Anglo-Norman Studies IX: Proceedings of the Battle Conference 1986 [9] 085115476X, 9780851154763, 9781846151910

Citation preview

II

Anglo-Norman Studies IX.PROCeEDINGS OF THE BAlTLE CONFERENCE 1986 Eaited by R.ALLEN BROWN

II

ANGLO-NORMAN STUDIES IX

PRQCEEDINC;S O F THE BATTLE CONFERENCE 14286

ANGLO-NORMAN STUD

PKOCEELZINGS OF THE BATTLE CONFERENCE 2 986

Edited by R. Allell Brown

THE BC2YIIELL PRESS

Disclaimer: Some images in the original version of this book are not available for inclusion in the eBook.

O Contributors 1"386,1987' All Rights Resm~ed.Except as permitted under current legislation no part of this work may be photocopied, stored in a retrieval system, published, performed in public, adapted, broadcast, transmitted, recorded or reproduced in any form or by any means, without the prior permission of the copyright owner

First published 1987 The Boy dell Press, Woodbridge Transferred to digital printing

The Boydell Press is an imprint of Boydell & Brewer Ltd PO Box 9, Woodbridge, Suffolk fP12 3UF, tili and of Baydell &- B ~ w e fnc. r 4Q8 Mt Hope Avenue, Rochester, NV 14S21ff USA website: www.boydellandhrc_.wer.com A CiP catalogue record far this book i s available from the B r i ~ s hLibrary

This pubtication is printed an acid-free paper

CONTENTS LIST O F XLLUSTRATfONS EDITOR'S PREFACE ABBREVIATIONS

The Participation o f Aquitanians in the Conquest of England 10kG1100 Geo5qe Beech

Vlf

viii

I

Stereoeype Nomans in Old French Verriacular Literature Matthew Benr-~en Byzantine Marginalia to the Norman Conquest Krgnl'e Cl't~qaar Appendix: The Latin-Greek Wordlist in Ms. 236 of the Municipal Library of Avranches, bl.97u W.J. Aevts

43

The Effect of the Conquest on Norman Architectural Patronage Eric E'emie

72

6-4

f3ornesday Book and the Tenufial Revolution Robin Fleming Henry o f Huntingdon and the Manuscripts of his Historia Atzglomm Diana E, Crccnway

1 03

'No Rcgistcr of Title': The Domesday Inquest and Land Adjudication I"atrl Hyams

127

The Abbey of Cava, its Property and Renefanors in the Norman Era C A. Loud

14-3

(I'ondcqna fineratio: Past-Conquest Attitudes to the Saints of the Anglo-Saxons S . J . Ridyard The Danish Geon~etricaXViking Fortresses and tbcir Context El-re Rocsl-ldkE The Holy Face tzf lucca: Diana ,W. Webb

179 209

Alttiqs. l o i i r t t .

Arch. Jotrnt. ASC

?'fw /lttriqtritt-it~Jotiwlnf (Socicty of Ar~tirlrraricsof Londorl) 14rrltnr'ofr?,qicnl_Jorir.ztnl (llo)i,iX Arc!latological ftlstittr tc) A~tqlo-Snxorr Clrrc~rlicli., cd. I). Whitclock trr id., LoriJo~r I il(39 'flrc Clrn~rticlc*qf Barflc. Abhclt, cd, E f e , ~ ~ ~Scaric, or C>xbrd Medieval 'I'cxts, IC38f.I Urillorirl t l f flw Itrsrirlicrj c t f ' H i s r o ~ i i n lK t ~ t ~ t r t - c f l l3ritisl1 L,lbr~l-y U~l>liotlsi.qucNd ~ ~ C ) E I J ~ C " 7Itc ISil)tc*lrx ?;z~?c~s'ty,cd. F". M. S t c g ~ t ~3~l ld, cdn, L O ~ I ~ U I I 196.5 Calr*rrdnrof f)(~t.titllc~tfs j ? r t ~ t r t j t ~i~l l J F~~IIIc(\ . . ii, 91 23-1 3 t 0, cct. J. I 3. ~ I O E I IHMSCI, I~, 1 899 'rlfr~ fiar*rtrt*itd t ~IXltstittpat~I)rc$clirt ~ ? f " C ; t r j lbislityp ctfA~jricr/s, cd. C:dthcrinc M o r t o r ~lt11cJi I Iopc Mrrns, Oxford Mcdiev;rl Tcxts, 1072 Wjllianl of Malrilesbury, X ~ ~ ~ ~ j~olttjfj~ttfn ~ J S I I S Af~qlorli~~t, ec2, N.1:. S. A . 1-f~r~lilt-ox~, X-IS l870 Willinrn r>f Malnzcsbury, IJc ' q c ~ f i srt:qrriti rlrlsqlitt?rrtr, ccS. W. Stttht>s, 1.ZS 1887 Dc)rttt.zt!fty Book, libc~rccrrrtrrllis . . . , cd. A. Farlcy, 2 vols, "tccord C o ~ ~ ~ t t ~ i s s i1783 on", 121. tnt~rihrrz czf it'cfjs [)t"il~/i)t"ti~f~A Y t ~ n l i n i t ~ t i nDlrclittt c aiicfortn ZJlrriiltlcp Stirrriti Qrrirlfirli I')c.ca[ro, ecl. J. Lair, SociGtC d t s Arztiquarrcs dc Nornsallttic, 1865 Ilirtrtrii;r froitnrrrtrr irr A#raq/iil,cc3. M. Rule, RS 1884 Ertqlisfr Hijcitrim/ I f r ~ c r r r n t ~ i l fis,, cd. 11. Wtl~tclock,Lol-tdon 19355; ii, t t I , 11.C:. Ilotlglas, 1,011d0~1151.53 IJttqlisla lIi~frtr-ii-rl/R ~ ~ i ~ i c ~ t r ~ K t ' r ~ ~ cdips ~ i l czifi" sit" dnrr~rtic' ayc~rlrrar~rfI'c (911- 1066), cd. M. Fanroux, Pul61l1oircs de la SociCtC dcs Antiqrr;tircs c?lc Nor~tt~lrldic, uxsvi, 19)Gl c:c?tfi/~/t*ft~ ~ ~ c c l u q/~ qIiil,q/~fji/~ ~* &5r6>t/62ftli, Irt>/t2ttd, C;lqt>tzfBrirtzifl ntrrl t l t t 4 'rlll'ft'il Kii!qe/olf?,13 I - O ~ Sii13 14, I , C ) ~ I ~ CZ 9I 1~f If-,50 W1Ili3nl of IJczitic"r$, C;(:~frl (Jtfilltld, t i S t 87(1 _lor~r,lrzl it( fllrd1Zririslr Art Iltzr'r?/c?qit-r~lA4ssorinticjil

.

William of Jurni2gcs, Gesm ,Yorrtrtrrr,ror.rarn Drrrrrm, cd. J. Marx, Soci&t@de I%histolrc dc Normarldie, 1914 T7/ze Lr~trersof t i l ~ ~ f i ~ aArcllitisitop nr qf Cnrtrcvbtrry, cd. H. Clover and M. (l;ibson, C3xford Mediev:~t.Tcxts, 1979 iZ4edl"~t~aC .4 rclzac?ola,gy i Z 4 0 r r r d ~ ~ e ~ irrnnninr* rrj Iiisloricn, Scriptores Willianl I)ugdalc, ,I/lotrnsticott Attglirnttttm, ed. J. C:aIcy, H. Ellis and B, BancSinef, 6 vols in 8,LOIIC~OXI 2 817-30 Ncw Scrics Ordcricus Vitalis, Hisfi~rinE ~ ~ I ~ z s l a ~ed. f i ~M.. n , C:hibtsaXl, C>xford Medieval Texts, 1969hbblic Record C3fficc Procc.cdr'~l~qsqf rhl. Rrifislz A carfc)rny Rqqt>stn Rc:qiim A~~~~o-;V~run~rt~~~~v~~~r~, i, cd. I-I. W. C:. l ) d ~ i s , OxfbrJ 1923; ii, cd. C,Jol~nson,I i . A. Cronllc, Oxford 1956; iri, ccl. I-(. A. C:ronnc, 11. i I. C:. I)avis, Cjxford 196% Rolls Serics, Ltrtxzdon scrics 2-ransactions l'ritrrsaitr'c~trsctfrlrc Koytzl E-rrisroriro/ Socicfy Victoria C:ourlty 1 Iistory 71w LO;. c!fEdrili?rrl tile f:o~~fi.ssor.,cd. F. Barloill;, Nelson's Medieval Tests, Lot~ctcJtrr1962 eJ. j, Arnlitagc Robinson in his Gilhcrt Criqriti iriltror qf f4fcsrrnf"trstt~r, C:arllbridgc 1% 11 Wace, LC Rortiat~dc Ktlu, ect. A. J. Hotdcn, 3 voIs, SociCtl: des at2cicns textcs franqais, Paris 10"7(3--73 Florencc tzf Worccsrcr, Chroflicort cx Cfrvotlicis, cd. B. Thorpe, Ellglish F-Iictorical Society, Loncion 1848-49

The Participation of Aguitaniatzs England and Ayuitaine in the eleventh century Houses of Normandy and Thouars in the eleventh century Byxdrztr'ne LWa~qinalkro the Norman Gorzq~test I Isaac I Comncnus, 1057-1059 2 Constantine X Duucas, 1 05%lM7 3 William the Conqueror, 10661087 4 William the Conqueror, 106fi--1tJ87 5 Municipal Library of Avranches MS 236, fol. 97v

The effect ofthr Onquest or.r hTc)rmcrtzAuchitect~r~l r"atvorzagr 1 Jurniii.ges, Notrc Dame, Navc elevation and cross-section 2 Stow, St Mary, Crossing, with arches rcconstmcted 3 King's Lynn, St Margaret. South-west tower 3 York, minster. Plan 5 Plan of St Gall. The eastern arm of the church 6 Canterbury, cathedral. Plan 7 Golagne, St Maria i r n Kapitol, Plan of crypt 8 Tewkesbury, abbey, Reconstruction of giant order in choir 9 Virxuvius" basilica at Fanum, as reconstructed by C. Perrault Duwrmday Bonk and the Tt;nurial Revoltition 1 The disposition of thc Xands af Aalglo-Saxon l o r d s h e n in Buckirtghamshire by the tinlc of the Domesday Inquest 2 Carr~bridgeshircvalues in newly consolidated holdings TRW

The Abbey of Cavn Map I Southern Italy Map X X Mcn subject to the abbey of C a v a in Cilento 1083 Map lIl The principality of Salerno Map IV Cava dependencies in Apulia 1100 Table f The Marman counts af the principate Tablc 11 Thc Sarl Scverino family Table IIf The Grriily of the Lombard princes o f Salcrr-ro The Dauxish Geometrical Viking firtwscrs 1 Denmark, with the sites mentioned in the text 2 Reconstructed plans of Aggcrsborg, Fyrkat and Trelleborg 3 Trcllcborg seen from the east 4 Aggersborg from the west 5 Fyrkat seen from the north-west 6 The Fyrkat house 7 Plan of the excavated part of Sauburg 8 Schematic drawing of the Jelling manunlent 9 King Harald's rrunc-stone in Jelling

144 149 153 f 54 158 164) It;;?

The ninth annual Battle Conference was held fi-om 25 to 36 July 1986 at Pyke House, Battle, Sussex. One is inclined to put first that the tenth (and anr?iversary) conkrcncc in 1987 wi31 be held at Caen bemeen 2 and 10 September by invitation of the Senatear-Maire of Caen as part of the official Norman commemoration of the Conqueror in that year. Meanwhile thanks for the succcss of the 1986 conference must be ofkred to the East Sussex C o u n v Council, especially Mrs Gillian Murton and her assistants, to the Warden of Pyke House and his staff, and to those who not only attended but gave the papers now printed in this volume. Two are regretably wanting: that of the Rev, Profgssor ArnoId Klukas who was prevented from attending by the ill-health of his wik, and thc well-received communication of R r john Palmer about the computer-based Domesday project at Hull which he felt to be unsuitable for publication. The Outing this year was to Windsor, and for the success of that our thanks arc especially due to the Kt Rev the Dean, the Chapter Clerk, and the Queeds Librarian, as also to Mr Peter Cumow, Her Mlljesty's Principal Inspector of Ancient Monuments, who did the better part of the guiding. The Battle Conference also would not be the same if the Headmaster of Battle School did not give us his kind permission to hold our opening reception in the Abbot" Hall; nor would it be without the averflowing hospitality of the landlord of the Chequcrs. R, Allen Brawn

THE PARTICIPATION OF AQUITANIANS IPi CONQUEST OF ENGLAND I. George Bcech IN his account of the battle of Hastings Williaxn of 120itiersdescribes the force attackittg the English as composed of Nrrrr~tans, Bretons, Frcrichmcn, Aquitanians and meit from the pravirzce of Maine.' Historians of our o w n day have writtcx~a t great lertgth about the identity and roXc of thc Bretolrs, and above all, the Noimans, in the conquest artd settlement of England but havc scarce1y mentioned the A yrlitanians with whorn I am corzccrlred today. Such r~cglcctis not. surprisir~gsince the main English narrative sources makc alrrrost n o rekrcncc to pcoplc fioni this part of France thus leaving thc irnprcssiorl that Aquitanians played n o role in English affairs dtrritig or after the Conquest, artd in the process, casting dorrbt on dre rdiability of WIlliarrr of Ebc~itiers' assertions. To be sixe c10sc anit t:3r rcaching tics carrzc to link Erlglarxd and Ayuitaine for nearly thrcc cer-tturicsin the Iater Middle Ages. but it has always hecrl assumed chat those rcsulted from tire ascent of Efe~tryPiantagenel: to the English throne in 1 154 which made his wife Eleanor, heircss of Ayuitainc, Quccn of England. Modern historians l~avchad nothing ttr say about m y English-Aquitantans relations prior to this tinte, Noricthcless the El-rglish sorrrccs alone cannot be takcrx unquestioningly to give a camplcte picture of the reality and invalidate Wi1lia1-n of i%oitiers' statcmcnts, Thc grtrpose of tny paper today is to took carcfutly into Wiliiani's conccr~tiotl,taking into consideratiox1 aX1. tXzc rclcvant original soixrces I know of, Norman and Aquitanian as well as sor-nc little rloticed English ones urirh a view to answering the follocving questions. First, can any illd~pe~ldc~lt corroboration for an Aquitarliart prcscncc at Mastirlgs be fi3~1nd2 The answer to this will he positive: indeed wichout that it would have beer1 pointlc5s to proceed further. Thcre then fcltlr>mr a number of rclatcd questions. First, who were thc Aquitanians and how did they get involved in a Nornlan expedition so far from home? Was this merely a r~lilitary adwnttrrc of restlcss warrjors scekirlg war and booty whcrever the ctypur~nityoffered itself, or did rhcir participation havc any broader political significance at the time? Seconcily. what happcned to then1 after thc victory? Ilid ally stdy ~ C ~ I ~ I L I I I C ' R ~and I ~ , can

one speak of any lasting and significant ties between England and Aquitaim in rhe period njer 1066 and prior to 1154;"' The failure of all other contemporaries independent of William a f Paitiers and this includes English, Norman and other continental w~.itcrs--to mention any Aquitanians at Hastings naturally leads to suspicions that for one reason or another he either invented, or was mistaken about, this element in his narrative. Some recent conlmentators have indeed dismissed his testirnonyeJ Nonetheless the unusual amount of attention William pays to Aquitanian and Paitevin affairs at several different points in his history, coupled with his generally high reputation firr reliability in naming participants in the Hastings campaign, has caused others including Jane Martindale, to accept thc accuracy of his In addition to listing Aquitanians in general terms among the cambattants at Hastings, he nantes one Aquitanian nobleman, Ainleri o f Thouars, as anc of the ten most prominent men on the field of battle, He further pictures the same Airneri as the-f;lmiliariswho, in a London council: o f December 1066, made a speech urging William to take the English throne at that time, Finaily, following the coronation, he describes King William dbrhidding his fitllowers, Normans, Bretons and Aquitanians, any form of pillaging a r plunder in the newly conquered country ,5 Two lFactors need to be taken into accaurit in evaluating the assertions of William of Poitiers, First, he was himself in a good position to know people and events in Aquitaintt because of a prolonged stay in the capital of the Duchy, Poitiers, during his studies there for several years during the late 1041)s,6 Xn addition to this consideration there also exists independent corroboration that Aimcri of Thouars was in fact in England in the later eleventhA word of exglanatsoxl zs m order here m vlew ofthe fact thatJane Martindale delivered a paper at the 1984 Battle Conferace on a similar top~c- "imerl of Thouars and the Poitevin Connection", (ante, VIE, 1%5,22&5.) By one of the qulrks ofour profession it happened that at that time the two of us were working independently on virtually the same toplc. She presented her findings here in 1984, whereas I read the first verslorl of mine at a meeting of the American Maskitls Society for Anglo-.Norman studies in Houston in late 5983- Thus this is an tndepndent contribution to the subject not a response to her paper. Nonetheless due to the restricted nature of the topic and the limited nunibcr of original sources available, our two papers ~ncvitablyoverbp somewhat. T o avoid repeeition I have summarrscd in those sections where we cams to similar conclusions and have glven nlost attention to what I think is discitlaive 1n my own approach to the topic. Stern KSrncr, The Battle of Uastings, Etlglanel atld Etarope 1035-1066, Lund 1964, 220-55, Martindale, 'Aimeri of'Thouars" Ges-ta Cuillelmi, 23, 25, 27, 33-35, 64-45, 67, 71-1, X%k-1, 193, 219, 233. T h e first: of these four texts is glvetz in note 1; the o t h r ttlrcc follow here. '. . . AAJerat huic corrsiXio Hainierius Aquitanus, Praeses Toarcensis, lingua non ignob~lior quam dextra, Is denlirans, cr urbane extolle~lsmodestiam inquirentem aninios militurn, num vellmt dominurn suunl regem fieri: 'Ad discepcattonem, inqult, hujusmodx, milites nurnqtiaam aut raro acciti sunt. Iilon est diu tradendunl lrastra dcliberatione desideramus Geri quam ocissime' . , . ', 218; '. . . neque liberius Normanni quarn Brrtanrli vel Aqurtani agere pemlttebantur . . .", 232; '. . . Xnterfuerunt huic praelia Eustachirls Boloniae comes, Guillelmus Ricardi Ebroicensis carnitatis frlius, Gmlfelmus Osberni filius, Maimefius Toarcertsis praeses, GuaIterius Giffard~ts, Hugo de Montefartr, Radulphus de Toneia, I-Iugo de Grentr~~ainstlil, Guiltelmus de Cuartmna, atiique quarnplures militaris praestanttae fama, cekbratissirni er quorum nomina histariarunr volurninrbus inter bell~cosiss~rnos commcndari deceat.', 19449, ti The evidence on this stlhjecr is presented by Foreville, Gestu Cuillelmi, ~x-x,and R. I-[. C , LJavis, W~rlliamof Poitiers and his History o f William the Gortquerar" The Writing ofHistor), itz the Middle Ages. Essays prllsentcd to Richard Wfliarn Solcthem, Oxford 1981, 71-100.

T h e Participation of Agtiitaniauzs in the Co~zquustof Eftgland 1066- 11MI

3

century - the anonymous author of a late eleventh-century history of the western Poitevin priory of Chaise-Je-Vicomte noted that three years earlier 'Viscount Aixneri had crossed over to the region of the English far the second dnzeS7This is the same Airneri of Thouars who is associated with Hastings in the Gesta Guillelmi, Since this Airneri founded the priory of Chaise-le-Vicornte and figures prominently and favourabiy in the papers of" its history it is likely that the author o f the history knew him personally and that his aqount of the English trip is trustworthy. Unfortunately the fragmented state of this chronicle m k e s it impassible to date &is passage, The same author also refers to another trip the sanle Viscount had made to England - kame years agobas he puts it - in atlother previously unknown and also undatable passage ,of the same rhronicle which X found a n u d e r of years ago in a later copy in the Bibliothkque Nationale in P a r i ~ In . ~ neither case did these English trips have anything to do with the writer" main preoccupation at the tirne, - namely disputes involving his priory in which the Viscount played a role - so the author merely noted the fact of Aimeri's absence and gave no further details, Thus we know xlothing about Aimeri of Thouarshrcasons for going, the Xe~lgthof his stays, or their consequences, Were these English trips related to the Hastings campaign? The very brevity of the references, and the author's lack of interest in them might discourage that hypothesis. Surely hc would have taken pains to emphasise the Viscount" sole in such a momentous event, especially if it had been, as William of Poitiers assures us, a glorious role on the winning side? These may, in fact, be references not to the invasion of 1 0 but ~ to later visits of Aimeri of Thouars in the 1070s or 1080s. In this regard it is appropriate to add that about 75 per cent of this chronicle is niissing today (a sixteenth-century note in the archives in Angers makes this clear) and all of the missing portion prcleedes what survivcrs.' If these surviving refercna arc indeed ta later trips and not to Hastings, it is conceivable that the author dealt more fully with the 1066 invasior~in the now missing blios. All this is hypothetleal, however, and what remains certain is the fact of the two trips themselves. Since the Viscounts of Ttlouars had no other kno-wn connections wit11 England it does not seem excessive to cancludc that they were related, eirhctr directly or indirectly, to the Norman conquest. The verification of William of Poitiers' claims &out Aquitanians and the Viscount of Thouars at Mastings leads straightaway to a new problem. m y would people from this part o f Frame have been supporting a Norman enterprise in England at this t i r r ~ c w h a tinterest couXd they have had ir-x ma different countries so far removed from their own? The first answer that conles to mind is the desire for advexzttlre and booty. William of Poitiers himself writes that knights came from all over Francc to help the N o m a n cause, in part because of the generosity of the Duke of Normandy; thus this hypothesis is quite plausible." Con the ocher hand other sources provide no explicit mnfirrriatiorl of it and one is led to wonder whether this really was an '. . . quando secunda vice, cerclo videlicet rctro anno, tn regrollern Anglorum abisser.', Paul Narchegay, ed. Les Cavttrkairrs dcr Bas-P~~itocr, Les Rochcs Baritaud 1877, 4. ' '. . . ante aliquos annos Ayrnericus vreecomes in Ar~gforurnreglutlem trans1rc.t . . .', BN, Fonds Francais 20258, fol, 62-5. Marchegay, C~zrt~laires drr Bs-Poitnu, 3, More I . ' O Cesta Cirtillelmi, 150k-1.

Image not available

The Particiyatiart o j Aquitaaians i~ the Conquest cf Eftgland 1066-1

IIK)

5

isolated example of temporary Norman-Aquitanlan collaboration of a purely pcrsonal nature which came about more or less by chance. If Viscount Ainleri of Thouars had been simply an incfividud mercenary, would William thc Conqueror havc admitted h i n ~into his small circle of intimate advisors? At least as a working hypothesis it is worth looking further to see whether the Norman-Aquitanian collaboration at Wastings might not have been the result of conlmon political interests which extended be yond the personal. f-fad Normans and Aquitanians in fact had anything to d o with one another bcforc 1066 which might help explairi their cooperation at that tin~e? Before attcnlpting to answer this question it is essential to clarify briefly what was meant by Aquitaine and Aquitanians in the eleventh century, Contemporaries used these words prinlarily in a political sense to designate what was tht largest territorial principality in France at thc time, extending roughly from the Loire to the Pyrenees and from the Atlantic coast to the Auvergne, and grouping together a Large collection of diverse counties of varying sizes, population and wealth. Since the tenth century the ducal title had become the hereditary possession of the Counts of Poitou who ruled the duchy from their capital at Poitiers. The term Ayttitaitie was also used in an ecdesiastical sense to refer to thc two great archdioceses of Bordeaux and Hourges, and in a cultural-ethnic scnsc to distinguish the Aquitatlians as nlen~bersof a large grouping of pcoples (not a nationality in the rnodcrrl usc of the tern^) kavixig a common fatniXy of languages or dialects, legal custon~sand historical traditions, which distinguished them frorn tkc Franks north af thc Z,air(~". Aimeri of Thouars was thus a Poitevin by origin - Thouars was one of the faur viscownties of the courity of Poitolt - but also an Aquitanian in that Paitou was one, in fact the principal, county in the Duchy a f Aquitaine.Ii That Aquitaine and Norxnar~dy should havc had rnuch to d o with one another in 1066 is not at all obvious, as a glance at a map will illustrate, C3ver a hundred miles of ofZen hostile territory, the provinces of Anjou and Maine, its basic pc>litical, linguistic separated them a t their zicarest point. F~lrthcrr~lore and cultural traits had always lirtlked the Aquitanians with the scjuth rather than with the north. Nonetheless it is cXcar that by 14K6 continuous if not close contacts of scvcral kinds had cxisted between thc peoples of Normandy and Aquitalne, especially Poitou its rrarthcrnnlost part, as far back as the sixth e estabtishnlent of the Nornlan state at the century but particularly s i ~ ~ cthe beginning of the tenth, Poitevi~~ monks founded and later helped r c b r m a numbm of Norman mrrasteries, most notably Ju~niPge~, and the two reg* x~on s maintained continuous rnonastic relations until the titlie 06 the G o n q u e ~ r . ~ ~ The student days of the author of the Gexta Gur'lleEmi, Williani of Poitiers, demonstrate the existence of cultural coxltacts between Normandy and tlrc schools of Poiticrs in the early cleventb centrrry. The farric of these schools brought William frorn Norrrlandp to study the libcrat arts there and hc sukscquently acquired his surname as a rcsulr of his stay in the town, '"Finally, on a political levcl a marriage in 935 betweeri the rulittg Families of niormandp R~cr-jeC:roree, Hisroirr du

fi~t0t4,

" Michel Kouche, L %qurfarne, dlls

423-41. l 3 See note 6 above.

Paris 1949, t0,a"rinl.

Visr~qofhs ntrx A r ~ h c s ,?;i.rt~~s~znce dbunr rkgrtm 4111-781, Pans 19'79,

and Poitou-Aquitaine created dynastic ties betwem the two regions and as a result the two Dukes on the eve of the invasion, Guy-Geoffrey of Aquitaine and William of Normandy were third cousins.'4 Charter and chronicle evidence shows that the two families maintained friendly if not close relations steadily during the tenth and early eleventh centuries, Friendship turned to hostility when Guy-Geoffrey twice accompanied and supported Count Geoffrey of Anjou and King Henry I in their abortive invasions of Normandy in 1054 and 1058.'' But even had these two campaigns not alienated the m a men, surely the primordial political intercrsts of Guy-Geoffrey, i.e. the protection of his southern Aquitanian counties and his newly acquired Duchy of Gascony, would have preduded his participation in the English vezlture of the Nornlans. Normans and Poitevins met in still other ways in the cleventh century. The reconquest of Spain from the Saracens attracted men from both provinces and they fought side-by-side under the command of Guy-Geoffrey of Poitou in the battle of Barbastro in 1%3,16 Thus dynastic, religious, educational and crusading interests helped create closer ties between Poitevins and Normans in the century and a half before 1066 than one might have expected given the distance between their respective provinces, Still, they were clearly not close enough to persuade the Duke of Aquitaine to veer ftom the traditional policies of his predecessors in &e south and commit himself to the English invasion or to dissuade him from aiding Norman enemies in Anjou in tbe 1050s. But some Ayuitanians did fight in William's army and this brings the irlquiry back to Viscaullt Aimeri of Thauars whom William of Poitiers names as the most prominent of their number. Who was he and what might have persuaded him to commit himself to the Norman invasion when his lord, the Duke of Aquitaine, remained aloof? The lack of an adequate modem study of this family sevcrcly hinders any atternpt to grasp its history, Yet the main outlines stand out unmistakably. The hrtified town of "Thouars itself bad long been of considerable strategic importance commanding the Thouct river, a major tributary of the Loire and one of the principal routes of access to Paitott and Aquitainc from the north. Tfioctars became the seat of a very large viscounty, the largest of four rnaking up the couxity of I%itou, in the course of the ninth century. Xn the later tenth and early eleventh century the Viscounts of Thouars extended their territorial influence into western a r Bas-Poitou (today the Vendkc), a region devastated and largely depopulated by Viking attacks and invasions and, establishing an hereditary, dynastic claim to their castle, and lands, they becanle increasingly independent of'the Count of Poitou. By the end of the eleventh century they ruled one of the n~ostpowerful lordships in western France ixlcluding at least

"

Jt(mti?ges, 34-5,

" 9Cesra Gtrilkelmi, 64, 78.

'Vrosper Roissonadc, Dtl notrvearr rr4r Ia cizatzsort dcp Roland, Parrs 143, 22-7. MarceI~n Defaurneaux, Les-fmrzpis en E.qpueqne atrx Xle et XlIe silcle?;,Paris 1949, 131-35, " fiilugues Imbcrt, Notice sur les t~icowtzresde Thottars, Mfniaires de la SacikC des Ant~quatresdc. I'Ot~est, XXIX, 1864, a the only attempt at a h~storyof the Viscounts of Thuuars but it is totally irlacfeq~~ate even by the standards of schoIarsI~spthen. Jane Martindalc greatly Improves rnatters wrth regard to the V~scountin question in this paper: Martmdale, Airnevi of Thotrars.

seventeen castles, hundreds of square miles of territory and scores of noble vassafs, The question now focusses on the viscoum in 1066, Afmcri, and the reasons for his engagement in the Norman expeditiorl tn England in that year. Could any common interests have linked him with William of Normandy or was their collaboratio~ithen something new which brought two strangers together for the first time? There is not much evidence on the subject but what thcre is is interesting and worth passing in review, fn 1oCj6 contacts had existed between the peoples of PJeustri&ormandy atld the Thnuars region continuoudy since Mcrovingian times. In the mid-sixth century a number of north Aquitanian, mainly Puitevirr, lrlorlks began a mavcmcnt of evangelisation in northern Gaul, especially in Ncustria, fotxriding new monasteries and spreding Christianiq and Aquitanian culture in general." One of these, Paternus, a monk from the abbey of St Jouin-de-Marnes in the Thouars region, established a series of tnonasteries near Avrar~chcswhere hc died as bishop c, 565. A century later a southern Aquitanian, Philibert, handed the abbey of JumiPges in Nornlandy at the beginning of an eventful career which ended with his death in the Onlous abbey he founded at Noirmoutiers ort. arz island oEthe Atlantic coast of Poitou. As his replacement as abbot at Jumifges Philibcrt chosc a monk from Poitiers, Achard (6)3%98), and thereby continued the Poitevin. presence in Neustria. During Achard's time the abbey of Jumitges received as a benefaction an i~nportantPoitevixl estate at Tourtenay, a small village ten kilometres from T h o ~ a r s . ~The ' monks of JrtniiGges mairitatncd possession of this Poitevin estate despite the efti>rtsof Pepin, King of Ayuitaine, to confiscate it in the early rlinth cerltury and they also survived the Viking raids and invasions of the next hundred years in that rtg-ian." Thc Norman dukes of the tenth and eleventh cclnturbes had a particularly close attachment to the abbey of Jumleges and it is striking that when William Longsword sought the reform of that abbey in 943 after i t s devastation by Vikings, he tumcd to a group o f Poitevin n ~ o r ~ kfionl s St Cypricn of Poitiers to carry it out.*' Further Poitevin-Norman rnonastic contacts resulted from the fact that two other Poitevin abbeys, St Florcnt of Saumur and St Peter of Bourgucil, both, moreover, close to Thouars, heid lands and churches in N o r m a x ~ d y .In ~ ~1012, in a nlove to regroup their landed estates, Jurzzi2ges and Bourgueil agreed to exchange two of their respective foreign holdings: the Norman abbcy surrmdered Tourtcnay in the Thouarsais in return Eisr the Poitcvin abbey" pposserssions at Lortgueville near Jumi2ges. The charter recording this cxcfiange is of particular interest to ' W ~ a r c c C;araud, l Lt-s cltafelarrts (-If. Pt~rrorti7t I;lvPrtcr?r~ntdtr v{qimc,f.t;clrfdI,Memoires dc la Soc~@ci des A n t i g ~ i ~ udc w ~tXOuest, 4c si.rtc, V111, 1964, 39-13. " (On Aqultanaarr monks rn Neusrrra scc Kouchc, I%qttiratnp, 423.41. Rcn6 PouparJin, cd., AWi?ntrnrc~itrc de /'/zrstoirr dt~3R ~ ~ Y IJPC" FSt i3/8li1i1~r~ dn~~%(?8mno~fim, f;rt?ndrtrr, 7;)rrurrlrs, i%ris 19IH, XXI, note 2. Lucicn Mussct, 'Ltcs plus dnclcnncs ehartcs rrorx~larldcsdc I'aabbayc dc Uourgucrl', UuIIcrln de la Soc16til de5 Ant~q~lalres de Normandie, 54, 1957-58, 25-7. I ' J.-J, trerr?zcr, Ca7/?nrresdt* I'uahhajkc* di.Jt.irnl6gts 825- 12M, I%ns I%lh, f , 2-55. Z' Drrdo, 200-3; J~imr~per,38-40: Berlotr de S~zlrrt~-~b~airvcr, ed. Car112 Fahfm, L.und l"351, 1, 383-"3, Irncs 13179-13(.)t34. 23 Musclet, Ancirrrnfi diartt*.$ I I P ~ I X I ~ N ~ P Paul ,; Mrtrchcgay, ed, Ght3rtr.s rlonnatldes lie Iiahbaye de Satrtt-Ffarenr prSs Sarirnrir, Milmotrcs cSe la Soc16tO des A ~ l r ~ q n a ~Jr e % Normandre, 4e xeric, I, 1870,

I -83.

the present discussion fur it reveals that among many dignitaries attending the forrtial ceremony were Count Richard I1 of Normandy, grandfather of the Conqueror, Count William of Poitou-Aqtlitaine and Viscount Ralph of Thouars - uncle of the Aimeri who fought at HastingsaZ4What might a v e beers a private trarrsaction between two religious otherwise seem to h houses may well have had broader, political overtones, I shall return to this later. In any case this charter demonstrates that the two ruling families of Normandy and the Thouarsais had met and knew one another at least a half a century beiore Hastings, and although this is their only dommmted meeting, another later .Fact hints that closer personal ties, as opposed to hrmal political ones, may have resulted from it if they did not in fact already exist at the time. This is suggested by the name Gognor born by the sister of the Viscount Aimeri who Fought at Hastings," This nansc, unknown irs the stock of Germanic-Christian names current in 120itou at the tirne, and also, to my knowledge, unprecedented in the family of the viscounts of Thouars, was of Scandinavkn origin and most uncommon." The only other persorl I coulcl find bmring this name at this time was the famous w i k o f Richard I of Nornzandy, mother of Richard IX, and great-grandnlother of William the Conqueror. What is more this sanle Cunnor witnessed the very charter under discussion here which brought together her son and Viscount Ralph of Thouars in 1012,27It is difficult to believe that the introduction of this rare Scandinavian name into the Poitcvin hlnify was a coincidence, especially when it was already associated with a woman who was fanzous as the wifk and mother of Norman rulers and prclatcs and who was also known persorlally to the Poitevin viscounts. Rather, one is led almost ixievitably to suspect that a m a r ~ a g ebetween members a f the two families had led ta its adoption with the parents naming their daughter aftcr her distinguished grax~dn~other - a naming practice well known at the time. The parents of Cunnor and her brotl~erAimeri of Thouars were Viscount Ceofflrey of Thauars and his wife who bore the nanre A i n ~ r . ~ W o cappear h in charters between the l(l2Os arid 1050s when they were already married, Thcse charters do not reveal the idcntity of Ainor" parents nor has any modem scholar concerned himself with the question. However the seventeenth-century genealogist and historian Anselnse de Sainte-Marie asserts, on the basis of an apparently now lost source, that elne second daughter of Duke Richard 11 of Normandy was named Aliienc-~r.~' Though there is no ccrtain confirmation of

'"Vcrnrer,

Clzartrrsjunziuke without- tr~formrng h ~ sreader of the fact. Exanzples: Rcagcr of Montgcrn-tery, hts first cousm (GG, 52-31. Hugh, bishop o f Lmleux, h ~ second s cousin (GG, 136.43) arc4 Kobcrc of Mortain, his half brother, (GG, 148-9). "'he Ldt-nl text 1s In ~ l o t c5 dbove.

tenth centuries had far reaching consequences ffor relations betwcm northcm Neustria and northern Aquitaitle, in large part because both regions were prime targets for sustained raids, invasions and settlement^,^^ The rise of the new Viking-Frankish state of Normandy after 911, accompanied by massive Norse settlements there, is of coursc well known, but Viking raiders also had a profsund impact on the population of western C a d from Brittany south to the northern coasts of Aquitaine, especially around Nantcs at the mouth of the Loire and in western or Bas-Poitou (the present day department of the Vendee). Although they did not succeed in establishing a new state comparable to the Duchy of Normandy, Vikings raided, settled down temporarily on at least one occasion, and drastically disrupted life in Bas-Poitou during the height of their marauding activity in the ninth century. And their raids, though decreased in frequency and irltensity thereafter, continued until the early eleventh. century. In addition to destruction and widespread depopulation the Viking inmrsions brought about a fundamental restructuring of political forces in maritime Poitou with one outstanding development of the later tcr~thand eleventh cmtuies beirlg the rise of a new territorial power, the Viscounts of Thouars. Profitting from the remoteness and hence weakness of the nominal rulers of the region, the Counts of Poitou in Poitiers, successive generations of this family gradually extended their ruZe into much of the vast area of western Poitou left ddeastated and disorganised by the Viking invasions,33 n o u g h initially violent and destructive, the Viking raids actually promoted relations between Poitou and Normandy in the long run. T o begin with this res~xltcdfrom the fact that the sarlle Horse and Danish Vikings who invaded Normandy also invaded Bas-Poitou, and, furthermore, they maintained contacts with one another after settling down in their newly conquered te~itories. In all probability thc Vikings of Bas-t30itou used Nornzanhy as a base of operations and returned there afccrwards. in any casc the Dukes of Normandy had close cantacts with the Viking raiders of Bas-Poitou long after they thcmseives had abandoned their earlier violent way of life and organised a stable government in their duchy. Nothing could den~cbnstratethis more clearly than the fact that around the year 1OOO thc Aquitanian Visount of Limoges. possibly t h o u g h the nzcdiatiorl of his lord, thc Count wf Poitou-Dulic of Aquiraine, turned to Duke Richard II of Normandy to obtain the release of his wife. From Adernar of Chabanncs w c learn that the Viscountess of limoges had beer1 taken away bacr9ss the sea' by VVikings and held hostage for three years after being captured and abducted in a surprise raid while she was on the Poitevin coast,34The abducters in this case were obviously either Normans 3 q u c ~ e Mussrt, x~ L,PS i 1 i t J a ~ t o t tI,c ~ . rerortd ~sscxutcopltut* /'littr-ol~e C / J Y ~ ' I ~ L * N I IC'IIe P - Xle si$c/es, Parrs 1965, 107-46. Marcel C;araud, X~cslncilrsions dcs Nom~aridsen Poirou et leurs consfqurncrcss'. Retitre Hisroriq~r,1937, 241-68. j3 Garaud, Yncursions" 241-68. 34 r , . Hlr d~ehus v~cecomtt~ssaLcrnovzrac Einrna area fesavrtatem Apostolontnl ct sar~ctl Mdrtralis oraturn ~lbiltad Sanctum MichaeIurn Flcremurn, ct rloctu ibi a Normannis capt~vata,per trcs d n n ~ emf s trans 11iare est rercnra, Ex thesauro Sar~ctrMarrlal~s~xlfrnlraaurl cr argella ponder& pro rtdc*rnpnone q u s data sum, srmulyue lrrlago aured sanctt arcbangcli, et aIia cop~osaiomamcnra, yuae ornnia Norrnann~aukrcrrccs, nlcntlta fide, mulzercm r-roat rcciididsrurtc, Jonec post rrtultos dies IZtcltarJus, cortles Rotamagcns~r,can1 mgtnro%cpcr legaros ultran-ranr~rtsadynlrcrst ct v ~ r osuo Wldont f~bcrarrtrcdcicrct . . .', AAdemar de Chabanncs, C:llrotrrgtc~, cd. Jules Chavanon, lfarls 1897,

12

Angl~-~%~t?r~tnur Studies I X

from Normandy or Vikings who had sailed from bases in that province thus placing l3uke Richard in a position to negotiate for their prisoner. The location of Thouars far inland from the sea might well encourage scqticism about contacts between the Viscounts and Vikirlg raiders, but there can be no doubt of it. The Vikings struck hard right into parts of central France including the Thotlars region by means of one vital artery, the Loire river, and Thotlars is situated on a navigable tributary, the Thouet, only thirty kilometres away. The fiercest of these attacks came in the ninth century, driving ahead of them no small number of monks Ilming their abbeys and taking with them their patrods relics for safety, hut the Vikings' presence continued until well into the eleventh century. A tradition presumably of ancient origin which lingered until the seventeenth century in Thouars, and which is unverifiable today, maintained that Saint Laon, the patron saint of an abbey of Augustinian canons bunded in Thouars in 1107, was the same person as the Norman Saint Lo rtf C ~ u t a n c e sAccording .~~ to this story the occasion h r the fourlding of S a i Laon ~ was thc rediscovery in the mid-eleventh cerlcury of the relics of Saint Lo in a tomb near Thouars where they had been buried after having been brought h e r e in the ninth century to protect them from Viking assaults in the Coutances region. Kegardlcss of its accuracy about Saint t a m and Norn~atldythis story highlights the one geographical fact which is esscrltiaX to understanding how arld why the two otherwise rctrrlote regions of Normandy and the TZ-touarsais could have n~aintainedrelations ovcr such a long period. 1 am rckrring to the Loire river and the n~aritimeroute linking the two regions. Had it nclt been f i r the Loins- and the sea route it is difficult to believe that their ruters and their monastic houses would cvcr have had any rnore than the rnost casual contacts, for the overland route was ovcr three hundred kilometres thruugh often hostile territory. That Viscount Ainneri in fact took the sea rottce when he made his tripeto England is shown by the chronicler of Chaise-le-viconltc"s use of the verb "ransire' - to cross over (the sea).3s Firmer evidence of Vikings in the Thsuars region comes from personal names prevalent there at this time. The name Worman' ww uncommon ir-t eleventh and twelfth century Poitau yet charters of Saint Laon of Thouars show that at least seven different men hearing this name lived in Thouars arld its surrounding region in. the early twelfth century, a much greater conccr~trationthan I have found anywhere else in the p r o ~ i n c e . 'The ~ same charters also tun1 up a man in

166417. Another cxampte of a Viking abduction at dpprcwx"mately the same tlrrir IS canrair~cd~n a Lat~npoenr of an early eleventh-ce~rcuryNornlan poct, Garn~erof Kouen. In thzs tnstance an Ir~sh poet and hrs wife were taken sapt~veln Ireland then sold as slaves in Corhrldgc on Tyns In Northurnbna. As a result of thc safe the two were separated hut- the husbat~dlater ~OLIIIJ his w ~ f c Ilvlng ahvc near Rousn. Ic 1s conceivahlc that Errma of X,~mogeswas also taken to northcnt Ellgland Z ~ F Cher ~ capture, for Adkrzlar reports that I3uke IZ~cttardof Norn~dndywnt messengerc over the sea to garn her freedom* Cln C;am~erof Kouen see Luszen Mursct., 'Lc satlristc (;arn~crde Kotrcri et son rnlllcu, dkbur dc. Xlc u k l c ' , R~ijuuJ ~ Moyrn I Age Catzn, X, 1954, 250-51. 35 O n t h ~ story s see E . 4 . I%geon, C i r s des ~ n f r t chi t ~ drochc dr. C:crutnrtcus er Avr6ztihr.s izrst7c /curs utfes arrciens en latrn ef en lan4quemtrranr, Avrancher 1892, I, 14-54>;149, norc 3. ' 9 ~ c crmte 8h ahave. 37 H U ~ U C Imbert, S eif., CJavrriiatrt* Ikbhltnye tit* Snmt-Lnorr dr T/zl?tiar~jMC.molrer dc la Soc16tE LIC statatlque, sciences, lrttrer et a r t d e r Llcux-Sivrcc), 1876, 2-3, i 1-12, 14, 13, 18, 38-9,35, 35, 39, 40-1, 41-2, 43, 45-6, 56, d t p

T h e I""avticipation4 Aguitaniat?s in the Got~guesto j l'lzgfaud 1066- 1100

13

Thouars called Torstaxl, a classic Scandinavian name," The name A\'omcanrzus meant literally Norseman, or nartkn~an,but contemporaries also used the tern1 as a collective to designate Scandinavians in general, op, as would be the casc today, Vikings Just how the name should be interpreted hcre is not unequivocally clear. It appears to havc bcen a baptismal name, hut it could also havc bcen a. cognomen or nickname attributed late in life, as in the case a f one F~dlcac~~qnomento hrovmat.xnus- Fulco the Norman. Did it identify the bearer as bcing of Norse descent? I am not certain of that except in olale instance, a rnorlk of Saint Florent of Saunlur in 11.52 caXled Ct-rillefmtrsNomankenn - William af Norse race or birth.39 NonetheIess 'fcJorman5 was not an ancient native Germanic personal name but was introduced into western Europe only in the later eighth century at the time of thc first Viking invasions and was thus clearly associated with the Vifcing~.~' The high itlcldence of the nante in Tkouars as late as the twelfth century clearly poirlts to the fact that Normans had once congregated in the town even if they had been assimilated by this time. Their vulnerability to Viking raids along the enormously long and exposed frontiers of thcir lands meant that the Viscounts of n o u a r s had a vital interest in coming to terms with the Morthmext - both with those already resident and with thcir fcllnw raiders who might descend unannounced and unexpected in the future. This Ieads directly back to the Dukes of Normandy. For, as seen earlier in thc Kidnappirlg of Ehc Viscountess of Limoges ca. IWl along the Poitevin mast, the I h k c of Normandy, Richard If, was in a position to negotiate fbr hcr release through his contacts with and influence over the Viking pirates who were operating out of bases in Normandy.*This consideration may well shed Xlght on the exchange of estates referred to earlier by the abbcys of Bourgucil and Jun1iii.g~~. Xt will bc mcalled that in 1012 the two abbeys agreed to exchange the estates which each held in the other's province and that three territorial princes, thc Dukes of Normandy and Poitou and the Viscount of Thouars, attended the charter ceremony at jumiegcs which condudcd the affair, Was their attendance here simply a matter of rulers overseci~~g an exchange b e t w c a ~two monastcrics ir~volvingIands under their rule, or might they not have had a xltore personal interest in the transaction? The latter is certainly true in the casc of Richard Xif of Nornlandy, who, with his mothct-, the duchess Gunnor, was the moving force in this affair. These two haid a more than casual interest in seeing t h e ~ rabbey of Junrieges acqtxire the neighbouring estate of tonguevillc from chc abbey of Bourgueil, for, as the scribe of the charter cxplair~s,that estate had originally been part of the fart-rily patrimony of the 1)ukes of Norn~andybefore bcing alienated as a marriage dowry to a daughter of an earlier genera ti or^."^ Thus the transfer of longucvillc to their favoured and nearby abbey of J m ~ i e g e samotlntcd in effect to the recovery of 3 long lost family property. Could the presence of Viscount Ralph of Tllouars at the transacriorr indicate that he played a role in bringing about this rcstitutior2 I

" Xnrbcrt., C:artl-rlcrtrt. ,Satnl-l,rwr~, 18-2if. t'aul Marchegay, cd., Ciznrtr>s p~aifetvrtt's t i e 4 ' ~ f i h a y i . tic Sarrrt-Fi"larip~~tpr?s -Sa~t~ztcr,Archlvcs H t ~ t o r ~ q u du c s IJoteou, 11, 1W73, 80. Ernsr FBrstcnlann, Aftlrr~rlrrf~lttiiIte~~ ?;nmerrhurlt. I. t-)r.rsc~rretinrt~t~t~~i. 1%3(K), No, 1171. Thc cdrfrest examptc.., atsd by Fiirstcnlartn date frorn 767, 7'79, ctc, "' SCL"notc 34 abovc. 4Z Vcnncr, C:/2:lzur-trs r f t *[~rttii&c'-c, 1, 18. 3"

think it likely. What ntight he have doncMnowing both the nlonks of Bourgueil whose abbey lay about sixty kilometres from Thouars, and the monks ofJurniPges at Tourtenay just ten kilometrcs away (and where he himself held land), and l e m i n g of the desire of Richard I1 to regain a long lost part of his family patrimony for JumiGges, he could have proposed the exchangc then used his influence to have it accepted and put into effect, In the process he wauld have gained the friendship and favour of Richard of Normandy. And the favour and friendship of the Duke a f Normandy may well have been highly desirable to the Viscount ofThouars at this tirne, given both the seriousness of the Viking problcnl and the influer~ceof the former over those people, From the perspective of l>uke Richard, a friendship with the filler of a substantial Aquitanian state below the Loire could also have looked desirable, Recent studies have shown that it was precisely at this tirne that Richard I1 was seeking to dissociate his rule and his duchy from its unruly, pagan Scandinavian p a t and to fegirimise his authority through alliances with neigbbouring Frankish princes.*j A friendship, agreement, or alliance with the Viscounts of Tholrars would have been quite consistent with this policy. So aZso would a marriage between the two families. In all Richard If married three sisters and one daughter to the heirs of ncighbouring duchies, counties and kinghrns, so the marriage of still another daughter to a northwestern Aquitaine prince like the Viscount of Thouars would simply represent an extension of that policy to a new region further to thc south. The two families of Thouars and Normandy may not have been aware of it at the time but their alliance would take on a new significance sanie fifty years later in the middle a f the eleventh century when it becanle increasingly clear that both had a common and dangerous enemy, the Count of Anjou. fn his 1964 biography of the Conqueror, 2). C Douglas empftasised the care and sklll with which Willlam undertook ta preparc f i r his English undertaking by winning friends and neutrafising potential foes through marriage, wars and alliances. T o the west and south, Brittany and Anjou posed the most ierious threat to Norman policy, located as they were along vulnerable Norman frontiers, Using the border county of Maine as an advance base, Count Geoffrey Martcl of A1-tjou had indeed twice mounted invasions of Normandy in the 1050s with the aid s f King Henry I of France. Between 1062 and IC)M William countered this menace by invading and occupying Maine thus depriving the Count of hnjou of his earlier base of operation and strengthening his o m southern frontier. Then in 1064 he invaded Brittany in support of a Breton rebellion against Count Conon, and in efkct, lessened the danger on his Breton western flank by leaving the government of the Count weakened and divided."* Having Aimeri of Thouars as a kinsman and ally enabled WiIliani to count on the support of t k most powerful prince of northwestern Ayuitaine whose lands bordered on much of the southern linzits of the county of Anjou. William Ehe Gonqucror now controlled or had friends in provinces on three sides ofthe Count of Anjou: in Maine to the north, Brittany to the west and western Poitou to the south, Hcnri Prentout, 'Le rcgne de Rlchard X I I>uc de Norrnand~eYJ41027. Son importance dans I'hrstoire" ,'Memoires dr I'Acadetnre r?atronnle dts siierzccs, arts, et belles i~rttresde &en, I I . ~ . , V, 192). 57-104, especially 72. 44 13. 6 . I3ougIas. William the Gt~qtrevor.T h e ,Yorv1.)72anItnpart on Etqgland, Berkeley I%&, 159-80,

43

Aimeri of Thouars would certainly have viewed the Count of Arijou in nruch the same way as did the f2uk.eof Normandy. The Angevin count threaterzed the security of his own northern borders especially in late 1050s and early 10)t"jOs when the two went to war on at least two ~ccasions.~* The surviving sources are too fragmentary however, to permit a coherent picture of the relations bemeen the two in the years immediately before ilM6 and thus to know whether their enmity had anything directly to do with Viscount kimeri's support of the Norman campaign in that year. This section of my paper began with the questiorr as to whether Airneri of Thouars' preserrce in the Narrnan army at Wastings was an act of essentially temporary and personal collaboration between two princes which could be explained satisfactorily by their mutual desires for knights on the one hand and booty on the other, O r whether it had any broader palltical significance reaching beyond the two nien immediately involved, Even though the available sources are frustratingly incomplete, still enough sumives to establish several key points with virtual certainty. Far from the 1066 campaign being a first mecrting, the two f'amilies had known one another since at least the begixlning of the eleventh century. They met then, if not earlier, because people from their two regions had long been in direct contact afong the Loire river-sea route around Brittany, first on a monastic basis and then, since the tenth cenruv, through their dealings with Scandinavian invaders and settlers. Their common interests led to the intermarriage ofthe two ruling families early in the eleventh century, and vvhrlrt-as the immediate reasons for Viscount Aimeri's support of William in England in 1066 elude us today, the possibility must be reckoned with that this was in part an act of fanlily loyalty: one cousin helping another in his V ~ I I ~ UtoP gain ~ a crown. Thus far this account has focussed mtirely on a single man but William of fbitiers wrote pointedly on three scparate occasions of Aquiranians in the plural, that is, as a group in which Aimeri of Thouars was only the most prominent. This necessitates asking chc same questions about. the Aquttanians collectively as was done earlier about Viscount Airneri. Is William" asscrtion accurate, and, if so, how numerous were they, who were they, why wcrc they there and what was their role at Hastings and afterwards? As was noted previously in the case of Aimeri of Thouars, no other contemporary souree confirms the presmce of arry Aquitanians at Hastings, but two later A n g l e Norman writers, Ordcric and Wace, do, and although both knew the work of William of Poitiers they did not borrow blindly from him. Both diverage slightly in stating that it was specifically Poitevins, not just Aquitanians in general, who joined William's forces, and Wacr breaks down the Aquitanian contingent even Further into E'oitevins and Thouarsais - men of the vismunty of T b o ~ a r s ,They " ~ could have taken these additional details from other unktlown, and now lost, written accounts or from oral tradition circulating at the court of Henry 11 and Eleanor in the later twelfth century. That these details may have come froal oral tradition does not automatically invalidate them as hismrical evidence in the view of Matthew Bennett who maintains that people may well C3n rclattons betwen Ai~xieriof Tkouars and the Count of A q o u before f(f(iti sce Martmdafe, 'Airneri o f Thoudrs', 23M1, 46 CJrderic, 11, 14.1-5; Wacc, 11, lrnes 7h.5742, 8tM. 45

have preserved accurate memorics of earlier Gmily members who fought at [-lastings and have passed them on by word of r ~ f o u t hAt , ~ ~the very least the accounts of Wace and Orderic show that, however accurate they nlay have b e a ~ in detail, thc notion of an Aquitanian, spccificatly Poitevin and Tllouarsais, contribution to the ir~vasionforce was very much alive in high circles a centuy later in England, Normandy and Aquitaine. Readers of the day obviously found nothing inherently implausibie in these stories and that h c t alone speaks for their credibility ever1 without the contemporary tes tinlo11y of Williarrt of Poiticrs, Ayuitanian sources themselves offer almost rro information on the presence of Aquitaniaxls at Hastings, As poir~ted out earlier the late eleventh-cer~tuq westertt f30itcvin chroniclc of the priory of Chaise-le-viconlte mentioned in passing two trips of Viscaunt Aimeri to England but the author gives no So far f can particutars about them and makes n o reference to the determille only five other historiarls from the erltire duchy of Aquitaine tnadc refcrcnce to the events of 1066 in Erlgland and their accounts an: with one exception very brief and gcn~rral,~' Moreover three of them were writi~lglong after the fact in the later twelfth century and cannot thus be considered independerir observers. Only two annalists paused to take note OF the everzt more o r less at the time, The first, a monk of St F'lorent of Saurnur on the soutlz bank of the Loire close to Thouars, wrote succinctly in his entry for 1M, WilXianz I3ukc of Nornlandy conquered E~lgland. A tcrrlfying comet a~peared'.~'That someone at Saumur should have mentioned the Conquest if only briefly i s perhaps not surprising far that town lies nn the Loire on the way to the sea route to Normandy and Exlgland. Several different Angcvirz rnor~astic chroniclers from the northern side of the Loire also took note of the i n ~ a s i o n . ~ " Moreover, as pointed out earficr, St Florenr of Saurnur also had close relations with the Viscounts of Thouars only thirty kilrzmctrcs ta the south: in fact this same chronicle which called atrenticrn to the Conyttest also rernarked on the death of Viscount Airneri in But it is the entry of the Poitevin chronicler of St Maixent which nlerits close attentian. He writes:

In the ycar 1066 a comet appeared, William the Courzt, son of the aforesaid Robert Count of Normandy, crossed the sea axrd warred with Harold psedo-king of thc English whom he conquewd together with the latter's people and E-zc acquired their country, Xt is said that his army counted Zrl.,O(;tO men. This happened on the 2nd of the Edes of October and he built 47 Matthew Bcrlinctr, 'ft"e>erry as History? The Roman de Rou o f Wace as a Source far the Nornlan Conquest', antr, V, 1982, 21-39. 48 See rlores 7 and 8 abovc h r the Latln texts. 49 The three twttfc11-century accounts arc R~cbardthe Po~tevin,Cjzrnntclt., in Bouquet, Kemeii des P.lrrrctriens de Ia C;atgle et de fa Fvlrrzct., IX, 2%; C;caffrol dc Vigco~s, acians read any grsctp that an author cared to describe in tones of awc for their barbarian ferocity. T h e Normans were seen by nlany as havirzg inherited I3axtish military virtues; an image that is sometimes inlplicd, son~ctinlcsopenty stated," In thc carly melfth century. even a sober legal text could represent tbc Normans as cspccially pugnacious, amongst its characterisation of the peoples of France and other nations.'" But, how far is there a popular, widespread it-r~age - a stereotype - of Nor~nansto be disccr~vercdin vernacular Xitcrature! Proverbs often provide a rich source of nlaterial for conventional expectations of racial or regional characteristics, What is perhaps striking about the collections consulted is the relative abcncc of any rcfcrririg specifically to Normans, T w o examples, dcscribirig Brctms, show the sort a f thing we might expect to find: N t gras poucin ne sage Brctc-1t1 (Vou'tt gct as much scnse out o f a Breton as fat off a hen,)

Lc Breton menace quant i X a ferufb

(A Brcton thrcarcns you afier he's kriockcd you down - or even -- shoots first and asks qucstians afterwards . . .) Not all such proverbial references are necassafif y slighting, however, and givm Bricrany" reputation for producing lays and folk tales it is not stlrprising to find %retanhas a synorlym for jongleur at-harpist.17 Xn the dicdonaries, Nornlan has no such conrtotations; thc adjective "rrorrrrand' in~piiesrlochir~git1 either Old French or Anglo-Norman, I V r u e , by the seventeenth cenrury it meant "rust?, maLtri.', that is, crafcy and sly, like an old fax. It would be perhaps too easy to link this definition to a character likc Robert Cuiseard, that most wily Norman, for there is no guarantee of the antiquity of the meaning. Similarly, to give an ambiguous a r l s w r was 'rEponhfre en normand', avoiding a straight 'Yes' or 'No'. While this is a valuable political skill, thcrc is 110 evidence that it had this sense in the twelfth

" J (3, tjrcst-u~ch,'Thc mtlttnry l~ouseholdtrf the Normart kings', fiHR .icvl, 1981, 1-35 esg. 30-3). See dl50 F, Ifarlow, tCrtIllutn Kt4fit3, Londot~1983, tflGr-.T for thc contemporary debate or1 half-Icngth and moral~ty, l 4 Ed. M ~ g n c vol , 82, t3k IX, 11, cots 337-41 esp. headirtg%%Off.C:hlhnall, Et'orlii, 118, c,pe~kst ~the f kcconvcr~tiunalti~srdctcnsatron"of V ~ k o l gv~olcnccbcmg applied >automancatty* at tllnes of ducal wcakrress to thc Norm'tns. T h c ~ t ~ r e ~ t wdc, y p ca d r d by rhc t l a c ~ a n- f>anlrh - Norrnan Ilnk drawn by Norrnat~chronicler\ frnr31 I2uJo c>n. " 5Xj~rlow.U?litotlt Rigil+,7-8, rl 13. 1925, 130s 1 3 4 ) (htc " Mhrlorabbckt, Orot~eri~t~~ /lurrtau'es anir*rrcStrr\utr xrj"il:ilc, GFMA 17, 13;h c.) 81 1(&1 (late f 5th c.) l7 f c ~ h l c r - l , ~ m n ~ a ti"\lrfri~~tzorlsrI~t~~ ~ch f4'tir;~"rtftt~tt,~ 0 16 , , VFP~c~badcr~ i(103415, cots 801-2. 'VI)ictiottmry o,f A ~ ~ q I o - . V o t ~Eke. t n ~ M,Ai~glo-NorcnanText Soacty. cd, 13. Evans. Landun 1985.

