Part 3 of 9
NOTE PP. p. 544. The Submission at Berkhampstead
354. William of Jumièges (vii. 7) calls the wife of William of Arques “soror Widonis Comitis Pontivi.” That is a daughter of Hugh. Why is Ingelram called “Comes Abbatisvillæ,” and his brother “Comes Pontivi,” in the same chapter?
356. The death of Ingelram is mentioned in all our accounts, like the capture of Hugh Bardulf.
357. This is Guy who imprisoned Harold. His uncle, another Guy, son of Ingelram the First, was Bishop of Amiens (see Chron. Cent. iv. 36. p. 355), and wrote the famous poem “De Bello Hastingensi.” See Will. Gem. vii. 44.
358. The other daughter married Odo of Champagne. See vol. ii. p. 588, and below, p. 142.
359. William of Poitiers (94) calls him “nobilitate notus ac fortudine,” and William (or Orderic) in the death-bed speech (657 B) says “præcursores mei præoccupaverunt Engelrannum Comitem in castrum intrare festinantem, ipsumque fortiter pugnantem, quia miles erat asperrimus, occiderunt, et agmina ejus fugaverunt.” Hariulf, in the Chronicle of Saint Riquier (iv. 21), calls him “homo formæ mirabilis.”
360. Will. Pict. (u. s.) “Perveniens tamen quo ire intenderat, Rex exacerbatissimis animis summâ vi præsidium attentavit: Willelmum ab ærumnis uti eriperet, pariter decrementum sui, stragem suorum vindicaret. Sed ubi negotium difficile animadvertit, quippe inimicos impetus facilè toleraverunt castelli munimenta et militum virtus æque validæ ... abire maturavit.”
361. So I understand the not very clear statement of William of Poitiers that the King went away.
362. Will. Pict. 96. “In ipsâ morâ obsidionali Normannorum aliquanti potentiores ab Duce ad Regem defecerunt, quos jam antea conspirationis rebellantium occultique fuisse adjutores opinabile erat. Malevolentiam, quâ olim contra infantem fuerant inflati nondum evomuere totam. Eorum eo consortio Guimundus præsidens munitioni quam Molendinas appellant in manus Regis eam dedit.” William of Malmesbury seems to make the movement a popular one; “Hujusce obsidionis intervallo populus castri quod Molendinis dicitur, exolescens, ad partes Regis incentore quodam Galterio transiit.” Is this Walter the same as the Wimund of the other William?
363. See Stapleton, i. cxxxiii. et al.
364. Will. Pict. 96. “Guido frater Comitis Pictavensis Willelmi atque Romanæ Imperatricis.” So Will. Malms. This Guy (see Art de Vérifier les Dates, ii. 356) is the same as the Geoffrey whom Geoffrey Martel established in Gascony. See vol. ii. p. 595.
365. Chron. Maxent. 1058 (Labbé, ii. 210). “Willermus, qui et Petrus cognomento Acer.”
367. In the Chronicle of Saint Maxentius he is called Geoffrey in 1044, 1058, 1060, 1061, 1062, Guy and Geoffrey in 1068, William in 1071, lastly in 1086, “Guido qui et Goffredus.” This is certainly the way to confuse genealogists.
368. Will. Pict. 95. “Rex denuò accitus multo et miserè supplici nuncio venire abnuit.” The Archdeacon now gets very eloquent, and gives us all the inner workings of the mind of one whom he calls “Papiæ partus.” It takes a minute or two to see that by this odd description he means the Count of Arques.
369. This ceremony was gone through by the Count-Bishop Hugh (see vol. i. p. 514) to Richard the Good; “Equestrem sellam ferens humeris, provolutus genibus Richardi,” &c. Will. Gem. v. 16. Palgrave, iii. 133. Cf. Will. Malms. iii. 235. So we now read in William of Poitiers; “Pars ocreis et calcaribus ornati [why?], insolito comitatu incedentes, et eorum plerique sellam equestrem incurvo languidoque dorso, nonnulli solum se nutabundi vix eportantes.”
370. Will. Pict. 95. “Erat item cernere calamitatem levis armatura egredientis fœdam ac variam.”
371. Ib. 96. “Verum et ii, et quiqui aliàs relicti sunt a Francis, quum deditas esse comperissent Archarum latebras, sese nostris fugâ furati sunt.”
372. Ib. 95. “Noluit extorrem et inopem casu magis pudendo cruciari; sed cum gratiâ et possessionibus quibusdam amplis atque multorum redituum, patriam ei concessit.”
373. Will. Gem. vii. 7. See Deville, p. 78 et seqq. I see no difficulty in reconciling the two accounts.
374. See Deville, p. 89.
375. See above, p. 92.
376. See above, pp. 93, 101.
377. See above, p. 94.
378. See vol. i. p. 189; vol. ii. p. 202.
379. Will. Pict. 96. “Normanniam, quæ sub Regibus Francorum egit ex antiquo, prope in regnum evectam.” What would our old friend Dudo (see vol. i. pp. 193, 209, 247) have said to the “prope”?
