The Gesta Guillelmi of William of Poitiers 0198205538

Citation preview

OXFORD

MEDIEVAL

TEXTS

General Editors

D. E. GREENWAY M.

WILLIAM GESTA THE

DEEDS

B. F. HARVEY

LAPIDGE

OF

POITIERS

GVILLELMI OF

WILLIAM

y d

m

Ui

The GESTA GVILLELMI of William of Poitiers EDITED

AND

TRANSLATED

BY

R. H. C. DAVIS+ AND MARJORIE CHIBNALL

A

wl

E LIBRARY a)

CLARENDON

PRESS

|

(

* OXFORD

This book has been printed digitally and produced in a standard specification in order to ensure its continuing availability

OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS Great Clarendon Street, Oxford OX2 6DP Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide in

Oxford New York Auckland Cape Town Dares Salaam Hong Kong Karachi Kuala Lumpur Madrid Melbourne Mexico City Nairobi New Delhi Shanghai Taipei Toronto With offices in Argentina Austria Brazil Chile Czech Republic France Greece Guatemala Hungary Italy Japan South Korea Poland Portugal Singapore Switzerland Thailand Turkey Ukraine Vietnam

Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries

Published in the United States by Oxford University Press Inc., New York O Marjorie Chibnall 1998 The moral rights of the author have been asserted Database right Oxford University Press (maker)

Reprinted 2006 All rights reserved. No part of 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 of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above

You must not circulate this book in any other binding or cover And you must impose this same condition on any acquirer ISBN 0-19-820553-8

PREFACE A NEW edition of the Gesta Guillelmi of William of Poitiers was first planned by R. H. C. Davis. At the time of his death he had carried out a prolonged, but unsuccessful, search in European libraries for the lost manuscript, and had completed a literal translation. His research had also produced several important papers on the author and his work. Mrs Eleanor Davis most kindly made all her husband’s papers available to me. The text now published is, inevitably, based on the 1619 edition of 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, of the University of Caen, for making available to me the concordance of the Gesta Guillelmi which he had prepared with the collaboration of J. Potier and Ph. Fleury. My thanks are due to Elisabeth van Houts for lending me the proofs of Volume II of the GND of William of Jumiéges before publication, and for many helpful suggestions; to Diana Greenway, who showed me parts of the Introduction to her edition of Henry of Huntingdon in proof; and to David Bates, for information about the charters of William I. The 1952 edition of Raymonde Foreville has proved invaluable, particularly for the identification of classical references. At its best the Latin of 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 of it has survived. So the task of any editor and translator is far from easy. I have been fortunate in

having the generous and learned help of Michael Lapidge and J. W. Binns over the problems of editing and translating, and to both I am deeply grateful. All three

general editors and

the learned

staff of Oxford

vi

PREFACE

University Press have been characteristically patient and helpful in suggesting improvements and bringing the volume to completion.

Clare Hall, Cambridge October, 1996

M.C.

CONTENTS ABBREVIATED

REFERENCES

INTRODUCTION

. The author . The Gesta Guillelmi . The sources used by William of Poitiers . The battle of Hastings . The use of the Gesta Guillelmi by Orderic Vitalis . The language of the Gesta Guillelmi . Textual tradition . Previous editions wo DAMN DN SW ON m . Editorial practice

GESTA

GVILLELMI

Sigla Part 1 Part 2 INDEX

OF

GENERAL

QUOTATIONS INDEX

AND

ALLUSIONS

+

6

"V

rive LT us &

ous

.

209TT

i

)— .

|

rea

Se — =

"

|

Hn

)

LT

mih

L

Wie

ipte

e

Jw !

li

:

"T

dn

int

Ae» 5)

=

| wet

HAM hi E:

e

yMon

Jar

z

^

"m wd Le «que

ABBREVIATED ASC

Barlow, Confessor Bates, Normandy Battle

Bayeux Tapestry Brevis relatio

Brooks, Canterbury Brown, Dover Castle

REFERENCES

Anglo-Saxon Chronicle: Two of the Saxon Chronicles parallel, ed. C. Plummer and J. Farle, 2 vols. (Oxford, 1892-9). Translation: The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, ed. D. Whitelock, D. C. Douglas, and S. Tucker (London, 1961) E. Barlow, Edward the Confessor (London, 1970) D. Bates, Normandy before 1066 (London, 1982) Proceedings of the Battle Conference on AngloNorman Studies, i-iv (1979-82), ed. R. Allen Brown (Woodbridge, 1983-9); from v (1983) published as Anglo-Norman Studies The Bayeux Tapestry, ed. E. M. Stenton (London, 1957) Brevis relatio de origine Willelmi Conquestoris, ed. J. A. Giles, Scriptores rerum gestarum. Willelmi Conquestoris, Caxton Society, iii (London, 1845) N. Brooks, The Early History of the Church of Canterbury (Leicester, 1984) R. A. Brown, Dover Castle (2nd edn., HMSO,

1974) Brown and Curnow

BSAN Camden

Carmen

R. A. Brown and P. Curnow, The Tower of London (HMSO, 1984) Bulletin de la Société des Antiquatres de Normandie T. Smith, Camdeni et illustrium virorum ad Camdenum epistolae praemittitur Camden vita (London, 1691) The Carmen de Hastingae Proelio of Guy Bishop of Amiens, ed. C. Morton and H. Muntz (OMT,

1972) Chibnall, ‘Geoffroi’

M.

/ Chibnall,/ ‘La

Montbray’,

Councils and Synods

carriére

de

Geoffroi

de

in Les évéques normandes du XI‘

siecle, ed. P.

Bouet and E. Neveux (Caen, 1995),

PP. 279-93.

|

Councils and Synods and Other Documents relating to the English Church, 1. A.D. 871—1204, ed. D.

Whitelock et a/., 2 vols. (Oxford, 1981) CP

The Complete Peerage of England, Scotland, Ireland . . ., by G. E. C., rev. V. Gibbs et al, 13 vols. in 14 (London, 1910-59)

ABBREVIATED

X

REFERENCES

Dorey, Latin Biography Douglas, Conqueror

C. W. David, Robert Curthose, Duke of Normandy (Cambridge, Mass., 1920) R. H. C. Davis, ‘William of Poitiers and his History of William the Conqueror, in The Writing of History in the Middle Ages: Essays Presented to Richard William Southern, ed. R. H. C. Davis and J. M. Wallace-Hadrill (Oxford, 1981), pp. 71-100 Latin Biography, ed. T. A. Dorey (London, 1967) D. C. Douglas, William the Conqueror (London,

Duchesne

André Duchesne, Historiae Normannorum scrip-

David, Curthose Davis, ‘William of Poitiers’

1964) Dudo

Dunbabin

tores antiqui (Paris, 1619) De moribus et actis primorum Normanniae ducum auctore Dudone Sancti Quintini decano, ed. J. Lair, Mém. Soc. Ant. Norm. xxiii (Caen, 1865) J. Dunbabin, *Geoffrey of Chaumont, Thibaud of Blois and William the Conqueror’, Battle, xvi

(1994), 101-16 Eadmer, HN

Eadmeri Historia Novorum in Anglia, ed. M. Rule

EHR

(RS, 1884) English Historical Review

Encomium

Fauroux

Flori, L'essor Foreville

Foreville, ‘Synod’

Freeman X

FW

GC

Encomium Emmae reginae, ed. A. Campbell, Camden 3rd ser., Ixxii (London, 1949) Recueil des actes des ducs de Normandie (911—

1066), ed. M. Fauroux, Mém. Soc. Ant. Norm. xxxvi (Caen, 1961) J. Flori, L’essor de la chevalerie xi‘—xii‘ siécles (Geneva, 1986) Guillaume de Poitiers, Histoire de Guillaume le Conquérant, ed. R. Foreville, Les classiques de l'histoire de France au moyen age (Paris, 1952)

R. Foreville, ‘The synod of the province of Rouen in the eleventh and twelfth centuries’, in Church and Government in the Middle Ages, ed. Christopher Brooke et a/. (Cambridge, 1976), 19-39 E. A. Freeman, The History of the Norman Conquest of England, 6 vols. (Oxford, 1867—79) Florentii Wigorniensis monachi chronicon ex chronids, ed. B. Thorpe, 2 vols. Eng. Hist. Soc. (London, 1848-9) Gallia Christiana (Paris, 1715-1865)

ABBREVIATED

GG Gibson, Lanfranc Gillingham

REFERENCES

xi

Gesta Guillelmi (this edition) M. Gibson, Lanfranc of Bec (Oxford, 1978) J. Gillingham, ‘William the Bastard at war’, in Anglo-Norman Warfare, ed. M. Strickland (Woodbridge and Rochester, NY, 1992),

pP. 143-60 Glaber, Histories

GND

Radulfus Glaber, Opera, ed. J. France, N. Bulst, and P. Reynolds (OMT, 1989) The 'Gesta Normannorum Ducum' of William of Jumiéges, Orderic Vitalis, and Robert of Torigni,

ed. E. M. C. van Houts, 2 vols. (OMT, 1992-5)

GP

GR

Willelmi Malmesbiriensis cum libri quinque, ed. N. 1870) Willelmi Malmesbiriensis Anglorum libri quinque,

monachi de gestis pontifiE. S. A. Hamilton (RS, monachi de gestis regum ed. W. Stubbs, 2 vols.

(RS, 1887-9) Greenway, Huntingdon

Guibert de Nogent Guillot, Anjou

Halphen, Anjou Halphen, Recueil van Houts, ‘Ship-list van Houts, ‘Historiography’ Ilias latina

Inventio

JW Keynes, '/Ethelings' Korner

Henry, Archdeacon of Huntingdon, Historia Anglorum, ed. D. Greenway (OMT, 1996) Guibert de Nogent, Autobtographie, ed. E.-R. Labande (Paris, 1981) O. Guillot, Le comte d’Anjou et son entourage au xt° stécle, 2 vols (Paris, 1972) L. Halphen, Le comté d’Anjou au xi* siécle (Paris, 1906) Recueil d’annales angevines et vendómoises, ed. L. Halphen (Paris, 1903) E. M. C. van Houts, ‘The ship-list of William the Conqueror’, Battle, x (1988), 159-83 E. M. C. van Houts, ‘Historiography and hagiography at Saint-Wandrille; the /nventio et Miracula Sancti Vulfranni’, Battle, xii (1990), 233—51 Homerus latinus, id est Baebii Italici Ihas latina ed. E Vollmer, Poetae latini minores, 5 vols (Leipzig, 1913-14), ii. 1—55. Inventio et miracula —sancti Vulfranni, ed.

J. Laporte (Rouen, 1938) The Chronicle of John of Worcester, vol. ii, ed. R. R. Darlington and P. McGurk (OMT, 1995) S. Keynes, ‘The /Ethelings in Normandy’, Battle, xiii (1991), 173-205 S. Korner, The Battle of Hastings, England and Europe 1035-1066 (Lund, 1964)

xii

ABBREVIATED

REFERENCES

Latouche, Maine

R. Latouche, Histoire du comté du Maine pendant les x* et xii* stécles (Paris, 1910)

Liber Eliensis

Liber Eliensis, ed. E. O. Blake, Camden 3rd ser., xcii (London, 1962) G. Louise, La seigneurie de Belléme, x*—xi* siécles: Dévolution des pouvoirs territoriaux et construction d'une seigneurie de frontiére aux confins de la Normandie et du Maine à la charniére de l'an mil {= Le Pays bas-normand, \xxxiv (1990)], 2 vols. (Flers, 1992) Chronique des églises d’Anjou, ed. P. Marchegay and E. Mabille (Société de l'histoire de France, 1869) Guillaume de Pouille, ‘La geste de Robert Guiscard’, ed. M. Mathieu, Testi e monumenti

Louise

Marchegay and Mabille

Mathieu, Geste

Mém. Soc. Ant. Norm.

MGH SS Migne, PL

Istituto siciliano di studi bizantini e neollenci, iv (Palermo, 1961) Mémoires de la Société des Antiquaires de Normandie Monumenta Germaniae Historica Scriptores J.-P. Migne, Patrologia latina, 221 vols. (Paris,

1844-64) Musset, Abbayes caennaises

NMT OMT Orlandi

OV RD Renn, ‘Burgeat’

Renoux, Fécamp RS Strickland

L. Musset, Les actes de Guillaume le Conquérant et de la reine Mathilde 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 Media Latinitas, ed. R. I. A. Nip et al., Instrumenta Patristica, xxviii (Turnhout, 1996), pp. 117-27

The Ecclesiastical History of Orderic Vitalis, ed. M. Chibnall, 6 vols. (OMT, 1969-80) Radulphi de Diceto decami Londoniensis opera omnia, ed. W. Stubbs, 2 vols. (RS, 1876) D. Renn, 'Burgeat and Gonfanon: two sidelights on the Bayeux Tapestry’, Battle, xvi (1994), 177— 98 A. Renoux, Fécamp: Du palais ducal au palais de Dieu (Paris, 1991) Rolls Series M. Strickland, War and Chivalry (Cambridge,

1996)

ABBREVIATED Tanner, ‘Counts of Boulogne’

Tardif

TRHS Vegetius Vita Edwardi

REFERENCES

xiii

H. J. Tanner, ‘The expansion of the power and influence of the counts of Boulogne under Eustace II’, Battle, xiv (1991), 251—86 Le trés ancien Coutumier de Normandie, ed. E. J. Tardif, 2 vols. (Paris, 1881—1903) Transactions of the Royal Historical Society Flavi Vegetii Renati Epitoma. ret militaris, ed. C. Lang (Leipzig, 1910) The Life of King Edward who rests at Westminster,

attributed to a Monk of St Bertin, ed. F. Barlow (2nd edn. OMT, 1992) Wace, Rou

Le Roman de Rou de Wace, ed. A. J. Holden, 3

vols., Société des anciens textes frangais (Paris,

1970-3) Waltham Chronicle

Wj

WP Yver, *Cháteaux-forts'

The Waltham Chronicle, ed. M. Chibnall (OMT, 1994) William of Jumiéges

L. Watkiss

and

William of Poitiers J. Yver, ‘Les chateaux-forts en Normandie jusqu'au milieu du xii‘ siécle’, BSAN liii (1957 for

1955-6), 28-115, 604-9.

E IE

M

enit ila "T T

hs hn

en

60

-

— 3J

$^

T

s Um E UM mata

LL

——

DE

rie

IN

LI is us rein ee uad

Write pm (on € wie a in deni

2 Nest.

Weide: "— li.actuels ^oi i e "E

-] diis

nues ams

vos donent á et itr a

7

oR ae

(eda SERERE LT T

4 i

E itu

E Apc alt

i

apii m

a

hat ®

INTRODUCTION THE

AUTHOR

The Gesta Guillelmi of William of Poitiers has survived only in an incomplete form. It was edited in 1619 by André Duchesne from a unique, but damaged, manuscript, whose first and last folios were missing. The manuscript subsequently disappeared, probably in the fire in the Cottonian Library (1731). 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 of Orderic Vitalis.! According to Orderic, he was a Norman by birth, who came from

Préaux.

He

was

evidently well born; his sister became

abbess of Saint-Léger-de-Préaux, a house planned by Humphrey of Vieilles and founded by Roger of Beaumont) The house attracted postulants from wealthy families; WP’s father may have been a vassal of the Beaumonts. Like many young men of noble

and knightly families in the mid eleventh century, WP trained as a knight and fought for a time in secular warfare.’ He turned, however, to the Church, and studied for a time in the schools of Poitiers, from which he took his name. WP himself, in one of his rare autobiographical notes, corroborates this by saying that he was ‘in exile in Poitiers’ at the time of the siege of Mouliherne (1049).* If his fighting took place during Duke William’s minority in about 1042-3, he might have been born c.1020.

His accomplished Latin style, and his thorough familiarity with a wide range of classical authors, are clear proof that he studied for several years at Poitiers before returning to Normandy. There he ! OV ii. 78-9, 184-5, 258-61. ? OV ii. 258-9; GC ix. 853; Annales Ordinis Sancti Benedicti, ed. J. Mabillon, 6 vols (Paris, 1703-39), iv. 361-2; 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 ¢c.1040, must have been considerably older than William; her successor, Ansfrida, who became abbess ¢.1075 (Annales OSB, 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.

3 OV ii. 258-61.

EGGS

xvi

INTRODUCTION

served for many years as one of Duke William’s chaplains.) He was also at some time archdeacon of Lisieux, serving under both Bishop Hugh, who died in July 1077, and Hugh's successor, Gilbert Maminot.® The date of his appointment is not known. The first probable reference to William as archdeacon of Lisieux in any charter occurs in an agreement (c.1075) whereby William, son of 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 William, archdeacon of Lisieux,’ and this is most

likely to be William

of Poitiers, particularly in view of his

connection with Saint-Léger, though William de Glanville is a possibility.® In his later years, Orderic wrote, WP was forced by unfavourable circumstances to abandon his work on the Gesta Guillelmi, which he would have continued until the death of King William. He gave himself 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.’ Evidently he lived until after 1087, the date of 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 of Lisieux, in 1085,'° 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 WP’s probable attestation of the transaction at Saint-Léger 0.1075, there is no trace of him as a witness in any Norman ecclesiastical charters that have yet come to light. Although he was one of the chaplains of William the Conqueror 5 OV ii. 184-5. OV ii. 258-9. ? Neustria pia, p. 523. Lam grateful to Professor David Bates for sending me a copy of the pancarte of Saint-Léger (no. 217 in his forthcoming edition of the charters of William I). * See the list of archdeacons in David Spear, ‘L’administration épiscopale normande. Archidiacres et dignitaires des chapitres', Les évéques normands du xt° siécle, ed. Pierre Bouet et Francois Neveux (Caen, 1995), pp. 81—102, at 85.

? OV ii. 184-5, 258-61.

© OV iii, 6-9.

THE

AUTHOR

xvii

he has proved equally elusive in ducal and royal charters.!! In Domesday Book, however, there is a statement that the prebends of the church of St Martin's, Dover, formerly held in common, had been divided between the canons by Bishop Odo of Bayeux; and one of the canons is ‘Willelmus Pict[avensis]. The close connection between St Martin's and the English royal chapel

makes the identification of this William with the Conqueror's chaplain all the more likely." Moreover the possibility of a connection between WP and Bishop Odo is consistent with his

fulsome praise for the bishop, 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 of those closely associated with him to fall from favour.'* The connection cannot be proved conclusively; but if it existed it would suggest that some of WP's information about the actual battle of Hastings originated with Odo himself, and consequently had a partial slant towards the Bayeux version of the Conquest. Something of WP'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 off his learning. The schools of Saint-Hilairele-Grand in Poitiers, where he may be presumed to have studied, had been made famous under the direction in 1024-8 of Hildegar,

the pupil of Fulbert of Chartres. Hildegar had connections with Normandy. And the church of Saint-Hilaire, dedicated on 1 November 1049, had been built largely at the expense of Emma, daughter of Duke Richard I of Normandy and wife A Willelmus Pictavensis witnessed a charter of Serlo of Lingévres (1079-82) making a grant to Saint-Étienne-de-Caen; but he is not described as a clerk (Musset, Abbayes caennaises, nos. 7, 18).

7? Davis, ‘William of Poitiers’, p. go, n. 2. EGG 4. 37. ^ Davis, ‘William of Poitiers’, pp. 90-3. 'S [bid., pp. 86-7. !6 The Letters and Poems of Fulbert of Chartres, ed. F. Behrends (OMT, 1976), nos. 67, 68.

xviii

INTRODUCTION

successively of King /Ethelred and King Cnut of England." As a result of his studies, WP had a thorough mastery of Caesar's De bello gallico and De bello ciuili and Vergil’s Aeneid, and he modelled his style on these and on a number of other Latin authors. He used Sallust as well as Caesar for battles, Cicero and St Augustine for moral dissertations; he also made use of the Satires of Juvenal, the Agricola of Tacitus, the Thebaid of Statius, the Lives of Suetonius and Plutarch, Lucan's Pharsalia, and Justin's Epitome. Some of his knowledge of legends of the

Trojan war may have come from the //ias latina. His references to legal principles are too general to indicate any serious legal studies at Poitiers; but he was certainly familiar with Norman customary law as it was enforced by the dukes, and was aware of some at least of the different English customs.? He showed himself a supporter of church reform in so far as it was encouraged by Duke William; his interest in the eucharistic

controversy and the condemnation of the views of Berengar appears only obliquely in his comments on the duke's devotion to the sacraments.?? His years in Poitiers left one other mark on his work: knowledge of events in the region and an interest in Poitou. In his account of the revolt of Guy of Brionne he points out that Guy, who was a nephew of William, count of Poitou, went after his defeat to Burgundy, where he plagued his brother, William Téte-Hardie, for ten more years.”! He also twice mentions Aimeri, vicomte of Thouars (the most important castle in the marches between Poitou and Anjou), stating that Aimeri both took part in the Conquest of England and was the spokesman of those who wished Duke William to be crowned king.” Surprisingly, he '7 [stud monasterium magna ex parte construxerat regina Anglorum per manus Gauterii Coorlandi’, Chronicon Sancti Maxentii Pictavensis, in Chroniques des églises d'Anjou,

ed. P. Marchegay and E. Mabille (Société de l'histoire de France, 1869), p. 397. !5 For details, see Foreville, pp. xxxviii-xliii, and below, Index of Quotations and Allusions.

? GG ii. 33. ? GG i. 49-56. *! Davis, ‘William of Poitiers’, p. 87; GG i. 9, 29. ? GG ii. 22; for Aimeri, see G. Beech, ‘The participation of Aquitanians in the Conquest of England 1066-1100’, Battle, ix (1987), 1-24, at pp. 6-15.

THE

GESTA

GVILLELMI

xix

makes no mention of the interests of the lords of Belléme in the region. This drastic simplification of the situation of Domfront in particular may have been politically motivated; he wished, both there and more generally in Maine, to make a case for the claims of the earlier Norman dukes, which had been actively taken up by Duke William.” There is no indication that WP ever held office in the schools of Poitiers, or returned there after his departure for Normandy in the early 1050s. His life thereafter was spent in Normandy, with an interlude for some years after 1066 in England. The date of his death, not before 1087, is unknown. 2.

THE

GESTA

GVILLELMI

Secular clerks, unlike monks, did not have the resources of a monastic library at their elbow. The Gesta Guilelmi is full of echoes of classical texts; but it is difficult to be certain what library resources WP had at hand when he was actually writing it.

His close comparison of the British campaigns of Julius Caesar with the campaigns of William the Conqueror” suggests that he may have had a copy at least of 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 of what he had studied intensively at Poitiers. Most of the echoes of other classical sources could have been remembered from his student years; the occasional phrases and aphorisms are of the kind that memory most readily retains. Contemporary works, such as the histories of Dudo of Saint-Quentin and William of Jumiéges, could have been seen in the great abbeys, particularly at Fécamp,

adjacent to a favoured ducal castle," or at Jumiéges or SaintWandrille. If he finally settled at Lisieux and was writing there he would have had the resources of the cathedral library to draw

upon. On the whole, the originality of the Gesta Guillelmi suggests that it is above all a book of memoirs, written by a man of letters who had been well drilled in youth in such of the classics as were 23 See Louise, pp. 290-5, 301-3. * GG ii. 39, 40. 25 For Fécamp, see Renoux, Fécamp, pp. 481-2.

XX

INTRODUCTION

then available, but had spent his mature years nearer to the seats of power, both secular and ecclesiastical. Remote as WP's

preconceptions were from those of the nineteenth century, his work has, in some ways, more in common with the reminiscences of a Victorian statesman than with the monastic chronicles of his own day. The Gesta Guillelmi, even in its unfinished form, is the earliest extended biography of any duke of Normandy. It was planned after 1066 to show how Duke William prepared for, and achieved, the Conquest of England; and to justify his succession to the throne. In an early chapter describing Earl Godwine's responsibility for the murder of the ztheling Alfred, WP refers to the retribution that was to come with the defeat and death of Godwine's son Harold. He continued his history, as Orderic Vitalis tells us, up to the death of Earl Edwin (in 1071), and was

then obliged to leave it unfinished.^ Although he may have begun writing of the Conqueror's Norman campaigns at any time after the Conquest, most of the evidence points to a date after 1071 for the bulk of the writing. His statement that Stigand was tolerated for a time as archbishop of Canterbury because of his influence, and was removed only when the king was ready to appoint

Lanfranc,? supports this dating. He wrote of Hugh, bishop of Lisieux, who died on 17 July 1077, as though he were still alive; and although a reference to the dedication of Saint-Étienne-de-

Caen (on 13 September 1077)? seems to imply that this had taken place, WP 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 of between 1071 and 1077 for the bulk of the writing. He certainly wrote after

William of Jumiéges had completed his GND.?? It is perhaps worth noting that the last dated reference to Gilbert fitz Osbern "GG

4:

? OV ii. 260-1.

? GG ii. 33.

? GG i. 52; OV iii, 14-17. R. Foreville, following Lemarignier, gave the date of the dedication as 1073 (Foreville, p. 128 n. 2); but Musset, Abbayes caennaises, 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).

? Elisabeth van Houts has shown that WJ finished his chronicle early in 1070 (GND i. p. xxxii).

THE

GESTA

GVILLELMI

xxi

as archdeacon of Lisieux is 1071.?' If WP took up more of the archidiaconal duties at that date, at the same time ceasing to be King William's chaplain, he may have wished both to leave a record of what he knew and, by dedicating the work to the king, to earn future promotion. This, however, is speculation. In planning the GG he was strongly influenced by classical models, and to a lesser extent by the shorter accounts of dukes put together by Dudo of Saint-Quentin and WJ. He knew Suetonius and Plutarch, even if he had never read Einhard. Something may have been derived from a different type of biography: the Vitae of the bishops and archbishops of Rouen, though these would have suggested little more than the church

benefactions to be included in any eulogy of the duke.?? For the most part he was innovating. The classical influence is apparent in his general plan. His division of the work into an account of the deeds of William the duke and those of William the king echoes the rhetorical device of partitio or divisio? There is, too, a certain amount of arrangement by topic. Duke William's character and relations with the church are treated separately from his campaigns. Even within the more political parts of the narrative, arrangement is not simply chronological: themes are important. Besides this, WP was writing from memory some twenty years after the events. After a description of the disturbances during William’s minority, relations with Anjou are outlined in a section which begins over a decade earlier.) Any attempt to date the long

sieges of Domfront and Arques from the sequence of events in WP'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, 3! Spear, ‘L’administraton épiscopale normande' (above n. 8), p. 85. 32 He may not have known the Acta episcoporum rothomagensium of which one copy was written in the late eleventh century (E. Marténe, Veterum scriptorum et monumentorum collectio nova (Rouen, 1700), ii. 233-43), but Vitae based on the lives of the popes in the Liber Pontificalis, ed. L. Duchesne (3 vols., Paris, 1886-1957), were becoming common.

33 Cf. Suetonius, Vita Augusti, c. lxi: ‘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 of his private and domestic life.’ The principle of divisio is discussed by G. B. Townsend, ‘Suetonius and his influence’, in Latin Biography, ed. T. A. Dorey (London, 1967), pp. 79III, at 84-5.

ZEGGUALI

xxii

INTRODUCTION

Sallust, or Vergil. In particular, consciously or unconsciously, he wrote with two different kinds of rhetorical conventions, of panegyric and of history. He claimed that, unlike the poets, he did not wander over the fields of fiction, but stated only what was true history.?* Granted that he did not claim to tell the whole truth, this may approximate to his aim in the historical parts of his narrative. But no eleventh-century historian ever aimed at Lord Acton's unattainable ideal of 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 of any writer trained in the schools. The declamatory passages used a much more exaggerated rhetoric. When, for example, WP apostrophizes Harold after his death and burial, and comments

that his body lies in a tumulus on the seashore," he seems to forget that he has just expressly said that the proposal to bury

Harold on the seashore had been made in jest./? Similarly, 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 of the measures taken by William, and on his warm reception during his progress through the country. His lavish praise of 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 William's acts of brutality, omitted it in recording the history of the years after 1066, largely from the

pages of WP.? Yet this does not invalidate WP's more sober assessments, or the value of his more straightforward historical

passages. These Orderic thought worthy of repeating, and they give a precious insight into many topics, particularly the campaigns of the duke and his skill as a military commander.” As a former knight, WP could write of campaigns with authority. Like most of his educated contemporaries, he knew and cited Vegetius, though many of the general principles laid down by Vegetius could as well have been reached by practical ?5 Classical biographies were written under the influence of the rhetorical technique of encomtum, see A. J. Gossage, ‘Plutarch’, in Dorey, Latin Biography, p. 47.

36 GG i. 20.

3 GG ii. 25.

? Gillingham, pp. 143-60, assesses the value of WP for military history.

*' Tbid., pp. 145-9.

38 GG ii, 25.

THE

GESTA

GVILLELMI

xxiii

experience combined with common sense. The 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 of men in quickly constructed siegecastles to carry on a siege in his absence. He was prudent in not risking the doubtful outcome of battle except as a last resort;*! he had, indeed, though WP does not openly admit as much, no practical experience of commanding an army in any major battle before 1066. At Val-és-Dunes, as WJ makes clear, the rebels were routed by an army led by the king of France; and there are grounds for thinking that Varaville was not really a pitched battle. At Mortemer battle was forced on the Normans by French aggression; and the duke himself was not present when victory was won by Count Robert of Eu. It is possible that, on some occasions (as WP suggests), enemies were so impressed by William's reputation in war that they retreated before he appeared

on the scene." In general, up to 1066, Duke William succeeded by concentrating on castles and starving out his opponents in a series of resolute and successful sieges. The invasion of 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 of England. As a churchman, writing after Ermenfrid of Sion's penitential ordinances had imposed severe penances on all guilty of bloodshed even in battle? WP could hardly say so openly. He could, however, attempt to show Harold’s duplicity in taking the crown, and adding (perhaps because of a lingering suspicion that Harold's coronation may have conferred some regality on him) direct references to the classical doctrine of the virtue of tyrannicide.^ He could also bring out in vivid detail Duke William's meticulously careful preparations for an extremely hazardous enterprise. As he pointed out, Caesar was not always | Cf, Vegetius, iii. 8. MAGGI 55 Councils and Synods, i. 581-4. * GG is 25; cf. 11.32.

XXIV

INTRODUCTION

sufficiently careful in laying his plans; but William never failed to

prepare for all eventualities.*° In the light of this, it is reasonable to ask whether in fact the duke was delayed for a month at the mouth of the Dives by unfavourable winds. Since a similar story occurs in the Carmen de Hastingae proelio** 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. WP tells how one of these spies was caught and sent back to Harold with a defiant message.*’ It is not unreasonable to suppose that a leader who certainly made use of military intelligence?? would have been aware of the value of a little misinformation to confuse his enemies. Certainly Harold had to keep his forces

spread out along the south coast from the Isle of Wight to Kent, ready to intercept a landing at any point, until his food supplies ran out, many

of the men

went

home, and the English fleet

withdrew to the river Thames.*? Duke William meanwhile, as his biographer shows, organized and paid for food supplies for his men.? He knew that once across the Channel he could, as an invader, feed them by ruthlessly ravaging the lands of Harold

himself and his men,?'! 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-Somme; but he kept his options open. Moreover the crossing was shorter from Saint-Valery than from the estuary of the Dives; and the monks of Fécamp, one or more of whom accompanied him,?^ had *5 GG 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.'

© GG ii. 6; Carmen, lines 40-63.

” GG ii. 4.

** J. O. Prestwich, ‘Military intelligence under the Norman and Angevin kings’, in Law and Government in Medieval England and Normandy, ed. G. Garnett and J. Hudson (Cambridge, 1994), pp. 1-30, discusses (pp. 3-9) William the Conqueror's use of military intelligence from 1067 onwards.

** ASC (C) s.a. 1066. © GG ji. 2. *' The ravaging by William's army around Hastings is illustrated in the Bayeux Tapestry, pl. 47, 52.

* GG ii. 12.

THE

GESTA

GVILLELMI

XXV

lands in Sussex and knew the landing places and the hinterland. 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 of mounted men under the command of an experienced leader, and partly on the skilful use of footsoldiers and archers.** The duke’s army was made up, not merely of his own well-trained household troops, Norman vassals, and auxiliaries like the men of the count of Boulogne, but of adventurers from other regions who had joined the enterprise through hope of 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. His

achievement was to be capable of winning against formidable odds. WP's narrative makes clear, sometimes only by implication, how he achieved this. Naturally WP made much of the story of the wind that changed as the result of 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, WP shows other factors that were important. He mentions that during

the wait boats were being built in harbours near to the Dives. He shows the care taken to procure adequate provisions. And he mentions the monk of Fécamp: a reminder, surely, that although 55 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 Medieval Diplomacy and Administration (London, 1981), ch. xvi.

4 See Stephen Morillo, Warfare under the Anglo-Norman Kings 1066-1135 (Woodbridge and Rochester, NY, 1994). pp. 182-5, 187-8.

