William of Malmesbury: Gesta Regum Anglorum: Volume II: General Introduction and Commentary 0198206828, 9780198206828

Citation preview

/3thomson/pre.3d ± 13/1/99 ± 12:32 ± disk/mp

William of Malmesbury GESTA REGVM ANGLORVM The History of the English Kings VOLUME II

General Introduction and Commentary by R. M. THOMSON in collaboration with

M. WINTERBOTTOM

CLARENDON PRESS ´ OXFORD 1999

/3thomson/pre.3d ± 13/1/99 ± 12:32 ± disk/mp

OXFORD MEDIEVAL TEXTS General Editors D. E. GREENWAY

B. F. HARVEY

M. LAPIDGE

WILLIAM OF MALMESBURY GESTA REGVM ANGLORVM THE HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH KINGS

/3thomson/pre.3d ± 13/1/99 ± 12:32 ± disk/mp

/3thomson/pre.3d ± 13/1/99 ± 12:32 ± disk/mp

Oxford University Press, Great Clarendon Street, Oxford ox2 6dp Oxford New York Athens Auckland Bangkok Bogota Buenos Aires Calcutta Cape Town Chennai Dar es Salaam Delhi Florence Hong Kong Istanbul Karachi Kuala Lumpur Madrid Melbourne Mexico City Mumbai Nairobi Paris SaÄo Paolo Singapore Taipei Tokyo Toronto Warsaw and associated companies in Berlin Ibadan Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press Published in the United States by Oxford University Press Inc., New York # R. M. Thomson 1999 The moral rights of the author have been asserted First published 1999 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. Within the UK, exceptions are allowed in respect of any fair dealing for the purpose of research or private study, or criticism or review, as permitted under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, or in the case of reprographic reproduction in accordance with the terms of the licences issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency. Enquirities concerning reproduction outside these terms and in other countries should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Data available Library of Congress Cataloguing in Publication Data Data applied for ISBN 0-19-820682-8 1 3 5 7 9 10 8 6 4 2

Typeset by Joshua Associates Ltd., Oxford Printed in Great Britain on acid-free paper by Biddles Ltd., Guildford & King's Lynn

/3thomson/pre.3d ± 13/1/99 ± 12:32 ± disk/mp

PREFACE Un l i k e Volume i, this one is entirely the work of the present editors. Part of the original proposal (see Vol. i, p. v) was the notion that the text and translation of GR should be accompanied by a commentary, which was to be the responsibility of Sir Richard Southern. However, the editorial disagreement between Mynors and Southern mentioned below (pp. xviii±xxi) prevented this part of the enterprise from proceeding. In the Introduction, the account of the development of the text of GR is MW's, while RMT is responsible for the footnotes to Sharpe's text (below, pp. xxxvi±xlvi) and for the bibliography of William's writings. The Commentary is mainly the work of RMT, but with very considerable input from MW. In particular, MW has read through all of William's other works, and most of the cross-references to them are his. As in Vol. i, each editor has read through and contributed to the work of the other, so that responsibility for the complete work is to that extent a dual one. Roger Mynors thought of commentary as a high art dif®cult of execution, and often held forth, with acerbic and entertaining eloquence, on the shortcomings of commentators on classical texts. Towards the end of his life he became querulous about his own forthcoming commentary on Virgil's Georgics, and RMT has often had in mind Mynors' colourful reference, in a letter to David Howlett (9 Jan. 1987), to his `famous commentary . . . which was to have been a masterpiece and now looks like an extinct volcano in use as the town tip'. He has also had ever more ®rmly in mind Southern's feelings, expressed in a much earlier letter to Mynors (31 Dec. 1974), after receiving the typescript of Mynors' Latin text: `I've read . . . the whole . . . with immense interest, excitement sometimes, growing respect mostlyÐand with a daunting sense of how much needs to be done to annotate [William] in a way that will do justice to the complexity of his historical vision, the variety

/3thomson/pre.3d ± 13/1/99 ± 12:32 ± disk/mp

vi

PREFACE

of his sources and the way in which he uses them, the nature of his personal interjections, the intensity of his antiquarian imagination, not to speak of the poor old facts. I feel quite shaken by the experience, and my ®rst thought is that the job really needs a group of people who will divide the work'. These considerations, to which might be added William's concern to entertain his readers by offering a wide variety of subject-matter, present a considerable challenge to the modern commentator. RMT has constantly consulted other scholars, and is deeply grateful to all those who have read portions of the commentary, or have answered questions ranging from the species of porcupine in Henry I's zoo (c. 409. 3) to the naturally-occurring chemicals around the Dead Sea (c. 377. 3). They are: the Revd. Professor Richard Pfaff, Professors James Carley, Joan Greatrex, the late Warren Hollister, Bryce Munger, Nigel Palmer, Timothy Reuter, Michael Stoddart, Richard Varne, Associate Professors Peter Davis and John Pryor, the Revd. Dr John Cowdrey, Drs Joan Barclay-Lloyd, Matthew Bennett, Martin Brett, Charles Burnett, Paul Hayward, James Howard-Johnston, Simon Keynes, Cippora Klein, Ian McDougall, Alan Murray, Oliver Padel, Michael Wood, Neil Wright, Donald Yeomans, Mr Alexander Murray, and Patrick Wormald. Diana Greenway and Edmund King were kind enough to make available copies of their editions of Henry of Huntingdon and William's Historia novella in advance of publication. The indefatigable editors of OMT gave invaluable advice, and read and criticized drafts of the whole. Lastly, but by no means least, both editors wish to thank their wives for their encouragement, and for bearing with patience (not unmixed with occasional amusement) much talk of William over the last decade. R.M.T.

Note: In the Introduction sect. 1 `we' indicates the opinion of MW (and assent of RMT); in sects. 2±3 and the Commentary, `I' indicates the opinion of RMT, `we' the agreement of RMT and MW.

/3thomson/pre.3d ± 13/1/99 ± 12:32 ± disk/mp

CONTENTS abbreviations sigla

xvi

introduction 1. The Making of the Gesta regum Anglorum 2. William of Malmesbury: Life and Works 3. Bibliography of William's Writings

Commentary Book Book Book Book Book

ix

1 2 3 4 5

xvii xvii xxxv xlvi 1 12 74 218 267 354

appendices I. Additions of B and C II. Additions of the Aa group

400 410

bibliography

413

index of sources

457

general index

469

/3thomson/pre.3d ± 13/1/99 ± 12:32 ± disk/mp

/3thomson/pre.3d ± 13/1/99 ± 12:32 ± disk/mp

ABBREVIATIONS AA SS

Acta sanctorum (®rst edn., Antwerp/Brussels 1643± 1894) áthelweard The Chronicle of Aethelweard, ed. A. Campbell (NMT, 1962) AG William of Malmesbury, De antiquitate Glastonie ecclesie, ed. and trans. J. Scott, The Early History of Glastonbury (Woodbridge, 1981) Anal. Boll. Analecta Bollandiana Anglia Sacra Anglia Sacra, ed. H. Wharton (2 vols.: London, 1691) Anglo-Norman Studies Proceedings of the Battle Abbey Conference on AngloNorman Studies (1981± ), from 1993 Anglo-Norman Studies Anjou Chronicles Chroniques des comtes d'Anjou et des seigneurs d'Amboise, ed. L. Halphen and R. Poupardin (Paris, 1913) Annales Monastici Annales Monastici, ed. H. R. Luard (5 vols.: RS, 1864±9) Annals of St Neots Chronicon Fani Sancti Neoti: The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, xvii, ed. D. Dumville and M. Lapidge (Woodbridge, 1985) ASC The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, ed. and trans. D. Whitelock, D. C. Douglas and S. Tucker (London, 1961) ASE Anglo-Saxon England Asser Asser's Life of King Alfred . . ., ed. W. H. Stevenson (Oxford, 1904), repr. with introd. by D. Whitelock (Oxford, 1959) B., Vita Dunstani B., Vita Dunstani, in Memorials, pp. 3±52 Barlow, Edward the F. Barlow, Edward the Confessor (2nd edn., London, Confessor 1979) Barlow, William Rufus F. Barlow, William Rufus (London, 1983) Bede, HE Bede, Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum, in Plummer (see below) Bede, Hist. abbatum Bede, Historia abbatum, in Plummer (see below) Bede, Vita S. Cuthberti Bede, Vita S. Cuthberti, in Two Lives of Saint Cuthbert, ed. B. Colgrave (Cambridge, 1940), pp. 142±307 BHL Bibliotheca Hagiographica Latina, ed. Bollandists (2 vols.: Brussels, 1898±1901; Novum Supplementum, ed. H. Fros, 1986) BL London, British Library Bodl. Libr. Oxford, Bodleian Library

/3thomson/pre.3d ± 13/1/99 ± 12:32 ± disk/mp

x Bosworth and Toller

ABBREVIATIONS

J. Bosworth and T. N. Toller, An Anglo-Saxon Dictionary (Oxford, 1898), suppl. T. N. Toller and A. Campbell (Oxford, 1972) Byrhtferth, Historia Byrhtferth, Historia regum, in Simeon of Durham ii. 3± regum 91; on the authorship M. Lapidge in ASE x (1982), 97± 122 Byrhtferth, Vita Byrhtferth, Vita S. Oswaldi, in Historians of the Church S. Oswaldi of York, ed. J. Raine (3 vols.: RS, 1879±94), i. 399±475 CCSL Corpus Christianorum Series Latina cont. med. continuatio medievalis Chron. de Hyda Chronicon de Hyda, in Liber de Hyda, pp. 283±321 Chron. Turonense Chronicon Turonense, in F. Duchesne, Historiae Francorum Scriptores (5 vols.: Paris, 1636±49), iii. 357±62 Complete Peerage Complete Peerage of England, Scotland, Ireland, Great Britain and the United Kingdom, new edn. by V. Gibbs, H. A. Doubleday, D. Warrand, H. de Walden, and G. H. White (13 vols. in 14: London, 1910±59) Councils Councils and Synods, i (AD 871±1204), ed. D. Whitelock, M. Brett, and C. N. L. Brooke (2 vols.: Oxford, 1981) CUL Cambridge University Library David, Robert Curthose C. W. David, Robert Curthose (Cambridge, Mass., 1920) DMLBS Dictionary of Medieval Latin from British Sources, ed. R. E. Latham et al. (Oxford, 1975± ) Douglas, William the D. C. Douglas, William the Conqueror (London, 1964) Conqueror Dudo Dudo of Saint-Quentin, De moribus et actis primorum Normanniae ducum, ed. J. Lair (MeÂm. Soc. Ant. Norm., xxiii: Caen, 1865) Eadmer, Hist. nov. Eadmer, Historia novorum in Anglia, ed. M. Rule (RS, 1884) Eadmer, Vita Anselmi Eadmer, Vita Anselmi, ed. and trans. R. W. Southern (NMT, 1963, OMT, 1972) Eadmer, Vita Dunstani Eadmer, Vita Dunstani, in Memorials, pp. 162±249 Edwards, Charters H. Edwards, The Charters of the Early West Saxon Kingdom (British Archaeological Reports, British Series, cxcviii: 1988) EETS Early English Text Society EHD 1 English Historical Documents, c.500±1042, ed. D. Whitelock (2nd edn., London, 1979) EHD 2 English Historical Documents, 1042±1189, ed. D. C. Douglas and G. W. Greenaway (2nd edn., London, 1981)

/3thomson/pre.3d ± 13/1/99 ± 12:32 ± disk/mp

ABBREVIATIONS

EHR Encomium Emmae Freeman, Norman Conquest Freeman, William Rufus Fulcher Gaimar GCA Geoffrey of Monmouth Gildas Gilo GND Goscelin, Vita S. Edithae GP GR H&S Hagenmeyer, Chronologie Hardy, Materials Hayward

xi

English Historical Review Encomium Emmae reginae, ed. A. Campbell (RHS Camden 3rd ser., lxxii: 1949), rev. edn. with supplementary introduction by S. Keynes (Cambridge, 1998) E. A. Freeman, The History of the Norman Conquest of England, 5 vols. and index (Oxford: i-ii, 3rd edn., 1877; iii±iv, 2nd edn., 1875±6; v, 1876; index vol., 1879) E. A. Freeman, The Reign of William Rufus and the Accession of Henry I (2 vols.: Oxford, 1882) Fulcher of Chartres, Gesta Francorum Iherusalem peregrinantium, ed. H. Hagenmayer (Heidelberg, 1913) Geoffrey Gaimar, L'Estoire des Engleis, ed. A. Bell (3 vols.: Anglo-Norman Text Soc., xiv-xvi: Oxford, 1960) Chronica de gestis consulum Andegavorum, in Anjou Chronicles, pp. 25±175 Geoffrey of Monmouth, Historia regum Britannie, ed. N. Wright (Woodbridge, 1985) Gildas, De excidio Britanniae, ed. and trans. M. Winterbottom (Chichester, 1978) Gilo of Paris, Historia vie Hierosolimitane, ed. and trans. C. W. Grocock and J. E. Siberry (OMT, 1997) Gesta Normannorum ducum of William of JumieÁges, Orderic Vitalis, and Robert of Torigni, ed. and trans. E. Van Houts (2 vols.: OMT, 1992, 1995) A. Wilmart, `La leÂgende de Ste EÂdithe en prose et vers par le moine Goscelin', Anal. Boll. lvi (1938), 5±101, 265±307 William of Malmesbury, Gesta ponti®cum Anglorum, ed. N. E. S. A. Hamilton (RS, 1870) William of Malmesbury, Gesta regum Anglorum, ed. W. Stubbs (2 vols.: RS, 1889) Councils and Ecclesiastical Documents relating to Great Britain and Ireland, ed. A. W. Haddan and W. Stubbs (3 vols.: Oxford, 1869±78) H. Hagenmeyer, Chronologie de la premieÁre croisade (1094±1100) (Revue de l'orient latin, vi±viii (1898± 1901), repr. continuously paginated, Darmstadt, 1974) T. D. Hardy, Descriptive Catalogue of Materials relating to the History of Great Britain and Ireland (3 vols. in 4: RS, 1862±71) P. A. Hayward, The Idea of Innocent Martyrdom in Medieval England ca. 700 to 1150 A.D., Ph.D. thesis (Cambridge, 1994)

/3thomson/pre.3d ± 13/1/99 ± 12:32 ± disk/mp

xii HBC Heads Henry of Huntingdon Hildebert, Carm. min. Hist. Brittonum HN Hugh the Chanter JL John of Glastonbury John of Worcester

JW Accounts JW Gen. Ker, Anglo-Saxon Levison Liber de Hyda Liber pont. Liebermann, Gesetze Memorials

ABBREVIATIONS

Handbook of British Chronology, ed. E. B. Fryde et al. (3rd edn., RHS Guides & Handbooks, ii: London, 1986) D. Knowles, C. N. L. Brooke, and V. C. M. London, Heads of Religious Houses, England and Wales, 940±1216 (Cambridge, 1972) Henry, Archdeacon of Huntingdon, Historia Anglorum, ed. and trans. D. Greenway (OMT, 1996) Hildebert, Carmina minora, ed. A. B. Scott (Leipzig, 1969) The Historia Brittonum, 3: The `Vatican' Recension, ed. D. Dumville (Woodbridge, 1985) William of Malmesbury, Historia novella, ed. and trans. K. R. Potter (NMT, 1955) Hugh the Chanter, History of the Church of York, ed. and trans. C. Johnson, C. N. L. Brooke, M. Brett, and M. Winterbottom (OMT, 1990) Regesta Ponti®cum Romanorum . . . ad annum 1198, ed. P. JaffeÂ, 2nd edn. by S. Loewenfeld et al. (2 vols.: Leipzig, 1885±8) John of Glastonbury, Chronicle of Glastonbury Abbey, ed. J. P. Carley, trans. D. Townsend (Woodbridge, 1985) `Florence of Worcester', Chronicon ex Chronicis, ed. B. Thorpe (2 vols.: London, 1848±9); The Chronicle of John of Worcester, ed. R. R. Darlington and P. McGurk (OMT, 1995± ) Accounts of English kingdoms preceding John of Worcester's Chronicle in Oxford, Corpus Christi Coll. MS 157, ed. Thorpe, i. 258±80 Genealogies preceding John of Worcester's Chronicle in Oxford, Corpus Christi Coll. MS 157, ed. Thorpe, i. 247±57 N. R. Ker, Catalogue of Manuscripts containing AngloSaxon (Oxford, 1957, repr. with supplement, 1990) W. Levison, `Aus englischen Bibliotheken II', Neues Archiv, xxxv (1910), 333±431 Liber monasterii de Hyda, ed. E. Edwards (RS, 1866) Liber ponti®calis, ed. L. Duchesne and C. Vogel (3 vols.: Paris, 1886±1957) F. Liebermann, Die Gesetze der Angelsachsen (3 vols.: Halle, 1903±16) Memorials of St. Dunstan, ed. W. Stubbs (RS, 1874)

/3thomson/pre.3d ± 13/1/99 ± 12:32 ± disk/mp

ABBREVIATIONS

MGH AA Fontes srg SS Constit. Epist. Lib. de Lite Poetae Mir. Neues Archiv NMT OE OMT ON Orderic Osbern, Vita Dunstani Otto, SprichwoÈrter Passio S. Edwardi PL Plummer Polyhistor Ralph Glaber RB RHC Occ. RHS Ridyard, Royal Saints Roger of Wendover Rollason, `The cults'

xiii

Monumenta Germaniae Historica Auctores antiquissimi Fontes iuris germanici antiqui Scriptores rerum germanicarum Scriptores (in folio) Constitutiones Epistolae Libelli de Lite Poetae latini aevi carolini El Libro De Laudibus et Miraculis Sanctae Mariae de Guillermo de Malmesbury, ed. J. M. Canal (Edizioni `Ephem. Mariol.': Rome, 1968) Neues Archiv der Gesellschaft fuÈr aÈltere Deutsche Geschichtskunde Nelson's Medieval Texts Old English Oxford Medieval Texts Old Norse Orderic Vitalis, Ecclesiastical History, ed. and trans. M. Chibnall (6 vols.: OMT, 1968±1980) Osbern, Vita Dunstani, in Memorials, pp. 69±161 A. Otto, Die SprichwoÈrter und sprichwoÈrtlichen Redensarten der RoÈmer (Leipzig, 1890) Passio S. Edwardi regis et martyris, ed. C. Fell, Edward King and Martyr (Leeds Texts and Monographs, new ser. iii: Leeds, 1971) Patrologia Latina C. Plummer, Venerabilis Baedae Opera Historica (2 vols.: Oxford, 1896) William of Malmesbury, Polyhistor de¯orationum, ed. H. Testroet Ouellette (Binghamton, NY, 1982) Ralph Glaber, Chronicle, ed. and trans. J. France (OMT, 1989) Revue BeÂneÂdictine Recueil des historiens des croisades: Historiens occidentaux (5 vols.: Paris, 1844±95) Royal Historical Society S. J. Ridyard, The Royal Saints of Anglo-Saxon England (Cambridge, 1988) Roger of Wendover, Flores historiarum, ed. H. O. Coxe (5 vols.: English Historical Society, 1841±4) D. W. Rollason, `The cults of murdered royal saints in Anglo-Saxon England', ASE xi (1983), 1±22

/3thomson/pre.3d ± 13/1/99 ± 12:32 ± disk/mp

xiv Rollason, Mildrith Legend RRAN RS SAO Sawyer SK Smyth, King Alfred Snorri Sturlasson, Heimskringla Stephen of Ripon, Vita Wilfridi Suger, Vita Ludouici Simeon of Durham Thomson, William of Malmesbury TRHS Two Saxon Chronicles VCH VD Vita ádwardi VW Wace, Roman de Rou Walther, Initia William, Liber Pont. William of Poitiers

ABBREVIATIONS

D. W. Rollason, The Mildrith Legend (Leicester, 1982) Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum II 1100±1135, ed. C. Johnson and H. A. Cronne (Oxford, 1956) Rolls Series Sancti Anselmi Opera Omnia, ed. F. S. Schmitt (rev. edn., 6 vols. in 2: Stuttgart-Bad Cannstadt, 1968) P. H. Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters (RHS Guides and Handbooks, 1968), cited by document number D. Schaller and E. KoÈnsgen, Initia Carminum Latinorum Saeculo Undecimo Antiquiorum (GoÈttingen, 1977) A. Smyth, King Alfred the Great (Oxford, 1995) Snorri Sturlasson, Heimskringla, ed. B. S. KristjaÂnsdoÂttir, B. HalldoÂrsson, J. Torfason, and O. Thorsson (3 vols.: Reykjavik, 1991) Eddius Stephanus, Vita Wilfridi, ed. and trans. B. Colgrave (Cambridge, 1927) Suger of Saint-Denis, Vie de Louis VI le Gros, ed. and trans. H. Waquet (Paris, 1929) Symeonis Monachi Opera Omnia, ed. T. Arnold (2 vols.: RS, 1882, 1885) R. M. Thomson, William of Malmesbury (Woodbridge, 1987) Transactions of the Royal Historical Society C. Plummer and J. Earle, Two of the Saxon Chronicles Parallel (2 vols.: Oxford, 1892±9, repr. with a bibliographical note by D. Whitelock, 1952) Victoria History of the Counties of England William of Malmesbury, Vita Dunstani, in Memorials, pp. 250±324 Vita ádwardi regis, ed. and trans. F. Barlow (2nd edn., OMT, 1992) William of Malmesbury, Vita Wulfstani, ed. R. Darlington (RHS Camden 3rd ser., xi, 1928) Le Roman de Rou de Wace, ed. A. Holden (3 vols. in 2: Paris, 1970±3) H. Walther, Initia Carminum ac Versuum Medii Aeui Posterioris Latinorum (2nd edn., GoÈttingen, 1969) William of Malmesbury's version of Liber ponti®calis, as found in CUL Kk. 4. 6 (C) and BL Harl. 633 (L); see above, Levison William of Poitiers, Gesta Guillelmi ducis Normannorum

/3thomson/pre.3d ± 13/1/99 ± 12:32 ± disk/mp

ABBREVIATIONS

Wright, Cultivation of Saga Wright I Wright II Wright III Wright IV

xv

et regis Anglorum, ed. and trans. R. H. C. Davis and M. Chibnall (OMT, 1998) C. E. Wright, The Cultivation of Saga in Anglo-Saxon England (Edinburgh and London, 1939) N. Wright, `William of Malmesbury and Latin poetry: further evidence for a Benedictine's reading', RB ci (1991), 122±53 N. Wright, ` ``Industriae Testimonium'': William of Malmesbury and Latin poetry revisited', RB ciii (1993), 482±531 N. Wright, ` ``Exarata barbarice Romano sale condire'': William of Malmesbury and Suetonius', forthcoming `Twelfth-century receptions of a text: Anglo-Norman historians and Hegesippus', forthcoming.

/3thomson/pre.3d ± 13/1/99 ± 12:32 ± disk/mp

SIGLA This table includes only sigla used in this volume. For a complete list of sigla used in the construction of the text see vol. i, pp. xxix± xxxi. T version Tt Troyes, Bibl. municipale 294 bis, s. XII2 Tp BN lat. 6046, s. XIV Tc BL Add. 39646, s. XIIex T = agreement of TtTp T = agreement of TtTc T = agreement of TtTpTc 1

+

A version Al BL Arundel 35, s. XII 2/4 Aap BN lat. 6047, c.1200 Aac BL Cotton Claud. C. IX, s. XIII1 A = agreement of AlAap Aa = agreement of AapAac C version Ce BL Royal 13 D. II, s. XII2 Cs CUL Ii. 2. 3, s. XII2 C = agreement of CeCs B version Bk Bodl. Libr., Bodley 712, s. XIV (1330±75) Bc1 BL Harley 447, s. XIII 2/4 B = agreement of BkBc1

/3thomson/intro.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 9:52 ± disk/amj

INTRODUCTION 1. The Making of the Gesta regum Anglorum In the ®rst volume (pp. xiii±xxi) the manuscript witnesses for the four versions of the Gesta regum were listed and discussed. It remains to attempt an assessment of the nature and interrelationship of those versions. In starting with T, we are at once confronted with knotty problems. The second of the two letters from the monks of Malmesbury that pre®x Tt tells us what was not known before the discovery of the manuscript, that the GR was conceived with the encouragement of Queen Matilda during her lifetime, and that after her death a copy was sent to her daughter, the Empress Matilda. Tt was not that presentation copy, but there is no doubt that it is a relation of that copy; for Tt (alone, no other T witness being available at this point) carries an expanded version of a sentence in the prologue to Book i (4): `tum propter hMatildis reginae et fratrum ecclesie nostrej adhortantium auctoritatem' (with which is to be compared Letter i. 3 `quae hortatu dominae nostrae sororis uestrae Mathildis reginae scribere fecimus'). The other letter prefaced to Tt asks the authorization of David, who succeeded to the throne of Scotland in April 1124, for the onward transmission of the book to his sister. The whole transaction can hardly have been completed before the middle of the year, and may well have taken place up to two years later, according to the interpretation put on other phrases in the letter to the empress, and our knowledge of the movements of David and Matilda over this period.1 Now three passages in the body of the work show that parts of both the T and the A version were written in or even after 1124. At c. 386. 1±2 William refers in all four versions to the capture of Baldwin II of Jerusalem in April 1123 as having taken place `preterito anno', and also to his release (which happened on 29 August 1124). In all four, David is already king of Scots at c. 228. 2 (at c. 400. 2 ACB, but not 1

See below, Commentary to Letter 1.

/3thomson/intro.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 9:53 ± disk/amj

xviii

INTRODUCTION

T, know of his accession). Finally, TA's (rather vague) chronological indication at c. 238. 6 could point as late as 1125.2 These data raise in its most acute form the problem of the relationship between the T and A versions. One factor may be dismissed at the start. The ancestor of Tt that we call T1 ceases at the end of c. 401. 2. The break comes in the middle of a story, and will have been the result of accidental loss of folios. There is good reason to suppose that the full T version ®nished its narrative where A does,3 though presumably the last chapters were devoted to Matilda and David rather than to Earl Robert. But, that said, the two versions are strikingly different. In particular, T omits much information which A includes. How is this to be explained? Two extreme positions were taken up by Mynors and Southern when they corresponded about the implications of Tt. For Southern (letter of 31 Dec. 1974) Tt was `an abbreviated and mildly reoriented version of A'. Mynors, on the other hand, had long before drawn attention (letter of 12 Jan. 1953) to two passages which in his opinion suggested that `T [i.e. Tt] is a ®rst draft, which was later modi®ed by a change of emphasis or (more often) by fresh information'. These passages were c. 42. 3 where `quod . . . habitatore is not in T, because the ut audiui was yet in the future', and c. 124. 1±3 (where the long account of Edward the Elder's children is introduced in ACB with the words `et quia se occasio ingessit'), on which Mynors commented: `T omits the whole of this (the occasion not yet having ingested itself). . . . In both these places, I suppose that we see fresh information coming to hand'. The two passages are indeed consistent with that conclusion, but do not by any means compel it. In both one could equally suppose suppression of information thought unlikely to interest a reader on the Continent; and in the second the occasion has ingested itself, for, in T as in A, 2 Other indications of date in the text of GR are: c. 351. 1 TA Hildebert is still bishop of Le Mans; he became archbishop of Tours c.Sept. 1125. c. 409. 2 (where T is unavailable) Paul Hakonsson is said to be earl of the Orkneys, and clearly has been so for some time; he became so c.1123. c. 439.1 (where T is unavailable) William VII `erat tunc' count of Poitiers; he died on 10 Feb. 1126. This perhaps gives us our most precise terminus post quem; but it is possible that William of Malmesbury, knowing that the count of Poitiers was not young (he died aged 55), may have anticipated his death, as he seems to do with Henry I (see below, note to Book v prol.). 3 That T was at least intended to go as far as cc. 440±5 is signalled at the end of c. 342. 2. 1

/3thomson/intro.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 9:53 ± disk/amj

THE MAKING OF THE GESTA REGUM ANGLORUM

xix

William has just had reason to mention the many daughters of Edward. Many of T's omissions are equally ambivalent. Positive evidence for deliberate abbreviation does not lack. In particular, in the ®rst prologue (5) William, laying out the contents of the ®rst book, says that he proposes to hive off the kingdom of the East Angles and the East Saxons to follow all the others, for `et nostra cura et posterorum memoria putamus indigna' (perhaps a warning that when he does come to them he will do no more than copy out a Worcester source). Accordingly, after William has ®nished with the Mercians, he appends chapters on the two minor kingdoms (cc. 97± 8). Tt contains the promise of their inclusion, but in fact it omits them; it is natural to suppose that the omission is intentional, and that the abbreviator, perhaps William himself, forgot to change the promise in the prologue. The details were in the author's own view unworthy of his trouble, and a Continental recipient could be trusted not to miss them.4 We add two other cases where abbreviation (or at least omission) has left a palpable wound. In cc. 113±14 T omits a long section, including a hostile account of Queen Eadburh and a Malmesbury charter, that might have been judged uninteresting or even in part offensive to Matilda. But in the process it omits also all mention of the death of áthelwulf, which is presupposed in c. 117. Again, in c. 117 a passage about áthelbald's marriage to his stepmother has gone, but as a result eo defuncto comes to refer back not, as it should, to áthelbald, but to his brother. Some omissions in T, then, are apparently intentional, and can be diagnosed by the wounds they unwittingly leave behind them. Others will have been accidental. A certain example is at c. 72. 1 `quod et celebris apud Haugustaldum sepultura et diuina pretenderunt miracula'; T breaks off after Haugustaldum (and when the text resumes in c. 72. 2 de huius regni exordio has acquired the wrong reference). On the other hand, there is no doubt that in some cases William uses information in A that had not been available to him earlier. At c. 36. 1 he has rethought the monastic career of Cuthburh in between 4 Similarly at c. 213. 1 all versions refer back to cc. 97±8. Their inclusion is also assumed in GP, p. 139. (The matter is complicated by c. 15. 4, where William seems not to envisage the inclusion of the two minor kingdoms at all. This passage must be part of a stage which was not revised when William came to decide on their inclusion.) There is a similar phenomenon at c. 300. 1, where T, like the other versions, refers back to cc. 99±103, chapters omitted in T itself.

/3thomson/intro.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 9:53 ± disk/amj

xx

INTRODUCTION

the two versions (see Commentary ad loc.). At c. 47. 5 he corrects in A his previous information on the relative ages of Oswald and Oswiu. At c. 68. 4 he seems to have added Ansegisum; Ansegisus genuit (wrongly, as it happens). At c. 72. 1 T omits Osulfo . . . cesus. The omission could be mechanical (the result of a leap from tonsus to cesus); but in c. 70. 3 áthelred is said to be third after Ecgberht (i.e. Eadberht), and that too suggests a stage of William's thought in which Oswulf was ignored. When he was added in c. 72. 1, the error in c. 70. 3 was left unremedied. At c. 214. 3 the revised information about the burial place of Seaxburh has been inserted in such a way as to throw out a little the continuity with what follows after pausant. At c. 398. 4 Henry I is said to have lost in Normandy `multos ex carissimis . . . inter quos Rogerium de Gloecestra'. T refers to this loss as quod dispendium. In A a further death is reported, that of Robert Fitz Hamon, and the two losses are referred to jointly with horum dispendium. It is of course possible to argue that the change went in the other direction. But it seems likely that William added the passage, together with its defence of Robert against his detractors: for Robert's daughter Mabel became (by 1122) the wife of Robert earl of Gloucester, the dedicatee at least of versions C and B. The evidence so far discussed suggests that there was truth in the positions taken up both by Mynors and by Southern. William added in A information that had previously been unavailable to him.5 But it is also true that the T manuscripts have in common deliberate omissions, the reasons for which we can sometimes detect. More important to the establishment of the text than any of this is the fact that the T version is `prior' to the others in a quite different sense. The case was put, with a single example, by Mynors to Southern in the letter already quoted. There is one odd place, where T is right against all of them, and ABC all suffer from the same mistake and that a scribal error: in the piece about new bishoprics on p. 140 [Stubbs], line 5 of section 129, T omits dederat and adds 5 Martin Brett argued (`John of Worcester and his contemporaries', 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. 101±26), that what chie¯y distinguishes A from T is the addition of material from Worcester (cf. the remark of V. H. Galbraith in a letter to Mynors dated 25 July 1954 that the T version is the `GR before W. of M. had come across Florence of Worcester'). But T certainly contains some Worcester material. We have seen, for instance, that cc. 97±8 were purposely removed from T; yet the source of these chapters was Worcester. All the passages cited by Brett (p. 114 n. 2) as giving material common to William and John are present in T.

/3thomson/intro.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 9:53 ± disk/amj

THE MAKING OF THE GESTA REGUM ANGLORUM

xxi

after Anglorum `per sanctum Augustinum miserat olim . . . tradita est genti Anglorum' (20 words). These words are clearly authentic; they are needed for the sense, and are found in the copy of this text in the Leofric Missal.6 When T's parent was sent out from Malmesbury to King David or to the Empress, it looks as though William had kept as his working copy a transcript in which these words had been lost per saltum oculi from genti Anglorum to genti Anglorum, escaping his own notice; he mended this working copy by putting in a verb dederat to make the sentence construe, and proceeded with the task of building up what we know as edition A, followed by the other two, all vitiated by the same error, and patched with the same dederat.

The observation is decisive. Tt in this passage contains words that were wrongly omitted in A (and in CB), and must therefore be separated from them by an intervening copying. It does not seem to have occurred to Mynors that his observation had the widest implications for the whole text. If at one point T is `superior' to ACB in preserving correct wording that later became garbled, then it will do the same elsewhere. And so it does. The matter is often one of judgement, on which all will differ. We therefore illustrate ®rst from a context where William is transcribing material that can be independently checked (as in c. 129. 1). In c. 70 he cites verbatim several passages of letters of Alcuin which are preserved elsewhere. In the following places Tt and the MSS of Alcuin agree against ACB (whose reading is in each case given after the square bracket: c. 70. 1 cognitor cordis mei] mei cognitor cordis; 2 redire] uenire; sanctissima] sancta; 3 minaciter cadere tecti] tecti minaciter cadere; populum (so too GP, p. 209)] terram; 4 regnum id est] regnum; Gildi Britonum sapientissimi] Gildae sapientissimi Britonum; in sua] sua. These variants between Tt and the other versions prove conclusively what was already clear from c. 129. 1: ACB diverge together from what William must originally have copied from his source, and the unanimity can only be the result of scribal intervention, whether accidental or deliberate. RMT has shown7 that William was prepared to alter Alcuin's wording for stylistic reasons. But not all the 6 And they come, it may be added, in a passage that William has just told us he proposes to give verbatim as he found it in his source. It is not likely that he would have purposely abbreviated it. 7 William of Malmesbury, pp. 165±8. Note especially his appeal to the autograph of the GP, where at one point (p. 17) William is caught out replacing Alcuin's audiens with the more classical cum audissem.

/3thomson/intro.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 9:53 ± disk/amj

xxii

INTRODUCTION

variations listed above look like deliberate changes. And in any case the main point would still stand: T can give us access to an earlier state of the book.8 To buttress these arguments, we now give examples of cases where T seems to us to give the `truth' against ACB in passages where William is not transcribing, but composing for himself (in each case we give the reading of T ®rst): c. 48. 3 incolae] insulae (affected by insulas below; incolae Orcadum makes a far better counterpart to Britanniae gentes); c. 74. 3 quinque] om. (compare `®lias duas' below); c. 75 af®nitatis in ®lium iure] af®nitatis iure in ®lium (T's order gets in ®lium where it belongs, next to af®nitatis, and makes it much clearer that iure is to be taken with both uictoriae and af®nitatis); c. 89. 2 ferebatur (`it was said')] fatebatur (affected by the immediately preceding fatemini); c. 135. 7 iure ®deque regens hinc Anglos inde Britannos] om. (another line beginning iure precedes); c. 207. 2 et omni nobilitate antiquorum extincta] om. (the words ®ll out the phrase satisfyingly, and continue the rhyme of af¯icta . . . addicta: indeed it was the repeated -cta that caused the omission).

We print all these, and a number of other, readings private to T, because we regard them as having been corrupted in the later transmission and think that William would have reinstated them if he had noticed the errors. Judgement in such matters is obviously subjective, and we have therefore in less certain cases marked T readings in the apparatus with an asterisk where we think that they too have a good chance of being readings that William did not intentionally change. In passages taken from other sources, we do not use the asterisk, but allow the coincidence of T with independent evidence to speak for itself. How are we to visualize the course of events at Malmesbury that led to the results we have described? It would seem possible9 that William's ®rst draft of the book (call it W1) was, probably around 1126, `marked up' so that the presentation volume for Matilda (T) could be transcribed from it. Once that copy had been made, William embarked on a major revision of his draft, adding new information and making 8 Throughout the following discussion we use `T' loosely to cover whichever T witnesses are available at a particular point. 9 What we suggest is no more than a variant on the speculation of Mynors when discussing c. 129. 1 (above, p. xx±xxi).

/3thomson/intro.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 9:53 ± disk/amj

THE MAKING OF THE GESTA REGUM ANGLORUM

xxiii

10

changes of wording, sometimes for stylistic reasons. By this time the autograph would be in some confusion (one may compare the existing autograph of the GP), and William, or another, made a fair copy of it (call it W2), carrying the changes made deliberately since the T version but adding accidental errors of transcription.

abbr.

W1

Matilda’s copy

Copy

Al W2

A state Aa

Copy

W3

C MSS

C state

Bk B Bc 10 Of course there may be places (not to be diagnosed) where William's original wording was specially adapted to suit the T version, but is preserved in A. The apparatus passim gives instances of the kind of change made by William at this stage. The additions at e.g. c. 48. 1 (Eduinum) and c. 357. 1 (Turchi) are speci®cations for which parallels can readily be found in the GP (e.g. p. 9 n. 2, where William changed eius to eiusdem Bonefatii). Equally characteristic is the change at c. 396. 2, where William altered regiae to regali to avoid a

/3thomson/intro.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 9:53 ± disk/amj

xxiv

INTRODUCTION

How exactly did the A version arise? It contains, besides much that aligns it with the later versions against T, a considerable number of private errors of its own (though, it would seem, not private additions or adaptations intended by William). One explanation of these errors could be that Al and Aa go back to a manuscript (A) that was itself a copy of one stage of W2. But such a supposition adds greatly to the problems concerning the nature of Aa (see below). And the most economical hypothesis is that A was a stage of W2, and that what appear to us as private variants of A are actually errors11 made in the transcription from W1 which William later came to correct12 (no doubt with the help of his still extant previous draft) when he worked on the further revision of W2. Al may be early enough in date for it to have been the actual copy of William's draft that was sent off, no doubt to Winchester, after 1125 or perhaps early 1126, to generate a wider family. But much perplexity attends the origin of the Aa version. It will be recalled (see Vol. i, pp. xvi±xvii) that Aap and a number of manuscripts related to Aac go back to a common source Aa, which contained additions that seem to come from the hand of William himself. Later, and one supposes by further correction of Aa, new and apparently inauthentic additions were made which Aap avoids but which are found in MSS like Aac (see for all this Vol. i, Appendix II). Now if the story of the development of William's draft stopped at this point the natural assumption would be that Aa was W2 in the state it had reached at a date rather later than that of the copying of Al, when William had added the authentic material we ®nd in all the Aa manuscripts. But word he had used in the previous line (cf. in the GP, e.g. p. 16 n. 1, where William changed to affectans to avoid repetition of conatus). 11 It certainly seems to be the case that A does not provide new information of its own, or show signs of the kind of stylistic revision we shall see in CB as opposed to TA, or in B as opposed to C. Its occasional felicities (e.g. c. 183. 5 omnia, c. 249. 1 aquilonales) may be the result of coincidental correction in Al and Aa, or (more likely) derive from a marginal or suprascript note in W that did not ®nd its way into W . 12 Thus e.g. at c. 211. 1 we envisage that aetatulae (so T) stood in W , that it was corrupted to aetate (so Al) in the copying that resulted in W , but that it was later corrected back to aetatulae (so CB). Someone who wrote or corrected Aa made the wrong correction aetatis. We cite this particular passage to give an idea of the nature of Aa, which is markedly less sincere than Al. Note also cc. 64 aecclesia] om. Al, cenobio Aa; 88. 7 corpore] corpus Al, corpus eius Aa; 203 patribus] presbiteris Al, predecessoribus Aa; 252. 2 unde] inde Al, indeque Aa; 371. 2 obsidionales (obsidiales T , a less classical word)] obsidiones Al, obsidionis Aa. In all these places Aa tries to correct, without hitting on the `right' answer. 2

3

1

2

1

/3thomson/intro.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 9:53 ± disk/amj

THE MAKING OF THE GESTA REGUM ANGLORUM

xxv

that possibility is not open to us, for, as we shall see, the draft was modi®ed during the next years in such a way as to result in the versions we know as C and B; and neither of them carries the authentic Aa material. That is, W2 can never have been Aa, or carried its authentic material. But we have then to try to imagine why William should have made a series of changes to a copy of W2, many of them useful cross-references, when he was about to make a massive revision of the draft itself; and even if he did, it is unclear why he did not decant them back into W2 itself.13 After the emergence of the A version, William devoted a number of years to a revision of W2. Certain alterations he made between TA and CB give hints of the dating of the process. At c. 387. 8 he made changes to take account of the death of Bohemond II in 1130. At c. 386 (as we saw above, p. xvii) William showed in TA knowledge of Baldwin II of Jerusalem that extended to 1124; Baldwin died in 1131, and CB (rexit . . . uixit for regit . . . uiuit) takes note of his demise. Finally, a series of changes in c. 389. 10±11 brings CB up to date with the death of Robert Curthose in February 1134. At the same time, the narrative (such as it is) of Book v is not continued, though at c. 446. 1, where A said the history had been brought down to 1119/20, CB speaks of 1127/8. The revision did not cover all details, for at c. 288. 2 all versions regard Pope Calixtus (d. 1124) and the emperor Henry V (d. 1125) as still alive.14 This process of revision did for the GR what the movement from the ®rst to the second recension did for the GP: it toned down much that might have been offensive to the great.15 Hence the noticeable clustering of changes in Books iii and iv. Characteristic are the softening of the account of William I's activities in the New Forest (c. 275) and the less critical view of William II imported into e.g. 13 Did he perhaps (to speculate wildly) take Aa to (say) Canterbury as a present for his hosts there, and, on quiet nights en route, re-read his own book and make a few changes to it? Those who are not prepared to entertain such an explanation may like to cut the Gordian knot by denying the authenticity of all the additions seen in Aa. They could at least point to sicut in primo libro dixit at c. 212, where dixit might be the (Freudian) slip of someone who elsewhere conscientiously pretended to be William by using the ®rst person, and also to the fact that the phrases ut prelocutus sum (c. 131. 3) and ut iam bis asserui (c. 134. 1) seem not to be paralleled in William's work. But it is hard to think that William did not write the words added at c. 112. 1. 14 It is typical of the way in which B's revision later was largely con®ned to the ®rst two books (see below, p. xxxiii) that it (alone) takes account of Henry's death in c. 68. 8, but does not do so in c. 288. 2. 15 For details see Stubbs in GR i, pp. xxxiii±xxxvii, making the comparison with the GP.

/3thomson/intro.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 9:53 ± disk/amj

xxvi

INTRODUCTION

cc. 314±17. At the same time, William made the sort of stylistic changes that we noticed in the transition from T to A.16 Here again he concentrated on Books iii and iv, with especial care lavished on the epic narrative of the Crusade. At some stage in this period, another copying of the draft must have taken place. It will again have been motivated by the congested state in which the draft now found itself. The result, which we may call W3, carried a number of errors common to CB against TA. In exemplifying these, we start, as before (above, p. xxi), with passages where there is independent evidence for a TA reading against CB (the TA reading is in each case given as the lemma): c. 89. 4 clarissimus dignissimus carissimus] clarissimus CB (that this is an accidental omission (caused by homoeoteleuton) is shown by the report of the passage in GP, p. 19) c. 165. 3 tantus] tunc (but see VD, p. 321) c. 180. 4 apud Pennam iuxta Gilingeham] apud Pennam et Gilingeham (but cf. ASC (DE) s.a. 1016 `ñt Peonnan wi… G.' ) c. 299. 1 aeternas] om. (the sense is incomplete without the word, which is con®rmed by GP, p. 42)

Similarly in passages where William is composing freely. For example: c. 154. 3 appellaret Deum] a parte Domini (depriving the sentence of construction and sense) c. 165. 5 certatim in oscula defuncti ruerent, certatim colla subicerent] certatim colla subicerent (there seems no reason why William should have cut down this sentence; the words were lost by homoeoteleuton) c. 220. 1 Dei] om. (the word is needed to make the contrast with mundialem (gloriam). It was overlooked because of the following de) c. 235. 6 quantam nemo uiderit, nemo uisurus sit] quantam nemo uisurus sit (again words were omitted accidentally by homoeoteleuton)17

Again (see above, p. xxii) decisions of this kind are inevitably more or less subjective, and as before we have employed the asterisk in the apparatus, to distinguish readings of TA which, while not quite 16 See p. xxiii n. 10. For speci®cation note the addition of Rotbertus at c. 389. 2. For avoidance of repetition see e.g. c. 359. 1, where complexa replaces circumplexa (circumdata precedes); at c. 374. 2 eius, which had been used in the previous line, is changed to ipsius; at c. 377. 4 uocant, used in the previous sentence, gives way to dicunt. 17 Some phrases omitted in CB were no doubt intentionally deleted. At c. 275 subrutis ecclesiis disappeared in CB as part of the toning down of the remarks about the New Forest.

/3thomson/intro.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 9:53 ± disk/amj

THE MAKING OF THE GESTA REGUM ANGLORUM

xxvii

certain, seem to us to be very likely to have been what William really intended. We have discussed so far readings in which CB agree against the earlier versions. We come now to what Stubbs (GR i, p. lviii) justly called `the most important and most puzzling set of alterations'. Stubbs continues: `These are the seven long additaments, from the History and Charters of Glastonbury [i.e. AG], which in the ®rst and second books of the two later recensions are inserted, displacing sometimes original matter of the ®rst edition [i.e. A], and in some places appearing as distinct additions. These insertions occur in different proportions and relations in the B. and C. recensions, and are not uniform in all the copies of the Class B.' We summarize here all the `additaments' concerning Glastonbury. Those found in both C and B are printed in our main text, in parallel columns where they replace something in TA; those found in both C and B, but in different versions, are given in the main text in parallel columns; those found only in either C or B are printed in Appendix I. 19. 3±29. 1 C: History of Glastonbury Abbey. 35C. 3±36C C: Ine and Glastonbury. B: Cross-reference to the AG. 39 C: Cuthred's charter to Glastonbury (with an introductory insertion at the end of 38). 50. 5 C: Expansion of remarks on relics at Glastonbury. 142±3 CB (not Bc1): Edmund and Glastonbury. 144.3 CB: Expansion of account of burial of Edmund at Glastonbury. 149. 7 CB: Introduction to the added material in the following sections. 150±1 C: Edgar and Glastonbury, letter of Pope John to álfric. 150B (not Bc1): Narration of Edgar's privileges to Glastonbury and their con®rmation by the pope. 160. 2 CB: Expansion of account of translation of Edgar at Glastonbury. 184. 2±185 CB: Monks of Glastonbury; Cnut and Glastonbury. These additions add greatly to what William has to tell us about Glastonbury in the GR. TA had provided only the following: c. 35. 3± 4 (the kernel from which C's expansion grew; cf. also GP, pp. 196, 354); c. 54. 5 (compare C's expansion at c. 50. 5; cf. GP, p. 198);

/3thomson/intro.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 9:53 ± disk/amj

xxviii

INTRODUCTION

c. 180. 9 (burial of Edmund Ironside); c. 221 (dream of Brihtwold; cf. GP, p. 182); c. 270 (riot; cf. GP, p. 197); and c. 298. 8 (subscription of an abbot). These passages exploit much of the range of information available in the contemporary GP. It is natural to suppose that the vastly increased information available in CB is connected with William's work towards the AG. That book cannot be independently dated, except by its dedication to Henry of Blois, bishop of Winchester, who took up his bishopric in 1129 and was (unhelpfully) to hold it till 1171. William presumably started his main Glastonbury researches after 1126, the latest date derivable from the GR; but it is not possible to be more precise. The intimate relation between the C and B additions and the AG is con®rmed by three cross-references: cc. 20. 3 (C)18, 35. 3 (B) and 50. 5 (C). And almost all the passages ®nd more or less close parallels in the AG (see the apparatus ad locc.; but at c. 144. 3 the parallel is with the Vita S. Dunstani [VD] ). One helpful deduction from these data is that B is not dependent on C for its Glastonbury information: both can draw separately on material also found in the AG. That adds to our con®dence in the authenticity of B when we come to its major non-Glastonbury additions, which it may be convenient to list here (see again Vol. i, Appendix I): 12 Murder of his cousins by Ecgberht I of Kent. 66 Burial place of Alcuin. 138B. 1±5 Letter of Radbod to áthelstan, preceded and followed by short narrative passages. 139. 5 áthelstan and Muchelney. These additions have the hallmarks of authenticity. That in c. 12 is comparable with GP, p. 318; that in c. 66 is related to information found in William's compilation in Oxford, Bodleian Library Lat. class. d. 3919; that in c. 138B is paralleled in GP, pp. 399±400 (from the archive of Milton abbey); that in c. 139 draws on the Muchelney charters. The interest in áthelstan is notable, and observable too in 18 The tenses in this passage (`in libro quem . . . scripsimus . . . fulciemus') suggest that when he was writing it William had not carried the AG as far forward as he had when he wrote c. 50. 5 (`in libro quem . . . nuper edidi locutus sum'). In c. 35. 3, however, the contrast of tenses (`libellus ille docebit quem . . . elaboraui') does not have to imply what it did in c. 20. 3; docebit could look forward to the time when the reader came to read an already published book. 19 See Thomson, William of Malmesbury, pp. 144±5.

/3thomson/intro.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 9:53 ± disk/amj

THE MAKING OF THE GESTA REGUM ANGLORUM

xxix

three shorter insertions (for which see the apparatus) at c. 131. 7 (relationship of áthelstan and Aldhelm; cf. GP, p. 396), c. 135. 3 (see Commentary ad loc.), and c. 140 (the king's care for his brothers). These additions hang together, and seem, together with those concerning Glastonbury, to guarantee that B contains material from William's own hand that goes beyond what we ®nd in C. Other indications, for which we refer to the Commentary on Book i prol. 3, and on cc. 68. 8 and 138B. 1±5, prove conclusively that William was (to use a convenient shorthand) working on B later than he worked on C. It remains to try to discover how these two last recensions developed from the copy (W3) of the previous state that we have shown (above, p. xxvi) to underlie them both. A purely stemmatic approach would make C and B twin offspring of W3, each destined to generate its own family of manuscripts. That would account for the combination of joint and private error which we ®nd in them. But it would not account for the fact that, as is particularly clear from the Glastonbury additions, each version contains private but authentic material. It is not very likely (though not impossible) that William would have thought of separately adding to two copies of W3 before they were sent out into the world. The alternative picture would make B, as the later of the two versions, in some sense derivative from C. It seems worthwhile to test the hypothesis that C, archetype of the members of its class, was, or was copied from,20 a particular state of W3;21 that afterwards William continued to revise W3; and that W3 was eventually copied to produce B, the archetype of the ®nal version. A test of this hypothesis is offered by passages where C and B present material not given by TA, but in differing versions. The Glastonbury passages already listed (above, p. xxvii) are the prime 3

20 In the latter case what look to us like private errors of C were once actually in W but were removed as the further revision took place. We made a similar suggestion as to the status of A (see above, p. xxiv and n. 11). And as with A so with C: there is little sign of fresh information (though see n. on c. 388. 5) or of stylistic improvement. C does add a date not found in the other versions at c. 37, perhaps a marginal note in W . There are also occasional places where C presents a superior reading (e.g. cc. 98. 2 Ceddum; 99 qua; 113. 4 omni; 121. 10 enim; 405. 4 est); such cases are to be explained in the same way as similar ones in A (see p. xxiv n. 11). Individual C manuscripts may also present good readings (e.g. cc. 9. 2 leniores; 113. 4 quarum; 114. 3 huic; 199. 10 insederit), probably by independent conjecture. 21 On the other hand, B can hardly have been a particular state of W , for it contains a large number of errors that cannot be the result of William's revision but must result from a new copying. 3

3

/3thomson/intro.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 9:53 ± disk/amj

xxx

INTRODUCTION

examples, and we give possible explanations of each in accordance with our hypothesis. (a) cc. 19. 3Ð29. 1. William added the long history of Glastonbury to his draft at a stage when the AG was not yet published (see c. 20. 3 and above, p. xxviii n. 18). Later, when it came out, he arguably deleted this passage because it only duplicated a more detailed account elsewhere. In doing this he took the opportunity to ease the rather awkward construction of the sentence bridging cc. 19. 2 and 29. 2 in a way that may owe something to the words that now appear only in the C version in c. 29. 2 (ita muni®cus ut TA, parallel to religiosus adeo ut above); qui ita fuit muni®cus ut C; nec solum in ecclesiasticis uerum etiam in secularibus ita muni®cus extitit ut B, also providing a transition from the religious work mentioned in c. 19. 2 to the liberal treatment of his nephew to be described in c. 29. 2. (b) cc. 35C-36C. Here C replaces a passage of great interest on Ine, his relationship to Aldhelm, his sisters and his wife, with a statement of his muni®cence to Glastonbury and a charter in its favour. It is quite unclear, on any hypothesis, why he did not add this new material. At any rate B reverts to the TA version (including its phrasing of the ®rst words of c. 37), but makes up for its omission of the material added in C by giving a cross-reference to AG (discussed at p. xxviii n.18), where the material could now be found by an interested reader. (c) c. 39. B deletes the Cuthred charter present in C without mentioning that it was now available in AG.22 (d) c. 50. 5. B reverts to the state before the expansion seen in C, 22 The matter is more complex than this summary suggests. On our hypothesis the sequence of events would be as follows. In TA áthelheard reigns for 14 years (c. 38) and leaves the regnum to Cuthred. He holds it for the same length of time (c. 40). Then (c. 41) Sigeberht snatches the regnum. When W reached its C state, William had inserted (with a short introductory phrase tacked on to the end of c. 38) a charter of Cuthred in favour of Glastonbury. This intrusion made it undesirable to preserve the reference to the equality of lengths of reigns between áthelheard and Cuthred; William therefore rewrote c. 40, using the same material but replacing ille with idem Cuthredus (and, for some reason, non minimum sudoris with parum sudoris). He also, at the start of c. 41, replaced regnum, which had now become inelegant after the immediately previous mention of the regni gubernacula, with illud. Later, William decided that the charter was not needed, granted that it had appeared in AG, and removed both it and its short introduction. He now needed to refashion c. 40. At the start, hic could now pick up the mention of Cuthred three words before (as ille had done in the TA version), and William reverted to non minimum; further, he had decided (not without reason: see Commentary) that Cuthred in any case did not rule for the same number of years as his predecessor, but for 16 years; and this number he now put in. 3

/3thomson/intro.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 9:53 ± disk/amj

THE MAKING OF THE GESTA REGUM ANGLORUM

xxxi

perhaps because the information was now available in AG; but it is noteworthy that the translation of Ceolfrith is mentioned a few chapters on, in c. 54. 5 (see also GP, p. 198). (e) cc. 150±1. This is the most complex case of all. C adds after c. 149. 6 two sentences on Edgar's favours to Glastonbury and on the privilege he conferred on it, which `huic nostrae historiae, sicut in eorum antiqua scedula legi, non est absurdum inserere'. It then appends the privilege In nomine Domini nostri (c. 150. 1±6), and follows it (c. 150. 7) with an account of its con®rmation by King Edgar (`in the twelfth year of his reign') and by Pope John (`in 965'), an admonitory letter from whom to Ealdorman álfric forms c. 151. It remained to re-fashion slightly the start of c. 152, most signi®cantly by the addition of etiam before monasterium nostrum, apparently so as to couple the following Malmesbury charter with the Glastonbury charter that has now been inserted. B preserves the introductory words in c. 149. 6; but, instead of appending the promised privilege, it gives in c. 150B. 1±3 a narrative account of Edgar's dealings with Glastonbury. They included plura priuilegia, which are given in summary form23 (starting nullus nisi eiusdem loci monachus). We then have more narrative (4±5): Edgar cuts the staff in two, and sends the charter for papal authorization, which John provides in the shape of an anathema. `Ea etiam utraque . . . his gratum habuimus subindere.' The reference is apparently to the preceding summarized charter and the following anathema, Nouerit (6±7). In 8 William summarizes his story24 and provides it with dates (Edgar had con®rmed `these things' in London in the twelfth year of his reign, that is 971, and the pope had authorized them, improbably enough, in 965), and adds improving sentiments (9±10). c. 152 then follows in the form found in C. All this has to be seen in the light of the version given in AG 23 When William speaks of the ®rst of the privileges (c. 150B. 1) he means not the ®rst of a series of charters but the ®rst clause of the charter he is summarizing. The clauses as a whole are called `haec priuilegia' at the end of the summary (twice in 4, where they are said to form `idem cirographum'). 24 This is not a continuation of the narrative: haec igitur . . . con®rmauit is a reference to what William did not tell us in 4 followed the cutting of the staff at Glastonbury, viz. the con®rmation in London in 965 (at this point B does not make clear what we discover from AG, that the charter In nomine Domini nostri, given in C but omitted in B, is the con®rmation of the privileges granted by the cutting of the staff at Glastonbury). The next clause (eodemque anno . . .) dates to the same year the previously mentioned (see 4) reference of the matter to the pope.

/3thomson/intro.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 9:53 ± disk/amj

xxxii

INTRODUCTION

(pp. 120±8). There, at least in the form in which we have the work today, we have the following sequence. Edgar's favour towards Glastonbury is summarized as preface to a report of a privilege (numquam ibi abbas nisi eiusdem loci monachus). There follows narrative of the cutting of the staff. `Dedit etiam aliud priuilegium in hec uerba': and we are given in a fuller form than in C the charter In nomine Domini nostri. The document is dated 971. John is persuaded to issue an edict, which is then cited (Nouerit). John is said to have promulgated this in 965(!), the pope sends it to Edgar, and he rati®es it in the twelfth year of his reign (971). The salient features of these complications are as follows: (1) The version provided by C seems to be the result of an early phase of William's work on Glastonbury. Instead of referring as elsewhere to the AG, William merely talks of reading the privilege in an old scedula. (2) As he continued his researches, William came across the charter whose ®rst clause contained something like nullus nisi eiusdem loci monachus. When he wrote up the AG, this was ®tted into place as the preliminary to the charter In nomine Domini nostri. (3) B's version is not properly integrated into its context. In C c. 150 follows smoothly from c. 149. 6; but in B the promised privilege does not materialize at once, and then only in summary. (4) Down to and including the cutting of the staff B's version is more or less that of AG, where the narrative and summary ®ts into its context. Then, although AG has the privilege In nomine known to C (as B does not; but see p. xxxi n. 24), B and AG coincide in the account of the con®rmation of the anathema by Edgar. It would seem to follow that B's account is a new version of the provisional account given in C, which William composed after he had done the rest of the researches that led to the AG, but which he failed properly to ®t into its place in the book. B does not give all the detail that AG gives, but its story is in general the same. It may well be felt that equally plausible scenarios could be constructed which would explain the phenomena discussed above on the basis of a quite different general hypothesis of the relation of C and B. Passages (b), (c), and (d) above (pp. xxx±xxxi), indeed, might be thought to point rather to the C version being later than the B version. But we think that our hypothesis is superior to any other, and it ®ts with the other evidence (above, p. xxix) that B is later than C.25 25 It may be that the C version was produced explicitly for the Glastonbury community. In this connection note William's comment in the prologue to VD book ii, where he refers

/3thomson/intro.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 9:53 ± disk/amj

THE MAKING OF THE GESTA REGUM ANGLORUM

xxxiii

26

B does not, any more than did C, carry on the narrative further than the point it had reached in TA, nor does it do much to update individual points of detail.27 But there is no doubt that its readings are not to be ignored. It would seem that William conducted a careful revision28 of the ®rst two books,29 introducing stylistic alterations of the kind we have noticed earlier,30 and more importantly making changes of substance; in particular, he seems to have re-thought the whole basis of the dating of the early kings.31 It is unfortunate that the many errors that point to a further copying between the ®nal state of W3 and the emergence of the archetype of the B manuscripts make it impracticable to use the B version as our base text. The reader is therefore asked to read our text with an eye on the apparatus. There, just as we indicate by asterisks the readings of T and of TA that seem to us to be superior to those of CB, so we mark with a dagger readings of B that seem to us particularly redolent of William. Indeed, if our to the monastery of Glastonbury `in quo coelestem pro®temur militiam'. This can only mean that William was `seconded' as a monk of Glastonbury for a substantial period, doubtless encompassing the composition of AG, VD, his other Lives of Glastonbury saintsÐand perhaps the C version of GR (Stubbs in GR i, pp. xxix±xxx). 26 See above, p. xxv. Presumably the lost Chronica (HN, prol.) and the fact that the HN itself starts at 1126 explain the halt called to the GR. We do not know what to make of the fact that the dedication to Earl Robert appears at the end of Book iii in C but at the beginning of the whole work in B. There seems no reason why the dedication should not have been made in time for A, for Robert is lavishly praised in c. 446. 1 in A, C, and B alike (indeed the words `hoc . . . opus postquam absolui . . . uobis potissimum delegandum credidi' seem more or less to imply the dedication). 27 Book i prol. 3 is signi®cant here. B changes Anselmi to Radul®, thus taking account of the extension of Eadmer's Historia novorum to 1122. But that is a change that William could have made, though in fact he did not, in time for TA. See generally the remarks of A. Gransden, Historical Writing in England c.550 to c.1307 (London, 1974), p. 172. 28 Probably (as a number of agreements between T and B suggest) making some use of the apparently still available W , as well as of W . 29 Hence there are fewer CB errors and more C errors in this part of the book. It is also remarkable that the reordering of words in B (ignored by our apparatus) is far more frequent in Books i and ii than later (a sign that in most cases it is William's own work). The concentration on revising B in Books i and ii is the counterpart of William's concentration on Books iii±iv in the revision that led from TA to C (see above, pp. xxv± xxvi). It is interesting that the contamination in the later C manuscripts that resulted (as we argued above, Vol. i, pp. xviii±xix) in the frequent appearance of CsB errors in the apparatus is concentrated on the later books; this was the part of the GR that most interested the contemporary reader. 30 For the types noted above (see nn. 10 and 16) observe e.g. c. 34. 2 (B gives eo for regno to avoid repetition; similarly in c. 68. 6 it gives eorum to avoid repeating Longobardorum) and c. 43. 1 (illum is speci®ed as Kineuulfum; at c. 51. 1 Egfridus, added by B, provides the name of someone otherwise not named till after his death). 31 See Commentary, e.g. cc. 11. 1, 15. 1. 1

2

/3thomson/intro.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 9:53 ± disk/amj

xxxiv

INTRODUCTION

picture of the evolution of the Gesta regum is correct, the variants of the greatest interest are those of T and of B, for among them, mingled though they are with mechanical errors caused by copyists, we can at times have access to the ®rst and to the last thoughts of the author. The variants of A and C, on the other hand, seem largely to be errors produced in the copyings that led to W2 and W3, errors which William was able to correct in the course of subsequent revision. GR and GP The Gesta ponti®cum was written later than the Gesta regum (see esp. GP, p. 4 `ut qui quondam regum Anglorum gesta perstrinxi nunc Anglorum ponti®cum nomina transcurram'), to which it frequently refers back.32 An examination of the passages where they overlap makes it quite clear that the GP was taking over33 information and wording from the GR when the latter was in its earliest state (W1).34 The reverse process is noticeable when we come to the revision of W3 32 Normally with the phrase `in gestis regum' (pp. 4, 9, 12, 13, 32, 322, 354 [where `in regum historia' also appears], 391); more speci®c references appear in the form `in gestis Cnutonis' (p. 34), less speci®c with the word `alias' (e.g. pp. 161, 171). Where a book reference is given (only to Books i and ii) the normal expression is of the type `in primo libro gestorum regalium' (pp. 4, 5, 15, 19, 20, 21; cf. also pp. 139 and 293). It is intriguing that in many, though not all, the references of both types, William had earlier used a form of words that implied that he regarded the GP as no more than a continuation of the GR (cf. note on c. 445. 4). Thus `in gestis regum' is interlined at p. 12, and elsewhere replaces `superius' (p. 9), `supra' (pp. 13, 32) or `ante' (p. 354); but `in gestis regum' was what William wrote from the start at pp. 4 (prologue), 322 and 391. Similarly `regalium gestorum' is interlined at pp. 15, 19 (`regalium' is here added to an original `gestorum'), 20 and 21 (a book number is interlined at p. 193); but William had always used the words `regalium gestorum' at pp. 4, 5 (prologue), and 139 (in another prologue). 33 We do not mean to imply that William mechanically copied from the GR without e.g. going back to the original documents he cites (thus in GR, c. 296, he gives a shorter version of a document than the one given in GP, pp. 47±9). But it is interesting that at p. 309 he ®rst wrote attingunt, a plural which is correct in the context of GR, c. 214. 3, but not in the adapted version provided by the GP. 34 The overwhelming number of coincidences between wording of the GP and a version or versions of the GR involve either T alone or TA. We list some striking cases of each (further information in the apparatus ad locc.). T = GP: cc. 65. 2 cogitans before animosioris; 70. 3 populum (= Alcuin); 121. 4 om. etiam; 216 populorum; 253. 2 ueritate; 298. 3 ei uisum; 299. 1 diuinis; 340. 1 om. et (GP's ®rst version only). TA = GP: 162. 3 per se; 270 applorabant; 338. 1 Ramesiae; 338. 2 promissiones non leues; 339. 2 de episcopio; 339. 3 sedula ad omnes; 340. 1 tirannidem (GP's ®rst version only); 340. 2 quo; priori indulgens; pene in omnibus insulsi esset animi et parum stabilis (GP's ®rst version only); ibi nobiliter per eum incepta; of®ciorum iuxta; emolliri; relinquens; 341. 1 regis manum impleret . . . Romanorum auiditati (GP's ®rst version only); 341. 2 quiete; sedibus suis (GP's ®rst version only). It should be noted than when William tones down parallel passages in both works, he does it differently. There are of course many places where T and/or A diverge from the GP; but this will be the result of the copyings that separate our T and A manuscripts from W . 1

/3thomson/intro.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 9:53 ± disk/amj

THE MAKING OF THE GESTA REGUM ANGLORUM

xxxv

that led to the B version: William goes back to the GP in order to `improve' the GR.35 So too perhaps did Aa, whoever was responsible for its changes (see above, pp. xxiv±xxv).36 Coincidences between other versions or individual MSS and the GP are very infrequent,37 and may all be the result of chance. GR and VD At least Book ii of the Vita S. Dunstani was written well after the Gesta regum, `quae ante aliquot annos edidi' (p. 305); and it is natural to connect the composition of the book with William's detailed researches on Glastonbury, which seem to have post-dated 1126 (above, p. xxviii).38 Where it uses GR, it normally draws on W2.39 However, in c. 144. 3 the longer CB version is the one that is matched in the VD (cf. above, p. xxviii); one supposes that this is precisely parallel to the importation of Glastonbury material from AG into the GR in its W3 stage, except that here the Vita is the source.40 2. William of Malmesbury: Life and Works In thinking of how to introduce a commentary on the Gesta Regum, two alternatives presented themselves: one was to provide the fullest possible study of William as historian, in which all the material provided in the commentary and by recent scholarship would be brought to a focus; the other was to offer a brief 35 So cc. 50. 4 monachorum; 108. 2 regni; 122. 2 Indiam; 122. 4 add. philosophie; 340. 2 quoquomodo. In c. 65. 2 (armarium after dicam) B joins T in agreement with GP; that is only a special case of William's use of W when he was revising W (see above, p. xxxiii n. 28). 36 Thus c. 211. 1 index fuit (GP after corr.; perhaps a coincidence); c. 296 quoquomodo . . . quassentur (perhaps the result of re-examination of the original document). 37 See the apparatus at cc. 218. 2 (A), 218. 3 (Ce), 341. 1 (Bk) and 444. 2 ( [A]; but in this passage T is not available). 38 The indications are (Stubbs in Memorials, pp. xxxv±xxxvi) that VD book i preceded, and VD book ii followed, the composition of AG. But the (late) prologue of AG refers to both books of VD as complete. 39 For T = VD see c. 160. 2 quidem (so here at least VD may even have used W ). For TA = VD see cc. 160. 2 corpus . . . honoratur (here the CB version draws on AG); 165. 2 ita; 165. 3 tantus. At c. 218. 3 dilecta Deo, T agrees with GP, but VD follows ACB. AVD agree on sancti at c. 218. 3 and on somni (against GP) at c. 218. 4; both of these may have been readings of W , corrected in W . 40 But of course AG knew of the material: see pp. 84 and 118 (in the latter our text says `sicut plusquam semel in hoc opusculo dixi', either a carelessness or a sign of the abbreviated nature of the book as we have it). The original AG may well have come much nearer to the wording of GR and VD here. 1

3

1

2

3

/3thomson/intro.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 9:53 ± disk/amj

xxxvi

INTRODUCTION

introduction to William's life and works aimed at those approaching William and the GR for the ®rst time. In the end I decided that the time for the former had not yet come. When the fresh editions of William's other historical writings, now in active preparation, have appeared, it will be necessary and appropriate to make a new study of William the historian. But even the notion of a short introduction presented a problem: there are now so many good and accessible accounts of the life and works of William of Malmesbury, that there seemed little point in adding another which made no claim to advance our knowledge of him.41 Now as it happens, arguably the most elegant and judicious of those in print is the earliest and least known, the preface by the Revd. J. Sharpe to his translation of the Gesta regum. It is a model of its kind, surprisingly little dated, and conveys an estimate of William as historian with which the present editors substantially agree; we think that it deserves to be better known, and so reprint it here, with new footnotes.42 `The author whose work is here presented to the public in an English dress, has, unfortunately, left few facts of a personal nature to be recorded of him; and even these can only be casually gleaned from his own writings. It is indeed much to be regretted that he who wrote so well on such a variety of topics, should have told so little to gratify the curiosity of his readers with respect to himself. Every notice of such an ardent lover of literature as [William of] Malmesbury, must have been interesting to posterity, as a desire to be acquainted with the history of those who have contributed to our instruction or amusement seems natural to civilized man. With the exception indeed of the incidental references made by successive chroniclers, who borrowed from his history, there is nothing to be learned of him from extrinsic sources till the time of Leland, who 41 The most important are: W. Stubbs' introductions to both volumes of his edition of GR; K. Norgate in Dictionary of National Biography, xxi. 351±4; D. H. Farmer, `William of Malmesbury's life and works', Journal of Ecclesiastical History, xiii (1962), 39±54; Gransden, Historical Writing in England, ch. 9; N. Lettinck, Geschiedbeschouwing en Beleving van de eigen Tijd in de eerste Helft van de twaalfde Eeuw (Amsterdam, 1983), chs. iii. 3, iv. 4; and Thomson, William of Malmesbury, esp. chs. 1±3. 42 The History of the Kings of England and the Modern History of William of Malmesbury, trans. Revd. J. Sharpe (London, 1815), pp. vii±xvii. I omit the rest of the preface, pp. xvii± xx, in which Sharpe explains the principles of his translation. He based it on Savile's printed text, collated with six MSS in the British Library (p. xviii and n.).

/3thomson/intro.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 9:53 ± disk/amj

WILLIAM OF MALMESBURY: LIFE AND WORKS

xxxvii

indignantly observes, that even at Malmesbury, in his own monastery, they had nearly lost all remembrance of their brightest ornament.43 `To himself then we are indebted for the knowledge of his being descended from both English and Norman parents; his father having probably come hither at the conquest.44 The exact time of his birth cannot be ascertained; though perhaps an approximation to it may be made. In the ``Commentary on Jeremiah'', Malmesbury observes, that he ``had long since, in his youthful days amused himself with writing history'', that he was now forty years of age; and, in another place, he mentions a circumstance which occurred ``in the time of King Henry'', apparently implying that Henry was then dead.45 Now, admitting the expression of ``long since'' to denote a period of ten years, this, as his ``Histories of the Kings'' [Gesta regum Anglorum] and ``of the Prelates'' [Gesta ponti®cum Anglorum] were completed in the year 1125,46 must have been 43 J. Leland, Commentarii de Scriptoribus Britannicis, ed. A. Hall (Oxford, 1709), p. 196. Only one person outside the abbey is known to have written about William during his lifetime: Robert of Cricklade, canon of Cirencester, in a letter written to a friend no later than 1137 praises William as a writerÐbut not of historical works. Robert particularizes writings of William's which were less famous but more directly relevant to the monastic vocation: the De¯oratio Gregorii, De miraculis beatae virginis Mariae and Commentary on Lamentations: R. W. Hunt, `English learning in the late twelfth century', in Essays in Medieval History, ed. R. W. Southern (London, 1968), pp. 117±18, Thomson, William of Malmesbury, p. 74 and n. 205. There is no detailed study of the dissemination of William's writings or use of them by later chroniclers, but sketches are provided by Stubbs in GR i, pp. xci±xciii, and Gransden, Historical Writing in England, pp. 178±80. 44 Matthew Parker's manuscript of GP, now CUL Ff. 1. 25, has a note (s. xvi) that the work was written `per . . . Guilhelmum Malmesburiensis Benedictine sodalitatis monachum qui Somerset proprio cognomine dictus est' (part 1, fo.3). It is unclear what the authority for this was. At any rate he was clearly brought up not far from Malmesbury. Although William (GR iii prol.) does not say which of his parents was Norman, Sharpe was surely right to suggest that it was his father, certainly a man of means, perhaps a married clerk, more likely a knight. A knightly origin would explain, for example, William's interpretation of the First Crusade as a knightly passage of arms (GR, cc. 343±84), and his ability to rub shoulders with the likes of Robert, earl of Gloucester, or Roger, bishop of Salisbury (below, p. xli n. 67). William says that it was his father who encouraged his earliest reading and he seems to have paid for books and perhaps tuition. See further below, p. xxxviii n. 50. 45 The passages were transcribed by Stubbs in GR i, pp. cxxi±cxxiii. In fact the Commentary can be ascribed a terminus ante quem of 1137, because it is mentioned in the letter by Robert of Cricklade (above, n. 43), which cannot have been written later than that year. The terminus post quem is not in fact completely certain, for as signalled below (note to Book v prol.), William tends to anticipate Henry's death. 46 This is strictly true only of their earlier versions; see above, pp. xvii±xviii, xxxiv±xxxv.

/3thomson/intro.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 9:53 ± disk/amj

xxxviii

INTRODUCTION

written about 1135, the time of Henry's death, and would of course place his own birth about 1095 or 1096.47 `The next circumstance to be noticed is, that when a boy, he was placed in the monastery whence he derived his name, where in due time he became librarian, and, according to Leland, precentor; and ultimately refused the dignity of abbot.48 His death is generally supposed to have taken place about 1143; though it is probable that he survived this period some time: for his ``Modern History'' [Historia nouella] terminates at the end of the year 1142; and it will appear, from a manuscript hereafter to be described, that he lived at least long enough after its publication to make many corrections, alterations, and insertions, in that work as well in the other portions of his History.49 `With these facts, meagre as they are, the personal account of him must close. But with regard to his literary bent and attainments there is ample store of information in his writings. From his earliest youth he gave his soul to study, and to the collecting of books;50 and he 47 If the Commentary on Lamentations were written after 1135 it would be satisfactory if we could understand William's `quadrigenarius' to mean `in my forties' rather than precisely `forty'. This would allow him to have been born as early as the late 1080s, to have witnessed and remembered a local `miracle' which occurred before 1096 (Stubbs in GR i, pp. xiv±xv; GP, cc. 271±8; pp. 433±43), and to be of suf®ciently mature years when he attracted royal recognition and began to write his major historical works, some time between 1100 and 1118. However, the most natural interpretation of William's words `Quadrigenarius sum hodie' is that he was writing them on his very birthday. 48 Leland, De Scriptoribus, pp. 195±6; but William is already called `cantor' by Robert of Cricklade in the letter referred to above, p. xxxvii n. 43, and in the title to the extracts from GR and GP (fo. 114) in BL MS Egerton 3088, s. xii , from Dore abbey. He calls himself `bibliothecarius' in HN, prol., written 1140/41. In addition to the information provided by Leland, William is known to have represented his abbey at councils held at Winchester in 1139 and 1141 (HN, cc. 471, 492); that is the sum total of his known public activity. 49 Earlier he had said that he intended to chronicle contemporary history as long as life remained to him (GR, c. 449. 3), and this statement, and HN's abrupt ending, promising a fourth book, suggest that it was broken off by his death, presumably in 1143. The revisions found in the text of HN do not prove otherwise. The MS referred to by Sharpe is BL MS Royal 13 D. ii (our Ce; see above, Vol. i, pp. xviii±xx, and the remarks of RABM in HN, p. xlii). In his forthcoming edition of HN, Edmund King will argue that the text of HN in Ce does indeed incorporate changes made to the AB redaction, but probably not by William or at Malmesbury. 50 GR ii prol. 1±2, and see below, notes ad loc. We do not know where or how these youthful studies were undertaken. Initially they might have been supported by his family through private tuition, but whether they were later pursued at Malmesbury or another religious house, he does not say. Malmesbury seems unlikely, since William is dismissive of learning there prior to the abbacy of Godfrey of JumieÁges (c.1090±1105), by whose time he was himself a monk there, assisting the abbot in building up its library (GP, c. 271; pp. 431±2). The course of studies outlined by William was rather old-fashioned by the time of his adulthood. One area within it, logic, had indeed become Western Europe's new intellectual obsession, but it was not William's. 2

/3thomson/intro.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 9:53 ± disk/amj

WILLIAM OF MALMESBURY: LIFE AND WORKS

xxxix

visited many of the most celebrated monasteries in the kingdom, apparently in prosecution of this darling propensity.51 The ardour of his curiosity, and the unceasing diligence of his researches, in this respect, have perhaps been seldom surpassed. He seems to have procured every volume within his reach; and to have carefully examined and digested its contents, whether divinity, history, biography, poetry, or classical literature.52 Of his acquirements as a scholar it is indeed dif®cult to speak in terms of suf®cient commendation. That he had accurately studied nearly all the Roman authors will be readily allowed by the classical reader of his works. From these he either quotes or inserts so appositely, as to show how thoroughly he had imbibed their sense and spirit. His adaptations are ever ready and appropriate; they incorporate with his narrative with such exactness that they appear only to occupy their legitimate place.53 His knowledge of Greek is not equally apparent; at least his references to the writers of Greece are not so frequent, and even these might probably be obtained from translations: from this, however, no conclusion can be drawn that he did not understand the language.54 With respect to writers subsequent to those deemed classics, his range was so extensive that it is no easy matter to point out many books which he had not seen, and certainly he had perused several which we do not now possess.55 `Malmesbury's love of learning was constitutional: he declares in one of his prefaces, that had he turned to any other than literary pursuits, he should have deemed it not only disgraceful, but even detrimental to his better interest.56 Again, his commendations of Bede 51 A list of the places he seems to have visited personally is in Thomson, William of Malmesbury, pp. 72±5. From that list Durham should probably be subtracted (see below, notes to cc. 49. 5±9, 61. 4). There is positive evidence that he had not been to WearmouthJarrow (below, c. 54. 2n), nor Hexham (GP, c. 117; p. 255), although he had been in Yorkshire (GP iii prol.; p. 209). On the other hand it now seems probable that he visited Normandy (below, notes to cc. 180. 11, 241±4). 52 For details of William's truly extraordinary range of reading, see Thomson, William of Malmesbury, ch. 3 and appendix I. 53 Ibid., pp. 47±61, corrected and supplemented by Wright I±IV. On the appositeness of William's quotations see Wright I±IV, and M. Winterbottom, `The Gesta regum of William of Malmesbury', The Journal of Medieval Latin, v (1995), 158±73, at pp. 170±2. 54 There is no evidence that William had an exceptional knowledge of Greek; he probably only knew the alphabet, some vocabulary, and a very little grammar: Thomson, William of Malmesbury, pp. 61±2. 55 For the most substantial examples of `lost' writings known to William see below, notes to cc. 131±40 (a work in praise of áthelstan), 220±27 (a complete text of Vita ádwardi). He had a version of ASC no longer extant (ASC, pp. xx±xxi). 56 GR ii prol. 1.

/3thomson/intro.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 9:53 ± disk/amj

xl

INTRODUCTION

show how much he venerated a man of congenial inclinations and studies; and how anxious he was to form himself on the same model of accurate investigation and laborious research, and to snatch every possible interval from the performance of his monastic duties, for the purposes of information and improvement.57 `His industry and application were truly extraordinary. Even to the moment when we reluctantly lose sight of him, he is discovered unceasingly occupied in the correction of his works. In the manuscripts of the ``History of the Kings'' may be found traces of at least four several editions;58 and the ``History of the Prelates'' supplies nearly as many varieties.59 And though it may reasonably be imagined that a great portion of the alterations are merely verbal, and of course imperceptible in a translation, yet they contribute in an extraordinary degree to the polish and elegance of his style.60 Another excellent feature of Malmesbury's literary character is, his love of truth. He repeatedly declares that, in the remoter periods of his work, he had observed the most guarded caution in throwing all responsibility, for the facts he mentions, on the authors from whom he derived them;61 and in his own times he avers, that he has recorded nothing that he had not either personally witnessed, or learned from the most credible authority.62 Adhering closely to this principle, he seems to have been fully impressed with the dif®culty of relating the transactions of the princes, his contemporaries, and on this account he repeatedly apologizes for his omissions.63 But here is seen his dexterous management in maintaining an equipoise between their virtues and vices; for he spares neither William the First, nor his sons who succeeded him:64 indeed several of his strictures in the earlier editions of this work, are so severe, that he afterwards found it necessary to modify and soften them.65 57

Ibid. i prol. 1, cc. 54±62. And four we have (see above, pp. xvii±xxxiv), but it is not clear what Sharpe considered as `editions'. Of course he did not know of T. 59 Hamilton speaks of two recensions in GP, pp. xi±xxvi, but this involves a degree of oversimpli®cation. 60 There is as yet no full-scale study of William's style; but see J. O. Ward, `Some principles of rhetorical historiography in the twelfth century' in Classical Rhetoric and Medieval Historiography, ed. E. Breisach (Studies in Medieval Culture, 19: Kalamazoo, Mich., 1985), pp. 118±48, and Winterbottom, `The Gesta regum of William of Malmes61 bury', pp. 166±73. GR i prol. 8. 62 63 64 Ibid., and v prol. 2. Ibid. iv prol. Ibid., cc. 275, 314. 65 Instances found in GP are listed by Hamilton in GP, pp. xiv±xv; those in both GR and GP are discussed by Stubbs in GR i, pp. xxxiii±xxxvii. See also VD, prol. (p. 252). 58

/3thomson/intro.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 9:53 ± disk/amj

WILLIAM OF MALMESBURY: LIFE AND WORKS

xli

`His character and attainments had early acquired a high degree of reputation among his contemporaries. He was entreated by the monks of various monasteries to write either the history of their foundations, or the lives of their patron saints.66 He associated with persons of the highest consequence and authority; and in one instance, at least, he took a share in the important political transactions of his own times.67 Robert earl of Gloucester, the natural son of Henry the First, was the acknowledged friend and patron of Malmesbury. This distinguished nobleman, who was himself a profound scholar, seems to have been the chief promoter of learning at that period.68 Several portions of our author's works are dedicated to him, not merely through motives of personal regard, but from the conviction that his attainments as a scholar would lead him to appreciate its value as a composition, and the part which he bore in the transactions of his day, enable him to decide on the veracity of its relation.69 `Having thus stated the leading features of Malmesbury's life, his avocations and attainments, it may not be irrelevant to consider the form and manner which he has adopted in the history before us. A desire to be acquainted with the transactions of their ancestors seems natural to men in every stage of society, however rude or barbarous. The northern nations, more especially, had their historical traditions, and the songs of their bards, from the remotest times. In¯uenced by this feeling, the Anglo-Saxons turned their attention to the composition of annals very early after their settlement in Britain; and hence originated that invaluable register the Saxon Chronicle, in which facts are brie¯y related as they arose;Ðin chronological order, indeed, but without comment or observation.70 After the Norman conquest, among other objects of studious research in England, history attracted considerable 66 So AG, VD and (lost) Lives of Patrick, Benignus and Indract (for the monks of Glastonbury), VW (for the monks of Worcester). 67 Apart from Earl Robert, William knew, certainly or probably, Anselm, archbishop of Canterbury (GP, c. 65; pp. 121±2), Walcher prior of Malvern (GR, c. 293), Nicholas, prior of Worcester (VW, prol.), Eadmer of Canterbury (GR, prol.), the prior of Crowland (GP, c. 182; p. 322), John, monk and chronicler of Worcester (below, p. 13), Henry of Blois, bishop of Winchester (AG, prol.), Roger, bishop of Salisbury (HN, cc. 3, 23), and perhaps the chronicler Orderic Vitalis (below, p. 255). The occasion to which Sharpe alludes is presumably the Council of Winchester of 1141 (see above, n. 48). 68 An untypical exaggeration by Sharpe; on Robert's patronage of learning see below, note to Letter 3. 2. 69 See HN, prol., and GR, Letter 3 and cc. 446±9. 70 For a modern account of the composition of ASC see Gransden, Historical Writing in England, ch. 3, and the literature there cited.

/3thomson/intro.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 9:53 ± disk/amj

xlii

INTRODUCTION

attention, and the form, as well as the matter, of the Saxon Chronicle, became the prevailing standard.71 It might readily be supposed that Malmesbury's genius and attainments would with dif®culty submit to the shackles of a mere chronological series, which afforded no ®eld for the exercise of genius or judgment. Accordingly, following the bent of his inclination, he struck into a different and freer path; and to a judicious selection of facts gave the added charm of wisdom and experience. It may therefore be useful to advert to the exempli®cation of this principle in the scope and design of the work immediately before us. His ®rst book comprises the exploits of the Anglo-Saxons, from the period of their arrival till the consolidation of the empire under the monarchy of Egbert. Herein too is separately given the history of those powerful but rival kingdoms, which alternately subjugated, or bowed down to the dominion of, each other, and deluged the country with blood, as the love of conquest or the lust of ambition prompted. The second portion of the work continues the regal series till the mighty revolution of the Norman conquest. The three remaining books are occupied with the reigns of William and his sons, including a very interesting account of the ®rst Crusade. His Modern History carries the narrative into the turbulent reign of Stephen. `Such is the period embraced: and to show these times, ``their form and pressure'', Malmesbury collected every thing within his reach. His materials, as he often feelingly laments, were scanty and con®ned, more especially in the earlier annals.72 The Chronicles of that era afforded him but little, yet of that little he has made the most, through the diligence of his research and the soundness of his judgment.73 His discrimination in selecting, and his skill in arranging, 71 Sharpe presumably had in mind John of Worcester and the continuations of ASC, which otherwise could hardly be said to have provided a model as distinct from a source; indeed William himself eschewed its form (GR i prol.). On the remarkable quantity and quality of post-Conquest English historiography see R. R. Darlington, Anglo-Norman Historians (London, 1947), Gransden, Historical Writing in England, chs. 7 and 8, R. W. Southern, `The place of England in the twelfth-century renaissance', in his Medieval Humanism and other Studies (Oxford, 1970), pp. 159±80, at 160±2, and id., `Aspects of the European tradition of historical writing IV; the sense of the past', TRHS, 5th ser. xxiii (1973), 243±63, at pp. 249±50. 72 GR i prol. 1±4, GP, prol. (p. 4). 73 His skill in interpretation is perhaps shown to best advantage in his attempts to ¯esh out the bare narrative of ASC, often using no more than his own imagination. Modern scholars have sometimes criticized William of Malmesbury for utilizing this faculty, apparently regarded by them as the exclusive preserve of our own age. But William was attempting to reconstruct the past on his own account, not to provide raw materials for its reconstruction by modern historians.

/3thomson/intro.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 9:53 ± disk/amj

WILLIAM OF MALMESBURY: LIFE AND WORKS

xliii

are equally conspicuous. His inexhaustible patience, his learning, his desire to perpetuate every thing interesting or useful, are at all times evident. Sensibly alive to the de®ciences of the historians who preceded him, he constantly endeavours to give a clear and connected relation of every event. Indeed, nothing escaped his observation which could tend to elucidate the manners of the times in which he wrote. History was the darling pursuit of Malmesbury, and more especially biographical history, as being, perhaps, the most pleasing mode of conveying information. He knew the prevailing passion of mankind for anecdote, and was a skilful master in blending amusement with instruction. Few historians ever possessed such power of keeping alive the reader's attention; few so ably managed their materials, or scatter so many ¯owers by the way. Of his apt delineation of character, and happy mode of seizing the most prominent features of his personages, it is dif®cult to speak in terms of adequate commendation.74 He does not weary with a tedious detail, ``line upon line'', nor does he complete his portrait at a sitting. On the contrary, the traits are scattered, the proportions disunited, the body dismembered, as it were; but in a moment some masterstroke is applied, some vivid ¯ash of Promethean ®re animates the canvas, and the perfect ®gure darts into life and expression: hence we have the surly, ferocious snarl of the Conqueror, and the brutal horselaugh of Rufus.75 Malmesbury's history, indeed, may be called a kind of biographical drama; where, by a skilful gradation of character and variety of personage, the story is presented entire, though the tediousness of continued narrative is avoided. Again, by saying little on uninteresting topics, and dilating on such as are important, the tale, which might else disgust from the supineness or degeneracy of some principal actor, is artfully relieved by the force of contrast: and the mind, which perhaps recoils with indignation from the stupid indifference of an Ethelred, hangs, with fond delight, on the enterprising spirit and exertion of an Ironside.76 `It may be super¯uous, perhaps, after enumerating qualities of this varied kind, in an author, who gives a connected history of England for several centuries, to observe, that readers of every description must 74 William's technique of character-delineation has been commented upon, for example, by Gransden, Historical Writing in England, p. 171, and B. Smalley, Historians in the Middle Ages (London, 1974), pp. 21, 91±2, 188. 75 GR, cc. 281, 312. 3. 76 On áthelred the Unready see GR, cc. 164±180. 3; on Edmund Ironside, cc. 180. 4±9.

/3thomson/intro.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 9:53 ± disk/amj

xliv

INTRODUCTION

derive instruction and delight from his labours. Historians, antiquaries, or philosophers, may drink deeply of the stream which pervades his work, and ®nd their thirst for information grati®ed. The diligent investigator of the earlier annals of his own country, ®nds a period of seven hundred years submitted to his inspection, and this not merely in a dry detail of events, but in a series of authentic historical facts, determined with acuteness, commented on with deliberation, and relieved by pleasing anecdote or interesting episode. When the narrative ¯ags at home, the attention is roused by events transacting abroad, while foreign is so blended with domestic history, that the book is never closed in disgust. The antiquary here ®nds ample ®eld for amusement and instruction in the various notices of arts, manners, and customs, which occur. The philosopher traces the gradual progress of man towards civilization; watches his mental improvement, his advance from barbarism to comparative re®nement; and not of man alone, but of government, laws, and arts, as well as of all those attainments which serve to exalt and embellish human nature. These are topics carefully, though perhaps only incidentally, brought forward; but they are points essentially requisite in every legitimate historian. Here, however, it must be admitted, that in the volume before us, a considerable portion of the marvellous prevails; and though, perhaps, by many readers, these will be considered as among the most curious parts of the work, yet it may be objected, that the numerous miraculous tales detract, in some measure, from that soundness of judgment which has been ascribed to the author. But it should be carefully recollected, that it became necessary to conform, in some degree, to the general taste of the readers of those days, the bulk of whom derived their principal amusement from the lives of saints, and from their miracles, in which they piously believed: besides, no one ever thought of impeaching the judgment of Livy, or of any other historian of credit, for insertions of a similar nature. Even in these relations, however, Malmesbury is careful that his own veracity shall not be impeached;77 constantly observing, that the truth of the story must rest on the credit of his authors; and, indeed, they are always so completely separable from the main narrative, that there is no danger of mistaking the legend for history.78 77 e.g. GR, cc. 167. 5±6, 169. 4±5, 171. 3, 204. 7, and the headnote to book iii below, p. 218. 78 A shrewd observation: William's marvel- or miracle-stories, when not introduced sheerly as light relief, are nearly all linked (a) to Continental rather than English history, or (b) to the lives of individual saints; they do not have a causative role within the main narrative.

/3thomson/intro.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 9:53 ± disk/amj

WILLIAM OF MALMESBURY: LIFE AND WORKS

xlv

`Having thus noticed the multifarious topics embraced by Malmesbury, it may be necessary to advert to his style: although, after what has been premised, it might seem almost super¯uous to add, that it admits nearly of as much variety as his facts. This probably arises from that undeviating principle which he appears to have laid down, that his chief efforts should be exerted to give pleasure to his readers;79 in imitation of the rhetoricians, whose ®rst object was to make their audience kindly disposed, next attentive, and ®nally anxious to receive instruction.80 Of his style, therefore, generally speaking, it may not be easy to give a perfect description. To say to which Roman author he bears the nearest resemblance, when he imitated almost everyone of them, from Sallust to Eutropius, would be rash indeed. How shall we bind this classical Proteus, who occasionally assumes the semblance of Persius, Juvenal, Horace, Lucan, Virgil, Lucretius;81 and who never appears in his proper shape so long as he can seize the form of an ancient classic? Often does he declare that he purposely varies his diction, lest the reader should be disgusted by its sameness; anxiously careful to avoid repetition, even in the structure of his phrases.82 It may be said, however, that generally, in his earlier works (for he was apparently very young when he wrote his History of the Kings) his style is rather laboured; though, perhaps, even this may have originated in an anxiety that his descriptions should be full; or, to use his own expression, that posterity should be wholly and perfectly informed.83 That his diction is highly antithetical, and his sentences artfully poised, will be readily allowed; and perhaps the best index to his meaning, where he may occasionally be obscure, is the nicelyadjusted balance of his phrase. That he gradually improved his 79

GR, cc. 173, 304. The reference is to GR iii prol. 3 (or VW, prol.; p. 3), the note ad loc. signalling the echo of the Rhetorica ad Herennium. 81 William did not, of course, know Lucretius, but he knew all the other authors listed by Sharpe, especially Virgil and Lucan; for his knowledge and use of the Latin classics see Thomson, William of Malmesbury, pp. 46±62; Wright I±IV; P. Walsh, `Willelmus Malmesberiensis quomodo scriptoribus antiquis usus sit', in Acta Omnium Gentium ac Nationum Conventus Sexti Latinis Litteris Linguaeque Ferendis (Durham, 1986), pp. 51±60; J. G. Haahr, `William of Malmesbury's Roman models', in The Classics in the Middle Ages, ed. A. S. Bernardo and S. Levin (Medieval and Renaissance Texts and Studies, 69: Binghampton, NY, 1990), pp. 165±73 (citing no literature later than 1962!); and Winterbottom, `The Gesta regum of William of Malmesbury', 169±73. 82 GR, cc. 173, 304. 83 e.g. GR i prol. 8, v prol. 1, HN, c. 453 (p. 5). 80

/3thomson/intro.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 9:53 ± disk/amj

xlvi

INTRODUCTION

style, and in riper years, where he described the transactions of his own times, became terse, elegant, and polished, no one will attempt to dispute; and it will be regretted, that this interesting portion of history should break off abruptly in the midst of the contest between the Empress Maud and Stephen.'84 3. Bibliography of William's Writings (a) Original Works 1. Gesta regum Anglorum (GR); for editions and translations see Vol. i, p. xxii. 2. Gesta ponti®cum Anglorum (GP). 3. Historia novella (HN). 4. De antiquitate Glastonie ecclesie (AG). 5. Vita S. Dunstani (VD). 6. Passio S. Indracti, unpr. and largely lost; see M. Lapidge, `The cult of St Indract at Glastonbury', in Ireland in Early Mediaeval Europe, ed. D. Whitelock, R. McKitterick, and D. Dumville (Cambridge, 1982), pp. 179± 212, at 194±6. 7. Vita S. Benigni, lost; an abbreviated version is in Nova Legenda Anglie, ed. C. Horstman (2 vols.: Oxford, 1901), i. 112±14. 8. Vita Patricii, unpr. and largely lost; see C. H. Slover, `William of Malmesbury's Life of St Patrick', Modern Philology, xxiv (1926±7), 5±20; L. Bieler, The Life and Legend of St Patrick (Dublin, 1949), pp. 121±2; id., Four Latin Lives of St Patrick (Scriptores Latini Hiberniae, ix: Dublin, 1971), pp. 22±5; John of Glastonbury, pp. xxvii, 281±2. 9. Vita Wulfstani (VW), trans. J. Peile (Oxford, 1934). 10. Liber ponti®calis (Liber pont.). 11. De miraculis beatae virginis Mariae (De miraculis B.V.M.; see also Carter). 12. Abbreviatio Amalarii; R. W. Pfaff, `The ``Abbreviatio Amalarii'' of William of Malmesbury', Recherches de theÂologie ancienne et meÂdieÂvale, xlvii (1980), 77±113, (edn.) xlviii (1981), 128±71. 13. De¯oratio Gregorii, unpr.; see D. H. Farmer, `William of Malmesbury's commentary on Lamentations', Studia Monastica, iv (1962), 283±311, at 308± 11. 14. Commentary on Lamentations, unpr.; see Farmer, `William of Malmesbury's commentary on Lamentations', at pp. 283±307. 84 Not all have shared Sharpe's opinion that the style of HN is superior to that of GR and GP; cf. Stubbs in GR ii, p. cxxxiv, `the latter parts of the Historia novella . . . are really little more than notes which the author must have meant to work up later in better form', and Potter in HN, p. xiii, who speaks of that work as not only un®nished but unrevised. However Edmund King, in his forthcoming OMT edition of HN, judges that it contains some of William's ®nest writing

/3thomson/intro.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 9:53 ± disk/amj

BIBLIOGRAPHY OF WILLIAM'S WRITINGS

xlvii

15. Polyhistor de¯orationum (Polyhistor). 16. Epistola ad Petrum de Iohanne Scoto, ed. Stubbs, GR i, pp. cxliii±cxlvi. 17. `Three little books of chronicles', mentioned in the prologue to HN; lost. 18. Itinerarium Iohannis abbatis, a description of the journey of John, abbot of Malmesbury, to Rome in 1140. Mentioned by John Leland, De Scriptoribus Britannicis, p. 196; lost. 19. John Leland saw at Malmesbury abbey a copy of a work allegedly by William which he described as `libri quindecim de serie quattuor euangelistarum nullo non genere carminis': Collectanea iii. 157; De scriptoribus Britannicis, p. 196 (`nullo non genere carminis'); lost.

(b) `Collected editions' * denotes a manuscript in the hand of William and/or one or more of his helpers. All except no. 13 are fully discussed in Thomson, William of Malmesbury, especially ch. 4. 1. Collection on Roman History in Bodl. Libr. Arch. Seld. B. 16.* 2. John the Scot, De divisione naturae, in Cambridge, Trinity College O. 5. 20.* 3. Martianus Capella, De nuptiis, with commentaries, in Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 330.* 4. Collection on Carolingian History in Bodl. Libr. lat. class. d. 39. 5. Collection of Cicero's works in CUL Dd. 13. 2. 6. Collection on ancient military strategy in Oxford, Lincoln College lat. 100.* 7. Collection of computistic writings in Bodl. Libr. Auct. F. 3. 14.* 8. Collection of grammatical writings in BL Harl. 3969. 9. Letters and treatises of Anselm in London, Lambeth Palace Library 224.* 10. Oxford, Oriel College 42, Concilia, Leo's letters and tractates.* 11. Commentaries on the Old Testament Wisdom books in Oxford, Merton College 181; binding leaf from a copy of Eusebius/Ru®nus, Historia ecclesiastica.* 12. Bodl. Libr. Rawlinson G. 139, Cicero, Quintilian, Gellius.* 13. BL Royal 5 F. iv, works of Ambrose. (This last MS was identi®ed in 1994 by Michael Gullick. It includes a note in William's hand on f.iiv, and possibly corrections by him to the text.)

/3thomson/tcom1.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 9:55 ± disk/amj

COMMENTARY The commentary is keyed to the Latin text by the chapter- and subsection-numbers, and by lemmata; chapter-numbers and lemmata are in bold type. William's own cross-references, footnoted in Vol. i, are not again signalled here; however, all identi®cations of quotations given in footnotes to Vol. i are repeated in the commentary, with fuller discussion as required. the structure of gr The GR is a highly-organized work; much planning and several drafts must lie behind even the earliest of the extant versions. The main evidence for this is the 148 cross-references forward and backward throughout the work. But William was concerned to introduce intervals and digressions into a basically tidy and logical structure with a relatively simple chronological progression. These deviations, mainly into continental history, are to be explained by either (a) the necessity of elucidating the course of English history in terms of the broader context, e.g. the early development of Normandy (cc. 127±8, 178), (b) William's distaste for the state of English affairs at a particular time, e.g. the reign of áthelred the Unready (cc. 164±5, 176±80), (c) the intrinsic importance of events such as the Investiture Dispute (cc. 263±6), the First Crusade (cc. 343±89), or the beginnings of the Cistercian Order (cc. 334±7), or (d ) light relief for the reader. These digressions make the plan of GR more complex than it might otherwise have been. To help the reader through the text we gave in Vol. i (pp. xxxi±xxxii) a plan of the complete work in tabular form, distinguishing between the major themes and the many digressions. To facilitate use of the Commentary I give another plan here, this time organized as far as possible in order of chapters. Digressions related to the main theme are signalled by single indent, independent digressions by double indent, digressions arising out of digressions by triple indent.

/3thomson/tcom1.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 9:55 ± disk/amj

2

COMMENTARY

Book I In general: `the history of the English from their conquest of Britain to the reign of Ecgberht'. 1±9 Roman England and the English conquest 9±15 Kent 16±43 Wessex (19±29, 35±6, 38±9 early history of Glastonbury) 29. 3±, 30 origins of Malmesbury abbey 31 praise of St Aldhelm 44±73 Northumbria 54±63 character and death of Bede 66, 69±70 the achievement of Alcuin 67±8 the Frankish kings and their descendants 74±96 Mercia 97 East Anglia 98 East Saxons 99±105 survey of kingdoms and bishoprics Book II In general: `the history of the kingdom to the Norman Conquest'. 106±9 the rise of Wessex 110, 112 the later Carolingians 111 Visio Karoli crassi 113±19 the history of Wessex 120±4 reign and achievement of Alfred 125±6, 129±30 reign of Edward the Elder 127±8, 178 the origins and early history of Normandy 131±40 áthelstan 141 Edmund 142±4, 150±1, 184±5 privileges of Glastonbury 145 Norman stories 146±7 Eadred, Eadwig 148±60 Edgar 161±2 Edward the Martyr 163 the nuns of Shaftesbury 164±77 áthelred II 167±9, 172 Gerbertian legends 170±1 miraculous stories from Italy 173±5 miraculous stories from Germany

/3thomson/tcom1.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 9:55 ± disk/amj

COMMENTARY

3

179±87 Cnut 187 early France 188 Harold and Harthacnut 189±95 legends of Emperor Henry II 196±200, 220±8 Edward the Confessor 201±3 Gregory VI 204±7 other miraculous stories, two of Rome 207±19 English royal saints, male and female BOOKS iii±iv `will tell of the three Norman kings, together with such events as befell in their time in other countries'.

Book III In general: The reign of William I. 229±38 Norman background 235 history of the county of Anjou 237 miracle in Brittany 238±58 conquest of England 259 Danish royal house 260 Norwegian royal house 261 William I, foreign affairs 262 Robert Guiscard and the Normans in south Italy 263±7 legends and stories of Gregory VII 267, 273, 277±9 William I's private life and character 268 legend of Archbishop Maurilius of Rouen 269 Bishops Walkelin and Wulfstan 270±72 problems of the Anglo-Norman church 273±6 William I's marriage and children 280 his greed 281±3 his death 284±5 Berengar of Tours 286 miracles concerning the Eucharist 287 King Arthur's grave 288±9 the Investiture Dispute 290±1 mouse marvels 292 Marianus Scotus 293 a German miracle 294±303 the dispute between Canterbury and York

/3thomson/tcom1.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 9:55 ± disk/amj

4

COMMENTARY

Book IV In general: The reign of William II and `certain events of his time, whether disasters in this country or great doings overseas . . .; in particular the Christians' pilgrimage to Jerusalem'. 305±21 William II 322±33 natural and other disasters and portents 333 his death 334±7 the Cistercian Order 338±41 transfer of episcopal sees in England 342 Goscelin of St Bertin/Canterbury 343±89 the First Crusade, concluding with accounts of Bohemond, Godfrey of Lorraine, Raymond of Toulouse, and Robert Curthose 351±3, 354±6, 359, 367±8 descriptions of Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, and Jerusalem 389 Robert Curthose back home Book V In general: The reign of Henry I selectively to c.1125. 410 King Sigurd's crusade 420±35 Henry V and Investitures 439 Duke William IX of Aquitaine and Bishop Peter of Poitiers 440 Norman monastic reformers 441±4 English monastic reformers 445 incorruption of English saints the title For the sake of euphony we have translated De gestis regum Anglorum as `The Deeds of the English Kings'. Note, however, that the literal translation is `The Deeds of the Kings of the English People'. This conveys two important points: (1) the obvious fact that not all of the kings were themselves English; (2) that William's perspective is very much an English one, even when discussing the period from 1066 to his own day, and despite the fact that he was himself half-Norman (See for instance below, Book i prol. 4n). So the Celtic inhabitants of Britain (Welsh, Scots, Irish) and their rulers will only appear insofar as they rebel against the kings of the English (cc. 47. 2, 146. 1, 182, 196. 2, 199. 4, 310. 2, 311. 1±2, 327, 396. 1, 401, 409. 1), or

/3thomson/tcom1.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 9:55 ± disk/amj

COMMENTARY

5

submit to them (cc. 48. 3, 125. 1, 131. 3, 134. 2, 148. 2, 155, 248. 2, 249. 2, 258. 1). This displeased Geoffrey of Monmouth (below, notes to cc. 8. 2, 445. 5).

/3thomson/tcom1.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 9:55 ± disk/amj

THE PREFATORY LETTERS Of the three letters printed at the head of our text, the ®rst two appear only in Tt, while the third appears for the ®rst time in (most copies of the) C version of c.1135, where it is sited, for no obvious reason, between Books iii and iv. In the B version it is found in its logical place preceding Book i. On those grounds its reference to GR `quae nuper edidi' (Letter 3. 2) might be taken to refer to the A version, substantially completed by early 1125. However, it is also possible that this Letter was intended to preface A itself, since the epilogue addressed to Robert at cc. 446±9 (present in A, C, and B) suggests that this version too was dedicated to him (see above, p. xxxiii n. 26). One can only guess why the Letter escaped the A manuscripts altogether, to appear in a random position in C, in the proper one only in B; but one notes that the alternative dedications to David and Matilda escaped the mainstream transmission of GR altogether. Perhaps each of the letters was originally attached to a particular presentation copy of GR, and was not intended by William to accompany any other. In that case the appearances of Letters 1±2 together in Tt and Letter 3 in C are to be regarded as casual or accidental. But by the time he came to produce B, the ®nal version of GR, William must have decided to dedicate the work formally and explicitly to Earl Robert, perhaps because he had shown real interest in the work from early on. On these grounds we have followed the B version in siting the Letter here. Letters 1 and 2 were ®rst printed and discussed by E. KoÈnsgen, `Zwei unbekannte Briefe zu den Gesta Regum Anglorum des Wilhelm von Malmesbury', Deutsches Archiv fuÈr Erforschung des Mittelalters, xxxi (1975), 204±14. Written more or less simultaneously, they are not easy to date. The accession of David of Scotland, ?25 Apr. 1124, provides a de®nite terminus post quem, but the question isÐHow much later? (1) Prima facie the most obvious possibility would be before the death of the Empress Matilda's ®rst husband Henry V, 23 May 1125, since this event is unmentioned. The problem with this is that there was during this period no likelihood of Matilda coming to England or exercising authority there (see Letter 2. 3); it is apparently

/3thomson/tcom1.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 9:55 ± disk/amj

THE PREFATORY LETTERS

7

also the case that Matilda was never called `empress' in England during her ®rst husband's lifetime. (2) Another possibility is between the death of Henry V and the date of Matilda's actual coming to England, 11 Sept. 1126. One would have to presume a date late in this period to explain the lack of any reference to or consolation for her husband's death. (3) Yet a third and probably the most likely possibility is after her arrival. In favour of this is that David himself came to England soon after and remained for the whole of 1126, and that Henry I was ®lling ecclesiastical vacancies at that time. This is the position taken by M. Chibnall, The Empress Matilda (Oxford, 1991), pp. 55±6. Against it might be the abbreviated state of the T recension, best explained in terms of a continental audience. It is, however, possible that these abbreviations, some of them unskilful, were made to Matilda's copy after her acceptance of it and her return to the Continent. She left England again in May 1127, married Geoffrey count of Anjou the next year, and did not return (except for a brief visit in 1131) until 1139. In c. 108. 3 below and GP, c. 271 (pp. 432±3), William describes the plundering of Malmesbury abbey by William Rufus, and in HN, c. 428 (p. 40), he bewails its appropriation by Roger of Salisbury to his bishopric in 1118. The Letters and offering of copies of GR which they accompanied were not successful in achieving their object of ending the abbey's vulnerability to predation, for Roger retained control of it until his death on 11 Dec. 1139: Heads, p. 55, N. Berry, `St Aldhelm, William of Malmesbury and the liberty of Malmesbury abbey', Reading Medieval Studies, xvi (1990), 15±38. Passages in Letters 1 and (especially) 2 (see notes below), strongly suggest that William was himself the writer of both. letter 1 1 Habet enim hoc uirtus . . . fauorem allitiat] Cf. Letter 3. 1: `Virtus clarorum uirorum . . . non ualent exempla'. The similarity of wording, if not of the rather commonplace sentiments in themselves, suggests common authorship of the Letters. 3 Hinc est quod Anglorum Regum . . . cognoscerent nomina] How many copies of the GR were sent with this Letter? At the outset it seems as though David is to receive and approve a copy to be sent on to Matilda; but the subsequent comments about his ancestry and

/3thomson/tcom1.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 9:55 ± disk/amj

8

COMMENTARY

interest in literature make it inconceivable that he was not presented with a copy for himself as well. We suggest, therefore, that Letters 1 and 2 originally prefaced separate copies of GR; the T family presumably descends from the copy sent to Matilda, with the Letter to David added, and the main text edited to cater for a continental readership. uos non indignus nepos et ipsa proneptis] William's use of `nepos' (and `abnepos', `pronepos') in GR is not always easy to grasp. Normally he uses `nepos' to mean `grandson', `nephew' only as part of a formula `X ``nepos'' of Y by Y's brother Z'. Here the reference must be to an ancestor connecting David and Matilda with the line of English (that is, West Saxon) kings. The obvious candidate, then, is David's maternal grandfather, Edward son of Edmund Ironside and grandson of áthelred `the Unready'. But since William says `ancestors', not `ancestor', it is relevant to note that Edward's wife was also illustrious: Agatha, said by William to have been sister-in-law of the king of Hungary (c. 180. 10 and n.). diuinae mentes . . . cognoscerent nomina] Cf. AG, prol. (p. 42): `Sciatis eciam uos priscorum heroum imitatum, et pene dico supergressum, facta priusquam audissetis uocabula' (of Henry bishop of Winchester). 5 Nam ut sileamus de ceteris, quorum litteraturam liber iste non taceat] The literate kings whom William had in mind were presumably Alfred and Henry I: see below, cc. 123, 390. domina nostra . . . habebat continuum, ut litteris assisteret, cultores earum proueheret] Queen Matilda was a patron of vernacular poets, said to have impoverished herself by the number she kept at court: M. D. Legge, `L'in¯uence litteÂraire de la cour d'Henri Beauclerc' in MeÂlanges offertes aÁ Rita Lejeune (2 vols.: Gembloux, 1969), i. 679±87. But whether William would have recognized this activity as `assisting letters' is debatable. Her interest in Latin literature is harder to identify. For what it is worth, the Life of her mother Queen Margaret of Scotland was dedicated to her by its author, perhaps Turgot prior of Durham: ed. J. H. Hinde, Symeonis Dunelmensis Opera et Collectanea, i (Surtees Soc., li, 1868), p. 234, trans. with notes in A. O. Anderson, Early Sources of Scottish History, ad 500±1286 (2 vols.: Edinburgh, 1922), ii. 59±88. It has been suggested that Queen Matilda actually commissioned the work (see below, c. 311. 3n). Relevant also is the group of eight Latin poems

/3thomson/tcom1.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 9:55 ± disk/amj

LETTER 1.4±2.2

9

(including three by Hildebert and one by Marbod) written for her, two as epitaphs. Hildebert also addressed four letters to her: E. van Houts, `Latin poetry and the Anglo-Norman court 1066±1135: the Carmen de Hastingae proelio', Journal of Medieval History, xv (1989), 39±62, at pp. 50±1. sancti Aldelmi cognati uestri] Similarly Letter 2. 4, with respect to Matilda's mother. But on this matter William seems to have changed his views over time, in a way which impacts on the argument concerning the possible dates of these letters. If we leave their evidence to one side in the ®rst instance, William's earliest position was that there was no genetic relationship between Aldhelm and the West Saxon royal house. Thus in GR, c. 35. 5 TAB, he refers to the negative evidence of ASC. In GP, c. 188 (pp. 332±3), he repeats and expands this line of argument, but softens its conclusion, saying that although there was no evidence that Aldhelm was Ine's nephew, yet his father, according to King Alfred's Handboc, was `arctissima necessitudine consanguineum' to the king. In GP, c. 223 (p. 375), William refers to Aldhelm, `qui regalem prosapiam proxima contingit linea', and in c. 246 (p. 396), he refers to áthelstan `qui beatissimo Aldhelmo, cognato suo, ut dicebat, et ut res erat, . . . famulabatur'; similarly the B addition to c. 131 below. Thus the present passage seems to re¯ect William's developed view, and favours the relatively late date for the Letters proposed above. As to the facts: the statement that Aldhelm was Ine's nephew by his brother Kenten had already been made by Faricius of Abingdon in his Vita S. Aldhelmi (AA SS, Maii vi. 84A), on the basis of `antiquissimis Anglicanae linguae schedulis'. Faricius' work was well known to William (GP v prol.; pp. 330±1). The truth of the matter will always be in doubt, since no earlier authorities mention Kenten or discuss Aldhelm's parentage. letter 2 2 nostramque regali dote possideret aecclesiam] I know of no other evidence for this, but it is doubtless correct. Thus, c.1105±6 Queen Matilda wrote to Archbishop Anselm asking for his con®rmation of Eadwulf, monk of Winchester, as abbot of Malmesbury, she having already acted `in iis quae mei iuris erant'. Anselm at ®rst refused, because although `Vos . . . quantum ad uos spectat, bene et secundum Deum fecistis quod inde fecistis', the queen's emissaries

/3thomson/tcom1.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 9:55 ± disk/amj

10

COMMENTARY

had offered the archbishop a bribe in the form of a goblet which he rejected along with the request. However, he must have relented, as Eadwulf was abbot of Malmesbury 1106±18. Anselm, Epp. ccclxxxiv± v (SAO v. 326±8). 3 spei consolatio felicis aduentus uestri] `spei consolatio' is odd. One wonders whether it does not represent a hastily-contrived con¯ation of two chronological stages: (1) the spes (alone) of Matilda's arrival, and (2) the consolatio offered by its actual ful®lment. But it would have been simpler, and productive of a clearer result, if William had deleted the redundant `spes' instead of altering it to the genitive. 4±6 Semel igitur . . . immorerentur gesta] This passage at least must have been written by William himself, making probable his authorship of the whole Letter. 4 Semel igitur . . . regum Anglorum honorari] See above, Letter 1. 5n. 5 Exigua . . . scedula] This must have been produced before Queen Matilda's death on 1 May 1118. Work on the GR proper clearly began before this date, then was laid aside for a time, but not for long, given that the T and A versions were substantially complete by the turn of 1124 and 1125. Maius . . . moueri . . . opus] Cf. Virgil, Aen. vii. 45: `maius opus moueo'. 7 et munere nostro dominationem nostri] That is, the Malmesbury community offer to the younger Matilda on their own account the authority over them formerly granted by Henry I to her mother. letter 3 1 Rotberto] Earl of Gloucester 1121±47. dum earum adorant uestigia] Cf. Statius, Theb. xii. 817: `et uestigia semper adora'. 2 magnanimitas aui, muni®centia patrui, prudentia patris] The three ancestors are William the Conqueror, Robert Curthose duke of Normandy, and Henry I. quod litteris insistis] He was, for instance, patron of Geoffrey of Monmouth and perhaps of Serlo of Wilton. All three dedications to the Historia regum Britannie include Robert: N. Wright in Geoffrey of

/3thomson/tcom1.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 9:55 ± disk/amj

LETTER 2.2±3.3

11

Monmouth, pp. xiii±xiv. Serlo composed a verse epitaph for Robert: È berg (ed.), Serlon de Wilton: PoeÁmes latins (Stockholm, 1965), no. J. O xv (pp. 94±5). 3 quod sepe per excessum alias quam in Anglia peregrinatur narratio] An admission that, although England is the focus of his work, William has written something approaching general European history between Bede's time and his own. See above, p. 1.

/3thomson/tcom1.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 9:55 ± disk/amj

BOOK I The plan of Book i is sketched in its prologue. The general theme is `the history of the English from their conquest of Britain to the reign of Ecgberht'. This is introduced with a concise account of the end of Roman Britain and the English conquest (cc. 1±9), then proceeds to the histories of the four most powerful English kingdoms, in the order in which William thought them to have been founded: Kent (cc. 9±15), Wessex (cc. 16±43), Northumbria (cc. 44±73), and Mercia (cc. 74±96). These are followed by more summary accounts of the two least powerful and in¯uential: East Anglia (c. 97) and the East Saxons (c. 98). Chapters 100±5, a verbatim copy of a list of the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms and bishoprics, are really an afterthought or appendix. Unlike the later books, digressions in this one are few and mostly well related to the main theme: the origins of Malmesbury abbey (cc. 29. 3±30); in the C version the early history of Glastonbury (cc. 19±29. 2, 35±6, 38±9); the character, scholarly achievement and holy death of Bede (cc. 54±63); the achievement of Alcuin (cc. 66, 69±70). These digressions themselves generated a few more: the origins of Malmesbury prompted praise of St Aldhelm (c. 31), and William's treatment of Alcuin led to a summary account of the early Frankish kings and their descendants (cc. 67±8). In any case the latter was necessary because of the various dealings between the English and Frankish monarchs: William had the perspective of `England and the Continent' well in mind long before English scholars of this century. For the material in this Book William was mainly dependent upon a small group of written sources, all still extant, though not always available to us in the version known to him. These are: ASC, Bede, HE, for the early chapters Gildas and the Historia Brittonum, an extensive collection of Alcuin's letters and a small one of Boniface's, John of Worcester's Chronicle and/or sources used in it, some genealogies and regnal lists, a little hagiography, and a handful of charters (mainly relating to Glastonbury). Two of these sources, the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle and possibly John of Worcester, were used in the later books as well. The relation of GR to both, obvious and important but problematic, merits further discussion. There can be no doubt that he used ASC in a version

/3thomson/tcom1.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 9:55 ± disk/amj

BOOK I

13

resembling E (Bodl. Libr., MS Laud. misc. 636): see Whitelock in ASC, pp. xx±xxi, and below, notes on cc. 9. 1, 11. 1, 18, 38, 44. 2, 3, 50. 4, 72, 108. 1, 121. 1, 131, 165. 6, 188. 5, 199. 9, 200. This version was not E itself, written at Peterborough in one stretch to 1121, and including local interpolations which William does not use, and errors which he does not reproduce (below, notes to cc. 35. 1, 48. 4). Moreover (pace Whitelock, p. xx) there is no certain use of ASC in GR after 1087. What William had, therefore, was very probably E's direct ancestor or a MS closely related to it. This ancestor was at St Augustine's abbey Canterbury from c.1050 until at least 1061. The delicate question is whether William's many variations from E indicate peculiarities in the version which he used, his use of one or more other versions of ASC, or his preference for another kind of source altogether. Probably each of these is true in particular cases; certainly William does not agree consistently with any other single version of ASC: e.g. below, notes to cc. 17 (illustrating a change of mind in the direction of E), 18, 19 (apparent use of F), 42, 74, 95.1 (BC), 108.2, 140.1 (D), 146.1 (A), 181.4 (F), 199.1 (CD). As for the relationship between GR and John of Worcester's Chronicle: William had close ties with Worcester, and it is inconceivable that he was unaware of John and of his Chronicle, although he mentions neither. It is certain that, after ®nishing the ®rst state of his Chronicle, John became aware of GP and used it in the revision of his own work. It is also certain that William and John often had access to the same sources, and probable that these sources were at Worcester rather than Malmesbury. What can neither be proved nor disproved is whether William made use of John's Chronicle in its ®nished state. For one thing William habitually transmuted his sources to such an extent that his dependence upon them is nearly always obscured; for another, the `prehistory' of John's Chronicle prior to the redaction in the base MS, Oxford, Corpus Christi Coll. 157, is irrecoverable. The balance of probability is that William and John exchanged information and source-material while both their works were in progress, but that William did not make use of the `published' version of John's Chronicle. Such is the view of Martin Brett, `John of Worcester and his contemporaries', 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. 101±26, at 113±17; also P. McGurk in John of Worcester II, pp. lxxi, lxxvi. For the Frankish kings, who make a marginal appearance in this

/3thomson/tcom1.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 9:55 ± disk/amj

14

COMMENTARY

Book (c. 68), William had a whole raft of other sources which of course do not otherwise make much of a showing in a work primarily devoted to England. To these William made a scatter of additions, and it is generally hard to say whether these were based upon other written sources of which we know nothing, oral tradition, or the exercise of his own imaginative intelligence. As a consequence it is also hard to know what degree of credence to give them. prologue Writing much later, in early 1143, William gave a reÂsume of this prologue in HN iii prol.: `As we men of the present day severely and rightly blame our predecessors, who since Bede have left no record of themselves and their doings, I, who have set myself to remove this disgrace from us, may fairly claim the kindly favour of my readers if they judge aright.' 1±3 With William's remarks about Bede and subsequent English history-writing compare the more summary and less analytical statement by Henry of Huntingdon, prol. (pp. 4±7): `With these considerations in mind, therefore, and at your command, Bishop Alexander, I have undertaken to narrate the history of this kingdom and the origins of our people . . . On your advice I have followed the Venerable Bede's Ecclesiastical History where I could, selecting material also from other authors and borrowing from chronicles preserved in ancient libraries, and I have described past events down to the time of our own knowledge and observation.' William praises Bede again below, cc. 54±62, and in VW i. 14 (p. 20), where he comments on Bishop Wulfstan's dedication of a church to him: `pulchre illi prime dedicationis prebens principium qui fuisset literature princeps de gente Anglorum. Eo enim die tam pro¯ua predicatione populum irrorauit ut non dubitaretur Wlstanum per Spiritum Sanctum eadem niti facundia que quondam linguam mouisset in Beda.' The rediscovery of Bede was an important component of Anglo-Norman historiography: C. N. L. Brooke, `Geoffrey of Monmouth as a historian', in Church and Government in the Middle Ages; Essays presented to C. R. Cheney, ed. C. N. L. Brooke et al. (Cambridge, 1976), pp. 77±91, and A. Gransden, `Bede's reputation as an historian in medieval England', in her Legends,

/3thomson/tcom1.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 9:55 ± disk/amj

BOOK I. PR. 1±3

15

Traditions and History in Medieval England (London and Rio Grande, Oh., 1992), pp. 1±29. 1 Res Anglorum gestas Beda . . . absoluit] Cf. Hegesippus, De bello Iudaico, prol. 1 (ed. V. Ussani, Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, lxvi(1), p. 3): `Macchabaeorum quoque res gestas propheticus sermo paucis absoluit'. See Wright IV, pp. 15±17. 2 Nam de Elwardo . . . prestat silere] Perhaps an ironic adaptation of Sallust, Bell. Iug. xix. 2: `Nam de Carthagine silere melius puto', or Sidonius, Epist. i. 1. 2: `Nam de Marco Tullio silere melius puto'. William is the only medieval writer to use áthelweard's Chronicle, of which only a single MS survives: formerly BL MS Cotton Otho A. x, fos. 1±54 (s. xiin), the burnt remains now fos. 1±7 of MS Cotton Otho A. xii (Ker, Anglo-Saxon, no. 170). Perhaps it was at or near Malmesbury in William's day. 3 sobria sermonis festiuitate] Cf. Auctor ad Herenn. i. 8. 13: `sermonis festiuitatem', and Hegesippus, prol. 1 (p. 3): `Iosephus, utinam tam religioni et ueritati attentus quam rerum indagini et sermonum sobrietati'. For William, Bede too was characterized by `sermonum sobrietas'; see below, c. 57n. ad obitum Anselmi archiepiscopi] Note B's reading of `Radul®' for TAC's `Anselmi'. Both readings are correct. Eadmer completed Hist. nov. books i±iv to Anselm's death (1109) c.1115. He resumed work on it (books v±vi) in 1119, ending abruptly with Archbishop Ralph's death on 20 Oct. 1122: R. W. Southern, St Anselm and his Biographer: A Study in Monastic Life and Thought 1059±c.1130 (Cambridge, 1963), pp. 298±309. Clearly William had access to the ®rst state of Eadmer's work very soon after its completion, but there was a long time-lag before he had the second redaction, or before he saw ®t to use it in revising his own work. Here is the ®rst evidence for the chronological priority of the C over the B version. pretermissis . . . annis] The omitted years were those from ad 734 (the date of Bede's death as given by William at c. 54. 1) to the accession of Edgar, either (a) as king of all England in 959, or (b) as king of the Mercians and Northumbrians in 957 (ASC (C), John of Worcester). Supposing (a): If the number of years is calculated to include both of the terminal dates then the ®gure is 226; if calculated by subtracting the earlier from the later date, it is 225; if both the terminal dates are excluded (i.e. if William estimated the intervening years), then the T reading of 224 is correct. There would be no

/3thomson/tcom1.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 9:55 ± disk/amj

16

COMMENTARY

rational support for the ACB reading, which could have resulted simply from a copying error (of `iii' for `iiii'). Supposing (b): If the number of years is calculated to include both of the terminal dates then the ®gure is 224, as T; if calculated by subtracting the earlier from the later date, it is 223, as ACB. The (b) alternative is obviously the more likely. 4 cum propter patriae caritatem, tum propter adhortantium auctoritatem] Note Tt's addition after `tum propter', effectively a gloss: `Matildis reginae et fratrum ecclesie nostre'. It makes explicit the connection with the comments in Letter 1. 3 (`quae hortatu dominae nostrae sororis uestrae Mathildis reginae scribere fecimus') and in Letter 2. 4±6. William's reference to England as his `patria' should also be noticed. The `Englishness' of William and other early twelfth-century chroniclers is noted and studied by A. Williams, The English and the Norman Conquest (Woodbridge, 1995), pp. 172±86. More general discussion is in S. Reynolds, `Medieval origines gentium and the community of the realm', History, lxviii (1983), 375±90, and J. Campbell, `Some twelfthcentury views of the Anglo-Saxon past', in his Essays in AngloSaxon History (London and Ronceverte, 1986), pp. 209±28. In this connection observe how William takes up and extends the late Anglo-Saxon tradition of English saints as `national', not merely local ®gures. This is especially noteworthy in the case of the royal saints mentioned in GR (e.g. cc. 162±3, 208±18). ex his . . . pauca perstringens] Cf. Sedulius, Carm. pasch. i. 96: `Ex quibus audaci perstringere pauca relatu / uix animis conmitto meis'. With William's references to Bede, account of English historiography since, and statement of intention, compare John of Worcester s.a. 734: `With God's inspiration we have thought it ®tting to record, for the bene®t of our faithful successors, all the events following the happy end of Bede's life, as we have found them in the English chronicles, or in trustworthy accounts of faithful men, or of which we ourselves have heard for certain, or which we have seen with our own eyes.' 5 William re¯ects on the plan announced here, in GP ii prol. (p. 139), explaining how he will have to vary it in that work. nostra cura] And so William's account of the kingdom of the East Angles (cc. 97±8) is brief and he adds little of his `own' to the material from Bede and JW Gen.

/3thomson/tcom1.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 9:55 ± disk/amj

BOOK I. PR. 3±BOOK 1.2

17

7 Elwardus, dum tinnula et emendicata uerba uenatur] Cf. Jerome, Epist. cxliii. 2: `In eodem luto haesitat, et exceptis uerbis tinnulis atque emendicatis, nichil aliud loquitur.' si quis . . . leget] Virgil, Ecl. vi. 9±10: `si quis / captus amore leget'. ®des dictorum penes auctores erit] Cf. Sallust, Bell. Iug. xvii. 7: `®des eius rei penes auctores erit'. 1 Anno . . . Britanniam] Based upon Bede, HE i. 15. Latias leges] Cf. Lucan i. 22: `Totum sub Latias leges cum miseris orbem'. in ueterum edi®tiorum uestigiis] An example at Carlisle is described in GP, c. 99 (pp. 206±9). 1±2 Denique Seuerus . . . reliquit heredem] Much as Bede, HE i. 5, 8. 2 ex Helena stabularia] William cites Ambrose, De obitu Theodosii, c. 42 (PL xvi. 1399±1400). Note that he was either ignorant of or chose to disregard the story, retailed by Henry of Huntingdon (i. 37; pp. 58±61) and Geoffrey of Monmouth (v. 5; p. 2), that Helena was the daughter of the British king Coel. in superiores terras] Cf. cc. 2. 2 `ad superiores Britannos', 167.2 `Possident usque hodie superiores regiones', 357. 3 `in superiores . . . terras', 432. 2 `in inferioribus plagis'. These expressions show that in William's mind, as one would expect, was a TO-map of the world, oriented with Asia at the top and Europe bottom left, with England placed in the Ocean beneath, to the left of the entrance to the Mediterranean: Patrick Gautier DalcheÂ, La ``Descriptio Mappe Mundi'' de Hugues de Saint-Victor (Paris, 1988), pp. 59±115, esp. p. 83 pl. II; P. D. A. Harvey, Medieval Maps (London, 1991), pp. 19± 37. On such a map France was positioned literally `above' England. An English example earlier than William's time is in BL MS Cotton Tiberius B. v, fo. 56v (?Winchester, s. xi1): Harvey, Medieval Maps, pp. 21, 24±6; D. Hill, An Atlas of Anglo-Saxon England (Oxford, 1981), pp. 1±3; E. Temple, Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts 900±1066 (A Survey of Illuminated Manuscripts in the British Isles, ii: London, 1976), no. 87, with bibliography. Similar to this is Asser's (apparently Celtic) use of `sinistralis' and `dextralis' for north and south (cc. 35, 52, 79, and Stevenson's note on pp. 233±4). See also c. 54. 1n below for the notion of Britain as an `alter orbis'. But William was not totally consistent. In HN, c. 515 (p. 71), he has King Stephen going to

/3thomson/tcom1.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 9:55 ± disk/amj

18

COMMENTARY

`superiores regiones', and this de®nitely means the north of England, for Stephen was at that time (Easter 1142) at York: John of Hexham, c. 14 (Simeon of Durham ii. 312). Per quorum . . . quantum coaluere] The source seems to be Hist. Brittonum, c. 15, but used inaccurately, for there the settlement of the Britons in Gaul is ascribed to `Maximian' (meaning Maximus; cf. Gildas, cc. 13, 14). triumphis ad uota ¯uentibus] Cf. Servius in Aen. ii. 169 (= Sallust, Hist. v. 25) or Justin xxiii. 3. 12: `Rebus supra uota ¯uentibus'. Also imitated in GP, c. 100 (p. 219). immane quantum coaluere] `immane quantum' also in GP, c. 139 (p. 281); cf. e.g. Horace, Carm. i. 27. 6: `immane quantum discrepat'. For `coaluere' cf. Sallust, Bell. Cat. vi. 2: `incredibile memoratu est quam facile coaluerint'. 2. 1 Succedentibus . . . militem abrasit] As Bede, HE i. 9. 1±2 Constantinus . . . obnoxia fuit] As ibid., i. 11, 12. 2 illos ad bella secutae] Cf. Lucan ix. 242: `te solum in bella secutus'. preter uentri deditos] Cf. Sallust, Bell. Cat. ii. 8: `multi mortales, dediti uentri atque somno'. 3 Based upon Bede, HE i. 12, with perhaps some independent use of Gildas, cc. 14±17. For instance Gildas, but not Bede, says that the Romans felt sorry for the Britons (Gildas, c. 17. 2). 1 sepultis thesauris . . . defodiuntur] As they still are, e.g. the `treasures' discovered at Traprain Law and Mildenhall: A. O. Curle, The Treasure of Traprain (Glasgow, 1923), esp. chs. 1 and 5; K. S. Painter, The Mildenhall Treasure (London, 1977), esp. pp. 22±3. The former had already been looted. fessis sotiorum rebus] Cf. Virgil, Aen. xi. 335: `consulite in medium et rebus succurrite fessis', perhaps recalled by William via Hegesippus ii. 1. 2 (p. 130): `opem fessis rebus . . . poposcerant'. 4 On Vortigern see H. M. and N. K. Chadwick, `Vortigern', in Studies in Early British History, ed. H. M. Chadwick et al. (Cambridge, 1954), pp. 21±46. 1 ut in Gestis Britonum legitur] Hist. Brittonum, c. 24. Hic in tantis tumultibus . . . deperibat] Cf. Hegesippus iv. 32

/3thomson/tcom1.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 9:55 ± disk/amj

BOOK I. 1.2±5.1

19

(p. 291), of the Emperor Vitellius: `Qui si diutius uixisset, luxuriae sumptibus et pretio mensarum Romani imperii opes abligurisset'. 2 Itaque, ut ad summam . . . induerent] Bede, HE i. 14. 5. 1 Germani . . . allabuntur] Hist. Brittonum, c. 20; Bede, HE i. 15. rem uotis mille petitam] Cf. Lucan vii. 238±9: `Oblatumque uidet uotis sibi mille petitum / tempus'. tribus longis nauibus, quas illi ceolas dicunt] The term `cyuli', glossed as `longae naues' (but literally meaning `keel'), is in Gildas, c. 23. 3; `ceolae' is the term in Hist. Brittonum ut supra: see Bosworth and Toller, p. 151. Joseph Stevenson in his translation of GR, The History of the Kings of England, and of his own Times, by William of Malmesbury (The Church Historians of England, iii (1): London, 1854), p. 8 n.3, comments that the word was still used in his day for the vessels used in the coal trade on the Tyne and Wear. Omnis enim fere terra . . . quia tantum hominum germinat . . . Germania uocatur] The connection between `Germania' and `germinare' goes back ultimately to Isidore, Etym. xiv. 4. 2; but William's wording paraphrases that of his immediate source, Paul the Deacon, Historia Langobardorum i. 1 (PL cxv. 435). Throughout GR William uses three words to denote Germany or Germans: most frequently Germania/Germani, less often Teutones/ Teutonici (cc. 68. 1, 112. 1, 135. 1, 192. 2, 360. 2, 420. 1, 3, 435. 2, 438), rarely Alemannia/Alemanni (cc. 68. 1, 110. 2, 188. 7, 420. 1). The ®rst is the most general word, which William uses to incorporate the ancient Franks, the inhabitants of Lotharingia, and the Scandinavians. Teutones means the Germans of William's day: e.g. c. 192. 2 `Germani idemque Teutones'. The ®rst two references to Alemannia/ Alemanni clearly refer to a subdivision of the Teutones. However, when it comes to royal titulature, William uses the terminology standard since the time of Gregory VII: the emperors are never described as `of Germany' or `of the Germans', but `of the Teutons' (cc. 68. 1, 112. 1, 135. 1, 420. 1, 434, 435. 2). A few oddities remain: we have emperors `of Alemannia' at cc. 188. 7 and 420. 1; at c. 420. 1 Henry V is described both as emperor of Alemannia and as `®fth emperor of that name among the Teutons'. Of the extensive literature on nomenclature used of the Germanic peoples by medieval writers see especially F. Vigener, Bezeichnungen

/3thomson/tcom1.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 9:55 ± disk/amj

20

COMMENTARY

fuÈr Volk und Land der Deutschen vom 10. bis zum 13. Jahrhundert (Heidelberg, 1901), E. MuÈller-Mertens, Regnum Teutonicum: Aufkommen und Verbreitung der deutschen Reichs- und KoÈnigsauffassung im fruÈheren Mittelalter (Vienna, Cologne, Graz, 1970), and Carlrichard BruÈhl, Deutschland-Frankreich: die Geburt zweier VoÈlker (Cologne, 1995). 2 ex necessitate uirtutem] cf. VW iii. 23 (p. 63) `nacti ex necessitate uirtutem', and Otto, SprichwoÈrter, p. 241. Normanni] Observe William's awareness that the Northmen, far from being a strange, outlandish race, belonged to the same family of Germanic peoples as the Franks and English. 3 Ex hac . . . Woden] Hist. Brittonum, c. 20. sextum uxori suae Freae . . . sacrilegio] Whether William had in mind speci®c residual pagan practices may be doubted. The notion that Wednesday was sacred to Woden and Friday to Frig is probably only his inference from the names of the days. But these names were only the Germanic equivalents of the Roman gods after whom were named the planets believed to govern the days in question; they have nothing to do (so far as we know) with beliefs or practices current in Anglo-Saxon England. Beda non tacet] Bede, HE i. 15. 6 Venientibus . . . eorum subuentum] Hist. Brittonum, c. 20. Anglis] Very occasionally William's use of Angli for both Angles and the English poses problems for his translator and interpreter. Here (and at c. 97. 5, 6) `English' is acceptable, although we might have assumed that William had in mind Bede, HE i. 5, which states that Hencgest and his followers were indeed Angles. data ®de acceptaque] Cf. Sallust, Bell. Cat. xliv. 3: `data atque accepta ®de'. Also below, cc. 237. 3, 357. 1. Paululum morae . . . manus conserere cauerent] William's authority for this account is unknown. áthelweard i. 3 (p. 7) mentions a single battle against the Scots; neither Bede nor ASC mention such warfare at all. 7. 1±3 Interea . . . parte insulae] Hist. Brittonum, c. 24. But the statement that Northumbria was settled by the son and brother of Hencgest is independent, and would make its settlers Jutes, whereas

/3thomson/tcom1.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 9:55 ± disk/amj

BOOK I. 5.1±8.2

21

Bede, HE i. 15, makes it plain that they were Angles, and elsewhere (c. 45. 2) William shows that he knew this. 1 ®liam Hengesti] By William's time she had become a legendary ®gure: Geoffrey of Monmouth (cc. 100, 102; pp. 67, 69) names her Renwein (Renwen, Roawen, Rowen), Wace (Roman de Brut, ed. I. Arnold (2 vols.: SocieÂte des anciens textes francËais, Paris, 1938± 40), ll. 6931, 6961 (i. 368±9) ) Ronwen. 3 Idam . . . linea] ASC s.a. 547. 8. 1 Guortemer . . . incendit] Based upon Hist. Brittonum, c. 25, but no known earlier source indicates that Vortimer successfully incited his father to resistance. ut Cronica tradit] ASC s.aa. 455, 456, 465, and 473 implies four English victories, but mentions only the death of Horsa. Hist. Brittonum, c. 25, indicates a British victory in the third battle, and gives the name of Vortigern's slain son as Catigirn. John of Worcester s.aa. 455, 457, 465, and 473 is unequivocal about the English victories. 2 spes imminutae retro ¯uxere] Cf. Virgil, Aen. ii. 169±70: `ex illo ¯uere ac retro sublapsa referri / spes Danaum'. Also in HN, c. 481 (p. 39). Ambrosius] Bede, HE i. 16. Hic est Artur . . . cede pro¯igarit] William's famous denunciation of the sort of stories taken up by Geoffrey of Monmouth in his Historia regum Britanniae. One wonders whether William knew that Geoffrey was planning his book, ®nished in 1138, which contains an explicit and slightly sardonic reference to GR (Geoffrey of Monmouth, c. 208; p. 147). William's own information on Arthur is mainly from Hist. Brittonum, c. 27, but he has con¯ated the eighth of Arthur's battles, `iuxta castellum Guinnion, in quo . . . portauit imaginem sanctae Mariae . . . super humeros suos', and the twelfth, `in monte Badonis'. It has been thought that the basis of this section of Hist. Brittonum is a Welsh poem cataloguing Arthur's battles. Thus Hist. Brittonum's `super humeros suos' is clearly a misreading of the Welsh `scuit' (shield) for `scuid' (shoulder): L. Alcock, Arthur's Britain (2nd edn., Harmondsworth, 1989), pp. 38, 57. It is of the greatest interest that William has somehow managed to render the original Welsh correctly. Geoffrey of Monmouth (c. 147; pp. 103±4), perhaps partly depending upon GR, has it both ways: Arthur had

/3thomson/tcom1.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 9:55 ± disk/amj

22

COMMENTARY

`across his shoulders a shield . . . on which was painted a likeness of the Blessed Mary'. 3 audentioribus animis in ferrum ruere] Cf. Virgil, Aen. viii. 648: `in ferrum pro libertate ruebant'. William uses the quotation more explicitly at c. 177. 2. Interea Hengestus . . . seruitutem exuit] Based on Hist. Brittonum, c. 26, which in the `Vatican' recension mentions Essex, Middlesex, and Sussex. uitio quodam humani ingenii ut quo plus habeas plus ambias] Cf. Justin vi. 1. 1: `more ingenii humani quo plura habent eo ampliora cupientes', and Hegesippus i. 10. 2 (p. 15): `more quodam humani ingenii'. animas inter uina uomuere] Cf. Virgil, Aen. ix. 349±50: `uomit ille animam et cum sanguine mixta / uina refert moriens'. 4 Hengestus . . . Eisc . . . uiginti quattuor . . . Oht . . . Irmenricum . . . discernitur] William's Latin is unusually opaque at this point. He means to draw a distinction between Hencgest, a great conqueror, and his son Eisc who was not, and to say that Hencgest's grandson Ohta and great-grandson Eormenric were unambitious like Eisc. Henry of Huntingdon (ii. 9; pp. 90±1), on the other hand, says that `Esc . . . regnum suum regnis [Brittannorum] ampliauit'. Both historians were presumably guessing, but William's comment is at least consistent with, and an attempt to interpret, the evidence available to him. The complete genealogy is much as Bede, HE ii. 5, and John of Worcester i. 12; cf. JW Gen., p. 248, which has HencgestÐOcga uel OricÐOesa uel OiscÐEormenric, and Hist. Brittonum, cc. 31, 56, 58 (HBC, p. 12). ASC does not mention either the death of Hencgest or the length of his reign. John of Worcester records his death s.a. 488, after he `had ruled the kingdom of Kent most vigorously for thirtyfour years'. 488 is indeed the thirty-ninth year after Hencgest's arrival, as dated by William to 449. William gives the length of Eisc's reign as ASC s.a. 488, but ASC does not mention either Ohta or Eormenric. William must have deduced the ®gure of ®fty-three years for their combined reign(s) from the ASC dates for the reign of Eisc (488 + 24 = 514) and the start of áthelberht's (565). 9 Mostly from Bede, HE i. 25, ii. 5, but there is no known source for William's remarks on áthelberht's career prior to his marriage.

/3thomson/tcom1.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 9:55 ± disk/amj

BOOK I. 8.2±10.2

23

These may be no more than imaginative expansion of ASC s.a. 568, which records áthelberht's defeat by Ceawlin of Wessex. His alleged series of victories is mentioned again in GP, c. 84 (p. 184), with reference back. On the origins of the kingdom of Kent see N. P. Brooks, `The creation and early structure of the kingdom of Kent', in The Origins of Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms, ed. S. R. Bassett (Leicester, 1989), pp. 55±74, 250±4, dating áthelberht's accession c.580 6 593 (pp. 75±7). 1 iuxta Cronicam, iuxta Bedam] ASC (E) s.a. 565; HE ii. 5. nos eam . . . in medio relinquimus] Cf. Sallust, Bell. Cat. xix. 5: `nos eam rem in medio relinquemus'. 2 ad unas consuetudines confederata] The same expression, with a different application, in Mir., c. 13 (p. 93). siluestres animos . . . exuere] Cf. Virgil, Georg. ii. 51: `exuerint siluestrem animum'. His addebatur Letardi . . . inuitabat] `In other respects', says Plummer in HE II, p. 42, `W. M., perhaps from the analogy of his own day, absurdly overestimates the Frankish in¯uence. Liudhard does not seem really to have effected much.' But we only believe this because Bede tells us so. William's instinct, unin¯uenced by any desire to overrate the importance of the initiative from Rome, may be sound after all. leges patrio sermone tulit] Leges Ethelberti, ed. Liebermann, Gesetze, i. 3±8. They are also mentioned by Henry of Huntingdon iii. 20 (pp. 166±7), quoting Bede, from whom William presumably also knew of their existence. They survive now only in the Textus Roffensis (Rochester Cathedral, Dean & Chapter Library A. 3. 5, on deposit in Kent Archives Of®ce, Maidstone, MS DRc/R1), fos. 1±3v, probably compiled 1115±24: Ker, Anglo-Saxon, no. 373; facsimile P. H. Sawyer, Textus Roffensis part I (Early English Manuscripts in Facsimile, vii: Copenhagen, 1957). William visited Rochester as part of the preparation for GP (and perhaps GR: Thomson, William of Malmesbury, p. 74), so he could have seen them there. He might have found Ine's laws in the same place: below, c. 35. 3n, but see c. 183. 9n. 10. 1 Excessit . . . tormenta pendebat] Based upon Bede, HE ii. 5, but William goes further in hinting at rebellion against Eadbald. 1±2 Quibus offensus . . . ualedixit] HE ii. 6.

/3thomson/tcom1.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 9:55 ± disk/amj

24

COMMENTARY

2 monasterium quoque . . . donariis illustrauit] William's source for Eadbald's donations may have been (spurious) documents in the archive of St Augustine's Canterbury: for example Sawyer 6 = H & S iii. 69±70, = no. 5 in S. E. Kelly, Charters of St Augustine's Abbey Canterbury (Anglo-Saxon Charters, iv: Oxford, 1995), pp. 23± 6, fabricated s. xi2. 3 Beda retulisse narrat] HE i. 25. 11 The information in this section is mostly derived from ASC (E) s.a. 639 and Bede, HE iii. 8. ASC (C) and John of Worcester date Eadbald's death correctly at 640 and give the length of his reign as twenty-®ve years, as the B reading; but JW Accounts, p. 259, says twenty-four. In saying that Earcongota became a nun at Chelles William has misread or misremembered Bede, who says that she entered the nunnery at Brie (mentioning Chelles a few sentences later). William's source for Eadbald's marriage to Emma may have been JW Accounts, p. 259, which calls her `regis Francorum . . . ®lia'. She witnesses the spurious charter of Eadbald dated 618 granting lands to St Augustine's Canterbury (see c. 10. 2n). She was apparently the daughter of Erchinoald, mayor of the Neustrian palace: I. N. Wood, `Frankish hegemony in England', in The Age of Sutton Hoo, ed. M. Carver (Woodbridge, 1992), pp. 235±54, at 240. JW Gen., p. 248, names Earconberht as Emma's son. 2 rebusque domi et foris ex sententia cedentibus] Cf. Hegesippus iv. 15. 2 (p. 263): `rebus ex sententia ¯uentibus'. non indigna parente] Cf. Lucan vi. 420: `Magno proles indigna parente'. 12 Based mainly on Bede, HE iv. 1. And see below, Appendix I, p. 400. aduentum Theodori archiepiscopi et Adriani abbatis . . . in unum contulerint] On the intellectual background of Theodore and Hadrian, and their teaching at Canterbury, see B. Bischoff and M. Lapidge, Biblical Commentaries from the Canterbury School of Theodore and Hadrian (Cambridge Studies in Anglo-Saxon England, x: Cambridge, 1994), pp. 172±89. insulam . . . nutriculam] Cf. Orosius ii. 14. 1, of Sicily: `nutrix tyrannorum', and Jerome, Epist. cxxxiii. 9: `Britannia fertilis prouincia tyrannorum', the second cited by Gildas, c. 4. 3.

/3thomson/tcom1.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 9:55 ± disk/amj

BOOK I. 10.2±15

25

13 Successit . . . uitam effudit] Bede, HE iv. 26. alite mala regnum ingressus] Cf. Horace, Epod. x. 1: `Mala soluta nauis exit alite'. Sunt qui non taceant . . . monasterium concesserit] The source is probably oral (suggested by `Some openly say'). None of the known texts of the Mildred legend attributes Ecgberht's misfortunes or Hlothhere's death to Ecgberht's responsibility for the killing of the princes and Hlothhere's mockery of their status as martyrs. Moreover all of them make the recipient of the grant of Thanet the princes' sister, not mother: Rollason, Mildrith Legend, pp. 38±9. This is clearly stated in Goscelin's Vita (ed. Rollason, p. 114), which William knew. See also c. 215 below, where William does indeed make the recipient of the grant the princes' sister, though not the one identi®ed by Goscelin. Here he has probably made a simple slip of memory. 14. 1 Nec Edricus . . . hostibus exposuit] Bede, HE iv. 26. digladiabile odium . . . spirans] Cf. Statius, Theb. iv. 609: `inmortale odium spirans', echoed again below, c. 306. 3. The rare word `digladiabile' may derive from Prudentius, Cath. iii. 148: `hoc erat aspidis atque hominis digladiabile discidium.' 1±2 Continuo . . . halitum ructauit] Expanded from ASC s.aa. 686, 687. 2 et totis circa tectum habenis regnarent incendia] Cf. Sulpicius Severus, Dial. i. 18. 4: `et intra camini illius concaua totis habenis regnabat incendium.' 15 Based upon Bede, HE iv. 26, v. 23; ASC s.aa. 694, 754 (recte 756), 794 (recte 796), 796 (recte 798), 805 (recte 807). As Stubbs noted (GR i. 18 n. 1; ii, pp. xxii±xxiii), William loses the authority of Bede for the line of Kentish kings at the death of Wihtred (725); see also Plummer in Bede, HE II, p. 338. Some of the dates which he gives for the later period are found in ASC (e.g. the lengths of Eadberht's and áthelberht's reigns), but for most no other authority is known. It is not clear, for instance, where William got his dates for Alric's reign or the reference to his unsuccessful battle against the Mercians; that he was actually king is implied by John of Worcester s.a. 725, but the entry is probably dependent on Bede, and the effect of William's dating is to make Alric survive his father by seventy years, not impossible but unlikely. Plummer thinks he may have confused Alric

/3thomson/tcom1.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 9:55 ± disk/amj

26

COMMENTARY

son of Wihtred with the Northumbrian Alric son of Heardberht, slain in 798 (ASC (DE) s.a.). Bede's record has been taken to mean that all three of Wihtred's sons ruled simultaneously, and there is other evidence that at least áthelberht and Eadberht did so (725±48), along with other contemporary rulers (Eardwulf and Sigered; see HBC, pp. 13±14, for the complex argument); there seems to be no other evidence for the reign of Alric. See B. A. Yorke, `Joint kingship in Kent, c.560±785', Archaeologia Cantiana, xcix (1983), 1±19, corrected and supplemented by S. E. Kelly, `The kings of Kent', Appendix 3 to her Charters of St Augustine's Abbey, pp. 195±203. The unresolvable question is whether, as Stubbs thought, William might have had a now-lost regnal list for Kent. 1 amplissime porrexit] For the addition in some Aa MSS see below, Appendix II(a), note ad loc. post triginta tres annos longeuus] B omits `tres'. ASC s.a. 694 says that Wihtred reigned for thirty-three years, and William must have initially accepted this. But s.a. 725 ASC (DE) says that Wihtred died on 23 Apr., having ruled for thirty-four years, and the discrepancy must have prompted William eventually to make his own calculation. In fact the length of Wihtred's reign could only have been expressed as thirty-two years at the most (i.e. if 694 and 725 were counted as full years of his rule). But he only reigned for four months of the year 725. In the end William must have decided only to count the intervening (i.e. full) years. This sort of recalculation is a regular feature of the early chapters in the B version of GR; cf. below, cc. 16. 2, 33, 40, 44. 3. post triginta . . . fato functus est] Cf. Hegesippus i. 1. 10 (p. 8), of the death of Hyrcanus: `quinque liberis superstitibus, quod a plerisque beatitudini datur'. Wright IV, pp. 20±1. 2 Edbertus uiginti tribus, Edelbertus undecim, Alricus triginta quattuor annis] William seems to have assumed that these men reigned successively rather than as co-rulers. The length of Eadberht's reign is correct, since he died in 748. áthelberht died, according to ASC, in 760 (recte 762); William's ®gure of eleven years for this king's reign assumes that he succeeded Eadberht, which is certainly wrong, as áthelberht's earliest diploma is dated 732, and both kings were reigning by 738 (HBC, pp. 13±14). His ®gure of thirty-four years for Alric's reign was perhaps invented in order to bring the succession down to the accession of Eadberht Prñn in 796.

/3thomson/tcom1.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 9:55 ± disk/amj

BOOK I. 15±16.3

27

bonorum breuis gratia, aeternum quae nocuere dolent] Ausonius, Caesares, lines 92±3: `quia dona bonorum / sunt breuia; aeternum quae nocuere dolent'; Wright II, pp. 530±1. 3 Edelbertus idemque Pren] recte `Edbertus'. 4 ab anno incarnationis Domini quadringentesimo quadragesimo quarto (sexto Aac)] How can one account for this nonsensical date? In c. 1 William, following Bede, gives 449 as the arrivaldate of the English. Here the `quarto' must represent a misreading based upon an erroneous expansion of `iv' for `ix' (something similar in fact lies behind the A version of the date in c. 1). Probably this was not done by William himself, but by a copyist working for him. ASC will have told him that Cuthred died in 805 (recte 807); this gives 823/4 as the date of Baldred's expulsion. Subtraction of William's ®gure of 375 from 824 does indeed result in the date 449. alterius potestati accessit] See S. Keynes, `The control of Kent in the ninth century', Early Medieval Europe, ii (1993), 111±31. proximum, longo tamen interuallo] Cf. Virgil, Aen. v. 320: `proximus huic, longo sed proximus interuallo'. Similarly VW prol. (p. 3): `longo . . . interuallo', ii. 1 (p. 26): `longo interuallo proximum'. strangulata faucibus auidis] Cf. Jerome, Epist. lx. 2. 3: `auidis faucibus praedam putas'. Hoc ergo si lineatim . . . solos Westsaxones intuebitur] Note that here William does not seem to envisage the inclusion of the East Angles and East Saxons in Book i (cf. above, prol. 5). Perhaps this is an unrevised remnant of an earlier draft (see above, p. xix n. 4). 16. 1±2 Regnum Westsaxonum . . . Hengesti octauo] William expands ASC s.a. 495 (perhaps imaginatively). ASC s.a. 552 (except E) gives Cerdic's genealogy (making him indeed tenth in descent from Woden); it is also in John of Worcester s.a. and JW Gen., p. 253. 1 ceolis] See the relevant note to c. 5. 1. 2±3 Non tamen ille . . . nepotis sui accessit] So ASC s.aa. 519, 534, mentioning both Stuf and Wihtgar as recipients of the Isle of Wight. B's ®gure of sixteen years for the length of Cerdic's reign is correct. In computing the length of reigns himself rather than accepting a ®gure from his sources, William seems to have usually subtracted the ®rst regnal year from the last, producing a ®gure arguably one short of the true total. In the B redaction he consistently corrects this (for a list of instances see above, c. 15. 1n).

