Part 2 of 9
NOTE PP. p. 544. The Submission at Berkhampstead
172. See vol. i. 278. Cf. ii. 272, 273.
173. The first Count Baldwin married Judith, daughter of Charles the Bald, widow of our Æthelwulf; Baldwin the Second married Ælfthryth, daughter of Ælfred; Arnulf the Old married Adela of the Carolingian house of Vermandois; his son Baldwin married Matilda, daughter of King Conrad of Burgundy; Arnulf the Young married Susanna, daughter of King Berengar of Italy; but the mother of the reigning Count, though of princely, was not of royal birth. William of Poitiers (90) is therefore justified when he says that Baldwin “à Regibus Galliæ atque Germaniæ natales deducebat;” but I cannot follow him when he goes on to add, “nobilitatis etiam Constantinopolitanæ lineam attingentes.”
174. Will. Pict. 90. “Stupuerunt mirantes eum Comites, Marchiones, Duces, tum Archipræsulum alta dignitas, si quando præsentiam ejus, rari hospitis, Imperatoria cura promeruit ... nomine siquidem Romani Imperii miles fuit, re decus et gloria summa consiliorum in summâ necessitudine. Reges quoque magnitudinem ejus et venerati sunt et veriti.”
175. In the Annales Blandinienses and Formoselenses (Pertz, v. 26, 36), the Count of Flanders appears as “Balduinus potentissimus,” “potentissimus Marchisus.”
176. Will. Pict. 90. “Vigebat eo tempore Teutonibus collimitans ac Francis, eminensque potentiâ, præcipuus eorum, Flandrensis Marchio Baldwinus.”
177. The Free Cities of Germany obtained a higher degree of independence than those of Flanders, and those of them which became members of the Swiss League of course became more independent still. Yet, except the Hanseatic towns, none of them rested their greatness so purely on commerce as the Flemish cities, and the Flemish cities were distinctly more democratic in their spirit than any others. Ghent is something quite different either from the Teutonic Rome at Bern or from the Teutonic Carthage at Lübeck.
178. See vol. i. p. 227. Cf. 548.
179. In the Chronicle of Lambert of Saint Omer, 1067 (Pertz, v. 66) he is distinguished as “Baldwinus Comes Insulanus” from his son “Baldwinus Montensis.” So in the Continuation of Sigebert, vi. 433.
181. See vol. ii. p. 97 et seqq.
182. See the passage quoted in vol. ii. p. 99.
183. He rebelled again in 1054 (Herm. Cont. in anno, Pertz, v. 133. Bernold, ib. 427). On the War, see Annales Elnonenses Majores (Pertz, v. 13). The reconciliation by the agency of Pope Victor is asserted in the Chronicles of Sigebert (Pertz, vi. 360) and Ekkehard (vi. 198); on the terms see Art de Vérifier les Dates, iii. 4.
184. See vol. i. pp. 519, 562. I shall have to speak of this marriage again.
185. See Will. Pict. 90, and below, § 3.
186. On their history see Lambert, 1071 (Pertz, v. 181). Will. Malms. iii. 256; iv. 373.
187. See vol. ii. p. 134, and Appendix N.
188. “Corpore valdè elegantem animoque liberalem,” says William of Jumièges (vii. 21). So Wace, who wrongly calls her mother Constance (9640–9642); “Mahelt out non, mult bele è gente.” William of Poitiers attributes her excellences to the good training which she had received from her mother Adela; “Enutrierat autem prudens et sancta mater in filiâ quod muneribus paternis multuplo præponderaret.” He then goes on to extol the royal family of France, to which he is not always so loyal, and he commits the blunder of calling Robert “filius et nepos Regum.”
190. On this discovery of Mr. Stapleton and on other points connected with the marriage, see Appendix N.
191. William of Poitiers indeed would almost make one think that Baldwin set off with his daughter to meet William as soon as he heard that William wanted a wife, and that they were married without more ado. William of Jumièges (vii. 21) seems to make the marriage follow immediately on the embassy, though he afterwards mentions the objections made on the ground of kindred, on which William of Poitiers holds his peace.
192. See the tale in the Continuator of Wace, ap. Ellis, ii. 55. The only groundwork for the story seems to be the fact that Matilda held certain lands which had belonged to a Brihtric—there were several of the name.
193. Ord. Vit. 522 A, 598 A. His description is “Gherbodus Flandrensis.”
194. See Ellis, i. 507. The inscription beginning “Stirps Gundrada Ducum,” has often been copied, and has no doubt misled many. The “Duces” are of course the Counts of Flanders, not those of Normandy.
195. She is assumed to be such even by Sir Francis Palgrave (iii. 254), after the appearance of Mr. Stapleton’s paper.
196. See Appendix N.
197. Her parents, Baldwin and Adela, were married about 1027. See Appendix N.
201. Ann. Divionenses, ap. Pertz, v. 41. Labbé, Concilia, xi. 1407 et seqq. Chron. of Auxerre, ap. Labbé, Biblioth. i. 293.
