de-lArche, both of
whom had held the important office of royal treasurer, de-
clared in his favour, and delivered to his reckless extrava-
gance the money accumulated during Henry’s administration,
amounting to a hundred thousand pounds of silver, together
with innumerable precious things?. The scruples of William

1 W. Gemmet. lib. i. Ord. Vital. p. 811. Wil. Newburg. lib. i. ¢. 4.

2 Even his enemies confirm this account of Stephen. W. Malm. p. 709.
“Homo mansuetissimus...... qui, si legitime regnum ingressus fuisset,
et in eo administrando credulas aures malevolorum susurris non exhibuis-
set, parum ei profecto ad regie persone decorem defuisset.” R. Hagust.
a. 1136. Sax. Chron. a. 1137. [Pa be suikes undergeton } he milde man
was. J softe. J god,” etc. When the traitors understood that he was a mild

man, and soft, and good, etc.—T.]
3 W. Malm. p.703. Gesta Stephani, p. 5.
360 STEPHEN.

archbishop of Canterbury were overcome by the declaration,
already mentioned, of Hugh Bigot, the seneschal of the de-
ceased sovereign. The slight opposition, which some faithful
friends of Henry endeavoured to set up against the preten-
sions of Stephen, was soon erushed, and the wealthy citizens
of London and Winchester declared in favour of the chivalrous
aspirant. Scarcely three weeks after the death of Henry,
and before his corpse was conveyed to England, Stephen was
crowned, on the 22nd Dee.!, by the archbishop of Canterbury,
William Corboil, in the presence of a few ecclesiastics and
laymen of rank, but who were quickly followed by many others,
who hastened to solemnize the Christmas festival at the court
of the newly crowned sovereign at London, from whence he
issued a missive, addressed to the judges of the land, the
sheriffs, barons, and vassals, both French and English, in
which he confirmed to his English subjects all the immunities
and good laws that his uncle king Henry had granted them,
as well as the good laws and good customs which they pos-
sessed in the time of king Eadward2; and, accordingly,
strictly forbade every violation of the same.

The mortal remains of the late king, who had desired to be
interred in the abbey founded by him at Reading, had not
yet arrived in England. They were detained at Rouen and
Caen, where they had been rudely embalmed or rather salted,
to the annoyance, and even deadly injury of those who ap-
proached them?. In the first days of January (1136), Ste-

1 Malmesbury (p. 704) and Gervase (col. 1340) give the precise date.
The Saxon Chronicle: ‘‘on mide wintre dei,’’ would seem also to signify
the shortest day. The Annal. Waverl. give St. Thomas’ day, the 21st Dec. ;
John of Hexham, the 1st Jan., probably an error of the MS.; Richard of
Hexham, Christmas day; Orderic the 15th Dec.

2 Printed in the Charters of Liberties, p. 4. without date, though, with-
out doubt, earlier than the ampler charter placed before it, issued at
Oxford.

3 In his account of this event we recognise in Henry of Huntingdon
the author of the treatise De Contemptu Mundi. [His words are worth
transcribing : ‘‘ Rex Henricus prima die Decembris obierat, cujus corpus
STEPHEN. 361

phen, attended by the ecclesiastical and secular dignitaries of
the kingdom, received the body of his uncle on the English
shore, with every sign of external veneration, and, as it is said,
assisted in conveying it to Reading.

From this scene Stephen hastened to the northern frontier
of his kingdom, where the Scots had made a hostile inroad,
from whom, however, as we shall hereafter have occasion to
mention, he, by considerable cessions to their king David,
purchased both acknowledgment and homage. But this ap-
peared to him not too dearly bought, as his position with
respect to his own subjects was not yet firmly established.
After having celebrated the Easter festival with great pomp
at London, Stephen proceeded to Oxford, where, in the
meanwhile, many English and Norman prelates and barons had
assembled. Here he was so fortunate as to be able to produce
a letter from the pope, Innocent II., in which the pontiff ex-
pressed his approval of Stephen’s election, referring to the
declaration and mediation of the English prelates, of the king

allatum est Rotomagum, et ibi viscera ejus, et cerebrum, et occuli conse-
pulta sunt; reliquum autem corpus cultellis circumquaque desecatum, et
multo sale aspersum, coriis taurinis reconditum est causa foetoris evitandi,
qui multus et infinitus jam circumstantes inficiebat, unde et ipse, qui mag-
no pretio conductus, securi caput ejus diffiderat, ut foetidissimum cerebrum
extraheret, quamvis linteaminibus caput suum obvoluisset, mortuus tamen
ea causa pretio male gavisus est. Hic est ultimus e multis, quem rex
Henricus occidit. Inde vero corpus regium Cadonum sui deportaverunt ;
ubi diu in ecclesia positum, in qua pater ejus sepultus fuerat, quamvis
multo sale repletum esset, et multis coriis reconditum, tamen continue ex
corpore jugitur humor et horribilis scoria pertransiens decurrebat, et vasis
sub feretro susceptus, a ministris foetore et horrore fatiscentibus abjicieba-
tur. Vide igitur quicunque legis, quomodo regis potentissimi corpus,
cujus cervix diadematizata auro et gemmis electissimis, quasi Dei splen-
dore vernaverat ; cujus utraque manus sceptris preradiaverat, cujus reliqua
superficies auro textili tota rutilaverat, cujus os tam deliciosissimis et ex-
quisitis pasci solebat cibis, cui omnes assurgere, omnes expavescere, omnes
congaudere, omnes admirari solebant ; vide, inquam, quo corpus illud de-
venerit, quam horribiliter delituerit, quam miserabiliter abjectum fuerit.
Vide rerum eventum, ex quo semper pendet judicium, et disce contemnere
quicquid sic disterminatur, quicquid sic annihilatur.”—'T’ ]
362 STEPHEN.

of France, and the count Theobald of Blois'. To the French
king, Lewis VI., nothing, indeed, could be more unwelcome
than to see his vassal of Anjou raised at once to be lord of
both Normandy and England. After long deliberation, the
document or charter was framed, by which the ancient privi-
leges of the ecclesiastics, the barons, and the people were con-
firmed, and which, by some of its provisions, removed certain,
though to us not always apparent, causes of complaint against
the administration of Henry. The king of the English, by
the grace of God, with the consent of the clergy and people
elected, by the archbishop of Canterbury, legate of the holy
Roman Church, consecrated, and by Innocent, bishop of the

' Roman see confirmed, was, in the first place, not sparing of

promises to the Church. What it possessed at the death of
William I., that is about fifty years before, it might claim as
its property. But, if the Church shall demand anything it
held or possessed prior to the death of that king, of which it
is now deprived, he reserves to his own indulgence and dis-
pensation either to refuse or restore it. All later acquisitions
of the Church were confirmed; he promises in all things to
maintain peace and justice. The forests made by William I.
and William IT. he reserves for himself; but those added by
Henry he restores to the Church and realm. If any bishop,
or abbot, or other ecclesiastic makes a reasonable distribution
of his property, he confirms such distribution; but if pre-
vented in such distribution by death, let it be made by the
advice of the Church, for the good of his soul. Vacant sees
and their possessions he orders to be committed to the cus-
tody of the clergy and other upright men of such see, until a
pastor be canonically appointed. All exactions and extor-
tions? wickedly introduced by sheriffs and others he totally

’ See the letter in Ricard. Hagust. col. 313.

2 « Angli, diu habita deliberatione, quem sublimarent regis nomine et
honore,”’ etc. Auctarium Anselmi Gemblac. a. 1136.

3 “ Meschenningas.”’ Sec Glossary to Anc. Laws and Inst. v. ‘Misken-
ning.’ —T.
STEPHEN. 363

abolished, and promised to observe and cause to be observed
good laws and the ancient and just customs in cases of mur-
drum and other pleas'. The discontent caused by the nu-
merous enclosures, and by the severe laws for the protection
of the beasts of the forests, was wide-spread over England,
and on the intelligence of Henry’s death had manifested itself
in the destruction of the enclosures and slaughter of the hate-
ful game?; so that of the many thousand animals with which
the country had, as it were, been overrun, it was now a rare
sight to see two together. The numerous witnesses of high
consideration to this document forbid us to harbour a doubt
of its containing the real substance of the concessions de-
manded from and granted by Stephen. Its several tran-
scripts, all of the same tenour, are a guarantee that we
possess it in its genuine form. Among those witnesses we
find the archbishops of Canterbury and Rouen; the bishops
of Winchester, Salisbury, Lincoln, Evreux, Avranches, Here-
ford, and Rochester; the chancellor Roger; Henry, the king’s
nephew?; the earls, Robert of Gloucester, William of Wa-

1 Gesta Stephani p. 2. W. Malm. p. 708.

2 Charters, p.3. W. Malm. p. 708. R. Hagust. col. 311.

3 Probably the eldest son of Theobald, who was his heir in the counties
of Champagne and Brie, while the younger, Theobald V., received Blois
and Chartres. His presence was of importance as proving the good un-
derstanding between the king and his elder brother. The former was
present also at Easter, at the investing of bishop Robert with the see of
Bath, the document relative to which stands in the new Rymer (p. 16),
without date, after the year 1153. The printed text of this document
abounds in blunders, by which the entire work is rendered as much a
monument of the ignorance of its editors as of English history: e.g. Sa-
farus for Sefridus, Adelardus for Adelulfus, Willelmus de Pont for W. de
Pontarci, R. de Fered for R. de Ferrariis, Albert de Laci for Ibert de Laci
—all well-known names of bishops and barons. But there are yet worse
blunders than the above, as at p. 9., where several documents of Henry IL,
with his titles, dux Aquitanie et comes Andegavie, are placed under the
reign of Henry I.! Compare p. 259, 24. Hence it hardly will excite our
wonder when, at p. 91, we find a document in which mention is made of
Dominicans and Franciscans, assigned to the year 1204, and to pope In-
nocent III. (at Lyons !).
364 STEPHEN.

renne, Ranulf of Chester, Robert of Warwick ; the constables,
Robert of Vere, Milo of Gloucester, Brian fitz Count! and
Robert of Oily; the sewers, William Martel, Hugh Bigot,
Humphrey of Bobun and Simon of Beauchamp; the cup-
bearers, William of Aubigny, and Eudes Martel; also the
barons of high rank, Robert of Ferriéres, William Peverel of
Nottingham, Simon of Senlis, Payne fitz John, Hamon of St.
Clair, William of Albemarle, Ilbert of Lacy?—all names of
note under the preceding monarchs, or destined to become so
in the present reign. The more striking, therefore, and in-
credible is it that among the chroniclers hostile to Stephen,
one asserts that he also promised to abolish Danegelt for
ever},

The names of the witnesses to this charter are here ad-
duced for the purpose also of drawing attention to the eccle-
_ astics and vassals of Normandy appearing among them. Im-
mediately on receipt of the news of Henry’s death, count
Geoffrey and his consort, the empress, had with little diffi-
culty, and with the aid of the viscount there, Guiganalgaso,
who from a low condition had raised himself to eminence,
taken possession of several towns on the southern frontier of

1 Who his father was We learn from the Sax. Chron. a.1127. See p. 340.

2 Tlbert forthwith received back from the new sovereign the lands which
had been taken from his father Robert by Henry. Ric. Hagust. a. 1135.
But that the old Ibert of Lacy, at the time of Domesday, possessed Ponti-
fract, as Ellis (Introd. i. p. 221) and Hunter (Rot. magn. pipz, p. xxii.)
assume, appears, from the above-mentioned chronicler very doubtful, ac-
cording to whom it belonged to William Travers (Transversus).

3 Henry of Huntingdon. While William of Malmesbury, whom Hume
cites as his authority for the assertion, makes no mention of it. Lin-
gard speaks of two assemblies at Oxford, in the latter of which the
letter of the pope was read, but it escapes his notice that Malmesbury,
whom he adduces as his authority for the first, likewise makes mention of
the papal confirmation in his transcript of the document there sworn to by
the king. Henry of Huntingdon, on the other hand, speaks of the docu-
ment from treacherous memory, and while placing its emission in the be-
ginning of January, omits all notice of the documentary proof of its publi-
cation after Easter.
STEPHEN. 365

Normandy, as Domfront, Argentan, Hiesmes, Ambriéres, and
others, but of which he delivered over some to Joel of May-
enne; all the strong places, too, were opened to him, which
the exiled count of Ponthieu, William Talevas, had recovered
from the late king. Nevertheless, in the greater part of Nor-
mandy no favourable disposition displayed itself to the preten-
sions of Matilda; even Robert of Gloucester, at a conference
with count Theobald, the elder brother of Stephen, delivered
Falaise to the friends of the king, though not until he had
carried off the greater portion of a treasure that had a short
time previously been brought thither by Henry from England’.
One of the most illustrious of the Norman nobles, Waleram
count of Meulan, Stephen sought to attach to his fortunes, by
the betrothal to him of his daughter of two years old. When,
therefore, the Norman barons, probably on receipt of the in-
telligence of king David’s homage, and of the part taken both
by the pope and the king of France, had formed the resolution
to acknowledge Stephen, there appeared no urgent personal
necessity for him to cross the Channel, greatly as. the duchy
had suffered, after the death of Henry, by feuds and private
revenge. Nevertheless, such was the anarchical state of the
country since Henry’s decease, that Stephen deemed it ad-
visable at least to manifest a disposition to listen to the calls
made on him from that quarter. At midsummer, therefore,
he hastened to one of the southern ports, but found the wind
unfavourable for the perilous summer passage to France.
After a delay of some time, a messenger arrived with intelli-
gence of the death of Roger bishop of Salisbury, to whom he
had intrusted the administration of the kingdom. Roger was,
however, as it proved, in perfect health, yet the king availed

1 Robert. de Monte, a.1135. Ord. Vital. p. 903. In the Rotul. magn.
pipe we find frequent mention of two men of this name, one of whom is
designated Brito. The above-mentioned cupbearer is also therein named,
whence we see that even court-offices, in the tranquil beginning of this

reign, retained their old occupants. Martel, Henry’s cupbearer, was now
promoted to the post of sewer,
366 STEPHEN.

himself of the false report to postpone his departure till the
following spring. The numerous disturbances, that had broken
out in England, rendered his presence necessary in many parts
of the country, and it seems not improbable that he intention-
ally cast a veil of obscurity over his place of residence, as, in
the north of England, it was believed, that in August he had
actually passed over to Normandy’.

Stephen’s reign of almost twenty years is scarcely other
than an ever-repeated tale of petty border wars, internal
feuds, and deeds of violence. Nevertheless, a state of things,
that could exist for so long a time, will not appear indifferent
to the student of history, but, while an enumeration of every
individual event can have no value for the history of the
country, demands a more exact consideration than it has
hitherto met with, in order to elucidate their mutual connec-
tion; to comprehend how such a state of things could so long
continue ; to form a judgment how far it accorded with
similar phenomena in the history of Europe, or whether it
was of a peculiar character; in order finally to be able to set
forth whatever may present itself in isolated events, either
illustrative of the past, or capable of developing future occur-
rences and principles.

The means chiefly adopted by Stephen for the maintenance
of his power in England, but by which he, at the same time,
laid the foundation of its decline, had, though with a greater
degree of caution, been already resorted to by his predecessor
—the hire of foreign mercenaries. As long as the treasure
accumulated by Henry lasted, he was enabled to maintain a

_. standing army, whereby his barons were partially relieved of

the burdens of warfare, and whose chief incitement was
Stephen’s gold. The greater part of this force consisted of
Flemings, led, for the most part, by turbulent and impover-

1 Joh. Hagust. col. 258. Ric. Hagust. col. 312. All the other chroniclers
agree in stating that Stephen’s visit to Normandy was not till 1137. The
above account rests on circumstances related by Orderic, p. 904.
STEPHEN. 367

ished knights, who, driven from their possessions through the
ascendency of the towns, or by the violence of destructive
floods, sought to retrieve their fortunes in the game of war,
while their more peaceful peasants and townsfolk, migrating
to the east of Europe, found a livelihood in the arts of em-
banking, husbandry, and traffic. The most influential of these
Flemings was William of Ypres, who had formerly raised
pretensions to the Flemish crown, but had been recently
driven from the port of Sluys, which he had till then pos-
sessed, by the reigning count, Diederik!. Around him and
others of a similar character were gathered many warriors of
the lower class, as townsmen and artizans, to whom, as their
looms were too laborious for them, some leader of such bands
guaranteed either pay or other means of subsistence. Among
these were also numerous Bretons?, whom Henry had fre-
quently employed as mercenaries, as their poverty compelled
them to fight under any banner, and obey every command of
the chief that supported them?. Among the Bretons, whom
we find in the pay of Stephen, are many whose rank and
position in England forbid us to place them on a level with
the Flemish mercenary leaders, although it was their lineage
and connections in their native land which attracted to them
their needy countrymen. Among these may be reckoned
count Stephen of Penthiévre, probably a younger son of

1 See concerning him p. 296, and Warnkénig, Flandrische Geschichte,
i. p.144, That he was in England in the time of Henry I. seems uncer-
tain, although the Willelmus Flandrensis in the Rotul. magn. pipe, p. 83,
may allude to him; but that he either then or later held the rank of earl
in England is not proved. He governed the county of Kent; but in no
genuine document does it appear that he bore the title of earl. See Pal-
grave, Rise and Progress, ii. p. lxv.

2 W. Malm. p. 706. “ Currebatur ad eum ab omnium generum militi-
bus, et a levis armature hominibus, maximeque ex Flandria et Brittannia.
Erat genus hominum rapacissimum et violentissimum.” Ib. p. 731. “ Sub
Stephano plures ex Flandria et Brittannia, rapto vivere assueti, spe mag-
narum predarum Angliam involabant.”

3 W. Malm. p. 629.
368 STEPHEN.

Alan Fergant (the Red), and, consequently, a grandson of
the Conqueror. He enjoyed the vast possessions of his father
in England, consisting of the barony of Richmond in York-
shire, with many estates in Lincolnshire and other counties,
which, after his death, in the early part of Stephen’s reign,
fell to his second son, Alan II., surnamed the Black?. In his
youth he had borne the character of a valiant, but rugged
and cruel warrior; at a later period he chiefly distinguished
himself by the ambitious endeavour to raise Brittany again
to a kingdom. Not far behind him for illustrious birth,
and still less for haughty arrogance, stood Hervé, viscount
of Leon2, who, at the request of Henry, would never conde-
scend to visit England, though with Stephen, whose daughter
he had espoused, he resided for some years, and very little to
that prince’s advantage. To a distinguished Breton race be-
longed also Alan of Dinan, son of Oliver, who, during the
reign of Henry, had received large possessions in England,
and served Stephen on both sides of the Channel®, as did
likewise Geoffrey Botarel, count of Lainballe and Penthiévre,
the elder brother of the before-mentioned Alan‘.

1 Domesday, passim. In Rotul. magn. pipe the latter is constantly
called “‘ Stephanus, comes de Britannia.”’? Chron. Britan. a. 1146. ‘ Obiit
Alanus comes, in Anglia atque in Britannia strenuissimus.” [See Ellis,
Introd. i. p. 366.—T.]

2 «*Herveius de Leions (Liuns), tante nobilitatis, tanti supercilii, ut
nunquam regi Henrico petenti animum indulserit in Angliam venire.”
W. Malm. p. 721. “ Leon, pagus Lehonensis.” Of him and his race, see
Daru, Histoire de la Bretagne, i. p.109. That he was a son-in-law of
Stephen, appears from the Gesta Stephani, p. 68, “ Herveio Britoni ....
genero regis.” Ib. p. 74. “Comes Herveius, gener regis.”

3 In Rotul. magn. pipe, pp. 16, 39, etc. it is written “Dinam.” In
the Chron. Britan. his father’s death is noticed under the year 1150; his
own under 1157.

4<* Boterellus quidam, comes Britannie.” Gesta Steph. p.81. Comp.
Joh. Hagust. a.1146. He is probably the Gaufridus Bucherel of the Rot.
magn. pipe, where a Willelmus Boterel and Bucherel, also a “Thomas,
fillus Odonis Bucherel” occur. We know of an elder Breton, Galfrid
Botherel, son of Odo of Penthiévre, who died in 1092.
STEPHEN, 369

It is not to be supposed that the number of foreigners in
England consisted solely of Bretons and Flemings; although
the presence of others is rather to be conjectured than
proved. Here we will merely mention Faramus, a nephew of
the queen, the daughter of Eustace III., count of Boulogne,
as it was he, with William of Ypres, who for some time
swayed the royal court.

The death of Henry had caused great excitement in Wales,
to subdue which he had resolved to pass over to England. The
united bands of the natives invaded the well-cultivated district
of Gower, lying on the southern coast, and on the banks of
the Tawy, which they ravaged, and surrounded and put to the
sword a body of five hundred and sixteen? Normans (1st Jan.
1136). The mercenaries sent against them by the king were
unable to gain any lasting advantage over them, and were
compelled to make an inglorious retreat. The renowned and
dreaded adversary of the Welsh, Richard fitz Gilbert of
Clare, whose influence in South Wales was almost as great
as that of his wife’s brother, Ranulf earl of Chester, in the
northern parts of the realm, a man highly esteemed and be-
loved by his people, having by alliances and hostages secured
himself against his neighbours, now hastened back from Eng-
land. Irritated apparently by the king’s refusal to comply
with some of his wishes, he appears to have harboured the
design of rebelling against him, and of uniting himself with
the Welsh; when, having sent back the companion of his
journey, Brian, son of the count Alan Fergant and baron of
Wallingford, more usually styled fitz Count®, with his nu-
merous band of armed followers, and riding through a dense
forest, to the sound of song and bagpipe, the music soon

1“ Pharamus, nepos regine Mathilde, et iste Bononiensis.”? Joh. Ha-
gust. a.1142. ‘‘ Faramus, filius Willelmi de Boloniz.... ut haberet ter-
ram suam (in Sudreia), quam noverca sua tenet.” Rot. magn. p. p. 50.
Cf. further on, under 1153.

2 The Gesta Steph. p. 10, and Flor. Cont. p. 97, agree in this number.

3 Sax. Chron. a. 1127.

Bb

a
370 STEPHEN.

roused the attention of the Welsh, of whom Jorwerth of
Caerleon made a deadly onslaught on the Normans, and mas-
sacred him and his attendants! (15th April). This cata-
strophe kindled new hopes in the minds of the Welsh.
Three thousand marched to Cardigan (October), sparing no
foreigner, not even the women and children, to the fortress
of which, where resided the wife of the slain Richard, they
laid siege. After a long resistance, the place was relieved
by Milo of Gloucester?. Baldwin, the brother of Richard
fitz Gilbert, although aided by the royal treasures, did not
advance beyond Brecknock, and there wasted both time and
the gold intrusted to him. Nor was Robert fitz Harold more
fortunate, although he proved himself not lacking in energy,
and Stephen himself felt convinced that against the tenacious
love of country cherished by that excited people, the op-
pressor had no better weapon than patience, in the expecta-
tion that internal dissensions and famine would eventually
effect their ruin (1137). The Flemings had. in particular
suffered under their arms, and one of the bravest barons,
Payne fitz John, fell in the pursuit of some Welsh, stricken
by a hostile spear ®.

Immediately after the homage at Oxford, Stephen sum-
moned the high clergy and most distinguished of the laity to
meet at London, for the purpose of hearing the complaints of
the former against the abuses that had crept into the Church
during the reign of his predecessor. They complained of si-
mony; of the voluntary gifts demanded of them, which threat-
ened gradually to become a compulsive impost; of the viola-

! Gesta Steph. p.10. Flor. Cont. p. 97. Giraldi Itiner. Cambrie, lib. i.
c. 4.

2 *« Qui castellum ejusdem urbis (Glocestriz) sub comite habebat tem-
pore regis Henrici, dato ei homagio et fidelitatis sacramento; nam eadem
civitas caput est comitatus.”” W. Malm. p. 725.

3 Flor. Cont. p.98. Gesta Steph. p.16. Cf. p. 305. Joh. and Ric. Ha-
gust. (coll. 258, 313), [who mention two barons as slain, viz. Payne fitz
John and Richard fitz Roger.—T.]
STEPHEN, 371

tion of the ecclesiastical immunities; in short, of everything,
on account of which the clergy of those days were ever quar-
relling with princes, who had to protect the interest of their
governments; also of the facility with which marriages were
dissolved, on which occasion it was not difficult bitterly to
censure the life of the departed monarch, highly as only a few
months previously he had been extolled. Stephen promised
most readily to maintain the rights of the Church unimpaired,
and to remedy the abuses that had crept in; but the vicissi-
tudes of his reign permitted him neither to fulfil this promise,
nor earnestly and vigorously to manifest an opposite disposi-
tion, in a strife implicating the substance and extent of his
rights.

But it was necessary for Stephen to preserve the friendship
of the clergy, as it early appeared but too evident, that, by
his easiness of disposition and prodigality, he had lost the
esteem of his Norman barons, without having succeeded in
satisfying their insatiable desires.

In this year, shortly after Easter, the king was attacked
with lethargy, when Roger Bigot, availing himself of a report
of his death, seized on the castle of Norwich, which he refused
to surrender, except to the king himself, and very reluctantly
to him. It seems, however, to have been conferred on him
., at a later period, as we find him styled earl of Norwich and
East Anglia’.

At this time there lived a knight of noble lineage and ex-
tensive possessions, named Robert of Bathenton?, whose life
had been chiefly passed in gluttony and drunkenness; but
who, after the death of Henry, forsaking his former habits,

! H. Hunt. lib. viii. aa. 1136, 1141. R. Hoved. a.1136. Charter of 1153
ap. Rymer.: “ Norwic.......... tertium denarium, unde Hugo Bygotus
comes est.”