380. Ib. “Quum Imperatorem Romanum, quo majus potentiæ sive dignitatis nomen in orbe terrarum aliud non est, amicum et socium haberet.”
381. Ib. “Quum provinciis multis præsideret potentibus, quarum domini aut rectores militiæ suæ essent administri, Comitem Willelmum suum nec amicum nec militem, sed hostem esse.”
382. See above, p. 116.
383. Art de Vérifier les Dates, ii. 614.
384. Ib. But it must be borne in mind that the kinswoman of William’s whom Odo married was not Adelaide, the Duke’s sister, but the younger Adelaide, her daughter by Ingelram of Ponthieu. See vol. ii. p. 588.
385. Will. Pict. 97. “Condolentes in eâdem Theobaldus, Pictavorum Comes, Gaufredus, item reliqui summates, quâdam insuper indignatione privatâ intolerandum ducebant sese Regis, quocumque prævia vocarent, signis parere; Willelmum Normannorum nequaquam pro Rege, sed confidenter atque indesinenter ad ejus magnitudinem, quam aliquantùm attrivit, ulteriùs atterendam, vel si quâ viâ valeant, conterendam, in armis agitare.”
386. Will. Pict. 97. “Præterea concupiebant Normanniam, aut ejus partem, quidam Regis proximi.”
387. Ib. “Julium Cæsarem, vel bellandi peritiorem aliquem, si fuerit peritior, exercitûs Romani ducem (ex mille nationibus coacti olim, dum Roma florentissima mille provinciis imperitâsset) hujus agminis immanitate terreri potuisse affirmares.”
388. Ib. “Burgundiam, Arverniam, atque Wasconiam properare videres horribiles ferro: imo vires tanti regni, quantùm in climata mundi quatuor patent, cunctas, Franciam tamen et Britanniam, quantò nobis viciniores, tantò ardentius infestas.” As he speaks of the “regnum,” he clearly means by Burgundy only the Duchy which held of the French Crown. His use of “Francia” along with the rest, as the name of one part of Gaul, should be noticed. Compare the use of the word by Flodoard; see vol. i. p. 199.
389. Will. Pict. 98. “Guido, Pontivi Comes, ad vindicandum fratrem Ingelrannum nimis avidus.” Will. Malms. iii. 233. “Guido Pontivi Comes studiosiùs ultionis fratris intendit.”
390. I find no mention of Geoffrey as present, except in William of Jumièges (vii. 24), who makes him accompany the King. This account is followed by Benoît of Saint More, 35245;
But it is strange that William of Poitiers and the other writers should have left out so important a person, had he really been there, and his absence, hard as it is to account for it, agrees better with what follows.
391. Ord. Vit. 657 D (cf. 638 D). “Aliam [phalangem] Odoni fratri suo ac Rainaldo de Claro Monte, et duobus Consulibus, Radulfo de Monte-Desiderii atque Widoni de Pontivo, commendavit.” William of Poitiers, like Richer of old (see vol. i. p. 223, note 3, cf. 237, note 2), is strong in his antiquated geography. He tells us (98) about “Quantus miles inter Sequanam et Garonnam fluvios colligeretur (quas gentes multas uno nomine Celtigallos appellant);” then about those who were “inter flumen Rhenum [Henry the Frank’s notions about the Rhine frontier were doubtless different] et Sequanam collecti, quæ Gallia Belgica nuncupatur.” Lastly, “Regem insuper comitabatur Aquitania pars Galliæ tertia.” Reginald of Clermont is “Rainaldus familiarissimus.” Was he commissioned to supply the incapacity of Odo? See vol. i. p. 520.
392. Roman de Rou, 9919;
393. Ord. Vit. 657 D. “Ut per vada Eptæ Neustriam citò introirent, Braium et Calcegium totumque Rothomagensem pagum invaderent ferro et flammâ, nec ne rapinis usque ad mare penitus devastarent.”
394. See above, p. 119.
395. Hugh Capet was crowned at Noyon. Richer, iv. 12. See vol. i. p. 268.
396. Roman de Rou, 9923. “Cels de Melant è de Vermendeiz.” See above, p. 120. The reigning Count was Herbert the Fourth.
397. Guy, Bishop of Amiens, the author of the poem “De Bello Hastingensi” (see Will. Gem. vii. 44), was a son of Ingelram the First and uncle of Guy and of Ingelram the Second. He succeeded to the see about 1058.
398. See above, pp. 136, 139.
399. Wace, 9925, says “Cels de Flandres è de Belmont,” and Benoît (35255) “La furent Flamenc e Poher.” But the presence of subjects of Baldwin is exceedingly unlikely, and Benoît in some sort confutes himself by adding “E Braibençon e Hainuer,” thus getting beyond the borders of the Western realm within which the others strictly confine themselves. He was most likely misled, as others have been since, by the grand talk about the Rhine.