/3thomson/tcom1.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 9:56 ± disk/amj

28

COMMENTARY

3 Is cum sanguinis . . . sepulturam accepit] ASC s.a. 544 records Wihtgar's death; the remaining information has no known source. Porro Cenricus . . . Ceaulino contulit] So ASC s.aa. 534 (E), 560, John of Worcester s.a. 534. Other versions of ASC, more correctly, give twenty-seven years as the length of Cynric's reign; it is dif®cult to account for TA's ®gure of twenty-four except as a slip (of `iv' for `vi'), later corrected. 17 Based upon ASC s.aa. 568, 577, 584, 591 (E), 592 (E), 593, 597. But for ASC's `Wodnesbyrig' (Adam's Grave, a tumulus at Alton Priors, Wilts.) William has `Wodnesdic' (Wansdyke), the collective name for two systems of ancient earthworks running from Andover in Hampshire to Portishead in Somerset. Adam's Grave is close to a gap in this defensive line, and so in William's time might have appeared to be part of it. On the other hand John of Worcester s.a. 592 (`Wodnesbeorh id est Mons Wodeni') is obviously similar to ASC, and William may have committed a simple slip of memory. He rightly states that Ceawlin had both a brother and son called Cutha ( JW Gen., p. 256). ASC (E) has the brother named Cutha die in 571 (the other versions call this man Cuthwulf). S.a. 584 all versions of ASC record the death in battle of an unspeci®ed Cutha. William has reasonably concluded that this was Ceawlin's son; that both were `young men of remarkable promise' is his own assumption. William follows ASC (E) 591 in using the name `Ceolric' instead of ASC (A)'s (correct) `Ceol'; but ASC (E) gives the length of his reign as six years (the B reading), whereas the other versions (and John of Worcester s.a. 591) give ®ve. John of Worcester, calling this man Ceol, makes him Cutha's son (s.a. 611; JW Gen., p. 256). The same source s.a. 592 rightly speci®es the thirty-third, not the thirty-®rst year of his reign for Ceawlin's expulsion. 1 Britannos . . . detrusit] There is a similar, though more generalized, description of the fate of the British, with overlapping language, in GP, c. 215 (p. 360). 2 conspirantibus tam Anglis quam Britonibus] There is no known written source for this comment, which is probably supposition. 18 Based upon ASC s.aa. 611, 614, 626 (E), 628, 634, 635, 636, 641 (E). ASC s.a. 648 (but not E), John of Worcester s.aa. 614, 629, and

/3thomson/tcom1.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 9:56 ± disk/amj

BOOK I. 16.3±19.2

29

JW Gen., p. 256, make Cwichelm Cynegils' son, not brother, and this is perhaps re¯ected in the TA reading. That they were co-rulers also seems to be William's reasonable deduction from the fact that they are so often mentioned together in ASC (as also in John of Worcester). 1 ad furta belli peridoneum] Cf. Servius in Aen. xi. 515 (= Sallust, Hist. i fr. 112): `gens ad furta belli peridoneo'. Similarly in HN, c. 485 (p. 43). It is worth noting the three classical quotations lifted by William from Servius or the grammarians (above, c. 1. 2, below, c. 54. 1). Of particular interest are the two so far identi®ed from Sallust's lost Histories (here and above, c. 1. 2); they raise the question of whether William made a collection of these fragments as he did with those of Cicero's Republic (Thomson, William of Malmesbury, pp. 51±2). 2 dolus . . . requirat] Cf. Virgil, Aen. ii. 390: `dolus an uirtus, quis in hoste requirit?' Nam et antea . . . in¯ixit dispendia] Cf. Hegesippus i. 9. 4 (p. 14), describing the unpopularity of the defeated King Alexander among his Jewish subjects: `inuisus suis, quoniam recruduerant in odia aerumnae eius occasione'. 3 At uero Kinegislus . . . uitam clausit] Cf. Hegesippus i. 1. 10 (p. 8), on the death of Hyrcanus, who `trigesimo et primo anno longae quietis gratia functus diem clausit'. Wright IV, pp. 20±1. For commentary on the C version of cc. 19. 3±29. 2 see below, Appendix I, pp. 400±6. 19 Based upon Bede, HE iii. 7; ASC s.aa. 641 (E), 645±6, 648 (F), 658. 1 Christianismum et legitimum matrimonium abiurauit] But Bede makes it clear that Cenwealh was never a Christian: `qui et ®dem ac sacramenta regni caelestis suscipere rennuit'. ad regem Orientalium Anglorum confugit] The king was Anna. 2 Wirtgeornesburg] i.e. Vortigern's fortress, of which nothing further is known. ASC s.a. 652 says that Cenwealh `fought at Bradford-on-Avon'. The possibility that William identi®ed his `Wirtgeornesburg' with Bradford-on-Avon is entertained by H. M. Chadwick, `Vortigern', p. 31, on the grounds that William `must have

/3thomson/tcom1.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 9:56 ± disk/amj

30

COMMENTARY

known the district well'. áthelweard ii. 7 (p. 19) calls this battle `civil war'. Penne] See ASC p. 21 n.1 and Plummer in Two Saxon Chronicles, ii. 28, for suggested identi®cations, the most popular being Penselwood, Somerset. The addition of the passage `primum . . . Penne' in CB is hard to account for except as the remedying of an earlier oversight, as its source is ASC s.a. 658. in Wintonia templum . . . cucurrit uestigia] Winchester became a cathedral in 705, when, on the death of Bishop Hñdde, the West Saxon diocese was divided between Winchester and Sherborne: Plummer in Bede, HE II, pp. 144±5. A new church was begun by áthelwold, dedicated in 980, and completed after his death by álfheah; it was rebuilt again by Bishop Walkelin between 1079 and 1093. 29. 2 [Kenwalkium] . . . communicaret] Based upon ASC s.a. 648. This annal speci®es the amount of his donation as 3,000 hides, and names the nephew Cuthred (Eadrede E). Plummer (Two Saxon Chronicles, ii. 23) suggests possible political motives for the enormous gift. Angilbertus . . . inuenies] Bede, HE iii. 7, 25±6, 28, iv. 1, 12, v. 19. Leutherius] HE iii. 7, iv. 12, etc. 3 Quod eo non praetermisi . . . religionem uidebatur] Cf. VD ii prol. (p. 288), for a similar comment on the necessity of using more than one ancient source to construct a more complete account. ex Cronicis] ASC s.a. 670. qui Malmesberiense . . . regendum contradidit] Cf. GP, cc. 189, 197 (pp. 333±5, 345). a Meildulfo . . . monacho] = GP, c. 189 (pp. 333 line 21Ð334 line 1), almost verbatim. On the name see Plummer in Bede, HE II, pp. 310±11. Did William think he came from Scotland? At c. 52. 2 he takes the trouble to avoid ambiguity by turning Bede's `Scottia' into `Hibernia'. Edwards, Charters, pp. 83, 101, 126±7, argues that Maeldubh was not recognized as founder of the monastery at Malmesbury earlier than William's time, and that his view was founded on a translation error in the Latin version of Pope Sergius' privilege (below, c. 35. 4n). ut inhabitantes . . . expedirent] = GP, c. 197 (p. 345 lines 12±13).

/3thomson/tcom1.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 9:56 ± disk/amj

BOOK I. 19.2±31.2

31

30 = Sawyer 1245 (probably a forgery); versions of it are in GP, cc. 189, 199 (pp. 334, 347±9), and elsewhere. For discussion see Edwards, Charters, pp. 85±7. Meildulfesburh] For commentary on the various forms of the name see below, c. 153. 2n. regulariter . . . normam sanctae regulae] Either `regularly' or `the monastic life', or referring to the Benedictine Rule, which would be anachronistic but unsurprising in a later interpolation. ultroneus concedo] Note T's correct addition of `et cetera'. As mentioned above, pp. xxi±xxii, T often preserves readings from William's sources which he later altered for stylistic reasons. iuxta ¯umen Bladon] Now the Evenlode, Oxfordshire. 31. 1 Cum igitur . . . omnibus singularis] = GP, c. 200 (p. 349 lines 7±18), almost verbatim. de Virginitate codices] Presumably referring to both the prose and verse works De virginitate (Aldhelmi Opera, ed. R. Ehwald, MGH AA, xv, 1919, pp. 226±323, 350±471), translated and discussed by M. Lapidge and M. Herren, Aldhelm: The Prose Works (Cambridge etc., 1979), pp. 51±132, and M. Lapidge and J. Rosier, Aldhelm: The Poetic Works (Cambridge, 1985), pp. 97±167. nichil splendidius] `piperatius' Tt, a rare application of the word perhaps derived from Sidonius, Epp. v. 8. 2 (`piperata facundia'), viii. 11. 7 (`piperata'). William may have decided, on second thoughts, that it was too exotic. 2 Denique Greci . . . dictare solent] = GP, c. 196 (p. 344 lines 24± 6), but omitting `circumspecte, Galli', probably in error. In the remainder of GP, c. 196 (p. 344), William enlarges on the literary fashion of Aldhelm's time and defends him as more moderate than some of his contemporaries in his use of exotic vocabulary. This is an indefensible position, and William surely knew it. He was doing the best he could for the saint and founder of his own monastery. On this passage see M. Winterbottom, `The Gesta regum of William of Malmesbury', The Journal of Medieval Latin, v (1995), 158±73, at pp. 166±7. Its starting-point is Seneca, Epist. xl. 11, quoted in William's Polyhistor, p. 105 lines 24±6: `Quedam etiam nationibus puto magis minusue conuenire. In Grecis hanc licentiam tuleris . . . Romanus sermo se magis circumspicit et estimat.' `Graeci inuolute' perhaps recalls Seneca, De ben. i. 4. 1 (on Chrysippus): `sed tamen

/3thomson/tcom1.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 9:56 ± disk/amj

32

COMMENTARY

Graecum, cuius acumen nimis tenue retunditur et in se semper replicatur'. On the character and sources of Aldhelm's prose style see M. Winterbottom, `Aldhelm's prose style and its origins', ASE vi (1977), 39±76. Innumera . . . sanctimoniam] William records many of Aldhelm's miracles in GP, c. 218 (p. 364) seq. 32±4 For the dif®culties of reconstructing West Saxon history after the death of Cenwealh (672) see Plummer in Bede, HE II, pp. 220±1. 32 As ASC s.a. 672, elaborated. 33 Bede (HE iv. 12) says that after Cenwealh, unnamed sub-kings divided the realm among themselves for about ten years until removed and replaced by Cñdwalla, who reigned for two years before going to end his days at Rome. William obviously saw ASC as ®lling in the details passed over by Bede, and yet he perceived that its account did not allow for Bede's `subreguli' reigning simultaneously. His own makes honest reference to the discrepancy, without attempting to solve it. Sequens . . . absoluit] ASC s.aa. 674, 675, 676, 682, 685. The B reading of `triennium' (twice, the second time C as well) may re¯ect a change of mind by William in the light of a source such as JW Accounts, p. 272, which says `fere tribus annis'. Sequens biennium in regno transegit Escuinus] JW Accounts, p. 272, says that after Seaxburh `Deinde Cenfus duobus annis, secundum dicta regis álfredi, iuxta uero Chronicam Anglicam, ®lius eius áscwinus fere tribus annis regnauit.' Kinegisli ex fratre Cuthgislo abnepos] JW Gen., p. 256, makes them cousins. Beda con®rmat] HE iv. 12. 34 Based on Bede, HE iv. 12, 15, 16, v. 7, and ASC s.aa. 685±8. But ASC, John of Worcester s.a. 685, and JW Gen., p. 256, make Cñdwalla Ceawlin's great-grandson through Ceawlin's son Cutha. William makes various small additions, such as Mercian support for the inhabitants of the Isle of Wight, which may be his own invention. 1 ut omni milite spoliaret prouintiam] Cf. Lucan iv. 254: `quamuis spoliatus milite multo'.

/3thomson/tcom1.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 9:56 ± disk/amj

BOOK I. 31.2±35.2

33

2 regno potitus] This is Bede's expression: HE iv. 16. preclara rei bellicae facinora consummauit] Cf. Sallust, Bell. Cat. ii. 9: `praeclari facinoris . . . famam'; liii. 2: `praeclara facinora fecit'. Australibus Saxonibus . . . exitio dedit] William seems to have misread Bede, HE iv. 26, and has made Eadric, king of Kent (685± 686/7), successor of áthelwalh king of the South Saxons (?/674Ð 680/5): Plummer in Bede, HE II, p. 228. 3 omnes manubias . . . Deo decimaret] Stubbs (GR ii, p. xxv) pointed out that William's use of the verbÐif he intended its technical meaningÐis not warranted by either Bede (HE iv. 16) or Stephen of Ripon (Vita Wilfridi, c. 42), who say that Cñdwalla vowed a fourth part of his conquest of the Isle of Wight to God, to be given to Wilfrid. William may have been using the word metaphorically, but DMLBS iii s.v. does not give any obvious instances of such use. Qui offert . . . in conspectu patris] Ecclus. 34: 24. a Sergio papa] Cñdwalla's journey to Rome and baptism there are also noted in GP, c. 209 (p. 354), with reference back. Further information is collected by Plummer in Bede, HE II, pp. 278±81. 35 ASC s.aa. 688, 694. William refers back to this section in GP, c. 209 (p. 354). 1 Eo Romam eunte . . . nescias] = GP, c. 209 (p. 354 lines 20±2), almost verbatim. Inam . . . Kinegisli ex fratre Cuthbaldo pronepos] At c. 33 William says that Cynegils' brother was called Cuthgils. John of Worcester s.a. 688 and JW Gen., p. 256, give Ine an ancestry which only connects him with Cynegils through Cerdic, Cynegils' greatgrandfather. Cuthbald does not appear elsewhere. annis duobus de quadraginta] Bede, HE v. 7, and ASC s.a. 688 give the length of Ine's reign as thirty-seven years (27 E). 2 uiribus in uentum effusis] Cf. Virgil, Aen. v. 446: `Entellus uiris in uentum effudit'; also used by William in Mir., c. 49 (p. 165), and VW ii. 15 (p. 38). cum nichil in pectore Inae . . . consuluere] Cf. Hegesippus i. 15. 1 (p. 23), of Aristobolus' similar discovery that Pompey was impervious to his wiles: `quamuis nihil in Magni pectore quod suis artibus conduceret intueretur, praesumebat tamen de Scauri redemtione.' triginta milibus auri mancis] ASC (ADE) simply say 30,000

/3thomson/tcom1.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 9:56 ± disk/amj

34

COMMENTARY

without denomination, ASC (BFC) say pounds, áthelweard ii. 10 (p. 20) says `solidi'. William alone supplies `mancus' (or `manca'), an eighth of a pound of gold by weight and value, equivalent to thirty silver pennies: see S. Lyon, `Historical problems of Anglo-Saxon coinageÐ(3) Denominations and weights', British Numismatic Journal, xxxviii (1969), 204±22, at pp. 207±9. This ®gure is in agreement with John of Worcester's 3,750 pounds (s.a. 694). Whitelock in ASC, p. 25 n. 2, believes that the actual denomination was pence (sceattas), in which case the amount was the wergeld of a Mercian king: Liebermann, Gesetze, i. 462 (Mircna Laga, c.920±70). Orientales Angli] ASC s.aa. 722, 725, and áthelweard ii. 12 (p. 21) show that this is an error for `Australes Angli'. A similar confusion occurs below, c. 199. 10. 3 leges ad corrigendos mores] Leges Inae, ed. Liebermann, Gesetze, i. 88±123; EHD 1, no. 32. Perhaps William knew them from Textus Roffensis, fos. 24v-31v (see above, c. 9. 2n). Following praecipue Glastoniense . . . end of c. 36] Here the versions differ (see above, p. xxx): TA represents what William ®rst wrote (but see c. 36. 1n); in C, which may have been a redaction produced expressly for the Glastonbury community, a substantial quantity of material from AG was substituted for the information on Aldhelm and on Ine's family; in B this information was restored, with a brief reference to AG in lieu of the C material. Commentary on the TAB version follows; for commentary on the C version see below, Appendix I, p. 406. 4 pater Aldelmus . . . hilariter] = GP, c. 209 (p. 354 lines 25±7), almost verbatim. ab Apostolico Sergio] JL 2140, dated 6876701. The text is in GP, c. 221 (pp. 367±70), and in William, Liber pont. (C, fos. 269v-70; Levison, p. 377); modern edition by H. Edwards, `Two documents from Aldhelm's Malmesbury', Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research, lix (1986), 1±19, at pp. 16±19, commentary in id., Charters, pp. 100±5, where it is argued that it is a basically authentic document. Among earlier commentators, Lapidge and Herren, Aldhelm: The Prose Works, p. 10, offered the opinion that the document is `almost certainly spurious', without providing evidence. Of the two references given in their n. 28, D. Knowles, The Monastic Order in England (2nd edn., Cambridge, 1963), pp. 576±7, offers words of caution about writing off early monastic privileges simply because they may

/3thomson/tcom1.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 9:56 ± disk/amj

BOOK I. 35.2±36.3

35

have been modi®ed or interpolated at a later date, while W. Levison, England and the Continent in the Eighth Century (Oxford, 1946), pp. 22±6, does not mention the Malmesbury privilege at all. anno . . . septingentesimo nono] Deduced from the length of Aldhelm's ponti®cate, as provided in Bede, HE v. 18; so also GP, c. 227 (p. 382). But Lapidge and Herren, Aldhelm: The Prose Works, p. 10 and n. 31, point out that Aldhelm could have died either late in 709 or early in 710. 5 Inigildum . . . ante ipsum decessit] ASC s.a. 718. Non eget . . . in litem] = GP, c. 230 (p. 385 lines 6±9). 36. 1 Habuit . . . transegit] See Plummer in Two Saxon Chronicles, ii. 38±9, especially on Cwenburh and another of Ine's sisters not mentioned by William: Tetta, who also became abbess of Wimborne. The difference between T and the other versions at this point is interesting and important. When he wrote the T version, William knew from ASC s.a. 718 that Cuthburh had founded and entered the nunnery of Wimborne. He identi®ed her with the nun of the same name mentioned, together with her abbess Hildelith, in the prologue to Aldhelm's prose De virginitate (Lapidge and Herren, Aldhelm: The Prose Works, pp. 52, 191). But when he came to write the A version, William had discovered, from Bede, HE iv. 10, that Hildelith was abbess of Barking. He solved the apparent contradiction by supposing that Cuthburh ®rst entered Barking under Hildelith, later transferring to Wimborne. The supposition has been accepted by modern scholarship: Plummer in Bede, HE II, p. 264; P. H. Coulstock, The Collegiate Church of Wimborne Minster (Woodbridge, 1993), pp. 40±1, 72±5. In neither version does William explicitly name Cuthburh as founder of WimborneÐin fact he implies that it already existedÐ though she was so called by ASC and by John of Worcester s.aa. 718 and 901. 2±4 Habuit et uxorem . . . insusurrauerat uerbo] The source of William's elaborate story about áthelburh is not known, nor is it told by anyone else. Her sermon to her husband is presumably William's own invention. 3 Sardanapallicis delitiis] Cf. Sidonius, Epist. ii. 13. 7: `pransuro Sardanapallicum in morem'. aulea Sidoniis sucis ebria] Cf. Martial xiv. 154. 1: `Ebria Sidoniae cum sim de sanguine conchae'.

/3thomson/tcom1.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 9:56 ± disk/amj

36

COMMENTARY

4 Nonne . . . uentus] Cf. Augustine, Conf. i. 17(27): `Nonne ecce illa omnia fumus et uentus?' omnia transierunt] Cf. Wisd. 5: 9. Potentes . . . cruciatio] Wisd. 6: 7, 9. 37 Ampli®cation of Bede, HE v. 7, but neither wife nor tonsure are mentioned there, nor in any other earlier source. The last sentence of AG, c. 43 (p. 102), uses some of the same wording, though not referring to Ine's tonsure. William may be using the same hagiographical material, otherwise lost to us, as in c. 36. 2±4. Romam abiit] Note the C addition and its uncertainties: `anno Dominice incarnationis DCCmo tricesimo' (tricesimo Cs, XX Cd; XXV Cr; Ce omits the whole number, leaving a blank space). Behind these readings may lie an exemplar with the numerals DCCXX clearly written, followed by something less distinct which could be read as either X or VI. William may have intended the latter, for ASC records Ine's journey to Rome s.a. 726 (728 ASC (A), John of Worcester), which accords with William's statement at c. 35. 1 that Ine reigned for thirty-eight years (688 + 38 = 726). amictu plebeio tectus] Cf. Lucan ii. 18: `latuit plebeio tectus amictu'; v. 538: `quamquam plebeio tectus amictu'. Also below, c. 178. 2. dux femina facti] Virgil, Aen. i. 364. non sine magnis, ut accepimus, miraculis] No writer other than William is known to have credited Ine and áthelburh with miracles; the tradition (including the story in c. 36. 2±4) is likely to have been preserved at Glastonbury and to have come to William from there. 38 Based upon ASC s.aa. 726, 730, 740, with some ampli®cation. Only ASC (DE) calls áthelheard Ine's kinsman and Cuthred áthelheard's, as does John of Worcester s.aa. 728, 741. Presumably áthelheard is to be identi®ed with the man who had earlier been subregulus under Ine (see c. 36C. 2 below, Appendix I, p. 406). Ine's father Centwine had himself been a subregulus according to JW Accounts, p. 272. Prouintialibus enim . . . reliquit] This is to go somewhat beyond ASC, which simply says that `áthelheard and the atheling Oswald fought'. Henry of Huntingdon (iv. 10; pp. 228±9) is even more explicit in claiming that Oswald was attempting to take the kingship from áthelheard.

/3thomson/tcom1.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 9:56 ± disk/amj

BOOK I. 36.4±42.3

37

39 For commentary see below, Appendix I, p. 406. 40 Based upon ASC s.aa. 740, 743, 752±3. pari annorum numero TA] So also GP, c. 232 (p. 386). ASC (ADE) explicitly gives the length of Cuthred's reign as sixteen years (the B reading), which is apparently correct, though ASC (AB) has him reigning 741±54, (CDEF) 740±54. 41 As ASC s.aa. 754±5 (recte 756±7). ferarum spelea] Cf. Virgil, Ecl. x. 52±3: `certum est in siluis inter spelaea ferarum / malle pati'. Also below, c. 134. 5. 42 Much as ASC s.aa. 755, 777 (recte 757, 779). The erroneous length of his reign (actually twenty-nine years) is as ASC (ABC); ASC (D) has twenty-one, (E) sixteen years. Joseph Stevenson (History of the Kings of England, p. 33 n. 6) ingeniously suggested that William originally wrote (or intended to write) `uno de triginta annis' rather than `uno et triginta', on the analogy of c. 35. 1, where he gives the length of Cñdwalla's reign as `annis duobus de quadraginta'. This would assume that William made his own calculation independently of ASC. The argument is, however, weakened by the fact that in GP, c. 234 (p. 387), William again gives the length of Cynewulf's reign as `xxxta et io annis'. 1 quarto et uicesimo regni anno] The ®gure should be `secundo et uicesimo', if calculated from ASC. The statement is reiterated in GP, c. 235 (p. 388), with `uicesimum et iiii', the `et iiii' interlined in the autograph. 2 sed a multitudine circumuentus . . . ultus occubuit] Cf. Hegesippus i. 1. 3 (p. 5), of Judas Maccabaeus: `excitauit in se magnam hostium multitudinem, qua circumfusus undique, dum cedere pudori existimat, refugientibus sociis in proelium ruit. Caesisque quos aduersum ierat, a latere circumuentus, sed tamen ultus propriam mortem occiditur.' 3 fama mali tanti principum perlabitur aures] Cf. Virgil, Aen. x. 510: `Nec iam fama mali tanti'; ibid. vii. 646: `tenuis famae perlabitur aura', perhaps via William of JumieÁges, GND i. 36: `fama . . . aures perlabitur'. Quorum qui maximus aeuo] Lucan i. 585. Reopendune] William has misread ASC s.a. 755 (recte 757), which

/3thomson/tcom1.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 9:56 ± disk/amj

38

COMMENTARY

says that Cyneheard was buried at Axminster, and in the next sentence that King áthelbald of Mercia was buried at Repton. nunc . . . habitatore] Cf. c. 49. 9 for a similar expression: `non . . . habitatore'. Repton was founded as a double house in the late seventh century. Monastic life there was severely disrupted, if not ended, by the Viking `Great Army', which established a winter fortress there in 873±4; however it continued to function as a minster and parish church up to the present: M. Biddle and B. Kjùlbye-Biddle, `Repton and the Vikings', Antiquity, lxvi (1992), 36±51, and the series of studies by H. M. Taylor cited on p. 51. 43 Based upon ASC s.aa. 784, 787, 800 (recte 786, 789, 802). Only John of Worcester s.a. 836 mentions Ecgberht's exile. No other source makes the statement that the Vikings, when the defence was rallied, abandoned their loot and took ¯ight. 2 rapto uiuere] Used of the Danes in GP, c. 256 (p. 409); of Bretons and Flemings in HN, c. 483 (p. 41). Cf. Virgil, Aen. ix. 613: `comportare iuuat praedas et uiuere rapto'. in alta pace regni] Cf. Lucan i. 249±50: `pax alta per omnes / . . . populos'. Also below, c. 79n. omnibus ante se regibus merito preferendus] B has `in Westsaxonia regibus', which seems sensible; otherwise the implication would be that he was superior to a monarch such as Oswald of Northumbria. 44 Based upon ASC s.aa. 547, 560, and presumably a king-list like, but not identical with, JW Gen., pp. 253±5. 1 fratrem Ohtam et ®lium Ebusam] These persons do not appear in ASC or JW Gen. Hist. Brittonum, c. 38, makes Ohta Hencgest's son and Ebissa his cousin (i.e. son of Horsa). 2 Annis enim uno minus centum] William apparently obtained this ®gure by calculating from 449, his date for the arrival of the English, to 547, the ®rst year of Ida's reign. Plummer in Two Saxon Chronicles, ii. 14, says that William, interpreting ASC (E) s.a. 449 `as meaning not only that that year was the date of the coming of the Jutes to Kent, but also of the coming of the Angles to Northumbria, ®lls up the interval 449±547 with imaginary details based on the pedigrees'. This is too severe. William was scarcely entitled to interpret the 449 annal in any other way. regnauitque . . . haud dubie nobilissimus . . . satis constat

/3thomson/tcom1.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 9:56 ± disk/amj

BOOK I. 42.3±45.1

39

magna et uetere prosapia oriundum] Cf. Suetonius, Galba ii. 1: `haud dubie nobilissimus magnaque et uetere prosapia'. 3 tres ®lii, Weldegius . . . originem traxerint] William clearly had genealogical information independent of all known sources. Wñgdñg son of Woden was the ancestor of the Kentish line according to the genealogy in BL MS Cotton Vesp. B. vi (s. ixin), pr. D. Dumville, `The Anglian collection of royal genealogies and regnal lists', ASE v (1976), 23±50, at p. 31; Wihtlñg was the ancestor of the Mercian kings according to ASC (BC) s.a. 626, (ABC) s.a. 755. JW Gen., p. 247, precedes him with Weothelgeat and Waga as son and grandson of Woden. ASC, John of Worcester, and JW Gen. all give Bñldñg as the ancestor of the West Saxons (and Bernicians); the genealogy in BL MS Cotton Vesp. B. vi (Dumville, p. 30), John of Worcester, and ASC (ABC) s.a. 547, all make Ida tenth from Woden. JW Gen., p. 253, makes him fourteenth. preter duos quos procedens sermo nominare perget] The two exceptions are presumably álle and Edwin (cc. 45, 48). Osric and Oswine, Edwin's son and grandson, were kings of Deira only. quattuordecim annis] Ida's regnal dates are 547±59, and the correct length of his reign thirteen years. ASC does not record his death but only his successor's accession in 560, except for ASC (E) which adds under that year the chronologically imprecise reference `Ida having died'. William must therefore have assumed that Ida's death occurred in the same year as álle's accession. The B reading, `annis xii', is supported by John of Worcester s.a. 547. 45 Based upon ASC s.a. 560 and Bede, HE ii. 1. 1 Alla, ex eodem quidem genere sed diuerso a Wodenio tractu sanguinem ducens] `diuerso tractu a Weidegio' T, correctly according to JW Gen., p. 253 (`Waegdaeg'). sicut nostra quoque secula uiderunt] D. A. E. Pelteret, Slavery in Early Medieval England: from the Reign of Alfred until the Twelfth Century (Woodbridge, 1995), does not notice this reference. Slavery declined in later Anglo-Saxon England and disappeared altogether in the early twelfth century. The last record to document the existence of slaves (apart from this chronologically vague remark of William's) is from Peterborough abbey, which still had them on its estates in the 1120s (Pelteret, Slavery, p. 256). No other record regionalizes the trade as William does: ibid., pp. 74±7.

/3thomson/tcom1.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 9:56 ± disk/amj

40

COMMENTARY

miraculo . . . gratia] Cf. VW iii. 28 (p. 66): `tres puelle . . . que per [leg. pro] liniamentorum gratia, et speciei miraculo, essent humano generi spectaculo.' Qui genus, unde domo] Virgil, Aen. viii. 114: `qui genus? unde domo? pacemne huc fertis an arma?' Cf. GP, c. 53 (p. 100). 2 impetrata a Benedicto papa licentia] John the Deacon, Vita Gregorii, c. 22 (PL lxxv. 72). 3 sicut suis lector locis inueniet] Neither in GR nor GP does William tell the story of the Augustinian mission in any detail. Presumably he is referring to one of the vitae of Gregory. cuius mentionem perstrinxit patris Gregorii uita] Paul the Deacon, Vita Gregorii, c. 17 (PL lxxv. 50), John the Deacon, Vita Gregorii, c. 21 (ibid., 72). The reference is rather super¯uous because Bede, HE ii. 1, tells the story and mentions álle. Is William simply showing off his wide reading? 46 ASC s.a. 588 merely records áthelric's reign of ®ve years. The additional details provided uniquely by William were stigmatized by Plummer (Two Saxon Chronicles, ii. 17) as imaginary. They are at least likely to be based on pre-existing tradition. quem fama obscura . . . occuleret] Cf. Virgil, Aen. v. 302: `multi praeterea, quos fama obscura recondit'. The B reading of `reconderet' for `occuleret' makes the echo more obvious. 47 Based upon ASC s.aa. 593 (E), 616, and Bede, HE i. 34, ii. 2, 12. 1 Cibi qui minus suf®tiunt auidius sumuntur] Unidenti®ed; perhaps from a medical work. 2 rex Scottorum Edan] We translate as William probably understood. But Aedan was really king of the Irish (`Scotti') in Dal Riata. caput periculis obiectans] Cf. Virgil, Aen. ii. 751: `et rursus caput obiectare periclis'. 3 cenobio tot semiruti . . . alibi cernas] William had evidently been there (i.e. Bangor, Caernarvonshire) and seen the ruins. He describes them again in GP, ut supra: `Sunt certe adhuc ibi tot semiruti parietes ecclesiarum, tantae turbae ruinarum, quantae uix alibi.' Nothing remains above ground now, and a partial rescue excavation of the site in 1972 revealed little: L. Laing, The Archaeology of Late Celtic Britain and Ireland c.400±1200 ad (London, 1975),

/3thomson/tcom1.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 9:56 ± disk/amj

BOOK I. 45.1±47.5

41

p. 113 and n. 69. The word `anfractus', used by William in the GR passage, recurs in his description of Hexham in GP, c. 117 (p. 255): `diuersis anfractibus per cocleas circumducta'. Bancor] William has confused two distinct monastic foundations. There had been a monastery at Bangor in Caernarvonshire since the sixth century and it may still have been in existence when the (nonCeltic) episcopal see of Bangor was founded in 1092: D. Knowles and R. N. Hadcock, Medieval Religious Houses: England and Wales (2nd edn., London, 1971), p. 420. But the monks slaughtered by Ecgfrith were from Bangor Iscoed, on the river Dee in Flintshire, about twelve miles (nineteen km.) south of Chester: W. Rees, An Historical Atlas of Wales (2nd edn., London, 1959), pl. 27. William con¯ates the two houses again in GP, c. 185 (p. 326). 4 incertis iactatus sedibus] Cf. Sallust, Bell. Cat. vi. 1: `sedibus incertis uagabantur'. Also below, c. 149. 6. cum fueris felix . . . solus eris] Cf. Ovid, Trist. i. 9. 5±6: `donec eris sospes, multos numerabis amicos: / tempora si fuerint nubila, solus eris'. 5 nichilque minus quam insidias opinantem premeditatus aggreditur] Cf. Justin vii. 6. 8: `nihil minus quam bellum metuentem inprouisus expugnat'. Quod tunc solum uirtus deprehensa potuit] Cf. Lucan iv. 469± 70: `Hoc tamen in casu quantum deprensa ualebat / effecit uirtus'; vi. 132: `Quod solum ualuit uirtus' (Wright II, p. 492 n. 39, for William's use of the ®rst of these in HN). quanuis ancipiti periculo circumuentus] Cf. Justin xxvi. 1. 10 and xxxii. 4. 7: `ancipiti periculo circumuenti'. Oswaldum duodennem Oswium quadriennem] `Oswaldus et Oswius alter quadriennis alter duodennis' T, perhaps representing a simple slip of memory. William may have deduced the ages of the brothers from Bede, though this would have entailed a good deal of calculation to produce rather unimportant information. Bede, HE iii. 9, 14, says that Oswald was thirty-eight when he died, Oswiu `xxx circiter annorum' when he succeeded. William presumably interpreted this as meaning thirty years exactly. At ii. 20 Bede says that Edwin, slayer of Ecgfrith, reigned for seventeen years, dying in 633. This means that Ecgfrith died in 616, when Oswald would indeed have been twelve years old. Reginald of Durham, Vita S. Oswaldi, c. 40 (Simeon of Durham i. 365), also says that Oswald was twelve

/3thomson/tcom1.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 9:56 ± disk/amj

42

COMMENTARY

when his father was killed. This date may have derived from GR, but the question must also arise as to whether William found the date in an earlier piece of hagiographical writing rather than calculating it for himself. 48 Based upon Bede, HE ii. 9, 12±14, 16, 20. 2 Ea tempestate spes atque opes Anglorum in illo sitae] Cf. Sallust, Bell. Iug. cxiv. 4: `Et ea tempestate spes atque opes ciuitatis in illo sitae.' William had the original context in mind, for the words were applied to Marius, and ironically foreshadow his tragic death in the wars with his rival Sulla. So too Edwin was to be killed after an outstanding reign (below, 4). ut nichil esset . . . in moribus barbarum] By this dif®cult phrase William seems to mean that the two kingdoms no longer fought the intertribal wars customary among `barbarians'. 3 Angli . . . Meuaniarum, quas nunc Anglesei, id est Anglorum insulas, dicunt] William adds to Bede's list of Edwin's conquests (HE ii. 5) the Scots, Picts, and Orkneys (Bede includes the Picts and Scots in iii. 6). The `Mevanian Isles' (see Pauly-Wissowa, RealencyclopaÈdie, xvi(1), cols. 42±3, Plummer in Bede, HE II, p. 94) were Anglesey and Man; but William seems to have thought that the name Anglesey covered both; so also below, c. 260. 2. Plummer, ut supra, discusses the etymology of `Anglesey', on which William is the earliest to comment, apparently correctly (Bosworth and Toller, p. 43). expilator alienae hereditatis] Cf. below, c. 314. 5 `expugnatores alienae pudicitiae' and n. 4 ut iustitia et pax . . . libantes] Cf. Ps. 84(85): 11: `iustitia et pax deosculatae sunt.' Anglorum respublica] William uses `respublica', not often, to mean something like `common weal'. See again below, cc. 65. 1, 449. 1. regni septimo decimo] Observe that William does not repeat the error of ASC (E) which has `vii ¿ear'. 49 Based upon Bede, HE iii. 1, 3, 6, 9±13. But Oswald's speech to his men before the battle of Denisesburn is unaccounted for and may be William's invention; some of its matter is in Bede's briefer rendition of the king's later speech at Maserfeld. For other details William may have had access to hagiographical material, perhaps orally trans-

/3thomson/tcom1.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 9:56 ± disk/amj

BOOK I. 47.5±49.9

43

mitted. R. Folz, `Saint Oswald, roi de Northumbrie; eÂtude d'hagiographie royale', Anal. Boll. xcviii (1980), 49±74, esp. pp. 54±7, showed that Bede's account was not signi®cantly elaborated until s. xii2; but he omitted mention of William. The probably composite Durham collection pr. as Reginald of Durham in Simeon of Durham i. 326±85, has nothing to offer. 1 ®lii Ethelfridi idemque nepotes Eduini] Tt adds, correctly, `de sorore Acca' (as above, c. 47. 5), the quali®cation needed when William uses `nepos' to mean `nephew' (see above, Letter 1. 3n). cuius mentio superius excidit] Their elder brother. The statement in c. 47. 5 that áthelfrith had two sons by Acha suggests that William only later learned that Eanfrith was a third. It is curious that William did not ever correct the earlier omission, despite his awareness of it. 2 ut contra illos pro salute decertarent] Cf. Sallust, Bell. Iug. cxiv. 2: `pro salute . . . certare'. 3 Denique ex eo tempore cultus idolorum ad cineres torpuit] But Cadwallon and his followers were Christians. Huius regis laudes historia panagerico prosequitur stilo] Bede, HE iii. 1 seq. 4 auro rigentem] Cf. Virgil, Aen. i. 648: `pallam signis auroque rigentem'; xi. 72 `geminas uestis auroque ostroque rigentis'. Tirios murices estuantem] Cf. ibid., iv. 262: `Tyrioque ardebat murice laena'. Dispersit . . . seculi] Ps. 112(113): 9. 5±9 Nam quod auditor . . . incolitur habitatore] William's rather defensive remarks both here and in GP, cc. 155, 180 (pp. 293, 317± 18), are understandable, for other twelfth-century accounts of the whereabouts of Oswald's relics are suf®ciently vague. He was not even sure that Peterborough had Oswald's arm, said to be in an incorrupt state (GP, c. 180; p. 318): `Daturque ostentui magno scrinium, illius thesauri receptaculum; sed ®des dictorum uacillat, ubi nichil auditor uisu explorat. Hoc uero non ideo dixerim quod de integritate sancti sim dubius, sed utrum eo loci contineatur nolo esse af®rmator praeproperus.' Note that he had apparently not himself been either to Bamburgh or Durham (cf. c. 61. 4n; nor had he been to Wearmouth-Jarrow; c. 54. 2n). He had been to Yorkshire though (GP iii prol.; p. 209). The information available at Durham in his day is represented by

/3thomson/tcom1.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 9:56 ± disk/amj

44

COMMENTARY

the collection pr. as Reginald of Durham, Vita S. Oswaldi, cc. 13, 43, 46±51 (Simeon of Durham i. 351, 368±9, 373±81), itself not without internal contradictions re¯ecting either multiple authorship or the use of several unreconciled sources: see V. Tudor, `Reginald's Life of St Oswald', in Oswald: Northumbrian King to European Saint, ed. C. Stancliffe and E. Cambridge (Stamford, 1995), pp. 178±94. The story it tells is as follows: Oswald's body, mostly buried at Bardney, in the course of time was dispersed: `Quare uicissim succedentes barbari, partim de ossibus illius pietatis furto abstulerunt, et per regiones innumeras tam nationum transmarinarum quam Anglicanarum disperserunt.' Only three bones remained at Bardney in the author's time. The head was ®rst buried in the cemetery at Lindisfarne; the arms and hands were gathered up by Queen Bebba and enshrined by her at Bamburgh (cf. Bede, HE iii. 6). When miracles began to occur at Lindisfarne the head too was translated by Oswald's kinsfolk to Bamburgh. There, over a period of time, his cult declined. `Vnde, sancto martyre ordinante, Christus locum ipsum tantis pignoribus priuatum destituit, et sacratissimas sui regis reliquias ad loca alia transferri fecit.' As a consequence, one of St Cuthbert's clerics was instructed by the saint in a vision to abstract the head and hide it in his own tomb, where it remained, kept in a bag, in the writer's time. The De miraculis et translationibus S. Cuthberti vii. 5, 8 (Simeon of Durham i. 252, 255) tells how the head was rediscovered, with many other relics, when St Cuthbert's cof®n was opened in 1104. The other relics were taken out, but the head replaced. None of this makes it clear whether any relics whatsoever remained at Bamburgh. Plummer in Bede, HE II, pp. 157±61, gives further details of the spread of Oswald's cult and relics, both within and outside England. See also now the papers in Stancliffe and Cambridge, Oswald: Northumbrian King to European Saint, esp. A. Thacker, `Membra disiecta: the division of the body and the diffusion of the cult', D. W. Rollason, `St Oswald in post-Conquest England', and R. N. Bailey, `St Oswald's heads', pp. 97±127, 164±77, 195±209 respectively. 6 uotis caelos onerare] Cf. Virgil, Aen. ix. 24: `multa deos orans, onerauitque aethera uotis'; similarly VW i. 3 (p. 9): `ethera onerare planctibus'. A remoter echo is in VD i. 26 (p. 284): `ethera onerabant suspiriis'. cum stipatoribus fusis . . . ferratam siluam in pectore gereret] Cf. Statius, Theb. viii. 704±5: `densis iam consitus hastis / ferratum

/3thomson/tcom1.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 9:56 ± disk/amj

BOOK I. 49.5±50

45

quatit umbo nemus'; Lucan vi. 205: `densamque ferens in pectore siluam'. 7 coruo rarior albo] Juvenal vii. 202: `felix ille tamen coruo quoque rarior albo'. corpus . . . placido naturae sinu confotum] Cf. Lucan vii. 810± 11: `placido natura receptat / cuncta sinu ®nemque sui sibi corpora debent'. Wright II, p. 492, n. 40, cites other instances of William's use of these lines. ueraci historico] Bede, HE iii. 6. 8 inuidentes . . . uiuum] Cf. VD ii. 20 (p. 309): `inuidentes scilicet mortuo cespitem ecclesiasticum cui uiuo inuiderant decus regium'. quod super eos bellico iure acceperat regnum] Lindsey had probably passed from Edwin of Northumbria to Penda in 633, to be recovered again by Oswald. `super eos regnum acceperat' is what Bede says in HE iii. 11; `bellico iure' is William's interpretation. fatuum lenire tumorem] Perhaps an unidenti®ed quotation. 9 postquam Ethelredus rex ibidem coronam tonsurae monachicae accepit] See below, c. 77. Gloecestram translata] St Oswald's priory Gloucester. It was founded c.900 (GP, c. 155; p. 293) as a college of secular canons. In 909 relics of Oswald were translated there from Bardney: ASC (BC) s.a. 909, (D) s.a. 906, John of Worcester, s.a. 910; C. Horstman, Nova legenda Anglie (2 vols.: Oxford, 1901), ii. 266. It became Augustinian in 1152 or 1153. The relics, part of Oswald's left arm and some hair, were translated to a new shrine there between 1108 and 1114: ?Reginald of Durham, Vita S. Oswaldi, c. 44 (Simeon of Durham i. 370). See C. M. Heighway and R. Bryant, `A reconstruction of the tenth-century church of St Oswald, Gloucester', in The Anglo-Saxon Church: Papers on History and Architecture and Archaeology in Honour of H. M. Taylor, ed. L. Butler and R. Morris (Council for British Archaeology Research Report, lx: London, 1986), pp. 188±95; M. Hare, The Two Anglo-Saxon Minsters of Gloucester (Deerhurst, 1993); A. Binns, `Pre-Reformation dedications to St Oswald in England and Scotland: a gazetteer', in Stancliffe and Cambridge, Oswald: Northumbrian King to European Saint, pp. 241±67, at 250; C. M. Heighway and R. M. Bryant, The Saxon Minster and Medieval Priory of St Oswald at Gloucester (forthcoming). 50 Based upon Bede, HE iii. 14, 24±5, 29, iv. 1.

/3thomson/tcom1.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 9:56 ± disk/amj

46

COMMENTARY

1 quibus cum primo . . . committerent] There is no obvious source for these remarks of William's, which Plummer (HE II, p. 163) thought represented `probably only his own fertile imagination'. 2 scorpiacea cauda] Similar expressions in HN, c. 481 (p. 39), VW ii. 22 (p. 45). Ita Oswius . . . uirtutum imminuens] A reasonable interpretation of Bede's account of his conduct subsequent to his brother's murder. 3 ex quo tempore . . . presidentibus imperauit] `imperauit' is William's way of describing Oswiu's status as bretwealda, which he acquired by his defeat of Penda (Bede, HE ii. 5, iii. 24). 4 precipuum monasterium, tunc feminarum nunc uirorum] Streoneshalh was in fact a double monastery: Bede, HE iv. 23. Ethel¯eda, eiusdem regis ®lia] Her name was álf¯ñd according to Bede, HE iii. 24. She held the of®ce of abbess jointly with her mother Ean¯ñd (HE iv. 26). post uiginti octo annos] ASC (E) s.a. 641. 5 Illud cenobium . . . alias nonnulla] The translation of Hild's relics to Glastonbury is also mentioned in AG, c. 21 (pp. 68±9)Ð hence the expansion in CÐand in GP, c. 91 (p. 198). The alleged translation of all these saints Plummer (HE II, p. 167) called `simply an instance of that huge system of monastic lying, in which Glastonbury had a bad pre-eminence'; but see below, c. 54. 5n. Simeon of Durham (ii. 6; i. 57) alleges that some of Aidan's relics had been taken by Colman to Scotland, while the remainder were removed from Lindisfarne in 875 along with Cuthbert's body. But they do not seem to have reached Durham, perhaps not even Chester-le-Street, where Cuthbert's body rested 883±995. Nunc mutato nomine . . . uestigium] Whitby was refounded as an abbey in 1109. There were thirty-nine monks there in 1179 (Knowles and Hadcock, Medieval Religious Houses, p. 80). 51 The framework is provided by Bede, HE iv. 5, 12, 19, 21, 26. 1 duo erant ®lii . . . notho] The two sons referred to are Ecgfrith and Aldfrith. In fact Oswiu had at least four sons, and William mentions a third below at c. 77. For Aldfrith's illegitimacy William's authority was Bede, Vita S. Cuthberti, c. 24. It is not known what authority William had for his statement that Aldfrith was the elder of the two. This assertion would have Aldfrith aged more

/3thomson/tcom1.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 9:56 ± disk/amj

BOOK I. 50.1±53

47

than forty at his accession, since Ecgfrith was that age when he died (Bede, HE iv. 26). B's insertion of Ecgfrith's name may have been due to William; certainly its omission would seem to have been an oversight. Cuthbertum lacrimis . . . profusis] Bede, Vita S. Cuthberti, c. 24. 2 fratrem quoque amisit] The brother's name was álfwine, as William mentions at c. 77 below. episcoporum et uxoris consilio] Stephen of Ripon, Vita Wilfridi, c. 24. Beda . . . dilectissimum uocet] Bede, Hist. abbatum, c. 1. Postremo . . . nuntiarunt] Bede (HE iv. 5) gives the year of Ecgfrith's accession as 670, the date of this expedition as 684 (iv. 26), so that `quinto decimo regni anno' is correct. Cuthbertus . . . non tacuerit] Bede, Vita S. Cuthberti, c. 27. 52 Based upon Bede, HE iv. 26, v. 19. 1 anxia . . . penna] Juvenal iv. 149: `anxia praecipiti uenisset epistula penna'. quanuis senior] See above, c. 51. 1n. in Hiberniam . . . composuerat animum] Bede, Vita S. Cuthberti, c. 24, with William interpreting Bede's `in partibus Scottorum', surely correctly. He has also inferred Irish hatred for Ecgfrith from HE iv. 26, where Bede recounts and condemns Ecgfrith's invasion and devastation of Ireland. seu ui seu indignatione] Although this is apparently only William's guess, Plummer (HE II, p. 263) thought it a shrewd one, since Ecgfrith had earlier wanted to make Aldfrith a bishop, probably to exclude him from the succession. 2 quod liuor edax digne carpere posset] Cf. Ovid, Amor. i. 15. 1: `Quid michi, Liuor edax, ignauos obicis annos'; Met. vi. 129±30: `non illud carpere Liuor / possit opus'. Also used below, c. 95. 1 and in GP, c. 67 (p. 126). 53 Based upon Bede, HE v. 18, 23, and ASC s.a. 716. On William's remarks about Osred's character, reign, and death see Plummer in Bede, HE II, pp. 306±7, 336. Only William implicates Cenred and Osric in his slaying, and only he has Cenred also come to a violent end.

/3thomson/tcom1.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 9:56 ± disk/amj

48

COMMENTARY

1 fedo exitu auras polluere] Cf. Prudentius, Psych. 52: `Sordidus exhalans uicinas polluit auras'. laetior . . . aliis iactantior umbris] Cf. Statius, Theb. ix. 559: `laetus abi multumque aliis iactantior umbris.' Simeon of Durham i. 13 (i. 39) stands alone in calling Osric `®lius Alfridi': Plummer in Bede, HE II, pp. 337±8. quod Celwlfum Kenredi fratrem uiuens sibi successorem adoptauerat] Note Tt's quite different alternative: `[?ob] supremae scilicet uoluntatis arbitrium quo Celwlfum Kenredi fratrem successorem sibi adoptauerat'. John of Worcester s.a. 729, though ambiguous, also seems to suggest that Osric willed his kingdom to Ceolwulf. 2 ab Ida septimus] Neither this nor B's `octauus' is at ®rst sight easy to interpret, for William's account makes Ceolwulf ninth or tenth king from Ida. JW Gen., pp. 254±5, makes him sixth or seventh in line of descent. I presume, then, that William refers to the line of descent, i.e. by generation, in the B version counting Ida as ®rst. 54. 1 Cuius anno quarto idem historicus . . . caelestem patriam . . . ingressus est] But Ceolwulf began to reign in 729 (ASC s.a.); so Bede died six or seven years later. aetatis suae quinquagesimo nono] The T reading of `sexagesimo' for `quinquagesimo nono' shows that at an early stage of his work William changed his mind about Bede's age at death. Only reasonable conjecture is possible in trying to ascertain how William calculated this, and why he changed his mind about it. ASC gave him a date for Bede's death, 734 (recte 735); from HE v. 24 he knew that Bede had entered the monastery at the age of seven. (The source for) John of Worcester s.a. could have told him that this was in 681, which would give the date of Bede's birth as either 674 or 675 (though both John of Worcester and Simeon of Durham i. 8 (i. 29) give it as 677); Bede's age at death was thus either ®fty-nine or sixty. William's change of mind was presumably about the precise year of Bede's birth. In this he was perhaps in¯uenced by Bede's own statement at the end of HE that he was then ®fty-nine. Nam et Britannia, quae a quibusdam alter orbis appellatur, quod oceano interfusa . . . comperta est] Similarly Mir., c. 7 (p. 79): `Britannia maior, quae nunc Anglia dicitur, et a quibusdam, quia oceano circumgirata est, alter orbis dicitur'. William was certainly in¯uenced by Hegesippus ii. 9. 1 (p. 150): `Britannia extra

/3thomson/tcom1.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 9:56 ± disk/amj

BOOK I. 53.1±54.5

49

orbem posita . . . interfuso oceano . . .'; and perhaps by Isidore, Etym. ix. 2. 102: `gens intra Oceanum interfuso mari quasi extra orbem posita'. For Britain as `alter orbis', see Servius in Ecl. i. 66: `a poetis alter orbis terrarum dicitur', and Solinus xxii. 1: `Finis erat orbis ora Gallici litoris, nisi Brittania insula . . . nomen paene orbis alterius mereretur'. The idea of Britain as `alter orbis' was familiar to Bede; see Plummer in Bede, HE II, p. 5. Eadmer (Vita Anselmi, p. 105) puts the same expression in the mouth of Urban II and so does William himself in GP, c. 53 (p. 100), in both instances as a description of Anselm's position as archbishop of Canterbury. A little earlier the expression was used by Goscelin in his Historia, miracula et translatio S. Augustini, c. 1 (AA SS, Maii vi. 377): `Augustinus . . . alterum Britannici Oceani orbem suo apostolatu praecinxit'. On the history of the idea see C. Erdmann, Forschungen zur politischen Ideenwelt des FruÈhmittelalters (Berlin, 1951), pp. 8±9, 38±43. 2 Plaga . . . pretendit] For ravaging of the north by the Danes and Normans see below, cc. 73, 249. 2±3. 2±4 Ibi est Wira . . . defunctus est] William gives another account of Benedict Biscop, similarly worded, in GP, c. 186 (pp. 328±9). 2±5 Cuius utrasque ripas . . . ciuitatem iniit] Dependent upon Bede, Hist. abbatum, cc. 3±5, 7, 10±17, 21. 2 Cuius utrasque ripas . . . non discrepantia] In fact St Paul's Jarrow is on the south bank of the Tyne, St Peter's Monkwearmouth on the north bank of the Wear, and they are approximately ten miles (sixteen km.) apart. William had obviously not seen them (nor had he been to Durham or Bamburgh: see cc. 49. 5±9n, 61. 4n). In fact they constituted a single monastery: Plummer in Bede, HE II, p. 331. 5 Reliquiae . . . portatae] On how the northern relics came to Glastonbury William seems to have wavered: in AG, c. 21 (pp. 68±9), he says that they were brought by Tyccea, an exiled northerner who became abbot of Glastonbury in 754; in GP, c. 91 (p. 198), he says that they were given by King Edmund I. The later Glastonbury writers con¯ated the accounts and added to the number of relics: see Carley in John of Glastonbury, pp. 291±2, n. 265, and A. Gransden, `The growth of the Glastonbury traditions and legends in the twelfth century', Journal of Ecclesiastical History, xxvii (1976), 337±58, at pp. 345±6 n. 3. There is at any rate good early evidence that some northern relics (those of Aidan and Ceolfrith) came there between

/3thomson/tcom1.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 9:56 ± disk/amj

50

COMMENTARY

c.900 and c.970: C. Hohler, `Some service books of the later Saxon Church', in Tenth-Century Studies, ed. D. Parsons (London and Chichester, 1975), pp. 60±83, at 69±70. 6 Gloria patris ®lius sapiens] Jerome, Epist. lii. 7; also quoted in VD i. 17 (p. 273). 55 Bede, HE v. 24. William has omitted, after `Wiremundan', `et Ingyruum', perhaps inadvertently. 56 Deinde . . . fatiem tuam] Bede, HE v. 24, verbatim from `Teque deprecor'. Henry of Huntingdon (iv. 13; pp. 232±3) gave Bede's list of his writings in extenso. The latest list of Bede's works is in R. Sharpe, A Handlist of the Latin Writers of Great Britain and Ireland before 1540 (Publications of the Journal of Medieval Latin, i: Turnhout, 1997), pp. 70±6. Praeterea omnes . . . inueniam] Bede, HE, praef. 57 De®cit hic ingenium . . . sermonum sobrietatem] William also credits the writings of Eadmer of Canterbury with `sermonum sobrietas'; see above, prol. 3n. Quid . . . corriperet] Presumably a reference to the accusations of heresy refuted by Bede in his Epistola ad Pleguinum: C. W. Jones, Bedae Opera de Temporibus (Cambridge, Mass., 1943), pp. 307±15. No known source earlier than William suggests that Bede submitted his works for papal correction. 58 = H & S iii. 248±50. William's exemplar was almost certainly BL MS Cotton Tiberius A. xv (?Christ Church Canterbury c.1000), from which he also copied the letter into his Liber pont. (C). Thomson, William of Malmesbury, pp. 172±3, argues that it was William himself who made the imaginative substitution, in both works, of `Bedam uenerabilis monasterii tui presbiterum' for his exemplar's `N. presbiterum uenerabilis monasterii tui'. 1 in tenebris et umbra mortis positos ad lumen scientiae perducit] cf. Job 3: 5, Isa. 9: 1. 59. 2 In maliuolam . . . peccatis] Wisd. 1: 4. Filii . . . generatione sua sunt] Luke 16: 8. quae disciplinae . . . sine intellectu] Wisd. 1: 5.

/3thomson/tcom1.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 9:56 ± disk/amj

BOOK I. 54.5±61.2

51

Orator . . . peritus] Seneca the Elder, Controversiae i pr. 9: `Orator est . . . uir bonus dicendi peritus.' At ®rst sight a surprising quotation, if ®rst-hand, since the transmission of the Controversiae seems to have been largely continental. But B. Munk Olsen, L'EÂtude des auteurs classiques latins aux XI e et XII e sieÁcles (3 vols. in 4: Paris, 1982±9), ii. 366±473, lists as possibly or certainly English excerpts in Cambridge, Trinity Coll. MS O. 3. 32 (s. xii/xiii); Leiden, Bibl. der Rijksuniv., MSS Lips. 41 (s. xiiex) and Voss. lat. F. 69 (s. xii2); Bodl. Libr., MSS Bodl. 633 (Worcester, s. xii2) and Digby 5 (Christ Church Canterbury, s. xii2). In relation to William, the extracts in Bodl. 633 are particularly interesting, for they are part of the well-known Florilegium morale Oxoniense, put together at Worcester Cathedral Priory from whole texts. In other words, a complete copy of the Controversiae may have been available at Worcester close to William's lifetime. 3 super Samuelem] Bede, In I Sam., gen. prol. (CCSL cxix, p. 10 lines 54±9). I do not know why William speci®es Book iii. in interiora uelaminis] Heb. 6: 19. 60±61 are based on Cuthbert, Epistola de obitu Bedae (ed. Plummer in HE I, pp. clx±clxiv), with small additions. 61. 1 spe metuque libratis] Cf. Virgil, Aen. i. 218: `spemque metumque inter dubii' (and see Wright I, p. 130, for William's use of this line in Mir.). Horrendum . . . uiuentis] Heb. 10: 31. dictum mutuatus] Paulinus, Vita S. Ambrosii, c. 45 (PL xiv. 43). William was quoting from Paulinus directly, not via the Epistola: Thomson, William of Malmesbury, p. 16. Diligit . . . recipit] Heb. 12: 6. Aurum . . . temptationis] Prov. 27: 21; Ecclus. 2: 5. Non sunt . . . in nobis] Rom. 8: 18. 2 sapientissimi uiri dictum] Cicero, De of®c. iii. 1 (of Scipio Africanus): `numquam se minus otiosum esse quam cum otiosus, nec minus solum quam cum solus esset'. The same quotation is in William's Commentary on Lamentations (Bodl. Libr., MS Bodl. 868, fo. 93r). Suscipe . . . misericordiam tuam] Ps. 118(119): 122, 124.

/3thomson/tcom1.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 9:56 ± disk/amj

52

COMMENTARY

4 Humatus est . . . fama con®rmat] William had evidently not visited Durham (see also c. 49. 5±9n), where Bede's body was taken between 1021 and 1035 (Simeon of Durham ii. 7 (i. 88±9) ). It is still there. The suggestion that he knew Simeon of Durham's Liber de exordio . . . Dunelmensis ecclesie (Simeon of Durham i. 621±711) and used it as the basis of GP, cc. 126±35 (pp. 266±76), is made by D. Matthew, `Durham and the Anglo-Norman world', in AngloNorman Durham 1093±1193, ed. D. W. Rollason, M. Harvey, and M. Prestwich (Woodbridge, 1994), pp. 1±22, at 11 and n. 43. 62 Sepulta est . . . detepuit feruor] Similarly above, prol. 1±4. Pauci, quos aequus amauit Iesus] A remarkable adaptation of Virgil, Aen. vi. 129±30: `pauci, quos aequus amauit / Iuppiter'. Cf. VW prol. (p. 3): `pauci quos equus amabit Iesus'. uix primis labris illas gustantes] Jerome, Apol. adv. Ru®n. i. 30 (PL xxiii. 425A): `uix primis labris . . . degustasti'. Presbiter hic Beda . . . intento semper amore] SK 12463. See M. Lapidge, `Some remnants of Bede's lost ``Liber epigrammatum'' ', EHR xc (1975), 798±820, and Thomson, William of Malmesbury, pp. 126±30, for the evidence that William copied these and other verses from a sylloge inscriptionum made for Milred, bishop of Worcester 745±75. A fragment of William's exemplar survives as Urbana, University of Illinois Libr. MS 128 (s. x); he probably found it at Worcester and brought it to Malmesbury, if it was not there already. Lapidge, `Some remnants', prints these verses at pp. 819±20. 64 Some information from ASC (DE) s.a. 737. A similar account of Ceolwulf's entry into Lindisfarne, the translation of his body to Durham, and associated miracles, is in Simeon of Durham ii. 1, 5 (i. 47, 52), Historia de sancto Cuthberto, c. 9 (Simeon of Durham i. 201), and ?Reginald of Durham, Vita S. Oswaldi, c. 21 (Simeon of Durham i. 360±1). For other evidence of his adopting the tonsure see Plummer in Bede, HE II, p. 341. 65. 1 Prouiderat . . . reformauit] As ASC s.a. 738 which, however, gives the king his correct name, Eadberht, and the length of his reign as twenty-one years. For an account of the `fratrem equiuocum' (Ecgberht, archbishop of York ?732±66) see GP, c. 112 (pp. 245±6), where the king is again given the same name as his brother. Namque . . . reliquit] Bede, HE ii. 17, 20.

/3thomson/tcom1.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 9:56 ± disk/amj

BOOK I. 61.4±67

53

2 sicut superbum est si appetas indebita, ita ignauum si debita negligas] Possibly an unidenti®ed quotation. nobilissimamque bibliothecam Eboraci constituit] William's deduction, based upon letters of Alcuin which he is about to quote, is the more impressive in that he evidently did not know Alcuin's famous poem on the York library (Versus de patribus regibus et sanctis Euboracensis ecclesiae): Alcuin, The Bishops, Kings, and Saints of York, ed. and trans. P. Godman (OMT, 1982). 3 Laus et gloria . . . heredem reliquit] Alcuin, Epist. cxiv (ed. E. DuÈmmler, MGH Epist., iv, 1895, p. 167, lines 3±9). In this and the following letter (cxxi) the reference to (Archbishop) Ecgberht should be corrected to his successor áthelberht. The error may well have been an intentional emendation made by William to his exemplar, which was almost certainly BL MS Cotton Tiberius A. xv (see below). On the way in which William used Alcuin's letters (also at cc. 70, 72, 82, 87, 91, 93±4 below and in GP) see Thomson, William of Malmesbury, ch. 8. There it is demonstrated that his exemplar was BL MS Cotton Tiberius A. xv (?Christ Church Canterbury, c.1000), of which he presumably made his own copy, to be identi®ed with the `Epistolae Albini' seen by John Leland at Malmesbury (ibid., p. 104). Date mihi . . . emissiones paradisi] Alcuin, Epist. cxxi (p. 177, lines 4±10). emissiones paradisi] S. of S. 4: 12±13. 66 dialectica et rethorica et etiam astronomia] Referring to Alcuin's De dialectica (PL ci. 951±76), Disputatio de rhetorica et uirtutibus (ibid. 919±46 and C. Halm, Rhetores latini minores (Leipzig, 1863), pp. 525±50), and presumably one or more of his lengthy letters on astronomy: cxxvi, cxlix, or most probably clxxi (MGH Epist., iv. 282). William could not have inferred the existence of Alcuin's works on dialectic and rhetoric from his collection of the latter's correspondence (above, c. 65. 3n). 67 de qua multa fabulatur antiquitas] This suggests that William was aware of the tradition, already ancient, which traced the Frankish people and their rulers back to Troy. He implicitly rejects it in the genealogy below at c. 68. 2.

/3thomson/tcom1.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 9:56 ± disk/amj

54

COMMENTARY

68 On William's sources for this section see Thomson, William of Malmesbury, pp. 139±40, 143±53. The main ones are Hugh of Fleury, Historia ecclesiastica, in the second edition of 1110, Ado of Vienne, Chronicon, Einhard, Vita Karoli, and the Annales Mettenses priores. Some of these appear in a collection of materials for Carolingian history, apparently put together by William and partly drawn on for this section and cc. 110±11, which survives in a later copy (Bodl. Libr., MS Lat. class. d. 39, ?Christ Church Canterbury, s. xii2): Thomson, William of Malmesbury, pp. 140±52. 1 Franci . . . appellari iubent] Mostly from Hugh of Fleury (ed. B. Rottendorff (MuÈnster, 1638), pp. 104±5) and Ado of Vienne (PL cxxiii. 95). But William's use of `morum' suggests that he also had in mind Isidore, Etym. ix. 2. 101: `Alii eos [sc. Francos] . . . a feritate morum nuncupatos existimant.' Note that B omits `Greco uocabulo', perhaps showing that William came to disbelieve this etymology. in Meotidas paludes] The Sea of Azov. Its place in origin-literature is discussed by J. Carey, The Irish National Origin-Legend: Synthetic Pseudohistory (Cambridge, 1994), pp. 15±16. Parua gens . . . adoleuit] Cf. Sallust, Bell. Cat. vii. 3: `incredibile memoratu est . . . quantum breui creuerit'. Both this and the quotation from Sallust at c. 374. 2 below are found in Augustine, De civ. Dei v. 12 (Wright II, p. 485 and n. 11). quos nos Francos putamus Galwalas antiquo uocabulo quasi Gallos nuncupant] Plummer in Two Saxon Chronicles, i. 9, says that William `is of course wrong in identifying the Teutonic invaders of Gaul with the Celtic inhabitants' (similarly in Bede, HE II, p. 107); but William was quite aware of the difference. Here he is distinguishing correctly between the Franks proper (represented in his own time by the `Lotharingi' and `Alemanni'), and those to whom his contemporaries referred as `Franci' (i.e. French). On the history of the terminology see M. Lugge, ``Gallia'' und ``Francia'' im Mittelalter (Bonn, 1960), esp. pp. 169±82, W. Kienast, Deutschland und Frankreich in der Kaiserzeit, 900±1270 (3 vols.: Stuttgart, 1974±5), i. 193±6. 2 uitam Karoli] Einhard, Vita Karoli, presumably c. 29. Anno igitur . . . Faramundum] William's date for Faramund's accession is unlike that given in other sources; it is nearly identical with that (ad 424) given in the regnal list in his `Carolingian History Collection', Bodl. Libr., MS Lat. class. d. 39 (Thomson, William of

/3thomson/tcom1.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 9:56 ± disk/amj

BOOK I. 68±68.4

55

Malmesbury, pp. 145±6, where the date is rendered, erroneously, as 324). Nepos Faramundi fuit Meroueus] Through Faramund's son Clodio, according to the regnal list in Bodl. Libr., MS Lat. class. d. 39, fo. 125: Thomson, William of Malmesbury, pp. 145±6. Observe William's implicit rejection of the alternative and already ancient genealogical tradition which traced the Merovingians back to King Priam of Troy. Genealogies of this type are found prefaced to John of Worcester's Chronicle in Oxford, Corpus Christi Coll. MS 157, p. 4, and in Henry of Huntingdon vii. 38 (pp. 479±81). But William knew that the Franks were a Germanic, not Mediterranean people. a quo omnes post eum reges Merouingi uocati sunt] Note B's insertion after reges of `Francorum usque ad Pipinum', which is of course more accurate. This is likely to have been William's own addition. Although the wording is ambiguous, the intention is to distinguish Pippin III from the Merovingians (see a parallel instance below, at 8 and n. ad loc.). 3 annum incarnationis Domini sexcentesimum octogesimum septimum . . . pro libito] The date, and some of William's wording, show that he is here dependent upon the Annales Mettenses priores (ed. B. von Simson, MGH srg, x, 1905, p. 12); on his use of this work see Thomson, William of Malmesbury, pp. 146±7, 154. Note especially its description of the new arrangement between Pippin and Theuderic, similar to William's but more favourable to Pippin: `Quam sub ditione in potestatem redactam, Theodericum quoque recipiens, ne tirannidem uideretur exercere uel seuitiam, nomen sibi regis inestimabile pietate reseruauit. Ipse uero totius regni gubernacula thesaurosque regios et uniuersi exercitus dominationem properae facultatis iure disponenda retinuit.' Pippin's new title is not speci®ed in the Annales. William's `comes palatii apud Transrhenanos' is strictly incorrect: it should be `maior palatii'. However William uses the title `comes' very loosely (see below, cc. 68. 4±5, 228. 2), and he calls Pippin `maior palatii' in his Liber pont. (below, 5±6n). 4 Ansbertus . . . Karolus] Verbatim as Domus Carolingicae genealogia, in a redaction made at the abbey of Saint-Wandrille in the tenth century: MGH SS, ii, 1829, pp. 308±9. `Anschisus' and `Ansegisus' are doublets; T is correct at this point, but its earlier omission of `Anschisum' is not. William seems to have got into trouble trying to correct an imperfect source.

/3thomson/tcom1.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 9:56 ± disk/amj

56

COMMENTARY

Tudites] The epithet is from Hugh of Fleury, Historia ecclesiastica, ed. B. Rottendorff (MuÈnster, 1638), p. 162. As with Pippin (above, c. 68. 3), William calls him `comes', although he was actually Mayor of the Palace. 4±5 quod tirannos . . . Monte Cassino] Einhard, Vita Karoli, c. 2. 5±6 Pipinus a Stephano . . . sacramento ®rmaret] Similar wording is used by William in his Liber pont. (C, fo. 275v; Levison, pp. 381±2 n. 3): `Pippinum tunc maiorem domus apud Sanctum Dionisium unxit in regem. Mox eius precibus idem Pippinus, expeditione in Italiam mota, paucorum dierum obsidione apud Ticinum, quae nunc Papia dicitur, compulit Haistulfum regem Longobardorum et obsides dare et erepta Romanis oppida restituere et, ne repeterentur, sacramento ®rmare.' 6 Desiderium] The Lombard king was in fact Aistulf. Thomson, William of Malmesbury, p. 147, offers a possible explanation of William's error. William gets it right in his Liber pont. (Levison, p. 382), which I have argued was written shortly before GR (Thomson, William of Malmesbury, pp. 136±7). 7 consanguinei] Hugh of Fleury (ed. Rottendorff), p. 172. Apostolicum . . . restituens] ASC s.a. 797 (recte 799). 8 usque ad Hugonem cognomento Capet] The wording does not make it clear whether William means to include or exclude Hugh as a king of the Carolingian dynasty; that he meant, correctly, the latter, can be presumed from c. 128 below. Huius nepos fuit Otto maximus] Otto was not the grandson of Conrad, to whom he was not even closely related; William repeats the error at c. 112. 2. modernus Henricus] Henry V, who was by no means a direct descendant of Otto the Great. The B addition, `son-in-law of Henry, king of England', is of no signi®cance in relation to the possible date of that version, since Matilda was married to Henry in Jan. 1114. Bk's conversion of `gener' into `genitor' transfers the reference (nonsensically) to Henry II; this misreading presumably occurred after 1154. B's modi®cation of `trahit' to `traxit' suggests (what could have anyhow been guessed) that the B redaction is later (and at least part of A earlier) than the death of Henry V on 23 May 1125. 70. 1 Assuescant pueri . . . remunerationis gloriam] Alcuin, Epist. xix (p. 55, lines 19±25).

/3thomson/tcom1.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 9:56 ± disk/amj

BOOK I. 68.4±70.4

57

Non pro auri . . . causa necessitatis] Alcuin, Epist. xliii (p. 89, lines 4±5). 2 Ego paratus . . . principum fedata] Alcuin, Epist. ci (p. 147, lines 17±21). 3 ad Ethelredum . . . tertius post Egberhtum] áthelred I reigned twice; his ®rst reign (774±9) was the fourth, his second (790±6), during which this letter was written, the seventh after Eadberht's, as William himself recognizes in c. 72 below. However the T version of the genealogy in c. 72 omits the reign of Oswulf, Eadberht's son and successor. If this was an omission made by William in the earliest recension, he later corrected it at c. 72 but forgot to alter `tertius' to `quartus' here. Ecce aecclesia . . . super terram] Alcuin, Epist. xvi (pp. 42, line 37 ± 43, lines 3, 17±20). It is dif®cult to visualize the scene described in the second part of this extract. Other excerpts from the same letter are in GP, cc. 99, 128 (pp. 209, 268). 4 Item Osberto patritio Mertiorum: Nostrum regnum . . . fallaces iurationes] Alcuin, Epist. cxxii (p. 180, lines 16±17), dated 797. Tt omits `Mertiorum' (but it has this reading at c. 94. 2). Both of the two surviving witnesses to this letter, one of which was William's exemplar, address it `Venerando uiro ill. patricio', apparently considering `patricius' a personal name. William is the sole authority to introduce Osberht. A high-ranking person of this name certainly existed at the right time: described as the king's minister, he was the recipient of a grant from Offa in 788 (Sawyer 128). How did William come to connect him with this letter? That he had access to another exemplar for it is possible but unlikely. He could, however, have attached Osberht's name to it by deduction. Firstly, the letter is clearly addressed to an illustrious layman who has had a special role in the government of Mercia in Offa's time and later. Secondly, the original of Offa's grant to Osberht is still in the archive of Canterbury Cathedral: Dean & Chapter Muniments, Chart. Ant. M. 340, facsimile in W. B. Sanders, Facsimiles of Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts photozincographed by command of Her Majesty Queen Victoria (3 vols.: Ordnance Survey, Southampton, 1878±84), i. 2. Perhaps that was where William found his name, for he had close links with Canterbury and visited it more than once: Thomson, William of Malmesbury, pp. 6, 46, 70, 73.

/3thomson/tcom1.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 9:56 ± disk/amj

58

COMMENTARY

Hoc dico . . . dignatus est] Alcuin, Epist. xvii (p. 47, lines 14±22). áthelheard was archbishop of Canterbury 793±805. 72 Based on ASC (DE) s.aa. 757 (recte 758±9), 765, 774, 778, 789 (recte 788), 790, 792, all versions 794 (recte 796). 1±2 Ethelbertus quoque, ®lius Mollonis . . . Ethelberto, qui et Ethelredus dictus est] William was apparently faced with con¯icting evidence about this king's name. In ASC it is always `áthelred', but `áthelberhtus ®lius regis Molli' in John of Worcester s.a. 774, `áthelberhtus' s.a. 778. JW Accounts, pp. 269±70, calls him `áthelredus qui et áthelberhtus Molli regis ®lius'. William apparently chose to follow John of Worcester or his source, using JW Accounts to reconcile John of Worcester and ASC. (Plummer in Two Saxon Chronicles, ii. 53, is wrong in saying that William con¯ated Alhred and áthelberht). Tt's `Egbertus quoque qui et Adelredus' may simply be a gloss added after William's time. William has Moll reign eleven years, as against ASC's six, which may have been a simple misreading of `vi' for `xi' (ASC normally uses roman numerals). He gives Alhred ten years against ASC's nine (E has eight), but ASC gives his dates of accession and expulsion as 765 and 774, which does give a total of ten, so William had evidently done his own sum. In giving álfwald eleven years William is again following ASC's dates of accession and death rather than its explicitly stated ®gure (s.a. 778) of ten. In giving áthelred's second reign as four years instead of the actual six or seven, William is following ASC (DE)'s erroneous date of 794 (instead of 796) for his death. 1 quod et celebris apud Haugustaldum . . . miracula] ASC s.a. 789 shows that the miracles (i.e. the appearance from time to time of a divine light) occurred at the place of the king's murder, not at his tomb at Hexham, as William's words might otherwise suggest. 2 Benedictus Deus . . . ad uos] Alcuin, Epist. viii (p. 33, lines 15± 17). 3 Sciat ueneranda . . . iam fecisset] Alcuin, Epist. ci (p. 147, lines 3±16). 73. 1 Post Ethelredum nullus] After áthelred's death in 794 ASC (DE) records only the accession and expulsion of Eardwulf s.aa. 795 (recte 796), 806 (recte 807 or 808). John of Worcester records no kings of Northumbria between 794 and 867, when the deaths of Kings

/3thomson/tcom1.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 9:56 ± disk/amj

BOOK I. 70.4±74.3

59

Osberht and álle at the hands of the Danes are recorded (as in ASC), with the comment that `The kings of Northumbria came to an end'. JW Gen., p. 255, has Osbald and Eardwulf after áthelred; similarly Simeon of Durham (Byrhtferth), Historia regum, cc. 55, 58, 61, 70 (Simeon of Durham ii. 52, 57±8, 62, 74±5). See Plummer in Two Saxon Chronicles, ii. 68, 84±5. 2 Nam et regem . . . uicesimo octauo] For Ecgberht as bretwealda see ASC s.a. 827 (recte 829). Viking rulers came to Northumbria later; his dating aside, William's remarks about Scandinavian rulers in the north seem to re¯ect a source such as JW Accounts, p. 271, which says: `Anno uero nono interfectionis Osbryht et álle, pagani reges Halfdene et Eowils in Northhymbria regnare coepere, annisque uiginti sex regnauere. Quibus ab Anglis interfectis, Reignaldus plusquam decem, dein Sihtricus annis regnauit paucis: quo defuncto, ®lius eius Guthferthus regimen regni suscepit; sed illum strenuus ac gloriosus rex áthelstanus regno mox expulit', bringing the story down to 926. The Libellus de primo Saxonum . . . adventu (Simeon of Durham ii. 376±7) gives a somewhat different account of the rulership of Northumbria after the slaying of Osberht and álle. 74 Based on Bede, HE ii. 20, iii. 7, 18, 24, and ASC s.a. 626 (CAB). See above, pp. xix, 12, for discussion of William's hesitations about including the histories of the less important kingdoms, and for the probable signi®cance of T(t)'s omission of material on the early kings of East Anglia and Essex. 1 et qui nesciret quantum scelus esset sotiali uincere bello] William echoes two passages in Lucan: vi. 147±8: `et qui nesciret, in armis / quam magnum uirtus crimen ciuilibus esset', and i. 366: `ciuili uincere bello'; the second is also used at c. 97. 3. 3 ex regina Kineswida] Bede, HE iii. 24, calls her `Cynwise' (OE Cyneswith). Wedam] scil. `Peadam', a common error (of the rune wyn for the letter p), e.g. Simeon of Durham (Byrhtferth), Historia regum (Simeon of Durham ii. 29) (`Wecthelmus' for `Pecthelm'). The list of progeny is as JW Accounts, p. 264. However, JW Gen., pp. 251±2, makes Penda fourteenth, not tenth, from Woden. Mercelinum] This erroneous spelling is given in all copies except ACs. It suggests that between A and CB lies a copy of GR not made

/3thomson/tcom1.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 9:56 ± disk/amj

60

COMMENTARY

by William himself, since he is unlikely to have made such a slip (see above, p. xxvi). 75 Based upon Bede, HE iii. 21, 24; JW Accounts, p. 265. Staying with Bede's account, William avoids the mistakes in ASC s.aa. 655, 657: he does not make Peada succeed to the whole of Mercia; he does not specify his death as two years after Penda's; he does not have Wulfhere succeed immediately upon Peada's death. John of Worcester, s.aa. 655±6, corrects the ®rst two errors, but s.a. 659 falls to some extent into the third. 76 Based upon Bede, HE iii. 7, iv. 3, 13, but for the passage in 2 below; for instance, Bede did not record Cyneburh's taking the veil (nor Cyneswith, who entered the same monastery: c. 74. 3). 2 Habuit in matrimonio . . . construxerant] The monastery built by Wulfhere and áthelred was Castor, Northants. (Knowles and Hadcock, Medieval Religious Houses, p. 470), of which Cyneburh was ®rst abbess: so JW Accounts, p. 265, Goscelin, Vita S. Mildrethae, ed. Rollason, Mildrith Legend, p. 115, and John of Tynemouth, Vita SS. Kineburgae, Kineswithae, Tibbae . . ., in Nova legenda Anglie, ii. 130. It was destroyed by the Danes in 870. The bodies of Cyneburh and her sisters were translated to Peterborough by Abbot álfsige (1006/7± 42): ASC (E) s.a. 963 (Two Saxon Chronicles, i. 117), but the Vita dates the translation to 1005. In GP, c. 180 (p. 317), William records their burial there (calling Cyneburh `Kinedrida'), but he knew that that was not where they had been nuns, for he describes Peterborough's refoundation by áthelwold (soon after 970) as though it were a foundation ab ovo. In fact Peterborough (Medeshamstede) was founded by Peada in 650 and completed by Wulfhere in 656, when Cyneburh and Cyneswith were present at the consecration (ASC (E) s.a. 656: Two Saxon Chronicles, i. 29). It was destroyed by the Danes in 870. requiescunt, et Mildritham] scil. `Mildgytham', as JW Accounts. 77 Much as Bede, HE iv. 21, v. 24; JW Accounts, p. 265; but both give the length of Wulfhere's reign as seventeen years. William has presumably recalculated from the dates of accession and death given in ASC: 656 (E) and 675. Wulfhere actually began to reign in 659. Other information in this section is from ASC s.aa. 704, 716.

/3thomson/tcom1.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 9:56 ± disk/amj

BOOK I. 74.3±80.3

61

una et ipsa illustri expeditione . . . otio inseruiit] On the cause of the invasion William elaborates (probably speculatively) in GP, c. 72 (p. 135): `nescio quo insolenti Cantuaritae regis responso incensus'. See further Plummer in Bede, HE II, pp. 221±2. Regis Northanimbrorum Egfridi Ostgidam sororem] recte Ostridam, scil. Osthryth (so at c. 49. 8). 78 As Bede, HE v. 13, 19, 24. 79 Based upon ASC s.aa. 709, 715, 716, 755 (recte 757), and possibly JW Accounts, pp. 265±6, but it says that `Ceolredus . . . anno regni sui nono defunctus est'. William's ®gure of eight years was calculated independently from the years of accession and death in ASC. He is wrong (and against ASC (ACB) s.aa. 626, 716, and JW Gen., p. 252) in calling Alwih Penda's brother; he was in fact the son of Penda's brother Eowa. William's statement that Ceolred was victorious against Ine in 715 has no known source; ASC merely says that they fought. Similarly, William is unique in saying that áthelbald was murdered by his successor Beornred; ASC only says that áthelbald was slain. alta pace] Cf. Lucan i. 249: `pax alta'. Also above, c. 43. 2n. 80±1 = Boniface, Epist. lxxiii (ed. M. Tangl, MGH Epistolae selectae, i, 1916, pp. 146±55), dated 746±7. William's text, distinguished from the bulk of the manuscript tradition by the inclusion of extra sentences and a longer but less severe conclusion, represents an English redaction, being descended from a copy sent by Boniface to Archbishop Ecgberht for his correction and con®rmation before a ®nal version was sent to the king (as mentioned in Epist. lxxiv (pp. 157±8) ). The only other known use of this version seems to have been at Evesham c.1000: Levison, England and the Continent, pp. 280±1, and M. Lapidge, `Byrhtferth and the Vita S. Ecgwini', Mediaeval Studies, xli (1979), 331±53, at pp. 344±5. This may have been where William found his text. 80. 3 Insuper et Winedi . . . arsura precipitet] For other witnesses to the ritual suicide of widows among the Slavs see H. R. E. Davidson, The Viking Road to Byzantium (London, 1976), pp. 307±12.

/3thomson/tcom1.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 9:56 ± disk/amj

62

COMMENTARY

5 Celredum predecessorem . . . animam extorsit] Ceolred reigned 709±16. For his death see Bede, HE v. 19, 24. Osredum . . . morte amitteret] Osred reigned 705±16. For his death see Bede, HE v. 18, 22, and above, c. 53. 1. Karolus quoque . . . consumptus est] Referring to the punishment of Charles Martel as retailed in the Visio Eucherii; see c. 204 below. This sentence is found only in the `English redaction' of the letter. 81 Qui diligit disciplinam, diligit sapientiam] Prov. 12: 1. 82. 1 cuius facti non iniuste ueniam paciscar, quia ad historiae ordinem festinantibus uelocitate dictionis consulendum erat] Cf. Frontinus, Strat. i praef. 3: `Huic labori non iniuste ueniam paciscar'; i praef. 2: `ut opinor, occupatis uelocitate consuli debet'. Wright II, pp. 494±5 and n. 49. misit idem Bonefatius . . . uestium argueret] Boniface, Epist. lxxviii (pp. 161±70), this quotation referred back to in GP, c. 6 (p. 11). The letter is dated 747. Gregory III (731±41) is not mentioned in the continental text of Boniface; as with Epist. lxxiv (above, c. 80. 1) William's text is descended from an English redaction deriving from the copy actually sent to Cuthbert: Levison, England and the Continent, p. 281. 2 de tenuitate uestium . . . amiciri] Alcuin, Epist. ccxxx (p. 375, lines 10±15). Ethelardum archiepiscopum successorem Cuthberti] But in between came Brecgwine (761±4) and Jñnberht (765±92), as recognized in GP, c. 7 (pp. 15±17). The T reading of `antecessorem' is quite wrong. 83 The Synod of Clovesho (746/7): H & S iii. 360±76. William gives a summary of its acta in GP, c. 5 (pp. 9±11), referring back to this chapter in c. 4 (p. 9). The full version is only known from BL MS Cotton Otho A. i (s. viii2, now mostly destroyed by ®re), where it was accompanied by the only known English texts of Boniface's Epist. lxxviii (see c. 82. 1 above) and áthelbald's charter of 749 freeing monasteries from public burdens (see c. 84 below). The MS was surely at Malmesbury in William's time, and William's source for all of these items. See S. Keynes, `The reconstruction of a burnt

/3thomson/tcom1.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 9:56 ± disk/amj

BOOK I. 80.5±86

63

Cottonian manuscript: the case of Cotton MS. Otho A. I', British Library Journal, xxii (1996), 113±60, at pp. 116±19. cum ad recensitionem episcoporum uentum fuerit] Referring to GP, c. 5 (pp. 9±10). 84 Two versions of this charter (dated by William to 747) are recorded as Sawyer 92: (1) H & S iii. 247 (dated by the editors to 719); (2) H & S iii. 386±7 (dated 749). William's version is in fact closer to the former. (2) was actually issued at a council held at Gumley (Leicestershire): Keynes, `The reconstruction', pp. 137±9. 85 Referred to in GP, c. 6 (p. 12); interlined in the autograph. uita beati Goaris] Wandalbert, Miracula Sancti Goaris, cc. 4±7 (BHL 3567); AA SS, Iul. ii. 338±9. Goar is commemorated in the Kalendar of St Wulfstan's Homiliary (Bodl. Libr., MS Hatton 113), and a now-lost MS containing a `Vita S. Goaris' was at Worcester in the second half of the sixteenth century: I. Atkins and N. R. Ker, Catalogus Librorum Manuscriptorum Bibliothecae Wigorniensis (Cambridge, 1944), pp. 10 and n. 6, 11. Antistes Lullus . . . predicat orbis] Walther, Initia 1333, citing GR as the only witness. 86±7, 90±4, cover the reign of Offa of Mercia (757±96). While William's account adds nothing to the information available to us from other sources, it provides another and hitherto unrecognized instance of his historical insight. ASC's total of seven relevant entries conveys no hint of Offa's importance, but William recognized it from other sources: Alcuin's letters and a handful of ecclesiastical documents. For the contrast between the paucity of English and relative abundance of continental information about Offa see P. Wormald, `The age of Offa and Alcuin', in The Anglo-Saxons, ed. J. Campbell (London, 1982), pp. 101±10. 86 ASC s.aa. 757, 779, 794 (`áthelberht'); John of Worcester s.a. 793 (`ágelberhtus'). William gives a slightly more detailed account of the `martyrdom' below, c. 210 (see note ad loc.), and in GP, c. 170 (p. 305). Offa, quinto genu Pendae abnepos] Strictly, `abnepos' should imply direct descent from Penda, and William may have intended this. He was obviously aware that Offa was not the son of áthelbald,

/3thomson/tcom1.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 9:56 ± disk/amj

64

COMMENTARY

whom he knew to be descended from a brother of Penda (above, c. 79. 1). He may therefore have concluded that Offa was descended directly from Penda, against John of Worcester s.a. 755 and JW Gen., p. 252, who have him descended from Penda's brother. On this use of `genu' see Plummer's note on `cneo mñgum' in Two Saxon Chronicles, ii. 139. quo teneres . . . uultus] Cf. Horace, Epist. i. 1. 90: `quo teneam uultus mutantem Protea nodo'. 87. 1 Offa's foundation of the abbey of St Albans is described, in similar words, in GP, c. 179 (p. 316). William's account draws on a lost source known also to Henry of Huntingdon and Roger of Wendover (Greenway in Henry of Huntingdon, p. 247 n. 124). 1±2 Idemque in Deum peruicax . . . Selesiensis] Similarly GP, c. 7 (p. 15), with reference to this section (added above the line in the autograph). There William added that the pope was bribed, and this is given some substance by Offa's promise to the papal envoys of a yearly tribute of 365 mancuses (H & S iii. 445). The institution of the archbishopric of Lich®eld probably took place in or soon after 787 (H & S iii. 446±7); its only archbishop was Hygebeorht, c.787± 996803, and it was abolished in 803. See N. P. Brooks, The Early History of the Church of Canterbury: Christ Church from 597 to 1066 (Leicester, 1984), pp. 111±27, esp. 118±27. Stubbs, GR i. 85 n. 1, and ii, pp. xxix±xxx, discusses William's account, which contains many anomalous names and dates, all due to one fact: his list of suffragan bishops actually consists of those who returned to the obedience of Canterbury when the archbishopric of Lich®eld was abolished at the council of Clovesho in Oct. 803 (H & S iii. 542±4). Thus Deneberht was not bishop of Worcester until 798; Werenberht became bishop of Leicester 801/3; Ealdwulf II of Lindsey became bishop in 796, Wulfheard of Hereford in 802 and Tidferth of Dunwich in 798. Above all, this explains the otherwise nonsensical inclusion of `Aldwulf bishop of Lich®eld', consecrated in or after 799; Hygebeorht apparently resigned before the council and was compensated with an abbacy (Brooks, p. 126). Plummer in Two Saxon Chronicles, ii. 56±7, thought that William had overstated the case in leaving Canterbury with only four suffragans, but in fact he had omitted to mention Sherborne altogether, presumably by simple inadvertence. Sherborne is named instead of Selsey, and assigned to Canterbury, by Roger of

/3thomson/tcom1.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 9:56 ± disk/amj

BOOK I. 86±88

65

Wendover i. 237±8, and Matthew Paris, Vitae duorum Offarum, ed. W. Wats, Matthaei Parisiensis Historia maior . . . (London, 1639), p. 14. For this they were perhaps dependent upon a common source other than GR. Adding their information to William's would mean that Lich®eld had the midland and Anglian sees, Canterbury the Kentish and Saxon ones, which at least makes sense (Brooks, p. 119). 2 Legecestrensis . . . Sidnacestrensis . . . Dammucensis] The see of Selsey was moved to Chichester in 1075. `Sidnacester' (also at c. 300. 1), which William thought of as the seat of the bishops of Lindsey, has been variously identi®ed with Caistor, Horncastle, Stow St Mary (Lincolnshire) and Lincoln itself: F. M. Stenton, `Lindsey and its kings', in Preparatory to Anglo-Saxon England: being the Collected Papers of Frank Merry Stenton, ed. D. M. Stenton (Oxford, 1970), pp. 127±35, at 132 n. 3; C. A. Ralegh Radford, `A lost inscription of pre-Danish age from Caistor', Archaeological Journal, ciii (1946), 95±9; S. R. Bassett, `Lincoln and the AngloSaxon see of Lindsey', ASE xviii (1989), 1±32. Its last bishop was possibly álfstan, who died soon after 1011, when the see was reunited with Dorchester: D. P. Kirby, `The Saxon bishops of Leicester, Lindsey (Syddensis) and Dorchester', Leicestershire Archaeological and Historical Society Transactions, xli (1965±6), 1±8. The last known bishop of Dunwich, áthelwold, occ. 8456870, of Leicester, Ceolred, d. 8696888. 3 inter quae Malmesberiensis] He seized the vills of Tetbury (Glos.) and Purton (Wilts.), according to GP, c. 235 (p. 388). For comment on the history of these places see Edwards, Charters, pp. 121±3. subleuauit] See c. 88 below. 4 Audita prosperitate . . . dignatus est] Alcuin, Epist. cclv (p. 412, lines 16±22). 88 = H & S iii. 521, dated 798; this section is referred to in GP, c. 1 (p. 5). The document is known only from GR. The pope's answer is H & S iii. 523±5. Brooks, Early History, pp. 123±5, argues that Cenwulf's request was for the metropolitan see to be moved to London rather than Canterbury. This may have been made more explicit in the accompanying letter of áthelheard, which has not survived. A request for the restoration of all rights to Canterbury was certainly impractical, since at the time Eadberht Prñn's Kentish

/3thomson/tcom1.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 9:56 ± disk/amj

66

COMMENTARY

revolt was under way and áthelheard barred from his see. But Leo would not agree to such a request. 4 Pater ®liis . . . Domine] Isa. 38: 19. 7 Anglorum genti ministrabat et gloriosissime aecclesiis prefuit Saxoniae] Meaning both Angles and Saxons in England, not the English and the continental Saxons. For instances of `Saxonia' meaning England see Plummer in Bede, HE II, p. 368. William quotes an instance, from Stephen of Ripon, Vita Wilfridi, c. 30, in GP, c. 100 (p. 227). 89 = JL 2511 (H & S iii. 538), known only from GR. It is not the answer to the preceding letter, but was written three years later (802), after the archbishop had himself gone to Rome. This section is referred to in GP, c. 12 (p. 19). The text of the letter at 6 is not always certain. The awkward transition from `publicanus' to `De uero Ethelardo' may be due to an omission. 3 Qui uos recipit . . . accipiet] Matt. 10: 40±1. 90 Based upon ASC s.a. 789, though this says nothing of Offa's relations with Charlemagne, which William rightly stresses. His inspiration was presumably Alcuin's correspondence (e.g. Epp. lxxxvii, c, ci). Edelburgam] scil. Eadburh. 91 Alcuin, Epist. vii (p. 32, lines 7±11, 14±20, 25±8). 93 Alcuin, Epist. c (pp. 145, lines 1±3, 12±13, 16±25, and 146, lines 1±12), with some adaptation and abbreviation. 94 For the succession OffaÐEcgfrithÐCenwulf William seems to have navigated his way between the information in John of Worcester s.a. 794 (which, however, has Ecgberht wrongly for Ecgfrith), and ASC s.aa. 794 (recte 796), 796 (DE only), and 796 (recte 798). ASC (DE) s.a. 796 omits Ecgfrith altogether and all versions except (B) and (C) call Cenwulf Ceolwulf. 2 Predium quoque, quod pater Malmesberiae abstulerat, reddidit] Purton (Wilts.), seized by Offa (see above, c. 87. 3). William gives the text of Ecgfrith's charter (Sawyer 149, dated 796)

/3thomson/tcom1.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 9:56 ± disk/amj

BOOK I. 88±94.2

67

in GP, c. 235 (pp. 388±9). It is discussed in Edwards, Charters, pp. 121±2. constans opinio] Stubbs (GR i. 94 n. 1) says `A mistaken opinion, doubtless', but there seems nothing positively against it. In GP, cc. 75, 235 (pp. 160, 389), William identi®es the same áthelheard as successively abbot of Malmesbury, bishop of Winchester, and archbishop of Canterbury. Certainly the áthelheard who was bishop of Winchester 7596778 cannot have been the same as the archbishop of Canterbury 793±805 (HBC, pp. 214, 223). The archbishop-elect is called abbot in ASC s.a. 790, his house speci®ed in (F) as Louth (not in Knowles and Hadcock, Medieval Religious Houses). Otherwise he could just conceivably have been abbot of Malmesbury. Aldhelm II, whom William says was abbot of Malmesbury before áthelheard, appears for the last time in a royal grant of 745 (GP, c. 233; p. 387), which at least leaves time (7456793) for an abbacy by áthelheard before he became archbishop. Cuthbert, who William says was áthelheard's successor and consecrated by him as archbishop, is named as abbot in Ecgfrith's grant of 796. Further, one would normally expect an archbishop to have been buried at Canterbury. In this respect it may be signi®cant that Goscelin, Historia, miracula et translatio S. Augustini, ii. 3. 21 (AA SS, Maii vi. 438), records the translation in 1091 of the early archbishops down to and including áthelheard's predecessor Jñnberht. It is thus at least possible that áthelheard was buried elsewhere. However, William's source for anyone named áthelheard as abbot of Malmesbury may not have been a reliable one. Edwards, Charters, pp. 82±3, discusses two surviving lists of purported abbots of Malmesbury, the earliest parts of which drew on a single document probably made in the tenth century. She shows that several of the names in this section were demonstrably those of confratres rather than heads of the house (cf. the Glastonbury list cited below, c. 150. 7n). In seventh place is an áthelheard, who may in fact have been either the bishop of Winchester or archbishop of Canterbury. It may be that William had before him a version of this list, and on its basis and that of other written material drew the conclusion that Malmesbury had had an abbot named áthelheard who was the same man as the bishop and archbishop with the same name. Non arbitror . . . sanguinem effudit] Alcuin, Epist. cxxii (p. 179, lines 16±18). Kenulfum, quinto genu nepotem Pendae ex fratre Kenwalkio]

/3thomson/tcom1.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 9:56 ± disk/amj

68

COMMENTARY

JW Gen., p. 252 (apparently the only extant source for this genealogy), makes him sixth generation. 95 ASC s.a. 796 (recte 798), 819 (recte 821), and possibly the dubious Sawyer 167, allegedly granted at the dedication of Winchcombe on 9 Nov. 811. But neither the charter nor ASC mentions the release of Eadbert Prñn. 1 Kenulfus] So ASC (BC) s.a. 796 (recte 798), John of Worcester s.a. 794 (ii. 226±7 and n. 6); ASC (ADEF) and áthelweard i.2 (p. 27), have (versions of) `Ceolwulf'. liuor digne carperet] Cf. Ovid, Met. vi. 129±30. Also above, c. 52. 2. uir cuius laudes merito nitentur in altum] Cf. Lucan iv. 37±8: `rupes . . . in altas / nititur'; but there was doubtless a more immediate source. 3 preter illa xenia . . . multa erogauit] So also GP, c. 156 (p. 294 lines 8±12), in similar words. Idem monasterium . . . honorauit] Later his son Kenelm was allegedly buried there; see below, c. 211. 2, and S. R. Bassett, `A probable Mercian royal mausoleum at Winchcombe, Gloucestershire', Antiquaries Journal, lxv (1985), 82±100. Kenelmus] Referring to a version of the anonymous Vita et miracula S. Kenelmi: see below, c. 211nn. In that section and in GP, c. 156 (pp. 294±5), William gives more details of Kenelm's martyrdom. a sorore Quendrida] Her career, attested in documents dating from 811 to 824, is pieced together in Three Eleventh-Century Anglo-Latin Saints' Lives, ed. and trans. R. C. Love (OMT, 1996), p. 54 n. 1. 96 As ASC s.aa. 821, 823, 825, 827, 829±30, 851, 853, 874, 888, (source of) John of Worcester s.aa. 825, 827, 836, 889, and JW Accounts, pp. 264±7. William gives Wiglaf and Berhtwulf each a reign of thirteen years which, reckoned from ASC's date of 825 for Wiglaf's ®rst accession, is consistent. See Plummer in Two Saxon Chronicles, ii. 77±8. 2 Wihtla®us . . . illi et ®lio capitis et pecuniarum tributa persoluens] scil. Wiglaf. It is not known where William got this information, the meaning of which is by no means clear. Plummer (Two Saxon Chronicles, ii. 73) errs in reporting William as saying `that [Wiglaf] was expelled ``in initio regni'' '. See, however, what William says below, c. 107. 1.

/3thomson/tcom1.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 9:56 ± disk/amj

BOOK I. 94.2±97.6

69

ultra mare] Not Berhtwulf, but his successor Burhred, according to ASC s.a. 874. 3 apud Papiam] John of Worcester s.a. 889 merely records her death and burial at Pavia. ASC (F) s.a. 888 states, and ASC (DE) suggests, that she was on her way to Rome, all versions having recorded her husband's death there s.a. 874. Burhred and áthelswith were recorded in the Liber vitae of San Salvatore, Brescia: S. Keynes, `Anglo-Saxon entries in the ``Liber vitae'' of Brescia', in Alfred the Wise: Studies in Honour of Janet Bately on the Occasion of her SixtyFifth Birthday, ed. J. A. Roberts and J. L. Nelson, with M. R. Godden (Woodbridge, 1997), pp. 99±119, esp. 109±10, 115. I am grateful to Dr Keynes for showing me the text of his article prior to publication. 97 As Bede, HE ii. 5, 15, iii. 18, 24, JW Gen., p. 249, and, especially, JW Accounts, pp. 260±2. For instance, Bede (iii. 18) calls Anna `®lius Eni'; from JW Gen. or JW Accounts William was able to add `fratris Redwaldi'. 1 Redwaldus, a Wodenio . . . decimum genu nactus] So JW Gen., p. 249. Redwald does not appear in the so-called Anglian Collection of Royal Genealogies: Dumville, `The Anglian collection of royal genealogies and regnal lists', pp. 30±7. 2 ex matre] So JW Accounts, p. 260. 3 sotiali bello] Cf. Lucan i. 366: `ciuili uincere bello'. Also at c. 74. 1. fortior ipse malis] Cf. Statius, Theb. v. 654: `fortior ille malis' (also GP, c. 100; p. 214); another echo of this passage is below, c. 306. 8; and see Wright II, p. 497 n. 59. 4 qui pessumdedisset fratrem et cognatum] The brother was Oswald (above, c. 49. 6), the kinsman Edwin (above, c. 48. 4). Elcwoldo] scil. Elfwoldo, perhaps a simple slip. 5 Pauci post eum . . . annis duodecim] Very similar to JW Accounts, p. 262. 6 Guthrum habuit successorem . . . nomine Eohric] Information unique to William and JW Accounts, p. 262. anno post occisionem . . . quinto decimo] William provides two mutually contradictory dating criteria. The ®rst, presumably calculated from 870, yields the year 920, which agrees well enough with

/3thomson/tcom1.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 9:56 ± disk/amj

70

COMMENTARY

ASC (A) s.a. 921 (recte 918) and John of Worcester s.a. 918. The second, if calculated from 901 (given by William below, c. 125. 1), yields 916. I conjecture, in this instance, a transmissional error of `xv' for `xix'. 98 Based upon Bede, HE i. 3, 5, iii. 22, 30, iv. 11, v. 19, plus genealogical material like that in JW Gen., p. 250, and JW Accounts, pp. 262±4, which overlaps with and extends beyond Bede's account. Some of the same material is in GP, cc. 73 (p. 142) (`Is Sigebertus . . . Cheddum reduxit'), 180 (p. 317) (`Kineswidae . . . ualefecit'). Plummer in Bede, HE II, p. 177, discussed the chronology of these kings as far as they are dealt with by Bede. He was critical of William's and John of Worcester's accounts, and sceptical about the possibility that they were using earlier materials. A similar view is held by B. A. Yorke, `The kingdom of the East Saxons', ASE xiv (1985), 1±36, who discusses the evidence and relationship of William and John of Worcester at pp. 8±11, giving a genealogical table with supporting commentary at pp. 17±24. She shows that the ultimate source of information shared by JW Gen., JW Accounts and GR, was a genealogy like that in BL MS Add. 23211 (s. ix). However, GR and JW Accounts derive from a common intermediate source, since they share information against JW Gen. and/or BL MS Add. 23211. It may be that this intermediate source was what William used rather than JW Accounts itself, let alone JW Gen. or John of Worcester. In other words, here is some evidence for William using one of John of Worcester's sources rather than a version of the complete Chronicle as found in Oxford, Corpus Christi Coll. MS 157. The intermediate source is likely to have been post-Conquest and on that account not particularly authoritative. One wonders whether it was not a remnant of the historiographical work of Florence of Worcester, whose death is noticed by John s.a. 1118. 1 Primus . . . decimus. Eius ®lius] These details are unique to William. predicante Mellito . . . ] On Mellitus see Bede, HE i. 3; for his expulsion HE i. 5. Sebirhto mortuo . . . expulerunt] So also JW Accounts, p. 262. Bede (HE ii. 6) says that Sñberht left three (unnamed) sons as his heirs. qui fuerat frater Sebirhti] Bede (HE iii. 22) has Sigeberht `Parvus'

/3thomson/tcom1.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 9:56 ± disk/amj

BOOK I. 97.6±98.3

71

succeeded by Sigeberht `Sanctus' without giving genealogical information for either. JW Accounts, p. 263, has Sigeberht `Parvus' succeeded by `Sigeberhtus Sigebaldi ®lius'. Only William makes this Sigebald Sñberht's brother. Sñberht's brother was called Seaxa and Sigebald was his great-grandson, according to JW Gen., p. 250, and the genealogy in BL MS Cotton Vesp. B. vi (s. ixin), pr. H. Sweet, The Oldest English Texts (EETS, orig. ser. lxxxiii: London, 1885), p. 179. However, according to the same sources this Sigebald did have a son called Sigeberht, and JW Accounts (p. 263) and William have identi®ed him with Bede's Sigeberht `Sanctus', who was ruling in 653 when he was converted to Christianity. But the Sigebald recorded by the source of William and JW Accounts may in any case have been an error for Seaxbald (see below). 2 Post eum frater Swithelmus regnauit] So JW Accounts, p. 263. He died c.663 according to Bede (HE iii. 22), who calls him son of Seaxbald. This name does not appear in any of the surviving genealogies, but Yorke (`East Saxons', p. 19) suggests that it might have been the fuller form of (hypocoristic) Seaxa, thus identifying him as Sñberht's brother. Sebbi ®lius Sewardi] So JW Accounts, p. 263. In fact son of Seaxred (Yorke, `East Saxons', p. 20), brother of Sñward the father of Sigeberht `Parvus'. This may have been a simple slip in the source common to JW Accounts and William. ut Beda refert] Bede, HE iii. 30, iv. 11. Seufredus] Recte Suefredus (Swñfred). He issued a document (Sawyer 65) dated 704. 3 Offa . . . subiuit] So JW Accounts, p. 263. This passage is referred to in GP, c. 231 (p. 386): `ut supra dixi'; cf. also GP, cc. 160, 180 (pp. 296, 317). Offa went to Rome in 709 (Yorke, `East Saxons', p. 23). qui hortatu Kineswidae Pendae ®liae, cuius nuptias sperauerat] As Stubbs pointed out (GR i. 99 n. 1), since Penda died in 655, it is improbable that c.709 his daughter should be eligible for marriage with the young Offa. Cyneswith is attested as a daughter of Penda in JW Gen., p. 252. The only other source connecting Offa with this woman is the much later John of Tynemouth, Vita S. Kyneburgae . . . (Nova Legenda Anglie ii. 131), who says that Offa sought her hand, which she refused, entering the same monastery as her sister. Romam . . . Eguino episcopo Wicciorum] The bishopric of the

/3thomson/tcom1.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 9:56 ± disk/amj

72

COMMENTARY

Hwicce, with its seat at Worcester, was created out of the diocese of Mercia at the council of Hat®eld in 680: Plummer in Bede, HE II, pp. 246±7, P. Sims-Williams, Religion and Literature in Western England, 600±800 (Cambridge Studies in Anglo-Saxon England, iii: Cambridge, 1990), pp. 87±91. Ecgwine was its bishop ?692±717. His journey to Rome (in leg-irons) is recounted in GP, c. 231 (p. 386), with reference back to c. 160 (p. 297), and to this passage, which derives from the hagiography: M. Lapidge, `The medieval hagiography of St Ecgwine', Vale of Evesham Historical Society Research Papers, vi (1977), 77±93. Selredus] Apparently the king of that name whose death is recorded in ASC s.a. 746. His father cannot have been Sigeberht `bonus' or `sanctus' (so also JW Accounts, p. 263), who reigned c.653 (see above). Swithedus] Swithhñd JW Gen., p. 250; recte Swithredus (so JW Accounts, p. 263). JW Accounts, pp. 263±4, says that a few other, unnamed kings reigned after him, prior to Ecgberht's invasion. JW Gen., p. 250, gives two more kings after him, the last of them being Sigered, whose expulsion by Ecgberht took place in 825 (Yorke, `East Saxons', p. 24). John of Worcester names no kings after Swithred, whose death he records s.a. 758. His next entry for the East Saxons records the invasion by Ecgberht s.a. 823, and his defeat of an unnamed king. The material in 99±104 is similar to that portion of JW Accounts not included in Oxford, Corpus Christi Coll. MS 157, the base MS of John of Worcester (and so not found in the earlier versions of his Chronicle). It must have entered later versions from (a B text of) William or independently. These sections are not written in William's usual style, which resumes again at c. 105; the probability is that he is here quoting a document, perhaps from Worcester, almost verbatim. This document could not have been compiled earlier than 1109, when Hervey was translated from Bangor to Ely. 99 As JW Accounts, p. 277. 100 As JW Accounts, pp. 277±8. ut Beda narrat] Bede, HE iv. 13. 101 As JW Accounts, p. 278. apud Ciuitatem Legionum] i.e. Chester. The etymology is given

/3thomson/tcom1.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 9:56 ± disk/amj

BOOK I. 98.3±105

73

by Bede, HE ii. 2. Also above, c. 47. 3, and below, cc. 133. 1, 148. 2, 214. 3, 300. 3. 102 As JW Accounts, pp. 278±9. 103 As ibid., p. 279. 104 As ibid. It is hardly signi®cant that William, even in the CB versions of GR, did not include Carlisle, founded in 1133. Stubbs (GR ii, p. xxx n. 4) notes that after the death of its ®rst bishop it was virtually vacant until the reign of Henry III (HBC, p. 235). In any case William's updating of GR after c.1125 was sporadic at best. 105 Hae . . . amitterent] As JW Accounts, p. 279.

/3thomson/tcom2.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:24 ± disk/amj

BOOK II Again the main theme is identi®ed in the prologue: `the history of the kingdom to the Norman Conquest'. The points of concentration are the reigns of those kings whom William thought important and about whom he had fuller information: Alfred (cc. 120±4), áthelstan (cc. 131±40), Edgar (cc. 148±60), áthelred II (cc. 164±77), Cnut (cc. 181±7), and Edward the Confessor (cc. 196±200, 220±8). An item of ecclesiastical history bulks large within three of these reigns: the privileges of Glastonbury (cc. 142±4, 150±1, 184±5). There are many digressions; those which are necessary adjuncts to the main theme are: the history of the later Carolingians (cc. 110, 112), the origins and early history of Normandy (cc. 127±8, 178), and English royal saints, male and female (cc. 207±19). But this time there are digressions largely or wholly unrelated to the main theme, many of them legends or folk-tales which William probably justi®ed as `light relief' or `variety', necessary in a very long book: Norman stories (c. 145), the famous legends of Gerbert (Pope Silvester II) (cc. 167±9, 172), a summary history of the early Capetians (c. 187), legends of Emperor Henry II (cc. 189±94), and of Pope Gregory VI (cc. 201±3). Both sorts of diversion spawned some more: the text of the Visio Karoli (c. 111), marvel-stories from Italy (cc. 170±1), from Germany (cc. 173±5), and some others, two about Rome (cc. 204±7). ASC and John of Worcester or his sources continue to provide the backbone of William's narrative within England, now more heavily supplemented: by charters, letters and laws, by the hagiography of Dunstan and other English saints, by some version of Asser's Life of Alfred (for discussion see below, pp. 92±4), by áthelweard, and by one of the very few major sources for Anglo-Saxon history now lost to us, a lengthy poem or prosimetrum on the reign of áthelstan. For Edward the Confessor William had the anonymous Vita, more completely than we have it now. Again, there is a separate body of material relating to the Carolingians (cc. 110±12), and William knows, at ®rst or second hand, most of the translations by or attributed to King Alfred. As Normandy enters the narrative, we meet with the Gesta Normannorum ducum in its earliest version, by William of JumieÁges. But William also had access to a considerable body of oral tradition about Normandy

/3thomson/tcom2.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:24 ± disk/amj

BOOK II. PR.1±106

75

(some perhaps via Robert of Gloucester), and in general, from this Book on the proportion of material derived orally grows; such is presumably the status of many of the marvel-stories. prol. 1 cupias quodcumque necesse est] Lucan iv. 487. Logicam . . . exemplis irritat] William's division of (theoretical) learning into Logica, Physica, and Ethica (Historia being a subdivision of the last), ascribed to Plato by Augustine, was standard in the West until superseded by the fourfold `Aristotelian' scheme during the twelfth century: Hugh of St Victor, Didascalicon, trans. J. Taylor (New York and London, 1961), pp. 8 and 161±2 (note 21). historiam precipue . . . exemplis irritat] A conventional justi®cation, of which an in¯uential example is Bede, HE praef.: `Should history tell of good men and their good estate, the thoughtful listener is spurred on to imitate the good; should it record the evil deeds of wicked men, no less effectually the devout and earnest listener or reader is kindled to eschew what is harmful and perverse, and himself with greater care pursue those things which he has learned to be good and pleasing in the sight of God' (trans. Colgrave-Mynors, p. 3). It is elaborated somewhat in HN, prol.: `What is more to the advantage of virtue or more conducive to justice than learning of divine gentleness to the good and vengeance on those who have gone astray? What is more pleasant than consigning to historical record the deeds of brave men, that following their example others may cast off cowardice and arm themselves to defend their country?' For other twelfth-century examples see A. Gransden, `Prologues in the historiography of twelfth-century England', in England in the Twelfth Century, ed. D. Williams (Proceedings of the 1984 Harlaxton Symposium: Woodbridge, 1990), pp. 55±81, esp. 65±6. 2 quippe . . . desinerem] Cf. Sidonius, Epist. vii. 18. 4: `ante legere cessabis quam lecturire desistas'. 3 si ista tantum ante nouerit, non fastidiat quod scripserim; si plura didicerit, non succenseat quod non dixerim] Not identi®ed as a quotation. in margine . . . in ordine] For ordo meaning `the body of the text' see Gellius, Noct. Attic. ix. 14. 3. 106 The basis is ASC s.aa. 800, 812±13, 823, 828, 836 (recte 802, 814±15, 825, 830, 839), but with a good deal of elaboration which is

/3thomson/tcom2.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:24 ± disk/amj

76

COMMENTARY

independent of any known source. For example, both ASC s.a. 836 and John of Worcester record Ecgberht's ¯ight to France, but only William mentions his previous stay at Offa's court. 1 regis Inae de fratre Inigildo abnepos] IngildÐEoppaÐEawaÐ AlhmundÐEcgberht, according to JW Gen., pp. 256±7. See c. 35. 1nn, where it is suggested that William had a genealogy for the West Saxons different from any now in existence. 2 Accedebat . . . Frantiam uenit] The connection between the marriage of Brihtric and Offa's daughter, and the banishment of Ecgberht, is mentioned in ASC (ABC), but omitted in (DEF) and John of Worcester s.a. 836. regnandi disciplinam . . . princeps] Observe William's projection into the past of the view, common from his time on, that the French were the greatest exemplars of chivalry. This passage has been remarked upon as an early example of this attitude, by J. Gillingham, `Conquering the barbarians: war and chivalry in twelfth-century Britain', Haskins Society Journal, iv (1992), 67±84, at p. 69. facile princeps] Cf. Cicero, De div. ii. 87 (and other examples in works of Cicero given in the edn. by A. S. Pease (Urbana, Ill., 1920± 3, repr. Darmstadt, 1963) in his note ad loc.). 3 anno Dominicae incarnationis . . . superuixit] William, following ASC, dates Ecgberht's succession (802) and Charlemagne's accession and death (768, 814) all two years too early. John of Worcester has the same date for Ecgberht, but his dates for Charlemagne are correct because he followed Marianus rather than ASC. Aquilonales Britannos, qui a predictis brachio maris diuiduntur] William means the Welsh, elsewhere speci®cally the northern Welsh; see below, c. 134. 5, and GP, c. 95 (p. 204): `apud aquilonales Britones, supra mare, iuxta ¯umen quod dicitur Hegelmuthe' (but this is the Camel estuary, in Cornwall!), c. 215 (p. 360): `Norht Walaes, id est Aquilonales Britones'. 4 bellum apud Hellendune anno Domini octingentesimo uicesimo sexto] William's authority for this date is unknown (Al gives 824). ASC actually reads 823 (recte 825), which William may have compared with a regnal list and seen was wrong, then tried to correct unauthoritatively. The place is `Elder-bush Down' near Wroughton, Wilts.: J. E. Gover, The Place-Names of Wiltshire (English Place-Name Society, xvi: Cambridge, 1939), p. 279.

/3thomson/tcom2.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:24 ± disk/amj

BOOK II. 106±8

77 1

Malmesbury abbey had land in the area (GP, c. 237; p. 391). T 's omission of this passage may re¯ect William's problems in dating the battle. Alhstano episcopo Scireburniae] ASC (s.a. 823) does not name his see, which is given in John of Worcester s.a. 816. 107 The main source is ASC s.aa. 823, 825, 827, 832±3, 835±6 (recte 825, 827, 829, 835±6, 838±9). William adds the ¯ight of the English from the Danes by night, and Ecgberht's burial at Winchester. His source for these additions is unknown, but the second is also recorded in the Annales de Wintonia (Annales Monastici, ii. 8). 1 Missi . . . institerunt] The use of `missi' to mean `legates' re¯ects Carolingian nomenclature. William could have found it, for instance, in Alcuin's letters: e.g. above, c. 72. 3. He uses it also below, cc. 134. 2, 135. 1, and in GP, c. 106 (p. 238), in place of his more usual `legatus' or `nuntius'. Eorum successor Wihtla®us . . . ampliauit] Wiglaf was restored some time between 2 Sept. 830 and 1 Sept. 831, as Sawyer 188, of the later date, was issued `anno primo secundi regni mei'. The question is whether he recovered his kingdom with Ecgberht's tacit consent, or by force: Keynes, `The control of Kent', p. 123. 2 Eodem anno] As Stubbs pointed out (GR i. 107 n. 1), if Ecgberht died nine years later, that is in 839 (ASC s.a. 836), then this event would have taken place in the year of Wiglaf's restoration, 830 (ASC s.a. 828). In other words, William's chronology here is at least internally consistent. 108 Mainly based upon ASC s.aa. 836, 838±9, 851 (recte 839, 841± 2, 853), to which William adds his estimate of áthelwulf's character, and the king's reliance on Swithhun and Ealhstan. The information on Swithhun is doubtless from the anonymous late eleventh-century Vita (BHL 7943): ed. J. Earle, Legends of Saint Swithhun and Sancta Maria Aegyptiaca (London, 1861), pp. 67±74 (from BL MS Arundel 169), E. P. Sauvage, Anal. Boll. vii (1888), 374±80 (from Evreux, Bibl. mun. MS 101L). Compare for instance Sauvage, p. 377: `Nec mora, rex Athulfus, omnium petitioni assentiens et adgaudens, beatum Swithunum altorem et doctorem suum (ita enim eum solitus erat nominare) . . . ad se euocauit . . ., se paratum esse ad omnia facienda quae iusserit, nulla se ingres-

/3thomson/tcom2.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:24 ± disk/amj

78

COMMENTARY

surum quae ille operari uetuerit, illum sicut prius et modo magistrum et consiliarium habiturum, se totum de consilio eius pendere et omnia pro ipsius ordinatissima dispositione facturum.' Manuscripts of the work are listed in Hardy, Materials, i(2). 513 (no. 1078). A new edition is in preparation by M. Lapidge, The Cult of St Swithun (Winchester Studies, iv(2): Oxford, forthcoming). It was probably by the same author as the Vita S. Birini (BHL 1361, ed. Love, pp. liv±lx), and written at or for Winchester, soon after the retranslation of 1093. William makes a brief reference to the relationship between Swithhun and áthelwulf in GP, c. 75 (p. 161), with reference back. 1 Anno . . . septimo] ASC s.a. 836 says that Ecgberht reigned for thirty-seven years and seven months; it begins his reign s.a. 800. William gives Ecgberht a reign of thirty-seven years in GP, c. 236 (p. 389). On checking the ®gures he must have discovered that Ecgberht could not then have died in 836, but in either 837 or 838. The difference between the T1 date of 838 and that given in the other recensions probably registers a change of mind by William. In fact, although ASC gives the length of Ecgberht's reign correctly, his dates were 802±39 (HBC, p. 23). Adulfum] He is so called throughout the Vita S. Swithuni (ed. Sauvage, pp. 376±80), by John of Worcester s.aa. 836, 840, and in JW Gen., p. 257. annis uiginti et mensibus quinque] William had trouble with the length of this reign, perhaps because he had seen more than one version of ASC. It is assigned eighteen and a half years by ASC s.a. 855 (ADE; 856 CF), except for E (9) and F (20). William's version of ASC, which closely resembled E, may have had the same obviously erroneous ®gure, forcing him to make his own calculation. In GP, c. 236 (p. 389), he gives a revised ®gure of nineteen years. The facts are suf®ciently complicated: áthelwulf was sub-king of Kent, Essex, Sussex, and Surrey c.825±39, of the whole of the expanded West Saxon kingdom 839±56, of Kent, Sussex, and Essex only 856±13 Jan. 858 (HBC, p. 23). Under the year 855 ASC included events for the next three (as does John of Worcester, following Asser, cc. 12±16). It has áthelwulf going to Rome and staying there a year, visiting France on the way home, and dying two years later (one year according to áthelweard iii. 4; p. 32). From this one would presume that the year of his death

/3thomson/tcom2.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:24 ± disk/amj

BOOK II. 108±108.3

79

was either 857 or 858, and the latter date is given in the Annales Bertiniani (Les Annales de Saint-Bertin, ed. F. Grat, J. Vieillard, S. ClemencËet, and L. Levillain (Paris, 1964), p. 76). John of Worcester speci®es the date of áthelwulf's death as 13 Jan. (HBC, p. 23; McGurk in John of Worcester II, p. 274 n. 2). As he reigned from 839 (836 ASC), nineteen or twenty years is correct. William's extra ®ve months are neither speci®ed in, nor deducible from, any other surviving record. ®lio Ethelstano] ASC (DEF) makes áthelstan (sub-king of Kent, Surrey, Essex, and Sussex, d. c.851) Ecgberht's son. ASC (ABC) seems to make him áthelwulf's son, while áthelweard iv. 2 (p. 39), John of Worcester s.a. 860, and GR are more de®nite. Plummer, in Two Saxon Chronicles, ii. 75±6, argued that he was Ecgberht's son, but more recent scholarship favours the alternative view: e.g. Keynes, `The control of Kent', p. 124. It is curious to ®nd William agreeing for once with other versions of ASC against (E). immane quantum] See above, c. 1. 2n. 3 Multa . . . recidit] Also in GP, c. 79 (p. 176), almost verbatim. William refers to the plundering of Malmesbury by William Rufus (GP, c. 271; pp. 432±3) and its appropriation to his bishopric by Roger of Salisbury c.1118 (HN, c. 482; p. 40). In the early books of GR William makes frequent references to the recent or contemporary vicissitudes of his own house: see Letters 1. 7 and 2. 3, cc. 135. 6, 147. 3. qui annales legerit, inueniet] ASC s.aa. 823 (recte 825), 845. annis quinquaginta] So ASC s.a. 867, perhaps correctly, despite the testimony cited by Plummer in Two Saxon Chronicles, ii. 71. ASC has him already bishop in 823 (recte 825). His predecessor was still bishop in 816 (HBC, p. 222). Ita sacra fames auaritiae mortalia pectora exedit] Cf. Virgil, Aen. iii. 56±7: `quid non mortalia pectora cogis, / auri sacra fames!' It is echoed again in Mir., c. 5 (p. 75): `Et quid non obtinet pecuniae execranda fames?' in Tartara trudit] Similar expressions were used by Aldhelm and Boniface. The references are collected together by Ehwald in his edition of Aldhelm's works, MGH AA, xxv. 247 n. 1, commenting on Aldhelm, De virgin., c. 18 (p. 247 line 5). On William's treatment of Ealhstan and the appositeness of these Latin tags see Winterbottom, `The Gesta regum of William of Malmesbury', p. 170.

/3thomson/tcom2.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:24 ± disk/amj

80

COMMENTARY

109 Based upon ASC s.aa. 855 (recte 855±8) and Asser, cc. 8, 11 ( John of Worcester s.aa. 853, 855). Neither source mentions the `schola Anglorum' or `Peter's pence', but both include equivalents of the expression `anno integro'. On the evidence for áthelwulf's `decimation' see S. Keynes, `The West Saxon charters of King áthelwulf and his sons', EHR cix (1994), 1109±49, at pp. 1119±23, citing earlier literature. It is given two different dates by the surviving charters: one set of charters, all apparently forgeries based upon the other set, gives the date 844 (Keynes, pp. 1115±16 and nn.); the other set, not without its own dubious features, refers to 854 (ibid., pp. 1119±23 and nn.), as does William here. The ®rst set of charters is H & S iii. 638±45 (= Sawyer 302±15, all regarded as dubious except 315); c. 114 below is the text of the Malmesbury version (Sawyer 314). William did not apparently see the problem inherent in its supposed date of 844. Major interpretations of the meaning of the decimation are by Stevenson in Asser, pp. 186±91, quali®ed by Whitelock's note at pp. cxxxvii±cxxxviii, S. Keynes and M. Lapidge, Alfred the Great (Harmondsworth, 1983), pp. 232±4 n. 23, Keynes, `West Saxon charters', pp. 1119±20, and Smyth, King Alfred, pp. 403±7. The fundamental question is whether it applied only to the king's hereditary estates (so ASC), or to the whole kingdom (as Asser). The decimation is also mentioned (with the same interpretation of it as Asser and William) in the Vita S. Swithuni, which William knew (see above, c. 108n): `[Swithuni] oratione et exhortatione . . . rex Athulfus aecclesiis Dei uniuersam decimam terrae regni sui muni®centissima donatione donauit, et quod liberaliter dedit, libere possidere concessit' (ed. Sauvage, p. 378). coram quarto Leone papa] See Vol. i, apparatus ad loc. `quarto' was apparently not in the Cotton MS of Asser (ed. Stevenson, p. 7), but was in the version of Asser used in the early twelfth-century Annals of St Neots, p. 44. Elfredum . . . regem inunxerat] See Stubbs, GR ii, pp. xlii±xliii and n. 2. There are two points at issue: (1) Whether Alfred was in Rome in 853 as well as later, and (2) what it was that the pope did to him on that occasion. As to (1), there is indeed evidence that Alfred was in Rome both in 853 and (with his father) in 855, inherently unlikely though this might seem (extreme scepticism in Smyth, King Alfred, pp. 12±17). The ®rst visit is mentioned in a letter of Leo IV to áthelwulf dated to that year (JL 2645). The letter was at one time

/3thomson/tcom2.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:24 ± disk/amj

BOOK II. 109

81

stigmatized as an eleventh-century forgery: J. L. Nelson, `The problem of King Alfred's royal anointing', in her Politics and Ritual in Early Medieval Europe (London and Ronceverte, 1986), pp. 309± 27. However, it is now regarded by the same scholar as genuine, not least because it also appears in the Collectio Britannica, a northern French canonical collection of the late eleventh century: Nelson, `The Franks and the English in the ninth century reconsidered', in The Preservation and Transmission of Anglo-Saxon Culture; Select Papers from the 1991 Meeting of the International Society of Anglo-Saxonists, ed. P. E. Szarmach, J. Rosenthal, et al. (Studies in Medieval Culture, xl: Kalamazoo, Mich., 1997), pp. 141±58. I am grateful to Professor Nelson for showing me the text of her article prior to publication. Her later position is supported by Keynes, `Anglo-Saxon entries', pp. 107± 9, 112±14, 116±19. This ®rst visit is also recorded in the A version of ASC, apparently not used by William; but he could have known of the event from Asser, c. 8 (= John of Worcester s.a. 853), or áthelweard iii. 4 (p. 32). The evidence for a visit to Rome by áthelwulf in 855±6 is abundant and uncontested: see The Lives of the Ninth-Century Popes (Liber Ponti®calis), trans. R. R. Davis (Liverpool, 1995), pp. 186±7 and n. 85; for evidence (in addition to Asser) that he was accompanied by Alfred see Keynes, `Anglo-Saxon entries', pp. 112±14. (2) That the pope anointed Alfred as king is of course highly unlikely. Long ago Bishop Tanner saw this: `Non hic Guilelmi docti scriptoris auctoritatem eleuabo; dicam tamen libere id quod sentio, nempe Alfredum a Leone Romam nunquam in regem unctum fuisse. Qui enim id recte ®eri potuit, cum adhuc regnaret pater eius, et tres fratres seniores habuerit, quorum unusquisque postea Visisaxonibus praefuit? Vero propius est, adolescentem uel a Leone ponti®ce Romae baptizatum fuisse (nam illis saeculis maiusculos sacris fontibus immergebant) atque ita unctum; uel, quod ego magis arbitror, sancto oleo delibutum; quia ®dem, qua infans signatus fuerat, grandiusculus factus con®rmauit': T. Tanner, Bibliotheca Britannico-Hibernica (London, 1748), p. 31. In the letter mentioned above the pope writes that he has invested Alfred as his spiritual son with the girdle, rank and vestments of a consul: see Plummer in Two Saxon Chronicles, ii. 79, and Stevenson in Asser, pp. 179±85. Smyth, King Alfred, pp. 12±17, 424, sees the ASC record as propaganda `designed to show that even in infancy, Alfred's destiny for the kingship was clearly manifest'; similarly Keynes, `Anglo-Saxon entries', pp. 112±13. Nelson, `The Franks and the English', sees

/3thomson/tcom2.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:24 ± disk/amj

82

COMMENTARY

the initiative as áthelwulf's: `[He] wanted his youngest son to succeed to a share in his composite realm, and in 853 he seemed in a position to secure that. While Leo did not strictly speaking make Alfred a king he set the seal of throne-worthiness on him: Alfred was now a prospective, a potential heir.' proximo anno] For a detailed historical account of the schola Anglorum or schola Saxonum, not an educational establishment but a hostelry for English pilgrims, see Stevenson in Asser, pp. 243±7; Keynes and Lapidge, Alfred the Great, p. 244 n. 82; W. J. Moore, The Saxon Pilgrims to Rome and the Schola Saxonum (diss., Docteur eÁs Lettres, University of Fribourg, 1937), pp. 90±125; and R. Krautheimer, Rome: Pro®le of a City 312±1308 (Princeton, 1980), pp. 82, 341. It was located in the Borgo (between St Peter's and the River Tiber, just off the Via della Conciliazione), where there is still a church `S. Spirito in Sassia'. Two burnings of it are recorded: the ®rst, in Liber ponti®calis, ed. L. Duchesne and C. Vogel (3 vols.: Paris, 1886±1956), ii. 53, between 817 and 824, and in ASC s.a. 817 (816 ACD, whence John of Worcester s.a. 816); the second, in Liber pont. ii. 111, between 847 and 855. This is presumably the burning referred to by William, whose `proximo anno' assigns it precisely to 854. Stevenson doubted the correctness of this date, because the ®re is described as happening early in the ponti®cate of Leo IV (847±55), because the schola certainly existed in 852, and because the king's visit was late in 855 (Asser, pp. 245±6). áthelwulf's Roman benefactions are mentioned in (spurious) Sawyer 325 for Winchester (dated 857), the earliest copy of which is in BL MS Add. 15350, the Winchester cartulary, s. xii1. It does not mention a burning and rebuilding of the schola Anglorum, but says rather `and at Rome, by the pope's furtherance and leave, I wrought a monastery to the glory of God and the honour of S. Mary His holy mother; and there placed an English school, which ever by night and day should serve God for our people' (H & S iii. 647). Liber pont. ii. 148 (and n. 26) also mentions the benefactions, excluding the rebuilding of the schola: `optulit . . . corona ex auro purissimo, pens. lib. IIII; baucas ex auro purissimo II, pens. lib.; spata I cum auro purissimo ligata; item imagines II minores ex auro purissimo; gabathe saxisce de argento exaurate IIII; saraca de olouero cum chrisoclauo I; camisa alba sigillata olosyrica cum chrysoclauo I; uela maiora de fundato II' and money, speci®ed further by Asser, c. 16 (= John of Worcester s.a. 856): `omni anno trecentas mancusas denariorum Romam portare precepit: centum in honore

/3thomson/tcom2.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:24 ± disk/amj

BOOK II. 109±10

83

sancti Petri ad emendum oleum quo impleantur omnia luminaria illius aecclesiae in uespera Pascae, et similiter in galli cantu, centum in honore sancti Pauli apostoli eadem de causa, centum quoque mancusas uniuersali papae apostolico' (summarized at c. 113. 4 below). The Liber ponti®calis (ii. 128) credits Leo IV himself with the building of St Mary's church `supra scholam Saxonum'. Stevenson (p. 244) also stigmatizes as ®ctional William's stories of the reputed foundation of the schola by Offa and the establishment of Peter's Pence for its maintenance. However, neither story is necessarily improbable. As to the ®rst, other writers record similar versions of it. The schola's founder was Ine according to the late evidence of Roger of Wendover i. 215±16; its existence soon after the year 821 is mentioned in the Vita et miracula S. Kenelmi, c. 10 (ed. Love, pp. 64± 5, but see n. 4), where it is said to have been `set up by former kings of the English people'. As to the second, the letter of Leo III to Cenwulf (H & S iii. 523±5, EHD 1, no. 205), is good evidence for Offa's inauguration of something like Peter's Pence (H & S iii. 524±5: `Vestram autem scientes . . . almis suffragiis concedente'). He is credited with this by Henry of Huntingdon (iv. 20; pp. 246±7). Thus áthelwulf may have been continuing or renewing a practice begun earlier. For the various traditions about the origin of Peter's Pence see W. E. Lunt, Financial Relations of the Papacy with England to 1327 (Cambridge, Mass., 1939), pp. 1±30, and the literature cited in Keynes, `Anglo-Saxon entries', pp. 100±1 nn. Inde domum . . . in coniugium sumpsit] 1 Oct. 856; Judith was only twelve or thirteen at the time. For discussion of the probable political motives behind the marriage see M. J. Enright, `Charles the Bald and áthelwulf of Wessex: the alliance of 856 and strategies of royal succession', Journal of Medieval History, v (1979), 291±302, and P. Stafford, `Charles the Bald, Judith and England', in Charles the Bald. Court and Kingdom, ed. M. T. Gibson and J. L. Nelson (2nd edn., Aldershot, 1990), pp. 139±53. 110 The ®rst part of this chapter (1±2), `Siquidem . . . et Wasconia', is mainly con¯ated from the chronicles by Ado of Vienne (PL cxxiii. 134±8) and Hugh of Fleury (ed. Rottendorff, p. 180). Some of it, `Lotharius . . . renuntiauit', recalls a passage in Bodl. Libr., MS lat. class. d. 39 (s. xii2), containing William's collection of Carolingian materials, discussed in Thomson, William of Malmesbury, pp. 149±50. From `Lodowicus tertius ®lius' (2) the text is verbatim as one version

/3thomson/tcom2.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:24 ± disk/amj

84

COMMENTARY

of the so-called Adonis continuatio prima (MGH SS, ii. 324±5), written in 869, continued to 886/7. It is known from three other witnesses and was also used by Hariulf in his Chronicon Centulense, written between 1088 and 1105: iii. 20; ed. F. Lot (Paris, 1894), pp. xxiii, 139±40, 143±4; Thomson, William of Malmesbury, p. 149. William appears to have committed a slip (or at least created a confusion) in referring to `Ludouicum piissimum regem Baioariorum' (3), the adjective being his own addition to the text of the Continuatio. He omits, probably by error, a substantial section of the Continuatio (MGH SS, ii. 324 lines 20±40). After `Ipse tamen Ludouicus super ®lios suos feliciter' (5) the other MSS of the Continuatio complete the sentence `nunc principatum tenet anno incarnationis Domini 869'. William may have had access to a version independent of the other copies, and which had been updated at this point, unless he made the alteration himself. 1 Lotharius . . . in ergastulis uinxerat] Similarly in GP, c. 6 (p. 13), with a cross-reference to this passage; there it is added that Louis' wife was shut up in a cloister. 2 monasterio sancti Medardi] At Soissons. 3 inter se Francorum imperium] Note that T+ reads `regnum'. William presumably changed his mind, at ®rst considering that all the combatants were kings, but later that what they were ®ghting over was indeed an `imperium'. 4 imperii siue regni] Note that B omits `siue regni'. Again William seems to have changed his mind, in this case altering the words of his source, the Continuatio. Lothar was of course emperor; but the lands he left after his decease constituted a `regnum', not the whole of the empire. 5 Curwalam, id est comitatum Cornugalliae] The name and explanation, both of which William lifted from the Adonis continuatio prima, are inaccurate. By `Curwala' is meant the modern Swiss canton of Chur/Coire (Lat. Curia). In the ninth century it was inhabited by a romance-speaking population, named by the Germans `Churvalchen' (mod. Germ. Churwelsch), meaning `foreigners or romance-speakers of Chur' (F. Lot in Hariulf, Chronicon Centulense, p. 121 n. 2). 7 in pago Viminaco] The district of le Vimeu, deÂpt. Somme. The reference is to the battle of Saucourt, 881. et non multo post . . . uiginti quattuor] Louis III died at Saint-

/3thomson/tcom2.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:24 ± disk/amj

BOOK II. 110±111.11

85

Denis on 5 Aug. 882. As he was crowned on 17 Sept. 879 he reigned exactly two years, ten months, and nineteen days. 8 Obiit . . . idus Decembris] He actually died on 12 Dec. monarchiam totius imperii Francorum et Romanorum] Note that B has `monarchiam totius regni Francorum simul et Romanorum'. Charles of Swabia (Charles the Fat) was accepted as king by the western Franks in Apr. 885. 111 William gives a text of the Visio Karoli crassi, which is found in many manuscripts, but has not been critically edited in its own right. Another version is in Hariulf, Chronicon Centulense iii. 21 (pp. 144±8), from which Stubbs and Lot wrongly thought William had derived his. The history of the text and circumstances of its composition were studied by W. Levison, `Zur Textgeschichte der Vision Kaiser Karls III', Neues Archiv, xxvii (1902), 493±502; some additional information is in Thomson, William of Malmesbury, pp. 148±9 and nn. Composed at or near Reims c.900, it was known to at least one other English contemporary of William's, the anonymous author of the Annals of St Neots, probably written at Bury St Edmunds abbey: pp. lvi±lviii. The persons mentioned in it are: Charles the Fat, king of East Francia and emperor (876±88), his father Louis the German, king of East Francia (825±76), his uncle Lothar I (emperor 817±55), Lothar's son Louis II, king of Italy from 839/40, emperor 855±75, and Louis II's grandson (Louis the Blind, d. 928), by his daughter Ermengard and Boso king of Provence. When Boso died on 11 Jan. 887, Charles the Fat recognized Louis' right to succeed his father and even adopted him as his own successor; but the ailing emperor was deposed soon after and on his death Arnulf son of his brother Carloman was chosen king of the East Franks. The Visio was obviously composed by a supporter of the young Louis' case. 4 Potentes . . . patientur] Wisd. 6: 7. 10 Ludouicus dixit michi: ``Imperium . . . debet recipere Ludouicus ®lius ®liae meae''] Referring to Louis (the Blind), son of Boso, grandson of Louis II. Lotharius auus] Actually he was Louis the Blind's great-grandfather. Talium est . . . in caelis est] Matt. 19: 14, 18: 10. 11 Deus, qui uiuorum dominatur et mortuorum] Cf. Rom. 14: 9.

/3thomson/tcom2.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:24 ± disk/amj

86

COMMENTARY

112 Piecing together meagre information from several sources, among them ASC s.aa. 885, 887, William produces a very summary and indifferently correct account of the succession of the later Carolingians: the emperor Charles the Fat (d. 888) was succeeded by Charles the Simple (d. 929), son of Louis the Stammerer, as king of East Francia. The emperor Arnulf, son of Carloman king of Bavaria (d. 899), was succeeded as king of East Francia by Louis the Child (d. 911). Conrad duke of Franconia was chosen king of East Francia (911±18), but never became emperor. And Henry I was not his son, nor Otto the Great his grandson (so also above, c. 68. 8). 1 apposui] Note the interesting Aa addition: Vol. i, Appendix II, p. 834. Hic est Karolus] The marriage of Charles the Simple to Eadgifu, daughter of Edward the Elder, took place between 916 and 919. She was his third wife. The marriage is recorded by John of Worcester s.a. 901, that of Gisela to Rollo by Dudo of Saint-Quentin (ii. 28; p. 169) and by William of JumieÁges, GND i. 64±5. Jules Lair (Dudo, p. 73) thought that Charles, married for the ®rst time in 907, was unlikely to have had a daughter of marriageable age in 911; but surely he could have had a daughter without being married. I do not understand the remark of Van Houts in GND i. 64 n. 5: `There is no evidence for the marriage between Rollo and King Charles' daughter Gisla'. Gisla . . . pigneratrix federis] A pun, as Joseph Stevenson noted (History of the Kings of England, p. 94 n. 4), since the name Gisela means `pledge', in the sense of `hostage': M. Lexer, Mittelhochdeutsches HandwoÈrterbuch (3 vols.: Leipzig, 1872, repr. Stuttgart, 1979), i. 1022. Arnulfo ergo post quindecim annos defuncto] In fact he reigned for twelve years; so (Marianus in) John of Worcester s.a. 887. He was emperor 896±9. Ludouicus idem] William here confuses and con¯ates (1) the child Louis of the Visio, who is Louis the Blind (d. 928), son of Boso king of Provence and grandson of Louis II, and (2) Louis the Child (d. 911), son of Arnulf. The former never reigned at all. 2 Huic successit ®lius Henricus] Henry (the Fowler) was not the son of Conrad, but of Otto duke of Saxony. sororibus suis Aldgitha et Edgitha] For the marriages of álfgifu (her name here misspelt by William) and Eadgifu see further below, c. 126.

/3thomson/tcom2.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:24 ± disk/amj

BOOK II. 112±113.3

87

113 Almost entirely as Asser, cc. 12±16 (= John of Worcester s.aa. 855±6), with a little help from ASC s.aa. 855±8. 1 in matrimonium ducta] B has `ut dixi ducta in matrimonium'; see above, c. 109. Sed maturiori mediante consilio . . . patri daretur] Possibly echoing the story told in Sallust, Bell. Iug. xvi. plusquam ciuile bellum] Lucan i. 1: `Bella . . . plus quam ciuilia'. Also below, c. 199. 5. 2 non enim Westsaxones reginam uel iuxta regem sedere uel reginae appellatione insigniri patiuntur] Among earlier Insular sources only Asser (c. 13) makes this assertion. It is also made in the Annales Bertiniani s.a. 856 (ed. Grat et al., p. 73): `Ediluulf rex Occidentalium Anglorum, Roma rediens, Iudith ®liam Karoli regis, mense Iulio desponsatam, kalendis octobribus . . . in matrimonium accipit et . . . imposito capiti eius diademate, reginae nomine insignit, quod sibi suaeque genti eatenus fuerat insuetum.' See Stevenson in Asser, pp. 200±2, Keynes and Lapidge, Alfred the Great, pp. 235±6, n. 28, cautiously supporting Asser. Smyth, King Alfred, p. 179, suggests that Asser misunderstood the meaning of the Annales, which was that `the West Saxons lacked speci®c coronation rituals to mark the special status of their queens', not `that English queens lacked status in the ®rst instance'. But it is most unlikely that Asser knew the Annales, which survive in a single (continental) copy. See rather P. Stafford, `The king's wife in Wessex 800±1066', Past and Present, xci (1981), 3±27, esp. pp. 3±7, 16±17 (not cited by Smyth), and J. L. Nelson, `Reconstructing a royal family: re¯ections on Alfred, from Asser, chapter 2', in Peoples and Places in Northern Europe, 500±1600: Essays in Honour of P. H. Sawyer, ed. I. Wood and N. Lund (Woodbridge, 1991), pp. 47±66, at 54±6. Patrick Wormald suggests that the story told by Asser was devised `as a means for the Ecgberhtings to discredit the previous regime of Brihtric, something (given their own highly tenuous position) which they badly needed to do' (letter of 20 May 1996). See also below, c. 117n. 3 Illa ad Karolum . . . stupri ream] The story is also told by Simeon of Durham (Byrhtferth), Historia regum, c. 64 s.a. 802 (Simeon of Durham ii. 67), his wording close to Asser, c. 15. But in Asser it is the queen who offers presents to the emperor, not vice versa. Stevenson in Asser, pp. 206±8, defends the story's genuineness.

