The Gesta Guillelmi of William of Poitiers 0198205538, 9780198205531

Citation preview

OX F OR D M E D I E V A L T E X T S General Editors D. E. G R E E N W A Y

B. F. H A R V E Y

M. L A P I D G E

W ILLIAM GESTA THE

OF

PO ITIERS

GVILLELM I

DEEDS

OF

W ILLIAM

The G E S T A

G V I L L E L M I

o f W illiam o f Poitiers E D I T E D A ND T R A N S L A T E D BY

R . H. C . D A V I S f AN D

MARJORIE

CLARENDON

CHIBNALL

PRESS 1998

• OXFORD

Oxford University Press, Great Clarendon Street, Oxford 0X2 6dp Oxford New York Athens Auckland Bangkok Bogota Bombay Buenos Aires Calcutta Cape Town Dar es Salaam Delhi Florence Hong Kong Istanbul Karachi Kuala Lumpur Madras Madrid Melbourne Mexico City Nairobi Paris Singapore Taipei Tokyo Toronto Warsaw and associated companies in Berlin Ibadan Oxford is a trade mark o f Oxford University Press Published in the United States by Oxford University Press Inc., New York © Marjorie Chibnall 1998 A ll rights reserved. No part o f this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted', in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing o f Oxford University Press. Within the UK, exceptions are allowed in respect o f any fair dealing for the purpose o f research or private study, or criticism or review, as permitted under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, or in the case o f reprographic reproduction in accordance with the terms o f the licences issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside these terms and in other countries should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Data available Library o f Congress Cataloguing in Publication Data Gulielmus, Pictaviensis. [Gesta Guillelmi. English (5 Latin] The Gesta Guillelmi o f William o f Poitiers/edited and translated by R. H C. Davis and Marjorie ChibnalL p. cm.— (Oxford medieval texts) English and Latin parallel text. Includes bibliographical references and indexes. I . William I, King o f England, 1027 or 8-1087. 2 - Great Britain— History— William I, 1066-1087. 3 • Great Britain—Kings and rulers— Biography. 4. Nobility— France—Normandy— Biography. 5. Conquerors—Great Britain— Biography. 6. Military history. Medieval. 7. Normans—England—History. I. Davis, R. H. C. (Ralph Henry Carless), iç t8 - . II. Chibnall, Marjorie. III. Title. IV. Senes. DA 1 97. G813 1998 942.02'i '092—dc2i 97-15372 [B ] ISB N 0-19-820553-8 1 3 5 7 9 10 8 6 4 2 Typeset by Joshua Associates Ltd., Oxford Printed in Great Britain on acid-free paper by Biddles Ltd., Guildford (5 King's Lynn

PREFACE

A n e w edition o f the Gesta Guillelmi o f William o f Poitiers was first planned by R . H. C. Davis. At the time o f his death he had carried out a prolonged, but unsuccessful, search in European libraries for the lost manuscript, and had completed a literal translation. H is research had also produced several important papers on the author and his work. M rs Eleanor Davis most kindly made all her husband’s papers available to me. The text now published is, inevitably, based on the 1 619 edition o f Duchesne. I have revised and rewritten the translation. The notes and introduction in their final form are mine; and though I have used R .H .C .D .’s work, in particular his published papers, where possible, the responsibility for any errors must be wholly mine. I owe a particular debt to Pierre Bouet, o f the University o f Caen, for making available to me the concordance o f the Gesta Guillelmi which he had prepared with the collaboration o f J. Potier and Ph. Fleury. M y thanks are due to Elisabeth van Houts for lending me the proofs o f Volume II o f the G N D o f William o f Jum ièges before publication, and for many helpful suggestions; to Diana Greenway, who showed me parts o f the Introduction to her edition o f Henry o f Huntingdon in proof; and to David Bates, for information about the charters o f William I. T he 1952 edition o f Raymonde Foreville has proved invaluable, particularly for the identification o f classical references. At its best the Latin o f the eleventh-century schools was still true to its classical roots; but it was a living language, open to new influences. Not a great deal o f it has survived. So the task o f any editor and translator is far from easy. I have been fortunate in having the generous and learned help o f Michael Lapidge and J. W. Binns over the problems o f editing and translating, and to both I am deeply grateful. A ll three general editors and the learned staff o f Oxford

VI

PREFACE

University Press have been characteristically patient and helpful in suggesting improvements and bringing the volume to comple­ tion. Clare H all, Cambridge October, 1996

M .C .

CONTENTS ABBREVIATED

REFERENCES

ix

INTRODUCTION

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

T he author T he Gesta Guillelm i T he sources used by William o f Poitiers T he battle o f Hastings T he use o f the Gesta Guillelmi by Orderic Vitalis The language o f the Gesta Guillelmi Textual tradition Previous editions Editorial practice

GESTA

G VILLELM I

Sigla Part i Part 2 INDEX

xv xix xxvii xxxii xxxv xxxix xliii xlv xlvi

i 2 100 OF

GENERAL

QUOTATIONS INDEX

AND

ALLUSIONS

1 89 1 91

ABBREVIATED REFERENCES ASC

Barlow, Confessor Bates, Norm andy Battle

Bayeux Tapestry Brevis relatio

Brooks, Canterbury Brown, D over Castle Brown and Cum ow BSA N Camden

Carmen

Chibnall, ‘Geoffroi’

Councils and Synods

CP

Anglo-Saxon Chronicle: Two o f the Saxon Chroni­ cles parallel, ed. C. Plummer and J. Earle, 2 vols. (Oxford, 1892-9). Translation: The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, ed. D. Whitelock, D. C. Douglas, and

S. Tucker (London, 1961) F. Barlow, Edw ard the Confessor (London, 1970) D. Bates, Normandy before 1066 (London, 1982) Proceedings o f the Battle Conference on A ngloNorman Studies, i-iv (1979-82), ed. R. Allen Brown (Woodbridge, 1983-9); from v (1983) published as Anglo-Norm an Studies The Bayeux Tapestry, ed. F. M . Stenton (London, 1957) Brevis relatio de origine W illelmi Conquestoris, ed. J . A. G iles, Scriptores rerum gestarum W illelmi Conquestoris, Caxton Society, iii (London, 1845) N. Brooks, The E a rly History o f the Church o f Canterbury (Leicester, 1984) R. A. Brown, D over Castle (2nd edn., H M SO , 1974) R. A. Brown and P. Cum ow, The Tower o f London (H M SO , 1984) Bulletin de la Société des Antiquaires de Normandie T. Sm ith, Camdeni et illustrium virorum ad Camdenum epistolae praem ittitur Camdeni vita (London, 169 1) The Carmen de Hastingae Proelio o f G uy Bishop o f Amiens, ed. C. Morton and H . Muntz (OM T, 1972) M . Chibnall, ‘L a carrière de Geoffroi de M ontbray’, in Les évêques normandes du X I e siècle, ed. P. Bouet and F. Neveux (Caen, 1995), PP- 279- 93 Councils and Synods and Other Documents relating to the English Church, /. A .D . 8 7 1-12 0 4 , ed. D. Whitelock et a l., 2 vols. (Oxford, 1981) The Complete Peerage o f England, Scotland, Ireland . . ., by G . E. C ., rev. V. Gibbs et a l, 13 vols, in 14 (London, 19 10 -59 )

X

ABB RE VI A TE D R E F E R E N C E S

David, Curthose D avis, ‘William o f Poitiers’

Dorey, Latin Biography Douglas, Conqueror Duchesne Dudo

Dunbabin

Eadmer, H N EH R Encomium

Fauroux

Flori, L'essor Foreville

Foreville, ‘Synod’

Freeman FW

GC

C. W. David, Robert Curthose, Duke o f Norm andy (Cambridge, M ass., 1920) R. H . C . D avis, ‘William o f Poitiers and his History o f William the Conqueror’, in The Writing o f History in the M iddle Ages: Essays Presented to Richard W illiam Southern , ed. R . H. C. Davis and J . M . Wallace-Hadrill (Oxford, 19 8 1), pp. 7 1-10 0 Latin Biography , ed. T. A. Dorey (London, 1967) D. C. Douglas, W illiam the Conqueror (London, 1964) André Duchesne, Historiae Normannorum scriptores antiqui (Paris, 1619 ) De moribus et actis primorum Normanniae ducum auctore Dudone Sancti Q uintini decano, ed. J . Lair, Mém. Soc. Ant. Norm, xxiii (Caen, 1865) J. Dunbabin, ‘G eoffrey o f Chaumont, Thibaud o f Blois and William the Conqueror’, Battle , xvi (1994), 10 1- 16 Eadm eri Historia Novorum in A nglia , ed. M . Rule (R S, 1884) English H istorical R eview Encomium Emmae reginae, ed. A. Campbell, Camden 3rd ser., lxxii (London, 1949) Recueil des actes des ducs de Normandie (9 1 / 10 6 6 ), ed. M . Fauroux, Mém. S o c Ant. Norm, xxxvi (Caen, 1961) J. Flori, L'essor de la chevalerie x i‘- x i ï siècles (Geneva, 1986) Guillaum e de Poitiers, Histoire de Guillaum e le Conquérant, ed. R. Foreville, Les classiques de l’histoire de France au moyen âge (Paris, 1952) R . Foreville, ‘The synod o f the province o f Rouen in the eleventh and twelfth centuries’ , in Church and Government in the M iddle Ages, ed. Christopher Brooke et al. (Cambridge, 1976), *9-39 E . A. Freeman, The History o f the Norman Conquest o f England , 6 vols. (Oxford, 1867-79) Florentii Wigomiensis monachi chronicon ex chron­ icis, ed. B. Thorpe, 2 vols., Eng. Hist. Soc. (London, 1848-9) G allia Christiana (Paris, 17 15 -18 6 5 )

ABB RE VI A TE D R E F E R E N C E S GG

Gibson, Lanfranc Gillingham

Glaber, Histories GND

GP

GR

Greenway, Huntingdon Guibert de Nogent G uillot, Anjou Halphen, Anjou Halphen, Recueil van Houts, ‘Ship-list’ van Houts, ‘Historiography’ Ilia s latina

Inventio

JW Keynes, ‘Æ thelings’ Körner

XI

Gesta G uillelm i (this edition) M . Gibson, Lanfranc o f Bec (Oxford, 1978)

J . Gillingham , ‘William the Bastard at war’, in Anglo-Norm an W arfare, ed. M . Strickland (Woodbridge and Rochester, N Y, 1992), pp. 143-60 Radulfus Glaber, Opera, ed. J. France, N. Bulst, and P. Reynolds (OM T, 1989) The ‘Gesta Normannorum Ducum’ o f W illiam o f Jum ièges, Orderic Vitalis, and Robert o f Torigni, ed. E . M . C. van Houts, 2 vols. (O M T, 1992-5) W illelmi Malmesbiriensis monachi de gestis pontifi­ cum libri quinque, ed. N. E . S. A. Hamilton (RS, 1870) W illelmi Malmesbiriensis monachi de gestis regum Anglorum libri quinque, ed. W. Stubbs, 2 vols. (R S, 1887-9) Henry, Archdeacon o f Huntingdon, Historia Anglorum , ed. D. Greenway (O M T, 1996) Guibert de Nogent, Autobiographie, ed. E .-R . Labande (Paris, 1981) O. G uillot, L e comte d'Anjou et son entourage au xi* siècle, 2 vols (Paris, 1972) L . Halphen, L e comté d ’A njou au x ie siècle (Paris, 1906) Recueil d ’annales angevines et vendômoises, ed. L . Halphen (Paris, 1903) E . M . C. van Houts, ‘T he ship-list o f William the Conqueror’ , Battle , x (1988), 159-83 E . M . C . van Houts, ‘Historiography and hagio­ graphy at Saint-W andrille; the Inventio et M ir­ acula Sancti V ulfranni\ Battle , xii (1990), 2 3 3 -5 1 Homerus latinus, id est Baebii Italici Ilias latina ed. F. Vollmer, Poetae latini minores, 5 vols (Leipzig, 19 13 -14 ), 1 —55Inventio et miracula sancti Vulfranni, ed. J . Laporte (Rouen, 1938) The Chronicle o f Jo h n o f Worcester, vol. ii, ed. R. R . Darlington and P. M cGurk (O M T, 1995) S. Keynes, ‘The Æ thelings in Normandy’, Battle , xiii (19 9 1), 173-20 5 S. Körner, The Battle o f Hastings, England and Europe 10 3 5 -10 6 6 (Lund, 1964)

XU

ABB RE VI A TE D R E F E R E N C E S

Latouche, M aine Liber Eliensis

Louise

Marchegay and M abille

M athieu, Geste

Mém. Soc. Ant. Norm. M GH SS M igne, P L

M usset, Abbayes caennaiscs NMT OMT Orlandi

OV RD Renn, ‘Burgeat’

Renoux, Fécamp RS Strickland

R . Latouche, Histoire du comté du M aine pendant les x e et x iie siècles (Paris, 1910) Liber Eliensis, ed. E . O. Blake, Camden 3rd ser., xcii (London, 1962) G . Louise, L a seigneurie de Bellêm e, x '- x i e siècles: Dévolution des pouvoirs territoriaux et construction d ’une seigneurie de frontière aux confins de la Normandie et du M aine à la charnière de l ’an m il [= L e Pays bas-normand, lxxxiv (1990)], 2 vols. (Fiers, 1992) Chronique des églises d ’A njou , ed. P. Marchegay and E. M abille (Société de l’histoire de France, 1869) Guillaum e de Pouille, ‘L a geste de Robert G uiscard\ ed. M . M athieu, Testi e monumenti Istituto siciliano di studi bizantini e neollenci, iv (Palermo, 196 1) Mémoires de la Société des Antiquaires de Normandie Monumenta Germaniae Historica Scriptores J.-P. M igne, Patrologia latina , 221 vols. (Paris, 1844-64) L . M usset, Les actes de Guillaum e le Conquérant et de la reine M athilde pour les abbayes caennaises, Mém. Soc. Ant. Norm, xxxvii (Caen, 1967) Nelson’s Medieval Texts Oxford Medieval Texts G . Orlandi, ‘Some afterthoughts on the Carmen de Hastingae proelio\ in M edia Latinitas , ed. R. I. A. N ip et al. y Instrumenta Patristica, xxviii (Tum hout, 1996), pp. 117 -2 7 The Ecclesiastical History o f Orderic Vitalis, ed. M . Chibnall, 6 vols. (O M T, 1969-80) Radulphi de Diceto decani Londoniensis opera omnia, ed. W. Stubbs, 2 vols. (R S, 1876) D. Renn, ‘Burgeat and Gonfanon: two sidelights on the Bayeux Tapestry’, Battle, xvi (1994), 17 7 98 A. Renoux, Fécam p: Du palais ducal au palais de Dieu (Paris, 199 1) Rolls Series M . Strickland, War and C hivalry (Cambridge, 1996)

A B B RE VI A TE D R E F E R E N C E S Tanner, ‘Counts o f Boulogne’ T ard if TRH S Vegetius Vita Edw ardi

Wace, Rou

Xlll

H. J . Tanner, ‘T he expansion o f the power and influence o f the counts o f Boulogne under Eustace II’, Battle , xiv (19 9 1), 251-8 6 L e très ancien Coutumier de Normandie, ed. E. J . Tardif, 2 vols. (Paris, 18 8 1-19 0 3) Transactions o f the R oyal H istorical Society F la v i Vegetii Renati Epitoma rei m ilitaris, ed. C . Lang (Leipzig, 19 10) The L ife o f K ing Edw ard who rests at Westminster, attributed to a M onk o f S t B erlin, ed. F. Barlow (2nd edn. O M T, 1992) L e Roman de Rou de Wace, ed. A. J . Holden, 3 vols., Société des anciens textes français (Paris,

1970-3) Waltham Chronicle

WJ WP Yver, ‘Châteaux-forts’

The Waltham Chronicle, ed. L . Watkiss and

M . Chibnall (OM T, 1994) William o f Jum ièges William o f Poitiers J . Yver, ‘Les châteaux-forts en Normandie jus­ qu’au milieu du xii* siècle’, B S A N liii (1957 for 1955-6), 2 8 - 115 , 604-9.

INTRODUCTION THE

AUTHOR

T he Gesta Guillelm i o f W illiam o f Poitiers has survived only in an incomplete form. It was edited in 1 61 9 by André Duchesne from a unique, but damaged, manuscript, whose first and last folios were missing. The manuscript subsequently disappeared, prob­ ably in the fire in the Cottonian Library (17 3 1). So the preface and concluding chapters, which may have contained information about the author, are now lost; and almost all that is known about him comes from the Ecclesiastical History o f Orderic V italis.1 According to Orderic, he was a Norman by birth, who came from Préaux. He was evidently well born; his sister became abbess o f Saint-Léger-de-Préaux, a house planned by Humphrey o f Vieilles and founded by Roger o f Beaumont.2 T he house attracted postulants from wealthy families; W P’s father may have been a vassal o f the Beaumonts. Like many young men o f noble and knightly families in the mid eleventh century, W P trained as a knight and fought for a time in secular warfare.3 H e turned, however, to the Church, and studied for a time in the schools o f Poitiers, from which he took his name. W P himself, in one o f his rare autobiographical notes, corroborates this by saying that he was ‘in exile in Poitiers’ at the time o f the siege o f M ouliherne (1049).4 I f his fighting took place during Duke W illiam’s minority in about 10 4 2-3, he might have been bom r.1020. H is accomplished Latin style, and his thorough fam iliarity with a wide range o f classical authors, are clear proof that he studied for several years at Poitiers before returning to Normandy. There he 1 OV ii. 78-9, 184-5, 258-61. 2 OV ii. 258-9; G C ix. 853; Annales Ordinis Sancti Benedicti, ed. J. Mabillon, 6 vols (Paris, 1703-39), iv. 36 1-2; Neustria pia, ed. A. du Moustier (Rouen, 1663), pp. 520-3, 526. His sister has sometimes been assumed to have been Emma, the first abbess. But Emma, who was old enough to be made an abbess f.1040, must have been considerably older than William; her successor, Ansfrida, who became abbess f.1075 (Annales O SB, v. 655, no. Ixxxiv; Neustria pia, p. 523) and may have been a professed nun at Préaux for many years, could have been William’s sister. G G i. it . 2 OV ii. 258-61.

XVI

INTRO DU CTIO N

^served for many years as one o f Duke W illiam’s chaplains.5 He was also at some time archdeacon o f Lisieux, serving under both Bishop Hugh, who died in Ju ly 1077, and Hugh’s successor, Gilbert Maminot.6 T he date o f his appointment is not known. T he first probable reference to William as archdeacon o f Lisieux in any charter occurs in an agreement (r.1075) whereby W illiam, son o f Anschetil, granted land in Eturquereye and Colletot to Saint-Léger in return for a payment which he received from the abbess, Ansfrida, to enable him to go to Spain. Witnesses to the charter include W illiam, archdeacon o f Lisieux,7 and this is most likely to be William o f Poitiers, particularly in view o f his connection with Saint-Léger, though William de Glanville is a possibility.8 In his later years, Orderic wrote, W P was forced by unfavour­ able circumstances to abandon his work on the Gesta Guillelmi, which he would have continued until the death o f K in g W illiam. He gave him self up to silence and prayer, and composed verses and sermons; he was so far from envy that he invited his juniors to criticize and improve his verses.9 Evidently he lived until after 1087, the date o f the king’s death; but whether failing health or a fall from favour forced him into retirement is not known. Possibly he retreated to a monastery, and the ‘juniors’ mentioned by Orderic were young monks. Since Orderic went to Saint-Evroult, which was in the diocese o f Lisieux, in 1085,10 it is just possible that he met the old archdeacon. He could certainly have derived his information from those who had known him. Apart from W P’s probable attestation o f the transaction at Saint-Léger f.10 7 5 , there is no trace o f him as a witness in any Norman ecclesiastical charters that have yet come to light. Although he was one o f the chaplains o f William the Conqueror 5 OV ii. 184-5. 6 OV ii. 258-9. 7 Ncustria piay p. 523 . 1 am grateful to Professor David Bates for sending me a copy o f the pancarte of Saint-Léger (no. 2 17 in his forthcoming edition o f the charters o f William I). 8 See the list o f archdeacons in David Spear, ‘L ’administration épiscopale normande. Archidiacres et dignitaires des chapitres’, Les évêques normands du xi* siècle, ed. Pierre Bouet et François Neveux (Caen, 1995), pp. 8 1-10 2 , at 85. 9 OV ii. 184-5, 258-61. 10 OV iii. M -

TH E AUTHOR

XVII

he has proved equally elusive in ducal and royal charters.11 In Domesday Book, however, there is a statement that the prebends o f the church o f St M artin’s, D over, formerly held in common, had been divided between the canons by Bishop Odo o f Bayeux; and one o f the canons is ‘W illelmus Pict[avensis]\ T he close connection between St M artin’s and the English royal chapel makes the identification o f this William with the Conqueror’s chaplain all the more likely.12 M oreover the possibility o f a connection between WP and Bishop Odo is consistent with his fulsome praise for the bishop,13 and may help to explain why a panegyric dedicated to the Conqueror was never completed. Odo’s close connection with Robert Curthose, whose first rebel­ lion against his father began in 1077, and his later disgrace and imprisonment, must have caused many o f those closely associated with him to fall from favour.14 The connection cannot be proved conclusively; but if it existed it would suggest that some o f W P’s information about the actual battle o f Hastings originated with Odo himself, and consequently had a partial slant towards the Bayeux version o f the Conquest. Something o f W P’s character and ability can be deduced from his writing. Orderic was certainly justified in admiring his learning, for he was an unusually accomplished Latinist, and clearly enjoyed showing o ff his learning. T he schools o f Saint-H ilairele-Grand in Poitiers, where he may be presumed to have studied, had been made famous under the direction in 1024-8 o f H ildegar, the pupil o f Fulbert o f Chartres.15 Hildegar had connections with Norm andy.16 And the church o f Saint-H ilaire, dedicated on i November 1049, had been built largely at the expense o f Emma, daughter o f Duke Richard I o f Normandy and wife 11 A Willelmus Pictavensis witnessed a charter o f Serlo of Lingèvres (1079-82) making a grant to Saint-Etienne-de-Caen; but he is not described as a clerk (Musset, Abbayes caennaisesy nos. 7, 18). 12 Davis, ‘William of Poitiers*, p. 90, n. 2. 13 G G ii. 37. 14 Davis, 4William of Poitiers*, pp. 90-3. 15 Ibid., pp. 86-7. 16 The Letters and Poems o f Fulbert o f Chartres, ed. F. Behrends (OMT, 1976), nos. 67,

68.

W ill

IN TR OD UC TIO N

successively o f K ing Æ thelred and K in g Cnut o f England.17 As a result o f his studies, W P had a thorough mastery o f Caesar’s De bello gallico and De bello ciuili and Vergil’s Aeneid, and he modelled his style on these and on a number o f other Latin authors. He used Sallust as well as Caesar for battles, Cicero and St Augustine for moral dissertations; he also made use o f the Satires o f Juvenal, the Agricola o f Tacitus, the Thebaid o f Statius, the Lives o f Suetonius and Plutarch, Lucan’s Pharsalia, and Justin ’s Epitome. Some o f his knowledge o f legends o f the Trojan war may have come from the Ilias latina.1* H is references to legal principles are too general to indicate any serious legal studies at Poitiers; but he was certainly fam iliar with Norman customary law as it was enforced by the dukes, and was aware o f some at least o f the different English custom s.19 H e showed him self a supporter o f church reform in so far as it was encouraged by Duke W illiam; his interest in the eucharistie controversy and the condemnation o f the views o f Berengar appears only obliquely in his comments on the duke’s devotion to the sacraments.20 H is years in Poitiers left one other mark on his work: knowledge o f events in the region and an interest in Poitou. In his account o f the revolt o f G uy o f Brionne he points out that G uy, who was a nephew o f W illiam, count o f Poitou, went after his defeat to Burgundy, where he plagued his brother, W illiam Tête-H ardie, for ten more years.21 He also twice mentions Aim eri, vicomte o f Thouars (the most important castle in the marches between Poitou and Anjou), stating that Aim eri both took part in the Conquest o f England and was the spokesman o f those who wished Duke William to be crowned king.22 Surprisingly, he 17 ‘Istud monasterium magna ex parte construxerat regina Anglorum per manus Gauterii Coorlandi’, Chronicort Sancti M axentii Pictavensis, in Chroniques des églises d*Anjouy ed. P. Marchegay and E. Mabille (Société de 1’histoire de France, 1869), p. 397. 18 For deuils, see Foreville, pp. xxxviii-xliii, and below, Index o f Quoutions and Allusions. 19 G G ii. 33. 20 G G i. 49-56. 21 Davis, ‘William o f Poitiers’, p. 87; G G i. 9, 29. 22 G G ii. 22; for Aimeri, see G. Beech, ‘The participation o f Aquitanians in the Conquest of England 10 6 6-110 0 ’, Battle y ix (1987), 1-24 , at pp. 6 -15 .

THE G E S T A G V I L L E L M I

XIX

makes no mention o f the interests o f the lords o f Bellême in the region. T h is drastic simplification o f the situation o f Domfront in particular may have been politically motivated; he wished, both there and more generally in M aine, to make a case for the claims o f the earlier Norman dukes, which had been actively taken up by Duke W illiam.23 There is no indication that W P ever held office in the schools o f Poitiers, or returned there after his departure for Normandy in the early 1050s. H is life thereafter was spent in Normandy, with an interlude for some years after 1066 in England. T he date o f his death, not before 1087, is unknown. 2.

TH E

GESTA

G V ILLE LM I

Secular clerks, unlike monks, did not have the resources o f a monastic library at their elbow. The Gesta Guilelmi is full o f echoes o f classical texts; but it is difficult to be certain what library resources WP had at hand when he was actually writing it. H is close comparison o f the British campaigns o f Ju liu s Caesar with the campaigns o f William the Conqueror24 suggests that he may have had a copy at least o f De bello gallico with him; on the other hand, the occasional slips over names could mean that he relied on an almost, but not quite, perfect memory o f what he had studied intensively at Poitiers. M ost o f the echoes o f other classical sources could have been remembered from his student years; the occasional phrases and aphorisms are o f the kind that memory most readily retains. Contemporary works, such as the histories o f Dudo o f Saint-Quentin and William o f Jum ièges, could have been seen in the great abbeys, particularly at Fécamp, adjacent to a favoured ducal castle,25 or at Jum ièges or SaintWandrille. I f he finally settled at Lisieux and was writing there he would have had the resources o f the cathedral library to draw upon. On the whole, the originality o f the Gesta Guillelmi suggests that it is above all a book o f memoirs, written by a man o f letters who had been well drilled in youth in such o f the classics as were 23 See Louise, pp. 290-5, 30 1-3. 24 G G ii. 39, 40. 25 For Fécamp, see Renoux, Fécamp, pp. 481-2.

XX

IN TRO DU CTI ON

then available, but had spent his mature years nearer to the seats o f power, both secular and ecclesiastical. Remote as W P’s preconceptions were from those o f the nineteenth century, his work has, in some ways, more in common with the reminiscences o f a Victorian statesman than with the monastic chronicles o f his own day. T he Gesta Guillelmi, even in its unfinished form, is the earliest extended biography o f any duke o f Normandy. It was planned after 1066 to show how Duke William prepared for, and achieved, the Conquest o f England; and to justify his succession to the throne. In an early chapter describing Earl Godwine’s responsi­ bility for the murder o f the ætheling A lfred, W P refers to the retribution that was to come with the defeat and death o f Godwine’s son H arold.26 He continued his history, as Orderic Vitalis tells us, up to the death o f Earl Edwin (in 10 7 1), and was then obliged to leave it unfinished.27 Although he may have begun writing o f the Conqueror’s Norman campaigns at any time after the Conquest, most o f the evidence points to a date after 10 7 1 for the bulk o f the writing. H is statement that Stigand was tolerated for a time as archbishop o f Canterbury because o f his influence, and was removed only when the king was ready to appoint Lanfranc,28 supports this dating. He wrote o f Hugh, bishop o f Lisieux, who died on 17 Ju ly 1077, as though he were still alive; and although a reference to the dedication o f Saint-Etienne-deCaen (on 13 September 1077)29 seems to imply that this had taken place, W P may have had in mind a dedication that was planned, but not completed, or may have added the reference in a late revision. The evidence suggests outside limits o f between 10 7 1 and 1077 for the bulk o f the writing. H e certainly wrote after William o f Jum ièges had completed his G N D .30 It is perhaps worth noting that the last dated reference to Gilbert fitz Osbern 26 G G i. 4. 27 OV ii. 260-1. 28 G G ii. 33. 29 G G i. 52; OV iii, 14 -17 . R. Foreville, following Lemarignicr, gave the date o f the dedication as 1073 (Foreville, p. 128 n. 2); but Musset, Abbayes caennaisesy pp. 14 -15 , has since proved that the date was 1077, as stated three times by Orderic (OV ii. 148; iii. 10; iii. 158-60). 30 Elisabeth van Houts has shown that WJ finished his chronicle early in 1070 (G N D i. p. xxxii).

TH E G E S T A G V I L L E L M I

XXI

as archdeacon o f Lisieux is 10 7 1.31 I f W P took up more o f the archidiaconal duties at that date, at the same time ceasing to be K in g W illiam’s chaplain, he may have wished both to leave a record o f what he knew and, by dedicating the work to the king, to earn future promotion. T h is, however, is speculation. In planning the G G he was strongly influenced by classical models, and to a lesser extent by the shorter accounts o f dukes put together by Dudo o f Saint-Quentin and W J. He knew Suetonius and Plutarch, even if he had never read Einhard. Something may have been derived from a different type o f biography: the Vitae o f the bishops and archbishops o f Rouen, though these would have suggested little more than the church benefactions to be included in any eulogy o f the duke.32 For the most part he was innovating. The classical influence is apparent in his general plan. H is division o f the work into an account o f the deeds o f William the duke and those o f W illiam the king echoes the rhetorical device o f partitio or divisio.33 There is, too, a certain amount o f arrangement by topic. Duke W illiam’s character and relations with the church are treated separately from his cam­ paigns. Even within the more political parts o f the narrative, arrangement is not sim ply chronological: themes are important. Besides this, W P was writing from memory some twenty years after the events. A fter a description o f the disturbances during W illiam’s m inority, relations with Anjou are outlined in a section which begins over a decade earlier.34 Any attempt to date the long sieges o f Domfront and Arques from the sequence o f events in W P’s narrative is bound to lead to confusion and contradiction. For the most part, the classical influence is indirect and subtle. It appears in his style; he enjoyed imitating Caesar, Cicero, 31 Spear, ‘ L ’administraton épiscopale normande* (above n. 8), p. 85. 32 He may not have known the Acta episcoporum rothomagensium o f which one copy was written in the late eleventh century (E. Martène, Veterum scriptorum et monumentorum collectio nova (Rouen, 1700), ii. 233-43), but Vitae based on the lives o f the popes in the Liber Pontificalis, ed. L . Duchesne (3 vols., Paris, 1886-1957), were becoming common. 33 Cf. Suetonius, Vita Augusti, c. Ixi: ‘Now that I have shown how he conducted himself in civil and military positions and in ruling the State . . . I shall next give an account o f his private and domestic life.’ The principle o f divisio is discussed by G. B. Townsend, ‘Suetonius and his influence’, in Latin Biography, ed. T. A. Dorey (London, 1967), pp. 79 i i i , at 84-5. 34 G G i. i i .

XXII

INT RO D UC TI ON

Sallust, or Vergil. In particular, consciously or unconsciously, he wrote with two different kinds o f rhetorical conventions, o f panegyric and o f history.35 He claimed that, unlike the poets, he did not wander over the fields o f fiction, but stated only what was true history.36 Granted that he did not claim to tell the whole truth, this may approximate to his aim in the historical parts o f his narrative. But no eleventh-century historian ever aimed at Lord Acton’s unattainable ideal o f writing history ‘just as it happened’ . Grammar itself was an art, and some rhetoric was bound to seep into even the most sober historical work o f any writer trained in the schools. T he declamatory passages used a much more exaggerated rhetoric. When, for example, W P apostrophizes Harold after his death and burial, and comments that his body lies in a tumulus on the seashore,37 he seems to forget that he has just expressly said that the proposal to bury Harold on the seashore had been made in jest.38 Sim ilarly, he reproaches the English for rebelling against their new king in terms that do not quite square with his comments on the justice and moderation o f the measures taken by W illiam, and on his warm reception during his progress through the country. H is lavish praise o f the king stretches credulity to such an extent that within a generation Orderic Vitalis, who had been in England as a boy and knew the truth about W illiam’s acts o f brutality, omitted it in recording the history o f the years after 1066, largely from the pages o f WP.39 Yet this does not invalidate W P’s more sober assessments, or the value o f his more straightforward historical passages. These Orderic thought worthy o f repeating, and they give a precious insight into many topics, particularly the cam­ paigns o f the duke and his skill as a m ilitary commander.40 As a former knight, WP could write o f campaigns with authority. Like most o f his educated contemporaries, he knew and cited Vegetius, though many o f the general principles laid down by Vegetius could as well have been reached by practical 35 Classical biographies were written under the influence o f the rhetorical technique o f encomium; sec A. J. Gossage, ‘Plutarch’, in Dorey, Latin Biography, p. 47. 36 G G i. 20. 37 G G ii. 25. 38 G G ii. 25. 39 Gillingham, pp. 143-60, assesses the value o f WP for military history. 40 Ibid., pp. 145-9.

TH E G E S T A G V I L L E L M I

XX111

experience combined with common sense. T he qualities he admired in the duke were his speed, his prudence, and above all his careful planning. Duke William could move rapidly from one trouble-spot to another so as to appear without warning, leaving a small contingent o f men in quickly constructed siegecastles to carry on a siege in his absence. He was prudent in not risking the doubtful outcome o f battle except as a last resort;41 he had, indeed, though W P does not openly admit as much, no practical experience o f commanding an army in any major battle before 1066. At Val-ès-Dunes, as W J makes clear, the rebels were routed by an army led by the king o f France; and there are grounds for thinking that Varaville was not really a pitched battle. At M ortem er battle was forced on the Normans by French aggression; and the duke him self was not present when victory was won by Count Robert o f Eu. It is possible that, on some occasions (as W P suggests), enemies were so impressed by W illiam’s reputation in war that they retreated before he appeared on the scene.42 In general, up to 1066, Duke William succeeded by concentrating on castles and starving out his opponents in a series o f resolute and successful sieges. T he invasion o f England, however, demanded an aggressive policy. William must have known that nothing but success in a battle in which his rival had to perish could win him the crown o f England. As a churchman, writing after Erm enfrid o f Sion’s penitential ordi­ nances had imposed severe penances on all guilty o f bloodshed even in battle,43 W P could hardly say so openly. He could, however, attempt to show Harold’s duplicity in taking the crown, and adding (perhaps because o f a lingering suspicion that Harold’s coronation may have conferred some regality on him) direct references to the classical doctrine o f the virtue o f tyrannicide.44 He could also bring out in vivid detail Duke W illiam’s meticulously careful preparations for an extremely hazardous enterprise. As he pointed out, Caesar was not always 41 42 43 44

Cf. Vegetius, iii. 8. G G i. 33. Councils and Synods, i. 581-4. G G ii. 25; cf. ii.32.

XXIV

IN TR OD UC TIO N

sufficiently careful in laying his plans; but W illiam never failed to prepare for all eventualities.45 In the light o f this, it is reasonable to ask whether in fact thé duke was delayed for a month at the mouth o f the D ives by unfavourable winds. Since a similar story occurs in the Carmen de Hastingae proelio46 it is likely that rumours to that effect spread among the troops preparing for the invasion. But they may have been spread deliberately by the duke, in order to confuse Harold’s spies. W P tells how one o f these spies was caught and sent back to Harold with a defiant message.47 It is not unreasonable to suppose that a leader who certainly made use o f m ilitary intelligence48 would have been aware o f the value o f a little misinformation to confuse his enemies. Certainly Harold had to keep his forces spread out along the south coast from the Isle o f Wight to Kent, ready to intercept a landing at any point, until his food supplies ran out, many o f the men went home, and the English fleet withdrew to the river Tham es.49 Duke William meanwhile, as his biographer shows, organized and paid for food supplies for his men.50 He knew that once across the Channel he could, as an invader, feed them by ruthlessly ravaging the lands o f Harold him self and his men,51 whereas Harold could not afford to do so. Duke William may not have intended necessarily to move to the adequate, but less good, moorings at Saint-Valery-sur-Som m e; but he kept his options open. M oreover the crossing was shorter from Saint-Valery than from the estuary o f the D ives; and the monks o f Fécamp, one or more o f whom accompanied him ,52 had 45 G G ii. 40. Nevertheless here and elsewhere in describing William’s preparations, WP may have had in mind the comments of Suetonius, Vita Caesaris, c. lviii: ‘In obeundis expeditionibus dubium cautior an audactior, exercitum neque per insidiosa itinera duxit umquam nisi perspeculatus locorum situs, neque in Britanniam transvexit, nisi ante per se portus et navigationem et accessum ad insulam explorasset.’ 46 G G ii. 6; Carmen, lines 40-63. 47 G G ii. 4. 48 J. O. Prestwich, ‘Military intelligence under the Norman and Angevin kings’ , in Lam and Government in M edieval England and Normandy, ed. G. Garnett and J. Hudson (Cambridge, 1994), pp. 1-30 , discusses (pp. 3-9) William the Conqueror’s use o f military intelligence from 1067 onwards. 49 A S C (C) s.a. 1066. 50 G G ii. 2. 51 The ravaging by William’s army around Hastings is illustrated in the Bayeux Tapestry, pi. 47, 52. 52 G G ii. 12.

TH E G E S T A G V I L L E L M l

XXV

lands in Sussex and knew the landing places and the hinterland.53 Above all, he needed to assemble his ships and train the men who made up his motley army. Successful warfare in the eleventh century depended partly on small disciplined troops o f mounted men under the command o f an experienced leader, and partly on the skilful use o f footsoldiers and archers.54 The duke’s army was made up, not merely o f his own well-trained household troops, Norman vassals, and auxiliaries like the men o f the count o f Boulogne, but o f adventurers from other regions who had joined the enterprise through hope o f gain. Nothing but rigorous training could have •welded them into a force sufficiently disciplined to overcome the heavy, but unknown, odds that they were bound to encounter. William must have known that, though he might tempt Harold into battle by deliberately ravaging his lands, Harold, as the defender, could choose where to make his stand. William could hardly have imagined a site more unfavourable to the attacker than the hill at Battle, where tightly packed crack troops could form a solid shield wall that could not be by-passed. H is achievement was to be capable o f winning against formidable odds. W P’s narrative makes clear, sometimes only by implication, how he achieved this. N aturally W P made much o f the story o f the wind that changed as the result o f prayers at Saint-Valery; this was what his master wished to be believed. It would be a sign that God favoured a just enterprise. Winds that yielded to prayer were a stock element in miracle stories. Yet, sometimes indirectly, W P shows other factors that were important. He mentions that during the wait boats were being built in harbours near to the D ives.55 He shows the care taken to procure adequate provisions. And he mentions the monk o f Fécamp: a reminder, surely, that although 53 Pierre Chaplais, ‘Une charte originale de Guillaume le Conquérant pour l’abbaye de Fécamp: la donation de Steyning et de Bury (1085)’, in P. Chaplais, Essays in M edieval Diplomacy and Administration (London, 1981), ch. xvi. 54 See Stephen Morillo, Warfare under the Anglo-Norman Kings 10 6 6 -113 s (Woodbridge and Rochester, NY, 1994). pp. 182-5, 187-8. 55 G G ii. 6. This alleged delay must be compared with William’s swift crossing on his return from Normandy to England in bitter weather and rough seas on 6 December 1067 (OV ii. 2 0 8 -11, quoting WP; see below, p. xxxvii and n. 99).

XXVI

IN TR OD UC TIO N

winds might blow from the wrong direction for a few days, in the long run what mattered was good seamanship and a knowledge o f the Channel crossings. T h is was something possessed by the sailors in the little ports controlled by Fécamp, experienced as they were in cross-Channel trading in all weathers.56 The reality o f the dangers appears in W P’s mention o f the ships that were wrecked during the move from the D ives to Saint-Valery,57 and o f the fate o f the men who became separated from the fleet during the crossing, and landed on the wrong beach at Rom ney.58 The amount o f training that must have taken place during the six weeks o f anything but idle and fretful waiting is shown by the remarkable manoeuvres carried out during the battle itself, which led to a hard-fought victory against courageous and formidable forces fighting for their freedom. T he rhetorical passages need to be interpreted with caution. WP was stating the case for Duke W illiam’s claim to the English throne, as it was promulgated in Normandy. There are elements common to the accounts o f W J, WP, and the Bayeux Tapestry, which were probably derived at least in part from a written statement. T h is may have been a claim sent to Rome to obtain papal support.59 But part o f the case had been made earlier, for the Inventio Sancti Wulfranni, written before 1053, had stressed the blood-relationship between K in g Edward and the Norman dukes, had claimed that Edward returned to England with Norman support, and had blamed Earl Godwine, Harold’s father, for the murder o f Alfred.60 W P gives the most complete and coherent statement o f William’s case, stressing right o f inheritance, victory in battle as a sign o f divine approval, election by Normans and English, and coronation by a properly-constituted archbishop. He insists that Edward designated William as his heir; that Harold, who had become W illiam’s vassal during his visit to Normandy, 56 See L . Musset, Autour du pouvoir ducal normand en Normandie du xi * au xiii* siècle, Cahiers des Annales de Normandie xvii, ch. vii, pp. 113-2 8 , at pp. 114 - 18 , 127. 57 G G ii. 6. 58 G G ii. 27. 59 As suggested by G. Garnett, (Coronation and propaganda: some implications o f the Norman claim to the throne o f England in 1066’ , TRHS> 5th ser., xxxvi (1986), 9 1 - 1 1 6 , at pp. n o - 1 1 . See also van Houts in G N D y i. pp. xlvi-xlviii. 60 Van Houts, ‘Historiography’, pp. 248-51.

TH E SOURCES US ED BY W IL L IA M OF POITIERS

xxvii

perfidiously broke his solemn oath and seized the crown.61 W P is alone in knowing the English custom that gave special importance to death-bed bequests, and the use o f that custom to justify Harold’s claim .62 He met the objection head-on and rejected it, by suggesting that William had been prepared to defend his claim by proceedings under either English or Norman law, or in single combat; and that Harold had spumed the offer and insisted that the issue must be decided in battle. W P wavers only very slightly in his statement o f the case, by occasionally (but only occasionally) calling Harold ‘king’ .63 There is a slight illogicality here, if coronation by the excommunicate Stigand invalidated the cere­ mony, as was asserted by the Normans within a year. But, for the first months after the victory, Harold had been called king even by his conquerors,64 and perhaps memories o f that slipped into W P’s narrative. He was careful, however, not to call William king until after his coronation; this was the Church’s case, to which WP, like W J,65 gave full support. 3.

TH E

SO URCES

USED

BY

W ILLIA M

OF

P O IT IE R S

The written sources which could have been used by W P consisted mainly o f histories o f the dukes o f Normandy by Dudo o f SaintQuentin and William o f Jum ièges. Elisabeth van Houts has shown that W J finished the greater part o f his G N D by 1060, and revised and extended it between 1067 and 1070.66 Besides the ducal histories, the Inventio et miracula Sancti Vulfranni, which was completed by 10 53/4 , included a short chapter on Anglo-Norman relations. Raymonde Foreville demonstrated that W P certainly cited one or two short passages from G N D in his early chapters; but she was hesitant in attributing any deliberate use o f the work for the events o f which he had independent oral reports.67 There 61 G G i. 14, i. 41, ii. 12. 62 G G ii. n . 63 G G ii. 23, ii. 25, ii. 30. 64 See V. H. Galbraith, Domesday Book: Its Place in Administrative History (Oxford, 1974), pp. 176-9; Garnett, ‘Coronation and propaganda", pp. 98-9. 65 G N D ii. 170-3. 66 G N D i. pp. xxxi-xxxiv. 67 Foreville, pp. xxxiv-xxxv.

xx vin

IN TR OD UC TIO N

is every reason to accept this. Indeed the debate between Jean M arx and Louis Halphen on whether W P enlarged upon W J or W J abbreviated W P is merely tilting at windm ills.68 Eleventhcentury chroniclers in search o f facts did not as a rule pay much attention to the written work o f their contemporaries, when they had independently heard reports o f the same events.69 Sim ilarities often occur because two writers heard sim ilar oral testimony, whether reliable or unreliable. Earlier influences were potent in building up traditions o f writing. Both Dudo and W J developed the theme o f the perfect warrior duke, who adds piety, wisdom, and justice to his m ilitary virtues; and W P improved upon it in his biography.70 Verbal echoes occurring in two sources are often due to common knowledge o f classical authors.71 Such echoes are most noticeable in G G and the Carmen de Hastingae proelio; and they do not imply direct imitation, and do not help to solve the problems o f whether either author knew the work o f the other, or when the Carmen was written. T he date is a controversial question. Internal evidence, such as the mention o f two archbishops as participants in K ing W illiam’s coronation,72 makes it likely that the Carmen was written either before Stigand’s disgrace in 1070, or in the twelfth century, when memories might have been dim. A number o f scholars, notably the editors o f the Carmen, supported by van Houts, favour the earlier date; R . C. H. Davis’s argument for a twelfth-century date has been accepted by a few others. Some more recent work, notably that by Giovanni Orlandi, supports the early date and accepts G uy, bishop o f Amiens, as the author.73 T he balance is now inclined towards the earlier date. 68 Foreville, p. xxvi. 69 This was a very well-established tradition of historical writing, first clearly enunciated by Thucydides. See A. D. Momigliano, Studies in Historiography (London, 1969), pp. 2 14 18. 70 See Jean Flori, L'essor de la chevalerie xi*-xiie siècles (Geneva, 1986), pp. 144-8. 71 See e.g. G G ii. 15, and Carmen, lines 32 1-2 . 72 Carmen, lines 801-4. 73 See Orlandi, pp. 117 -2 7 ; Greenway, Huntingdon p. cvi; and the debate led by R. H. C. Davis and L . J. Engels, in Battle, ii. (1980), 1-20. Davis argued for a twelfth-century date in 4The Carmen de Hastingae proelio\ EH R xciii (1978), 2 4 1-6 1, reprinted in R. H. C. Davis, From Alfred the Great to Stephen (London and Rio Grande, OH, 1991), pp. 79-100, with a postscript (p. 100) still maintaining his position after E. M. C. van Houts, 4Latin

TH E SOURCES US ED BY W IL L IA M OF POITIERS

XXIX

Since G uy o f Amiens came to England in the household o f Queen M atilda,74 it is difficult to believe that WP, as one o f the king's chaplains, would not have known about his poem. W P may even have had it in mind when he spoke o f the poets who roam freely through the fields o f fiction. T h is, however, does not prove conclusively that the poem by G u y, which was mentioned by Orderic Vitalis, was the Carmen. There were other poems about the conquest o f England; Baudri o f Bourgeuil later wrote one for Adela o f Blois,75 and there could have been other songs o f Hastings. Words and phrases common to both G G and the Carmen might have been picked up from the works o f Juvenal, Justin, or other earlier writers. I f the two authors had heard the same stories, they decided independently what was reliable and worth recording. Both had heard and believed that Duke W illiam was delayed at the mouth o f the D ives by unfavourable winds.76 Both had heard the suggestion that Harold might appropriately be buried on the seashore; but whereas W P took this to be a jest the author o f the Carmen gave full vent to his imagination, and described the burial with all the trimmings o f saga.77 I f W P had seen the accounts o f the Carmen on the death o f Harold and the negotiations leading up to the surrender o f London,78 he did not regard them as reliable, and preferred independent information, or, in the case o f Harold’s death, lack o f information. The possibility that no survivor o f the battle knew exactly when or how Harold died should never be over­ looked. On the other hand, i f W P deliberately rejected the Carmen’s account o f the surrender o f London, in which poetry and the Anglo-Norman court, 10 6 6 -1135; the Carmen de Hastingae proelio* yJournal o f M edieval History, xv (1989), 39-62, had put the case for Guy o f Amiens as author. 74 OV ii. 184-7, 2 14 -15 . 75 Baudri’s poem, written before 1102, has been published most recently by K . Hilbert, Baldricus Burgulianus: Carmina (Heidelberg, 1979), no. 134. For recent discussion, see S. A. Brown and M. W. Herren, (The Adelae Comitissae o f Baudri of Bourgeuil and the Bayeux Tapestry’, Battle, xvi (1994)» 55- 73* 76 G G ii. 6; Carmen, lines 40-63. 77 G G ii. 204; Carmen, lines 585-92. The influence o f saga is discussed by K.-U. Jäschke, Wilhelm der Eroberer: Sein doppelter Herrschaftsantritt im Jah re io66y Vorträge und Forschungen, xxiv (Sigmaringen, 1977), pp. 39-45. Jäschke (ibid. pp. 46-7) also notes classical parallels in Statius and the Iliad. 78 Carmen, lines 673-750.

XXX

INT RO D UC TI ON

Ansgard79 was said to have taken part, he may have thrown away a few reliable details together with the imaginative elaboration o f events. The date o f one pictorial source, the Bayeux Tapestry, is debatable, but it was certainly later than G G .80 Both Bishop Odo and Bayeux are central to its narrative; and since W P knew and admired Odo he and the designer o f the tapestry probably had some oral sources in common. There are marked similarities in the two descriptions o f the Battle o f Hastings, though there are also some conspicuous differences in the role assigned to Eustace o f Boulogne. T he judgement o f individuals and their purpose in writing were bound to influence their handling o f fluid and variable oral sources; and W P’s sources were almost entirely oral. From the time when his own experience began, he preferred his own recollections, both o f what he had seen him self and o f what other eye-witnesses had told him, to any written chronicle. T his had, indeed, been the normal practice o f historians from the time o f Thucydides.81 The identification o f oral sources is difficult, and can rarely result in more than a plausible hypothesis. W P must have been close to Duke William during the years when he was a ducal or royal chaplain. I f he was for a time the duke's confessor, this might account for his frequent, but generalized, interpolations on W illiam’s piety.82 Though much o f this is conventional special pleading, it is interesting that he draws a picture o f a man indifferent to omens,83 a pious Christian trusting in the will o f God in order to further righteous ends. From the time he knew 79 Ansgard, mentioned in the Carmen (line 690), can probably be identified as Asgar or Esgar the staller, the grandson o f Tovi the Proud (Waltham Chronicle, pp. xvii-xviii). 80 For the Bayeux Tapestry, the volume edited by Sir Frank Stenton (The Bayeux Tapestry, 2nd edn., London, 1965) is still fundamental; citations to scenes in the tapestry are taken from the plate numbers in this edition. S. A. Brown, The Bayeux Tapestry: History and Bibliography (Woodbridge and Wolfeboro, NH, 1988), provides a comprehen­ sive bibliography up to 1988. There is a critical French edition by L . Musset, La tapisserie de Bayeux (La-Pierre-qui-Vire, 1989). 81 See above, p. xxviii. 82 G G i. 49-52, ii. 14, ii. 44 and passim. 83 G G ii. 14, where William merely laughed at accidentally putting on his hauberk back to front before the battle.

THE SOURCES USED BY W IL L IA M OF POITIERS

XXXI

the duke he wrote as W illiam’s mouthpiece. For the earlier campaigns, when he was studying at Poitiers, he must have relied on accounts o f the participants, and on general reports o f the duke’s reputation. He never mentions particular individuals as his informants, though his career suggests an association in later life with Odo o f Bayeux. He was not him self present on the battlefield at Hastings, but he appears to have used information from men who had fought there. The details o f later campaigns, which are known only from the work o f Orderic Vitalis, must have come from individuals who had been with the armies. It is very likely that WP was still W illiam’s chaplain, and accompanied him on some at least o f these campaigns. Unfortunately eye-witness accounts were often distorted in the telling by chansons. The view that chansons could not have penetrated into written sources very soon after the events they described can no longer be sustained. It is certain, for example, that in Spain the disastrous battle o f Fraga had been transformed by legend within three or four years.84 So there is no need to try to explain the epic elements in G G by suggesting that W P him self composed heroic poetry.85 Legendary feats o f arms might have been attributed to Duke William from the first moment that his reputation grew; and in recording information probably received from the duke’s knights, W P enhanced it in imitation o f classical models. On one occasion he stated openly that he did not know exactly what William said to his troops; but he invented a speech to embody the arguments that would have been appropriate.86 Other speeches were certainly, though less overtly, invented; this was a common device o f rhetoric, and readers o f Latin would have accepted it as such.87 Probably too they would not have been deceived by the embellishments W P added from classical authors. It was to be expected that any parent would wish to have the body o f a son slain in battle; so Harold’s mother is represented as pleading to be allowed to bury her son, as Priam had pleaded for 84 85 86 87 orat.

Sec OV vi, pp. xxii-xxiii. Sec Foreville, pp. xliii-xliv. G G ii. 15. See T. P. Wiseman, Clio's Cosmetics (Leicester, 1979), pp. 27-40, citing Cicero, De ii. 36; OV i. 80 n. 1.

IN TR OD UC TIO N

XXX11

the body o f Hector.88 I f Caesar occasionally helped to lighten the burden o f a sick colleague, William must do the same, or better.89 I f Vergil described feasts celebrated by Aeneas at critical moments, William must equal or surpass him by celebrating a feast in mid-Channel.90 T h is was part o f W P’s technique in his rhetorical passages. In those that were more strictly historical, he relied more directly on oral testimony, some o f which came from eye-witnesses. 4.

TH E

BATTLE

OF

HASTINGS

W illiam o f Poitiers did not, as he him self said, hear the discourse with which the duke encouraged his troops before the battle, and he was not an eye-witness o f the battle. He stated significantly, ‘We have not the means, and it is not our intention, to describe all the exploits o f individuals as their merit deserves. T he most eloquent writer who had seen the battle with his own eyes could scarcely have followed every detail.* H is account is based on oral evidence; it is most precise on the ordering o f the troops for battle, a point on which many eye-witnesses could agree. Once the action had started, individuals would have lost sight o f the whole picture and been aware only o f the particular actions in which they were engaged. So it is not surprising to find that some o f the closest resemblances to the account in the Carmen, also drawn from oral sources, are in the opening stage o f the battle. Both state that Harold’s troops emerged from woods and took their stand on foot in densely packed formation at the top o f a hill, approached by a steep, rough slope.91 Both agree that the front line o f the Norman army was made up o f archers on foot, shooting arrows and bolts; the mention o f bolts shows that they included cross­ bowmen. Among the mailed, mounted knights the duke him self commanded the centre, with Bretons and other auxiliaries on the 88 G G ii. 25; Cf. Ilias latina, lines 1009-45. 89 G G ii. 9; cf. Suetonius, Vita Caesaris, c. Ixxii: ‘Amicos tanta semper facilitate indulgentiaque tractavit, ut Gaio Oppio comitanti se per silvestre iter correptoque subita valitudine deversoriolo eo, quod unum erat, cesserit, et ipsi humi et sub divo cubuerit’ . 90 G G ii. 7; Vergil, Aen. i. 168-215. 91 G G ii. 16; Carmen, lines 365-72.

TH E B A T T L E OF H A S T I N G S

XXX111

left and the Normans on the right (the Carmen reverses the left and right, but may have been describing the line from the opposite side). WP, however, is much more exact; he mentions a second line o f foot-soldiers, more heavily armed and wearing hauberks, between the archers and the rank o f mounted knights led by the duke. He describes the first stage o f the fighting carefully: the archers and foot-soldiers advanced first, and met fierce resistance from the English. The knights followed, those who had been behind (presumably the mounted knights) advan­ cing to the front; and these fought hand-to-hand with swords.92 He does not indicate whether there had been a charge with couched lances; but in an uphill charge against foot-soldiers the couched lance would not have been a very effective weapon,93 and the knights would certainly have needed to draw their swords to make any impact. There is no suggestion in W P that a jongleur, called Taillefer, rode in front to encourage the troops and strike the first blow, as alleged in the Carmen.94 Both sources agree in general on the next phase: part o f the attacking line gave way, panic broke out among the Bretons, and then spread to other contingents when it was rumoured that the duke was dead. William raised his helmet to show that he was still alive; his forces rallied, turned, surrounded, and massacred the pursuing English. From this point the Carmen and W P differ more and more. WP states quite clearly that the first flight was genuine; but its unexpected success when William’s forces turned on the English persuaded the Normans to retreat twice more in flights that were feigned. T he Carmen is a little confused on the number o f flights, and implies at one point that the first was feigned. Details o f the later stages o f the battle vary. WP mentions a heroic charge led by Robert o f Beaumont, o f which he may have heard through his association with the Beaumont family in Normandy. He mentions that in the final onslaught the Normans shot arrows; it is interesting to note that in the Bayeux n G G ii. 16, 17; Carmen, lines 373-84. 93 See below, ii. 17 and n. 76. 94 Carmen, lines 391-405. The ‘Taillefer' episode reappears in the twelfth century in the work o f Henry o f Huntingdon (Greenway, Huntingdon pp. cvi, 392-3) and Wace (Rou, pt. iii, lines 8013-39 («• 182-4) )•

XXXIV

IN TR OD UC TIO N

Tapestry the archers, who had been shown leading the advance during the first phase o f the battle, now appear in large numbers in the lower margin. He does not attempt to state when or how Harold and his brothers, Gyrth and Leofwine, were killed. He mentions the last stand o f some o f the retreating English, who took advantage o f a maze o f ditches and broken earthworks to try to halt their pursuers.95 T he only other details he provides relate to the valour o f the duke himself, who fought with a broken lance after three horses had been killed under him, and refused to listen to Eustace o f Boulogne, who was urging him to retreat. The Carmen, on the other hand, embroiders the narrative with individual exploits appropriate to epic descriptions o f battles. T he author describes in detail how William seized one horse from a man o f Maine and was given another by Count Eustace; how Gyrth and Leofwine were killed, and how the duke, Count Eustace, and two others attacked and killed Harold. All these episodes are most probably either taken from songs about the battle, or imagined by the author o f the Carmen. The resemblances between the two sources that appear, particularly in the early stages o f the battle, could be explained by similar oral sources known to both authors. WP is far more convincing in his sober account, only carried away by his wish to praise his hero, and perhaps by his readiness to believe the worst o f Eustace o f Boulogne. The role o f Eustace in the battle is one o f the most difficult to interpret. The Bayeux Tapestry, like the Carmen, gives him a leading role,96 whereas WP presents him as something o f a coward. WP, who began to write soon after Eustace had been disgraced by his treacherous attack on Dover, even though he continued long enough to see his restoration to favour, probably listened to the worst stories about him. The Carmen was written either before Eustace disgraced himself or long after his restoration to favour. The Bayeux Tapestry was certainly designed after Eustace had re-established his position. 95 This is probably the ‘malfosse’ incident that Orderic placed during the pursuit after the battle and greatly enlarged (OV ii. 176-7). 96 His role is discussed by S. A. Brown, ‘The Bayeux Tapestry: Why Eustace, Odo and William?’, Battle, xii (1990), 7-28.

TH E USE OF TH E G G BY ORDERIC V I T A L I S

XXXV

What he actually did in the battle must remain an open question. On the whole, when the sources for the battle are compared, WP emerges as the most valuable: the most exact, and (in spite o f passages o f restrained rhetoric), the least carried away by imagination. He knew from experience the practical side o f fighting. And victory, in view o f the formidable resistance o f the English and the difficulty o f the terrain, was an achievement so remarkable that praise o f the leader needed very little embel­ lishment. 5.

TH E

U SE

OF

GESTA

ORDERIC

G V /LLELM I

BY

VITALIS

Orderic Vitalis had a complete manuscript o f the Gesta Guillelmi, which was his principal source for the campaigns o f 10 6 6 -10 71 and for William’s right to the English throne. He used it with discretion,97 omitting the long passages o f comparison with Caesar and the Vergilian episodes such as the mid-Channel banquet. While he abbreviated the rhetorical passages, he retained many expressions o f admiration for William’s courage, leadership, and kingly qualities. But the many passages praising William’s mercy towards the conquered English are either omitted alto­ gether or directly contradicted. Brought up in England from 1075 to 1085, Orderic had heard the English side o f the story, and knew how much injustice and suffering were caused by the dispossession o f many landowners, and the ravaging o f William’s armies. Comparison o f passages in the G G and the Historia Ecclesiastica illustrates the way he treated his source.

97 Orderic's use o f WP is discussed from different standpoints by P. Bouet, ‘Orderic Vital, lecteur critique de Guillaume de Poitiers’, M edievalia Christiana x i‘ - x iiie siècles. Hommage à Raymonde Foreville, ed. C. E. Viola (De Boeck Université, Editions universitaires, 1989), pp. 25-50; and by R. D. Ray, (Orderic Vitalis and William of Poitiers: a monastic reinterpretation of William the Conqueror’, Revue belge de philologie et d*histoirey I (1972), 1116 -2 7 .

XXXVI

INTRO DU CTI ON

G G ii. 22 Guillelmus itero, dux eorum, adeo praes­ tabat eis fortitudine quem admodum prudentia ut antiquis ducibus Grae­

corum siue Romanorum qui maxime scriptis laudantur, aliis merito sit praeferendus, aliis comparandus. Nobiliter duxit ille cohibens fugam, dans animos, periculi socius; saepius cla­ mans ut uenirent, quam iubens ire. Vnde liquido intelligitur uirtutem illi praeuiam pariter fecisse militibus iter et audaciam. Cor amisit absque uulnere pars hostium non modica, pros­ piciens hunc admirandum ac terribilem equitem. Equi tres ceciderunt sub eo confossi. Ter ille desiluit intrepi­ dus, nec diu mors uectoris inulta reman­ sit. Hic uelocitas eius, hic robur eius uidere potuit corporis et animi. Scuta, galeas, loricas, irato mucrone et moram dedignante penetrauit; clipeo suo non­ nullos collisit. G G ii. 33 lura quaecunque dictauit optimis ratio­ nibus dictavit. Judicium rectum nulla persona ab eo nequicquam postulauit.

Specie uindicandi reatus auaritiam plerumque uelat regnans iniquitas, supplicio addicit innocentem, ut pos­ sessionem addicti rapiat. Ille neminem damnauit quem non damnare iniquum foret; nam, uti aduersus libidines alias, ita aduersus auaritiam inuictum animum gerebat. Intellexerat esse regiae maiestatis, illustri munificentia praestare nihil ubi adquitas contradicit accipere. Suis quoque primatibus digna se et grauitate praecepit, et diligentia suasit aequitatem. Esse iugiter in oculis haben­ dum, cuius uicerent praesidio, aeternum imperatorem. Nimium opprimi uictos nequaquam oportere, uictoribus profes­ sione pares ne quos iuste subegerint, iniuriis ad rebellandum cogerent.

OV ii. 174-6 Willelmus uero dux eorum praestabat eis fortitudinem et prudentia. Nam ille nobiliter exercitum duxit, cohibens fugam, dans animos, periculi socius, sepius clamans ut uenirent quam iubens ire

In bello tres equi sub eo confossi cecider­ unt. Ter ille intrepidus desiluit, nec diu mors uectoris inulta remansit. Scuta, galeas et loricas irato mucrone moramque dedignante penetrauit, clipeo­ que suo nunnullos collisit.

OV ii. 192 lura quaecumque dictauit, optimis ratio­ nibus sanxit. Judicium rectum nulla per­ sona nequicquam ab eo postulauit.

Neminem nisi quem non damnare ini­ quum foret damnauit.

Suis quoque primatibus digna se et graui­ tate praecepit, et diligentia aequitatem suasit. Esse iugiter in oculis habendum aeternum regem, cuius uicerint praesi­ dio. Nimium opprimi uictos non opor­ tere, uictoribus professione Christiana pares, ne quos iuste subegerint, iniuriis ad rebellandum cogerent.

TH E US E OF TH E G G BY ORDERIC V I T A L I S

XXXVII

This makes it possible to attempt a tentative reconstruction o f the lost chapters o f G G from book iv o f the Ecclesiastical History, where Orderic openly stated that he had followed WP. After the death o f Copsi, Orderic describes the measures taken by King William for the good governance o f Normandy before his return to England in December 1067.98 T he sentiments and language are those o f WP. T he detailed account o f the crossing to England is precise enough to suggest that WP was probably with the king on that journey. King William reached the mouth o f the river Dieppe beyond the town o f Arques, set sail with a southerly wind in the first watch o f a bitter night, and after a good crossing in spite o f rough seas, reached Winchelsea the next m orning." Roger o f Montgomery, who had remained in Normandy to assist Queen Matilda in 1066, now accompanied the king, and received Chichester and Arundel immediately; Shropshire was given to him later.100 The account o f the king’s politic granting o f favours to the English who submitted to him, while warning the Normans to be on their guard, suggests an eye-witness description. Most o f the details o f Exeter’s rebellion and William’s investment and capture o f the city must have come through WP, though, if he mentioned the blinding o f one o f the hostages in order to put pressure on the citizens, this would have been an unusual admission that the conduct o f his hero was not always merciful.101 Orderic’s account o f Queen Matilda’s arrival to join her husband in England may have been taken from more sources 98 OV ii. 208. 99 OV ii. 208-10, ‘Deinde sexta nocte decembris ad hostium amnis Deppae ultra oppidum Archas accessit, primaque uigilia gelidae noctis Austro uela dedit, et mane portum oppositi littoris quem Vincenesium uocitant prosperrimo cursu arripuit. Iam aura hiemalis mare seuissimum efficiebat, sed sancti Nicholai Mirreorum praesulis solennitatem Aecclesia Dei celebrabat, et in Normannia pro deuoto principe fideliter orabat. Omnipo­ tentia ergo diuina quae omnes ubique et semper quos uult prospere gubernat, beniuolum regem inter hiemales tempestates ad portum salutis cum gaudio dirigebat/ Cf. G G ii. 7-8, where WP describes William’s safe crossing to England at Michaelmas, 1066, guided by providence and supported by prayer. The winter crossing without delay makes the alleged six weeks’ wait in summer for a favourable wind all the more unlikely, and adds to the evidence that Willliam delayed then in order to complete his training and preparations, and to confuse Harold. 100 OV ii. 210. 101 OV ii. 2 10 -14 . In describing the capitulation o f Alençon (G G i. 19) WP simply said that it fell into Duke William’s hands, whereas WJ (G N D ii. 124-5) stated that he had forced its surrender by cutting off the hands and feet o f some captured defenders.