55 GG 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. 208-11, quoting WP; see below, p. xxxvii and n. 99).

XXVI

INTRODUCTION

winds might blow from the wrong direction for a few days, in the long run what mattered was good seamanship and a knowledge of the Channel crossings. This was something possessed by the sailors in the little ports controlled by Fécamp, experienced as they were in cross-Channel trading in all weathers.” The reality of the dangers appears in WP's mention of the ships that were wrecked during the move from the Dives to Saint- Valery, and of the fate of the men who became separated from the fleet during

the crossing, and landed on the wrong beach at Romney.?? The amount of training that must have taken place during the six weeks of 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. The rhetorical passages need to be interpreted with caution. WP was stating the case for Duke William's claim to the English throne, as it was promulgated in Normandy. There are elements common to the accounts of WJ, WP, and the Bayeux Tapestry, which were probably derived at least in part from a written statement. This may have been a claim sent to Rome to obtain

papal support.?? But part of the case had been made earlier, for the Inventio Sancti Wulfranni, written before 1053, had stressed the blood-relationship between King 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 of Alfred. WP gives the most complete and coherent statement of William's case, stressing right of inheritance, victory in battle as a sign of 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 William's vassal during his visit to Normandy, °° See L. Musset, Autour du pouvoir ducal normand en Normandie du xi‘ au xiii‘ siécle, Cahiers des Annales de Normandie xvii, ch. vii, pp. 113-28, at pp. 114-18, 127. 7 GG ii. 6.

8 GG ii. 27. ? As suggested by G. Garnett, ‘Coronation and propaganda: some implications of the Norman claim to the throne of England in 1066’, TRHS, sth ser., xxxvi (1986), 91-116, at pp. 110-11. See also van Houts in GND, i. pp. xlvi-xlviii.

Van Houts, ‘Historiography’, pp. 248-51.

THE

SOURCES

USED

BY WILLIAM

OF POITIERS

xxvii

perfidiously broke his solemn oath and seized the crown.®! WP is alone in knowing the English custom that gave special importance to death-bed bequests, and the use of that custom to justify

Harold’s claim. 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 spurned the offer and insisted that the issue must be decided in battle. WP wavers only very slightly in his statement of the case, by occasionally (but only occasionally)

calling Harold

*'king'^ There is a slight illogicality here, if

coronation by the excommunicate Stigand invalidated the ceremony, 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,™ and perhaps memories of that slipped into WP'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

WJ,” gave full support. 3.

THE

SOURCES

USED

BY

WILLIAM

OF

POITIERS

The written sources which could have been used by WP consisted mainly of histories of the dukes of Normandy by Dudo of SaintQuentin and William of Jumiéges. Elisabeth van Houts has shown that WJ finished the greater part of his GND by 1060, and revised and extended it between 1067 and 1:070.55 Besides the ducal histories, the Znventio et miracula Sancti Vulfranni, which was completed by 1053/4, included a short chapter on Anglo-Norman relations. Raymonde Foreville demonstrated that WP certainly cited one or two short passages from GND in his early chapters; but she was hesitant in attributing any deliberate use of the work for the events of which he had independent oral reports.°’ There 9 GG i. 14, i. 41, ii. 12.

9 GG ii. 11.

GG ii. 23, ii. 25, ii. 30.

5* See V. H. Galbraith, Domesday Book: Its Place in Administrative History (Oxford, 1974), pp. 176-9; Garnett, ‘Coronation and propaganda’, pp. 98-9.

6° GND ii. 170-3. 6 GND i. pp. xxxi-xxxiv. 9? Foreville, pp. xxxiv—xxxv.

xxviii

INTRODUCTION

is every reason to accept this. Indeed the debate between Jean Marx and Louis Halphen on whether WP enlarged upon WJ or

W] abbreviated WP is merely tilting at windmills.^ Eleventhcentury chroniclers in search of facts did not as a rule pay much attention to the written work of their contemporaries, when they

had independently heard reports of the same events.” Similarities often occur because two writers heard similar oral testimony, whether reliable or unreliable. Earlier influences were potent in building up traditions of writing. Both Dudo and WJ developed the theme of the perfect warrior duke, who adds piety, wisdom, and justice to his military virtues; and WP improved upon it in his biography.”” Verbal echoes occurring in two sources are often due to

common knowledge of classical authors. Such echoes are most noticeable in GG and the Carmen de Hastingae proelio; and they do not imply direct imitation, and do not help to solve the problems of whether either author knew the work of the other, or when the

Carmen was written. The date is a controversial question. Internal evidence, such as the mention of two archbishops as participants

in King William's coronation,” 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 of scholars, notably the editors of 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 Guy, bishop of Amiens, as the author.” The balance is now inclined towards the earlier date. 55 Foreville, p. xxvi. *? 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. 21418. 7 See Jean Flori, L'essor de la chevalerie xi*-xii* siécles (Geneva, 1986), pp. 144-8.

7! See e.g. GG ii. 15, and Carmen, lines 321-2. 7^ Carmen, lines 801—4. 73 See Orlandi, pp. 117-27; 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 ‘The Carmen de Hastingae proelio, EHR xciii (1978), 241-61, 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, ‘Latin

THE

SOURCES

USED

BY

WILLIAM

OF

POITIERS

xxix

Since Guy of Amiens came to England in the household of Queen Matilda,” it is difficult to believe that WP, as one of the king’s chaplains, would not have known about his poem. WP may even have had it in mind when he spoke of the poets who roam freely through the fields of fiction. This, however, does not prove conclusively that the poem by Guy, which was mentioned by Orderic Vitalis, was the Carmen. There were other poems about the conquest of England; Baudri of Bourgeuil later wrote one for Adela of Blois,” and there could have been other songs of Hastings. Words and phrases common to both GG and the Carmen might have been picked up from the works of Juvenal, Justin, or other earlier writers. If the two authors had heard the same stories, they decided independently what was reliable and worth recording. Both had heard and believed that Duke William was delayed at the mouth of the Dives by unfavourable winds. Both had heard the suggestion that Harold might appropriately be buried on the seashore; but whereas WP took this to be a jest the author of the Carmen gave full vent to his imagination, and described the burial with all the trimmings of

saga." If WP had seen the accounts of the Carmen on the death of Harold and the negotiations leading up to the surrender of

London,” he did not regard them as reliable, and preferred independent information, or, in the case of Harold's death, lack

of information. The possibility that no survivor of the battle knew exactly when or how Harold died should never be overlooked. On the other hand, if WP deliberately rejected the Carmen’s account of the surrender of London, in which poetry and the Anglo-Norman court, 1066-1135; the Carmen de Hastingae proelio', Journal of Medieval History, xv (1989), 39-62, had put the case for Guy of Amiens as author.

"^ OV ii. 184-7, 214-15. 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 of Baudri of Bourgeuil and the Bayeux Tapestry’, Battle, xvi (1994), 55—73.

© GG ii. 6; Carmen, lines 40-63. 7 GG ii. 204; Carmen, lines 585-92. The influence of saga is discussed by K.-U. Jaschke, Wilhelm der Eroberer: Sein doppelter Herrschaftsantritt im Jahre 1066, Vortrage und Forschungen, xxiv (Sigmaringen, 1977), pp. 39-45. Jáschke (ibid. pp. 46—7) also notes classical parallels in Statius and the //;z4. 78 Carmen, lines 673—750.

XXX

INTRODUCTION

Ansgard^ was said to have taken part, he may have thrown away a few reliable details together with the imaginative elaboration of events. The date of one pictorial source, the Bayeux Tapestry, is debatable, but it was certainly later than GG.? Both Bishop Odo and Bayeux are central to its narrative; and since WP knew and admired Odo he and the designer of the tapestry probably had some oral sources in common. There are marked similarities in the two descriptions of the Battle of Hastings, though there are also some conspicuous differences in the role assigned to Eustace of Boulogne. The judgement of individuals and their purpose in writing were bound to influence their handling of fluid and variable oral sources; and WP’s sources were almost entirely oral. From the time when his own experience began, he preferred his own recollections, both of what he had seen himself and of what other eye-witnesses had told him, to any written chronicle. This had, indeed, been the normal practice of historians from the time

of Thucydides.*! The identification of oral sources is difficult, and can rarely result in more than a plausible hypothesis. WP must have been close to Duke William during the years when he was a ducal or royal chaplain. If he was for a time the duke's confessor, this might account for his frequent, but generalized, interpolations on William's piety.? Though much of this is conventional special pleading, it is interesting that he draws a picture of a man indifferent to omens,? a pious Christian trusting in the will of God in order to further righteous ends. From the time he knew ” Ansgard, mentioned in the Carmen (line 690), can probably be identified as Asgar or Esgar the staller, the grandson of Tovi the Proud (Waltham Chronicle, pp. xvii-xviii). *? 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 comprehensive bibliography up to 1988. There is a critical French edition by L. Musset, La tapisserie de Bayeux (La-Pierre-qui-Vire, 1989).

8! See above, p. xxviii. 9 GG i. 49-52, ii. 14, ii. 44 and passim. 9 GG ii. 14, where William merely laughed at accidentally putting on his hauberk back to front before the battle.

THE

SOURCES

USED

BY

WILLIAM

OF

POITIERS

xxxi

the duke he wrote as William's mouthpiece. For the earlier campaigns, when he was studying at Poitiers, he must have relied on accounts of the participants, and on general reports of the duke's reputation. He never mentions particular individuals as his informants, though his career suggests an association in later life with Odo of Bayeux. He was not himself present on the battlefield at Hastings, but he appears to have used information from men who had fought there. The details of later campaigns, which are known only from the work of Orderic Vitalis, must have come from individuals who had been with the armies. It is very likely that WP was still William's chaplain, and accompanied

him on some at least of 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 of Fraga had been transformed

by legend within three or four years.** So there is no need to try to explain the epic elements in GG by suggesting that WP himself

composed heroic poetry? Legendary feats of 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, WP enhanced it in imitation of 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." Other speeches were certainly, though less overtly, invented; this was a common device of rhetoric, and readers of Latin would have

accepted it as such." Probably too they would not have been deceived It was to of a son pleading

by the embellishments WP added from classical authors. be expected that any parent would wish to have the body slain in battle; so Harold's mother is represented as to be allowed to bury her son, as Priam had pleaded for

** See OV vi, pp. xxii-xxiii.

85 See Foreville, pp. xliii-xliv. 8 GG ii. 15. 87 See T. P. Wiseman, C/io's Cosmetics (Leicester, 1979), pp. 27-40, citing Cicero, De orat. ii. 36; OV i. 8o n. 1.

xxxii

INTRODUCTION

the body of Hector.®* If Caesar occasionally helped to lighten the burden of a sick colleague, William must do the same, or better.??

If Vergil described feasts celebrated by Aeneas at critical moments, William must equal or surpass him by celebrating a feast in mid-Channel.?" This was part of WP's technique in his rhetorical passages. In those that were more strictly historical, he relied more directly on oral testimony, some of which came from eye-witnesses. 4.

THE

BATTLE

OF

HASTINGS

William of Poitiers did not, as he himself said, hear the discourse with which the duke encouraged his troops before the battle, and he was not an eye-witness of the battle. He stated significantly, *We have not the means, and it is not our intention, to describe all the exploits of individuals as their merit deserves. The most eloquent writer who had seen the battle with his own eyes could scarcely have followed every detail.’ His account is based on oral evidence; it is most precise on the ordering of the troops for battle, a point on which many eye-witnesses could agree. Once the

action had started, individuals would have lost sight of the picture and been aware only of the particular actions in they were engaged. So it is not surprising to find that some closest resemblances to the account in the Carmen, also

whole which of the drawn

from oral sources, are in the opening stage of the battle. Both state that Harold's troops emerged from woods and took their stand on foot in densely packed formation at the top of a hill, approached

by a steep, rough slope.?' Both agree that the front line of the Norman army was made up of archers on foot, shooting arrows and bolts; the mention of bolts shows that they included crossbowmen. Among the mailed, mounted knights the duke himself commanded the centre, with Bretons and other auxiliaries on the ** GG ii. 25; Cf. Ilias latina, lines 1009-45. 9 GG ii. 9; cf. Suetonius, Vita Caesaris, c. lxxii: ‘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’.

9 GG ii. 7; Vergil, Aen. i. 168-215. ?! GG ii. 16; Carmen, lines 365-72.

THE

BATTLE

OF HASTINGS

xxxiii

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 of foot-soldiers, more heavily armed and wearing hauberks, between the archers and the rank of mounted knights

led by the duke. He describes the first stage of 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) advancing to the front; and these fought hand-to-hand with swords.” 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,?? and the knights would certainly have needed to draw their swords to make any impact. There is no suggestion in WP that a jongleur, called Taillefer, rode in front to encourage the troops and strike the first blow, as alleged in the Carmen.?* Both sources agree in general on the next phase: part of 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 WP 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. The Carmen is a little confused on the number of flights, and implies at one point that the first was feigned. Details of the later stages of the battle vary. WP mentions a heroic charge led by Robert of Beaumont, of 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 % GG ii. 16, 17; Carmen, lines 373-84.

?! See below, ii. 17 and n. 76. ?* Carmen, lines 391—405. The ‘Taillefer’ episode reappears in the twelfth century in the work of Henry of Huntingdon (Greenway, Huntingdon pp. cvi, 392-3) and Wace (Row, pt. iii, lines 8013-39 (ii. 182—4)).

XXXIV

INTRODUCTION

Tapestry the archers, who had been shown leading the advance during the first phase of 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 of some of the retreating English, who took advantage of a maze of ditches and broken earthworks to try

to halt their pursuers.” The only other details he provides relate to the valour of the duke himself, who fought with a broken lance after three horses had been killed under him, and refused to listen

to Eustace of Boulogne, who was urging him to retreat. The Carmen, on the other hand, embroiders the narrative with _ individual exploits appropriate to epic descriptions of battles. The author describes in detail how William seized one horse from a man of 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 of the Carmen. The resemblances between the two sources that appear, particularly in the early stages of the battle, could be explained by similar oral sources known to both authors. WP is far rnore convincing in his sober account, only carried away by his wish to praise his hero, and perhaps by his readiness to believe the worst of Eustace of Boulogne. The role of Eustace in the battle is one of the most difficult to interpret. The Bayeux Tapestry, like the

Carmen, gives him a leading role, whereas WP presents him as something of 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. ?* This is probably the ‘malfosse’ incident that Orderic placed during the pursuit after the battle and greatly enlarged (OV ii. 176—7). °° His role is discussed by S. A. Brown, ‘The Bayeux Tapestry: Why Eustace, Odo and William?’, Battle, xii (1990), 7-28.

THE

USE

OF

THE

GG

BY

ORDERIC

VITALIS

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 of passages of restrained rhetoric), the least carried away by imagination. He knew from experience the practical side of

fighting. And victory, in view of the formidable resistance of the English and the difficulty of the terrain, was an achievement so remarkable that praise of the leader needed very little embellishment. 5.

THE

USE

OF

GESTA

ORDERIC

GVILLELMI

BY

VITALIS

Orderic Vitalis had a complete manuscript of the Gesta Guillelmi, which was. his principal source for the campaigns of 1066—1071 and for William’s right to the English throne. He used it with

discretion," omitting the long passages of comparison

with

Caesar and the Vergilian episodes such as the mid-Channel banquet. While he abbreviated the rhetorical passages, he retained many expressions of admiration for William's courage, leadership, and kingly qualities. But the many passages praising William's mercy towards the conquered English are either omitted altogether or directly contradicted. Brought up in England from 1075 to 1085, Orderic had heard the English side of the story, and knew how much injustice and suffering were caused by the

dispossession of many landowners, and the ravaging of William’s armies. Comparison of passages in the GG and the Historia Ecclesiastica illustrates the way he treated his source.

97 Orderic's use of WP is discussed from different standpoints by P. Bouet, ‘Orderic Vital, lecteur critique de Guillaume de Poitiers’, Medievalia Christiana xi“—xisi‘ siécles. Hommage a 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'histotre, | (1972), 1116—27.

XXXVI

INTRODUCTION

GG ii. 22 Guillelmus uero, dux eorum, adeo praes-

tabat eis fortitudine quem admodum prudentia ut antiquis ducibus Graecorum siue Romanorum qui maxime scriptis laudantur, aliis merito sit praeferendus, aliis ^comparandus.

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

Nobiliter duxit ile 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 reman-

sit. Hic uelocitas eius, hic robur eius uidere potuit corporis et animi. Scuta, galeas, loricas, irato mucrone et moram

dedignante penetrauit; clipeo suo nonnullos collistt.

GG ii. 33 lura quaecunque dictauit optimis rationibus dictavit. Judicium rectum nulla persona ab eo nequicquam postulauit. Specie uindicandi reatus auaritiam plerumque uelat regnans iniquitas, supplicio addicit innocentem, ut possessionem 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-

In bello tres equi sub eo confossi ceciderunt. Ter ille intrepidus desiluit, nec diu mors uectoris inulta remansit.

Scuta, galeas et loricas irato mucrone moramque dedignante penetrauit, clipeoque suo nunnullos collisit. OV ii. 192 lura quaecumque dictauit, optimis rationibus sanxit. Judicium rectum nulla persona nequicquam ab eo postulauit.

Neminem nisi quem non damnare iniquum foret damnauit.

Suis quoque primatibus digna se et grauitate praecepit, et diligentia aequitatem suasit. Esse iugiter in oculis habendum aeternum regem, cuius uicerint praesidio. Nimium opprimi uictos non opor-

dum, cuius uicerent praesidio, aeternum

lere,

imperatorem. Nimium opprimi uictos nequaquam oportere, uictoribus professione pares ne quos iuste subegerint, iniuriis ad rebellandum cogerent.

pares, ne quos iuste subegerint, iniuriis ad rebellandum cogerent.

uictoribus

professione

christiana

THE

USE

OF THE

GG BY ORDERIC

VITALIS

xxxvii

This makes it possible to attempt a tentative reconstruction of the lost chapters of GG from book iv of the Ecclesiastical History, where Orderic openly stated that he had followed WP. After the death of Copsi, Orderic describes the measures taken by King William for the good governance of Normandy before his

return to England in December

1:067. The sentiments and

language are those of WP. The detailed account of the crossing to England is precise enough to suggest that WP was probably with the king on that journey. King William reached the mouth of the river Dieppe beyond the town of Arques, set sail with a southerly wind in the first watch of a bitter night, and after a good crossing in spite of rough seas, reached Winchelsea the next morning.?? Roger of 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.’ The account of the king’s politic granting of favours to the English who submitted to him, while warning the Normans to be on their guard, suggests an eye-witness description. Most of the details of Exeter’s rebellion and William’s investment and capture of the city must have come through WP, though, if he mentioned the blinding of one of the hostages in order to put pressure on the citizens, this would have been an unusual

admission that the conduct of his hero was not always merciful.'?! Orderic's account husband in England

of Queen Matilda's arrival to join her may have been taken from more sources

% OV ii. 208. % 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. Omnipotentia ergo diuina quae omnes ubique et semper quos uult prospere gubernat, beniuolum regem inter hiemales tempestates ad portum salutis cum gaudio dirigebat.' Cf. GC 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. 10 OV ii. 210.

101 Oy ii. 210-14. In describing the capitulation of Alengon (GG i. 19) WP simply said that it fell into Duke William’s hands, whereas WJ (GND ii. 124-5) stated that he had forced its surrender by cutting off the hands and feet of some captured defenders.

XXXVIil

INTRODUCTION

than GG.' Orderic knew one of the queen's former messengers, Samson, who later became a monk at Saint-Evroult,? and Samson could have told Orderic that she was accompanied by Guy, bishop of Amiens, ‘qui iam certamen Heroldi et Guillelmi

uersifice ediderat.’'™ If, however, this statement came from GG it would be a clear indication that WP knew Guy’s work, whether or not it was the Carmen de Hastingae proelio. Orderic’s account of the preparations for the rebellion of Edwin

and Morcar,'® including the benefactions of their father and mother, Earl /Elfgar 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 of Orderic on the motives for the return to Normandy of Hugh of Grandmesnil (a patron of SaintÉvroult) and Humphrey of Tilleul, before the narrative of the

campaigns in the north of England is resumed.’

Of the

remaining events up to 1071, Orderic may possibly have contributed the praise of Queen Matilda and the escape of Harold's

mother to Flanders," though he might have taken these passages from WP. The unequivocal condemnation of King William's ruthless harrying of the north, which cried out for divine retribution, was certainly Orderic's."? So too was the short

history of the English church before the Conquest, with which Orderic prefaced the appointment of Lanfranc as archbishop of Canterbury.? Even the praise of the king’s administration of vacant sees appears to come from Orderic, for it concludes with references to the very end of the reign. Either Orderic or WP could have written the passage on the return of peace and security to England, with intermarriage between individuals, and the intermingling of English and Norman customs. The struggle of the king to learn enough of the English language to understand V? OV ii. 214. 15 OV ii. 214-18. 107 OV ii, 224.

! Oy iij. 104.

18 OV ii. 230-2.

"* OV ii. 214. "6 OV ii. 224—36. '? OV ii. 236-56.

THE

LANGUAGE

OF

THE

GESTA

GVILLELMI

. xxxix

the pleas of the conquered people without an interpreter might very well have been noted by his chaplain. And certainly the evidence for the siege of the Isle of Ely, the capture of Earl

Morcar, and the death of Earl Edwin was in the pages of WP,!!° for Orderic immediately adds, *Huc usque Guillelmus Pictauinus historiam suam texuit, in qua Guillelmi gesta Crispi Salustii stilum imitatus subtiliter et eloquenter enucleauit’. 6.

THE LANGUAGE OF GESTA GVILLELMI

THE

As a Latinist, WP is superior to the chroniclers of his day. Orderic Vitalis said that he wrote in the style of 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.' On the whole he relied more on the earlier writers than on the writers of silver Latin, both for vocabulary and for rhetorical examples. Most of 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 of Roman law, which had not then penetrated to the schools of 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 of the eleventh century, and to describe the military manoeuvres of mounted combatants

in the language appropriate to battles fought by the Roman infantry. This would have caused problems for any translator,

even without the rapid social changes that were taking place in the eleventh century. Miles (59 x), the soldier of the Roman army, has a variety of 10 OV ii. 256-8. !! Foreville, pp. xxviii-xxxix.

xl

INTRODUCTION

meanings in the eleventh century. In GG, 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 (11 x) and occasionally turma (3 x). Copia can also be used in a non-

military sense. By /egio (5 x) he usually means a unit of 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 of an actual shield (i. 6, ii. 22) or metaphorically of a strong defence (1. 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

TEXTUAL

TRADITION

cuspis from Vergil, but it was not in common

xli

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 of castles and cities under siege by building siege-castles. The 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 castle of Brionne (i. 9). Castrum might also mean a fortified town (i. 7, i. 11, i. 15, i. 23, i. 33, i. 40, i. 41, i. 42, i. 45, 1. 48). Because of this ambiguity it is not certain what kind of 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), Ambriéres (i. 33), Mayenne (i. 60), Winchester (ii. 36), Pevensey and Hastings (ii. 9), and to fortifications in Le Mans (i. 40) and London (ii. 29), as well as being used generally (i. ro, ii. 46). Oppidum (i. 17, 1. 30) is a stronghold of some kind. Municipium (i. 11, ii. 40) means a fortified town, and turris occurs only once in a place-name (ii. 28). Arx is used twice (i. 9, i. 40) of 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 (1. 33, 11. 10, ii. 20) is an earthwork

of some kind, or possibly a ditch; murus (i. 33, i. 40, li. 27) is a defensive wall; moenia (ii. 10, ii. 26, ii. 28, ii. 36) are city walls. Propugnaculum (ii. 9) is a defence of some kind for the ships; it can also be used in a moral sense (i. 8). Receptaculum (1. 24, ii. 9) is a refuge. ! Towns and cities, whether fortified or not, are called urbes or ciuitates interchangeably. Tours (i. 15), Rouen (i. 22, ii. 41), Le Mans (i. 38), Canterbury (ii. 28), London (ii. 3o, ii. 33), Rome (ii. 32), the heavenly Jerusalem (i. 47), and the cities of the ancient Roman empire (ii. 40) are all described as ciuitates. But Rouen (i. 25, i. 41), Le Mans (i. 37, i. 38), Tours (i. 15), London (ii. 28),

xlii

INTRODUCTION

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 of archbishops, and the incumbent of either see was called metropolitanus (i. 51, 1i. 28). There are no technical feudal terms in GG. Feudum never occurs. Some other words are ambiguous. Honor (29 x ) mostly has the sense of ‘being honoured’, and beneficia may mean benefits or gifts, though maximos honores et plurima beneficia (ii. 12) certainly included gifts of territory. The honores (ii. 37) which Odo of 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 of nephew. The nepos of Eustace of 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 of

kinship is implied. WP is sparing in his use of imperator; of 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.!'? Elsewhere princeps has a less technical meaning; it may be a leader of some kind, or the ruler of a province or even a kingdom. Sometimes ‘prince’ is the only

possible translation; the ‘princes of the earth’ (ii. 43) include kings, and the expression ‘a good prince’ may mean a king. Corona is occasionally used to suggest some of 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). '7 For the titles of the dukes of 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.

TEXTUAL

TRADITION

xliii

Ordo (9 x ) is used occasionally in the sense of orderliness (i. 55) or a battle-line (ii. 16). Nowhere is there any suggestion of 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 of 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

The textual tradition of the Gesta Guillelmi is known only from occasional references in other medieval manuscripts and from the correspondence of seventeenth-century scholars. The work was not widely known in the Middle Ages. Orderic Vitalis made extensive use of it in his Ecclesiastical History; and it was known either directly or indirectly by Robert of Torigni, Benoit of Sainte-Maure, and possibly Wace, who used some of the same stories about William.'? In England the work was known to William of Malmesbury, the author of Liber Eliensis and Ralph de

Diceto.''* All these writers may have used the same manuscript; there was certainly a second manuscript in Normandy. Duchesne's edition of 1619 was based on a manuscript from the library of Sir Robert Cotton, which could well have been the one from Ely/Malmesbury. Because it cannot be traced in any of the early Cottonian catalogues or lists of loans its fate has puzzled

editors.!? 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 15 This section is based on Davis, ‘William of Poitiers’, pp. 93—6. See also Chronique des ducs de Normandie par Benoit, ed. C. Fahlin, 3 vols. (Uppsala, 1951—67), ii, passim, Wace, Rou, pt. iii, lines 7499-7521 (ii. 163-4); GND i, p. Ixxxviii.

!* GR ii, pp. cxi-cxiii, 285-6; Liber Eliensis, pp. xxviii, and ii. go; RD ii. 263-4. !15 As Foreville points out (Foreville, pp. I-li), there is no trace of it in Sir Henry Savile’s catalogue (BL, Add. MS 35213 and Harley MS

1879) or in the seventeenth-century

catalogue at Trinity College Cambridge (MS 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 (BL, Harley MS 6018) or in other lists of loans from the library (BL, Cotton MS Appendix xv 13; BL, Add. MS 5161). Cf. K. Sharpe, Sir Robert Cotton 1586-1631: History and Politics in Early Modern England (Oxford, 1979), ch. ii.

xliv

INTRODUCTION

specific references to the loan in the letters of these men.''° In a letter to Camden dated 5 March 1618 Peiresc acknowledges receipt of a transcript of Cotton’s WP, but alleges that it was so full of 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! Evidently the Pithou manuscript could not be found, because on 29 April 1618 Peiresc wrote to Camden acknowledging receipt of *l'autographe du fragment de Guillelmus

Pictavensis bien conditionné".? Though we cannot prove that Peiresc returned it, it is most probable that it was included in the consignment of books which he dispatched back to London in the autumn of 1618.!'? If so, we may perhaps presume that it perished in the Cottonian fire of 1731. The Pithou manuscript, which could well have been the one

used by Orderic Vitalis at Saint-Évroult, was said to have contained the text of WP in its entirety. Pithou had a famous library, collected by his father at a time when the monastic libraries of France were being dispersed by the Wars of Religion. Aware of 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 1716 Jean Boivin found two

contradictory accounts in circulation," but part found its way to the French royal library, part remained with the family, part was ''6 For Peiresc, see G. Cahen-Salvador, Un grand humaniste, Peiresc 1580-1637 (Paris, 1951) and Lettres de Peiresc aux fréres 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 of England’, The British Library Journal, xviii (1992), 148—62, at pp. 153-6. "7 Camden, no. clxxvi (p. 222).

"8 [bid,, no. clxxxv (p. 231). "9 Tbid., 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). "* 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: Biographie, Revue du seiziéme siécle, xv (1928), 279-305; and ‘Pierre Pithou érudit’, ibid., xvi (1929), 301—30).

PREVIOUS

EDITIONS

xlv

kept in the college founded by Pithou at Troyes.!?! Other volumes somehow got into the library of the Faculty of Medicine at Montpellier (H137 and Hr51), the Arsénal in Paris (MSS 483, 2590, 4818), the British Library (Add. MS 11506), the Bürgerbibliothek at Berne (MS 163), and the private library of the Marquis de Rosanbo. The Pithou MS 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 MSS and so uncatalogued, the most likely companion chronicle would be the GND of William of Jumiéges. The comprehensive list of all the MSS of GND prepared by E. M. C. van Houts has shown that it is not concealed in any composite

volume containing GND.'”* It has not, as yet, proved possible to obtain entry to the Rosanbo archives. 8.

André

Duchesne

PREVIOUS

was

the

first

EDITIONS

editor

of GG,

in Historiae

Normannorum scriptores antiqui (Paris, 1619), pp. 178—213, and all later editions have been based on his text. Francois Maseres published a new, critical edition in Historiae Anglicanae circa tempus conquestus Angliae . . . selecta monumenta (London, 1807), pp. 37-167, and proposed a number of useful minor corrections.

Duchesne's text was reproduced by J. A. Giles, in Scriptores rerum gestarum Willelmi Conquestoris (London, 1845), pp. 77-179; and J.-P. Migne in Patrologia latina cxlix (1853), cols. 1217-70. 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. 75-104. More recently, an excellent critical edition, with French translation, has been published by Raymonde Foreville, Guillaume de Poitiers, Histoire de Guillaume le Conquérant (Les classiques de l'histoire de France au moyen áge, '21 A catalogue of those still at Troyes was published by P. J. Grosley in Vie de Pierre Pithou avec quelques mémoires de son pére et ses fréres, 2 vols. (Paris, 1756), ii. 275-86.

72 GND, i, pp. xcv-cxx.

xlvi

INTRODUCTION

xxiii; Paris, 1952). Translated selections have appeared in various collections of documents, of which the most recent is that of R. Allen Brown, The Norman Conquest, Documents of Medieval

History v (London, 1984), 15-41. 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 of 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 of his original; his chief liberty was in changing ‘i to *y' in a number of words, such as clipeus or inclitus, and replacing initial i with $5j*. His punctuation and use of capital letters, however, were his own. He inserted occasional marginalia without comment. Some may be either suggested emendations (such as Guidonem for Guillelmum, in i. 23), or corrections of 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 of its variant spellings. Litus occurs more frequently than /ittus, and milia than millia. Both litus and milia are common in classical texts; and WP

may have taken them from some MS of De bello gallico used by him. It has therefore seemed reasonable not to change these spellings, as some modern editors have done. On the other hand, Duchesne's practice of 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 MS 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 of William's coronation there are two /acunae that could be explained

EDITORIAL

PRACTICE

xlvii

by a small hole. There is also a /acuna in the description of the

attack made by Eustace of 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 of 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 of King Edward's death and Harold's coronation. Her divisions, with the exception of one small change between i. 43 and 44, have been preserved in this edition.

JW

ma

bon

23

LZ Me

a

iJ

Qon

, a

z

B

A^

sid eirpié ae TNT

(tad iy LI

,

ds r

h

u Wr Xr

JC

Lr

alg

"deg

"

à

br

D

I

IN

m

2

Gic.

i

ftp

d

Ay

J

modo vus

j

Jj F

5 aneerdpskss ifs E

pet

eran

P2414

,

,

a

«

€i

4

9

VE

4

in

Vu

PXU

aby !

a

uo

NE a

2m)

e

-

Oe

a

E

ur

TET

D

d]

fw

, T

EM

*"

as

Y Ds

"

"ur " cv "a

bin

i!

TE -

ev M

|

!

pe "

re

fh W

mnt

Po

[4^

nT

a9

us -uw SEX

AE

M AM

Wig Vua í

|x

= According to WJ (GND 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. * Duke William, his mother Herleva, and his step-father Herluin de Conteville. * Count Baldwin’s wife Adela was the daughter of King Robert the Pious (996—1031). 5 The date of the marriage was some time between October 1049 (Council of Reims) and 1051, when Matilda, as countess, witnessed some charters of Saint-Wandrille (Fauroux, nos. 124, 126).

i. 23

THE DEEDS OF WILLIAM

33

challenged the brute force of the emperors in major wars, eventually making peace on conditions dictated by his will, since he had injured the lords of the land of these kings in no small part with his violent extortions.! Meanwhile he protected all his own lands with an unconquered and unwearied hand. Afterwards the monarchy of France, with a boy king, came under the protection, command, and administration of this wisest of men.” This marquis, whose power and titles exceed what can be explained in a short space, escorted his daughter, our dearest mistress, to Ponthieu? with all honour, and presented her to her parents-in-law and his son-in-law.* Her wise and blessed mother had nurtured in her daughter a lineage many times greater even than her paternal inheritance. If you ask about her mother’s lineage, you should know that her mother’s father was Robert, king of Gaul,’ who, son and grandson of kings, was himself the progenitor of kings, and whose praise for his piety and wise rule of the kingdom will be sung all over the world. The city of Rouen

gave itself over to rejoicing at the entry of this spouse. 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 of William, count of Arques, to go (as far as he was able) beyond the limit of what is right and good, to the distress of his native land. The cowardly and perfidious offspring of a famous line, William was not restrained by the bonds of divine or human law.’ Neither these, nor the downfall of Guy, nor even the admirable virtue and deserved good fortune of the great unvanquished conqueror and the renown he had won by his victories held him back. The fame of 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 ? According to WJ, William of Arques obtained the county of Talou from the young duke William *obtentu beneficii, ut inde illi existeret fidelis; then, haughty because of his noble birth, he built the stronghold of Arques on a high hill at the heart of the region and,

assured of the support of the French king, instigated a rebellion (GND ii. 102-3). He was a brother of Mauger, archbishop of Rouen, who came under suspicion of supporting him; see below, pp. 88-9.

i. 24

GESTA GVILLELMI

34

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.! Is ab ineunte pueri principatu infidus ei et aduersus, quanquam fidelitatem iuratus et obsequium, hostilia agitabat, modo temeritate non latente resistens, clandestinis interdum dolis. Improba quidem animi elatio facillime hominem in res iniustas detrudit. Motus dissensionum aliorumque superius commemoratione aliquanta 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 oppugnatione? 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, suspiciens 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. Ceterum malefidi custodes non multo post castri potestatem conditori reddunt, munerum/ pollicitatione et impensius imminente uaria sollicitatione fatigati subactique. ^ M F; Arsensi D

* F; uerumetiam D M

* numerum

DM F

! William of Arques was the son of Richard II and grandson of Richard III. ? This statement has sometimes been taken to mean that William of Arques's revolt began before the end of the long siege of 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. 1246); but one redaction of GND changed ‘rebellandum’ to ‘resistendum’, implying resistance to ducal authority rather than open rebellion (GND ii. 103 n. 5).

i. 24

THE DEEDS OF WILLIAM

35

undoing, that they were counted among the progeny of the dukes of Normandy: the Burgundian, that he was the grandson of the Richards through the daughter of the second, the count of Arques, that he was the brother of the third, the son of the second, and the

grandson of the first.! This man had been unfaithful and hostile from the beginning of 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 of the movement of revolt and the evil deeds of 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 of his lord, whom he had attempted to bar from entry, not only to the castle of Arques, but to all the adjacent part of Normandy on this side of the river Seine. Finally during the siege of Domfront,” described above, he slipped away furtively, like a deserter, without asking permission; and thenceforth he entirely withdrew the service of a vassal, under which name he had previously concealed his hostility.