/3thomson/tcom2.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:24 ± disk/amj

88

COMMENTARY

4 testamentum fecit . . . expenderentur] Based on Asser, c. 16. Stubbs (GR ii, pp. xli±xlii) believed that William wrongly associated the king's will with his `decimation' as mentioned above in c. 109. 1. But there seems no evidence for this; see rather Stevenson in Asser, pp. 190±1, 210±11 and n. 2. The disposition itself is referred to in a charter of King Edward the Elder, dated 901 (Sawyer 365), which has been suspected in the past. But see now Keynes, `West Saxon charters', p. 1120 and n. 2. ®liae quoque dotem emancipauit] That is, he exempted his daughter's dowry from the bequest of the kingdom made to his sons. Biennio ergo . . . in episcopatu sepelitur] On the possible date of áthelwulf's death (858 or early 859) see above, c. 108. 1n. 114 = Sawyer 322 (dubious or spurious). On its implications see above, c. 109n. It is mentioned again in GP, c. 237 (pp. 390±1), with reference back. 2 witereden] A monetary ®ne paid to one's lord or king, e.g. Leges Inae, cc. 50, 71 (Liebermann, Gesetze, i. 90, 100): Bosworth and Toller, p. 1247. 3 Swithuno] Swithhun succeeded Helmstan in 852 or 853, so that the charter's date of 844 cannot be correct. Deus qui iusti®cas] `Deus qui iusti®cas impium': R.-J. Hesbert, Corpus Orationum (CCSL clx), no. 1767; Collect from the Missa pro deuoto in the Missal of Robert of JumieÁges, ed. H. A. Wilson (Henry Bradshaw Soc., xi: London, 1896), p. 253. Pretende Domine] Two different Offertory prayers with this beginning appear in the Missal of Robert of JumieÁges: p. 75 `Praetende Domine ®delibus tuis dexteram'; p. 263 `Praetende Domine ®delibus tuis omnibus episcopis'. sicut libertas illa] That is, just like the perpetual immunity (`libertatem perpetuam') assigned to every tenth hide (2 above). 4 indictione quarta] `septima', rightly, in the copy in the Malmesbury cartulary, BL MS Lansdowne 417, pr. Registrum Malmesburiense, ed. J. S. Brewer (2 vols.: RS, 1879±80), i. 293±5. 115±16 The genealogy seems to be William's con¯ation of more than one source. It is mainly as Asser, c. 1 (= John of Worcester s.a. 849), and ASC (ABCD only) s.aa. 855±8, with a major adjustment from áthelweard iii. 4 (p. 33): see H. M. Chadwick, The Origin of the

/3thomson/tcom2.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:24 ± disk/amj

BOOK II. 113.4±116.2

89

English Nation (Cambridge, 1907), pp. 252±83; K. Sisam, `AngloSaxon royal genealogies', Proceedings of the British Academy, xxxix (1953), 287±348, at pp. 314±15, 318±20; F. P. Magoun, Jr., `King áthelwulf's biblical ancestors', Modern Language Review, xlvi (1951), 249±50; D. Dumville, `The West Saxon genealogical regnal list: manuscripts and texts', Anglia, civ (1986), 1±32; Nelson, `Reconstructing a royal family', pp. 47±66, esp. 49 n. 11, 63 and n. 87; T. D. Hill, `The myth of the ark-born son of Noe and the West-Saxon royal genealogical tables', Harvard Theological Review, lxxx (1987), 379±83. For instance, ASC and GR have `Finn qui fuit Goduulf' for the misreading of `Fingolduulf' in Asser and John of Worcester. William, John of Worcester, and ASC share two passages omitted in the text of Asser as we now have it: `qui fuit Esla', and `qui fuit Wig, qui fuit Freauuine, qui fuit Freodegar'. Before and after Frealaf ASC (A), Asser, áthelweard, and John of Worcester have Frithuwald and Frithuwulf; GR has only the former. áthelweard omits Cutha, and renders Bñldñg as Balder. Sceaf and the story about him are inserted into GR from áthelweard; áthelweard ends his genealogy at that point, omitting HeremodÐStreph. `Streph', a form not found elsewhere, appears to be William's substitution for Sem/Seth of Asser ( John of Worcester). 116. 1 Cinritius [+ Creodingi, Creodingus A] Cerditii] The A reading is essentially supported by ASC (BCD), Asser, c. 1 (= John of Worcester s.a. 849), and other sources less probably available to William, though the form should be `Creoda'. `Creoding' means his progeny (as William himself recognizes above, c. 68. 2); its use suggests that his source was a vernacular genealogy such as that in ASC. Creoda was omitted by áthelweard and contradicted by Asser, c. 2 (= John of Worcester, ut supra), where Cynric is said to be the son of Cerdic, not his grandson via Creoda. See Plummer in Two Saxon Chronicles, ii. 4 n. 4, and the elaborate note by Stevenson in Asser, pp. 157±60. 2 insulam Germaniae Scandzam] `Scani' áthelweard iii. 4 (p. 33), presumably meaning the peninsula of SkaÊne (south-west Sweden). William has implicitly identi®ed it with the `Scandza' of Jordanes, Getica, cc. 9, 16±25. But for Jordanes this island accounted for the whole of Scandinavia, as Pliny, Nat. hist. iv. 96 (`Scadinavia') and iv. 104 (`Scandiae'). See J. G. A. Svennung, Jordanes und

/3thomson/tcom2.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:24 ± disk/amj

90

COMMENTARY

Scandia: Kritisch-exegetische Studien (Stockholm, 1967), id., Scadinavia und Scandia: lateinisch-nordische Namenstudien (Uppsala, 1963). What and where William himself thought `Scandza' was is hard to say. He is unlikely to have identi®ed it with the whole of Scandinavia itself or to have thought that that was an island. It is not shown as an island on the sort of TO-maps likely to have been available to William, cited above, c. 1. 2n. Iordanes] Getica, cc. 9, 16 seq., 25. in oppido quod tunc Slaswic, nunc uero Haithebi appellatur] Basically as áthelweard i. 4 (p. 9), who says that in his day the town was called by the Saxons Slesuuic, by the Danes Haithaby. The matter is complicated, and William's account (understandably) not perfectly accurate. In fact Hedeby (ON Haithabu) was founded as a forti®ed site during the eighth century. Ninth- and tenth-century sources call it both by that name and also by various forms of Schleswig (thus supporting áthelweard). During the early eleventh century it declined economically, while near to it there grew up the present town of Schleswig (Schleswig-Holstein), with that name. Hedeby was burnt by Harold Hardrada in 1050, entirely destroyed by the Slavs in 1066. What existed in William's day, therefore, was not Hedeby, but nearby Schleswig. See H. Clarke and B. Ambrosiani, Towns in the Viking Age (Leicester, 2nd edn., 1995), pp. 56±63. Anglia Vetus] Again William relied upon áthelweard i. 4 (p. 9): `Anglia uetus sita est inter Saxones et Giotos'. áthelweard distinguished between `Gioti' ( Jutes) and `Gothi' (Goths). But William, who normally used `Iutae' for the Jutes, has been misled by his source and has turned áthelweard's Jutes into Goths. The distinction was not observed at all by Asser; see Stevenson's note in Asser, pp. 166±70. 117 Based upon ASC s.aa. 855±8, 860, 865, and Asser, cc. 17±20 (= John of Worcester s.aa. 855, 860, 864). ASC does not mention the name of áthelwulf's wife or her remarriage to áthelbald (see above, c. 113. 2n). For the chorus of condemnation over this see Plummer in Two Saxon Chronicles, ii. 80±1. In pagan Germanic practice, of course, such a marriage (i.e. to a stepmother) was almost obligatory. Compare, for instance, the marriage of King Eadbald of Kent to his stepmother Bertha (above, c. 10. 1; Smyth, King Alfred, pp. 193±4). sed post quinquennium eo defuncto et Scireburniae condito] Rightly two and a half years from his father's death, as Asser, c. 17 (= John of Worcester s.a. 855), since he died in 860 (Asser, c. 18; John of

/3thomson/tcom2.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:24 ± disk/amj

BOOK II. 116.2±119.1

91

Worcester s.a. 860). Five years was given by the same sources as the length of his brother's reign (Asser, c. 19; John of Worcester s.a. 860), and William has perhaps repeated this in error. However, the Annals of St Neots s.a. 857 (p. 51) record that áthelbald had already reigned for two and a half years `with his father', and William may have had access to this tradition (though if so he garbles it). quapropter coacto . . . expulere] I do not know what William's source was for this statement. 118 Mainly ASC s.a. 871. There is no evidence for independent use of Asser, who (c. 42 = John of Worcester s.a. 871) gives the number of battles in a year as eight. Anno . . . septimo] Both ASC (but for C) and Asser (c. 21; John of Worcester s.a.) give the year as 866. But William has just said that áthelbald, áthelberht, and áthelred each reigned for ®ve years (he gives the combined total of ®fteen years in GP, c. 240; p. 392); on that basis, whether one calculates forward from 857 (William's date for áthelbald's accession), or backwards from 872 (William's date for Alfred's), the result is the date of 867. 119 Based upon ASC s.a. 871 and Asser, cc. 37±9 (= John of Worcester s.a. 871). Only William mentions the casting of lots (perhaps building on John of Worcester: `álfred uero . . . cum suis cohortibus contra omnes paganorum duces belli sortem sumere debere sciret'), the arrival of the English army towards evening, and that Alfred's troops were yielding to pressure when áthelred arrived in support. The de®nite statement that áthelred joined the battle, found in John of Worcester s.a. 871, may have been his addition to Asser whose text, however, makes little sense without it (Keynes and Lapidge, Alfred the Great, p. 242). William's version makes áthelred's intervention even more dramatic and decisive. Smyth, King Alfred, pp. 186±9, convincingly argues for the superiority of the ASC account, in which áthelred is clearly in charge of the operation and there is no mention of his delaying out of piety. The motif of `pious delaying' could be mere literary embellishment. It is paralleled, for example, in Odo of Cluny's Life of Gerald of Aurillac (PL cxxxiii. 665±6), written c.930. 1 et in partes diuiso . . . ducibus] A similar division was made at the battle of Corbridge in 918, between Constantine king of Scots and

/3thomson/tcom2.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:24 ± disk/amj

92

COMMENTARY

Ragnald, grandson of Ivar king at York: A. P. Smyth, Scandinavian York and Dublin (2 vols.: Dublin, 1975±9), i. 93±4. 2 immaturitate iuuentae preproperum] Cf. Cyprian, Epist. lxiv. 1: `immaturo tempore et praepropera festinatione'. Dei cruce consignatus] I do not know the source for this. Again, William may be developing Asser's `contra hostes uexilla mouet', even though Asser was describing Alfred's contingent. Osecg] Bagsecg ASC, Asser, John of Worcester; Bergsecg Simeon of Durham (Byrhtferth), Historia regum, c. 73 (ii. 80). 120 Much as ASC s.aa. 867±8, 870±1, and Asser, cc. 27, 41 (= John of Worcester s.aa. 867, 871). Only William mentions that the Mercians were often beaten, the recall of Osberht (omitting álle altogether), and the burning of York. ASC has the Vikings inside the city. Asser (c. 27) says that the Viking threat caused the Northumbrians to reunite under both the recalled Osberht and the usurper álle; otherwise he too has the Vikings holding the city, and does not mention its burning. 1 Ardebant . . . seuis populatibus prouintiae] Cf. Lucan ii. 534: `Ardent Hesperii saeuis populatibus agri'. 2 interemptus] The Aa addition of the traditional date of Edmund's martyrdom, 20 Nov. 870 (Vol. i, Appendix II, p. 835), could have been derived from any number of writings, e.g. (source of) John of Worcester s.a., though others such as ASC give 869. At uero . . . Winburnae sepultus est] ASC s.a. 871; not long after Easter, which occurred on 15 Apr. 121±4 William's long and detailed account of King Alfred's reign is the ®rst point at which he was able to introduce a substantial amount of material from sources other than ASC. Some of it had appeared already in his account of Alfred's father and brothers (above, cc. 109, 113, 117, 119). A major question concerns William's knowledge of Asser's Life. On this three positions are possible, and each has been held in the past: (1) that William excerpted directly from a full text of Asser; (2) that he knew Asser only via the text of John of Worcester; (3) that he knew Asser directly but in an abbreviated version. Each position has its advantages and disadvantages. (1) If William knew Asser at ®rst hand then it is strange that he does not acknowledge the fact. After all, he knew of Asser's existence, and that he was an

/3thomson/tcom2.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:24 ± disk/amj

BOOK II. 119.1±124

93

important ®gure in Alfred's programme for the revival of Christian learning in Wessex; and he is delighted to tell his readers of his discovery of the `ancient volume' about the deeds of King áthelstan (below, c. 132). Yet he gives no indication that he has access to a special, contemporary source of information about Alfred's character and rule. Moreover, only a small proportion of material available in the full text of Asser appears in William's account; it is hard to imagine that he would have failed to use so much of the full text had he known of it. (2) Almost all of the material common to GR and Asser is found also in the text of John of Worcester (for the problematic use of Asser in the Worcester Chronicle see R. R. Darlington and P. McGurk, `The Chronicon ex Chronicis of ``Florence'' of Worcester and its use of sources for English history before 1066', Anglo-Norman Studies v (1982), 185±96, at pp. 189±90). In only two places does William seem to know some Asser independently (below, cc. 121. 13, 123), but it is possible to imagine that he found even this information elsewhere and that its correspondence with the text of Asser is either indirect or coincidental. On the other hand it is still the case that much of Asser's text copied verbatim by John is not used by William, and as with position (1) it is hard to imagine why he would not have used at least some of it had he known it. (3) This leaves the possibility that William knew Asser in a truncated form only, independently of John's ®nal text and yet closely related to what was used in it. In that case the problem of material in Asser unused by William remains, and so does the question of why William did not explicitly say that it was a contemporary source. Perhaps what he used was an earlier form of the Worcester Chronicle (by Florence?), revised and continued by John. This becomes an attractive explanation if one makes the reasonable assumption that neither John nor William was aware that Florence had already incorporated material from Asser. The problem of the genuineness of Asser's Life does not directly concern William's use of it; but it does impinge upon judgements offered both above and below about the reliability of its information when independent of ASC. This is not the place to assess in extenso the arguments against the work's genuineness recently advanced by Smyth, King Alfred, pp. 149±367. Nonetheless the reader needs to know what attitude I have adopted to his main conclusion: that the work is a tenth-century forgery, possibly by Byrhtferth of Ramsey. In brief, Smyth seems to me to have established a `case to answer' for

/3thomson/tcom2.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:24 ± disk/amj

94

COMMENTARY

those who argue for the substantial contemporaneity and reliability of the Life. His critique of its errors, areas of inexplicable ignorance, doublets, legendary and propagandistic elements seems often wellfounded. Whether the best solution of these problems lies in supposing the Life to be a later forgery is another matter. The work is obviously programmatic, probably un®nished, and written at a distance from its subject who had already turned 36 before the author came to know him. Here I differ slightly from the conclusions of S. Keynes, `On the authenticity of Asser's Life of King Alfred', Journal of Ecclesiastical History, xlvii (1996), 1±23, at pp. 15±18, to the extent that his discussion still leaves Asser problematic. On the other hand, Smyth's attribution of the work to Byrhtferth of Ramsey seems to me highly speculative, and based on arguments of very unequal (mostly low) merit. On this point I agree wholeheartedly with the arguments of M. Lapidge advanced in his review of Smyth in The Times Higher Education Supplement, 8 Mar. 1996, p. 20. 121. 1 a papa Leone] See above, c. 109n. uiginti octo (nouem Aac) et semis annos . . . tenuit] This ®gure for the length of Alfred's reign, in which William follows ASC (DEF) s.a. 901 (recte 900), does not tally with its dates for his accession and death (soon after 15 Apr. 871, 26 Oct. 901), which yield a ®gure of twenty-nine and a half years. In GP, c. 240 (p. 392), William calculates afresh and gets it right (`annis triginta, sex minus mensibus'). cum eo insulam circuire, forsitan quis dixerit extremae esse dementiae] Cf. Sallust, Bell. Iug. iii. 3: `Frustra autem niti neque aliud se fatigando nisi odium quaerere, extremae dementiae est'. See Wright II, pp. 521±2. 2 in insulam . . . refugerit] Perhaps a re¯ection of Asser, cc. 53, 55 ( John of Worcester s.a. 878), though Asser does not call Athelney an island. ASC s.a. 878 prompted William to surmise that only Hampshire, Somerset, and Wiltshire were left to Alfred. 2±4 Solebat ipse postea . . . posse uideretur] The story of the dream and its aftermath is summarized (but almost verbatim `dormientem . . . ingressi'), with reference back, in GP, c. 130 (p. 269). In GP, c. 92 (p. 199), William says that the monastery of Athelney was founded by Alfred partly as a result of the dream. The source of William's account was obviously the hagiography of St

/3thomson/tcom2.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:24 ± disk/amj

BOOK II. 121±121.3

95

Cuthbert: a similar story is in the Historia de S. Cuthberto, cc. 15±16 (BHL 2024; Simeon of Durham i. 204±5), though the details are different. For instance, the Historia refers to Alfred's wife, not mother. In Historia, c. 15, Cuthbert comes to the king disguised as a pilgrim, providing him miraculously with bread and wine, after which Alfred's household return with an exceptional catch of ®sh. In c. 16 Cuthbert reveals himself to Alfred in a dream and promises the king victory `apud montem Assandune', meaning Edington, but confusing it with Cnut's defeat of Edmund Ironside at Assandun in 1016 (ASC s.a.). If William knew the story in this version, he has removed the anachronism, which may in any case be that of a scribe, not of the author/compiler. This is the argument advanced by L. Simpson, `The King Alfred/St Cuthbert episode in the Historia de sancto Cuthberto: its signi®cance for mid-tenth-century English history', in St Cuthbert, his Cult and his Community to ad 1200, ed. G. Bonner, C. Stancliffe, and D. W. Rollason (Woodbridge, 1989), pp. 397±411, arguing that the miracles concerning King Alfred originated in the tenth century. Other variants appear in the Historia de translationibus et miraculis S. Cuthberti vi. 1 (Simeon of Durham i. 230±4), written in or soon after 1104. 2 iuuet meminisse quae olim horruerint] Cf. Virgil, Aen. i. 203: `forsan et haec olim meminisse iuuabit'. 3 quia enim Anglia] This is the ®rst occurrence in GR of `Anglia' meaning England; in all earlier instances (cc. 97. 1, 98. 1±2, 116. 2) William used the word to refer to territory which he thought to have been occupied by the Angles. Its English equivalent (Angelcynn) is ®rst used in the more general sense in ASC s.a. 975. It uses Engleland ®rst s.a. 1014 (Plummer in Two Saxon Chronicles, ii. 18). Doubtless following Bede, William used, and continues to use `Britannia' to mean the whole of the island, including all of its inhabitants whether Germanic or Celtic. See P. Wormald, ` ``Engla Land'': the making of an allegiance', Journal of Historical Sociology, vii (1994), 1±24, and S. Foot, `The making of Angelcynn: English identity before the Norman Conquest', TRHS, 6th ser. vi (1996), 25±49. To this point also, William's terminology for the various AngloSaxon kingdoms implies that he saw them, correctly, as communities of peoples rather than territorial units: thus `king of the Mercians', `kingdom of the West Saxons' and so on. At c. 122. 4 he uses `Mercia'

/3thomson/tcom2.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:24 ± disk/amj

96

COMMENTARY

for the ®rst time, but referring to the geographical area, not the kingdom. 5 Nec multo post . . . leue uincendi negotium] William is the earliest authority for this story, colourful and famous but presumably legendary. It is rendered suspicious by the similar story below (c. 131. 4±5). 5±6 Cunctis ad audendum . . . peruaserat latrocinio] So also Asser, c. 56 (= John of Worcester s.a. 878), and ASC s.a. 878, 886±7, 890, but neither source mentions the authority given to Guthrum. William's statement that Guthrum was given the provinces of East Anglia and Northumbria is probably an interpretation of ASC s.a. 890: `Godrum se nor…erne cyning'; so Plummer in Two Saxon Chronicles, ii. 102. 6 quia non mutabit Ethiops pellem suam] Otto, SprichwoÈrter, p. 7 (Schol. in Persium v. 116). datas ille terras . . . dies inuenit] The implication is that all the lands given by Alfred to Guthrum were kept by his successors until the reign of áthelstan. But at c. 97. 6 William said that East Anglia was taken back from the Danes by Edward the Elder. 7 Ceteri ex Danis . . . nobilitarunt suis] Much as ASC s.aa. 880± 1, 886±7. 7±10 Tunc et beati Martini . . . penatibus inuexit] The source is Ps.-Odo of Cluny, De reversione b. Martini a Burgundia (BHL 5653), cc. 5±6 (PL cxxxiii. 827±9). 7 Totis uenerabile . . . honos] Sidonius, Epist. iv. 18. 5: `Martini corpus totis uenerabile terris / in quo post uitae tempora uiuit honor'. 10±11 Latrunculi . . . barbarorum] ASC s.aa. 886, 890±3. 10 Angliam . . . tirannidis suffugium] See above, c. 12n. 11 glebae ubertate] Cf. Virgil, Aen. i. 531: `potens armis atque ubere glebae'. Similarly below, c. 374. 4. 12 nota suae uirtutis spetie] Cf. Lucan vi. 254: `uiuam magnae speciem uirtutis adorant'. Also echoed below, cc. 387. 6 and 434. Ostenduntur ab accolis loca singula . . . inopiam] Interesting testimony to the survival of memories or legends about Alfred, doubtless the source of some of William's information about him. anguis lubricus] Cf. Virgil, Aen. v. 84: `lubricus anguis' (also in Mir., p. 140).

/3thomson/tcom2.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:24 ± disk/amj

BOOK II. 121.3±122

97

13 Egelswitha . . . uirgines] Cf. Asser, cc. ?73 (not in John of Worcester), 75 (= John of Worcester s.a. 871), JW Gen., p. 257; and see Stevenson in Asser, pp. 299±300. But William's Elfgiva (here and at c. 122) is áthelgifu; his áthelswith (the daughter) and álf¯ñd both seem to mean álfthryth, who, though unmarried in Asser's time, later married Count Baldwin II of Flanders (see below, cc. 123. 5, 135. 3). Stevenson in Asser, pp. lx±lxii, thought that áthelswith, otherwise unrecorded, was a doublet for her mother Ealhswith, derived from a misreading of John of Worcester s.a. 871 (ed. McGurk II, pp. 294±5): `®lie de supradicta coniuge sua Ealhsuuitha ágel¯ñd primogenita'. But the standard of William's latinity makes this implausible, and in any case he is unlikely to have been dependent upon the ®nal text of John of Worcester. He calls her again by the same name in VD i. 28 (recte 29) (p. 285). Asser, c. 29 ( John of Worcester s.a. 868), does not give the queen's name, but says that she was the daughter of the Mercian áthelred `Mucill', ealdorman of the Gaini (otherwise unknown): see the discussion, perhaps over-sceptical, in Smyth, King Alfred, pp. 24±8. B's reading of `Egel¯eda' for the name of Alfred's wife suggests that William realized that something was wrong; but his emendation only adds to the confusion, for this was the name of their eldest daughter. William and John of Worcester give the name of the ealdorman of Mercia who married álf¯ñd as áthelred; Asser apparently called him Eadred. Other sources suggest that he was actually king: HBC, p. 17. Valitudinis . . . amplecteretur] Based upon Asser, c. 74 (= John of Worcester s.a. 871). 122 Based in part upon Asser, cc. 77, 79, ?91, 92, 94, 98 (= John of Worcester s.aa. 872, 887); but not the discussion of Alfred's laws, his alleged division of the land into hundreds and tithings, Asser's expounding of Boethius, the account of John the Scot, or the security and peace brought by Alfred's rule. All of this information in William was dismissed as legendary by Stubbs (GR ii, p. li), but probably too summarily; see the discussion below. On the interpretation of Alfred by William and other Anglo-Norman chroniclers see L. W. Miles, King Alfred in Literature (Baltimore, 1902); E. Conybeare, Alfred in the Chroniclers (2nd edn., Cambridge, 1914), who gives extracts in translation, those from William on pp. 188±94.

/3thomson/tcom2.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:25 ± disk/amj

98

COMMENTARY

1 leges inter arma sileant] Cf. Cicero, Pro Milone 11: `Silent enim leges inter arma', Jerome, Epist. cxxvi. 2. 2 `Quodsi iuxta inclitum oratorem silent inter arma leges'. centurias quas dicunt hundrez et decimas quas tithingas uocant instituit . . . centuriam et decimam] William is unique among post-Conquest historians in attributing these institutions to Alfred, and has in the past been heavily criticized for an observation apparently anachronistic and based on nothing more than legend current in his day: Stubbs in GR ii, p. li, D. Whitelock, `William of Malmesbury on the works of King Alfred', in her From Bede to Alfred: Studies in early Anglo-Saxon Literature and History (London, 1980), ch. VII. More recently it has been argued that this constitutes a remarkable example of William's historical insight, based on more than mere fancy and not necessarily entirely incorrect. He was perhaps led to it by two considerations: (1) the evidence from the next reign, readily accessible to him, that these institutions were already in place, and (2) Alfred's ®rst Law, which orders that `each man keep carefully his oath and his pledge'. By William's day this implied the existence of the frankpledge system and thus the division of the population into the appropriate units. The version in Quadripartitus (Alfred 1: 8; Liebermann, Gesetze, i. 49) speaks of `plegius' and `infractura plegii/uadii'. Much of this I owe to Patrick Wormald whose forthcoming book on Anglo-Saxon Law will present the `case for William' in greater detail. 2 ut etiam per publicos aggeres . . . qui eas abriperent] Cf. below, c. 367. 4 (of Turkish rule in Egypt and the Holy Land). There is an obvious parallel with Bede's picture of peace in Northumbria in the days of Edwin (HE ii. 16). Similar stories were told of áthelstan in the Annales de Wintonia (Annales Monastici, ii. 10), of Rollo of Normandy by Robert of Torigni, GND i. 70±1, and of William I and Henry I in ASC (E) s.aa. 1086 and 1135. The theme also appears in Irish and Scandinavian literature of the tenth and twelfth centuries: R. E. W. Flower, The Irish Tradition (Oxford, 1947), pp. 88±92. Elemosinis . . . Marino regi missam] See Stevenson's discussion in Asser, pp. 286±90. A similar account is in ASC s.a. 883 which, however, does not say that Sigehelm was bishop of Sherborne or a bishop at all. William repeats the story in GP, c. 80 (p. 177), where in addition he makes Sigehelm Asser's successor and claims that the jewels brought by him from India were preserved in the church at

/3thomson/tcom2.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:25 ± disk/amj

BOOK II. 122.1±3

99

Sherborne. There is no reason to doubt that William here faithfully represents local (Sherborne) tradition. However, Alfred's envoy, probably a layman, cannot have been the bishop of Sherborne of that name, whose dates are certainly vague (c.909, or 918/25Ð932/4 (HBC, p. 222) ), but in any case later than Alfred's reign; and Asser's successor was called áthelweard. John of Worcester s.a. 883 calls Alfred's envoy Swithhelm and also makes him Asser's successor. He separates his mission to India from Pope Marinus' gift to Alfred which he records under the following year, following Asser (c. 71). ASC records both events s.a. 883, but again clearly separates them, making Marinus' gift precede the taking of alms to Rome and India. Marinus reigned c.Dec. 882Ð15 May 884. munus omni obrizo pretiosius] Isa. 13: 12. 3 alterum in Wintonia . . . hospitio confouerat] William's account of Grimbald seems to be related to two Winchester (New Minster) sources, both of dubious reputation: (1) the Vita prima Grimbaldi (see BHL Suppl., p. 407 s. n.), known only from the extracts used as lections in The Monastic Breviary of Hyde Abbey, Winchester, iv, ed. J. B. L. Tolhurst (Henry Bradshaw Soc., lxxviii: London, 1939), fos. 288±90v, discussed by P. Grierson, `Grimbald of St Bertin's', EHR lv (1940), 529±61, esp. pp. 530±41, and (2) the Letter of Archbishop Fulk of Reims (former abbot of Saint-Bertin) written to King Alfred 8836886, for which see Councils i(1). 6±12, no. 4, Keynes and Lapidge, Alfred the Great, pp. 331±3, and Grierson, pp. 547±50. William's source for this letter was presumably the copy in BL MS Add. 34890, a Gospel-Book written s. xiin probably at Christ Church Canterbury (the `Grimbald Gospels'). The letter, an addition at fos. 158±60v, was written by a New Minster scribe s. xiex; presumably the book had by then been transferred to Winchester from Canterbury. It was there s. xv when the letter was copied from it into the Liber de Hyda (pp. 31±5): Grierson, p. 547 and n. 5. It has been stigmatized on various grounds as partly or wholly a Winchester forgery: J. L. Nelson, `A king across the sea: Alfred in continental perspective', TRHS, 5th ser. xxxvi (1986), 45±68, at pp. 48±9 (`At the very least, the letter has been ``improved'' '), followed by Smyth, King Alfred, pp. 257±9. However, Professor Nelson has changed her views more recently: ` `` . . . sicut olim gens Francorum . . . nunc gens Anglorum'': Fulk's letter to Alfred revisited', in Alfred the Wise, pp. 135±44. Once again I am grateful to Professor Nelson for sending

/3thomson/tcom2.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:25 ± disk/amj

100

COMMENTARY

me her article prior to publication. As Grierson showed, there is good reason to think that Grimbald was sent by Fulk, and nothing in the English materials would enable a putative forger to know this. The Aa version of this passage (see Vol. i, Appendix II, pp. 835±6) shows more clearly than the main text its derivation from the Vita prima (fo. 289r; Grierson, p. 560 and n. 1). Admittedly, the Aa details of Grimbald's of®ces at Saint-Bertin do not appear in the Vita as printed, but that is only a series of extracts from a full version, which William had and we do not. In Al, the Winchester copy of GR, `Grimbaldum abbatem' was erased and replaced not much later than the writing of the main text by `patronum ecclesiae'. This interesting alteration is correct as far as it goes; Grimbald was not made abbot (Grierson, p. 537). See further below, c. 124nn. ®liam suam Elfgiuam] scil. áthelgifu. So Asser, c. 97 (= John of Worcester s.a. 887). But in GP, c. 86 (pp. 186±7), William says that the nunnery was founded by the Elfgiua (álfgifu) who was wife of Edmund I, and who was buried there, probably in 944. John of Worcester is also ambivalent, s.a. 887 quoting Asser, but s.a. 880 giving the same account as William in GP. The second alternative is certainly wrong, since the community was in existence in the previous reign, when grants were made to it by King áthelstan (Sawyer 419, 429, genuine documents dated 932 and 935). Alfred's foundationcharter (Sawyer 357, dated 8716877) would be decisive support for Asser and William in GR, if it were genuine; see the discussion in Smyth, King Alfred, pp. 264±6. An Alfredian foundation is supported by S. E. Kelly, Charters of Shaftesbury Abbey (Anglo-Saxon Charters, v: Oxford, 1996), pp. xiii±xiv and nn., despite her acceptance of the spuriousness of the foundation-charter (her no. 7). Patrick Wormald suggests the possibility of re-foundation, `if Edmund's queen was persuaded by Dunstan to be more ``Benedictine'' than Alfred's daughter is likely to have been' (letter of 20 May 1996). 4 Asserionem . . . Hic sensum librorum Boetii . . . enodauit] So also GP, c. 80 (p. 177), with the interesting comment `labore illis diebus necessario, nostris ridiculo'. 5±6 Iohannes Scottus . . . per secula cuncti] Much the same in GP, c. 240 (pp. 392±4), partly verbatim, but with additional details; more information again is in William's Letter to Peter (ed. Stubbs, GR i, pp. cxliii±cxlvi), which originally prefaced his own copy of John's Periphyseon (see below). Nothing is known of the date or place of the

/3thomson/tcom2.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:25 ± disk/amj

BOOK II. 122.3±6

101

death of John the Scot; it presumably occurred on the Continent c.870: M. Cappuyns, Jean Scot EÂrigeÁne (Louvain and Paris, 1933), pp. 233±8. William seems to have identi®ed John the Scot with `John my priest' named by Alfred himself in his prologue to the translation of Gregory's Pastoral Care (Whitelock, `William of Malmesbury on King Alfred', p. 87). He did not identify him with John the Old Saxon mentioned by Asser (pace Stubbs, GR i. 131 n. 1; ii, p. xlviii) and by William himself (c. 122. 3) as abbot of Athelney. Admittedly he or his source may have been in¯uenced by Asser's story of the attempt on John the Old Saxon's life (cc. 96±7); but Asser's story involves swords, while William's, accomplished by the styli of John's students, recalls Seneca, De clementia i. 15. 1, and the death of St Cassian in Prudentius, Perist. ix, cited by William himself in Mir., c. 27 (p. 117): `Pueri ergo eum martyrem fecerunt, commento malignitatis excogitato ut uibratis graphiorum aculeis inualidae cassarentur manus, eo moreretur asperius quo lentius.' William also identi®ed John the Scot with the martyred `sanctus sophista Iohannes' of the tomb-inscription, thought to be `Iohannes se wisa', mentioned as buried at Malmesbury in the late tenth-century list of `Saints' Resting-Places' (Secgan) ii. 41: F. Liebermann, Die Heiligen Englands (Hanover, 1889), p. 18; see Stevenson in Asser, pp. 335±6. In the end it is indeed possible that this John was John the Old Saxon, and Michael Lapidge has suggested that he `retired' to Malmesbury after his ill-treatment at Athelney: M. Lapidge, `Some Latin poems as evidence for the reign of Athelstan', ASE ix (1981), 61±98, at p. 79 and nn. It is dif®cult to know whether William's identi®cation of `Iohannes sophista' with John the Scot re¯ects earlier local tradition or is a deduction based upon his own interest in the latter, which is well-documented (Thomson, William of Malmesbury, pp. 43±4, 89±92, 150, 204). William had his own copy of John the Scot's Periphyseon (Cambridge, Trinity Coll. MS O. 5. 20), and elsewhere shows that he knew his translation of Dionysius' Celestial Hierarchy (Thomson, William of Malmesbury, pp. 104, 152, 204). William's account of John is analyzed by Cappuyns, Jean Scot ErigeÁne, pp. 252±60. 6 Clauditur . . . per secula cuncti] SK 2573 (MGH Poetae, iii. 522 n. 1). It is recorded only by William, here, in his Letter to Peter (Stubbs, GR i, p. cxlvi), and in GP, c. 240 (p. 394).

/3thomson/tcom2.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:25 ± disk/amj

102

COMMENTARY

123 Based apparently upon Asser, cc. 22±4, 75, 88±9 (not in John of Worcester), 99±104, 106 (= John of Worcester s.aa. 871, 887), and perhaps áthelweard iv. 3 (pp. 50±1). But much in this section is unique. William provides, here and at c. 122. 4, the earliest list of Alfredian translations: of Orosius, Gregory's Dialogues and Pastoral Care, Bede's Historia ecclesiastica, Boethius, De consolatione Philosophiae (c. 122. 4), the Psalter and the Enchiridion or Handboc. See Whitelock, `William of Malmesbury on the works of King Alfred', pp. 78±93, and Smyth, King Alfred, pp. 231±7. Some of this could have come from ®rst-hand knowledge of the works: Alfred names himself in the prologues to the Boethius and Pastoral Care, and is referred to in the Orosius. But William's perhaps extravagant expression `plurimam partem Romanae bibliothecae' (1) may echo áthelweard: `Nam ex Latino rhetorico fasmate in propriam uerterat linguam uolumina, numero ignoto . . .'. Smyth argues that the idea that Wñrferth translated the Dialogues must come ultimately from Asser, for no surviving copy attributes the work to Wñrferth, while in its prologue Alfred himself says that the work was translated by his `true friends': H. Hecht (ed.), Bischof Wñrferths von Worcester È bersetzung der Dialoge Gregors des Grossen (2 vols.: Leipzig, 1900±7), U i. 1; on the question of Wñrferth's authorship see K. Sisam, Studies in the History of Old English Literature (Oxford, 1953), pp. 201±3, 225± 31. The reference to Boethius may have come from áthelweard iv. 3 (pp. 50±1), but the mention of Asser explaining the work to Alfred is unique to William. I do not think (pace Whitelock, p. 90, Smyth, King Alfred, p. 232) that William simply inferred from Asser's Life that he was `the king's tutor par excellence' and therefore would have helped him with his translation. The translations of Bede and Orosius are not now ascribed to Alfred: on the Bede translation see the review of earlier opinion in J. Bately, `Old English prose before and during the reign of Alfred', ASE xvii (1988), 93±138, at p. 98 and nn; on the Orosius see id. (ed.), The Old English Orosius (EETS, suppl. ser. vi: London, 1980), pp. lxxiii±lxxxvi and esp. lxxiv±lxxv. Yet the translation of Bede was regarded as Alfred's by álfric (The Sermones Catholici or Homilies of álfric, ed. B. Thorpe (2 vols.: álfric Society, London, 1844±6), ii. 116±18), and Whitelock (p. 88) notes that the Worcester copy of the OE Bede includes a West Saxon genealogy and regnal list ending with Alfred. So William may have put together current tradition and the evidence of his manuscript. William apparently omits Alfred's translation of Augustine's Soliloquies (but

/3thomson/tcom2.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:25 ± disk/amj

BOOK II. 123±123.1

103

see below, 1n). His comments on Alfred's building programme, perhaps expanded from Asser, c. 91 (= John of Worcester s.a. 884), are unique. 1 plurimam partem Romanae bibliothecae] Misunderstood by the twelfth-century Liber Eliensis (ed. E. O. Blake, RHS Camden 3rd ser., xcii (1962), i. 39) to mean the Bible: `in breui librorum omnium notitiam haberet totumque Nouum et Vetus Testamentum in eulogiam Anglice gentis transmutaret.' liber proprius quem patria lingua Enchiridion (Handboc B), id est, manualem librum appellauit] The B reading makes better sense of `patria lingua'. Cf. Asser, c. 89: `Quem enchiridion suum, id est manualem librum, nominari uoluit'. Whitelock, `William of Malmesbury on the Works of Alfred', pp. 90±1, followed by Smyth, King Alfred, pp. 232±4, speculates that what William really saw was a copy of Alfred's translation of the Soliloquies. In favour of this is William's omission of the Soliloquies by that name from his list of the king's translation projects, even though the Soliloquies' epilogue mentions Alfred as translator. However, in GP, cc. 188, 190 (pp. 332± 3, 336), William describes the contents of something which he thought was Alfred's Handboc, and they are certainly not part of the text of the Soliloquies, or notes to it: `Qui enim legit Manualem librum regis Elfredi, repperiet Kenten, beati Aldhelmi patrem, non fuisse regis Inae germanum, sed artissima necessitudine consanguineum'; `Denique commemorat Elfredus carmen triuiale, quod adhuc uulgo cantitatur, Aldelmum fecisse . . .' (and the anecdote following). William's source for these items may possibly be connected with the `Dicta Alfredi', referred to (1) in JW Accounts, p. 272, as an authority for the succession of Seaxburh in 674 by Cenfus rather than áscwine, and (2) the passage headed `Angulsaxonum regis álfredi ueredici dicta', in the margin of fo. 233 of CUL MS Kk. 4. 6, partly written by John of Worcester, containing William's Liber pont. The passage is an extract from a lost Life of Jerome, relating how he was despised for his poor clothing when he visited Pope Siricius, and how Pope Gregory avenged the insult by extinguishing the lights burning at Siricius' tomb: Levison, pp. 424±7; Whitelock, `William of Malmesbury', pp. 90±1; id., `The prose of Alfred's reign', in her From Bede to Alfred, ch. VI, pp. 72±3. William obviously identi®ed the Handboc with the Enchiridion mentioned by Asser, cc. 24, 88±9, and the book itself, or what William thought was it, may have been at

/3thomson/tcom2.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:25 ± disk/amj

104

COMMENTARY

Worcester or even Malmesbury in William's time. See C. Plummer, The Life and Times of Alfred the Great (Oxford, 1902), pp. 140±1; Keynes and Lapidge, Alfred the Great, p. 268 n. 208. Pace Whitelock (`The prose', p. 73), I see nothing remarkable in William having omitted the Soliloquies from his list of Alfred's translations: the only surviving copy (BL MS Cotton Vitell. A. xv, fos. 4±59v) is probably later than William's time (`s. xiimed' according to Ker, Anglo-Saxon, no. 215), and only one other is known to have existed (at Christ Church Canterbury s. xi). 2 Psalterium . . . uix prima parte explicata uiuendi ®nem fecit] William is the earliest authority to ascribe this translation to Alfred, and modern scholarship is in agreement with him: J. Bately, `Lexical evidence for the authorship of the prose psalms in the Paris Psalter', ASE x (1982), 69±95, A. J. Frantzen, King Alfred (Twayne's English Authors Series, ccccxxv: Boston, 1986), p. 91. By `prima parte' William means the ®rst ®fty Psalms, which is indeed all that Alfred translated. Whitelock (`The Prose', pp. 70±1) and Smyth (King Alfred, p. 246) are surely wrong to say that William `was misled by the fact that the Old English translation of the psalms which he consulted . . . only contained the ®rst ®fty Psalms and from that he guessed the work was left un®nished' (his conjecture, if that is what it is, is surely reasonable and may after all be correct) and that `What Malmesbury may not have taken into consideration was that it was normal in the ninth century to divide the Psalter into three groups of ®fty Psalms'. It was also normal in the twelfth century. 2±3 In prologo . . . hausisse] King Alfred's West-Saxon Version of Gregory's Pastoral Care, ed. H. Sweet (2 vols.: EETS, orig. ser. xlv, l: London, 1871±2), i. 2±9; trans. Keynes and Lapidge, Alfred the Great, pp. 124±6. Of the six surviving copies (Ker, Anglo-Saxon, nos. 19, 30, 87, 175, 195, 324), CUL MS Ii. 2. 4 was made at Exeter; Bodl. Libr., MS Hatton 20 was sent to Worcester on Alfred's orders, and Cambridge, Corpus Christi Coll. MS 12 was there by s. xiiiin; Trinity Coll. MS R. 5. 22 omits the preface; BL MS Cotton Otho B. ii has no provenance (but probably London area); and MS Cotton Tiberius B. xi was perhaps from Winchester. It is most likely, therefore, that William used one of the Worcester copies. 3 cum pugillari aureo in quo esset manca auri] `pugillar' is William's translation of the ñstel mentioned in Alfred's Prologue to Gregory's Pastoral Care, the meaning of which is regarded as

/3thomson/tcom2.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:25 ± disk/amj

BOOK II. 123.1±4

105

uncertain. Bosworth and Toller, p. 20, follow William in describing it as a diptych, or hinged pair of tablets containing wax for writing. More recently it has been related to Latin `hasta', and described as a pointer used when reading out loud, or a book-mark: B. Harbert, `King Alfred's ñstel ', ASE iii (1974), 103±10; D. Howlett, `Alfred's ñstel ', English Philological Studies, xiv (1975), 65±74; Keynes and Lapidge, Alfred the Great, p. 205. In Alfred's Prologue the ñstel is said to be worth ®fty mancuses of gold (ed. Sweet, pp. 7±8), which seems a great deal of money for such a small object as a pointer or markerÐ or even a diptych. It is hard to believe that William's copy had a substantially different text from the surviving manuscripts. Perhaps he mistranslated or his memory failed him or, as Whitelock suggests, he mistranscribed a roman numeral (`i' for `l'); and yet his ®gure of one mancus seems more credible. 4 Asser, c. 104 (= John of Worcester s.a. 887), speaks of six candles each divided into twelve-inch sections, which is not chronologically intelligible; he says nothing of an attendant. William's account, whether independent or an interpretation of Asser, at least makes sense. His mention of Alfred's division of twenty-four hours into three sections of eight is unique. 4±5 Dimidiam portionem . . . transmarinis aecclesiis] William's account is a somewhat free rendition of Asser, cc. 99±102 (= John of Worcester s.a. 887), except for one serious misunderstanding. According to Asser it was the whole of the king's revenue that was divided into two; only a quarter of the part `marked out for God' went to support his two monastic foundations. The misunderstanding of Asser's clumsy wording is not hard to account for; it would be even easier if William was using something like John of Worcester's summary of Asser at this point (McGurk, pp. 328±31). 4 nouarum edium extructionibus . . . habebat] Apparently referring in particular to the building of the monastic church at Athelney: cf. GP c. 92 (p. 199), `nouo edi®candi modo compactum. Quattuor enim postes solo in®xi totam suspendunt machinam, quattuor cancellis opere sperico in circuitu ductis'. See further Keynes and Lapidge, Alfred the Great, p. 271 n. 228; A. W. Clapham, English Romanesque Architecture I: Before the Conquest (Oxford, 1930), pp. 147±8; S. Keynes, `George Harbin's transcript of the lost cartulary of Athelney Abbey', Somerset Archaeology and Natural

/3thomson/tcom2.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:25 ± disk/amj

106

COMMENTARY

History, cxxxvi (1992), 149±59, and the resistivity survey reported in ibid., cxxxvii (1993), 142±3. 5 Iuditiorum . . . factorum inquisitor, perperam actorum asperrimus corrector] Cf. Asser, c. 106 (= John of Worcester s.a. 887): `Erat rex in exequendis iudiciis . . . discretissimus indagator'. Ethelswida . . . Adulfum] So áthelweard, prol. (p. 2); but for William's `Ethelswida' read `Elfride', i.e. `álfthryth' (see above, c. 121. 13n). The Flemings named are Baldwin II, count of Flanders (879±918), Arnulf I, count of Flanders (918±65), and Adulf count of Boulogne (918±35). 124. 1 Ad cuius of®cinas . . . pensitauit] Although William clearly believed that Alfred was the founder of Winchester New Minster (c. 122. 3 above), this passage as it stands follows oddly after the sentence recording his death. It is repeated in GP, c. 78 (p. 173), except that better sense is created by making its subject áthelwold. The Aac addition of `Edwardus ®lius eius' is even more plausible, since it agrees with the introduction to the Liber vitae of the New Minster: BL MS Stowe 944, pp. 5±6, facsimile edn. S. Keynes, The Liber Vitae of the New Minster and Hyde Abbey Winchester (Early English MSS in Facsimile, xxvi: Copenhagen, 1996), also ed. W. de G. Birch (Hampshire Record Soc., 1892), p. 4: `Aelfredo rege . . . humanis rebus exempto, ®lius ipsius Eaduuardus . . . feliciter regni apicem excepit . . . Hic . . . dicitur a ponti®ce huiusce diocesis petisse quo sibi mutua uicissitudine tantum terrae proprii iuris annueret, quatinus monasterium regalibus usibus haud indecens stabiliri quiret. Cuius benignissimi regis talibus uotis presul uetusti monasterii libentissime assensum tribuens, insuper reciproca uice non modicam pretiosissimi metalli quantitatem percipiens, redemit deuotissimus princeps uniuscuiusque passus istius loci summam ab illo.' This is reproduced nearly verbatim in King Edward's ostensible foundation charter of the New Minster of 903 (Sawyer 370), probably forged long after William's day. Otherwise, for the contents of this section William appears to have used the Vita prima Grimbaldi (see above, c. 122. 3n). The story of the foundation of New Minster by Alfred, for which he is the earliest authority, may have been his inference from the Vita, against the Liber vitae, which he does seem to have known. Even William was not certain about the details; in GP he says that Alfred built a `monasterium . . . et in eo canonicos posuerat, Grimbaldo quodam Flandrensi

/3thomson/tcom2.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:25 ± disk/amj

BOOK II. 123.4±125

107

suadente', and that it was áthelwold who substituted monks and nominated the ®rst abbot, áthelgar. The consensus of modern scholarship is that Alfred built for Grimbald a monasteriolum, and that the latter encouraged King Edward to proceed with the foundation of a new monastery as Alfred had wished: Ridyard, Royal Saints, pp. 31±2 and n. 78; but see Smyth, King Alfred, pp. 255±9. Stupenda . . . sacri®tium] An obscure passage, presumably referring to the division of Alfred's revenues described in c. 123. 4± 5. The sense seems to be that Alfred paid for his new foundation with money from that part of his revenues assigned to ?monasteries, not from that assigned to the poor. unde cum propter hoc, tum propter cetera plurimas infelix liuor . . . insignitur] Similarly GP, c. 78 (pp. 173±4). Local sources, Annales de Wintonia (Annales Monastici, ii. 3±125), Liber de Hyda, and the Liber vitae of the New Minster, say virtually nothing about friction between the houses before 1110, when the New Minster was moved to its new site (Hyde). But Ridyard, Royal Saints, pp. 111±12, suggests some possibilities. 2 Aiunt Elfredum . . . composuisse] The bare fact of the translation of Alfred's body by Edward, true despite William's scepticism, is given in the Liber vitae, ed. Birch, p. 5; similarly Liber de Hyda, pp. 61±2, 76, mentioning the assertion about Alfred's ghost to which William objected: `pro deliramento canonicorum, dicentium regios manes resumpto cadauere noctibus per domos oberrare'. The king's body was retranslated from the New Minster to Hyde Abbey in 1110. Has sane naenias . . . ®guras] Nonetheless this was apparently believed by such a distinguished churchman as Bishop Hugh of Lincoln, according to the story told s.a. 1196 by William of Newburgh v. 22 (Chronicles of the Reigns of Stephen, Henry II, and Richard I, ed. R. Howlett (4 vols.: RS, 1884±9), ii. 474±6). Morte . . . ®guras] Virgil, Aen. x. 641: `morte obita qualis fama est uolitare ®guras'. 125 Based upon ASC s.aa. 901 (DEF) (recte 900), 903±24, (?source of) John of Worcester s.a. 901, with expansion and addition, including some Gloucester material. And yet William has confused the two Gloucester houses of St Peter and St Oswald. He does not do so above, c. 49. 10, or in GP, c. 155 (p. 293).

/3thomson/tcom2.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:25 ± disk/amj

108

COMMENTARY

1 Eduardus ®lius Elfredi . . . manum habuerit] So similar is the wording to John of Worcester s.a. 901 (McGurk, p. 354), that either one must have copied from the other or, more probably, both were dependent upon a common source. This may of course have been Florence. In GP, c. 246 (p. 396), William says that Edward reigned for twenty-four years. Either he had by then gained access to a version of ASC with the correct accession-date of 900, or he did the sort of recalculation characteristic of the B version of GR (see above, c. 15. 1n). In fact Edward reigned for twenty-®ve years, Oct. 899±17 July 924 (HBC, p. 24). 2 Inuenit ingenium . . . scientia prestarent] This important information is peculiar to William. It is oddly similar to Asser's account of Alfred's building of forti®cations (c. 91; John of Worcester s.a. 887), and surely William would have accredited the work to Alfred had he known of it. How did he come to connect it with the reign of Edward? It may be that he knew and had studied a version of the Burghal Hidage. This is only datable from internal evidence, but William was certainly capable of using this evidence to derive at least its terminus ante quem. This is 914, the date of construction of Buckingham, which William could have found in ASC s.a. On the system and the document describing it see D. Hill, `The Burghal Hidage: the establishment of a text', Medieval Archaeology, xiii (1969), 84±92, P. Wormald in Campbell, The Anglo-Saxons, pp. 152±3, and The Defence of Wessex, ed. D. Hill and A. Rumble (Manchester, 1996), esp. ch. 3. 4 William's picture of áthel¯ñd is discussed by C. Fell, Women in Anglo-Saxon England (Oxford, 1984), pp. 92±3. See also F. T. Wainwright, `áthel¯ñd, lady of the Mercians', in The AngloSaxons: Studies . . . presented to Bruce Dickins, ed. P. Clemoes (London, 1959), pp. 53±69. Ethel¯eda . . . non mediocre momentum partium, fauor ciuium] Cf. Justin xiii. 6. 12, of Olympias: `non mediocre momentum partium ex ciuium fauore'. The meaning is that she made a lot of difference to whichever side she supported. 5 Decessit ante germanum . . . instaurauit] As above, c. 125 (see note ad loc.), William has con¯ated two separate religious houses at Gloucester: (1) St Oswald's, founded c.900 as a canonry, from 1152 an Augustinian priory, to which the relics of Oswald were brought in

/3thomson/tcom2.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:25 ± disk/amj

BOOK II. 125.1±126

109

909; (2) St Peter's abbey, founded c.681 as a nunnery or double house, refounded at least three times before the Conquest. In GP, c. 155 (p. 293), William says that Archbishop Thurstan of York, when restoring the shrine of St Oswald, discovered the tombs of the founders in the south `porticus'. Aldredus . . . instaurauit] ASC s.a. 1058, referring to St Peter's abbey. The Aa substitution (see below, Appendix II, p. 410) is obviously local information from Gloucester. It is the view re¯ected in the Historia et cartularium monasterii Sancti Petri Gloucestriae, ed. W. H. Hart (3 vols.: RS, 1863±7), i. 10±13. 126 The source of William's genealogical information is unknown. He provides much more detail than ASC, áthelweard, prol. (p. 2), John of Worcester s.a. 901, or JW Accounts, p. 274. For discussion see Stubbs, GR ii, pp. li±liv, HBC, pp. 24±5, and R. L. Poole, `Burgundian notes, I: the Alpine son-in-law of Edward the Elder', EHR xxvi (1911), 310±17. William's áthelweard is álfweard. The wife called Ecgwynn is ®rst mentioned by William. She was possibly related to the family of St Dunstan: B. A. Yorke, `áthelwold and the politics of the tenth century', in Bishop áthelwold: his Career and In¯uence, ed. B. A. Yorke (Woodbridge, 1988), pp. 65±88, at 66±7, 69. Below William records traditions that áthelstan was born of a concubine (c. 131. 2), or illegitimately of a woman of low birth (c. 139. 1±2). I do not think (pace Yorke, p. 69) that William intended to identify these persons with Ecgwynn. The marriages mentioned are: (1) Eadgifu (I) to Charles the Simple, king of the West Franks (898±923); (2) an unnamed daughter to Sihtric, Danish king in Northumbria (in 926; for the unhappy outcome see Smyth, King Alfred, p. 96); (3) Eadhild to Hugh the Great, count of Paris and dux Francorum (d. 956; see below, cc. 128. 2n, 135. 2n); (4) Eadgyth (not álfgifu, as William wrongly states) to Otto I (see below, c. 135. 1±2 and nn.). (5) It has been recently suggested that Eadgifu (II) and álfgifu were one and the same and married to Louis, brother of Rudolf II, king of upper Burgundy: E. Hlawitschka, `Die verwandtschaftlichen Verbindungen zwischen dem hochburgundischen und dem niederburgundischen KoÈnigshaus. Zugleich ein Beitrag zur Geschichte Burgunds in der 1. HaÈlfte des 10. Jahrhunderts', Grundwissenschaften und Geschichte: Festschrift fuÈr Peter Acht, ed. W. SchloÈgl and P. Herde (KallmuÈnz, 1976), pp. 28± 57, at 52±6; S. Keynes, `King Athelstan's books', in Learning and

/3thomson/tcom2.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:25 ± disk/amj

110

COMMENTARY

Literature in Anglo-Saxon England, ed. M. Lapidge and H. Gneuss (Cambridge, 1985), pp. 143±201, at 148 n. 27, 191 n. 232; and K. Leyser, `The Ottonians and Wessex', in his Communications and Power in Medieval Europe: The Carolingian and Ottonian Centuries, ed. T. Reuter (London and Rio Grande, Oh., 1994), pp. 73±104, at 84±5. 3 quasi philosophi ad gubernandam rempublicam] Cf. Plato, Republ. v. 18, presumably quoted via Jerome, Comm. in Ionam 3: 6 (PL xxv. 1143A), or Lactantius, Inst. iii. 21. 6 (the latter rare, but known to William: Thomson, William of Malmesbury, p. 42). William quotes it again, naming Plato, below, cc. 390. 1, 449. 1, and in GP, c. 75 (p. 160). He was not the only or the earliest medieval writer to do so; see for instance Sigebert of Gembloux, Vita Deoderici episcopi Mettensis, c. 7 (MGH SS, iv, 1841, p. 467). 127. 1 Primo Hasteng] William correctly identi®es Hñsten the invader of England, whom he knew from ASC s.aa. 892±3, with Hñsten ancestor of the Norman dukes: on later interest in this man see F. Amory, `The Viking Hasting in Franco-Scandinavian legend', in Saints, Scholars and Heroes: Studies in Medieval Culture in Honour of Charles W. Jones, ed. M. H. King and W. Stevens (2 vols.: Minneapolis, 1979), ii. 265±86. 2±3 Itaque piraticam . . . reseruabat] Almost verbatim as Mir., c. 8 (p. 81), written between c.1125 and c.1137. The sources are Dominic of Evesham's Miracula B.V.M. (unprinted; see R. W. Southern, `The English origins of the ``Miracles of the Virgin'' ', Medieval and Renaissance Studies, iv (1958), 176±216, at p. 178 n. 1 for manuscripts), and William of JumieÁges, GND i. 62±3 (based on Dudo ii. 22±3; p. 162). William is wrong in placing the siege before 876; it took place on 20 July 911: J. Lair, Le sieÁge de Chartres par les Normands, 911 (Caen, 1902); H. Prentout, EÂtude critique sur Dudon de Saint-Quentin et son histoire des premiers ducs normands (Caen, 1915), pp. 191±6, app. iii, pp. 445±7. The various versions of the siege and associated legend, and the later in¯uence of William's account, are discussed in P. N. Carter, `An edition of William of Malmesbury's treatise on the miracles of the Virgin', D.Phil. thesis (2 vols.: Oxford, 1959), ii. 358±68. 3 Nec multo post . . . sed non expulit] William of JumieÁges, GND i. 50±3.

/3thomson/tcom2.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:25 ± disk/amj

BOOK II. 126±128.2

111

3±4 At uero Karolus . . . diem clausit] Ibid. i. 62±7. 4 Vbi considerari . . . morem] Cf. Dudo of St Quentin ii. 29 (p. 169). The retelling by Robert of Torigni, GND i. 66±7, written after 1138, is too late for William to have used it. Another version, with some delightfully legendary details not in William or Dudo, is in the Chron. Turonense (pp. 359±60), written in or soon after 1137: `Hic non est dignatus pedem Caroli osculari, nisi ad os suum leuaret. Cumque sui comites illum ammonerent, ut pedem regis in acceptione tanti muneris oscularetur, lingua Anglica respondit ``Ne se bigoth'', quod interpretatur, ``Non per Deum.'' Rex uero et sui illum deridentes et sermonem eius corrupte referentes, illum uocauerunt Bigoth, unde Normanni adhuc Bigothi dicuntur.' The event is brie¯y reported in the Liber de compositione castri Ambaziae (Anjou Chronicles, p. 23), written a few years after 1148. clausit + anno ducatus quadragesimo secundo T] The T reading would presumably give the date of Rollo's death as 953 (calculating from 911), which is impossible, since his successor was in of®ce by 933. The actual date is unknown, but Rollo is usually assumed to have died between 928 and 933 (GND i. 73 n. 3). 128 Stubbs in GR ii, pp. xxxiii±xxxvii, discusses fully the many confusions and errors in this section. As Freeman says in Norman Conquest, i. 184 n. 1: `[William] utterly confounds the whole genealogy and history of the Parisian Dukes'. He seems to have confused the reign of Louis IV with that of Louis III, who fought the Norsemen at Saucourt in 881; he con¯ates the Hugh who distinguished himself under Louis III with (1) Hugh the Great, Edward's son-in-law, with (2) Hugh Capet, king of France 987±96, and perhaps with (3) Eudo son of Robert the Strong (d. 886), king of the West Franks 888±98. 1 Is a quodam Isambardo . . . interemit] Other writers attach this legend to Louis the Pious; according to Hariulf, Chronicon Centulense, iii. 20 (pp. 141±3), Isembard assisted a Norse chief called Guaramund against Louis III at the battle of Saucourt. 2 Hugo alteram ®liam Eduardi duxit uxorem] That is, Eadhild (c. 126. 2). Ludouicum qui nunc in Frantia regnat] This is one of the two descriptions habitually used by William for the Capetian monarchs, the other being `king of the French' (the normal term used by Suger,

/3thomson/tcom2.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:25 ± disk/amj

112

COMMENTARY

Vita Ludovici, prol., cc. 1, 10, 15; pp. 4, 50, 88, etc.). Scarcely ever, and then only late in GR, does he say `king of France'; and indeed such a description would not have been accurate. Still in William's own day the authority of the Capetian monarchs scarcely extended beyond the Ile de France; it was ineffective in Normandy, Flanders, and south of the Loire. Representative of the modern view is E. Hallam, Capetian France 987±1328 (London, 1980), p. 11: `In 1108 the new French king, Louis VI, was the master only of a small and ill-disciplined principality centred on Paris and OrleÂans . . . . He was little more powerful than his predecessors.' It is not clear that William made a distinction between `Gaul' and `France': see Lugge, ``Gallia'' und ``Francia'' im Mittelalter, pp. 169±82. 129 An abbreviated version of a document printed in Councils, i(1). 167±9 (no. 35), a forgery made between 952 and 988. See the comments in ibid., pp. 164±5, and those of Stubbs, GR i. 140 n. 3, ii, pp. liv±lx, attempting to sort possible fact from ®ction. The basis was probably the (partly) genuine letter of Pope Formosus (JL 3506; Councils, i(1). no. 8, dated 891/6), which William copied in GP, c. 38 (pp. 59±61). For the textual af®liations of William's version of the forgery with other south-western English rather than Canterbury copies, see Thomson, William of Malmesbury, p. 135 and n. 84. To the witnesses of the `south-west English' tradition there cited, add Bodl. Libr., MS Bodl. 579, the Leofric Missal, which includes an early copy of the Formosus document on fo. 2. William also copied the document into his Liber pont. (Levison, pp. 386±8). One would expect a close relationship between the versions in GR and Liber pont., and this was demonstrated by Levison, pp. 386±7 n. 3. 1 Anno . . . quattuor] The other witnesses give the date as 905, except for BL MS Cotton Vitellius C. viii (a later version of John of Worcester), which has 908. I cannot account for William's date, but it must be an error on his part, since the version in his own Liber pont. has 905. quam beatus . . . tradita est] See above, pp. xx±xxi. Here T is clearly superior to all the other redactions; it includes information contained verbatim in William's source, which has been omitted from the later states of GR through the occurrence of eye-skip early on. omnis regio Gewisorum, id est Westsaxonum] `id est Westsaxonum' is a gloss. It is not found in the version in William's Liber

/3thomson/tcom2.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:25 ± disk/amj

BOOK II. 128.2±130

113

pont., but `uel uuest saxonum' was added above the line to the copy in Bodl. Libr., MS Bodl. 579. The name `Gewisse' was already out-ofdate by Bede's day, but was occasionally revived in charters: see Plummer in Bede, HE II, p. 89, Councils, i(1), p. 168 n. 1, Keynes and Lapidge, Alfred the Great, p. 229 n. 3. 2 messis . . . pauci] Matt. 9: 37 = Luke 10: 2. archiepiscopus Romam . . . maxime placuit] áthelweard iv. 4 (p. 52) says that Plegmund took the alms of the people and of King Edward to Rome in 908. 3 uno die . . . ordinauit] Brie¯y mentioned in GP, c. 13 (p. 20), with cross-reference (added over the line in the autograph), and, in more detail, c. 80 (pp. 177±8). The historical fact lying behind this probably legendary story is the increase in the number of West Saxon dioceses from two to ®ve, probably made soon after 909. The new creations were Crediton, Wells and Ramsbury. The statement that Wessex was without a bishop for seven years is false (Councils, i(1), p. 168 n. 2). septem episcopos . . . Dorcestre] Frithestan is accredited to Winchester 909±932/3 (HBC, p. 223), Wñrstan to Sherborne c.909±9186925 (ibid., p. 222), áthelhelm to Wells c.909±923/5 (ibid.), Eadwulf to Crediton c.909±34 (ibid., p. 215), Beornheah to Selsey c.9096927 (ibid., p. 221). Cenwulf of Dorchester does not appear elsewhere, but can be ®tted into the gap between 892 and 925 (Councils, i(1), p. 169 n. 5). William was confused about the see held by áthelstan (ibid., p. 168 n. 5). His exemplar, like other extant copies, doubtless read `Coruinensem', from `coruus' (raven), for `Hrñfn's burh' = Ramsbury; E. Ekwall, The Concise Oxford Dictionary of English Place-Names (4th edn., Oxford, 1960), p. 380. In MS C of his Liber pont. ( John of Worcester's copy) the reading is `Corbinensem', corrected to `Coruinensem'. William understandably saw this as a degraded form of `Cornubiensem'. But he knew that something was wrong, so in GP, c. 80 (p. 178), he gave áthelstan twice, once for Cornwall, the second time `Wiltensi pago . . . in Ramesberia'. This was followed by John of Worcester, in a marginal addition to Oxford, Corpus Christi Coll. MS 157, s.a. 909; see McGurk, p. 362 n. 5. In HBC (p. 220) áthelstan is assigned to Ramsbury c.9096927. 130 Eduardus . . . quiescit in eodem monasterio quo pater] So also the Annales de Wintonia (Annales Monastici, ii. 10).

/3thomson/tcom2.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:25 ± disk/amj

114

COMMENTARY

quod ipse . . . ampliauerat] `Iste dedit ecclesiae Wintoniensi quatuor maneria, scilicet Husseburnam, Witchurche, Owertonam, et unam Stokam. Dedit et nouo monasterio, quod pater suus erexit in Wintonia, praedia multa' (ibid.). in quo et ante quadriennium fratrem Ethelwerdum sepelierat] i.e. 920/1; not in ASC. John of Worcester s.a. 922 gives the date of his death as 16 Oct., and agrees with William that he was buried at Winchester (in the New Minster); presumably they were dependent upon the same source. We may conjecture that this was a Worcester one, since John gives a more precise date than William, who may have been working from notes or memory. 131±40 form another of the almost monographic points of concentration in William's history: his treatment of the reign of áthelstan (924±39). This was an interest which continued over time, as shown by altered readings in the B redaction (see above, pp. xxviii±xxix). The ten sections really divide into four: (1) c. 131, a summary of the king's acts and achievements to the battle of Brunanburh, derived from William's usual sources and adding little or nothing to them; (2) cc. 132±5, traversing the king's reign all over again, once more climaxing with Brunanburh, all taken from an `ancient volume' which William had just found; (3) cc. 136±8. 1, áthelstan's donation to Malmesbury; (4) cc. 138. 6Ð140, `alternative' views of the king's character, derived from popular tales and advanced by William sceptically. See D. Dumville, `Between Alfred the Great and Edgar the Peaceable: áthelstan, ®rst king of England', in his Wessex and England from Alfred to Edgar (Woodbridge, 1992), pp. 141±71. Dumville, however, discounts too readily the evidence drawn by William from his `ancient volume' (see below, c. 132 nn). 131 Basically ASC s.aa. 924, 926±7, 937 (E); cf. John of Worcester s.aa. 924±6. For the battle of Brunanburh William clearly did not know the famous entry in ASC (ABCD), entirely in alliterative verse, for that would have told him that Constantine was not himself killed. On the other hand William did have access to saga-material independent of ASC: Wright, Cultivation of Saga, pp. 144±6, 156±7. ASC s.a. 940 says that áthelstan reigned fourteen years and ten weeks; William has made his own estimate of sixteen years, a correct deduction from ASC's dates of accession and death. Stubbs in

/3thomson/tcom2.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:25 ± disk/amj

BOOK II. 130±131.4

115

Memorials, p. lxxiv n., discusses the vague and con¯icting evidence for the length of áthelstan's reign (and see HBC, pp. 25±6). 1 Elwardus] scil. álfweard, rightly, though William calls him `Ethelward' at cc. 121. 13 and 135. 6. 2 quod Ethelstanus ex concubina natus esset] See below, c. 139. 2. Similarly Hrotsvitha of Gandersheim, Gesta Ottonis, lines 79±124, in Hrotsvithae Opera, ed. H. Homeyer (Munich etc., 1970), pp. 409±10. Noua monasteria] áthelstan was credited with the foundation of a house at Exeter (see below, c. 134. 6±7n), and William himself says that he was responsible for the foundations of Milton Abbas (Dorset) and Muchelney (Somerset): GP, cc. 85, 93 (pp. 186, 199±200). uix aliquod . . . decorauit] Some books from áthelstan's benefactions survive; they are identi®ed and studied by S. Keynes, `King Athelstan's books', in Lapidge and Gneuss, Learning and Literature in Anglo-Saxon England, pp. 143±201. 3 Cum Sihtrico rege Northanimbrorum . . . sibi subegit] King of Danish Northumbria; he married one of áthelstan's sisters in 925, dying in the following year. See above, c. 126n. expulso quodam Aldulfo] An apparent slip for Ealdred (son of Eadwulf): ASC (D) s.a. 926 (recte 927); John of Worcester s.a. 926. The `sons of Eadwulf' are mentioned in ASC (A) s.a. 923 (recte 920). Iudualum regem omnium Walensium, Constantinum regem Scottorum] The kings are Idwal Foel ab Anarawd, d. 942 ( J. E. Lloyd, A History of Wales (2 vols.: 3rd edn., London, 1939), i. 337), and Constantine, king of Scots 900±45. Instead of the former, ASC (D) s.a. 926 (recte 927) has `Hywel, king of the West Welsh' (= Hywel the Good, d. 949/50) and `Owain, king of the people of Gwynedd', presumably meaning Hywel's son of that name. 4 Brunefeld (Bruneford A)] The Brunanburh of ASC. Near to William's spellings are `Brunfort' (Liber de Hyda, p. 123), and `Bruningafelda' in Sawyer 439, 443 (áthelstan, ad 937 and 938, but both Winchester forgeries), and the Annales Wintonienses and Cicestrenses, ed. F. Liebermann, Ungedruckte anglo-normannische Geschichtsquellen (Strassburg, 1879), pp. 68, 88. Other spellings are collected by Plummer in Two Saxon Chronicles, ii. 140±1. quateret dulci resonantia ®la tumultu] Cf. Statius, Achill. ii. 157±8: `quam ®la sonantia plectro / cum quaterem'. It is echoed again in VD i. 6 (p. 257): `Ipse citharam . . . dulci strepitu resonantia ®la

/3thomson/tcom2.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:25 ± disk/amj

116

COMMENTARY

quatere'. Compare William's story of Alfred doing much the same thing, above, c. 121. 5. Both stories are rendered suspicious by the repetition. 6 episcopum quendam] Said in GP, c. 80 (p. 178), to have been Wñrstan, bishop of Sherborne, but this cannot be right, as his dates are c.909±9186925. The bishop in 937 was Alfred; HBC, p. 222. pro uiridantis campi aequore] Cf. Virgil, Aen. vii. 781, xii. 710: `aequore campi'. 6±7 gladius eius . . . inuenit ensem] Cf. GP, c. 14 (p. 21), with cross-reference (added over the line in the autograph), although there the miracle is ascribed to the prayers of Oda, then bishop of Ramsbury, later archbishop of Canterbury. Later, in c. 73 (p. 144), Bishop Theodred of London is said to have aided him. Later again, in c. 246 (p. 397), the aid of Aldhelm is again speci®ed, with no mention of the living bishops. Clearly the story was available, perhaps orally, in several versions, which William never reconciled. 7 cum omnia . . . ceci tumultus plena essent] Cf. Virgil, Georg. i. 464: `caecos instare tumultus'; Lucan ix. 1007±8: `plena tumultu / litora'. Aldelmo (erat enim ei ex antiquis progenitoribus consanguineus B)] This addition probably represents William's most considered view on the subject; see above, Letter 2n. Est sane . . . receptibilis] The B version's omission of `ut aiunt' may be signi®cant. Does it mean that William had by the time of that redaction viewed the royal treasures, perhaps kept at Winchester? 132±5 All this material, William claims, he found very recently `in quodam . . . uolumine uetusto'. Evidently the discovery was made after he had already written c. 131, since at c. 132 his account effectively begins all over again with áthelstan's birth and upbringing. William tells us that the ancient book contained details of áthelstan's education, and that it was written when the king was still alive. Since it was written in bombastic (presumably hermeneutic) Latin, and was substantially panegyric, William decided not to quote it verbatim, but to summarize it `in ordinary language'. But the date, character, and utility of William's source have recently become controversial. Lapidge, `Some Latin poems as evidence for the reign of Athelstan', pp. 62±71, draws a distinction between the `ancient book', which he thinks was in prose and from which William chose

/3thomson/tcom2.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:25 ± disk/amj

BOOK II. 131.4±135

117

not to quote because of its barbarous style, and what he regards as an evidently much later poem from which William does. The traditional view is defended by M. Wood, `The making of King áthelstan's empire: an English Charlemagne?', in Ideal and Reality in Frankish and Anglo-Saxon Society: Studies presented to J. M. Wallace-Hadrill, ed. P. Wormald (Oxford, 1983), pp. 250±72, at 265±7, and comparison of both arguments is made by S. Keynes in Lapidge and Gneuss, Learning and Literature in Anglo-Saxon England, p. 144 n. 15. Since then the traditional position has been again argued for, brie¯y, by L. Simpson, `The King Alfred/St Cuthbert episode', in Bonner, Stancliffe, and Rollason, St Cuthbert, pp. 402±3. Dr Michael Wood has prepared a more elaborate defence, `The wars of King Athelstan', which he has kindly shared with me prior to publication. In my opinion there are at least three ¯aws in Lapidge's argument, the ®rst of them surely fatal. This is William's reference, at c. 135. 6, to `uersi®ci de quo omnia haec excerpsimus', which must apply to the whole content of cc. 133±5, not merely the verse extracts. The second is his statement, in c. 132, that the ancient book told of áthelstan's education. There follows a reference to the king's education in c. 133. 2, which suggests that William was indeed paraphrasing the `ancient book' at this point, therefore also in cc. 134±5. Another reference to the king's education, less speci®c, appears in the ®rst verse-extract (c. 133. 3). This is unsurprising, because the sections in verse merely recapitulate material presented in the preceding prose sections. In other words, the original work must have consisted of sections of prose, more or less narrative, alternating with verse panegyric, as we ®nd for example in Goscelin, Vita S. Edithae, or the Vita ádwardi regis. On the other hand, both Wood and I agree with Lapidge that the verse extracts, as they stand, can hardly be earlier than William's own lifetime: they do not use abstruse vocabulary, and their metrical form, rhyming hexameters (bisyllabic leonini and caudati), is not found earlier than the late eleventh century. Moreover the second extract contains a reference to events after áthelstan's lifetime. How could William claim that all this material came from the same `ancient volume'? There appears to be no answer which does not contain dif®culties, thanks to William's obscure language. My own suggestion is that William did indeed ®nd the basis of this verse in his `uetustum uolumen', but that he rewrote it (as he rewrote the proseÐ `familiari stilo') to produce a version purged of its objectionable vocabulary. The one line with a close parallel in a Malmesbury

/3thomson/tcom2.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:25 ± disk/amj

118

COMMENTARY

epitaph for áthelstan perhaps reveals a trace of the original (see below, c. 133. 3n). William certainly wrote poetry. He was credited by Leland with a versi®ed version of the Gospels (see above, p. xlvii), and examples of his verse survive in GP, c. 86 (p. 187), Bodl. Libr., MS Auct. F. 3. 14, fo. iiv, Lincoln Coll. MS lat. 100, fo. 3, and London, Lambeth Palace Libr. MS 224, f.(ii), reproduced and discussed by N. R. Ker, `William of Malmesbury's handwriting', in his Books, Collectors and Libraries; Studies in the Medieval Heritage, ed. A. G. Watson (London and Ronceverte, 1985), pp. 60±6. The Lucan reminiscences (see below, notes to c. 135. 7, 9) also suggest a connection with William. A work called `bella Ethel[s]tani regis', possibly identical with William's source, is recorded among the contents of a manuscript in the library of Glastonbury abbey in 1247 (Cambridge, Trinity Coll. MS R. 5. 33, fo. 103v): English Benedictine Libraries: The Shorter Catalogues, ed. R. Sharpe, J. Carley, R. M. Thomson, and A. G. Watson (Corpus of British Medieval Library Catalogues, iv: London, 1995), p. 199. The third problem with Lapidge's case is his failure to discuss or account for the material unique to the prose sections of cc. 133±5. Wood's countercase is based largely upon the quantity and quality of this material, which is commented on below. If it did not derive from the `ancient volume', then it must have come from another source similarly near to áthelstan's time. To imagine that William mentioned the `ancient volume' only to discard it in favour of another source of similar antiquity seems inherently incredible; `Ockham's razor' must surely apply. 132 pauci admodum dies sunt quod didicerim in quodam sane uolumine uetusto] Cf. Jerome, Aduersus Iouinianum i. 1: `Pauci admodum dies sunt quod sancti ex urbe Roma fratres cuiusdam mihi Iouiniani commentariolos transmiserunt.' uolumine uetusto] What might William have meant by `uetustus'? Below at c. 167. 6 he uses the expression again for a Catalogue of Popes which certainly extended to the death of Nicholas II (1059), perhaps as far as Victor III (1087). He might have considered it `ancient' because it was written in an unfamiliar script. Probably the volume containing the work on áthelstan was written in English Caroline minuscule, which William might have thought `ancient' even if it was written closer to the year 1100 than to 1000. Tullius in rethoricis] Auctor ad Herenn. iv. 15 (where editors now

/3thomson/tcom2.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:25 ± disk/amj

BOOK II. 132±133.2

119

read `suf¯ata'); the word was also used by Osbern, Vita Dunstani, c. 1 (p. 70), though Osbern does not name author or work. 133 Similarly John of Worcester s.a. 924 (cf. ASC (BCD) ) for Edward's death and burial, and for áthelstan's consecration at Kingston (Sept. 925); but he makes no mention of the king's reduction of Chester, which presumably comes from the `ancient book'. The same may be true of William's statement, not found in any earlier extant record, that áthelstan was thirty at the time of his coronation. 1 in toga] Cicero, De orat. iii. 167: `togam pro pace'. Vrbem Legionum] i.e. Chester, as above, cc. 47. 3, 101, below, 148. 2, 300.3 , and GP, c. 172 (p. 308): `legionum ciuitas'. For the context of the consecratio described in 1, 4, and 5, see Nelson, `The problem of King Alfred's royal anointing', esp. p. 327 and n. 4. 2 militem fecerat . . . uagina aurea] The notion of `knighting' is obviously anachronistic, `but the notion of the jewelled belt and golden scabbard as being part of aristocratic and royal insignia in the ninth and tenth centuries was clearly accurate': Smyth, King Alfred, pp. 397±8. Another example is the investiture with a sword of Louis the Pious, aged fourteen, recounted in the Astronomer's Vita Hludovici i. 6 (ed. G. Pertz, MGH SS, ii, 1829, pp. 609±14). See J. L. Nelson, `Ninth-century knighthood: the evidence of Nithard', in her The Frankish World, 750±900 (London and Ronceverte, 1996), pp. 75±98, and K. Leyser, `Early medieval canon law and the beginnings of knighthood', in his Communications and Power in Medieval Europe, pp. 51±71, esp. 55±6. Support for Alfred's recognition of áthelstan as his eventual heir comes from a tenth-century acrostic poem which seems to anticipate áthelstan's succession: Lapidge, `Some Latin poems as evidence for the reign of Athelstan', pp. 72±83. Post haec in curia . . . curauerat] The fact that áthelstan was brought up at the Mercian court of áthelred and áthel¯ñd has a signi®cant bearing on the whole complexion of his reign. This `Mercian' background meant that he came to the throne via a backdoor route, apparently against opposition from the Edwardian establishment at Winchester. uersi®cus exclamat] See c. 132. 5n. The poem traverses, in more

/3thomson/tcom2.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:25 ± disk/amj

120

COMMENTARY

summary and enthusiastic form, some of the detail provided in c. 132, which William says he took from the `ancient book'. 3 magnus Adelstanus, patriae decus, orbita recti] In GP, c. 246 (pp. 397±8), William reproduces an epitaph in elegiac verse for áthelstan from Malmesbury abbey, resembling Carolingian royal epitaphs, e.g. MGH Poetae, iv. 1028 (for Charles the Bald). Its opening line, `Hic iacet orbis honor, patriae dolor, orbita recti', is remarkably similar to this one. This might be evidence for William modifying the diction of the `uetustum uolumen', as proposed above, note to cc. 132±5. If so, it shows that he was capable of doing so using genuine pre-twelfth century material. More straightforwardly, it might be taken as evidence for the genuine antiquity of the `uetustum uolumen'. 4 componunt diadema] The ordo (`Second English Ordo'), now thought to be a late ninth-century production, is the ®rst English rite to specify the wearing of a crown rather than a helmet, and áthelstan is the ®rst English king to be portrayed wearing a crown: on some of his coins, on the contemporary frontispiece to Cambridge, Corpus Christi Coll. MS 183, fo. iv, and in a now-lost miniature once in BL Cotton Otho B. ix. See P. E. Schramm, A History of the English Coronation, trans. L. G. Wickham Legg (Oxford, 1937), pp. 20±1, and J. L. Nelson, `The earliest royal ordo: some liturgical and historical aspects', in her Politics and Ritual, pp. 341±60, esp. 357 and nn. 82±3. 134 Some parallels with ASC (D) s.a. 925±6 (recte 926±7), but mostly if not all from the now-lost `ancient book'. Stubbs (GR i. 147 n. 1) comments that the chronological arrangement of áthelstan's wars apparently contained in this source constitutes a valuable supplement to ASC. 1 Northanimbriam] This is the ®rst occurrence in GR of the word for the district. 2 Dacor] Dacre, an important Cumbrian monastic house, not far from ASC's Eamont: Bede, HE iv. 32; on its tenth-century remains see R. N. Bailey, Viking Age Sculpture in Northern England (London, 1980), pp. 172±4, pl. 47. The Scottish rulers named are Constantine, king of the Scots 900±43, and Eugenius (Owain, Ywain), king of the Cumbrians (d. c.937), who was possibly his nephew: A. MacQuarrie, `The kings of Strathclyde, c.400±1018', in Medieval Scotland: Crown,

/3thomson/tcom2.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:25 ± disk/amj

BOOK II. 133.2±134.6

121

Lordship and Community: Essays presented to G. W. S. Barrow, ed. A. Grant and K. J. Stringer (Edinburgh, 1993), pp. 1±19, esp. 14±15. ASC (D) omits Owain of Cumbria and adds Hywel `of the West Welsh', Owain of Gwynedd, and Ealdred son of Eadwulf from Bamburgh (and see above, c. 131. 3n). Patrick Wormald tells me (letter of 20 May 1996) that Owain of Gwynedd is likely to be a doublet for the ruler of Cumbria/Strathclyde (see above, c. 131. 3n.), as his existence is irreconcilable with south-eastern Welsh records of the period (see also Macquarrie, p. 15 and n. 1). For background see A. P. Smyth, Warlords and Holy Men: Scotland, ad 80±1000 (London, 1984), pp. 196±205. 2±3 Euasit tamen Godefridus . . . uiuere assuetus] William's account of Guthfrith taking refuge in Strathclyde is con®rmed by ASC (E) s.a. 927. 4 castrum, quod olim Dani in Eboraco of®rmauerant] For details of this forti®cation see A. P. Smyth, Scandinavian Kings in the British Isles 850±880 (Oxford, 1977), p. 183. 5 Northwalensium, id est Britonum Aquilonalium] See above, c. 106. 3 (and note ad loc.), where William seems to consider that all the Welsh were called `North Britons'. Here (in¯uencing also the later references) we might see the in¯uence of the `ancient book'. For relations between Wales and England during áthelstan's reign see H. R. Loyn, `Wales and England in the tenth century: the context of the Athelstan charters', Welsh History Review, x (1980±1), 283±301. ut ei nomine uectigalis . . . uenari nossent] Not mentioned in any other source, but compare the references to heavy and much-resented tribute to be paid to the English in Armes Prydein: The Prophecy of Britain from the Book of Taliesin, written c.950: ed. and trans. I. Williams and R. Bromwich (Dublin, 1972), pp. xviii±xix, and lines 21±106. canes qui odorisequo nare] The only known use of `odorisequus' in classical Latin also concerns dogs; Terentianus Maurus, De metris 1938: `derige odorisequos ad certa cubilia canes'. spelea et diuerticula ferarum] Cf. Virgil, Ecl. x. 52: `certum est in siluis inter spelaea ferarum'. Also above, c. 41. 6 Cornewalenses . . . quod . . . cornu Galliae ex obliquo respitiant] Doubtless an individual interpretation of William's. A variant of it is offered as one of two possibilities by Geoffrey of Monmouth, c. 21 (p. 14): `[Corineus] maluit regionem illam que nunc

/3thomson/tcom2.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:25 ± disk/amj

122

COMMENTARY

uel a cornu Britannie uel per correptionem [sui] nominis Cornubia appellatur.' William's version is only partly correct. Corn is indeed the Brittonic for `horn' (cognate with Latin cornu), but the second syllable guallia derives from OE wealas (Bosworth and Toller, p. 1173), meaning foreign with particular application to the Celts (cf. below, c. 199. 4±5n); ` ``Cornwall'' is thus a compressed hybrid term signifying ``the land of the Britons of Corn[-ouia, -ubia]'' ': C. Thomas, Celtic Britain (2nd edn., London, 1997), p. 64. ab Execestra] áthelstan kept Easter 928 at Exeter, when he issued charters (Sawyer 399 and 400), the second attested by the Celtic subreguli `Howel', `Juthwal', and `Wurgeat'. 6±7 Vrbem igitur illam . . . turribus muniuit, muro ex quadratis lapidibus cinxit . . . pinguntur] `Vrbem . . . producat' is repeated in GP, c. 94 (p. 201). The information is unique to William, although there is good evidence for áthelstan's interest in Exeter. He seems to have founded or refounded a monastery there in or about 932, and certainly presented the local religious community with relics. It has been suggested that the reference to the building of forti®cations re¯ects a provision in áthelstan's second law-code, c. 13 (Liebermann, Gesetze, i. 156), that `every borough is to be repaired by a fortnight after Rogation Days': D. Hinton, Alfred's Kingdom: Wessex and the South 800±1500 (London, 1977), pp. 70±1; P. Conner, AngloSaxon Exeter (Woodbridge, 1993), pp. 23±9. Both William (below, c. 248. 1) and Orderic (ii. 212±5) describe Exeter as well forti®ed with walls in 1068. 7 uix steriles auenas . . . producat] Cf. Virgil, Ecl. v. 37: `infelix lolium et steriles nascuntur auenae'. The circumstantial nature of the description suggests that William had travelled through Devonshire and visited Exeter. 135. 1 Haroldus quidam] Harold Harfagri, king of Norway c.880± 930. On the context see R. I. Page, `The audience of Beowulf and the Vikings', in The Dating of Beowulf, ed. C. Chase (Toronto, 1981), pp. 113±22, at 115±17. densa testudine clipeorum] Cf. Virgil, Aen. ix. 514: `subter densa testudine'. Henricus primus . . . imperator Romanorum, sororem eius ®lio Ottoni expostulauit] See also above, c. 126. 2. Henry I was never emperor. The marriage of Otto and Eadgyth, widely reported

/3thomson/tcom2.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:25 ± disk/amj

BOOK II. 134.6±135.4

123

by contemporary sources both English and continental, took place late in 929; see J. F. BoÈhmer, Regesta Imperii, II: SaÈchsisches Haus 919± 1024, Abteilung 1: Die Regesten des Kaiserreichs unter Heinrich I. und Otto I. 919±973, ed. E. von Ottenthal (InnsbruÈck, 1893; repr. with addenda by H. H. Kaminsky, Hildesheim, 1967), no. 23h, and most recently W. Georgi, `Bischof Koenwald von Worcester und die Heirat Ottos I. mit Edgitha im Jahre 929', Historisches Jahrbuch, cxv (1995), 1±40. On the context see Leyser, `The Ottonians and Wessex', in his Communications and Power in Medieval Europe, pp. 73±104. 2 Tertiam . . . superstes] See however above, c. 126n., where it is suggested that this daughter (Eadgifu or álfgifu) was actually married to Louis, brother of Rudolf II, king of upper Burgundy. 2±3 Hugo rex Francorum . . . Adulfus, ®lius Balduini comitis Flandriae, ex ®lia regis Eduardi Ethelswida] See also above, c. 126. 2. Hugh the Great count of Paris was never king; but he was designated dux Francorum, glossed as `in omnibus regnis nostris secundus a nobis', by Louis IV in 943: J. Dunbabin, France in the Making 843±1180 (Oxford, 1985), p. 47. The marriage took place in 926. Adulf's mother was Edward's sister (not daughter) álfthryth, an error which B compounds by calling her `sorore ipsius Ethelstani'. William misnames her áthelswith above, c. 123. 5. Stubbs (GR ii, p. lxiv n. 2) wondered whether these mistakes were in William's `ancient book', though that seems implausible. The splendid embassy to seek Eadhild was also described by Flodoard of Reims s.a. 926: P. Lauer, Les Annales de Flodoard (Paris, 1905), p. 36 (EHD 1, pp. 308±9, no. 8). 3 presertim smaragdorum . . . animaret] Gems, and emeralds in particular, called forth some of William's most vivid description; another example is below, c. 337. 4. Maro] Virgil, Aen. vii. 279. The appositeness of the original context is indicated by Winterbottom, `The Gesta regum of William of Malmesbury', p. 171. 4 uas quoddam ex onichino . . . intuentium emularetur] The reference is probably to a cameo-vase from Hellenistic or Roman Egypt, like the `coupe des PtoleÂmeÂes' (Alexandrian, 2nd or 1st cent. BC) given to Saint-Denis by Charles the Bald: W. M. Conway, `The abbey of Saint-Denis and its ancient treasures', Archaeologia, lxvi (1915), 103±58, at pp. 119±20, listing other examples; P. E. Schramm and F. MuÈtherich, Denkmale der deutschen KoÈnige und Kaiser: ein

/3thomson/tcom2.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:25 ± disk/amj

124

COMMENTARY

Beitrag zu Herrschergeschichte von Karl dem Grossen bis Friedrich II. 768±1250 (Munich, 1962), p. 133 no. 50; E. Panofsky, Abbot Suger on the Abbey Church of St.-Denis and its Art Treasures, 2nd edn. by G. Panofsky-Soergel (Princeton, 1979), pp. 217±18; and the exhibition catalogue Le treÂsor de Saint-Denis: exposition, MuseÂe du Louvre, 12 MarsÐ17 Juin 1991 (Paris, 1991), pp. 83±7. gemmare uites] Cf. the discussion of metaphor in Martianus Capella, De nupt., c. 359, where this expression is used as an example. 4±6 ensem Constantini Magni . . . Malmesberiae delegauit] On áthelstan as a collector of relics see J. A. Robinson, The Times of St Dunstan (Oxford, 1923), pp. 71±80; C. N. L. Brooke, The Saxon and Norman Kings (London, 1963), pp. 132±9; and Keynes, `King Athelstan's books', pp. 143±6, 194 n. 245. 4 lanceam Karoli Magni . . . mortalibus aperuit] The mention of the Holy Lance (though quali®ed by `ferebatur') may explain why William does not mention its discovery at Antioch during the First Crusade, despite the fact that an account of it appeared in his source, Fulcher of Chartres; see below, cc. 360±5. See L. H. Loomis, `The holy relics of Charlemagne and King Athelstan: the lances of Longinus and St Mauricius', Speculum, xxv (1950), 437±56; Q. Leitner, È sterreichischen Die hervorragendsten Kunstwerke der Schatzkammer des O Kaiserhauses (Vienna, 1870±73), pp. 26±8; A. Hofmeister, Die heilige Lanze, ein Abzeichen des alten Reichs (Breslau, 1908); P. E. Schramm, `Die ``Heilige Lanze'', Reliquie und Herrschaftszeichen des Reiches und ihre Replik in Krakau', in his Herrschaftszeichen und Staatssymbolik (3 vols.: MGH Schriften, xiii (1±3), Stuttgart, 1954±6), ii. 492± 537; K. Leyser, `The tenth century in Byzantine-Western relationships', in his Medieval Germany and its Neighbours 900±1250 (London, 1982), pp. 103±37, at 116±17; and id., Rule and Con¯ict in an Early Medieval Society; Ottonian Saxony (London, 1979), p. 88 and nn. Two of these relics, the fragment of the True Cross and the Holy Lance, may be represented in the opening miniature in the `áthelstan Psalter', BL MS Cotton Galba A. xviii, fo. 2v: M. Wood, `The making of King áthelstan's empire', pp. 267±8; E. Temple, Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts 900±1066 (London, 1976), no. 5; but see Keynes, `King áthelstan's books', pp. 194±5. uictor abibat] Cf. Virgil, Aen. x. 859±60: `hoc solamen erat, bellis hoc uictor abibat / omnibus'.

/3thomson/tcom2.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:25 ± disk/amj

BOOK II. 135.4±9

125

Paradisum miseris mortalibus aperuit] Cf. Virgil, Aen. xi. 182: `miseris mortalibus almam'. 5 particulam . . . quantitas] Possibly the same reliquary as that mentioned in the Annales Fuldenses s.a. 872 (rev. edn. by Fr. Kurze, MGH srg, vii, 1891, p.75): Basil I sends Louis the German `inter caetera xenia cristallum mirae magnitudinis auro gemmisque praeciosis ornatum, cum parte non modica salutiferae crucis'. One would have to assume that it was later passed on to West Francia as part of a diplomatic gift-exchange. On the other hand, it is just possible that the crystal was engraved in Europe and that it survives; Michael Wood draws my attention to a Carolingian rock-crystal engraved with the Cruci®xion, now in the British Museum, its provenance prior to 1867 unknown: G. A. Kornbluth, Engraved Gems of the Carolingian Empire (Philadelphia, 1995), pp. 89±94, no. 14. 6 partem . . . passum] In GP, c. 246 (p. 397), William includes these items in a consolidated list of the king's gifts to the abbey: `praedia plura, pallia multa, crucem auream, ®lacteria aeque aurea, cum portione ligni Domini, quod ei Hugo rex Francorum miserat'. On the dispersal of the relics see L. H. Loomis, `The Athelstan gift story and its in¯uence on English chronicles and Carolingian romances', Publications of the Modern Language Association of America, lxvii(1) (1952), 521±37. 6 Malmesberiae . . . iniurias passum] Cf. above, c. 108. 3. But two items apparently went to Abingdon: one was the holy nail, mentioned above (4), the other a ®nger of St Denis. They were recorded as there in the twelfth century by Abbot Faricius: Chronicon Monasterii de Abingdon, ed. J. Stevenson (2 vols.: RS, 1858), i. 88, ii. 155±8. Elwinum . . . denuntians] Cf. GP, c. 246 (p. 397), where it is stated that he did this because of the aid of St Aldhelm which he had experienced in the battle of Brunanburh (above, c. 131. 6±7). 7 iure ®deque . . . Britannos] The omission of this line from ACB may well have been deliberate, to eliminate a third line-ending of -annos. pelago pirata relicto] Cf. Lucan ii. 578: `Omne fretum metuens pelagi pirata reliquit', ix. 224: `iam pelago pirata redis'. 9 Hic strepitus . . . legiones] Observe the uncertainty about the status of this line in Tt, its position in Ce and its omission in B (see

/3thomson/tcom2.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:25 ± disk/amj

126

COMMENTARY

Vol. i, p.222, apparatus ad loc.). This might constitute evidence for William's manipulation or rewriting of existing verse. Fugit Analauus, de tot modo milibus unus] Cf. Ovid, Met. i. 325±6: `et superesse uidet de tot modo milibus unum / et superesse uidet de tot modo milibus unam'. depositum mortis, fortunae nobile munus] The poet (?William) probably had in mind Lucan ii. 72: `depositum, Fortuna, tuum', referring to Marius, alive but exiled after his defeat in the ®rst Civil War. The sense seems to be that Death allowed Anlaf to remain on earth as a special favour. Compare lines 3±4 of the poem in GP, c. 227 (p. 382), where Aldhelm's soul goes to heaven, his body to the earth: `Depositumque suum poscit uterque locus'. In this instance the meaning is apparently that both heaven and earth asked back what had been `left in safe keeping' in this world. As that poem seems to be William's own composition, the similarity in words and idea may strengthen the case for William having at least touched up the áthelstan poem (unless he was drawing upon this poem in GP). rebus momenta daturus] Cf. Lucan iv. 3: `fati ducibus momenta daturum' (cf. v. 339±40: `momenta . . . dedisse'). 136±7 The story of Alfred's rebellion, with supporting document, is unique to William. On the likely political context see Yorke, `áthelwold and the politics of the tenth century', pp. 70±3, P. Stafford, Uni®cation and Conquest: A Political and Social History of England in the Tenth and Eleventh Centuries (London, 1989), pp. 32± 44, and Keynes, introduction to the Liber vitae of the New Minster, p. 19 and n. 44. 137 = Sawyer 436, of which a more complete text is given in GP, c. 250 (pp. 401±3). It is generally regarded as spurious, being a con¯ation of Sawyer 434±5. Stevenson (in Asser, p. 246 n. 4) suggested that it was confected by William himself, but without advancing reasons; there can be little doubt, though, that it was made at Malmesbury and incorporates local tradition. 138. 1 sub abbate Elfrico edi®cata] A rather different account is given in GP, c. 253 (pp. 405±6). There William credits álfric with the replacement of St Peter by St Mary as his monastery's patron saint, and with the building of the monks' `of®cinae'.

/3thomson/tcom2.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:25 ± disk/amj

BOOK II. 135.9±140

127

2 sequentia magis cantilenis] William refers to `songs' again at cc. 148 and 188; they are not to be identi®ed with the poem referred to and quoted from earlier. What they might have beenÐEnglish saga transmuted into French romance after the ConquestÐis discussed in Wright, Cultivation of Saga, pp. 30±1. 139. 2 Elwardus] recte álfweard. 3±5 Tantum quorundam mussitatio . . . ingemiscens] Cf. the brief and enigmatic entry in ASC (E) s.a. 933. On the growth of legend about the king's alleged cruelty to Edwin, some of it based on GR, see Plummer in Two Saxon Chronicles, ii. 137±8. The earliest and most credible account is Folcuin, Gesta abbatum Sithiensium, c. 107 (ed. O. Holder-Egger, MGH SS, xiii, 1881, pp. 628±9), written c.961±2. He says that Edwin left England, whether voluntarily or not, as a consequence of some political disturbance (`cogente aliqua regni sui perturbatione'). He was shipwrecked and drowned in a violent storm, his body carried to the monastery of Saint-Bertin and buried there: `Post cuius mortem frater eius rex Adalstanus plurima huic loco in eius elemosina direxit exenia.' William's account seems to be based upon popular legend. Note also what he says in GP, c. 85 (p. 186), that áthelstan founded Milton Abbey in memory of his brother, `quem prauo corruptus consilio Anglia eiecit'. Some of his contemporaries make brief reference to the same story: Simeon of Durham (Byrhtferth), Historia regum, cc. 83, 107 (ii. 93, 124), and Henry of Huntingdon v. 18 (pp. 310±11), but in his case not implicating áthelstan. John of Worcester makes no mention of Edwin at all. Plummer, noting that Folcuin twice calls Edwin `rex', believed that he may have been under-king of Kent, that áthelstan tried to remove him, and when Edwin resisted forced him into exile. An entirely different interpretation, that Edwin had challenged áthelstan's shaky right to the kingship, is offered by Smyth, King Alfred, pp. 423±4, 437±9. Keynes, in his introduction to the Liber vitae of the New Minster, p. 22, offers a variant of this, connecting Edwin with resistance to áthelstan which erupted at Winchester in the early 930s. 140 Similar, but more detailed, commendation of áthelstan and description of his death and burial are found in GP, c. 246 (pp. 397± 8). See above, c. 133. 3n.

/3thomson/tcom2.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:25 ± disk/amj

128

COMMENTARY

Gloecestrae] ASC (D) s.a. 940. John of Worcester s.a. 940 adds that he was then borne to Malmesbury and buried there with honour. Exuuiae triumphales] An echo of line 4 of áthelstan's verse epitaph quoted in full in GP, c. 246 (p. 397): `Vrna triumphales excipit exuvias'. uir qui parum aetati uixerit, multum gloriae] Apparently echoing two passages of Cicero. One is in Pro Marcello 25, quoted approvingly by William in a marginal note to his collection of Carolingian chronicles (Bodl. Libr., MS Lat. class. d. 39. fo. 17; Thomson, William of Malmesbury, p. 142). William's note runs: `Verbum Ciceronis est adulantis Cesari in oratione pro M. Marcello: Itaque illam tuam preclarissimam et sapientissimam uocem inuitus audiui; satis te diu uixisse uel nature uel glorie. Satis, si ita uis, naturae fortasse, addo etiam, si placet, glorie: at, quod maximum est, patrie certe parum.' The other passage is Phil. i. 38: `Mihi fere satis est quod uixi uel ad aetatem uel ad gloriam.' 141 ASC s.aa. 940 (ABCD), 941 (D), 942±6 (ABCD); (source of) John of Worcester s.aa. 941±5. Actually two persons named Anlaf (Olaf) are involved here: Olaf Guthfrithsson, d. 941, and his cousin and successor, Olaf (Cuaran) Sihtricsson: Smyth, Scandinavian York and Dublin, ii. 43±4. John of Worcester (s.a. 944) also con¯ates them as `Anlafum regis . . . Sihtrici ®lium'. Ragnald was the son of Guthfrith, not of Gurmund (Guthrum): ASC and John of Worcester s.a. 944. 1 annis sex et semis] So ASC (ABCD) s.a. 946, but giving the dates of his accession as 27 Oct. 940 and death as 26 May 946 (E has him dying in 948). In GP, c. 251 (p. 403), William gives the length of his reign as six years, which is more accurate. 2 regi Scottorum Malcolmo] Malcolm I, 943±54. 143 = Sawyer 499; also in AG, c. 56 (pp. 116±18), omitting the last sentence. 4 in libro euangeliorum] Presumably the same Gospel-Book in which, according to AG, c. 54 (pp. 114±15), the relics presented to the monastery by King áthelstan were recorded. 144 Edmund died on 26 May 946. Similarly Osbern, Vita Dunstani, c. 21 (p. 94), John of Worcester s.a. 946; but William gives more detail

/3thomson/tcom2.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:25 ± disk/amj

BOOK II. 140±145.4

129

than either both here and in VD i. 21 (pp. 275±7). Edmund's burialplace as speci®ed in the CB reading (`Glastoniam . . . in aquilonali parte turris') is also given in VD i. 21 (p. 277), and AG, cc. 31 (pp. 84± 5) (`in turri ad dexteram'), 56 (pp. 118±19) (`ad sinistram in turri maioris ecclesie'). For the stories of Edmund's death see Wright, Cultivation of Saga, pp. 82±3. 3 Communi . . . bene®tii CB] = VD i. 22 (p. 277 lines 2±8). 145 William gives two alternative accounts of the death of William Longsword. The source of the ®rst is unknown; of the second it is apparently (?parallel with) William of JumieÁges, GND i. 90±5. Both Stubbs (GR ii, pp. xxxvii±xxxviii) and Freeman, Norman Conquest, i. 628±33, dismissed the ®rst version as legendary, though perhaps with some foundation in fact. Discussion of the various stories of William Longsword's death is provided by Freeman ut supra, by Prentout, EÂtude critique sur Dudon de Saint Quentin, pp. 337±40, and by P. Lauer, La reÁgne de Louis IV d'Outremer (BibliotheÁque de l'EÂcole des Hautes EÂtudes, cxxvii: Paris, 1900), pp. 279±81. He died almost certainly on 17 Dec. 942, not 943 (GND i. 95 n. 2). 1 anno Dominicae incarnationis nongentesimo quadragesimo quarto] The year is given as 943 by William of JumieÁges, GND i. 92± 5; William has presumably calculated from ASC, which gives 940 as the ®rst year of Edmund's reign. 2 ad ducem Italiae] If any historical personage lies behind this reference it is presumably Hugh of Arles, king of Italy, who ruled from Pavia 926±47. 3 apud regem Francorum] Presumably Louis IV (936±54). 4 in medio . . . Sequanae] 17 Dec. 942. Picquigny on the Somme, according to William of JumieÁges (GND i. 92±3), was where four of Count Arnulf's men, including Balzo and Riulf, assassinated the duke. But the Seine appears in Ralph Glaber (iii. 39). William's source may have been oral. A summary version of the story, probably after GR, is in Chron. Turonense, p. 360. ueratiores litterae] By which William apparently means William of JumieÁges, GND i. 91±5. The castle was Montreuil. apud Gimegium . . . erexerat] Ibid. i. 84±7, in more detail. The date of the refoundation was 942 according to J. F. Lemarignier,

/3thomson/tcom2.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:25 ± disk/amj

130

COMMENTARY

`JumieÁges et le monachisme occidental . . .', in JumieÁges: CongreÁs scienti®que du xiiie centenaire (2 vols.: Rouen, 1955), ii. 753±64. 146 The framework is from ASC s.aa. 946, 948, 952, 954, 955, with additional material on Eadred's poor health and Dunstan's premonition of his death. 1 rexit annis nouem et dimidio] So ASC (A) s.a. 955. John of Worcester s.a. 955 says that the king sickened and died in the tenth year of his reign. In GP, c. 251 (p. 403), William says nine years, which is slightly less accurate, since Eadred succeeded soon after 26 May 946, dying in Nov. 955. quodam Iritio rege] Eric Bloodaxe, king at York from c.948 until his death, which probably occurred in 952: P. Sawyer, `The last Scandinavian kings of York', Northern History, xxxi (1995), 39±44. He was never king of the Scots, and it was the Northumbrians themselves who ®nally expelled and killed him. 2 Ipse interea . . . in Domino] Cf. Osbern, Vita Dunstani, c. 24 (p. 98), and John of Worcester s.a. 955 after Adelard, Vita S. Dunstani, lectio v (Memorials, p. 58); but they record the heavenly message as `Rex Edredus nunc in pace quiescit', and the last two add that at the sound of the angelic voice Dunstan's horse fell to the ground dead. Dunstan's relationship with Eadred and his premonition of the king's death are described by William in more detail in VD i. 22, 25 (pp. 277±8, 281±2), where he also adds that the king was buried at Winchester (Old Minster), a house that he particularly favoured (ibid., i. 23); similarly ASC (D) and John of Worcester. tortiones crebras corporis] The earliest reference to Eadred's poor health is B.'s Vita Dunstani, c. 20 (p. 31). William follows this account in VD i. 22 (p. 277): `praeter alia quibus quotidianis horis anhelabat ad exitum, interraneorum maxime cruciatu uexabatur, cibum omnem stomacho nausiante reiiciens. Annis ergo nouem in regno non tam uixit quam uitam traxit, totius corporis tormentis infractus et debilis.' Hermann the Archdeacon, De miraculis S. Edmundi, c. 3 (T. Arnold, Memorials of St Edmund's Abbey (3 vols.: RS, 1890±6), i. 29), seems to represent another tradition in calling Eadred `debilis pedibus'. sonipedem calcaribus urgeret] Cf. Prudentius, Psych. 253±4: `calcaribus urget / cornipedem'.

/3thomson/tcom2.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:25 ± disk/amj

BOOK II. 145.4±147.4

131

147 The sources seem to be: ASC s.aa. 955, 959 (only the barest outline); B., Vita Dunstani, cc. 21±2 (pp. 32±3); and Osbern, Vita Dunstani, cc. 27, 30 (pp. 100±2, 104±5) (the detail of Eadwig's immorality and ill-treatment of Dunstan); and (the source of) John of Worcester's account s.aa. 957 (rebellion of the Northumbrians and Mercians) and 959 (Eadwig's place of burial). The latter represents New Minster tradition as found in Liber vitae, ed. Birch, p. 7, and Liber de Hyda, p. 167. William gives more details of Eadwig's immorality in VD i. 26 (pp. 283±4), and of his depredation of monasteries in i. 27 (recte 28; pp. 284±5). There is little doubt that in both places he drew on both B. and Osbern: from the former he took the idea of Eadwig leaving the meeting with his nobles (c. 21; p. 32), while it is Osbern who states that Dunstan spent his exile in Flanders (c. 27; p. 101); B. says vaguely `ignotam . . . regionem dictu Galliae' (c. 23; p. 34). 1 proxime cognatam . . . uxorem] Named álfgifu in B., Vita Dunstani, c. 22 (p. 33), and in fact a person of standing: she was sister of the chronicler áthelweard and Eadwig's fourth cousin; she did marry him and was recognized as queen: Yorke, `áthelwold and the politics of the tenth century', pp. 80±1, 87. ASC (D) and John of Worcester s.a. 958 say that Archbishop Oda of Canterbury separated them either because they were too nearly related (both sources), `uel quia illam sub propria uxore adamauit' ( John of Worcester, `sub . . . adamauit' also in Byrhtferth, Vita S. Oswaldi, p. 402). This apparently happened in 957, since B. (cc. 21±3; pp. 32±5) says that it was before Dunstan's exile which occurred in that year. For context and interpretation see N. Brooks, `The career of St Dunstan', in St Dunstan: his Life, Times and Cult, ed. N. Ramsay, M. Sparks, and T. Tatton-Brown (Woodbridge, 1992), pp. 1±23, at 14±16. 2 Dunstanus iuxta nominis sui ®rmitatem] dun(n) = greybrown + stan = rock. 2±3 omnes in tota Anglia . . . peroportunum] Almost verbatim in GP, c. 251 (p. 403), with reference back. The document referred to is Sawyer 629, dated ad 956. 4 Sed ignoscat . . . per Dunstani interuentum] Similarly Osbern, Vita Dunstani, c. 30 (pp. 104±5), repudiated by William in VD i. 31 (recte 32; p. 287). maxima parte regni mutilatus] Cf. VD ii. 3 (p. 291) `parte tantum regni mutilassent', with details of the rebellion going back to the Vita

/3thomson/tcom2.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:25 ± disk/amj

132

COMMENTARY

Dunstani by B. (pp. 35±6). The rebellion is also described, following the earlier sources, by Osbern, Vita Dunstani, c. 28 (pp. 102±3), and Eadmer, Vita Dunstani, c. 20 (p. 194). Qua iniuria . . . tumulatus] Ambiguous, as is John of Worcester s.a., the only other source to name Eadwig's place of burial. We have translated what seems the most natural meaning, but the Latin could also mean `and . . . he died at Winchester, where he lies buried in New Minster.' 148±60 Another point of concentration, in which William surveys the reign of Edgar (959±75). The ordering of the parts is not unlike that adopted for áthelstan: c. 148, political activity; cc. 149±53, the holiness of Dunstan, his in¯uence on the king, the latter's grants to Glastonbury; cc. 154±60, popular stories; c. 161, death, burial and estimate of Edgar's signi®cance. William and John of Worcester seem to share a common source of information about Edgar: see below, notes to cc. 148.2, 156.2, 157. On Edgar's policies and achievements see especially E. John, Orbis Britanniae (Leicester, 1966), pp. 53±61, 154±80, 276±89. 148 Based upon ASC (DEF) s.a. 959, (source of) John of Worcester s.aa. 959, 973, and Osbern, Vita Dunstani, c. 19 (pp. 92±4). The prophecy of Edgar's birth and its ful®lment were also described by William in VD ii. 1 (p. 289). 1 Denique uulgatum est . . . uixerit] Similarly AG, c. 59 (pp. 120± 1, with cross-reference), specifying that Dunstan heard the voice while he was at Glastonbury. 2 Regem Scottorum . . . deduceret] For the identity of all but two of these men see F. M. Stenton, Anglo-Saxon England (3rd edn., Oxford, 1971), pp. 369±70. Kenneth became king of the Scots in 971; Malcolm was king of Cumbria by 973, d. 997. In John of Worcester s.a. 973 `Mascusius' is called `Maccus plurimarum rex insularum'. He was Magnus (d. c.977), king of the Western Isles, son of Harold, son of Sihtric, lord of the Danes of Limerick. He is called `archipirata' also in the forged Glastonbury charter of which part is given in c. 150 below. Stenton suggested that Iacob is Iago ab Idwal, king of Gwynedd 950±79, that Huual is Iago's nephew Hywel ab Idwal (Hywel Dda, Hywel the Great, king of Wales 942±50), and that Dufnal is Dyfnwal king of Strathclyde (d. 975), Malcolm's father. On

/3thomson/tcom2.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:25 ± disk/amj

BOOK II. 147.4±149

133

the Strathclyde dynasty see now MacQuarrie, `The kings of Strathclyde', pp. 1 nn., 6, 14±16. The same people (except Huual) also witnessed spurious Sawyer 808 (Kemble 519/Birch 1185) (Kinath, Maccus rex insularum, Malcolm rex Cumbrorum, Dufnal, Iacob subregulus, Iukil subregulus, Siferd subregulus), dated by Sawyer 9636970 (but it must be 971), which survives only in copies of s. xiv±xvii. All except Dufnal are listed again, together with the account of their rowing of Edgar on the Dee, in John of Worcester s.a. 973. Genuine Sawyer 566 (Kemble 433/ Birch 909) dated 955, surviving in a copy of s. xii, is witnessed by `Syferth et Iacob'. William and John were probably dependent upon a list (or a copy of a list) in Welsh orthography, which would explain the difference between their readings: `Giferth' and `Iudethil' (William), `Siferth' and `Iuchil' ( John). In addition it has been suggested that `Giferth' may be Guthfrith Haroldson, a sea-king active in the 970s and 980s. But this hardly accords with his title of subregulus in Sawyer 808, or his twinning with `Iacob' in Sawyer 566, and someone called Gruffydd seems more likely. Iudethil may be Ithel ab Idwallon, a dynast in Morgannwg, southern Wales. The incident is recorded more brie¯y in ASC (DE) s.a. 972 (six unnamed kings) and in álfric, Life of St Swithhun (trans. EHD 1, pp. 927±8, no. 239 (g) ) (eight unnamed kings, of Cumbrians and Scots). On the historicity and signi®cance of the incident, and for relations between England and Wales during the reign of Edgar see Lloyd, A History of Wales, i. 349±50, and D. P. Kirby, `Hywel Dda: anglophile?', Welsh History Review, viii (1976), 1±13. Despite T's omissions of some Worcester material, it is clear that William already had access to a source from there: note T's reading of clauum (as in John of Worcester) against the proram of the later redactions. 3 per ora . . . uolitante] Cf. Virgil, Georg. iii. 9: `tollere humo uictorque uirum uolitare per ora' (also at c. 167. 1 below, and GP, c. 259; p. 415). culpant eum litterae] Referring to the account in ASC ut supra. 149 The three reforming bishops are Dunstan, abbot of Glastonbury 940±c.957, bishop of Worcester until 959, archbishop of Canterbury 959±88, Oswald, bishop of Worcester 961±92, also archbishop of York from 971, and áthelwold, abbot of Abingdon c.954±63, bishop

/3thomson/tcom2.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:25 ± disk/amj

134

COMMENTARY

of Winchester 963±84. Most of the extensive literature on their lives and activities is cited in St Dunstan: his Life, Times and Cult, ed. Ramsay, Sparks, and Tatton-Brown; Bishop áthelwold: his Career and In¯uence, ed. Yorke; and St Oswald of Worcester: Life and In¯uence, ed. N. Brooks and C. Cubitt (Leicester, 1996). Of permanent value is Robinson, The Times of St Dunstan. 2 in tantum . . . cogeret] Cf. canon 10 of the council of Westminster 1102 (Councils, i(2). 676), prohibiting clerks from public drinkings: `nec ad pinnas bibant'. 3 Plura . . . uolentem dicere] Cf. Virgil, Aen. ii. 790±1: `multa uolentem / dicere'. reuocat . . . primus ACB] Memorials, pp. 69±161. William was more critical of Osbern's Vita Dunstani in VD i prol., ii prol., 4 (pp. 250±3, 288, 292). It seems that he only learnt of (or recalled) Osbern's musical talent in the relatively short interval between the production of T and A; see below, c. 342. 1n. post nomina regum omnium episcoporum Angliae] Referring to GP, in terms which suggest that William considered it a continuation of GR. Back-references to GR in GP indicating the same relationship are discussed above, p. xxxiv and n. 32. 4 Athelwoldus . . . suf®tientia] Also in VD ii. 12 (p. 303), partly verbatim. Heliense Burchense Thorniense] Summarized from Wulfstan Cantor (of Winchester), Vita S. áthelwoldi, c. 24, ed. and trans. M. Lapidge and M. Winterbottom (OMT, 1991), pp. 40±3. 5 Huius uitam] Wulfstan, Vita S. áthelwoldi. William is the earliest authority to name its author. He quotes from it in GP, cc. 75, 83 (pp. 165, 181), and in VD i. 8, 17, ii. 9 (pp. 261±2, 272±3, 299): Lapidge and Winterbottom, pp. clviii±clix. stilo mediocri] It is not clear whether William implies criticism of Wulstan's style as `ordinary', or whether he is using `mediocris' more technically of the `middle' (as opposed to the grand or the plain) style, as in e.g. Auctor ad Herenn. iv. 11. Our translation `middling' is intended to convey this ambiguity. de tonorum armonia] This theoretical work, whose real title was probably Breviloquium super musicam, was still extant s. xv, when it was quoted in an anonymous commentary on Boethius, De musica, found in Bodl. Libr., MS Bodl. 77, and Oxford, All Souls Coll. MS 90: Lapidge and Winterbottom, pp. xvi±xvii. Others of his works are

/3thomson/tcom2.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:25 ± disk/amj

BOOK II. 149±150C.7

135

identi®ed and discussed ibid., pp. xvii±xxxix. See also Sharpe, Handlist of the Latin Writers of Great Britain and Ireland, pp. 824±5. 5±6 Tunc quoque . . . sedibus] Similarly in VD ii. 12±13 (pp. 303±4). 6 Sedem episcopalem . . . sedibus] Also in GP, c. 75 (pp. 166±7). Sedem . . . regularibus] William's source for this was probably Eadmer, Vita Oswaldi, c. 20 (Historians of the Church of York, ed. J. Raine (3 vols.: RS, 1879±94), ii. 23±5). The thorny problem of what Oswald really did, probably less dramatic than William and his Benedictine contemporaries imagined, is discussed most recently by J. Barrow, `The community of Worcester, 961±c.1100', in St Oswald of Worcester, pp. 84±99, with full references to the earlier literature. incertis uagabantur sedibus] Cf. Sallust, Bell. Cat. vi. 1: `sedibus incertis uagabantur'; Wright II, p. 486. Also above, c. 47. 4. 150C = a substantial extract from Sawyer 783, generally regarded as spurious; also in AG, c. 60 (pp. 122±6), more completely. 4 Beocherie (quae Parua Hibernia dicitur)] Old Irish `Bec-EÂriu', also found as the name of islands in Ireland itself: Ekwall, The Concise Oxford Dictionary of English Place-Names, p. 33. 7 Hanc priuilegii . . . con®rmare fecit] The text of the con®rmation is given in the B version (see Vol. i, Appendix I, pp. 824±31). Both versions date the con®rmation to the twelfth year of [Edgar's] reign, and the year 965. In addition TAC speci®es the fourteenth indiction, B that it was during the abbacy of álfweard. These statements are irreconcilable: 965 was the seventh year of Edgar's reign and the eighth indiction. The versions of Edgar's grant in AG and The Great Cartulary of Glastonbury include the date 971 (so also Sawyer), which was the twelfth or thirteenth year of his reign and the fourteenth indiction. The twelfth year of his reign is also given in the text of Pope John's con®rmation of it at AG, c. 61 (pp. 128±9), though it too speci®es the date of ad 965. 971 would seem the right date and a sign of some genuine basis to the document were it not for problems associated with the abbacy of álfweard. The consensus of modern scholarship is that he did not become abbot until c.975 (Heads, pp. 50±1; S. Foot, `Glastonbury's early abbots' in The Archaeology and History of Glastonbury Abbey, ed. L. Abrams and J. Carley (Woodbridge, 1991), pp. 163±89, at 184, 189). The date is inferred from the accession of his predecessor Sigegar as bishop of Wells in that year. Otherwise the only certainty is

/3thomson/tcom2.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:25 ± disk/amj

136

COMMENTARY

that he witnessed documents dating between 985 and 1009. But we may have to do with another abbot altogether. In AG, cc. 62, 71 (pp. 128, 146), William says that Abbot `Egeluuardus' received a grant of land from Edgar, and reigned 962±72, when Sigegar succeeded him. Foot (pp. 182±3) is dismissive of this evidence because `Egeluuardus' does not appear in the list of abbots in BL MS Cotton Tiberius B. v, fo. 23v (written ?969). However Foot herself (pp. 185±6) argues that this list is `no more than a collection of the names of certain men commemorated at Glastonbury ca A.D. 1000' (cf. the Malmesbury list cited above, c. 94. 2n), and that it `should more properly be used as just one of the fallible records which comprise the sum of the extant materials relating to the pre-Conquest minster at Glastonbury'. The compiler of the Tiberius list may have omitted an earlier álfweard/áthelweard because he did not regard him as important. I suggest, therefore, that the later sources have confused and con¯ated two abbots of the same or similar names, and that the abbot connected with this document was the earlier of the two. 151C = JL 3752; Councils, i(2), no. 36; Thomson, William of Malmesbury, pp. 162 and n. 18, 163. Depending on whether the letter's recipient was álfric of Mercia (983±5) or álfric of Hampshire (982± 1016), the pope was either John XIV or XV in the ®rst case, or either of these plus one of John XVI, XVII or XVIII in the second. The last three popes are unlikely, for reasons given in Councils. William's version of this document probably derived from the copy in BL MS Cotton Tiberius A. xv or its exemplar, but was interpolated, perhaps by himself, in support of Glastonbury's claim to particular churches. 153 = Sawyer 796; given more fully than here in GP, c. 252 (pp. 404±5). 2 quod Angli bifario uocitant onomate Maldelmesburh] The name is not `bifarius' because of its two parts (Maldelmes + burh), but because in this version the personal element combines references to both Maeldubh and Aldhelm (con®rming the conjecture of Ekwall, The Concise Dictionary of Oxford Place-Names, p. 312); cf. above, c. 30, where the personal name is rendered Meildulfes. regni uero mei quarto decimo, regiae consecrationis primo] For explanation see below, c. 160n.

/3thomson/tcom2.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:25 ± disk/amj

BOOK II. 150C.7±157

137

154 This story is referred back to in GP, c. 86 (p. 187), as an example of álfgifu's prophetic powers. 1 nutantia lumina somno] Cf. Virgil, Georg. iv. 496: `conditque natantia lumina somnus'. 2 ut dicit psalmista] Ps. 76(77): 7. 3 et soluit in otia curas] Similarly in Mir., c. 13 (p. 93): `soluebat in otia curas'. Cf. Claudian, Carm. min. xxix. 23: `et laxat in otia curas', and Prudentius, Psych. 729: `in otia soluere curas', a line occurring only in English MSS (including Cambridge, Corpus Christi Coll. MS 23, s. xi, of Malmesbury provenance). 4 liuor quoque laudaret, cum nichil reprehendere posset] Cf. Horace, Sat. ii. 3. 138: `Nil sane fecit quod tu reprehendere possis'. Other echoes of this passage by William are listed in Wright II, p. 501. 155 Nemo eius . . . dispendio] Lifted from here in VD ii. 14 (p. 304), where it is used of Dunstan. tributum trecentorum luporum] A story, doubtless legendary, unique to William: Lloyd, History of Wales, i. 349. But it surely has some basis in historical fact. See above, c. 134. 5n, for an example of contemporary Welsh reaction to the taking of tribute by English kings. `Iudual' is Idwal or Ieuaf (d. 988), son of Idwal Foel (`the Bald') ab Anarawd (c. 131. 3n). 156. 1 hoc maxime timens, ne in tali colludio timeretur] Cf. Lucan iv. 719: `Hoc solum metuens incauto ex hoste, timeri'. 2 Omni aestate . . . consulens] So John of Worcester s.a. 975 (ed. McGurk II, pp. 426±7), partly verbatim. 157 William's story is fuller than the version in John of Worcester s.a. 964. John mentions only the bare fact of Edgar's marriage to álfthryth, daughter of Ordgar ealdorman of Devon, after the death of her husband áthelwold; but he does specify áthelwold's title as `dux Orientalium Anglorum'. William's story is repeated, with variations, by Gaimar (lines 3600±3938; pp. 114±25). Their versions are compared by Wright, Cultivation of Saga, pp. 146±53, concluding that (as one might expect) William's account preserves earlier tradition. That tradition might have come to William from Worcester material of the sort utilized by Prior Nicholas in his letter to Eadmer

/3thomson/tcom2.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:25 ± disk/amj

138

COMMENTARY

(see below, c. 159. 2n). Freeman (Norman Conquest, i. 66) thought that two of William's three stories of Edgar's private life (the exception being c. 158) were `mere romances, without a shadow of authority'. But it is not possible to be certain, and Freeman was sometimes less sceptical. Observe, in the case of the story in this chapter, William's cautionary `respondisse fertur' (3). ASC (DF = archetype of E) records the marriage s.a. 965, which is incorrect if Sawyer 725 (dated 964), which álfthryth attests, is genuine. 1 libidinosum in uirgines] And yet the ®rst example (2 below) concerns a married woman. si ueritas famae conquadraret] Cf. Sidonius, Epist. iii. 7. 4: `si uero dicta conquadrant'. 2 clauo clauum expellens] Cf. Jerome, Epist. cxxv. 14: `quasi clauum clauo expellere' (Otto, SprichwoÈrter, p. 85). 3 in siluam Warewellae (que uocatur Harewode Aac)] The Aac gloss is correct; Wherwell is today on the edge of Harewood forest. Ob illius sceleris . . . inhabitatur] The Benedictine nunnery of Holy Cross and St Peter, Wherwell (Hants.), was founded in the 960s, presumably after 964 if William's story is to be believed. álfthryth died apparently on 17 Nov. 1002 (Heads, p. 222). 158 The source is Osbern, Vita Dunstani, c. 35 (pp. 111±12), who makes this woman Edward's mother. The story is referred to in GP, cc. 18 (p. 27), with reference back (added above line in the autograph), and 88 (p. 191). William is not clear that it is to be believed (hence, presumably, its absence from VD), and he does not think that Edward was the result of the union. See below, c. 159. 2n. On the problem of Edgar's `delayed' consecration at Bath in 973 (also referred to below, c. 160. 1) see J. L. Nelson, `Inauguration rituals', in her Politics and Ritual, pp. 283±307, esp. pp. 296±303. She shows that Edgar was probably consecrated at the turn of 960 and 961, and argues that what took place at Bath was `an imperial inauguration rite' designating Edgar as `ruler of a British Empire, tenth-century style'. 159. 1±2 Subitiunt tertium . . . ®liam Ordgari] By uicus William may have meant to imply what was the case, namely that Andover was a royal vill, hence Edgar's residence: Wulfstan Cantor, Narratio de sancto Swithuno, Epist. spec. 75±80, ed. A. Campbell, Frithegodi

/3thomson/tcom2.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:25 ± disk/amj

BOOK II. 157±159.2

139

monachi Breviloquium Vitae Beati Wilfredi et Wulfstani Cantoris Narratio Metrica de Sancto Swithuno (ZuÈrich, 1950), p. 67: `quod fuerat uico regis in Andeferan'; P. H. Sawyer, `The royal tun in preConquest England', in Ideal and Reality in Frankish and Anglo-Saxon Society, p. 290. The seduction story, known only from William, is discussed by Wright, Cultivation of Saga, pp. 153±4. He suggests that it was of local, that is Winchester, origin. Note William's cautionary `inquiunt'. 1 et formidabile ridens] Statius, Theb. viii. 581. 2 quoad legitimam uxorem accepit . . . in eum egisse] Edgar's liaisons, marriages and children are a fearful tangle which William does not help unravel: see Ridyard, Royal Saints, pp. 42±3, Hayward, pp. 203±5. Most of this section is as John of Worcester s.aa. 964, 971, with the major exception that John describes Wulfthryth as `a virgin most devoted to God', implying that she was a nun, which William rejects. ASC (AG) and John of Worcester give the year of Edmund's death as 971, and specify his place of burial. ASC (DE) gives the date as 970, and omits the burial-place. Ridyard compares and contrasts William's account of Eadgyth's parentage here and in GP, c. 87 (pp. 190±1), with that of Goscelin, Vita S. Edithae, cc. 2, 4 (pp. 39±43). There Goscelin says that Edgar's union with Wulfthryth was quasi±legitimate and would have resulted in marriage had she not retired to become a nun at Wilton. William, who knew Goscelin's work (VD ii. 23; p. 310), seems to agree with this point. But Goscelin must have changed his mind (in one direction or the other), for in his Vita et virtutes S. Vul®ldae (BHL 8736b), ed. M. Colker, `Texts of Jocelyn of Canterbury which relate to the history of Barking abbey', Studia Monastica, vii (1965), 383± 460, at pp. 422±4, Edgar (having already attempted to seduce St Wulfhild), removes the virgin Wulfthryth from Wilton before having Eadgyth by her. But though William, in both his works, insists that Wulfthryth was not a nun, according to GP Dunstan ordered the king to perform a seven-year penance for his act. Here (c. 158), however, following Osbern's account, the penance is imposed for the king's seduction of an anonymous `virgin dedicated to God'. Ridyard (p. 43) advances arguments for doubting both of these versions, which are clearly attempts to harmonize elements in Osbern and Goscelin (Vita S. Edithae) with other material. However that may be, it is clear that there were divergent traditions regarding the status of Eadgyth's

/3thomson/tcom2.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:25 ± disk/amj

140

COMMENTARY

mother, and that William, who knew and elsewhere used Goscelin's work, here made a conscious choice in favour of a different account. quoad legitimam uxorem accepit Elfridam . . . de Wlfrida] Osbern (Vita Dunstani, c. 35; pp. 111±12) says that Edward's mother was an unnamed nun whom Edgar seduced; Eadmer's version (c. 33; pp. 209±10) is similar, only naming the nunnery as Wilton. But in his letter written to Eadmer c.1120 Prior Nicholas of Worcester (Memorials, pp. 422±4) gives an entirely different account, based upon `antiquitatis auctoritate tam cronicarum quam carminum, quae ea tempestate a doctis patria lingua composita . . . noscuntur . . . caeterarumque scripturarum testimonio'. According to this information Edgar married twice. By his ®rst wife, áthel¯ñd, also called Candida, daughter of Ordmñr, ealdorman of East Anglia, he had Edward. After her death he married álfthryth, daughter of Ordgar, ealdorman of the West Saxons, by whom he had áthelred. The ®rst wife died before the royal consecration. Although the marriage was legitimate, she was therefore not regarded as queen, so solemn was the act of royal consecration considered at that time (this is obviously a euphemistic interpretation of information hinting at actual illegitimacy). Some of this is re¯ected in John of Worcester s.a. 964, where the ®rst wife is named `ágel¯eda Candida cognomento Eneda' (Eneda alone JW Accounts, p. 274), and Edgar is said to have married álfthryth after the death of her husband áthelwold. Scholars have wondered how much truth there is in these details of the alleged ®rst marriage, since neither áthel¯ñd nor her father Ordmñr appear in Edgar's charters: Yorke, `áthelwold and the politics of the tenth century', p. 81 and n. 139. álfthryth's father is called Ordmñr (`Ormer'), dux of the West Saxons, in Byrhtferth's Vita S. Oswaldi (pp. 428±9), written 99761002, perhaps an error for the East Anglian ealdorman who really existed. It may be that áthel¯ñd did not attest because the king's liaison with her was not in fact legitimate. There is certainly contemporary evidence that her son was regarded as illegitimate (see below, c. 161. 1n). Ordgar's death in 971 and burial at Exeter are recorded by John of Worcester, not by ASC. Wlfrida . . . in eum egisse] Also in GP, cc. 18 (p. 27), partly in the same words and with reference back, and 87 (pp. 190±1), partly in the same words. 160. 1 Sed haec . . . Bathoniae coronatus est] ASC (DE) s.a. 972 (recte 973). On the allegedly `delayed' consecration see above, c. 158n.

/3thomson/tcom2.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:25 ± disk/amj

BOOK II. 159.2±161.1

141

William draws a distinction between this information, which he regards as certain, and Dunstan's prohibition of Edgar's wearing of the crown for seven years (c. 158), which he does not. nec nisi triennio superuixit] In his letter to Eadmer, Prior Nicholas of Worcester says that Edgar was not consecrated (`unctus in regem') `nonnisi ultimo regni sui tempore, id est duobus annis et duobus mensibus ante mortem' (Memorials, p. 423); he says that the delay was voluntary, until the king should have outgrown the passions of his youth. This seems improbable, but at least it suggests that Osbern's notion of a seven-year penance was not accepted at Worcester. 2 Corpus tunc . . . honoratur TtA] = VD ii. 18 (p. 307 lines 7±9). Nec illud oblitterandum . . . et ceco CB] Also in AG, c. 66 (pp. 134±5). 3 Merito ergo . . . multiplicitate] Also in VD ii. 17 (pp. 306 foot± 307 line 5), almost verbatim. For other early panegyrics on Edgar's reign see Plummer in Two Saxon Chronicles, ii. 162. spes Anglorum retro sublapsae] Cf. Virgil, Aen. ii. 169±70: `ex illo ¯uere ac retro sublapsa referri / spes Danaum'. Also in HN, c. 481 (p. 39), and, closer to Virgil, AG, c. 66 (p. 134): `ex illo res Glastonie retro relabi et in peius ¯uere'. Other testimonies to the decline of English affairs after Edgar's death are cited by Plummer, ut supra, pp. 164±5. An early example is Byrhtferth, Vita S. Oswaldi, p. 448: `Cumque decus ducum et totius Albionis imperator ex huius turbine mundi . . . esset raptus, . . . coepit post tempus laetitiae, quod in eius tempore paci®ce stabat, dissensio et tribulatio undique aduenire, quam nec praesules nec duces ecclesiarum et saecularium rerum poterant sedare.' 161 ASC (DE) and (source of) John of Worcester s.a. 975; Osbern, Vita Dunstani, cc. 36±7 (pp. 112±15). The picture presented here of the state of England in Edward's reign is very different from the (oddly) positive one given by what was perhaps William's principal source for the next section: Passio S. Edwardi (BHL 2418), p. 3. 1 Illum Dunstanus . . . imperitaret] Not in ASC; but prior to William the dispute was recorded by Byrhtferth, Vita S. Oswaldi, pp. 443±5, 448±9, by John of Worcester's source, by Osbern (Vita Dunstani, c. 37; p. 114), and by Eadmer (Vita Dunstani, c. 35; pp. 214± 5). What the grounds for objection to Edward were is unclear.

/3thomson/tcom2.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:25 ± disk/amj

142

COMMENTARY

Byrhtferth says that certain nobles (but not the leading ones) preferred áthelred because he seemed to be gentler in speech and deeds, whereas Edward inspired fear and terror because of a tendency to harsh words and violent action. Osbern gives a similar explanation: `existimantes iuuenem regem inhumanum futurum, consilia sapientum non curaturum, sed pro libidine omnia acturum'. So too Eadmer, `quia morum illius seueritatem, qua in suorum excessus acriter saeuire consueuerat, suspectam habebat', but adding `quia matrem eius, licet legaliter nuptam, in regnum tamen non magis quam patrem eius dum eum genuit sacratam fuisse sciebant'. These unconvincing reasons, contradicted by John of Worcester (who describes Edward as `heir to both [Edgar's] kingdom and to his personal qualities'), are discussed by Freeman, Norman Conquest, i. 638±9. In his view the alleged fears about the future character-development of such a young boy seem implausible, while the objection that he was born before his father's `consecration' at Bath in 973 wouldÐas far as we knowÐ apply equally to his brother. He concludes that perhaps all that was meant was `to deny that Eadward had any preference over his halfbrother, so that the two boys might be candidates on equal terms.' Of course Nelson's re-interpretation of the Bath `consecration' (above, c. 158n.) would remove this objection altogether. In any case the most recent scholarship suggests that the issue may have been Edward's legitimacy after all. In 966 Edward witnessed the foundation charter of Winchester New Minster (Sawyer 745), after his half-brother Edmund, the latter being called `clito legitimus prefati regis ®lius', Edward `eodem rege clito procreatus'. álfthryth then follows as `legitima prefati regis coniunx'. According to this interpretation, the key issue is not the date of Edward's birth, but the status of his mother's union with Edgar. At all events, what occurred was doubtless a succession dispute of a not uncommon sort. Note that this was fostered by the fact that Edmund, Edgar's eldest son by álfthryth, had died prematurely, as did the king himself, being only thirty-two years of age. The relevant literature is: S. Keynes, The Diplomas of King áthelred `the Unready' (Cambridge, 1980), pp. 163±6, Yorke, `áthelwold and the politics of the tenth century', pp. 82±3, Ridyard, Royal Saints, pp. 44±5, and Hayward, pp. 203±7. uix dum septem annorum puerulum] Only William gives his age, on what authority is not known, but he cannot be far wrong. áthelred cannot have been born before 964, when Edgar married álfthryth ( John of Worcester, s.a.; D. Whitelock, Anglo-Saxon Wills

/3thomson/tcom2.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:25 ± disk/amj

BOOK II. 161.1±162

143

(Cambridge, 1930), p. 121), and may have been born in or after 968. He is not mentioned in the so-called foundation charter of Winchester New Minster, dated 966 (Sawyer 745), and Byrhtferth (Vita S. Oswaldi, pp. 455±6) says that the Danish raids began (980) while áthelred was still in his pueritia (i.e. less than fourteen) (Hayward, p. 206 n. 33). Tunc uisa cometes] D. J. Schove and A. Fletcher, Chronology of Eclipses and Comets ad 1±1000 (Woodbridge, 1984), p. 297. On comets as portents see the bibliography of Pease in his edition of Cicero, De divinatione, p. 591 (on De div. i. 18). The locus classicus for medieval Western belief was Isidore, Etym. iii. 71. 2±3 Nam defuncto . . . concedentibus] Also in VD ii. 18±19 (pp. 306±8). The other contemporary biographers of Dunstan, Osbern and Eadmer (cc. 36, 34; pp. 113±14, 213), place the miracle in the reign of Edgar. But William preferred on this occasion to follow ASC (DE) s.a. 978. 2 ut nouus aduena ueteres colonos migrare compelleret] Cf. Virgil, Ecl. ix. 2±4: `aduena nostri / . . . ut possessor agelli / diceret: ``haec mea sunt; ueteres migrate coloni.'' ' Cf. VD ii. 19 (p. 307), and GP, c. 94 (p. 201). Nam et unus . . . euertit] For the `anti-monastic' reaction in Mercia under Ealdorman álfhere see ASC (DEF) s.a. 975; Byrhtferth, Vita S. Oswaldi, pp. 443±6; John of Worcester s.a.; the discussion by Plummer in Two Saxon Chronicles, ii. 163±4; D. J. V. Fisher, `The anti-monastic reaction in the reign of Edward the Martyr', Cambridge Historical Journal, x (1950±2), 254±70; and A. Williams, `Princeps Merciorum gentis: the family, career and connections of álfhere, ealdorman of Mercia, 956±83', ASE x (1982), 143±72. 3 aliae litterae] More detail is given in both Osbern, Vita Dunstani, c. 36 (p. 113), and Eadmer, Vita Dunstani, c. 33 (pp. 212±13). 162 Mainly parallel with the Passio S. Edwardi, pp. 3±10, written soon after 1075 for the nuns of Shaftesbury (Hayward, pp. 202 n. 8, 233); but with some variations and additions (including some in c. 161 above, q.v.) perhaps derived from a lost (?Shaftesbury) source also used in the Passio, or from conversations with the nuns there (see below, c. 163). Only William says that Edward was dragged by his horse after being stabbed, and the Passio is a good deal less hostile to álfhere. William repeats the story in VD ii. 20 (pp. 308±9), partly

/3thomson/tcom2.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:25 ± disk/amj

144

COMMENTARY

verbatim, but omitting the incident of álfthryth's horse, and her life of penance at Wherwell. Here he throws the blame for the murder on álfthryth; but below (c. 164. 1) he seems to suggest that Edward's half-brother áthelred may have been involved. There may be more than a coincidental similarity between William's expression `nouercali odio' and the `nouercali fraude' used in the same context in the letter from Prior Nicholas of Worcester to Eadmer of Canterbury (above, c. 160. 1n; Memorials, p. 423); both perhaps derive from Osbern, Vita Dunstani, c. 37 (p. 114). Nicholas too blames álfthryth. For the hagiography of Edward see Plummer in Two Saxon Chronicles, ii. 666±7, Ridyard, Royal Saints, pp. 44±50 and n. 167, and Hayward, ch. 10. For the reality, so far as it can be ascertained, see Keynes, Diplomas, pp. 163±74, and Hayward, pp. 203±8. The earliest account of the murder is given by Byrhtferth, Vita S. Oswaldi, pp. 449±51, though its major limitations are signalled by M. Lapidge, `Byrhtferth and Oswald', in Brooks and Cubitt, St Oswald of Worcester, pp. 64±83, esp. 79±80. It implicates `zelantes . . . ministri' (i.e. thegns) of áthelred, but not áthelred himself or his mother. The murder took place on 18 Mar. 978 (Keynes, Diplomas, p. 233 n. 7, Hayward, p. 233 n. 7), the translation to Shaftesbury in 979 (ASC (DE) s.a 980). The body was retranslated from the churchyard to the abbey church on 20 June 1001 (Passio S. Edwardi, p. 12). 2 inuidentes . . . mortuo cespitem aecclesiasticum cui uiuo inuiderant decus regium] William's interpretation of ASC (DE) s.a. 979 (recte 978): `he was buried at Wareham without any royal honours.' Byrhtferth also laments the poor treatment of the king's body, without naming the place (Vita S. Oswaldi, p. 450). The burial at Wareham is dated 980 by the Passio S. Edwardi (p. 8), probably following the misdating in ASC (DE). 3 Quo excita . . . consensit] Also in GP, c. 86 (p. 187 lines 26±33), almost verbatim. 4 Namque Elferius . . . apud Sceftoniam soluit] ASC (DE) s.a. 980 (recte 979), 19 Feb. 980 according to the Passio S. Edwardi (p. 10), again probably following ASC's misdating. Byrhtferth, Vita S. Oswaldi, pp. 450±2, has the murderers punished, not however álfhere. patiturque suos etiam hic mens anxia manes] Cf. Ausonius, Ephem. iii. 57: `patiturque suos mens saucia manes' (recalling Virgil, Aen. vi. 743: `quisque suos patimur manis'). Creditumque . . . barbaricam] Cf. ASC (DE) s.a. 979 (recte 978):

/3thomson/tcom2.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:25 ± disk/amj

BOOK II. 162±4

145

`And no worse deed than this for the English people was committed since they ®rst came to Britain.' 163 On the foundation (see above, c. 122. 3) and early history of Shaftesbury see VCH Dorset, ii. 73±9, and Heads, p. 219, Keynes and Lapidge, Alfred the Great, p. 272 n. 237, and Smyth, King Alfred, pp. 260±1, 264±6. William's warm description of the contemporary nuns suggests that he may have visited, and this is con®rmed in GP, c. 86 (p. 186), where he reproduces the text of an ancient inscription from the chapter-house but originally from the town wall, bearing the date 880 (Campbell, The Anglo-Saxons, p. 152). Perhaps this is where he obtained the information on St Edward's murder not found in earlier written sources. 164±5, 176±7 For William's famously negative picture of áthelred see S. Keynes, `The declining reputation of King Aethelred the Unready', in Ethelred the Unready, ed. D. Hill (British Archaeological Reports, British Ser. lix: Oxford, 1978), pp. 227±53, at 236±8 and nn.; a modi®ed view is in Keynes, Diplomas, ch. 4, esp. pp. 163±208. Concluding his study at p. 231 he refers to William's summary interpretation at c. 164. 1 (`Eius uitae cursus . . . miserabilis fuit'), with the comment: `We have at least come some way from this tripartite division of áthelred's career, and for the moment we may in summary offer another, albeit less rhetorical: the course of áthelred's life was beyond his own control in the beginning, in the murder of Edward at the hands of disaffected thegns and in the abuse of certain churches for the bene®t of some unscrupulous men who were in a position to manipulate the young king; it was well conducted in the middle, when the domestic affairs of the kingdom appear in many respects to have prospered under good management; and it was certainly out of hand in the end, as the king and his subjects were undermined from within by the treachery of Eadric Streona, and overwhelmed from without by their powerful and highly organized adversaries, the Danes.' William could have written a much fuller account of áthelred's reign from the material available to him in ASC and other sources. Instead he condenses this information, and punctuates it with a series of substantial digressions. It was a period of English history which he found dif®cult to interpret (see below, c. 165. 11), and on which he had no wish to dwell.

/3thomson/tcom2.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:25 ± disk/amj

146

COMMENTARY

164 ASC (DE) s.a. 979 (recte 978); Osbern, Vita Dunstani, c. 37 (pp. 217±18). Much of this section is in VD ii. 21 (pp. 309±10), partly verbatim; it is referred back to in GP, c. 256 (p. 409). 1 Ignauiam eius predixerat Dunstanus . . . ignauus homo erit] = VD ii. 21 (p. 309). So also Henry of Huntingdon v. 28 (pp. 326±7), but less scatologically (`minxit'). A similar story was told of the Byzantine emperor Constantine V nicknamed Copronymos (741±75): Theophanes, Chronographia, ed. C. de Boor (2 vols.: Leipzig, 1883, 1885), i. 400 (Greek), ii. 259 (Latin trans. of Anastasius Bibliothecarius); E. Gibbon, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, ed. J. B. Bury (7 vols.: London, 1896±1900), v. 186 (c. xlviii). 2 Vidi scriptum . . .] From the Passio S. Edwardi, p. 7. This story scarcely harmonizes with William's other statements suggesting that áthelred, when only a `puerulus' (c. 162. 1), connived at his halfbrother's murder (1 `parricidio cui coniuentiam adhibuerat immanis'; 3 `Quia . . . per mortem fratris tui aspirasti ad regnum'). But these suggestions of connivance do harmonize with (and perhaps derive from) the early testimony of Byrhtferth, Vita S. Oswaldi, pp. 449±50, that the murder was the work of that party which had previously favoured the claims of áthelred. Goscelin, in his Passio S. Ivonis (BHL 4621), also notes that áthelred founded the monastery at Cholsey inter alia `on account of the royal martyrdom of his holy brother, Edward' (PL clv. 87±8). For doubts as to áthelred's own complicity or sense of guilt see Keynes, Diplomas, pp. 173±4, Hayward, pp. 221±4; the alternative view (though still blaming álfhere rather than áthelred) is argued by A. Thacker, `Saintmaking and relic collecting by Oswald and his communities', in Brooks and Cubitt, St Oswald, pp. 244±68, at 248±9. 3 populata ora maritima] Similarly GP, c. 256 (p. 409): `omni ora maritima depopulata'. 165 Based upon ASC s.a. 988, 991±4 (CDE), 1001, 1003±4, 1006±7, 1009±10 (CDE), Osbern, Vita Dunstani, c. 39 (p. 219), (source of) John of Worcester s.aa. 986, 992±1012. Much of this section is summarized in VD ii. 34 (pp. 321±2). On the sometimes tense relations of áthelred with Normandy prior to his marriage to Emma in 1002 see Freeman, Norman Conquest, i. 642±6 (including commentary on cc. 165±6), and J. Campbell, `England, France, Flanders and Germany: some

/3thomson/tcom2.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:25 ± disk/amj

BOOK II. 164±165.5±6

147

comparisons and connections', in his Essays in Anglo-Saxon History, pp. 191±207, at 198±203. For the quarrel between áthelred and Richard II the Fearless in 991 William is the earliest authority. He may simply have inferred it from the papal letter (which he gives at c. 166) recording the pact between áthelred and Richard, by which they swore not to aid their respective enemies. But William of JumieÁges (GND ii. 10±15) also refers to disagreement prior to 1002, and describes an unsuccessful attempted invasion of Normandy by an English expedition soon after that year. The nub of the problem, from the English viewpoint, was the availability of Norman port facilities to Viking raiders. 1 Surrexerat . . . Dominus] = VD ii. 22 (p. 310), from Osbern, Vita Dunstani, c. 39 (p. 117). The event took place in 986 and the bishop of Rochester was álfstan (955/64Ð994/5). exercitum duxit] Tt has `misit', less correctly. John of Worcester s.a. 986 indicates that the king was present at the siege of Rochester. Verborum nuditate contempta . . . pretio emptus abiret] Cf. Hegesippus i. 1. 8 (p. 7), of Hyrcanus' defence of Jerusalem: `reseratoque . . . Dauid sepulchro tria millia auri talenta eruit, ex quibus trecenta adnumerauit Antiocho, ut obsidionem relinqueret, pretio emptus abiret.' 2 decretum a Siritio . . . ferro] Referred back to in GP, c. 20 (p. 32), an interlinear addition in the autograph. Sigeric, archbishop of Canterbury 990±4, was long remembered for initiating the policy of paying the enemy off. In a late fourteenth-century history of the archbishops of Canterbury he appears with the nickname `Danegeld': Keynes, Diplomas, p. 190. William's ironic comment is again an echo of both the wording and context of Hegesippus ut supra: `Reppulit Hyrcanus auro quem ferro nequibat.' Wright IV, pp. 22±3; and see below, c. 262. 5n. 3 transfuga uilis] Lucan v. 346. 4 regem eorum Analauum] Olaf Tryggvasson, king of Norway 995±1000. 5±6 Cantia . . . tabe®eri] For the various accounts of these events see Freeman, Norman Conquest, i. 673±8. The martyrdom occurred on 19 Apr. 1012, the translation from London back to Canterbury in 1023. William presumably relied upon Osbern, Vita S. Elphegi (BHL 2518), in Anglia Sacra, ii. 122±42, and id., Historia de translatione

/3thomson/tcom2.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:25 ± disk/amj

148

COMMENTARY

corporis S. Elphegi (BHL 2519), in The Reign of Cnut, ed. A. Rumble (Leicester, 1994), pp. 294±315, esp. 307. The passages `Cantia . . . glori®cauit', `Durat . . . tabe®eri' are also in VD ii. 34 (pp. 321±2). álfheah's martyrdom and the incorruptibility of his body are mentioned in GP, c. 20 (p. 33), with reference both to Osbern and this passage; there is much more detail at c. 76 (p. 171), with reference back concerning the archbishop's imprisonment. In GP, c. 21 (p. 34), William blames the king for not attempting to rescue the archbishop. 6 pagi . . . sedecim] As listed in ASC (E) s.a. 1011 (C and D list 17). 7 Rex interea . . . oscitabat] = VD ii. 34 (p. 322, lines 4±5). 9 preter Elfricum, Elferii qui superiorem regem occiderat successorem] But álfhere had buried Edward (c. 162. 4), not killed him. As to álfric, William has confused two individuals with the same name: (1) álfric who succeeded álfhere as ealdorman of Mercia 983±5. He is also called álfhere's son by John of Worcester, but wrongly (Williams, `álfhere, ealdorman of Mercia', pp. 144, 171 and n. 138). (2) álfric ealdorman of Hampshire (d. 1016): Keynes, Diplomas, pp. 177 n. 91, 184, 205±6. The second is correct. erat in talibus . . . apparuit] For analysis of William's characterization of Eadric (`Streona' = Acquisitive), similar to that provided by John of Worcester s.a. 1007 and Osbern, Vita S. Elphegi (Anglia Sacra, ii. 132), see Freeman, Norman Conquest, i. 654±8, esp. 655±6; for the facts, Keynes, Diplomas, pp. 214±16. 10 comes Orientalium Anglorum Vlkillus] He is called `dux Eastanglorum' by John of Worcester s.a. 1004; ASC gives him no title, in charters he is called `miles' or `minister', but s.a. 1016 ASC calls him ealdorman by implication. Keynes, Diplomas, p. 208 n. 199, suggests that he may have had the powers but not the title of ealdorman. His bravery, celebrated by English chroniclers, became the material for Icelandic sagas. The sources are compared and analysed by Freeman, Norman Conquest, i. 653±4. 11 prius uiginti quattuor milia librae, mox triginta milia] The ®rst ®gure is as ASC and John of Worcester s.a. 1002; under 1007 both sources give the ®gure of 36,000 pounds, except for ASC (EF), which gives 30,000. Veruntamen multa michi cogitanti . . . uitam consumpserit] This passage is discussed by D. P. Kirby, The Making of Early

/3thomson/tcom2.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:25 ± disk/amj

BOOK II. 165.5±6±165.13

149

England (London, 1967), pp. 115±16, and Keynes, `The declining reputation of Aethelred the Unready', p. 236, who concludes that `this remark seems to indicate the existence of an alternative tradition [about the character and abilities of áthelred]'. However, `although unable to reconcile what he read in the Chronicle with what he had heard from his elders, William was nevertheless content to base his account ®rmly on his written source.' The reason why he did so is doubtless that he would otherwise have been deprived of any explanation for England's inability to defend itself against the Danes during áthelred's reign. 12 ut nec propriis affectibus parceret] Cf. Prudentius, Psych. 478±9: `Nec parcit propriis amor insatiatus habendi / pignoribus'. See Wright II, p. 505 and n. 88. preter Danos . . . gladio deturbare] On the `Massacre of St Brice's day' in 1002 and later reporting of it (e.g. William of JumieÁges, GND ii. 14±17, Henry of Huntingdon vi. 2; pp. 340±1) see Freeman, Norman Conquest, i. 648±53, esp. p. 649; Wright, Cultivation of Saga, p. 39; Keynes, Diplomas, pp. 203±5. Henry says `De quo scelere in puericia nostra quosdam uetustissimos loqui audiuimus, quod in unamquamque urbem rex prefatus occultas miserit epistolas. Secundum quas Angli Dacos omnes, eadem die et eadem hora, uel gladiis truncauerunt inpremeditatos, uel igne simul cremauerunt subito comprehensos.' William returns to the subject below, c. 177. 1. amplexus gladio deturbare] Cf. Lucan iv. 209±10: `iunctosque amplexibus ense / separat et multo disturbat sanguine pacem'. 13 duobus liberis . . . penates uiri compleuerat] Cf. Lucan ii. 331±2: `alios fecunda penates / impletura datur'. Also at c. 388. 1. Ea fuerat ®lia Ricardi comitis Normanniae, ®lii Willelmi] Cf. VD ii. 34 (p. 322): `Emmam ®liam Richardi comitis Normanniae'. ASC always calls her álfgifu, William always Emma (below, c. 177. 7 etc.). See A. Campbell in Encomium Emmae, appendix I. Her grandfather was William Longsword, son of Rollo (see above, c. 145). qui post . . . insigniuerat] William of JumieÁges, GND i. 134±5, says that Richard died in 996 at FeÂcamp, but does not say he was buried there, or mention William of Volpiano. The same source has his predecessor William die on 17 Dec. 943 (i. 94±5). It was perhaps from this record that William estimated the length of Richard's reign as ®fty-two years.

/3thomson/tcom2.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:25 ± disk/amj

150

COMMENTARY

166 = JL 3840; Councils, i(1), no. 38, dated 1 Mar. 991, trans. EHD 1, no. 230. The letter is found in BL MS Cotton Tiberius A. xv, fo. 171v, from which William seems to have excerpted letters of Alcuin et al. (above, notes to cc. 58, 65. 3, 151). Another copy is in his version of the Liber ponti®calis: C, fo. 277rv; Levison, p. 389 and n. 2; Thomson, William of Malmesbury, pp. 130±1 and ch. 8. Despite its unusual formÐbeginning as a papal letter and concluding with the text of the treatyÐit is usually accepted as genuine, there being no obvious motive for later forgery. 1 Leonem . . . episcopum sanctae Treuerensis aecclesiae] There was no Archbishop Leo of Trier; the place is Trevi. In BL MS Cotton Tiberius A. xv (see Vol. i, apparatus ad loc.) `Treuensis' had by William's time been altered to `Treuerensis', understandably, since this obscure see was annexed to Anagni by Urban II in 1088 (JL 5365) because of its poverty. Nothing seems to be known of its Bishop Leo. 3 Edelsinus presul sanctae Scireburnensis aecclesiae] áthelsige I, bishop of Sherborne 978/9±991/3. Leofstan Alfwoldi ®lius et Edelnodus Wistani ®lius] The ®rst was perhaps Leofstan of Sussex, who attended a council in London in 989 or 990. áthelnoth son of Wigstan attended the same council, and is perhaps the `®delis minister' to whom áthelred granted a `curtis' in Wilton in 988: Councils, i(1). 178 nn. 5±6. Rogerus episcopus] Roger bishop of Lisieux 990±1022. Douglas, William the Conqueror, p. 160 n. 2, thought that the person intended was Robert archbishop of Rouen; but the mistake, if that is what it is, was in the manuscript that William used. In cc. 167±9 and 172 William presents legendary stories about Gerbert (Pope Silvester II), doubtless orally transmitted, earlier states of which can sometimes be glimpsed. Even Gerbert's contemporary Richer said that in Spain Gerbert `in mathesi plurimum et ef®caciter studuit': Historia Francorum, iii. 43, ed. and trans. R. Latouche (2 vols.: Paris, 1930, 1937), ii. 50. The old monk from Aquitaine, whom William had known as a boy, already knew a story resembling c. 169 (see below, c. 170. 3). Hugh of Flavigny (MGH SS, viii. 367) says that Gerbert obtained the see of Reims `quibusdam prestigiis'; Benno, Gesta Romanae aecclesiae contra Hildebrandum, ii. 4 (ed. K. Francke, MGH Lib. de Lite, ii, 1892, p. 373), tells the story of

/3thomson/tcom2.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:25 ± disk/amj

BOOK II. 166±167.1±2

151

his compact with the Devil, his disappointment and miserable death. Sigebert of Gembloux, writing before 1112, records these things as current rumour, `quam rem nos in medio relinquimus' (PL clx. 197); Orderic Vitalis (i. 156) makes discreet reference to the same event. 167. 1 De hoc sane Iohanne, qui et Gerbertus dictus est] There are two separate errors here: the con¯ation of John XV (985±96) (1) with John XVI (997±8), and (2) with Gerbert (Silvester II, 999±1003). The same mistakes are in William's Liber pont. (Levison, p. 389). They derive from an eleventh-century Catalogue of Popes, which William used as a source for the Liber. The Catalogue evidently did not assign numbers to popes of the same name, and may already have identi®ed Gerbert with John: Levison, pp. 380 and n. 1, 389 n. 1; Thomson, William of Malmesbury, pp. 122±3. The Aa version (Vol. i, Appendix II, p. 834) correctly distinguishes between all three popes. If William was responsible for this correction, it is puzzling that he did not introduce it into the main manuscript-tradition of the GR. per omnium ora uolitant] Cf. Virgil, Georg. iii. 9: `uictorque uirum uolitare per ora' (and c. 148. 3 above). monachus a puero apud Floriacum adoleuit] The monastery was not Fleury but Aurillac. cum Pitagoricum biuium attigisset] Cf. Ausonius, Technopaegn. xiv. 9: `Pythagorae biuium ramis pateo ambiguis'. See E. Panofsky, Hercules am Scheidewege und andere Bildstoffe in der neueren Kunst (Studien der Bibliothek Warburg, 18: Leipzig, 1930); W. Harms, Homo Viator in Bivio: Studien zur Bildlichkeit des Weges (Munich, 1970), esp. pp. 29±34, 40±9. intendens ut astrologiam . . . a Saracenis edisceret] Dr C. S. Burnett tells me that William is the earliest writer to say that Gerbert took anything from the Arabs (see also below, 2±3). The claim is unsupported by any evidence, and none of Gerbert's contemporaries made it (testimonies in N. Bubnov, Gerberti Opera Mathematica (Berlin, 1899), pp. 377±86). The basis of William's assertion may have been no more than deduction from the (correct) fact of Gerbert's going to Spain, or it may have already been part of the Gerbertian legend. 1±2 Hispania . . . sanctitate nobilis] The death of Hermenigild at the hands of his father Liuvigild, succession of Reccared and work of Leander are all in John of Worcester s.a. 585, lifted from Marianus'

/3thomson/tcom2.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:25 ± disk/amj

152

COMMENTARY

Chronicle. In Mir., c. 4 (pp. 73±4), William tells a story about Spanish Jews in the time of Reccared, using as sources an earlier miraclecollection, Gregory's Registrum epistolarum, texts of the Visigothic Laws and the third council of Toledo, and Isidore, De natura rerum. 2 Isidorus . . . auro comparatum] William's information, probably from an oral source, is again inaccurate; the translation was to St Martin's at LeÂon, and was accomplished by Ferdinand I in 1063 (see BHL 4488 etc). Saraceni enim . . . prouintias, amiserunt] William's interpretation of Alcuin, Epist. vii (MGH Epp., iv. 32 lines 17±20), referring to events of 785: `Etiam et eiusdem christianissimi regis duces et tribuni multam partem Hispaniae tulerunt a Saracenis, quasi trecenta milia in longum per maritima.' But William's knowledge of the history and geography of Spain is limited, and may have been in¯uenced by the Roland legend: see Orderic iv. 36 and Chibnall's comments in n. 1 and on pp. xxiv±xxv. William's awareness of a version of the chanson de Roland is shown at c. 242. 2 (and see commentary ad loc.). The only surviving manuscript of the chanson as we have it is Bodl. Libr., Digby 23, more or less contemporary with William: M. B. Parkes, `The date of the Oxford manuscript of La chanson de Roland (Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Digby 23)', in his Scribes, Scripts and Readers: Studies in the Communication, Presentation and Dissemination of Medieval Texts (London and Rio Grande, Oh., 1991), pp. 71±89. Charlemagne's conquest (much less in extent and permanence than William supposed) was along the Mediterranean, not Atlantic coast, where the Christian kingdom of Asturias, corresponding to the old Roman province of Callaecia, remained unconquered by Islam. superiores regiones] For William's use of `superior' as a geographical term see above, c. 1. 2n. Hispalim, quam Sibiliam uulgariter uocant] Similarly Mir., c. 3 (p. 70): `Hispalim Saraceni tenent, et Sibillam, barbarico uocabulo, dicunt'. Hispalis is in Isidore, Etym. xv. 1. 71, but not its `common name'. Ptholomeum in astrolabio, Alhandreum in astrorum interstitio, Iulium Firmicum in fato] (1) Dr C. S. Burnett tells me (letter of 28 Oct. 1996) that the ®rst of these works is not likely to have been the Praeceptum canonis Ptolemaei (L. Thorndike and P. Kibre, A Catalogue of Incipits of Mediaeval Scienti®c Writings in Latin (rev. edn., Cambridge, Mass., 1963), col. 154; Thomson, William of Malmesbury,

/3thomson/tcom2.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:25 ± disk/amj

BOOK II. 167.1±2±167.2

153

p. 206), for that is a set of canons for the sun and moon only. Rather, it was probably the De utilitatibus astrolabii (Thorndike and Kibre, col. 1236, ed. Bubnov, pp. 114±47), sometimes ascribed to Gerbert. In BL MS Add. 17808 (s. xi) it is called `Regulae ex libris Ptolomei regis. De compositione astrolapsus'. William's copy of part of it survives in Bodl. Libr., MS Auct. F. 3. 14, fos. 153 seq. (2) The second work is the Mathematica Alhandrei (Thorndike and Kibre, col. 834), probably written in tenth-century Francia or Catalonia, of which William's is the earliest known citation: J. Millas Vallicrosa, Assaig d'histoÁria de les idees ®siques i matemaÁtiques a la Catalunya medieval (Estudis Universitaris Catalans, SeÁrie Monogra®ca, i(1): Barcelona, 1931), pp. 246± 7; A. Van de Vyver, `Les plus anciennes traductions latines meÂdieÂvales (xe-xie s.) de traiteÂs d'astronomie et d'astrologie', Osiris, i (1936), 658± 91. William's title, `in astrorum interstitio', is inappropriate since the Mathematica does not discuss the distances beteen the planets, and Dr Burnett suggests a mistake for `iudicio' or `industria'. (3) The third work is Julius Firmicus Maternus, Mathesis, ed. W. Kroll, F. Skutsch, and K. Ziegler (2 vols.: Leipzig, 1897, 1913). On knowledge of it in early Europe see V. Flint, `World history in the early twelfth century; the ``Imago mundi'' of Honorius Augustodunensis', in The Writing of History in the Middle Ages, pp. 211±38, at 225 n. 1; see further Thomson, William of Malmesbury, pp. 59±60, 62 and n. 145, 206. In GP, c. 118 (p. 259 n. 6), William stigmatized Archbishop Gerard of York (d. 1108) for reading Julius Firmicus (a censure he later suppressed); yet there is an extract from the Mathesis in William's own Polyhistor (p. 104). All three works are found together in Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibl. MS Clm 560 (s. xi, with a Fleury connection). Dr Burnett comments (letter of 28 Oct. 1996) that `The Alhandrean corpus and Firmicus are better represented by English manuscripts of the eleventh and twelfth centuries than manuscripts from elsewhere, and their presence in England is probably due, in large measure, to the connections of British Benedictine monasteries (especially Ramsey) with the Fleury of abbot Abbo'. For knowledge of the works in south-west England in the twelfth century see C. S. Burnett, `Mathematics and astronomy in Hereford and its region in the twelfth century', in Medieval Art, Architecture and Archaeology at Hereford, ed. D. Whitehead (The British Archaeological Association Conference Transactions, xv: Oxford, 1995), pp. 50±9; but he is mistaken in stating, at p. 52, that New York, Columbia University Libr., MS

/3thomson/tcom2.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:25 ± disk/amj

154

COMMENTARY in

Plimpton 161 (s. xiii , ?Worcester), contained the Mathematica Alhandrei. William praises Bishop Robert of Hereford (1079±96) as an abacist in GP, c. 164 (p. 300). 4 in uetitum nitimur] Ovid, Amor. iii. 4. 17: `nitimur in uetitum semper cupimusque negata'. 5±6 Sed haec uulgariter . . . moribus sumus] An acute observation of William's; but the temptation to record exciting popular stories of Gerbert was too much for him and he does not heed his own warning. 6 Boetius] Boethius, De consol. Phil. i. 4. 39, 41. Vnde in uetusto uolumine . . . ®niuit] See above, note to c. 167. 1 `Iohanne qui et Gerbertus'. Again the Aa variant is historically correct. But `uetustus' is a rather odd word to use of the Catalogue of Popes which was William's source, for it extended at least as far as the death of Nicholas II (1059), perhaps as far as Victor III (1087). This has some relevance to the possible date of William's `uolumen uetustum' about áthelstan: above, note to cc. 132±5. Stubbs (GR ii, pp. lxxiii±lxxiv) suggests that William's story of Gerbert's bad end arose from confusion with John XVI, who was mutilated by the supporters of Otto III and Gregory V; but, as we have seen above (pp. 150±1), the legend was already current not long after the middle of the eleventh century. 168. 1 Habebat conphilosophos . . . et in nonnullis aliis] Constantine was brought up in the abbey of Fleury and had the prospect of becoming abbot there in 987. Rejected, he found refuge with Gerbert at Reims. He was deacon at Saint-Mesmin de Micy 988±96, abbot there 1011±20/1. To him Gerbert addressed his principal mathematical works, including the one mentioned here: Regulae de abaco, ed. Bubnov, Gerberti Opera Mathematica, pp. 1±5, 9±22. Adalbold was bishop of Utrecht (Wiltaburg), 1010±26. William refers to his Epistola ad Gerbertum, ed. Bubnov, pp. 302±9, etc., on Macrobius, In somn. Scip. i. 20. This work, together with Gerbert's reply, is in Cambridge, Corpus Christi Coll. MS 71 (St Albans, s. xiimed). His `other works' include a commentary on Boethius, De consolatione Philosophiae, and a Life of the Emperor Henry II of which only a fragment survives: M. Manitius, Geschichte der lateinischen Literatur des Mittelalters (3 vols.: Munich, 1911±31), ii. 743±8, esp. pp. 746±7.