202. Labbé, Concilia, xi. 1412. The two canons run; “xi. Ne quis incestuosæ conjunctioni se copularet. xii. Ne quis, legitimâ uxore derelictâ, aliam duceret.” Presently comes the passage quoted by Mr. Stapleton; “Excommunicavit etiam Comites Engelrannum et Eustachium propter incestum, et Hugonem de Brainâ, qui legitimam uxorem dimiserat et aliam sibi in matrimonio sociaverat. Interdixit et Balduino Comiti Flandrensi ne filiam suam Willelmo Nortmanno nuptui daret, et illi ne eam acciperet. Vocavit etiam Comitem Tetbaldum, quoniam suam dimiserat uxorem.” I do not know what were the offences of Ingelram (who was not yet Count) or of Eustace. Theobald had put away Gersendis, daughter of Herbert Wake-the-Dog of Maine, of whom we shall hear more anon. In the Art de Vérifier les Dates, ii. 615, Theobald’s wife Gersendis seems to be confounded with his sister the wife of Hugh son of Herbert.
203. See Appendix N.
204. The whole story is given in the hexameters of William of Apulia, Muratori, v. 259 et seqq. Cf. Milman, iii. 35 et seqq.
205. William’s lines on the stature of the Germans are well known as being quoted by Gibbon (x. 257 ed. Milman). His description of their swords and manner of fighting is less familiar, and is worth quoting, as showing how much the Teutonic warfare was the same everywhere (p. 260, C, D);
This exactly describes an English army before Cnut introduced the axe instead of the sword (see vol. i. pp. 300, 430, 577), and the implied panegyric of William is the parallel of the implied panegyric of Guy of Amiens. See vol. ii. p. 128.
206. See vol. i. p. 171. So Will. App. 261 D;
Compare the wild account of Robert Wiscard in Benedict of Peterborough (ii. 200 Stubbs), where he is transferred to the reign of Henry the First.
208. On the Counts of Eu, see below, p. 117.
209. Thirty-six years if we count from the death of William’s grandmother Judith in 1017; twenty-seven if we count from the death of Richard the Good in 1026. The question turns on the position of Richard’s second wife Papia. See vol. ii. p. 181.
211. Will. Malms. iii. 267. “Ferunt quidam esse arcanam depositionis caussam; Matildem, quam Willelmus acceperat, proximam sibi sanguine fuisse. Id, Christianæ fidei zelo, Malgerium non tulisse, ut consanguineo cubili fruerentur, sed in nepotem et comparem excommunicationis jaculum intentâsse.”
212. William, or Orderic, in the death-bed narrative (657 B), puts the two together; “Non multò post alia mihi gravissima adversitas oborta est. Patrui namque mei, Malgerius Rothomagensis Archiepiscopus et Guillelmus frater ejus ... me velut nothum contempserunt,” etc.
213. See the passage of William of Malmesbury just cited.
214. Will. Malms. iii. 267. “Is erat litteris quidem non mediocriter cultus.” This is admitted even by William of Poitiers, 116; “Scripturarum arcana intelligentiæ literalis oculo colligere non indoctus fuit.”
215. Ib. “Pro natalium conscientiâ professionis oblitus, venationibus et avium certaminibus sæpiùs justo intendebat.”
216. Ib. “Gazas ecclesiasticas conviviis profusioribus insumebat.” So Will. Pict. 116; “Mensas equidem nimiùm sufficientes, nimiùm nitidas, præbere.”
217. Will. Pict. 116. “Quam pietas plurimorum ornando ditavit, ille spoliando attenuavit ecclesiam; non sponsus ejus vel pater dicendus, sed gravissimus dominus vel rapacissimus prædo.... Largiendo laudem emere amabat, specie liberalitatis prodigus.... Nec enim modum posuit largitioni donec sedes metropolitana omni fere ornamento caruit et thesauro.”
218. Ord. Vit. 566 D. Michael was, when Orderic wrote, an old man in great honour with Henry the First. He was “probus miles et legitimus.” Wace (9707) gives him several children, and seems to make them born after his deposition. Michael is “hom mult énorez, Michiel de Baines [al. Bayeux] apelez.”
219. Will. Pict. 116. “Sæpenumero monitus atque castigatus privatim atque publicè domini sui, juvenis et laici, sapiente diligentia.” So Will. Malms. iii. 267; “Crebrò conventus, expostulante nepote patruelis [patrui?] offensas.”
220. Ib. “Sequuntur multoties largitionem rapinæ. Præterea molestus infamiæ ejus odor diffundebatur ob alia crimina. Sed a ratione alienum ducimus in vitiis publicandis immorari,” etc.
221. Ib. “Pallio numquam est insignitus quod ... manus Romani Pontificis, mittere [?] solita, ei denegavit ut minus idoneo.” So Will. Malms. u. s.
222. Ib. 117. “Apostolici mandato sæpiùs ad Romanum concilium accitus, renuit ire.” William is just now very zealous for the Holy See, quite unlike the Gallicanism of Rudolf Glaber. See vol. ii. p. 275.