2 The Badentone (Baentone) of Domesday, foll. 1005, 101, in Devon-
shire. ‘ Robertus de Baentone,” in that county, occurs in the Rotul. magn.
pip, pp. 153, 154,

Bb
372 STEPHEN.

had gathered round him a band of lawless followers, and was
become the terror of the neighbouring country. When at
length, having done homage to Stephen, it was expected that
he would desist from his depredations, he became only more
cruel and hostile. Being cited before the king’s court, to
answer for his misdeeds, he appeared sad, as one conscious
of his perjury and perfidy. When accused by those whose
property he had plundered, he was found guilty, and sen-
tenced to deliver up his castle, and place all his possessions
at the king’s disposal. In the king’s resolution to send an
_ armed foree, accompanied by Robert himself, to take posses-
sion of the castle, the wily knight, with a cheerful, smiling
countenance, expressed his concurrence, while in his mind he
was devising how he might deceive the soldiers, and retain
possession of his castle. On reaching a country dwelling be-
longing to him, he gave orders for a sumptuous refection,
with wine in abundance, to be served to his escort; and when
all after their good cheer were buried in sleep, Robert quietly
mounted his horse and made his escape. Having strongly
fortified his castle, he wandered from place to place, at times
lurking in concealment, at others joining the king’s enemies,
and at last died a miserable death among strangers. On
being apprized that the retainers of Robert were continuing
the game of plunder and destruction, the king proceeded
without delay to Bathenton, to which he laid close siege.
One night during the siege, a wretched man, in an attempt
at flight, by letting himself down from the wall, was captured
by the watch, and conducted to the king, who commanded
him to be hanged in sight of the whole garrison, declaring
that all should undergo a similar punishment, unless the cas-
tle were forthwith surrendered. It was surrendered accord-
ingly. Having thus got possession of the place, Stephen ban-
ished its defenders from the realm, who, it is said, found an
asylum with the king of Scotland’.
1 Gesta Stephani, p. 18.
STEPHEN. 373

The rebellion of Robert of Bathenton had hardly been
quelled, when intelligence was brought to the king, that
Baldwin of Redvers, a powerful baron of illustrious family in
the west of England, had entered Exeter with an armed
force, seized on the castle, and threatened with destruction
by fire and sword all who did not appear favourable to his
views. In compliance with the prayer of the citizens, the
king immediately despatched two hundred horse to their aid,
who were speedily followed by the king himself, at the head
of a body of troops, who fortunately arrived at the moment
when the insurgents, irritated with the citizens for having
applied to the king, had issued from the castle, for the pur-
pose of plundering and burning the city. Baldwin now, with
his family and adherents, retired to the castle, which he had
strongly garrisoned, and whence he made frequent sallies on
the royal forces, while the king, on the other hand, left un-
employed no means of annoying his adversary, and forcing
him to surrender. In the meantime the castle of Plympton,
belonging to Baldwin, was treacherously delivered to the
king by its garrison, and levelled to the earth. The rest also
of the rebels, seeing the desperate state of things, submitted,
in the guise of suppliants, to the royal mercy, with the soli-
tary exception of Alfred fitz Joel’, a man of note, and the
intimate friend of Baldwin. Finding his castle too extended
and weak, and unprovided with a sufficient garrison, this
faithful adherent abandoned it, and his brother, with a strong
band, proceeded to Exeter, where he and his followers, pre-
tending to come in aid of the king, dispersed themselves
among the royal forces. Here he soon found means to ap-
prize Baldwin’s people of his arrival, who, sallying forth, ex-
ultingly conducted him and his followers back with them into
the castle, in the sight of the king and his army,

But, fortunately for Stephen, water now failed the garrison,
their wells were dried up. So great was the extremity, to

1 Twice mentioned in Rotul. magn. pipe, under Devonshire, pp. 153,
158.
374 STEPHEN.

which they were thereby reduced, that in making bread, and
for culinary purposes, they were obliged to use wine; even
the torches and other fires, cast by the besiegers into the
place, for the purpose of destroying their enginery and habi-
tations, they had no means of quenching but by wine, until
at length not a drop remained either of wine or water. In
this their sad necessity, the besieged offered terms of capi-
tulation, but which Stephen, by the advice of his brother
Henry, bishop of Winchester, refused, who, seeing the at-
tenuated condition of the two deputies, felt convinced that in
a very short time the garrison must surrender at discretion.
The wife of Baldwin also, bare-footed, with disheveled hair,
and bathed in tears, appeared before the king, but with no
better success. At last, at the intercession of his barons,
Stephen allowed the besieged to march out with their effects,
and to attach themselves to any lord they might choose. But
Baldwin himself fled to the Isle of Wight, where he possessed
a beautiful and strong castle, whence, having manned a large
vessel with pirates, he hoped to make booty of the merchant-
ships trading between England and Normandy, and otherwise
cause every annoyance in his power. Stephen, however, being
apprized of his designs, was speedily in pursuit of him, and,
on his arrival at Southampton, where he had ordered a fleet
to be equipped, Baldwin, taken by surprise at the rapidity of
the king, appeared as a suppliant before him. He had, it ap-
pears, ascertained that the supply of water in his castle was
insufficient for the number of its inmates. Failing to obtain
the restoration of his possessions in England, he sought and
found an asylum with the count of Anjou, from whom he of
course met with a most welcome reception, whence he ceased
not from intriguing against the king by exciting dissensions
in Normandy, to which he was in great measure instigated
by the countess Matilda, the daughter of Henry!.

1 Gesta Stephani, pp. 20 sqq. Flor. Cont. a.1135. Joh. and Ric. Ha-
gust. a. 1136.
STEPHEN. 375

The autumn of this year, which the king passed at the
royal residence of Brampton in Huntingdonshire, for the sake
of amusing himself, like his predecessors, with the pleasures
of the chase, and the following year, which he began at Dun-
stable!, and concluded with a residence of nine months in
France?, were, with the exception of his latter years, for
England the only tranquil periods of his unhappy reign. In
March (1137) the long-delayed visit to Normandy was carried
into effect, which duchy, in consequence of the disunion exist-
ing under Stephen, had, to the prejudice of the reigning sove-
reign, entirely lost the character of the chief and hereditary
state, which in after times, unquestionably to the great ad-
vantage of England, it never recovered. Count Geoffrey of An-
jou, in alliance with the countsof Poitiers, Ponthieu, and others,
had, in the preceding year, made an inroad into Normandy,
but met with no favourable disposition towards him. The
atrocities perpetrated by his army, on which was bestowed
the opprobrious appellation of Hilibecs, or Guiribecs, excited
the most intense hatred, and so universal a rising of the Nor-
mans against the intruders, that they soon found themselves
compelled to abandon the country.

In May Stephen had an interview with the king of France,
who invested him with the duchy of Normandy, on conditions
similar to those on which it had been held by Henry, and
was content with the homage of Stephen’s son, Eustace’.
Yet in no public document does Stephen bear the title of
Duke of Normandy, a circumstance which, in conjunction

1 H. Hunt. aa. 1136, 1121. Rotul. magn. pipe, mention these royal
residences, also those at Hallingbury in Essex, Woodstock, and Windsor.
See pp. 44, 100, 57, 58, etc. 128, 122, 126, etc.

2 Flor. Cont. aa. 1137 and 1138.

3 Ord. Vital. pp. 905 sg. This appellation adhered to the troops of
Anjou till a later period. Vita B. Ulfrici ap. Bollandi Acta Sanct. Feb. 20.
“Ingressus est Angliam Henricus, Normanniz dux, cum exercitu homi-
num, quos vulgus appellat Hirebellos.”

4 Ord. Vital. p.909. H. Hunt. a. 1137.
376 STEPHEN.

with the unquestionable investiture, appears inexplicable’.
Some rebellious barons were quelled by the potent arm of
Stephen, new investitures were bestowed; yet was the king
unable completely to humble Geoffrey of Anjou. The insolent
presumption and violences of the Flemings in the king’s ser-
vice, particularly of William of Ypres, who ventured on an
attempt to get possession of the person of the earl of Glou-
cester?, who had followed the king to Normandy, exasperated
the Normans, and led to the most serious dissensions among
Stephen’s adherents and army. Forsaken by a portion of
his troops, when, full of ardour, he was eager to give battle
to his adversary, he found himself necessitated to conclude
a truce with him for three years, and to pay him annually
three thousand marks*.

Hardly had Stephen celebrated in tranquil splendour his
Chistmas festival in England, when a rebellion and, shortly
after, a storm, that had long been gathering, burst forth,
which, had unity prevailed in the councils of those who raised
it, must inevitably have proved his ruin. The rebellion was
in its origin local, and wholly unconnected with the wars by
which it was soon followed. Stephen’s predecessors had been
very sparing in the conferring of earldoms, and Henry more

1 The want of this title does not appear to have been observed : Sir Har-
ris Nicolas even adduces: “Stephanus, Dei gratia Dux Normannorum ;”
yet neither in Rymer nor the Monasticon is such a designation to be
found. [The authors of the Nouvean Traité de Diplomatique produce an
instance of his having denominated himself “ Duke of Normandy.” In
the legend on his great seal, Stephen certainly styled himself “‘ Dux Nor-
mannorum.” The legend on the reverse of his seal was, “ Stephanus, Dei
gratia Dux Normannorum.” Nicolas, Chron. of Hist. edit. 1838. p. 367.
—T.] It appears also that Henry I. styled himself “ Dux Normannorum”
only in some documents relating to the duchy.

2 Ord. Vital. p. 909. W. Malm. p. 710.

8 So Robert de Monte; but Ord. Vital. p.910. Rich. and Joh. Hagust.
(coll. 259, 315) say that the truce was for two years only. [According to
Richard of Hexham, Stephen received a large sum: “Stephano regi re-
deunti de Normannia, postquam data magna pecunia a comite Andega-
rensi, biennii inducias acceperat.”—T.]
STEPHEN. 377

especially had exerted himself to bring into the royal hand
both the revenues connected with them and the military com-
mand. In the place of those deceased earls who had been
appointed by his father and brother, he seldom nominated a
new one; so that, with the exception of his son Robert, earl
of Gloucester, we find, in the year 1131, only the earls of
Chester and Leicester, the latter of whom, it seems, died
shortly after. This wise policy, to which England owed so
much of its peculiar character and prosperity, was not imi-
tated by Stephen, who bestowed the privileges of earl as well |
as other rewards on his adherents. When he created the —
earldom of Pembroke for Gilbert of Clare, it may be supposed
that the state of things in those parts required a military
dignity, which, at the same time, might serve as a counter-
poise to the earls of Chester in the north and east of Wales.
The dignity of earl of Derby, conferred at a later period on
Robert of Ferriéres (Ferrars), was the recompense of most
important military services. But it is less obvious what in-
duced Stephen to bestow the title of earl of Bedford on Hugh
surnamed the Poor, of whom all that we know is, that he was
a younger son of the once powerful Robert of Beaumont,
count of Meulan!. At the same time, he bestowed on him
the hand of the daughter of the deceased Simon of Beau-
champ. Milo and his brother, sons of the deceased Robert
of Beauchamp, who were in possession of the castle of Bed-
ford, which they must surrender to the new earl, apprehensive
of losing all their hereditary property, resisted the com-
mands of the king. Whereupon Stephen, contrary to the
advice of his brother, the bishop of Winchester, undertook
the siege of Bedford, which occupied him a considerable time,
until, through the bishop’s mediation, the lords of Beauchamp
surrendered the fortress. Hugh the Poor received the earl-
dom, but held it for a short time only, and to hear the words
parodied which St. Bernard wrote of the elder count Theo-

! Ord. Vital. p, 806.
378 : STEPHEN.

bald of Blois, who had taken the cross against the infidels,
and afterwards became a templar; that from a count he had
become a knight, and from a knight a pauper’.

Stephen did not remain till the end of the siege, being com-
pelled to direct his attention to the Scots, whose king, David,
the son of Malcolm Canmore and brother of Matilda, Henry's
first wife, and of Maria, the wife of Eustace count of Boulogne,
was uncle both to the empress and to Matilda, the consort of
Stephen. By his mother, Margaret, the daughter of prince
Eadward and granddaughter of king Eadmund, David himself
represented the eldest line of the Anglo-Saxon house. If we
therefore admit that the empress, by her marriage with a
Frenchman, had forfeited her claim to the crown of England,
it naturally fell to David, an opinion which did not lack sup-
porters?. But David declared himself faithful to the oath,
in favour of his niece, the empress, which he had taken to
her father, and only demanded for his son Henry the renewal
of the old customary investiture of the Scottish heir apparent
with Cumberland, and for himself the inheritance of his
queen, the daughter of earl Waltheof, in the counties of
Northumberland and Huntingdon. With a double army he
attacked Carlisle and the towns on the border of Northum-
berland, Carham and Norham, and, after a fruitless attempt
to take Bamborough, he gained the towns of Alnwick and

' Gesta Stephani, p. 30. Ord. Vital. p.915. Flor. Wigorn., H. Hunt.
a.1138. My interpretation of the saying assumes that for the senseless
“ Rogerium de comite”’ of the ‘Gesta,’ we should read Hugonem de co-
mite. [Lappenberg’s emendation is certainly very plausible; though he
omits mentioning that, according to the ‘Gesta,’ the castle was retaken:
“Sed quanto tunc humiliores et depressiores, tanto, aliquantillo elapso
tempore, elatiores et acerbiores, ad ipsum castellum redeuntes, non solum
illud recuperarunt, verum ipsum Rogerium de comite militem, de milite
pauperem, Deo judice, ordine mirabiliter transverso, effecerunt.” The
passage is very obscure, and no doubt corrupt. The text of the ‘ Gesta’
in this part is imperfect and evidently very fragmentary.—T.]

2 Palgrave, Rise and Progress, i. p. 611.

+ «Cum consulatu patris sui.” Ric. Hagust. a. 1136, col. 312.
STEPHEN. 379

Newcastle, in the beginning of the year 1136. From the
principal inhabitants he exacted ar oath of fealty to Matilda
and hostages. Before, however, he could advance to Durham,
Stephen, with a strong army, had already arrived at that city
(5th Feb.)', and David considered the event of a battle so
doubtful, and Stephen’s readiness to acknowledge the specific
Scottish interests was so strong, that, in the course of a few
weeks, an agreement was concluded between the two kings,
by which David’s son Henry should do homage to Stephen
for the county of Cumberland, and the towns of Carlisle,
Doncaster, and Huntingdon, with all their privileges, be de-
livered to him2?. Stephen would not grant him Northumber-
land, but promised, as it is said, to bestow it on no other,
without investigating Henry’s claims in the royal court. The
Scottish prince accompanied the king of England to London,
where we find him partaking in the festivities of Easter. But
the attentions shown him excited the displeasure of the arch-
bishop of Canterbury and other English of rank, whereby
Stephen’s desire of a friendly intercourse was so frustrated,
that David, deeply offended, recalled his son from the royal
court. No sooner had the latter, in the following year, em-
barked for Normandy than the Scots renewed their attempt
to get possession of Northumberland; but, at the king’s sum-
mons, the Norman barons assembled in such numbers at New-
castle, that when the aged Thurstan, archbishop of York,
appeared at Roxburgh, as a mediator with king David, the
Scots entered into an armistice until Advent, at which time
Stephen returned home.

In this interval it seems not improbable that the Scots
entertained a deep-laid plan. The party of the old patriots,

1 Ingram makes the Scots advance to Wessington in Derbyshire. But
the words of the Sax. Chron. a. 1135: “ Dauid toc to wessien him,” sig-
nify, David began to disquiet him. Wessien is an error or Semi-Saxon
for wessian, to vex.

2 Ric. and John Hagust. (coll. 258, 312.) H. Hunt. a, 1136.
380 STEPHEN.

or of the subjugated Anglo-Saxon population, had, during
the family dissension among the Normans, and in the absence
of Stephen, greatly gained both in courage and numbers.
Among these a conspiracy was formed to murder all the Nor-
mans, and transfer the crown of England to the royal house
of Scotland. The clergy, who, through daily intercourse with
all classes, knew far better the perilous ground on which the
race of the conquerors stood than did the Norman barons,
(among whom the cold contempt and rugged repulsiveness
towards those subject to them, which had rendered the past
generation objects of hate, were but ill glossed over by the
levity, debauchery, and prodigality of the present,) obtained
knowledge of the secret wishes and hidden impulses of the
dejected, alien-tongued Saxons. The bishop of Ely, who also
conducted the temporal administration of his diocese, durst
not delay communicating to the clergy and secular lords of
the land the plot that had been revealed to him. As many
of the conspirators as could be discovered and taken were
delivered to the hangman for degrading and painful punish-
ments. Many others, either not known or not betrayed,
secretly left their goods and possessions, to seek an asylum
in Germany; or in Scotland and Wales, probably also in
Denmark, help for the restoration of the golden age of Anglo-
Saxon liberty, or the laws of king Eadward'.

Stephen had hardly returned to England when David’s
ambassadors appeared before him, again to demand the
cession of Northumberland, if he wished the truce not to be
ended. They had scarcely been dismissed with a refusal,
when William, son of Duncan, David’s nephew, marched into
England, for the purpose of besieging Carham, on the north
border of Durham, where he was joined by David and his
son. His army was composed of Scots, Picts, or inhabitants

' Ord. Vital. pp. 912-915. It may seem remarkable that only a monk
residing in Normandy should supply us with information on these im-
portant events.
STEPHEN: 381

of Galloway, of the people of Lothian and Teviotdale, Cum-
brians, Northumbrian deserters, fugitive Anglo-Saxons, dis-
contented Normans, even Germans, under which denomina-
tion are probably to be understood Dutch and Flemings.
The little border fortress, commanded by the brave Jordan
of Busli, nephew of the famed general, Walter Espec, de-
fended itself so well against the strong but undisciplined army
of David with all its battering enginery, that, after the loss
of his banner-bearer and many of his warriors, he was com-
pelled*to abandon the place, and, leaving behind a portion of
his troops, to proceed to Northumberland. The cruelties
here perpetrated by his army on women, old men, and infants,
rival the most revolting and disgraceful recorded in history
of the most savage barbarians}, and appear almost incre-
dible, if prince Henry really had for object the investiture of
Northumberland, and David fostered hopes of the crown of
England. The Scots had already crossed the Tyne, when
Stephen, at the head of a numerous army, hastened to en-
counter them. David’s forces rapidly retired and left Eng-
land, passing again by Carham, with the object of awaiting
Stephen in an ambuscade by Roxburgh, in reliance on the
treachery of some Normans of rank. Stephen crossed the
Tweed, but marched in another direction, laid waste a portion
of the Scottish Lowlands, and, as David declined a battle,
and provisions failed the English army in the wasted lands,
many of which, on account of the near approach of Easter,
refused to continue hostilities, he retired southwards; im-
pelled probably to this step by the unfavourable accounts
which he had received from England, and which induced him
to intrust the further conduct of this war to his valiant and
faithful barons.

No sooner had king David celebrated the Easter festival
than he again marched into England, and this time proceeded

1 Joh. and Ric. Hagust. (coll. 260, 316.) H. Hunt. Flor. Cont, a. 1138.
382 STEPHEN.

along the sea coast as far as Newcastle. Detachments from
his army were sent, for the purpose of taking Norham, a
castle belonging to the bishop of Durham, and of laying waste
the country around it. Another considerable detachment,
under prince William, son of Duncan, had advanced into the
middle of Lancashire, where at Clithero on the Ribble, they
were met by the first division of the English army in four
bodies. These William assailed with such impetuosity that
he soon broke their ranks, and put them to flight, many being
slain and many captured, as well as a great booty taken.
(10th June)!.

The king of Scotland himself had meanwhile advanced into
Yorkshire. He had gained a powerful associate in Eustace
fitz John, who, under king Henry, had maintained a high
position, but had been estranged from Stephen for having
deprived him of Bamborough; though he still possessed
Alnwick in Northumberland and Malton in the East Riding
of Yorkshire?. The Scots now obtained possession of Bam-
borough, which was played into their hands, through the
thoughtless wantonness of its youthful defenders. Imperious
necessity now awakened all the Normans in Yorkshire to a
combined and bold resistance. The aged, feeble archbishop
of York, Thurstan, caused himself to be borne about on a
litter, that, by his harangues, he might kindle the courage
and thirst for vengeance of every one, and operate in effecting
the necessary order, without which so much power only wasted
itself in vain. Here were also assembled count William of
Albemarle, Walter of Ghent, a pious old man near the verge
of the grave; the youthful Roger of Molbrai (Moubray)3, the
aged Walter Espec, who, after the loss of his only son, had

1 Joh. Hagust. a. 1138. col. 261.

2 Ibid. Ailred de Bello Standardii, col. 343.

3 This rich baron was a son of Nigel of Aubigny (de Albini), who had
received from Henry I. the vast estates of the deposed Robert of Molbrai,
earl of Northumberland, who ended his days in prison. W. Gemmet.
viii, c. 8. Among his castles he numbered Thyrsk in Yorkshire, Burton
STEPHEN. 383

founded Kirkham priory and, at a later period, the noble
Cistercian abbey of Rievaux, both in Yorkshire, also that of
Wardon in Bedfordshire!; William of Perci, Richard of Curci,
William Fossard, Ilbert of Lacy, Robert of Brus, Bernard of
Balliol—noble names, but which clearly prove to us that, even
in those northern provinces, the population of which, down to
the present day, show many traces of Anglo-Saxon or Anglo-
Danish descent, the lords were purely Norman. These were

joined by William Peverel from Nottinghamshire, and from |
Derbyshire, by. Robert of Ferriéres and Geoffrey Alselin. A |
general review and deliberation confirmed the confidence of.

all, and reciprocal oaths were taken of immutable constancy
and inviolable faith. Every one confessed to the holy fathers
present, the holy eucharist was distributed, and, after a fast of
three days and many works of piety, the archbishop confirmed
the hearts of all, by bestowing on them his reconciliation and
his blessing. Thereupon the Norman chivalry, under the
protection of the Lord, to whom they had sought wholly to
consecrate themselves, advanced as far as Thyrsk. Here the
noble barons, Robert of Brus and Bernard of Balliol, both
connected by feudal obligations with the king of Scotland,
went to that prince, in the hope, by respectful but firm re-
presentations, of inducing him to desist from so unholy a war,
in which case they, in the name of king Stephen, promised
his son the earldom of Northumberland, which was the pre-
text for engaging in hostilities®. But as the Scots scornfully
refused to listen to their arguments and offers, Robert of Brus

in Kendal (Lonsdale, Westmoreland), Brichlawe (Brughlaw, Northumber-
land), Malessart. See Rotul. magn. pipe, pp. 137, 138.

1 Monast. Anglic. v. pp. 274, 369; vi. p. 207.

2 Robert’s speech is given by Ailred, abbot of Rievaux, Bellum Stan-
dardii, ap. Twysden, col. 343. [The local name of Brus (Bruis) is supposed
to be from Brix, near Valognes. In John’s Itinerary (Arch. xxiv.) it is
written Brus, and Brucius in the Latin legend mentioned by M. de Ger-
ville (Mem. Ant. Nor. v. 318). See Taylor’s “ Master Wace,” pp. 228,
331, and Capt. Williams’ note in Gesta Henrici v. p. 120.—T.]
384 3 STEPHEN.

solemnly renounced his feudal oath to the Scottish monarch
for his barony in Galloway, as did Bernard of Balliol! a similar
obligation, and, as free masters of their sword, returned to
their own people. The army of Stephen then marched to
Cuteenmoor?, near Northallerton, where they raised a tall
mast on a carriage, on which were displayed the banners of
the three patron saints of the north, St. Peter of York, St.
John of Beverley, and St. Wilfrid of Ripon. On the summit
of the mast was a cross, in the centre of which was fixed a
silver pyx, containing the consecrated wafer, the personally
present body of Christ, who should lead them to victory.
This carriage, in the sequel, had great influence on the issue
of the battle, which thence ever after bore the name of the
Battle of the Standard. As the Scots approached the Eng-
lish camp, Ralf Novellus, bishop of the Orkneys (22nd Aug.),
the representative of Thurstan, who was suffering from sick-
ness, mounting an eminence, addressed an inspiring speech to
the warriors pressing around him. But yet more impressive
were the words uttered by the aged leader, Walter Espec,
a man of gigantic stature, with long, flowing, black locks
and beard, broad, lofty forehead, all-seeing, deeply-penetrating,
yet friendly eyes, in a voice betraying emotion, but clear and
piercing as a trumpet?.

In marshalling his army, David, with the approbation of
his chief nobles, had intended to place his men at arms and
archers in front, but this disposition was opposed by the Gal-
wegians, who claimed, as their right, to form the van. “Why,
king,” said they, “do you dread those iron tunies which you
see yonder? We have sides of iron, breasts of brass, minds
void of fear, whose feet know not what it is to flee, or backs
to feel a wound. Of what good to the French at Clithero
were their mail corselets?’ Seeing the king inclined to follow

! Written also Balliol, now Bailleul, in the dep. du Nord.—T.
2 Chron. Mailros.
3 See it in H. Hunt, a. 1183. Ailred, Coll. 337, sqq.
STEPHEN. 385

the advice of his nobles, Malise, earl of Strathern, indig-
nantly exclaimed, “ Why, king, do you yield to the wishes of
these Frenchmen, not one of whom, with their armour, will
go beyond me, though unarmed, in the battle to-day.” Galled
by these words, the bastard Alan of Perci, a valiant soldier,
turning to the earl, said, ““ You have spoken bold words,
which, for your life you cannot make good.” To end the
altercation, David granted the place of honour to the men of
Galloway, while the second body, consisting of the men at
arms and the archers, with whom were joined the men of
Cumberland and Teviotdale, was led by the king’s son, with
whom was associated Eustace fitz John. The third body
was formed of the men of Lothian and the isles. As a guard,
the king retained with himself the Scots and natives of Mur-
ray, together with some English and French cavalry'.

The great superiority in number of the Scottish army ren-
dered it a point of vital importance to withstand their first
violent, wild onset. The Normans, therefore, for the most
part, dismounting from their horses, which at the savage
howl of the Galwegians might become restive, joined them-
selves with the archers of the first body; the rest assembled
round the holy banner. The Picts of Galloway now advanced
with an appalling howl, vociferating thrice their war-cry, ‘ Al-
baneigh,’ and succeeded, by their numberless, well-directed
arrows, in breaking the first line of the English armed with
spears?. The latter, however, soon recovered their order, the

1 Ailved, col. 342.

2 Ailred Riev. col. 345. Bromton, col. 1027. [The following lofty lines,
describing the discomfiture of the Scots, are highly graphic :

“Scotti vero dum grassando efferant immaniter,
Ad congressum belli primum terga vertunt pariter ;
Truces quoque Gawedenses tremebundi fugiunt,
Et quas prius extulerunt caudis nates comprimunt.
* * ae * * *
Verum Angli fugientes ut amentes barbaros
Insequuntur, atque sternunt ut canes lepusculos.
Tunc abjecta manticarum mole cum viatico,

ce
386 STEPHEN.

weak arrows of the almost naked Picts were broken on the
strong armour of the Normans, and when the latter fell
among them with the sword, great havoc ensued, and the
English archers made them safe objects for their missiles.
But the valiant Prince Henry soon reunited them, and with
a lion’s courage rushed through the affrighted body of Eng-
lish, until he reached the spot, behind the order of the battle,
where the horses were stationed. A feeling of dejection now
began to spread itself among the Normans, when one of them
raising on high the head of a slain enemy, declared it to be
that of the king of Scotland, and by this device inspired his
fellows with fresh courage and led them against the Picts,
who were soon overthrown. The men also of Lothian, whose
leader, in the first onslaught, had been slain by an arrow,
now fled in consternation. King David still endeavoured to
advance, but succeeded in gathering round him only so many
of his men as to enable him, in firm order, and defending
himself against the pursuing English, to reach Carlisle.
Prince Henry, who, through his violent onset had fallen in
the midst of the English, with great presence of mind mingled
with the host of the pursuing victors, and thus contrived to
escape unnoticed. Eleven thousand Scots are said to have
fallen on the field of battle, besides those who were after-
wards slain in the flight, in conflict with the Picts and pea-
santry ', and through divers mistakes by their own fellows or, in
the woods and fields were massacred by the English. The Nor-
mans lost no knight of eminence, excepting a brother of Ibert

Plus timore sunt repleti quam pane vel caseo.

Seminantur hinc per agros panes atque casei,

Crudze carnes et illote velut canis usui.

Utrum enim crudam carnem sive coctam comedant,

Nil differre sed utramque licitam existimant.

Nec equina carne vesci minus ducunt licitum,

Quam eorum que mugitum prebent animalium.”

Serlo Monachus, ap. Twysden, col. 331.—T.]

! Ricard. Hagust. col. 323.
STEPHEN. 387

of Lacy. Some of them took Malton, the castle of the traitor
Eustace fitz John. The army then speedily dissolved itself,
and a vast booty was carried home by individuals, consisting
of armour, habits, ete. The banners taken were consecrated
to the saints in various churches. Stephen, greatly rejoiced
at the intelligence of this victory, appointed William of Albe-
marle to be earl in Yorkshire, and Robert of Ferriéres to be
earl in Derbyshire. King David, not yet weary of war, re-
sumed, though in vain, the siege of Carham. The papal
legate Alberic, bishop of Ostia, who had been an eyewitness
of the havoc made by the Scots in the north of England, was
so shocked at the scene, that on his knees he implored the
Scottish monarch to listen to terms of peace; but David, who
clearly saw that, notwithstanding his recent defeat, his cause
was stronger than that of Stephen now pressed on all sides,
would only consent to a truce of two months, promising, how-
ever, that all the captured- females, who had been sent as
slaves into Scotland, should be released and conducted to
Carlisle ; also that churches should thenceforth be respected.
After the departure of the legate, in the following year (9th
April 1188), a peace was concluded at Durham, the con-
ditions of which were to Stephen as unfavourable as if the
battle of the Standard had never been fought. Prince Henry
received Northumberland, and the barons of the earldom took
the.oath of homage to him. For the towns of Bamborough
and Newcastle, which Stephen retained, an ample compensa-
tion was promised to the Scottish prince in a southern county.
The laws promulgated by king Henry for Northumberland
were to be held inviolate, and five sons of Scottish earls de-
livered to Stephen as hostages for peace and fidelity, during
life, on the part of king David and his son. The latter then
proceeded to the residence of Stephen, where he passed the
summer in all the splendour he could command!.