/3thomson/tcom2.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:25 ± disk/amj

BOOK II. 167.2±168.2

155

Rotbertum . . . Ottonis] Robert the Pious (996±1031) and Otto III (983±1002). William is correct in saying that Gerbert tutored both men: Helgaud de Fleury, Vie de Robert le Pieux, ed. and trans. R.-H. Bautier and G. Labory (Paris, 1965), pp. 60±1 and n. 2, H. P. Lattin, The Letters of Gerbert (New York, 1961), pp. 14±16. 2 horologium arte mechanica compositum] Possibly a variety of the water-clock invented in antiquity and common in the West until the thirteenth century: F. Maddison, B. Scott, and A. Kent, `An early medieval water-clock', Antiquarian Horology, iii (1962), 348±53. However, the same or a similar apparatus is described by Thietmar of Merseburg (ed. R. Holtzmann, MGH srg, new ser. ii, 1935, pp. 392±3), who says that in Magdeburg cathedral during the reign of Otto III Gerbert `horalogium fecit, recte illud constituens secundum quandam stellam, nautorum ducem, quam considerauit per ®stulam miro modo'. This description suggests that Gerbert's horalogium was a large astrolabe. The `®stula' was a viewing-tube, as shown in a contemporary miniature in St Gallen, Stiftsbibl. MS 18: E. Zinner, `Aus der FruÈhzeit der RaÈderuhr', Deutsches Museum MuÈnchen, Abhandlungen und Berichte, xxii (1954), Heft 3, 7±71, at p. 8, and as described by Gerbert himself in his Epistola de sphaera, ed. Bubnov, Gerberti Opera Mathematica, pp. 27±8, and by his biographer Richer, Historia Francorum, iii. 51, 53 (ii. 60±3). See also H. R. Hahnloser, Villard de Honnecourt, Kritische Gesamtausgabe des BauhuÈttenbuches ms. fr. 19093 der Pariser Nationalbibliothek (2nd edn., Graz, 1972), pp. 135, 371 and n. 6. The opinion of Peter Williams, The Organ in Western Culture, 750±1250 (Cambridge, 1993), pp. 216, 284, that the horalogium may have been no more than a sundial, seems less likely. organa hidraulica . . . emittunt] On early medieval organs see W. Apel, `The early history of the organ', Speculum, xxiii (1948), 191± 216; J. Perrot, The Organ, from its Invention in the Hellenistic Period to the end of the Thirteenth Century, trans. N. Deane (London, 1971), pp. 205±76 (especially, on this one, pp. 225±7); J. W. McKinnon, `The tenth-century organ at Winchester', The Organ Yearbook, v (1974), 4±19; and Williams, The Organ in Western Culture, 750±1250. Gerbert's interest in the organ is otherwise attested by the treatise on the measurement of organ pipes in PL cli. 653±74. It is there attributed to his pupil Bernelin, but M. Huglo in The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, ed. S. Sadie (20 vols.: London,

/3thomson/tcom2.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:25 ± disk/amj

156

COMMENTARY

1980), vii. 250, gives good reason to think that the treatise is by Gerbert himself. per aquae calefactae] `calefactae' is omitted in T, probably rightly. The expression has puzzled historians of the organ in early Europe. What William is describing can hardly have been either a steam-organ or one blown by steam-power. J. Perrot in the original French edition, L'Orgue de ses origines helleÂnistiques aÁ la ®n du xiiie sieÁcle (Paris, 1965), pp. 291±2, proposed to derive `calefactae' from `calefacto' rather than `calefacio', which can mean `to warm by beating' (in which case we should read calefactatae). The `beating' would presumably be a water-wheel driving bellows via some form of crank. This is far-fetched, and even more so is the suggestion in the English edition (p. 227) that `calefactae' could be derived from `calcare' (assuming a correct reading of calcatae). Apel, `Early history', p. 193, suggested that the organ was a hydraulis of the usual type, and that William's misconception arose from the constant appearance of bubbles on the surface of the water in the main container. I have had occasion to examine the reconstructed hydraulis in the MuseÂe de l'orgue Suisse at Roche (canton Vaud), Switzerland, and did not observe any such bubbles. Besides which William, his monastery's cantor, must have known how a hydraulis worked: he could have examined the instrument given to Malmesbury by Dunstan (VD i. 4, ii. 10; pp. 257, 301, GP, c. 255; p. 407) and seen other tenth-century instruments such as that at Winchester. Peter Williams (p. 216) supports Perrot's original interpretation of calefactae and agrees with her and Apel that William was describing a hydraulis. But he thinks that William may have derived this, not from any ®rst-hand observation of an existing instrument, but from the text of Vitruvius (De architectura x. 8), which William knew (Thomson, William of Malmesbury, p. 59). He is sceptical that Gerbert built an actual instrument for playing music: `If Gerbert was involved in actual organ-making, it is likely to have been as a quadrivial theorist calculating scales, at most supervising instructional instrumenta which, it is true, may have been placed in monastic or cathedral churches.' Sancti Spiritus assit nobis gratia] In fact by Notker: Notkeri poetae balbuli liber ymnorum latine et theotisce editio minor, ed. W. von den Steinen (Munich, 1960), pp. 52±5; see also R. Crocker, The Early Medieval Sequence (Berkeley, etc., 1977), pp. 189, 198±203. O Iuda et Ierusalem] Response after the capitulum at vespers on

/3thomson/tcom2.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:25 ± disk/amj

BOOK II. 168.2±170.3

157

the vigil of Christmas: Corpus Antiphonalium Of®cii, ed. R.-J. Hesbert (Rerum Ecclesiasticarum Documenta, Series Maior Fontes, vii: 6 vols.: Rome, 1963±79), iv. 7040. The more usual beginning was `Iudaea', but `O Iuda' is the form (for instance) in the Winchester Troper: M. Huglo, `Remarks on the alleluia and responsory series in the Winchester Troper', in Music in the Medieval English Liturgy, ed. S. Rankin and D. Hiley (Oxford, 1993), pp. 47±58, at 54. The composition of these two items (the second beginning `Iudea') is attributed to Robert the Pious in Chron. Turonense (p. 361), perhaps after GR. 3 Vrgebat ipse fortunas suas . . . ut nichil . . . imperfectum relinqueret] Cf. Lucan i. 148: `Successus urgere suos'; Ovid, Met. i. 526: `uerba imperfecta reliquit'. quasi cornix . . . effoderet] Cf. Macrobius, Sat. vii. 5. 2: `tanquam cornix cornici oculos effodiat' (Otto, SprichwoÈrter, p. 93). 169 The story also occurs, probably lifted from William, in Gesta Romanorum, ed. H. Oesterley (Berlin, 1872), pp. 438±9, no. 107. 2 naturam uincebat opus] Cf. Ovid, Met. ii. 5: `materiam superabat opus'. A fainter echo in Mir., c. 47 (p. 163): `materia uincente sermonem'. 4 ut enim Iosephus auctor est] Josephus Lat. (Basel, 1524), Bell. Iud. i. 2; Antiqu. Iud. vii. 16, xiii. 15, xvi. 7. 5 Pater . . . operor] John 5: 17. ut idem historiographus testatur] Josephus Lat. (edn. 1534), Antiqu. Iud. viii. 2. 170 The same tale is told, after William, in the locally-written Eulogium historiarum sive temporis (s. xiv), ed. F. S. Haydon (3 vols.: RS, 1858±63), i. 396±7. 1 thesauros Octouiani] i.e. Octavianus, meaning Augustus Caesar. He is also thus named in the Encomium Emmae, Argumentum (pp. 6±7). 3 tramitem uestitum nudis ossibus] Cf. Lucan vii. 538: `totos tibi uestiat ossibus agros'. cadauera tabo adhuc ¯uentia] Cf. Virgil, Aen. iii. 626: `membra ¯uentia tabo' (cf. ix. 472).

/3thomson/tcom2.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:25 ± disk/amj

158

COMMENTARY

ubi dulcibus . . . littoribus] Cf. HN, c. 521 (p. 75): `cum placidis allisa lapsibus alludit unda littoribus'. 171 The same story is in Roger of Wendover i. 485±6 and Eulogium i. 398±9, the second attributing it to `Gesta Romanorum', though it does not appear in the edn. of Oesterley. This story shows tantalizing resemblances to the Golden Ass (Metamorphoses) of Apuleius. There are four points of general similarity: (1) In Apuleius the character Socrates falls into the power of an old witch Meroe, who keeps an inn and sells wine (presumably near the road) on the way to Larissa (Met. i. 7). Meroe has the power to transform men into animals (i. 9). Later, she turns up with another old witch to take revenge on Socrates (i. 12): a team of two malevolent old women. (2) The young man Lucius is turned into an ass (iii. 4). There are a number of references throughout the subsequent narrative to his continuing human intelligence while in asinine form (e.g. iii. 6). (3) Much later, the ass is exhibited for his remarkable human traits, which he is made to demonstrate to entertain guests at dinner (x. 16±17), having been bought for a high price by their rich master from the pair of slaves who ®rst discovered these capacities (x. 17). (4) The ass eventually ¯ees from the theatre where he has been placed by that same master (x. 35), and is changed back into the shape of a young man (xi. 13). Though it is not part of the mechanism of his re-transformation, the ass does bathe in water to purify himself before praying to Isis for help, which is forthcoming in the form of re-transformation (xi. 1). While it is not possible to prove the direct in¯uence of Apuleius since there are no close linguistic links, it is certainly possible that the Aquitanian's story is a distant version of sections of the Metamorphoses; (1) and (2) above provide particularly striking parallels, and the fact that the story is reported as being originally told by the young man himself matches the ®rst-person form of the Apuleian narrative. Perhaps the Aquitanian had been given some account of Apuleius' story by someone who had access to it from the copy made at Monte Cassino s. xi2 (Florence, Bibl. Laurenziana MS 68.2) or a close relative (for the tradition see L. D. Reynolds, Texts and Transmission; A Survey of the Latin Classics (Oxford, 1983), pp. 15±16). There is no other certain evidence for the reading of Apuleius' novel (as opposed to his philosophical works) outside Italy and north Africa until the fourteenth century, though it has been argued that Geoffrey of Monmouth and the poet Petrus Pictor may have known it:

/3thomson/tcom2.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:25 ± disk/amj

BOOK II. 170.3±172.2

159

E. Haight, Apuleius and his In¯uence (London, 1927; repr. New York, 1973), pp. 101±10; Manitius iii. 880; scepticism by C. C. Schlam, `Apuleius in the Middle Ages', in The Classics in the Middle Ages, ed. Bernardo and Levin, pp. 363±9. William's story was noticed by M. Kawczynski, `Ist Apuleius in Mittelalter bekannt gewesen?', in Bausteine zur romanischen Philologie: Festgabe fuÈr Adolfo Mussa®a (Halle, 1905), pp. 193±210, esp. 196; scepticism by G. Huek, `Le roman d'ApuleÂe eÂtait-il connu au moyen-aÃge?', Le Moyen AÃge, xxix (1917), 44±52, at pp. 45±6. [I am indebted to Dr Stephen Harrison of Corpus Christi College Oxford for most of this information.] 3 Leonem] Leo IX, 1049±54. exemplo de Simone Mago . . . in talibus reddidit] Ps.-Clementine Recognitiones, trans. Ru®nus (Patrologia Graeca, i. 1205). 172 `Ierusalem' was the name used in William's time for the church of Santa Croce in Gerusalemme: M. Andrieu, Le Ponti®cal romaine au moyen-aÃge, ii: Le Ponti®cal de la Curie romaine au xiiie sieÁcle (Studi e Testi, lxxxviii: Rome, 1940), p. 465 (xliii. 2): `ad ecclesiam Sancte Crucis, quae est Ierusalem ubi statio ®eri debet'. For the ponti®cal stational mass there, on the second Sunday in Advent, the fourth in Lent, and Good Friday, see G. G. Willis, `Roman stational liturgy', in his Further Essays in Early Roman Liturgy (Alcuin Club Collections, l: London, 1968), pp. 1±87, at 56±7. 1 Ierusalem dicta, id est, Visio pacis] Isidore, Etym. viii. 1. 6. 2 Hanc in ipsius urbis . . . refugium] Cf. Virgil, Aen. viii. 342±3: `hinc lucum ingentem, quem Romulus acer Asylum / rettulit', and Servius ad loc.: `quod ideo Romulus fecit, ut haberet aduenas plures cum quibus conderet Romam'. We presume that William meant that Romulus gave the name of Asylum to the site on which the church was later built, the name of the site being then transferred to the building. William's source for this legend is not known. In fact the church was created out of the main hall of the Sessorian Palace by Constantine I (hence sometimes called Sessorianum), and was named Ierusalem when it received the relic of the True Cross brought from there in 348: R. Krautheimer, Corpus Basilicarum Christianarum Romae (5 vols.: Vatican City, 1937±77), i. 165±94, esp. pp. 167±70. Krautheimer does not cite William's testimony.

/3thomson/tcom2.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:25 ± disk/amj

160

COMMENTARY

174 = BHL 5156 (Otbertus Peccator), shortened and rearranged according to William's invariable practice (see his remarks at c. 173). A more elaborate version (BHL 5158) is in Goscelin, Vita S. Edithae ii. 16 (pp. 20±2, 285±6). On the various versions of the story see E. SchroÈder, `Die TaÈnzer von KoÈlbigk: ein Mirakel des 11. Jahrhunderts', Zeitschrift fuÈr Kirchengeschichte, xvii (1897), 94±164. Heribert, archbishop of Cologne, died in 1021, Pilgrim his successor in 1036. The date of deliverance to Pilgrim of 1013 is therefore mistaken, being presumably the date of the miracle itself. William's account was used by the Eulogium i. 399±400, but elsewhere (pp. 255, 379) it dates the miracle to the ponti®cate of Gregory V and the year 1005; a summary version is in Ranulf Higden, Polychronicon, ed. C. Babington and J. R. Lumby (9 vols.: RS, 1865±86), vii. 112, s.a. 1019. 175 The stories cannot be dated. The ®rst is given, apparently after William, by Ralph of Diss, Abbreviationes chronicarum s.a. 1036, in his Opera, ed. W. Stubbs (2 vols.: RS, 1876), i. 178; both stories are retold by Roger of Wendover i. 442±4. 1 In hac urbe . . . eo deduxerit] It is called Agrippina in Orosius vii. 12. 2. Cf. Mir., c. 17 (p. 100): `Colonia olim Agrippina dicta sed postea, a Traiano imperatore caesare qui, ibi in imperatorem electus, colonias romanorum ciuium eo deduxerat, Colonia dicta.' 2 cum ad uersum tractus uentum esset `Scitote . . . Deus'] The Tract is the choral chant, of psalm verses without refrain, sung in place of the Alleluia (i.e. following the Gradual) at Mass, especially during the penitential season from Septuagesima to the end of Holy Week. Here the verse speci®ed is Ps. 99(100): 3. Ipse fecit . . . ipsi nos] Ibid. sine personarum acceptione] 1 Pet. 1: 17. 3 uelut pelagi . . . resistit] Cf. Virgil, Aen. vii. 586: `ille uelut pelago rupes immota resistit'. Cf. VD i. 26 (p. 284), HN, c. 513 (p. 70). 176 William presumably relied upon ASC s.a. 1012 (EF) for the amount of the tribute (the other versions specify £48,000), though he has (by transcriptional error?) reduced his source's forty-®ve ships to ®fteen. But for much of this section there is no known source. At uero . . . Livingo] ASC s.a. 1013. Turkillus Danus] No other source involves Thurkil in the murder of álfheah; indeed Thietmar of Merseburg vii. 42±3 (pp. 448±50)

/3thomson/tcom2.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:25 ± disk/amj

BOOK II. 174±177.7

161

says that Thurkil sought to intercede for the archbishop (whom he calls Dunstan in error). See Freeman, Norman Conquest, i. 677±8; Encomium Emmae, pp. 73±82, esp. 74, and I. McDougall, `Serious entertainments: an examination of a peculiar type of Viking atrocity', ASE xxii (1993), 201±25, esp. pp. 206±15. 177 Based upon ASC s.a. 1013, much elaborated, and with the addition of information from elsewhere: see Winterbottom, `The Gesta regum of William of Malmesbury', pp. 171±2. William uses a `¯ashback' to ASC's account s.a. 1002 of the St Brice's Day massacre to provide a motive for Swein's invasion, though the lapse of time makes it an improbable one. William is the earliest known authority for áthelred's speech, which he presumably invented; note that he begs licence to insert invented speeches (`declamatiunculas') in VW i. 16 (p. 23). He is the only source for the death of Gunnhild and Pallig in the 1002 massacre and for Eadric Streona's part in it. The latter is puzzling; why does William attribute to him `infaustus furor' when he is so willing otherwise (cc. 165, 179, 180. 4, 9) to paint him as a collaborator with the Danes? Did he think that Eadric arranged the massacre in order to incite the Danes against the king? 2 in mortem pro libertate ruebant] Cf. Virgil, Aen. viii. 648: `Aeneadae in ferrum pro libertate ruebant'. See Wright II, p. 487; for the appositeness of the original context, Winterbottom, `The Gesta regum', p. 172. 3 Lacero agmine petit] Cf. Lucan vi. 315: `lacero petit agmine terras'. 4 quos Mars ipse collata non sperneret hasta] Cf. Statius, Theb. ix. 87±9: `nec prope conlata spreuisset cuspide Mauors, / aduentant; contra conlecta ut pectora parmae / ®xerat atque hastam longe protenderat'. cuius . . . sola umbra] Cf. Lucan i. 135, on Pompey: `stat magni nominis umbra'. 5 auito extorrem solio] Cf. Virgil, Aen. vii. 169: `solio medius consedit auito'. deserti ducis exemplum] Cf. Lucan vi. 234±5: `sit Scaeua relicti / Caesaris exemplum'. 7 clementior aura componit pelagus] Cf. Lucan v. 701±2: `tumentes / composuit pelagus . . . undas'.

/3thomson/tcom2.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:25 ± disk/amj

162

COMMENTARY

Emma] Her English name, given in ASC, was álfgifu. Confusingly, this is the same name as both her husbands' ®rst wives. Perhaps for this reason it was not used by William, Simeon of Durham, or Henry of Huntingdon. See A. Campbell in Encomium Emmae, appendix I, `Queen Emma's name, title, and forms of assent', pp. 55±61. sint comites eorum episcopus de Dunelmo et abbas de Burgo] Actually álfhun bishop of London and álfsige abbot of Peterborough went: ASC and John of Worcester s.a. 1013. William has confused álfhun of London (1002/4±1015/18) with Ealdhun of Durham (990±1018). A few extra details of áthelred's own ¯ight are provided by William of JumieÁges, GND ii. 16±19. 178 Some of the material in this chapter is parallel with William of JumieÁges, GND; but in some instances William knows more, while in others he offers popular variants of the same story. 1 Erat ille Ricardus . . . substerneret] Not unlike William of JumieÁges, GND i. 100±3, applied to the duke's father Richard I. 2 audacis facti conscium] Cf. Virgil, Aen. xi. 812: `conscius audacis facti'. plebeio tectum amictu] Cf. Lucan v. 538: `plebeio tectus amictu'. Also above, c. 37. 1. 3 atrocitatem facti per ampli®cationem exaggerans] On ampli®catio see e.g. Auctor ad Herennium ii. 47. 4 Post uiginti octo annos] Tt says `uiginti', perhaps simply omitting the `octo' in error; but the correct ®gure is thirty (21 Nov. 996Ð23 Aug. 1026). mortis uiam ingrediens . . . nostro tempore Willelmus, illius loci abbas tertius] Richard II died on 23 Aug. 1026. According to William of JumieÁges, GND ii. 38±41, he summoned Archbishop Robert and others to FeÂcamp where he made dispositions for his death; but William of JumieÁges does not say that Richard wished to be buried there, nor does he offer an opinion of Archbishop Robert. William de Ros, much-loved abbot of FeÂcamp, died on 27 Mar. 1107 (Orderic vi. 138±41). He rebuilt the chancel and nave of the abbey church erected by Duke Richard. in senium uergens] Similarly in HN, c. 455 (p. 10). Cf. Statius, Theb. i. 390±1: `Rex ibi tranquille, medio de limite uitae / in senium

/3thomson/tcom2.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:25 ± disk/amj

BOOK II. 177.7±179.3

163

uergens', and Macrobius, Sat. ii. 5. 2: `uergentis in senium', quoted in Polyhistor, p. 147 line 14. 5 Post Ricardum . . . consciuerit] Cf. William of JumieÁges, GND ii. 46±7, mentioning death by poisoning as a rumour; William is the ®rst to attribute it to Robert: Douglas, William the Conqueror, pp. 408± 15, esp. 408. 5±6 cuius rei gemens . . . discessit] Robert died in 1035. William's account is like, but clearly independent of, William of JumieÁges, GND ii. 78±85, which obviously does not attribute Robert's pilgrimage to contrition for his poisoning of Richard III; nor does it mention poisoning as the cause of Robert's own death; William of Poitiers is not here accessible. The story of Richard's poisoning occurs in the Inventio et miracula sancti Vulfranni (s. xiex), ed. J. Laporte (Rouen, 1938), p. 41, Wace, Roman de Rou (pt. iii, lines 3212±14; i. 280), and the Chron. Turonense (p. 360) which also connects it with Robert's pilgrimage but which may be dependent upon William: Douglas, William the Conqueror, p. 409. 179 Based upon ASC s.aa. 1014, 1015, with miscellaneous additions. 1 Dicitur . . . obisse] Cf. Hermann, De miraculis S. Edmundi, cc. 3±6 (Memorials of St Edmund's Abbey, i. 32±7), and John of Worcester s.a. 1014; but John of Worcester says that Swein saw Edmund while awake and during the day, and fell from his horse pierced by the saint's spear, dying that same evening; Hermann says that Swein, in his dream, was pierced through by Edmund's spear and died immediately. William seems then to be re¯ecting popular tradition (also re¯ected in Snorri Sturlasson, Heimskringla, Saga of King Olaf the Holy, c. 11), and is sceptical about it; and yet the slightly precious `peruasor' in the previous sentence is Hermann's word (p. 33). The legend of Swein's death is told again, with slight variations, in GP, c. 74 (p. 155). For his kingship and the stories of his death see Freeman, Norman Conquest, i. 678±83, Plummer in Two Saxon Chronicles, ii. 192, and L. Demidoff, `The death of Sven ForkbeardÐin reality and later tradition', Mediaeval Scandinavia, xi (1978±9), 30±47. 3 naribus et auribus truncos] `hands, ears and noses' ASC (CD) and John of Worcester s.a. 1014, `hands and noses' ASC (E). ¯uctus marinus . . . excreuit] `Euripus', in classical Latin a de®nite place noted for its violent tidal current, later came to mean any major

/3thomson/tcom2.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:25 ± disk/amj

164

COMMENTARY

tidal event, e.g. Boniface, Epist. xiv (p. 22 lines 11±12): `quando uentorum uiolentia et procellarum tempestates . . . inormem euripum impellunt'. The rest seems to have been derived from Bede, De nat. rerum, c. 39 (CCSL cxxiiiA. 224±5), except that William has mistakenly reversed Bede's identi®cations: `Ledo' should mean the neap or low tide, and `Malina' the spring tide. Cf. Mir., c. 45 (pp. 158±9), on Mont Saint-Michel: `Huic aestus maris, ille quidem quem Graeci rheuma uocant . . . accessum nimis terribilem bis in die praetendit, pariterque recessum. Accessumque rheumatis malinam uocitant compatriotae, ledonemque recessum.' The ®rst sentence is only slightly adapted from Bede, Vita S. Cuthberti, c. 17. 4 Sigeferdum et Morcardum] Sigeferth and his brother Morcar were two of the chief thegns of the `Seven Boroughs', meaning the Five Boroughs probably with the addition of York and Torksey: Freeman, Norman Conquest, i. 373±4; R. A. Hall, `The ®ve boroughs of the Danelaw: a review of present knowledge', ASE xviii (1989), 149±206, at pp. 150±2. legi ego scriptum] Referring to the (apparently mostly genuine) charter Sawyer 909 (EHD 1, p. 545), which is what William will have seen (Stubbs in GR ii, p. cviii n. 1), and to which he is the earliest witness; cf. Plummer in Two Saxon Chronicles, ii. 182. But the burning cannot have taken place in 1015. The extant charter is dated 1004, and in GP, c. 178 (pp. 315±16), the burning is correctly connected with the massacre of 1002 (see above, cc. 165. 11, 177. 1). Freeman, Norman Conquest, i. 648±9; Wright, Cultivation of Saga, pp. 178±82; Keynes, `The declining reputation of áthelred the Unready', p. 238. 5 Vxor Sigeferdi . . . ridiculo] Edmund married Sigeferth's widow Ealdgyth in 1015 ( John of Worcester s.a.). quam fama obscura recondit] Cf. Virgil, Aen. v. 302: `multi praeterea, quos fama obscura recondit'; similarly at c. 46 above. On áthelred's wives and children see Freeman, Norman Conquest, i. 685±9, HBC, p. 27. According to JW Accounts, p. 275, his unnamed ®rst wife was álfgifu, daughter of a `comes Agelberhtus', who cannot be certainly identi®ed although Sawyer 838 and 954, dated 981 and 1019, for Tavistock and Exeter, are witnessed by one or more `duces' called áthelberht. In her will (Sawyer 1495), dated 100461014, the woman is called áthel¯ñd. Ailred of Rievaulx, Vita Edwardi (PL cxcv. 741C), says that she was the daughter of Thored (son of Gunnar earl of Deira, on whom see Freeman, Norman Conquest, i. 661).

/3thomson/tcom2.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:25 ± disk/amj

BOOK II. 179.3±180.3

165

si Parcae parcere nossent] Parcae is derived from parcere by Isidore, Etym. viii. 11. 93. William may have connected this with the idea expressed in Virgil, Georg. iv. 489: `scirent si ignoscere Manes'. comitatum Sigeferdi, qui apud Northanimbros amplissimus erat] See above, 4. 180 Based on ASC s.aa. 1015, 1016, but with a number of additions: the place of áthelred's burial, given also by John of Worcester s.a. 1016, details of the battle of Sherston, and the suggestion that Eadric had Edmund Ironside assassinated. William's story of Eadwig's ¯ight, return, and death is independent of both the brief mention in ASC s.a. 1017 and the longer account by John of Worcester s.aa. 1016, 1017; only William speci®es his place of burial as Tavistock. William and John of Worcester are the earliest authorities to mention the Hungarian exile of Edmund's sons. 1 eo animo ut aut uincendum aut moriendum sibi proponeret] Cf. Justin xxii. 6. 4: `ut omnes scirent . . . aut uincendum aut moriendum esse'. 3 Comitatus eius datus Iritio] Eric of Hlathir, Cnut's brother-inlaw, earl of Northumbria from 1016 until his banishment in or soon after 1023. His career is traced by A. S. Napier and W. H. Stevenson, The Crawford Collection of Charters and Documents now in the Bodleian Library (Oxford, 1895), pp. 142±8, A. Campbell in Encomium Emmae, pp. 66±73, and S. Keynes, `Cnut's earls', in Rumble, The Reign of Cnut, pp. 43±88, at 57±9. Edmundum, per semetra fugitantem] For the rare `semetra' (also at c. 170. 1) cf. (in another sense) Prudentius, Psych. 829: `argutam mutilet per dissona semetra normam'. But William was probably directly dependent upon Osbern, Vita Dunstani, c. 28 (p. 102): `Porro regem per diuersa locorum semetra deuiantem ultra ¯umen Tamisium compulere' (referring to Eadwig). in initio Quadragesimae die sancti Gregorii] The dating criteria are contradictory: `in initio Quadragesimae' in 1016 was 18 Feb., whereas St Gregory's day is 12 Mar., which in 1016 fell in the fourth week of Lent. ASC says that he died `after Easter', on St George's day, which is 23 Apr.; this is surely correct. Either William misread his copy of ASC, or it already read `Gregory' for `George'; he must have known that the Feast of St Gregory always falls before Easter, and beyond that probably made a rough guess.

/3thomson/tcom2.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:25 ± disk/amj

166

COMMENTARY

4 Oppidani . . . conclamant] For other instances of the London citizenry involved in the choice of king see below, cc. 188. 1 (Harold I), and 247. 2 (Edwin or Morcar), and M. McKisack, `London and the succession to the crown during the Middle Ages', in Studies in Medieval History presented to F. M. Powicke, ed. R. W. Hunt, W. A. Pantin, and R. W. Southern (Oxford, 1948), pp. 76±89 (at 76±8). Pennam iuxta Gilingeham] Penselwood in Somerset, the date being 7±9 May. Sceorstanum] Sherston in Wiltshire, St John's day (presumably being Nativitas Iohannis Baptistae), 24 June. On these wars see Freeman, Norman Conquest, i. 694±7. auctore Edrico . . . ablata galea caput suum commilitonibus ostentans] Not in ASC. John of Worcester s.a. 1016 has a slightly different story: Eadric killed a soldier called Osmear, and brandished his head, claiming that it was Edmund's, temporarily dismaying the English until they realized that it was a hoax. Henry of Huntingdon vi. 13 (pp. 358±61) situates the incident in the battle of Assandun (7 below). Wright, Cultivation of Saga, pp. 186±91, discusses the various later reports of Eadric's stratagem, which seem to re¯ect oral tradition. 6 uiolentus et rapaci gurgite minax, menia pulchra lauat] Cf. Prudentius, Perist. iii. 188±90: `quam memorabilis amnis Ana / preterit et uiridante rapax / gurgite moenia pulchra lauat', describing MeÂrida, washed by the river Guadiana. 7 Vltimus ille dies . . . fuisset, si perseuerandum rex putasset] Cf. Virgil, Aen. ix. 757±9: `et si continuo uictorem ea cura subisset, / . . . / ultimus ille dies bello gentique fuisset'. Vlkillus . . . posse illos superari] ASC s.a. 1004. On the death of the English nobility at Assandun see also John of Worcester s.a. 1016, supplying some names. There has been extensive discussion of the site of the battle, the main contenders being either Ashdon in north-west or Ashingdon in south-east Essex. The most recent contributions, with full citation of the earlier literature, are by C. Hart, `The site of Assandun', in his The Danelaw (London, 1992), pp. 553±65, and G. Rodwell, `The battle of Assandun and its memorial church: a reappraisal', in The Battle of Maldon: Fiction and Fact, ed. J. Cooper (London, 1993), pp. 127±58. Both favour the site of Ashdon. 8±9 Edmundus inde . . . illi concedens Mertiam] For the various accounts of Cnut's and Edmund's meeting and treaty see Freeman,

/3thomson/tcom2.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:25 ± disk/amj

BOOK II. 180.3±180.9±10

167

Norman Conquest, i. 705±11, and Wright, Cultivation of Saga, pp. 191± 8. The reference to trial by single combat, not in ASC, is also in Encomium Emmae (c. 8; pp. 24±5), in Henry of Huntingdon (vi. 13; pp. 360±1), Gaimar (lines 4251±4354), and Walter Map, De nugis curialium v. 4, ed. and trans. M. R. James, C. N. L. Brooke, and R. A. B. Mynors (OMT, 1983), pp. 424±6. Plummer in Two Saxon Chronicles, ii. 199, thought that the later writers misunderstood ASC's `togñdir cuman', but Wright suggests a historical basis in the Scandinavian `holmgang' custom. See also M. Ashdown, `The single combat in certain cycles of English and Scandinavian tradition and romance', Modern Language Review, xvii (1922), 113±30. 9 fedusque . . . Mertiam] So ASC. John of Worcester s.a. 1016 says that Cnut was to have Wessex, East Anglia, and Essex with London, while Edmund retained the `regnum'. McGurk ( John of Worcester II, p. 493 n. 9) thinks that John's exemplar was corrupt at this point, though he may also have simply muddled it. A better version of the treaty is perhaps that given in Roger of Wendover i. 459: `Diuiditur itaque regnum, Eadmundo dictante, inter duos, ita ut corona totius regni regi remaneat Eadmundo; cedunt ergo in usus eius totam Angliam ad australem plagam Thamesis ¯uminis, cum Est-Sexia et Est-Anglia et ciuitate Lundoniarum, quae caput est regni; Cnutone etiam aquilonales partes Angliae obtinente.' Glastoniae iuxta Edgarum auum suum sepultus est] The place of Edmund's burial is not mentioned in ASC, but it is given by Hermann, De miraculis S. Edmundi, c. 9 (Memorials of St Edmunds Abbey, i. 39), and John of Worcester s.a. 1016, the second specifying `cum auo suo rege paci®co Edgaro sepultus est'. AG, c. 31 (pp. 84±5), gives more precise information, namely that he was buried before the high altar, Edgar having been buried at ®rst in the chapter-house, then in a shrine `which also boasts the remains of the martyr Vincent' (also AG, c. 66 (pp. 134±5); and see c. 160. 1±2 above). 9±10 Fama Edricum infamat . . . tumulatur] On the many and various stories of Edmund's death see Freeman, Norman Conquest, i. 711±17, Plummer in Two Saxon Chronicles, ii. 199±200, and Wright, Cultivation of Saga, pp. 199±206. Closest to William is Henry of Huntingdon vi. 14 (pp. 360±1). ASC says nothing as to its manner or place, while John of Worcester adds only that he died at London. Adam of Bremen ii. 53 (ed. B. Schmeidler, MGH srg, ii, 1917, p. 114) says that he was poisoned. The ®rst to introduce the possibility that

/3thomson/tcom2.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:25 ± disk/amj

168

COMMENTARY

Eadric was his murderer was Hermann, De miraculis, c. 9 (Memorials, i. 39). Clearly William himself was unsure of what really happened. 9 eius consilio . . . adegisse] A lavatory seems to have been understood as a useful place at which to conduct an assassination (see below, c. 373. 2); and it made a good story. On the various versions of this one see Wright, Cultivation of Saga, pp. 206±12. 10 Frater eius . . . tumulatur] For the problem of the identity of this Eadwig and his death see Freeman, Norman Conquest, i. 717±19. ASC s.a. 1017 says `And King Cnut exiled the atheling Eadwig (`and Eadwig, king of the ceorls' DE, which omit the next clause) and afterwards had him killed.' ASC (C) s.a. 1020 says that `Ealdorman áthelweard and Eadwig, king of the ceorls, were outlawed'. John of Worcester s.aa. 1016, 1017, also refers to two of the same name: (1) Eadwig (ñtheling) son of áthelred, ordered into exile by Cnut, who also attempts unsuccessfully to have him killed; later he is killed by Cnut's orders. (2) Eadwig `qui rex appellabatur rusticorum', also banished but later reconciled. In both cases Eadric is involved. terris iactatus et alto] Virgil, Aen. i. 3±4: `multum ille et terris iactatus et alto / ui superum'. Edwius et Eduardus . . . Hunorum regem] `Edwius' is a slip for `Edmundus', doubtless prompted by what has gone before. The substance is in ASC (D) s.a. 1057, which, however, only mentions Edward. John of Worcester s.a. 1017 gives the names of the king's sons correctly, and says that on the advice of Eadric Streona they were sent in the ®rst instance to Sweden to be put to death; the king there took pity on them and sent them to Hungary where they were brought up by King Solomon (1063±74). Similar is Orderic (iv. 272±3), who says that Margaret queen of Scotland `was a daughter of Edward, ``rex Hunorum'', who was the son of . . . Edmund Ironside, and when in exile had married the daughter of Solomon ``rex Hunorum'', receiving the kingdom with her'. But the king cannot have been Solomon, since Edward returned to England in 1057, dying on 19 Apr.; the more likely candidate is Stephen, 1000±38. There is other evidence that the children may not have gone directly to Hungary. Adam of Bremen (ii. 53; p. 114) has them go to Russia and so do the Leges Edwardi Confessoris in Liebermann, Gesetze, i. 664: `Eadwardus . . . , mortuo patre, timore regis Cnuti aufugit de ista terra usque ad terram Rugorum, quam nos uocamus Russeiam. Quem rex ipsius terre, Malesclodus nomine, ut audiuit et intellexit quis et unde esset,

/3thomson/tcom2.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:25 ± disk/amj

BOOK II. 180.9±10±180.11

169

honeste retinuit eum. Et ipse ádwardus accepit ibi uxorem ex nobili genere, de qua ortus est ei Eadgarus atheling et Margareta regina Scotie et Cristina soror eius.' The Russian king was Jaroslav I of Kiev (c.1034±54), who had a Swedish wife and employed Scandinavian mercenaries; daughters of his married Harold Hardrada, Henry I of France, and Andrew king of Hungary: N. K. Chadwick, The Beginnings of Russian History (Cambridge, 1946), pp. 98±111. Note also that St Olaf ¯ed before Cnut from Sweden to the court of Jaroslav: Eystein, Passio et miracula beati Olavi, ed. F. Metcalfe (Oxford, 1881), pp. 17±18, 71±2. Gaimar (lines 4481±664; pp. 142± 8) has an even more romantic version; he says that the boys were exiled on the advice of Emma, their step-grandmother, in order to exclude them from the succession. They were sent to Denmark and entrusted to the care of a powerful man named Walgar. In due course Emma tried to have them maimed; Walgar ¯ed with them to Hungary by way of `Gardimbre' (perhaps ON Gardariki, i.e. Russia). On all of this G. Ronay, The Lost King of England (Woodbridge, 1971), pp. 37± 121, is utterly unreliable; see rather N. Hooper, `Edgar the Aetheling: Anglo-Saxon prince, rebel and crusader', ASE xiv (1985), 197±214, at pp. 197±200, S. de Vajay, `Agatha, mother of St Margaret queen of Scotland', Duquesne Review, vii(2) (1962), 71±87, and S. Keynes, `The Crowland Psalter and the sons of Edmund Ironside', Bodleian Library Record, xi (1985), 359±70. Edmund died young while overseas; Edward married Agatha, whom ASC (D) calls `a kinswoman of the emperor'. John of Worcester calls her `®liam germani imperatoris Heinrici'; it has been suggested that `german(a)e' should be read, making Agatha Henry II's niece rather than daughter. Orderic (iv. 272±3) makes her King Solomon's daughter, William the king's sister-in-law. The accounts of William and John can be reconciled because King Stephen's wife was Gisela, sister of Henry II, and the reference may be to their daughter or to the daughter of a brother or sister of Gisela. This marriage produced Edgar ñtheling, Queen Margaret of Scotland, and Christina who became a nun at Romsey: see below, c. 228. 1. tutas fouere latebras] Cf. Lucan v. 743: `tuta latebra', viii. 13: `tutis fatum celare latebris'. Cf. also GP, c. 92 (p. 199): `tutas illic aliquandiu latebras confouerat.' 11 sororem suam Emmam . . . effugauerit] Cnut married Emma in July 1017. She was apparently already in London:

/3thomson/tcom2.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:25 ± disk/amj

170

COMMENTARY

S. Keynes, `The áthelings in Normandy', Anglo-Norman Studies, xiii (1990), 173±205, at pp. 182±3, and in Encomium Emmae, pp. [xxiii±xxiv]. In William of JumieÁges, GND ii. 20±1, the marriage is described as a Scandinavian marriage by seizure followed by a Christian rite: R. V. Colman, `The abduction of women in barbaric law', Florilegium, v (1983), 62±75. Freeman, Norman Conquest, i. 735±6, estimated that she was about ten years Cnut's senior. For her alleged hatred of her children by áthelred see below, c. 196. 4. Rotbertus . . . regnorum omnium] For Robert's intended invasion of England William's source was presumably William of JumieÁges, GND ii. 78±85. per occultum scilicet Dei iuditium] Cf. William of JumieÁges, GND ii. 78±9. Reliquiae ratium . . . nostra aetate uisebantur] Possible evidence that William had been to Rouen. He had certainly been to Bayeux: see below, note to cc. 241±4. It is not hard to imagine, for example, a group of Malmesbury monks, including William, travelling to Normandy to plead with the king to allow them to elect an abbot. 181 Based upon ASC s.a. 1017 for Cnut's division of the kingdom, plus additional information from unknown sources. 1±2 Eodemque anno Edricus . . . meritum habuit] On the various accounts of Eadric's death see Freeman, Norman Conquest, i. 740±2, and Wright, Cultivation of Saga, pp. 206±12. Freeman makes the dry comment (p. 740) `The accounts . . . form an excellent example of the growth of a legend. Each writer knows more about it than the one immediately before him.' Earlier than William's account were those of ASC (very brief), John of Worcester s.a. 1017, and Hemming's Cartulary (BL MS Cotton Tiberius A. xiii, s. xiex, Worcester), ed. T. Hearne, Hemingi Chartularium Ecclesiae Wigorniensis (London, 1723), pp. 280±1 (close to William, but still briefer). Encomium Emmae, c. 15 (pp. 30±3), not mentioned by Freeman, gives a version quite different from any of the others including William's. According to this account Cnut had Eadric beheaded by Eric of Hlathir because he feared that he who had been so treacherous to his former lord would be equally treacherous to him. 2 Sanguis . . . christum Domini] 2 Kgs.(2 Sam.) 1: 16. in eodem cubiculo . . . meritum habuit] Similarly John of Worcester s.a. 1017, but without mentioning the Thames.

/3thomson/tcom2.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:25 ± disk/amj

BOOK II. 180.11±181.4

171

3 Turkillus . . . incentor necis beati Elfegi] No other source implicates Thurkil; see above, c. 176n. He was certainly banished in 1021 and restored to favour in 1023. William is the earliest authority for the banishment of Eric, also mentioned by Henry of Huntingdon (vi. 15; pp. 362±3). Doubt is cast on this testimony by Napier and Stevenson, Crawford Charters, p. 147, and A. Campbell in Encomium Emmae, p. 70, on a number of grounds, not all of which are strong: (1) Henry of Huntingdon was probably dependent upon GR for his information, so that only GR has authority; (2) William's reason for Eric's exile (c. 180. 3), that he claimed half of Cnut's kingdom, is unlikely in view of what else is known of Eric's character; (3) as Eric continued to witness charters of Cnut as late as 1023, he could not have gone into exile along with Thurkil; (4) William's statement that Eric returned to his `natale solum', if interpreted strictly, is `highly improbable', since Norway c.1023 was in the possession of Olaf, who had expelled Eric's son and brother; (5) the Sagas record his death in England either from natural causes or an unsuccessful throatoperation, just before or after a pilgrimage to Rome; (6) Cnut was, at least for a time, favourably disposed to Eric's son Hakon; (7) Eric's exile, in tandem with Thurkil's, gives William's account a suspicious `rhetorical completeness'. To these arguments it might be replied: (1) the evidence is that Henry of Huntingdon did not know GR: Gransden, Historical Writing in England, p. 198; (2) the reason for the exile and its fact are two different things; William indeed gives two con¯icting reasons for it: (i) at c. 180. 3 because Eric was demanding parity with Cnut, and (ii) here, that it was the English who expelled him; (3) William certainly implies but does not directly state that Eric and Thurkil went into exile together; (4) one need not interpret William's `natale solum' strictly; (5) the Sagas are late and notoriously unreliable historical evidence; (6) it is not dif®cult to imagine Cnut treating the banished Eric's son well, especially if he had outlawed Eric out of mere suspicion, let alone if it was the English who expelled him; (7) William is certainly prepared to shape his narrative to make a moral or rhetorical point, but not, I think, to invent facts. For the careers of both men see Keynes, `Cnut's earls', in Rumble, The Reign of Cnut, pp. 54±9. 4 Assandunam . . . occisorum] For Assandun see above, c. 180. 7n. The foundation is recorded in ASC and John of Worcester s.a. 1020, but only ASC (F) adds the detail that its clergy were to pray for the

/3thomson/tcom2.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:25 ± disk/amj

172

COMMENTARY

souls of those who had fallen in the battle there: Rodwell, `The battle of Assandun', pp. 142±58. Supra corpus . . . cenobia] Similarly in GP, c. 74 (pp. 154±5), with `basilicam . . . contulit' repeated almost verbatim at p. 155. The reference is to Bury St Edmunds abbey, founded by Cnut in 1021, and endowed by him with estates and an allegedly superior church: cf. Hermann, De miraculis S. Edmundi, c. 17 (Memorials of St Edmund's Abbey, i. 46±7); A. Gransden, `Legends and traditions concerning the origins of the abbey of Bury St Edmunds', in her Legends, Traditions and History in Medieval England, pp. 81±104. In William's time Bury was certainly one of the wealthiest abbeys in England: see Knowles, The Monastic Order in England, pp. 102, 702. 5 Corpus beati Elfegi] álfheah's translation is mentioned in ASC and John of Worcester s.a. 1023, but William could have known of it from Osbern's Historia, which he explicitly cites in GP, c. 20 (p. 33); and see above, c. 165. 5n. nescia uirtus eius stare loco] Lucan i. 144±5: `sed nescia uirtus / stare loco'. martem in Sweuos transtulit] On the dif®cult chronology of these wars see Plummer in Two Saxon Chronicles, ii. 205±6; Napier and Stevenson, Crawford Charters, pp. 139±42; and M. K. Lawson, Cnut (Harlow and New York, 1993), pp. 95±102. A more skeletal account of Cnut's Swedish campaign is in ASC s.a. 1025 (EF), giving the victory to the Swedes, and not mentioning Godwine. Vita ádwardi (pp. 8±9) and Henry of Huntingdon (vi. 15; pp. 362±5) have Godwine accompanying the king and winning his earldom on an earlier expedition, 1019±20, when Cnut went to Denmark to take possession of the kingdom after the death of his elder brother Harold. Freeman, Norman Conquest, i. 419±21, 743, 766, and Plummer in Two Saxon Chronicles, ii. 202±3, believed that Godwine went on the 1019±20 expedition; William's account is supported by L. M. Larson, Canute the Great (London, 1912), pp. 151, 236±7. Whichever be the case, since as dux Godwine witnessed Sawyer 951 in 1018, he cannot have owed his promotion as earl to either overseas expedition. Keynes, `Cnut's earls', in Rumble, The Reign of Cnut, pp. 70±5, believes that Godwine, already earl, went on the 1022±3 expedition, and that on his return he was promoted to special distinction above others of that rank. See also I. W. Walker, Harold: the Last Anglo-Saxon King (Stroud, 1997), pp. 10±12.

/3thomson/tcom2.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:25 ± disk/amj

BOOK II. 181.4±183.8

173

ASC s.a. 1028 mentions Cnut's victory over Olaf, but says that he returned to England between these campaigns. It is clear that William was relying on other information than this, and other information was available. John of Worcester s.a. 1027 says that Cnut bribed the Norwegians to desert Olaf, and much more detail is given in Snorri Sturlasson, Heimskringla, Saga of King Olaf the Holy, cc. 130±2, 134, 144±58, 161, 168, 170±4, 183±6, 194; some of this may have come to William orally. 6 Rediens . . . subegit] i.e. Cnut, not Godwine. 182 Cnuto quinto decimo anno regni Romam profectus est] On the famous pilgrimage see Plummer in Two Saxon Chronicles, ii. 206±7, Councils, i(1). 507±8. William dates it to 1031, as ASC (DEF) and John of Worcester. However Cnut certainly went to Rome in 1027, and the question is whether the date of 1031 is simply wrong, or whether Cnut made two separate pilgrimages. The letter preserved in c. 183 below indicates that while in Rome Cnut attended the coronation of the Emperor Conrad. His presence is also mentioned by Wipo, Gesta Chuonradi imperatoris, c. 16, who dates it Easter Day (26 Mar.) 1027. There seems no doubt, then, that this pilgrimage took place, although even this date raises dif®culties: see below, c. 183. 1n, F. Barlow, `Two notes: Cnut's second pilgrimage and Queen Emma's disgrace in 1043', in his The Norman Conquest and Beyond (London, 1983), pp. 50±6, at 50±1, and McGurk's notes 3 and 4 in John of Worcester II, p. 513. Cnut's pilgrimage made a great impression on contemporaries in England and Scandinavia: John of Worcester records further details of it, and it is mentioned in Encomium Emmae, p. 3, and by Sighvat the Scald, Tùgdrapa (stanza 10, EHD 1, p. 310, no. 16). ASC also mentions the subsequent Scottish campaign. inoperosum] A rare word, in classical Latin known only from Servius, In Georg. iv. 104, to mean `incultus'. William uses the adverbial form in GP, c. 178 (p. 316). 183. 1±8 Cnuto rex . . . uenia comparabit] = Councils, i(1), no. 65 (on the date see above, c. 182n). The Old English original is lost, and the document is known only from William and John of Worcester (s.a. 1031), both dependent upon a post-Conquest Latin translation. The probability is that William found this at Worcester.

/3thomson/tcom2.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:25 ± disk/amj

174

COMMENTARY

1 et Norregiae] If the visit to Rome referred to was the 1027 one, then the reference to Norway is an anachronism, therefore perhaps a later insertionÐunless Cnut was staking a prior claim; the title reappears in the Latin version of his ®rst law-code: Liebermann, Gesetze, i. 279. 2 a monte Gargano usque ad istud proximum mare] Monte Gargano is in the province of Foggia, north of Siponto. The sea referred to must be the North Sea, since the letter was composed during the return journey to Denmark, perhaps at Flanders or Hamburg. 3 Rodulfus rex] Rudolf III, king of Burgundy 993±1032. 4 Conquestus sum . . . deinceps ®at] áthelnoth of Canterbury fetched his pallium in 1022, álfric of York in 1026. Cnut does not seem to have objected to the popes' insistence on the archbishops going to Rome for the pallium; if he did, he had no success. 6 omnibus uicecomitibus] The use of the term `uicecomes' is one indication that this is a post-Conquest translation into Latin. 8 primitiae seminum] Perhaps a confusion of the sceat of cyricsceat with sñd (`seed'). This would be helped by the fact that church-scot was often paid in grain. 9 Omnes enim leges ab antiquis regibus . . . sed quod obseruarit] This important observation reveals William's astonishing acquaintance with Anglo-Saxon law. He had obviously read a version of the Laws of Cnut (extant in a number of copies: Liebermann, Gesetze, i. 278±371), as well as one of áthelred's (ibid., i. 218±72), otherwise he could not have known that the former made particular use of the latter: P. Wormald, `áthelred the lawmaker', in Hill, Ethelred the Unready, pp. 47±80, at 59, 63, 68. At this point we may ask where William got his unique knowledge of Anglo-Saxon law. It seems clear that he had ®rst-hand knowledge of the Laws of Ine (c. 35. 3n), Alfred (c. 122. 1), áthelred, and Cnut. He could have known of áthelberht's Laws (c. 9. 2n) from Bede. The fact that he does not mention others may or may not be signi®cant; it is perhaps odd that he did not mention the Laws of his heroes Edgar or áthelstan, if he knew them. Finally, some of his remarks about Edward the Confessor here closely resemble a passage in the so-called Leges Edwardi Confessoris: `uocata est lex Edwardi . . . non quia ipse inuenisset eam primus, sed cum praetermissa fuisset . . . a diebus aui

/3thomson/tcom2.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:25 ± disk/amj

BOOK II. 183.1±184.1

175

sui Eadgari, qui prius inuentor eius fuisse dicitur, . . . Eadwardus . . . eam reuocauit, et ut suam obseruandam tradidit' (Liebermann, Gesetze, i. 663). The Leges, in their original form, were written down c.1130, but the passage quoted above occurs in the revised version, made c.1145, and probably re¯ects the reviser's reading of William, though the equivalent passage in the original version expresses much the same thought (ibid.). Patrick Wormald believes that if William had seen the Textus Roffensis he would have mentioned the Laws of Wihtred (c. 15. 1), found only there. Otherwise he could have read a twelfth-century collection such as Quadripartitus, but these too contain Codes which he does not mention. It is, of course, entirely possible that William knew more than one collection, and/or that he knew a collection no longer extant. William's observation `in quarum custodiam . . . iuratur' refers to the oaths sworn by William I and Henry I to observe the laws `as they were in the days of King Edward' (Leges Willelmi Conquestoris clause 7; Coronation Charter of Henry I clause 13: EHD 2, pp. 400, 402, the second referred to below, c. 393. 1). 184 Cnut's generosity to churches and churchmen is discussed by Plummer in Two Saxon Chronicles, ii. 203, and Lawson, Cnut, ch. 4. 1 Egelnodus] Archbishop of Canterbury 1020±38. Reference back in GP, c. 21 (p. 34). et prius presentia corporis . . . et postea Romae presens] William presents these events in the reverse of their chronological order: áthelnoth went to Rome for the pallium in 1022, and translated álfheah's body the following year: ASC (CDE) s.aa. 1022, 1023. apud Papiam brachium sancti Augustini doctoris . . . apud Couentreiam misit] How William knew this is revealed by GP, c. 175 (p. 311): `Couentreiae habetur brachium Augustini magni, theca inclusum argentea, cernunturque in celatura huiusmodi litterae: ``Hoc brachium Sancti Augustini Egelnodus archiepiscopus rediens a Roma apud Papiam emit centum talentis argenti et talento auri.'' ' From Paul the Deacon, Hist. Langobardorum vi. 48, William knew that St Augustine's relics, ®rst buried on Sardinia, were brought to Pavia by Liutprand king of the Lombards: Mir., c. 11 (p. 87). Pavia seems to have become a market for ecclesiastical objects. For example

/3thomson/tcom2.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:25 ± disk/amj

176

COMMENTARY

the will of Theodred bishop of London (9426c.951; Sawyer 1526, ed. and trans. Whitelock, Anglo-Saxon Wills, pp. 2±5): `my white chasuble which I bought in Pavia, and all that belongs to it . . . and . . . the yellow chasuble which I bought in Pavia, and what belongs to it'. See D. A. Bullough, `Urban change in early medieval Italy: the example of Pavia', Papers of the British School at Rome, xxxiv (1966), 82±130, esp. p. 110. The date of áthelnoth's gift may have implications for the date of foundation of Coventry priory: J. Hunt, `Piety, prestige or politics? The house of Leofric and the foundation and patronage of Coventry priory', in Coventry's First Cathedral: The Cathedral Priory of St Mary, ed. G. Demidowicz (Stamford, 1994), pp. 97±117, at 98±101. 2 Cnuto Glastoniensem aecclesiam . . . intextum] Also in AG, c. 64 (pp. 132±3), from `super sepulcrum' verbatim. Primus Berhtwaldus . . . Egelnodus] These men are mentioned in AG, c. 67 (pp. 136±7). Here William adds: that Dunstan was Athelm's nephew (also VD i. 5; p. 258), from either Osbern or Eadmer, Vita Dunstani (cc. 9, 4; pp. 79, 169); that áthelgar was the ®rst abbot of the New Minster (964±?88; Heads, pp. 80±1), and that áthelnoth was present on the occasion of Cnut's visit to Glastonbury. 185 = Sawyer 966, a forgery; also in AG, c. 65 (pp. 132±3). 4 Scripta est huius priuilegii . . . indictione quinta decima] 1032 was the ®fteenth indiction; the Cs reading is therefore correct. 186 Some of the same information on Fulbert, and more, appears in Mir., cc. 9 (pp. 82±3), and 25 (pp. 114±15). cuius fundamenta iecerat . . . imposuit] William somewhat exaggerates Fulbert's building activities. He presumably knew of them from the bishop's letters, e.g. Epist. xl±xli, li, lix, cvii±cviii. musicis modulationibus crebro extulit . . . cantus audierit caelestia uota sonantes] Presumably William is referring to the hymns attributed to Fulbert: Y. Delaporte, `Fulbert de Chartres et l'eÂcole chartraine de chant liturgique au xie sieÁcle', EÂtudes greÂgoriennes, ii (1957), 51±81. In Mir., c. 9 (p. 82), William speci®es Fulbert's `responsoria' in honour of the (Nativity of the) Virgin, meaning `Solem iustitiae regem', `Stirps Iesse', and `Ad nutum Domini',

/3thomson/tcom2.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:25 ± disk/amj

BOOK II. 184.1±187

177

printed together as `Hymnus XI' in PL cxli. 345; Delaporte, `Fulbert de Chartres', pp. 55±6. Extat inter cetera . . . effuderit] Fulbert, Epist. xxxvii. William will have known a collection of Fulbert's letters and opuscula like those in Durham Cathedral MS B. II. 11 or Lincoln Cathedral MS 134: The Letters and Poems of Fulbert of Chartres, ed. and trans. F. Behrends (OMT, 1976), pp. xlvii±xlix. A sermon of his is mentioned in Mir., c. 9 (p. 82). 187 On the events surrounding the succession of Henry as king of France in 1031 see C. P®ster, EÂtudes sur le reÁgne de Robert le Pieux (Bibl. de l'eÂcole des hautes eÂtudes, 64: Paris, 1885), pp. 70±84; J. Dhondt, `Sept femmes et un trio de rois', Contributions aÁ l'histoire eÂconomique et sociale, iii (1964±5), 35±70, at pp. 50±2; and id., `Une crise du pouvoir capeÂtien, 1032±1034', in Miscellanea Mediaevalia in memoriam J .F. Niermeyer (Groningen, 1967), pp. 137±48. Stubbs, GR ii, p. xxxviii and n. 1, suggested as the basis of William's account Ralph Glaber iii. 32±7, and William of JumieÁges, GND ii. 54±7, but there are substantial differences between his account and theirs. In any case Glaber's was a rare work and William is unlikely to have had direct knowledge of it. Similar to William is the later Chron. Turonense (p. 361), but it was probably at least partially dependent upon GR: Freeman, Norman Conquest, i. 470 n. 4. William's version contains errors and confusions, and it is important to understand how he made them. The facts are as follows: Robert the Pious had four sons. The eldest was Hugh, whom he associated with himself as king in 1017; but Hugh died prematurely in 1025. The natural choice as successor then became the second son, Henry duke of Burgundy; but Queen Constance favoured the third, Robert, who was apparently stronger-willed and quicker-witted, and she fought vigorously to bring about his succession. Nonetheless at Whitsun 1026 Henry was designated, and a year later crowned as co-ruler with his father. But after Robert I's death Constance redoubled her efforts to have her third son succeed. Henry was forced to ¯ee to Normandy in 1033, returning later in the year with Duke Robert's aid. The queen died in 1034. William creates the impression that Robert had only two sons; Odo was in fact fourth in order of birth and not a contender for the succession. William confuses and con¯ates Henry's coronation in 1027 and his restoration (in 1033) by Robert duke of Normandy. William's comments on the

/3thomson/tcom2.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:25 ± disk/amj

178

COMMENTARY

queen's ambition and on the characters and abilities of the two brothers almost certainly derive from the letter of spring 1026 from Hildegar to Fulbert of Chartres (Fulbert, Epist. cxv; ed. Behrends, pp. 206±7): `I . . . recently learned . . . that you have incurred the queen's bitterest hatred by opposing her and supporting her husband in making the elder son king. They say that he is a hypocrite, lazy, weak, and ready to take after his father in having no regard for what is lawful, and attribute the opposite qualities to his younger brother.' But how did William come to involve Odo rather than Robert? He could have known of Odo's existence from William of JumieÁges, GND ii. 142±5, which mentions his participation in the battle of Mortemer in 1054. Perhaps the basis for William's confusion lies in his interpretation of Fulbert, Epist. lxii, written to Robert the Pious: `Est enim mihi Olricus coluber in uia, Radulfus cerastes in semita' (ed. Behrends, p. 106). Some copies give only the initials of the two names, and in fact the relevant note in the PL edition (PL cxli. 253 n. 47) (wrongly) suggests expansion to `Odonem' and `reginam', with the context being Fulbert's dispute with Constance. Even so, William of JumieÁges, GND ii. 54±7, should have put William right. 2 At Cnuto . . . Wintoniae sepultus est] For Cnut's death (at Shaftesbury on 12 Nov.) and burial at Winchester see ASC s.a. 1035. 188 Elaborated from ASC s.aa. 1036 (EF; recte 1035), 1037, 1039 (EF; recte 1040), ?1041 (CD), 1041 (EF; recte 1042); cf. John of Worcester s.a. 1040, especially the description of the ship given by Godwine to Harthacnut, which is not in ASC. Moreover ASC (EF) s.a. 1040 has Harold dying in March, not April, and William's `twenty marks per ship' is quite different from both ASC (eight marks to each rowlock) and John of Worcester (eight marks to each oarsman of his ¯eet and twelve to each steersman from the whole of England). John's ®gure would make the cost of a ®fty-oared ship ®ftytwo marks. 1 Haroldus, quem fama . . . regem habere uolentes] Plummer, Two Saxon Chronicles, ii. 208±10, reconstructs the complicated series of events immediately following Cnut's death, arguing that Freeman, Norman Conquest, i. 775±8, was wrong in suggesting that a division of the kingdom between Harold and Harthacnut was actually achieved, and that this was forgotten by chroniclers later than ASC s.aa. 1035, 1037.

/3thomson/tcom2.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:25 ± disk/amj

BOOK II. 187±188.3

179

The earlier sources give con¯icting accounts of the identity of Harold's mother. ASC (C) s.a. 1035 says that `Harold . . . said that he was the son of Cnut and the other álfgifu (`and álfgifu of Northampton' D)Ðthough it was not true'; ASC (E) says `Some men said about Harold that he was the son of King Cnut and of álfgifu, the daughter of Ealdorman álfhelm, but it seemed incredible to many men'. Encomium Emmae, pp. 40±1, says that Harold `is declared, owing to a false estimation of the matter, to be a son of a certain concubine of [Cnut]; as a matter of fact, the assertion of very many people has it that Harold was taken secretly from a servant who was in childbed, and put in the chamber of the concubine who was indisposed; and this can be believed as the more truthful account'(!). John of Worcester s.a. 1035 says that Harold said he was the son of Cnut and álfgifu of Northampton, which was most unlikely; some said that his father was a cobbler and that álfgifu used a similar fraud as she was said to have done with Swein Cnutsson. In his case, being unable to bear a child, she `ordered the new-born child of some priest's concubine to be brought to her, and made the king fully believe that she had just borne him a son.' The accounts are discussed by Plummer in Two Saxon Chronicles, ii. 210±11, and Freeman, Norman Conquest, i. 733±5, the latter commenting that none of these sources implies that álfgifu was actually Cnut's wife, and that the evidence suggests that she survived him. More recently Lawson, Cnut, pp. 131±2, has suggested that álfgifu of Northampton, daughter of álfhelm ealdorman of Northumbria, was Cnut's concubine before and for a time after he married Emma in 1017, and that she was indeed mother of Swein and Harold. The later chroniclers' confusion may be due to the fact that Cnut made some attempt to `hide his tracks' in deference to the powerful churchmen of his day. See also M. W. Campbell, `Queen Emma and álfgifu of Northampton: Canute the Great's women', Mediaeval Scandinavia, iv (1971), 66±79. 2 in Flandriam transiit ad Balduinum comitem] So also Encomium Emmae, p. 46. qui postea . . . restituit] Philip was eight years old at the time of his father's death in 1060. Baldwin V of Flanders was his guardian from that time until Baldwin's own death in 1067. In c.1029 Baldwin had married Adela, daughter of Philip's grandfather Robert the Pious. 3 biennio preter decem dies] He was acknowledged as king of England late in 1035; but William is presumably dating the period of

/3thomson/tcom2.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:25 ± disk/amj

180

COMMENTARY

his effective kingship, from his arrival in England in June 1040 (ASC (EF) s.a. 1039 says `seven days before midsummer') until his death on 8 June 1042 (ASC (CD); 1041 (EF) ). In GP, c. 258 (p. 411), William unaccountably says that Harthacnut reigned for one year only. 4 Veruntamen immaturus in ceteris . . . tumulatur] To `proici iussit' also in GP, c. 115 (p. 250). Freeman, Norman Conquest, i. 788± 9, discusses the varying accounts of the treatment of Harold's body. William's is the ®rst mention of the `cemetery of the Danes' in London, said by Ralph of Diss (i. 186) to be identical with the church of St Clements Dane. 5 de primogenito Egelredi Elfredo] He was in fact younger than Edward. quia Cronica tacet] This gives a particularly clear indication of what version of ASC was available to William. The event is absent from ASC (E), but recorded in ASC (C, an altered rendition in D) s.a. 1036. This version does not specify `every tenth man' or Gillingham, and has Alfred blinded on board ship en route to Ely. The atrocity clearly gained some of the qualities of saga (Wright, Cultivation of Saga, p. 218). John of Worcester s.a. 1040 and Encomium Emmae, pp. 45±7, have other variants and details; for instance both give Guildford for Gillingham, and John of Worcester speci®es the death of 600 men there. Vaguer is Vita ádwardi, pp. 32±3, with no placenames or mention of blinding. William of Poitiers (i. 3; pp. 8±11) has Alfred captured by Godwine, his most important followers killed, and himself blinded in Harold's presence, before being sent to Ely where he died soon after; William of JumieÁges, GND ii. 106±7, has him blinded at Ely. William's information was clearly independent of all these sources. There are full discussions by Freeman, Norman Conquest, i. 779±87; Plummer in Two Saxon Chronicles, ii. 211±15; A. Campbell in Encomium Emmae, pp. lxiv±lxvii; S. Keynes, `The áthelings in Normandy', pp. 195±6; and Barlow, Edward the Confessor, pp. 44±6. Barlow argues that Alfred died in Feb. 1037 rather than 1036. 6 Apposuit ille ®dei iuratae xenium . . . ferrum occuleret] Not in ASC; as John of Worcester, partly verbatim. 7 Hardacnutus Gunhildem . . . Henrico imperatori Alemannorum nuptum misit] The marriage of Gunnhild to Henry III is also mentioned in the Vita Edwardi, pp. 16±17, and in Hemming's Cartulary, ed. Hearne, p. 267. According to the latter, stigmatized as

/3thomson/tcom2.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:25 ± disk/amj

BOOK II. 188.3±8

181

inaccurate by Freeman, Brihtheah bishop of Worcester accompanied the bride. But this is at least credible, since Brihtheah was bishop 1033±8. The marriage took place in 1036, when Gunnhild was seventeen. Later changing her name to Kunigund, she died on 17 July 1038: E. Steindorff, JahrbuÈcher des deutschen Reiches unter Heinrich III (2 vols.: Leipzig, 1874, 1881), i. 31±7. Freeman, Norman Conquest, i. 767±8, notes possible inaccuracies of William: he has Harthacnut send his sister apparently from England, though he was not there in 1036 ( John of Worcester, s.aa. 1037, 1040), and seems to place the marriage after Godwine's peace-offering of 1040. Forgivably, William refers to Henry as `imperator Alemannorum', though he was not crowned by the pope until 1046. Whether this is to be classed as an actual error depends rather upon whether William's own view of emperorship was a `Germanic' or `Roman' one. nostro adhuc seculo etiam in triuiis cantitata] Ballads about it were known to Ralph of Diss (i. 174) and Matthew Paris, Chronica majora, ed. H. R. Luard (7 vols.: RS, 1872±84), i. 514±15; R. M. Wilson, The Lost Literature of Medieval England (2nd edn., London, 1970), p. 55. quicquid absconderat uel marsupium publicum uel aerarium regium] This passage presents two problems: (1) What distinction is William making between the `public purse' and `royal treasury'? (2) How did the English nobles have access to either? (1) could be solved by supposing that William meant to write `priuatum'; it is hard to think of an unforced interpretation that would solve (2). See Vol. i, p. 339 n. 2. William juxtaposes `marsupium' and `aerarium' again in VW iii. 5 (p. 49), with reference to the generosity of Bishop Wulfstan of Worcester: `Cubicularius presto habebat marsupium, quod esset omnium egentium erarium.' But this does not solve the problem here. 8 puerulum quendam sturni sui alumnum] It has been suggested (Stubbs in GR i. 230 n. 2) that the `starling' is a corruption for `[a page] called Sturmi'; Styr was the name of Harthacnut's `maior domus' ( John of Worcester s.a. 1040). In Ralph of Diss i. 174 the boy is called Mimicon (cf. MHGerm. `MõÃme'), his opponent a giant called Rodingar (cf. MHGerm. `RuÈediger'). For the background of these names in MHGerm. epic see G. Gillespie, A Catalogue of Persons named in German Heroic Literature (700±1600) (Oxford, 1965), pp. 94, 110±12. Roger of Wendover i. 479±80 tells the same story, in part very similarly to GR. But he calls the defender of Gunnhild's virtue

/3thomson/tcom2.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:25 ± disk/amj

182

COMMENTARY

`puer quidam, quem ab Anglia adduxerat et in suo thalamo educauerat, qui, quia nanus erat et propter corporis paruitatem, Mimecan dicebatur', and makes his opponent a giant whose head he cuts off. Roger does not mention Gunnhild's taking of the veil. Clearly the legend circulated orally in England (and presumably in Germany) over a long period of time. 189±94 William's ignorance of even the most basic data on German history in the post-Carolingian era is profound, but not greater than that shown by Orderic Vitalis or John of Salisbury: M. Chibnall, The World of Orderic Vitalis (Oxford, 1984), p. 209, T. Reuter, `John of Salisbury and the Germans', in The World of John of Salisbury, ed. M. Wilks (Studies in Church History, Subsidia iii: Oxford, 1984), pp. 415±25. But William's ignorance is the more noticeable because he tried to make up for the paucity of historical writings available to him with popular legendary material. Even so, Marianus' chronicle was available to him (see below, c. 292), but he made little or no use of it. On his treatment of German history, here and elsewhere, Georg Waitz (MGH SS, x. 450±1) made the perceptive comment: `Quum Willelmus, historia suae gentis antiqua elegantius et ornatius descripta, rebus uero suo tempore satis ®deliter et candide narratis, magnam sibi laudem comparauerit, multis in eo tamen uituperabilis uidebatur quod nimia credulitate res miraculosas et fabulosas memoriae tradiderit. Et sane negari nequit multa apud Malmesburiensem legi quae a uera historia longe recedant, eaque maxime in illa libri parte qua aliena regna tetigit. His enim locis plerumque non scriptos libros aliaue monumenta ®de digna adhibuit, sed rumorem populi, monachorum aliorumque hominum narrationes secutus est, id fortasse studens ut his illecebris propositis clerici et laici ad libros legendos allicerentur. Quae opinio ipsum certe non fefellit. Nam posterioris temporis scriptoribus haec praecipue se commendarunt, a multis exscripta et latius propagata. Neque nobis prorsus displicebunt [my italics]. Nam si uerae historiae minus conferant, ad traditionem et uulgi narrationes medio aeuo per gentes circumlatas cognoscendas faciunt ideoque quae etiam hic describerentur digna uisa sunt.' 189 Although so much of William's information on the history of Germany is semi±legendary, his description of the religious and social practices of the western Slavs (Wends and Liutici) is the most detailed and dispassionate of any Western writer; cf. Thietmar of

/3thomson/tcom2.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:25 ± disk/amj

BOOK II. 188.8±190

183

Merseburg vi. 23±5, and Adam of Bremen, passim. This has not been noticed, but for comparison see A. P. Vlasto, The Entry of the Slavs into Christendom (Cambridge, 1970), pp. 142±51, esp. nn. 214±20 to pp. 145±6; M. Gimbutas, The Slavs (London, 1971), pp. 151±79; and Z. Vana, The World of the Ancient Slavs (London, 1983), pp. 83±100 (with excellent illustrations). It is hard to imagine how William obtained this information. The only early writer providing anything comparable on central European paganism is Saxo Grammaticus, Gesta Danorum, i, ed. J. Olrik and H. Raeder (Copenhagen, 1931), xiv. 39. 38±43, with his famous description of the idols destroyed at Arkona (RuÈgen) in 1168. This may well be the very site to which William's information refers. It centred on the four-faced image of the god Svantovit, who indeed held a horn in his right hand which was ®lled annually by the priest; the level of the liquid was taken to foretell the following year's harvest. The accuracy of this information in GR lends credence to the subsequent story, unique to William, of Henry's cooking-pot being carried by Slav chieftains, even though there is an obvious resemblance to the story of Edgar being rowed on the Dee by tributary kings (c. 148. 2). Henry campaigned successfully against the Slavs in the summer of 1045: Steindorff, i. 285±6, with sceptical comment on William's report on p. 286 n. 4. 1 Nam Saraceni . . . estimantes] For William's knowledgeable but complex views on Islam see R. W. Southern, Western Views of Islam in the Middle Ages (Oxford, 1962), pp. 34±5, and Thomson, William of Malmesbury, ch. 9. 2 Hieronimus] Comm. in Isaiam xviii. 65. 11±12 (CCSL lxxiiiA. 754 lines 20±5). pleno copia cornu responsura sit] Cf. Horace, Carm. saec. 59±60: `adparetque beata pleno / copia cornu'; Epist. i. 12. 29: `pleno defudit copia cornu'. 190 The story was originally told of the great Carolingian noble Angilbert and Charlemagne's daughter Bertha: F. Wattenbach and W. Levison, Deutschlands Geschichtsquellen im Mittelalter: Vorzeit und Karolinger, 2: Die Karolinger vom Anfang des 8. Jahrhunderts bis zum Tode Karls des Grossen, ed. Levison and H. LoÈwe (Weimar, 1953), pp. 238±9. It was told of Einhard and Charlemagne's daughter Imma in the twelfth-century Chronicon Laureshamense (ed. K. A. Pertz, MGH SS, xxi, 1869, pp. 357±8), and Stubbs (GR ii, p. lxxxi and n. 1)

/3thomson/tcom2.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:25 ± disk/amj

184

COMMENTARY

cites later German chroniclers who associated the same story with the German emperors Henry II or III. 1 quod dif®cile sit crimen non prodere uultu] Cf. Ovid, Met. ii. 447: `heu quam dif®cile est crimen non prodere uultu!' 191 It is dif®cult to know what facts, if any, lie behind this tale. The same story is told by Matthew Paris of the Emperor Henry V s.a. 1126, naming the deacon Arnulf and giving his bishopric as Ravenna: Historia Anglorum, ed. F. Madden (3 vols.: RS, 1866±9), i. 236±7. But by that date Henry V was dead, and the bishop of Ravenna 1119±44 was named Walter. Arnulf, half-brother of Henry II, presided 1014± 19: Stubbs in GR ii, pp. lxxxi±lxxxii. 192 The historical basis for this tale seems to be the court held at Goslar in 1063, under Henry IV, at which a quarrel broke out between the servants of the bishop of Hildesheim and the abbot of Fulda: so Lampert of Hersfeld, Annales (ed. O. Holder-Egger, MGH srg, xxxviii, 1894) s.a. It is dif®cult to understand why William associates Fulda with St Gall, whose body has always rested at the shrine named after him. It is certainly another striking instance of William's ignorance of even the most basic facts of German history and geography. 2 Hunc diem gloriosum fecisti] The last line of the sequence `Sancti Spiritus assit nobis gratia': see above, c. 168. 2n. 193 On Conrad II and simony see H. Hoffmann, MoÈnchskoÈnig und ``rex idiota'': Studien zur Kirchenpolitik Heinrichs II. und Konrads II. (MGH Studien und Texte, viii, 1993), pp. 61±71. 2 Laurentium, cuius aecclesiae tectum . . . compaginarit] The cathedral at Merseburg, restored by Henry II. The story is retold by Roger of Wendover i. 480±2, almost verbatim as GR but with a fuller ending: `cumque de iuuene assato miraretur imperator, quis esset qui sibi refrigerium praestiterat, dictum ei per uocem caelitus emissam, ``Reduc,'' inquit, ``ad memoriam de coenobio beati martyris Laurentii, olim a paganis destructo, quod reaedi®casti, et, monachis impositis, praedia multa et ornamenta, cum aureo calice gemmis decorato, quem ob illius martyris honorem monasterio contulisti; unde certissime cognoscas ipsum fuisse iuuenem assatum beatum sanctum Laurentium, qui uicem tibi pro uice rependens spatium

/3thomson/tcom2.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:25 ± disk/amj

BOOK II. 190±196.2

185

poenitentiae et refrigerium impetrauit in poenis.'' ' William's version reads like a summary of this, and it is possible that he and Wendover were dependent upon the same written account. 194. 1 Nemeto] i.e. `ciuitas Nemetum', the plural genitive apparently misunderstood by William as a singular feminine nominative. 2±3 Cesar, tantus eras . . . duo lumina luge] Walther, Initia 2287 (MGH Poetae, iv(2). 1074±5). The poem survives in many manuscripts. A copy very close to the GR version is included in William's `Carolingian Collection' in Bodl. Libr., MS Lat. class. d. 39: Thomson, William of Malmesbury, p. 141. B. Bischoff, `Caesar, tantus eras', in Corona Quernea: Festgabe fuÈr Karl Strecker, ed. E. Stengel (Leipzig, 1941/Stuttgart, 1962), pp. 247±53, shows that William was correct in identifying the poem's subject as Henry III. 195 A Bruno was bishop of Speyer 1107±23 (and is named below, c. 437. 3), but the Bruno referred to here was bishop of Toul. William presumably got the length of his reign as pope from the Catalogue of Popes which he transcribed into his Liber pont.: `Leo sanctissimus, qui uocatur Brunus, ann. V m. II d. VII.' (Levison, p. 390). Leo IX reigned 1049±54; Henry III died in 1056. 196 ASC (CDE) s.a. 1042 (recte 1043; so John of Worcester) doubtless supplied the information on Edward's treatment of his mother's wealth and the reason for it. The length of Edward's reign given here is a slightly less precise version of John of Worcester s.a. 1066: twenty-three years, six months and twenty-seven days; ASC (CD) s.a. 1065 gives twenty-four years (`and a half' D, over erasure). But William had information in this section independent of either ASC or John of Worcester's source, for instance the story of Edward's hunting. 2 habebat comites . . . ] For Siward and Leofric see below, c. 199. 4n. Siwardum . . . instituit] Commentary by Freeman, Norman Conquest, ii. 661±7, esp. 665. Similarly John of Worcester s.a. 1054, but without mentioning Macbeth's death. ASC (E) omits the campaign altogether, though it is in (C) and (D). In fact Macbeth, mormaer of Moray, king of Scots after he had killed Duncan in 1040, retained his position until defeated and slain by Malcolm in 1057:

/3thomson/tcom2.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:25 ± disk/amj

186

COMMENTARY

Plummer in Two Saxon Chronicles, ii. 242±3; Anderson, Early Sources of Scottish History, i. 593±4; W. E. Kapelle, The Norman Conquest of the North (Chapel Hill, NC, 1979), pp. 46±9. ®lium regis Cumbrorum] So John of Worcester s.a. 1054. The king is Malcolm Canmore (1058±93). His father was Duncan (1034± 40), really king of the Scots, who had annexed Cumbria. Lefricus . . . argenti delegauit] John of Worcester s.a. 1057 gives an account of the foundations and donations of Leofric and Godgifu which is more complete and accurate than William's, but suf®ciently similar to suggest that they drew upon a common source. See the literature cited by Keynes, `Cnut's Earls', p. 78 n. 198, and Hunt, `Piety, prestige or politics? The house of Leofric and the foundation and patronage of Coventry priory', in Demidowicz, Coventry's First Cathedral, pp. 97±117. William here gives the impression that the couple were the founders of Stow (similarly Henry of Huntingdon vi. 24; pp. 380±1); but they were not. John of Worcester says that Stow had been founded by Bishop Eadnoth `of Lincoln'. Eadnoth I was bishop of Dorchester 1009±16; perhaps his foundation was no longer surviving by Leofric's time. A copy of the endowment by Leofric and his wife survives in the Eynsham Cartulary: Sawyer 1478, Councils, i(1), no. 73 (dated 105361055). William carries the history of St Mary's further in GP, c. 177 (pp. 312±15): it needed rebuilding again by Bishop Remigius of Lincoln, and his successor Robert Bloet removed the monks whom Remigius had introduced there to Eynsham in 1109. See R. Gem, `The English parish church in the eleventh and early twelfth centuries: a great rebuilding?', in Minsters and Parish Churches, ed. J. Blair (Oxford, University Committee for Archaeology, Monograph xvii, 1988), pp. 21±30. The name of `Leonense' for Leominster was derived from the legend of a vision of a lion seen by a Northumbrian priest who converted Merewald son of Penda: Legenda de Sancto Etfrido in BL MS Harley 2253, fos. 132±3 (s. xiv; Hardy, Materials, i. 257±8). 3 Ris et Grif®num] William's information on the deaths of the Welsh `kings' is confused. The brothers were Gruffydd ap Rhydderch, who was king of South Wales only, and Rhys, who was not a king. ASC (C) records the latter's death s.a. 1052; ASC (D) places it in 1053, saying that it was `because he was causing injuries; and his head was brought to Gloucester on the eve of Epiphany'. John of Worcester s.a. 1053 adds that this was by Edward's order. None of

/3thomson/tcom2.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:25 ± disk/amj

BOOK II. 196.2±4

187

these sources connects Earl Harold with the slaying. Gruffydd ap Rhydderch was himself killed by Gruffydd ap Llywelyn of North Wales in 1055 (Lloyd, History of Wales, ii. 362±4). It is this Gruffydd who, pursued by Harold, was slain by his own people on 5 Aug. 1064: ASC (D) s.a. 1063; John of Worcester s.a. 1064; Lloyd, History of Wales, ii. 370 and n. 35; B. T. Hudson, `The destruction of Gruffudd ap Llywelyn', Welsh History Review, xv (1990±1), 331±50. William's cross-reference at c. 228. 8 con®rms that he has confused the two Gruffydds. See Plummer in Two Saxon Chronicles, ii. 250±1. Fuerunt tamen nonnulla . . . exilio uindicata] The charges against Godwine and his sons were also reported by Eadmer (Hist. nov., pp. 5±6). Freeman, Norman Conquest, ii. 554±67, evaluated them sceptically (`Norman talk'). But Godwine was certainly a more ambiguous ®gure than Freeman cared to believe. 4 angustos ®lii iam dudum riserat annos] Perhaps an unidenti®ed verse quotation, slightly adapted. On Emma's apparent dislike for her former marriage and sons see Freeman, Norman Conquest, i. 736±7. William is the only authority for the latter, which Freeman thought at least plausible given the evidence (but ex silentio) of Encomium Emmae (ii. 16±17; pp. 32±5), that she wished her ®rst marriage to be forgotten. But see S. Keynes in Encomium Emmae, pp. [xxiv±xxv, xxix±xxxviii]. Preterea congestis undecumque talentis . . . expendisse] And again in GP, c. 263 (pp. 419±20): `Nam quia parum in prolem liberalis fuerat cum ipse tenues actitaret annos, iussit omnem maternam supellectilem ad unum nummum expilari.' In discussing the king's motives for thus treating his mother, Plummer in Two Saxon Chronicles, ii. 222±3, regarded as plausible the comment in Goscelin, Textus translationis S. Mildrethae, c. 18 (ed. D. W. Rollason, `Goscelin of Canterbury's Account of the Translation and Miracles of St Mildrith', Mediaeval Studies, xlviii (1986), 139±210, at p. 176): `suscepit Anglia indigenum regem Edwardum . . . quo Salomonica pace regnante, ipsa eius genitrix accusabatur regem Northuuegorum, Magnum nomine, ad inuadendum Anglicum imperium concitasse, suosque thesauros in®nitos secum illi dedidisse. Hinc proditrix regni, hostis patriae, insidiatrix ®lii iudicatur, uniuersaque substantia eius regi proscribitur.' Barlow, Edward the Confessor, pp. 77±9, is sceptical, as is P. Stafford, Queen Emma and Queen Edith; Queenship and Women's Power in Eleventh-Century England (Oxford, 1997), p. 251;

/3thomson/tcom2.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:25 ± disk/amj

188

COMMENTARY

and see Barlow's more extended discussion in `Two notes: Cnut's second pilgrimage and Queen Emma's disgrace in 1043', in his Norman Conquest and Beyond, pp. 51±6. But Magnus certainly had such designs (ASC (D), John of Worcester s.a. 1045); and their existence (of which Emma must have been conscious) would help explain the claim launched by Harold Hardrada in 1066. On William's interpretation of Emma in general see Stafford, Queen Emma, p. 17. dari nummum ne diminueret numerum] Cf. GP, c. 43 (p. 69): `dare . . . nummum ne debilitet numerum'. Haec referentibus . . . et aliarum fortassis expendisse] And indeed in GP, c. 263 (pp. 419±20), William says that she bought the body of St Audoen at Rouen: the trunk she gave to Canterbury; the head later came by a circuitous route to Malmesbury. sanctam tamen mulierem fuisse comperio] Cf. Sallust, Bell. Iug. xlv. 1: `magnum et sapientem uirum fuisse comperior'. 5 potior sententia uisa] Cf. Virgil, Aen. iv. 287: `haec alternanti potior sententia uisa est'. 197 Based upon ASC (E) s.aa. 1042 (recte 1043), 1043 (1044), and perhaps Vita ádwardi, pp. 14±15, for Godwine's initiative in securing the king's election. Freeman, Norman Conquest, ii. 525±33, makes an elaborate attempt at explaining the ten-month delay between Edward's election and coronation. William alone says that there was rather strong opposition to the election. Freeman suggests that it was made on behalf of the claims of Swein Estrithsson, citing the testimony of Adam of Bremen ii. 78 (p. 136), who alleges that a bargain was struck by which Edward made Swein (`suspectum habens . . . quod sceptrum sibi Anglorum reposceret') his heir to the kingdom, `uel si ®lios susceperit.' Barlow, Edward the Confessor, pp. 54±61, esp. p. 60 (and in Vita ádwardi, p. 17 n. 37) treats the issue of the delay more brusquely. 1 Nec mora, Gilingeham congregato concilio] Only William (TAC) speci®es Gillingham; but `Lundoniam' B, ASC (EF) s.a. 1041 (recte 1042), and John of Worcester s.a. 1042. So this was probably a slip which William later corrected. 2 apud Wintoniam coronatus] So John of Worcester s.a. 1043; `Lundoniam' in the B version of GR, Westminster in ASC (CDEF; A does not name the place). Edsius . . . Siwardum . . .] Much as ASC (E) s.a. 1043 (recte 1044).

/3thomson/tcom2.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:25 ± disk/amj

BOOK II. 196.4±198

189

The story is garbled (even more so in GP, c. 21; p. 34). In 1044 Siward became assistant or co-adjutor, not successor, to Archbishop Eadsige. When his health failed he retired from of®ce, dying at Abingdon on 23 Oct. 1048. Eadsige continued as archbishop until his own death on 29 Oct. 1050: Plummer in Two Saxon Chronicles, ii. 223±4; Heads, p. 24; HBC, p. 214; Walker, Harold, p. 18. A similar error is made by Henry of Huntingdon vi. 20 (pp. 372±3). Non multo post . . . corporis desiderares] From a portion of Vita ádwardi now lost, reconstructed (pp. 22±5) from Osbert of Clare and Richard of Cirencester; see Barlow's discussion in Vita ádwardi, p. 22 and n. 51. 4±5 Siquidem aliquantos Normannos . . . emptorem] Robert of JumieÁges, bishop of London from 1044, archbishop of Canterbury 1051±2. 5 Hunc cum reliquis . . . eneruarent] On the `English' and `Norman' views of Archbishop Robert and Earl Godwine, both given here without evaluation, see Freeman, Norman Conquest, ii. 547±54. William's source for the `English' view was doubtless Vita ádwardi, pp. 28±37, at least in part. The `Norman' view of Godwine was accessible to him via William of Poitiers (i. 4; pp. 4±7), although probably William did not need a written source for it. On Godwine's wealth and power see R. Fleming, `Domesday estates of the king and the Godwines: a study in late Saxon politics', Speculum, lviii (1983), 987±1007, and A. Williams, `Land and power in the eleventh century: the estates of Harold Godwineson', Anglo-Norman Studies, iii (1980), 171±87. 5±6 denique Deum monstrasse . . . sepultus est] Godwine died on 15 Apr. 1053 at Winchester. An earlier account of his death is in ASC; see also John of Worcester s.a. William's account is similar to those of Henry of Huntingdon (vi. 23; pp. 378±9) and Chron. de Hyda, p. 289 (though they locate the death in Windsor and London respectively). Essentially it represents Godwine as undergoing and succumbing to the `ordeal of bread' (cornsnñd). Wright, Cultivation of Saga, pp. 213±29, 233±6, deals exhaustively with the development of legend about Godwine's character, rise to power, and death. 198 For similar comparisons of the two peoples see below, cc. 245±6, and GP, cc. 94 (pp. 201±2), 139 (p. 281).

/3thomson/tcom2.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:25 ± disk/amj

190

COMMENTARY

quod Angli aspernanter ferant superiorem, Normanni nequeant pati parem] Cf. Lucan i. 125±6: `Nec quemquam iam ferre potest Caesarue priorem / Pompeiusue parem.' 199 Basically ASC (E) s.aa. 1048 (recte 1051), and perhaps 1052; cf. John of Worcester s.a. 1051 and Vita ádwardi, pp. 34±41. William adds details of Eustace's lineage (he was Eustace II, d. c.1093) and speci®es that he embarked at Wissant. ASC says that Eustace and his followers killed `more than twenty men', while in turn nineteen of his own were killed; John of Worcester does not specify the number of slain townspeople, but mentions the killing of seven of Eustace's men. William's version of the aborted sea-battle in 1052 differs from the ASC account in adducing a fog, not storm, to explain why battle was not joined. John of Worcester s.a. 1052 mentions neither natural phenomenon although he recounts the naval action in much greater detail. Otherwise William omits much of the ASC entry for 1052. For the various accounts of the banishment of Godwine and his sons see Freeman, Norman Conquest, ii. 616±22, Plummer in Two Saxon Chronicles, ii. 234±7, Walker, Harold, pp. 30±6. William has followed the comparatively pro-Godwine account of ASC (E) in preference to John of Worcester (or his source, an account very similar to ASC (D) ), or the very different Vita ádwardi. And yet at c. 196. 3 above he gives as a reason for the exile of Godwine and his sons their depredations of church property. 1 reges apud Ierosolimam] `Ierosolimorum' TtA; but upon further thought, presumably, William realized that the kings of Jerusalem were more than just rulers of the city's inhabitants. Quae ex altero uiro . . . comes Herefordensis] Not Walter but his father Drogo (Dreux), count of Mantes (the Vexin): Orderic iv. 76±7 and nn. Radulfum . . . comes Herefordensis . . . consumendum reliquerit] So ASC (CD) s.a. 1055 and John of Worcester s.a. 1055. The latter adds the details of Harold's revenge. 4 Siwardus et Lefricus] William is wrong to call them both Northumbrian. Siward was earl of Northumbria from at least 1033 until 1055, for a time earl of Huntingdonshire as well. Leofric was earl of Mercia 102361032±1057. ASC (D) s.a. 1057 describes him as `very wise in divine and temporal matters'. Beverstane] On Godwine's estate of Berkeley, Glos.

/3thomson/tcom2.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:25 ± disk/amj

BOOK II. 198±199.11

191

4±5 ut Walenses compescerent, qui tirannidem in regem meditantes oppidum in pago Herefordensi of®rmauerant . . . Sed Walenses iam audientiam preuenerant] William has twice misunderstood ASC's `wealiscemen', which means `(non-germanic) foreigners'; so too did the Waverley Annals s.a. 1051 (Annales Monastici, ii. 184). The reference is not to the Welsh but to those Normans in Herefordshire led by Earl Ralph. The fortress which they built was on the site of the modern Richard's Castle. The OE equivalent is ASC (D) s.a. 1052 `‡at Frencyscan'. 5 plusquam ciuile bellum] Cf. Lucan i. 1: `Bella . . . plus quam ciuilia'. Also above, c. 113. 1. 7 sola sterteret in pluma] Cf. Martial xii. 17. 8: `dormit et in pluma purpureoque toro.' Similarly HN, c. 512 (p. 69): `in pluma iaceret'. 8 Posteriori anno . . . conuectare] Discussion in Freeman, Norman Conquest, ii. 643±5, including the remark that William is alone in his censure and does not properly distinguish between the activities of father and sons: cf. ASC (E) s.a. 1052 and Vita ádwardi, pp. 38±45. 9 Non multo post . . . honores integros restitueret] Freeman, Norman Conquest, ii. 645±50, reviews the various accounts of Godwine's return. William, as one would expect, follows ASC (E) s.a. 1052, with some minor variations of his own. 10 Stigandus] On Stigand's rapacity see also GP, c. 23 (pp. 35±6), partly in the same words and with reference back. There William adds that he held numerous abbeys as well, speci®ed by Liber Eliensis ii. 98 (p. 168) as Winchester New Minster, Glastonbury, St Alban's, St Augustine's Canterbury, and Ely. John of Worcester s.a. 1070 records his sentence of degradation, which included a description of the three offences which incurred it. Before his translation to Winchester in 1047 Stigand had been bishop of Elmham, thus of East Anglia, not the South Saxons. William has presumably confused him with Stigand, bishop of Selsey then Chichester 1070±87. But a similar error of South for East Saxons occurs above, c. 35. 2. Benedictus] Benedict X, Apr. 1058Ð(deposed) Jan. 1059. 11 Nicholao] Nicholas II, bishop of Florence 1046±59, pope 1059±61. Sed haec postmodum] In c. 269 William mentions Stigand's

/3thomson/tcom2.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:25 ± disk/amj

192

COMMENTARY

deposition, but there is no more on his wealth. Perhaps William is referring to GP, c. 23 (pp. 35±7). 200 Based on ASC s.aa. 1055, 1064 (E) (recte 1065), but with many additions and omissions. 1 Habuit primis annis uxorem Cnutonis sororem . . . Post eius obitum aliam duxit] Godwine's wife was Gytha, daughter of Thorkils Sprakalegg and sister of Ulf who married Estrith, Cnut's sister; Godwine married her apparently in 1019. Freeman, Norman Conquest, i. 743±7, argues that William encountered, and attempted to reconcile, two pieces of con¯icting information in his sources for Godwine's marriage: (a) that the woman was Cnut's sister (Vita ádwardi, pp. 10±11, John of Worcester s.a. 1067, JW Accounts, p. 275); (b) that she was the sister of Ulf ( John of Worcester s.a. 1049). William's solution to these dif®culties was to have Godwine marry twice, ®rst Cnut's sister, who bore him one unnamed child who died in boyhood, then an unnamed woman who bore his historical children. Freeman regards William's account of Godwine's ®rst wife as `an excellent specimen of Norman calumny', but this seems an exaggeration. Her involvement in slave-trading may have a basis in fact (see below), and William can hardly have meant (as Freeman seems to imply) that she was responsible for the accidental drowning of her son. quod dicebatur agmina . . . opum aggeraret] Yet Wulfstan had persuaded Cnut to revive laws against the selling of persons out of the country. Pelteret (Slavery in Early Medieval England, p. 76 and n. 143) suggests that even if William's story is not factual, `the memory of a slave trade with Denmark after the second period of Viking incursions must be an accurate one.' Haroldum . . . Leofwinum] Freeman, Norman Conquest, ii. 568±71, analyses the various authorities which list Godwine's children. William may have relied upon the now-missing c. 2 of Vita ádwardi, only partly recoverable from Osbert and Richard of Cirencester (Vita ádwardi, pp. xxxix±xl, 22±5). William's and Orderic's lists are the fullest extant and are in agreement except that Orderic (ii. 178±9) adds an otherwise unattested álfgar. Haroldus . . . cum fratribus duobus iunioribus amisit] So ASC (E) s.a. 1066; the younger brothers were Gyrth and Leofwine. The most recent study of Harold is Walker, Harold.

/3thomson/tcom2.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:25 ± disk/amj

BOOK II. 199.11±200.2±3

193

Wlnodus . . . Salesberiae consenuit] Similarly John of Worcester s.a. 1087, but without naming Salisbury. The place is named by Orderic (ii. 178±9). Wulfnoth was sent as a hostage to Normandy in 1052, pardoned by the Conqueror on his deathbed, but immediately re-imprisoned by Rufus and brought by him (back) to England; he died in captivity in 1094: Barlow, William Rufus, pp. 67±8, 68 n. 59, Walker, Harold, pp. 196±7. See below, c. 240. 2n. 2 pirata factus . . . uirtutes maiorum polluit] Cf. Lucan vi. 422: `Polluit aequoreos Siculus pirata triumphos'. And again below, c. 252. 3. pro conscientia Brunonis cognati interempti et, ut quidam dicunt, fratris] ASC (E) s.a. 1046 (recte 1049) for Beorn's murder. Beorn Ulfsson was in fact Swein's cousin, though it is dif®cult to know what William thought their relationship was, given his comments on Godwine's marriages at c. 200. 1. The reference to possible murder of a `frater' is unique to William, and it is unclear who is meant, since the deaths of all of Swein's brothers can be accounted for. Freeman, Norman Conquest, ii. 103 and n. 2, suggests that the puzzling reference is to (an intention to kill) Harold. Both Harold and Beorn held land to which Swein laid claim. If Harold had not fortuitously given up his ship to Beorn (ASC ut supra), he might just as easily have been trapped by Swein and killed by his orders. There is little doubt that Swein would just as soon have killed him as Beorn: Walker, Harold, pp. 24±5. 2±3 Tostinus a rege Eduardo . . . ad Eduardi fuit obitum] There is a detailed treatment of the various accounts of the Northumbrian revolt in Freeman, Norman Conquest, ii. 711±16. Of William's version, based mainly on ASC (E), he makes the interesting and unusually sympathetic comment (p. 712): `William . . . helps us to reports of speeches, either traditionally remembered or such as he himself thought were in character. Even in this latter aspect, these speeches are worthy of attention, as they never take those rhetorical and other impossible shapes which are often taken by the harangues in Orderic and elsewhere.' Apart from these, the factual peculiarities (probably erroneous) of William's account are: (1) that Tostig was in York at the time of the revolt, whereas ASC (C) s.a. 1065 says he was with the king at Britford in Wessex, while D and E are ambiguous; (2) that Harold was sent with an army to punish the rebels, rather than heading an embassy to make terms, as ASC (DE).

/3thomson/tcom2.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:25 ± disk/amj

194

COMMENTARY

201±3 The source of William's information about Gregory VI (1045± 6), idiosyncratic and at variance with all others, is unknown. 201. 1 Erat papa Gregorius sextus, ante dictus Gratianus] Cf. William, Liber pont. (C; Levison, p. 390): `Gregorius, qui uocatur Iohannes Gratianus'. 3 qui altario deseruiunt de altario uiuant] 1 Cor. 9: 13. domum orationis, non speluncam latronum] Cf. Matt. 21: 13; Mark 11: 19; Luke 19: 46. 4 in senatu Romano] The term `senate' by the end of the eleventh century meant the embryonic college of cardinals: W. Ullmann, The Growth of Papal Government in the Middle Ages (3rd edn., London, 1970), p. 319, I. S. Robinson, The Papacy 1073±1198; Continuity and Innovation (Cambridge, 1990), p. 39. William, however, like Orderic Vitalis, uses the term loosely, and indeed it would be anachronistic if applied technically in this context. Chibnall translates it as `curia': Orderic vi. 254±5 and n. 2 on p. 254. Qui arguit . . . iniuriam facit] Prov. 9: 7. minis auras territare] Cf. Prudentius, Psych. 297: `clipeo dum territat auras'. muros urbis armis circumsonare] Cf. Virgil, Aen. viii. 474: `hinc Rutulus premit et murum circumsonat armis.' And below, c. 350. 2. 6 rapto uiuere assueti] Cf. ibid. vii. 749 (ix. 613): `conuectare iuuat praedas et uiuere rapto'; and above, c. 43. 2: `rapto uiuere assueta'. toruisque luminibus] Cf. Virgil, Aen. iii. 677: `cernimus astantis nequiquam lumine toruo.' 202. 4 Omnis actus hominis . . . fatiendi consilium] An early testimony to the `ethic of intention' made famous by Abelard: the fundamental authority was Augustine, Enarrationes in psalmos 31: 4 (CCSL xxxviii, p. 227 lines 7±10): `Bonum enim opus intentio facit, intentionem ®des dirigit. Non ualde attendas quid homo faciat, sed quid cum facit adspiciat, quo lacertos optimae gubernationis dirigat'; see the literature cited for Peter Lombard, Sententiae ii. 40 (ed. I. Brady, vol. i, 3rd edn., Grottaferrata, 1971, pp. 556±7). Si oculus . . . tenebrosum erit] Luke 11: 34. 6±7 Adrianus primus . . . debet auferri] A reference to the Decretum Spurium Hadriani I Papae de Investituris, ed. A. Werminghoff (MGH Legum III, 2: Concilia Aevi Karolini I, 2, 1908), pp. 823±

/3thomson/tcom2.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:25 ± disk/amj

BOOK II. 201±202.11

195

8, esp. p. 827. It was probably compiled between Jan. 1080 and 31 Mar. 1084, by a supporter of Henry IV and his antipope Wibert. A short extract is found in Ivo of Chartres, Panormia viii. 135 (PL clxi. 1337), and William could have known of it from that source. But a much longer version was entered by John of Worcester into the margin of his Chronicle alongside the entries for the years 768±73. Some of the comments which follow the extract here resemble sentiments found in the Tractatus de investitura episcoporum written in 1109 (ed. E. Bernheim, MGH Lib. de Lite, ii, 1892, pp. 498±9). The whole speech is anachronistic and is in effect a polemical tract, obviously manufactured in the context of the dispute between papacy and empire, probably at Rome, and favouring the views of the `reformed' papacy. Cf. below, c. 420. 2n. 7 nisi intrasset per hostium] John 10: 1. 8 Sacerdotes . . . in die Domini] Ezek. 13: 5. Duae sunt . . . personae . . . nuntio] A form of the `two swords' doctrine (based upon Luke 22: 38 etc.) which ®rst came to the fore during the Investiture Controversy. 9 Occupatum se rescripsit bello Vindelicorum] Here at least is evidence for a historical basis for some of William's account of Gregory's reign, for Henry did indeed proceed against the Wends (actually the Liuticii, a closely related western Slavonic people) in the middle of 1045: Steindorff, i. 285±6. latronum conciliabula] cf. Hegesippus iv. 7. 1 (p. 254 lines 20, 22): `latronum . . . receptacula . . . praedonum conciliabulum'. qui parcit latroni, occidit innocentem] Perhaps not a quotation. beati qui custodiunt . . . in omni tempore] Ps. 105(106): 3. 10 Finees] Num. 25: 7±8. Mathathias] 1 Macc. 2: 24±5. Azarias . . . anhelasset illicita] 2 Chr. 26: 17±21. This Old Testament incident was often invoked during and after the Investiture Controversy to signify the wrongful usurpation of priestly functions by the secular power. 11 Mors in commune bona] Cf. Lucan ii. 390: `in commune bonus'. For the popularity of this tag see E. M. Sanford, `Quotations from Lucan in mediaeval Latin authors', American Journal of Philology, lv (1934), 1±19, at p. 11.

/3thomson/tcom2.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:25 ± disk/amj

196

COMMENTARY

204 The story was retold, after William, in the Eulogium historiarum i. 400±3. 1 uicino . . . aditum] Horace, Carm. i. 4. 13: `pallida mors aequo pulsat pede'. 3 si qua ®des] Cf. Virgil, Aen. iii. 434, vi. 459. Cf. GP, c. 100 (p. 217). 4 psalmicines . . . missae diebus] Tt has `tribus' for `quinquaginta'. This does not help clarify the rather opaque expression. One expects the sense to be something like `let ®fty psalms a night be sung for three nights' (thus completing the psalter) `and three masses be said each day for three days.' This would be easier to settle for if by psalmicines William meant `psalms' rather than `singers of psalms'. In VW i. 10 he uses `psalmicinas excubias' to mean `vigils accompanied by the singing of psalms'. 6 diriguere . . . metu] Ovid, Met. vii. 115: `deriguere metu Minyae'. steteruntque . . . hesit] Virgil, Aen. iii. 48: `obstipui steteruntque comae et uox faucibus haesit.' stuppeum uinculum] Cf. ibid. ii. 236±7: `subiciunt lapsus, et stuppea uincula collo / intendunt'. 7 beati Gregorii Dialogum] Gregory, Dial. iv. 53. References to Gregory the Great's Dialogues are common in later miracle-stories; see for instance Henry of Huntingdon ix. 54 (pp. 696±7). Apud Francos quoque non semel auditum est quod dicam] i.e. William will give an example of the sort of thing heard of more than once among the Franks: for instance above, c. 111. Karolum Martellum . . . in uulgus seminatum] Cf. c. 80. 5 above. The reference here is to the Visio Eucherii, a ninth-century production which existed in several versions. Editions of it are listed in D. Dumville and M. Lapidge, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, xvii (Woodbridge, 1985), p. lv; commentary by U. Nonn, `Das Bild Karl Martells in den lateinischen Quellen vornehmlich des 8. und 9. Jahrhunderts', FruÈhmittelalterliche Studien, iv (1970), 70±137, at pp. 111±14. It seems to have been well-known in England by William's time. It was used by John of Worcester s.a. 741 (but see McGurk's note at pp. 617±18), a version is in Cambridge, Corpus Christi Coll. MS 290, fo. 118rv (s. xii1, St Albans), and it was a source for the Annals of St Neots, probably compiled at Bury (ed. cit. pp. liv±lvi).

/3thomson/tcom2.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:25 ± disk/amj

BOOK II. 204±206.1

197

205 For much later versions of this story see Stubbs in GR ii, pp. lxxxv±lxxxvi. Doubtless they derived from William, for this story was popular. It is retold, after William, in the Eulogium historiarum i. 393±5, which, however, dates the incident to the year 1047 and the reign of Pope Gregory VI. Roger of Wendover ii. 498±500 dates it to 1058 and the reign of Benedict X. 1 ephebus . . . uxorem] The Aac version (Vol. i, Appendix II, p. 837) names them as `Lucianus' and `Eugenia'. They are found again in Ranulf Higden and his translators, Polychronicon vi. 26 (vii. 200±1), quoting William as the source of the story. in Campum] We presume that William meant the Campus Martius, for which the activities he describes were appropriate. 5 crinis solutus humeris inuolitabat] Cf. Prudentius, Perist. iii. 151±2: `Crinis odorus ut in iugulos / ¯uxerat inuolitans umeris'. ab axe superbo . . . causas aduentus exquirit] Cf. Statius, Theb. xii. 543: `ab axe superbo explorat causas'. 6 omnibus membris ultro truncatis] Not unlike the horri®c end of Gerbert as retailed above, c. 172. 2. 206 The story reappears in Theoderic the Monk, Historia de antiquitate regum Norwagiensium, c. 18 (ed. G. Storm, Monumenta Historica Norvegiae: Latinske Kildeskrifter til Norges Historie i Middelalderen (Oslo, 1880), pp. 37±9), written c.1180, and in the Gesta Romanorum (ed. Oesterley, p. 538, no. 158) of c.1300, both apparently independently of each other and of GR. Theoderic dates the discovery of the body to c.1120. William's version was recopied by many, for instance Roger of Wendover i. 475 (dating it to 1037), Helinand of Froidmont (PL ccxii. 950), and Vincent of Beauvais, Speculum historiale xxv. 34, and in the Eulogium historiarum i. 403±4. 1 Virgilius narrat] Virgil, Aen. x. 474±87. Filius Euandri . . . iacet hic] SK 5130 (its reference to `AL 863 a n.' means n. 863a, n. on p. 314); Walther, Initia 6528; Poetae Latini Minores, ed. A. Baehrens (6 vols.: Leipzig, 1879±86), v. 395, no. 80 (the earliest witness said to be s. ix±x). Apart from the other versions of the story noted above, it was included in the famous collection of Latin verse in Tours, Bibl. mun. 890 (s. xiiex): A. Wilmart, `Le ¯orileÁge de Saint-Gatien. Contribution aÁ l'eÂtude des poeÁmes d'Hildebert et de Marbode', RB xlviii (1936), 3±40, 147±81, 235±58, at p. 30 and n. The meaning of `more suo' is obscure; it might be

/3thomson/tcom2.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:25 ± disk/amj

198

COMMENTARY

translated as modifying either occidit or iacet. John Trevisa adopted the ®rst alternative (Ranulf Higden, Polychronicon i. 225): `Pallas Euander his sone lie‡ here: / Hym Turnus ‡e kny¿t wi‡ his spere / Slowe in his manere'. The lines quoted in Gesta Romanorum are `Filius Euandri Pallas quem lancea curui / militis occidit, morte sua iacet hic.' 2 Carmentis] Isidore, Etym. i. 4. 1, v. 39. 11. 207. 2 felix, si umquam . . . umbram] Lucan ii. 302±3: `tuumque / nomen, Libertas, et inanem persequar umbram'. Also echoed in GP, c. 215 (p. 360): `solam umbram libertatis palpabant'. 4 Etheldrida . . . Cuthbertus] The sources for these cases of alleged incorruption seem to be: (1) for áthelthryth Bede, HE iv. 19; (2) for Wihtburh the Vita S. Withburgae (BHL 8979), but William may be alluding to the proof of incorruptibility of both áthelthryth and Wihtburh afforded by the translation of 1106 (GP, c. 184; p. 325); (3) for Edmund Abbo of Fleury, Passio S. Edmundi, c. 14 (ed. M. Winterbottom, Three Lives of English Saints (Toronto Medieval Latin Texts, 1: Toronto, 1972), p. 82); (4) for álfheah Osbern, Historia de translatione corporis S. Elphegi (ed. Rumble, The Reign of Cnut, p. 307); (5) for Cuthbert Bede, HE iv. 30, and Vita S. Cuthberti, c. 42. But William may have been referring to the translation of 1104 (see below, c. 445). No earlier sources mention traces of Cuthbert's living warmth. 208 Bede, HE iv. 14. The chapter is omitted in copies deriving (without contamination) from BL MS Cotton Tiberius C. ii (Plummer in Bede, HE II, pp. xcvi, cxiv). 2 quererent ergo in albo] For `album' used in this specialized sense see Plummer in Bede, HE II, p. 227, DMLBS, i. 58, and Mittellateinisches WoÈrterbuch bis zum ausgehenden 13. Jahrhundert, ed. O. Prinz and J. Schneider (Munich, 1959±), i. 435. 209 William refers to this event again at c. 12 B (Vol. i, Appendix I, pp. 802±3), and in GP, c. 181 (pp. 318±19). The earliest evidence for the cult dates from the late tenth and eleventh centuries, and is associated with the claim of Ramsey abbey to possess the relics. At least ®ve vitae predate the twelfth century: (1) BHL 2643, written for Ramsey c.1000, preserved in Simeon of Durham (Byrhtferth),

/3thomson/tcom2.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:25 ± disk/amj

BOOK II. 206.1±209.2

199

Historia regum, cc. 1±10 (ii. 3±13), (2) Goscelin, Vita Deo dilectae virginis Mildrethae (BHL 5960) s. xiex, ed. Rollason, Mildrith Legend, pp. 105±43, (3) BHL 2644ab + 2384a + 5964b, Vita SS. áthelredi et áthelberti martirum et SS. virginum Miltrudis et Edburgis, by an anonymous clerk of St Gregory's priory Canterbury s. xiex, ed. M. L. Colker, `A hagiographic polemic', Mediaeval Studies, xxxix (1977), 60±108, at pp. 97±108; (4) Passio et translatio Ethelredi et Ethelberti (BHL 2641±2), written for Ramsey s. xi2, ed. Rollason, Mildrith Legend, pp. 90±104; (5) a fragment of an OE Homily in BL MS Cotton Caligula A. xiv, fos. 121v-4v (s. ximed), ed. M. Swanton, `A fragmentary Life of St Mildred and other Kentish royal saints', Archaeologia Cantiana, cv (1975), 15±27, at pp. 24±6, based on a lost Latin vita, perhaps written at Minster-in-Thanet. The martyrdoms are also mentioned in JW Accounts, p. 259, and in a Canterbury addition s. xiex to ASC (A), s.a. 640. It is not clear that William knew (or at any rate used) any of these texts at ®rst hand. They all blame Thunor rather than Ecgberht for the murders. The tradition which they represent has the saints buried at Eastry (Kent), moved to Wakering (Essex), thence translated to Ramsey in the reign of áthelred the Unready by áthelwine, ealdorman of East Anglia, between 978 and 992. William omits the ®rst translation, and locates the second in Edgar's reign with Archbishop Oswald as the instrument; he names neither Eastry nor Wakering. In GP he both adds to and varies his account: there the children are initially buried beneath the king's seat, Thunor is punished by the earth swallowing him and sending him straight to hell; the bodies are translated to Ramsey by Ealdorman `Egeluuinus' from an obscure church in East Anglia `whose name is lost'. This seems to re¯ect a better knowledge of the written hagiography, especially Goscelin. A summary of the GP account is in John of Worcester s.a. 1050, a late addition to the main text made by John himself. See Rollason, `The cults', p. 5, Ridyard, Royal Saints, p. 244 and nn. 20±1, and A. Thacker, `Saint-making and relic collecting by Oswald and his communities', in Brooks and Cubitt, St Oswald, pp. 247±9, 255, and especially Hayward, ch. 6. 1 Egelbrihtum] scil. áthelbertum. 2 tumultuario cespite corporibus coniecta (iniecta TA)] Cf. GP, cc. 74 (p. 153) `tumultuario iniecto cespite . . . superiecta', 181 (p. 319) `tumultuario cespite corporibus iniecta'. Oswaldo archiepiscopo Wigorniensi] A slipÐor a joke? Oswald

/3thomson/tcom2.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:25 ± disk/amj

200

COMMENTARY

was bishop of Worcester 961±92, retaining his see after he became archbishop of York in 971. 210 The `martyrdom', alleged to have occurred in 793, is also mentioned above, at cc. 86, 97. 5, and in GP, c. 170 (p. 305). William presumably knew something like the vita ed. M. R. James, `Two Lives of St Ethelbert, king and martyr', EHR xxxii (1917), 214±44, at pp. 236±44, from Cambridge, Corpus Christi Coll. MS 308 (?Hereford area, s. xii1). (Note that BHL 2627 refers both to this Life and the rewriting of it by Osbert of Clare.) Written probably in the late eleventh century, it represents the local tradition of Hereford Cathedral, which was dedicated to áthelberht by c.1000 (but seems to have lost his relics to the Welsh in 1055). This source was undoubtedly known to John of Worcester s.a. 793, and to the author of the Annals of St Neots, because they sometimes reproduce its wording s.a. 794. See Rollason, `The cults', p. 9, Hayward, ch. 7. 211 Also in GP, c. 156 (pp. 294±5), `fraterculum . . . spirantia' verbatim. There is a brief reference also in c. 95. 3 above. The murder is supposed to have occurred in 821. There are two early vitae of Kenelm, the ®rst perhaps a reworking of the second: (1) BHL 4641m, a set of lections recounting the martyrdom only, preserved in Cambridge, Corpus Christi Coll. MS 367, part 2, fos. 45±8 (s. xi3/4, Worcester), and (2) BHL 4641n, a full Vita et miracula, preserved in eight manuscripts, ed. and trans. Love, pp. 50±89, and see pp. lxxxix± cxxxix. It was written between 1066 and 1075 by someone familiar with Winchcombe or with access to good information about it, just possibly Goscelin. (1) was the source for John of Worcester s.a. 819. William's account, on the other hand, is based upon the Vita et miracula, cc. 2, 5, 7, 10±12, 16. See Rollason, `The cults', pp. 9±10, Thacker, `Saint-making and relic collecting', in Brooks and Cubitt, St Oswald, pp. 252±3, and Hayward, ch. 8, esp. pp. 150±1, on the possible identity of the `real' Kenelm. 2 Deus laudem meam] Ps. 108(109): 2. 3 lumina uene®cae cauis orbibus euulsa] Cf. Statius, Theb. iv. 471: `impletque cauos uapor igneus orbes'. For other echoes of this passage by William see Wright II, p. 497 n. 60. Hoc opus . . . meam] Ps. 108(109): 2, 20.

/3thomson/tcom2.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:26 ± disk/amj

BOOK II. 209.2±212

201

212 This section is also in GP, c. 161 (pp. 297±8), verbatim. No earlier hagiographical material on Wigstan is extant. William's account is, however, very similar to the later vita preserved in three versions: (1) Thomas of Marlborough, Vita Wistani (part of BHL 8975), ed. W. D. Macray, Chronicon abbatiae de Evesham (RS, 1863), pp. 325±37, which claims to be an `improvement' of an earlier version (ibid., pp. 27, 326); (2) Gotha, Landesbibl. MS I. 81, fo. 44rv (s. xivex); (3) BL MS Harley 2253, fo. 140v, c.1340. The complex relationship between the versions is discussed by Hayward, pp. 183±91. Extracts from an earlier passio, with wording similar to Thomas's, are in John of Worcester s.a. 850 and JW Accounts, pp. 266±7. It has been suggested that the common source was a lost vita by Prior Dominic of Evesham (Hayward, pp. 188±91), and this may be what William used. William's account has some minor variations from Thomas's: for instance Thomas (p. 331) describes the column of light as `de loco in quo . . . occisus est . . . usque ad caelum porrecta' (similarly John of Worcester), and says that those `qui tunc presentes aderant' (i.e. at his slaying), not his `parentes', bore Wigstan's remains to Repton. The earlier extracts (and later passiones) end with Wigstan's burial there; only Thomas has him translated (in Cnut's reign) to Evesham. The murder probably occurred in 849 (Rollason, `The cults', p. 8 n. 36). On the hagiography see Rollason, `The cults', pp. 5±9, id., The Search for St Wigstan, Prince-martyr of the Kingdom of Mercia (Vaughan papers in adult education, xxvii: Leicester, 1981), pp. 7±10, and Hayward, ch. 9. Berferthus] Son of Berhtwulf, origin uncertain, king of Mercia 840± 52 ( John of Worcester s.aa. 838, 850, 852). His relationship to Wigstan is unknown. Rapendune . . . famoso monasterio . . . exoleta] On Repton as a mausoleum of Mercian kings see H. M. Taylor, `Repton reconsidered: a study in structural criticism', in England before the Conquest: Studies in Primary Sources presented to Dorothy Whitelock, ed. P. Clemoes and K. Hughes (Cambridge, 1971), pp. 351±89, at 388± 9, and E. Gilbert, `Saint Wilfrid's church at Hexham', in Saint Wilfrid at Hexham, ed. D. P. Kirby (Newcastle, 1974), pp. 81±113, at 100±1. Cf. above, c. 42. 3n. John of Worcester also quali®es `famosus' with `tunc temporis'. This phrase may derive from their common source, Dominic of Evesham. Aa (Vol. i, Appendix II, p. 835) gives a reference back to c. 42. 3, though its wording, `sicut in primo libro dixit', suggests that it is not by William (see above, p. xxv n. 13).

/3thomson/tcom2.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:26 ± disk/amj

202

COMMENTARY

213 On the cult of St Edmund of East Anglia see Ridyard, Royal Saints, ch. 7. William's account is mainly excerpted from Abbo, Passio S. Edmundi, ed. Winterbottom, Three Lives of English Saints, pp. 67±87, esp. c. 2 (p. 69) on East Anglia. 1 defossa humo . . . promunita] Devil's Dyke in Cambridgeshire, a Dark-Age rampart and ditch ®ve miles (eight km.) long, protecting the south-western approach to East Anglia: Royal Commission on Historical Monuments: Cambridgeshire (2 vols.: London, 1972), ii. 139±47. 2±6 Hic regnauit . . . putarunt] Also in GP, c. 74 (pp. 153 line 2± 155 line 1). On p. 152 William refers to the monastery of St Edmunds, `de quo . . . alias dixerim', apparently referring to this chapter. 4 cepto desistere] Cf. Lucan iii. 144: `desistere coepto'. Similarly in GP, cc. 74, 125 (pp. 154, 266). 5 Caput, olim a ceruice reuulsum] Cf. Virgil, Georg. iv. 523: `tum quoque marmorea caput a ceruice reuulsum'. 6 Nouit . . . nouit Edmundus modo facere, `parcere . . . superbos'] Virgil, Aen. vi. 853; quoted by Abbo, Passio S. Edmundi, c. 7 (p. 74), who also has `Nouit'. William quotes the line again at c. 411. 1, and echoes it at cc. 267. 1 and 258. 1. Ipsi quoque reges . . . coronam ei regiam missitant] I know of no other mention of this. Exactores uectigalium . . . putarunt] William probably had in mind two stories, one about the death of the sheriff Leofstan, the other the more famous death of Swein (above, c. 179. 1) both told by Hermann, De miraculis S. Edmundi, cc. 2, 3±8 (Memorials of St Edmund's Abbey, i. 30±2, 32±9). That he knew Hermann's work and the traditions and documents of St Edmunds abbey is clear from GP, c. 74 (pp. 155±6). 214 Most, but not all of what William says of four of the six female saints in this section could have been, and obviously was, derived from Bede. Bede, however, does not mention áthelburh or Wñrburh, though the few details which William gives about them are not helpful towards specifying his source(s). Vitae of all these saints (plus Wihtburh) are in the copy of Liber Eliensis in Cambridge, Trinity Coll. MS O. 2. 1 (Ely, s. xiiex); ?Goscelin's Vita S. Werburgae (BHL 8855) is pr. in AA SS, Feb. i, pp. 386±90 (see also the texts in Nova

/3thomson/tcom2.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:26 ± disk/amj

BOOK II. 213±15

203

Legenda Anglie, ii. 422±4, and The Life of St Werburge of Chester by Henry Bradshaw, ed. C. Horstmann (EETS, orig. ser. lxxxviii: London, 1887), pp. xix±xxvi). In GP William shows that he knew post-Bedan hagiography of áthelthryth (c. 183; pp. 323±4), Wihtburh (c. 184; pp. 324±5), and Wñrburh (c. 172; pp. 308±9). The lastmentioned passage tells of the saint's most famous miracle, of the wild geese, in similar language to the Vita, c. 3; but William (also Henry of Huntingdon ix. 52; pp. 692±5) has Wñrburh reconstitute and restore to the ¯ock a bird stolen and cooked by one of her servants; the Vita merely says that it was stolen and then returned. Once again William has hagiographical information which differs from the written records. 1 Anna . . . habuit ®lias tres] Presumably following Bede, and not noticing (for example) JW Gen., p. 249, William fails to include the fourth daughter Wihtburh (see above, c. 207). But he was aware of her parentage in GP, c. 184 (p. 324). Beda] HE iv. 19±20. 2 suf®tiat geminos irradiare polos] Cf. Ovid, Fast. iii. 106: `geminos esse sub axe polos', probably combined with another, unidenti®ed source. 3 Bedae] HE iii. 8. Vtraeque sanctae . . . pausant] `Vtraeque, mater et ®lia, apud ciuitatem Legionum pausant' T, presumably an early aberration of William's. Eormenhild was certainly (believed to be) buried at Ely: Liber Eliensis ii. 146 (p. 231) etc. in monasterio . . . transigebant] St Werburg's Chester, founded in 1093, with monks from Bec. Earum . . . attingunt] Almost verbatim in GP, c. 172 (p. 309 lines 21±4). 215 The translation took place in 1035. William presumably knew Goscelin's Vita S. Mildrethae and Translatio (BHL 5960±1; see below, c. 342), but if that is what he was using here he chose to differ in at least one important detail. The Vita distinguished between Eormenburh and her sister Domne Eafe, making the latter mother of Mildburh, Mildred, and Mildgyth (Rollason, Mildrith Legend, p. 114). William shares with John of Worcester s.a. 675 and JW Gen., p. 252, the identi®cation of Eormenburh as Mildred's mother. William's is not among the testimonies cited in Rollason, pp. 39±40.

/3thomson/tcom2.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:26 ± disk/amj

204

COMMENTARY

iuxta uocabulum suum] Mild = mild, gentle + rñd = counsel. surda transiens aure] Cf. Jerome, Praef. ad librum Iosue; Biblia Sacra iuxta Vulgatam Versionem, ed. Bonifatius Fischer (2 vols.: Stuttgart, 1969), p. 286: `surda debeamus aure transire'. 216 A similar account is in GP, c. 171 (pp. 305±6), `quidam puer . . . relinqueret' verbatim. Much Wenlock was founded as a Cluniac priory in 1080±1, and the alleged remains of Mildburh were translated to it in 1101. Lives are listed in Hardy, Materials, i. 274± 5 (effectively ignored in BHL). The earliest known Life (probably by Goscelin, on which the later are dependent) is found complete in BL MS Add. 34633, fos. 206±16v, and Lincoln Cathedral MS 149 (s.xii2; ?Leominster), fos. 83v-7. In the latter it is followed (on fos. 87±9v) by the Miracula written by Cardinal Odo of Ostia soon after the Translation (he died later in the same year): ed. A. J. M. Edwards, M.A. thesis (London, 1960), trans. id., `An early twelfth-century account of the translation of St Milburga of Much Wenlock', Transactions of the Shropshire Archaeological Society, lvii (1961±4), 134±51. Odo (Lincoln Cath. MS 149, fos. 87v-8; Edwards, `An early twelfth-century account', pp. 144±6) tells the story of the discovery of her body in much more detail than William: the monks were alerted to her burial within the church by a charter in Anglo-Saxon, found in a scrinium on the high altar, the ®nding of the hollow grave is credited to two boys, and there is no mention of the balsamic fragrance. He inveighs against those who maintain that Mildburh is more ef®cacious for leprosy than other saints (Lincoln Cath. MS 149, fo. 89v; Edwards, `An early twelfth-century account', pp. 150±1). William's comment on her success with `regius morbus' seems to be a variant of this belief. In general he seems to be dependent on oral information rather than the written hagiography. 217 William's account of Eadburh shares many details with the Life written by Osbert of Clare c.1130 (BHL 2385, ed. Ridyard, Royal Saints, pp. 259±308). Ridyard, pp. 17±28, considers the possibility that both used an earlier account, and indeed Osbert himself in his prefatory letter (ed. cit., p. 259) says `Quia uero illius gesta confuso uidebantur sermone contexta, nec in eis ordo uenustus radiabat insertus [sic], precibus deuinctus seniorum Persorensis ecclesie, inculta studui diligentius elimare'. On the cult in general at Win-

/3thomson/tcom2.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:26 ± disk/amj

BOOK II. 215±19

205

chester and Pershore see Ridyard, ch. 4. William's account seems to have in¯uenced some of the later hagiography: ibid., p. 28 n. 64. 1±2 uix dum trima esset . . . pronuntiant] = GP, c. 78 (p. 174 lines 10±32), almost verbatim. 2 resupinabat] Also Mir., c. 46 (p. 161): `quam res secundae et successus fortunae non resupinarent'. Used in the same sense otherwise only in Seneca, De ben. ii. 13. 2: `Libet itaque interrogare, quid se tanto opere resupinet'. 218 = GP, c. 87 (pp. 188±90 line 9). William also relates Dunstan's prophecy in VD ii. 23 (pp. 310±11), where he names as his source `eius uita', that is Goscelin, Vita S. Edithae, pp. 70±1, 88, 91, 267±9. But only William tells of Eadgyth's posthumous explanation of her body's partial preservation, and other differences of detail prompted Wilmart to suggest that William had access to another source (ibid., p. 70 n. 3). But the information may have been conveyed orally. Plummer noted the similarity between this miracle and that told of Aidan and Oswald by Bede, HE iii. 6 (ii. 140). On Eadgyth's cult see Ridyard, Royal Saints, pp. 140±54; she compares Goscelin's account with William's at pp. 42±4 (see above, c. 159. 2n), but without commenting on their treatment of this episode. 1 dulcibus exuuiis ornat, amore fouet] Cf. Prudentius, Perist. iii. 5: `ossibus ornat, amore colit'. 2 Verax et irrefragibile . . . iactantia] Quoted again in VW iii. 1 (p. 46); and again, attributed to Augustine, in GP, c. 87 (p. 189 line 13), but not identi®able. 3 in consecratione basilicae beati Dionisii] An oratory or chapel within the grounds of Wilton abbey; see Wilmart in Goscelin, Vita S. Edithae, p. 86 n. 3. cum esset annorum uiginti trium] Cf. Goscelin, Vita S. Edithae, p. 95: `anno uicesimo tercio etatis ut rosa maturata aduolauit quo . . . nupcias intrauit'. 4 in quosdam archanos naturae sinus de¯uere] Cf. Lucan vii. 810±11: `placido natura receptat / cuncta sinu'. 219 ambae istae uirgines . . . cenobia] The virgins being Eadburh and Eadgyth, the monasteries Pershore and Wilton (above, cc. 217±18).

/3thomson/tcom2.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:26 ± disk/amj

206

COMMENTARY

et magistris suis] `magistris' must refer to male clergy with authority over nuns, either the convent's priest (from whom the nuns would of course receive communion and to whom they would make confession) or, perhaps more likely, the local bishop. In cc. 220±7 (and see c. 197 above), on the reign of Edward the Confessor, William makes heavy use of the Vita ádwardi (BHL 2421), written by an anonymous monk of Saint-Bertin c.1065±7, which survives in a single mutilated MS of c.1100. William, of course, had access to a complete text, and Barlow suggests that it was an `improved' one containing legendary material introduced at Christ Church Canterbury c.1081±5 (edn. pp. xxxiii±xxxv, xl±xliv, appendix A). William's use of lost portions of the Vita can be inferred, and their content partly reconstructed, by comparison with the Life by Osbert of Clare, a rewriting of the earlier one (edn. pp. 85±8), and with some shorter extracts from the Vita that survive elsewhere. William was clearly perplexed by Edward's personality, and has been censured for alleged failure to present an integrated interpretation of his character and reign. Such is the opinion of Barlow, Edward the Confessor: `He took the honest, if unenterprising course of recording the different interpretations, almost without comment. He made no attempt to give the reign a pattern. For once he failed to write history' (pp. xxiii±xxiv); `He did not know what to make of Edward and his reign' (p. 264). It is not clear to me that modern historians have done much better. On the growth of the legend of Edward see Freeman, Norman Conquest, ii. 534±44, Barlow, Edward the Confessor, ch. 12, and id. in Vita ádwardi, pp. xxxiii±xliv, appendix D. 220 Based on Vita ádwardi, pp. 18±21 (the king's physical appearance), 60±5, except for Edward's moderation in taxation, of which William may have heard by word of mouth. 2 transmarinis (monachis Aa) et religiosis] The Aa addition (Vol. i, Appendix II, p. 835) looks like an afterthought, but it does re¯ect Vita ádwardi, p. 62, more accurately than the main text. 221 From `subissetque' almost verbatim as GP, c. 83 (p. 182). Based on Vita ádwardi, pp. 12±15, though that does not give the ®gure of twenty-four years for Edward's reign; in c. 196 above William says `not quite twenty-four years'. He could presumably have calculated

/3thomson/tcom2.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:26 ± disk/amj

BOOK II. 219±23

207

the length of Edward's reign either from his accession in 1042 or his coronation on 3 Apr. 1043, until his death on 4 or 5 Jan. 1066. The ®rst alternative would give twenty-four years, the second twentythree. Brihtwoldus Wiltunensis episcopus] Monk and abbot of Glastonbury, bishop of Ramsbury 99561005±45. Like John of Worcester, William on occasion uses `Wiltun' to mean `Wiltshire'. Vita ádwardi, p. 14, says `Wiltunensium'. 222 Based on Vita ádwardi, pp. 92±5, which does not, however, specify the birth of twins. The concluding comment (`unde nostro tempore . . .') is also William's own. On this disease, already known as the `King's Evil' by 1080, see F. Barlow, `The King's Evil', in his Norman Conquest and Beyond, pp. 23±47, esp. 23±30, and `Morbus regius: the royal disease', in Medieval Studies in honour of Avrom Saltman, ed. B.-S. Albert, Y. Friedman, and S. Schwarzfuchs (BarIlan Studies in History, iv: Jerusalem, 1995), pp. 53±66. In this case it seems to have involved abscesses spreading from the throat to the lymph nodes and festering, but the term `King's Evil' covered a variety of ailments involving neck swellings and it is not clear that William thought that this was one of them; indeed his concluding comment suggests that he thought it was not. Barlow, `The King's Evil', pp. 37±8, comments that William may have been implicitly replying to Guibert of Nogent, De pignoribus sanctorum, written shortly before 1126. Guibert (PL clvi. 616) credited both Philip I and Louis VI with the ability to perform this miraculous cure, stating parenthetically that, to the best of his knowledge, no English king had attempted it. While it is doubtful that William could have known this particular work at ®rst hand or so early, he may have been aware of the similar claims made for Robert the Pious. His `reply' amounts to a denial of sacral kingship: for him only personal holiness, not regality, could confer such power. 223 Based on Vita ádwardi, pp. 94±7, but with slight variations. In particular William, but not the Vita, says that the blind man was already at the palace (though Osbert hints as much: Vita ádwardi, p. 95 n. 240). The story of the blind man from Lincoln, referred to brie¯y by William, survives only in Osbert of Clare's version (ibid., pp. 100±3).

/3thomson/tcom2.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:26 ± disk/amj

208

COMMENTARY

224 Based on ibid., pp. 96±101, where the Vita only survives in Osbert of Clare's version. Osbert explains that the king ordered the building of a royal palace at Brill, and it was for this purpose that Wulfwine and many others were cutting timber. He differs from William in saying that Wulfwine was blind for nineteen years, and that he visited eighty churches. Only William says that Wulfwine remained importunate in the king's vestibule, and that after the restoration of his sight he was put in charge of the palace at Windsor. Osbert says that the miracle took place in the palace at Windsor, and that later Wulfwine was put in charge of the `principale palatium', implying that it was at Westminster. 1 Nutegareshale] Probably Ludgershall, near Brill, Berks. This detail too is not given by Osbert. Brill was on the royal demesne and a base for hunting in Bernwood Forest. 2 Ipso die . . . salutiferum largientibus] A summary of (Osbert's version of) Vita ádwardi, pp. 100±3. 225 Based on Vita ádwardi, pp. 102±11, extant only in Osbert of Clare's version and an earlier one represented by an interpolation made to the Bury St Edmunds copy of John of Worcester in Bodl. Libr., MS Bodl. 297, pr. McGurk in John of Worcester II, pp. 648± 51, Vita ádwardi ii. 7 (pp. 102±11): see F. Barlow, `The Vita ádwardi (Book II); the Seven Sleepers; some further evidence and re¯ections', in his Norman Conquest and Beyond, pp. 85±111. This is one of the items which Barlow thinks a later, probably Canterbury, `improvement' to the text of the Vita (Vita ádwardi, pp. xli±xliv). Compared with Osbert and the Bury version, William drastically abbreviates a long explanation of the Sleepers' identity attributed to Edward (ibid., pp. 104±5); for Osbert's `Hungarians, Arabs and Parthians', he and the Bury version have the better-focused `Hagarenes, Arabs and Turks', but both William and Osbert omit the Bury interpolator's reference to the First Crusade (ibid., pp. 108±9). On the legend of the Seven Sleepers see P. Huber, Die Wanderlegende von den SiebenschlaÈfern (Leipzig, 1910). It was well-known in preConquest England and the festival kept on 27 July: Vita ádwardi, p. 102 n. 255, K. Ciggaar, `England and Byzantium on the eve of the Norman Conquest (The reign of Edward the Confessor)', AngloNorman Studies, v (1982), 78±96, at pp. 79±85.

/3thomson/tcom2.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:26 ± disk/amj

BOOK II. 224±225.4±5

209

1 remotis mensis] Cf. Virgil, Aen. i. 216, 723: `mensaeque remotae'. 2 miseris mortalibus omen] Cf. ibid. xi. 182±3: `Aurora interea miseris mortalibus almam / extulerat lucem', Georg. iii. 66: `miseris mortalibus'. The seventy-four years, calculated from 1060, terminated in 1134, i.e. still in the future when William was writing. in Celio monte] For the various forms of this name in Greek, Syriac and Latin see P. Peeters, `Le texte original de la passion des Sept Dormants', Anal. Boll. xli (1923), 369±85, at p. 374. The remains of the Seven Sleepers today rest at the eastern foot of Mt Pion (Panayir Dagi): G. E. Bean, Aegean Turkey (2nd edn., London, 1979), pp. 129, 145±6. quae Dominus . . . signa magna] Luke 21: 10±11 (Cf. Matt. 24: 7, Mark 13: 8). 3 Manicheti Constantinopolitano imperatori] Presumably confusion between Constantine IX Monomakh, 1042±55, and George Maniakes, never emperor, who was killed ®ghting against Constantine in 1043; cf. Barlow in Vita ádwardi, p. 107 n. 266, Ciggaar, `England and Byzantium', pp. 82±3. Also, for Anglo-Byzantine relations and visits to Constantinople by Englishmen in the eleventh century, see Barlow's note 265 on pp. 105±7. Speci®c examples are discussed by C. H. Haskins, `A Canterbury monk at Constantinople', EHR xxv (1910), 293±5; Ciggaar, `England and Byzantium', pp. 82± 8; id., `L'eÂmigration anglaise aÁ Byzance apreÁs 1066', Revue des eÂtudes byzantines, xxxii (1974), 301±42; and id., `Une description de Constantinople traduite par un peÁlerin anglais', ibid., xxxiv (1976), 211±67. epistola pariter quam sacram uocant comitante] This is William's own addition, and is interesting because it is correct. `Sacred' (sakrai) was one of the Byzantine titles used for various classes of imperial correspondence with foreign powers: Ciggaar, `England and Byzantium', p. 85 and n. 45, citing F. DoÈlger and J. Karayannopulos, Byzantinische Urkundenlehre: Erster Abschnitt. Die Kaiserurkunden (Munich, 1968), pp. 24, 89. 4±5 Osbert gives the same instances of the prophecy's ful®lment as the Bury addition to John of Worcester, and in the same order. William gives them in reverse order as far as the attacks of pagans on Christians. He omits the rest (England's misfortunes), inserting his own information about Halley's comet and Eilmer. At c. 226 he

/3thomson/tcom2.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:26 ± disk/amj

210

COMMENTARY

recounts Edward's other prophecy, which allows him to advert to the later misfortunes of the English. 4 Agareni . . . Ierosolimam] It is unclear what distinction is being made between `Agareni' and `Arabes', normally synonymous in medieval western sources. The Bury addition to John of Worcester also has `Commagenians'. William's geography is not perfect: Syria is not in Asia Minor, Ephesus is. mortuo Manichete . . . Diogenes . . . ] Omitting the rules of Theodora (1055±6), Michael VI (1056±7), Isaac Comnenus (1057±9), and Constantine X Ducas (1059±67); so also the Bury interpolation to John of Worcester (Vita ádwardi, p. 108 n. 272). Alexius . . . durans] Ciggaar, `L'eÂmigration', p. 319, took `durans' to imply that this passage was written before Alexius' death in 1118; but the next clause shows that this was not so. More interesting is Ciggaar's suggestion (pp. 317±18) that William had some of his information on Constantinople (above all on the relics there; below, c. 356. 4) from the legation sent from Alexius I to Henry I between 1100 and 1118. Iohannem ®lium] John Comnenus, 1118±43. His name is William's addition. Quorum ultimus . . . amorem eorum ®lio transcribens] William refers to Alexius's behaviour towards the Crusaders, as viewed by Western eyes (cf. below, c. 349. 3±5, 357. 1±2, 383. 2, 387. 6). That the emperor made an exception of the English is also alleged, with an attempted explanation, by Orderic (ii. 202±5, iv. 16± 17). William is the only source to claim the same attitude for John, and he is probably correct. J. Shepard, `The English in Byzantium: a study of their role in the Byzantine army in the late eleventh century', Traditio, xxix (1973), 53±92, discusses the relationship between Alexius and the English in detail, concluding (p. 92) that `Englishmen played an important part in helping Alexius Comnenus on his campaigns in 1081±1084, and that he and his family long remained grateful'. See also J. Godfrey, `The defeated Anglo-Saxons take service with the Eastern Emperor', Anglo-Norman Studies, i (1978), 63±74, and Ciggaar, `England and Byzantium', pp. 78±96. 5 tres papae] Victor II (1055±7), Stephen IX (1057±8), Nicholas II (1058±61). Their names are William's addition, presumably from ASC, but he omits Benedict X (1058±9).

/3thomson/tcom2.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:26 ± disk/amj

BOOK II. 225.4±5±225.6

211

E uestigio quoque . . . interiit] Henry III d. 1056, Henry king of France d. 1060. cometes stella . . . longos et ¯ammeos crines per inane ducens] Cf. Sulpicius Severus, Dial. ii. 2. 1: `longum admodum crinem ¯amma produceret'. On the many notices of this comet as an ill omen for England see Freeman, Norman Conquest, iii. 70±3, 645±50, and Plummer in Two Saxon Chronicles, ii. 254. Liber de Hyda, p. 291, attributes a verse on the subject to Lanfranc. 6 Dudum est quod te uidi] Halley's comet was visible in Apr. 1066; its prior appearance was in Aug.-Sept. 989: Schove and Fletcher, Chronology of Eclipses and Comets, p. 297; F. Stevenson and C. B. F. Walker, Halley's Comet in History (London, 1985), p. 57. nam pennas . . . oblitus fuerit] On this famous episode in the history of aeronautics see W. Hunt in Dictionary of National Biography, xlii. 140, M. Massip, `Un victime d'aviation au onzieÁme sieÁcle', MeÂmoires de l'AcadeÁmie des sciences, inscriptions et belles-lettres de Toulouse, seÂr. 10, x (1910), 199±217, Lynn White Jr., `Eilmer of Malmesbury, an eleventh-century aviator: a case study of technological innovation, its context and tradition', in his Medieval Religion and Technology (Berkeley, 1978), pp. 59±73, and R. M. Thomson, `Eilmer of Malmesbury', in New Dictionary of National Biography, forthcoming. White argues that the ¯ight, when Eilmer was in `prima iuuentute', took place c.1000±10, assuming that he was about ®ve years old when he saw Halley's comet for the ®rst time in 989. The distance of `spatio stadii et plus' corresponds to something more than 600 feet, or about 200 metres, assuming that William had in mind a distance like the Roman stadium of 606' 9@. The account bears a curious resemblance to that (from a late source) of the late ninthcentury Cordovan Abu'l-Qasim Abbas b. Firnas who also tried to ¯y, using similar methods with similar results. He hurt his back badly, for `not knowing that birds when they alight come down upon their tails, he forgot to provide himself with one': Al-Makkari, The History of the Muhammedan Dynasties in Spain, ii. 3, trans. Pascual de Gayangos (2 vols.: London, 1840±3), i. 148. It is perfectly correct that the use of ¯exible wings requires a tail/rudder for steering. This story of William's had a long and independent afterlife: White notes the testimonia of Helinand of Froidmont, Alberic of Trois Fontaines, Vincent of Beauvais, Roger Bacon, Ranulf Higden (who ®rst misnamed the aviator `Oliver'), and Henry Knighton, John Wilkins

/3thomson/tcom2.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:26 ± disk/amj

212

COMMENTARY

(1648), John Milton (1670) and John Wise (1850). William's comment on Eilmer's learning suggests that he may have been a writer, and there is a possibility that works ascribed to him survived until the sixteenth century. John Bale, in his Illustrium maioris Britanniae Scriptorum . . . Summarium (Wesel, 1548), fo. 72v, and Scriptorum illustrium maioris Brytanniae . . . Catalogus (2 vols.: Basel, 1557, 1559), i. 163, credits him with three works: in the Summarium `Astrologorum dogmata', `Eulogium historiarum' and `De planetarum signis', in Catalogus replacing the impossible `Eulogium' with `De geomantia'. The works so ascribed are certainly of a sort that one might associate with the serious imitator of Daedalus. Sharpe, A Handlist of the Latin Writers of Great Britain and Ireland, p. 28, is sceptical. 226 Based upon Vita ádwardi, pp. 116±19, in the `improved' version from Christ Church Canterbury. At c. 419 below William says that the birth of the ñtheling William was looked upon as the ful®lment of Edward's deathbed prophecy. 2 Niniuitarum] Referring to the events of Jonah 3. 227 Huius uaticinii . . . nugas delirare] Based upon Vita ádwardi, pp. 118±21, for Stigand's contemptuous reaction, but the ful®lment of the prophecy as Osbert of Clare (ibid., appendix B), except that Osbert omits William's statement that there are no abbots of English race. ut sermo noster paucis absoluere temptet] A hexameter; so also c. 228. 4 `Willelmo comiti, non semiuiro Guidoni'. 228 Based upon ASC (E) s.aa. 1063, 1066, and Eadmer, Hist. nov. pp. 5±9. William perhaps deliberately avoided committing himself to a precise date for Edward's death. ASC (E) s.a. 1066 gave it as 5 Jan., Vita ádwardi (pp. 124±5) as 4 Jan. See Barlow in Vita ádwardi, p. 124 n. 329. 1 uenit Eduardus . . . uir neque promptus manu neque probus ingenio] Plummer in Two Saxon Chronicles, ii. 247, was `inclined to suspect a dislocation of the text, and that the phrase really belongs to the description of Edgar átheling' which immediately follows. This would certainly make better sense. Edgaro . . . ruri agit] The date of his death is unknown.

/3thomson/tcom2.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:26 ± disk/amj

BOOK II. 225.6±228.5

213

Christina] Became a nun in 1086 ( John of Worcester s.a.). The date of her death is unknown, and William's wording suggests that he did not know whether she was still alive or not. 1±2 Margareta . . . duxerunt] Margaret married Malcolm III c.1069; the children named here are Edgar, king of Scots 1097± 1107, Alexander I, king of Scots 1107±24, Edward (d. 1093), and David, king of the Scots 1124±53. Mary married Eustace III count of Boulogne (d. c.1125). 2 Willelmo comiti Normanniae] William appears to have acknowledged no distinction between `count' and `duke'; at any rate he generally uses the term `comes' for both, invariably for the dukes of Normandy. At cc. 350. 1 and 383. 2 he uses `comites' to cover groups of men including both counts and dukes. He generally uses `dux' for `thegn', `ealdorman', or `earl', but at c. 373. 1±2 `ducatus' for a county (see note ad loc.). To avoid confusion for the reader we have not followed William's terminology in the translation. 3 Ferunt quidam] The idea that Harold was sent to Normandy to announce Edward's bequest of the kingdom to Duke William was conveyed by William of Poitiers i. 41 (pp. 68±9), and William of JumieÁges, GND ii. 158±61; the journey is not mentioned by ASC or John of Worcester: see Greenway in Henry of Huntingdon, p. 382 n. 145. Here we have William rejecting the `Norman' interpretation because of facts known to him from what he thought were better sources: Freeman, Norman Conquest, iii. 688±91; S. KoÈrner, The Battle of Hastings, England and Europe, 1035±1066 (Lund, 1964), pp. 115±19. On William of Malmesbury's interpretation of Harold's oath to William, compared with other versions (e.g. Orderic ii. 117, Henry of Huntingdon vi. 25; pp. 380±3), see Freeman, Norman Conquest, iii. 677±707, esp. p. 699. William followed Eadmer, Hist. nov., pp. 7±8, except for his comment that Harold offered the oath of his own accord: Eadmer says that Harold had no alternative and effectively gave in under duress. William of Normandy's own interpretation is given below, c. 240. 2. 5 et ut notiorem faceret . . . Britannica expeditione . . . secum habuit] And also to intimidate Harold by a display of Norman military power, according to the account below, c. 236. 2. quare et ®liae . . . amplitudine donatus] For other accounts of this woman's identity see below, c. 276n.

/3thomson/tcom2.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:26 ± disk/amj

214

COMMENTARY

6 in eadem aecclesia . . . quam ipse illo compositionis genere primus in Anglia edi®cauerat quod nunc pene cuncti sumptuosis emulantur expensis] William's remarks were doubtless prompted by the description of Westminster abbey in Vita ádwardi, pp. 68±71. Compare the description by Sulcard, De prima constructione ecclesiae Westmonasterii, ed. B. W. Scholz, Traditio, xx (1964), 59±91, at pp. 90±1 (and on Edward's interest in the project note Scholz's remarks at pp. 68±72). The architectural in¯uence of Westminster abbey is studied by R. D. H. Gem, `The romanesque rebuilding of Westminster Abbey', Anglo-Norman Studies, iii (1980), 33±60. No exact model for Edward's church has been identi®ed, although it is thought to have been closely related to JumieÁges, consecrated in 1067. It was considerably larger than any contemporary Norman church, and was as long as anything in the West at the time (Barlow in Vita ádwardi, pp. 68±9 n. 168); so William's comment in that respect is justi®ed. More re¯ections of William on the introduction of romanesque architecture into England will be found below, cc. 246. 2, 321, 398. 4, and in GP, cc. 90, 164, 186 (pp. 195±6, 300, 326±7). 7 Progenies Westsaxonum, quae in Britannia a Cerditio quingentis et septuaginta uno annis, ab Egbirhto ducentis et sexaginta uno regnauerat] William calculates correctly from ASC s.a. 495 (Cerdic), but incorrectly from ASC s.a. 800 (Ecgberht; recte 802), for the addition of 261 years results in the date 1061. Perhaps this was due to `v' being dropped out of `cclxvi' at an earlier stage of GR's transmission. 7±8 Haroldus . . . extorta a principibus ®de . . . suscepisset] For the notion that Edward nominated William as his successor see Freeman, Norman Conquest, iii. 578±600, who compares all the early authorities (giving William's version on p. 591). He concludes with the remarkable statement that `there is no fact in history better attested than the fact of Edward's dying recommendation in favour of Harold'. Recent discussion of the issue is in Barlow, Edward the Confessor, pp. 107±9, 220±1, E. John, `Edward the Confessor and the Norman succession', EHR xciv (1979), 241±67, and Walker, Harold, pp. 118±19. Harold's designation by Edward is stated unambiguously only by ASC (E) s.a. 1066, and (presumably after ASC) by John of Worcester. It is implied only in ASC (CD) s.a. 1065; pace Freeman and others, William of Poitiers and the Vita ádwardi are ambivalent,

/3thomson/tcom2.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:26 ± disk/amj

BOOK II. 228.6±9

215

and the Bayeux Tapestry no help at all. On the other hand, some writers in England such as the author of Chron. de Hyda (p. 290) thought that the deathbed bequest was to Duke William. William of Malmesbury gives us the `English' and `Norman' views of the matter, and on this occasion is inclined to credit the latter; see also c. 238. 1 below. In VW i. 16 (p. 22) William is more ambivalent, saying cryptically that Harold gained the crown `uel fauore impetrata uel ui extorta'. This is not so very different from the opinion of Hermann the Archdeacon of Bury, writing his Miracula S. Edmundi soon after 1097 (Memorials of St Edmund's Abbey i. 57): `Haroldus . . . callida ui ueniens ad regnum'. 8 Grif®num . . . fratres eiusdem Grif®ni Blegent et Riuallonem] William has confused two Gruffydds (see above, c. 196. 3n). Here he is referring to Gruffydd ap Llywelyn (d. 1064). Harold never beat him in battle, but was indirectly responsible for the plot against him. William was obviously following Vita ádwardi, pp. 64±5: `[Gruffydd], with Earl Harold directing the English army, was often defeated, and in the end was killed.' Bleddyn and Rhiwallon, rulers of Gwynedd and Powys, were Gruffydd ap Llywelyn's halfbrothers. William is correct in saying that they were given permission to take up their rule after submission to Harold (ASC (D) s.a. 1063). Rhiwallon was killed ®ghting the sons of Gruffydd ap Llywelyn in 1070; Bleddyn was slain in 1075 by Rhys ab Owein, ruler of Deheubarth. For Harold's Welsh wars see Plummer in Two Saxon Chronicles, ii. 250±1; Lloyd, History of Wales, ii. 363±73; id., `Wales and the coming of the Normans, 1039±93', Transactions of the Honourable Society of Cymmrodorion (1899±1900), 122±79, at pp. 134±8; K. L. Maund, `The Welsh alliances of Earl álfgar of Mercia and his family in the mid-eleventh century', Anglo-Norman Studies, xi (1988), 181±90; Hudson, `The destruction of Gruffudd ap Llewelyn'; and Walker, Harold, pp. 85±90. 9 Tostinus, a Flandria . . . populabantur] For the various accounts of Tostig's movements after his banishment see Freeman, Norman Conquest, iii. 720±5, and Plummer, Two Saxon Chronicles, ii. 254. William follows the account of ASC (E); greater detail is provided by ASC (C) and John of Worcester s.aa. 1065±6. Haroldo Haruagrae] William has confused Harold Harfagri (c.880± 930) with Harold Hardrada (1045±66), but was neither the ®rst nor last to do so: so also, for example, ASC (D) s.a. 1066, John of

/3thomson/tcom2.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:26 ± disk/amj

216

COMMENTARY

Worcester s.a. 1048, Orderic Vitalis (ii. 142±3), and Geoffrey Gaimar (line 5191; p. 165). Other examples are listed by Plummer ut supra, p. 256. 9±11 Haroldus nuntio accepto . . . clementer remissus] On the various accounts of the battle of Stamford Bridge and their interpretation see Freeman, Norman Conquest, iii. 732±40. The only detailed one, though late (c.1230) and unreliable, is that of Snorri Sturlasson, Heimskringla, Saga of King Harold, cc. 87±97. William's account, similar to that in ASC (C), is skeletal except for the defence of the bridge (similarly Henry of Huntingdon vi. 27 (pp. 388±9) ): B. Dickins, `The late addition to ASC 1066 C', Proceedings of the Leeds Philosophical and Literary Society, v (1938±43), 148±9. F. W. Brookes, The Battle of Stamford Bridge (East Yorks. Local History Ser. vi, 1956) is a reliable modern reconstruction. 11 regis ®lius] Olaf, later king of Norway 1067±93. Harold's elder son and successor, Magnus, had remained in Norway to govern in his father's absence: Snorri Sturlasson, Heimskringla, Saga of King Harold, c. 75. 11±12 Haroldus, triumphali euentu superbus, . . . pro patria animas posuere] John of Worcester s.a. 1066 says that Harold moved to London in great haste after hearing of William's landing, but that `half of his army had not yet assembled' when they were forced to engage; moreover during the battle there were many English desertions `and very few of constant heart remained with him'. William repeats this point below, c. 239. 1. On English numbers at the battle of Hastings, probably not less than the Norman army, see the literature cited at c. 239. 1n. quasi cum Haroldo . . . animas posuere] Cf. VW ii. 1 (p. 24): `quasi cum Haraldo robur omne deciderit patrie'. The rather tortuous reasoning in this section shows William trying to do justice to both sides, and makes intelligible translation dif®cult. We understand as follows: quasi cum Haroldo . . . per®diae] Harold was obliged to pay the penalty for his per®dy (in breaking his oath to William), because such was the judgement of God; this would have happened even if the enemy had been utterly incompetent. Nec hoc dicens . . . animas posuere] On the other hand, those who think to praise the Normans by describing the English army as large but cowardly are on the wrong track, since there could be no credit in

/3thomson/tcom2.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:26 ± disk/amj

BOOK II. 228.9±228.11±12

217

defeating such a force. In any case the facts were otherwise: the English were outnumbered but fought ®ercely, which was to their credit, as was their defeat to the Normans.