223. Ib. “Sane pigebat Rotomagum, pigebat cunctam Normanniam, archipræsulis.”
224. Will. Malms. iii. 267. “Quum iræ adolescentis uxoriæ querelæ accederent, excogitatas occasiones quibus persequutor peccati sede pelleretur.” It is clear that Malger had partizans.
225. William of Poitiers (117) does not name the Legate. He says only “Princeps ... deposuit patruum in publico sanctæ synodi, Apostolici vicario cunctisque Normanniæ episcopis, juxta canonum auctoritatem, sententiam dantibus unanimi consensus.” The List in Mabillon (Analecta, ii. 439) names Ermenfred (see vol. ii. p. 461), and mentions the place, Lisieux. William of Jumièges (vii. 24) makes Malger resign his see; “Eo tempore Malgerius Archipræsul Rotomagensis desipere cœpit, et insipientiâ ductus Archipræsulatum Duci reddidit.” The strong regale, or rather ducale, of all our accounts should be noticed. See vol. ii. p. 209.
226. William of Poitiers does not mention the banishment of Malger, but it is spoken of by most of our other authorities. Will. Gem. vii. 24. “Dux autem Malgerium in insulâ quæ dicitur Ghernervia retrusit.” The list in Mabillon (ii. 439) says, “Dedit postea illi quamdam insulam in Constantiniensi pago in mari sitam.” Roman de Rou, 9703;
On the “Isles of the Côtentin” see vol. i. p. 211 et seqq.
227. Mabillon, u. s. “In quâ [insulâ] pluribus annis, non quidem ut decuit, vixit.” Wace, as a Jersey man, is much fuller on this part of the story.
228. Roman de Rou, 9714 et seqq. He has “un deable privé” called Toret or Toreit, who was always at his beck and call. What is Toret? Pluquet makes it a diminutive from Thor. Sir F. Palgrave (iii. 276, 277) speaks of French antiquaries “who discover in the name Thoreit the exclamation Thor-aie, an invocation of Thor the Hammerer.” Pluquet at least does not. (On Thor-aie see vol. ii. p. 257.) Sir Francis goes on, “But the vocable is pure hoch deutsch, and however gained or bestowed, simply signifies Folly.” Of two improbable explanations Pluquet’s seems to me the less improbable. See Mr. Thorpe’s amazing note to Lappenberg, Norman Kings, p. 86, where he mixes up Malger’s familiar spirit with Ralph of Tesson’s war-cry. See vol. ii. p. 257, and Taylor’s Wace, p. 20.
229. Histoire des Archevesques de Rouen (Rouen, 1667), p. 253. The author, a Benedictine father, is disposed to let Malger off more easily than most people.
230. Mabillon, ii. 439. “Postea verò, quo autem divino judicio ignoratur, in mari submersus est.” Wace tells the story at length, 9727 et seqq. But there must, as Prevost says, be some mistake in the name Winçant, which suggests the Picard Witsand rather than any haven of the Côtentin.
231. See vol. i. p. 170. Will. Malms. iii. 246. “Omnium gentium benignissimi advenas æquali secum honore colunt.”
232. Mabillon, ii. 439. “Nobili prosapiâ ex Remensi pago exortus, et in ejusdem civitatis ecclesiâ educatus, inde in Leodicensi ecclesiâ omni liberalium artium peritiâ imbutus.” Orderic (567 C) calls him “genere Maguntinus.” He must have confounded the birthplace of Maurilius with the place of his preferment, Halberstadt being, at all events, in the province of Mainz.
233. Mabillon, ii. 440. “Halverstatensis [mark the Low-Dutch form] ecclesiæ Scholasticus effectus est, qui locus in Saxoniâ ditissimus habetur.” On the office of the Scholasticus, compare Adelard at Waltham, vol. ii. p. 443.
234. This first profession at Fécamp rests on the authority of the list in Mabillon. Orderic (u. s.) mentions only his second sojourn there. But does not a profession at Fécamp under the Italian Abbot William form a kind of transition between Halberstadt and the Italian hermitage?
235. I reserve some notice of the history of Fécamp (see vol. i. p. 218), and of the connexion of the monastery with England, for a more appropriate place in the fourth volume.
236. The profession of Maurilius at Fécamp would naturally come within the time of Abbot William, 1001–1031. After so varied a career, we can hardly fancy him less than fifty at the time of his appointment to the Archbishoprick, and we want several years for each of his metamorphoses between Halberstadt and Rouen. His first sojourn at Fécamp, his hermit life, his Abbacy at Florence, his second sojourn at Fécamp, might well take up twenty-four years among them.
238. Mabillon, ii. 440. “Eremi cultor solitariam vitam ducens opere manuum vixit.”
239. Mabillon, u. s. So Ord. Vit. 567 C, who adds a characteristic Italian trait; “In urbe Florentiâ monachili cœnobio Abbatis jure præfuit, et exosus transgressoribus pro rigore disciplinæ venenum in potu sibi propinato deprehendit.”