1 According to the Auctarium Gemblac. a. 1138, Stephen, in the beginning
of his war with the Scots, had also another enemy to encounter, The

ce 2
388 STEPHEN.

At the same time, Stephen had also many minor contests
with his rebellious subjects in the southern and western parts
of his kingdom. From a council held at Northampton he
proceeded to Gloucester, by the joyful inhabitants of which
he was met at a distance of five miles, and where his con-
stable Milo, towards whom the king must naturally entertain
considerable mistrust, on the following day conducted him to
the public hall, where the citizens swore to him the oath of
fealty. From Gloucester, Stephen marched against Geoffrey
Talbot, who with deadly hate towards him, headed an insur-
rection of many of the barons of those parts!. Talbot had
strongly fortified the castle of Hereford, of which the king,
only after a considerable loss of time, obtained possession.
He next attacked Geoffrey himself in his castle at Weobley,
which he captured, although Geoffrey effected his escape, and
which, as well as Hereford, was soon strongly garrisoned with
royal forces?. While the king was thus engaged, a Norman
herald appeared in his camp, who announced to him that
Robert earl of Gloucester, renounced his friendship and allegi-
ance, and declared void the oath of homage he had taken to him;
since Stephen had violated all his earlier oaths in favour of
his sister, the widowed empress. Stephen could hardly be
surprised at this proceeding on the part of earl Robert, whom,

Danish king, Eric Lamb, had been inspired with the belief that he had juster

pretensions to the crown of England, that had been worn by Cnut and his

sons, than those Frenchified Normans, pretensions which he himself must

have regarded as weak, when he deemed it necessary to support them by

the extraordinary and unheard of argument, that the common washing of

his own and the English coast by the German ocean gave him the prefer-

able right. Stephen did not instantly attack the Danes who had landed,

but allowing them to disperse in search of booty, fell upon their isolated

parties, and thus succeeded in breaking their power, and driving them,
back.

It is striking that no Danish nor English writer makes mention of this
expedition; at the same time we should hardly be justified in wholly
omitting the account of the Belgian contemporary.

1 Flor. Wigorn. Contin. a. 1138. Ord. Vital. p. 917. 2 Thid.
STEPHEN. 389

as his deadliest foe, he had endeavoured to remove through
the murderous hand of William of Ypres'; he was, neverthe-
less, bitterly indignant and declared the earl to have forfeited
all his possessions in England. Many of his castles were
accordingly demolished, Bristol and Slede castle alone being
left to the earl, or could not immediately be’ taken?. The
rebellious barons had garrisoned and fortified many castles.
Walkelin Maminot was at Dover, which was soon taken pos-
session of by the queen?; Robert, son of Alured of Lincoln,
held the castles of Wareham and Morguan‘+; Walkelin held
that of Oakham, and William of Moiun (Mohun), Dunster
castle in Somersetshire®; William Peverel was in possession
of the towns of Brunam, Ellesmere, Obreton (Overton ?), and
Wintenton’?; William Louvel of Castle Cary in Somerset-
shire’; William fitz John of Harptree in Somersetshire? ;

1 W. Malm. p.710.

2 R. Wendover, ii. p. 222. [who calls it Leedes castle. H. Hunt. a.1138.
—T.] It leads to a very erroneous representation of events, when Lingard,
under the year 1140, names Gloucester, Canterbury, and Dover, as places
in which the standard of Matilda was first raised.

3-H. Hunt. R. Wend. Ord. Vital. p. 917.

4H. Hunt. R. Wend. Ord. Vital. Qu. Margam?

5 Ord. Vital. [This was Walkelin, or Vauquelin, of Ferriéres, near Ber-
nay. ‘On voit encore l’emplacement du chateau de cette famille, entouré
d’énormes fossés. Sa mouvance était trés étendue. Les seigneurs de
Ferriéres prenaient, probablement & cause de l’ancienneté et de l’import-
ance primitive de leurs forges, le titre de premiers barons fossiers de Nor-
mandie.”’ Note of M. Prevost. “ Walcheline held Oakham.” Lib. Rub.
Scace. tit. Rotel. (Rutland).—T.]

6 H. Hunt. R. Wend. Ord. Vital. “Will. de Moiont.” Rot. magn.
pipe, p. 108. His grandfather of the same name fought at Hastings,
Rom. de Rou, v. 13620. Gesta Steph. p. 52. Ellis, Introd. ii. p. 355,

7 Ord. Vital. [Brunn in Cambridgeshire was given by Henry I. to the
father of Wm. Peverel. Wintenton is, no doubt, Whittenton, near Oswestre.
Here was a castle of the fitz Warines, but before them, a possession of
Peverel. Dugdale, Baronage, i. 432, 443.—T.

8 Flor. Cont. a. 1138. Ord. Vital. R. Wend. ii. p. 222.

9 Flor. Cont. a. 1138. Ord. Vital. Gesta Steph. p.43. Rot. magn. pipe,
pp. 13, 15.
390 STEPHEN.

William fitz Alan had garrisoned the castle of Shrewsbury! ;
Paganel held Ludlow, and Eustace fitz John, Melton>.

But the head quarters of Stephen’s enemies were at Bristol,
which “earl Robert had caused to be strongly fortified and
stored with provisions. From this city the Norman knights
made frequent inroads on the peaceful and innocent inhabi-
tants, and, with barbarous violence and horrible engines of
torture, wrung from them their money and other property.
A kinsman of the earl of Gloucester, named Philip Gai, is
branded as the inventor of those instruments with which, in a
short time, the castle of every one of these knightly robbers
was provided3. According to a contemporary account, ‘‘some
of the victims were suspended by the feet and smoked with a
foul smoke, others by the thumbs or the head, while burning
was applied to their feet; about the heads of others knotted
cords were bound so that they penetrated to the brain. Some
were cast into prisons, in which were adders, snakes, and toads,
and thus destroyed; some were placed in a “ crucet-his,”
that is, a short, narrow, shallow chest, in which sharp stones
were laid: into this the man was pressed so that all his limbs
were broken. In many of these castles were instruments of
torture called a “lad and grim,” which were a sort of collars
for the neck, so heavy that it was not without difficulty two
or three men could bear one. This was thus applied: being
fastened to a beam, the sharp iron was placed round the
man’s throat and neck, so that he could neither sit, nor lie,
nor sleep, but must bear all the weight of the iron*. These

1 H. Hunt. R. Wend. 2 Tbid. 3 Flor. Wigorn. a. 1138.

4 Sax. Chron. a. 1137. The entire passage, with all its corruptions, is as
follows: ‘‘Me henged up bi pe fet an smoked heom mid ful smoke; me
henged bi pe bumbes, ober bi be hefed, and henged bryniges on her fet.
Me dide cnotted strenges abuton here hued, and uury%en to pet it geede
to be hernes. Hi diden heom in quarterne bar nadres and snakes and
pades weron inne, and drapen heom swa. Sume hi diden in crucethus,
bat is in an ceste pat was scort and nareu and undep, and dide scerpe

stanes ber inne, and prengde be man peer inne, bat hi braecon alle be limes.
In mani of fe castles weron lof and grim, bat weeron sachenteges bat twa
STEPHEN. 391

miscreants caused also many thousands to perish by hunger ;
and this appalling state of things continued for nineteen years.
They levied contributions on the villages, and when the
wretched people had no more to give, they plundered and
burned all the villages, so that a man might travel for a
whole day without finding a human being in a village or the
land tilled. A dearth naturally followed; many perished of
hunger, many went a begging who had previously been rich

oder bre men hadden onoh to beron onne; bat wes swa maced, pat is
feestned to an beom, and diden an scerp iren abuton pa mannes prote and
his hals, bat he ne mihte nowiderwardes ne sitten, ne lien, ne slepen, oc
beron al bat iren.”’

Although not without diffidence, I will venture to suggest that, by sub-
stituting 148 for lof, and rachenteges (correctly racenteagas) for the un-
meaning sachenteges, blunders may be removed from the above which have
puzzled and misled Bp. Gibson, Sharon Turner, and the Drs. Ingram, Lin-
gard, and Lappenberg, who have imagined an instrument of torture called
a sachentege. “La and grim” (hateful and grim), I understand to be
a nickname, by which the iron collar was usually called by the Saxon
population. Racenteagas (sing. racenteah), I take to be a compound of
raca (hraca) neck and teah, pret. of teén, to draw, drag; the compound
may therefore be rendered a drag-neck, and not as the name of an engine
of torture, which, as I have stated, was called a “1a5 and grim.” The
similitude between the A. S. y and p renders the emendation all but
certain. In the A. 8. Gospels we find: Mar. v. 3. “hine nan man mid
racenteagum ne mihte gebindan,” and Luc. vili. 29. “he wes mid racen-
teagum gebunden.”

A typographical error in the Edinburgh Review, closely resembling the
above, was also attended with like consequences. It was there said: ‘‘ The
Hindoos have some very savage customs, which it would be desirable to
abolish. Some swing on hooks, some run kimes through their hands, and
widows burn themselves, etc. In a work entitled “ Strictures on two cri-
tiques in the Edin. Rev.” etc. the author, John Styles, is particularly severe
on the reviewer for not being more shocked at the Hindoos for piercing
their hands with kimes. “This,” says Sydney Smith, “is rather an unfair
mode of alarming his readers with the idea of some unknown instrument.”
But, to the great dismay of Mr. Styles, “‘a kime is neither more nor less
than a false print in the E. Review for a knife, and from this blunder of
the printer has Mr. 8. manufactured this Daedalian instrument of torture
called a kime! We were at first nearly persuaded by his arguments against
kimes........ but we looked in the errata, and found Mr. Styles to be
always Mr. Styles.” Sydney Smith’s works 1854, vol. 1. p, 252.—T.
392 STEPHEN.

men, others fied from the land. Neither church nor church-
yard was spared by these plunderers. So great, in fact, was
the general misery that men said publicly that Christ and his
saints were asleep '.”

The adherents of Matilda in Bristol deeming it desirable
to gain possession also of Bath, a body of them marched forth
one day at early dawn, provided with ladders and other things
necessary for scaling the wall. On reaching a certain valley
they halted, awaiting the return of their chiefs who had pre-
ceded the others, for the purpose of reconnoitering the place.
These, consisting of Geoffrey Talbot, his kinsman Gilbert of
Lacy, and William Hoset, while cautiously, as they thought,
making the circuit of the city, were suddenly met by a body
of the bishop’s soldiers. Gilbert, through his greater energy
and presence of mind, effected his escape, but Geoffrey was
captured, loaded with fetters and cast into a dungeon. On
his return, Gilbert related to his comrades what had taken
place, who thereupon unanimously resolved to proceed forth-
with to Bath, where they sent for the bishop, engaging them-
selves by oath for his safe egress and return; though no
sooner was the prelate in their power than, laying hands on
him, they threatened to hang him, unless Geoffrey were in-
stantly restored to them. In this dilemma the bishop had no
alternative but to release his captive?.

The outrages perpetrated at this time by the inhabitants of
Bristol were such as to call forth the immediate attention of
the king. Not only was the neighbouring country a prey to
their depredations, but even distant parts of the kingdom
were not exempt from their plunderings and abductions. On
being apprized of this state of things, Stephen summoned a
force and forthwith proceeded to Bath, where he was met

1 Sax. Chron. a. 1137. Gesta Stephani, p. 41.

? Gesta Steph. p. 39. Flor. Wigorn. Contin. a. 1138. [I have given the
account of Talbot’s capture chiefly from the Gesta, in preference to any

other authority, as being more circumstantial, and is, moreover, that of a
contemporary.—T,
STEPHEN. 393

without the city by the bishop, who, on being severely reproved
by the king for having released his enemy Talbot, sueceeded
in appeasing the angry monarch, by representing to him the
risk he incurred of perishing at the gallows, had he persisted
in retaining his captive in custody. Stephen thereupon pro-
ceeded to survey the city, the walls of which he ordered to be
heightened, and forts to be erected on the declivity, supplied
with a sufficient force, as a check to the marauders of Bristol,
to which city, with the intention of besieging it, he then
directed his march. He here consulted with his barons as
to the most effectual means of gaining possession of the place,
when some advised the obstruction to the entrance of the
port, where it was narrowest, by casting in vast masses of
stone, turf, and timber, so that the course of the two rivers
being stopped, their waters might form a lake and inundate
the city. Others recommended the erection of forts on two
sides of the place, thereby hindering all egress and ingress ;
while those who, although in Stephen’s army, secretly favoured
the earl of Gloucester, expressed as theif opinion, that such
labours would prove futile, and that the masses thus thrown
into the water would be carried away by the violence of the
stream.

Listening to this last opinion, Stephen abandoned the siege
of Bristol, after plundering and devastating the surrounding
country, and directed his course towards Castle Cary and
Harptree, of which the one, as we have seen, was held by
Ralf Louvel, the other by William fitz John. Both these
barons were united to the earl by ties of friendship and by
the oath of vassalage, so that no sooner were they apprized
of his intention to take arms against the king than they were
ready to join him. In the belief that Stephen was engaged
in a tedious siege, they laid waste and plundered all the
neighbouring country; but the king soon appeared before
Castle Cary, to which he laid close siege, casting fire and in-
cessant showers of stones from his balistas into the place, till
394 STEPHEN.

at length, their provisions also beginning to fail, the castle

‘was compelled to surrender. From Castle Cary Stephen

proceeded to Harptree, before which he caused a fort to be

_ erected, and which he manned from the garrison at Bath.

Some time after, when passing by the castle, with the inten-
tion of laying siege to Bristol, the garrison issued forth and
attacked his rear; whereupon Stephen making a rapid retro-
grade movement with his cavalry, found the place nearly
deserted. Commanding then fire to be applied to the gates,
and scaling ladders and other engines to the walls, he soon
reduced the remainder of the garrison to deliver up the
castle!. Thence he proceeded to the siege of Dudley castle,
which Ralf Paganel had fortified against him, where having
laid waste all around him, he directed his march to Shrews-
bury, the castle of which was held by William fitz Alan, who,
when apprized of the king’s approach, clandestinely fled with
his wife and children, leaving those behind him who had
bound themselves by oath not to surrender the castle. Having
besieged it for many days in vain, Stephen caused a vast pile

-of wood to be raised in the castle ditch and set on fire, the

smoke from which nearly stifled those within the place. The
gate at the same time being forced, the garrison, miserably
crawling or falling from the castle wall, took to flight, but
were pursued and put to the sword by the king’s order;
Arnulf of Hesdin, the uncle of fitz Alan, and four of the
nobler among them he ordered to be hanged. From Shrews-
bury Stephen returned to Wareham. On a mutual exchange
of promises, a pacific arrangement was, for a time, entered
into with Ralf Paganel?. Walkelin Maminot, whom the
queen with an army had vainly besieged in Dover, while her
friends from Boulogne endeavoured to cut off all supplies by

! Gesta Steph. pp. 42 sqq.
2 Flor. Wigorn. Contin. a. 1138. H. Hunt. Ord. Vital. p-917. Ern,

of Esding held Chivelai (Cheveley?) in Wiltshire. Rot. magn. pipe,
p. 18.
STEPHEN. 395

sea, on hearing what had taken place at Shrewsbury, resolved
on surrendering this key of England’.

These successes and the yet more fortunate events in
Northumberland seem to have lulled the zeal of Stephen in
prosecuting the war against the rebels. We hear, however,
of the capture, about Christmas, of the castle of Slede?.
After the peace concluded at Durham, Stephen, accompanied
by the Scottish prince Henry, proceeded against Ludlow,
where the prince was dragged from his horse by an iron hook,
and would have been taken, had not the king nobly rescued
him from the enemy. Abandoning the siege of Ludlow, after
leaving garrisons well supplied with provisions in two forts
that had been erected against the place, Stephen directed his
march towards London, having with difficulty succeeded in
repressing sanguinary feuds among the besiegers?.

A worse presage for the stability of Stephen’s reign than
the open hostility of those barons, to whose natural condition
of existence, in the absence of a war, such an excitement
seemed indispensable, while the work of quelling them gained
for the king military fame together with a new and, as it
were, a conqueror’s right to the crown, was the equivocal
conduct of Roger bishop of Salisbury and his nephews, Alex-
ander bishop of Lincoln, and Nigel bishop of Ely. As Henry’s
chancellor, bishop Roger had accumulated vast riches, and,
although enjoying under Stephen some of the highest offices
in the state, was, nevertheless, supplying the castles of
Devizes, Sherborne, Malmesbury, and Salisbury®, which he

! Ord. Vital. p.917. H. Hunt. a. 1138.

2 H. Hunt. a. 1139. 3 Flor. Wigorn. Contin. a. 1139.

4 Alexander had also built a castle at Newark on Trent, “ad tutamen,
ut dicebat, et dignitatem episcopii.””’ W. Malm. p.715.—T.

® « Rogerius, qui edificiorum constructione magnanimum se videri
vellet, plura apud Scireburnam, et apud Divisas multum terrarum edificiis
amplexus, turritas moles erexerat. Apud Malmesbiriam in ipso ccemeterio,
ab ecclesia principali vix jactu lapidis, castellum inchoaverat. Castellum
Salesbiriz, quod cum regii juris proprium esset, ab Henrico rege impetra-
tum, muro cinctum custodia sue attraxerat.’’ W. Malm. p.715,—T.
396 STEPHEN.

had erected, with provisions and warlike munitions for the
service of Matilda, whose cause he had clandestinely espoused,
and with whom he was in secret correspondence. In daily ex-
pectation of the arrival of Matilda and the earl of Gloucester
from Normandy, Roger never went abroad, not even to court,
unattended by a numerous body of knights and friends, thus
holding himself ever in readiness to succour the enemies of
Stephen. Following the example of their uncle, the bishops
of Lincoln and Ely, who are described as proud men, regard-
less of the pure and simple dictates of Christianity, and wholly |
given to secular pomp, never attended the court without ex-
citing the admiration of the multitude by the splendour of the
armed train which accompanied them.

This dazzling and martial display on the part of the three
prelates raised the indignation of the count of Meulan and
other friends and adherents of the king. They accused them
of enjoying their preeminence in the realm, their wealth and
power for their own vainglory and gratification, not for the
honour of the sovereign; of raising splendid castles and
towers, not to secure the kingdom to the king, but to deprive
him of his royal dignity; it would therefore be advisable and
expedient to order their arrest, that they might be compelled
to surrender into the hands of the sovereign their castles and
every other source of discord; for if the king would consent
to deliver them into custody, as violators of his peace, until
they had delivered up their fortresses, and rendered to Ceesar
the things that were Cesar’s, both he himself would be more
secure and the realm more tranquil. To these representa-
tions, from time to time renewed, Stephen was at length
induced to yield.

On the 24th June (1189) an assembly of the siclentibes of
the kingdom was held at Oxford, which was attended by the
three bishops in their usual state!. Here a quarrel, insti-

1 Malmesbury (p. 716), who heard the bishop of Sarum’s words on the
occasion, informs us that that prelate obeyed the summons to attend with
STEPHEN. 397

gated by the count of Meulan and other adherents of Stephen,
broke out between the retainers of the king and those be-
longing to the bishops, in which many of the latter were
killed and the rest dispersed. ‘The bishops themselves, being
apprized of what had taken place, were, it is said, meditating
flight, when a band of armed satellites appearing, arrested
the bishops of Salisbury and Lincoln and hurried them into
the presence of the king. But the bishop of Ely, having in-
telligence of what was passing, succeeded in effecting his
escape, and took refuge in his uncle’s castle of Devizes, where
he prepared for a vigorous resistance !.

On receipt of this intelligence the king immediately adopted
measures for gaining possession of the castles of the three
bishops. Taking with him, therefore, the two other prelates
under strict custody, he proceeded to Devizes, the castle of
which is described as a structure of extraordinary strength
and beauty. By the king’s order, the captive bishops were
confined apart from each other in loathsome places, and
rigidly kept from food, the one in the stall of a cowhouse, the
other in a vile hovel. His chancellor, a son of the bishop of
Salisbury, he commanded to be led forth, with a halter round
his neck, threatening to hang him before the gates of the
castle, unless the bishop of Ely would forthwith surrender
great reluctance: he says: “Invitus valde Salesbiriensis hanc expeditio-
nem incepit. Audivi etenim eum dicentem verba in hanc sententiam :
‘Per dominam meam Sanctam Mariam, nescio quo pacto, reluctatur mens
mea huic itineri. Hoc scio, quod ejus utilitatis ero in curia, cujus est
equinus pullus in pugna.’’’—T.

1 With the above account from the Gesta, that given by the continuator
of Florence (erroneously under 1138) nearly agrees: “ On seeing which
(their military parade), the king suspecting treason, ordered his people to
arm themselves and, if necessary, to hold themselves ready to defend him.
While he was treating on various matters with the bishops, a great tumult
arose, on the subject of lodging, between the retainers of the two parties,
when the royal retainers rushing to arms, the episcopal ones took to flight,
leaving their equipage behind them. The bishops of Salisbury and Lin-

coln were taken, together with the son of bp. Roger, surnamed ‘de Pau-
pere censu.’ ”—T.
398 STEPHEN.

the place and admit the royal forces. The bishops now over-
whelmed with the most torturing anxiety, seeing the imminent
_ peril to which their lives were exposed, surrendered into the
king’s hands the castles they had erected with so much care
and at so vast a cost.

The eastle of Devizes and the others belonging to the three
prelates, together with all the munitions and treasures con-
tained in them, being thus delivered to the king, the bishops,
humbled, and stript of all their pomp and vainglory, descended
to the administration of their ecclesiastical functions.

1 Gesta Steph. pp. 46 sgg. According to Malmesbury the quarrel be-
tween the retainers in the king’s court was attended with a different re-
sult; I will, therefore, give his account of the seizure of the bishops,
which varies also in other particulars from that in the Gesta, which is
adopted in the text :—

“Then, as if fortune would seem to favour the wishes of the king, a
disturbance arose, about their lodging, between the retainers of the bishops
and those of Alan count of Brittany, in which the followers of Alan were
put to flight and his nephew nearly killed; many also of the bishops’ men
being wounded and one slain. The king, influenced by the instigators,
commanded the bishops to attend and give satisfaction for the breach of
his peace by their followers, by delivering up the keys of their castles as
a pledge of their fidelity. The prelates, although willing to give satisfac-
tion, demurred to the surrender of their castles ; whereupon the king placed
them under close restraint. He thus conducted bp. Roger without chains,
and his chancellor, who was nephew, or, as it was said, more than nephew
of the bishop, in fetters to Devizes, for the purpose of getting possession
of the castle, which had been erected at an almost boundless cost, not, as
the bishop himself stated, for ornament, but in truth to the injury of the
Church. This expedition was attended with the surrender of the castles
of Salisbury, Sherborne, and Malmesbury, and, at the expiration of three
days, that of Devizes also; the bishop having imposed on himself a fast,
for the purpose of thereby moving the heart of the bishop of Ely who held
it. Nor was the bishop of Lincoln more obstinate, but purchased his
liberty by the surrender of Newark and Sleaford.”

According to Henry of Huntingdon (a writer not remarkable for ac-
curacy) the fasting was not voluntary on the bishop’s part, but enforced
by the king, who had recourse to the same method of compulsion in the
case of the bp. of Lincoln. His words are: “ Angarians eum jejunii tor-
mento.”......‘ Rex inde rediens Alexandrum episcopum Lincoliensem,
quem dimiserat in captione apud Oxinefordiam, duxit secum ad Newer-
STEPHEN. 399

This bold measure on the part of Stephen was viewed in
diametrically opposite lights. By some it was said that the
bishops were justly deprived of the castles, which they had
erected in defiance of the prohibition of the canons; that
they ought to be preachers of peace, not builders of structures
that might serve as asylums to criminals. Such was the
opinion entertained and eloquently defended by Stephen's
firm friend, Hugh archbishop of Rouen. Others, on the

contrary, among whom was the king’s brother, Henry bishop
of Winchester, maintained, that if bishops swerved from the
path of right, judgment on them was not of the king but of
the canons; that without a public ecclesiastical council, they
ought not to be deprived of any possession; that the king
had not acted from any love of right, but solely for his own
advantage, by not restoring the castles to the churches, at
whose cost and on whose lands they were erected, but grant-
ing them to laymen, who made little account of religion.
Finding that his words were unheeded by the king, he sum-
moned him to answer for his conduct before a council, which
he appointed to be held on the 29th August.

On that day, Theobald archbishop of Canterbury and
almost all the bishops assembled at Winchester, where, after
reading the decree of pope Innocent IJ., conferring on him
the legatine authority, the bishop of Winchester addressed
the meeting in a Latin speech, in which he expressed his
indignation at the seizure of the bishops of Salisbury and
Lincoln, the former of whom had been arrested in an apart-

cam. Ibique construxerat episcopus super flumen Trente, in loco amee-
nissimo, vernantissimum florida compositione castellum. Vix igitur epi-
scopus lachrymis et precibus a suis obtinere potuit ut castrum suum a
jure suo in extraneorum custodiam deponerent. Similiter redditum est
castellum aliud ejus, quod vocatur Slaforde, néque forma neque situ a pre-
dicto secundum.”

According to Orderic (p.919), the castle of Devizes was occupied by
Maud of Ramsbury, the bishop’s concubine and mother of Roger the
chancellor.—T.
400 STEPHEN.

ment of the king, the latter in his inn, while the bishop of
Ely, fearing a similar fate, had saved himself only by a preci-
pitate flight to Devizes; and terminating his harangue by in-
forming them that Stephen, after his repeated exhortations to
atone for the outrage, had manifested no objection to the
summoning of a council. He therefore called on the arch-
bishop and others to deliberate as to the steps necessary to
be taken, adding that, although brother to the king, yet
neither from fraternal affection, nor for the loss of his posses-
sions, nor even of his life, would he fail in the execution of
their decree.

While the legate was thus speaking the king sent some of
his earls into the assembly, to inquire why he had been cited ?
They were answered by the legate, that it ill beseemed. any
one, who remembered he was a follower of the faith of Christ,
to be indignant if summoned by the ministers of Christ to
atone for a crime such as the age had never witnessed ; that
the king would act wisely if he would either justify his deed,
or submit to a canonical sentence; that it was his duty to
show favour to the Church, by whose support, and not with
the aid of an army, he had been raised to the kingdom. The .
earls thereupon departed, and shortly after returned, accom-
panied by Aubrey of Vere’, a man well skilled in legal know-
ledge. He reported the king’s answer, and with his utmost
power, yet abstaining from all violence of language, aggra-
vated the cause of bishop Roger. The king, he said, had
suffered numberless injuries at the hands of that bishop, who
rarely came to court, but his followers, presuming on his
power, raised a tumult; as recently at Oxford they had
assailed the men and even the nephew of count Alan of

1 Rot. magn. pipz, passim. He founded the priory of Hatfield Regis
about a. 1135. Monast. Angl. iv. p. 432. As chamberlain he appears in
a charter a. 1136, ap. Rymer, i. p.16. He was slain in London in an
insurrection of the people. See Chron. Joh. de Burgo, a. 1141, ap Sparke,
Hist. Ang]. Seriptt.
STEPHEN. 401

Brittany, also the retainers of Hervé of Leon, a man of such
high nobility and pride, that he had never gratified the wish
expressed by king Henry, that he would visit England; that
the violence thus offered to him tended greatly to the preju-
dice of king Stephen, through regard for whom he had visited
England; that, on account of an old grudge, the bishop of
Lincoln had excited his followers against count Alan; that
the bishop of Salisbury secretly favoured the king’s enemies,
though for a time he had succeeded in dissembling his trea-
chery, a fact of which the king had certain knowledge from
many quarters; though more especially from his refusal to
permit Roger of Mortimer, with the king’s soldiers under his
command, although standing in great peril from the garrison
of Bristol, to remain one night in Malmesbury. It was,
moreover, the talk of every one, that, as soon as the empress
landed, he and his nephews and castles would be at her dis-
posal ; that Roger was not arrested as a bishop, but as a
servant of the king, who had the administration of his affairs
and received his pay’; that the king had not seized the
castles by violence, but that both bishops had gladly sur-
rendered them, to escape from the consequences of having
excited a riot in the king’s court; that the money found by
the king in the castles was lawfully his own, as bishop Roger,
in the time of king Henry, had amassed it from the returns
of the royal revenue; both that and his castles he had de-
livered up from fear of the consequences of his acts against
the king.