/3thomson/tcom3.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:7 ± disk/amj

BOOK III Books iii±v, says William in the prologue to iii, `will tell of the three Norman kings, together with such events as befell in their time in other countries'. The particular subject of this Book is the reign of William I. It begins on the Continent with his Norman background (cc. 229±38) and proceeds to a detailed account of the conquest of England (cc. 238±58). The treatment of his reign as king of England is less organized, though studded with valuable insights: foreign affairs (c. 261), private life and character (cc. 267, 273, 277±9), problems of the Anglo-Norman Church (cc. 270±2), the king's progeny (cc. 274± 6) and death (c. 283). At this point William could have concluded the Book. There are digressions passim, and a long series of them from cc. 284 to 293, which William justi®es as necessary for the reader's refreshment. Some of the individual digressions are understandable in terms of the main theme: the history of the county of Anjou (c. 235); sketches of the Danish and Norwegian royal houses (cc. 259± 60); Robert Guiscard and the Normans in south Italy (c. 262); the dispute between Canterbury and York (cc. 295±303). A number are introduced for their entertainment value: a miracle in Brittany (c. 237); legends and stories of Gregory VII (cc. 263±7); a legend of Maurilius of Rouen (c. 268); Berengar of Tours (cc. 284±5); the Investiture Dispute (cc. 288±9). Finally there are digressions linked to digressions: miracles concerning the Eucharist (c. 286); Arthur's grave (c. 287); mouse marvels (cc. 290±1); Marianus Scotus (c. 292); a German miracle (c. 293). At this point one notes again that most of William's information about Germany, Italy, and the papacy is in the form of folk-tales, saga, and legend. Also worth noting here is the way in which William customarily treats stories of marvels or miracles. He was obviously not by nature a credulous person, and his scepticism is often displayed in GR. He usually felt the need to demonstrate at least the plausibility of some of his marvel-stories, and the way in which he does this is by reference to parallel stories vouched for by weighty written authority: so, for instance, cc. 167. 5±6, 169. 4±5, 171. 3, 204. 7. There is more on William's `credulity' in Thomson, William of Malmesbury, pp. 22±5. As to the sources for this Book: William becomes less reliant on the

/3thomson/tcom3.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:7 ± disk/amj

BOOK III. PR.±229

219

ASC, even though its record was still available and indeed becoming fuller. He uses Eadmer, hagiography, ecclesiastical documents, and William of Poitiers, who is also used for Norman affairs, as is perhaps William of JumieÁges. For early Normandy and the history of the county of Anjou he may have had access to writings now lost, but clearly much came to him from oral testimony. William does not seem to have objected to such testimony, so long as it had certain qualities; but in the absence of an alternative, authoritative written source he was in the end prepared to use anything he could get. prol. 1 isti . . . conuitiis] Cf. Suetonius, Aug. xiii. 2: `hunc foedissimo conuicio coram prosciderunt'. 2 Satis superque] Horace, Epod. i. 31, xvii. 19, but a clicheÂ. qui genuino molari facta bonorum lacerent] Cf. Sidonius, Epist. i. 1. 4: `genuinum molarem inuidia non ®xerit'; Jerome, Epist. xlvi. 10. 4: `genuino dente se lacerent' (Otto, SprichwoÈrter, p. 107). 3 satis reor . . . ut beneuolus sit] William adverts to the wellknown description of the purpose of the Proemium in e.g. Auctor ad Herenn. i. 4. 6: `Id ita sumitur ut attentos, ut dociles, ut beniuolos auditores habere possimus.' Cf. VW prol. (p. 3): `Et quidem qui rethoricis nituntur institutis ita sermonem suum instituunt ut primum auditorem suum beniuolum, mox attentum, postremo docilem reddant.' 229 A little information parallel with William of JumieÁges, GND ii. 78±85, but probably dependent on the lost beginning of William of Poitiers if not simply on popular tales. For the various stories of William's birth see Freeman, Norman Conquest, ii. 628±35; on the meaning of `uxoris loco', pp. 633±4. `®lium septennem' is an addition to the text of William of JumieÁges, GND (ii. 81 n. 5), found in two closely related manuscripts (Van Houts's C1 and C2). Van Houts thinks that the textual peculiarities in these manuscripts were the work of an interpolator (i, pp. cxxi±cxxii), and their date (s. xii±xiii) makes it possible that this particular addition was lifted from GR. Robert of Torigni (GND ii. 41±2) in another context gives William's age at the time as ®ve. Habebat . . . unice dilexit et aliquandiu iustae uxoris loco habuit] Cf. Suetonius, Vesp. iii: `Post uxoris excessum Caenidem . . .

/3thomson/tcom3.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:7 ± disk/amj

220

COMMENTARY

dilectam quondam sibi reuocauit in contubernium habuitque etiam imperator paene iustae uxoris loco'. ambas manus iunco . . . impleuit] Cf. Virgil, Aen. ix. 72: `manum pinu ¯agranti feruidus implet'. laeto plausu gannientibus] The same expression is in VD i. 6 (p. 259). 230 William seems to have been partly dependent upon William of Poitiers i. 7±9, 11 (pp. 8±13, 14±15). But no earlier source speci®es FeÂcamp as the location of the council at which Duke Robert declared William his heir; William may have found it, as with other details, in the part of William of Poitiers now lost. But he shows a particular interest in FeÂcamp in his account of Norman history (see cc. 165. 13, 178, 268. 1, 307. 2), and this may have something to do with the fact that the ®rst post-Conquest abbot of Malmesbury, Turold (1066/7± 1070), had earlier been a monk of that house. 1 Gislebertus comes] Gilbert, count either of Brionne or Eu (GND ii. 92±3 n. 5). He was apparently guardian, not tutor to William, and neither the ®rst nor the only one. William's earliest guardians were Archbishop Robert of Rouen, Count Alan III of Brittany, Osbern the Steward, and Turchetil; Gilbert only became part of this circle on the death of Alan on 1 Oct. 1040, but he was assassinated a few months later on the orders of Ralph of GaceÂ, son of Archbishop Robert. The tutors were Turold, Ralph the Monk, and Master William: William of JumieÁges, GND ii. 84±5 (and see p. 81 n. 6); Douglas, William the Conqueror, pp. 37, 40. Robert was the son, Gilbert grandson of Richard I, duke of Normandy 942±96; Robert's son Ralph was therefore indeed Gilbert's cousin. cum fato mutatus amor] Cf. Lucan ii. 705: `cum fato conuersa ®des'; vi. 453: `non fatis adductus amor'. 2 haud equidem . . .] Cf. Virgil, Aen. v. 56±7: `haud equidem sine mente, reor, sine numine diuum / adsumus'. Ve terrae cuius rex puer est] Eccles. 10: 16. At ille . . . erexit] Information, unique to William, which he might have derived from the lost beginning of William of Poitiers. Our translation, `knighted', was perhaps unfortunate though dif®cult to avoid; at this date the granting of arms to a new ruler was a sign of his coming of age to rule, not the equivalent of the later dubbing as a

/3thomson/tcom3.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:7 ± disk/amj

221

BOOK III. 229±31 e

e

knight: J. Flori, L'essor de la chevalerie, xi -xii sieÁcles (Geneva, 1986), pp. 65±6, 144±9. 3 Guido quidam, Burgundus a patre, nepos (pronepos Aac) Ricardi secundi e ®lia] Guy, made count of Brionne and Vernon after the death of Gilbert in 1041, was son of Raynald count of Burgundy (d. 1057), and Adeliza daughter of Richard II duke of Normandy. The Aac reading is therefore wrong. conuictus . . . parauerat] Cf. Mir., c. 30 (p. 126): `Cum eo, ab ineunte aetate, conuictus familiaritatem, familiaritas con®dentiam creauerat'. 4 Nigellum uicecomitem Constantini] Nigel II, viscount of the Cotentin (1040/42±1092); also named in GND ii. 120. Haimonem Dentatum, auum Rotberti qui nostro tempore in Anglia multarum possessionum incubator extitit] The son of Haimo Longtooth (d. 1047) was Haimo dapifer, sheriff of Kent (d. before 1100); the grandson was Robert Fitz Hamon (d. 1107), lord of Glamorgan, benefactor of Tewkesbury abbey (see below, c. 398. 4n), and father-in-law of Robert earl of Gloucester. The genealogy is given by Freeman, Norman Conquest, ii. 250±1; D. C. Douglas, The Domesday Monachorum of Christ Church, Canterbury (London, 1944), pp. 55±6; and L. H. Nelson, The Normans in South Wales, 1070±1171 (Austin and London, 1966), pp. 95±6. On Robert see R. A. L. Pezet, Les Barons de Creully: EÂtudes historiques (Bayeux, 1854), esp. pp. 21±52; T. F. Tout in The Dictionary of National Biography, xix. 159±62; and Nelson, The Normans in South Wales, pp. 95±101. apud Walesdunas] Val-eÁs-Dunes (Calvados), 1047. William's account of the battle is more detailed than that in William of JumieÁges, GND ii. 120±3. It has been thought that his version, and those in the Chron. de Hyda, p. 286, and Wace, Roman de Rou, pt. iii, lines 3737±4194 (ii. 25±43), may owe something to a chanson de geste. 5 fratre suo Willelmo] William I count of Burgundy (1057±87). The genealogy of the counts of Burgundy is given in M. Chaume, Les Origines du duche de Bourgogne (Dijon, 1925), p. 538. 231 Most of what concerns Duke William in this section is also found in William of JumieÁges, GND, and in William of Poitiers. For his history of Geoffrey Martel William is independent of all known sources.

/3thomson/tcom3.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:7 ± disk/amj

222

COMMENTARY

1 Eo tempore . . . suf®cere] The defeat of William count of Poitou, his imprisonment and death, were recorded by many chroniclers: see Freeman, Norman Conquest, ii. 641±3. Like GCA (pp. 60±2) William's account is a con¯ation of two separate events: (1) the battle of Mont-CoueÈr, on 20 Sept. 1033, when Geoffrey Martel captured William (the Fat), sixth duke of Aquitaine (fourth count of Poitou), releasing him for a substantial ransom in 1036; William died late in 1038: L. Halphen, Le Comte d'Anjou au XIe sieÁcle (Paris, 1906), pp. 57 and n. 2, 59 n. 1; O. Guillot, Le Comte d'Anjou et son entourage au xie sieÁcle (2 vols.: Paris, 1972), i. 52±3; (2) the battle of Chef-Boutonne in 1061, between Fulk Rechin and Guy-Geoffrey-William, eighth duke of Aquitaine (sixth count of Poitou), over the disputed territory of Saintonge (Halphen, Le Comte d'Anjou, p. 136). Fulk won the battle, but Guy-Geoffrey-William captured Saintes in the following year. William's account is parallel with GCA rather than dependent upon it, however, for it says that William of Aquitaine, once his wounds were healed, received Geoffrey's homage for Saintonge, but remained his captive until death; according to a marginal addition in one MS of GCA the captivity lasted three years, the duke dying in the year of his release. Only GR generalizes the ®ght for Saintes into the cession of Bordeaux. The Angevin chronicles do not mention Martel's marriage to William VI's stepmother or the wardship of his brothers. On the ®rst of these William is wrong as to timing, though correct as to the political intention. Geoffrey had married Agnes, countess of VendoÃme, widow of William `the Great', ®fth duke of Aquitaine, in 1032: Guillot, Le Comte d'Anjou et son entourage i. 44±5. As to the wardship, William V (993±1030) had married three times. William VI was the son of his ®rst wife, and there were two sons by the third wife Agnes, who were not yet of age when Geoffrey Martel married her (Halphen, Le Comte d'Anjou, p. 56 and n. 3). cognomento Martellus . . . contundere] Much as Fulk Rechin, Fragmentum historiae Andegavensis, in Anjou Chronicles, p. 236: `Propter que omnia bella et propter magnanimitatem quam ibi exercebat, merito Martellus nominatus est, quasi suos conterens hostes.' See also c. 235. 2, 4 below. Other testimonies are cited by Freeman, Norman Conquest, v. 569 n. 4. 2 Mox Teodbaldi . . . deprehensi fuerimus] GCA, pp. 55±8, gives a detailed account of Geoffrey Martel's operations against

/3thomson/tcom3.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:8 ± disk/amj

BOOK III. 231.1±232.2

223

Theobald I of Blois (1037±89). They culminated in a year-long siege of Tours (Ralph Glaber v. 19) and the battle of Nouy on 21 Aug. 1044. GCA describes Theobald's treaty with Geoffrey in terms of contempt similar to those used in GR: `Theobaldus, cum esset in uinculis et pro eo nullam argenti et auri Gosfridus Martellus redemptionem uellet accipere, captiuus mori metuens et semetipsum plus quam sua diligens . . . pro sua deliberatione Turoniam Gosfrido Martello in perpetuum habendam concessit. Martellus comes, Turonia quiete suscepta (nam sibi Theobaldus Kainonem et Lengiacum, quae adhuc possidebat, cum omnibus quae eis iure appendebant reddidit), rege Francorum mediante, cum Theobaldo paci®catus est.' See Halphen, Le Comte d'Anjou, pp. 47±9; M. Bur, La Formation du comte de Champagne (Nancy, 1977), pp. 20±9, and J. F. Verbruggen, The Art of Warfare in Western Europe in the Middle Ages, trans. S. Willard and S. C. M. Southern (Amsterdam, 1977), pp. 198, 251. 3±4 Ita Martellus . . . signa secuti] Cf. William of JumieÁges, GND ii. 122±7, William of Poitiers i. 15±19 (pp. 32±45). The chronology of Duke William's campaigns (including Mouliherne, above, c. 230. 5) against Geoffrey Martel count of Anjou (1040±60) is dif®cult; see GND ii. 122±3 n. 4, for bibliography, and the sensible conclusion that `The vague chronological indications of the medieval sources do not permit a precise dating of what most probably are highlights in more or less continuous warfare during the years 1047±52 at the southern borders of Normandy'. In any case, in this instance William does no more than follow William of Poitiers. 4 felitiora signa secuti] Cf. Lucan ii. 531: `melioraque signa secuti'. 232 Expansion of William of JumieÁges, GND ii. 102±5, and William of Poitiers i. 23±9 (pp. 32±45). 1 Willelmus comes de Archis] Son of Richard II duke of Normandy by his second wife Papia. On the other early accounts of his rebellion (William of Poitiers i. 23±7 (pp. 32±43), William of JumieÁges, GND ii. 120±3, Orderic iii. 254±5) see Freeman, Norman Conquest, iii. 673±5. 2 regem Francorum] King Henry. The battle of Saint-Aubin took place on 25 Oct. 1053. decernere ferro cauebat] Cf. Virgil, Aen. xi. 218, xii. 282, 695: `decernere ferro'.

/3thomson/tcom3.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:8 ± disk/amj

224

COMMENTARY

Isembardum Pontiui comitem . . . Hugonem Pardulfum] `Isembard' was really Enguerrand (Ingelram) II, count of Ponthieu from Nov. 1052: William of JumieÁges, GND ii. 104±5, William of Poitiers i. 26, 29 (pp. 38±41, 42±5). He was Duke William's brotherin-law. Hugh Bardulf was lord of Nogent and Pithiviers (1026±58). 3 uix ossibus herens] Cf. Virgil, Ecl. iii. 102: `uix ossibus haerent'. Similarly GP, c. 76 (p. 170): `uix ossibus herebat', and VW iii. 22: `uix pellicula herere uideretur ossibus'. quodam Galterio] Similarly William of Poitiers i. 28 (pp. 42±3), who, however, calls the incentor `Guimundus'. prefecto Guidone fratre comitis Pictauensis] Guy-GeoffreyWilliam, count of Gascony and brother of William (®fth count of Poitou, seventh duke of Aquitaine): William of Poitiers ut supra, Freeman, Norman Conquest, iii. 137 n. 4. He was later himself sixth count of Poitou and eighth duke of Aquitaine (1058±86). 233 Based upon William of Poitiers i. 29±32 (pp. 42±53). According to Orderic (iv. 86±9) the battle of Mortemer took place `in winter before Lent' (6 Feb.) 1054. 1 de parte Galliae Celticae, quae inter Garunnam et Sequanam ¯uuios iacet . . . populo Galliae Belgicae, quae est inter Renum et Sequanam] Cf. Caesar, Bell. Gall. i. 1: `Gallia est omnis diuisa in partes tres, quarum unam incolunt Belgae, aliam Aquitani, tertiam qui ipsorum lingua Celtae, nostri Galli appellantur . . . Gallos ab Aquitanis Garumna ¯umen, a Belgis Matrona et Sequana diuidit . . . Belgae . . . proximi . . . sunt Germanis qui trans Rhenum incolunt.' William may have been reminded of the passage by the mention of the `three parts of Gaul' in William of Poitiers ii. 40 (pp. 174±5). Odonem fratrem] See above, c. 187n. 2 Duces eius . . . Crispinus] Orderic names Robert count of Eu and Roger of Mortemer. On William Crispin see J. A. Robinson, Gilbert Crispin Abbot of Westminster (Cambridge, 1911), pp. 14±15. On Robert of Eu and Hugh of Mortemer see Douglas, The Domesday Monachorum of Christ Church, Canterbury, pp. 64±70. ad castellum quod Mortuum Mare uocatur] William's and Orderic's testimony is apparently the only evidence for the existence of a castle at this date (Chibnall in Orderic iv. 87 n. 5). 3 ultioni fratris] i.e. Henry, Odo's brother.

/3thomson/tcom3.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:8 ± disk/amj

BOOK III. 232.2±235.1

225

234 As William of Poitiers i. 32±5 (pp. 50±7). 1 consciae uirtutis arma concutiens] Cf. Virgil, Aen. v. 455, xii. 668: `et conscia uirtus'; Ovid., Met. i. 143, vii. 130: `concutit arma'. The Virgil passage is echoed again below, c. 320. 4. Other references in William's works are listed in Wright II, p. 499 n. 64. 2 Rex moriens . . . delegauit] See above, c. 188. 2n. 235 On the history of the county of Anjou in the eleventh century see Halphen, Le Comte d'Anjou au xie sieÁcle, and Guillot, Le Comte d'Anjou. The counts of Anjou mentioned are Fulk Nerra 987Ð21 June 1040; Geoffrey II Martel 21 June 1040Ð14 Nov. 1060, who died childless; the next two counts, Geoffrey III the Bearded (1060±7) and Fulk Rechin (1067±1109), were sons of Geoffrey of Chateaulandon, viscount of OrleÂans, and Ermengard sister of Geoffrey Martel. They were succeeded by Geoffrey IV Martel (1103±6) and Fulk V (1106± 29). William's sources were presumably oral and Angevin (re¯ecting ducal propaganda), apart from the possibility of William of Poitiers (i. 37; pp. 58±9) for the capture by Fulk Nerra of Herbert count of Maine. 1 relatoris nostri] An Angevin, doubtless, perhaps a monk of Malmesbury. Vnum omnino est . . . irretiri fecit] The incident occurred in 1025; the victim was Herbert `Wakedog' count of Maine (d. 1035). The dramatic event was recorded by other chroniclers, above all Adhemar of Chabannes, Cronica iii. 64 (ed. J. Chavanon (Paris, 1897), p. 189): `At this time the Angevin count, Fulk, since it was obvious that he could not overcome Count Herbert of Maine, led him into a trap at the citadel in the town of Saintes by promising that he would give him Saintes as a bene®ce. Since Herbert came without any suspicion or thought that something evil might happen, he was captured through this underhanded trick and imprisoned in the citadel . . . On the very same day Fulk's wife tried to capture Herbert's wife through trickery before she could learn what had happened, but someone warned her of the danger in advance. So Fulk, fearing Herbert's wife and the nobles, did not dare to slay the count, but kept him securely imprisoned for two years [my translation].' B. Bachrach, Fulk Nerra (Princeton, 1993), pp. 173±5, discusses Fulk's tactics, which were aimed at establishing his overlordship of the whole of Maine.

/3thomson/tcom3.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:8 ± disk/amj

226

COMMENTARY

sanctus et integer] A surprising description of such a notable and self-confessed sinner; `integer' (translated by Barlow as `unblemished') was used of Edward the Confessor by the author of Vita ádwardi, p. 18. 2 On relations between the elderly Fulk and his son Geoffrey see Bachrach, Fulk, pp. 220±6, 230±6, including a detailed analysis of William's story, which is not told by anyone else. There is abundant evidence for tension between father and son over the period 1037±9, that is, between Fulk's last two pilgrimages to Jerusalem. Geoffrey's nephew Fulk Rechin later wrote of him (Fragmentum historiae Andegavensis in Anjou Chronicles, p. 235) `Contra suum etiam patrem guerram habuit, in qua mala multa facta fuerunt, unde postea ualde penituit.' William has encapsulated a series of events and points at issue in his vivid story (cf. Guillot, Le Comte d'Anjou, pp. 53±4 n. 248), but this does not mean that the story is in itself incredible. Bachrach indicates that there were precedents for both the carrying of a saddle by a defeated enemy seeking pardon, and for the prostration and kicking. In the ®rst instance Fulk's contemporaries, the Norman dukes Richard II and Robert I, both pardoned conquered enemies in a ceremony which included the suppliant carrying a saddle: William of JumieÁges, GND ii. 38±9, 50±1; D. R. Bates, Normandy before 1066 (London, 1982), p. 163. As to the second, William was describing a mild version of the calcatio colli, a Roman ritual celebrating victory over a usurper. It was in use in the early ®fth century, was adopted by the Visigoths by the second half of the seventh, and used by the Byzantines in the tenth and eleventh centuries: M. McCormick, Eternal Victory: Triumphal Rulership in Late Antiquity, Byzantium and the Early Medieval West (Cambridge, 1986), pp. 57±8, 160±6, 313±14. iussusque . . . fasces deponere] Cf. Lucan i. 339: `uictrices aquilas deponere iussus'. pede iacentem pulsans] Horace, Carm. i. 37. 1±2: `nunc pede libero / pulsanda tellus'. ter quaterque] Cf. Virgil, Aen. i. 94, iv. 589, xii. 155; Georg. ii. 399: `terque quaterque'. 3 Eodem anno ueteranus . . . post aliquot annos obiit] The pilgrimage was undertaken late in 1039; Fulk returned in late spring 1040 and died at Metz on 21 June. On the other sources for this pilgrimage (particularly GCA, pp. 50±1) see Freeman, Norman Conquest, ii. 279 and n. 4. It was Fulk's fourth: B. Bachrach, `The

/3thomson/tcom3.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:8 ± disk/amj

BOOK III. 235.1±236.1

227

pilgrimages of Fulk Nerra, count of the Angevins 987±1040', in Religion, Culture and Society in the Early Middle Ages (Studies in Medieval Culture, xxiii: Kalamazoo, Mich., 1987), pp. 205±17. confessam dignare animam] Ausonius, Ephem. iii. 54 (see Wright II, pp. 506±9, 530±1). 4 Is moriens] Geoffrey Martel died on 14 Nov. 1060. His successor was his nephew Geoffrey III the Bearded. The description of his countship in GCA, pp. 62±7, is a justi®cation for his losing it, although Fulk is subsequently blamed for taking up arms against his brother. The reverse of William's interpretation, it makes Geoffrey a persecutor of the Church. 5 Rechin dictus] Presumably from Anglo-Norman French `rechiner', to bare one's teeth, as in snarling: Anglo-Norman Dictionary, ed. W. Rothwell et al. (Publications of the Modern Humanities Research Association, viii: London, 1992), p. 602. habuit uxorem . . . Philippo regi Francorum nupsit] Bertrada of Montfort, abducted on 15 May 1092. Orderic (iv. 260) also assigns the initiative to her. The Angevin chroniclers attribute it to Philip, though with her agreement: GCA, pp. 66±7, Gesta Ambaziensium dominorum in Anjou Chronicles, pp. 104±5. See again below, cc. 345. 5, 404. 1 and nn. non bene . . . et amor] Ovid, Met. ii. 846±7. A similar picture of Philip's besottedness with Bertrada and resulting incompetence as a king is painted by Suger, Vita Ludovici, c. 13 (pp. 80±3). 6 Gesfridus, cognomen Martelli . . . sortitus] On Geoffrey IV Martel see GCA, pp. 71±3, also praising him for his efforts at peacemaking and recording his murder by his relatives. adhuc in rebus humanis uersatur] Fulk V went to Jerusalem in 1129 and was king there 1131±43. It is hard to imagine that William did not learn of his kingship; if he did then it is surprising that he did not update his text accordingly. 236 Some basis in William of Poitiers i. 37±8, 43 (pp. 58±63, 70±3). 1 domino suo Hugone . . . Herberto Hugonis ®lio respirauerat] Hugh IV, count of Maine 1035±51, succeeded by his son Herbert II while still a minor. Herbert swore fealty to William and was betrothed to one of his daughters between 1058 and 14 Nov. 1060; he died prematurely on 9 Mar. 1062. Both he and his father were dominated by the counts of Anjou, Geoffrey Martel and Geoffrey the Bearded.

/3thomson/tcom3.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:8 ± disk/amj

228

COMMENTARY

See R. Latouche, Histoire du comte du Maine pendant le Xe et le XIe sieÁcles (Bibl. de l'eÂcole des hautes eÂtudes, clxxxiii: Paris, 1910), pp. 26± 35. nubilibus annis matura coniugio] Cf. Virgil, Aen. vii. 53: `Iam matura uiro, iam plenis nubilis annis'. Wright II, p. 487. 2 quem, sicut supra dictum est] But at c. 228 William of Malmesbury did not mention the second of Duke William's reasons for taking Harold to Normandy. Anglicis bipennibus ensis Normannicus] The same weapons are contrasted again in Mir., c. 8, with reference to Rollo and his followers: `Ille enim tota paene Gallia . . . grassatus, cum nihil furenti obsisteret, eo quod gallicus ensis normannicis bipennibus cederet'. 3 Alanus tunc ibi comes] But Alan III died in 1040. The reference is to his son Conan II: William of Poitiers i. 43 (pp. 72±3). Eudo, count of PonthieÁvre, had governed Brittany as regent for seventeen years, since Conan was only three months old at his father's death. He apparently ignored Conan's interests: A. le Moyne de la Borderie, continued by B. Pocquet, Histoire de Bretagne (6 vols.: Rennes, 1896± 1914), iii. 14±23; Douglas, William the Conqueror, p. 178 and n. 1. 237 A similar story, about two Roman brothers, is told by William in Mir., c. 31 (pp. 128±32), on the basis of earlier sources. This one appears independently in versions of Peter the Venerable's De miraculis beatae Virginis: G. Constable, `Manuscripts of works by Peter the Venerable', in Petrus Venerabilis, ed. G. Constable and J. Kritzeck (Studia Anselmiana, fasc. xl, Rome, 1956), pp. 219±42, at 221 and n. 7. It was lifted from GR in the collections of exempla in BL MSS Harley 495, fo. 89rv (s. xiii) and Harley 7322, fo. 52v (s. xivex), and in Roger of Wendover ii. 10±12. Its place in the history of vision-literature was studied by A. E. SchoÈnbach, `Studien zur ErzaÈhlungsliteratur des Mittelalters I: die Reuner Relationen', Sitzungsberichte der kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien, cxxxix, 5. Abhandlung (1898), 1± 139, esp. pp. 13±28. 1 nondum patientibus annis] Lucan i. 316. Wright II, p. 492. manibus . . . facerent] Cf. Terence, Andria 676±7: `conari manibus pedibus noctisque et dies / capitis periclum adire, dum prosim tibi'. 3 edocturus quod . . . emittat] Cf. below, c. 347. 12±15 and n. data acceptaque ®de] Cf. Sallust, Bell. Cat. xliv. 3: `data atque accepta ®de'. Also above, c. 6, and below, c. 357. 1.

/3thomson/tcom3.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:8 ± disk/amj

BOOK III. 236.1±238.8

229

4 anima fugiente] Cf. Ovid, Met. xii. 425: `animae fugienti'; Lucan v. 279: `non anima galeam fugiente ferire'. 6 dum rotat astra polus, dum pulsat littora pontus] Cf. Claudian, In Ruf. ii. 527: `dum rotat astra polus, feriunt dum litora uenti'. A remoter echo in VW prol. (p. 3): `dum polus rotabit sidera'. 8 Haec est mutatio dexterae Excelsi] Ps. 76(77): 11. 238 Some re¯ection of William of Poitiers ii. 1±8 (pp. 100±15). 1±2 Rex Eduardus . . . Willelmum cogitabat] William's is the ®rst mention of the rights of Edgar, and it was to be in¯uential: Freeman, Norman Conquest, iii. 608±11. Yet at c. 228. 2 above William says that William of Normandy was `nearest the throne by blood'. 2 quod ®lia eius quam desponderat citra nubiles annos obierat] William of Poitiers ii. 32 (pp. 156±7), Eadmer, Hist. nov. (p. 7), and Orderic (iii. 114±15) all agree that there was such a marriage project. But earlier in his work (ii. 136±7) Orderic says that Harold told King Edward `falsely that William of Normandy had given him his daughter to wife and granted him as his son-in-law all his rights in the English kingdom'. Perhaps he only meant that the second clause was untrue; it is certainly the reverse of William's version of the agreement between Harold and William of Normandy (above, c. 228. 5). Orderic did not believe that the daughter died young (see c. 276n). Noricorum regem] i.e. Harold Hardrada. 3 presumptuosum fuisse quod . . . illi hereditatem iurauerit] `illi' suggests, as we have translated, that William had no right to the `hereditas'; but T's alternative of `sibi', suggesting that it was not Harold's to give, may well be preferable. 4 Nam si iusiurandum . . . iudicatur irritum] Probably a reference to Num. 30: 3±5, or a commentary on it, rather than contemporary canon law (so Martin Brett advises). 6 paucissimis . . . parati CB] The TA version's `not yet sixty years later' produces the expected approximate date of 1125±6. 8 conuentum magnatum apud Lillebonam] William is the only writer to name the place where the council was held. Its exact date is unknown. On its purpose see Freeman, Norman Conquest, iii. 291± 300, 715±18, and D. R. Bates, William the Conqueror (London, 1989), pp. 63±4. portus ita per metonomiam dicitur] i.e. named after the local

/3thomson/tcom3.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:8 ± disk/amj

230

COMMENTARY

saint. In GP, c. 86 (p. 188), William says the same of Shaftesbury, commonly called St Edward's after the martyr. 9 uulgus militum . . . experiatur] Orderic (ii. 142±3) records similar misgivings by William I's followers, but at an earlier stage: in a council following which the duke sought papal sanction for the enterprise. idem patrem uoluisse eodemque modo inhibitum] See above, c. 180. 11. 10 In egressu nauis pede lapsus . . . `Tenes' inquit `Angliam . . .'] Only William has this story, which suspiciously parallels that of Julius Caesar's arrival in Africa as told in Suetonius, Iul. lix: `Prolapsus etiam in egressu nauis, uerso ad melius omine, ``Teneo te,'' inquit, ``Africa''.' 239. 1 parricidio] Because he had killed his brother Tostig at the battle of Stamford Bridge (c. 228. 11). Other chroniclers call Harold a parricide at much the same point in their account of the Conquest: for instance Orderic, GND ii. 166±7: `Inde uictor Heraldus Lundoniam rediit, sed de fratricidio diu gaudere uel securus esse non potuit', again in his Hist. eccl. ii. 170: `Nec de fratricidio diu gaudere uel securus esse potuit quia legatus ei Normannos adesse mox nunciauit'. More examples are given by Freeman, Norman Conquest, iii. 738±9. allatoque ad se . . . incubuerat] Cf. William's remarks on the relative sizes of the English and Norman armies above, c. 228. 11±12. One supposes that he was concerned speci®cally to counter the assertion of William of Poitiers (ii. 15±16; pp. 126±7), that Harold's forces were much larger than those of Duke William, together with the accompanying slur on English valour. On numbers at the battle of Hastings see Freeman, Norman Conquest, iii. 752±4, who suggests, sensibly enough, that a balance has to be struck between the English and Norman accounts, both of which credit the adversary with the greater numbers. Douglas (William the Conqueror, pp. 198±9) believed that Harold's forces may have numbered c.7,000, William's somewhat less, but that they were more experienced and better armed. Walker, Harold, pp. 174±5, largely agrees with Douglas. Precipitabant eum nimirum fata] Cf. Lucan vii. 51±2: `Sua quisque ac publica fata / praecipitare cupit' and, even closer, Florus ii. 13. 43: `praecipitantibus fatis proelio sumpta Thessalia est', both in connection with the not less climactic battle of Pharsalia.

/3thomson/tcom3.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:8 ± disk/amj

BOOK III. 238.8±240.2

231

2 pilis incessanter fruticantibus intonsum dimittunt] Cf. Sidonius, Epist. i. 2. 2: `pilis infra narium antra fruticantibus cotidiana succisio'. Belli Gallici] Caesar, Bell. Gall. v. 14. 3. 3 Rapuit ergo . . . poteris] Similarly Orderic, GND (ii. 166±9) and in his Hist. eccl. (ii. 170±3). The former (or its source) could have been the basis of William's version. Chibnall is inclined to believe that the story is no more than popular romance. ferrum pro patria stringemus] Cf. Lucan viii. 612: `tum stringere ferrum'. causa tua utrobique in portu nauigabit] Cf. Terence, Andr. 480: `ego in portu nauigo' (Otto, SprichwoÈrter, p. 285). 240 Cf. William of Poitiers ii. 12 (pp. 120±3), giving William's claim to England in the form of his own message. For the several widely differing versions of the negotiations between William and Harold see Freeman, Norman Conquest, iii. 746±52, esp. pp. 751±2. It was Freeman's conclusion that two exchanges took place, one at London, the other at Hastings, the ®rst opening with a challenge from William. On the extreme dif®culty of tracing Harold's movements between Stamford Bridge and Hastings see Douglas, William the Conqueror, appendix D, esp. pp. 398±400. 1 monachum . . . legatum] A monk of FeÂcamp, according to William of Poitiers ii. 12 (pp. 120±1). Afferebat tria . . . uentilarent] William of Poitiers (ii. 12; pp. 120± 1) has Duke William's messenger offer Harold a different set of options: that they should submit the case to judgement according to the law either of the Normans or English, or else decide the issue by single combat. Yet it is hard to imagine that Duke William seriously entertained as an alternative `Si secundum aequitatis ueritatem decreuerint Normanni aut Angli (!), quod ille regnum hoc iure debeat possidere, cum pace possideat.' William of Malmesbury's version is to be preferred. 2 eiusque doni obsides ®lium et nepotem Goduini Normanniam miserat] The hostages were Wulfnoth and Earl Swein's son Hakon: so Eadmer, Hist. nov., pp. 5±8, William of Poitiers i. 14, ii. 12 (pp. 20±1, 120±1), not naming them; Wulfnoth only Orderic, GND ii. 160±1. F. Barlow, `Edward the Confessor's early life, character and attitudes', in his Norman Conquest and Beyond, pp. 57±83, at 73 n. 3,

/3thomson/tcom3.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:8 ± disk/amj

232

COMMENTARY

discusses possible reasons for the sending of the hostages; their identity is treated in his Edward the Confessor, appendix B. Harold released Hakon in 1064; Wulfnoth was still held by William in 1087 and remained in captivity under Rufus (see above, c. 200. 1n). This version of how and why Harold came to Normandy very much represents Duke William's view, and therefore cannot be expected to harmonize with William of Malmesbury's own preferred account as conveyed in c. 228. 3 above. 241±4 For the various reports of the battle of Hastings see Freeman, Norman Conquest, iii. 756±73. Freeman believed that while William did not have ®rst-hand knowledge of the site he gives `incidental and sometimes valuable help'. A modern reconstruction of what might really have happened is provided by R. Allen Brown, `The battle of Hastings', Anglo-Norman Studies, iii (1980), 1±21, earlier literature cited at p. 197 n. 2. The most reliable early accounts are usually thought to be William of Poitiers (ii. 14±25; pp. 122±43) and the Bayeux Tapestry. William certainly knew and used the former, but much of what he says of the battle seems to be parallel with or independent of him. G. H. White in Complete Peerage, xii(1), appendix L, pp. 43±7, N. P. Brooks and H. E. Walker, `The authority and interpretation of the Bayeux Tapestry', Anglo-Norman Studies, i (1978), 27±8, and Allen Brown, `The battle of Hastings', pp. 18, 20, believe that he also knew and made use of the Tapestry. This seems particularly likely in his accounts of the death of Harold and mutilation of his body (cc. 242. 3, 244), and of the ditch ®lled with Norman bodies (c. 242. 3); see the notes ad loc. Where, then, could William have seen the Tapestry? It is thought likely that the Tapestry was made in south-eastern England (perhaps St Augustine's Canterbury), between 1066 and 1077. There is general agreement that its patron and recipient was Odo of Bayeux, and that it was intended to adorn the walls of his new cathedral. William can surely only have seen it at Bayeux, thus providing another piece of evidence for his having been in Normandy (see above, c. 180. 11n). 241 Angli . . . cuneum fatiunt] `ut accepimus' suggests that William's source was oral. At c. 242. 1 he contrasts this behaviour of the English with the way the Normans spent the night before the battle. Wace (Roman de Rou, pt. iii, ll. 7313±35; ii. 156±7) also contrasts the way the Normans and English spent the night,

/3thomson/tcom3.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:8 ± disk/amj

BOOK III. 240.2±242.2

233

introducing some splendid English toasts: `weisseil', `drincheheil', etc. He too (ll. 7781±810; ii. 174±5) describes the English shield-wall, graphically shown in the Bayeux Tapestry: F. M. Stenton et al., The Bayeux Tapestry (2nd edn., London, 1965), pls. 62±3; D. M. Wilson, The Bayeux Tapestry (London, 1985), pls. 61±2. simulata fuga more suo] William of Poitiers, ii. 20±1 (pp. 132±3), says that the Normans did this twice. The use of the tactic has been doubted by some historians, but Allen Brown, `The battle of Hastings', pp. 14, 16, gives other contemporary examples of its use by the Normans and Flemings. Vexillum . . . erat in hominis pugnantis ®gura, auro et lapidibus arte sumptuosa intextum] Similarly William of Poitiers ii. 31 (pp. 152±3): `Memorabile quoque uexillum Heraldi, hominis armati imaginem intextam habens ex auro purissimo'. The Bayeux Tapestry shows several banners among Harold's army, the dragon standard next to him at the moment of his death: Stenton, Bayeux Tapestry, pls. 62±3, 71; Wilson, Bayeux Tapestry, pl. 71. 242. 1 loricam inuersam . . . regnum] An elaboration of the story in William of Poitiers ii. 14 (pp. 124±5). 2 cantilena Rollandi] William is the earliest authority for the singing of the Song of Roland at the battle of Hastings: D. C. Douglas, `The ``Song of Roland'' and the Norman Conquest of England', French Studies, xiv (1960), 99±116; esp. pp. 99±100; id., William the Conqueror, p. 199 n. 5. Presumably what was sung was a version, which cannot be particularized, of the Chanson de Roland as contained in Bodl. Libr., MS Digby 23: P. Le Gentil, The Chanson de Roland (Cambridge, Mass., 1969), pp. 18, 30±1; and see above, c. 167. 2n. Taillefer as its singer may be a legendary creation of about William's own lifetime. The Carmen de Hastingae proelio, ll. 391±9, ed. C. Morton and H. Muntz (OMT, 1972), pp. 26±7, 81±3 and nn., mentions the heroic activity (but not singing) of the `histrio' or `mimus' Taillefer (`Incisor ferri'). The date of this work is controversial: c.1125±40 according to 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±99, at 99; prior to 1070 according to 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. Henry of Huntingdon

/3thomson/tcom3.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:8 ± disk/amj

234

COMMENTARY

(vi. 30; pp. 392±3) and Wace, Roman de Rou, pt. iii, ll. 8013±40 (ii. 183±4), both mention this man, the former saying that he preceded the army, juggling with swords. It is Wace who makes explicit his connection with the Chanson (pt. iii, ll. 8015±18; ii. 183): `Devant le duc alout chantant / de Karlemaigne e de Rollant, / e d'Oliver e des vassals / qui morurent en Rencevals'. pulchram mortem pro patriae ultione meruere] Cf. Virgil, Aen. xi. 647, Georg. iv. 218: `pulchramque petunt per uulnera mortem'. 3 Item fossatum quoddam . . . aequarent] Allen Brown (art. cit, p. 20) compares this detail with the scene in the Bayeux Tapestry (Stenton, Bayeux Tapestry, pls. 66±8; Wilson, Bayeux Tapestry, pl. 66), showing a group of Harold's followers making a stand upon a hillock, `at the foot of which, and in a marsh or bog, Norman cavalry are in grave dif®culties'. Similar to William's is the account of Henry of Huntingdon (vi. 30; pp. 392±5). Other chroniclers, however (for instance William of Poitiers ii. 24 (pp. 138±9), Orderic, GND ii. 168± 9), locate the so-called `Malfosse incident' after the termination of the battle, when Norman soldiers `mopping up' rode into an ancient rampart-and-ditch. ut cumulo cadauerum planitiem campi aequarent] Cf. Lucan vii. 790±1: `excelsos cumulis aequantia colles / corpora'. at ubi iactu sagittae uiolato cerebro procubuit] Not in William of Poitiers. The representation of Harold's death in the Bayeux Tapestry has caused much puzzlement: Stenton, Bayeux Tapestry, pls. 71±2; Wilson, Bayeux Tapestry, pl. 71. Beneath the label `Hic Harold rex interfectus est' are shown two ®gures, the left-hand one with an arrow in his eye, the other, either falling or prostrate, receiving a blow on the thigh from a mounted knight. Which one is Harold? Brooks and Walker (`The authority and interpretation of the Bayeux Tapestry', pp. 27±34) ingeniously suggested, and Allen Brown (`The battle of Hastings', pp. 17±18) agreed, that William supplies the answer. In the present passage Harold is killed by an arrow in the head. In c. 243 below William says that a Norman knight `hacked at his thigh with a sword as he lay on the ground'. The scene in the Tapestry then, must show a sequence of events, with Harold ®rst shot by an arrow, then his body mutilated with a sword. Such at all events was William of Malmesbury's interpretation, which on the one hand suggests that he had seen the Tapestry, and on the other elucidates its cryptic imagery at this point.

/3thomson/tcom3.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:8 ± disk/amj

BOOK III. 242.2±245.5

235

in noctem] `in nocte' CB. The choice is settled by the greater precision of William of Poitiers ii. 23 (pp. 136±7) and William of JumieÁges, GND ii. 168±9, according to whom the battle continued until late evening (`inclinato die' and `usque ad noctem' respectively) and that the English turned and ran (William of JumieÁges) `nocte imminente'. 243 Haroldus . . . prociderent] Very similar to what William of Poitiers says of Duke William at ii. 40 (pp. 172±3): `At dedecus uisum est Guillelmo, ac parum utile, in eo con¯ictu . . ., of®cia praestare imperatoris, nisi praestaret of®cia quoque militis [my italics] . . .; in omni enim certamine ubi praesens aderat, primus aut in primis gladio suo pugnare solitus erat.' Once again we see William of Malmesbury seeking to redress the pro-Norman bias of one of his main sources. letali harundine ictus] Cf. Virgil, Aen. iv. 73: `haeret lateri letalis harundo'. 244 tres equos . . . confossos . . . amisit] Cf. William of Poitiers ii. 22 (pp. 134±5): `Equi tres ceciderunt sub eo confossi'. Perstitit tamen . . . nox infunderet] Freeman, Norman Conquest, iii. 768±9, thought that this might refer to advice given by Eustace of Boulogne, as recorded by BenoõÃt de Saint-Maure, Chronique des Ducs de Normandie, ed. C. Fahlin (3 vols.: Bibliotheca Ekmaniana, lvi, lx, lxiv: Uppsala, 1951, 1954, 1967), ii. ll. 39649±56; cf. William of Poitiers ii. 24 (pp. 138±9). 245. 3 Clerici litteratura tumultuaria contenti . . . ] Similarly in GP, c. 23 (p. 36). Orderic too (ii. 246±9) presents a picture of the decline of the English during the eleventh century into illiteracy and irreligion. The interpretation parallels, and doubtless derives from, the explanations provided (by Bede) for the invasion of the English, and (by Alcuin and King Alfred) for the early Viking invasions. It is not accepted by modern historians: for instance D. Whitelock, `The Anglo-Saxon achievement', in The Norman Conquest; its Setting and Impact, ed. D. Whitelock et al. (London, 1966), pp. 15±43, at 24±43, and E. John in Campbell, The Anglo-Saxons, pp. 214±33. 5 uitia ebrietatis sotia, quae uirorum animos effeminant] Cf. Sallust, Bell. Cat. xi. 3: `Auaritia pecuniae studium habet, quam nemo sapiens concupiuit; ea quasi uenenis malis inbuta corpus animumque

/3thomson/tcom3.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:8 ± disk/amj

236

COMMENTARY

uirilem effeminat.' In GP, cc. 139±40 (pp. 281±2), William comments in more detail on English drinking-habits in the second half of the eleventh century. 6 Facessat ab hac relatione inuidia] Cf. Jerome, Epist. xv. 2. 1: `facessat inuidia'; Wright II, n. 105. 246 Similar descriptions of the Normans are provided by Orderic iii. 474 and Henry of Huntingdon vi. 38 (pp. 402±5). 2 uideas ubique in uillis aecclesias . . . consurgere] William gives examples at cc. 321 and 398. 4. ita ut sibi perisse diem . . . quem non aliqua preclara magni®centia illustret] An echo of the dictum (of the Emperor Titus) which ®rst appears in Suetonius, Tit. viii. 1: `quod nichil cuiquam toto die praestitisset, memorabilem illam meritoque laudatam uocem edidit: Amici, diem perdidi.' It was also quoted in Eutropius, Breviarium ab urbe condita vii. 21. 3, Jerome/Eusebius, Chron. (PL xxvii. 597±8), Jerome, Comm. in epistolam ad Galatas (PL xxvi. 433), Isidore, Chronicon, c. 256 (MGH AA, xi. 457), Freculf, Chronicon (PL cvi. 1146), ASC s.a. 81 and the Old English Orosius (ed. Bately, pp. 138 line 23±139 line 2; see commentary ad loc., p. 325, and pp. lxxxiv, xc±xci). It quickly lost its speci®c association with generosity as distinct from generalized goodness; William's application suggests that it was the original text which he had in mind, though he has much altered the wording. 247. 1 Corpus Haroldi . . . per legatos obtulisset] William's story is a con¯ation of two traditions then current: (1) According to William of Poitiers ii. 25 (pp. 140±1), followed by Orderic (ii. 178± 80), the Conqueror refused an offer of gold from Harold's mother in return for his body, instead ordering him to be buried ignominiously by the seashore; (2) According to local tradition re¯ected in the anonymous Waltham Chronicle, ed. and trans. L. Watkiss and M. Chibnall (OMT, 1994), written soon after 1177, William refused an offer of gold from the canons of Waltham but allowed Harold to be buried there (c. 21; pp. 50±7). Freeman, Norman Conquest, iii. 781± 90, compared the various authorities, reasonably inferring that Harold was ®rst interred on the battle®eld, then later transferred to Waltham. Watkiss and Chibnall (Waltham Chronicle, pp. xlii±xlvi) argue for the substantial truth of the `Waltham' tradition.

/3thomson/tcom3.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:8 ± disk/amj

BOOK III. 245.5±249.3

237

2 Prorupit omnibus portis unda salutantium] Cf. Virgil, Georg. ii. 461±2: `si non ingentem foribus domus alta superbis / mane salutantum totis uomit aedibus undam'. Also below, c. 418. 2. 248. 1 Orderic (ii. 210±15) gives an even more detailed account of William's taking of Exeter. Interestingly, he has the men of Exeter tell William's envoys that `We will neither swear fealty, nor admit him within our walls; but we will pay tribute to him according to ancient custom'. Although William refused these terms indignantly, it seems that the city only surrendered after William effectively granted them what they sought. supra murum stans . . . turbauerat] See Wright II, p. 526 and n. 109 for the similarity between this passage and GP, c. 275 (p. 438), and the probable reminiscence of Sulpicius Severus, Dial. iii. 14. 8±9. 249. 1 Malcolmus . . . sibi fecerat] For the date of the marriage of Malcolm and Margaret, probably late 1069 (c.1069 HBC, p. 57), see Freeman, Norman Conquest, iv. 783±7, and R. L. G. Ritchie, The Normans in Scotland (Edinburgh, 1954), pp. 23±4. 1±2 Much of this is also in GP, c. 99 (p. 208), `totius regionis . . . agnoscit' nearly verbatim. Quapropter Willelmus . . . amittens] William has carried out considerable telescoping of events which took place between early 1068 and spring 1070, as has William of JumieÁges, GND ii. 178±81: Freeman, Norman Conquest, iv. 202, 240, 268, 287, 776; Kapelle, The Norman Conquest of the North, pp. 108±19. 3 prouintiae quondam fertilis . . . succisi] Similar to the sentiment expressed at c. 12 above. Cf. Jerome, Epist. cxxxiii. 9: `Britannia fertilis prouincia tyrannorum', quoted (though attributed to Porphyry) by Gildas, c. 4. 3, and Hegesippus v. 1. 5 (p. 295), of the state of Jerusalem just before the Roman siege: `Ita sanguine incendio ruina fame totius urbis nerui succidebantur.' turres proceritate sua in caelum minantes] Similarly VW i. 8 (p. 15): `Iamque funibus subuecte stabant scale plures proceritate in celum minantes'. Cf. Gildas, c. 3. 2: `nonnullis castellis, murorum turrium serratarum portarum domorum, quarum culmina minaci proceritate porrecta in edito forti compage pangebantur'.

/3thomson/tcom3.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:8 ± disk/amj

238

COMMENTARY

250 As Freeman observed (William Rufus, ii. 592±3), William here seems to con¯ate Malcolm's two invasions of northern England in 1091 and 1093; compare what he says below at c. 311. By the `falso sacramento' he apparently means the submission of Malcolm made to Rufus in 1091 (ibid., pp. 540±5). King Malcolm was killed at Alnwick on 13 Nov. 1093. For the detail behind William's cryptic comment `totoque Willelmi tempore . . . aeuum egit' see Kapelle, The Norman Conquest of the North, pp. 120±46. cum ®lio] i.e. Edward. nuper ab Alexandro . . . ad Dunfermelin portatus est] Alexander reigned 1107±24. The Benedictine house at Dunfermline was founded as a dependency of Christ Church Canterbury 1068/ 961087: I. B. Cowan and D. E. Easson, Medieval Religious Houses: Scotland (2nd edn., London, 1976), p. 58. The information that Malcolm's body was translated there by Alexander is unique to William and probably correct (Anderson, Early Sources of Scottish History, ii. 86 n. 1). In 1849 a royal tomb, thought to be Malcolm's, was opened in Dunfermline (Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland, ii (1885±6), 75±7). But in the thirteenth century the prior of Tynemouth thought that the king was still buried locally; so the letter written in or soon after 1247 from Robert of Durham, monk of Kelso, to Ralph prior of Hexham, in J. Raine, The Priory of Hexham (2 vols.: Surtees Soc., xliv, xlvi, 1864±5), i, appendix xv: `It pleased your courtesy to relate such things in that banquet and conversation, namely, that you had found the bones of some man of large stature, and of another, smaller; and these you thought to be the bones of the former venerable king of Scotland, Malcolm, and of his son.' The con¯icting evidence was examined by J. Stuart, `Notices of the burial of King Malcolm III in the monastery at Tynemouth in 1093 and of the subsequent history of his remains', Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland, ii (1855±6), 81±9. He did not mention the legend, recorded by Hector Boece, Scotorum historiae (Paris, 1526), bk. xiii (fo. ccxciiii (recte ccxcv)v), that when King Alexander III wished to translate Margaret's remains in 1251/2, `capsula . . . cui reliquiae inerant, sepulchro Malcolmi impressa adhaesit, nec ulla ui moueri potuit'. 251. 1 Edgarus] On Edgar átheling and his possessions see Freeman, Norman Conquest, iv. 742, Hooper, `Edgar the Aetheling', pp. 203±14. William has con¯ated activities of his which took place

/3thomson/tcom3.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:8 ± disk/amj

BOOK III. 250±251.3

239

under William I and II. After submission to the Conqueror Edgar took part in the northern revolt of 1069. He was driven by William into Flanders in 1072, returning to Scotland in 1074; shortly afterwards he made his peace with the Conqueror, and it was perhaps at this time that his friendship with Robert Curthose began. In 1086 he again withdrew his allegiance from William `because he did not have much honour from him' (ASC s.a. 1085, recte 1086). In 1093, after unhappy relations with Rufus because of his closeness to Robert, Edgar was reconciled with the king, supporting his intervention in the disputed succession to the Scottish throne. The next known event in his life is his coming to the East as told variously by Orderic and William. The story of his trading his stipend for a horse is peculiar to William. Orderic (v. 272±3) also describes him as indolent (`segnis'). 2 Rotberto ®lio Goduini] He was not the son of Earl Godwine but of a knight Godwine of Winchester: Freeman, William Rufus, ii. 122, 615±18; S. Runciman, A History of the Crusades (3 vols.: Cambridge, 1951±4), i. 228 n. 1; Hooper, `Edgar the Aetheling', p. 210. William is the only authority for his crusading exploits. apud Ramas] Ramlah, which William normally calls Ramula; is he confusing the place, as others did, with Ramah, a few miles north of Jerusalem? He refers to the siege by the Turks, May 1102, of which he gives fuller details below, c. 384. Chibnall (Orderic v. 271 n. 2) and Hooper, `Edgar the Aetheling', pp. 208±10, note that Orderic has Edgar arrive in the East for the siege of Laodicea, which occurred in 1097±8. But this is problematic, since ASC has him in Scotland in 1097. William's version, that Edgar was in Palestine in 1102, is the more credible of the two. 3 Babilonem] The common name used in the medieval West for Cairo. ab imperatoribus Grecorum et Alemannorum] Alexius Comnenus and Henry IV. fallit amor patriae] Cf. Virgil, Aen. vi. 823: `uincet amor patriae'. nisi consuetum hauserint caelum] Cf. ibid., x. 898±9: `auras / suspiciens hausit caelum'. nunc remotus . . . in agro consumit] Perhaps in Hertfordshire, as in Domesday Book he occurs as a tenant-in-chief there: Domesday Book, ed. A. Farley (London, 1783), i. 142, no. xxxviii. The date of his death is unknown.

/3thomson/tcom3.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:8 ± disk/amj

240

COMMENTARY

252. 1±2 paucis diebus ante mortem . . . cesus est] William has already given an account of the Northumbrian revolt at c. 200, favourable to Harold; but now he represents Harold as sending Tostig into exile after his accession. Freeman, Norman Conquest, ii. 676±7, thought it just possible that William meant `only that Harold persisted in keeping his brother in banishment'. 1 ex animi egritudine maiorem ualitudinem corporis contrahens] Cf. Vita ádwardi, pp. 80 `egrum trahebat animum', and 83 `ex contracta anima egritudine languescens', the echo both in word and sentiment noted by Freeman, Norman Conquest, ii. 508 n. 1, and by Barlow, Vita ádwardi, p. 83 n. 204. 2 Perstitit in incepto Haroldus] Cf. Ovid, Met. vi. 50: `Perstat in incepto'. A similar echo below, c. 255. 2. piraticis excursibus auitos triumphos polluens] Cf. Lucan vi. 422: `Polluit aequoreos Siculus pirata triumphos'; Wright II, p. 493. Also above, c. 200. 2. 3 Postremo nec ui . . . ad lacrimas ¯exere] The two earls did not die together, however. Edwin was killed by his own men in 1071 (ASC s.a.); Morcar was captured by William the same year, released on the king's death, but re-imprisoned by William Rufus ( John of Worcester s.a. 1087). The date of his death is unknown. 253 Waltheof was beheaded on 31 May 1076. William gives a similar account, with reference back, in GP, c. 182 (pp. 321 line 29±322). There, in support of English opinion of Waltheof 's innocence, William adds that the prior of Crowland had told him of the incorruptibility of the earl's body. And yet William remained uncertain: `utinam a ueritate non dissideat', he says in GP of the English view. On his account of Waltheof and his connection with the conspiracy of Ralph de Gael see Freeman, Norman Conquest, iv. 836± 8; for the later legendary literature on the earl see Hardy, Materials, ii. 25±7. Orderic (ii. 346) also alleges the incorruptibility of Waltheof 's body, on the same authority. John of Worcester s.a. 1075 says that even Archbishop Lanfranc thought the earl innocent. 1 Siquidem Weldefus . . . decapitans] It has been suggested that this passage, and perhaps more of William's information about Waltheof, is based upon an OE poem also used by the skald Thorkill Skallason for his lament on the earl's death: F. S. Scott, `Earl Waltheof of Northumbria', Archaeologia Aeliana, 4th ser. xxx

/3thomson/tcom3.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:8 ± disk/amj

BOOK III. 252.1±254.2

241

(1952), 149±215, at p. 179; E. van Houts, `The memory of 1066 in written and oral traditions', Anglo-Norman Studies, xix (1996), 167± 79, at p. 172. in Eboracensi pugna] `the three times William took York, and the two times that he lost it, are all rolled together'ÐFreeman, Norman Conquest, iv. 776. He notes (p. 777) confusion in all the accounts, coming `from not distinguishing a whole series of distinct revolts and captures'. Thus William at one moment seems to have William laying siege to York, at another has Normans being killed as they issue out from it. Siwardi . . . quem Digera Danico uocabulo, id est fortem, cognominabant] Siward (d. 1055) was earl of Northumbria and Huntingdonshire: his career is summarized by F. E. Harmer, AngloSaxon Writs (Manchester, 1952, repr. Stamford, 1989), p. 572. The same interpretation of his nickname (ON digri actually meaning `big' or `stout') is in Vita ádwardi, pp. 34±5. It was applied to a Dane called Osgot in the Vita et miracula S. Kenelmi, c. 18 (ed. Love, p. 73 and n. 6), and to Hugh Montgomery earl of Shrewsbury by Snorri Sturlasson (Heimskringla, Saga of Olaf Kyrre, c. 10), and by Orderic (v. 225), who glosses it, more accurately than William and the Vita ádwardi, as `grossus' (doubtless on the basis of Old French vras: Complete Peerage iii. 164). Olaf king of Sweden applied it contemptuously to his namesake of Norway (Snorri, Heimskringla, Saga of King Olaf Haroldsson, c. 6). See G. Tengvik, Old-English Bynames (Nomina Germanica, iv: Uppsala, 1938), p. 310. 254 For the victory over Harold's son and the death of Eadnoth the Staller the basis is ASC (D) s.a. 1067; cf. John of Worcester s.a. 1068. 1 Cesarianum . . . ingenium] William here combines reminiscences of two separate passages in Caesar: Bell. Gall. v. 3. 4 (the Ardennes), and vi. 34. 8 (use of the Gauls as foederati). 2 pater Hardingi] Harding is presumably the man who appears in Domesday Book and elsewhere holding lands in Somerset, Gloucestershire, and Wiltshire, although he is dif®cult to distinguish among several persons of the same name. There is no record of his death; his Somerset estates went to his son Nicholas, brother of Robert Fitz Harding burgess of Bristol; his daughter may have become a nun at Shaftesbury: Freeman, Norman Conquest, iv. 755±9, Williams, The English and the Norman Conquest, pp. 119±22.

/3thomson/tcom3.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:8 ± disk/amj

242

COMMENTARY

255. 1 Brito ex patre] Ralph, lord of Gael in Brittany, earl of Norfolk and Suffolk, or the East Angles, since c.1069. His father was Ralph the Staller, who had been earl of East Anglia in the time of Edward: Freeman, Norman Conquest, iii. 773±6; Douglas, William the Conqueror, pp. 231±4; Williams, The English and the Norman Conquest, pp. 61±3. ASC s.a. 1075 has him Breton on his mother's side, but Orderic (ii. 264) implies the same as William, apparently rightly: Williams, The English and the Norman Conquest, p. 61 and n. 70. Note William's unfavourable opinion of the Bretons at c. 402. He gives more detail of the conspiracy than does ASC (E), but not as much as Orderic (ii. 310±19). Orderic exonerates Waltheof from complicity, but says he was made to swear an oath not to reveal the conspiracy (note what William says of Waltheof above, c. 253). cognatam regis, ®liam Willelmi ®lii Osberni] Her name was Emma; the wedding-feast, at which the conspiracy was hatched, was held in 1075, either at Norwich (ASC), or at Exning, Cambridgeshire ( John of Worcester): Freeman, Norman Conquest, iv. 573±95, but esp. pp. 836±8 on the connection of Waltheof with the conspiracy. The latest discussion, citing the earlier literature, is in Williams, The English and the Norman Conquest, pp. 59±65. Normannorum gulae . . . uino tumentibus] This is hard to reconcile with what William says of Norman sobriety at c. 246. 2 comites in incepto persistere] Cf. Ovid, Met. vi. 50: `Perstat in incepto'. Similarly above, c. 252. 2. 256 On William Fitz Osbern, his role in the conquest of England and as earl of Hereford, see also Orderic (esp. ii. 140±1, 174±5, 202±3, 222±3, 260±1, 280±3); VCH Hereford, i. 270±4; Complete Peerage, vi. 447±9; D. C. Douglas, `The ancestors of William Fitz Osbern', EHR lix (1944), 62±79; and W. E. Wightman, `The palatine earldom of William Fitz Osbern in Gloucestershire and Worcestershire (1066± 1071)', EHR lxxvii (1962), 6±17. For the events in Flanders see the literature cited by Dunbabin, France in the Making, pp. 423±4, esp. J. C. A. Verlinden, Robert Ier le Frison, comte de Flandre (Antwerp and Paris, 1935); also D. Nicholas, Medieval Flanders (London, 1992), pp. 56±7. Fitz Osbern's role in the dispute over the succession to the county of Flanders is thought by Verlinden (pp. 47±9) to have been minimal, since the Flemish chronicles are silent about it. He also comments that William's notion of a `tutela' exercised by the king of

/3thomson/tcom3.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:8 ± disk/amj

BOOK III. 255±7.1

243

France is inadmissible except in the very general sense of protection or support. This seems to have been the interpretation of Henry of Huntingdon (vi. 32; pp. 396±7), who said that Philip and William I `manutenebant' the young Count Arnulf. Arnulf, 15 years old, was certainly not a `ward' and was invested by Philip I as count in his own right. The unfavourable picture of his mother Richildis, for which William is the earliest source, was taken up and enlarged upon by Flemish chroniclers during the second half of the twelfth century (Verlinden, p. 50). Her alleged exaction of new taxes is mentioned again by Lambert of Ardres, Historia comitum Ghisnensium (ed. I. Heller, MGH SS, xxiv, 1879, p. 574), writing between 1194 and 1206: `A quolibet enim ostio et lecto nichilominus siue culcitra quatuor denarios per uniuersas Flandrie partes turpiter et proterue irreuerenter exigebat.' But even allowing for the embroidery of later chroniclers, Arnulf and his mother were unpopular. Robert's effective exploitation of this situation, more aggressively opportunistic than William suggests, is described by Verlinden, pp. 51±6, the eventual open warfare terminating with the battle of Cassel, at pp. 57±70. 3 Nam Balduinus . . . commendauerat] The parties mentioned are Baldwin V, count of Flanders 1035±67, his daughter Matilda, wife of William I of England, his sons Baldwin VI, count 1067±70, and Robert I `the Frisian', count 1071±93. Baldwin was married to Richildis, widow of Herman I, count of Hainault. Their sons were Arnulf III, count of Flanders and Hainault from 1070, killed in the battle of Cassel on 20 or 21 Feb. 1071, and Baldwin II, count of Hainault 1071±98. See Nicholas, Medieval Flanders, ch. 3. 5 militari manu coacta] Only numbering ten according to Orderic (ii. 280±3), who also has Fitz Osbern operating as part of the royal army, not freelance as William suggestsÐthough Orderic does say that Fitz Osbern went off `gaily as though to a tournament'. The chroniclers give various reasons for his participation, none supporting William's (Verlinden, pp. 61±3 and nn). Whether invited by one of the warring parties or not, he is more likely to have been there in his capacity as administrator of Normandy, supporting his feudal lord, than as the would-be lover of Richildis. 257. 1 sepe Willelmum regem Normannicis predis irritauit] Robert the Frisian and Philip I supported Robert Curthose against his father, mostly independently of each other. See Verlinden pp. 77±8;

/3thomson/tcom3.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:8 ± disk/amj

244

COMMENTARY

A. Fliche, La ReÁgne de Philippe Ier, roi de France (Paris, 1912), pp. 273± 81; and David, Robert Curthose, pp. 25±9. Karolus qui modo principatur in Flandria] Charles the Good, 1119±27. priuigna] In 1063 Robert the Frisian married Gertrude of Saxony, widow of Floris I count of Holland, who already had a daughter Bertha. Bertha and Philip married in or soon after the conclusion of peace in Mar. or Apr. 1071, when Philip recognized Robert as count; the marriage was presumably part of the deal, and solved more than one of Robert's problems. Robert of Torigni, GND ii. 224±5, says that `Since for a long time Robert had wished the girl out of the way of her father's inheritance, he married her off to Philip, king of the French.' See Verlinden, pp. 27±8, 30, 72 and n. 3. Ludouicum . . . qui modo regnat in Frantia] Louis VI, 1108±37. Philip repudiated Bertha in or shortly before 1092 in order to marry Bertrada of Montfort, wife of Fulk Rechin count of Anjou, on 15 May of that year. See further below, cc. 345. 5, 404. 1 and nn. 2 Tribus ante mortem annis . . . sollicitudine operiens] Robert went on pilgrimage late in 1086, returning early in 1090 (Verlinden, pp. 151±66). Anna Comnena (Alexiad vii. 6, viii. 3, 7) says that on his way home from Jerusalem Robert did homage to the emperor, promising to send him aid amounting to 500 knights, and that the aid duly arrived in the course of 1091. Filius eius Rotbertus . . . ad mortem lesus] Robert II `of Jerusalem', count of Flanders 1087±1111. This is one of the earliest references to a tournament: M. Keen, Chivalry (New Haven and London, 1984), pp. 83±4. ®lium eius Balduinum] Baldwin VII, count of Flanders 1111±19. For further details of the manner of his death see below, c. 403. 3±4. 258 Based upon ASC s.aa. 1073 (DE), 1079 (D and E), 1085. 1 Willelmus in subiectos leniter, turbide in rebelles agens] An echo of Virgil, Aen. vi. 853, quoted at cc. 213. 6 and 411. 1, echoed again at c. 267. 1. 2 Prouintiales . . . adigeret] William implicitly links the oath of Salisbury, the Domesday inquest, and the ®nal conquest of England. The connection is explored by J. C. Holt, `Politics and property in early medieval England', Past and Present, lvii (1972), 3±52, at p. 37.

/3thomson/tcom3.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:8 ± disk/amj

BOOK III. 257.1±260.1

245

3 William again mentions Cnut's threatened invasion of 1085 in Mir., c. 13 (pp. 93±5), with more detail of the miracle, which he there attributes to the invocation of the Virgin Mary by álfsige (Elsinus), abbot of Ramsey (1080±7). Cnuto . . . af®nitate Rotberti Frisonis] Cnut had married Robert's daughter Adela, probably c.1075 (Verlinden, pp. 108±9). 259. 1 leuatus est Suanus] The kings named are Magnus I the Good, 1035±46, con¯ated with Magnus II (1066±9), and Swein Estrithsson, 1046±74. 2 et Gothos] Note that William uses the same word for Goths (i.e. Visigoths) and the inhabitants (ON Gautar, OE Geatas) of southern Sweden (GoÈtland). His vocabulary was unfortunately not studied by J. Svennung, Zur Geschichte des Goticismus (Uppsala, 1967), esp. pp. 62±3. 260 William has muddled both the order and identity of his ®rst three kings of Norway: Magnus, Swein `Hardhand', and St Olaf. St Olaf (Haroldsson) reigned 1012±30 (his death is recorded above, c. 181. 6). He was succeeded brie¯y by Swein Cnutsson 1030±5, then by Magnus I the Good, Olaf 's bastard son, 1035±46. At c. 259. 1 above and in GP, c. 259 (pp. 412±15), William gets the order and relationship of Olaf and Magnus right. The rest of his information on names, relationships, and succession is straightforward and mostly correct: Harold Hardrada, St Olaf 's half-brother, 1045±66; Magnus II 1066±9; Olaf III Kyrre 1067±93; Magnus III Barelegs 1095±1103; Eystein 1103±22; Sigurd 1103±30. He omits the short reign of Hakon Magnusson, 1093±5. In GP, c. 259 (pp. 412±15), William tells a long, doubtless legendary, story about St Olaf and Magnus the Good, seeming to say that the latter only reigned for eighteen months. 1 Haroldus Haruagra] As at c. 228, William has confused Harold Harfagri (c.870±945) with Harold Hardrada or Sigurdsson (1048±66). The facts and legends about his exploits in the East (1034±43) are discussed by S. BloÈndal, `The last exploits of Harald Sigurdsson in Greek service', Classica et Mediaevalia, ii (1939), 1±26; Davidson, The Viking Road to Byzantium, pt.3 ch. 3; and BloÈndal, The Varangians of Byzantium, trans. B. S. Benedikz (Cambridge, 1978), ch. 4. His meritorious service with the Eastern emperor's army is attested by the anonymous Advice to an Emperor, written 1071±8, appended to the

/3thomson/tcom3.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:8 ± disk/amj

246

COMMENTARY

Strategicon of Cecaumenos, ed. B. Wassiliewsky and V. Jenstedt (St Petersburg, 1896), c. 12 (p. 97), trans. BloÈndal, The Varangians, pp. 57±8. But by William's time his adventures in Constantinople were clearly the stuff of widely-circulating legend: relevant texts are trans. in R. I. Page, Chronicles of the Vikings (London, 1995), pp. 100± 4. In the thirteenth century Snorri Sturlasson, Heimskringla, Saga of King Harold, cc. 13±15, tells stories similar to William's: of Harold's imprisonment and of his abduction and return of Maria, niece of the Empress Zoe; but he makes no mention of the lion-®ght. However, a similar tale of lion-killing is told of an Englishman named Harding in Constantinople c.1085, in the chronicle printed by Ciggaar, `L'eÂmigration', pp. 323, 337±8. Doubtless it was easy for `exploits in the East' to be transferred from one person to another (for a further example see below, c. 373. 5±6n). 1±2 Magnus, qui nuper in Hibernia . . . secundum interemit] See below, c. 329. But in 2 William has confused Magnus II Haroldsson with Magnus III Barelegs. It was the latter who invaded Ireland via Man and Anglesey. On the ®rst of these expeditions he killed Hugh earl of Shrewsbury; on the second he was killed himself. 2 Siwardus . . . fremebat] Meaning Sigurd Jorsalfar (1103±30), son of Magnus Barelegs. At c. 410 below William renders his name correctly and gives a fuller account of his famous crusade. 261 Some basis in ASC (E) s.aa. 1069, 1075, 1085, which records the two English expeditions of Swein's sons, and the intended one by Cnut. But there is no mention there of the ®gure of more than a thousand ships. William's Danish kings are: Swein II Estrithsson 1046±74, Harold III the Simple 1074±80, Cnut IV 1080±6, Olaf the Hungry 1086±95, Eric I the Good 1095±1103, and Niels (Nicholas) 1104±34. William's ®gures of three years for Harold III's reign and eight for the reign of Olaf the Hungry were probably only intended as approximate estimates. His ®gure of twenty-nine years for Eric the Good is precisely the length of time from the death of his father in 1074 until the end of his own reign in 1103. William means to imply that becoming king made no difference to Eric's inactive way of life. 1±2 in Angliam bis Cnutonem ®lium misit . . . quod transfretare nequiret] See Verlinden, pp. 108±112. Robert the Frisian was involved in Cnut's second and third expeditions. His role in the

/3thomson/tcom3.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:8 ± disk/amj

BOOK III. 260.1±262.3±4

247

second (1075) was mainly passive, supplying moral support and naval facilities to Cnut and to Edgar átheling, who was then staying with the count of Flanders. The Scandinavian and Flemish contingents of the third expedition assembled separately in 1085. Its departure was delayed by the rebellion of Cnut's brother Olaf (sent by Cnut to Robert as a captive), then aborted by the assassination of Cnut on 10 July 1086. 3 Aiunt eo loci multa miracula . . . a papa Romano] 10 July 1086. William may have known áthelnoth's Passio sancti Kanuti regis et martiris (BHL 1551), ed. M. Cl. Gertz, Vitae Sanctorum Danorum (2 vols., Copenhagen, 1908±12), i. 62±76, written after 1104. It gives the growth in the number of miracles (unspeci®ed) as a reason for the canonization and translation of Cnut by Paschal II in that year (c. 32). Olauum a uinculis decem milibus marcarum argenti redemerunt] Apparently his son Niels was detained by Robert as a surety for the delivery of the money: E. van den Bussche, `Flamands et Danois', La Flandre, xi (1880), 253±326, at p. 286, but without naming his source. 262. 1 tantam multitudinem stipendiariorum conducebat militum . . . sibi seruiturum redegerat] Similarly ASC (E) s.a. 1085; Douglas, William the Conqueror, pp. 346±7. Only William mentions the employment of Hugh the Great, count of Vermandois (d. 1101). 2 humi reperet] The metaphor is found again in VW ii. 13 (p. 35), and Mir., c. 20 (pp. 105±6). Cf. Horace, Epist. ii. 1. 251: `repentis per humum'. Ita ergo profecit . . . comitem Siciliae faceret] Robert was formally invested as duke of Apulia, Calabria, and Sicily by the pope in 1059; on the same occasion Richard count of Aversa, no relation of Robert's, was made prince of Capua (d. 1078). Roger count of Sicily (d. 1101) was Robert's brother. 3 Imperator enim Alemannorum . . . introduxit] Cf. William, Liber pont. (C; Levison, p. 391): `Huius temporibus Romam uenit imperator Henricus Alamanniae et expulit eum de ponti®catu, quia excommunicauerat eum propter inuestituras aecclesiarum, et constituit Wibertum Rauennatem in sede apostolica'. 3±4 Quo per litteras expulsi . . . amisit] A summary account, quite like those of Orderic (iv. 22±3) and Suger (Vita Ludovici, c. 9;

/3thomson/tcom3.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:8 ± disk/amj

248

COMMENTARY

pp. 44±7), all of them doing too much justice to Guiscard. Robert returned to Apulia, long before any appeal from the pope, in 1082. His ®rst priority was to put down local rebels and he only turned his attention to Rome in 1084. Henry IV left the city on 21 May of that year. Guiscard entered on 28 May; his men subjected it to a notorious sacking and took Gregory VII back south with them, where he died shortly after. There is a detailed account of all this in J. J. Norwich, The Normans in the South 1016±1130 (London, 1967), chs. 16±17. 4 summamque manum bello imponere sperans] Cf. Lucan v. 483: `summam rapti per prospera belli / te poscit Fortuna manum'. Also below, c. 398. 5, and see Wright II, p. 496 n. 56, for William's use in other works of the expression `summam/supremam manum imponere'. 5 Sustulit imperator male®tio . . . obnoxius ueneno] Similarly Orderic Vitalis iv. 28±33, but without implicating the Byzantine emperor. Chibnall (Orderic iv. 30 n. 2) suggests that the rumours of Robert's poisoning by his wife were probably spread in France by his son Bohemond, and re¯ect the active hostility between Normans and Lombards in south Italy. If this is true, William's version adds the ingredient of typically western anti-Byzantine sentiment. Robert actually died of typhoid. William's wording here is based upon Hegesippus i. 1. 8 (p. 7): `repulit Hyrcanus auro quem ferro nequibat' (and above, c. 165. 2n). 6 Hic terror . . . nec pelagus] Walther, Initia 8129. Ralph of Diss, in his summary of Norman and Angevin history drawn from various sources (ii. 276), gives a six-line version of the epitaph, beginning `Per mare, trans mare, cis mare, uictrix dextra putrescit' (Walther, Initia 13945). 263±6 Much of William's information on Hildebrand/Gregory VII is legendary. Very similar versions of cc. 263±4 are found in the second recension (c.1115) of Alexander of Canterbury, Dicta Anselmi, cc. 25, 26, and 28: Memorials of St Anselm, ed. R. W. Southern and F. S. Schmitt (Auctores Britannici Medii Aevi, i: London, 1969), pp. 211± 13, 215±16. As Alexander claimed (ibid., p. 196) to have heard these stories from Abbot Hugh of Cluny himself, there can be little doubt that he was William's source, the one `who swore that he had heard the facts from the mouth of Hugh of Cluny' (c. 263. 1). Variations between the accounts have suggested to previous scholars that

/3thomson/tcom3.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:8 ± disk/amj

BOOK III. 262.3±4±266.4

249

William derived his from Alexander orally rather than from the Dicta, but William's expression `narratio' suggests a written source. In any case he so habitually altered the wording and even information in his sources that one cannot assume that he was independent of the Dicta or that he supplemented it with independent information. For other and earlier versions of this material see F. S. Schmitt, `Neue und alte Hildebrand-Anekdoten aus den Dicta Anselmi', Studi Gregoriani, v (1956), 1±18, and A. Stacpoole, `Hugh of Cluny and the Hildebrandine miracle tradition', RB lxxvii (1967), 341±63. 263 The story told here concerns Hildebrand's legatine visit to France in 1055. He was not created archdeacon until 1059 (and then of Rome, not Tours), and there is no evidence that he was ever papal chancellor, which in any case he only became after 1061 according to William: I. S. Robinson, `Pope Gregory VII (1073± 1085): a bibliographical survey', Journal of Ecclesiastical History, xxxvi (1985), 439±83, at pp. 450±3. 264. 2 spetiosus ille pre ®liis hominum] Ps. 44(45): 3. 265 Alexander of Canterbury (Dicta, c. xxviii; Southern and Schmitt, Memorials of St Anselm, p. 215) located this miracle at a general French council (held in 1055). If William had the same occasion in mind, then the pope referred to is Victor II. 266. 2 Nec multo post . . . Odonem] The same story appears in William's Liber pont. (Levison, p. 392). 3 Denique fertur quod . . . excitauit] A very garbled version of the famous series of events, including the public humiliation of Henry IV, at Canossa, Jan. 1077. 4 quodam Radulfo] Rudolf duke of Swabia (1057±80). Successit Hildebrando . . . ueneno infecto] Victor III, consecrated 9 May 1087, dying on 16 Sept. Other sources speak of severe dysentery which struck him during the mass after his consecration, and which plagued him until his death. They are listed in H. E. J. Cowdrey, The Age of Abbot Desiderius (Oxford, 1983), p. 206 n. 90. Vrbanus uocatus est] On whom see below, cc. 289. 1, 333. 9, 334± 49. 1, 350. 2, 387. 3. The standard biography is A. Becker, Papst Urban II. (1088±1099) (2 vols.: MGH Schriften, xix (1±2): 1964±88).

/3thomson/tcom3.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:8 ± disk/amj

250

COMMENTARY

267 As William of Poitiers i. 53 (pp. 86±9), except for Archbishop Mauger's opposition to William the Conqueror's marriage, which is William's own addition. Mauger was deposed at the council of Lisieux in either 1054 or 1055 (GND ii. 130 n. 2). 1 Hactenus circumuagari . . . qui uolet audiet] Cf. Suetonius, Aug. lxi. 1: `Quoniam qualis in imperiis ac magistratibus regendaque per terrarum orbem pace belloque re publica fuerit, exposui, referam nunc interiorem ac familiarem eius uitam', and Hegesippus iv. 5 (p. 247): `Hactenus circumuagari licuerit, dum templi sancti . . . contagia refugientes circa alias urbes stilum occupamus'. subiectis facilis, in rebelles inexorabilis erat] An echo of Virgil, Aen. vi. 853, echoed again at c. 258. 1, quoted at cc. 213. 6 and 411. 1. 1±5 Monasteria . . . inhabitantium eligente] The three religious houses named are: (1) the abbaye aux Hommes (Saint-EÂtienne, founded c.1063, dedicated 13 Sept. 1077), (2) abbaye aux Dames (La TriniteÂ, founded c.1059, dedicated 18 June 1066) at Caen, and (3) the abbey of St Martin, Battle (founded 1067). For the dates of the foundations of (1) and (2) see GND ii. 148±9 n. 2. 2 Lanfrancum abbatem . . . in religione sudabat] Lanfranc was abbot of Caen 1063±70. On his life and works see A. J. MacDonald, Lanfranc: A Study of his Life, Work and Writing (2nd edn., London, 1944); F. Barlow, `A view of Archbishop Lanfranc', in his Norman Conquest and Beyond, pp. 223±38; and M. T. Gibson, Lanfranc of Bec (Oxford, 1978). Tertius . . . Cato] Juvenal ii. 40. 5 Mathildem . . . iaculum intentasse] The projected marriage of William and Matilda (c.1051±2) was forbidden by Pope Leo IX in 1049, the sanction only reversed ten years later by Nicholas II. The precise nature of the impediment is not known; for the various conjectures which have been advanced see Douglas, William the Conqueror, pp. 76±7, and appendix C, pp. 391±3. 268 Maurilius died on 9 Aug. 1067. William may have used William of JumieÁges, GND ii. 172±3, but that account does not mention Maurilius' `near-death experience', for which William is the oldest authority. On Maurilius see M. de Bouard, `Notes et hypotheÁses sur Maurille moine de FeÂcamp et son eÂlection au sieÁge meÂtropolitain de Rouen', L'Abbaye beÂneÂdictine de FeÂcamp (4 vols.: FeÂcamp, 1959±65), i. 81±92.

/3thomson/tcom3.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:8 ± disk/amj

BOOK III. 267±270

251

269. 1 propositi . . . tenax] Cf. Ovid, Met. x. 405: `propositique tenax, quodcumque est, orat'. Successit . . . durabit] So also GP, c. 77 (p. 172 lines 3±6), almost verbatim. He is more critical of Walkelin in GP, c. 44 (pp. 71±2), as is Eadmer, Hist. nov., p. 18. Their accounts are compared by Freeman, Norman Conquest, iv. 816±19. qualis . . . diem] Seneca, Apocolocynt. iv. 25, 27±8 (also in GP, cc. 17, 153 (pp. 24, 291). M. Winterbottom in Classical Review, xli (1991), 488, points out that William used an S-text, previously thought to have been popular at a much later date: Reynolds, Texts and Transmission, p. 362. 2 Ipsius etiam impulsu ambitum . . . abunde exuberans] The slave-trade is mentioned by William above, c. 45. 4, and in VW ii. 19±20 (pp. 42±4); see Pelteret, Slavery in Early Medieval England, pp. 59, 76± 8, 224±5. Wulfstan's position was an entirely orthodox one; what he opposed was not the institution of slavery as such, but the sale of persons destined to be sent abroad. Pelteret's evidence shows that slavery was common in Anglo-Saxon England, and he suggests that the Norman kings were prepared to let it continue because it was pro®table to them. Nonetheless it was prohibited outside the country in clause 9 of the Leges Willelmi (EHD 2, p. 400) and outlawed altogether in canon 28 of the council of Westminster 1102 (Councils, i(2). 678). See also E. Mason, St Wulfstan of Worcester (Oxford, 1990), pp. 184±6. posterius] There is a brief mention at c. 303; but William is probably referring to his projected Vita Wulfstani, written during the rule of Warin prior of Worcester c.1124±c.1142. If so, it slightly advances the terminus post quem for the writing of this work. 270 For the various accounts of Thurstan and his monks (e.g. Orderic ii. 270) see Plummer in Two Saxon Chronicles, ii. 271. A summary of this section is given in GP, c. 91 (p. 197). What Thurstan actually did is explained in AG, c. 78 (pp. 156±9), and, in very similar words, by John of Worcester s.a. 1083: he and his kinsfolk `were said to have paid' 50 pounds of silver to William Rufus for permission to return to his abbacy. sagittis inhorrere fecerat] Bk adds `ex quo cruci®xo sanguis miraculose pro¯uxit'; cf. AG, c. 78 (pp. 158±9). Huius noxae crimine] Cf. Statius, Theb. x. 587: `regalis crimina noxae'; similarly in GP, c. 91 (p. 197).

/3thomson/tcom3.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:8 ± disk/amj

252

COMMENTARY

271 Much the same in GP, cc. 100 (pp. 271±2), `Causa caedis . . . inducta', 132 (pp. 271 line 20Ð272 line 20), almost verbatim. The various accounts of the murder of Bishop Walcher of Durham are listed by Plummer in Two Saxon Chronicles, ii. 270±1. John of Worcester s.a. 1080 provides even greater detail than William; he adds that King William devastated Northumbria in the same year, as a punishment for the slaying of Walcher. Both he and William date the murder 14 May (1080). Similarly Simeon of Durham, Historia Dunelmensis ecclesiae, iii. 23±4 (i. 113±18), and Historia regum, cc. 159, 166 (ii. 199, 208±11). His account adds that Leobwine/Leofwine was both dean and the bishop's chaplain. Gilbert was Walcher's nephew. That there was more to the slaying than the personal enmity between Liulf and Gilbert and Leofwine is shown by Kapelle, The Norman Conquest of the North, pp. 139±40, and Williams, The English and the Norman Conquest, pp. 65±9. 1 Miserabilis et infanda caedes] Cf. Virgil, Aen. viii. 483: `Quid memorem infandas caedes'. 2 Walkerius furenti parentelae defuncti legalis placiti iuditium apposuit] The wording is obscure. It is elucidated by John of Worcester's account, which shows that the bishop offered to clear himself by oath of the murder-charge. 3 pacem pretento ramo offerens] Cf. Virgil, Aen. viii. 116: `Paciferaeque manu ramum praetendit oliuae'. 273±81 This is one of the two most important and detailed descriptions of William the Conqueror's character and administration available to us from near-contemporary writers; the other is in ASC (E) s.a. 1087. They are compared and evaluated by Plummer in Two Saxon Chronicles, ii. 274. 273 For the storyÐclearly legendaryÐof William beating Matilda see Freeman, Norman Conquest, iii. 661±3. He adduces as a parallel (but a remote one?) how Archbishop Oda dis®gured the face of King Eadwig's mistress as told by Osbern, Vita S. Odae (Anglia Sacra ii. 84). More germane are the stories of William kicking his wife before setting out for England, in Snorri Sturlasson, Heimskringla, Saga of King Harold, c. 99, and of Harold kicking his wife for attempting to dissuade him from battle, in Orderic, GND ii. 168±9.

/3thomson/tcom3.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:8 ± disk/amj

BOOK III. 271±275.1

253

1 succiso poplite] Virgil, Aen. ix. 762. 2 Eiusdem pietatis inditium in Edgithae reginae funere curando] ASC (E) s.a. 1075. 274. 1 Rotbertus . . . in Italiam obstinatus abiit . . . petitionis huiusce cassus] William's is the only mention of Robert's attempt to marry Countess Matilda of Tuscany: David, Robert Curthose, p. 38. 275 For the making of the New Forest and the deaths there see Freeman, Norman Conquest, iv. 840±4, 858±9. Three others beside William recount the deaths of the two Richards, William I's son and grandson: (1) Orderic Vitalis (iii. 114) says that Richard William's son was struck by the branch of a tree while pursuing his quarry on horseback, while Richard son of Robert was killed by an arrow from one of his own followers. (2) John of Worcester s.a. 1100, in recounting the death of William Rufus in the New Forest, recalls those of the two Richards in the same place. He does not specify the manner of death of Richard son of William, but of Richard son of Robert says that he was `a suo milite sagitta percussus'. (3) Robert of Torigni, GND ii. 214±7, also recounting the death of William Rufus in the New Forest, recalls how Richard his brother had died while hunting there, after running into a tree (`ictu arboris male euitate egrotans'). William's description of the death of Richard son of Robert is essentially that which Orderic and Robert of Torigni give of Richard son of William. Richard son of William died before the age of 22, probably between 1069 and 1074: Barlow, William Rufus, p. 13 n. 37. 1 desertis uillis] Similar disapproving remarks are in ASC (E) s.a. 1087. Note the additional words in TA, `subrutis ecclesiis' (above, p. xxvi n. 17), parallel to John of Worcester s.a. 1100: `domibus semirutis, ecclesiis destructis'; similarly Orderic v. 284±5, specifying the wasting of sixty parishes. So William chose to tone down this section later, more correctly: see H. C. Darby and E. M. J. Campbell, The Domesday Geography of South-East England (Cambridge, 1962), pp. 324±8; F. H. Baring, `The making of the New Forest', EHR xvi (1901), 427±38. Note that Chibnall in Orderic v. 284 n. 1 mistranslates William's `desertis uillis . . . redegerat' as `thirty and more vills were destroyed'.

/3thomson/tcom3.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:8 ± disk/amj

254

COMMENTARY

in saltus et lustra ferarum] Cf. Virgil, Georg. ii. 471: `illic saltus ac lustra ferarum'. 2 Infando prorsus spectaculo . . . disseritur quod TA] Cf. Justin viii. 4. 7: `foedum prorsus miserandumque spectaculum'. Others beside William interpreted the deaths of William's progeny as divine retribution for his destruction of villages and churches in order to increase the size of the New Forest: John of Worcester s.a. 1100; Orderic v. 284±5; Robert of Torigni, GND ii. 216±7. in eadem silua Willelmus, ®lius eius] Which William recounts in detail below, c. 333. iste collum traiectus, uel . . . arboris ramusculo equo pertranseunte fauces appensus] The T version is somewhat clearer: `iste arboris ramusculo collum traiectus, uel . . . equo pertranseunte fauces appensus'. 276 The sources differ on the number, names, and fortunes of William's daughters: see Freeman, Norman Conquest, iii. 666±70; Douglas, William the Conqueror, appendix C; Chibnall in Orderic iii. 114±15 n. 1; Barlow, William Rufus, pp. 441±5. Cecilia was abbess of Caen from 1113 until her death on 13 July 1127 (Orderic iii. 10±11). On the career of Alan IV Fergant, count of Brittany (1084±1112), who married Constance in 1087, see David, Robert Curthose, p. 221. Constance died in 1090; in June 1096 he married Ermengard, daughter of Fulk Rechin count of Anjou. The two whose names `I have forgotten' are treated as one by Orderic (v. 11, iii. 114±15) and named Agatha (he calls her Adeliza in GND ii. 160±1). Orderic says that she was betrothed ®rst to Harold Godwinesson and then to `Amfurcius king of Galicia', presumably Alfonso VI, ruler of Castile, Leon, and Galicia 1072±1109. Robert of Torigni, GND ii. 262±3, calls the woman Adelida and like William says that she died young. At c. 238. 2 above William insists that the daughter betrothed to Harold was dead by 1066. William's description of the reluctance to marry and religious exercises of Alfonso's betrothed is similar to Orderic's; on the dif®culties of dating the actual betrothal see Freeman, Norman Conquest, iv. 852±3. The marriage of Adela to Stephen of Blois is well-attested but cannot be precisely dated (107861085); she entered Marcigny in Apr. 1120: Hugh the Chanter, History of the Church of York, pp. 154±5. Baudri de Bourgeuil, in Carm. 136 addressed to Cecilia, mentions a sister who entered the convent with her: `Audiui

/3thomson/tcom3.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:8 ± disk/amj

BOOK III. 275.1±277.2

255

quandam te detinuisse sororem / cuius fama meas aliquando perculit aures. / Nomen it elapsum, uidisse tamen reminiscor': Baldricus Burgulianus Carmina, ed. K. Hilbert (Heidelberg, 1979), p. 189. This may refer to Adelaide, mentioned by Orderic but not William. Orderic says that she `vowed herself to God when she reached marriageable age, and made a pious end under the protection of Roger of Beaumont'. But the Beaumonts were patrons of PreÂaux, and so Adelaide might be identi®able with Prioress Adelina or the nun Adeliza of PreÂaux, mentioned in two mortuary rolls: L. Delisle, Rouleaux des morts de IXe au XVe sieÁcle (Paris, 1866), pp. 207, 289. The above is one of a host of examples of marked similarity between William and Orderic in their selection and treatment of materialÐyet at no point can either of them be shown to have relied upon the other, and it is usually quite clear that their accounts are independent. Chibnall, in her edition of Orderic, has faithfully recorded most of these instances of overlapping or parallel accounts of the same event, and I have been able to add moreÐ altogether a total of more than one hundred. This ®gure seems too high to be coincidental, or to be explicable in terms of a general similarity in outlook between two contemporary Anglo-Norman Benedictines. To me it seems probable that they met and discussed their `work in progress', as William and John of Worcester evidently did, though perhaps without exchanging actual written material. 277 Orderic Vitalis, GND ii. 96±7, places Herleve's marriage to Herluin after the death of Duke Robert in 1035. But it probably took place c.1030: Douglas, William the Conqueror, p. 381; Chibnall in Orderic iv. 117 n. 2; D. R. Bates, `Notes sur l'aristocratie normande', Annales de Normandie, xxiii (1973), 7±38, at pp. 21±38. 1 Rotbertum . . . hebetis ingenii hominem] For discussion of William's view of this man, whose career suggests that he was not totally without energy, see B. Golding, `Robert of Mortain', AngloNorman Studies, xiii (1990), 119±44. Odonem . . . instituit] On Odo see D. R. Bates, `The character and career of Odo, bishop of Bayeux', Speculum, l (1975), 1±20. 2 Itaque in aggerandis thesauris . . . nummis infartiens] So also Orderic ii. 264±7, iv. 38±45, even more vividly. He too alleges that Odo was touted for the papacy (but after Gregory VII's death),

/3thomson/tcom3.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:8 ± disk/amj

256

COMMENTARY

and that he bought himself a palace in Rome and scattered money around there; similarly Chron. de Hyda, p. 296. Cuius futuri itineris . . . irretiuit] Referring to a journey to Rome rather than his later attempted pilgrimage to the Holy Land. Odo's offence was presumably his intention of taking knights away from their duties in England without the king's permission (Bates, `The character and career of Odo', pp. 15±16). prefatus non se Baiocarum episcopum sed comitem Cantiae prendere] Similarly Orderic iv. 42±3. Below, c. 306. 3, William repeats the joke but attributes it to Archbishop Lanfranc. The three earliest sources for Odo's trial and imprisonment (GR, Orderic, and the Chron. de Hyda) are analysed by Chibnall in Orderic iv, pp. xxvii±xxx. For the suggestion that William treated Odo as a lay lord see A. Morey and C. N. L. Brooke, Gilbert Foliot and his Letters (Cambridge, 1965), p. 177 n. 2. It was cited as a precedent at the trial of William of Saint-Calais bishop of Durham, later in the same year: Simeon of Durham i. 184, trans. R. C. Van Caenegem, English Lawsuits from William I to Richard I (2 vols.: Selden Society, cvi±cvii: 1990±1), i. 99. The same argument was advanced by Aubrey de Vere at the council at Winchester, 29 Aug. 1139, in defence of King Stephen's arrest of Roger bishop of Salisbury: HN, c. 473 (p. 31). The king's grim joke was not appreciated by the pope: Liber de Hyda, p. 296. 3 Antiochae . . . ®nem habuit] Odo died at Palermo, not Antioch: Bates, `The character and career of Odo', p. 20. 279. 1 Iustae fuit staturae . . . deformaret] Wright III, pp. 12±13, identi®es a number of Suetonian parallels for William's physical description of the Conqueror: Suetonius, Galba xxi: `Statura fuit iusta', Vitell. xvii. 2: `uenter obesus', Claud. xxx: `Auctoritas dignitasque formae non defuit . . . stanti uel sedenti ac praecipue quiescenti.' Interestingly, Einhard too adapted Suetonius' description of Claudius (Vita Karoli, c. 22): `unde formae auctoritas ac dignitas tam stanti quam sedenti plurima adquirebatur'. His version is closer to William's than the original, and may have been William's immediate source. admisso equo pedibus neruo extento sinuaret] In the translation we have taken `pedibus' with `admisso equo', though this is certainly odd, since `admittere' in this context should mean to give the horse its head, to let it run free; but the unlikely alternative would be to have William bending his bow with his feet.

/3thomson/tcom3.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:8 ± disk/amj

BOOK III. 277.2±281

257

quamquam obesitas uentris . . . regium deformaret] Orderic (iv. 79) also remarks on William's corpulence: `pinguissimus rex Guillelmus'. 2 Nec ullo tempore comior aut indulgendi facilior erat] Cf. Suetonius, Vesp. xxi: `a secreto in balneum tricliniumque transibat. Nec ullo tempore facilior aut indulgentior traditur.' 280. 1 Sola est de qua merito culpetur pecuniae cupiditas TA] Cf. Suetonius, Vesp. xvi. 3: `Sola est, in qua merito culpetur, pecuniae cupiditas.' The CB version softens this by substituting `nonnichil' and `aggestio' for Suetonian `merito' and `cupiditas'. nichil unquam pensi habuit quin corraderet TA] Cf. Suetonius, Domit. xii. 1: `nichil pensi habuit quin praedaretur omni modo'. Again, William's criticism is moderated in CB, perhaps in¯uenced by another Suetonian passage (Vesp. xvi.3): `Sunt contra qui opinentur ad manubias et rapinas necessitate compulsum summa aerarii ®scique inopia', and/or Sulpicius Severus, Dial. ii. 11. 11: `Fertur enim ille uir multis bonisque actibus praeditus aduersus auaritiam parum consuluisse, nisi regni necessitate, quippe exhausto a superioribus principibus reipublicae aerario, paene semper in expeditione atque procinctu bellorum ciuilium constitutus facile excusabitur quibuslibet occasionibus subsidia imperio parauisse.' 2 Necesse est ut multos timeat, quem multi timent] Cf. Macrobius, Sat. ii. 7. 4 (Otto, SprichwoÈrter, p. 349): `Necesse est, multos timeat quem multi timent'; quoted by William again in Polyhistor, p. 149 lines 3±4. Regnat adhuc . . . palmam habeat] An opaque sentence which seems to describe the practice, and abuse, of `farming' towns and churches to the sheriff by the king; cf. ASC (D) s.a. 1086, criticizing William I for the same practice. William, Rufus, and Henry I, were all prepared to sell farms (i.e. the right to collect royal dues) to the highest bidder, who then put extra pressure on the sources of revenue in order to maximize his pro®ts. Under this system, the notion of `customary payments' was obviously weakened. Barlow, William Rufus, pp. 220± 32, R. Lennard, Rural England 1086±1135 (Oxford, 1959), pp. 105±75. 281 cuius abutens patientia] Cf. Cicero, Cat. i. 1: `Quousque tandem abutere, Catiline, patientia nostra?', Suetonius, Domit. xi. 2: `quo contemptius abuteretur patientia hominum'.

/3thomson/tcom3.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:8 ± disk/amj

258

COMMENTARY

282 Some basis in ASC (E) s.a. 1086 (recte 1087), but mainly independent. Neither ASC nor any other source mentions William's accident at Mantes. Orderic Vitalis (iv. 78±81) says that he became ill there due to exhaustion and heat. ASC s.a. 1086 and the anonymous addition `De obitu Willelmi' in GND (ii. 184±5) say simply that he became ill and died in Normandy. Comparison and discussion in Freeman, Norman Conquest, iv. 853±6. 1 reclusa una ustulata] A small detail showing William's independence of ASC at this point, for (s.a. 1086) it mentions the burning of two holy men. 3 comitatus quinquagesimo secundo] 6 Sept. 1087. Aa makes a very slight adjustment: `nondum expleto comitatus quinquagesimo primo' (see Vol. i, Appendix II, p. 835). The date from which these ®gures were calculated was the death of Duke Robert during 1035. William (if it was he) presumably changed his mind about what time in that year the duke was likely to have died. No written source now known supplies a precise date. ut supra diximus] c. 261. 3. ASC records the murder of Cnut IV s.a. 1086, although mentioning the date 1087 in the text, wrongly. quo Saraceni Hispani . . . inuiti cessere] William clearly had only vague information about events in Spain in the 1080s. He refers to Alfonso VI (1065±1109), and presumably to his capture of Toledo in 1085, the coming of the Almoravides under Yusuf ibn Tash®n, and their (temporary) withdrawal 1087±9. But he adds little to ASC (E) s.a. 1086 (recte 1087). 283 Much as ASC (E) s.a. 1086 (recte 1087), John of Worcester s.a. 1087. William died on 9 Sept. Only William of Malmesbury and Robert of Torigni mention Henry's presence at the burial: for Robert's account see Van Houts in GND ii. 195 n. 5 (wrongly saying that his was the only one). 1 Corpus regio sollemni curatum] `curatum' could refer speci®cally to the rather crude and ineffective form of embalming used at the time. It was applied, for instance, to the body of Fulk Nerra count of Anjou (d. 1040): B. Bachrach, `The tomb of Fulk Nerra, count of the Angevins (987±1040)', Cithara, xxix (1989), 3±29, at p. 19. See also M. E. A. Pigeon, `De l'embaumement des morts aÁ l'eÂpoque MeÂrovingienne', Bulletin archeÂologique du comite des travaux historiques et scienti®ques (Paris, 1894), 138±45; D. SchaÈfer, `Mittelalterlicher

/3thomson/tcom3.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:8 ± disk/amj

BOOK III. 282±4.2

259

È berfuÈhrung von Leichen', in Sitzungsberichte der Brauch bei der U Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften (Berlin, 1920), 478±98; A. Erlande-Brandenburg, Le Roi est mort: EÂtudes sur les funeÂrailles, les seÂpultures et les tombeaux des rois de France jusqu'aÁ la ®n du xiiie sieÁcle ( (BibliotheÁque de la SocieÂte francËaise d'archeÂologie, vii: Geneva, 1975). tunc fuit uidere miseriam] cf. VD i. 25 (p. 181): `Iam uero . . . fuit uidere miseriam.' clara contestans uoce rapinam] Cf. Lucan iii. 121±2: `prohibensque rapina / uictorem clara testatur uoce tribunus'. centum librae argenti] A very large sum. Sixty shillings was demanded for the place of burial alone, according to Orderic Vitalis (iv. 106) and, probably following him, Wace (Roman de Rou, pt. iii, line 9333; ii. 232). But Orderic adds that `pro reliqua uero tellure quam calumniabatur equipollens mutuum eidem promiserunt'. William may not have been exaggerating. The knight's name was apparently Ascelin, and there is good evidence for the substance of his claim: see Freeman, Norman Conquest, iv. 856±8, and Chibnall in Orderic iv. 106 n. 1. 2 tunc Rotbertus primogenitus in Frantia contra patriam bellabat] At Abbeville in Ponthieu according to Robert of Torigni, GND ii. 202±3. in dispertienda pecunia . . . largitus] While William's remarks on this almsgiving are almost identical with those in ASC, John of Worcester says nothing about gifts to the poor; on the other hand he refers to a generous donation by Robert to the monasteries, churches, and poor in Normandy for his father's soul. 284. 2 suis locis] A reference to the Oath of Berengar at the council of Rome 1059, which concludes the Decretals section of some copies of the Pseudo-Isidorean Decretals, notably the Collectio Lanfranci, which was the commonest version in England. This may be where William found it, since he certainly knew the Collectio Lanfranci: Thomson, William of Malmesbury, pp. 131±3. Responderunt ei libris Lanfrancus . . . Guimundus] For the literature on the controversy see below, c. 285n. The works referred to are Lanfranc, De corpore et sanguine Domini (PL cl. 407±42), and Guitmund of Aversa, De corpore et sanguine Domini (PL cxlix. 1427± 94), works not uncommon, sometimes found together in manuscripts.

/3thomson/tcom3.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:8 ± disk/amj

260

COMMENTARY

4 iuxta apostolum] 1 Tim. 6: 8. 5±9 Quem modo . . . sorte sua] Hildebert, Carm. min. xviii. The lines `Liuor enim . . . abisse dies', according to Scott (edn. p. 9 note on ll. 45±8), are omitted in all Hildebert MSS except his G (Vienna, Nationalbibl. MS 2521, s. xii, Bamberg). In Thomson, William of Malmesbury, p. 72, it is argued that William's copy of Hildebert's verse was the ancestor of D (Dublin, Trinity Coll. MS B. 2. 17, s. xii, St Peter's abbey Gloucester) and its copy He (Hereford Cath. MS P. I. 15, s. xii, Hereford Franciscans, but probably made at St Peter's Gloucester). 285 On Berengar see A. J. MacDonald, Berengar and the Reform of Sacramental Doctrine (London, 1930); R. W. Southern, `Lanfranc of Bec and Berengar of Tours', in Studies in Medieval History presented to F. M. Powicke, ed. R. W. Hunt, W. A. Pantin, and R. W. Southern (Oxford, 1948), pp. 27±48; O. Capitani, `Studi per Berengario di Tours', Bulletino dell'Istituto Storico Italiano per il Medio Evo, lxix (1957), 67±173; id., `Per la storia dei rapporti tra Gregorio VII e Berengario di Tours', Studi Gregoriani, vi (1959±61), 99±145; P. Meyvaert, `BeÂrenger de Tours contre AlbeÂric du Mont-Cassin', RB lxx (1960), 324±32; R. B. C. Huygens, `BeÂrenger de Tours, Lanfranc et Bernold de Constance', Sacris Erudiri, xvi (1965), 355± 87; id., `A propos de BeÂrenger et son traite de l'Eucharistie', RB lxxvi (1966), 133±9; J. de Montclos, Lanfranc et BeÂrengar: la controverse eucharistique du xie sieÁcle (Spicilegium Sacrum Lovanense, xxxvii: Louvain, 1971); M. T. Gibson, `The case of Berengar of Tours', in Councils and Assemblies, ed. G. J. Cuming and D. Baker (Studies in Church History, vii: Oxford, 1971), pp. 61±8; R. Somerville, `The case against Berengar of Tours: a new text', in his Papacy, Councils and Canon Law in the 11th-12th Centuries (Aldershot, 1990), ch. i; M. T. Gibson, Lanfranc of Bec (Oxford, 1978), pp. 63±91; and Auctoritas und Ratio: Studien zu Berengar von Tours, ed. P. F. Ganz, R. B. C. Huygens, and F. NiewoÈhner (Wiesbaden, 1990). And see above, c. 284. 2. 1 purpureos ¯ores fundit facundia diues] Not identi®ed. Fulbertum, quem Domini mater Maria . . . aiunt] The miracle is recounted, in more detail, by William in Mir., c. 9 (pp. 82±3). His source for this story is not known, Carter (pp. 370±2) indicating that all other extant accounts are later and apparently dependent upon William's.

/3thomson/tcom3.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:8 ± disk/amj

BOOK III. 284.4±287.1

261

2 Nam cum in extremis positum . . . corrumpere] On this testimony of William's to Fulbert's opposition to Berengar's eucharistic theory see Capitani, `Studi per Berengario di Tours', p. 90 n. 1. 286 The reference to Gregory, and the stories of Plecgils and the Jewish boy, are from Paschasius, De corpore et sanguine Domini, cc. 8, 14 (PL cxx. 1298±9, 1319±21). The latter is repeated by William in Mir., c. 33 (pp. 137±8). 2 fumea uolumina] Cf. Lucan iii. 505: `spatiosa uolumina fumi'. 287 Gawain's alleged place of burial was identi®ed by Stubbs (GR ii, p. lxxxix) with Castell Gwalchmai (Walwyn's Castle), an earthwork encampment on the Rhos promontory, Pembrokeshire. G. Ashe, A Guidebook to Arthurian Britain (Wellingborough, 1983), pp. 179±81, suggests that William was thinking of `a place on the north side of Milford Haven, between the islands of Skomer and Skokholm'. Local tradition identi®es the place with St Govan's Head and chapel, though Govan may rather have been a hermit. For identi®cation of William's `Galguenus' with the Welsh hero Gwalchmai see R. Bromwich, `The character of the early Welsh tradition', in H. M. Chadwick et al., Studies in Early British History, pp. 83±136, at 127 n. 3. William appears to be the ®rst writer to link him with Arthur. P. Sims-Williams, `The early Welsh Arthurian poems', in The Arthur of the Welsh, ed. R. Bromwich, A. O. H. Jarman, and B. F. Roberts (Cardiff, 1991), pp. 31±71, at 49±50, points out that the earliest testimony to a belief in Arthur's survival among the Cornish and Bretons is in the account of the journey of the canons of Laon to Bodmin in 1113: Hermann of Laon, De miraculis beatae Mariae Laudunensis ii. 16 (PL clvi. 983). He also adduces the `Stanzas of the Graves' (Englynion y Beddau) in the Black Book of Carmarthen (s. xiii, the poems perhaps much earlier) as further testimony that the site of Arthur's grave was thought to be unknown, whereas `The grave of Gwalchmai is in Peryddon'. He suggests that this Peryddon was the old Welsh name for the Sandyhaven Pill in Rhos which runs down to the sea from Walwyn's Castle. If this is so, then William and the `Stanzas of the Graves' are in agreement, and such a poem may have been the source of William's information. 1 plures annos distulerint] Bk adds `Sepulcrum regis Arturi ante condicionem huius libri non uidebatur. Set post tempore regis

/3thomson/tcom3.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:8 ± disk/amj

262

COMMENTARY

Ricardi inuentus est rex Arturus in cimiterio Glastoniensi iuxta uetustam ecclesiam profundius sexdecim pedibus sepultus. Tunc in magna ecclesia extitit honori®ce in mausoleo lapideo collocatus.' Cf. Gerald of Wales, De principis instructione i. 20, and Speculum ecclesiae ii. 8±10 (Opera, ed. J. S. Brewer, J. F. Dimock, and G. F. Warner (8 vols.: RS, 1861±91), viii. 126±9, iv. 49±51). Gerald, however, locates the `inventio' in the reign of Henry II; he too speci®es the grave's depth as sixteen feet. 288. 2 Prior . . . apud Aretium ciuitatem Tusciae dies expleuerat] Conrad's loyalty to his father is praised by Ekkehard of Aura s.a. 1099 (ed. G. Waitz and P. Kilon, MGH SS, vi, 1844, p. 211), but he had indeed rebelled against his father and for a time supported Urban II: Becker, Papst Urban II, i. 131±9. For the date and place of his death see below, c. 420. 2n. Vivit adhuc] Henry V died on 23 May 1125. eiusdem sententiae pertinaciter sequax . . . putauerat] Not that Henry V ever genuinely espoused the reformed papal position on investitures; William's ambiguous wording makes it unclear whether he was aware of this. Calixtus, qui modo apostolicae sedi presidet] Calixtus died on 13 Dec. 1124. 289. 2 ut qui sexagies et bis atie collocata dimicarit] It is hard to imagine what source William had for this improbably precise ®gure. lites componere] Cf. Horace, Epist. i. 2. 11: `componere lites'; Virgil, Ecl. iii. 108: `tantas componere lites'. 290 Roger of Wendover ii. 35±6 repeats the story, dating it to 1089 and describing the `quidam ex aduersariis eius' as `Alemannicus comes quidam, Henrici imperatoris persecutor grauissimus'. Otherwise he follows GR. 292 William repeats this account of Marianus in GP, c. 164 (pp. 300± 1), partly in the same words, with some abbreviation and variation. For `ab euangelica ueritate deprehendit' he has there (p. 301) `contra euangelicam ueritatem uel primus uel solus animaduertit', and after `superaddidit' he ®nishes the sentence `magnam et diffusissimam cronicam facere adorsus'. BL MS Egerton 3088 (s. xii2, from Dore abbey; Bede, De temporibus, Marianus etc.), includes the GP passage

/3thomson/tcom3.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:8 ± disk/amj

BOOK III. 287.1±293.1

263

(fo. 114), adding the remark `Hec legi debet supra iuxta Cronicam Mariani'. 1 Marinianus Scottus . . . sectatores habuit] Marianus Scotus, Chronicon ex chronicis: part edn. MGH SS, v. 481±564, repr. PL cxlvii. 623±796. Note William's spelling (in ACB) of `Marinianus' (`Marimanus' in MS A of GP), also found in Bodl. Libr., MS Auct. F. 3. 14, William's copy of computistic works including the Excerptio de chronica Mariani by Robert Losinga bishop of Hereford: W. H. Stevenson, `A contemporary description of the Domesday Survey', EHR xxii (1907), 72±84, at pp. 83±4; Thomson, William of Malmesbury, pp. 83±5. T's reading of `Marianus' is obviously better, but could be a correction made by someone else. Marianus' Chronicle was brought to England by Robert Losinga (GP, c. 164; p. 301), and was the basis for John of Worcester's Chronicle. Robert's copy may be BL MS Cotton Nero C. v (s. xiex), which was certainly at Hereford by c.1150. Dionysii Exigui] A Scythian monk living in Rome, Dionysius issued a revised set of Paschal tables in 525; William's copy is in Bodl. Libr., MS Auct. F. 3. 14, fos. 116v-20v: Jones, Bedae Opera de Temporibus, pp. 68±73, esp. p. 68 n. 6; Thomson, William of Malmesbury, pp. 83±5. 2 Quare sepe mirari soleo . . . obtorpuerunt omnia] Cf. the more famous remarks critical of contemporary scholastici by Adelard of Bath, Quaestiones naturales, ed. M. MuÈller, BeitraÈge zur Geschichte der Philosophie des Mittelalters, xxxi(2) (1934), pp. 11±12; trans. and commentary in R. C. Dales, The Scienti®c Achievement of the Middle Ages (Philadelphia, 1973), pp. 37±51, esp. 41±2. 293 The story is repeated by Roger of Wendover ii. 40±1 (dated 1091), and in the Eulogium historiarum i. 404±5 (dated 1068). 1 Walkerius prior Maluerni] d. 1 Oct. 1125 (Heads, p. 90); Stubbs (GR ii, p. xc) prints his epitaph, in which reference is made to his scienti®c interests. Stubbs makes the attractive suggestion that he might have been responsible for William's information about Gerbert at cc. 167±72 above. See C. H. Haskins, Studies in the History of Medieval Science (2nd edn., Cambridge, Mass., 1927), pp. 113±17, and Adelard of Bath, ed. C. S. Burnett (Warburg Institute Surveys and Texts, iv: London, 1987), pp. 102±3, 167, 174, 180±1, 185, 187. in eodem loco] The wording suggests that the subject-matter of

/3thomson/tcom3.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:8 ± disk/amj

264

COMMENTARY

c. 292 might have been part of a conversation between William and Walcher. 295±9, 302±3 consist of documents concerning the primacy of Canterbury, including one of the infamous `Canterbury Forgeries' (c. 296). Except for c. 297, they are given again in GP, cc. 25±7, 30±1 (pp. 39±43, 46±9), together with others, cc. 29 (pp. 44±6), 32±9 (pp. 49±62). William appears to have copied most of them from Eadmer, Hist. nov., and/or one of the early twelfth-century Canterbury cartularies, BL MSS Cotton Claud. E. v and Cleop. E. i. See R. W. Southern, `The Canterbury forgeries', EHR lxxiii (1958), 193± 226, proposing that the forgeries were made 1121±3. Gibson, Lanfranc of Bec, pp. 231±7, suggested that they might have already existed late in the previous century. Southern re®nes his position in Saint Anselm: A Portrait in a Landscape (Cambridge, 1990), pp. 359± 63, arguing for a precise date of 1120 for the main work of forging, while admitting the possibility of earlier experiments in the genre. 295 = Bede, HE i. 29; H & S iii. 29±30. 296 An extract from H & S iii. 74, given fully in GP, c. 32 (pp. 49± 51); probably copied from Eadmer, Hist. nov., pp. 263±5. 297 Councils, i(1). 579±80. Extracted from Lanfranc, Epist. vii, in The Letters of Lanfranc Archbishop of Canterbury, ed. H. Clover and M. T. Gibson (OMT, 1979), p. 62, dated Oct. 1071. The variant of pertinentia A/pertinacia CB is also re¯ected in the manuscript tradition of Lanfranc's Letters: pertinentia Vat. MS Reg. lat. 285 (V): pertinatia BL MS Cotton Nero A. vii (N), corr. to the V reading. 298±9 supply documents relating to the council held at Winchester and Windsor, Easter and Whitsun 1072, to settle the issue of primacy. 298 = Councils, i(1). 601±4, Letters of Lanfranc, pp. 44±9; given again in GP, c. 27 (pp. 42±3), without the subscriptions. William's text derives from that in BL MS Cotton Cleop. E. i. The version in Eadmer, Hist. nov., pp. 252±4, was copied from the alleged original, Canterbury, D & C. Ch. Ant. A. 1. `Wulfnoth' abbot of Chertsey is properly Wulfwold (1058?-84).

/3thomson/tcom3.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:8 ± disk/amj

BOOK III. 293.1±301

265

8 Ego Gosfridus abbas cenobii sancti Petri . . . situm est] i.e. Westminster. 299 = Councils, i(1). 605, Letters of Lanfranc, pp. 44±5; repeated in GP, c. 26 (p. 42). Again William seems to have used BL MS Cotton Cleop. E. i (there are no variants). 300. 1 Sidnacestrensem] Of uncertain location. See also 2 below, and above, c. 87. 3n, for the various possibilities which have been advanced. 2 Candida Casa quae nunc Witerne dicitur] `Candidam Casam, quod Anglice Witerne dicitur' GP, c. 116 (p. 254). Also, and more commonly, called Galloway from the twelfth century on: HBC, pp. 222±3, 310±11. Perierunt autem . . . quo nescio modo] For the disappearance of Leicester, Lindsey, and Dunwich see above, c. 87. 3n. The only known bishop of Ripon apart from Wilfrid is Eadhñth, translated from Lindsey c.679. The last bishop of Hexham was Tidferth, d. 821. Porro autem . . . in Exoniam] Ly®ng became ®rst bishop of both Crediton and Cornwall in 1027; in 1050, under his successor Leofric, the see was transferred to Exeter. 3 Sub rege Willelmo . . . in Lincoliam] Elmham was transferred to Thetford and Dorchester to Lincoln in 1072, Lich®eld to Chester and Selsey to Chichester in 1075, Ramsbury and Sherborne to Salisbury in 1078, Thetford to Norwich in 1094/5. The decision to move all but Elmham and Dorchester was taken at the council of London presided over by Lanfranc and held between 25 Dec. 1074 and 28 Aug. 1075: Councils, i(2), no. 92 (pp. 607±16, esp. p. 613). William's reference to `that same council' must mean the council of 1072 (above, cc. 298±9), and is therefore wrong. Nam Lindisfarnensis . . . in Bathoniam] The see of Lindisfarne was transferred ®rst to Chester-le-Street in 883, then to Durham in 995. John of Tours transferred the see of Wells to Bath in 1090; see below, cc. 340, 388. 301 The source is canon 1 of the council of London (Councils, i(2). 612±3), available to William in a number of manuscripts otherwise known to him, e.g. BL Cotton Cleop. E. i (ibid., p. 610).

/3thomson/tcom3.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:8 ± disk/amj

266

COMMENTARY

302 A briefer version is in VW ii. 1 (pp. 24±5). Eadmer, Hist. nov., pp. 10±11, tells the story of the pope standing to receive Lanfranc; otherwise William's account seems independent. Lanfranc's own Memorandum on the primacy of Canterbury (Scriptum de primatu) (21 Apr. 1073628 Aug. 1075) mentions his restrained anger in the face of Thomas's allegations in Rome, and the pope's decision to delegate adjudication of the matter to an English council: Letters of Lanfranc, pp. 42±5. William quotes verbatim from this document in GP, cc. 25± 6 (pp. 39±43). 303 Repeated, in much the same words, in GP, c. 132 (pp. 284±5). The simple, direct speech probably re¯ects the OE Life of Wulfstan by the Worcester monk Colman, of which William's VW is a translation. William retells the story, but without this feature, in VW ii. 1 (pp. 24±5). See Mason, St Wulfstan of Worcester, pp. 110±13. 1 Crede michi] `hoc enim sollempni iuramento utebatur', according to VW ii. 2 (p. 26). Darlington's note 12 refers to the epitome of the Benedictine Rule ascribed to Benedict of Aniane (PL lxvi. 939): `Iuramentum aliud nemo proferat nisi Crede mihi, sicut in Euangelio legimus Dominum Samaritanae af®rmasse, aut Certe, aut Sane'. Of this work there was an OE version, ed. A. S. Napier (EETS, orig. ser. cl: London, 1916); see p. 119 for the `translation' of this passage. 304 Catonis supercilium] Cf. Martial xi. 2. 1±2: `Triste supercilium durique seuera Catonis / frons'.

/3thomson/tcom4.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:11 ± disk/amj

BOOK IV The prologue announces that this Book is to be about the reign of William II and `certain events of his time, whether disasters in this country or great doings overseas . . . in particular the Christians' pilgrimage to Jerusalem'. The Book's structure does indeed correspond closely to William's intention. This means that the history of the First Crusade, which in any case occupies 46 of the Book's 84 chapters, can scarcely be regarded as a mere digression. The way in which William introduces it at c. 342 shows that he saw it as almost a separate work in its own right, and the manuscript tradition indicates that he polished his latinity in these chapters more than anywhere else in the GR. What should have been the Book's central topic, the reign of William Rufus, William obviously found nearly as distasteful and as dif®cult to deal with as that of áethelred II. His noble audience committed him to ®nd what he could to praise in Rufus, and not belabour his faults, which from the viewpoint of any ecclesiastic, let alone a monk, were grievous indeed. So Rufus's reign is covered in only 26 chapters: of these, natural and other disasters mirroring England's moral peril and portents of the king's death take up twelve (cc. 322±33); his death is described and commented upon at c. 333. The two major themes are towards the end of the Book (c. 389) linked by an extended treatment of Robert Curthose back home from Crusade. Both the themes prompted digressions: the reign of William gives rise to an account of the transfer of certain episcopal sees in England (cc. 338±41), and the story of the Crusade includes special attention to the careers of Godfrey of Lorraine, Baldwin I, Bohemond of Antioch, Raymond of Saint-Gilles, and Robert Curthose (cc. 343± 89), and the descriptions of Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, and Jerusalem (cc. 351±3, 354±6, 359, 367±8) which William foreshadowed in the preface. Digressions for their own sake are the origins of the Cistercian Order (cc. 334±7), and an appraisal of the writings of Goscelin of St Bertin/Canterbury (c. 342). For his account of Rufus's reign William shares information with ASC, Eadmer, John of Worcester, and Orderic Vitalis in particular, but seems to have obtained almost all of it independently of any of them, either from oral report or at ®rst hand. His sources for the

/3thomson/tcom4.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:11 ± disk/amj

268

COMMENTARY

history of the First Crusade, many and various, both written and oral, are discussed below, in the notes to cc. 343±89. Prol. The defence against criticism, including the evocation of Jerome, is similar to the sentiments expressed in Orderic's preface to Book vi (iii. 212±15), discussed by Chibnall, The World of Orderic Vitalis, pp. 38±40. 2 amor studiorum aurem uellit] Cf. Virgil, Ecl. vi. 3±4: `Cynthius aurem / uellit'. 4 canibus] Cf. Jerome, Praef. ad librum Iob (Biblia Sacra iuxta Vulgatam Versionem, p. 732). Si placet, legant; si non placet, abitiant] Cf. Jerome, Praef. ad librum Ezra (ibid., p. 639). Stulti facile possunt conuinci, dif®cile compesci] Not identi®ed. 5 Ibunt et in istas paginas . . . acciderunt] Cf. Suetonius, Tit. viii. 3: `Quaedam sub eo fortuita ac tristia acciderunt', of calamities, including the eruption of Vesuvius. Also cited below, c. 321. presertim de peregrinatione . . . a multis legatur] With William's justi®cation for the long digression on the First Crusade compare that of Orderic (v. 4±9). By `quod a multis scribitur' William means above all Fulcher of Chartres (see below, headnote to cc. 343± 84). However, `Neque uero con®do . . . commodius' is pure modesty topos, for when William comes to mention Fulcher by name (c. 374. 1) it is to censure him for his inelegant style. Orderic too names Fulcher of Chartres as an earlier chronicler of the Crusade, but in his case does not make use of him. 305 ASC (E) s.a. 1086 (recte 1087) says that Rufus was crowned by Lanfranc at Westminster `three days before Michaelmas day', which is the Feast of Cosmas and Damian (27 Sept.); John of Worcester says 26 Sept. Neither of these sources mentions Rufus's nomination by his father or the support of Lanfranc. The ®rst is mentioned by Orderic (iv. 92±7, v. 202±3): Barlow, William Rufus, pp. 49±50. A version of the second is in Eadmer (Hist. nov., p. 25): `Defuncto itaque rege Willielmo, successit ei in regnum Willielmus ®lius eius. Qui cum . . . Lanfrancum, sine cuius assensu in regnum ascisci nullatenus poterat, sibi in hoc ad expletionem desiderii sui non omnino consentaneum inueniret, uerens ne dilatio sue consecrationis inferret ei dispendium

/3thomson/tcom4.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:11 ± disk/amj

BOOK IV. PR.±305.3

269

cupiti honoris, coepit . . . ®de sacramentoque Lanfranco promittere, iustitiam, misericordiam et aequitatem se per totum regnum . . . seruaturum.' Both are referred to brie¯y in the notes on Lanfranc's primacy attached to ASC (E), ed. B. Thorpe, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle (2 vols.: RS, 1861), i. 387: `sicut pater constituit, Lanfrancus in regem elegit.' Some of this resembles the GR account, which, however, makes no reference to Lanfranc's hesitation. Freeman, William Rufus, ii. 491±4, contrasts William's relatively balanced characterization of William Rufus, here and at cc. 312 and 333, with the severity of GP, cc. 44, 48, 49, 55 (pp. 73, 79, 84, and 104). The obvious reason for the difference is that GR was written partly for courtly readers such as Robert earl of Gloucester, the GP for ecclesiastics. Freeman compares all the sources for Rufus's character at pp. 490±504. The main ones besides William are ASC (E) s.a. 1100, Orderic v. 202±5, and Henry of Huntingdon vii. 22 (pp. 446±9). All are critical of the same features of Rufus's character and rule. See T. Callahan, `The making of a monster: the historical image of William Rufus', Journal of Medieval History, vii (1981), 175± 85, esp. pp. 178±85: `Of all [the] second generation chroniclers William of Malmesbury . . . supplied the most complete and balanced account of William II . . . One must recognize, however, that his information on Rufus' reign is largely derived from earlier sources.' Callahan presumably means non-written as well as written sources, for only this would explain why `William displays considerably more goodwill towards Rufus than any previous writer'. 2 equitare, iaculari, certare] Cf. Sallust, Bell. Iug. vi. 1: `equitare iaculari, cursu cum aequalibus certare' (of the young Jugurtha), and Cicero, De of®c. ii. 45: `equitando iaculando'. post abdicationem fratris maioris] William is using `abdicatio' loosely, since at c. 282. 3 he says that Robert Curthose was bequeathed Normandy by his father `inuitus et coactus'. cum et tirocinium minoris nonnichil suspiceret] For possible reasons why William might have feared the young Henry see c. 390n. 3 Ita a patre . . . in successorem adoptatus] For discussion see Bates, William the Conqueror, pp. 118±21. It is certain that William the Conqueror promised the succession of Normandy to Robert; what he did about England is another matter, and doubt is cast on William of Malmesbury's de®nite statement by the well-known and highly ambiguous deathbed speech which Orderic attributes to the

/3thomson/tcom4.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:11 ± disk/amj

270

COMMENTARY

Conqueror (iv. 94±5): `I dare not transmit the government of [England] . . . to any man, but entrust it to God alone . . . I hope that my son William . . . may long prosper in the Lord, enjoy good fortune, and bring lustre to the kingdom if such is the divine will.' See R. H. C. Davis, `William of JumieÁges, Robert Curthose and the Norman succession', in his From Alfred the Great to Stephen, pp. 131±40. maximum rerum momentum, archiepiscopus Lanfrancus] Cf. Lucan iv. 819: `Momentumque fuit mutatus Curio rerum'; also echoed below, c. 339. 3. For `momentum' similarly applied, but echoing a different source, see above, c. 125. 4n. 306 The other main sources for the revolt of 1088 are ASC (E) s.a. 1087 (recte 1088) and Orderic (iv. 121±35). These accounts, and William's, all seem to be independent of each other; John of Worcester s.a. 1088, though based on a version of ASC, adds local detail of his own. The English accounts have Odo come to England before Christmas of 1087; at that time he was not planning rebellion, and only did so when he discovered, at the Christmas assembly, that his power in England was less than he had hoped (William speci®cally says that he objected to the greater powers exercised by the bishop of Durham); the other Normans join his revolt at a later date, when it is already well under way. Orderic's version, on the other hand, has the plot hatched between the ringleaders, all of whom cross the Channel together after Christmas. Arguments in support of the `English' version of events are advanced by Freeman, William Rufus, i. 22 seq., ii. 465±83, David, Robert Curthose, pp. 45±7, and Barlow, William Rufus, pp. 70±93. 2±3 Rogerius de Monte Gomerico . . . frustrabatur compendio] The rebel leaders named here are: (1) Roger II of Montgomery, earl of Shrewsbury (1074±94), on whom see J. F. A. Mason, `Roger de Montgomery and his sons (1067±1102)', TRHS, 5th ser. xiii (1963), 1±28; J. Le Patourel, The Norman Empire (Oxford, 1976), pp. 17, 63± 4; L. Musset, `L'aristocratie normande au XIe sieÁcle', in La Noblesse au moyen aÃge . . ., ed. P. Contamine (Paris, 1976), pp. 71±96, at 78±9. (2) Geoffrey bishop of Coutances (1049±93), on whom see J. Le Patourel, `Geoffrey of Montbray, bishop of Coutances, 1049±1093', EHR lix (1944), 129±61; M. Chibnall, `La carrieÁre de Geoffroi de Montbray', in Les eÂveÃques normandes du XIe sieÁcle, ed. P. Bouet and F. Neveux (Caen, 1995), pp. 279±93. (3) `Robertus comes Hum-

/3thomson/tcom4.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:11 ± disk/amj

BOOK IV. 305.3±306.5±6

271

brensium' is Robert of Mowbray earl of Northumberland (1086±95), a rebel according also to John of Worcester and ASC, on the king's side according to Orderic (iv. 128±9); but later in his work (iv. 278± 83) Orderic presents a very different view of him, which suggests that if he had been loyal early in Rufus's reign, he was not towards its end. William (and William alone) uses `Humbrensium' (as distinct from `Nordhumbrensium') only of this man. (4) Roger Bigod (d. 1107), the king's tenant-in-chief in East Anglia. (5) Hugh of Grandmesnil (d. ?1098), sheriff of Leicester. But the statement (also in ASC and John of Worcester) that William of Saint-Calais (bishop of Durham 1081±96) joined the rebellion is puzzling and is discussed by Freeman, William Rufus, i. 28, ii. 469±74, and W. M. Aird, `An absent friend: the career of Bishop William of St Calais', in Anglo-Norman Durham 1093±1193, ed. Rollason, Harvey, and Prestwich, pp. 283± 97, at 293±5. Freeman concluded that the information must be factually correct even though the bishop's conduct is hard to explain. 3 immortale in eum odium anhelans] Cf. Statius, Theb. iv. 609: `immortale odium spirans'. And above, c. 14. 1. apud Lanfrancum quereretur . . . Cantiae custodies] But earlier (c. 277. 2) William attributed the joke to William I himself, as does Orderic. crimina . . . antithetis] Persius i. 85±6: `crimina rasis / librat in antithetis'. 4 iamque Wigorniam infestus . . . quosdam abduxerunt] In GP, c. 144 (p. 285), William has Bishop Wulfstan solemnly curse the rebel army before the royal troops marched out to meet them. As a result, it was said, some of the army were cut down as they ¯ed in fear, others were rendered blind. William perhaps got this version orally from a Worcester source such as John, whose own written account (s.a. 1088) refers both to the blessing and cursing and contains other differences of detail. The growth of the legendary element in the successive versions of the event is traced by Freeman, William Rufus, ii. 475±81; see also Mason, St Wulfstan of Worcester, pp. 142±5. 5±6 Nec minori astutia . . . primus defecit] According to Orderic (iv. 126±7), Roger of Montgomery earl of Shrewsbury `and many Normans who were assisting the king in the siege [of Rochester] attempted secretly to help the besieged as far as they could, but they dared not openly raise arms against the king'.

/3thomson/tcom4.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:11 ± disk/amj

272

COMMENTARY

6 quos pater tutores reliquerat] Their names are not known. Given that Rufus was already about 27 years of age when his father died, tutor in this context must mean something like `adviser'. 7 tres ®lii Rogerii comitis] That is, the three eldest: Robert de BelleÃme, Hugh, and Roger: Mason, `Roger of Montgomery and his sons', p. 15 seq. et Eustachius Bononiae iunior] So ASC (E) s.a. 1087 (recte 1088); but it is unclear whether it was this Eustace or his father Eustace II: J. C. Andressohn, The Ancestry and Life of Godfrey of Bouillon (Indiana University Publications in Social Science, v: Bloomington, 1947), pp. 24±5, for the con¯icting evidence. The date of Eustace II's death is unknown. Apart from this reference, he is known to have been alive c.1082, dead by c.1092. 8 Seuerior ille malis] Cf. Statius, Theb. v. 654: `Fortior ille malis'. Also above, c. 97. 3. For echoes of this passage in other writings of William see Wright II, p. 497 n. 59. sub nomine Nithing] So also ASC (E) s.a. 1087 (recte 1088). The term was used, both legally and colloquially, in England and Scandinavia. It signi®ed a villain, one who commits a vile action: Bosworth and Toller, p. 723, Norges Gamle Love indtil 1387, ed. J. R. Keyser, P. A. Munch, G. Storm, and E. Hertzberg (5 vols.: Oslo, 1846±95), ii. 472. On this occasion it represented an appeal to English feeling, since neither the name nor the signi®cance of its public proclamation meant anything to Normans. It was applied, in a similarly public, quasi±ceremonial fashion, to Swein Godwinesson after he had murdered Beorn (above, c. 200. 2): ASC (C) s.a. 1049. 9 Inter has obsidionis moras . . . in mare precipitarunt] Freeman (William Rufus, ii. 481±3) points out that the early accounts, of which this is the most detailed, make it dif®cult to know whether what is being described was a sea-battle or the operation of a landforce attempting to prevent a landing from the sea. This passage was quoted, partly verbatim, by Roger of Wendover ii. 34. 307 William's account is largely independent of that in ASC (E) s.aa. 1090±1. The course of the `civil war' in Normandy is dif®cult to establish. John of Worcester s.a. 1091 and Robert of Torigni, GND ii. 204±7, agree that, after William Rufus arrived in Normandy in Feb. 1091, Robert Curthose came to an agreement with him whereby he was ceded certain fortresses and territories of which he had already

/3thomson/tcom4.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:11 ± disk/amj

BOOK IV. 306.6±309.2

273

gained control. Robert, ASC, and William are in agreement that King Philip of France supported Duke Robert shortly before the peace was negotiated. 1 cotidianam crapulam ructans] Cf. Jerome, Aduersus Iouinianum i. 1: `hesternam crapulam ructans'. 2 Pauci quibus sanius consilium . . . sacramento ®rmatum] The treaty must be dated to the end of Feb., and was established at Rouen (Orderic iv. 236±7): David, Robert Curthose, pp. 59±60; Freeman, William Rufus, ii. 522±8, who argues that William is wrong in speaking of peace as having been agreed and sworn to before Rufus crossed into Normandy. He also shows that there is good reason to think that William, ASC, and John of Worcester were dependent upon a written document for their description of the terms of the treaty. William and John specify the monastery of FeÂcamp, but the ducal palatium, within the same forti®cations, was included as well: Barlow, William Rufus, p. 281 and n. 79. 308 On the siege of Mont Saint-Michel see Freeman, William Rufus ii. 528±35, and David, Robert Curthose, pp. 63±4, comparing William's account with others. Orderic (iv. 250±1) says that the siege took place `in the middle of Lent' (26 Feb.Ð12 Apr. 1091). Here William correctly places it after the Treaty of 1091 (as Robert of Torigni, GND ii. 204±7). At c. 392. 4 it is wrongly made to follow closely after the death of Conan in 1090. 309±10 William is the unique source for these stories, which doubtless came to him by word of mouth. 309. 1 occiso sub feminibus deturbatus equo] Cf. Suetonius, Tit. iv. 3: `equo . . . sub feminibus amisso'. 2 placidus uultuque serenus] Lucan iv. 363: `at Caesar facilis uoltuque serenus'. Per uultum . . . de Luca] Again below, c. 320. 3, and GP, c. 48 (p. 80). A reference to the wooden image of Christ in the cathedral at Lucca, with which many miracles were associated. It was alleged to have been carved by Nicodemus, except for the face, the work of an angel carried out while he slept. It was said to have arrived in Italy in 782, but is probably actually an eleventh-century creation. See

/3thomson/tcom4.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:11 ± disk/amj

274

COMMENTARY

Barlow, William Rufus, pp. 116±17, and D. M. Webb, `The Holy Face of Lucca', Anglo-Norman Studies, ix (1986), 227±37. a magni quondam Alexandri . . . conseruauit] Julius Valerius, Res gestae Alexandri Macedonis ii. 9, ed. M. Rosellini (Leipzig, 1993), ii. 538±59, but more probably from the epitome of it, ed. J. Zacher (Halle, 1867), pp. 44±5. This was the commonest source for stories about Alexander in the twelfth century and beyond: G. Cary and D. J. A. Ross, The Medieval Alexander (Cambridge, 1956), pp. 24±6. pro per®dia ensis] Cf. Virgil, Aen. xii. 731±2: `At per®dus ensis / frangitur'. 310. 2 infectaque re . . . recepit] See Freeman, William Rufus, ii. 535±40, on Henry's movements after the surrender of Mont SaintMichel. But William is alone, and perhaps mistaken, in bringing him to England with his brothers in Aug. 1091. The charter of Bishop William of Durham which he allegedly witnessed in that year is a forgery: Durham Episcopal Charters 1071±1152, ed. H. S. Of¯er (Surtees Soc., clxxix, 1968), pp. 48±53; Barlow, William Rufus, pp. 287±8. Orderic, by contrast, has him wandering about Brittany and Normandy (iv. 250±3, 256±7, 292±3). 311. 1 Statimque primo . . . uirtutem impeditam] Freeman, William Rufus, ii. 69±113, provides detailed narrative of William's campaigns against the Welsh, 1093±7. Porro rex Henricus . . . perpetuo coherceant] For Henry's settlement of Flemings in Pembrokeshire see below, c. 401. 2 On Anglo-Scottish relations at this period see Ritchie, The Normans in Scotland, pp. 3±195, A. A. M. Duncan, Scotland: the Making of the Kingdom (Edinburgh, 1975), pp. 117±46, Kapelle, The Norman Conquest of the North, ch. 5, esp. pp. 148±53. William telescopes Malcolm's invasion of Northumbria of 1091 and his submission to Rufus that same year, the Scottish embassy at Gloucester in March 1093, and the meeting there between the two kings in Aug. Freeman, William Rufus, ii. 590±6, discusses the embassies and the circumstances surrounding Malcolm's death soon after, commenting (p. 591): `William of Malmesbury loses the facts of the embassies and the summons in a cloud of words.' Clearer are ASC and John of Worcester s.a. 1093. Orderic (iv. 268±71) also con¯ates the events of 1091 and 1093. Both his and William's accounts create the impression

/3thomson/tcom4.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:11 ± disk/amj

BOOK IV. 309.2±311.3

275

that Malcolm was attacked on his way back from Gloucester. In fact Malcolm got back to Scotland, put together an army, and raided Northumbria in revenge for Rufus's arrogant treatment of him at the Gloucester conference. multus pro pace precator] Cf. Hegesippus i. 5 (pp. 9±10): `multus ibi pro fratris salute domini precator'. 3 uxor Margareta . . . aquam infundens] She died on 16 Nov. 1093. Similar remarks on her holiness were made by ASC (D) s.a. 1067, Orderic (iv. 272±3), and Chron. de Hyda, pp. 311±13. But much closer to William and possibly his source is ?Turgot, Vita Margaretae, esp. cc. 9±10 (ed. Hinde, pp. 245±9), written 110461107. For discussion of the version edited by Hinde and a shorter one probably derived from it, and of Margaret and her cult, see D. Baker, ` ``A nursery of saints'': St Margaret of Scotland reconsidered', in Medieval Women, ed. D. Baker (Studies in Church History, Subsidia i: Oxford, 1978), pp. 119±41, and L. Huneycutt, `The idea of the perfect princess: the Life of St Margaret in the reign of Matilda II (1100±1118)', Anglo-Norman Studies, xii (1989), 81±97. Huneycutt makes the interesting suggestion that the Vita, dedicated to Margaret's daughter Queen Matilda, was actually commissioned by her, and that she modelled her own life upon her mother's as described in it (see below, c. 418). Edgarum ®lium eius . . . restitueret regno] In fact Malcolm Canmore had ignored Scottish custom which would have given the succession to his brother Donald Bane, in favour of his eldest son Edward. But Edward died in 1093, and Donald held the throne 1093± 7, opening a dispute from which Rufus could pro®t by siding with Malcolm's children. Donald's reign was brie¯y interrupted by Malcolm's son Duncan II (May-Nov. 1094), backed by Rufus. Eventually Donald was driven from the throne by Edgar (Duncan's half-brother), and captured and blinded by him in 1099. Thus policy rather than generosity was at the basis of Rufus's support for Edgar. Edgar in turn needed Rufus's support against Donald, and in 1099 came south to carry the sword at Rufus's crown-wearing. William is more realistic about Rufus's motives below, c. 400. 1. See Ritchie, The Normans in Scotland, pp. 60±6, Kapelle, The Norman Conquest of the North, pp. 191±5. paternarum iniuriarum] Cf. Terence, Heaut. 991±3: `matres omnes ®liis / in peccato adiutrices, auxilio in paterna iniuria / solent esse'; but William intends the opposite sense.

/3thomson/tcom4.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:11 ± disk/amj

276

COMMENTARY

312±13 The characterization of Rufus here is more severe than in c. 305 and leads William to some philosophical re¯ection based upon Cicero. It is dif®cult to account for the change made in c. 312. 2 between the TA and CB versions; the revised wording is only marginally less negative. The story at c. 313. 3, doubtless one that `did the rounds', is nonetheless known to us only from William. 312. 1 Inter initia . . . uitiorum atque uirtutum] Cf. Suetonius, Domit. iii. 2: `Circa administrationem autem imperii aliquamdiu se uarium praestitit, mixtura quoque aequabili uitiorum atque uirtutum, donec uirtutes quoque in uitia de¯exit: quantum coniectare licet, super ingenii naturam inopia rapax, metu saeuus.' uiuente Lanfranco archiepiscopo] Lanfranc died on 28 May 1089. 2 The ®rst of a series of modi®cations to his earlier judgements about Rufus made by William in CB; the others are at cc. 314. 5±315, 317± 19. All but the last represent a softening, but not obliteration of William's criticisms. They may represent a response, tactful but minimal, to pressure by others. On the other hand they may simply represent William's more mature and moderate judgement, ten to ®fteen years on. 3 Intus et in triclinio . . . sales transferret] Cf. Suetonius, Vesp. xxii: `Et super cenam autem et semper alias commisimus multa ioco transigebat'; xxiii. 1: `Maxime tamen dicacitatem adfectabat in deformibus lucris, ut inuidiam aliqua cauillatione dilueret transferretque ad sales.' For the irony implicit in these borrowings, see Wright III, pp. 21±3. multa ioco transigebat] Rufus was widely remembered for his ironic jests: e.g. below, c. 317, GP, c. 48 (pp. 79 and n. 5, 80); Eadmer, Hist. nov., pp. 25, 39, 116; Henry of Huntingdon vii. 21 (pp. 446±7); Chron. de Hyda, pp. 299±300. 313. 1 Sunt enim . . . contulerunt] Cf. Cicero, De of®ciis ii. 54±5: `Nonnunquam tamen est largiendum . . . sed diligenter et moderate. Multi enim patrimonia effuderunt inconsulte largiendo. Quid autem est stultius quam, quod libenter facias, curare ut id diutius facere non possis? Atque etiam sequuntur largitionem rapinae. Cum enim dando egere coeperunt, alienis bonis manus adferre coguntur. . . . Omnino duo sunt genera largorum, quorum alteri prodigi, alteri liberales: prodigi qui . . . in eas res quarum memoriam aut breuem aut nullam omnino sint

/3thomson/tcom4.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:11 ± disk/amj

BOOK IV. 312±314.2

277

relicturi, liberales . . . qui . . . captos a praedonibus redimunt aut aes alienum suscipiunt amicorum'. See Wright III, pp. 36±7. Bodl. Libr., MS Rawlinson G. 139, contains a copy of the De of®ciis with William's notes. 314. 1 Excitabat . . . animum] Cf. Suetonius, Calig. xxxviii. 1: `Exhaustus igitur atque egens ad rapinas conuertit animum'. Note the TA reading, closer to Suetonius, of rapinas instead of lucra. Rufus's use of imported mercenaries and their excesses provoked discontent expressed by other chroniclers, notably Eadmer, Hist. nov., pp. 192±3 (Freeman, William Rufus, ii. 498±9). See C. W. Hollister, The Military Organisation of Norman England (Oxford, 1965), pp. 168, 178±80. 1±2 Accessit regiae menti, fomes cupiditatum, Rannulfus . . . complacaret dominum] William has more on Ranulf below, cc. 393±4, somewhat balancing his criticism of him at c. 445. There is a similar account in GP, c. 134 (pp. 273±5), with harsh judgements which William eventually softened (see p. 274 nn. 1, 3). For Ranulf 's career see Freeman, William Rufus, ii. 557±62, and the very full appraisals in Barlow, William Rufus, pp. 193±204, R. W. Southern, `Ranulf Flambard', in his Medieval Humanism and other Studies (Oxford, 1970), pp. 183±205, and J. O. Prestwich, `Ranulf Flambard', in Rollason, Harvey, and Prestwich, Anglo-Norman Durham, pp. 299± 310. There are a great many contemporary and near-contemporary descriptions of Ranulf and his activities, all in similar vein; they are collected by Freeman, supplemented by Southern, p. 185 n. 1. The ones most like William's are Orderic v. 310±11, and Simeon of Durham, Continuatio (i. 135±41). 1 fomes cupiditatum] cf. Virgil, Aen. i. 176: `rapuitque in fomite ¯ammam'. The Virgilian reference may have prompted William to play on Ranulf 's nickname of `Flambard', by which he was by then well-known. See for instance ASC (E) s.a. 1128 and John of Worcester s.a. 1066 (Thorpe, ii. 35), both rendering it `Passe¯ambard(us)'. 2 namque audita morte cuiuslibet episcopi . . . inferret] Also noted as an unpleasant innovation of Rufus's in ASC (E) s.a. 1100, Eadmer, Hist. nov., pp. 26±7, Orderic (iv. 174±5), and Chron. Abingdon, ii. 42; discussion by Freeman, William Rufus, i. 345±65, ii. 564±7, and M. E. Howell, Regalian Right in Medieval England

/3thomson/tcom4.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:11 ± disk/amj

278

COMMENTARY

(London, 1962), pp. 10±19. The practice had been unknown in Anglo-Saxon England, where vacant bene®ces were in the custody of the local bishop (if an abbey) or archbishop (if a bishopric); custodianship by the prince was Norman (ultimately Carolingian) practice. According to Howell, the difference between William I and II in this respect was one between use and abuse. See also C. W. Hollister, `William Rufus, Henry I, and the Anglo-Norman Church', Peritia, vi±vii (1987±8), 119±40. 3 Nullus diues nisi nummularius . . . ®rmarius] Cf. Orderic (v. 202±5), and also GP, c. 64 (p. 121 n. 1): `Quis praeterea placitator nisi episcopi? Quis ®rmarius nisi archidiaconi?' 4 Soluta militari disciplina] Cf. Eadmer, Hist. nov., pp. 48±9, recording Archbishop Anselm's disquiet about the state of English morals in 1094: `Eo tempore curialis iuuentus ferme tota crines suos iuuencularum more nutriebat, et quotidie pexa ac irreligiosis nutibus circumspectans, delicatis uestigiis, tenero incessu obambulare solita erat.' There is a very similar tirade in Orderic (iv. 186±91), applied to the French generally and Normans in particular. William and Orderic are representative of the prevalent clerical attitude to courtly manners; other examples are collected by Freeman, William Rufus, ii. 499±503, and Barlow, William Rufus, pp. 101±10. Some of them (sodomy, long hair, outlandish footwear) were condemned at the council of Westminster, 1102: Councils, i(2). 676±8, 681; GP, c. 64 (pp. 119±20). But not all of the practices disapproved of ®rst began in the court of Rufus. William himself, in VW i. 16 (p. 23), gives a striking instance of Wulfstan's violent disapproval of the English (as against Norman) male fashion of wearing the hair long even before the Conquest. However, the fashion evidently spread to the Normans as well; at the council of Rouen in 1096 it was enacted that `no man shall grow his hair long; instead let him be shorn as be®ts a Christian, otherwise he shall be excluded from the threshold of the holy mother Church, so that no priest shall perform any divine of®ce for him, or of®ciate at his burial' (Orderic v. 22±3). Anselm's attitude is discussed by Southern, Saint Anselm: A Portrait in a Landscape, pp. 148±53. Discussions of the phenomenon over the longer term are H. Platelle, `Le probleÁme du scandale: les nouvelles modes masculines aux XIe et XIIe sieÁcles', Revue Belge de philologie et d'histoire, liii (1975), 1071±96, and C. S. Jaeger, The Origins of Courtliness: Civilizing Trends and the Formation of Courtly Ideals 939±1210 (Philadelphia, 1985), pp. 176±94.

/3thomson/tcom4.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:11 ± disk/amj

BOOK IV. 314.2±317

279

usus calceorum cum arcuatis aculeis inuentus] Orderic (iv. 186±9), who calls them pigaciae, credits their invention to Fulk Rechin count of Anjou, with the object of hiding his deformed feet, and observes that they were improved with the addition of long curved terminations, by `a certain worthless fellow' of Rufus's court named Robert. It was a long-lived fashion; Chibnall (Orderic iv. 187 n. 4) notes that such shoes (`souliers aÁ la poulaine', `pulley-shoes') were still worn in France in the seventeenth century, and that a specimen may be seen in the MuseÂe de Cluny in Paris. 5 expugnatores alienae pudicitiae] Cf. Cicero, Verr. ii. 1. 9: `non adulterum sed expugnatorem pudicitiae'. si Henricus regnaret CB] After a dramatic sermon from the bishop of SeÂez in 1105 on the moral laxity at court, Henry allowed the preacher to cut his own hair short, and was followed by his household: Orderic vi. 60±7. But this clerical triumph was short-lived. In HN, c. 453 (pp. 5±6), William is found again complaining about the return of long hair, ®rst at the royal court then throughout England, following Henry's return from Normandy in 1129: `obliti quid nati sunt, libenter se in muliebris sexus habitum transformant.' 315 For the circumstances of Anselm's departure, which took place on 8 Nov. 1097, William's source was Eadmer, Vita Anselmi, c. 22 (p. 98). si quicquam hoc solo sol uidisset indignius] Cf. Cicero, De of®c. ii. 28: `si hoc uno quicquam sol uidisset indignius'. 317 On Rufus and the Jews see Freeman, William Rufus, i. 160±5. In the CB version `semel apud Rotomagum . . . in¯ectere conati', although it does not directly involve the king, is clearly a reference to the story told in detail by Eadmer, Hist. nov., p. 99: `Ferebant . . . ad eum conuenire, conquerentes nonnullos ex suis, spreto Iudaismo, Christianos tunc nouiter factos fuisse, atque rogantes ut, sumpto pretio, illos, reiecto Christianismo, ad Iudaismum redire compelleret. Adquiescit ille, et, suscepto pretio apostasiae, iubet ex Iudaeis ipsis adduci ad se. Quid plura? Plures ex illis minis et terroribus fractos, abnegato Christo, pristinum errorem suscipere fecit.' Eadmer then continues with a story concerning one such convert, the young Jew Stephen at Rouen. William makes another reference to this story, this time implicating Rufus, in GP, c. 55 (p. 104 n.): `religioni Christianae

/3thomson/tcom4.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:11 ± disk/amj

280

COMMENTARY

magis ex usu quam amore addictus, ut qui plures Iudaeos Christianos factos ad Iudaismum pecuniis corruptus reuocaret.' The background to this was the massacre of Rouen Jews by intending Crusaders in 1096, accompanied by forced conversions: Guibert of Nogent, Monodiae ii. 5, ed. E.-R. Labande (Paris, 1981), pp. 246±8, S. Baron, A Social and Religious History of the Jews (2nd edn., 17 vols.: New York, 1952), iv. 102. See also H. G. Richardson, The English Jewry under Angevin Kings (London, 1960), pp. 1±9, 23±5, and N. Golb, Les Juifs de Rouen au moyen aÃge: portrait d'une culture oublieÂe (Rouen, 1985), pp. 3±142, discussing William's and Eadmer's stories at 91±9. William's anti-Semitism is documented by P. N. Carter, `The historical content of William of Malmesbury's Miracles of the Virgin Mary', in The Writing of History in the Middle Ages, pp. 127±65, at 146±54, and by R. W. Pfaff, `The ``Abbreviatio Amalarii'' of William of Malmesbury', Recherches de theÂologie ancienne et meÂdieÂvale, xlvii (1980), 77±113, at pp. 100±2, 104. 318 The loan of 10,000 silver marks made to Robert by William Rufus (in the late summer of 1096), and the king's extortion of the sum from his English subjects, are recorded and complained of by several other chroniclers, notably Eadmer, Hist. nov., pp. 74±6, and John of Worcester s.a. But there is disagreement about the terms of the loan: a period of three years is speci®ed by Eadmer and by Hugh of Flavigny, Chronicon (MGH SS, viii. 474±5), ®ve years by Orderic (v. 26±7, 208±9), `until the duke's return' by Robert of Torigni, GND ii. 210±13 (and 211 n. 6). Contrary to the impression given by William, the barons as well as the churches suffered: the references are given by Freeman, William Rufus, i. 555±60, and David, Robert Curthose, pp. 91±2. In GP, c. 271 (p. 432), William criticizes the then abbot of Malmesbury, Godfrey of JumieÁges, for stripping gospelbooks, cruci®xes, and reliquaries to pay the required contribution. 319. 1 uenationes . . . prendidisse ceruum] For the tightening of the Forest Laws see Freeman, Norman Conquest, iv. 621, William Rufus, ii. 155±7, contrasting what William says here with the law of William I. Eadmer, Hist. nov., p. 102, tells a story of men put to the ordeal after denying a charge of killing the king's deer. William repeated the same story in GP, c. 55 (pp. 104±5n), then tore the leaf out. The Forest Laws were not slackened by Henry I; clause 10 of his Coronation Charter speci®es that the forests shall be kept as they

/3thomson/tcom4.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:11 ± disk/amj

BOOK IV. 317±320

281

were under his father (EHD 2, p. 402), but in fact their boundaries were considerably extended. There is much about the practice of royal hunting in early twelfth-century England in Barlow, William Rufus, pp. 119±32, and about its administration in J. A. Green, The Government of England under Henry I (Cambridge, 1986), pp. 124±30. sepe contra eius salutem a ducibus coniuraretur . . . ] In 1088 (see above, c. 306), and in 1095±7; this is the rebellion which William is about to describe. Cf. ASC (E) s.aa. 1095±6 and John of Worcester s.a. 1095, who says that the object was to place Stephen of Aumale on the throne. Orderic (iv. 278±85) gives an extended account of the conspiracy, crediting Robert of Mowbray with the initiative but not indicating its precise object. Anselm, Epist. cxci (SAO iv. 77), July 1095, shows that an invasion of Kent was then thought imminent. captus et aeternis uinculis irretitus est] Orderic (ut supra) says that he lived for about thirty years in captivity. Initially he was con®ned at Windsor (ASC (E) s.a. 1095). 2 Willelmus de Ou . . . extesticulatus est] So all the sources including Orderic; for his identity see Orderic iv. 284±5 n. 5. The penalty was in line with the proscription in the Leges Willelmi, c. 10: `Interdico etiam ne quis occidatur aut suspendatur pro aliqua culpa, sed eruantur oculi et testiculi abscidantur' (Liebermann, Gesetze, i. 488; EHD 2, p. 400). Willelmus de Alderia . . . compater regis] `Hanged on a cross' according to ASC (E) s.a. 1096. Both ASC and John of Worcester s.a. 1097 say that he was the king's steward and the son of his mother's sister. Chron. de Hyda, p. 301, says `Erat enim idem corpore et animo et genere preclarus'. The relationship of compaternity, mentioned in this connection only in GR, had considerable signi®cance in canon law: J. H. Lynch, Godparents and Kinship in early Medieval Europe (Princeton, 1986), brings the story down to the Carolingian period; for the later period see M. J. Bennett, `Spiritual kinship and the baptismal name in traditional European society', in Principalities, Powers, and Estates: Studies in Medieval and Early Modern Government and Society, ed. L. O. Frappell (Adelaide, 1979), pp. 1±13. 320 Rufus was in the New Forest in June 1099 when the news of the siege of Le Mans reached him; he returned to England at Michaelmas of the same year. The various accounts of his daring voyage to recapture Le Mans are discussed by Freeman, William Rufus, ii.