240. Ord. Vit. u. s. “Tempore Johannis Abbatis compatriotæ sui Fiscannum venit.” But the local accounts make John a Lombard. Orderic might have assumed that an Abbot at Florence must be an Italian, but how could this be reconciled with his description of Maurilius as “Maguntinus”? Cf. Neustria Pia, 223.
241. Bessin, 47–49. Pommeraye, 71. Mabillon, ii. 441. “Adstante Willelmo Normannorum Duce, postea Anglorum Rege, cum omnibus suffraganeis suis, concilium in Rothomagensi ecclesiâ de castitate conservandâ et cæteris sanctorum patrum institutionibus, pastorum incuriâ negligenter postpositis, viriliter restituendis religiose celebravit.” Everything bears witness alike to the ecclesiastical supremacy of the Norman Dukes and of the personal zeal of William in all ecclesiastical matters.
243. See vol. ii. pp. 213, 214.
244. Vit. Lanfr. ap. Giles, i. 287. “Ad administranda quoque totius patriæ negotia summus ab ipso Normannorum Duce Willelmo consiliarius assumitur.” Allowing for the natural exaggeration of a panegyrist, there seems enough to imply a very close relation between William and Lanfranc. See vol. ii. p. 227.
245. Vit. Lanfr. i. 288. “Hujus tam improvidæ jussionis caussam agunt, quod idem Lanfrancus contradicebat nuptiis filiæ Comitis Flandriæ, quam ipse sibi Dux copulaverat in matrimonio, quia proximâ carnis consanguinitate jungebatur.” So Chron. Becc. 198.
246. Ib. “Unde auctoritate Romani Papæ tota Neustria fuerat ab officio Christianitatis suspensa et interdicta.” So Chron. Becc. u. s. Wace (9659) makes Malger pronounce the interdict;
249. Vit. Lanfr. 287. “Quorumdam etiam accusationibus delatorum Dux in eo vehementer amaricatus.”
250. See vol. ii. pp. 218, 236.
251. Vit. Lanfr. 287. “Mandat ut monasterio exturbetur, patriâ discedat, Lanfrancus. Nec motus animi sui hâc vindictâ sedare valens, mandavit juris monasterii villam, quæ Parcus dicitur, flammis excidi.” On the word Park, see Earle, Parallel Chronicles, p. 323.
252. In the story in Lanfranc’s Life (287 Giles), the banished Prior sets out on a horse which went on three legs, because the house had none that was better (“quia melior non habebatur, tripes equus quarto pede inutili illi tribuitur”), and accompanied by one servant. He meets the Duke; “Protinus quà ille discedebat Duci obvius venienti appropinquans.” The meeting may have been accidental, or Lanfranc may have gone by a way where he was likely to meet William, but I cannot think, with Dr. Hook (ii. 93), that “Lanfranc directed his steps to Rouen, where he probably had been summoned to appear before the duke.” The lame horse—the narrator quite enters into the joke—bows its head, and his rider salutes the Prince; “Equo per singulos passus caput ad terram submittente, dominum salutat.” William at first turns away, but presently listens. Lanfranc begins with a joke; he is obeying William by going out of his dominions as fast as he could; he would go faster, if the Duke would give him a better horse. William laughs, and asks whether any criminal before had ever ventured to ask a present of his judge. The Duke is fairly won over, Lanfranc makes his speech, and all is soon settled.
253. Vit. Lanfr. 287. “Gratissimi mox succedunt amplexus et oscula.”
254. Vit. Lanfr. 287. “Multo etiam cum augmento restituenda promittuntur quæ Dux nuperrimè devastari jusserat.”
255. See this point discussed by Dr. Hook, ii. 94. A quite different account of the reconciliation of Lanfranc to the Duke, or rather of his first introduction to him, is given in two passages of William of Malmesbury, De Gest. Pont. 116 b and 136, one in the Life of Lanfranc himself, the other in that of Herfast, afterwards Bishop of Thetford. William’s Chaplains excite him against Lanfranc, because he had mocked the ignorance of one of their number. The Duke orders him to leave Normandy, but he goes to Court, obtains an interview with the Duke, and speedily wins his favour. In the second account it appears that the Chaplain mocked at was Herfast himself, who came to Lanfranc’s school with great pomp. Lanfranc then makes a mock of his ignorance; “Ex primâ colloquutione intelligens quàm prope nihil sciret, abecedarium ipsi expediendum apposuit, ferociam hominis Italicâ facetiâ illudens.” The order for banishment then follows. Lanfranc, somewhat oddly, goes to court to ask for provisions for his journey (“Quum ad curiam commeatum petiturus venisset”). Then comes the story of the lame horse, and the Duke is won over to Lanfranc, mainly through the intercession of William Fitz-Osbern. There is no mention of Lanfranc’s opposition to the marriage.
This story about the Chaplain may be true; but it can hardly be doubted, first that Lanfranc was already known to the Duke, secondly that the main ground of offence was the opposition to the marriage.