24. On account of 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 of 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 of early pride and folly, and had built it with great toil and difficulty on the summit of the high hill of Arques.? But not long afterwards the faithless guards, worn down by countless pleas of all kinds,

surrendered the powerful castle to its founder for the promise of rewards. Straightway on his return his fury, growing fiercer than ever, ! Cf. GND ii. 102-3. For the castle of Arques, see A. Deville, Histoire du cháteau d'Arques (Rouen, 1839).

GESTA

36

GVILLELMI

Solito mox acriores intromissum

furiae incendunt,

ie 25

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 quibuscunque 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 Constantino pago, ubi certiorem nuntium accepit, ea properabat celeritate, 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 nimis^ periculosum esse. At constantia illius minime his ad pauorem est mota, uel ad diffidentiam. Nam eos confirmans hoc responso, nihil quidem ^ M F; rimis D ' Duke William may have visited the Cotentin at the time that Geoffrey of Montbray, bishop of Coutances, after returning from fund-raising in Italy, began the restoration of his diocese c.1051 (Chibnall, ‘Geoffroi’, pp. 282-4).

i. 25

THE DEEDS OF WILLIAM

37

drove him to exact vengeance as though he had suffered injuries and loss of property. It caused great wretchedness in the province all around. Disturbances, pillage and rapine, rage unchecked, threatening devastation. The 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 of this, he set out from the Cotentin,' where a trustworthy messenger had come to him, riding with such speed that all but six of the horses of his companions dropped from exhaustion before reaching Arques. For while he was hurrying to avenge the insult to himself, news of the harm done to his province drove him on faster still. He lamented that the goods of churches, the labours of country people, and the profits of merchants were unjustly made the booty of men-at-arms. He thought he was summoned by the pitiable lamentations of the unwarlike masses, which always arise in time of war or sedition. But in his journey, not far from the castle, he was met by certain leaders of his troops, who were trustworthy and acceptable to him. They had suddenly had news in the city of Rouen of what the count of Arques was doing, and had rushed with all speed to Arques with three hundred mounted men, to see if they could intercept the carriage of corn 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 of William of 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 of 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

GVILLELMI

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.! 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.?

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. Adducti in spem memorandi facinoris ! Cf. Vegetius, iii. 3 (p. 69). ? 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 of 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). > WJ gives an account of the siege of Arques with different details; he adds that the king camped at Saint-Aubin-sur-Scie (GND ii. 102—5). Orderic (OV iii. 254) refers to fighting

i. 26

THE

DEEDS

OF

WILLIAM

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 of his cause promised a happy issue. And behold, when he saw the leader of this revolt on a high hill, with a force of 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 of 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 of 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 of 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 of 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.! We are impelled by right reason to place also on record that through his virtuous restraint he always avoided slaughter unless the pressure of 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 of war, or those who were clearly guilty of capital crimes at home. He wisely had in mind how redoubtable a judge looks from on high on the deeds of earthly powers, and distributes

mercy and punishment to each according to his deserts.” 26. But King Henry, hearing that the man whose recklessness he had promoted and encouraged was besieged, hastened to come to his aid, bringing a considerable force of armed men and plentiful supplies of things which the besieged lacked. Impelled by the hope of performing a memorable deed, some of those whom round Saint-Aubin, where Richard of Heugleville was holding out in support of Duke

William.

40

GESTA

GVILLELMI

1227

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,! nobilitate notus ac fortitudine, et cum eo quamplures uiri nominati interimuntur. Hugo Bardulfus ipse item uir magnus capitur. 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 militum uirtus aeque ualida) ne cruenta morte et pudenda fuga pelleretur, abire maturauit, decus nullum adeptus, nisi forte decorum fuerit quorum aduenit causa inopiam stipendio minuisse, 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 partus? rapiendi contra dominum suum principatus cupidinem 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 cunctis nimium audax incoeptum, dementissimum consilium, 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 ' Enguerrand II, count of Ponthieu, the son of Hugh II (d. 20 Nov. 1052), had recently succeeded his father when he was killed on 25 October 1053 (C. Brunel, Recueil des actes . des comtes de Ponthieu 1026-1279 (Paris, 1930), pp. iii-iv; GND ii. 104—5). ? Hugh Bardulf was the lord of Nogent and Pithiviers (GND ii. 104 n. 2).

> William of Arques was the son of Count Richard II and his second wife Papia.

i. 27

THE DEEDS OF WILLIAM

41

the duke had left as a garrison on guard spied out and lay in ambush along the route of the advancing French. And, sure enough, a

considerable number of the less cautious were captured. Enguerrand, count of Ponthieu,! 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.” Nevertheless on reaching his objective, the king, whose men had been provoked to anger, attacked the garrison of the siege-castle with all his strength. He wished to rescue William of Arques from

his predicament, and also to avenge his own embarrassment and the slaughter of his men. But when he found that the enterprise was difficult, for the fortifications easily withstood hostile attacks, and the courage of 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 of those he had come to help, and increased the number of their men-at-arms.

27. The 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 of hunger than with arms, until they were on the point of surrender. The 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 of Papia? 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 of peace was sweet and pleasant, and the reality of 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 corner. Suppliants humbly obtain terms of 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

GVILLELMI

i. 29

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.! 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.? Imposita est regis cohors: Guido frater comitis Pictauensis Guillelmi, atque Romanae imperatricis,! 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,* 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,

' WJ (GND 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 of Count Guy of 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. ? For Guitmund of 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 of the castle to the husband of his daughter Alberada.

i. 29

THE

DEEDS

OF

WILLIAM

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 of 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 of the lightly

armed troops as they came out. 28. The duke, with his praiseworthy clemency, pitying the misfortunes of this man, as before he had pitied Guy, 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.! In the course of the long siege, some of the powerful Normans

defected from the duke to the king, men who were thought to have been secret supporters of the rebels’ conspiracy already. They had not yet quite rid themselves of the ill-will which they had nourished against the duke when he was a child. Amongst them Guitmund, the commander of a castle named Moulins, gave it into the king’s hands, and a royal garrison was placed in it:? Guy, brother of William count of Poitiers and of the Roman empress,’ 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 of the surrender of the lair of Arques, escaped from our men by flight. But the Normans, who should have been punished by the law of deserters,* 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 * Guy-Geoffrey, brother of William-Aigret, count of Poitiers, and of Agnes, wife of 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 of a strong Normandy.

* See Tardif, i, c. 37, p. 32, ‘De fugitivis".

GESTA

44

GVILLELMI

i. 29

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,! aliorumque non modici numeri detrimentorum, 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; 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,! prope in regnum euectam; superiorum eius comitum, quanquam ardua ualuerint nullum in haec ausa illatum.

Condolentes in eadem Tedbaldus,* Pictauorum comes,’ Gaufredus, 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 magnitudinem, quam aliquantum attriuit, ulterius atterendam, uel si qua uia ualeat, conterendam, in armis agitare. Praeterea concupiebant Normanniam aut eius partem quidam regis proximi. Hi, quasi faces flagrantissimae, regem incendebant et principes." ! See above, i. 18. ? The emperor Henry III (1039-56). Relations between King Henry and the emperor fluctuated; in 1047 they were in conflict on the frontier of 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 I*', l'empire et l'Anjou (1043-1056)', Revue belge de philologie et d'histoire, xxv (1947), 95— 102. The Latin is ambiguous; Foreville (p. 66 n. 1) and Kérner, 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 of France had the emperor as his friend and ally. ? WP used the same words (below, i. 43) of Conan II’s rejection of Duke William, *Normanniae. hostis, non miles, esse uoluit.' The exact relationship between the dukes of

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 of the French crown; but this is questionable. WP seems rather to support the duke's refusal to admit vassalage. For the

i. 30 king, who

THE DEEDS OF WILLIAM were

already enemies

45

of the prince of Normandy,

became his mortal enemies. Above all, the hateful wound recently inflicted by the death of Count Enguerrand and those slain with him festered in their perverse minds. The memory of the misfortune suffered by Geoffrey, count of Anjou, who had recently been thrown back (as I have related)' by William’s shield, kindled their bitterness, as did the recollection of numerous defeats and humiliations inflicted on them by the Norman might. We will explain the causes of the enmity truthfully and in

full. The 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 ally/—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 of 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 of the Franks from the earliest times,’ had now been raised almost to a kingdom. None of the more prominent counts, however great their aspirations, had dared anything of this sort. Theobald,* the count of the Poitevins,’ Geoffrey? and the other great magnates joined their voices to these complaints, and had in addition a private grievance of 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 of 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 of it. These men, like burning torches,

enflamed the zeal of the king and his princes.’ changing relationship of the dukes of Normandy and the kings of 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. * Theobald III, count of Blois, Chartres and Champagne. 5 William VII, duke of Aquitaine and count of Poitou. It is strange that WP does not give his name; possibly it was accidentally omitted in Duchesne's edition. * Geoffrey Martel, count of Anjou. ? See GND ii. 142-4 for similar allegations made by WJ.

46

GESTA

GVILLELMI

i. 30

30. Eas ob res, post consultationem infausto omine communicatam, 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; Franciam! tamen et Britanniam 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 agrestis^ 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.? Sic enim dispositum est industria quae multum profutura sperabatur;

ut quantus miles inter Sequanam et Garonnam fluuios colligeretur (quas gentes multas uno nomine Celtigallos* appellant) ii nos ^ M F; aggrestis D ! ‘France’ is here used in the sense of the royal demesne.

? After the death of 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.

? WJ (GND ii. 142-4) described the two-pronged attack and its failure much more briefly. OV in his interpolations (GND ii. 144) gave further details, and added that the date of 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.).

i. 30

THE

DEEDS

OF

WILLIAM

47

30. Because of these things, after a consultation of 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 of a kingdom as great as any you could find in the four corners of the world. But France! and Brittany,” 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 of its prosperity, ruled over a thousand provinces, would have been terrified by the size of this army. No wonder our land felt some fear. The churches feared that the peace of religious worship would be disturbed and their revenues seized by the greed of armed men, though they put their trust in the protection of 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 of Evreux, sending a part of his forces across to the opposite bank of the Seine against the enemy

whose dispositions are already known to him.’ 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 of Centigauls)* should attack on the one side under * Cf. Caesar, De bello gallico i. 1, ‘Gallia est omnis divisa in partes tres, quarum unam aliam Aquitani, tertiam qui ipsorum lingua Celtae, nostra Galli

incolunt Belgae, appellantur."

48

GESTA

GVILLELMI

1531

hac, rege ipso duce, inuaderent; illac uero ducibus, fratre regis

Odone,' et Rainaldo 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. 31. 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! ut natalibus ita uirtute magni, una Hugonis Gornacensis! Hugonis Montisfortis Gualterii Giffardi, Guillelmi Crispini, aliorumque nostrae partis fortissimorum uirorum. Guido Pontiui comes, ad uindicandum fratrem Ingelrannum? nimis auidus, captus est, et cum eo complures genere et opibus clari; plurimi ceciderunt, reliquos fuga eripuit cum antesignanis.? 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." Rex attonitus inopinato nuntio, procul omni cunctatione signo antelucano suos in fugam excitauit; summe neces! Odo was the fourth son of King Robert the Pious and Constance. ? Reginald I, count of Clermont-en-Beauvaisis and royal chamberlain; for his family, see P. Feuchére, ‘La principauté d'Amiens-Valois au xi* siécle’, Le moyen áge, lx (1954), 1—37, at p. 26 n. 89. * The son of William of Eu and brother of Hugh, bishop of Lisieux. Orderic (OV iv. 86) singles him out as a leader of the defence, and adds the name of Roger of Mortemer. * Hugh II of Gournay, who married Gerard Fleitel's daughter Basilia.

> Hugh II of Montfort-sur-Risle. $ Walter Giffard I of Longueville-sur-Scie. ? William Crispin I, whose son Gilbert became abbot of Westminster. For his family, see J. Armitage Robinson, Gilbert Crispin, Abbot of Westminster (Cambridge, 1911), p. 16 (document no. 3).

i. 31

THE DEEDS OF WILLIAM

49

the personal command of 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 of the king’s brother Odo' and Reginald,” his

leading household officer. In addition Aquitaine accompanied the king; it is the third part of Gaul, esteemed by many for the extent of its land and the multitude of its people. No wonder if the French, so fortified in their proud recklessness, nursed a hope of 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.

31. 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 of their swords and entrusted their safety to the speed of their horses. They were closely pursued, their necks—deserving nothing better—threatened by the sword-point of Robert count of Eu,’ as highly born as he was courageous, together with Hugh

of Gournay,

Hugh

of Montfort

Walter

Giffard, William

Crispin,’ and the most valiant men of our party. Guy count of Ponthieu, too eager to avenge his brother Enguerrand,® was taken

prisoner, and with him a good number of men of high birth and great wealth; many fell, the rest escaped by flight with their banner-bearers.? Our champion, Duke William, the moment he

heard of this victory, sent off a herald in the middle of the night, with careful instructions to proclaim in full detail the sad news of

the victory from the top of a tree near his camp.'? The king, stunned by the unexpected news, put aside all thought of delay * Guy, count of Ponthieu, had just succeeded his brother Enguerrand, killed in 1053 (see above, i. 26). ? *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.’

' Orderic (‘Interpolations’, GND ii. 144-5) names the herald as Rodulf of Tosny.

GESTA

50

sarium ratus quam maxima cedere. 32. Multa

GVILLELMI

celeritate Normanniae

1532

finibus dis-

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.! Et quem huius incoepti diem eis, ipse eundem Martello per legatos praefiniuit. O ualidum, o confidentem et nobilem huius uiri animum! O admirandam, nec facile competenti praeconio extollendam, uirtutem! Non petit imbellis cuiuslibet terram debellandam, 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,” Gaufredum dominum suum festinus adit, dolens et miserans

conqueritur: constructis Ambreris opibus Normannorum, terram eius ad libitum inimici inuadendam, destruendam, desolandam. Cui tirannus Martellus, ut erat elatus animo, grandia praesumere et loqui solitus, *Meum', inquit, 'sicut uilis et ' WJ (GND ii. 124-6), mentions the building of the castle of Ambriéres immediately after the surrender of Alencon. The Quedam exceptiones (GND ii, appendix, p. 300) places it after the fall of 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.' It was at the confluence of the Colmont and the Mayenne. Guillot (Anjou, i. 80 n. 358) argues that the construction of the castle of Ambriéres must have been later than the peace agreed after the battle of Mortemer. This makes 1054/5 a likely date; and this date is corroborated by the fact that the rebellion of

Robert Giroie of Saint-Céneri, a vassal of both Geoffrey of Mayenne and Duke William £.1059-60 was probably connected with Geoffrey's resistance (OV ii. 26-9, 78-81; 79 n. 3

i. 32

THE

DEEDS

OF

WILLIAM

5I

and roused his men to flight before dawn, convinced of the need to escape from Norman territory with the utmost speed.

32. From that time many hostile acts of the kind that invariably occur off 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 of 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 of his knights to be ready to enter the territory of the Angevin, Martel, to build the castle of Ambriéres;! and he sent messengers to tell Martel what day he had fixed for its commencement. O strong, O confident and noble spirit of this man! O admirable valour that cannot be praised too highly! He does not seek to attack the land of a peaceful lord, but

that of a most cruel tyrant, full of warlike ardour, as was explained above, whom the most powerful counts and dukes feared like a dread thunderbolt, whose forces and stratagems scarcely any of his neighbours could escape. And then, still more astonishing, he does not attack this enemy without warning while he is unprepared, but informs him forty days in advance where, when, and for what reason he will come. At this news Geoffrey of Mayenne,’ terror-stricken, hurried to his lord Geoffrey and complained fearfully and wretchedly that once Ambriéres was built by the wealth of the Normans, his land would lie at the mercy of the enemy, to be invaded, ravaged, and laid waste at his will. To which the tyrant Martel, a man of overweening pride, who was wont to speak with presumptuous corrects the date (1054) given by Latouche). The construction of the castle of Ambriéres and Geoffrey's attempt to capture it may have occupied several years, and the investment of the castle of Geoffrey's still recalcitrant vassal, Robert Giroie, seems to have been a mopping-up operation. ? WP's account of the fighting in Maine, written after the conflict was over, is clearer and more detailed than the earlier account of WJ (GND ii. 150-1). This episode was

abbreviated by Ralph de Diceto, RD ii. 263.

i. 33

GESTA GVILLELMI

52

pudendi domini omnino abnuas dominium si, patiente me, patrari

uideas quod metuis.”! 33. Die praefinito, Cenomanicum^ norum rector, dum castrum quod

solum ingressus Normanminatus est erigit, fama

referente, quae tam falsi quam ueri nuncia uolat, Gaufredum Martellum breui aduenturum audit. Quapropter opere administrato 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 comite! domino suo et Eudone Britannorum comite, necnon undequaque copiis collectis, Ambreras contendit. Dein praesidii situ et munimentis perspectis, ad oppugnandum accingitur. Parant uallum rescindere; castellani resistunt. Exardent, audent, aggrediuntur propius et acrius; certatur utrinque magna ui. Missilia, saxa, libriles sudes, item lanceae desuper feriunt. lis plerique interempti cadunt, alii repelluntur. Sic audaci molimine cassato aliud incipiunt. Tentant murum ariete, qui percussus in uirga" castel-

lanorum frangitur.? Interea cognito labore suorum munitionis fundator Guillelmus, 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

* Coenomannicum D; Cenomannicum M F

exercitibus

dilabuntur.

* D adds in marg. ariete

' 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.’

? Cf. Vergil, Aeneid, iv. 188. > William VII of Aquitaine; see Halphen, Anjou, p. 61. * Eudo of Porhoet, count of Penthiévre, 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. * The Latin is obscure, and probably corrupt; the marginal note ‘ariete’ in Duchesne's

i. 33

THE DEEDS OF WILLIAM

53

rhetoric, replied, ‘You may renounce my lordship completely, as that of a vile and dishonoured lord, if you see the things you fear come to pass while I stand idly by.”' 33- On the appointed day, the ruler of the Normans entered the territory of Maine and, while he was building the castle as he had threatened, he heard on the grapevine, which reports both true and false news,’ that Geoffrey Martel would soon be there. So, after finishing off the work, he waited steadfastly and eagerly

for the arrival of 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 of the shortage of food, William decided that, for fear of them being less prompt to serve in the future he decided to send them home now, and, having furnished the castle with men and supplies, ordered that when they received a message from him they should all return there as quickly as possible. Once he had heard the news of our army’s departure, Martel, joined by his allies William count of the Poitevins,! who was his lord, Eudo, a count of the Bretons,* and forces collected from all sides, advanced on Ambriéres. Then, after inspecting the site and the fortifications, he prepares to assault it. The attackers make ready to break down the rampart; the castle garrison resists. They become eager, they are daring, they attack more closely and bitterly. The 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] of the besieged, it is broken.? Meanwhile William, the founder of the fortress, hearing of the struggle of his men and impatient of 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. The victor edition may be intended to correct ‘uirga’, but it is difficult to understand the manceuvre described. * This paragraph was closely copied by Ralph de Diceto (RD ii. 263).

54

GESTA GVILLELMI

i. 34

Victor Gaufredum Meduanensem e uestigio bello adortus, qui domini furorem praecipue incendit querela praefata; intra exiguum tempus eo usque compulit, ut in remotissimis Normanniae partibus sibi manus perdomitas daret, fidelitatem quam satelles

domino debet, iurans.! 34. Rursum pace soluta, rex ignominiae suae magis quam detrimenti requirens ultionem, renouata expeditione Normanniam aggreditur, exercitu coacto copioso quidem, at^ 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, repellerentur, 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," 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 "MF;eD > D; littus M F ! 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’. ? 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

i. 34

THE DEEDS OF WILLIAM

55

immediately turned his attack against Geoffrey of Mayenne, who had been the particular instigator of his lord in the said quarrel, and in a very short time he reduced him to the point of coming into the heart of Normandy, to put his conquered hands into William's own, swearing the fealty which a vassal owes his lord.' 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 of the kingdom was mourning, or fearing, the death or unworthy flight of its men, and was none too anxious to attack us again, though very eager to have revenge. Martel the Angevin who, in spite of 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 of this man if the land of Normandy had been utterly crushed and laid waste. Concealing all knowledge of their movements as far as possible, lest they should be confronted and repelled at the very moment of 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 of 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 of 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 of the Dives,” the duke

himself came upon them with a small troop of men at a lucky moment, spoiling for a fight. Part of the army had already crossed the river with the king. And behold! the redoubtable avenger hurled himself at the rest and slaughtered the plunderers, of the Orne and the Dives. Cf. WJ, GND ii. 150-2. Wace, pt. iii, lines 5223—42 (ii. 81), said that an old bridge broke; but WP was writing while memories of 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.

GESTA GVILLELMI

56

i. 36

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 reputandum Normanniam ultra attentare. 35. Non multo post uniuersae carnis uiam demigrauit! nun-

quam gloriatus triumpho, quem de Guillelmo Normanno comite retulerit, imo nec multae in eum uindictae compos. Philippus filius eius ei successit infans; inter quem et principem nostrum

firma pax composita est ac serena amicitia, tota Francia cupiente et annuente. Sub idem tempus obiit et Gaufredus Martellus! 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 fortitudinis, 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,* 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

DM

! Henry I died on 4 Aug. 1060 (R. Merlet, ‘Du lieu oà mourait Henri I*, roi de France 4, Le moyen áge, xvi (1903), 203-9). ? Philip was eight when his father died; he had already been crowned a year previously (A. Fliche, La régne de Philippe I”, 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. 36

THE

DEEDS

OF

WILLIAM

57

believing it a crime when the survival of his wounded country was at stake to spare the dangerous enemy captured on his own territory. Those intercepted on this side of the water were nearly all cut down under the eyes of 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 of justice, for the high tide filled the channel of the Dives with an impassable barrier of water. Fearful and distressed at the death of his men, the king, with the Angevin tyrant, left the bounds of Normandy with all possible speed; for this man, valiant and renowned as he was in the art of war, realized in consternation that it would be madness to attack Normandy further.

35. Not long afterwards the king went the way of all flesh,! without ever having been able to boast of a victory over the Norman count, William, nor even having taken vengeance against him. Philip, his son, who was still a child, succeeded him.” 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,’ to the relief of 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 of 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,’ set out to fear the heavenly king and do good so as

to gain eternal glory. 36. We know that the tongues of men are more apt to speak at

length of evil than of good, often out of envy, at other times because of some other depravity. For sometimes even the finest deeds are, by evil distortion, turned into the opposite. So it often happens that ? He died on 14 Nov. at the abbey of St Nicholas, Angers, where he took the habit on his death-bed (Guillot, Anjou, ii. 148—9, C. 220). * [n spite of his three marriages, Geoffrey Martel left no heir. He was succeeded by the elder son (Geoffrey le Barbu) of his sister Ermengarde (Guillot, Anjou, i. 102—3).

GESTA

58

solent. Vnde nonnunquam

GVILLELMI

1637

fieri constat, quatinus decora regum

siue ducum siue cuiuscunque optimi, cum non uere traduntur,

apud aetatem posteram censura bonorum damnentur, ut nequaquam 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 principatu, quemadmodum regno Anglico, non solum forti manu potitus fuerit, sed et iustitiae legibus potiri debuerit.!

37. Comitum Andegauensium dominatio Cenomanorum comitibus pridem grauis ac pene intolerabilis extiterat.^ Vt enim alia plurima omittam, nouissime nostra memoria Fulco Andegauensis Herebertum Cenomanicum maiorem Santonas illexit, sponsione urbis ipsius.) Ibi, uinctum in medio colloquio, ad pactiones, quas auare concupierat, carcere ac tormentis coegit. Tempore uero Hugonis, 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,^ soli dominio suo eam uindicauit. Hugo haereditatem suam Hereberto reliquit filio,? 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 ^ RD; praesedit

DM F

' WP reiterates his theme of the justice of Duke William's conquests, of Maine no less than of England. As a result of 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). ? The counts of Anjou had exercised lordship over the counts of Maine since the beginning of the eleventh century; and there had been a number of conflicts between lord and vassal (ibid.).

i. 37

THE DEEDS OF WILLIAM

59

the virtuous acts of 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 of 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 of the principality of Maine in the same way as the English realm, not just by force but also by the laws of justice.! 37. The domination of the counts of Anjou over the counts of Maine had long been heavy and almost intolerable. To cut a long story short, most recently in our own time Fulk of Anjou lured the elder Herbert of Le Mans to Saintes by promising him that very city.’ There, in the course of the conference, he was bound and forced by imprisonment and torture to agree to concede what Fulk greatly coveted. In the time of Count Hugh, 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 of 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. He, fearing that he would be totally destroyed by Geoffrey's tyranny, went as a suppliant to William, duke of 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 of 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) of Anjou imprisoned Herbert ‘Wake-Dog’ at Saintes 7/8 Mar. 1025 (Halphen, Anjou, p. 68).

* 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 of Eudo count of Blois (Latouche, Maine, 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.

GESTA

60

GVILLELMI

i. 38

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.! Cui si uolentes pareant, leue seruitium toleraturos fore; si ui subacti, forsitan graue. Potentiam illius, prudentiam, fortitudinem, gloriam, 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.” Indignans ergo repulsam, Guillelmus, iure multiplici successurus Hereberto, arma expediuit, quibus requireret sic praerepta. Nam et olim egit sub Normannorum ducum ditione regio Cenomanica.? Incendium confestim iniicere, aut urbem totam excindere, ausos iniqua trucidare, quantum ingenio abundauit et uiribus potuisset. Sed hominum sanguini, quanquam nocentissimo, parcere maluit solita illa temperantia, et ualidissimam urbem relin-

quere incolumem, caput atque munimentum terrae quam in manu habebat. Haec itaque expugnandi uia placuit.! 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,? quem praeses eorum Gualterius dominum sibi ac tutorem praefecit, praelio decernere minati sunt nonnunquam sed ausi nunquam. Perdomitis tandem, castellis iam per totum comitatum subactis,? reddunt ciuitatem praeualenti. Et quem longa detinuerunt ^ M F; incolume D

^ M F; uastari D

! Count Herbert died on 9 Mar. 1062. The statement of WP that he willed all his possessions to Duke William is uncorroborated. ? Walter III, count of Mantes, son of Drogo II, count of the Vexin, and Biota of Maine.

? This is untrue; the Normans had at times engaged in border warfare against the counts of Maine, but had never subdued the county (Latouche, Maine, pp. 11-24). Duke William's invasion took place in 1063.

i. 38

THE

DEEDS

OF WILLIAM

61

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.’ If 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 of Mantes, who had married Hugh’s sister, and deserted to him.” 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 of Maine had been subject to the sway of the dukes of Normandy.’ 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 of 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 of the land which he had in his grasp.* This was his chosen way of 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 of troubles. It is easier to imagine than to relate how, when they saw these things being done, the people of Maine became anxious and fearful,

and how they wished to free their necks from this heavy burden. Having repeatedly sent for Geoffrey,” 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,° they surrender the city to the strongest. And they receive him whom they had held at bay by their long rebellion * The passage ‘crebris expeditionibus . . . faciebat de maiori’ was slightly abbreviated by Ralph de Diceto, RD ii. 264. > Geoffrey le Barbu, count of Anjou 1060-7. * Cf. WJ, GND ii. 150-1 and n. 3. The city surrendered was Le Mans.

62

;

GESTA

i. 39

GVILLELMI

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, quemadmodum 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.' 39. Voluit in omne seculum et progeniei suae optime consultum fuisse prudens uictor, pius parens. Idcirco germanam Hereberti, ex partibus Teutonum^ 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, in locis tutis illam prope nubilem magno cum honore custodiri

fecit, nobilium atque sapientium curae commissam.*

uirorum

atque matronarum

Haec generosa uirgo, nomine Margarita, insigni specie decentior fuit omni margarita. Sed ipsam non longe ante diem quo

mortali sponso iungeretur, hominibus abstulit Virginis filius, uirginum sponsus, caelicus imperator, cuius igne salutifero pia ^ M F; congratulantis D

* F; Heriberto D; Hereberto M

' 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. ? There is no corroboration refuge in Germany. Latouche misreading of “Teutonum’ for husband of their mother Bertha > R. H. C. Davis noted that named by WP, possibly because,

for the statement that Herbert and Margaret had taken (Maine, p. 32) suggested that the text of WP was a

‘Britonum’; this would make better sense, as the first had been Count Alan of Brittany. the Conqueror’s eldest son, Robert Curthose, was never at the time that he was writing (c.1073—7), Robert was in

i. 39

THE DEEDS

OF WILLIAM

63

as suppliants, with the greatest honour. Men of the highest, middle and lowest ranks strive to placate his rage. They goto 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 of all the churches there without exception go out to meet him, encouraging the zeal of the laity. The churches shine, decked out as on the days of 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 of 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. The destruction wrought by the Normans made him fear the more for Mantes and Chaumont, which were in the vicinity.’ 39. William wished, as a wise conqueror and dutiful parent, to make the best provision for the future of his children. For that reason he had Herbert's sister brought from the Germanic lands? 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 of Herbert as brother-in-law and grandchildren. And because the boy was not yet of age to marry,’ he had the nearly marriageable girl guarded with great honour in safe places, committed to the care of noble matrons and

wise men.* This noble virgin, whose name was Margaret, was far more beautiful than any pearl. But not long before the day when she should have been joined to her mortal spouse, the Son of the Virgin, Spouse of virgins and King of Heaven, took her from men; the pious girl was so inflamed by His saving fire and so rebellion. against his father (*William of Jumiéges, Robert Curthose, and the Norman succession', 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, born before 1051, was a little older. ; * Orderic (OV ii. 118-19) said that she was committed to the care of Stigand of * Cf. Matt. 13: 46. Mésidon.

64

GESTA

GVILLELMI

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,' quod cum aliis ecclesiis quantum licebat religioni nimirum doluit raptam properato obitu, cuius longaeuitatem affectuosissime^ concupiuit. Illius

etenim anima prudenter euigilans cum lucerna ardente Christi aduentum expectans,? ecclesias colere coepit cum reuerentia. Cilicium quoque, quo latentius carnem domare proposuerat, postea quam transmigrauit proditum, mentem aeternis intentam prodidit. 49. Quam longinquus a fauore ducis Guillelmi animo fuerit, uersutus homo Gaufredus Meduanensis certissime cum urbs Cenomanica dederetur patefactum est) Ne 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.* Non est uerita impudens iniquitas iurisiurandi uiolare promissum.

At perpetuum

nomen,

quanto maiores

illus (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,? 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 ^ M F; effectuosissime D

* gloriam D M F

! The abbey of Fécamp, a ducal foundation, was the focus of ducal piety at this date. William visited it frequently for great liturgical festivals (Renoux, Fécamp, PP. 475-7). : 2 Cf. Luke 12: 35. Duke

?. WP's chronology is vague at this point. The first phase of 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; W] in a brief summary implies more active resistance (GND ii. 150, ‘Restiterat adhuc Meduanum

i. 40

THE DEEDS

OF WILLIAM

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 of Fécamp! 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 of Christ,’ and she had begun to cherish and honour churches. The 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 of Le Mans was surrendered, it became crystal clear how far that cunning man, Geoffrey of Mayenne, was from looking with favour on Duke William.? 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 his shameless iniquity sworn. But he thought as his ancestors, great

vanquished, he had begged for mercy;* in he was not afraid to violate the oath he had his name would be immortal (such a thing as they were, had never boasted of) if he

dared to attack the unconquered valour of 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. The lord he had repudiated decided in his wisdom to take from him his most treasured retreat, his castle of Mayenne; 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 of 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.

* See above, i. 33. 5 For the grant of the castle of Mayenne by Fulk Nerra, see Guillot, Anjou, i. p. 457 (App. ii. 7).