At these words of Aubrey, bishop Roger loudly exclaimed :
that he had never been an official of king Stephen nor re-
ceived his wages, and, moreover, threatened, that if in that
council justice were not done him, with respect to what had
been taken from him, he would seek it in a higher court. On
this the legate mildly observed: that it would have been

1 Ut regis serviens, qui et procurationes ejus administraret et solidatas
acciperet.”” W. Malm. p. 722.

pd
402 STEPHEN.

more decent to have inquired whether the charges against
the bishops were true than, in contravention of the canons,
to pronounce sentence on the innocent. Let the king, there-
fore, do that which is the usage in legal cases; let him restore
their property to the bishops ; as by the law of the land, per-
sons disseized are under no obligation to plead.

At the king’s request, the proceedings were now postponed
till the morrow, and then again till the arrival of the arch-
bishop of Rouen on the day following. That prelate expressed
his readiness to grant that bishops might possess castles, if only
it could be shown that, according to the canons, they might
lawfully possess them; but as that was impossible, it was
the extreme of impiety to act contrary to the canons. “And,”
added he, “ even supposing it lawful to possess them; yet in
such perilous times, following the usage in other nations, the
magnates of the realm ought to deliver up the keys of their
fortresses to the king, whose duty it is to strive for the peace
of all. Thus is the entire plea of the bishops quashed ; for
either according to the decrees of the canons, it is illegal for
them to hold castles, or, if by the indulgence of the prince
such illegality is tolerated, they ought to yield to the neces-
sity of the times and deliver up the keys.” Aubrey then
concluded by saying: it had reached the ears of the king that
the bishops were holding out threats and preparing to send
some of their number to Rome, to plead against him. “And
this,” added he, “ the king advises you not to do; beeause if
any one, contrary to his will and the dignity of the realm,
departs from England, he may, perhaps, find it difficult to
return. Moreover the king feeling himself aggrieved, spon-
taneously appeals against you to Rome.”

The council was then dissolved, the king refusing to submit
to the censure prescribed by the canons, and the bishops not
deeming it prudent to pronounce any judgment on him, either
because they thought it hazardous to excommunicate a prince
without the papal sanction, or because they had heard, and
STEPHEN. 403

some also had seen, that swords were being drawn around
them. Nevertheless, the legate and archbishop Theobald,
making a last effort in fulfilment of what they deemed their
duty, cast themselves at the king’s feet, and implored him to
have pity on the Church, on his own soul and reputation, nor
suffer dissension between the sovereignty and priesthood.
Their attempt was fruitless !.

It would seem, however, that, to appease the clergy, Ste-
phen submitted to a sort of penance, by divesting himself of
the royal habit and expressing his contrition for the violence
of which he had been guilty2.

At this time, William of Mohun, a man of noble lineage,
raised a powerful opposition to the authority of Stephen, and
from the fair and strong castle of Dunster, which he had
erected on the coast of the Bristol channel, in Somersetshire,
in which he had assembled a considerable body of knights
and soldiers, laid waste and plundered the surrounding country
far and near, putting to the sword, carrying off, and burning
all and everything offering resistance, and inflicting tortures
on those who were suspected of possessing wealth; in fact,
renewing those horrors, of which so appalling a recital has
been already given.

When intelligence of these enormities reached the ears of
the king, he speedily raised a large force for their repression ;
but on arriving before the castle, and viewing its formidable
defences, it being on one side washed by the sea, on the
others guarded by its walls and towers, by outworks and
intrenchments, he despaired of taking it by assault, and,
listening to the advice of others, caused a fort to be erected

1 W. Malm. pp. 719, sqq.

2 Gesta Steph. p.51. “Sed quia ab omni clero juste provisum, et dis-
crete fuit dijudicatum, nulla ratione in christos Domini manus posse im-
mittere, ecclesiastici rigoris duritiam humilitatis subjectione mollivit,
habitumque regalem exutus, gemensque animo, et contritus spiritu, com-
missi sententiam humiliter suscepit.”—T.

pd2g
404 STEPHEN.

in face of the fortress, whence he could hold it in check and
give greater security to the surrounding country. Being then
summoned to other parts, he delegated his authority to
Henry of Tracy, a soldier of approved valour and experience,
enjoining him vigorously and incessantly to assail the enemy.
Nor, in the absence of the king, was Tracy backward in ful-
filling the orders he had received, but from his town of Barn-
staple carried on the warfare with such energy, that not alone
did he repress the predatory excursions of the garrison, but on
one occasion captured a hundred and four knights, in an en-
counter of cavalry, and reduced Mohun himself to such straits,
and so humbled him, that he ceased from further hostilities
against him, and restored to the land a comparative degree of
tranquillity, and immunity from all cause of disquietude’.

But William of Mohun was not the only one whom the
vigour of Tracy reduced to obedience ; other disturbers also
of the public peace, among whom William fitz Odo was espe-
cially conspicuous, he forced to submit to the king’s authority.
After having in various conflicts weakened the power of this
turbulent noble, Henry of Tracy received intelligence from
his spies that the castle of his adversary was deserted by its
defenders, who had sallied forth on a plundering expedition.
Proceeding then to the castle in the silence of the night, and
eluding the watch, he caused lighted torches to be cast
through the windows of a tower, whereby the interior habi-
tations were soon wrapped in flames, and its lord, half burnt,
together with all his treasure was carried off by Tracy, who
also, on other occasions, gave proofs of his zealous attachment
to the cause of Stephen?.

During this state of disquietude into which the country
was plunged, Baldwin of Redvers, who, as we have seen, had
been passing his life in exile, landed with a considerable body
of followers at Wareham, whence he proceeded to Corfe

1 Gesta Stephani, p. 52. 2 Tb. p. 53.
STEPHEN. 405

castle, where he prepared to oppose a stout resistance to the
king, of whose speedy approach he had received reports.
These reports were well founded, for the king was no sooner
apprized of his landing than, summoning his friends, he at
once proceeded to lay siege to the castle, where after passing
a considerable time, in expectation of overcoming his enemy,
either by means of his military engines or by hunger, he at
length, yielding to the advice of his followers, raised the siege,
and allowed Baldwin to withdraw unmolested. What prompted
Stephen to this apparently imprudent step was the intelli-
gence that the earl of Gloucester and his sister, the countess
of Anjou, having united their forces, were on the eve of in-
vading England, against a sudden surprise from whom he
commanded the entrance of all the ports to be closely watched,
both by day and night, deeming it more prudent and at the
same time more desirable to frustrate with all his might the
designs of his principal enemies, than, by directing his efforts
solely against Baldwin, to run the risk of being circumvented
by others}.

While the king’s attention was thus distracted, the whole
country was plunged into a state of consternation, by the in-
telligence that, on the 30th Sept., the earl of Gloucester and
his sister, accompanied by Guy of Sableuil and a body of a
hundred and forty knights, had landed on the coast of Sus-
sex”, and had found an asylum in the castle of Arundel, be-
longing to William of Aubigny (Albini), who had married
Adela, the queen dowager, and step-mother of the empress?.

! Gesta Stephani, p. 54.

2 Flor. Contin. a.1139, asserts that she landed at Portsmouth on the
Ist Aug., while the king was besieging Marlborough. Robert de Monte
also says: mense Augusto transierunt in Angliam. H. Hunt. also says:
in autumno, and John of Hexham speaks of the landing at the close of
the year 1139.

3 Robert de Monte. Ord. Vital. p. 920. [Arundel castle was possessed by
William of Aubigny in right of his wife, on whom, together with the earl-
dom, it had been bestowed, “ pro dote” by Henry I. R. Wendover, ii.
p. 227.—T.]
406 STEPHEN.

At this intelligence, the minds of men were impelled in oppo-
site directions, those who favoured the cause of Matilda ap-
pearing more alert, and more eager to embarrass the king,
while those of his party were depressed and thunderstricken.
The king alone stood unshaken amid all the wars and dissen-
sions in which he was involved, and without a moment’s delay,
placing himself at the head of a body of tried veterans, unex-
pectedly appeared before the castle of Arundel, where, on
receiving intelligence from his scouts that the earl with his
followers! had, in the silence of the night, withdrawn from
the castle, and was gone in the direction of Bristol, there to
place himself at the head of ten thousand Welsh and other
adversaries of the king?, but that Matilda with her Angevin
followers was still in the castle, leaving a portion of his force
to prevent her escape, he directed all his efforts to the capture
of the earl. In this design, however, he was frustrated, as
Robert, avoiding the beaten road and following a devious
course, succeeded with his friends in reaching Bristol safely.
Stephen thereupon hastened back to resume the siege of the
castle. By the chronicler of Stephen’s acts we are told, that
the bishop of Winchester, on hearing of the arrival of the
earl and his sister, caused all the by-ways to be occupied by
soldiers, and having by this means met with the earl, he
entered into a compact of peace and amity with him, and
allowed him to depart without let or injury. Such was the
common report, though as the chronicler adds, it must appear
not only doubtful but incredible to every thinking person,
that a brother should meet with the kiss of peace the invader
of his brother’s kingdom. The bishop then, as if he had not
met with the earl, and accompanied by a numerous body of
knights, joined the king. On finding that his brother was
resolved on prosecuting the siege with vigour, he pronounced
that resolution both useless to the king and not grateful to

' Not more than twelve knights. W. Malm. p. 725.
2 Ord. Vital. p. 920.
STEPHEN. 407

the kingdom; for if he undertook to besiege the countess in
one part of England, her brother would forthwith raise an
insurrection in another; it would, consequently, be more ad-
visable, both for himself and the realm, to permit her without
molestation to join her brother, so that the forces of both
being confined in one spot, he could the more easily direct all
his efforts to their destruction, and would be the better
enabled to pursue them with his whole power. Stephen im-
prudently followed this advice, and, pledges being given and
received, permitted the countess to join her brother. The
shortness of Matilda’s sojourn at Arundel may, however,
partly at least, have been caused by the unwillingness of her
step-mother to afford her longer entertainment, notwithstand-
ing the repeated promises transmitted to her while residing in
Normandy'. Besides the permission so imprudently granted,
Stephen, with equal, if not greater imprudence, assigned to
the countess, as an escort, his brother Henry with Waleram
count of Meulan?. By the latter she was not attended be-
yond Calne, but the bishop accompanied her until she was
met by her brother with an armed force, who conducted her
to Bristol. Ou reaching Bristol she gave notice of her arrival
to all the barons of the realm, imploring their aid, to some
promising gifts, to others an augmentation of their lands.
All those, therefore, who had only feigned adherence to the
royal cause, breaking their oaths of homage and fealty, hast-
ened to her standard. She afterwards withdrew to Gloucester,
the castle of which was held, under earl Robert, by Milo the
constable, from the time of king Henry?.

To recount all the vicissitudes, as far as any memorials of
them have been preserved, of the petty warfare which from

1 « Noverca fceminea levitate fidem, totiens etiam missis in Normanniamn
nunciis promissam, fefellerat.”” W. Malm. p. 725. See also Flor. Contin.
p- 137.

2 According to Malmesbury (p.725), it was not the custom of praise-
worthy knights to refuse an escort even to their bitterest enemy.

3 Gesta Stephani, p. 56, and entea p. 323 note.
408 STEPHEN.

this time to nearly the close of Stephen’s reign never ceased,
would be neither interesting nor instructive ; we will, there-
fore, limit ourselves to a brief notice of the principal oceur-
rences that took place in the course of it.

Among the foremost who declared in favour of Matilda
was Brian fitz Count?, of whom slight mention has been already
made. On receiving intelligence of her arrival, he forthwith
supplied his strong castle of Wallingford with a numerous
garrison, and rose in open and zealous rebellion against the
king Milo of Gloucester, also, in violation of his oath to
Stephen, rose in open rebellion against him, and giving an
asylum to all the enemies of the king who flocked to him,
desolated the surrounding counties. But Stephen, rising
above the torrents of adversity which threatened to over-
whelm him, collected his forces with the resolution of attack-
ing his foes in detail; in prosecution of which, his first inten-
tion was to blockade the castle of Wallingford, but from
which he was diverted by the counsel of his barons, founded
on the vast strength of the place and its stores both of war-
like munitions and all the necessaries of life. Far more ad-
visable, added they, would it be to erect two forts before it,
placing in them a number of men sufficient to continue the
blockade, and proceed immediately to the suppression of
other adversaries.

Following this counsel, Stephen caused two forts to be
erected before the place, and with all speed proceeded to
Trowbridge, which Humphrey of Bohun2, the late king’s con-
stable, had, by the advice and at the instigation of Milo,
rendered almost impregnable. On his march thither he was

1 See pp. 364, 369.

2 E de Bohon li vieil Onfrei. Rom. de Rou, v. 13584.

‘* Onfroi, seigneur de Bohon, 4 deux lieues au midi de Carentan. On y
voit encore la motte du chateau de cette famille, qui aprés la conquéte
posséda long temps le titre de connétable héréditaire d’ Angleterre, et four-
nit plusieurs comtes de Hereford, d’Essex et de Northampton.” Note of
M. Prevost.—T.
STEPHEN. 409

so fortunate as to take by assault the castle of Cerney, which
Milo, for rebellious purposes, had erected against him ; and
also gained by surrender the strong castle of Malmesbury, in
which he captured, together with his followers, Robert fitz
Hubert, a Fleming, and kinsman of William of Ypres, noto-
rious for his cruelty and unequalled atrocities!. But now for
a season his good fortune forsook him ; for while on his
march to Trowbridge, Milo with a chosen band made an
attack by night on the forts erected by Stephen at Walling-
ford, and forced the garrisons to surrender. In the opinion
of his chronicler, Stephen drew down this disaster on himself,
for having desecrated a church, by converting it into one of
his forts.

In prosecution of his success against the royal forces, Milo
now gathered around him at Gloucester all those whose pos-
sessions had been laid waste by, or from other causes were
hostile to, the king (a. 1140), whence he committed the most
horrible devastations over the surrounding country. But his
only deeds worthy of remembrance were the capture of those
castles which the king had erected in Gloucestershire and
Herefordshire, the garrisons of which perpetrated unheard-of
outrages on the peaceful inhabitants. Of these, some he over-
threw, as at Cerney and Hereford ; others he committed to
the keeping of his partisans, as at Winchcombe. To the
praise of Milo be it however spoken, that his fidelity to the
daughter of Henry was unshaken ; with him both herself and
friends found an hospitable asylum; nor did he cease from
acting towards her as a father and counsellor until, by the
capture of Stephen, he had made her queen of England. In

1 Robert fitz Hubert had gained possession of the castle by nightly
surprise, at the same time setting fire to the town. He enjoyed his ac-
quisition for a fortnight only. W. Malm. p. 726. <‘ Captivos melle litos
flagrantissimo sole nudos sub divo exponebat, muscas et id genus animalia
ad eos compungendum irritans.”” Ib. p. 733.—T.

2 Dr. Lingard passes from the year 1139 to 1141, thus unaccountably
omitting all the events of 1140.—T.
410 STEPHEN.

the meantime the king had arrived before Trowbridge, where
finding the fortifications of the most formidable character, he
toiled on the construction of vast and powerful machines for
the capture of the place; but the garrison withstood his
efforts, while his barons grew weary of the siege, being under
constant apprehension of the approach of the earl of Glou-
cester. Stephen thereupon resolved on returning to London,
leaving a military force at Devizes, to hold the garrison of
Trowbridge in check, by whose incursions and mutual hos-
tilities the whole surrounding country was soon converted into
a miserable desert'. Stephen next proceeded to Worcester,
which had sustained considerable damage from the army at
Gloucester, where he deprived Milo of the office of constable,
and bestowed it on William, the sheriff of Worcester, son of
Walter of Beauchamp?.

The death of the bishop of Salisbury, which took place in
the preceding year (Dec. 11th, 1139), was, no doubt, a for-
tunate event for Stephen, as thereby many causes of dissen-
sion might more easily be removed, and the never wholly
alienated favourable disposition of the clergy towards him
rendered more available. Bishop Roger commenced his
career by gaining the favour of prince Henry, whose scanty
finances he administered with so much prudence and frugality,
that, on ascending the throne, there seemed nothing, or very
little that Henry could deny him. Lands, churches, prebends,

_ abbeys were bestowed on him; he was raised to the dignity

of chancellor and, lastly, to the see of Salisbury. It was now
that his real character began more manifestly to display itself.
If any land lay contiguous to his own, which he was desirous
of adding to his possessions, he obtained it, if not by entreaty
or money, by violence. He gloried in the erection of splendid
edifices in all his possessions. In his latter years, however, as

1 Gesta Stephani, pp. 58, sq.

2 Flor. Wigorn, Contin. a. 1139, where it is said that Stephen went from
Oxford to Worcester.—T.
STEPHEN. 411

we have seen, misfortunes thickened upon him; he saw the
plunder of his treasures, himself overwhelmed with reproaches
before the council at Winchester, and the remnant of his
money and plate, which he had laid on the altar for the pur-
pose of completing his church, carried off against his will’.

From Woreester the king proceeded to Oxford, and thence,
with his court, to Salisbury, there to celebrate Christmas and
wear his crown, according to royal custom. Here the canons
presented him with two thousand pounds of silver, in return
for which he granted them an exemption from all imposts on
their lands, besides twenty marks for their own use, and forty
for the covering of their church, moreover promising them
that, if he obtained peace, he would restore what they had
given him?.

When the bishop of Ely received intelligence of his uncle’s
death, he resolved on executing that which he had long medi-
tated— vengeance on the king for the injury he had inflicted
on his relative, by aiding to the utmost of his power the
daughter of Henry in her struggle for the throne. Casting

1 As Malmesbury (p. 727) appears to speak very impartially and in no
flattering strain of his bishop, I have preferred his account to that of the
author of the Gesta, who (p. 62) says of Roger: “qui sicut divitiarum
gloria, prudentisque animi ingenio omnes regni magnates superavit, ita a
luxuria fractus, et prorsus enervatus, quicquid in se virtutis continuit sola
sorduit immunditia. Reliquit autem in ecclesia Salesbiriz infinitam num-
morum quantitatem, sed et vasa plurima ductili aurificum opere, ista ex
argento, illa ex auro artiste et gloriose celata; que omnia in usus regis
cesserunt........ Rex vero partem pecuniz ad ecclesiam cooperiendam,
partem ad canonicorum relevandam necessitatem indulsit, terrasque eccle-
siarum et possessiones, quas episcopus in proprios usus redegerat, deque
dominabus, sublatis pastoribus, ancillas effecerat, libere et ecclesiastice
ipsis ecclesiis reddidit, pastoribusque canonice inthronizatis, duas ecclesias,
Malmesbiriensem et Abbesbiriensem, ut fuerant antiquitus, splendide re-
stauravit.” According to the Continuator of Florence (p. 113) the bishop’s
wealth that fell to Stephen consisted of 40,000 marks of silver, besides a
large quantity of gold and ornaments, which Roger “ thesaurizavit, et iz-
noravit cui congregavit ea.”—T.

2 Flor. Wigorn, Contin. a. 1140.
412 STEPHEN.

away, therefore, all evangelical weapons, and abandoning the
warfare of ecclesiastical discipline, he put on the man of blood,
and having hired soldiers in Ely inured to deeds of violence,
became the terror of all around him. When informed of the
rebellion of the bishop, the king immediately hastened to Ely,
at the head of a considerable force, when, seeing the extraor-
dinary natural strength of the place, he held anxious council
with his followers, as to the best method of attack. It was
finally resolved to join a number of boats together in a part
where the water, which surrounded the isle, appeared shallow,
and form a bridge across them composed of hurdles. This
plan was executed, and the army reached the margin of the
isle, consisting of muddy fens, over which a ford was pointed
out to them by, it is said, a monk of Ely, who for that service
was made abbot of Ramsey. The king then advancing into
the interior of the isle, permitted his soldiery to disperse
themselves and plunder in all directions. Of the bishop’s men
some were taken, together with much valuable spoil. A small
castle also at the entrance of the isle, to which some soldiers
of the bishop had retired, was captured. The bishop him-
self with difficulty escaped to Gloucester!; but the monks
were treated by Stephen with that unalterable kindness of
feeling which, in the midst: of all his troubles, he ever pre-
served*. Hence his contemporaries and even tradition? have
justly separated Stephen’s individuality from the cruelties
committed during his reign, which, moreover, were for the
most part perpetrated by his enemies.

It was at this moment so critical for Stephen's stability
that the young king of France, Lewis VII., who could not
regard with satisfaction the advancement of the house of

1 Gesta Stephani, p. 63.

- 2 Gesta Steph. p.64. Ricardi Hist. Eliens. ap. Wharton, Anglia Sacra,
ul. p. 620. :

3 As in the old ballad: “ King Stephen was a worthy peere.”’ See
Percy’s Reliques, and Shakspere, Othello, Act IL. sc. 3.
STEPHEN. 413

Anjou, did not hesitate (Feb. 1140) to betroth his sister
Constance to Stephen’s son Eustace!. While the queen,
with a numerous assemblage of the barons of both realms,
was in France, enjoying the festivities consequent on this
occasion, Stephen wholly unexpected appeared in Cornwall,
where William fitz Richard, on whom he had conferred the
government of that province, had, in traitorous violation of
his oath, received into one of the royal castles Reginald of
Dunstanvile, an illegitimate son of the late king, had given
him his daughter in marriage®, and delivered the entire
county into his hands. But no sooner did Reginald find
himself possessed of power than he began to bend all things
to his will, to strengthen the castles throughout the county,
and grievously to oppress the adherents of the king in his
proximity, sparing neither churches nor church property,
whereby he drew on himself the penalty of excommunication
by the bishop of Exeter.

When apprized of this state of things in Cornwall, Stephen,
as we have said, unexpectedly appeared in that province,
where, having recovered the castles that had been seized by
Reginald, he improvidently committed them to the keeping
of count Alan of Brittany, a man notorious for craft and
cruelty, charging him to prosecute the contest with Reginald,
until he had driven him from the county. On receipt of the
intelligence that Stephen had entered Cornwall, great was the
joy of earl Robert and his adherents at Gloucester, founded
on the persuasion that, shut up in that remote county, and
separated from the main body of his army, it would be no
difficult task to attack and overcome him. Uaving, there-

1 Flor. Wigorn. Cont. a.1140. H. Hunt. a.1139. After the death of
Eustace she gave her hand to Raimond V. count of Toulouse. Eustace
had in his early days been betrothed to a daughter of Diederik count of
Flanders; so at least we are informed by Orderic, p. 916.

2 She afterwards lost her reason: ‘ Uxor illius furiis agitata, non sim-
plicem in ejus amplexus sexum, sed dirum et horrendum offerebat daemo-
nium.” Gesta Steph. p. 65.—T.
414 STEPHEN.

fore, collected a numerous body of soldiers, Robert was hast-
ening towards Cornwall, when the unexpected and unwelcome
intelligence reached him, that the king had not only quelled
the rebellion, but was close at hand, on his return, at the
head of a most powerful force. The fact was, that Stephen,
apprized of Robert’s movements, had summoned to his aid all
the barons of Devonshire, and made preparations to join in
battle with his adversary on that same day. And a battle
would have ensued, had not Robert, yielding to the advice of
his friends, made a speedy retreat towards Bristol. On his
return from Cornwall, the king destroyed many lawless castles,
thus completely clearing and tranquillizing those parts that
had long suffered under the tyranny of their possessors!.

But isolated deeds of valour and military prowess were at
this time of little avail, as a spirit of anarchy was predomi-
nant, which defied and threatened to destroy the leaders of
both parties. To what insecurity in the law, to what ex-
travagant projects and wild undertakings such a revolutionary
state of things gave birth, may be conceived from the follow-
ing example. Robert fitz Hubert, a mercenary of the earl of
Gloucester, whose exploit at Malmesbury has been already
noticed’, having with some of his countrymen clandestinely
withdrawn from the earl’s army, succeeded by the aid of
ladders made of leather, in scaling the walls of the strong
castle of Devizes (Mar. 26, 1140), then garrisoned by the
royal forces. Having eluded the watch, he surprised and
captured the sleeping garrison, with the exception of a few
who, on hearing the tumult, sought refuge in a lofty tower ;
but being without sustenance or succour, were, in a few days,
compelled to surrender.

When the intelligence of this event reached the earl of
Gloucester, he sent his son, at the head of a large force, in
support of Robert’s daring enterprise; but the Fleming re-
ceived him with insult, drove him from the gates, and con-

! Gesta Stephani, p. 66. “ adulterina castella.”’ 2 See p. 409.
STEPHEN. 415

temptuously sent him back to his father, saying, that as he
had won the castle so he would hold it. In fact, he here
carried into effect what he had failed to accomplish at Malmes-
bury, not only maintaining himself in the place, but gradually
reducing all the neighbouring country under his power, in
furtherance of which purpose he sent for soldiers from Flan-
ders. At this time the neighbouring castle of Marlborough
was held against the king by a certain John fitz Gilbert, a
man as crafty and unscrupulous as Robert himself. To this
person Robert sent messengers, proposing a friendly league
between them: the proposal was accepted, and Robert
invited to visit his new ally at Marlborough. No sooner,
however, had he entered the castle than the gates were
closed upon him, and he was cast into a dungeon, there to
perish by hunger and torture. Of his followers some were
taken and thrown into the same dungeon with their lord ;
the others were ignominiously driven to the gates of Devizes.

When apprized of what had taken place, the earl of Glou-
cester, accompanied by the ex-constable Milo, proceeded to
Marlborough and promised five hundred marks for the de-
livery of Robert into his hands, engaging to render him back
within a fortnight. To this proposal John acceded, and the
earl, with Robert in his custody, returned to Gloucester.
When required to surrender the castle of Devizes, Robert
refused, on the plea of the oath he. and his associates had
sworn, never to deliver up the place; but on being threatened
with the gallows, he promised compliance, provided his life
were spared. On the day fixed, he was conducted back to
Marlborough, when the earl, having related all that had
passed between them, proposed to proceed with Robert to
Devizes, promising that if the castle were surrendered, to
place it under John’s authority. To this proposal John
assented ; but in the meanwhile sent letters secretly to
Robert’s friends at Devizes, in which he swore that neither
himself nor the earl meditated injury to Robert ; and, at the
416 STEPHEN.

same time, exhorted them to keep their oath by holding out
to the last extremity. Leaving Mito and others before De-
vizes, earl Robert then returned to Gloucester, previously,
however, commanding them to hang Robert, if he refused to
surrender the castle. As was to be expected, Robert and
his followers refused, and the end of the affair was, that his
two nephews first and himself afterwards forfeited their lives
at the gallows. The adherents of Robert, notwithstanding
their oath, finally consented to deliver up the place to the
king, for a considerable sum of money, who intrusted the
custody of it to his son-in-law, Hervé the Breton’.

Although in these wars the chief and immediate sufferers
were generally the combatants themselves, there were, never-
theless, occurrences that fell heavily on the rising burgher
class. The rich town of Nottingham, which had been spared
from harm in every preceding civil strife since the Conquest,
and in which industry and commerce preeminently flourished,
was, at the suggestion of Ralf Paganel, attacked and plundered
by the earl of Gloucester, the inhabitants fleeing to the churches
for refuge. While the work of plunder was in progress, one
of its most opulent inhabitants was seized and led strongly
bound to his dwelling, where he was compelled to deliver up
his treasures. Conducting the plunderers into a vault, in
which his wealth was deposited, he clandestinely withdrew
from them, closing all the doors and every means of egress,
and then set fire to the dwelling. More than thirty persons
are said to have perished in the vault ; it was even asserted
that from that house the fire spread until the whole town
became a prey to the devouring clement. Of the inhabitants
those who were without the churches were carried away cap-
tives; those who had sought shelter within the sacred struc-
tures, men, women, and children, perished in the general
conflagration |.