400. That is, if Provins roses, brought from the East by pilgrims or Crusaders, had reached Europe so soon.
401. Isaiah xlvii. 7.
402. Roman de Rou, 9943. “De Bourges è de Berri.” As usual, the names of the city and of the district are both slightly varying forms of the old Gaulish name; but it is curious to see them distinguished in such a marked way, which seems not to be done in any other part of the catalogue.
403. Livy, v. 34. “Celtarum quæ pars Galliæ tertia est penes Bituriges summa imperii fuit; ii Regem Celtico dabant, Ambigatus is fuit,” etc. Then follows the account of his sending forth the Colonies under his sister’s sons Bellovesus and Sigovesus. Did the special sanctity of a sister’s son (see vol. ii. p. 368) extend to the Celts?
404. Cæsar, B. G. vii. 18, 19. Merivale, Roman Empire, ii. 14.
405. Livy, v. 35. “Senones recentissimi advenarum.” They alone seem to have been concerned in the taking of Rome.
406. Roman de Rou, 9941;
409. See Ord. Vit. 655 C. He gives Fulk Bishop of Amiens, the predecessor of Guy, as a third son of Drogo and Godgifu besides Walter and Ralph.
410. Roman de Rou, 9948;
411. Ord. Vit. 657 D. “Ego è contra non segnis processi, contra Regis mapalia per litus Sequanæ cum meis me semper opposui.” So Roman de Rou, 9965;
He then goes on with the catalogue.
415. Roman de Rou, 9967;
417. See vol. ii. p. 290 et seqq.
418. Roman de Rou, 9968;
419. Ib. 9975;
420. Will. Malms. iii. 233. “Juxta Regis castra sensim obambulans, ... ut nec cominùs pugnandi copiam faceret, nec provinciam coram se vastari sineret.”
421. Roman de Rou, 9960. “Et de Gornai li viel Huon.” Old indeed, as Mr. Taylor (Wace, 217) truly says, if he had found his bride at the court of King Pippin. Yet he lived to fight at Senlac. The name survives at Barrow Gurney in Somersetshire and elsewhere.
422. See Taylor’s Wace, 171. De Crisp. Gen. Giles 342.
423. See above, p. 129. To these four William of Poitiers adds Hugh of Montfort.
424. Roman de Rou, 9983–9989. Cf. Benoît, 35325. William of Poitiers rather slurs this part over, in order to bring in the carnage of Mortemer at once.
425. Benoît, 35339;
426. Roman de Rou, 10007. “Vilains pernent, fames porgiesent.” Benoît goes more into detail.
427. Benoît, 35341;
428. Roman de Rou, 9990;
And again, 10010;
So Benoît, 35353;
429. Will. Gem. vii. 24. “In incendiis et mulierum ludibriis occupati.”
430. Roman de Rou, 10031 (cf. Benoît, 35394 et seqq.);
431. Roman de Rou, 10035;
So Benoît, 35404. He tells us (35399);
Compare Giovanni Villani’s (xii. 66. Murat. xiii. 948) description of the bombards at Crecy; “Che facieno si grande tremuoto e romore, che parea che Iddio tonasse.”
432. Will. Gem. vii. 24. “Mane commissum bellum in continuâ cæde occumbentium ad usque nonam ab utrisque est protractis.” So Roman de Rou, 10039;
The war “in hieme ante Quadragesimam” (Ord. Vit. 658 A).
433. Roman de Rou, 10051;
434. “Equorum velocitate saluti consulunt,” says William of Poitiers (98), whose account is confused, and who seems anxious to pass off the surprise as a regular battle. Orderic (658 A) says “velocitate pedum viguerunt.” He also calls it “terribile prœlium,” &c., but I do not see that this contradicts Wace’s account, grounded on William of Jumièges.
435. Roman de Rou, 10049, after recording the captivity of Guy;
436. Ord. Vit. 658 A. “Post duos annos hominium ab eo tali tenore recepi, ut exinde mihi semper fidelis exsisteret, et militare servitium, ubi jussissem, cum centum militibus mihi singulis annis exhiberet.”
437. Ib. “Hominium enim jamdudum illi fecerat.”
438. Ib. “In tali ergo necessitate pulcrum illi et competens servitium impendit, dum in castro suo illum triduo protexit et postea salvum ad sua perduxit.”
439. Ord. Vit. 658 A. “Castrum tamen Mortui-maris, in quo inimicum meum salvavit, illi jure, ut reor [it is curious to see the Conqueror on his defence], abstuli, sed Guillelmo de Guarennâ, consanguineo ejus, tironi legitimo, dedi.” All about William of Warren and his family will be found in Mr. Stapleton’s paper in the Archæological Journal, iii. 8, 14.
440. Stapleton, Arch. Journal, p. 6.
441. William of Warren and Roger of Mortemer were both descended from Herfast, a brother of the Duchess Gunnor. Will. Gem. viii. 37.
442. See above, p. 86.
443. For the famous answer of John Earl of Warren (a descendant of William in the female line) to the Commissioners “Quo Warranto” in Edward the First’s time, see Walter of Hemingburgh, ii. 6.