"

century. Finally, a k~econcilationnormandhas false and &sincere. l 9 This might seem to reflect the proverbial; Le rlornzand de tout aage a yui ne se fie le sage as L. Lawner believes,20She suggcsts that when C;uilielm IX says he will not have a Norman (or Frenchman, for that matter) in his house, it might imply a traditisnal suspicion of Norman faithlessness. But this seems to be stretching the evidence too fat, and probably has a more contemporary political point now lost in that poet's obscure lines. Indeed, attempts to generalise from references to Normans in the troubador corpus often facc the problem of the very specificity of the occasion of thc poem's creation.2' The oft-quoted line Wormam sont bon conquerur' fomd in Jodan Fantosme's Clzmnicle of the f 17574 revolt against Henry II, has a pmverbid ring about it. But in the context of loyalist troops being raised to put down the rebellion it seems to carry no particular weight, and X have not found it elsewhere, as one might expect if the phrase were a itn what contexts do Normans appear in vernacular literature and how distinctive are they? By far the most frequent occuretlces of the name is in the lists of the various regions of Francc, In the chansons degeste they represent units in the armies of Charlemagne, and other epic paladins, or are cited amongst the countries he conquerrd." There seems to be little reason in the compilation of these lists, although there is some rhyme, or rather the requirements of assonance, in the order in which they occur. There is atso no sense of precedence tc:, be found. The French name tends to be placed first; but since this is also a generic for the Christian forces, it may mean little, Further, thcrc is no morc than a rough grouping reflecting the political allegiances of the period in wbiclh the epics seen1 to have been most popular. Normans are as likely to be bracketed with Angevins as Engfish (who appear only rarely anyway)24or Bretons, or whoever. The only peoples set apart are the German-speaking "Amands' or Tiois', and they are often mocked for their difdi3rences in language and dress,25 These references, then, are purely conventional in character and tell us little about how Normans were considered. The fists of combatant 'natisns3n the tournaments which farm the first third l 9 9. von Wartburg, FranrGsisisrhes Etymologzsckes Wiirrrrhucl~,voI, 7 , Basic 1955, 191-2. Mnre. G. Bernard informs me that the Normans are still regarded as rnascers of the ambiguous respcrr-tse. " 'Norman 111 Frances', Ctd/ttlm ?u'80latlr2a, XXX, 1970, 273-32. 2"avvner, 224-13, citixrg Bertran de Born. I owe my caurlorl to the wise wc~rciso f fatchard Ber?jamin, whose WIT and knowledge arc. sadly mtsscd. 22 Ed. R. 6.Johnston, O x h r d 1981,l. 169, where it is rather flatly translated as: 'The Normans art. good at wlr~nlng';the Iinc continues: "'ad gent de lur manierc:! Partut crovam en gesce que Noman sunt venqtre." which does imply a morc w~desprcadidea s f Ome III battle, 23 'TOO many to list bcre, but see, eg. La Chanson dcr Rtlln~d,ed. F. mrtehead, Oxford 19778, 11. 3794, 3961, 3145, 3470, 370%. " R~uaulde Cnmbrai, eds P. Meyer & A. Lognorr, SATF, Paris 1882, 11. 245&9. 2s A ynrcrr dr ,Varbonne, ed. L. IJernaxson, SATF, Paris 1887, j1. 162(b35; also Les Snisnes of Jean Bodet, eds F. MenzeI lk E. Stengel, 2 vaIs, Marburg 1%%9, which features both 'ggodd"Cerirrans and the Saxon enemy dcpictcd as stock Saracens, In Cirart de Rousstllon, ed. W. M. F-fackett,3 vats, fATF, Paris 195365, 1. 3707, Charlemagne is described as belng as angry as a Gcmran, and herrce ~ncapablicof liscenir~gto reason.

30

Anglo-Norr-fianStudies l X

of L'Histoire de Cuillamr le Marichal, are both more dependant on political orientations and more pro-Norman. Yct there is no hard rule; the first toumey described sets the Angevins, Manceaux and Poitevins against the unusual combinations oFFrench, Nornrans and English.26Usually, the members a f the Angevin empire oppose those of France, Flanders, Uric and ChampagneeZ7 The Normans and the English stand apart as supenor in tournament technique to all other nations, although this is in part eulogy of the Young King and his entaurage.'' The author, from the sandpoint of the 122&, also lammts the decline of virtue in the Normans, by then two decades under French mlea2' Clearly, Jean d'ErlCe's jongleur believed in a Golden Age when Normans were distinguished above all others, but this must be regarded as a partisan view. Geographical associations also serve to set Normans apart in the chansons de ges&. Kefgrcnces to Charlcmagne's supposed conquests; of Apdia and Calabria and "across the salt sea to England" and then= Scotland and Ireland, occur in the Oxford Roland and have bcen part of the case fur Norman influence in this ~ c r s i o nThc . ~ cyck of works concerning the epic hero Aymeri de Narbonnc have several interesting remarks concerning Normans. In Li Nerbonois for example, his sons are shown berating Aymeri for not leaving them a proper inheritance, The eldest, Mernaut, rages: Tar cel segnor qui me fist a s'image, Quil me danroit an fietot man aage Puillc et Calabre et Frisse la safvage Et dSAngletcrrele part et lc passage Et Normendie a trcstoc le rivage, Ne ren~androiededanz vostre critage!" 47-1

3'

f ave tisr Frisia, which fits ill with the regions af Svuthem Italy, this seems a very Norman inheritance, and is cXearfy intended to be seen as a rich and important one. Norman assistance in the eleventh-century Spanish Reconquista is remcmhered also. 'RRiqars le Normant' plays a bricf but important rote in L'Enrrke d'Espag~ae,~~ while in Orson df Beuttvcsis Normans under a certain 'F~orquesYead the assault on the infidel." Sgnificantly, perhaps, both works rckr to the mcrcenary status of the Normans in Spain, even within a legendary setting. The genuinely historical involvement of the Normans in the conquest of Italy and Sicily is most carefully awrlined in Aime's prose work. The theme of the Vstoive is that they conquer by Divine Right. They are morally superior to the dcgencrate Grceks and Lombards, and Cod aids them to take these lands from Z4

iMarPccfial, If, t 201-12 - the distinction bcrwcen English and Normans is interesting.

'' IMarkcIllal, 11, 278@-6.

" 4'LI~~cr"cC-zal, 11. 521420, where an

'Engfishman"(the Marshal) is supefior to the French and the Normans. 29 'Warkchal, ti. 4645-51 (see below). Rolntld, 11. 3714 81. 213314; D. 6 , Ilougtas, 'The 'Sung of Rolandhand the Norrnan Conquest of England', F m r h Stirdies, XIV, 1966, 99-1 16, 31 L Li ?%Prbarlois,cd. H. Suchier, SATF, Paris 1898, i. 32 Ed. A, Thomas, 2 vols, SATF, Paris 1913, 33 Ed. C;. Parls, SATF, Pans I8W.

Srrreotypc N o m a ~ sirr Old French Verrrazular Lirt'raitrre

31

such reprobatc~.'~ Their remarkable achievements make the Normans synonymous with Italy in other vernamlar works, and the French translation of Arnatus is set firmly within the epic tradition. Is there a stereotype Norman of the chansons n'r gesie? Well, yes - his llame is Richard; he is count or duke of Norrzaandy. He is onc of the twelve peers of France and fights with valour against the pagans. When he is killed, as hc frequently is, at Roncevaux or elsewhere, it takes always a most significant Saracen to put him down. He features highly amongst Charlemagne's followers, bcing often tumed to for counsel. Sometimes he carria a gonfanon, a banner, a post of honour and responsibility." Usually hc is respected and valued in war; but he is described no nlore or less than the other peers, representing other regions of France. As J. Bedier pointed out in his seminal work, the Richard of the gestes is Richard I ("35996). He explains that Richard" usual appellation 'the old'is based on the habit of calling him Ricardus vetrtltrs or senior, in charters and elsrwhere, in order to distinguish him from Richard 11 (9"31025), Eis lur li quens de Normandie, Celui qui de Ruen fut sire Et de Fescamp fist Ibabbeic Ct7r~nontet fsembnri, 1

- these are his conventional

labels, ruler of Kouen and patron of Fkcamp, an important pilgrimage centre. That there was a cogjvevie ofjongleurs at the abbey, although not founded by him, wilt have helped to keep his legend alive. But he is not especially distinguished amongst the peers of France in the epics, 31 n'y rien qu'un norn", says El&dier,3"ave, that is, when he is cast as the vilhin in Le Couronnemmt de Louis, to which 1 will return later, Now Iet us attempt a little further definition of the word Norman, as it is proving an elusive quality to track down. Many authors, writing in the Norman historical tradition dwell on i t s dcrivation, Since chis was the very thing that created Nomarl self-identity, this is hardly surprising. Orderic seems to be the first to define Worthhand 'Man' and explain their conjuction, while the Dvacs ~Wovmanrzictrrmakes a distinction between Northman and N o r ~ l a n , ~OF ' the vernacular sources Aitn6 is the most vague, speaking about 'une ysulle se clamoit Nora' - not a very accurate description of Norway, if that is what is meant, and soalewhat at odds with Rollok l3anish followers, He is on firmer ground with: 'Man est a dire en langue thodeschc honie","'

Uk IXI, ch, 38, 132.

34

k(stc3lre,

>"

Ll:qctzdes, IV, 6.

" Sg. LFfttrie, 11, .tJ75-8C).

" See: Orderenc,

V, ix, 24-61. JumlZ.ges has the sarrlc passage, but srnce this 1s probably an mtrrpolatrun of Robert de Tongtty, IV, 201 le seerrls that thts definlrlon does not antedate the t 130s. Druto, xxr, 033, xxv, 636-7. Benotr dc St Maure, Clzroftigcrc-.d r ~Wrlcs de ?u;~mzaridie,~ d C. . Fahlin, 2 vols, C>slo 1951, 2954, X, 11, 663-"T. 'Vstcroirc., I, I, 9,

Wacc has several attenxpts at explaining the nanie. In Part If he says: Por cen quc de north vindrent Normant furent nornme Normant ckst bon dc north, ce est la verite, EX, 43&31 continuing with why the province of Neustria changed irs tlaxnc: Le pays que Normanz ant porpris et geuplG dc Narnlarit Normandie a ccst non rccauvr6 II, 437-8 In this early part of the Roman de Rotl the word Norman is repeated contirxuously, in order to stress the identity of the heroes oE his gate. Part I &'w e s US a glimpse of a rival nation" view of the Normans (or so Wace claims). Franccis dient que Marmendie cco est la gent dc north n~endie, Normant ceo dient t3f1 gabant, sunt venu dc: north mendiant par ceo que il vindrent dkutrt: terre pur mieuz aver e pur cunqucrrc

I, 7HC) (And in what is known as the Appendix these two explanations are mixed.)39 The last two lines strongly suggest the theme a f 'Norrnan m t ban conquerur', already mentioned. It is the line also taken by Aim6 in his history; the myth, if you like, of Norman greed alld ferocity. Wacc nails his colours to the mast further with the assertion that: Msrniant sant, Norman furent, Normant ont cstd cen conte Maistre Vacce qui escript a travC f I, 442-3

But, if as X have suggested befare, he was trying to persuade Henry II of the value of his Norman ancestry, and the need to depend on his Norman baronage, this is easily Wacc thought himself mast definitively N o m a n . Thc Norman antagonisn~to the French can come over strongly. French pride was proverbial, and Wace has anany more criticism to rnalce against the duchy's traditional enemies. 'Tout tens voudrent Franchaiz Normanz desherxter" he says, claiming that if they could not succeed by force they resorted to foul. trickery.41They were simply not to be trusted.

Es estoires peat on et limes trover qu'oonques Francheiz ne vsudrent as Normanz fai porter, ne por fiance hire ne por sur sainz jurer; nepoureuc bien Xez seullent lez Narmanz refrener, non pas par traisans mez gar granz cops donner. C . A. 5+58 Wact', Appendix, LI. 95-144. M, Bennett, T ~ a e n yas History? " I C R o r n a n s de RouboE Wace as a source for the Norman Conquest', ante, V, 1983, 21-39, 4i Wace, Cfzvoniqrte Arcrrzdantr, I , 11. 4653. 79

30

Stercpolypc?ui?nnnr-uirt Cjld Fi.c*rz~-lttit~rn'zrtil~zr Lift>mfiti.e

33

Typically he exlvisagcd a suitably robust Norrnan response. Another 'Norman subject of the Piantagenets" A~ncit.6dc Coutances, takes this invective to extremes. In the huxEesque Romarz des Frllstll-cis his targets arc accused ofl;pride, nleaxlriress, greed, military fceb'tcr-tcssand cowardice, laziness, and as fit only to be slaves.4z Thcre are sonle hoary r>ld rllyths and saws coinpiled to make this picture as insulting as possible. Is it an attenlpt to define Norman-ness by idetltifjiing what they were not? It should be note4 though, that the atzthor docs not use the name Norman once, The disgracefuI brhaviour of the Frerxcfi i s set against thc largcssc, good humour (supported by copio~rs draughts of alchohot) and nlilirary virtue of the E ~ ~ g l i s hIn . " ~telling the tale of King Arthur's legendary trlvasion and conqrxcst of Frar~ce, in which hc supposedly subjected the Frcnch to slavery and denleaning taxes, he has chosen a most British Izero to assert 2 rnoral s u p r e n ~ a c yThc . ~ ~ work dates to tbc" last third of the twelfth century, and it rnay be, as has been suggested, that Normat1 characteristics had bccon~esubsumed into an Et~glishiderltity by then, although it is not partisan Wacc aloric who s~xggestsdiffcrrcntly, A slxnilar scorn for lesser breeds is evinced by the C ~ ~ s "Tancrdi ta of Ralph of Cacn. Reccrrtly, j.-C. Paycn has drawn attcntion to the cnmparisons between this work and the verrlacular epic, Its hcrds virtues, generosity of bchaviour, largesse and valour, make him arz exemplary representative of Youth?;;and as he is laudcd so is tlze race &om which he spri~qs.The Nor~z~ans are compared to advantage with bath their cncmies and their fellow Crusaders. Of the latter, the Southerners, and especially thc Provenceaux, are derided as having rllorc. caw for their stomachs than i'or thc firay.""I"erbaps the most irltcresting passage dcats with the military virtues of tltc Normans, coxltrasted with the nlotivation of cheit Lomhard subjects, In his degant style Ralph draws derogatory parallels between rulers and ruled, While one race t;ight.; on horscbaclr (and arc ktlights) -the other fights on foot; Norn~artsgo to war to bring victory, the Lornbards to makc up thc nunlbcrs; orlfy thc Normans arc. warriors - the rest rrzcre servants. Lombards arc not volrtrltcers brtt levies, serving for cash and t ~ o tfightirig for glory. Payen cmphasises that the Cesta Ttzrxcredi depicts the Nc~rn-ransas a n cJcct, possessed of a 'cchauvinisrz~autl-roriscd by rzirilitary S L X C C C ~ ; ~ " ~ ~ So, at least, it nlust have secrncci to Ralph, writing in the Latin E;ingdo~~~, established by Chd's Will visible in thc military prowess of his hero and countrymen. For us, what is interesting is the dismissal of the Lombards in a way often found in the clzar.lsitrls de *qestc",where they appear as wealthy but feeble, needing succour from Saracen or Ccrman a t t a ~ k . 'Aymeri ~ de NurI~otzrlr. features a rare incident where the Lcader of the ir~vadingGermans, Savaris, a grotesque figure, like a l his compatriots, challenges Aymeri" party. Ed. A. f-loldcrl, rn F. Lccoy (MPLangcsj fjtude~ilr Lm?rytre c't Ltttcrtrr~trc-r"n ,tfrtyer? ~ 1, l 56 may be an accusation of hon~o\cxuaI~ty as well. j2

Q C tJaans ,

197.3,

Thc Iast Ilrrcs of the poem hst d l thc rlattorls of Fratzcc cxcep~the Norn-rartil., yet thi3 1% an Anglo-Norman text (11. 38"-Of)). "" Slavcry 11. 205-7; taxes, 11, 321-1. t'crhnp5 thc story 1s tntcncfcd ar '1 dcltbcr~)tc coulltcr tc:, rhc rate$ of Clzarlemagnc's conycrcst of t5ntaln. " '"Une lilgellde eplquc en gestation: Lcs Gesta Tancrcd~'dr HaouI dc ym age, Paris 1868.

48

Stereotype Normans in

C)Ed

Fre~chVerr_/aculnrLit~rar-tl~~

35

Si ert Robers de Flanders, qui bien fiert de l'esp6e Et Raimons de Saint-GiIle qui ainc n5ama rncslke. Jkmsakrn. 1 770-7'4 They have the same regional followings, similar conventional epithets, and are tort? by the desires to excell in battle and compete Ear wealth and re~ognition.~' This is not an unrealistic assessment of the tmsions andfealousies ofgreat feudal magnates on an expedition, whether in legend or reality, but it does not h d p us to distinguish particularly Norman features. Throughout the many thowands of lines of verse there is little to set the Normans apart. There may be an occasional cpisodc celebrating a korman's prowess, such as when William, Tancred" brother, kills the sons of Sofirnan, the Turkish leader, at Dorylaeurn, bcfare he is himself struck down. O r there is Robert of Normandy" defeat of 'Carbaran'." But these poems have nothing like the emphasis that Wace puts on the latter event, where the dukc brings his enemy's standard back to La TrinitC, Caen. It takes a truly 'Norn~an\ource like the Gestn Frnrzcartrm or the Roman de Rota to lift the event above the conventionaX jousting of the ~rstes.~'True, Robert is orfered the crown of Jentsatem (according to that poem) but so are Robert of Flanders and Hugh the Great, bef'orc the Holy Spirit inspires the Crusader leaders to elect Godfrep de Bouillon to the wardship of the new conquests. The Crusade chdnsorzs de ges"st, so thoroughly cmventional in format, are more concerned with the opposition between Franks and Saracens rather than distinctions in the Christian ranks,53 The impact of the Crusades on the popular consciousness has left us with a description, in one work at least, perhaps an unexpected o m , celebrating Nornlan abilities. That is L'EscotlJe, a ratnan dbaventtrre by Jean Renard, dating to the last years of the twelfth century,'" Only the first third of the work interests us now - the exploits of Richard de Montvilliers, count of Normandy. This imaginary character is lavishly praised in the &st hundred-odd lines, during which time he decides to take the Cross. He leads a force to Syria whish performs with great valour. The crusadeis take part in two battles. In the first, three hundred Nomans fiisrm the advance guard at the express request of the Christian king (8 O n the second occasion, Richard is put in charge of the line of march, After the Normans come the knights o f the Kingdom, before and behind the standard, witt.1 the Templars to the rear. He also carefiillly looks to the arrangement of the footsoldiers, between and alongside the knights (165S74). m e n battIe is joined the Saracens are routed by the well-organised Chr;Istians, This all sounds rather like the battle of Arsuf, and as if the author has conflated his Norman count with Kichard the Lionheart. Maw, Richard is not normally called a Nomn~an, although his stereotype name obviously fits him for the rile here. L'Escoufle is an interesting work, yet Jean Rknard was nat entirdy outside thc N o m a n

" Eg. the 'gabs'of the second "sot~g" wit11 Elchard sf Normandy, I,

I086ff and eprc blows of the eighth. 5 1 See Atrtioche 11. 2(%11-223 (William), 91127-36, death of 'Rouge LIOII'. 52 Wace, 11, 9692-8; Gasfcl Francovum rt ulinncm Wi~rosoofyrtlitanon-~rn. 7;trr Deeds $*the Franks and other Pilgrirrr~,ed.itrans. N. HilT, London 1962, 95. S3 See: Robert F, Cook, 'Chilnsorr d54rztiociteJ, chansorz de 'qeste: Le cycle de ta rrotsade est-il ipigtte?, Purduc University Monographs in Romance Languaga 2, Amsterdam ICMC). s4 Eds H. Mlchclant & P. Meyer, S A W , Pars 1894.

sphere of influence since he is normally associated with U ~ a u v a i sSo . ~ ~perhaps his praise of the Normans is not so surprising, when he tells us:

Li Normant n b n t pas fait sejar Ki ant fiit teX chcvafrie, 2967 The n~iliearyskills just outlined, are, of eoursc, cesltral to the Noman stereotype, and so deserve further attention. Predictably, Wace has most to say about the techniques, tactics, cunning and discipline which distinguish Normans from their opyonems. Early in his work he stresses Kollo's determination to have his mm equipped alld fighting in the French mariner - on horseback. Chevaulx: quistrent et armes a la guise franchaisc, qu'icelle lor semhloit plus riche et plus courtoise.

XI, 55S56 This makes thenn irresistable in the field, cotrplcd with the warlike ardor of the Danes described by many authors, (The inlage of Viking ferotrity was becoming firmly established by thc mid-twelfth cmtury, so thc two stereotypes fed off one-a~~other e)'6 Wace explains the Normans' military superiority over othcr races, as, for example, when Harold warns his men before Mastings. Normant, "disc il, 'sunt baen vassal, vaillant a pit? e a chcval, a cheval sont boerl chevalier e de co~nbattrecostumier;"

Ill, 77(',&%6

Like the Gestrr nncuedi he makes special distinction beween the skilled chevalier and thc hotslogger Engleis t ~ savent c joster ne a chcval armes porter The Normans arc also supreme above othcr horsemen, such as the royalists outside Roucn in 5'44, Xes reaus aprochier, quer il voudront a culs Ln toumoi commencicr; h e z cil n'oosercnt mie a Normanz tournoier, If, 322S26 n'avoicnt rnie use xle apris tcl mestier, . . . . et Normanz devant euis pristrent e vesoier, senlblant firent de iilir pour culs hire encauchier, 323fk31 5 Weditors ~ bchcve h ~ mto have come fr0~11Upper No~mandy,xxxlr-HI. J6 See: 'Viking atrocity and skafdlc verse: the Rite of the B!ood Eagle', El. Frmk, EHR, xc~x,1988, 33243; "xkurs zunl Harrldskractli~:Ueserker" K. von See, Zertschr$j&r deulsch~t.t7or[l;ovsclttritg9 XVII, I96 X , '129-35; Eil. Zestel, Das Bild tier 4S'orvl?ar~nen ttvtd dear iVt~t?t~annmeirl@lle r'tr iVcs{fiGt~kiscJtf1t~, o~tfi~rzkisrlrrri urzd atzgelseichrsttlret~Q~rEIcrtdes 8. b i ~I I . _Jahr/~~ndt>rts, Miinchen 1977,

Stereotype h'ormarts iuz Old Fre~chVenrac-tilnvLifevatitre

37

They deceive the well-c3rganised opposition by flight and ambush, which pre-figures the feigned flight at Hastings, so lovingly described by Wacc. Through this cmrning trick they are able to draw the English out of their defensive position down onto the 'pfain3elow, so their ranks may be broken and the footsoldiers slaughtered. Feigned flight is mentioned on other occasio~ls in Norman chronicles, but although it appears as a way of engineering an ambush in the chau2sot.r~de geste, it is not spedfically assigned to Normans in any wc find definitive praise of Returning to L'Mistoiw dr Glrillarrme le aUn~e"~hal, Norn~an-ness and Norman military skilI, It is the Normans who rout the Burgundiaris at a tourney (4993-5039) and the Flemings in war (827-1082). According to this poem they played an important part in the tournament circuit of the 1X"i"s and 80s. But although they have an honourable place in the list of those named in the retinue of the Young King, au~lumberingAngcvins by four . ~a~scene Just: preceding the battle to one, they arc neither first 11or f o r e n ~ o s tfn of Lincoln, 1217, the Marshal" swansong in war, a group of Normalls is depicted as saying:

'En non Dieu,Yont 11, 'bbcals dolfz sire, Vos fiirstcs nez en Normendie; Si est bien dreiz quc I'en vos die E qu'oos saichiez que li Narmar~t I>eivent Xes premiers cops avant Aveir erz chescune bataille. Gardez yu'endreit vus ne hefaille."

162118- 14 Thcy arc wrong about WiHianl's birthplace, and though their claim to the first blow is mentioned in LEscouJe, it is not described as a right.59L'Histoirr afsa claims anyone wishing to learn about was must needs go to Normandy (or Brittany) and practice in the tourneys there ( t 5 3 M 8 ) , and indeed, that it was Norman jealousy o f granting first piace to William (this time cfiaracteriscd as an Englishman) that led to defamation of him and his exile (520520). Despite the poem" undoubted bias it is noticeable that it is not Narrnan alone who excell in ~arfare.~ Another proudly Norman poet, Amhrc>isr, is strangely reticerlt about their achieven~ents on the Third Crusade. Individual Normans (or arc they Englishmen?) are praised, especially Robert de Beaumont, earl of Leicester. Ambroise describes the deeds of Frenchmen with equal facility, while criticising their btlhaviour on the whole. What really interests him, however, is martyrdarn, those who make good dcaths, like the three Normans who are killed in the assault on M c ~ s i n a ,It~ 'may be that, like the First Cmsade p m s , See, eg. Cirart de Rousslllon 11. 1 176-89, 12584>3,for feigned flight, cf. Wace, 11, tI. 16144, for a sin~llarruse played on KojIo by the K ~ n goEi3entnark" forces. 5\Wdrerhal, 11. 44814748 (EVorma~fs,11. 4fA54724; Angcvins, 472748). Even the anonynzuus author places the French first: Xes Frar~celsnornerd1 avant;/ I > r t ~est z qu'd sermt rnls dcvantl Por liar haurescc e par Ior p r ~ s , iE por I'enor cLe lor pais,311.4481-4 '' P. Meyer, L'Hisfoivrr,note to thc ltnes quoted, irlterprtts I,*Es~o~lfle fli. 843-7 to nlean thls. Setc 11. 153348 conrrastlng Enghsh and Norrrldn prowess, and vaf. 3, 23-4& n. 1 . 6 V A ~ ~ Snrrrfr, r ~ e II, 761-5. 'The thrce are named as Peter "f~repro~e, Maheu de Sancol and Ralph dc Rovroi.

38

Anglo-Norman Studies I X

communal. effort, the decds of the Franks, overade regional syxnpathies, even though the Xnglish? and French camps were strictly divided, He does give the Normans a11important role at the battle of Arsuf, though. Together with English they are described as carrying the 3dragon\tandard, just in front of the Hospitaller rearguard, on the march (6,15%54), T o bc cntmstcd with the batde standard was a post of great hor~our,for by its rise or fall (Iitcrally) went rhc fortunes of the day. Also, at Arsttf the Normans skilfully hold back horn battle, after veterans like the Hospitallers have irnpctrlously charged (6,532-38). This ability to curb their ardor (and their greed) to act as a reserve was a most highly valued military skill. The commander that day was later to praise William Marshal for keeping his mcn in check at VmdBme in 1194, to gmrd against a- counterattack on his victorious and pursuing first line. That man was Richard the Lionheart, who knew nzost thoroughly the business of war, This litany of ferocity, of skill on horseback, in the tourney and in war, the rights to carry banners and lead the: attack, and, above all, discipline in the field, suggests that Morn~answere suprcntely skilful1 in battle, So it is not surprising to find them featuring in vernacular works as mercenaries serving in Spain and Italy. The author of Orson de Reauvaic naturally assumes &at when his hero appears in Spairz: La treuvent chevaliers yui sunt de Normmdie; Chevalier furcnt ban Farques ot non li sires; An sodees an von an Ila terre de Bilc, A rrn roi crestaien qui avoit non de Basile;

12 W 3 fn this distant recollection of the events of the eleventh ccrztury, Normans arc csscntial to the Reconquista. Similarly, in LfEatre"e dBEspagne, Narrnan and servise dc sarddie are au tox~~atically linked,63 Wace's description of the prudent action o f a soldeier at Hastings, shows this calling could be bath hox~ourableand valued, without the strongly disapproving modern connotations of the word," Finally, in Italy, for Aim6 his subject is: 'li Normant qui Iongucrnent estoicnt us6 en batailXe7.65Admittedly, he says little in deed about Norman military achievements, but Xauds his subjects nriost extravagantly throughout his history, as will bc discussed later, Anuther yuestiorl to ask is whethcr there were any sorts a f hehaviour habitually accredited to the Normans? Eustache Deschamps, writing late in the fourzeenth century, and always a wry, sour man, accuses them of excess in everything!

,2/l;arkchill, It), 675-6, SccJohrl C;~llingtlam,"ichard I and the Sclcl~ceof War m the Mlddtc Ages', En I-Vnrarid C;ovrrrzmertt tn the itfmddLe Agesp E$.cays in E-Ionillfr L$'. Cl, 13resttiriijz, edsjohn Gttfmghatn K j. C. Holt, Ipswich 1984. LYitr.ttvt:e, 9902-4, C*' Wace, III, I. X295fe R, A , Brown, 7 h u iYi~rtnnrr.rand the ,"L'ornzan G O ~ ~ C2nd ~ E ed., I P SWoodbr~dgc ~, 198.5, 201; f . Boussard, Xes nlercenalrcs at1 xne s~ircic:I-fenrl XI Plar1rageni.t ct Ics or~ginesde lbrm&e dc mdtlcr', Rlhfiotkiq~~e dc I'&CVIL" des Charrrcs, 106, 19-45-6, 189-234. 6 V ~ t i ~ l ri W t ~, ,SXVIII, 174. "2

Strvrcjotype LVormurfsi ~ zOld French chertzanrl'czv Literature Mais for1t plusicrs main te gourmanderie l>e trap veillier, de jouster, de dat~cer and he con-xplainsof the practice, Boise a chascun, cornme font lcs Normans.6s It is possible, indeed, that the Normans had a reputation as great dnnkclrs even in the twelfth century, But f think we must be careful here. P. Rickard devotes some time to disctlssing the French perception of Englkbt dmnkenness. Just as Wace accuses the English of drinking and living it up on the eve olHastings, while the Normans fast and pray, other authors revel in the supposed insular propensity For drink. In part, thejoke is that the English, restricted to watery ale are rapidly incapacitated when tackling harder stuff"- the wines of France. In part, it is a cetebration of rousing good cheer, characterised by ilrflet of Northumbria in the Roman des Frartgais. A thirteenth-century proverb states: ' l i mieldre btlveor en Angleterre" It does seem, then, that it is the Englishman, the goudalier, as he was derisively known, who is being parodied, and not the French-speaking Norman. Rickard suggests, perhaps with his tongue in his cheek, that the Normans obtained the same repaation when they became the ruling class in England; but essentially the accusation is levelled at the stereotype Englishman rather than his lord.'' There are other references to Norman drunkenness, for example in the Rornnn de 2'2 R054: 'SSi trouveaen t laienz dormanz Trcstouz les soudeiers normanz (var. flarnenz) Tant orent beii a guersl . . . Xvres e dorrnanz les estranglent;"

2237677 881 - but not conclusively, for the implication may be the Xower moral standards expected of certain mercenaries, traditionally Flemish and of ruffianly bchaviour, as the variant suggests.68 Aim6 has a story of the Normans in Italy being made drunk by the cunning Amalfitians, who peyper their meat at a kast to encourage a thirst, and are then able to render them harmless by stealing their horses when they are so incapacitated.@ This may have more to do with the stereotype of Lombard treachery than Norman wine-bibbing, of course. Finally, in this context, there is the incident of the White Ship, the loss ofwhich drowned William, Henry 1's son and heir. According to Wace: ki rnarinier orcnt be8 n'ont pas lor dreit cors porveil

Wartburg, Vf, 1631, 17. T b t ~paragraph is based on P. Rickard, Britrtrn in iVfeditlval French Litt*rc?tuvrIIWliTIO, CUP, 15.556, esp. 167-7-70. Thc Anglo-Norman poem Eirsrache Ie ,%fortre cited in the context of ale as a dtsrrncr~veEnglish drl~lk,135, has nothing to say about Norman att~tudes,despite the language OF its cornpasition. " Tobler-Lanlrnarsch, 801. " Yst~~irc, 11, xxxri, 89. 66

67

del chargcor crent meii le trcf avaient ja tendu. Le Roman de Rou, ITI, 1017743 adding, with hindsight: 'Deus quel pechiC e qud E u ! T i t h such dire results drunkenness could not be a cause of amusement. Overall though thcrc is not enough information to ascribe it to the Norn~ansas a typical characteristic. Now let us turn to an even marc serious matter - the issue of Norman treaclzcry. The longest episode devoted to Nomans in the cllla~rsolzsciP gate is in Le Cutrrunneanerzr:de Latris, from thc cycle of Cuillaume dvrangtt, often attributed to the 1130s.70 Tn this paen1 the Normans are depicted as the threat to thc child-king Louis, due to inherit the lands of France from his father Charlernagne, Louisbpiety is held up to scorn, as making him fit only to be a monk, and thc Normans seck to takc advantage of this by rehsing to serve him, While the hero, William, is away saving Rome, the conventionally-named duke Richard 'ii viel3gaes m e step further by imprisoning Louis in Rouen. Here the events of the early ninth century are confused with those of thc late tenth, and Louis with his historical namesake, the last Cairolingia~l.~~ In fiction though, rescue is at hand. William returns to kill Richard's son, Acelin, with his hallmark - a single crushing blow of his &st- and fices his lord. He later deals with a treachcrous ambush by the Norman duke and it is Richard who expires miserably in prison in this version. The whole cpisodc has been dealt with exharrstively by R. Louis, who explairls the development of history into Icgcnd.'"f"he Norman ducal tineage is depicted as one of traitors in the same way as is GancXon" in the (r,"Itz~rjsonde Roland. Naw, this description is isoIatcd and extraordinary and based on ajumble of historical evidence. What is interesting, however, is the Normans rreponse to the lard they consider rxnworthy of them: 9

Diront Nor~x~ant en nanl de rcprovicr: 21e si fait rei nbavions nos mcstier Ma1 deb&ait par mi la crctiz dcI chief Qui avuec lui ira nlais osteier. Ne a sa cort ira por corteicr. Del suen meismes ne poons bien paier," Le Cotrrofzl-~eune~ de Loi-ris, 1C)%203,

If wc compare this with the passage that heads this paper, there seem to bc certain common ideas. Or, are they Just the accusations any mlcr might be expected to make against his unruly subjects! When nominating Louis as his heir, Charlernagne urges him to be mthless with any opposition: to devastate their Iands, to besiege the recalcitrant and nlutifate those who refitse to Ed. E, Ldr~gtois,CFMA, Pans 2922. The confusion probably stenls from tbc Imprlsonmenr, m 945, of Louis iV d'0utzemc.r. by Harold, a Vlking at Dayeux and not under the yourrg R~chat-Jkcontrol, who ransomed the unforrunasc klrlg ttr hls greatest r~val,E3ugh the C;rt"at, duke ofthc Frank,. T h ~story s seenrs to have bccrl corlflated wtth that af the brtef and rncffecnve relgrl o f Louis V (9%~7f,the pnsor~cr's grandson E. M. f-lall~m,C:npc.tran Fvanrr 987- I.%?#, London 1980, 20-4; Bates, 13-14, 'V. L o u ~ s ,'Lcs durs . . . ",410-16. 7"

7'

surrender. It may be that the Normans had a wider reputation for being unruly; it may be that Franco-Norman rivalry at the time of the coronation of Louis VZll brought then1 to the fore as the chief cncmies of good order; it may be just chance that it is the Normans who arc ehc objects of William" wrath, along with the C;crrnans and Saracens, in thls particular poem. The theme of treachery can be picked up in L'Histoivi. dr Guillanme k ~M~rkcttaf, aithough, of course, this is in the light of Narmandy" actual loss of indcpendcnce to the French crown in 1204. The bitterness is stilt apparellt in a harshly pnnnir~gpassage con~posedat Ieast two decades later.

E Francels qui paint ne l'atrroent Qui nult & jor la barreioent

Par Ita conscnte dcs tarncz Qui a cfs sxrent atonlcz. Bicxz seit f'en que chose tornCe Est eorrumpue 16c atornee A tote rien fairc torncr O u cle se puet atorricr; Uunt vos di ge que le tom6 Ileivent bien puir t i tome, IJunt Uex a si les noz gardcz Qua ja n'en seront rcgardez Ne rnale chanson nkn icrt traite De tornec k'il saint faite, X 2557418

'This accusation is levelled first at the Poitevins: Xi Beitevin tarlt losmgiercnt' jfa,531), hut Norman dckctors arc also implicated. The poet ends this passage with a fervent prayer, which directly quotes Roland" words, th%t none of his audicnee should ever hear such an evil song sung about them.7"~th the poem 2nd a verriacular cbraniclc suggest in violent terrrls that the traitors arc only fit to bc chucked into a latrine, T o a man self-consdously Norman the betrayal of 1204. was a deep one, enough perhaps to bccamc proverbial in Thc Marshal" poet despairs of the fallen nature of his own tin~es.In the Iist of the Young KXrlg's mesnie, already described, he laments: O r serront nomnle li Normant Qui n"1oient rnie dormant AX tens le giemble rei sanz faille, Lors furent grain e or srlnt paille Chis qui li reis Richard morut Nes arnenda nc sccorvlt Nus scigttorage qu'ii eeiissent Dc quci esbaudir sc pu6ssent

" ,%4nr4chal,Ifl, 170, n , 6 , cf. Kolutid, 1, 1466. " ,%lirrf;cfiul,11. 1269-1-700 (arrr~butcdfa Klx~gt%111g) cf.

X-list~?irt.&es dtrrr dr ,Urmarzdie t r rots d',iirglererrt., cd. F. Michc.1, 1899, 9-1(Xf, cltcd by Slr M, Powicke, Tjzt~Lo-s rlf^,Yunnandy 1 t89-12&, Martchcsclcr, 2nd cd. 1451. 2% (attrrburcd ta King joha), Is E ~ I tnlagc S of treachery rhr orlgln of hncltrmandzsr' tncanulg, "to turn trattorXmnd I n the ;lrinale-s de Bretard(1929))19624, 378. " 2C;, (2strogorsky, N ~ s t o v yc!f the Syxnvrtirze Sttzte, 0xfi)rd (1036) 1W0, 320 (Engii, tr'ins. of L 3 c ~ (;tlsrhrclrrc 1Zr.1~ Ryzizrrttnisc-ltetrSmntfi, Mur-r~ch1963, ,765).

sources. For both we have to add that the exact period is not always indicated either. fn the early 10"70s, for cxanzple, WiIlianl of Poitiers writes that Normans defended Constantinoplc (proptlglzant C:onstauztinopoEiun). I 3 We do not know ifthe statement refers to the pcriod before or after the Norman conquest of England, But at least it shows that the chronider knew what was going on tn far-away Byzantiurn. Since we may assume that channels of information existed between the various Norman 'colonies', the distinction between then1 is not always relevant to our subject. An almost neglected source for the Norman presence in Constantitlopie are the Anrruls of Lampert of Hersfeld (t 1025- after 1081). Here wc read that Robert the Frisian, in his younger days, i.e. in the 1050s or early l(Kif)s,felt tempted to go on a pilgrimage to Jerusalem and try his luck in the Byzantine East. His plans fell through, however, What interests us here is what made Xxobert wax-xt to go to the East. As the tcxt records rzunlerous Nortnan envoys, already serving itt 13yzantiun1, tricd to talk him into the adventure. They may have been on leave or werc sex-it especially on such a nlission, When returning to thcir employers they may have joined groups of pilgrims Dehinc assumpto piebcito habitu inter eos yui Eerosoitirnam causa orationis pergeban t Conrtan tinopolim ire parabat, Gocatus eo crebris legationibus Northmannorum, qui sub imperatore Constantinopolitano Gilitabant, quiquc ei, st illuc vcniret, tocius C;rtciae principaturl-x poflicebantur. Sed irllpcrator Gonstantinopoliitar~us~ conlpcrto hoc consilio, ornnia flurnina, per quae trar-xsitusin Greciarn essc poterat, appositis custodibus observari fecir, ut deprehetlsus ilico rrucidaretur. Sic cotlatus cepcurrtque eius irriturrl fuit. I 4 "

*

Whether this story is true in all its details is not very important." The tcxt makes clear that in those tinles nurneraus Normans were serving under the Greek emperor, The Norrnan envoys probably came to Norn~andyand to rleighbouring Flanders. Robert had been shipwrecked when be rnct tbent. And since he did not have any prospects for lands at home, being the younger son, he could easily be Xurcd into such an adventure. Adventure it was to strive far lands in the East. But an adventure that was sonlctimes successfully accomplished, hoth by Byzantine and Nurn~ansoldiers when they succeeded in establishing sxnall principalities of thcir own," B e will give here a few exar12ples of Normans who obtainccl Iands in the Byzantine realm, soaletimes as a remuneration for services rendered, sometiales sinlply by revolt or conquest; some of thcrn settled perrnanerltly in the East and became fully integrated members of the Byzantine empire, In one case we can alnlost be sure that the Norman in question, HcrvE Frangopoulos, came from Normandy.

'' Gats (;nrllrlrnf, 228. " Latrtpautl mvrtncltl hltrrsfl.ldtst~suA t ~ t z ~ l ~tbd. i \ , W, 13, t"rxtz/A. Ssl~nlldt,AtlsgctliZhlite Q~cIlm Z

U ~

Ileurschert Gc.schichtc des M~trclalterl.XIII, Bcrhr~1973, 238 [$.a. 10'71] ( w t h German trans.). 'VC Vcrl~ndcn, :. Roberr Ier lc Frisarr, comfidcft' Fhfrcire, Arrtwcrp 1933, 16-27; F.-L. Ganshof; %~otzc;rt Ic Fr~sorr et AIex~sC:omnt=ne" B~yrnrrffort 31, 1961, 64-5. fils brother Baldwin V of Flanders (1035-Ci7) i s s a d to have becrt rciatcd to the C:o~~stant~nopolican nohrl~cp,C;csrrt C;rrtllclrt~i, 46. It IS pusslhfc that he was glvcrl a rplel~dtdc~rlchy rbe bas~lrusor addressed to In Ractcrlng terms. " For the probtcm In general j. E-Ic7iffn1anr-t. Rirrfln-rtnfcr ~ i T~rr~ttlrlt~istitr~~ef~ . itn Byztrtzrinirrlzetz Katclf (1071-1310). Muntch 1974.

E-Eervi?started upon a rather brilliant career in thc East in the late 10141s and l05Os, As early as 1881 G. Scblumberger devoted a study to the n-tan.l 7 He was stimulated to do so because he was given a lead seal o f HcrvC which had been acquired in Constantinople by S. P, Lampros. With the help of the inscription on the seal, and supported by text evidence given by the Greek chronicler Gcorf=es Cedrenus, Schlumberger reconstmcted HervC's career itr Byzantium. He was the leader of a Frankish, probably hiarman, contingent in the Greek army, and his career and loyalty varied according to the emperor in office. The seal probably belongs to the reign of Isaac I Gornnenus (1057-1059) when Hervk finally obtained the titlc magister which had been denied to him by lsaac's predecessor Michael VI Stratioticus (305&1057).'8 The other qualifications on the seal, vestia&tes and rtratelntes, ilsdicare that hc held a military function as well as a coizrt dignity ." HervC was thus a court official, With his troop he served under Ceorges Maniaces who was campaigning in Sicily in 1038..On that occasion we hear of 500 Franks coming from beyond the Alps, serving in the Byzantine army. The suggestion has been n-tadc that both groups are one and the same, which should imply that HervC came from Normandy .20 The same Byzantine source tells us that Hem6 h a d an estate near Lake Van, according to Schlumberger a n~ilitary% c f . Now that Cedrenus' Chronicle is generally considered to be an almost verbatim transcription of John Scylitzcs" Histouiccll Synvpsis f i r the pclriod 811-1615?, we have to refer to the latter. The veracity of the information is reinforced since we know that Scyliczes was probably a court dignitary as wcll. In 197.1 his work was published by J. Thum." As for other Normans having embarked upon important areers in Byzantium we can be brief. Most of them have remained anonymous and probably will remain so as is ofren the case in history, Territorial rulers like Crispin and Roussel of Bailleul did not return to the West to participate in the preparations of the Norman invasion o f England," Others like Peter of Plulps started their Byzantine careers long after the Norman conquest. More imporrant for our subject are those who went to Constantinople a d reearlled to Normandy befbre 2066. Anlong them we can distinguish tvvo groups, Those who were simple visitors and pilgrim (who at the same time may have gone on an intelligence mission since spying was a normal thing to do at that tin~e)and those who actually served in lfrfyzanrictrn and are known to have come back to Normandy. 7vo de BellCme, bishop of Sees (103%1070), belongs to the first category. ' ? 7. f chlu~nbergcr~ 'T3errx chefs nfiarn~atldsdes arrl~desbyzanc~rresau XIe s~Pcle,Sceaux dc Werv6 et de Rousscl dr Bailleul" Ret~dvhisrortqs~e16, I?i381, 289-303 (Rkcrts de Byratlie rt des cr-oicadt:s, 2" s,, Paris 1922, 715); rdcrn, t'ipopie hyranrinc, E%r~s1905, 111, 581. " khchlumbergcr, "Chef%normands" 296; ~dern,Sktlirt~rilphic*dc fbnpruc hyznntrrr, Pans 1884, 65CACA; R. C;u~llancl, Rec-ht*rchessrrr fes itzmtrrtiuns hyzunfr~es,Amsecrdarn/Scrlin 1967, I, 389. " Gullland, I~~sttturit~rzr, 1, 37, '77, 130, 3137, 451, S(UI; 11, 215, 2U Ccargcs Cedrcnur, C;"~rt?nrcle,cd. I. Bekker, Bonn 1839, 11, 545; cf. SchIumhcrgcr, Chefs nornrands" 22414. " fijofirl S ~ y l ~ t r eSYIIO~SIS s, Irrsrortnrrrm, ed. J, Thurn, Berlln 1973, 467, 468%484-6 (Gemar~eratls, idem, Ettdtl'e dvs Bildcr.qrreits trnd ~Wnke(iontsclz~ Renaissance. Aqfarlq 9, hrs ,%fitte 10. _litlzrhrtndert, (;raz 1083, tiy~ant~r~rschc Geschtcficsschrci&c.r15; idem, Byzurrz wirder eitt Wlrrciclt, Das %:eitirltt>rder iMtzkt:*donischt*t~ Dytzastte, C;raz, to appear in the sanic stries. *' Hoffinann, passgm; Schfumberger, 'Chefs normands', passim.