) Gesta. Steph. p. 66. Flor. Wigorn. Cont. a. 1140.
2 Flor. Wigorn. Cont. a. 1140.
STEPHEN. 417

While weak was the feeling of consideration and good-will
which the party of the empress had been able to excite, the
court of Stephen exhibited a series of ever increasing dissen-
sions, throughout which the king allowed himself to be guided
more by personal favour than by higher aspirations for the
unity and quiet of his realm. The choice of a new bishop of
Salisbury gave birth to acrimonious disputes. The legate
bishop of Winchester demanded the vacant see for his young
nephew, Henry of Sully, but, failing to obtain it, withdrew
from the court highly exasperated. Stephen strove to pacify
him, by bestowing on the nephew the rich abbey of Fécamp ;
but, at the instance of count Waleram of Meulan, he desired
the bishopric for his chancellor, Philip of Harulfeour, arch-
deacon of Bayeux, an appointment to which the legate and
clergy in general offered so strong an opposition, that the see
of Bayeux was at length bestowed on Philip, while that of
Salisbury for some years continued vacant, until it was given
to Joscelyn of Bailleul’.

This transaction so alienated the hearts of the clergy from
Stephen, that when he celebrated the festival of Whitsuntide
in the Tower of London, one prelate only, the bishop of Séez:
appeared at his court?.

A negotiation for peace (May 26) was now set on foot at
Bath, conducted on the part of the empress by her brother,
the earl of Gloucester, while Stephen was represented by his
untrustworthy brother, with whom the queen and archbishop
were associated, for the sake probably of keeping a watch
over him. The legate, in the following September, went to
France, where he passed the months of October and November,
with the object of gaining over to his views the French mon-
arch Lewis, Theobald count of Blois, and a number of the
clergy. The proposals he brought back were, as was to be

'! Ord. Vital. p. 920. Flor. Cont. a. 1140.
2 W. Malm. p. 734. “ ceteri vel fastidierunt vel timuerunt venire.”’

Ee@
418 STEPHEN.

foreseen, such as the empress readily accepted, but which the
king could not but totally reject |.

Stephen was now no longer blind to the difficulties of his
position, and spared no means of confirming the attachment
of those barons who remained faithful to him. With great
consideration he treated the earl Ranulf of Chester, who had
married a daughter of Robert of Gloucester, as well as his
brother, William of Roumare?. Ranulf had shown an ineli-
nation to take advantage of the king’s difficulties by endea-
vouring to establish claims on Carlisle and the south of
Cumberland, and thereby excited the indignation of the
generally kindly disposed prince, to a degree that it was
through the queen’s mediation alone that he escaped with
life’. Stephen readily forgave, and, at Christmas, had
left his deeply indebted and, as he imagined, well-disposed
vassal quiet at Lincoln’. After a few days, however, while
the garrison of the castle were diverting themselves without
the walls, the wives of the two earls went to pay a visit to a
lady who dwelt within it. In a short time the earl of Chester
appeared, but without weapons or armour, under the pretext
of escorting them home. Three of his soldiers likewise stole
after him into the castle. They then speedily possessed them-
selves of some weapons, drove out the few of the garrison
that were left, and gave admission to William of Roumare
and the rest of their associates, and from the fortress easily
rendered themselves masters of the city. The bishop and
citizens, dreading the new lord of the castle, instantly com-
municated intelligence of what had taken place to the king >.
who with his usual, though by the earl little locked-for,
celerity appeared and captured seventeen of his adversary’s

1 Ibid. ' 2 Ord. Vital. p. 922.

3 Joh. Hagust. a. 1140. col. 268. 4 W. Malm. p. 739.

5 Ord. Vital. p.921. Malmesbury (p. 739) is so disingenuous that he
omits all mention of the treachery of the two earls, and accuses the citizens
of having betrayed them.
STEPHEN. 419

knights ; but the castle was too strong to be speedily taken,
however considerable the number of men brought against it.
Under cover of the darkness, earl Ranulf, with some com-
panions, escaped from the castle, for the purpose of seeking
aid from Chester, and of having an interview with earl Robert.
The latter not only lent a willing ear to earl Ranulf, who
swore fealty to the empress, but resolved, on this occasion, to
effect a decision of the contest, and put an end to the lament-
able state of the country!. Without disclosing his intention,
he caused the Welsh, the outlaws, and malcontents from all
sides to march to the Trent, which, in consequence of the
heavy rains, they crossed with difficulty, and, in the beginning
of February, appeared unexpectedly with a considerable army
before Lincoln, in front of the king. By his barons Stephen
was advised to withdraw into the interior of the country; for
the purpose of reinforcing his army, but heedless even of the
feast of the Purification (Feb. 2.1141), be rashly resolved on
a battle. He divided his army in three bodies, the first of
which consisted of the Flemings, under William of Ypres,
and the Bretons, under count Alan of Dinan. Opposed to
these stood the Welsh, under two princely brothers, Meredith
and Cadwalader, with the first division under earl Ranulf.
Speeches are preserved which, as we are told, were made
before the battle, by the leaders of the two.armies. Those of
the earls Ranulf and Robert abound in vaunt, and vehement,
if not coarse, outbreaks against the most distinguished of
their adversaries, which with equal justice might have been
applied to themselves?. That of Baldwin fitz Gilbert, who

iW. Malm. p. 740.

2 Of all of them John of Salisbury (Polycrat. viii, 21.) says: “ Gaufri-
dus (de Magnavilla), Milo, Ranulphus, Alanus, Simon (de Senlis), Gille-
bertus (de Clara), non tam comitis regni quam hostes publici.” [It appears
that Stephen had many traitors in his army, from the words of Orderic
(p. 922), “In illo conflictu perfidia nequiter debacchata est. Nam quidam
magnatorum cum paucis suorum regi comitati sunt, suorumque satellitum
turmam adversariis ut prevalerent premiserunt.”—T.]

re
420 STEPHEN.

had undertaken to harangue the royal army, instead of the
king, who was suffering from hoarseness!, enlarged judiciously
and with dignity on the justice of Stephen’s cause, the suf-
ficiency of their force, and the valour of his fellow warriors”.
The first onset. was given by the royal forces with their
missiles ; but the body of outlaws pressed so irresistibly on
the foremost ranks with their swords, that the former quickly
dismounted and had recourse also to their swords. But
almost instantaneously their first line was broken through
in many places, and the most distinguished warriors, who
were too closely crowded together, were compelled to flee.
Among them, after a short resistance, were count Alan and
William of Ypres; but with disgraceful precipitation and
cowardice, Waleram of Meulan and his brother, William of
Warenne, William earl of York and Gilbert of Clare. Earl
Alan of Richmond, who in latter times had, by his depreda-
tions on the possessions of the bishop of Durham and the
recently deceased archbishop Thurstan of York, proved him-
self one of the greatest and most licentious enemies of law
and order, renounced, together with his followers, before the
beginning of the battle, both the king and the contest. Only
a few valiant knights, Baldwin of Clare, Richard fitz Urse,
Engelram of Sai, and Ilbert of Lacy, flinched not from the
side of the king. Stephen himself fought with a lion’s
courage; with a Norwegian battle-axe, with which a young
man of Lincoln had supplied him, he prostrated every foe
that approached him‘; he smashed the helmet of earl Ranulf,
but without slaying him; at length he was struck by a stone
which brought him to the ground’. With only three com-

1 « Quia rex festiva voce carebat.” H. Hunt. Gervas. col. 1352.—T.

2 H. Hunt. a. 1141.

3 Joh. Hagust. a. 1142 (1141). [Alan earl of Richmond is, it would
seem, a distinct person from the count Alan who, with William of Ypres,
commanded the first body.—T.]

4 Ord. Vital. p. 922. 5-W. Malm. p. 742.
STEPHEN. 421

panions by his side, he found himself compelled to retire
before the pressing enemy. A valiant knight, William of
Cahaines, seized him by the helmet, and with a loud voice
announced the prize he had taken. Stephen had now no
alternative but to yield himself a prisoner to the earl of
Gloucester. With the king were likewise taken Baldwin fitz
Gilbert and Richard fitz Urse. The earl conducted his royal
captive to the empress, whereupon he was consigned to du-
rance in Bristol castle, lenient at first, but afterwards more
rigorous, and was even loaded with chains, in consequence, it
is said, of his repeated attempts to escape!. In the speedily
decided conflict few, were the fallen, the number of corpses
found not exceeding a hundred. A greater booty did the
angel of death find among the unfortunate citizens of Lincoln.
On the calamitous issue of the battle, they had to expect that
the vengeance of the earl of Chester and the rapacity of his
followers would be glutted to the utmost. Many consequently
fled by means of the small vessels on the river, escaping from
murder by voluntary exile. Owing to the pressure of the
crowd, the boats, being too heavily laden, sank with their
freight, and about five hundred of the citizens thus found a
watery grave. Those who remained in the city and were
taken fell a sacrifice to the barbarity of earl Ranulf and his
well-practised myrmidons in the hangman’s art?.

The consequences of the king’s captivity were, however,
not so important as they would have shown themselves, had a
universally favourable disposition towards the empress pre-
yailed in the nation. The earls, Waleram of Meulan, William
of Warenne, and Simon of Northampton, with William of
Ypres, hastened to the queen who had found a safe asylum
among the faithful men of Kent. Earl Ranulf gained posses-
sion of some castles and treasures not belonging to him, partly

1 Tbid. Sax. Chron. a. 1141.
2 Ord. Vital. p. 922. W. Malm. p. 742. H. Hunt. a. 1141. Gervas. coll.
1350 sqq.
422 STEPHEN.

by treachery, through which he got couat Alan into his power,
whom, by hunger and other acts of violence, he compelled to
become his vassal, and to deliver up his castles. The county
of Cornwall Stephen also lost, now that Reginald’s party was
in the ascendant. Count Hervé also, his son-in-law, after
being long besieged in the castle of Devizes by a multitude
of the peasantry, who had risen in a body against him, was
at length compelled to surrender that fortress to the empress,
and, with a few followers, to flee precipitately from England.
And Hugh, surnamed the Poor, whom, on the expulsion of
Milo of Beauchamp, the king had created earl of Bedford, a
negligent and effeminate man, was now forced to restore that
castle to Milo!. Among the foremost who joined the party
of Matilda were Robert of Oilli and the earl of Warwick 2.
The town of Nottingham was by the empress taken from
William Peverel and given to William Paganel. From the
knights captured vast ransoms were extorted, and in general
nothing was done by the victors to conciliate esteem and gpod
will8,

To Matilda it now appeared desirable to gain the legate
bishop of Winchester to her interests, who, in foresight and
sagacity, was thought to excel all the nobles of the kingdom,
while his courage and riches rendered him the most powerful.
If he, she declared, would attach himself to her party, honours
should await him; if, on the other hand, he proved adverse
and rebellious, the whole armed force of England should be
directed against him. The legate’s position was a difficult
one; on the one hand, to defend the cause of the king
seemed an almost hopeless task, while on the other, it was
painful to himself, and must appear indecent and unnatural
to others, to declare in favour of Matilda, while his brother

1 Gesta Steph. p. 73. See p. 377.

? Gesta Steph. p. 74. [where they are described as “viri molles, et de-
liciis magis quam animi fortitudine affluentes.”—T.]

3 Joh. Hagust. col. 269.
STEPHEN. 423

was yet living. In this dilemma he resolved to temporize,
and enter on terms of peace and friendship with the enemy,
thus waiting the event of things, in the hope, when an oppor-
tunity presented itself, of coming forward in support of his
brother!.

With the legate the majority of the prelates were gained
over to the party of the empress, whose indecent exultation
and unbridled arrogance were alike prejudicial to her adhe-
rents and her own interest. From Gloucester, where she had
been so long entertained by Milo, she hastened, accompanied
by the bishop of Ely and other prelates, together with many
barons, to Cirencester, and thence to Winchester, where the
most distinguished ecclesiastics, the nobles of her party, the
mercenaries and others had assembled. The meeting took
place on the 2nd of March, on the open plain near the city ;
the day was wet and foggy, as if the fates foreshowed a sad
vicissitude of affairs?. Here Matilda swore to the legate,
that all the most important concerns of the realm, particu-
larly the disposal of vacant bishoprics and abbacies, should
be according to his will, if he and the holy Church would
receive her as their sovereign lady and ever observe fealty to
her. The same swore and vouched for her the earl of Glou-
cester, Brian fitz Count marquis? of Wallingford, Milo of Glou-
cester, afterwards earl of Hereford, and some others. On his
part, the legate did not hesitate to acknowledge her for lady
of England, and with some of his friends to engage that, so
long as she held the compact inviolate, he would be faithful
to her. On the following day, attended by the legate and

1 Gesta Stephani, p.74. [This is a lenient view of the legate’s case,
though perhaps not altogether an unjust one, and is, moreover, from the
pen of one well disposed towards Stephen, and therefore hardly inclined
to favour his brother, at the expense of truth. As an ecclesiastic and re-
presentative of the holy see, the legate was naturally exasperated against
his brother, for his treatment of the bishops of Salisbury, Lincoln, and
Ely, a consideration which, if borne in mind, may serve to explain and
even palliate much of his conduct.—T. ]

2 'W. Malm. p. 743. “ moestam cause vicissitudem.”’ 3 “ marchio.” ib.
424 STEPHEN.

other prelates, she went in procession to the cathedral, where
the crown and the scanty treasure left there by Stephen being
delivered to her, she was proclaimed queen of England, the
legate cursing those who cursed her, and blessing those who
blessed her. From Winchester she proceeded to Wilton,
where the archbishop Theobald swore allegiance to her, which
he had till then withheld, deeming it derogatory to his office
and character to take that step until he had consulted and
obtained a release from the king. His example was followed
by the majority of the prelates and some of the laity’.

A few days after (April 7th), a council of the archbishop
Theobald, and all the bishops of England, with many abbots
and archdeacons, was held at Winchester, at which the legate
presided. With each of these orders the legate held a pri-
vate conference, at which he explained to them his views and
intentions®. On the following day he addressed them in a
speech in which there was no lack of shallow sophistry,
though adinirably adapted to his audience. He reminded
them of the peaceful state of the country under the late
king; how some years before his death he had caused all
the bishops and barons of England and Normandy to swear
fealty to his sole surviving offspring, should no male successor
be borne to him by his second consort. “This was not
granted to him, and he died in Normandy without male issue.
To await the coming of a lady, whose departure from Nor-
mandy was delayed from various causes, seemed tedious, and
the peace of the country was provided for by allowing my
brother to reign. Alas!” continued he, “although I became
his surety before God, that he would honour and exalt the
holy Church, maintain good laws, and abrogate bad ones, it
grieves me to call to mind, I feel shame in uttering it, how he

1 W. Malm. p. 743. Flor. Wigorn. Cont. a. 1141.

2 Malmesbury, the substance of whose narrative is here given at full,
was present at the council. He says: “ Cujus concilii actioni, quia inter-
fui, integram rerum veritatem posteris non negabo.”"—T.
“STEPHEN. 425

has conducted himself in the kingdom, how he has neglected
to execute justice on the contumacious, how all peace, from
the very beginning of his reign, has been at an end; bishops
being held in captivity and compelled to deliver up their pos-
sessions, abbacies sold, churches despoiled of their treasures,
the counsels of the wicked listened to, those of the good
either delayed, or treated with scorn. You know how often
I have addressed him, both directly and through the medium
of bishops; more particularly at the council lately held, and
that I have thereby gained nothing but odium. To all who
rightly think it will be manifest, that while it is my duty to
love my brother, of far greater moment is the cause of our
everlasting Father. Therefore, since God has pronounced
judgment on my brother, and allowed him to fall into the
hands of his adversaries, lest the realm be convulsed if it lack
a ruler, I have, in virtue of my legatine authority, summoned
you all to meet me here. Yesterday the subject was discussed
in private before a considerable number of the clergy of
England, whose province it especially is to elect and ordain
princes; therefore, in the first place, invoking the divine
assistance, as is meet, we choose the daughter of our late
glorious king for our sovereign lady, and promise her our
fealty and support.” When all present had, either by tem-
perate acclamations testified their approval of the legate’s
harangue, or, by holding silence, not objected to it, he added:
“The citizens of London—who are, as it were, nobles, by
reason of the magnitude of the city—we have summoned by
our messengers, and sent them a safe-conduct, and I trust
they will not defer their coming beyond this day.”

On the following day the Londoners arrived, and being in-
troduced, announced that they were deputed by the city of
London, not in a spirit of hostility, but to pray that their lord
the king might be released from his captivity. Those barons
also, who had long been members of their body, but had been
captured with their liege lord, earnestly besought the legate
426 STEPHEN.

and the archbishop, with all the clergy present, to obtain for
them their liberty. Their petition the legate answered at length,
repeating the substance of his speech of the preceding day,
and adding: That it ill became the Londoners, who were
regarded as nobles in England, to espouse the cause of those
who had forsaken their lord in battle, at whose instigation,
too, he had dishonoured the holy Church, and who made a
show of favouring the Londoners, merely that they might
wheedle them out of their money.

When the legate had ceased speaking, a certain clerk stood
forward,’a chaplain, it is said, of the queen’s, named Christian,
and presented a letter to him, which, having read it in silence,
he returned, saying aloud, that it was not genuine, nor ought
it to be read before an assemblage of such exalted and reli-
gious persons; for, in addition to the objectionable matter
contained in it, there was the name of a witness attached to
it, who a year or two ago had, in the very chapter in which
they were then sitting, applied the most opprobrious language
to the venerable bishops!. The clerk was not, however, so to
be daunted, but with admirable confidence read the letter to
the council, the substance of which was : “ The queen earnestly
entreats the clergy assembled in general, and the bishop of
Winchester, the brother of her lord, in particular, to restore
her said lord to his kingdom, whom wicked men, his own
liege subjects, have cast into bonds.” To this letter the
legate returned an answer similar in tenour to that which
he had given to the Londoners, who, after having deliberated
together, said they would communicate the decree of the coun-
cil to their fellow-citizens, and, as far as they were able, be
answerable for their good-will. On the following day, the
council was dissolved, after it had excommunicated many ad-
herents to the royal cause, among whom was William Martel,
who had formerly been cupbearer to king Henry, but was

! The individual here alluded to was, no doubt, Aubrey of Vere. See
pp. 400 sq—T.
STEPHEN, 427

then sewer to Stephen. Against him the legate was bitterly
incensed, for having intercepted and plundered many of his
chattels’.

From Wilton, where she had celebrated the Easter festival
(Mar. 30)2, the empress proceeded to Reading (May 4th),
where she was received with great honour. Here Robert of
Oilli agreed to deliver to her the castle of Oxford, of which,
‘by the appointment of Stephen, he was constable. From Ox-
ford, after having received the homage of that city and the
cireumjacent country, she directed her course with great joy
and exultation to St. Alban’s, where she was met by a deputa-
tion of the citizens of London, with whom she entered into a
compact for the delivery of the metropolis, whither, with great
military pomp, she hastened, and at Westminster was received
with a solemn procession.

The greater part of England now acknowledged her au-
thority; her brother, the earl of Gloucester, was, by every
honourable means, strenuously exerting himself to promote
her interest; the legate also appeared faithfully attached to
her cause, but while all things seemed to promise the speedy
reduction of the whole kingdom to her rule, all became
changed, a storm was ready to burst over her head. For no
sooner had she been proclaimed queen than her haughty and
tyrannical spirit began to display itself. Those who had sub-
mitted to the authority of the king, but now deemed it ad-
visable to acknowledge hers, she treated with contumely,
driving them with threats and insult from her presence. The
lands of the few who still adhered to Stephen she distributed
among her partisans, and, in general, revoked all his grants.
When the king of Scotland, the legate, or the earl of Glouces-
ter approached her with bended knees to solicit some object,
she would not rise to receive them, and would most frequently

1 W. Malm. pp. 744. sqq. Flor. Wigorn, Cont. a. 1141.
2 According to Malmesbury, who is, no doubt, wrong, she passed the
Easter-tide at Oxford.—T.
428 STEPHEN.

dismiss them with a harsh denial!. By the queen she had
been solicited for the release of her captive consort; many of
the nobility had likewise interceded with her for the same
object, engaging to deliver into her hands not only numerous
hostages, but castles and other possessions, for the mere re-
lease of the king, pledging themselves that, if restored to free-
dom, he should renounce the crown and, as a monk or pilgrim,
devote himself to the service of God alone. To these solicita-
tions, as also to the prayer of the bishop of Winchester, that
Stephen’s earldoms of Boulogne and Mortain might be con-
ferred on his son Eustace, Matilda turned a deaf ear. When,
. too, the citizens of London had lulled themselves into the
| belief that peaceful and happier days awaited them, the em-
press, to their dismay, in an imperious tone, exacted from the
more opulent among them an immense sum of money. And
when they urged that, in consequence of the dissensions in
the state, in alleviating the miseries of famine which pervaded
the land, and in supplying the wants of the king, they had
lost a large portion of their wealth, and were in a state of
impending pauperism; therefore, humbly prayed that she
would have pity on their reduced condition, and not impose
this onerous tax on them, but wait till more tranquil and
better times should render them more able to comply with
her demands, her rage knew no bounds. The Londoners, she
said, had repeatedly and largely supplied the wants of the
king; they had lavishly spent their money for his benefit and
to her prejudice, and had conspired with her enemies; there-
fore they had no right to expect that she would spare them,
or make the slightest abatement of her demand?. Nor did
the petition of the citizens for the restoration of the laws of
king Eadward, in the stead of those of her father, which
were found too oppressive, meet with a more favourable re-
ception,

1 Flor. Wigorn. Cont. a. 1141. W. Malm. p. 749. Gesta Steph. p. 76.
2 Gesta Stephani, pp. 76,77. W. Malm. p. 750.
$ Flor. Wigorn, Cont. a. 1141,
STEPHEN. 429

When Matilda’s consort, Geoffrey of Anjou, was apprized of
the victory over Stephen at Lincoln, he marched an armed
force into Normandy, and summoned the holders of the royal
castles there to surrender. These, however, among whom
were the earls of Leicester and Meulan, as well as other
Anglo-Norman nobles, had, with the king’s ancient friend,
Hugh, the archbishop of Rouen, at their head, betaken them-
selves to Stephen’s brother Theobald, count of Blois, for the
purpose of offering him not only the dukedom of Normandy,
but also the kingdom of England. But this wise and pious
prinee, again declining the realm that had been a second time
offered to him!, advised them to transfer the one and the
other to Geoffrey, provided that prince would restore to his
brother Stephen his liberty and the counties he had formerly
possessed, and to himself the city of Tours which appertained
to his fief 2.

The queen now finding that the petitions of herself and
others for the release of her consort and the grant of his
counties to their son were rejected with insult, resolved on
attempting to gain by force that which had been denied to
her solicitations. In pursuance of this resolve, she sent a
considerable military force to the south side of the river,
opposite to London, with orders to harry and burn in every
direction. Panic-stricken on seeing themselves thus exposed,
as it were, to the horrors of war, and irritated by the tyrannic |
and unfeeling conduct of the empress towards them, the citizens
unanimously resolved to enter into a confederation for the re- —
storation of the king to his liberty 3.

While the empress was awaiting in security the answer of
the Londoners to her demand, and fully confident of their
compliance with her will, all the city bells at once rang out,
summoning the inhabitants to rise, who thereupon rushing to
arms, and inspired to a man with the bitterest animosity
towards that princess, poured forth from the several gates.

1 See p. 358. 2 Ord. Vital. p. 923. 3 Gesta Stephani, p. 77.
430 STEPHEN.

The empress was at the moment just sitting down to table,
when, hearing the tumult, and being secretly warned that
treason was plotting against her, she and those about her in-
stantly sought safety in flight. Hardly had their horses left
the suburban dwellings behind them, when an almost count-
less multitude of people arrived at their hostels, and destroyed
or carried off all that had been left by the fugitives in their
hurry to escape. The barons, who had accompanied the
empress in her flight, gradually forsook her on the way, de-
parting in various directions. The bishop of Winchester
who, according to report, was both the accomplice and -insti-
gator of the insurrection, and others, bishops and knights,
who had assembled at London, for the purpose of solemnly
inthroning the empress, lost no time in seeking various hiding-
places. Matilda herself, attended by the earl of Gloucester
and a very few barons, proceeded with all speed to Oxford.
The adherents of the king, thus inspired with new courage,
rose in all parts against the empress. The queen, too, now
in possession of London, scorning the gentleness of her sex,
nobly exerted herself in gathering the partisans of the royal
cause. The legate, with whom the queen had had an inter-
view at Guildford, moved by her supplications, and perhaps
commiserating his brother’s unhappy lot, manifested also his
anxiety to devise the means of rescuing him from the miseries
of a prison. But the empress shrewdly anticipating the fruits
of his schemes, proceeded with a well-appointed force to
‘Winchester (Aug. Ist), in the hope of laying hands on him.
While she, however, with her followers, was entering the city
by one gate, the bishop, mounted on a fleet horse, passed out
by another, and with all speed fled to his castle’. Having
taken possession of the royal castle, Matilda sent to the bi-
shop, saying, that as she was in Winchester, she trusted he

1 “Castella sua.” Gesta Steph. p.80. Hence and from what follows
it appears that the bishop had one castle within, and another without the
city, to the latter of which he fled on the arrival of Matilda.— TT.
STEPHEN. 431

would not delay coming to her. Consulting his own safety,
the bishop answered ambiguously: “I will make myself
ready!;” and immediately adopted measures to gain sup-
porters. On her part the empress, by an edict published
throughout the realm, assembled a considerable army, and
commanded the castle of the bishop which, according to a
most beautiful plan, he had erected in the heart of the city,
and also his mansion, which he had rendered as strong and
impregnable as a castle, to be invested by a strict blockade’.

On reading the names of those who supported the cause of
Matilda and attended her on this occasion, it must excite
our wonder how a force such as those names imply could
have been so soon and so completely overcome and scattered
as we shall presently see it was doomed to be. There was
David, king of Scotland, who had already been twice driven
out of England; there were Robert earl of Gloucester, Ranulf
earl of Chester, Baldwin of Redvers earl of Exeter, Reginald
earl of Cornwall, Milo of Gloucester, on whom the empress
had recently conferred the earldom of Hereford? ; Roger earl
of Warwick, William of Mohun, whom she had created earl
of Dorset, and a Breton count named Boterel4. Of barons
there were: Brian fitz Count, John Mareschal, Roger of
Oilli, Roger of Nunant, William fitz Alan and others too
numerous to mention, all of whom with a powerful army, col-
lected from every quarter, and animated by the same spirit,
marched to besiege the castle of the bishop>.

The bishop, on his side, having assembled from all parts
of England those barons who acknowledged the authority of
the king, together with a numerous body of soldiery, marched
with the utmost speed to the relief of Winchester. The queen,
also, with a large force, including a band of nearly a thousand

1 « Ego parabo me.” W. Malm. p. 751.

2 Gesta Steph. pp. 78-80. W. Malm. pp. 748-750.

3 See the patent, dated July 25th 1141, the oldest on record, in Rymer.
1.19. 4 See p. 322. 5 Gesta Steph. p. 80.
432 STEPHEN.

' Londoners, armed with helmets and breast-plates, hastened
. vigorously to besiege the besiegers. Others, too, intimate
and faithful friends of the king, among whom are named
Roger of Chastenay! and his brother William, with a well-
appointed body of foot soldiers and archers, pressed hardly
on one quarter of the place. Hence arose a siege of a most
extraordinary kind: those engaged in assailing the episcopal
castle being themselves closely besieged by the royal army.
In the almost daily encounters which took place many were
slain, and from the fires projected by the defenders of the
castle, the greater part of the city, together with above forty
churches and two abbeys?, was reduced to ashes. To add to
the calamities of the inhabitants, famine soon began to pre-
vail, bodies of armed men being posted on all the ways leading
to the city, cutting off all supplies. As a remedy for this
evil, it was resolved to erect a fort at Wherwell, about six
miles distant from Winchester, whence they might annoy
their adversaries, and at the same time obtain the necessary
supplies. But the royalists, aware of what was in progress,
made a desperate onslaught on the enemy, of whom many
being slain and many captured, the rest sought safety within
the walls of the abbey, where they defended themselves as in
a castle, until the place being set on fire by firebrands thrown
into it, the half-burnt defenders were compelled to issue forth
and submit to the mercy of their assailants. The abbey was
sacked and burnt, it is said, by William of Ypres, and its
inmates subjected to all the atrocities consequent on such
events.