GESTA

66

GVILLELMI

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, praecipit, hortatur, confirmat diffidentes, laetum exitum pollicetur. Nec multo temporis interuallo dubii sedent. En solerti consilio ipsius iniecti ignes castrum corripiunt.' 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

! Fire could be an effective weapon in forcing the surrender of a castle; in 1090 it was used successfully to reduce the castle of Brionne (OV iv. 208-10), when burning arrows

were shot into the shingle roof of the castle. WP's statement 'iniecti ignes castrum corripiunt is supported by WJ ‘Quod . . . aliquandiu cepit igneque iniecto flammis combussit’ (GND ii. 150), and suggests that burning brands may have been thrown or shot into the castle.

i. 40

THE DEEDS

OF WILLIAM

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 of the approach permit, while all marvel at the confidence of the duke in the face of such a formidable enterprise. Almost all think that such great forces of 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 of achieving anything. Similarly, there

is no place for the ram, the ballista, or other instruments of 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.! They spread in a moment, as flames do, destroying everything in. their path more fiercely than weapons. The garrison and defenders, stunned by the sudden disaster, abandon the gates and ramparts and rush in a panic to save first of 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 of the victors more than the conflagration. The Normans rush up eagerly, their spirits exalted; shouting with joy, they burst in eagerly and take possession of the fortifications by force. They find very rich booty, thoroughbred horses, knightly arms, and every kind of 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. The garrison, who had fled into the citadel, surrendered the next day, convinced that no defence

could prevail against the skill and courage of William. After repairing the damage caused by the fire, and prudently installing a garrison, William returned home with the remarkable glory of having, as it were, overcome nature, to the great joy of his

GESTA

68

GVILLELMI

i. 41

Gaufredi non triste acceperunt hoc eum fuisse detrimento mulctatum, assereuerantes gloriam solius Guillelmi comitis ultionem multorum esse de periuro ac praedone. 41. Per idem fere tempus Edwardus rex Anglorum suo iam statuto haeredi Guillelmo,! quem loco germani aut prolis adamabat, grauiore quam fuerit cautum pignore cauit. Placuit obitus necessitatem praeuenire, cuius horam homo sancta uita ad caelestia tendens, proximam affore meditabatur. Fidem sacramento confirmaturum Heraldum ei destinauit, cunctorum sub dominatione sua diuitiis,^ honore, atque potentia eminentissimum: cuius antea frater et fratruelis obsides fuerant accepti? de successione eadem. Et eum 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.* Capti in custodiam traduntur ipse et comitatus eius, quod infortunium uir adeo magnus naufragio mutaret. Docuit enim auaritiae calliditas. Galliarum quasdam nationes execrandam 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, ^ M F; diuersis D

! See above, i. 14. ? Harold, earl of Wessex and Kent, son of Earl Godwine. > Wulfnoth and Hakon; see above, i. 14 and n. 27. According to Eadmer (HN, pp. 5-6) they were taken by King Edward as hostages for the good faith of 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 of 1064, is also described in the Bayeux Tapestry (pl. 1-30), the Carmen (lines 295-6, p. 20) and GND ii. 158-60, including the interpolations of Orderic.

i. 4I

THE

DEEDS

OF

WILLIAM

69

army. And the neighbours learnt without regret that Geoffrey had been punished and overthrown; they asserted that the glory of Count William was in itself the vengeance of many on a perjurer and brigand. 41. About the same time Edward, king of the English, protected the position of William (whom he loved as a brother or son and had already appointed his heir)! with a stronger pledge than before. He wished to prepare in advance for the inevitable hour of 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,” the most distinguished of his subjects in wealth, honour and power, whose brother and nephew? 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 of the whole English people, if, with their accustomed fickleness and perfidy, they were tempted to revolt. Harold, after escaping the dangers of the crossing as he sailed to undertake this mission, landed on the coast of Ponthieu, where he fell into the hands of Count Guy.* 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 of death they turn them out,

usually ransomed at a very high price. When Duke William heard of the fate of the man who had been sent to him, he immediately despatched envoys, got Harold out of

prison by a mixture of prayers and threats, and went to meet him and receive him honourably. Guy behaved well and, without * Eadmer (HN, pp. 6-7) says that a storm drove Harold onto the coast of Ponthieu, and that only the threats of Duke William secured his release from Count Guy. The Bayeux Tapestry (pl. 8-17) shows him taken to Guy’s castle of Beaurain (‘Belrem’); for the episode, see A. J. Taylor, ‘Belrem’, Battle, xiv (1991), 1-23.

70

GESTA GVILLELMI

i. 43

grates retulit condignas, terras tradidit amplas ac multum opimas,' 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 gratulabatur 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 Bonamuillam? 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? 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 castrum^ Doueram, studio atque sumptu suo communitum; item

per diuersa loca illus terrae alia castra, ubi uoluntas ducis ea firmari iuberet, abunde quoque alimonias daturum custodibus. Dux 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. ! Wace (Rou, pt. iii, lines 5663—4 (ii. 97), mentions a manor on the Eaulne that was

given. ? 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 (pl. 28) named Bayeux; Orderic (OV ii. 124-6) named Rouen; Eadmer and WJ did not specify any place. 3 Eadmer (HN, p. 7) considered that Harold swore under constraint, and did not

regard himself intellexit qua between Duke (below, p. 156

as bound by any oath (‘Sensit Haraldus in his periculum undique; nec evaderet. Although WP does not mention any proposal of marriage William's daughter and Harold at this point, he later referred to one n. 6).

i. 43

THE DEEDS OF WILLIAM

71

being induced by force or ransom, himself brought the man whom he could have tortured, killed, or sold at pleasure to the castle of Eu, and handed him over to William. William thanked him appropriately, giving him lands that were both extensive and rich,' and adding very great gifts of money besides. He escorted Harold most honourably to Rouen, the chief city of his principality, where every kind of hospitality restored and cheered those who had suffered the trials of the journey. He congratulated himself warmly on having so great a guest, the envoy of 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,” Harold swore fealty to him according to the holy rite of 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 of his own free will pronounced these words? that as long as he lived he would be the vicar of Duke William in the court of his lord King 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 castle* of 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. The 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 * 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 GVILLELMI

i. 43

Britannia namque praefidenter aduersus Normanniam fuit omnis

armata.! Huius audaciae princeps erat Conanus Alani filius.^ 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, ne famelici praedones ecclesiis inermibus, aut ultimo terrae suae uulgo, excursionibus latrocinantibus nocerent. Emit namque rex Francorum 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 galico ense danicae securi* Annalium paginae attestantur.° 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 propius? attingebant tanto gloriantibus

animis contra eos elatiores temeritas creuit ut quo die denuntiare non formidaret. aetatis, ministrauit plurimum milite magis quam credibile

existebant. Conani in tantum iam terminos Normanniae aggrederetur, Homini acrioris naturae, feruidae fiduciae regio longe lateque diffusa, sit referta.

! There is no corroboration of this statement. ? Conan II, son of Alan III, had freed himself from the tutelage of his uncle c. 1057. See above, p. 46 n. 2, p. 52 n. 4. WP probably regarded his refusal of homage to the duke of Normandy as rebellion. ? Duke William began the building of the castle of St James de Beuvron during this expedition, and entrusted it to Richard, vicomte of Avranches. It served both as a defence against border raids by Breton lords and as part of the system of fortifications protecting the frontier (Yver, ‘Chateux-forts’, pp. 58-9; V. Ménard, Histoire religieuse, civile et militaire de Saint-James de Beuvron depuis sa fondation jusqu'à nos jours (Avranches,

1897), pp. 2-24, 417-19). 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 vivere"). WJ (GND i. 64) claimed only that King Charles gave *terram maritimam ab Epte flumine

usque ad Britannicos limites cum sua filia nomine Gisla’.

i. 44

THE DEEDS OF WILLIAM

73

more faithful and beholden to him. For the whole of Brittany was overconfidently up in arms against him.! The leader of this audacious enterprise was Conan fitz Alan? 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, of Normandy. Meanwhile William, who was his lord by ancient right as well as being lord of the Normans, established a castle called St James at the frontier between them,’ so that hungry predators would not harm defenceless churches or the common people in the remotest parts of his land by their pillaging raids. For Charles [the Simple], king of the Franks, had bought peace and friendship from Rollo the first duke of Normandy and ancestor of the later dukes, by giving him his daughter Gisla in marriage and Brittany in perpetual dependence. The Franks had asked for this treaty, as they no longer had the strength to resist the Danish axe with the Gallic sword. *The pages of annals bear witness.’ Since then the Breton counts have never been able to free their neck from the yoke of Norman domination, even though they often attempted to do so, struggling with all their might. Because they were close blood relations of the dukes of Normandy,? 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 of Normandy. This man, aggressive by nature and at an impetuous age, was bountifully served by the fidelity of a region which extended far and wide, and was crammed full of more

fighting men than anyone could have believed.

5 Possibly a reference to the annals of Flodoard (Les annales de Flodoard, ed. Ph. Lauer

(Paris, 1905), pp. 1, 6).

$ Count Alan III's father, Geoffrey of Rennes, count of Brittany, married Hawise,

daughter of Duke Richard I of Normandy; and Duke Richard I] of Normandy married as his first wife Judith of Brittany, sister of Count Geoffrey.

74

i. 45

GESTA GVILLELMI

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.! Ad hoc populositas ipsa armis et equis maxime, aruorum culturae aut morum minime student. Vberrimo lacte, parcissimo pane, sese transigunt. Pinguia pabula gignunt pecoribus loca uasta et ferme nescia segetum. Cum uacant a bello, rapinis, latrociniis, caedibus domesticis aluntur, siue exercentur.^ 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.? Id enim rebelli aduersum iustae causae fidum stabat. Sistere tentat Conanum castri praeses Ruallus,* 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 ! Cf. Sallust, Bellum Iugurthinum, lxxx. 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." ? Cf. Caesar's description of the Germans (De bello gallico, vi. 22—3, ‘Agriculturae non student, maiorque pars eorum victus *Latrocinia nullam habent infamiam").

in lacte, caseo,

carne

consistit;

ibid.

vi. 23,

?. Cf. the scene in the Bayeux Tapestry (pl. 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. * Ruallon of Dol, who rebelled against Conan and became an ally of Duke William.

i. 45

THE DEEDS OF WILLIAM

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 of the ancient Moors who were ignorant of divine law and

chaste morals.! Moreover, this multitude devotes itself chiefly to arms and horses, and very little to the cultivation of fields or improvement of 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.? 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 of 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. The latter, thinking that a thunderbolt was about to strike him, fled as fast as possible to fortified places, abandoning the siege of Dol,’ a castle in his own land. This castle, hostile to the rebel, remained faithful to the just cause. Ruallon,* the defender of 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 of the delay from him. The wretched man, frightened to death and hearing only the sounds of 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 of the manifest danger of taking a numerous force through uninhabited country, which was infertile and unknown. If any remnants of the previous year's produce were left in the impoverished land, the inhabitants had hidden them in safe places with their flocks. The crops were standing green in the fields. So, to avoid the sacrilegious looting

of church goods, if any were found, he led back his army, which was exhausted by the lack of regular provisions. Moreover he assumed magnanimously that Conan would come very soon to

76

GESTA

GVILLELMI

i. 46

excedenti iam Britanniae limitem repente indicatur Gaufredum Andegauensem! cum ingentibus copiis Conano fuisse coniunctum, et ambos postero die praeliatum affuturos. Itaque aperitur conflictus 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 praestolaturus consideat, regionem modice foecundam nimis attenuatam funditus deuastari. Nec penes agricolas interesse, Normannico an

Britannico exercitu consumpti anni laborem amiserint. Sibi modo ad famam ualuisse, non ad conseruationem rerum, Conani depulsionem. 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.? 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, 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?^ Coercere debuisti, et perniciosissime concitasti. Infeliciter secundi flatus, qui nigerrimis ^ M F; consumptae D

* F; per charum D; percharum M

! Geoffrey le Barbu, who became count of Anjou in 1060. ? The whole episode is characteristic of Duke William's preference for wearing down an enemy by a war of attrition rather than fighting a pitched battle. Conan evidently employed the same tactics. See Gillingham, pp. 157-8.

3 Hakon, the grandson of Godwine. ^ WP reverts to his central theme, the justification of Duke William's conquests; he stresses that Harold had sworn an oath on the relics, and had both sworn fealty and performed homage.

i. 46

THE DEEDS OF WILLIAM

77

seek mercy and pardon for his crime. But he had scarcely crossed the frontiers of Brittany when he learnt that Geoffrey of Anjou! 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 of them redoubtable, in one conflict. This would give a manifold gain as the fruit of 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 of the previous year to the Norman or Breton army. So far the expulsion of Conan had brought fame, but not the preservation of property. The duke replied that they must bear in mind that a hasty retreat might be considered dishonourable, but he promised 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. This command was obeyed with such restraint that a single sheaf of corn would have amply sufficed as compensation for all damage. The battle was awaited in vain, as the enemy fled

further away.” 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 of both of them and of the man at whose command and to increase whose honour he had come. Furthermore his nephew,’ the second hostage, was, out of 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?* What you should have suppressed you perniciously stirred up. How unfortunate were the following

GESTA

78

GVILLELMI

i. 47

uelis! tuis aspirauerunt redeuntibus. Impie clemens pontus qui uehentem te hominem teterrimum ad littus prouehi passus est.

Sinistre placida statio fuit quae recepit te naufragium miserrimum patriae afferentem. 47. Inter occupationes tamen rerum bellicarum siue domesticarum, 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? 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 inaestimabili perpetim fulgentia decore satellitum suorum perseuerantiae disponentem in illa gloriosissima ciuitate ueri summique boni patria. Genitorem suum inclytum ducem Rodbertum post memoranda merita, quibus domi claruit, fasces dignitatum seposuisse, peregrinum iter ac periculis plenum arripuisse, desiderio imperatoris illius in superna Sion conspiciendi Ipsius crucem in fronte, dilectionem in mente, reuerentiam in actu, Richardos^ ac superiores auos potentia sublimes, fama praeclaros, humiliter gestauisse.* 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

' A reference to the legend of Theseus. A black sail was to indicate the failure of Theseus to slay the Minotaur. ? Cf. 1 Cor. 7: 31, ‘praeterit enim figura huius mundi.’ > For Duke Robert’s pilgrimage to Jerusalem and death at Nicaea, see WJ, GND ii. 80-5.

i. 48

THE DEEDS OF WILLIAM

79

winds which filled your black sails on the way home!! How impious the smooth sea which suffered you, most abominable of 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 of your native land!

47. In the midst of the warlike activities and domestic occupations which are called worldly, this most excellent prince nevertheless 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 of this world are cut off in an instant, but also that ‘the fashion of this world

passeth away? 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 of 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 of his office and took the perilous road of a pilgrim, out of a yearning to see his Master in the heavenly Sion.? 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 of Him in their deeds.* As a prudent man he had weighed up how

wretched and shameful it is for those who, stripped of 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 of immortality and made fellow-citizens of the angels, to dwell in every delight, seeing God face to face and rejoicing in His perpetual praise. * Cf. Dudo, ii. 3; iii. 36, 58; GND i. 132-4; ii. 38.

80

GESTA

GVILLELMI

i. 49

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! Sanctissime in Normannia obseruabatur sacramentum pacis quam treuiam uocant, quod effrenis regionum aliarum iniquitas frequenter temerat. Causam uiduae, inopis, pupilli, ipse humiliter audiebat, misericorditer agebat, rectissime definiebat. Eius aequitate reprimente iniquam cupiditatem uicini minus ualentis, 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.! Colebat deuotus a tenera aetate sacra solemnia, concelebrans ea saepissime cum frequentia religiosi conuentus, ' A further reference to the rigorous enforcement of law; see above, i. 6, 17. ? The Truce of God was established in Normandy by Duke William and his bishops after the victory at Val-és-Dunes; See M. de Bouard, *Sur les origines de la Tréve de Dieu en Normandie’, Annales de Normandie, ix (1959), 169-89; Foreville ‘Synod’, 25—6. 3 An allusion to the condemnation of the eucharistic doctrine of Berengar of Tours, in which a number of Norman prelates, including John of Fécamp, Durand of Troarn, and Lanfranc took part. See Gibson, Lanfranc, pp. 62-97. WP echoes the words of Lanfranc’s

i. 49

THE

DEEDS

OF WILLIAM

81

48. And so this man, worthy of 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. Nor could it ever be said that he undertook a war where justice was lacking. In this way do Christian kings of the Roman and Greek peoples protect their own, repel injuries, and fight justly for the palm of 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 of Normandy.' The oath of peace which is called the Truce has been most scrupulously observed in Normandy, whereas in other regions it is frequently violated through unbridled wickedness. He listened to the cause of 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 of a weaker neighbour's field or take anything from him. Villages, fortified places, and towns had stable and good laws because of 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 of salvation, the blood of 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 of the priest according to the holy canon, are the true flesh and blood of the Redeemer. It is certainly not unknown with what

zeal he pursued and endeavoured to drive out of his land the wicked error of those who thought otherwise.’ 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 potamus' (Migne, PL, cl. 442).

GESTA

82

fast

GVILLELMI

cleri siue coenobitarum. Senibus ille iuuenis grande exemplum inclaruit, sedulitate quotidiana frequentando sacra mysteria.' Item eius liberi pietatem christianam infantes didicere diligenti prouisione ipsius.

50. Fulgent plangendi quidam in culminibus potestatis terrenae, sese in interitum animae ab eis ipsi praecipitantes, quorum auara malignitas optimorum largae uoluntati obsistens; basilicas intra dominationem suam construi difficile aut nullatenus permittit, 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.” Qui uolenti conferre libens cuique liberam auctoritatem concedebat, sanctos nulla unquam iniuria laedens, dicatum eis quippiam abalienando. 51. Aemulabatur eius tempore beatam /Egyptum 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 exhortabatur, 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, 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. ! Since WP was one of Duke William’s chaplains he may have written this from personal knowledge. ? Orderic wrote of 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 of his ancestors, and the seventeen monasteries of monks and six of nuns founded in his own time (OV. iv. 90—2).

:

> Even before 1066 some ten synods had been held under Duke William in the province

i. 51

THE

DEEDS

OF WILLIAM

83

celebration of them in the company of a religious community of clerks or monks. To old men this youth shone as a fine example for the daily assiduity with which he attended the sacred mysteries.’ 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 of earthly power, plunge to the destruction of their soul, those whose malignant greed stands in the way of the

generous wishes of the best men, and either forbids or makes difficult the building of 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 of its prince, William, and enriched by his ready liberality.’

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. 51. In his time Normandy rivalled holy Egypt with its communities of 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 of imitation and perpetua-

tion in the ages to come! As the source of 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 of religion of clerks, monks, and laymen, he endeavoured not to miss being an arbiter at these synods,’ 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 of another how things had been done, when he wished all to be done in a reasonable, orderly, and holy way. of Rouen; and the duke himself took an active part and frequently presided. For details of these and later synods, see Foreville, ‘Synod’, pp. 19-39.

GESTA

84

i253

GVILLELMI

Delato forte suas ad aures immani alicuius crimine, quod episcopus aut archidiaconus iusto clementius^ 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 collocutionem, precatui totam uoluntatem inclinabat. E diuerso neque amici oculi respectu dignabatur infamem ob enormitatem uitae. Lanfrancum quendam, 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? 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.’ Maioris pendere nemo ^ M F; dementius D

> F; charam D

* M F; honore D

! Lanfranc came from his birth-place, Pavia, to Normandy, and took the monastic habit in the abbey of 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 of the new ducal foundation of Saint-Étienne-de-Caen. For his career, see Gibson, Lanfranc. ? The collection of monastic customs which Lanfranc, in later life, compiled for Christ Church, Canterbury, shows that, in the words of 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 of his daily religious duties’ (The Monastic Constitutions of Lanfranc, ed. David Knowles (NMT, 1951), p. ix).

> The abbey of Saint-Etienne-de-Caen

was dedicated on

13 Sept. 1077 (Musset,

i. 52

THE DEEDS

OF WILLIAM

85

If 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 of being enemies to the cause of 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 of his life did not deserve to be looked on with favour. He admitted to his closest circles a certain Lanfranc,! of whom it was disputed whether he deserved respect and glory more for his remarkable knowledge of secular and divine learning or for his outstanding observance of the monastic rule.” 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 of

his soul, to him he entrusted the care of presiding, as though from a watch-tower, over all the ecclesiastical orders throughout Normandy. For the vigilant care of such a man, which combined the special authority of both knowledge and holiness, was able to guarantee no small security to the best of intentions. It was, so to say, by pious force that he made this man abbot of Caen, reluctant though Lanfranc was, not less from love of humility than from fear of higher rank. Then he enriched with properties, with silver, gold, and all kinds of ornaments, that monastery, which he had built from its foundation at great expense on a huge scale and with a splendour worthy of the blessed protomartyr Stephen, with whose relics it was glorified and in whose honour it was to be dedicated. 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 of Hugh, bishop of Lisieux (died 17 July 1977). Alternatively, he may have changed

the text in a late revision.

GESTA

86

GVILLELMI

i, 53

poterit officia precum quae in caelestia mittuntur. Crebro famulorum Christi orationes flagitabat et emebat, maximo maiore cum

bellum aut alia res ardua imminebat.! Cum haec retracto, dulcis recordatio obuenit "Theodosii Augusti, quem in pugnam contra tirannos processurum animabant prius oracula atque responsa lohannis monachi in ultima Thebaide commorantis.? 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 propinquitate coniunctorum criminibus parcunt, in excelso dignitatum indigne praesidentes non descendere uolunt. Eos clementissime, tanquam caecati amore, iudicant,^ alios perspicaciter atque districte. 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.? 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. Scripturarum 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 rapacissimus. praedo. Mensas equidem nimium sufficientes, nimium ^ M F; indicant D

^ M F; deiectionem D

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

i. 53

THE

DEEDS

OF WILLIAM

87

valued more greatly the service of prayers that are raised to heaven. He frequently sought and purchased the prayers of the servants

of Christ,

particularly

business was imminent.!

when

war

or other

arduous

In recounting these things, the sweet memory of 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 of the monk John, who lived in the remote parts of the Thebaid.* Just as Theodosius chose John, who by obedience had gained the gift of prophecy, out of all the monks, so William took Lanfranc, who was redolent of the spirit of the Holy Ghost in word and deed.

53. Many good people, misled by carnal affection, spare the crimes of 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 of consideration and wonder, knowing that filial affection was never to be preferred to divine love; wisely and justly made God's cause triumph against his paternal uncle, Archbishop Mauger.? This man, the son of Richard II, abused his sacred office as if it were his by right of birth. He was never invested with the pallium, which is the principal and mystical badge of office of an archbishop; the Roman pontiff, by whose hand it is usually sent, refused it because of his unworthiness. He was not unschooled in interpreting the literal sense of the mysteries of

the holy Scriptures; but he made no effort to govern either his

own life or that of his subordinates according to scriptural precepts. The church, which had been enriched and ornamented by the piety of 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

GESTA

88

GVILLELMI

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 degradandus 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 canonum auctoritatem" sententiam dantibus unanimi consensu.!

54. Maurilium uero cathedrae liberatae prouidit, ex Italia ubi supra caeteros abbates emicuit eximius reductum;? dignissimum summo omnium archipraesulatu merito generis, personae, uirtutum, doctrinae. ^ F; authoritatem D M

* unanim D F M

' The misconduct attributed to Mauger by WP probably reflects the charges made against him in 1054 at the Council of 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 (GND 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 of Count William of Arques (Gibson, Lanfranc, p. 107). WP may have been particularly conscious of his failure to receive a pallium from the pope because of the charges later made against Stigand, archbishop of Canterbury, when he was deposed in 1070. When Mauger had been made archbishop of

iss

THE

DEEDS

OF WILLIAM

89

praises by his largesse, showing himself prodigal in the guise of liberality. Often warned and castigated in private and in public by the wise solicitude of his lord (layman and youth though he was), he preferred to continue on the same road of depravity. Nor did he place any limit on his largesse until his metropolitan see was

deprived of almost all its ornaments and treasure. Often his largesse was followed by spoliation. In addition, an evil breath of infamy was spread abroad because of other crimes. But we consider it contrary to reason to publish vices, when dwelling on

them seems indecent and knowledge of 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 of this archbishop who, though he ought to have appeared more virtuous than the most eminent, was reproved by the accusing testimony of the lowest, and judged worthy of degradation by the contempt of all. And so the prince, considering that he could no longer continue with admonitions in a matter of such gravity, lest he should provoke beyond bounds the anger of the supreme Judge, deposed his uncle in the public forum of a holy synod, with the apostolic vicar and all the bishops of Normandy giving their unanimous consent to the sentences. '

54. He made provision for the vacant chair by bringing Maurilius back from Italy,” where he had shone out brilliantly above the other abbots; he was the worthiest of all men for the

archbishopric by virtue of his birth, his person, character, and his learning.

his good

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 Maurilius, see M. de Bouard, ‘Notes et hypothéses sur Maurille moine de Fecamp

et son élection au siége métropolitain de Rouen’, L'abbaye bénédictine de Fécamp, 2 vols. (Fécamp, 1959), i. 81-92. The date of his appointment has been shown to have been 1054, not 1055 (Fauroux, no. 132).

i. 57

GESTA GVILLELMI

go

55. Huius parem quendam et in anachoretici rigoris commilitio sedulum contubernalem, Gerbertum, cunctae sanctitatis con-

scientia et fama iuxta beatum,

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 speculati, 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, pro interminabili 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.! Quorum in electione penes iudicium eius probitas ipsorum ualuit, non altitudo natalium proximorum ipsi. Iohannes Radulphi comitis filius, iampridem laicus ordine eruditus 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. Odonem* ab annis puerilibus optimorum numero consona praeconia optimorum inseruerunt. Fertur hic in longinquas ^ D M; Wandregisili F ! 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 of Saint- Wandrille.

? Cf. 2 Macc. 10: 25-8; 11: 6-11. ? The three prelates named were all kinsmen of the duke; it is noteworthy that WP says nothing about Geoffrey of Montbray, who restored the church of Coutances but was not so highly-born. John, the son of Raoul count of Ivry, was bishop of Avranches (1060-7) and then became archbishop of Rouen. He was the author of a liturgical treatise, De officiis ecclesiasticis (OV ii. 200).

i. 57

THE DEEDS OF WILLIAM

91

55. A few years later, in the hope of restoring the neglected monastic rule through a spiritual abbot, he placed at the head of the abbey of Saint-Wandrille a certain Gerbert, who was comparable to Maurilius and a zealous companion in the ranks of heremitical asceticism; he was already reputed through knowledge of his holiness to be almost blessed.! Both these men, having in their prime speculated, with a different and much more perspicacious keenness of mind than Plato, on the Divinity and on the

blessedness which the Divinity bestows, escaped by their religious profession alone from the trammels of worldly things, despising mundane philosophical systems (which they had once loved vehemently in the schools), the sweet smile of their native land, a lineage distinguished by wealth and high birth, and the hope of high advancement. Thus, with their soul victorious, they fought with energy rivalling the Maccabees,” now under the yoke of monks, now in the wrestling-ring of a hermit’s life, to win everlasting freedom of spirit and peace, seeking no preferment, but the humblest place in the exile of this transitory world. 56. The same prince restored many churches by his wisely judged appointment of prelates, particularly the bishops of Lisieux, Bayeux and Avranches. He nominated very suitable bishops: Hugh to Lisieux, his own brother Odo to Bayeux, and John to Avranches. And in their election it was the probity of each which impressed his judgement, not the high birth which made them his kinsmen.

John, the son of 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 of the clergy. The honour of 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,' from his earliest years the unanimous commendation of the best men rated him among the best. His * Odo of Conteville, bishop of Bayeux, the son of Herlewin of Conteville and Herleva, was a half-brother of Duke William. WP wrote a much fuller eulogy of him later (see below, ii. 37).

92

GESTA

GVILLELMI

i. 58

regiones celeberrima fama, sed ipsius liberalissimi atque humillimi multa et industria et bonitas amplius meretur.

58. Hugonem, quem propiore familiaritate conspectauimus, ' 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 aut^ 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 dominatum uel honorem. Terris, thesauro, pretiosorum ornamentorum decore sanctam sponsam ditauit. Conuenustauit eam aedium quoque eius tanto cultu,^ 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

^MF;aD

' Hugh, bishop of Lisieux (1049-77), a half-brother of Duke Richard II, was the son of William, count of Eu. He was praised by Orderic (OV iii. 14-18). WP, as archdeacon of Lisieux, knew him well. ? He completed and consecrated the church of Lisieux, and shared in the foundation of the abbey of Saint-Pierre-sur-Dives and the nunnery of Notre-Dame-du-Pré at Lisieux (Orderic, iii. 16; Foreville, p. 138 n. 1; Fauroux, no. 140).

i. 58

THE DEEDS OF WILLIAM

93

renown has been carried into the most distant regions; but the zeal and goodness of this most generous and humble man deserve much more.

58. We have no hesitation in describing Hugh,’ whom we have known more intimately, at greater length, for we are certain that it

will be profitable to others to know about him. The grandson of Richard I by his son William count of Eu (who was as good as he was noble), he was promoted by the prince to the rank of bishop in his youth; but soon he showed himself more spiritually mature than the greybeards. He was never heard to boast of his ancient lineage; he was never proud because of his office, or led astray by sensual desires because of 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 of life, and devoted himself to feeding his flock with equal care, so showing how keenly he perceived in the light of the spirit that he had received the rule of 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 of churches, including his own,” 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 of justice, standing steadily on the side of God and condemning his uncle’s son on God’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 of any man, but of 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 of their young sons.

94

GESTA GVILLELMI

i. 50

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 abstemius 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 tutissima ac saluberrima custode muniens. Mysticum namque illud rationale pectoris Aaron ornamentum spiritualiter eius adornat interiora: patrum sanctitatem quorum ei nomina inscribi praecipiuntur iugiter commonens.' Ne uero supra modi limitem digrediamur dum per honestissimae uitae templa iucunda raptamur consideratione, ad principis Guillelmi gesta reuerti placet.

59. Hispaniae reges duo germani^ audita eius magnitudine,

natam eius in matrimonium cupientissime petierunt, suum et ' 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 of the tribes of Israel were engraved on the ephod (Lev. 28: 9-12). For the mystical interpretation of the pectoral, see Augustine, Quaestiones in Heptateuchum, ii. 116, 118, 129 (Corpus Christianorum series Latina, xxxiii. 123—6, 129—30). ? This must be a reference to the sons of Ferdinand I. After the death of Ferdinand in 1065 his lands were divided between Sancho (Castile), Alfonso (León), and Garcia (Galicia and Portugal). Sancho defeated first Garcia and then Alfonso; after the murder of Sancho,

i. 59

THE DEEDS OF WILLIAM

95

He promotes, congratulates, and helps the soldiers of 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 of 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 of the sacred offices, in close study of 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 of the Lord’s sheep, particularly delights, and on these he hungrily feeds. Equally worthy of 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 of 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 of Aaron spiritually adorns his soul, reminding him ceaselessly of the sanctity of the fathers whose names Aaron ordered to be inscribed on it.' But lest we digress beyond reasonable limits, whilst we are rapt in contemplation of the joyful temple of an exemplary life, we must return to the deeds of Prince William.

59. Two brothers, kings of Spain,’ learning of his greatness, pleaded ardently for the hand of his daughter’ 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 (GR 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 (GND ii. 160-1) and Agatha in his Ecclesiastical History (OV. iii. 114).

GESTA

96

i. 59

GVILLELMI

regnum et posteritatem hac magnificaturi affinitate. Nam et lis ualde inimica inter ipsos propter eam orta est: minime degenerem, 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 moderator Henricus, Conradi imperatoris Augusti filius, cum ipso etiam tum puero ueluti cum nominatissimo rege amicitiam iunxit ac societatem.! 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.? 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 illac pergere inermes et quodque iter cuique uianti tutum patere, huiuscemodi beatitudinem quotiens exoptauere suis regionibus; 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

! There is no known corroboration for WP's assertion that Henry III (1039—56), the son of Conrad II, had formed an alliance with the young duke. ? 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

i. 59

THE DEEDS OF WILLIAM

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 of 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 of the Roman Empire, over which the illustrious Henry, son of the emperor Conrad, presided; for Henry, when William was only a boy, entered into an alliance of friendship with him,’ as though he had been an illustrious king. For from his boyhood his name was renowned among nations. But it is of the greatness of the man that I must speak. The 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 of Babylon.’ Already none of his neighbours in Normandy dared attempt anything. All tumult of external war, as of revolt, was quelled. The bishops and counts of Francia, Burgundy, and of even more distant provinces, frequented the court of the lord of Normandy; some to receive advice, others in search of 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 of 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 of suitable age to rule. It is believed, and justly, that the supreme Arbiter of pious devotion, in the power of His majesty, grants to His faithful time. For Normans in the imperial armies, see J. Shepard, ‘The uses of the Franks in eleventh-century Byzantium’, Battle, xvi (1993), 275-305.

98

GESTA

GVILLELMI

i. 59

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

THE

DEEDS

OF

WILLIAM

99

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

PARS

SECUNDA

1. 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,! quibusdam iniquis fauentibus. Ordinatus est non sancta consecratione Stigandi, iusto zelo apostolici et anathemate minis- terio sacerdotum priuati.” Dux Guillelmus habita cum suis consultatione? armis iniuriam ulcisci, armis haereditatem reposcere decreuit, tametsi complures maiorum id ingeniose dissuaderent, ut rem nimis arduam, Normanniae uiribus longe maiorem. 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; Rodbertus Aucensis comes, Lexouiensis episcopi Hugonis (de cuius uita supra scripsimus) frater; ^Ebroicensis comes Ricardus Rodberti archiepiscopi filius; Rogerus de Bello-

monte;

Rogerus

de

Montegomerico;?