After having been reprimanded by the pope in 1049 t?ecause his cathedral church had suffered serious damage, he travelled to Constantinople and southern Italy. in order ta pay for his sins he vvas to rebuild his church and thus his journey became a furzd-raising afhir, What the bishop did vvas not really unique, Itn his article on the Norman cathedrals, L. Mu~setmentions 1\10 de Belleme as a travelling nlaney collector; so was the bishop of Coutances, Geoffrey de Montbray (1048-f,Q93), and the Giroie family possibly did the same,23It is evident that the Normans in Italy and Constantinople prospered. They were able to make generous gifts if we are to judge by the churches then erected in Nornlandy, Direct contacts existed with the vaxious Normam-r communities abroad. Xvo de Belleme visited friends and relations in Constantinoyle. He was received by the cmpcror Constantine IX Monarnachus (10.1.2-1@5) who presented him with a relic of the True Cross, the gift par excelencr to sweeten a foreign vi~itor.~' It is unlkely that the rn~peroueceivedevery bishop visitiz~g his capital or passing through, There must have been dozens of them evefy year, nlaking such receptions practically impassible. The same applies to the preentation of relics. OnXy if such gifts were exceptionat they kept their value. The bishop of S6es must have travelled with a suite of young men of whom a k w were iured into Byzantine service as X think. And what helps more than to sofcen the heart of the leader who, after all, had to give them leave? Replacements for the return journey could easily bc found among people who had completed their terrn. And the rclic was likely to become a majar attraction for rhe new cburch and would partly repay the costs of the bish~p'sjounlcy.Me was probably also given presents fisr Duke William even if rdatians between duke and bishop wcrc not warm-hcartcd at the time2' We find the report of thcse events in an interpolation of Orderic Vitalis in William ofjumi2gesT~rrta Novmannortkm Dcrcum Igitur Apuliam ct inde Constantinopolirn perrexit, et a divitibus cogrlatis ac arnicis suls multum pecunic congessir, danoque imperatoris de ligno llonrinice Crucis karum munus deportauit. Rcuersus azxtem Sagiutn, ecclesiam cepit tam magnanl ediftcare, rtt succcssores eius Rodbcrtus et Girzrdus ac Serlo nrquiuerint earn per .xl, annos consurnmarez6

How were these Normans able to sponsor such grandiose building programs by making. large contributions as we read? Those who had settled in Apulia slowly but gradually adapted themsefves to live bormalYivcs with a sort of kegularYincam (of what character that may have been). Those in Constantinuple were in a difkrcnt position, We never hear of Norman mer&%nts

" 3. MUSSCE, 'Les cand~cionsfinancli.res d'unc riu?jsrtcarchltccruralc: tcs grandes Cglises romarles J e Normandle" ~n,24;l;la~zgesR. Cruxer, Ikolriers 2956, 3113-31 1. Wtllianl C;rrole went to southenr Italy to collcct: mor-rcy and gifts for the abbey of Salnt-Evroult, Ordcric, xi, 5H-65, The Glrole fanltty had nlarty relatives abroad, J, Maillefer, Wne t"drt111learistocratlque aux confins d r fa Notmar~die:les G6rG au Xle uci.clle', in L. Mt~ssetlJ,Bouvr~si'J.MaiIlekr, Arrtcttrr dtr poirvoir n'Eiral n o m n d , Xe-Xlli* si&ler, Caen I %S, 1'75-206. 24 L. Hummey, Hisruirta ginhrale ccrl4sslnsrlqtre ct crvrte dtr diocise de Sl;t"~,fl, Alenqon 1899, 14; not rncntioned by A. Frotow, La K e f r q ~ ede In Vrizle GT~?IR, Paris f 961, and L a Keliqliatrt~de In L'rair Croix, Paris 1965, 25 n. Bates, iVt3rmand1, b$orc# l(366, Landun/New Vork 1982, '79s. " Jumi*ges,

168.

48

A ~ ~ q l o - ~ V c ~ vStudies ~ ~ ~ a r[X z

makirlg ready money. That leaves us with peopiie earning their living by warking for others, most likely as soXdiers from what we have seen above, There must have been hundreds of then1 and apparently they were able to m k e savings and send money home to support relatives and sponsor religious projects. Mast of them will probably renlain anotiyr-rrous farever because they did not perfornz heroic acts or did not belong to illustrious families, O f only a few we know that they actually returned home because mentian i s made of them in various sources. 'T"hose who came back could trarismlt their newly acquired skills to the leaders at home. O u r first exanlple of a Norman who scrvcd in Uyzantium during a longer period is a young man called Odo. We was a son of Stigand o f Mbzidon, alias (>do E Stigand, His journey is described in a short notice attached to the CClronicif of Sainte-Barbeen-AugeCZ7 Here we find a rcport, short but revealing, of young C>do's journey to Constantinople. Xt may bc useful to describe the family context of C>do junior in order ta appreciate the influence he could have with his new knowledge. The Mizidon family was of Scandinavian extraction appearing under Richard II ("rSt'r--.1~J2li),l" From 1046i748 onwards Odo Srigarid appears in ducal charters as dapifer (steward) ,29 Ordcric Vitalis calls him the powerf~lt.lard of MCzidon (Sttgando potenti vim dc Mrnsionc Odotlis), to wh0n1 Dtlke William mtrustcd about fOci3 Margaret, the betrothed of his sox1 Robert Curthose; the girl, daughter of Count Herbert I1 of Maine, died prenlaturely 2nd never became duchess of Normaxtdy Stigartd outlived the conquest of England, He figures in diptomas from 10437 until 1072, but wc do not: k ~ i o wwhether he actually ~oitledthe invasiort force.3" Hc was a n~emberof the ducal household and as such may have accompanied Wilfiiam during his travels and canlpaigns. The ducal household ccrmprised a nuniber o f f~xnccionarieslike chamberlains, butlers etc., and certaixrly nlore than one steward as w e will see, We do not know what exactly it meant to bc a steward in Normandy at the time, except for the fact that he certaitily had to serve at thc duke" table. He must have ranked as one of the important kivilhervarits since he is sometimes the first layman to witness diplomas. He certatrtly did have inftue~lccupon things going on at court being in the imnrediate neighbourhood ufthe duke. Xft the h~rlsekoldof the first Norman kings in England the +$ir was arr oflicer o f the first For the Mbzidon family the function of steward may have becan~ehercditafy, XJtlring Odu Stigand's life, on 29 June lOfr3, his son Odo junior is already qualified as dapifev in a diploxna. The rcason h r issuing the dipfonla (called 'une 27 La ~ ~ / z r o i z t$e q ~Sarrrre-Burbe-en-Aw, i~ ed. R. N. Sauvage, Cacrl 1906, A garbled vcrslon o f everits was p~tblllsfiedby A, du Msnstier, In AVenrr~rn 1'10, Xlouelz 1663, 716 (inacccss~bleto me) and rcprlntcd ln t f ~ cRecueil Bes FP~stnurer?~ des C;at.rles pt de la Frattce, XIV, Pans 1806, "198-9 (cf. Histoire Liftkmirv de France, XIV, P m s 1817, 601-2, XXXII, Parrs 1898, 210). 28 L. Musfict, 'L'ar~~tocratie normandc au Xle s l k l e ' , xn La ,Yt?hIes~~ it14 Ilktyen /late, eci. 1'. Gorttarnrne, Paris 1976, 79-80, " Bates, 155; Fauraux, nos 96, 107, 137, 148, 258, 186, 188, 222, 332, ~fwc fdent~fySt~gandus napfir with St~gandusof Miz~don(cf. J, Adsgard dcs C;;lutne5, Les notn.%de P C Y S O ~ ~ ~S ICCR~ ~ ? ~ ~ P Ee11~ V M AVo~~nnrtdtr de 911 6 1966, Lund 1954, 316-7 (nos 3 and 4). " Ckrcfcric, tr, 118-9. 3 i Rqcsta, I , p. XXIV, nos tiA, 48, 56. 32 C;. 'El. Wfirte, 'The househotd o f the Norrl~anktngs" ,'l"KWS30, 1948, 4th ser. 129, 132s-

Byafttine 1211aqqinalia ro the ;Voryl.lart CI,"orlqaicst

49

charte fctrt tuuchante%y Le PrC~ost)~' was a sad onc. It was a donation made by O d o Stigand in memory of his son Odo who had dicd sevcral months before

. . . migravit unus dapifer Guillelmi ducis Normannorum, nomine [O]do, de hoc seculo. Is adolesccns aetatis habebat . xx.tf .VI. annos ct .Vf. menses ct dies . x x . t l 1. Et adhuc illo ccnipore vivebat [Es] tigandus suus pater, qui valdc illurn amabat, durn ipse wivcret, et plus eum amavit post finem . . .34 The diploma says nothitrg about his s a p in Byzatltium, This inbrmatim and a confirnlation of some of Efle facts we ohcaizl from a manuscript in which the Chronicle s f Sainte-Barke-en-Auge was preserved, Bibliothkque Ste Genevieve, Paris, 2643, XIV s. The chronicle was written in the late twelfth century by one of the n~embersof the conimunity. The short notice attached to thc clhrc~xlicle says the following [OJctavo idus 110vembris obiit do Ilapifer, qui sex canonicos in cccteslia Sarlcti Martitai consltiltuit, que rnodo Sancte Barbare vomtur. [Gjuillermi, ducis Normannorum, ab 1ncarnacionc Ilomini mlxij. anlii crant, a sua nativitate aucem erant viginti et sex anni et sex mensrs et viginti et unus dies, patrocinante Home Alexandra papa, regnante Phlfippo, rcge Francorurn, Maurilio archiepiscopo residente Rothomago, [Elt Nicobus, abbas Sarlctl Petri apostoIi et Sancti Audoeni conkssoris, rumulavit eum in claustrurn ipsius monasterii, deprecacione sui patris qui adhuc vivebat christianissime cox~fessunl.[Elt supradictus archieptscupus adfuit obsequio, In tenlpore ipsius GuiZlermi Nothi, gaflicc Hastart, duck Normannorurn, ipse autem Odo cujusdarn Romanorurn irnperatoris consanguineus h i t , nccnoxl a regibus Francorurn er Anglorum nobilitatcm accepit. [Clornmurrioni, Constantinoque Duciilo, imperatoribus Constantinopolinli, txibus annis in palacio prsthopatarius et tbamatephilatus semivit. [Llirrgue etmim grece, aliarumque pluriunl quarum ignoro vocabula, kcondiam habens, honlinibus et cquis atque avibus egris rncdicaminibus prodesse potuit. [Fjundte X)eo preccs, lector, sib1 quo requiem det. [Altlno mcxxvlj. posuit Eiabcllus Cmleraritls dc Tanyuarvilla canmicos in ecdesia Saneti Martini ct Sancte Barbare r e g u l a r ~ s . ~ ~ Odo died 0x1 18 Novenlber If962 at tfie age of 26 and was buried at Kouen in the presence of the archbishop in the church of St Oucn, He was born at the end of April 1036, Befare discussing the consequences of his journey to Byzant-iurn we have to take a closer look at the notice. The first editor of the text suggested that the fragment was a rksurne uf an The author may have consulted other documents as well, including a list of benefactors of St Barbara's, since in the concluding phrase he ends with a referencc to a donation confirmed by

Ortlrrtc Vitaits, ed, A. LC Prfvost, II, Parts 1840, ItM, n , 1 , E~IICOUX,no. 258, The earlier edrrion by A. Lr I%rPvost, in tWkmaires et notesparar sertttr b IYttstoirr dtr ri$pilrtrment de IEtdre, recurillis et pufilih par L, Delisir ef 1;. I+z"assy, Evreux 1, 1862, 562, a gnarcessibte to me, " Chronrque Je Sarnte-Barbe-en-A~,ge,57-23" j6 Ifhis father accompanted Duke Xtobert rn I(U5 trr mtlst have retunled soon after chc duke's death. Ghroniqil~d ~ "Sainfe-Barhe-en-Att8p, 58, n. 3. 33

J4

Kabei of Tancarville in 1127.JRThe ytlalificatiun of Willianl as duke of Normandy corroborates the use of a contemporary, pre-Conquest docummt. Somewhat problematic is the relationship (runsanguineus) with an imperator Rornanur~rn.~~ The term either indicates the German emperor, i.e. the emperor of the Holy Roman Empire or, in a Byzantine or Byzantinizing context, the emperor of Byzantium who styled himself as fiacrkh&~' P w p a G ~As~ ~for the former we have no indication of a relationship with the Emperor Henry 111 fcrowr~edempcror in IWfi, who died in la5S), either with his first wife Gunnhild (daughter of the Danish king Cnut) or with the second wife, Agnes of Ecnlale menlbers of the M&zidon Poitou. The tatter became regent in 1055. family are hardly ever mentioned. We do not know whether Odo junior was married or had connections in Poitou. The expression nohilitatnn accepit in combination with mnsat"~uineuscould lead the way to Byzantium where ail sorts of spiritual relationships existed. Odo served for thrcc ycars in the imperial household and thus belonged to the*;lnrilio impemturis.'~ A misbtcrpretatiorl of the termfamilia may have occurred, but the fact that the rrobilitas was given to him is curious. tess problematic are the names of the Byzantine emperors crr~clcrwhom he served, even if their rlarxres have swvived in a cormpccd hrrn: Cammrstliwti a d Cunstarrtirto Dacitln, The model of the Ste Gerlevihe 1643 nlay have been less ignorant of Creek names and institutions and thus closcr to the original. Isaac I Comnenus (8 June 1057-25 13ecembcr 1059) or Constantine X 13oucas (25 Dccenlber 1059-21 May 1067) may have conferred thcsc honours upon their Norman servant. We have seen that Mervk held an important function at the court of Isaac T Comncnus. The Mkzidon family had a certain standing and its members may have cr~joycdsorne prestige even in far-away Byzantiun~.The Byzantine historian and poiygraph Michael I%cIfosdescribes both erltperors in Pselfos was a cowt dignitary, an in~yerialsecretary, ar~d his Chvt~nographia.~~ scrms to have been intimate with a long succession of Byzantine emperors. Whet1 describing the emperors"oolitical views he wants us to bclicve that he was rather influential at the same time, Hc discusses their kabbics arid uti occasion tells us haw they behaved in the intimacy of the fanlily circle, As a menlber of the iniperial household Odo must havc seen same highlights of Byzantine court lik. He must have witnmsed the imperial coronatior1 on

3 V C d o Sttgand? doondt~onwns confirmed by Rdbcl de Tancarv~IicIn 1128, Rr:qr.sm, Xf, no, 1559, cf: [bid, rra. Nunlch ~, 1953. Thc flrstorrr IrttJrnrnt dc~I-:rartre, XXV, Pdt-1~1817, Interprets I t a4 "'er~rpcrct~r dc Ct>~lsta~~anople'. 41 Ch. I-3. I-iasktns, 'Pi Chanterbury Morlk at ConstantrnopIc, c l(F)t)'. ,:FIR wxv, 1(110, 294 ( ~ b viras t dc patrla sun 5uosyue amtcrrr rrppcrlr yui eratrt ex fa1n111a~rtlgeratnns). "'MlchacI I'scllos, C:ltn~r~o~qr~zpltra, cd. E. Kcnauid, 11, Pans (2"321;5] IOfi7, i tOc jwlth French trans.; Engl~shtrans. E. I?. A. Stwtcr, ,l/hrhuel I"sellvs, Fotrrr~prz1T'jyza~ltttleKnIen, Flarmondsworth 1966, 302s). For h ~ spallrlcal cdrcer d11d literary dct~vitles)rec !d k-Iuflger, 1J19 hi?rh~pra~Il/~cI(Ie pri?f;arlr 1,rtrratur der B~~zarrttnrr, Muntcl~1978. I , 3725, and pass in^.

25 December 1059.43 Isaac I Con-tnenus abdicated and took holy orders. Constantine XI X'loucas succeeded hinz after having beer1 accfai~ncdin the fairlily cirdc on an earlier o c ~ a s i o n . " ~ The titles given to O d o have also been transnrittcd in a corntptcd form. But it is clear that pmthqntarius i s the Creek xptrrrmazcr296pt~a dignity (ride) and a functiorx, A pratospatharius was a ~nilitary con~mander,an orficcr, in the Byzantine hierarchy far below the titles given to ITer~6.~' It is likety that Odo, taking ix-tto consideration his family and his YcudaI%ackground, commanded a contingent of (Norn-tan?)mcrcenar~esof whom sonle nray have come with him to Constantinopie. It is very unlikely that his father or someone else bought: him this function as at1 honaurary title or an ~nvestmcr~t, as was done sonletirnes in Byzantiurn."' The second title is a court title and a fuxlction at the sanle time, and seems to represetlt the Creek .ilahcrpy~~bho~. CuilIand trarlslatcd it as chamberlain which brings us back to the ducal houschotd in Norrrzandy where Ode's father had a sinlrilar f ~ n c t i o n . 'COdo ~ of M k z i h n has thus a mmtiinedjob, attending upon thc emperor and bekg a rnititary csmnzarrder. This makes hirn a commalider nf/irt the imperiat bodyguard, an imperial pn?tt?spildz~ritts.+%~emay have worked u~rdcrthe command of EIervC who may even have engaged him. Did Isaac Comnenus have a predilection for foreigners at his court, and especial1y for Westerners? Odo must also have served as an interpreter betweer1 the Greek enlploycrs and his mil. We arc told that he was f u m t in Greek and other languages. Knowledge of Creek was rrot very commoxl in Norntandy. An ambitious xnan who wanted to serve in Uyzantitln~and who planned a career had to Icam Greek. K, Browning was convinced that foreigners could g a ~ npromotion if only they spoke Creek and were C)rthodox.*Thert- is sorne exaggeration in this statement, but it is obvious that a sound knowledge ofthc language coutcl be of great hclp. The schism of 1053 went alrzrost unnoticed in Byzantine contemporary sources, i2aily practice prbabIyoffered the sarnc picture, so that Ode" religious background could hardly have bccxz a handicap,50 In this context it is i ~ r c s t i r r gto draw attention to somc Greek phrases/words in Latin characters with 2 Latin trandatinn in a ma~luscript at Avranchcs: Of

For the Byzanttnc; cororlaclon ccrcmony scc Corlrtar~tinc Porphyrogc~~irus,'11~Book (?f

C:t#n*morzie.+(ed. A , Vogt, Lac L~tln*c h C:6r4nrc$rrtr*>,I%r~s(1939) 1967, 11, ch. 47 (381, Is), Thc d r m ~ n u t ~ vilrrc~lfr:, c -11s fbr 1)crtlcas tnay rcflccr a conrcnrporary dcvcloprr~cnrofrlle tzanlc 111 Greek,

I ? . I, Ibufcmrs, Thr. Dc,~rkar,torldorl IC3f18, 29, n. 5, Psell~~s, I:.'Itr~~~qgrn$tiil.137 (S~wrcr , 33t 1). *"(;u~lldrid, ~ ~ ~ S I I I G I I I L ~fl, I I I SCH-f , 31 , passm. *" In thc carly 20.5(21; N~chaclI'sclfos brittlght rhls furlctror~for hrs file~trcson-nr-law E1~7~d1os. t-tc "pad' 30 puun~is(1140 gold ~ l o n ~ ~ s n ~ awhzch t a ) , gavc an anrrual lncorne of 1 pound of gold (73 nom~srnata),or an irrtcrest of 5%, cf. II. C;ullland, 'Un comptc-rendu dc prods pdr Pscllos', By~~xrrrrnt?~lavrra 20, 195% 2205-230(rdent, Irr~t~tirrttrri?, I. 84-107) and 1". tcntcrlc, ' ""Roga" ct rcnte cixtat aux Xc-XIc ~t~iiclcs', Kr*rt~icr f c ~trittldtl Nyztxtliiti(*~25, 1967, 77-10l). ssp, 84s. Scats of marly protocpathanans It,rvc been prescrvcd, V I anrcnt, LC*Crrrjlrr., tit3 ,\ct*ati-\ rfr I'rnrptrr. h y ~ ~ z t r r r n[ I , i, "rrdtnrttrsrrrzt~onccntrt~le,13aris 1981, 71 7s. "'C;~t~Iland,Iturrfirftons, I, %Hf?, 353. T11c.y seein t o have been eunuchs. Wcrc* G~relglrcrsrnatic ,111 cxceptlon? Scwter, 317, n. I , .iuggcstcd thdr fsaac (:omncr~us was a soldlcr who w ~ n r c dta get r~clof rhc eui~uch-rulc.(;~aililand docs not rncntton foreigners with this f i ~ r ~ s t l c ~ t ~ . 48 C;ullland, Instrtttriorts, 11, 112. 49 fl. j j l r o w r ~ ~ ~ tlyztztzfrttm ~g, otlJ UtiljC"rlrlt~,I or~dori1C275, 32, 62. Ostrogorsky, 319. 44

52

A~tg/t1-iVc~rtnars Studies IX

(Normandy), 13ibliothkque MunicipaXc, 236, f 97. I%e manuscript originates from Moxtt-St-Michel." The Greek text was written in an clcventh-centwr hand, filling the empty space of the last Folio, It is a sort of colloquial Greek for trav~3ffcrs,pilgrims or rx~erchantswho wanted to cope with daily problems. Whcther the destination or the composer% hhrrnlcland was the Byzarltine empire or southern Italy, or even Sicily in the later eleventh century, remains a mystery. A k w Greeks visited Norman+,s2 Eating and drinking constitut~the nlajor part of the list. T o give one exanlple: loneliness could be avoided by itlvitixzg a person to sit down and havc conversation (Kathison ode syntirkol-2 mrr(sede hic, Eclguere me). Whether C)do had anything ta do with this text we do not know hut thcre was an i~xtcrest,ltrnited as it may bc, in practical Greek (cf, Appendix). (3rd~was a talented man, not only ftlr languages hut also fnr healtxlg all sorts of living creatures, ntcxt, horses and birds. What is the importance of such a statcxl~erzt?The "biography' docs not mention s~xchthings without reason. He may have bccn trained in C:i>nstantinopleor improved his knowledge thcre. As he had to take care of his men when they were in bad health, a good cor~~rnander The change of ctimte and food, and the risks of their job, must have caused a high rate ofilXnesses and nssrtafity. He had a responsibility to bring his men safe and sound to their base, to their horr~efarldeven. His veterinary qualities arc very intcresring as wclf, Horses and birds were healed by him. From old tirrles Byzantium had prcservcd the medical heritage of Antiquity. In the tenth and eleventh ccnturics wrc scc a growing irttercst in medicine and pharrr~acology, especially where horses 2nd domestic animals are concen~cd.The enlperotConstarttinc Porphyrogenitus (91S959) ordered compilations to be made. The Hl"ppintrica conlpristd older treatises on dealing with and healing of horses. The C;eoponicir was intended for taking care of domestic anin~alsaxtd was meant for farmerses3Both compilations must have been available in the palatine library. Michael f~sctloshimself published medical works and had among Izis students peoplc called Cdts', which may indicate Court !if% irzcludcd riding and hrtrnting. C;ardening, at feast crioying gardens, was another interest. Ths hurztlng of birds was sonlcttrxles the fashion, and sometimes thc two could be easlfy con~bincdt.We know that the Byzantbes loved birds in their gardens and in chcir hnnics, and so did the emperors.55Birds wcrc cverl counterfeited in precious metals to decorate a water basin and sing

11. Ulschoff, 'Furc~gnlatlguagcs In thc Mtiidlc Ages', .Spcnrlrutt, 36, 19)hl,3fX-0, 11. 46 (rdcm, .t.lrtrclnltrrliihc S t i d i ~ r t ,11, Sturtgarc 1967, _?39* 11. 47). It1 a Ictrer of 5ilOi85 Mddamc A. Harc, tllrrarrdrl of the Blbtiothkque MmniapaIe lc f-Itr~cbcr,Avranches, confirms the provellancc from Mortr-St-Mlchcl, rckrring to the C:firn/osqlrt.dl.-\ nzantururr.~tPnitrrrur-r. iiltrtle, J. J . C;. Alexander, .Vt~rrr.m~~ Ilt~rrntrlilrrort' t r ,l..frtnt Sf ,%Pfchcl, 966-l lW, Oxford 1970, 13, C:f: Eher%oft,Clnrtlf et c~i-crdent,83. 'TEbcrsc>lt, X l s , "5 . Vogcl. "3 yzar~trnc.Sc~encc', (:tzrnhrrr{q~ .lP~dtetpnl F..iuri)r)t, IV, Tht. Byznntttle Ii~tprut.,Part ii: C;rrvenrmc~rrt,rlrrgrliz arzd ~ t t j l l i i r l f l ~C:a~~lbriJge t~, l9fi7, 2Hrt-,7 r ~ ~ ~ V~crlna f94"jS1trur1g\bcnchte dcr Akademtc der Wlsscnscbaftcn in Wlcn, I3hllos,-Ellst.. Klasse, 271, 3). I t , 17, 76, -43,57; L , de Ucyf.rk, I,Yzahitu.riotr bj~zatrtttie,C;rOnoblciPax~s1902, 1-43, 143. 115. For literdry dcscrgptlc3ns 5ec c.g. Ur'gorrr5 Akrtrrs cd. and tra115. J. Mavrogorddto, Oxford IC356,318-9. 'I

mccfianical songs.56Constantine Porphyrogenitus had a golden trce instailled in his patace, filled with little birds who, by some nlechanicaf device, could sing. Foreigx~visitors like Liutprand of Cremana in "349 were impressed by such p ~ r f o r m a n c c s Real . ~ ~ parrots, peacocks, swans, geese, falcons, pigeons, cranes (kept in captivity for hurlring purposes) needed to be attended. This may have been one of che duties or bobbies of Odo, thc Norman nobleman. The emperor Isaac Cornnenus ioved bird-hunting and kept birds in a reserve." Birds muld also be af interest for strategic rcmons. Pigeons could carry messages, goose ,t~was ~ could stand watch and sontetimes birds could be used in a s t r a t a g e n ~ X in~partantto keep them in good health and have specially trained pcople to takc care of tfiem, And how many birds, and for what specific reason, do we not see in Byzantine miniatures and, if we look at post-Conqucst England, in the Bayetlx Tapestry .60 Horses are another subect wc have to deal with, C~OIOSSO mcth they had the sanac iunction as birds, but in addition they could trarlsport goods and wcrc indispensable for warfare. Thc Uyzantinc army needed goad veterinarians Eor its cavalry which had to fight so nlany battles. And so did the Norrelarr arrrly invading England. U . S, Uachrtzch emphasised the importance of the horses in 1066 and thc need to takc care of them before, during and after the crossing of the Channel. They may have been a decisive factor in William's campaign but I Ieavc this point to others. In court lifi. horses had their fcrnction, tzot only for riding, parading and hunting, but also for the Hippodrome games and for playing polo. Polo was one of the favorite sports within the precincts of the pafacc complex and Constantine X3oucas had the irrlperial pologround, the Tzykanistcrion, rcdecarated. '" Kclated to this animal world is thc zoo, a mirliamrc paradisc, a miniature w r l d over which the souvercign ruled as well. The importance of imperial and royal zoos and their propagarzda have not received much attention where the Middle Ages arc concerned, but is an interesting topos. The Byzantine crrtperors kept a zoo and nccded ~etcrinarians."~ Wc do not know whether this aspect of a ruler's life appealed to William as duke ofHormandy, or later as king of England. If so, he may have been inspired by the Uyzantinc example or that

'' S ~ - f i ~ s w26, f , 33. 57

f.t~idli~?llilttdi .4iifi?pi)du~t\, v1,

5, CCS. A , U;~ucr/K.Kau, I)arm%tadt 2977, 4HWJ9,

(;c3si/trtjtre der S ~ L ! ? J I J Ckilis~r;(lit ~P~Z

(Engl. trans. F. A. Wright,

7'/ici

ti;rrX?s

HI Qtr~lferrztrt t!fLttrrlprilnd i?f^Cm~~rnorra,

Lon don 193), 707-8). fJscllw, CJfirt~~~o~qraphia, 11, 12% (Sewrtr, 321). 5 3 ~ ~ ~Sttlrlus~l?, r r t HVI~?IJ~YIL~(TIII, Kitlq tJ~raIJ'3Su,qt~, Engt. tranr. M. Magnussoni'E-1, I.)ilsso~r, f larmondsworth 1966, ch. 6,pp. 52-3 (the Icgcnd(i) thdr Maralti scrvuig In the Greek drrn! rn Stc~ly rtareed it fire In a beleaguered t a w 1 by u ~ i r ~birds g who had thclr ncst5 there), Mi Z. Ksdir, Suriltvnls o f Greek ;oc1lt?qrct2l rl/t$mrncraorrin Ryzatitrrrr rtrornrsrrrpts, trans, T. W~lkinron, IZuliapcst 1978, passlm. Uyzantrnc rnflucncrc. in the BT was suggested by .:C R . I3sdwc.11, .4r!qloSN.ZOII Arf. A YIYWj>erAptyCtrvt*,M311ch~^ster 1983, 160. 12. jantn, C>unstatifintyle f ~ y ~ a f i h n Pans f, tt164, 39, 119, 19.5. Th. Prrcger, Scrrprores ortqitrrrtrr CL~rrsrarrtrnc~j~o11tt1111~~~~1t1, Lclpz~g1")1)1/7,325. " L(;. A. A , Lo~scl,Fiisroire des A%Knasqcrres I:4trtzqtlrr6 ii rros.jorrr3, Pans f91.2, 1, L40-5. Onc cor~ld add the rcptwt by L~tidprand, Lyqarro Q i r i ~ f f f ~ r t557. , Aact~cn possersrd a wrr of to43 lnlrtdtlilg &!yrarttu~e Irlsntutli>n$, H. Frchtcrtau, 'Byzanz ~ l r ~dtc d t%l7 zu Aachc.11" ,'t/frrrt-rhrrtegt:~tt(k.s Itrjrrrrtth ttrr CJsft.rrt*rclrt.cche f;eshrckf~~r~vrchrt~z,~, 5% 1951, 1-54 (cf. 13iiIger,fXAPAXTifCIk%A,Ettal ff)hl, 67, 11. 34) and K . I-iauck, "TtcrgZrren Inr IYfalzbtrc-tch', In l ~ r r r t s c h i ~ k y ~ ~ y ) ~I,~(;iittn~gen f z c ~ r r , I963, 305 5X

i i r p

of princes Salian and Ottonian. It has been suggested that the first zoo in Western Europe was established in England.o3 Was it part of William's far-reaching plans, a master plan, to send young men to Constantinople to learn the useful skills! And was it his wish that they should be trained in the ceremonies of a grand court life! Did William, from an early date, cherish a dream to become an autocratic, imperial ruler, either on the continent or beyond the Channel! How could one othenvise explain his successes with the building of the horse transports and keeping the horses in war-ready condition? It was in the very capital of the Byzantine empire that Normans from Normandy and from southern Italy could learn and spy how to deal with all sorts of strategic and ceremonial problems. O d o junior's experience corroborates the view that William was and had long been familiar with Byzantine technolog)b arld knowledge. His informants lived in his very neighbourhood. Young noblemen like Odo of Mezidon, serving as dapgeferat the ducal court, had been trained in the heart of the Byzantine empire, the imperial palace, focal point of all activities, military as welt as political. We find another example of such a trainee in the same family: his bmther Robert who is a more elusive person. The Chronicle of Sainte-Barbe-n-Auge giver the following information, in referring to events taking place in 1128 when the dedication of the church to Saint Barbara took place Ecclesizl, vero que dicitur Sancte Barbare, in bonore beati Martini ab antiquo Fundata et dedicata consistit. Porro itlatis in cam reliquiis heate Barbare, virginis ct martyris, per manum Roberti, filii Stigandi, qui de Grecia easdem reliquias super aurum et topazion sibi preciosas atrulerat, bcata Barbara, ob miraculorum frequcnciam, illam suo nomine vendicavit eccf e ~ i a r n ~ ~ f think that he was a younger brother of Odo who as the elder held thc title of dap*r in 1M3, The two brothers probably did not leave at the same time, Robert may have gone eastward after his brother had remmed home, thus explaining his absence from the diploma of 1063. Donations were often witnessed by relatives and Robert was, apparently, still alive, unlike his grandparents as we read in the diploma. He must have served under Constantine X D o u a s and was back in time to participate in William's caxnpaign of 1066. But did he realty? His Gther Stigand is last mentioned in lO7O/l, leaving no trace in Domesday Book. Twice, however, we find in the Survey a Robert who might be Kabert of M6zidoxr. ]In Lincolnshire we find a Robevttrs filirrs Stkandi and in Uerkshire a Ruberfas dapfer holding land.65 The dapgefrr function nzay have passed on to the younger brother arld remained in the family. He d i d before the Dmesday Inquest of 1086. His death, apparently without nlalc heirs, is in line with the passing of Stigand's lands to the Tancarville family

'' Loisel, 153s. i3ones ofexatrc animals llave heen fc3und at Winchester (personal cornmunlcatzon by Martin BlddItl dunrlg the 1985 Battle Conference). Wooci\eock had a kzoo\n the early twelfth century, A , t. Poofe, Frc~rurDomc*sdayBook ro ,%ZagttuCar&, 1087- 1216, Oxf'ord 1970, 19. WitIianl the Cor~qucrorwas lnteresccd tn deer parks. Clzronrqtr~de Sainft-&rhe-en-At4ge, 23. 6S Domeshy Botrk, 1,375~; C3. W. FosteriT. Longley, The Lirtcolnshiut. Domesday Book and the Litidsey Szlrvey, HomcastIe 1924, 212-3; Dornesdoy Book, 1, 59; VCH Aerkskircr, London l%&, cd. t". F-I. DitchfrcldiW. Page, 343, @

Byrantine ,Wnvin~tiato the ilSclrman Cotiqtrest

55

of which we find a confirmation in the early twelfth centurySbB Robert made pmfits in the East. He brought h o r n gold and topazes. We do not know what he did in Constantinogle but be may have followed in the footsteps of his brother, Gold, mancy and precious objects seem to be the normal things for a young nobleman to bring home. He did not have to change the gold into silver currency as was done by Scandinavians at that Gold bcsants are rtfernzd to in Norman sources although no specimens have been fvund so The predilection for topazes seems pccuiiar. But as precious stones they were often used in goldsmith" work and rnay have been the fashion, n Western Europe, and especially in tapidaries which became so popular in England (where the first vernacular lapidary was writtm behrc the Conqunt) they were considered extremely valuab)e.@Their healing forces against mental diseases are described by Michael I%~llos,~' The Mezidsn brothers may have met Psellas in the Byzantine palace. We have already mentioned the relics of St Barbara after whom the church in M6zidon was named in the 1120s. Why did Robert choose these particular relics?71'The saint carnie to bc associated with siege-craft (the patran saint of miners and, later, gunners) and thus comes within the scope of mercenaries like Odca alld R c > b e r ~Z.n~ Constatltirioplc ~ there were at least live churches and chapels dedicated to her of which one was in the The prcserlcc- of a chapel in the palace may have made things easier for Robert, but even then it rnust have been a privilege. Another young nlan who was in Constantinople and who is known to have been active in Wil'liam's expedition is a man called Dcda, He is said to have been a Norman knight, In 107OI1 he was the sole survivor of an attack on the isle of Ely which mded, for the attackers, in a mass drowning. At Ely Herward lcd one of the last resisting groups agairrst the Normans. Deda was made prisoner K~;qt~sfiz,11, 1559, 1587 (H. Chantcux, Rectrerl des nctes J'Hepm ler B ~ I ~ C ~PATIS P Y C1932 , jtIr2se d%coitc. des Chartcs), 490s). Aecord~ngto A. i,c Pr&vsst, O d e n r EJircrlis, Ecclcsrasrica Hrstortcz, 11, I'arls 18-10, Iorf, n. I , Agnes, vv~kof RabcI of Tancarville wF3sa ddughtcr of thtSfis;c"riItc"t~ r t ~ Stsctt:r~ymholrk, ~d 11, Stuttgdl-rr1955, 3%; K , Lcyrcr, Zr~gRland and thc F ~ n p ~ m r ct11c early t.~velf'thccncury" eTIZll,5, li)Cd?, 05;6. Brooke, "The Saxon ilrrd Ntmlmrr K~rzgs, Londotl (1963) 1'167, 66; Ifouglas, 253, n. 3; J, f>cCr, ISyzanz g t r d dns atretzdleittdisclze Hcrr~r!trrtrim, A i i ~ ~ q ~ - u ~ ~Ar~fciitzerr, lrltc S~glnarsr~gzr~ 1077, 69 (Bymtzrrrrr:rihc.Zelrsrllr!fi, 50, 1957, 43Ftt); { : ~ w d r r y , 52,11. 50. 9U

days.""or some unknown reason William could not or woufd not use the crown(s) of his p r e d e c c s ~ o r sThere . ~ ~ is one escape out of this problcm, i,c, the crown w a s prepared in advance. Cold and precious stones were no problem Zor William. The artist worked in Normandy or in England. William certainty planned or hoped to be a king, o m way or another? soorter or later, on the continent or in England, and thus he had thc design ready. Did the blueprint and the inspiration come from Byzantium, like the horse transports? The description in the Carmen makes one doubt about William's crown being a so-called 'BGgelkcrown as has been assumed so farmgs The term vevticis in strmmo (1. 777) has been interpreted as ttnc tog a f a %6gel\rown, but could well mcan the highest point of a crown when worn, i.c, above the forehead, This idea is reinforced by the setting of a pearl between two amethysts, which is diffimlt to imagine with the other type." The twclvc stonss of the Apocalypse must have formed a cirde. We arc probably dealing here with another type of crown to which the Byzantine 2nspiration\cems to Lead the way: the model was a Byzantine crown. Untif the end of the eleventh century Byzantine enlperors wore a diadem crown, The Canuen uses the terms dr'adema atad stenzma, suggesting this type.97The Byzal-rtine c r o w was decorated with pendeiloqucs, dctachabte strings of pearls hanging alongside the dceks. A little cross cosrsisting of four stones stood "on top" in the middle, _justabove the forehead,'" According to the (:amten there was no cross an William's cro'l'v'rl or pendefoques (or the author may have seen it in its simple f-cjrnl).InfOm~ants011 the Byzantine crown were readily at hand: members of the ducal houscboId who had served at the imperial court, They had seen the crowned emperor on nlany occasionsSg9 His portrait was also depicted on coins, of which quite a few may have "travelled' to Normandy. l" (ill. 112) In f aint Sophia pilgrims and other visitors could admire the huge mosaics with crowned emperors, like Constantine the Great, justinian, Leo VX, Constantine Monon7iachus."' Elsewhere in the church crowns of earlier emperors were on shuw."* Like William's cruwrl they were incrusted with precious stones, but no example can be brought fornard of the Twelve Stones of the Apocalypse. Here the E~tglisb crovvP.1 seems an

"W.Mollat, "Prtzt?li.mcs navals tic I'h~scoiredcs crorsadc.$" Cnkihr~r*de C~i~rlt~nttorl ttrL:rilCrlr~ft, 10, 1 %67, 351 ; Co.rvtircy, -51, n. 50. 94 Were Anglo-Saxon ktng5 burled wrth thclr crowns? K ~ n g Cnut 1s sard to have offered his crown to Czhrtst, 1.e. dze crown was larri on thc altar (Efunttngdon, 1230). Edward the Cczt~fcssorwore a gold crowrr Irr hrs tomb (M, Z?iloch, 'La vle de 5. Eiioulrd lc Cr~nfl-sscurpar C>%bcrtde Glare', ,-lnalcrtil Bo/far?dturiiz41, 1923, I22), Y5 Note 02. '' The location of the fifth storre, the sardonyx, < : ~ V I ~ V I II . 767, above thc car see111s An accurate ohscrvatlort . 97 C;c3ft1 C;IIIIJPIIIII,320, gwcs diadt>tria. NOEICC that t f ~ ~ ?ttJrn1e7111t2ttt~~hlrlct arc often a nldttcr of clsolce, 111 kdst and West. " 'The sttJmma war replaced by ehc k d t t t e i t t ~ k ~ t l tal ,closed crown, a bonrlct rather. The crown wa\ kept w ~ t h i nthe palace, Lrtlre d m (Gi~l;mt~trrc~s, I, p. 4, After rEic ccremon)? the en~pcrorretlrcd tntu the nsltatorlon where the various ranks, amot~gwhom the pr~~-zrrosyaarkarr(~f, pad rllcir respects and wished hrm Iong Ilfc, rhrd, 11, p. 3. loo E g. P. I?. Wh~ttrng, Byzarrrirre loin.\, E-trrldon 1973; I." C;r~ersun.f3y;arrrrrie itjrrrs, London 1983 "'I %mc of then1 ~llustratcdrn j. Uccktv~th.E;lr/y f~itrr+ttniiilrid Ryzarrrrrrc Art, tatldoll (1970) 1979, 1lfs I.58, Itlo, 201. IOU" j. Ehersolt, LC#-5 a&+sonf;Ttrralr de Byz~ttce,Pam 1923, 37

Image not available

innovation.'03 Both in East and West special properties were attributed to precious stones, Psellos published his list of 24 stones. Xn the West the Apocalyptic stones becanle pupular, as did IaPdaries. More research is needed here before we can reach any concl~sion."~ Now that we have mentioned Byzantine coins, wc have to take a look at King William's coinage. In the first years of his reign he apparently did not want to frustrate his new subjects and imitated the types of silver pennies of his predecessors: a helmet a r closed crown in profile with pendcloques at the back. These coins cIcarXy imitated Gcrman coins.'" In the late IO7Cbs we see a sort of diadem which could correspond with the diadem crown in the Camen."' Miss Marion Archibald thinks that it may be a not very well drawn version of a closed crown and that tbc various crowns on the king's coinage express a wish for variation, lo' Xt is therefore difficult to usc coinage as proof of cithcr %6ge17 crown or diadem."' (ill, 314) The coins, however, show that WiIliani did imitate a Byzantine n~odel.The so-called sword-type is a derivative of a coin of lsaac I Coaznenus, (ill. 1/3/4)Io9 We have already arrived at a period tong after the conquest. We have to return to Westminster Abbey in thc Xatc spring of 14x8, Mathilda, wife of the Conqueror, was crowned queen and accepted ad cotzsor~itrrnregir' hanoris, in the words of Ordcric. In At~glo-Saxoncinles t k r e was no tradition of queens being crowned, Occasionally they were anointed and only once do we find a queen depicted with a crawn.""Qfter the Norman conquest things change as was already painted out by Freeman and others."' The ceremony, 011which we are not weti informed, was probably siniifar to that of Xlccember 1066.L'2 Ealdrcd, archbishop of York, was on duty again and probably had the queen acclaimed. According to (Srderic Mathalda was crowned with a diadem. Here again William clearly shows in~pcrialambitions. William of Fairiers writes that in 1066 Duke Willianl wanted to be crowned alongside his wife who was still in Normandy, His cneouragc pressed him to proceed with the ritual as soon as E. Pllrz, Kameltzi~k~itrtef I t f i f r t ~ ,Uppsdla 1977. J. EvanslM. S. Serjcantson, Ettglish ,"llrdraer~nl I,ilprilnrtt.r, London 1Ci"Ss7,XE, where a date between ll)07 and 1081 1s g~vcrlfor Marbodc's tcxt. Thc first vcrr2acular laptdarv In Western Europe dcscrtbts the Twelve stolle'; In Anglo-Sdxon, rltrd, 13, 1.5 JBL, C:ortcrn Tlbertus A ITff (Ms. A), Xls). M. M. A rchtbali3, 'CC:olnc', 11-1 Efz,qlisl~Koinnrze+q~trArt lflh6-1,300, Catalogue London t 984, rto. 387. Io3

""

Archlbalct, 110. 303. Arclzlbald, no. 389. The same vanailor1 IS sccrl orz C;crman culnr, PI, I3anr1cribcrg, I>re di>trr~dte.tr ,%Iiitzz~ndcr Srich~t~ci~e~~z irrtd Frrirtkrschert Kar qerzerr, Ilerl112 1 876, passftrl. "OR S ~ r ~ ~ e t t mrncnilorl es 1s n-rade of Uyzant~netnflumcc upon English coinage of rhts pcnod, 12. Talboc K~cc,E ~ ~ q f i bArt, h X71-Il(l%l,Oxford 1952, 34; I). I?. 'VVhjrtlng. 'The Uyzancme Ernplre and the colnagc of the Anglo-Saxons', In Aqlo-Saxctrl Corns, ed. I?. Fi. M. Ilolley, Lonclurt 1961, 23-38 (St~tbrespnescnrecj. to F, M. Stcnton on rhc occasion of h ~ 81th s btrthday). IR9 A short notrcc on such ~rrflucnccwllI fc>llow tn due coursc. " w u e e n Ernma, wife of King Cnur, EL, Add. Ms. 33241, f 1 (Etliortttrim Etnr~tx*),c.g. F, Brtrloc\, fld~vnrrltEte C O I ~ ~I,OIIC~UI~ A S O ~1970, , 111. 1; P. Stafford, 'The King's .ivife ln Wrsscx, #X)-IIlC&', h s r t$tid J)Y~.SCIII91, L "S 1 , 3-27, " qE, A . Frccrnan, The Mrstor)t of.' thf ?Uilrmatr G'clngt4est of f:~l~q/(lll(f,IV, Lot~dc)~~ l HTh (repr. NCM, York 19"77),17Cf, 7t1.5-6; 1) E. Schrarnrrl, (;t;.sc/ztchte des et{qll5chpn k'ltrr~~qrrims rm L~chrcder fiijtlrirrq, VVctrrlar (1937) 2970, 29; I3ougIas, 749; T. Vugdsang, Drr Frmr als I;lrrvschurrrr rm Elohrrr (lfirrrl~rlr~r. Strtdtetr zrrr krorrsovs rt:qtzis humel, (;iEtrzngen 1955.1, 45-6. "' Ilouglas concluded that .ihc was acclaimed, 2nd refers ro 1% E. Schrart-rtn, Fltstt1u)l c!f rfie Eti.qlrsh iorcj-irrtntrofr,CDrtford 1937, 30 (inacccssrblc to mc, idem, Ct.rclrrchte. 3 1 ) . Io7

62

Anglo-Normatt Stttdies I X

possible and William gave in, History proves that the idea of a double coronation was vivid in William" mind.'" He must have had the idea that a dotlhle coronation would enhance his prestige. But where did he find his models? Again we are in the complexity of the Ottonian/Salian and Byzantine worid, the two empires in Europe at thc time. Ira both he could find his examples. Since the Byzantine princess n e o p h a n o had arrived in the West and was crowned during the marriage ceremony in St Peter's in Rome in 972, the wives of Ottonian and Salian emperors were crowned queens and empresses with their husbands, And as such they were represented in art, in ivories, miniatures and book decorations, on altars, etcen4Kunigunde and Henry I1 were crowned imperially in 1014, Conrad and Cisela in 1027, Henry IIT and Agnes of Poitau in 1047. Looking at Byzantittm where double coronations were traditional, we see that empresses make their appearallce an everyday cokagc. Constantine Doucas' wife, Eudokia, figures on coppcr coins. Mathilda was never depicted on coins or otherwise (at least as Or as we know), but she shared hex husband's new dignity, esptciall y when both were receiving acclamations. The IR~ides restaI;riill~lmr, 216-7, 260-1; Worcester, 11, 2; CJrderic, li,214. P. E. Schrartlm, Die detdfsclgen k"disev utld Kifntgc In Bildcm ihrcr Zeir, Lerpzig ctc., 1928, rtos 66, Xc3aihic. Wa/ib, Ifrt;ralb/c (the new edrtlorl by P, Berghaus t e a . , Nlurllch 1'383, 1s msrcess~bIcto rne); Y. E. SchrammiF. Miitherich, f3errknmle der derrrsche~tKiixi\qe urtd klaiser, Muntch lOf(i2, nos 73, "3

'"

74, 75. 'I5 111 ducal Normandy she signed h a i f of the dlplornas, Faurnux, 58, passlm. There was abo syrrlnlctry in the build~tlgof two abbeys at Csrcn, I9Abb;zycaux darnes (Ste Trtnite) and IXAtsbaye aux homnlcs (St Eticnnc), and 111 sornc sf t h a r donac~onsto religtous ~nstitut~ons. "'" Cawdrey, Tf and passlm. Constantine Porghyrogcn~tus,I,tvrt# drs Crjrtrnr-twrc*~,passztn. I lertvc rt to others to deteinnine whcrc W.tlIxam's ~rzv~tatlon Enr krsses at Christmas 1067' camc fronz, from C;crrnany? from Wyzarztzurn? cf. C3rdcr~c,11, 210; Nelson, 'Rites', 1 3 ) . C:owdrcy, 72; Kantorowlcz, 172, rt. 67. '" 9 a u d n dc LIourg~u11,OCUVV~., poL:rfqtie~,ed. Ph. Abraha~n,Ibns 1926 (rcpr. Gericva 1974), 31 1. Kantor~wtcz,157. ")"

Byzantine ,W~qinalillto the

~Vonlz~tl Ccttzifrrest

63

Byzantine emperor and Byzantine ceremonies.I2' The blessing of the crown and its Byzantine shape are the most striking fttatuws. The double coronation, the acclamations, sonie of his coins, all remind us directly of the Byzantine empire 2nd its symmetry, and indirectly of the Holy Roman empire of the Qttonians and Salians since 972. There Byzantinizing forces were active and it will remain a mystery where exactly some of these elements came from. O n the continent Uyzantinizing forces became rnornmtarily less strong in the late eleventh ccntury and William may have tried to take over the leading role among Western leaders in imitating the Byzantine emperors, In his household be could find his informants and advisers on Byzantine customs and technology, It is an interesting thought that WiHiam vvho already in Normandy had an imperial "budding program~sornctimesconsidered as inspired by the Ottonians), as king of England had, 'the imperial will o f the conquering duke9 where arebittctzlrc was concerned, in the words of Freeman. '22 AS king of England he scerns to found a new empire, the Anglo-Norman en~pireaccording to Haskins and Le P a t a ~ r e l ,The ' ~ ~ Third Orda inaugurated the Third empire. Much research rernair~sto be done before we can decide whether we should speak of Byzantine rrruqirzalia or Byzantine essmtiniia to the Norman conquest. Did William cherish a dream of an empire on the continent and beyond the Channel? Did he have rt masterplan to realise inlperial kingship and imperial regalia! It is too late to ask him these questions or reveal his hidden mofives by laying him on the Freudian couch. And so we win never know the answer to these questions,

If~rch,311dcx of rhc Srylc5 and Tttfcs of Er~gf~sh Sovcrczgns', 1r-t Rrj~arf$rlifr-firsf tondot1 187% 62.Thc trtle hasilfir~accurs in ttic Lcofrtc chartcr, Rr;qesfr",I, no. 2%(tO("t9);W. B. Stcvcnfan, 'An Old-E~~gl~sh Charier of Wtittartz the Conqueror a1 favour of St Mart~rr"s-le-Grand, Lundsrz, A. 13, t 068" EHR 1I. IX96,74l, and in a Jrrm,Pgcs charrer of c. 1075, C3ravtcs de I't~bhtr~r Jr~_lirttzrucn, IWth, nu. 29). F~CCIII~XI, fir, 109; C , H. Hask~ns,' f i t . Ni1rmans n? Etrvc~pcari Hrstor)r, New York 19I3 (rcpr, IWdi), IWX; L. Grodcck~,L brr offonieri, Parts 1962, 210, 289 (tr~dccesslbIcto rntj; Mrrsstt, 'Condlcrons finar~a?rctt"307, n. 3. 12') Hask~ns,The ,Y(tnnatzs, 3, 24,82, 851r; J. Lc f3zroureI, crlrp .Yt~rttf~c'tt Litttt~lrf,CJxford 197fi iL'

W.