/3thomson/tcom4.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:11 ± disk/amj

282

COMMENTARY

645±52, Barlow, William Rufus, pp. 402±6, and Chibnall in Orderic v. 256 n. 1. Orderic's account (v. 256) is the fullest and probably derives from an eyewitness. William, Henry of Huntingdon vii. 21 (pp. 446± 7), the Chron. Turonense (p. 362, probably dependent upon GR), and Robert of Torigni, GND ii. 212±13, report Rufus's remark that he had never heard of a king being shipwrecked; Orderic at least supplies a credible context for it. This must be the episode that Eadmer had in mind when, recalling Rufus's habitual (and in Eadmer's opinion undeserved) good fortune, he wrote: `Cum de Anglia in Normanniam transire, uel inde cursim prout ipsum uoluntas sua ferebat redire, uolebat, mox illo mari appropinquante omnis tempestas quae nonnunquam immane saeuiebat sedabatur, et transeunti mira tranquillitate famulabatur' (Hist. nov., p. 117). 1 Si cognoui iuuentutem meam, etiam naufragio ad me uenisse uolet] Cf. Lucan v. 493±4: `Si bene nota mihi est, ad Caesaris arma iuuentus / naufragio uenisse uolet'. The passage is also echoed in Mir., c. 32 (p. 134). 2 uidebitis elementa iam conspirata in meum obsequium] Similarly GP, c. 224 (p. 377): `uidebanturque in miserorum mortem omnia conspirasse elementa'. Cf. Claudian, De IV cons. Hon. 284±6: `Nonne uides, operum quod se pulcherrimus ipse / mundus amore ligat, nec ui conexa per aeuum / conspirent elementa sibi?' Freeman (William Rufus, ii. 646±7) thought that William also may have had in mind De III cons. Hon. 96±8: `O nimium dilecte deo, cui fundit ab antris / Aeolus armatas hiemes, cui militat aether, / et coniurati ueniunt ad classica uenti.' 3 Auctor turbarum . . . fugientem] On the accounts by William and Orderic of the interview between him and Rufus see Freeman, William Rufus, ii. 640±5. Orderic (v. 228±51) gives a much fuller account of the prolonged hostilities between the two men. William wrongly puts the capture of Helias and his meeting with William Rufus after the second recovery of Le Mans in Aug.-Sept. 1099 instead of after the ®rst, over a year earlier. It was on this ®rst occasion that Helias was captured, 28 Apr. 1098 (Orderic v. 254±61); nonetheless Chibnall (Orderic v. 248 n. 1) suggests that William's story and Orderic's may have derived from a common oral source. nichil, si me uiceris, pro hac uenia tecum paciscar] Lucan ii. 515: `nihil hac uenia, si uiceris, ipse paciscor'; and, for the whole

/3thomson/tcom4.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:11 ± disk/amj

BOOK IV. 320±1

283

context, lines 512±17. In Lucan the speaker was Julius Caesar, addressing the defeated Domitius after the battle of Cor®nium. Nec inferius factum uerbo fuit, sed continuo dimisit euadere, miratus potius quam insectatus fugientem] Cf. Sulpicius Severus, Dial. i. 12. 3: `unde quendam, si agnoscis, censeo iure laudandum, quod cum eum libertus deseruerit ingratus, miseratus est potius quam insectatus abeuntem'; Wright II, p. 530. Observe William's drastic substitution of `miratus' for Sulpicius' `miseratus'. 4 Lucanum legens] As above, and v. 577±88: `Fisus cuncta sibi cessura pericula Caesar / ``sperne minas'' inquit ``pelagi uentoque furenti / trade sinum. Italiam si caelo auctore recusas, / me pete. Sola tibi causa est haec iusta timoris, / uectorem non nosse tuum, quem numina nunquam / destituunt, de quo male tunc Fortuna meretur / cum post uota uenit. Medias perrumpe procellas / tutela secure mea. Caeli iste fretique, / non puppis nostrae, labor est: hanc Caesare pressam / a ¯uctu defendet onus. Nec longa furori / uentorum saeuo dabitur mora: proderit undis / ista ratis.'' ' et conscia uirtus] Cf. Virgil, Aen. v. 455, xii. 668. Also above, c. 234. 1, and HN, c. 488 (p. 48). Pitagoram Samium] Ovid, Met. xv. 160±1: `ipse ego (nam memini) Troiani tempore belli / Panthoides Euphorbus eram.' Met. xv. 60 identi®es the speaker as `Vir ortu . . . Samius'. John of Salisbury cites these lines in Policrat. vii. 10 (ed. C. C. J. Webb (2 vols.: Oxford, 1909), ii. 134). 321 Vnum edi®tium . . . magni®centiam exhiberet] ASC (E) s.a. 1097 remarks that `many shires whose labour was due at London were hard pressed because of . . . the work on the king's hall, that was being built at Westminster'. William differs from ASC and from Henry of Huntingdon vii. 19, 21 (pp. 444±7), in citing Rufus's building as an example of royal `liberalitas' and `magni®centia' rather than oppression. Henry retails a good story of Rufus's vainglory which was echoed by many others: `When he ®rst entered, to view it, some said that it was a good size, and others said that it was too large. The king said that it was only half large enough. This saying was that of a great king, but it was little to his credit.' The reference is to the new hall in the king's palace at WestminsterÐ Westminster Hall, `probably the greatest of the king's projects . . . ; it was at the time perhaps the largest hall in Europe, and, with its

/3thomson/tcom4.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:11 ± disk/amj

284

COMMENTARY

necessary auxiliary buildings, was in effect a new palace': Barlow, William Rufus, p. 372 and nn. The standard account of its construction is R. A. Brown, H. M. Colvin, and A. J. Taylor, The History of the King's Works, i. The Middle Ages (London, 1963), pp. 45±7. Gaimar, l. 5972 (p. 189) seq., recounts the king's great feast there in 1099 (Barlow, William Rufus, pp. 399±401). But this was only one of Rufus's major building enterprises: others were the walling of the Tower of London and London Bridge: Freeman, William Rufus, ii. 256±65; Brown, Colvin, and Taylor, pp. 25, 31. Si quis uero desiderat . . . cum ira succresceret] Wright III, pp. 19±20, notes Suetonian parallels for William's physical description of Rufus: Vesp. xx: `Statura fuit quadrata', Aug. lxxix. 2: `capillum . . . sub¯auum', Claud. xxx: `ira turpior spumante rictu . . . praeterea linguae titubantia', Tit. iii. 2: `praecipuum robor, quanquam neque procera statura et uentre paulo proiectiore.' crine suf¯auo, fronte fenestrata] See DMLBS iv, s.v. fenestrare for the use of this word by Goscelin as well as William, apparently to denote a contemporary fashion in men's hairstyle: Historia, miracula et translatio S. Augustini (AA SS, Maii vi. 394B: `frons mediante coma suis columnis resultabat fenestrata'; 398C: `frons speculatiua Dominice cruci patebat, quam media coma pro columna formose fenestrabat.' This is apparently the fashion condemned by Orderic (iv. 188± 9): `They shave the front part of their head, like thieves, and let their hair grow very long at the back, like harlots.' Plura sub eo . . . acciderunt] Cf. Suetonius, Tit. viii. 3, cited also above, bk. iv prol. 5. secundum cronicorum ®dem] The information in cc. 322±31 below is clearly parallel with ASC (E) and John of Worcester, but independent of both. The presumption is that William and John were drawing upon the same (lost) version of ASC. 322 Similarly ASC (E), and John of Worcester s.a. 1089. But only William mentions the motion of the buildings due to the earthquake. 323 As John of Worcester s.a. 1091. 324 Parallel to ibid. John of Worcester gives the length of the beams as 27 or 28 feet and does not mention that they were eventually cut level with the ground.

/3thomson/tcom4.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:11 ± disk/amj

BOOK IV. 321±30

285

327 Parallel to ibid., s.a. 1094, which does not specify the breakdown of farming and ensuing famine and plague. To `sepultura' the passage was copied into the annals of Margam s.a. 1091 (Annales Monastici, i. 5), no doubt from Ce1. 328 `The comet was also observed by the Chinese in early October, and they followed it until it went out of sight on October 25. It was recorded as having a bright tail reaching some 7 degrees on 15 October. This was certainly a comet with a rather long dust tail, or perhaps tails' (Donald K. Yeomans, NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Cal., email of 24 June 1996). See D. K. Yeomans, Comets: a Chronological History of Observation, Science, Myth and Folklore (New York, 1991), p. 393 and bibliography. William's account is like, but apparently independent of, those in ASC (E), and John of Worcester s.a. 1097. ASC speci®es 4 Oct.; John of Worcester gives the date as 29 Sept. ASC mentions that `the ray that shone from it appeared very long shining south-east, and it appeared nearly all the week in this fashion'. John of Worcester does not mention the comet's tail, but agrees with William in giving the comet a fortnight's duration. He adds that some people saw a burning cross in the sky. Neither authority mentions William's `other stars'. The comet was also observed by (Anselm of LieÁge in) Sigebert of Gembloux, s.a. (PL clx. 226): `Cometes in occidente apparuit tota prima ebdomada Octobris. Nimia aquarum inundatione autunnalis satio impeditur, et sterilitas frugum terrae sequitur.' 329 See above, c. 260. 1±2. Like John of Worcester s.a. 1098. Orderic (vi. 48±51) gives a more detailed account of this, the ®rst expedition of Magnus III (Barelegs), which was an attempt to invade Ireland using Man and Anglesey as bases. On his second expedition Orderic says that he was ambushed and killed in Ireland (v. 220±3); the probable date of his death is Aug. 1103. Freeman, William Rufus, i. 126±47, ii. 618±24, compares the various accounts of both expeditions. William's is apparently the only mention of Harold son of Harold Godwinesson. 330 Like ASC (E) (11 Nov.) and John of Worcester s.a. 1099 (3 Nov.). Only William speci®es the Thames; John of Worcester mentions damage to towns and the drowning of cattle and sheep.

/3thomson/tcom4.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:11 ± disk/amj

286

COMMENTARY

331±3 recount portents of the death of William Rufus. Apart from the sources referred to below, similar portents were mentioned by Orderic Vitalis (v. 284±9), who speci®es a dream of vengeance by a monk of St Peter's abbey Gloucester, reported to the king by Abbot Serlo, and a prophetic utterance of Fulchred abbot of Shrewsbury, in a sermon delivered at Gloucester on 1 Aug. Southern, in Vita Anselmi, pp. 122±3 n. 3, suggests that `the stories of William of Malmesbury and Orderic Vitalis, in so far as they are independent of Eadmer, all came from the . . . abbey of St Peter, Gloucester'. But in Orderic's case, the close connection of his family with Shrewsbury suggests that his information may have come via Fulchred himself (Orderic v. 286±7 n. 2). William's story of the monk's vision, presumably a variant of Orderic's, contains no reference to Gloucester at all. 331 William's account overlaps with, but is obviously not dependent on, those in ASC (E) and John of Worcester s.a. 1100: ASC mentions the blood bubbling out of the earth `at a village in Berkshire'. John of Worcester describes other portents: signs in the sun, moon, and stars, frequent high tides causing damage and drownings, a horriblelooking devil showing himself to a Norman in the woods. He too does not name the Berkshire village, and has the spring of blood last three weeks. Hamstede could be any one of Finchamstead, Hampstead Marshall or H. Norris, all called `Hamstede' in early sources; but Henry of Huntingdon (vii. 19; pp. 444±5) particularizes Finchampstead. The well was apparently destroyed early this century by roadwidening. The `blood', recorded by ASC (E) s.aa. 1098 and 1103, is thought to have been algal bloom: B. M. Grif®ths, `Early references to waterbloom in British lakes', Proceedings of the Linnean Society of London, cli (1938±9), 12±19, at pp. 15±16. 332 Eadmer, Vita Anselmi, c. 46 (pp. 123±4). Another account, apparently independent of Eadmer and William, is given by Hildebert of Le Mans in his Vita S. Hugonis Cluniacensis (PL clix. 869C70B). 333 William's account of the death of Rufus has much in common with that of Orderic (v. 288±91), though they are clearly independent of each other. For instance, Orderic has the warning dream of a Gloucester monk conveyed to the king in a letter from Abbot Serlo;

/3thomson/tcom4.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:11 ± disk/amj

BOOK IV. 331±333.7

287

William has a foreign monk tell of his dream (quite a different one from that of the Gloucester monk) to Robert Fitz Hamon who then told the king. For comparison of the accounts of William Rufus's death see Freeman, William Rufus, ii. 321±41, 657±76; Barlow, William Rufus, pp. 420±6; Brooke, The Saxon and Norman Kings, pp. 169±74; and C. W. Hollister, `The strange death of William Rufus', in his Monarchy, Magnates and Institutions in the AngloNorman World (London and Ronceverte, 1986), pp. 59±75. For his burial see Freeman, William Rufus, ii. 676±80. No contemporary suggested that Walter Tirel had intended to kill the king. He himself apparently asserted, even on his death-bed, that he had neither ®red the arrow nor been in the same part of the forest as the king: John of Salisbury, Vita S. Anselmi (PL cxcix. 1031), Suger, Vita Ludouici, c. 1 (pp. 12±13). 1 Pridie . . . emittere] Wright III, p. 24, notes the parallel with Suetonius, Calig. lvii. 3: `Pridie quam periret, somniauit . . .'. Note that TA's periret, instead of excederet uita, is closer to Suetonius. 2 sidera lamberent] Cf. Virgil, Aen. iii. 574: `attollitque globos ¯ammarum et sidera lambit'. 3 Multum tamen motus . . . experiretur] Cf. Suetonius, Calig. lviii. 1: `cunctatus an ad prandium surgeret . . . tandem suadentibus amicis egressus est'. 4 letali harundine] Cf. Virgil, Aen. iv. 73: `haeret lateri letalis harundo'; also above, c. 243. 6 Secuta est posteriori anno ruina turris . . . fuisset CB] The tower fell in 1107 (Annales de Wintonia in Annales Monastici, ii. 43), so that the TA reading of `posterioribus annis' is better. Strangely, however, TA's extension of time between Rufus's burial and the tower's ruin supports William's greater scepticism in the CB versions. 7 Obiit . . . Augusti] 2 Aug. 1100; so also John of Worcester s.a. Orderic (v. 282±3) says that William's death occurred `towards Rogation time', that is 7±9 May; Robert of Torigni, GND ii. 214± 15, says 1 Aug. si pensa Parcarum euoluere uel uiolentiam fortunae abrumpere . . . potuisset] Cf. Virgil, Aen. vi. 882: `Heu, miserande puer, si qua fata aspera rumpas'. ante proximam diem mortis . . . pro pecunia inuadaturus

/3thomson/tcom4.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:11 ± disk/amj

288

COMMENTARY

dicebatur] Orderic (v. 280±1) describes the arrangements in more detail, and how they came to naught through the king's death soon after. He says that the count proposed to pledge not only Poitou but the duchy of Aquitaine and all his other lands as well, but this is not convincing. The reference is to William VII count of Poitou, IX duke of Aquitaine (1071±1126), and the Crusade of 1101±2 (below, c. 383 and nn.). 8 Nullum suo tempore concilium ®eri memini] Cf. John of Worcester s.a. 1097: `inter regem et . . . archiepiscopum Anselmum orta dissensione, quia ex quo archipraesul effectus est, synodum tenere et praua, quae per Angliam pullulauerant, non licuit corrigere'. Eadmer, Hist. nov., p. 48, has Anselm rebuke the king during Lent of 1094 for the lack of a synod: `Generale concilium episcoporum ex quo tu rex factus fuisti non fuit in Anglia celebratum, nec retroactis pluribus annis'Ðsomething of an exaggeration, as Lanfranc's last synod was held in 1085. eo die quo excessit tres episcopatus et duodecim abbatias desolatas . . . teneret] Similarly ASC (E) s.a. 1100, which correctly names the three bishoprics as Canterbury (since Anselm was in exile), Salisbury, and Winchester, but speci®es eleven vacant abbacies. The ®gure is in any case uncheckable. Houses known to have been vacant at the right time are Abingdon, Bury, Chertsey, Colchester, Ely, Glastonbury, and Winchester (New Minster), but there are many gaps in the records. Barlow, William Rufus, pp. 181±5, offers some explanations and excuses for Rufus's conduct. 9 Quin et accepta occasione . . . pronuntiaret] See the discussion in Freeman, William Rufus, i. 415±17, 481±553. In reality Rufus had no particular preference for Wibert: but he had an interest in keeping the question open in order to gain the maximum papal and archiepiscopal acknowledgement of his rights as sovereign ruler of England. 334±7 The most up-to-date and in¯uential discussions of Cistercian origins to and including William's time are L. J. Lekai, The Cistercians: Ideals and Reality (Kent, Oh., 1977), esp. pp. 11±24, and J.-B. Auberger, L'unanimite cistercienne primitive: mythe ou reÂaliteÂ? (Achel, 1986). Knowles, The Monastic Order in England, pp. 225±6, and Lekai, pp. 12, 15±16, 23±4, discuss William's account of their origins and early development, noting the detail and accuracy

/3thomson/tcom4.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:11 ± disk/amj

BOOK IV. 333.7±334.2

289

of his description of their customs. William's account bears remarkable similarities to that of Orderic (iv. 313±27), which includes, for instance, a similar speech of Stephen's to the monks of Molesme. On the early Cistercian documents, against which William's information can sometimes be checked, see Knowles, pp. 752±3, Lekai, pp. 21±32, and C. Morris, The Papal Monarchy; The Western Church from 1050 to 1250 (Oxford, 1989), pp. 240±5, 613. Some of William's detailed information is found in them, especially the Exordium parvum, possibly written by Stephen Harding between 1112 and 1119, ed. J. de la Croix Bouton and J. B. van Damme, Les plus anciens textes de CõÃteaux (Achel, abbaye de Saint-ReÂmi, 1974), pp. 54±86, trans. B. Lackner in Lekai, pp. 451±61, and the capitula et constitutio approved by the pope in 1119, as preserved in the Exordium Cistercii et Summa cartae caritatis (written c.1123±4), ed. Bouton and van Damme, pp. 110±25. 334. 1 optima uia summi in caelum processus] Cf. Juvenal i. 38±9: `in caelum quos euehit optima summi / nunc uia processus'. simul et laudes . . . non esse suspires] Cf. Libellus de diversis ordinibus, ed. and trans. G. Constable and B. Smith (OMT, 1972), p. 15: `Love in others what you yourself do not have, so that another shall love in you what he does not have, so that what either does shall be good for the other and those shall be joined in love who are separate in works'. 2 a puero Scireburniae monachus] Whatever the circumstances of Stephen's leaving Sherborne, near the end of his life he wrote to the abbot and community in cordial terms: C. Waddell, `Notes towards the exegesis of a letter by Saint Stephen Harding', in Noble Piety and Reformed Monasticism, ed. E. R. Elder (Cistercian Studies Series, lxv: Kalamazoo, Mich., 1981), pp. 10±39. Romam . . . profectus est] His companion was another Englishman, named Peter, who died as prior of Jully (a cell of Molesme) in 1136: Vita sancti Petri prioris Iuliacensis puellarum monasterii et monachi Molismensis (PL clxxxv. 1257±70), H. E. J. Cowdrey, `Peter, monk of Molesme and prior of Jully', in Cross Cultural Convergences in the Crusader Period: Essays presented to Aryeh Grabois on his Sixty-Fifth Birthday, ed. M. Goodich, S. Menache, and S. Schein (New York, 1995), pp. 59±73. The Vita supports William in saying that the two men recited the Psalter daily (PL clxxxv. 1259).

/3thomson/tcom4.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:11 ± disk/amj

290

COMMENTARY

3 Molesmo, nouo et magno monasterio] Molesme was founded in 1075. 3±5 Ratione . . . doctrinam] The signi®cance of the speech which William attributes to Stephen, particularly the role which it assigns to reason, has been underscored by C. Waddell, `The origin and early evolution of the Cistercian Antiphonary: re¯ections on two Cistercian chant reforms', in The Cistercian Spirit: a Symposium in memory of Thomas Merton, ed. M. B. Pennington (Washington, 1973), pp. 190± 223, at 202±4; Waddell, `The reform of the liturgy from a renaissance perspective', and G. Constable, `Renewal and reform in religious life: concepts and realities', in Renaissance and Renewal in the Twelfth Century, ed. R. L. Benson and G. Constable (Oxford etc., 1982), pp. 88±109, at 104±5, and pp. 37±67, at 61±2 and n. 130; and G. Constable, The Reform of the Twelfth Century (Cambridge, 1996), pp. 143±4. 4 Ratio enim . . . debeamus adhibere?] Similar to the discussion of the relationship between reason and authority found in Abelard, Sic et Non, prol. (PL clxxviii. 1339±40). 5 omnium iustorum spiritu] From Gregory, Dial. ii. 8. 335. 1 ne forte . . . cucurrissent] Gal. 2: 2. ipse abbas] Robert of Molesme, whose important role in the reform is underplayed by William in favour of the English Stephen Harding. On the views of William and other contemporaries about him see B. P. McGuire, `Who founded the Order of CõÃteaux?', in The Joy of Learning and the Love of God; Studies in honor of Jean Leclercq, ed. E. R. Elder (Cistercian Studies Ser., clx: Kalamazoo, Mich., 1995), pp. 389±413, citing earlier literature; see especially J.-A. LefeÁvre, `S. Robert de Molesme dans l'opinion monastique du xiie et du xiiie sieÁcle', Anal. Boll. lxxiv (1956), 50±83; B. Lackner, The EleventhCentury Background of CõÃteaux (Washington, 1972), pp. 217±74; and H. E. J. Cowdrey, ` ``Quidam frater Stephanus nomine, Anglicus natione'': the English background of Stephen Harding', RB ci (1991), 322±40. 2 Soli decem et octo] Twenty-one according to the Exordium parvum, c. 3 (Bouton and van Damme, p. 59; Lekai, p. 452). Their departure took place in 1098. Hardingus qui et Stephanus] H. E. J. Cowdrey comments (letter of 15 Sept. 1997) that `so far as I know, he is never called Stephen

/3thomson/tcom4.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:11 ± disk/amj

BOOK IV. 334.3±336.1

291

Harding in a medieval source; at some time when in France, perhaps before his journey to Rome, he abandoned his English name for the scriptural Stephen, and he is so called in Cistercian documents.' archiepiscopi Viennensis, qui nunc apostolicus est] Guy, archbishop of Vienne 1090±1119, Pope Calixtus II, 2 Feb. 1119Ð13 Dec. 1124. 336 See Archdale A. King, Liturgies of the Religious Orders (London, 1955), pp. 62±154 on the Cistercian liturgy, pp. 66±72 on its earliest development, B. Lackner, `The liturgy of early CõÃteaux', in Studies in Medieval Cistercian History presented to J. F. O'Sullivan (Cistercian Studies Ser., xiii: Spencer, Mass., 1971), pp. 1±34, and Lekai, pp. 248±51. According to King the details provided by William in this section are all found in the Ecclesiastica of®cia (also called Liber usuum or Usus antiquiores ordinis Cisterciensis), written c.11206c.1130, ed. P. Guignard, Les Monuments primitifs de la ReÁgle cistercienne (Dijon, 1878), pp. 87±190 (as part of the Consuetudines), the earliest version ed. B. Griesser, `Die ``Ecclesiastica Of®cia Cisterciensis Ordinis'' des Cod. 1711 von Trient', Analecta Sacri Ordinis Cisterciensis, xii (1956), 153±288 (text at pp. 179±280); see Lackner, `The liturgy', pp. 26±32. But in fact not all of William's details are found there, and he may be recording some earlier practices modi®ed or abandoned in the Liber usuum. It is hard to know how William had access to this information (and that at c. 337. 2) prior to the ®rst Cistercian foundation in England (Waverley, 1128). To me it seems most likely that he gained it on a visit to an actual Cistercian house on the Continent. Evidence that he had been to Normandy was advanced above (cc. 180.11n, 241±4); there is no reason why he should not have gone into France itself. He would not have had to go far to ®nd the abbey of L'AumoÃne (dioc. Chartres, founded 1121), of which Waverley was later to be a daughter-house. 1 nichil pellitium aut lineum uestiunt . . . lota restituunt] This is the most detailed account extant of early Cistercian regulations on clothing. Cf. Orderic iv. 314±15: `a femoralibus et staminiis pelliciisque secundum regulam abstineamus', Exordium parvum, c. 15 (Bouton and van Damme, p. 77; Lekai, p. 459), and especially Exordium Cistercii et Summa cartae caritatis, c. 11 (Bouton and van Damme, p. 122): `Vestitus simplex et uilis absque pelliciis, camisiis, staminiis,

/3thomson/tcom4.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:11 ± disk/amj

292

COMMENTARY

qualem denique regula describit'. Chibnall translates Orderic `breeches and shirts and lambskins', commenting that `pellicia' might mean `furs', but William denies that the Cistercians wore furs, and (as Chibnall notes) Walter Map refers to `pellicias agninas', which were certainly lambskins: De nugis curialium, pp. 84±5. sed ita horam matutinarum temperant . . . praetereundum putent] Close to Exordium Cistercii et Summa cartae caritatis, c. 9 (Bouton and van Damme, p. 121): `stabilitum est primo quidem ut ab omnibus Regula beati Benedicti uno intelligatur, nec uel in uno apice ab ea deuietur.' 2 Statim post laudes . . . consummant] Eccl. of®c., c. 69, has prime immediately after lauds, but then mass and chapter. Nullus ex horis diurnis . . . silentium] Cf. Eccl. of®c., c. 79: `Post uesperas . . . non signi®cent nisi de mandato hospitum'. quia nec ipsi nec aliis . . . nisi in®rmis] Exordium Cistercii et Summa cartae caritatis, cc. 12±13 (Bouton and van Damme, p. 122): `In uictu praeter hoc quod regula distinguit, de panis libra, de mensura potus, de numero pulmentariorum hoc etiam obseruandum, ut panis grossus id est cum cribro factus . . . Quae lex in®rmis non tenebitur, sed et hospitibus quibus iussum fuerit guastellus apponetur . . . (c. 13) Pulmentaria intra monasterium sint semper et ubique sine carne sine sagimine nisi propter omnino in®rmos et arti®ces conductos.' 3 Ab idibus Septembris . . . soluunt] Cf. Exordium Cistercii et Summa cartae caritatis, c. 14 (Bouton and van Damme, p. 122): `In quadragesima, ante Natiuitatem Domini et in Septuagesima et in omni VIa feria praeter in®rmos et ieiuniis quatuor temporum in Septembri, in uigiliis sanctorum . . . quadragesimali uescimur cibo.' Numquam claustrum nisi causa operandi egrediuntur] Cf. Exordium Cistercii et Summa cartae caritatis, cc. 15±16 (Bouton and van Damme, p. 123): `Monachis nostri ordinis debet prouenire uictus de labore manuum . . . Ad haec exercenda nutrienda conseruanda seu prope seu longe grangias habere possumus per conuersos custodiendas et procurandas. (c. 16) Nam monachi [sic pro monacho], cui ex regula claustrum propria debet esse habitatio, licet quidem quociens illuc mittitur ire, sed nequaquam diutius habitare.' Horas canonicas . . . pro defunctis] By `outside additions' William presumably meant accretions, mainly hagiographical, to the Night Of®ce readings, which were pruned away in favour of readings from Scripture and commentaries by the most highly-regarded Fathers.

/3thomson/tcom4.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:11 ± disk/amj

BOOK IV. 336.1±337.2

293

Eccl. of®c., cc. 50±2, concern the Of®ce of the Dead. According to Constable, Reform of the Twelfth Century, p. 205, the Vigils of the Dead were at ®rst abolished, but restored c.1130. In the light of William's testimony, the latter date has clearly to be revised to c.1120. Cantus et himnos . . . diuinis of®tiis] William presumably means the melodies and texts of the Ambrosian hymns which the Cistercians sought from Milan, probably between 1109 and 1113: King, pp. 97±8, Lackner, `The liturgy', pp. 6±7. These comprised thirty-three items, including twelve of the fourteen now accepted as genuinely Ambrosian; they are listed in Eccl. of®c., c. 100 (p. 71), and in M. B. Kaul, `Le psautier cistercien. Appendice: Tableau analytique de l'hymnaire cistercien', Collectanea Ordinis Cisterciensium Reformatorum, xiii (1951), 257±72, at pp. 264±6. See The Twelfth-Century Cistercian Hymnal, ed. C. Waddell (2 vols.: Gethsemani Abbey, Kent, Oh., 1984), Stephen's Monitum on the chant (probably written between 1108 and 1112) ed. at ii. 11±12, commentary esp. i. 18±22. The other chants for the Mass and Of®ce were sought by the Cistercians from Metz, which they thought (wrongly) preserved a particularly pure Gregorian tradition: King, pp. 93±5; Lekai, pp. 250±2; Waddell, `The origin and early evolution of the Cistercian Antiphonary: re¯ections on two Cistercian chant reforms', pp. 204±6, and `The reform of the liturgy from a renaissance perspective', in Renaissance and Renewal in the Twelfth Century, pp. 105±6. 337 On Robert, Alberic, and Stephen as abbots of CõÃteaux see J. B. van Damme, Les trois fondateurs de CõÃteaux (La Trappe, 1966). Robert returned to Molesme in 1098; Alberic was abbot 1099±1109, Stephen 1109±33. 1 Haec abbas . . . repetens thronum] Orderic iv. 322±5, supported by the narrative and papal and legatine letters in Exordium parvum, cc. 5±7 (Bouton and van Damme, pp. 62±8; Lekai, pp. 453± 5), states that the pope (Urban II), approached by the community of Molesme, commanded Robert to return there. However Lekai, pp. 14±16, discusses William's interpretation sympathetically, believing that it was probably based on Cistercian sources. He suggests that Robert had a secret understanding with the monks of Molesme and that he had given his prior consent to their appeal to the pope. 2 pauci numero sed multi merito] Cf. Virgil, Aen. v. 754: `exigui numero, sed bello uiuida uirtus'.

/3thomson/tcom4.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:11 ± disk/amj

294

COMMENTARY

dux . . . facti] Cf. ibid. i. 364; also above, c. 37. 1. abbatiae sedecim . . . septem ceptae] Is it possible to gauge the accuracy of William's list of early Cistercian foundations? Two assumptions are necessary to arrive at a satisfactory answer: (1) that William's ®gures are likely to be imperfect by omission; (2) that the `septem coeptae', all being un®nished at the same time, must have been begun at about the same time. Using Tables I±VII (before p. 28) of F. Van der Meer, Atlas de l'ordre cistercien (Amsterdam, 1965), we ®nd that the ®rst sixteen houses founded from CõÃteaux bring us down to the year 1121. Two more houses were founded in that year, then there is a gap, with precisely seven houses founded in 1123±4; thereafter another gap, and two more foundations in 1126. (These ®gures are unaffected by the corrections to the Atlas published in CõÃteaux, xvii (1966), 119±44, xx (1969), 355±63, and in Analecta Cisterciensia, xxii (1966), 279±90, xxiii (1967), 115±52, and xxvi (1970), 265±78.) I believe that William's `septem coeptae' must mean the houses founded in 1123 and 1124. His ®gures are therefore both up-to-date and reasonably accurate. 3 illud desuper ueniens irriguum] Cf. Joshua 15: 19 (= Judges 1: 15): `et dedit . . . irriguum superius et inferius'. est enim Stephani marsupium . . . ] Stephen Harding died on 17 Apr. 1134. 4 nichil ibi, sicut in ceteris cenobiis . . . frui conscientia] Cf. Exordium parvum, c. 17 (Bouton and van Damme, pp. 81±4; Lekai, pp. 460±1), and Exordium Cistercii et Summa cartae caritatis, cc. 25±6 (Bouton and van Damme, pp. 124±5): `Altarium linteamina, ministrorum indumenta sine serico sint praeter stolam et manipulum. Casula uero nonnisi unicolor habeatur. Omnia monasterii ornamenta, uasa, utensilia sine auro et argento et gemmis praeter calicem et ®stulam, quae quidem duo sola argentea et deaurata, sed aurea nequaquam habere permittimus. (c. 26) Sculpturas nusquam, picturas tantum licet habere in crucibus quae et ipsae nonnisi ligneae habeantur.' ut gentilis ait] Persius ii. 69: `dicite, ponti®ces, in sancto quid facit aurum'. 4±5 Nos in sacratis uasis . . . desidiosorum oestrum] A similarly admiring description of the early Cistercians is given by Orderic (iv. 324±7). William gives another vivid description of gems, including emeralds, above at c. 135. 3.

/3thomson/tcom4.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:11 ± disk/amj

BOOK IV. 337.2±338.2

295

4 smaragdorum lux herbida] Prudentius, Psych. 862±3: `smaragdina gramine uerno / prata uirent, uoluitque uagos lux herbida ¯uctus'. 5 cuius perpetua lex est . . . consistere] cf. Seneca the Elder, Controversiae i pr. 7: `fato . . . cuius maligna perpetuaque in rebus omnibus lex est ut ad perducta rursus ad in®mum . . . relabantur.' 338 From `Herbertus cognomento Losinga'Ðc. 339 = GP, c. 74 (pp. 151 line 6±152 line 21), almost verbatim but omitting the poem. 1 Losinga] Fr. `losenge', ¯attery (Anglo-Norman Dictionary, p. 392). E. M. Goulburn and H. Symonds, The Life, Letters, and Sermons of Bishop Herbert de Losinga (2 vols.: Oxford and London, 1878), i. 2±4, Plummer in Two Saxon Chronicles, ii. 281, and Tengvik, Old English Bynames, p. 349, thought `Losinga' more likely to be a family name, seeing that his father also bore it. In addition, Plummer pointed out that it cannot have derived from Lotharingia (as with Bishop Robert Losinga of Hereford), since Herbert came from the Norman HieÂmois. John of Worcester s.a. 1094 gives William's explanation: `Hereberhtus, qui cognominabatur Losinga, quod ei ars adulationis nuper egerat'. `nuper egerat' makes little sense, and probably represents a corruption of William's `impegerat', suggesting a common source, written and in Latin. Herbert was abbot of Ramsey 1087±90/1, bishop of Thetford from 1090/1, the see moved to Norwich in 1094/5, d. 22 July 1119: Heads, p. 62; J. Le Neve, Fasti Ecclesiae Anglicanae 1066±1300, ii. Monastic Cathedrals, ed. D. E. Greenway (London, 1971), p. 55. On him see Goulburn and Symonds, Herbert de Losinga, and B. Dodwell, `The foundation of Norwich Cathedral', TRHS, 5th ser. vii (1957), 1±18. patre quoque suo Rotberto . . . in abbatiam Wintoniae intruso] Robert was abbot of New Minster probably from 1088 until 1098 (Heads, p. 82). 2 Surgit . . . et abba] Walther, Initia 18920; Manitius iii. 56±7. The unknown author was obviously English. Twenty-two lines are in BL MS Royal 8 E. xviii, fo. 77v (s. xii, Leominster), and in MS Harley 3262, fo. 116 (together with c. 449. 5 below), probably from GR; the whole (®fty lines) ed. H. Boehmer, MGH Lib. de Lite, iii. 615±17, relying mainly on Leiden, Bibl. der Rijksuniv. MS lat. 130 (an addition s. xiex to a book given to Egmond before 1083). The two sections quoted by William are copied as one in the Eulogium iii. 55.

/3thomson/tcom4.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:11 ± disk/amj

296

COMMENTARY

Some of the imagery is paralleled in Marbod, De abbate usurpante ponti®calia (PL clxxi. 1636): `centauro simile monstrum reor esse biforme', and Henry of Huntingdon, De contemptu mundi, c. 15 (p. 610), on Henry of Blois bishop of Winchester: `nouum quoddam monstrum ex integro et corrupto compositum, scilicet monachus et miles'. Simonidum secta] The reference is to `simony' (see below, cc. 339. 1, 344. 3), the practice of offering money for a spiritual of®ce; it took its name from the peculiar sin of Simon Magus (Act. 8: 18±24). 339 So GP, c. 74 (pp. 151 line 14Ð152 line 21), almost verbatim but adding a story about Herfast bishop of East Anglia (1070±c.1085). Note William's ambivalent judgement on the Church's move towards ®nancial centralization, one of the main results of the Investiture Contest. He attributes it to Roman greed. For other, more outspoken comments by William on Roman avarice see cc. 341. 1, 351, 353. 1, 435. 1, and, above all, Mir., c. 31 (p. 129): `Domestico et naturali Romanis malo ut sint auarissimi, sicut et in ueteribus historiis est legere, et his temporibus approbare'. Similar comments were made by others at the time, for instance Orderic (ii. 60±1, iv. 7±8, 20±1, 24±7), and Suger (Vita Ludovici, cc. 10, 27; pp. 52±3, 216±17). On the context see J. Yunck, `Economic conservatism, papal ®nance, and the medieval satires on Rome', in Change in Medieval Society, ed. S. Thrupp (New York, 1964), pp. 72±85, and J. Benzinger, Invectiva in Romam; Romkritik im Mittelalter vom 9. bis 12. Jahrhundert (LuÈbeck and Hamburg, 1968), esp. pp. 100±5. 2 Praeterea apud Tetford . . . in Deo] For other admiring comments by William on the Cluniacs see above, cc. 216, 265. 3, below c. 413. 1, and Mir., c. 19 (p. 105). disertitudinis et litterarum copia] His letters and sermons survive: Sharpe, Handlist of the Latin Writers of Great Britain and Ireland, p. 178. The letters were ed. R. Anstruther, Epistolae Herberti de Losinga (Brussels and London, 1846), the letters trans. and sermons ed. and trans. Goulburn and Symonds. The non-classical word `disertitudo' was much used by Jerome, e.g. Comm. in Ionam, prol. (PL xxv. 1118), Epist. cxix. 1. 3 momentum et mutatio rerum] Cf. Lucan iv. 819, also echoed above, c. 305. 3. Errauimus iuuenes, emendemus senes] Epist. lxxxiv. 6.

/3thomson/tcom4.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:11 ± disk/amj

BOOK IV. 338.2±340.2

297

340 John de Villula of Tours was bishop of Bath and Wells 1088Ð29 Dec. 1122. A similar account is in GP, c. 90 (pp. 194±6), in more detail but using some of the same language. Also Historiola de primordiis episcopatus Somersetensis (written soon after 1175) in Ecclesiastical Documents, ed. J. Hunter (RHS Camden old ser., viii, 1840), pp. 21±2. The transfer of the bishopric to Bath and the union of the abbey with the bishopric by John are discussed by Freeman, William Rufus, i. 136±9, ii. 483±90, and R. A. L. Smith, `John of Tours, bishop of Bath 1088±1122', in his Collected Papers (London, 1947), pp. 74±82. In taking the monks out of the ®elds and having them fed by lay servants John may have been doing no more than introduce a Cluniac style of monasticism. However, by 1106 John was able to grant to his monks a full restoration of the monastic estates, plus lands which he had purchased himself: English Episcopal Acta, x. Bath and Wells 1061±1205, ed. F. M. R. Ramsey (Oxford, 1995), no. 3 (pp. 2±3). The Historiola, p. 22, records that at the end of his life `poenitentia ductus de sacrilegio perpetrato, [Iohannes episcopus] respuit et poenituit, et poenitentiam suam scriptam reliquit' to the canons of Wells: Ramsey, Bath and Wells, no. 4 (pp. 3±4). 1 defuncto abbate Bathoniensi] álfsige, abbot from before 1075 until 1087 (Heads, p. 28). 2 multa per eum . . . in ornamentis et libris] William must have seen a record like that in the Bath cartulary, London, Lincoln's Inn MS 185 (c.1200 with later additions), ed. W. Hunt, Two Chartularies of the Priory of St Peter at Bath (Somerset Record Soc., vii, 1893) part ii, p. 153: `Iohannes . . . dedit . . . plura ornamenta, casulam magnam, cum stola et manipulo preciose aurotexto, et albam ex albo samito, et plures capas, et maximam partem bibliotecae. Et sedem episcopalem ibidem instituit, et ecclesiam illam a fundamentis incepit, et testudines inferiores fecit, crucem quoque laminis aureis opertam et preciosis gemmis intextam, textum etiam Ewangeliorum utraque parte ornatum, uiniaria et aquaria argentea et deaurata, et turribulum magnum cum cocleari argenteo, et acerram ex onichino, dorsaria, et tapecia, et plura alia nobis dedit.' The comparatively homogeneous group of six to eight surviving books from Bath dated s. xiiin may be a relic of John's benefaction: N. R. Ker, Medieval Libraries of Great Britain (2nd edn., London, 1964), p. 7. In GP, c. 90 (pp. 195±6), William adds important information: `Sepultus est in aecclesia sancti Petri quam a fundamentis erexerat, magno et elaborato parietum

/3thomson/tcom4.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:11 ± disk/amj

298

COMMENTARY

ambitu.' Nothing remains above ground of his church; its nave is covered by the present building: see Excavations in Bath, 1950±1975, ed. B. W. Cunliffe (Committee for Rescue Archaeology in Avon, Gloucestershire and Somerset, Excavation Report no. 1, 1979), pp. 88±9 and ®g. 37 (facing p. 91). 341 From `Hoc Rotbertus' = GP, c. 173 (p. 310), almost verbatim. Robert (of Limesey) was bishop 1086±1121. Paschal II permitted him to remove his seat to Coventry on 18 Apr. 1102. See M. J. Franklin, `The bishops of Coventry and Lich®eld, c.1072±1208', in Demidowicz, Coventry's First Cathedral, pp. 118±38, at 119±21. 342 Reference back in GP, c. 1 (p. 6). On Goscelin see now Barlow in Vita ádwardi, appendix C (pp. 133±49), digesting all the earlier literature, and R. Sharpe, `Goscelin's St Augustine and St Mildreth: hagiography and liturgy in context', Journal of Theological Studies, new ser. xli (1990), 502±16. He died at St Augustine's Canterbury soon after 1107. William can be shown to have known a number of the Saint's Lives certainly attributable to him, besides that cited below: Vita S. Laurentii (GP, c. 1; p. 6), Vita S. Adriani, Vita S. Mildrethae (ibid., p. 8), and Vita S. Edithae (VD ii. 23; p. 310). 1 translationem Augustini] 6 Sept. 1091. cum Hermanno episcopo Salesberiae] Hereman was bishop of Ramsbury 1045±75, of Sherborne as well from 1058; in 1075 these bishoprics were combined and the seat moved to Salisbury. Hereman died on 20 Feb. 1078. musicae porro palmam post Osbernum] On Osbern, monk of Canterbury, d. c.1093, see Stubbs in Memorials, pp. lxiii±lxvii; Southern, St Anselm and his Biographer, pp. 248±52; J. Rubenstein, `The life and writings of Osbern of Canterbury', in Canterbury and the Norman Conquest: Churches, Saints and Scholars, 1066±1109, ed. R. Eales and R. Sharpe (London, 1995), pp. 27±40. A work entitled `musica Osberni' appears in the late twelfth-century book-list from Christ Church, Canterbury: M. R. James, The Ancient Libraries of Canterbury and Dover (Cambridge, 1903), p. 8 no. 41. He is also credited with the authorship of De vocum consonantiis ac de re musica, ed. J. Smits van Waesberghe (Divitiae Musicae Artis, A ser. Xa: Amsterdam, 1979). For liturgical music possibly by Goscelin see Sharpe, `Goscelin's St Augustine and St Mildreth; hagiography and

/3thomson/tcom4.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:11 ± disk/amj

BOOK IV. 340.2±384

299

liturgy in context', pp. 515±16, and id., `Words and music by Goscelin of Canterbury', Early Music, xix (1991), 94±7. William may have been basing his praise of Goscelin on that offered by Reginald of Canterbury in two poems: F. Liebermann, `Raginald von Canterbury', Neues Archiv, xiii (1888), 519±56, at pp. 519±20, 542±6 (nos. xv and xvi). Observe T's omission of `post Osbernum' and see c. 149. 3n. Even so, William obviously continued to think that Goscelin was superior to Osbern as a hagiographer. 2 Huius quoque translationis seriem ita expoliuit] Goscelin, Historia, miracula et translatio S. Augustini (BHL 781): AA SS, Maii vi. 411±30, 432±43. Sed hanc sponsionem . . . experietur] This passage, included in the T Mss, shows that that version went on, or at least was intended to go on to cc. 440±5: above, p. xviii n. 3. 343±84 The basis of William's account of the First Crusade is Fulcher of Chartres' Historia Hierosolymitana in its ®rst redaction to 1106. In addition he used the adapted version which survives only in MS L (CUL MS Kk. 6. 15, s. xiiex, from Battle Abbey), extracts from which were printed in the edition of Fulcher in RHC Occ. iii. 319±585, and by Hagenmeyer. Hagenmeyer thought that this adaptation was made during the reign of Baldwin I of Jerusalem (thus between 1106 and 1118). William diverges more and more from Fulcher's account after the capture of Jerusalem, and makes no certain use of it at all beyond 1102. He seems also to have used, but only marginally, the anonymous (southern Italian) Gesta Francorum (ed. and trans. R. M. Hill (NMT, 1962), p. xi; and see below, cc. 366. 3n., 369n.). William's use of Fulcher was by no means slavish. For the canons of the council of Clermont William did not use the version in Fulcher i. 2, nor did he use Fulcher's brief report of Urban's speech (i. 3). He tones down Fulcher's gleeful report of the atrocities committed by the crusaders in the wake of their capture of Jerusalem (i. 28. 1), and adds his own details of the history and topography of Rome, Constantinople, and Jerusalem (cc. 351±2, 355±6, 367±8). Puzzling are William's many variations on the numbers which Fulcher gives for sizes of armies etc. (see notes to cc. 357. 6, 359. 1, 364. 1, 366. 1, 374. 11, 384. 1, 385. 3). He reorders and ampli®es Fulcher's narrative, with the intention of explaining or clarifying motivation, especially strategic. Omitting Fulcher's pious apostrophes (as for instance ii. 21. 15±17), he inserts

/3thomson/tcom4.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:11 ± disk/amj

300

COMMENTARY

a variety of details known to him from other sources, mainly oral, and at cc. 385±9 becomes almost entirely independent. Above all, William's account is even more of a rhetorical exercise than most of GR: see J. O. Ward, `Classical rhetoric and the writing of history in medieval and renaissance culture', in European History and its Historians, ed. F. McGregor and N. Wright (Adelaide, 1977), pp. 1±10, at 5± 6, and `Some principles of rhetorical historiography in the twelfth century' in Classical Rhetoric and Medieval Historiography, ed. E. Breisach (Studies in Medieval Culture, xix: Kalamazoo, Mich., 1985), pp. 103±65, at 118±48. His introductory words show that William saw his crusading History as occupying a special place within the GR. The number of small changes between versions show that he paid special care in polishing its Latin. Some useful thoughts on William as a crusading historian are in A. Grabois, `The description of Jerusalem by William of Malmesbury: a mirror of the Holy Land's presence in the Anglo-Norman mind', Anglo-Norman Studies, xiii (1990), 145±56, but the discussion is marred by errors, particularly as to William's sources. Above all William interpreted the Crusade as a knightly passage of arms, by which a great threat to Christendom was successfully averted by the valour of the Frankish warriors. His own attitude, and that of his readership, is well illustrated in a letter from Brian Fitz Count (son of Alan Fergant count of Brittany) to Henry bishop of Winchester c.1143: `When I look back to these great men, who obeyed the pope's command and left so much behind, who by assault and force of arms conquered Jerusalem like good knights, and established there a good and lawful king by the name of Godfrey . . . then I have no fear that I am committing any crime, when I obey the commands of Holy Church': H. W. C. Davis, `Henry of Blois and Brian Fitz-Count', EHR xxv (1910), 297±303, at pp. 301±2. More detail is given in R. M. Thomson, `William of Malmesbury, historian of Crusade', Reading Medieval Studies, xxiii (1997), 121±34. 344. 1±2 uenit in Gallias . . . urbs Aruernorum] Much as William, Liber pont. (C; Levison, pp. 392±3): `Hic quia non poterat introire Romam propter Wiberti uiolentiam, transiuit in Galliam, ibique coacto concilio apud Clarum montem ciuitatem Aruernorum precepit moveri . . . expeditionem'. Of all those who described the council of Clermont, William is alone in mentioning Urban's `less immediate aim', which seems rather far-fetched as applied to Urban himself, if

/3thomson/tcom4.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:11 ± disk/amj

BOOK IV. 343±344.2

301

not to Bohemond. But even Bohemond only seems to have become interested in the Crusade after the magnitude of the response to the pope's Clermont appeal became evident: R. B. Yewdale, Bohemund I Prince of Antioch (Princeton, 1924), pp. 34±6. As for Urban, his successful assertion of the papacy's pan-European authority certainly strengthened his hand against his rival and diminished the authority of Henry IV. But whether Urban hoped for this in advance of the unforeseeably huge response to his appeal is harder to say. To some extent William's cynical interpretation runs parallel with the Byzantine one, as re¯ected, for instance, in the Alexiad of Anna Comnena (x. 5, 7, 9). Note also his description below (c. 348. 4) of the crusading army as `a host of barbarians', another thoroughly Byzantine conception (cf. Anna Comnena, Alexiad x. 5±11). 1±2 Illiricum et Macedoniam . . . et quicquid preterea a Dirachio usque in Thessalonicam protenditur . . . adquisierat] Bohemond's claim (or what William thought was his claim) is of course overstated. In Autumn 1081 Robert Guiscard took Durazzo and advanced towards Salonica, but trouble at home forced him to return in the middle of 1082. Bohemond stayed on, his forces for a time in control of western Macedonia, Epirus, and northern Thessaly. But in 1083 Alexius retook Durazzo, and by the following year the Normans had lost all but a short strip of coast and some islands. Guiscard mounted a second expedition in 1085, but was defeated by a Venetian ¯eet off Corfu. He was preparing to try again when he died on 17 July. Late in the next year Bohemond forced his half-brother to cede him most of southern Apulia with the title of Prince of Taranto, so that he was by no means bereft of an inheritance in southern Italy. The above is a summary of the account in Norwich, The Normans in the South, pp. 224±33, 243±5, 259±60. 2 quam genitor Rogero comiti ®lio delegauerat] TA have `minori' for `comiti'. Both readings are correct, given William's indiscriminate use of `comes' and `dux': Roger was Bohemond's younger half-brother, inheriting his father's dukedom of Apulia at the age of thirteen. Coactum . . . concilium] 18±28 Nov. 1095. Cf. Mir., c. 6 (p. 76): `Auernus tunc, Clarus Mons dicta, in qua olim . . . omnis romana nobilitas assederat, et nostro tempore famosissimum celebratum est concilium in quo peregrinatio in Ierusalem indicta est Christianorum.'

/3thomson/tcom4.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:11 ± disk/amj

302

COMMENTARY

numerus . . . trecentorum decem] William follows Fulcher i. 1. 3, rather than the ®gure of 362 (of which he knew) appended to the version of the canons of Clermont used by him at c. 345. For the various ®gures given by the early authorities (ranging from 190 to 403) see Hagenmeyer's note to Fulcher i. 1. 4 (p. 122, n. 16; R. Crozet, `Le voyage d'Urbain II et ses neÂgociations avec le clerge de France (1095±1096)', Revue historique, clxxix (1937), 271±310, at pp. 271±2; R. Somerville, `The council of Clermont (1095) and Latin Christian society', in his Papacy, Councils and Canon Law in the 11th-12th Centuries, ch. VII. The lowest and probably most accurate ®gure is that given by Urban himself in his Decretum de primatu Lugdunensi ( J. D. Mansi, Sacrorum Conciliorum Nova et Amplissima Collectio (Florence etc., 1759 seq.), xx. 829): 12 archbishops, 80 bishops, 90 abbots, `et eo amplius'. All of the rest purport likewise to include only archbishops, bishops, and abbots; but perhaps the higher ®gures were arrived at by the mistaken inclusion of lower clergy. Somerville (`The council of Clermont', p. 77) suggests a ®gure of rather more than two hundred for the main participants. 3 ad hoc calamitatis . . . abire sineret] This oblique reference is William's only acknowledgement of one of the main purposes of the council, the proclamation of the Peace of God: H. Hoffmann, Gottesfriede und Treuga Dei (MGH Schriften, xx, 1964), pp. 220±3; Becker, Urban II, ii. 277±8; Robinson, The Papacy, pp. 325±8. 345 William quotes, here and in his Liber pont. (Levison, pp. 393±4 and nn. 1±2), the same version of the canons of the council of Clermont as Orderic Vitalis (v. 10±15): R. Somerville, The Councils of Urban II, i. Decreta Claromontensia (Annuarium Historiae Conciliorum, Supplementum i: Amsterdam, 1972), pp. 83±98; slight modi®cation of his stemma in Thomson, William of Malmesbury, p. 124 n. 30. For the most part William's text of the canons is close to that found on fo. 152rv of Paris, BN MS lat. 13413 (P). P consists of two MSS bound together and at the Norman abbey of St Martin, SeÂez, by the ®fteenth century. Most of the second part, in which these canons are found, was written in one excellent English hand, s. xii1. The canons are there followed by a section `in quo concilio domnus papa . . . dies sederunt', found also in William's Liber pont., and the basis, partly verbatim, for the section here `In eo concilio

/3thomson/tcom4.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:11 ± disk/amj

BOOK IV. 344.2±347

303

excommunicauit . . . qui eum manutenet'. But whether William took the Clermont canons plus this additional section from the SeÂez manuscript itself is uncertain, since his version of the canons shares two good readings (`accipiant' in canon no. 2 and `praebendas' in no. 3) with Orderic against P (and, puzzlingly, against his own Liber pont.). For explanation of the canons and much else of value see Somerville, `The council of Clermont (1095) and Latin Christian society', pp. 55±90. 5 excommunicauit domnus papa Philippum regem . . . ab altero discedat] Philip had abducted Bertrada, wife of Fulk Rechin, count of Anjou, on 15 May 1092 (see above, c. 235. 5, below, c. 404. 1). The pope had already excommunicated the couple in October of 1094; this was a solemn renewal of the sentence. 347 Fulcher (i. 3. 2±8) gives only a brief summary of Urban's speech. That in the Gesta Francorum, c. 1 (pp. 1±2) (written between 1098 and 1101), is even briefer. William's is one of ®ve detailed reports written in the early twelfth century, and is independent of the rest. The others are: Robert of Reims/the Monk, Historia Hierosolymitana (RHC Occ. iii. 727±30), written before 1107, Guibert of Nogent, Gesta Dei per Francos (RHC Occ. iv. 137±40), written before 1108, and Baudri de Bourgeuil/ Baldric of Dol, Historia Ierosolimitana (RHC Occ. iv. 12±16), written c.1108. Translations of all but William's version are in E. Peters, The First Crusade (Philadelphia, 1971), pp. 1±15. The fundamental comparative analysis is still D. C. Munro, `The speech of Pope Urban II at Clermont, 1095', American Historical Review, xi (1906), 231±42, though much in need of reformulation. The report of Orderic (v. 14±19) has been disregarded by crusading historians because of its alleged dependence upon Baldric's Historia; but as Chibnall points out (Orderic v. 14±15 n. 10), Orderic's account is not wholly derivative; and indeed it would be strange if he had not had independent access to at least orally-transmitted information. William's account has also been underrated because of its late date. Admittedly it is exceeded only by Guibert of Nogent's in the amount of rhetorical adornment; clearly it is arti®cial in the Antique manner, and like all the reports contains material grounded in hindsight. But we should take seriously both William's claim that he was concerned to transmit only the sense of what the pope said, not his ipsissima

/3thomson/tcom4.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:11 ± disk/amj

304

COMMENTARY

verba, and that his rendition was based on what he had heard from witnesses. Of all the accounts, his most emphasizes the substantial loss of Christian territory to Islam, contrasted with the meagre amount left to the numerically inferior Christians. This is a line also taken by William in his Commentary on Lamentations, written c.1135: Thomson, William of Malmesbury, pp. 181±2. William's heavy use of classical borrowings in his report of the speech is discussed by Wright II, pp. 510±15. 3 Salomon] Wisd. 17: 10. qui autem ambulat simpliciter, ambulat con®denter] Prov. 10: 9. stipendium autem peccati mors] Rom. 6: 23. par labor atque metus pretio meliore petuntur] Lucan i. 282: `Par labor atque metus pretio maiore petuntur'. animas pro fratribus ponatis] John 15: 13 con¯ated with 1 John 3: 16. 4 Asiam Minorem, cuius prouintiae sunt . . . occuparunt] The list of provinces of Asia Minor is doubtless derived from Isidore, Etym. xiv. 3. 38, where the same names are given in the same order. nunc Illiricum et omnes inferiores terras . . . usque ad mare quod Brachium sancti Georgii] The Arm of St George is the Bosphorus. Illyricum seems out of place here, though William certainly knew where it was (see above, c. 344. 1). It was not occupied by the Turks at the time: S. Runciman, `The ®rst Crusaders' journey across the Balkan peninsula', Byzantion, xix (1949), 201±21, at p. 209. By `omnes inferiores terras' William presumably meant the European provinces of the Byzantine Empire generally; for his use of `superior' and `inferior' to mean east and west see above, c. 1. 2n. 5 non ex aequo diuisimus orbem] Lucan v. 495. ibi apostoli . . . consecrarunt] By the Apostles who did not die in the Holy Land William presumably meant Peter and Paul. ibi modo Christicolae . . . quia perdidere suam] Orderic (vi. 16± 17) also has the pope dilate on the oppression of Asian Christians by the Saracens. 6 ducentis iam annis et eo amplius] The ®gure is repeated by William in his Commentary on Lamentations: Thomson, William of Malmesbury, p. 181. In fact William should have said `more than four hundred years', and his miscalculation is even stranger since at 7 he

/3thomson/tcom4.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:11 ± disk/amj

BOOK IV. 347±347.15

305

says that the Saracens took Spain three hundred years earlier (still an underestimate). Perhaps it is more than coincidence that Orderic has at this point (vi. 16±17) an even less accurate statement about the fate of Christian Africa. Chibnall (note ad loc.) suggests that he and William were dependent upon a common source. A more likely explanation might be a conversation between the two men, which both remembered imperfectly. 7±9 Much of this is based upon the comments on the Parthians made by Pompey and Lentulus in Lucan viii. 290±390. 7 homines inertissimi . . . uulnera uentis] Cf. Lucan. viii. 380±4, of the Parthians: `Pugna leuis bellumque fugax turmaeque uagantes, / et melior cessisse loco quam pellere miles; / illita tela dolis, nec Martem comminus usquam (var. umquam) / ausa pati uirtus, sed longe tendere neruos / et quo ferre uelint permittere uulnera uentis'. See Wright II, p. 512. 8±9 Constat . . . exueritis] The in¯uence of climate upon character was assumed since Antiquity, and William would have been familiar with it quite apart from the references in Lucan. 8 omnis natio quae in Eoa plaga nascitur . . . norunt] Cf. Lucan viii. 365±6: `quidquid ad Eoos tractus mundique teporem / ibitur, emollit gentes clementia caeli'. populus qui oritur in Arctois pruinis] Cf. Lucan viii. 363±4: `in Arctois populus quicumque pruinis / nascitur'. 10 Ite, et prosternite ignauas gentes] Cf. Lucan vii. 277±8: `Ite per ignauas gentes famosaque regna / . . . prosternite mundum'. 11 Angusta est uia quae ducit ad uitam] Matt. 7: 14. oportet nos introire in regnum Dei] Act. 14: 21. Spectate ergo . . . cruces, spectate catenas] Cf. Lucan vii. 304: `Caesareas spectate cruces, spectate catenas'. 12 ad futuram gloriam quae reuelabitur in nobis] Rom. 8: 18. 12±15 Mors enim a cenulento carcere . . . ita exilium patria, et patria exilium] Wright IV, pp. 24±5, shows that the whole passage is based upon Hegesippus v. 53. 1 (pp. 409±10), the speech of Eleazar to the Jewish survivors at Masada, arguing that suicide was preferable to surrender: `Ita mors innocentiae fuit et uitae aerumna. Ex illo in eandem sortem successimus, ut uiuere miserrimum ®eret, mori beatum. Quid est enim uita nisi carcer animae quae intra hoc ergastulum clauditur et carnali adhaeret consortio?

/3thomson/tcom4.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:11 ± disk/amj

306

COMMENTARY

Cuius in®rmitatibus quatitur . . . nec se facile attollere potest humi nexa, concreta puluere, stricta uinculo, neruis inretita. Non mediocris tamen potestas ut corpus uiui®cet atque infundat insensibili materiae sensus uigorem . . . atque ultra mortalem prouehat fragilitatem. . . . Instar quoddam diuini muneris repraesentans, cum ingreditur uitam infundit, cum excedit corpore mortem operatur . . . Vbi autem fuerit istius carnis absoluta uinculis, in illum purum et splendidum superiorem reuolat locum . . . Indicio nobis est quies, quantam anima post obitum corporis resumat gratiam. Sopito enim corpore et quasi mortuis eius cupiditatibus atque uniuersis motibus cum sanctis saepius conuersamur . . . ut . . . appropinquemus et confabulemur Deo, cognoscamus futura. . . . Quod igitur dormientes somniamus . . . hoc in morte ueritatis possessio est et libertatis gratia.' Cf. also Jerome, Apol. adv. Ruf. iii. 40, quoted in William's Polyhistor, p. 121 lines 18±20: `Philosophiam meditationem esse mortis cotidie de corporibus ut de carcere nitentem educere anime libertatem'. The same simile is expressed, more brie¯y, in VD i. 13 (p. 267): `non est haec uitae amissio, sed de captiuitate in libertatem migratio', and above, c. 237. 3. The speech of the dying Wulfstan in GP, c. 148 (p. 287), also contains a number of resemblances to this passage. 15 ignauam mentem pigro rerum meditamine palpent] Prudentius, Psych. 234: `desidiam pigro rerum meditamine palpent'; Wright II, p. 504 and n. 98. 348 William uses Fulcher i. 4. 1 on Adhemar, but otherwise his account is mainly independent. He omits Fulcher's account (i. 4. 4) of the sewing on of crosses; but he had already inserted a reference to it in Urban's speech (c. 347. 9). Three other sources, Baudri, Guibert, and Robert, also have Urban suggesting that the pilgrims should sew crosses onto their clothing (Hagenmeyer on Fulcher i. 4. 4; p. 141 n. 12). 1 Aimarus . . . Podiensis episcopus] On Adhemar bishop of Le Puy see the literature cited in Gilo, p. 11 n. 7. 3 responsurum erat uel auari uotis agricolae] Virgil, Georg. i. 47±8: `illa seges demum uotis respondet auari/ agricolae'. Videres . . . totos in iter transferre penates] Cf. Lucan ii. 729: `totosque trahens in bella penates'; Juvenal iii. 10: `sed dum tota domus raeda componitur una'. ruebant agmina serie longa herentia] Cf. Lucan i. 492±3:

/3thomson/tcom4.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:11 ± disk/amj

BOOK IV. 347.12±349.6

307

`serieque haerentia longa / agmina prorumpunt'. Also echoed in VW iii. 19 (p. 58). 4 sexagies centum milia itinerantium] Fulcher gives this ®gure at i. 10. 5, as he is about to recount the siege of Nicaea: `If all who departed from their homes to undertake the holy journey had been present there doubtless would have been 6,000,000 ®ghting men.' The author of the L adaptation of Fulcher transfers the ®gure to i. 6. 9, substituting it for Fulcher's `multitudinem in®nitam' (Hagenmeyer, p. 161 n. 30), and this is probably where William found it. The ®gure is clearly ridiculous. Runciman, `The ®rst Crusaders' journey across the Balkan peninsula', pp. 220±1, id., History of the Crusades, i. 169 and appendix II, pp. 336±41, estimated the size of the combined Western armies, including non-combatants, at around 70,000±100,000 persons. The fullest and most recent discussion is in J. France, Victory in the East: A Military History of the First Crusades (Cambridge, 1994), ch. 5, suggesting an even lower ®gure of 50,000±70,000. 349 Based upon Fulcher i. 6. 1±6. 1 Godefridus . . . de antiqua Karoli Magni origine lineam trahens] For Godfrey of Lorraine's lineage see also below, c. 373.1±2. 2 Gothi et Wascones] By `Goths' William (following Fulcher) presumably means `Visigoths', i.e. (anachronistically) inhabitants of south-west France. The `Charleville poet', responsible for additions to Gilo, pp. 18±19, refers to the area as `Gothia'. Hi omnes . . . Constantinopolim conuenientes] Dec. 1096±Apr. 1097. 3 Hugonem Magnum] Hugh count of Vermandois, second son of King Henry I of France, hence le Maisne (`younger'), corrupted by Latin writers into Magnus. cum raro milite] Cf. Prudentius, Psych. 197: `milite raro'. 4 sexaginta milibus armatorum] The same ®gure is given below, c. 383. 1, where, however, it seems to represent the combined strength of the crusading army. This seems more likely; in any event it is more plausible than the ®gure of 300,000 given by Orderic (v. 324±5). 6 Walterus quidam, miles] Walter de Poissy nicknamed sans Avoir, leader of a band of French participants in the `People's

/3thomson/tcom4.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:11 ± disk/amj

308

COMMENTARY

Crusade' instigated by Peter the Hermit; Runciman, A History of the Crusades, i. 114, 122±3, 127, 131±2; K. Setton et al., A History of the Crusades, i (2nd edn., Madison and London, 1969), pp. 258± 60, 281±4. 350 Based upon Fulcher i. 6. 8, 7. 1±2. 1 mense Septembri] So Fulcher i. 6. 8, in the ®rst redaction, altered later to `mense Octobri' (and see Hagenmeyer's note 22 ad loc.). cuius titulum hic liber gestat] Presumably referring to the remarks at bk. iv prol. 4, and an indication that William did have sub-headings (see Stubbs, GR i. 359). 2 et Vrbem circumsonabat armis] Virgil, Aen. viii. 474: `et murum circumsonat armis' (and above, c. 201. 5). But closer to William is Hegesippus iv. 25. 2 (p. 279): `Hierosolymitanae muros urbis armis circumsonabat' (Wright IV, pp. 14±15). Note that TA has `armis circumsonabat' as Hegesippus. uiribus impar] Lucan ii. 607. 351. 1 Romanis olim rerum dominis genteque togata] Cf. Virgil, Aen. i. 282: `Romanos, rerum dominos gentemque togatam'. Similarly Mir., c. 31 (p. 129): `Roma est ciuitas bellicis olim sudoribus orbis terrarum domina.' uersus Hildeberti Cinomannensis primo episcopi, post etiam Turonensis archiepiscopi] For `primo . . . archiepiscopi' TA have only `episcopi'. Hildebert was translated from the bishopric of Le Mans to the archbishopric of Tours in or close to Sept. 1125: Orderic ii. 302±3. 2±4 Par tibi . . . carere ®de] Hildebert, Carm. min. xxxvi, the ®nest and best-known of his poems, encapsulating William's own ambivalent attitude to the city. For William's collection of Hildebert's verse see above, c. 284. 5n. 2 quem magis optauit . . . quam socius et pius esse socer] The reference is to Pompey. 352 What follows has little relevance to the Rome of Urban's day. It is based upon a lost Itinerarium urbis Romae, to which it is the only known witness (Thomson, William of Malmesbury, pp. 68±9). The Itinerarium was dated ad 648±82 by G. B. de Rossi, La Roma

/3thomson/tcom4.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:11 ± disk/amj

BOOK IV. 349.6±353.2

309

Sotteranea Cristiana descritta ed illustrata (4 vols.: Rome, 1864±97), i. 146; ed. (from William's text) with commentary by R. Valentini and G. Zucchetti, Codice Topogra®co della CittaÁ di Roma, ii (Fonti per la Storia d'Italia, lxxxviii: Rome, 1942), pp. 133±53, and in CCSL clxxv. 325±8. It shares many features with the De locis sanctis martyrum, written c.635±45 (ibid. 315±22). A number of corruptions had doubtless crept into the transmission of this ancient document, as signalled below. 3 Porciniana] i.e. Pinciana. 7 et Concordia nutrix eius] `Ipoliti' for `eius' TA, correctly: see B. Mombritius, Sanctuarium, new edn. by the monks of Solesmes (2 vols.: Paris, 1910), ii. 29. 8 Sircurana] i.e. Sessoriana. Assenarica] i.e. Asinaria. Metrosi] i.e. Metrobian or Metrovian. 9 Sophia Triphenus] Valentini and Zucchetti suggest a corruption of an inscription which would have read in full `Sophia cum tribus ®liabus'. 11 ubi sunt Marcus et Marcellianus] T adds `martires' after sunt, correctly. 12 Processus et Martinianus] TA describe these persons as `martires', which is correct. 13 Duodecimo intra urbem miliario] It makes no sense to have the twelfth milestone inside the city. `Duodecimo miliario' should certainly be attached to the end of the previous sentence (since that was the position of St Basilides' church), and we should either read `sanctus Basilides duodecimo miliario. Intra urbem in Monte Celio' or `sanctus Basilides duodecimo extra urbem miliario. In Monte Celio'. in Monte Nola] This makes no sense; perhaps `in monte (Quiri)nale'. 353 Based upon Fulcher i. 7. 3Ð8. 9, with particular use of 7. 4, 8. 1, 5±6. 2 hiemem fouere] Virgil, Aen. iv. 193: `nunc hiemem inter se luxu, quam longa, fouere'. Necnon et residui duces, ut uidere pacatum classibus equor] Cf. ibid. iv. 582: `litora deserere, latet sub classibus aequor'; Lucan v.

/3thomson/tcom4.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:11 ± disk/amj

310

COMMENTARY

703±4: `Nec non Hesperii lassatum ¯uctibus aequor / ut uidere duces'. The date of embarkation was Mar. 1097. duobus portibus] So Fulcher i. 8. 5. The reference is to anchorages to the north-east and south-east of Durazzo (modern DurreÈs on the Albanian coast): A. Ducellier, La facËade maritime de l'Albanie au moyen aÃge: Durazzo et Valona du xie au xve sieÁcle (Institute for Balkan Studies, clxxvii: Thessaloniki, 1981), p. 34 and n. 197. 3 uado, quod . . . Diaboli dicitur] Fulcher calls the river (not the ford) `Daemon', and positions it between Durazzo and Ohrid. It has sometimes been identifed with the Albanian Devoll, while Hagenmeyer (note on Fulcher i. 8. 6; p. 172 n. 18) identi®ed it with the Shkumbin, which ¯ows westwards, passing just south of Tirana. But the crusaders were marching along the Via Egnatia (Gesta Francorum, c. 2; p. 5) which is far to the north of the Devoll and does not cross the Shkumbin. A more likely possibility would be the Macedonian Drinizi (so RHC Occ. iii. 330 notes e, g), which, as it runs from north to south, they could not avoid crossing just west of Ohrid. William's account of the dif®cult crossing is more detailed than Fulcher's. See Runciman, `The First Crusaders' journey across the Balkan peninsula', p. 219 and n. 1. pluresque profecto perissent . . . equis transducti] These details are not in Fulcher. William may have had independent information, but his wording shows that he is echoing the description of Caesar crossing the Rubicon in Lucan i. 220±2: `Primus in obliquum sonipes opponitur amnem / excepturus aquas; molli tum cetera rumpit / turba uado faciles iam fracti ¯uminis undas.' As so often (see above, pp. xx±xxii), TA's wording is closer to William's source: its `in aduersum' echoes Lucan's `in obliquum' more clearly than does BC's `aduerso'. 354. 1 nummi bizantini] The usual Western name for the standard Byzantine gold coin called solidus or nomisma (after 1092 hyperpyron). For the presence of bezants in late eleventh-century England see VW ii. 9 (p. 33): `Habebat ille [scil. Wlstanus] unum ex aureis quos ab urbe quondam Bizantio modo Constantinopoli bizantios uocant'. Surviving examples are described by V. Laurent, `Byzance et l'Angleterre au lendemain de la conqueÃte normande', The Numismatic Circular, lxxi (1963), 93±6, and `Un sceau ineÂdit du patriarche de JeÂrusalem Sophrone II trouve aÁ Winchester', ibid., lxxii (1964),

/3thomson/tcom4.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:11 ± disk/amj

BOOK IV. 353.2±355.3

311

49±50; M. Biddle, `Excavations at Winchester 1962±1963: Second interim report', The Antiquaries Journal, xliv (1964), 188±219, at p. 195; Ciggaar, `England and Byzantium', p. 88. huiusmodi sententia] Aldhelm, De virg. (prose), c. 25 (MGH AA, xv. 258±60). 355 Fulcher (i. 9. 1) waxes enthusiastic about the size, wealth and beauty of Constantinople, but William neither uses his language nor makes the same points. 1 Paruit Augustus . . . ciuitatis ornamentum] Cf. Cassiodorus, Hist. tripart. ii. 18 (PL lxix. 936B-C), partly verbatim. professus . . . principabantur] Not in Hist. tripart., although it does say that Constantine had his new arrangement enshrined in law. The reference is presumably to the Donation of Constantine, c. 18 (ed. H. Fuhrmann, MGH Fontes, x, 1968, pp. 94±5): `quoniam, ubi principatus sacerdotum et christianae religionis caput ab imperatore caelesti constitutum est, iustum non est, ut illic imperator terrenus habeat potestatem.' William could have known the Donation through a copy of the pseudo-Isidorean Decretals in Lanfranc's abbreviation (Collectio Lanfranci), the form in which it was most commonly known in England, and which was known to William: Thomson, William of Malmesbury, pp. 131±3. 2 gratumque admodum fuisse ferunt . . . exosus erat] He was really born at Nissa in Upper Moesia, so the Aa alteration (`conuersatus et imperator creatus' for `natus') is correct (see Vol. i, Appendix II, p. 835). The OE translation of Bede, HE i. 8, makes the same error, rendering the Latin `in Brittania creatus imperator' as `on Breotone acenned': ed. T. Miller (4 vols.: EETS, orig. ser. xcv± xcvi, cx±cxi: London, 1890±98), p. 42. ut poetae quoque canunt] For `Tracia . . . Hebri ¯uminis glacie' cf. Horace, Epist. i. 16. 12±13: `fons etiam riuo dare nomen idoneus, ut nec / frigidior Thracam nec purior ambiat Hebrus', and Virgil, Aen. xii. 331±6: `qualis apud gelidi cum ¯umina concitus Hebri / . . . / gemit ultima pulsu / Thraca pedum'; for `Bistonio aquilone' cf. Sidonius, Carm. ii. 48 (see below). Virgilius] Virgil, Georg. i. 102±3: `nullo tantum se Mysia [v. l. Moesia] cultu / iactat et ipsa suas mirantur Gargara messes'. But Virgil doubtless meant Mysia in Asia, not Moesia in Bulgaria. 2±3 At uero Constantinopolis . . . commodis cingit] As Stubbs

/3thomson/tcom4.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:11 ± disk/amj

312

COMMENTARY

demonstrated (GR ii, pp. cxxii±cxxiii n. 4), most of this is from Sidonius, Carm. ii. 46±49, 56±62: `At tu, circum¯ua ponto / Europae atque Asiae commissam carpis utrinque / temperiem, nam Bistonios Aquilonis hiatus / proxima Calchidici sensim tuba temperat Euri. / . . . / Porrigis ingentem spatiosis moenibus urbem, / quam tamen angustam populus facit; itur in aequor / molibus et ueteres tellus noua contrahit undas; / namque Dicarcheae translatus puluis harenae / intratis solidatur aquis durataque massa / sustinet aduectos peregrino in gurgite campos. / Sic te dispositam spectantemque undique portus, / uallatam pelago terrarum commoda cingunt.' A `standard' English collection of Sidonius' works survives in four manuscripts, all s. xii± xiii (MGH AA, viii, pp. vii±viii). The two of known provenance are from the south-west: Hereford Cath. MS O. II. 6 (Letters only), probably from Gloucester, BL MS Royal 4 B. iv from Worcester. 3 uitreo in gurgite campos] William seems to have had in mind both Statius, Achill. i. 26 `uitreo sub gurgite remos', and Sidonius, Carm. ii. 61 `peregrino in gurgite campos'. uiginti (duodecim T1ABk) milia passuum muro complexa] Bede, De locis sanctis, c. 20, gives the circuit of the walls as 12,000 paces, and this was presumably the source of William's earlier ®gure. The walls are not even mentioned by Fulcher; curiously enough, he gives the same ®gure of 20,000 for the number of eunuchs in Constantinople (i. 9. 1), and one wonders whether William changed his ®gure for the length of the walls because of a mistaken memory of Fulcher's text at this point. The strength of Constantinople's defences impressed the author of the adaptation of Fulcher known as the Gesta Francorum Iherusalem expugnantium (RHC Occ. iii. 494): `On one side the sea and an impregnable wall bound the city; on the other a valley and a double ditch, and a wall of immense size and strength with towers in its circuit.' Physical features on this scale must have remained in the memories of many returned crusaders, and thence could easily have been made known to William. 4 Danubius, qui et Hister] Isidore, Etym. xiii. 21. 28, xiv. 4. 17. sanctorum reliquiis] Cf. Mir., c. 50 (p. 167): `Et quidem sunt in ea urbe tot sanctorum et tam excellentium corpora, quod ea per se, si essent singula, singulas suf®cerent illustrare prouincias, tum sanctitatis merito, tum signorum ostenso.' See further below, c. 356. 4 and notes.

/3thomson/tcom4.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:11 ± disk/amj

BOOK IV. 353±356.2

313

356 The list of emperors is not particularly accurate; comparison with the list in V. Grumel, La Chronologie (Traite d'eÂtudes byzantines, i: Paris, 1958), pp. 355±8, reveals errors as follows: Iovinianus = Jovian; Leo II om. after Leo I; Basiliseos om. after Zeno's ®rst period of rule; Constantine III om. after Heraclius; Constantine IV (wrongly said to be a son of Heraclius) followed by another (non-existent) Constantine; Leo II = Leontius; Irene om., doubtless re¯ecting the Western viewpoint that her rule was illegitimate; after Stauracius one of Michael I or II and Leo V om.; after Basil II's second reign Constantine VIII om.; after Romanus III one of Michael IV or V om.; Zoe and Theodora om.; Michael VII Ducas (1071±8) and Nicephorus Botaniates (1078±81) in reverse order (the order is correct at c. 225). At this point appears a series of mistakes in the A version which William later corrected: `Leo secundus (= Leontius), Iustinianus' wrongly for `Iustinianus, Leo secundus'; `iterum Iustinianus, Tiberius' wrongly for `Tiberius, iterum Iustinianus'; `Anastasius, Philippicus' wrongly for `Philippus, Anastasius'; `Leo tertius, Theodosius' wrongly for `Theodosius, Leo tertius'. Note also `Iouianus' (Aac) correctly for `Iouinianus', and `Constantius' (T1Aa) wrongly for `Constantinus'. Such lists were in circulation at the time. For instance that in the Textus Roffensis, fo. 107, is similar to William's as far as it goes: it begins at xxxiv `Constantinus ®lius Constantini et Helenae', due to the loss of the original previous leaf; it ends at lxvi `Theodosius'. There is no direct relationship between the GR list and that which William appended to his copy of Hugh of Fleury's Historia ecclesiastica in Bodl. Libr., MS Arch. Seld. B. 16, fos. 135±9v. This book (Thomson, William of Malmesbury, pp. 25±6, 62±4, 66±8, 92±3, 176± 8) was made in 1129, in other words four or ®ve years after the completion of the A version of GR. 1 Iustinianus . . . referentium] Doubtless partly re¯ecting the impressions of returned pilgrims and crusaders. Cf. Mir., c. 32 (pp. 133±4): `Ecclesia sic dicta [i.e. Agia Sophia] quae a Iustiniano Augusto ad honorem diuinae sapientiae aedi®cata, excellit omnia quae usquam terrarum sunt aedi®cia, mirabili et augusta sui fabrica.' ampullata uerba] Cf. Horace, Ars poetica 97: `ampullas et sesquipedalia uerba'. 2 Constantinus . . . iste Romam ueniens . . . exuuias] Based upon Paul the Deacon, Hist. Lang. v. 11±12 (PL xcv. 602D-3A).

/3thomson/tcom4.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:11 ± disk/amj

314

COMMENTARY

William's word `extinctus' is Paul's, showing that he was directly dependent upon him rather than upon his main source, Liber pont., cc. 78±9 (ii. 343±6), which William might equally have used. On the other hand Paul correctly names the emperor concerned as Constans, meaning Constantine IV's predecessor Constans II (641±68), who came to Rome in 663. William or his source has created error by textual displacement (see Vol. i, p. 626 and n. f ). 3 Hic, per Alexium . . . noceret Alexio] William has wrongly made Michael VII Ducas the immediate predecessor of Alexius I Comnenus. In fact Michael had been deposed and packed off to a monastery by Nicephorus Botaniates. For the other details of the story see Norwich, The Normans in the South, pp. 222±6. Michael had indeed made an alliance with Robert Guiscard in 1074 involving the betrothal of his son Constantine to Robert's daughter Helen. According to Anna Comnena (Alexiad i. 12), Robert pretended that his deposed kinsman had appealed to him to rescue himself and his family (including Robert's daughter). On the basis of this pretext Robert invaded Byzantine Greece in the autumn of 1081. 4 Est in ea ciuitate lignum Domini . . . Lucia] This is apparently the earliest Western testimony to several of these relics, and probably came to William from eyewitnesses. These might have been pilgrims, such as the Canterbury monk Joseph (see above, c. 225. 3n), or members of the legation (headed by an Englishman) sent from Alexius I to Henry I between 1100 and 1118: Ciggaar, `L'eÂmigration', p. 317. Ciggaar, `Une description', pp. 226±30, 232, discusses such contacts, and at 245±63 prints a description of Constantinople and its relics ®rst discovered by Cardinal Mercati (thence named the Anonymus Mercati). Ciggaar shows that it was translated from a Greek original (written soon after 1063) by an English pilgrim, possibly shortly before the First Crusade. The earliest surviving copy is in Bodl. Libr., MS Digby 112 (s. xii1, Winchester). It would be satisfactory if it could be proved that this text was the source of William's information, but its omission of Samuel, Basil, Lucy, and Agatha suggests that it was not. However, the surviving copies are lacunose, and it is just possible that William knew of a more complete version (Ciggaar, `Une description', pp. 212±13). On the relics and Western knowledge of them see also Paul le Comte Riant, Exuviae Sacrae Constantinopolitanae (2 vols.: Geneva, 1877±8), printing the relevant extract from William at ii. 211.

/3thomson/tcom4.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:11 ± disk/amj

BOOK IV. 356.2±357.3

315

Comparison with his other lists shows that most of William's information can be widely veri®ed. The list most comparable with William's is in the Peregrinus by Antony of Novgorod, who visited Constantinople in 1200 (Riant, ii. 218±30). This has John Chrysostom, Andrew and Luke, the heads of Spyridon, James the Lord's brother and Matthias in the Church of the Apostles, the rest of Spyridon in the Church of the Hodegetria, of Matthias outside the city, where also lay the body of Daniel. Another English list, published by Riant (ii. 211±12) from two MSS and dated by him c.1150, includes the head of St Basil, and Antony of Novgorod records the body of Basil `iunior' at a church outside the city (Riant, ii. 230). Several late Italian accounts (Riant, i. 184±5, ii. 262, etc.) say that Lucy and Agatha, originally buried in Sicily, were translated to Constantinople in the ninth century. After 1205 the relics of Agatha were returned to Sicily, while those of Lucy went to Venice. Only William records the body of Samuel. Riant's index indicates the enormous quantity of pieces of the True Cross which were distributed to Western churches after the capture of Constantinople in 1205. 357 Fulcher i. 9. 2±5, 10±12 (esp. 9. 2, 4, 10. 4, 6, 10, 11. 4±5, 7), but Fulcher says that it was Raymond of Saint-Gilles, not Robert of Flanders, who refused to take the oath of allegiance to Alexius. Nor does he specify the ®rst week of June as the date of the journey from Constantinople to Nicaea (Hagenmeyer, Chronologie, pp. 72±5). William (5±7) gives much more detail of the battle of Dorylaeum; for instance, while Fulcher mentions the proximity of a marsh, only William explains that the crusaders were saved from massacre because the Turks could not manoeuvre in the reed-beds. 1 data ®de acceptaque] Cf. Sallust, Bell. Cat. xliv. 3: `data acceptaque ®de'. Also above, cc. 6, 237. 1. ebdomada Iunii prima] Not in Fulcher. 2 nec prius abstiterunt ferro exercere dolorem] Ovid, Met. xii. 534: `Nec prius abstitimus ferro exercere dolorem'. die solstitii estiualis] 19 June 1097. 3 quam Romaniam dicunt] Not in Fulcher. in superiores . . . terras] For William's use of `superior' in a geographical context see above, c. 1. 2n. auctore quodam Solimanno] So Fulcher i. 11. 4. Not the conqueror of Roum, Suleiman ibn Kutulmish, killed in battle in

/3thomson/tcom4.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:11 ± disk/amj

316

COMMENTARY

1085, but his son Kilij Arslan (1092±1107). The confusion was a common one among Western chroniclers: Albert of Aachen (RHC Occ. iv. 284), the `Charleville Poet', responsible for additions to Gilo, pp. 38±9, William of Tyre i. 59 (ed. R. B. C. Huygens, CCSL cont. med. lxiii±lxiiiA (1986), i. 150). William here recounts the so-called battle of Dorylaeum, 1 July 1096. For a discussion of the site (probably 3±5 km. north of modern BozuÈyuÈk) and reconstruction of the battle, based upon all the available accounts, see France, Victory in the East, pp. 170±84. 4 Godefridus et Hugo Magnus et Raimundus . . . facilius] Fulcher (i. 11. 5) mentions their separation from the rest of the army, but does not give reasons (`nescio qua de causa'). 4±5 At uero Normannus . . . ex harundineto prodeunt] William's own addition to Fulcher's account. 6 totos amnes epotatura uideretur] Cf. GP, c. 320 (p. 320): (of a monk with dropsy) `sibi epotaturus totos amnes, exsiccaturus plena dolia uidebatur'. Apparently reminiscences of Juvenal x. 176: `credimus altos / defecisse amnes epotaque ¯umina'. estimabantur . . . maior domos dilapsa] Fulcher (i. 10. 4) says that the crusaders before Nicaea were estimated at 600,000 persons, of whom 100,000 had coats of mail and helmets; in addition there was an unspeci®ed number not bearing arms. William may have wrongly added together 600,000 and 100,000, or he might have assumed a round ®gure of 100,000 for the non-combatants. 358 Fulcher i. 13. 1, 14. 1, 15. 1. ensis fulminei] Cf. Virgil, Aen. iv. 579±80: `dixit uaginaque eripit ensem / fulmineum', ix. 441±2: `ac rotat ensem / fulmineum'. a kalendis Iulii . . . quando Antiochiam Siriae uenere] Fulcher gives 1 July as the date of the battle of Dorylaeum, the crusaders having left Nicaea three days earlier (i. 11. 1±2). He does not specify a date for their arrival at Antioch. In fact the crusaders did not reach Antioch until 21 Oct. (Hagenmeyer, Chronologie, p. 105). However, about 7 Oct., while the main army was encamped at Coxon (mod. GoÈksun), Raymond of Toulouse sent a detachment of 500 knights to attempt an occupation of Antioch (Gesta Francorum, c. 11; p. 26). William's source may have confused this operation with the advance of the main army. Ambrosiana in Egesippo facundia] Hegesippus iii. 5. 2 (pp. 192±4).

/3thomson/tcom4.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:12 ± disk/amj

BOOK IV. 357.3±360.1

317

359 Based upon Fulcher i. 15. 1±4. 1 Ciuitas . . . a Seleuco rege Asiae nomine Antiochi patris cognominata] Fulcher i. 15. 1 says that the city was `founded by Seleucus son of Antiochus'. William makes his slight additions from one or both of Justin xv. 4. 8, Isidore, Etym. xv. 1. 14. post Romam . . . prelata] Cf. Hegesippus iii. 5. 2 (p. 193): `Vrbs tertio loco ante ex omnibus, quae in orbe Romano sunt ciuitatibus aestimata, nunc quarto, postquam Constantinopolim excreuit ciuitas Byzantiorum.' In Mir., c. 32 (p. 132), William explains that Constantinople `est apud Christianos secundae post Romam dignitatis'. In other words, this is a list of the four greatest Christian cities. duodecimo ab urbe miliario accipitur pelago] Thirteen miles, according to Fulcher i. 15. 4. ¯uentis rapacibus, et ipso impetu frigidioribus] Hegesippus iii. 5. 2 (p. 193): `¯uentis ipso impetu frigidioribus'. 2 Ibi primum Christiani . . . excogitatum] Acts 11: 26. Similarly Fulcher i. 24. 3, Guibert of Nogent iv. 3 (RHC Occ. iv. 169). William uses parallel expressions, `dignitatem et excellentiam Christiani nominis' and `dignitati nominis Christiani', in Mir., c. 12 (pp. 89±90). Ibi beatus Petrus . . . reuererentur edem] Fulcher i. 15. 3 mentions the two churches; William adds the reverence of the Turks for St Mary's in particular. 360±3 The most recent detailed account of the siege and capture of Antioch by the crusaders is in France, Victory in the East, pp. 197± 268. 360 Fulcher i. 15. 4±7, especially 7. 1 Hanc itaque ciuitatem Franci ab Octobri usque ad Iunium circumsedere] Fulcher i. 16. 8. Aoxianus . . . Sansadolem ®lium ad Soldanum] `Aoxianus' = Yagi Siyan, installed as governor of Antioch by Sultan Malik Shah (1072±92). His son `Sansadolus' (`Sanxado' Fulcher) = Shams adDaula Kamaladdin, actually sent for help to Dukak, ruler of Damascus. William's comments on the role of the `Soldan', developed from Fulcher i. 15. 7, are a muddle of information on Sassanid emperorship and on the of®ce of caliph. The SelchuÈk sultan at the time was Berkyaruk (1094±1105); the Abbasid caliph was alMustazhir (1094±1118).

/3thomson/tcom4.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:12 ± disk/amj

318

COMMENTARY

2 Lucanus] iv. 579: `Ignorantque datos, ne quisquam seruiat, enses.' Denique Romanum imperium . . . declinauit] Observe T's omission of `imperium', thus allowing `seruitium' to be understood. 361 Fulcher i. 15. 6, 8±10. uiam studio celerabat iuuenili] Cf. Virgil, Aen. iv. 641: `illa gradum studio celebrabat (v. l. celerabat) anili'. de inuentis nauibus pontem fatientes] The pontoon bridge was probably built in Nov. 1097: France, Victory in the East, p. 229. Fulcher (i. 15. 6) mentions the bridge, but does not connect it with access to a market. William is undoubtedly correct, however; cf. Albert of Aachen, c. 42 (RHC Occ. iv. 368); Historia peregrinorum, c. 35 (RHC Occ. iii. 186): `fecerunt ingentem pontem, unde transibant omnes nostri et ibant et ueniebant ad portum et ad montaneam, et per eam ueniebant Graeci et Armenii, deferentes maximum mercatum.' The port was St Simeon (mod. Magaracik), at the mouth of the Orontes. 362 Fulcher i. 16. 1±6 (mainly 1±2); the T version of the last sentence is based on 16. 7. 1 temeraria fames, quae etiam tuta expugnare solet] Cf. Lucan iv. 410: `Expugnat quae tuta, fames'. nondum surgentibus in altam segetem culmis] ibid., vi. 109±10: `Nondum turgentibus altam / in segetem culmis cernit miserabile uulgus', speaking of the plight of besiegers. Some manuscripts of Lucan have `surgentibus'. per abrasas fauces utero demittebant] ibid., vi. 115: `Quaeque per abrasas utero demittere fauces'. prolato ieiunus uenditor auro] ibid., iv. 97: `Non deest prolato ieiunus uenditor auro.' 2 Nec defuere . . . offenderentur] Not so Fulcher, but he does say that some crusaders ate ¯esh from dead Muslims at the siege of Marra, 11 Dec. 1098 (i. 25. 2), as does Raymond of Aguilers: Le ``Liber'' de Raymond d'Aguilers, ed. J. H. and L. L. Hill (Paris, 1969), p. 101. The author of the Gesta Francorum Iherusalem expugnantium, c. 12 (ibid., p. 498), transfers this to Antioch. Tunc et Stephanus . . . consensit T] 2 June 1098. Stephen of Blois (d. 1102) was the father of Stephen count of Blois and future king of England. It is interesting that William saw ®t to suppress the story of his ¯ight in the short interval of time between the making of the T

/3thomson/tcom4.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:12 ± disk/amj

BOOK IV. 360.2±364.1

319

and A versions of GR. See J. A. Brundage, `An errant crusader: Stephen of Blois', Traditio, xvi (1960), 380±95, and P. Rousset, `EÂtienne de Blois, croise fuyard et martyr', Genava, new ser. xi (1963), 183±95. The various accounts of his reasons for abandoning the Crusade (but not William's) are discussed by Brundage at p. 389. Cowardice and illness were advanced by other chroniclers, but only William mentions his `lies'. Brundage believes that Stephen simply miscalculated that the city was too dif®cult to take, and this was perhaps what he told the new arrivals. Perhaps it would have been fairer if William had said that events soon proved him wrong rather than a liar. His wife insisted that he depart for the East again, where he died (below, cc. 383.1, 405.1). 363 Fulcher i. 17. 1±6, 8, but the emphasis of William's version of Bohemond's capture of the city (3 June 1098) is quite different. Effectively he replaces the miraculous element, conveyed in Fulcher i. 17. 2±4, with motivation of bribery and greed. Nor does Fulcher say that Bohemond obtained agreement from the other leaders that he should hold the city in perpetuity if he took it. On both counts William is closer to the version in Gesta Francorum, c. 20 (pp. 44±5). 364±5 A detailed account of the battle between the crusaders and the army led by Kerbogha is in France, Victory in the East, pp. 269±96. 364 Fulcher i. 19, 20. 3, 21. The fast was held on 25±7 June 1098, Peter sent on the 27th (Hagenmeyer, Chronologie, pp. 173±4). 1 duce Corbaguath satrapa orientali . . . trecenta milia cum uiginti septem ammiratis] Kiwam ed-daula Kerbogha, Turkish governor (atabeg) of Mosul (-1102). In his later editions Fulcher gives the number of his troops as 300,000 but names only three emirs `and many others too numerous to mention'. In his ®rst redaction he had 600,000 troops and gave the names of twenty-eight emirs (there are omissions in some MSS). Either William had more than one redaction of Fulcher or he had one or more independent sources of information. For identi®cations of a dozen or so of the emirs see France, Victory in the East, pp. 260±1. semper magnorum comes prima malorum] Lucan iv. 93: `iamque comes semper magnorum prima malorum'.

/3thomson/tcom4.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:12 ± disk/amj

320

COMMENTARY

2 sortem per duos uel quattuor uel octo] `per V aut per X aut per XX seu per C milites ab utraque parte electos' according to Fulcher i. 21. 1. One wonders why William changed these ®gures; the effect is an overall reduction. 365 Fulcher i. 21±3 (mainly 22. 2±3, 5, 7, 23. 1, 3, 8). But Fulcher does not tell of the appearance of SS. George and Demetrius during the battle. Their appearance is recounted in the Gesta Francorum, c. 29 (p. 69), and Guibert of Nogent, Gesta Dei per Francos vi. 9 (RHC Occ. iv. 206), both of whom add Mercurius. The Gesta Francorum Iherusalem expugnantium, c. 9 (RHC Occ. iii. 496), has the ®rst two pursue the Turks after the battle of Dorylaeum. 1 sed scacchis ludens] Fulcher introduces this detail at a later point (22. 5). dentibus infrendens] Cf. Virgil, Aen. iii. 664, viii. 230, x. 718. 3 angelos Machabeis, simili dumtaxat causa pugnantibus] 2 Macc. 8: 20. Similarly Guibert of Nogent v. 23 (RHC Occ. iv. 207). On the Crusaders' view of themselves as `new Maccabees' see D. H. Green, The MillstaÈtter Exodus (Cambridge, 1966), pp. 246±55; J. Dunbabin, `The Maccabees as exemplars in the tenth and eleventh centuries', in The Bible in the Medieval World: Essays in Memory of Beryl Smalley, ed. K. Walsh and D. Wood (Studies in Church History, Subsidia iv: Oxford, 1985), pp. 31±41. 4 nam pridie nonas Iunii capta fuerat urbs] i.e. 4 June, but rightly 3 (Hagenmeyer, Chronologie, pp. 151±3). Hugo Magnus . . . uiscerum tortionem] No other source gives this as the reason for Hugh's departure. He was sent to Constantinople in early July to offer Antioch to Alexius on condition that he brought aid as agreed. Hugh reached Constantinople about 25 July and was there for at least some days (Hagenmeyer, Chronologie, p. 182). Fulcher indicates that he went on from Constantinople to France. 366±88 Extracts from these chapters are in Itinera Hierosolymitana Crucesignatorum (saec. XII±XIII), ed. S. de Sandoli (4 vols.: Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Coll. maior, xxiv: Jerusalem, 1978±84), ii. 63±71.

/3thomson/tcom4.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:12 ± disk/amj

BOOK IV. 364.2±366.3

321

366 Fulcher i. 25 (mainly 1, 10±12, 14±17). Most of William's sect. 1 is independent; his review of the crusaders' journey from Tripoli to Ramlah is a bare summary of Fulcher's account. 1 sex mensibus] Fulcher says four, but William is correct, since the occupation by the whole army lasted from early June 1098 until the end of the year. diuturna quiete abstersissent] Cf. Sallust, Bell. Cat. xxxi. 1: `diuturna quies pepercerat'. solum Boamundum . . . continuo inuolaturis] The expression seems curiously inverted; one would expect Bohemond's self-interest to have been concealed beneath a specious argument for the defence of Antioch, not vice versa. 2 quod Aprilis mensis erat, et campestres fruges in maturas messes coaluerant] Fulcher simply says that the crusaders `found much grain there' and does not give a date. In fact the crusaders arrived there on 2 June, entering it the following day (Hagenmeyer, Chronologie, p. 236). 3 Ramula est ciuitatula . . . in montana dilapsi] Not in Fulcher; William seems to depend upon Gesta Francorum, c. 36 (p. 87): `Deinde uenimus ad urbem Ramola, quam Saraceni dimiserant uacuam propter metum Francorum'. Not Ramlah but Lydda (Lod), some three miles (5 km.) to the north-east, was without walls, indeed deserted. According to the earliest Passiones (BHL 3363 seq.) George was actually martyred there, and this is the place referred to in the Gesta Francorum, c. 36 (p. 87): `Near Ramlah is a church worthy of great reverence, for in it rests the most precious body of St George, who there suffered blessed martyrdom at the hands of the treacherous pagans for the name of Christ. While we were there our leaders took counsel together to choose a bishop who might protect and build up this church, and they paid him tithes and endowed him with gold and silver, horses and other animals, so that he and his household might live in a proper and religious manner.' The author of the L adaptation of Fulcher describes the church as `antiquitus decenti opere facta, nunc autem deformiter a Turcis dissipata, sed non omnino destructa' (Hagenmeyer, p. 277 n. 44). Tancred nepos Boamundi] His precise relationship to Bohemond is in fact unclear, although William's is the majority view: R. L. Nicholson, Tancred: A Study of his Career and Work in their Relation

/3thomson/tcom4.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:12 ± disk/amj

322

COMMENTARY

to the First Crusade and the Establishment of the Latin States in Syria and Palestine (Chicago, 1940), pp. 2±13. 367 Much from Fulcher i. 27 (especially 2, 5, 9, 10, 12). The Gesta Francorum Iherusalem expugnantium, cc. 31±3 (RHC Occ. iii. 509±12), also gives a detailed description of Jerusalem. 1 quod Iosephus, quod Eucherius, quod Beda scripsere] Josephus, Bell. Iud. vi. 6 (Gk. v. 136 seq.); Pseudo-Eucherius, De situ Hierosolimae (CCSL clxxv), pp. 237±43; Bede, De locis sanctis, cc. 1±4; ibid., pp. 251±80. For a number of short, anonymous English descriptions of Jerusalem written after the First Crusade see R. RoÈhricht, Bibliotheca Geographica Palestinae ( Jerusalem, 1963), pp. 63, 64±5, 66. Interpretation by J. Prawer, `The Jerusalem the Crusaders captured: contribution to the medieval topography of the city', in Crusade and Settlement: Papers read at the First Conference of the Society for the Study of the Crusades in the Latin East and presented to R. C. Smail, ed. P. Edbury (Cardiff, 1985), pp. 1±16. Quis enim . . . uocatam] Based upon Isidore, Etym. xv. 1. 5. sub aduerso marte cadens] Cf. Lucan i. 308: `Marte sub aduerso'. orbiculato et maiori murorum ambitu . . . pro arce supereminet] Not in Fulcher, who says that Hadrian paved the streets and squares. By `Mount Sion' William presumably meant the Tower of David (below, c. 369. 2). 2 templum quod dicunt Salomonis . . . templum presertim Domini] The Dome of the Rock and al-Aqsa Mosque. simulacro Mahumet] William knew better than this (see for instance c. 189 and comments in others of his works cited in Thomson, William of Malmesbury, ch. 9); but here he is following Fulcher i. 26. 10. I am not persuaded by the hypothesis of X. Muratova, that the al-Aqsa mosque contained a Roman statue: `Western chronicles of the First Crusade as sources for the history of art in the Holy Land', in Crusader Art in the Twelfth Century, ed. J. Folda (British Archaeological Reports, International Ser., clii: Oxford, 1982) ), pp. 47±69; discussion in the interesting article of M. Bennett, `First Crusaders' images of Muslims: the in¯uence of vernacular poetry?', Forum for Modern Language Studies, xxii (1986), 101±22, at p. 102. 3 Ibi decenti opere compacta . . . a Constantino Magno edi®cata] cf. Itinerarium Bernardi monachi Franci, c. 11, in Itinera

/3thomson/tcom4.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:12 ± disk/amj

BOOK IV. 366.3±367.4

323

Hierosolymitana et descriptiones Terrae Sanctae bellis sacris anteriora et latina lingua exarata, ed. T. Tobler and A. Molinier (5 vols.: SocieÂte de l'orient latin. SeÂrie geÂographique: Geneva, 1879±85), i. 314±15. The work is translated in J. D. Wilkinson, Jerusalem Pilgrims before the Crusades (Warminster, 1977), pp. 141±5. Quod miraculum . . . cognitione discernitur] Bernard's is the ®rst detailed account of the miracle of the Holy Fire, but it was ®rst mentioned a century earlier in the Life of Theodore the Sabaite (Wilkinson, Jerusalem Pilgrims, p. 142 n. 16). See also the literature cited in Gilo, p. 5 n. 6. in scripto Bernardi monachi] Itinerarium Bernardi monachi Franci, cc. 10±19, ed. Tobler and Molinier, i. 315. Two of the three surviving copies are English: BL MS Cotton Faust. B. 1, fos. 192 seq. (s. xiiex from Fountains abbey), Oxford, Lincoln Coll. MS lat. 96 (s. xiii). Rochester Cathedral Priory had a copy by 1122±3: Sharpe et al., English Benedictine Libraries: The Shorter Catalogues, p. 64. The volume, which also contained Fulcher and either Dudo or William of JumieÁges, does not survive. abhinc annis ducentis quinquaginta, id est anno incarnationis octingentesimo septuagesimo] All the surviving manuscripts of the Itinerarium Bernardi read, wrongly, `nongentesimo' (Tobler and Molinier i, pp. xliv, 309), as do the TB versions of GR, while the correct ®gure is given in AC (see Vol. i, apparatus ad loc.). Two explanations suggest themselves. (1) William's exemplar had the wrong date, which he corrected (perhaps knowing the dates of Pope Nicholas I, mentioned in the Itinerarium, c. 1; i. 309). Yet the wrong date crept back into the latest state of his text (see above, p. xxxiii n. 28, for instances of corrections in B deriving from T). (2) William might have seen more than one copy of the Itinerarium, one of which had the correct date. The copy in BL Cotton MS Vitell. E. ii, burnt in 1731, had the correct date according to T. Wright, Early Travels in Palestine (London, 1848), p. xvi. Interestingly, 870 + 250 years brings us down to 1120, which might represent the year in which this section of the GR was ®rst written; but William may have been using round ®gures. 4 Christianos sub Turchorum dominio] Bernard speaks of `pagans' or `Saracens'. He does not, of course, name the Turks, who did not occupy the Holy Land until after 1071, or rule Egypt until long after William's time.

/3thomson/tcom4.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:12 ± disk/amj

324

COMMENTARY

368 William clearly had access to a catalogue of patriarchs. There are closely-related examples in BL MS Cotton Tiberius B. v, fos. 19v-22 (s. x/xi, ?Winchester then Battle), the Textus Roffensis, fos. 107±8, and in Oxford, Corpus Christi Coll. MS 157, p. 38 ( John of Worcester); but the ®rst two go only as far as no. 41 (William's forty-fourth), `Iohannes' after `Cyrillus'. John of Worcester's list ends with Ciriacus (William's fortieth); otherwise his list is particularly close to William's, including as it does the parenthetic material after Iudas and Macharius. The standard list of patriarchs (beginning with Hymenaeus, ad 260±78) is in Grumel, Traite d'eÂtudes byzantines, i. La chronologie, pp. 451±2, but still fundamental is M. Le Quien, Oriens Christianus, iii (Paris, 1740), pp. 139±499, which includes full discussion of the sources. William's list contains many variants from the printed ones, some apparently errors resulting from his own eye-skip: Machabeus = Matthaeus (so John of Worcester); Iustus (TA Iesse) = Joseph (so John of Worcester); Antonius = Antoninus; Docilianus = Dolichianus (Eulicianus John of Worcester); after Gordius le Quien has `iterum Narcissus'; Irmeneus = Hymenaeus; after Macarius I Wm. adds Cyriacus; Wm. has Cyril I twice, with details as in other Latin catalogues; after Juvenal he omits Theodosius, Anastasius I, Martyrius, Salustius, Elias I, one of John III or IV, Peter, Macarius II, Eustochius/Eutychius, Macarius II again, Amos, Isaac/Hesychius; after Sophronius he omits ?Anastasius II, John V; after Basil he omits John VI; Ilia = Elias II; Salomontos = Salomon; after Christodoulos I he omits Agatho, Ioannes VII, Christodoulos II; after Joseph II he omits Agapios, after Nicephorus ?Ioannicius. 1 Iacobus frater Domini ®lius Alphei] `®lius Ioseph' T1A, rightly. James the brother of Our Lord and James son of Alphaeus were different persons. Simeon] Symon TtAl, probably a scribal slip. The source for Cleophas as Joseph's brother was doubtless Eusebius/Ru®nus, Historia ecclesiastica iii. 11. hi quindecim circumcisi fuerunt] So Eusebius/Ru®nus, Historia ecclesiastica iv. 5; Eusebius/Jerome, Chronicon s.a. 124. Gaius . . . Romanorum] This note has probably fallen out of its proper place. The ®rst to celebrate Easter thus was Grumel's no. 30, Narcissus: so Eusebius/Ru®nus, Historia ecclesiastica v. 23; Eusebius/ Jerome, Chronicon s.a. 196.

/3thomson/tcom4.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:12 ± disk/amj

BOOK IV. 368±368.4

325

Macharius . . . Helena] Perhaps from Cassiodorus, Hist. trip. ii. 18 (PL lxix. 936D-37A). 2 Cirillus . . . uocati sunt episcopi] The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, ed. F. L. Cross and E. A. Livingstone (3rd edn., Oxford, 1997), p. 1231, dates the change from episcopate to patriarchate from the council of Chalcedon in 451. Zacharias . . . Christianorum] 90,000 is the ®gure given in Paul the Deacon, Hist. Romana, c. 18 (PL xcv. 1025A). 2±3 Sophronius . . . quingentis] On the invasion of Palestine and Jerusalem cf. Paul the Deacon, Hist. Romana, c. 18 (PL xcv. 1044D7B). 3 Theodosium fuisse abbatem Bernardus memorat . . . Michaelem dicit fuisse patriarcham Babilonis . . . in Babilonem] Itinerarium Bernardi, c. 11 (i. 315). Michael I was patriarch of Alexandria 859±72. 4 Achim Soldanus de Babilonia] Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah, sixth Fatimid caliph of Egypt 996±1021. His persecution of the Christians of Jerusalem is described by William of Tyre i. 4±5 (CCSL cont. med. lxiii. 109±12). His father, al-Aziz bi'llah (975±96), had used his in¯uence to have his brother-in-law Orestes made patriarch in 986. hic edi®cauit casam sancti Sepulchri] William refers to the restoration of 1048, ®nanced by the Emperor Constantine IX. Far from favouring such work, Hakim (who was anyhow dead) had completely demolished the already-damaged church in 1009. But the restoration was only partial; within the ruins a new domed rotunda was constructed over the tomb with a polygonal apse and a line of three projecting chapels to the south. The old basilica (`martyrium') was not rebuilt. `casam', the TAB reading, presumably re¯ects this unsatisfactory state of things, although it is an exaggeration. The new crusaders' church was consecrated on 15 July 1149. See T. S. R. Boase in K. Setton et al., A History of the Crusades, iv (Madison and London, 1977), pp. 74±8, with the main earlier literature cited on pp. 74±5 note 2; also the concise account and illustrations in The Atlas of the Crusades, ed. J. Riley-Smith (London, 1991), pp. 46±7.

/3thomson/tcom4.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:12 ± disk/amj

326

COMMENTARY

369±71 For a recent account and analysis of the siege and capture of Jerusalem, and the battle of Ascalon, see France, Victory in the East, pp. 334±65. 369 Mainly from Fulcher i. 27, except for the dates for the ®nal siege of Jerusalem, 13±15 July. These could have come to him, directly or indirectly, from the Gesta Francorum, c. 38 (p. 90): Hagenmeyer, Chronologie, pp. 251±3. 1 Ierusalem, urbs bellorum maxima merces] Cf. Lucan ii. 227± 8: `Exulibus Mariis bellorum maxima merces / Roma recepta fuit', ii. 655±6: `ipsa, caput mundi, bellorum maxima merces / Roma capi facilis'. 2 Fons ille . . . Iosaphat] Fulcher i. 26. 1. Quocirca nostros . . . impiger assidebat] Not in Fulcher. Haec, ab occasu solis urbem muniens, . . . repellit] Fulcher i. 26. 3±4. 3 obsessionis die septimo] 13 July. machinamentum quod . . . ueteres uineam uocant . . . ad murorum suffodienda penetrant fundamenta] William airs his learning by quoting Vegetius, De arte militari iv. 15: `Vineas dixerunt ueteres . . . Huius tectum munitione duplici, tabulatis cratibusque contexitur. Latera quoque uimine saepiuntur, ne saxorum telorumque impetu penetrentur. Extrinsecus autem, ne immisso concremetur incendio, crudis ac recentibus coriis . . . operitur. Istae, cum plures factae fuerint, iunguntur in ordine: sub quibus subsidentes tuti ad subruenda murorum penetrant fundamenta.' His copy of Vegetius is in Oxford, Lincoln Coll. MS lat. 100: Thomson, William of Malmesbury, pp. 87±8; J. A. Wisman, `L'Epitoma rei militaris de VeÂgeÁce et sa fortune au moyen aÃge', Le moyen aÃge, lxxxv (1979), 13±31; C. R. Schrader, `A handlist of extant manuscripts containing the De re militari of Flavius Vegetius Renatus', Scriptorium, xxxiii (1979), 280± 305; B. S. Bachrach, `The practical use of Vegetius's De re militari during the Middle Ages', The Historian, xlvii (1985), 239±55. William's account implies sapping of the wall, but in fact the vinea was merely a pentice or shelter which provided protection for a variety of activities. In this instance it was used in conjunction with a battering-ram: France, Victory in the East, pp. 349±50. William was misled by Fulcher, who gives separate and unconnected accounts of

/3thomson/tcom4.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:12 ± disk/amj

BOOK IV. 369±370

327

shelters (`scrophae') and rams (`arietes') (i. 27. 5, 8), without describing the function of the former. 4 turris non magna, in modum edi®tiorum facta (berfreid appellant)] See DMLBS i, s.v. `berefredum' (Old French `berfroi'). Similar to William is Orderic (iv. 232±3): `Ingentem machinam quam berfredum uocitant contra munitionem erexit'. A little later (iv. 288± 9) he mentions the construction of siege-machinery in 1092 by Robert of BelleÃme, `whose engineering skill was to help the Christians capture Jerusalem'. The siege-tower at Jerusalem was `muro supereminens septem aut eo amplius ulnis' according to the Gesta Francorum Iherusalem expugnantium, c. 24 (RHC Occ. iii. 513). pro fabrorum inscitia . . . dies quartus decimus Iulii] Neither detail in Fulcher. 6 reducto nisu brachiorum arietando effringerent] cf. Fulcher i. 27. 8 `cum arietibus pulsando', for which the author of the L adaptation substitutes `arietando' (Hagenmeyer, p. 297 n. 26). 8 Quingentos quoque Ethiopas . . . Ascalonem dimisit] Fulcher i. 27. 12, 30. 3. Decem milia in templo Salomonis] So Fulcher i. 27. 13. ex fastigiis templorum et arcis precipitata] We have translated `arx' as `citadel', that is, the forti®cation by the Jaffa Gate of which the Tower of David was a part. cadauera . . . ne sub diuo in tabem ¯uentia inerti attraherent contagia mundo] Cf. Lucan vi. 88±9: `Corpora dum soluit tabes et digerit artus, / traxit iners caelum ¯uidae contagia pestis'. The second line is also echoed in GP, c. 18 (p. 28). Compare Fulcher's reason for the burning of the bodies, which William evidently did not like: to extract the gold the Saracens may have swallowed (i. 28. 1). 9 Ita cede in®delium expiata . . . corporibus expetierunt] Fulcher i. 29. nec si ueterum . . . resurgeret] Sidonius, Carm. ii. 69±72: `quem dicere digno / non datur eloquio, nec si modo surgat Auerno / qui cantu ¯exit scopulos digitisque canoris / compulit auritas ad plectrum currere siluas.' 370 Fulcher i. 28. 2, 29. 1, 30. 1±2. But William contradicts the description of the Crusaders' plundering given by Fulcher at 28. 1.

/3thomson/tcom4.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:12 ± disk/amj

328

COMMENTARY

2 William's account, following Fulcher's, is very summary and not altogether correct. There was considerable dissension over whether king or patriarch should be created ®rst, and the pope's wishes were certainly not uppermost in the minds of the parties at Jerusalem. On 22 July 1099 the kingship was offered to Raymond of Saint-Gilles, who refused it; it was promptly offered to Godfrey who accepted, though with the title of `Advocatus Sancti Sepulchri'. Pope Urban II died on 29 July; Arnulf of Choques was elected patriarch on 1 Aug.: Hagenmeyer, Chronologie, pp. 257±8, 260±1; Runciman, History of the Crusades, i. 289±94. 371 William narrates the battle of Ascalon, 12 Aug. 1099, based upon the account in Fulcher i. 31. 1±3, 5±6, 10±11. But Fulcher does not mention the presence of Robert of Normandy in the vanguard, or the cavalry of Lorraine under Godfrey, in the rear. This information of William's, and his account of the conduct of the battle, is substantially correct: France, Victory in the East, pp. 363±5. 1 At uero Babilonis imperator . . . misit ducem militiae] The `imperator' was the Fatimid caliph al-Musta'li (1094±1101), his `dux militiae' the vizier al-Afdal. At uero Babilonis imperator . . . Taphnis] Strictly, Babylon was the name for the Greco-Roman town conquered by the Arabs in 641 and incorporated in their nearby camp of Al-Fustat, now part of modern Cairo (Al-Kahariya), which was founded with that name in 970. The local Copts continued to use the name Babylon for all of these places, and from them its use spread to the West. `illius quae a Nembroth . . . aucta' is from Isidore, Etym. xv. 1. 4. Josephus, Antiqu. Iud. ii. 315, names Cambyses as the founder of Egyptian Babylon, but does not identify it with earlier `Taphnis' (mod. Tell Defenneh). No further light is shed on this identi®cation by A. J. Butler, Babylon of Egypt (Oxford, 1914), repr. as a supplement in id., The Arab Conquest of Egypt, 2nd edn. by P. M. Fraser (Oxford, 1978); it is anyhow wrong since the two places are widely separated. This was already known to William of Tyre xi. 31, xix. 23, xx. 8, 14 (CCSL lxiii. 543, lxiiiA. 894±5, 920, 928±9). A similar distinction between the two Babylons is made by the `Charleville Poet', responsible for additions to Gilo, pp. 149±53, mentioning the same persons and the destruction of the ®rst Babylon, but not Taphnis.

/3thomson/tcom4.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:12 ± disk/amj

BOOK IV. 370.2±373.2

329

2 quam quidem Sirus ciuis . . . propalauerat] Fulcher i. 30. 4. Felix plane et ®dele furtum] Cf. Sedulius, Carm. pasch. iii. 127±8: `furtumque ®dele / laudat'. Similarly in GP, c. 129 (p. 268). 3 bipertito agmine] In the sense that the army was divided into infantry (in the centre) and cavalry (in two groups, one on each ¯ank). 4 libertatem fugae et campos abstulit omnes] Cf. Lucan viii. 371 (and Prudentius, Psych. 193): `libertate fugae'; iv. 262±3: `campos eques obuius omnis / abstulit'. According to France's interpretation (Victory in the East, p. 362 ®g. 18) the Egyptian army was forced by the Crusaders into a con®ned space bounded on the south by the wall of Ascalon and on the west by the Mediterranean Sea. 372 Fulcher i. 32 is the basis for the ®rst sentence and the ®rst clause of the second. 2 Cedant ergo poetarum preconia . . . uigebit Christianitas] Somewhat reminiscent of Virgil, Aen. ix. 446±9, referring to Nisus and Euryalus: `Fortunati ambo! si quid mea carmina possunt, / nulla dies umquam memori uos eximet aeuo, / dum domus Aeneae Capitoli immobile saxum / accolet imperiumque pater Romanus habebit.' Cf. Mir., c. 15 (p. 98): `Cedant ergo huic pietati omnium sanctorum praeconia' et seq. uetus attollat fabula] Cf. Lucan vi. 48: `Nunc uetus Iliacos attollat fabula muros'. in sepulchrales fauillas post mortem euanuit] Cf. Ilias latina 1062: `Inque leues abiit tantus dux ille fauillas'. The echo seems certi®ed by a variant in Mir., p. 190: `nec totus in fauillas adibo'. See Wright II, p. 503 and n. 80. 373 For this section William is entirely independent of Fulcher. It seems that most of his information was derived from oral sources. 1±2 Eustachii comitis Bononiensis . . . hereditas paterna obtigerat] Similarly Orderic v. 174±5. On Godfrey's family see Andressohn, The Ancestry and Life of Godfrey of Bouillon, pp. 9±26. Born c.1060, his father was Eustace II count of Boulogne, who married Ida (d. 1113), sister of Godfrey III (`Bocard' = `the Hunchback') duke of Lower Lorraine (1069±76); his father was Godfrey II. William, by calling him `antiquus', might seem to imply that he was the ®rst duke of Lorraine; but see above, c. 256. 3, for an instance of the word arguably used to mean `elder', in order to distinguish

/3thomson/tcom4.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:12 ± disk/amj

330

COMMENTARY

persons of the same name. This is distinct from the superlative at c. 383. 1 below, used with its less usual meaning of `noble' or `distinguished'. The ®rst duke was Godfrey II's uncle of the same name, formerly count of Verdun, duke of Lorraine 1012±23. And Charlemagne was indeed Godfrey of Bouillon's ancestor, but on both sides (genealogical tables in Andressohn, pp. 10, 19). His elder brother was Eustace III count of Boulogne (d. c.1125). Godfrey III married Matilda of Tuscany in 1069 or 1070, but the marriage was not a happy one and before long they separated, Matilda returning to Italy. At this point Godfrey became embroiled in the struggle for the control of Flanders between Richildis, widow of Count Baldwin VI of Flanders, and Baldwin's brother Robert of Frisia (Verlinden, pp. 80±99, esp. 95 seq.). Godfrey backed Richildis, acquiring for himself some territory in Frisia. He was assassinated on 26 Feb. 1076. The humiliating circumstances were relished by the chroniclers, for instance Lampert of Hersfeld, Annales s.a. (pp. 255± 6): `Cum enim quadam nocte, quiescentibus omnibus, ad necessitatem naturae secessisset, appositus extra domum spiculator confodit eum per secreta natium, relictoque in uulnere ferro, concitus aufugit.' Robert of Frisia was suspected by Lampert and others, reasonably enough, but so also were Matilda (Landolf of Milan iii. 31, MGH SS, viii. 97 seq.) and Gislebert, a servant of Theoderic V count of Holland (Annales Egmundani, MGH SS, xvi. 447 seq.). Godfrey's murder enabled the succession of Robert's stepson (Theoderic V, d. 1091) to the county of Holland. Note that William confuses his readers by twice referring to the county of Frisia/Holland as a `ducatus' (`in successionem ducatus', `successit ducatui'), perhaps in an effort to distinguish Holland from the county of Flanders. In his last moments Godfrey designated his nephew, Godfrey of Bouillon, as his heir. William's comments about Matilda defending the duchy of Lorraine against the emperor are both confused and erroneous, probably re¯ecting prevailing clerical (pro-Matilda) sentiment in the wake of the Investiture Contest (Andressohn, pp. 34±5). Matilda loathed her ex-husband and had no interest in defending his duchy after his death. And he, of course, had no lands in Italy; these were Matilda's own. On the other hand she claimed back estates of her deceased husband with the support of the pope and others. Godfrey of Bouillon had to ®ght until c.1086±8 to establish his title to his uncle's lands.

/3thomson/tcom4.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:12 ± disk/amj

BOOK IV. 373±373.6

331

2 ad requisita naturae] The same expression in Jerome, Adv. Jov. i. 41, quoted in William's Polyhistor, p. 81 line 22. inferiores terras] According to William's normal use of `inferior' to indicate geographical direction this would indicate country to the west (of Lorraine): see above, c. 1. 2n. Clearly, however, the county of Holland (to the north) is meant, and thus we seem to have an early instance of the term `Low Countries'. 3 Godefridus . . . imperatori Henrico . . . Lotharingiam] See Runciman, A History of the Crusades, i. 145±6, Andressohn, pp. 35± 46. At ®rst Henry IV was cautious about Godfrey. After the death of his uncle Henry would only invest him with the march of Antwerp; he had to wait until 1087 for the duchy of Lower Lorraine. In the meantime other evidence suggests that he was indeed endeavouring to prove himself to Henry as worthy to be duke (Andressohn, pp. 36±9). orta inter papam et Henricum . . . quartanam iniit] Referring to the hostilities between Henry IV and Pope Gregory VII. William's story of Godfrey's exploits in Rome (in 1083) has the appearance of legend; nonetheless during the siege of Antioch Godfrey apparently reminisced about his time in Rome with Henry IV and the ravages of pestilence there: Albert of Aachen v. 13 (RHC Occ. iv. 440). 4 totis infundere toxica tonnis] Unidenti®ed (medieval) quotation. Alii ei partem . . . sed lentae febris incommodo uacasse] The illness was obviously malaria. 4±5 William is the only writer to record what he thought was Godfrey's reason for going on Crusade, and there is no need to doubt its veracity. 5 nodosos integer artus et spatioso erectus pectore] Cf. Statius, Theb. iv. 94: `iam laetus et integer artus', iv. 173: `at laterum tractus spatiosaque pectora seruat'. magnas in bellum trahens cateruas] Cf. Lucan ii. 729: `totosque trahens in bella penates'. 5±6 Turchum . . . disciderit] Popular stories, the ®rst told for instance by Baudri of Bourgueil ii. 1 (RHC Occ. iv. 50), Albert of Aachen (ibid. 385), and Guibert of Nogent vii. 11 (ibid., pp. 229±30), but also by many others: ibid., p. 50 note b. Similar stories were told of Robert Curthose: David, Robert Curthose, pp. 194±5.

/3thomson/tcom4.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:12 ± disk/amj

332

COMMENTARY

6 a leone inuasum . . . interire] A similar story is told by Guibert of Nogent vii. 12 (RHC Occ. iv. 230), Albert of Aachen iii. 4 (ibid., p. 341), the `Charleville poet', responsible for additions to Gilo, pp. 94±5, and William of Tyre iii. 18 (i. 219±20), all making the combatant a bear. Guibert, like William, links the stories of the Turk and animal together to illustrate Godfrey's prowess. Note, though, that on the one hand neither Guibert, Albert, nor the `Charleville poet' went on the Crusade, and on the other that William claims to have had the story from an eyewitness. 7 post bellum Babilonicum] The `Babylonic war', i.e. war against Cairo, not at Cairo, meaning the battle before Ascalon described above, c. 371. diuina sollertia] A strikingly un-Christian concept: cf. Cicero, Acad. ii. 120: `negatis haec . . . ef®ci potuisse sine diuina aliqua sollertia'; De nat. deorum i. 53: `quam uos ef®ci negetis sine diuina posse sollertia'; ii. 110: `ut in tantis descriptionibus diuina sollertia appareat'. ne malitia . . . intellectum illius] Wisd. 4: 11. 8 This date is given by Fulcher i. 36. The year was 1100. Versions of William's story of Godfrey's unwillingness to wear a crown are transferred to Raymond of Saint-Gilles by Albert of Aachen vi. 33 (RHC Occ. iv. 485), and Raymond of Aguilers, p. 152. 374 Mostly from Fulcher i. 14. 2±14, 33. 4±14, 16±17, 19±20, 34. 2, 5±7, with some additions and variations. 1 stilo non quidem agresti . . . ut accuratius scriberent] Cf. Cicero, De leg. i. 6: `habuitque uires agrestis ille quidem atque horridas, sine nitore ac palaestra, sed tamen admonere reliquos potuit ut accuratius scriberent'. The words were allegedly addressed by Atticus to Cicero, trying to persuade him to write history by citing his literary superiority to contemporary writers such as Antipater, a Roman historian whose works are now lost. As Neil Wright points out, William is by implication comparing himself favourably to Cicero, who in the event did not accept the challenge to write history: Wright III, pp. 3±4. 2 nouos sibi exercitus . . . enitescere posset] Cf. Sallust, Bell. Cat. liv. 4: `exercitum . . . exoptabat, ubi uirtus enitescere posset'. William also used versions of this passage in GP: Wright II, p. 485

/3thomson/tcom4.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:12 ± disk/amj

BOOK IV. 373.6±374.9

333

n. 10. Both this and the quotation from Sallust at c. 68 above are found in Augustine, De civ. Dei v. 12 (Wright II, p. 485 and n. 11). trium dierum ab Antiochia spatio] Not in Fulcher. Tarsum, Pauli quondam apostoli alumnam . . . a Turchis protegi] Not in Fulcher, who puts the surrender of Turbessel after that of Tarsus and says that Baldwin had to take Tarsus away from Tancred who had already introduced his own troops with the assent of the inhabitants. 3 Turbexel . . . oppidum natura munitum] Modern Tell Bashir in southern Turkey, about half-way between Antioch and Edessa (modern Antakya and Urfa). dux Edessae urbis] The Armenian Toros (Theodorus) son of Hethum (1094±8): J. Laurent, `Des grecs aux croiseÂs: EÂtude sur l'histoire d'EÂdesse entre 1071 et 1098', Byzantion, i (1924), 367±449; Setton et al., A History of the Crusades, i. 303±4. 4 Ea est urbs . . . Rothasiam dicunt] Fulcher does not include the reference to the city's two names but the L adaptation does: `Dux erat urbis Edessae, id est Rothasiae, quae nominatissima et uberrima constat, quam graeco uocabulo dicunt Edessam, Armenii autem et Syri, qui in ea et in patria habitant, Rothasiam. Est illa in Mesopotamia Syriae distans ab Euphrate ¯umine XX miliariis' (Hagenmeyer, p. 209 n. 18). `Rothasia' is derived from the Arabic al-Ruha: C. Cahen, La Syrie du Nord aÁ l'eÂpoque des Croisades (Paris, 1940), p. iii. ubere glebae] Virgil, Aen. i. 531. Similarly above, c. 121. 11. 5 in historia Eusebii] Eusebius (tr. Ru®nus), Hist. eccl. vii. 30. dicit Iosephus] Josephus, Antiq. Iud. xiv. 25 (Gk. xiv. 439). 7 Ibi liberalitate Raimundi comitis . . . tenui pretio] Fulcher does not mention Count Raymond or the special deal done with him. Raymond had arrived at Laodicea to ®nd its Christian inhabitants being besieged by forces led by Bohemond and Daimbert of Pisa. Gibello transito] William here seems to have thought that Jabala was a river, though he did not below, c. 376. 2. Daibertus Pisanus archiepiscopus] Daimbert, bishop of Pisa from 1088, archbishop from 1092, patriarch of Jerusalem 1099±1102. 8 quod in illis terris . . . inundet] William's own comment. 9 harundines mellitas . . . uocant] So Fulcher i. 33. 10; the reference is of course to sugar-cane. solstitii brumalis die] 21 Dec. 1100.

/3thomson/tcom4.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:12 ± disk/amj

334

COMMENTARY

Occurrit illis ad portas . . . omittens obsequio] Not in Fulcher (who only mentions Eustace once, at i. 24. 1), but from the L adaptation (Hagenmeyer, p. 332 n. 43): `cum autem ad portam ciuitatis peruenissemus, dux Godefridus et frater eius Eustachius, Balduini fratres, una cum populo omni exierunt obuiam nobis, clericis praeeuntibus cum crucibus et cereis accensis, pro nobis Domino exsultanter psallentibus et usque ad Sepulchram Domini deducentibus.' 11 et trecentorum militum] 400 according to Fulcher i. 34. 6. furori prospexerunt . . . habundantia lentati] William's account (cf. below, c. 376. 4) is entirely different from that in Fulcher i. 34. 6. Fulcher says nothing of feigned ¯ight, and claims that it was the Turks who suffered from the rain, which dissolved the glue used in the manufacture of their bows and arrows. 375 Fulcher i. 35. 2±6. ad 1100. 1 Initio autem Iulii] The date is William's inference from Fulcher (i. 35. 2), who gives it for Bohemond's arrival at Melitene. In fact he was captured somewhat later, about 15 Aug. (Hagenmeyer, Chronologie, pp. 313±4). a quodam Danisman gentili] `Danishmend', a Persian title (not personal name) meaning `learned', was applied to a Turkoman chief whose descendants exercised power in Anatolia 1063±1174. William (following Fulcher) here refers to his son Emir Malik Ghazi GuÈmuÈshtekin (1097±1105). 2 non inuito prefecto Gabriele] Gabriel was an Armenian prince, ruler of Melitene to 1103. 376 Fulcher i. 36. 1, ii. 1. 1±2, 4±5, 2. 1±6, 3. 1±2, 5±12. The period covered is from 18 July (death of Godfrey of Bouillon) until about Sept. 1100. 1 commendata Edessa Balduino cognato] Baldwin II of Le Bourg, count of Edessa 1100±18, king of Jerusalem 1118±31. The two Baldwins were second cousins. 2 cuius urbis ammiratus] Tripoli was ruled by the Arabic BannuAmmar family. The name of the emir is not recorded. Ducach rex Damascenorum] Dukak shams al-Muluk, emir of Damascus 1095±1104.

/3thomson/tcom4.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:12 ± disk/amj

BOOK IV. 374.9±377.3

335

3±7 William describes the battle of Nahr-al-Kalb, Oct. 1100 (Hagenmeyer, Chronologie, pp. 328±31). 4 mittit aliquos qui prelia prima lacessant elitiantque incautos] Cf. Lucan iv. 720±1: `Mittitur, exigua qui proelia prima lacessat / eliciatque manu'. Non latuit Balduinum . . . edixit] The tactic is not made obvious by Fulcher. 5 nullique tumultus excussere uiris mentes] Lucan iv. 535±6. And below, c. 390. 1. et pauci terraque marique innumeras sustinuere manus] Lucan iv. 537±8: `innumerasque simul pauci terraque marique / sustinuere manus.' 7 se ingurgitant ¯agitiis] Cf. Jerome, Epist. xxii. 13. 3: `se mero ingurgitauerint'. Also below, c. 419. 4. 8 caede suorum uisa] Cf. Virgil, Aen. ix. 778: `audita caede suorum'. 9 Caipha . . . Castri illius nomen antiquum reperire nequeo] The ancient name was Porphyreon. Azotum] William ignores Fulcher's comment that `we then in ignorance thought [Arsur] was Azotus. But it is not, because Azotus was one of the ®ve cities of the Philistines and is between Jaffa and Ascalon. It is now reduced to a village.' Fulcher is correct: Arsur is ten miles (16 km.) north of Jaffa, Azotus, the ancient Ashdod, twenty-one miles (33 km.) south. 377 Based upon Fulcher ii. 3. 13, 15, 4. 1±3, 5, 5. 1±2, 4±5, 8±9. The period covered is early Nov.Ð21 Dec. 1100. 1 Igitur ab Ioppitis Ierosolimam deductus] Not in Fulcher. 2±3 busta preteriit patriarcharum . . . sed inferiori gloria] Hebron is nineteen miles (30 km.) south of Jerusalem. It was taken by assault by Baldwin in 1100, and a community of Augustinian canons installed by 1112. Fulcher mentions the patriarchs, and Sarah and Rebecca, without naming Hebron but giving the place as fourteen (Roman) miles from Jerusalem, which is approximately correct; he does not have the information on the body of Joseph and his brothers. It is clear, from the earlier and contemporary sources, that there were six tombs at Hebron, though there is disagreement as to whose they were (Adam and Joseph ®gure in some accounts). For instance,

/3thomson/tcom4.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:12 ± disk/amj

336

COMMENTARY

Adamnan, De locis sanctis ii. 10. 7±8 (CCSL clxxv. 210) has the three patriarchs and their wives (and Adam) buried there. Both Isidore, Etym. xv. 1. 21, and Bede, De locis sanctis, c. 14 (CCSL clxxv. 275), say that Neapolis was once Sichem; Adamnan, De locis sanctis ii. 21. 6 (ibid., p. 217) says that Joseph was buried there, but does not mention his brothers. William might have been expected to know the account in Saewulf 's Peregrinatio (CCSL cont. med. cxxxix. 59±77), which describes a visit to the Holy Land in 1102±3. Its author has been assumed to be identical with the merchant of the same name mentioned in GP, c. 146 (pp. 286±7), who as an old man and in William's time became a monk at Malmesbury. The identi®cation cannot be proved, although the comparative rarity of the name Saewulf is in its favour: three occurrences are given in Searle, Onomasticon Anglo-Saxonicum, p. 408, two of them too early to have been the traveller. Saewulf says that Hebron is four leagues from Jerusalem (approximating to William's thirteen miles), and that the patriarchs and their wives were buried there (`et Adam protoplastus similiter'), and he makes the identi®cation of Neapolis with ancient Sichem. However, he also asserts that Joseph's remains were at Hebron (`ossa . . . Ioseph . . . quasi in extremis partibus castelli humilius ceteris sunt tumulata'), and has quite different information about Sichem/Nablus: Peregrinatio, p. 73. There is no reason to suppose, therefore, that William used his account. In 1119 a crack appeared in the ¯oor of the church at Hebron, which was built over the Cave of Machpela. The canons made their way into the cave and discovered bones which were declared to be those of the patriarchs. See D. Pringle, The Churches of the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem: a Corpus, i (Cambridge, 1993), pp. 224±39, no. 100. William seems to have known more than the earlier written sources, in particular for his description of the tombs at Sichem/ Nablus. In fact Sichem (Shechem) and Nablus are separate, though contiguous; Joseph's body is still exhibited at the former. 3 Venit ergo exercitus . . . iaculatus] The Wadi Musa. The reference is to Gen. 19: 24±5. Ibi lacus per octodecim milia diffunditur] The Dead Sea. William's estimate of its length (presumably north-south) is well short of the modern distance of some 70 km. (39.4 Roman miles).

/3thomson/tcom4.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:12 ± disk/amj

BOOK IV. 377.2±377.3

337

Fulcher, quoting Josephus (De bell. Iud. iv. 482), gives the length as 580 stades (108.7 km.). This ®gure, according to Dr Cippora Klein (letter of 19 Aug. 1996), `is corroborated by supporting evidence, mainly a deposit of aragonite stripe on the wall of the Assembly Room at Qumran, at the elevation of 330 m. The north-south distance between the appropriate contours on the topographical map is about 109 km.' See further C. Klein, `The steep rise of the Dead Sea level during the ®rst century B.C.E. and its impact on the Western world', Israel Geological Survey (1988), pp. 61±2. The Dead Sea is in effect divided in two, at about two-thirds of the way down its north-south axis, by the Lisan Peninsula. In dry periods the water level has fallen to such an extent that either the division has become complete or the southern basin has dried up entirely. (At present the division is complete and the southern basin occupied by evaporation ponds for the extraction of chemicals.) Thus, for example, `allusions in the Bible suggest that the water was quite low, leaving the southern basin dry. The earliest map showing the Dead Sea, a mosaic from A.D. 560, shows only the northern basin': I. Steinhorn and J. R. Gat, `The Dead Sea', Scienti®c American, ccxlix(4) (Oct. 1983), 84±91, at p. 85. William's informant may have estimated only the length of the northern basin at a time when either it was completely divided off from the southern or the southern basin was dry. But even when applied to the northern basin only (at present 57 km. long), Drs Klein and Z. Ben-Avraham (email of 21 Apr. 1997) believe that the ®gure of eighteen roman miles (26 km.) is unreasonably small. potantium ora torqueat et gustu amaro] Cf. Virgil, Georg. ii. 246±7: `et ora / tristia temptantum sensu torquebit amaro.' Cf. GP, c. 153 (p. 292). ubi colligitur quod quidam nitrum, quidam salis gemmam uocant] Cf. Fulcher ii. 5. 2: `iuxta quem lacum exstat similiter salsus mons unus ingens et excelsus, et idem sal quasi lapis natiuus, non tamen totus, sed localiter glaciei simillimus'. William may have had other written information. In the ancient world `nitrum' designated a naturally-occurring alkali such as sodium carbonate or potassium nitrate. Its presence near the Dead Sea was recorded by Strabo vii. 16. 42. By `gemma salis' William presumably meant what Fulcher described, namely rock-salt (so also, for instance, Gilbertus Anglicus, Compendium medicinae (Lyons, 1510), bk. ii fol. 83v col. 1). But Isidore, Etym. xvi. 2. 7, says that `nitrum' is very like salt in its nature and properties.

/3thomson/tcom4.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:12 ± disk/amj

338

COMMENTARY

William and Fulcher were referring to the vast deposits of rocksalt (from the surface to a depth of at least 2700 m.) at Mt Sdom at the southern end of the Dead Sea. The area is characterized by salt stalactites and cubes of pure halite, and by sinkholes, funnels and caves: Y. K. Bentor, `Salt deposits of the Dead Sea region', The Geological Society of America, special paper lxxxviii (1968), 139±56. If by `nitrum' William really meant anything different it might have been gypsum (calcium sulphate) which is also abundant in the area. 4 uenerunt ad uillam sane locupletissimam] According to Fulcher, in his ®rst redaction, this was Zoar/Segor in the Ghor asSa®, either modern As-Sa® or Qasr at-Tuba ( Jordan): Wilkinson, Jerusalem Pilgrims, p. 178 (s.v. Zoar). preter aliquantos Ethiopas . . . risu dignati sunt] William gives a fuller description of the `Ethiopians' than Fulcher. By this term he seems to mean any black person, as in antiquity; cf. Mir., c. 18 (p. 102). 5 Huic uillae subiacet uallis . . . rotet] The reference is to Gen. 17: 1. in decliui montis] By this expression William evidently intended the same as Fulcher's `in montis apice' (ii. 5. 9). Cf. VD i. 15 (p. 269): `Mons . . . arboribus opacis decliui crescens supercilio'. The church was the (Greek) monastic church of St Aaron at Jabal Harun (Mt Hor), south of the Wadi Musa and south-west of ancient Petra: Pringle, Churches of the Crusader Kingdom, pp. 251±2, no. 103. The present building, including a crypt with the tomb of Aaron, is Muslim and dates from 1338±9. ubi mediante . . . cum Deo alloquia] Aaron was Moses' brother; the reference is to the events narrated in Exod. 4: 28±31. 378 Fulcher ii. 6±7. 379 William follows the version of Fulcher ii. 8. 2 given in the L adaptation, pr. Hagenmeyer, pp. 831±4. 380 Fulcher ii. 8±9. William adds a few details which might be his own invention: scaling-ladders at 2 and 3, the rolling down of millstones at 3. 1 aurique cupidine cecos magis quam pro Dei amore impulit] Cf. Lucan vii. 747: `Impulit amentes aurique cupidine caecos'.

/3thomson/tcom4.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:12 ± disk/amj

BOOK IV. 377.3±383.1

339

4 ammiratus urbis et episcopus, quem archadium uocant] The qadi, a judge charged with the dispensation of Islamic law. William's description accurately registers the fact of his religious and civil functions. Eratque spectaculum . . . absconderant] So also Guibert of Nogent vii. 45 (RHC Occ. iv. 258). sed intelligit profecto . . . dicere] Cf. Mir., c. 30 (p. 127): `Intelligis plane quod uolo, immo quod nolo de sanctimoniali[bu]s dicere'. Apparently an expansion of Juvenal viii. 275: `aut pastor fuit aut illud quod dicere nolo.' 381 Fulcher ii. 10. 1±2, 11. 2, 8, 11, 13±14, 13. 2±5, and, but much summarized, 14. 2±8. 1 uetito instantes passus languescere bello] Lucan iv. 280±1: `minaces . . . uetito passus languescere bello'. 2 conto ducem prostrauit] Fulcher (ii. 11. 11) only says that Baldwin ran through `an Arab opposite him'. But two other sources say that it was indeed the Egyptian commander who was killed: Ibn alQalanisi, The Damascus Chronicle, trans. H. A. R. Gibb (London, 1932), pp. 53±4, though without naming Baldwin as the assailant, and Albert of Aachen vii. 68 (RHC Occ. iv. 551), who does. Fulcher says that the weapon used was a `lancea', which is what one would expect. Strictly `conto' is a pike, a footman's weapon, and there must be some doubt as to what William meant (cf. above, c. 257. 2, no less ambiguously). 3 nudis pressit qui calcibus anguem] Cf. Juvenal i. 43: `palleat ut nudis pressit qui calcibus anguem'. Ita rex Ioppen perueniens errorem . . . correxit] It was the 500 Arabs who had told the inhabitants of Jaffa this in the ®rst instance: Fulcher ii. 14. 2. 382. 1 quomodo Tiberiadem Sidonem Acharonem . . . subegerit] Baldwin captured Sidon late in 1110 (Fulcher ii. 44), Acre in May 1104 (ii. 25). But Tiberias must be William's mistake; it was ceded to Baldwin by Tancred in 1102 (Fulcher ii. 7). 383 Basically Fulcher ii. 16. 1±3, 5, 7, 17. 1, 3±4, 18. 1±3, with some additions. 1 prelium fuit] Referring to the battle at Ramlah on 7 Sept. 1101, recounted in c. 381; the time of the year is taken from Fulcher ii. 12. 4.

/3thomson/tcom4.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:12 ± disk/amj

340

COMMENTARY

Willelmus comes Pictauensis] William VII of Poitou, better known as Duke William IX of Aquitaine (1071±1126), the famous troubadour. The most recent account of his life, with reference to all the earlier literature, is G. A. Bond, The Poetry of William VII, Count of Poitiers, IX Duke of Aquitaine (New York and London, 1982), pp. xv±xlix; bibliography pp. xci±cxviii, testimonia pp. 92±141; some interesting additional details in G. T. Beech, `The ventures of the dukes of Aquitaine into Spain and the Crusader East in the early twelfth century', Haskins Society Journal, v (1993), 61±75. Of earlier studies note especially G. A. Richard, Histoire des comtes de Poitou, 778±1204 (2 vols.: Paris, 1903), i. 382±506, and J. Cate, `A gay Crusader', Byzantion, xvi (1942±3), 503±26. William is about to recount the disastrous Crusade of 1101±2, on which see S. Runciman, `The Crusades of 1101', Jahrbuch der oÈsterreichischenbyzantinischen Gesellschaft, i (1951), 3±12. sexaginta milia militum] Not in Fulcher. See above, c. 349. 3; but here the ®gure seems to represent the total combined strength of the crusading army, not just the following of William of Poitou. Again Orderic gives a more obviously absurd ®gure (v. 336±9): `According to the reports of trustworthy pilgrims [peregrini: ?crusaders] ®ve hundred thousand Christians were present, of whom four hundred thousand were slain.' Hugo Lizianensis] Fulcher does not mention him at this point, but his name occurs at ii. 18. 4. Fulcher does refer to his brother Raymond, who came up to meet the army at Constantinople. 1±2 Ita per Constantinopolim profectus . . . defensitauerant] At c. 349. 4 William explained that William of Poitou refused an act of homage to the emperor. Orderic (v. 334±41) gives a similarly condensed and confused account, with even more exaggerated ®gures, of what was in reality a series of separate incidents: cf. Albert of Aachen viii. 7±23 (RHC Occ. iv. 563±73); Anna Comnena, Alexiad xi. 3. 36±8, 8. 1±4; Runciman, History of the Crusades, ii. 21± 4; Setton et al., History of the Crusades, i. 355±6. Orderic makes explicit the treachery of the emperor, suspected by William; like William he mentions that the count of Poitou was reduced to beggary. 2 cum trecentis milibus sagittariorum . . . et in consertos sagittarum nubes non frustraretur] These details are not given by Fulcher.

/3thomson/tcom4.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:12 ± disk/amj

BOOK IV. 383.1±384.6

341

4 ubi sacrosanctum ignem laetis hauserunt oculis] Not in Fulcher; probably William's imaginative addition. 384 Fulcher ii. 18. 3, 5, 19. 1, 3±6, 9, 20. 1±2, 21. 1±2, 5, 7, 10, 12, 14. In Mir., c. 49 (p. 165), William tells of a miracle of the Virgin Mary soon after the siege of Ramlah, with reference to an eyewitness: `Vidit relator meus quod dico'. 1 inchoante] Note that TA's `mediante' is Fulcher's word at ii. 15. 1, but was there used for the massing of the Egyptian army around Ascalon, prior to their assault on Ramlah, which began c.16 May 1102 (Hagenmeyer, p. 426 n. 7). William's later change was thus not for the better. He must have forgotten this particular passage in Fulcher, instead making a rough estimate about the likely interval of time between the crusaders' Easter visit to Jerusalem (6 Apr.; Fulcher i. 18. 1) and the attempted relief of Ramlah. non esse hostes plusquam quingentos] `1000 or 700', according to Fulcher. 2 sed aliam quam opinabantur gloriam, aliam uictoriam parabant fata uiris] Both of them were killed: Fulcher ii. 19. 4. 3 Rex, in arcem lapsus, . . . dignum se credidit uita] Orderic (v. 344±5), whose version of these events is mostly vaguer and less accurate than William's, also has a group of knights (three of them named) encourage the king to attempt his escape. 4 Militum fuit unus Rotbertus Anglus . . . Hugo Lizianensis et Gaufredus Vindocinensis] This information is peculiar to William. Orderic says that the king was accompanied by a single knight, whom Albert of Aachen names as Hugh de Brulis (ix. 5; RHC Occ. iv. 593). Both Orderic and Albert give the name of Baldwin's horse as `Farisia' (orig. Arabic for `gazelle'). 5 cornipedem cursu exhaustum stimulans] Cf. Lucan viii. 3: `cornipedem exhaustum cursu stimulisque negantem'. 6 Tum equites qui urbem tutabantur, iunctis sibi auxiliarium peditum turmis] Fulcher ii. 21. 7 simply says ninety knights, a ®gure picked up by William below. ex Tiberiade octoginta, quos Hugo dux strenuissimus adduxerat in subsidium] Hugh Falconberg of Saint-Omer, lord of Galilee (d. 1105), his identity made clearer by Fulcher (ii. 21. 1) than by William.

/3thomson/tcom4.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:12 ± disk/amj

342

COMMENTARY

7 Dominica cruce preuia, qua superius bellum caruerat] Referring to the battle before Ramlah: Fulcher ii. 18±20. Hoc et in anteriori prelio factum est . . . superarint] Fulcher ii. 18. 8. 385 Presumably referring to the battle of as-Sinnabrah (west of the Jordan, at the southern end of Lake Tiberias), on 28 June 1113, in which Baldwin I was defeated by the joint forces of Sharaf ad-Din Mawdud, lord of Mosul, and Zahir ad-Din Toghtekin, atabeg of Damascus: Ibn al-Qalanisi, Damascus Chronicle, pp. 134±6. Some of William's information is also in Fulcher, who (ii. 49) records the presence and ¯ight of the patriarch of Jerusalem and the loss of the royal standard; but neither he nor any other source mentions the loss and recovery of the relic of the Cross. This seems to be the battle which William calls `apud Accaronem' at c. 382, though it occurred some twenty miles (32 km.) distant. 1 Ingens ibi pugna uirorum] Cf. Statius, Theb. viii. 688±9: `ibi ingens / pugna uirum'. abnepos eius nothus] Nothing is otherwise known of this person, but his existence is con®rmed by a charter of King Baldwin dated 12 June 1112, witnessed by `Gotafredus nepos regis': J. Delaville le Roulx, Cartulaire geÂneÂral de l'Ordre des Hospitaliers de Saint-Jean de JeÂrusalem, 1100±1310 (4 vols.: Paris, 1894±1906), i. 27±8 (no. 28). His relationship to the king is problematic. Stubbs reasonably supposed him to have been Baldwin's nephew (grandson or great-grandson are chronologically impossible), therefore son of either Godfrey of Bouillon or Eustace III of Boulogne. Eustace is the more likely, since he had extensive lands in England, which would explain how William could have known the younger Godfrey so well. Moreover, Eustace had at least two other bastards who lived in England: J. H. Round, Studies in Peerage and Family History (London, 1907), pp. 147±50, 163. The problem is discussed by A. V. Murray, `A little-known member of the royal family of Crusader Jerusalem in William of Malmesbury's Gesta regum Anglorum', Notes and Queries, ccxli (new ser. xliii) (1996), 397±9. I have to thank Dr Murray for help with this note. 2 non multo post comitissa Siciliae Ierosolimam uenit] Adelaide, widow of Roger I of Sicily (d. 1101); Baldwin married her in 1113. On their unhappy marital relationship see Runciman, History of the Crusades, ii. 102±3.