Guillelmus

filius

^ F; Montegomerici D M ' 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 Edwardi, p. 124 n. 329). For Harold's oath, see above, i. 42. The ASC (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 . . . quem rex ante suum decessum regni successorem elegerat, a totius Anglie primatibus ad regale culmen electus . . .’.

? 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. 304-11, for the weakness of 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 of York (Chronicon pontificum ecclesiae Eboracensis, in Historians of the Church of York, ed. J. Raine, 3 vols. (RS, 1879-94), ii. 348; JW ii. 600) is probably to be preferred to the Norman tradition, which shows a hardening of 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

1. 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 of a public election, but on the tragic day when that best of all men was buried, while all the people were mourning, he violated his oath and seized the royal throne with acclamation,’ with the connivance of a few wicked men. He received an impious consecration from Stigand, who had been deprived of his priestly office by the just zeal and anathema of the pope.”

Duke William, after taking counsel with his men,’ determined to avenge this injury with arms, and claim his inheritance* by force of arms, although many of the greater men argued speciously that the enterprise was too arduous and far beyond the resources of Normandy? At that time Normandy had in its counsels, besides the bishops and abbots, outstanding men of the secular order, shining luminaries who were the pride of that assembly: Robert count of Mortain;? Robert count of Eu, the brother of Hugh bishop of Lisieux (of whose life we have written above); Richard count of Evreux, son of Archbishop Robert; Roger of Beaumont? Roger of Montgomery; 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 GG, in particular, the names of the bishops and,

among

the laymen, the names of Ralph of Conches, William of Warenne, Hugh of

Grandmesnil, Roger of Montbray and Baldwin and Richard, the sons of Count Gilbert of Brionne. * 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 of raising a fleet, and Harold's resources in manpower.

$ Robert of 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 of Mortain after the downfall of William Warlenc (1053 x 1063). He provided 120 ships for the invasion fleet (van Houts, 'Ship list', p. 169 and App. 1).

? For Robert, see above, i. 31; for Hugh, i. 58. * Roger of Beaumont-le-Roger, son of Humphrey of Vieilles. > Roger II of Montgomery, vicomte of the Hiémois. For his family and early career, see

Kathleen Thompson, "The Norman aristocracy before 1066: the example of the Montgomerys’, Historical Research, \x (1987), 251-63.

102

GESTA

Osberni; Hugo uicecomes.

GVILLELMI

Horum

1T

ingeniis atque industria

conseruari posset incolumis: nec adeo senatoribus ducentis indigeret freta his Romana respublica,! 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’,* 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 feruerent, prolixum est per singula enarrare. Neque minus prouide disposuit, qui Normanniam se absente gubernarent ac tutarentur.? Conuenit etiam externus miles in auxilium copiosus, 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. 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 pabulator. Homo ! The son of Osbern ‘of Crepon’, steward of Normandy, and Emma, daughter of Raoul, count of Ivry. See D. C. Douglas, “The ancestors of William Fitz Osbern’, EHR lix (1944), 62-79. ? Hugh the vicomte was Hugh II of Montfort, first named as a vicomte in a charter of 1055 (Fauroux, no. 137; Bates, Normandy, p. 142 n. 93). He subscribed a number of Duke William’s charters (Fauroux, nos. 110, 137, 145, 194, 229). His name does not occur in

Orderic’s list. ? The number of senators in the Roman republic was greater; there were 300 at the beginning of the Republic and more later (Foreville, p. 149 n. 7). * Ecclus. 43: 37 (‘omnia autem Dominus fecit et pie agentibus dedit sapientiam"). > Details of shipbuilding are shown in the Bayeux "Tapestry, pls. 37, 38, 39. For the provision of ships, see below, p. 108 and n. 2.

$ See below, ii. 43. 7 See below, ii. 19. * In fact it is unlikely that the month's delay was due to unfavourable winds (see above,

ii. 2

THE

DEEDS

OF

WILLIAM

103

Osbern;' Hugh the vicomte.? 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 of their prince, as if by divine inspiration he foreknew what was to be done and what avoided. ‘To those who live righteously God gives wisdom', 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? No less wisely did he determine who should govern and protect Normandy during his absence. Foreign knights flocked to help him in great numbers,’ attracted partly by the well-known liberality of the duke, but all fully confident of the justice of 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 of the Dives.? 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. The cattle and flocks of the people of the province grazed safely whether in the fields or on the waste. The crops waited unharmed for the scythe of the harvester, and were neither trampled by the proud stampede of 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 of the Norman Conquest’, Battle, viii (1986), 1-25. He estimates the probable number of men in William’s army as about 14,000 (the number given in the Chronique de Saint-Maixent 751— 1140, ed. J. Verdon (Paris, 1979), p. 136), of whom 10,000 could have been effective fighting men. Other historians have suggested a lower figure (e.g. R. Allen Brown, “The battle of Hastings’, Battle, iii (1981), 1-21, at p. 10, suggests 7,000 for the force at

Hastings).

104

GESTA

GVILLELMI

ii. 2

imbecillis aut inermis, equo cantans qua libuit uectabatur, turmas militum cernens non exhorrescens.!

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,^ ingenti concilio assentiente, in eo locatus est primatu, quo praesulum orbis terrae caput existeret atque magister. 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.? Huius apostolici fauorem petens dux, intimato negotio quod agitabat, uexillum accepit eius benignitate uelut suffragium

sancti Petri, quo primo confidentius ac tutius inuaderet aduersarium. Et Romanorum imperatori Henrico, Henrici imperatoris filio, nepoti imperatoris Chounradi, nouiter iunctus fuit in amicitia, cuius edicto in quemlibet hostem Germania ei, si postularet, ueniret adiutrix Rex quoque Danorum Suenus fidem legationibus ei spopondit, sed inimicis eius amicum ^ F;authoritas D M

! The whole passage, ‘Prouincialium . . . exhorrescens’ is reproduced word for word below, ii. 45. ? Anselm, bishop of 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 of Capua and the Normans. His election was contested unsuccessfully by the party of the young king, Henry IV of Germany, who set up Cadalus, bishop of Parma, as antipope (H. E. J. Cowdrey, The Age of Abbot Desiderius (Oxford, 1983), p. 118; Chronica monasterii Casinensi, ed. H. Hoffmann, MGH SS, xxiv (1980), 385—6). > WP's lavish praise may have been prompted by Alexander II's 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 rosos; after the defeat of Nicholas II at Civitate in 1059 relations improved in both areas, and Alexander II carried on the policies of his predecessor. See Francois Neveux, ‘Quelques aspects de l'impérialisme normand au xi^ siécle en Italie et en Angleterre’, in Les Normands en Méditerranée, ed. P. Bouet and E. Neveux (Caen, 1994), pp. 51—62, at 52-3.

193

THE

DEEDS

OF

WILLIAM

105

wherever he wished, without trembling at the sight of squadrons

of knights.!

3. At that time the see of 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 of Lucca and sought no higher dignity, he was placed in the primacy by the impetuous concurrence of many of those whose authority prevailed at that time among the Romans and with the consent of a large assembly, so that he might be the head and master of the bishops of the whole world.” He deserved this promotion because of his holiness and learning. Through these he shone thereafter to the East and to the West. Nor did the sun proceed more immutably on its course in nature than he proceeded in his life on the straight line of truth; whatsoever and wheresoever in the world he could, he corrected

wrong and gave way to no one.’ Seeking the approval of this pope, whom he had informed of the business in hand, the duke received a banner with his blessing, to signify the approval of St Peter,* by following which he might attack the enemy with greater confidence and safety. Also he had recently made a friendly pact with Henry,

emperor of the Romans, son of the emperor Henry and grandson

of the emperor Conrad, by the terms of which Germany would, if requested, come to his aid against any enemy? Swein, king of the Danes, also pledged his faith to him through ambassadors; but he * The GG is the only contemporary written source to mention the papal banner. But

there is corroboration by Orderic Vitalis; for although Orderic relied partly on GG 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, 191-2). 5 There is no other evidence for this alliance, though William may well have taken steps to guard against any attack in the course of an inevitably very perilous and protracted enterprise. K. J. Leyser, ‘England and the Empire in the early twelfth century’, in his Medieval Germany and its Neighbours 900-1250 (London, 1982), pp. 191—213, points out (p. 191) that the permission of the emperor given to men wishing to accompany the expedition could have assisted Flemish knights from fiefs held of the Empire in joining William's army.

exhibebat

se

fidelem,

ii. 3

GVILLELMI

GESTA

106

sicut

in

sequentibus

legendo

ipsius

detrimenta spectabis.! 4. Heraldus interea promptus ad decernendum praelio siue terrestri, siue nauali, plerumque cum immani exercitu ad litus"

marinum operiens, callide subornatos transmisit exploratores.? Quorum deprehenso uni, causamque sui aduentus qua praeceptum 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 inuenir| annuo spatio posse speraret? Quis noua hac expeditione pulcherrimum statum patriae in omnem redigi mis-

eriam non timeret? Quis Romani difficultate non affirmaret?

imperatoris

opes

ea uinci

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

! Swein II Estrithson, king of Denmark (1043-74), was the son of Cnut’s sister Estrith

and himself had pretensions to the English throne. WP's account of 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. ? Cf. ASC (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 Count William from Normandy, King Edward’s kinsman, meant to come here and subdue this country.’

1135

THE

DEEDS

OF

WILLIAM

IO7

was to show himself the faithful friend of the duke's enemies, as you will see in reading in what follows of the harm he did.!

4. Harold meanwhile, ready to give battle on land or sea, spread out a vast army over the greater part of the sea-coast,? and sent spies whom he had cunningly suborned across the sea.? One of

these was captured, and when he tried to conceal the purpose of his journey with the pretext he had been taught, the duke showed his magnanimity in these words: ‘Harold is not short of gold and silver with which to buy the loyalty and skill of 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 of his life secure if, within the space of one year, he has not seen me in the place he thinks safest for his feet.’ Marvelling at this audacious promise, many of the leaders of

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 and own one

hardened in many dangers and sea-battles; and both in wealth numbers of soldiers his kingdom was greatly superior to their land. Who could hope that within the prescribed space of 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 of their native

land to utter wretchedness? Who would not affirm that the resources of a Roman emperor would be unequal to such a difficult enterprise? s. 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 of military intelligence. See above, p. xxiv.

108

GESTA

GVILLELMI

ii. 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.' Hostem haud dubie superabit qui non minus quae hostis possidet quam propria largiri ualet. Nauigio, quo sufficiente citius gaudebimus, non praepediemur.’ Sint illi experti, quae nos cum felicitate maiori" experiamur: uirtute melius quam numero militum bella geruntur. Praeterea ne rapinam amittat ille pugnabit; nos quae dono accepimus, 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 corrigere intendit.? 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! 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, ^ maiore

latentius

tumulando;

commeatum

in dies

DM F

' William's promises may have secured the offers of ships and men. ? 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 of Rouen under Duke William; see Gauthiez, ‘Hypothéses sur la fortification de Rouen’ (above, p. 12 n. 3),

pp. 61-77. 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. ? The theme of the need to reform the English church, developed by Norman apologists at the time of the Conquest, was later taken up by William of Malmesbury (GR ii. 304—5) and by Orderic Vitalis (OV ii. 236-49). * For a discussion of the reason for the delay, see above, pp. xxv-xxvi. The ASC (C) 1066 entry gives a more convincing explanation: ‘When his (King Harold's] fleet was assembled, he went into the Isle of Wight and lay there all that summer and autumn; and a

ii. 6

THE

DEEDS

OF

WILLIAM

109

gold without consolidating his lands. He had not the boldness of spirit to dare to promise even the least of 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.’ 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 of shipping, for very soon we shall enjoy enough.” Let them experience what we will experience with greater good fortune: wars are waged more successfully with the courage than with the number of fighters. Besides, he will fight for fear of 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 of 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 of 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 observance in those regions.* 6. Presently the whole fleet, equipped with such great foresight, was blown from the mouth of 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 of the west wind to moorings at Saint-Valery.* There too the leader, whom neither the delay and the contrary wind nor the terrible shipwrecks nor the craven flight of many who had pledged their faith to him could shake, committed himself with the utmost confidence by prayers, gifts and vows, to the protection of heaven. Indeed, meeting adversity with good counsel, he concealed (as far as he could) the loss of those who had been drowned, by burying them in secret; and by land force was kept everywhere along the sea, though in the end it was of no use. When it was the Feast of the Nativity of St Mary [8 Sept.] the provisions of 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 of the English fleet (ibid.). This is the only early source to mention the shipwreck of 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 of Britain (Caesar, De bello gallico iv. 28, 29).

GESTA

IIO

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 profecturorum cum ipso.! 4. 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 armigerum 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 litus^ 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 sua^ rates cunctae in anchoris fluitantes, donec in eius mali summo lampade conspecta, extemplo buccinae clangorem

cursus accipiant signum.? Memorat antique Graecia Atridem Agamemnona fraternos thalamos ultum iuisse mille nauibus:* protestamur nos Guillelmum diadema regium requisisse pluribus.” Xerxem fabulatur illa Seston et Abidon ponto disiunctas urbes nauium ponte coniunxisse.Ó Guillelmum nos reuera propagamus, uno clauo suae ^ D; littus

M F

! For the alleged delay at Saint-Valery, see above, pp. xxv-xxvi. WJ does not suggest that there was any undue delay (GND ii. 164-7). King William’s 1068 grant of land in Essex to the abbey of Saint-Valery was made as a thank-offering for the safe outcome of the whole enterprise (H. E. Salter, Facsimiles of Early Charters in Oxford Muniment Rooms (Oxford, 1929), p. 29); and not specifically for the favourable wind. ? 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 of Hastings.

? The ship-list (above, p. 108 n. 2), names the ship Mora, and states that it was given by Duchess Matilda; Orderic names the ship's master as Stephen, son of Ainard (OV vi. 296— 7). The description of the Channel crossing is full of Vergilian echoes, both in language and in picturesque detail (Foreville, pp. xli-xliii, 159 n. 3). In addition, some episodes are

ii. 7

THE

DEEDS

OF

WILLIAM

III

daily increasing supplies he alleviated want. By divers encouragements he retained the terrified and put heart into the fearful. He strove with holy prayers to such a point that he had the body of Valery, a confessor most acceptable to God, carried out of 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 of humility.’ 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. The 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 of their dependants or friends or their necessary baggage, hurry forward fearful only of being left behind. The 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,” 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 of the night not far from his ship, until they see a lamp lit at his masthead, and hear the sound of a trumpet as a signal to sail on.? Ancient Greece tells us that Agamemnon of the house of Atreus went to avenge the violation of his brother's bed with a thousand ships; but we protest that William claimed a royal crown with more.? Greece also tells the story of how Xerxes joined the towns of Sestos and Abydos, separated by the sea, with a bridge of boats.Ó As for us, we proclaim in truth that William reminiscent of Caesar, who also offshore for the remaining boats * Cf. Ilias latina, lines 120-9, 1,000, however, is more probably

became separated from part of his fleet and had to wait (De bello gallico iv. 22). 171—5, where the numbers add up to 1,086; the number taken from Vergil, Aeneid ii. 197—8, quos neque Tydides

nec Larissaeus Achilles, | non anni domuere decem, non mille carinae".

5 Wace gave the number 696 (Wace, Rou 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 (GND ii. 164) is certainly inflated. $ The account of the bridge of 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

GVILLELMI

ii. 7

potestatis Normannici soli et Anglici amplitudinem copulauisse. Guillelmum, qui a nullo unquam superatus patriam inclitis ornauit trophaeis, clarissimis locupletauit triumphis, superiore hostis manu deuicto Xerxi et sine classe aequandum, ac fortitu-

dine anteponendum censemus.! Solutis noctu post quietem nauibus, uehens ducem retro ceteras agillime reliquit ardentius ad uictoriam properantis, imperio suae uelocitatis parilitate quasi obtemperans. lussus 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, memorabili cum hilaritate accepit; cunctos actutum affore promittens, Deo, cuius eos tutelae credidit, adducente. Non indignum duceret Mantuanus poetarum princeps laudibus /Eneae Troiani, qui priscae Romae ut parens gloria fuit, securitatem atque intentionem huius mensae inserere.^ 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 egreditur, pugna nulla obstante. Equidem Heraldus in Eboracensem pagum recesserat, cum fratre suo Tostillo* et Heraldo Noricorum ^ M F; comparere D ! An account of the Persian Xerxes after the Greek victories Epitome, ii. 10—13. ? WP may have had in mind Aeneid 1. 695—747; vii. 107-34;

campaign against Greece and the ignominious retreat of at Salamis and Mycale (480 and 479 BC) is given by Justin,

the feasts described on various occasions by Vergil (e.g. viii. 175-83), though none of these actually took place at

sea. > 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 ASC (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 ingeniously that both are right; William landed at Pevensey on 28 Sept. and moved to Hastings next day. The question of the exact date and place of landing is still open. Sussex archaeologists have questioned whether either Pevensey or Hastings is precisely right: E. H.

i. 8

THE

DEEDS

OF

WILLIAM

113

linked together in one naval expedition the wide extent of 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 lost his fleet.! 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 of 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 of 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 safekeeping he had entrusted them. Vergil, the prince of poets, would not have thought it unfitting to insert in his praise of the Trojan Aeneas (who was the ancestor and glory of ancient Rome) an account of the confidence and purpose of this banquet.” 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 God’s mercy from the depths of his heart. 8. Carried by a favourable breeze to disembarked easily from the ships, without

Pevensey, they having to offer

battle? In fact Harold had gone away to Yorkshire to fight

against

his

brother

Tostig'

and

Harold,

king

of the

Rudkin, ‘Where did William land? (Sussex Magazine, Feb. 1928) argued for a landing at a number of small places, in particular Bulmer-Haven (near Bexhill) and Hastings-Haven (cited Foreville, p. 164, n. 3). It is possible that the landings of the very large number of boats were spread out over several beaches and harbours from Pevensey to Hastings.

* This is WP's first mention of Harold's brother Tostig, who was earl of Northumbria from 1055 until a rebellion of the Northumbrians forced him into exile in 1065 (Vita Edwardi, pp. 76-80 and nn. 188, 190).

II4

GESTA

GVILLELMI

ii. 8

rege dimicaturus.' Nec mirere quod germanus permotus iniuriis, inuasi honoris aemulus, arma externa adduxit in Heraldum, quem germana? 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 quaelibet ac uita colens, Guillelmum Anglis dominari, quem Edwardi regis mariti sui adoptio, filii loco, sibi succedere statuit: sapientem,

iustum, fortem.? 9. Bellum inter Guillelmum ducem et Heraldum regem Anglorum.* Gaudentes arrepto littore, Normanni prima munitione Peneuessellum, altera Hastingas occupauere; quae sibi receptaculo, nauibus propugnaculo forent. Marius, aut Magnus Pompeius, uterque eximius calliditate atque industria meritus triumphum, hic adducto Romam in uinculis Iugurtha, ille coacto Mithridate ad uenenum, 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.® Guillelmus uero cum uiginti quinque, non amplius militum comitatu promptus ipse loca et

incolas explorauit. Inde reuertens, ob asperitatem tramitis pedes * M F; truculutum D

^ M F; heec D

! Tostig had gone to Flanders in November 1065, and then sailed either by way of 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 of Norway (GND ii. 162, n. 3, appendix, p. 302; OV ii. 168 and n. 1). ? His sister was Edith, the wife of 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 of his character are given in the Vita Edwardi (pp. 46— 8), and in the chronicle of the church he founded at Waltham (Waltham Chronicle, pp. 22—9 and passim). > 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. * The heading in Duchesne's edition probably marks the point where WP began the

second part of his history. This edition, however, follows the division preferred in Foreville's edition.

il. 9

THE

DEEDS

OF

WILLIAM

IIS

Norwegians.! 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 lasciviousness, a cruel murderer, resplendent with plundered riches, and an enemy of the good and the just This woman of 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 of a son.?

9. The battle between Duke

William and Harold king of the

English.* 'The 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. Marius and Pompey the Great, each eminent for his astuteness and achievements, deserved a triumph, the former having brought Jugurtha in chains to Rome, the latter having forced Mithridates to take poison; but though daring to lead a whole army into enemy territory, each was chary of putting himself into danger away from the main army, with only a legion. It was their custom, as it still is the custom of leaders, to send out scouts, but not to go themselves on reconnaissance, being more concerned with preserving their own lives than with making provision for the army.* But

William was quick to investigate the region and its inhabitants with a company of no more than twenty-five knights. When he returned on foot because of the difficulty of 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’, Cháteau-Gaillard, European Castle Studies, iii (London, 1969), 144-51. The Norman fortifications were constructed within the walls of the Roman fortress. The Bayeux Tapestry shows a motte under construction at Hastings (Bayeux Tapestry, pl. 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), 1-23, at p. 19). $ 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.' ? For Pompey's triumphs, cf. Lucan, Pharsalia, viii. 794—815.

* See Vegetius, iii. 6 (pp. 75—7).

116

GESTA

GVILLELMI

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, Osberni filium Guil-

lelmum ferreo fasce leuauit.' 10. Diues quidam finium illorum inquilinus, natione Normannus, Rotbertus^ filius Guimarae nobilis mulieris," Hastingas duci domino suo atque consanguineo nuntium destinauit his uerbis, *Praeliatus cum fratre proprio rex Heraldus et cum rege Noricorum, 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.? 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 quamprimum 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."

11. Quadam uero die dum custodiam nauium uiseret dux, indicatum est forte spatianti prope naualia, monachum Heraldi ^ D M; Rodbertus F

! This appears to be one of the legends that quickly gathered round Duke William. If 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. ? Robert fitz Wimarch was of 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. ? Whether or not Robert fitz Wimarch sent a warning couched in these insolent terms, King William made him sheriff of Essex and increased his property (J. Green, ‘The sheriffs of William the Conqueror’, Battle, v (1983), 129-45, at p. 132).

ii. 11

THE

DEEDS

OF

WILLIAM

117

laughter, though the reader may laugh) he deserved genuine praise, for he carried on his own shoulders both his own hauberk and that of one of his followers, William fitz Osbern, renowned for his bodily strength and courage, whom he had relieved of this iron

burden. !

10. Robert, son of the inhabitant of those parts to Hastings to the duke, “King Harold has fought

noblewoman Guimara, who was a wealthy and a Norman by birth,” sent a messenger his lord and kinsman, with these words: with his own brother and with the king of

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.’ 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 fortifications; 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 of ditch or walls, but I will fight with Harold as soon as possible; nor do I lack confidence in the courage of my men to fight and destroy him with his men, if God so wills, even if I had only 10,000 men of the quality of the 60,000* I have brought 39:5

with me".

11. One day,’ when the duke was inspecting the guard of the

ships, he was told as he happened to be walking along near to * 'The number is rhetorical exaggeration, characteristic of literary speeches. For the probable numbers, see above, p. 102 n. 8. 5 The account of 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 of 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 (GND ii. 166-9). Orderic, using a different tradition, imagines exchanges between Harold, his brother Tostig, and his mother Gytha, both in his Interpolations (GND ii. 166—9) and in his Ecclesiastical History (OV ii. 170-2).

118

GESTA

GVILLELMI

ji. r1

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.! 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. 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. Dux illico ! The formula, ‘Dei gratia’, was frequently used by William in his ducal charters (Fauroux, nos. 94, 102, 109, 110, 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’).

? Part of the case for William, repeatedly stressed by WP. ? Cf. Eadmer, HN, 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. Beckerrnann, ‘Succession in Normandy, 1087, and in England, 1066: the role of testamentary custom’, Speculum, xlvii

ii, 12

THE

DEEDS

OF WILLIAM

II9

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 of William, count of 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 of his magnates, he said to the cowled advocate, 'I am William, by the grace of God prince of the Normans.! Repeat now in the presence of 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.” He knows, however, that the kingdom is his by right, by gift of the same king his lord, made to him on his deathbed.? For ever since the time when St Augustine came to these parts, the common custom of this people has been that the gift that anyone made at the point of 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 testaments’, Falschungen im Mittelalter (MGH Schriften, 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

ii. 12

uerbis his monachum Fiscannensem! quendam instruxit, quae citius Heraldo 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. 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 per manus suas Anglico firmauit.) illum in iudicio, potius Anglorum.

eum prudentia ac fortitudine eripui. Se mihi dedit, sua manu securitatem mihi de regno Praesto ego sum ad agendum causam contra siue placet illi iuxta ius Normannorum, siue 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 ! The appearance of the monk of Fécamp in William's company is certainly authentic. The royal monastery of 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 of 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 of Fécamp had also given a ship with twenty knights (van Houts, ‘Ship-list’, pp. 178-9); and William of Malmesbury recorded that King William recognized a debt to him when he made him bishop of Dorchester (GP pp. 312-13, ‘Remigius, ex monacho Fiscannensi, qui Willelmo comite

hier

THE

DEEDS

OF

WILLIAM

I2I

Whereupon the duke instructed a certain monk of Fécamp! 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, of which my lord and kinsman King Edward (as Harold himself says) made me his heir, on account of the great honours and numerous benefits which I and my ancestors conferred on him and his brother and their men; also because, of 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 of his magnates, but in truth with the advice of Archbishop Stigand, Earl Godwine, Earl Leofric, and Earl Siward, who also confirmed with a handfast oath, that after the death of Edward they would receive me as their lord, and that during his lifetime they would not seek at any time to deprive me of the kingdom through any impediment. He gave me the son and grandson of Godwine as hostages.” 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 of England. I am ready to put my case against him to judgement, by the law of the English or of the Normans as he prefers. If 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. If 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 accipiendo").

? See above, i. 14.

3 See above, i. 41, 42. WP here indicates both that Harold became William’s vassal and that he swore a handfast oath.

122

GESTA

GVILLELMI

Te I2

meo contra caput illius asserere, quod mihi potius quam illi iure

cedat regnum Anglicum.”! 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 gentium? definirent, accipere praesto fuit. Anglos inimicos mori ob litem suam noluit; singulari certamine proprio capite causam determinare uoluit. I3. Vt ergo mandata eadem Heraldo appropinquanti per monachum sunt relata, stupore expalluit, atque diu ut elinguis obticuit. Rogitanti autem responsum legato semel et iterum, primo respondit: ‘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 fortitudo, 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 ^ D F; praelium suggested M

' The judicial duel was established in the custom of Normandy, not in that of England (Tardif, i. xli, pp. 34-5); F. Pollock and F. W. Maitland, The History of English Law before the Time of 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 of Normandy and northern France an offer of the ordeal or trial by battle was frequently a manceuvre 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, 1050-1110", Cultures of Power: Lordship, Status and Process in Twelfih-Century Europe, ed.

Thomas N. Bisson (Philadelphia, 1995), pp. 89-123.

ii. 14

THE

DEEDS

OF

WILLIAM

123

head against his head, that the English kingdom should be mine

rather than his by right."

We wish to bring the tenor of the duke's own words (which we have diligently sought out) rather than our own composition to the notice of 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 of sound arguments, as clearly appears to those who are attentive (which even Cicero, the greatest writer of Roman rhetoric could not have weakened),

destroyed the case of Harold. In short, William was ready to accept a judgement determined by the laws of peoples.” He did not wish the English to die as enemies on account of 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.’ The envoy urged him to give another reply, repeating that the Norman duke did not want the destruction of 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 of 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, ‘May the Lord decide today between me and William what is just." So, blinded by the desire to rule and forgetful, in his confusion, of 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 of peoples’ WP meant the different legal customs of the Normans and the English; this is not the ius gentium of 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

GVILLELMI

ii. 14

furibundus, quod propinqua castris Normannorum uastari audierat.' Nocturno etiam incursu aut repentino minus cautos opprimere cogitabat. Et ne perfugio abirent, classe armata ad

septingentas naues in mari opposuerat insidias. Dux 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 Appendit etiam humili collo suo reliquias, quarum

muniuit. 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. Terreret alium loricae, dum uestiretur, sinistra conuersio. Hanc

conuersionem risit ille ut casum, non ut mali prodigium expauit.* 15. Exhortationem, qua pro tempore breuiter militum uirtuti plurimum alacritatis addidit, egregiam fuisse non dubitamus; etsi nobis non ex tota dignitate sua relatam." 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. [am non id agi, quis regnans uiuat, sed quis periculum imminens cum uita euadat. Si more uirorum pugnent, uictoriam, decus, diuitias habituros. ! Quite apart from the need to obtain provisions for the army, wasting the lands of an enemy was a normal practice in medieval warfare (cf. Jordan Fantosme’s Chronicle, ed. R. C. Johnston (Oxford, 1981), lines 449—50, ‘Issi deit l'en cumencier guerre—4o 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, pl. 52). Harold had considerable estates in Sussex (Ann Williams, ‘Land and power in the eleventh century: the estates of Harold Godwineson', Battle, iii (1981), 171-87). ? There may have been rumours of a possible naval ambush, but it is unlikely that Harold would have had time to bring his ships out of their winter quarters in the Thames (ASC (C) 1066), or to make up anything like 700 from any ships remaining in the Channel

ports. * WP insists both on the piety of Duke William and on the canonically correct noncombatant role of the two bishops, Odo of Bayeux and Geoffrey of Coutances, both of whom were capable of leading troops in battle. In a similar vein, Odo is shown in the Bayeux Tapestry (pl. 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 of Coutances, 1049-1093’, EHR lix (1944), 129-61; Chibnall, *Geoffroi' pp. 279-93.

ii. 15

THE

DEEDS

OF

WILLIAM

125

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.' 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 of up to 700

ships.” The duke hastily ordered all who could be found in the camp (for a large number of his companions had gone off foraging) to arm themselves. He himself participated in the mystery of the Mass with the greatest devotion, and strengthened his body and soul by receiving in communion the body and blood of 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 of Bayeux and Geoffrey of Coutances, were in his company, together with numerous clerks and not a few monks. This clerical body prepared for the combat with prayers.’ 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.* 15. We do not doubt that the exhortation, brief because of the circumstances, with which he added still greater ardour to the valour of his troops, was outstanding, even though it has not been

transmitted to us in all its distinction.* He reminded the Normans that in many and great dangers they had always come out

victorious under his leadership. He reminded them all of their fatherland, of 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. If they fought like men they would have victory, honour, and wealth. If not, they would let themselves either be * See above, p. xxx. Cf. the attitude of Caesar to omens (Suetonius, Caesar, c. lix). The story grew and was embellished in time in the Brevis relatio (p. 7) and Wace, Rou, lines 12637-68.

5 For the substance Medieval chroniclers contents of speeches; words probably spoken

of William's speech, cf. Sallust, Bellum Catilinum, lviii. 4—21. followed their Roman forerunners by providing the imagined WP is unusual in stating explicitly that he has imagined the by the duke of this occasion.

126

GESTA

GVILLELMI

ii. 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 multitudine terreri. Saepenumero Anglos hostili ferro deiectos cecidisse, plerumque superatos in hostis uenisse deditionem, nunquam gloria militiae laudatos. Imperitos bellandi strenua uirtute paucorum facile posse conteri,’ 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.” Pedites in fronte locauit, sagittis armatos et balistis,’ item pedites in ordine secundo firmiores et loricatos; ultimo turmas equitum, quorum ipse fuit in medio cum firmissimo robore, unde in omnem partem consuleret manu et uoce. Scribens Heraldi agmen illud ueterum aliquis, in eius transitu flumina epotata, siluas in planum redactas

fuisse memoraret.? 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.* Protinus equorum ope relicta, cuncti pedites constitere ! ? * and

Cf. Vegetius, iii. 26 (p. 122), ‘Amplius iuvat uirtus quam multitudo.’ For the battle order, see above, pp. xxxii-xxxiii.

The question of the use of cross-bows at the battle of Hastings is discussed by Morton Muntz, Carmen, App. C, pp. 112-15.

* Cf. Sallust, Bellum Iugurthinum, c. xcviii, on the leadership of Marius in battle, ‘Neque 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. 5 Cf. Juvenal, Satires, x. 173, especially, flumina | Medo prandente . . .’, and Justin, Xerxes, 'flumina ab exercitu eius siccata . . vallium aequabat.’ A similar figure of speech translation of ‘siluas’ as ‘forests [of spears]’

‘credimus altos defecisse omnes epotataque Epitome, ii. 10, on the advance of the army of . et montes in planum deducebat et convexa occurs in the Carmen (lines 321-2), where the must surely be an error.

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. 16

THE

DEEDS

OF

WILLIAM

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. Many times the English had fallen, overthrown by enemy arms; usually, defeated, they had surrendered to the enemy; never were they famed for the glory of their feats of arms. Men who were inexpert in warfare could easily be crushed by the valour and strength of a few,' 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 behind the banner which the pope had sent soldiers in front, armed with arrows and foot-soldiers in the second rank, but more hauberks; finally the squadrons of mounted of which he himself rode with the strongest

in which he advanced him.” He placed footcross-bows;’ likewise powerful and wearing knights, in the middle force, so that he could

direct operations on all sides with hand and voice.‘ If any author of antiquity had been writing of Harold’s line of march he would have recorded that in his passage rivers were dried up and forests laid flat.? For huge forces of English had assembled from all the shires. Some showed zeal for Harold, and all showed love of their country, which they wished to defend against invaders even

though their cause was unjust. The land of 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 of the Norwegians, they took their stand on higher ground, on a hill near to the wood through which they had come. At once dismounting from their horses, Norman to exaggerate the size of the English army (see Freeman, iii, note LL). Both the ASC (E) 1066 and the Worcester Chronicle (JW ii. 604) state that Harold fought the battle before all his troops had assembled (though ASC (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 of Battle Abbey, the strength of 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.