C ~ CGray

,-lt?trrtnl i L k , ~ r r i?f'tftc r~ In&x Solic'ty,

Image not available

THE Z,ATlN-CiREEK. W0ItI)LXS"I' IN MS 236 O F '1'1-XE MUNIICIIJAL LlMIIiAftV O F AVftANCI:t t ES, FCX. "3v

1x1 the Catalogtle g&z&ral dcs Mdnuscrrts dc bitrl~othkquss publ~ciuesdc Frdrtcc X, 1889, p. 11.5 a trat~s.cription is giver1 of a sxlrall tatltr-C;rc.ck cvordlist, or better collect~onof sentences, whicfz did rzot attract ~ S I ~ J C I attcilttc)l~ I atid, IEI An): CASC, US"I 110t ~t-rscrtcdtn tllc great Latin-CGreek- wurd-list collections such as toewc-C;octzk C(I:tvpffs C>lossnrictrttwzLntitronrt~i.M r s K . C:iggadr drew tny attctrtion to tlris l ~ s ~t n dasked ; 111cto write '1 s h ~ ~ci3nln1Ctltary rt 0 1 1 it. TXlt work was L2cllttated by A clear photocopy o f fol. Wv put dt my disposal by the C:e~~treNatlot~alilc Id IZcshercht" s r i ~ " ~ ~ t l f i 113 quc X'arls. T h e list has nothing t o do wlth the contet~ts of the Inarn body of tlrc matluscrlpt, which contarns t l ~ cl ) c i l f r i ~ i i nof Noctfiru5, o f ivhrch tIrc last to ctlapters ATC" lack~ng,and S O ~ CIX ~C C T F ) ~tdkcrl ~ fro111 the wc~rksof McJc. IC 14, Ef~wcvcr.tvr~ttcti the. Cidrlls tllllc the ~ ~ l d r l t ~ s c rtt?tcff, i p t IIAIIICIY IIZ tlw ~lcvcr~tfr ccrltury. App;tre~~tly, the. os~tfie~fia.d) ~fL;Crsthe satne (ct>rrect) aor, I I I ~fc>rtir yiirr (=; n ~ ~ i as v ) used in the Avrarrchcs ms. More interesting is tlze occurrence o f the kvord i n a r ~;= oivdrp~(nv)here. 'X'he tcrnl is &eddy know11 from classical Cheek with the ~neaning"bad, tvcak winc"(I)cmosth, 35,32 ctc.), later it is used in a colioyuxaf way fc^or o i v o ~ ,This signiftcation 1s ratlrcr frequctlt in papyri, atscz once in Thcctphrastus Clzar, 17,2. In the papyrus fragmcne, the h:c?Ei~-cmIJarisir2r-cm(== CGL II 563,lOff.)%we find the form cftdri as a translation of h i m (= vinr-ln.1). Leo~ltictsNeap. gives also sorrlc good exanrplcs of the colfoqurai use of oivbprv rn the scene of Syn2con Safus and the mufctcer ( V S S 164,2"7,19,2". The Lexikotl rlc~r Avcltakmcn irr tze~1,(rriecfzisctr41? IJirzlrktrn" o f hi. Antiriotis infixrns us that thc ~vorilis preserved in Cyprus and in the &".ontic dlatccts. Present-day Sotith Italian C;rcek uses Icpacri.7 Ncpci(v) s t thc commoxr ~rloderr~ (;reek word firzr nrjtrn. 'The tvord 1s probntlt): a prodtrct of the Egyptiarl koxtrc.8 'Thus ~t 1s trot tczo str~lcirxgthat the ~ , ~ o r 1s c i also present in the E-:oliwm hrkl'titrrrt (CGL IIX 503,17 q u a - ~lcro). 'The prcscrvation, c.q. addition of fitla! -V (2s hcrc in ybhav) is cornrrroir 111 rllc South-Easten1 Ch-eek dialects, espcctdlly on Cyprus, sse 3- Mcnardos, rho3ool~cxi hI(~Ar7ai pp,

17, 18.')

IV/di.: LWnndtrcare - q a y d v is a conrxnon translatiorl (CGL f I 469,34, 111 14,19; Hr l o etc.). X,r'berttev, hot4?cver, has been rendered olrly by 4 6 ~ w qin CC;L (I1 t 22,38; 323,:s; I11 143,f,t)), ~ a p bby a~ourdifim(11 32,4,21 etc.). but p ~ ~~a p cui q i l i b e t i r ~1sr yulrc correct, !!/Ti: l(h8ioov - sede gives n o proble~ri,tlcitbcr &6f; - 1116 (c.g. CC;L Xt 481,ICX; I11 7.43; 450,30). l~roblc~narie 1s SUMTfCIE-fC3N - loyrrerc. 'l'ruc, Ir;VN"I-II:HC)N car1 bc re;rd ~s C;. N. E-lditztdak~~, I f : t f l l ~ t t t ( i t , q ti! dtc t t c ' r ~ q r l t * ~ t l l ~ d i t < ~ ~ ; l t z ~ t t t(hereafter ~ttttrk rsfcrred to as lirrlJ ), Lclpzig 1892, rcpr. Sllldceheim 1977, 30% iI,~ddell-Scott-Jr,acfatlt~ X and XVIIff. 5 See also 11. Cdvcnaile, (:c!vpriz pia~~yrortrni lizcittnrlrrrr, W~csbactcrr1958 fi N. Andr~otls,I,c?iikott Jr.r Auil~~listncttti nniaqrit>clrrscItt>~t I?tmltuX.rr*ri, W1c.n 1974. C ; . Xlohlfs, tuxitotr C;virctnttii~ittr Italrne It~firrorts, Tubrt~gcrt 196.1, s.v "~pauiov C;. (T:ar~(ati\r~, I~ldicr*1,es~icalc.ai 7i;rtr rrco~~qilrc'tr dr C:allzlrriu, f%lcrnro 1 9 7 9 s . ~ C:f, the S ~ l k oInscriprlon. vqphv, N~ebnfir, Jt~scrtpttofrt.,? r r f l r r r p r r j c * i , Ilonlc 1820 4 c- llrttc~lbcrgcr, 0rrrtrficsqra~crtrrs~urpriont~sII,201 C:f. L,CiJ s.v. vrlpo5, Iiditriciak~s,Ilrnl,, 385 E.Mrv&pba~, rX11~i~ft~at M ~ h c ~ ajr~pr.) i, Cyprus Research t:crttrc, N~cos~a 1969. Scc alw rvlurrdry W c ~ ~ ~ d a uEtt~(ic r i i , dr4 rit~zli*crc ihyj~rictrarrrc~dr~rrri* cxr t t i t ; l l l c ) ~ i t ~ P l , a r 1 4 IXXJ* 64)

'

CFUVTUX&V, a correct (classic) aor. participie, but the syiltdx of the sexitertce is tltctr far from beiiig nornzaI o r plausible. Moreover, the Latin tral~slatordid urlderstarzd the fort11 '3s nn imperative. C3ri tfte other hand, the aor. act. ~rnperativesin -oov bccamc extxnct, with the exception of in I)o.tztic and South Itaftan,"%hereas the thematic atrtr~stsdxd not fczrm an imperative in -oov at att: ctlrrect would havc beeit a l i v ~ u ~ ~ . Irz sots3e cases, however, atlalogy did origrl~arcix~~perativcs in -ov with verbs with (clriginally) thenratic aorists, such as yrciyov, uhpuv, 6 6 ~ o v('fly', '"do",'bite') i11 Ikontic,ll driinzo, fio, piiku ('run', 'fly', '"tdkc')etc. in South ftaliair (only Apulia)-lz Though aCvru;yov as an inzpcrdtivc seems to be acceptable for both lZontic and Ststlth Italian, the latter possibility does not look probdbte: vieitfrcr Galabriart nor Apufidn has prcservcct the vcrb ouv~umcjrvcll, the comrnon terrrr being plnr(q('g f t r n , I'iohlfs a~zdCnracausi conrrcct this vcrb with ancient Greek n h a ~ ~ ~ & C2nd ( l r if ~ this suppositiorl is correct, tllcn the term rruvruy~ixvcodid not, ycrbaps, ever occtxr in South Italian. ibotic dialect preserved, ixzdced, thc verb o u v r v ~ a i v w " as dld C:ypriot." In Medieval texts the vcrb was rather cornrlloil (e.g. C:krotl, Mor, GW P, 232, 262 1% 5017, 881 I" etc.), V11'6: Muu is to hc takcn 11a d a t ~ v ef'unction, Xn classicaI tzs tlsc usual atternat~vcs:Iecttts - ~ X i r r qQrot urcipnouc; Q ~p&petzroq,

"'

H~-iarzldak~s, E t r l l , 187, H. Pcrnctr;, I>arlen dt~ Cltril II, 15arls 1946, 373 tot^ 3, A . A Pdpactopotllos, ' l a r o p ~ ~ irpappct~ricq l rqc; f l o v jr; ~ ~b~l a h t ~ r o u 73,74,76, !?urharn Cathedral (after 1Q93), which does not occur in Normandy, also finds its parallel at Great Paxton." Finally (selecting from nlany p ~ s h b f eexamples) the western towers of St Margaret" at King's Lynn, the church founded by Bishop Herbert de Losinga before 1119, have external plinths of multiple chanifers closely comparable with those of Stow and of St Botolphk at Hadstock in Esscx, of the second and third quarters of the eleventh century respectively, and muItipXe shafts very like those of Great Paxton (figs 2 and 3)." The shafts an the exterior vary in size but still h r n l a regular surface, like the shafts on the transept arches at Great. Paxton, while those on the interior form a much more complicated sct of planes, like those on the chancel opening in the Saxon church. V ~ e r n ~ArrGglo-Saxons, c, 1.51 -2. Taylor and "l'apfcsir, s, v. Feri~ic.Arfaqlo-P;nsc~rrc, 1 29-34. 6. Zart~eck~, The I:~oly Srrrlptirre $-Eiy G;Ithr/lro/, l,ondor~ I%%, 6-8. E. 6 . Fernlc, T h e Runidncsquc church of Vlra1thar.11 Ahhcy', JOIIYII BAA c x x x v ~ ~1085, ~ , J8ff. " Oernlc., A4ndqio-Saxt3ns,129-32 and 572. J. f3onp, "I3urham cr la c r a d i t ~ osaxonne', ~~ Errrda d7.4rr .\.k:drt;t~~I qtjertcs n LLIUIS C;n)de(-'~IZt, Paris 1981, 79-92, gocs st3 far as to sl*lggest:that thc architect of f>urham may havc beer1 a Saxon. '"1. W. SaunJcrs, ifl?c Frtlrt Regr.st~rd-,Yoru~rilrC;i?il;lt~iirtz?l Pr~~-rory, Nurkjlk Kccord Soc~ctyXI, 1939, 33, f'or d l s date of Lynn. E. C . Fcrnic, The rcspoztds 2nd d'lany t 3 f Ct Xloto\ph\ Had.itack"Jfurrnr. RAL4 c x x x v ~ ,1983, 02Ff:

Image not available

-3. Kinq's Lynn, St 12.fayqauet. Sorgch-u~esttclrilev

Image not available

I . Jtimi?grs, ~VotreDame. :Vavu rluvafbrt arzd n~~sr-srrrioti

Image not available

7"he Eserr

c?J- tho Conquest on ~VormanArctzitrl-rural 13atrona'ye

77

These parallels suggest that &ere may be an Anglo-Saxon basis for some of the rcginal variations which mark Anglo-Norman architecture, and at the very least they indicate that the Anglo-Saxon tradition was an activc influence on the facer style. It is not at all clear haw such forms were transntitted across the intervening decades. They may have continued in rise in minor churches, but the issue is confused by the lack of independent dates for such buildings, In this regard it is itllpurtant to distinguish between Anglo-Saxon building techniques such as long-and-short work, which survive fnr many years after the Conquest but are never taken up autside the confines of minor stmctures, and the features under discussion, which appear rather to have been the objects of conscrious revival, or at least a willingness to use material from an hglo-Saxon sonre, without their being part of a tradition with an unbroken continuity. In other words this argument in favour of the use of Anglo-Saxon elemmts in AngIoNorman architecture aficr c. 10%)in no way weakens the sharpness of the break with the old traditions after 1066.'' Turning now to the other non-Norman elements in Anglo-Norman architecture, the carliest examples occur in one of the first buildings to be built after the Conquest, namely Lanfranc's cathedral at Cantcrbury. Despite the fact that its overall layout arrd scale are closely comparable with those of St Stephen" in Cacn, it had a raised crypt or choir in the north ItaIian manner (that is with the floor of the nave lyir~gon a levcJ between that: of the crypt and that ofthe choir) and cushion capitals of a type ubiquitous in the Empire and north Italy but unknown in Normandy until considerably later." Walkelin" sakedral at: Winchester, begun in 1079, is a more dramatic exanlple as it utilises eIements from across western Europe. Thc scale ofrhc buiXding is unprecedented in either England or Nornlandy attd can onXy be paralleled anlong the Early Christian churches of Rome and by two or three exceptional contemporary structures in France and Germany. The ambtrlatory with its non-radiating chapds bears a eiosc sintitarity to outer crypts in the Low Countries and Germany, the grouping of fi-ve towers onrginally planned over the trazlsepts and crossing has parallels in sinlifar places, the aisled Eranscpt is related to the type used in the great churches on the pilgrimage routes to Santiago, such as those at Tours and Toulousc, as welt as others in the Empire, and the wrestern massif, whether its sources lie in Anglo-Saxot~ England or Imperial Germany, is certainly not Norman. '4 Thc cathedral at York begun about IClaZt) by Thornas of Rayeux is the only l 2 Acknowledging, of ct,ursc, Edward's EVurr~lan ahbcy at West.ntinrtcr l-rutltor at least hegurl rn tbc fifteen or tWetJt).' yare, bcforc thc Conyucst. 11, 13. If. Gem. T h e Ixamanaque rcbutldrng of Wcstntnlsrer Abbey', arrte 111, l%Xo, 33-I30; E. C:. F C ~ X '~KIC~C, O ~ I " ~ ~ TEdward's U C ~ I T ) ~Abbey at Wcstnlntstcr', Rorrmnr*sqrrco r d C;t>rhrc.f-:>srly~,fbr C;C#O~,~P Zar?~l"tkt,Woudbrrdpe, ln press. 'W J Stnk, 'Rcmaln5 of ttrc t d n f r ~ n cburf3111g In rhc great central cower a r ~ dthe north-urcst cbolritranscpc area'. IZ.If~drcvill'4 rr arrJ ..trt-it rtr~rrirt-taat C:drireri>tirybtp/c,rt* 1220, Trarts. BAA Con fercnce, I(l82, 3.5 and fig. 5. " R. FZ. l-4 Ccr-n, TThc Kurt~ane\q~tc CathcdraI of Winchcstcr: Patron and design m the eleventh ecntury" ,,\ledr~ttnl Art arrd Arclritc.trrrtc* tZlincltts3rc.rC.'afhe.JvtzL 'Trans. BAA Corrfercnce, 1983, 1-17, d~scussccrfic vartcd sotlrcc\ ttf thc cnrlic~lralIn cottvlrlang detall. One ofthe kcv sign~ficantpolnrs on whtch one n l ~ g h td~sagrccwlth k~zrn15 fils rqjcctlon (p 5) of 1nlperza1pdrlltels h r the easten1 chdpefs 011 thc g r ~ u r l dchat ~ thc crypt dt Wirrchester 1s an ~ n t e r ~ fcaturc ~ d l and not an outer one Ilkt the C;errx~ancxarrzplc5, Vcr one would rlor expect a lacc clcventh-ccntufy bulldirlg to use ruch an axchdrc fcaturc as the outer crypt, 4 0 filar the caw t o be mswcrtff IS restr~cttdta the str~klng

Image not available

Image not available

Image not available

Image not available

Image not available

13. fiwkesbary, ilbbey, Recctnstrz~rrion$.giant order in choir

Image not available

large church in Normar-1 England without aisles (fig. 3).f' This relates it to buildings in the west of France such as the church of St Martin at Angers, of t k mid eleventh century .I0 The eastem arm of York, however, with its crypt-like passages connected at right angtss under the sanctuary, is most doscfy paralleled in the church on tkc ninth-ccrzrury pltan of St risrruct Tewkesbtlry wlth a barrel vault (and a wctoden one at that) have had to propose ~t as an aiitcrnatlve m the dcrtvdt~anof the cles~gnfrom Fanunt* But sf Vttruv~ras'stext could he interprctcd tn this way ~n thc reventcent11 century ~t becomcs nmrc p1aus1ble thar I t would h a w been ilccn In a slmllar way IR the eleventh. 2" For KocI~e~tcr see R. 13, t f , Gem, T h e slgn~ficanccof tbc eleventh-century rcbulldfrlg of C:hrrst Church and St Arrgusane's Canterbury, tn the dcvclopmcnt of liornancsyue architecture" ,Wfdi~t)al Art nttd i"irchttecfrrreat Grzterl~id~y hufovt* 12.?09 'Trans. BAA C:onference, 1082, 11-12. For L~tgcand rcl~tcdnlater~alsee L.-F. C;en~cut, I,es lPAnglo-Saxon aneecessors, Jonathan Srnolcn for camputcr assistance and Harvard's Milton Fund for provrding me wrth computer funds. X would also lrke to thank Paul Hyams, J. 6. Holt and Chrtstapher Lewts far their comments, Their suggcstlons tnay not be evident ixl this paper, but I hope will be in rny future work on the subject. ' Peter Sawyer, '10cc*k-Z08h:A Tenurial Revolutron?" Dom~*sdayBook A Reassessmmc, ed. Peter Sawyer, London 1985, 73-85. Sawyer, Tenurial Revulutisn', 76-77, Sawyer, Tenurial Revolution" 82-84, "awycr, ‘Tenurial Xievotutror~"78, 85.

Domrsday Book Database, a computeriscd editioll of William the Conqueror's great survey, is now being completed at the University of Galihrnia, Santa Barbara," have used this IJatabase to examine Sawyer" cchllmging thesis, and believe its use makes clear the shattering impact of the Norman Conquest on thc shape of Anglo-Saxon lordships. Furthermore, the Database has allowed me to compare landholdings before and aftcr the Conquest across thc kingdom, and across fees, counties and vills. My results suggest that tenurial pattrms were radically altered by the Norman settlement, and that the tendency for Normans to inherit their land from a particular Saxon antecrssor, although important for imparting a veneer of legality on the dispossession a f the English aristocracy, has been vastly exaggerated by histoxiam. From Domesday Book" four or five thousand secular landholders T.R. E., only about one hundrcd significant antecessors can be identified. What is more, only approxinxately ten per cent of all assessed land in England can be shown to have devolved on to secular Norman landholders from such antece~sors.~ These figurer suggest that many post-Conquest fees were the result of a studied disregard for the Saxon past. I would like to argue, therefore, that a comprehensive examination of Domesday demonstrates that post-Conquest fees differed dramatically from their prcConquest predecessors. fn some shires and in certain fees the organization of pre-Conquest lordships did indeed survive thc first twenty years of Norman rule, and large numbers of a Saxon antecessor3 s e n can on occasion bc found in his Norman successor's fee. Sawyer's example of Count Alan of Richmond's land in Cambndgeshire and his analysis of Don~esifaykLincolnshire inforn~ationare excellent cases in point.7 Furthermore, off-hand references in the survey suggest that some Norman successors attempted to exert influence over their antecessarshen. In Northamptortshire, for example, WiIZiam 12eevrelheld three bel-cwicks attached to Higham Ferrers because they had belonged to his predecesm Cytha. Geoffrey Bishop of Coutances, howevtr, daimed the homage of the sokemcn there, because t h y had been his predecessor Burgr~d" At first glance, such examples seen1 canclusive, especially when paired with Sawyer's argument that the buXk of Old English lordships, unrecorded in many parts of the suwey, follow the model of Count Alan's CaimbFidgeshire tenancy, This, however, is a

' The Domesday

Book Database is belng completed by Rubin Fleming, Katharllz Mack and C . Warren Holhstcr, and ts fundcd by the National Endowment for the f-fumarutiesand the University czf California, Santa Barbara, W u c h pioneering work on thc tderlt~ficarionof anteeessors and successors can he found in The Victoria Coutzty Nrstory mtroductions. The following are especially valuable: J. tf. Round, "ntroduct~on to the Herrfordsfiirc l)omesday5, VCH E-IerjorJskire, 1, Landan 19(12, 274%, 'Irntroduction to the Esscx Bomcsday', VCH Essex, i, Wcstflti~lster19413, 342-352; 'Introductiotl to I, London 105, 21 2-22Q F. M. Scmton, the Buck~nghamshrrrt3ornesday ", VCN Buckingha~~shirc., 'Introdrtctian to the tcicestershire Domesday" VCR I,eicestershirr, 1, tondori 1%17, 289-30Xf; and i, London 1926, 331-336; 'Introduction to the Hu~ttingdonshircDomcsday', K N H~~ntitzgdorzshire, R. K. I)arllngton, 71ntroductiocrto W~ltshxreX?on~esday",VCEI FViftshire,11, Oxford 1"255,65-71; A. Wiifltarns, "lintroductian to the IDorsec Domaday', VCII Llorset, tii, Oxford 1968, 51-35, For the mast detailed study of antccesscrrs and their successors see Kathann Mack, ECrylgs a d Tizgns. Artsfoc-ratir Xbrticipariotz tn the C2uverrtanl-r ef Arl,qlo-Saxor? E~glnnd r , %)-. IOCid, tlnpuhttshed duscnatlon, U~xrvcrs~ty of Galifornta, Santa Barbara 1987. Sdwycr, Tcnur~atRevaIut~on', 78, 76; L . E;. SaIzman, 'Intracluctiort to the Carnbr~dgcsh~rc Ilomerday', 6'CW C:amliri~q~shrt.rz, I , Oxford 1938, 354-355. ' IJornesday Book, I, 225b.

nc~rnc~sd~ y Book a ~ t dtho Ttprlurial

89

Kctlo/filictw

dangerous assumptiotl. A curllprcflcrlsivc examinacior~of evidence provided by the Exchequer 13onzcsday in the few counties for which lnhrmation a n Anglo-Saxon lordship is consistently recorded, suggests that Sawyer's examples are atypical. My queries to the I3omcsday Book 13atabase quickly estabiished the fact that cnttrc shires rarely crr never mentior-r prc-Canquest overlords, N o Saxon overlords, fi>r example, are rccorded in Domesdayk folios far Cheshire, rlerbyshire, Huntirlgdonshire, Leiccstexshirc arrd Nottit7gharnshi~,~ and a dozen or less arc recorded in Ilorset, Northamptonshire, Oxfordshire, Staffordshire, Surrey, Warwickshire and Wiltshire," And in sc?ruthemcounties such as Sussex, Cornwall and Ucrkshire, typimlly the only Erlglish ovedords recorded arc thc klrtg or his earls. My database query, however, did show that Donlesday's Circuit If1 provides the best and with the exception of Lincolnshire, m l y consistent evidcr~ce of Anglo-Saxon lordship in the nlrvey, particularly in Ilertfordshirc., Cambridgeshire arld Buckinghamskire. In these counties nearly evcry ntinor Anglo-Saxor1 tenatlt is give11 a lord. Whcrl we concentrate our effc~rtshere where the evidence is most conlplete, wc. car? witness the breakdown of Saxon patterns of lordship 0x1 a grand scale. 1n Hertfardshirc Archbishop Scigand had more mcn than arly other grcat lord in the shire; his followers are recorded holding nearly forty-five l~idesoflarld ixt thirty-three different il~sta~lces 'on the day King Edward was both alive and dead"."' About half the land of Stigand's sext could be found in the fee of O d o Bishop of Bayeux after the C o n q ~ c s t , but ' ~ the remainder was parGtioncd betwcctl thirtccn of the shire's other texzants-irz-chief l 3 Thus, in Hcrtfordshirc, thc county" greatest: lordship cfid not survive thc Conquest. Since Stiganld was an cccfcsiastic and thc dispostion of his lands is so difficult to untaxzgle, he is p e r h q u n unfair example. Aarsgar the Stallcr, with his obvious successor Gcoffrcy de Marrdevillc, is perhaps a better one.'* As Sawyer points out, the bulk of the land of Ansgar's men in Essex was in the hands of his successor C;eoffrcy by I(%(,. '?Bur in Hcrtfordshire and Buckingharnshirc, this is simply not thc case, 11.1 Wcrtfordshire, Al~sgar's men bclcl afr~~ost forty I d e s uf land, Less than half these hidcs were in €;eot-%rcy's t l a ~ ~ dbys f (186- the other twenty wcrc ixr the possession of Maurice Bishop of London, O d o Bishop of Baycux, Eustace of Uoulognc., Robcrt C;ernort, RaZpft Bay~lard,Geoffrey die Bec, Edgar &theling and a kir-ig's thegn 1lar11cd Alwint. I?oJdaso~~. '' Xn Buckinghamshirc fotxrtcen hides or1cc he1d by Ansgar" snlen were fotind i r Geoffrey's ~ fief,17but ten o r so others were held hy Walter C2iffard and Waltcr die Vernon. " 8113 these

" l)omc.scj~zyBook, I , 363b-l?fiXa, 17L-27Xb. 303a-2(17ft, 33oa-2372. 3X( ta-7936, " D~>cttncsrj~)r Book, i, X3a, ??Ha, 23%, Is%, 340b, 32b, 342, 3%. Shrr, 743b, 7%. " ~)irf?rtisri~)lBoctk, I, 1316- 13.5~.137a, I .biti?, 141h- 1-13~. '' lfrtrrtr>>dil)r Bt>c?k,I , 1-Ma-1 347.

73a.

" E I~cscarc Klng W ~ l l t a f ~ttic l , archhzshop of C:~ntc.rhury, the b~shopof Lo11rlo11,the bishop of C:he\tc,r, Courxr Aldrl trf Klchnlund, Euctacc of t3crulogr1e. flalph dc L~mcry,Gcoffrcy cis Uc=c, k4arclwrr.r c3c Scales, Edgar thc A:tl.teling, Stpar dc Ctiocyucs and the ~ l i ~ v c mfZ~chard f" fjtz C;1lt3ct-t srld Hugh dc Crrandtnesrrl2. " f%~ur~ti, b I n t r o d ~ ~ ~tot ~1>0111c~lday c~t~ ~lcrtfnrdafitrc'. 283, " Sawyer, 'Tcnrr nal I-lcvolt~rros~',73, 74; Ilound, '!ntroduccwn to I ~ O I I I C - ~~S~S ~C X~ ' , 343. " D~)ilrnc\cirlyBotlk, I, Z33h-fSlh, 1.372-1 3%. 13%-I -if)a, Ills. " 7I)ctrrrr.sdily Book, I , 1494. " XLorrierrfily Noc~k,I. 147b, t4Xa. 1 5 1 ~ .

twc:, counties, over half the land once held by Ansgar's men had been scattered by 1086 aniong eleven t ~ c wlards. In Buckingharnshirc, when we trace the dispositiorl of the tand of Alric son of C;oding and his nzen, we find that Walter Giffard" fee consisted both of AIric's dclncsne land and elcvcn and a half hidcs of land which had bcm hcld by Alric's mcn. 'Woncthcless, almost fifteers other hides of rneri once pertaining to Alric's fordship were spread between the Count of Mortain, who had eight and a half of these hides, Miles Crispin, Countess Judith and a king's thegn named Svartlingr.'Vf we move on to Canthridgeshire and turn to Eudo l3apifer's lands, wc find the Steward haldirtg the lands of thc rners of klfric Kemp, Robert fitz Wi~rrarc,Earl Walthcof and Wulfn~aerof EatonS2'But in the same county the land which Elifric Kcmp himself had hcld was in the hands of Robert Gcrr~on;the tand of Robert fitz Wirnarc" s e n were subsumed in the fees of Earl Roger, Hardwin de Scales, Eustace of Huntingdon, and Picot thc. Sheriff; and the lands of Earl WaltheoFs nlcn had fallen into the hands of fourteen Can~bridgcshiretenarrts-in-chicfS2Whcn we chart the movcrncxlt of land across an cntirc county between 1066 and 1086 it is difficult to find much eontirluity at all. In Huckinghmshire, for exmple, thc men of pre-Catlquest l a d s ofien devolved onto rvlarc than one fee, and the bulk of post-Conquest honours had imorporated the men ofa n u d e r of English lords. (Scc Figure 1.) Few patterns enlcrgc from this junrblcd Buckinghamshire distribution. I%ssibly the best illustration, of this breakdown can be found by tracing the fate of the lordships of the carts in thcsc midland counties. Thc Confessor's earls, with the exception of Walthcofl had n a clearly defined successors. It is not surprising, therefore, that the land of comitaI retainers was spread to the four winds. Cambridgeshire evidence, for exansple, clearly illustrates the disruption of cot~~ital lordsllip patterns. Earl Tostig and Earl Gyrth tagether had only tcn rncri recorded in the Cambridgeshire folios, and yet thc land crf these ten was disrribtltcd by If286 between the kcs af Eudo f Iapikr, Hardwin de Scalcs, Picot the Sheriff, Countess Judith and Robert F a f l t o t ~ .The ~ ~ thirteen recorded holdings of Earl Harold's rnen were rnetcd out to seven tcnants-ixl-chicP4 The lands of Earl Walthcof s men - assessed at about thirty-five hides and ;Found on tlrircy-one LtiEEcrent occasions, were s p ~ a damong fourtern tenants-in-chiefe2' And the lands of Earl EIf$ar9sForty-hur nlen were by thc time of the Domesday survey in the harlds of twelve diffcrent tenants-in-~hief.~~ These earls' me11 bad he13 their land by a whole speccrum of tenures." It is unlikely, therefore, that the fragnzentaciorl ofcomltal lordships was simpb the product of pre-Conquest tenurial arrangements. Moreover, King William succccded to the e a r l s y e s

'* Domesby Rook,

I, 1.173, l47h, I Ma. I)omesdny Bt>cjk, I, t46b, ISOb, 152b, 153a. L' l>ott~t*stiayB o c ) ~ I, , 19Tb. " 2cc below, n. 35. 23 Donzesddy Rook, i, 2026, 1Wb, 1Wa, 300b. 202a. 2" Royt?e*qdt~y Book, 1, ftlfla, 193a, 1%a, 19)6b, t(17b, E98a, 200a. L5 U ~ ~ m r s Book, d ~ ~ y I , I89b. I(13a, 19%, 197a, 197b, tV8b, 20&, 201l3, 20121, 202k1, L" Donle-qdap Nook, I , 189, 14JOa, 193a, IWb, l%a, l%b, 195517, 1962, I%b, IC)8a, l%b, IWa, I(39b, 20()~,2OOb. ZOZb, 21%. L7 20mc 'cc>uICI gragltt tfit'lr land (lJomesiiny Btlrrk, I , 193a), and some kc~utdgrant, and scll"(P>umes(fay Nook, 1, 19hb), whitc others 'could not withdraw' (Domesday Book, I, 1%a, 202a). Son-ic hdd "under"

'Z

Domaday Book arzd the IX'erltrrial Revollrriort

91

more often than not, and yet less than thrce bides formcrly in the possession of earls' rncn it1 Cambridgeshire had bee11 incorporated into the t e r n regis by 108h,28These earls' men in Carnbridgeshire hcld in total riearly 120 hides of land, about ten per ccnt of the shire's total.z'" Nearly two-thirds of all Cambndgeshirc tenants-in-chief in 1086 - rwenty-five to be exact -- held a portion of these men" land, Furthermore, almost half o f alt rccorded Cambridgeshire settlerr~cnts- sixty-hur out of 242 - witnessed the wholcsalc fragrlrentatioll of lordshks once controlled by England's great earls. Lt is dificwlt to scc how this one example alone docs not constitute a cafaclysnric change in landholding and lordship, The analysis f have just made is not based on a series of perfect examples, but rather a representarive sample of midland successions. Ln Herthrdshire some 300 hides oflarld - that is between a qwrter a d a third of all assessed land in the county - once betonging to the men of identifiable Saxon fords, could not he found in the honours of their lord's SU~CC"SSOT.or were not dispersed in any discernibfe pattern, In Car~~bridgcshirc, a rough calculation based an the same criteria rcveals that almost 25 per ccnt of aXI lands in the courlty which had once been held by the men af English overlords was scattered. In Buckinghamshire this figure is about 20 per ccnt; in Bedfordshire a little over 15 per cent and in Middlesex a little under. These statistics represent an enormous anrount of disruption in secular Lordship, particularly when we consider that this does not include a great Inass of land which T.R.E. was held in dcmesrze by the King, the earfs, or important thegns or that land which rerz~ainect undisturbed in ecclesiasticail lardships, Thcrcforc, an the basis of infornlation supplied to us by the Dornesday counties which cor~sistexitfypreserve such evidence, it is certain that Anglo-Saxon lordships tetldcd to fragr~icnt,the Iand of the lord breaking fiee in part from the lands of his men, and to devolve in diffemt ways on the Conqueror" tenants-in-chief. This fact had a startlirtg effect at the level of thc viXlarld on the local economy. When we compare the shape of Iordsbips within Circtrir XI1 vil-ts in 1086 with those of 1066, the disix~tegrationof pre-Conquest patterns is everywhere evident. By 1086, for example, the Cambridgesbirc. vill of Ahington Pigutts was divided between King Willianl and his tenants-irz-chief Wafkclin Bishop of Wixlchester, Kogcr de Montgomery, Hardwin de Scales and Picot the Sh~riff,~' These four tenants and the Conqueror had inherited the lands of the nlcn of Earl El@ar, Archbishop Stigand, ElEsige and King Edward - but they were rcorganiscd along completely new Lines. In this viXl, the land of Stigand's nlcn went not only to Walkelin, his successor to the bishopric, but also to Picot thc Sheriff. The Iand of Earl Elfgar's nlcn was divided between King William, Earl Roger artd Hardwin dc Scales. O r looking in the opposite direction at tbc disposition of Abington Pigatt's lordships, Uonresday Book rccords that Hardwin de Scales hcld Land of Earl Elfgar's atxi King Edward" sm; King

an earl (Domesday Nook, 1, 201 b), srtme 'of' an ancar1 (Ilomesdny BLTS~, I , 193a), and still others were described as "mcrt c t f ur 'sokemcn of' thc earls (Dclmaday Book, r, IffKb). 'Worttesday h o k , i, 189b, 1%)a. 20 H. C . I h r b y , Ttte Oornesriay Gec;gvaphy of Eastem firtqfarrd, 3rd edri, Canlbridge 19'71, 274277. ' O hrnrsday Book, i, 190h, 193;?3a, 1982, t%b, 2CX)b.

William the land of Earl Elfgar" and EXfsige" sxntm. Every conlponent of this Carnbridgcshirc vill was either broke11down afrcr the Conquest or uscd to form a 13cw con~positclordship. The vill of Comberton follows a similar pattern of rcorganisation - the tenancies of its Norman lords arc absolutely unrccognisahle as the descendants of prc-Conquest lordshipse3"ndeed, a one and a half hide portion of this land, at one time divided among four of Earl Waftheofs sokcmen, descended into the hands of each of the four new Nornlan lords of Conlberton. Thus, no Xord in Comberton at the end of the Conqueror" reign, held a tcxzancy cxactfy equivalcr~tto thc Lordship of one ofhis prcdecessors. In Barrington Robert Gcmon" seven hides and two and a half virgates were compoxd riot o f a single prcdcccssar3 land, nor ofthe land of his predecessor's men, but the land of fiftt.cn sokctllen of Edward the Confessor, four men of Earl Elfgar, thrcc men of Ansgar the Stallrr and a man who held undcr (st-tb)King E c S ~ a r dThus, . ~ ~ while the land of the twenty-three men oFElfgar, Ansgar and King Edkvard each descended to just ox~clord, thcy all descended to the same lord. Bccausc the lines of lordships in thcsc vills were redrawn, the resources within the111 often underwent radical redistribution as wclt. Let us take the Cadridgeshire vikI of Kingston as an example, Picot the Sherigs five and a half hides and sixteen acres was made up from the holdings of sixteer~soketvlen ten of them of King Edward's sokc, four Earl &Ifgar's men, one Archbishop Stigandk rtlan artd one the Abbot of Ely's, No one befare the Conquest had held this combination of hides, men 2nd fields,33 This rcorganisation of cstaces within Inany Circuit IIX vills has broad economic irnplicatiorls, and seems in some arcas of England, to explain the stcady dccline of ilomcsday values between 1066 and 1086. Cambridgeshire values; provide arl cxcdlctlt example of this, The shire's overall value fcll by 14 per cent bctwecn the Corlqucst and the inquest, but devaluation was particularly severe irt the south-West of the courrrty, where values fell by about 25 per cente3" Thc holdings hardest hit corrrlatc very closely to rbc vills in which a large nt~rriberof T.R.W. estates had been nlade up of a handfut of Anglo-Saxon holdings. (See Figure 2.) This, I think, provides a more sound explanatiotl for fdlling values than Willialn the Conqueror's arrnies or the rctrcating forces of the treacherous Earl Ralph, both of which have beer1 uscd to explain the shire's slumping values." The waste, so pronounced in other areas where armies inflicted serious damage, cannot bc found in Cambridgeshire. and much of the value of these estates was maintained until afier I>orncsdag%ir~terimvalue was given." Thus, the pcriod betwccn Domesday's post and tnodo values marks the

a

"

I, Z9,IHb, 3tH)b. 20Ih, 2 2 b , L)onre.bdily R L J OI ~ , ,I Y h , 104b, 1962, 18hb-tt2)7a. " 3I)ctrrrc*$tidryBoiik, I, 20ob. '"4. Wctdori FIIIEI, '['he ,Yi~mrznCt~rrgrre~t nnJ rrs cfl2cts ott the Eri;ltl~~my, 10166-86. LoncSon I971, CirW-"9. " F:tt~n.followcd b? ilarby, argues that the Canyctcror's army, opcratlng 111 Bcdfordshlrc late m It11b6, rnust have moved Into (I:dn.rhridgcshtrc ~ t cltrdcr l to expfaln tfic county\ sstumpmg values. Finn, 7Ytt' AVt>vttii?nCr>rrtltrcsr &lid if.$ I-$)ects, "3"); I.+. C. t3arby, Domesday Dglarld, Caxnbridgc 1977,

Dovrli~sri~zy Boclk,

"

240. -'" Etrrn suggc5rs that thc latrd tr~lucrln \vcsrc*r~l Camhridge,hlrc fell bccausc czf Earl Xtatph's revolt. t fc hellcvcr that thc rebelllous earl" rretrcat fiom C:alnt>rrdgt. to N o w ~ c hm 1075 accounts for thrs late d c ~ ~ ~ E t ~(Finn, a t ~ oThe r ~ .Y~~ri?trail C,'mtyt~elsttrnd rts lj@~ts, lo()). A ~ i dyct thc area ln W ~ E Cvalues ~I feff

Domrsda y Book nwd dtc Tetzurr'al RYt10Et.t tiol-l

"33

geriod of greatest decline in land values. 11%other words, land held its value until it was acquired and reorganised by a ncw lord. In Mertfordshire values folXow suit, generally dropping throllghout the county bctween the Confessor's death and the tinlc of the 1l)amesday survey, t3n the average, by 1086 values in the shire had faXXcn by about 25 pcr cent, and many historians have once again pointed a finger at Willianl" harrying armies.J7 But the falling values were not distributed equally across the county, Those cstates which transferred intact to new lords f'e)t by about 13 per mt of their pre-Conqucst value; those mates which were rcconstitutcb and made up from the lands of more than a n t prc-Cot~questlandholder, fell much lower - on the average by about 22 per cent of thcir previous valuc. This pattcm can even be found in Nottinghamshirc, w k r e Norman armies did inflict falrly serious In holdings that passed frorn an English to a Norman lord intact values felf to about 88 per cent of their previous value - or to about 2'7.5 shillings to the pound. In ccrmposire holdings made up of more than one Anglo-Saxon tenancy, values kL1, to about 75 per cent, or 15 shillings to thc pound. It appears, therefore, that the falf of land values in some areas reflect cconon~icstrains felt in the first two decades of a massive manorial reorganisation," Wiltiam's tamperitzg with ancient tenurial patterns, therehre, not only at the level of the k c , but also at thc level of the vin, had huge consequences fnr the kingdom, and when we look at the tenurial organisation of many vills T.R.W., we find evidence once again 06-a significant shift, A number of reasons account for the breakdown of pre-Conquest lordships in these midland counties and vills, First, Anglo-Saxon landholders did rzot always hold all of their land from the sanic lord, After the G o n p s t , this conlplication often hefuddled Norrnan lords and kept the hundred and shire courts busy untangeling coniZicting yet legitimate ctaims over the same land. In Bedfordshire, for example, one of Wlliam dc Warcnne's predecessors was a man narncd Augi, William received a hide and a virgate of Augi's land, and another virgate which had befongcd to Ulzch, Augi" man. A third virgate, however, was in dispute because Augi had held it as a axan of Eskil of Ware, Hugh de Beauchanlp9s a n t c c e ~ s o rSuch , ~ ~ cases af disputed tenure were commaxl in the midlands, and their ad hoc resolutions did rliuch to mar old lordship patterns. This same Augi, with his hide and a half of land, had become Ralph Taillcbois' man soon aker the Conquest. nomesday records that King William had 'assigned the land to [Augil and commended him through his writ to Ralph nlost inarkcdly after thc 7".R. E. date arc much too far west and south t'or Earl Kalph'sjoumcy. k c Eligure 2, j7 Frarlc~s H. Barrng, Dottzrsdny 7;~hl~~s~fi~frrp the. Coctntres rlf'Sttrrey, ItltddIt*.se*x,Hergi?rd, Brr~k~t~~qltcrrn, atrd Rerffivd, and-fur fhc\?reur Fi~rrsr,Lo~lc-ion,ECNW. 11 2; Tlir Bomfiduidy C;eo,qruplzy $Soifill?-East E~t~qlatzd, cd, H. C:. I h r b y and Ella M. J, Campbell, Gan~bridgc1071, .56%575. The foilowing figures arc based on an anafysls of the values of aff holdlngs 3r.l IJomesday Hertfordshtrc. " '7"It~Dotnesdny C2e06qraphy~ ?SrtIrtm f Efglai~d,cd. H. C . Ijarby and I. S. Maxwell, Cantbndgc 19'77, 263-2C38; Clrdcnc, il, 230. Thc fi3lIowing figures are based on an analys~sof the values of at! holdi~lgsl n Dornccday Nottlngharnsh~re. " 97-0rhc Norman Iords of chesc carnposlr holdlngf, the GI1 In value could not hdvc been ofgrear cotlccrn. The prok?ts they recclvcd frorn chew EngI~shcstatcs must have been beyond anythlrlg they had ~rlldgineclb e h r e the Cor2kssor%death whether their new Iar~dsyielded 17 shitf~rlgsto the po~tr~d or no. Il)c~r~zi.sda y Book, I , 2 1 1 b.

94

AtzgEo-~VovfizanStudies I X

Taillebois that he should protect him as long as be should live. O n the day [Augi] died . . . he was William dc Warenne's man [Ralph" Norman successor] and William therefore took possession of this land'.*W~oconly was the disposition of Augi's and his men" land complicated because of Augi" sown pre-Conquest Xord, but becausc the first Norman to w h o n ~he had bem commended had died before thc Domesday inquest, Thus the death and dispossession of the Conqueror" own barons accompanied by the complicated web of Old Etlglish tenure and lordship exacerbated the fragmentation of Saxon tenancies. Sales and exchanges, too, could dismpt pre-Conqucst holdings, Goctgytb, often styled a hmanhf Ansgar the Statler in the Wertfot-dshirc folios, had less than half her land in the county descend to Geoffrey de M a n d ~ v i l l e'ihe . ~ ~ bulk o f what remained came into Eustace of Boulogne's hands, but Godgyth" man Edzi's land in Thorley was held by the Bishop of London.43We are told in a dispute under Geoffrey de Mandevillc's land that William bishop of London bought four hides at Tbodey by concession of Codgyth and the bishop claimed then1 back." In Throcking, the bishop also heid land which had probably belonged to Codgyth before the Conquest since Ilomesday Book records, 'this land is of the purchase of Bishop William, as the bishop's meal say, but the men of the shire do not support them"*' Thus, Codgyth's land and the land of her men could be found in several, different honours, The bulk had descrmded to Eustace of Boulogne, probably to give him a foothold in northern Hertfod~hire;~" part had been soId by Godgych to the Bishop of London, and the remaining five hides had been picked up by Geoffrey de Mandevilfc, who was the SUCCCSSOT of Godgyth's lord. OnIy this chance rcfcrcnce of a lasvsuit hdps to explain the fragmentation of her holding. Sales, exchanges and English thegns' and freemen"s scramble for powerhi fords and protectors combitled with the Conqueror" own settlenzerit plans, and led within twenty years ofthe Conquest to a radical restructuring of Et,gIish landholding, Exlglish lordships and even the English vill, The transformation of Old English. territorial and lordship patterns is not, however, limited to the counties and vills of the midlands. Xn regions forming the outposts of the kingdom pre-Conqucst lordships and landholding survived no better than they bad in the nudlands. Herefordshirc, Shrapshire, southern Lancashire and Cheshire, protecting the kingdom" swtcrn flank from Welshmen and Norse Irish, and from angry Anglo-Saxons in exile, were clearly reorganised soon after 1066 along new continental lines.*' In Shropshire, we can see the almost complete abandonment of ancient tenurial and lordhip patterns in favour o f endowments constructed from consalidared stretches of territory. 'This fact is well known, but it is perhaps worth noting once again that with two important exceptions nearly all land found in secular hands by the time of the Damesday inquest can be found under the rubric of Roger de Montgomery O o t n ~ d a yBook, i, 21 1 b, IJt>mesdayBook, I, 139b, Z40a. a3 Domesday Book, i , 1342. Domesd~yBook, i, l a a . " Domesday Book, 1, 133b. Domesday Book, I, 1372, 237S. 47 Ilavid C . lI2ougtas, WEliam tke Congueror, Berkeley 1964, 272, 2942(&.

4J

42

Domtpsda y Book and the Te*ntiritzell Rrvoltitioti

95

regardlas of Anglo-Saxon a n t e ~ e s s o r His , ~ ~ Shropshire honour in no way mirrored tenurial patterns in existence bet'ore the Conquest, Further north in Cheshire we find that with the exception of the ancient endowment of the canons of St Werburg and the bishopric of Chester, the entire shirt by 1086 had been placed in the capable hands of Hugh d'Avranehes.""nd in the list of lands compiled under the rubric 'Between the Ribblc and the Mersey', Roger the Poitevin, Roger dc Montgomery's son, had been assigned charge ofthe cntire district." Neither Cheshire nor southern Lancashire, so far as wc can tell, displayed any sort of territorial consolidation before the Conquest. fn Shropshire, Chcsbire and southern Lancashire, terrjtory and territory alone determined the descent of sccufar lands afier the dloxlquest. In Herefordshire the distribution of land was less straightfoward, but rlonctheless suggesrs a major reorganisation of prexonquest landholding pattcms. JqI)omcsday consistently records the nanzes of T,R .E, landholders in Hcrcfordshire, but rarely preserves the names of these holder" lords, The one cxcepriorz to this rule is Earl Harold, whom the survey mentions on thirteen occasions as the overlord of an English landholder.52 It is not surprising that some of the carl's Hersfordshire demesne remained in the tewa reg6 after 1(M, nor that a good portion was returned to the cathedral chapter of WereEord, a long-suffering community which claimed several estates against the earl." Yet not even half of Harold" land could be found in 1086 in the dcmesnc of either the Conqueror or the victims of Harold" rapacious land-grabbing. William fitz Oshem, thc short-lived Earl ctf'f-leret'ord, did rcceive a portion of Harold's land - how much, however, cannot be reconstructed from f3omesday Book's 1086 i n h r r n a t i ~ n . 'The ~ bulk of Harold's remaining estates came into the hands af Alfred of Marlborough, but a portion of his land was scattered among cight othcr post-Conqucst talants-in-chief.sYThe land ui-Harold's men, on the ocher hand, went to rriorlc of Harold's swrt successors. Instead they dcvolvcd on to a conzpletcrly differer~tgroup of t c n a - i - i f . Most of the land held by Harold" s e n went to Roger de Lacy, but a substantial portiori could also be found in Wilfianl fitz Baderon? fee, and the renrzainder went to Thurstan fitz "Woger" fec, coverrng seven falras 1s recorded in Dofiresday Rr~ok,I, 253a-Z9b. fee% at"the other tenants-lt~-chicf- Cr)sbern fitz Richard, Ralph de Mortimcr, Roger de L c y , I-tugk the Ass and Nigel the Phys~aan- can be fc?und on folios 2M)a-2AOb. Ralpl~de Msrt~mer"s land was attached to his castlcry of Wlgmore and Richard fitz Osbern" tto Richard's Castle. The land o f these ma tmants-in-chief could be found in If186 srraddling the Shropshtre-Hcrcfcrrdshirc border, a border which a generatzorl earller had separated the Merciar~and West Saxon earldoms, Far a general discussion of Shropsh~re's post-Canqucst fees see J, Tait, 'Introduction tcs the Shmpskire Ilumeday" VCH Strropshive, i, London 1908, 2"7-3)8; J. F. A. Mason, 'Roger dc M o n t g o t n e ~ and his sons fl(K7-1102)', TRX-XS,5th Series, xni, 1963, 1-28. 49 Domesday Raak, 1, 2h3b-2682. Dome.~dayRook, I , 269b-270h. 5 V ~ ar detai~leddiscussron of the ~n-tpactof the Nornlan Conquest an Hcrefordshire see Christctpher Lewis, 'The Norman Settlement af Herc?fordshrreunder W~lllarnI", anre, vtl, 195-213, " Domesday Book, i, 184a, 184b, 185h, 186b. " Dt3mesday Book, i, 17317, 180a, ZRta, 182b, 1822, Itrf2b. 54 Lewis, 'The Norman Settlement', 1T-l"dtJ;Domesday Book, i, IMXa, 181b, 1872, 187b, '' The othcr secular tenants-1n-cl.llcf a r c Ralph de Tosny, Willlam dEcoua, Ansfrid de Cormcilles, Dro3go fitz Poyntz, Qsbem fit2 Richard, Gilbert fit7 Thorold, Hugh the Ass and Gmffydd. Dt~mr.sdayBook, t , 183a, 185b. 186b, 18"?a, 18%.

Rolf and Durand of G f o u ~ e s t e rThus, , ~ ~ by 1086, not only was the largest and rnost compact secular lordship in Herefardshire divided between burteen o f King William's tenants, but Harold's demesne l a d was divided along dififerent lines tihart the lands a f his men, When we turn to the counties situated along the south coast of England, again we find Anglo-Saxon lordship and tenurial patterns ignored in favour of territorial consolidation. Sussex, of course, with its rapes, is an obvious And the county of Cornwall was, with the exceytiorl of old ecclesiastical interests and less than one other hide ofland, organised into a huge territory under the direct rorltrol of the King" half-brother, Robert Gaunt of Mortain," Kent, too, was divided along new territorial rather than old tenurial lines,59 Very rough]y, thclse sever1 border or mastaf shires cot~stituceda little over tcn per cent of a l the assessed land in WilIiam's k i n g d ~ mWhat , ~ is particularly interesting about the division of these marcher and coastat shires is the Norn~an tenants who were involved. Many numbered among Carbet" 'Class A" barons.61 Accordingly, a mdority of William's greatest secular lords were in possession of honours which centred an territorial divisions that were elltirely the Conqueror" serations. The core of these great lords demesne and enfeoffed land was often centred on new territories that had little to do with the Anglo-Saxon past; these new divisions ignored the great Lordships of the Anglo-Saxon earls and were even found straddlit~gthe established boundaries between the earldoms of Wessex and Mercia and Wcsscx and the earldoxn o f the s a ~ t h - c a s t ,Great ~ ~ Norman fords unlike their Anglo-Saxon counterparts had the seats of thcir power and a substantial portion of their land on the outskins of the kingdom and not in the midlands, wberc the Anglo-Saxon king and his earls had vied fur landed wealth and This shiftixxg poIiticaf geography constitutes yet another important tenurial trans for ma ti ox^ . The tenurial revofutiarl is clear, therefore, in a nuniber of areas. The AngloSaxun lordships, so carefully preserved in Ilornesday B o o r s Circuit 111, were scattered t'or the most part by the end of William" reign across fees and counties and also within vills. Lordhips were also djssolved along the periphery of the kingdom where territory rather than antecessor deternlined the shapc of Norrnan Fees. Yet disruption is evident even in shires where some landholding devolved ncatly from antecessors and successors. In Nottinghamshire, ibr example, a number a f Norman honours were hrmed by a strict adherence to antecessors and successors, Gilbert de Gancf thus came into Ulf Fenisc" sand and 3

*'

L)Dn~~~.cday Nook, i, $832, 184;b, 185b, 18hh. *Wason, 'The Rapcs of Susscx and the Norn~an Conquest', S~tsst.?cArchilrult?cfical Colleitrnns, cir, 11964, 68-93 and E.Ziiflturn I arzd r l z ~Sussex R~?pr.j,Hastlr~gsand Bcxhlll Brarlch of the Historical Assoc~at~on Z 966. Darnerday Book, i, 121b-125a. '"Sce below, p. 5%. " These statistics are based ctn figures fourrd m Xlarby, Domesday En'yfand, 336. '' W. J. Corbetc, " f i e Jt.vetopment of the duchy of Norma~lJyand the Nornlan Conquest', The mhvi4gr il.l;edieval I-listol-y, v , eds J . R. Tanxler, ct a], Cambridge f 926, 508. 6 2 See above n. 47. '' K ~ b l nFlemrrlg, Domesday Estates of tbc K~rtgand the Godtv~rres:A Study $11Late Saxon Pol tncs ', ,Spmtfirm, I 983, 987- 1007.

" J. Ff".A.