IN TR OD UC TIO N

XXXV1I1

than G G .102 Orderic knew one o f the queen’s former messengers, Samson, who later became a monk at Saint-Evroult,103 and Samson could have told Orderic that she was accompanied by G uy, bishop o f Amiens, ‘qui iam certamen Heroidi et Guillelmi uersifice ediderat.’ 104 If, however, this statement came from G G it would be a clear indication that WP knew G u y’s work, whether or not it was the Carmen de Hastingae proelio. Orderic’s account o f the preparations for the rebellion o f Edwin and M orcar,105 including the benefactions o f their father and mother, Earl Æ lfgar and Countess Godiva, the alliance with the Welsh prince Bleddyn, and the burdens endured by the English after the Conquest, reads more like Orderic than WP, especially as it concerns the region where Orderic lived as a boy. But for the campaigns that followed the insurrection, and King William’s castle-building, Orderic clearly returned to GG. There is an interlude characteristic o f Orderic on the motives for the return to Normandy o f Hugh o f Grandmesnil (a patron o f SaintEvroult) and Humphrey o f Tilleul, before the narrative o f the campaigns in the north o f England is resumed.106 O f the remaining events up to 10 7 1, Orderic may possibly have con­ tributed the praise o f Queen Matilda and the escape o f Harold’s mother to Flanders,107 though he might have taken these passages from WP. T he unequivocal condemnation o f King William’s ruthless harrying o f the north, which cried out for divine retribution, was certainly Orderic’s.108 So too was the short history o f the English church before the Conquest, with which Orderic prefaced the appointment o f Lanfranc as archbishop o f Canterbury.109 Even the praise o f the king’s administration o f vacant sees appears to come from Orderic, for it concludes with references to the very end o f the reign. Either Orderic or WP could have written the passage on the return o f peace and security to England, with intermarriage between individuals, and the intermingling o f English and Norman customs. The struggle o f the king to learn enough o f the English language to understand 102 OV ii. 214. 103 OV ii. 2 14 -18 . 107 OV ii. 224.

103 OV iii. 104. 108 OV ii. 230-2.

104 OV ii. 214. 106 OV ii. 224-36. 109 OV ii. 236-56.

TH E L A N G U A G E OF THE G E S T A G V I L L E L M I

XXXIX

the pleas o f the conquered people without an interpreter might very well have been noted by his chaplain. And certainly the evidence for the siege o f the Isle o f Ely, the capture o f Earl Morcar, and the death o f Earl Edwin was in the pages o f WP,110 for Orderic immediately adds, ‘Hue usque Guillelmus Pictauinus historiam suam texuit, in qua Guillelmi gesta Crispi Salustii stilum imitatus subtiliter et eloquenter enucleauit’ . 6.

THE

LANGUAGE

GESTA

OF

THE

GVILLELM I

As a Latinist, WP is superior to the chroniclers o f his day. _ Orderic Vitalis said that he wrote in the style o f Sallust; and, though this points to classical influences on his writing, it is an over-simplification. His style was not closely modelled on any one author; it varied according to topic. As Raymonde Foreville has pointed out, he echoes Caesar, Vergil, and Sallust for battles, Cicero and St Augustine for moral dissertations, Cicero and Sallust for speeches.111 On the whole he relied more on the earlier writers than on the writers o f silver Latin, both for vocabulary and for rhetorical examples. Most o f his judicial concepts were taken straight from Cicero. His references to iura gentium, aequitas, or ius naturale are Ciceronian, and certainly do not imply any first hand knowledge o f Roman law, which had not then penetrated to the schools o f Normandy, or even to Poitiers. His vocabulary is exceptionally free from neologisms, and only a few vernacular words have made any impact on it. In consequence, words taken from Caesar and Sallust are often made to serve for the different society o f the eleventh century, and to describe the military manoeuvres o f mounted combatants in the language appropriate to battles fought by the Roman infantry. T his would have caused problems for any translator, even without the rapid social changes that were taking place in the eleventh century. M iles (59 x ), the soldier o f the Roman army, has a variety o f 1.0 OV ii. 256-8. 1.1 Foreville, pp. xxviii-xxxix.

xl

IN TR OD UC TIO N

meanings in the eleventh century. In G G , apart from occasional use as a vassal (i. 22, i, 29, i 37, i 43) it always means a fighting man, who may be mounted or unmounted. While it has no special social significance it may reasonably be translated as ‘knight’ when used to describe fully-equipped, mounted, and trained men. There is, however, no difference in Latin terminology at this date between a landed knight and a household knight, who in Old English might be distinguished as ridere and cniht. In the singular, miles may also mean a fighting force (i. 2, i. 33, i. 45, ii. 2, ii. 9). Mounted, fully armed soldiers are called either milites or equites {equestres as adjective, i. 18). Again there is no social distinction; equites receiving pay (i. 16) appear to be household knights. Pedites {pedestres as adjective) may be either foot-soldiers or dismounted knights fighting on foot (ii. 22). There are no references to stipendiarii or mercenarii. WP describes fighting forces in general as exercitus (32 x ), militia (6 x ), copia ( 1 1 x ) and occasionally turma (3 x ). Copia can also be used in a non­ military sense. B y legio (5 x ) he usually means a unit o f a larger force. In using acies (6 x ) and agmen (6 x ) he does not observe a distinction between a battle-line and an advancing army, but uses the terms interchangeably. Expeditio implies an invasion or planned attack. Apart from the general terms armatus and loricatus, WP has two principal terms for body armour: galea (3 x ) for the helmet and lorica (3 x ) for the hauberk or mailed shirt. A shield is usually called scutum (4 x ) or clipeus, which, however, may be used either o f an actual shield (i. 6, ii. 22) or metaphorically o f a strong defence (i. 19, i. 29). A sword may be either ensis (6 x ) or gladius (9 x ); a spear is hasta (2 x ) or lancea (3 x ). Spicula, used only once (ii. 24), is a battle-spear; iacula a javelin, thrown. The terms for archers are slightly ambiguous. Sagitta is used once (ii. 27) to indicate the distance an arrow could be shot. The pedites . . . sagittis armatos et balistis (ii. 16) are foot-soldiers armed with arrows and bolts. WP never uses the term arcus for a bow; sagitta evidently served for both arrows and bows; balista for the crossbow. The English hurled battle-axes {secures (ii. 17) and javelins {cuspides (ii. 17)); WP was familiar with the word

T E X T U A L T R A D IT IO N

xli

cuspis from Vergil, but it was not in common use among his contemporaries. Siege weapons mentioned are aries (i. 33, i. 40), a battering ram, and tormentum (i. 40), probably a catapult. Duke William liked to put pressure on the garrisons o f castles and cities under siege by building siege-castles. T he term used for these was usually castellum (i. 9, i. 17, i. 25); which could also on occasion mean any castle (i. 38, i. 43, ii. 27, ii. 32, ii. 35). WP made no clear distinction between castrum and castellum; he used both terms as well as oppidum for the casde o f Brionne (i. 9). Castrum might also mean a fortified town (i. 7, i. 1 1 , i. 15 , i. 23, i. 33, i. 40, i. 4 1, i. 42, i. 45, i. 48). Because o f this ambiguity it is not certain what kind o f fortifications WP believed to exist at Dover, where he refers to a castrum both before and after 1066 (i. 42, ii. 27, ii. 37, ii. 47). Dover is also called castellum, a term interchangeable with castrum, which is applied to Domfront (i. 16), Moulins-laMarche (i. 38), Arques (i. 25), Ambrières (i. 33), Mayenne (i. 60), Winchester (ii. 36), Pevensey and Hastings (ii. 9), and to fortifications in L e Mans (i. 40) and London (ii. 29), as well as being used generally (i. 10, ii. 46). Oppidum (i. 17, i. 30) is a stronghold o f some kind. Municipium (i. 1 1 , ii. 40) means a fortified town, and turris occurs only once in a place-name (ii. 28). A rx is used twice (i. 9, i. 40) o f a citadel. Castle garrisons are castellani; WP does not use the term oppidani. Terms for fortifications, when mentioned, are fairly consistent. Fossa (ii. 24) is a ditch; uallum (i. 33, ii. 10, ii. 20) is an earthwork o f some kind, or possibly a ditch; murus (i. 33, i. 40, ii. 27) is a defensive wall; moenia (ii. 10, ii. 26, ii. 28, ii. 36) are city walls. Propugnaculum (ii. 9) is a defence o f some kind for the ships; it can also be used in a moral sense (i. 8). Receptaculum (i. 24, ii. 9) is a refuge. Towns and cities, whether fortified or not, are called urbes or duitates interchangeably. Tours (i. 15), Rouen (i. 22, ii. 41), L e Mans (i. 38), Canterbury (ii. 28), London (ii. 30, ii. 33), Rome (ii. 32), the heavenly Jerusalem (i. 47), and the cities o f the ancient Roman empire (ii. 40) are all described as duitates. But Rouen (i. 25, i. 41), L e Mans (i. 37, i. 38), Tours (i. 15), London (ii. 28),

xlii

IN TRO DU CTI ON

and Rome (ii. 40) are also called urbs. Metropolis is reserved for Canterbury (ii. 28) (also called metropolitana sedis), and Rouen (ii. 41). Both were the seats o f archbishops, and the incumbent o f either see was called metropolitanus (i. 5 1, ii. 28). There are no technical feudal terms in G G . Feudum never occurs. Some other words are ambiguous. Honor (29 x ) mostly has the sense o f ‘being honoured’, and beneficia may mean benefits or gifts, though maximos honores et plurima beneficia (ii. 12) certainly included gifts o f territory. The honores (ii. 37) which Odo o f Bayeux had received and hoped for after the Conquest could be feudal honours, as could the opulenta beneficia distributed to the Conqueror’s followers. Kinship terms may be imprecise. Nepos is mostly used for a grandson or other descendant; very occasionally (ii. 19) it has the sense o f nephew. The nepos o f Eustace o f Boulogne who was killed at Dover (ii. 47) might be an illegitimate son; but without knowing his identity it is impossible to be certain what kind o f kinship is implied. WP is sparing in his use o f imperator, o f earthly rulers only Roman and German emperors are imperatores. All other crowned rulers are called rex. Both words are used for God. William as duke is called dux, comes, and princeps; all these are titles which, by this date, he was entitled to use by custom.112 Elsewhere princeps has a less technical meaning; it may be a leader o f some kind, or the ruler o f a province or even a kingdom. Sometimes ‘prince’ is the only possible translation; the ‘princes o f the earth’ (ii. 43) include kings, and the expression ‘a good prince’ may mean a king. Corona is occasionally used to suggest some o f the rights that, by the time WP wrote, were held to be conveyed by the coronation ceremony, even when applied to pre-Conquest rulers. When Harold Harefoot succeeded Cnut, he obtained coronam . . . cum throno (i. 1); cf. also i. 14, ii. 25. At other times it might mean simply the crown worn by the king (ii. 1, ii. 28, ii. 29), also less ambiguously called diadema (ii. 7, ii. 30, ii. 26). 112 For the titles o f the dukes o f Normandy, see K . F. Werner, ‘Quelques observations au suject des débuts du ‘duché’ de Normandie’, Droit privé et institutions régionales: Etudes historiques offertes à Jean Yver (Paris, 1976), pp. 691-709.

T E X T U A L T RA D IT IO N

xliii

Ordo (9 x ) is used occasionally in the sense o f orderliness (i. 55) or a battle-line (ii. 16). Nowhere is there any suggestion o f three orders in society; though the lay order (i. 56, ii. 1) is distinguished from the various religious and monastic orders (i. 38, i. 52, ii. 44). Knights are mentioned only as knights o f the heavenly King (i. 58, ‘caelici regis quolibet in ordine militibus’); and there is one general reference to every order (i. 10, ‘cuiusque conditionis, cuiusque ordinis homo’). 7.

TEXTUAL

TRADITION

T he textual tradition o f the Gesta Guillelmi is known only from occasional references in other medieval manuscripts and from the correspondence o f seventeenth-century scholars. The work was not widely known in the Middle Ages. Orderic Vitalis made extensive use o f it in his Ecclesiastical History; and it was known either directly or indirectly by Robert o f Torigni, Benoit o f Sainte-Maure, and possibly Wace, who used some o f the same stories about William.113 In England the work was known to William o f Malmesbury, the author o f Liber Eliensis and Ralph de Diceto.114 All these writers may have used the same manuscript; there was certainly a second manuscript in Normandy. Duchesne’s edition o f 16 19 was based on a manuscript from the library o f Sir Robert Cotton, which could well have been the one from Ely/M alm esbury. Because it cannot be traced in any o f the early Cottonian catalogues or lists o f loans its fate has puzzled editors.115 But, as Duchesne stated, the manuscript was borrowed for him from Cotton’s library by William Camden, who in his turn had sent it on loan to Nicholas Fabri Peiresc. There are 113 This section is based on Davis, ‘William o f Poitiers’, pp. 93-6. See also Chronique des ducs de Normandie par Benoît, ed. C. Fahlin, 3 vols. (Uppsala, 1951-67), ii, passim; Wace, Rouy pt. iii, lines 7499-7521 (ii. 163-4); G N D i, p. lxxxviii. 114 G R ii, pp. cxi-cxiii, 285-6; Liber Eliensis, pp. xxviii, and ii. 90; RD ii. 263-4. 115 As Foreville points out (Foreville, pp. 1—li), there is no trace o f it in Sir Henry Savile’s catalogue (B L, Add. M S 35213 and Harley M S 1879) or in the seventeenth-century catalogue at Trinity College Cambridge (M S 1243) or in the catalogue printed by Thomas Smith, Catalogus librorum manuscriptorum Cottonien. (Oxford, 1696). R. H. C. Davis failed to find it in Cotton’s own catalogue (B L, Harley M S 6018) or in other lists o f loans from the library (B L, Cotton M S Appendix xv 13; B L , Add. M S 5161). Cf. K. Sharpe, S ir Robert Cotton 15 8 6 -1 6j i : History and Politics in Early Modem England (Oxford, 1979), ch. ii.

xliv

INTRO DU CTI ON

specific references to the loan in the letters o f these men.116 In a letter to Camden dated 5 March 16 18 Peiresc acknowledges receipt o f a transcript o f Cotton’s WP, but alleges that it was so full o f mistakes that it could not be printed. As an alternative, he says, ‘Feu Monsieur Pithou en avoit un exemplaire tout entier, lequel on m’a promis . . . Si nous n’avons l’exemplaire de Monsieur Pithou, possible prieray-je Monsieur Cotton de nous envoyer son original.’ 117 Evidently the Pithou manuscript could not be found, because on 29 April 16 18 Peiresc wrote to Camden acknowledging receipt o f ‘l’autographe du fragment de Guillelmus Pictavensis bien conditionné’ .118 Though we cannot prove that Peiresc returned it, it is most probable that it was included in the consignment o f books which he dispatched back to London in the autumn o f 16 18 .119 I f so, we may perhaps presume that it perished in the Cottonian fire o f 17 3 1. T he Pithou manuscript, which could well have been the one used by Orderic Vitalis at Saint-Evroult, was said to have contained the text o f WP in its entirety. Pithou had a famous library, collected by his father at a time when the monastic libraries o f France were being dispersed by the Wars o f Religion. Aware o f its scholarly value, he made a will with elaborate arrangements to ensure that it was preserved entire, but after his death it was none the less divided and dispersed. What exactly happened is uncertain; as early as 17 16 Jean Boivin found two contradictory accounts in circulation,120 but part found its way to the French royal library, part remained with the family, part was 1,6 For Peiresc, see G. Cahen-Salvador, Un grand humaniste, Peiresc 158 0 -16 37 (Paris, 1951) and Lettres de Peiresc aux frères Dupuy, ed. P. Tamizey de Larroque, 7 vols., Collection de documents inédits (Paris, 1888-98). For Camden, see Camden. See also E. M. C. van Houts, ‘Camden, Cotton and the Chronicles of the Norman Conquest o f England9, The British Library Journal^ xviii (1992), 148-62, at pp. 153-6. 117 Camden, no. clxxvi (p. 222). 1,8 Ibid., no. clxxxv (p. 231). 119 Ibid., no ccx (p. 269); cf. pp. 261, 266. Duchesne, whom Peiresc treats as a very subsidiary figure, was able to send his printed volume of Historiae Normannorum Scriptores to Camden by 15 July 1619 (Camden, no. ccxxi, p. 282). 120 Claudi Peleterii regni administri vita, Petri Pithoei ejus proavi vita adjuncta accurante Joanne Boivin (Paris, 1916) is the earliest account. Claude le Peletier was Pierre Pithou’s great-grandson, and his share of the library still belongs to his descendant, the Marquis de Rosanbo. See also L. de Rosanbo, ‘Pierre Pithou: Biographie9, Revue du seizième siècle, xv (1928), 279-305; and ‘Pierre Pithou érudit9, ibid., xvi (1929), 301-30).

PREVIOUS E D IT IO NS

xlv

kept in the college founded by Pithou at Troyes.12112Other volumes somehow got into the library o f the Faculty o f Medicine at Montpellier (H 137 and H i 51), the Arsénal in Paris (M SS 483, 2590, 4818), the British Library (Add. M S 11506), the Bürgerbi­ bliothek at Berne (M S 163), and the private library o f the Marquis de Rosanbo. T he Pithou M S may yet be found, but the extensive searches carried out by R. H. C. Davis in Paris, the Vatican Library, and elsewhere have failed to discover it. Although it may have survived and have escaped discovery by being bound up with other M S S and so uncatalogued, the most likely companion chronicle would be the G N D o f William o f Jumièges. The comprehensive list o f all the M S S o f G N D prepared by E. M . C. van Houts has shown that it is not concealed in any composite volume containing G N D .m It has not, as yet, proved possible to obtain entry to the Rosanbo archives. 8.

PREVIOUS

EDITIONS

André Duchesne was the first editor o f C G , in Historiae Normannorum scriptores antiqui (Paris, 1619), pp. 17 8 -2 13 , and all later editions have been based on his text. François Maseres published a new, critical edition in Historiae Anglicanae circa tempus conquestus Angliae . . . selecta monumenta (London, 1807), pp. 3 7 -16 7 , and proposed a number o f useful minor corrections. Duchesne’s text was reproduced by J. A. Giles, in Scriptores rerum gestarum Willelmi Conquestoris (London, 1845), pp. 7 7 -17 9 ; and J.-P. Migne in Patrologia latina cxlix (1853), cols. 12 17 -7 0 . Extracts were published by Dom J. Bouquet, Recueil des historiens des Gaules et de la France (Paris, 1767), reprinted by L . Delisle (Paris, 1876), xi, pp. 75-10 4 . More recently, an excellent critical edition, with French translation, has been published by Ray­ monde Foreville, Guillaume de Poitiers, Histoire de Guillaume le Conquérant (Les classiques de l’histoire de France au moyen âge, 121 A catalogue o f those still at Troyes was published by P. J. Grosley in Vie de Pierre Pithou avec quelques mémoires de son père et ses frères, 2 vols. (Paris, 1756), ii. 275-86. 122 G N D , i, pp. xcv-cxx.

xlvi

IN TRO DU CTI ON

xxiii; Paris, 1952). Translated selections have appeared in various collections o f documents, o f which the most recent is that o f R. Allen Brown, The Norman Conquest, Documents o f Medieval History v (London, 1984), 15 - 4 1. 9.

EDITORIAL

PRACTICE

Duchesne was a conscientious editor. Where his texts can be compared with a surviving manuscript used by him, such as the holograph o f Orderic’s Ecclesiastical History, it can be seen that he transcribed carefully, with very few errors or attempted emenda­ tions. With only a few exceptions, he preserved the spelling o f his original; his chief liberty was in changing ‘i’ to ‘y ’ in a number o f words, such as clipeus or inclitus, and replacing initial V with ‘j\ His punctuation and use o f capital letters, however, were his own. He inserted occasional marginalia without comment. Some may be either suggested emendations (such as Guidonem for G uillelmum, in i. 23), or corrections o f printing errors. He allowed himself a very occasional marginal comment; ii. 25, at the words ‘tametsi tirannum occidere sit pulchrum’ he printed in the margin ‘scilicet iusto bello’ , which may be either his own gloss or one found in the manuscript, which, if Peiresc’s comment (above, p. xliv) can be trusted, was the author’s autograph. There is a very strong presumption, therefore, that Duchesne’s text is very near to the original, and may even preserve some o f its variant spellings. Litus occurs more frequently than littus, and milia than millia. Both litus and milia are common in classical texts; and W P may have taken them from some M S o f De bello gallico used by him. It has therefore seemed reasonable not to change these spellings, as some modem editors have done. On the other hand, Duchesne’s practice o f substituting ‘y ’ for ‘i’ and ‘j’ for ‘i’, where there is no clear justification in eleventh-century usage, has not been followed; nor has his punctuation. The Cotton M S used by Duchesne was defective; the last page may have been frayed or damaged, and possibly some words became obliterated on a few earlier pages. In the account o f William’s coronation there are two lacunae that could be explained

ED IT O RI AL P RA CTI CE

xlvii

by a small hole. There is also a lacuna in the description o f the attack made by Eustace o f Boulogne on Dover. Both these passages are among those copied fairly closely by Orderic Vitalis; and a few words from his text have been supplied between angle brackets, where Duchesne's text clearly required emendation. There were no chapter divisions in Duchesne's edition. On p. 199 the heading Bellum inter Guillelmum ducem et Heraldum regem Anglorum suggests that WP may have divided his work into two parts at the moment o f the Norman landing in England. Raymonde Foreville, however, who divided the work into two books and 108 chapters, began the second book slightly earlier, with the news o f King Edward's death and Harold’s coronation. Her divisions, with the exception o f one small change between i. 43 and 44, have been preserved in this edition.

GESTA GVILLELM I DVCIS NORMANNORVM ET REGIS ANGLORVM A G V ILLE LM O PICTAVEN SI LEXIOVIORVM A R C H I D IA C O N O C O N T E M P O R A N E O SCRIPTA SIG LA

OF P R IN T ED D F M OV RD

TEXTS

Duchesne Foreville Maseres Orderic Vitalis Ralph de Diceto

PARS PRIMA i. [. . .] cum uita12 regnum Anglicum amisit, quod paternae et suae* uiolentiae, non aliis, debuit. Coronam eandem cum throno Heraldus obtinuit filius eius, partim ab eo tirannidis in amore degener. Exules adhuc manebant in curia propinqui sui, Guillelmi principis, Edwardus ac Alueradus, qui olim, pueri, ne iugularentur, ad auunculos in Normanniam effugerant. Genitrix eorum fuit Emma filia Ricardi primi, genitor Ædelredus rex Anglorum.3 Verum de genealogia horum germanorum, et quod haereditatem eorum Dani inuasione occupauerint, satis alii scripsere.4 2. Vt ergo decessum Chunuti audierant, primo Edwardus5 mari decurso naues quadraginta milite instructissimas Hantonae6 appulit, ubi multitudinem Anglorum offendit maximam se ad internecionem sui operientem. Nam Heraldum Angli deserere nolebant, uel (quod est credibilius) non audebant, metuentes affore Danos ad protectionem siue citatim ultionem eius, extinctos fuisse truculentia Danica suae gentis nobilissimos minime obliti sunt. Congressus illico magna caede superauit. Considerans autem aduersantis terrae uires ingentes, quas traduxit modicas esse, regiratis proris cum opima praeda Normanniam repetit. Hunc sibi larem tutum, sciebat, largum, et beneuolum. Non •

F; ac DM

1 The beginning of the M S used by André Duchesne was missing. For its probable contents, see above, p. xv, and below, p. 6 n. 3. 2 Cnut died on 12 Nov. 1035. His son Harold Harefoot succeeded him. 3 Emma, the younger sister of Duke Richard II, married first King Æthelred in 1002, and after his death (1016) King Cnut. The circumstances in which her sons, the æthelings Edward and Alfred, escaped to Normandy, and their stay there, are discussed by Keynes, ‘Æthelings9, pp. 172-205. 4 The writers to whom WP refers certainly included WJ, and probably the authors of the Encomium and the Inventio. He may have known o f the A S Q although it is very unlikely that he could read English. 5 It is worth noting that WP, unlike WJ (G N D ii. 104), does not call Edward ‘king9 at this point; he was throughout his work more scrupulous in using the term for a crowned king only. 6 Based on G N D ii. 104-6, ‘Cuius diu cupitam mortem Ewardus rex audiens, adhuc

PART

I1

i. [When Cnut lost his life]2 he lost also the English kingdom, which he owed not to others but to his own and his father's conquest. His son Harold obtained his throne and crown, but was unworthy o f him because o f his love o f tyranny. T he exiles, Edward and Alfred, were still living in the court o f their kinsman, Duke William. Long before this they had fled as boys to their maternal uncles in Normandy, to avoid being murdered. Their mother was Emma, daughter o f Richard I, and their father was Æthelred, king o f the English.3 But others have written enough about the genealogy o f these two brothers and how the Danes seized their inheritance by force.4 2. As soon as they heard o f the death o f Cnut, Edward5 crossed the sea, taking forty ships packed with armed forces to South­ ampton,6 where he came up against a very great multitude o f English lying in ambush to kill him. For the English either did not wish to desert Harold or (which is more credible) did not dare to, fearing that the Danes would come to protect him or to avenge him speedily. They had not forgotten that the noblest o f their race had been exterminated by the Danes in their cruelty. When battle was joined, he swiftly overcame them with great slaughter. Considering, however, the huge forces o f the land opposed to him and the small numbers o f those he had brought with him, he turned round his ships and returned to Normandy with great booty. He knew that this was a safe home for him, both generous cum duce degens, quamtotius cum quadraginta nauibus milite plenis, superato mari, Hantonam appulit, ubi innumerabilem Anglorum multitudinem ad sui perniciem se operientem offendit . . . Videns autem non absque plurimo numero militum se posse regnum obtinere Anglorum, regiratis nauium proris Normanniam cum maxima preda repetiit.’ The Worcester Chronicle (JW ii. 522-4) states that the expeditions of Edward and Alfred took place at the same time, and that Emma herself, after hearing of the capture o f Alfred, sent Edward back to Normandy. Wj implies the same (G N D ii. 106). O f modern historians Barlow (Confessor, p. 44) appears to follow WP, and van Houts (GN D ii. 106 n. 1) also accepts that they probably went in turn. However Keynes (‘Æthelings’, p. 195) argues plausibly that 4it is likely that the expeditions were part o f a co-ordinated plan*.

4

GESTA GVILLELM I

»• 4

multo post1 deinde intersticio temporis Dorobemiam2 uenit Alueradus transuectus ex portu Icio, accuratius quam frater antea aduersus uim praeparatus. Sceptrum ipse paternum requirebat. 3. Quem adeuntem interiora3 Godwinus comes nefario dolo suscipiens factione iniquissima tradidit. Etenim ultro occurrit ei ueluti ad honorem, officium suum benigne promisit, oscula dans ad fidem ac dextram. Mensam praeterea cum eo familiariter communicauit atque consilia. Noctis autem insecutae medio manus inermis ex somno languidi post tergum restrinxit. Tali expugnatum suauitate Lundoniam regi transmisit Heraldo, et de comitatu aliquot similiter uinctos: reliquos partim in ergastula deputauit separatos ab inuicem distractione miseranda, partim diro fine necauit horribiliter euisceratos. Gauisus Heraldus in uinculis conspecto Aluerado, satellites eius quam optimos coram eo iussit decapitari, ipsum orbari luminibus, dein equestrem nuditate turpatum ad mare4 deduci sub equo pedibus colligatis, ut in Elga insula exilio cruciaretur et egestate. Delectabat ipsum uita inimici grauior morte. Simul Edwardum omnino absterrere intendebat germani calamitatibus. Ita deperiit formosissimus iuuenis, laudatissimus bonitate, regis proles et regum nepos, nec superuiuere potuit diu: cui dum oculi effoderentur cultro, cerebrum uiolauit mucro. 4. Ideo breui exclamatione hac te nos alloquemur, Godwine, cuius mortui nomen infame superest atque odiosum.5 Nam a flagitio, quod malitiosissime patrauisti, deterre te, si fieri possit, uellemus. Quam execranda furia agitaris? Quo corde contra ius 1 Unlike WJ and JW, WP implies that Alfred’s expedition took place shortly after Edward’s; possibly his meaning is that Alfred set out a little after Edward sailed, rather than after his return. 2 Portus ItiuSy the port from which Julius Caesar embarked in his second expedition against Britain (Caesar, De bello gallico v. 5), can be identified as Wissant, by Boulogne. WJ in GN D at this point assumed Wissant to have been the port from which Alfred sailed. Dorobemiam in this context certainly means Dover, not Canterbury as Foreville supposed (Foreville, pp. 6-7). Although Dorobemia was a name given at times to both Canterbury and Dover, WJ, who is here followed by WP, used it again for the attack on Dover by Eustace o f Boulogne (G N D ii. 176, ‘Dorobemie castellum inuolare est nisus’). 3 Alfred’s expedition is described in a number of early sources: G N D ii. 106-7; Encomium, pp. 4 1-7 ; JW ii. 522-4; Vita Edwardi, pp. 32-4; Invention p. 3 1, and A S C (C) 1036. The details vary in all the accounts. WP agrees with WJ in placing the blame for the deception on Godwine. Both the A S C and the Encomium place the massacre at

i. 4

TH E DEE DS OF W IL L IA M

5

and benevolent. Then after a little while1 Alfred sailed from Wissant to Dover,2 better prepared than his brother before him for armed opposition. He also sought his father’s sceptre. 3. As he went into the interior,3 Earl Godwine received him with nefarious guile and betrayed him through wicked treachery. For he went to meet him openly, as if to honour him, and willingly promised his help, giving him a kiss and his right hand as a pledge o f faith. In addition he admitted him, familiarly, to his table and to his counsels. But in the middle o f the following night, while Alfred was unarmed and heavy with sleep, he tied his hands behind his back. Having thus smoothly mastered him, he sent him to K ing Harold in London, together with some o f his followers, similarly bound. O f the remainder he consigned some to prison, miserably separated from each other, and cruelly put some to death, disembowelling them horribly. Harold rejoiced when he saw Alfred in chains and ordered the best o f his companions to be beheaded in his presence, and that Alfred’s eyes should be put out. Harold then put him in shameful nakedness on a horse, and had him led to the marshes4 with his feet tied beneath the horse, so that he could be tortured in exile and starvation in the Isle o f Ely. He delighted in making the life o f his enemy more burdensome than death. At the same time he intended to frighten Edward utterly with the sufferings o f his brother. Thus perished this most beautiful youth, worthy o f the highest praise for his goodness, offspring o f a king, descendant o f kings; for he could not survive long since while they were putting out his eyes with a knife the point damaged his brain. 4. So with this brief challenge we address you, Godwine, whose name even after your death is infamous and hateful.5 For we would wish to deter you, if it had been possible, from a crime Guildford. The author of the Liber Eliensis (pp. 158-9) copied part of his account o f the murder o f Alfred from WP. 4 The/ 45 Csays that he was blinded ‘in the ship’, which Campbell (.Encomium, p. Ixv) took to mean that he was taken by sea; but a river boat might be meant. ‘Mare’ in G G could mean either the sea or the marshes; and Ely, in the heart o f the fenland, was accessible only by boat. 5 This chapter announces WP’s plan: to show how the crimes o f Godwine and his son led to the just vengeance of Duke William in his victory at Hastings. It shows that the work as a whole was written after 1066.

6

GESTA GVILLELM I

i. 6

atque fas abominandum facinus machinaris? Cur in exitium tui tuorumque perfidissimam proditionem admittis, crudelissime homicida? Moliris, confecisse gratularis, quod remotissimarum a christianismo nationum ritus ac leges detestantur. Alueradi indignissimae aerumnae tibi improbissimo gaudium, honestis pariunt lacrimas.1 Dictu equidem talia sunt lugubria. Guillelmus uero, gloriosissimus dux, cuius acta uenturam aetatem diuina opitulatione freti docebimus, uindice gladio feriet iugulum Heraldi, tuae sobolis crudelitate perfidiaque consimillimae. Fundis traditione tua immeritum sanguinem Normannorum: fundetur sanguis tuorum pari uice ferro Normannorum! Libuit inhuma­ num scelus hoc perpetuo silentio sepelire: sed in historiarum serie res quoque minus pulchras, cum necessario incidunt, non a charta semouendas putamus, ut ab imitatione facti semouendae sunt. 5. Heraldus non multo post decessit, cui frater Hardechunutus ex Emma, Edwardi matre, natus, reuersus a Danimarchia succes­ sit.2 Hic generi materno similior, non, qua pater aut frater, crudelitate regnabat, neque interitum Edwardi, sed prouectum uolebat. Ob morbos etiam quos frequenter patiebatur, plus Deum in oculis habebat, et uitae humanae breuitatem. Caeterum de regno eius aut uita scribere aliis relinquamus, ne longius a materia proposita digrediamur. 6. Illuxit tandem gaudium festiuissimum summe cunctis, qui pacem et iustitiam desiderabant, expectatum. Dux noster, plus intelligentia rerum honestarum et ui corporis quam aetate adultus, arma militaria sumit;3 qui rumor metum Franciae detulit omni. Alium non habebat Gallia qui talis praedicaretur eques et 1 Possibly the passage from ‘Quam execranda furia agitaris’ was inspired by Cicero, In Catilinam i; see Foreville, p. 11 n. 2. 2 C f G N D ii. 106, 'Heroldus post non multo superstes obiit mortem. Cui successit frater eius Hardechenutus, a Dacia regressus, ex Emma, matre Ewardi, natus' WP’s favourable view of Emma’s family may have been influenced by the Encomium: but it may be part of his general praise o f the Norman ducal family. 3 William of Malmesbury (G R ii. 286), in a passage where he appears to have been making use o f C C , wrote of Duke William after the assassination of his guardian, (At ille, ubi primum per aetatem potuit, militiae insignia a rege Francorum accipiens, provinciales in spem quietis erexit’ . Possibly, therefore, WP had stated in an earlier, lost, chapter that William had received military arms from the king of France. At this date the granting of arms to a new ruler was a sign of his coming o f age to rule, and was not the equivalent of

i. 6

TH E DEEDS OF W IL LI A M

7

which you maliciously committed. By what abominable fury are you driven? With what intention do you plot this loathsome crime against law and right? Why, most cruel murderer, do you commit the most perfidious treason for the ruin o f yourself and your men? You undertake and congratulate yourself on having accomplished something that the customs and laws o f those people furthest removed from Christianity detest. The undeserved tribulations o f Alfred bring joy to you, most perverted o f men, but bring tears to the eyes o f men o f honour.1 Merely to describe such deeds is harrowing. However, William, the most glorious duke (whose deeds we will, with the help o f God, teach to the age to come), will smite with his avenging sword the throat o f Harold, your offspring and your equal in cruelty and perfidy. By your treachery you shed the innocent blood o f Normans, and in your turn the blood o f your men will be shed by the sword o f the Normans. One would wish to bury this inhuman crime in perpetual silence; but, since unseemly events occur in the course o f history, we consider that they should not be removed from the written page, so that imitation o f the deed may be proscribed. 5. Harold died not long afterwards, and was succeeded by Harthacnut, his brother (born o f Emma, the mother o f Edward), who had returned from Denmark.2 T his man was more like his mother’s family, and did not rule by cruelty as his father and brother had done; nor did he desire the death o f Edward, but only his advancement. Because o f the diseases from which he fre­ quently suffered he had more thought for God and for the brevity o f human life. But we will leave it to others to write o f his reign, so as not to digress further from our intended subject. 6. At last a most joyful day dawned splendidly for all who desired and eagerly awaited peace and justice. Our duke, adult more in his understanding o f honourable things and in the strength o f his body than in his age, was armed as a knight.3 T he news o f this spread fear throughout Francia. Gaul had not the later dubbing to knighthood, which resulted from the spread of a chivalric code. See Flori, L'essor de la chevalerie, pp. 65-6, 144-9.

GESTA GVILLELM I

8

«•

7

armatus.1 Spectaculum erat delectabile simul ac terribile, eum cernere fraena moderantem, ense decorum, clypeo fulgentem, et galea teloque minitantem. Nam uti pulchritudine praestabat cum indumenta principis gestaret aut pacis, ita ornatus qui contra hostem sumitur eum singulariter decebat. Hinc uirilis in eo animus et uirtus enitescebat egregia claritudine. Hinc namque summo studio coepit ecclesiis Dei patrocinari, causas impoten­ tium tutari, iura imponere quae non grauarent, iudicia facere quae nequaquam ab aequitate uel temperantia deuiarent. Imprimis prohibere caedes, incendia, rapinas. Rebus enim illicitis nimia ubique, ut supra docuimus, licentia fuit. Denique coepit omnino a familiaritate sua remouere quos imperitos aut prauos dinoscebat, sapientissimorum uero optimorumque consiliis uti, externis inim­ icis fortiter resistere, obsequia debita a suis potenter exigere. 7. Cum haec initia suum splendorem Normanniae et antiqui status tranquillitatem iam redderent et meliora promitterent, bonis obsequenter iuuantibus rectorem consueta libertate perfrui malebant quidam pro libitu sua retinere, aliena diripere.2 Huius uesaniae signifer prosiluit Wido,a filius Burgundionum comitis Raginaldi, qui ualidissima castra Brionium et Vemonium ducis dono tenebat, a puerilibus annis cum ipso familiariter nutritus.3 Sed aut principatum, aut maximam portionem Normanniae ambiebat. Secum itaque in pessimas conspirationes uniuit Nigel­ lum praesidem Constantini pagi,4 Ranulphum Baiocensem uicecomitem, et Haimonem agnomine Dentatum, et alios potentes. Non cohibuit iniqui hominis contumaciam generis propinquitas, non tantorum beneficiorum5 impensa liberalitas, non denique ' D ; Guido M F 1 Cf. perhaps Suetonius, Caesar, c. lvii, ‘armorum et equitandi peritissimus’. 2 There are references to the troubles of Duke William’s minority in G N D ii. 92-3, " 120-3; Inventio, pp. 47-9. 3 Cf. GN D ii. 120, ‘contigit illum quendam crudelem conuiuam experiri secum a puerilibus educatum annis Widonem, uidelicet filium Burgundionum comitis Rainaldi, cui olim contulerat castrum Brioci quasi munere firmius astringende fidelitatis.’ Guy was the son o f Count Reginald o f Burgundy (d. 1057) and Adeliza, daughter of Richard II, duke of Normandy (Foreville, p. 16 n. 1). He had been granted the fortresses o f Brionne and Vernon after the death o f Count Gilbert o f Brionne in 1041 (G N D ii. 120 n. 2). 4 Nigel II, vicomte o f the Cotentin (1040 x 42-1092). He is named also in GN D ii. 120, ‘plurimos proceres . . . ab eius fidelitate cepit auertere et in sue perfidie uoragine complicare in tantum ut Nigellum Constantiniensem presidem in hac conspiratione

»•

7

THE D EE DS OF W IL L IA M

9

another man who was reputed to be such a knight at arms.1 It was a sight both delightful and redoubtable to see him hold the reins, girded honourably with his sword, his shield shining, formidable with his helmet and javelin. For as he stood out in beauty when wearing the garments o f a prince and at peace, so also the adornments which are put on against the enemy suited him perfectly. From this time a virile spirit and valour shone brilliantly and clearly in him. From this time he began with the utmost zeal to protect the churches o f God, to uphold the cause o f the weak, to impose laws which would not be burdensome, and to make judgements which never deviated from equity and temper­ ance. He especially prohibited slaughter, fire, and pillage. For there was too much licence everywhere for unlawful deeds, as we have said above. Finally he began to remove completely from his entourage those whom he knew to be incompetent or wicked, and to draw on the counsels o f the wisest and best, resisting his external enemies vigorously, and forcefully demanding the ser­ vices owed by his own men. 7. When these beginnings were already restoring to Normandy the splendour and tranquillity o f its ancient state, and gave promise o f better things with good men obediently helping their ruler, some people preferred to enjoy their accustomed liberty, retaining their own possessions and seizing those o f others at their pleasure.2 T he man who stood out as the promoter o f these mad schemes was G uy, son o f Reginald count o f Burgundy, who held the mighty castles o f Brionne and Vernon by gift o f the duke, with whom he had been brought up from boyhood in the same household.3 But he desired to get either the ducal office or the greater part o f Normandy. He associated with himself in this wicked conspiracy Nigel, governor o f the pagus o f Coutances,4 Ranulf vicomte o f Bayeux, Hamo nicknamed Toothy, and other powerful men. Neither kinship nor the liberality which had bestowed so many benefits5 on him, nor finally the sincere love annecteret. . William o f Malmesbury, G R ii. 286, names Nigel, vicomte of the Cotentin, Ranulf, vicomte of Bayeux, and Haimo dentatusy evidently using G G as his source, but substituting ‘vicecomitem Constantini’ for ‘praesidem Constantini pagi’ . 5 The term ‘beneficia’ is ambiguous, as it has several meanings, including both ‘benefits’ and ‘benefices’ in the sense o f offices, properties, or fiefs.

IO

GESTA GVILLELM I

>• 9

ducis in eum sincera dilectio summaque beniuolentia. Insontes multos necauere, quos nequicquam tentauerunt ad transuertendum, uel quos maiori obstaculo sibi esse peruiderant. Fas quidem negligebant omne, nefas nullum deuitare curabant, dummodo potentiam consequerentur ampliorem. Est nonnunquam haec ambitionis caecitas. 8. Paulatim ergo id periurae societatis incoeptum eo usque conualuit, ut directissima belli fronte Valesdunis1 in dominum suum congregati longe per circuitum omnia tumultu concuterent. Sequebatur impietatis uexillum pars Normanniae maior. Verum tot gladios minime exhorruit partis uindicantis ductor Guillelmus. Irruens enim strage pauorem iniecit, quo fere corda aduersariis erepta sunt, brachia debilitata. Sola mens, quae in fugam praecipitaret, relinquebatur. Insectabatur ille per miliaria aliquot duriter castigans. Auia plerosque aut uiae difficiles in mortem subuerterunt. Nonnullis in planitie trita celeritas ad ruinam, constipatio ad lethiferam collisionem fuit. Absorbuit non paucos fluuius Olna equites cum equis. Interfuit huic praelio Franciae rex Henricus, uictrici causae auxilians. Fructuosissima sane atque notificanda saeculis unius diei pugna, quae cum exemplum tremendum sanciret, et ceruices nimium elatas ferro contudit, et propugnacula facinorum,2 plurima castella uictoriae manu impel­ lendo disiecit, et bella domestica apud nos in longum sopiuit. 9. Turpissime elapsus Guido Brionium cum magno equitatu contendit. Oppidum hoc tum loci natura, tum opere inexpugna­ bile uidebatur.3 Nam praeter alia firmamenta, quae moliri consueuit belli necessitudo, aulam habet lapideam arcis usum pugnantibus praebentem, quam fluuius Risela nullo quidem 1 The battle of Val-es-Dunes (1047) is described in a more straightforward way in G N D ii. 120-3; WJ adds that King Henry had come in response to Duke William’s plea for help, whereas WP here mentions the king only causally, as one who happened to be present. William of Malmesbury (G R ii. 286-7) makes much of the king’s intervention: ‘Necessitas regem tutorem excivit ut desperatis partibus pupilli succureret.’ Whereas WJ explains the king’s presence as a return for help he had once received from William’s father, William of Malmesbury, going beyond the evidence, implies a feudal obligation. Owing to the somewhat ambiguous relationship between the duke of Normandy and the king of France in the mid eleventh century, different interpretations were frequently offered by later writers. 2 Ps. 2: 9.

i. 9

TH E DEE DS OF W IL LI A M

II

and utmost benevolence o f the duke, restrained the presumption o f this wicked man. T he rebels killed many innocent people whom they tried in vain to convert to their cause, or whom they recognized as major obstacles to their plans. They ignored every­ thing that was right and made no attempt to avoid anything that was wrong, provided they could increase their power. Such is often the blindness o f ambition. 8. So the conspiracy grew little by little from this beginning, until the perjured rebels were strong enough to challenge their lord openly at Val-ès-Dunes,1 disturbing all the country round with their tumult. T he greater part o f Normandy followed the banner o f disloyalty. But William, leader o f the avenging party, was not alarmed by so many swords. Rushing in, he spread such terror by slaughter that his adversaries lost heart and their arms weakened. The one thought that remained to them was pre­ cipitate flight. William pursued them for some miles, punishing them relentlessly. Trackless wastes or difficult roads led many to their death. For many a mad rush through open country led to ruin, the crush o f the converging crowds causing their death. The river Orne sucked down not a few horsemen with their steeds. Henry, king o f France, was present at this battle, supporting his , victorious cause. T his one-day battle was momentous, deserving to be remembered in future ages, for it set a terrible example, broke with iron the heads o f the overbearing and the battlements o f the wicked,2 threw down many castles with the impelling hand o f victory, and put down civil war in our region for a long time. 9. Shamefully fleeing away, G uy struggled to Brionne with his knights. T he castle seemed impregnable, both from the nature o f the ground and the construction.3 For among the other fortifica­ tions customarily required by the necessities o f war, it has a stone hall which serves as a citadel for the combatants and is 3 The first castle o f Brionne was built in the valley o f the Risle, in a curve of the river, not on the hill, where a new castle was built later in the eleventh century (Congrès archéologique de France, 56e session, i88ç (Paris, 1890), p. 103). WP gives the information, not in G N D ii. 12 2-3, that it had a stone hall. The siege was long; Orderic sometimes counted from the calendar year in which an event began to the year in which it ended, so that the duration may have been no more than 1^ to 2 years. If begun in Feb./March 1047, it could have been over in 1049.

12

GESTA GVILLELM I

l. IO

tractu uadi impatiens circumfluit. Victor mature insecutus artam locauit obsidionem, castella, utrinque ad ripas fluminis bipartiti, opponens. Deinde oppugnatione diurna territans, egrediendi facultatem penitus interclusit. Postremo penuria etiam uictualium obsessus Burgundio, interuentores pro clementia missitabat. Motus dux consanguinitate, supplicitate, miseria uicti, non acerbius uendicauit. Recepto castro, in curia sua commanere eum concessit. Supplicia item consociis, quae capitalia ex aequo irrogarentur, condonare maluit ob rationabiles causas. Nigellum alio tempore, quoniam improbe offensabat, exilio punitum fuisse comperio.1 Guido in Burgundiam sponte rediit propter molestiam probri. Ferre apud Normannos pigebat uilem se cunctis, odiosum esse multis. Et Burgundia tolerabat eum inuita. Equidem si ualuisset ille quantum contendebat, germanum suum, ipsius prouinciae comitem, Guillelmum2 potentatu priuasset et uita. Annos decem in armis et amplius consumebat, uenans praeliis tam cognatum sanguinem. Quid laborem, ut euidentius nequitiae testimonium adducam?

io. Normanni superati semel uniuersi colla subdidere domino suo atque obsides dedere plurimi. Dein ad iussum eius festinanter ac funditus destruxere munitiones nouarum rerum studio con­ structas. Insolentiam humo tenus posuere metropolitae3 Rotomagenses, quam contra tenellum comitem usurpauerant. Gaudebant dehinc ecclesiae, quia diuinum in tranquillitate celebrare misterium licebat; exultabat negotiator, tuto, quo uellet, iturus; gratu­ labatur agricola quod securum erat noualia scindere, spem frugum spargere, nec latitare milite uiso. Cuiusque conditionis, cuiusque 1 WP is the only source for this information about Nigel. Douglas, Conqueror (p. 54), based on L . Delisle, Histoire du château et des sires de Saint-Sauveur-le- Vicomte (Valognes, 1867), pp. 2 0 -1, says that he went into exile in Brittany, but soon returned, and that nearly all his forfeited possessions were restored. 2 William II, Tête-Hardie (d. 1087), count o f Burgundy. 3 The expression ‘metropolitae’ was used by Caesar, De bello gallico, iii. 81. 1, for the inhabitants of the Macedonian city of Metropolis. Rouen, the seat of an archbishopric, was increasingly called ‘metropolis’ in the eleventh century (e.g. Inventio, p. 18). Bernard Gauthiez, ‘Hypothèses sur la fortification de Rouen au onzième siècle: Le donjon, la tour

1. IO

TH E DEE DS OF W IL L IA M

13

surrounded on all sides by the unfordable river Risle. The conqueror, quickly following, besieged the place closely, building forts on both banks o f the divided stream. Then terrorizing the enemy by daily attacks, he cut o ff all possibility o f escape. Finally the besieged Burgundians, having run out o f food, sent inter­ mediaries to ask for mercy. T he duke, moved by kinship, the humble submission, and the wretchedness o f the defeated, did not seek a harsh vengeance. Having received the surrender o f the castle, he allowed G uy to remain at his court. He preferred to remit for reasonable causes the punishment o f G u y’s confeder­ ates, who justly deserved death. I learn that on another occasion Nigel had been punished with exile because he had offended seriously.1 G uy returned to Burgundy o f his own accord because o f his guilty conscience. He was asked to live among the Normans, since he was considered vile by all and odious by many. Burgundy tolerated him unwillingly. Indeed, if he had been as effective as he tried to be, he would have deprived his brother William, count o f that province,2 o f his power and his life. He spent ten years and more in arms, pursuing his own kith and kin with war. But why should I labour the point to make the testimony o f his wickedness more evident? 10. All the conquered Normans submitted at once to their lord and many gave hostages. Next they hastened at his command to destroy utterly all the new fortifications which they had con­ structed in their eagerness for change. The citizens o f Rouen3 had to abandon the insolence that they had presumptuously shown in defiance o f the young count. Henceforth the Church rejoiced, because it was possible to celebrate the divine mystery in peace; the merchant rejoiced at being able to go where he would in safety; the farmer gave thanks for being able to plough the fields and scatter seed, instead o f hiding from the sight o f soldiers. Men de Richard II et l’enceinte de Guillaume’, Battle, xiv (1992), 61-76 , suggests that the walls of the city were first built by William the Conqueror, possibly between 1067 and 1087. However, the citizens may have constructed some unauthorized fortißcations during the troubles o f the minority, unless WP’s ambiguous language means simply that their pride was humbled.

14

GESTA GVILLELMI

1. 12

ordinis homo ducem laudibus ad sidera tollebat, longitudinem ei uitae atque sanitatem uotis omnibus optabat. 1 1 . Vicissitudinem post haec ipse regi fide studiosissima reddidit, rogatus ab eo auxilium contra quosdam inimicissimos ei atque potentissimos ad officiendum. Rex etenim Henricus contumeliosis Gaufredi Martelli uerbis irritatus, exercitum contra eum duxit et castrum eius quod Molendinum Herlae uocabatur, in pago Andegauensi, cum manu ualida obsedit et expugnauit.1 Cernebant Francigenae quod inuidia non cerni uellet, exerci­ tum deductum e Normannia sola, regio maiorem omnique collegio quantum adduxerant uel miserant comites plurimi. Celeberrime in Aquitania, dum Pictauis exularem,2 eadem quam nostrates contestantur Normanni comitis diuulgabatur claritudo, parta in illa expeditione. Hunc inter cunctos aiebant excelluisse ingenio, industria, manu. Rex ei quam libenter proponebat consultanda et maxima quaeque ad eius gerebat sententiam, anteponens in perspicientia consulti melioris eum omnibus. Vnicum id redarguebat, quod nimium periculis obiectabat se, ac plerumque pugnam quaeritabat, decurrens palam cum denis aut paucioribus. Normannos etiam primates obsecrabat, ne committi praelium uel leuissimum ante municipium aliquod paterentur, metuens uidelicet occasurum uirtutem ostentando, in quo regni sui praesidium firmissimum et ornamentum splendidissimum reponebat. Caeterum quae uelut immoderatam fortitudinis osten­ tationem multopere dissuadebat rex atque castigabat, ea nos feruidae atque animosae aetati aut officio ascribimus. Secessione tali interdum explorando reperiuntur, quae non modice expe­ diunt. Aliquando malefici excipiuntur, qui multitudines agminum cauent, modo efficitur aliud utilissimum. 12. En ipsius factum quem excusamus, et cuius mirabile tirocinium attentius meminisse lepidius delectat. Suis familiaribus 1 For the events in Anjou WP is much more detailed and precise than WJ. He studied at Poitiers about this time, and could rely on some firsthand information. At this point WP’s arrangement by topics is not chronological, and the Mouliheme campaign could have been before, not after, the capture of Brionne. Guillot (Anjouy pp. 7 1-2 ) suggests a date in the autumn o f 1049, which is supported by Dunbabin, p. 108.

i. 12

THE DEE DS OF W IL LI A M

15

o f every condition and every order praised the duke to the skies, and wished him long life and health with all their hearts. 1 1 . After this William rendered a reciprocal service to the king, with devoted loyalty, when asked by him for help in thwarting certain very powerful enemies. For King Henry, irritated by the insults o f Geoffrey Martel, led an army against him, and with a strong force besieged and captured a castle o f his called Mouliherne in the pagus o f Anjou.1 T he French saw what in their envy they did not wish to see, an army led from Normandy alone which was bigger than the whole assembly o f royal contingents, brought or sent by many counts. While I was in exile in Poitiers,2 the fame won by the Norman count in that expedition, to which our compatriots bear witness, was spread abroad in Aquitaine. They said he had excelled all in intelligence, assiduity, and strength. The king decided to consult him freely and gave great weight to his opinion, preferring him to all others for his perspicacity in finding the best counsel. He reproached him for one thing only; that he exposed himself too much to dangers, and often went o ff in search o f combat, travelling openly with only ten men or less. He besought the Norman magnates not to engage in battle or the slightest skirmish in front o f any town, fearing that, in showing his valour, the man whom he considered the strongest defence and the finest orna­ ment o f his realm might be slain. But we for our part ascribe those things from which the king strove mightily to dissuade him, or for which he castigated him, to the fervour and spirit o f his youth and office. Now and then considerable advantages can be discovered by such withdrawal. Sometimes those who warn against attacking large forces are found to be bad counsellors, when this proves to be very advantageous. 12. Here is a deed o f the man whom we are defending, whose remarkable first feat o f arms it is delightful and pleasant to recall in detail. Wanting to slip away from his companions, he had 2 This rare direct reference to his own life shows that Orderic (OV ii. 258) was correct in stating that WP had studied at Poitiers.

i6

GESTA GVILLELM I

'• 13

uolens quasi elabi, secesserat ab exercitu, equites ducens aliquan­ tisper trecentos. His dein cum solis quatuor subtrahit se, atque palatur. Ecce obueniunt ex parte hostili .xv. superbientes in equis et armis. Continuo incurrens lanceam proiicit, audacissimum cauens perfodere. Coxa autem dirupta est alliso terrae. Caeteros ad quartum milliarium persequitur. Tres interea centuriae, quas reliquerat, subséquentes inuestigando (timebant enim eius fiden­ tiae) repente comitem Tedbaldum1 perspiciunt cum equitibus quingentis. Fit opinio tristissima. Hostes arbitrantur eos, atque dominum suum in eorum potestate comprehensum teneri. Inuicem igitur cohortati, prope in dubium casum, ut illum eripiant, sese obiiciunt. Sed ubi recognitum est agmen socium, in ulteriora perquirentes, inueniunt recubantem quem fractura coxae alligabat ex quindecim unum. Paululum hinc progressis alacer obuiat eorum dominus, adducens quos ceperat milites septem. 13. Dictitabat ex ea tempestate, uti opinabatur, Gaufredus Martellus, parem comiti Normannorum equitem siue militem sub coelo nullum degere. De Vasconia et Aruemia potentes ei transmittebant uel adducebant equos, qui nominibus propriis uulgo sunt nobilitati. Item reges Hispaniae his donis inter alia eius amicitiam captabant.2 Et erat expetenda optimis et potentissimis amicitia haec, atque colenda. Perfectissime namque inerat causa in ipso cur a domesticis, a finitimis, a longinque sepositis diligeretur. Ad hoc ipse ut esset decori amicis uel adiumento, tantum satagebat quantum esse ualebat; et procurabat semper ut sibi quamplurimum amici deberent. Tunc florescebat in adoles­ centia principans uni prouinciae; nunc* regnis dominatur annos natus circiter quadraginta quinque.3 Cum ab illa ad aetatem hanc, uel si maius a pueritia pemoueris eius actus, tute, sicuti uere • M F ; nec D 1 Count Theobald III o f Blois. His participation in this campaign is mentioned by M. Bur, La formation du comté de Champagne v. 950-v. //50 (Nancy, 1977), p. 200, who simply accepts the figure given by WP. 2 The use of Spanish horses, which were o f Arabian and Barb stock and were much prized, is discussed by R. H. C. Davis, (The warhorses of the Normans', Battle, x (1988), 67-81 at p. 76. 3 The De obitu Willelmi, ed. L . J. Engels, 4De obitu Willelmi ducis Normannorum regisque Anglorum: Texte, modèles, valeur et origine', Mélanges Christine Mohrmann:

«•

13

TH E DEE DS OF W IL L IA M

17

withdrawn from the army, leading a force o f about three hundred knights. Next he withdraws and wanders o ff with just four o f them. Suddenly fifteen men from the opposing side come against him, glorying in their horses and arms. At once he attacks, throws his lance, taking care to pierce the boldest o f them;’ the man falls to the ground, his thigh broken. He pursues the others for four miles. Meanwhile the three hundred whom he had left, following in search o f him (for they feared for his boldness) suddenly see Count Theobald1 with five hundred knights. They imagine a disaster, thinking these to be enemies who hold their lord captive in their power. They encourage each other, ready if needs be to attack and rescue him. But when they recognize a friendly force, they go on further and find one o f the fifteen whose thigh has been broken lying helpless on the ground. Going on a little further, they meet their lord bringing with him seven soldiers whom he has captured. 13. After that time Geoffrey Martel enjoyed giving his opinion that there was no knight or warrior under the sun equal to the count o f the Normans. From Gascony and Auvergne powerful men sent or took to him thoroughbred horses known by their regional name. Likewise Spanish kings sought his friendship with these gifts among others.2 And this friendship was sought and cultivated by the best and most powerful men. T his was only right for there was in him something that won the love o f his household, his neighbours, and those far away. He for his part strove to the utmost o f his ability to be an honour and support for his friends, and he took care also that his friends should owe him as much as possible. At that time he flourished in his adolescence, ruling just one province; now, aged about forty-five, he rules over kingdoms.3 From that time to this, or rather, if you had known his deeds from boyhood, you could safely affirm that he has never Nouveau recueil offert par ses anciens élèves (Utrecht/Antwerp, 1973), PP* 209-55, states (p. 228), ‘Decessit autem quarto Idus Septembris, anno vite sue quinquesimo nono*, which indicates a date in 1028, before 9 Sept., for his birth. I f WP’s calculation is correct, he wrote this passage r.1073. Since he used the plural o f ‘regnum* he may have included William’s ambiguous authority over the kingdom o f the Scots, established in 1072 at Abemethy, when King Malcolm Canmore ‘came and made peace with King William and gave hostages and was his man* (A SC (E) 1072).

i8

GESTA GVILLELM I

i. 14

potes, affirmabis per eum nunquam societatis ius aut amicitiae fuisse uiolatum. Fixe enim perstabat in dictis atque conuentis, tanquam edocens actu suo quod enuntiant philosophi, ‘iustitiae fundamentum esse fidem’ .1 Si cuius ab amicitia disiungi rationibus grauissimis cogebatur, sensim hanc diluere quam repente praecidere malebat. Consentaneum id uidemus sapientum censurae. Inique se alienauit iniquus, diram inimicitiam suscepit rex Henricus, transuersus hominum pessimorum sua­ dela.2 Qui dum iniuriis Normanniam lacesserat admodum intoler­ abilibus, contraibat ad quem Normanniae propugnatio pertinebat Guillelmus, multum tamen ueteri amicitiae tribuens et regiae dignitati. Confligere cum eius exercitu, eo praesente, studio quantum necessitudo sinebat extrema cauebat.3 Et Normannos cohibebat saepenumero nec iussu, modo quasi oratu, quammaxime concupientes praelii contumelia decus regium foedare. Alias horum aliqua patentius intelligentur, simul qua ipse magnanimi­ tate Francorum aspemeretur enses, atque uniuersorum qui contra se regis edicto fuerant euocati. 14. Ipsius quoque uiribus et consilio Edwardus, Hardechunuti uita finita,4 tandem in paterno solio coronatus resedit, tam sapientia et eximia morum probitate, quam antiqua prosapia, ea dignus gloria. Disceptantes etenim Angli deliberatione suis rationibus utilissima consenserunt, legationibus iusta petentibus acquiescere, quam Normannorum uim experiri. Reducem cum non maximo praesidio militis Normannici cupide sibi eum praestituerunt,5 ne manu ualidiore, si comes Normannicus adueniret, subigerentur. Qui quid bello ualeret, rumore satis nouerant. Edwardus autem, dum grato reputaret affectu quam sumptuosam liberalitatem, quam singularem honorem, quam familiarem dilectionem in Normannia sibi impenderit princeps 1 Cicero, De officiis i. 7. 23, 'Fundamentum autem et iustitiae fides, id est dictorum conventorumque constantia et veritas.’ 2 Cf. G N D ii. 100, 'Quorum uesana prouocacione Heinricus rex uehementer permotus . . .’; OV ii. 78, 'Stimulante Sathana . . . nimia inter Francos et Normannos seditio exarsit.’ 3 John Gillingham, in discussing this incident ('William the Bastard at war’, pp. 145-8), suggests that William acted less out of regard for the royal dignity or his former friendship than from his avoidance of pitched battles whenever possible. Cf. Vegetius, iii. 9.

i. 14

TH E DEE DS OF W I L L I A M

19

violated the law o f alliance or friendship. He stood firmly by his word and agreements, as if demonstrating by his acts the saying o f the philosophers that ‘good faith is the foundation o f justice.’ 1 I f for serious reasons he was forced to abandon the friendship o f anyone, he preferred to allow it to dissolve gradually, rather than breaking it o ff suddenly. We consider this to be in accordance with the judgement o f wise men. The wicked withdrew wickedly; King Henry conceived a cruel enmity to him, persuaded by the eloquence o f evil men.2 While the king was inflicting insupportable injuries on Nor­ mandy, William, to whom its defence belonged, marched against him, paying respect, however, to his former friendship and the royal dignity. He took care not to engage battle with his army while the king was present, unless as a last resort.3 He restrained the Normans time and again, not so much by command as by request, for their dearest wish was to defeat the king and tarnish his honour. Elsewhere some o f their actions will reveal more clearly the spirit with which he spumed the swords o f the Franks and all those who had been summoned by the king against him. 14. It was also through his support and counsel that, on the death o f Harthacnut,4 Edward was at last crowned and placed on his father’s throne, a distinction o f which he was most worthy, as much through his wisdom and outstanding moral worth as by his ancient lineage. For the English, when they had discussed the question, agreed that William’s arguments were the best, and acquiesced in the just requests o f his envoys to avoid experiencing the might o f the Normans. They were eager for him to return with a modest escort o f Norman knights,5 for fear that they might be subjugated by a stronger force if the Norman count himself came; for they had heard enough stories o f his strength in wars. But Edward, when he reckoned with a real gratitude what 4 Harthacnut died in 1042. 5 WJ (G N D ii. 106), the Encomium (p. 42), and JW (ii. 532-4) state that Harthacnut sent for Edward early in his reign. There is no corroboration for WP’s statement about negotiations with the Normans in 1042; though stories about Norman rights were circulating in Normandy in the early 1050s, and may have been spread by Robert Champart, the exiled archbishop o f Canterbury, who lived for a time in the abbey of Jumièges before his death in 1055 (van Houts, ‘Historiography and hagiography9, p. 247).

20

GESTA GVILLELM I

i- 15

Guillelmus,1 tam beneficiis0 quam linea consanguinitatis longe sibi coniunctior; quinetiam quam studioso eius auxilio in regnum ab exilio sit restitutus, potissimum aliquid atque gratissimum recompensare desiderans more honestorum; coronae quam per eum adeptus est, eum rata donatione haeredem statuere decreuit. Optimatum igitur suorum assensu per Rodbertum Cantuariensem archipraesulem huius delegationis mediatorem, obsides potentissimae parentelae Godwini comitis filium ac nepotem ei direxit.2 15. Est iam permutata in serenum turbulentia apud nos domestica omnis. Emulus autem e uicino nondum omnis conquieuit. Brachium leuabat in nos, quo non leuiter sese uulnerabat, Gaufredus Martellus. Huic enim calliditate bellandi egregie instructo, unde triumphum non pollicitarentur Andegaui, Turoni, Pictones, Burdegala, multae regiones, ciuitates plurimae, quae signis eius parebant? Is namque dominum suum, comitem Pictonum et Burdegalae, ui bellica cepit,3 neque ante postliminio concessit reuerti mancipatum indignissimae custodiae, quam argenti et auri pondus grauissimum atque praedia ditissima extorsit cum sacramento de pactis. Porro ipsius defuncti post redemptionem die quarto,4 et nouercam praecipuae nobilitatis thoro suo sociauit,5 et fratres in tutelam suam accepit, et thesauros a M F ; beneficus D 1 The Inventio (pp. 29-30) also states that Edward was treated with respect in Normandy, and educated by Duke Richard II as if he had been his son; and that he returned to England in 1042 with Norman support and rewarded generously the Normans who had accompanied him to England. See van Houts, 'Historiography and hagiography’, pp. 248-9, 251; Keynes, ‘Æthelings’ . 2 WJ (G N D ii. 158) is the only other chronicler to say openly that the Norman Robert Champart, archbishop o f Canterbury and previously abbot of Jumièges, was sent by King Edward to promise the crown to Duke William. But Robert probably stopped in Normandy in 10 51, on his way to Rome to seek his pallium (A SC (D, E), 1051), and the hostages were certainly sent. Godwine’s grandson Hakon was freed later during Harold’s visit to Normandy (below, i. 46), but his son, Wulfnoth, died in captivity during the reign of William Rufus (G N D ii. 160—1 [Orderic’s interpolations] and n. 3). Edward’s promise o f the English throne is discussed by Barlow, Confessor, pp. 107-9, 220-1. 3 Geoffrey’s aggression had begun in the lifetime of his father, Fulk Nerra (d. 1040), and had caused bitter enmity between them. William VI (the Fat), count o f Poitou, the eldest son of William V by his second wife, was taken prisoner by Geoffrey at Mont Couer on 20 Sept. 1033 (Guillot, Anjou, p. 52, n. 244); Obituaire de Saint-Serge (Recueil d'annales angevines et vendimoises, ed. Louis Halphen (Paris, 1903), p. 107 ('X II kalendas octobris Gosfridus comes Fulconis comitis filius Willelmum Pictavorum comitem cepit anno ab incarnatione Domini M X X X III et exinde exoriri cepit et paulatim ingravari bellum illud execrabile quod contra patrem suum per annos fere VII subséquentes impie gessit’).