-1 Or Chesney (Cheney). The Latinized name is De Casneto.—T.

2 One was a house of nuns within, the other was Hide abbey, without
the walls, dedicated to Aulfred’s friend, St. Grimbald, in which was a cele-
brated cross, adorned with gold, silver, and precious stones, the gift of
king Cnut. For a miracle performed by this cross, see W. Malm. p. 752,
Flor. Wigorn. Cont. p.133. Andover was also burnt by the royalists in the
course of these conflicts. The continuator of Florence and others say
that the conflagration of the city was by command of the bishop, forget-
ting, it seems, that he was not in the place.—T’.
STEPHEN. 433

The position of the earl of Gloucester and the other ad-
herents of Matilda being rendered thus desperate by fire and
famine, they resolved on raising the now hopeless siege of
the castle, and seeking safety in a precipitate flight (Sept.
14th)'. In prosecution of this design, the earl sent his sister
forward, escorted by Reginald earl of Cornwall with the van
of his army, while himself with a few of his boldest followers
formed the rear-guard. But hardly had they issued from the
gates when they were attacked and dispersed by a strong de-
tachment of the royal army. In this encounter, the earl of
Gloucester with all those about him fell into the hands of the
enemy, being captured at Stockbridge by the Flemings under
William of Ypres. The rout was complete; the face of all
the country around bore manifest signs of the havoc made
among the followers of Matilda: horses without riders were
to be seen on every side, the earth was strewed with shields
and corselets and every kind of weapon, together with costly
robes and other articles of value. Barons and knights ap-
peared fleeing in all directions, to escape from the rage and
violence of the peasantry. The king of Scotland, after having
been thrice captured, and as many times released by bribery,
with difficulty reached his own territories. The archbishop
of Canterbury, with some bishops and nobles, despoiled of
their horses and garments, effected their escape with the
utmost difficulty. The empress herself, with her beloved Brian
fitz Count 2, and a few attendants, fled first to Ludgershall,
and thence to Devizes ; from which town, not considering her-

1 According to the continuator of Florence, the siege was raised by the
bishop, who, tired of the war, ordered the gates to be thrown open and
peace proclaimed throughout the city. But hardly had the empress
mounted her horse, when he ordered his troops to attack the retiring
enemy. It must, however, be borne in mind, that the continuator was a
friend of Milo, the supporter of Matilda, and that his testimony is not
supported either by the author of the Gesta or by Malmesbury.—T.

2 “ut sicut sese antea mutuo et indivise dilexerant, ita nec in adversis,
plurimo impediente periculo, aliquatenus separarentur.”’ Gesta Steph. p. 85.

Ff
434 STEPHEN.

self in security there, she continued her flight to Gloucester '.
Milo, the newly created earl of Hereford, also escaped to
Gloucester, in a state almost of nudity®.

While these works of plunder, conflagration, and bloodshed
were being enacted in various other places, the Londoners, in
concert with a large body of the royal army, sacked what
still remained unscathed of the unfortunate city of Winchester,
breaking open and destroying not only the private dwellings
of the inhabitants, but also the sacred edifices, and bearing
off to their homes vast spoil, both in treasures and captives.
So great was the devastation, that no one, however aged,
could call to memory its parallel’.

On his capture the earl of Gloucester was presented to the
queen, and, by her command, consigned to the keeping of
William of Ypres in the castle of Rochester. Thus were the
leaders of the hostile parties each in the power of his adver-
sary, and the object now of highest interest both to Matilda
and the friends of Stephen was, to effect their mutual libera-
tion. After some negotiation it was settled that, on leaving
the queen with her son and two nobles in Bristol as hostages,
the king should proceed to Winchester (Nov. Ist), whither
the earl had been conducted from Rochester, and that a
mutual release should there take place, leaving each to act as
freely as if neither had been captured‘.

The liberation of his brother must have been a source of
considerable embarrassment to the bishop, who, on the oc-
taves of St. Andrew (Dec. 7th), in virtue of his legatine
authority convened a council at Westminster, at which he
read a letter from the pope, who blamed him for having

1 The continuator of Florence (p. 134) says, that she was bound like a
corpse and conveyed on a bier from Devizes to Gloucester; but the story
is unsupported by the other chroniclers.—T.

2 Gesta Steph. pp. 80-85. W. Malm. pp. 750-753. Flor. Wigorn. Cont.
a.1141.

3 Gesta Steph. p. 85. 4 W. Malm. p. 754. Gesta Steph. p. 85.
STEPHEN. 435

neglected the release of his brother, and urged him to employ
every means possible for the attainment of that object. The
king, then, who was present at the council, complained bitterly
that he had been captured by his own lieges, and nearly suc-
cumbed under their harsh treatment, to whom he never had
denied justice. Thereupon the legate rose, and strove to
mitigate the odium his conduct had excited. He had, he
said, acknowledged the empress, not from good-will, but ne-
cessity, when, shortly after his brother’s misfortune, and at a
time when all his adherents were either driven away or, with
minds full of suspicion, were awaiting the event, she appeared
before the walls of Winchester!; that all the engagements
she had made regarding the right of churches she had vio-
lated ; that he had been informed by trust-worthy authority,
that she had plotted to deprive him not only of his dignity
but his life; but that God in his mercy had turned events
contrary to her hopes, so that himself had escaped from peril,
and been able to free his brother from his bonds. He therefore
commanded them, on the part of God and the pope, that they
would with their utmost power aid a king anointed by the
will of the people and the consent of the holy see; but to
cite for excommunication those disturbers of the peace, who
favoured the countess of Anjou, all excepting the lady of the
Angevins herself.

“T do not,” writes the old chronicler, “ say that this speech
was received with favour by all, though certainly no one con-
troverted it; fear or respect bridled the tongues of the clergy
present.” But there was one among them, a layman, an
envoy from the empress, who publicly forbade the legate, by
the faith he had engaged to her, to resolve anything in that
council that should be prejudicial to her honour. He more-

1 Here the text of Malmesbury seems defective.—T.

2 W. Malm, p.755. “Jubere se turbatores pacis, qui comitisse Andega-
vensi faverent, ad excommunicationem vocandos, preeter eam qua Ande-
gavorum domina esset.”’—T.

Ff2
436 STEPHEN.

over asserted that the legate had pledged himself to the em-
press not to afford any aid to his brother beyond sending him
twenty knights; that she had come to England in conse-
quence of his repeated letters; that having captured the king,
she had held him in captivity chiefly with his connivance.
Although he said all this and much besides with great se-
verity of tone, the weight of his words failed to move the
bishop to betray the slightest sign of anger. Before the
termination of the sitting the sentence of excommunication
was pronounced against all who should erect new castles,
invade the rights of the Church, or do violence to the poor
and helpless !.

An interval of inaction seems at this time to have suc-
ceeded the late period of violence and bloodshed, each party
being apparently more intent on holding what it possessed
than on invading the possessions of its adversary. The king
with his consort had gone to York, for the purpose of quelling
some feuds among his vassals, and of retaining the people of
the north of England in their favourable disposition towards
him, when a severe illness, with which he was seized shortly
after Easter (1142), at Northampton, threatened the speedy
termination of his newly recovered power and his life2.

The empress had fixed her temporary abode at Devizes,
where, at a council, it was resolved to send for her husband,
the count of Anjou, to defend and prosecute the rights of his
wife and son in England. On the return of the envoys, they
reported that the count was not unfavourable to the object of
their mission, and that if the earl of Gloucester, whose great
qualities were known to him, and who was the only one on whom
he could implicitly rely, would come over to him, he would, if
in his power, comply with their wishes; otherwise, in going
to and fro they would spend their time and labour in vain.
At the earnest solicitation of his friends, the earl undertook

" W. Malm. p. 756. Gervasius, col. 1357.
2 W. Malm. p. 763. Joh. Hagust, col. 271.
STEPHEN. 437

the commission and proceeded to Normandy, accompanied by
hostages from among the nobles, as pledges to the count for
his security, and to the empress, that during his absence they
would unite as one man in defending her from all injury. On
arriving at Caen the earl was met by the count, who alleged
a multitude of reasons for declining to cross over to England,
among others, the rebellion of several places in Normandy ;
and when, with the earl’s assistance, those places were sub-
dued, he was prepared with other excuses equally cogent. He
readily, however, allowed his son Henry to accompany his
uncle to England?.

From Devizes the empress had transferred her abode to
Oxford2, in the neighbourhood of which she had stationed
bodies of troops and strengthened several castles, as at
Woodstock, Bensington, and other places, even as far as
Cirencester®. It was to the last mentioned place that Ste-
phen, after his recovery, directed his march, whence, having
burned the castle, he proceeded to Oxford, where the empress
with a strong force was dwelling in perfect security, when, on
the opposite side of the river, Stephen, at the head of his
army, made his appearance, who on seeing the enemy issuing
from the city in considerable numbers, while others were
galling them with arrows, the river’s breadth only being
between them, resolved on crossing at a known ford, but
where the water was of considerable depth. Among the
foremost to plunge into the stream was the king himself;
having crossed it rather by swimming than wading, he rushed

1 'W. Malm. pp. 673-775. Gervas. a. 1142.

2 The author of the Gesta describes Oxford as “ Civitas tutissime mu-
nita, aquis maxime profundidatis undique proluentibus inaccessa; hine
vallis antemuralis intentissime circumcincta, inde inexpugnabili castello et
turri eminentissima pulcre et fortissime roborata.”” The tower here men-
tioned is probably the massive one yet standing, a memorial of fallen
greatness.—T.

3 Malmesbury makes Stephen sack and burn Wareham, but is it not an
error for Cirencester ?—T.
438 STEPHEN.

on the enemy, drove them back into the city, which he
entered with them, and set it on fire in several places; in
consequence of which disaster, the empress retired for safety
to the castle (Sept. 26th). Exulting in his success, the king
resolved on laying close siege to the castle, in the hope, by
capturing the empress, the cause of all his difficulties, to
restore tranquillity to his kingdom. In prosecution of this
design, he posted guards to prevent all access and egress, and
after a close blockade of three months, succeeded in reducing
the garrison to great straits. In this state of things, the
escape of the empress appears little short of miraculous.
Their provisions were nearly exhausted, the castle, as we
have seen, was beset and assailed on all sides; yet, attended
only by three faithful knights, and all clad in white, she went
forth in the silence of the night, passed through the posts of
the enemy, by the aid of a sentinel, who had been previously
bribed ; and on foot through the snow, with which the country
was covered, crossed the Thames on the ice, and succeeded in
reaching Abingdon, whence, on horseback, she continued her
flight to Wallingford, held by Brian fitz Count’.

When the king found that the prey, which he had been so
long in hope of seizing, had thus eluded his grasp, he pru-
dently listened to the advice of his friends, and took posses-
sion of the castle of Oxford, by allowing the garrison to ca-
pitulate. To this concession he was, however, in great measure
prompted by the return of earl Robert from Normandy, who,
when apprized of the critical position in which his sister was
placed, had landed with a force at Wareham, and the castle
of which place having besieged and taken, was vigorously pre-
paring to attack him. Stephen, now, in his turn, proceeded
with a body of troops to Warcham, when, on finding that the
place had been strongly fortified by the earl, he laid waste the

! Gesta Stephani, p. 88. W. Malm. p. 766. Gervas. col. 1358. R.Wend.
ii. 232. [In the Sax. Chron. a. 1140, it is said, that she was let down by
night from the tower with ropes.—T.]
STEPHEN. 439

surrounding country with fire and sword, and then marched
on to Wilton, where, as a check to the progress of his adver-
sary, he strengthened the fortifications of the castle. Here
he was joined by the bishop of Winchester and many barons
with a strong body of men from all parts of England. On
learning that reinforcements were daily hastening to join the
standard of the king, the earl resolved to advance to Wilton,
there to give him battle. A battle ensued (1143, July Ist),
which ended in the total discomfiture of the royal army, the
king himself and his brother escaping captivity only by a pre-
cipitate and ignominious flight. In this conflict Stephen’s
brave and faithful friend and sewer, William Martel, was made
prisoner, and committed to the temporary keeping of Brian
fitz Count at Wallingford. The fugitive royalists were pur-
sued by the earl into the town of Wilton, which was made to
suffer all the horrors but too common on such occasions, ra-
pine, slaughter, and conflagration.

After his victory at Wilton earl Robert proceeded to Bri-
stol, loaded with spoil and taking with him numerous prisoners,
among others William Martel, whom he held in strict con-
finement, until, for his release, he had paid three hundred
marks and surrendered his castle of Sherborne, which was
regarded as a principal key of the kingdom. The earl after-
wards followed up his success, gradually reducing the realm
under his control, destroying the castles of the royalists, and
erecting others, until he had subjected to the empress nearly
the entire western part from sea to sea. In this portion of
the kingdom, the only resistance he found was from Henry of
Tracy, who maintained a harassing warfare against the par-
tisans of Matilda, until the cause of the king was again pre-
dominant in those parts!.

At this time the state of England was deplorable in the
extreme; on the one part torn and oppressed by the king
and his adherents, on the other, by the carl of Gloucester and

' Gesta Stephani, p. 95.
440 STEPHEN.

the partisans of the empress. Of the wretched inhabitants
some, finding the sweetness of home turned to bitterness,
sought an asylum in foreign lands; others, in the hope of
" protection, constructing lowly huts around the churches,
passed a life of fear and misery; others lacking other food
—for famine had spread itself over the country—fed on the
flesh of dogs and horses, or barely sustained life by the poor
sustenance afforded by raw herbs and roots. Men died in
multitudes; entire large villages might be seen without an
inhabitant, and a man might travel for a whole day without
meeting with a living human being. Fields of yellow corn
stood without one to reap it, all the husbandmen being swept
away. To this accumulation of miseries is to be added the
influx of foreign mercenaries, who void of pity and reckless of
the calamities of the people, from the castles perpetrated all
kinds of atrocities, and who, when the barons had summoned
them to their aid from the most remote parts, unable either
to get their stipends or satisfy their rapacity by plunder, no-
thing to plunder being longer left, pillaged the possessions of
the Church. If a priest or monk ventured to expostulate
with them, he was treated with contumely, if not with blows.
The bishops, who ought to have been the bulwarks of the
Church, were as reeds shaken by the wind: while some
through fear yielded to the storm, others, regardless of their
sacred calling, supplied their castles with provisions, arms,
and sufficient garrisons, and, under the plea of driving away
the robbers of Church property, proved themselves more cruel
and merciless than they. Many, too, of these bishops, cased
in iron, completely armed, and mounted on fiery steeds, shared
the spoil with the plunderers of the country, and subjected to
bonds and tortures those knights or wealthy individuals that
unfortunately fell into their hands; and while they themselves
were the principal agents in such atrocities, would lay the
blame on their military followers. Among these worthies the
most conspicuous were the bishops of Winchester, Lincoln,
STEPHEN. 441

and Chester. One honourable exception, however, there was
in Roger bishop of Hereford, a pious and courageous man,
who swerved not from the path of right, but with weapons
befitting a Christian soldier, boldly opposed the enemies of
the Church and realm. For when Milo earl of Hereford was
in need of a large sum of money for the pay of those soldiers
whom he had raised to oppose the king, and would compel
the churches under his power to pay a heavy contribution
for that object, he was resisted by the bishop, who asserted
that ecclesiastical property being the offerings of pious indi-
viduals, transferred in perpetuity to the service of the Church,
no secular person had the right to exercise any control over
it; the earl and his followers must therefore abstain from
seizing it, or expect instantly to be stricken with the sword of
excommunication. Enraged at this resistance to his demand,
Milo sent his myrmidons to ravage and plunder the lands of
the bishop, who, thereupon, calling together his clergy, pro-
nounced the awful sentence on him and his agents, the effect
of which was, that all divine service was suspended, that no
corpse might be laid in the earth, or consumed by fire, or im-
mersed in water, or removed from the spot where it ceased to
live, until the perpetrator of the sacrilege should have made
compensation to the last farthing, for what he had taken or
destroyed. In the same year, on the 24th Dec., when en-
gaged in the chase, Milo was slain by an arrow, incautiously
aimed at a deer, and died without repentance}.

About the same time, other adherents of the empress were
removed by death from the scene of violence, in retribution,
says the chronicler, for the violation and pillage, by earl Ro-
bert’s command, of the convent of St. Mary and St. A<thel-
thryth at Wilton: among these are named the earl’s eldest
son, a youth of great promise; William, the ‘‘ preceptor” of

1 Gesta Stephani, pp. 96-101. Joh. Hagust. a. 1144 (1143). Also the

Chron. of Lanthony abbey, which house was greatly befriended by him, in
Monast. Angl. vi. p. 134.
442 STEPHEN.

Salisbury, and Robert fitz Hildebrand, who is described as a
man of the meanest extraction and basest character: being
sent by the empress to the assistance of William of Pont-de-
YArche, in a quarrel between him and the bishop of Win-
chester, he seduced his wife, with whom he afterwards lived
in adultery, threw William himself into prison, turned traitor
to Matilda, and entered into a compact with the king and
his brother, the bishop. His death was the consequence of a
dreadful disease’.

In this year, at Midlent, a council was held at London by
the legate, at which the king assisted, in which it was en-
acted, that, whereas no honour or reverence is shown to the
Church of God or its priests by impious depredators, but that
clerks are captured, redeemed, and cast into prison like lay-
men, it is therefore ordained and decreed that, if any one
violate a church or cemetery, or lay violent hands on a clergy-
man, he shall receive absolution from no one but the pope
himself, and in his presence ?®.

Among the partisans of Stephen was Geoffrey of Manne-
vile, a man of great sagacity and valour, and the wealthiest
and most powerful of all the nobility, being, as constable, in
possession of the Tower of London, besides other castles of

1 “Vermis quidam inter vitalia illius innatus irrepsit, lentoque morsu
interiora exedens, paulatim sceleratum depavit, multisque tandem vexa-
tum questubus, multis etiam et horrendis tortum cruciatibus, dignissimo
supplicio ad extrema deduxit.” Gesta Stephani, pp. 96-101. H. Hunt.
a. 1143. R. Wendov. ii. p. 231.—T.

2 H. Hunt. a. 1143. R. Wendov. ii. p. 232.

4 [This name is usually written “* Mandeville ;” I adopt the orthography
of Domesday. In the Latin chroniclers it is rendered ‘‘ Magna villa.”—T.]
He had been created earl of Essex by Stephen. See Rymer,i. p.18. In
1136 he founded the Benedictine priory at Walden in Essex, afterwards
made an abbey. See Monast. Angl. iv. pp. 133 sq., where a copious
account is given of him and his race. Both he and his wife Roheisa
were great benefactors to the priory of Hurley in Berkshire, and the
latter to that of Chicksand in Bedfordshire. See Monast. iii. p. 434, vi.
p- 950.
STEPHEN. 443

great strength, as at Walden and Pleshey! in the neighbour-
ing counties, and was more implicitly obeyed than the king
himself. By this plenitude of power having naturally excited
the jealousy of those more immediately about the king, they
availed themselves of a report that was rife among the people,
that Geoffrey was meditating the delivery of the kingdom to
the countess of Anjou, and thus prevailed on the king to
order his arrest for treason, and demand the surrender of his
castles. Stephen was long reluctant to adopt any measures
against him, lest he should incur the charge of treachery ;
but a quarrel having suddenly arisen between Geoffrey and
certain barons, there were among them some who boldly
accused him of treason ; and when, instead of rebutting the
charge, he treated the whole as a joke, the king no longer
hesitated to arrest him and his followers. This event took
place at St. Alban’s.

Being brought to London in strict custody, the king ordered
him to be hanged, unless he delivered up the Tower and his
other castles. To avoid an ignominious death, Geoffrey
yielded to necessity, and having delivered them, he assembled
around him all his friends and vassals, together with a band
of soldiery and robbers, who flocked to him from all quarters,
and laid waste and plundered the country in every direction,
sparing none who were attached to the king’s party, regard-
less of age or calling, and practising unheard-of cruelties.
Cambridge he took by surprise and delivered up to pillage,
hewing down the church doors with axes; and with like
ferocity destroyed the churches and monasteries, and laid
waste in all the neighbouring country. Having sacked the
abbey of St. Benedict in Ramsey, stript its altars of their
treasures and relics, and expelled the monks, he placed in it
a body of soldiers and turned it into a fortress. On hearing

1 For an account of this celebrated castle in Essex, see Gough's History
of Pleshey.—T.
? TT. Hunt. a. 1143. Gesta Steph. p. 102.
444 STEPHEN.

of these outrages, Stephen marched against him with a strong
force; but Geoffrey eluded him, by betaking himself to the
marshes which abounded in those parts, whence he would
issue to carry on the work of devastation in other quarters.
Finding it impracticable to end this desultory warfare by an
engagement, Stephen, having ordered the erection of for-
tresses in well selected places, and supplied them with troops
sufficient to repress the insurgents, withdrew from the under-
taking, and returned to the administration of public affairs.
After the king’s departure, Geoffrey assembled a numerous
body of malcontents from all parts, and was, moreover, joined
by Hugh Bigot, a man of illustrious birth and great power in
the eastern parts of the kingdom. Following the example
set by Geoffrey of Mannevile, Robert Marmiun, a warlike
baron, who had distinguished himself in Normandy against
the forces of Anjou, also rose against the royal authority, and
transformed the cathedral of Coventry into a fortress. But
both he and Geoffrey, being at length surrounded by the
king’s troops, were slain, the former before the holy structure
which he had desecrated (1144 Aug.), and Geoffrey in the
midst of his followers, each by an arrow from an unknown
hand. Lying under the ban of the Church, to both were
denied the rites of Christian burial’.

The fate of these rebellious barons appears to have served
rather as an incentive than a check to similar attempts by
other adherents of Matilda. In the northern parts the earl
of Chester maintained an incessant warfare against those
barons who were well inclined to Stephen, laying waste their
lands with fire and sword. John fitz Gilbert, who, as we
have seen, had obtained possession of the castle of Marl-
borough, ceased not from oppressing the country around him,
by the erection of forts in well-adapted places, seizing on the
property of the Church, and compelling its ministers to attend

1 Robert de Monte, a.1139. Gesta Stephani, p.104. H. Hunt. a. 1144.
Wil. Newburg. lib. i. c. 12.
STEPHEN. 445

at his castle to pay him tribute. The sons of earl Robert car-
ried on hostilities in the southern parts, plundering the people
and devastating the land; while Stephen of Mannevile (no
doubt a kinsman of Geoffrey), was prosecuting the work of
destruction in the west, where he had repaired many decayed
castles, from which he tyrannized over those who were well
affected to the royal cause. At this time, tov, one William
of Dover!, a bold and skilful soldier and client of the earl of
Gloucester, proceeding to Cricklade, there, in a spot encircled
by water and marshes, erected an inaccessible and impreg-
nable fortress, the garrison of which, consisting of mercenaries
and archers, spread rapine and misery around, subjecting to
their depredations the country on both banks of the Thames,
as far as Oxford and Malmesbury. With the object of re-
lieving his adherents in Malmesbury, Stephen assembled an
army, and succeeded in throwing a considerable supply of
necessaries into the place; then, after ravaging the country
around three forts erected by earl Robert not far from the
town, he fixed his camp at Tetbury, and directed his efforts
to the capture of one of these forts, only three miles distant
from Malmesbury. He had already gained the outer works,
killed and wounded many of the garrison, and was about to
apply his enginery to the inner walls, when the earl of Glou-
cester approached, at the head of a large army raised in the
neighbourhood of Bristol, and consisting besides of ‘many
Welsh and others. These were joined by a strong body
under Roger, the new earl of Hereford, Milo’s son. Seeing
the overwhelming force opposed to him, Stephen yielded to
the advice of his barons, hastily withdrew from his position,
and marched on Winchcombe, where Roger had erected a
fort, which, although of impregnable strength, yet being
abandoned by the greater part of its defenders, who had fled
at Stephen’s approach, he succeeded in carrying by storm,

1 Probably the William Peverel de Dovora mentioned in Rot. magn.
pipe.
446 STEPHEN,

and followed up his suecess by marching against Hugh Bigot,
for the purpose of putting an end to his depredations. In
this undertaking he was equally successful; for taking him
by surprise, he slew or captured the greater number of his
followers, and dispersed the rest.

About this time, a Norman of poor and obscure parentage,
named Turgis!, was tempted to resist the royal authority.
To this man, whom he had overloaded with benefits, and in-
trusted with the most important seerets of state, Stephen had
given the custody of the castle of Walden, together with the
government of the surrounding district, a trust which he
grossly abused, so that when the king, his benefactor, would
enter the castle, he found the gates closed against him, as
Turgis, fearing he might be superseded in his office, held him-
self and followers in strict seclusion, refusing access to all.
But it one day happened that Turgis, for the purpose of par-
taking in the pleasures of the chase, left the castle and, wind-
ing his horn, was joyfully following the hounds, when the king
with a body of soldiers unexpectedly arrived hard by, who,
on being informed that his refractory servant was without
the castle, caused him to be seized and bound, and com-
manded him to be forthwith hanged at the castle gate, if he
demurred to the surrender of his charge. Turgis, after a
short deliberation, preferred the latter alternative?.

While these transactions were in progress in various parts
of the kingdom, the followers of earl Robert, particularly
William of Dover and his men, were carrying an incessant
and sanguinary warfare from Cricklade against the royalists,
now against those whom the king had left to defend Oxford,
now against the garrison of Malmesbury, the commander of
which, named Walter, he captured through an ambuscade,
and delivered into the hands of the empress. At length,

' In the Gesta (p. 110) he is styled “Normannus de Aurentia,” of
Avranches, though the correct Latin of which is Abrince.—T.
* Gesta Steph. p. 110. % Tbid. p. 111.
STEPHEN. 447

stricken with remorse for the miseries he had inflicted on so
many of his fellow creatures, William, in expiation of his
crimes, sought Jerusalem and the holy places, and fell vali-
antly fighting against the foes of Christ. The empress having
now in her power one who was more hateful to her than any
other of her adversaries, at first attempted by blandishments,
then by threats, to prevail on him to deliver up the castle of
Malmesbury. But Walter was not only deaf to her promises
and threats, but alleged that, even if he were disposed to sur-
render the castle, the king’s soldiers would never allow him
to do so. Stephen, on hearing of Walter’s capture immedi-
ately proceeded to Malmesbury, reinforced the garrison, and
supplied it with an abundant stock of provisions. Thus dis-
appointed, Matilda wreaked her vengeance on Walter, whom,
heavily chained, she commanded to be cast into a loathsome
dungeon’.

After William of Dover’s departure from Cricklade, that
place was consigned to the charge of Philip, a son of the
earl of Gloucester. This young man, as bloodthirsty and
tyrannical as his predecessor, carried fire and sword into the
possessions of the adherents of Stephen in every direction.
When Philip found himself in secure possession of Cricklade,
he proposed to his father, the earl of Gloucester, to draw his
forces nearer to Oxford and, by erecting forts around that
city, prevent the partisans of the king from sallying forth.
With this proposal the earl was not slow to comply, and ac-
cordingly erected a strong fort at Faringdon with rampart
and towers, and supplied it with a garrison chosen from the
flower of his army. The garrison at Oxford, finding itself
thus shut up, implored the king, by messengers and letters,
to march to its succour. On learning the state of things
there, Stephen, laying aside all other affairs, hastened to the
relief of his friends, and, at the head of a numerous and for-
midable army, composed chiefly of Londoners, encamped at

1! Gesta Stephani, p. 112.
448 STEPHEN.