I2orntlsptay Boilk and the

cfhtiitrt'izt Jftq)rrllritic~t~

9'7

Walter d'Ail1~0urtinto the holdings of Swein CIilt and l " h ~ r i But . ~ ~ the two greatest secular tcnants-in-chief in the county - ROger dc l-Zully alld William Peverel - were each granted large, coxtsolidatcd blocks of territory within the county; William bcld almost all of fjroxtow Wapezitake and the northcrn portion of the neigboring waperitake of Rushcliife; Roger lie Bully hctd a mass of larrd in thc north-northeast of the county, especially in the wapcntakcs c3f f3assettatw, Lythc and (Ilswaldlbcck. He idso held A block of Iaxzd in thc south central portio~?of thC shirc. Thcsc territories were ncw in 1 tI86 arid were in no way evident in Edward the Confcssor's day. WiXllanl E3evcrci's fec was pieced togcthcr from the lands of at least tllirty-thrcc. E~iglishnlen,arid Roger dc Bully 2 l~oldingwas composed ofthe land of at least sixty-eight Anglo-Saxor~s.~" Thcrc is no evtdcnce ixz the Ncbttlngh~n~shirc folios that tficsc hundrcd or so individuals were the. r-xicn of any orie lord and sonle - sllicfz as the pawcrfut Countess Ciocle - certainly were not. Rogcr dc X-fully" card WilXians. Pevcref's honours, Inorcover, within Nottinghamshirc nullified a nurr~bcrof Old English tcriar~cies,Kogcr, fbr example, hcld two estates which pertained to C;rinrkctil T.R. E. in the north county, but W~lliarngot the rcn~ai~ling four in his territory in Uroxtow W a p ~ n t a k e .Xioger , ~ ~ dc Bully acquircd the thegn Gfa~.durirrc"s estate in the area in whicff Rogcr hcid 121;?torinterests in the neigfzborhood, kvl-tile WilIiant got rhe sanle thegn's larlds it1 Broxto~vWape~ltaktt.'~ The same niix of ncvv and old Isndl~oldingpatterns can be foclrld irr Northamptonshire, where the Bishop of Lincoln's honour was fornied from his anteccssor Bardips land, William X3evcrel%from C"Jtha's land, and Robert dc. Uucy's from Northmann" land,68Robert Count of Mortain, however, by far the wealthiest lord in tile county, held a fcc constructed of the lands of at feast fifty-onc pre-Conquest thegns and s o k e r l ~ e n ,Although ~ in 13crbyshirc, Geoffrey AIscIin inherited Toki son of fl)uti%larids and William PevercX canle into L4cofric9slands," the wealthiest tnan in the shirc, Henry dc Ferrcrs, succeeded into the lands of dozens of pre-Con quest tenart ts. In these counties, therefore, the very great secular fees were granted on the hasis of territory rather than tenure.. Xn each a f these instances, X3arnesday suggests that territorial fees were granted out by county rather than by regisgt ar by kirlgdoizl. fxl Nottirtgharrlshire, for example, William Peverel 'inherited' the two estates Stapolwinc had Roger de Efulf~,on the other field and rite two hcld by Godwirlc the hand hcld all three of Spcarhcafoc? lands, Clthenkarl" seven and Karskik two.73 But across the border and into I>erhyshlrc, Roger's and William" '"antecessors" Ilt?mr~sdayNoilk, I, 2Wfb, 28Xb, 78%. For C;llhcrt dc GanJ" sarlrf W d l t ~ d'Au~ccjurt't r ar~t~l't^$t~rs 113 othcr coulitler, scc Mack, k'ryq~utttf 7'lzqqns, Appcnctlr I . 65 LJanrcsriuy Book, 1 , 287s-3t"rXa, 385b-aW7a. '"fJt~rnc.idelyBook, I, 3XSa, -ZClhb,387%3, 78th "68 71)(11~7f~sd~y N(,clk, i , 386a. ZX7b, -?%%.a 1l)ornp~dtz)tBclok, 1, 22ta, 22Sb, 2262, 21152, 225h; I-or the antc*cc%st>r% of thctc tc,nanrrr-~n-cI~~~~i it, other part5 of the Ettgland, tcc Mack, Krrrq3 rzrirl 7 k y g ~ l ~Appc"nid\ . I WJ Domcsday Book, 1, 223a-3241 71) l)c35?1t*stfa y Boclk, I , ,776h, 2 7 6 ~ . ~ I o ~ n t ~ y~ S ~ ~2tll ikl,I. 2742-276a. 7' I3c~rnt*sfii~y Book, i, 287a. 287b, 2883. 7 3 Llot~i~.~dt~y Nook, 1, 3WI;b. 2Xlb. 3XSb. 3862, 2W6b. *4

lands devolved onto a different set of lords. Stapolwinc" and Karski" estates were taken over by King William, and Othenkarl's lands in J3crbyshire md Lincolnshire went almost entirely to Cilberc de Gand.74 Thus Spcartreafoc, Othenkarl and Karski were either arzteccssors to William and Roger only in Nottinghamshire and not in neighboring counties, or their land devolved on these particular lords not by principle of antecessor but simply because of the shire in which they lay. Such divisions by county are clear eXscwhcrc in the kingdom. Robert Courlt of Mortain, as noted above, held a vast expanse of land in Northamptonshin: in the south-western portion of the county. its cornposition is very similar to the tcrritorfes of Roger de Bully and William Peverel in Nottinghamshire, mdc up as it was of the tenancies of dozens of different men. Robert" territory, however, did not extend across the shire's borders, and he did not hold a single ploughland in the bordering counties of Leicestershirc, Warwtckshire, or C)xfordshire. His lands, which stretched to the edges of Northa~xlptonshirestopped abruptly at the county line. lt appttars, therefore, that territorial holdings wcrc granted out on the level of the county, Furtlfpermore, it swms that within the county, territorial fees were often granted out by hundred or wapentake. Henry de Ferrers held a block of land nltting a wide swathe across Derbyshire, the core of which lay in Appletree Wapentake, where Henry held in all but two of the wapentake" sixry-cigbt ~ills.~"nNottinghamshire Rager dc Sully got the bulk ofthc land in Oswaldbeck, Bassetlaw, Lythe and Thurgarton Wapentakes, while William PevereX received most of Broxtow Wapentake, Kent followed suit. Besides the Ghurch and the King, the only w o secular tenants-in-chief of any importance in the shire were Hugh de Montfort and Odo Bishop of -Uaye~x,~%and the basis s f their fees was hundrcdal. Hugh de Montfort? land lay in a consolidated block in sourheastem Kent and was composed of eleven huxldreds. The only secular XloIder in these hundreds was a d o himself, and he held just over five sulungs offand For Odo's part, he gained control over thirty-one hundreds, Only Richard fitz Gilbert held an estate in demesne in Ode" NO ather secular lord did so. The only hundreds in which secular landholding was divided were the hundreds of Wye and Bewsborough. There is, therefore, ax1 alnlost perfect correlation bemeen T.R.W. Iandholding patterns and Kcntisfr hundreds, This was not the case in the Confessor's day. I2amesrlay Book, is 2731, 2?7b, 3.5%. The two exceptions are F-loon, soke of X3urton Abbcy and Robert 6tz WrIIiam's hc>ldxng in Stanley, Da~zt*~t!ay Book, I, 273a, 27%. For a further discussion see F. M. st en tor^. 'Xntroduct~otrto the Derbyshtre Z3onresday" b't:N D~rl~ysItfre, i , London t(N15, mk326, 76 Cldo's Iands in Kent cover s ~ x foIros and Hugh dc Montfnrt's A f ~ ~ r t hfoha. e r (Domrsduy Book?,i, ha-l lb, 132-142.) The lands of the revnalnlrig secular tenants-in-chlef arc. recorded on sl~ghtfyless s. Book, 1 , 142-t 4h.) than two c o l u r ~ ~ n(I3owrsday " Hugh" hf-)ldings centred on Longbndge, Newchurch, Worth, Wayne, Aloesbrrdge, WIackbum, Street, Stowting, Blrchott and Chart. In these hundreds Odo held only four sultiings in Bilsington, one half yoke In Alacsbr~dge, three yokcs in f-fastznglergh and one half sulung in Bochefandr. (Dt)r~esdayBmk, I , IOb, t l b, 9b.) 7X OCIO'Sholdings centred on Axton, Lrttlc, Kuxley, Greenwich, 13rc>mtcy, Larkfieid, Toltingtrough, Littlefield, WashItngstone, Eyhor~le, Cltatham, litochestcr, Hoe, Twyford, Maidstone, Shamwell, Milton, Bridge, i~ovvnhamford, Folkstone, Longingborough, Rolvenden, Eastry, Barhain, Whrtstabte, Faversharn, Fefborcrugh, Calehilt, Oxrxey, Langporr and S~c~tmrrdeue. R~cit~ard ficz Gilbert held two sulungs in Twyford Hundred and one in Mardstone. (P)orn~*sdnyBocllr, 1, 142.1

74

75

Xn Nottinghamshirt", I)erbyshire, Northarnptonshire and Kent land redlstribution echoed the divisions of shires, wapentakcs and hundreds more dosety than lines of pre-Conquest tenure. This suggests that while a part of a Norman's fee might be granted s n t across the ki~rgdornby right of inheritance fronz a well dcfitlcd antccessor, a portion s f many important fees was granted out piecemeal by county and by hundred. This created ari cxtraordiriarily co~nplicatedtcnurial patchwork across ErlgIand and cxplains why thcre wcrt so nlany legal disputcs by 1086. Confusing as the resdting m~anciesarc, this combination of larid grants by antcccssor and by territory preserves in it a ter~tativcchronology of dispossession and acquisition. Ralpfi fitz Hubert, f i r cxanlple, appears to have reccived his Nottinghan~shireland reIativcty so011 after the C:onquesr. FIc was nladc the success~rof a very important local thegn named Lcafric, whosc holdings lay alorig the south, southeastern border of the Thesc lands of Leofrie are virtually the only lands excludirzg royal or ccclcsiasticaf estates that WirXliam Peverel did rtot evcrltually inherit in Broxtow Wapentake or that Kogcr de Bully did not acquire in the wapentakc of RushcIif:. lntrudirzg into their territories as Ralph fitz Hubert does, it appears that Kafph was givers iris land prior to the for ma ti ox^ of either Roger" or William's consolidated, territorial fees. When they were granted their lartcfs, their holdings had t s skirt arou~idfitz Hubert's already established honour, Similarly, thc Count of Morcain was the successor of anrjther south Nottinpharnshirc thegn narticd Stori. C3ne of Stori's old estates, held in 1086 by Count Robert, was surrourrded by a sea of William Veverel" land - lying in the centre of some fifty square miles of territory controlled by this onc lord. Further south, abuttirig Roger dc Urrlly's Rushcliffe holdings, the Courlt af Murtain also held Stori's property." His succession to Stori's land probably, therefore, like thc srlccession of Ralph fitz Hubert, predated the granting o f Willianl" and Roger's fees. Gilbert de C;ar~d, thc successor of UIf Fenisc irt this county as elscwherc in England, in11critt.d Ulf s land in four wapentakes, inctuding Bassetlaw, which Roger ds Bully sa thoroughly d~minatcd.'~Rmigius Bishop of Lincoln carzse into Countess Godgifu" land, Walter dxineourt came into the lands of Thori arzd Sweirl Cilt, and Gilbert Tyson into another Swein's land." Thc King maintained the Corzfessor's lands, and various ecclesiastical establishments managed tu keep hold of their Nottirighan~shireendowments. All of these land transferences had to be laid down before the Conqueror established his tvco Nottingharnshirc territorial fees, The King at that time gave Willtarn f%verel all in Broxtow Wapcntake that had not previously been grarlted out on the prit~ciplcof anrecessor and successor and a scatterillg of land in the bordering wapmtakc, while Roger dc Bully was presented with the rerllairiing land in Clswaldbeck, Bassetlaw, Thurgarton and Lythe. This explains why their two fees coxr~hincd were made up of the holdings of over one hundred Anglo-Saxons' land and accounts for the curious intrusions of other tenants-ill-chief into their fees. This is thc only chronology which explains the patterrz of Nottingharnshirc.

'"I)o~~?t"$Lf)ay Book, t, 3XS)h. " Domesday Rook, 1, 282b.

''

IIfrrmesd~zyBaclk, ' ~ I I o t ? z e ~ d aBook, y

I,

t,

29%. 3833, 2%4a, 288b. 2892, 291a.

landholding. Therefore, the thegns Leofw~ine,Ulf'f"enisc, Thori and Swein Cift were killed, outlawed and or dispossess& at a relatively early date, some possibly by 1067, and Normarts such as Robert Count ofMortain and Gilhert de Gand came into thc county soon aftcr thc Conquest. Hetlry ds Ferrers also gained an early hot-hold in the cuunty through his Ynheritancc' of the land of his antecessor Siward Barn, probably in 2071, when Siward revolted against the Conqueror." But the two greatest Nottinghamshire tenants-irl-chief, Roger de Bully and William Pcvercl must have held little in the shire, It was only sometime after I071 that the King granted them each endowments made up of all the remaining land in each wapentake which had not yet been grar~tedout on the basis of succession by antecessor. The implication of this is that William Pcvercl, put in charge of the Conqueror" hastily built castlc at Nottinaham in 106'7, hung on by his toenails in the county as a royal official in an ostensibly loyal sflirc for five or six years.&"It was only after England was shaker1 again and again by serious native rebellions that the Conqueror undertook a massive dispossmsion of lesser thegns and granted his two vassals each a territory and the landed resources to dig in and hold a hostile land. This also means that the two largest and most irrlportanr secular fees in the cuunty were not m l y late creations, hut they wcre entirely new - made up of leftovers - created from the holding of more than one hundred obscure men, T h e rcsotlrces of the most pocverkl men in che shire, therefore, shifted significantly gcographicality. Certainiy for at least a century before the Gonqucst, power in Nottinghamshire was rooted in the estates a f tec~fnothand Leofric. Many of their holdings had been in the possession of the powcrhl thegn Wulfiic Spot around the year f(XX) and earlier may even have belonged to the Merican kings.= After the Conquest, however, the gmatest rrlerl in the county no longer had an interest in thesc ancialt estates. The ccrltre of political gravity had migrated by thc rniddle of the Conqueror's reign to estates once belonging to Nottinghamshire's rank and file thcgns. In total, about a quarter of all land avaitahlc t;lr secular redistribution in Nosinghamshire after the Gonqwst was granted out by thc Conqueror, probably within six years of Wastings by thc principle of antecessor ar~d successor. Ver the renzaining three quarters was distributed tcrritoriatly along wapen take divisions . In I>erbyshire, Henry de Ferrers was grantcd a k c composed of ail available land in High Ibcak, Appletree and Morleystone Wqentakes with the rxception of lands already granted out to William's followers through their antecessors, and a compact block of land centred on William Pcvcrel's castle at Peak Cavern." 6snry"s acquisition in Ilerbyshire necessarily post-ctares the grarlting out of Leofric 2nd Lcofnc~th'sLand to Ralph fitz Hubert and Ulf son of Tope land to Geoffrey AlseIin, since Hnrry's lands skirt these two fees." We know that initial)y Ulf was able to maintain his larlcls probably after paying a heavy fine.x" He hrld on to his political position as well fi,r a time, attesting one ofthe Jorrrt,~duyBtlok, 1, 291 b; ASC (E) 5.a. 1071. 218. K5 C:ltnrfers of B ~ t r t o tAbhey, ~ ed. Pcter fiia\vycr, C>xford 1979, xxvr-xxvu, x x x l ~ l ,xl, X b I Z t ) t t t ~ > ~ fBook, ay I , 27fsa. " li'>unrt*iday Book, I, 2772, 377b, 716b. 8X Dornr~rfay Nook, 11, J7Cih; The Anglo-Saxon C1.tron~cIerccards that r-rtcn pat3 cl~cnew k~rlg'rr~butc and gave hi111 tlc~rrtage~ and the11 rcdccr~~ed their ldinds froin h m ' (,IISC (E) \.a+ IOfiCi).

'"C)rcicrlc, rl,

Domesday Book

atfd

the Tk~ltiriafRet~~?[tftit>t?

1Ol

We know, however, that his brother, Hrelfdane, was Conqueror's disi~lheritedbefore Novenlber 1069, and that this brother" Iand descended to Remigius Bishop of Lincoln."' UIFlost his land either around the sanle time or during the rising of Hereweard the Wake.9' Henry's acquisitions, therefore, n ~ u s post-date t 20691207 1. This type of disinheritance, the confiscation of the lands of importar~tbut disloyal thegns and its granting away to one successor, thereiore, occurred betwcer-r 1066 and c, 1071, Son~etimcbetween 10"7 and 207.5, however, the Conqueror appears to have changed, at lcast in part, his practice and to have begun laying on top o f this earlier pattern of antccessor and successors his midland territorial grants such as Roger de Bully's in Nottingbamshire, the Count of Mortaints in Northamptonshirc and Henry Je Ferrersyin hrbyshire. William" distribution of Iand to his most trusted friends an3 kinsmen along the outskirts of the kingJon1 very soon after the Conquest, his granting out of all of the lands of an English landholder across the kingdom to one of his tenants and finally his formation o f compact territories from the lands of minor thegns, seriously disrupted pre-Conquest patterns of fatldholding afid lordship. From the examples outlined it is clear that azz enormous amount of t a m p e h g had taken place by 1086. These instances alone show almost a quarter of all assessed land in England to have been distributed to secular holders not along preConquest lines, but on a ncw tenurial pattcrrt. This represents a significatlt amount of land - and the tenurial breakdown has nor beer1 exhaustively chronicled. Domesday Boak, therefore, stands as a witness to a major tet~urialrevoIuciorl, The dislocation it preserves can be seen on all Ievcis and across rnost of England. It can be seen in the shattering of cornitat holdings, in the burstkg apart of lordships such as Stigand's in Wertfnrdshire, and in the establishing t ~ f territoeal blocks like those fourld in Nattingbanlshirc, It is also possible to suggest that the tenurial continuity between 1066and lCH6 has been exaggerated. Certair~lythe holdings of men Iike Arzsgar the StaIIcr and t71f Fcnisc were preserved. Nonetheless, in a ntere twenty years the tenurial map ofEngland was made very nearly unrecognisable as the lands of several thousand men were allocated, often territorially, to a handful of the Conqueror" trusted fotlowers. The tenurial revolutian also made itself k t t in huxldreds, perhaps thousands of villages across England, where ploughteams and plough strips, men and nlills were reorganiscd by William's FoXlowcrs - perhaps for the better in a generation or two, but in the decades in~ntediatelyfollowing the Conquest such reorganisation caused productivity to fait and peasants to go hurtgry. O n all these XcveIs and throughout the bulk of the klngdcam, change and dimption aistorred England" aallient tenurial fabric.

Rqqarn, I , no. 8. Brarzd A b h t ~ of t i2cterbc7rrailghTct I3unsby to h ~ kzngsman s HaelMane bccause Krng Wrlllarrl had grven f-laelfdane" ecstatcs to tlern~gl~rs Blshop o f Lincoln, (The Clhrt~rrlcleqf Nt4,qh Czarzdtdtrs, cd, W. T. Mellows, Oxford 1944, 43.) Brdnd died in thc fall of 11h9. (ASvert~trne~f. (iltl~ql~~-Sn.xott tVill~,94-97, 307-223,) R9

Image not available

F(q. 2. CA'~mhridqrshirrvalues in rrezuly corrsolidatrd holdins 7.K W

HENRY OF HtfNTllNGDQM AND HIS EIIS TORM ALWGLOR LTM*

HENRY of Huntingdon's Historia Att'gEururn, the earliest source a f the wellknown and popular stories of Grlut and the waves and Henry 1's death from 'a surfcit of lampreys" enjoyed a wide circulation during the rlziddle ages. It has survived reasonably complete in thirty-six known medjevai manuscripts" none of them autograph - and was used by various medieval chroniclers, botfl during the author" lifetime and later, The Histi~ricrlreceived attention, too, in tbc sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, when several rnanrxscriyt copies were made and parts of the text were first put into print. It was in 1596 that the narrarive of the Historia was first published, by Sir Henry Savile,' and in 1568 t u c d'Achel-y printed one of the portions omitted by Savilc, the letter 'De Contexnpru MundiZ3 which was to be re-edited in 1691 by Henry Wharton," Apart Crotr~ Henry Petric's edition in 1M8, which prirlted most of the narratiw up to I M , using Savile's sedition with fresh collations from Four max~uscripts,~ and Tharnas

*

X am gratekf to friends who read and made helpful suggest"o~sfor the Improvemexlt of thts paper, especialfy Christopher Brooke, Marjorie Ghibriall and Jane Sayers. IFavid Comer kmdty gave advice on the Historia posr Bednm and Roger of Howden. C;eorge Beech an3 Thomas Waldmarr Itelped with references to nraecrlal In the EN. Andrew Watson, James Carley aid Alan Piper gave generous assistance lrr the identification of provenances of MSS for appmd~xI . T31srussian chat foilowed the rcad~ngof the paper at. Battle led to some revision: in particular I W I S ~ta thank David I3urnvdlc, who not only cold me of a MS that was new to me, but also inspired me to reconsider the 1135 'editionhand the Torigny connectlsn; our op~nionsdi%er, however, over the fxliat~onof the MSS of the Nornlan group. The purchase of microfilms of important MSS was made possible by a research grant From the British Academy. "or a list of medieval and early madem MSS and the sigta used in this paper, see below, appendxx 1. f have kft out o f account the numerous fragmmts and extracts of the Histc>ricr rhat survive Ir.1 MSS. These awagt my xnvestigarion. Remrn A~tgfictzmniScriptover post Bedam pracripui, London 1596, 169-225). Savile did not: specie the MSS he consulted, but they presumably ~ncludedtwo MSS owned by him - BL Egerton 3668 (cited below as Eg) and Add. M%I (Ac) - and perhaps atso one or more of the kambeth Palacc NSS, 128, 179, 327((La, Lb, LC),Oxford All Souls 32 (0)and Cambridge Curptls Christ1 College 280 (6).From the Frar~kfurtedition of Savile" work (ZC11)1), large portions were printed tn Recireil ties historiens de.~C;artles et de la France, ed. M. Bouquet, XI, Paris l76"7(262 1 in the reprint of 1876) (frorn book VI), and xixl, Parxs 1786 (30l-47 In the reprint of $869)(from VIE and VIXI). The entire Savilc text was included in Pfatrvlogra Lartnn, cd. J,-P, Mignc, cxcv, f855, 7"-078. V,tertrm aliquor Srriptorrdm . . . Spicilrrgiurn, 13 vols, Pans 1657-77, v~ii,178-93, based on one of the French MSS; from which it was re-printed by Migne, cxcv, V"78-%1. Arzn Huntingd\.n', E"urscClurzgerz zttr Dezrrsclterz Ceschtchre, xvm, 1878, 265-95. The debt to Llebcrnlann rs largely unacknowlcdgcld by Amold, tllough he pays a mndescendmg tribute to Lleberr~ranr-r's"true Gerrnanrc thoroughness' (Iluntingdon, x). Arnold scertls to have bccn unaware of tiopald Ilet~sle'swork can Robert of Torzgny, Chucjniqtt~cfi. Robert de 'Tc?r(qtzr,2 vols, Raucn I 8'72-3, I" Arltonra Gransden, Historrcal Ittrriting irt Ennqlarrdl', I , c. 550 ru t, 1307, l,ondott 1974. 194 n. 67, canzmcncs that: ' A r ~ t ~ l srgunlenes d'~ conccrrllrrg the succcss~vcc d i t ~ o t ~ofs I-Imry's work are not clear or conv~ncing".Thc canctusions of thc prescnt paper, howevcr, J~ftkrsut-rstant~aIIyfrom X>r C;rat-rsJcri7soutfme, thrd., 194. T ~ o r l g n l I,, 97-1 I I; Clrrorrrtles of tire Rrgns of Steptir.rr, Wettry X I ~ t ? dRrcizavd f , ed. It. F.lowlctt, RS ixuxll, 1x84-9, l v , (65-73. '2 BOO^ XI w a l pnntcd, probably from La, by T. Wright, T i i c A I ~ ~ I O - I JStzt~ri~af I I P I Poets and iip~~rt~mnmt~rrcrsa cf the ?ic~cvi@(ik (Irtttitry, RS tzx, 1872, n, 16.3-74.

Hertvj~qf Ht4r1tin~qciot.inrld t l ~ eA % 4 a ~ ~ . i ~ ~of r ihis p t sHistoria Anglomm

105

texts. " Sonle othcr manuscripts he knew of, hut was unable to trace, notably a codex that had belonged to Sir Henry Savile, first editor of the Historia, now BL Egertrrn 3668 (cited below as Eg), which is one of the must important of the extant manuscripts, as we shall see later. Naturally, other r~larltlscriptshave come to Xight since Arnold" time," and doubtless nlany rxlorc. await identlficacion. Serious criticisms can be made s f Arnold"~slap-dash approach to editing: some of the Faults are dotlbtless due to the speed with which the edition was tnade - it seenls to have taken not much longer than a ycar.16 Me did not take account, in his textual apparatus, of several of the manuscripts he examined and to which he assigntd sigla." indeed, Arnold's apparatus reveals the severe inadequacies of his textual niethod, I-fis choice of readings and vanarlts is aften poor, sometimes bizarre. As Havcrficld comm~ntcd,'in respect of text and manuscripts [the edition] has bccn compiled with a carelessness that can only astonisll a dassical There is no consistencv in the ct~oiceof nlanuscripts employed in the textual construction, so that the apparatus ohsares rather than illuminates thc history of the text. Sometimes Amold prefers readings that occur only in BL Arundel 48 (A), against all the othcr manuscripts." 9rundt.l 48 is a harldsorne but, inkrior copy of a version of the chronicle that ends in 1148. Occasionalfy Arnold's srcaditlgs are not to be k>urld in any surviving manuscript.20 A nlore systcrnatic approach to the n~arsuscriptswould have enabled Arnold to r~1cog11Xsca goad nlany more changes than were evident to him, such as the insertion, in the 113C)s, of the Gnqueror's speech bcbre Wastings, and the revision, in the I EOs, of Henry 1% obituary. Amold was working at a time whcn elassicali scholarship in this country was at a !OW ebb and he had also to

" 1Kouen iflblloth?quc Nlurrrcipaie U 74 (1 1777) (IZ), Cambrtdge St John's Cotlegc C;. l h 0). Gsnrhrtdge Trtniry C:oIlcge tt.S.43 (TI, Vatlea11 IZeg. lac. ,587 ( V d f , Camhrtdgc S~drte);S~rsscx College 70 (Sl;), Srorr ybnrsi College 26 (S) " 4 4 , Vhil11pp.i 8079, now CUL Add. 3392 (Ca); 7Rutlth'. now UL Add. 21088 (Ah). " 5 , t e v ~ f r ~tderlt1f5ed n 2 text of hook5 111-VIX and X to t 138, trribecfdecf ~n a manuicript c>f (Icoffrey of Monmouth (Xlr~rhamU h a w C:ollcgc ti (U)), 'A ccomhrncd nranctscnpt of CGcoffrcy of Morrmouth and Henry ofH-lunt~ngdon"1iC.R tvm, 1%;3,41-51. file Montncrrutl~text 1s drscussed by 11. N. Ilun~vtlle,'The orlgirl of the C-tcxt of thc vanant vcrs~rtnof the I-lutc,rrtl Ra;(l~tvtlBrlrtrnttiilcp", Ntrllvttti ofthe Board czfCr,ltii Str.rdir.3 xxvl, 1975, 315-32, Othcr Ifu~ltlngdonMSS unkrxo\vn to Aniold are IjW Iat. 1 0 1 85 ftrlra), U L Add. .541X-I (Ad), Rouclz U.50 (tic), Vatrcarr Keg. !at, '732 (Vb), Exetcr Cathedral 3514 (Ex) arxi the 'ii"n1arld curnptfat~on" ,of whrch CCCC 02 (Cb) and UL Acid. .35lktS (Alf are betng uied &r tile new t d l t ~ o n(see b e ~ o wpp. 230). " k c h ~ refCrttnccs r tn a lctecr of I7 January 1878 to a favt>urahfcIettcr from thc Mastcr of the Ii)olls, pronrlsulg that txc. would hear front the Freast~ry"probably cariiy ln February" Lctters qf 7 1 ~ t f t t l r ~ 3 iivrrt~ldthe I.hrtrt*qc.r, IX5@190II, cd. J, Bertram, Arrcktand 1980, 2tt-1.. The work IS not m c n t ~ o n d111 Arnold" autrtbtograph~calI%z~.+il~q~s 111 il Wandlrrrrrq Ltji*,Lor~donICfiXL, which 1s chrcffy taker1 up u i r l z hl\ reJtgjous odyssey, " 7Thc five most Importar.rt, which all have a part t t i pla) tn rccclnstrucnng the hatory of the rcxc, arc l a , I b, LC, Ac jvvtrlch Arrrold used only for the text of the 'tie C:onrempcu Mundl'), aid C;lasgow klll~vers~cy Lrbrary, Hunter U.h.6 (C;). " *!'he Atltrrtaenrrr, no. 38317, h Aprd ICXII, 434, quoted Lsvlsun, 44. " E.1;. Huntlngdon, 71, f, 34, '~nterna',where all othcr MSS, except A \ sissrcr W, read "rrxcenora'; rbid., 163, I. 9, 'cxlrnru~',abscrtr In all othcr NSS except W. C f am old"^ conlmcrrt on tvord-clrdcr In A , rbrd , 2770 8r.n. W, when corrsulted by Art~old,rs trcared as an independent wlmesr, ZQ One cxanp'tc rs~ustu~fficc here: Huntingcilon, I45,1. 18, 'paganorurn', nut found 111 any MS. but g1vc.n ~n Savlle, 200.

work without the benefit of modern techniques of codicological invcstigatioi~. Likc many cditors of his time, he did not himself transcribe the manuscripts." It has to be raid, too, that generally his descriptions ofmanuscripts are inadequate and often ir~accurate.~" Erlough of An~oldand his Oults. It is tinre to speak of the prelixr~inarywork that i s being done towards a new edition ofthe Histoviu iityqlantrut fur the series of C3xford Mcdievaf Texts. The elassificatim of the Wuntingdon manuscripts begins with the observation that there arc five diff'ercnt points at which their texts of thc historical narrative may conclude - 1 12") 11138, 1147, 1148 and 1154. It will be argued in this paper that these points represent stages in the author's cumpusition of his text. But the &st observation has to be acconzpar~lcdby a second, chat among the manuscripts there arc five that contain pataeographically distinct corltilzrratiorls which take the narrative from one of the conclwdirlg points to another. I"tlcse manuscripts and their contir~uationsarc as follows: Eclinburgh N t S Advocates' 33.5.4 (E) BL Egerton 3668 (Eg) Lambcth Palacc Library 32VLc) Exctcr Cathedral 3514 (Ex) Cambridge Corpus Christi GuXfege ( C )

First hand --1129==E1 -1138=Eg1 -1147=Lc1 ---1248=Ex1 -1138-.CI

Continuation ---.1138==~~~ -1147= E~~~ -114)3=~c~~ -1154== -.1154=.cii

Recognition of thesc changes of barld introduces a complicating fitctor that has to be. acknowledged hetilrc the history ofthe text can be approached. This is the possibility of 'contaminatiox~'. The insertion into a manuscript of variant readings from another copy of the same text was perhaps less unusual in the rniddlc ages than sotxle editors have been prepared to admit," and occurs very obviously in some ofthe Huntindon n~anuscripts,where later scholars or librarians haw inserted variants from other nzan~scrigts.'~ But in the case of a continued text, such as Htmry's, there is a much greater likelihood of contamination. We see it at work in Eg, where one o f the post-l I38 continuing hands has gone back to make corrections and alterations ta the text in thc scctior-x before 1138. Thcrc arc annotations of a sirnilar type in the earlier sections of LC, and some interesting early corrections irl C and E. Such cross-collation may well have been a two-way process, with both the contir~uedn~anuscripcand its exemplar rcceivir~gscribal emendations. Most o f o ~ l manuscripts, r being single compilations, written in single hands, cfo not bear tt~esegraphic signs of contamination or "horizontal transmission', but there is a very strollg possibility that some are descended from contaminated exemplars, with their texts subject to the cross-currents of rmdorn tmer~dations

Z1

C'f k-funtlngdorz, 2-71 n.a.

'4

'EVce.t-rrrcal

" E~"rpcc1~1ly poor arc hir account5 of 14N Iar. c't(l42 ( U ) , t c and CUL k.u.3 (IJ). " For a recent \cudy of rhc cornplexlcrer;ofcontcmporary cnllatlor-r, scc A. Ijuggan, 'Th~?rrtasBeckt*f: I-irstory of his I-ertsrs, Oxford l%O, cspec~allyrm tfic Alan of Tswkesbury co~npllac~on,

SSCC C S ~ C C IRt3 ~ I throughout, I~ and rmtc the acidit~otr,rn another hand, of thc "rn hoc uolum~ne' ctxlrcnts-tist ( k r w h ~ see h below pp. 113-14 and n. 5.5) ti> Ab, arhcrwtse a copy oTBN Iat. M M 2"

(l3d).

Hetrry

ilf Hunft'ngdon and

rht. Manuscripts qf his Historia Panglorurn

107

by earlier c~pyists.~VIf this is correct, wc should expect to fxnd the variants in the earlier sections more complex arrd confusing than those in the later. As yet my work of collation is in its early stages: I have collated thirty-nine manuscripts in sample passages at a dozen points spread throughout the Histovia. The results of this examination suggest that the text has been transmitted horizontally as well as vcrticalf y. Xnded, my attempts to construct a diagramnlatic stemma have tended to produce a figure less like a tree than a spider's web, At this prclinlinary point in the work, however, my object is not to deal with the intricacies of Y P C ~ B S ~ O but , using rhe evidence of the surviving nlanuscripts to trace the stages of Henry" composition of his text. In this examination, we can safcly ignore manuscripts which are merely descetlldants of other surviving but w e need to pay special attention to those which can bc seen to belong to two stages of composition, that is, those just mentioned as having changes of hand.27 When the Histovia A~glorumfirst appears, it already comprises seven books, consisting of a chronological narrative from the time of Julius Caesar down to the year 1329. Two manuscripts, which are very closely related, if not taken from the sanzc exemplar, end in 1129: Aberystwyth NEW Peniartb 382 (H) and Oxford All Souls 31 (01,which Lieberrnann and Arnold recognised as the 'first edition" But a change of tlax~docclrrs in a third manuscript, E, at this point ("adnichilata est'). EQrepresenrts a different version from H and 0. Altfiougf~it begins with a prologue, addressed to bishop Alexander of Lincoln (112-8), which is absent in H/8,Z8it omits two notable features found in HIU: the cpilogue and the quotations from the Historia Romana, the latrdes of the Roman emperors, which appear in the separate accounts of more than twenty emperors in Book I. The omission of thc 1audt.s was noted but incorrectly interpreted by Anloid. who thought E vvas written by a lazy scribe, H itself and several other manuscripts have paragraph signs and other indications that these latrde,~were: actually inserted into an archetype." I believe that the scribe of had before him a version of the Historia that vvas earher than the ancestor of H and 0,even though the H i 0 text lacked the prologue. Some tinte after Henry of Huntingdon had completed the earlier version he gat hold of a copy of the Histan'a Rounarza, Paul the Deacon" supplemented and continued text of Eutropius' Bwviarr'tmz, &on1 which he inserted the fag&. He also added his epilogue, which begins Mic est annus? and contains his reflections on. the passage of time: in H I 0 it is dated Ct: R. 11. IJavve" work on the Creck tragediarls, especially his Thu C'ctllatiort arad Irzvest+ario~ oji'Lfan~scrrptsc!fAeshylus, Cambridge 1964. I am grateful to Elizabeth C r a ~ kfor introducing me to the rlorlon o f "horizantaf transrngssionT26 I3L Royal 13.d"~~ (Xlc) (copy of La) tised by Arnold En h ~ apparatus; s also Exr (mpy o r descendant of LC), Ab (copy of Sdf and Bd (copy of Ha). 211 A surnrnary of the rssuifts of thls analysis is set our below, apper~dix2. ')" The ongtnai first folio of W is lacking, hut the first words on the emstmg first fiiiia ('pro n i r a fcrtllitate', Huntlngdon, 6 , 1.1) nlakc 16 hlghly unlikely that the profague was ever present. H and 0, although sharing many readings, differ in two Important respects: O lacks both the arrnotatior~s associated wsth Edtnund the chaplain (W fos 42v, 774 and the text of the letter of PrmterJohn (H Eos 4%-v, 4%-v, 44). '* B, R, LC, C:UL Gg.ir.21 (Cg), Eg; C , Ac; A, W; 6 ,BL Cotton Vesp. A. xviii (V), Ss; N t S Adv. 33.5.2 (Ea), Ii, Kb, but not the 'splracu1i"roup (far which scc below pp. 117-19). The passage Ted quia dc. . . detcr~oreseis ~nueniri'(Fluntlngdon, 28-Iflf, which rrltroduccs the f i r s a f t h e ktrudes, IS abscrrt in E" as, well as the Iuztdes thtmsdves, For another ornissrun in E" see below n. 612. 25

1130 and is placed at the end of the work, after the account of 1129. The final cvent of the tsarrative of 1129 holds a clue to the dating of thc two the concludirsg erltry, earliest versions of the Historia. XXZ all the rnanus~ript~ placed under 1.129, is the accidental death of Philip the young king of France, which is not givers a date here but actually occurred on 13 CJctsber 1131. This item refers back to the first event in Henry" account of 12.2"-)the coronation of the young king, but it does not appear at the m d of the year as an additional note or author's mcnlorandttm in anticipation of a future spell of writing, It is written up in Henry" pIaolised style to ijlustrate one of his favourite thernes the fragility of worldly pomp -- so tbat the narrative ends ("adnichilata cst') on a similar note to the epilogue (3tlicfiit. babes". The appearance of the nutice a f the young king" death renders it certain that it was not until after 13 October 1131 tbat tfic earlier of the 1129 versions of thc Historin was copied from Hcr~ry's autograph. The insertion of the latrda and the addition of the epilogue xnust have taken place later still.3o The next chronoiogicai point at which manuscripts either conclude o r have changes of hand, is the end of 1138 ('effectus est'), the clevatlon of Theobaid to the primacy (he was elected on 24 I3ecernber and consccratcd an 8 January). Eivc manuscripts (Egn",@",BL Add. 24061 (Aej, L2urham Usbaw College 6 fLi) and E~~and the internal evidence of a sixth (Glasgow University Library Hunter U.6.6 (6)) witness this kditisn" Liebcrmann and Arrlold dated 1139, The rxew features of this version of the Historia nlay be surnn-larized very briefly: 1. Book VII is carried beyond 1129 and ends with thc death oEHel1ry I in 1135. 2. Therc follow two new books, VIXX, 'Dc Suxnmitatibus Rerum" and EX, '13e Miraculis Anglorum"" 3, A final, tenth book appears, taking the chronologicaf history frorn 1135 to 1138, it, There are several additions in the historical narrative: fax exars-lple, the bishopric of Carlislc, founded in 1133, is added to the list caf sees in if $5;a prologue is provided to book 111; there appears a tong account of the xnusder of Alfred son of Acthelred XI, suh anno 1042, in VI s2Cl; and the Conqueror's speech before the battle of Mastings is skilfutly inserted into the text of VI $28, 5, Therc are rubrics to the books.32 For the date of X41111p'sd e ~ t h see , Orderit, vl, 420-3. fn ).-I, the narratlvc mds before the hortonr of f 76v. 2nd the epl'toguc bcglns a new Icaf, f 77r; chss may reflect the arrrtngermit-nt of Henry's master-copy, although H's ecxnrplar rtsclf was probably a second or rhrrd gwcratlcln MS. " 'Thesc tterns arc nor Eourrd In the hybrid U (see above n. 15) artd thc continued Esl. " The rubrics, vvh~chAre absent only In E, H, 0, U ancf G, arc as fbltows: h b c r utlw de regno Komanortlm; Lrbcr duo dc aducnru Anglorum; Liber tcrcrus dc conucrstonc Anglomrt~;L~ber q u l n t ~ sde btsll~s Uacorum; Llbcr sextus dc aduentu yuarttl5 dt rcgrto A r ~ g I ~ r u n ftlber ; Normar~norum;Liher septznius dc regno eorum; Ltber octauus dc sumr.n~tat.thusrcrtlrrl; 1.1bt"rrianus dc rniractrlts A~~glorurn. "The rttbr~cto hook X, I h c r dccinirls dc h i x prcscntl', &>ur-rdonly 111 C1, EgGdod Ac, was probably nor the author's but was added m a copy of the I138 tcxt. XI alorzc ha3 Xiher dcclnit~sJ c regc Stephano', w h ~ c h.IS possrbly Henry's oMin rubrrc, wrttren after Stephen's dcach; It 1s not prcrent In Rb, ~lahlchhas sofne contamlnatlon with the 1148 vcrsran. For the re-arrangcmaxt of the books ~ 1 1sornc of the 1148 tcxrs, ree below p. 117.

O '

A. There is a colophor~ascribing the auti~orshipof the Historia to Henry archdeacon of Huntingdon, 1 havc no doubt that thesc manuscripts rcpresetlt the state of Henry" text at the point whcn he had conlpleted his account of events in 1138,33 But Liebermaxin, followed by Arnold, believed that there was afso an earlier 'edition' of 1135, although no surviving marzuscripts ends or ended at that year. The idea is based largely or1 the evidence of the colophon: 'Iocipit prolagus Historic Anglorur~~ contcxtc ab Henrico Huntendurrensi archidiacor~oanno gracie MCxxxv'. This appears in eight manuscripts: two ending in 5138 (CE, Ac), four in 1147 (BN fat. 6042 (B), Garnbridgc University Library Gg.ii.21 (Q), Iloucl-i BibliothZIque Mrmicipatc U.74 (R), LC"),one in II4R (Ex" and one in 1 153 (CUL Ii.ii.3 (Ii)). There seems to be supportix~gevidence for the idea of an kditianbaf 1135, in Robert of Torigrly" statement in his prologue to the section of his chronicle that begins in 1 100, that he had used the 'historia predicri Henrici archidiaconi yuam composuit de rcgibus Anglie indpiens earn a Xulio Cesare et tcxens ordinatin1 usque ad nlortem yredicti rcgis Mcnrici, id cst usque ad 1135".""But the excerpts from the Historia that are incorporated into the earliest surviving version of 'Torigny" sehronide clearly derive from a tcxt belonging to a group where H e w s narrative cxtcr~dsto 1247 (to be disnlssed below). If Torigny did use a manuscript of the Histovia that cndcd in 1135, we nlust suppose the existence not only o f an 1135 text nf the Hr'stclriu that has left no manuscript descendants, but also of a version of Torigny's chronicle that vvas sa rcviscd aftcr 1147 that it cannot now be traced in any surviving text, The latter possibility has heal suggested and persuasively argued by Dr 13~mvilXe,~~ and if the 1147 manuscript: was not the first text of Henry" work to come to Bec, we would have an explanation of why thc X3ec library contents-list, inserted in the 1147 manuscript, describes it as % ~ u i r edita ~ r ab Henrico Huncendunensl ar~hidiacono"~~ HOWfar does the textual evidence of the Historin support the idea of an 'edition' of 1135? As Liebcrmann, saw, the colophon is arz in~yortantclue, Having brought the history down to Kirrg Henry's dcath in 1135 to conclude book VIJ, the author may well havc considered that hc had reached a fitting point at which to have a copy made, arid therefore wrote the cdo$on. If this was also the paint where hc supplied tkc rubrics at the head of the books, it would tilllow that books VIII and EX, which have rubrics, wtfc already in existence, but that book X , which has no rub?&, vvas not. As Liebermam pointed out, book IX, 2E)e Miractllis Anglomm" contains referenees to the second bishop of Ely, who was appointed in 1133, and to Henry as the present king. This suggests that the book was fitzished betweerr 1133 and 1135, and thus would have fitted into a version of the Historiu ending in 1135. 111 that case, it would have been the find hook. Can we determine if this was so? Two pieces of evidence point in this direction. Firstiy, in XI1 $47, when mentioning the canons Ac axid C; also have vcrscs, see bclow n. 80. .l'orig~~i, 1, 07, and see 13. N , D u n ~ v ~ l l 'An e , early text uf GroErcy of Manmouth\ H~srovr~ Kt:ijrtm Hnrarzntae", .4rrlruurur2 L~remaire,ed. R. Barber, iv, 1985, 3-36, at 31-2. '"arly tcxt', 31-2. 3" My t t a l ~ c ~sce ; below n , 55, -"3

j4

of archbishsp Theodore" council of Hertford strh unno 673, Henry rcfers the reader to kultinro librorurnl This was thought by Liebermann, followed by Amald, to be a rekrcnce to a final hook of legal material projected but not completed by Henry. In fact, it is a reference to book IX, where Theadore's decp.eta are given in the section 'De sancto Theodora arc hie pis cop^"^^ Secondly, the book begins, in the texts that we now have, with a nonsensical statement: 'I have written this penultinlate (penultirntrm) book so that the worldly deeds of kings and nations should be brought to an end with the miraculous works of Cod'. This would make sense only if at an earlier stage bouk IX was the final book, so that when Henry added the post-1135 n~aterialin a new book, X, he amended ultimurn in book EX to penullimtrm and left the rest of the sentence as it stood. It seems reasonable to conclude, therefore, that in 1135, when Henry provided the colophon and the r u b ~ c s book , fX was the final book, At that stage a copy may weSl have been made. Book VIIf, however, cannot havc existed at that time in the farm in which it appears in the 1138 manuscripts, Two of the four items in the book, it is true, can be dated to 1135: t k epilogue that Henry had originally composed in 1130 (MIO)was revised in 1135 and bears that date in all sther known manuscripts except M and 0;" 2 n d the first version of the 'De Contemptu Mundi' can be quite securely dated, from its references to mcnibers of the episcopate, to the period betwem May 1133 and August 1135,39A third item in book VEIl, the letter to Henry I, mentions the king" smeeting with the pope at Chartres in 1131 and rnust have been drafted before the king" death in 1135. But itr the earliest surviving manuscripts this letter contains arefermcc to the emperor Conrad as having already reigned for almost two years: as he was crowned on 7 March 1138, this reference belongs to early 1140." So although the letter to Hmry I ntay well have formed part uf book VIII in a version af the Histovia dated 1135, it certainly received some revision in 1111.0. Thc fourth itenl, on the other hand, the letter to Warin the Breton, which is an integral part of book VIE1 in all tfie earliest texts (Egi, ci, Ac), cannot have belonged to an 1135 copy, for it was not written until after 1139, wkcn E-Ienry visited Btc and saw thcre for the first time Geoffrey of Mortmouth% work, upon which the letter is basede41This letter rnust have been added to book VIII in 1140 or later. As yet nu manuscript has tiebemann, Welnnch" 225; Huntlngdon, 201 and n.b. 3"ome manuscripts have interesting discrepancxes at the various points where Henry mentions dates. These suggest that thc ancestor of 21110, wxth the 1130epilogue, was actually written in 1163; that a revised version of this text, updated to 1135, was copied xn 1169 arid was the common ancestor af 6"Ac and Eg! The date 1169 in Eg" thcxefore, cannot be used to show that EgQt%lf was wrttten in "169, as in British Lihrary Catalo~t-teofAddirions to the ,%gSS,1946-50, i, Landun 1979, 352-3 and A. C , Watson, fktal~~gae o j Dared artd Datable e3;t4SS, c. "100-1600, in the Britisfz Lihv~qy, 2 vols, toridorr $979, r, 118, 810.626, itlustrated ii, pl. 92. 39 f3asti GtIesiae Artglirunar 1066-130U, ed. D, E. Greenway, ~il, Institute of Historical Research, London 1977, 153-4, 40 Noticed by Licbermar~n,"Heinrich', 223; cf, Hurtnngdon, xx. 4 1 Tarigni, I , 97-8. Meif Wrxght, who is at work on the Histovia Regurn Britunn~ae(see 111s The Historia Rqqr-rm Brrtanniae af Ce@fr~yclfiMilnmnuth, i,D. S. Brewer, Cambridge 2984). has rnade a study of the letter to Wann and i t s evidence in the text-hlisrory of tfie HRB, rs he pubtrshed in a volume in memory of Ruth Morgan, edited by D. N.l>urnville, See also E. Faral, La Ikgerade artlturienne, 3 vols, Bibliuth2que de l'kole des hautes etudcs 255-7, Paris 1929, u, 18-23, and f . S, P. Tatlock, 7'kr. Leget~daryHismry $Britain, Berkeley arid Los Angelcs 1950, 433+ and cf. A. Saltman, Thrrthold, Arcizbishnp of Cariteuhcrry, London 1%6, 14-15. 37

Ilr.nuy

of^ Ilu~titl~gdart and the hWantrscriptsof

his Historia Anglomm

1.11

been discovered that preserves book VIII in a version containing three, rather than four items, but there is no theoretical objection to such a text having existed and some evidence favours the idea. This would have been the text of the Historia used by Torigny it1 the lost draft of his crbronide, It may also have been - rather than either of the two 2 129 versions - the text used by Geoffrey of Monrnouth in his Historia Regum Britanniae, composed before f anuary 1 1 3 h n d probably after L3ecember 1 135,42 The manuscripts that conclude the historical narrative at 1138, in the new book, X, derive from an ancestor that cannot have been copied from the author" original before 1140. That is clear from the letters to Henry I and to Warin. Xt is canfirmcd by other pieces of textual evidarce. Henry used Geoffrey of Monmouth" Historia Regum Bri~nrziaenot only for his letter to Warin, but also to nlake several minor an~endrnentsin the chronological history and these first appear in the nlanuscripts that end in 1138.43Even more tclXing than Henry" use of Geoffrey oFMonrnouth is the final sentence of his account of the second year of Stephen" rreign, 1137, This refers not only to the third year, 'of which we shag spcak"(as indeed he does in the 1138 version, mding 'effectus est", but also to the 'last two years7duo vero tlltimi), that is, 2139 and llM.a The narratives of these two years do not, of course, appilar in the 1138 manuscripts. It is worth looking more closely at this smtencc, Henry says that the first two pears of Stephen's reigr~(1136 and 1137) were "very propitious' @vilsyervimi),that the third (1138) was 'middling and things were beginning to fall apart"(mdiocris PI intercisus), arld that the last two years (1139 and 3 240) were "pernicious, with everything tom to pieces' ((exitiafeset prempti), This recalls his comment in the obituary of Henry I that begins book X : by comparison with the crazy treacheries that EoHowed under Stephen, Henry's tyranny seemed in retrospect to have been excellent government. Such a comment could hardXy have becn wfittcn before 1338, and is much more likely to have been written after 1139, for in Henry's view it was the arrest of the bishops that was the turning-paint of the reign, the act by which Stephen condenmed hinlself and his house to ruin. For our understanding of the textual history of the Historis Anglumm, there are two points of importance here. First, because of the way the author worked, adding small revisions at diRerent times, the text contains many chronological discrepancies, Second, I think it is sufficiently established from our examination so far that we are deaf ing not with a series of 'editions3itr a modem sense, but with a steadily growing arld changing text, which we can plat a d y incornpletcly through manuscripts that reproduce it at particular points in its development. For C;eofficy\ susc o f Henry's text, sec Tatlock, 10,34,35,67, 122, I48,2tlX,3018,%4,39&-5, and V. I. J. Fllnr, 'The Hisrurra Kqqum Bntanntne of Geoffrey of Monmouth: parody and its purpose. A st~ggest~on', Spt~iuEurnIiv, 1979, 44748, esp. 452-7. For a recent discuss~ono f the date of Ceofiicy's work, see I)umvillie, 'Early text', esp. at 21. 43 The statenlcrtt about the archbishopric of Cacrlcon is perhaps thc best known, see 6, N . L. Brooke, ' I h c archbishops of St David's, tlandaffarzd Gaertcon on Usk', in Stt~dirsin rite Early Britislr CJltidrrh, ed. N. K. Chadwick, Cambridge $9558,231 n. 2. Cf. also Haverficld, 334, and Taduck, 31, 49, 69 and n. aQ E-Iunttt~gdon,260. A 16th-century marginaI note in 13t Harley 3679 f 12% states that Hcnlry's chronicle went down to 1141, see E, M, 6 , van )-louts, C ~ s r a.~~~~mmtrnorctrm Drrirrm, C;roningm 1982, 0 1%. and 247. 42

The next group of manuscripts to consider is nladc up of nine that end or ended in 1147. These arc all descertded from the manuscript that went to Bec. This is thc text of which large excerpts appear in Robert of Torigny" chronicle. The Ijec mmuscript, which does not survive, was clasefy allied to Egf" for its descendants share many readings with Eg1Iaagainst all other manuscripts. It was pmbat-rly taken from Egll's aancestor, a version of the chronicle taking the cbronolcrgical story to 1147, King Stephen's crown-wearing at Lincoln ('reformidantis herit", For this vcrsioil, the text of the fetter 'Dc Gontemptu M u n d i b a s revised iri 11 6 or early 1147 (before May).45Thc revisions to thc TX)e Gontemptu Mundi" corlsiscing largely af the nallles of the mclre recent members of thc episcopate and of the Lincoln cathedral chapter - are placed in the margin of Egf by anc of the hands of Eg1I, but are integral in tflc tcxt of the seven manuscripts that derive from the Bec manuscript, as well as in G , which is descended from Egll",part from the up-dating of the '12c Cuntemptu Mundi" and of: the chronological account to 1147, no major textual changes took place between the 1238 and 1147 versions. Hcnry did not update the cpiloguc in this or any later version, There are, however, several minor revisions arid stylistic irnproventcnts that we can only attribute to the author himself: thcsc rzzay he traced in the corrections and erasures which a hand of Eglhrnade in the text of Egxfurd 172 f 2 5 , see Gransder~,i , 182 and n., A X X ~gl. V, and far hir rcv~sionsgenerally, see ihid., 180-2, O n autrrgraph histories, see also R. Vaughan, 'The handwriting of Matthew Paris', Traras, Cambribe Bibligcvaplticaf Soc. i, 1953, 3'76~94; V. J, Lucas, 'John Capgrave OSA (1393-144), scribc and ""pblisher" ",id. v, 1969, 1-35; D, Corner, T h c earIicsr survivrng manuscripts of Roger of Mowden" CC:hronica" EHR xcvm, 1983, 37-"1lk M. Brctt, 'John of Worcester and hls contemporaries', In The Writirx clfNistov in the Midde .4*qa:Essays presentrd to R. W. Sucttfirrr.1, cd. R. H. 6, I>avrs and J, M. Wallace-Hadrill, C3xford 1981, 101-26, at 105, s2 f1ttntlngJon, 250; see also bclsw, and n, 62. k c above t l , 32. 54 Prli~tcd EI. C)mont, in C=arirlugue g6nizCval des mantrscrits des hrbEintlr2qucs publigires dc France, Di;parterttetats, 11, Ro~etz,P a r ~ s1888, 393, no. 132 ('historia Henria de g m t c Andorurn libri X'). Thc catalogue rs dated by C;, N a r t ~ e r ,Les biblioth2quc.r mkdKvafes des ahbuyes binkdictines dr & r o ~ ~ a r r d i ~ , Paris 19'71, $3, and iflustrared in the place between pp. 8 and 9. 49