444. Roman de Rou, 10063;
445. Benoît gets eloquent on this head, and gives us (35469 et seqq.) a picture of William at his devotions; “ses mains jointes,” “od lermes de pieté.”
446. Benoît, 35493;
447. See vol. i. p. 514; ii. p. 199. That the messenger was Ralph of Toesny is affirmed by William of Jumièges (vii. 24), Orderic (658 B, where of course it is put into William’s own mouth), and Benoît (35479). William of Poitiers (99) says only “cautè instructum quemdam,” and Wace (10074) says expressly,
448. See Roman de Rou, 12718.
449. See Orderic, 576 B, 687 D. On this Elizabeth or Isabel, see Palgrave, iv. 249, 259.
450. Will. Gem. vii. 25.
451. Ord. Vit. 813 D.
452. William of Poitiers (99) and Wace (10077), who do not call the messenger Ralph of Toesny, make him mount a tree. Orderic does not mention his position, and William of Jumièges (vii. 24) and Benoît (35406) make him climb the high rock—“in quodam proximo monte,” according to William—already spoken of. To climb a tree was seemingly below the dignity of a descendant of Malahulc.
453. William of Jumièges, followed by Benoît, makes Ralph say who he is, and describe the event of the battle at some length—at greater length of course in Benoît than in William. This, I think, quite takes away from the startling and spectral effect of the scene in Wace, 10077;
William of Poitiers says only, “Dux Willelmus nocte intempestâ cautè instructum quemdam direxit, qui tristem Regi victoriam propiùs castra ipsius ab alto arboris per singula inclamavit.” Orderic (658 B) is still shorter; “Per Radulfum de Toëniâ quæ trans Sequanam contigerant Regi Francorum mandavi.”
454. So I understand Wace (10089);
He had just before said (10067);
So Will. Pict. 100. “Famâ referente, quæ tam falsi quam veri nuntia volat.” Compare Mr. Grote’s remarks and quotations on the φήμη. Hist. of Greece, v. 260.
455. Will. Pict. 99. “Rex attonitus inopinato nuntio, procul omni cunctatione signo antelucano suos in fugam excitavit; summè necessarium ratus quàm maximâ celeritate Normanniæ finibus discedere.”
456. Plutarch, Moralia, ii. 51 (ed. Tauchnitz) “Πρὸς δὲ τοὺς φέγοντας αὐτὸν ἐπὶ τῷ δι’ ἀπάτης πολλὰ πράσσειν, ὡς ἀνάξιον τοῦ Ἡρακλέους, ἔλεγεν [ὁ Λύσανδρος], Ὅπου μὴ ἐφικνεῖται ἡ λεοντῆ, προςραπτέον ἐκεῖ τὴν ἀλωπεκῆν.”
459. See above, p. 126.
460. Will. Pict. 99. “Multa dehinc hostilia utrimque acta sunt, qualia præter belli conflictum inter tantos hostes fieri solent.”
461. See vol. ii. pp. 203–205.
462. Will. Gem. vii. 25. “Postea Dux contra Tegulense castrum, quod Rex illi dudum abstulerat, aliud oppidum non deterius, quod Bretolium usque hodie vocatur, instaurat.”
463. Will. Gem. vii. 25. So Benoît, 35553, who takes the opportunity to give the life of William Fitz-Osbern at length.
464. Roman de Rou, 10133;
465. Will. Pict. 99. “Ejus [Regis] vero assensu et quasi dono quodam Dux jure perpetuo retineret quod Gaufrido Andegavorum Comiti abstulerat, quodque valeret auferre.” Will. Malms. iii. 233. “Conventum ut ... Comes erepta vel eripienda Martello jure vendicaret legitimo.”
466. See vol. ii. pp. 281–289.
467. I see no reason to doubt that the present ruined tower is that taken by William in 1049.
468. See vol. ii. p. 289. The fortification of Ambrières in 1049 is distinctly asserted in the passage of William of Jumièges there referred to; but William of Poitiers certainly speaks now as if the castle had to be built rather than merely to be strengthened.
469. Will. Pict. 99. “In ipso conventu principes militiæ suæ jussu commonuit Dux intra terminos Martelli Andegavensis ad Ambreras construendas maturè adesse paratos.”
470. Ib. “Et quem hujus incœpti diem eis ipse, eumdem Martello per legatos præfinivit.” The Archdeacon here bursts into a torrent of admiration. Compare William’s earlier challenge to Geoffrey. See vol. ii. p. 285.
471. See below, p. 208 et seqq.
472. Will. Pict. 99. “Cui tyrannus Martellus, ut erat elatus animo, grandia præsumere et loqui solitus, ‘Meum,’ inquit, ‘sicut vilis et pudendi domini, omninò abnuas dominium, si, patiente me, patrari videas quod metuis.’”