256. Vit. Lanfr. 289. “Lanfrancus ... Romam venerat ... ut ageret pro Duce Normannorum et uxore ejus apud Apostolicum.”
260. He however retracted back again. Vit. Lanfr. 289. See Milman, iii. 51.
261. See vol. ii. pp. 116, 227.
262. Vit. Lanfr. 289. “Nam Dux puellam [Gerbod is, as usual, forgotten] quam acceperat nullo pacto dimittere vellet.”
263. Ib. “Loquutus cum Papâ Nicolao ostendit quia ejus sententia illos tantùm gravabat, qui eos nec conjunxerant nec separare poterant.”
264. Will. Gem. vii. 26. “Willelmus Dux, dum à quibusdam religiosis [no mention of Lanfranc personally] sæpiùs redargueretur, eò quod cognatam suam sibi in matrimonium copulâsset, missis legatis, Romanum Papam super hâc re consuluit. At ille sagaciter considerans quòd, si divortium fieri juberet, fortè inter Flandrenses et Normannos grave bellum exsurgeret, maritum et conjugem à reatu absolvit.” Vit. Lanfr. 289. “Hoc audiens et verum esse advertens summus Pontifex, dispensatione habitâ, conjugium concessit.”
265. Will. Gem. u.s. “Eis pœnitentiam injunxit. Mandavit enim, ut ab eis duo cœnobia conderentur, in quibus pro ipsis ab utroque sexu Deo sedulò preces offerentur.” Vit. Lanfr. 289. “Eo tamen modo quatenùs Dux et uxor ejus duo monasteria construerent, in quibus singulas congregationes virorum ac mulierum coadunarent, qui ibi sub normâ sanctæ relligionis, die noctuque Deo deservirent et pro salute eorum supplicarent.” William of Malmesbury (iii. 267) would almost seem to have looked on the foundations as a voluntary expiation, like the pilgrimage of Swegen; “Postmodùm, provectioribus annis, pro expiatione sceleris, illum sancto Stephano Cadomis monasterium ædificâsse, illam beatæ Trinitati in eodem vico idem fecisse, utroque pro sexu suo personas habitantium eligente.”
On the history of Saint Stephen’s, I must refer to two excellent local works, “L’Abbaye de Saint-Etienne de Caen, par C. Hippeau,” Caen, 1855 (M. Hippeau is also known as the editor of the first complete edition of Garnier’s Life of Saint Thomas), and “Analyse Architecturale de l’Abbaye de Saint-Etienne de Caen, par G. Bouet,” Caen, 1867, a book distinguished by the writer’s characteristic caution and minute accuracy.
266. Roman de Rou, 9665;
On the blind hospital at Caen, see Hippeau, p. 4. Were persons admissible whose eyes had been put out by the Duke’s own authority?
267. In William’s charter of 1066 (Gallia Christiana, xi. 59–61. I have to thank M. Châtel, the Archivist of the Department of Calvados, for the reference), he distinctly says that “honestissima conjux mea Mathildis, nobilissimi Ducis Flandrensis Balduini filiam ... construxit basilicam,” and goes on to record its consecration on June 18th. The charter in Neustria Pia, 658–661, is of 1082. He there says “ecclesiam ... coædificavimus.” Either it was still unfinished, or the nave has been rebuilt. It is only the eastern part which can be Matilda’s work.
268. This was the great year of consecrations in Normandy. See vol. ii. pp. 212, 222. The consecration of Saint Stephen’s is distinctly placed in this year by Orderic, 548 D. At Bec Lanfranc himself officiated (Will. Gem. vi. 9), but at Caen the ceremony was performed by the Metropolitan John. I gather from what goes before in Orderic that William was present at Caen, though he was not at Bec. But the Chronicle of Saint Stephen itself (Duchèsne, 1018) places the ceremony in 1073. Other dates given are 1081 and 1086 (see Neustria Pia, 625, Bouet, 15, 16). One cannot doubt that 1077 is right date for the main consecration, and that the other dates, if correct, refer to some smaller ceremony. The western towers (of course not the upper portions) must have been added soon after the church was finished. Their style is that of the church, and the masonry shows that they were designed from the first, though not built at the same time as the nave. This would quite agree with the date of 1086. For the consecration of a steeple see vol. ii. p. 437.
269. See vol. ii. p. 222, and the verse of Abbot Baldwin in Duchèsne, Rer. Franc. ii. 257; “Qui Dux Normannis, qui Cæsar præfuit Anglis.”
270. Allowing, of course, for the reconstruction of the clerestory and the addition of the vault.
272. Will. Gem. vi 9. “Tam domini quam Normanniæ primatum supplicatione coactus.” I accept Orderic’s date, but the Chronicle of Bec (Giles, 197) places the appointment in 1062.
273. Chron. Bec, 197 Giles.
274. Will. Malms. iii. 273. “Tulit ex Matilde liberos multos, quæ, et marito morigera et prole fecunda, nobilis viri animum in sui amoris incitabat aculeum.” He then goes on with the story of the bridle (see Appendix N) and the account of the difference about Robert and of William’s grief at her death.