"

"

"

Another type of revision is where a scholar at Bec, pmbably Torigny, sought to amend a corruptian, and in so doing, introduced another, Under the year 1139 the Wenrician text told haw king Stephen besieged ('obsedit" Ludlow, and left the business unfinished (5irngerfecta" tto ga to Oxford, where he arrested the bishops. Now the common ancestor of E~~~(which was also followed by G) and the Bec manuscripts read kccpit' for 'obsedit', probably because the scribe's eye strayed to 'cepitb couple of lines above in the account of the taking a f Leeds castle, but the correct reading 'imperfecta\ernained. At Bec this contradiction was resolved, and "perfectabw supplied for 'impert'ecta', thus hanging the history of an event in Stephen" reign and thence finding its way into Robert of Tongnyk ~ h r o n i c l e . ~ Vmay e note also that in his own ehronide he interpolated some phrases in Henry's letter to Warin, including a description of himself as 'a most assiduous investigator and collector a f books, both divine and The precise relationships within what we may call the Norman group, descending &om the lost Brc tcxt, cannot be defined at this early stage of my work, but some preliminary observations may be made. The manuscripts present a fairly uniform tcxt, with few variants within the group. Those variants that exist arc frequently also points of early correction, erasure or insertion, and the distribution of uncorrected variants suggests horizontal transmission from at least three sources, It looks as though there was a centre of production, presumably Bec itself, where texts of thh~istoriawere copied and collated. The volume used by Torigny himself may not have been one of the two Hurltingdon books fisted in the Bec library catalogue and may not have k e n one of the texts usually available fer copying and mltection. Further work is needed on the Historia text in Torigny, but it is interesting that at the end of the 1147 excerpt we have "formidantis fuerit" rather than 'reformidantis fuerit', which is th; reading of all the Huntingdon manuscripts Lannorrtm, Giittingen 1959, no. 10'706. The quotation, under a heading 'De quo WaIo ueraftcator ait" is complete in ten lines only in the MSS of the Norman group (including A and W, for wh~ch see below n. 67) and in W/C>, where lines 7 and 8 are given in a variant version, evidently bang cornptclted from another source, presun~ablyby a scholarly reader. E%as the heading, fotIowed by a blartk of 4% fines, and U omits both beading and verse. Ail the other M S S have the head~rtgand then a garbled Form of the first two lines, followed by a blank space. The garbling may represent the author's ~naccuratelyrernelnbered version, with the space left fi>r his later campletzon af the quotation. The correct version of the twa l~ncs1s: SIC

Mars ablt in terns, Jeflent par udcra sidus, Mtln~inapar numen, parque decora decus. Thc garbled version reads:

Mars obit in terns dcfler~tpar nurnlna numen. Hult~t~r~gdor~, 265; cf, the readings of £3, f;g, R, Lcl and Torigni, 1, 214. The Tenland cornpilatron" used by 'Patter of Goventry"for which see below p, 120), follaws the readings o f EgH and G here, The scribe of LC", collating kc1 with hls 1148 exemplar, corrected k q i t ' to 'oobsed~t" but Fziled to rmticcl the "erfecta' also neded correction; 'oobsedithal.~d'pedecta' arc the readlrlgs also of A and W and are preferred by Forester, 370 and rr, 3. 64 'Viruin tam divitlomm quan~ sealanun1 hbromm inquis~toremec macematorem stndiosas~murn', sw Farat, ii, 18-1 9 n, and Cjtronicles, ed. Wowlett, IV, 65-41.L3eliste, Torigni, i,97-8, does not rnark the tnterpolatzons; rf. iz, p, us, where he seems to assutr~ethat the comment was Henry's, Tongny's tnterpuIat~orlsare not found i11 any nlcdieval M S S of the Hi,tanu, but same appear in Vb and probably therefore In Uc and tte (nut seen), cf. below,

b3

116

Anglo-Noman Studies IX

so far examined, except two of the 1148 'spiracufi' group.6J 7"tze volume that belonged to Jumikges, K, has a continuation from 1147 to 1160, consisting of extracts from Torigny's chronicle for 1147-57 and from the local Bec continuation for 115740:6" this tradition is represented also in the sixtecnthcctntury texts, Bc, Re and Vb, although the last (and probably also the other two, not yet fully examined), unlike R or any other known manuscript, contains some of Torigny" interpolations in the letter to Warin, By far the largest group of manuscripts - eighteen - takes the chronulogical history down to 1148, the enthronement of Robert de Chesney as bishop of Lincoln ("ocunditate spirituali'). Henry may havc brought the Historia up to date in carder to present it to his old colleague, the archdeacon of Leicester, now promuted to the bishopric. If so, he did not make rnuch attempt to revise the t a t , for not only did he leave the original prologue, addressed to bishop Alexander, but he also failed to update the colophon. When we frast looked at the colophon, in connection with the 1138 manuscripts, it told us that Henry had compiled his history in 2135, All but three of the If48 manuscripts that have a cdclphocl give the date '1145'.67 'This also appears in one 1147 manuscript, Egff,'8 Liebermann, folfowed by Arnold, accepted 3 145 as representing an authentic colophon, and included bath the 1147 and the 1148 manuscripts in an 'eeditionbf 1145.69But no manuscript ends in 1145, contrary to Liebermann" bbeef, and there are no textual pointers, such as there were in the case of thc 1235 colophon, to suggest that the author himself was responsibte for the date. Further, the awearance of 3 1135' in the best rnanuscript that represents Henry's complete and revised version, ending in 1154 (fi),70suggests to me that the author himself never revised the colophon. A scribal emendation is a rnuch more likely explanation of- the 1145 dare. A copyist faced with a chronicle chat extended beyond 2235 as far as the 1140s, sought to anlend the colophon '1235'* and as Henry" text docs not give the years of grace, but uses regnal years and the device of bnno sequente" the scribe opted for kxlv' to anlend ~ x x ~ v " . ~ ' If I am correct about the scribal origin o f 31145; that date must have been given in the colophon of an ancestor of Egll, an 1347 text, and from that ancestor must have passed into the 1 248 family, It would seem to follow &at the 1148 manuscripts having the 1135 colophon derive ultimately from a 1 137 text continued to 1148, But such simple deductions are invalid in the world of 'horizontal transmission'. Thc va&nt readings of the 1148 manuscripts, which Z have analysed only in small san~ples,are bewifderhgly complex, and Ha (from Saint-Jlenls) and (:a, dlrcussed below p. 2 17-19. C ~ I continuation, S see Torlgtli, li, 137-46, 16-5-80 and Z3umv1Ile, 'Early text', 31-3. " LC< ffallowrng the lJec tradrtion, has '1 235', hut bhbr . . . MC:xlvhapycars in Its nlaagzn (LC"). A and W, sxsccr MSS descended from a contlnucd text sl~rl~lar to LC, glve "13 Stephen', sce bclow n. 72. "X 6 , whose text fc3lIows kg". has nerther rribr~csnor colophon. 6*" Lrebcrmat~n,TIlrrnnct~',227; f luntmgdon, XIV. 70 Rb, the other MS taken from t lunt~ngdon'srevlscd text, was concamlnatcd with readings from an 1 148 verllon and has 'I 145'. In the conlmon exirnlplar of the rtseer manuscl-ipts A and W, an ~neell~gent librartal or scribe, canfror~tedw t h the ~ f n p ~ s s i b'Il e1.35' colophon, snbtitutcd from the last sectron off-lenry's own text 313 Sccphcn'.

h5

6"

C h

Henuy of kfutltittgdorr arid the iManusc~iptsct;f his Historia Anglorum

1 17

suggest that scribes were actively collating different texts of the Hisaria, A close study rrf the corrections and marginalia in t c may well provide some answers to the textual problcms in this group,72But it is already clear that while some rcadings of the group correspond with the text of the 1147 version, therc is no possibility that the 1147 version was simply the product of an 1148 manuscript that had lost its final leaf. The relative frequency with which the 1148 readings concur with those of the 1138 and 1154 manuscripts, against those of 1147, make this quite clear. The point to be emphasized here is that xtane of the 1148 texts can be said with confidence to be descended from a homogeneous text. of the Histovia as it stood whal Henry of Fftlntingdon had completed the entry h r the thirteenth year of Steyhm's reign, Some general charactenstics of the 1148 manuscripts anray be outlined, These texts fall into thrce main groups. First, there are three manuscripts, which =present continuations to 1148 of 1147 tcxts of the Norman group: tfiese arc Lcrl, A and W. Sccond, there are five manuscripts - BL Add. 54184 (Ad), Oxford Bodleian Library Laud Misc. 564 (Ld), Smrlyhurst College 26 (S), Cambridge Sidney Susscx CoIlegi3 70 (Ss) and UL Catton Vcsp. A-sviii (ti), all unfortunately deficient or damaged in some way, that have numerous minor variants in c o r n o n to diEerenttate their text frot.11 the readings of the first group. Both groups, however, cor~tainthe WiStc)rr'a in its farzlifiar shape, consisting of ten books, with book VIX ending in 1135, followed by thc 'De Summitatibus' a d 'De Miraculishs hooks VIIX and IX, concluding with book X brought down to 1 148. The third group of l I48 texts consists of ten manuscripts (HN lat, 10185 (Baj, CUL Add. 3,392 (Ga), London Grays Inn 9 (Ca), BL Harley 6.1 (Ha), Canlhridgc St John's College C . I6 Cf), Lamheth 118 (La) Larrtbeth 179 (Lb), BL Royal 13. A.xviii (Wd), Can~bridgeTrinity College R.5.42 (T), Vatican Keg. lat. 587 (Va)), of which two (Ca and Rd) are abridgements. They sham the 1145 colophon and many rcadings with the second gmup, but depart from that group at several significant points. They have a good many errors, including the strange corruption 'spiramli7or 'spiritualiht the end of the chronological history.73 Thcy also present tbc Historia in a re-arranged and amplified Form. The narrative books are placed in a sequence I-VXIX, so that book X becomes book VIIX, followed by the %l>cSummitacibushand thc "31: Miraculis" now re-numbered IX and X . At the beginniog of the first two books there are lists of chapter-headings ('capitula'), which are not found in any other of our manuscripts and are stated specifically to be 'not made by Hctlry"("capitttla scd non ab Henrico facta'). Imroducing the letters to Henry I and Warin are incigits drawn from the 3n hoc uolunlinc? cconttmtslist found in the 1147 manuscripts of the Norman gruup. An editorial band has been at work also within the text, making small interpolations, such as adding the year of gracc to thc rcgnal ycars and 'sequcnto anno' of Henry's

'' Other MSS which have obvious phys~caisrgrls of collatrort arc Ua, f, S and Ss. Ha 1s orrty a fragrnenr; Lb and C a were takcrl from a shgf.~rfy cftfcctivc MS, lacking the wl~oleof the "Ilc M~rdcults* and ail but the epllogur of-the "flc Surl~nnitat~bus', Ga and IZd corlsist of box>b;% 1 arld V, part. uf VI, and abbrcvtatrons of HI, IV, V5I and VIII (m the re-arranged order), with the T r ~ ~ ~ a r fAlthough f~~b. they ertd 'uenrrat ex Angtia', omlttlrrg the parsagc about Robert J c Cl~csncy's promotlots to L~ncoln,it is qirrte clear that thclr source was a text of the %sptracuIl"farstrly. a3

original composition, and inserting a note about the eclipse in 1133. Anotkr feature which the manuscripts of this group have in common is the appearance, after the end of the Historia Anglorum, o f a triple text consisting of the Ten Articles of William the Conqueror, the laws of Edward the Confessor and a genealogy of the dukes of Normandy. This tcxt, the Tripartita, which also circulated independently of the Huntingdon manuscripts, came under the scrutiny of Liebermann, who showed that all three components were composed in the time of Henry X, with some revision towards the end of Stephen's reign, and that the laws of the Cot~fessorwere rubricated in the form f e u d in the Huntingdon manuscripts afier 1 162.74 The corrupt and interpolated version of the Historia to 1148 was subject to yet more amplification. Four of the "spiraculi' manuscripts, of which the earliest has been dated c, lt'S0,75 contain two further additions, In book VI, within thc narrative account of the reign of Cnut, there appears the text of the Institufa Canuti. Like the Tripartita this text also circulated independently. Liebermann argued that it was composed in Henry 1's reign, c. 1110, perhaps by an archdeacon, or a clerk of a church court, resident in the Dane1awe7& The lnstitlrrn may have been of interest to the archdeacon of Huntingdon and a copy may have had a place among his papers, but it is unlikely that Henry himself added it to his Historia, for it is not 'keyed' into Henry's existing text, but is inserted quite baldly just before Henry's notice o f Cnutk The second addition in these four manuscripts consists of two Fxnal books, numhcred XI and XII, consisting of poems, 'ecpigfammata" These are undoubtedly a~thentic,~'and arc usually regarded as forming two of the otherwise lost eight books of poems listed by Leland among Henry's ~orlrs.~V is tquite possible that during his lifctime Henry kept poems close to his historical writings. Five s f the verses that are found in book XI in the 'spiraculi' manuscripts appear also in a manuscript of the second 1148 group, S." T o a text which included b t h Instittt~a and poems, there was added, Lliehermdn~~ prl11ted hts conc~u~1011;s about. the text 111 several different places, surn~nslrizedbriefly tn Zerrscku$_fiir RZiuntlinlschr Iphilolo,qiax ~ x ,1895,;";"-W; also cherdic te2c.s i t ~ ? ~ l n t ~ dFlfalle m , 1894; fiber die L q e s l~dz~rlrrdl CZtnLfessuris, f-4afle18%; Q~ladrrpavtifus,Halle 1892, Die Crs~przrder AttGgelstzhsc.n,3 vols, Xltallc 1903, prrnes the laws of thc Cot~fessur,i , 622-72, and the Ten Articles, I, 4 W ; the gencalog y 1s prirlted m te,qr*s Edujaudi, 134-9, '$ La 1s dated ttlus by Eians Eberhard Mayer, Ilas Itlrrrranrr~tzIlerqqritlondrt~*24t)ert~'founc. also in book VII (Wrzght, li, 168; IIunt~ngdon,244). The ruhr~csto thcsc hooks are s l n ~ p l yXibbcr undec~n.rus9 and "her ducrdeclmus'. ?P John Leland, Ctttrrrrrrntarrr dr Scvtpforihrrr Rrrtannrcu, cd. A~ttf~cln y Hall, (fix ford E 709,i, 1 97, 'The verscs in S cornprise 92 frnts, lacking the first 2-54 and tact 8 11nesof hook XX. Some pocnls and the Ripautrtu appear in a torzglcat IMS, fur w h ~ c hsec HMC, 3rd Rlvport, London 1872, 18%An clthcrwlse unknown pocnt, perhaps (as suggested by L,~cfnt.rmar~n, "I-leinriclr" 2770) part of thc lost collcrct~on' I k Hcrbls\nentloncd by Leland (see prcvxous note}, IS copied after ehc last words o f the 113%vcrsion, kffectns cst', in Ac artd C;. This conslstc of 35 Irnes, bcgmning 'Summa b o n ~cst ~lacres horntnt car-ttingere uisus' and ending I'allcnt~s matldcr~sulsus exalat $11 I ~ S O S ' .

Henry of t;lt.~nlr'n'qdclnau2d the Mant.rscripfsof his Historia Anglorum

1 29

around 1200, the ftinerarium Rregrit~ovt~rn,describing events in the third crusade, The basic text of the kspiraculi' manuscripts, which, as we have seen, was both amplified and abridged by unknown editors, was used also by the compiler of thc Histovia post ohittrrn Bedde (HI'B) to fill the gaps in his chronicle from '752 to 860 and from 1121 to 1 148.82 This anonymous historian made some adaptations to the Huntingdon text - stylistic variations, omissions, interpolations, changes of word-order, nlisreadings etc. He also, like the compiler of the abridgements foulld in Ga and Rd, omitted the final passage concerning Robert dc Chcsney, and ended the chronicle at 'uenerat ex Ailglia'.8"ut there can be no doubt that it was from a manuscript of the 'sspiraculi" type that he was working. It is likely that the compiler worked in Durhan~and he had ccrlainly completed his work befsrc- 1177, by which time Roger of Howden had consulted a copy, which he quoted in his G p s t ~ . ~ ~ Howden took all his Huntingdon material both for the Gvstd and the Ckrotzica from the HIBB and not directly from the Historia Antqlovllm, Many of his readings arc shared only with thc NPB text, hut hc also made changes, adding snippets o f historical inhrmatian, amending the text where there were i a c ~ ~ and a e corrnplions and making stylistic improvement~.~Wowden's Clzmnica also induded thc Tripavtita* but probably in a venion independent o f that which accomparlies Henry of Huntingdon's I-listctrin in the 'spiraaculi' manuscripts. Xd The final versior~ of Elenryk work continkles the history to 1154, the coronation of Henry If, and ends with a poetical panegyric ("ntrante reuixi') and the statement that to the new king a new honk will he given ( 3 o o d d u s cst". Henry certainly survived at least until 1156, possibly later, although hc was dead by c. l16S,87 If he did composc more of his history, it did not survive. Even thc 1154 text did not have a wide reception. It is found in only two manuscripts (Xi and BL Royal 13,B.vi (Rb)) chat arc derived from

" This appears In Ua, a MS very closely related to La, and wr~ttcnt30t

rtlilch later, c. i31)0, and 111 esp. 20-3-13. A2 See H. S. Offler, Wexharn and tire Htsfnrrer Rt~uttz', 'l-rttns. Arhit, arrd A~ihneol Suc, t~fDudznrr~ attrf ~Vorrltnmhrrlnnd,rr. s. 11, 1970, 52-62, at 54. Junti~lgdon,2131. Anlold 1s wrong tc3 stdte char Lc ends hcre, rbrd., xarxv~rt11. 4 2nd 481 1 t , I 1 , 2nd aIso to suggest, p. x ~ v that , more MSS close here, R4 CIfRcr argues that the klPB was compiled soon dticr 1148, on chc basts crtfrhe rekrence, s . a . IWi, t o BerreJict 'the present abbar of Whitby', who w ~ acic s ofafk3ce by 114%;bur this refererice docs Blot appear Irr the Mi~ntir~gdon macer~al,and therefore carlnot be c.r\ed to date tts sicorporatloli. Ilavtd Corttcr, rrr IiHK xcvin, 129 n. 21 (2% cltcd abovc n. St), expresses strrtnc doubt about OfRcr's reasoning, but tn a prlvatc comrt-runlcation tclls me that f . 1 cons~ders ~ the absenct*of matcrlal after 1148 to be a slgnlftcartt pointer to a datc of cornprlat~onnot much fatcr. For rfre datc of Muwden's first use of the !IPS, scc 13, Corner, 'The C;~"ffdRqgls H ~ I I ~Sectltidi I C ~ and C,")rv(?nicaof Lioger, parson of kfowder-r" BZHR Ivl, 1983, 126-44, at 12%-341, ns E.g. addtng nlorc years of grace and more tnfarmation about thc ectlpsc of 1133, w r y stnlttar changes to those rnadc by an e d ~ t o rof the 1148 version of the Ilistonn, cf. abovc p, 117-18. For EIowdet~,\ec 1 ) . Corner, as c ~ t e dabove nn. 51 and 84, Howdei~\varkcd on 111s Chronirc~from 1191 or 1193 utttll JUSL before his death 111 1201 or 2202. K6 Mr C:or~~er, in an unprrhltshcd work which kc has very klndly allowed rrrc to rcad, suggests that Ltebermdnn erred rn assigning Elowden" text to the I-luntlngdux~f'a~nlly,and considers that, it is rr~ucbrncjrc Illcefy, on several grounds, that X-Iowdcrt" svcrslon came to him firm an mdependcr~t source, perhaps dtrcctly from the royal court, " Ir70s11,111, 97. two 16th-century coplcs jf3d arrd Ah), see Mayer,

Itirleuirritrrrl,

Henry's own complete and rcviscd archetype. A third manuscript is a good quality continuation of one crf the 1138 texts (GGi).A fourth is a continuation of an 1148 text (Exi1). A fifth, which sadly lacks three gatherings, is probably a descendant of a continuation of an 1148 tcxt (NLS Advocates' 33.5.2 (Ea)). A long section of the chronological history, mnning from 1132 to 1154, appears in several manuscripts as a continuation of J o h of Worcester's chronicle. The earliest of these manuscripts is Cambridge Corpus Christi College 92, written in the late twclfih century, after 1174, and belonging by the mid-thirteenth century to P e t e r b o r o ~ g h .This ~ ~ text ends at Henry 11's coronation ('splendidissirne c o l l o c a t ~ s ' ) ,omitting ~ the final heroic verses. These poetic lines arc present, however. in BL Add. 35168 (Af), an early thirteentk-century manuscript h m Crowland, which has further mterial from 1155 to 12(11 taken from other sources, cfliefly Howden" =,-.

c

.s

a.

" -

5'-? -

2 g

0

Ci

MA-

IC1

J

ij -- fx gz . *

58 2:

-&=5 A

+*r.." - E 'u" 9 J- ' r

$ z

2-

$

a

i

l

-

z'".:5 L2 ; ~2 ~ , j E "q C- '

L z gz

The revised passage in Henry of Huntingdon? obituary of Henry I (cf. Wuntingdon, 255-1.;) First text (1) from BL Egertan MS 3 h a ; revised text (2) from CUL MS Ii.ii.3 and I U t Royal MS 13.fil.vi Alii autenl diuerso studio

tribus illurn uiciis inficiebant, Cupiditate quibus erat rncns hurnifi tesisse ucncns summa

qua ut omnes parentes sui paupcres opulentus cupiditate repleturn asserebant qua populurn cxactianibus inhians dciatoriis harnis irstercipicbat.

fed hcc affirmantes

1. qua consulem de Narctoil cogxlatum suurn in captione positunl cxoculauit, 2, non attendebant quod licet surnnic probitatis esset urzde tirnon omnibus

1 , Nec sciri facinus cans horrendurn potuit usque quo rnors secreta rcgis 2, circumhabitantibus mar, tamen ips2 thesauri nlaxinli copla tirnorern ipsius 1, aperuit. Ncc minus et alia proponebant cxempla que tacemus, Luxuria 2, non mediocrirer hostibus augebat, Tcrrasque suas rnari intercalatas sunlrna 1. yuoque yuia rnutienxm Jitioni rcgis more Salamor~iscontir~ues~~biacebar. 2, pace et feficitate regcbat et quoehabitacuia inerant tot incrant castella.

1. Talia uuigus libcrum diuersificabat, 2. Sic diuersi diucrsa sentiebant.

Successu uero texnporls . .

,

SDAY INQUEST "0 nGlSTEIR OF TlX%E': AND LAND ADJUDICATION

Paul Hyarns RECENT scholars have made little of Domesday Book's pprimary function in the first generation of its life, as a record of facts about land-holding and custom. The subject was conspicuous by its a'bsalce from the early plans for the 1986 anniversary celebrations. The idea behind this paper was therefore to canvas in public the Domesday inquest" rather negleacd a4udiative functions in order to assess their place in the developmat of English Law, aspects of Domesday that have undeniably received less than their fair share of recent a t t e n t i ~ n 1. ~set out, in a year when the Domesday desert swamzed with more experts than anthropologists at a Hapi rain ceremony, to reassemble some ancient propositions in the fresh context of recent work on the early Norman period (a good deal of it first presented in earlier volumes of these Studies), This was in the first instance much-needed selfeducation, for the book f am writing on Law and Society in LWedicval E~glandcould not avoid sorrle memion of Domesday. But there is always something to be gained by approaching old questions from a less trodden direction, and the arguments that emerge merit a hearing. Dorncsday's importance for legal histoq has h e n beyond argument slncc the great Maitland himself listcd among the Domesday commissioners' 'minor purposes' the unearthlrlg nf barorlid invasions of the royal demesne and the appeasement, if necessary with royal help, o f land disputes. )1@ also declared that from I3omesday Book k i t h some small h d p from' the obvious XegaX sources, Leges and the like, kome future historian may be able to reconstruct the land-law which obtained in the conquered England of 1086, and . . . the unconquered England of l065'. In thc event, the authar of Domesday Book and Beyond thereafter used Domesday scrangcly little. And legal history which Maidand ignored was seldom taken up by others in the scholarly generations that foliowed, Most subsequent scholars were content to accept Round's word that Domesday was a geld book and, in Maitland's own words, 'no register of title'.' Yet no-one interested in the Law can afford to surrcrider Domesday. Xt gives Anglo-Norman legal custom a context unnlatched elsewkrerc in Europe, There arc many tantalysing references to ct-;lmeand forfeiture, dower, dowry and other items claimed For the legal domain. its many texts on soke and I). Bates, A l2orntrs.fday Bibliography, Bury 1986. F, W. Maitlznd, I2omesa'uy Book and Beyc~nd,London 1897; reprod London and Glasgaw lcM, 2.5-5, 2"1$ 32; cf, Sir F, Potlock and F. W. Maitland, Tkt. ffismu)l of Etzglish Law, 2nd ed., Camhndgc 1898; retssued 1968, i, 82, 576. Scc

128

Aulglo-Norman Studies l X

commendation, when properly understood, will furnish central p l d s for understanding Law's developing social role. And then therc is, as Maitland said, that land Law which most legaX historians place at the centre of t.hcir world. Dornesday Book and its satctlites record or refrtr to more land disputes than ail other sources for the century after 1M6 put together. This paper's point of fonts will be the attempt to make sense of their number and character. Anything as large and bothersome as the Domesday Survey must have been designed with an eye to profit. I shall believe, pending receipt of grong evidence to the contrary, that the point was to assess and increase royal rcrsourccs, no doubt by rebrms widening the fiscal base. William obviously set out to assess royal resources of all kinds and take more where he could; one can still sense the geld-book even within Exchequer Dornesday."he old king" death pes'naps stoppcd reform. Certainly, it ought to r e h e the f'acile counter-argument from silcncc, that because no geld reform resulted from Domesday none can have been intended." Whatever kind of profit William and his men envisaged, gdd and its collection must belong somewhere in the picture. A recent article about the levies of Ethelred and Gnut, arguing Eor a link between taxation and landholding, suggests a pattern fsr other parts of the Domesday p i ~ m r eThe ,~ argument, if valid, highlights the importance of a clarification of land tenure even fox a government exclusively interested to boast royal revenues, It is well known that the basic penalty for geld default was forteiture of the land subject to the obligation. This is characteristic of many land taxes. Cnut's second Law-code documents an alternative procedure, perhaps newly introduced in 103X. I1 Clz., 79 enacts that to ensure undisputed possession in the shire court, a tenant must- be able to show he has discharged the public b u r d a ~ son his land. Tlie legislator certainly had geld in n~ind,thot~ghnot to the cxcXusi~n of other royal dues. (The late 01d English State used a variety of methods to raise money for wartime tribute or royal needs in time of peace,) This implies the coroX1ary that title to disputed land would be allotted to the person who did discharge the obligations, or even perhaps that perfarmance itself established some kind of title to land. Pressure of heavy royal levies undoubtedly forced land transfers in ways that must frequently have provoked violent dissdsin to trouble the courts. T o put the matter at its lowest, II Cur., 79 highlights the close link between royal resources and public judgements un land title, and raises a strong circumstantial case for a connection between grld and land tideV6 This is, of course, fairly speculative. We cannot be sure how far Gnut enbreed his law or, ifhe did so, whether it was remen~beredaftcr his death. But whether or not the corollaries affecting land title ever formed part of legal practice, a precedent certainly existed for thc Normans to use if they would. If: it was possible to revive the geld itsetf, fifteen years after its alleged abolition, V. H. Galbraith, Domesday Book, C3xfard 1974, 172; S. P. j. Harvey, 'Taxation and the Plaugbland in I3omcsclay Book" in 1" Sawyer (cd.), Domesclsy Book: a Reassess~serzt,London 1985, 92,103, etc. Cf. F. Barlow, William Ktrjirs, London 1983, 243-5. This would probably not have surprised that aIder generatton brought up on the Geld-Book view. They showed considerably rrlore interest m Domesday as jaw than most recent schohrs have perlitted thernseIves, Some exceptions appear below. K. Lawson, 'The Collectio~lof IJanegeld and Heregeld in the relgns of Actheired I1 and Cnut*, EHh! xcix, 1984, 722-38, csp. 72-3-6.

N o

Register of Etle? The Domesday

Jtlquost and

Land A(il-rdimtion

129

then the English who collected it for William might also have been able to recall associated rules, especial1y ones of such potential profit for themselves and thcir French mastersW7 O n the other hand, the suggestive fact that both Dornesday instances of forfeiture for tax default concern Norman sheriffs confirms that they (and other collectors) were the best positioned to profit &om tax diflfimlties. Theirs was the first opportunity of fraudulently representiitlg a landholder as in default or making a legitimate purchase at a depressed p n ~ e This . ~ extends the link between taxatiori and land title into the post-Conquest period, The belief that royal profit was a dominant motive bekind the Dornesday survey is thus no bar to suspecting a role Eor questions of landholdkg. ?"be Conquest produced a shifi in land ownership, whose speed and character require comment. Professor Holt rcvcalcd in a recent volume of these Snrdies how much easier it was for William to remodel the basis on which he expected military assistance from his men (the Servitium Debitum) than to stabilis; thosc landed estates from which that assistance was expected to comeVgThe estates that bore those military quotas, so decisively imposed in those first crucial years after 1066, were hardly the grcat baronies on whom the burden rested in the Cartae Baronum. In between lay a sporadic process of 'forfeiture, accumulation and reconstitution' lasting for much of the interming c e ~ u r y Etolt . ccluld sec no ktcnurial point of balance\clrlergirlg much before the start of the ~ e l f t h century.'" (f)omesday's own testimony to the harsh realities of this process has just heen illurninated for us by Robin Fleming" fine paper.'" Everyorze prescrlf at the Christnlas holiday discussions in 1085 bad direct experience of what this meant, The ambitious had not waited patiently for royal largesse, dependent on the accidents of revolt and forfeiture. They had seized the means to hand: purchase, quasi-legitimate acquisition under colour of marriage or betrothal, subtle fraud or downright disscisin,12 Where we can illustrate this process, Domesday evidence is usually only a part of the story, and seldom its cuga~ination. t3 Domesday must be seen as - among other things - one rather special stage in a Isng history of land litigation stretching back into the Angl-Saxon period and Bob Stacey points out to rrle that the iWurdrum Fine could be another exernple of a custom FWRI Gnut" day revlved after 1066 with help from English ddmtnistrators who renlembered s t from of wards tn J. Catnpbell (ed.), The Atlgloold. On thzs group, see Janles Campbell's enlrghten~r~g Saxons, London 1984, 244. "Domc.sltay Book, i,141 a, 216b (Herts., 36. 9; B d s . , 46. I), on which Round's renrarks, VCIIT, Beds,, r, 2067 are inaccurate. In default of a prornlscd ncw edtt~enof l2onlcsda;y, thc Pkillimorc. county volumes, ed. j.Morns, Gklchesrer 1975-85, offtrr nlost readers their most convenient arrd rcltable access t e FJonlesdayk text. I cite them herc In parentheses; after the foliation o f the standard Farley edit~on.But the norncsday citations here are sanlples for i!Iurtratian not proof. J. C. Halt 'The Introduction of Knlght Service in England" allnte vi, 1984, tB-l(X1. Had a Ijon-resday tax recorm come off, there would no doubt have been a sinxlar paint to n ~ a k about c thc closely related royal expectation o f financ~alcontrihutgons. l o X-XoIt, 'I~ntroductlonof Mnrght Serv~cc', 96-1-lt)t;cf, ibr royal al~cnatlonsj.Green, 'W~llramXtufus, Henry I and the f;loyaI I>cmesnc" H~tslauyIrclv, 19'7% , 4 4 0 , 344. " Above, 87-101. " Cf, E. Searle, 'Women ;and the Leg~tlmizatxonof Succession at thc Norman Cor~quest',nrrte 111, 1980, and f. C , Hoft, 'Feudal Socxety atrd the Farr-r~tyfV: the E-Iermis and the Allen" TRHS 5th s, xxxv, 1985, 1-28 on legitimation through heiresses. Consider, for example, the l~ncsof King'r thegns stdl holdtng TRW In many counties. Few of their gun&ans retained control a half-century latcr.

on into the twelfth century. This is no new idea. David Douglas and Edward MiUer, in particular, both pointed - as had Round before them - to the importance of the contemporary legal setting for our understanding of the Inquest. Dornesday was, Douglas suggested, % judicial eyre among others', Domesday Book 'the chief o f a large number o f relatcsd documents . . . connected with the numerous ptacita which were such a promixlent feamre of the ag-e',14 Both scholars reached their conclusions through studies of great ecclesiastical lordships. Douglas was writing specifically about Ganrerbury, with a perspective drawn from previous work on Bury and elsewhere. Miller was working towards his fxne book a n E1y. All three houses figure prominently among a whole series of great lawsuits involving m g a r abbeys and bishoprics during the lWOs and 80s. The list, including Abingdon, Evesham and Worcester, would cerrainly have been longer had equally rich archives survived elsewhere. Domesday itself contains many scraps of evidence for ecclesiastical repossession of alienated a r unreturned lands in the course of William" reign, sometimes associated with royal writs that may have resembled the writs of reseisin familiar from the twelfth c e n t ~ r y . ~The ' experience gained by Lanfranc, Ceoffjrey of Csutmces and others directed by writs to act as judges in these cases did much to undewrite the relative success of the Domesday Inquest, Xf nothing else, this substantial body of ecclesiastical litigation in the fifteen years or so before Domesday sensidzed the king and his advisers to the problem of Church losses of properq from "angled affairskof land title.16 ~tudenisof Domesday cannot avoid asking what these great law-suits were about, Obviously the major thcrne is the optimistic ecclesiastical aspiration to recfaim for their houses property recently lost to alien conquerors. But this is only a part a f the story. Many of the issues actually predate the Conquest, Communities of great churches had long memorks. Some had apparently buttressed these with written aid in the form of carmlaries and the like. Unfortunately, anything short of the coercive power to defend lands at the paint of attack usually proved inadequate. As Archbishop LyGng of Canterbury had once complained to Cnut, 'he had charters s f freedon1 (ix. protection) in plenty if only thcy were goad Eor anything', Cnut's response was to add to the archive yet another writ, which failed, for example, ta avoid losses still being complained of at Penenden Heath forty years later. The recall of such ancient grievances by communities like Canterhury should not surprise us,17 All great

" Of) C . I3ougias, "?do, Lmfranc and the Dornesday survey" Historical Essays itz Hatiour gJ.Tair, ed. J. 6. Edwards, V. £4. CaIbraith and E, F. Jacob, Manchsster 1933, 56, 57, etc.; E. Miller, m e Ely Land Pleas in the Reign of"William i7, EHR 1x11, 1947, 453-4. R. Welldon Finn i s one reant scholar to take their points seriously, See for example his CIomesday Rook: a Guide, London and Chichester 1973, 11, 13-14, etc. Also H. B. Clarke, T h e Domesday Satetlites', in Sawyer, Reassasmmt, 61-2, 6 - 6 . " Kg. Damday Buak, i,68c, 6% (Wi'lfs.,16. 3, 23. 7); i, 138c, 2 % ~(Wam~irks.,3. 7, 44. 12;). '" T o emphasise ecdcsiastical input is not to solve the knotty question of why William" magnate should have agreed to the planned Inquest. I understand that discussion at the Winchester Goxrference attacked this problem. L7 F- E. Harmer, Aqlo-Saxon Writs, Manchescer 1952, no, 26 (V. Sawyer, Angi'o-Saxm Ghartrrs: art Annotated List and Bibliography, London 1%8, no. 5385) with comment, Harmer, 1% sq., 446 sq., N. Brooks, The Early History of the C:hnp-ch crf Canterb~lry,Leicester 1484f.Q, BH-90,D. Bates, 'The Land Pleas of Williarn 1% IReign: l%nendcr~Heath Revisited" BINR 1, 1978, 14-16, Cf. R. W.

'No Register qf' Tifle? T h e Domesdoy I t t q ~ ~ l ac t ~ dLand Adjudication

231

churches and many lesser ones possessed writs and land-books, sometin~esin abundance, 'if only they were good for anythinghagainst the violent newcomers. Lay families had long memories too, though less sften back& by writings. Many laymen nursed grievances about lands once in their family which had passed into the hands of the Church. Some of these went right back to the circumstances of the original endowment during the first gcflerations of the Tenth-Century Reformation. Relatives of several Ely a r d Peterborough donors, for example, tried periodically to challmge their ancestors' benefractions.'" Challenges to church grants by kinsmen of the benefactor were very common in eleventh-century Europe.3" it was not easy to laugh them off even in the pfrsence of kings from Edgar" own West Saxon stock, givm the power and status of s o m of these Ghaltertgers and the weight Old English Iaw set on possession of land-books (which cannot always have been handed over at the time of sale).20The Conquest failed to improve matters. WilEiarn"~French f^allowers greedily seized upon any hint o f a right to which some predecessor might have been entitled. '" The new French lords had come ta England in order t s get rich. Thcy were conscious of being conquerors and none too ehoosy about their methods of operation. The new masters natzlraUy and speedily became the &cusses fsr a multitude of local power struggles. Surviving Erlglish landholders, who still retained in theory the right to choose their lords, had to come to terms with the new situation or sink into some degree of servitude. Often their only hope of retaining wealth and position was to attach their fate to that af some alien newcomer with the power to protect them and their families, if he would, Thus a f'air amount of what Domesday (and other sources) repPcsent as invasions of the property of some great Gfiurch ur other probably began as a plea for protection from some bumbled thegn or freeman. This pattern of choosing new lords was perfectly legitimate within Old English law. The main novelty was the sellers' market crtjoyed by the French lords. Many af their supplicants were effectively liordless. Little wonder that twelfth-century sources tend to portray the pattern exclusively in terms of noblc competition for dependants. 22 Southcm, Sf Aeselm a d his Biogr~pfzer,Oxford 16fi3,341-2. and Part I1 passim on the C:antcrbury monks3oyalty to their community, and Lawson, 'Collection ofI)anegcfd', 727for the suggestion about eleventh-century cartularies. " E. MiIiiiller, The Aby and Bislzopric- q f E l y , Cambridge 2951, cap. 11; E. K I ~ I I'e~erarbarou~qh ~, Abbey, IM4-1310, cap. 1 . We can expect Sirnarr K c y r t e s ~ o r t h c o n ~ ~edition ng and rraixsIat~onof the 'Libellus Aetbetwo1dt"to add much to our understanding of the litigation history of Ely &.stat=. " 9, IT), White, C;Cfts to Sairrts (Ponhcorning) is the best dtsmss~onof the "audatto parenturn" as Continental scholars term the efhrts of churches to forestall challenge by obtaining consent in advance from the grantor" close kinsmen. English disctrssion has tended tu be in ternrs of 'restra~nt on afienatiun" but see S. F. C . Milsom, The I.xfsrtJ 1980. 233-8 for royal writs "of n a fty ~ ' by which Ii3rds hoped to rcclarm thew iilg~trvcsfrorn t h e ~ rnclghbours. 'The quest1011 of urhethcr 2 royal wrrt was in some way legally rcyulrcd under Wtlllam 1 tr:, valtdate a transfer of Iordsh~p1s worth f~lrtlrcrcxamlnaaon.

Legal practices surviving from the Old English regime nzust not conceal the quantum leap in the intensity of conflict and competition for land and patrot~age,'~ The sources let us glimpse the process best through the eyes and from the records of the churches which had most to lose. Ely is an obvious illustration. Most cfevcnth-century religious houses had to tolerate fairly constant pressure from lay neighbours anxious to extend their boundaries or extort 'sweetheart grants" Afier the Conquest, English houses, lacking kiends in high places, were particdarly vufneralsle, in this respect, their swifi bestowal on favoured French prelates was a blessing, Ely" prolonged support of the doomed local hero Hereward initially ensured it a worse position than most, Its first attempt to recoup its losses came soon after the revolt, bemeen 1071 and 1075, wl th unimpressive results .Z4 William had himself scized abbey lands, which he then granted out to favoured followers, He was unlikely to reverse himself so soan. fn addition, we know the l-tamesof more than a dozen local nlagnates who had taken advantage of St Ethddreda's sell-publicised unprotected state to extract estates for tfienlselves, some on a very large scale. The tide did not begul to turn for the house until the election in 2082 of abbot Simeon, brother to Walchelin, royal adviser and Bishop of Winchester. Armed with this access to the royal car, Sin-teon was able over the four years between his election and lI)% to obtain no less than nine IleXpfcll royal writs, ordering various kinds of legal and executive assistance, at Xeast two o f them expecting written reports back.25 'The despatch of writs in this kind of voltlme, if rcgticatcd elsewhere, would amoLint to an ix~~pressive concentration of written govenzi-r-rentin the years befsre 1086 and perhaps lend substance to Richard FitzNeal's later characterisation of the Darncsday inquest as the introduction of "us Script~rn'.'~ Other details of thc Ely land pleas are very reminiscent of the 1086 Inquest. One writ certainly demands a bricf description. This ordered Ely" demesne tenants summor-ted before the royal justices to acknowledge how they (or their predecessors) held on the day when Edward was alive and &ad. For most this determined how (and if) they would hoid in future, But what of those claiming to hold by William's own glft-he king acknuwiedged his duty to warrant thcnl, to Eirtfil his promises; their claim was against him not St Ethcldreda, Thc justices were to send him details includillg the dimensions of the estate, su that he could decide on an exchange or other appropriate action.27

" '"T'his 'c'o~)III~!' ~ I ~ a r a c t cofr social

conlpetitron running or1 into the early txvclfih raltury 15, ~nc~dctltally, one nlcrrc reason for doilhcrng chc real~tyof 13rofcssorM~lscrrn" clean-cut rnodct of an autotsomous 'selgrtorlal world'. C~at~srder f t ~ rexample E ~ I C11npllcat10ns ~ 9 MIIIc"~, f Ely, 66. " 4C:f. Finn, ""he Irrqrri-sitto Ellt~rulsHecons~dered',EI1IR Ixxxv, 1%ff, 417. ."I; C>ur ~nahilityto date thc writs ~recurely1s frustrat~ng, as Blake, Llhev I~hencir,426-32, birr they nus st surely predate the flomesday Xr-rquesr ~tself.The two requrrlllg a wneeen rcspctnsc are E,rber f:[:'~n~tsi.$,11, 1 19-120, w r h a h n t in cc, I 16-7 that the docurncnts yuotcd were ~ ~ 1 sst :selccttor~. M , T. Clarxchy, From LZfirrtctuy to I$frittrtz Record, tcxid tW7( 1 I . O n thls ~ s p c cof t IJomesday, J. C:ampbcll, 'Thc S~gnificrrrceof the Anglo-Norr~lanState in the Adn-rm~strat~ve E-f~storyof Western Europe', Fmar~crcz IX, 1080 for 1077, 123-4 1s prcfcrable to Ctarlchy, 18-20, 27 L'iber f:irrrtsL, is, 121. In rile evcnt, a nunlbrr of r h s cmorc pronlmcnt uxmdcrs, not all of wlzom could cvcn cldlrrl royal grallt, were ~ l f o w c dto k w p t h c ~ rgd~rts,bur had to hold there of the abbe); li,r knight servlcc. Sce on rhls Lrhcv E j t f r t s t s , 11, 12; 1134; N11Icr. Eiy. 67-9.

'No Register

of

Title': The Domesday Inquest a r d Land A{judicario~

133

These principles are in large measure the s a m as governed the I>ornesday Inquest itself. Undying saints retained title as it had been at the death of King Edward. Mere mortals had to rely on tenure at the same date by some legitimate %ntecessorhr on some equally legitimate grant, best prwed by the word of its maker, usually at this stage the king. Royal grants were obviously the commonest case while the Conquest was stilJ so recent, Men can be seen throughotlt Exchequer nornesctay vouching the King to wananty of their tenure, though similar warranty of private grantees is also frequently hund under various forms of words,28 As 'the special prcy of the Norman spoiler', Ely is arguably a special case. It was not, however, so atypical that we should easily dismiss its testimony, which can with a little effort indeed be matched by other ecclesiastical archives.29 More encouragingly, from these same ecclesiastical resources one can occasionally see laymen playing roles more nuanced than that of the undikrentiated "nvader". Examination of such cases frequently takes one back across the Conquest. I have space for a single example. Hayling Island is one of those Llomesday duplicate entries that often repay Ie story is a: long one. Some fifiy years before, Queen closer examinati~n.~' Ernma had given the estate to the Old Minster at Winchcstcr, subject to a Iik interest in baIF the ten hides for her client, Wulfward White. The monks may have been unhappy from the start about the arrangement. There survives Xiurn 1053 an agreement concluded at the shire court, before the skeriEand thegns, whereby Bishop Stigand acknowledged that Wulfward should hold his five hides for his lifetime, after which they would pass to the Old Minster. This probably marks an unsuccessful attempt by Winchester to challenge the life Iea~e.~TThc bishop m d his monks were right to be suspicious. After Wulhard's death vexy soon a&cr the Conquest, William gave his share of the estate to the abbcy of J ~ r n i k g e s . ~ ~ Thus in 1C)86Jttmitges was in seisin, fn its Domesday ftzve, the Wrman house named WuXfward as the antecessor, having held in blodiurnbf Queen Edith TRE, and stayed curiously silent on the matter of the royal grant which aught to have been dedsive, Naturally, the Winchester monks put in their clairn. Abbot Ethelrjigc ctf Ramscy and the whole h ~ ~ n d r econftrn~cd d that thcir revcrsiollary rights had been part of the lik grant, as Wtllfc\iard had aflegedly Details to appear m my Warranty and Good Lordshtp r t ~Twelfth-Cmtury England', Lutu artd History Review, 19137 (forthcoming). 29 The compiler of the Liber Eliensis seems uninterested in Domesday, He found hxs sources m the abbey archives of his OWXI day. 30 Domesday Book, r, 432, 4% (Haxnts,, 3. 25; 10. 1). 3 1 Sawyer, iCtzgio-Saxorr Charters, no. 1476, a chrrograph or~g~naHy issued In three copies. Patrlck Worrnald dectded after some reflection to exclude this act, despite its 'coneeafed forens~ccontext', from hts haridlist o f Anglo-Saxon pleas, due to appear in a forthcornix~gvolunzc of clnglo-Saxon England. He points out that chirograph copies are not uxtcomrnon and are sornetlrnes for demcrnsrrably t~on-mntentiousacts. As he says, bath publicrty at the s h m and thc 'chirograph' fonn were used for real contracts withoitt there h a v ~ n gbeen any "~orrndl judrcial process" 1 differ only az feantng towards a fcss resertctive definition of litigatxon. In this case, especially gxven the estate's fater history, and rrrespective of the preclse procedure followed, I think we can take it that the public xeiterat~onof a troublesome grant in open court reflects challsr~gtand doubt. I am ~rnrllensely gratehl to 13r Wormald both far a sight of h ~ spricetcss check-list m typescript and for h a willingness to adv~seme orally and by letter on the case. 3Z T b ~ grant s 15 known only from the gexxeral confirn~atzotzo f lltnry 11, norcd, Rqqes~e~.r~z i, 5 (21). 28

134

,."ifrzgEo-~%'ornia~? Studies l X

accepted in his lifetime. It is impossiklc to be sure what transpired, though Jun~iegesprobably retained possession. Neuertketcss, the Old Minster persuaded Kuius towards the end of his reign to protect their tenure "icut liber rcgius hoc testatur" It seents likely chat fumiiges was in possession during the rrcxt reign and on into Stephen" sunt irirrduced by heavy prcssurc from Pope and Archbishop to accommodate the Old Mir~srerand permit thc estate's rcturtl Eclr a price. Evcn so, the monks ofJsmiPges still tbought their supposedly renounced Estate histories of this kind interests worth confxrrning in the n e x t confirm that Domesday often marks but a stage in very protracted land disputes often originating well befare 1066, Thcy also leave one wary ofdedticing actual possession from uncorroborated statements in confirmation charters or, for that matter, Domesday Book. Exchequer Domesday carries within it traces of many camparable cases, illustrating in different ways the undoubted conquest by force of arms just twenty years before and the ensuing and n~assivetranskr of property, There is overall gratifyingly full information about land-holding in the t i m of K h g Edward. This includes, for example, the names uf marly pre-Conqucsc tenants together in many shires with a high degree of detail about their personal status and The so-called 'Terms of Reference"' instructed the carnmissisners to ascertain the naxrlc of the TRE tenant as the second task on their list, my sho~llda survey directed wholly or primarily at fiscal ends require this? The information would have been irrelevant to any projected tax reform, Saretlite documents compiled after 1086 tend in fact to omit it,'%~o king able to impose from scratch artificial quotas of knight service on estabjished religious houses and his foreign followers alike can have had much interest in the basis or level of taxation under the Old Reginre. By 1086, they surely despised details not nccdcd h r their own profit,37 Why then was the informatian required and retained into the edited Exchequer Domesday Book! The key appears to lie in that 'perfectly colourlesskword 'antecessorq8 by which men referred to the TRE landholder through whom they clainxed titlc in 1086. It has long been recogfiised that behind the word lay a post-Conquest practice by which William granted to his Frenchmen thc (unspecified) lands previously held by a named Englishnim now removed from the scene by death ctr depPivation. Patently, such grants nc-eded to be mapped and their significance assessed against the equally well known phemmenon of territorial grants that j-~ec V . Ei, Csalbratth, ' b y a t ctrarters to Wmchcstcr', EllFfK xxxv, 1930, 3XLW and no. xi1 f lOf3fiil 100); J, f 4. Round, Chi, Ilocs. F:rt?r?ce, nos 157-harrd A. Saltnzan, T!trohlirl, Arrizhisfi(fptf Canrrrbtrvy, London 1%56,, 359-(1(1 (1 14-11/72;L. IZetrslc and M. Ucrgcr, Rece~rillr.cs '2rtc.s daHtjnri l I , Parts 1%12-27, I , 3 (1 155), ir, 53'7 (1 f72/8). " " ~ y c r argues convrnnngly char many names arc in facr onlrttcd and also rlotes the tcllmg fact that partrcutdr atteritron 1s displayed toward thc occas~onal Etlgllsh acqutsttlon made &fief the Noridrss' arrrv'tl, Sawycr, "Tcnunal Kevolutxon?" 7'71-7. " 5111 CV~ICII"re C.El. Galbralttl, The ,%l(tki~~~q c?f'I)ornc>.fdayBook, O x h r d 1961, 38. 3" G. F-t. t;c)wler, 'An early Canrbrtrlgesh~relcod,zryT,EEIR xlvl, 19331. 442-3pravldes a neat, b r ~ e f ~fluscratron. 37 Ilcspltc. Susan £X~dydrCf's elegant argument below, 179-3t%, I dm 1101 fully pe.rsua4c.d that cctndcscens~otiof alicn conquerors towards English saint\ was entirely lacking rn thc trnnledratc post-Conquest pertod. " E, A, Frecir~an,'rhcEIIsrury of the ~ Y t ~ r m nCa*urtqrfecr n ~Zf'Gt~qfarld, v, Oxford 1876, 769. GE J. Ualon, Crrlvrd dii.tiorrtiarvc7 dtp rirtlrt rirt mctym qye, iui, Nedri A c v ~5, Narnur 1973-, 58'7.

ignored previous tenure and occupants. Robin Fleming and the Santa Barbara Domesday Data Base have only now put this whole subject on a new and firmer basis. Hcr findings establish that 'antecessor' grants were much more restnctcd in timc, scale and location than some had thought. Old English tcnunal patterns cannot therefore explain more than a small proportion of the 1086 situation, for since 1066 there had occurred a cataclysmic change of ownership - in short, a conquest. 39 Fleming's conclusions at first sight increase the mystery. One recent suggestion, that the idea was to define the properties held TRW by the names of their TRE tenants in the way boundary clauses had defined the subjects of Latin diplomas, now looks most unlikely." A more radical hypothesis seems preferable. William and his commissioners may have concentrated their attention k o m thc start on establishing once and for all who were the legitimate tenants and what they should rightly hold, their possession to be validated by a chain of title running from the legitimate holders TRE. This argument is severable h r n any questions about the proportion of "antecessor' ggrants as such. It rests on the Inquest's requirements for proof of title, which can bc dcduced from the Terms of Rcferencebnd the myriad of actual Domesday clairn texts. The commissioners appear to have been directed to determiMe challenges to possession made before them by tracing title back to the day when King Edward was alive and dead.*' There were two possibilitcs. A relatively new tenant. would vouch his grantor - mosr ofien at this stage the king - to warranty." The king could respond much as he had promised to do in the 108216 writ to Ely cited above, A private lord could either cite a royal grant to himself or have recourse to the other permissible plea, a claim to he the succcsso~in-title,directly or constrtzctivcly, of someone who had held at the death of King Edward.43The principle must have been to invite tenaclts and claimants to plead an 'antecessar' unless they could prove some express grant, a