»• IS

THE DEEDS OF W IL L IA M

21

sumptuous liberality, what singular honour, what intimate affec­ tion he had been shown in Normandy by prince William,1 to whom he was bound as much by these benefits as by a long line o f consanguinity, and in addition what vigorous hope he had received in his return from exile to his kingdom, wished to recognize him in a way benefiting his power and gratitude, as do all good men. So he determined, by a lawful donation, to make him heir to the crown which he had gained through his help. And so, with the consent o f his magnates, he sent to William (by Robert, archbishop o f Canterbury, acting as mediator o f this delegation) hostages o f noble birth, a son and a grandson o f Earl Godwine.2 15 . Now all domestic turbulence in our province was replaced by serenity. But as yet not every envious neighbour was quiescent. Geoffrey Martel raised his hand against us, and in so doing wounded himself not a little. For with a man so remarkably skilled and experienced in the art o f war, how could victory not have been offered to the men o f Angers, Tours, Poitiers and Bor­ deaux— many regions, more cities— who followed his banners? For he captured his lord, the count o f Poitiers and Bordeaux, in war,3 and would not permit him to return home from an ignominious imprisonment until he had extorted from him a very large weight o f gold and silver and very rich lands, with an oath o f alliance. Then, when the count died on the fourth day after his release,4 he took his step-mother (of the highest nobility)5 to his bed, took his brothers into wardship, and appropriated their 4 Chronicles differed on the length of time he lived after his release: Glaber, Histories, iv. 26 (pp. 2 12 -13 ), said that he died in the year of his release; the Chronique de SaintMaxent (Chroniques des églises d'Anjou, ed. P. Marchegay and E. Mabille (Paris, 1869), p. 392), that he died only a few days after his release, which agrees with WP. William of Malmesbury (G R ii. 288) probably relied on WP in saying, ‘beneficio opportunae mortis post triduum perpetuae ignominiae exemptus est’ . L . Halphen (Anjou, p. 59 n. 1) argued that he died late in 1038. 5 Agnes, the third wife of Count William’s father, was the daughter o f Otto William, duke o f Burgundy. Her marriage to Geoffrey Martel took place on 1 Jan. 1032 (Annales de Saint-Aubin (Recueil d'annales angevines), pp. 2, 46; Annales de Saint-Serge (ibid.), p. 107), just after Geoffrey’s establishment in the Vendômois, at a time o f increasing friction with his father, Fulk Nerra (Guillot, Anjou, i. 44-6). The marriage was regarded by the Church as incestuous, and the foundation o f La Trinité de Vendôme was in part to legitimize it (Penelope Johnson, Prayer, Patronage, and Power: The Abbey o f La Trinité, Vendôme, 10 3 2 n 8 j (New York and London, 1981), p. 14).

22

GESTA GVILLELMI

i. i 6

cum tota honorum ac potentiae amplitudine quasi ditioni suae uindicauit.1 Finibus quidem Andegauensis comitatus claudi potestatem suam, inopem atque pudendam angustiam aestima­ bat.2 Late in aliena eum captiuum raptabat immanis cupiditas. Dilatatus ergo adquisitis, multa insigniter consummauit, nec minus uaria astucia quam opibus agens. Inter quae, Turonorum quoque ingentem* et opulentiam et uirtutem expugnauit, contrita prius fortitudine comitis Tedbaldi. Nam cum subuenire maturaret Tedbaldus percarae urbi suae, quam sub duris ictibus Martelli obsidentis ingemere ac prope deficere ipsa denuntiante didicerat, promptissime occurrens Martellus uicit. Denique comprehensum boiis arctauit ipsum cum suis praecipuis: neque pacto eos leuiore quam Guillelmum antea Pictauensem eiecit.3 Ciuitatem ex hinc Turonicam posside­ bat. Vexauit idem Franciam4 uniuersam regi rebellans. Tumidus itaque praeliorum successu Normanniae castrum inuasione occupauit, et summopere custodiebat Alentium.5 Inhabitatores ad se pronos repererat. Incrementum pulcherrimum deputabat suo nomini, patrauisse quod Normanniae dominum minuerit. 16. Guillelmus tueri sufficiens ius paternum et auitum, quin etiam diffusius protendere, adibat cum exercitu terram Andegauensem; ut reddens talionem primo abalienaret Gaufrido Danfrontum, post reciperet Alentium. Ceterum sui militis unius fraudulentia fere interiit, qui non extimescebat latam prouinciam inimici. Nam ubi approximabatur Danfronto cum equitibus a D M ; ingenium F 1 Halphen (Anjou, p. 56) has suggested that Agnes accepted the marriage through a wish to secure the position in Aquitaine o f her two sons, both still minors, and to exclude William V ’s two sons by an earlier marriage. 2 Geoffrey Martel became count of Anjou after the death of Fulk Nerra on 21 June 1040 (Guillot, Anjou, i. 55, n. 253; Halphen, Anjou, pp. 10 n. 1, 126 n. 4, 127). 3 With the support o f King Henry I, Martel laid siege to Tours in 1043. When Theobald III, count o f Blois, and his brother Stephen attempted to raise the siege they were defeated at the battle of Nouy (21 Aug. 1044), and Theobald was captured (Glaber, Histories, v. 19, pp. 242-5; G N D , pp. 122-5; Guillot, Anjou, i. 57-60). Geoffrey used some of the land surrendered for the ransom to endow La Trinité de Vendôme (Johnson, Prayer, Patronage and Power, p. 12). 4 Francia here included Normandy. 5 The dates of the fighting in this region have been the subject o f much discussion.

i. 16

THE DEE DS OF W IL L IA M

23

treasures and all their honours and extensive power as if they were wholly subject to him.1 He considered that to confine his power within the county o f Anjou would be beggarly, shameful and mean.2 His boundless greed made him attack the possessions o f others. So, swollen with acquisitions, he achieved many things, thanks as much to his astuteness as to his riches. Amongst other things, he overcame the great wealth and valour o f the men o f Tours, after first breaking the power o f Count Theobald. For when Theobald was hastening to help his beloved city, which had sent a message informing him that it was on the point o f surrender, Martel came with all speed against him and defeated him. Then he made him prisoner, put him in shackles along with his chief men, and would not release them on terms any lighter than he had imposed on William the Poitevin.3 From that time he possessed the city o f Tours. He disturbed the whole o f Francia4 with his rebellion against the king. Puffed up with the success o f his battles, he took a castle o f Normandy, Alençon, by force, and guarded it closely.5 He had found the inhabitants favourable to his cause. He thought he had increased the glory o f his name by diminishing the power o f the lord o f Normandy. 16. William, well able to defend the inheritance o f his father and ancestors, and even to extend it further, arrived with his army on Angevin territory, intending as a reprisal to take Domfront from Geoffrey before capturing Alençon. But the disloyalty o f one o f his knights nearly caused the death o f the man who had no fear o f the vast dominion o f his enemy. For when he was approaching Domfront, he went o ff with fifty knights in order Both Alençon in Normandy and Domfront in Maine had been held by William o f Belleme. Duke William’s campaigns to recover them were dated by Halphen in 1048-9 (Anjou, pp. 72-3). These dates were challenged by Douglas, Conqueror, pp. 384-8, and Bates, Normandy, pp. 253-6, who preferred 10 5 1-2 , but supported by Guillot, Anjou, i. 69-72, and Dunbabin, ‘Thibaut de Chartres’, p. 108. For discussion see G N D ii. 122-6; OV ii. 362-5. Some of the divergences can be explained by the almost continuous warfare on the southern frontiers o f Normandy, and the possible length of the sieges. Duke William’s practice o f investing castles by erecting and manning siege-castles to starve the garrisons into surrender made it possible for one or even two sieges to be carried on for many months, while William himself was campaigning elsewhere. The exact date of Martel’s capture o f Alençon is uncertain. WP and WJ differ considerably in their details o f the campaigns, but both agree that the siege o f Domfront was prolonged, and that William regained Alençon while the investment o f Domfront was continuing.

24

GESTA GVILLELM I

l. 17

diuertit quinquaginta, acceptum quae stipendium augerent. Prae­ dae autem index castellanis prodidit ipsum quidam ex Normannis maioribus, intimans quo, aut cur ierit, et quam paucis comitatus, atque hunc esse qui mortem fugae praeferret. Emissi quantocius equites trecenti, pedites septingenti inopinantem a tergo inuadunt. Pectus uero intrepide ille obuertens, deiecit humo quem audacia maxima primum sibi impegerat. Ceteri statim amisso impetu ad munitionem refugiunt. Cursum promouet notum compendium tramitis. Ille autem non prius ab insecutione desistit, quam portae munitionis fugatos eripiunt. Captum suis unum manibus retinuit.1 17 . His magis ad obsidendum accensus, castella circumponit quatuor. Celerem irruptionem situs oppidi denegebat omni robori siue peritiae; cum scopulorum asperitas pedites etiam deturbaret, praeter qui angustis itineribus duobus atque arduis accederent.2 Incolis adiumento uiros imposuerat Gaufridus delectissimos. Oppugnatione tamen instabant eis Normanni creberrima feruentissimaque. Dux ipse primus ac praecipue terribilis imminebat. Aliquando perdius et pernox equitans, uel in abditis occultus, explorat si qui offendantur aut commeatum aduectantes, aut in legatione directi, aut pabulatoribus suis insidiantes. Sane, ut intelligas quam secure in terra hostili agitaret, interdum uenatur. Est regio illa siluis abundans, ferarum feracissimis. Saepe falco­ num, saepissime accipitrum uolatu oblectatur. Non loci difficultas aut saeuitia hiemis, nec aduersitas alia rigidam uirtutem ab obsidione quiuit dimouere. Auxiliaturum expectant, et nuntio aduocant Martellum inclusi. Deferre haudquaquam uolebant dominum, sub quo licenter quaestum latrociniis contraherent; quali causa fuerant seducti inhabitantes Alentium. Non ignorabant quam in Normannia esset inuisus latro aut praedo, quam recto usu uterque supplicio 1 This anecdote occurs only in WP. 2 For the rights o f lordship over Bellême, see below, i. 19 and p. 28 n. 3. WP’s language implies that the whole strongly fortified town o f Domfront was besieged. The castle itself stands slightly separated from the town, on a rocky promontory jutting out over the river Varenne, and is a part o f the defensive complex.

i. 17

THE DEE DS OF W IL L IA M

25

to increase their pay. But one o f the more important Normans, pointing out the blunder, betrayed him to the garrison, indicating where and why and with how small an escort he was going, and that he was a man who preferred death to flight. At once they sent out three hundred mounted and seven hundred foot soldiers, surprising him in the rear. But he, turning fearlessly to face them, smote to the ground the man who had the audacity to lead the attack. T he rest immediately gave up their assault and took refuge in the castle, knowledge o f the path assisting them in their flight. He, however, did not abandon the pursuit until the doors o f the castle closed behind the fugitives. He kept the one prisoner taken with his own hands.1

17. Fired by these events to invest the town, he built four siege-castles round it. T he site o f the fortified town prevented any sudden attack by force or by skill, for the roughness o f the rock discouraged even foot soldiers, except for those able to approach by two steep and narrow paths.2 Geoffrey had reinforced the garrison with specially chosen men. Nevertheless the Normans persisted in repeated and violent attacks on them. T he duke himself was in the van, causing special terror. Sometimes riding day and night or hidden in secret places, he scouted around to see if he could come upon any men attacking a food convoy, or sent on a mission, or lying in ambush for his foragers. Indeed, so that you may know how safely he operated in enemy territory, he sometimes went out hunting. It is a thickly wooded region where wild beasts abound. Often he delighted in flying his falcons, or more often his sparrowhawks. No difficulty o f terrain, no harshness o f winter, nor any other adversity could quench his ardour for the siege. The besieged expected relief, and demanded it from Martel by messenger. They had no wish to renounce their lord, who had allowed them to enrich themselves freely by brigandage; this was the motive by which the people o f Alençon had been seduced. They knew well that in Normandy the robber and brigand were hated, that both o f them were punished by a just custom, and that

2Ô

GESTA GVILLELM I

i. 19

addiceretur, et quod neuter paruo absolueretur.1 Suis maleficiis eundem legis metuebant usum. 18. Educit Gaufridus copias ingentissimas equestres ac pedes­ tres ad subueniendum. Guillelmus ubi resciuit id, properat ex aduerso, continuatione obsidionis militibus probatis credita. Spec­ ulatum praemittuntur Rogerus de Montegomerico2 et Guillelmus filius Osbemi,3 ambo iuuenes ac strenui, qui mentem quoque hostis arrogantissimam perdiscant0 ex colloquio ipsius. Indicit per eos Gaufredus classico suo Guillelmi apud Danfrontum excubias excitatum iri sub auroram lucis crastinam. Praesignat qualem in praelio equum sit habiturus, quale scutum, qualem uestitum. Illi contra opus non esse respondent instituto eum itinere longius fatigari, nam continuo, propter quem uadit, affore. Equum uicissim domini sui praesignant, uestitum et arma.4 Renuntiata haec non parum alacritati Normannorum addunt. At omnium acerrimus ipse dux iniurget accelerantes. Tirannum fortasse absumi desiderabat adolescens piissimus. Quod ex omni­ bus praeclaris factis pulcherrimum iudicauit senatus Latinus et Atheniensis.5 Verum subitaneo terrore consternatus Gaufredus, aduersa acie necdum conspecta, profugio salutem suam cum agmine toto committit. 19. En duci Normannico liber progressus patet ad deuastandam hostis opulentiam, ad delendum aemuli nomen ignominia sempiterna. Sed nouit esse prudentium uictoriae temperare, atque non satis potentem esse qui semet in potestate ulciscendi con­ tinere non possit. Placet ergo fortunatum iter conuertere. * perdiscunt D M F 1 Cf. Dudo, ii. 32, p. 172. 2 Roger II o f Montgomery, vicomte o f the Hiémois, a kinsman o f the Conqueror. He had married Mabel, daughter and heiress of William of Bellême, and so had a personal interest in capturing the former Bellême castles. See K . Thompson, (The pre-conquest aristocracy in Normandy: the example o f the Montgomerys', Historical Research, lx (1987), 251-63. 3 William fitz Osbem, son o f Osbem de Crépon, and, like his father, steward o f Normandy. His mother was Emma, daughter o f Raoul, count o f Ivry, and he was related through both parents to Duke William (D. C. Douglas, ‘The ancestors o f William Fitz Osbem’, EH R y lix (1944), 62-70).

i. 19

TH E DEE DS OF W IL LI A M

27

neither could purchase pardon cheaply.1 They feared the applica­ tion o f this law to their own misdeeds. 18. Geoffrey led out huge forces o f mounted and foot soldiers to their relief. When William learnt o f this, he hastened against him, leaving proven soldiers in charge o f the siege. Roger o f Montgomery2 and William fitz Osbem,3 both o f them strenuous young men, were sent ahead as scouts, to discover the arrogant intention o f the enemy by talking with him. Geoffrey made known through them that he would rouse William at Domfront with his trumpet call at first light o f dawn on the morrow. He announced in advance what horse he would ride in the battle and described his shield and clothing. They replied that there was no need for him to tire himself by travelling further, for the man he wished to fight would be on the spot immediately. In their turn they described the horse, clothing and arms o f their lord.4 When this news was told it added not a little to the ardour o f the Normans. But keenest o f all was the duke himself, urging on his own men as they hurried along. T he admirable youth desired the fall o f the tyrant, an exploit which the Latin and Athenian senates judged ‘the finest o f all glorious deeds.*5 But the fact is that Geoffrey, suddenly overcome with terror even before he had ^ seen the opposing force, sought safety in flight for himself and his whole army. 19. See now, the way is open for the Norman duke to devastate the wealth o f the enemy and to plunge his name into eternal ignominy. But he knows that it is characteristic o f wise men to temper victory, and that the man who cannot restrain himself when he has the power to take vengeance is not really powerful. He decides therefore to turn aside from the road that had been auspicious for him. 4 The episode is developed by Wace, Rou, pt. iii, lines 4419-48 (ii. 51-2). Cf. below, i. 32, i. 43, for similar challenges, a characteristic o f heroic literature. See also Strickland, PP 42-4 5 Cf. Cicero, De officiis iii. 4. 19, ‘Quod potest maius esse scelus, quam non modo hominem, sed etiam familiarem hominem occidere? Num igitur se astrinxit scelere, si qui tyrannum occidit quamvis familiarem? Populo quidem Romano non videtur, qui ex omnibus praeclaris factis illud pulcherrimum existimat.’ For praise of tyrannicide, see below, ii. 25.

28

GESTA GVILLELMI

1. 20

Festinus inde ecce Alenconio superuenit, arduam rem pugna fere nulla conficit.1 Oppidum enim natura, opere atque armatura munitissimum adeo currente prouentu in eius manum uenit ut gloriari his uerbis liceret: ‘Veni, uidi, uici.’2 Perculit citissime hic rumor Danfrontinos. Diffidentes itaque alius clipeo se liberandos post fugam famosissimi bellatoris Gaufredi Martelli, similiter deditione se liberant properatissima, quando reuersum ad oppugnandum uident Normannorum principem. Perhibent homines antiquioris memoriae castra haec ambo comitis Ricardi concessu esse fundata, unum intra, alterum proxime fines Normanniae, atque tam succedentium ei comitum quam ipsius iussis obtemperare solita.3 Victor postea domum reuersus, patriam cunctam recenti decore ac tripudio illustrabat, simul amorem atque terrorem sui auctius in externa diffundebat. 20. Alia sub tempus idem annalium uoluminibus apta gessit princeps idem, quae, sicuti plurima caeteris temporibus ab eo gesta, praetermittimus, aut ne quem grauet spaciosus codex, aut quia rem non admodum sufficientem scriptori cognouimus. Praeterea quantulum in dicendo facultatis habemus, ad dicendum praestantissima omnium id reseruamus. Parturire suo pectore bella quae calamo ederentur poetis licebat, atque amplificare utcumque cognita per campos figmentorum diuagando.4 Nos ducem, siue regem, cui nunquam impure quid fuit pulchrum, pure laudabimus, nusquam a ueritatis limite passu uno deliran­ tes.0 5 * D M F ; but M F suggest a change to declinantes 1 There is a much fuller account of the siege o f Alençon in G N D y and more details are added in Orderic’s interpolations (G N D ii. 124-6). WP may have deliberately passed over the cruelty shown by Duke William who, according to G N D y burnt the city and cut off the hands and feet of some of the defenders, who were said to have mocked him by referring to his low birth. 2 Suetonius, Caesary c. xxxvii. 3 There are two interpretations o f this passage. Foreville, i. 19, accepted Duchesne’s punctuation (cunum intra alterum, proxime fines Normanniae’ ), and translated, 4ces deux chateaux, l’un après l’autre, furent fondés . . . à proximité des frontières de la Normandie’ . Jean Yver, however, proposed a correction of the punctuation to 4unum intra, alterum proxime fines Normanniae’, and translated, Tun à l’intérieur, l’autre à proximité des lisières de Normandie’ (Yver, ‘Châteaux-forts’, p. 40 and n. 49). This seems the better interpretation. WP stated (above, i. 16) that when William invested Domfront he was attempting to enlarge the inheritance o f his ancestors, and entered Angevin territory. Both Domfront and Alençon had been built by the Bellême family, and from r.1025 Alençon

1. 21

TH E D EE DS OF W IL L IA M

29

He hurries and, behold, he comes upon Alençon, completing his difficult task almost without a battle.1 T he town, most strongly protected by its site, fortifications, and armed defenders, fell into his hands with such swift success that he could boast in these words, ‘I came, I saw, I conquered.’2 T he news o f this immediately flew back to the men o f Domfront. Doubting that they could save themselves with the shield o f any other man, after the flight o f such a famous warrior as Geoffrey Martel, they hastened likewise to surrender at the sight o f the victorious prince o f the Normans returning to attack them. Men who have preserved ancient traditions say that these two fortifications were founded by a grant o f Count Richard, one within, the other close to the frontier o f Normandy, and that they had been accustomed to obey the count’s successors as they had obeyed him.3 The victor then returned home and made his whole native land famous by his recent glory and triumph, at the same time inspiring even greater love and fear everywhere. 20. Prince William performed other exploits sufficient to fill volumes o f annals, but we will pass over these, together with much else that he did at other times, either because an overlong book might discourage some readers, or because we do not know enough about the matter to write about it. Besides, we reserve the little skill in composition we possess to report the most out­ standing deeds o f all. Poets were allowed to imagine wars so that they could write about them, and to amplify their knowledge in any way they liked by roaming through the fields o f .fiction.4 But we will purely and simply praise the duke or king, to whom nothing impure was beautiful, never taking a single step beyond the bounds o f truth.5 was certainly held from the duke of Normandy. The status o f Domfront is more doubtful, as the Norman claim to an earlier right over the fortress was part of a propaganda attempt to assert rights in the disputed frontier region. The problem is discussed by Thompson, ‘ Family and influence9, Historical Research, lx (1987), 251-6 3, and Louise, pp. 290-4, 301- 5* 4 Although WP probably refers to classical authors, this would explain why, if he had seen the Carmen before writing C G , he ignored the dramatic details about the Hastings campaign introduced by the poet. See above, p. xxii. 5 This statement cannot be taken literally; while it is acceptable for the more historical parts of C C , the rhetorical passages conform more to the conventions o f panegyric

30

GESTA GVILLELMI

1. 22

2 1. Coepere post haec Normanni summates fere cuncti incredibilii eum amplecti ueneratione, ut obluctari dudum, sic modo serenam ei fidelitatem quisque suam probare nitentes, adeo ut eius et sobolem, quam sola tum spe fouebant, dominum sibi concordi uotorum electione creare certarent. Quod ipse uniuersa quae erga se uel a se fideliter acta, humili prudentia muneri diuino ut reputanda fuere reputauit, iuuentutis in primordio moderatissimum uirum agens. Consiliis itaque de matrimonio discrepatur,0 ut solent in diuersum suadere ingenia disparium atque sententiae,1 praesertim cum in frequenti curia ponderosa de re consultatur. Reges de longinquo suas unice charas filias huic marito uoluntarie locarent, ac affines habere quos confines potissimum placuit, multae rationis grauitate id persuadente.2 22. Vigebat eo tempore Teutonibus collimitans ac Francis eminensque potentia praecipuus eorum Flandrensis marchio, Baldwinus nobilitate item prisco ex germine tradita illustrissimus. Nam uti a satrapis Morinorum, quos moderni Flandros appellant, sic a regibus Galliae atque Germaniae natales deducebat, nobili­ tatis etiam Constantinopolitanae lineam attingentes.3 Stupuerunt mirantes eum comites, marchiones, duces, tum archipraesulum alta dignitas, si quando praesentiam eius rari hospitis imperatoria cura promeruit. Ipsius uelut amici et socii, prudentiam in deliberatione maximorum negotiorum consulturi, beneuolentiam donis et multa honoris impensa comparaturi. Nomine siquidem Romani imperii miles fuit,4 re decus et gloria summa consiliorum in summa necessitudine. Reges quoque magnitudinem eius et uenerati sunt et ueriti. Est enim et nationibus procul remotis * M F ; discepatur D 1 Cf. Cicero, De amicitia xx. 74, ‘dispares mores disparia studia sequantur.9 2 Negotiations for the marriage may have begun as early as May, 1048, when Duke William and Count Baldwin both attested a royal charter at Sentis (Fauroux, no. 114). In October 1049, when Leo IX raised canonical objections to it at the Council o f Reims (Historia dedicationis ecclesiae S. Remigii, Migne, P L cxlii. 1437, ‘Interdixit . . . Baldwino comiti Flandrensi ne filiam suam Wilhelmo Nortmanno nuptui daret, et ei ne earn acciperet9). Neither G G nor G N D mentions this prohibition, and the reasons for it are uncertain. See Körner, pp. 163-89. 3 Baldwin V, count o f Flanders (1035-67). He was descended from Judith, the daughter

1. 22

T H E D EE DS OF W I L L I A M

31

2 1. Thenceforth almost all the Norman magnates began to surround him with incredible veneration, striving (just as they had recently resisted him) to prove now that their fealty to him was unclouded, so much so that they strove with one voice to choose as their lord both William and his as yet only hoped-for offspring. All that he had done, or that had been done for him, he considered with humble wisdom (as was right) to be the gift o f God, acting in his early youth as a man o f moderation. He was given divergent counsels about his marriage, as the minds and opinions o f different men are usually diverse,1 especially when the debate is about a weighty matter in a crowded court. Kings from far away would gladly have given him their very dearest daughters in marriage, but his wish, for many weighty reasons, was to have neighbours as his kinsmen.2 22. At that time a man o f great power who towered above the rest flourished on the frontiers o f the Germans and Franks. He was Baldwin, marquis o f the Flemings, most illustrious for the nobility o f his descent from ancient stock. For he traced his ancestors not only from the M orini, whom the modems call Flemings, but also from the kings o f Gaul and Germany and a line o f the nobility o f Constantinople.3 Counts, marquises, dukes, even archbishops o f the highest dignity were struck dumb with admiration whenever the duty o f their office earned them the presence o f this distinguished guest. People sought his wise counsel as a friend and ally in deliberating the most important affairs; they tried to win his favour by heaping gifts and honours upon him. He was, indeed, in name a knight o f the Roman Empire,4 in fact its glory and honour in its highest counsels and greatest need. Kings too revered and stood in awe o f his greatness. For the most distant peoples knew well how often he had o f Charles the Bald, who married Baldwin IV, Bras-de-Fer. There is no known support for WP’s statement that he had relatives among the nobility o f Constantinople. 4 Baldwin V held possessions in Lower Lotharingia, and had done homage for them to Agnes, widow o f the emperor Henry III and regent for Henry IV. In calling him a knight o f the Roman Empire, WP may refer to his status as a vassal holding imperial Flanders (F. L . Ganshof, ‘Les origines de la Flandre impériale*, Annales de la société royale d'archéologie de Bruxellesy xlvi (1945 for 1942-3), 99-137).

32

GESTA GVILLELMI

i. 23

notissimum, quam frequentibus, quamque grauibus bellis imper­ atorum immanitatem fatigauerit, pace demum ad conditiones ipsius arbitratu dictatas composita, cum regum dominos terrae ipsorum nonnulla parte mulctauerit uiolenter extorta;1 sua quae­ que uel inexpugnata uel indefessa potius manu tutans. Monarchia post Franciae, cum puero monarcha, ipsius consiliosissimi uiri tutelae, dictaturae atque administrationi cessit.2 Marchio hic fascibus ac titulis longe amplior quam strictim sit explicabile, natam suam nobis acceptissimam dominam in Pontiuo3 ipse presentauit soceris generoque4 digne adductam. Enutrierat autem prudens et sancta mater in filia quod muneribus paternis multuplo praeponderaret. Requirens genus maternum, matris patrem scias* regem Galliae Rodbertum5 qui, filius et nepos regum, progenuit reges, cuius laudabilitatem in religione diuina et regni gubernatione mundi lingua non tacebit. Intro­ ductioni huius sponsae ciuitas Rotomagensis uacabat iocundans.6 23. Compellamur istic ore quodam gesti peruulgati, nec Arcensem comitem Guillelmum properantis ad altiora stili celer­ itate praeterire, et ipsum quidem patriae lacrimis ultra terminum aequi et boni, quantum in ipsius conatibus fuit, potentem. Ignauam propaginem atque perfidam praeclarae stirpis Guillelmum* nec humanae nec diuinae legis frena retinuere:7 hunc neque haec, neque Guidonis ruina, praeterea neque magni uictoris a nullo uicti admiranda et uirtus et felicitas, partumque iis inclitum nomen. Quod in praestantes animos et laudanda quaeque facinora erigere debuit, id in immoderatam confidentiam ac nimis altam * sciat D

hD marg.; Guidonem D text

1 References to Baldwin’s conquests in imperial territory during his wars against the emperor (ibid.). 2 When Henry I died in 1060 Count Baldwin became the guardian o f the eight-year-old King Philip (OV ii. 88). 3 According to WJ (G N D ii. 128-30) the marriage was celebrated at Eu, before the couple were welcomed at Rouen. WP frequently uses ‘ nos’ for the Normans, and this passage should not be taken to mean that WP was himself present at the marriage. 4 Duke William, his mother Herleva, and his step-father Herluin de Conteville. 5 Count Baldwin’s wife Adela was the daughter o f King Robert the Pious (996-1031). 6 The date o f the marriage was some time between October 1049 (Council o f Reims) and 1051, when Matilda, as countess, witnessed some charters o f Saint-Wandrille (Fauroux, nos. 124, 126).

»• n

TH E D EE DS OF W I L L I A M

33

challenged the brute force o f the emperors in major wars, eventually making peace on conditions dictated by his will, since he had injured the lords o f the land o f these kings in no small part with his violent extortions.1 Meanwhile he protected all his own lands with an unconquered and unwearied hand. After­ wards the monarchy o f France, with a boy king, came under the protection, command, and administration o f this wisest o f men.2 T his marquis, whose power and titles exceed what can be explained in a short space, escorted his daughter, our dearest mistress, to Ponthieu3 with all honour, and presented her to her parents-in-law and his son-in-law.4 Her wise and blessed mother had nurtured in her daughter a lineage many times greater even than her paternal inheritance. I f you ask about her mother’s lineage, you should know that her mother’s father was Robert, king o f G aul,5 who, son and grandson o f kings, was himself the progenitor o f kings, and whose praise for his piety and wise rule o f the kingdom will be sung all over the world. T he city o f Rouen gave itself over to rejoicing at the entry o f this spouse.6 23. At this point, although pressing on to describe more important matters, we are compelled by a notorious event not to pass over in silence the attempt o f William, count o f Arques, to go (as far as he was able) beyond the limit o f what is right and good, to the distress o f his native land. T he cowardly and perfidious offspring o f a famous line, William was not restrained by the bonds o f divine or human law.7 Neither these, nor the downfall o f G uy, nor even the admirable virtue and deserved good fortune o f the great unvanquished conqueror and the renown he had won by his victories held him back. T he fame o f their high birth, which ought to inspire noble hearts to perform praiseworthy deeds, led them both into excessive and overweening arrogance, and brought both to ruin. For both knew, to their 7 According to WJ, William o f Arques obtained the county o f Talou from the young duke William ‘obtentu beneficii, ut inde illi existeret fidelis'; then, haughty because o f his noble birth, he built the stronghold o f Arques on a high hill at the heart o f the region and, assured o f the support o f the French king, instigated a rebellion (G N D ii. 102-3). He was a brother o f Mauger, archbishop o f Rouen, who came under suspicion o f supporting him; see below, pp. 88-9.

34

GESTA GVILLELM I

i. 24

extollendo praecipitauit utrumque, ortus uidelicet sui nimia notitia. Ambo enim sinistre nouerunt in progenie se computari ducum Normanniae: Burgundio se nepotem Richardorum e filia secundi; Arcensis fratrem se tertii, secundi filium, primi nepo­ tem.1 Is ab ineunte pueri principatu infidus ei et aduersus, quanquam fidelitatem iuratus et obsequium, hostilia agitabat, modo temer­ itate non latente resistens, clandestinis interdum dolis. Improba quidem animi elatio facillime hominem in res iniustas detrudit. Motus dissensionum aliorumque superius commemoratione ali­ quanta digestorum malorum, nonnullos ipse, caput principale, concitauit, plerosque exemplo, consilio, fauore et auxilio incitauit, auxit, confirmauit. Multa et inquieta, longique temporis, eius molimina fuere, pro sua et contra domini sui magnitudinem, cuius accessum non modo ab Arcensi* castro, uerum etiam* ab ei propinqua Normanniae parte, quae citra flumen Sequanam sita est, arcere saepenumero surrexit. Postremo in supradicti Danfronti oppugnatione2 quasi desertoris furtiuo more discessit, nequaquam petita missione; satellitii debitum, cuius antea nomine hostilitatem utcunque uelabat, iam omne detrectans. 24. Ob haec et alia tot eius et tanta ausa, dux, uti res monuit, suscipiens plura et maiora ausurum, receptaculi, quo plurimum confidebat, editius firmamentum occupauit, custodiam immittens, in nullo amplius tamen ius eius imminuens. Nempe eas latebras, id munimentum initae elationis atque dementiae, ipse primus fundauit et quam operosissime extruxit in praealti montis Arcarum cacumine.3 Ceterum malefidi custodes non multo post castri potestatem conditori reddunt, munerum' pollicitatione et impensius imminente uaria sollicitatione fatigati subactique. a M F ; Arsensi D

* F ; uemmetiam D M

' numerum D M F

1 William o f Arques was the son o f Richard II and grandson o f Richard III. 2 This statement has sometimes been taken to mean that William o f Arques’s revolt began before the end o f the long siege o f Domfront (see above, pp. xxi, 22 n. 3). However, it cannot be assumed that William took up arms immediately after withdrawing from the siege. He is not known to have attested any ducal charters after 1051 (Fauroux, nos. 12 4 6); but one redaction o f G N D changed ‘rebellandum’ to ‘resistendum’, implying resistance to ducal authority rather than open rebellion (G N D ii. 103 n. 5).

1. 24

T H E D EE DS OF W I L L I A M

35

undoing, that they were counted among the progeny o f the dukes o f Normandy: the Burgundian, that he was the grandson o f the Richards through the daughter o f the second, the count o f Arques, that he was the brother o f the third, the son o f the second, and the grandson o f the first.1 T his man had been unfaithful and hostile from the beginning o f the boy-duke’s rule; although he had sworn fealty and obedience he continually harassed him, now resisting boldly and openly, now with clandestine guile. Pride and perversity easily led the man into wrongdoing. He was the leader and instigator o f the movement o f revolt and the evil deeds o f other men, which I have briefly described above; he incited many by his example and strengthened and confirmed them with his counsel, favour, and aid. For a long time he had promoted many disturbances, endeavouring to increase his own lands against the might o f his lord, whom he had attempted to bar from entry, not only to the castle o f Arques, but to all the adjacent part o f Normandy on this side o f the river Seine. Finally during the siege o f Domfront,2 described above, he slipped away furtively, like a deserter, with­ out asking permission; and thenceforth he entirely withdrew the service o f a vassal, under which name he had previously concealed his hostility. 24. On account o f this and his countless bold enterprises the duke, warned by the event and suspecting that he would attempt even more greater outrages, seized the fortifications o f the lofty refuge where he thought himself most secure, and put in a guard, but in no other way diminished his right. To be sure, he [the count] had first founded this refuge, this rampart o f early pride and folly, and had built it with great toil and difficulty on the summit o f the high hill o f Arques.3 But not long afterwards the faithless guards, worn down by countless pleas o f all kinds, surrendered the powerful castle to its founder for the promise o f rewards. Straightway on his return his fury, growing fiercer than ever, 3 Cf. G N D ii. 102-3. For the castle o f Arques, see A. Deville, Histoire du château d*Arques (Rouen, 1839).

36

GESTA GVILLELM I

i. 25

Solito mox acriores intromissum furiae incendunt, ultionem quoque sui uelut per iniurias diminuti exacturum. Oritur toto ambitu pagi uicini multa miseria. Tumultus, praedae, rapinae saeuiunt, uastitatem minantes. Armis, uiris, commeatu, et qui­ buscunque tali negotio idoneis castrum exornatur, munimenta prius firma firmiora fiunt. Paci et otio locus nullus relinquitur. Denique saeuissima rebellio instruitur. 25. Quae postquam duci comperta sunt Guillelmo, e Constan­ tino pago,1 ubi certiorem nuntium accepit, ea properabat celer­ itate, ut equi comitantium praeter sex, omnes priusquam peruentum sit Arcas lassitudine defecerint. Nam festinantem, ut contrairet iniuriae suae, amplius incitauerunt audita mala prouinciae suae. Ecclesiarum bona, agrestium labores, negotiatorum lucra, militum praedam iniuste fieri dolebat. Miserando planctu imbellis uulgi, qui multus tempore belli aut seditionum oriri solet, aduocari se cogitabat. Ceterum in itinere haud procul ab ipso castro obuios habuit quosdam suae militiae principes, fidos acceptosque sibi. Hi repentino rumore in urbe Rotomago quae comes Arcensis agitabat audierant, et cum equitibus trecentis quantocius Arcas accesserant, si conuectationem frumenti et aliarum rerum contra obsidionem necessariarum prohibere ualerent. Verum, ubi cognouerunt maximas copias militum inibi congregatas esse simul, quia metuebant ipsos etiam qui secum uenerant transituros fore ad societatem Guillelmi, ante posteri diei ortum (sic eis amicorum opinio secreto praedixerat) diffisi quam ocissime redibant. Haec referunt, atque ipsi ut exercitum praestoletur consilium dant. Etenim eius partem plus quam fama diuulgauerit deseri, uiciniam pene omnem in aduersarii fauorem concedere, ulterius pergere cum paucis nimis0 periculosum esse. At constantia illius minime his ad pauorem est mota, uel ad diffidentiam. Nam eos confirmans hoc responso, nihil quidem a M F ; rimis D 1 Duke William may have visited the Cotentin at the time that Geoffrey o f Montbray, bishop of Coutances, after returning from fund-raising in Italy, began the restoration o f his diocese r.10 51 (Chibnall, ‘Geoffroi’ , pp. 282-4).

»• 25

TH E DEE DS OF W IL L IA M

37

drove him to exact vengeance as though he had suffered injuries and loss o f property. It caused great wretchedness in the province all around. Disturbances, pillage and rapine, rage unchecked, threatening devastation. T he castle is equipped with arms, men, provisions, and everything necessary for such an enterprise; the ramparts, already strong, are made still stronger. No place remains for peace and rest. In brief, a most dire rebellion is prepared. 25. When the duke had learned o f this, he set out from the Cotentin,1 where a trustworthy messenger had come to him, riding with such speed that all but six o f the horses o f his companions dropped from exhaustion before reaching Arques. For while he was hurrying to avenge the insult to himself, news o f the harm done to his province drove him on faster still. He lamented that the goods o f churches, the labours o f country people, and the profits o f merchants were unjustly made the booty o f men-at-arms. He thought he was summoned by the pitiable lamentations o f the unwarlike masses, which always arise in time o f war or sedition. But in his journey, not far from the castle, he was met by certain leaders o f his troops, who were trustworthy and acceptable to him. T hey had suddenly had news in the city o f Rouen o f what the count o f Arques was doing, and had rushed with all speed to Arques with three hundred mounted men, to see if they could intercept the carriage o f com and other things necessary for the siege. But when they learned that very large armed forces were assembled there, because they feared that even those who had come with them would go over to the company o f William o f Arques before the next day dawned (as they had been warned by information received in secret from friends), their courage failed them, and they returned as fast as possible. They reported these facts, and advised the duke to wait for his army, because, they said, his party had been deserted even more than rumour suggested, almost the whole o f the neighbourhood supported his adversary, and it was much too dangerous to go on with only a few men. But his resolve was not for a moment turned by this to fear or misgiving. Indeed, encouraging them with the answer that the rebels would not dare to do anything against him when they saw

38

GESTA GVILLELM I

i. 26

rebelles in se, cum praesentem conspexerint, ausuros, mox, quantum calcaria equum cogere poterant, accelerans perrexit. Egit eum propria fortitudo; felicitatem ei promisit iusta causa. Et ecce ut seditionis principem in praealto monte cum acie multarum legionum prospexit, enisus in arduo cunctos intra munitionem terga dare impigerrime compulit. Ac ni obstitissent citius obseratae fores, insecutus, uti animus iratus fortisque tulit, male ominatos ex magna parte obtruncauisset. Rem uere gestam, et quid prope gestum erat memoramus, sed quae posteritas difficile sit creditura. Dein potiri uolens munitione, iussu propere contracto exercitu circumsedit. Fuit difficillimum, quos ea natura loci maxime defensabat, expugnare. Sane more suo illo optimo, rem optans absque cruore confectum iri, efferatos et contumaces obice castelli ad montis pedem extructi clausit praesidioque imposito, aliis postea negotiis inuitantibus, ipse recessit, ut dum ferro parceret, fame uinceret.1 Monet equidem digna ratio et hoc memoriae prodere, quam pia continentia caedem semper uitauerit, nisi bellica ui aut alia graui necessitudine urgente. Exilio, carcere, item alia animaduersione, quae uitam non adimeret, ulcisci malebat; quos iuxta ritum siue legum instituta, caeteri principes gladio absumunt belli captos, uel domi criminum capitalium manifestos, salubriter pensans qui arbiter, quam tremendus, terrenae potestatis acta desuper prospiciat, moderatae clementiae ut immoderatae saeuitiae omnique meritorum qualitati sua cuique decernens.2 26. Audiens uero rex Henricus inclusum esse cuius uesaniae fautor erat atque consultor, auxilium ferre festinat, manum adducens armatorum non modicam ad hoc quibus indigent obsessi complura.3 Adducti in spem memorandi facinoris 1 Cf. Vegetius, iii. 3 (p. 69). 2 Cf. Cicero’s definition of justice, ‘suum cuique tribuendo’ (De officiis i. 5. 1). Exile, rather than execution, was a common punishment in Norman custom. Duke William, however, had his critics. Guibert of Nogent later complained, with some exaggeration in writing o f his father’s imprisonment, ‘Cuius comitis [sc. Willelmi] consuetudo fuerat, ut nunquam captiuos suos ad redemptionem cogeret sed perpetua dum aduiuerent carceris relegatione damnauit’ (Guibert de Nogent, Autobiographie, ed. E-R. Labande (Paris, 1981), p. 88). 3 WJ gives an account o f the siege o f Arques with different details; he adds that the king camped at Saint-Aubin-sur-Scie (G N D ii. 102-5). Orderic (OV iii. 254) refers to fighting

i. 2 6

TH E D EE DS OF W IL L IA M

39

that he was present, he spurred on his horse vigorously, and galloped away at top speed. His own courage drove them on; the justice o f his cause promised a happy issue. And behold, when he saw the leader o f this revolt on a high hill, with a force o f many troops, he forced his way to the top and compelled them all to turn tail and retreat shamefully into the fortress. And if they had not quickly shut the gates in his face as he pursued them, driven on by anger and courage, he would have slaughtered the greater part o f this ill-fated crowd. We are recording what really happened and what was nearly done, but posterity will always find it difficult to believe. Then, wishing to gain possession o f the castle, he besieged it with an army assembled at his command. It was very difficult to overcome those who were strongly defended by the nature o f the place. In his usual admirable way, wishing to complete the enterprise without bloodshed, he shut in the angry rebels by throwing up a siege-tower at the foot o f the hill, and placing a garrison in it; then, since other business was pressing, he withdrew so that he might subdue by hunger those whom he spared from the sword.1 We are impelled by right reason to place also on record that through his virtuous restraint he always avoided slaughter unless the pressure o f war or some other grave necessity compelled it. He preferred to punish with exile, imprisonment, or some other penalty which did not cost life, those whom other princes, in accordance with custom or established law, put to the sword: namely, prisoners o f war, or those who were clearly guilty o f capital crimes at home. He wisely had in mind how redoubtable a judge looks from on high on the deeds o f earthly powers, and distributes mercy and punishment to each according to his deserts.2 26. But King Henry, hearing that the man whose recklessness he had promoted and encouraged was besieged, hastened to come I to his aid, bringing a considerable force o f armed men and plentiful supplies o f things which the besieged lacked.3 Impelled by the hope o f performing a memorable deed, some o f those whom round Saint-Aubin, where Richard o f Heugleville was holding out in support o f Duke William.

40

GESTA GVILLELM I

i. 2 7

quidam ex eo numero, qui in praesidio ducis relicti custodiunt, Francorum aduentantium itinera explorata insidunt. Et ecce numerosa pars minus cauti excipiuntur. Ingelrannus Pontiui comes,1 nobilitate notus ac fortitudine, et cum eo quamplures uiri nominati interimuntur. Hugo Bardulfus ipse item uir magnus capitur.2 Perueniens tamen quo ire intenderat, rex exacerbitissimis animis summa ui praesidium attentauit, Guillelmum ab aerumnis uti eriperet, pariter decrementum sui, stragem suorum uindicaret. Sed ubi negotium difficile animaduertit (quippe inimicos impetus facile tolerauerunt castelli munimenta, et mili­ tum uirtus aeque ualida) ne cruenta morte et pudenda fuga pelleretur, abire maturauit, decus nullum adeptus, nisi forte decorum fuerit quorum aduenit causa inopiam stipendio min­ uisse, militibus numerum auxisse. 27. Reuerso dein ad obsidionem duce, et qualiter otium aliquod iocundum celebrari solet, in procinctu aliquandiu morato, famis acrimonia saeuius et arctius quam armis urgens prope iam expugnauit. Rex denuo accitus multo et misere supplici nuntio, uenire abnuit, superiorem casum reputans, magis aspera magisque ignominiosa metuens. Cernit tandem angustiarum oculo Papiae partus3 rapiendi contra dominum suum principatus cupi­ dinem malesuadam esse, sacramentum aut fidem uiolare, ut iniquum sic plerumque perniciosum; pacis nomen blandum et dulce, rem ipsam profecto iucundam et salutarem. Damnat ipse prae cupctis nimium audax incoeptum, dementissimum consi­ lium, ruinosum factum. Dolet armatum se in arctis arctari. Impetrant supplicantes deditionem accipi, praeter uitam nihil aliud neque honestum neque utile pacti. En spectaculum triste, letum miserabile. Properant ultra quam uires inualidae sufficiant famosi paulo ante equites cum Normannis 1 Enguerrand II, count o f Ponthieu, the son o f Hugh II (d. 20 Nov. 1052), had recently succeeded his father when he was killed on 25 October 1053 (C. Brunei, Recueil des actes des comtes de Ponthieu i02Ô -t27g (Paris, 1930), pp. iii-iv; G N D ii. 104-5). 2 Hugh Bardulf was the lord o f Nogent and Pithiviers (G N D ii. 104 n. 2). 3 William of Arques was the son o f Count Richard II and his second wife Papia.

i. 27

T H E D EE DS OF W IL L IA M

41

the duke had left as a garrison on guard spied out and lay in ambush along the route o f the advancing French. And, sure enough, a considerable number o f the less cautious were captured. Enguerrand, count o f Ponthieu,1 a man famous for his nobility and courage, was killed, and with him a great many distinguished men. Hugh Bardulf himself, also a great lord, was captured.2 Nevertheless on reaching his objective, the king, whose men had been provoked to anger, attacked the garrison o f the siege-castle with all his strength. He wished to rescue William o f Arques from his predicament, and also to avenge his own embarrassment and the slaughter o f his men. But when he found that the enterprise was difficult, for the fortifications easily withstood hostile attacks, and the courage o f the men-at-arms was equally firm, he hastened his departure, so as not to be reduced to a bloody death or shameful flight. He had won no glory, unless it can be called glorious to have alleviated with his money the poverty o f those he had come to help, and increased the number o f their men-at-arms. 27. T he duke then returned to the siege and remained for some time in the neighbourhood, like a man at ease with time on his hands, pressing the besieged more harshly and closely with the pinch o f hunger than with arms, until they were on the point o f surrender. T h e king, summoned again and again by urgent piteous messages, declined to come; reflecting on the previous disaster, he feared a still more bitter and ignominious outcome. At last the offspring o f Papia3 saw with anguished eyes that he had been ill-advised to covet power and snatch it from his lord, that to violate his oath and faith was both iniquitous and often danger­ ous; and that the very name o f peace was sweet and pleasant, and the reality o f it truly delightful and salutary. He blames himself more than anyone else for the rash undertaking, the crazy plan, and the ruinous outcome. He regrets that he is in arms and in such a tight comer. Suppliants humbly obtain terms o f surrender, asking for nothing honourable or useful except their lives. What a sad spectacle! What a wretched end! French knights, famous such a little while before, come out with the Normans as fast as their failing strength permits, hanging their heads as much

42

GESTA GVILLELM I

i. 2 9

euadere Franci, non minus dedecore quam inedia ceruicibus contusis, pars in iumentis famelicis, quae pedum cornu modice uel sonarent uel puluerem excitarent, pendentes; pars ocreis et calcaribus ornati, insolito comitatu incedentes, et eorum plerique sellam equestrem incuruo languidoque dorso, nonnulli solum se nutabundi uix eportantes. Erat item cernere calamitatem leuis armaturae egredientis foedam ac uariam. 28. Miserans infortunia huius quoque, ut pridem Guidonis, celebranda ducis clementia noluit extorrem et inopem casu magis pudendo cruciari; sed, cum gratia et possessionibus quibusdam amplis atque multorum redituum, patriam ei concessit, aestimans rectum potius in eo patruum reminisci quam aduersarium insectari.1 In ipsa mora obsidionali Normannorum aliquanti potentiores ab duce ad regem defecerunt, quos iam antea conspirationis rebellantium occultique fuisse adiutores opinabile erat. Maliuolentiam, qua olim contra infantem fuerant inflati, nondum euomuere totam. Eorum e consortio Guimundus, praesidens munitioni quam Molendinas appellant, in manus regis eam dedit.2 Imposita est regis cohors: Guido frater comitis Pictauensis Guillelmi, atque Romanae imperatricis,3 et cum eo uiri militares atque illustres. Verum et ii, et quiqui alias relicti sunt a Francis, cum deditas esse comperissent Archarum latebras, sese nostris fuga furati sunt. Normanni autem, puniendi lege transfugarum,4 leui poena aut nulla domino suo reconciliati sunt; rati nullas iam opes uel astutias contra eum fore efficaces. 29. Vehementius post haec in aemulationem exardere, nouoque moueri tumultu Francia coepit. Principes uniuersi cum rege, 1 W J (G N D ii. 104) simply says, ‘ipse a natiuo solo in exilium discessit.’ Orderic in his interpolations (ibid.) adds that he went with his wife, a sister o f Count Guy o f Ponthieu, to Count Eustace of Boulogne, in whose household he received food and clothing, and that he remained in exile until his death. It is possible that WP’s carefully worded statement could be read as meaning that Duke William did not confiscate his patrimony or leave him penniless, rather than that he allowed him to live on his estates. WP could be evasive about cruelty in writing of the duke, but he did not as a rule tell a deliberate lie. 2 For Guitmund o f Moulins-la-Marche and his family, see Orderic (OV iii. 132 n. 1). Although Guitmund had eight sons, Duke William passed them over after this betrayal, and gave the custody o f the castle to the husband o f his daughter Alberada.

i. 2 9

T H E D EE DS OF W I L L I A M

43

from shame as from starvation; some clinging to starved mounts, whose hooves hardly ring out or stir the dust; some wearing greaves and spurs, advancing in strange company, most o f them carrying their horse’s saddle on their bowed and weary backs, some staggering and barely keeping upright. It was equally pitiable to see in all its forms the sordid ruin o f the lightly armed troops as they came out. 28. T he duke, with his praiseworthy clemency, pitying the misfortunes o f this man, as before he had pitied G uy, did not wish him, banished and penniless as he was, to be punished more shamefully. Instead he granted him his patrimony, with his favour, and certain extensive lands which yielded substantial revenues, thinking it right rather to remember that he was his paternal uncle than to pursue him as an enemy.1 In the course o f the long siege, some o f the powerful Normans defected from the duke to the king, men who were thought to have been secret supporters o f the rebels’ conspiracy already. T hey had not yet quite rid themselves o f the ill-will which they had nourished against the duke when he was a child. Amongst them Guitmund, the commander o f a castle named Moulins, gave it into the king’s hands, and a royal garrison was placed in it:2 G uy, brother o f William count o f Poitiers and o f the Roman empress,3 and with him many knightly and illustrious men. But these men too, together with others who had been left behind by the French, on learning o f the surrender o f the lair o f Arques, escaped from our men by flight. But the Normans, who should have been punished by the law o f deserters,4 were reconciled to their lord with a light punishment or none at all; they had learnt that neither wealth nor cunning could prevail against him. 29. After this France began to be disturbed by a new tumult, and more violently enflamed in rivalry. All the princes with the 3 Guy-Geoffrey, brother o f William-Aigret, count o f Poitiers, and o f Agnes, wife o f the emperor Henry III (Guillot, Anjou, p. 60). This marriage marked the beginning of Geoffrey Martel’s alliance with the emperor, which brought him into conflict with the king of France. By 1053 he was turning back to a French alliance, to counter the threat o f a strong Normandy. 4 See Tardif, i, c. 37, p. 32, ‘De fugitivis9.

44

GESTA GVILLELM I

i. 2 9

Normanno principi ex inimicis iam inimicissimi. Anxie tumebat in eorum maliuolis mentibus uulnus praecipue inuidum, quod recenter sauciauit mors Ingelranni comitis et in eodem conflictu interemptorum. Acerbe inflammabat eos memoria euentus Andegauorum comitis Gaufredi, depulsi dudum Guillelmi clipeo, qualiter memorauimus,1 aliorumque non modici numeri detri­ mentorum, atque dedecorum inflictorum eis uirtute Normannica. Inimicitiae causas ueraciter explanamus ac pleniter. Rex egerrime ferebat, et uelut contumeliam suam diffiniebat quam maxime ulciscendam, cum imperatorem Romanum, quo maius potentiae siue dignitatis nomen in orbe terrarum aliud non est, amicum et socium haberet;2 prouinciis multis praesideret potentibus, quarum domini aut rectores militiae suae essent administri; comitem Guillelmum suum nec amicum nec militem, sed hostem esse; Normanniam quae sub regibus Francorum egit ex antiquo,3 prope in regnum euectam; superiorum eius comitum, quanquam ardua ualuerint nullum in haec ausa illatum. Condolentes in eadem Tedbaldus,4 Pictauorum comes,5 Gaufredus,6 item reliqui summates, quadam insuper indignatione priuata; intolerandum ducebant sese regis, quocunque praeuia uocarent, signis parere. Guillelmum Normannorum nequaquam pro rege, sed confidenter atque indesinenter ad eius magnitudi­ nem, quam aliquantum attriuit, ulterius atterendam, uel si qua uia ualeat, conterendam, in armis agitare. Praeterea concupiebant Normanniam aut eius partem quidam regis proximi. H i, quasi faces flagrantissimae, regem incendebant et principes.7 1 See above, i. 18. 2 The emperor Henry III (1039-56). Relations between King Henry and the emperor fluctuated; in 1047 they were in conflict on the frontier o f Lotharingia. An agreement was reached at Ivois in the following year; though the rapprochement was short-lived, WP may have had this in mind. For the changing alliances, see J. Dhondt, ‘Henri Ier, Pempire et PAnjou (1043-1056)’, Revue belge de philologie et d'histoire, xxv (1947), 9 5 102. The Latin is ambiguous; Foreville (p. 66 n. 1) and Körner, p. 219, interpreted it as implying an alliance between the emperor and the duke of Normandy (of which no supporting evidence is known); but it may mean that the king o f France had the emperor as his friend and ally. 5 WP used the same words (below, i. 43) o f Conan II’s rejection o f Duke William, ‘Normanniae hostis, non miles, esse uoluit.’ The exact relationship between the dukes o f Normandy and the kings of France was disputed. Foreville (p. 66 n. 2) interprets WP’s statement as an admission that Normandy was held as a fief o f the French crown; but this is questionable. WP seems rather to support the duke’s refusal to admit vassalage. For the

i. 3 0

TH E D EE DS OF W I L L I A M

45

king, who were already enemies o f the prince o f Normandy, became his mortal enemies. Above all, the hateful wound recently inflicted by the death o f Count Enguerrand and those slain with him festered in their perverse minds. T he memory o f the misfortune suffered by Geoffrey, count o f Anjou, who had recently been thrown back (as I have related)1 by William’s shield, kindled their bitterness, as did the recollection o f numer­ ous defeats and humiliations inflicted on them by the Norman might. We will explain the causes o f the enmity truthfully and in full. T h e king bore it ill and considered it an affront very greatly to be avenged, that while he had the Roman emperor as a friend and ally2— and no other name in the whole world is greater in power and dignity than is his— and while he presided over many powerful provinces o f which the lords and rulers commanded troops in his army, Count William was neither his friend nor his vassal, but his enemy; and that Normandy, which had been under the kings o f the Franks from the earliest times,3 had now been raised almost to a kingdom. None o f the more prominent counts, however great their aspirations, had dared anything o f this sort. Theobald,4 the count o f the Poitevins,5 Geoffrey6 and the other great magnates joined their voices to these complaints, and had in addition a private grievance o f their own. They found it intolerable that, when summoned, they had to follow the king’s banners wherever he led the way. They took arms against William, duke o f the Normans, not in any way for the king, but to wear down steadily and relentlessly his power, which the king had already somewhat weakened, or to destroy it, if this could be achieved in any way. Besides this, certain men who were nearest to the king coveted Normandy, or part o f it. These men, like burning torches, enflamed the zeal o f the king and his princes.7 changing relationship o f the dukes of Normandy and the kings o f France, see C. W. Hollister, ‘Normandy, France and the Anglo-Norman regnum\ Monarchy, Magnates and Institutions in the Anglo-Norman World (London and Ronceverte, 1986), pp. 17-57 [ = Speculum, li (1976), 202-42], esp. 18 -19 . 4 Theobald III, count o f Blois, Chartres and Champagne. 5 William V II, duke o f Aquitaine and count o f Poitou. It is strange that WP does not give his name; possibly it was accidentally omitted in Duchesne’s edition. 6 Geoffrey Martel, count o f Anjou. 7 See G N D ii. 142-4 for similar allegations made by WJ.

46

GESTA GVILLELM I

»• 30

30. Eas ob res, post consultationem infausto omine commun­ icatam, edicto regio bellum iubente, innumerosissimae copiae in Normanniam expeditae sunt. Burgundiam, Aruerniam, atque Wasconiam properare uideres horribiles ferro; imo uires tanti regni, quantum in climata mundi quatuor patent cunctas; Franciam1 tamen et Britanniam2 quanto nobis uiciniores, tanto ardentius infestas. Iulium Caesarem, uel bellandi peritiorem aliquem, si fuerit peritior, exercitus Romani ducem, ex mille nationibus coacti olim dum Roma florentissima mille prouinciis imperitasset, huius agminis immanitate terreri potuisse affirmaris. Nimirum concipit pauorem aliquantum terra nostra. Ecclesiae metuunt inquietanda fore otia sanctae religionis, stipendia sua ex libidine armatorum diripienda, quamuis orationum praesidio certantes confidant. Plebs urbana et agrestis0 necnon quicunque imbellis et minus firmus, solliciti sunt ac trepidi; timent sibi, uxoribus, liberis, rebus suis, cum adeo grauem hostem timoris modo ampliorem quam sit metiuntur. At cum reminiscuntur quem habeant propugnatorem, quam luctuosas patriae calamitates adhuc adolescens, uel puer potius, magno consilio maximaque uirtute sustulerit, spe timorem leniunt, afflictionem fiducia consolantur. Verum admirandae constantiae dux Guillelmus nulla perculsus formidine, regi, qui robur immanius ipse ducit, iam in Rotomagensem ex Ebroicensi pago sensim procedenti, magno animo sese festinus opponit. Transaduersam ripam Sequanae partem suarum copiarum, ut hostem distributum praenouit, contra dirigens.3 Sic enim dispositum est industria quae multum profutura sperabatur; ut quantus miles inter Sequanam et Garonnam fluuios colliger­ etur (quas gentes multas uno nomine Celtigallos4 appellant) ii nos a M F ; aggrestis D 1 Trance* is here used in the sense of the royal demesne. 2 After the death o f Alan III (1028-40) there was an anti-Norman reaction in Brittany, led by the regent, Eudo of Porhoet, on behalf of his nephew Conan II, who assumed power in 1055. See A. de la Borderie, Histoire de Bretagne, 6 vols. (Rennes and Paris, 1896-1914), iii. 14 -16 . 3 WJ (G N D ii. 142-4) described the two-pronged attack and its failure much more briefly. OV in his interpolations (G N D ii. 144) gave further details, and added that the date o f the battle of Mortemer was 1054. In his Ecclesiastical History (OV iv. 86-8) he enlarged his account, and dated the battle more precisely 'before Lent* (which began on 16 Feb.).

». 30

T H E DEE DS OF W I L L I A M

47

30. Because o f these things, after a consultation o f unhappy augury had been held, countless royal troops were sent into Normandy by a royal edict ordering war. You could see Burgundy, Auvergne, and Gascony hastening, bristling with arms; or rather, all the forces o f a kingdom as great as any you could find in the four comers o f the world. But France1 and Brittany,2 since they are nearer to us, are that much more ardently hostile. You would affirm that Julius Caesar, or some other general more adept at war (if such there were), leading a Roman army mustered from a thousand nations at a time when Rome, at the height o f its prosperity, ruled over a thousand provinces, would have been terrified by the size o f this army. No wonder our land felt some fear. T he churches feared that the peace o f religious worship would be disturbed and their revenues seized by the greed o f armed men, though they put their trust in the protection o f prayers, with which they fight. The common people in town and country, and all those who are weak and not fitted for war were anxious and afraid. They feared for themselves, their wives, their children, and their goods, for their fear exaggerated in their estimation the danger from an enemy who was in any case redoubtable. But when they consider whom they have as a defender, what dire misfortunes for his country he has endured with great wisdom and supreme courage as a young man, even indeed as a boy, their fear is tempered with hope and their suffering is eased by confidence. Indeed Duke William, admirable in his constancy and shaken by no fear, hastens with high spirits to confront the king, who, personally leading a force larger than his, is already advancing against Rouen from the region o f Evreux, sending a part o f his forces across to the opposite bank o f the Seine against the enemy whose dispositions are already known to him.3 For a plan had been drawn up which was expected to be very efficacious: namely that all the military forces that had been assembled between the Seine and the Garonne (numerous peoples who are called by the single name o f Centigauls)4 should attack on the one side under 4 Cf. Caesar, De bello gallico i. 1, ‘Gallia est omnis divisa in partes tres, quarum unam incolunt Belgae, aliam Aquitani, tertiam qui ipsorum lingua Celtae, nostra Galli appellantur.*

48

GESTA GVILLELMI

'• 31

hac, rege ipso duce, inuaderent; illae uero ducibus, fratre regis Odone,1 et Rainaldo2 familiarissimo, inter flumen Rhenum et Sequanam collecti, quae Gallia Belgica nuncupatur. Regem insuper comitabatur Aquitania, pars Galliae tertia et latitudine regionum et multitudine hominum a plerisque aestimata. Nec mirum si forte Francorum temeritati atque superbiae sic munitae spes erat aliquanta, ducem nostrum aut opprimendum esse ea mole, aut ignominiosa fuga elapsurum; milites aut occidendos, aut capiendos; oppida excidenda, uicos exurendos; haec ferienda gladio, illa in praedam diripienda, postremo terram totam usque in foedam solitudinem redigendam. 3 1. Sed longe alium res euentum habuit. Nam inauspicato congressi Odo et Rainaldus, cum suam aciem quam terribili atrocitate uastari animaduerterent, ducatu et ensis ope simul omissis, equorum uelocitate saluti consulunt. Vrgebat namque ceruices eorum, non meritas leniora, mucro Roberti Aucensis comitis,3 ut natalibus ita uirtute magni, una Hugonis Gornacensis,4 Hugonis Montisfortis,5 Gualterii Giffardi,6 Guillelmi Crispini,7 aliorumque nostrae partis fortissimorum uirorum. Guido Pontiui comes, ad uindicandum fratrem Ingelrannum8 nimis auidus, captus est, et cum eo complures genere et opibus clari; plurimi ceciderunt, reliquos fuga eripuit cum antesignanis.9 Cognito citius hoc successu propugnator noster dux Guillelmus nocte intempesta caute instructum quendam direxit, qui tristem regi uictoriam propius castra ipsius ab alto arboris per singula inclamauit.10 Rex attonitus inopinato nuntio, procul omni cunc­ tatione signo antelucano suos in fugam excitauit; summe neces1 Odo was the fourth son o f King Robert the Pious and Constance. 2 Reginald I, count of Clermont-en-Beauvaisis and royal chamberlain; for his family, see P. Feuchère, (La principauté d’Amiens-Valois au xic siècle’, Le moyen âge, lx (1954), 1-37« at p. 26 n. 89. 3 The son o f William o f Eu and brother o f Hugh, bishop o f Lisieux. Orderic (OV iv. 86) singles him out as a leader o f the defence, and adds the name o f Roger o f Mortemer. 4 Hugh II o f Goumay, who married Gerard Fleitel’s daughter Basilia. 5 Hugh II o f Montfort-sur-Risle. 6 Walter Giffard I o f Longueville-sur-Scie. 7 William Crispin I, whose son Gilbert became abbot o f Westminster. For his family, see J. Armitage Robinson, Gilbert Crispin, Abbot o f Westminster (Cambridge, 19 11), p. 16 (document no. 3).

i. 3 1

T H E DEE DS OF W I L L I A M

49

the personal command o f the king; while the men-at-arms collected from the region between the Rhine and the Seine, known as Belgic Gaul, should attack on the other side under the leadership o f the king’s brother Odo1 and Reginald,2 his leading household officer. In addition Aquitaine accompanied the king; it is the third part o f Gaul, esteemed by many for the extent o f its land and the multitude o f its people. N o wonder if the French, so fortified in their proud recklessness, nursed a hope o f either crushing our duke by sheer numbers or forcing him to take to his heels in shameful flight; and then either slaying or capturing our soldiers, destroying our fortified towns, burning our villages, smiting some with the sword, pillaging and sacking others, and finally reducing our whole land to a dreadful desert.

3 1. Far different was the outcome. For when Odo and Reginald, caught unawares, saw their army being mercilessly destroyed, they abandoned both their command and the use o f their swords and entrusted their safety to the speed o f their horses. T hey were closely pursued, their necks— deserving nothing better— threatened by the sword-point o f Robert count o f Eu,3 as highly bom as he was courageous, together with Hugh o f Goum ay,4 Hugh o f Montfort,5 Walter Giffard,6 William Crispin,7 and the most valiant men o f our party. G uy count o f Ponthieu, too eager to avenge his brother Enguerrand,8 was taken prisoner, and with him a good number o f men o f high birth and great wealth; many fell, the rest escaped by flight with their banner-bearers.9 Our champion, Duke William, the moment he heard o f this victory, sent o ff a herald in the middle o f the night, with careful instructions to proclaim in full detail the sad news o f the victory from the top o f a tree near his camp.10 T he king, stunned by the unexpected news, put aside all thought o f delay 8 Guy, count o f Ponthieu, had just succeeded his brother Enguerrand, killed in 1053 (see above, i. 26). 9 ‘Antesignani’ can mean a chosen band, who fight in the front rank before the banners; cf. Vegetius, ii. 7 (p. 41), ‘Campigeni, hoc est antesignani, ideo sic nominati quia eorum opera atque virtute exercitii genus crescit in campo.’ 10 Orderic (‘Interpolations’, G N D ii. 144-5) names the herald as Rodulf o f Tosny.