275. On William’s children see Appendix O.
276. Chron. Petrib. 1135.
277. See Appendix O.
278. Monstrelet, i. 324 b (ed. Paris 1595). “Vous charge,” says Henry the Fifth, “sur tant que vous povez mesprendre, que tant que vous vivrez, ne souffrez à faire traicté avecques nostre adversaire Charles de Vallois, ne autres pour chose qu’il advienne, que la Duché de Normandie ne luy [to his son] demeure franchement.”
279. Phil. Comines, i. 15 (vol. i. p. 71, ed. Godefroy 1723). “La chose du monde qu’il desiroit le plus, c’estoit de voir un Duc en Normandie; car par ce moyen il luy sembloit le Roy estre affoibly de la tierce partié.” See the whole history of the grant and reconquest of Normandy, cap. xii-xv, and Kirk, Charles the Bold, ii. 338 et seqq.
280. Ib. i. 13 (vol. i. p. 64). “Et a tousjours bien semblé aux Normands, et fait encores, que si grand’ Duché, comme la leur, requiert bien un Duc; et, à dire la verité, elle est de grand’ estime, et s’y leve de grands deniers.” So, in the same chapter, Lewis says, “que de son conseulement n’eust jamais baillé tel partage à son frère, mais puis que d’eux mesmes les Normands en avoient fait cette nouvelleté, il en estoit content.”
281. Phil. Comines, ii. 9, 15 (vol. i. pp. 116, 137). Kirk, i. 272, 334, 525.
282. Arist. Rhet. iii. 10. Καὶ Περικλῆς τῆν Αἴγιναν ἀφελεῖν ἐκέλευσε, τὴν λήμην τοῦ Πειραιέως.
283. See Hist. Fed. Gov. i. 621.
284. See Appendix P.
287. See the charter in Neustria Pia, 694.
288. See above, p. 92.
289. Will. Gem. vii. 22. Neustria Pia, 496.
290. Will. Gem. vii. 22. “Monasterium Sancti Michaelis Ulterioris Portûs ædificavit.” See the charter in Neustria Pia, 587.
291. Will. Pict. 118. The Archdeacon of Lisieux is longer and louder in the praise of his own diocesan than in the praise of any one except the Duke himself.
292. Ib. 119. “Ipse profectò, quum deponeretur Archipræsul Malgerius, vox justitiæ sonora fuit, constanter permanens in parte Dei, propter Deum damnans filium patrui.”
293. Will. Gem. vii. 20. “Ducatum sibi volens vendicare, cœpit contra Ducem minis et infestationibus cervicem erigere.”
294. Ib. “Fortis Princeps, nolens ei cedere, exercitum congregarit, et castrum Oucis, donec illud caperet, obsedit.”
295. Ib. “At ille Henricum Regem Francorum expetiit, cui quid sibi contigisset flebiliter retexit. Rex verò ipsum, utpote nobilem genere et formâ militem, benignè suscepit, et infortunio ejus condolens Comitatum Suessionis ei cum quâdam nobili conjuge tribuit.” The Vermandois family was descended from King Bernard of Italy, son of Pippin, son of Charles. See Art de Vérifier les Dates, ii. 700, 727. The supposed treason of Bernard seems to have shut out his descendants from the Imperial and royal succession.
296. See Appendix P.
297. See vol. ii. pp. 243, 244.
299. See vol. ii. pp. 242, 243.
300. Ord. Vit. 657 B (in the death-bed speech). “Patrui mei Malgerius Rothomagensis Archepiscopus, et Guillelmus frater ejus, cui Archas et comitatum Calogii gratis dederam, me velut nothum contempserunt.” So Roman de Rou, 8565;
And 8583;
301. Orderic (657 B) adds, after the words last quoted about Malger and William of Arques; “Henricus Regem et Engelrannum Comitem Pontivi contra me accerserunt.”
302. Will. Pict. 91. “Is ab ineunte pueri principatu infidus ei et adversus, quamquam fidelitatem juratus et obsequium, hostilia agitabat, modò temeritate non latente resistens, clandestinis interdum dolis.”
303. Ib. 92. “In supradicti Danfronti oppugnatione quasi desertoris furtivo more discessit, nequaquam petitâ missione; satellitii debitum, cujus antea nomine hostilitatem utcumque velabat, jam omne detrectans.” This can hardly mean that he openly renounced his allegiance so early as the siege of Domfront.
304. Ib. “Ob hæc et alia tot ejus et tanta ausa, Dux uti res monuit, suspiciens plura et majora ausurum, receptaculi, quo plurimum confidebat, editius firmamentum occupavit, custodiam immittens, in nullo ampliùs tamen jus ejus imminuens.”
305. On the history of Arques and Talou, see M. Deville’s Histoire du Chateau d’Arques, Rouen 1829; Stapleton, i. cxxiii.
306. See vol. i. p. 240 et seqq.; Flodoard, 944; Richer, ii. 42.
307. See above, p. 117.
308. Will. Gem. viii. 36. “Haud procul ab oppido Arcarum, villâ quæ dicitur Schechevilla (Equiqueville).” See vol. i. p. 279.