Faringdon, where he strongly intrenched himself, within a
rampart strengthened with towers, against any sudden irrup-
tion from the fort. He then erected against the fort engines
of an elaborate construction, posted archers thickly around
it, who cruelly annoyed those within; so that, while on the
one hand stones, or whatever else might be hurled from the
engines, crushed those on whom they fell; on the other, a
deadly shower of arrows, ever flying in their sight, cruelly
harassed them. Sometimes a missile or heavy mass projected
from a distance would throw them into disorder, sometimes a
body of daring youth, mounting on the rampart’s summit,
would engage with the foe in fight, the palisade’ alone sepa-
rating the combatants. At length some of the chiefs among
the besieged sent clandestinely to the king, offering terms of
capitulation, which being accepted, the fortress was delivered .
up. Among the partisans of Matilda great was the consterna-
tion caused by this event, by which not only a large number
of prisoners, arms, and other booty fell into the hands of the
king, enabling him to bestow liberal rewards on his soldiery,
but which struck a terror into his adversaries that was highly
advantageous to him. The earl of Chester, who by force of
arms occupied nearly a third of the kingdom, now humbly
submitted to him at Stamford2, expressing his contrition for
the treachery and cruelty of which he had been guilty towards
his royal master after the battle of Lincoln, and for the vio-
lent seizure of the king’s demesnes (1146). Matters being
thus amicably settled between them, the earl was restored to
favour.

Conjointly with the earl of Chester, Stephen now took the
town of Bedford?, whence they proceeded to the attack of
Wallingford castle, to which the earl brought three hundred
chosen soldiers. Against the town they erected a fort, by

' So I have ventured to render the Lat. pawillus. The passage in the
Gesta (p. 114) is: “ paxillis tantum utrosque dirimentibus.”—T.
2 Sax. Chron. a. 1140. 3 See page 330.
STEPHEN. 449

which the depredations of the garrison were materially
checked’.

Worthier of notice than the return of the earl of Chester
to his allegiance is the transition of Philip, the son of earl
Robert, to the cause of Stephen, after the confirmation of an
agreement concluded between them, according to which he
performed homage to Stephen, receiving from him lands and
castles and numerous presents, so that the ambition and ex-
travagance of the young man were more likely to be satisfied
than under the control of a father growing stricter and more
parsimonious with years. Without mercy the young political
renegade ravaged the possessions of his former friends, and
even those of his father, while his thoughtless arrogance and
violence rendered him extremely burthensome to his new

_ allies.

After the loss of so many men, and so many towns, and
other material means, the chiefs of the Angevin party found
it desirable to think of peace, by which they hoped to gain
more than they had acquired by arms; Reginald of Dunstan-
vile was therefore commissioned to negotiate. Yet on both
sides feelings soon manifested themselves which rendered
every chance of an accommodation hopeless. Philip of Glou-
cester had even had the audacity to capture his uncle Reginald
on his way to the king, in defiance of the royal safe-conduct
which he bore; while the empress, on the other side, would
not renounce the royal dignity in England. The spirit of
hostility, which was with difficulty repressed during the nego-
tiations, burst forth shortly after, and it availed little that
the new crusade, to which the inspiring words of Bernard of
Clairvaux had roused the nations of the West, removed from
England the earls William of Warenne, Waleram and Geof-
frey of Meulan, Philip of Gloucester, with many other young
and warlike knights, in this and the following year?. Their

1 Gesta Steph. p. 115.
2 Tb, p.117. H. Hunt. Joh. Hagust. a.1147. Rob. de Monte, a. 1145.

eg
450 STEPHEN.

deeds in the East this is not the place to celebrate; though
short mention must be made of the glorious crusade under-
taken by Anglo-Norman and Flemish knights against the
Saracens in Portugal.

The Flemish fleet, under count Arnulf of Arschot, had
arrived at Dartmouth! (1147), where, it seems, they joined
the English fleet, then about to sail for Syria, with which,
after being scattered by a violent storm, they reached the
coasts of Galicia and Portugal. To the pressing instances of
king Alphonso, to begin their warfare with the infidels in that
country, they gave ear, and in four months succeeded in res-
cuing from the Mohammedans the even at that time consider-
able city of Lisbon. Long they luxuriated in rich Saracenic
spoil, and not till the following year continued their course
eastwards?.

But, notwithstanding their apparent reconciliation, the earl
of Chester continued to be Stephen’s most dangerous enemy.
It had often excited doubts in the minds of the king and his
friends that the earl always delayed the restoration of the
royal castles and revenues of which he had forcibly possessed
himself, as also the delivery of hostages and securities, which,
under such circumstances, it was, in those times, customary
to require, and which the fickleness of his character rendered
indispensable ; so that when he made the attempt to persuade
the unsuspecting king to undertake an expedition against
Wales, with the view probably of effecting his destruction

1 So I venture to render the “‘ Derchimede” of Dedekin and the “ Tre-
demunde” of Arnulf. See their narrative in P. W. Gerken, Reisen durch
Schwaben, th. iv. pp. 386 sg. Martene and Durand, Collect. ampliss. t. i.
pp. 800 sq.

2 Wilken, Gesch. der Kreuzziige, b. iii. c.12. Chron. Reg. S. Panta-
leonis. H. Hunt. a.1148. Joh. Hagust. a.1149, but which must be cor-
rected to 1148; so Rob. de Monte, where 1148 is throughout to be cor-
rected to 1147, The Auct. Gemblac. has the right date, 1147. A MS.
“ Expeditio Francorum, Anglorum et variarum nationum ad obsidendum
Ulissipona in Portugallia tempore Hildefonsi regis (1147) per Osbernum,”
is cited in Cooper on the Public Records, ii. p. 166.
STEPHEN. 451

amid the valleys and defiles of that not far distant yet strange
and hostile land, the resolve ripened in the breast of the king
to assure himself, at a fitting opportunity, of the person of
Ranulf, as he had formerly of Geoffrey of Mannevile’s. This
opportunity soon presented itself at Northampton; Ranulf
was there arrested and compelled to surrender Lincoln and all
his other usurpations, to give hostages for his future fidelity
to the king, and engage to be content with his earldom and
lawful fief}.

Stephen solemnized the Christmas festival this year at
Lincoln, wearing his crown, into which city, it is said, no
king ever durst enter (such was the current superstition) ;
thereby evincing a strength of mind which makes a deeper
impression on the hearts of the contemporary generation than
a battle won. After his departure thence, Ranulf, burning
with anger, attempted to make himself master of Lincoln,
Coventry, and other places; but in an attack on the first
named city, he lost many of his best men, escaping from death
or capture only by a shameful flight.

The empress, weary at length of these endless wars and of |
a most anxious life, returned to France, in the beginning of
the year 11473, in the hope, however, of inspiring her party
with new zeal, if she introduced upon the scene her son
Henry, now grown up, that he might himself contend for the
crown to which he had rightful pretensions. Gilbert, son of
Richard of Clare, a nephew of the earl of Chester, and one
of his hostages, incensed at the loss of his castles, which, in
consequence of his uncle’s late rebellion, were forfeited to the
crown, was the individual by whom the young prince Henry’s
second crossing over to England was chiefly concerted‘. But

1 Gesta Steph. pp. 115, 121-123. N. Trivet, p. 20, edit. E. H.S.

2H. Hunt. a. 1147. It is remarkable that none of the numerous
charters of Henry I. and the earlier kings, relating to the church of Lin-
coln, are issued in that city. 3 Gervas. a. 1147.

4 Gesta Steph. pp. 125-128. Joh. Hagust. a.1151 (instead of 1147).

Gervas. a. 1146.
Gg2
452 STEPHEN.

Henry’s appearance failed in making the expected impression,
as he was unaccompanied, contrary to the hopes of his friends, .
by any large body of French, and his first undertakings
against Cricklade and Burton fell short of their object. Pecu-
niary embarrassment, too, had so increased at the court of
the empress, that he was reduced to the necessity of applying
for aid to his magnanimous and good-natured rival; nor did
he apply in vain’.

At this time also Stephen introduced his son Eustace on
the theatre of contention. This youth was for valour, affa-
bility, and liberality the exact resemblance of his father.
More fortunate than his young rival, he had succeeded in
taking Lidley and other castles? held by the enemy. To add
to the embarrassment, under which the party of the empress
was suffering, the earl of Gloucester died unexpectedly in the
midst of his exertions to bring all the forces of his party to
bear upon the king. His death was hastened by grief for
the failure of so many plans, and the desertion of faithless
and indifferent friends?.

We have, and his contemporaries also had, a most incon-
trovertible proof of Stephen’s inability to satisfy the difficult
conditions of his life, in the fact that, notwithstanding the
late favourable events, he was unable to recover his sway over
the whole of England. It is also remarkable, that for the
year 1148, with the exception of some uninteresting matter
relating to ecclesiastical affairs, we are without any account
of what took place in England.

! Gesta Stephani, pp. 128, 129.

2 «Castrum quod dicebatur de Silva.’ Gesta Steph. p.130. [The
character here given of Eustace, from the Gesta, is widely different from
what we read of him in the Saxon Chronicle, a.1140, where he is described
as “an evil man, who did more evil than good; he robbed the lands and
laid great imposts on them. He brought his wife to England and put her
in the castle of * * *. A good woman she was, but had little bliss
with him.”—T.]

3 Gesta Steph. p. 132. Joh. Hagust.a.1147. For the bright side of
earl Robert’s character, see W. Malm. pp. 757 sqq. :
STEPHEN. 453

The eyes of Stephen’s adversaries were now directed to-
wards Scotland, whither prince Henry, now a youth of six-
teen, had been sent to conciliate the good will of his great
uncle, king David. He visited the king at Carlisle, where he
was celebrating the Whitsun festival (1149), and was received
with all honour and great cost, wherein the acknowledgment
of his claims was implied: he, at the same time, received the
honour of knighthood at the hands of his great uncle ; David’s
son, prince Henry, and the earl of Chester, both of whom
had renounced their allegiance to Stephen, being his sponsors
on this solemn occasion. Ranulf had surrendered his former
pretensions to Carlisle and received Lancaster as an equiva-
lent, together with the promise that his son should marry a
daughter of prince Henry. By this meeting of his enemies
on the frontier of his kingdom, Stephen was, in the month of
August, summoned to the north, and more particularly
through the prayers and presents of the burghers of York,
who were in great apprehensions of a hostile inroad. Prince
Eustace here received the honour of knighthood from his
father, the cost of the festival on the occasion being defrayed
by bishop Henry. The two youthful princes, full of ambition
and military ardour, now made frequent incursions on the
territory of their rival; but David was compelled to renounce
his plan of attacking the English king, because Ranulf had
failed to appear at Lancaster with the auxiliary troops he
had promised’. Both armies were disbanded before the
winter, as Stephen also found himself too weak to act on the
offensive, and Henry returned to Normandy. In consequence
of the want of pecuniary means, the war now no longer pro-
ceeded with vigour. The city of Worcester was this year
(1150) taken by Stephen, and a considerable part of it burnt;
but the castle held out against him. This city had been
bestowed by the king, to his own detriment, on Waleram
count of Meculan. Loaded with spoil, the royal forces re-

' Joh. Hagust. a. 1150 (1149). H. Hunt, a. 1149.
454 STEPHEN.

turned from this enterprise through the lands of their adver-
saries, whence they also bore off much booty. In the follow-
ing year (1151) the king resumed the siege of the castle of
Worcester, and erected two forts against it, then left it to be
conducted by his nobles. The place was defended by the
brother of the count, Robert earl of Leicester, who succeeded
in demolishing the two forts and causing the siege to be
raised !.

More important for England was that which at this time
took place in France. No sooner had king Lewis VII. re-
turned from the crusade than count Geoffrey hastened to him,
for the purpose of preferring his complaints against Stephen.
He renounced for himself the further government of Nor-
mandy, and the king of France conferred it on his son Henry,
as the rightful heir, reserving, however, the Norman Vexin,
between the Epte and the Andelle, for the crown of France,
an act which soon led to hostilities between the king and the
young duke, whereby prince Eustace found an opportunity of
attaching himself more closely to his brother-in-law, the king
of France, and even of rendering him effectual aid at the
siege of Pont-de-l’Arche?. Hardly was peace restored at a
meeting of the princes there, in which Bernard of Clairvaux
acted as a mediator, to the no small advantage of the appa-
rently compliant but politie Henry, when disease carried off
his father, the stout and practised warrior ; by which event
the county of Anjou and his pretensions to the English crown
devolved on his eldest son. Shortly after, fortune’s favour
brought to duke Henry a new and great accession to his
power. Eleanor, a daughter of William X., count of Poitiers
and duke of Guienne, had since the year 1137 been married
to king Lewis VII. and had borne him two daughters. She
had accompanied him on the crusade, her levities during

1H. Hunt. aa.1150, 1151.

2 Historia Regis Ludovici VII. ap. Bouquet, xiii. p.127. Rob. de Monte,
aa. 1150, 1151.
STEPHEN. 455

which gave rise to dissensions between her and her consort,
which, after a union of fifteen years, led to a sentence of
divorce pronounced at the council of Baugency (1152, March
18th), on the plea of too near consanguinity. Hardly was
Eleanor—who retained Poitou and Guienne—separated from
the king, when her hand was sought by the highest princes
of France. From the importunate suit of the young count
Theobald V. of Blois she was obliged to escape by night, and
in a similar manner from an attempt at abduction by Geoffrey
Plantagenet, second son of the recently deceased count of
Anjou}. More fortunate was his elder brother Henry, on
whom Eleanor, only six weeks after her divorce, bestowed her
hand with her rich possessions (May 18th), thereby making
him master of a half of France. Great were the surprise
and indignation of the French monarch on this occasion, who
was now sensible of the impolicy of his divorce. Nor was
the consternation less which pervaded the court of Stephen,
when it became known how Henry, only a short time before,
the youngest and poorest knight, whose greatest pride was a
successful chase, or an insignificant border war, had at once
become one of the most considerable and powerful princes of
Europe. King Lewis and Eustace now invaded Normandy
at the head of a numerous French army, to whom Henry
offered a stout resistance, yet lost the castle of Neufmarché,
till then regarded as impregnable, which king Lewis gave
over to Hustace?.

While these youthful forms were entering upon the world’s
stage, and the eyes of all were directed towards them, more
and more of those who constituted the historic matter, as it
were, of Stephen’s reign were retiring from it. His brother,
the excellent count Theobald of Blois, had died in the begin-
ning of this year; and a few weeks later (March 3rd) the

1 Chron. Turon. a. 1152.
2 H. Hunt, a. 1151 (1152). Robert de Monte, a. 1152, gives details
of this war.
456 STEPHEN.

no less excellent queen Matilda. Of Stephen's adversaries
there died about the same time prince Henry, son of king
David, a valiant, and in the milder virtues, well-approved
prince, who, in the next year, was followed by his royal
father and, shortly after, by many of the rebellious barons'.
It was a great error on the part of Stephen to alienate the
good will of the Church, and this may be ascribed in a great
degree, if not solely, to his brother Henry, who had exercised
his legatine authority in a very questionable, if not arbitrary,
manner. But his patron Innocent I]. dying (1144) was, in
the short space of two years, succeeded by two popes, one of
whom, Celestine II., at the instance of archbishop Theobald,
deprived Henry of his legatine office. Mortified at his dis-
grace, the bishop prevailed on his brother to forbid the arch-
bishop to assist at the council of Rheims? (1148) ; but Theo-
bald slighted the prohibition, and at his return was driven
into exile. He landed in France, passed over from thence to
Framlingham, where, under the protection of Bigot, earl of
Norfolk, he published a sentence of interdict on all the royal
demesnes, which was forthwith put in execution, when Ste-
phen’s friends, alarmed at the cessation of divine service,
compelled him to seek a reconciliation with the primate?®.
There was, in fact, an internal warfare, which never ceased,
between the secular and the ecclesiastical powers. The in-
troduction of appeals to the pope, which had until then been
_ unknown in England, but which, as papal legate, the bishop
' of Winchester had introduced among the clergy, gave rise to
many dissensions’. After the death of Innocent II., and of
his two short-lived successors (Celestine If. and Lucius IT.),
Eugenius ITI. had followed a hostile policy towards Stephen
1 Joh. Hagust. a.1153 (1152). Rob. de Monte, h. a.
2 On the death of abp. William, the predecessor of Theobald, Henry
had endeavoured to obtain the primacy, but was thwarted by both the
king and queen. Gervas. col. 1348.—T.

3 Gervas. coll. 1348, 1363 sq. 1665.
4H. Hunt. a.1151. W. Malm. p.723.
STEPHEN. 457

and bishop Henry. A new legate, the presbyter cardinal
John, was sent to Ireland (1150), but was by Stephen forbid-
den a free passage into England, unless he engaged that his
mission had for its object nothing prejudicial to the realm.
Some years after, on the return of the legate, the king strove
to make good his former ill-advised step}. He had, in the
meantime, become reconciled with the archbishop of York,
Henry Murdac, who, contrary to his will, had been elected
by the clergy, and consecrated by the pope, and with whom
Eustace had had many quarrels, but which had also been
settled amicably?.

At Midlent, in the following year (1154), a council was
convoked at London, at which the king and his son Eustace
were present. When an overwhelming number of appeals
had been heard, Stephen demanded of the prelates that they
should crown his son. From archbishop Theobald he met
with a refusal, the pope, he asserted, having by his letter
prohibited him from raising the king’s son to the throne,
because Stephen himself, in violation of his oath, had seized —
on the kingdom by force. This letter, it is said, was obtained
of the pope, and brought to England by Thomas, son of Gil-
bert Becket, a priest of London, the future archbishop of
Canterbury, celebrated for his disputes with Henry IT. and
his tragic end. When the king attempted to extort com-
pliance from the prelates by shutting them up in a house, the
archbishop found means to escape, and crossed over to Nor-
mandy. Stephen confiscated their temporalities, but Henry
gained the primate of all England for a declared adherent®.

In this year Stephen succeeded in capturing the castle of
Newbury, and thence proceeded to renew the siege of Wal-
lingford, where, at the end of the bridge at Crowmarsh, he
caused a fort to be erected, to cut off all supplies from the

1 Joh. Hagust. aa. 1152 (1151), 1153 (1152).
2 Ibid. aa. 1147, 1150, 1151.
3-H. Hunt. a. 1152. Gervas. coll, 1369, 1372, 1668.
458 STEPHEN.

garrison, Thus reduced to an extremity, they besought the
duke of Normandy either to send them succour, or consent to
the surrender of the castle to the king?.

After a long contest, a truce was this year (1153) concluded
between king Lewis and Henry, but which the former seemed
disposed to violate. Nevertheless, early in January, Henry
sailed with thirty-six ships and an army, consisting of a hun-
dred and forty horse and three thousand foot, to England.
Shortly after his arrival, his army being greatly increased, he
laid siege to and captured the town of Malmesbury (Jan. 13th),
with the exception of one tower, which could only be reduced
by famine. The defence of this tower had been intrusted by
the king to one Jordan, who hastened to him and announced
the state of things. Stephen hereupon marched to attack the
duke, and the armies met near Malmesbury, where the un-
favourable position of the royal troops, who had the snow,
rain, and wind storming in their faces, while those of the duke
were naturally free from those annoyances, decided the fate of
the day in favour of Henry®. Depressed in spirit Stephen
hurried back to London, and many of the English nobility
began to declare for Henry. Gundred countess of Warwick
expelled the garrison placed by the king in her castle, which
she delivered to the duke3. Robert earl of Leicester supplied
him with everything he needed, and, by his representations,
induced nearly thirty holders of castles to join him+. The
tower of Malmesbury having surrendered, Henry hastened to
the relief of Wallingford, but which he only partially effected.
To prevent the garrison at Crowmarsh from acting on the
offensive, Henry caused a deep trench to be dug round the
fort, whereby those in Wallingford were enabled to open their
gates. On hearing what was taking place, Stephen marched
to the relief of his fort, and both armies again stood in front
of each other; but many of the most distinguished men,

1H. Hunt. a,1152. Gervas. h. a. 2 H. Hunt, a. 1153.
+ Rob. de Monte, h. a. R, Wendov. ii. p. 254. 4 Gervasius, h. a.
STEPHEN. 459

either from the conviction how great and general was the
desire of peace, or, as some supposed, fearing lest Stephen
should be the victor, caused negotiations to be set on foot!.
The leaders themselves held a verbal communication on the
opposite banks of the Thames, standing far distant from their
attendants. Although nothing was on this occasion finally
settled, Eustace, bitterly incensed, left his father’s court and
mercilessly ravaged the neighbourhood of Cambridge and the
monastery of St. Edniund there, when death, the consequence
of violent excitement, suddenly arrested his course (Aug.10th)?.
About this time also died, in a somewhat similar manner,
Simon of Senlis, the young earl of Northampton. Ranulf
earl of Chester, likewise died suddenly, as it was said, by
poison administered to him by William Peverel?. Ranulf had
obtained from Henry a grant of Peverel’s possessions, accord-
ing to a deed issued at Devizes, by which may be seen what a
high price the prince was willing to pay for the sake of
attaching that faithless earl to his interests4. By this docu-
ment Henry confirms to the earl all his possessions in Nor-
mandy, and adds many others; from a viscount he raises him
to be count of Avranches; gives him the. entire inheritance
of Roger count of Poitiers; in England, bestows on him Ely,

1 The prominent part which Lyttelton makes the earl of Arundel act on
this occasion is void of historic foundation. [Gervase (col. 1373) gives a
short speech made by the earl, in favour of peace, which has been ampli-
fied by Lyttelton.—T.]

2 What is here related of Eustace tallies well with the character given of
him in the Saxon Chronicle. (See p. 402, note). Henry of Huntingdon
says of him: “Sepultus est filius regis in abbatia, quam mater ejus funda-
verat, apud Feveresham, militia quidem probatus, sed in ea que Dei sunt
obstinatus, rectoribus ecclesiarum durissimus, persequentibus eam [sic}
devotissimus.” Faversham abbey was the joint foundation of Stephen and
Matilda. Gerv. col. 1372.—T.

8 H. Hunt. Gervasius, h.a. Joh. Sarisb. Polycrat. lib. v.c. 18., viil. 21.

4 The deed in Rymer is erroneously dated 1152, instead of 1153, and
Adrinchin is there written for Abrincensi. For another document of the
duke, of this time, which is interesting on account of the witnesses, in
favour of the abbey of Trouarn, See Monast. Angl. vi. p. 1105.
1460 STEPHEN.

‘the county and town of Stafford, the castle of Nottingham,
and the possessions of certain distinguished knights, wi.ose
names are recited in the document. Besides all this, he
engages to each of six of his vassal barons, to be nominated
by Ranulf himself, a considerable portion of land', from the
lands to be taken from the enemy, to be holden immediately
of him as king. A vassal like this was hardly less powerful
than his sovereign, and more dangerous than a neighbouring
prince, and his death must, without doubt, have been regarded
as a lucky event for the country.

At the head of a well-appointed army the duke now laid
siege to Stamford, of which he speedily gained possession,
and on hearing that the king was besieging the castle of
Ipswich, the possessor of which, Hugh Bigot, had declared
himself in his favour, he hastened to its relief; but learning
that it had already surrendered, he directed his march to
Nottingham, which he captured and stripped of its wealth,
but declined to waste time in attempting to take its naturally
impregnable castle. The town itself was set on fire by the
garrison of the castle?. Hence those to whom the highest
concerns of the country were an object of interest had no
lack of an incentive to an attempt at effecting a peace between
the rival princes, and thereby basing the tranquillity of the
nation on the unity and stability of the supreme authority,
a task rendered comparatively easy by the early death of
Eustace. These mediators were Theobald archbishop of Can-
terbury, and Henry bishop of Winchester. On the 7th No-
vember they had the satisfaction of concluding at Winchester
a treaty of pacification, the chief conditions of which were the
following :—

That Stephen, during his life, should be acknowledged as
king of England by Henry and his barons ; while Henry
should be received as his son and heir by Stephen and his

' « Centum libratas terre.”
- H. Hunt. N.'Trivet, p. 25, edit. KE. H.S,
STEPHEN. 461

subjects.—That Stephen’s son William should perform homage
to the duke, and retain all possessions in England, Normandy,
and elsewhere which Stephen had held before his occupation
of the throne; also all that he had acquired by his marriage
with the heiress of the earl of Warenne, together with the
earldom of Norwich, conferred on him by his father, and the
castles, towns, and landed possessions of Pevensey, with the
feudal superiority over Faramus of Boulogne', Dover, etc.,
which had been given him by Henry. Reciprocal oaths were
sworn by the barons and burghers of both parties to the two
princes. With respect to the numerous castles several provi-
sions were agreed to, having for object the securing of them to
Henry after the death of Stephen. The still unsubdued garri-
son of Wallingford had to swear fealty to the king.—The tower
of London and the castle (mota) of Windsor were committed to
Richard of Lucy, that of Oxford to Roger of Lucy, and the fast-
ness (firmitas) of Lincoln to Jordan of Bussy. All these must
swear to the duke or the archbishop, and give hostages to the
latter for the contingent delivery of the fortresses to Henry.
The bishop of Winchester also gave a contingent assurance to
archbishop Theobald.—The archbishop, bishops, and abbots
of England, by command of the king, swore fealty to the
duke.—If either of the contracting princes should violate the
compact, the archbishops and bishops were by both em-
powered to bind him to its observance by ecclesiastical pe-
nalties.—The mother, wife, and other relations of the duke
guaranteed the observance of the compact.—Stephen further
engaged, in all affairs of state, to act in concert with the
duke’s council, saving his royal rights in all parts of Eng-
land.

Besides these provisions of the compact, which we know
only from a proclamation of Stephen, there were others, it is
said, which he either did not or could not carry into effect.

1 Rymer i. p. 18. “ villam Pevenselli et servitium Faramosi.” See p. 369.
The date of the instrument appears from Rob. de Monte. Bromton, col.
1038,
462 STEPHEN.

Of such were his engagement, that the several castles, which,
since the days of his predecessor, had fallen into illegal hands,
should be restored to their rightful owners; and that all
castles which had been erected since his accession (the num-
ber of which is by some estimated at three hundred and
seventy-five, by others at eleven hundred and fifteen) should
be demolished '.

At the end of November was the solemn day, on which the
king with the duke met together in Winchester, to celebrate
their pacification, when the former adopted the latter, and
declared him heir to the throne, before all the assembled
nobles and people. From Winchester both princes proceeded |
together to London, where, amid new festivities, a solemn
confirmation of their reconciliation took place. Shortly after
the beginning of the following year (1154, Jan. 13th), a nu-
merous assemblage from all parts of the kingdom was convoked
at Oxford, where the usual oath of fealty was taken and homage
performed to the duke, by the chief persons of the realm. At
a subsequent meeting of the two princes at Dunstable, some
misunderstanding arose between them, on account of the delay
in demolishing the castles, according to the compact; for al-
though many had been destroyed, many, through the king's
easy nature or policy, were suffered to remain. But the duke,
when made sensible of the difficulty attending the execution
of a work to which so much powerful opposition was raised,
at length acquiesced in the delay. The consolidation of his
power in Normandy, where many ducal possessions had been
lost to the crown, and were now to be recovered, summoned
him at Easter back to that duchy, whence he was shortly
after called to suppress a rebellion in Guienne. Count Wil-
liam of Boulogne, Stephen’s son, had resolved on accompany-
ing him, but having been thrown from his horse and severely
hurt, was brought to Canterbury and placed under surgical
care.