50

GESTA GVILLELM I

i. 3 *

sanum ratus quam maxima celeritate Normanniae finibus dis­ cedere. 32. Multa dehinc hostilia utrinque acta sunt, qualia praeter belli conflictum inter tantos hostes fieri solent. Francis tandem grauissimarum sibi dissentionum finem cupientissime uolentibus, pax conuenit ea pactione inter ducem et regem media, ut capti apud Maremortuum regi redderentur, eius uero assensu et quasi dono quodam dux iure perpetuo retineret quod Gaufrido Andegauorum comiti abstulerat, quodque ualeret auferre. Confestim in ipso conuentu principes militiae suae iussu commonuit dux intra terminos Martelli Andegauensis ad Ambreras construendas mature adesse paratos.1 Et quem huius incoepti diem eis, ipse eundem Martello per legatos praefiniuit. O ualidum, o confiden­ tem et nobilem huius uiri animum! O admirandum, nec facile competenti praeconio extollendam, uirtutem! Non petit imbellis cuiuslibet terram debellandum, sed tiranni ferocissimi et in re militari, ut superiora docuere, plurimum strenui quem, uti fulmen terribile, comites atque duces potentissimi tremerent; cuius uires et uersutias collimitantum ei quisquam uix euaderet. Porro, ut magis admirere, ipsum hostem incautum uel imparatum non aggreditur, sed prius ei diebus .xl. ubi, quando cuius rei gratia sit aduenturus, denuntiat. Huius famae terrore perculsus Gaufredus Meduanensis,2* Gaufredum dominum suum festinus adit, dolens et miserans conqueritur: constructis Ambreris opibus Normannorum, terram eius ad libitum inimici inuadendam, destruendam, deso­ landam. Cui tirannus Martellus, ut erat elatus animo, grandia praesumere et loqui solitus, ‘Meum ’, inquit, ‘sicut uilis et 1 WJ (G N D ii. 124-6), mentions the building o f the castle o f Ambrières immediately after the surrender o f Alençon. The Quedam exceptiones (G N D ii, appendix, p. 300) places it after the fall o f Domfront, and states that it was on the river Colmont: ‘Et ultra progrediens Amberias uenit. Ibique super ora fluminis quod dicitur Colmunt iuxta castrum Meduanum municipium forte construxit.9It was at the confluence o f the Colmont and the Mayenne. Guillot (Anjou, i. 80 n. 358) argues that the construction of the castle of Ambrières must have been later than the peace agreed after the battle o f Mortemer. This makes 1054/5 a likely date; and this date is corroborated by the fact that the rebellion of Robert Giroie o f Saint-Céneri, a vassal o f both Geoffrey o f Mayenne and Duke William c. 1059-60 was probably connected with Geoffrey’s resistance (OV ii. 26-9, 78 -8 1; 79 n. 3

i. 3 2

T H E D EE DS OF W I L L I A M

51

and roused his men to flight before dawn, convinced o f the need to escape from Norman territory with the utmost speed. 32. From that time many hostile acts o f the kind that invariably occur o ff the battlefield between such enemies were committed by both sides. Finally as the French were most anxious to put an end to discords that were so burdensome for them, peace was made between the duke and the king, the terms being that those taken prisoner at Mortemer should be returned to the king; and that with his assent and, as it were, by his gift the duke should retain by right for ever what he had taken from Geoffrey count o f Anjou, and whatever he was able to take from him in the future. Immediately, and in this very assembly, the duke issued a command ordering the captains o f his knights to be ready to enter the territory o f the Angevin, Martel, to build the castle o f Ambrières;1 and he sent messengers to tell Martel what day he had fixed for its commencement. O strong, O confident and noble spirit o f this man! O admirable valour that cannot be praised too highly! He does not seek to attack the land o f a peaceful lord, but that o f a most cruel tyrant, full o f warlike ardour, as was explained above, whom the most powerful counts and dukes feared like a dread thunderbolt, whose forces and stratagems scarcely any o f his neighbours could escape. And then, still more astonishing, he does not attack this enemy without warning while he is unpre­ pared, but informs him forty days in advance where, when, and for what reason he will come. At this news Geoffrey o f Mayenne,2 terror-stricken, hurried to his lord Geoffrey and complained fearfully and wretchedly that once Ambrières was built by the wealth o f the Normans, his land would lie at the mercy o f the enemy, to be invaded, ravaged, and laid waste at his will. To which the tyrant Martel, a man o f overweening pride, who was wont to speak with presumptuous corrects the date (1054) given by Latouche). The construction of the castle o f Ambrières and Geoffrey’s attempt to capture it may have occupied several years, and the investment of the castle o f Geoffrey’s still recalcitrant vassal, Robert Giroie, seems to have been a mopping-up operation. 2 WP’s account o f the fighting in Maine, written after the conflict was over, is clearer and more detailed than the earlier account o f WJ (G N D ii. 15 0 -1). This episode was abbreviated by Ralph de Diceto, R D ii. 263.

52

GESTA GVILLELM I

»•

33

pudendi domini omnino abnuas dominium si, patiente me, patrari uideas quod m etuis/1 33. Die praefinito, Cenomanicum* solum ingressus Normannorum rector, dum castrum quod minatus est erigit, fama referente, quae tam falsi quam ueri nuncia uolat,2 Gaufredum Martellum breui aduenturum audit. Quapropter opere adminis­ trato hostis aduentum magna constantia et alacritate praestolatur. Quem ubi amplius opinione morari uidet, et iam de cibariorum penuria plebeii pariter ac proceres conqueruntur, ne milite minus prompto in futurum utatur, modo dimittere statuit, castro uiris et alimoniis munito, iubens tamen, ut cum nuncium eius acceperint, quantocius eodem redeant cuncti. Exercitus nostri mox diuulgato discessu, Martellus in auxilium suum adiunctis Guillelmo Pictauorum comite3 domino suo et Eudone Britannorum comite,4 necnon undequaque copiis collec­ tis, Ambreras contendit. Dein praesidii situ et munimentis perspectis, ad oppugnandum accingitur. Parant uallum rescin­ dere; castellani resistunt. Exardent, audent, aggrediuntur propius et acrius; certatur utrinque magna ui. Missilia, saxa, libriles sudes, item lanceae desuper feriunt. Iis plerique interempti cadunt, alii repelluntur. Sic audaci molimine cassato aliud incipiunt. Tentant murum ariete, qui percussus in uirga* castel­ lanorum frangitur.5 Interea cognito labore suorum munitionis fundator Guillelmus,6 omnis morae impatiens euocat exercitum, subuentum ire quam maxime properat. Quem postquam inimici tres adeo nominati comites adequitare percipiunt, mira celeritate, ne dicam trepida fuga, cum immanibus exercitibus dilabuntur. * Coenomannicum D ; Cenomannicum M F

* D adds in marg. ariete

1 Cf. Caesar, De bello civili iii. 45.6, ‘Dicitur eo tempore glorians apud suos Pompeius dixisse: non recusare se quia nullus usus imperator estimaretur, si sine maximo detrimento legiones Caesaris sese recepissent inde quo temere essent progressae.9 2 Cf. Vergil, Aeneid, iv. 188. 3 William VII o f Aquitaine; see Halphen, Anjou, p. 61. 4 Eudo of Porhoet, count o f Penthièvre, who was exercising power in Brittany, at first during the minority, and then in opposition to Count Alan’s son, Conan II, who assumed authority in 1055. See above, p. 46 n. 20. 5 The Latin is obscure, and probably corrupt; the marginal note ‘ariete’ in Duchesne’s

»•

33

TH E D EE DS OF W IL L IA M

53

rhetoric, replied, ‘You may renounce my lordship completely, as that o f a vile and dishonoured lord, if you see the things you fear come to pass while I stand idly by.’ 1 33. On the appointed day, the ruler o f the Normans entered the territory o f Maine and, while he was building the castle as he had threatened, he heard on the grapevine, which reports both true and false news,2 that Geoffrey Martel would soon be there. So, after finishing o ff the work, he waited steadfastly and eagerly for the arrival o f the enemy. However, when Geoffrey delayed longer than was expected, and the Norman rank and file no less than the nobles were beginning to complain o f the shortage o f food, William decided that, for fear o f the army growing slack, since the castle was well-furnished with men and supplies, he would send his forces away for the time being. He gave orders that when they received a message from him they should all return there as quickly as possible. Once he had heard the news o f our army’s departure, Martel, joined by his allies William count o f the Poitevins,3 who was his lord, Eudo, a count o f the Bretons,4 and forces collected from all sides, advanced on Ambrières. Then, after inspecting the site and the fortifications, he prepares to assault it. T he attackers make ready to break down the rampart; the castle garrison resists. They become eager, they are daring, they attack more closely and bitterly. T he battle is fought with great violence on both sides. Missiles, stones, heavy stakes, and also lances rain down from above. Struck by these, many fall, slain; others are driven back. As soon as their bold onslaught is broken, they begin another. They attack the wall with a battering-ram; but when it is struck by the [barricade] o f the besieged, it is broken.5 Meanwhile William, the founder o f the fortress,6 hearing o f the struggle o f his men and impatient o f the delay, summons his army and hurries to the rescue with all speed. On seeing him approach, the three above-mentioned counts disperse with their vast armies with amazing speed, not to say panic-stricken flight. T he victor edition may be intended to correct 4uirga\ but it is difficult to understand the manœuvre described. 6 This paragraph was closely copied by Ralph de Diceto (RD ii. 263).

54

GESTA GVILLELM I

»• 34

Victor Gaufredum Meduanensem e uestigio bello adortus, qui domini furorem praecipue incendit querela praefata; intra exi­ guum tempus eo usque compulit, ut in remotissimis Normanniae partibus sibi manus perdomitas daret, fidelitatem quam satelles domino debet, iurans.1 34. Rursum pace soluta, rex ignominiae suae magis quam detrimenti requirens ultionem, renouata expeditione Normanniam aggreditur, exercitu coacto copioso quidem, atd minus quam antea immani. Regni siquidem eius pars amplior funera, siue indecoram fugam, suorum lugens aut timens, ad redeundum super nos minus prona erat, quanquam uindictae in nos longe cupidissima. Martellus Andegauensis, nondum tot sinistris casi­ bus fractus, minime defuit, quantum ullatenus uirium colligere potuit adducens. Vix enim huius inimici odium et rabiem Normanniae tellus penitus contusa uel excisa satiaret. Famam tamen sui motus quantum potuere occultantes, ne confestim in ipso ingressu obuio propugnatore, quem experti sunt, repeller­ entur, citis itineribus per Oximensem comitatum ad fluuium Diuam peruenere, hostili immanitate per transitum populati. Neque illic aut conuerti placuit, aut consistere fiducia fuit. Etenim si permitteretur ulterius progredi, quali eo peruentum est cursu, et sic in Franciam dein euadere incolumes, praeclarae famae occasionem sibi promisere, quod Guillelmi Normanni terram ad litus* usque marinum ferro igneque uastauerint, nemine obsistente, nemine insequente. Verum ea spes, ut illa quondam, fefellit. Nam dum ad uadum Diuae morarentur,2 superuenit ipse alacer cum exigua manu uirorum felici hora. Pars exercitus iam flumen cum rege transierat. Et ecce fortissimus uindex in residuos insiluit, cecidit populatores, parcere flagitium credens, cum patriae sauciatae adeo necessaria causa ageretur, infestissimo “ M F ; et D

* D ; littus M F

1 The Latin is ambiguous; ‘in remotis Normanniae partibus* probably means the parts furthest from Maine, so that Geoffrey did homage as William’s vassal in the same way as Harold was later said to have done (below, i. 42). If, however, the meaning is ‘in the frontier regions’, the homage would have amounted only to "hommage en marche’ . 2 The battle of Varaville was fought in Aug. 1057 (J. Dhondt, ‘ Les relations entre la France et la Normandie sous Henri I’, Normannia, xii (1939), 482-3), between the estuaries

>• 34

T H E D EE DS OF W I L L I A M

55

immediately turned his attack against Geoffrey o f Mayenne, who had been the particular instigator o f his lord in the said quarrel, and in a very short time he reduced him to the point o f coming into the heart o f Normandy, to put his conquered hands into William’s own, swearing the fealty which a vassal owes his lord.1 34. Once again peace broke down, since the king demanded justice not so much for the damage as for the humiliation he had suffered; he undertook a new campaign against Normandy, after assembling a sizeable army, though less large than the previous one. The greater part o f the kingdom was mourning, or fearing, the death or unworthy flight o f its men, and was none too anxious to attack us again, though very eager to have revenge. Martel the Angevin who, in spite o f many failures was not yet broken, far from abstaining, brought the largest force he could collect by any means. It would scarcely have satisfied the raging hatred o f this man if the land o f Normandy had been utterly crushed and laid waste. Concealing all knowledge o f their movements as far as possible, lest they should be confronted and repelled at the very moment o f their attack by the champion whose strength they had already experienced, they crossed the Hiémois by forced marches and reached the river Dives, plundering as cruel enemies wherever they went. Once arrived, they were unwilling to turn back and dared not halt. Indeed, if they had been allowed to advance further, following the same pattern o f conduct as before, and so finally reaching France in safety, they promised themselves that it would bring them lasting fame to have laid waste the land o f William the Norman as far as the seashore by fire and sword, with no one resisting or pursuing them. But that hope, like the one before, proved vain. For while they were delaying at the ford o f the Dives,2 the duke himself came upon them with a small troop o f men at a lucky moment, spoiling for a fight. Part o f the army had already crossed the river with the king. And behold! the redoubtable avenger hurled himself at the rest and slaughtered the plunderers, o f the Ome and the Dives. Cf. WJ, G N D ii. 150-2. Wace, pt. iii, lines 5223-42 (ii. 81), said that an old bridge broke; but WP was writing while memories o f the tides in the estuary of the Dives at the time were fresh. For the tides in this area, see Foreville, p. 82 n. 2.

56

GESTA GVILLELMI

i. 3 6

hoste in medio sinu eius deprehenso. Citra aquam intercepti, in oculis regiis fere cuncti ferro ceciderunt, praeter qui sese ingurgitare maluerunt pauore impellente. Ne uero iure saeuiens gladius in aduersam ripam insequeretur, reuma* maris obstabat, alueum Diuae insuperabili mole occupantis. Interitum suorum miserans ac metuens rex, cum Andegauensi tiranno quam celerrime Normannicos fines exiuit; decernens animo consternato uir strenuus et nominatus in rebus bellicis, dementiae reputan­ dum Normanniam ultra attentare. 35. Non multo post uniuersae camis uiam demigrauit1 nun­ quam gloriatus triumpho, quem de Guillelmo Normanno comite retulerit, imo nec multae in eum uindictae compos. Philippus filius eius ei successit infans,2 inter quem et principem nostrum firma pax composita est ac serena amicitia, tota Francia cupiente et annuente. Sub idem tempus obiit et Gaufredus Martellus3 ad uota multorum, uel quos oppresserat, uel qui metuerant eum. Sic terrenae potestati et humanae superbiae finem natura ponit ineuitabilem. Sero poenituit miserandum hominem nimiae for­ titudinis, ruinosae tirannidis, pernitiosae cupiditatis. Equidem sua eum extrema docuere, quod antea pensare neglexit; etiam quae iuste in mundo possidentur, necessario amittenda fore. Sororis filium haeredem reliquit, qui nomine proprio idem, probitate absimilis ei,4 caelestem regem timere et pro comparando aeterno* honore bona actitare coepit. 36. Quod humanae linguae ad maliuolentiam quam ad beneuolentiam laudandam sint promptiores nouimus; ob inuidiam plerumque, interdum ob aliam prauitatem. Nam et pulcherrima facinora in contrariam partem iniqua deprauatione traducere " D ; rheuma M F

* F ; externo D M

1 Henry I died on 4 Aug. 1060 (R. Merlet, ‘Du lieu où mourait Henri Ier, roi de France . . \ Le moyen âge, xvi (1903), 203-9). 2 Philip was eight when his father died; he had already been crowned a year previously (A. Fliehe, La règne de Philippe / " roi de France (Paris, 1912), p. 1. His uncle, Baldwin V, count of Flanders, who became regent, was Duke William’s father-in-law; good relations with Normandy were established and lasted for some years.

i. 3 6

TH E D E E D S OF W I L L I A M

57

believing it a crime when the survival o f his wounded country was at stake to spare the dangerous enemy captured on his own territory. Those intercepted on this side o f the water were nearly all cut down under the eyes o f the king, except for those who, stricken by terror, preferred to plunge into the torrent. But it was impossible to pursue those on the opposite bank with the sword o f justice, for the high tide filled the channel o f the Dives with an impassable barrier o f water. Fearful and distressed at the death o f his men, the king, with the Angevin tyrant, left the bounds o f Normandy with all possible speed; for this man, valiant and renowned as he was in the art o f war, realized in consternation that it would be madness to attack Normandy further. 35. Not long afterwards the king went the way o f all flesh,1 without ever having been able to boast o f a victory over the Norman count, William, nor even having taken vengeance against him. Philip, his son, who was still a child, succeeded him.2 Firm peace and calm friendship were established between him and our prince, for all France wished for it and approved it. About the same time Geoffrey Martel also died,3 to the relief o f many whom he had oppressed, or who had feared him. Thus nature imposes an inevitable end to earthly power and human pride. Too late this miserable man repented o f his excessive power, his ruinous tyranny, and his poisonous .greed. Similarly his last moments taught him what he had previously neglected to think about: that even the things which are possessed lawfully in this world must necessarily be lost. He left as his heir his sister’s son, a man who, though the same in name but different in character,4 set out to fear the heavenly king and do good so as to gain eternal glory. 36. We know that the tongues o f men are more apt to speak at length o f evil than o f good, often out o f envy, at other times because o f some other depravity. For sometimes even the finest deeds are, by evil distortion, turned into the opposite. So it often happens that 3 He died on 14 Nov. at the abbey o f St Nicholas, Angers, where he took the habit on his death-bed (Guillot, Anjou, ii. 148-9, C. 220). 4 In spite o f his three marriages, Geoffrey Martel left no heir. He was succeeded by the elder son (Geoffrey le Barbu) o f his sister Ermengarde (Guillot, Anjou, i. 102-3).

5»

GESTA GVILLELM I

‘

37

solent. Vnde nonnunquam fieri constat, quatinus decora regum siue ducum siue cuiuscunque optimi, cum non uere traduntur, apud aetatem posteram censura bonorum damnentur, ut nequa­ quam imitanda mala ad inuasionem uel aliud iniquum facinus placeant exemplo. Quapropter nos operae pretium arbitramur quam uerissime tradere quatinus Guillelmus hic (quem scripto propagamus, quem tam futuris quam praesentibus in nullo displicere, immo cunctis placere, optamus) Cenomanico prin­ cipatu, quemadmodum regno Anglico, non solum forti manu potius fuerit, sed et iustitiae legibus potiri debuerit.1 37. Comitum Andegauensium dominatio Cenomanorum comi­ tibus pridem grauis ac pene intolerabilis extiterat.2 Vt enim alia plurima omittam, nouissime nostra memoria Fulco Andegauensis Herebertum Cenomanicum maiorem Santonas illexit, sponsione urbis ipsius.3 Ibid, uinctum in medio colloquio, ad pactiones, quas auare concupierat, carcere ac tormentis coegit. Tempore uero Hugonis,4 Gaufredus Martellus urbem Cenomanicam saepe igne iniecto cremauit, saepe militibus suis eam in praedam distribuit, plerumque uineas circa eius ambitum extirpauit, aliquando, expulso qui iuste possedit,a soli dominio suo eam uindicauit. Hugo haereditatem suam Hereberto reliquit filio,5 et inimicitias easdem. Hic Gaufredi tirannide metuens omnino deleri, Normanniae ducem Guillelmum, sub quo tutus foret, supplex adiit, manibus ei sese dedit, cuncta sua ab eo, ut miles a domino recepit, cunctorum singulariter eum statuens haeredem, si non gigneret alium. Praeterea, ut coniunctius attingeret tantum uirum ipse et posteritas ipsius, ducis ei filia petita atque pacta est. Quae ‘ R D ; praesedit D M F 1 WP reiterates his theme o f the justice of Duke William's conquests, of Maine no less than of England. As a result o f writing his history backwards, he distorts and misrepresents some of the events leading up to William's intervention in Maine. Charter evidence shows that the young count, Herbert, was collaborating with Geoffrey Martel as late as 31 July 1056, so his flight to Normandy must have taken place after that date (Guillot, Anjou, i. 86^7). 2 The counts o f Anjou had exercised lordship over the counts o f Maine since the beginning of the eleventh century; and there had been a number o f conflicts between lord and vassal (ibid.).

»•

37

TH E D EE DS OF W IL L IA M

59

the virtuous acts o f kings, dukes, or other great persons, when they are not truly reported, are condemned in a later age by good men; while wrongs, which should on no account be imitated, are held up as examples for usurpations and other wicked deeds. Wherefore we think it worth while to hand down to posterity the exact truth o f how this William— whose memory we wish to preserve in writing, and whom we wish to seem in no way displeasing, in everything pleasing to all men both present and future— was able to gain possession o f the principality o f Maine in the same way as the English realm, not just by force but also by the laws o f justice.1 37. T he domination o f the counts o f Anjou over the counts o f Maine had long been heavy and almost intolerable.2 To cut a long story short, most recently in our own time Fulk o f Anjou lured the elder Herbert o f L e Mans to Saintes by promising him that very city.3 There, in the course o f the conference, he was bound and forced by imprisonment and torture to agree to concede what Fulk greatly coveted. In the time o f Count Hugh,4 Geoffrey often burnt the town by throwing in torches, often gave it over to pillage by his men-at-arms, and frequently rooted up many o f the vines outside; finally he expelled the man who ruled it by right and appropriated it to his own dominion. Hugh left his inheritance and the same enmities to his son Herbert.5 He, fearing that he would be totally destroyed by Geoffrey’s tyranny, went as a suppliant to William, duke o f Normandy, under whom he would be safe; he did homage to him, received back all his property from him as a vassal from his lord, and made him sole heir o f everything if he should die childless. In addition, so that he and his descendants might be more closely bound to this great man, he sought the duke’s 3 Fulk III (Nerra) o f Anjou imprisoned Herbert ‘Wake-Dog’ at Saintes 7/8 Mar. 1025 (Halphen, Anjou, p. 68). 4 Hugh IV, who succeeded Herbert Wake-Dog as a minor and died on 26 Mar. 1051. WP’s version, followed by Orderic (OV ii. 116 -18 ), has been questioned by Latouche (Maine, p. 32 n. 5) and Guillot (Anjou i. 87 and n. 391). 5 Herbert II Bacon, son of Hugh IV and Bertha, daughter o f Eudo count o f Blois (Latouche, M aine, p. 28 and Appendix III, pp. 113 - 15 ) . The date at which Bertha and her children were exiled is uncertain; Foreville (p. 88 n. 3) suggests probably between 1058 and 1060, but Guillot (Anjou, i. 87) suggested it might even have been after the death of Geoffrey Martel in 1060.

6o

GESTA GVILLELM I

i. 3 8

priusquam nubiles peruenisset ad annos, morbo ipse interiit, suos in ipso fine obtestans et obsecrans ne quaererent alium praeter quem ipse dominum eis, haeredem sibi, relinqueret.1 Cui si uolentes pareant, leue seruitium toleraturos fore; si ui subacti, forsitan graue. Potentiam illius, prudentiam, fortitudinem, glor­ iam, necnon genus antiquum ipsos optime nosse. Sub eo praeside agentes formidini fore quibusque confinibus. 38. At homines malefidi Gualterium Medantinum comitem, cui soror Hugonis nupserat, receperunt inuasorem desertores.2 Indignans ergo repulsam, Guillelmus, iure multiplici successurus Hereberto, arma expediuit, quibus requireret sic praerepta. Nam et olim egit sub Normannorum ducum ditione regio Cenomanica.3 Incendium contestim iniicere, aut urbem totam excindere, ausos iniqua trucidare, quantum ingenio abundauit et uiribus potuisset. Sed hominum sanguini, quanquam nocentissimo, par­ cere maluit solita illa temperantia, et ualidissimam urbem relin­ quere incolumem,0 caput atque munimentum terrae quam in manu habebat. Haec itaque expugnandi uia placuit.4 Crebris expeditionibus et diuturnis in ipso territorio mansionibus metum incutere; uineas, agros, uillas, uastare;* loca munita circumquaque capere; praesidia, ubi res postulauit, imponere; denique plurima turba aerumnarum incessanter affligere. Cum ea geri uiderent Cenomanici, quam anxii trepidique fuerint, quam cupierint onus molestissimum a ceruicibus depellere, coniectare quam referre facilius est. Accito saepius Gaufredo,5 quem praeses eorum Gualterius dominum sibi ac tutorem praefecit, praelio decernere minati sunt nonnunquam sed ausi nunquam. Perdomitis tandem, castellis iam per totum comitatum sub­ actis,6 reddunt ciuitatem praeualenti. Et quem longa detinuerunt * M F ; incolume D

* M F ; uastari D

1 Count Herbert died on 9 Mar. 1062. The statement o f WP that he willed all his possessions to Duke William is uncorroborated. 2 Walter III, count of Mantes, son o f Drogo II, count o f the Vexin, and Biota o f Maine. 3 This is untrue; the Normans had at times engaged in border warfare against the counts o f Maine, but had never subdued the county (Latouche, Maine, pp. 11-2 4 ). Duke William’s invasion took place in 1063.

». 38

T H E D E E D S OF W IL L IA M

6l

daughter in marriage, and this was agreed. But before she reached marriageable age he fell sick and died. On his deathbed he besought and urged his men not to seek any lord other than the one whom he had left as his heir and their lord.1 I f they obeyed him willingly, they would carry a light yoke; but if they had to be subdued by force the burden might be heavy. They knew well William’s power, prudence, courage, fame, and also his ancient lineage; living under his rule, they would strike fear into all their neighbours. 38. But these faithless men received a usurper, Walter count o f Mantes, who had married Hugh’s sister, and deserted to him.2 Angry at this repulse, William, who had more than one right to succeed Herbert, took to arms so that he could recover what had been snatched from him in this way. For long before this, the region o f Maine had been subject to the sway o f the dukes o f Normandy.3 So great were his strength and his ability that he could instantly have set fire to the town, burnt it down, and killed the perpetrators o f such iniquity. But with his usual moderation, he preferred to spare men’s blood, however guilty, and to leave intact this strong city, the heart and guardian o f the land which he had in his grasp.4 T h is was his chosen way o f attack: to strike fear into the settlement by frequent, lengthy expeditions in that territory, to lay waste the vines, fields, and domains, to capture fortified places all around and put garrisons in them wherever it was desirable; finally to attack the region relentlessly with a great multitude o f troubles. It is easier to imagine than to relate how, when they saw these things being done, the people o f Maine became anxious and fearful, and how they wished to free their necks from this heavy burden. Having repeatedly sent for Geoffrey,5 whom their ruler Walter had set up as their lord and protector, they often threatened to give battle, but never dared to do so. Finally vanquished, when the castles throughout the whole county have fallen,6 they surrender the city to the strongest. And they receive him whom they had held at bay by their long rebellion 4 The passage (crebris expeditionibus . . . faciebat de maiori’ was slightly abbreviated by Ralph de Diceto, R D ii. 264. 5 Geoffrey le Barbu, count o f Anjou 1060-7. 6 Cf. WJ, G N D ii. 15 0 -1 and n. 3. The city surrendered was Le Mans.

62

GESTA GVILLELM I

>•

39

rebellione, supplici et ingenti suscipiunt honore. Studium est summis, mediis, infimis, placare infensum. Occurrunt, clamant dominum suum, procidunt et inclinantur eius dignitati; fingunt hilares uultus, laetas uoces, plausus congratulantes/ Fiunt obuiam fauentes laicorum studio, omnium quotquot ibidem sunt, ecclesiarum ordines religiosi. Templa summopere, quemad­ modum processiones, adornata effulgent, redolent thymiamata, resonant sacra cantica. Victori sufficiens poena fuit perdomitos in potestatem suam uenisse, et urbis firmamentum sua in reliquum custodia occupari. Voluntarie Gualterius deditioni consensit, ne inuasa protegens haereditaria amitteret. Clades a Normannis illata uicinitati Medanti et Caluimontis metum ei faciebat de maiori.1 39. Voluit in omne seculum et progeniei suae optime con­ sultum fuisse prudens uictor, pius parens. Idcirco germanam Hereberti,* ex partibus Teutonum2 suae munificentiae maximis impensis adductam, nato suo coniugare decreuit, ut per eam ipse et progeniti, ex ipso iure, quod nulla controuersia conuelli posset uel infirmari, Hereberti haereditatem possiderent sororius et nepotes. Et quoniam pueri aetas nondum fuit matura coniugio,3 in locis tutis illam prope nubilem magno cum honore custodiri fecit, nobilium atque sapientium uirorum atque matronarum curae commissam.4 Haec generosa uirgo, nomine Margarita, insigni specie decentior fuit omni margarita.5 Sed ipsam non longe ante diem quo mortali sponso iungeretur, hominibus abstulit Virginis filius, uirginum sponsus, caelicus imperator, cuius igne salutifero pia a M F ; congratulantis D

* F ; Heriberto D ; Hereberto M

1 Walter and his wife were taken as captives to Falaise and died there. Orderic reported a rumour that they had been poisoned (OV ii. 118 and n. 2, 312). Whatever the truth of this, WP characteristically passes over their later fate in silence, and exaggerates William's clemency. 2 There is no corroboration for the statement that Herbert and Margaret had taken refuge in Germany. Latouche (Maine, p. 32) suggested that the text of WP was a misreading of 4Teutonum’ for 'Britonum'; this would make better sense, as the first husband of their mother Bertha had been Count Alan of Brittany. 1 R. H. C. Davis noted that the Conqueror's eldest son, Robert Curthose, was never named by WP, possibly because, at the time that he was writing (c. 1073-7), Robert was in

»•

39

T H E DEE DS OF W I L L I A M

63

as suppliants, with the greatest honour. Men o f the highest, middle and lowest ranks strive to placate his rage. T hey go to meet him, call him their lord, prostrate themselves and bow to his dignity; they assume smiling faces and cheerful voices to applaud him. The religious orders o f all the churches there without exception go out to meet him, encouraging the zeal o f the laity. T he churches shine, decked out as on the days o f great processions, they breathe out incense and resound with sacred song. To the victor it seemed punishment enough for them that they had been subdued and brought under his power, and that the citadel o f the town should in future be occupied by his garrison. Walter willingly gave his consent to the surrender, lest by protecting what he had usurped he might lose his inheritance. T he destruction wrought by the Normans made him fear the more for Mantes and Chaumont, which were in the vicinity.1 39. William wished, as a wise conqueror and dutiful parent, to make the best provision for the future o f his children. For that reason he had Herbert’s sister brought from the Germanic lands2 by his generosity, at great expense, and destined her to marry his son, so that through her he and his offspring could, by that same right which could not be overthrown or weakened by any contention, possess the inheritance o f Herbert as brother-in-law and grandchildren. And because the boy was not yet o f age to marry,3 he had the nearly marriageable girl guarded with great honour in safe places, committed to the care o f noble matrons and wise men.4 T his noble virgin, whose name was Margaret, was far more beautiful than any pearl.5 But not long before the day when she should have been joined to her mortal spouse, the Son o f the Virgin, Spouse o f virgins and King o f Heaven, took her from men; the pious girl was so inflamed by His saving fire and so rebellion against his father (‘William o f Jumièges, Robert Curthose, and the Norman succession9, From Alfred the Great to Stephen (London and Rio Grande, OH, 1991) p. 135). Robert cannot have been more than 11 or 12 in 1063; Margaret, bom before 10 51, was a little older. 4 Orderic (OV ii. 118 -19 ) said that she was committed to the care of Stigand of Mésidon. 5 Cf. Matt. 13: 46.

64

GESTA GVILLELM I

i. 40

puella flagrabat, pro cuius desiderio orationibus, abstinentiae, misericordiae, humilitati, denique plurimae bonitati studebat, uehementer exoptans, praeter ipsius connubium, aliud perpetuo ignorare. Sepeliuit eam Fiscannense coenobium,1 quod cum aliis ecclesiis quantum licebat religioni nimirum doluit raptam proper­ ato obitu, cuius longaeuitatem affectuosissime0 concupiuit. Illius etenim anima prudenter euigilans cum lucerna ardente Christi aduentum expectans,2 ecclesias colere coepit cum reuerentia. Cilicium quoque, quo latentius carnem domare proposuerat, postea quam transmigrauit proditum, mentem aeternis intentam prodidit. 40. Quam longinquus a fauore ducis Guillelmi animo fuerit, uersutus homo Gaufredus Meduanensis certissime cum urbs Cenomanica dederetur patefactum est.3 N e enim hanc eius gloriosam* felicitatem praesens conspiceret, deseruit ante non minus inuido dolore quam inconstanti perfidia abactus. Noluit meminisse impudens audacia quomodo pridem clementiam orauerit perdomitus.4 Non est uerita impudens iniquitas iurisiurandi uiolare promissum. At perpetuum nomen, quanto maiores illius (quanquam potentes) nunquam sunt gloriati parere sibi uidebatur, si uirtutem inuictam, triumphis magnificatam quamplurimis, lacessere auderet. Per legatos iterum iterumque monitus ad obsequendum, mentem obstinatam non omisit. Fuga, astutia, ualidaeque munitiones non modicum fiduciae ministrauerunt. Statuit ergo prudentia repudiati domini latibulum carissimum abalienare ei, castrum Meduanum,5 aestimans multo satius ac dignius hac poena ferire quam fugitantem persequi et uictoriam leuem ex eo capto insignibus titulis addere. Huius castri latus alterum, quod alluitur scopuloso rapidoque a M F ; effectuosissime D

* gloriam D M F

1 The abbey o f Fécamp, a ducal foundation, was the focus o f ducal piety at this date. Duke William visited it frequently for great liturgical festivals (Renoux, Fécamp, PP- 475- 7)2 Cf. Luke 12: 35. 3 WP’s chronology is vague at this point. The first phase o f fighting against Geoffrey of Mayenne was over by 1059/60 (see above p. 50, n. 1), and Le Mans fell in 1063. WP implies that Geoffrey had been quiescent during the intervening years; WJ in a brief summary implies more active resistance (G N D ii. 150, ‘Restiterat adhuc Meduanum

i. 40

TH E DEE DS OF W IL L IA M

65

desired Him that she devoted herself to prayer, abstinence, mercy, humility, and indeed to all good works vehemently wishing never to know any marriage except to Him. She was buried in the monastery o f Fécamp1 which, along with other churches, grieved greatly (as far as religious faith allows) that she for whom it tenderly desired a long life had been snatched away by premature death. Her soul, indeed, was prudently watchful, awaiting with lighted lamp the coming o f Christ,2 and she had begun to cherish and honour churches. T he hair shirt, which she had resolved to wear secretly to tame her flesh, showed after her death how intent her mind had been on things eternal. 40. When the city o f L e Mans was surrendered, it became crystal clear how far that cunning man, Geoffrey o f Mayenne, was from looking with favour on Duke William.3 For, in order not to be present and witness his glory and triumph, he went away, impelled as much by his grief and envy as by his fickleness and perfidy. In his insolent presumption he did not wish to remember how previously, when vanquished, he had begged for mercy;4 in his shameless iniquity he was not afraid to violate the oath he had sworn. But he thought his name would be immortal (such a thing as his ancestors, great as they were, had never boasted of) if he dared to attack the unconquered valour o f Duke William, enhanced by so many triumphs. Summoned by messengers again and again to submit, he persisted in his obstinate purpose. Flight, cunning, and strong fortifications bolstered his confidence more than a little. T he lord he had repudiated decided in his wisdom to take from him his most treasured retreat, his castle o f Mayenne;5 for he considered it much more advantageous and dignified to punish him in this way, rather than pursuing him as a fugitive and adding the easy victory o f his capture to his glorious titles. On one side this castle, which is washed by a swift and rocky castellum cuiusdam militis nomine Goiffredi’), and Orderic (OV ii. 116 -18 ) names him among the men who were defending Le Mans to the last. 4 See above, i. 33. 5 For the grant of the castle o f Mayenne by Fulk Nerra, see Guillot, Anjouy i. p. 457 (App. ii. 7).

66

GESTA GVILLELM I

i. 40

flumine (nam supra Meduanae ripam in praerupta montis rupe situm est) id nulla ui, nullo ingenio uel arte humana attentari potest. Alteri uero munimenta lapidea, pariterque difficillimus aditus propugnant. Disponitur tamen obsidio, exercitu nostro admoto quantum natura repellens patitur, cunctis mirantibus ducem rem hanc nimis arduam confidentissime aggressurum. Equitum ac peditum copias tantas incassum fatigari cuncti fere opinantur, multi conqueruntur, nulla spe animos eorum erigente, nisi forte mora annua uel ampliore famem expugnet. Etenim gladiis, lanceis, missilibus, nihil geritur, nihil gerendum speratur. Item neque ariete, neque tormento, caeterisue instrumentis bellicis. Siquidem locus omnino machinamentis importunus erat. Verum magnanimus ductor Guillelmus urget incoeptum, prae­ cipit, hortatur, confirmat diffidentes, laetum exitum pollicetur. Nec multo temporis interuallo dubii sedent. En solerti consilio ipsius iniecti ignes castrum corripiunt.1* Citissime diffunduntur, more suo, saeuius omni ferro quaeque obuia uastantes. Custodes atque propugnatores attoniti subita clade, portas murumque deserunt, discurrunt trepidi laribus et rebus incensis primo succurrere. Dein propriae saluti quo refugio ualent consulere festinant, uictores gladios uehementius quam incendium metuentes. Normanni alacerrime concurrunt, exultantes animos et gratulantem clamorem pariter tollentes, certatim irrumpunt, potenter munitione potiuntur. Opima praeda inuenitur, nobiles equi, arma militaria, omnisque generis supellex. Quae, sicut alibi capta plerumque grandia, militum potius quam sua esse uoluit continentissimus ac liberalissimus princeps. Castellani qui in arcem confugerant die postero dediderunt se, contra Guillelmi ingenium ac fortitudinem nulli firmamento confidentes. Restauratis ille quae flamma corruperat, praesidioque prouidenter disposito, insolitum triumphum quasi de natura superata domum reuexit cum immenso gaudio exercitus. Et confines 1 Fire could be an effective weapon in forcing the surrender o f a castle; in 1090 it was used successfully to reduce the castle o f Brionne (OV iv. 208-10), when burning arrows were shot into the shingle roof of the castle. WP’s statement ‘iniecti ignes castrum corripiunt9 is supported by WJ ‘Quod . . . aliquandiu cepit igneque iniecto flammis combussit9(G N D ii. 150), and suggests that burning brands may have been thrown or shot into the castle.

i. 40

TH E D EE DS OF W I L L I A M

67

river (for it is situated on a high rock jutting out above the river Mayenne) cannot be stormed by either force or cunning or any human device. On the other side, stone fortifications and an equally difficult approach protect it. However a siege is begun, our army is brought up as far as the difficulties o f the approach permit, while all marvel at the confidence o f the duke in the face o f such a formidable enterprise. Almost all think that such great forces o f mounted and foot soldiers will be worn out in vain; many complain; no hope rises in their breasts, except that perhaps, in a year or more, the defenders may be starved into capitulation. Indeed with swords, lances and missiles nothing can be done; there is no hope o f achieving anything. Similarly, there is no place for the ram, the ballista, or other instruments o f war; for the site is completely unsuitable for siege-engines. But the mettlesome leader, William, urges on the enterprise, gives orders, encourages, strengthens the faint-hearted, and promises a happy outcome. Their doubts do not remain for long. Behold, by their leader's clever plan, flames are thrown which set fire to the castle.1 They spread in a moment, as flames do, destroying everything in their path more fiercely than weapons. T he garrison and defenders, stunned by the sudden disaster, abandon the gates and ramparts and rush in a panic to save first o f all their houses and belongings from the flames. Then they look hurriedly to their own safety, and take refuge where they can, fearing the swords o f the victors more than the conflagration. T he Normans rush up eagerly, their spirits exalted; shouting with joy, they burst in eagerly and take possession o f the fortifications by force. They find very rich booty, thoroughbred horses, knightly arms, and every kind o f equipment. These things, like the splendid spoils captured elsewhere, were intended by the duke, in his moderation and liberality, for his knights rather than for himself. T he garrison, who had fled into the citadel, surrendered the next day, convinced that no defence could prevail against the skill and courage o f William. After repairing the damage caused by the fire, and prudently installing a garrison, William returned home with the remarkable glory o f having, as it were, overcome nature, to the great joy o f his

68

GESTA GVILLELM I

i. 41

Gaufredi non triste acceperunt hoc eum fuisse detrimento mulctatum, asseruerantes gloriam solius Guillelmi comitis ultio­ nem multorum esse de periuro ac praedone. 4 1. Per idem fere tempus Edwardus rex Anglorum suo iam statuto haeredi Guillelmo,1 quem loco germani aut prolis adama­ bat, grauiore quam fuerit cautum pignore cauit. Placuit obitus necessitatem praeuenire, cuius horam homo sancta uita ad caelestia tendens, proximam affore meditabatur. Fidem sacra­ mento confirmaturum Heraldum ei destinauit,2 cunctorum sub dominatione sua diuitiis,* honore, atque potentia eminentissimum: cuius antea frater et fratruelis obsides fuerant accepti3 de successione eadem. Et cum quidem prudentissime, ut ipsius opes et auctoritas totius Anglicae gentis dissensum coercerent, si rem nouare mallent perfida mobilitate, quanta sese agunt. Heraldus, dum ob id negotium uenire contenderet, itineris marini periculo euaso litus arripuit Pontiui, ubi in manus comitis Guidonis incidit.4 Capti in custodiam traduntur ipse et comitatus eius, quod infortunium uir adeo magnus naufragio mutaret. Docuit enim auaritiae calliditas Galliarum quasdam nationes execrandum consuetudinem, barbaram et longissime ab omni aequitate Christiana alienam. Illaqueant potentes aut locupletes, trusos in ergastula afficiunt contumeliis, tormentis. Sic uaria miseria prope ad necem usque contritos eiciunt saepissime uenditos magno. Directi ad se dux Guillelmus euentu cognito, propere missis legatis, precatu simul ac minis extortum obuius honorifice suscepit eum. Guidoni benemerito, qui nec pretio nec uiolentia compulsus, uirum quem torquere, necare, uendere potuisset pro libitu, ipse adducens apud Aucense castrum sibi praesentauit, a M F ; diuersis D 1 See above, i. 14. 2 Harold, earl of Wessex and Kent, son o f Earl Godwine. 3 Wulfnoth and Hakon; see above, i. 14 and n. 27. According to Eadmer (H N y pp. 5-6) they were taken by King Edward as hostages for the good faith o f Earl Godwine, and sent to Duke William in Normandy for safe-keeping. Eadmer’s account adds that Harold’s visit was undertaken to attempt to secure their release. The visit, which took place in the summer o f 1064, is also described in the Bayeux Tapestry (pi. 1-30), the Carmen (lines 295-6, P- 2°) 2nd G N D ii. 158-60, including the interpolations o f Orderic.

i. 41

TH E D EE D S OF W I L L I A M

69

army. And the neighbours learnt without regret that Geoffrey had been punished and overthrown; they asserted that the glory o f Count William was in itself the vengeance o f many on a perjurer and brigand. 4 1. About the same time Edward, king o f the English, protected the position o f William (whom he loved as a brother or son and had already appointed his heir)1 with a stronger pledge than before. He wished to prepare in advance for the inevitable hour o f death, which, as a man who strove for heaven through his holy life, he believed to be near at hand. To confirm the pledge with an oath, he sent Harold,2 the most distinguished o f his subjects in wealth, honour and power, whose brother and nephew3 had been received as hostages for William’s succession. And this was very prudently done, so that Harold’s wealth and authority could check the resistance o f the whole English people, if, with their accustomed fickleness and perfidy, they were tempted to revolt. Harold, after escaping the dangers o f the crossing as he sailed to undertake this mission, landed on the coast o f Ponthieu, where he fell into the hands o f Count G u y.4 He and his men were seized and taken into custody; a misfortune that a man as proud as he would gladly have exchanged for shipwreck. For certain Gallic peoples have been led through avarice to adopt a cunning practice, which is barbarous and utterly removed from Christian justice. They lay ambushes for the powerful and wealthy, thrust them into prison, and torture and humiliate them. When they have reduced them almost to the point o f death they turn them out, usually ransomed at a very high price. When Duke William heard o f the fate o f the man who had been sent to him, he immediately despatched envoys, got Harold out o f prison by a mixture o f prayers and threats, and went to meet him and receive him honourably. G uy behaved well and, without 4 Eadmer (H N , pp. 6-7) says that a storm drove Harold onto the coast o f Ponthieu, and that only the threats of Duke William secured his release from Count Guy. The Bayeux Tapestry (pi. 8 -17 ) shows him taken to G uy’s castle o f Beaurain (‘Belrem’); for the episode, see A. J. Taylor, ‘Belrem’, Battle, xiv (1991), 1-23.

70

GESTA GVILLELMI

>• 43

grates retulit condignas, terras tradidit amplas ac multum opimas,1 addidit insuper in pecuniis maxima dona. Heraldum uero sufficientissime cum honore in urbem sui principatus caput Rothomagum introduxit, ubi multiplex hospitalitatis officiositas uiae laborem perpessos iucundissime recrearet. Nimirum gratu­ labatur tanto super hospite, sibi omnium carissimi propinqui et amici legato, quem inter se et Anglos, quibus a rege secundus erat, mediatorem sperabat fidissimum. 42. Coadunato ad Bonamuillam2 consilio, illic Heraldus ei fidelitatem sancto ritu Christianorum iurauit. Et sicut ueracissimi multaque honestate praeclarissimi homines recitauere, qui tunc affuere testes, in serie summa sacramenti libens ipse haec distinxit:3 se in curia domini sui Edwardi regis quandiu superesset ducis Guillelmi uicarium fore; enisurum quanto consilio ualeret aut opibus ut Anglica monarchia post Edwardi decessum in eius manu confirmaretur; traditurum interim ipsius militum custodiae castrum4*Doueram, studio atque sumptu suo communitum; item per diuersa loca illius terrae alia castra, ubi uoluntas ducis ea firmari iuberet, abunde quoque alimonias daturum custodibus. D ux ei, iam satelliti suo accepto per manus, ante iusiurandum terras eius cunctumque potentatum dedit petenti. Non enim in longum sperabatur Edwardi aegrotantis uita. 43. Deinde, quia ferocem et noui nominis cupidum nouit, ipsum et qui uenerant cum ipso armis militaribus et equis delectissimis instructos secum in bellum Britannicum duxit; hospitem atque legatum quasi contubernalem habens ut eo quoque honore quodam sibi magis fidum et obnoxium faceret. 1 Wace (Rou, pt. iii, lines 5663-4 (ii. 97), mentions a manor on the Eaulne that was given. 2 Sources disagree on the place where Harold took an oath to the duke, but WP was close to the court and was probably right. The Bayeux Tapestry (pi. 28) named Bayeux; Orderic (OV ii. 124-6) named Rouen; Eadmer and WJ did not specify any place. 3 Eadmer (H N y p. 7) considered that Harold swore under constraint, and did not regard himself as bound by any oath ('Sensit Haraldus in his periculum undique; nec intellexit qua evaderet9). Although WP does not mention any proposal o f marriage between Duke William's daughter and Harold at this point, he later referred to one (below, p. 156 n. 6).

»• 43

TH E D EE DS OF W IL L IA M

71

being compelled by force, himself brought the man whom he could have tortured, killed, or sold at pleasure to the castle o f Eu, and handed him over to William. William thanked him appro­ priately, giving him lands that were both extensive and rich,1 and adding very great gifts o f money besides. He escorted Harold most honourably to Rouen, the chief city o f his principality, where every kind o f hospitality restored and cheered those who had suffered the trials o f the journey. He congratulated himself warmly on having so great a guest, the envoy o f the kinsman and friend who was especially dear to him, hoping to have in him a faithful mediator between himself and the English, to whom Harold was second only to the king. 42. In a council summoned to Bonneville,2 Harold swore fealty to him according to the holy rite o f Christians. And, as the most truthful and distinguished men who were there as witnesses have told, at the crucial point in the oath he clearly and o f his own free will pronounced these words3 that as long as he lived he would be the vicar o f Duke William in the court o f his lord K ing Edward; that he would strive to the utmost with his counsel and his wealth to ensure that the English monarchy should be pledged to him after Edward’s death; that in the mean time the castle4 o f Dover should be fortified by his care and at his expense for William’s knights; likewise that he would furnish with provisions and garrisons other castles to be fortified in various places chosen by the duke. T he duke, after he had received him as his vassal and before he took the oath, confirmed all his lands and powers to him at his request. For there was no hope that Edward, already sick, could live much longer. 43. Then, because he knew Harold to be high-mettled and anxious for new renown, he provided him and the men who had accompanied him with knightly arms and the finest horses, and took them with him to the Breton war. He treated his guest and envoy as his companion in arms so as to make him by that honour 4 There were ancient fortifications at Dover; work on the castle itself may have been begun immediately after the Conquest (see below, p. 144, n. 1).

72

GESTA GVILLELM I

i. 43

Britannia namque praefidenter aduersus Normanniam fuit omnis armata.1 Huius audaciae princeps erat Conanus Alani filius.2 Is in uirum ferocissimum adultus, a tutela diu tolerata liber, capto Eudone patruo suo, atque uinculis ergastularibus mancipato, prouinciae quam dono paterno accepit magna cum truculentia dominari coepit. Paternae dehinc rebellionis renouator, Normanniae hostis, non miles, esse uoluit. Dominus autem eius antiquo iure, sicuti Normannorum, Guillelmus, castellum quod sancti Iacobi appellatum est, interim opposuit in confinio,3 ne famelici praedones ecclesiis inermibus, aut ultimo terrae suae uulgo, excursionibus latrocinantibus nocerent. Emit namque rex Fran­ corum Karolus pacem atque amicitiam a Rollone primo duce Normannorum ac posteriorum parente, natam suam Gislam in matrimonium, et Britanniam in seruitium perpetuum ei tradens. Exorauerant id foedus Franci non ualentes amplius resistere gallico ense danicae securi.4 Annalium paginae attestantur.5 Exinde comites Britannici e iugo Normannicae dominationis ceruicem omnino soluere nunquam ualuerunt, etsi multotiens id conati tota ui obluctando. Alanus et Conanus, quanto Normanniae rectores consanguinitate propius6* attingebant tanto gloriantibus animis contra eos elatiores existebant. Conani in tantum iam temeritas creuit ut quo die terminos Normanniae aggrederetur, denuntiare non formidaret. Homini acrioris naturae, feruidae aetatis, ministrauit plurimum fiduciae regio longe lateque diffusa, milite magis quam credibile sit referta. 1 There is no corroboration o f this statement. 2 Conan II, son o f Alan III, had freed himself from the tutelage o f his uncle r.1057. See above, p. 46 n. 2, p. 52 n. 4. WP probably regarded his refusal o f homage to the duke o f Normandy as rebellion. 3 Duke William began the building o f the castle o f St James de Beuvron during this expedition, and entrusted it to Richard, vicomte o f Avranches. It served both as a defence against border raids by Breton lords and as part o f the system of fortifications protecting the frontier (Yver, ‘Chateux-forts’, pp. 58^9; V. Ménard, Histoire religieuse, civile et militaire de Saint-Jam es de Beuvron depuis sa fondation jusqu'à nos jours (Avranches,

1897)* PP- 2-24, 417-19). 4 WP appears to have taken this information from Dudo (ii. 29, ‘Dedit itaque rex filiam suam, Gislam nomine, uxorem illi duci . . . totamque Britanniam de qua posset vivere9). WJ (G N D i. 64) claimed only that King Charles gave ‘terram maritimam ab Epte flumine usque ad Britannicos limites cum sua filia nomine Gisla’ .

i.44

T H E D EE DS OF W I L L I A M

73

more faithful and beholden to him. For the whole o f Brittany was overconfidently up in arms against him.1 T he leader o f this audacious enterprise was Conan fitz Alan.2 He had grown up to be an aggressive man; free from a tutelage he had long endured, he captured Eudo, his paternal uncle, imprisoned him in chains, and began to lord it with great truculence over the province which his father had left to him. Then, renewing his father’s rebellion, he wished to be the enemy, not the vassal, o f Normandy. Meanwhile William, who was his lord by ancient right as well as being lord o f the Normans, established a castle called St Jam es at the frontier between them,3 so that hungry predators would not harm defenceless churches or the common people in the remotest parts o f his land by their pillaging raids. For Charles [the Simple], king o f the Franks, had bought peace and friendship from Rollo the first duke o f Normandy and ancestor o f the later dukes, by giving him his daughter Gisla in marriage and Brittany in perpetual dependence. T he Franks had asked for this treaty, as they no longer had the strength to resist the Danish axe with the Gallic sword.4 T he pages o f annals bear witness.5 Since then the Breton counts have never been able to free their neck from the yoke o f Norman domination, even though they often attempted to do so, struggling with all their might. Because they were close blood relations o f the dukes o f Normandy,6 Alan and Conan treated them in an arrogant and boastful way. Conan’s daring had grown to such a point that he was not afraid to announce a date on which he would attack the frontiers o f Normandy. T his man, aggressive by nature and at an impetuous age, was bountifully served by the fidelity o f a region which extended far and wide, and was crammed full o f more fighting men than anyone could have believed.

5 Possibly a reference to the annals o f Flodoard (Les annales de Flodoard, ed. Ph. Lauer (Paris, 1905), pp. i, 6). 6 Count Alan I l l ’s father, Geoffrey o f Rennes, count o f Brittany, married Hawise, daughter o f Duke Richard I o f Normandy; and Duke Richard II o f Normandy married as his first wife Judith o f Brittany, sister o f Count Geoffrey.

74

GESTA GVILLELM I

*• 45

44. Partibus equidem in illis miles unus quinquaginta generat, sortitus more barbaro denas aut amplius uxores, quod de Mauris ueteribus refertur, legis diuinae atque pudici ritus ignaris.1 Ad hoc populositas ipsa armis et equis maxime, aruorum culturae aut morum minime student. Vberrimo lacte, parcissimo pane, sese transigunt. Pinguia pabula gignunt precoribus loca uasta et ferme nescia segetum. Cum uacant a bello, rapinis, latrociniis, caedibus domesticis aluntur, siue exercentur.2 Praelia cum ardenti alacritate ineunt, dum praeliantur furibundi saeuiunt. Pellere soliti, difficile cedunt. Victoria et laude pugnando parta nimium laetantur atque extolluntur, interemptorum spolia diripere ut opus decorum uoluptuosumque amant. 45. Nihil pendens terribilitatem hanc dux Guillelmus, in quem diem aduentum Conani meminit denuntiatum, eo ipse intra fines eius occurrit. Ille quasi fulminis ictum, proxime imminentem extimens, in loca propugnatura citissimam fugam instituit, castri terrae suae Doli oppugnatione omissa.3 Id enim rebelli aduersum iustae causae fidum stabat. Sistere tentât Conanum castri praeses Ruallus,4 reuocat illudens, morari biduum precatur, sufficiens huic morae stipendium ab ipso sumpturum. Homo misere exterritus, pauorem potius audiens, cursu instituto longius profugit. Ductor terribilis qui depulit instaret fugitanti, ni manifestum periculum animaduerteret agere militem numerosum per regiones uastas, famelicas, ignotas. Si quid residuum erat inopi terrae ex his quae nata fuerant anno superiore, id in tutis locis incolae cum pecoribus abdiderant. Stabant in aristis fruges immaturae. Igitur ne sacrilega praeda diriperent, si qua reperirent ecclesiarum bona, menstrua penuria fatigatum exercitum reducebat, magno animo praesumens Conanum pro uenia delicti et gratia propediem deprecaturum. At 1 Cf. Sallust, Bellum Iugurthinum, Ixxx. 6, ‘Etiam antea Iugurthae filia Bocchi nupserat. Verum ea necessitudo apud Numidas Maurosque levis ducitur, quia singuli, pro opibus quisque, quam plurimas uxores, denas alii, alii plures habeat, sed reges eo amplius.’ 2 Cf. Caesar’s description o f the Germans (De bello gallico, vi. 22-3, ‘Agriculturae non student, maiorque pars eorum victus in lacte, caseo, came consistit’; ibid. vi. 23, ‘Latrocinia nullam habent infamiam’). 3 Cf. the scene in the Bayeux Tapestry (pi. 23, 24), ‘Et uenerunt ad Dol et Conan fuga uertit Radnes.’ For events in Brittany and the Breton campaign, see K . S. B. Keats-Rohan, ‘William I and the Breton contingent . . .’, Battle, xiii (1991), 157-72, esp. pp. 162-6. 4 Ruallon of Dol, who rebelled against Conan and became an ally o f Duke William.

>• 45

TH E D EE DS OF W I L L I A M

75

44. Indeed in those parts one warrior sired fifty, since each had, according to their barbarous custom, ten or more wives, as is related o f the ancient Moors who were ignorant o f divine law and chaste morals.1 Moreover, this multitude devotes itself chiefly to arms and horses, and very little to the cultivation o f fields or improvement o f customs. They live on plentiful milk and very little bread. Wide open spaces provide rich grazing for cattle and crops are almost unknown. When they are not making war, they live on or occupy themselves with plunder, brigandage, and domestic feuds.2 They rush joyfully and eagerly into battle; while fighting they hit out like madmen. Accustomed to repulse the enemy, they give ground with reluctance. They rejoice and glory in victory and praise won in battle; they love stripping the slain o f their spoils, for this is both an honour and a pleasure to them. 45. Undismayed by these terrifying practices, Duke William, on the day which he remembered Conan had fixed for his coming, went himself to the frontier to meet him. T h e latter, thinking that a thunderbolt was about to strike him, fled as fast as possible to fortified places, abandoning the siege o f Dol,3 a castle in his own land. This castle, hostile to the rebel, remained faithful to the just cause. Ruallon,4 the defender o f the castle, tried to restrain Conan: he called him back in jest, begging him to stay for two more days and claiming that he would win the cost o f the delay from him. T he wretched man, frightened to death and hearing only the sounds o f panic, carried on his way and fled further. The terrible leader who pursued him would have pressed the fugitive further, if he had not been aware o f the manifest danger o f taking a numerous force through uninhabited country, which was infertile and unknown. I f any remnants o f the previous year’s produce were left in the impoverished land, the inhabitants had hidden them in safe places with their flocks. T he crops were standing green in the fields. So, to avoid the sacrilegious looting o f church goods, if any were found, he led back his army, which was exhausted by the lack o f regular provisions. Moreover he assumed magnanimously that Conan would come very soon to

76

GESTA GVILLELM I

i. 4 6

excedenti iam Britanniae limitem repente indicatur Gaufredum Andegauensem1 cum ingentibus copiis Conano fuisse coniunctum, et ambos postero die praeliatum affuturos. Itaque aperitur con­ flictus eo cupidior, quod gloriosius intelligebat triumphum de hoste bino, utroque immani, uno consequi certamine. Ad hoc fore multiplicem eiusdem triumphi fructum. Ruallus autem, cuius in territorio tentoria figebantur, affatur querela. Haberi quidem gratum quod ab inimica ui per eum fuerit ereptus, si proficuum non deleat incommodo. Nam si praestola­ turus consideat, regionem modice foecundam nimis attenuatam funditus deuastari. Nec penes agricolas interesse, Normannico an Britannico exercitu consumpti0 anni laborem amiserint. Sibi modo ad famam ualuisse, non ad conseruationem rerum, Conani de­ pulsionem. Considerandum esse dux respondens, ne discessio properantior opinionem pariat minus honoram, detrimenti recompendium in auro plenissimum promittit. Statim Rualli segetes militibus interdicit ac pecora. Obtemperatum est praecepto ea continentia ut frumenti manipulus unicus ad recompensandum omne damnum superabundaret. Certamen nequicquam fuit expectatum, aduersario magis in ulteriora profugiente.2 46. Receptus in sua, percarum* hospitem Heraldum apud se post moratum aliquandiu, donis onustum omisit; digne utroque et cuius iussu et pro cuius honore ampliando uenerat. Qui etiam fratruelis eius,3 alter obses, cum ipso redux propter ipsum redditus est. Paucis igitur te affabimur Heralde. Qua mente post haec Guillelmo haereditatem auferre, bellum inferre, ausus es, cui te gentemque tuam sacrosancto iureiurando subiecisti tua et lingua et manu?4 Coercere debuisti, et perni­ ciosissime concitasti. Infeliciter secundi flatus, qui nigerrimis a M F ; consumptae D

* F ; per charum D ; perdiarum M

1 Geoffrey le Barbu, who became count o f Anjou in 1060. 2 The whole episode is characteristic o f Duke William’s preference for wearing down an enemy by a war o f attrition rather than fighting a pitched battle. Conan evidently employed the same tactics. See Gillingham, pp. 157-8. 3 Hakon, the grandson o f Godwine. * WP reverts to his central theme, the justification o f Duke William’s conquests; he stresses that Harold had sworn an oath on the relics, and had both sworn fealty and performed homage.

i. 4 6

TH E D EE DS OF W IL L IA M

77

seek mercy and pardon for his crime. But he had scarcely crossed the frontiers o f Brittany when he learnt that Geoffrey o f Anjou1 had joined Conan with huge forces, and that both would be ready to give battle on the next day. And so the fight appeared more desirable than ever to him, for he knew that it would be more glorious to triumph over two enemies, both o f them redoubtable, in one conflict. T h is would give a manifold gain as the fruit o f one victory. But Ruallon, on whose territory the tents had been pitched, broke into complaints. He would have been grateful (he said) to have been rescued by William from the enemy's power if the damage were not to cancel out the gain; for if he were to pitch camp and await his enemy the region (which was very infertile and greatly exhausted) would be totally devastated. It made no difference to the peasants whether they lost the labour o f the previous year to the Norman or Breton army. So far the expulsion o f Conan had brought fame, but not the preservation o f property. T he duke replied that they must bear in mind that a hasty retreat might be considered dishonourable, but he prom­ ised full recompense in gold for any damage done. At once he forbade his men-at-arms to touch the crops and herds belonging to Ruallon. T his command was obeyed with such restraint that a single sheaf o f com would have amply sufficed as compensation for all damage. T he battle was awaited in vain, as the enemy fled further away.2 46. On his return home William, after keeping his valued guest Harold with him for a while longer, sent him away loaded with gifts worthy o f both o f them and o f the man at whose command and to increase whose honour he had come. Furthermore his nephew,3 the second hostage, was, out o f respect for his person, released to return with Harold. Just a few words, O Harold, will we address to you! With what intent dared you after this take William's inheritance from him and make war on him, when you had with both voice and hand subjected yourself and your people to him by a sacrosanct oath?4 What you should have suppressed you perniciously stirred up. How unfortunate were the following

78

GESTA GVILLELMI

'•47

uelis1 tuis aspirauerunt redeuntibus. Impie clemens pontus qui uehentem te hominem teterrimum ad littus prouehi passus est. Sinistre placida statio fuit quae recepit te naufragium miserri­ mum patriae afferentem. 47. Inter occupationes tamen rerum bellicarum siue domes­ ticarum, quas mundanas appellant, studia optimi principis in diuinis egregia extitere; quae per singula ac pro magnitudine sua recitare non sufficimus. Nouerat enim non solum principatus in mundo florentes breui occasu terminari, uerum etiam ipsius mundi figuram praeterire;2 unicum autem regnum immobiliter stare, huic praesidere imperatorem ineffabilem dominatu aeterno, rerum uniuersalitatem quam condidit, coaeterna sibi prouidentia gubernantem; terrenorum dulcedini nimium deditos tirannos momento conterere potentem; diademata atque palatia inaestim­ abili perpetim fulgentia decore satellitum suorum perseuerantiae disponentem in illa gloriosissima ciuitate ueri summique boni patria. Genitorem suum inclytum ducem Rodbertum post mem­ oranda merita, quibus domi claruit, fasces dignitatum seposuisse, peregrinum iter ac periculis plenum arripuisse, desiderio imper­ atoris illius in superna Sion conspiciendi.3 Ipsius crucem in fronte, dilectionem in mente, reuerentiam in actu, Richardos* ac superiores auos potentia sublimes, fama praeclaros, humiliter gestauisse.4 Pensauerat, ut prudentis animae homo, quam sit miserum atque indecorum spoliatos honore caduco in exilium caliginosum damnari, ubi flamma inextinguibili ardebunt, non consumentur; plangent in miseriis absque clementia, errata lamentabuntur absque uenia. Econtra felix atque pulchrum* esse post consulatus terrae stola immortalitatis redimitos angelorum ciues ordinari; ubi uoluptate omni delectabuntur, Deum sicuti est contemplabuntur, in eius laude perpetua iocundabuntur. “ D M ; Ricardos F

* M F ; pulcrum D

1 A reference to the legend o f Theseus. A black sail was to indicate the failure o f Theseus to slay the Minotaur. 2 Cf. i Cor. 7: 3 1, ‘praeterit enim figura huius mundi.9 * For Duke Robert's pilgrimage to Jerusalem and death at Nicaea, see WJ, G N D ii.

80-5.

i. 4 8

TH E DEE DS OF W IL L IA M

79

winds which filled your black sails on the way home!1 How impious the smooth sea which suffered you, most abominable o f men, to be carried on your journey to the shore! How perverse was the calm harbour which received you, who were bringing the disastrous shipwreck o f your native land! 47. In the midst o f the warlike activities and domestic occupa­ tions which are called worldly, this most excellent prince never­ theless devoted his greatest efforts to things divine; they are too many and too great for our humble pen to describe in detail. For he knew not only that the flourishing principalities o f this world are cut o ff in an instant, but also that ‘the fashion o f this world passeth away’ ;2 that there is only one kingdom which stands immutable, ruled with eternal lordship by an ineffable Emperor, who governs with coeternal providence the universe which He created. He, in His power, crushes in a moment those tyrants who surrender themselves too much to earthly delights; but to His servants who persevere He grants diadems and palaces shining eternally with inestimable beauty in that most glorious city; home o f the highest truth and beauty. William also knew that his father, the famous Duke Robert, after distinguishing himself at home with memorable achievements, laid down the symbols o f his office and took the perilous road o f a pilgrim, out o f a yearning to see his Master in the heavenly Sion.3 He knew that the Richards and their earlier ancestors, powerful and famous, had in all humility borne the Lord ’s cross on their brow, His love in their heart, fear o f Him in their deeds.4 As a prudent man he had weighed up how wretched and shameful it is for those who, stripped o f transitory honours, are condemned to outer darkness, where they are burned with inextinguishable flames, not consumed, where they will bewail their wretchedness without remission and lament their misdeeds without pardon. On the other hand he knew how happy and glorious are those who, after fulfilling their office on earth, are clothed with the robe o f immortality and made fellow-citizens o f the angels, to dwell in every delight, seeing God face to face and rejoicing in His perpetual praise. 4 Cf. Dudo, ii. 3; iii. 36, 58; G N D i. 132-4; ii. 38.