309. On the Viscounts of Arques, see Deville, pp. 9, 13, 19, 87; Stapleton, i. cxxiii.; Will. Gem. viii. 36. See the lands of Willelmus de Arcis in Suffolk, Domesday, 431 b. An Osbern de Arcis also occurs in Lincolnshire and Yorkshire.
310. Ord. Vit. 657 B (see last page). So Roman de Rou, 8568;
311. Will. Pict. 92. “Nempe eas latebras, id munimentum initæ elationis atque dementiæ ipse primus fundavit, et quam operossissimè extruxit in præalti montis Arcarum cacumine.” Will. Gem. vii. 7. “Nobilitate verò generis elatus, castrum Archarum in cacumine ipsius montis condidit.” So the Chronicle of Saint Wandrille in D’Achery, ii. 288. “Willelmus videlicet qui postea Arcas castrum in pago Tellau primus statuit.” The building was clearly something novel, and it struck people in Normandy almost as the building of Richard’s Castle (see vol. ii. pp. 138–143) struck people in England. I see no reason to doubt that the ruined keep is part of the original work. As to the gate, and the other parts assigned to the same date by M. Deville, I am not quite so certain.
313. See vol. ii. pp. 176, 177.
314. His admirers however need not have carved him in bas-relief over a gate which may belong to the days of William, and which is at any rate much older than the days of Henry.
315. All these points are gone into minutely by M. Deville. I went over the castle minutely in May, 1868, with M. Deville’s book in hand, and I can bear witness to the accuracy of his description, though I cannot always accept his inferences.
316. Both William of Poitiers (92) and Orderic (657 B) place William “in Constantino pago.” The special mention of Valognes (see vol. ii. p. 247) comes from the Roman de Rou, 8698 et seqq.
317. Will. Pict. u.s. “Malefidi custodes non multo post castri potestatem conditori reddunt, munerum pollicitatione, et impensiùs imminente variâ sollicitatione fatigati subactique.”
318. On the order of events in this revolt, see Appendix Q.
319. Will. Pict. 92. “Nam festinantem ut contrairet injuriæ suæ ampliùs incitaverunt audita mala provinciæ suæ. Ecclesiarum bona, agrestium labores, negotiatorum lucra militum prædam injustè fieri dolebat. Miserando planctu imbellis vulgi, qui multus tempore belli aut seditionum oriri solet, advocari se cogitabat.” The mention of merchants as a numerous and important class marks the growing civilization of Normandy under its great ruler.
321. Odo could not have been now above seventeen years old (see vol. ii. p. 210), nor William himself above twenty-six.
323. Caudebec = Cold Beck. The arms of the town are appropriately three fish.
324. See Appendix Q.
325. I here follow the narrative of William of Poitiers (93), trying to make it intelligible by borrowing some hints from William of Malmesbury.
326. Will. Pict. 93. “Nihil quidem rebelles in se, quum præsentem conspexerint, ausuros.”
327. See the spirited illustration in Deville, p. 282.
328. Will. Pict. 93. “Dein potiri volens munitione, jussu propere contracto exercitu circumsedit. Fuit difficillimum quos ea natura loci maximè defensabat expugnare. Sanè more suo illo optimo, rem optans absque cruore confectum iri, efferatos et contumaces obice castelli ad montis pedem exstructi ciausit.”
330. Roman de Rou, 8610;
331. The presence of Walter Giffard comes only from a late Chronicle (Bouquet, xi. 330), where he is prematurely called Count. But, as his lordship of Longueville lay hard by, nothing is more likely than that he should be there. He was the son of Osbern of Bolbec—a little town at the foot of a hill on the way to the more famous Lillebonne—by Avelina, one of the sisters of Gunnor (Will. Gem. viii. 37). A brother of Osbern was Godfrey, “pater Willelmi de Archis,” that is, of the Viscount. See Deville, p. 19. On Walter Giffard, afterwards Earl of Buckingham, see Ellis, i. 424, and Taylor, Wace, 169.
332. This tower, doubtless of wood, is described as a “munitio” in the extract from William of Poitiers given above. So Will. Gem. vii. 7; “Erectis aggeribus ad radicem montis castrum stabilivit, quod fortium virorum robore inexpugnabile reddidit, et sic inde abiens vallatum alimoniis reliquit.” So Will. Malms. iii. 232; “Obfirmato contra Archas castello.” Wace (Roman de Rou, 8600) says that the Duke
333. Will. Pict. 94. “Præsidio imposito, aliis postea negotiis invitantibus, ipse recessit; ut, dum ferro parceret, fame vinceret.” So Wace, 8612;
This is by no means clear. William of Malmesbury (u. s.) is rather more definite; “Obfirmato contra Archas castello, ad alia quæ magis urgebant bella conversus est.” It was therefore a military operation in another direction which called William off. We shall see directly why he avoided personally conducting the blockade.