/3thomson/tcom4.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:12 ± disk/amj

BOOK IV. 384.7±387

343

3 Obiit in expeditione Arabica mense Aprili . . . quartus accresceret mensis] 2 Apr. 1118. Fulcher (ii. 64. 8) gives the length of his reign as eighteen years. pretendit nubila liuor] Statius, Theb. xii. 818: `tibi si quis adhuc praetendit nubila liuor'. 386 This section includes some of the most precise indicators for dating the various stages of writing GR. Baldwin II of Jerusalem was taken captive in Apr. 1123; William refers to the date of his capture as `preterito anno'. He was released on 29 Aug. 1124. TA says that (1) `Ille ad hoc tempus regnum impigre tutatus' (`multis annis' CB), (2) `regiones egregio moderamine regit' (`rexit' CB), (3) `Viuit adhuc' (`Vixit diu' CB). Consequently this section in TA was written late in 1124, to be partially revised in CB after Baldwin's death on 21 Aug. 1131. The later versions also take into account the death in 1130 of Bohemond II of Antioch (see below, c. 387. 8n). 1 etiam auxit Antiocheno principatu] But Baldwin was only regent of Antioch, 28 June 1119Ð1126. cum preterito anno non longe ab Ierosolima equitantem] In fact Baldwin was captured a long way from Jerusalem, between Harran in southern Turkey and Ar-Raqqa in northern Syria: Fulcher ii. 27. 3. si superis auris uesceretur necne] Cf. Virgil, Aen. i. 546±7: `quem si fata uirum seruant, si uescitur aura / aetheria neque adhuc crudelibus occubat umbris', Georg. iv. 486: `superas ueniebat ad auras'. 2 cognito loco quo uinculatus fuerat] Baldwin was imprisoned in the fortress of Kharpurt (Turkish) or Hisn Ziyad (Arabic), 110 miles (177 km.) north of Edessa, 35 (56 km.) east of the Euphrates. The story of Baldwin's escape is told in much greater detail by Fulcher iii. 23. 3Ð26, but William's account is obviously independent. Fulcher makes it clear that Joscelin count of Edessa was also in captivity with Baldwin; the knights disguised as merchants succeeded in getting Joscelin away in June 1123; but Baldwin was immediately recaptured and remained in con®nement at Harran until 29 Aug. 1124: Runciman, History of the Crusades ii. 162±72. 387 Much of this section represents information current in the West. Some is parallel with Fulcher's; some concerning Bohemond overlaps

/3thomson/tcom4.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:12 ± disk/amj

344

COMMENTARY

with that in Historia peregrinorum, cc. 140±2 (RHC Occ. iii. 228±9). The pun about Durandus and Durazzo was picked up from William by Helinand of Froidmont s.a. 1103 (PL ccxii. 999B), and from one or other of them by Alberic of Trois Fontaines (ed. P. SchefferBoichorst, MGH SS, xxiii, 1874, p. 799). The death of Roger son of Richard is recorded by Gautier the Chancellor, Bella Antiochena v. 3 (RHC Occ. v. 108), but he says that he died ®ghting bravely in the battle. 1 Rogerus . . . qui cognomen Marsupii a patre meruit] Roger Borsa, duke of Apulia (d. 1111). 3 quo eum Raimundi Prouintialis comitis et episcopi Caturcensis epistolae inuitabant] The persons named are Raymond IV, count of Toulouse, marquis of Provence, and Gerald of Cardaillac, bishop of Cahors 1093±c.1112: Gallia Christiana (16 vols.: Paris, 1715±1865), i. 127±9; G. Lacoste, Histoire geÂneÂrale de la province de Quercy (4 vols.: Cahors, 1883±6), i. 424. In our translation (as Sharpe in his), we have taken `eum' to refer to the pope, not Bohemond, contra Stubbs in his sidenote to GR ii. 453; A. Waas, Geschichte der KreuzzuÈge (2 vols.: Freiburg i. Breisgau, 1956), i. 75 n. 255; and Somerville, `The council of Clermont (1095) and Latin Christian society', p. 79 n. 165. 4 Pollicitus ergo . . . deferens] A briefer account is given by Orderic (vi. 68±9), dating Bohemond's coming to France Mar. 1106 (see Chibnall's note 3 on p. 68). A more detailed and probably more accurate version is in Historia peregrinorum, c. 140 (RHC Occ. iii. 228): `Itaque non multo post Boamundus reminiscitur uotum quod Deo et beato Leonardo, dum in uinculis teneretur, uouerat; uidelicet ut, si Deus per merita et intercessiones eiusdem confessoris eum de captione illa eriperet, ipse in Galliam ad ecclesiam ipsius qua corpus eius quiescebat, pro®cisceretur, oblaturus ei bolas argenteas ad instar earum editas quibus uinctus fuerat.' William's idea, that the silver fetters Bohemund offered were those with which he had actually been bound, is of course inherently unlikely. The shrine was Saint-LeÂonard-la-Noblac, near Limoges, an important goal of pilgrimage: J. Becquet, `Les chanoines reÂguliers en Limousin aux xie et xiie sieÁcles', Analecta Praemonstratensia, xxxvi (1960), 193±235, esp. pp. 197, 200, 203, 217±18, 226±7; A. Poncelet, `BoeÂmond et Saint LeÂonard', Anal. Boll. xxxi (1912), 24±44; Yewdale, Bohemund, pp. 98, 107±9.

/3thomson/tcom4.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:12 ± disk/amj

BOOK IV. 387±388.1

345

5 Laoditiam et ceteras urbes quas Tancredus adquisierat suscepit] So Fulcher ii. 23. 2. Ita ducta uxore ®lia regis Francorum . . . repetiit Apuliam] Constance, daughter of Philip I and Bertha of Holland; so Fulcher ii. 29 and Historia peregrinorum, c. 141 (RHC Occ. iii. 228±9), neither of which, however, mentions the woman sent to Tancred. She was Cecilia, natural daughter of Philip I and Bertrada of Montfort, whom Tancred married in 1106: Yewdale, Bohemund, p. 108; Nicholson, Tancred, p. 162 and n. 3. spectaturi comminus quid uiua uirtutis speties ef®ceret] Cf. Lucan vi. 254: `uiuam magnae speciem uirtutis adorant'. Also echoed above, c. 121. 12, and below, c. 434. 7 Tancredus] See above, c. 366. 3n. Rogerius ®lius Ricardi] Roger son of Richard of the Principate. Tancred died in 1112, Roger on 28 June 1119. ignominiam tamen auaritiae incurrit] He is accused of luxury and avarice by Fulcher iii. 3. 4. mortem suam non ignaue ultus] At the battle of Artah, 28 June 1119. 8 Credidit infelix ammiratus simulatis uocibus] Cf. Lucan. vi. 236: `Credidit infelix simulatis uocibus Aulus'. et ®liam suam Boamundo ®lio Boamundi seruauit] Note the TA reading of `Boamundi ®lio reseruat'. Bohemond II married Baldwin's second daughter Alice in Sept. 1127; he died in 1130. 388 William must have had an Aquitainian source for his material on Raymond (perhaps the monk mentioned at c. 170. 1), but the information, though abundant, is not always accurate. Raymond's father was Pons (d. c.1060), whom William has probably confused with his father William III Taillefer. See C. de Vic and J. J. VaisseÁte, Histoire geÂneÂrale de Languedoc, continueÂe jusques en 1790 par E. Rosbach, ed. E. Dulaurier, E. Mabelle, and E. Barry (16 vols.: Toulouse, 1872± 1904), iii, esp. pp. 415±566 (on Raymond IV); J. H. and L. L. Hill, Raymond IV de Saint-Gilles 1041 ou 1042±1105 (Toulouse, 1959), making use of the GR account. 1 Willelmi antiquissimi Tolosae comitis] Similarly Mir., c. 5 (p. 74): `tempore Willelmi antiqui comitis qui Raimundum genuit'. We can hardly translate `antiquissimi' according to its most obvious meaning of `most ancient', since William knew that there were earlier

/3thomson/tcom4.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:12 ± disk/amj

346

COMMENTARY

counts. There are two other possibilities: (1) that William intended the less usual meaning of the word as `most distinguished'; (2) that William was trying to differentiate between William (whom he thought was) Raymond IV's father, and Raymond's brother of the same name. But (2) hardly accounts for the use of the superlative form. An example similar to, though not identical with (1) is above, c. 3. 1: `Romani, miseratione infracti nichilque antiquius estimantes quam fessis sotiorum rebus opem porrigere'. muliercula . . . alias migraret nouos impletura penates] Cf. Lucan ii. 331±2: `alios fecunda penates / impletura datur'. Similarly above, c. 165. 13. Denique primum Arelatensi comiti nupta] The three marriages of Almodis de la Marche were to Hugh of Lusignan count of Arles, to Pons in 1040, then to Raymond-Berengar count of Barcelona. She died in 1077±8. She had children by all her husbands, including three sons and a daughter by Pons. 2 In fact Raymond only got his mother's dowry, amounting to half the bishopric of NõÃmes, half the abbey of Saint-Gilles, the castle of Tarascon, and land at Argences. The death of his cousin Bertha c.1066 brought him the counties of Rouergue, NõÃmes, and Narbonne, though he had to ®ght Bertha's husband until 1079 for the former. By 1088 he was styling himself count of Toulouse, duke of Narbonne, and marquis of Provence, although his brother was still alive (for the problems with this see Hill and Hill, Raymond, pp. 18±20). The GR account supplies a plausible explanation for the apparent anomaly: William IV wished to go to the Holy Land, and either sold his patrimony to raise money, or left it for Raymond to administer. He seems to have died overseas c.1093. 3 Bertrannum . . . cui uxorem coniunxit Mathildis marcisae neptem, ex Longobardia natam] Bertram was the child of Raymond and his ®rst wife, whose name is unknown. As she was Raymond's ®rst cousin, Gregory VII excommunicated him in order to bring about their separation. Whether this happened or whether the wife died is not known, but in 1080 Raymond married Matilda, daughter of Roger count of Sicily (Devic and VaisseÁte, iii. 428±9). Bertram, who was certainly regarded within Languedoc as Raymond's legitimate heir, married Electa or Helen, daughter of Duke Odo I and Matilda of Burgundy in June 1095. If William is right that he married a niece of the `Marchioness Matilda of Lombard birth',

/3thomson/tcom4.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:12 ± disk/amj

BOOK IV. 388.1±3

347

then that marriage must have taken place earlier, since Bertram remained married to Helen until his death. Devic and VaisseÁte (pp. 474±5) suggest that the Matilda mentioned is unlikely to have been the famous marchioness of Tuscany because of William's statement that the alliance would `safeguard that ¯ank of [Raymond's] dominions', which can only mean Lombardy, not Tuscany. But the objection is not necessarily strong, depending upon who precisely the niece was, or more speci®cally what she stood to inherit in Lombardy. William also says that Pons was Bertram's son by Matilda's niece (below, 11). The fact that he was count of Tripoli in 1112, married c.1115, certainly makes it more likely that he was born before rather than after 1095. uxorem asciuit ®liam regis Tarraconensis] A reference to the marriage of Raymond to Elvira, natural daughter of Alfonso VI king of Leon, Castile, and Aragon, c.1094: Devic and VaisseÁte, iii. 470±1; M. Bull, Knightly Piety and the Lay Response to the First Crusade (Oxford, 1993), pp. 88±9. Nec multo post, niuem capitis respitiens . . . militiae ostentans] Raymond, born c.1041±2, had already been on Crusade to Spain in 1085, and may have been to Jerusalem as a pilgrim. Michael the Syrian, Jacobite patriarch of Antioch (d. 1199/1200), wrote that Raymond had been hit about the head and his right eye wrenched out when he was at Jerusalem on pilgrimage (i.e. prior to the First Crusade) because he refused to pay the customary tribute to the Turks, that he carried it about with him in his pocket, and that he used it to encourage the Roman citizens to participate in the Crusade: Michael the Syrian, Chronicle, in RHC Documents ArmeÂniens, i (Paris, 1869), p. 327. Whatever the degree of truth in this, it at least supports William's statement that Raymond used the loss of his eye to advertise his own fortitude and perhaps the cause of Crusade. auctore precipue Caturcensi episcopi] Gerald of Cardaillac, bishop of Cahors 1093Ðc.1112; see above, c. 387. 3n. The information, important if true, is peculiar to William. Certainly Gerald and Urban were together 18±23 Aug. 1095 at la Chaise-Dieu when the pope consecrated the church there and con®rmed the organization of canons regular at Cahors, set up by Gerald's predecessor, Gerald of Gourdon. Hill and Hill, Raymond, pp. 23±5, note that Urban passed through Raymond's lands on the way to Clermont, although there is no record of a meeting between the two. More detail is provided by Crozet, `Le voyage d'Urbain II et ses neÂgociations avec le clerge de

/3thomson/tcom4.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:12 ± disk/amj

348

COMMENTARY

France', 277±8, and `Le voyage d'Urbain II en France (1095±1096) et son importance au point de vue archeÂologique', Annales du midi, xlix (1937), 42±69, at pp. 42±6. The pope was at NõÃmes and Saint-Gilles in Aug. and September, and was at least in touch with Count Raymond through intermediaries (Crozet, `Le voyage d'Urbain II et ses neÂgociations', p. 278). 5 quod parte [arce C] Antiochiae quam occupauerat Boamundo et turri Dauid Godefrido libenter cesserit] None of this indifferently accurate information is in Fulcher. In neither case did Count Raymond hand anything over willingly. His quarrel with Bohemond over the possession and garrisoning of Antioch is described by Raymond of Aguilers, pp. 83±94, Albert of Aachen v. 2±3, 26 (RHC Occ. iv. 434, 448), and Gesta Francorum, cc. 31, 34 (pp. 75±6, 80±1). All of them make Count Raymond the leading proponent of the view that the crusaders should honour their promise to Alexius Comnenus by handing the city back to him, and that they should press on to Jerusalem as soon as possible. Raymond of Aguilers says that on these issues the barons `pene ad arma uenirent'. The same source says that, following the defeat of Kerbogha, Bohemond expelled from the citadel and towers the men of Godfrey, Robert of Flanders, and Raymond, pretending that he had promised the Turks to occupy them himself (c. 13; iii. 261±2). The author of the Gesta says that a short-term solution was worked out such that Bohemond should hold the citadel and Count Raymond (presumably on the emperor's behalf) the palace of Yagi Siyan and the tower over the Bridge Gate. However, while Raymond was engaged in the siege of Marra Bohemond again expelled his troops from these places, and Raymond never regained them. Some of this must be re¯ected in the C reading. The complicated course of events is analyzed by Hill and Hill, Raymond, pp. 82±96, Yewdale, Bohemond, pp. 72±84, and France, Victory in the East, pp. 297±311. As for Raymond's handing over of the Tower of David in Jerusalem, two sources suggest that he did so only with the greatest reluctance: Raymond of Aguilers, pp. 152±3, and Albert of Aachen vi. 33 (RHC Occ. iv. 486). 5±7 in deditione urbis Ascalonensis decidit . . . caritatem meruere] An even fuller account of this incident (16 Aug. 1099 and the next few days) is given in Orderic (v. 179±87), based upon Baudri of Bourgeuil, Historia Ierosolimitana iv. 19 (RHC Occ. iv. 108); but Baudri (except for a brief insertion in one MS) did not mention

/3thomson/tcom4.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:12 ± disk/amj

BOOK IV. 388.3±8

349

the dispute between Godfrey and Raymond over possession of the city. Orderic blames the king rather than the count for what happened. Other, shorter descriptions are in Albert of Aachen (vi. 51; iv. 497±8) and Ralph of Caen, Gesta Tancredi (c. 138; iii. 703), neither of whom was present. Only William mentions Raymond's reputation in Ascalon, conveyed there by merchants from Montpellier. See Andressohn, pp. 109±11, and Hill and Hill, pp. 123±4, for descriptions of the event and analyses of its signi®cance. 7 Neque enim ad hunc diem ciuitas illa capi . . . potuit] A very similar comment is made by Orderic ut supra, pp. 186±7: `It is shameful to relate that neither [Godfrey] nor the other kings who have reigned after him for forty years have ever been able to win this great Philistine city up to the present day.' Ascalon was not taken by the crusaders until 1153. plures ex hominibus . . . caritatem meruere] Instances of conversion to Islam in Outremer, not this one, are cited and discussed by T. W. Arnold, The Preaching of Islam: A History of the Propagation of the Muslim Faith (2nd edn., London, 1913), pp. 88±95, and B. Z. Kedar, Crusade and Mission (Princeton, 1984), pp. 79±81 and nn. 8 Laoditiam uenit . . . obtinuit Laoditiam Tancredus, ui an amore ambiguum] William clearly had only vague information about these events, for which see Runciman, History of the Crusades, ii. 33±4, David, Robert Curthose, pp. 243±4, and Hill and Hill, Raymond, pp. 125±35. Raymond took possession of Laodicea in the emperor's name in 1098, supplementing the Byzantine garrison with his own men; in 1101 he went to Constantinople, leaving his wife and a garrison at Laodicea. William is poorly informed about his part in the Crusade of 1101. Alexius and Raymond failed to dissuade the newcomers from a futile attempt to rescue the captured Bohemond. Raymond, at the head of a company of Turcopoles provided by the emperor, accompanied the Crusade and was indeed involved in the disastrous defeat which they suffered between Mersivan and Amasya, apparently escaping with dif®culty. Soon after, he was imprisoned by Tancred regent of Antioch; as a condition of his release he may have taken an oath limiting his involvement henceforth in Syrian affairs. In due course Tancred took Laodicea, using both force and cunning, after a long siege during 1102± 3, while Raymond turned his attention to the conquest of Tripoli. cum quibus Tortuosam ciuitatem cepit . . . possedit] So Fulcher ii. 17. 2. The city was captured on 18 Feb. 1102. A

/3thomson/tcom4.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:12 ± disk/amj

350

COMMENTARY

modern account of the acquisition and organization of the county of Tripoli by Raymond and his descendants is provided by J. Richard, Le comte de Tripoli sous la dynastie toulousaine (1102±1187) (Paris, 1945). 9 Castellum Peregrinorum uocant . . . et ibi Herbertum episcopum ex abbate constituit] For these events see Hill and Hill, Raymond, pp. 136±40. Probably in 1102 Raymond established a permanent camp on a hill outside Tripoli, gradually transforming it into a fortress which was completed in the following year. No other writer recorded his seven-year truce with Tripoli, promotion of `Herbert' as ®rst bishop of Tripoli, or the attempt on his life. The bishop was a member of Raymond's entourage, Albert abbot of SaintErard (d. 1115): R. RoÈhricht, Regesta regni Hierosolymitani (1097± 1291) (Innsbruck, 1893), p. 38; Richard, Comte de Tripoli, p. 59. Raymond died near Tripoli in 1105. 10 Willelmumum peregrinum] William has confused two individuals. The son born to Raymond and Elvira during the siege and in due course sent back to Europe was Alphonse-Jordan. It was WilliamJordan (`the Pilgrim') count of Cerdagne, grandson of Raymond's maternal aunt, who was offered the succession and who continued the blockade of Tripoli. He was still there when Bertram arrived in Mar. 1109. Under an agreement worked out soon after, William abandoned his claim to Tripoli, but kept Arqah and Tortosa; but these too passed to Bertram after William was killed shortly before the capture of Tripoli on 12 July. Bertrannus . . . Tripolim . . . in potestatem redegit] For the complicated circumstances under which Bertram obtained Tripoli see Setton et al., History of the Crusades, i. 396±8. The Genoese received one third of the city in return for their aid. For Bertram's Italian wife see above, 3n. 11 Pontius ergo Tripoli principatur] Count of Tripoli 1112±37. He married Tancred's widow Cecilia, daughter of Philip I of France, c.1115. Pontius ergo . . . secutus exemplum] See Richard, Comte de Tripoli, pp. 30±2; the evidence suggests that the suzerainty of Jerusalem was recognized by William-Jordan, by Bertram, and, probably less willingly, by Pons, who refused homage and military service to the king in 1122.

/3thomson/tcom4.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:12 ± disk/amj

BOOK IV. 388.8±389.4

351

389 A very similar character-portrait of Robert Curthose, balancing his good and bad qualities, is given by Orderic (iv. 114±15, 118±19). Similar too is the elaborate characterization by Ralph of Caen, Gesta Tancredi, c. 15 (RHC Occ. iii. 616), describing Robert on crusade: `genere, diuitiis, facundia quoque non secundus duci [Godefrido Buillioni], sed superior; par in his quae Caesaris sunt; quae Dei, minor: cuius pietas largitasque ualde fuissent mirabiles; sed quia in neutrum [recte neutra] modum tenuit, in utraque errauit. Siquidem misericordiam eius immisericordem sensit Normannia dum, eo consule, per impunitatem rapinarum nec homini parceret nec Deo licentia raptorum. Nam sicariis [recte sicariorum?] manibus, latronum gutturi, moechorum caudae salaci, eamdem quam suis se reuerentiam debere consul arbitrabatur. Quapropter nullus ad eum uinctus in lacrymis trahebatur, quin solutus mutuas ab eo lacrymas continuo impetraret. Ideo . . . nullis sceleribus frenum, immo omnibus additum calcar ea tempestate Normannia querebatur. Huius autem pietatis sororculam eam fuisse patet largitatem, quae accipitrem siue canem argenti summa quantalibet comparabat; cum interim mensa consularis unicum haberet refugium rapinam ciuium. Atque haec tamen intra patriam; uerum ®nes patrios egressus, magna ex parte luxum domuit, cui ante per magnarum opum af¯uentiam succubuerat.' 1 pinguis aqualiculi] Persius i. 57: `pinguis aqualiculus propenso sesquipede extet'. Cf. below, c. 405. 2n. 2 primo quidem genitore . . . quod esset exiguus] Cf. Orderic iv. 114±15: `corpore autem breuis et grossus ideoque Breuis Ocrea a patre est cognominatus'; v. 208±9: `Curta Ocrea iocose cognominatus est'. 3±5 tum uero maxime in bello Antiocheno . . . litteris clarus] On Robert Curthose's crusading exploits, which rapidly became the stuff of legend, see G. Paris, `Robert Court-Heuse aÁ la premieÁre croisade', Comptes-rendus des seÂances de l'AcadeÂmie des inscriptions et belles-lettres, xxxiv (1890), 207±12, and David, Robert Curthose, chs. 4 and 8. For some of this William may have been responsibleÐat least he was one of the earliest writers to record oral traditions of Robert's knightly prowess. Others were Robert the Monk, Historia Iherosolimitana, c. 19 (RHC Occ. iii. 875), and Ralph of Caen, Gesta Tancredi, c. 22 (ibid., pp. 621±2). 4 Corbaguath . . . uitali statim spiritu priuatus] Kerbogha was not killed on this occasion; for this story William stands at the head of

/3thomson/tcom4.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:12 ± disk/amj

352

COMMENTARY

a legendary tradition which ¯ourished above all in the later vernacular literature of England and Normandy: David, Robert Curthose, pp. 195±6. Orderic (iv. 302±3) also says that Philip son of Roger II of Montgomery set out on crusade with Duke Robert and died at Antioch. John of Worcester s.a. 1096 says that he was imprisoned after the conspiracy against William Rufus in 1095. 5 Ita Rotbertus, Ierosolimam ueniens . . . metu] William is the earliest authority to mention Robert's refusal of the crown of Jerusalem, followed soon after by Historia peregrinorum, c. 130 (RHC iii. 225), and by Henry of Huntingdon (vii. 18, 25; pp. 442± 3, 454±5), probably independently but similarly criticizing Robert's decision: David, Robert Curthose, pp. 198±200. The English historians clearly knew nothing of the version of events given earliest by Raymond of Aguilers, p. 152, and Albert of Aachen vi. 33 (RHC Occ. iv. 485), who say that the kingship was ®rst offered to Raymond of Saint-Gilles, who refused from allegedly pious motives; it was then offered to Godfrey, who accepted with reluctance. 6 Vxorem ®liam Willelmi de Conversana] Sibyl, much praised for her beauty and competence, for instance by Orderic v. 278±9; David, Robert Curthose, p. 146. William was her brother's name; her father was Geoffrey. obstetricis consilio] Sibyl probably died on 18 Mar. 1103; her son William was born on 25 Oct. of the previous year: Orderic vi. 38 n. 3; C. W. Hollister, `The Anglo-Norman civil war: 1101', in his Monarchy, Magnates and Institutions, pp. 77±96, at 92 and n. 6. Scholars have overlooked TA's much more sinister reading of `pelicis' for `obstetricis', connected with its reading below of `mimorum et nebulonum sinibus ita ingessit' for CB's `ita dilapidauit'. This suggests a side of Robert Curthose's character which William later saw ®t to suppress. Other accounts offer hints of foul play possibly involving the duke. Orderic (vi. 38±9) attributed Sibyl's death to the infatuation with Robert of the recently widowed Agnes de Ribemont. According to this version Agnes extracted a promise from Robert that in the event of his wife's death he would marry her and give her the rule of Normandy; in return she promised that she and her powerful kinsfolk would support him against his enemies. Soon after Sibyl mysteriously died of poison. Robert of Torigni, GND ii. 222±5, hints more vaguely at something similar: `she lived in Normandy for a short while only, being pursued by a jealous cabal of some noblewomen.'

/3thomson/tcom4.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:12 ± disk/amj

BOOK IV. 389.4±11

353

7 erat enim eius in baptismo ®liola] Robert probably became Matilda's godfather when he was in Scotland in autumn 1080 (Freeman, Norman Conquest, v. 389, David, Robert Curthose, p. 31 for the dates, not the event). 8 Offensarum igitur erat immemor . . . compromittens] Cf. Suetonius, Tit. viii. 1: `in ceteris . . . desideriis hominum obstinatissime tenuit, ne quem sine spe dimitteret; quin et admonentibus domesticis, quasi plura polliceretur quam praestare posset, non oportere ait quemquam a sermone principis tristem discedere'; Vesp. xiv: `Offensarum inimicitiarumque minime memor'. 9 Ille Cesarianae sententiae assistens] Suetonius, Iul. xxx. 5 (citing Cicero, De of®c. iii. 82), echoed again below, c. 395. 2. A word has fallen out before `gratia' in all the early copies of Suetonius. William's `ciuium' is presumably his own attempt to deal with this (without resort to the text of De of®c.!). 10 Inde raptim . . . de suffragio conuenit] These details are peculiar to William: David, Robert Curthose, p. 170. The king of France was Louis VI, the count of Flanders Robert II. William mentions the decisive battle of Tinchebray (28 Sept. 1106) below, c. 398. 5. 10±11 captus . . . dubio TA/relaxatus CB] A similar description of Robert's honourable captivity is given by Orderic (vi. 98±9). Other evidence supporting his and William's interpretation, that Robert was allowed everything except his liberty, is collected by Chibnall in ibid., p. 98 n. 2. Robert Curthose died on 10 Feb. 1134. The date provides another terminus post quem for GR versions C and B. Observe also related variants between the redactions at c. 389. 2: `quod sit TA / esset CB exiguus', `nichil habens quod succenseas TA / succenseres CB', `nec eneruis est TA (est om. T) / erat CB'.

/3thomson/tcom5.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:14 ± disk/amj

BOOK V Firmly at the centre of this Book is the reign of Henry I, covered selectively to c.1125. William obviously felt uncomfortable with this topic, ®rstly because of the obvious dif®culties of commenting tactfully but truthfully upon the contemporary powerful, and secondly because he was dependent upon such informal, orallytransmitted information as ®ltered back to him from the ambience of the royal court. Even though he had friends among the great, he knew that much was escaping him, and could not vouch for the reliability of what he got. A major puzzle is why William describes Henry's character and achievements with such an air of ®nality (especially c. 412), as though the king were already dead. Perhaps William saw himself as preparing the ground for a fuller treatment of the reign when it was over. Certainly his concluding remarks to Robert of Gloucester show that he intended to return to the subject. For the moment digressions were to a degree necessary to ®ll out what is still a short Book. The dispute between Henry V and the papacy over investitures and its resolution (cc. 420±35) at any rate provided background to Henry I's own problems with Anselm. Included entirely for their own sake were King Sigurd of Norway and his crusade (c. 410), and the portrait of the swashbuckling Duke William of Aquitaine and his unhappy bishop Peter of Poitiers (c. 439). William was ready to conclude on an optimistic note about matters nearer to his experience as a Benedictine monk: Norman and English monastic reformers (cc. 440±4), and the incorruption of English saints (c. 445). It is remarkable that, although revising GR as late as c.1135, he hardly brought his account into the last decade-and-a-half of Henry's reign (but see below, c. 449. 2n). What we have was probably thought of by William as `provisional'. It goes without saying that most of the information in this Book came to William by word of mouth. Almost all of the written material that he is known to have used was documentary, such as the letters relating to relations between the papacy, Henry I, and Henry V. Apart from these he had a few snippets from ASC and from John of Worcester or from material available to him, gives a lengthy extract allegedly verbatim from the account of Henry V's Italian expedition

/3thomson/tcom5.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:15 ± disk/amj

BOOK V. PR.±390.2

355

by David the Scot, now lost to us, and reproduces some poems of Godfrey of Winchester and an edifying account of the holy death of Prior Lanzo of Lewes. Apart from some of the documents, the written material hardly affects the central theme of the Book. prol. 2 Adde quod . . . lecturorum satietas] By `ambiguous authorities' William doubtless meant information transmitted orally, by persons either likely to be heavily biased or else of no great consequence, and at second or third hand. This, and the dif®culty of writing impartial contemporary history to which he alludes, explain the shortness of this Book. In fact his account of Henry I is skilfully managed: overall complimentary, but with much subtle undercutting which suggests something of the ambivalence of William's attitude to him. One notices that he did not see ®t to dedicate GR to his king, despite the claims he makes below for Henry's good education. bona erit apud illum] It is possible that `illum' refers speci®cally to Henry I. 390 Both William and, more succinctly, Orderic (iv. 120±1) credit Henry with a learned education, but this has been minimized by most modern scholarship: C. W. David, `The claim of Henry I to be called learned', in Anniversary Essays in Medieval History by Students of C. H. Haskins (Boston and New York, 1929), pp. 45±56; Legge, `L'in¯uence litteÂraire de la cour d'Henri Beauclerc', p. 680; and V. H. Galbraith, `The literacy of the English medieval kings', Proceedings of the British Academy, xxi (1935), 201±38, at pp. 211±13. If William's account of Henry's preparations for rulership while a boy is well-founded, it would help explain William Rufus's fear of his `tirocinium' noted above, c. 305. 2. 1 natus est in Anglia anno tertio postquam pater eam adierat] 1068. Orderic (ii. 214) says that he was born within a year after his mother's coronation, which took place on 11 May 1068. ut nulli postea bellorum tumultus . . . eas excutere . . . possent] Cf. Lucan iv. 535±6: `nullique tumultus / excussere uiris mentes'. And above, c. 376. 5. Platonis sententiam] See above, c. 126. 3n. 2 rex illiteratus asinus coronatus] H. Walther, Lateinische SprichwoÈrter und Sentenzen des Mittelalters (9 vols.: GoÈttingen, 1963±86), no. 26852.

/3thomson/tcom5.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:15 ± disk/amj

356

COMMENTARY

Ne ¯eas, ®li, quoniam et tu rex eris] Cf. Orderic iv. 94±7: `Be satis®ed, my son, and take comfort in the Lord. Patiently allow your elder brothers to take precedence over you. Robert will have Normandy, and William, England. But you in your own time will have all the dominions that I have acquired and be greater than your brothers in wealth and power.' 391 The account of Henry's knighting is presumably based on ASC (E) s.a. 1085 (recte 1086). 392. 1 trium milium marcarum] The ®gure should be ®ve thousand pounds: Orderic iv. 94±5, 118±21, and Wace, Roman de Rou pt. iii, lines 9155±6 (ii. 226). William has confused the sum left to Henry by his father with the sum that Robert actually spent (see below, c. 395. 2). stipendiarios suos] i.e. paid mercenary soldiers (as Orderic iv. 118± 19 and n. 8). See M. Chibnall, `Mercenaries and the familia regis under Henry I', History, lxii (1977), 15±23. Like Orderic, William here and elsewhere uses `miles' ambiguously, to mean either `knight' or just `soldier'; it is not always certain from the context which is meant. deposita militia ferias armis dedere] There is no other evidence that Robert and Henry were actually ®ghting at the time; perhaps William meant the expression metaphorically. 2 sed delatione pessimorum . . . effugio luderet] A very similar account is given by Robert of Torigni, GND ii. 202±5. But according to Orderic (iv. 148±9) Henry was imprisoned at Bayeux. Post medium annum laxatus] He was in captivity from autumn of 1088 until spring of the next year: David, Robert Curthose, pp. 52±3; Barlow, William Rufus, pp. 267±8. 3 Willelmo ueniente in Normanniam . . . Rotomagi positus] A mistake; the siege of Rouen took place in Nov. 1090. William did not himself come to Normandy until Feb. 1091. 4±5 Conanum quendam . . . per®diae] Conan was son of Gilbert Pilatus, a leading citizen of Rouen. Orderic (iv. 224±7), the only other recorder of this event, says that the place was thereafter known as `Conan's leap' (saltus Conani). Freeman, William Rufus, ii. 516±18, compares William's and Orderic's accounts, based on similar information but independent of each other. Chibnall in Orderic iv. 226 n. 1

/3thomson/tcom5.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:15 ± disk/amj

BOOK V. 390.2±393.3

357

discusses precipitation in Norman custom as a possible penalty for serious crimes. 5 Illud fuit tempus . . . restitit] William has dated the siege of Mont Saint-Michel about a year too early; he has it correctly placed above, c. 308. 393±4 Based perhaps on ASC (E) s.a. 1100, but with much elaboration. 393. 1 Occiso uero . . . contubernio] Corroborating the statements of ASC that `the councillors who were near at hand chose . . . Henry as king' and, even more precisely, of Orderic (v. 292±3), who says that a quarrel over the succession ensued immediately upon William Rufus's death, but that `friends and wise councillors converged from all sides and the disturbance was quelled'. Henry of Beaumont was earl of Warwick 1088±1119. See the analysis in Freeman, William Rufus, ii. 347±9, 680±2. edicto statim per Angliam misso . . . corroborans] This corresponds to the so-called Coronation Charter of (5 Aug.) 1100, clauses 1, 6 and 13, except for the amnesty for prisoners, expulsion of homosexuals from court, and reinstatement of lighting, which it does not mention: W. Stubbs, Select Charters (9th edn., Oxford, 1913), pp. 116±19, trans. EHD 2, no. 19; full bibliography in Councils, i(2). 652. On Henry's `election' see Freeman, William Rufus, ii. 680±2. 2 Et ne quid . . . nuntiis directum] Orderic (v. 310±11) says that Henry imprisoned Ranulf `as an incorrigible plunderer of the country', Anselm (Epist. ccxiv; SAO iv. 113) because he had withheld taxes which he had collected for the king. He was kept in the Tower of London. nequitiarum fece] Barlow, William Rufus, p. 196 n. 149, suggests that `fece' should read `face' (from fax, a torch), with reference to Ranulf 's nickname `Flambard'. 3 Nec multo post . . . regis Scottorum] 11 Nov. 1100. See further below, c. 418. 1. Erat enim illa . . . ex fratre Edmundo abneptis] Matilda was actually Edward the Confessor's grand-niece. Her mother, Queen Margaret, was daughter of Edward son of Edmund Ironside, brother of Edward the Confessor.

/3thomson/tcom5.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:15 ± disk/amj

358

COMMENTARY

394. 1 Soli Rotbertus . . . partes fouebant] Orderic (v. 314±15) mentions only Robert of Meulan and Richard de Reviers, `aliique multi barones strenui'. Godricum eum et comparem Godgiuam appellantes] Meaning that they were English rather than Norman in their sympathies: Freeman, William Rufus, ii. 389. 2 Accessit temporum turbini . . . ut incunctanter ueniret] A more detailed account of Ranulf 's treasonous activities, including his adventurous jailbreak (2 or 3 Feb. 1101; ASC (E) s.a. 1101), is given by Orderic (v. 310±15). Inde Normanniam euadens . . . ueniret] ASC (E) s.a. 1101 and Orderic (v. 312±5) also remark on Ranulf Flambard's bad in¯uence upon Duke Robert. 395 Similarly ASC (E) s.aa. 1101, 1103, but giving the date of Robert's landing as 20 July. John of Worcester s.a. 1101 says `circa Ad uincula sancti Petri', i.e. about 1 Aug. 1 quas Anselmi archiepiscopi cum episcopis suis . . . tutabatur fauor] The support of Anselm, the bishops, and the English is also speci®ed by Orderic (v. 310±11). Eadmer (Hist. nov., p. 127) says that Anselm was the only man Henry could trust. But he was also supported strongly by Gundulf bishop of Rochester (1077±1108): Vita Gundul®, c. 34 (The Life of Gundulf Bishop of Rochester, ed. R. M. Thomson (Toronto, 1977), p. 59). Quapropter ipse prouintialium . . . in nullo Normannos metuentes] Freeman, William Rufus, ii. 411 and n. 2, wondered whether William was paraphrasing a popular ballad: `The lifeless Latin catches some spark or echo from the song of Maldon.' But this is unfair to William's Latin. 2 Sed satagentibus sanioris consilii hominibus . . . ipsos superesset] The terms were agreed upon at Alton (Hampshire), con®rmed at Winchester on 2 Aug. 1101, and rati®ed by the oaths of twelve leading men from each side. Orderic (v. 318±19) is alone in saying that Henry and Robert settled their quarrel personally. Apart from William, both John of Worcester and ASC (E) s.a. 1101 state that leading counsellors were involved. The terms of the treaty are described and analyzed by Freeman, William Rufus, ii. 688±91, and by David, Robert Curthose, pp. 131±6.

/3thomson/tcom5.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:15 ± disk/amj

BOOK V. 394±396

359

pietatis ius uiolandum] An echo of the quotation from Suetonius above, c. 389. 9. Sed et trium milium marcarum . . . condonauit] ASC (E) s.a. 1103 and Orderic (vi. 14±15) give the same ®gure, and Orderic too says that Robert renounced it `on the queen's deliberate intercession'. The background to these events is explained by Orderic (vi. 94±5, 118±21) and Wace, Roman de Rou (pt. iii, lines 9375±96; ii. 234±5), who both say that when Robert had run through most of the money left him by his father (see above, c. 391. 1), he asked Henry for some of his; Henry agreed to let him have 3,000 marks in return for the Cotentin, `which is a third part of Normandy'. The chroniclers vary on several details of the transaction. Robert of Torigni, GND ii. 204± 5, says that some thought that the land was pledge for a loan. Further on he says that Henry agreed to pay his brother 4,000 marks which, however, the duke remitted to Matilda (GND ii. 220±1). Other accounts of the terms are given by John of Worcester s.a. 1103 and Orderic (v. 318±21). See Freeman, William Rufus, ii. 413±14, 510±16; David, Robert Curthose, pp. 134±7; and C. W. Hollister, `The AngloNorman civil war; 1101', pp. 92±5. 396 William's is one of several near-contemporary accounts of the rebellion of 1102, all apparently independent of each other. A brief one is in ASC (E). John of Worcester's is more detailed than ASC but less so than William's; much more detailed again than William and better informed is Orderic (vi. 21±33). Nonetheless William has a few details of his own which may be correct, and is unique (although not necessarily correct) in implying that the Welsh acted on their own initiative rather than at Robert of BelleÃme's instigation. One major blunder is his placing the siege of Bridgnorth before that of Arundel, against all the other accounts. The detail which Orderic supplies makes it clear that it is William who is wrong: both castles were administered by more than one castellan (Orderic speci®es and names three at Bridgnorth); he says that they surrendered and were given life and liberty, but not that any left for Normandy. Nor does Orderic mention the intervention of Ralph abbot of SeÂez at Shrewsbury; but William may be right about this. SeÂez was in Robert's lordship, and so his presence is at least plausible. Later Robert was to persecute him by oppressing the abbey's men, forcing him into exile in England: Orderic (vi. 46±7); GP, c. 68 (p. 127). A full account of the rebellion and analysis of sources is given by Freeman, William

/3thomson/tcom5.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:15 ± disk/amj

360

COMMENTARY

Rufus, ii. 420±50. See also C. W. Hollister, `The campaign of 1102 against Robert of BelleÃme', in Studies in Medieval History presented to R. Allen Brown, ed. C. Harper-Bill, C. J. Holdsworth, and J. L. Nelson (Woodbridge, 1989), pp. 193±202. 3 Rotbertus . . . abiurauit] For Arnulf of BelleÃme and Roger of Poitou see Mason, `Roger de Montgomery and his sons', pp. 14±24. Roger had married the sister of the count of La Marche in Poitou and succeeded to the county when her brother died in 1091. Orderic does not mention the proviso in Robert's oath. Both Arnulf and Roger were later temporarily reconciled to Henry and both revisited his court, but they never recovered their English lands: Orderic vi. 32 n. 1. Robert of BelleÃme's expulsion from England is mentioned in GP, c. 68 (p. 127), with reference back. 397 William was the son of Robert of Mortain (William the Conqueror's half-brother, d. 1090) and Matilda, daughter of Roger II of Montgomery. He was count of Mortain (1090±1106) and earl of Cornwall (1090±1104). His `grievances' are described by David, Robert Curthose, pp. 157, 159. GR is the only source to say that William was frustrated by his failure to secure the earldom of Kent, formerly held by his uncle Odo. He forsook Henry to support Robert in 1104, was captured at Tinchebray in 1106, and imprisoned in the Tower of London until an allegedly miraculous release in 1118. In 1140 he became a monk at Bermondsey and presumably died soon after: annals of Bermondsey s.aa. (Annales Monastici, iii. 432, 436). 3 indebite retenta repetere cepit] It is dif®cult to say what it was that William of Mortain held unjustly. Perhaps it was the earldom of Cornwall, which he must have forfeited when he joined Robert Curthose. 398 William may have used ASC (E) s.aa. 1105±6 as framework, but most of his account is independent. 1 At uero rex Henricus . . . urgebant] Orderic (vi. 86±7) puts similar sentiments into a message sent by Henry to his brother before the battle of Tinchebray. 2 Itaque fratrem ad se accitum in Angliam] Only William has this detail. Certainly Henry used the opportunity presented him by Robert's presence in England to force him to end the annual subsidy of 3,000 marks due to him under the terms of the treaty of Alton:

/3thomson/tcom5.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:15 ± disk/amj

BOOK V. 396±398.4

361

David, Robert Curthose, pp. 148±9. Orderic omits the English meeting altogether (Orderic vi. 80 n. 2); ASC (E) s.a. 1106 dates it early in the year and locates it in Northampton. 3 nisi . . . Paschalis apostolicus dubitantem ad opus epistolis impelleret] This letter, if it ever existed, does not survive. On the contrary, on 24 Feb. 1101 Paschal wrote to Anselm encouraging him to foster good relations between the brothers: Anselm, Epist. ccxiii (JL 5883; SAO iv. 110±11). 3±4 Orderic (vi. 78±81) gives a similar account of the campaign of 1105. He too mentions the death of Roger of Gloucester at Falaise, but says that it was during a knightly passage of arms; he does not mention the wounding of Robert Fitz Hamon. Chibnall in Orderic vi. 78 n. 3 lists the other sources for the campaign. 4 inter quos Rogerium de Gloecestra] Roger of PõÃtres, sheriff of Gloucester (d. by 1086): J. A. Green, English Sheriffs to 1154 (London, 1990), p. 42. Baiocas . . . ignibus absumpserit] Spring 1105. The fullest account of the burning is by Serlo, canon of Bayeux, De capta Baiocensium ciuitate, in The Anglo-Latin Satirical Poets and Epigrammatists of the Twelfth Century, ed. T. Wright (2 vols.: RS, 1892), ii. 241±51. et Rotbertus monasterium Theokesberiae . . . allicit animos] Tewkesbury, a cell of Cranbourne since c.980, became an abbey in its own right in 1102: Tewkesbury annals in Annales Monastici, i. 44. The same source records Robert's death in 1107. For the details of his great church see A. Clapham, `The form of the early choir of Tewkesbury and its signi®cance', Archaeological Journal, cvi, Supplement (1949, publ. 1952), 10±15; P. Kidson, `The abbey church of St Mary at Tewkesbury in the eleventh and twelfth centuries'; and R. Halsey, `Tewkesbury Abbey: some recent observations', both in Medieval Art and Architecture at Gloucester and Tewkesbury, ed. T. A. Heslop and V. Sekules (British Archaeological Association Conference Transactions, vii: Oxford, 1985), pp. 6±15, 16±35. It consisted of a two-bay choir with ambulatory and apse, probably with three radiating chapels, transepts with eastern apsidal chapels, and an eight-bay aisled nave. All this survives intact but for the ambulatory, radial chapels and the upper part of the choir, renewed in the fourteenth century. In GP, c. 157 (p. 295), William again praises Robert Fitz Hamon for his patronage of the abbey.

/3thomson/tcom5.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:15 ± disk/amj

362

COMMENTARY

5 summam manum incruente bello imposuit] Cf. Lucan v. 483: `summam rapti per prospera belli / te poscit Fortuna manum'. See also above, c. 262. 4, and Wright II, p. 496 n. 56, for William's use in other works of the expression `summam/supremam manum imponere'. There are dif®culties with both TA `incruente' (`without bloodshed'), and CB `ingruente' (`threatening, violently approaching'). On the one hand Tinchebray was hardly bloodless (though the idea may be that it prevented further bloodshed); on the other, the war was not beginning but nearing its end. Sharpe attempted to make sense by translating `Fortune . . . put a ®nishing hand to the war, when at its height'. Cf. also Virgil, Aen. viii. 535: `si bellum ingrueret'. bellum actum est apud Tenerchebrei . . . sabbato in sancti Michahelis uigilia] 28 Sept. 1106. Cf. Orderic vi. 82±93, not giving a date. Idem dies . . . Hastingas appulit] William recounts the landing above, c. 238. 10, without naming the date which, like Tinchebray itself, was either 28 or 29 Sept. (Chibnall in Orderic ii. 171 n. 2). William was evidently not relying at this point on ASC (E), which says that the landing occurred on Michaelmas (29 Sept.); ASC (D) says Michaelmas Eve. 6 Captus est ibi comes Moretolii] See above, c. 397. 2±3. His support for Robert, capture and death are described by Orderic (vi. 84±5, 94±5). Belesmensis . . . inclusus ergastulo] Orderic (vi. 90±1) also says that Robert ran away at Tinchebray. He was sentenced on 4 Nov. 1112, imprisoned soon after at Cherbourg, then moved to Wareham, where he died at an unknown date after 1130±1: Orderic vi. 178±9 and p. 179 n. 3. Henry of Huntingdon, De contemptu mundi, c. 11 (pp. 604±5), says that Robert was so closely con®ned that no-one knew whether he was dead or alive. 7 Vir pro incompositis moribus . . . eloquium] Robert of BelleÃme's cruelty is enlarged on by Orderic (iv. 298±301, vi. 178±9) and by Henry of Huntingdon ut supra. His family background and ambitions have been much discussed: G. H. White, `The ®rst house of BelleÃme', TRHS, 4th ser. xxii (1940), 67±99; J.-F. Lemarignier, Recherches sur l'hommage en marche et les frontieÁres feÂodales (Lille, 1945), pp. 60±7; J. Boussard, `La seigneurie de BelleÃme aux Xe et XIe sieÁcles', MeÂlanges de l'histoire du moyen aÃge deÂdieÂs aÁ la meÂmoire de Louis Halphen (Paris, 1951), pp. 43±54; Guillou, Le Comte d'Anjou, i. 69±72;

/3thomson/tcom5.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:15 ± disk/amj

BOOK V. 396.5±400.1

363

Mason, `Roger de Montgomery and his sons', 19±28; Bates, Normandy before 1066, pp. 78±81; K. Thompson, `Family and in¯uence to the south of Normandy in the eleventh century: the lordship of BelleÃme', Journal of Medieval History, xi (1985), 215±26; id., `Robert of BelleÃme reconsidered', Anglo-Norman Studies, xiii (1990), 263±86; G. Louise, La seigneurie de BelleÃme X e-XI e sieÁcles (2 vols., Le Pays bas-normand, SocieÂte d'Art et d'Histoire, nos. 199±202: Flers, 1992± 3). Thompson, `Robert of BelleÃme reconsidered', p. 281, suggests that the story of Robert tearing out the eyes of his godson originated with the death as his hostage of the younger son of Robert Giroie in 1092. 399 Punishment for false coining is mentioned in the Coronation Charter of 1100, clause 5, and Henry's instructions on the matter to the bishop and sheriff of Worcester survive: RRAN, no. 501. An instance of their savage implementation is recorded in ASC (E) s.a. 1125: `In this year King Henry . . . ordered that all the moneyers who were in England should be mutilatedÐi.e. that each should lose the right hand and be castrated. That was because the man who had a pound could not get a pennyworth at a market.' Similarly Annales de Wintonia s.a. 1125 (Annales Monastici, i. 47), saying, however, that three exceptions were made. See further below, c. 411. 1, GP, c. 278 (p. 442), and C. W. Hollister, `Royal acts of mutilation: the case against Henry I', in his Monarchy, Magnates and Institutions, pp. 291±301. 400 Cf. ASC (E) s.aa. 1093±4, 1107, but William gives much greater detail. The Scottish kings named here are Donald Bane, 1093±7, his bastard nephew Duncan, May 12±Nov. 1094, Edgar, 1097±1107, Alexander, 1107±24, and David, 1124±53. The course of events is described by Ritchie, The Normans in Scotland, p. 60 seq.; Duncan, Scotland: the Making of the Kingdom, p. 125; and Kapelle, The Norman Conquest of the North, pp. 153±7, 191±7. 1 prefato Duuenaldo . . . extincto] The involvement of William Rufus is certain. He is so implicated by ASC (E) and John of Worcester s.a. 1093, by other English chroniclers listed in A. O. Anderson, Scottish Annals from English Chroniclers A.D. 500 to 1286 (London, 1908), p. 117 n. 5, and by the Chronicle of Melrose: Anderson, Early Sources of Scottish History, ii. 89. astutia Dauid iunioris] Though he was apparently only about twelve at the time (HBC, p. 57).

/3thomson/tcom5.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:15 ± disk/amj

364

COMMENTARY

data ei in coniugium ®lia notha] So also Orderic (iv. 274±5). The wife was Sibyl (d. July 1122), whose mother may have been Sibyl Corbet, daughter of Robert Corbet of Alcester: Complete Peerage xi, appendix D, p. 118; Ritchie, The Normans in Scotland, pp. 134±5. 2±3 Alexandro maioribus . . . contristasse] Orderic (ut supra) gives a similar account of the three brothers, especially David. See also Baker, `A nursery of saints', pp. 119±20, 138±41. 2 Denique regno potitus . . . pasci accuratius] The `triennale tributum' was the cain, a levy in respect of lordship made by kings of the Scots every two or three years. It was already an ancient custom by William's time: G. W. S. Barrow, `David I of Scotland: the balance of new and old', in his Scotland and its Neighbours in the Middle Ages (London, 1992), pp. 45±65, at 59. 3 The good training that Queen Margaret of Scotland gave her sons is emphasized by ?Turgot, Vita Margaretae, c. 5 (p. 240). Solus fuit Edmundus . . . pro fratricidii delicto] That is, Edmund aided Donald Bane in the deposition and murder of Duncan in 1094. The information is apparently unique to William, the only authority for it listed by Anderson, Scottish Annals from English Chroniclers, pp. 118±19; id., Early Sources of Scottish History, ii. 89±93. See also Duncan, Scotland: the Making of a Kingdom, pp. 25±6, and Ritchie, The Normans in Scotland, pp. 60±6, 87. According to Ritchie Edmund became a monk of the Cluniac priory of Montacute in Somerset, founded c.1078 (Heads, p. 121 n. 1). I have not been able to substantiate this. 401 On the policy of the Norman kings towards Wales see Lloyd, History of Wales, ii, ch. xi; J. G. Edwards, `The Normans and the Welsh March', Proceedings of the British Academy, xlii (1956), 155±77; L. H. Nelson, The Normans in South Wales, pp. 79±125; R. R. Davies, `Kings, lords and liberties in the March of Wales, 1066±1272', TRHS, 5th ser. xxix (1979), 41±61; and D. Walker, `The Norman settlement in Wales', Anglo-Norman Studies, i (1978), 131±43. 1 Walenses . . . retunderet] Very similar to John of Worcester s.a. 1111. `Ros' refers to the southern part of Pembrokeshire. Some of the Flemings had apparently already been settled in the north of England: Simeon of Durham, Historia regum, c. 191 (ii. 245). Brut y Tywysogion, s.aa. 1104±8, ed. and trans. T. Jones (Cardiff, 1955), pp. 52±3, records a Flemish immigration due to ¯ooding in

/3thomson/tcom5.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:15 ± disk/amj

BOOK V. 400.1±403.2

365

Flanders. Orderic (vi. 442±3) s.a. 1134 describes the sufferings of the Welsh at the hands of King Henry, `and several of their regions were given to the Flemings', who treated them so badly that they rebelled. See Freeman, Norman Conquest, v. 854±5; H. Owen, `The Flemings in Pembrokeshire', Archaeologia Cambrensis, 5th ser. xii (1895), 96±106; I. W. Rowlands, `The making of the March: aspects of the Norman settlement in Dyfed', Anglo-Norman Studies, iii (1980), 142±57, at pp. 147±8; Green, The Government of England under Henry I, p. 149; and R. Bartlett, The Making of Europe: Conquest, Colonization and Cultural Change, 950±1350 (London, 1993), pp. 115±16 and nn. 402 Britones transmarinos . . . transducebat] Henry used Breton mercenaries at Tinchebray, at Bures-en-Brai in 1119, and at the siege of Pontaudemer in 1124: Green, The Government of England under Henry I, pp. 146±9. adolescens uicinos castellis Danfronto et Sancti Michahelis] Earlier (c. 392. 5) William mentioned the young Henry's occupation of Mont Saint-Michel, but not his subsequent retreat to Domfront, described by Orderic (iv. 250±3, 256±9, 292±3) and Robert of Torigni, GND ii. 206±7. 403 The counts of Flanders mentioned here are: Baldwin V, 1035± 67, Baldwin VI, 1067±70, Robert II (son of Robert the Frisian), 1087± 1111, Baldwin VII, 1111±19, and Charles the Good (grandson of Robert the Frisian), 1119±27. See the genealogy on pp. 314±15 of Galbert of Bruges, The Murder of Charles the Good, trans. J. B. Ross (rev. edn., New York, 1967), and Nicholas, Medieval Flanders, chs. 2 and 4 to p. 63. On Robert II (`the Crusader') see M. M. Knappen, `Robert II of Flanders in the First Crusade', in The Crusades and other Historical Essays presented to Dana C. Munro by his Former Students, ed. L. J. Paetow (New York, 1928), pp. 79±100. For an account of the disputed succession of William Clito (son of Robert Curthose) and Charles the Good, see Galbert of Bruges, pp. 5±15. 1±2 William's is the only mention of the agreement between William I and the counts of Flanders, renewed by William II. Neither the terms of this agreement, nor those of the alleged earlier one, are extant. The terms, probably negotiated with Robert II of Flanders in the summer of 1093, were presumably similar to those negotiated by

/3thomson/tcom5.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:15 ± disk/amj

366

COMMENTARY

Henry I with the same Robert on 10 Mar. 1101: F.-L. Ganshof, R. van Caenegem, A. Verhulst, `Note sur le premier traite Anglo-Flamand de Douvres', Revue du Nord, xl (1958), 245±57; Barlow, William Rufus, p. 325 and n. 265; Diplomatic Documents preserved in the Public Record Of®ce: I (1101±1272), ed. P. Chaplais (London, 1964), no. 1. 4 apud Archas . . . nec nocte uenere abstinuerit] 1118. The manner of Baldwin's death quickly gave rise to comment. The version of Orderic (vi. 190±1) is the nearest to William's. He too says that Baldwin was wounded near Arques, after which, `so the story goes, he ate freshly killed meat, drank mead, and slept with a woman'. This brought on the fatal illness of which he died nearly a year later. Other chroniclers (Chron. de Hyda, p. 315, Henry of Huntingdon vii. 30 (pp. 462±3), Suger, Vita Ludouici, c. 26 (pp. 194±5) ), say that he was wounded at nearby Eu. The Chron. de Hyda says that he afterwards ate poisoned food, with garlic and honey. Successor eius Karolus . . . amplexus] Similarly Orderic (vi. 190± 1): `After Baldwin's death Charles of Encre, his cousin through the daughter of Robert the Frisian, succeeded, and to secure the welfare of his people he kept peace with the king of England and his other neighbours.' 404. 1 nec praeterea in castellis . . . uicina erant] Information apparently unique to William. There is no information in J. Yver, `Les chaÃteaux-forts en Normandie jusqu'au milieu du xiie sieÁcle', Bulletin de la SocieÂte des Antiquaires de Normandie, liii (1957 for 1955± 6), 28±115, 604±9, esp. 76±99, or G. Fournier, Le ChaÃteau dans la France meÂdieÂvale; essai de sociologie monumentale (Paris, 1978). comitissaeque Andegauensis spetie lusus] Bertrada of Montfort, daughter of Count Richard of EÂvreux, fourth wife of Fulk IV count of Anjou; see above, cc. 235. 5, 345. 5. William was evidently much disturbed by this behaviour of King Philip. On the problematic marriage see G. Duby, Medieval Marriage: Two Models from TwelfthCentury France (Baltimore and London, 1978), pp. 29±45; id., The Knight, the Lady and the Priest (Harmondsworth, 1985), pp. 3±21; and C. N. L. Brooke, The Medieval Idea of Marriage (Oxford, 1989), pp. 122±3. Quocirca ab Apostolico excommunicatus . . . effugant] Similarly Orderic (iv. 262). But what actually happened was more complicated and less decisive. Urban II did not excommunicate

/3thomson/tcom5.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:15 ± disk/amj

BOOK V. 403.1±405

367

Philip until Oct. 1094; Philip was reconciled in 1096, excommunicated again in 1100, and absolved, on condition that he would renounce Bertrada, in 1104; he did not, but Paschal II turned a blind eye and did not renew the excommunication. 2 Willelmum archiepiscopum Rotomagensem] William BonneAme. Orderic (iv. 260) says that the marriage was solemnized by Odo of Bayeux, but the documents show that the celebrant was Ursio bishop of Senlis (Orderic iv. 260 n. 3). Philippo . . . inseruire] Philip died on 29 July 1108 and was buried at Fleury. Not long after Bertrada retired to the nunnery of Fontevrault. In 1112 Louis VI created, as a dependency of it, the priory of Haute BruyeÁre on an estate formerly part of her dowry from Philip I; it was built in 1113 and the queen entered it in 1115: A. Luchaire, Louis VI le Gros (Paris, 1890), nos. 87 (p. 47), 154 (pp. 79±80); Receuil des actes de Louis VI, roi de France (1108±1137), ed. R.-H. Bautier and J. Dufour (4 vols.: Paris, 1992±4), i. 168±9 (no. 75). The date of her death is unknown. 405 Other accounts of the intermittent warfare between Henry and Louis VI (1109±20) are in ASC (E) s.aa. 1119±20; Orderic vi. 234±91; Suger, Vita Ludouici, cc. 16, 23, 26 (pp. 102±13, 170±3, 182±201); Chron. de Hyda, pp. 316±18; and Henry of Huntingdon vii. 30±1 (pp. 462±5). Robert of Torigni, GND ii. 234±5, also covered their quarrel, but this part of his account is lost and its subject-matter is only known from the table of contents. William's `pitched battle' is the battle of BreÂmule, 20 Aug. 1119, in which Louis was soundly defeated. William is noticeably sardonic as to what followed. Peace was made in the summer of 1120, but the wreck of the White Ship (below, c. 419. 3±8) occurred during the return of Henry and his son to England in November of that year. Modern analyses are C. W. Hollister, `Normandy, France and the Anglo-Norman regnum', and `War and diplomacy in the Anglo-Norman world: the reign of Henry I', in his Monarchy, Magnates and Institutions, pp. 17±57, 273±89; M. Chibnall, `Anglo-French relations in the work of Orderic Vitalis', in Documenting the Past: Essays in Medieval History presented to G. P. Cuttino, ed. J. S. Hamilton and P. J. Bradbury (Woodbridge, 1989), pp. 5±19; on the battle itself J. Bradbury, `Battles in England and Normandy, 1066±1154', Anglo-Norman Studies, vi (1983), 1±12, at pp. 8±9.

/3thomson/tcom5.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:15 ± disk/amj

368

COMMENTARY

1 Louis' encouragement of Henry to proceed against Robert Curthose is also mentioned by Suger, Vita Ludouici, c. 16 (pp. 100± 3). Philip was still king at the time. 1±2 Postea uero simultas . . . persona cederet] Between 1109 and 1111 Theobald II, count of Blois and Chartres, entered into an alliance with his uncle Henry against Louis VI. Louis appealed against Theobald to Pope Calixtus II at the council of Reims on 20±21 Oct. 1119. 2 hominem aqualiculi pondere . . . fouentem] Cf. above, c. 389. 1n., and HN, c. 455 (p. 10): `Lodowicus . . . nimia corpulentia grauis'. 4 pax parta est] Cf. Suetonius, Aug. xxi. 1: `pace parta'. omnium rerum est uicissitudo] Terence, Eun. 276: `Omnium rerum, heus! uicissitudost.' Quare Willelmus . . . contra ®lium turbaretur] And see below, c. 419. 1±3. The act of homage represented a considerable victory by the king of France, since no earlier duke of Normandy had performed it. 406. 1 His diebus . . . prope Normanniam exhibuit] The meeting took place in 1119 at Gisors in the Vexin, probably on 23 or 24 Nov. The pope was there, on the frontier of France and Normandy, to bring about a settlement between the kings of France and England, and to induce the latter to give ground in the controversy concerning the profession of obedience by the archbishop of York to the archbishop of Canterbury: David, Robert Curthose, p. 183 and n. 41. The meeting was also recorded, and its proceedings described in detail, by Orderic (vi. 282±91). But Chibnall in Orderic vi. 288 n. 1 implies that what Orderic conveyed may have been based on Henry I's propaganda rather than on `inside information'; William's mention of the part played by eloquence and bribery may be near the mark. Other full accounts are given by Hugh the Chanter, pp. 126±35, and Eadmer, Hist. nov., pp. 258±9, both, however, focusing on the primacy issue. quare fratrem et sancti Sepulchri peregrinum in captione teneret] Robert had of course already discharged his crusading vow, but well before this date the papacy had formally taken under its protection the persons and property of those who went on crusade. Presumably the relevant principle here was that enunciated by Paschal II in 1099 (JL 5812): `We command that all their property

/3thomson/tcom5.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:15 ± disk/amj

BOOK V. 405.1±407.2

369

be restored to the brethren who return after achieving this victory.' Henry had in effect taken Robert's property from him. Moreover, the loan of 10,000 marks to underwrite Robert's crusading venture, with his duchy as security, had been negotiated by Urban II's legate Abbot Jarento of Saint-BeÂnigne Dijon: Hugh of Flavigny, Chronicon (MGH SS, viii, 1848, pp. 474±5). In a letter to Anselm of 24 Feb. 1101 (Epist. ccxiii; SAO iv. 111) Paschal wrote `Et nosti quia eidem comiti [Roberto] debemus auxilium pro laboribus quos in Asianae ecclesiae liberatione laborauit.' See Robinson, The Papacy, pp. 336±41. communes loci] Cf. Cicero, De inv. ii. 48: `haec argumenta quae transferri in multas causas possunt, locos communes nominamus.' 2 ®lios comitis de Mellento] Robert and Waleran, sons of Robert I of Beaumont (d. 1118), count of Meulan and earl of Leicester. At least one of them had been given by their father into the care of Abbot Faricius of Abingdon: D. Crouch, The Beaumont Twins (Cambridge, 1986), p. 7 and n. 19. Faricius had formerly been a monk of Malmesbury, and William comments on his learning in GP, c. 88, v prol. (pp. 192±3, 330±1). Faricius, then, could have been the source of William's information. Even so, it may be no more than an echo of a story involving different people. Hermann of Laon, De miraculis sanctae Mariae Laudunensis (PL clvi. 977), mentions two sons of Ranulf, Henry's chancellor (1107±22), studying in the school of Anselm of Laon (d. c.1117), under William of Corbeil, afterwards archbishop of Canterbury. nichil Anglorum regis causa iustius, prudentia eminentius, facundia uberius] Is there intentional irony in the substitution of `facundia' for `temperantia', whose inclusion would have endowed the king with at least three of the cardinal virtues? 407. 2 The men referred to are Robert I of Beaumont (d. 1118), count of Meulan and earl of Leicester, and Henry I of Beaumont (d. 1119), earl of Warwick. castellum, quod matris suae frater Hugo ®lius Gualeranni tenuerat, Mellentum nomine] Hugh son of Waleran, count of Meulan 1069±80; on Robert's succession to the countship see GND ii. 98 n. 1. Qui cum superiorum . . . sacrarium] Similarly Henry of Huntingdon, De contemptu mundi, c. 7 (pp. 596±9): `Fuit . . . Robertus consul de Meslend, in rebus secularibus sapientissimus omnium nunc

/3thomson/tcom5.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:15 ± disk/amj

370

COMMENTARY

usque in Ierusalem degentium', etc. See S. Vaughn, `Robert of Meulan and raison d'eÂtat in the Anglo-Norman state, 1093±1118', Albion, x (1978), 352±73. 3 ingentis in Anglia momenti . . . inuerteret morem] So also Henry of Huntingdon (vi. 20; pp. 370±1), contrasting the great of his own day, who `from avarice or, as they themselves say, from fastidiousness', have one meal a day, with Harthacnut, who had four. 4 ipse non eas sequens sed proponens] Or the sense could be: `not just following them himself, but urging others to follow them too'. 408 On Roger of Salisbury and William's treatment of him see E. Kealey, Roger of Salisbury Viceroy of England (Berkeley, 1972), esp. pp. 6±10 (on William as a source), 12 (for Roger's position at the beginning of Henry's reign). 1 Anselmus . . . et postremo papa] Anselm 1093±1109, Ralph 1114±22, William 1123±36; the pope was Calixtus II. 2 rex plerumque triennio, nonnumquam quadriennio et eo amplius, in Normannia moratus] The use of `plerumque' and `nonnumquam' make the statement an exaggeration. Nonetheless it probably provides support for a late dating (1126) for the TA version of GR (see above, p. xviii n. 2). According to the itinerary in RRAN, pp. xxix±xxxi, up to this point Henry's long stays in Normandy were Aug. 1111ÐJuly 1113 (straddling three calendar years, but totalling only two), Apr. 1116Ð25 Nov. 1120 (nearly ®ve years), and 11 June 1123Ð11 Sept. 1126 (three years and three months). 3 Domine . . . domus tuae] Ps. 25(26): 8. William comments again on Roger's building activities in HN, cc. 468, 481 (pp. 25, 38±9); see Kealey, pp. 84±91. Although Roger was abbot of Malmesbury at the time, there is no evidence that he carried out building within the abbey itself. William is probably referring to the castle which the bishop built nearby, of which nothing remains today. On his work at Salisbury see especially R. A. Stalley, `A twelfth-century patron of architecture: a study of the buildings erected by Roger, bishop of Salisbury 1102±1139', Journal of the British Archaeological Association, 3rd ser. xxxiv (1971), 62±83. As Kealey points out (p. 85 and n. 7), although Roger's work at Salisbury has customarily been given a terminus post quem of c.1125±30, the testimony of GR shows that it was in an advanced state by the earlier date.

/3thomson/tcom5.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:15 ± disk/amj

BOOK V. 407.2±409.2

371

409. 1 Hibernensium regem Murcardum] William clearly had little or no idea of the political organization of contemporary Ireland, where several kingdoms coexisted fractiously, high-kingship being exercised by a strongman from time to time. Thus Muirchertach O'Brien was king of Munster only (1086±1119). On his ambitions as a  CroÂinõÂn, would-be overlord, never successfully realized, see D. O Early Medieval Ireland, 400±1200 (London, 1995), pp. 279±81. He married one daughter to Magnus Barelegs and another to Arnulf, brother of Robert de BelleÃme. He aided the BelleÃme brothers in their unsuccessful rebellion against Henry, and this may be what William meant by `feratur . . . in¯atius in Anglos egisse'. Quanti enim ualeret Hibernia . . . commertio inhabitant] William does not think much of Celts in general, although the Irish attract his harshest judgement (see also c. 51. 1). Compare what he says of the Scots, Welsh, and Bretons (cc. 6, 348. 2, 396. 1, 400. 2, 401. 1, 402): they are all barbarous, inclined to lawlessness and treachery, needing the (Anglo-)Normans to civilize and discipline them. On the signi®cance of this attitude, for which William provides the earliest illustration, see the important articles by J. Gillingham, `The context and purposes of Geoffrey of Monmouth's History of the Kings of Britain', Anglo-Norman Studies, xiii (1990), 99±118, at pp. 106±9, and `Conquering the barbarians: war and chivalry in twelfth-century Britain', p. 69. 2 Paulus Orcadum comes . . . missitaret] Paul Hakonsson, earl of the Orkneys, d. 1136. William alone records this friendship: Orkneyinga Saga, trans. A. B. Taylor (Edinburgh and London, 1938), p. 414. Unfortunately the precise date of Paul's accession, important in relation to the making of GR, is vague. The death of his father Earl Hakon is variously dated between 1123 and 1126: Orkneyinga Saga, p. 411, and Anderson, Early Sources of Scottish History, ii. 139±40. His inheritance was divided between his two sons, Harold ruling Caithness, Paul the Orkneys. Harold died c.1128, leaving Paul as sole earl. William's reference suggests that at the time of writing, Paul had already been earl for some time. linces] Almost any smallish member of the felidae might be so called, but the most likely candidate is the European Lynx (felis lynx), once found throughout western Europe, now con®ned to Scandinavia and Spain, where felis pardina may or may not be a distinct species: F. Beddard, Mammalia (The Cambridge Natural

/3thomson/tcom5.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:15 ± disk/amj

372

COMMENTARY

History, x: Cambridge, 1902), p. 397, G. B. Corbet, The Terrestrial Mammals of Western Europe (London, 1966), pp. 157±8 and pl. 6. habebatque conseptum . . . confouebat] William's is the unique account of Henry's private zoo, described as `la premieÁre grande meÂnagerie du moyen aÃge' in the classic study of G. Loisel, Histoire des meÂnageries de l'antiquite aÁ nos jours (3 vols.: Paris, 1912), i. 153; see also pp. 154±5. It may not have been the ®rst, however; cf. Widukind of Corvey, Res gesta Saxonicae iii. 56 (5th edn., by H. E. Lohmann and P. Hirsch, MGH srg, lx, 1935, p. 135), on Otto I: `plurimos legatos suscipit, Romanorum scilicet et Graecorum Sarracenorumque, per eosque diuersi generis munera . . . animalia Saxonibus antea inuisa, leones et camelos, simias et strutiones; omniumque circumquaque Christianorum in illo res atque spes sitae.' (Note that Widukind cites the same passage of Sallust as William above, c. 48. 2.) It is also possible that the English royal zoo predated Henry; Lambert of Ardres describes a huge bear presented to Arnold lord of Ardres by William Rufus (Historia comitum Ghisnensium, c. 128; pp. 624±5). Colvin et al., History of the King's Works, ii (1963), pp. 1009±10, notes some records of expenditure on `the king's buildings at Woodstock', presumably referring to this menagerie. The range of animals kept there (including the porcupine and ostrich mentioned below) is astonishing, and one wonders about the conditions under which they were able to subsist; presumably they did not live long, let alone breed. 3 animal quod strix uocatur] William presumably saw hystrix cristata, whose range includes southern France, Italy, Greece, and the Balkans: Beddard, pp. 499±500; Corbet, p. 200 and pl. 10; F. H. van den Brink, A Field Guide to the Mammals of Britain and Europe (4th edn., London, 1976), pp. 118±19. The African porcupine, hystrix galeata, was and is found in southern and central, but not northern Africa, so it is less likely to have found its way across the Mediterranean. William's estimate of the length of the spines is surprisingly low; they can be 30±40 cm. long (information from Professor D. M. Stoddart). William's examination of the shed spines presumably took place at Henry's zoo, and the porcupine was not the only occupant which he noticed. In his Commentary on Lamentations, written between 1135 and 1137, he wrote: `Ista autem strutio auis est membrorum grandium, pennas quidem habens sed uolatu carens. Qualem in Anglia uidimus tempore Henrici regis externorum mon-

/3thomson/tcom5.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:15 ± disk/amj

BOOK V. 409.2±410.2

373

strorum appetentissimi' (GR i, p. cxxiii). This is evidence for some degree of friendship between William and HenryÐfor how otherwise could the monk have gained access to the royal menagerie? a Willelmo de Monte Pislerio] William V count of Montpellier (1077±1121), an active and able lord and almost a career crusader, in the Holy Land in 1096±1103 (see above, c. 388. 10, and below, c. 410. 1), helping to temporarily liberate the Balearic Isles from the Muslim in 1114. On him see J. Baumel, Histoire d'une seigneurie du midi de la France (2 vols.: Montpellier, 1969±71), i. 75±108. De quo animali . . . naturaliter emittant] Pliny the Elder, Nat. hist. viii. 125; Isidore, Etym. xii. 2. 35. But neither Pliny nor Isidore says that it was the Africans who called the animal `a kind of hedgehog'. 410 The `Crusade' of King Sigurd of Norway (1103±30) took place in 1107±11, and its main achievement was to help King Baldwin capture Sidon in Dec. of 1110. It was also described by Snorri Sturlasson, Heimskringla, Saga of King Sigurd, cc. 1±13, whose account has some points of contact with William's. Snorri says that Sigurd wintered in England with Henry I but does not mention his encounter with the whirlpool. He gives a similarly colourful description of Sigurd's stay at Constantinople on his return home (cc. 12± 14), but makes no reference to the deaths of his men there as recorded by William below. Stories of his crusading exploits, which earned Sigurd the sobriquet of Jorsalfar (`Jerusalem-farer'), clearly grew with the telling. See Paul le Comte Riant, ExpeÂditions et peleÂrinages des Scandinaves en Terre Sainte (Paris, 1865), pp. 173±215, and Davidson, The Viking Road to Byzantium, pp. 198, 260±3. 1 prefato Willelmo de Monte Pislerio] See c. 409. 3n. He subdued the Balearic Islands in 1114, with the aid of the count of Barcelona, the Pisans and Genoese, but they reverted to the Arabs in 1117, again with the aid of the Genoese. 2 Paulus] Paul the Deacon, Hist. Lang. i. 6. This is not quite what Paul wrote, namely, that `there is said' to be a whirlpool between Britain and Gaul, `and with this fact the coasts of the Seine region and of Aquitaine agree, for they are ®lled twice a day with such sudden inundations that anyone who may by chance be found only a little inward from the shore can hardly get away . . . . The island of Alderney is almost thirty miles (48 km.) distant from the coast of the

/3thomson/tcom5.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:15 ± disk/amj

374

COMMENTARY

Seine region, and in this island . . . is heard the noise of the waters as they sweep into this Charybdis.' William's order of Sigurd's seavoyage is confusing, implying as it does that the ship was lost in the whirlpool after entering the Mediterranean and threatening Majorca and Minorca. nauem aureis rostratam . . . af®xit] This is obviously garbled, describing as it does a physical impossibility. Snorri (Saga of King Sigurd, c. 14) makes better sense, saying that before his departure from Constantinople Sigurd detached from his ships the wooden dragon-®gureheads covered with gilded bronze and presented them to the church of St Peter, which they adorned for a long time. He was able to do this since he went home from Constantinople by land. Riant (p. 202) says that one of the ®gureheads later returned to the West and in his day was mounted on the belfry of the Town Hall in Ghent. But this was apparently local legend, and the Ghent dragon was really made there in 1377. 3 Hominibus suis . . . uisu addisceret] The deaths of Sigurd's men were doubtless due to alcohol poisoning; probably already malnourished due to their long sea-voyages, involving the absence from their diet of fresh fruit and vegetables, they then went on a binge of Byzantine retsina. Sigurd's marination of the pig's liver would have been of no scienti®c value (except perhaps to demonstrate the acid content of the drink), unlike the post-mortem examination of his dead soldier. Clearly the king was aware of the connection between alcohol intake and the state of the liver. (Information from Professor B. Munger and Dr L. Weller.) Quare contuitu prudentiae . . . citissimi reditus uades] This popular folk-motif (cf. El Cid's deception of the two Jews of Burgos in Poema de mio Cid, lines 78±200) is inherently unlikely to be historically correct. In any case it is contradicted by Snorri, who has the two rulers parting on the best of terms (c. 14; Riant, p. 203). 411 This section was a starting-point for the famous essay by R. W. Southern, `King Henry I', in his Medieval Humanism, pp. 206±33. Similar is Orderic's character-portrait at vi. 16±19. 1 ut parcat . . . superbos] Virgil, Aen. vi. 853: `parcere subiectis et debellare superbos' (and above, c. 213. 6; echoes at 258. 1 and 267. 1). 2 Iustitiae rigore in¯exibilis . . . non negligens] Similarly Orderic (vi. 98±9), and other writers listed by Chibnall in ibid.,

/3thomson/tcom5.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:15 ± disk/amj

BOOK V. 410.2±411.4

375

p. 99 n. 4. On Henry's concept and administration of justice see Green, The Government of England under Henry I, pp. 95±117. fures et falsarios . . . incidi precepit] Cf. Eadmer, Hist. nov., p. 193: `rex . . . corrigi statuit, ut nullus qui posset deprehendi falsos denarios facere aliqua redemptione quin oculos et inferiores corporis partes perderet iuuari ualeret. Et quoniam sepissime dum denarii eligebantur, ¯ectebantur, rumpebantur, respuebantur, statuit ut nullus denarius uel obolus integer esset.' William may well have seen a copy of Henry's own order on false and illegal coining, issued on Christmas day of 1100 or 1103: Liebermann, Gesetze, i. 523; RRAN, no. 501. For the literature on Henry's reform of the coinage see Green, The Government of England under Henry I, pp. 89±91, and M. Blackburn, `Coinage and currency under Henry I: a review', Anglo-Norman Studies, xiii (1990), 49±81, esp. pp. 62±3, on the practice of incising or `snicking' coins before they left the mint. The object was to ensure that they were not silver-plated over base metal. William's assertion that Henry ordered his coins to be incised is borne out by surviving examples of Henry's coins of types VI±XII (minted c.1108±25), and some later ones, which have just such a cut in the edge. Mercatorum falsam ulnam . . . per Angliam proposita] Information unique to William. Curialibus suis . . . dispendio af®tiens] Similarly Eadmer, Hist. nov., pp. 192±3. Henry was trying to ensure that traders were paid properly for goods needed by the royal household as it perambulated the realm. The situation is registered in ASC (E) s.a. 1104: `always wherever the king went there was complete ravaging of his wretched people caused by his court, and in the course of it often there were burnings and killings.' The reforms were probably introduced in 1108: Green, The Government of England under Henry I, p. 27; M. Chibnall, Anglo-Norman England 1066±1166 (Oxford, 1986), pp. 119±20. 4 Nec uero propter rebellionem . . . acriter luit] Identi®ed as Herbert the Chamberlain by C. W. Hollister, `The origins of the English treasury', in his Monarchy, Magnates and Institutions, pp. 209± 22, at 214±15. Suger, Vita Ludouici, c. 26 (pp. 190±1), says that the offender was blinded and castrated. See Suger, The Deeds of Louis the Fat, trans. R. C. Cusimano and J. Moorhead (Washington, 1992), pp. 114, 196±7 (note 10).

/3thomson/tcom5.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:15 ± disk/amj

376

COMMENTARY

412. 1 Minus pugnacis famae . . . bellatorem peperit] Frontinus, Strat. iv. 7. 4: `Scipio Africanus fertur dixisse, cum eum parum pugnacem dicerent: imperatorem me mater, non bellatorem peperit.' William's copy of Frontinus is in Oxford, Lincoln Coll. MS lat. 100, fos. 4±34v. Wright II, p. 494. uincebat, si poterat, sanguine nullo] Cf. Lucan x. 541: `Vincendus tunc Caesar erat, sed sanguine nullo'. 2 Omnium tota uita omnino obscenitatum cupidinearum expers . . . non obtemperans libidini ut famulus] An unconvincing and probably ironic attempt by William to excuse Henry's notoriously active extramarital sex-life. Although there are no verbal parallels, William surely had in mind Lucan's reference to Cato at ii. 380±91, esp. 387±8 `Venerisque hic unicus usus, / progenies', and 390±1 `nullosque Catonis in actus / subrepsit partemque tulit sibi nata uoluptas.' Orderic (vi. 98±9) was more direct: `Possessing an abundance of wealth and luxuries, he gave way too easily to the sin of lust; from boyhood until old age he was sinfully enslaved by this vice, and had many sons and daughters by his mistresses.' For the facts so far as they can now be known see Complete Peerage xi, appendix D, pp. 105±21, and C. Given-Wilson and A. Curteis, The Royal Bastards of Medieval England (London, 1984), ch. 4. Henry's achievement in this area is neatly summarized in the former, p. 105: `Henry I and Charles II were the only Kings of England to beget a large brood of bastards.' For Henry nine illegitimate sons and eleven daughters are listed. William's comment on the purpose of this reproduction, whether ironic or not, is at least supported by the politically advantageous marriages which Henry managed to arrange for most of them. 413±17 The story of Anselm's struggle with Henry I is repeated, in more detail, but without the documentation, in GP, cc. 56±63 (pp. 106±18). For a recent account of it see Southern, Saint Anselm, pp. 289±307. It is worth noting how William's extreme compression of the course of events, drastic selection of documents, and reversal of the chronological order of those reproduced in cc. 414 and 415 affect the story. c. 415 was in response to a delegation from the king and archbishop late in 1102. Although it represents Paschal II's ®rst retreat from the extreme position adopted by his predecessors, it still includes a strong condemnation of lay investiture, and

/3thomson/tcom5.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:15 ± disk/amj

BOOK V. 412±13.1

377

Anselm refused to open it until he left England for his continental exile. From here he moved on to Rome where he found Henry's messengers already present. Both parties obtained letters from the pope addressed to the king. Anselm got to see the letter given to the king's representatives at Piacenza; this is the letter reproduced at c. 414 below. In comparison with that which he himself carried it represents a much more moderate position on investitures and an implied slap on the wrist for the archbishop. Anselm's reaction was to suppress his own letters, since they were effectively rendered null and void by this one. The letter in c. 417 represents the inevitable compromise with which the dispute ended. William's account telescopes the complex sequences of embassies and letters, and minimizes both the pope's vacillation and his rebuke of Anselm. 413. 1 monasteria in Anglia et Normannia . . . differrem] This was a considerable exaggeration for one writing c.1125, and may be more of William's irony. Henry endowed few or no religious houses for the ®rst twenty years of his reign. However, from that point on his benefactions multiplied. They are speci®ed by Robert of Torigni, GND ii. 252±7, and amount to the following: in England, apart from Reading, there was the Augustinian canonry of Cirencester (1131); in Normandy and France he `almost completed' the church of SainteMarie-des-PreÂs at Rouen, founded by his mother, and added to the monastic complex there; he gave to Bec, to Cluny, to Saint-Martindes-Champs, to the Templars and Hospitallers, and enabled the completion of a hospital for lepers at Chartres. To this list can be added the building of the church of the Holy Sepulchre, Northampton, perhaps early in his reign, and major contributions to the building of Cluny III, perhaps from 1109, certainly from 1131: C. N. L. Brooke, `Princes and kings as patrons of monasteries', in Il Monachesimo e la Riforma Ecclesiastica (1049±1122) (Miscellanea del Centro di Studi Medioevali, vi: Milan, 1971), pp. 125±52, at 136±41. Radingensium fratrum caritas] William praises Reading again in GP, c. 89 (p. 193), in much the same words, but less apologetically. He had obviously visited it, and the memory would have been fresh in his mind, since the abbey was only founded in 1121, but did not get its ®rst abbot until 1123. K. Leyser, `Frederick Barbarossa, Henry II and the hand of St James', in his Medieval Germany and its Neighbours, pp 215±40, at 226±30, cites other evidence which

/3thomson/tcom5.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:15 ± disk/amj

378

COMMENTARY

supports William's assertion that the new house laid particular emphasis on the obligation of hospitality. 2 nesciens quid uentura pariat dies] Repeated in GP c. 75 (p. 164). Cf. Prov. 27: 1: `ignorans quid superuentura pariat dies'. uix tandem ad consentiendum . . . de fratre uictoria in¯exus] Referring to the battle of Tinchebray, 28 Sept. 1106 (above, c. 398. 5). The ®nal settlement between Henry I and Anselm was only publicly promulgated in Aug. 1107; but it had been achieved with the archbishop's receipt of the pope's letter (c. 416 below) late in Apr. 1106, and king and archbishop were formally reconciled at Bec on 15 Aug. 1106. Thus Henry's victory over his brother played no part in bringing about his compromise with Anselm. See Southern in Eadmer, Vita Anselmi, pp. 134±5 n. 3; id., Saint Anselm and his Biographer, pp. 176±9; and Saint Anselm, pp. 303±4. domnus Edmerus] Eadmer, Hist. nov., pp. 118±86. 414 = JL 5956, dated 23 Nov. 1103; SAO iv. 226±8 (Epist. cccv). William's direct source was probably Eadmer, Hist. nov., pp. 155±7. The same text is also in William, Liber pont. (L, fo. 67rv; Levison, p. 410). 1 clericum Willelmum] William Warelwast, later bishop of Exeter; see below, c. 417. 1±2. 3 Honori®cantes me . . . ignobiles] 1 Kgs.(1 Sam.) 2: 30. Ego sum hostium] John 10: 7. 4 religiosissimus Gallicanorum episcoporum Anselmus] By `Gallican' the pope presumably meant `ultramontane'. Redi . . . ad cor tuum] Is. 46: 8: `redite preuaricatores ad cor'. 415 = JL 5928, dated 12 Dec. 1102; SAO iv. 196±8 (Epist. cclxxxi). William's direct source was probably Eadmer, Hist. nov., pp. 149±51. The same text is also in William, Liber pont. (L, fos. 67v-8; Levison, p. 410). 2 Iesum, qui corda et renes scrutatur] Cf. Ps. 7: 10, Rev. 2: 23, etc. 416 = JL 6073; SAO iv. 341±2 (Epist. cccxcvii), dated 23 Mar. 1106. William's direct source was probably Eadmer, Hist. nov., pp. 178±9. The same text is also in William, Liber pont. (L, fo. 68rv; Levison, p. 410).

/3thomson/tcom5.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:15 ± disk/amj

BOOK V. 413.1±417.3

379

1 in cuius manu corda regum uersantur] cf. Ordo XIV, c. 10, in R. Elze, Ordines Coronationis Imperialis (MGH Fontes, ix, 1960, p. 37): `Deus in cuius manu corda sunt regum'. 4 Rotomagensis episcopi causam] The archbishop of Rouen was William Bonne-Ame (1079±1110). He had been suspended from of®ce because he had married King Philip and Bertrada of Montfort (see above, c. 404. 2). The issue is discussed by Anselm, Epp. ccclxxxviii, cccxcviii (SAO v. 332, 434), and by Eadmer, Hist. nov., pp. 177±9. 417. 1 Girardus archiepiscopus Eboracensis . . . Balduinus Beccensis monachus] Gerard archbishop of York and Herbert Losinga bishop of Norwich were both criticized by William above, c. 338, and in GP, cc. 74, 117±18 (pp. 151±2, 258±60). William Warelwast and Baldwin are perhaps strangely equated, at least by implication. William, who had been the king's messenger to Rome, `may with good reason be regarded as the ®rst of that long line of professional civil servants who did more than any others to make and destroy the medieval Church' (Southern, Saint Anselm, p. 296). On the other hand Baldwin of Tournai, monk of Bec, was a member of Anselm's household who managed his business affairs (ibid., pp. 241±2). Eratque tunc Anselmus archiepiscopus iterum tempore istius regis Lugduni exul] Only just true. Anselm was already in exile when William Rufus died, returning to England on 23 Sept. 1100, that is, a month-and-a-half after Henry's coronation. He went into exile again on 27 Apr. 1103, returning in Sept. 1106. On both occasions he spent much time at Lyon, where he and Archbishop Hugh became ®rm friends. 2 et maxime comitis de Mellento] William is the only source to mention the role of Robert of Beaumont, count of Meulan. He had been involved in the relations between the king and Anselm from as early as 1093, when Rufus consulted him, among others, on the question of returning to Anselm the temporalities of Canterbury: Eadmer, Hist. nov., p. 43; N. Cantor, Church, Kingship and Lay Investiture in England 1089±1135 (Princeton, 1958), pp. 71±2; M. Brett, The English Church under Henry I (Oxford, 1975), p. 5 and n. 3. 3 Coacto ergo apud Lundoniam . . . concilio] Councils, i(2). 689± 94; 1 Aug. 1107. It was actually held at Westminster. Eadmer,

/3thomson/tcom5.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:15 ± disk/amj

380

COMMENTARY

presumably William's source, says London, but `in palatio regis' (ibid., p. 691 n. 2). The ®ve bishops were consecrated by Anselm on 11 Aug. 1107: Eadmer, Hist. nov., pp. 186±7. William repeats this in GP, c. 63 (p. 117). controuersia . . . Anselmi ad Romam itu et reditu uentilata] Cf. Suetonius, Tib. xxxviii: `pro itu et reditu suo'. 418 William's comments on Matilda's holiness are unique in their detail and in their ambivalence. Chron. de Hyda, pp. 305±6, 311±13, is much warmer. Roger of Wendover (ii. 195), admittedly much later, simply mentions `signs and miracles' following her death. Robert of Torigni, GND ii. 216±17, speaking of Matilda and her mother Margaret, says `How holy and learned in secular and spiritual matters both queens were is made abundantly clear in the book about their lives.' At ii. 242±3 he speaks of a Life of Queen Matilda alone, which does not survive, and is not otherwise known to have existed. Van Houts (GND i, pp. lxxxvii±lxxxviii) thinks he may have meant ?Turgot's Life of S. Margaret (see above, c. 311. 3n), which was dedicated to Matilda. 1 A teneris annis . . . apud Wiltoniam et Rumesium] Orderic (iv. 272) mentions only Romsey, where her aunt Christina was a nun; Eadmer (Hist. nov., p. 123) has only Wilton. In Councils, i(2). 661 n. 3, it is shown that there is better evidence for her presence at Wilton than at Romsey, at least for the period just prior to her marriage. unde, ut ignobiles nuptias respueret] Orderic (iv. 272±3) and Eadmer, Hist. nov., p. 122, mention two suitors, neither of them ignoble: one was Alan the Red, count of Brittany (d. 1093), the other William of Warenne, earl of Surrey (d. 1088). Freeman, William Rufus, ii. 602±3, 683, and A. Wilmart in Annales de Bretagne, xxxviii (1929), 601, argued that not Alan the Red but his brother Alan the Black, second lord of Richmond (d. by 1098), was meant; but this is rejected on good grounds by Southern, St Anselm and his Biographer, pp. 183±8. Quapropter, cum rex . . . ad consentiendum] On the objections to the marriage of Henry and Matilda see Freeman, William Rufus, ii. 382±8, 598±603, 682±8; Southern, St Anselm and his Biographer, pp. 188±90; and Morey and Brooke, Gilbert Foliot and his Letters, pp. 121±2. A fuller account than William's is given by Eadmer, Hist. nov., pp. 121±3. His is also the main source for the Lambeth Synod

/3thomson/tcom5.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:15 ± disk/amj

BOOK V. 417.3±418.6

381

(Hist. nov., pp. 123±5; Councils, i(2), no. 111, 23 Sept.611 Nov. 1100) which declared that Matilda might marry. 11 Nov. was the date of the wedding. 2 undae salutantium . . . uomebantur superbis edibus] Cf. Virgil, Georg. ii. 461±2: `si non ingentem foribus domus alta superbis / mane salutantum totis uomit aedibus undam'. Also above, c. 247. 2. 6 Inter haec erepta est patriae . . . Adala ®lia ducis de Lovanio] Matilda died on 1 May 1118; the date of her death and place of her burial are given by Orderic (vi. 188±9). Henry married Adela (or Adeliza), daughter of Godfrey VII count of Louvain, on 29 Jan. 1121. fatum parentum . . . excessere mundo] William may have had her parents in mind, since he refers to her as an orphan at the time of her marriage (c. 394. 3): her father was about sixty, her mother fortyseven when they died. However, at least three of Matilda's siblings predeceased her: Edward in 1093, Edgar king of the Scots in 1107, and Mary countess of Boulogne in 1115. Matilda is the last woman given extended treatment by William, and this is an appropriate point to review the place of women in the GR. There are no fewer than ninety-one of them, and almost all are either royal, or both royal and holy. William's attitude to them is complex: he appreciates a combination of physical beauty and intelligence (cc. 177. 1, 197. 2), and he praises learning or patronage of learning by women in positions of power (Letters 1. 5, 2. 4, c. 418. 1). In describing the nuns of Shaftesbury (c. 163) he appears to think that women have a greater capacity for holiness than men (also c. 218. 2, on Eadgyth's rebuke of St áthelwold). He does occasionally endow women with negative stereotypes (he does not stereotype males), but they are not what one would expect, and he tends to state them in terms of exceptions from them: c. 32 `this woman of mettle more than womanly', c. 289. 1 `unmindful of her sex and a worthy rival of the Amazons of old, [she] led into battle, woman as she was, the columns of men clad in mail', 418. 1 `and had even exercised her intelligence, though a woman, in literature'. (For the theme of a woman acting like a man see van Houts, `Latin poetry and the AngloNorman court', p. 50 and n. 36, and Greenway in Henry of Huntingdon, p. 308 n. 129.) Above all women are persistent in bringing about what they want (cc. 157. 2, 187. 2, 256. 4 `forming plans beyond her sex', 187. 2), often by persuading men to do

/3thomson/tcom5.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:15 ± disk/amj

382

COMMENTARY

violence, but sometimes energizing, supporting, or encouraging them in worthy enterprises (c. 125. 4 on áthel¯ñd). This reminds one more of the role of women in Germanic literature (such as the Icelandic Sagas) than of the `monastic' view, in which women are weaker and more libidinous. But the monastic view is there too, again as the background to exceptions from it: c. 154. 3 `The costly garments which most women ®nd a temptation to relax their chastity were to her the material of generosity'; c. 219 `those women who, ignoring their sex's weakness, with competing zeal preserve their chastity'; c. 440. 1 `women are prone to chatter and gossip'. This view is more prominent and severe in others of William's works: Pfaff, `The ``Abbreviatio Amalarii'' of William of Malmesbury', pp. 99± 100; Mir., cc. 38 and 41 (pp. 143, 147). Stepmothers are not well thought of (c. 162. 1, but modi®ed by 4). William commends chastity and celibacy, but also married love (c. 37), and likes (as he knew his readers would like) risque stories involving amorous adventures (cc. 190±1, 439. 1±2), of which women are not necessarily the instigators. See J. A. Truax, `From Bede to Orderic Vitalis: changing perspectives on the role of women in the Anglo-Saxon and AngloNorman churches', Haskins Society Journal, iii (1991), 35±51. 419 William's account of the White Ship disaster (25 Nov. 1120) is one of seven: the others are by Orderic (vi. 294±307), Simeon of Durham, Historia regum, c. 199 (ii. 258±9), Eadmer, Hist. nov., pp. 288±9, Henry of Huntingdon vii. 32 (pp. 466±7), Hugh the Chanter, pp. 164±5 (very brief), Robert of Torigni, GND ii. 216±19, 246±51, 274±7 (scattered details), and Wace, Roman de Rou, pt. iii, lines 10173±262 (ii. 262±6). For what happened after the ship struck the rock all the detailed accounts were ultimately dependent upon the report of the single survivor, a butcher of Rouen named Beroldus/ Berout. 2 Plures ergo prouintiae . . . sperari posse] Referring to Edward's prophecy announced in c. 226. 2 above. Deo aliter uisum] Cf. Virgil, Aen. ii. 428: `dis aliter uisum'. The quotation is also in William's Commentary on Lamentations (Bodl. Libr., MS Bodl. 868, fo. 96). For the particularly dense use of classical authors (not always verbatim) in William's account of the White Ship disaster, see Wright II, pp. 522±4. urgebat fato] Cf. Virgil, Aen. xi. 587: `fatis urgetur'.

/3thomson/tcom5.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:15 ± disk/amj

BOOK V. 418.6±419.8

383

Enimuero socero . . . Thetbaldo ®lio Stephani et Adalae amitae] i.e. Fulk V count of Anjou and Theobald II count of Blois, son of Stephen and Adela who, being a daughter of William I, was the young William's aunt. 4 immodice mero ingurgitati] Cf. Jerome, Epist. xxii. 13. 3: `se mero ingurgitauerint'. Also above, c. 376. 7, and Mir., c. 15 (p. 97). 5 crispantia maris terga radens] Cf. Jerome, Epist. xiv. 6. 3: `summa iacentis . . . terga crispentur'; cviii. 27. 1: `crispantia maris aequora labens carina sulcauit'. Consurgunt ergo . . . contos expediunt] Cf. Virgil, Aen. v. 207±9: `consurgunt nautae et magno clamore morantur / ferratasque trudes et acuta cuspide contos / expediunt'. prora pependit] ibid., 205±6: `in murice remi / obnixi crepuere inlisaque prora pependit.' comitissa Perticae] Henry I's illegitimate daughter Matilda, married to Rotrou II, count of Perche 1113±43. femineo ululatu] Virgil, Aen. iv. 667. 7 alter ®lius regis Ricardus] Richard, one of Henry's bastard sons: Complete Peerage xi, appendix D, p. 107. It may be that William here uses `alter' to mean `another' rather than `the other of two'. Ricardus comes Cestrae et frater eius Otuelus] Otuel or Otuer Fitz Count, illegitimate son of Hugh earl of Chester, high in the king's favour. For his career see C. W. Hollister, `The misfortunes of the Mandevilles', in his Monarchy, Magnates and Institutions, pp. 117± 27, at 120±4. Orderic (vi. 304±5) calls him `tutor regiae prolis et pedagogus'. comitissa Cestrae] Matilda, daughter of Stephen of Blois by Adela daughter of William I; married to Richard earl of Chester since 1115. 8 dispersis per littora quesitoribus] cf. Juvenal iv. 47±9: `cum plena et litora multo / delatore forent? dispersi protinus algae / inquisitores agerent cum remige nudo'. ierunt . . . equoreis crudelia pabula monstris] Cf. Statius, Theb. ix. 300: `ibitis aequoreis crudelia pabula monstris'. Socer . . . Cinomannicum comitatum] ASC (E) s.a. 1123 recounts Fulk's embassy to ask for the dowry back from Henry I. On Henry's refusal Fulk promptly offered his daughter (Sibyl) to William Clito, but Henry persuaded the pope to disallow the marriage on the grounds of consanguinity. About Jan. 1127 Clito

/3thomson/tcom5.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:15 ± disk/amj

384

COMMENTARY

married Joan, daughter of Count Rainer of Montferrat, half-sister of the queen of France: ASC (E) s.a. 1127. irarum stimulos] Cf. Lucan ii. 324: `Irarum mouit stimulos'. 420±38 Some of William's account of the dealings between Henry V and Popes Paschal II, Gelasius II, and Calixtus II, is paralleled by Orderic v. 196±201. Orderic, also mentioning the marriage between Henry V and Matilda at this point, concentrates on Henry V's ®rst Italian expedition and his dealings with Paschal. Like William he knew of the account by David the Scot (below, c. 420. 3n). He differs from William in supplying detail of the tumultuous proceedings in Rome between the ®rst coronation on 12 Feb. and the treaty of Ponte Mammolo of 11±12 Apr. (below, cc. 421±2). In general he is more explicitly hostile to the emperor. 420. 1 Filiam Mathildem . . . Alemanniae] Matilda was promised to Henry V in 1109 (ASC (E) s.a.), betrothed on 10 Apr. 1110 (ibid. s.a.), married on 7 Jan. 1114: Chibnall, The Empress Matilda, pp. 15± 17, 24±7. Paschalis] On his ponti®cate, from which William is about to select the most dramatic episodes (cc. 420±30), see C. Servatius, Paschalis II (1099±1118) (PaÈpste und Papsttum, xiv: Stuttgart, 1979); Z. N. Brooke, `Lay investiture and its relation to the con¯ict of Empire and Papacy', Proceedings of the British Academy, xxv (1939), 217±47; S. Chodorow, `Ecclesiastical politics and the ending of the Investiture Contest', Speculum, xlvi (1971), 613±40; and U.-R. Blumenthal, `Patrimonia and regalia in 1111', in Law, Church and Society: Essays in Honour of Stephan Kuttner, ed. K. Pennington and R. Somerville (Philadelphia, 1977), pp. 9±20. Especially relevant to William's treatment of the reign is K. Leyser, `England and the Empire in the early twelfth century', in his Medieval Germany and its Neighbours 900±1250 (London, 1982), pp. 191±213. 2 Imperator omnes episcopos et abbates . . . compescere] Observe William's interesting justi®cation of Charlemagne's practice regarding lay investure. He may have derived it from a written source such as that cited at c. 202. 6±7 above (see note ad loc.). Similarly Walter Map, De nugis curialium v. 5 (pp. 450±1), who claims to have heard the story from King Louis VII. post Conradi fratris eius interitum . . . apud Aretium obierat

/3thomson/tcom5.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:15 ± disk/amj

BOOK V. 419.8±421±2

385

diem] See also above, c. 288. 2. Conrad died aged 27, after contracting a fever, on 27 July 1102. In fact this occurred at Florence, where he was buried; William is the only writer to name Arezzo. See G. Meyer von Knonau, JahrbuÈcher der Deutschen Reiches unter Heinrich IV. und Heinrich V. (7 vols.: JahrbuÈcher der Deutschen Geschichte, xvi±xxii: Leipzig, 1890±1909), v. 147 and n. 66 (with extracts from the sources, including GR). 3 Dauid Scottus Bancornensis] An Irishman, David was a master at the cathedral school of WuÈrzburg before 1110, and accompanied Henry V on his Italian journey of 1111, writing an account of it for him. Only William identi®es him with David, bishop of Bangor 1120±?1139; certainly the identi®cation helps explain how William came to have a copy of his work. It is perhaps relevant that William had been to Bangor (see above, c. 47. 3n). David may have retired back to WuÈrzburg as a monk shortly before his death: Hardy, Materials, ii. 207±8; Tanner, Bibliotheca Britannico-Hibernica, p. 221; Bale, Scriptorum Illustrium Maioris Britanniae . . . Catalogus, xiv. 47; Leyser, `England and the Empire in the early twelfth century', pp. 207±8; Sharpe, Handlist of the Latin Writers of Great Britain and Ireland, p. 98. But the standard account will be that of M. Brett in New Dictionary of National Biography (forthcoming), whom I have to thank for help with this note. None of the writings attributed to David by the English bibliographers and by Trittheim survive; William's rendition (cc. 421±6, ?438, both documents and interspersed narrative) gives us the only impression we have of any of them, apart from briefer references to the same work by Orderic (v. 198±9) and Ekkehard of Aura (MGH SS, vi. 243). This tract was also the source for the same documents in John of Worcester and in William's Liber pont. (below, cc. 421±2, 424, and William's comment at 426). 3±4 inauditam uiolentiam . . . subitiam] William refers to the events surrounding the treaty of Ponte Mammolo, 11±12 Apr. 1111. The most recent account and interpretation is in Robinson, The Papacy, pp. 424±29. 3 ab exemplo quod Iacob . . . extorserit] Gen. 32: 24±9. 4 nemo . . . negotiis secularibus] 2 Tim. 2: 4. 421±2 The so-called treaty of Ponte Mammolo, 11 Apr. 1111: MGH Constit., i. 142 line 27Ð144 line 18, also in John of Worcester s.a.

/3thomson/tcom5.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:15 ± disk/amj

386

COMMENTARY

1111. For this text both William in GR and John of Worcester are dependent upon William, Liber pont.: (L, fo. 62rv; Levison, p. 409 n. 4). That text in turn was derived by William from David the Scot (according to William himself below, c. 426). However, John apparently also had access to the text and relevant information as contained in a letter written by Burkhard bishop of Cambrai to Roger Fitz Richard de Clare and Gilbert the king's chaplain soon after 13 May 1111. A copy of this survives on fos. iv-ii of Hereford Cath. MS P. I. 3 (s. xiiin, Gloucester): W. Holtzmann, `Zur Geschichte des Investiturstreits (Englische Analekten II.)', Neues Archiv, l (1935), 246±301, at pp. 282±301; Leyser, `England and the Empire in the early twelfth century', p. 208 and n. 2. For identi®cation of the cardinals mentioned at cc. 421. 2 and 429 see R. HuÈls, KardinaÈle, Klerus, Kirchen Roms, 1049±1130 (TuÈbingen, 1977). 421. 2 Centius] So all of Weiland's witnesses, but rightly Crescentius (HuÈls, pp. 127±8). Gregorius cardinalis Apostolorum Petri et Pauli] recte `Sanctorum XII Apostolorum' (HuÈls, pp. 150, 153), which explains why some of Weiland's witnesses omit `Petri et Pauli'. Teuzo cardinalis Sancti Marci] recte `Diuizo cardinalis Sancti Martini' (HuÈls, pp. 192±3). The cardinal priest of St Mark at the time was Boniface, as stated earlier in the list. Iohannes decanus in Scola Greca] rectius `Iohannes diaconus Sanctae Mariae in Scola Greca', i.e. S. Maria in Cosmedin (HuÈls, pp. 231±2), c.1100±16, later Pope Gelasius II (1118±19). Leo decanus Sancti Vitalis] So all of Weiland's witnesses, but rectius `sanctorum Viti et Modesti' (HuÈls, pp. 243±4). Albo] So other English sources cited by Weiland (MGH Constit., i. 143) whose text reads `Aldo' (accepted by HuÈls, p. 241); other MSS read `Addo' and `Abbo'. 422. 2 The order of William's list of `iuratores' differs from that printed by Weiland (MGH Constit., i. 144); for identi®cations see Meyer von Knonau, JahrbuÈcher, vi. 171 and n. 71. In addition William omits `Burchardus Monasteriensis episcopus', and Weiland has `Fredericus comes' twice (and separately from `Fredericus comes palatinus'). One of these was count of Freising, the other count of Arnsberg. William's `Godebardus' should be `Gebehardus'. Meyer

/3thomson/tcom5.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:15 ± disk/amj

BOOK V. 421±2±424

387

von Knonau calls Werner a count, identifying him with the man who witnessed a document of 16 June 1112 at Salzwedel (Meyer von Knonau, JahrbuÈcher, vi. 254). But this seems unlikely, and Marquis Werner is more likely to have been the man who was with Henry on 21 May 1111 at Verona (ibid., p. 179). 423 A briefer version of what follows, also based upon David the Scot, is in Ekkehard of Aura (MGH SS, vi. 244). 1 quarto idus Aprilis dominica Quasi modo geniti] The ®rst Sunday after Easter, when the Introit of the Mass began with those words. The date as given is 10 Apr., but in 1111 this Sunday fell on the 11th. 2±3 Et in Argentea Porta . . . in imperatorem est consecratus] This account of the coronation ritual follows Ordo X (made at Rome c.1100), cc. 2, 4, 6, 9 (ed. Elze, pp. 22±5); in other words, the complete Ordo omitting only the texts of the prayers. 2 ad mediam rotam ductus est] There were four stone rotae (roundels), set into the pavement of Constantine's church of St Peter, in a row down the main aisle of the nave. From early on they were associated with important secular and liturgical events. The one used here was the `grand rota' or `rota porphyretica', third from the main door, opposite the altar of the Holy Sacrament: M. Andrieu, `La rota porphyretica de la basilique vaticane', MeÂlanges d'archeÂologie et d'histoire, lxvi (1954), 189±218, esp. pp. 198±200, and D. Glass, `Papal patronage in the early twelfth century: notes on the iconography of Cosmatesque pavements', Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, xxxii (1969), 386± 90. This particular rota still exists, reset into the pavement of the nave of the present St Peter's, not far from the entrance: Andrieu, `La rota porphyretica', p. 189 and pl. 1. William's is the earliest surviving reference to the use of this rota as part of the imperial coronation ordo. 424 = JL 6290; MGH Constit., i. 144 line 31Ð145 line 25. The same text is in John of Worcester s.a. 1111, and in William, Liber pont. (L, fos. 62v-3). Levison (p. 409 n. 5) was wrong to say that the GR version was taken directly from David the Scot rather than from William's version of Liber ponti®calis (Levison's CL, which he rejected as William's own compilation). Collation shows the same relationship

/3thomson/tcom5.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:15 ± disk/amj

388

COMMENTARY

between GR, John of Worcester, and William, Liber pont., as with other documents. Presumably William himself copied this one from David the Scot into his Liber pont., from which he later recopied it into the GR. 426 Auctores fuere huiusce mutationis archiepiscopus Viennensis . . . et episcopus Engolismensis] Already on 16 Sept. 1112 Archbishop Guy of Vienne had excommunicated the emperor in his own see: Suger, Vita Ludovici, c. 10 (pp. 68±9). On Gerard of AngouleÃme (d. 1136) see Abbe Maratu, Girard, eÂveÃque d'AngouleÃme, leÂgat du Saint-SieÁge, vers 1116±1136 (AngouleÃme, 1866), and H. Claude, `GeÂrard d'AngouleÃme, ses pouvoirs de leÂgat en Aquitaine au nom des papes Pascal II, Calixte II et Honorius II', MeÂmoires de la socieÂte archeÂologique et historique de la Charente (1968), 171±82. 427±9 18±23 Mar. 1112: MGH Constit., i. 571 line 18Ð572 line 20. The document is also in John of Worcester s.a. 1112, and in William, Liber pont. (L, fo. 63rv), where it is introduced with very similar wording to c. 426: `Sequenti uero anno . . . actio haec est': Levison, p. 410 and n. 1. 429 Semies] recte `Sennes', as A, Weiland. Capsanus] i.e. Compsanus = of Conza. Centius Sabinensis] rectius Crescentius (HuÈls, p. 121). Siwinus] recte `Bruno Signinus' as Weiland, i.e. the bishop of Segni. Some of William's readings are found in a very early copy of the document, not used by Weiland, in BL MS Royal 11 D. viii, fo. 249 (made at Winchcombe s. xiiin, at St Peter's abbey Gloucester by s. xv). Here we ®nd `Semies', `Capsanus', and `Siguinus', but `Galo Leonensis' rendered as separate from `Legatus pro Bituricensi et Viennensi archiepiscopis'. 430 Paschal II died on 21 Jan. 1118. This section is probably based upon Eadmer, Hist. nov., pp. 246±7. sed is . . . Cesaris minas] Cf. Lucan ix. 11±14: `illic postquam se lumine uero / impleuit, stellasque uagas miratus et astra / ®xa polis, uidit quanta sub nocte iaceret / nostra dies, risitque sui ludibria trunci' (Wright II, p. 525). imperator celerabat uiam] Cf. Virgil, Aen. v. 609: `Illa uiam celerans'.

/3thomson/tcom5.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:15 ± disk/amj

BOOK V. 424±432.2

389

431 = JL 6635, there dated 16 Mar. 1118. The GR date is obviously wrong, for the letter refers to the enthronement of Gregory VIII on 8 Mar. as a recent event. William's ultimate source for the text seems to have been Eadmer, Hist. nov., pp. 247±8 (giving the same erroneous date), via his own Liber pont. (L, fo. 279rv): Levison, p. 396 and n. 4; Thomson, William of Malmesbury, p. 121. 3 Romanus de Sancto Marcello . . . gloriam celebrarunt] These are the names of cardinals created by Wibert: Romanus (HuÈls, p. 186) is attested c.1109, Cencio (Cinthius) c.1099 (HuÈls, p. 178). On this passage and especially its mention of the obscure Teuzo, probably the man attested as legate in Hungary in 1091, see ibid., p. 218. `Dacia' was commonly used by English writers to mean Denmark (DMLBS iii. 553); here it must refer to the ancient Roman province of Dacia, which corresponded reasonably to the kingdom of Hungary in the eleventh and twelfth centuries. 432. 1 Expulsus autem . . . obniti posse] Cf. Eadmer, Hist. nov., p. 248±9. 1±2 anno Dominicae incarnationis millesimo centesimo nono decimo, cardinales . . . simulque omnis aecclesia Cisalpina, Guidonem archiepiscopum Viennensem in papam . . . leuantes Calixtum uocarunt . . . mox concilio Remis celebrato inuestitos uel inuestiendos a laicis ab aecclesiis remouit] Similar wording is found in William, Liber pont. (C; Levison, p. 396): `Anno ab incarnatione Domini MC. nonodecimo defuncto Gelasio papa secundo in Galliis a cardinalibus et a Transalpina aecclesia electus est Viennensis archiepiscopus in papam et Calixtus uocatus. Qui statim coacto concilio apud Remis metropolim Franciae haec capitula constituit.' The standard biographies of Calixtus II are M. Maurer, Papst Kallixt II (Munich, 1886±9), and U. Robert, Histoire du pape Calixte II (Paris, 1891). On the circumstances of his election see Chodorow, `Ecclesiastical politics and the ending of the Investiture Controversy'. 2 mox concilio Remis . . . inuoluens] 20 Oct. 1119. The acts are in Mansi, Concilia, xxi. 233±56. On their transmission see R. Somerville, `The councils of Pope Calixtus II: Reims 1119', in his Papacy, Councils and Canon Law in the 11th-12th Centuries, ch. XII.

/3thomson/tcom5.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:15 ± disk/amj

390

COMMENTARY

in inferioribus plagis] See above, c. 1. 2n., for William's use of `superior' and `inferior' to mean east and west. 433 = JL 6902, dated 27 Apr. 1121. 1 Quia dereliquit populus . . . peccata eorum] Reminiscences of 2 Chr. 12: 1, Ezek. 37: 24, Ps. 88(89): 33. 434 On Maurice of Braga (Gregory VIII) see C. Erdmann, `Mauritius Burdinus (Gregor VIII.)', Quellen und Forschungen aus italienischen Archiven und Bibliotheken, xix (1927), 205±61, and P. David, EÂtudes historiques sur la Galice et le Portugal du VI e au XII e sieÁcle (Collection Portugaise, vii: Coimbra, 1947), pp. 441±501. Similar invective against him is found in Suger, Vita Ludovici, c. 27 (pp. 200± 7). uiua magnae industriae spetie] Cf. Lucan vi. 254: `uiuam magnae speciem uirtutis adorant'. Also above, c. 387. 6. in Caueam] The Benedictine monastery of La Cava, near Salerno. Maurice was captured on 10 Apr. 1121, and held in a succession of prisons in southern Italy: Meyer von Knonau, JahrbuÈcher, vii. 183. 435 Modern scholarship has emphasized Urban II rather than Calixtus II as a ®nancial reformer. Nevertheless Calixtus built on Urban's foundations. For instance, Urban was apparently responsible for the earliest development of the of®ce of camerarius to manage the papal ®nances, but the word is ®rst used for the of®ce in a papal document of 1123: K. Jordan, `Zur paÈpstlichen Finanzgeschichte im 11. und 12. Jahrhundert', Quellen und Forschungen aus italienischen Archiven und Bibliotheken, xxv (1933±4), 61±104; J. Sydow, `Cluny und die AnfaÈnge der apostolischen Kammer', Studien und Mitteilungen zur Geschichte des BenediktinerOrdens, lxiii (1951), 45±66; and Robinson, The Papacy, pp. 245, 248±53. The evidence does not suggest that Calixtus was so immune from cupiditas that he could not be in¯uenced by large-scale bribery: Robinson, The Papacy, pp. 262±5. 1 effrenem et ingenitam Romanorum cupiditatem . . . contumeliis] Another instance of William's contempt for Roman greed; see above, c. 339n. 2 ut Anglos peregrinos . . . Romam irent] There is no other evidence for this.

/3thomson/tcom5.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:15 ± disk/amj

BOOK V. 432±2±438

391

Teutonicae animositatis] A twelfth-century commonplace, ultimately dependent upon Lucan i. 255±6: `cursumque furoris / È ber den furor Teutonicus', Sitzungsberichte Teutonici'; E. DuÈmmler, `U der koÈniglich-Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, Phil.hist. Klasse (1897), 112±27. 436±7 = The Concordat of Worms, 23 Sept. 1122: MGH Constit., i. 159±61; 436 (JL 6986) also ed. A. Hofmeister, `Das Wormser Konkordat: Zum Streit um seine Bedeutung', in Forschungen und Versuche zur Geschichte des Mittelalters und der Neuzeit: Festschrift Dietrich SchaÈfer ( Jena, 1915), pp. 64±148, at 147. 436 William's text is discussed by Hofmeister, `Das Wormser Konkordat', pp. 99±100, 121 seq, esp. 123±4, 128±9, 134, 142, 145. Belonging to Weiland's Class A, it derives from the original document via an exemplar shared with other English witnesses: Simeon of Durham, Historia regum, c. 204 (ii. 265), BL MSS Cotton Claud. A. i, fo. 35v (s. xii), and Domit. viii, fo. 11v (s. xiii), and Durham Cath. MS B. IV 18, fo. 67 (s. xiiin, Durham Cathedral Priory). 437. 3 There are many variants between the witness-list as provided by William and as edited by Weiland (who did not use GR). See Meyer von Knonau, JahrbuÈcher, vii. 211 and n. 26, for identi®cations of the witnesses. Of the prelates Weiland has `Adalbertus' (more correctly) for `Albertus', but initials only for `Ratisbonensis' to `Foldensis', and `Bauenbergensis' for `Babenbergensis'. For the laymen he has `Heinricus dux' (correctly) for `Heremannus dux', `S[imon] dux, Pertolfus dux' (correctly) for `Bonefacius marchio' (which is probably a doublet for the witness of c. 422. 2, suggesting that William used an exemplar in which the two documents were contiguous), `marchio Engelbertus, Godefridus palatinus' (correctly) for the non-existent `Ernulfus comes palatinus', and `Otto' (correctly) for `Otbertus'. 438 Ter enim in decennio . . . experiri malebant] Henry V made only two Italian expeditions, Aug. 1110ÐApr. 1111, and Mar. 1116ÐAug. 1118; but he did make three visits to Rome: Feb. 1111, Mar.-May 1117, and Mar. 1118. See Meyer von Knonau, JahrbuÈcher, vi and vii, esp. vi. 129±135 and nn., for Henry V's ®rst Italian expedition. William's testimony is noticed and assessed at p. 133 n. 42. His account is presumably based upon that of David the

/3thomson/tcom5.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:15 ± disk/amj

392

COMMENTARY

Scot, as is that of Ekkehard of Aura. Novara was burnt in late Aug. of 1110, Arezzo soon after Christmas, but it is not likely that Henry attacked Piacenza (cf. Ekkehard: `Placentiae castra metatus, munera copiosa magnamque ®delitatem a ciuibus accipiens, et per tres septimanas in his partibus commoratus'; MGH SS, vi. 244). He was at Pisa in Dec. 1110, where he negotiated a peace between the city and nearby Lucca. There is no other evidence for the burning of Cremona and Mantua, or for the reduction of Ravenna. As for the submission of Milan and Pavia, Orderic (v. 200±1) correctly notes that on his ®rst campaign Henry attacked Milan but was repulsed. William's words are quoted without further comment by Meyer von Knonau, JahrbuÈcher, vii. 344 n. 36. 439. 1 Erat tunc . . .] William VII count of Poitiers, better known as William IX duke of Aquitaine, died on 10 Feb. 1126 (Richard, Histoire des comtes de Poitou, i. 493 and n. 2; Bond, The Poetry of William VII, Count of Poitiers, p. xlix and n.). This date is presumably the terminus post quem for the production of the TA versions of GR (see above, p. xviii n. 2). William has already mentioned the duke as a leader of the crusade of 1101: above, c. 383. 1 (and see note ad loc.). Richard, pp. 496±506, reviews the various early estimates of his character; the charge of unchastity was almost universal and lost nothing over time. Orderic (vi. 258±61) records the complaint lodged with the pope at the council of Reims (1119) by the countess of Poitou against her husband: `She said that she had been abandoned by her husband, and that Malberge the wife of the viscount of ChaÃtellerault had replaced her in his bed.' William's absence, on grounds of health, was defended by some of the local bishops and abbots, and the case was adjourned. On William's scandalous conduct see Maratu, Girard, eÂveÃque d'AngouleÃme, p. 187 n. 1; F. Villard, `Guillaume IX d'Aquitaine et le concile de Reims de 1119', Cahiers de civilisation meÂdieÂvale, xvi (1973), 295±302; Bond, The Poetry of William VII, pp. xxxi±xxxii; G. T. Beech, `Contemporary views of William the Troubadour, IXth Duke of Aquitaine (1086±1126)', in Medieval Lives and the Historian: Studies in Medieval Prosopography, ed. N. Bulst and J.-P. Genet (Kalamazoo, Mich., 1986), pp. 73±89; and J. Martindale, ` ``Cavalaria et Orgueill'': Duke William IX of Aquitaine and the historian', in The Ideals and Practice of Medieval Knighthood II: Papers from the Third Strawberry Hill Conference, ed. C. Harper-Bill and R. Harvey (Woodbridge, 1988), pp. 87±116.

/3thomson/tcom5.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:15 ± disk/amj

BOOK V. 438±438.6

393

castellum quoddam Nior] Richard, Histoire des comtes de Poitou, i. 496±7 and nn. Niort was certainly one of the duke's favourite residences. Richard suggests (what William hints at) that the duke had been in¯uenced by Muslim polygamy while in the East. On the other hand Pio Rajna, `Spigolature provenzali II: La badia de Niort', Romania, vi (1876), 249±53, drew attention to William's verb `cantitans', and advanced the attractive hypothesis that the basis of his tale might have been no more than a racy chanson by the duke himself, since lost. That the duke was capable of writing such a poem is indicated by his extant Poems v±vi (Bond, The Poetry of William VII, pp. 18±27), in which he ironically vaunts his alleged prowess as a super-stud. This argument was carried further by R. Bezzola, Les Origines et la formation de la litteÂrature courtoise en Occident (500± 1200) (5 vols.: Paris, 1944±63), ii(2). 293, arguing that the lost chanson might have parodied the foundation of Fontevrault in 1101. Firstly, the founder, Robert of Arbrissel, was a friend of Duke William's, and secondly, Robert explicitly accepted prostitutes into his movement (Bond, The Poetry of William VII, p. xxxix, agreeing with Bezzola). It is perhaps signi®cant in this respect that Robert of Arbrissel is introduced below, c. 440. 2 refugum a fronte capillum] Cf. Lucan x. 132: `Torta caput refugosque gerens a fronte capillos'. Similarly in VW iii. 17 (p. 57), and VD i. 9 (p. 263). 3 Petrus . . . Pictauorum episcopus] d. 1115. See G. T. Beech, `Biography and the study of eleventh-century society: Bishop Peter II of Poitiers, 1087±1115', Francia, vii (1979), 101±21. He was the subject of a eulogistic epitaph by Hildebert of Le Mans, referring to his persecution by Duke William and his mistress: Hildebert, Carm. min. xl; R. M. Thomson, `Two twelfth-century poems on the ``Regnum-sacerdotium'' problem in England', RB lxxxiii (1973), 312±25, at pp. 314±16. 5 Corpus: opes . . . fertiliorque Lia] Walther, Initia 3362, citing GR and BL MS Harley 3202 (English, s. xii), fo. 116, where it is found together with `Surgit . . .' (see above, c. 338); both were apparently copied from GR. 6 Exutus rebus . . . sede polo] Cf. Walther, Initia 6192a; the ®rst four lines, with `pater' instead of `Petrus', are in Saint-Omer, Bibl. mun. MS 115 (s. xii), pr. by A. Boutemy, `Notes additionelles aÁ la notice de Ch. Fierville sur le manuscrit 115 de Saint-Omer', ReÂvue Belge de philologie

/3thomson/tcom5.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:15 ± disk/amj

394

COMMENTARY

et d'histoire, xxii (1943), 5±33, at p. 15. Boutemy did not know of the GR version or of William's application of it to Peter of Poitiers. 440±5 form a series on notable contemporary prelates foreshadowed at c. 342. 2. 440 On Robert of Arbrissel, Bernard of Tiron, and what they stood for see Knowles, The Monastic Order in England, pp. 197±202; B. Bolton, The Medieval Reformation (London, 1983), pp. 19±21, 36; J.-M. Bienvenu, L'eÂtonnant fondateur de Fontevraud, Robert d'Arbrissel (Paris, 1981), and J. Dalarun, L'impossible sainteteÂ: la vie retrouveÂe de Robert d'Arbrissel (Paris, 1985). 2 lucerna sub modio latere non potuit] Matt. 5: 15; Mark 4: 21; Luke 11: 33. 441 On the achievement and reputation of Serlo (1072±1104) see Historia et cartularium . . . Gloucestriae, i. 10±13, and Lanfranc, Epist. liv (1072628 May 1089), ed. Clover and Gibson, Letters of Lanfranc, pp. 168±9. According to the Historia et cartularium, at his accession the community numbered only two monks and eight novices (`not more than three monks' GP, c. 155; p. 292); by his death it had grown to one hundred. His building work is described by C. Wilson, `Abbot Serlo's church at Gloucester (1089±1100): its place in Romanesque architecture', in Heslop and Sekules, Art and Architecture at Gloucester and Tewkesbury, pp. 52±83. 1 Nota est . . . Gloecestrensis . . . ac terribilis] = GP, c. 155 (p. 293 lines 2±7). ne quid nimis] Otto, SprichwoÈrter, p. 243: Jerome, Epp. cviii. 21. 4, cxxx. 11. 1; cf. Terence, Andr. 61. 2 Aecclesiae murus . . . leuauit eum] Walther, Initia 5194; ed. Wright, Anglo-Latin Satirical Poets and Epigrammatists of the Twelfth Century, i. 155. 442 Lanzo, previously a monk at Cluny, was ®rst prior of the Cluniac house of St Pancras Lewes 1077±1107. He had earlier become a friend of Anselm's, and was recipient of his Epp. ii and xxxvii (cf. Eadmer, Vita Anselmi, c. 20; pp. 32±4). The account which William renders, ostensibly verbatim, does not otherwise survive. There is a reference back in GP, c. 98 (p. 207).

/3thomson/tcom5.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:15 ± disk/amj

BOOK V. 438.6±444.1

395

443 It is hard to make sense of the writer's chronology of Lanzo's last illness and death. There can be no reasonable doubt that he died on 1 Apr. 1107 (so the annals of Lewes and Montacute: Heads, p. 119). This certainly was the octave of the Annunciation (25 Mar.), and ®ve days earlier was the octave of the Feast of St Benedict (21 Mar.). But problems are raised by three other statements of the writer bearing on chronology: (1) That Lanzo's pain began on Friday of Passion week. This means that Easter fell on 29 Mar., in which case the year should be 1103; in 1107 Easter fell on 14 Apr. (2) That the pain continued `for a whole day' until Saturday evening, then apparently a week passes, until we reach the early morning of the following Saturday when Lanzo asks for the last rites; he dies at about 9 a.m. on Monday. (3) The writer says ®rst (1) that he endured three, later on (6) ®ve days of suffering, dying `when the ®fth day was not yet far spent'; but the writer's days-of-the-week chronology has Lanzo suffering for ten days, and this does not accord with the liturgical chronology. One cannot reconcile these anomalies. I assume that the author, who was surely a monk of the house and an eyewitness, was writing his account at some distance in time from the actual event, and/or that he was over-anxious to have the facts correspond with the various symbolisms which he introduces at 6±8. 1 qui ¯agellat omnem ®lium quem recipit] Heb. 12: 6. qui super Dominicum recubuit pectus] John 13: 23, 25; 21: 20. Si dixerimus . . . nobis non est] 1 John 1: 8. 7 Odoni scilicet atque Odiloni] Abbots of Cluny 927±42, 994± 1048. The feast-days referred to are 18 Nov. (Martinmas being 11 Nov.) and 1 Jan. 444 = GP, c. 77 (pp. 172 line 24Ð173). Godfrey of Cambrai was prior of Winchester (Cathedral priory) 1082±1107 (Heads, p. 80). His letters have not survived. His epigrams are edited by H. Gerhard, Der ``Liber proverbiorum'' des Godefrid von Winchester (WuÈrzburg, 1974), his other verse, mainly epitaphs, in Wright, Anglo-Latin Satirical Poets and Epigrammatists, ii. 148±55. See also Manitius iii. 769; A. G. Rigg, A History of Anglo-Latin Literature 1066±1422 (Cambridge, 1992), pp. 17±20; and Sharpe, Handlist of the Latin Writers of Great Britain and Ireland, p. 151. 1 Quid? omne diuinum of®tium . . . fecit enitescere?] The meaning is unclear. William seems to use `diuinum of®cium' loosely,

/3thomson/tcom5.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:15 ± disk/amj

396

COMMENTARY

to mean any service of worship. In that case he may mean that Godfrey revived the observance of particular Feasts which had fallen into desuetude; there is no evidence that Godfrey actually rewrote liturgical material. [I am indebted to the Revd. Professor R. W. Pfaff for help with this note.] 2 est in ea domo hospitum terra marique uenientium] The surviving guest hall at Winchester, dating from c.1300, is close to the south gate and now used by the Pilgrim School. Nothing is known at present of Godfrey's building. [Information from Dr Joan Greatrex.] 445. 1 in mundialibus . . . obumbrare] Similar wording in GP, c. 78 (p. 274 n. 5 (BC) ). 2 in edi®tiis . . . miraculum] Similar wording in GP, c. 78 (pp. 274±5). Here William somewhat balances the severe criticism of Ranulf offered above, c. 314. Ranulf was bishop of Durham 1099± 1133; similar praise of his building works and benefactions to his cathedral is in Simeon of Durham, Continuatio (i. 139±40). H. S. Of¯er, `Rannulf Flambard as bishop of Durham 1099±1128', Durham University Journal, lxiv (1971), 14±25, points out that after 1107 Ranulf had little else to do. The new cathedral was begun by Bishop William of Saint-Calais, the foundation-stone laid on 11 Aug. 1093. But William died in 1096 and there followed a vacancy of three years. Ranulf must have pressed on with the project, for in 1104 the choir was suf®ciently complete for the translation of Cuthbert's body to a new shrine. Certainly he is known to have diverted funds away from the monks in favour of the building work: Of¯er, Durham Episcopal Charters, nos. 14±18, 20±1. For Ranulf 's work at Durham (including other work besides the cathedral) see A. J. Piper, `The ®rst generations of Durham monks and the cult of St Cuthbert', in Bonner et al., St Cuthbert, his Cult and his Community, pp. 437, 442±3, and J. O. Prestwich, `The career of Ranulf Flambard', M. Leyland, `The origin and developments of Durham Castle', and M. W. Thompson, `The place of Durham among Norman episcopal palaces and castles', in Rollason et al., Anglo-Norman Durham, pp. 302 and n. 15, 410, 415±18, 427, 435. corporis translatio] 1104. It is described in the De miraculis et translationibus S. Cuthberti, c. 7 (Simeon of Durham i. 247±61), which also mentions the presence and testimony of Ralph of SeÂez. See Piper, `Durham monks', pp. 437±8, 442.

/3thomson/tcom5.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:15 ± disk/amj

BOOK V. 444.1±446

397

3 sub abbate Ricardo] Richard, monk of Bec, became abbot in 1100, was deposed at the council of Westminster in 1102, but apparently continued in of®ce until 1107. The translation of St áthelthryth took place on 16 Sept. or 17 Oct. 1106. The incorruption of her body had already been asserted by Bede (HE iv. 19; Liber Eliensis i. 27 (pp. 44±6) ). On the occasion of the translation it was reaf®rmed (in a sermon by Bishop Herbert of Norwich) rather than re-observed: ibid. ii. 144 (pp. 228±30). Herueum] Bishop of Ely 1109±31. 4 ad ordinem uenero] GP, cc. 25±42 (pp. 39±68). Observe that William here speaks of GP as though it were not a separate work but a continuation or Part II of GR (see above, p. xxxiv n. 32). 5 ueram legem secutus historiae] Cf. Jerome, Adversus Helvidium 4 (PL xxiii. 187), from which derived Bede, In Lucam ii. 33±4 (CCSL cxx, p. 67 lines 1908±11 ), and HE, praef. (ed. Plummer, p. 8): R. Ray, `Bede's vera lex historiae', Speculum, lv (1980), 1±21. sicut iam susurrari audio] Who might William have had in mind in making this rather defensive comment? His earlier strictures on the ®gure of Arthur (c. 8. 2) might suggest that he already knew that Geoffrey of Monmouth thought that historians such as he had paid scant regard to early British history. Long ago Thomas Arnold thought that William might have had in mind Henry of Huntingdon's work, begun before 1133, and at ®rst terminating in 1129: Henry of Huntingdon, pp. x±xi. But there is no evidence for direct contact between the two men: Gransden, Historical Writing in England, pp. 198±9; Greenway, implicitly, in Henry of Huntingdon, pp. lxxxv±cii. Yet a third possibility is John of Worcester, although it is uncertain whether William would have recognized a work in annalistic form as a serious rival for GR. Moreover, his familiarity with John and his milieu would hardly warrant this sort of comment, especially if McGurk's view ( John of Worcester ii, pp. lxxx±lxxxi) is correct, that John's chronicle was `a Worcester enterprise commissioned by Wulfstan of Worcester', whose `compilation may have extended from 1095 to 1143'. 446. 1 usque in annum uicesimum (octauum CB)] The years are 1119/20 A, 1127/8 CB. They are not what one would have expected, since A was substantially completed c.1125, CB soon after 1134. The earlier date may be a relic of a state of the text earlier than A, which

/3thomson/tcom5.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:15 ± disk/amj

398

COMMENTARY

William forgot to revise. The CB date of 1127 would be correct for A if it were really later than the death of William IX of Aquitaine (see above, c. 439. 1), but the latest recorded event in CB is the death of Robert Curthose in 1134 (c. 389. 10±11). Terminating the account with Henry I's twentieth year certainly had its own logic; it would have meant stopping short of the White Ship disaster (c. 419), which brought about so much political change in northern Europe. cetera proprium occupabunt libellum] For the implications of this see below, c. 449. 2n. 2 Habetis ergo a Normannis . . . eminentiam] He was Norman through his grandfather William the Conqueror, Flemish through his grandmother Matilda who was daughter of Count Baldwin V of Flanders, and Frankish through Baldwin's wife Adela, who was daughter of King Robert the Pious of France. Cum enim aliqui motus in Normannia nuntiantur, uos premittit] Robert was with the king in Normandy in Oct.-Nov. 1123, and for much of 1125±6: W. Farrer, An Outline Itinerary of King Henry the First (Oxford, 1919), pp. 108, 111±13. 449. 1 Muni®centiae uestrae . . . Theokesberiae cenobium] There is no other evidence for Robert's special generosity towards Tewkesbury. At c. 398. 3 above and in GP, c. 157 (p. 295), it is Robert Fitz Hamon whom William praises for his patronage of the abbey. secundum sententiam Platonis] See above, c. 126. 3n. 2 Et quidem iam dudum . . . noua insuere] William started to write a full version of HN late in 1140, beginning his account in the year 1125; but it concentrates almost entirely on the period following Henry's death. His remark here, however, indicates that he was planning a new work even as he completed GR, that it would be separate and yet a continuation, and that he would take notes for it year by year. This may have been the now-lost `tres libelli quibus chronica dedi uocabulum' mentioned in the prologue to HN (p. 1). There, addressing Robert of Gloucester, he says that `pleraque gestorum praecellentis memoriae patris uestri stilo apponere non neglexi'. It is impossible to guess why no manuscripts of GR contain these books, though several contain the HN. As it is we have a gap of ten or more years in William's historiography, especially as HN is focused on the succession crisis, not on an assessment of Henry I's last ten years.

/3thomson/tcom5.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 10:15 ± disk/amj

BOOK V. 446±449.3

399

3 quod se talem ®lium habere gaudet] Perhaps a reminiscence of Terence, Andr. 96±8: `uno ore omnes omnia / bona dicere et laudare fortunas meas, / qui gnatum haberem tali ingenio praeditum.' in altero erit idem uitae qui scripturae terminus] If William meant HN (or what later emerged as HN), then this is a suggestion that he did indeed die soon after its termination in late 1142.

/3thomson/app.3d ± 15/1/99 ± 13:0 ± disk/amj

APPENDIX I ADDITIONS OF B AND C

12 Sed et hoc . . . passus fuit] The names of the murdered sons of Eormenred were actually (as we translate) áthelred and áthelberht. The incident is mentioned again above, cc. 13, 215, and, in more detail, at c. 209 (see note ad loc.). 19. 3 se obtulit locus] Cf. Hildebert, Carm. min. xxxvi. 16: `se muris obtulit ipse locus'. e strue monimentorum corradere potero] cf. AG, prol. (p. 42): `ex strue monimentorum uestrorum potui corradere'. repetens ab origine pandam] Cf. Virgil, Aen. i. 372: `si prima repetens ab origine pergam'; Georg. iv. 286: `prima repetens ab origine famam'. Echoed again in AG, prol. (pp. 40±1). 3±4 Tradunt . . . iecit] = AG, c. 2 (pp. 46±51), but of course without its interpolations. 3 Tradunt . . . illustraret] For the sources see AG, p. 187 n. 16. William seems to have used as his basis ASC s.a. 167, but `tertio decimo loco post beatum Petrum papam' is from Liber pont. i. 136. 4 in nonnullis locis] Cf. AG, c. 2 (p. 50): `apud sanctum Edmundum'. Scott (AG, p. 187 n. 20) suggests that after leaving Glastonbury William discovered that there were copies of the text from which he quotes, B.'s Vita Dunstani (c. 3; p. 7), in a number of other places. Freculfus] Freculf of Lisieux, Chronicon: PL cvi. 1148B. 20 = AG, cc. 6±7, 18 (pp. 52±5, 66±7), without the interpolations (for which see pp. 188 nn. 26±7, 193 n. 45). Scott shows that in William's original version of AG, c. 18 followed c. 7, as it does here. 1 quanuis ex deformi grandis reuerentia cultu] Possibly an unidenti®ed quotation. 3 Ferro uel aqua examinandi . . . de salute sua tripudiarunt] The Glastonbury sources say nothing of this.

/3thomson/app.3d ± 15/1/99 ± 13:0 ± disk/amj

APPENDIX I

401

21 = AG, cc. 31±2 (pp. 82±5), omitting, however, much of c. 31, argued by Scott (pp. 195±6 n. 66) to be later interpolation. He also argues that before the AG was interpolated, its c. 31 followed c. 18, as it does here. Finally he provides grounds for believing that the version of c. 32 here is closer to William's original words in AG than the altered and interpolated text which is all that we otherwise have (pp. 196±7 n. 75). By `pyramid' was meant a monumental cross with a slightly tapering shaft. Near to William's time the word itself was used by Eadmer, De reliquiis S. Audoeni (ed. A. Wilmart, `Edmeri Cantuariensis cantoris noua opuscula de sanctorum ueneratione et obsecratione', Revue des sciences religieuses, xv (1935), 184±219, 354±79, at p. 365) to describe the grave of (allegedly) Dunstan at Canterbury: `Ipse nanque sanctissimus pater ante ipsos gradus in magna profunditate terrae iacebat humatus, tumba super eum in modum pyramidis grandi sullimique constructa, habente ad caput sancti altare matutinale.' William himself used the word again in GP, c. 148 (p. 288), to describe the tomb of Wulfstan at Worcester. The Glastonbury pyramids are discussed by C. R. Dodwell, Anglo-Saxon Art: A New Perspective (Manchester, 1982), pp. 113±18, who places them in the context of similar monuments in Anglo-Saxon England. For the names on them see J. A. Robinson, `The Saxon abbots of Glastonbury', in his Somerset Historical Essays (London, 1921), pp. 26±53, and A. Watkin, `The Glastonbury ``pyramids'' and St Patrick's ``companions'' ', Downside Review, lxiii (1945), 30±41. Watkin observed that the names were later used by the forger of St Patrick's charter (AG, c. 9; pp. 54±9) as the names of Patrick's companions, and argued that the pyramids were commemorative rather than sepulchral since Centwine was said to be buried elsewhere in the cemetery (AG, c. 31; pp. 82±3). He suggested that the pyramids were erected to commemorate a visit by Wilfrid, Queen Ean¯ñd, and Bishop Hñtla of Dorchester in 681. On the other hand C. A. Ralegh Radford, `Glastonbury Abbey', in The Quest for Arthur's Britain, ed. G. Ashe (London, 1968), pp. 97±110, thought that they commemorated burial sites of Celtic saints, whom he tentatively identi®ed as Patrick and Indract. 2 Her Sexi . . . Bearn] The names must have been much worn when William read them, as he is unlikely to have corrupted them so thoroughly himself. Comparing his mangled forms with the names in

/3thomson/app.3d ± 15/1/99 ± 13:0 ± disk/amj

402

COMMENTARY

W. G. Searle, Onomasticon Anglo-Saxonicum (Cambridge, 1897), the following suggestions might be made: `Sexi' is perhaps Seaxsige or Seaxwig; `Bliswerh' perhaps Blithhere, attested c.945 in Wiltshire (Birch 1216; Kemble 543); Wencrest, Bantomp, and Winethegn are otherwise unattested, the ®rst two obviously seriously corrupted; `Bate' is rendered as `Hate' in AG, so perhaps `Bñdde' or `Hñdde'; Wulfred is commonly found. Plummer in Bede, HE II, p. 185, suggested that Ean¯ñd (only two examples in Searle) was the wife of King Oswiu, later abbess of Streoneshalh. `Logwor' is perhaps `Hlothhere', Weaslieas (`Weaslicas' AG) and Bregden are unattested, `Swelwes' and `Hiwingendes' unintelligible. `Bearn' could be the common `Beorn', or else `bearn' meaning son; thus perhaps the line read `Swelwes son of Hiwingend'. 3 Centwine . . . Beorward] Plummer in Bede, HE II, p. 221, thought Centwine the king or sub-king of the West Saxons who died c.685 (above, c. 33). `Hedde' is presumably Hñdde, bishop of Winchester 674±705, and a major benefactor to Glastonbury: so Carley in John of Glastonbury, p. 276 n. 45. `Bregored' is not otherwise attested (but see below, c. 28n.). Neither is `Beorward', but the name intended is Berhtwald (`Beorwald' AG, c. 32 (p. 85), `Berthwald' c. 35 (p. 88) ). By `tempore Britonum' William apparently does not mean to imply that the abbots themselves were ipso facto British, for in AG, c. 35 (p. 88) he distinguishes Worgret, `cuius nomen Britannicam barbariem redolet', from his successors Lademund and Bregored (not, however, below, c. 28). Certe Logwor . . . Brentemeirs] Ekwall, The Concise Oxford Dictionary of English Place-Names, p. 330, gives the OE name for Montacute as Biscopestun. Nothing seems to be known of William's Logworesburh. On Brent Knoll Ekwall (p. 63) comments that the obvious derivation is from OE brant (`steep'), though this would be puzzling in the case of Brent Marsh, which he does not cite. However, he adds that `forms such as Brienta, Brunte suggest that it is rather a British name, identical with OBrit Brigantia ``high place'' '. This is nearer to, but still some way from William's derivation. Bregored . . . tempore Britonum] In AG, c. 35 (pp. 88±9), William has `Beorwald' succeed Bregored, whereas at c. 32 (pp. 84±5) he says that `Beorwald' was abbot after Hñmgils. At all events the name is clearly OE, not Brittonic. At this point in the base MS of AG occurs

/3thomson/app.3d ± 15/1/99 ± 13:0 ± disk/amj

APPENDIX I

403

comment, written parallel with the rest of the chapter by the same scribe, with the column divided in two by a line for that purpose. On this basis Scott thought that it was a later addition to William's text; and yet it is very much in his style, and may have been his own afterthought: `It ought rather to be believed that this king [i.e. of Dumnonia ad 601] was an Englishman because in the time of the Britons there were no provincial kings, as in the time of the English, but only monarchs and also because that estate and many others were granted to Glastonbury in the time of the Britons, as is plain from the preceding, yet when the English drove out the Britons they, being pagan, seized the lands that had been granted to churches before ®nally restoring the stolen lands and many others at the time of their conversion to the Faith.' See also Foot, `Glastonbury's early abbots', pp. 171±3, 188, who seems to take this as William's own comment. The statement about the British having only had `monarchs' seems indeed to represent William's view (cf. above, c. 7. 2), and may not be entirely wrong as applied to the ®fth and sixth centuries: Thomas, Celtic Britain, ch. 3. The writer was presumably thinking of such ®gures as Arthur and Vortigern. 22. 1 Britannorum . . . misit] = AG, c. 8 (pp. 54±5); and see p. 188 n. 29, showing that the version here is nearer to what William originally wrote in AG, where it followed what is now c. 32. Britannorum . . . fulminauit] In AG the words `ut alibi legitur' refer to Bede, HE i. 13, 20. in Cronicis] Not referring to ASC, although the E version has something like the ®rst quotation s.a. 430. R. P. C. Hanson, Saint Patrick; his Origins and Career (Oxford, 1968), p. 219, cites parallel Irish annals for both 425 and 433. John of Glastonbury (pp. 61, 65), probably using William's lost Vita Patricii, also records Patrick's mission. Among the extracts from the Vita given in Leland, Collectanea iii. 273±5, is: `Is erat Caelestinus . . . anno incarnat. ccccxxiio papatum ingressus. Ab eo Patritius Hiberniam . . . missus, datus est illis gentibus doctor et apostolus' (p. 274). Leland remarks `Unde colligitur Patritium eodem anno quo Palladium [scil. 430], uel certe sequenti, Hiberniam missum, quia non ultra nouem annos Caelestinus protendit ponti®catum.' Cf. also John of Worcester (quoting Marianus) s.a. 432: `Patricius sanctus, genere Brittus, a sancto Celestino papa consacratur; et ad archiepiscopatum Hiberniae

/3thomson/app.3d ± 15/1/99 ± 13:0 ± disk/amj

404

COMMENTARY ta

missus, ibi per annos lx signis atque mirabilibus predicans, totam insulam Hiberniam conuertit ad ®dem.' 2 Ille . . . ueniens] = AG, c. 8 (pp. 54±5). 2±3 omnem absoluit . . . ostenderet] = AG, c. 11 (pp. 60±1), minus the interpolations; see Scott's comments in AG, p. 192 n. 37, arguing that the version here is nearer to what William originally wrote in AG, and that it then preceded AG, c. 10, as it does here. 3 Excessit . . . diligentia] = AG, c. 10 (pp. 60±1), minus the interpolations; see Scott's comments at p. 191 n. 36. Hinc Hibernensibus . . . frequentare] = AG, c. 12 (pp. 60±1), the ®rst sentence only. 23 Much as AG, c. 12 (pp. 60±1); see p. 192 nn. 38±9. 24 Successit . . . nomine dicunt] = AG, c. 33 (pp. 86±7, 197 n. 76), omitting the lengthy interpolation added at the beginning. This material was originally part of AG, c. 13. nouae in maiorem aecclesiam translationis] ad 1091: the event is recorded in AG, c. 13 (pp. 62±3), and in John of Glastonbury, c. 86 (pp. 160±3). 25. 1±3 Iam uero . . . dedicauit opere] = AG, c. 15 (pp. 62±5; for comment see p. 192 n. 42). 3 et Walenses . . . non inuenisse] Like AG, c. 16 (pp. 64±5), which calls Bernard `bishop of Ross Valley' (`de Rosina ualle'). This, like the rest of this section in AG, is probably inauthentic: so Scott in AG, p. 193 n. 43. The bishop is presumably Bernard of St Davids, 1115±48. 26 uenit in Britanniam . . . nonagesimo sexto] As ASC s.a. 596. cuius predicationis . . . in¯ectere] = AG, c. 19 (pp. 66±9), omitting the ®rst sentence there, which is probably inauthentic: AG, p. 193 n. 46. William's notion of Paulinus as a builder of churches was doubtless in¯uenced by Bede, HE ii. 14, 16. 27±8 as far as `propatulo' are largely as AG, c. 35 (pp. 88±9; and see p. 197 n. 78), omitting the last sentence, which is certainly a later comment. The passages `aduentus beati Augustini quinto', `Illud quoque . . . Fuerunt sane eiusdem abbates', and `Felices ergo . . . uel

/3thomson/app.3d ± 15/1/99 ± 13:0 ± disk/amj

APPENDIX I

405

excusatio' are not in AG as we now have it, but doubtless were originally. 27 rex Domnoniae . . . Maworn episcopus] William identi®ed the ancient British kingdom of Dumnonia with Devonshire (above, c. 100, and GP, c. 94; p. 200), and we might have so translated here. Actually Dumnonia included Cornwall, Devon, and part of Somerset. Assuming that the document was in any way genuine, the king referred to might have been Gereint son of Erbin, attested c.600. Nothing is otherwise known of the bishop, although Dr O. Padel tells me that his name looks convincingly Brittonic. See P. C. Bartrum, Early Welsh Genealogical Tracts (Cardiff, 1966), esp. pp. 41±67 (editions of Dumnonian king-lists); S. M. Pearce, The Kingdom of DumnoniaÐStudies in History and Tradition in South Western Britain ad 350±1150 (Padstow, 1978), pp. 139±44; and Thomas, Celtic Britain, p. 67. 28 Ineswitrin] For discussion of the origin and etymology see Carley in John of Glastonbury, p. 273 n. 14. Worgrez, Lademund et Bregored] `Worgrez' (`Worgret' AG, c. 35; p. 88) is undoubtedly corrupt but perhaps Celtic (cf. Wurgeat, the Welsh subregulus who witnessed Sawyer 400, dated 928); `Bregored', although it looks Germanic, could be related to the name of the person after whom the Cornish parish of St Breward is named (early forms include `Brueredus'); `Lademund', however, is unambiguously Germanic. 29. 1 Anno . . . cathedrae] This gives the gist of AG, c. 36 (pp. 90± 1), which, however, has been heavily altered and interpolated, removing, for instance, the reference to Berhtwald having become abbot of Reculver (p. 197 n. 80). The charter referred to is Sawyer 227 (a forgery; Edwards, Charters, pp. 20±3). Hic idem Berhtwaldus . . . cathedrae] William has ?gratuitously con¯ated two or three persons of the same name: (1) abbot of Glastonbury c.670, (2) sub-king of Mercia, son of King Wulfhere (Stephen of Ripon, Vita Wilfridi, c. 40), occ. 681, 685, and (3) abbot of Reculver c.679±92, archbishop of Canterbury 693±731 (Bede, HE v. 8). (1) and (2) at least cannot be the same person. Arguments in favour of identifying (1) with (3) were advanced by J. A. Robinson in his Somerset Historical Essays, pp. 27±9; but they are countered

/3thomson/app.3d ± 15/1/99 ± 13:0 ± disk/amj

406

COMMENTARY

by Foot, `Glastonbury's early abbots', pp. 171±3: the fact that Berhtwald is attested as abbot in two genuine charters of Ine dated 705, and in a letter dateable 7096731, means that he cannot have been (3). 35. 3 in quo beati martiris . . . locauit] Cf. AG, c. 20 (pp. 68±9; misplaced, as Scott indicates at p. 193 n. 47), from `ipsius quidem' verbatim, but for the addition of `cum quo posterorum diligentia beatam Hildam locauit', a circumstance recorded in more detail at AG, c. 21. 36C = Sawyer 250 (dated 725), here curtailed at either end. A full version is in AG (c. 42; pp. 98±103). All modern authorities regard the document as spurious: Edwards, Charters, pp. 36±7. 1 beato Dauid . . . innotuit] See above, c. 25 and nn. 39 = Sawyer 257 (dated 745), also in AG, c. 45 (pp. 104±5), there dated 744 (p. 200 n. 95). It is discussed in Edwards, Charters, pp. 45±8. 1 uertigo poli . . . moderamine uoluet] Juvencus, Evang. praef. 13±14. 2 qua fratres abbatis Hemgisli sarcofagum sortiuntur in die] The text is certainly corrupt; the words `in die' are not present in the AG version, probably rightly. The intended sense was doubtless `when the brethren venerate Hñmgils's tomb, on the anniversary of his death'. Hñmgils ¯. 680±2; see Foot, `Glastonbury's early abbots', pp. 168±9. 50. 5 sicut in libro . . . locutus sum] Referring to AG, c. 21 (pp. 68±9). Obviously this addition is by William himself. 66 Iacet . . . in eadem aecclesia] See Thomson, William of Malmesbury, pp. 142, 144±5, for discussion of this passage, a variant of which appears as a marginal note (fo. 147) in Bodl. Libr., MS Lat. class. d. 39, the collection of material on Carolingian history probably compiled by William. The source of the information in the note is unknown; it seems to be an addition made by William himself. It is,

/3thomson/app.3d ± 15/1/99 ± 13:0 ± disk/amj

APPENDIX I

407

however, erroneous; Alcuin was buried in St Martin's Tours: anon. Vita Alcuini (MGH SS, xv(1). 196±7). 138 1 quae nunc destructa . . . frequentabant] This passage, apparently by William himself, is decisive for concluding that the B recension is later than C. 2±5 Cuius autem opinionis . . . appetentissimo] The letter of Radbod is also in GP, cc. 248±9 (pp. 399±400), where it was an addition in the margin of William's autograph, and where he says that he found it in a `scrinium' at Milton Abbas (Dorset). `scrinium' has been translated `shrine' (Hamilton in GP ad loc., p. 400; Stubbs in GR i. 154 n. 2), but it can mean any sort of smallish box, and William may have found it with the archives rather than on an altar. The document is Councils, i(1), no. 9, dated before 927. Again, this passage is evidence for the B redaction being later than C. 2 Louenani archiepiscopi senioris] Nothing is known of this man, whose name is variously rendered in the MSS. 139. 5 ut fertur . . . credimus] This is one of the passages which proves that at least some of B's unique features are due to William. The accounts of the king's retirement to Lamport in Ralph of Diss ii. 235 and Gervase of Canterbury, Gesta regum Britanniae, ed. W. Stubbs (2 vols.: RS, 1879±80), ii. 47±8, derive from William. rex Ethelstanus . . . consolatus] The only known grant of áthelstan to Muchelney is (spurious) Sawyer 455; but William must have seen more than that. 150B To `possidenda attribuit' this roughly parallels the account in AG, c. 59, from the foot of p. 120. 2 ad titulum sanctae Mariae ordinari facerent] An early example of the expression used (more familiarly at Rome) to denote ordinations to the title of the church in question; see the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, p. 1627, s.v. `titulus'. 3 omnino prohibuit] These two words are redundant, and may be the remains of a whole sentence most of which has dropped out.