8o

GESTA GVILLELM I

i. 4 9

48. Vir itaque dignus pio parente ac piis maioribus, neque dum armatus actitabat oculum interiorem a timore sempiternae maiestatis deiiciebat. Armis namque proterendo bella externa, arcendo seditiones, rapinas, praedas, patriae consulebat Christum colenti; ut quo pace plus frueretur minus uiolaret sacra instituta. Nec uere dictum unquam erit suscepisse eum bellum quod iustitia uacaret. Ita christicolae reges gentium Romanarum et Graecarum tutantur sua, propulsant iniurias, iuste ad palmam contendunt. Quis autem dicat esse boni principis pati seditiosos aut raptores? Eius animaduersione et legibus e Normannia sunt exterminati latrones, homicidae, malefici.1 Sanctissime in Normannia obseruabatur sacramentum pacis quam treuiam uocant,2 quod effrenis regio­ num aliarum iniquitas frequenter temerat. Causam uiduae, inopis, pupilli, ipse humiliter audiebat, misericorditer agebat, rectissime definiebat. Eius aequitate reprimente iniquam cupiditatem uicini minus ualends, aut limitem agri mouere, aut rem ullam usurpare, nec potens audebat quisquam nec familiaris. Villae, castra, urbes, iura per eum habebant stabilia et bona. Ipsum laetis plausibus, dulcibus cantilenis uulgo efferebant. 49. Accipere solitus est auido auditu suauique gustu sacrae paginae sermones, iis ut animae epulum sumeret delectari desiderans, castigari atque edoceri. Sumebat et honorabat condecenti reuerentia hostiam salutarem, dominicum sanguinem; sincera fide tenens quod uera doctrina praeceperat; panem et uinum quae altari superponuntur, consecrata sacerdotis lingua et manu sancto canone, redemptoris ueram esse carnem et uerum esse sanguinem. Vtique non ignotum est quanto zelo fuerit insectatus atque exterminare sategerit e terra sua aliter sentientem prauitatem.3 Colebat deuotus a tenera aetate sacra solemnia, concelebrans ea saepissime cum frequentia religiosi conuentus, 1 A further reference to the rigorous enforcement o f law; see above, i. 6, 17. 2 The Truce of God was established in Normandy by Duke William and his bishops after the victory at Val-ês-Dunes; See M. de Bouard, ‘Sur les origines de la Trêve de Dieu en Normandie’, Annales de Normandie, ix (1959), 169-89; Foreville ‘Synod’, 25-6. 3 An allusion to the condemnation o f the eucharistie doctrine o f Berengar o f Tours, in which a number o f Norman prelates, including John o f Fécamp, Durand o f Troam, and Lanfranc took part. See Gibson, Lanfranc, pp. 62-97. WP echoes the words o f Lanfranc’s

i. 4 9

TH E D EE DS OF W I L L I A M

8l

48. And so this man, worthy o f his pious father and his pious ancestors, even while he was active in arms did not cease with his inward eye to gaze in awe on the eternal majesty. For whether conquering in external wars or suppressing sedition, rapine, and brigandage, he served his country, where Christ was worshipped, so that the more peace was enjoyed the less were sacred institutions violated. N or could it ever be said that he undertook a war where justice was lacking. In this way do Christian kings o f the Roman and Greek peoples protect their own, repel injuries, and fight justly for the palm o f victory. For who will say that it behoves a good prince to suffer rebellious brigands? By his strict discipline and by his laws robbers, murderers, and evil-doers have been driven out o f Normandy.1 T he oath o f peace which is called the Truce has been most scrupulously observed in Normandy,2 whereas in other regions it is frequently violated through unbridled wickedness. He listened to the cause o f widows, orphans, and the poor, acting with mercy and judging most justly. Since his fairmindedness restrained greed, no one, however powerful or close to him, dared to move the boundary o f a weaker neighbour’s field or take anything from him. Villages, fortified places, and towns had stable and good laws because o f him, and everywhere people greeted him with joyous applause and sweet songs. 49. He was accustomed to lend an eager ear to readings from Holy Writ and to savour their sweetness; he found in them a feast for the soul, for he wished to be delighted, corrected, and edified by them. He received and honoured with seemly reverence the Host o f salvation, the blood o f our Lord, holding in strong faith to that which true doctrine has ordained, that the bread and wine which are placed on the altar and consecrated by the word and hand o f the priest according to the holy canon, are the true flesh and blood o f the Redeemer. It is certainly not unknown with what zeal he pursued and endeavoured to drive out o f his land the wicked error o f those who thought otherwise.3 From a tender age he took part devoutly in religious services, often joining in the Liber de corpore et sanguine Domini, especially ‘Ergo vera est eius caro quam accipimus, et verus est eius sanguis quem potamus9 (Migne, PL> cl. 442).

82

GESTA GVILLELM I

«•

51

cleri siue coenobitarum. Senibus ille iuuenis grande exemplum inclaruit, sedulitate quotidiana frequentando sacra mysteria.1 Item eius liberi pietatem Christianam infantes didicere diligenti prouisione ipsius. 50. Fulgent plangendi quidam in culminibus potestatis terre­ nae, sese in interitum animae ab eis ipsi praecipitantes, quorum auara malignitas optimorum largae uoluntati obsistens; basilicas intra dominationem suam construi difficile aut nullatenus per­ mittit, constructas donari uetat, nec ueretur spoliare, sacrilegio cumulans diuitias peculiares. In pluribus uero ecclesiis dominum collaudat patria nostra sui principis Guillelmi benigno fauore extructis, prompta largitate adauctis.2 Qui uolenti conferre libens cuique liberam auctoritatem concedebat, sanctos nulla unquam iniuria laedens, dicatum eis quippiam abalienando. 5 1. Aemulabatur eius tempore beatam Ægyptum Normannia regularium coenobiorum collegiis quae praecipuum consulem habebant ipsum fideli patrocinio, instanti magisterio. Cunctis quidem amorem, honorem, curam exhibebat; impensius tamen illis quos maior existimatio studiosae religionis commendauit. O recolendam, o imitandam, o in omne aeuum propagandam diligentiam! Abbates atque pontifices persona principans et laica pro disciplina ecclesiastica subtiliter monebat, constanter exhor­ tabatur, seuere castigabat. Quotiens eius edicto et hortatu conuenere praesules, metropolitanus cum suffraganeis, de statu religionis, clericorum, monarchorum atque laicorum, acturi, sinodis his arbitrum se deesse nolebat,3 cum ut praesentia sua studiosis adderet studium, cautionem cautis; tum ne alieno testimonio discere indigeret qualiter fuissent acta, quae cuncta rationabiliter, ordinate et sancte acta fuisse desiderabat. 1 Since WP was one o f Duke William’s chaplains he may have written this from personal knowledge. 2 Orderic wrote o f the founding of monasteries in Normandy during William’s reign (OV ii. 10 -18 ); and referred, in the imaginary death-bed speech which he attributed to William, to the nine abbeys of monks and one of nuns founded in the time o f his ancestors, and the seventeen monasteries o f monks and six of nuns founded in his own time (OV. iv. 90-2). 3 Even before 1066 some ten synods had been held under Duke William in the province

i. 51

TH E D EE DS OF W I L L I A M

83

celebration o f them in the company o f a religious community o f clerks or monks. To old men this youth shone as a fine example for the daily assiduity with which he attended the sacred mysteries.1 Likewise his children learnt Christian piety from infancy, thanks to the careful provision he made for them. 50. Among the men to be particularly lamented are those who, at the peak o f earthly power, plunge to the destruction o f their soul, those whose malignant greed stands in the way o f the generous wishes o f the best men, and either forbids or makes difficult the building o f churches in their lands, forbids donations to those that have been built, and does not fear to despoil them, accumulating riches for themselves by sacrilege. But our native land praises the Lord in many churches built by the gracious favour o f its prince, William, and enriched by his ready liberality.2 He willingly gave unrestricted authority to anyone wishing to make donations; he never inflicted any injury on the saints by taking away anything whatever that had been bestowed on them. 5 1. In his time Normandy rivalled holy Egypt with its communities o f monks, for they had the count himself as their most faithful protector and constant guardian. He showed love, honour and care to them all, but in particular to those that were distinguished by greater devotion to their religious duties. How admirable such diligence, how worthy o f imitation and perpetua­ tion in the ages to come! As the source o f authority, though a layman, he used to give subtle advice to abbots and bishops on ecclesiastical discipline, encouraging firmly and punishing severely. Whenever at his command and by his encouragement the prelates, metropolitan and suffragans, assembled to deal with the state o f religion o f clerks, monks, and laymen, he endeavoured not to miss being an arbiter at these synods,3 so that by his presence he might add zeal to the zealous and circumspection to the provident, and finally, so that he did not need to learn from the testimony o f another how things had been done, when he wished all to be done in a reasonable, orderly, and holy way. o f Rouen; and the duke himself took an active part and frequently presided. For details o f these and later synods, see Fore ville, ‘Synod’, pp. 19-39.

84

GESTA GVILLELM I

«• 53

Delato forte suas ad aures immani alicuius crimine, quod episcopus aut archidiaconus iusto clementius0 uindicauerit, reum maiestatis aeternae teneri iussit incarceratum quousque causa Domini aequitate districta decerneretur, episcopum aut archidiaconum, ueluti aduersarios diuinae partis criminans, in iudicium deuocandos, feriendos graui sententia. 52. Clerici siue monachi, cuius a professione uitam non discrepare testimonio probabili comperit, caram* habebat collo­ cutionem, precatui totam uoluntatem inclinabat. E diuerso neque amici oculi respectu dignabatur infamem ob enormitatem uitae. Lanfrancum quendam,1 de quo uenit in litem plusne sit meritus reuerentiam atque gloriam secularium ac diuinarum literarum singulari peritia, an ordinis monachici singulari obseruantia, intima familiaritate colebat;2 ut patrem uenerans, uerens ut praeceptorem, diligens ut germanum aut prolem. Illi consulta animae suae, illi speculam quandam, unde ordinibus ecclesiasticis per omnem Normanniam prospiceretur, commisit. Potuit namque uiri talis uigilans cura, cum maximam auctoritatem sapientiae pariter ac sanctitatis praerogatiua comparauit, securitatem non paruam optimae sollicitudini promittere. Ipsum pia quadam uiolentia monasterii Cadomensis abbatem statuit, non minus reluctantem subiectionis amore quam altioris gradus timore. Multis deinde possessionibus, item argento, auro, diuersisque ornamentis monasterium idem locupletauit, suo largo sumptu a fundamento astructum ingenti et magnitudine et decore, digne beatissimo protomartyre Stephano, cuius reliquiis magnificandum honori' dedicandum erat.3 Maioris pendere nemo a M F ; dementius D

* F ; charam D

‘ M F ; honore D

1 Lanfranc came from his birth-place, Pavia, to Normandy, and took the monastic habit in the abbey o f Bec-Hellouin three years later. His wide learning and fame as a teacher attracted numerous pupils to the monastic school. In 1063 Duke William made him abbot o f the new ducal foundation o f Saint-Etienne-de-Caen. For his career, see Gibson, Lanfranc. 1 The collection o f monastic customs which Lanfranc, in later life, compiled for Christ Church, Canterbury, shows that, in the words o f David Knowles, he ‘never ceased to regard his monastic profession as the determining event in his life . . . he remained a monk both at heart and in the practice o f his daily religious duties’ (The Monastic Constitutions o f Lanfranc, ed. David Knowles (NM T, 1951), p. ix). 3 The abbey of Saint-Etienne-de-Caen was dedicated on 13 Sept. 1077 (Musset,

'

52

TH E D EE DS OF W IL L IA M

«5

I f by chance it came to his ears that a bishop or archdeacon had punished some abominable crime more leniently than was just, he ordered the person guilty before the divine majesty to be kept in prison until the Lord’s cause had been determined with strict equity. As for the bishop or archdeacon, he accused them o f being enemies to the cause o f God and summoned them to justice so as to sentence them severely. 52. He greatly valued having converse with clerks and monks whose lives he had learnt on good testimony to be in conformity with their profession, and he inclined his whole will to their prayers. On the other hand he considered that anyone notorious for the irregularity o f his life did not deserve to be looked on with favour. He admitted to his closest circles a certain Lanfranc,1 o f whom it was disputed whether he deserved respect and glory more for his remarkable knowledge o f secular and divine learning or for his outstanding observance o f the monastic rule.2 William venerated him as a father, respected him as a teacher, and loved him like a brother or son. To him he committed the guidance o f his soul, to him he entrusted the care o f presiding, as though from a watch-tower, over all the ecclesiastical orders throughout Normandy. For the vigilant care o f such a man, which combined the special authority o f both knowledge and holiness, was able to guarantee no small security to the best o f intentions. It was, so to say, by pious force that he made this man abbot o f Caen, reluctant though Lanfranc was, not less from love o f humility than from fear o f higher rank. Then he enriched with properties, with silver, gold, and all kinds o f ornaments, that monastery, which he had built from its foundation at great expense on a huge scale and with a splendour worthy o f the blessed protomartyr Stephen, with whose relics it was glorified and in whose honour it was to be dedicated.3 No one could have Abbayes caennaises, pp. 14 -15 , correcting Foreville, p. 128 n. 2, who gave the date as 1073). This reference is important as an indication of the date when WP was writing, as it implies that the dedication had taken place. Foreville considered that if WP had anticipated an event as yet only planned he would have written 'dedicandum erit’ or ‘fuerit’ . However as Duchesne may have misread ‘erit’ as ‘erat’ this is not conclusive. The dedication may have been planned for the future when WP wrote (below, i. 58) in the present tense of the virtues o f Hugh, bishop o f Lisieux (died 17 July 1977). Alternatively, he may have changed the text in a late revision.

86

GESTA GVILLELM I

»• 53

poterit officia precum quae in caelestia mittuntur. Crebro famu­ lorum Christi orationes flagitabat et emebat, maximo maiore cum bellum aut alia res ardua imminebat.1 Cum haec retracto, dulcis recordatio obuenit Theodosii Augusti, quem in pugnam contra tirannos processurum anima­ bant prius oracula atque responsa Iohannis monachi in ultima Thebaide commorantis.2 Acceptabat ex omnibus monachis ille Iohannem obediendo adeptum prophetiae gratiam, iste Lanfrancum sermone et actu spiritum Dei redolentem. 53. Boni plerique, transuersi affectu carnali, sanguinis propin­ quitate coniunctorum criminibus parcunt, in excelso dignitatum indigne praesidentes non descendere uolunt. Eos clementissime, tanquam caecati amore, iudicant,* alios perspicaciter atque dis­ tricte. Caeterum Guillelmus, cuius integerrimam bonitatem inscribimus, animo intentius uolutare libet ac mirari, cum patris dilectionem* diuinae nequaquam esse praeferendam nouerit, negotium Dei prudenter simul et iuste contra patruum suum peregit Malgerium archipraesulem.3 Is, Richardi secundi filius, sacra dignitate abutebatur ueluti natalium iure sua. Pallio tamen nunquam est insignitus, quod principale ac mysticum archipraesulatus insigne manus Romani pontificis mittere solita ei denegauit ut minus idoneo. Scriptur­ arum arcana intelligentiae literalis oculo colligere non indoctus fuit; sed quo praecipiunt moderamine, neque subiectorum neque propriam uitam gubernare studuit. Quam pietas plurimorum ornando ditauit, ille spoliando attenuauit ecclesiam; non sponsus eius uel pater dicendus, sed grauissimus dominus uel rapacissi­ mus praedo. Mensas equidem nimium sufficientes, nimium a M F ; indicant D

* M F ; deiectionem D

1 One example o f this was his gift o f Tickford to the abbey o f Saint-Valery, as a reward for the prayers of the monks for the safe outcome o f his English expedition (see below, ii. 6). 2 WP may have derived the comparison of Duke William with the Emperor Theodosius and Lanfranc with the prophetic monk John from Augustine, De duitate Dei v. 26 (see Gibson, Lanfranc, p. 98). The region o f the Thebaid in Egypt was a centre o f early eremitic life; see OV iv. 314 and n. 3. 3 Mauger, the son of Duke Richard II and Papia, was a half-brother o f Duke William’s father Robert. He became archbishop o f Rouen in 1037.

•• 53

TH E DEE DS OF W IL L IA M

87

valued more greatly the service o f prayers that are raised to heaven. He frequently sought and purchased the prayers o f the servants o f Christ, particularly when war or other arduous business was imminent.1 In recounting these things, the sweet memory o f the Emperor Theodosius comes to mind, who, when he was about to go into battle against the tyrants, was first encouraged by the prophesies and answers o f the monk John, who lived in the remote parts o f the Thebaid.2 Just as Theodosius chose John, who by obedience had gained the gift o f prophecy, out o f all the monks, so William took Lanfranc, who was redolent o f the spirit o f the Holy Ghost in word and deed.

53. Many good people, misled by carnal affection, spare the crimes o f those who are their blood relatives, not wishing to degrade them from the high offices over which they preside unworthily. Blinded by love, they judge these men with extreme leniency; others they judge strictly, with keen perception. But William, whose unshakeable goodness we proclaim as a subject worthy o f consideration and wonder, knowing that filial affection was never to be preferred to divine love; wisely and justly made G od’s cause triumph against his paternal uncle, Archbishop Mauger.3 T his man, the son o f Richard II, abused his sacred office as if it were his by right o f birth. He was never invested with the pallium, which is the principal and mystical badge o f office o f an archbishop; the Roman pontiff, by whose hand it is usually sent, refused it because o f his unworthiness. He was not unschooled in interpreting the literal sense o f the mysteries o f the holy Scriptures; but he made no effort to govern either his own life or that o f his subordinates according to scriptural precepts. T he church, which had been enriched and ornamented by the piety o f many people, he made poorer by spoliation; he could not be called its spouse or father, but rather its most oppressive lord or greedy robber. He liked to offer a table which was more than sufficient and extremely luxurious, and to buy

88

GESTA GVILLELM I

»• 54

nitidas praebere, largiendo laudem emere amabat, specie liberalitatis prodigus. Saepenumero monitus atque castigatus priuatim atque publice domini sui, iuuenis et laici, sapiente diligentia, pergere malebat eadem prauitatis uia. Nec enim modum posuit largitioni donec sedes metropolitana omni fere ornamento caruit et thesauro. Sequuntur multotiens largitionem rapinae. Praeterea molestus infamiae eius odor diffundebatur ob alia crimina. Sed a ratione alienum ducimus in uitiis publicandis immorari, quorum nec decens uidetur commemoratio nec notitia utilis. Laesit insuper iniuria non leui ecclesiam uniuersalem, cuius unicum primatem summum in orbe terrarum antistitem, non qua decuit obedientia ueneratus est. Nam apostolici mandato saepius ad Romanum concilium accitus renuit ire. Sane pigebat Rotomagum, pigebat cunctam Normanniam archipraesulis, qui cum honestatis forma eminentes quosque antecedere deberet, infimarum personarum testimonio accusante confutabatur, uniuersorum despectu degra­ dandus censebatur. Princeps igitur animaduertens iam non monitis agi oportere in causa praecipue grauitatis, ne ultra patiendo superni iudicis iram irritaret in se, deposuit patruum in publico sanctae sinodi, apostolici uicario cunctisque Normanniae episcopis, iuxta cano­ num auctoritatem0 sententiam dantibus unanimi* consensu.1 54. Maurilium uero cathedrae liberatae prouidit, ex Italia ubi supra caeteros abbates emicuit eximius reductum;2 dignissimum summo omnium archipraesulatu merito generis, personae, uirtutum, doctrinae. a F ; authoritatem D M

* unanim D F M

1 The misconduct attributed to Mauger by WP probably reflects the charges made against him in 1054 at the Council o f Lisieux, when he was deposed. (For the date, see Foreville, ‘ Synod’ , pp. 22-4.) The papal legate was Ermenfrid, bishop of Sion. For similar accusations, see OV iii. 86. WJ (G N D ii. 130), more cautiously, wrote, ‘desipere cepit et insipientia ductus arcipresulatum reddidit duci.’ The deposition may have been due to suspicions that he had supported the resistance o f Count William o f Arques (Gibson, Lanfranc, p. 107). WP may have been particularly conscious o f his failure to receive a pallium from the pope because o f the charges later made against Stigand, archbishop of Canterbury, when he was deposed in 1070. When Mauger had been made archbishop o f

i. 55

TH E D EE DS OF W I L L I A M

89

praises by his largesse, showing himself prodigal in the guise o f liberality. Often warned and castigated in private and in public by the wise solicitude o f his lord (layman and youth though he was), he preferred to continue on the same road o f depravity. Nor did he place any limit on his largesse until his metropolitan see was deprived o f almost all its ornaments and treasure. Often his largesse was followed by spoliation. In addition, an evil breath o f infamy was spread abroad because o f other crimes. But we consider it contrary to reason to publish vices, when dwelling on them seems indecent and knowledge o f them useless. Above all he offended with no light injury the universal Church, whose sole primate, the highest prelate in the whole world, did not receive the veneration due to him. For though repeatedly summoned by papal mandate to the Roman council, he refused to go. Truly Rouen and all Normandy were ashamed o f this archbishop who, though he ought to have appeared more virtuous than the most eminent, was reproved by the accusing testimony o f the lowest, and judged worthy o f degradation by the contempt o f all. And so the prince, considering that he could no longer continue with admonitions in a matter o f such gravity, lest he should provoke beyond bounds the anger o f the supreme Judge, deposed his uncle in the public forum o f a holy synod, with the apostolic vicar and all the bishops o f Normandy giving their unanimous consent to the sentences.1 54. He made provision for the vacant chair by bringing Mauritius back from Italy,2 where he had shone out brilliantly above the other abbots; he was the worthiest o f all men for the archbishopric by virtue o f his birth, his person, his good character, and his learning. Rouen in 1037 papal reform had scarcely begun, and the pope had been in no position to claim the right to confer the pallium. 2 For Mauritius, see M. de Bouard, ‘Notes et hypothèses sur Maurille moine de Fécamp et son élection au siège métropolitain de Rouen9, L'abbaye bénédictine de Fécamp, 2 vols. (Fécamp, 1959), i. 81-92. The date o f his appointment has been shown to have been 1054, not 1055 (Fauroux, no. 132).

90

GESTA GVILLELM I

'• 57

55. Huius parem quendam et in anachoretici rigoris commilitio sedulum contubernalem, Gerbertum, cunctae sanctitatis con­ scientia et fama iuxta beatum,1 aliquot post annos coenobio sancti Guandregisili* praefecit, ordinem dilapsum restituere intendens per abbatem spiritualem. Ambo hi in aetate florentissima diuinitatem et quam diuinitas largitur beatitudinem spec­ ulati, alio multoque perspicatiori mentis acumine quam Plato, nuda professione impedimenta rerum temporalium euasere, despicantes mundanae philosophiae uehementi applicatione a se amata gymnasia, patrii soli dulcem arrisum, opibus ac generositate claram parentelam, spem sublimium prouectuum. Sic animo uictore expediti nunc sub iugo coenobiorum, nunc in eremi lucta, aemulis Machabaeorum decertabant sudoribus,2 pro inter­ minabili et liberalitate et quiete, omnem extremitatem, nullam praelationem, in exilio mundi praetereuntis ambientes. 56. Sublimauit idem princeps quamplures ecclesias, prouide trutinata ordinatione praesulum atque abbatum, sed praecipue Lexouiensem, Baiocensem, Abrincensem. Statuit enim summe idoneos pontifices, Hugonem Lexouii, proprium fratrem Odonem Baiocarum, Iohannem Abrincarum.3 Quorum in electione penes iudicium eius probitas ipsorum ualuit, non altitudo natalium proximorum ipsi. Iohannes Radulphi comitis filius, iampridem laicus ordine erudi­ tus literis, clero, immo rectoribus cleri, admirandus innotuerat uita religiosa. Non illius desideria specie sacerdotalis gradus honorem, sed illum uota praesulum ambierunt collegam sibi consecrandum. 57. Odonem4 ab annis puerilibus optimorum numero consona praeconia optimorum inseruerunt. Fertur hic in longinquas * D M ; Wandregisili F 1 For Gerbert, the holy and learned abbot of Saint-Wandrille (1062-89), see OV ii. 296 and n. 3; iv. 306. He was honoured with a cult in the liturgy o f Saint-Wandrille. 2 Cf. 2 Macc. 10: 25-8; 11 : 6 - 11 . 3 The three prelates named were all kinsmen o f the duke; it is notewonhy that WP says nothing about Geoffrey o f Montbray, who restored the church o f Coutances but was not so highly-born. John, the son of Raoul count of Ivry, was bishop o f Avranches (1060-7) and then became archbishop o f Rouen. He was the author of a liturgical treatise, De officiis ecclesiasticis (OV ii. 200).

»• 57

T H E D EE DS OF W IL L IA M

91

55. A few years later, in the hope o f restoring the neglected monastic rule through a spiritual abbot, he placed at the head o f the abbey o f Saint-Wandrille a certain Gerbert, who was compar­ able to Maurilius and a zealous companion in the ranks o f heremitical asceticism; he was already reputed through knowledge o f his holiness to be almost blessed.1 Both these men, having in their prime speculated, with a different and much more perspi­ cacious keenness o f mind than Plato, on the Divinity and on the blessedness which the Divinity bestows, escaped by their religious profession alone from the trammels o f worldly things, despising mundane philosophical systems (which they had once loved vehemently in the schools), the sweet smile o f their native land, a lineage distinguished by wealth and high birth, and the hope o f high advancement. Thus, with their soul victorious, they fought with energy rivalling the Maccabees,2 now under the yoke o f monks, now in the wrestling-ring o f a hermit’s life, to win everlasting freedom o f spirit and peace, seeking no preferment, but the humblest place in the exile o f this transitory world. 56. T he same prince restored many churches by his wisely judged appointment o f prelates, particularly the bishops o f Lisieux, Bayeux and Avranches. He nominated very suitable bishops: Hugh to Lisieux, his own brother Odo to Bayeux, and John to Avranches.3 And in their election it was the probity o f each which impressed his judgement, not the high birth which made them his kinsmen. John, the son o f Count Raoul, was distinguished by his learning even while he was a layman; but it was his religious life that marked him out as admirable among the clergy and above all the rulers o f the clergy. T he honour o f the priestly order came to him, not by his own desire, but because the bishops wished to have him consecrated as their colleague. 57. As for Odo,4 from his earliest years the unanimous commendation o f the best men rated him among the best. His 4 Odo of Conteville, bishop o f Bayeux, the son o f Herlewin o f Conteville and Herleva, was a half-brother of Duke William. WP wrote a much fuller eulogy o f him later (see below, ii. 37).

92

GESTA GVILLELM I

i. 58

regiones celeberrima fama, sed ipsius liberalissimi atque humil­ limi multa et industria et bonitas amplius meretur. 58. Hugonem, quem propiore familiaritate conspectauimus,1 dictatu longiusculo aliis indicare neutiquam grauamur, quoniam eius cognitionem aliis non dubitamus profuturam. Is Richardi primi nepos e filio Guillelmo Aucensi comite, non minus bono quam generoso, iuuenis a principe pontificatus in apicem prouectus, spirituali mox canitie senibus maturior enitebat. Nequaquam ille ob antiquum stemma notabatur fastuosus, nec ob altiorem gradum siue florentem aetatem, animo aut elatus auttf per lubricas uoluptates uagus. Librabat equidem strenua sollicitudine graue munus, caute gestandum onus. Propriae conuersationis directioni attente uigilabat, iugi cura speculabatur pascendo gregi, sic manifestans quam acute prospiceret interno lumine, quod sacrum ministerium acceperit regimen ecclesiasticum, non dom­ inatum uel honorem. Terris, thesauro, pretiosorum ornamen­ torum decore sanctam sponsam ditauit. Conuenustauit eam aedium quoque eius tanto cultu,2 ut ambigeret inspector melius ne noua consurgerent aut uetusta repararentur. Verum in semetipso dicauit ei dotem auro et electro cariorem omnique lapide siue gemma splendidiorem. Venerantur ac diligunt reuerentissimum praesulem monasteria, sinodi, curiae; ut prudentem ita eloquentem, ut iustum ita discretum. Qui nec pecuniae unquam faueat aut gratiae siue in iudicio siue in consilio sententiam dicens. Ipse profecto cum deponeretur archipraesul Malgerius uox iustitiae sonora fuit, constanter permanens in parte Dei propter Deum damnans filium patrui. Exhibet se blandum ac seuerum decentissima in alterutrum permutatione; nullius hominis, omnis uitii, clemens persecutor, pius inimicus. Subiectis fidelissime consulit, comparandus “ M F ; at D 1 Hugh, bishop of Lisieux (1049-77), a half-brother o f Duke Richard II, was the son o f William, count of Eu. He was praised by Orderic (OV iii. 14-18). WP, as archdeacon o f Lisieux, knew him well. 2 He completed and consecrated the church o f Lisieux, and shared in the foundation of the abbey o f Saint-Pierre-sur-Dives and the nunnery o f Notre-Dame-du-Pré at Lisieux (Orderic, iii. 16; Foreville, p. 138 n. 1; Fauroux, no. 140).

i. 58

TH E DEE DS OF W IL L IA M

93

renown has been carried into the most distant regions; but the zeal and goodness o f this most generous and humble man deserve much more. 58. We have no hesitation in describing H ugh,1 whom we have known more intimately, at greater length, for we are certain that it will be profitable to others to know about him. T he grandson o f Richard I by his son William count o f Eu (who was as good as he was noble), he was promoted by the prince to the rank o f bishop in his youth; but soon he showed himself more spiritually mature than the greybeards. He was never heard to boast o f his ancient lineage; he was never proud because o f his office, or led astray by sensual desires because o f his youth. For he bore this serious responsibility— this burden needing to be carried carefully— with tireless zeal. He kept strict control over his own manner o f life, and devoted himself to feeding his flock with equal care, so showing how keenly he perceived in the light o f the spirit that he had received the rule o f churches as a sacred service, not a lordship or honour. He enriched his holy bride with lands, treasure, and beautiful ornaments. He adorned her with so splendid a clothing o f churches, including his own,2 that anyone seeing them would hesitate to say whether it was better for new churches to be built or old ones restored. But in truth he gave her in his own person a dowry more precious than gold or amber, and more splendid than any stone or gem. Monasteries, synods, and courts venerate and love this most reverend bishop; a man as prudent as he is eloquent, as just as he is wise, who in giving judgement or counsel never protects anyone for money or favour. Indeed it was he who, when Archbishop Mauger was deposed, was the resounding voice o f justice, standing steadily on the side o f God and condemning his uncle’s son on G od’s behalf. He knows how to show himself clement or severe, changing from one aspect to the other as is most fitting. He is the merciful prosecutor, the holy enemy, not o f any man, but o f every vice. He watches most faithfully over those subject to him, comparable in his discretion to those loving fathers who consider the interests rather than the desires o f their young sons.

94

GESTA GVILLELM I

i. 5 0

prudenter diligentibus patribus, qui iuuenum filiorum non tam uota cogitant quam commoda. Fauet congratulans et auxiliatur caelici regis quolibet in ordine militibus, in ueneratione militum et amore regem ipsum colens. Sic semper humanus uiuit, sic abste­ mius ut indesinenter afferat homini cuique, saepius tamen non redituro, prandia sua, Deo ieiunia sua. Hilarem se et communione gratum minime uilescentem, mensae abundanti et lautae non denegat; gustat imperio naturae, non epulatur. Pascunt eum delitiae quibus animae esurientes aeterna pasci desiderant, quas paraclitus caelestis dulcore infundit suauissimo; excubiae orationibus uacantes, diuinorum officiorum studiosa concelebratio, sacrae bibliothecae cultus perfamiliaris, denique sancti cuiusque operis indefessus amor. His, inquam, praecipue delectatur, his auide pascitur optimus dominici ouilis pastor Hugo. In aduersis euentibus constantia, in secundis modestia parilem laudem consequitur, nullius cupidus. Linguas amantes alienam famam laedere adeo sensit abominandas, ut aurem suam prauitatis earum nunquam testem adhibere uelit. Altitudinem suam admirandae humilitatis priuilegio sublimat, continentiam et uirtutes reliquas, item quascunque pias operationes, ea tutis­ sima ac saluberrima custode muniens. Mysticum namque illud rationale pectoris Aaron ornamentum spiritualiter eius adornat interiora: patrum sanctitatem quorum ei nomina inscribi praeci­ piuntur iugiter commonens.1 N e uero supra modi limitem digrediamur dum per honestissimae uitae templa iucunda rapta­ mur consideratione, ad principis Guillelmi gesta reuerti placet. 59. Hispaniae reges duo germani2 audita eius magnitudine, natam eius in matrimonium cupientissime petierunt,3 suum et 1 Aaron’s pectoral is described in Exod. 28: 15 -16 , ‘Rationale quoque judicii facies opere polymito juxta texturam superhumeralis, ex auro, hyacintho, et purpura, coccoque bis tincto et bysso retorta’; and in Exod. 28: 30, ‘Pones autem in rationali judicii Doctrinam et Veritatem, quae erunt in pectore Aaron, quando ingredietur coram Domino; et gestabit iudicium filiorum Israel in pectore suo, in conspectu Domini semper.’ The names o f the tribes o f Israel were engraved on the ephod (Lev. 28: 9-12). For the mystical interpretation o f the pectoral, see Augustine, Quaestiones in Heptateuchum, ii. 116 , 118 , 129 (Corpus Christianorum series Latina, xxxiii. 123-6, 129-30). 2 This must be a reference to the sons of Ferdinand I. After the death o f Ferdinand in 1065 his lands were divided between Sancho (Castile), Alfonso (Leon), and Garcia (Galicia and Portugal). Sancho defeated first Garcia and then Alfonso; after the murder o f Sancho,

>• 59

TH E D EE D S OF W I L L I A M

95

He promotes, congratulates, and helps the soldiers o f the heavenly King, whatever their order, and in the respect and loyalty he shows them he worships that same King. Thus the life he lives as a man is always abstemious, and he ceaselessly offers his hospitality to any man, asking no return, and his fasts to God. To be cheerful and sociable does not strike him as degrading; he does not deny himself an ample and luxurious table; but he partakes to satisfy nature, and does not feast. His nourishment consists o f the delights to which souls hungering to taste eternal joys aspire, which the heavenly Paraclete infuses with most delightful sweetness. His night watches are spent in prayer, in assiduous observance o f the sacred offices, in close study o f the holy Bible, and finally in his unfailing love for every holy work. It is in these things, I say, that Hugh, the best shepherd o f the Lord’s sheep, particularly delights, and on these he hungrily feeds. Equally worthy o f praise for his constancy in adversity and for his modesty in success, he envies no one. He detests the tongues that love to destroy another’s reputation to such an extent that he never allows his ear to be witness to their depravity. He is most highly exalted by the prerogative o f admirable humility; his continence and other virtues, like his pious works, find in it their safest protector and surest stronghold. The mystic pectoral which adorned the breast o f Aaron spiritually adorns his soul, reminding him ceaselessly o f the sanctity o f the fathers whose names Aaron ordered to be inscribed on it.1 But lest we digress beyond reasonable limits, whilst we are rapt in contemplation o f the joyful temple o f an exemplary life, we must return to the deeds o f Prince William. 59. Two brothers, kings o f Spain,2 learning o f his greatness, pleaded ardently for the hand o f his daughter3 in marriage, so that Alfonso VI united the kingdom and ruled from 1072 to 1109. The two kings were probably Sancho and Alfonso. William’s daughters are discussed by Douglas, Conqueror, pp. 393-5 (see also OV ii. 104; iii. 114). William of Malmesbury (G R ii. 333) distinguished between the daughter betrothed to Harold and the daughter betrothed to a Spanish king, whom he calls Alfonso. 3 The daughter for whom a Spanish marriage was proposed was called Adeliza by Orderic in his Interpolations (G N D ii. 16 0 -1) and Agatha in his Ecclesiastical History (OV. iii. 1 14).

96

GESTA GVILLELM I

«• 59

regnum et posteritatem hac magnificaturi affinitate. Nam et lis ualde inimica inter ipsos propter eam orta est: minime degen­ erem, sed omnino dignam tali parente, sic moribus ornatam, sic in amore Christi studiosam, ut reginis ac sanctimonialibus exemplo esse posset puella non uelata. Admirabatur, laudabat ac uenerabatur eum supra nomina regum imperii Romani maiestas, cuius olim gloriosissimus mod­ erator Henricus, Conradi imperatoris Augusti filius, cum ipso etiam tum puero ueluti cum nominatissimo rege amicitiam iunxit ac societatem.1 Eius enim adhuc pueri nomen clarissimum per gentes ferebatur. Sed de magnitudine uiri disseram. Optabat hunc uicinum et amicum nobilis et ampla, multisque regibus dominans, Constantinopolis, quo propugnatore sperneret grauem potentiam Babylonis.2 Iam in Normanniam nemo confinium quicquam audebat. Vt seditionum, sic externi belli procella omnis defremuit. Franciae, Burgundiae, item ulterius remotarum prouinciarum praesules atque comites Normanniae domini curiam frequentabant; alii ut consilia, alii ut beneficia acciperent, plerique sola gratia gloriaturi. Portus et refugium apte nominabatur eius benignitas, admittens et releuans plurimos. Homines aduenae cernentes apud nos equites hac illae pergere inermes et quodque iter cuique uianti tutum patere, huiuscemodi beatitudinem quotiens exoptauere suis regio­ nibus; hanc pacem, hanc dignitatem Guillelmi uirtus patriae peperit. Iuste itaque patria pro ipso inualitudine dubia aliquando decumbente lacrimas profudit atque preces, quales defuncto uitam ualerent impetrare; orans tardissime moriturum, cuius in obitu praematuro turbinem quo prius uexabatur denuo timebat oriturum. Nec enim prolem tum relinqueret ad gubernandum aetate idoneam. Creditur, et dignissime quidem, piae deuotionis arbitrum supernum strenuo maiestatis suae clienti sospitatem 1 There is no known corroboration for WP’s assertion that Henry III (1039-56), the son o f Conrad II, had formed an alliance with the young duke. 2 Although no direct contacts between Duke William and Constantinople are known, WP may have been alluding to the service of numerous Normans in the Emperor’s army. The term ‘Babylon’ was used to describe the Turkish forces threatening Byzantium at the

»• 59

TH E D EE DS OF W I L L I A M

97

by this alliance they could add lustre to their kingdom and their descendants. A bitter quarrel arose between them on her account: for, far from being unworthy, she was in every way worthy o f such a parent, and shone with such virtues and such zeal in her love for Christ that, although an unveiled girl, she could stand as an example to queens and nuns. He was admired, praised, and revered above all kings by the sovereign power o f the Roman Empire, over which the illustrious Henry, son o f the emperor Conrad, presided; for Henry, when William was only a boy, entered into an alliance o f friendship with him,1 as though he had been an illustrious king. For from his boyhood his name was renowned among nations. But it is o f the greatness o f the man that I must speak. T h e noble and vast city, Constantinople, which rules over many kings, desired to have him as a neighbour and friend, so that, with him as champion, it could repulse the formidable power o f Babylon.2 Already none o f his neighbours in Normandy dared attempt anything. All tumult o f external war, as o f revolt, was quelled. T he bishops and counts o f Francia, Burgundy, and o f even more distant provinces, frequented the court o f the lord o f Normandy; some to receive advice, others in search o f benefices, most to bask in his favour. His friendship was aptly called a haven and a refuge, admitting and relieving many. Strangers, seeing that in our country horsemen go to and fro unarmed, and that the road is safe for every traveller, have often wished to have a similar blessing in their regions; this is the peace and distinction that the virtue o f William has bestowed on his country. And so it is just that this country, whenever illness threatens him, should shed such tears and pour forth such prayers as would restore the dead to life, praying that death may be long delayed for fear that the storms which had raged formerly would be stirred up again by his premature death; for he had not yet left a son o f suitable age to rule. It is believed, and justly, that the supreme Arbiter o f pious devotion, in the power o f His majesty, grants to His faithful time. For Normans in the imperial armies, see J. Shepard, T h e uses o f the Franks in eleventh-century Byzantium9, Battle, xvi (1993), 275-305.

98

GESTA GVILLELM I

'• 59

praestitisse et quietissimum otium omni hoste protrito; ut meritus ad altiora euehi, regno praerepto mox facilius potiretur, securus de statu principatus.

TH E D EE DS OF W IL L IA M

99

servant health and tranquil leisure with all his enemies over­ thrown; so that by his merits he may be exalted more highly, and, certain o f the security o f his duchy, may recover more easily the kingdom snatched from him.

PARS S E C U N D A i. Verus namque rumor insperato uenit, Anglicam terram rege Edwardo orbatam esse et eius corona Heraldum ornatum. Nec sustinuit uesanus Anglus quid electio publica statueret consulere; sed in die lugubri quo optimus ille humatus est, cum gens uniuersa plangeret, periurus regium solium cum plausu occupauit,1 quibusdam iniquis fauentibus. Ordinatus est non sancta consecratione Stigandi, iusto zelo apostolici et anathemate minis­ terio sacerdotum priuati.2 Dux Guillelmus habita cum suis consultatione3 armis iniuriam ulcisci, armis haereditatem reposcere decreuit,4 tametsi complures maiorum id ingeniose dissuaderent, ut rem nimis arduam, Normanniae uiribus longe maiorem.5 Habuit in consiliis ea tempestate Normannia praeter episcopos et abbates laici ordinis praestantissimos uiros, quorum in collegio splendidiora quaedam eius lumina atque ornamenta emicuere: Rodbertus Moritoliensis comes;6 Rodbertus Aucensis comes, Lexouiensis episcopi Hugonis (de cuius uita supra scripsimus) frater;7 Ebroicensis comes Ricardus Rodberti archiepiscopi filius; Rogerus de Bellomonte;8 Rogerus de Montegomerico;*9 Guillelmus filius a F ; Montegomerici D M 1 King Edward died at Westminster on 4 or 5 Jan. 1066; Harold was crowned in Westminster Abbey the next day. 5 Jan. is the date accepted by most authorities (see F. E. Harmer, Anglo-Saxon Writs (Manchester, 1952), p. 560, corrected by Barlow, in Vita Edwardiy p. 124 n. 329). For Harold’s oath, see above, i. 42. The A S C (E) 1066 says that he was chosen;* and he could have been accorded formal acclamation by the bishops and magnates assembled at Westminster for the consecration of the new church the week before. JW ii. 600 says (Haraldus . . . quern rex ante suum decessum regni successorem elegerat, a totius Anglie primatibus ad regale culmen electus . . .’ . 2 Archbishop Stigand was excommunicated by Leo IX after he received the pallium from the anti-pope Benedict X , and the sentence was renewed by Nicholas II and Alexander II. See Brooks, Canterbury, pp. 3 0 4 -11, for the weakness o f Stigand’s position; after January 1059, when Benedict X was deposed and his acts annulled. Stigand is not known to have consecrated any bishops before the Norman Conquest. The Worcester/ York tradition, which stated that Harold was crowned by Ealdred, archbishop o f York (Chronicon pontificum ecclesiae Eboracensisy in Historians o f the Church o f York y ed. J. Raine, 3 vols. (RS, 1879-94), ü- 348; JW ii. 600) is probably to be preferred to the Norman tradition, which shows a hardening o f the legend to Harold’s discredit after Stigand’s deposition in 1070 (Brooks, Canterbury, p. 389, n. 158; OV ii. 136-8 and n. 1).

PART

II

i. A true report came unexpectedly, that the English land had lost its king and that Harold was wearing its crown. And this mad Englishman could not endure to await the decision o f a public election, but on the tragic day when that best o f all men was buried, while all the people were mourning, he violated his oath and seized the royal throne with acclamation,1 with the conni­ vance o f a few wicked men. He received an impious consecration from Stigand, who had been deprived o f his priestly office by the just zeal and anathema o f the pope.2 Duke William, after taking counsel with his men,3 determined to avenge this injury with arms, and claim his inheritance4 by force o f arms, although many o f the greater men argued speciously that the enterprise was too arduous and far beyond the resources o f Normandy.5 At that time Normandy had in its counsels, besides the bishops and abbots, outstanding men o f the secular order, shining luminaries who were the pride o f that assembly: Robert count o f Mortain;6 Robert count o f Eu, the brother o f Hugh bishop o f Lisieux (of whose life we have written above);7 Richard count o f Evreux, son o f Archbishop Robert; Roger o f Beaumont;8 Roger o f Montgomery;9 William fitz 3 William’s consultation with his vassals is described by OV ii. 140-2, who added some details to the information he took from C C , in particular, the names o f the bishops and, among the laymen, the names o f Ralph o f Conches, William o f Warenne, Hugh of Grandmesnil, Roger o f Montbray and Baldwin and Richard, the sons o f Count Gilbert of Brionne. 4 WP continues to insist on William’s hereditary right through King Edward’s mother Emma (see above, i. 14, 41). 5 OV ii. 142-3 amplifies this, mentioning specifically the dangers of the crossing, the problem o f raising a fleet, and Harold’s resources in manpower. 6 Robert o f Mortain was Duke William’s half-brother. For his career, see B. Golding, ‘Robert of Mortain’, Battle, xiii (1991), 119-44 . He was given the county o f Mortain after the downfall o f William Warlenc (1053 x 1063). He provided 120 ships for the invasion fleet (van Houts, ‘Ship list’, p. 169 and App. 1). 7 For Robert, see above, i. 3 1; for Hugh, i. 58. 8 Roger o f Beaumont-le-Roger, son o f Humphrey o f Vieilles. 9 Roger II o f Montgomery, vicomte o f the Hiémois. For his family and early career, see Kathleen Thompson, ‘The Norman aristocracy before 1066: the example o f the Mont­ gomerys’, Historical Research, lx (1987), 251-63.

102

GESTA GVILLELM I

ii. i

Osbemi;1 Hugo uicecomes.2 Horum ingeniis atque industria conseruari posset incolumis: nec adeo senatoribus ducentis indigeret freta his Romana respublica,3 si quanta apud ueteres nunc polleret. In omni tamen deliberatione prudentiae principis a cunctis concessum fuisse comperimus, ac si mente diuina quid agendum foret aut uitandum praenosceret. 'Pie agentibus Deus dedit sapientiam’,4 ait quidam peritus diuinorum. Ille autem ab infantia pie operabatur. Quantum uero iubere libuit, tantum nisi necessitas obsisteret paruere cuncti. 2. Quam igitur prudenti ipsius dispositione naues fierent, armis, uiris, commeatu aliisque rebus quae bello sunt usui instruerentur, qualiter totius Normanniae studia fernerem, pro­ lixum est per singula enarrare.5 Neque minus prouide disposuit, qui Normanniam se absente gubernarent ac tutarentur.6 Conuenit etiam externus miles in auxilium copiosus,7 quos ex parte notissima ducis liberalitas, uerum omnes iustae causae fiducia contraxit. Rapina omni interdicta, stipendio ipsius millia militum quinquagenta alebantur, dum uentorum incommoditas ad portum Diuae detinebat mora menstrua.8 Ea illius temperantia fuit ac prudentia: militibus et hospitibus abunde sumptus ministrabatur; nemimi rapere quippiam concedebatur. Prouincialium tuto armenta uel greges pascebantur seu per campestria seu per tesqua. Segetes falcem cultoris intactae expectabant, quas nec attriuit superba equitum effusio, nec demessuit pabultor. Homo 1 The son o f Osbem ‘o f Crepon’, steward o f Normandy, and Emma, daughter o f Raoul, count o f Ivry. See D. C. Douglas, ‘The ancestors o f William Fitz Osbem’, EH R lix (1944), 62-79. 2 Hugh the vicomte was Hugh II o f Montfort, first named as a vicomte in a charter o f 1055 (Fauroux, no. 137; Bates, Normandy, p. 142 n. 93). He subscribed a number o f Duke William’s charters (Fauroux, nos. n o , 137, 145, 194, 229). His name does not occur in Orderic’s list. 1 The number o f senators in the Roman republic was greater; there were 300 at the beginning of the Republic and more later (Foreville, p. 149 n. 7). 4 Ecclus. 43: 37 (‘omnia autem Dominus fecit et pie agentibus dedit sapientiam’). 5 Details of shipbuilding are shown in the Bayeux Tapestry, pis. 37, 38, 39. For the provision o f ships, see below, p. 108 and n. 2. 6 See below, ii. 43. 7 See below, ii. 19. 8 In fact it is unlikely that the month’s delay was due to unfavourable winds (see above,

ii. 2

TH E D EE DS OF W I L L I A M

103

Osbern;1 Hugh the vicomte.2 It was thanks to their wisdom and their efforts that Normandy could be kept in safety; supported by these the Roman republic would not have needed two hundred senators/ if she had preserved her ancient power in our own time. However, we have ascertained that in every debate all gave way to the wisdom o f their prince, as if by divine inspiration he foreknew what was to be done and what avoided. ‘T o those who live righteously God gives wisdom’ ,4 said a man who was well versed in holy learning. He had worked dutifully from childhood. Indeed, whatever he was pleased to command, all obeyed him unless necessity prevented them.

2. It would take too long to narrate in detail how under his prudent direction ships were built and equipped with arms, men, provisions, and the other things necessary for war, and how all Normandy eagerly bent to the task.5 No less wisely did he determine who should govern and protect Normandy during his absence.6 Foreign knights flocked to help him in great numbers,7 attracted partly by the well-known liberality o f the duke, but all fully confident o f the justice o f his cause. After forbidding all plunder, he supported 50,000 men-at-arms at his own expense while unfavourable winds delayed him for a month at the mouth o f the Dives.8 Such was his moderation and wisdom that abundant provision was made for the soldiers and their hosts, and no one was permitted to seize anything. T he cattle and flocks o f the people o f the province grazed safely whether in the fields or on the waste. T he crops waited unharmed for the scythe o f the harvester, and were neither trampled by the proud stampede o f horsemen nor cut down by foragers. A man who was weak or unarmed could ride singing on his horse Introduction, pp. xxiv-xxvi). The logistics involved in provisioning William’s army have been discussed by B. S. Bachrach, ‘ Some observations on the military administration o f the Norman Conquest’, Battle, viii (1986), 1-25. He estimates the probable number o f men in William’s army as about 14,000 (the number given in the Chronique de Saint-M aixent 7 5 / //40, ed. J. Verdon (Paris, 1979), p. 136), o f whom 10,000 could have been eflective fighting men. Other historians have suggested a lower figure (e.g. R. Allen Brown, ‘The battle o f Hastings’, Battley iii (1981), 1 - 2 1 , at p. 10, suggests 7,000 for the force at Hastings).

104

GESTA GVILLELM I

11. 2

imbecillis aut inermis, equo cantans qua libuit uectabatur, turmas militum cernens non exhorrescens.1 3. Tempore eodem sedebat in cathedra sancti Petri Romae papa Alexander dignissimus, cui obediret quemque consuleret ecclesia uniuersa. Responsa etenim edebat iusta salutariaque. Is praesul Luciensis, cum altiorem gradum nullatenus appeteret, uiolento plurimorum consensu, quorum apud Romanos tunc praecellebat auctoritas,'8 ingenti concilio assentiente, in eo locatus est primatu, quo praesulum orbis terrae caput existeret atque magister.2 Allectionem hanc sanctitate meruerat atque doctrina. Per eadem post ad ortum solis et occasum effulgebat. Neque sui cursus limitem sol immutabilius natura, quam per ueritatis ille directum tendebat uita: quodquod ubiquaque per mundum potuit iniquum corrigens, nulli concedens.3 Huius apostolici fauorem petens dux, intimato negotio quod agitabat, uexillum accepit eius benignitate uelut suffragium sancti Petri, quo primo confidentius ac tutius inuaderet aduersarium.4 Et Romanorum imperatori Henrico, Henrici impera­ toris filio, nepoti imperatoris Chounradi, nouiter iunctus fuit in amicitia, cuius edicto in quemlibet hostem Germania ei, si postularet, ueniret adiutrix.5* Rex quoque Danorum Suenus fidem legationibus ei spopondit, sed inimicis eius amicum a F\ authoritas D M 1 The whole passage, ‘Prouincialium . . . exhorrescens9 is reproduced word for word below, ii. 45. 2 Anselm, bishop o f Lucca, was elected pope as Alexander II on 30 Sept. 1061. He had the support of Archdeacon Hildebrand and all the cardinal bishops, who met outside the walls of Rome for the election, and he was enthroned under the protection of Prince Richard o f Capua and the Normans. His election was contested unsuccessfully by the party o f the young king, Henry IV of Germany, who set up Cadalus, bishop o f Parma, as antipope (H. E. J. Cowdrey, The Age o f Abbot Desiderius (Oxford, 1983), p. 118 ; Chronica monasterii Casinensi, ed. H. Hoffmann, M G H S S y xxiv (1980), 385-6). 3 W P’s lavish praise may have been prompted by Alexander IPs support for Duke William. Papal policy towards the Normans, both in Normandy and in South Italy, had been hostile, or at least cautious, in the early 1050s; after the defeat o f Nicholas II at Civitate in 1059 relations improved in both areas, and Alexander II carried on the policies o f his predecessor. See François Neveux, ‘Quelques aspects de l’impérialisme normand au xic siècle en Italie et en Angleterre’, in Les Normands en Méditerranée, ed. P. Bouet and F. Neveux (Caen, 1994), pp. 5 1-6 2, at 52-3.

ii. 3

T H E D EE DS OF W I L L I A M

105

wherever he wished, without trembling at the sight o f squadrons o f knights.1

3. At that time the see o f St Peter at Rome was occupied by Pope Alexander, a most worthy man who was obeyed and consulted by the universal Church, for he gave just and salutary replies. When he was bishop o f Lucca and sought no higher dignity, he was placed in the primacy by the impetuous concur­ rence o f many o f those whose authority prevailed at that time among the Romans and with the consent o f a large assembly, so that he might be the head and master o f the bishops o f the whole world.2 He deserved this promotion because o f his holiness and learning. Through these he shone thereafter to the East and to the West. N or did the sun proceed more immutably on its course in nature than he proceeded in his life on the straight line o f truth; whatsoever and wheresoever in the world he could, he corrected wrong and gave way to no one.3 Seeking the approval o f this pope, whom he had informed o f the business in hand, the duke received a banner with his blessing, to signify the approval o f St Peter,4 by following which he might attack the enemy with greater confidence and safety. Also he had recently made a friendly pact with Henry, emperor o f the Romans, son o f the emperor Henry and grandson o f the emperor Conrad, by the terms o f which Germany would, if requested, come to his aid against any enemy.5 Swein, king o f the Danes, also pledged his faith to him through ambassadors; but he 4 The G G is the only contemporary written source to mention the papal banner. But there is corroboration by Orderic Vitalis; for although Orderic relied partly on G G he had some independent information, and named Gilbert, archdeacon of Lisieux, as the envoy sent to seek support from Alexander II, who brought back the banner (OV ii. 142-3). It cannot be identified with certainty among the flags depicted in the Bayeux Tapestry (Renn, ‘Burgeat’, pp. 189, 19 1-2). 5 There is no other evidence for this alliance, though William may well have taken steps to guard against any attack in the course o f an inevitably very perilous and protracted \ enterprise. K . J. Leyser, ‘England and the Empire in the early twelfth century’, in his M edieval Germany and its Neighbours 900-1250 (London, 1982), pp. 19 1- 2 13 , points out (p. 19 1 ) that the permission of the emperor given to men wishing to accompany the expedition could have assisted Flemish knights from flefs held o f the Empire in joining William’s army.

io6

GESTA GVILLELM I

exhibebat se fidelem, detrimenta spectabis.1

H- 3

sicut in sequentibus legendo ipsius

4. Heraldus interea promptus ad decernendum praelio siue terrestri, siue nauali, plerumque cum immani exercitu ad litus* marinum operiens,2 callide subornatos transmisit exploratores.3 Quorum deprehenso uni, causamque sui aduentus qua praecep­ tum est specie obtegere conato, dux animi sui magnitudinem prodidit his uerbis: ‘Non indiget’, inquit, ‘Heraldus auri uel argenti iactura tuam aliorumque fidem atque solertiam emere, qui subdole speculatum* nos ueniatis. Quid consulatur, quid apparetur apud nos certior eum quam uelit et opinione eius citior index, quippe mea praesentia, docebit? Hoc ex me refer illi mandatum, nec ullam aduersitatem ex nobis ei suscipiendam esse, quominus reliquam aetatem securus agat, nisi intra annuum spacium, ubi tutiorem locum suis pedibus sperat, me conspexerit.’ Stupentes uero grande promissum primores Normannorum, multi diffidentiam suam non reticent. Amplificant oratione, quam desperatio dictauit, opes Heraldi, suas diminuunt. Thesauris illum abundare, quibus partis suae duces et reges praepotentes conducantur; classem habere plurimam, homines in ministeriis nauticis peritissimos, qui saepius pericula et praelia maritima sint experti; terra illius, uti diuitiis, ita militis copia, hanc multipliciter superari. Quis enim iuxta praestitutum naues perfici aut perfectis remiges inueniri annuo spatio posse speraret? Quis noua hac expeditione pulcherrimum statum patriae in omnem redigi mis­ eriam non timeret? Quis Romani imperatoris opes ea uinci difficultate non affirmaret? 5. Erexit autem diffidentes dux hac elocutione: ‘Innotuit nobis’, ait’ ‘Heraldi sapientia: terrorem nobis ingerit, sed spem auget. Sua ' D; littus M F

* spectaculum D M F

1 Swein II Estrithson, king o f Denmark (1043-74), was the son o f G lu t’s sister Estrith and himself had pretensions to the English throne. WP’s account o f his attack on England in 1069 was contained in the later part of his work, now lost; for its substance, see OV ii. 224-9. 2 Cf. A S C (C) 1066, ‘King Harold assembled a naval force and a land force larger than any king had assembled before in this country, because he had been told as a fact that Giunt William from Normandy, King Edward’s kinsman, meant to come here and subdue this country.’

ii. 5

T H E D E E D S OF W I L L I A M

107

was to show himself the faithful friend o f the duke’s enemies, as you will see in reading in what follows o f the harm he did.1 4. Harold meanwhile, ready to give battle on land or sea, spread out a vast army over the greater part o f the sea-coast,2 and sent spies whom he had cunningly suborned across the sea.3 One o f these was captured, and when he tried to conceal the purpose o f his journey with the pretext he had been taught, the duke showed his magnanimity in these words: ‘Harold is not short o f gold and silver with which to buy the loyalty and skill o f you and others who come to spy on us. As to what our plans and preparations are, would not my presence instruct him more certainly than he might wish, and more swiftly than he imagines? Take this message to him from me: he will have nothing to fear from me and can live the rest o f his life secure if, within the space o f one year, he has not seen me in the place he thinks safest for his feet.’ Marvelling at this audacious promise, many o f the leaders o f the Normans did not conceal their doubts. Desperation prompted them to exaggerate Harold’s wealth in their discourse, and minimize their own. They said that Harold had abundant treasure with which to tempt dukes and powerful kings to join his side; he had numerous ships in his fleet and men skilled in nautical arts and hardened in many dangers and sea-battles; and both in wealth and numbers o f soldiers his kingdom was greatly superior to their own land. Who could hope that within the prescribed space o f one year a fleet could be built, or that oarsmen could be found to man it when it was built? Who would not fear that this new expedition would reduce the prosperous condition o f their native land to utter wretchedness? Who would not affirm that the resources o f a Roman emperor would be unequal to such a difficult enterprise? 5. But the duke encouraged the doubters with this speech. ‘We know’, he said, ‘Harold’s wisdom; it inspires us with fear, but increases our hope. He spends his wealth uselessly, scattering his 3 There is no doubt that the English no less than the Normans made use o f military intelligence. See above, p. xxiv.

io8

GESTA GVILLELM I

>»• 5

quidem inutiliter expendet, aurum dissipans, non consolidans honorem. Non eo animi uiget robore quo uel minimum quid meorum polliceri audeat. At arbitrio meo pariter quae mea sunt, quaeque dicuntur illius, promittentur atque dabuntur.1 Hostem haud dubie superabit qui non minus quae hostis possidet quam propria largiri ualet. Nauigio, quo sufficiente citius gaudebimus, non praepediemur.2 Sint illi experti, quae nos cum felicitate maiori0 experiamur: uirtute melius quam numero militum bella geruntur. Praeterea ne rapinam amittat ille pugnabit; nos quae dono accepi­ mus, beneficiis comparauimus, requirimus. Quae partis nostrae prima fiducia periculum omne depellens, laetissimum triumphum nobis, summum decus, praeclarissimum nomen dabit/ Etenim constabat uiro catholico ac sapienti, quod omnipotentia Dei, nihil uolens iniquum, iustam causam cadere non sineret, praesertim consideranti sese, qui non tantum ditionem suam et gloriam augere, quantum ritus Christianos partibus in illis corri­ gere intendit.3 6. Iam tota classis prouidentissime exornata ab ostio Diuae uicinisque portubus, ubi Nothum, quo transmitterent, diutius expectauere, Zephyri flatu in stationem Sancti Gualerici delata est.4 Ibi quoque precibus, donis, uotis, caelesti suffragio se commisit optime confidens princeps, quem neque mora siue contrarietas uenti, neque terribilia naufragia, neque pauida fuga multorum, qui fidem spoponderant, frangere praeualent. Quin et consilio aduersitatibus obuius, submersorum interitus quantum poterat occultauit, latentius tumulando;5 commeatum in dies a maiore D M F 1 William’s promises may have secured the offers o f ships and men. 2 For the ships contributed by Duke William’s followers, see van Houts, ‘Ship-list’, p. 179. There is evidence too for the development of the port o f Rouen under Duke William; see Gauthiez, ‘Hypothèses sur la fortification de Rouen’ (above, p. 12 n. 3), pp. 6 1-77. Ships may have been kept in the safe anchorage there as well as in the coastal harbours. WP’s statement here that the fleet was being built and assembled contradicts his previous statement (ii. 8) that the delay was due to the wind. 3 The theme o f the need to reform the English church, developed by Norman apologists at the time of the Conquest, was later taken up by William o f Malmesbury (G R ii. 304-5) and by Orderic Vitalis (OV ii. 236-49). 4 For a discussion o f the reason for the delay, see above, pp. xxv-xxvi. The A S C (C) 1066 entry gives a more convincing explanation: ‘When his [King Harold’s] fleet was assembled, he went into the Isle o f Wight and lay there all that summer and autumn; and a

ii. 6

T H E D EE DS OF W I L L I A M

109

gold without consolidating his lands. He had not the boldness o f spirit to dare to promise even the least o f what belongs to me. On the other hand both the things that are mine and those said to be his will be promised and given at my will.1 Without doubt the man to triumph over his enemy will be he who has the confidence to distribute his enemy’s possessions no less than his own. We will not be hindered by lack o f shipping, for very soon we shall enjoy enough.2 Let them experience what we will experience with greater good fortune: wars are waged more successfully with the courage than with the number o f fighters. Besides, he will fight for fear o f losing the things he has wrongly seized; we are claiming what we have received as a gift and earned by our favours. This fundamental confidence o f our side, dispelling all danger, will give us a splendid triumph, great glory, and a famous name.' For this wise and Christian man was firmly convinced that the omnipotence o f God, which wills no evil, would not allow a just cause to fail, particularly since his intention was not so much to increase his own power and glory as to reform Christian observ­ ance in those regions.3 6. Presently the whole fleet, equipped with such great foresight, was blown from the mouth o f the Dives and the neighbouring ports, where they had long waited for a south wind to carry them across, and was driven by the breath o f the west wind to moorings at Saint-Valery.4 There too the leader, whom neither the delay and the contrary wind nor the terrible shipwrecks nor the craven flight o f many who had pledged their faith to him could shake, committed himself with the utmost confidence by prayers, gifts and vows, to the protection o f heaven. Indeed, meeting adversity with good counsel, he concealed (as far as he could) the loss o f those who had been drowned, by burying them in secret;5 and by land force was kept everywhere along the sea, though in the end it was o f no use. When it was the Feast of the Nativity o f St Mary [8 Sept.] the provisions o f the people were gone, and nobody could keep them there any longer. Then the men were allowed to go home, and the king rode inland, and the ships were brought up to London, and many perished before they reached there.’ 5 Cf. the misfortunes o f the English fleet (ibid.). This is the only early source to mention the shipwreck o f some Norman ships on the way to Saint-Valery. Such loss was only to be expected with very large fleets moving along the Channel coasts. Cf. the damage suffered by Caesar’s fleet during his first invasion o f Britain (Caesar, De bello gallico iv. 28, 29).

no

GESTA GVILLELMI

ii. 6

augendo, inopiam leniuit. Ad hoc hortamine diuerso retraxit exterritos, animauit pauentes. Sacris supplicationibus adeo decertauit, ut corpus etiam acceptissimi Deo confessoris Gualerici, contra praepedientem et pro secundo uento, extra basilicam deferret, concurrente in eadem humilitatis arma concione profec­ turorum cum ipso.1 7. Spirante dein aura expectata, uoces cum manibus in caelum gratificantes, ac simul tumultus inuicem incitans tollitur; terra quam properantissime deseritur, dubium iter quam cupientissime initur. Eo namque celeritatis motu impelluntur, ut cum armi­ gerum hic, socium inclamet ille, plerique immemores clientum, aut sociorum, aut rerum necessariarum, id solum ne relinquantur cogitant ac festinant. Increpat tamen atque urget in puppes ardens uehementia ducis, si quos ullatenus moram nectere notat. Verum ne prius luce litus0 quo intendunt attingentes, iniqua et minus nota statione periclitentur, dat praeconis uoce edictum, ut cum in altum sint deductae, paululum noctis conquiescant non longe a sua2 rates cunctae in anchoris fluitantes, donec in eius mali summo lampade conspecta, extemplo buccinae clangorem cursus accipiant signum.3 Memorat antique Graecia Atridem Agamemnona fraternos thalamos ultum iuisse mille nauibus:4 protestamur nos Guillelmum diadema regium requisisse pluribus.5 Xerxem fabulatur illa Seston et Abidon ponto disiunctas urbes nauium ponte coniunxisse.6 Guillelmum nos reuera propagamus, uno clauo suae a D; littus M F 1 For the alleged delay at Saint-Valery, see above, pp. xxv-xxvi. WJ does not suggest that there was any undue delay (G N D ii. 164-7). King William's 1068 grant o f land in Essex to the abbey of Saint-Valery was made as a thank-offering for the safe outcome o f the whole enterprise (H. E. Salter, Facsimiles o f Early Charters in Oxford Muniment Rooms (Oxford, 1929), p. 29); and not specifically for the favourable wind. 2 WP may have had in mind both the experience of Caesar (De bello gallico iv. 23-6) and the fate of a small number of ships which became separated from the main fleet and landed at Romney; a misfortune he refrains from mentioning until describing Duke William's vengeance (below, ii. 27) after the battle o f Hastings. 3 The ship-list (above, p. 108 n. 2), names the ship Moray and states that it was given by Duchess Matilda; Orderic names the ship's master as Stephen, son of Ainard (OV vi. 2967). The description o f the Channel crossing is full o f Vergilian echoes, both in language and in picturesque detail (Foreville, pp. xli-xliii, 159 n. 3). In addition, some episodes are

ii. 7

TH E D EE DS OF W I L L I A M

III

daily increasing supplies he alleviated want. B y divers encourage­ ments he retained the terrified and put heart into the fearful. He strove with holy prayers to such a point that he had the body o f Valery, a confessor most acceptable to God, carried out o f the basilica to quell the contrary wind and bring a favourable one; all the assembled men-at-arms who were to set out with him shared in taking up the same arms o f humility.1 7. At length the expected wind blows; voices and hands are raised to heaven in thanks, and at the same time a tumult arises as each one encourages the other. T h e land is left behind with all speed, and they embark eagerly on the hazardous journey. Their haste is so great that, as one calls for his squire and another for his companion, most, heedless o f their dependants or friends or their necessary baggage, hurry forward fearful only o f being left behind. T h e duke meanwhile, eager and vehement, admonishes any laggards he can see and urges them to embark in the ships. But for fear that they might reach the shore to which they were bound before dawn and run into danger in a hostile and unknown landing place,2 he has an order proclaimed by a herald that when they reach the open sea they should all rest at anchor for a short watch o f the night not far from his ship, until they see a lamp lit at his masthead, and hear the sound o f a trumpet as a signal to sail on.3 Ancient Greece tells us that Agamemnon o f the house o f Atreus went to avenge the violation o f his brother’s bed with a thousand ships;4 but we protest that William claimed a royal crown with more.5 Greece also tells the story o f how Xerxes joined the towns o f Sestos and Abydos, separated by the sea, with a bridge o f boats.6 As for us, we proclaim in truth that William reminiscent o f Caesar, who also became separated from part o f his fleet and had to wait offshore for the remaining boats (De bello gallico iv. 22). 4 Cf. Ilias latina, lines 120-9, 17 1- 5 , where the numbers add up to 1,086; the number 1,000, however, is more probably taken from Vergil, Aeneid ii. 197-8, ‘quos neque Tydides nec Larissaeus Achilles, | non anni domuere decem, non mille carinae’ . s Wace gave the number 696 (Wace, Ron pt. iii, line 6425 (ii. 123)); if all kinds of transport are included 1,000 is not excessive. The number 3,000 given by WJ (G N D ii. 164) is certainly inflated. 6 The account o f the bridge o f boats built by Xerxes is fullest in Herodotus (vii. 33-6), whose work cannot have been known to WP. He probably took the reference from Lucan, Pharsalia ii. 672-5 and vi. 55-6, where both Sestos and Abydos are named.