334. This feudal scruple, which really seems the only intelligible explanation of William’s conduct in leaving the most important operations to others, comes from William of Malmesbury (u. s.); “Simul quia sciebat Regem Francorum, jampridem, nescio quâ simultate, sibi infensum, ad opem obsesso ferendam adventare; namque prædicandi moderaminis consilio, quamvis justiorem caussam habere videretur, cum eo decernere ferro cavebat, cui et pro sacramento et pro suffragio obnoxius erat.” Henry the Second felt the like scruple at the siege of Toulouse in 1159, but Thomas of London, then the worldly Chancellor, thought otherwise; “Vanâ superstitione et reverentiâ Rex tentus consilio aliorum, super urbem, in quâ esset dominus suus Rex Franciæ, irruere noluit; dicente in contrarium Cancellario, quod personam domini Rex Francorum ibi deposuisset, cò quod supra pacta conventa hostem se ei opposuisset.” (Will. Fil. Steph. p. 200, ed. Giles.)
335. We learn the spot of the combat from Wace, Roman de Rou, 8622 et seqq.;
And this agrees with the description of Richard of Hugleville given by Orderic (606 B), where he sets forth the pedigree of the family; “Tempore Guillelmi juvenis filii Rodberti Ducis, Guillelmus de Archis contra Ducem rebellavit, et penè omnium Calogiensium parilis defectus nothum principem deseruit; solus Ricardus contra rebelles in castello suo secus ecclesiam Sancti Albini perstitit, et pro fidelitate Ducis contra discursus Archacensium provinciam circumjacentem defensare curavit.”
336. See Ord. Vit. 606 D. It is with a thrill of sympathy alike for the hero and for his chronicler that an Englishman reads the passage, which I shall have to refer to again.
337. Ord. Vit. 606 C. “Hugonem cum omnibus suis Archacenses apud Moriummontem repente circumdederunt, seseque viriliter defendentem interemerunt.”
339. Ord. Vit. u. s.
340. Roman de Rou, 8620;
So Will. Gem. vii. 7. “Exercitum castra metari apud Sanctum Albinum jussit.”
341. See Appendix Q.
342. Roman de Rou, 8628;
The “tur” is the castle of Arques; the “chastel” is the wooden castle of the besiegers.
343. Will. Gem. vii. 7. “Cujus [Regis] adventum milites Ducis comperientes, de suis miserunt, si quos fortè hostium à regio cœtu abstraherent, quos illi in latibulis degentes incautos exciperent. Quò dum venissent, non minimam exercitûs partem inde protraxerunt, et fugientes in insidias induxerunt. Statim verò qui videbantur fugere, versâ facie cœperunt eos acriter cædere.” So Roman de Rou, 8632 et seqq. Less fully Will. Pict. 94; “Adducti in spem memorandi facinoris quidam ex eo numero qui in præsidio Ducis relicti custodiunt, Francorum adventantium itinera explorata insidunt. Et ecce numerosa pars minus cauti excipiuntur.”
344. Will. Malms, iii. 232. “Quorum astutiâ insidiis exceptus, Isembardum Pontivi comitem coram se obtruncari, Hugonem Bardulfum capi, meritò ingemuit.”
345. All our accounts speak of the capture of Hugh Bardulf as of an event of at least equal importance with the death of the Count of Ponthieu. William of Poitiers (u. s.) says, “Hugo Bardulfus ipse item, vir magnus, capitur.”
346. “In the roll of Norman fees in the red book of the Exchequer, we find Doon Bardulf returned as one of those ‘qui non venerunt, nec miserunt, nec aliquid dixerunt.’” I copy this from Taylor’s Wace, p. 44. The name of Bardulf, including several Doun Bardulfs, occurs constantly in the Exchequer Records both of Normandy and of England (see the Indexes to Madox and Stapleton), but I have not lighted on the particular story referred to by Mr. Taylor.
347. See vol. i. p. 227 et pass.
348. Chron. Centul. iv. 21 (ap. D’Achery, ii. 343). “Attamen huic numquam Comitis nomen accessit, sed erat illi insigne quod Sancti Richarii vocabatur Advocatus.” On Saint Riquier see vol. ii. p. 535.
349. Ib. “Ablatis monasterio Centulo tribus oppidis, Abbatis-villâ, Sancto Medardo, et Incrâ, et his castellis effectis, in eorumque stippendia multis aliis Sancti Richarii villis et reditibus ab Hugone Rege prærogatis.” Cf. iv. 12.
350. See Chron. Centul. ii. 7. Sir Francis Palgrave (iii. 226), by one of the slips so natural in a chapter not revised by the author, confounds father and son.
351. I find that in my second volume I have written this name Ingelram in the text (p. 217) and Enguerrand in the Appendix (p. 587). Such accidents will happen, especially with foreign names. Ingelram (whence Ingram) is certainly the English form, though the name was never common in England; I therefore prefer it, as does Sir F. Palgrave.
352. Hariulf (Chron. Cent. iv. 21) calls the elder Hugh “Hugo Abbatensis,” and the Ingelram slain at Saint Aubin is by William of Jumièges (vii. 7) called “Abbatis-villæ Comes.” Ingelram, according to Hariulf, took the title of Count (“Dei gratia Comes”) on slaying Baldwin Count of Boulogne and marrying his widow Adelaide. Chron. Cent. iv. 12.
We’ll remember where you stopped. All chapters