128

GESTA

GVILLELMI

ii. 16

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.' 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.^ lis, ueluti mole letifera, statim nostros obrui putares. Subueniunt equites, et qui posteriores fuere fiunt primi. Pudet eminus pugnare, gladiis rem gerere audent? 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 propellunt 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 continens, 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. ! WP possibly had in mind his own experience of the conduct of suits in the Norman courts. ? 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.

? The use of the couched lance by mounted knights was restricted in this battle, because of the nature of the terrain; hence the sword, or the javelin thrown from a distance, became

particularly important. See above, p. xxxiii; and, for the use of the lance, Jean Flori, ‘Encore l'usage de la lance . . . la technique du combat chevaleresque vers l'an 1100’, Cahiers de civilisation médiévale, xxxi (1988), 213-40.

ii. 17

THE

DEEDS

OF

WILLIAM

129

they lined up all on foot in a dense formation. Undeterred by the roughness of the ground, the duke with his men climbed slowly up

the steep slope. 17. The harsh bray of trumpets gave the signal for battle on both sides. The 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.’ So the Norman foot-soldiers closed to attack the English, killing and maiming many with their missiles. The English for their part resisted bravely each one by any means he could devise. They threw javelins and missiles of various kinds, murderous axes and stones tied to sticks.^ You might imagine that our men would have been crushed at once by them, as by a death-dealing mass. The 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. shouting,

here Norman,

there foreign, was

The loud

drowned

by the

clash of weapons and the groans of the dying. So for a time both sides fought with all their might. The English were greatly helped by the advantage of 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 of 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 of the duke's battle line gave way, if such a thing may be said of the unconquered people of the Normans. The army of 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. The Normans believed that their duke and lord had fallen, so it was not too shameful to give way to flight; least of all was it to be deplored, since it helped them greatly.

130

GESTA

GVILLELMI

ii. 18

18. Princeps namque prospiciens multam partem aduersae stationis prosiluisse, et insequi terga suorum, fugientibus occurrit et obstitit, uerberans aut minans hasta.' Nudato insuper capite detractaque galea exclamans:;? ‘Me’, 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,’ rebellans commeruit mortem. Exardentes Normanni et circumuenientes aliquot millia insecuta se, momento deleuerunt ea, ut ne quidem unus superesset. I9. Ita confirmati, uehementius immanitatem exercitus inuaserunt, qui maximum detrimentum passus non uidebatur minor.

Angli confidenter totis uiribus oppugnabant, id maxime laborantes, ne quem aditum irrumpere uolentibus aperirent. Ob nimiam densitatem eorum labi uix potuerunt interempti.^ Patuerunt tamen in eos uiae incisae per diuersas partes fortissimorum militum ferro. Institerunt eis Cenomanici,* Francigenae, Britanni, Aquitani? sed cum praecipua uirtute Normanni. Tiro quidam Normannus Rodbertus, Rogerii de Bellomonte filius, Hugonis de

Mellento comitis ex Adelina sorore nepos et haeres, 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 ^ F; interemi D; interemti M ' Cf. Suetonius, Caesar, c. Ixii, ‘Inclinatam aciem solus saepe restituit, obsistens fugientibus, retinensque singulos et contortis faucibus convertens in hostem." ? Cf. Bayeux Tapestry, pl. 68; Carmen, lines 447-8. * In general WP refrained from giving the title ‘rex’ to William before his coronation; in this rare instance, ‘legitimate’ must be understood. * Although WP does not name any of the men of Maine who took part in the battle, Jean Dunbabin has suggested that Geoffrey of Chaumont may have been one of them (Dunbabin, p. 112). * Among these was certainly Aimeri, vicomte (‘praeses’) of Thouars, twice named by WP (see below, ii. 22, 29; Jane Martindale, ‘Aimeri of Thouars and the Poitevin connection’, Battle, vii (1985), 224-45, at pp. 224-5).

ii. 19

THE

DEEDS

OF

WILLIAM

I3I

18. For the leader, seeing a great part of 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.’ Baring his head and lifting his helmet,” he cried, “Look at me. I am alive, and with God'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 of you will escape death by flight.’ At these words they recovered their

courage. He rushed forward at their head, brandishing and mowed down the hostile people who deserved rebelling against him, their king. Full of zeal the surrounded some thousands who had pursued them and them in a moment, so that not a single one survived.

his sword, death for Normans destroyed

19. Emboldened by this, they launched an attack with greater determination on the main body of the army, which in spite of the

heavy losses it had suffered seemed not to be diminished. The English fought confidently with all their might, striving particularly 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 of the most valiant knights. Pressing home the attack were men of Maine,* Frenchmen, Bretons, Aquitanians,? above all Normans, whose valour was outstanding. A certain young Norman knight, Robert the son of Roger of Beaumont, nephew and heir of Hugh count of Meulan through Hugh’s sister Adeline 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 of individuals as their merit deserves. The most eloquent writer who had seen that * For Roger of Beaumont, see above, ii. 1. His wife Adeline was a daughter of Waleran I, count of Meulan; her brother Hugh became a monk at Bec. 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 ¢.1107 (CP vii. 523-4).

132

GESTA

GVILLELMI

ii. 19

ualentissimus, qui bellum illud suis oculis didicerit, difficillime singula quaeque persequeretur.! At huc^ nos illo properamus, ut

finita Guillelmi comitis laude, Guillelmi regis gloriam scribamus.” 20. Animaduertentes

Normanni

sociaque turba, non absque

nimio sui incommodo hostem tantum simul resistentem superari posse, terga dederunt, fugam ex industria simulantes.) Meminerunt 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. 21. 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,! 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 praelio? Eustachius Guillelmus ^ F hoc DM

Ricardi

Ebroicensis

comitis

Boloniae filius,

comes,

Goisfredus

* D; millia MF

! This statement shows that WP was not an eye-witness of the battle. It also emphasizes that even an eye-witness could have seen only a part of the action. ? This rhetorical device (partitio or divisio), where

the writer indicates

in advance

another topic to be taken up, was characteristic of earlier Latin prose biographies; see above, p. xxi. > Both the feigned flights, and the ability of the Norman forces to turn genuine flight into renewed attack in the previous incident, illustrate the remarkable skill of manceuvre in mounted combat achieved by the knights making up the mixed force. * The importance of the archers during this phase of the battle is illustrated in the Bayeux Tapestry, where no fewer than 23 archers are shown in the lower border (pls. 68, 69, 70, 71); cf. H. E. J. Cowdrey, ‘Towards an interpretation of 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 of the ‘companions of the Conqueror’ known to have fought at Hastings (CP xii (i), app. L). The

ii. 22

THE

DEEDS

OF WILLIAM

133

battle with his own eyes could scarcely have followed every detail. But now we hasten on to complete the praise of William the count

so as to tell of the glory of William the king.” 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.’ They 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 of them dared to rush, almost as if they were winged, in pursuit of those they believed to be fleeing. The Normans, suddenly wheeling round their horses, checked and encircled them, and slaughtered them to the last man. 21. 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 of an unusual kind began, with one side attacking in different ways and the other standing firmly as if fixed to the ground. The English grew weaker, and endured punishment as though confessing their guilt by their defeat. The Normans shot arrows,’ 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 of their companions. So fortune turned for William, hastening his triumph.

22. Those who took part in this battle? were Eustace count of

Boulogne, William son of Richard count of Evreux,’ Geoffrey son list was enlarged to twenty-seven by D. C. Douglas, ‘Companions of the Conqueror’, History, xxvii (1943), 129-47. Of 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. $ Eustace II, count of Boulogne. For his career, see Tanner, ‘Counts of Boulogne’, pp. 251-86. ; ? William, the son of Richard count of Evreux and Adela, the widow of Roger de Tosny, succeeded to the county in 1067.

GESTA

134

ii. 22

GVILLELMI

Rotronis Moritoniae comitis filius! Guillelmus Osberni filius? Haimerius Toarcensis praeses,! Gualterius Giffardus,* Hugo de Monteforti,> Rodolphus de Toneia,° Hugo de Grentmaisnil,’ Guillelmus de Guarenna,® 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." Hic uelocitas eius, hic robur eius uideri potuit corporis et animi. Scuta, galeas, loricas,

irato mucrone et moram dedignante penetrauit; clipeo suo nonnullos collisit. Mirantes eum peditem sui milites, plerique confecti uulneribus, corde sunt redintegrati. Et nonnulli, quos iam sanguis ac uires deficiunt", 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, uel Aeneas cum ! Geoffrey, son of Rotrou I count of Perche. If he acquired any lands in England after the Conquest, he was no longer holding them in 1086 (J. F.A. Mason, ‘The companions of the Conqueror: an additional name’, EHR lxvi (1956), 66; see also OV ii. 266 n. 4).

? See above, p. 26 n. 3. 3 Aimeri, twice given by WP the general title of ‘praeses’, was vicomte of Thouars. Like Geoffrey of Perche, he was not a landless younger son, but a highly born 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.

* See above, p. 48 n. 6.

5 See above, p. 48, n. 5.

* Ralph II of Tosny, son of Roger of Tosny; for his career see OV ii. 9o, 106, 140, 358. ? He was the husband of Adela of Beaumont and the son of Robert I of Grandmesnil, one of the founders of the abbey of Saint-Evroult. After the Conquest he became castellan of Leicester and acquired extensive lands in England, which passed to the Beaumont family in the reign of Henry I (OV ii. 64-5 and n. 5; iv. 336-0).

ii. 22

THE DEEDS OF WILLIAM

135

of Rotrou count of Mortagne, William fitz Osbern,? Aimeri vicomte of Thouars,’ Walter Giffard,! Hugh of Montfort Ralph of Tosny, Hugh of Grandmesnil,’ William of Warenne,? and many others of military distinction and great renown, whose names deserve to be remembered in the annals of 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 of the ancient generals of 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 of the enemy lost heart without being injured at the sight of 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 of his steed.? 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 of them smitten with wounds, took heart again. Some even,

‘weakened by loss of blood’,’® leant on their shields and fought on courageously; others, incapable of more, encouraged their companions 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 of them. Against Harold, who was such a man as poems liken to Hector or Turnus, William would have dared to fight in single combat no less than Achilles against Hector,!! or Aeneas against 8 William I of Warenne, who became earl of Surrey just before he died in 1088 (CP xii/ I, p. : 5 We Carmen (lines 470—522) gives a long and fanciful account of William's loss of two horses. For a closer parallel, cf. William of Apulia's account of 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).

'0 Caesar, De bello gallico vii. 50. !! The account of the victory of Achilles over Hector in Homer (//iad, xxii. 247—360), may have been known to WP through the //ias latina.

136

GESTA

GVILLELMI

li. 22

Turno.! Tydeus aduersum insidiatos quinquaginta rupis petiuit opem:? Guillelmus par, haud inferior loco, solus non extimuit mille. Scriptor Thebaidos uel /Eneidos, qui libris in ipsis poetica lege de magnis maiora canunt, ex actibus huius uiri aeque magnum, plus dignum conficerent^ 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;! quotquot reliqui sunt prope uiribus exhaustos; subsidium quod expectent nullum relictum. Viderunt Normannos non multum decreuisse peremptorum 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 obfuerunt sequentibus per itinera collapsi. Normanni, licet ignari regionis, auide insequebantur, caedentes rea terga, imponentes * D marg. M F; considerent D ! For the victory of Aeneas over Turnus, see Vergil, Aeneid xii. 697-952.

? See Statius, Thebaid ii. 548—62; iv. 596—602. > 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 (pl. 64, 71) puts the death of Harold's brothers Gyrth and Leofwine a little before his; GND (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

THE DEEDS OF WILLIAM

137

Turnus.' Tydeus, when ambushed by fifty men, defended himself with a rock;? William, his equal and in no way inferior in standing, single-handed did not fear a thousand. The authors of the Thebaid or the Aeneid, who in their books sing of great events and exaggerate them according to the law of poetry, could make an equally great and more worthy work by singing truthfully about the actions of this man. Indeed, if by the beauty of their style they could equal the grandeur of their

subject matter, they would rank him among the gods. But our feeble prose will bring humbly to the notice of kings his piety in the worship of the true God, who alone is God from eternity to the end of the world and beyond, and will briefly and truthfully bring to a close this account of the battle which he bravely and justly won. 23. Towards the end of the day the English army realized that there was no hope of resisting the Normans any longer. They knew that they had been weakened by the loss of many troops; that the king himself and his brothers and not a few of the nobles of the

kingdom had perished; that all who remained were almost at the end of their strength, and that they could hope for no relief. They saw that the Normans were not greatly weakened by the loss of 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. The passionate wish to escape death gave strength to some. Many 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 of 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 CP xii/r, app. L.

138

GESTA

GVILLELMI

ii. 23

manum ultimam secundo negotio. À 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.' 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.’ Cernens autem felicium signorum ductor cohortes inopinato collectas, quamuis nouiter aduenire subsidium putaret, non flexit iter neque substitit, terribilior cum parte hastae? quam grandia spicula uibrantes, Eustachium comitem cum militibus quinquaginta auersum, et receptui signa canere uolentem, ne abiret uirili uoce compellauit.* 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. Dux formidinem omnino dedignans aut dedecus, inuadens protriuit aduersarios. In eo congressu Normannorum aliqui nobiliores ceciderunt,? 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 * F OV; uallis D M ! This late stand of the English was developed later by Orderic, in both his Interpolations in WJ (GND ii. 168-71) and in the Ecclesiastical History (OV ii. 176), into the *Malfosse' incident. ? A reference to the battle of Stamford Bridge. * 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. * The sources differ considerably on the role of Eustace. WJ does not mention him; Orderic (OV ii. 178) follows WP. The Carmen (line 535) named him as one of 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 DEEDS OF WILLIAM

139

to the victory. Even the hooves of 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 of ditches.’ For this people was by nature always ready to take up the sword, being descended from the ancient stock of Saxons, the fiercest of men. They would never have been driven back except by irresistible force. Recently they had easily defeated the king of the Norwegians,” who was relying on a huge, warlike army. But when the duke at the head of the conquering banners saw that the troops had massed unexpectedly, although thinking them to be a newly-arrived relief force, he neither changed course nor halted. More terrible with only the stump of his lance? 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.* 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 of his

companions. The duke, utterly disdaining fear and dishonour, charged his enemies and laid them low. In that encounter some of the noblest Normans fell,? for their valour was of no avail on such unfavourable ground. 25. So, after completing the victory, William returned to the battlefield and discovered the extent of 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 of when the latter raises his helmet (pl. 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 of Laigle among those killed at this point (OV ii. 176-7).

GESTA

140

ii. 25

GVILLELMI

eius duo reperti sunt. Ipse carens omni decore, quibusdam signis, nequaquam facie, recognitus est,’ et in castra ducis delatus qui tumulandum eum Guillelmo agnomine Maletto? concessit, non matri pro corpore dilectae prolis auri par pondus offerenti.? 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.* Nos tibi, Heralde, non insultamus, sed cum pio uictore, tuam ruinam lachrimato,^ miseramur et plangimus te. Vicisti digno te

prouentu, ad meritum tuum et in cruore iacuisti, et in littoreo tumulo? 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 maduistij 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 * F; lachymato D M ! There

is agreement

in the English sources

too that Harold's

body was almost

unrecognizable (Waltham Chronicle, pp. $4—5).

2 The Carmen (lines 587-8) states that William entrusted the burial of 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 Charters, 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 of his was the mother of 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 Chronicle, pp. 50-5, with a totally different version of the burial, says that the body was given for burial to Osgod and /Ethelric, two canons of Waltham, the college founded by Harold. > Cf. the account in the //iad of Priam's plea to Achilles for the body of his son Hector (Ilias latina, lines 1009-45). However Priam's gifts, which included ro talents of gold, were accepted. The version in the Waltham Chronicle is that the canons offered 10 marks of gold, which Duke William rejected when he granted their request.

ii. 25

THE

DEEDS

OF

WILLIAM

I41

the English nobility and youth, drenched in blood. The 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 of all signs of status.’ He was carried into the camp of the duke, who entrusted his burial to William surnamed Malet,’

not to his mother, though she offered his weight in gold for the body of her beloved son. For he knew it was not seemly to accept gold for such a transaction. He considered that it would be unworthy for him to be buried as his mother wished, when innumerable men lay unburied because of his overweening greed. It was said in jest that he should be placed as guardian of the shore and sea, which in his madness he had once occupied with his armies.‘ 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 tumulus? on the seashore and will be an abomination to future generations of 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 of arms. Moreover you have stained yourself with your brother’s blood, 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 of 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 of Edward. The comet, terror of * Among the early sources only WP, followed by Orderic, and the Carmen, suggest that Harold was buried on the seashore. See above, p. xxix. If 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. 5 The word ‘tumulus’ was used by Lucan to describe Pompey's humble tomb on the seashore after his defeat and death (Pharsalia, viii. 816). 5 A reference to Tostig, who was killed at Stamford Bridge.

ii. 25

GESTA GVILLELMI

142

fine. Regum terror cometa! post initium altitudinis tuae coruscans, exitium tibi uaticinatus fuit. 26. Verum omissa naenia, felicitatem quam eadem stella portendit disseramus. Argiuorum rex Agamemnon habens in auxilio multos duces atque reges, unicam urbem Priami dolo uix euertit obsidionis anno decimo.? 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.? Si tuerentur eas moenia Troiana, breui talis uiri manus et consilium exscinderint Pergama.* Posset illico^ uictor sedem regiam adire, imponere sibi diadema, 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

Anglorum,

temperantia

decorare

qui sese per iniuriam

triumphos.

tantam

Par

fuisset

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 Romanaerium accedens, quam placuit poenam exegit pro clade suorum, quos illuc errore appulsos fera gens adorta praelio cum utriusque partis maximo detrimento

fuderat.° Hinc Doueram contendit, ubi populum innumerabilem ^MF;ilico D ! 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’, EHR cx (1995), 832-53. The Bayeux Tapestry (pl. 35) dramatically links it with the first rumours of the preparation of Duke William's invasion fleet. * Cf. Vergil, Aeneid ii. 197-8. ? This is rhetorical exaggeration; the battle of Hastings was decisive, but not final; WP himself in his later chapters describes some of King William’s campaigns to put down rebellions in the west country and Yorkshire.

* Poetically the name ‘Pergama’ designated the citadel of Troy; it occurs frequently in

ii. 27 kings, which

doom.!

THE DEEDS OF WILLIAM burned

143

soon after your elevation, foretold your

26. But, omitting a funeral dirge, let us enlarge on the felicity that the same star portended. Agamemnon, king of the Argives, with the help of many leaders and kings, barely succeeded in reducing Priam’s single city after a ten-year siege.” Songs tell how fine was the character, how great the courage of 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 of Normandy subjugated all the cities of the English in a single day, between the third hour and the evening, without much outside help.’ Even if the walls of Troy had defended its citadel,* the strong arm and counsel of 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 of the realm as booty to his knights, slaying some of 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 of the English, who through so great an injustice had rushed headlong to their death, to be devoured by the mouths of 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 of an energetic castellan,” he proceeded to Romney and

there inflicted such punishment as he thought fit for the slaughter of his men, who had landed there by mistake; they had been attacked by the fierce people of the region, and scattered after heavy losses on both sides. 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). > Humphrey of Tilleul. 6 WP is the sole authority for the Romney incident. It shows that, although the greater part of the English army had been withdrawn from the coast before William landed, some men were still guarding at least parts of it.

144

GESTA

GVILLELMI

il. 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.! 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; 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, optimum ducem ad sanitatem conualere. ! 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 of St Mary-in-Castro. R. Allen Brown, Dover Castle (HMSO

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 of loose terminology’; and suggests that before the Conquest the ‘castle’ was an Anglo-Saxon burh, occupying the site of an ancient Iron Age encampment which preceded it; and that William the Conqueror built extra defences within the older fortifications.

ii. 28

THE DEEDS OF WILLIAM

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 fortifications of the place, and in the multitude of men. This 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 of towering height equal to the flight of 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 of most buildings. The duke, not wishing to injure those who had begun to parley with him for surrender, paid for the repair of the buildings and gave compensation 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 of the castle, he spent eight days in fortifying it where it was weakest.’ Whilst the soldiers were there they ate freshly killed meat and drank water, with the result that many died of dysentery and many were so weakened as to be on the verge of death. However even these adversities did not break the determination of the duke. Leaving there a garrison and the men suffering from dysentery, he set out to subjugate those whom he had defeated.

28. The men of Canterbury of 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 of 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.’ In that place he was afflicted with a severe illness, which caused great anxiety to his closest followers. But for the sake of the general good he did not wish to indulge himself by delaying there, lest the army should suffer from a shortage of supplies, although it was greatly to be desired and in the public interest that the admirable duke should be restored to health. ? This place has not been identified; possibly Duchesne misread a name, but even Faversham is not very likely.

146

GESTA

GVILLELMI

ii. 28

Interea Stigandus Cantuariensis archipraesul, qui sicut excellebat opibus atque dignitate, ita consultis plurimum apud Anglos poterat, cum filis Algardi^ aliisque praepotentibus praelium minatur. Regem statuerant Edgarum Athelinum,^ ex Edwardi regis nobilitate annis puerum. 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. Praeterluit 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, egressam 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. Adueniens eodem Stigandus pontifex metropolitanus, manibus ei sese dedit, fidem sacramento confirmauit, abrogans Athelinum" quem leuiter elegerat. Hinc procedenti statim ut Lundonia conspectui patebat, obuiam exeunt principes ciuitatis; sese cunctamque ciuitatem in obsequium illius, quemadmodum ante Cantuarii, tradunt; obsides quos et quot imperat adducunt. Orant post haec ut coronam? sumat una pontifices * F; Adelinum D M ! For the power and wealth of Stigand, see in particular M. Frances Smith, ‘Archbishop Stigand and the eye of the needle’, Battle, xvi (1994), 199-219. ? The sons of /Elfgar, earl of Mercia, were Edwin, earl of Mercia, and Morcar, earl of Northumbria; Harold had married their sister Edith, and they were committed to his cause. > Edgar was the son of Edward AEtheling and grandson of Edmund Ironside, halfbrother of King Edward. * According to the Worcester Chronicle (JW ii. 606) and ASC (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 ASC, 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 of necessity.

ii. 28

THE

DEEDS

OF

WILLIAM

147

Meanwhile Stigand, archbishop of Canterbury, who, outstanding for his wealth and dignity, was equally powerful in the counsels of the English,’ was threatening battle together with the sons of /Elfgar? and other nobles. As king they had chosen Edgar /Etheling, of the noble stock of King Edward, but a boy in years.? 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. The river Thames flows past this city, carrying foreign riches from a sea port. Even when only its citizens are there, it has a large and famously warlike population. At that time, indeed, a crowd of warriors from elsewhere had flocked thither, and the city, in spite of 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 of the river, so that the fierce pride of 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 of Wallingford.* Stigand the archbishop, coming to him there, did homage to him, confirmed his fealty with an oath, and renounced the ztheling, whom

he had

elected without due consideration. As soon as William, advancing from there, came in sight of London, the chief men of the city came out to meet him; they submitted themselves and the whole city to him just as the men of 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,” 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.' 5 The Carmen (lines 635—750) gives a dramatic and lengthy account of 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 of the detail is implausible; but since Ansgard can probably be identified as Asgar or Esgar the staller, a man of some importance in 1066, he may have been involved in the negotiations. For Asgar, see Waltham Chronicle, 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.

148

GESTA

GVILLELMI

ii. 28

atque caeteri summit se quidem solitos esse regi seruire, regem dominum habere uelle.!

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." Denique non oportere nimium properari, 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,' 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 monarchiae 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;* praesertim sperans ubi regnare coeperit rebel-

lem quemque minus ausurum in se, facilius conterendum esse.* 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.? ^MF;aseD

' 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). ? 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 of WP). > For Aimeri, vicomte of Thouars, see above, p. xviii. * 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

THE

DEEDS

OF

WILLIAM

149

they were accustomed to obey a king, and wished to have a king as

their lord.!

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 of the kingdom rather than the crown. Besides, if God granted him this dignity, he wished his wife to be crowned with him.” 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 of the whole army, though they recognized that his arguments were particularly laudable, proceeding as they did from the depths of his inexhaustible wisdom. Aimeri the Aquitanian, praeses of Thouars,’ a man whose eloquence equalled his prowess, was present at this counsel. He, while admiring and courteously praising the modesty of a lord who consulted the opinions of 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 of 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; 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 necessary for royal dignity, while neighbourhood. All opposition was wished, spend his time in hunting

make the many preparations he himself remained in the so remote that he could, if he and falconry.”

5 Cf. above, i. 17.

150

GESTA

GVILLELMI

ii. 30

30. Die ordinationi decreto, elocutus ad Anglos condecenti sermone Eboracensis archiepiscopus' aequitatem ualde amans, aeuo maturus, sapiens, bonus, eloquens, an consentirent eum sibi dominum coronari, inquisiuit. Protestati sunt hilarem consensum 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? Post celebratam ordinationem— non, ut solitum est, post

honorum augmenta fieri—remissius laudabilia gerere coepit, sed nouo admirandoque ardore ad honestos et ingentes actus accenditur dignissimus rex: quod nomen, posito ducis nomine, libens ^ Constantini D; Constantiniensis OV

> Supplied from OV

' WP continues to insist on the role of Archbishop Ealdred in the coronation and acceptance of 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

THE

DEEDS

OF

WILLIAM

ISI

30. On the day fixed for the coronation, the archbishop of

York,' a great lover of justice and a man of 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. The Normans added their voice most readily to the wish of the English, after the bishop of 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 of kings, and seated him on a royal throne, in the presence and with the consent of many bishops and abbots, in the basilica of St Peter the apostle, which boasted of possessing the tomb of King Edward, on the holy feast of Christmas in the year of Our Lord 1066. He had indeed refused to be consecrated by

Stigand, the archbishop of Canterbury, having learnt that he had been pronounced excommunicate through the just zeal of the pope. The 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 of

the English, and by right of conquest. He was crowned by the consent, or rather by the wish, of the leaders of 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 of blood, being the son of Duke Robert, whose aunt, Emma, the sister of Richard

II and daughter of Richard I, was Edward’s mother.” After the coronation ceremony he did not relax in his performance of 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

ii. 30

GESTA GVILLELMI

acceptat stilus noster.’ 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.

31. Terrae illi sua fertilitate opimae uberiorem opulentiam comportare soliti sunt negotiatores gaza aduectitia. Maximi numero genere, artificio thesauri compositi fuerant, aut custodiendi 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.

Romanae

ecclesiae sancti Petri*

pecuniam in auro atque argento ampliorem quam dictu credibile ^sit, et ornamenta^ quae Bizantium percara haberet, in manum Alexandri papae transmisit. Memorabile quoque uexillum Heraldi, hominis armati imaginem intextam habens ex auro purissimo:? quo spolio pro munere eiusdem apostolici benignitate sibi misso par redderet; simul et triumphum de tiranno Romae ulteriusque optatum pulchre indicaret. Quanti famulorum Christi ^" D; sit; ornamenta M F

' 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 of dating a new reign from the death of 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. 111, who suggests that Lanfranc may have influenced the presentation of the case for William. ? There is ample evidence of Harold’s appropriation of 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). > The ‘spontaneous’ gifts were made, as even WP's account of the surrender of Canterbury and London admits, to prevent spoliation. WP characteristically presents a case wholly favourable to William. The ASC (D) 1070, complained that ‘the 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

il. 31

THE

DEEDS

OF

WILLIAM

153

king—a title which our pen gladly takes up in place of that of duke.' He devoted himself with equal energy to both secular and divine business, but his heart was more inclined to the service of the King of 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 avariciously shut up in the royal treasure store.”

31. To 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 of avarice, or to be squandered shamefully in English luxury. Of 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 of various provinces. This munificence was assisted by the substantial tribute which cities everywhere and individual rich men offered to their new lord? To the church of St Peter in Rome he sent more gold and silver coins than could be told credibly;* and he presented to Pope Alexander ornaments which Byzantium could have considered most precious; also Harold’s famous banner in which the image of an armed warrior was woven in pure gold. By the gift of this booty he made an equal return to the pope for the gift sent to him through the pope's generosity;? and at the same time he indicated aptly his victory over the tyrant, a Eliensis, p. 196). In the redistribution the Norman monasteries were the chief gainers; see below, ii. 41, 42. C. R. Dodwell (Anglo-Saxon Art: A Nem Perspective (Manchester, 1982), pp. 230-2) notes the meagre share of the treasures given or restored to English churches. * 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 Synods, i. 62, 100, 308, 351, 627, 629; W. E. Lunt, Financial Relations of the Papacy

with England to 1327 (Cambridge, MA, 1939), pp. 31-3, 45-7. 5 The phrase ‘quae Bizantium percara haberat’, used by Robert context (GND ii. 244), is one of the indications that Torigni may GG. 6 A reference to the papal banner sent to William; see above, presented differently in the Bayeux Tapestry, where it shows representing the dragon of Wessex’ (Renn, ‘Burgeat’, p. 187).

of Torigni in a different have been familiar with ii. 2. Harold's banner is a wyvern 'presumably

a

154

GESTA GVILLELMI

ii. 31

caetus tum laeti gratiarum hymnos canebant pro uictore, antea fautores

illius precum

armatura,

summatim

recitamus.

Mille

ecclesiis Franciae, Aquitaniae, Burgundiae, nec non Aruerniae, aliarumque regionum perpetuo celebre erit Guillelmi regis memoriale.! 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 et anxia, milies cariorem accepit. Nec enim adeo gratum acciperet quicquid

Arabia? 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. Lux 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 Romano.?

dubitatum

de Caesare

Augusto

et populo

! The geographical spread of the mother churches of the later ‘alien priories’ (which included the great houses of Cluny and Marmoutier) is an indication of the continental beneficiaries of the Conquest (see D. Knowles and N. Hadcock, Medieval Religious Houses, England and Wales (London, 1971), pp. 83-103). The absence of benefactions to houses in Brittany at this early period, in spite of the large contingent of Bretons in the Conqueror's armies, is noteworthy; and Brittany rightly does not appear in WP's list. ? Cf. Ps. 71: 10, ‘Reges Tharsis et insulae munera offerent; reges Arabum et Saba dona adducent', and Ps. 71: 15, ‘Et vivet, dabitur ei de auro Arabiae.’

ii. 32

THE DEEDS OF WILLIAM

155

victory greatly desired at Rome. We will relate briefly how many communities of the servants of Christ were happy to sing hymns of praise for the victor, whom they had previously supported with the armament of their prayers. In a thousand churches of France, Aquitaine, and Burgundy, and also Auvergne and other regions, the memory of King William will be celebrated for ever.! The magnitude of the benefaction, always living, will not allow the memory of the benefactor to die. Some churches received very large golden crosses, wonderfully jewelled; many others pounds of

gold, or vessels made of the same metal; quite a few vestments or something else of value. The least of 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 of the weather and sea (for it was the beginning of January) was at its worst. The news of 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 Arabia? 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 of unaccustomed serenity seemed suddenly to have dawned on the province. For although she thought herself deprived of 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 of 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

of Caesar Augustus and the Roman people.? ? Cf. Suetonius, Augustus, c. lviii, 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.! Praeiudicare noli, dignitatem eius diligentius cognosce, et quotquot exegisti dominos, parui habebis cum eo comparatos. Eius honestatis pulchritudo optimo te colore decorabit. Didicit per legatum suum ualentissimus uir, rex Pyrrhus, tales fere, qualis erat ipse, Romam habere cunctos.? 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," propugnant Constantinopolim, ingerunt metum Babyloni.* Nobilissimos tuorum filiorum, iuuenes ac senes, Chunutus Danus trucidauit nimia crudelitate? ut sibi ac liberis suis te subigeret. Hic ne Heraldum uellet occubuisse. Immo uoluit patris Goduini^ potentiam illi ampliare, et natam suam, imperatoris thalamo dignissimam, in matrimonium, uti fuerat pollicitus, tradere. 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; 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 * D M; Godwini F

' Here WP recognizes that, in spite of his claims, the English did not accept the Conquest without rebellion.

? Cf. Plutarch, Pyrrhus, xxix. 6. > The Norman conquest of South Italy and Sicily by the sons of 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 of Bari in 1071 and Palermo in 1072. See, most recently, Bouet and Neveux, Les Normands en Méditerranée (above, p. 104 n. 3), pp. 18-21. 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 seruit'. 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 of South Italy and (part of) Sicily, and is exactly parallel to this statement in WP.

ii. 32

THE DEEDS OF WILLIAM

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, if putting aside your folly and wickedness you could judge more soundly the kind of man into whose power you had come.' Be not prejudiced, learn to appreciate his worth, and all the lords you have endured will appear petty in compar-

ison with him. The splendour of his reputation will cast great lustre on you. The most valiant King Pyrrhus learnt through an ambassador to regard all the Romans as comparable to himself.’ That city, mother of the kings of the world, sovereign mistress of 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,’ defend Constantinople, and strike fear into Babylon.* Cnut the Dane slaughtered the noblest of your sons, young and old, with the utmost cruelty,” so that he could subject you to his rule and that of his children. This man (William) did not desire the death of Harold, but rather he wished to increase for him the power of his father Godwine, and give him in marriage to his own daughter,? who was worthy to share an emperor's bed, as had been promised. But if you do not agree with me on these matters, at least he has lifted from your neck the proud and cruel lordship of Harold; he has killed the execrable tyrant who was forcing you into a servitude that was both disastrous and shameful Such a service is held by all peoples to be a famous and praiseworthy deed. The benefits of the most salutary rule, by which you will be raised up, will subsequently bear witness to some extent against your ill-will. King * Erroneously

translated ‘have attacked Constantinople’ 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 of the Franks in eleventh-century Byzantium', Battle, xv (1993),

275—305). ^5 e ASC (CDE) 1017 lists the English leaders, including Eadric Streona, ealdorman of Mercia, killed after Cnut became king; and the poet Sigvatr Thórüarson recorded ‘soon Cnut killed or drove away the sons of /Ethelred, yea, everyone of them' (Keynes, * /Ethelings', p. 174).