473. Ib. 100. “Die præfinito, Cenomannicum solum ingressus, Normannorum rector, dum castrum, quod minatus est, erigit.”
474. Cf. vol. i. p. 326; vol. ii. p. 398.
475. Will. Pict. 100. “Quem [Gaufredum] ubi ampliùs opinione morari videt, et jam de cibariorum penuriâ plebeii pariter ac proceres conqueruntur, ne milite minùs prompto in futurum utatur, modò dimittere statuit, castro viris et alimoniis munito, jubens tamen ut, quum nuntium ejus acceperint, quantociùs eodem redeant cuncti.” Compare Harold’s orders in the Welsh war at about the same time, vol. ii. p. 394.
476. Will. Pict. 100. “Exercitûs nostri mox divulgato discessu.”
477. Ib. “Willelmo, Pictavorum Comite, Domino suo.” See vol. ii. p. 594.
478. See above, p. 138.
479. See above, p. 139.
480. Will. Pict. 100. “Eudone, Britannorum Comite.” He was however rather Regent for his nephew. See Art de Vérifier les Dates, ii. 896.
481. Will. Pict. u. s. “Missilia, saxa, libriles sudes, item lanceæ desuper feriunt. Iis plerique interemti cadunt, alii repelluntur. Sic, audaci molimine cassato, aliud incipiunt. Tentant murum ariete, qui percussus in virgâ castellanorum frangitur.”
482. Ib. “Willelmus, omnis moræ impatiens, evocat exercitum, subventum ire quam maximè properat.”
483. Will. Pict. 100. “Quem postquam inimici, tres adeò nominati Comites, adequitare percipiunt mirâ celeritate, ne dicam trepidâ fugâ, cum immanibus exercitibus dilabuntur.”
484. Ib. “Victor Gaufredum Meduanensem ... intra exiguum tempus eousque compulit, ut in remotissimis Normanniæ partibus sibi manus perdomitas daret, fidelitatem quam satelles domino debet jurans.” William of Jumièges (vii. 27), followed by Wace (10189) and Benoît (35627), places here the conquest of Le Mans and the taking of Mayenne. The source of the confusion is obvious.
485. See above, p. 164.
487. On Roca Mabiliæ or Roche Mabille, see Stapleton, i. lxxiii.
488. See above, p. 96.
489. See above, p. 104.
490. Will. Pict. 101. “Martellus Andegavensis, nondum tot sinistris casibus fractus, minimè defuit, quantum ullatenùs virium colligere potuit adducens. Vix enim hujus inimici odium et rabiem Normanniæ tellus penitus contusa vel excisa satiaret.” So Roman de Rou, 10271; “Par li cunseil Giffrei Martel.” So Benoît, 35855.
491. Roman de Rou, 10272;
492. Will. Pict. 101. “Per Oximensem comitatum ad fluvium Divam pervenere.” So Will. Gem. vii. 28; Roman de Rou, 10278; Benoît, 35866.
493. Roman de Rou, 10303;
494. Ib. 10289;
495. See above, p. 117.
496. Roman de Rou, 10313;
498. Wace alone (Roman de Rou, 10319 et al.) speaks, throughout his narrative, of a bridge. All the other writers (Will. Pict. 101; Will. Gem. vii. 28; Will. Malms. iii. 234; Benoît, 35899) speak only of a ford—“vadum Divæ”—or, as Benoît calls it,
This is plainly one of Benoît’s exaggerations. The spot is perfectly well marked by the causeway mentioned by Wace (10351), which is still in use, and leads to the present bridge over the tidal stream. The two accounts may be easily reconciled, if we suppose that a bridge was first thrown across between the time of the battle and the time of Wace, and that Wace naturally described the place as it was in his own time. Benoît is therefore, for once, more accurate in his narrative than Wace; but his accuracy is quite accidental; Benoît simply dressed up the tale as he found it in the Latin writers; Wace, as ever, used his own powers of local observation.
499. Roman de Rou, 10405;
Wace alone mentions the names Varaville and Bastebourg. I visited the battle-field in May 1868 in company with my friend M. Le Gost of Caen, and I can, as at Val-ès-Dunes and everywhere else, bear witness to the accuracy of Wace’s local description.
500. Will. Pict. 101. “Nam, dum ad vadum Divæ morarentur, supervenit ipse alacer cum exiguâ manu virorum felici horâ.”
501. Will. Gem. vii. 28. “Quod [vadum] Rege transeunte, media exercitûs pars substitit, mare eructuante, ob redundationem fluminis non valens transmeare.” So Benoit, 35904. This explains the “morarentur” of William of Poitiers, who himself says afterwards (102), “Ne vero jure sæviens [Willelmi] gladius in adversam ripam insequeretur, rheuma maris obstabat alveum Divæ insuperabili mole occupantis.”
502. Roman de Rou, 10345;
503. Ib. 10357;
504. Roman de Rou, 10377;
Cf. Virg. Æn. i. 100;
Wace, it must be remembered, conceiving the bridge to have been there, attributes to its breaking what was really owing to the coming in of the tide.