)"ec

Flcmlng above. I must dcknuwIcdgr that her 'xrgun~ent,preserlrcd a few hours before n ~ y CQUC c a ~ n c t o IZIC a", donlh-srl'telf, 1iowt"t-er~dlutary.OII reflcctlo~l,t h ~ ~ u gIhshould , not hc surprised ~fher estitnatc oflcss than tcn per cent 'a.trteces~oragrarlts overall turned out In the end to be on the low srdc. 4U Sabvycr, 'Thc Anglo-Nornzan Vlllagc', ~n I>. Hookc (ed.), .\lcdietral I'rlla'qus, C>xforJ Gornmrtt-ec for Archdetllogy, hRonogrdpI1 no. 5, 185, 4 , Hls suggc*ltiorxEras more pOfrlt far bter grdnls mddc In "antccessor"t^orrn (noccd ~n passing by Round. E'CW, Nir-rf1t3.I , 1902, 421),, "I John Huclsot~pointed rtut to rnc that thc 'tern13 of rcfcrence' laco~z~cally o m t any quc5t1on of thc justlcc of the 'FKE tcnurc. Tkls probably caused thc ctznlmi.*sxoncrsrlcr qualrns, for many c1a11nrcxts 3peciEy c h a r 617 alleged lnvaslon was made irrjttsfc, wtlik rxlarry others do not. We n l ~ k ctcro nluch of the spccztlcatlons under which judgec vperarcd before thc C:ctmmar~ Law. Anglo-Norman royal writs almost ccrta~niy~nltratedcotirt argtlmcnt (E.c.Iltlgat~oir)dc~plte thew exccutlve tone befi)rc the drafting ctzarlgcr labelled jueilcialzsat~on'by Van Cacncgcrr~,Royai U'rit., trr Er~~qfirnlljkrn the f:irr~guc~~cf to C;lanvill, Sclden Soc. I s x v ~ ~195%-9, , 240-44, 390-3I t , SX7-9. 44Nk-3, ctc. 42 I dtsc~lssl)orncsday\ use of warranty In nly paper 'WWiarr~ntyand C;oo$ L~rdskllpIn TwelfihCcrrtury England" L~ilwi r r d l-iistc~ry Ki>vtt*tu (forcktcom~ng1987). It nzight we11 be ttrdt a hzghcr standard of proofwas 111 practtcc dclllarldcd of Engllsb clalmaants, perhaps eval tnvcstlture by writ. 43 The cxclus~onof c l a ~ n ~ based s ctn oIcicr porsesslon 5ccms t a he shijwn by unsuccessful cla~r~ls going hack to Gnur" rclgn. T w o pocs~bilic~cs arc Ilontt,stliry Bnc~k,1, 35% ( S a l g . , 4,36. 3); 2hCla. 264b (C:lr~shtrc,, B. 13, 2, 1) T t ~ practical s compronllse was no doubt onc nf the Ierson%learned frorrl thc grcat ccclcsldsrlcaf pleas carircr In the rclgr1 own paper ww

iormulation with surprising echoes of Edward f"s Quo Warranto inquiries tvvo centuries later.& Colonial gavcrnments ffequently face situations similar to that of England in the 1080s. Aker the immediate conquest period, they have to strike a bdancc betweert rewarding the just ambitiotls of their own supporters and pacifjring the natives. In the absence of wholesale expropriation and transfer of property to the conquerors, they must at some stage clarify who owns what. T%is is particularly likely to present problems where, as in Norman England, thc theory is of an unchanged land law, with thc newcomers expected tc, acquire land iegitinrately and to hold a n the same terms as their native prebessars. In such circumstances, post-Conqucst interpretations of land tenure tend inevithly to distort the old land Such considerations directly affect the value of Dornesday as evidence for pre-Conquest l a d tenurc, Scholars have not always taken seriously the implications of remarks Iike Round" that 'the Norman was apt to assume that his predecessor" title was absolutehot Miller's insight that 'Norman preconceptions about what Old English facts should have b e e n h e r e one reason why Domesday "almost inevitably . . . emphasizes (even where it does not invent) a territorial basis for social relations"* Peter Sawyer's recent demonstration that Dornesday oftm simplifies the previous tenurial situation, frequently with a cornplete omission of any mention of lordship traceable from other sources, is one case to point,47Similarly, it now seems clear that the conquerors sometimes manipulated existing English rulcrs on female inheritance and co-heirship, for example, to their own profit,48 The answer to my question can now be summarised 'taebre mming to consider briefly the various Domesday claim texts themselves. The Domesday Inquest sought: tenurial information about the TKE situation to validate the 10% tenant's title, That title was very often disputed, as we shall see. Vet the name and tenure of the TRE tenant were, in the first instance, known to the commissioners only by courtesy of the tenant-in-chief. It was thus, potentially at Icast, always ex pafie information presented with litigation or its avoidance in mind, Those engaged in the reconstmction of Old English society from IJomesday will have to bear this in mind. Some kind of dispute, about title or the extent of tbc property and its rights, was probably very common in 1086."19The Domesday Xnqucst saw a sustained effort to decide these claims and edit out references to them in the final record. Exchequer Dornesday shows the process frozen before completion. Et attests to Xlomcscfay" safnlost cornplttc lack of mtercst m franchut5 orher than wke 1s n xnosr stgrl~ficant srlencc descrv~ngof Lirrther cliought. 45 Trtbal land rnlght, for example, convcnic~~tIy be rn~sattrihucedto the personal uwr~ershrpof chrek, who cotifd pass title by purchase, no doubt a t art~flc~aHy low prrccs, as m nineteenth-ccatury FIJI, B. S. Cohn, %i\rntt?ropology and History In the I%Os', )onnrc?i ltifllrrd~scf~~lit~dqf Hi-qtclry ?in, 2, 1981 , 336-9. 46 Fiou~id, C'CEI, No,II-\.I, 19021a, 4.35; Miller, Ny, 30. '4 Sa~ivyer,"?'ennnal Rcvolutlr>n?"is not in this respect destroyed by Flcnr~ngand ts Irkcly to be confirmed by coirnty st~tdtessuch as those of I>av~dRoffc on Lrncufnshlrc and other counties. Cf. Flolt, 'The F-ite~ressand the i\t~er-r>dnd Stark, "Women', crted above n. 12. Thc many n.fcrc.tlces to TRW manor\ ~ h l c hhad been held by several troldcrs TRE for as rndIly manors art also rciicvarlt hcrc. 4g Iblzrr~ Sawycr. "X"crruna1 Revottltlc>rt?" 7'71;. 44

$"

'NORegister c?f Title': The Darnesdny I n q ~ e s tnnd Latzd Arljuifiratiot.~ 137 the near-impossibility of the arciuous task assigned to the cummissioners, Their failure is documented in Little Domesday and the three counties whose record ends with an appendix of unsolved dispu&s. Claims known from them added to the others known from the fortunate survival of the Liber Exon., with its "terrae occupatae', already run to nearly 509." Many more claims and allegations of unjust additions and withdrawals, which can be glimpsed among thc ordinaxcy folios, should be indudcd in our totalsmS1 If these countable mentions of dispute are merely the residue, the real number of disputed cases at the end of the first stage of the Inquest must have run into four figures.$% We shaufd not imagine that William o a r e d this adjudimtisn service on so massive a scale merely out of some sense of royal duty. Many daims and invasions, especially those concerning his own Terra Regis, direct;lyaffected his own revenues. Despite the clear indications in the 'Terms of Reference that the king was out to maximize these, there has been remarkably little rccetlt speculation on the way royal estates and the profits from them were afiitcted by the Conquest, The 1086 extent of the royal demesne tends to be regarded as a starting-point for study of later exploitation, rather than as a moment in an already complex stsryas3William too wished to ensure that he received the full legacy from his 'aantcccssor', Edward the Confessor. His commissisncrs were striving to satisfy this legitimate interest in county after county. The prominence given in the inquest to the sheriff and his oath makes special sense when one remembers that his activities and those of his immediate predecessors would demand scrutiny as closc as their successors reccived in the later general eyre. T o with rayal lands put it delicately, Domesday confirms that their endown~er~t could precede the king" grant,54 Most scholarly discussion of 'invasions%as been directed at lands in nonrayal hands. The Church was probably the prime target, hence the source of nlost complaints,ss far reasons briefly rehearsed above in my discussion of the Domcsday Inquest's long-term lieigatianal context. Some complaints proceeded from. the normal dangers of a weft-endowed ecclesiastical life; others reflected the special conditions of the Conquest, The churches had a special interest in stressing tenurial continuity through their unique position as their own 'anteccssors'. They remained, at least until they fell to French prcslates, the largest group of native land-owners to retain the bulk oftheir own estates. This supplemer~tedthe usual ecclesiastical vulnerability, especially on the reversion of their many leases for lives, an experience shared by so rnany a f their twelfthcentury successors.56 9

fhrl figure I owe ro h t r r c k Warmald. CC)ther ~ndrrect(rf less certain) ~nciicat~ortr rnclude dupticate entrlcs and sratcrrlentr that a TKE ccnant Elad not heId of rhe b~~teccssor"j.;ucfias I, IWh, 1.e. Cumhi,, 39. 0). 5 2 Not: all were hosttlt.; see rt. 59. *j J. (L;rect~,'RoyaI I)cmccnc', 3-37-52 1s acllxn~rabicor1 ~ t clroseri s wbjcc~. 54 C61: J. Grccn, T h e Shcrrffs of WJlIllan~the C:onyucror" itatre v, 1982, 12i145. Do~~ri?sday Rortk, X6b-c (So~n~rsat, I . 1-10) 1s o13e bIock deservsr-rg a closer look 5r Glturchcs could hc defendants coo; cf. IJomesday Bnttk, n, 13a-b, Ila-b, 1Ab (Ii:iscx, 5. 7, 1") (6. 4, 8; X. 8). " 6 f . 14, K. I>dri~ngton,V C H , Wilts,, tr, 195.5, 79-80, 101 Tor some nice tUusrrattons; also Durnesdzjt Etclok, I, Ma, 73c (tlitlrs,, 3. 1, 67. 1 I ) , 776 (Dorscr, 3. 61, 236 fStra3t9x,I 1. 8). "Illis ntuatlon n ~ d y cxpIalrr casrs wlzcrc statcmetlrr that thc 'rXZE tenarlr callnot w~thdr~gw falfed to protect a church's r1ght.s; llc~rrrcsrl'lryBook, I, tthb, Alici (fP'iIt~.,5,h, 7 . 10) ma) bc* an cxanlptc. 5i

2nvasionshf lay property, rather less numerous in any case, require a different approach. Mostly, they merge into the wider subject of post-Conquest competition for property, as rival conquerors stmggled to establish and semre then~sdvcs,The trick in either case was to press the claims of one's 'antecessor" as far as they would go. Lay tenants mussed of resisting church. attempts to reclaim an expired lease were merely doing the same thing. It was all a single, highly conlpetitive game, el-rcompassing the engulfment of surviving Englishmen, the encroachntent on institutional and royal estates and the mutual competition of the ambitious. Aproper full-length study of 12omesday's 'invasions' would abundantly repay the considerable effort. Few areas of etevcnth and nlielfth-century social a r economic history would be untouched by its conclusions. As always, I am full of suggestions for other people\ work! Qbviously, the basis must be the compilation of the fullest possible tenurial history of every traceable Damesday estate subject to claim. This can be achieved for a surprisi~lgnumber,s7 and is essential if we arc to grasp the essence of the adjudicatory process followed in 3UX6 and be in a position to assess the justice and normality of the procedure followed.58 C->ncinescapable question, with wide political implications, is: how f i r the commissioners were expected to proceed by judgement. They cannot conceivably have pronounced judgement on all the knotty disputes within the known time available. Probably they were never expected to try. The volume of business they faced becomes more comprehensible when one realises that the goal was negotiated settlements lvhcrever The great nlcn on whose assent Williiam's power rested surely shared the eleventh-century preference for concord over judgement where possible, Jury verdicts arc not proved to have been conclusive simply because our evidence docs not show them to have been overturned Xate~,~'Few illegal invaders capitulated the moment their offence was painted out."' Very occasionally, awktrtard cases were actjourned before the king, Without muck fuller knowledge of the eventual destiny of the dispuced lands, one can do little more than guess at the overall pattern. A full study is badly needcdSs2 See above, r ~ s1334 tor onc. Freeman, .Vorntizt?Coriqut.sr, v, 7 7 5 4 ppralred the cornm1ss~oncrs"guod Br~ashjudinaltmpart~alicy, not-lng that they found on occaslntt agalnst the krng and 111s relatrves and evcn sometimes for E n ~ l ~ h m c iCT l . also Donit-diig Book. 1, 51% (Hants., 69. 33). ** Gafbrarclr, .klizkrrtq ttf'Dorrtr.~dayHook, 70-4 r~akcc;t h ~ sprjlnt ln h ~ discuss~on s of the rtairns, f, H, Ilound. "13 Early I\ekrence to Ilorncsday", Plomesday Srtrdtes n, cd. P. E, Dove, London 1891, 542-5 spotted onc good iflustrar~on,Another 1s probably hehlnd the fate of Ulf son of'f"apek land at SkllE~ngronanif ".av~ngton', t ~ n c s . ,w h ~ can h be worked our from Uctn~esdnyNook, I , 341b, 3t$?b-d, .37(I,d, 377c (Lrrzcs., 2, 37, 42; 30 passlm; CIC 10, SO); and 1). Whttelc?rck, Aqlo-Suxotl f-t'ills, omr.sday Book TIgro~c~qfi ,\'trzcr Crrrtctrte~,Lotsdon 19%, 3 8 4 survey thc cvxdenct for ehc early consultatrons of Exchequer I3omcs$ay, but tbcrc rcrllalns a need for a clomprehenslvc srudy. 6T I,qes L-Jttnrrci IJrimi, ed. L. J . I>owncr, Clxford 1972, 10. I provides the wcll-krtown check-list of rrghts, whost broad chdrdcter 1%d~stortcdby ltt, exclus~vettxt-kook assocgatlon vv~ti-ttllc later 'Ple~s o f t h e Crown" For thc profits ofju5ticc rn 1130, see 6. A. F. Mcekrngs, The 1/35 S'crvrry Eyrr, I , ed. I?. Czrook, Stiirre); Record Suc, xxxi, 197% 6-8 arid J. Crecn, ' 'iE"racclammct Magnificum btntlqu~ractsMonun~entum"trhc Earliest S u r v ~ v ~ nPipc g IZall', BIHR Iv, 2082, 6-9. 68 W. T. Reedy, "The Onglns of the C;ctieral Eyrc 181 the Kclgn of Hcmry X" Spt.culzrm x11, 1966; C. W. Hollister, T h c Rise of Adrn~lllstratlvcKingship: Herzry 1" Amt-iK Ixxxm, 1978, 867-91. 69 H. Cam, "11 East Anglian Shlrs-moi~tof ?jtephcr~'sReign', fiHR xxxlx, 1924, 5hK-71, See morc SyuaarJe Sdrcjlrzv, iv (1983), 23-33. generally my 'Henry II and Car-tcIon" 70 Gf. Flcmtrlg, above.

'LVoRegifrer ill; Title'; Tize Dome- day Xrtyltest and LuvtQA#udicarior?

141

shire courts must have seen quite etzough extraordinary business during the reign far a knowledge of their practice to become essential to the education of young Frenchmen. Thc massive concentration of judicial activity in the Domesday Inquest can only have reinforced the trend, There is, therefore, an importarlt element of cultural continuity in all this. The EtigMy campetitive garne that Glanvill's grandfarher bad t a m from his senior French contemporaries encompassed vioIent dispossession and lawsuits as alternative straregies, It closely resembled that played by their TRE: 'antecessors%efore 1066, except for the language used to describe it. Domesday Mnok records an impressive but ultimately vain eRorr to set this old garne on a new basis. No-one would claim that land acljudiclttion was the whole of the Domesday Inquest. It was nevertheless an important part, and arguably responsible fnr many of the most drarrracic Darxlesday c~nfrontations.~~

' 9 ~ r very n grateful to Bob Stacey f i r h ~ helpful s rcadlng of rhn paper In ax1 lntermedzate drafi. Gcorge Garnett" fine paper, C o r o ~ ~ a r r oand n Propaganda: sorne tmplicarrons o f the Norman Clain~ tcl rhe Throne of E~?igland in 1(Ki6",TKHS 5th s. xxxw (1986),91-1 16, only rcachcd mc when nltnc was already 112 the prcss, I'rrtor kr~owledgeof his argurnc~~c: tvould certasnly have caused me to cxprcss iny OWKI drEcrcntly.

E ABBEY OF GA BENEFACTORS IN

6. A, Loud IN April 1063 a woman from Salesno, left a widezw with three children under fourteen, sold some land to a certainJohn son of Mastalus of Atrani. The reason given for this sale was that 'these children proclaim themselves to be dying of hunger m d nudity because of the wicked race of the Normans who have plundered in the province'.' The infiltration and eventually conquest of southern ltaty by the Normans in the eleventh centuq gave many cause fbr lamentation. Churchmen in particular felt vulnerable. The chronicler of tht. monastery of St Vincent on Volturno, writing c. 1120, described the Normans "seizing everything Far themselves . , . act.ing without king and without Among the cfiurches which suf"fereh from the more rapacious among the invaders was the archbishopric of Salerno. Four years after the widow's sale to John of Atrani, Pope Alexander fI excommunicated three Normans, William son of Tancred (the later Count o f the Principate), C u i m d des Moulins and Turgisius of Rota, for their alienations of the see" property.* Most of the Cava documents of the Nornian period are still unpublished. Those which have been printed havc appeared in many digerent and often obscure publicarions. Thus, for ease of reference, where a printed document from the Gava archive is c5ted below, the archival number will also be given. All such numbers, whether of publish& or unpublished documents, refer to the archives of the Badia della Santiss~rna"fr~n~tP, Cava. These are divlded into two sections, each arranged irt chronological order. 'The Artnavii Magni, class~fiediaiphabericafity, contain the mast imponant charters of the moxiastery, from territorial princes, arisrocrats and bishops, Each Amarittm contains sonle 40-50 documents; thus for cxanlptc Arm, iWug. C has 112 charurs written b m e e n 10% and /@14. Other charters, from less inlgortax~tdonors, are contained in the Avca~,classified by Roman ~lurnerals,each of which contains 120 documents. Again, to give an example, Avca xv runs from August to June 1094. Far fuller detalls, P. Guillaume, Essai Historiqr\re fur I'Arlbltaye de G v a , Cava del Tirrcn~1877, pp, civ-cv appendix NN. The doculnents up to 1064, from both sections, were all published by M. Mormtdi ei. at,, Codex Diplomati~t~s Gvensiz (8 vols), Milan/Naples 1873-93- herrceforth C:E>C, AIit the dummcnts from ZO%5 to 1072 have recently been published by S. Leone and C. Vitolo, Codex Diplomatieus Cavensis EX, Badiia di Cava 1984, Writirlg this paper woufd have been ~mpossiblewirhout the helpful and very kind assistance of darr Sinleone Leone 0. S. B., the present archivist of the abbey of the Holy Trinity, which is here gratefully acknowledged. X havc also used transcripa of unpublished Cava domments among the papers of E, M. Janzisotl in the Warburg Institurc, London, and am grateful to the Libranan for allowing me access to these. ' ut?tl(icrrm Komanorttm Inedtta (3 vols), Leipslg I88(M, 11, 169-71 no. 306 (Arm. 'Ma1q. 1).26), IP VIIX, 324 no. 19. Pctrucci, 'Mote dl diglornatica; normanna 11773-5 no. 2 (Ann. *Wag. C.4). Vitolo, fnsedlammti cavenst, 59. The 1089 bull is edttcd by CuglIaume, Essnr Historrgtre, xx-xxli appendix F ( A m . ,&fqq, C.21). ""inager, Rritdrii 1, 181-3 no. 52 (Arnr. ' 2 . 1 ~ a), ~~. 42 In~diamenfi he~edeltiltiit? Puglia, ed. M. S. Calo Marrani (2 vols), Calatina 1982, I f , 163-9, Vitofo, Insediamenri cavensi, 97-8. 43 S. Angclo, C:andela, was donated by Count Wrlllan~of the Prrnc~patein 1107, Am, ,%fag,E.5, and S. Marla de Lcnr~e, Palagiano, by Bishop Vatcausus of lMoctola in July It 10 (who also confirmed three churches already held by Cava), Am. 'Wq.E.15. The church oESc Mary Magdelen o f Bari was given to Cava at some time before April 1134 when ics prior received another donat~on on behalf of the mother house, Codrce diplor~nticobaresf Vfl Le Carte di ,Wolfina (IQ76-fJ@),ed. F. Carabellese, Bari 1912, 18-19 no. 10 ( A m , iWag. C .11). The next datable dnnatton of a church 1r1 Apulia was that of St Martin at Molfetta rn Qctobcr 1135 by Count Robert of Conversano, C. A. Garufi, 3 Diplomi purpurel della cancellerla normanna ed Elvira, prima mogtie di re R u g g ~ r o f 1l17?-1135)', Atti della reale accadrnia di scirnzrr, letferi E.d avri, Inalemto, Str. 3a. VII, 1904, 26-7 (Arm. I.Mady.C .19). Cf, V~tolo,Insdinmenti cczve~si,42, 92, t l(l-1 1, 149.

30

The Abhejr qf C ~ v a its , P Y U Pa ~P d Nen, 41 3. Stmeon was prlar o f Wtnchsstcr cathedral and brother of Walkelin, bishop of Wt~zchcstcr, Z"Liltcr Elzensts, Ir, 1 18, 135, 137-8. 27 Liher Elicrl~is,11* 135, 137. 1,il'lc.r Eliensis, ii, 233. It is not poss~blcco iderltlfy Gosceltn\ prt~sawith any of the extant works 111 honour of St Echeldreda. '' Lihev l ~ ~ i ~ r zrt,a s129-33. , Of thcsc only the first and Iast are actually dated to Slrneotl\ abbacy, but the ptdcirig of rhc others berwecn these strongly suggests that rhcy wcre believed to belong to the sarnc pcnotl. Llher Ellen.~is,i t , 129. 3' RzcbarJ, forrrlerly a nlorrk of Bec, ruled 1lfXl-2 and 21 103-7: Knowles, Brctoke and London, 45; L~htrEliertsis., App. I>. 413. " I.rr"rt.r I.i/ic.rrsi~,11, 143; cf. Vrfa Wlrlthuyqe, fols 66-7. 33 L I ~ BEY t l e t z ~ ~11,~ ,145-8; cf. Mm W'rrhhtr;qc, fols 67-13, 34 Liher Eiirpttsis, n, 150.

who bad the most to gain &om undernzining the position of the church. Prorni~~cnt anlong these was Picot, Norman sheriff of Camhlridgeshirc and one of the most notorious despoilers a f EXy. Picot, when rebuked f i r his "invasions' and for his failure to show due respect to St Ethcldreda, allegedly replied with archetypical Norman arrogance: 'Who i s this Etheldreda whom you prate about, that I have usurped hcr lands. I know her not, and I will not rclease her lands',35 But this incident is difficult to interpret. Its context strorsgty suggests not a climate of hostility towards the English saint per .se but rather a situation in which such hostility was a by-product of a quarrel with the church of Ely which was cssel3tially tcnuriat in nature. Picot's '"Inow her not' is significant less as a statement of ignorance of or disrespect for the saint than as a refusal to acknowledge the landowning rights of her church. And the Picot episode, whm viewed in this light, becomes a f central importance not as an illustration of the decline of the English cdts but rather as a key to an understanding of the adoption of those cults by the Norman abbats of Ely. The nlor~asticpatron saint of the Middlc Ages was par m ~ l t e a c ethe vindicator of the matel.ial m d political status ofrhc religious house upon which his or her cult was cerltred. Thus, when the Norman abbots of Ety found thcir material and political position open to challenge, they met that chalknge in part at least by recourse to the Iocal patron saint. Blake's proposed alignment of N o m a n monk and N o m a n layman agair~stAnglo-Saxon saint accordingly msunderstands the temper of the p o s t Conquest decades. At Ely during those decades the issue of nationality seems to have been aln~ostirrelevant. "Thc Norman abbots, it seems, regarded themselves primarily as abbots of Ely, only secondafily as Norman conquerors. Their reputations depended upon their effectiveness in defending and enhancing the position of the church carnmittcd to their care; and in pursuit of that priorrty they were prepared to utilisc any tool which canle to hand. The Norman abbats and the Anglo-Saxon saints accordingly presented a united front against Picot and his kind. The point i s underlined by one of the most telling stories of the Lihev EEr'ensi~,~~ A certain Gervase, an agent of Picot, showed hin~self'a mighty cncntly of St EthcXdreda, and, as if he waged a special war against her, attacked and oppressed her possessians whenever and wherever he could" The abbot, wearied by continual conflict, decided to draw St Etheldrcda? attention ta his plight: he instructed his monks to seek thc saint's mercy by singing the seven peniterztial psalms at her tomb. At once he was summoned to a lawsuit against Gervase; hut hefore he could reach the appointed place he lcamed to his relief that his litigious opponent was &ad. Cervase" death, it appears, was occasioned by a quite unrttmarkable heart attack: hut that was not how the Eiy monks wished to remember it. Instead we are told that St Etheldrcda had appeared before him in rhc company of her saintly sisters and had vented upon him the full force o f her wrath: 'Are yau not the man who in cantempt of me has so often harried rmy men, whose patron I am, and \ y h ~ still persists in infesting my church? Takc this as your reward, so that others will learn by your example not

" Llfier E ! I Y P 11,~ ~131. I ~ , The lnclident Ir probably to be dated to S~meori'sabbacy: see above, 11. I,rh~r ilftenstr, t r , 232. Like the abbacy: w e above, 11. 29. 76

I'tlccrt

29. madent. this scenzs to have taken place dur~ngS~meon's

to plague the followers of Christ.' Thereupon she raised her staff and, 'as if to transfix him', drove its point into his heart; her sisters Scxburga and Withburga followed suit; and Gcrvase survived just long enough to explain to his servants precisely what was happening to him, And in case the reader should remain in any doubt as to thc import of the story, the compiler adds a waming footnote: the story of Gervase's cnd was rapidly publiased, so that 'Fear of the saint spread through all her neighbours, and for many years no noblc, judge, thegn or man of any note dared seize any possession ofthe church of Ely - so manfully did the holy v i ~ i neverywhere protect her properties.' The Norman abbots of Ely, it is clear, inherited and utilised the cults of St EtheIdrcda and her saintly 'sisters" In 1109 the abbey of Ely was transfarmed into an episcopal scc and a new era inaugurated which saw the institutional separation of monastic community and bishop'sjamilia. What was the effect of this separation on the cults of Ehc Ety saints? The most striking kature of 'the time of the bishops' is the contrast in tone between Hervcy" episcupate (1 109-31) and that o f his successor, Nigel (3 13169). The former was remembered as a period of regeneration and growth marred only sIighcly by the first run~blingsof the grand quarrel between morlks and bishop.37It seems to have wimessed an important drive to promote the cults of the Ely saints, and there are indications that Hervey's personal role in that promotion was of some importance. He was very probably responsible for the updating of the Etheldreda legend by the commitment to writing of a series of n~iracfesattributed to his own tirn~.~%orethan this, wc know that new Lives of Etfictdreda were pmrfuced before I 135 and that the hagiography of Sexburga and Withburga was re-written following the translations of 1l(Ki,3"As Abbot Richard died in 1107 it is plausible to scc Wervey as the instigator of a large-scale programme of hagiographical work: such a programme was perhaps conceived as a logical sequel ta the 2 106 translations and was perhaps intended to establish as clearly as possible the contit~uitybetween the old abbey and the new bishopric. St Ethcldrcda appears throughout the nliraclcs of Herveyk time ir-i her traditional guise of protector of the church of Ely and vindicator of its rights, The miracles indicate too that the saint's festival was being observed at E ~ Ythat , ~the elierrtelc of her shrine included persons of continental as well as of native o r i g i i ~ , ~ 2nd ' that there may even havc been a degree of IocaX rivalry For tiervcy'r cprrcopatc wc L,thrr E!tartct\, 111, I-41, for h ~ rciat~ons s wlth thc monk5 of Ely bee E. 0, Blake, b H i ~ ~ d rIiftrt~>tr, i~7 f3c)ok III', unpuhllshed Ph.1). rfics~s,Univcrrlty ofC:an~bridge 1955.

37

60-78. 38 Four ~nlraclcsatrr~butcci to f - i c r v ~ ) "eplscijpate ~ (the first datcd 1116) conctudc the Lr& of" St EtheIdreda In Corpus 393, 'T'tlesc art incorporated ~xttothc Llhcv P:irerrsr~along w ~ t hseveral other nriraclcs ds\lgncd ru Hcrvcy\ rime: togcther these o c c ~ ~ pBook y III, cc. 27-36, of whlch rbc first 1s a general tncroduction cntlt1c.d "mu., auctorrl rSe n~lracults sanctc R,deIdrcde qrlc conttgcnlnt telnpor~busf4crvcl eprrcopl" 39 See above, 11. Y JO L~herX:lrensrs, 111, 31, a cure \vhlctt 1s s a d to havc taken pfacc on chc fesc~vll of the samt. The post-Conquest llturg~caltourccs arnptv corrobordtc thc Impression ufcc>nttriu~ty of cult affordccf by rhc L~herE/:lrrrr~tsand tile Ely haglograpby. For chc post-C:orrquesr EIy calendar see F. Wormald (cd ), Er~~qltshRencdritrttrv kal~rrriirr~iifier A I ) 1 llE1, 3 vols, Heilry Bradshaw Socrcry "1 a r r l X I , Li>ndon l"311946, 11, 1-19, 4".lher I:IIIYI~JIS,'LIB,30 ( B a f d ~ i n )3.,5 (t~~ac;tcr 12alph). It 1s of coursc postrblc. that thcse were ch~ldren of P.,ngll.~bparents wtlo had bcer~~ E V C I nmrc I fashlonahlc cont~nrntalname\.

between the churches and the cults of St Etheldreda and St E d m ~ n d , " ~ Following the accession of Nigd the sirnation was less happy. The overalX tone of Nigel's episcopate was one of conflict - conflict bemeen bishop and monks exacerbated by Migel" costly and dangerous involvement in the civil war of Stephen" rreigne49t Ethclbreda, as was her custom, was infinitely adaptable. In the hands of a highly partisan monastic historian, she became a powerful vindicator of the monks in their stmggle against lche bishop and his advisers. Thus o m of Nigei" associates, a certain Waster Ranulf, who was foolish enough both to oppress the Ely monks and to institute a conspiracy against the king, was finally betrayed by the merits of St Etheldreda: Nigel, duly impressed, was persuaded far a time at least to treat his monks with more respect And elsewhere the Ely histotian notes in a matter-of-fact way that Higel, against the wishes of the monk% %ad set up a powerful castle of stone and mortar in Ely, which he held against the king and which was quickly reduced by the merits of St Ethcldreda"43 In the late eleventh and twelfth centuries, therefore, the N o m a n leaders and community of Ely took. over the cult of St Etheld~da,adapted that cult to the changing purposes of the new age and recorded that adaptation by the production of hagiography and by the incorporation of that hagiography into an official and highly biased monastic history. But, they did more than this. The compiler of tbe Liher Elifusis, when incarporating the legend of St Etheldrsda into his monastic history, seems to have re-wrltten that legen$ in a number a f significant ways. He noted, first, that St Etheldreda? fwndation at Ely was . ~ errlphasised established on the site of an earlier foundation of St A u g ~ s t i n eMe the pcrsonai nature of Etheldreda" association with Ely by stating that she received the island as a dowel- from her first husband4? and that she briefly withdrew to the religious life there between her two marriages." Thus, in. accordancc with the twelfth-century preoccupation with continuity, he establishcd as Frrmly as possible both the antiquity of the religious life at Efy and the continuity of St Etheldreda? o w aassoc7iation with the island. And he w m t further: he provided a new analysis of Etheldrrda's role as abbess. He stated that she was made abbess by the Northumbrian bishop Wileid, perhaps hoping in this way to justify the claim of the twelfch-century community to exemption from the jurisdicti~llof the And he cmphasised that St Etheldreda was able, with the help of the same bishop, to obtain a papal privilege fur her aQ

s

L t l ~ rEl~ertsis, Irt, 36, St Etbcldreda's cure of an lnhabltarlt uf Bammgham, "no llonge a monastcrro Sanrti Edmundi" Cf. Lrhar Eltensis, xil, 35, where Edmund is t~arnedamong t h o x saints who failed to come to the aid of "masccr Ralph'. 43 The histsxy of Nigel's tplscopate is the dorrtindne theme of Liber I?Lzensrs, I n , 44-143. For dlscuss~onof t h ~ sperlod see App. E; Blake, "Historia Eiirnsrs, Book Ill", chs 3 and 3. M kihrr Eliensis, i i ~ ,31-3. '$ 1,iber Eliensis, 111, 62. 46 Liher Efiertsis, 1, 15; cf: p. 4. 45 Liher Elrensrs, 1, 15; cf. p. 4. T h ~ s statement 1s at vartance w ~ t hBede" account, In V V ~ I CEly I ) 1s dcscrzbed as a rrgici of six hundred faxnlltes within thc pn~vtrtciaof thc East Angles (Bede, Hz~tavzn rcclrsiastica 'qexzrts Anr~ds w ~ t ha telling message: "Sic Itayuc x~mdlctaDei, flecrlon rneritunl nlartyris [Eadmundrj, crrcurnvci-ttores propulsav~t,sttpergressures retrogrddav~t,ornnes qui ad hoc lncorlvenlens lcrarit stuporcm fncncls affcat; ncc alrqua corunl sine rlgno notabills rcmanszr. Qura vindex est I3omlnus de l r ~ os r ~ ~ n l b uut s . apostolus praedtx~t,ut glona slr a yut m sacrula slrculomm vrvtt. Amen.' 62 C;ranrdctt, 'Uatdwtn', 72, For ci~sc-ussion of thls pomt see Kldyard, ch. "7. For d ~ most r recerlt edition of Abbe" II;"a,sio Edmutldt .iec Three t t v e a qf Iittglt~ltsarnb, ed. M. W~nterbottorn,Toronto Mcdicval Latin Tcxts 2"373,67-87. 6'

Post-Couzqclt'ft Atlitud~sto the Saints

ctf^ the Att*gl;rlt)-Sa~on~

189

rewriting of his legend as an instrument of monastic propaganda. We adopted a quite deliberate policy of enhancing the prestige ofhis church by the promotion of Edmund's cult. That promotion receives its most poignant dlustration in Hermann" saccount of a young Italian boy cured by a relic of St Edmund which Baldwin, ert rotrte to Rome, "nd placed in the church of St Martin at L ~ c c a . ~ " And it reached a spectacular climax in $095, when the body of St Edmund was soIemnly translated to Baldwin" sew abbey church." By thc year 1100, when the abbey acquired its first genuinely 'Norman' abbot,."$the survival of St Edmund was assure$66and his function within the post-Conquest community already quite clearly defined, Prominent among the cases of Norman disrespect for the English saints citcd by Ktlowlcs is that of Abbot Paul of St Albans, who 'slighted the tombs of his predcccssors, and referred to them as uneducated simpletons"."' The authoriv for this statement is the Gmta ahbnt8tm monaskrii sarzrti Albani, composed in the thirteenth century by Matthew Paris and for the immediate postxonquest period based primarily on a source of mid-twelfth-century date,68Here Paul is roundiy conden~ncdfor the fact that he 'destroyed the tombs of his venerable p ~ e d a s s o r s the , noble abbots, whom he used to describe as mdes rt idi~tas'.~' One point is immediately strikixrg: there is not the slightest indication that those predecessors were regarded as saints either by Matthew himsdf or by the Anglo-Saxons. Paul's action may have been, as Matthew forcibly states, quite unlbrgivable; at the very least it was politically inept; but it cannot be adifuced as an instance of Norman disrespect for the English saints, There is, moreover, no trace of such disrespect for the one individual, a saint of the Anglo-Saxons if not an Anglo-Saxon saint, whose cult was of vital importance to the abbey - St Afban himself, In one instance Abbot Paul appears in close alliance with the saint. Matthew explains that Paul's attcrnpt to reclaim HC~IT);IRII, 67-9. Ilermanr-1, 84-43, X-Xermann precedes h ~ accorint s sf rhe tra~lsfarlorlwith a ktatemene that arnutld thts tlnw a rurnour arose anlong certa~ncourtters that St Edmund's body war rzat really at Bury; the courtrcrs accordingly rccomr~~ended ~ecularisat~on of the abbey. "I-h~s~nadcrrtwas cliearly a product o f pol~trcalcotlfllct between the abbey of Bury ancl the court: of W l l l ~ ~Ruitts n ~ and 1s ttz rro scnsc rtldlsat~veof sigr~itlcar~t ctgposit~onarnong the Norrnan la~tyto the verlcraeiorl of St Ednzund per .re: see Rzdyarci, ch. 7. I iernla~zngoes a n to note (pp 88-9) thar the relics of saints Borulf arldJurxni~lus were likewlst translated rcs the new abbe-): church. 65 Robert f (1 100-21, s o n of Hugh, ear1 of Chester, arzd a for~ner monk of faint-Evrclul: Knclwlcs, Brooke drld London, 32. Survlvrnp cafegldars demtzt~strarethat both befi~reand after the Conrltlerrt St EdmnniJ,was anlong the most wxdely venerated of Ertgltsh sarnts, The feast of' his deptss~tronoccurs m F. Wormald, Etqqlish kaicndars hti;-tru A . 13. 1 1013, Henry Bradshaw Sucrcty 72, Loncfsn 1934, nos (3-20; of these no, 19 is a Bury calendar of c. 1050. The same feast i s commcnzorarcd In Wormald, 4fic7r 11@:1,1,29, 44, 61, 78, 110, 127, 143, 159, 178; tr, 18, 37, 54, 73, 89, 102, 117. 6 W ~ u w l e . s118-19, , Paul (l(n7-93)was a rnonk of Caerl and d ncpbetli o f Archbishop Lanfrdnc: Knowles, Brooke and London, 66. 68 C;est~ahbattlm mnrznsmrrti ~nttrttAlhanr, ed. M. T. Rxley, 3 vols, IiS IXS7-9. For the rtuthorsh~parrd sources a f thc work see cspeclalfy R. Vaughan, d2f;ltiheurI%rts, Ganlbrldge Studlcs 3n Medtcval Life and 'fhoughc, 11s 6 , 1958, 182-9; 6es.stn abbatrrm, i, ix-xv~i. " T f ; e s t antrbntrtm, 1, 62. Matthew notes thar Paul's actlor1 was dtrtrr~nznedeltfrer by his cantempt h r his p~dccessorsbecause ofrhcir English birth or by his envy of them hccause they were almost a11 of royal or arlsrocratlc stock vvh~Iche h~xnsrlfwas af humble urlgln. The abbot is cr~tlrlsrdIn p a r t ~ n ~ f a r for 111sfallurc to move rbc rcmamr; o f 3llnsrns regls Offar, fundarclns noitn' to the new church rh~chhe consrructcd. 63

64

190

Ar~~qlo-Nommrzn Studies IX

certain estates which bad passed into the hands o f Odo of Bayeux and Remigius of Lincoln was successful partly thrw& his own persistent rquests, partly through good hard cash and partly because of the offenders' fcar of St Alban.70 Thcreaftcr Matthew follows an account of the exactions of William Rufus after I'aul's death with a description of Archbishop Anselrn's vision of Rufus-death at the hands of St Alban.7"n view of their p~servationonly in late sources, wc cannot be sure that these stories represent genuine traditions o f the postCony ucst period, But analogy with the Ety and Bury material certainly suggests that they are wholly consistent with the use which we might expect the post-Conquest abbots to make of the pre-Conquest saint. From the time of Paul's successor, Richard (1097-1119), ;.z former monk of Les~ay,'~ w e have evidence for the celebration of Alban" feast and for the dedication, to him of the reconstructed abbey The abbot" personal acceptancc" of the saint is suggested by his presentation to the community o f a tapestry bearing a representation of Alban's passion.74 And, more generally, Richard" attitude towards the English saints is illuminated by the fact that in 110.4 he received a nliraculocrs cure while attending the translation of St Ctrchbert; he later expressed his gratitude by canstrueting at St Albans a chapel dedicated to the northern saint,75Finally, the Norman adoption of St Alban was uriderlined on, 2 August 1129, when the saint3 relics were solemnly translated into a magnificerrt new shrine prepared for them by Richard" successor, Abbot Geoffrey (111H6).76 If thc post-Conquest promotion sf St Alkan's cult was perhaps less ostenatious than that of the cults of St ELhddreda and St Edmund the reason is to be sought, I would suggest, not in Norman scepticism but in the fact that throughout this period possession of the relics of St Alban was disputed between the church of St Albans and that af I E I Y . ~ ~ The Abingdon cvidcncc is more difficlllt to interpret. Here debate must hinge upon the attitude towards the English saints of Adelelm, Engijsh by name but a Eorrrlcr monk cafJumiPges, and abbot from 1071 until 1083.7" Abingdon was not rich in saints. The relics of St Vincent, fourth-century protomartyr of S p i n , arc located there by a pre-Conquest vernacular tract on the resting-piaces of the saints in England: possession of the whole body is implied, but in fact the C;esra abbntjdrrz, I, 53. C:esta a b h a t ~ m I, , 65. St Aiban appears in thrs narrative not s~ntp'lyas the local patrort of St Albans but rather as protomartyr iltz~lortrm,as champion of all the salnts whose churcihes had suffered at the hands of Wilham Jl. Knowles, Brooke and London, 66; Cesta ahhatrrm, I , 66. 7s Cats ilbbalattrm, r, 69: Abbot Richard ordairted that a payment of thirty shillings should be nlade (annually) by the cell of Tyncmouth to the church of St Alba~lirtfestv gt4sdemt; Gesta ahbarurn, x, 70-1, on the dedication of kcctesiarrt. Beat1 Afbani" For the post-Conquest St Alban" calendar see Bltormalcl. (ed.), A$er 11011, i, 31-45. '"C;cstcz ahhatctm, 1, 69-70. 7 5 C;esf~ 'abhafutlm, 1, 70; for rhc date of the trarlslat~onsee bclow, p. 196, 56 Ccsta nhhat~rm,1 , 8 5 4 . Geofhcy de Gorron (111 9-46) came from a noble farndy I n Nomandy and Maine and bad been prior of St Albsns: KnowLes, Brooke and London, 67;Gesta ahhutum, i, 72-3. That the retics had previously bccn moved from the Saxon church Into Abbot Paul's slew building can be inferred both from the dedication of the rtew church and from the fact thar Matthew, who waxed so v~rriolicabout Paul's mrscreacnlcnt of his predecessors arrd of Kmg Cjffa, would hardly have failed to contrnent upon any digfiting of Atban" relics, 77 FOX. this ~ I S P U E Csee Vaughan, 198-2M; Liber EIimsis, i ~ 103; , xxxv~i-xxxviil, 78 Krrowles, Brooke and London, 24. 7'

192

Anglo-Norman Studies I X

Adelelm is unambiguously consigned to the latter category." His primary failing, it is claimed, was to alienate the property of the cfiurch by bestowing it upon his Norman kinsmen. The author goes on to describe his refusal to allow the feasts of St Ethefwold and St Edward; he n~akesparenthetical refcrencr: to Adelelm's one good deed, the purchase of three estates from the king; and he concXudes with a blunt account of how that abbot met his death immediately after speaking slightingly of St Ethelwold: he leaves his reader in no doubt that the two events were causally connemd. The Chmlzimn itself tells a very different story.87 Adelelm is prescnred as an effective defender of the abbey's rights; his care ior the religious life is noted; so too is his enrichment of the church. His hostility to the English saints receives no mation; his death is sudden, but there is no hint of divine vetlgtanec, The truth of the matter cannot now be recovered. Xt is not impossible that the author of the De abbatibtrs had access ta an authentic tradition which was unavailable to or rejected by the author of the Chronicon. Adelelm succeeded in diffiwlt circumstances, his predecessor Ealdred having been deposed for his pan in the conspiracy of Bishop Ethelwine of 13urham.88It may have been difficult for him to gain acceptance by the monks. A letter of Lanfranc asking Adelelm to reinstate two monks who had Ieft the house, and implying that the abbot was at least partially responsible for what had happened, indicates that there was some and such conflict may have provided a context for the abbot's hostility to the saints traditionally venerated by thc community. It is equally possible, however, that the thirteenth-century writer's assessment of Adelelm's conduct in general and of his attitude to the saints in particular was a product of his own fertile imagination. Whatever the case, it is important to note that any hostility shown by Adelelm was rnorc than offset by the activities of Abbot Faricius in the first decades o f the twelfth century. Faricius, Italian-born and Malmcsbury-tminedtao was an assiduous cafleaor uf relics. He was present at the Winchester translation of St Ethelwold in I I l l , and here apparmtly acquired an arm and shoulderblade o f che saint."' He may have obtained the relics of other Winchester saints at the same time.92 He also acquired relics of St Aldhelm, St Wilftid and a number of universal saints.93And in 1116 he carried out a thorough inspection of his cummunity's relic collection and ensured that the rcsults were carefully

Mala Abbas Ethelelmus feat Abendonie' jC:hronicon, The account of bis abbacy 1s headed 2831, 87 Chrntzicon, ~ i 1-1 , 1, esp. 1 I . " Knowles, Brooke and London, 24; Chrorzicon, 1, 485.4. Rn Lar4rarrc's letters, no. 38. " Onowles, Brooke and London, 25; Chronicon, ii,44; Gem pctnt$ccrm, 192. '"or Far~cius"acquisition ofthe relrcs at the FlEX of the translation see (Ihronicon, ii, 6; for the date ofthc translation see Annales tmonasrici, ed. H, R. Luard, 5 vols, RS 18649, 11, 44 (Atzrzalesmorzasterii cle IKntotzia). Thc relics of St Etbdcvold ("spatula mtegra, et bracbium et digltus, et de capillis cjus') arc reccjrded in the Abingdon retrc Iist of 11 36 (C/zroniron, ii, 257). '' The Abingdon relic 1st ~ncXudesalso the relics of saints Swithun, B~nnus,Judoc alzd Edburga ( C F t r o t t i c ii, 158). For a plausible suggestion &at these relics were Ixkew~seacquired at the crat~staitionaf 1 2 1 1 sec X. C , Thomas, 'The cult of saints\eIics in med~eval,England*,unpublislxc.$ I%.T>. thesis, University of London 1974, 154 and n, 5. " Chronicort, ii, 46-R; cf. il,155-8 ( I 116 relx Iist).