112

GESTA GVILLELM I

ii. 7

potestatis Normannici soli et Anglici amplitudinem copulauisse. Guillelmum, qui a nullo unquam superatus patriam inclitis omauit trophaeis, clarissimis locupletauit triumphis, superiore hostis manu deuicto Xerxi et sine classe aequandum, ac fortitu­ dine anteponendum censemus.1 Solutis noctu post quietem nauibus, uehens ducem retro ceteras agillime reliquit ardentius ad uictoriam properantis, imperio suae uelocitatis parilitate quasi obtemperans. Iussus mane remex mali ab alto num quae ueniant consequae speculari, praeter pelagus et aera prospectui suo aliud nihil comperere* indicat. Confestim anchora iacta, ne metus atque moeror comitem turbam confundaret, abundans prandium nec baccho pigmentato carens, animosissimus dux, acsi in coenaculo domestico, memor­ abili cum hilaritate accepit; cunctos actutum affore promittens, Deo, cuius eos tutelae credidit, adducente. Non indignum duceret Mantuanus poetarum princeps laudibus Æneae Troiani, qui priscae Romae ut parens gloria fuit, securitatem atque intentio­ nem huius mensae inserere.2 Inquisitus denuo speculator, naues quatuor aduenire, tertio tantas exclamat, ut arborum ueliferarum uberrima densitas nemoris praestet similitudinem. Quo proinde spes ducis gaudio sit mutata, quam ex intimo corde diuinam glorificauerit pietatem, coniiciendum cuiuis relinquimus. 8. Peneuesellum prospero flatu prouectus, libere nauibus egre­ ditur, pugna nulla obstante.3 Equidem Heraldus in Eboracensem pagum recesserat, cum fratre suo Tostillo4 et Heraldo Noricorum a M F\ comparere D 1 An account o f the Persian campaign against Greece and the ignominious retreat of Xerxes after the Greek victories at Salamis and Mycale (480 and 479 bc) is given by Justin, Epitome, ii. 10 -13 . 2 WP may have had in mind the feasts described on various occasions by Vergil (e.g. Aeneid i. 695-747; v“ - 107-34; 175-83), though none of these actually took place at sea. 3 WP never gives an exact date for the embarkation; later (ii. 38) he indicates that it was 'Octobris circiter calendas, die quo memoriam archangeli Michaelis ecclesia concelebrat.* The A S C (D) 1066 says that William came from Normandy to Pevensey on Michaelmas ^Eve; (E) that he landed at Hastings on Michaelmas Day (29 Sept.). Freeman argued 1 ingeniously that both are right; William landed at Pevensey on 28 Sept, and moved to Hastings next day. The question o f the exact date and place o f landing is still open. Sussex archaeologists have questioned whether either Pevensey or Hastings is precisely right: E. H.

ii. 8

TH E D EE DS OF W IL L IA M

"3

linked together by his sway the wide extent o f the Norman and English lands. We consider that William, who had never been conquered by anyone and had enriched his native land with famous trophies and splendid triumphs, was equal in strength and surpassing in courage to Xerxes, who was defeated by a stronger foe and had no fleet.1 When the ships set sail at night after the halt, the vessel carrying the duke at a great pace left the others behind, as if it responded to his command as he hastened to victory, by trying to equal his ardour by its speed. In the morning an oarsman, ordered to look out from the top o f the mast for those following, reported that as far as he could see there was nothing but sea and sky. At once the anchor was dropped and, so that fear and grief might not trouble his companions, the mettlesome duke partook o f an abundant meal, accompanied by spiced wine, as if he were in his hall at home, asserting with remarkable cheerfulness that all the others would arrive before long, guided by God to whose safe­ keeping he had entrusted them. Vergil, the prince o f poets, would not have thought it unfitting to insert in his praise o f the Trojan Aeneas (who was the ancestor and glory o f ancient Rome) an account o f the confidence and purpose o f this banquet.2 On being asked again, the look-out saw four ships following; the third time he exclaimed that there were so many they resembled a dense forest whose trees bore sails. We leave it to everyone to imagine how the duke’s hope was turned to joy, and how much he glorified G od’s mercy from the depths o f his heart. 8. Carried by a favourable breeze to Pevensey, they disembarked easily from the ships, without having to offer battle.3 In fact Harold had gone away to Yorkshire to fight against his brother Tostig4 and Harold, king o f the R udkin,4Where did William land? (Sussex Magazine, Feb. 1928) argued for a landing at a number o f small places, in particulr Bulmer-Haven (near Bexhill) and Hastings-Haven (cited Foreville, p. 164, n. 3). It is possible that the landings o f the very large number of boats were spread out over several beaches and harbours from Pevensey to Hastings. 4 This is WP’s first mention o f Harold’s brother Tostig, who was earl of Northumbria from 1055 until a rebellion of the Northumbrians forced him into exile in 1065 (Vita Edmardi, pp. 76-80 and nn. 188, 190).

” 4

GESTA GVILLELM I

ii. 8

rege dimicaturus.1 Nec mirere quod germanus permotus iniuriis, inuasi honoris aemulus, arma externa adduxit in Heraldum, quem germana2 quoque illi moribus absimillima, cum armis non ualeret, uotis impugnabat et consilio, luxuria foedum, truculentum" homicidam, diuite rapina superbum, aduersarium aequi et boni. Voluit autem uirilis prudentiae femina intelligens honesta quaeli­ bet ac uita colens, Guillelmum Anglis dominari, quem Edwardi regis mariti sui adoptio, filii loco, sibi succedere statuit: sapientem, iustum, fortem.3 9. Bellum inter Guillelmum ducem et Heraldum regem Anglorum.4* Gaudentes arrepto littore, Normanni prima munitione Peneuessellum, altera Hastingas occupauere; quae sibi receptaculo, nauibus propugnaculo forent.s Marius, aut Magnus Pompeius, uterque eximius calliditate atque industria meritus triumphum, hic* adducto Romam in uinculis Iugurtha,6 ille coacto Mithridate ad uenenum,7 sic in hostium fines delatus formidaret agens militem uniuersum, se in periculum seorsim ab agmine cum legione segniter daret. Fuit illorum, et est ducum consuetudinis, dirigere non ire exploratores: magis ad uitam sibi, quam ut exercitui prouidentiam suam conseruarent.8 Guillelmus uero cum uiginti quinque, non amplius militum comitatu promptus ipse loca et incolas explorauit. Inde reuertens, ob asperitatem tramitis pedes a M F\ truculutum D

* M F ; haec D

1 Tostig had gone to Flanders in November 1065, and then sailed either by way o f Normandy or directly to the Isle of Wight in April or May 1066. Orderic, the Hyde Chronicle, and Quedam exceptiones mention a visit to King Harold o f Norway (G N D ii. 162, n. 3, appendix, p. 302; OV ii. 168 and n. 1). 2 His sister was Edith, the wife o f Edward the Confessor. There is an element of sheer ; invective in WP’s attack on Harold; but there is independent evidence, particularly in Domesday Book, of his great wealth, partly granted by King Edward and partly taken from various churches without their consent (see Robin Fleming, Kings and Lords in Conquest England (Cambridge, 1991), pp. 84-5, 88-9). The charge of lasciviousness may have been prompted by his long association with his concubine, Edith Swan-neck, or with other concubines. Very different estimates o f his character are given in the Vita Edwardi (pp. 468), and in the chronicle o f the church he founded at Waltham (Waltham Chronicle, pp. 22-9 and passim). 3 Queen Edith succeeded in making peace with William and may have endorsed his claim. See Pauline Stafford, Queen Emma and Queen Edith (Oxford, 1997), p. 275. 4 The heading in Duchesne’s edition probably marks the point where WP began the second part o f his history. This edition, however, follows the division preferred in Foreville’s edition.

ü. 9

TH E D EE DS OF W I L L I A M

115

Norwegians.1 It is not surprising that his brother, incensed by his injuries and eager to regain his confiscated lands, should have brought foreign arms against Harold, while his sister, so unlike him in morals but unable to take up arms against him, fought him with prayers and counsel; for he was a man soiled with lascivious­ ness, a cruel murderer, resplendent with plundered riches, and an enemy o f the good and the just.2 T his woman o f masculine wisdom, who knew what was good and revered it in her life, wished William, who was wise, just and strong, to rule over the English, since her husband, King Edward, had chosen him as his successor by adoption in place o f a son.3 9. The battle between Duke William and Harold king o f the English.4 T he Normans, rejoicing after they had landed, occupied Pevensey with their first fortification, and Hastings with their second, as a refuge for themselves and a defence for their ships.5 Marius and Pompey the Great, each eminent for his astuteness and achievements, deserved a triumph, the former having brought Jugurtha in chains to Rome,6 the latter having forced Mithridates to take poison;7 but though daring to lead a whole army into enemy territory, each was chary o f putting himself into danger away from the main army, with only a legion. It was their custom, as it still is the custom o f leaders, to send out scouts, but not to go themselves on reconnaissance, being more concerned with preser­ ving their own lives than with making provision for the army.8 But William was quick to investigate the region and its inhabitants with a company o f no more than twenty-five knights. When he returned on foot because o f the difficulty o f the path (not without 5 For Pevensey, see A. J. Taylor, ‘Evidence for a pre-Conquest origin for the chapels in Hastings and Pevensey castles*, Château-Gaillard, European Castle Studies, iii (London, 1969), 14 4 -51. The Norman fortifications were constructed within the walls o f the Roman fortress. The Bayeux Tapestry shows a motte under construction at Hastings (Bayeux Tapestry, pi. 51). A. J. Taylor has suggested that ‘the motte that survives in much mutilated condition on Hastings cliff today is indeed the motte seen under construction in the Tapestry’ (‘ Belrem’ , Battle, xiv (1992), 1-2 3 , at p. 19). 6 Cf. Sallust, Bellum Iugurthinum, cxiv. 3, ‘Sed postquam bellum in Numidia confectum et Iugurtham Romam vinctum adduci nunciatum est, Marius consul absens factus est et ei decreto provincia Gallia, isque kalendis Ianuariis magna gloria consul triumphavit.’ 7 For Pompey’s triumphs, cf. Lucan, Pharsaliay viii. 794-815. 8 See Vegetius, iii. 6 (pp. 75-7).

ii

6

GESTA GVILLELM I

ii. 9

(re non absque risu gesta, quanquam lector forte rideat) seriae laudi materiam dedit, gestans in humero sociatam suae loricam satellitis, dum nominatissimum ui corporis ut animi, Osbemi filium G u illelmum ferreo fasce leuauit.1 10. Diues quidam finium illorum inquilinus, natione Normannus, Rotbertus* filius Guimarae nobilis mulieris,2 Hastingas duci domino suo atque consanguineo nuntium destinauit his uerbis, ‘Praeliatus cum fratre proprio rex Heraldus et cum rege Nor­ icorum, quo fortiorem sub caelo nullum uiuere opinio fuit, pugna una ambos occidit, ingentes eorum exercitus deleuit. Animatus eo successu festinus redit in te, numerosissimum populum ducens ac robustissimum; aduersus quem non amplius tuos quam totidem despectabiles canes aestimo ualere.3 Prudens uir computaris, domi militiaeque cuncta hactenus prudenter egisti. Nunc tibi consule, prouide labora, ne per temeritatem in discrimen unde non euadas temet ipse praecipites. Suadeo: intra munitiones mane; manu ad praesens confligere noli.’ Dux contra nuntio, ‘Pro mandato’, inquit, ‘quo mihi dominus tuus uult esse cautum, quanquam sine contumelia suadere decuerit, gratias ipsi et haec refer. Non me tutarer ualli aut moenium latebris, sed confligerem quampri­ mum cum Heraldo; nec diffiderem fortitudine meorum cum suis eum contritum iri, uoluntate diuina non resistente, tametsi decem sola millia uirorum haberem, quales ad sexaginta millia adduxi.’4 1 1 . Quadam uero die,5 dum custodiam nauium uiseret dux, indicatum est forte spatianti prope naualia, monachum Heraldi a D M ; Rodbertus F 1 This appears to be one o f the legends that quickly gathered round Duke William. I f it is true, William probably carried the hauberk as they approached camp as a joke at fitz Osbern’s expense. A well-made hauberk feels lighter when worn than when carried, and to take it off far from camp when reconnoitring enemy country would be foolhardy. 2 Robert fitz Wimarch was o f Breton or Norman origin. He was established in Essex by 1052 and occurs in charters from 1059. Normally he is styled 'minister’; but he is called king’s kinsman in a charter for Waltham, 'procurator’ in one for Wells, and 'regalis palatii stabilator et eiusdem regis propinquus’ in the Vita Edwardi (see S. Keynes, 'Regenbald the chancellor (sic)\ Battle, x (1988), 185-222. 3 Whether or not Robert fitz Wimarch sent a warning couched in these insolent terms, King William made him sheriff o f Essex and increased his property (J. Green, 'The sheriffs of William the Conqueror’ , Battle y v (1983), 129-45, at P* ! 32)-

11. II

T H E D EE DS OF W IL L IA M

1 *7

laughter, though the reader may laugh) he deserved genuine praise, for he carried on his own shoulders both his own hauberk and that o f one o f his followers, William fitz Osbem, renowned for his bodily strength and courage, whom he had relieved o f this iron burden.1 10. Robert, son o f the noblewoman Guimara, who was a wealthy inhabitant o f those parts and a Norman by birth,2 sent a messenger to Hastings to the duke, his lord and kinsman, with these words: ‘King Harold has fought with his own brother and with the king o f the Norwegians, who passed for the strongest man living under the sun, and has killed both in one battle and destroyed huge armies. Encouraged by this success, he is advancing against you by forced marches, leading a strong and numerous troop; against him I consider that your men would be worth no more than so many wretched dogs. You are reckoned a prudent man; up to now you have always acted prudently in peace and war.3 Now I advise you, act circumspectly so as not to fall through rashness into a danger from which you will not escape. I urge you: stay behind fortifica­ tions; do not offer battle for the time being/ But the duke replied to the messenger, ‘ For the message in which your lord wishes me to be cautious (although it would have been decent to give advice without insult) give him my thanks and this reply: “ I will not take refuge in the shelter o f ditch or walls, but I will fight with Harold as soon as possible; nor do I lack confidence in the courage o f my men to fight and destroy him with his men, if God so wills, even if I had only 10,000 men o f the quality o f the 6o,ooo4 I have brought with me” / 1 1 . One day,5 when the duke was inspecting the guard o f the ships, he was told as he happened to be walking along near to 4 The number is rhetorical exaggeration, characteristic o f literary speeches. For the probable numbers, see above, p. 102 n. 8. 5 The account o f messages carried by a monk between Harold and William has some points in common with that in the Carmen (lines 209-46), and possibly originated in a similar oral tradition. WP, however, makes use o f the exchange to spell out in detail the case for William's claim to the throne, and is much more specific on points of law. WJ, much briefer at this point, does not mention any exchanges (G N D ii. 166-9). Orderic, using a different tradition, imagines exchanges between Harold, his brother Tostig, and his mother Gytha, both in his Interpolations (G N D ii. 166-9) and in his Ecclesiastical History (OV ii. 170-2).

i i

8

GESTA GVILLELM I

u. Il

legatum adesse. Ipse protinus illum conuenit ingeniosa hac elocutione: ‘Proximus’ , infit, ‘ego sum Guillelmi comitis Normannorum ac dapifer. Eum alloquendi nisi per me copiam habere non poteris; quod affers mihi narra. Libens ille cognoscet idem per me, quia neminem suorum cariorem habet me. Post opportune, uti uoles, mea opera, coram loquutum uenies.’ Legatione percepta, patefaciente monacho, sine cunctatione dux legatum hospitio recipi et officiosa humanitate curari praecepit. Ipse interim secum et cum suis quid mandatis responderet deliberabat. In crastino discumbens in medio primatum suorum cucullato aduocato dixit, ‘Ego sum Guillelmus, Dei gratia Normannorum princeps.1 Quae mihi hesterno die retulisti, in horum nunc praesentia refer.* Legatus ita elocutus est, ‘Haec tibi mandat rex Heraldus. Terram eius ingressus es, qua fiducia, qua temeritate, nescit. Meminit quidem quod rex Edwardus te Anglici regni haeredem fore pridem decreuerit, et quod ipse in Normannia de hac successione securitatem tibi firmauerit.2 Nouit autem iure suum esse regnum idem, eiusdem regis domini sui dono in extremis illius sibi concessum.3 Etenim ab eo tempore quo beatus Augustinus in hanc uenit regionem, communem gentis huius fuisse consuetudinem, donationem quam in ultimo fine suo quis fecerit, eam ratam haberi. Quapropter de terra iuste cum tuis te regredi postulat. Alioquin amicitiam et cuncta pacta per ipsum in Normannia tibi firmata soluet, penes te omnino relinquens ea.’ 12. Auditis Heraldi mandatis, dux monachum inquisiuit num legatum suum ad Heraldum cum salute perducere uellet. Ille salutis eius ut propriae curam se habiturum spopondit. D ux illico 1 The formula, ‘Dei gratia’, was frequently used by William in his ducal charters , (Fauroux, nos. 94, 102, 109, n o , 115 and passim). His title in charters varies between ‘dux’ and ‘comes’, more rarely ‘marchio’, and occasionally ‘princeps’ (e.g. Fauroux, no. 177, ‘ego Willelmus, Normannorum, Dei gratia, princeps’). 2 Part o f the case for William, repeatedly stressed by WP. 3 Cf. Eadmer, H N y p. 8, ‘obit Edwardus, et juxta quod ipse ante mortem statuerat in regnum ei successit Haroldus.’ The reference shows that WP was familiar with the English custom that gave overriding right to death-bed (‘verba novissima’) bequests, and was at pains to show that it had no force on this occasion. See J. S. Beckermann, ‘Succession in Normandy, 1087, and in England, 1066: the role of testamentary custom’, Speculum, xlvii

ii. 12

THE

DEEDS

OF W ILLIA M

119

the moorings that a monk had arrived as an envoy from Harold. He went to meet him at once, and made this skilful speech, ‘I am the steward o f William, count o f the Normans, and the person nearest to him. You cannot have access to speak to him except through me; tell me the message that you bring. He will hear it willingly from me, for he holds no one dearer. After I have done my work you may come at a convenient moment as you wish, to speak with him / After hearing the message, as the monk revealed it, the duke ordered the envoy to be lodged without delay and entertained with humanity and courtesy. Meanwhile he deliberated within himself and with his men, as to how he should reply to the message. In the morning, sitting in the midst o f his magnates, he said to the cowled advocate, ‘I am William, by the grace o f God prince o f the Normans.1 Repeat now in the presence o f these men what you told me yesterday.’ The envoy spoke as follows: ‘King Harold sends you this message. You have invaded his land, whether from confidence or rashness he does not know. He recalls, indeed, that King Edward formerly decreed that you should be heir to the English kingdom, and that he himself gave you surety in Normandy for this succession.2 He knows, however, that the kingdom is his by right, by gift o f the same king his lord, made to him on his deathbed.3 For ever since the time when St Augustine came to these parts, the common custom o f this people has been that the gift that anyone made at the point o f death shall be held as valid. Wherefore he rightly demands that you should leave this land with your men. Otherwise he will end the friendship and break all the pacts made by him to you in Normandy, leaving the responsibility entirely with you.’ 12. After hearing Harold’s message the duke asked the monk if he would be willing to escort his own envoy to Harold in safety. The monk promised to care for his safety as for his own. (1972), 258-60; H. E. J. Cowdrey, ‘Death-bed testaments9, Fälschungen im M ittelalter (M G H Schrifteny 6 vols., Hanover, 1988-90), iv. 703-24, at pp. 716-20; Ann Williams, ‘Some notes and considerations on problems connected with the English royal succession, 860-1066’, Battle, i (1979), 144-67, at pp. 165-7.

120

GESTA GVILLELMI

11. 12

uerbis his monachum Fiscannensem1 quendam instruxit, quae citius Hcraldo deferret, ‘Non temere neque iniuste, sed consulto et aequitatis ductu in hanc terram transuectus sum; cuius me haeredem, ut Heraldus ipse fatetur, statuit dominus meus et consanguineus rex Edwardus, ob maximos honores et plurima beneficia quae illi atque fratri suo, necnon hominibus eorum, ego et maiores mei impendimus; et quoniam omnium, qui genus suum attingerent, me credebat excellentissimum, qui optime ualerem uel ei, quamdiu uiueret, subuenire, uel posteaquam decederet regnum gubernare. Sane neque id absque suorum optimatum consensu, uerum consilio Stigandi archiepiscopi, Godwini comitis, Leurici comitis, Sigardi comitis, qui etiam iureiurando suis manibus confirmauerunt, quod post Edwardi decessum me reciperent dominum, nec ullatenus peterent in uita illius patriam hanc ullo impedimento contra me occupari. Obsides mihi dedit Godwini filium ac nepotem.2 Postremo Heraldum ipsum in Normanniam transmisit, ut quod pater eius atque caeteri supranominati hic mihi iurauere absenti, is ibi praesens iuraret praesenti. Qui dum pergeret ad me, in periculum captionis incidit, unde mea eum prudentia ac fortitudine eripui. Se mihi per manus suas dedit, sua manu securitatem mihi de regno Anglico firmauit.3 Praesto ego sum ad agendum causam contra illum in iudicio, siue placet illi iuxta ius Normannorum, siue potius Anglorum. Si secundum aequitatis ueritatem decreuerint Normanni aut Angli, quod ille regnum hoc iure debeat possidere, cum pace possideat. Si uero mihi iustitiae debito reddendum esse consenserint, mihi dimittat. At si conditionem hanc repudiauerit, non duco iustum ut homines mei uel sui concidant praeliando, quorum in lite nostra culpa nulla est. Ecce paratus ego sum capite 1 The appearance of the monk o f Fécamp in William’s company is certainly authentic The royal monastery o f Fécamp had received lands in Sussex from Cnut and Edward the Confessor: although some were taken over by Harold, the abbey retained property called ‘Rameslie’ in the hundred o f Guestling, and some tolls in the port of Winchelsea. See above, pp. xxiv-xxv. The monks were familiar with Hastings and its hinterland, and could have provided guides for the Norman invaders. Remigius o f Fécamp had also given a ship with twenty knights (van Houts, ‘Ship-list’ , pp. 178-9); and William o f Malmesbury recorded that King William recognized a debt to him when he made him bishop o f Dorchester (G P pp. 3 12 - 13 , ‘Remigius, ex monacho Fiscannensi, qui Willelmo comité

ii. 12

TH E DEE DS OF W I L L I A M

12 1

Whereupon the duke instructed a certain monk o f Fécamp1 in the words he was to take forthwith to Harold: ‘Neither rashly nor unjustly, but after taking counsel and guided by equity I have crossed the sea to enter this land, o f which my lord and kinsman King Edward (as Harold himself says) made me his heir, on account o f the great honours and numerous benefits which I and my ancestors conferred on him and his brother and their men; also because, o f all those belonging to his line, he believed me to be the most worthy and the most able either to help him while he lived, or to govern the kingdom after his death. Certainly he did not do this without the consent o f his magnates, but in truth with the advice o f Archbishop Stigand, Earl Godwine, Earl Leofric, and Earl Siward, who also confirmed with a handfast oath, that after the death o f Edward they would receive me as their lord, and that during his lifetime they would not seek at any time to deprive me o f the kingdom through any impediment. He gave me the son and grandson o f Godwine as hostages.2 Finally he sent Harold himself to Normandy, so that he might swear to me there and in person what his father and the others named above had sworn to me in my absence. When he was on his journey, he fell into a perilous captivity, from which I rescued him by my prudence and power. He made himself my vassal by giving his hands to me, and gave me surety with his own hand concerning the kingdom o f England .3 1 am ready to put my case against him to judgement, by the law o f the English or o f the Normans as he prefers. I f according to a true and equitable judgement the Normans or the English decree that he ought by right to possess this kingdom, let him possess it in peace. I f they agree that it should justly be surrendered to me, let him abandon it to me. But if he rejects this proposition, I do not consider it right that either my men or his should fall in battle, for they have no guilt in our dispute. See, I am ready to assert, by my Normannorum in Anglia venienti auxilium in multis praebuerit, episcopatum, si vinceret, pactus nec fuit Willelmus segnior in dando quam Remigius in accipiendo9). 2 See above, i. 14. 3 See above, i. 4 1, 42. WP here indicates both that Harold became William’s vassal and that he swore a handfast oath.

122

GESTA GVILLELMI

11. 12

meo contra caput illius asserere, quod mihi potius quam illi iure cedat regnum Anglicum.’ 1 Hanc uerborum ducis diligenter compertam sententiam magis quam dictatum nostrum in oculos plurimorum uenire uolumus, quia plurimorum perpetuo fauore eum desideramus laudari. Pulchre colligetur et ex ea, quod uere prudens, iustus, pius ac fortis extiterit. Rationum namque copia, sicut liquet attento, quas infirmare nec ualeret eloquentiae romanae maximus author Tullius, Heraldi rationem destruxit. Denique iudicium, quod iura gentium2 definirent, accipere praesto fuit. Anglos inimicos mori ob litem suam noluit; singulari certamine proprio capite causam determinare uoluit. 13. Vt ergo mandata eadem Heraldo appropinquanti per mon­ achum sunt relata, stupore expalluit, atque diu ut elinguis obticuit. Rogitanti autem responsum legato semel et iterum, primo respon­ dit: ‘Pergimus continenter’; secundo: ‘Pergimus ad pretium.’" Instabat legatus ut aliud responderetur, repetens: non interitum exercituum, sed singulare certamen Normanno duci placere. Nam uir strenuus et bonus iustum aliquid ac laetum renuntiare, nec multos occumbere uolebat; Heraldi caput, pro quo minor for­ titudo, aequitas nulla staret, casurum confidens. Tum leuato Heraldus in caelum uultu ait: ‘Dominus inter me et Guillelmum hodie quod iustum est decernat.’ Regnandi siquidem cupidine caecatus, simul ob trepidationem oblitus iniuriae, conscientiam in ruinam sui rectum iudicem optauit. 14. Interea exploratum directi ducis iussu probatissimi equites, hostem adesse citi nuntiant. Accelerabat enim eo magis rex a D F\ praelium suggested M 1 The judicial duel was established in the custom o f Normandy, not in that of England (Tardif, i. xli, pp. 34-5); F. Pollock and F. W. Maitland, The History o f English Lam before the Time o f Edward I (2nd edn., Cambridge, 1968), i. 74. Such an offer, if made, would have been unacceptable to an Englishman. In the well-established practice o f Normandy and northern France an offer o f the ordeal or trial by battle was frequently a manœuvre never intended to be taken up, made to gain a judicial advantage; see S. D. White, Proposing the ordeal and avoiding it: strategy and power in Western French litigation, 10 5 0 - 11 10’, Cultures o f Power: Lordship, Status and Process in Twelfth-Century Europe, ed. Thomas N. Bisson (Philadelphia, 1995), pp. 89-123.

ii. 14

TH E D EE DS O F W I L L I A M

123

head against his head, that the English kingdom should be mine rather than his by right.’ 1 We wish to bring the tenor o f the duke’s own words (which we have diligently sought out) rather than our own composition to the notice o f many, because we desire him to have the widest possible esteem and praise for ever. From his words it is beautifully clear that he showed himself truly prudent, just, dutiful and valiant. For a host o f sound arguments, as clearly appears to those who are attentive (which even Cicero, the greatest writer o f Roman rhetoric could not have weakened), destroyed the case o f Harold. In short, William was ready to accept a judgement determined by the laws o f peoples.2 He did not wish the English to die as enemies on account o f his dispute; he wished to decide the case by risking his own head in single combat. 13. When the envoy had conveyed these messages to Harold as he advanced, he turned pale with astonishment and for a long time remained silent as though dumbstruck. As the envoy asked again and again for a reply, he answered first, ‘We continue to advance’, and secondly, ‘We go on to victory.’ T he envoy urged him to give another reply, repeating that the Norman duke did not want the destruction o f armies, but only single combat. For this brave and good man preferred to renounce something that was just and agreeable rather than cause the death o f many men, being confident that Harold’s head would fall since his courage was less and his cause unjust. Then Harold, lifting his face to heaven, said, ‘M ay the Lord decide today between me and William what is just.’3 So, blinded by the desire to rule and forgetful, in his confusion, o f the wrong he had done, he chose his conscience as his just judge, to his ruin. 14. Meanwhile experienced knights, who had been sent out scouting, reported that the enemy would soon be there. For the 2 By the ‘laws o f peoples* WP meant the different legal customs of the Normans and the English; this is not the ius gentium o f Roman law. 3 The Carmen also (lines 303-4) makes Harold declare that God will judge between them. Cf. Gen. 16: 5, ‘Judicet Dominus inter me et te*.

124

GESTA GVILLELM I

U. 14

furibundus, quod propinqua castris Normannorum uastari audi­ erat.1 Nocturno etiam incursu aut repentino minus cautos oppri­ mere cogitabat. Et ne perfugio abirent, classe armata ad septingentas naues in mari opposuerat insidias.2 D ux propere quotquot in castris inuenti sunt (pleraque enim sociorum pars eo die pabulatum ierat) omnes iubet armari. Ipse mysterio missae quam maxima cum deuotione assistens, corporis ac sanguinis Domini communicatione suum et corpus et animam muniuit. Appendit etiam humili collo suo reliquias, quarum fauorem Heraldus abalienauerat sibi, uiolata fide quam super eas iurando sanxerat. Aderant comitati e Normannia duo pontifices, Odo Baoicensis et Goisfredus Constantinus, una multus clerus et monachi nonnulli. Id collegium precibus pugnare disponitur.3 Terreret alium loricae, dum uestiretur, sinistra conuersio. Hanc conuersionem risit ille ut casum, non ut mali prodigium expauit.4 15 . Exhortationem, qua pro tempore breuiter militum uirtuti plurimum alacritatis addidit, egregiam fuisse non dubitamus; etsi nobis non ex tota dignitate sua relatam.5 Commonuit Normannos, quod in multis atque magnis periculis uictores tamen se duce semper extiterint. Commonuit omnes patriae suae, nobilium gestorum, magnique nominis. Nunc probandum esse manu, qua uirtute polleant, quem gerant animum. Iam non id agi, quis regnans uiuat, sed quis periculum imminens cum uita euadat. Si more uirorum pugnent, uictoriam, decus, diuitias habituros. 1 Quite apart from the need to obtain provisions for the army, wasting the lands o f an enemy was a normal practice in medieval warfare (cf. Jordan Fantosme's Chronicley ed. R. C. Johnston (Oxford, 1981), lines 449-50, is s i deit Pen cumencier guerre— ço m’est vis— | Primes guaster la terre e puis ses enemis’). William’s purpose was to provoke Harold to a decisive battle (cf. Bayeux Tapestry, pi. 52). Harold had considerable estates in Sussex (Ann Williams, 4Land and power in the eleventh century: the estates o f Harold Godwineson’, Battle, iii (1981), 171-87). 2 There may have been rumours o f a possible naval ambush, but it is unlikely that Harold would have had time to bring his ships out o f their winter quarters in the Thames (A SC (C) 1066), or to make up anything like 700 from any ships remaining in the Channel ports. 3 WP insists both on the piety o f Duke William and on the canonically correct noncombatant role of the two bishops, Odo of Bayeux and Geoffrey o f Coutances, both of whom were capable of leading troops in battle. In a similar vein, Odo is shown in the Bayeux Tapestry (pi. 68), dressed in a padded tunic, not a hauberk, and encouraging the troops with a mace, not a sword. For Geoffrey, see J. Le Patourel, ‘Geoffrey of Montbray, bishop o f Coutances, 1049-1093’, EH R lix (1944), 12 9 -6 1; Chibnall, ‘Geoffroi’ pp. 279-93.

II.

15

TH E D EE D S OF W I L L I A M

12 5

furious king was hastening his march all the more because he had heard that the lands near to the Norman camp were being laid waste.1 He thought that in a night or surprise attack he might defeat them unawares; and, in case they should try to escape, he had laid a naval ambush for them with an armed fleet o f up to 700 ships.2 T he duke hastily ordered all who could be found in the camp (for a large number o f his companions had gone o ff foraging) to arm themselves. He himself participated in the mystery o f the Mass with the greatest devotion, and strengthened his body and soul by receiving in communion the body and blood o f the Lord. He hung around his neck in humility the relics whose protection Harold had forfeited by breaking the oath that he had sworn on them. Two bishops who had accompanied him from Normandy, Odo o f Bayeux and Geoffrey o f Coutances, were in his company, together with numerous clerks and not a few monks. T his clerical body prepared for the combat with prayers.3 Anyone else would have been terrified by putting on his hauberk back to front. But William laughed at this inversion as an accident and did not fear it as a bad omen.4 15 . We do not doubt that the exhortation, brief because o f the circumstances, with which he added still greater ardour to the valour o f his troops, was outstanding, even though it has not been transmitted to us in all its distinction.5 He reminded the Normans that in many and great dangers they had always come out victorious under his leadership. He reminded them all o f their fatherland, o f their noble exploits and their great fame. Now they were to prove with their arms with what strength they were endowed, with what valour they were inspired. Now the question was not who should live and rule, but who should escape alive from imminent danger. I f they fought like men they would have victory, honour, and wealth. I f not, they would let themselves either be 4 See above, p. xxx. Cf. the attitude o f Caesar to omens (Suetonius, Caesar, c. lix). The story grew and was embellished in time in the Brevis relatio (p. 7) and Wace, Rouy lines 12637-68. 5 For the substance of William’s speech, cf. Sallust, Bellum Catilinum> lviii. 4 -2 1.,. Medieval chroniclers followed their Roman forerunners by providing the imagined contents o f speeches; WP is unusual in stating explicitly that he has imagined the words probably spoken by the duke o f this occasion.

12 6

GESTA GVILLELM I

u. 15

Alioquin aut ocius trucidari, aut captos ludibrio fore hostibus crudelissimis. Ad hoc ignominia sempiterna infamatum iri. Ad effugium nullam uiam patere, cum hic arma et inimica ignotaque regio obsistant, illinc pontus et arma. Non decere uiros multi­ tudine terreri. Saepenumero Anglos hostili ferro deiectos ceci­ disse, plerumque superatos in hostis uenisse deditionem, nunquam gloria militiae laudatos. Imperitos bellandi strenua uirtute paucorum facile posse conteri,1 praesertim cum iustae causae praesidium caeleste non desit. Audeant modo, nequaquam cedant, triumpho citius gauisuros fore. 16. Hac autem commodissima ordinatione progreditur, uexillo praeuio quod apostolicus transmiserat.2 Pedites in fronte locauit, sagittis armatos et balistis,3 item pedites in ordine secundo firmiores et loricatos; ultimo turmas equitum, quorum ipse fuit in medio cum firmissimo robore, unde in omnem partem con­ suleret manu et uoce.4 Scribens Heraldi agmen illud ueterum aliquis, in eius transitu flumina epotata, siluas in planum redactas fuisse memoraret.5 Maximae enim ex omnibus undique regionibus copiae Anglorum conuenerant. Studium pars Heraldo, cuncti patriae praestabant, quam contra extraneos tametsi non iuste, defensare uolebant. Copiosa quoque auxilia miserat eis cognata terra Danorum. Non tamen audentes cum Guillelmo ex aequo confligere, plus eum quam regem Noricorum extimentes, locum editiorem praeoccupauere, montem siluae per quam aduenere uicinum.6 Protinus equorum ope relicta, cuncti pedites constitere 1 Cf. Vegetius, iii. 26 (p. 122), 4Amplius iuvat uirtus quam multitudo.9 2 For the battle order, see above, pp. xxxii-xxxiii. 3 The question of the use of cross-bows at the battle of Hastings is discussed by Morton and Muntz, Carmen, App. C, pp. 11 2 - 15 . 4 Cf. Sallust, Bellum lugurthinum, c. xcviii, on the leadership o f Marius in battle, 4Neque in eo tam aspero negotio Marius territus aut magis quam antea demisso animo fuit, sed cum turma sua, quam ex fortissimis magis quam familiarissumis paraverat, vagari passim ac modo laborantibus suis succurrere, modo hostis, ubi confestissumi obstiterant inuadere; manu consulere militibus quoniam imperare conturbatis omnibus non poterat.9 5 Cf. Juvenal, Satires, x. 173, especially, (credimus altos defecisse omnes epotataque flumina | Medo prandente . . and Justin, Epitome, ii. 10, on the advance of the army of Xerxes, (flumina ab exercitu eius siccata . . . et montes in planum deducebat et convexa vallium aequabat.9 A similar figure o f speech occurs in the Carmen (lines 321-2 ), where the translation of 4siluas9 as 4forests [of spears]9 must surely be an error. 6 Harold's housecarls accompanied him in the rush south after Stamford Bridge, and he was certainly joined by the local troops. The English sources tended to understate and the

ii. i6

TH E D EE DS OF W I L L I A M

127

slaughtered, or captured to be mocked by the most cruel enemies— not to mention that they would bring on themselves perpetual ignominy. No way was open to flight, since their way was barred on one side by armed forces and a hostile and unknown country, and on the other by the sea and armed forces. It was not seemly for men to be terrified by numbers. M any times the English had fallen, overthrown by enemy arms; usually, defeated, they had surren­ dered to the enemy; never were they famed for the glory o f their feats o f arms. Men who were inexpert in warfare could easily be crushed by the valour and strength o f a few,1 especially since help from on high was not lacking in a just cause. Let them now dare and never yield, and they would soon rejoice in a triumph. 16. Now this is the well-planned order in which he advanced behind the banner which the pope had sent him.2 He placed footsoldiers in front, armed with arrows and cross-bows;3 likewise foot-soldiers in the second rank, but more powerful and wearing hauberks; finally the squadrons o f mounted knights, in the middle o f which he himself rode with the strongest force, so that he could direct operations on all sides with hand and voice.4 I f any author o f antiquity had been writing o f Harold’s line o f march he would have recorded that in his passage rivers were dried up and forests laid flat.5 For huge forces o f English had assembled from all the shires. Some showed zeal for Harold, and all showed love o f their country, which they wished to defend against invaders even though their cause was unjust. T he land o f the Danes (who were allied by blood) also sent copious forces. However, not daring to fight with William on equal terms, for they thought him more formidable than the king o f the Norwegians, they took their stand on higher ground, on a hill near to the wood through which they had come.6 At once dismounting from their horses, Norman to exaggerate the size of the English army (see Freeman, iii, note L L ). Both the A S C (E) 1066 and the Worcester Chronicle (JW ii. 604) state that Harold fought the battle before all his troops had assembled (though A S C (D) 1066 says that Harold assembled a large army). WP’s statement that the Danes sent support is uncorroborated. Even today, after the top of the hill at Battle had been levelled for the building o f Battle Abbey, the strength o f Harold’s position is impressive. Harold may have supposed that he could effectively bar William’s advance towards London, and that William would not attempt to attack on such unfavourable terrain.

12 8

GESTA GVILLELMI

it. i6

densius conglobati. Dux cum suis neque loci territus asperitate, ardua cliui sensim ascendit. 17. Terribilis clangor lituorum pugnae signa cecinit utrinque. Normannorum alacris audacia pugnae principium dedit. Taliter cum oratores in iudicio litem agunt de rapina, prior ferit dictione qui crimen intendit.1 Pedites itaque Normanni propius accedentes prouocant Anglos, missilibus in eos uulnera dirigunt atque necem. Illi contra fortiter, quo quisque ualet ingenio, resistunt. lactant cuspides ac diuersorum generum tela, saeuissimas quasque secures, et lignis imposita saxa.2 Iis, ueluti mole letifera, statim nostros obrui putares. Subueniunt equites, et qui posteriores fuere fiunt primi. Pudet eminus pugnare, gladiis rem gerere audent.3 Altissimus clamor, hinc Normannicus, illinc barbaricus, armorum sonitu et gemitu morientium superatur. Sic aliquandiu summa ui certatur ab utrisque. Angli nimium adiuuantur superioris loci opportunitate, quem sine procursu tenent, et maxime conferti; ingenti quoque numerositate sua atque ualidissima corpulentia; praeterea pugnae instrumentis, quae facile per scuta uel alia tegmina uiam inueniunt. Fortissime itaque sustinent uel propel­ lunt ausos in se districtum ensibus impetum facere. Vulnerant et eos qui eminus in se iacula coniiciunt. Ecce igitur hac saeuitia perterriti auertuntur pedites pariter atque equites Britanni, et quotquot auxiliares erant in sinistro cornu; cedit fere cuncta ducis acies, quod cum pace dictum sit Normannorum inuictissimae nationis. Romanae maiestatis exercitus, copias regum con­ tinens, uincere solitus terra marique, fugit aliquando, cum ducem suum sciret aut crederet occisum. Credidere Normanni ducem ac dominum suum cecidisse. Non ergo nimis pudenda fuga cessere; minime uero dolenda, cum plurimum iuuerit. 1 WP possibly had in mind his own experience o f the conduct o f suits in the Norman courts. 2 For the axes used by the English in the battle, see I. Peirce, ‘Arms, armour and warfare in the eleventh century\ Battle, x (1988), 237-57, at pp. 245-6. 3 The use of the couched lance by mounted knights was restricted in this battle, because o f the nature o f the terrain; hence the sword, or the javelin thrown from a distance, became particularly important. See above, p. xxxiii; and, for the use o f the lance, Jean Flori, (Encore l’usage de la lance . . . la technique du combat chevaleresque vers Tan u o o \ Cahiers de civilisation médiévale, xxxi (1988), 213-40.

ii. 17

THE

DEEDS

OF W ILLIA M

129

they lined up all on foot in a dense formation. Undeterred by the roughness o f the ground, the duke with his men climbed slowly up the steep slope. 17. T he harsh bray o f trumpets gave the signal for battle on both sides. T he Normans swiftly and boldly took the initiative in the fray. Similarly, when orators are engaged in a lawsuit about theft, he who prosecutes the crime makes the first speech.1 So the Norman foot-soldiers closed to attack the English, killing and maiming many with their missiles. T he English for their part resisted bravely each one by any means he could devise. T hey threw javelins and missiles o f various kinds, murderous axes and stones tied to sticks.2 You might imagine that our men would have been crushed at once by them, as by a death-dealing mass. T h e knights came to their rescue, and those who had been in the rear advanced to the fore. Disdaining to fight from a distance, they attacked boldly with their swords.3 T he loud shouting, here Norman, there foreign, was drowned by the clash o f weapons and the groans o f the dying. So for a time both sides fought with all their might. T h e English were greatly helped by the advantage o f the higher ground, which they held in serried ranks without sallying forward, and also by their great numbers and densely-packed mass, and moreover by their weapons o f war, which easily penetrated shields and other protections. So they strongly held or drove back those who dared to attack them with drawn swords. They even wounded those who flung javelins at them from a distance. So, terrified by this ferocity, both the footsoldiers and the Breton knights and other auxiliaries on the left wing turned tail; almost the whole o f the duke’s battle line gave way, if such a thing may be said o f the unconquered people o f the Normans. T he army o f the Roman empire, containing royal contingents and accustomed to victory on land and sea, fled occasionally, when it knew or believed its leader to have been killed. T he Normans believed that their duke and lord had fallen, so it was not too shameful to give way to flight; least o f all was it to be deplored, since it helped them greatly.

130

GESTA GVILLELM I

ii. i8

18. Princeps namque prospiciens multam partem aduersae stationis prosiluisse, et insequi terga suorum, fugientibus occurrit et obstitit, uerberans aut minans hasta.1 Nudato insuper capite detractaque galea exclamans:2 ‘M e’, inquit, ‘circumspicite. Viuo et uincam, opitulante Deo. Quae uobis dementia fugam suadet? Quae uia patebit ad effugiendum? Quos ut pecora mactare potestis, depellunt uos et occidunt. Victoriam deseritis, ac perpetuum honorem; in exitium curritis ac perpetuum opprobrium. Abeundo mortem nullus uestrum euadet.’ His dictis receperunt animos. Primus ipse procurrit fulminans ense, strauit aduersam gentem, quae sibi, regi suo,3 rebellans commeruit mortem. Exardentes Normanni et circumuenientes aliquot millia insecuta se, momento deleuerunt ea, ut ne quidem unus superesset. 19. Ita confirmati, uehementius immanitatem exercitus inuaserunt, qui maximum detrimentum passus non uidebatur minor. Angli confidenter totis uiribus oppugnabant, id maxime labor­ antes, ne quem aditum irrumpere uolentibus aperirent. Ob nimiam densitatem eorum labi uix potuerunt interempti.0 Patuer­ unt tamen in eos uiae incisae per diuersas partes fortissimorum militum ferro. Institerunt eis Cenomanici,4 Francigenae, Britanni, Aquitani,5 sed cum praecipua uirtute Normanni. T iro quidam Normannus Rodbertus, Rogerii de Bellomonte filius, Hugonis de Mellento comitis ex Adelina sorore nepos et haeres,6*praelium illo die primum experiens, egit quod aeternandum esset laude: cum legione, quam in dextro cornu duxit, irruens ac sternens magna cum audacia. Non est nostrae facultatis, nec permittit intentio nostra, singulorum fortia facta pro merito narrare. Copia dicendi a F ; interemi D; interemti M 1 Cf. Suetonius, Catsar, c. Ixii, ‘Inclinatam aciem solus saepe restituit, obsistens fugientibus, retinensque singulos et contortis faucibus convertens in hostem.9 2 Cf. Bayeux Tapestry, pi. 68; Carmen, lines 447-8. 3 In general WP refrained from giving the title ‘rex’ to William before his coronation; in this rare instance, ‘legitimate9 must be understood. 4 Although WP does not name any of the men o f Maine who took part in the battle, Jean Dunbabin has suggested that Geoffrey of Chaumont may have been one o f them (Dunbabin, p. 112). 5 Among these was certainly Aimeri, vicomte ('praeses') o f Thouars, twice named by WP (see below, ii. 22, 29; Jane Martindale, ‘Aimeri o f Thouars and the Poitevin connection9, Battle, vii (1985), 224-45, at PP- 224-5).

ii. 19

THE

DEEDS

OF W ILLIA M

131

18. For the leader, seeing a great part o f the opposing force springing forward to pursue his men, rushed towards them, met them as they fled and halted them, striking out and threatening with his spear.1 Baring his head and lifting his helmet,2 he cried, ‘Look at me. I am alive, and with G od’s help I will conquer. What madness is persuading you to flee? What way is open to escape? You could slaughter like cattle the men who are pursuing and killing you. You are abandoning victory and imperishable fame, and hurrying to disaster and perpetual ignominy. Not one o f you will escape death by flight.’ At these words they recovered their courage. He rushed forward at their head, brandishing his sword, and mowed down the hostile people who deserved death for rebelling against him, their king.3 Full o f zeal the Normans surrounded some thousands who had pursued them and destroyed them in a moment, so that not a single one survived. 19. Emboldened by this, they launched an attack with greater determination on the main body o f the army, which in spite o f the heavy losses it had suffered seemed not to be diminished. The English fought confidently with all their might, striving particu­ larly to prevent a gap being opened by their attackers. They were so tightly packed together that there was hardly room for the slain to fall. However paths were cut through them in several places by the weapons o f the most valiant knights. Pressing home the attack were men o f Maine,4 Frenchmen, Bretons, Aquitanians,5 above all Normans, whose valour was outstanding. A certain young Norman knight, Robert the son o f Roger o f Beaumont, nephew and heir o f Hugh count o f Meulan through Hugh’s sister Adeline,6 while fighting that day in his first battle performed a praiseworthy deed, which deserves to be immortalized; charging with the battalion he commanded on the right wing, he laid the enemy low with the greatest audacity. We have not the means, and it is not our intention, to describe all the exploits o f individuals as their merit deserves. T he most eloquent writer who had seen that 6 For Roger o f Beaumont, see above, ii. i. His wife Adeline was a daughter o f Waleran I, count o f Meulan; her brother Hugh became a monk at Bee. In 1066 young Robert was only heir presumptive. He was granted extensive lands in England by King William, and was made earl of Leicester by Henry I r.110 7 (C P vii. 523-4).

132

GESTA GVILLELM I

ii. 19

ualentissimus, qui bellum illud suis oculis didicerit, difficillime singula quaeque persequeretur.1 At huc* nos illo properamus, ut finita Guillelmi comitis laude, Guillelmi regis gloriam scribamus.2 20. Animaduertentes Normanni sociaque turba, non absque nimio sui incommodo hostem tantum simul resistentem superari posse, terga dederunt, fugam ex industria simulantes.3 Meminer­ unt quam optatae rei paulo ante fuga dederit occasionem. Barbaris cum spe uictoriae ingens laetitia exorta est. Sese cohortantes exultante clamore nostros maledictis increpabant, et minabantur cunctos illico ruituros esse. Ausa sunt ut superius aliquot milia* quasi uolante cursu, quos fugere putabant, urgere. Normanni repente regiratis equis interceptos et inclusos undique mactauerunt, nullum relinquentes. 2 1. Bis eo dolo simili euentu usi, reliquos maiori cum alacritate aggressi sunt: aciem adhuc horrendam, et quam difficillimum erat circumuenire. Fit deinde insoliti generis pugna, quam altera pars incursibus et diuersis motibus agit, altera uelut humo affixa tolerat. Languent Angli, et quasi reatum ipso defectu confitentes, uindictam patiuntur. Sagittant,4 feriunt, perfodiunt Normanni: mortui plus dum cadunt, quam uiui, moueri uidentur. Leuiter sauciatos non permittit euadere, sed comprimendo necat sociorum densitas. Ita felicitas pro Guillelmo triumpho maturando cucurrit. 22. Interfuerunt huic praelio5 Eustachius Boloniae comes,6 Guillelmus Ricardi Ebroicensis comitis filius,7 Goisfredus ‘ F ; hoc D M

* D; millia M F

1 This statement shows that WP was not an eye-witness o f the battle. It also emphasizes that even an eye-witness could have seen only a part o f the action. 2 This rhetorical device (partitio or divisio)y where the writer indicates in advance another topic to be taken up, was characteristic o f earlier Latin prose biographies; see above, p. xxi. 3 Both the feigned flights, and the ability o f the Norman forces to turn genuine flight into renewed attack in the previous incident, illustrate the remarkable skill of manœuvre in mounted combat achieved by the knights making up the mixed force. 4 The importance o f the archers during this phase o f the battle is illustrated in the Bayeux Tapestry, where no fewer than 23 archers are shown in the lower border (pis. 68, 69, 70, 71); cf. H. E. J. Cowdrey, ‘Towards an interpretation o f the Bayeux Tapestry’ , Battle, x (1988), 49-65, at p. 62: ‘it is the archers who turn the tide of the battle’ . 5 WP is a principal source for the modest list compiled by G. H. White o f the ‘companions o f the Conqueror’ known to have fought at Hastings (C P xii (i), app. L). The

11. 22

T H E D EE DS OF W I L L I A M

13 3

battle with his own eyes could scarcely have followed every detail.1 But now we hasten on to complete the praise o f William the count so as to tell o f the glory o f William the king.2 20. When the Normans and the troops allied to them saw that they could not conquer such a solidly massed enemy force without heavy loss, they wheeled round and deliberately feigned flight.3 T hey remembered how, a little while before, their flight had brought about the result they desired. There was jubilation among the foreigners, who hoped for a great victory. Encouraging each other with joyful shouts, they heaped curses on our men and threatened to destroy them all forthwith. As before, some thousands o f them dared to rush, almost as i f they were winged, in pursuit o f those they believed to be fleeing. T he Normans, suddenly wheeling round their horses, checked and encircled them, and slaughtered them to the last man. 2 1. Having used this trick twice with the same result, they attacked the remainder with greater determination: up to now the enemy line had been bristling with weapons and most difficult to encircle. So a combat o f an unusual kind began, with one side attacking in different ways and the other standing firmly as if fixed to the ground. T h e English grew weaker, and endured punish­ ment as though confessing their guilt by their defeat. The Nor­ mans shot arrows,4 smote and pierced; the dead by falling seemed to move more than the living. It was not possible for the lightly wounded to escape, for they were crushed to death by the serried ranks o f their companions. So fortune turned for William, hastening his triumph. 22. Those who took part in this battle5 were Eustace count o f Boulogne,6 William son o f Richard count o f Evreux,7 Geoffrey son list was enlarged to twenty-seven by D. C. Douglas, ‘Companions o f the Conqueror’ , History, xxvii (1943), 129-47. O f the many others rewarded with English lands it is impossible to be absolutely certain who actually fought in the battle, and who, like Roger of Montgomery, came shortly afterwards. 6 Eustace II, count o f Boulogne. For his career, see Tanner, ‘Counts o f Boulogne’, pp

. 251-86.

7 William, the son o f Richard count o f Evreux and Adela, the widow o f Roger de Tosny, succeeded to the county in 1067.

134

GESTA GVILLELM I

II. 22

Rotronis Moritoniae comitis filius,1 Guillelmus Osbemi filius,2 Haimerius Toarcensis praeses,3 Gualterius Giffardus,4 Hugo de Monteforti,5 Rodolphus de Toneia,6 Hugo de Grentmaisnil,7 Guillelmus de Guarenna,8 aliique quamplures militaris praestan­ tiae fama celebratissimi et quorum nomina historiarum uoluminibus inter bellicosissimos commendari deceat. Guillelmus uero, dux eorum, adeo praestabat eis fortitudine, quemadmodum prudentia, ut antiquis ducibus Graecorum siue Romanorum qui maxime scriptis laudantur, aliis merito sit praeferendus, aliis comparandus. Nobiliter duxit ille cohibens fugam, dans animos, periculi socius; saepius clamans ut uenirent, quam iubens ire. Vnde liquido intelligitur uirtutem illi praeuiam pariter fecisse militibus iter et audaciam. Cor amisit absque uulnere pars hostium non modica, prospiciens hunc admirandum ac terribilem equitem. Equi tres ceciderunt sub eo confossi. Ter ille desiluit intrepidus, nec diu mors uectoris inulta remansit.9 Hic uelocitas eius, hic robur eius uideri potuit corporis et animi. Scuta, galeas, loricas, irato mucrone et moram dedignante penetrauit; clipeo suo non­ nullos collisit. Mirantes eum peditem sui milites, plerique confecti uulneribus, corde sunt redintegrati. Et nonnulli, ‘quos iam sanguis ac uires deficiunt’ ,10 scutis innixi uiriliter depugnant, aliqui uoce et nutibus, cum aliud non ualent, socios instigant, ne timide ducem sequantur, ne uictoriam e manibus dimittant. Auxilio ipse multis atque saluti fuit. Cum Heraldo, tali qualem poemata dicunt Hectorem uel Turnum, non minus auderet Guillelmus congredi singulari certamine, quam Achilles cum Hectore,11 uel Aeneas cum 1 Geoffrey, son o f Rotrou I count o f Perche. I f he acquired any lands in England after the Conquest, he was no longer holding them in 1086 (J. F. A. Mason, 4The companions o f the Conqueror: an additional name1, EH R Ixvi (1956), 66; see also OV ii. 266 n. 4). 2 See above, p. 26 n. 3. 3 Aimeri, twice given by WP the general title o f ‘praeses’, was vicomte o f Thouars. Like Geoffrey o f Perche, he was not a landless younger son, but a highly bom young man who stood to inherit lands and title, and joined the expedition for reasons other than a wish to win estates in England. See above, p. xviii. 4 See above, p. 48 n. 6. 5 See above, p. 48, n. 5. 6 Ralph II o f Tosny, son o f Roger o f Tosny; for his career see OV ii. 90, 106, 140, 358. 7 He was the husband o f Adela of Beaumont and the son o f Robert I o f Grandmesnil, one o f the founders of the abbey o f Saint-Evroult. After the Conquest he became castellan o f Leicester and acquired extensive lands in England, which passed to the Beaumont family in the reign o f Henry I (OV ii. 64-5 and n. 5; iv. 336-9).

11. 22

TH E D EE DS OF W IL L IA M

13 5

o f Rotrou count o f Mortagne,1 William fitz Osbem,2 Aimeri vicomte o f Thouars,3 Walter Giffard,4 Hugh o f Montfort,5 Ralph o f Tosny,6 Hugh o f Grandmesnil,7 William o f Warenne,8 and many others o f military distinction and great renown, whose names deserve to be remembered in the annals o f history amongst the very greatest warriors. But William, their duke, so surpassed them in courage as well as in wisdom that he deserves to be placed above certain o f the ancient generals o f the Greeks and Romans, who are so much praised in their writings, and to be compared with others. He led his men nobly, checking flight, giving encouragement, courting danger, more often calling on them to follow than ordering them to go ahead. From this it is plain to see that his valour in the van opened the way for his followers and gave them courage. No small part o f the enemy lost heart without being injured at the sight o f this astounding and redoubtable mounted warrior. Three horses were killed under him and fell. Three times he sprang to the ground undaunted, and avenged without delay the loss o f his steed.9 Here his speed, here his physical strength and courage could be seen. With his angry blade he tirelessly pierced shields, helmets, and hauberks; with his buckler he threw back many. Marvelling at seeing him fight on foot his knights, many o f them smitten with wounds, took heart again. Some even, ‘weakened by loss o f blood*,10 leant on their shields and fought on courageously; others, incapable o f more, encouraged their compa­ nions by word and gesture, to follow the duke without fear, so that victory should not slip through their hands. He himself helped and saved many o f them. Against Harold, who was such a man as poems liken to Hector or Tum us, William would have dared to fight in single combat no less than Achilles against Hector,11 or Aeneas against * William I o f Warenne, who became earl o f Surrey just before he died in 1088 (C P xii/

». P 493)

9 The Carmen (lines 470-522) gives a long and fanciful account o f William’s loss o f two horses. For a closer parallel, cf. William o f Apulia’s account o f how Robert Guiscard lost three horses in the battle of Civitate, ‘Ter deiectus equo, ter viribus ipse resumptis | Maior in arma redit; stimulos furor ipse ministrat’, Mathieu, Geste, ii. 226-7 (P* 144)10 Caesar, De bello gallico vii. 50. 11 The account o f the victory o f Achilles over Hector in Homer (Iliad, xxii. 247-360), may have been known to WP through the Ilias latina.

I36

GESTA GVILLELM I

U. 22

Turno.1 Tydeus aduersum insidiatos quinquaginta rupis petiuit opem:2 Guillelmus par, haud inferior loco, solus non extimuit mille. Scriptor Thebaidos uel Æneidos, qui libris in ipsis poetica lege de magnis maiora canunt, ex actibus huius uiri aeque magnum, plus dignum conficerent0 opus uera canendo. Profecto, si quantum dignitas materiae suppeditaret carminibus ediscererent condecentibus, inter diuos ipsorum stili uenustate transferrent eum. Nostra uero tenuis prosa, titulatura ipsius humillime regnantibus pietatem in cultu ueri Dei, qui solus ab aeterno in finem seculorum et ultra Deus est, praelium quo tam fortiter quam iuste uicit, ueraci termino breuique concludat. 23. Iam inclinato die haud dubie intellexit exercitus Anglorum se stare contra Normannos diutius non ualere. Nouerunt se diminutos interitu multarum legionum; regem ipsum et fratres eius, regnique primates nonnullos occubuisse;3 quotquot reliqui sunt prope uiribus exhaustos; subsidium quod expectent nullum relictum. Viderunt Normannos non multum decreuisse peremp­ torum casu, et quasi uirium incrementa pugnando sumerent, acrius quam in principio imminere; ducis eam saeuitiam quae nulli contra stanti parceret; eam fortitudinem quae nisi uictrix non quiesceret. In fugam itaque conuersi quantotius abierunt, alii raptis equis, nonnulli pedites; pars per uias, plerique per auia. Iacuerunt in sanguine qui niterentur, aut surgerent non ualentes profugere. Valentes fecit aliquos salutem ualde cupiens animus. Multi siluestribus in abditis remanserunt cadauera, plures obfuer­ unt sequentibus per itinera collapsi. Normanni, licet ignari regionis, auide insequebantur, caedentes rea terga, imponentes a D marg. M F ; considerent D 1 For the victory o f Aeneas over Turnus, see Vergil, Aeneid xii. 697-952. 2 See Statius, Thebaid ii. 548-62; iv. 596-602. 3 WP makes no attempt to state how, or at what point in the battle, Harold was killed: an indication, perhaps, that no one who knew had survived the battle. The Bayeux Tapestry (pi. 64, 71) puts the death of Harold’s brothers Gyrth and Leofwine a little before his; G N D (ii. 168), followed by Orderic (OV ii. 176), states, most improbably, that Harold was killed early in the battle. The earliest written source to attribute his death to an arrow in the eye was the Montecassino chronicle of Amatus, now known only in a French translation (Aimé du Mont Cassin, Storia di Normanni, ed. V. de Bartholomeis (Rome, 1935), i. 3, p. 11). The original chronicle was written before 1080; it is an interesting

II. 23

T H E D EE DS OF W I L L I A M

13 7

Turnus.1 Tydeus, when ambushed by fifty men, defended himself with a rock;2 William, his equal and in no way inferior in standing, single-handed did not fear a thousand. T h e authors o f the Thebaid or the Aeneid, who in their books sing o f great events and exaggerate them according to the law o f poetry, could make an equally great and more worthy work by singing truthfully about the actions o f this man. Indeed, i f by the beauty o f their style they could equal the grandeur o f their subject matter, they would rank him among the gods. But our feeble prose will bring humbly to the notice o f kings his piety in the worship o f the true God, who alone is God from eternity to the end o f the world and beyond, and will briefly and truthfully bring to a close this account o f the battle which he bravely and justly won. 23. Towards the end o f the day the English army realized that there was no hope o f resisting the Normans any longer. They knew that they had been weakened by the loss o f many troops; that the king himself and his brothers and not a few o f the nobles o f the kingdom had perished;3 that all who remained were almost at the end o f their strength, and that they could hope for no relief. They saw that the Normans were not greatly weakened by the loss o f those who had fallen and, seeming to have found new strength as they fought, were pressing on more eagerly than at first. They saw that the duke in his ferocity spared no opponent; and that nothing but victory could quench his ardour. So they turned to escape as quickly as possible by flight, some on horses they had seized, some on foot; some along roads, others through untrodden wastes. Some lay helplessly in their own blood, others who struggled up were too weak to escape. T h e passionate wish to escape death gave strength to some. M any left their corpses in deep woods, many who had collapsed on the routes blocked the way for those who came after. The Normans, though strangers to the district, pursued them relentlessly, slashing their guilty backs and putting the last touches independent corroboration o f the scene in the Bayeux Tapestry. The fanciful account in the Carmen (lines 503-24), evidently inspired by the licence that WP attributed to poetry, cannot be taken at its face value. See G. H. White in C P x ii/ i, app. L.

13 8

GESTA GVILLELM I

u. 23

manum ultimam secundo negotio. A mortuis etiam equorum ungulae supplicia sumpsere, dum cursus fieret super iacentes. 24. Rediit tamen fugientibus confidentia, nactis ad renouandum certamen maximam opportunitatem praerupti ualli* et frequentium fossarum.1 Gens equidem illa natura semper in ferrum prompta fuit, descendens ab antiqua Saxonum origine ferocissimorum hominum. Propulsi non fuissent, nisi fortissima ui urgente. Regem Noricorum, magno exercitu fretum et bellicoso, quam facile nuper uicerunt.2 Cernens autem felicium signorum ductor cohortes inopinato collectas, quamuis nouiter aduenire subsidium putaret, non flexit iter neque substitit, terribilior cum parte hastae3 quam grandia spicula uibrantes, Eustachium comi­ tem cum militibus quinquaginta auersum, et receptui signa canere uolentem, ne abiret uirili uoce compellauit.4 Ille contra familiariter in aurem ducis reditum suasit, proximam ei, si pergeret, mortem praedicens. Haec inter uerba percussus Eustachius inter scapulas ictu sonoro, cuius grauitatem statim sanguis demonstrabat naribus et ore, quasi moribundus euasit ope comitum. D ux formidinem omnino dedignans aut dedecus, inuadens protriuit aduersarios. In eo congressu Normannorum aliqui nobiliores ceciderunt,s aduersitate loci uirtute eorum impedita. 25. Sic uictoria consummata, ad aream belli regressus, reperit stragem, quam non absque miseratione conspexit, tametsi factam in impios; tametsi tyrannum occidere sit pulchrum, fama glor­ iosum, beneficio gratum. Late solum operuit sordidatus in cruore flos Anglicae nobilitatis atque iuuentutis. Propius regem fratres a F OV\ uallis D M 1 This late stand o f the English was developed later by Orderic, in both his Interpolations in WJ (G N D ii. 16 8-71) and in the Ecclesiastical History (OV ii. 176), into the ‘Malfosse’ incident. 2 A reference to the battle o f Stamford Bridge. 3 Possibly he had couched his lance to charge the English, and it had broken off in the impact, though, as Renn (‘Burgeat’, p. 188 n. 52) has pointed out, this is not a necessary assumption. 4 The sources differ considerably on the role o f Eustace. WJ does not mention him; Orderic (OV ii. 178) follows WP. The Carmen (line 535) named him as one o f four who, the poet claimed, combined to kill Harold. The evidence of the Bayeux Tapestry is ambiguous, and depends partly on whether the banner-bearing figure by Duke William

ii. 25

THE

D E E D S OF W ILLIA M

139

to the victory. Even the hooves o f the horses inflicted punishment on the dead as they galloped over their bodies. 24. However confidence returned to the fugitives when they found a good chance to renew battle, thanks to a broken rampart and labyrinth o f ditches.1 For this people was by nature always ready to take up the sword, being descended from the ancient stock o f Saxons, the fiercest o f men. T hey would never have been driven back except by irresistible force. Recently they had easily defeated the king o f the Norwegians,2 who was relying on a huge, warlike army. But when the duke at the head o f the conquering banners saw that the troops had massed unexpect­ edly, although thinking them to be a newly-arrived relief force, he neither changed course nor halted. More terrible with only the stump o f his lance3 than those who brandished long javelins, he raised his strong voice and ordered Count Eustace, who had turned tail with fifty knights and wished to sound the retreat, not to withdraw.4 But Eustace for his part, whispering familiarly in the duke’s ear, argued for a retreat and predicted his speedy death if he pressed forward. As he was uttering these words, Eustace was struck a resounding blow between the shoulders; its violence was immediately shown by blood streaming from his nose and mouth; and, half dead, he escaped with the help o f his companions. T h e duke, utterly disdaining fear and dishonour, charged his enemies and laid them low. In that encounter some o f the noblest Normans fell,5 for their valour was o f no avail on such unfavourable ground. 25. So, after completing the victory, William returned to the battlefield and discovered the extent o f the slaughter, surveying it not without pity, even though it had been inflicted on impious men, and even though it is just and glorious and praiseworthy to kill a tyrant. Far and wide the earth was covered with the flower o f when the latter raises his helmet (pi. 68) is correctly identified as Eustace; this is discussed by S. A. Brown, ‘The Bayeux Tapestry: Why Eustace, Odo and William?’ , Battle, xii (1990), 7-28. She, like Tanner, ‘Counts of Boulogne’, pp. 270-2, argues that Eustace probably did play an important part in William’s victory. 5 Orderic names Engenulf o f Laigle among those killed at this point (OV ii. 176-7).