505. Roman de Rou, 10410;
506. Roman de Rou, 10415;
507. Will. Gem. vii. 28. “Amicitiam quoque Ducis, consideratâ ejus probitate, requisivit, et Tegulense castrum, quod dudum abstulerat, illi tradidit.”
508. Ib. “Caussâ corporeæ salutis a Johanne medicorum peritissimo potionem accepit. Sed, veneno nimiam sitim inferente, jussum archiatri sprevit et a cubiculario potum accipiens dum medicus abesset, ante purgationem bibit. Unde nimis infirmatus, eodem die post perceptionem sacræ eucharistiæ obiit.”
510. Will. Gem. vii. 28. “Mathildem, Juliusclodii Regis Rugorum filiam, in matrimonio habuit.” So the fragment in Duchèsne, iv. 150. But her name was Anne, and William of Jumièges has confounded her with a former wife Matilda. See Duchèsne, iv. 153. Chron. S. Maxent. 1050 (Labbé, ii. 209). “Ainricus Rex Francorum duxit uxorem Scythicam et Rusam.” On this marriage see more at length Karamsin, Histoire de Russie, ii. 38. 404.
511. Anne, daughter of Rômanos and Theophanô and sister of Basil the Second, married Vladimir of Russia. See Ducange, Hist. Byz. 144.
512. Const. Porph. de Cerem. i. 96, and the commentary of Reiske, vol. ii. p. 450, ed. Bonn. Finlay, Byz. Emp. i. 238, 272.
513. He was crowned at Pentecost 1059. Chron. Rem. ap. Labbé, i. 360, and the fragment in Duchèsne, iv. 150.
514. See above, p. 82.
515. Will. Pict. 90. “Monarchia post Franciæ, cum puero monarchâ, ipsius, consiliosissimi viri, tutelæ, dictaturæ, atque administrationi cessit.” Ord. Vit. 480 D. “Balduino Flandrensium Duci puerum cum regno ad tutandum commendavit.” Will. Gem. vii. 28. “Philippum filium suum in regimine Francorum hæredem constituit, et tutelæ Balduini Flandrensis Satrapæ commendavit.” Will. Malms. ii. 188. “Defuncto Rege Henrico, qui Philippum parvum reliquerat filium, regnum Francorum nobiliter aliquantis annis rexit, fideliterque adulto (nam ejus amitam uxorem habebat) restituit.” Ann. Elnonenses Minores (Pertz, v. 20), 1061. “Henricus Rex obiit, et Balduinus Comes Flandriæ, quasi Interrex in regno judicat, salvâ fidelitate Philippi pueri Regis. Huic verò magnum decus intervenit gloriæ. Nam Comes Tietbaldus, Andegavensis Comes, et omnes Galliæ optimates, salvâ fide Philippi Regis, juraverunt fidelitatem et honorem regni. Quod autem regni erat, sapienter et honestè disponebat.” The Chronicle of the Counts of Flanders (Corp. Chron. Flandr. i. 86) adds, to nearly the same account, that it was done “salvâ tamen fidelitate Philippi pueri, si viveret. Si autem non, ipse Balduinus Comes Rex existeret, ut pote justus hæres per Athelam uxorem Regis Henrici sororem.” Ann. Blandinienses (Pertz, v. 26), 1061. “Baldwinus Marchisus regni Francorum magistratus efficitur.” The variety of words used to express Baldwin’s functions is remarkable. A regency was something new.
516. Chron. S. Maxent. 1057. “Eodem anno civitas Namnetica Gaufredo Comiti ab Hoel Comite reddita est, qui non bonâ usus fide auferre eam illi tentavit.”
517. Chron. S. Maxent. 1058. “Willermus, qui et Petrus, cognomento Acer, adunato exercitu vallavit castrum Salmurum simul et Gaufredum Martellum inclusit in eo.”
518. Ib. “Ubi inhiando dum aptaret ad bellum exercitum, dolore dysenteriæ morbis percussus reversus est infirmus. Ex quâ infirmitate mortuus est relinquens terrenum regnum.” Directly after we read, “Successit in regno Gosfredus.” So that “regnum” in the former entry is not a mere figure of speech, strange as is the application of the word to the dominions of a Duke of Aquitaine.
519. Ib. 1060. “Monachali habitu priùs suscepto ab Airaudo abbate Sancti Nicolai.” So Chron. And. ap. Labbé, i. 287. Fulk. ap. D’Achery, ii. 233.
520. Ord. Vit. 532 B. Chron. S. Maxent. 1060. Gest. Cons. 258.
521. See vol. ii. pp. 40, 430, 635–637.
522. See vol. ii. pp. 636, 637.
523. See above, p. 139.
524. Chron. S. Maxent. 1061–1062 (Labbé, ii. 210). The war with Anjou rose out of the old question about Saintogne. The Spanish expedition is thus described; “Inde [from Saintes after its surrender by the Angevins] abiens in Hispaniam cum multis Normannis, Barbastam civitatem nomini Christiano, cunctis qui in eâ erant priùs perditis, adquisivit.”