$ See OV ii. 136 n. r. 7 For the justification of tyrannicide, cf. above, i. 18, ii. 25.

158

GESTA

GVILLELMI

ii. 32

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.! 33. Multa Lundoniae posteaquam coronatus est prudenter, iuste, clementerque disposuit, quaedam ad ipsius ciuitatis commoda siue dignitatem, alia quae genti proficerent uniuersae, nonnulla quibus ecclesiis terrae consuleretur. Iura quaecunque dictauit “optimis rationibus sanxit.^? Iudicium rectum nulla persona 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.? 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, erant a ui mulieres, quam delicta quae fierent consensu gratia uetabantur. Potare ** Omit F; optimis rationibus sanxit

aptissimis edictis coercuit. Tutae saepe amatores inferunt. Etiam illa impudicarum, infamiae prohibendae militem in tabernis non multum D M OV

! See above, p. xxii. Classical writers had distinguished between which panegyric was written, and the simpler style more (S. MacCormack, ‘Latin prose panegyrics’, Empire and Aftermath, T. A. Dorey (London and Boston, 1975), pp. 143-205). ? There is some evidence of King William punishing oppressive

the 'stilus maior' in suitable for history Silver Latin II, ed. royal officials before

1071 when they were denounced legally by powerful ecclesiastics; for cases involving the archbishop of York and the abbot of Abingdon, see R. C. van Caenegem, English Lawsuits from William I to Richard I, 2 vols. (Selden Society, London 1990-1), i. nos. 1, 4.

ii. 33

THE DEEDS OF WILLIAM

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.! 33. At London, after his coronation, he made many wise, just,

and merciful provisions; some were for the interest and honour of the city, others to the profit of the whole people, and some to the advantage of the churches of the land. Whatever laws he promulgated, he promulgated for the best of reasons. No one ever sought a just judgement from him in vain. When iniquity reigns it most often veils its greed under the pretext of avenging crimes, condemning the innocent man to punishment in order to confiscate his possessions. 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 of royal majesty was to excel in conspicuous generosity, and to accept nothing which was contrary to fair dealing.* To his magnates he taught conduct worthy of him and of his

dignity, and as a friend counselled equity. He warned them to be constantly mindful of 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 born or brought up. He restrained the

knights of middling rank and the common soldiers with appropriate regulations. Women were safe from the violence which passionate men often inflict. Even those offences indulged with the consent of shameless women were forbidden, so as to avoid scandal. He scarcely allowed the soldiers to drink in taverns, since 3 This was a common charge; cf. Vita Edwardi, pp. 78-9 and n. 194. * WP here uses ‘aequitas’ in the sense in which it occurs in Scripture (e.g. Ps 9: 9 (8), ‘et ipse iudicabit populos in aequitate"). There is no suggestion of the 'equity' of Roman law.

GESTA

160

GVILLELMI

tie 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 Britanni uel Aquitani agere permittebantur.’ Scipionem aliosque priscos duces proponunt imitandos, qui de disciplina militari scriptis docent.^ 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. Latrociniis, inuasionibus, maleficiis locum omnem intra suos terminos denegauit. Portus et quaelibet itinera negotiatoribus patere, et nullam iniuriam fieri iussit.' Pontificium Stigandi, quod nouerat non canonicum, minime probabat; sed apostolici sententiam expectare melius quam properantius deponere existimabat.? 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," qui suffraganeis episcopis congruam formam praebere, et ouili Dominico praeesse sciret, cunctisque prodesse cuperet studio uigilanti. Item de ordinationibus aliarum ecclesiarum praecogitabat. Omnino proba eius in regnando initia fuere.

34. Egressus

e Lundonia,

dies aliquot in propinquo

loco

morabatur Bercingis, dum firmamenta quaedam in urbe contra ^ M supplies ponere or locare after metropolitana, F after potentem

' Direct evidence of 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. ? Cicero, Epistulae ad Familiares, ix. 25, refers to military treatises by Pyrrhus, king of Epirus, and his minister Cineas. > There is a different picture in ASC (D) 1067, ‘And 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.’ * There is some corroboration in the summing up of the reign in the ASC (E) 1087, ‘Amongst other things the good security he made in this country is not to be forgotten, so

ii. 34

THE

DEEDS

OF WILLIAM

161

drunkenness leads to quarrels and quarrels to murder. He forbade strife, murder, and every kind of plunder, restraining the people with arms and the arms with laws. Judges were appointed who could strike terror into the mass of the soldiers, and stern punishments were decreed for offenders; nor were the Normans given greater licence than the Bretons or the Aquitanians.' Those who write about military science hold up Scipio and other early leaders as models to be imitated.” In future they will readily accept the examples of King William's army as equally or more praiseworthy. But let us pass rapidly to other matters, lest we defer too long the account of his memorable return, which Normandy was eagerly expecting. He set a limit that was not oppressive to the collection of tribute and all dues owed to the royal treasury.’ 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.* He did not approve of the pontificate of Stigand, which he knew to be uncanonical, but thought it better to await the pope's sentence than to depose him

hastily.? Other considerations persuaded him to suffer him for the time being and hold him in honour, because of the very great authority he exercised over the English. He was considering placing in the metropolitan see a man of holy life and great renown, a master in expounding the word of 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 of all with vigilant zeal.° He also gave thought to making provision for other churches. All the first acts of his reign were righteous.

34. Leaving London, he spent a few days in the nearby place of Barking, while fortifications were being completed in the city as a defence against the inconstancy of the numerous and hostile that any honest man could travel over his kingdom without injury with his bosom full of gold.’ 5 Stigand was deposed in the Council of Winchester, 1070, presided over by King William with three cardinals sent by Pope Alexander II (Councils and Synods, i. 563-70). 5 This anticipates the appointment of Lanfranc as archbishop of Canterbury in 1070.

162

GESTA

GVILLELMI

ii. 34

mobilitatem ingentis ac feri populi perficerentur.' Vidit enim inprimis necessarium magnopere Lundonienses coerceri. Ibi ueniunt ad obsequium eius Eduinus* et Morcardus maximi fere omnium Anglorum genere ac potentia, Algardi illius nominatissimi filii, deprecantur ueniam si qua in re contra eum senserant, tradunt se cunctaque sua eius clementiae;? 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." 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. Quaqua pergebat, in armis nemo manebat. Iter nullum obstruitur, occurrunt passim obsequentes 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,' 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; EdwinusF

^ DM;aF

' 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 ASC (D) 1066 placed the submission of 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. * After this sentence Orderic (OV ii. 194) retained only *Custodes in castellis . . . distribuit in this chapter. He omitted all reference to King William's alleged compassion

it 35

THE DEEDS

OF WILLIAM

163

inhabitants.’ For he saw that it was of the first importance to constrain the Londoners strictly. It was there that Edwin and Morcar, sons of the famous /Elfgar and perhaps the most noble and powerful of all the English, came to submit to him;? 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 of his singular courage and loyalty, subsequently—as we have heard—gave pleasure to the king and all the best Normans.’ The 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 of the kingdom, and everywhere decreed measures to the advantage of the inhabitants as well as of himself.* 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 supplicants or poor people, or noticed mothers and their children pleading with voice and gesture. The /Etheling, whom the English had tried to make their king after Harold's downfall, he endowed with ample lands; he held him among his dearest friends, because he was of the stock of 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 of 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 of foot-soldiers and knights. To these he distributed rich fiefs, for the sake of which they would for the English, including the statement that nothing was taken from any Englishman i unjustly. 5 If this statement is true, the /Etheling never gained possession of the lands. Orderic omits the passage.

GESTA

164

GVILLELMI

ii. 35

ac pericula libentibus animis tolerarent. Nulli tamen Gallo datum est quod Anglo cuiquam iniuste fuerit ablatum. 36. Guenta! 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. Huius quoque urbis intra moenia munitionem construxit. Ibidem Guillelmum reliquit Osberni filium, praecipuum in exercitu suo, ut in uice sua interim toti regno Aquilonem uersus praeesset) Hunc ex omnibus Normannis paterno more* 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 terrori^ 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,”

Galliam

propius spectat,

unde

et a minus

feris hominibus

incolitur. Consueuerant enim merces cum Belgis mutare. Perhibetur etiam, attestante pagina uetustatis, maritimam hanc regionem a Gallis olim fuisse possessam, quibus eo transuectis praedae ac belli inferendi causa agri fertiles placuere. Odo ille, Baiocarum praesul, cognitus fuerat talis qui optime negotia sustinere ualeret, ecclesiastica et secularia. Bonitatem eius et prudentiam primo ^ M F; terrore D

! 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), 217— 19), proved conclusively that it must be Winchester. ? 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.

> From this point William fitz Osbern 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), ‘if. . . 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

THE

DEEDS

OF

WILLIAM

165

willingly bear toil and danger. However nothing was given to any Frenchman which had been taken unjustly from any Englishman. 36. The town of Winchester' 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.’ William built a fortress within the walls of the city, and left there William fitz Osbern, the chief man in his army, so that he could govern all the kingdom of

England to the north in his place during his absence. He had recognized that this man above all the Normans was, like his father before him,* 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 of 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 of his household since they had been boys together, and had raised him to power in Normandy.

37. As for the castle of Dover, he entrusted it to his brother Odo, together with the adjacent south coast, which goes by the old name of Kent.? 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 of war and plunder, were attracted by its fertile fields. This Odo, bishop of Bayeux, was well known to be the kind of man best able to undertake both ecclesiastical and secular business. The church of Bayeux first benefited from his virtue and wisdom, ^ He was the son of Osbern of Crépon, who was the son of Countess Gunnor's brother, and had been steward of the young duke, William, during his minority (GND ii. 92-3 and n. 6). 5 Odo, bishop of 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, | (1975), 1-20, at p. 10. $ 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.'

166

GESTA

GVILLELMI

ii. 37

testatur ecclesia Baoicensis, quam ipse multo studio egregie ordinauit atque ornauit, 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 postularet, 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 Britanni. Nec Angli adeo barbari fuerunt quin facile intelligerent hunc praesulem, hunc praefectum, merito timendum esse, uenerandum

quoque ac diligendum.' 38. Rex ita commissa regni cura Peneuesellum se recepit, quem locum in nominandis ponendum censemus quoniam ipso portu primo litus^ illud attigit. Stabant naues ad transmittendum paratissimae, quas uere decuerat albis uelis more ueterum adornatas esse. Erant enim reuecturae gloriosissimum triumphum, nunciaturae maxime optatum gaudium. Conuenit eodem multus Anglorum equitatus.) Ex his abducere secum decreuerat, quorum praecipue fidem suspiciebat ac poten-

tiam, archipraesulem Stigandum, Adelinum propinquum regis Edwardi,! tres comites, Edwinum, Morcardum et Gualleuum; simul alios complures altae nobilitatis: ut ipsis auctoribus nihil * D; littus M F

' This passage of 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 (Davis, ‘William of Poitiers’, pp. 120— 3, and above, p. xvii). ? 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 of Theseus. > *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

THE DEEDS

OF WILLIAM

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 of his mind. Afterwards he was useful to the whole of 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 of all that Gaul did not have his equal in munificence. He deserved no less praise for his love of 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.' 38. The king, having thus provided for the governance of 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 of

the ancients,” for they were to carry back a most glorious triumph and to announce the greatest joy that could have been desired. Many Englishmen of high rank assembled there.’ Of these he had determined to take away with him those whose loyalty and power he particularly suspected: Archbishop Stigand, the /Etheling, kinsman of King Edward,* the three earls Edwin, Morcar, and Waltheof, and many others of high rank; so that during his some of the leading men of Gaul with him in his second invasion of Britain, as hostages to prevent rebellion when he was away. * For Edgar /Etheling, see above, p. 146 n. 3. Waltheof was earl of Huntingdon; for his later career and rebellion see OV ii. 262, 312—44. The Worcester chronicle, followed by Orderic (OV ii. 196), names /Ethelnoth of Canterbury (FW ii. 1, ‘nobilem satrapam Agelnothum Cantwariensem’).

168

GESTA

GVILLELMI

ii. 38

sub decessum suum nouaretur, gens uero tota minus ad rebellionem 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,' 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. Felicitatem actorum, quae qui nouerit merito admiratur, multo magis admirandam 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, nec a littore longius progredi, nec in littore, tametsi patria consuetudine castra munierit, diutius morari ausus est.* Transiit in extremo aestatis, rediit ante aequinoctium quod prope instabat.? Perturbatae sunt legiones eius magno metu, cum naues partim fractae aestu maritimo aut fluctibus, partim ^ M F; Anglis D ! Some of the men of rank who returned a few years later are named by Orderic; they included Hugh of Grandmesnil and Humphrey of Tilleul (OV ii. 220-1). ? Probably a reference to Scandinavian pirates. > 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).

* The camp is mentioned by Caesar, iv. 31. > ibid. iv. 20; iv. 38.

ii. 39

THE DEEDS OF WILLIAM

169

absence no revolt instigated by them might break out, and the general populace, deprived of their leaders, would be less capable of rebellion. Finally he thought it essential as a precaution to hold in his power, as hostages, men whose authority and safety were of the greatest importance to their kinsmen and compatriots. Being subjected in this way they carried out his orders most compliantly; 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 of his humanity, from which they could expect the best of everything and fear nothing cruel or harmful. As for the knights who were returning home after serving him faithfully in so great an enterprise,! he rewarded them generously at the same port, so that they could all rejoice to share with him the abundant fruits of 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 of the sea for a long time, as all pirates had been driven away.^ The happy outcome of the enterprise, which was justly admired by all who heard of it, was made still

more admirable by the speed with which it was accomplished. In fact it was about the kalends of October, on the day on which the Church celebrates the feast of the archangel Michael, that he left for an enemy land, uncertain of the outcome; in the month of 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 of England is Britain) with a thousand ships,’ 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.* He crossed over at the end of summer and returned before the following equinox.’ His legions were overcome with great fear when his ships were partly broken up by the tides and waves of the sea, and partly rendered useless for navigation by

170

GESTA

GVILLELMI

ii. 39

inutiles ad nauigandum essent armamentis amissis.! 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.^ Secundo pedites Romanos et equites ad millia fere centum transportauit,

una ex ciuitatibus Galliae primos quamplures cum eorum equitatu. 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,* Angli uero Guillelmum pauidi in monte operiebantur. Caesarem praelio saepius adorti sunt Britanni? 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;° at cum in eandem regionem dux Normannorum aduentaret,

obuiam ei clementiam deprecando processerunt ciuitates et municipia: 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;’ 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 ! Caesar iv. 29 ("Compluribus navibus fractis, reliquae cum essent, funibus, ancoris, reliquisque armamentis amissis ad navigandum inutiles . . . totius exercitus perturbatio factus est"). ? ibid. iv. 27, 38. > 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). * ibid. v. 8, 9; the level ground may be implied by the descent of 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

THE

DEEDS

OF

WILLIAM

I7I

the loss of their tackle.’ 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 of 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.’ On the second expedition he transported Roman infantry and cavalry to the number of

100,000, together with many chiefs from the cities of Gaul with their horsemen.’ What then did he accomplish that deserves the praise to be given to the man of whom we are writing? 40. The horsemen of the Britons and their charioteers inflicted no little damage on Caesar, bravely fighting against him on level ground;* the English, by contrast, trembling with fear, waited for William on a hill. The Britons often gave battle to Caesar; 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 of his army to the river Thames, on the frontiers of the territory of Cassivellaunus who was waging war against him, the enemy was drawn up in line

of battle on the opposite bank; the Roman soldiers crossed the ford with great difficulty, with only their heads showing above the water. But when the duke of the Normans arrived in the same region, the inhabitants of 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." 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 of Cassivellaunus, and restored the 5 ibid. v. 18, ‘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.’

7 v. 19.

172

GESTA GVILLELMI

ii. 40

reddidit Mandrubatio;' liberauit in perpetuo Guillelmus gentem omnem a tirannide Heraldi, atque solium obtinuit ipse; unde regionibus quae sub multis regibus quondam egerant, unus imperitaret." Romani solum ex Britanniae maioribus Cingetorigem ceperunt,! 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.* Haec multa ducum antiquorum consuetudo fuit: attestantur 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. Postremo Caesar, ciuitatibus aliquot in deditione et obsidibus a Cassiuellauno acceptis, necnon aliquanto uectigali, quod in annos singulos Britannia populo Romano penderet, constituto, exercitum difficile duobus commeatibus in Belgium reportauit, nauibus quippe refectis et minoris quam adduxerat^ numeri, ob incommodum, quod ex tempestate acciderat. Tali minime Guillelmus difficultate angebatur. Pareret ei gens eadem imperanti nauigia noua ad numerum et modum quem uellet, insuper metallo ^ F; adduxerit D M

! Caesar v. 20. Mandubratius, whose father (the king of 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).

? 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. > An error for Lugotorix (De bello gallico, v. 22). * Although Suetonius stated that Caesar led his troops on the march (Caesar, c. lvii, ‘In agmine nonnunquam equo, saepius pedibus anteibat, capite detecto, seu sol, seu imber esset, longissimas vias incredibili celeritate confecit"), and that he could rally a retreating force (ibid., c. Ixii, ‘inclinatam aciem solus saepe restituit obsistens fugientibus, retinensque

il. 40

THE

DEEDS

OF WILLIAM

173

city to Mandrubatius’ rule; William freed the whole people for ever from the tyranny of Harold, and himself took the throne, so that the regions which had formerly been subject to many kings might be ruled by one.” The Romans captured only Cingetorix? of the leaders of Britain; the Normans, if it had been thought desirable, could have thrown a thousand of the most illustrious. men of that people into chains. The 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 of 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.* This was the normal custom of the generals of the ancients, as attested in the eloquent language of the Commentaries, which Caesar himself composed. But to William it seemed dishonourable and of little use, in that battle in which he crushed the English, to carry out the duties of a general unless he also carried out those of 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. If you look closely at the deeds of this Roman and those of our leader, you will rightly say that the Roman was improvident and trusted too much to luck, whereas William always acted with foresight and succeeded more by good planning than by chance.” Finally, Caesar, after accepting the surrender of 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 of the damage suffered in a storm.° William did not experience nearly so much difficulty. The populace would have prepared for him, had he so ordered, as many ships as he wished of 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. lviii, for the care with which he ventured on new ground. 5 Caesar, De bello gallico, v. 23; cf. iv. 29, 31; v. 1, 11.

174

GESTA GVILLELMI

ii. 40

pretioso decorata, uelis purpureis! 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,? 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 Galliarum? uix colligeretur argentum atque aurum, quod rectissimo 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.! Mentionem super Iulio Caesare, quae forte notetur quasi derogans, omittamus. Fuit itaque eximius dux lectione doctus Graecorum praecepta militaria,’ militia Romana cum laude ab adolescentia usus, uirtute consecutus urbis consulatum. Bella multa cum bellicosis

gentibus feliciter atque celeriter confecit, nouissime Africae et Europae atque Asiae praesidentem, bellando effecit.

Romam,

regnum

suum

41. Vespasiani filio Tito, qui dum recta uehementer amaret orbis amor dici meruit, nunquam Italia laetior quam Normannia occurrit Guillelmo regi principi suo. Dies erant hiberni, et qui poenitentiae quadragesimalis rigori uacant. 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 ^ M F; stematis D ' WP had earlier described the sails of William's fleet as white (above, ii. 38).

? WP used the term ‘primas’ three times of secular leaders (i. 11; ii. 23, 33), once of the Pope (i. 53), and once of 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. > 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." * For the resources of England, see P. H. Sawyer, ‘The wealth of England in the eleventh century', TRHS, sth ser., xv (1965), 145-64.

ii. 41

THE DEEDS OF WILLIAM

175

more—decorated lavishly with precious metal, fitted with purple sails,’ and manned by skilled oarsmen and chosen steersmen. How gloriously he returned! not bringing with him a crowd of captives in the Roman fashion, but having in his entourage and allegiance the primate? of the bishops of all Britain, many great abbots from the overseas monasteries, and sons of 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 of the three parts of Gaul,’ which he had received entirely lawfully and was proposing to spend wherever it was most clearly needed. This kingdom is many times richer than Gaul in its wealth of precious metals; it seems as if it should be called the granary of Ceres because of the abundance of its corn, and the treasury of Arabia because of its richness in gold.* We omit further mention of Julius Caesar, as it may perhaps be considered disparaging. He was indeed a distinguished general, who had learnt the military science of the Greeks from books? 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 of arms, he made Rome, the mistress of Africa, Europe, and Asia, his kingdom. 41. Italy did not run more happily to greet Titus the son of Vespasian (who through his ardent desire for justice deserved to be called the favourite of the world) than did Normandy to meet its ruler, King William. It was a time of winter, and of the austere lenten penances.’ Nevertheless everywhere celebrations were held as if it were a time of high festival. The sun seemed to shine with

the clear brightness of summer, far more strongly than usual at this season. The inhabitants of humble or remote places flocked to5 One of these authors would probably have been Polybius, who wrote a treatise on tactics, and in his Historiae, x. 23, discussed cavalry training. $ 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." ? William sailed for Normandy in March 1067 (above, ii. 38). Easter Sunday fell on 8 April.

176

GESTA

GVILLELMI

ii. 41

facultas conspiciendi regem daretur confluebant. Cum in metropolim suam Rotomagum introiret, senes, pueri, matronae, cunc-

tique ciues spectatum processerant: conclamabant salutantes reducem, adeo ut ciuitas illa uniuersa applaudere putaretur, sicuti Roma quondam Pompeio suo applaudans tripudiauit.' Monasteria certabant monachorum atque cleri, quodnam in aduentu sui carissimi tutoris ampliorem officiositatem impenderent. 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, libras? 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 pretiosissima, quae ad seculi terminum honora permanere ualeant.? Singula descriptionibus aut nominibus designare spatiosum foret.

Voluptuosum est ea perspectare hospitibus maximis, et qui saepe nobilium ecclesiarum thesauros uiderant. Transiret illac hospes Graecus aut Arabs, uoluptate traheretur eadem. Anglicae nationis feminae multum acu et auri textura egregie, uiri in omni ualent artificio. Ad hoc incolere apud eos Germani solebant talium artium scientissimi.) 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 ! Lucan, Pharsalia, viii. 794—815, after describing Pompey's unworthy burial, recalls his three earlier triumphs in Rome: ‘ter cunibus actis | Contentum multos patriae donasse triumphos." ? If 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-Etienne-de-Caen, but it is possible that the treasures were taken by his father (Waltham Chronicle, pp. 58-9). * For the skill of English needlewomen and craftsmen, see Bayeux Tapestry, PP. 44—5;

ii. 42

THE

DEEDS

OF

WILLIAM

177

the towns or anywhere else where there was a chance of seeing the king. When he entered his metropolitan city of 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.’ Communities of monks and clerks vied with each other as to who could show the greatest complaisance at the arrival of their beloved protector. Nothing which ought to have been done in celebration of such honour was left undone. Furthermore, if anything new could be devised, it was added.

42. He rewarded this dutiful affection immediately with treasures of many kinds, giving vestments, gold bullion,? and other magnificent gifts to the altars and servants of Christ. We have not heard of 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. To the basilica of 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 of 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 of time.’ It would take too much space to describe or even enumerate each one. To gaze at them is a rare delight for the most eminent guests, even for those who have often seen the treasures of the noblest churches. If a Greek or Arab visitor passed that way he would be overwhelmed by the same delight. The women of the English people are very skilled in needlework and weaving gold

thread, and the men are outstanding in craftsmanship of all kinds.* Moreover Germans, most skilled in such arts, are accustomed to live among them.? Traders too, who travel to distant regions in their ships, bring objects of 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 Art: A Nem Perspective (Manchester, 1982), pp. 216-17 and passim. 5 For German craftsmen working in England in the time of Edward the Confessor, see Dodwell, Anglo-Saxon Art, pp. 65, 78.

178

GESTA

GVILLELMI

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 mercedis, non ad gloriam quae deperibit, intentus. Abundantes ecclesiae transmarinae aliqua ei libentes, quae in Galliam transferret, dederunt quoniam ea multuplo redemit rebus aliis.' 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.? 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, officio militari tradito. Verum quod finitimi incursionem nullam ausi fuerant, cum terram fere militibus exhaustam scirent, regi ipsi,^ cuius reuersionem uerebantur, primo ascribendum arbitramur.

44. Ad coenobium sanctae Trinitatis Fiscanni* 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,? multaque nobilitas Franciae. Curiose hi cum Normannis cernebant crinigeros alumnos plagae ^M F; ipsius D ! For a different view see above, p. 153 n. 3. ? Matilda, together with Roger of Beaumont and others, had been entrusted care of the duchy; see OV ii. 208, 210; D. Bates, ‘The origins of the justiciarship’, (1982), 1—12, at p. 6. She was crowned at Pentecost (11 May) 1068 (ASC (D) 1068; FW ii. 2; OV ii, 214). > See above, ii. 19. Roger's father was Humphrey of Vieilles. * The royal abbey of Fécamp was closely associated with the royal palace, and

with the Battle, iv 1067 for

the duke

had been accustomed to celebrate the major church feasts there. On its symbolic importance for the new king, see Renoux, Fécamp, p. 482, *Le couronnement dynastique

ii. 44

THE DEEDS OF WILLIAM

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 of 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.! 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 of Christ) in the state which he desired. For its government had been carried on smoothly by our lady Matilda, already commonly known by the title of queen, though as yet uncrowned.” Men of great experience had added their counsel to her wisdom; amongst them the first in dignity was Roger of Beaumont (son of the illustrious Humphrey), who on account of 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). But in truth the fact that neighbours had not dared to make any attack though they knew the land to be almost emptied of knights, must, we think, be attributed primarily to the king himself, whose return they feared.

44. He celebrated Easter Sunday at the abbey of the Holy Trinity at Fécamp,^ most reverently honouring the Saviour on the feast of His resurrection, with a great gathering of venerable bishops and abbots. Humbly standing near the choirs of the religious orders, he compelled crowds of soldiers and people to leave their games and come to divine service. The stepfather of the king of the Franks, the mighty Count Raoul, was present at this court, together with many of the French nobles. These men, like

the Normans, looked with curiosity at the long-haired sons of the anglais est le point d'aboutissement d'une idéologie dont Fécamp a été l'un des creusets majeurs.' |

5 Raoul, count of Crépy and Valois, who married Anne of Russia, the widow of King Henry I of France. On his wealth and prominence, see Guibert de Nogent, pp. 58-60.

180

GESTA

GVILLELMI

ii. 44

Aquilonalis: quorum pulchritudini Galliae comatae! formosissimi iuuenes inuiderent. Nec enim puellari uenustati cedebant. Regis autem regiorumque satellitum indumenta spectantes intexta atque crustata auro, quaeque" antea uiderant uilia aestimauere. Item uasa argentea siue aurea admirabantur, quorum de numero uel decore uere narrari possint incredibilia. His tantum ex poculis coenacu-lum ingens bibebat, aut cornibus 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.^ 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 Osberni filius praefecturas in regno uterque suam laudabiliter administrabant:

interdum simul agitantes, modo diuersi. Si quando necessitudo postulabat, festinam alter alteri ferebat opem. Per amicam qua sincere uoluntatem concordabant, amplius ualuit prudens eorum uigilantia. Mutuo sese, regem ardebant pari ad continendum ^DM

aequaliter, diligebant; affectu in pace gentem christianam,

F; M F suggest that possibly quaecumque should be read

* M F; populis D

' Cf. Suetonius, Caesar, c. xxii, for the expression ‘Gallia comata’. The long-haired style of the Anglo-Saxons is illustrated in the Bayeux Tapestry. ? This and the following sentences repeat word for word the account of Duke William’s orderly preparation for the invasion (above, ii. 2). 3 Orderic (OV ii. 202-5) gives a different account of their administration, describing it

as oppressive and unjust; the ASC (D) 1066 wrote ‘And Bishop Odo and Earl William

ii. 46

THE

DEEDS

OF WILLIAM

181

northern lands, whose beauty the most handsome youths of ‘longhaired Gaul’’ might have envied; nor did they yield anything to the beauty of girls. Indeed as they looked at the clothes of the king and his courtiers, woven and encrusted with gold, they considered whatever they had seen before to be of little worth. Similarly they marvelled at the vessels of silver and gold, of whose number and

beauty incredible things could truthfully be told. At a great banquet they drank only from such goblets or from horns of wild oxen decorated with the same metal at both ends. Indeed they noted many such things, fitting the magnificence of a king, which they praised on their return home because of their novelty. But they recognized that far more distinguished and memorable than these things was the splendour of the king himself. 45. He spent that summer and part of the autumn and winter on this side of the sea, devoting all his time to love of his native land, which did not have cause to grieve for loss of wealth either because of this stay or because of 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.” The cattle and flocks of the people of the province grazed safely whether in the fields or on the waste. The crops waited unharmed for the scythe of the harvester, and were neither trampled by the proud charges of 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 of squadrons of knights. 46. Meanwhile Odo, bishop of Bayeux, and William fitz Osbern were administering their prefectures in the kingdom, each praiseworthy in his own, working sometimes together, sometimes separately; if ever necessity demanded it, one gave speedy help to the other.) 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

GVILLELMI

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. Vltro in exilium aliqui profugiunt, quo extorres

uel a potestate Normannorum sint liberi, uel aucti opibus alienis contra eos reuertantur.’ 47. Regi ea tempestate Eustachius comes Boloniae aduersabatur, qui filium de fide ante bellum in Normannia obsidem dederat. Ei persuadent hi maxime qui Cantium inhabitant, uti

castrum Doueram inuadat, ipsis utens adiutoribus. Equidem fore, si firmissimo loco hoc sit potitus cum portu marino, ut potentia eius latius distendatur, sicque potentiam Normannorum diminutum^ 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

! A number went to join the forces of the Greek emperor in Constantinople (OV ii. 202).

? From the time of Duke William's marriage to Matilda, Eustace had been apprehensive of his growing power, and had openly sided with William of Arques against him; see GND ii. 104-5 and n. 3). For the uneasy relations between Eustace and the duke, see Tanner,

‘Counts of Boulogne’, pp. 270-6. WP is the only source to mention that Eustace's son was given as a hostage. In spite of receiving extensive estates in England, Eustace returned to the continent not later than Easter 1067 (Tanner, p. 272).

? Various motives have been suggested for the action of Eustace. Douglas, Conqueror, p. 212, thought that he might have been motivated by political changes after the death of

ii. 47

THE DEEDS OF WILLIAM

183

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 of the Normans, or, having gained foreign

help, might return to fight against them.! 47. At that time Eustace, count of Boulogne, who had given his son as a hostage for his loyalty in Normandy before the war, was working against the king.^ In particular, the inhabitants of Kent persuaded him to attack Dover castle with their help.? If indeed he had been able to gain possession of that strong site with its seaport his power would have been extended more widely and that of 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 of his prowess in war and fortune in battle. They thought that if they were not to serve one of 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 of the first fortress, the bishop of Bayeux and Hugh of Montfort, had gone away across the river Thames, taking most of their troops with them. Eustace therefore, after receiving a message from the English, sailed across with his men Baldwin V, count of Flanders, on 1 September 1067. Barlow, Confessor, app. C, pp. 307-8, suggested that he might have acted on behalf of a hypothetical grandson, his descendant by his first wife Goda. Tanner, ‘Counts of 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.

GESTA

184

ii. 47

GVILLELMI

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 remissam, plus (in statu)' ad defensandum ualidam. (Eustachium uero) eripiunt uelocitas equi, notitia tramitis nauisque paratior. Nobilissimus autem tiro, nepos eius,! comprehensus est. Angli per diuerticula plura eo facilius euaserunt quo minus commodum erat paucitati castellanorum insequi per diuersa. Iure 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 amisisse 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 in proximis regis honoratur."

48. Eodem fere tempore Coxo comes, quem placuisse Normannis diximus, morte occidit immerita et quam deceat propagari. 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 OV

! The text printed by Duchesne is corrupt, possibly because of damage to the end of the MS; and the omission of the name of Eustace (copied by Orderic from a better MS) makes it almost unintelligible. The identity of 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. ? For

the

reconciliation

and

Eustace’s

English

estates,

see

Tanner,

‘Counts

of

Boulogne’, pp. 274-6 and app. B, pp. 280-5. > 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 WILLIAM

185

in the first part of the night, in order to catch the garrison off their guard. He led a fleet with picked knights on board, leaving all but a few of the horses behind. The 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 of defending themselves. [Eustace himself] was saved by the speed of his horse, his knowledge of the path, and a ship more ready to weigh anchor. But a young knight of very high birth, his kinsman, was captured.' The English escaped more easily by numerous byways, because it was not practicable for the small numbers of 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 of English and French, by which he was convicted of 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.” 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.’ I am therefore glad to record it in writing so that the praise of the dead man may live and his innocence may be handed down as an example to future generations. This Englishman, 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 of faction. Furthermore, they tried to turn him from his duty, often urging him, under the guise of friendship, 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.