14 0

GESTA GVILLELMI

h.

25

eius duo reperti sunt. Ipse carens omni decore, quibusdam signis, nequaquam facie, recognitus est,1 et in castra ducis delatus qui tumulandum eum Guillelmo agnomine Maletto2 concessit, non matri pro corpore dilectae prolis auri par pondus offerenti.3 Sciuit enim non decere tali commercio aurum accipi. Aestimauit indignum fore ad matris libitum sepeliri, cuius ob nimiam cupiditatem insepulti remanerent innumerabiles. Dictum est illudendo, oportere situm esse custodem littoris et pelagi, quae cum armis ante uesanus insedit.4 Nos tibi, Heralde, non insultamus, sed cum pio uictore, tuam ruinam lachrimato,0 miseramur et plangimus te. Vicisti digno te prouentu, ad meritum tuum et in cruore iacuisti, et in littoreo tumulo5 iaces, et posthumae generationi tam Anglorum quam Normannorum abominabilis eris. Corruere solent qui summam in mundo potestatem summam beatitudinem putant; et ut maxime beati sint, rapiunt eam, raptam ui bellica retinere nituntur. Atqui tu fraterno sanguine maduisti,6 ne fratris magnitudo te faceret minus potentem. Ruisti dein furiosus in alterum conflictum, ut adiutus patriae parricidio regale decus non amitteres. Traxit igitur te clades contracta per te. Ecce non fulges in corona quam perfide inuasisti; non resides in solio quod superbe ascendisti. Arguunt extrema tua quam recte sublimatus fueris Edwardi dono in ipsius Ä F ; lachymato D M 1 There is agreement in the English sources too that Harold's body was almost unrecognizable ( Waltham Chronicle, pp. 54-5). 2 The Carmen (lines 587-8) states that William entrusted the burial o f Harold's body to (quidam partim Normannus et Anglus | Compater Heraldi. . .' This description might fit William Malet. The difficult question of William's parentage and family has been discussed most recently by Vivien Brown (Eye Priory Cartulary and Chartersy ed. V. Brown, Suffolk Records Society, Suffolk Charters, 2 vols., 1993, 1994), ii. 4-7. She concludes that if the Carmen meant William Malet, his mother must have been English, and that he held some land in Lincolnshire before the Conquest. It is possible that a daughter o f his was the mother o f the famous Countess Lucy, whose first husband was Ivo Taillebois. He could therefore have known Harold before the Conquest; ‘compater’ might imply either some sponsor in baptism or intimate friendship. The Waltham Chronicley pp. 50-5, with a totally different version o f the burial, says that the body was given for burial to Osgod and Æthelric, two canons o f Waltham, the college founded by Harold. 3 Cf. the account in the Iliad of Priam's plea to Achilles for the body of his son Hector (Ilias latina, lines 1009-45). However Priam's gifts, which included 10 talents of gold, were accepted. The version in the Waltham Chronicle is that the canons offered 10 marks o f gold, which Duke William rejected when he granted their request.

ii. 25

THE

DEEDS

OF W ILLIA M

141

the English nobility and youth, drenched in blood. T he king’s two brothers were found very near to his body. He himself was recognized by certain marks, not by his face, for he had been despoiled o f all signs o f status.1 He was carried into the camp o f the duke, who entrusted his burial to William surnamed Malet,2 not to his mother, though she offered his weight in gold for the body o f her beloved son. For he knew it was not seemly to accept gold for such a transaction.3 He considered that it would be unworthy for him to be buried as his mother wished, when innumerable men lay unburied because o f his overweening greed. It was said in jest that he should be placed as guardian o f the shore and sea, which in his madness he had once occupied with his armies.4 As for us, we do not revile you, Harold; but we grieve and mourn for you with the pious victor who weeps over your ruin. You have reaped the reward that you deserved, and have fallen bathed in your own blood; you lie in a tumulus5 on the seashore and will be an abomination to future generations o f English no less than Normans. So fall those who think that supreme power in this world is the greatest blessing, and who in their wish to be particularly blessed seize power, and strive to retain it by force o f arms. Moreover you have stained yourself with your brother’s blood,6 for fear that his power might diminish yours. Then you have rushed madly into another conflict, so that you might retain the royal dignity by the impious destruction o f your fatherland. So you brought down on your own head the disaster you yourself had prepared. Behold, you will not rejoice in the crown which you seized perfidiously, nor will you sit on the throne which you proudly mounted. Your end proves by what right you were raised through the death-bed gift o f Edward. T h e comet, terror o f 4 Among the early sources only WP, followed by Orderic, and the Carmen, suggest that Harold was buried on the seashore. See above, p. xxix. I f the Waltham tradition (Waltham Chronicle, pp. xliii-xlvi, 54-5) is accepted, William Malet may have been assigned some role in the burial; perhaps it was he who identified the body, or provided the safe-conduct which the chronicler said was promised by Duke William. s The word Cumulus’ was used by Lucan to describe Pompey’s humble tomb on the seashore after his defeat and death (.Pharsalia, viii. 816). 6 A reference to Tostig, who was killed at Stamford Bridge.

14 2

GESTA GVILLELM I

u. 25

fine. Regum terror cometa/ post initium altitudinis tuae corus­ cans, exitium tibi uaticinatus fuit. 26. Verum omissa naenia, felicitatem quam eadem stella por­ tendit disseramus. Argiuorum rex Agamemnon habens in auxilio multos duces atque reges, unicam urbem Priami dolo uix euertit obsidionis anno decimo.12 Quae fuerint eius militum ingenia, quae uirtus, carmina testantur. Item Roma sic adulta opibus, ut orbi terrarum uellet praesidere, urbes aliquot deuicit singulas pluribus annis. Subegit autem urbes Anglorum cunctas dux Guillelmus copiis Normanniae uno die ab hora tertia in uesperum, non multo extrinsecus adiutorio.3 Si tuerentur eas moenia Troiana, breui talis uiri manus et consilium exscinderint Pergama.4 Posset illico" uictor sedem regiam adire, imponere sibi dia­ dema, terrae diuitias in praedam suis militibus tribuere, quosque potentes alios iugulare, alios in exilium eiicere. Sed moderatius ire placuit atque clementius dominari. Consueuit namque pridem adolescens temperantia decorare triumphos. Par fuisset Anglorum, qui sese per iniuriam tantam pessundederunt in mortem, carnes gula uulturis lupique deuorari, ossibus insepultis campos fore sepultos. Ceterum illi crudele uisum est tale supplicium. Volentibus ad humandum eos colligere liberam concessit potestatem. 27. Humatis autem suis, dispositaque custodia Hastingas cum strenuo praefecto,5 Romanaerium accedens, quam placuit poenam exegit pro clade suorum, quos illuc errore appulsos fera gens adorta praelio cum utriusque partis maximo detrimento fuderat.6 Hinc Doueram contendit, ubi populum innumerabilem ' M F ; ilico D 1 This is WP’s first reference to the comet (Halley’s comet), which was observed in places as far apart as France, Germany, Italy, and Scandinavia, as well as in Normandy and England. It was variously regarded as an omen, though not always of the same event. See E. van Houts, ‘The Norman Conquest through European eyes’, EH R cx (1995), 832-53. The Bayeux Tapestry (pi. 35) dramatically links it with the first rumours o f the preparation o f Duke William’s invasion fleet. 2 Cf. Vergil, Aeneid ii. 197-8. 3 This is rhetorical exaggeration; the battle o f Hastings was decisive, but not final; WP himself in his later chapters describes some o f King William’s campaigns to put down rebellions in the west country and Yorkshire. 4 Poetically the name ‘Pergama’ designated the citadel o f Troy; it occurs frequently in

ii. 27

TH E D EE DS OF W I L L I A M

143

kings, which burned soon after your elevation, foretold your doom.1 26. But, omitting a funeral dirge, let us enlarge on the felicity that the same star portended. Agamemnon, king o f the Argives, with the help o f many leaders and kings, barely succeeded in reducing Priam’s single city after a ten-year siege.2 Songs tell how fine was the character, how great the courage o f his soldiers. Likewise Rome, after growing so great in wealth that it wished to rule over the whole world, conquered a few cities one by one, over many years. But Duke William with the forces o f Normandy subjugated all the cities o f the English in a single day, between the third hour and the evening, without much outside help.3 Even if the walls o f Troy had defended its citadel,4 the strong arm and counsel o f such a man would soon have destroyed it. As victor, he could have gone on immediately to the royal seat, placed the diadem on his head, and distributed the riches o f the realm as booty to his knights, slaying some o f the magnates and driving others into exile. But he preferred to act more moderately and rule with greater clemency. For from his youth he had been accustomed to show temperance in his triumphs. It would have been right for the flesh o f the English, who through so great an injustice had rushed headlong to their death, to be devoured by the mouths o f the vulture and the wolf, and for the fields to have been covered with their unburied bones. But to him such a punishment seemed cruel. He gave free licence to those who wished to recover their remains for burial. 27. After burying his own men and placing Hastings in the charge o f an energetic castellan,5 he proceeded to Romney and there inflicted such punishment as he thought fit for the slaughter o f his men, who had landed there by mistake; they had been attacked by the fierce people o f the region, and scattered after heavy losses on both sides.6 Then he went to Dover, where he the Aeneid (i. 466; ii. 177, 291 and passim). WP may have had in mind ‘Nec posse Argolicis exscindi Pergama telis’ (ii. 177). s Humphrey o f Tilleul. 6 WP is the sole authority for the Romney incident. It shows that, although the greater part o f the English army had been withdrawn from the coast before William landed, some men were still guarding at least parts o f it.

144

GESTA GVILLELM I

u. 27

congregatum acceperat; quod locus ille inexpugnabilis uidebatur. At eius propinquitate Angli perculsi, neque naturae uel operis munimento, neque multitudini uirorum confidunt. Situm est id castellum in rupe mari contigua, quae naturaliter acuta undique ad hoc ferramentis elaborate incisa, in speciem muri directissima altitudine, quantum sagittae iactus permetiri potest, consurgit, quo in latere unda marina alluitur. Cum tamen castellani supplices deditionem pararent, armigeri exercitus nostri praedae cupidine ignem iniecerunt. Flamma leuitate sua uolitans pleraque corripuit. Dux, nolens incommoda eorum qui secum deditionaliter agere coeperant, pretium dedit restituendarum aedium, aliaque amissa recompensauit. Seuerius animaduerti praecepisset in auctores incendii, ni uilitas et numerositas ipsorum occultauisset eos. Recepto castro, quae minus erant per dies octo addidit firmamenta.1 Milites illic recentibus carnibus et aqua utentes, multi profluuio uentris extincti sunt, plurimi in extremum uitae debilitati discrimen. Aduersa tamen et haec fortitudinem ducis non fregerunt. Custodiam inibi quoque relinquens, et dissenteria languentes, ad perdomandum quos deuicit proficiscitur. 28. Occurrunt ultro Cantuarii haud procul a Douera, iurant fidelitatem, dant obsides. Contremuit etiam potens metropolis metu, et ne funditus caderet ullatenus resistendo, maturauit impetrare statum obediendo. Veniens postero die ad Fractam Turrim castra metatus est;2 quo in loco grauissima sui corporis ualetudine animos familiarium pari conturbauit aegritudine. Volens autem publicum bonum, ne exercitus egestate rerum necessariarum laboraret, noluit indulgere sibi moras ibi agendo, quanquam fuerit commune proficuum ac ualde optandum, opti­ mum ducem ad sanitatem conualere. 1 In referring to a ‘castellum’ WP either used the term loosely, or (if he had ever seen Dover) had in mind the fortifications built by William after he occupied the site. Before the Conquest there were some Anglo-Saxon fortifications on the hill above the town, around the Roman lighthouse and the church o f St Mary-in-Castro. R. Allen Brown, Dover Castle (HM SO 1974), PP- 4-5, describes the terms ‘castrum’ and ‘castellum’ which are used in some early sources, even in the Worcester Chronicle, as ‘merely the product o f loose terminology’; and suggests that before the Conquest the ‘castle’ was an Anglo-Saxon burh, occupying the site o f an ancient Iron Age encampment which preceded it; and that William the Conqueror built extra defences within the older fortifications.

ii. 28

TH E DEEDS OF W IL L IA M

145

heard that a great multitude had gathered because the place seemed impregnable. But the English, terror-stricken at his approach, lost all confidence in the natural defences and fortifica­ tions o f the place, and in the multitude o f men. T his castle stands near to the sea on a rock which is naturally steep on all sides, and has furthermore been patiently chipped away with iron tools, so that it is like a wall o f towering height equal to the flight o f an arrow on the side washed by the sea. When, however, the garrison were preparing to make humble surrender, the squires in our army, greedy for booty, set the place on fire. The volatile flames spread quickly and took hold o f most buildings. T he duke, not wishing to injure those who had begun to parley with him for surrender, paid for the repair o f the buildings and gave compensa­ tion for other losses. He would have ordered those responsible for the blaze to be severely punished, had not their low condition and great number concealed them. After the surrender o f the castle, he spent eight days in fortifying it where it was weakest.1 Whilst the soldiers were there they ate freshly killed meat and drank water, with the result that many died o f dysentery and many were so weakened as to be on the verge o f death. However even these adversities did not break the determination o f the duke. Leaving there a garrison and the men suffering from dysentery, he set out to subjugate those whom he had defeated. 28. T he men o f Canterbury o f their own accord came out to meet him not far from Dover; they swore fealty and gave hostages. Even the mighty metropolitan city shook with terror, and for fear o f total ruin if it resisted further, hastened to secure its status by submission. Coming next day to the Broken Tower, the duke pitched his camp.2 In that place he was afflicted with a severe illness, which caused great anxiety to his closest followers. But for the sake o f the general good he did not wish to indulge himself by delaying there, lest the army should suffer from a shortage o f supplies, although it was greatly to be desired and in the public interest that the admirable duke should be restored to health. 2 This place has not been identißed; possibly Duchesne misread a name, but even Faversham is not very likely.

146

GESTA GVILLELM I

ii. 28

Interea Stigandus Cantuariensis archipraesul, qui sicut excellebat opibus atque dignitate, ita consultis plurimum apud Anglos poterat,1 cum filiis Algardi2 aliisque praepotentibus praelium minatur. Regem statuerant Edgarum Athelinum,0 ex Edwardi regis nobilitate annis puerum.3 Erat uidelicet eorum uoti summa, non habere dominum quem non habuere compatriotam. Verum qui dominari debuit eis intrepide approperans, ubi frequentiorem audiuit eorum conuentum, non longe a Lundonia consedit. Prae­ terluit eam urbem fluuius Tamesis, peregrinas e portu marino diuitias aduectans. Cum solos ciues habeat, copioso ac praestantia militari famoso incolatu abundat. Tum uero confluxerat ad ipsam hospes turba propugnatorum, quam licet ambitu nimis ampla non facile capiebat. Praemissi illo equites Normanni quingenti, egres­ sam contra se aciem refugere intra moenia impigre compellunt, terga caedentes. Multae stragi addunt incendium, cremantes quicquid aedificiorum citra flumen inuenere, ut malo duplici superba ferocia contundatur. Dux progrediens dein quoquouersum placuit, transmeato flumine Tamesi, uado simul atque ponte ad oppidum Guarengefort peruenit.4 Adueniens eodem Stigandus pontifex metropolitanus, manibus ei sese dedit, fidem sacramento confirmauit, abrogans Athelinum0 quem leuiter elegerat. Hinc procedenti statim ut Lundonia conspectui patebat, obuiam exeunt principes ciuitatis; sese cunctamque duitatem in obsequium illius, quemad­ modum ante Cantuarii, tradunt; obsides quos et quot imperat adducunt. Orant post haec ut coronam5* sumat una pontifices a F ; Adelinum D M 1 For the power and wealth o f Stigand, see in particular M. Frances Smith, ‘Archbishop Stigand and the eye of the needle9, Battle, xvi (1994), 199-219. 2 The sons of Ælfgar, earl of Mercia, were Edwin, earl o f Mercia, and Morcar, earl of Northumbria; Harold had married their sister Edith, and they were committed to his cause. 3 Edgar was the son of Edward Ætheling and grandson o f Edmund Ironside, halfbrother o f King Edward. 4 According to the Worcester Chronicle (JW ii. 606) and A S C (D) 1066, the army continued to ravage up to the time of the submission, which the chronicles placed at Berkhamsted, not Wallingford. JW specifies that William laid waste the counties of Sussex, Kent, Hampshire, Middlesex, and Hertfordshire. The A S Q which does not name Stigand, continues, ‘there he was met by Archbishop Aldred and Edgar cild and Earl Edwin and Earl Morcar, and all the chief men from London. And they submitted out o f necessity.

ii. 28

TH E D EE DS OF W IL L IA M

14 7

Meanwhile Stigand, archbishop o f Canterbury, who, outstanding for his wealth and dignity, was equally powerful in the counsels o f the English,1 was threatening battle together with the sons o f Æ lfgar2 and other nobles. As king they had chosen Edgar Ætheling, o f the noble stock o f King Edward, but a boy in years.3 It was indeed their highest wish to have no lord who was not a compatriot. But indeed the man who ought to reign over them was approaching resolutely, and took up a position not far from London, where he heard that they most often held their meetings. T he river Thames flows past this city, carrying foreign riches from a sea port. Although it is inhabited only by citizens, it abounds in a large population famous for their military qualities. At that time, indeed, a crowd o f warriors from elsewhere had flocked thither, and the city, in spite o f its great size, could scarcely accommodate them all. Five hundred Norman knights, sent there in advance, quickly forced the troops that had made a sortie to retreat shamefully inside the walls, killing those in the rear. They added fire to the great carnage, burning all the houses they could find on this side o f the river, so that the fierce pride o f their enemies might be subdued by a twofold disaster. The duke, advancing wherever he wished, then crossed the river Thames by both a ford and a bridge and came to the town o f Wallingford.4 Stigand the archbishop, coming to him there, did homage to him, confirmed his fealty with an oath, and renounced the ætheling, whom he had elected without due consideration. As soon as William, advancing from there, came in sight o f London, the chief men o f the city came out to meet him; they submitted themselves and the whole city to him just as the men o f Canterbury had done previously. They produced as many hostages as he required. After this the bishops and other leading men begged him to take the crown,5 saying that And they gave hostages and swore oaths to him, and he promised that he would be a gracious liege lord, and yet in the mean time they ravaged all they overran.9 5 The Carmen (lines 635-750) gives a dramatic and lengthy account o f the capitulation of London, alleging that William prepared to bombard the city with siege engines, and that the surrender was negotiated by a certain ‘ Ansgard’, who hoped to trick the Conqueror in negotiations, but was himself tricked. Much o f the detail is implausible; but since Ansgard can probably be identified as Asgar or Esgar the staller, a man o f some importance in 1066, he may have been involved in the negotiations. For Asgar, see Waltham Chronicley pp. xvii, xviii, and R. H. C. Davis, ‘The Carmen de Hastingae proelio\ in his From Alfred the Great to Stephen (London and Rio Grande, OH, 1991), pp. 79-100, at 88-9.

1 48

GESTA GVILLELM I

ii. 28

atque caeteri summates, se quidem solitos esse regi seruire, regem dominum habere uelle.1 29. Consulens ille comitatos e Normannia, quorum non minus prudentiam quam fidem spectatam habebat, patefecit eis quid maxime sibi dissuaderet quod Angli orabant: res adhuc turbidas esse; rebellare nonnullos; se potius regni quietem quam coronam cupere. Praeterea si Deus ipsi hunc concedit honorem, secum uelle coniugem suam coronari.2 Denique non oportere nimium proper­ ari, dum in altum culmen ascenditur. Profecto non illi dominabatur regnandi libido, sanctum esse intellexerat sancteque diligebat coniugii pignus. Familiares contra suasere, ut totius exercitus unanimi desiderio optari sciebant; quanquam rationes eius apprime laudabiles dignoscerent, ex arcano uberrimae sapientiae manantes. Aderat huic consilio Haimerius Aquitanus, praeses Toarcensis,3 lingua non ignobilior quam dextra. Is demirans et urbane extollens modestiam inquirentem animos militum, num uellent dominum suum regem fieri: ‘Ad disceptationem', inquit, ‘huiusmodi milites nunquam aut raro acciti sunt. Non est diu trahendum nostra deliberatione quod desideramus fieri quam ocissime.' At prudentissimi et optimi uiri nequaquam ita cuperent in alto huius mon­ archiae illum locari, nisi praecipue idoneum peruiderent, licet ipsorum commoda et honores per exultationem eius augeri uolentes. Ipse iterum omnia secum perpendens, adquieuit tot petentibus totque suadentibus;4 praesertim sperans ubi regnare coeperit rebel­ lem quemque minus ausurum in se, facilius conterendum esse.a Praemisit ergo Lundoniam qui munitionem in ipsa construerent urbe, et pleraque competentia regiae magnificentiae praepararent, moraturus interim per uicina. Aduersitas omnis procul fuit, adeo ut uenatui et auium ludo, si forte libuit, secure uacaret.5 a M F ; a se P 1 Orderic added the word ‘coronato’ here: ‘hoc etiam diuino nutu subacti optabant indigenae regni, qui nisi coronato regi seruire hactenus erant soliti’ (OV ii. 182). 2 Matilda was not able to come to England to be crowned until Pentecost, 1068 (OV ii. 214; probably Orderic took the information from the lost chapters o f WP). 3 For Aimeri, vicomte o f Thouars, see above, p. xviii. 4 Orderic realistically cut out all panegyric, and reduced the whole discussion to, ‘Hoc summopere flagitabant Normanni, qui pro fasce regali nanciscendo suo principi, subierunt ingens discrimen maris et praelii’ (OV ii. 182).

ii. 29

TH E DEE DS OF W I L L I A M

149

they were accustomed to obey a king, and wished to have a king as their lord.1 29. He consulted the men who had come with him from Normandy, whom he had perceived to be as wise as they were loyal, and explained to them what chiefly dissuaded him from doing as the English begged: the situation was still confused, some people were rebelling; he desired the peace o f the kingdom rather than the crown. Besides, if God granted him this dignity, he wished his wife to be crowned with him.2 Finally, it was not seemly to rush too much when climbing to the topmost pinnacle. Indeed he was not dominated by the passion to rule; he had learnt that marriage vows were holy and respected their sanctity. His closest friends urged the opposite course on him, as they knew that this was the unanimous wish o f the whole army, though they recognized that his arguments were particularly laudable, proceed­ ing as they did from the depths o f his inexhaustible wisdom. Aimeri the Aquitanian, praeses o f Thouars,3 a man whose eloquence equalled his prowess, was present at this counsel. He, while admiring and courteously praising the modesty o f a lord who consulted the opinions o f his knights on whether they wished their lord to become a king, said, ‘Rarely or never have knights been admitted to a debate such as this. There is no need to delay by our debate what we wish to be done as quickly as possible.' But these wise and powerful men would never have been so anxious to raise him to the throne o f this kingdom had they not recognized that he was outstandingly suitable, although they wished their gains and honours to be increased by his elevation. He himself, after carefully reconsidering everything, gave way to all their requests and arguments;4 he hoped above all that once he had begun to reign any rebels would be less ready to challenge him and more easily put down. So he sent men ahead to London to build a fortress in the city and make the many preparations necessary for royal dignity, while he himself remained in the neighbourhood. All opposition was so remote that he could, if he wished, spend his time in hunting and falconry.5 5 Cf. above, i. 17.

ISO

GESTA GVILLELMI

u. 30

30. Die ordinationi decreto, elocutus ad Anglos condecenti sermone Eboracensis archiepiscopus1 aequitatem ualde amans, aeuo maturus, sapiens, bonus, eloquens, an consentirent eum sibi dominum coronari, inquisiuit. Protestati sunt hilarem con­ sensum uniuersi minime haesitantes, ac si caelitus una mente data unaque uoce. Anglorum uoluntati quam facillime Normanni consonuerunt, sermocinato ad eos ac sententiam percunctato Constantiniensi* praesule. Ceterum, qui circa monasterium in armis et equis praesidio dispositi fuerunt, ignotae (linguae/ nimio strepitu accepto, rem sinistram arbitrati, prope ciuitati imprudentia flammam iniecerunt. Sic electum consecrauit idem archiepiscopus aeque sancta uita carus et inuiolata fama; imposuit ei regium diadema, ipsumque regio solio, fauente multorum praesentia praesulum et abbatum, in basilica sancti Petri apostoli, quae regis Edwardi sepulchro gaudebat, in sacrosancta solemnitate Dominici natalis, millesimo sexagesimo sexto Incarnationis Dominicae anno. Repudiauit eum consecrari a Stigando Cantuariensi, quem per apostolici iustum zelum anathemate reprobatum didicerat. Nec minus insignia regum decuerunt personam eius, quam ad regimen idoneae extiterunt uirtutes eius. Cuius liberi atque nepotes iusta successione praesidebunt Anglicae terrae, quam et hereditaria delegatione sacramentis Anglorum firmata, et iure belli ipse possedit: coronatus tali eorundem consensu, uel potius appetitu eiusdem gentis primatum. Et si ratio sanguinis poscitur, pernotum est quam proxima consanguinitate regem Edwardum attigerit filius ducis Rodberti, cuius amita Ricardi secundi soror, filia primi, Emma, genitrix fuit Edwardi.2 Post celebratam ordinationem— non, ut solitum est, post honorum augmenta fieri— remissius laudabilia gerere coepit, sed nouo admirandoque ardore ad honestos et ingentes actus accen­ ditur dignissimus rex: quod nomen, posito ducis nomine, libens * Constantini D; Constantiniensis O V

* Supplied from O V

1 WP continues to insist on the role o f Archbishop Ealdred in the coronation and acceptance o f William. The Carmen (lines 803-4) states that two archbishops took part in the ceremony: an indication that it must have been written either before Stigand’s disgrace in 1070 or in the twelfth century.

ii. 30

T H E DEE DS OF W I L L I A M

151

30. On the day fixed for the coronation, the archbishop o f York,1 a great lover o f justice and a man o f mature years, wise, good, and eloquent, addressed the English, and asked them in the appropriate words whether they would consent to him being crowned as their lord. They all shouted their joyful assent, with no hesitation, as if heaven had granted them one mind and one voice. T he Normans added their voice most readily to the wish o f the English, after the bishop o f Coutances had addressed them and asked their wishes. But the men who, armed and mounted, had been placed as a guard round the minster, on hearing the loud clamour in an unknown tongue, thought that some treachery was afoot and rashly set fire to houses near to the city. When William had been elected in this way the archbishop, renowned for both his holy life and his spotless reputation, consecrated him, placed on his head the diadem o f kings, and seated him on a royal throne, in the presence and with the consent o f many bishops and abbots, in the basilica o f St Peter the apostle, which boasted o f possessing the tomb o f King Edward, on the holy feast o f Christmas in the year o f Our Lord 1066. He had indeed refused to be consecrated by Stigand, the archbishop o f Canterbury, having learnt that he had been pronounced excommunicate through the just zeal o f the pope. T he royal insignia were no less fitting to his person than were his virtues to kingly rule. And his children and grandchildren will rule by lawful succession over the English land, which he possesses both by hereditary designation confirmed by the oath o f the English, and by right o f conquest. He was crowned by the consent, or rather by the wish, o f the leaders o f the same people. And if anyone asks the reason for this blood claim, it is well-known that he was related to King Edward by close ties o f blood, being the son o f Duke Robert, whose aunt, Emma, the sister o f Richard II and daughter o f Richard I, was Edward’s mother.2 After the coronation ceremony he did not relax in his performance o f good works, as usually happens after honours have been increased, but, with admirable new zeal, he was inspired to great and noble undertakings, as a most worthy 2 Here WP sums up all the elements making up William’s claim to the throne, which have already been introduced at earlier points in his narrative.

152

GESTA GVILLELMI

ii.

30

acceptat stilus noster.1 Secularibus namque ac diuinis operam impendebat strenuam utrisque; ad seruitium tamen regis omnium regum cor propensius habebat; quippe cui suos prouectus reputabat, contra quem potentia aut uita neminem mortalium potiri diu posse sciebat; a quo gloriam interminabilem, ubi temporalem finiret, expectabat. In huius ergo imperatoris quasi tributum large erogauit, quod Heraldi regis aerarium auare inclusit.2 3 1. Terrae illi sua fertilitate opimae uberiorem opulentiam comportare soliti sunt negotiatores gaza aduectitia. Maximi numero genere, artificio thesauri compositi fuerant, aut custo­ diendi ad uanum gaudium auaritiae, aut luxu Anglico turpiter consumendi. Quorum partem ad ministros confecti belli magnifice erogauit, plurima ac pretiosissima egenis et monasteriis diuersarum prouinciarum distribuit. Id munificentiae studium adiuuit non modicus census, quem undique ciuitates et locupletes quique obtulerant nouitio domino.3 Romanae ecclesiae sancti Petri4 pecuniam in auro atque argento ampliorem quam dictu credibile *sit, et ornamenta0 quae Bizantium percara haberet, in manum Alexandri papae transmisit. Memorabile quoque uexillum Her­ aldi, hominis armati imaginem intextam habens ex auro puris­ simo:5 quo spolio pro munere eiusdem apostolici benignitate sibi misso par redderet;6 simul et triumphum de tiranno Romae ulteriusque optatum pulchre indicaret. Quanti famulorum Christi a~a D\ sit; ornamenta M F 1 WP’s insistence that William’s royal title began only with his coronation was in line with Capetian royal practice (in contrast to the earlier English practice o f dating a new reign from the death o f the previous king), and with the insistence of the Church on coronation as an essential element in regality. See G. Garnett (‘Coronation and propaganda’, above, p. xxvi n. 59), p. h i , who suggests that Lanfranc may have influenced the presentation of the case for William. 2 There is ample evidence o f Harold’s appropriation o f estates (see above, p. 14, n. 2). But, at least before his coronation, he was generous in his gifts to favoured churches, in particular his own foundation at Waltham (Waltham Chronicle, pp. 26-33). 3 The Spontaneous’ gifts were made, as even WP’s account of the surrender o f Canterbury and London admits, to prevent spoliation. WP characteristically presents a case wholly favourable to William. The A S C (D) 1070, complained that 4the king had all the monasteries that were in England plundered.’ Both the Worcester and Ely chronicles, however, show that the plundering was not indiscriminate; some property seized had been placed in monastic houses by lay persons, and some was recovered (FW ii. 4-5; Liber

». 3 i

T H E D EE DS OF W IL L IA M

153

king— a title which our pen gladly takes up in place o f that o f duke.1 He devoted himself with equal energy to both secular and divine business, but his heart was more inclined to the service o f the King o f Kings. For it was to Him that he attributed his advancement, knowing that in opposition to Him no one could long enjoy power or life; and from Whom he hoped for eternal glory when earthly glory came to an end. And so, as tribute to the Sovereign Lord, he distributed liberally what Harold had avar­ iciously shut up in the royal treasure store.2 3 1. T o this most fertile land merchants used to bring added wealth in imported riches. Treasures remarkable for their number and kind and workmanship had been amassed there, either to be kept for the empty enjoyment o f avarice, or to be squandered shamefully in English luxury. O f these he liberally gave a part to those who had helped him win the battle, and distributed most, and the most valuable, to the needy and to the monasteries o f various provinces. T his munificence was assisted by the substan­ tial tribute which cities everywhere and individual rich men offered to their new lord.3 To the church o f St Peter in Rome he sent more gold and silver coins than could be told credibly;4 and he presented to Pope Alexander ornaments which Byzantium could have considered most precious;5 also Harold’s famous banner in which the image o f an armed warrior was woven in pure gold. B y the gift o f this booty he made an equal return to the pope for the gift sent to him through the pope’s generosity;6 and at the same time he indicated aptly his victory over the tyrant, a ElienstSy p. 196). In the redistribution the Norman monasteries were the chief gainers; see below, ii. 4 1, 42. C. R. Dodwell (Anglo-Saxon Art: A New Perspective (Manchester, 1982), pp. 230-2) notes the meagre share o f the treasures given or restored to English churches. 4 This is probably a reference to Peter’s Pence, which had been paid somewhat irregularly, and occurs in Anglo-Saxon sources at least from the tenth century (Councils and Synodsy i. 62, 100, 308, 3 5 1, 627, 629; W. E. Lunt, Financial Relations o f the Papacy with England to 1327 (Cambridge, M A, 1939)* PP- 3 *~3* 45~75 The phrase 4quae Bizantium percara haberat’ , used by Robert o f Torigni in a different context (G N D ii. 244), is one o f the indications that Torigni may have been familiar with CC. 6 A reference to the papal banner sent to William; see above, ii. 2. Harold’s banner is presented differently in the Bayeux Tapestry, where it shows a wyvem ‘presumably representing the dragon of Wessex’ (Renn, 4Burgeat’, p. 187).

154

GESTA GVILLELM I

a . 31

caetus tum laeti gratiarum hymnos canebant pro uictore, antea fautores illius precum armatura, summatim recitamus. M ille ecclesiis Franciae, Aquitaniae, Burgundiae, nec non Aruemiae, aliarumque regionum perpetuo celebre erit Guillelmi regis mem­ oriale.1 Beneficii magnitudo semper uiuens mori benefactoris memoriam non patietur. Aliae cruces aureas admodum grandes insigniter gemmatas, pleraeque libras auri uel ex eodem metallo uasa, nonnulla pallia, uel pretiosum aliud quid accepere. Splendide adornaret metropolitanam basilicam, quod minimum in his donis coenobiolum aliquod laetificauit. Ducibus atque regibus haec, et scripta in hoc libello complura innotescere uelim ad exemplum aut incitamentum. 32. Munera quidem gratissima Normanniae aduenerunt a suo dulci nato, pio patre, festinante affectu missa, cum saeuitia temporis atque maris, intrante Ianuario, esset acerrima. Nuntium uero euentus, cuius expectatione intenta fuit ex anxia, milies cariorem accepit. Nec enim adeo gratum acciperet quicquid Arabia2 pulchrum aut suaue donare posset. Nullus unquam illuxit ei dies laetior, quam cum certo resciuit principem suum, auctorem sui quieti status, regem esse. Vrbes, castella, uillae, monasteria, multum pro uictore, maxime congratulabantur pro regnante. L u x quaedam insolitae serenitatis prouinciae subito exorta uidebatur. Quae licet destitutam se putaret communi patre dum eius praesentia careret, sic tamen abesse uolebat eum, magis ut summa potentia ipse uteretur, quam ut sibi praesidio foret aut decori amplius potens. Tantum namque cupiebat Normannia illius maiestatem quam ille Normanniae commoda siue honorem. Profecto dubium erat illum patria, an patriam ille, plus diligeret, qualiter est olim dubitatum de Caesare Augusto et populo Romano.3 1 The geographical spread o f the mother churches o f the later 4alien priories9 (which included the great houses of Cluny and Marmoutier) is an indication of the continental beneficiaries o f the Conquest (see D. Knowles and N. Hadcock, M edieval Religious Houses, England and Wales (London, 1971), pp. 83-103). The absence o f benefactions to houses in Brittany at this early period, in spite o f the large contingent o f Bretons in the Conqueror’s armies, is noteworthy; and Brittany rightly does not appear in WP’s list. 2 Cf. Ps. 7 1: 10, ‘Reges Tharsis et insulae munera offerent; reges Arabum et Saba dona adducent’ , and Ps. 7 1: 15, ‘Et vivet, dabitur ei de auro Arabiae.’

H. 32

TH E D EE DS OF W IL L IA M

155

victory greatly desired at Rome. We will relate briefly how many communities o f the servants o f Christ were happy to sing hymns o f praise for the victor, whom they had previously supported with the armament o f their prayers. In a thousand churches o f France, Aquitaine, and Burgundy, and also Auvergne and other regions, the memory o f King William will be celebrated for ever.1 The magnitude o f the benefaction, always living, will not allow the memory o f the benefactor to die. Some churches received very large golden crosses, wonderfully jewelled; many others pounds o f gold, or vessels made o f the same metal; quite a few vestments or something else o f value. T he least o f these gifts with which he delighted the smallest cell would have been a splendid enrichment for a metropolitan basilica. Would that I could make known to leaders and kings these things, and many others written in this book, as an example and an incitement. 32. But the most welcome gifts came to Normandy from its kind son and pious father, sent with considerate haste when the severity o f the weather and sea (for it was the beginning o f January) was at its worst. T he news o f the outcome awaited with such eager and anxious hope was received a thousand times more dearly. Normandy could not have received the most beautiful and delightful gift from Arabia2 with such thankfulness. No happier day ever dawned on her than that on which she learned for certain that her leader, to whom she owed her peaceful condition, was a king. Towns, castles, villages, monasteries, rejoiced greatly for the victory, still more for the kingship. A light o f unaccustomed serenity seemed suddenly to have dawned on the province. For although she thought herself deprived o f her common father when he was not present, she accepted that he should be absent, more so that he might enjoy supreme power than that he should be a stronger defence or a greater glory for her. Normandy indeed was as eager for his greatness as he was for the interest and honour o f Normandy. It was doubtful which was the greater, his country’s love for him or his love for his country, just as it was once doubted o f Caesar Augustus and the Roman people.3 3 Cf. Suetonius, Augustus, c. Iviii, for the substance rather than the exact words.

156

GESTA GVILLELMI

ii. 32

Diligeres ac maximi haberes eum et tu, Anglica terra, totamque te eius pedibus laeta prosterneres, si abesset imprudentia atque iniquitas tua, quo meliore consilio diiudicare posses in qualis uiri potestatem deueneris.1 Praeiudicare noli, dignitatem eius diligen­ tius cognosce, et quotquot exegisti dominos, parui habebis cum eo comparatos. Eius honestatis pulchritudo optimo te colore dec­ orabit. Didicit per legatum suum ualentissimus uir, rex Pyrrhus, tales fere, qualis erat ipse, Romam habere cunctos.2 Illa ciuitas, parens regum orbis, terrae caput et domina, hunc, qui tibi dominaturus est progenuisse, et ipsius manu defensari, sapientia gubernari, imperio parere gauderet. Huius milites Normanni possident Apuliam, deuicere Siciliam,3 propugnant Constantinopolim, ingerunt metum Babyloni.4 Nobilissimos tuorum filiorum, iuuenes ac senes, Chunutus Danus trucidauit nimia crudelitate,5 ut sibi ac liberis suis te subigeret. Hic ne Heraldum uellet occubuisse. Immo uoluit patris Goduini* potentiam illi ampliare, et riatam suam, imperatoris thalamo dignissimam, in matrimo­ nium, uti fuerat pollicitus, tradere.6 At si haec tibi mecum non conueniunt, profecto sustulit a ceruice tua superbum crudelemque dominatum Heraldi; abominandum tirannum, qui te seruitute calamitosa simul et ignominiosa premeret, interemit;7* quod meritum in omni gente gratum habetur atque praeclarum. Benefacta uero saluberrimae dominationis, qua eris exaltata, in sequentibus aliqua contra tuam inuidiam testabuntur. Viuet, uiuet a D M\ Godwini F 1 Here WP recognizes that, in spite o f his claims, the English did not accept the Conquest without rebellion. 2 Cf. Plutarch, Pyrrhus, xxix. 6. 3 The Norman conquest of South Italy and Sicily by the sons o f Tancred of Hauteville progressed rapidly after their acceptance by Pope Nicholas II in 1059. By 1066 substantial gains had been made in both Apulia and Sicily; by the time WP wrote the conquests had been completed with the capture o f Bari in 1071 and Palermo in 1072. See, most recently, Bouet and Neveux, Les Normands en Méditerranée (above, p. 104 n. 3), pp. 18 -2 1. There is an interesting parallel with one statement in the Carmen (lines 259-60) that has puzzled commentators, but now makes sense as textually emended by Orlandi (pp. 125-7) from ‘Apulus et Calaber, Siculus, quibus iacula feruunt | Normanni . . .’ to ‘ [Normanni], quibus Apulus, Calaber et Siculus incola seruit9. This emendation removes the alleged South Italian contingent from the battlefield of Hastings, where no other chronicler noticed them. The passage now refers to the triumphs of the Normans, including their conquest o f South Italy and (part of) Sicily, and is exactly parallel to this statement in WP.

II. 3 2

T H E DEE DS OF W IL L IA M

157

And you too, you English land, would love him and hold him in the highest respect; you would gladly prostrate yourself entirely at his feet, i f putting aside your folly and wickedness you could judge more soundly the kind o f man into whose power you had come.1 Be not prejudiced, learn to appreciate his worth, and all the lords you have endured will appear petty in compar­ ison with him. T he splendour o f his reputation will cast great lustre on you. T he most valiant King Pyrrhus learnt through an ambassador to regard all the Romans as comparable to himself.2 That city, mother o f the kings o f the world, sovereign mistress o f the earth, would have rejoiced to have given birth to the man who is to rule over you, and to be defended by his arm, governed by his wisdom, and submitted to his rule. His Norman knights possess Apulia, have conquered Sicily,3 defend Constantinople, and strike fear into Babylon.4 Cnut the Dane slaughtered the noblest o f your sons, young and old, with the utmost cruelty,5 so that he could subject you to his rule and that o f his children. This man (William) did not desire the death o f Harold, but rather he wished to increase for him the power o f his father Godwine, and give him in marriage to his own daughter,6 who was worthy to share an emperor’s bed, as had been promised. But i f you do not agree with me on these matters, at least he has lifted from your neck the proud and cruel lordship o f Harold; he has killed the execrable tyrant who was forcing you into a servitude that was both disastrous and shameful.7 Such a service is held by all peoples to be a famous and praiseworthy deed. T he benefits o f the most salutary rule, by which you will be raised up, will subse­ quently bear witness to some extent against your ill-will. King 4 Erroneously translated ‘have attacked Constantinople9 by Foreville, p. 229. The reference is to the Normans fighting in the imperial service against the Turks (Mathieu, Geste, pp. 5 n. 4, 399). Normans were being employed as mercenaries in Constantinople from the middle of the eleventh century; their skill as cavalry was particularly appreciated (J. Shepard, ‘The uses o f the Franks in eleventh-century Byzantium9, Battle, xv (1993),

*75-305)-

5 The A S C (CDE) 10 17 lists the English leaders, including Eadric Streona, ealdorman o f Mercia, killed after Cnut became king; and the poet Sigvatr ThôrSarson recorded (soon Cnut killed or drove away the sons o f Æthelred, yea, everyone o f them9 (Keynes, ‘Æthelings9, p. 174). 6 See OV ii. 136 n. 1. 7 For the justification o f tyrannicide, cf. above, i. 18, ii. 25.

158

GESTA GVILLELM I

U. 3 2

in longum rex Guillelmus, et in paginis nostris, quas tenui orationis figura scribere placet, ut res pulcherrimas dilucide plures intelligant, praesertim cum praecipui oratores, quibus dicendi grauiter copia magna fuit, humili sermone, dum historias scribunt, usi reperiantur.1 33. Multa Lundoniae posteaquam coronatus est prudenter, iuste, clementerque disposuit, quaedam ad ipsius ciuitatis com­ moda siue dignitatem, alia quae genti proficerent uniuersae, nonnulla quibus ecclesiis terrae consuleretur. lura quaecunque dictauit ‘ optimis rationibus sanxit.‘ 2 Iudicium rectum nulla per­ sona ab eo nequicquam postulauit. Specie uindicandi reatus auaritiam plerumque uelat regnans iniquitas, supplicio addicit innocentem, ut possessionem addicti rapiat. Ille neminem damnauit, nisi quem non damnare iniquum foret; nam uti aduersus libidines alias, ita aduersus auaritiam inuictum animum gerebat. Intellexerat esse regiae maiestatis illustri munificentia praestare, nihil ubi aequitas contradicit accipere.3 Suis quoque primatibus digna se et grauitate praecepit, et diligentia suasit aequitatem. Esse iugiter in oculis habendum, cuius uicerint praesidio, aeternum imperatorem. Nimium opprimi uictos nequaquam oportere, uictoribus professione Christiana pares, ne quos iuste subegerint, iniuriis ad rebellandum cogerent. Ad hoc decere, ne quid turpiter in externis agitando, terrae ubi natus uel altus est dedecus infligeret. Milites uero mediae nobilitatis atque gregarios, aptissimis edictis coercuit. Tutae erant a ui mulieres, quam saepe amatores inferunt. Etiam illa delicta quae fierent consensu impudicarum, infamiae prohibendae gratia uetabantur. Potare militem in tabernis non multum a a Omit F ; optimis rationibus sanxit D M O V 1 See above, p. xxii. Classical writers had distinguished between the (stilus maior* in which panegyric was written, and the simpler style more suitable for history (S. MacCormack, ‘Latin prose panegyrics*, Empire and Aftermath, Silver Latin //, ed. T. A. Dorey (London and Boston, 1975), PP- 143-205). 2 There is some evidence o f King William punishing oppressive royal officials before 1071 when they were denounced legally by powerful ecclesiastics; for cases involving the archbishop o f York and the abbot o f Abingdon, see R. C. van Caenegem, English Lawsuits from William I to Richard /, 2 vols. (Seiden Society, London 1990-1), i. nos. 1, 4.

» • 33

TH E D EE DS OF W IL L IA M

159

William will live long, he will live too in our pages, which we are happy to write in a simple style, so that a great many people may easily understand such shining deeds, particularly since you will find that the greatest orators, who have a special capacity for writing impressively, employ a plain style when they are writing history.1 33. At London, after his coronation, he made many wise, just, and merciful provisions; some were for the interest and honour o f the city, others to the profit o f the whole people, and some to the advantage o f the churches o f the land. Whatever laws he promulgated, he promulgated for the best o f reasons.2 No one ever sought a just judgement from him in vain. When iniquity reigns it most often veils its greed under the pretext o f avenging crimes, condemning the innocent man to punishment in order to confiscate his possessions.3 He condemned none save those whom it would have been unjust not to condemn; for he kept his mind free from avarice, as from other passions. He understood that the essence o f royal majesty was to excel in conspicuous generosity, and to accept nothing which was contrary to fair dealing.4 To his magnates he taught conduct worthy o f him and o f his dignity, and as a friend counselled equity. He warned them to be constantly mindful o f the eternal King by whose aid they had conquered, and that it was never seemly to overburden the conquered, who were Christians no less than they themselves were, lest those they had justly defeated be goaded into rebellion by their injuries. He added that it was not honourable to act disgracefully when abroad in such a way as to bring dishonour to the land where one was bom or brought up. He restrained the knights o f middling rank and the common soldiers with appro­ priate regulations. Women were safe from the violence which passionate men often inflict. Even those offences indulged with the consent o f shameless women were forbidden, so as to avoid scandal. He scarcely allowed the soldiers to drink in taverns, since 1 This was a common charge; cf. Vita Edmardi, pp. 78-9 and n. 194. 4 WP here uses ‘aequitas’ in the sense in which it occurs in Scripture (e.g. Ps 9: 9 (8), ‘et ipse iudicabit populos in aequitate9). There is no suggestion of the ‘equity’ o f Roman law.

i6o

GESTA GVILLELM I

h-

33

concessit, quoniam ebrietas litem, lis homicidium solet generare. Seditiones interdixit, caedem et omnem rapinam, frenans ut populos armis, ita legibus arma. Iudices qui uulgo militum essent timori constituti sunt, simul acerbae poenae in eos qui deliquerent decretae sunt; neque liberius Normanni quam Brit­ anni uel Aquitani agere permittebantur.1 Scipionem aliosque priscos duces proponunt imitandos, qui de disciplina militari scriptis docent.2 Prorsus aeque aut plus laudanda exempla ab exercitu Guillelmi regis in promptu est accipere. Sed festinando dicamus alia, ne diu suspendamur a memorando reditu, quem Normannia intenta expectabat. Tributis et cunctis rebus ad regium fiscum reddendis, modum qui non grauaret posuit.3 Latrociniis, inuasionibus, maleficiis locum omnem intra suos terminos denegauit. Portus et quaelibet itinera negotiatoribus patere, et nullam iniuriam fieri iussit.4 Pontificium Stigandi, quod nouerat non canonicum, minime probabat; sed apostolici sententiam expectare melius quam prop­ erantius deponere existimabat.5 Suadebant et aliae rationes, ut ad tempus pateretur atque honorifice haberet illum, cuius inter Anglos auctoritas erat summa. In sede metropolitana meditabatur sanctum uita, fama carum, eloquentia diuini uerbi potentem,0 qui suffraganeis episcopis congruam formam praebere, et ouili Dominico praeesse sciret, cunctisque prodesse cuperet studio uigilanti.6 Item de ordinationibus aliarum ecclesiarum praecogi­ tabat. Omnino proba eius in regnando initia fuere. 34. Egressus e Lundonia, dies aliquot in propinquo loco morabatur Bercingis, dum firmamenta quaedam in urbe contra a M supplies ponere or locare after metropolitana, F after potentem 1 Direct evidence o f King William's enforcement of discipline is lacking; but he was certainly even-handed in his distribution of estates to Bretons, Flemings, and others, no less than to Normans, as Domesday Book shows. 2 Cicero, Epistulae ad Familiares, ix. 25, refers to military treatises by Pyrrhus, king of Epirus, and his minister Cineas. 3 There is a different picture in A S C (D) 10 6 7 ,4And the king imposed a heavy tax on the wretched people, and nevertheless caused all that they overran to be ravaged'; and in Orderic (OV ii. 202), ‘Amissa itaque libertate Angli uehementer ingemiscunt, et uicissim qualiter intolerabile iugum sibique hactenus insolitum excutiant subtiliter inquirunt.' 4 There is some corroboration in the summing up o f the reign in the A S C (E) 1087, ‘Amongst other things the good security he made in this country is not to be forgotten, so

ii. 34

TH E D EE DS OF W I L L I A M

l6 l

drunkenness leads to quarrels and quarrels to murder. He forbade strife, murder, and every kind o f plunder, restraining the people with arms and the arms with laws. Judges were appointed who could strike terror into the mass o f the soldiers, and stem punishments were decreed for offenders; nor were the Normans given greater licence than the Bretons or the Aquitanians.1 Those who write about military science hold up Scipio and other early leaders as models to be imitated.2 In future they will readily accept the examples o f King William’s army as equally or more praiseworthy. But let us pass rapidly to other matters, lest we defer too long the account o f his memorable return, which Normandy was eagerly expecting. He set a limit that was not oppressive to the collection o f tribute and all dues owed to the royal treasury.3 He allowed no place in his kingdom for thefts, brigandage, or evil deeds. He ordered that merchants should go freely in the harbours and on all highways, and should suffer no harm.4 He did not approve o f the pontificate o f Stigand, which he knew to be uncanonical, but thought it better to await the pope’s sentence than to depose him hastily.5 Other considerations persuaded him to suffer him for the time being and hold him in honour, because o f the very great authority he exercised over the English. He was considering placing in the metropolitan see a man o f holy life and great renown, a master in expounding the word o f God who would know how to furnish a suitable model for his suffragan bishops, and how to preside over the Lord’s flock, and who would wish to procure the good o f all with vigilant zeal.6 He also gave thought to making provision for other churches. All the first acts o f his reign were righteous. 34. Leaving London, he spent a few days in the nearby place o f Barking, while fortifications were being completed in the city as a defence against the inconstancy o f the numerous and hostile that any honest man could travel over his kingdom without injury with his bosom full o f gold.’ 5 Stigand was deposed in the Council o f Winchester, 1070, presided over by King William with three cardinals sent by Pope Alexander II (Councils and Synods, i. 563-70). 6 This anticipates the appointment o f Lanfranc as archbishop o f Canterbury in 1070.

16 2

GESTA GVILLELM I

» • 34

mobilitatem ingentis ac feri populi perficerentur.1 Vidit enim inprimis necessarium magnopere Lundonienses coerceri. Ibi ueniunt ad obsequium eius Eduinus* et Morcardus maximi fere omnium Anglorum genere ac potentia, Algardi illius nominatis­ simi filii, deprecantur ueniam si qua in re contra eum senserant, tradunt se cunctaque sua eius clementiae;2 item alii complures nobiles et opibus ampli. In his erat comes Coxo, quem singulari et fortitudine et probitate regi, post et optimo cuique Normanno placuisse audiuimus.3 Rex eorum sacramenta, ut postulauerunt, libens accepit, liberaliter eis donauit gratiam suam, reddidit eis cuncta quae possederant, habebat eos magno honore. 35. Inde progrediens diuersas partes regni accessit, ordinando ubique utilia sibi et incolis terrae.4 Quaqua pergebat, in armis nemo manebat. Iter nullum obstruitur, occurrunt passim obse­ quentes aut explicantes. Omnes ille clementibus oculis respexit, clementissimis plebem. Saepe uultu miserantem animum prodidit, iussit multotiens misericordiam, cum supplices conspiceret aut egenos, matres animaduerteret uoce et gestibus precari cum liberis. Adelinum, quem post Heraldi ruinam Angli regem statuere conati fuerant, amplis terris ditauit,5 atque in carissimis habuit eum, quia regis Edwardi genus contigerat; ad hoc ne puerilis aetas nimium doleret non habere honorem ad quem electus fuerat. Eiusdem liberalitatis dono acceperunt Angli complures, quod a parentibus uel* prioribus dominis non acceperant. Custodes in castellis strenuos uiros collocauit, ex Gallis traductos, quorum fidei pariter ac uirtuti credebat, cum multitudine peditum et equitum. Ipsis opulenta beneficia distribuit, pro quibus labores “ D M ; Edwinus F

* D M; a F

1 A reference to the building of the White Tower in London, and possibly also to two other early Norman castles in the city: Baynard’s castle and Montfichet (Brown and Curnow, p. 5). 2 The A S C (D) 1066 placed the submission o f Edwin and Morcar at Berkhamsted, before the coronation. Douglas, Conqueror, p. 207, suggested that WP may have confused Barking with Berkhamsted. 3 See below, ii. 48. 4 After this sentence Orderic (OV ii. 194) retained only 4Custodes in castellis . . . distribuit9 in this chapter. He omitted all reference to King William’s alleged compassion

ii. 35

T H E DEE DS OF W I L L I A M

163

inhabitants.1 For he saw that it was o f the first importance to constrain the Londoners strictly. It was there that Edwin and Morcar, sons o f the famous Æ lfgar and perhaps the most noble and powerful o f all the English, came to submit to him;2 they sought his pardon for any hostility they had shown him, and surrendered themselves and all their property to his mercy. Various other wealthy nobles did the same, amongst them Earl Copsi who, on account o f his singular courage and loyalty, subsequently— as we have heard— gave pleasure to the king and all the best Normans.3 T he king readily accepted their oaths, as they had requested, freely granted them his favour, restored all their possessions, and treated them with great honour. 35. From there he went on to other parts o f the kingdom, and everywhere decreed measures to the advantage o f the inhabitants as well as o f himself.4 Wherever he went, everyone laid down his arms. No way was barred to him; on all sides people flocked to submit or negotiate. He showed clemency to all, especially to the common people. Often his face revealed the pity in his heart; often he commanded mercy to be shown when he saw suppli­ cants or poor people, or noticed mothers and their children pleading with voice and gesture. T he Ætheling, whom the English had tried to make their king after Harold’s downfall, he endowed with ample lands;5 he held him among his dearest friends, because he was o f the stock o f King Edward, and also so as to ensure that he, still a mere boy, did not grieve too much at not having the honour to which he had been elected. Very many Englishmen received through his generous gifts what they had not received from their kinsmen or previous lords. As custodians o f castles he assigned stalwart men whom he had brought across from Gaul, on whose loyalty and valour he relied equally; and with them he placed a multitude o f foot-soldiers and knights. To these he distributed rich fiefs, for the sake o f which they would for the English, including the statement that nothing was taken from any Englishman unjustly. 5 I f this statement is true, the Ætheling never gained possession o f the lands. Orderic omits the passage.

164

GESTA GVILLELM I

»

35

ac pericula libentibus animis tolerarent. Nulli tamen Gallo datum est quod Anglo cuiquam iniuste fuerit ablatum. 36. Guenta1 urbs est nobilis atque ualens. Ciues ac finitimos habet diuites, infidos et audaces. Danos in auxilium citius recipere potest. A mari, quod Anglos a Danis separat, millia passuum quatuordecim distat.2 Huius quoque urbis intra moenia munitio­ nem construxit. Ibidem Guillelmum reliquit Osbemi filium, praecipuum in exercitu suo, ut in uice sua interim toti regno Aquilonem uersus praeesset.3 Hunc ex omnibus Normannis paterno more4* sibi fidissimum domi bellique perspexerat, simul fortitudine egregium et consilio siue rei domesticae, siue militaris; necnon Domino caelesti multo affectu deuotum. Hunc Normannis carissimum, Anglis maximo terrori0 esse sciebat. Hunc prae caeteris familiaribus a pueritia utriusque dilexerat et exaltauerat in Normannia. 37. Castrum uero Doueram Odoni fratri suo commissit, cum adiacente ora australi, quae nomine uetusto Cantium dicta,s Galliam propius spectat, unde et a minus feris hominibus incolitur. Consueuerant enim merces cum Belgis mutare. Perhi­ betur etiam, attestante pagina uetustatis, maritimam hanc regio­ nem a Gallis olim fuisse possessam, quibus eo transuectis praedae ac belli inferendi causa agri fertiles placuere.6 Odo ille, Baiocarum praesul, cognitus fuerat talis qui optime negotia sustinere ualeret, ecclesiastica et secularia. Bonitatem eius et prudentiam primo a M F\ terrore D 1 Freeman believed ‘Guenta’ to be Norwich, and was followed by many other historians. The identification appeared for the last time in 1963 in R. A. Brown, H. M. Colvin, and A. J. Taylor, The King's Works, i (London, 1963), p. 754. Foreville, however (pp. 238-9), had identified it as Winchester in 1952; and Frank Barlow, ‘Guenta’ (appendix to M. Biddle, ‘Excavations at Winchester 1962-3’, Antiquaries Journal, xliv (1964), 2 1 7 19), proved conclusively that it must be Winchester. 2 At that time attacks could come from the Irish kingdoms (FW ii. 2-3), sometimes loosely called ‘Danish’, though originally settled by invaders from Norway as well as Denmark. 3 From this point William fitz Osbem could cover the route northwards to the crossings of the river Thames at Oxford and Wallingford. He received extensive estates in the Isle of Wight as well as Hereford (OV ii. 260). As Barlow wrote (‘Guenta’, p. 219), ‘i f . . . the Normans had only an extended beachhead in 1067, Winchester was an excellent head­ quarters for ruling the kingdom towards the north, if this meant, as it surely did, cowing the Mercians and preventing an irruption across the Thames.’

« • 37

T H E D E E D S OF W I L L I A M

165

willingly bear toil and danger. However nothing was given to any Frenchman which had been taken unjustly from any Englishman. 36. T he town o f Winchester1 is famous and strong. Its citizens and neighbours are rich, untrustworthy, and bold. It can quickly receive help from the Danes. It is fourteen miles from the sea which separates England from the Danes.2 William built a fortress within the walls o f the city, and left there William fitz Osbem, the chief man in his army, so that he could govern all the kingdom o f England to the north in his place during his absence.3 He had recognized that this man above all the Normans was, like his father before him,4 the most loyal in peace and war, being outstanding in courage and counsel in both domestic and military affairs, and being by his great piety devoted to the Lord o f Heaven. He knew that he was greatly cherished by the Normans and greatly feared by the English. He had loved him above all the other members o f his household since they had been boys together, and had raised him to power in Normandy. 37. As for the castle o f Dover, he entrusted it to his brother Odo, together with the adjacent south coast, which goes by the old name o f Kent.5 Looking across to Gaul, which is quite near, it is inhabited by less savage men, for they used to engage in trade with the Belgae. It is also alleged, as ancient writings testify, that this maritime region was once held by Gauls who, having crossed over for the sake o f war and plunder, were attracted by its fertile fields.6 T his Odo, bishop o f Bayeux, was well known to be the kind o f man best able to undertake both ecclesiastical and secular business. The church o f Bayeux first benefited from his virtue and wisdom, 4 He was the son of Osbern o f Crépon, who was the son of Countess Gunnor’s brother, and had been steward o f the young duke, William, during his minority (G N D ii. 92-3 and n. 6). 5 Odo, bishop o f Bayeux, received extensive estates in 22 counties; his lands in Kent were granted very shortly after the Conquest. See D. Bates, ‘The character and career of Odo, bishop of Bayeux (1049/50-1097)’, Speculum, 1 (1975), 1-20, at p. 10. 6 See Caesar, De bello gallico v. 12. ‘[Britanniae]. . . maritima pars ab iis qui praedae ac belli inferendi causa ex Belgio transierant . . . et bello illato ibi permanserunt atque agros colere coeperunt’; v. 14, ‘Ex his omnibus large sunt humanissimi qui Cantiam incolunt, quae regio est maritima omnis, neque multum a Gallica differunt consuetudine.’

16 6

GESTA GVILLELM I

» • 37

testatur ecclesia Baoicensis, quam ipse multo studio egregie ordinauit atque omauit, iuuenis adhuc aetate, animi canicie senibus praeferendus. Dein omni Normanniae utilis fuit ac decori. In sinodis ubi de Christi cultura, in disceptationibus ubi de seculi rebus agebatur, intelligentia pariter atque facundia enituit. Liberalitate parem non habuit Gallia, ita opinio publica consensit. Nec minus aequitatis amore meruit laudem. Arma neque mouit unquam, neque uoluit moueri: ualde tamen timendus armatis. Bellum namque utilissimo consilio, cum necessitas pos­ tularet, iuuabat, quantum potuit religione salua. Regi, cuius frater erat uterinus, quem tanto amplectabatur amore ut nec inter arma uellet ab illo separari, a quo magnos acceperat atque sperabat honores, unice constantissimeque fidelis fuit. Libentes eidem obsequebantur, ut acceptissimo domino, Normanni atque Brit­ anni. Nec Angli adeo barbari fuerunt quin facile intelligerent hunc praesulem, hunc praefectum, merito timendum esse, uenerandum quoque ac diligendum.1 38. Rex ita commissa regni cura Peneuesellum se recepit, quem locum in nominandis ponendum censemus quoniam ipso portu primo litus0 illud attigit. Stabant naues ad transmittendum paratissimae, quas uere decuerat albis uelis more ueterum adorna­ tas esse.2 Erant enim reuecturae gloriosissimum triumphum, nunciaturae maxime optatum gaudium. Conuenit eodem multus Anglorum equitatus.3 Ex his abducere secum decreuerat, quorum praecipue fidem suspiciebat ac poten­ tiam, archipraesulem Stigandum, Adelinum propinquum regis Edwardi,4 tres comites, Edwinum, Morcardum et Gualleuum; simul alios complures altae nobilitatis: ut ipsis auctoribus nihil a D\ littus M F 1 This passage o f warm praise for Odo augments WP’s brief notice about his appointment as bishop. Together with evidence from Domesday Book, it suggests that WP may have had some connection with Bishop Odo (D avis,4William o f Poitiers', pp. 12 0 3, and above, p. xvii). 2 Cf. above, i. 46, where Harold is said to have returned from Normandy with black sails. The reference to the ancients is probably to the legend o f Theseus. 3 ‘ Equitatus’ is here used in its classical sense as ‘men of rank'. The whole passage echoes Caesar, De bello gallico v. 5 (‘eodem equitatus totius Galliae convenit numero milium quattuor principesque ex omnibus civitatibus . . . ’), where Caesar describes taking

ii. 38

T H E D E E D S OF W I L L I A M

167

for he governed and adorned it with great zeal when, though still young in years, he was to be preferred to his seniors for the maturity o f his mind. Afterwards he was useful to the whole o f Normandy, and a great ornament to it. In synods where there were discussions about Christian worship or secular affairs he shone equally for his intelligence and for his eloquence. It was the unanimous opinion o f all that Gaul did not have his equal in munificence. He deserved no less praise for his love o f justice. He never took up arms, and never wished to do so; nevertheless he was greatly feared by men at arms, for when need arose he helped in war by his most practical counsels as far as his religion allowed. He was singularly and most steadfastly loyal to the king, his uterine brother, whom he cherished with so great a love that he would not willingly be separated from him even on the battlefield, and from whom he had received great honours and expected to receive still more. Normans and Bretons obeyed him willingly as a most acceptable lord. And the English were not so barbarous that they could not recognize that this bishop, this leader, deserved to be feared, but also to be venerated and loved.1 38. T he king, having thus provided for the governance o f the kingdom, betook himself to Pevensey— a place whose name, we consider, deserves to be remembered because it was there that he had first landed. The ships were waiting, all ready for the crossing; it had seemed fit to equip them with white sails in the manner o f the ancients,2 for they were to carry back a most glorious triumph and to announce the greatest joy that could have been desired. M any Englishmen o f high rank assembled there.3 O f these he had determined to take away with him those whose loyalty and power he particularly suspected: Archbishop Stigand, the Ætheling, kinsman o f King Edward,4 the three earls Edwin, Morcar, and Waltheof, and many others o f high rank; so that during his some o f the leading men o f Gaul with him in his second invasion o f Britain, as hostages to prevent rebellion when he was away. 4 For Edgar Ætheling, see above, p. 146 n. 3. Waltheof was earl o f Huntingdon; for his later career and rebellion see OV ii. 262, 312-44. The Worcester chronicle, followed by Orderic (OV ii. 196), names Æthelnoth o f Canterbury (FW ii. 1, ‘nobilem satrapam Agelnothum Cantwariensem’).