86

11,

committed to writingaY4 The Chmrzicort also rekrs to his special devotion to St Vincent and notes, without going into detail, that he observed the saint's feast with greater honour than did any of his predecessors.gsThe tract De abhatihtrs supplies the additional information that he was rcspansible fclr grading in c~ppis the feasts of St Vincent and St Ethelwold." Abingdon had had an unfortunate history: its great men had gone on to greater things and had died in other places, Before the Conquest the cornrnuniry had consoled itself with the partial relics of St Vincent, perhaps also with those of Edward the Martyr - both great names, it is true, but of limited value as local patrons. Faricius did his best to remedy the situation by acquiring not only the relies of universal saints hut also those of his predecessor Ethelwold and d o t h e r saints who had played an important part in the history of the West Saxon Church, The post-Canqucst Abingdon calendar, though late, bears witness to '~ no doubt beause it lacked the whole remains of a single his c f f ~ r t s , Abingdon, saint to whom it had a unique claim, never ranked a m m g England" pprincjpal centres of pilgrimage and of devotion to the saints: but, such as it was, it probably reached its zenith mder the rule of the Italian-born Abbot Faricius. The case of Malmcsbury is analogous to that of St Atbans. Knowlcs, citing William of Malmesbury's Life of St Aldhelm, informs us that the second Norman abbot, Warin,98 h a s so surfeited with the relics of English saints that hc turned a number out with a jest','' 'This, however, is not quite what Willian~ says. His complaint is that Warin, "bclitrling the d d s of his predecessors', was seized by revulsion for the %holy bodieshnd swept them away from their pron~inentposition on either side c t f the high altar to an abscuire comer of the church of St Michael." The holy bodies in question were those of Warin's predecessors, Therc is no suggestion that those predecessors were regarded either by William or by the English befbre the Conquest as saints. Willlam's special indignation is reserved f i r Wlann" ejection of Malmesbuq" founder, Meifdulf 'of holy memory" and of satictt.rs Iohannes S ~ ~ r t ~whom i s , the monks allegedly revered hardly less than St Aldhclm hin~self." O L Each of these appears in the verr~acularresting-place neither, so far as I have been able to 94

(:lirclrltcotr,

VS

c:Jllmtitiol?,11,

155-8. 4%. "'Chronriot.~,11, 287. 97 Wornlald, d f i r r 11Cdll, r, 15-30 The carlrcst evtant text of the c~icndar, preserved in C:dmbndgt., Unlverstty L.ibrary, MS Kk, I 3"Cfols lh-71, datcs from thc Iarc tb~rreerlthcenrtrry. " X ~ ~ l ~ oofn kI Ire who ruled Malmssbury from 1070 to c 10")l: Knowlcs, Brclokc and London, 55; C;i.sra portt?ficrtrrt, 421, 431 Aidizrlnrr whlcb forrrls 13ook V (pp 33tW.3) of Wtlliarn's CGutt~ Knowiics, 1 I") ccltrng rhc t 11,

t~rlt~jiltdm, 421. Ci1.m ~ I I I B ! / ~ ~ ~ ( F421 P Z . : 'Is, cunt prjnlliixl i d abhat~amvcntr. anrcce\\orun3 h i t 2 parviprnden~, t ~ p oyi~i3darrrcr nausla S a r ~ c t a r u rcorporum ~~ fercbatur. C k ~ adril~qucsattctae tncnlorlae Mc~fdulfi ct cctcrorlirrl cpl, o11tlr ibl ahbates posreayrtc tn plurzbus locrs dntlrtlte\, ob reverentianl patron1 sul AIdhcImt xc In loco rumulatunl; Irt jussxsscnt, yuos arltlyultas vcncranda ln duobus lap~delscrarens ex utrdquc par&! alranr, Jlrposltlr iItrcr ckjjusque ossd ligrle~srtltcrvallrs, rcverwrer $tatuerat; hacc, ltryuam, omtlta pariter conglohata vclut: acervurn ruderum, vclut rcliqulas v ~ l ~ u rmatlclptomm, n cc-tlcslae fi3rlhus al~cnavrt.Et nc quid impuderttlac dccssct, etlarrl sanccun1Johannem Scomlm, qiienl pcnc par1 quo Sanctum Alcthc'tx~~urtl veneracrctnc rnctnachi colrbant, cxtuht. Hos lgltur ornncs rr1 cxtrcnlo ar~gutobasil~cacSat-rct~Mtct~ahttrs,quarr~lpse dilatan er esaftarr jusserac, rncons~dcrarc ocilll laptdzbusquc pratcfrtd~praccc*plt.' ''I See ahovc, n. I00 I"' L~cbcrn~arlt~, S C C ~ I O41. ~

194

A~glo-hrortnanStudies IX

ascertain, in pre-Canquest liturgy or hagiography. William's own language herc does not necessarily imply that he regarded them as saints, though elsewhere he speaks of john as a martyr."' Tbe line bemeen a speciaUy respected forebear and the object of a hesitant and purely domestic cult is a fine one, and vvc canilot be sure whether in the gre-Conquest period either Meildulf or John had crossed it. If they were indeed casualties of Norman s q t i c i s m they were very minor casualties. '" Morc &an this, William's whole account of this incident may be untmstworthy. An earlier Life of St Aldhelm was written by Fanicius of Abingdon, probably vvhile still a monk at Matmcsbury: here no rei;erence is made to Warin" ejection of either 'predecessors' or 'saints" I"" The divergence between the sources may derive from a difference in their nature. Faricius set out to write a straightforward Life of the saint; William intcndd to locate the saint" life and cult clearly within a framework of monastic history,i06 William's discussion of Warin" treatment of his predecessors might therefore have been considered irrelevant to Farxciusharrative. But an alternative explanation may lie in William" attitude to Abbot Warin. William plainly disliked Warin, blaming him in particular for wasting the substance of the abbey and for placing conccrn for his o m influence above concern for the community. '" In these circumstances we are justifxed in wondering bath whether Warin's Qection af the "holy bodies' actually took place and whether, if it did so, thc indignatian of contemporaries was perhaps less than the indignation of William. Bath Wijtiam and Knowles acknowledged &at Warin to some degree cornpnsated b r his other activities by his retention and promotion of the cult of St Aldhelm.1008 Here coo, however, some ambiguity is worth noting. William of Malmesbury explains that Abbot Warin was initial1y uncenain of Aldhelm9s sanctity but was 'cconvertedbn hearing of one of the saint" curative miracles and accordingly detcrmiried to translate Aldhelm's relics: in general, we are told, that miracle brought about a great improvement in the saint" reputation among the Normans."' F~ariciustells a rather diEerent story. The curative miracle is rdated with no reference to Abbat Warin's feelings about St Aldht=lm.""O CZesta pont$curn, 240, The feast of ioharznes ttir Dei is cntercd on 28 January In the sixteenth-century calendar ascnbed by Wormald trz Matmesbury (,4jer 11H1, ii, 75-%I); Meildulf receives no mention bere. ms Vita S.Aldhelrtzr f i v i r i u uuctorr, In 17utrokl;tlia Jafinn, Ixxxix, cols 6&88 (hereafter cited as I4ta Aldiielmi), Fariaus became abbot of Ablrlgdorl 8r-t 1 1CX) and died in t f 17 (Knowles, Brooke and London, 25). Wrlliaxn of Matmcsbury begar1 his V ~ IAldzrlrrri LI with crrtictsms of Fancius" work; he completed his verslotr of thc satrlt" Life In 1125 (Gc~raporrtt)icum, 330-2, 442). '06 Grstcl porttificum, 331 , "O" (:fsfd panl!ficl.tpn, 431 * laQ" Grstcz pant$nrm, 421-5, esy. 421-2; cf. Knowler, 1 19. "O" C;es#.ra ponrl$rum, 4223: YC:ujuuarnen sanct~tatisambiguus et mcertm primo f u ~ tquia , non ejus votis ad m~racqlommexll~btt~oncm famularecur. Verrrrrtamc-n occurnt labant8 pietas Sanctl, ut duhiecdtrs ~ ~ u b ~depellerct, l ~ ~ r n ccrt~tlrdrnlslucern ~i-tfut~dcret . . . Eartuns ~ltud,coranr civili poputo, palarn fnur~ach~s omnibus, nlagno apud Norrlrarlnos ad fior~ofificent~ant Sancci h e mcrcnzento . . . Hoe vtso, cum rlichll abbatl excus;lbihs cunetatior~isessct reliquutti, ad rolendam pretiosiss~rn~ confessorrs hor~or~fxccntiarrl suae mcntis exc~tavirindustriam.YAldhrlm\ seftcs were translarecf by Bishop Clsmund of Salisbury fotlc~w~ng a preliminary examrnatton in which War111and Abbot Scrlo of Clouccster (1072-1104) ascertained the nssuum . . . integrrtas. ""O Wra Aldjzflmi, cols 8 t-2. '03

m4

It is fnilJowed by a wmmary. ofthe history of Aldhdm's relics up to the titrle of St Dunstan, by whom they were buried out of fear of the Danes.'" Faricius then explains that Warm, 'being for a time uncertain about the most holy body', enjoined a three-day fast, with the singing of psalms, 'in c>rderthat the relics of so great a bisrMp might be found7:"9is doubts, it is plain, concerned not the sanctity of Aldhelm but whether after so long a time his relics would actually be where they were supposed to be, The abbot's snlind was duly set at rest, and the translation followed a week later, on St Aidhelm" fcast day,'" Again the divergence of sources is not easily explained, It is not inlpossible that Faricius, a Eorcigrler hin~selr,may have wished to whitewash the activities of Malmesbury's foreign abbot. More likely, X would suggest, the 'error' was William's: it would have been the casiest thing in the world Eor William, deliberately or accide~ltally, to garble Faricius' straightforward translation narrative in accordance with his own Iow opinion of Warin" character. Certainly the translation, which William of Malniesbury datcs to I0"l,"la sct the seal on Norman approval of St Aldhelm and ir-ritiated a period of active promotion of the cult. Two Lives of the saint, those of Faricius and of William, were pruduced bccwee~l1078 and 1125."Varicius' work ends with the translation; William" continues and provides a valuable insight into the Xaecr history of the cult. The saint's feast was reguXaxly cclehraited at Mafme~bury;"' Archbishop Lanfranc himself decreed &at Aldhelm be vencrated as a saint throughout EngXarrd;""?thc Murnlan abbot Godfi-ey encouraged the cult;''' and

"'

Vita Aldltrlmi, cols 82-3. Vita Aldhc>Jmi,col. 83: Tracerat in eodern menoblo abhas Wannus, plur~busrebus vir crud~tuset

rnonasrlcae retigiosltat~sdoctr~tlaprarditus, qux vita ct moribus pollentern gregeni sibi cornrnisst~m rcgebat monasticis tradition~bus,Qul algquant~sperde carpore dubitans sanctlsstmo, ~ndlcttfideli congregationi tr~duanumagerc jqunaum. psaitrnos devote locls congruls clecanrare, amn~husyuc. nlodils ante drvlnae conspecturn clenrcntiac humilrari, quatellus csmnipocentls I>er rnrsericord~atar st^ praesulis reiiquras reperircnt." Vita A/diic.ftnr, caf, 84. Far~crricdocs not statc that thc translariol~was planntd prwr ro thc examlr~ations f the rrtrcs but this can perhaps be lrrfcrrcd both from the claboratt arraIrgenzerlcs rnade for the cxaminatlon, In which Warrrl was assrstcd by Scrlo, abbot of St F'eter's. C'1s OUfCSECT, and, ntorc Imporeaszt, from the trnrtng of the cxani~nation:it was surely mare than co~ncrdencediat this took glace a week bcfore tbc saint" fe.;tlvat, thus nlaklng poss~blethc translattort of the refgcs on the rrlvst appropr~atcday of tbc year. Cesta potttfji~i.(~l, 423. See above, n. fO,5. ""6C;estu ponf!(iru~n,426-8 (a defornred youth, Eolcw~ne,1s cured by St Aldhclm rn nclralr 1y113, 1081)). 4311-5 (a cr~pplcdwoman IS cured at M ~ ~ I I E C S ~patrr-tr U T ) ' dfrhtr~ante fislsrtls, in the tlnw of Abbot Cisdfrcy (c. I - c. 1106: Knowles, Brooke and London, -55)).4354(in thc tmte of Abbot Godfrey a crippled gsrl rs taken to Mafmerbttry on two consccurlve of the saint. wtthout ,~CCCSS; she finally receives a cure or1 the third attempt), 438-")(a cornmenc chat the saxtit's feast 1s always attended by rabble sceklrlg to take advarltage of the \vorshippcrs; dur~rlgWilliam's youth one of them behaves tt~decenrlytc:, tbc saint's chrzt~c),440-2 (a cure w~tncrscdby W~lIxamof a dun& man ~ t . the salnr'c festival), 4-42 (a cure wltncssed by Wllliani of a bl~ridwornan at thc sairrt" ftst~val). "' t ; ~ ~ potttifictttn, ta 42%: Lanfranc, o n bemg infi>rrncd by Warln of Aldhelm" m r e of Folo~rinc, "nerita confrssoris cx pradigia metlens, legern irr totarn promulgavlt Angliarn, qua eum lncunctal?ter haberl et call pro Sarrcto prataperet', Tt~ere1s no srrggesrlon m WhIlarn" account that Lanfranc had fr~tilertoopposed the cult o f St Aldhelnt, CV~lli~~m gocs on ca note that an annual l s ~ rwas rrz~n~ednarcly instituted on AfdheIm's kast day, 'uut quos non ~nvltabatconfrssoris sanctltas vcl rnerclum advacaret avidztas'. ""BI"hrs rs the carnc Godfrcy tvho haci prcviorisly served asprot irrnlor of Ely (above, p. t 82; Kno\vles, 13rookc and L,ondurt, 55). W11tlanz ofMa1mclsbury notes t h d r St Aldhclm pcrforrncd many n~lraclt*s

thc beneficiaries of Aldhelm's miracles included Norman clergy and lay~nenas well as English.""" 'Even the great name of St Cwthbert" writes Knowles, 'was not proofagainst Norman scepticism.'"' The evidence cited is that of TIormce" where it is stated that in 1104 the body of St Cuthbert was exhurtled, on account of the incredulitos of 'certain abbots'. "' By analysis of the contemporary and near-contemporary sources produced at Durham itself this alleged inrredulitas can be placed in context and an accurate assessment of its nature and importance provided. Largely as a result of the turmoil of lort them politics, the early post-Conquest years at Durham were troubled."' In 1069 Robert de Comincs, appointed earl of Northumbria by the Conqueror, was murdered at I)urham, thus signalling the beginning of the last general uprising in the tlarrh.12VishopEthelwine of Durham, outlawed in 1069, ww later invotvcd in Hereward" rebdlion and died imprisoned at Abingdon.I2" The first conleinental bishop, Walcher, created earl in 1076, was murdered four years later. 'ZJ And the episcopate of his successor, William of St Calais, was interrupted by a three-year exilc following his irnplicatinn in the 1088 rebellion against William Rufcrs."' Throughout this period the relics of St Cuthbert were among the principal assets of the church of i3urham. The function of the cult can be traced by reference to Symeon" history of tile community and to two series of miracles collected between c. 1083 and c.1 104,'27The shrine of St C:~~thbertis nowhere portrayed as a rallying point for rebelIion as is that of St Ethcldreda. "'But it is emphasised that the saint acted as protector of his community and of 'his people' - a r ~ din the carly post-Conquest years this could lead him to support those hostile to Norman rule. Thus, after the Nurthumbrians' murder of their Nornlan earl in 1069, bath the church and the city of Durham were savccI fronl the Conqueror's first ptrnitivc expedltiorl by a dense fog sent by St Gutfibert to confound the royaf farces. 12" 111 the t m c o f t h ~ sabbot and 1r1dct.d ~mpliecthat all the mtracles contained in cr. 272-8 a f h a Lrk took place during Godfrey" tame; 111 onc of these ~ t is : the atsbor htmself who suggests that balsam from the samr's tomb b t used to effect a cure (Gesfa potttlfii~fm,433, 438). ' I 9 CC;estczpont[ficicttm,428-31 (Osmund, btstrop of Sal~sbury, ohtazns by request a rshc of St AIJhelnr, by whlcb two a f hls archdeacons - Everard, later hlshop of Nowrch, and HubaId - arc subsequcntEy cured), 437-8 (Ernulf dc Mesdin 1s cured at Maltneshury by balsa~r~ taken from the sarnt" storrtb), lZ0 Knowlc5, 119. 121 Worcester, ii, 53, "2 For ths ptolittcaii background to I3urham's postXonquest history see W. E. Kapelk, The 'Vovmarr Corrgtcar c?frhr Pti,rrh: tkr reginn and its trantfi)rtlzntrott, ItXB-1135, Umversity of North Garolirla Press, Ghapct Hill, 1979, 106--57. '" Symcon aE Ilurhanr, Histonn Dunelmenjts rcclesmc~,In Symewnrs moriaclzl cyer't anmra, ed. T. Arnold, 2 vols, IPS 188S3, 3-135, at 98-"3 Kapelle, 121-19. """" Syrrzeon, 105; Kapelle, 124, '" Symeon, I~H-6, 113-17; Mapcllc, 124-5, Z37-8, 13941. 'Lh Symeors, 127-8; Kapelfe, 146, 149. '21 Far the dates of these nrlracle groups see B. Cnlgravc, ‘The post-Sedan rll~rdclesand trans1aao~z.l of St Cuthhcrt" ~n C , Fox art3 f3. Illckens (eds), ' I ~ ~P LJI YE ~ YCL I I"J ~ ~ ~ Y(~Z> JS t ~ t ~ r t h -IZidruj~~, ~ t ~ ~ ~ rC:amhr~dgc 1 9511, 30'7-32. ""8ee above, g, 182, '* Symeon, 9)-loO. TIzcrcafZer the saint cont~r~ucd tcz protcct h ~ apeople from thc wrath of tfrs C:onqcreror: Illshop iErheltv~neand the rnonks a1tegcdly fled with thc saznr's body to L~ndisfame, whtch despite a hrgb tide they reached ~ 1 1 t dry h ket: (Synreun, ZOi)-I; Mlraclc 6, Colgrave 312).

Post-Conqt-rest Attitudes to the Saints 4 t h e Arzglo-Saxons

197

The irrlporrarlce of St Cuthbert, however, was not limited to the time of Durham's last native bisfrop, A number of stories corn the time of the first continental bishops indicate that these were not slow to perceive the usefillncss of Durham's patran saint. Thus we are told that soon after the appointment in 1072 of the Lotharingian Walcher, King William while passirtg through Durham demanded to see for himself the body of St Cuthbert, threatening to kill all the nobiliores et natu m a i m should the community 3 claim to possess that body prove false. Bwt before any inquiry could be made William was seized by an intolerable heat and Red from the church and thc province, not stopping until he had crossed the Tees,""oUohson writes of tbis period that "even thc notoriously ruthless William I was compelled, like the two continental bishops be appointed to the see of Ilurham after 1071, to come to terms with what was now an irresistible legend" But the relationship between bishops and legend, I would suggest, was nlsre positive than tbis, The story of William" flight is perhvs best understood as an object lesson to that king's successors and agents on the inviolability of the church and people of I>urharn,133Two further stories likewise have the appearance of examples p o w mcatrvqev Ips atltres. 111 the first the royal tax collector Ranulf is taken ill while trykg to do his job in I2urham, not recovering until he leaves the diocese;133in tfic second a Norman soldier who attempts to steal some unguarded treasure from the church meets his death at the hands of the vengeful saint,"4 In each case an attack on the material andlor political status of St Cutfiberr" church was InevoIv~d;in each case that attack was 110 XCSS damaging to thc continental bishop than to his English congregation. 1 would suggest that the legend ofSt Cutbbcrt, and the associated promotion ofhis cult, were potent means by which Walcher and his successor Witiiam sought to define their church" relations with Norman secular authority and, in a frontier region, with a potential!y unruly Norman laity. Thc of St Cuthbert was no less useful to the continental bishops of I>urharn than to tkcirr AngloSaxon predecessors. fn 1083, under Biishog WilIiarn of Saint-Calais, the congregation of St Cuthbert was transformed into a regular Benedictine monastery."' The transformation took place, Dobson points out, "midst a, wave of conscious and indeed almost antiquarian re~ivalism"~"" It was a revivalism which, altl~ough originating among the English, had been adopted with s o m alacrity by the continental bishops of Ilurharn, Bishop Walcher, Symeon notes, had been quick to support those monks from Evesham who sought to rrvive the monastic life in the places made holy by Cuthbert and the Northumbrian saints, Symeox~,If.&. 1%. B. Dobson, Dtrrllanz I3rtc1ry, 1400- 14511, 26. '32 S y r n e o r ~ ~ ' ~C C O L I Tof~ ~that rnc~dentconcludes wtth the statement: "Quo rrtdrcio magnunr l)el confessorem Curhberru~ni b ~requiesccrc Otebatur, et populum, iJeo prohibente, laedrre nnn perm~rtebatur.' "' Jyymeon, 107. TIM%incldcnr probably rook place In 1073 or 107'4: it is precckd by an accrotint of Wtfl~am'sScoctlsh cxpcdition of I f f 7 h r s r J fi>lIowed by a dtscnpt~onof the monastic rcv~valIn thc north, wl~lchbegan In 1073 or 1074 (KapeElc, 134, n. 56). its po1itlcaI context 1sdiscussed by Kapcllc, 139-5: "this story must bc a twelfth-century monk" sway of saylng that W~llramhad tned to tax Northumbria . . . and that chc Pjorthurnbrrans had drivctl our the tax c ~ I l e c t o r ~ ' , '34 Mrracle 7, CoIgravc 313 (dated litX0); pr. Arrrolci, Symrotrrs, 11, 333-5. 13s Sy~rreot~, 12(1-4; Knowlcs, 169-70; Ilobson, 26, f30bs011, 26. L3"

"I

His attitude had been determined, in part at least, by his reading a f Bede's Ecciesr'as~r'colhistory and Life of St C ~ t h b e r t . Bishop '~~ William similarly wzs encouraged to effect the final translformation of llurham itself by his reading of allspecified ancient writings. E38T o the ncw community the presence and power o f St Cuthbert were central points both of faith and of propaganda. The c ~ a t i o n of that community is itself portrayed by Syn~eonas an act of devotion - as a transfer of guardianship over the relics of St Cuthbert,'3g Indeed the m o d s went further: thc establishment of their community was in rlo scnsc an innovation but was rather a return to the constitution and the ideals of Guthbcrt" Lindisfarne. '" The function of the cult closely paraHcled that already outlined: the. new community succcedcd to the inviolability of the And so we come to the events of 11OZt.I11that year, we are told, in an accoullt produced about twency years later, Durham" sew cathedral church 'was almost finisbed, 2nd the time was at hand for transferring into it the venerable body of Father Cuthbert, to occupy the place prepared for it . . . and receive the meed of worthy ~ e n e r a t i o n ' . The ' ~ ~ passage is important in confirnling what we might almajy have concluded: veneration of St Cuthherr was to he of centrai importance within the new Norman cathedral of Durham. But, apparently around this tinle, a problem arose. There was a differmce of opinion about St Cuthbcrt. The points at issue are quite explicitly stated. There were some who doubted whether the saint" bboy was actually present at Durham; and there were others who doubted its incorruptinn - 'a thing . , ,which they were wel aware had been conceded to a very few only of holy men"'"" There was, it is important to note, no doubt whatever that Cuthbert was a saint and should be venerated as such. The monks adopted thc ratimal curprate solution to their problem: they sct up a committee, which before the scheduled translation opened the saint's cofin and found the body to be both present and incorrupt.'& But the committee's report did riot end the matter. First the bishop, Flarnbard, while not denying Gtschbert's sanctity, was not easily persuaded of his i n ~ o r r u p t i m . " ~So~ond,and more seriously, the abbot of an unspecified neighbouring monastery, hearing of the committee's report, raised a further Synlcon, 9-10; cf. 10tbt3: I?obson, 26. Symeon, Ill-1 1, cf. 120-4. "* Symcon, 11, 122. 140 Symcon, 1 1: 'Slcquc ad 11lunr monaeh~caeconversatlonn a r d ~ n e mncm ncrvu~nInstltutt, sed antlquum I>w rcrrovante restlruit." "l MIMCICI8-12, 13, 15, 17, f:ol;gravc 313-17; pr. Amolci, Symettrzrs, I f , 33556. "WUP t~ttrt~cttiis er tr~ttsl~ttotlzl?14~, III Art~oId,I;ymcc)nis, I, 24%;M~racle"1,Golgravc3lT 329 for date. "4j 1% mtraailic translbxrtonrhtts, 247-8: 'Inter haec tarn frequcntnlm miract~lorumopera non eactem dpuJ omnes Falrl dc pracserltle sacrl corpuns beatt Cutbhcfl~,qualn de Incormptlnne habebdtzlr oplr~tcz.A h namque ~lltld~ n u l ante t ~ ~ hanc aeratcm VI quaciarn occulta alio translatunl vanis slhl co1-?jecturlssomnlabant; atque scpulcbrurn, llcct nunc tails depos~trcareat commn~daro,non tarnm cvacuarl vrrttltlsrrt gforta, sed, ad i n d ~ a u nprlstinx ~ ~nhabicatons,nunc qrtoytlc celebr~tereffuigcre m~raculrs.A ~ dutcrn I secras qutden~rellyulas ~hidcrncontmerr, sed human1 carporis cornpagem per rot saecufortrm voiun-t~t~a ~ncflssolutatnpcrmancre, jura dicebant: excedcre narurac; et, licct vgrtus I31v1na o t l ~ n ~ b uqtmd s vult ec yuonrodo vuit imperct tlatttns, hanc ramen In hqirs cc3riporis Incorruptlone nu1bu.t yur vcl nlanll vcl vlsu explorassct tcstlmc>nlosib1 patcre; axque ~ d e dtffictlc o slhl dc hoc, quamhbet sancto corpore, crcdcre mexpcrrurn, quad rdro pauclssirnts allorurn sarrctorum cc~rporlbttsnovcrar~tconccssum.' "1"~ tntirar ults et trun~latrirnrhtd>,249-54 L45 De rtttrrzr trlls ar rmraslartonthru, 254. "@

13tjst-Conquest Attitudes to the Saints $-the A~rglo-Saxons

199

objection.146Again there is no suggestion that Cuthbert's sanctity was called into question. The abbot's complaint was procedural in substance, political in tone: the examination of relics, he argued, should not have been exclusively an internal aEair; vested interest might: have played havoc with honesty, More specifically, he, as Durham's neighbour, should have been consulted: dignity, it is clear, had been offended. Thc result was a second, public cxamirlation of the holy body, after which it was with duc ceremony laid to rest behind the high altar of the new cathedral."' The events of 1104 confirmed and strcrrgthcncsd the central psition of St Cuthbert within the spiritual and political life a f the north.""Kt is unhrtunate that we cannot with ccrrainty iderltidji those whose doubts initially called this process into question. It is nowhere stated that they were Normans, though some of the most obvious candidates were certainty Norman. It is unlikely, though not impossible, that they came from among the Durham monks. "" More likely, the "doubters" came Eram orlcside the community and from among its critics. They may have irlcludcd the bishop, Flambard, who was said to have

" "Me nriran~(iset translutionibus, 1 5 5 4 . It a later rrzads clear that- the abbot in quistlon must have been either Stcphcq, abbot of St Nary", Vork, or Hugh, abbot. of St German", Selby: De ntrrarttlrs et trarzslatiunihus, 258. la' II)e mirnct4lis at translationibtrs, 256-61. St Guthbert was accornpan~edto the new cathedral by the relics of nzany other Northurnbriar1 saitlts whlch had been found by the rnoriks when they opened the coffin. Ofthese the head o f St Osurald alone was ailowed to rematn it1 the cof6n; thc others werc rcmoved 2nd placed In separate caskets. See UP mtrac~ftset trntrsI~~~tonihr~s, 252-3, 255, 3M). A rwctth-cerrtury account by Reginald o f 13urham supplies the detail that the rehcs, whicfi did not sharc Cuthbert's privilege of zncorruptlon, werc removed and separately preserved because thur decomposrt~orihad damaged Guthbert" coffin (Reginaldi mortnchr Utrnelmarsis lihcllr4s de adtnruandr.t hmti Ccrtlrhcrti virtiitihrrs qtrae navrllis parratae suni temporibus, cd. J. E"Zair.te, Surtccs Soc~coy1, tonclorl 1835, 85). '48 13obron r~ghtlycommctlts (p, 26) that "the century which followed the foundation of the Uctledlct~nemorlasrery of Ilurham, and rbc subseyucrrt hrghly ptibllc~sedtrdtzslarlon (m 1 Itkt) of S ~ ~ r Cuthbcrt's it shrine to ~ t snew poslr~on ~nznzedzately beI11t3d the high altar of the r-rcw Romanesyue chotr of hts cathedral church, i s probably that of the northen1 sa~r~t'st most magrr~ficent poschunrous rr~umphs'.Frzr thc cult of Sr Cuchberr In the tv~wlfthcentury see esg, thc rnlraclc collection o f ileg~naldof Durham. "'"The Latzn of the Ue miractrlis et trrltl~laitonrbttb@, 148) does nut exclude the pass~biIitythat snnlc o f the Iltlrharn rnnnks (like Ear~cltlso f Ab~ngdon)k l t a Ilrtle rrepldat~onabout the presence and condit~csnof a holy body wh~ctlllad after ail had a remarkably chcquercd histar).: T a l ~ t e rhzs ablariollcm sanctr corponc coycctant~bus,iIIir. lncorruptlonexrz rlon adnzlctazcsbus, sffin~~antium 11Iud et adesse, ct incorruptuln perdurare, fratrum fidei detrahebatur, ~deoyuepudor allquanrrspcr anxtus ingerebatur. Quapropter ~ p s fratres, l nlentibcls ad Ikunr ac preclbus convcrsl, orabant ur Qui esr '\xn~rabtIrs111 sanctxs surs"" H~-lrc Sesc, ostensionc tatltae virtuc~s,m~rabtferr~ ostendcret, ec duhiunl m dub11s rndicils nornlnl suo darts glonam excluderct." The ~mplicatlon,however, is that the monks ds 2 group had been distressed by external yrrescioning of tlzegr good faith tn the matter of the rehcs of St Cuthbrre. And thereafter ~tseems clear that thc sctelng up of the corrrmittce to venfy the presence and lilcorrupclon o f the reIrcs was a measure ut~dertakenby the cornnlon collsenr of the rnankr tn order to firreitall external cr1ttcisn.t or1 the occastorl of the translauon: Ymmmente ltayue IilI. kal. Scptcmbris, d ~ cscrlrcct qul ad sollemnen~trarlslatlor~cm Fierat praefix-lltus, intentnr consrl~un~ fratrcs, ut, quaniarxt rlerrro supererat yui pcr euperinlentu~n cdoceret, psi, yuanrun2 13eo pcmlittentc Ilcercr, qualiter arca corpus sanctum slnguta composlta, qualiter ordinata essent expforarent; atque ad 14 dic vcnturo transportandurn quacquc d l g ~ ~eta conve~zicntiavidercntur, r~~attlrlus pracpararent; oe v~dellcet,cunl hora fcsrlvae processlonrs Instlrcrlt, ahqua ex ~trzprov~dcnt~a dlfficultas ~mpedlmcrttum fac~at,atyrlc Ita, ex mora exspectatfoa-rl unlversorctnl q u ~adverlerinc Ingratd, agcr~dgssotlemn~busobsequi~rfiat Irljurra."(l)c ~ntr11ctfli.sYI troti3ltztti)ttih~b,348-9.)

refused at first to believe the comnlitteek findings on the state of the body and who subsequently preached a rambling and irrelevant sermon an the occasion of the tran~lation,'~'They probably also included the "certain abbotskefrrrcd to hy 'Florence' - among them perhaps the neighbouring abbot whose procedural/ political camplaint prompted the secorld examination of the relics. The e3bjections of such men as these represented a chalImge less to the saint than to the relic-owning community, Flarnbard's attitude is intelligible as a symptom of the worsening relations between bishop and m o n k which were to characterise L3urhal.n in the twelfth centtlry."9nd to the abbots ofneighhouring hauses the wealth and influence of Durhanl may have given rise to a little healthy competition which was expressed in an attempt to discredit the asset upon which that community's fortunes were founded. "?That the critics or rivals of thc Durham monks should seek to hinder the translation of 1104 is striking testimony to the success with which St Cuthbert had been brought, by churchmen both English and Norman, to serve the needs of a community radically different from that of 1066, One of the most well-known incidents in the post-Conquest history of Christ Church, Cancerbury, is an informal discussion which took place betwem Lanfranc and Anselm ora the fubject of the English saints in general and of St E l h e a h in particular. Thc conversation was recorded in Eadmer's Vita Ansehi, completed in c. 1121, and was incorporated, ayparer-rtly from that sourcc, into the Vita Lar-~fravrciwritten about twenty years la&r.'= Knowles, using the later and bricfcr account, explains that Lanfranc "deplored the English cult of worthies of qucstionablc sanctity, atlcgitlg St &jfieah as a case in point'. Anselm, in contrast, showed %his veneration for E I h e a h h r ~ d'succeeded in converting Eanfranc",'" Other writers too have ir~terpretedthis ixlcident in similar fashion and have ranked it highly arnollg examples of Norman scepticism of the English saints."" want to dwell for a moment on Eadmer's Du miracr4lrs et rrnnsiatronrhus, 254, 260. V . ScammeII, Ht~*ghti14 Ptjnlftset, bishop Llurtznm, C~rnbndge1956, 228-67, ' 5 2 The Ilurharn monks at the time wcrc alleged to have remarked that the ne~ghbour~rrg abbot must, by casting doubt upon their good faith, have been arnllng c~therat thc rum ofthc communtty or at their own expuLs~onfronl it (Symeon, 256). Iii3 The Lfe qf St A n s ~ f m ,archbishop of Grrtevbrtry, by Eerdmev, ed. K. PC". Southern, Nelso11's Medieval Texts 1962, 50-4 (hereafter cltecf as Vila Anseftnrj; Vita henti Lilnfrarzci ~rciliepiscopi Gantaavietzsis (attrib. iVTilo Crispin), in I'atrologia Intina, cl, cots 19-5-58, at 56-7. For the date of the Eta Artsdmi see K r a Anselmi, ix-xiii; Souhem, 314-20: for the date of thc Vita &acfyarzcr see M . Gibson, Lnnfrarzc $Be[, Oxford 1978, 296 (c. 1141-56). "4 Kn~wfes, 119. Knowles acknowledges that Lartfranc kcrtamly canle to appreciate some, at least, of his saintly precfeccssors, for the hagiographers C3sbcrri and Eadnler worked at his bidding'. Lmfranc's scorlversation wlth Ansclm probably rook place durit-rg the latter's visit to England in 11179: see Vita Ansralmi, 48 and n. 1, concerning Anselrn" arrival In England in that year, and 50, where the conversation ts said to have taken ptacc: \n 1111sd~ebus'. t5"arlow, 106h-I1M3 191: Imnfranc, llke many of the. new Norman abbots, was scept~calof the Old English salnts . . . m t l c making changes in the rltuat . . . be cast doubt cltn the traditional calendar, suppressed some festrvals, slighted St X>unsrag~,and was particularly worrled about thc prctserlce of Elfieah" Gibson notes (p, 171) that Lmfranc ~nt~alfy stlsperlded the cults of Elfieah and Dunstan and that after submitting the casc of the fornxcr to Arxselm hc "gave way gracefuitlly'. Rollason (p. 59) ates the mcident as an exantple of thc sceptinsm of sorne late-c.levrmth-centu~): churchmen to the English salnts but notes that srtch sccpncism did not nccessarify reflect a differet~ce of opinion between Normans and Enghs1.1;he charactertses Ansetrn as 'a devotee of saints Elfieah and X3unscant. '5"C;.

Post-d"orrquat Attitudes to tjze Saints of- the At~~qlo-Saxons

20 1

report of this conversation - the earlier and fuller account - for it is important to assess its tone correctly. It is introduced by, and is perhaps an illustration of, Eadmer's belief 'that there was nobody at that time who excelled Lanfranc in authority and breadth of learning or Anselm in holiness and the knowledge of God', 156 tanfranc, we are told, expressed his hesitancy conccming some of the English saints, because the accounts which he had received of those saints did not secm to constitute wfficient grounds for their veneration. In particular the account which the English had given had not satisfied him that his predecessor E l k e a h , killed by the Danes in 1012, merited the title of 'martyr'. "The facts were laid before Ansclnl and his opinion ought."^ He was able to demonstrate by 'solid argumerrthhy in the sight of God Elfieah did indeed merit the title of rnarryr. f"B AnseIm's personal veneration For the saint does not enter into it; therc is nothing in Eadnler's account to suggcst that he had even h a r d of Eltheah. It is plain that Lanfranc had some reservations, both about Elfheah and about other English saints. Those reservations came f'rorn a man sincerely cuncerned to act appropriately on tbc basis of sound authority; there is nothing to suggcst that they arose from scepticism, cotlten~pror hostility; and nothing but confusion can result from overdrawing the distinction betwren Lanfrarrc's 'dou b t s h n d Anselm" "veneration" Finally, Lanfranc" expression o f besi tancy meerrring St Elfhcah must be placed in context by more &an a passing reference to its sequel. Lanfranc, 'instructed' by Anselm's argument, esprcssed his intention to 'worship and venerate St EIphege with all my heart, as a truly great and glorious rnartyr of Christ", This, Eadmer notes, 'he at'tcnxrards ikithfcllly carried out, and even ordered a careful history of his life and passion to be written. This history was nobly written at his command by tfskern, a monk of Canterbury, of happy memory, who MirQte it not only in plain prose for reading, but also put it to music for singing; and LanFfa~ichimself for love ofthe martyr gave it the seal of his eminent approval, authorised it, ordered it to be read and sung in the church of' God, and in this respect added no small glory to the tnartyr" szanle.""" &lfieah% relics wcrc treated with revcrcrzce, "O And in Lanfranc" Co~lsiittlrtiorrsfor C h i s t Church his feast appears amellg thssc of tfic second rank. E i r a A I I S C I Y50. ~~I,

"' Lfikl~4 h ~ ~ ~-51-2. ~ / ~ ~ t t , IS8

I >to Lft~.ft?ltni,52-4, at 53.

"'Vtru Arzst.lnii, 53-3, Southern narcs thar 5trlctly spcak~ngonly the hymn (now lost) seems to havc bcen lvrltten on Lanfranc's order, thc Life (pr. Actn Satrctnvtrr~t)fallawmg larer: I/i"rcr Anselmt, 54, n. I . IbU SCCbeIow, p. 203. The ~ I I O I I C I S I I C~ ( t t ~ ~ t ~ t t t t tqf' o t iLur$Vattt, s ed. I), K~QWICS,NeI\0;1*s M~dlevalTexts 1951, 59, tanfranc's Constitjtriolzs (or Drcrtetrt) wcre addressed to Henry, prlor a f Chnst Church from c. 1074 to 1096 (K.tlr1wlc5, Brookt and Lor~don,33). Thcy arc dated to the decade 1079-89 by (;lbsan (pp. 24)..1), who argues, crrlrlg the b'lta Ansrlmi, that 'As Elphcgc appears. In thc kalcndar, the Ilerrf*ral.ar!fkr?ct cannctt be cdrher rhstn 1079'. The f."ifa 14nsrirrrt, hcstvever. contains no stacemcnt that I arrfranc hadl goire so far as to ahohsh the cult of Elfieah pnor ro 1x1scclnvcrsatlon wrth Anselnr; ~ r : cannr>t tirerefore bc usctf to t.stablr\h thc date of the Corr~tltuftotrs. Two prc-Conquest calendar.; car1 wlrh some confidcncr he atrnhutcd to CZhriist Ghtlrch - that In London, BI , Add. MS 37517 (the Hoswarth X>.ialcer)and thar ~n 1-ondon, EJL, rvlS Amndet 1.55. "T?lc k>mler was, attnbutcd to Chr~stChurch by F. A. Ckisyuer and E. U~shop,Tku Bosworrh Aaitet, London ft3(JX, 126, arid to St Atrgust~ric'sby Worrnald, Bt;fi?rc 111M, no. 5; a convincing case li>r Its C:hr~st.Church origln 15 madc by 1'. Korhammer, 'The ortgtn of tltc Boswurrh Psalter" ,itt?cylcr-Snstarr

The same Corsstiturr'rltissuggest that Christ Church" other major patron was less fnrtur-rate: no provision is made for the feast of St D ~ n s t a n , "But ~ a rather differcr-rt picture is prescntcd by a Life a f l3unstan written by Osbem and taking the history o f the cult up to the 11380s.'63 Here Lanfranc appears as successor and associate of llunstan and as promoter of his cult, The Life was probably written with Eanfranc's encouragcntent; certainly it is unlikely thar its stories about him wot~ldhave been circulated without his approval: its testimony canlzot be ignored. Lanfranc on his accession in 1070 faced three problems of immediate local urgency. The first conccmed monastic discipline, the second nlonastic rivalry and the third monastic property. Central to Lanfranc" p r a g r a m e for Christ Church was the irnpositior~of Norman leadership and of new customs upon the often recalcitrant n~enlhers of the English community," the redcfir~itiorlof relations with St Aug~stine"~ in 1070 the "onlinant monastic coxnmunity3in Cant~rbury,"~and the reclantation of lands and privileges alicr~atcdby his compatriots in the years following 1(%6."6These interests are reflected it1 the miracles of Osbern" Vita Dtrnstwni. Twicc St Dunstan is poruayed as a supporter of Lanfranc in his effort to improve the monastic discipline of the English within his conixnunity. "'The first Norman abbot of St Atlgustine's is miraculously brought to acknowledge the power of Christ ~ C3sbern provides a vivid ;tcc~l.tntof encourageChurch's St f l ~ n s t a n . "And Eyeland 11, 1973, 173-H7, at 175-8. 'The latter was ct3nsldcrcd by Ulsfhop d calendar of the tare eleventh ccr2tury hut must hc placed earlier than thtr on palacographlcat grout~ds- Wormald, Ndi~rc.1 1 t 1 , no, 13 (101&-23), Korhdmmtr, 179 (c 1014k30). The Uostvnrt'tl Psalter calendar dates cithcr f'iorn beforc i%:lfheati'"scath o r fro111 bcfbre 111s recognltxon as a saint, The cabsdar 1~1ArunJt.1 155 I I I C I L I ~ ~A~lfkt.teGah" S passion (1Mprrl) ;tmoxtg ~ c sm q o r fcasts. Ir1 the tvvelfttl century the fitrast czf his trarlslatron (8 Jurlr) a11d itr uctavc wcrc 'rctcfed to rhzs calcr~ctar Atld the rwclfth-century calcr~darof the C:anrcrhury Psalter (London, BE. Cotton MS Cklba E. IV) lncludcs ,4flfieah\ ppasslon, tranrlation and c>rdtnatlorl(M. It. Jarrlcs, TI~Y C:atit~"rb~r)r 12si~lter,Lor1do17 193.5, fols 2, T?b,4). FOPthe Iatcr C l ~ n \ tChurch calcndar scc. Worn~ald,After / l l X j , 1, M-Xf), ""21b~on ilotcs (p. 172, n . 1) chc posr~bllltychat the Teast of the house' (C3c)rrsarrttrons 55) may have beer1 chc feast of Iltlnitan rather than chc more obvrous kast of thc Tnnlty. Dunstan's dep~)s~t10~1 occurs a~rlongthc major feasts of rhc caletzdar In the Boswarth I?ziIter and of thar in Artindcl 155 (Wormald, Rn were added ~ntl-tc twelfth cmtury to the calendar of EL, Arur~dct155 (Wormald, B@rc I1lB, 1'79). Nexthex Osbern nor Eaclmer descr~bein their I rvccl of Durtsran the final removal of the saints to Latifranc" slew church. Osbcrn does, however, note that dunng rebuilding the rcltcs of the saints were moved with great reverence first to the ovatori~mof the Blessed Virgin and subsequently to the refectory because there was nowhere else 'rn qua vel divinum servitiunl fieri vel retiquiae sarictorunl congrue et kabiliter lo car^ passent"(Vit~ Dirnstarai, 142-3, 148-c); cf. Eadmer, Vita Dunsrani, 232, 2.38)- For the location of the relics In a gallery of Lsnfranc" rnew cathedral church sce Eadmer, f>r rcrliguiis S , Al-tdoetfi, ed. A. Wtlmart, Tdnreri Cantuarie~~s~s cantor13 noua opuscula dc sanceonxm ilcrleratlone ct cthsccracir>ne~R ~ e w Srictncr-5 R ~ ~ ~ ~ E I VV, ~ S V1934, S 362-7 (1 have been rrr?iablc to T I I , also A. W, Klukas, 'The archrcectural implications of the consult thrs work); S O L ~ C ~ C3C10-7; Uecrffn Latlfiartn', ixt?t~ vt, 1983, 136-71, where Larrfranc 15 perceived as being determlutedfy "an-Saxon'. "'O~.bcrn,Vita Ulirtstirni, I 53-5.

sanctification of the community~past which seems to have characte~sedthe early twelfth century and to have found its expression in the hagiographical writings of Eadmcr. "75 V(lc cannot begin to understand the relationship of Norman churcbntan and English saint unless first we divest ourselves of what, on exanzina-tion,dissolves into a myth of Norman scepticism. That myth has been faurldcd upon an expectation of scepticism and a consequent misreading of the available evidence. In particular, two crucial distinctions have been insufficiently acknowledged. The first, highlighted by the cases of St Albans and Malmesbury, is that between saints and predecessors: the early worthies of a community's histoq cannot be designated victints of Norman scepticism towards the English saints unless first they can be shown to have been venerated as saints by the Anglo-Saxons. The second distinction, of ccntral importance in the cases of St Cuthbert and St Aldhelm, is that between scepticism ofan individual" ss;mcticy and doubts concerning specific aspects of that individual's cult - most usually the presence and/or incorruption of the body. Such doubts may have bcen a product either of internal trepidation prior to a planned translation or of extcmal attack upon the prestige of the relic-owning ~omxnunity."~ They arose, it appears, against a background of assiduous promotion of cult, and they Feerrx to have bad no detrimental c&ct upon that promotion.'77 Only in the case of Abbot Walter of Evesharn (1077-1 104)"' can a convincing argument be made for the existence of Norman scepticism towards the Engrish saints, Walter, we are told, subjected ail those relics "about which there was doubt\to a kind of We are also told that thereafter kc translated the relics of ordeal by

Most strxking IS the case of the erghth-century archblshap Bregw~tlc.N o trace ofthis archblshop m found in the ven~acularresting-place list (in which Ijunstan appears as the sale patron of Chnst Church) or m pre-Conquest: calendar.; or hagiography. In the cdrly 1120s d sudden and not entlrely succe.isful attcnlpt: was made to promote h ~ cult, s prompted apparently by the Interest of a foreign visitor In acqu~ringthe archbishop" body. The rp~sodcresulted in the translat~ona f thc b0die.i o f Uregwxne arid the tenth-ccnrury archbishop Plegmund and in Eadrnerk con1posrtion of a Life of Bregwlne. See B. W. Scholz, 'Eadnzer's Life of Xfrcgw~ne,archbrshop of Canterbury, 751-764', 'rraditio xxit, 1966, 12748, Eadmcr's srztlngs alsa ~ncfudeda Life of the tenth-century archblshop Oclo (I-"atmlogia Iurir3a cxxxn~,cots "$3344) who likewise appears .m rro pre4;onquest calcmdar o r hagiographicag source, It1 other cases subsidrary mfts which we know to have cxrsted be&~rethe G o n q u s t were promoted and more firll~lyintegrated into C h r ~ s tChurch histor~ograptlyby the writings of Eadmer; hts L ~ f eof St Wilfrrd (Patrologia fattna chx, cols '713-52) ar?d L)r rtjltqrriu sartcti Ar-rdoeni each f;lU into t h ~ category. s Thc evidence from Ely and Bury Sr Edrnunds I~kewlsesuggests a strengthening and prol~feratlonof subsidiary cults 111 the late eleventh and early twelfth cenwries, and rt nzay be tentatively suggested that this was a more general phenomenon closely rclatcd to the rnonastlc politrcs and h~star~ography of the Norman per~od(see Kidyard, chs 6 and 7). ""6f above, n. 64, for an incident tn wkrlch the yucst~oningof Bury's possesslor1 of the relrcs oESt Edmund formed a vehicle for an attack on the status o f the abbey. "' Ir~beed~t 1s scrrkrng that by provldirxg thc community and ~ t hagiographers s wlrh an opportunity to dcmcanstratc the soundness of their clarrns such doubts may ult~matelyhave enhanced the prestige o f both salnt and community. In rhcse clrctlntstanccs we miglitt be justified in wandering whether the activtt~esof the doubters were on occaslon exaggerated by hagiographers and mor1astlc Ittstorians. "6 Ki~owIes,Brooke and London, 47. Walter was a firmer rrionk of CIaen. "79 Acta p~clharrrmvivovtrnt, in Chrilntcon ahbatine de Evurhutn, ed. VV. I). Macray, RS 1863, 320-5, at 323. The work was written by t>ornmic, prlor of Evesharn tn the first half of the twelfth century: see IV. Lapidge, "nonrir~~cof Evesham ""Vita S. Ecgwlni eplscopl et confessc>ris"', Annlrrta BollanAia~ln

fist-Cartgl.rfst Attitudrs to the Saivats of the An'qlo-Saxons

205

St Credan; "'more than this, he dispatched St Egwin on a fund-raising tour to finance the rebuilding of the abbey Walter's grasp of the situation was wholly typical of the Norman bishops and abbots with whom this study has becn concerned, Those churchmen were characterised not by scepticism towards the English saints, by conten~ptof them or by hostility to them, but rather by a businesslike readiness to make the heroes af the past serve the politics of the present. The Norman adoption of the English saints cannot: be explained as a, public relations exercise intended to diminish tensions between Normans and English within the post-Conquest religious conznlurlitics - though this may well have been among its consequences. Nor is there any evidence that these saints were foisted upon the Norman ecclesiastical leaders by aggressively English factions among their sutajects. The key lies rather in the stat-us and ftllzction of the loat patron saint. That saint was a crucial part of the equipment used by the religious community in the defrnitior~both of its internal relations and of its relations with external secular and ecclesiatical powers. The legend and cult of the saint were essential to the proper functioning of the religious community: and the Norman churchmen had nothing to gain by rendering their institutions incarable of functioning properly. A reinterpretation of the Norman reception of the English saints suggests a comparable reassessment of the post-Conquest hagiographical tradition. It is camrnonly believed that Norman scepticism of the English saints was a direct product of the well-atwsted absence or inadequacy of English hagiography, and hence that the widespread production of saints%ives and Miraders after the Conquest is to be understood as an attempt, usually by the English or by sy~npatheticforeigners, ta convince the Normans that the English saints were worthy of ene era ti on.'"^ I would suggest that, perhaps in a m ; ? j s ~ t sy f cases, the inspiration for post-Conquest hagiography fay efscwhere. It lay with the Norman churchmm who perceived the uscfu1rless of the English saints and who xcvi, 2078, 65-104, at 66-9, esp. 69, n. 1. Uornlnic notes that the testing was carncd out on the advice of Archbishop Lanfranc and that the relics which suwivcd included those of St Credan and St Wistdn. The same inctdenr is reported tn a Ltfe and Miracles of St Wistan which is pfinted by Macray, 325-37. The work took its present form In the chirtemth century but was based on an earlier ong~nal,possibly by X3omin~chimself: see Lap~dge,69; L l , W. Rollasan, T h e cults of murdered royal saints m Anglo-Saxon England" ,%lo-Saxon fingland XI, 1983, 5-22, at 7; J. 6. jennings, T h e wrxtings of Prior Dominic of Evesham" EHR Ixxvli, ISJ34. Here it is noted that Waltcr found in hzs church tnany relics, that he began to wonder haw a rlati~nwhich stemmed from so many holy men could have been defeated by the Normar~sand that he came accordingly to doubt the sanctity of b ~ church" s reiics. Arta probonrm viuondm, 324. "Yhrcmicon ahharia@n"r Evesharn, 35 (130ok I f of Dominic" Lifc of Egwln, completed after 1203: see Lap~dge,73-5). Dominie also wrote a Life of St Odulf, a ninth-century Brabantine missionary whos;e relics were translated to Evesham In the first halfof the tenth ccncurt;: Lapidge, 68, 69, n, 1; the work 1s partxaIly printed by Macray, 31.3-18. Here it a stated that Walrer planned to send the relrcs aE St Odulf to Winchcornbe in the hope of ralslng money for the new church; the saint being reluctant to leave his church. however, the shrine becamc immovably heavy. '" For the ~rradequacys f Enghsh hagiography see Barlow, 191; Southern, 24%") for the purposes of the post-Conquest hagiographers see Rollason, 5%-(i(f; Blake In I-her Eliensis, xllx (czred above, p. 181); A Grartrden, Eftsrartc~lioritrr4g r n Et2,qlatid c, 550- r. 1307, Ithaca NV 19774, 1015; T, Harn~Iean, GosccIin of Canterbury: a cnclcal study of h ~ slife, works and dccon~prlshmenrs', 2 vois, unpubl~shedPh.13, thesis, Universiry crf Virgln~a1973.

realistad that those saints could be successfillfy utilised orlly if their history was fully docurnen~dand their function effecrlvcly p ~ b f i ~ s e d ,In" ~terms both of publicity and of veneration the Norman Conquest was perhaps one of the better things ever to happen to the saints of the Anglo-Saxons.

'" T w o noteworthy examples are Osbern" Life of Elfieah, commiss~oncdby Lanfranc, and I-ltermann" collectlion of St Edmund's smiracles, commissioned by the foreign abbot Baldwin (see above, pp. 201, 188).

Image not available

Fk. 1 Denmark

THE purpose and function of the Danish geometrical Viking fnrtresses of c. 980 (the Trellcbsrg type) has been much disputed over the years, They are known from archaeology but not merltioned in a single written source, In order to understand them we must also investigate their context as known from both archacsXogical and written sources. This can now be done on a much sounder basis than before, h r during the last decade or so Viking research has been wr)i active in Denmark, as in other countries, Much new material has been found, and two s f the fortresses and some other large-scale Viking structures have been precisely dated by dendrochronology.' Today b u r gcometrical Viking fortresses are known from Denmark. They are spread over the country: Trelleborg an the island sf fjaelland; Nonnebakken on thc island of Fyn in tkttr town of Odense; Fyrkat in northeast Jutland; Aggersborg in north Jutland, on the shore of the LirnGord (figs 2-2). There may possibly have been more of them, and it may be noted that the group is known today by chance: thc excavation of the first of the fortresses, Trelleborg, was started in 1934 as a trial excavation by the National Museum only because the young motor cyclists from the nearby town of Slageke wanted a convenient area to exercise their machines, Their eyes had fallen on this ring-work - which they did not get. Trelleborg (figs 2-3) caused a ensa at ion.^ Nobody had thought the barbaric Vikings able to plan, organise or construct such a sophisticated stmcture, and the l c a m d world consequently had to rethink their collcclpc of Vikings. The country was now searched for parallels, and the first to be identified was Aggersborg (figs 2 and 4). After excavation of a limited area immediately afier the second World War the paraltel was clear. Aggersborg was aniy much bigger than Trclleborg, and thc excavations went on, with interruptions, till 1952,3

' A A~urvcyan3 a fult bibliography up till 1980 of all monuments mentioned In t h ~ samcle can be found in E. Kocsdahl, Ei"ikrn2 Age Denmark, London 1982. For these monumerlts there will be rct2-renccs below only to the major publication and to works after 1981. It will be ~ndicatedwhen tI~crci s a sumnlary ~n the E n g l ~ ~orh Gernlar~Ianguage. P. Norlund, Trelleboq, Nordiske Fortrdsminder IV:I, Ksbenhavn 1948 (English Summary); T. E. Christ~anscn,Trcllcborgs alder. Ark~ologlskdatering', [email protected] Oldkyndiqhfd og Wisitlrie 1982, 84-110 (full English transfaaon); N , Bonde Sr K , Christensen, "Treltebnrgs alder. Dendxokronologisk datcrrng', Anrht?r;r~r*for tzordisk C>ldkynJighccl i?,q Htsforrr 3982, 111-52 (611 Engbsh trandation). E. 140e~ddhl, 'Agg~\rsborgin the f t ~ k ~ nAge" g Proceedrrtqs (tf the Egitclt I/i'kirg t"rtr;qress (H. Bekker-NrcXsez~et af , eJ,), Odensc 1982, 107-122; idem, %g~ersbargproblemerf , Berrtnitg-fm tredip rvr~g2,ql(qevrkrr8gc.a.ytnpo~ft(~i (C;. Fellows-Jensen cr al. cd.), Arhus 19%. 59-74; idcm, Vikingcmes

Image not available

F),which acmding to the inscription was rrected by Gorni in memow of his Queen Thyre, its original place and context is unkrzown. Thcre was, further, an enormous stone-setting here (A-B), probably in the shape o f a ship, which would be a well-known type of Viking monument.. If it was a shipsetting, it was by far the targcst we k~mwat: Only part of it was preservecd under the southern mound ((2).The stone-setting seems to have been related to the northem mound (H), which is the largest burial mound in I>emarkt today 65 nletres in diameter 2nd 8.5 metres high. It held the burial of a very high-ranking man in a wooden chamber (K) llug down in an old bronze Agc mound 0). Remains of grave-goods date it to around the middle of the tenth century, i,e. the time ofGorm%death, which, tagethcr with the whale context, suggests that it was hc who was buried there by his son according to splendid pagan rules, it is the only royal grave fronl prehistoric times in Scandinavia of which the dead person has been (we think) safely identified. According to a dendrochronatogicd date, the southern niound (C) cannot have been built beforc c , 960, i,e. about the timc af the Conversion, though the concept of a mound is basically pagan. This mound is even bigger than the north mound, today 77 metres in diameter and 11 metres high. It held no gravc and may have been built as a memorial or for public ceremonies on the large flat top (which easily takes a bus-load of people). It war certainly built for display. And, like other mounds, it was carefully constructed of turf and shaped by using a template, The large rune-stone (figs 8:E and 9) clearly dates from after the Conversim. It was placed exactly between the centres of the two mounds and carries the famous inscription: Xing Harald commanded these memorials made to Gomi his fither and to Thyre his mother. That Haratd who wan for himself all LJenmark and Norway and made the Danes Christians.TThe stone itself - a large pyramidical boulder - is the finest of alr rune-stones with most of thc script or1 one side, a large picture of an animal and snake on the other, and Christ on the third side.

" 6. Kor~lrtup,fiongehgrene I jelftn'qe, K38'senbavn 18775; K . J. Krogh, 'The royal Vikzng-Agc Monuinena at Sjell~ngIn the light of recent archaeological excavations" ,iiicta Auchaeokogira 53, 1982, 183-216.

Image not available

Fiy. 8 Schematic drawing of the je(ling morrlrments. A-B: rrrnains of stone-sertiny; C: southem mourtd; D: Kirg Gormi. me-sfone; E: King Haraid's nrnestone; F: the preseflt. stoNr c h t f ~ ho j C. llOU, which hdd thwr wt~oden predecessors; G: the