186

.GESTA

GVILLELMI

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 . ! The text breaks off here. WP may have gone on to describe how certain Englishmen

like Copsi helped King William. Orderic, using WP, wrote, "Tunc 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 insurgebant’ (OV ii. 208 and n. 1).

ii. 49

THE

DEEDS

OF WILLIAM

187

forebears as a matter of personal honour; now beseeching and imploring him, as if for the sake of the public good, to desert the foreigners and fall in with the wishes of the best men of his nation and line. For a long time they urged these things and others of the same kind with various sorts of cunning. But when they failed by these means to change his mind, which was firmly fixed on the pursuit of good, they stirred up the people of 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 of the people and every kind of outrage rather than violate his faith, they laid an ambush and murdered him. So this eminent man asserted by his death that the majesty of his lord should stand secure. 49. Certain bishops showed

great zeal in the king's service,

notably Ealdred, archbishop of York. . .'

mite, ges

d

A

easEA

ys

V iy io

]

i

yen) WT D

ed

r

INDEX

OF QUOTATIONS ALLUSIONS

A.

BIBLICAL

Gen. 16: 5 Exod. 28: 15-16 Lev. 28: 9-12 Psalms

122

94 94

2:9 71: 10 71: 16

IO

154 154

Ecclus. 43: 37

B.

102

CITATIONS

FROM

AND

ALLUSIONS 2 Macc.

10: 25-8. II: 6-11 Matt.

13: 46 Luke

12: 35 15 Cor 7-31

CLASSICAL

AND

MEDIEVAL

SOURCES Augustine De ciuitate Dei, v. 26 Quaestiones in Heptateuchum ii. 114-18, 129 Caesar De bello ciuili iii. 45. 6 De bello gallico i. 1

De officiis i. 5. 1

86

15723

iii. 4. 19 dlias latina vv. 1009-1045 Justin, Epitome ii. 10 52 ii. 10-13 46, 174 Juvenal, Satires x. 173 IIO, 168 — Lucan, Pharsalia ii. 672-5

94

o Ue

108,

108

vi. 55-6 viii. 794-815

IIO,

114,

viii, 816

17° — Plutarch, Pyrrhus, xxix. 6 108 Seine re hes Bellum Catilinum lviii. 4-21 166 ;

168, 170

168,

170

164

164 170

Cicero, De amicitia Xx. 74 In Catilinam 1 Epistulae ad familiares ix. 25

Bellum Iugurthinum Ixxx. 6

xcviii

dere

at

Statius, Thebaid ii. 548—62

170

iv. 596—602

170 172 172 74 134 30

Suetonius, Vitae Augustus lviii Caesar xxii xxxvii lvii lix

6 160

Ixii Titus i. 1

130,

190

INDEX

OF

Vegetius, De re militari ii. 7 iii. 3

QUOTATIONS

AND

ALLUSIONS

48 . Vergil, Aeneid i. 695-747 38 ii. 177

112 142

iii. 6 ili. 9

114 18

ii. 197-8 iv. 188

110 52

iii. 26

126

xii. 697—747

136

GENERAL Aaron 94-5 Abernethy (Fife) 17n. Abydos 110-11 Achilles 134-5, 140n. Adela, wife of Baldwin V, daughter of Kg Robert 32-3 Adela of Blois, daughter of William the Conqueror, wife of Stephen of Blois xxix FElfgar, earl of Mercia xxxviii; his wife Godiva xxxviii; his sons, see Edwin, Morcar Aeneas

112-13, 134-5

Aeneid 136-7 Africa 174-5 Agamemnon IIO-II, 142-3 Agnes, wife of Emperor Henry III 30-1,

43n. Agnes of Burgundy, wife of (1) William V count of Poitou, (2) Geoffrey Martel 14-15 Aimeri, vicomte of Thouars xviii; fights in the battle of Hastings 134-5; urges

William the Conqueror to accept the crown 148-9 Alan III, count of Brittany 72-3; his son, see Conan Alengon (Orne), 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 Conqueror 104-5; receives gifts from him 152—3; sends cardinals to England 161 n. Alfonso, kg of León 94-5 Alfred the ztheling, son of King /Ethelred; in exile in Normandy 2-3; his unsuccessful expedition to England 4-5; murdered xx, 5—7 Amatus of Montecassino 136n. Ambriéres (Mayenne), castle xli, 50-3; siege 52-3 Angers (Maine-et-Loire) 15-16, 20-1

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

INDEX Aquitanians, fight in the battle of Hastings 130-1; treated evenhandedly 160-1 Arabia 154-5, 174-5 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 xxx n., 147 n. Asia 174-5 Augustine, St, bp of Hippo xviii, xxxix Augustus, Roman emperor 154-5 Auvergne 15—16, 46—7; churches of 154-5

Babylon (used of the Turkish power) 96—7, 156—7 Baldwin V, count of Flanders

30-3;

guardian of kg Philip I 32-3; his wife, see Adela; his daughter, see Matilda Barking (Essex) 160-1 Battle (Sussex), site of the Battle of Hastings xxv Baudri of Bourgeuil, his poem about the conquest of England xxix Bayeux (Calvados), bp, see Odo; church

164-7 Bayeux Tapestry xvii, xxx, xxxiii-xxxiv,

142N., 153n. Beaumont, family xv, xxxiii; see also Robert, Roger

Belgae 164—5 Belléme (Orne) 16 n., family xix; see also William Benoit of Sainte-Maure xliii Berengar of Tours xviii, 8o n. Berkhamsted (Herts.) 146n., 162n.

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 of Hastings 128—9, 130-1, 154n.; treated evenhandedly 160-1

192

GENERAL

Brionne (Eure), castle xli, 10-13, 14n.; siege 10-13 Britain, invaded by Caesar, see Caesar Britons 172-3. Brittany 12n., 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 152-3

INDEX Constantinople 30-1, 96-7, 156-7 Copsi, earl of Northumbria xxxvii; submits

to William the Conqueror 162-3; made earl of 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

90-1; bp, see

Geoffrey of Montbray cross-bows xxxii, 126—7 Caen (Calvados) abbey, see Saint-Etienne-

de-Caen Caesar, Julius xviii, xix, xxiii, xxxii, xxxix, 46—7; invades Britain 4n., 168—75; his ships damaged 110n.; compared to

William the Conqueror 168—75; his Commentaries 172—3; see also Index of Quotations and Allusions Camden, William xliii-xliv Canterbury (Kent) xli, xlii, 4 n.; 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,. 182—3; see also Ambriéres, Arques, Brionne, Dol, Domfront, Dover,

Hastings, Le Mans, London, Mayenne, Mouliherne, Moulins-la-Marche, Pevensey, St James-de-Beuvron; custodians 162—3; see also Humphrey of Tilleul, Odo

of Bayeux, William fitz Osbern ‘Centigauls’ 45—7 challenge 26—7, 50-1; to single combat 120-3

Charles (the Simple) kg of France 72-3 charters xvi-xvii, 118n. Chaumont-en-Vexin (Oise) 62-3 Chichester (Sussex) xxxvii Cicero xviii, xxi, xxxix, 122-3; see also

Index of Quotations and Allusions Cingetorix, British kg 172-3 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 of Brittany 44n., 52n.; at war with the Normans 72-7 conquest, right of, 150-1

Danes 2-3, 126-7 death-bed bequests 118-19, 140-3 Denmark 6—7 Dieppe, river xxxvii Dives, estuary xxiv, xxv-xxvi, xxix, 54—5, 102-3, 108-9 Dol (Ile-et-Vilaine), castle 74-5; siege

74-5

Domesday Book xvii Domfront (Orne) xix, 22-9; castle xli,

24-7; Siege xxi, 24-9, 34-5

Dover (Kent) xli, xlii, 4-5, 144-5; castle 70-1, 144-5, 164-5, 182—3; church of St Martin

xvii

Duchesne, André xliii,xlv Dudo of Saint-Quentin xix, xxi, xxvii-xxviii Ealdred, abp of York, crowns William the

Conqueror 150-1; serves him loyally 186-7 Edgar /Etheling, designated in boyhood as successor to King Edward 146-7; treated honourably 162-3; taken to

Normandy 166-9 Edith, queen, wife of Edward the Confessor 114-15 Edward (the Confessor), kg of England, son of kg /Ethelred 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, 120-1; makes William the Conqueror his heir 68—9, 114-15, 120-1; sends Harold to Normandy 68—9; his death imminent 70-1; dies 100-1; his

tomb in Westminster Abbey r50-1; his wife, see Edith

GENERAL Edwin, earl of Mercia, son of earl /Elfgar xx; rebellion and death xxxviii, xxxix; offers support to Edgar /Etheling 146-7; submits

162—3; taken to Normandy

INDEX

193

fleet, English xxiv, 106—7, 120n., 124-5, 126-7; Norman, see William the Con-

queror Flemings 30-1; in Norman army

rosn.

166—7 Egypt, communities of monks in 82-3; see also Thebaid Einhard xxi Ely, isle of xxxix, 4-5

fortifications, terms for xli ‘Fracta-Turris’ (unidentified)

Emma, queen, daughter of Richard I duke

Francia 6—7, 10-11, 22-3, 42-3, 46-7,

of Normandy, wife of (1) Kg /Ethelred,

(2) kg Cnut xvii-xviii, 2-3, 150-1 empire, Roman xlii, 46-7, 128—9, 174-5; extent 174—5; people of 154—7, 172-3 Engenulf of Laigle, killed at Hastings 139 n.

Flodoard, his annals 72—3 144-5

Fraga, battle xxx

Franci 18, 30, 33, 40, 42, 44, 46, 72, 178

54-5, 56-7, 96-7, 154-5, 178-9

Frenchmen, fight in the battle of Hastings 130-1 Fulk Nerra, count of Anjou 20n., 58-9; his son, see Geoffrey Martel

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 170—1; rebellious xxii, 156—7, 168—9; rebel 182-3; their craftsmanship and needlework 176-7 Enguerrand II, count of Ponthieu 40-1,

44-5, 48-9

Ermenfrid, bp of Sion, his penitential ordinances xxiii; papal legate 88—9 Eu (Seine-Mar.) 32n. Eudo of Porhoet, count of Brittany 52-3 Europe 174-5 Eustace III, count of Boulogne, befriends

William of Arques 42 n., conduct at the Battle of Hastings xxx, xxxiv, 132-3, 138-9; attacks Dover xxxiv, xlvii, 4n.,

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 120n; use of Channel ports xxvi; monks, give assistance inthe invasion of England xxiv— xxv, 120-1, see also Remigius feigned flights xxxiii, 132-3

fidelitas 30, 34, 54, 70, 144

Flanders xxxviii, 31 n., count, see Baldwin

Garonne, river 46—7

Gascony 15-16, 46—7 Gaul 30-1, 48—9; three parts of 164-7, 174—5, 170-1; belgic (Belgica) 172-3 Geoffrey, count of Perche, son of Rotrou I; fights in the battle of Hastings 132-4 Geoffrey le Barbu, count of Anjou 56—7, 60-1, 76-7

Geoffrey Martel, count of Anjou, son of Fulk Nerra 14-29, 44-5, 50-5; his death 56-7 Geoffrey of Mayenne 50-5; his rebellion and defeat 64-9 Geoffrey of Montbray, bp of Coutances 36n., gon., at Hastings as a noncombattant 124-5; takes part in William the Conqueror’s coronation 150-1 Gerbert, abbot of Saint-Wandrille go—1 Germans 176-7 Gilbert, archdeacon of Lisieux 105n. Gilbert fitz Osbern, archdeacon of Lisieux xx-xxi Gilbert Maminot, bp of Lisieux xvi Godwine, earl of Wessex, betrays Alfred 4-7; consents to the recognition of

William the Conqueror as heir to kg Edward 120-1; his sons, see Gyrth, Harold Godwineson, Leofwine, Tostig, Wulfnoth; his grandson, see Hakon Greeks 176-7 Guitmund of Moulins-la-Marche 42-3 Guy, bp of Amiens, chaplain of Queen Matilda xxix, xxxviii; probably author of the Carmen de Hastingae proelio xxviii Guy, count of Burgundy, son of Reginald; rebels xviii, 8-13, 32-5, 42-3

194

GENERAL

Guy, count of Ponthieu 48-9; captures Harold Godwineson 68-9; releases him to William the Conqueror 68—71 Guy-Geoffrey, count of Poitiers 42-3 Gyrth, son of Godwine earl of Wessex, killed in the battle of Hastings xxxiv, 134-7

haereditas 2, 58, 62, 76, 100 haeres 20, 56, 58, 68, 118, 120, 130, Hakon, grandson of Godwine earl of Wessex, hostage in Normandy 20-1, 76-7, 120-1 Harold Godwineson, king of England, visits Normandy in 1064 xxvi-xxvii,

68—77, 120-1; captured by Guy, count of Ponthieu 68-9; freed by William the Conqueror 68-71; his oath to William 70-1, 76-7, 100-1; becomes William's

INDEX battle xvii, xxx, xxxii, xxxv, 5 n., 126-39; ‘malfosse’ incident in xxxiv n., 138 n., poems about xxviii-xxix; see also

Carmen de Hastingae proelio; castle xli,

II4-15, 142-3 Hector 134—5, 140n. Henry III, emperor, son of Conrad 31: n. 44—5, 96-7; allies with Geoffrey Martel 43n.; said to have made a pact with William the Conqueror 104-5; his wife, see Agnes

Henry IV, emperor 31 n. Henry I, kg of France, gives arms to

William the Conqueror 6n.; assists him at Val-és-Dunes xxiii, 10-11; assisted by him 14-15; hostile to him 18-19, 42-3; supports Geoffrey Martel 22n., supports William of Arques 38-41; attacks Normandy 44-5, 54—7; dies 56—7; his son, see Philip

vassal xxvi, 120—1, 124—5; offered one of William's daughters in marriage 156—7; accompanies him to the Breton war 70-1; returns to England 76—7; his claim to the English throne; xxvii, xxxv, 118—19; his coronation xxiii, 100-1; his appropriation of estates 152-3; guards the Channel coast xxiv, 106-7; his spy captured 106-7; goes to Yorkshire to repel a Norwegian invasion 112~15; defeats and kills Harold Hardrada and Tostig 116-17; exchanges messages with William the Conqueror 116-23; rejects single combat 122-3; his march to Battle 124-7; makes a stand at Battle

herald 48—9 Herbert I (Wake-Dog), count of Maine

126-9; killed in the fighting 136—7; his

168—9, 170-1, 182-3 Hugh, bp of Lisieux, son of William count of Eu xvi, xx, 9o-1, 100-1; his character and achievements 92-5 Hugh IV, count of Maine, 58—9; his son, see Herbert II (Bacon) Hugh, count of Meulan 130-1; his sister Adeline 130-1 Hugh Bardulf 40-1 Hugh II of Gournay 48—9 Hugh of Grandmesnil, fights in the battle of Hastings 134—5; returns to Nor-

death and burial xxii, xxix, 6—7, 136—7,

140-1; his banner 152-3; his mother Gytha xxxi, xxxviii, 140—1; his brothers, see Gyrth, Leofwine, Tostig, Wulfnoth; his sister, see Edith; his concubines

II4n. Harold Hardrada, kg of Norway, allies with

Tostig 112-14; invades Yorkshire 112—16; defeated and killed 116—17, 137-8; his troops less formidable than William the Conqueror's 126—7 Harold Harefoot, kg of England, son of Cnut; becomes kg xlii, 2-3; murders Alfred 4-5; his death 6—7 Harthacnut, kg of England, son of Emma and Cnut 7-8, 18-19 Hastings (Sussex) 112-13; campaign 29 n.

5

Herbert II (Bacon), count of Maine, son of Hugh IV, becomes William the Conqueror's vassal 58—9; makes him his heir 60—1; his sister, see Margaret Herluin de Conteville, step-father of William the Conqueror 32 n.

Hiémois 54-5 Hildegar, pupil of Fulbert of Chartres, at Poitiers xvii

homage, 54—5, 146—7

horses, Spanish 15-16 hostages, 20—1, 120-1, 144-5, 146—7,

mandy xxxviii, 168 n. Hugh II of Montfort-sur-Risle 102-3; pursues the French at the battle of Mortemer 48-9; fights in the battle of Hastings 134-5; custodian of Dover

182-3

GENERAL Humphrey of Tilleul, castellan of Hastings 142-3; returns to Normandy xxxviii,

168 n. Humphrey of Vieilles xv hunting 24—5, 148-9 Inventio et miracula Sancti Wulfranni xxvi, xxvii Isle of Wight xxiv

Jerusalem, pilgrimage to 78—9; the heavenly xli John, bp of Avranches, later abp of Rouen son of Raoul count of Ivry go-1 John, prophetic monk in the Thebaid 86—7 Jugurtha 114-15 Jumiéges, abbey 19n.; abbot, see Robert ‘Justin xviii, xxix; see also Index of Quotations and Allusions Juvenal xviii, xxix; see also Index of Quotations and Allusions

Kent xxiv, 164—5, 182-3 knights xl; Norman 156-7; placed in castles 162-3

INDEX the Normans 160-3

195 146-7; castles xli, 148-0,

Lotharingia 31n., 44n. . Lucan xviii; see a/so Index of Quotations and Allusions Maine, William the Conqueror's claims in xix, 58-61; fighting in 51 n., 52—5, 60—1; men of xxxiv, fight in the battle of Hastings 130-1 Malcolm III (Canmore), kg of Scots 17n. Mandubratius, kg of the Trinovantes 170-3 Mantes (Seine-et-Oise) 62-3 Margaret, sister of Herbert II count of Maine, in exile 62-3; betrothed to Robert Curthose

62—3; dies 62-3;

buried at Fécamp 62-3 Marius, his triumph 114-15; his leadership in battle 126n. Matilda, queen, wife of William the Conqueror, daughter of Count Baldwin V of Flanders 32-3; her marriage 32-3;

provides a ship for the invasion fleet IIOn.; acts as regent in Normandy xxxvii, 178—9; her coronation in 1068

148-9 La Trinité de Vendóme, abbey 21n., 22n. lance, couched xxxiii, 128 n. Lanfranc, abp of Canterbury xx, xxxviii, 152n.; attacks Berengar of Tours 8on.; his early career 84n.; respected by William the Conqueror 84-5, 86—7; abbot of Saint-Etienne-de-Caen 84-5; his monastic customs 84n.; his appointment as abp 161n. law, English xxvii, 122-3; Norman (customary) xviii, xxvii, xxxviii, 42-3, 122-3; Roman xxxix, 123n., 159n.; promulgated by William the Conqueror 158—9 Le Mans (Sartre) 58-9, 60—3, 64—5; citadel

62—3; castle xli Leofric, earl of Mercia 120-1 Leofwine, son of Godwine, killed in the battle of Hastings xxxiv,136—7 Liber Eliensis xliii Lisieux (Calvados) xix; archdeacon, see

Gilbert, Gilbert fitzOsbern, William de Glanville, William of Poitiers; bp, see

Gilbert Maminot, Hugh; council (1054),

88-9

London xxix—xxx, 4-5, 158-9; submits to

Mauger, abp of Rouen, son of Richard II

duke of Normandy and Papia; his failings and deposition 86—9, 92—3; refuses to go to Rome 88-9 Maurilius, abp of Rouen 88-9, 9o-1 Mayenne, castle xli, 64—7; siege 66—7; river 66—7 miles used with various meanings xxxix-xl Mithridates 114-15 Morcar, earl of Northumbria, son of Earl JElfgar xxxviii; captured xxxix; offers support to Edgar /Etheling 146—7; submits to William the Conqueror 162—3; taken to Normandy 166—7 Mortemer (Seine-Mar.), battle xxii, 48—51 Mouliherne (Maine-et-Loire), castle, besieged and captured by William the Conqueror xv, 14-15 Moulins-la-Marche (Orne), castle xli, 42-3

Nigel II, vicomte of the Cotentin, rebels 8-9, 12-13 Norman people 128-9 Normandy 10-11, 18-19 and passim; dukes of, see Richard I, Richard II, Robert I,

196

GENERAL

Normandy (cont.) Robert (Curthose), Rollo, William the Conqueror; frontier 29n Normans 12-13, 18-19, 20n., 26-7, 30-1, 128-9, 160-1, 166—7; and passim; their conquests in Italy 128-9

oath, handfast 120-1; of fealty 30-1. 144-5, 146~7; see also Harold Godwineson

Odo, bp of Bayeux, half-brother of William the Conqueror xvii, xxx, xlii, 90-3; with William at Hastings as a non-combattant 124-5; entrusted with the castle of Dover

164-5; his ability in both ecclesiastical and secular affairs 164-5; provokes a rising of the English 182-3 Odo, son of Kg Robert the Pious 48-9 omen XXX, 124-5, 142n. oral testimony xxviii, xxx, xxxii, xxxiv

Orderic Vitalis, his information about William of Poitiers xv—xvi, xx; his use of William of Poitiers xxii, xxxv-xxxvii, xliii, xliv, 162 n.; his reference to Guy of Amiens xxix; his early life xxxv, xxxviii

orders xliii Orne, river 10-11

pallium 20n., 86-7 Peter's Pence 153n. Pevensey (Sussex) 112-13, 166—7; castle xli, 114-15 Philip I, kg of France, his minority 31-2, 56—7; his step-father Raoul count of

Crépy 178-9

pirates 168—9 Plato go-1 Plutarch xviii, xxi; see a/so Index of Quotations and Allusions

poets, criticized 28—9 Poitiers (Vienne) 20-1; schools at xv, xvii-xviii, xxxix; Saint-Hilaire-le-Grand, church xvii Polybius 175n. Pompey the Great, his triumphs 114-15;

his humble tomb 141 n., 176n. Ponthieu 32-3; count, see Enguerrand, Guy Portus Itius (Wissant) 4n. Préaux (Eure) xv Priam, 140n., 142-3

Pyrrhus, 154—7

INDEX Ralph de Diceto xliii Ralph of Tosny 134-5 Ranulf, vicomte of Bayeux, his rebellion

8-9 Raoul, count of Crépy and Valois 178-9 ravaging by armies xxiv, xxv, xxxv, 58-9, 60-1, 124-5 Reginald I, count of Clermont-enBeauvaisis 48-9 Remigius, monk of Fécamp, contributes a

ship to the invasion fleet 120n. Rhine, river 48-9 | Richard, count of Evreux 100-1 Richard I, duke of Normandy

°

34-5, 73n.,

78-9, 150-1; his son, see, William count of Eu; his daughter, see Emma

Richard II, duke of Normandy 20n., 28-9, 34—5, 73n., 78-9, 150-1; his wife Papia 40-1; his sons see Mauger, abp of Rouen, William, count of Arques Risle, river 11n., 12-13 Robert (Champart), abp of Canterbury, previously abbot of Jumiéges 19-20

Robert, count of Eu xxiii, 48-9, 100—1 Robert, count of Mortain, half-brother of William the Conqueror 100-1 Robert I, duke of Normandy, father of William the Conqueror 150-1; his

pilgrimage to Jerusalem 78-9 Robert II (Curthose), duke of Normandy, son of William the Conqueror xvii; betrothed to Margaret of Maine 62-3 Robert of Beaumont, son of Roger of Beaumont, fights in the battle of Hastings xxxiii, 130—1, 178—9; made earl of Leicester by Henry I 131 n.

Robert Giroie son. Robert the Pious, kg of France 32-3 Robert of Torigni xliii, 153 n. Robert fitz Wimarch, in Essex before the

Conquest 116—17 Rodulf of Tosny 49n. Roger of Beaumont xv, 100-1, 178-9; his son, see Robert

Roger II of Montgomery, vicomte of the Hiémois xxxvii, 26—7, 100-1; his wife Mabel 26 n. Rollo, duke of Normandy 72-3; his wife Gisla 72-3 Rome

xli, xlii, 20 n., 142-3; church of St

Peter 152-3; republic of 102~3; see also empire, Roman Romney

xxvi, r10n., 142-3

GENERAL

INDEX

197

Rouen (Seine-Mar.) xli, xlii, 32-3, 36-7, 46-7; 176-7; abps of, Vitae xxi; see also Mauger, Maurilius; citizens of 112-15; fortifications 12-13; harbour 108-9 Ruallon of Dol, allies with William the Conqueror 74—7

Suetonius xviii, xxi; see a/so Index of Quotations and Allusions Swein II (Estrithson), kg of Denmark, promises support to William the Conqueror but supports his enemies 104-5 synod 82-3, 88—9, 92-3, 166—7

Saint-Aubin-sur-Scie 38n. Saint-Etienne-de-Caen, abbey; founded 84—5; dedicated xx; receives gifts from William the Conqueror 176—7; abbot, see Lanfranc Saint-Evroult (Orne), abbey xvi; monk of, see Samson Saint-James-de-Beuvron (Manche), castle

Tacitus xviii Taillefer, a jongleur xxxiii Thames, river 146—7, 182-3 Thebaid, centre of eremitic life in Egypt 86-7 Thebaid, of Statius. 136-7; see also Index of Quotations and Allusions Theobald III, count of Blois 15-16, 22-3, 44-5; his brother Stephen 22-3n. Theodosius, Roman emperor 86—7 Thucydides xxviii n., xxx Tickford (Essex) 86n. Titus, Roman emperor, son of Vespasian

72-3 Saint-Léger-de-Préaux, abbey xv, xvi; abbesses of xv n. Saint-Valery-sur-Somme xxiv, xxv, xxvi, 109—10; abbey, given land in Essex

109-10 Saint-Wandrille (Seine-Mar.), abbey xix, 90—1; abbot, see Gerbert Saintes (Charente-Maritime) 58—9 Sallust xviii, xxi, xxxix; see also Index of Quotations and Allusions Samson, monk of Saint-Evroult xxxviii Sancho, kg of Castile 94—5 Scipio 160-1 Scots, kingdom of 17 n.; kg of, see Malcolm Seine, river 46-7 Sestos 110-11

Sicily, Normans in 156—7 siege xxiii; see also Alengon, Ambrieéres, Arques, Brionne, Dol, Domfront, Exeter, Mayenne, Mouliherne siege-castles xxiii, 12-13, 24—5, 38-9 siege-weapons xli Siward, earl of Northumbria

120-1

Spain xvi; kgs in 16-17, 94-7 speeches, invented xxxi, xxxii, 106-9,

124-5 Stamford Bridge (Yorks.) battle 126n., 137-8, 141n.

174-5 Tostig, son of Godwine, earl of Northumbria 112-13; defeated and killed at Stamford Bridge 140-1 Tours (Indres-et-Loire) 20-1 Trojan war xviii,xxxi-xxxii, 142—3 Troy 142-3 Turnus 136-7 Tydeus 136-7 tyrannicide xxiii, 26-7,

156-7

Val-és-Dunes (Calvados), battle of xxiii, 10-11, 8on. Varaville (Calvados), battle of xxiii, 32-3

vassal xl, 31 n., 44—5, 54—5, 58-9, 72-3 Vegetius xxii; see also Index of Quotations and Allusions Vergil xviii. xxii, xxxii, xxxix, xl, 112—13; see also Index of Quotations and Allusions

88n., 120-1; excommunicated 100-1, 150-1; crowns Harold roo-1, 150-1;

Wace xliii Wallingford (Berks.) 146—7 Walter I Giffard of Longueville-sur-Scie 48-9; at the battle of Mortemer 48-9; fights in the battle of Hastings 134-5 Walter of Mantes, son of Drogo count of the Vexin; becomes count of Maine

submits to William the Conqueror 146-7; his wealth and power 160-1, 166—7; deposed 160-1

Waltham, college of secular canons founded by Harold Godwineson 140n., 152n.

Statius, his Thebaid xviii, see also Index of

Quotations and Allusions Stigand, abp of Canterbury xx, xxviii,

60—1; captured and dies at Falaise 62n.

198

GENERAL

Waltheof, earl of Huntingdon, taken to Normandy 166-7 Westminster, abbey church of St Peter, tomb of Edward the Confessor in 150-1;

William the Conqueror crowned in 150-1 William, count of Arques, son of Richard II and Papia; instigates a revolt 34—5, 88 n.; withdraws service at the siege of Domfront 34—5; holds Arques with the aid of the kg of France 36-41; surrenders 42-3; banished from Normandy 42-3; received by Eustace of Boulogne 42n. William II (Téte-Hardie), count of Burgundy xvili,12-13 William, count of Eu, son of Richard I 92-3; his son, see Hugh, bp of Lisieux William V, count of Poitou; his son, see William VI; his wife, see Agnes William VI (the Fat), count of Poitou

20-1, 22-3 William (Aigret) VII, count of Poitou 42, 44-5, 52-3; his brother Guy-Geoffrey 42-3 William (the Conqueror), kg of England, duke of Normandy; provides a refuge in his court for the ztheling Edward (the Confessor)

2—5; avenges the murder of

Edward's brother Edward to secure 18—21; named by xxvi, 20-1; armed

Alfred 5n., 6—7; helps the English throne Edward as his heir as a knight 6—7;

troubles of his minority xv, 8—9; restores

order in Normandy 8-9; fortifies Rouen 12n.; his feats of arms 14-15, 24-5; his struggle against Geoffrey Martel 22—9; his marriage 32—3; his

delight in hunting and falconry 24-5, 148-9; captures Alencon and Domfront 28—9; crushes the rebellion of William of Arques 34-43; repels invasion led by the kg of France 44—51; presses his claims in Maine and takes Le Mans 58-65; takes Mayenne 64-7; rescues Harold Godwineson from Guy of Ponthieu 68-71; receives Harold's homage 70-1; takes him on his Breton campaign 70-3; invades Brittany and captures Dol 72—5; returns to Normandy 76—7; his piety 78-81; establishes the Truce of God 80-1; his strict enforcement of the law

80-1; his reforms of the Church xviii, 82-3; presides over church synods 82-3,

INDEX 88-9; monasteries founded in Normandy in his reign 82-3; founds the abbey of

Saint-Etienne-de-Caen

84-5; his

Norman court 96-7; his fame 96-7; his

titles in Normandy xli and n.; his daughters sought in marriage 96—7; his army and battle tactics xxii-xxv; his

avoidance of pitched battles 18n.; his careful planning xxiv; prepares to invade England 102-3; obtains a papal banner and papal support 104-5, 152-3; said to have made a pact with the emperor 104-5; his fleet xxv-xxvi, 102-3, 108-9, 142 n.; size of his fleet 110—13; size of his army of invasion 102-3, 116-17, 126—7; delay at the mouth of the Dives 102-3, see also wind; forbids plunder 102-3; encourages his troops 106-7; his use of military intelligence 106-7; moves to Saint-Valery-sur-Somme 108-9; conceals the loss of some of his ships 108—9; prays for a favourable wind 108-9; embarks for England 108-9; feasts in mid-Channel xxxii, xxxv,

112-13; lands at Pevensey 112-13; leads a scouting expedition 114-15; rejects the advice of Robert fitz Wimarch 116-17; exchanges messages with Harold 116-23; his claim to the English throne II7n., 120-3, 150-1; challenges Harold to single combat 120-3; hears Mass before battle 124—5; encourages his troops 124-7; disregards omens xxx, 124—5; his valour in battle xxxiv, 130—1,

134-7, 172—3; his victory 138—42; allows the English to bury their dead 142-3; captures Dover

144—5; enters Canter-

bury 144—5; falls ill 144—5; approaches and enters London 146-7; offered the crown 146—9; urged to accept the crown 148—9; refuses to be crowned by Stigand 150—1; crowned by Ealdred abp of York in Westminster Abbey 150-1; his royal title begins with his coronation xxvii, 150—3; his gifts to churches 152-5; promulgates laws 158—9; his justice 158—9; levies taxes 160-1; imposes discipline on his army 160-1; protects merchants

160-1; distributes lands to

his followers 162—5; places William fitz Osbern in Winchester and Odo of Bayeux in Dover 164-5; visits Normandy 154-5; sails from Pevensey

GENERAL

INDEX

199

166-7; takes Englishmen with him as honoured hostages 166-7; welcomed in Normandy 174-5; celebrates Easter at Fécamp 178-9; compared to Julius Caesar 168—75; forbids all ravaging by his troops 180-1; his treatment of the

of Hastings 134-5; put in charge of Winchester 164-5 William of Poitiers, archdeacon of Lisieux,

English xxxv, xxxvii-xxxviii; his castle-

friend of Hugh bp of Lisieux 92-3; not an eye-witness of the battle of Hastings 132 n.; his purpose in writing GG xx; date of writing GG xx, 5n., 16—17n., 84—5 n.; textual tradition of GG xliii-xv; his sister an abbess of Saint-Léger-dePréaux xv . William I of Warenne, earl of Surrey, fights in the battle of Hastings 134-5 Winchelsea (Sussex) xxxvii Winchester (Hants), given to William fitz Osbern 164-5; castle xli, 164—5 wind, in the Channel xxiv, xxv—xxvi, xxix, xxxvii, 102—3, 108-13, 168-9 Wissant (formerly Portus Itius) 4-5 Wulfnoth, son of Godwine, hostage in Normandy 120-1

building in England xxxviii; see also Dover, Hastings, Pevensey, London, Winchester; his mother Herleva 32n; his wife, see Matilda; his son, see Robert Curthose; his daughter offered in marriage to Harold 156-7 William, son of Anschetil xvi ; William, son of Richard count of Evreux, fights in the battle of Hastings 132-3 William of Apulia 135n. William of Belléme 22-3 n.; his castles 26n.; his daughter Mabel 26n. William de Glanville, archdeacon of Lisieux xvi William of Jumiéges xix, xx, xxi, xxvii-xxviii, xxxiii William Malet 140-1 William of Malmesbury xliii William fitz Osbern, steward of Normandy 26-7, 100-1, 116—17; fights in the battle

his career xv-xvii; studies at Poitiers xv, xvii-xix, xxi, 14-15; chaplain of William the Conqueror xvi, xxi, xxix, xxx, 82n.;

Xerxes

110-13, 126n.

York, abp of, see Ealdred Yorkshire 112-13, 142n.