1 68

GESTA GVILLELM I

ii. 38

sub decessum suum nouaretur, gens uero tota minus ad rebellio­ nem ualeret spoliata principibus. Denique eos potissimum, ueluti obsides, in potestate sua tali cautela tenendos existimabat, quorum auctoritas uel salus propinquis et compatriotis maximi esset. Sic autem fuere subacti, ut obsequentissime facerent imperata: nam et si petere quid malebat, praecepti uice audierunt; praesertim cum non traherentur ut captiui, sed dominum suum regem proximi comitarentur, ampliorem ex hoc gratiam atque honorem habituri. Hanc enim eius animaduertebant humanitatem, unde optima quaeque expectanda forent, nihil metuendum crudele uel iniurium. At milites repatriantes, quorum in tantis negotiis fideli opera usus fuerat,1 larga manu ad eundem portum donauit ut opimum fructum uictoriae secum omnes percepisse gauderent. Ita solutis nauibus omnium animis laetissimis, in altricem terram prouehitur secundo et uento et aestu. Transmissio haec mare diu pacauit, pirata omni procul fugato.2 Felicitatem actorum, quae qui nouerit merito admiratur, multo magis admir­ andam celeritas fecit. Siquidem Octobris circiter calendas, die quo memoriam archangeli Michaelis ecclesia concelebrat, terram ad hostilem, dubius quem consequeretur euentum, abiit; mense Martio in sinum patriae redditus est, melius quam scripta nostra exponant rebus gestis. 39. Iulius Caesar bis transuectus in ipsam Britanniam nauibus mille (nam Angliae* nomen antiquius est Britanniae) non aeque magna peregit prima uice,3 nec a littore longius progredi, nec in littore, tametsi patria consuetudine castra munierit, diutius morari ausus est.4 Transiit in extremo aestatis, rediit ante aequinoctium quod prope instabat.5 Perturbatae sunt legiones eius magno metu, cum naues partim fractae aestu maritimo aut fluctibus, partim * M F ; Anglis D 1 Some o f the men o f rank who returned a few years later are named by Orderic; they included Hugh o f Grandmesnil and Humphrey of Tilleul (OV ii. 220-1). 2 Probably a reference to Scandinavian pirates. 3 The comparison that follows is based on Caesar, De bello gallico. In fact Caesar gave the numbers of ships as 98 for the first invasion (iv. 22) and over 800 for the second (v. 8). 4 The camp is mentioned by Caesar, iv. 3 1. 5 ibid. iv. 20; iv. 38.

H. 39

THE DEE DS OF W I L L I A M

169

absence no revolt instigated by them might break out, and the general populace, deprived o f their leaders, would be less capable o f rebellion. Finally he thought it essential as a precaution to hold in his power, as hostages, men whose authority and safety were o f the greatest importance to their kinsmen and compatriots. Being subjected in this way they carried out his orders most com­ pliantly; for even if he chose to express a wish they interpreted it as a command, chiefly because they were not led about as captives, but accompanied their lord the king in his retinue, so as to have greater favour and honour in this way. For they had taken note o f his humanity, from which they could expect the best o f everything and fear nothing cruel or harmful. As for the knights who were returning home after serving him faithfully in so great an enterprise,1 he rewarded them generously at the same port, so that they could all rejoice to share with him the abundant fruits o f victory. So as the ships set sail amid general rejoicing William was carried to his native land by a favourable wind and tide. This crossing ensured the safety o f the sea for a long time, as all pirates had been driven away.2 T he happy outcome o f the enterprise, which was justly admired by all who heard o f it, was made still more admirable by the speed with which it was accomplished. In fact it was about the kalends o f October, on the day on which the Church celebrates the feast o f the archangel Michael, that he left for an enemy land, uncertain o f the outcome; in the month o f March he returned to his fatherland, having performed deeds even greater than it is possible for us to describe in writing. 39. Julius Caesar, who twice crossed over to this same Britain (for the ancient name o f England is Britain) with a thousand ships,3 did not perform deeds as great as this the first time, nor did he dare to advance far from the coast or to stay long on the coast, even though he had fortified a camp in the Roman fashion.4 He crossed over at the end o f summer and returned before the following equinox.5 His legions were overcome with great fear when his ships were partly broken up by the tides and waves o f the sea, and partly rendered useless for navigation by

170

GESTA GVILLELM I

» • 39

inutiles ad nauigandum essent armamentis amissis.1 Aliquae ciuitates, quoniam in otio agitare quam populum Romanum, cuius tremenda erat per mundum opinio, hostem tolerare mallebant, obsides ei dederunt. Ceterum quos in continentem obsides adducere imperauit, praeter duas cunctae neglexerunt, quanquam in Belgio cum immani exercitu hibernare eum nouerint.2 Secundo pedites Romanos et equites ad millia fere centum transportait, una ex ciuitatibus Galliae primos quamplures cum eorum equi­ tatu.3 Quid igitur huius uiri, quem scribimus, conferendum laudibus hac uice patrauit? 40. Equitatus Britannorum et essedarii cladem illi non paruam intulerunt, aequo loco audacissime cum eo confligentes,4 Angli uero Guillelmum pauidi in monte operiebantur. Caesarem praelio saepius adorti sunt Britanni;5 Anglos adeo Guillelmus die uno protriuit, ut post secum dimicandi fiduciam nullatenus reciperent. Cum idem imperator ad flumen Tamesim peruenisset, in fines Cassiuellauni, qui contra se bellum administrabat, exercitum ducens, in aduersa ripa hostes instructi obstabant: aegerrime milites Romani uada transierunt, ex aqua capite solo extantes;6 at cum in eandem regionem dux Normannorum aduentaret, obuiam ei clementiam deprecando processerunt ciuitates et muni­ cipia: militibus eius traiectum ultra flumen ponte, si id collibuisset imperare, sine mora parauissent. Caesar, ut agros uastaret igne ac praeda, equitatum suum effudit, quos latius uagari Cassiuellaunus prohibebat, ex essedis pugnare peritos immittendo;7 Guillelmus autem pacifica iubens incolis, terram quam citius euertere posset, incolas cum terra sibi conseruauit. Defendit Caesar ab iniuria Cassiuellauni Mandrubatium et ciuitatem, cuius imperium 1 Caesar iv. 29 (‘Compluribus navibus fractis, reliquae cum essent, funibus, ancoris, reliquisque armamentis amissis ad navigandum inutiles . . . totius exercitus perturbatio factus est’ ). 2 ibid. iv. 27, 38. 3 WP’s number is exaggerated. The figures given by Caesar (v. 8) are 2,000 horsemen and 5 legions, with a contingent of cavalry equal to that left behind. A legion numbered 5,000 in theory, but in practice 3,500 at most. He also took with him some of the Gallic leaders with their attendants, more or less as hostages (v. 5). 4 ibid. v. 8 ,9; the level ground may be implied by the descent o f the British from higher ground to the river to join battle, illi equitatu atque essendis ad flumen progressi ex loco superiore nostris prohibere et proelium committere coeperunt.’

5 ibid. v. 15-17.

ii.

40

TH E D EE DS OF W IL L IA M

171

the loss o f their tackle.1 A few cities gave him hostages because they preferred to live at ease rather than have the Roman people (whose renown made the whole world tremble) as their enemy. But all except two o f them failed to send to the continent the hostages he had demanded, although they knew him to be wintering in Belgica with a huge army.2 On the second expedi­ tion he transported Roman infantry and cavalry to the number o f 100,000, together with many chiefs from the cities o f Gaul with their horsemen.3 What then did he accomplish that deserves the praise to be given to the man o f whom we are writing? 40. T he horsemen o f the Britons and their charioteers inflicted no little damage on Caesar, bravely fighting against him on level ground;4 the English, by contrast, trembling with fear, waited for William on a hill. T he Britons often gave battle to Caesar;5 whereas William crushed the English so thoroughly in one day that afterwards they could not muster the courage to fight him again. When the same emperor came at the head o f his army to the river Thames, on the frontiers o f the territory o f Cassivellaunus who was waging war against him, the enemy was drawn up in line o f battle on the opposite bank; the Roman soldiers crossed the ford with great difficulty, with only their heads showing above the water.6 But when the duke o f the Normans arrived in the same region, the inhabitants o f cities and towns flocked to meet him, begging for mercy; if it had pleased him to command it, they would without delay have provided a bridge for his troops to cross the river. Caesar sent out his cavalry to lay waste the fields with fire and plunder; but Cassivellaunus restricted their movements by sending out men skilled at fighting from chariots.7 William, on the other hand, made peace-offerings to the people, and so preserved with its inhabitants the land which he could have devastated utterly in a short time. Caesar saved Mandrubatius and his city from the attacks o f Cassivellaunus, and restored the 6 ibid. v. 1 8, ‘Caesar . . . ad flumen Tamesim in fines Cassivellauni exercitum duxit; quod flumen uno omnino loco pedibus, atque hoc aegre, transiri~potest. Eo cum venisset, animum advertit alteram fluminis ripam magnas esse copias hostium instructas . . . Sed ea celeritate atque eo impetu milites ierunt, cum capite solo ex aqua exstarent, ut hostes impetum legionum atque equitum sustinere non possent ripasque dimitterent ac si fugae mandarent.9 7 v. 19.

17 2

GESTA GVILLELMI

ii. 40

reddidit Mandrubatio;1 liberauit in perpetuo Guillelmus gentem omnem a tirannide Heraldi, atque solium obtinuit ipse; unde regionibus quae sub multis regibus quondam egerant, unus imperitaret.2 Romani solum ex Britanniae maioribus Cingetorigem ceperunt,3 mille ex ipsa natione illustres in uincula, si placuisset, coniecissent Normanni. Quanta partibus in ipsis Romani gesserunt tempore aestiuo, quanta Normanni hiberno: hiemem ad res bello gerendas minus quam aestatem opportunam esse pernotum est. Caesari satis fuerat ad laudem uel utilitatem praelia cum Britannis, uti cum Gallis, imperando facere: equidem sua manu raro pugnauit.4 Haec multa ducum antiquorum consuetudo fuit: attes­ tantur Commentarii eloquentia ipsius dictati. At dedecus uisum est Guillelmo, ac parum utile, in eo conflictu quo contriuit Anglos, officia praestare imperatoris, nisi praestaret officia quoque militis, uti bellis aliis consueuerat: in omni enim certamine ubi praesens aderat, primus aut in primis gladio suo pugnare solitus erat. Si Romani illius, et nostri principis acta attentius perspexeris, illum temerarium atque fortunae nimis confidentem, hunc omnino prouidum hominem, qui magis optimo consilio quam casu res bene gesserit, recte dices.5 Postremo Caesar, ciuitatibus aliquot in deditione et obsidibus a Cassiuellauno acceptis, necnon aliquanto uectigali, quod in annos singulos Britannia populo Romano penderet, constituto, exerci­ tum difficile duobus commeatibus in Belgium reportauit, nauibus quippe refectis et minoris quam adduxerat0 numeri, ob incom­ modum, quod ex tempestate acciderat.6 Tali minime Guillelmus difficultate angebatur. Pareret ei gens eadem imperanti nauigia noua ad numerum et modum quem uellet, insuper metallo a F ; adduxerit D M 1 Caesar v. 20. Mandubratius, whose father (the king o f the Trinobantes) had been killed by Cassivellaunus, had sought out Caesar in Gaul to ask for his help, and had accompanied the invasion (v. 20). 2 WP exaggerates. He may have meant to include Scotland (see above, p. 16 n. 3). England had been effectively a single kingdom since the tenth century. 3 An error for Lugotorix (De bello gallico, v. 22). 4 Although Suetonius stated that Caesar led his troops on the march (Caesary c. Ivii, 4In agmine nonnunquam equo, saepius pedibus anteibat, capite detecto, seu sol, seu imber esset, longissimas vias incredibili celeritate confecit9), and that he could rally a retreating force (ibid., c. lxii, 'inclinatam aciem solus saepe restituit obsistens fugientibus, retinensque

ii.

40

TH E D EE DS OF W IL L IA M

173

city to Mandrubatius’ rule;1 William freed the whole people for ever from the tyranny o f Harold, and himself took the throne, so that the regions which had formerly been subject to many kings might be ruled by one.2 T h e Romans captured only Cingetorix3 o f the leaders o f Britain; the Normans, if it had been thought desirable, could have thrown a thousand o f the most illustrious men o f that people into chains. T h e Romans did no more in those parts in summer than the Normans in winter; and it is well known that winter is less suitable than summer for the waging o f war. To Caesar it was sufficient for his glory and his interest to fight with the Britons or the Gauls by commanding; indeed he rarely fought with his own hand.4 This was the normal custom o f the generals o f the ancients, as attested in the eloquent language o f the Commen­ taries, which Caesar himself composed. But to William it seemed dishonourable and o f little use, in that battle in which he crushed the English, to carry out the duties o f a general unless he also carried out those o f a soldier, as had been his custom in other wars. For in every battle in which he was present he was accustomed to be the first, or among the first, to fight with his sword. I f you look closely at the deeds o f this Roman and those o f our leader, you will rightly say that the Roman was improvident and trusted too much to luck, whereas William always acted with foresight and suc­ ceeded more by good planning than by chance.5 Finally, Caesar, after accepting the surrender o f some cities and hostages from Cassivellaunus and deciding the modest tribute Britons should pay each year to the Roman people, transported his army back to Belgica with difficulty in two separate crossings, for his ships had needed to be repaired and were fewer than those he had brought with him, on account o f the damage suffered in a storm.6 William did not experience nearly so much difficulty. T he populace would have prepared for him, had he so ordered, as many ships as he wished o f the type specified, and— what is singulos et contortis faucibus convertens in hostem’ ), he did not claim that he actually led attacks in the front line. 5 WP here insists on good planning rather than luck. Cf. above, p. xxiv. In fact Caesar too was a careful planner; see Suetonius, Caesar, c. Iviii, for the care with which he ventured on new ground. 6 Caesar, De bello gallieoy v. 23; cf. iv. 29, 3 1; v. 1, 11 .

174

GESTA GVILLELM I

il. 40

pretioso decorata, uelis purpureis1 adornata, peritis remigibus, delectis gubernatoribus instructa. En quam gloriose reuectus est, non trahens, ut Romani, uulgus captiuum; sed habens in comitatu et obsequio suo totius Britanniae episcoporum primatem,2 atque magnos in transmarinis coenobiis abbates, et filios Anglorum tam stemmatis* quam opum dignitate reges appellandos. Attulit non aliquantulum uectigal, non rapinas, sed quantum ex ditione trium Galliarum3 uix colligeretur argentum atque aurum, quod rectis­ simo iure acceperat; quod ubi honestissimae rationes postularent, expendere cogitabat. Cari metalli abundantia multipliciter Gallias terra illa uincit. Vt enim horreum Cereris dicenda uidetur frumenti copia, sic aerarium Arabiae auri copia.4 Mentionem super Iulio Caesare, quae forte notetur quasi derogans, omitta­ mus. Fuit itaque eximius dux lectione doctus Graecorum prae­ cepta militaria,5 militia Romana cum laude ab adolescentia usus, uirtute consecutus urbis consulatum. Bella multa cum bellicosis gentibus feliciter atque celeriter confecit, nouissime Romam, Africae et Europae atque Asiae praesidentem, regnum suum bellando effecit. 4 1. Vespasiani filio Tito, qui dum recta uehementer amaret orbis amor dici meruit,6 nunquam Italia laetior quam Normannia occurrit Guillelmo regi principi suo. Dies erant hiberni, et qui poenitentiae quadragesimalis rigori uacant.7 Ceterum ubique agebantur tanquam summae festiui temporis feriae. Sol aestiua serenitate lucidus uidebatur, gratia dierum solita longe maior. Minorum siue remotiorum locorum incolae in urbes, aut alio ubi a M F\ sternatis D 1 WP had earlier described the sails o f William’s fleet as white (above, ii. 38). 2 WP used the term ‘primas’ three times of secular leaders (i. 1 1 ; ii. 23, 33), once o f the Pope (i. 53), and once o f the archbishop of York (ii. 49). The title here given to Stigand, ‘totius Britanniae episcoporum primatem’, seems, however, to echo the language of the Council of Winchester (April 1072), which referred to the archbishop of Canterbury as ‘primas totius Britanniae’ (Councils and Synods, i. 601-2). WP may have had first-hand knowledge of this Council when he was writing. 3 Cf. Caesar, De bello gallicoy i. 1, ‘Gallia est omnis divisa in partes tres, quarum unam incolunt Belgae, aliam Aquitani, tertiam qui ipsorum lingua Celtae, nostra Galli appellantur.’ 4 For the resources o f England, see P. H. Sawyer, ‘The wealth o f England in the eleventh century’, TR H Sy 5th ser., xv (1965), 145-64.

ii. 4 i

TH E D EE DS OF W I L L I A M

175

more— decorated lavishly with precious metal, fitted with purple sails,1 and manned by skilled oarsmen and chosen steersmen. How gloriously he returned! not bringing with him a crowd o f captives in the Roman fashion, but having in his entourage and allegiance the primate2 o f the bishops o f all Britain, many great abbots from the overseas monasteries, and sons o f the English worthy by both ancestry and wealth to be called kings. He brought back with him neither a small tribute nor booty, but as much gold and silver as might have been collected with difficulty from the subjection o f the three parts o f Gaul,3 which he had received entirely lawfully and was proposing to spend wherever it was most clearly needed. T his kingdom is many times richer than Gaul in its wealth o f precious metals; it seems as if it should be called the granary o f Ceres because o f the abundance o f its com, and the treasury o f Arabia because o f its richness in gold.4 We omit further mention o f Julius Caesar, as it may perhaps be considered disparaging. He was indeed a distinguished general, who had learnt the military science o f the Greeks from books5 and practised Roman warfare from youth with acclaim, his valour leading him to consulship. He brought many wars against warlike people to a swift and successful close, and finally, by force o f arms, he made Rome, the mistress o f Africa, Europe, and Asia, his kingdom. 4 1. Italy did not run more happily to greet Titus the son o f Vespasian (who through his ardent desire for justice deserved to be called the favourite o f the world)6 than did Normandy to meet its ruler, King William. It was a time o f winter, and o f the austere lenten penances.7 Nevertheless everywhere celebrations were held as if it were a time o f high festival. T he sun seemed to shine with the clear brightness o f summer, far more strongly than usual at this season. T he inhabitants o f humble or remote places flocked to s One o f these authors would probably have been Polybius, who wrote a treatise on tactics, and in his Historiae, x. 23, discussed cavalry training. 6 Cf. Suetonius, Titus, i. 1, ‘Titus, cognomine paterno, amor ac deliciae generis humani, tantum illi ad promovendum omnium voluntatem vel ingenii, vel artis, vel fortunae, superfuit.9 7 William sailed for Normandy in March 1067 (above, ii. 38). Easter Sunday fell on 8 April.

176

GESTA GVILLELM I

u. 41

facultas conspiciendi regem daretur confluebant. Cum in metro­ polim suam Rotomagum introiret, senes, pueri, matronae, cunctique ciues spectatum processerant: conclamabant salutantes reducem, adeo ut ciuitas illa uniuersa applaudere putaretur, sicuti Roma quondam Pompeio suo applaudans tripudiauit.1 Monasteria certabant monachorum atque cleri, quodnam in aduentu sui carissimi tutoris ampliorem officiositatem impender­ ent. Nihil relinquebatur quod in studio talis honorificentiae agi solitum est. Praeterea si quid nouum adinuenire potuit, addebatur. 42. Quam pietatem ipse confestim lucro multiplici recompensauit, donans pallia, libras2 auri, aliaque magna altaribus ac famulis Christi. Nullius unquam regis aut imperatoris largitatem in oblationibus maiorem comperimus. Item quas ecclesias non praesentia sua, muneribus uisitauit iterum. Cadomensi basilicae, modo specieque admirabili suis impendiis ad titulum beati Stephani protomartiris a fundamento, ut ante est memoratum, extructae, tum diuersa donaria aduexit, materia artificioque pre­ tiosissima, quae ad seculi terminum honora permanere ualeant.3 Singula descriptionibus aut nominibus designare spatiosum foret. Voluptuosum est ea perspectare hospitibus maximis, et qui saepe nobilium ecclesiarum thesauros uiderant. Transiret illae hospes Graecus aut Arabs, uoluptate traheretur eadem. Anglicae nationis feminae multum acu et auri textura egregie, uiri in omni ualent artificio.4 Ad hoc incolere apud eos Germani solebant talium artium scientissimi.5 Inferunt et negociatores, qui longinquas regiones nauibus adeunt, doctarum manuum opera. Potentes nonnulli sanctis inique largiuntur, plerumque in iisdem donationibus laudem suam in mundo, delicta sua coram 1 Lucan, Pharsalia, viii. 794-815, after describing Pompey’s unworthy burial, recalls his three earlier triumphs in Rome: 4ter cunibus actis | Contentum multos patriae donasse triumphos.* 2 I f Duchesne correctly transcribed ‘libras’, gold bullion must be meant; but if it is an error for ‘libros’, it could refer to the service books whose bindings were decorated with gold, which were plundered from the English churches (D. N. Dumville, ‘Anglo-Saxon books: treasure in Norman hands?’, Battle, xvi (1994), 83-99). * The Waltham Chronicle complained that William Rufus had plundered Waltham to enrich Saint-Étienne-de-Caen, but it is possible that the treasures were taken by his father (Waltham Chronicle, pp. 58-9). ' 4 For the skill o f English needlewomen and craftsmen, see Bayeux Tapestry, pp. 44-5;

u. 42

THE

DEEDS

OF W ILLIA M

177

the towns or anywhere else where there was a chance o f seeing the king. When he entered his metropolitan city o f Rouen old men, boys, matrons and all the citizens came out to see him; they shouted out to welcome his return, so that you could have thought the whole city was cheering, as did Rome formerly when it joyfully applauded Pompey.1 Communities o f monks and clerks vied with each other as to who could show the greatest complaisance at the arrival o f their beloved protector. Nothing which ought to have been done in celebration o f such honour was left undone. Furthermore, if anything new could be devised, it was added. 42. He rewarded this dutiful affection immediately with treas­ ures o f many kinds, giving vestments, gold bullion,2 and other magnificent gifts to the altars and servants o f Christ. We have not heard o f any king or emperor who showed greater liberality in his gifts. Similarly, he honoured in turn with his gifts the churches that he could not honour with his presence. T o the basilica o f Caen, admirable both in design and decoration, which he had built from its foundations entirely at his own expense and had dedicated in the name o f the protomartyr St Stephen (as previously described), he brought such diverse gifts, so precious in both material and workmanship that they deserve to be remembered to the end o f time.3 It would take too much space to describe or even enumerate each one. T o gaze at them is a rare delight for the most eminent guests, even for those who have often seen the treasures o f the noblest churches. I f a Greek or Arab visitor passed that way he would be overwhelmed by the same delight. T he women o f the English people are very skilled in needlework and weaving gold thread, and the men are outstanding in craftsmanship o f all kinds.4 Moreover Germans, most skilled in such arts, are accustomed to live among them.5 Traders too, who travel to distant regions in their ships, bring objects o f skilled workmanship. There are some powerful men who endow the saints wickedly, for the most part increasing with these gifts their glory in the C. R. Dodwell, Anglo-Saxon A rt: A New Perspective (Manchester, 1982), pp. 2 16 - 17 and passim. 5 For German craftsmen working in England in the time o f Edward the Confessor, see Dodwell, Anglo-Saxon A rty pp. 65, 78.

178

GESTA

G V ILLELM I

ii. 42

Deo adaugentes. Spoliant ecclesias, et rapinis ipsis alias ditant. Rex uero Guillelmus nunquam nisi bonitate sinceram famam sibi comparauit, donans uere sua; mente ad spem interminae merce­ dis, non ad gloriam quae deperibit, intentus. Abundantes ecclesiae transmarinae aliqua ei libentes, quae in Galliam transferret, dederunt quoniam ea multuplo redemit rebusaliis.1 43. Patriam non minus regno caram sibi, praecipue causa probae gentis, quam principibus terrenis fidam, culturae Christi ualde deditam, nouerat, in statu quem uolebat inuenit. Optime quidem egerat in gubernaculo domina nostra Matildis, iam nomine diuulgato regina etsi nondum coronata.2 Illius prudentiam uiri adiuuere consilio utilissimi, in quibus locum dignitatis primum tenebat Rogerus de Bellomonte, Humfridi hominis generosissimi filius, ob maturitatem aeui liberior ad negotia quae domi geruntur; filio adolescenti, super cuius fortitudine in praelio contra Heraldum paucis diximus,3 officio militari tradito. Verum quod finitimi incursionem nullam ausi fuerant, cum terram fere militibus exhaustam scirent, regi ipsi,a cuius reuersionem uerebantur, primo ascribendum arbitramur. 44. Ad coenobium sanctae Trinitatis Fiscanni4 Pascha celebrauit Dominicum, redemptorem resurrectionis suae festo reuerendissime honorans, cum frequentia uenerabilium et praesulum et abbatum. Humiliter adstans ille choris ordinum religiosorum ludicra intermittere, concurrere ad diuina militum plebisque turbas coegit. Regis Francorum uitricus intererat huic curiae Rodolphus praepotens comes,5 multaque nobilitas Franciae. Cur­ iose hi cum Normannis cernebant crinigeros alumnos plagae a M F ; ipsius D 1 For a different view see above, p. 153 n. 3. 2 Matilda, together with Roger of Beaumont and others, had been entrusted with the care o f the duchy; see OV ii. 208, 210; D. Bates, ‘The origins of the justiciarship’, Battle, iv (1982), 1 - 1 2 , at p. 6. She was crowned at Pentecost ( 11 May) 1068 (A SC (D) 1067 for 1068; FW ii. 2; OV ii, 214). 3 See above, ii. 19. Roger’s father was Humphrey o f Vieilles. 4 The royal abbey of Fécamp was closely associated with the royal palace, and the duke had been accustomed to celebrate the major church feasts there. On its symbolic importance for the new king, see Renoux, Fecamp, p. 482, ‘Le couronnement dynastique

1 1 .4 4

THE

DEEDS

OF W ILLIA M

179

world and their sins before God. They despoil churches and enrich others with the booty. But King William won true fame through his goodness alone, by giving only the things that were truly his; his mind was fixed on the hope o f an eternal reward, not on a perishable glory. Countless overseas churches freely gave him things which he could take to Gaul, because he redeemed them many times over with other gifts.1 43. He found his native land (which was no less dear to him than his kingdom, because he knew that its virtuous people were loyal to their secular princes, sincerely devoted to the worship o f Christ) in the state which he desired. For its government had been carried on smoothly by our lady Matilda, already com­ monly known by the title o f queen, though as yet uncrowned.2 Men o f great experience had added their counsel to her wisdom; amongst them the first in dignity was Roger o f Beaumont (son o f the illustrious Humphrey), who on account o f his mature age was more suitable for home affairs, and had handed over military duties to his youthful son (of whose courage in the battle against Harold we have already said a little).3 But in truth the fact that neighbours had not dared to make any attack though they knew the land to be almost emptied o f knights, must, we think, be attributed primarily to the king himself, whose return they feared. 44. He celebrated Easter Sunday at the abbey o f the Holy Trinity at Fecamp,4 most reverently honouring the Saviour on the feast o f His resurrection, with a great gathering o f venerable bishops and abbots. Humbly standing near the choirs o f the religious orders, he compelled crowds o f soldiers and people to leave their games and come to divine service. T he stepfather o f the king o f the Franks, the mighty Count Raoul,5 was present at this court, together with many o f the French nobles. These men, like the Normans, looked with curiosity at the long-haired sons o f the anglais est le point d'aboutissement d'une idéologie dont Fécamp a été l'un des creusets majeurs.' 5 Raoul, count o f Crépy and Valois, who married Anne of Russia, the widow o f King Henry I of France. On his wealth and prominence, see Guibert de Nogent, pp. 58-60.

i8o

GESTA

G V ILLELM I

ii. 44

Aquilonalis: quorum pulchritudini Galliae comatae1 formosissimi iuuenes inuiderent. Nec enim puellari uenustati cedebant. Regis autem regiorumque satellitum indumenta spectantes intexta atque crustata auro, quaeque0 antea uiderant uilia aestimauere. Item uasa argentea siue aurea admirabantur, quorum de numero uel decore uere narrari possint incredibilia. His tantum ex poculis* coenaculum ingens bibebat, aut comibus bubalinis metallo decoratis eodem circa extremitates utrasque. Denique plurima huiuscemodi competentia regali munificentiae notabant, quae reuersi domum ob nouitatem praedicarent. Ceterum talibus longe insigniorem atque plus memorandam ipsius regis cognouere honestatem. 45. Aestiua illa, et autumnum partemque hiemis citra mare transegit, tempus hoc patriae amori omne donans; quae neque hac mora, neque superioris anni expeditione suas opes attenuatas fuisse dolebat. Ea illius temperantia fuit ac prudentia: militibus et hospitibus abunde sumptus ministrabatur; nemini rapere quippiam concedebatur.2 Prouincialium tuto armenta uel greges pascebantur, seu per campestria, seu per tesqua. Segetes falcem cultoris intactae expectabant, quas nec attriuit superba equitum effusio, nec demessuit pabulator. Homo imbecillis aut inermis equo cantans qua libuit uectabatur, turmas militum cernens, non exhorrens. 46. Interea Baoicensis praesul Odo et Guillelmus Osbemi filius praefecturas in regno uterque suam laudabiliter administrabant: interdum simul agitantes, modo diuersi. Si quando necessitudo postulabat, festinam alter alteri ferebat opem.3 Per amicam qua sincere uoluntatem concordabant, amplius ualuit prudens eorum uigilantia. Mutuo sese, regem aequaliter, diligebant; affectu ardebant pari ad continendum in pace gentem Christianam, “ D M F\ M F suggest that possibly quaecumque should be read

* M f ; populis D

1 Cf. Suetonius, Caesar, c. xxii, for the expression ‘Gallia comata’. The long-haired style o f the Anglo-Saxons is illustrated in the Bayeux Tapestry. 2 This and the following sentences repeat word for word the account o f Duke William’s orderly preparation for the invasion (above, ii. 2). 3 Orderic (OV ii. 202-5) gives a different account o f their administration, describing it as oppressive and unjust; the A S C (D) 1066 wrote ‘And Bishop Odo and Earl William

ii. 46

THE

DEEDS

OF W ILLIA M

l8 l

northern lands, whose beauty the most handsome youths o f ‘long­ haired Gaul’ 1 might have envied; nor did they yield anything to the beauty o f girls. Indeed as they looked at the clothes o f the king and his courtiers, woven and encrusted with gold, they considered whatever they had seen before to be o f little worth. Similarly they marvelled at the vessels o f silver and gold, o f whose number and beauty incredible things could truthfully be told. At a great banquet they drank only from such goblets or from horns o f wild oxen decorated with the same metal at both ends. Indeed they noted many such things, fitting the magnificence o f a king, which they praised on their return home because o f their novelty. But they recognized that far more distinguished and memorable than these things was the splendour o f the king himself. 45. He spent that summer and part o f the autumn and winter on this side o f the sea, devoting all his time to love o f his native land, which did not have cause to grieve for loss o f wealth either because o f this stay or because o f his expedition in the preceding year. Such was his moderation and wisdom that abundant provision was made for the soldiers and their hosts, and no one was permitted to seize anything.2 T he cattle and flocks o f the people o f the province grazed safely whether in the fields or on the waste. T he crops waited unharmed for the scythe o f the harvester, and were neither trampled by the proud charges o f horsemen nor cut down by foragers. A man who was weak or unarmed could ride singing on his horse wherever he wished, without trembling at the sight o f squadrons o f knights. 46. Meanwhile Odo, bishop o f Bayeux, and William fitz Osbern were administering their prefectures in the kingdom, each praiseworthy in his own, working sometimes together, some­ times separately; if ever necessity demanded it, one gave speedy help to the other.3 Their wise vigilance was made all the more effective by the friendly willingness with which they genuinely agreed. They loved each other and the king equally; they burned stayed behind and built castles far and wide throughout the country and distressed the wretched folk’.

182

GESTA

G V ILLELM I

ii. 46

consilio alter alterius aequanimiter assentiebantur. Aequitate utebantur maxima, uti rex praemonuerat, qua homines efferi et inimici corrigerentur et beneuoli fierent. Item praefecti minores, ubi quisque in munitionibus locatus fuerat, strenue curabant. Verum Angli neque beneficio neque formidine satis coerceri poterant, ut quietem serenam quam res nouas ac turbidas mallent. Consurgere palam in arma non confidunt, sed regionatim de prauis conspirationibus tractant, si quibus forte dolis praeualeant ad nocendum. Ad Danos, uel alio, unde auxilium aliquod speratur, legatos missitant. Vitro in exilium aliqui profugiunt, quo extorres uel a potestate Normannorum sint liberi, uel aucti opibus alienis contra eos reuertantur.1 47. Regi ea tempestate Eustachius comes Boloniae aduersabatur, qui filium de fide ante bellum in Normannia obsidem dederat.2 Ei persuadent hi maxime qui Cantium inhabitant, uti castrum Doueram inuadat, ipsis utens adiutoribus.3 Equidem fore, si firmissimo loco hoc sit potitus cum portu marino, ut potentia eius latius distendatur, sicque potentiam Normannorum dimin­ utum0 iri. Nam quia Normannos odere, cum Eustachio pridem sibi inimicissimo, concordauere. Eum bellandi peritum atque in praelio felicem experimentis cognouerant. Si erat seruiendum non compatriotae, noto seruire atque uicino satius putabant. Accidit ut occasio temporis euentum rei quam affectabant promitteret. Abierant ultra flumen Tamesim* primi munitionis custodes, praesul Baiocensis atque Hugo de Monteforti militum parte maiori secum ducta. Eustachius itaque, accepto nuncio Anglorum, cum suis ad eos noctis conticinio transiuit, ut incaute opprimeret * dimunutam D M\ dimunutum F

* OV\ Tamisim D M F

1 A number went to join the forces o f the Greek emperor in Constantinople (OV ii. 202). 2 From the time o f Duke William’s marriage to Matilda, Eustace had been apprehensive o f his growing power, and had openly sided with William o f Arques against him; see G N D ii. 104-5 ar)d n. 3). For the uneasy relations between Eustace and the duke, see Tanner, ’Counts o f Boulogne’, pp. 270-6. WP is the only source to mention that Eustace’s son was given as a hostage. In spite o f receiving extensive estates in England, Eustace returned to the continent not later than Easter 1067 (Tanner, p. 272). 3 Various motives have been suggested for the action o f Eustace. Douglas, Conqueror, p. 212, thought that he might have been motivated by political changes after the death of

ii. 47

THE

DEEDS

OF W ILLIA M

18 3

with a common desire to keep the Christian people in peace, and deferred readily to each other’s advice. They paid the greatest respect to justice, as the king had admonished, so that fierce men and enemies might be corrected and brought into friendship. The lesser officials were equally zealous in the castles where each had been placed. But neither benefits nor fear could sufficiently force the English to prefer peace and quiet to changes and revolts. They had not the courage to rise in arms openly, but dealt in vile conspiracies in different regions, to see if by any deceit they could succeed in inflicting damage. They repeatedly sent envoys to the Danes or some other people from whom they might hope for help. In addition, some fled abroad where, as exiles, they might either be free from the power o f the Normans, or, having gained foreign help, might return to fight against them.1 47. At that time Eustace, count o f Boulogne, who had given his son as a hostage for his loyalty in Normandy before the war, was working against the king.2 In particular, the inhabitants o f Kent persuaded him to attack Dover castle with their help.3 I f indeed he had been able to gain possession o f that strong site with its seaport his power would have been extended more widely and that o f the Normans correspondingly diminished. It was because they hated the Normans that they reached an agreement with Eustace, formerly their bitter enemy. They knew by experience o f his prowess in war and fortune in battle. They thought that if they were not to serve one o f their own countrymen, they would rather serve a neighbour whom they knew. It happened that favourable circumstances promised the outcome that they desired. The custodians o f the first fortress, the bishop o f Bayeux and Hugh o f Montfort, had gone away across the river Thames, taking most o f their troops with them. Eustace therefore, after receiving a message from the English, sailed across with his men Baldwin V, count o f Flanders, on i September 1067. Barlow, Confessor, app. C, pp. 307-8, suggested that he might have acted on behalf o f a hypothetical grandson, his descendant by his first wife Goda. Tanner, (Counts o f Boulogne', pp. 273-4, argues that either he was disappointed in his hope of recovering lands he had previously controlled through his wife, or he wished to hold Dover in order to control the main passageway to England from his port of Wissant.

184

GESTA

G V ILLELM I

il. 47

castellanos. Classem duxit militibus delectis oneratam, relictis equis praeter admodum paucos. Vicinia omnis adfuit armata, auctior numerus ex ulterioribus accederet si mora biduana obsidio traheretur. Ceterum custodiam inuenerunt minus opinione remis­ sam, plus (in statu)" ad defensandum ualidam. (Eustachium uero)" eripiunt uelocitas equi, notitia tramitis nauisque paratior. Nobilissimus autem tiro, nepos eius,1 comprehensus est. Angli per diuerticula plura eo facilius euaserunt quo minus commodum erat paucitati castellanorum insequi per diuersa. lure id Eustachio dedecus atque detrimentum contigit. Equidem si rationes, quae eius liti controuersantur, depromerem, regis eum gratiam atque regis dono accepta beneficia ex aequo et bono amississe plane conuincerem. Neque sententia errauit, dicta consensu Anglorum et Gallorum, qua de reatu multo conuictus est. Sed parcendum sentimus personae multifariam illustri, comiti nominato, qui reconciliatus nunc iri proximis regis honoratur.2 48. Eodem fere tempore Coxo comes, quem placuisse N ormannis diximus, morte occidit immerita et quam deceat propa­ gari.3 Vt igitur uiuat laus eius atque per exemplum oriatur in posthumis innocentia defuncti, literis efficere iuuat. Prosapia ac potentatu Anglus hic iuxta praecelsus, magis animi singularitate prudentis et omnino honesti excelluit. Hic regis causam et ipsum fauore multo probabat. Sui uero satellites ab ipso dissidebant, factionum deterrimi fautores ac socii. Proinde eum ab officio transuertere tentabant, saepe monentes, quasi per amicitiam, de priuato honore, ut libertatem a proauis traditam defenderet; nunc obsecrantes atque obtestantes, tanquam gratia rerum publicarum, * in statu and Eustachium uero supplied from O V 1 The text printed by Duchesne is corrupt, possibly because o f damage to the end o f the M S; and the omission o f the name of Eustace (copied by Orderic from a better M S) makes it almost unintelligible. The identity o f the ‘nepos’ (a term used for various kinsmen, including a grandson, nephew or bastard son) is uncertain. Barlow favoured grandson, Tanner (‘Counts of Boulogne’, p. 266 n. 26) more plausibly speculated that he may have been Eustace’s bastard son, Geoffrey. 2 For the reconciliation and Eustace’s English estates, see Tanner, ‘Counts o f Boulogne’, pp. 274-6 and app. B, pp. 280-5. 3 Royal authority was ‘intermittent and probably ineffective’ in Northumbria. King William first attempted to control the region through local officials; Copsi had served

ii. 48

THE

DEEDS

OF W ILLIA M

185

in the first part o f the night, in order to catch the garrison o ff their guard. He led a fleet with picked knights on board, leaving all but a few o f the horses behind. T h e whole district was under arms, and their numbers would have been increased from further parts if the siege had lasted more than two days. But they found the garrison less slack than they expected and more capable o f defending themselves. [Eustace himself] was saved by the speed o f his horse, his knowledge o f the path, and a ship more ready to weigh anchor. But a young knight o f very high birth, his kinsman, was captured.1 The English escaped more easily by numerous by­ ways, because it was not practicable for the small numbers o f the garrison to pursue them in different directions. It was just that this disgrace and defeat happened to Eustace. Indeed if I were to spell out the matters that were in dispute in his quarrel I would easily convince you that it was just and right that he lost the king’s favour and the fiefs he had received from the king. Nor was the sentence, pronounced with the consent o f English and French, by which he was convicted o f serious crimes, unjust. But we feel that this man, illustrious in many ways and a distinguished count, ought to be spared because he is now reconciled and honoured among those closest to the king.2 48. About the same time Earl Copsi, who, as we have said, had won favour with the Normans, died an unjust death that deserves to be widely known.3 1 am therefore glad to record it in writing so that the praise o f the dead man may live and his innocence may be handed down as an example to future generations. T his English­ man, equally outstanding in lineage and in power, excelled still more by his remarkable wisdom and his total integrity. He was entirely favourable to the king and supported his cause. But his subordinates did not share his views, and were the worst instigators and allies o f faction. Furthermore, they tried to turn him from his duty, often urging him, under the guise o f friend­ ship, that he should defend the liberty handed down from his under Earl Tostig, but his rule lasted for barely five weeks before his assassination by Osulf, a rival claimant to the earldom on 12 March 1067. See W. M. Aird, ‘St Cuthbert, the Scots and the Normans’, Battle, xvi (1994), 1-20, at pp. 9-10 .

18 6

GESTA

G V ILLELM I

ii. 48

ut extraneos deserens optimorum hominum suae nationis et consanguinitatis uoluntatem sequeretur. Sane diutina uariaque calliditate haec suggerebant, et huius modi alia. Sed ubi mentem firmiter in tenore boni fixam taliter dimouere nequeunt, comprouinciales ad inuidiam concitauere quam necessario placaret ab rege deficiendo. Postremo augescente in dies maleuolentia ipsorum, cum ille popularium odia omnemque iniuriam perpeti quam integritatem fidei temerare mallet, per insidias oppressum interfecere. Ita eximius uir suo casu, quod maiestas domini sui stare deberet, asseruit. 49. Sane pontifices quidam obsequio regio studebant, maxime Adelred primas Eboracensis . . .' 1 1 The text breaks off here. WP may have gone on to describe how certain Englishmen like Copsi helped King William. Orderic, using WP, wrote, 4Tunc Adeldredus primas Eborachensis aliique pontifices quidam utilitati regiae studebant . . . Tunc etiam aliquot sapientissimi ciuium urbanorum et nonnulli ex militibus ingenuis quorum nomen et opes ualebant, et multi ex plebeis contra suos pro Normannis magnopere insurgebant9 (OV ii. 208 and n. 1).

ii. 49

THE

DEEDS

OF W ILLIA M

18 7

forebears as a matter o f personal honour; now beseeching and imploring him, as if for the sake o f the public good, to desert the foreigners and fall in with the wishes o f the best men o f his nation and line. For a long time they urged these things and others o f the same kind with various sorts o f cunning. But when they failed by these means to change his mind, which was firmly fixed on the pursuit o f good, they stirred up the people o f the province to hatred, so as to force him to desert the king in order to placate them. Finally, as their malevolence increased from day to day, and as he preferred to suffer the hatred o f the people and every kind o f outrage rather than violate his faith, they laid an ambush and murdered him. So this eminent man asserted by his death that the majesty o f his lord should stand secure. 49. Certain bishops showed great zeal in the king’s service, notably Ealdred, archbishop o f York . . .*

I N D E X OF Q U O T A T I O N S A N D ALLUSIONS A. B

iblical

122

Gen. 16: 5 Exod. 28: 15 - 16 Lev. 28: 9 - 12 Psalms 2: 9 7 1: 10 7 1: 15 Ecclus. 43: 37

B. C

94 94 10

«54 «54 102

itations

C

from

S

llusions

2 Macc. io: 25-8 r i: 6 - 1 1 Matt. 13 :4 6 Luke «2: 35 i Cor. 7: 3 1

lassical

and

90 90 62 64 78

M

edieval

ources

Augustine D e duitate D ei,

A

i. 5. 1 i- 7- 23 iii. 4. 19 Ilia s latina w . 1009-1045 Justin, Epitome ii. 10 ii. 10 -13 Juvenal, Satires x. 173 Lucan, Pharsalia ii. 672-5 vi. 55-6 viii. 794-815 viii. 816 Plutarch, Pyrrhus , xxix. 6 Sallust Bellum Catilinum lviii. 4 -2 1 Bellum Iugurthinum lxxx. 6 xcviii cxiv 3 Statius, Thebaid ii. 548-62 iv. 596-602 Suetonius, Vitae Augustus lviii Caesar xxii xxxvii Ivii lix Ixii Titus i. i D e officiis

v. 26

86

Quaestiones in Heptateuchum

ii. 1 14 -18 , 129 Caesar D e bello ciuili iii. 45. 6 D e bello gallico i. 1 iv. 22 iv. 23-6 iv. 27 iv. 28 iv. 29 iv. 31 iv. 38 v. 5 v. 8, 9 v. 12 v. 14 v. 15 - 17 v. 18 v. 19 V. 2 0

v. 23 vi. 22, 23 vii. 50 Cicero, D e amicitia xx. 74 In Catilinam 1 Epistulae ad fam iliares ix. 25

94 52

46, «74 n o , 168 IIO

170 108 108, 170 108 168, 170 166 168, 170 164 164 «70 170 «70

«72 «72 74 «34 30 6 160

IIO ,

38 18 26 140 126 112 126 126 IIO

««4, «74 141

«56 124

74 126

««4 «36

»36 «54 180 28

«72 «24 «30, 172

«74

ig o

IN D EX

OF Q U O TA TIO N S

Vegetius, De re militari ii. 7

iii. 3 iii. 6 iii. 9 iii. 26

48

38 1 14 18 126

AND A LLU SIO N S

Vergil, Aeneid i. 695-747 ii. 177 ii. 197-8 iv. 188 xii- 697-747

11 2 142 no 52

»36

G EN ER AL INDEX Aaron 94-5 Abcmethy (Fife) 17 n. Abydos 1 1 0 - 1 1 Achilles 134-5, 140 n. Adela, wife o f Baldwin V, daughter o f K g Robert 32-3 Adela of Blois, daughter o f William the Conqueror, wife o f Stephen o f Blois xxix Ælfgar, earl o f Mercia xxxviii; his wife Godiva xxxviii; his sons, see Edwin, Morcar Aeneas 11 2 - 1 3 , 134-5 Aeneid 136-7 Africa 174-5 Agamemnon n o - 1 1 , 142-3 Agnes, wife o f Emperor Henry III 3 0 -1,

43 n. Agnes o f Burgundy, wife o f (1) William V count o f Poitou, (2) Geoffrey Martel 14 -15 Aimeri, vicomte o f Thouars xviii; fights in the battle o f Hastings 134-5; urges William the Conqueror to accept the crown 148-9 Alan III, count o f Brittany 72-3; his son, see Conan Alençon (Ome), siege 22-5, 28-9 Alexander II, pope; previously bp of Lucca 104-5; his holiness and learning 104-5; sends a banner to William the Con­ queror 104-5; receives gifts from him 15 2-3; sends cardinals to England 161 n. Alfonso, kg o f Leon 94-5 Alfred the ætheling, son o f King Æthelred; in exile in Normandy 2-3; his unsuc­ cessful expedition to England 4-5; murdered xx, 5-7 Amatus o f Montecassino 136 n. Ambrières (Mayenne), castle xli, 50-3; siege 52-3 Angers (Maine-et-Loire) 15 - 1 6 ,2 0 - 1 Anjou 14 -15 , 22-3; counts of, see Fulk Nerra, Geoffrey Martel Apulia, Normans in 156-7 Aquitaine 14 -15 ; churches receive gifts 154-5

Aquitanians, fight in the battle of Hastings 13 0 -1; treated evenhandedly 16 0-1 Arabia 154-5, *74-5 Arabs 176-7 archers xxxii-xxxiv, 126-7, 132-3 arms and armour xl—xli Arques (Seine-Mar.), castle xli, 24-7; siege xxi, 38-43; town xxxvii Arundel (Sussex) xxxvii Asgar (Esgar) the staller xxxn., 147 n. Asia 174-5 Augustine, St, bp o f Hippo xviii, xxxix Augustus, Roman emperor 154-5 Auvergne 15 -16 , 46-7; churches o f 154-5

Babylon (used o f the Turkish power) 96-7, 156-7 Baldwin V, count o f Flanders 30-3; guardian o f kg Philip I 32-3; his wife, see Adela; his daughter, see Matilda Barking (Essex) 160-1 Battle (Sussex), site o f the Battle o f Hastings xxv Baudri o f Bourgeuil, his poem about the conquest o f England xxix Bayeux (Calvados), bp, see Odo; church

164-7 Bayeux Tapestry xvii, xxx, xxxiii-xxxiv, 142 n., 153 n. Beaumont, family xv, xxxiii; see also Robert, Roger Belgae 164-5 Bellême (Ome) 16 n., family xix; see also William Benoit of Sainte-Maure xliii Berengar o f Tours xviii, 80 n. Berkhamsted (Herts.) 1460., 162 n. Bleddyn, Welsh prince xxxviii Blois, count of, see Theobald Bonneville-sur-Touques (Calvados), council at 70 -1 Bordeaux (Gironde) 20 -1 Bretons xxxii, 166-7; their customs 74-5; fight in the battle o f Hastings 128-9, 13 0 -1, 154 m; treated evenhandedly 16 0 -1

19 2

GENERAL

Brionne (Eure), castle xli, 10 -13 , 1411.; siege 10 -13 Britain, invaded by Caesar, see Caesar Britons 17 2 -3 Brittany 12 n., 46-7; counts, see Alan, Conan, Eudo Burgundians 12 -13 Burgundy 12 -13 , 96-7; churches receive gifts 154-5; counts of, see William Byzantium 15 2-3

Caen (Calvados) abbey, see Saint-Étiennede-Caen Caesar, Julius xviii, xix, xxiii, xxxii, xxxix, 46-7; invades Britain 4 m, 168-75; his ships damaged n o n .; compared to William the Conqueror 168-75; his Commentaries 17 2 -3; see also Index of Quotations and Allusions Camden, William xliii-xliv Canterbury (Kent) xli, xlii, 4n.; submits to William the Conqueror 144-5, 146-7; abp, see Lanfranc, Robert, Stigand Carmen de Hastingae proelio xxiv, xxxii, xxxiii, xxxiv, xxxviii; see also Guy, bp of Amiens Cassivellaunus 170-3 castles xxiii, xli,. 18 2-3; see also Ambrières, Arques, Brionne, Dol, Domfront, Dover, Hastings, Le Mans, London, Mayenne, Mouliheme, Moulins-la-Marche, Pevensey, St James-de-Beuvron; custodians 16 2-3; see ak ° Humphrey of Tilleul, Odo o f Bayeux, William fitz Osbem ‘Centigauls’ 45-7 challenge 26-7, 5 0 -1; to single combat 120-3 Charles (the Simple) kg o f France 72-3 charters xvi-xvii, n 8 n . Chaumont-en-Vexin (Oise) 62-3 Chichester (Sussex) xxxvii Cicero xviii, xxi, xxxix, 12 2 -3 ; 5ee a^so Index o f Quotations and Allusions Cingetorix, British kg 17 2 -3 Cnut, kg of Denmark and England xlii; his death 2-3; his cruelty 156-7; his wife, see Emma; his sons, see Harthacnut, Harold Harefoot comet, Halley’s 140-3 Conan II, count o f Brittany 44 n., 52 n.; at war with the Normans 72-7 conquest, right of, 15 0 -1

IN D EX

Constantinople 3 0 -1, 96-7, 156-7 Copsi, earl o f Northumbria xxxvii; submits to William the Conqueror 16 2-3; made earl o f Northumbria 184-5; murdered

184-5 Cotentin 36-7 Cotton, Sir Robert, his library xliii-xliv council, of Winchester (1070) 161 n.; see also Bonneville-sur-Touques, Lisieux Coutances (Manche), church 9 0 -1; bp, see Geoffrey o f Montbray cross-bows xxxii, 126-7 Danes 2 -3, 126-7 death-bed bequests 118 - 19 , ! 40-3 Denmark 6-7 Dieppe, river xxxvii Dives, estuary xxiv, xxv-xxvi, xxix, 54-5, 10 2-3, 10^-9 Dol (Île-et-Vilaine), castle 74-5; siege

74-5 Domesday Book xvii Domfront (Orae) xix, 22-9; castle xli, 24-7; siege xxi, 24-9, 34-5 Dover (Kent) xli, xlii, 4-5, 144-5; castle 7 0 -1, 144-5, 164-5, 18 2-3; church o f St Martin xvii Duchesne, André xliii,xlv Dudo of Saint-Quentin xix, xxi, xxvii-xxviii Ealdred, abp o f York, crowns William the Conqueror 15 0 -1; serves him loyally 186-7 Edgar Ætheling, designated in boyhood as successor to King Edward 146-7; treated honourably 16 2-3; taken to Normandy 166-9 Edith, queen, wife o f Edward the Confessor 114 —15 Edward (the Confessor), kg of England, son of kg Æthelred and Emma 6-8; related to the Norman dukes xxvi; in exile in Normandy 2-5; unsuccessful expedition to England 2-5; crowned king 18 -19 ; supported by the Normans 18 -19 , 12 0 -1; makes William the Con­ queror his heir 68-9, 11 4 - 15 , 12 0 -1; sends Harold to Normandy 68-9; his death imminent 7 0 -1; dies 10 0 -1; his tomb in Westminster Abbey 15 0 -1; his wife, see Edith

GENERAL

Edwin, earl o f Mercia, son o f earl Ælfgar xx; rebellion and death xxxviii, xxxix; offers support to Edgar Ætheling 146-7; submits 16 2-3; taken to Normandy 166-7 Egypt, communities o f monks in 82-3; see also Thebaid Einhard xxi Ely, isle o f xxxix, 4-5 Emma, queen, daughter o f Richard I duke o f Normandy, wife o f (1) K g Æthelred, (2) kg Cnut xvii-xviii, 2 -3, 15 0 -1 empire, Roman xlii, 46-7, 128-9, 174-5; extent 174-5; people o f 154-7» 172-3 Engenulf o f Laigle, killed at Hastings 139 n. England, church in xxxviii; reformed, its wealth 174-5; kgs of, see Cnut, Edward the Confessor, Harold Godwineson, Harold Harefoot, Harthacnut, William the Conqueror English 18 -19 and passim; their courage at Hastings 138-9; defeated 17 0 -1; rebel­ lious xxii, 156-7, 168-9; rebel 182-3; their craftsmanship and needlework

176-7 Enguerrand II, count o f Ponthieu 4 0 -1,

44-5,48-9

Ermenfrid, bp o f Sion, his penitential ordinances xxiii; papal legate 88-9 Eu (Seine-Mar.) 32 n. Eudo o f Porhoet, count of Brittany 52-3 Europe 174-5 Eustace III, count of Boulogne, befriends William o f Arques 42 n., conduct at the Battle o f Hastings xxx, xxxiv, 132-3, 138-9; attacks Dover xxxiv, xlvii, 4 m, 182-5; disgraced and reconciled xxxiv-xxxv, 184-5; his kinsman killed at Dover xlii, 184-5 Evreux (Eure) 46-7 Exeter (Devon), rebellion and siege xxxvii exile, as punishment 38-9

falconry 24-5, 148-9 Fécamp (Seine-Mar.), abbey xix, 64-5, 178-9; its lands in Sussex 120 n; use of Channel ports xxvi; monks, give assis­ tance in the invasion o f England xxiv— xxv, 12 0 -1, see also Remigius feigned flights xxxiii, 132-3 fidelitas 30, 34, 54, 70, 144 Flanders xxxviii, 31 n., count, see Baldwin

IN D EX

19 3

fleet, English xxiv, 106-7, 120 n., 124-5, 126-7; Norman, see William the Con­ queror Flemings 3 0 -1; in Norman army 105 n. Flodoard, his annals 72-3 fortifications, terms for xli ‘Fracta-Turris’ (unidentified) 144-5 Fraga, battle xxx Fran ci 18, 30, 33, 40, 42, 44, 46, 72, 178 Francia 6-7, 1 0 - 1 1 , 22-3, 42-3, 46-7, 54- 5» 56- 7» 96- 7» 154-5» 178-9 Frenchmen, fight in the battle of Hastings 13 0 -1 Fulk Nerra, count o f Anjou 20 n., 58-9; his son, see Geoffrey Martel

Garonne, river 46-7 Gascony 15 -16 , 46-7 Gaul 3 0 -1, 48-9; three parts o f 164-7, 174-5, 17 0 -1; belgic ( Belgica ) 172-3 Geoffrey, count o f Perche, son o f Rotrou I; fights in the battle o f Hastings 132-4 Geoffrey le Barbu, count o f Anjou 56-7, 6 0 -1, 76-7 Geoffrey Martel, count o f Anjou, son o f Fulk Nerra 14-29, 44-5, 50-5; his death 56-7 Geoffrey o f Mayenne 50-5; his rebellion and defeat 64-9 Geoffrey o f Montbray, bp o f Coutances 36 n., 90 n., at Hastings as a noncombattant 124-5; takes part in William the Conqueror’s coronation 15 0 -1 Gerben, abbot o f Saint-Wandrille 90-1 Germans 176-7 Gilbert, archdeacon o f Lisieux 105 n. Gilbert fitz Osbem, archdeacon o f Lisieux xx-xxi Gilbert Maminot, bp o f Lisieux xvi Godwine, earl o f Wessex, betrays Alfred 4 -7; consents to the recognition of William the Conqueror as heir to kg Edward 12 0 -1; his sons, see G ynh, Harold Godwineson, Leofwine, Tostig, Wulfnoth; his grandson, see Hakon Greeks 176-7 Guitmund o f Moulins-la-Marche 42-3 Guy, bp o f Amiens, chaplain of Queen Matilda xxix, xxxviii; probably author o f the Carmen de Hastingae proelio xxviii Guy, count o f Burgundy, son o f Reginald; rebels xviii, 8 -13 , 32-5, 42-3

194

GENERAL

Guy, count o f Ponthieu 48-9; captures Harold Godwineson 68-9; releases him to William the Conqueror 68-71 Guy-Geoffrey, count o f Poitiers 42-3 Gyrth, son o f Godwine earl o f Wessex, killed in the battle o f Hastings xxxiv, *34-7 2, 58, 62, 76, 100 20, 56, 58, 68, 118 , 120, 130, Hakon, grandson o f Godwine earl of Wessex, hostage in Normandy 2 0 -1, 76-7, 1 20-1 Harold Godwineson, king o f England, visits Normandy in 1064 xxvi-xxvii, 68-77, *2 0 -1; captured by Guy, count of Ponthieu 68-9; freed by William the Conqueror 68 -71; his oath to William 7 0 -1, 76-7, 10 0 -1; becomes William’s vassal xxvi, 12 0 -1, 124-5; offered one o f William’s daughters in marriage 156-7; accompanies him to the Breton war 7 0 -1; returns to England 76-7; his claim to the English throne; xxvii, xxxv, 118 - 19 ; his coronation xxiii, 10 0 -1; his appropriation of estates 15 2 -3; guards the Channel coast xxiv, 106-7; his spy captured 106-7; goes to Yorkshire to repel a Norwegian invasion 11 2 - 1 5 ; defeats and kills Harold Hardrada and Tostig 11 6 - 17 ; exchanges messages with William the Conqueror 116 -2 3 ; rejects single combat 12 2-3; his march to Battle 124-7; makes a stand at Battle 126-9; killed in the fighting 136-7; his death and burial xxii, xxix, 6-7, 136-7, 14 0 -1; his banner 15 2 -3; his mother Gytha xxxi, xxxviii, 14 0 -1; his brothers, see Gyrth, Leofwine, Tostig, Wulfnoth; his sister, see Edith; his concubines

haereditas haeres

ii4n. Harold Hardrada, kg o f Norway, allies with Tostig 1 12 -14 ; invades Yorkshire 11 2 - 16 ; defeated and killed 11 6 - 17 , 137-8; his troops less formidable than William the Conqueror’s 126-7 Harold Harefoot, kg o f England, son o f Cnut; becomes kg xlii, 2-3; murders Alfred 4-5; his death 6-7 Harthacnut, kg o f England, son o f Emma and Cnut 7-8, 18 -19 Hastings (Sussex) 1 1 2 - 1 3 ; campaign 29 m

IN D EX

battle xvii, xxx, xxxii, xxxv, 5 m, 126-39; (malfosse’ incident in xxxiv n., 138 n., poems about xxviii-xxix; see also Carmen de Hastingae proelio ; castle xli, 1 14 -15 , 142-3 Hector 134-5, 140 n. Henry III, emperor, son of Conrad 3 m . 44-5, 96-7; allies with Geoffrey Martel 43 n.; said to have made a pact with William the Conqueror 104-5; his wife, see Agnes Henry IV, emperor 31 n. Henry I, kg o f France, gives arms to William the Conqueror 6n.; assists him at Val-ès-Dunes xxiii, 1 0 - 1 1 ; assisted by him 14 -15 ; hostile to him 18 -19 , 4 2-3; supports Geoffrey Martel 22 n., sup­ ports William o f Arques 38 -4 1; attacks Normandy 44-5, 54-7; dies 56-7; his son, see Philip herald 48-9 Herbert I (Wake-Dog), count o f Maine 58-9 Herbert II (Bacon), count o f Maine, son o f Hugh IV, becomes William the Con­ queror’s vassal 58-9; makes him his heir 6 0 -1; his sister, see Margaret Herluin de Conteville, step-father of William the Conqueror 32 n. Hiémois 54-5 Hildegar, pupil o f Fulbert o f Chartres, at Poitiers xvii homage, 54-5, 146-7 horses, Spanish 15 - 16 hostages, 2 0 -1, 12 0 -1, 144-5, *46-7» 168-9, *70“ ** *82-3 Hugh, bp of Lisieux, son o f William count o f Eu xvi, xx, 9 0 -1, 10 0 -1; his character and achievements 92-5 Hugh IV, count o f Maine, 58-9; his son, see Herbert II (Bacon) Hugh, count o f Meulan 13 0 -1; his sister Adeline 130 -1 Hugh Bardulf 40-1 Hugh II o f Goumay 48-9 Hugh o f Grandmesnil, fights in the battle o f Hastings 134-5; returns to Nor­ mandy xxxviii, 168 n. Hugh II o f Montfort-sur-Risle 102-3; pursues the French at the battle of Mortemer 48-9; fights in the battle o f Hastings 134-5; custodian o f Dover 182-3

GENERAL

IN D EX

19 5

Humphrey o f Tilleul, castellan o f Hastings 14 2-3; returns to Normandy xxxviii, 168 n. Humphrey o f Vieilles xv hunting 24-5, 148-9

the Normans 146-7; castles xli, 148-9, 160-3 Lotharingia 3 m ., 440. Lucan xviii; see also Index o f Quotations and Allusions

Inventio et miracula Sancti Wulfranni xxvi, xxvii Isle o f Wight xxiv

Maine, William the Conqueror's claims in xix, 58-61; fighting in 51 n., 52-5, 6 0 -1; men o f xxxiv, fight in the battle of Hastings 13 0 -1 Malcolm III (Canmore), kg o f Scots 17 n. Mandubratius, kg o f the Trinovantes 170-3 Mantes (Seine-et-Oise) 62-3 Margaret, sister o f Herbert II count o f Maine, in exile 62-3; betrothed to Robert Curthose 62-3; dies 62-3; buried at Fécamp 62-3 Marius, his triumph 11 4 - 15 ; his leadership in battle 126 n. Matilda, queen, wife o f William the Conqueror, daughter o f Count Baldwin V of Flanders 32-3; her marriage 32-3; provides a ship for the invasion fleet n o n .; acts as regent in Normandy xxxvii, 178-9; her coronation in 1068

Jerusalem, pilgrimage to 78-9; the heavenly xli John, bp o f Avranches, later abp o f Rouen son of Raoul count o f Ivry 90-1 John, prophetic monk in the Thebaid 86-7 Jugurtha 11 4 - 15 Jumièges, abbey 19 n.; abbot, see Robert Justin xviii, xxix; see also Index of Quotations and Allusions Juvenal xviii, xxix; see also Index o f Quotations and Allusions Kent xxiv, 164-5, 182-3 knights xl; Norman 156-7; placed in castles 16 2-3 La Trinité de Vendôme, abbey 21 n., 22 n. lance, couched xxxiii, 128 n. Lanfranc, abp o f Canterbury xx, xxxviii, 152 n.; attacks Berengar o f Tours 80 n.; his early career 84 n.; respected by William the Conqueror 84-5, 86-7; abbot of Saint-Etienne-de-Caen 84-5; his monastic customs 84 n.; his appointment as abp 161 n. law, English xxvii, 12 2-3 ; Norman (cus­ tomary) xviii, xxvii, xxxviii, 42-3, 122-3; Roman xxxix, 123 n., I59n.; promulga­ ted by William the Conqueror 158-9 Le Mans (Sartre) 58-9, 60-3, 64-5; citadel 62-3; castle xli Leofric, earl o f Mercia 12 0 -1 Leofwine, son of Godwine, killed in the battle o f Hastings xxxiv, 136-7 Liber Eliensis xliii Lisieux (Calvados) xix; archdeacon, see Gilbert, Gilbert fitzOsbem, William de Glanville, William o f Poitiers; bp, see Gilbert Maminot, Hugh; council (1054), 88-9 London xxix-xxx, 4-5, 158-9; submits to

148-9 Mauger, abp o f Rouen, son o f Richard II duke o f Normandy and Papia; his fail­ ings and deposition 86-9, 92-3; refuses to go to Rome 88-9 Mauritius, abp o f Rouen 88-9, 90-1 Mayenne, castle xli, 64-7; siege 66-7; river 66-7 miles used with various meanings xxxix-xl Mithridates 1 1 4 - 15 Morcar, earl o f Northumbria, son of Earl Ælfgar xxxviii; captured xxxix; offers support to Edgar Ætheling 146-7; submits to William the Conqueror 16 2-3; taken to Normandy 166-7 Mortemer (Seine-Mar.), battle xxii, 48-51 Mouliheme (Maine-et-Loire), castle, besieged and captured by William the Conqueror xv, 14 -15 Moulins-la-Marche (Ome), castle xli, 4 2-3 Nigel II, vicomte o f the Cotentin, rebels 8-9, 12 - 13 Norman people 128-9 Normandy 1 0 - 1 1 , 18 -19 an^ passim; dukes of, see Richard I, Richard II, Robert I,

196

GENERAL

Normandy (cont.) Robert (Curthose), Rollo, William the Conqueror; frontier 2çn Normans 12 - 13 , 18 -19 , 20 n., 26-7, 3 0 -1, 128-9, 16 0 -1, 166-7; an