1 Rob. de Monte. Radulf. de Diceto, col. 528.
2 H. Hunt. Bromton, Chron. col. 1040.
STEPHEN. 463

Stephen now visited the northern provinces, with the object
of restoring tranquillity in those. parts, of demolishing the
illegal fortresses, and to provide for the fillmg up of the
archiepiscopal see of York, that had fallen vacant by the
death of Henry Murdac. This was conferred on a relation
of the king, William, son of earl Herbert'. In the neigh-
bourhood of York, Stephen had to encounter the hostility of
Philip of Colvile, who refused to surrender the castle of Drax,
but which he took and demolished, together with many others? ;
then hastened to London, to assist at a council convened for
Michaelmas, at which final measures were agreed on relative
to the newly nominated archbishop. From London Stephen
proceeded to Canterbury, for the purpose of having an inter-
view with Philip count of Flanders, probably on the subject
of the large number of Flemings in the country, who could no
longer continue in his pay, their dismissal having been already
ordered by a royal decree?, and they themselves being, no
doubt, desirous, after the conclusion of peace, to return to
their country. Of these the most distinguished was William
of Ypres, who, in the preceding year, far advanced in life,
and blind, had retired to Loo, where he enriched the abbey
with English booty*. Stephen here fell sick, and, after a

1 For details concerning this prelate see Alford, Ann. Eccl. Angl. iv.
a. 1143, sq. and from him Lyttelton. [* St. William was a son of earl Her-
bert and Emma, sister of king Stephen, and was canonized cir. 1280. For
his penitent life and edifying death, see Stubbes, Actus Pont. Ebor. col.
1721; Bromton and Gervase ad annum; and Acta SS. Papebrochii, ii. 136,
June 8th.” N. Trivet, Ann. p. 22, Mr. Hog’s note.

Archbishop William died by poison. “ Proditione clericorum suorum,
post perceptionem Eucharistic, infra ablutiones, liquore lethali infectas,
extinctus est.” R. Hoved. a.1154. Wendover’s account differs from the
foregoing : ‘‘cum divina celebraret mysteria, hausto in ipso calice, ut aiunt,
veneno obiit.” ii. p. 272. See Gervas. col. 1375. Stubbes, coll. 1721, 1722.
W. Newburg. i. p. 86.—T.

2 Bromton, col.1373. H. Hunt. a.1154. R. Hoved. h. a.

3 Joh. Hagust. a. 1154 (1153). col. 282. Rad. de Diceto, a.1153. Matt.
Paris, ib.

4 Warnkonig, l.c. p.145.
464 STEPHEN.

short illness, died, after a reign of nineteen years, distin-
guished above all others for its turbulence and numerous —
calamities. His body was buried near to those of his wife
and son, in the abbey founded by him at Faversham’.

William, king Stephen’s second son, continued, until his
death in the year 1160, in possession of the county of Bou-
logne?. Of his daughters, one of whom was married to Hervé
the Breton, the other betrothed to Waleram count of Meulan,
mention has already been made. Another daughter, Maria,
succeeded her brother William in his county, after having
quitted the abbey of Rumsey, of which she was abbess, and
been married to count Matthew, son of Diederik count of
Flanders?.

1 Monast. Angl. iv. pp. 568, sg. [At the dissolution his remains were
disinterred and thrown into the Swale, for the sake of the leaden coffin.—T.]

2 See some charters of his in Monast. Angl. iv. pp. 382, 574.

1 Auctarium Affligemense, a. 1160. Rad. de Diceto, Imagines Historia-
rum, a. 1160. Auctar. Aquicinct. a. 1182. Monast. Angl. ii. p. 507.
1. GENEALOGY OF THE DUKES OF NORMANDY FROM ROLF TO THE YEAR M.LXVI.

Father a powenful Norwegian.

 

i |
Rognvald?,
jarl of Miri.

|

 

I
Ror (Hréurr)4,

b. 846, ob. 932, m. 1. Popa, a
daughter of Berengar5, 2. Gisela,
a daughter of Charles the
Simple 6,
|

I
Le

WILLIAM,
b. at Rouen, ob. 17 Dec. 9429; m. 1.

 

|
|

|
I

Gerloc (Adela).

4
|
|
nm, William Téte d’Etoupe count of
|

j
Guerin’ (Garin®).

465

 

Malahule 2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sprotel0, 2. Leutgardis, daughter of Her- Poitiers 12.
bert count of Vermandois 11.
|
I.
Ricuarp I.
b. 932, ob. 20 Nov. 996 (1002) 18, m.
t. 960 Emma, daughter of Hugh the
Great, ob. after 96814; 2. Gunnor, ob.
1031 15, 22,30 ; 3. several concubines.
3 ‘ 3 3 2 3 2 3 5 3 2 3
. . o. 3. ‘ a. . ae ae 4. . ae l of Toesn: 3,
Godfrey, William, Muriel?!, A daughter. Ricwarp II. Robert, Mauger. Emma, Hadvis, Matilda, A son. A son. Baou y
count of Eu. count of Hies- reg. 996, ob. count of Evreux,989. m. 1, 1002. ob. 1034. ob. 103330, m.
| mes, afterwards 1026, m. 1. Ju- archbp. of Rouen, king Aithelred; _m. Geoffrey Odo II., count of
| of Eu; m. Les- dith of Brittany, ob. 1036. 2.1017k.Cnut. count of Brit- Blois and Cham-
| celline d. of ob. 101816, 22; | She ob. Mar. tany, ob. 1008. pagne, ob.
L Turketil. 2. Papia 16, Raoul of Gassy”5, 1052. 1037.
i
| I I i | i | I | ! | f Toesny?.
Gilbert's, Robert, Wilham, Hugh, l, 1, 13 dl, 1. iF 2 2. Roger of Toesny
count of count of Eu. named Bu- abbot of Adeliza*”, Ricuarp III. Ropert, William, A daughter, A daughter} Mauger, William,
Brionne. sac, count of | Luxeuil. m. Rainald, ob. 1028, be- ob. 22 July, 1035; — a monk at m. count unmarried. | 1036—1055 count of Archies,
| Soissons 26, count of Bur- trothedto Adela, _m. 1. Estrith, a Fécamp, ob. Baldwin IV. archbp. of m. a sister of
| gundy. He ob. daughter of Ro- daughter of king 1025 30, of Flanders, Rouen 24, Guy count of
1057. bert k. of Svend 25; 2. Har- reg. 986— Ponthieu.
| France. lette. ei
i ! =
Richard Baldwin of Moles”, ng, Se | j i | | i Baldwin V. oe ee
of Bienfaitel7,19, viscount of Exeter. William, Guy. Papia22, Alice,  Nicholas?7, 2. reg. 1037— Halbert. Elinand. Raoul IT.
m. Rohais, a ob. 1087. m. Walter m. Ranulf, abbot of St. WinntAm. 1067, m. Adela, * of Toesny
daughter of Wal- i i ale { of St. Valery. viscount of Ouen. ob. gee Table II. daughter of and
ter Giffard, Richard, Robert. William. 3 Daughters. Bayeux. 1092, Robert k. of Conches33.
ob. 1990. ob. 1135. ‘ France. | |
| | Raoul ITT.
7 i i ke j | Matilda, | of Conches.
Gilbert Roger Walter. Robert, A daughter, A daughter, m. 1033. count
of Clare and of Bienfaite. m. a daughter of m. Raoul of William. See
Tonbridge. m. Waltheof earl of Tilliéves. Table II,
a daughter of Huntingdon,
the count of ob. 113331,
Clermont. |
I {
| I | | |
Richard, Gilbert Walter. Rohais. Baldwin
ob, 113628, m. of Clare, surnamed
a daughter of Strongbow, ob.
Raoul viscount 1148. m. Hliza-
of Bayeux. beth, daughter of
| the count of
Gilbert. Meulan.
Richard Strong-
bow.
earliest who call him count | 14 See pp. 30, 31. | cipis. See document in Lan- | 25 See England under the Anglo- H. Hunt. a. 1141. William
1 See p. 7. note 7. of Bayeux. 15 See p. 33. i franci Opp. notar. ad vitam, Saxon kings, ti. p. 217. of Jumiéges (viii. 29) makes
2 Wil. Gemmet. vii. cc. 3, 22. 6 See p. 13. 7 Dudo. 16 See p. 40. p. 39. Comp. Pluquet, ut 26 Wil. Gemmet. viii. 36. .. no mention of Baldwin.
and pp. 3 Roman de Rou, v. 818. 17 Wil. Gemmet. iv. 18, viii. 37. sup. li, p. 235. 27 Monast, Anglic. vi. p. 1063. 30 Chron. S. Stephani Cadom.
3 Tb, v. 10. and p. 38. 9 See p. 24. 18 He founded the abbey of Bec. Pe Access. Roberti de Monte ad Chron, Reg. Franc. ap. Bou- h.a.
4 See p. 15. 10 See p. 21. Her name first oc- Monast. Anglic. vi. p. 1067. | Sigebertum. s quet, |x. p. 303. Roman de 31 Wil. Gemmet. viii. 40.
5 Preepotentis principis Beren- | curs in Will. of Jumiéges, | 19 See Pluquet’s note to Roman 23 Wil. Gemmet. vii. ec. 2, 4. Rou, ». 7447. Guil. Gem- 22 Tb. v. 13, 16. Radulf. Glaber.
garii filia she is styled by | iii. 2. | de Rou, ii, p. 254, Wil. See also p. 45. met, yi. 2. . .. M2. >
Dudo, p. 77., and also by | 1 See p. 25. note 1. Gemmet. viii. 37. | 24 Acta Episcop. Rothomag., ap. ?8 See _p./369. Wil. Gemmet. 33 See Engl. under the Anglo-
Will. of Jumidges, ii. 12. | 12 Wil. Gemmet. iii. 2. 20 See p. 121. | Mabillon, Vet. Annal. ii. p. viii, o¢. 29, 30, 38. : Saxon kings, ii. p, 296,
Orderic and Wace are the | 18 See pp. 21, 32. 21 Murier, soror Richardi prin- | 456. | 29 Rot. Magn. Pipe, 31 Hen. I.
466

Il, POSTERITY OF WILLIAM 'HE CONQUEROR TO KING HENRY THE SECOND.

WILLIAM I.
torn 1027, ob. 7 September 1087.
1053 m. Matil’a, daughter of Baldwin V., count of Flanders.
She ob. 3 Nov. 1083.

 

 

 

 

 

i i i j I i ie 1
Robert, Richard 2. Wiuiiam II. Agatha"? Adelaide®, Henry I. Constance?, Adela, Cecilia9, Gundrada!!,
1. betrothed to Margaret, daughter of Hugh, ob. 2 Aug. 1100. betrothed to a nun. m. 1. Matilda, daughter of Malcolm, king of Scotland, m. Alan Fergant, m. Stephen count of abbess at Caen. m. William of
count of Le Maine4. 2. concubine. 3. 1100. m. Alphonso, king ob. 1118. 2. 1121. Adeliza, daughter of Godfrey of Lou- count of Brittany. Blois. See Tab. ITI. ob. 1126. Warenne. She ob.
Sibylla, daughter of the count of Conversana, of Gallicia. vain, ob. 1151. 3. concubines13. He ob. 1. Dec. 1135. 27 May 1085.
ob. 1102. He ob. 11341, 12.
|
| | I | ! | [ | | | | ! I ! | | | | I |
3. 2. 2. 2. 1. 1. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. oO. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. | 3. 3.
William Clito,  Richard?5, William®. A daughter, William, Matilda,  Robert!4, Henry!’. Richard}8, Reginald of Robert!’. Gilbert'®. William Matilda's, Matilda, Juliana'?, | Eustacia!. Constance. Adeline!®, Hedwig, No name’.
b.1101, count of Flan- — ob. 1100. m. Hélie of — ob.1120. m. (Adelaide) earl of Glou- ob. 1120. Dunstanvilel8. of Tracy, 0b.1120, m. m. Conan ITI. m, Eustace of | m. William mm. Roscelin, m. Matthew daughter of _m. Alexander
ders, ob. 17 July 1128. Saens6. 1119Matilda m.1.1114 — cester. m. Si- ob. 1136. Rotrou II. count of Pacy. of Gouet. viscount of | son of Bure-| Elizabeth, king of Scotland.
Betrothed to Matilda, d. of Fulk, Henry V. bylla, d. of count of Brittany. | Beaumont. hard of Mont: countess of He ob. 1125.
afterwards to Sibylla, countofAn- king of Ger- Robert fitz Perche. ob. ob. 1148. ole I morency, Meulan. 8. p.
daughters of Fulk, c. of jouls. ob. many. 2.1129 Haimonl6. 1143. | William. Roger.
ue 2. - 1127 1130. Geoffrey,count He ob. 31 | i
an. Johanna, daughter of Anjou, ob. Oct. 1147. Philippa’. -
of Regnier, caatqaie of 1150. "She ob. f = Hoe! Wi, Hertha,
Montferrat. 116712. | at, file BT,
| | count of Pen-
| | | | thiévre and
1. 1. 1. | Richmond?21,
Henry II. Geoffrey, William, Hamelin, Noname!® William”, Philip!” Ri thard 9, Matilda,
b. 1133, m. 1152 Hlea- count of ob. 1164. —_m. the coun- ob. 1143. m. Hawise, 1134 bishop m. Ranulf earl
nor, countess of Poi- Nantes, ob. tess of War- daughter of of Bayeux. of Chester.
tiers and Guienne. 1158. enne. the earl of ob. 1142. He ob. 1153.
He ob. 1189. Leicester.
| I Ls Lod.
Robert, Mabel, Amicia, Isabel or Hawise,
ob. before his m. the count wm. Richard of 1189, m. John, earl
father. of Evreux. Clare, earl of of Gloucester, son and
Hertford. successor of Henry IT.
Amauri, earl She ob. 1201. 3
of Gloucester.
Flor. Wigorn. a. cit. 3 Flor. Wigorn. a. 1100. | 6 Ib. p. 681. See p. 306. | 8 Ord. Vital. p. i 10 W. Malm. p. 455. Ord. Vital. 12 Chron. St. Stephani Cadom. h. a. 16 Wil. Gemmet. viii. 29. See 19 Ord. Vital. p, 897. Rob. de

1
2 Wil. Gemmet. lib. vii. c. 9.

 

 

4 See p. 55. Wil. Gemmet. 7 Sax. Chron. a. 1124. Comp. | 9 Wil. Gemmet. viii. 34. W. lib. i. and. p. 573. 13 See pp. 348, 349. Wil. Gemmet. | p. 452.
W. Malm. p. 455. Ord. vill. 2. pp. 326, 334. Ord. Vital. | Malm. p. 455. Ord. Vital. 11 See p. 215, note 2. Ellis Introd. viii. 29. Ord. Vital. p. 810. i
Vital. p. 573. 5 Ord. Vital. pp. 780 sq. p. 838. p. 512. See p. 173. to Domesday, i. p. 506. 14 See p. 345. 15 See p. 326. 18 Ib. p. 68.

17 Gesta Steph. p. 112.

Monte, aa. 1134, 1142.
20 Monast. Anglic. ii. p. 60.
21 See p. 369.
Ill. KING STEPHEN’S FAMILY. 467

ApELA!,
daughter of king William I.
m. 1081 Stephen, count of Blois and Chartres. ob. 1102.

 

 

 

 

1 I saaal 1 I 1 I al 1
Alix, Eleanor, William}, Tarosatp IV1. Henry’, SrepHeEn!, Humbert, Matilda}. 2, Emma,
m. Miles, count m. Raoul I. count m. a daughter of count of Blois, Chartres, and bishop of Win- king of England, ob. 25 Oct. ob. young. m. Richard, earl of m. count Herbert.
of Bray. of Vermandois. Giles of Sully4. Troyes, m. Matilda, daughter chester, ob. 1171. 1154. m. Matilda, daughter Chester. both ob. 1120.
of duke Ingelbert. He of Eustace, count of Boulogne. William,
1 1 T 1 ob. Jan. 1152. She ob. 3 May 1152. abp. of York.
Odo4.  Raher*. A daughter}, Henry‘, ‘ie | ob, 1154.
m. Henry, count 1139 abbot i ~ |
Se-Eu, of Pecan’, Henry’, TuHropatp V3. Stephen’, William 6 daughters, Eustace, William, Maria®, No name, No name,
3 sons and count of count of Blois count of archbp. of m. Constance, count of m. 1160. m. Hervé of betrothed to
1 daughter. Troyes, and Chartres, Sancerre, Rheims. daughter of Lewis VI. Boulogne, Matthew, Leon. ‘Waleram, count
ob, 1180. ob. 119]. ob. 1191. king of France. ob. 1160. son of the count of Meulan.
He ob. 1153. . of Flanders.

She ob. 1182.
|

!
Td Madilda,

 

1 W. Gemmet. lib. viii. c. 34. Rob. de Monte, a, 1139.

2 Ib. c. 38. - See p. 464.

3 Rob. de Monte, a, 1151. T. Stubbes, act. Pont. Ebor.
4

Ord. Vital. pp. 810 sq. col, 1722.

NED or
EMENDATIONS AND ADDITIONS
TO

“A HISTORY OF ENGLAND UNDER THE ANGLO-SAXON KINGS.”

VOLUME I.
Preface, p. xiii. 1. 12. dele chiefly
Lit. Introd. p. xxvii. lL. 28. dele a scholar...... Bangor.

xxxv. 1. 31. after because add in some manuscripts.
xxxvi. 1. 10. dele by a judicial sentence.

18. dele The old. .......... churches.
li. 1.2. for relations of Thurketul read cousins
of thelstan.

P. 2.1.11. for Phocians read Phoceans.
9.n.! dele An appeal..........-. customs.

41.1.9. for Whiterne read Dumbarton.

51. 1.21. after Fenny Stratford read Towcester, Weedon, South
Lilbourne, Atheriston, Gilbert’s Hill (now the Wreken),
Wroxeter, Stretton, Cardigan.

— 1.24. after Cornwall read through Devonshire and Somerset-
shire, by Tetbury, Coventry, Leicester, and Newark, to

Lincoln.
55.1.7. for eastern read north-eastern.
83. 1.15. for which......... to the same, read to express any

whole numbers and a half, they subtract from the fol-
lowing whole number, while in other tongues the half
is added to the number itself, as half four for three and
a half.

90. n.2 1. 1. for two read a, and dele the poem °. . eighth century.

— — 1.4. dele probably corrupt.

93. 1.18. dele The disproportion. ....... to proportion.

99. 1.3. for exists read exist.

—n.t 1.5. for seventy-two read sixty-two.

103. 1.15. for Camel read Camlan,

— 1.21. dele Had the.......... occasion,
470 EMENDATIONS AND ADDITIONS.

P. 106. 1.6. dele though if........ conflicts.

110. 1. 3. for Wiltseetas read Wilseetas.

— 1.8. for already observed read it seems.

114, n.3 after Offa add It seems pretty evident that this genea-
logy, though given as Danish in the Danish chroni-
cles, is that of the Anglian kings of Sleswig, the an-
cestors of the kings of Mercia.

117. 1.20. dele from According to........ to south.

118. dele notes! and 2.

120. 1.1]. for Thornsetas and Wiltsetas, read Dornsetas and
Wilseetas.

128. 1. 16. to election append the following note: When engaged
on the first edition of the present work, I felt strongly
tempted to suppress, or, at least, to modify, a part of
what Dr. Lappenberg had written on the subject of the
Bretwaldaship, but was withheld by the consideration,
that in every question on which opinions are divided, and
more particularly one on which I had myself arrived at
no decision, I had no right either to omit or tamper with
the words of the original: I therefore faithfully translated
them without comment. Since then I have read the ob-
servations of Mr. Hallam and Mr. Kemble on the same
subject, with which in the main I am inclined to coincide.
—(See Archeol. xxxii. p. 245. Hallam, Middle Ages, ii.
p. 350. Kemble, Saxons in England, ii. p. 8.).

The sole source, whence all our information regarding
these paramount kings is derived, is Beda, (H. E. lib. ii. 5.),
who supplies us with a list of seven. The Saxon Chro-
nicle, after copying Beda (a. 827), adds Ecgberht, as an
eighth. The first of them is Aille, who landed in Sussex
from three ships; and, five or six years after, having re-
ceived considerable reinforcements from Germany, crush-
ed the Britons and destroyed their stronghold Anderida ;
in consequence of which success he appears to have ob-
tained a preponderance that either prompted him to as-
sume, or his followers, or the contemporary chieftains, to
confer on him, the title of Brytenwalda, or Bretwalda
(lord over the Britons). Ceawlin, king of Wessex, the
second in the list, obtained the title, according to all pro-
bability, in like manner, by his successes against the Bri-
tons. How Athelberht, king of Kent, the third on the
list, acquired it, history omits to inform us; though Beda
tells us, that he held sway over all the country as far as
the Humber, and might, therefore, well be “ walda,”’ or
es

AT
EMENDATIONS AND ADDITIONS. 471

ruler, over a considerable British population; as the Germanic
state of Mercia was then in its early infancy. Equally unknown
to us is the way in which Redwald, king of East Anglia, obtaia-
ed the title. He possibly assumed it on the defeat of Aithelfrith
of Northumbria, and, if an evidently corrupt passage in Beda
(lib. ii. 5.) may be so interpreted (‘ qui etiam, vivente A:dilbercto,
eidem (eundem?) sue genti ducatum prebebat.”) during the
lifetime of Redwald. The three Northumbrian kings, Eadwine,
Oswald, and Oswiu, either assumed, or had the title of Bryten-
walda conferred on them by their people, as one denoting supre-
macy, without regard to its primitive signification, as is the case
at the present day among ourselves; for who now in an usher
(huissier, from old Fr. huis, door), whether of the black or the
birchen rod, sees a door-keeper? or in a marshal (Ohg. marah,
horse, and scalh, schalk, servant), whether city- or field-, a horse-
boy?! And does not the protestant sovereign of England still
retain the title of Defender of the [Roman catholic] faith, con-
ferred by the pope on Henry VIII., for having written against
the protestant faith? and until recently that of king of France ?
and are there not still kings of Cyprus and Jerusalem? From
the foregoing it will be seen that I do not place implicit confi-
dence in the words of Beda, whose information regarding the
southern states of the “ Heptarchy” was far from perfect, but
rather incline to the supposition, that the title in question was
either assumed by its bearer, or conferred on him by his army
or people, without regard to its primitive import. Whether he
bore the name of Brytenwalda, or Bretwalda, seems doubtful.
Mr. J. M. Kemble (Saxons in England, ii. p. 20.) would ren-
der Brytenwalda by ‘‘ an extensive, powerful king,” deriving its
first component from the verb bredtan, fo distribute, divide; but
this interpretation I think hardly applicable to the case, although
I admit that it seems countenanced by Ethelweard, who, trans-
lating the Saxon Chronicle, renders the word by pollens potestate.
But is bryten, in the sense of extensive, etc. ever found in prose?
I believe not. Against this rendering is also Mr. Kemble’s own
citation from the Codex Diplomaticus (V. pp. 217, 218), viz.
“Ego Athelstanus, Angul-Saxonum necnon et totius Britannic
rex,” which is afterwards expressed in Saxon by “ Ic Aéthelstan,
Ongol-Saxna cyning and brytenwalda ealles Syses iglandes.
Mr. K. (ib. p. 22.) says: “Iam not prepared to admit the proba-
bility of a territorial title, at a time when kings were kings of the
people, not of the land.” But what is “totius Britanniz rex 2”?
not to notice numerous similar instances in the Codex Diploma-
ticus. The word Bretwalda occurs but once (Sax. Chron. a. 827 ss
and Brytenwalda only in the charter of Aithelstan just quoted.

1 The French, in the word maréchal (a farrier), have retained something
of the primitive signification.
472 | EMENDATIONS AND ADDITIONS.

P. 135. 1.15. for nevertheless read indeed.

154. 1. 13. for brother read step-father.

155. 1. 14. for brother read kinsman.

— n2 for 22 read 20.

157. u.1 for iii. 2. read iii. 1.

159. 1.27. dele Though....... Gewissas.

160. 1. 16. dele the northern boundary of Wessex.

161. 1. 7. for that kingdom read England.

— 1.11. for his landing read reaching Wessex.

169. 1 22. for the king of Kent read Eadwine.

178. 1. 9. dele under their king Birdei.

185. 1. 16. for his adherents read ‘Abbe, the sister of king Oswiu,
and abbess of Coldingham.

189. 1. 4. for English clergy read agents of the archbishop.

— 1. 27. after year, add at Oundle in Northamptonshire.

191.1. 22. after Saxons add with the sole exception, perhaps, of
the church of St. Martin, near ee

192. 1. 23. for former read latter.

199. n.' add at the end [Perhaps the sense might be made
clearer by altering the punctuation, thus: semper
decimam mansionem ; ubi minimum sit, tamen, etc.
always the tenth manse ; where it [the possession] is
very small, still the tenth part, ete.

206. 1. 9. dele the.

219. n. 5. after 320 add and Thorpe’s Beowulf, p. 217.

221. 1.24. for the British .... Bretwaldaship read a supremacy
over them.

225. 1.13. dele in Oxfordshire.

228, n. 1.11. dele Higelac (Icel.) all.

231. 1. 2. for this side read the English side.

241. 1.4. deleas......... recorded.

252. 1. 4. after Bampton read in Devonshire.

286. 1.15. wader Cwichelm add Cuthred ob. 661.

291. 1.14. dele Mercelin.

VOLUME II.
P. 4. 1.6. dele and jealousy........ successors.
6. 1.7. deleandwe....... Wessex.
7. 1.12. after monarch add Wiglaf was succeeded by Beorht-

wulf, who, after a reign of thirteen years, was driven
beyond sea by the Northern pirates.
EMENDATIONS AND ADDITIONS. * 473

P. 7, 1.12. add note 2. Flor. Wigorn. a. 838. W. Malm. p. 133.
14. 117. dele Even.......... of England.
19, 1. 7. note 1 dele see vol. i. p. 218.
39. 1. 23. for principal read middle.
41. 1. 20. after Winburne add: Having died in warfare with
pagans, the Catholic Church has enrolled him among

her martyrs.
69. 1.6. for the read a great.
84. 1.25. deleNo........, oppressed.
— 1. 30. dele and they....... tithes.

94. 1.17. for Britons read Bretons.
eh | for Eithelweard read Hlfweard.

101.1.25.

106. 1. 11. after mistake add of Guthorm in Denmark.

112. note '. for Athelthryth, read Cynethryth.

116. 1. 21. dele by the fair Hewa.

117. 1. 6. for -second read -seventh.

142. 1.4. dele already.

156. 1. 16. for Zthelstan read Athelred.

179. 1.9. deleIt.......... people. and dele note '.

187. 1.6. delebut....... martyrs.

189. note?. 1. 4. for Burton read Bampton.

190. 1. 25. after Arewe read Orwell, and dele note 4.

210. 1.17. after you read like dogs.

218. 1.9. for Alan read him.

222. dele note 2.

238. dele note '.

242, 1.2. for Bidrn read Sweyn.

246. 1.19. after of add a noble lady named.

250. 1. 12. dele younger, and after brother add Leofwine.

302. 1.12. after foundations add On receiving intelligence of Ha-
rold’s fall, the earls Eadwine and Morkere proceeded
to London, and sent their sister, queen Ealdgyth, to
Chester.

— — add note'. Fl. Wigorn. a. 1066.
— — note+ 1.3. dele For.......... wite of Harold.

369. 1.18. for Zthelweard read Ailfweard.

THE END.
PUBLICATIONS BY THE SAME EDITOR.

A HISTORY OF ENGLAND UNDER THE ANGLO-SAXON
KINGS, from the German of Dr. J. M. LappENBERG, with additions
and corrections. 2 vols. 8vo. Pub. £1. 1s. Reduced to 12s.

THE ANGLO-SAXON POEMS OF BEOWULF, THE. Scop
or GLEEMAN’S TALE, and the FIGHT AT FINNESBURG, with
an English Translation, Notes, Glossary, etc. 15s. cloth.

ANALECTA ANGLO-SAXONICA. A selection in prose and
verse from Anglo-Saxon Authors, with a Glossary. Designed chiefly
as a first book for Students. Pub. 12s. Reduced to 8s.

THE ANGLO-SAXON VERSION of the HOLY GOSPELS,
edited from the original MSS. Pub. 12s. Reduced to 8s.

THE ANGLO-SAXON VERSION of the STORY OF APOLLO-
NIUS OF TYRE, from a MS. in the Library of C. C. Coll. Camb.
upon which is founded the Play of Pericles, ascribed to Shakspeare,

with a literal translation, ete. Pub. 5s. Reduced to 3s.
C3