525. Gest. Cons. c. 10 (ap. D’Achery, iii. 258). The abbey had hitherto remained in the patronage of the King, a position quite different from that of the Norman and Aquitanian Prelates. See vol. ii. p. 209. This illustrates the inferior position of the Counts of Anjou, as originally holders under the Duchy of France.
526. Gest. Cons. c. 11. p. 259, and Fulk’s own story in p. 238.
527. William of Poitiers (102) says of him, as compared with his uncle; “Nomine proprio idem, probitate absimilis ei, cœlestem regem timere, et pro comparando externo honore bona actitare cœpit.” Ord. Vit. 532 C. “Goisfredus, qui simplex et tractabilis moribus erat.”
530. Will. Gem. vii. 29. “Tunc quibusdam maledicis vicinos comparesque suos accusantibus ex invidiâ, Dux Willelmus exasperatus ingenti furiâ Barones suos, scilicet Rodulfum de Toeniâ, Hugonem de Grentemaisnilio, et Ernaldum Willelmi Geroiani filium ejecit de Normanniâ.” Ord. Vit. 481 A. He tells us how the chief men “cupiditate furente unus alium supplantare conabatur.” He specially mentions the agency of Roger and Mabel, who “exortâ simultate gaudebant et blandis adulationibus sibi Ducem alliciebant.” He goes on to say that “animosus Dux plus æquo iræ frena relaxans præcipuos milites ... sine probabilibus culpis diu exsulare coegit.”
531. See above, p. 159.
533. Orderic tells this story twice with slight differences. The first time (464 D) he makes Robert’s death happen while he is besieged by the Duke; “Pomo venenato, quod conjugi suæ vi rapuerat, comesto post quinque dies mortuus est.” The second time (478 C) he tells the story as I have given it in the text, but without any mention of the siege, and with the important addition “uxore contradicente comedit.” The important point of course is how far Adelaide, and how far through her her kinsman the Duke, contemplated the death of Robert or of any one else.
534. Ord. Vit. 481 D.
535. Ib. 485 A.
536. Orderic tells the tale at length, 488, 489.
537. See vol. ii. p. 234. See Will. Gem. vii. 29. Orderic has much to say about the matter. Some readers may perhaps think that the story, as told by him in p. 479, hardly bears out his own statement in p. 481 B, that he was “falsò accusatus.” The Duke is said to have designed his mutilation in some way (“damna membrorum inferre”), on which, at the advice of Hugh Bishop of Lisieux, he took to flight. I confess to putting more confidence in the Duke than in the Abbot.
538. Will. Gem. vii. 29. “Sine reatu et judicio synodi de Normanniâ expulit.”
539. Ib. “Quia de audaci Geroicorum prosapiâ prodierat.”
540. Bessin. Conc. Rot. Prov. 48. Pommeraye, 72. “Ut quotidie serò signi pulsu ad preces Deo fundendas quisque invitaretur, atque occlusis foribus domorum ultra vagari ampliùs vetitum admoneretur.” Cf. Palgrave, iii. 274. The reason given by the commentator is “ut furtis nocturnis caveretur.” The Fathers of this Synod are overflowing in their loyalty to their Duke, “qui quantâlibet locorum intercapedine a se invicem dissiti essent, quasi urbis unius concives sub Principe suo, non secus ac sub amantissimo patre-familias victuros invicem spoponderunt.”
541. As usual, the Gaulish name of the tribe appears in slightly different forms in the present names of the city and of the county. The original name of the city, which does not appear in Cæsar, was Subdinnum. See Dict. Geog. art. Cenomani.
542. Livy, v. 35. Polyb. ii. 17, 32. The Greek form is Γονομάνοι.
543. Polyb. ii. 23–24.
544. Cæs. Bell. Gall. vii. 75. They appear as “Aulerci Cenomani.” The name Aulerci is common to them with several other tribes.
545. The legend of Saint Julian is given at length in the Acts of the Bishops of Le Mans, in Mabillon’s Vetera Analecta, iii. 50–59. On this, and on Cenomannian legend generally, I would refer to “Les Cenomans Anciens et Modernes” by the Abbé Voisin (Paris and Le Mans 1852). But the good Abbé’s faith is strong and his criticism is weak.
546. On the Defensores Civitatum see the legislation in the Code, lib. i. tit. 55. (From Valentinian and Valens in 365 to Theodosius and Valentinian in 441.) But a more remarkable mention of the Defensor occurs in the Veteres Formulæ Andegavenses in Mabillon, Vet. An. iv. 234. I leave the passage in the Latin of King Childebert; “Cum juxta consuetudinem Andicavis civetate, curia puplica resederet in foro, ibique vir magnificus illi prosecutor dixit: Rogo te, vir laudabilis illi Defensor, illi Curator, illi Magister militum, vel reliquum curia puplica, utique obticis puplicis patere jobeatis, quia habeo quid apud acta prosevere debiam. Defensor principalis simul et omnis Curia puplica dixerunt: Patent tibi cotecis puplici, prosequere quæ optas.” What was law at Angers was not unlikely to be law at Le Mans.
547. We shall come in my next volume to the “Conspiratio quam communionem vocabant” in the days of Bishop Arnold. Vet. Ann. iii. *315.
548. See the “Dissertation sur les Incursions Normandes dans Le Maine,” by M. Lestang (Le Mans 1855).
549. Local tradition places no less a person than the famous Roland among the local heroes. See Voisin, i. 271. This falls in with his description in Eginhard, Vita Car. c. ix., as “Hruodlandus Brittannici limitis præfectus.”
550. See vol. i. pp. 199, 200.
551. Flod. 924. “Nortmanni cum Francis pacem ineunt sacramentis per Hugonem et Heribertum Comites, Seulfum quoque Archiepiscopum; absente Rege Rodulfo, ejus tamen consensu, terra illis aucta, Cinomannis et Baiocæ pacto pacis eis concessæ.” This grant is doubtless alluded to by William of Poitiers when he says (p. 104), “Nam et olim egit sub Normannorum Ducum ditione regio Cenomanica.”
552. Flod. 924. “Rex [Rodulfus] ... Heriberto denique Peronam, et Hugoni filio Rotberti Cinomannis dedit.”
553. See the note of Pertz, iii. 623, on Richer, iii. 77. The invasion of Otto (see vol. i. p. 265) and the exploits of Geoffrey (see vol. ii. pp. 274, 591) are transferred to the reign of Robert, “Robertus filius Ducis”—a confusion, one would almost think, between Robert the son of Hugh Capet and the elder Robert the son of Robert the Strong.
554. M. Voisin (i. 332 et seq.) makes his Hugh-David reign from 922 to 970, when he is succeeded by Hugh the Second, father of Herbert Wake-the-Dog. The Art de Vérifier les Dates (ii. 830) seems to know only one Hugh, who begins to reign 955 “ou environ.” Hugh the father of Herbert is perfectly well ascertained, the only question is whether he is the same as the Hugh and the Hugh-David whose charters are printed by M. Voisin (i. 341). A Count David appears in Robert de Monte (Pertz, vi. 518) as a rebel against King Robert, in punishment for which rebellion, “dedit Rex Gaufrido Grisagonella homagium illus, et ipsam civitatem, et quidquid habebat in episcopatu Cenomannensi.” This is of course the same story that we have just had before. As the Counts of the tenth century do not immediately concern my subject, I do not feel called on to decide between the disagreeing doctors, ancient or modern.
555. He was probably married; at least there was a personage in his house whom the Biographer of the Bishops (Vet. An. iii. *298), sarcastically perhaps rather than reverentially, speaks of as “Episcopissa.” He is also charged with fraudulently suppressing a college of Canons, in order to enrich his children with their possessions.
556. Vet. An. iii. *297. “Venit ad Burgardum Vindocinensem Comitem,” then follows the list of the property alienated to the Count, but I do not find any account of this matter in the life of Burchard in Duchèsne, iv. 116.
557. Ord. Vit. 532 B. Herbert is introduced “post mortem Hugonis patris sui quem Fulko senior sibi violenter subjugârat.”
558. See the story in Will. Gem. v. 10.
559. Vet. An. iii. *299. “Sepulto Segenfrido ... domnus Avesgaudus nepos ipsius sedem episcopalem suscepit.” The elder William of Belesme was his brother. Like Archbishop Malger (see above, p. 94), he was fond of hunting, and, as a punishment for his breach of canonical rule, he had a fall from his horse, which damaged his nose for life. We have however heard something (see vol. ii. p. 139) of his good works in the way of building.
560. See vol. ii. pp. 230, 231.
561. Vet. An. iii. *300. “Constituit castellum, nomine Firmitatem, super fluvium Idoneæ ut esset ibi in refugium.”
562. Ib. “Habuit [comes] Alanum fortissimum Comitem Britannorum sibi in adjutorium, et venit ad castellum, et obsedit illud. Ex unâ enim parte vallaverunt illud Britanni, ex alterâ Cenomannici.”
563. Fulbert, we are told (Vet. An. u. s.; see vol. i. p. 488), “tunc temporis sapientiâ et sanctitate inter Galliarum Episcopos, velut Lucifer inter cetera astra cœli, resplendebat.” Fulbert is to excommunicate him “auctoritate divinâ, nisi resipisceret.” Fulbert’s divine authority seems to have reached beyond his own diocese. He wrote a letter “sale satis conditam,” and afterwards sat in judgement in person between the Count and the Bishop in the city of Le Mans. Mabillon seems to identify the letter with the one which is printed in Duchèsne, iv. 173, denouncing the crimes of “Præcursor Antichristi Herbertus Comes Cenomanis” and denouncing excommunication against him. But this letter is addressed to Ebalus, who, in p. 181, appears as Archbishop, not, as one would have expected, of Tours, but of Rheims.
We’ll remember where you stopped. All chapters