/3thomson/app.3d ± 15/1/99 ± 13:0 ± disk/amj

408

COMMENTARY

4 lituum proprium . . . super altare . . . posuit] See M. Clanchy, From Memory to Written Record (2nd edn., Oxford, 1993), pp. 23±8, 127, 203±8, 234, for instances of objects such as knives and swords used in conjunction with documents as guarantees. 5 Ea etiam utraque] But William has only given a resume of the royal grant; in the C redaction both texts were given in full, and his slip here is further evidence for the C redaction being earlier than B (see above, pp. xxxi±xxxii). non ut pastores . . . irrumpere] Cf. John 10: 1. 6±7 Nouerit . . . permaneat] = JL 3751, dated 971. It appears again in AG, c. 61 (pp. 128±9), and in The Great Chartulary of Glastonbury, ed. A. Watkin (3 vols.: Somerset Record Soc., lix, lxiii±lxiv, 1947± 56), i. 146. In AG William calls the pope John VIII, though he was actually John XIII (965±72). This is because William misread his Catalogue of Popes, as preserved in his Liber pont. (C), which apparently had `Iohannes m. VIII' (Levison, p. 389), meaning that he reigned for eight months. William's statement that he succeeded Octavian ( John XII, 955±64) is not strictly correct, since there were two short and troubled reigns in between (Leo VIII, 963±5, Benedict V, 964±6). Again the muddle may have been caused by his source, which has three popes named John but without number succeeding each other; they were actually John XIII±XV. Instead of `Ordinatio uero . . . conuentus sit', the AG version has `et se suosque, quos idoneos iudicauerint, quocumque in Dorobernensi diocesi placuerit ad ordinandum dirigant' (on which see AG, p. 204 n. 124). The text in the Great Chartulary is as GR. 7 Actum tempore Elfwardi eiusdem monasterii abbatis] See above, c. 150. 7n. 8±10 Perpendant . . . fatebitur] This remarkable series of arguments and warnings may re¯ect the fact that Henry of Blois, ®rst ?elected as abbot of Glastonbury in 1126, became bishop of Winchester in 1129, retaining both abbacy and bishopric until his death in 1171. 398. 4 The documents are calendered in RRAN: no. 784, dated 31 July 1105±6, known only from GR; no. 1485, dated probably 22 May 1127, of which the original exists as Gloucester Cathedral Libr., Deeds and Seals, vol. vii. 3 (fo. 2); pr., from a Gloucester cartulary (PRO, Chancery (C. 150/1), s. xiii/xiv), in Historia et cartularium, iii. 236.

/3thomson/app.3d ± 15/1/99 ± 13:0 ± disk/amj

APPENDIX I

409

Culna sancti Andree] Now Coln Rogers, Gloucestershire. Gilebertum de Mineriis] The surname is from Les MinieÁres near Breteuil-sur-Iton, south-west of EÂvreux. c.1100 Gilbert was holding land from the bishop of Worcester at Foxcote near Withington and at Eycot in Rendcomb, both in Gloucestershire. He also held land at Culkerton and elsewhere in the same county from Miles of Gloucester: Red Book of Worcester, ed. M. Hollings (Worcester Historical Society, 4 pts., 1934±50), pp. 412, 414±15, 417; Red Book of the Exchequer, ed. H. Hall (3 vols.: RS, 1896), i. 294, 300, 415; The Pipe Roll of 31 Hen. I Michaelmas 1130 (London, 1929), pp. 78, 80; Historia et cartularium i. 62, 70±1, 109, 233, 236; ii. 98, 231; H. C. B. Mynors, Mynors of Treago Co. Hereford; A Genealogy (privately printed, 1954), p. 1.

/3thomson/app.3d ± 15/1/99 ± 13:0 ± disk/amj

APPENDIX II ADDITIONS OF THE Aa GROUP (a) Aa readings of interest 112. 1 This is an example of an Aa passage which can scarcely be by anyone other than William. `glomus' is the reading found in Hariulf 's version of the Visio (iii. 21; ed. Lot, p. 145). 125. 5 See above, note ad loc. 167. 1 See above, note ad loc. 167. 6 See above, note ad loc. 212 See above, note ad loc. 220. 2 See above, note ad loc. 282. 3 See above, note ad loc. 355. 2 See above, note ad loc.

/3thomson/app.3d ± 15/1/99 ± 13:0 ± disk/amj

APPENDIX II

411

(b) Aac readings of interest 15. 1 Ipse est qui monasterium sancti Martini apud Doferam fecit (Aa and two C MSS)] Much as JW Accounts, p. 260. See vol. i, p. xx n. 25. 120. 2 See above, note ad loc. 122. 3 See above, note ad loc. 124. 1 Elfredus . . . instruendas] The Commendatio et obitus Aelfredi regis is verbatim as John of Worcester s.a. 901; some phrases from it are also in JW Accounts, pp. 273±4. It is doubtless a near-contemporary source, but of what sort is hard to say; perhaps it was a Winchester epitaph. The day of the week and indiction are correct for the year, and the unusual expression `Angul-Saxonum rex' was current late in Alfred's reign: Keynes and Lapidge, Alfred the Great, p. 227 n. 1. Asser (c. 76) describes Alfred's enthusiasm for vernacular poetry; this is the only source to call the king a poet in his own right. 157. 3 See above, note ad loc. 205. 1 See above, note ad loc. 214. 3 See above, note ad loc. 230. 3 See above, note ad loc. 297 It seems impossible to determine whether this interesting and important interpolation was made by William or not. By their very nature such interpolations are not amenable to stylistic analysis.

/3thomson/app.3d ± 15/1/99 ± 13:0 ± disk/amj

412

COMMENTARY

Willelmus rex . . . in uerborum obseruantiis] ed. Liebermann, Gesetze, i. 483±4; commentary in iii. 271±3. These laws are also found in some manuscripts of Quadripartitus, where they are titled `Institutio regis Willelmi'. Liebermann suggests that the original was written between 1068 and 1077. untrum] i.e. weak, ill, in®rm. This is the only known occurrence in a legal text: Liebermann, Gesetze, ii(1). 230; Bosworth and Toller, p. 1134. 1±4 Regem Anglie . . . aliquid proprium] Quadripartitus ii. praef. 1±10 (Liebermann, Gesetze, i. 542±3). It was written between 1108 and 1114. The whole argument, expressed in elaborate and obscure Latin, is a summary of the view of the development and purpose of public authority advanced by Augustine in his De ciuitate Dei. 1 malo scilicet acclinis] Cf. Ovid, Met. xv. 737: `summoque acclinia malo'. 2 Hinc a primeuo . . . eiecit] Cf. Gen. 3: 4. et qui celi Dominum . . . proiecti] Cf. 1 Kgs.(1 Sam.) 8: 7. 4 quo tuta ®eret inter improbos innocentia] cf. Isidore, Etym. ii. 10. 5, v. 20: `tutaque sit inter inprobos innocentia'. Lex alia naturalis . . . aliquid proprium] Cf. ibid. v. 21: `Erit autem lex . . . secundum naturam, secundum consuetudinem patriae, loco temporique conueniens'. Liebermann follows other witnesses in reading `constitutionis', surely less correctly. 445. 2 The Aac alternative is wrong, since Ralph did not become bishop until 1108.

/3thomson/bib.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:32 ± disk/mp

BIBLIOGRAPHY A. Primary Sources For editions and translations of William of Malmesbury's works see above, pp. xlvi±xlvii. Abbo of Fleury, Passio S. Edmundi, ed. M. Winterbottom, Three Lives of English Saints (Toronto Medieval Latin Texts, i: Toronto, 1972), pp. 67±87 Abelard, Sic et Non (PL clxxviii. 1329±1610) Acta sanctorum (®rst edn., Antwerp/Brussels, 1643±1894) Adam of Bremen: Magistri Adam Bremensis Gesta Hammaburgensis ecclesiae ponti®cum, 3rd edn. by B. Schmeidler (MGH srg, ii, 1917) Adamnan, De locis sanctis (CCSL clxxv. 183±234) Adelard, Vita S. Dunstani (Memorials, pp. 53±68) Adelard of Bath, Quaestiones naturales, ed. M. MuÈller, BeitraÈge zur Geschichte der Philosophie des Mittelalters, xxxi. 2 (1934) (text pp. 91±134) Adhemar of Chabannes, Cronica, ed. J. Chavanon (Collection de textes pour servir aÁ l'eÂtude et aÁ l'enseignement de l'histoire, xx: Paris, 1897) Ado of Vienne, Chronicon (PL cxxiii. 23±138) Adonis continuatio prima (MGH SS, ii, 1829, pp. 324±5) álfric: The Sermones Catholici or Homilies of álfric, ed. B. Thorpe (2 vols.: álfric Society, London, 1844±6) áthelnoth, Passio sancti Kanuti regis et martiris, ed. M. Cl. Gertz, Vitae Sanctorum Danorum (2 vols., Copenhagen, 1908±12), i. 62±76 áthelweard, Chronicle, ed. A. Campbell (NMT, 1962) Ailred of Rievaulx, Vita Edwardi (PL cxcv. 737±90) Alberic of Trois Fontaines, Chronica, ed. P. Scheffer-Boichorst (MGH SS, xxiii, 1874, pp. 631±950) Albert of Aachen, Historia Hierosolymitana (RHC Occ. iv. 265±713) Alcuin, De dialectica (PL ci. 951±76) ÐÐ Letters, ed. E. DuÈmmler (MGH Epist., iv, 1895, pp. 1±481, 614±16) ÐÐ Disputatio de rhetorica et de uirtutibus (PL ci. 919±46 and C. Halm, Rhetores latini minores (Leipzig, 1863), pp. 525±50) ÐÐ Versus de patribus regibus et sanctis Euboracensis ecclesiae, ed. and trans. P. Godman, The Bishops, Kings, and Saints of York (OMT, 1982) Aldhelm: Aldhelmi Opera, ed. R. Ehwald (MGH AA, xv, 1919) ÐÐ The Poetic Works, trans. M. Lapidge and J. Rosier (Cambridge, 1985) ÐÐ The Prose Works, trans. M. Lapidge and M. Herren (Cambridge etc., 1979)

/3thomson/bib.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:32 ± disk/mp

414

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Alexander of Canterbury, Dicta Anselmi, in Memorials of St Anselm, ed. R. W. Southern and F. S. Schmitt (Auctores Britannici Medii Aevi, i: London, 1969), pp. 107±95 Alfred: King Alfred's West-Saxon Version of Gregory's Pastoral Care, ed. H. Sweet (2 vols.: EETS, orig. ser. xlv, l: London, 1871±2) Anglia Sacra, ed. H. Wharton (2 vols.: London, 1691) The Anglo-Latin Satirical Poets and Epigrammatists of the Twelfth Century, ed. T. Wright (2 vols.: RS, 1892) The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, ed. B. Thorpe (2 vols.: RS, 1861); ed. and trans. D. Whitelock, D.C. Douglas, and S. Tucker (London, 1961); Two of the Saxon Chronicles Parallel, ed. C. Plummer and J. Earle (2 vols.: Oxford, 1892±9, repr. with a bibliographical note by D. Whitelock, 1952) Anna Comnena, Alexiad, trans. E. R. A. Sewter (Harmondsworth, 1969) Annales Bertiniani, ed. F. Grat, J. Vieillard, S. ClemencËet, and L. Levillain (Paris, 1964) Annales Fuldenses sive annales regni Francorum orientalis, rev. edn. by Fr. Kurze (MGH srg, vii, 1891) Annales Mettenses priores, ed. B. von Simson (MGH srg, x, 1905) Annales Monastici, ed. H. R. Luard (5 vols.: RS, 1864±9) Annals of St Neots, ed. D. Dumville and M. Lapidge, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, xvii (Woodbridge, 1985) Anselm: S. Anselmi Opera Omnia, ed. F. S. Schmitt (rev. edn., 6 vols. in 2: Stuttgart±Bad Cannstadt, 1968) Armes Prydein: The Prophecy of Britain from the Book of Taliesin, ed. and trans. I. Williams and R. Bromwich (Dublin, 1972) Asser, Life of King Alfred . . ., ed. W. H. Stevenson (Oxford, 1904), repr. with introd. by D. Whitelock (Oxford, 1959) Astronomus, Vita Hludovici Imperatoris, ed. G. Pertz (MGH SS, ii, 1829, pp. 607±48) Augustine, Enarrationes in psalmos (CCSL xxxviii±xl) B., Vita Dunstani (Memorials, pp. 3±52) Baudri de Bourgeuil, Carmina: Baldricus Burgulianus Carmina, ed. K. Hilbert (Editiones Heidelbergenses, xix: Heidelberg, 1979) ÐÐ Historia Ierosolimitana (RHC Occ. iv. 9±111) Bede, Epistola ad Pleguinum, ed. C. W. Jones, Bedae Opera de Temporibus (Cambridge, Mass., 1943), pp. 307±15; repr. CCSL cxxiii, pp. 635±42 ÐÐ Historia abbatum, ed. C. Plummer,Venerabilis Baedae Opera Historica (2 vols.: Oxford, 1896), i. 364±87 ÐÐ Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum, in his Opera Historica, ed. Plummer, i. 3±360; ed. and trans. B. Colgrave and R. A. B. Mynors (OMT, 1969, repr. 1992); OE version, ed. T. Miller (4 vols.: EETS, orig. ser. xcv±vi, cx±cxi: London, 1890±98)

/3thomson/bib.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:32 ± disk/mp

BIBLIOGRAPHY

415

Bede, De locis sanctis (CCSL clxxv, pp. 251±80) ÐÐ De natura rerum (CCSL cxxiiiA, pp. 192±234) ÐÐ Vita S. Cuthberti, ed. B. Colgrave, Two Lives of S. Cuthbert (Cambridge, 1940), pp. 142±307 Benedict of Aniane, Epitome regulae Benedicti (PL lxvi. 937±42); OE version, ed. A. S. Napier (EETS, orig. ser. cl: London, 1916) Benno: Gesta Romanae aecclesiae contra Hildebrandum, ed. K. Francke (MGH Lib. de Lite, ii, 1892, pp. 366±422) BenoõÃt de Saint-Maure: Chronique des Ducs de Normandie par BenoõÃt, ed. C. Fahlin (Bibliotheca Ekmaniana lvi, lx, lxiv: Uppsala, 1951, 1954, 1967) Bieler, L., Four Latin Lives of St Patrick (Scriptores Latini Hiberniae, ix: Dublin, 1971) Bond, G. A., The Poetry of William VII, Count of Poitiers, IX Duke of Aquitaine (New York and London, 1982) Boniface: Bonifatii et Lulli Epistolae, ed. M. Tangl (MGH Epp. select., i, 1916) Bouton, J. de la Croix, and J. B. Van Damme, Les plus anciens textes de CõÃteaux (Achel, 1974) Brut y Tywysogion, ed. and trans. T. Jones (Board of Celtic Studies, University of Wales, History and Law Ser., xvi: Cardiff, 1955) Byrhtferth, Vita Oswaldi, ed. J. Raine, Historians of the Church of York (3 vols.: RS, 1879±94), i. 399±475 Carmen de Hastingae proelio of Guy, bishop of Amiens, ed. C. Morton and H. Muntz (OMT, 1972) Cecaumenos, Strategicon, ed. B. Wassiliewsky and V. Jenstedt (St Petersburg, 1896) Chronicles of the Reigns of Stephen, Henry II, and Richard I, ed. R. Howlett (4 vols.: RS, 1884±9) Chronicon Monasterii de Abingdon, ed. J. Stevenson (2 vols.: RS, 1858) Chronicon de Hyda, in Liber monasterii de Hyda, pp. 283±321 Chronicon Laureshamense, ed. K. A. Pertz (MGH SS, xxi, 1869, pp. 341±453) Chronicon Turonense, ed. F. Duchesne, Historiae Francorum Scriptores (5 vols.: Paris, 1636±49), iii. 357±62 (as Chronicon aliud breve ab initio Regni Francorum usque ad annum MCXXXVII ex Bibliotheca Thuana) Chroniques des comtes d'Anjou et des seigneurs d'Amboise, ed. L. Halphen and R. Poupardin (Paris, 1913) Cicero, De divinatione, ed. A. S. Pease (Urbana, Ill., 1920±3, repr. Darmstadt, 1963) Councils and Ecclesiastical Documents relating to Great Britain and Ireland, ed. A. W. Haddan and W. Stubbs (3 vols.: Oxford, 1869±78) Councils and Synods, i (AD 871±1204), ed. D. Whitelock, M. Brett and C. N. L. Brooke (2 vols.: Oxford, 1981) Cuthbert, Epistola de obitu Bedae, in Venerabilis Bedae Opera Historica, ed. Plummer, i, pp. clx±clxiv

/3thomson/bib.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:32 ± disk/mp

416

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Decretum Spurium Hadriani I Papae de Investituris, ed. A. Werminghoff (MGH Legum III, 2: Concilia Aevi Karolini I, 2, 1908), pp. 823±8 Delaville le Roulx, J., Cartulaire geÂneÂral de l'Ordre des Hospitaliers de SaintJean de JeÂrusalem, 1100±1310 (4 vols.: Paris, 1894±1906) Delisle, L., Rouleaux des morts de IXe au XVe sieÁcle (Paris, 1866) Domesday Book, ed. A. Farley (London, 1783) Domus Carolingicae genealogia (MGH SS, ii, 1829, pp. 308±9) Donation of Constantine: Constitutum Constantini, ed. H. Fuhrmann (MGH Fontes, x, 1968, pp. 55±98) Dudo of Saint-Quentin, De moribus et actis primorum Normanniae ducum, ed. J. Lair (MeÂmoires de la SocieÂte des Antiquaires de Normandie, xxiii: Caen, 1865) Durham Episcopal Charters 1071±1152, ed. H. S. Of¯er (Surtees Soc., clxxix, 1968) Eadmer, Historia novorum in Anglia, ed. M. Rule (RS, 1884) ÐÐ De reliquiis S. Audoeni, ed. A. Wilmart, `Edmeri Cantuariensis cantoris noua opuscula de sanctorum ueneratione et obsecratione', Revue des sciences religieuses, xv (1935), 184±219, 354±79, at pp. 362±70 ÐÐ Vita S. Anselmi: The Life of St Anselm, Archbishop of Canterbury, ed. and trans. R. W. Southern (NMT, 1963, OMT, 1972) ÐÐ Vita et miracula S. Dunstani (Memorials, pp. 162±249) ÐÐ Vita et miracula S. Oswaldi (Historians of the Church of York, ii. 1±59) Einhard: Einhardi Vita Karoli Magni, 6th edn. by G. Waitz (MGH srg, xxv, 1911) Ekkehard of Aura: Ekkehardi Chronicon Universale, ed. G. Waitz and P. Kilon (MGH SS, vi, 1844, pp. 33±265) Encomium Emmae reginae, ed. A. Campbell (RHS Camden 3rd ser., lxxii: 1949), rev. edn. with supplementary introduction by S. Keynes (Cambridge, 1998). English Episcopal Acta x: Bath and Wells 1061±1205, ed. F. M. R. Ramsey (Oxford, 1995) English Historical Documents c.500±1042, ed. D. Whitelock (2nd edn., London, 1979), 1042±1189, ed. D. C. Douglas and G. W. Greenaway (2nd edn., London, 1981) (Ps.)-Eucherius, De situ Hierosolimae (CCSL clxxv. 237±43) Eulogium historiarum sive temporis, ed. F. S. Haydon (3 vols.: RS, 1858±63) Eystein, Passio et miracula beati Olavi, ed. F. Metcalfe (Oxford, 1881) Faricius, Vita S. Aldhelmi (AA SS, Maii vi. 84±93) Flodoard of Reims, Annales, ed. P. Lauer, Les Annales de Flodoard (Paris, 1905) Folcuin: Folcwini Diaconi Gesta abbatum Sithiensium, ed. O. Holder-Egger (MGH SS, xiii, 1881, pp. 607±35) Freculf of Lisieux, Chronica (PL cvi. 917±1258)

/3thomson/bib.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:32 ± disk/mp

BIBLIOGRAPHY

417

Fulbert of Chartres: The Letters and Poems of Fulbert of Chartres, ed. and trans. F. Behrends (OMT, 1976) Fulcher of Chartres, Gesta Francorum Iherusalem peregrinantium, ed. H. Hagenmayer (Heidelberg, 1913) Galbert of Bruges, The Murder of Charles the Good, trans. J. B. Ross (rev. edn., New York, 1967) Gautier the Chancellor, Bella Antiochena 1114±1119 (RHC Occ. v. 75± 132) Geoffrey Gaimar, L'Estoire des Engleis, ed. A. Bell (3 vols., Anglo-Norman Text Soc., xiv±xvi: Oxford, 1960) Geoffrey of Monmouth, Historia regum Britannie, ed. N. Wright, The Historia regum Britannie of Geoffrey of Monmouth, i: Bern, Burgerbibliothek, MS. 568 (Woodbridge, 1985) Gerald of Wales, Opera, ed. J. S. Brewer, J. F. Dimock, and G. F. Warner (8 vols.: RS, 1861±91) Gerbert (attrib.), Cita et uera diuisio monochordi (PL cli. 653±74) ÐÐ Epistolae, trans. H. Lattin, The Letters of Gerbert (Columbia University Records of Civilization, Sources and Studies, lx: New York, 1961) ÐÐ Gerberti Opera Mathematica, ed. N. Bubnov (Berlin, 1899) Gervase of Canterbury, Gesta regum Britanniae, ed. W. Stubbs (2 vols.: RS, 1879±80) Gesta Francorum, ed. and trans. R. M. Hill (NMT, 1962) Gesta Francorum Iherusalem expugnantium (RHC Occ. iii. 491±543) Gesta Normannorum ducum of William of JumieÁges, Orderic Vitalis, and Robert of Torigni, ed. and trans. E. Van Houts (2 vols.: OMT, 1992±5) Gesta Romanorum, ed. H. Oesterley (Berlin, 1872) Gilbertus Anglicus, Compendium medicinae (Lyons, 1510) Gildas, De excidio Britanniae, ed. and trans. M. Winterbottom (Chichester, 1978) Gilo of Paris, Historia vie Hierosolimitane, ed. and trans. C. W. Grocock and J. E. Siberry (OMT 1997) Godfrey of Winchester: H. Gerhard, Der ``Liber proverbiorum'' des Godefrid von Winchester (WuÈrzburg, 1974); Anglo-Latin Satirical Poets and Epigrammatists, ii. 148±55 Goscelin, Historia, miracula et translatio S. Augustini (AA SS, Maii vi. 373± 443) ÐÐ Passio S. Ivonis (part edn. PL clv. 81±90), completed by W. D. Macray (ed.), Chronicon abbatiae Ramesiensis (RS, 1886), pp. lix±lxxxiv ÐÐ Textus translationis S. Mildrethae, ed. D. W. Rollason, `Goscelin of Canterbury's Account of the Translation and Miracles of St Mildrith', Mediaeval Studies, xlviii (1986), 139±210 (text pp. 154±210) ÐÐ Vita Deo dilectae virginis Mildrethae, ed. Rollason, Mildrith Legend, pp. 105±43

/3thomson/bib.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:32 ± disk/mp

418

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Goscelin, Vita S. Edithae, ed. A. Wilmart, `La leÂgende de Ste EÂdithe en prose et vers par le moine Goscelin', Anal. Boll. lvi (1938), 5±101, 265±307 ÐÐ Vita S. Werburgae (AA SS, Feb. i. 386±90) ÐÐ Vita et virtutes S. Vul®ldae, ed. M. Colker, `Texts of Jocelyn of Canterbury which relate to the history of Barking abbey', Studia Monastica, vii (1965), 383±460, at pp. 418±34 The Great Chartulary of Glastonbury, ed. A. Watkin (3 vols.: Somerset Record Soc., lix, lxiii±iv: 1947±56) Guibert of Nogent, Gesta Dei per Francos (RHC Occ. iv. 113±263) ÐÐ Monodiae, ed. E.-R. Labande (Paris, 1981) ÐÐ De pignoribus sanctorum (PL clvi. 607±80) Guignard, P., Les monuments primitifs de la ReÁgle cistercienne (Dijon, 1878) Guitmund of Aversa, De corpore et sanguine Domini (PL cxlix. 1427±94) Halm, C., Rhetores latini minores (Leipzig, 1863) Hariulf, Chronicon Centulense, ed. F. Lot (Paris, 1894) È bersetzung der Dialoge Hecht, H. (ed.), Bischof Wñrferths von Worcester U Gregors des Grossen (2 vols.: Leipzig, 1900±07) Hector Boece, Scotorum historiae a prima gentis origine, cum aliarum et rerum et gentium illustratione non vulgari . . . (Paris, 1526) Hegesippus, De bello Iudaico, ed. V. Ussani, Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum lxvi.1 (1932) Helgaud de Fleury, Vie de Robert le Pieux, ed. and trans. R.-H. Bautier and G. Labory (Sources d'histoire meÂdieÂvale, i: Paris, 1965) Helinand of Froidmont, Flores (PL ccxii. 721±60) Hemingi Chartularium Ecclesiae Wigorniensis, ed. T. Hearne (London, 1723) Henry, Archdeacon of Huntingdon, Historia Anglorum, ed. and trans. D. Greenway (OMT, 1996) Herbert Losinga: E. M. Goulburn and H. Symonds, The Life, Letters, and Sermons of Bishop Herbert de Losinga (2 vols.: Oxford and London, 1878); R. Anstruther (ed.), Epistolae Herberti de Losinga (Brussels and London, 1846) Hermann, De miraculis S. Edmundi (Memorials of St Edmund's Abbey, i. 26±92) Hermann of Laon, De miraculis beatae Mariae Laudunensis (PL clvi. 961±1018) Hildebert, Carmina minora, ed. A. B. Scott (Leipzig, 1969) Historia Brittonum, ed. D. Dumville, The Historia Brittonum 3: The `Vatican' Recension (Woodbridge, 1985) Historia de S. Cuthberto (Simeon of Durham, i. 196±214) Historia et cartularium monasterii Sancti Petri Gloucestriae, ed. W. H. Hart (3 vols.: RS, 1863±7) Historia peregrinorum euntium Ierusolymam ad liberandum Sanctum Sepulcrum de potestate ethnicorum (RHC Occ. iii. 165±229) Historia de translationibus et miraculis S. Cuthberti (Simeon of Durham, i. 229±61)

/3thomson/bib.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:32 ± disk/mp

BIBLIOGRAPHY

419

Historiola de primordiis episcopatus Somersetensis, ed. J. Hunter, Ecclesiastical Documents (RHS Camden old ser., viii, 1840), pp. 9±28 Horstman, C., Nova legenda Anglie (2 vols.: Oxford, 1901) Hrotsvithae Opera, ed. H. Homeyer (Munich etc., 1970) Hugh the Chanter, History of the Church of York, ed. and trans. C. Johnson, C. N. L. Brooke, M. Brett, and M. Winterbottom (OMT, 1990) Hugh of Flavigny: Chronicon Hugonis monachi Verdunensis et Divionensis, abbatis Flaviniacensis, ed. G. H. Pertz (MGH SS, viii, 1848, pp. 280±503) Hugh of Fleury, Historia ecclesiastica, ed. B. Rottendorff (MuÈnster, 1638) Hugh of St Victor, Didascalicon, trans. J. Taylor (Columbia University Records of Civilization, Sources and Studies, lxiv: New York and London, 1961) Ibn al-Qalanisi, The Damascus Chronicle, trans. H. A. R. Gibb (London, 1932) Inventio et miracula sancti Vulfranni, ed. J. Laporte (Rouen, 1938) Itinera Hierosolymitana Crucesignatorum (saec. XII±XIII), ed. S. de Sandoli (4 vols.: Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Coll. maior, xxiv: Jerusalem, 1978±84) Itinerarium Bernardi monachi Franci, ed. T. Tobler and A. Molinier, Itinera Hierosolymitana et descriptiones Terrae Sanctae bellis sacris anteriora et latina lingua exarata (5 vols.: SocieÂte de l'orient latin. SeÂrie geÂographique: Geneva, 1879±85), i. 309±20; trans. Wilkinson, Jerusalem Pilgrims before the Crusades, pp. 141±5 Ivo of Chartres, Panormia (PL clxi. 1041±1344) John the Deacon, Vita Gregorii (PL lxxv. 59±242) John of Glastonbury, Chronicle of Glastonbury Abbey, ed. J. P. Carley, trans. D. Townsend (Woodbridge, 1985) John of Salisbury, Policraticus, ed. C. C. J. Webb (2 vols.: Oxford, 1909) John (`Florence') of Worcester, Chronicon ex Chronicis, ed. B. Thorpe (2 vols.: London, 1848±9); ed. R. R. Darlington and P. McGurk, The Chronicle of John of Worcester (OMT, 1995± ) Josephus Latinus (Basle, 1524) Julius Firmicus Maternus, Mathesis, ed. W. Kroll, F. Skutsch, and K. Ziegler (2 vols.: Leipzig, 1897, 1913) Julius Valerius, Res gestae Alexandri Macedonis, ed. M. Rosellini (Leipzig, 1993); epitome, ed. J. Zacher (Halle, 1867) Kelly, S. E., Charters of St Augustine's Abbey Canterbury (Anglo-Saxon Charters, iv: Oxford, 1995) ÐÐ Charters of Shaftesbury Abbey (Anglo-Saxon Charters, v: Oxford, 1996) Lambert of Ardres: Lamberti Ardensis Historia comitum Ghisnensium, ed. I. Heller (MGH SS, xxiv, 1879, pp. 550±642) Lampert of Hersfeld, Annales, ed. O. Holder-Egger (MGH srg, xxxviii, 1894) Lanfranc, De corpore et sanguine Domini (PL cl. 407±42)

/3thomson/bib.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:32 ± disk/mp

420

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Lanfranc, The Letters of Lanfranc Archbishop of Canterbury, ed. H. Clover and M. T. Gibson (OMT, 1979) Libellus de diversis ordinibus, ed. and trans. G. Constable and B. Smith (OMT, 1972) Liber Eliensis, ed. E. O. Blake (RHS Camden 3rd ser., xcii, 1962) Liber monasterii de Hyda, ed. E. Edwards (RS, 1866) Liber ponti®calis, ed. L. Duchesne and C. Vogel (3 vols.: Paris, 1886±1957); The Lives of the Ninth-Century Popes (Liber Ponti®calis), trans. R. R. Davis (Liverpool, 1995) The Liber Vitae of the New Minster and Hyde Abbey Winchester, ed. S. Keynes (Early English MSS in Facsimile, xxvi: Copenhagen, 1996); ed. W. de G. Birch (Hampshire Record Soc., 1892) Liebermann, F., Die Gesetze der Angelsachsen (3 vols.: Halle, 1903±16) ÐÐ Ungedruckte anglo-normannische Geschichtsquellen (Strassburg, 1879) The Life of Gundulf Bishop of Rochester, ed. R. M. Thomson (Toronto, 1977) The Life of St Werburge of Chester by Henry Bradshaw, ed. C. Horstmann (EETS, orig. ser. lxxxviii: London, 1887) Love, R. C. (ed. and trans.), Three Eleventh-Century Anglo-Latin Saints' Lives (OMT, 1996) Al-Makkari, The History of the Muhammedan Dynasties in Spain, trans. Pascual de Gayangos (2 vols.: London, 1840±3) Mansi, J. D., Sacrorum Conciliorum Nova et Amplissima Collectio (31 vols.: Florence etc., 1759±98) Marbod of Rennes, Carmina (PL clxxi. 1647±86) Marianus Scotus, Chronicon ex chronicis (part edn. MGH SS, v. 481±564, PL cxlvii. 623±796) Matthew Paris, Chronica majora, ed. H. R. Luard (7 vols.: RS, 1872±84) ÐÐ Historia Anglorum, ed. F. Madden (3 vols.: RS, 1866±9) ÐÐ Vitae duorum Offarum, ed. W. Wats, Matthaei Parisiensis Historia maior . . . (London, 1639), pp. 1±21 Memorials of St. Dunstan, ed. W. Stubbs (RS, 1874) Memorials of St Edmund's Abbey, ed. T. Arnold (3 vols.: RS, 1890±6) Michael the Syrian, Chronicle (RHC Documents ArmeÂniens, i: Paris, 1869), pp. 309±409 The Missal of Robert of JumieÁges, ed. H. A. Wilson (Henry Bradshaw Soc., xi: London, 1896) Mombritius, B., Sanctuarium, new edn. by the monks of Solesmes (2 vols.: Paris, 1910) Norges Gamle Love indtil 1387 (5 vols.: Oslo, 1846±95): i±iii (1846±9) ed. J. R. Keyser and P. A. Munch; iv (1885) ed. G. Storm; v (1895) ed. G. Storm and E. Hertzberg Notkeri poetae balbuli liber ymnorum latine et theotisce editio minor, ed. W. von den Steinen (Munich, 1960)

/3thomson/bib.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:32 ± disk/mp

BIBLIOGRAPHY

421

Odo of Cluny, Life of Gerald of Aurillac (PL cxxxiii. 639±704) (Ps.) ÐÐ De reversione beati Martini a Burgundia (PL cxxxiii. 815±38) Odo (Atto) of Ostia, Translatio S. Mildburgae, ed. A. J. M. Edwards, M.A. thesis (London, 1960), trans. id., `An early twelfth-century account of the translation of St Milburga of Much Wenlock', Transactions of the Shropshire Archaeological Society, lvii (1961±4), 134±51 The Old English Orosius, ed. J. Bately (EETS, suppl. ser. vi: London, 1980) Orderic Vitalis, Ecclesiastical History, ed. and trans. M. Chibnall (6 vols.: OMT, 1968±1980) Ordines Coronationis Imperialis, ed. R. Elze (MGH Fontes, ix, 1960) Orkneyinga Saga, trans. A. B. Taylor (Edinburgh and London, 1938) Osbern of Canterbury, Historia de translatione corporis S. Elphegi, ed. Rumble, The Reign of Cnut, pp. 294±315 ÐÐ Vita Dunstani (Memorials, pp. 69±161) ÐÐ Vita S. Elphegi (Anglia Sacra, ii. 122±42) ÐÐ De vocum consonantiis ac de re musica, ed. J. Smits van Waesberghe (Divitiae Musicae Artis, A ser. Xa: Amsterdam, 1979) Osbert of Clare, Vita S. Edburgae, ed. Ridyard, Royal Saints, pp. 259±308 Paschasius, De corpore et sanguine Domini (PL cxx. 1263±1366) Passio S. Edwardi regis et martyris, ed. C. Fell, Edward King and Martyr (Leeds Texts and Monographs, new ser. iii: Leeds, 1971) Passio et translatio Ethelredi et Ethelberti, ed. Rollason, Mildrith Legend, pp. 90±104 Paul the Deacon, Historia Langobardorum (PL xcv. 433±672) ÐÐ Historia Romana (PL xcv. 743±1144) ÐÐ Vita Gregorii (PL lxxv. 41±59) Paulinus, Vita S. Ambrosii (PL xiv. 27±46) Peter Lombard, Sententiae, ed. I. Brady (2 vols. in 3: Grottaferrata, 1971, 1981) The Pipe Roll of 31 Hen. I Michaelmas 1130 (London, 1929) Poetae Latini Minores, ed. A. Baehrens (6 vols.: Leipzig, 1879±86) Ralph of Caen, Gesta Tancredi (RHC Occ. iii. 603±716) Ralph of Diss, Opera, ed. W. Stubbs (2 vols.: RS, 1876) Ralph Glaber, Chronicle, ed. and trans. J. France (OMT, 1989) Ranulf Higden, Polychronicon, ed. C. Babington and J. R. Lumby (9 vols.: RS, 1865±86) Raymond of Aguilers: Le ``Liber'' de Raymond d'Aguilers, ed. J. H. and L. L. Hill (Paris, 1969) Recueil des actes de Louis VI, roi de France (1108±1137), ed. R.-H. Bautier and J. Dufour (4 vols.: Paris, 1992±4) Recueil des historiens des croisades; Historiens occidentaux (5 vols.: Paris, 1844±95) Red Book of the Exchequer, ed. H. Hall (3 vols.: RS, 1896) Red Book of Worcester, ed. M. Hollings (Worcester Historical Society, 4 pts., 1934±50)

/3thomson/bib.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:32 ± disk/mp

422

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Reginald of Durham, Vita S. Oswaldi (Simeon of Durham i. 326±85) Registrum Malmesburiense, ed. J. S. Brewer (2 vols.: RS, 1879±80) Richer, Historia Francorum, ed. and trans. R. Latouche (2 vols.: Paris, 1930±37) Robert of Reims/the Monk, Historia Iherosolimitana (RHC Occ. iii. 721±882) Roger of Wendover, Flores historiarum, ed. H. O. Coxe (5 vols.: English Historical Society, 1841±4) Saewulf, Peregrinatio (CCSL cont. med. cxxix. 59±77) Saxo Grammaticus: Saxonis Gesta Danorum, ed. J. Olrik and H. Raeder (2 vols.: Copenhagen, 1931±57) Serlo of Bayeux, De capta Baiocensium ciuitate, in The Anglo-Latin Satirical Poets and Epigrammatists, ii. 241±51 È berg (ed.), Serlon de Wilton: PoeÁmes latins (Stockholm, Serlo of Wilton: J. O 1965) Sigebert of Gembloux, Chronica (PL clx. 57±240) ÐÐ Vita Deoderici episcopi Mettensis (MGH SS, iv, 1841, pp. 463±83) Simeon of Durham: Symeonis Monachi Opera Omnia, ed. T. Arnold (2 vols.: RS, 1882, 1885) Snorri Sturlasson, Heimskringla, ed. B. S. KristjaÂnsdoÂttir, B. HalldoÂrsson, J. Torfason, and O. Thorsson (3 vols.: Reykjavik, 1991) Stephen of Ripon (`Eddius Stephanus'), Vita Wilfridi, ed. and trans. B. Colgrave (Cambridge, 1927) Suger of Saint-Denis, Vie de Louis VI le Gros, ed. and trans. H. Waquet (Paris, 1929); trans. R. C. Cusimano and J. Moorhead, The Deeds of Louis the Fat (Washington, 1992) Sulcard, De prima constructione ecclesiae Westmonasterii, ed. B. W. Scholz, Traditio, xx (1964), 59±91 (text pp. 80±91) Sweet, H., The Oldest English Texts (EETS, orig. ser. lxxxiii: London, 1885) Textus Roffensis, ed. P. H. Sawyer (Early English Manuscripts in Facsimile, vii, xi: Copenhagen, 1957, 1962) Theoderic the Monk, Historia de antiquitate regum Norwagiensium, ed. G. Storm, Monumenta Historica Norvegiae: Latinske Kildeskrifter til Norges Historie i Middelalderen (Oslo, 1880), pp. 1±68 Theophanes, Chronographia, ed. C. de Boor (2 vols.: Leipzig, 1883, 1885) Thietmar of Merseburg: Thietmari Merseburgensis Episcopi Chronicon, ed. R. Holtzmann (MGH srg, new ser. ii, 1935) Thomas of Marlborough, Vita Wistani, ed. W. D. Macray, Chronicon abbatiae de Evesham (RS, 1863), pp. 325±37 Tractatus de investitura episcoporum, ed. E. Bernheim (MGH Lib. de Lite, ii, 1892, pp. 498±504) Turgot of Durham, Vita S. Margaretae, ed. J. H. Hinde, Symeonis Dunelmensis Opera et Collectanea, i (Surtees Soc., li, 1868), pp. 234±54 Vita ádwardi regis, ed. and trans. F. Barlow (2nd edn., OMT, 1992) Vita SS. áthelredi et áthelberti martirum et SS. virginum Miltrudis et

/3thomson/bib.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:32 ± disk/mp

BIBLIOGRAPHY

423

Edburgis, ed. M. L. Colker, `A hagiographic polemic', Mediaeval Studies, xxxix (1977), 60±108 (text pp. 97±108) Vita prima Grimbaldi, ed. J. B. L. Tolhurst, The Monastic Breviary of Hyde Abbey, Winchester, iv (Henry Bradshaw Soc., lxxviii: London, 1939), fos. 288±90v Vita sancti Petri prioris Iuliacensis puellarum monasterii et monachi Molismensis (PL clxxxv. 1257±70) Vita S. Swithuni: ed. J. Earle, Legends of Saint Swithhun and Sancta Maria Aegyptiaca (London, 1861), pp. 67±74, E. P. Sauvage, Anal. Boll., vii (1888), 374±80 Wace: Le Roman de Brut de Wace, ed. I. Arnold (2 vols., SocieÂte des anciens textes francËais: Paris, 1938±40) ÐÐ Roman de Rou, ed. A. Holden (3 vols. in 2: Paris, 1970±3) Waddell, C. (ed.), The Twelfth-Century Cistercian Hymnal (2 vols.: Gethsemani Abbey, Kent, Oh., 1984) Walter Map, De nugis curialium, ed. and trans. M. R. James, C. N. L. Brooke, and R. A. B. Mynors (OMT, 1983) Waltham Chronicle, ed. and trans. L. Watkiss and M. Chibnall (OMT, 1994) Wandalbert, Miracula Sancti Goaris (AA SS, Iul. ii. 337±46) Widukind of Corvey: Widukindi Corbeiensis rerum gestarum Saxonicarum libri III, 5th edn., by H. E. Lohmann and P. Hirsch (MGH srg, lx, 1935) William of Poitiers, Gesta Guillelmi ducis Normannorum et regis Anglorum, ed. and trans. R. H. C. Davis and M. Chibnall (OMT, 1998) William of Tyre, Chronicon, ed. R. B. C. Huygens (CCSL cont. med. lxiii± lxiiiA, 1986) Wipo, Gesta Chuonradi imperatoris, 3rd edn., by H. Bresslau (MGH srg, lxi, 1915) Wright, T., Early Travels in Palestine (London, 1848) Wulfstan Cantor (of Winchester), Vita S. áthelwoldi, ed. and trans. M. Lapidge and M. Winterbottom (OMT, 1991) ÐÐ Narratio de sancto Swithuno, ed. A. Campbell, Frithegodi monachi Breviloquium Vitae Beati Wilfredi et Wulfstani Cantoris Narratio Metrica de Sancto Swithuno (ZuÈrich, 1950), pp. 65±177

B. Secondary Works Aird, W. M., `An absent friend: the career of Bishop William of St Calais', in Rollason, Harvey, and Prestwich, Anglo-Norman Durham 1093±1193, pp. 283±97 Alcock, L., Arthur's Britain (2nd edn., Harmondsworth, 1989) Amory, F., `The Viking Hasting in Franco-Scandinavian legend', in Saints, Scholars and Heroes: Studies in Medieval Culture in Honour of Charles

/3thomson/bib.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:32 ± disk/mp

424

BIBLIOGRAPHY

W. Jones, ed. M. H. King and W. Stevens (2 vols.: Minneapolis, 1979), ii. 265±86 Anderson, A. O., Early Sources of Scottish History, AD 500±1286 (2 vols.: Edinburgh, 1922) ÐÐ Scottish Annals from English Chroniclers A.D. 500 to 1286 (London, 1908) Andressohn, J. C., The Ancestry and Life of Godfrey of Bouillon (Indiana University Publications in Social Science, v: Bloomington, 1947) Andrieu, M., Le Ponti®cal romain au moyen-aÃge, ii. Le Ponti®cal de la Curie romaine au xiiie sieÁcle (Studi e Testi, lxxxviii: Rome, 1940) ÐÐ `La rota porphyretica de la basilique vaticane', MeÂlanges d'archeÂologie et d'histoire, lxvi (1954), 189±218 Anglo-Norman Dictionary, ed. W. Rothwell et al. (Publications of the Modern Humanities Research Association, viii: London, 1992) Apel, W., `The early history of the organ', Speculum, xxiii (1948), 191±216 Arnold, T. W., The Preaching of Islam: A History of the Propagation of the Muslim Faith (2nd edn., London, 1913) Ashdown, M., `The single combat in certain cycles of English and Scandinavian tradition and romance', Modern Language Review, xvii (1922), 113±30 Ashe, G., A Guidebook to Arthurian Britain (Wellingborough, 1983) Atkins, I., and N. R. Ker, Catalogus Librorum Manuscriptorum Bibliothecae Wigorniensis (Cambridge, 1944) The Atlas of the Crusades, ed. J. Riley-Smith (London, 1991) Auberger, J.-B., L'unanimite cistercienne primitive: mythe ou reÂaliteÂ? (Achel, 1986) Bachrach, B., Fulk Nerra (Princeton, 1993) ÐÐ `The pilgrimages of Fulk Nerra, count of the Angevins 987±1040', in Religion, Culture and Society in the Early Middle Ages (Studies in Medieval Culture, xxiii: Kalamazoo, Mich., 1987), pp. 205±17 ÐÐ `The practical use of Vegetius's De re militari during the Middle Ages', The Historian, xlvii (1985), 239±55 ÐÐ `The tomb of Fulk Nerra, count of the Angevins (987±1040)', Cithara, xxix (1989), 3±29 Bailey, R. N., `St Oswald's heads', in Stancliffe and Cambridge, Oswald; Northumbrian King to European Saint, pp. 195±209 ÐÐ Viking Age Sculpture in Northern England (London, 1980) Baker, D., ` ``A nursery of saints'': St Margaret of Scotland reconsidered', in Medieval Women, ed. D. Baker (Studies in Church History, Subsidia i: Oxford, 1978), pp. 119±41 Bale, J., Illustrium maioris Britanniae Scriptorum . . . Summarium (Wesel, 1548) ÐÐ Scriptorum illustrium maioris Brytanniae . . . Catalogus (2 vols.: Basel, 1557, 1559)

/3thomson/bib.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:32 ± disk/mp

BIBLIOGRAPHY

425

Baring, F. H., `The making of the New Forest', EHR xvi (1901), 427±38 Barlow, F., Edward the Confessor (2nd edn., London, 1979) ÐÐ `Edward the Confessor's early life, character and attitudes', in his The Norman Conquest and Beyond (London, 1983), pp. 57±83 ÐÐ `The King's Evil', in his Norman Conquest and Beyond, pp. 23±47 ÐÐ `Morbus regius: the royal disease', in Medieval Studies in honour of Avrom Saltman, ed. B.-S. Albert, Y. Friedman, and S. Schwarzfuchs (Bar-Ilan Studies in History, iv: Jerusalem, 1995), pp. 53±66 ÐÐ `Two notes: Cnut's second pilgrimage and Queen Emma's disgrace in 1043', in his Norman Conquest and Beyond, pp. 50±6 ÐÐ `A view of Archbishop Lanfranc', in his Norman Conquest and Beyond, pp. 223±38 ÐÐ `The Vita ádwardi (Book II); the Seven Sleepers; some further evidence and re¯ections', in his Norman Conquest and Beyond, pp. 85±111 ÐÐ William Rufus (London, 1983) Baron, S., A Social and Religious History of the Jews (2nd edn., 17 vols.: New York, 1952) Barrow, G. W. S., `David I of Scotland: the balance of new and old', in his Scotland and its Neighbours in the Middle Ages (London, 1992), pp. 45±65 Barrow, J., `The community of Worcester, 961±c.1100', in Brooks and Cubitt, St Oswald of Worcester, pp. 84±99 Bartlett, R., The Making of Europe: Conquest, Colonization and Cultural Change, 950±1350 (London, 1993) Bartrum, P. C., Early Welsh Genealogical Tracts (Cardiff, 1966) Bassett, S. R., `Lincoln and the Anglo-Saxon see of Lindsey', ASE xviii (1989), 1±32 ÐÐ `A probable Mercian royal mausoleum at Winchcombe, Gloucestershire', Antiquaries Journal, lxv (1985), 82±100 Bately, J., `Lexical evidence for the authorship of the prose psalms in the Paris Psalter', ASE x (1982), 69±95 ÐÐ `Old English prose before and during the reign of Alfred', ASE xvii (1988), 93±138 Bates, D. R., `The character and career of Odo, bishop of Bayeux', Speculum, l (1975), 1±20 ÐÐ Normandy before 1066 (London, 1982) ÐÐ `Notes sur l'aristocratie normande', Annales de Normandie, xxiii (1973), 7±38 ÐÐ William the Conqueror (London, 1989) Baumel, J., Histoire d'une seigneurie du midi de la France (2 vols.: Montpellier, 1969±71) Bean, G. E., Aegean Turkey (2nd edn., London, 1979) Becker, A., Papst Urban II. (1088±1099) (2 vols.: MGH Schriften, xix (1±2), 1964±88)

/3thomson/bib.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:32 ± disk/mp

426

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Becquet, J., `Les chanoines reÂguliers en Limousin aux xie et xiie sieÁcles', Analecta Praemonstratensia, xxxvi (1960), 193±235 Beddard, F., Mammalia (The Cambridge Natural History, x: Cambridge, 1902) Beech, G. T., `Biography and the study of eleventh-century society: Bishop Peter II of Poitiers, 1087±1115', Francia, vii (1979), 101±21 ÐÐ `Contemporary views of William the Troubadour, IXth Duke of Aquitaine (1086±1126)', in Medieval Lives and the Historian: Studies in Medieval Prosopography, ed. N. Bulst and J.-P. Genet (Kalamazoo, Mich., 1986), pp. 73±89 ÐÐ `The ventures of the dukes of Aquitaine into Spain and the Crusader East in the early twelfth century', Haskins Society Journal, v (1993), 61±75 Bennett, M., `First Crusaders' images of Muslims: the in¯uence of vernacular poetry?', Forum for Modern Language Studies, xxii (1986), 101±22 Bennett, M. J., `Spiritual kinship and the baptismal name in traditional European society', in Principalities, Powers, and Estates: Studies in Medieval and Early Modern Government and Society, ed. L. O. Frappell (Adelaide, 1979), pp. 1±13 Benson, R. L., and G. Constable (eds.), Renaissance and Renewal in the Twelfth Century (Oxford etc., 1982) Bentor, Y. K., `Salt deposits of the Dead Sea region', The Geological Society of America, special paper lxxxviii (1968), 139±56 Benzinger, J., Invectiva in Romam; Romkritik im Mittelalter vom 9. bis 12. Jahrhundert (LuÈbeck and Hamburg, 1968) Bernardo, A., and S. Levin (eds.), The Classics in the Middle Ages (Medieval and Renaissance Texts and Studies, lxix: Binghamton, NY, 1990) Berry, N., `St Aldhelm, William of Malmesbury and the liberty of Malmesbury abbey', Reading Medieval Studies, xvi (1990), 15±38 Bezzola, R., Les origines et la formation de la litteÂrature courtoise en Occident (500±1200) (5 vols.: Paris, 1944±63) Bibliotheca Hagiographica Latina, ed. Bollandists (2 vols.: Brussels, 1898± 1901; Novum Supplementum, ed. H. Fros, 1986) Biddle, M., `Excavations at Winchester 1962±1963. Second interim report', The Antiquaries Journal, xliv (1964), 188±219 ÐÐ , and B. Kjùlbye-Biddle, `Repton and the Vikings', Antiquity, lxvi (1992), 36±51 Bieler, L., The Life and Legend of St Patrick (Dublin, 1949) Bienvenu, J.-M., L'eÂtonnant fondateur de Fontevraud, Robert d'Arbrissel (Paris, 1981) Binns, A., `Pre-Reformation dedications to St Oswald in England and Scotland: a gazetteer', in Stancliffe and Cambridge, Oswald: Northumbrian King to European Saint, pp. 241±67

/3thomson/bib.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:32 ± disk/mp

BIBLIOGRAPHY

427

Bischoff, B., `Caesar, tantus eras', in Corona Quernea. Festgabe fuÈr Karl Strecker, ed. E. Stengel (Leipzig, 1941/Stuttgart, 1962), pp. 247±53 ÐÐ , and M. Lapidge, Biblical Commentaries from the Canterbury School of Theodore and Hadrian (Cambridge Studies in Anglo-Saxon England, x: Cambridge, 1994) Blackburn, M., `Coinage and currency under Henry I: a review', AngloNorman Studies, xiii (1990), 49±81 BloÈndal, S., `The last exploits of Harald Sigurdsson in Greek service', Classica et Mediaevalia, ii (1939), 1±26 ÐÐ The Varangians of Byzantium, trans. B. S. Benedikz (Cambridge, 1978) Blumenthal, U.-R., `Patrimonia and regalia in 1111', in Law, Church and Society: Essays in Honour of Stephan Kuttner, ed. K. Pennington and R. Somerville (Philadelphia, 1977), pp. 9±20 BoÈhmer, J. F., Regesta Imperii, II: SaÈchsisches Haus 919±1024, Abteilung 1: Die Regesten des Kaiserreichs unter Heinrich I. und Otto I. 919±973, ed. E. von Ottenthal (Innsbruck, 1893; repr. with addenda by H. H. Kaminsky, Hildesheim, 1967) Bolton, B., The Medieval Reformation (London, 1983) Bonner, G., C. Stancliffe, and D. W. Rollason (eds.), St Cuthbert, his Cult and his Community to AD 1200 (Woodbridge, 1989) de la Borderie, A. le Moyne, continued by B. Pocquet, Histoire de Bretagne (6 vols.: Rennes, 1896±1914) Bosworth, J., and T. N. Toller, An Anglo-Saxon Dictionary (Oxford, 1898), suppl. T. N. Toller and A. Campbell (Oxford, 1972) de Bouard, M., `Notes et hypotheÁses sur Maurille moine de FeÂcamp et son eÂlection au sieÁge meÂtropolitain de Rouen', L'Abbaye beÂneÂdictine de FeÂcamp (4 vols.: FeÂcamp, 1959±65), i. 81±92 Boussard, J., `La seigneurie de BelleÃme aux Xe et XIe sieÁcles', MeÂlanges de l'histoire du moyen aÃge deÂdieÂs aÁ la meÂmoire de Louis Halphen (Paris, 1951), pp. 43±54 Boutemy, A., `Notes additionelles aÁ la notice de Ch. Fierville sur le manuscrit 115 de Saint-Omer', ReÂvue Belge de philologie et d'histoire, xxii (1943), 5±33 Bradbury, J., `Battles in England and Normandy, 1066±1154', Anglo-Norman Studies, vi (1983), 1±12 Brett, M., The English Church under Henry I (Oxford, 1975) ÐÐ `John of Worcester and his contemporaries', in Davis and WallaceHadrill, The Writing of History in the Middle Ages, pp. 101±26 Bromwich, R., `The character of the early Welsh tradition', in H. M. Chadwick et al., Studies in Early British History, pp. 83±136 Brooke, C. N. L., `Geoffrey of Monmouth as a historian', in Church and Government in the Middle Ages; Essays presented to C. R. Cheney, ed. C. N. L. Brooke et al. (Cambridge, 1976), pp. 77±91

/3thomson/bib.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:32 ± disk/mp

428

BIBLIOGRAPHY

ÐÐ The Medieval Idea of Marriage (Oxford, 1989) ÐÐ `Princes and kings as patrons of monasteries', in Il monachesimo e la riforma ecclesiastica (1049±1122) (Miscellanea del Centro di Studi Medioevali, vi: Milan, 1971), pp. 125±52 ÐÐ The Saxon and Norman Kings (London, 1963) Brooke, Z. N., `Lay investiture and its relation to the con¯ict of empire and papacy', Proceedings of the British Academy, xxv (1939), 217±47 Brookes, F. W., The Battle of Stamford Bridge (East Yorks. Local History Ser. vi, 1956) Brooks, N. P., `The career of St Dunstan', in St Dunstan: his Life, Times and Cult, ed. N. Ramsay, M. Sparks, and T. Tatton-Brown (Woodbridge, 1992), pp. 1±23 ÐÐ `The creation and early structure of the kingdom of Kent', in The Origins of Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms, ed. S. R. Bassett (Leicester, 1989), pp. 55±74, 250±4 ÐÐ The Early History of the Church of Canterbury: Christ Church from 597 to 1066 (Leicester, 1984) ÐÐ and C. Cubitt (eds.), St Oswald of Worcester: Life and In¯uence (Leicester, 1996) ÐÐ and H. E. Walker, `The authority and interpretation of the Bayeux Tapestry', Anglo-Norman Studies, i (1978), 1±34 Brown, R. Allen, `The battle of Hastings', Anglo-Norman Studies, iii (1980), 1±21 ÐÐ , H. M. Colvin, and A. J. Taylor, The History of the King's Works, i. The Middle Ages (London, 1963) BruÈhl, Carlrichard, Deutschland-Frankreich: die Geburt zweier VoÈlker (Cologne, 1995) Brundage, J. A., `An errant crusader: Stephen of Blois', Traditio, xvi (1960), 380±95 Bull, M., Knightly Piety and the Lay Response to the First Crusade (Oxford, 1993) Bullough, D. A., `Urban change in early medieval Italy: the example of Pavia', Papers of the British School at Rome, xxxiv (1966), 82±130 Bur, M., La formation du comte de Champagne (Nancy, 1977) Burnett, C. S. (ed.), Adelard of Bath (Warburg Institute Surveys and Texts, xiv: London, 1987) ÐÐ `Mathematics and astronomy in Hereford and its region in the twelfth century', in Medieval Art, Architecture and Archaeology at Hereford, ed. D. Whitehead (The British Archaeological Association Conference Transactions, xv: Oxford, 1995), pp. 50±9 Butler, A. J., Babylon of Egypt (Oxford, 1914), repr. as a supplement in id., The Arab Conquest of Egypt, 2nd edn. by P. M. Fraser (Oxford, 1978) Cahen, C., La Syrie du Nord aÁ l'eÂpoque des Croisades (Paris, 1940)

/3thomson/bib.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:32 ± disk/mp

BIBLIOGRAPHY

429

Callahan, T., `The making of a monster: the historical image of William Rufus', Journal of Medieval History, vii (1981), 175±85 Campbell, J. (ed.), The Anglo-Saxons (London, 1982) ÐÐ `England, France, Flanders and Germany: some comparisons and connections', in his Essays in Anglo-Saxon History (London and Ronceverte, 1986), pp. 191±207 ÐÐ `Some twelfth-century views of the Anglo-Saxon past', in his Essays in Anglo-Saxon History, pp. 209±28 Campbell, M. W., `Queen Emma and álfgifu of Northampton: Canute the Great's women', Mediaeval Scandinavia, iv (1971), 66±79 Cantor, N., Church, Kingship and Lay Investiture in England 1089±1135 (Princeton, 1958) Capitani, O., `Per la storia dei rapporti tra Gregorio VII e Berengario di Tours', Studi Gregoriani, vi (1959±61), 99±145 ÐÐ `Studi per Berengario di Tours', Bulletino dell'Istituto Storico Italiano per il Medio Evo, lxix (1957), 67±173 Cappuyns, M., Jean Scot EÂrigeÁne (Louvain and Paris, 1933) Carey, J., The Irish National Origin-Legend: Synthetic Pseudohistory (Cambridge, 1994) Carter, P. N., `The historical content of William of Malmesbury's Miracles of the Virgin Mary', in Davis and Wallace-Hadrill, The Writing of History in the Middle Ages, pp. 127±65 Cary, G., and D. J. A. Ross, The Medieval Alexander (Cambridge, 1956) Cate, J., `A gay Crusader', Byzantion, xvi (1942±3), 503±26 Chadwick, H. M., The Origin of the English Nation (Cambridge, 1907) ÐÐ et al. (eds.), Studies in Early British History (Cambridge, 1954) ÐÐ and N. K. Chadwick, `Vortigern', in Studies in Early British History, pp. 21±46 Chadwick, N. K., The Beginnings of Russian History (Cambridge, 1946) Chaplais, P., Diplomatic Documents preserved in the Public Record Of®ce: I (1101±1272) (London, 1964) Chaume, M., Les origines du duche de Bourgogne (Dijon, 1925) Chibnall, M., `Anglo-French relations in the work of Orderic Vitalis', in Documenting the Past: Essays in Medieval History presented to G. P. Cuttino, ed. J. S. Hamilton and P. J. Bradley (Woodbridge, 1989), pp. 5±19 ÐÐ Anglo-Norman England 1066±1166 (Oxford, 1986) ÐÐ The Empress Matilda (Oxford, 1991) ÐÐ `La carrieÁre de Geoffroi de Montbray', in Les eÂveÃques normandes du XIe sieÁcle, ed. P. Bouet and F. Neveux (Caen, 1995), pp. 279±93 ÐÐ `Mercenaries and the familia regis under Henry I', History, lxii (1977), 15±23 ÐÐ The World of Orderic Vitalis (Oxford, 1984)

/3thomson/bib.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:32 ± disk/mp

430

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Chodorow, S., `Ecclesiastical politics and the ending of the investiture contest', Speculum, xlvi (1971), 613±40 Ciggaar, K., `Une description de Constantinople traduite par un peÁlerin anglais', Revue des eÂtudes byzantines, xxxiv (1976), 211±67 ÐÐ `L'eÂmigration anglaise aÁ Byzance apreÁs 1066', ibid., xxxii (1974), 301± 42 ÐÐ `England and Byzantium on the eve of the Norman Conquest (The reign of Edward the Confessor)', Anglo-Norman Studies, v (1982), 78±96 Clanchy, M., From Memory to Written Record (2nd edn., Oxford, 1993) Clapham, A. W., English Romanesque Architecture, i: Before the Conquest (Oxford, 1930) ÐÐ `The form of the early choir of Tewkesbury and its signi®cance', Archaeological Journal, cvi, Supplement (1949, publ. 1952), 10±15 Clarke, H., and B. Ambrosiani, Towns in the Viking Age (Leicester, 2nd edn., 1995) Claude, H., `GeÂrard d'AngouleÃme, ses pouvoirs de leÂgat en Aquitaine au nom des papes Pascal II, Calixte II et Honorius II', MeÂmoires de la socieÂte archeÂologique et historique de la Charente (1968), 171±82 Colman, R. V., `The abduction of women in barbaric law', Florilegium, v (1983), 62±75 Complete Peerage of England, Scotland, Ireland, Great Britain and the United Kingdom, new edn. by V. Gibbs, H. A. Doubleday, D. Warrand, H. de Walden, and G. H. White (13 vols. in 14: London, 1910±59) Conner, P., Anglo-Saxon Exeter (Woodbridge, 1993) Constable, G., `Manuscripts of works by Peter the Venerable', in Petrus Venerabilis, ed. G. Constable and J. Kritzeck (Studia Anselmiana, fasc. xl: Rome, 1956), pp. 219±42 ÐÐ The Reform of the Twelfth Century (Cambridge, 1996) ÐÐ `Renewal and reform in religious life: concepts and realities', in Benson and Constable, Renaissance and Renewal in the Twelfth Century, pp. 37±67 Conway, W. M., `The abbey of Saint-Denis and its ancient treasures', Archaeologia, lxvi (1915), 103±58 Conybeare, E., Alfred in the Chroniclers (2nd edn., Cambridge, 1914) Corbet, G. B., The Terrestrial Mammals of Western Europe (London, 1966) Corpus Antiphonalium Of®cii, ed. R.-J. Hesbert (Rerum Ecclesiasticarum Documenta, Series Maior Fontes, vii: 6 vols.: Rome, 1963±79) Corpus Orationum, ed. R.-J. Hesbert (CCSL clx) Coulstock, P. H., The Collegiate Church of Wimborne Minster (Woodbridge, 1993) Cowan, I. B., and D. E. Easson, Medieval Religious Houses: Scotland (2nd edn., London, 1976) Cowdrey, H. E. J., The Age of Abbot Desiderius (Oxford, 1983) ÐÐ `Peter, monk of Molesme and prior of Jully', in Cross Cultural

/3thomson/bib.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:32 ± disk/mp

BIBLIOGRAPHY

431

Convergences in the Crusader Period: Essays presented to Aryeh Grabois on his Sixty-Fifth Birthday, ed. M. Goodich, S. Menache, and S. Schein (New York, 1995), pp. 59±73 ÐÐ ` ``Quidam frater Stephanus nomine, Anglicus natione'': the English background of Stephen Harding', RB ci (1991), 322±40 Crocker, R., The Early Medieval Sequence (Berkeley etc., 1977) Crouch, D., The Beaumont Twins (Cambridge, 1986) Crozet, R., `Le voyage d'Urbain II en France (1095±1096) et son importance au point de vue archeÂologique', Annales du midi, xlix (1937), 42±69 ÐÐ `Le voyage d'Urbain II et ses neÂgociations avec le clerge de France (1095±1096)', Revue historique, clxxix (1937), 271±310 Cunliffe, B. W. (ed.), Excavations in Bath, 1950±1975 (Committee for Rescue Archaeology in Avon, Gloucestershire and Somerset, Excavation Report no. 1, 1979) Curle, A. O., The Treasure of Traprain (Glasgow, 1923) Dalarun, J., L'impossible sainteteÂ: la vie retrouveÂe de Robert d'Arbrissel (c.1045± 1116), fondateur de Fontevraud (Paris, 1985) Dales, R. C., The Scienti®c Achievement of the Middle Ages (Philadelphia, 1973) Darby, H. C., and E. M. J. Campbell, The Domesday Geography of SouthEast England (Cambridge, 1962) Darlington, R. R., Anglo-Norman Historians (London, 1947) ÐÐ and P. McGurk, `The Chronicon ex Chronicis of ``Florence'' of Worcester and its use of sources for English history before 1066', Anglo-Norman Studies, v (1982), 185±96 David, C. W., `The claim of Henry I to be called learned', in Anniversary Essays in Medieval History by Students of C. H. Haskins, ed. C. H. Taylor (Boston and New York, 1929), pp. 45±56 ÐÐ Robert Curthose (Cambridge, Mass., 1920) David, P., EÂtudes historiques sur la Galice et le Portugal du VIe au XIIe sieÁcle (Collection Portugaise, vii: Coimbra, 1947) Davidson, H. R. E., The Viking Road to Byzantium (London, 1976) Davies, R. R., `Kings, lords and liberties in the March of Wales, 1066±1272', TRHS, 5th ser. xxix (1979), 41±61 Davis, H. W. C., `Henry of Blois and Brian Fitz-Count', EHR xxv (1910), 297±303 Davis, R. H. C., `The Carmen de Hastingae proelio', in his From Alfred the Great to Stephen (London and Rio Grande, Oh., 1991), pp. 79±99 ÐÐ `William of JumieÁges, Robert Curthose and the Norman succession', in his From Alfred the Great to Stephen, pp. 131±40 ÐÐ and J. M. Wallace-Hadrill (eds.), The Writing of History in the Middle Ages: Essays presented to Richard William Southern (Oxford, 1981) Delaporte, Y., `Fulbert de Chartres et l'eÂcole chartraine de chant liturgique au xie sieÁcle', EÂtudes greÂgoriennes, ii (1957), 51±81

/3thomson/bib.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:32 ± disk/mp

432

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Demidoff, L., `The death of Sven ForkbeardÐin reality and later tradition', Mediaeval Scandinavia, xi (1978±9), 30±47 Demidowicz, G. (ed.), Coventry's First Cathedral: The Cathedral Priory of St Mary (Stamford, 1994) Dhondt, J., `Une crise du pouvoir capeÂtien, 1032±1034', in Miscellanea Mediaevalia in memoriam J. F. Niermeyer (Groningen, 1967), pp. 137±48 ÐÐ `Sept femmes et un trio de rois', Contributions aÁ l'histoire eÂconomique et sociale, iii (1964±5), 35±70 Dickins, B., `The late addition to ASC 1066 C', Proceedings of the Leeds Philosophical and Literary Society, v (1938±43), 148±9 Dictionary of National Biography, ed. G. Smith, L. Stephen, and S. Lee (Oxford, 1917± ) Dodwell, B., `The foundation of Norwich Cathedral', TRHS, 5th ser. vii (1957), 1±18 Dodwell, C. R., Anglo-Saxon Art: A New Perspective (Manchester, 1982) DoÈlger, F., and J. Karayannopulos, Byzantinische Urkundenlehre: Erster Abschnitt. Die Kaiserurkunden (Munich, 1968) Douglas, D. C., `The ancestors of William Fitz Osbern', EHR lix (1944), 62± 79 ÐÐ The Domesday Monachorum of Christ Church, Canterbury (London, 1944) ÐÐ `The ``Song of Roland'' and the Norman Conquest of England', French Studies, xiv (1960), 99±116 ÐÐ William the Conqueror (London, 1964) Duby, G., The Knight, the Lady and the Priest (Harmondsworth, 1985) ÐÐ Medieval Marriage: Two Models from Twelfth-Century France (Baltimore and London, 1978) Ducellier, A., La facËade maritime de l'Albanie au moyen aÃge: Durazzo et Valona du xie au xve sieÁcle (Institute for Balkan Studies, clxxvii: Thessaloniki, 1981) È ber den furor Teutonicus', Sitzungsberichte der koÈniglichDuÈmmler, E., `U preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, Phil.-hist. Klasse (1897), 112±27 Dumville, D., `The Anglian collection of royal genealogies and regnal lists', ASE v (1976), 23±50 ÐÐ `Between Alfred the Great and Edgar the Peaceable: áthelstan, ®rst king of England', in his Wessex and England from Alfred to Edgar (Woodbridge, 1992), pp. 141±71 ÐÐ `The West Saxon genealogical regnal list: manuscripts and texts', Anglia, civ (1986), 1±32 ÐÐ and M. Lapidge, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, xvii (Woodbridge, 1985) Dunbabin, J., France in the Making 843±1180 (Oxford, 1985) ÐÐ `The Maccabees as exemplars in the tenth and eleventh centuries', in

/3thomson/bib.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:32 ± disk/mp

BIBLIOGRAPHY

433

The Bible in the Medieval World: Essays in Memory of Beryl Smalley, ed. K. Walsh and D. Wood (Studies in Church History, Subsidia iv: Oxford, 1985), pp. 31±41 Duncan, A. A. M., Scotland: the Making of the Kingdom (Edinburgh, 1975) Edwards, H., The Charters of the Early West Saxon Kingdom (British Archaeological Reports, British Series, cxcviii: Oxford, 1988) ÐÐ `Two documents from Aldhelm's Malmesbury', Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research, lix (1986), 1±19 Edwards, J. G., `The Normans and the Welsh March', Proceedings of the British Academy, xlii (1956), 155±77 Ekwall, E., The Concise Oxford Dictionary of English Place-Names (4th edn., Oxford, 1960) Enright, M. J., `Charles the Bald and áthelwulf of Wessex: the alliance of 856 and strategies of royal succession', Journal of Medieval History, v (1979), 291±302 Erdmann, C., Forschungen zur politischen Ideenwelt des FruÈhmittelalters (Berlin, 1951) ÐÐ `Mauritius Burdinus (Gregor VIII.)', Quellen und Forschungen aus italienischen Archiven und Bibliotheken, xix (1927), 205±61 Erlande-Brandenburg, A., Le Roi est mort. EÂtudes sur les funeÂrailles, les seÂpultures et les tombeaux des rois de France jusqu'aÁ la ®n du xiiie sieÁcle (BibliotheÁque de la SocieÂte francËaise d'archeÂologie, vii: Geneva, 1975) Farmer, D. H., `William of Malmesbury's commentary on Lamentations', Studia Monastica, iv (1962), 283±311 ÐÐ `William of Malmesbury's life and works', Journal of Ecclesiastical History, xiii (1962), 39±54 Farrer, W., An Outline Itinerary of King Henry the First (Oxford, 1919) Fell, C., Women in Anglo-Saxon England (Oxford, 1984) Fisher, D. J. V., `The anti-monastic reaction in the reign of Edward the Martyr', Cambridge Historical Journal, x (1950±2), 254±70 Fleming, R., `Domesday estates of the king and the Godwines: a study in late Saxon politics', Speculum, lviii (1983), 987±1007 Fliche, A., La reÁgne de Philippe Ier, roi de France (Paris, 1912) Flint, V., `World history in the early twelfth century; the ``Imago mundi'' of Honorius Augustodunensis', in Davis and Wallace-Hadrill, The Writing of History in the Middle Ages, pp. 211±38 J. Flori, L'essor de la chevalerie, xie-xiie sieÁcles (Geneva, 1986) Flower, R. E. W., The Irish Tradition (Oxford, 1947) Folz, R., `Saint Oswald, roi de Northumbrie; eÂtude d'hagiographie royale', Anal. Boll. xcviii (1980), 49±74 Foot, S., `The making of Angelcynn: English identity before the Norman Conquest', TRHS, 6th ser. vi (1996), 25±49 ÐÐ `Glastonbury's early abbots', in The Archaeology and History of

/3thomson/bib.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:32 ± disk/mp

434

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Glastonbury Abbey, ed. L. Abrams and J. Carley (Woodbridge, 1991), pp. 163±89 Fournier, G., Le chaÃteau dans la France meÂdieÂvale; essai de sociologie monumentale (Paris, 1978) France, J., Victory in the East: A Military History of the First Crusade (Cambridge, 1994) Franklin, M. J., `The bishops of Coventry and Lich®eld, c.1072±1208', in Demidowicz, Coventry's First Cathedral, pp. 118±38 Frantzen, A. J., King Alfred (Twayne's English Authors Series, ccccxxv: Boston, 1986) Freeman, E. A., The History of the Norman Conquest of England, 5 vols. and index (Oxford: i±ii, 3rd edn., 1877; iii±iv, 2nd edn., 1875±6; v, 1876; index volume, 1879) ÐÐ The Reign of William Rufus and the Accession of Henry I (2 vols.: Oxford, 1882) Gallia Christiana (16 vols.: Paris, 1715±1865) Galbraith, V. H., `The literacy of the English medieval kings', Proceedings of the British Academy, xxi (1935), 201±38 Ganshof, F.-L., R. van Caenegem, and A. Verhulst, `Note sur le premier traite Anglo-Flamand de Douvres', Revue du Nord, xl (1958), 245±57 Ganz, P. F., R. B. C. Huygens and F. NiewoÈhner (eds.), Auctoritas und Ratio: Studien zu Berengar von Tours (Wiesbaden, 1990) Gautier DalcheÂ, P., La ``Descriptio Mappe Mundi'' de Hugues de Saint-Victor (Paris, 1988) Gem, R. D. H., `The English parish church in the eleventh and early twelfth centuries: a great rebuilding?', in Minsters and Parish Churches, ed. J. Blair (University Committee for Archaeology, Monograph xvii: Oxford, 1988), pp. 21±30 ÐÐ `The romanesque rebuilding of Westminster Abbey', Anglo-Norman Studies, iii (1980), 33±60 Georgi, W., `Bischof Koenwald von Worcester und die Heirat Ottos I. mit Edgitha im Jahre 929', Historisches Jahrbuch, cxv (1995), 1±40 Gibbon, E., The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, ed. J. B. Bury (7 vols.: London, 1896±1900) Gibson, M. T., `The case of Berengar of Tours', in Councils and Assemblies, ed. G. J. Cuming and D. Baker (Studies in Church History, vii: Oxford, 1971), pp. 61±8 ÐÐ Lanfranc of Bec (Oxford, 1978) Gilbert, E., `Saint Wilfrid's church at Hexham', in Saint Wilfrid at Hexham, ed. D. P. Kirby (Newcastle, 1974), pp. 81±113 Gillespie, G. T., A Catalogue of Persons named in German Heroic Literature (700±1600), including Named Animals and Objects and Ethnic Names (Oxford 1973)

/3thomson/bib.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:32 ± disk/mp

BIBLIOGRAPHY

435

Gillingham, J., `Conquering the barbarians: war and chivalry in twelfthcentury Britain', Haskins Society Journal, iv (1992), 67±84 Gillingham, J., `The context and purposes of Geoffrey of Monmouth's History of the Kings of Britain', Anglo-Norman Studies, xiii (1990), 99±118 Gimbutas, M., The Slavs (London, 1971) Given-Wilson, C., and A. Curteis, The Royal Bastards of Medieval England (London, 1984) Glass, D., `Papal patronage in the early twelfth century: notes on the iconography of Cosmatesque pavements', Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, xxxii (1969), 386±90 Godfrey, J., `The defeated Anglo-Saxons take service with the Eastern Emperor', Anglo-Norman Studies, i (1978), 63±74 Golb, N., Les Juifs de Rouen au moyen aÃge: portrait d'une culture oublieÂe (Rouen, 1985) Golding, B., `Robert of Mortain', Anglo-Norman Studies, xiii (1990), 119±44 Gover, J. E., The Place-Names of Wiltshire (English Place-Name Society, xvi: Cambridge, 1939) Grabois, A., `The description of Jerusalem by William of Malmesbury: a mirror of the Holy Land's presence in the Anglo-Norman mind', AngloNorman Studies, xiii (1990), 145±56 Gransden, A., `Bede's reputation as an historian in medieval England', in her Legends, Traditions and History in Medieval England (London and Rio Grande, Oh., 1992), pp. 1±29 ÐÐ `The growth of the Glastonbury traditions and legends in the twelfth century', Journal of Ecclesiastical History, xxvii (1976), 337±58 ÐÐ Historical Writing in England c.550 to c.1307 (London, 1974) ÐÐ `Legends and traditions concerning the origins of the abbey of Bury St Edmunds', in her Legends, Traditions and History in Medieval England , pp. 81±104 ÐÐ `Prologues in the historiography of twelfth-century England', in England in the Twelfth Century, ed. D. Williams (Proceedings of the 1984 Harlaxton Symposium: Woodbridge, 1990), pp. 55±81 Green, D. H., The MillstaÈtter Exodus (Cambridge, 1966) Green, J. A., English Sheriffs to 1154 (London, 1990) ÐÐ The Government of England under Henry I (Cambridge, 1986) Grierson, P., `Grimbald of St Bertin's', EHR lv (1940), 529±61 Griesser, B., `Die ``Ecclesiastica Of®cia Cisterciensis Ordinis'' des Cod. 1711 von Trient', Analecta Sacri Ordinis Cisterciensis, xii (1956), 153± 288 Grif®ths, B. M., `Early references to waterbloom in British lakes', Proceedings of the Linnean Society of London, cli (1938±9), 12±19 The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, ed. S. Sadie (20 vols.: London, 1980)

/3thomson/bib.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:32 ± disk/mp

436

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Grumel, V., La Chronologie (Traite d'eÂtudes byzantines, i: Paris, 1958) Guillot, O., Le comte d'Anjou et son entourage au xie sieÁcle (2 vols.: Paris, 1972) Haahr, J. G., `William of Malmesbury's Roman models', in Bernardo and Levin, The Classics in the Middle Ages, pp. 165±73 Hagenmeyer, H., Chronologie de la premieÁre croisade (1094±1100) (Revue de l'orient latin, vi±viii (1898±1901), repr. continuously paginated, Darmstadt, 1974) Hahnloser, H. R., Villard de Honnecourt, Kritische Gesamtausgabe des BauhuÈttenbuches ms. fr. 19093 der Pariser Nationalbibliothek (2nd edn., Graz, 1972) Haight, E., Apuleius and his In¯uence (London, 1927, repr. New York, 1973) Hall, R. A., `The ®ve boroughs of the Danelaw: a review of present knowledge', ASE xviii (1989), 149±206 Hallam, E., Capetian France 987±1328 (London, 1980) Halphen, L., Le comte d'Anjou au XIe sieÁcle (Paris, 1906) Halsey, R., `Tewkesbury Abbey: some recent observations', in Heslop and Sekules, Medieval Art and Architecture at Gloucester and Tewkesbury, pp. 16±35 Handbook of British Chronology, ed. E. B. Fryde et al. (RHS Guides and Handbooks, ii: 3rd edn., London, 1986) Hanson, R. P. C., Saint Patrick; his Origins and Career (Oxford, 1968) Harbert, B., `King Alfred's ñstel', ASE iii (1974), 103±10 Hardy, T. D., Descriptive Catalogue of Materials relating to the History of Great Britain and Ireland (3 vols. in 4: RS, 1862±71) Hare, M., The Two Anglo-Saxon Minsters of Gloucester (Deerhurst, 1993) Harmer, F. E., Anglo-Saxon Writs (Manchester, 1952, repr. Stamford, 1989) Harms, W., Homo Viator in Bivio: Studien zur Bildlichkeit des Weges (Munich, 1970) Hart, C., `The site of Assandun', in his The Danelaw (London, 1992), pp. 553±65 Harvey, P. D. A., Medieval Maps (London, 1991) Haskins, C. H., `A Canterbury monk at Constantinople', EHR xxv (1910), 293±5 ÐÐ Studies in the History of Medieval Science (2nd edn., Cambridge, Mass., 1927) Hayward, P. A., `The idea of innocent martyrdom in medieval England ca. 700 to 1150 AD', Ph.D. thesis (Cambridge, 1994) Heighway, C. M., and R. Bryant, `A reconstruction of the tenth-century church of St Oswald, Gloucester', in The Anglo-Saxon Church: Papers on History and Architecture and Archaeology in Honour of H. M. Taylor, ed. L. Butler and R. Morris (Council for British Archaeology, Research Report lx: London, 1986), pp. 188±95 Heslop, T. A., and V. Sekules (eds.), Medieval Art and Architecture at

/3thomson/bib.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:32 ± disk/mp

BIBLIOGRAPHY

437

Gloucester and Tewkesbury (British Archaeological Association Conference Transactions, vii: Oxford, 1985) Hill, D., An Atlas of Anglo-Saxon England (Oxford, 1981) ÐÐ `The Burghal Hidage: the establishment of a text', Medieval Archaeology, xiii (1969), 84±92 ÐÐ (ed.), Ethelred the Unready (British Archaeological Reports, British Ser. lix: Oxford, 1978) ÐÐ and A. Rumble (eds.), The Defence of Wessex (Manchester, 1996) Hill, J. H. and L. L., Raymond IV de Saint-Gilles, 1041 ou 1042±1105 (Toulouse, 1959) Hill, T. D., `The myth of the ark-born son of Noe and the West-Saxon royal genealogical tables', Harvard Theological Review, lxxx (1987), 379±83 Hinton, D., Alfred's Kingdom: Wessex and the South 800±1500 (London, 1977) Hlawitschka, E., `Die verwandtschaftlichen Verbindungen zwischen dem hochburgundischen und dem niederburgundischen KoÈnigshaus. Zugleich ein Beitrag zur Geschichte Burgunds in der 1. HaÈlfte des 10. Jahrhunderts', Grundwissenschaften und Geschichte. Festschrift fuÈr Peter Acht, ed. W. SchloÈgl and P. Herde (KallmuÈnz, 1976), pp. 28±57 Hoffmann, H., Gottesfriede und Treuga Dei (MGH Schriften, xx, 1964) ÐÐ MoÈnchskoÈnig und ``rex idiota'': Studien zur Kirchenpolitik Heinrichs II. und Konrads II. (MGH Studien und Texte, viii, 1993) Hofmeister, A., Die heilige Lanze, ein Abzeichen des alten Reichs (Breslau, 1908) ÐÐ `Das Wormser Konkordat: Zum Streit um seine Bedeutung', in Forschungen und Versuche zur Geschichte des Mittelalters und der Neuzeit: Festschrift Dietrich SchaÈfer (Jena, 1915), pp. 64±148 Hohler, C., `Some service books of the later Saxon Church', in Tenth-Century Studies, ed. D. Parsons (London and Chichester, 1975), pp. 60±83 Hollister, C. W., `The Anglo-Norman civil war: 1101', in his Monarchy, Magnates and Institutions in the Anglo-Norman World (London and Ronceverte, 1986), pp. 77±96 ÐÐ `The campaign of 1102 against Robert of BelleÃme', in Studies in Medieval History presented to R. Allen Brown, ed. C. Harper-Bill, C. J. Holdsworth and J. L. Nelson (Woodbridge, 1989), pp. 193±202 ÐÐ The Military Organisation of Norman England (Oxford, 1965) ÐÐ `The misfortunes of the Mandevilles', in his Monarchy, Magnates and Institutions, pp. 117±27 ÐÐ `Normandy, France and the Anglo-Norman regnum', in his Monarchy, Magnates and Institutions, pp. 17±57 ÐÐ `The origins of the English treasury', in his Monarchy, Magnates and Institutions, pp. 209±22 ÐÐ `Royal acts of mutilation: the case against Henry I', in his Monarchy, Magnates and Institutions, pp. 291±301

/3thomson/bib.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:32 ± disk/mp

438

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Hollister, C. W., `The strange death of William Rufus', in his Monarchy, Magnates and Institutions, pp. 59±75 ÐÐ `War and diplomacy in the Anglo-Norman world: the reign of Henry I', in his Monarchy, Magnates and Institutions, pp. 273±89 ÐÐ `William Rufus, Henry I, and the Anglo-Norman Church', Peritia, vi± vii (1987±8), 119±40 Holt, J. C., `Politics and property in early medieval England', Past and Present, lvii (1972), 3±52 Holtzmann, W., `Zur Geschichte des Investiturstreits (Englische Analekten II.)', Neues Archiv, l (1935), 246±301 Hooper, N., `Edgar the Aetheling: Anglo-Saxon prince, rebel and crusader', ASE xiv (1985), 197±214 Howell, M. E., Regalian Right in Medieval England (London, 1962) Howlett, D., `Alfred's ñstel', English Philological Studies, xiv (1975), 65±74 Huber, P., Die Wanderlegende von des SiebenschlaÈfern (Leipzig, 1910) Hudson, B. T., `The destruction of Gruffudd ap Llywelyn', Welsh History Review, xv (1990±1), 331±50 Huek, G., `Le roman d'ApuleÂe eÂtait-il connu au moyen aÃge?', Le Moyen AÃge, xxix (1917), 44±52 HuÈls, R., KardinaÈle, Klerus, Kirchen Roms, 1049±1130 (TuÈbingen, 1977) Huglo, M., `Remarks on the alleluia and responsory series in the Winchester Troper', in Music in the Medieval English Liturgy, ed. S. Rankin and D. Hiley (Oxford, 1993), pp. 47±58 Huneycutt, L., `The idea of the perfect princess: the Life of St Margaret in the reign of Matilda II (1100±1118)', Anglo-Norman Studies, xii (1989), 81±97 Hunt, J., `Piety, prestige or politics? The house of Leofric and the foundation and patronage of Coventry priory', in Demidowicz, Coventry's First Cathedral, pp. 97±117 Hunt, R. W., `English learning in the late twelfth century', in Essays in Medieval History, ed. R. W. Southern (London, 1968), pp. 106±28 Hunt, W., Two Chartularies of the Priory of St Peter at Bath (Somerset Record Soc., vii, 1893) Huygens, R. B. C., `BeÂrenger de Tours, Lanfranc et Bernold de Constance', Sacris Erudiri, xvi (1965), 355±87 ÐÐ `A propos de BeÂrenger et son traite de l'Eucharistie', RB lxxvi (1966), 133±9 Jaeger, C. S., The Origins of CourtlinessÐCivilizing Trends and the Formation of Courtly Ideals 939±1210 (Philadelphia, 1985) James, M. R., The Ancient Libraries of Canterbury and Dover (Cambridge, 1903) ÐÐ `Two Lives of St Ethelbert, king and martyr', EHR xxxii (1917), 214±44

/3thomson/bib.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:32 ± disk/mp

BIBLIOGRAPHY

439

John, E., `Edward the Confessor and the Norman succession', EHR xciv (1979), 241±67 ÐÐ Orbis Britanniae (Leicester, 1966) Jordan, K., `Zur paÈpstlichen Finanzgeschichte im 11. und 12. Jahrhundert', Quellen und Forschungen aus italienischen Archiven und Bibliotheken, xxv (1933±4), 61±104 Kapelle, W. E., The Norman Conquest of the North (Chapel Hill, NC, 1979) Kaul, M. B., `Le psautier cistercien. Appendice: Tableau analytique de l'hymnaire cistercien', Collectanea Ordinis Cisterciensium Reformatorum, xiii (1951), 257±72 Kawczynski, M., `Ist Apuleius in Mittelalter bekannt gewesen?', in Bausteine zur romanischen Philologie: Festgabe fuÈr Adolfo Mussa®a (Halle, 1905), pp. 193±210 Kealey, E., Roger of Salisbury Viceroy of England (Berkeley, 1972) Kedar, B. Z., Crusade and Mission (Princeton, 1984) Keen, M., Chivalry (New Haven, Conn., and London, 1984) Ker, N. R., Catalogue of Manuscripts containing Anglo-Saxon (Oxford, 1957, repr. with supplement, 1990) ÐÐ Medieval Libraries of Great Britain (2nd edn., London, 1964) ÐÐ `William of Malmesbury's handwriting', in his Books, Collectors and Libraries; Studies in the Medieval Heritage, ed. A. G. Watson (London and Ronceverte, 1985), pp. 60±6. Keynes, S., `The áthelings in Normandy', Anglo-Norman Studies, xiii (1990), 173±205 ÐÐ `Anglo-Saxon entries in the ``Liber vitae'' of Brescia', in Roberts et al., Alfred the Wise, pp. 99±119 ÐÐ `On the authenticity of Asser's Life of King Alfred', Journal of Ecclesiastical History, xlvii (1996), 1±23 ÐÐ `Cnut's earls', in Rumble, The Reign of Cnut, pp. 43±88 ÐÐ `The control of Kent in the ninth century', Early Medieval Europe, ii (1993), 111±31 ÐÐ `The Crowland Psalter and the sons of Edmund Ironside', Bodleian Library Record, xi (1985), 359±70 ÐÐ `The declining reputation of King Aethelred the Unready', in Hill, Ethelred the Unready, pp. 227±53 ÐÐ The Diplomas of King áthelred `the Unready' (Cambridge, 1980) ÐÐ `George Harbin's transcript of the lost cartulary of Athelney Abbey', Somerset Archaeology and Natural History, cxxxvi (1992), 149±59 ÐÐ `King Athelstan's books', in Lapidge and Gneuss, Learning and Literature in Anglo-Saxon England, pp. 143±201 ÐÐ `The reconstruction of a burnt Cottonian manuscript: the case of Cotton MS. Otho A. I', British Library Journal, xxii (1996), 113±60

/3thomson/bib.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:32 ± disk/mp

440

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Keynes, S., `The West Saxon charters of King áthelwulf and his sons', EHR cix (1994), 1109±49 ÐÐ and M. Lapidge, Alfred the Great (Harmondsworth, 1983) Kidson, P., `The abbey church of St Mary at Tewkesbury in the eleventh and twelfth centuries', in Heslop and Sekules, Medieval Art and Architecture at Gloucester and Tewkesbury, pp. 6±15 Kienast, W., Deutschland und Frankreich in der Kaiserzeit, 900±1270 (3 vols.: Stuttgart, 1974±5) King, Archdale A., Liturgies of the Religious Orders (London, 1955) Kirby, D. P., `Hywel Dda: anglophile?', Welsh History Review, viii (1976), 1± 13 ÐÐ The Making of Early England (London, 1967) ÐÐ `The Saxon bishops of Leicester, Lindsey (Syddensis) and Dorchester', Leicestershire Archaeological and Historical Society Transactions, xli (1965± 6), 1±8 Klein, C., `The steep rise of the Dead Sea level during the ®rst century B.C.E. and its impact on the Western world', Israel Geological Survey (1988), pp. 61±2 Knappen, M. M., `Robert II of Flanders in the First Crusade', in The Crusades and other Historical Essays presented to Dana C. Munro by his Former Students, ed. L. J. Paetow (New York, 1928), pp. 79±100 Knowles, D., The Monastic Order in England (2nd edn., Cambridge, 1963) ÐÐ , C. N. L. Brooke, and V. C. M. London, Heads of Religious Houses, England and Wales, 940±1216 (Cambridge, 1972) KoÈnsgen, E., `Zwei unbekannte Briefe zu den Gesta Regum Anglorum des Wilhelm von Malmesbury', Deutsches Archiv fuÈr Erforschung des Mittelalters, xxxi (1975), 204±14 KoÈrner, S., The Battle of Hastings, England and Europe, 1035±1066 (Lund, 1964) Kornbluth, G. A., Engraved Gems of the Carolingian Empire (Philadelphia, 1995) Krautheimer, R., Corpus Basilicarum Christianarum Romae (5 vols.: Vatican City, 1937±77) ÐÐ Rome: Pro®le of a City 312±1308 (Princeton, 1980) Lackner, B., The Eleventh-Century Background of CõÃteaux (Washington, 1972), pp. 217±74 ÐÐ `The liturgy of early CõÃteaux', in Studies in Medieval Cistercian History Presented to J .F. O'Sullivan (Cistercian Studies Ser., xiii: Spencer, Mass., 1971), pp. 1±34 Lacoste, G., Histoire geÂneÂrale de la province de Quercy (4 vols.: Cahors, 1883±6) Laing, L., The Archaeology of Late Celtic Britain and Ireland c.400±1200 AD (London, 1975) Lair, J., Le sieÁge de Chartres par les Normands, 911 (Caen, 1902)

/3thomson/bib.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:32 ± disk/mp

BIBLIOGRAPHY

441

Lapidge, M., `Byrhtferth and Oswald', in Brooks and Cubitt, St Oswald of Worcester, pp. 64±83 ÐÐ `Byrhtferth and the Vita S. Ecgwini', Mediaeval Studies, xli (1979), 331±53 ÐÐ `The cult of St Indract at Glastonbury', in Ireland in Early Mediaeval Europe, ed. D. Whitelock, R. McKitterick, and D. Dumville (Cambridge, 1982), pp. 179±212 ÐÐ `Some Latin poems as evidence for the reign of Athelstan', ASE ix (1981), 61±98 ÐÐ `The medieval hagiography of St Ecgwine', Vale of Evesham Historical Society Research Papers, vi (1977), 77±93 ÐÐ `Some remnants of Bede's lost ``Liber epigrammatum'' ', EHR xc (1975), 798±820 ÐÐ and H. Gneuss (eds.), Learning and Literature in Anglo-Saxon England (Cambridge, 1985) Larson, L. M., Canute the Great (London, 1912) Latouche, R., Histoire du comte du Maine pendant le Xe et le XIe sieÁcles (Bibl. de l'eÂcole des hautes eÂtudes, clxxxiii: Paris, 1910) Lauer, P., La reÁgne de Louis IV d'Outremer (Bibl. de l'eÂcole des hautes eÂtudes, cxxvii: Paris, 1900) Laurent, J., `Des grecs aux croiseÂs: eÂtude sur l'histoire d'EÂdesse entre 1071 et 1098', Byzantion, i (1924), 367±449 Laurent, V., `Byzance et l'Angleterre au lendemain de la conqueÃte normande', The Numismatic Circular, lxxi (1963), 93±6 ÐÐ `Un sceau ineÂdit du patriarche de JeÂrusalem Sophrone II trouve aÁ Winchester', ibid., lxxii (1964), 49±50 Lawson, M. K., Cnut (Harlow and New York, 1993) Le Gentil, P., The Chanson de Roland (Cambridge, Mass., 1969) Le Moyne, A: see de la Borderie Le Neve, J., Fasti Ecclesiae Anglicanae 1066±1300, ii. Monastic Cathedrals, ed. D. E. Greenway (London, 1971) Le Patourel, J., `Geoffrey of Montbray, bishop of Coutances, 1049±1093', EHR lix (1944), 129±61 ÐÐ The Norman Empire (Oxford, 1976) Le Quien, M., Oriens Christianus in quatuor patriarchatus digestus; quo exhibentur Ecclesie, Patriarchae caeterique Praesules totius Orientis (3 vols.: Paris, 1740, repr. Graz, 1958) LefeÁvre, J.-A., `S. Robert de Molesme dans l'opinion monastique du xiie et du xiiie sieÁcle', Anal. Boll. lxxiv (1956), 50±83 Legge, M. D., `L'in¯uence litteÂraire de la cour d'Henri Beauclerc' in MeÂlanges offertes aÁ Rita Lejeune (2 vols.: Gembloux, 1969), i. 679±87 Leitner, Q., Die hervorragendsten Kunstwerke der Schatzkammer des oÈsterreichischen Kaiserhauses (Vienna, 1870±3)

/3thomson/bib.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:32 ± disk/mp

442

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Lekai, L. J., The Cistercians: Ideals and Reality (Kent, Oh., 1977) Leland, J., Commentarii de Scriptoribus Britannicis, ed. A. Hall (Oxford, 1709) Lemarignier, J.-F., `JumieÁges et le monachisme occidental au haut moyen aÃge (viie-xie s.): Quelques observations', in JumieÁges: CongreÁs scienti®que du xiiie centenaire: Rouen, 10±12 juin 1954 (2 vols.: Rouen, 1955), ii. 753±64 ÐÐ Recherches sur l'hommage en marche et les frontieÁres feÂodales (Lille, 1945) Lennard, R., Rural England 1086±1135 (Oxford, 1959) Lettinck, N., Geschiedbeschouwing en Beleving van de eigen Tijd in de eerste Helft van de twaalfde Eeuw (Amsterdam, 1983) Levison, W., `Aus englischen Bibliotheken II', Neues Archiv, xxxv (1910), 333±431 ÐÐ England and the Continent in the Eighth Century (Oxford, 1946) ÐÐ `Zur Textgeschichte der Vision Kaiser Karls III', Neues Archiv, xxvii (1902), 493±502 Lexer, M., Mittelhochdeutsches HandwoÈrterbuch (3 vols.: Leipzig, 1872/ Stuttgart, 1979) Leyland, M., `The origin and developments of Durham Castle', in Rollason, Harvey, and Prestwich, Anglo-Norman Durham, pp. 407±24 Leyser, K., Communications and Power in Medieval Europe; The Carolingian and Ottonian Centuries, ed. T. Reuter (London and Rio Grande, Oh., 1994) ÐÐ `Early medieval canon law and the beginnings of knighthood', in his Communications and Power in Medieval Europe, pp. 51±71 ÐÐ `England and the Empire in the early twelfth century', in his Medieval Germany and its Neighbours 900±1250 (London, 1982), pp. 191±213 ÐÐ `Frederick Barbarossa, Henry II and the hand of St James', in his Medieval Germany and its Neighbours, pp. 215±40 ÐÐ `The Ottonians and Wessex', in his Communications and Power in Medieval Europe, pp.73±104 ÐÐ Rule and Con¯ict in an Early Medieval Society: Ottonian Saxony (London, 1979) ÐÐ `The tenth century in Byzantine-Western relationships', in his Medieval Germany and its Neighbours, pp. 103±37 Liebermann, F., Die Heiligen Englands (Hanover, 1889) ÐÐ `Raginald von Canterbury', Neues Archiv, xiii (1888), 519±56 Lloyd, J. E., A History of Wales (2 vols.: 3rd edn., London, 1939) ÐÐ `Wales and the coming of the Normans, 1039±93', Transactions of the Honourable Society of Cymmrodorion (1899±1900), 122±79 Loisel, G., Histoire des meÂnageries de l'antiquite aÁ nos jours (3 vols.: Paris, 1912) Loomis, L. H., `The Athelstan gift story and its in¯uence on English chronicles and Carolingian romances', Publications of the Modern Language Association of America, lxvii(1) (1952), 521±37 Loomis, L. H., `The holy relics of Charlemagne and King Athelstan: the lances of Longinus and St Mauricius', Speculum, xxv (1950), 437±56

/3thomson/bib.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:32 ± disk/mp

BIBLIOGRAPHY

443

Louise, G., La seigneurie de BelleÃme X -XI sieÁcles (2 vols., Le Pays basnormand, SocieÂte d'Art et d'Histoire, cxcix±ccii: Flers, 1992±3) Loyn, H. R., `Wales and England in the tenth century: the context of the Athelstan charters', Welsh History Review, x (1980±1), 283±301 Luchaire, A., Louis VI le Gros, annales de sa vie et de son reÁgne (Paris, 1890) Lugge, M.,``Gallia'' und ``Francia'' im Mittelalter: Untersuchungen uÈber den Zusammenhang zwischen geographisch-historischer Terminologie und politischen Denken vom 6.±15. Jahrhundert (Bonn, 1960) Lunt, W. E., Financial Relations of the Papacy with England to 1327 (Cambridge, Mass., 1939) Lynch, J. H., Godparents and Kinship in early Medieval Europe (Princeton, 1986) Lyon, S., `Historical problems of Anglo-Saxon coinageÐ(3) Denominations and weights', British Numismatic Journal, xxxviii (1969), 204±22 McCormick, M., Eternal Victory: Triumphal Rulership in Late Antiquity, Byzantium and the Early Medieval West (Cambridge, 1986) MacDonald, A. J., Berengar and the Reform of Sacramental Doctrine (London etc., 1930) ÐÐ Lanfranc: A Study of his Life, Work and Writing (2nd edn., London, 1944) McDougall, I., `Serious entertainments: an examination of a peculiar type of Viking atrocity', ASE xxii (1993), 201±25 McGuire, B. P., `Who founded the Order of CõÃteaux?', in The Joy of Learning and the Love of God: Studies in Honor of Jean Leclercq, ed. E. R. Elder (Cistercian Studies Ser., clx: Kalamazoo, Mich., 1995), pp. 389± 413 McKinnon, J. W., `The tenth-century organ at Winchester', The Organ Yearbook, v (1974), 4±19 McKisack, M., `London and the succession to the crown during the Middle Ages', in Studies in Medieval History presented to F. M. Powicke, ed. R. W. Hunt, W. A. Pantin, and R. W. Southern (Oxford, 1948), pp. 76±89 MacQuarrie, A., `The kings of Strathclyde, c.400±1018', in Medieval Scotland: Crown, Lordship and Community: Essays presented to G. W. S. Barrow, ed. A. Grant and K. J. Stringer (Edinburgh, 1993), pp. 1±19 Maddison, F., A. B. Scott, and A. Kent, `An early medieval water-clock', Antiquarian Horology, iii (1962), 348±53 Magoun, F. P., Jr., `King áthelwulf's biblical ancestors', Modern Language Review, xlvi (1951), 249±50 Manitius, M., Geschichte der lateinischen Literatur des Mittelalters (3 vols.: Munich, 1911±31) Maratu, AbbeÂ, Girard, eÂveÃque d'AngouleÃme, leÂgat du Saint-SieÁge, vers 1116± 1136 (AngouleÃme, 1866) Martindale, J., ` ``Cavalaria et Orgueill'': Duke William IX of Aquitaine and e

e

/3thomson/bib.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:32 ± disk/mp

444

BIBLIOGRAPHY

the historian', in The Ideals and Practice of Medieval Knighthood II: Papers from the Third Strawberry Hill Conference, ed. C. Harper-Bill and R. Harvey (Woodbridge, 1988), pp. 87±116 Mason, E., St Wulfstan of Worcester (Oxford, 1990) Mason, J. F. A., `Roger de Montgomery and his sons (1067±1102)', TRHS, 5th ser. xiii (1963), 1±28 Massip, M., `Un victime d'aviation au onzieÁme sieÁcle', MeÂmoires de l'AcadeÁmie des sciences, inscriptions et belles-lettres de Toulouse, seÂr. 10, x (1910), 199±217 Matthew, D., `Durham and the Anglo-Norman world', in Rollason, Harvey, and Prestwich, Anglo-Norman Durham, pp. 1±22 Maund, K. L., `The Welsh alliances of Earl álfgar of Mercia and his family in the mid-eleventh century', Anglo-Norman Studies, xi (1988), 181±90 Maurer, M., Papst Kallixt II (Munich, 1886±9) Meyer von Knonau, G., JahrbuÈcher der Deutschen Reiches unter Heinrich IV. und Heinrich V. (7 vols.: JahrbuÈcher der Deutschen Geschichte, xvi±xxii: Leipzig, 1890±1909) Meyvaert, P., `BeÂrenger de Tours contre AlbeÂric du Mont-Cassin', RB lxx (1960), 324±32 Miles, L. W., King Alfred in Literature (Baltimore, 1902) Millas Vallicrosa, J., Assaig d'histoÁria de les idees ®siques i matemaÁtiques a la Catalunya medieval (Estudis Universitaris Catalans, SeÁrie Monogra®ca, i(1): Barcelona, 1931) Mittellateinisches WoÈrterbuch bis zum ausgehenden 13. Jahrhundert, ed. O. Prinz and J. Schneider (Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Munich, 1959± ) Montclos, J. de, Lanfranc et BeÂrengar: la controverse eucharistique du xie sieÁcle (Spicilegium Sacrum Lovanense, xxxvii: Louvain, 1971) Moore, W. J., The Saxon Pilgrims to Rome and the Schola Saxonum (diss., Docteur eÁs Lettres, University of Fribourg, 1937) Morey, A., and C. N. L. Brooke, Gilbert Foliot and his Letters (Cambridge, 1965) Morris, C., The Papal Monarchy: The Western Church from 1050 to 1250 (Oxford, 1989) MuÈller-Mertens, E., Regnum Teutonicum. Aufkommen und Verbreitung der deutschen Reichs- und KoÈnigsauffassung im fruÈheren Mittelalter (Vienna, Cologne, Graz, 1970) Munk Olsen, B., L'EÂtude des auteurs classiques latins aux XIe et XIIe sieÁcles (3 vols. in 4: Paris, 1982±9) Munro, D. C., `The speech of Pope Urban II at Clermont, 1095', American Historical Review, xi (1906), 231±42 Muratova, X., `Western chronicles of the First Crusade as sources for the history of art in the Holy Land', in Crusader Art in the Twelfth Century,

/3thomson/bib.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:32 ± disk/mp

BIBLIOGRAPHY

445

ed. J. Folda (British Archaeological Reports, International Ser., clii: Oxford, 1982), 47±69 Murray, A. V., `A little-known member of the royal family of Crusader Jerusalem in William of Malmesbury's Gesta regum Anglorum', Notes and Queries, ccxli (new ser. xliii) (1996), 397±9. MuseÂe du Louvre, exhibition catalogue, Le treÂsor de Saint-Denis: exposition, MuseÂe du Louvre, 12 Mars±17 Juin 1991 (Paris, 1991) Musset, L., `L'aristocratie normande au XIe sieÁcle', in La noblesse au moyen aÃge . . ., ed. P. Contamine (Paris, 1976), pp. 71±96 Mynors, H. C. B., Mynors of Treago Co. Hereford: A Genealogy (privately printed, 1954) Napier, A. S., and W. H. Stevenson, The Crawford Collection of Charters and Documents now in the Bodleian Library (Oxford, 1895) Nelson, J. L., `The earliest royal ordo: some liturgical and historical aspects', in her Politics and Ritual in Early Medieval Europe (London and Ronceverte, 1986), pp. 341±60 ÐÐ `The Franks and the English in the ninth century reconsidered', in The Preservation and Transmission of Anglo-Saxon Culture; Select Papers from the 1991 Meeting of the International Society of Anglo-Saxonists, ed. P. E. Szarmach and J. Rosenthal (Studies in Medieval Culture, xl: Kalamazoo, Mich., 1997), pp. 141±58 ÐÐ `Inauguration rituals', in her Politics and Ritual, pp. 283±307 ÐÐ `A king across the sea: Alfred in continental perspective', TRHS, ser. 5 xxxvi (1986), 45±68 ÐÐ `Ninth-century knighthood: the evidence of Nithard', in her The Frankish World, 750±900 (London and Ronceverte, 1996), pp. 75±98 ÐÐ `The problem of King Alfred's royal anointing', in her Politics and Ritual, pp. 309±27 ÐÐ `Reconstructing a royal family: re¯ections on Alfred, from Asser, chapter 2', in Peoples and Places in Northern Europe, 500±1600: Essays in Honour of P. H. Sawyer, ed. I. Wood and N. Lund (Woodbridge, 1991), pp. 47±66 ÐÐ ` `` . . . sicut olim gens Francorum . . . nunc gens Anglorum'': Fulk's letter to Alfred revisited', in Roberts et al., Alfred the Wise, pp. 135±44. Nelson, L. H., The Normans in South Wales, 1070±1171 (Austin and London, 1966) Nicholas, D., Medieval Flanders (London, 1992) Nicholson, R. L., Tancred: A Study of his Career and Work in their Relation to the First Crusade and the Establishment of the Latin States in Syria and Palestine (Chicago, 1940) Nonn, U., `Das Bild Karl Martells in den lateinischen Quellen vornehmlich des 8. und 9. Jahrhunderts', FruÈhmittelalterliche Studien, iv (1970), 70±137 Norwich, J. J., The Normans in the South 1016±1130 (London, 1967)

/3thomson/bib.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:32 ± disk/mp

446

BIBLIOGRAPHY

 CroÂinõÂn, D., Early Medieval Ireland, 400±1200 (London, 1995) O Of¯er, H. S., `Rannulf Flambard as bishop of Durham 1099±1128', Durham University Journal, lxiv (1971), 14±25 Orlandi, G., `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 Otto, A., Die SprichwoÈrter und sprichwoÈrtlichen Redensarten der RoÈmer (Leipzig, 1890) Owen, H., `The Flemings in Pembrokeshire', Archaeologia Cambrensis, 5th ser. xii (1895), 96±106 Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, ed. F. L. Cross and E. A. Livingstone (3rd edn., Oxford, 1997) Oxford Dictionary of Medieval Latin from British Sources, ed. R. E. Latham et al. (Oxford, 1975± ) Page, R. I., `The audience of Beowulf and the Vikings', in The Dating of Beowulf, ed. C. Chase (Toronto, 1981), pp. 113±22 ÐÐ Chronicles of the Vikings (London, 1995) Painter, K. S., The Mildenhall Treasure (London, 1977) Panofsky, E., Abbot Suger on the Abbey Church of St.-Denis and its Art Treasures, 2nd edn. by G. Panofsky-Soergel (Princeton, 1979) ÐÐ Hercules am Scheidewege und andere Bildstoffe in der neueren Kunst (Studien der Bibliothek Warburg, xviii: Leipzig, 1930) Parkes, M. B., `The date of the Oxford manuscript of La chanson de Roland (Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Digby 23)', in his Scribes, Scripts and Readers: Studies in the Communication, Presentation and Dissemination of Medieval Texts (London and Rio Grande, Oh., 1991), pp. 71±89 Paris, G., `Robert Court-Heuse aÁ la premieÁre croisade', Comptes-rendus des seÂances de l'AcadeÂmie des inscriptions et belles-lettres, xxxiv (1890), 207±12 Pearce, S. M., The Kingdom of DumnoniaÐStudies in History and Tradition in South Western Britain AD 350±1150 (Padstow, 1978) Peeters, P., `Le texte original de la passion des Sept Dormants', Anal. Boll. xli (1923), 369±85 Pelteret, D. A. E., Slavery in Early Medieval England: from the Reign of Alfred until the Twelfth Century (Woodbridge, 1995) Perrot, J., L'Orgue de ses origines helleÂnistiques aÁ la ®n du xiiie sieÁcle (Paris, 1965); English version, trans. N. Deane: The Organ, from its Invention in the Hellenistic Period to the end of the Thirteenth Century (London, 1971) Peters, E., The First Crusade (Philadelphia, 1971) Pezet, R. A. L., Les Barons de Creully: EÂtudes historiques (Bayeux, 1854) Pfaff, R. W., `The ``Abbreviatio Amalarii'' of William of Malmesbury', Recherches de theÂologie ancienne et meÂdieÂvale, xlvii (1980), 77±113 P®ster, C., EÂtudes sur le reÁgne de Robert le Pieux (Bibl. de l'eÂcole des hautes eÂtudes, lxiv: Paris, 1885)

/3thomson/bib.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:32 ± disk/mp

BIBLIOGRAPHY

447

Pigeon, M. E. A., `De l'embaumement des morts aÁ l'eÂpoque MeÂrovingienne', Bulletin archeÂologique du comite des travaux historiques et scienti®ques (Paris, 1894), 138±45 Piper, A. J., `The ®rst generations of Durham monks and the cult of St Cuthbert' in Bonner et al., St Cuthbert, his Cult and his Community, pp. 437±46 Platelle, H., `Le probleÁme du scandale: les nouvelles modes masculines aux XIe et XIIe sieÁcles', Revue Belge de philologie et d'histoire, liii (1975), 1071± 96 Plummer, C., The Life and Times of Alfred the Great (Oxford, 1902) Poncelet, A., `BoeÂmond et Saint LeÂonard', Anal. Boll. xxxi (1912), 24±44 Poole, R. L., `Burgundian notes, I: the Alpine son-in-law of Edward the Elder', EHR xxvi (1911), 310±17 Prawer, J., `The Jerusalem the Crusaders captured: a contribution to the medieval topography of the city', in Crusade and Settlement: Papers read at the First Conference of the Society for the Study of the Crusades in the Latin East and presented to R. C. Smail, ed. P. Edbury (Cardiff, 1985), pp. 1±16 Prentout, H., EÂtude critique sur Dudon de Saint-Quentin et son histoire des premiers ducs normands (Caen, 1915) Prestwich, J. O., `The career of Ranulf Flambard', in Rollason, Harvey, and Prestwich, Anglo-Norman Durham, pp. 299±310 Pringle, D., The Churches of the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem: a Corpus (Cambridge, 1993± ) Raine, J., The Priory of Hexham (2 vols.: Surtees Soc., xliv, xlvi, 1864±5) Rajna, Pio, `Spigolature provenzali II: La Badia de Niort', Romania, vi (1876), 249±53 Ralegh Radford, C. A., `Glastonbury Abbey' in The Quest for Arthur's Britain, ed. G. Ashe (London, 1968), pp. 97±110 ÐÐ `A lost inscription of pre-Danish age from Caistor', Archaeological Journal, ciii (1946), 95±9 Ray, R., `Bede's vera lex historiae', Speculum, lv (1980), 1±21 Rees, W., An Historical Atlas of Wales (2nd edn., London, 1959) Regesta Ponti®cum Romanorum . . . ad annum 1198, ed. P. JaffeÂ, 2nd edn. by S. Loewenfeld et al. (2 vols.: Leipzig, 1885±8) Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum II 1100±1135, ed. C. Johnson and H. A. Cronne (Oxford, 1956) Reuter, T., `John of Salisbury and the Germans', in The World of John of Salisbury, ed. M. Wilks (Studies in Church History, Subsidia iii: Oxford, 1984), pp. 415±25 Reynolds, L. D., et al., Texts and Transmission: A Survey of the Latin Classics (Oxford, 1983) Reynolds, S., `Medieval origines gentium and the community of the realm', History, lxviii (1983), 375±90

/3thomson/bib.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:32 ± disk/mp

448

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Riant, Paul le Comte, ExpeÂditions et peleÂrinages des Scandinaves en Terre Sainte (Paris, 1865) ÐÐ Exuviae Sacrae Constantinopolitanae (2 vols.: Geneva, 1877±8) Richard, G. A., Histoire des comtes de Poitou, 778±1204 (2 vols.: Paris, 1903) Richard, J., Le comte de Tripoli sous la dynastie toulousaine (1102±1187) (Paris, 1945) Richardson, H. G., The English Jewry under Angevin Kings (London, 1960) Ridyard, S. J., The Royal Saints of Anglo-Saxon England (Cambridge, 1988) Rigg, A. G., A History of Anglo-Latin Literature 1066±1422 (Cambridge, 1992) Ritchie, R. L. G., The Normans in Scotland (Edinburgh, 1954) Robert, U., Histoire du pape Calixte II (Paris, 1891) Roberts, J. A., and J. L. Nelson, with M. R. Godden (eds.), Alfred the Wise: Studies in Honour of Janet Bately on the Occasion of her Sixty-Fifth Birthday (Woodbridge, 1997) Robinson, I. S., The Papacy 1073±1198; Continuity and Innovation (Cambridge, 1990) ÐÐ `Pope Gregory VII (1073±1085): a bibliographical survey', Journal of Ecclesiastical History, xxxvi (1985), 439±83 Robinson, J. A., Gilbert Crispin Abbot of Westminster (Cambridge, 1911) ÐÐ `The Saxon abbots of Glastonbury', in his Somerset Historical Essays (London, 1921), pp. 26±53 ÐÐ The Times of St Dunstan (Oxford, 1923) Rodwell, G., `The battle of Assandun and its memorial church: a reappraisal', in The Battle of Maldon: Fiction and Fact, ed. J. Cooper (London, 1993), pp. 127±58 RoÈhricht, R., Bibliotheca Geographica Palestinae (rev. edn., Jerusalem, 1963) ÐÐ Regesta regni Hierosolymitani (1097±1291) (Innsbruck, 1893) Rollason, D. W., `The cults of murdered royal saints in Anglo-Saxon England', ASE xi (1983), 1±22 ÐÐ The Mildrith Legend: A Study in Early Medieval Hagiography in England (Leicester, 1982) ÐÐ `St Oswald in post-Conquest England', in Stancliffe and Cambridge, Oswald: Northumbrian King to European Saint, pp. 164±77 ÐÐ The Search for St Wigstan, Prince-martyr of the Kingdom of Mercia (Vaughan papers in adult education, 27: Leicester, 1981) ÐÐ , M. Harvey, and M. Prestwich (eds.), Anglo-Norman Durham 1093± 1193 (Woodbridge, 1994) Ronay, G., The Lost King of England (Woodbridge, 1989) de Rossi, G. B., La Roma Sotteranea Cristiana descritta ed illustrata (4 vols.: Rome, 1864±97) Round, J. H., Studies in Peerage and Family History (London, 1907) Rousset, P., `EÂtienne de Blois, croise fuyard et martyr', Genava, new ser. xi (1963), 183±95

/3thomson/bib.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:32 ± disk/mp

BIBLIOGRAPHY

449

Rowlands, I. W., `The making of the March: aspects of the Norman settlement in Dyfed', Anglo-Norman Studies, iii (1980), 142±57 Royal Commission on Historical Monuments: Cambridgeshire (2 vols.: London, 1972) Rubenstein, J., `The life and writings of Osbern of Canterbury', in Canterbury and the Norman Conquest: Churches, Saints and Scholars, 1066±1109, ed. R. Eales and R. Sharpe (London, 1995), pp. 27±40 Rumble, A. (ed.), The Reign of Cnut (Leicester, 1994) Runciman, S., `The Crusades of 1101', Jahrbuch der oÈsterreichischen-byzantinischen Gesellschaft, i (1951), 3±12 ÐÐ `The ®rst Crusaders' journey across the Balkan Peninsula', Byzantion, xix (1949), 207±21 ÐÐ A History of the Crusades (3 vols.: Cambridge, 1951±4) Sanders, W. B., Facsimiles of Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts photozincographed by command of Her Majesty Queen Victoria (3 vols.: Ordnance Survey, Southampton, 1878±84) Sanford, E. M., `Quotations from Lucan in mediaeval Latin authors', American Journal of Philology, lv (1934), 1±19 Sawyer, P. H., Anglo-Saxon Charters: An Annotated Bibliography (RHS Guides and Handbooks, viii: London, 1968) ÐÐ `The last Scandinavian kings of York', Northern History, xxxi (1995), 39±44 ÐÐ `The royal tun in pre-Conquest England', in Wormald et al., Ideal and Reality in Frankish and Anglo-Saxon Society, pp. 273±99 È berfuÈhrung von Leichen', in SchaÈfer, D., `Mittelalterlicher Brauch bei der U Sitzungsberichte der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften (Berlin, 1920), 478±98 Schaller, D., and E. KoÈnsgen, Initia Carminum Latinorum Saeculo Undecimo Antiquiorum (GoÈttingen, 1977) Schlam, C. C., `Apuleius in the Middle Ages', in Bernardo and Levin, The Classics in the Middle Ages, pp. 363±9 Schmitt, F. S., `Neue und alte Hildebrand-Anekdoten aus den Dicta Anselmi', Studi Gregoriani, v (1956), 1±18 SchoÈnbach, A. E., `Studien zur ErzaÈhlungsliteratur des Mittelalters, i: die Reuner Relationen', Sitzungsberichte der kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien, cxxxix, 5. Abhandlung (1898), 1±139 Schove, D. J., and A. Fletcher, Chronology of Eclipses and Comets AD 1±1000 (Woodbridge, 1984) Schrader, C. R., `A handlist of extant manuscripts containing the De re militari of Flavius Vegetius Renatus', Scriptorium, xxxiii (1979), 280±305 Schramm, P. E., `Die ``Heilige Lanze'', Reliquie und Herrschaftszeichen des Reiches und ihre Replik in Krakau', in his Herrschaftszeichen und Staatssymbolik (3 vols.: MGH Schriften, xiii(1±3), Stuttgart, 1954±6), ii. 492±537

/3thomson/bib.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:32 ± disk/mp

450

BIBLIOGRAPHY

ÐÐ A History of the English Coronation, trans. L. G. Wickham Legg (Oxford, 1937) ÐÐ and F. MuÈtherich, Denkmale der deutschen KoÈnige und Kaiser: ein Beitrag zu Herrschergeschichte von Karl dem Grossen bis Friedrich II. 768±1250 (VeroÈffentlichungen des Zentralinstituts fuÈr Kunstgeschichte in MuÈnchen, ii: Munich, 1962) SchroÈder, E., `Die TaÈnzer von KoÈlbigk: ein Mirakel des 11. Jahrhunderts', Zeitschrift fuÈr Kirchengeschichte, xvii (1897), 94±164 Scott, F. S., `Earl Waltheof of Northumbria', Archaeologia Aeliana, 4th ser. xxx (1952), 149±215 Searle, W. G., Onomasticon Anglo-Saxonicum (Cambridge, 1897) Servatius, C., Paschalis II (1099±1118) (PaÈpste und Papsttum, xiv: Stuttgart, 1979) Setton, K., et al., A History of the Crusades I (6 vols., 1±2 2nd edn.: Madison and London, 1969±89) Sharpe, R., `Goscelin's St Augustine and St Mildreth: hagiography and liturgy in context', Journal of Theological Studies, new ser. xli (1990), 502±16 ÐÐ A Handlist of the Latin Writers of Great Britain and Ireland before 1540 (Publications of the Journal of Medieval Latin, i: Turnhout, 1997) ÐÐ `Words and music by Goscelin of Canterbury', Early Music, xix (1991), 94±7 ÐÐ , J. Carley, R. M. Thomson, and A. G. Watson (eds.), English Benedictine Libraries: The Shorter Catalogues (Corpus of British Medieval Library Catalogues, iv: London, 1995) Shepard, J., `The English in Byzantium: a study of their role in the Byzantine army in the late eleventh century', Traditio, xxix (1973), 53±92 Simpson, L., `The King Alfred/St Cuthbert episode in the Historia de sancto Cuthberto: its signi®cance for mid-tenth-century English history', in Bonner et al., St Cuthbert, his Cult and his Community, pp. 397±411 Sims-Williams, P., `The early Welsh Arthurian poems', in The Arthur of the Welsh, ed. R. Bromwich, A. O. H. Jarman, and B. F. Roberts (Cardiff, 1991), pp. 31±71 ÐÐ Religion and Literature in Western England, 600±800 (Cambridge Studies in Anglo-Saxon England, iii: Cambridge, 1990) Sisam, K., `Anglo-Saxon royal genealogies', Proceedings of the British Academy, xxxix (1953), 287±348 ÐÐ Studies in the History of Old English Literature (Oxford, 1953) Slover, C. H., `William of Malmesbury's Life of St Patrick', Modern Philology, xxiv (1926±7), 5±20 Smalley, B., Historians in the Middle Ages (London, 1974) Smith, R. A. L., `John of Tours, bishop of Bath 1088±1122', in his Collected Papers (London, 1947), pp. 74±82 Smyth, A., King Alfred the Great (Oxford, 1995)

/3thomson/bib.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:32 ± disk/mp

BIBLIOGRAPHY

451

ÐÐ Scandinavian Kings in the British Isles 850±880 (Oxford, 1977) ÐÐ Scandinavian York and Dublin (2 vols.: Dublin, 1975±9) ÐÐ Warlords and Holy Men: Scotland, AD 80±1000 (London, 1984) Somerville, R., `The case against Berengar of Tours: a new text', in his Papacy, Councils and Canon Law in the 11th-12th Centuries (Variorum Coll. Stud. Ser. cccxii: Aldershot, 1990), ch. I ÐÐ `The council of Clermont (1095) and Latin Christian society', in his Papacy, Councils and Canon Law in the 11th-12th Centuries, ch. VII ÐÐ `The councils of Pope Calixtus II: Reims 1119', in his Papacy, Councils and Canon Law in the 11th-12th Centuries, ch. XII ÐÐ The Councils of Urban II: 1. Decreta Claromontensia (Annuarium Historiae Conciliorum, Supplementum i: Amsterdam, 1972) Southern, R.W., `Aspects of the European tradition of historical writing IV; the sense of the past', TRHS, 5th ser. xxiii (1973), 243±63 ÐÐ `The Canterbury forgeries', EHR lxxiii (1958), 193±226 ÐÐ `The place of England in the twelfth-century renaissance', in his Medieval Humanism and other Studies (Oxford, 1970), pp. 158±80 ÐÐ `The English origins of the ``Miracles of the Virgin'' ', Medieval and Renaissance Studies, iv (1958), 176±216 ÐÐ `Lanfranc of Bec and Berengar of Tours', in Studies in Medieval History presented to F. M. Powicke, ed. R. W. Hunt, W. A. Pantin, and R. W. Southern (Oxford, 1948), pp. 27±48 ÐÐ `King Henry I', in his Medieval Humanism, pp. 206±33 ÐÐ `Ranulf Flambard', in his Medieval Humanism, pp. 183±205 ÐÐ Saint Anselm: A Portrait in a Landscape (Cambridge, 1990) ÐÐ St Anselm and his Biographer: A Study in Monastic Life and Thought 1059±c.1130 (Cambridge, 1963) ÐÐ Western Views of Islam in the Middle Ages (Oxford, 1962) Stacpoole, A., `Hugh of Cluny and the Hildebrandine miracle tradition', RB lxxvii (1967), 341±63 Stafford, P., `Charles the Bald, Judith and England', in Charles the Bald: Court and Kingdom, ed. M. T. Gibson and J. L. Nelson (2nd edn., Aldershot, 1990), pp. 139±53 ÐÐ `The king's wife in Wessex 800±1066', Past and Present, xci (1981), 3±27 ÐÐ Queen Emma and Queen Edith; Queenship and Women's Power in Eleventh-Century England (Oxford, 1997) ÐÐ Uni®cation and Conquest: a Political and Social History of England in the Tenth and Eleventh Centuries (London, 1989) Stalley, R. A., `A twelfth-century patron of architecture: a study of the buildings erected by Roger, bishop of Salisbury 1102±1139', Journal of the British Archaeological Association, 3rd ser. xxxiv (1971), 62±83 Stancliffe, C., and E. Cambridge (eds.), Oswald: Northumbrian King to European Saint (Stamford, 1995)

/3thomson/bib.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:32 ± disk/mp

452

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Steindorff, E., JahrbuÈcher des deutschen Reiches unter Heinrich III (2 vols.: Leipzig, 1874, 1881) Steinhorn, I., and J. R. Gat, `The Dead Sea', Scienti®c American, ccxlix(4) (Oct. 1983), 84±91 Stenton, F. M., Anglo-Saxon England (3rd edn., Oxford, 1971) ÐÐ `Lindsey and its kings', in Preparatory to Anglo-Saxon England: being the Collected Papers of Frank Merry Stenton, ed. D. M. Stenton (Oxford, 1970), pp. 127±35 ÐÐ et al., The Bayeux Tapestry (2nd edn., London, 1965) Stevenson, F., and C. B. F. Walker, Halley's Comet in History (London, 1985) Stevenson, W. H., `A contemporary description of the Domesday Survey', EHR xxii (1907), 72±84 Stuart, J., `Notices of the burial of King Malcolm III in the monastery at Tynemouth in 1093 and of the subsequent history of his remains', Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland, ii (1855±6), 81±9 Stubbs, W., Select Charters (9th edn., Oxford, 1913) Svennung, J. G. A., Jordanes und Scandia: Kritisch-exegetische Studien (Stockholm, 1967) ÐÐ Scadinavia und Scandia: lateinisch-nordische Namenstudien (Uppsala, 1963) ÐÐ Zur Geschichte des Goticismus (Uppsala, 1967) Swanton, M., `A fragmentary Life of St Mildred and other Kentish royal saints', Archaeologia Cantiana, cv (1975), 15±27 Sydow, J., `Cluny und die AnfaÈnge der apostolischen Kammer', Studien und Mitteilungen zur Geschichte des Benediktiner-Ordens, lxiii (1951), 45±66 Tanner, T., Bibliotheca Britannico-Hibernica (London, 1748) Taylor, H. M., `Repton reconsidered: a study in structural criticism', in England before the Conquest: Studies in Primary Sources presented to Dorothy Whitelock, ed. P. Clemoes and K. Hughes (Cambridge, 1971), pp. 351±89 Temple, E., Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts 900±1066 (A Survey of Illuminated Manuscripts in the British Isles, ii: London, 1976) Tengvik, G., Old-English Bynames (Nomina Germanica, iv: Uppsala, 1938) Thacker, A., `Membra disiecta: the division of the body and the diffusion of the cult', in Stancliffe and Cambridge, Oswald: Northumbrian King to European Saint, pp. 97±127 ÐÐ `Saint-making and relic collecting by Oswald and his communities', in Brooks and Cubitt, St Oswald, pp. 244±68 Thomas, C., Celtic Britain (2nd edn., London, 1997) Thompson, K., `Family and in¯uence to the south of Normandy in the eleventh century: the lordship of BelleÃme', Journal of Medieval History, xi (1985), 215±26

/3thomson/bib.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:32 ± disk/mp

BIBLIOGRAPHY

453

ÐÐ `Robert of BelleÃme reconsidered', Anglo-Norman Studies, xiii (1990), 263±86 Thompson, M. W., `The place of Durham among Norman episcopal palaces and castles', in Rollason, Harvey, and Prestwich, Anglo-Norman Durham, pp. 425±36 Thomson, R. M., `Two twelfth-century poems on the ``Regnum-sacerdotium'' problem in England', RB lxxxiii (1973), 312±25 ÐÐ William of Malmesbury (Woodbridge, 1987) ÐÐ `William of Malmesbury, historian of Crusade', Reading Medieval Studies, xxiii (1997), 121±34 Thorndike, L., and P. Kibre, A Catalogue of Incipits of Mediaeval Scienti®c Writings in Latin (rev. edn., Cambridge, Mass., 1963) Truax, J. A., `From Bede to Orderic Vitalis: changing perspectives on the role of women in the Anglo-Saxon and Anglo-Norman churches', Haskins Society Journal, iii (1991), 35±51 Tudor, V., `Reginald's Life of St Oswald', in Stancliffe and Cambridge, Oswald: Northumbrian King to European Saint, pp. 178±94 Ullmann, W., The Growth of Papal Government in the Middle Ages (3rd edn., London, 1970) de Vajay, S., `Agatha, mother of St Margaret queen of Scotland', Duquesne Review, vii(2) (1962), 71±87 Valentini, R., and G. Zucchetti, Codice Topogra®co della CittaÁ di Roma II (Fonti per la Storia d'Italia, lxxxviii: Rome, 1942) van den Brink, F. H., A Field Guide to the Mammals of Britain and Europe (4th edn., London, 1976) van den Bussche, E., `Flamands et Danois', La Flandre, xi (1880), 253±326 van Caenegem, R. C., English Lawsuits from William I to Richard I (2 vols.: Selden Society, cvi±cvii: 1990±1) van Damme, J. B., Les trois fondateurs de CõÃteaux (La Trappe, 1966) van Houts, E., `Latin poetry and the Anglo-Norman court 1066±1135: the Carmen de Hastingae proelio', Journal of Medieval History, xv (1989), 39±62 ÐÐ `The memory of 1066 in written and oral traditions', Anglo-Norman Studies, xix (1996), 167±79 van der Meer, F., Atlas de l'ordre cistercien (Amsterdam, 1965) van de Vyver, A., `Les plus anciennes traductions latines meÂdieÂvales (xe-xie s.) de traiteÂs d'astronomie et d'astrologie', Osiris, i (1936), 658±91 Vana, Z., The World of the Ancient Slavs (London, 1983) Vaughn, S., `Robert of Meulan and raison d'eÂtat in the Anglo-Norman state, 1093±1118', Albion, x (1978), 352±73 Verbruggen, J. F., The Art of Warfare in Western Europe during the Middle Ages, trans. S. Willard and S. C. M. Southern (Amsterdam, 1977) Verlinden, J. C. A., Robert Ier le Frison, comte de Flandre (Antwerp and Paris, 1935)

/3thomson/bib.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:32 ± disk/mp

454

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Vic, C. de, and J. J. VaisseÁte, Histoire geÂneÂrale de Languedoc, continueÂe jusques en 1790 par E. Rosbach, ed. E. Dulaurier, E. Mabelle, and E. Barry (16 vols.: Toulouse, 1872±1904) Vigener, F., Bezeichnungen fuÈr Volk und Land der Deutschen vom 10. bis zum 13. Jahrhundert (Heidelberg, 1901) Villard, F., `Guillaume IX d'Aquitaine et le concile de Reims de 1119', Cahiers de civilisation meÂdieÂvale, xvi (1973), 295±302 Vlasto, A. P., The Entry of the Slavs into Christendom (Cambridge, 1970) Waas, A., Geschichte der KreuzzuÈge (2 vols.: Freiburg i. Breisgau, 1956) Waddell, C., `Notes towards the exegesis of a letter by Saint Stephen Harding', in Noble Piety and Reformed Monasticism, ed. E. R. Elder (Cistercian Studies Series, lxv: Kalamazoo, Mich., 1981), pp. 10±39 ÐÐ `The origin and early evolution of the Cistercian Antiphonary: re¯ections on two Cistercian chant reforms', in The Cistercian Spirit: a Symposium in Memory of Thomas Merton, ed. M. B. Pennington (Washington, 1973), pp. 190±223 ÐÐ `The reform of the liturgy from a renaissance perspective', in Benson and Constable, Renaissance and Renewal in the Twelfth Century, pp. 88±109 Wainwright, F. T., `áthel¯ñd, lady of the Mercians', in The Anglo-Saxons: Studies . . . presented to Bruce Dickins, ed. P. Clemoes (London, 1959), pp. 53±69 Walker, D., `The Norman settlement in Wales', Anglo-Norman Studies, i (1978), 131±43 Walker, I. W., Harold: the Last Anglo-Saxon King (Stroud, 1997) Walsh, P., `Willelmus Malmesberiensis quomodo scriptoribus antiquis usus sit', in Acta Omnium Gentium ac Nationum Conventus Sexti Latinis Litteris Linguaeque Ferendis (Durham, 1986), pp. 51±60 Walther, H., Initia Carminum ac Versuum Medii Aevi Posterioris Latinorum (2nd edn., GoÈttingen, 1969) ÐÐ Lateinische SprichwoÈrter und Sentenzen des Mittelalters (9 vols.: GoÈttingen, 1963±86) Ward, J. O., `Classical rhetoric and the writing of history in medieval and renaissance culture', in European History and its Historians, ed. F. McGregor and N. Wright (Adelaide, 1977), pp. 1±10 ÐÐ `Some principles of rhetorical historiography in the twelfth century', in Classical Rhetoric and Medieval Historiography, ed. E. Breisach (Studies in Medieval Culture, xix: Kalamazoo, Mich., 1985), pp. 103±65 Watkin, A., `The Glastonbury ``pyramids'' and St Patrick's ``companions'' ', Downside Review, lxiii (1945), 30±41 Wattenbach, F., and W. Levison, Deutschlands Geschichtsquellen im Mittelalter: Vorzeit und Karolinger, 2: Die Karolinger vom Anfang des 8. Jahrhunderts bis zum Tode Karls des Grossen, ed. Levison and H. LoÈwe (Weimar, 1953)

/3thomson/bib.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:32 ± disk/mp

BIBLIOGRAPHY

455

Webb, D. M., `The Holy Face of Lucca', Anglo-Norman Studies, ix (1986), 227±37 White, G. H., `The ®rst house of BelleÃme', TRHS, 4th ser. xxii (1940), 67±99 White, Lynn, `Eilmer of Malmesbury, an eleventh-century aviator. A case study of technological innovation, its context and tradition', in his Medieval Religion and Technology (Berkeley, 1978), pp. 59±73 Whitelock, D., `The Anglo-Saxon achievement', in The Norman Conquest; its Setting and Impact, ed. D. Whitelock et al. (London, 1966), pp. 15±43 ÐÐ Anglo-Saxon Wills (Cambridge, 1930) ÐÐ From Bede to Alfred: Studies in early Anglo-Saxon Literature and History (Variorum Coll. Stud. Ser. cxxi: London, 1980) ÐÐ `The prose of Alfred's reign', in her From Bede to Alfred, ch. VI ÐÐ `William of Malmesbury on the works of King Alfred', in her From Bede to Alfred, ch. VII Wightman, W. E., `The palatine earldom of William Fitz Osbern in Gloucestershire and Worcestershire (1066±1071)', EHR lxxvii (1962), 6±17 Wilkinson, J. D., Jerusalem Pilgrims before the Crusades (Warminster, 1977) Williams, A., The English and the Norman Conquest (Woodbridge, 1995) ÐÐ `Land and power in the eleventh century: the estates of Harold Godwineson', Anglo-Norman Studies, iii (1980), 171±87 ÐÐ `Princeps Merciorum gentis: the family, career and connections of álfhere, ealdorman of Mercia, 956±83', ASE x (1982), 143±72 Williams, P., The Organ in Western Culture, 750±1250 (Cambridge, 1993) Willis, G. G., `Roman stational liturgy', in his Further Essays in Early Roman Liturgy (Alcuin Club Collections, l: London, 1968), 1±87 Wilmart, A., `Le ¯orileÁge de Saint-Gatien. Contribution aÁ l'eÂtude des poeÁmes d'Hildebert et de Marbode', RB xlviii (1936), 3±40, 147±81, 235±58 Wilson, C., `Abbot Serlo's church at Gloucester (1089±1100): its place in Romanesque architecture', in Heslop and Sekules, Medieval Art and Architecture at Gloucester and Tewkesbury, pp. 52±83 Wilson, D. M., The Bayeux Tapestry (London, 1985) Wilson, R. M., The Lost Literature of Medieval England (2nd edn., London, 1970) Winterbottom, M., `Aldhelm's prose style and its origins', ASE vi (1977), 39±76 ÐÐ `The Gesta regum of William of Malmesbury', The Journal of Medieval Latin, v (1995), 158±73 Wisman, J. A., `L'Epitoma rei militaris de VeÂgeÁce et sa fortune au moyen aÃge', Le moyen aÃge, lxxxv (1979), 13±31 Wood, I. N., `Frankish hegemony in England', in The Age of Sutton Hoo, ed. M. Carver (Woodbridge, 1992), pp. 235±54

/3thomson/bib.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:32 ± disk/mp

456

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Wood, M., `The making of King áthelstan's empire: an English Charlemagne?', in Wormald et al., Ideal and Reality in Frankish and Anglo-Saxon Society, pp. 250±72 Wormald, P., `áthelred the lawmaker', in Hill, Ethelred the Unready, pp. 47± 80 ÐÐ ` ``Engla Land'': the making of an allegiance', Journal of Historical Sociology, vii (1994), 1±24 ÐÐ et al. (eds.), Ideal and Reality in Frankish and Anglo-Saxon Society: Studies presented to J. M. Wallace-Hadrill (Oxford, 1983) Wright, C. E., The Cultivation of Saga in Anglo-Saxon England (Edinburgh and London, 1939) Wright, N., ` ``Exarata barbarice Romano sale condire'': William of Malmesbury and Suetonius', forthcoming ÐÐ ` ``Industriae Testimonium'': William of Malmesbury and Latin poetry revisited', RB ciii (1993), 482±531 ÐÐ `Twelfth-century receptions of a text: Anglo-Norman historians and Hegesippus', forthcoming ÐÐ `William of Malmesbury and Latin poetry: further evidence for a Benedictine's reading', RB ci (1991), 122±53 Yeomans, D. K., Comets: a Chronological History of Observation, Science, Myth and Folklore (New York, 1991) Yewdale, R. B., Bohemund I Prince of Antioch (Princeton, 1924) Yorke, B. A., `áthelwold and the politics of the tenth century', in Bishop áthelwold: his Career and In¯uence, ed. B. A. Yorke (Woodbridge, 1988), pp. 65±88 ÐÐ `Joint kingship in Kent, c.560±785', Archaeologia Cantiana, xcix (1983), 1±19 ÐÐ `The kingdom of the East Saxons', ASE xiv (1985), 1±36 Yunck, J., `Economic conservatism, papal ®nance, and the medieval satires on Rome', in Change in Medieval Society, ed. S. Thrupp (New York, 1964), pp. 72±85 Yver, J., `Les chaÃteaux-forts en Normandie jusqu'au milieu du xiie sieÁcle', Bulletin de la SocieÂte des Antiquaires de Normandie, liii (1957 for 1955±6), 28±115, 604±9 Zinner, E., `Aus der FruÈhzeit der RaÈderuhr', Deutsches Museum MuÈnchen, Abhandlungen und Berichte, xxii(3) (1954), 7±71

/3thomson/sind.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 9:46 ± disk/mp

INDEX OF SOURCES This Index lists all sources used, certainly or probably, at ®rst hand in GR. Some sources known to William, certainly or probably, at second hand only are included because of their particular interest. All references to Sawyer in the Commentary are listed here. Sources cited in the Commentary which are parallel to, or later than GR, are included in the General Index.

biblical Gen. 3: 4 17: 1 19: 24±5 32: 24±9 Exod. 4: 28±31 Num. 25: 7±8 30: 3±5 Joshua 15: 19 Judges 1: 15 1 Kgs.(1 Sam.) 2: 30 8: 7 2 Kgs.(2 Sam.) 1: 16 2 Chr. 12: 1 26: 17±21 Job 3: 5 Ps. 7: 10 25(26): 8 44(45): 3 76(77): 7 76(77): 11 84(85): 11 88(89): 33 99(100): 3 105(106): 3 108(109): 2 108(109): 20 112(113): 9 118(119): 122, 124 Prov. 9: 7 10: 9 12: 1 27: 1 27: 21 Eccles. 10: 16 S. of S. 4: 12±13 Wisd. 1: 4 1: 5 4: 11

412 338 336 385 338 195 229 294 294 378 412 170 390 195 50 378 370 249 137 229 42 390 160 195 200 200 43 51 194 304 62 51, 378 51 220 53 50 50 332

5: 9 6: 7 6: 9 17: 10 Ecclus. 2: 5 34: 24 Isa. 9: 1 13: 12 38: 19 46: 8 Ezek. 13: 5 37: 24 Jonah 3 1 Macc. 2: 24±5 2 Macc. 8: 20 Matt. 5: 15 7: 14 9: 37 10: 40±1 18: 10 19: 14 21: 13 24: 7 Mark 4: 21 11: 19 13: 8 Luke 10: 2 11: 33 11: 34 16: 8 19: 46 21: 10±11 22: 38 John 5: 17 10: 1 10: 7 13: 23 13: 25

36 36, 85 36 304 51 33 50 99 66 378 195 390 212 195 320 394 305 113 66 85 85 194 209 394 194 209 113 394 194 50 194 209 195 157 195, 408 378 395 395

/3thomson/sind.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 9:46 ± disk/mp

458 John (cont.) 15: 13 21: 20 Acts 8: 18±24 11: 26 14: 21 Rom. 6: 23 8: 18 14: 9 1 Cor. 9: 13

INDEX OF SOURCES 304 395 296 317 305 304 51, 305 85 194

Gal. 2: 2 1 Tim. 6: 8 2 Tim. 2: 4 Heb. 6: 19 10: 31 12: 6 1 Pet. 1: 17 1 John 1: 8 3: 16 Rev. 2: 23

290 260 385 51 51 51, 395 160 395 304 378

classical and patristic Ambrose, De obitu Theodosii 17 Apuleius, Metamorphoses 158±9 Auctor ad Herenn. i. 4. 6 219 i. 8. 13 15 ii. 47 162 iv. 11 134 iv. 15 118 Augustine, De civ. Dei v. 12 54, 333 Conf. i. 17(27) 36 Enarr. in Ps. 31: 4 194 Ausonius, Caesares 92±3 27 Ephem. iii. 54 227 iii. 57 144 Technopaegn. xiv. 9 151 Boethius, De consol. phil. i. 4. 39, 41 154 Caesar, Bell. Gall. i. 1 224 v. 3. 4 241 v. 14. 3 231 vi. 34. 8 241 Cassiodorus, Hist. tripart. 311, 325 Cicero, Acad. ii. 120 332 Cat. i. 1 257 De div. ii. 87 76 De inv. ii. 48 369 De leg. i. 6 332 Pro Marcello 25 128 Pro Milone 11 98 De nat. deorum i. 53 332 ii. 110 332 De of®c. ii. 28 279 ii. 45 269 ii. 54 276 ii. 55 276 iii. 1 51 iii. 82 353 De orat. iii. 167 119 Phil. i. 38 128 Verr. ii. 1. 9 279 Claudian, Carm. min. xxix. 23 137

De III cons. Hon. 96±8 282 De IV cons. Hon. 284±6 282 In Ruf. ii. 527 229 Ps.-Clementine Recognitiones 159 Cyprian, Epist. lxiv. 1 92 Dionysius Exiguus 263 (Ps.)-Eucherius, De situ Hierosolimae 322 Eusebius/Ru®nus, Historia ecclesiastica 324, 333 Eusebius/Jerome, Chronicon 324 Florus ii. 13. 43 230 Frontinus, Strat. i. praef. 2, 3 62 iv. 7. 4 376 Gellius, Noct. Attic. ix. 14. 3 75 Gregory, Dial. ii. 8 290 iv. 53 196 Hegesippus prol. 1 15 i. 1. 3 37 i. 1. 8 147, 248 i. 1. 10 26, 29 i. 5 275 i. 9. 4 29 i. 10. 2 22 i. 15. 1 33 ii. 1. 2 18 ii. 9. 1 48 iii. 5. 2 316±17 iv. 5 250 iv. 7. 1 195 iv. 15. 2 24 iv. 25. 2 308 iv. 32 18 v. 1. 5 237 v. 53. 1 305 Horace, Ars poetica 97 313 Carm. i. 4. 13 196 i. 27. 6 18 i. 37. 1±2 226 Carm. saec. 59±60 183

/3thomson/sind.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 9:47 ± disk/mp

INDEX OF SOURCES Epist. i. 1. 90 i. 2. 11 i. 12. 29 i. 16. 12±13 ii. 1. 251 Epod. i. 31 x. 1 xvii. 19 Sat. ii. 3. 138 Ilias Latina 1062 Isidore, Etym. i. 4. 1 ii. 10. 5 iii. 71 v. 20 v. 21 v. 39. 11 viii. 1. 6 viii. 11. 93 ix. 2. 101 ix. 2. 102 xii. 2. 35 xiii. 21. 28 xiv. 3. 38 xiv. 4. 2 xiv. 4. 17 xv. 1. 4 xv. 1. 5 xv. 1. 14 xv. 1. 21 xv. 1. 71 xvi. 2. 7 Jerome, Adv. Helvidium 4 Adv. Jov. i. 1 118, i. 41 Apol. adv. Ruf. i. 30 iii. 40 Epist. xiv. 6. 3 xv. 2. 1 xxii. 13. 3 335, xlvi. 10. 4 lii. 7 lx. 2. 3 lxxxiv. 6 cviii. 21. 4 cviii. 27. 1 cxix. 1 cxxv. 14 cxxvi. 2. 2 cxxxiii. 9 24, cxliii. 2 Comm. in Ionam, prol. 3: 6 Comm. in Isaiam xviii. 65. 11±12

64 262 183 311 247 219 25 219 137 329 198 412 143 412 412 198 159 165 54 49 373 312 304 19 312 328 322 317 336 152 337 397 273 331 52 306 383 236 383 219 50 27 296 394 383 296 138 98 237 17 296 110 183

459

Praef. ad librum Ezra 268 Praef. ad librum Iosue 204 Praef. ad librum Iob 268 Jordanes, Getica 89±90 Josephus, Antiqu. Iud. ii. 315 328 vii. 16 157 viii. 2 157 xiii. 15 157 xiv. 25 333 xvi. 7 157 Bell. Iud. i. 2 157 iv. 482 337 vi. 6 322 Julius Firmicus, Mathesis 153 Julius Valerius, Gesta Alexandri ii. 9 274 Justin vi. 1. 1 22 vii. 6. 8 41 viii. 4. 7 254 xiii. 6. 12 108 xv. 4. 8 317 xxii. 6. 4 165 xxiii. 3. 12 18 xxvi. 1. 10 41 xxxii. 4. 7 41 Juvenal i. 38±9 289 i. 43 339 ii. 40 250 iii. 10 306 iv. 47±9 383 iv. 149 47 vii. 202 45 viii. 275 339 x. 176 316 Juvencus, Evang. praef. 13±14 406 Lactantius, Inst. iii. 21. 6 110 Lucan i. 1 87, 191 i. 22 17 i. 125±6 190 i. 135 161 i. 144±5 172 i. 148 157 i. 220±2 310 i. 249 38, 61 i. 250 38 i. 255±6 391 i. 282 304 i. 308 322 i. 316 228 i. 339 226 i. 366 59, 69 i. 492±3 306 i. 585 37 ii. 18 36

/3thomson/sind.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 9:47 ± disk/mp

460 Lucan (cont.) ii. 72 ii. 227±8 ii. 302±3 ii. 324 ii. 331±2 ii. 380±91 ii. 390 ii. 512±17 ii. 531 ii. 534 ii. 578 ii. 607 ii. 655±6 ii. 705 ii. 729 iii. 121±2 iii. 144 iii. 505 iv. 3 iv. 37±8 iv. 93 iv. 97 iv. 209±10 iv. 254 iv. 262±3 iv. 280±1 iv. 363 iv. 410 iv. 469±70 iv. 487 iv. 535±6 iv. 537±8 iv. 579 iv. 719 iv. 720±1 iv. 819 v. 279 v. 339±40 v. 346 v. 483 v. 493±4 v. 495 v. 538 v. 577±88 v. 701±2 v. 703±4 v. 743 vi. 48 vi. 88±9 vi. 109±10 vi. 115 vi. 132

INDEX OF SOURCES 126 326 198 384 149, 346 376 195 282±3 223 92 125 308 326 220 306, 331 259 202 261 126 68 319 318 149 32 329 339 273 318 41 75 335, 355 335 318 137 335 270, 296 229 126 147 248, 362 282 304 36, 162 283 161 309±10 169 329 327 318 318 41

vi. 147±8 vi. 205 vi. 234±5 vi. 236 vi. 254 vi. 315 vi. 420 vi. 422 vi. 453 vii. 51±2 vii. 238±9 vii. 277±8 vii. 304 vii. 538 vii. 747 vii. 790±1 vii. 810±11 viii. 3 viii. 13 viii. 290±390 viii. 363±4 viii. 365±6 viii. 371 viii. 380±4 viii. 612 ix. 11±14 ix. 224 ix. 242 ix. 1007±8 x. 132 x. 541 Macrobius, Sat. ii. 5. 2 ii. 7. 4 vii. 5. 2 Martial xi. 2. 1±2 xii. 17. 8 xiv. 154. 1 Martianus Capella c. 359 Orosius ii. 14. 1 vii. 12. 2 Ovid, Amor. i. 15. 1 iii. 4. 17 Fast. iii. 106 Met. i. 143 i. 325±6 i. 526 ii. 5 ii. 447 ii. 846±7 vi. 50 vi. 129±30 vii. 115 vii. 130

59 45 161 345 96, 345, 390 161 24 193, 240 220 230 19 305 305 157 338 234 45, 205 341 169 305 305 305 329 305 231 388 125 18 116 393 376 163 257 157 266 191 35 124 24 160 47 154 203 225 126 157 157 184 227 240, 242 47, 68 196 225

/3thomson/sind.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 9:47 ± disk/mp

INDEX OF SOURCES x. 405 xii. 425 xii. 534 xv. 60 xv. 160±1 xv. 737 Trist. i. 9. 5±6 Paulinus, Vita Ambrosii Persius i. 57 i. 85±6 ii. 69 Plato, Republ. v. 18 Pliny, Nat. hist. iv. 96 iv. 104 viii. 125 Prudentius, Cath. iii. 148 Perist. iii. 5 iii. 151±2 iii. 188±90 ix Psych. 52 193 197 234 253±4 297 478±9 729 829 862±3 Sallust, Bell. Cat. ii. 8 ii. 9 vi. 1 vi. 2 vii. 3 xi. 3 xix. 2 xix. 5 xxxi. 1 xliv. 3 liii. 2 liv. 4 Bell. Iug. iii. 3 vi. 1 xvi xvii. 7 xix. 2 xlv. 1 cxiv. 2 cxiv. 4 Hist. i. 112 v. 25

251 229 315 283 283 412 41 51 351 271 294 110, 398 89 89 373 25 205 197 166 101 48 329 307 306 130 194 149 137 165 295 18 33 41, 135 18 54 235 15 23 321 20, 228, 315 33 332 94 269 87 17 15 188 43 42 29 18

461

Schol. in Persium 96 Sedulius, Carm. Pasch. i. 96 16 iii. 127±8 329 Seneca the Elder, Controversiae i pr. 7 295 i pr. 9 51 Seneca the Younger, Apocolocynt. iv. 25, 27±8 251 De ben. i. 4. 1 31 ii. 13. 2 205 De clem. i. 15. 1 101 Epist. xl. 11 31 Servius in Aen. ii. 169 18 viii. 342±3 159 xi. 515 29 in Ecl. i. 66 49 in Georg. iv. 104 173 Sidonius, Carm. ii. 46±9, 56±62 312 ii. 48 311 ii. 61 312 ii. 69±72 327 Epist. i. 1. 2 15 i. 1. 4 219 i. 2. 2 231 ii. 13. 7 35 iii. 7. 4 138 iv. 18. 5 96 v. 8. 2 31 vii. 18. 4 75 viii. 11. 7 31 Solinus xxii. 1 49 Statius, Achill. i. 26 312 ii. 157±8 115 Theb. i. 390±1 162 iv. 94 331 iv. 173 331 iv. 471 200 iv. 609 25, 271 v. 654 69, 272 viii. 581 139 viii. 688±9 342 viii. 704±5 44 ix. 87±9 161 ix. 300 383 ix. 559 48 x. 587 251 xii. 543 197 xii. 817 10 xii. 818 343 Suetonius, Aug. xiii. 2 219 xxi. 1 368 lxi. 1 250

/3thomson/sind.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 9:47 ± disk/mp

462

INDEX OF SOURCES

Suetonius (cont.) lxxix. 2 Calig. xxxviii. 1 lvii. 3 lviii. 1 Claud. xxx 256, Domit. iii. 2 xi. 2 xii. 1 Galba ii. 1 xxi Iul. xxx. 5 353, lix Tib. xxxviii Tit. iii. 2 iv. 3 viii. 1 236, viii. 3 268, Vesp. iii xiv xvi. 3 xx xxi xxii xxiii. 1 Vitell. xvii. 2 Sulpicius Severus, Dial. i. 12. 3 i. 18. 4 ii. 2. 1 ii. 11. 11 iii. 14. 8±9 Terence, Andria 61 96±8 480 676±7 Eun. 276 Heaut. 991±3 Terentianus Maurus, De metris 1938 Vegetius iv. 15 Virgil, Aen. i. 3±4 i. 94 i. 176 i. 203 i. 216 i. 218 i. 282 i. 364 36, i. 372 i. 531 96, i. 546±7 i. 648 i. 723 ii. 169±70 21,

284 277 287 287 284 276 257 257 39 256 359 230 380 284 273 353 284 219 353 257 284 257 276 276 256 283 25 211 257 237 394 399 231 228 368 275 121 326 168 226 277 95 209 51 308 294 400 333 343 43 209 141

ii. 236±7 ii. 390 ii. 428 ii. 751 ii. 790±1 iii. 48 iii. 56±7 iii. 434 iii. 574 iii. 626 iii. 664 iii. 677 iv. 73 iv. 193 iv. 262 iv. 287 iv. 579±80 iv. 582 iv. 589 iv. 641 iv. 667 v. 56±7 v. 84 v. 205±9 v. 302 v. 320 v. 446 v. 455 v. 609 v. 754 vi. 129±30 vi. 459 vi. 743 vi. 823 vi. 853 vi. 882 vii. 45 vii. 53 vii. 169 vii. 279 vii. 586 vii. 646 vii. 749 vii. 781 viii. 114 viii. 116 viii. 230 viii. 342±3 viii. 474 viii. 483 viii. 535 viii. 648 ix. 24

235,

40, 225,

202, 244, 250,

194, 22,

196 29 382 40 134 196 79 196 287 157 320 194 287 309 43 188 316 309 226 318 383 220 96 383 164 27 33 283 388 293 52 196 144 239 374 287 10 228 161 123 160 37 194 116 40 252 320 159 308 252 362 161 44

/3thomson/sind.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 9:47 ± disk/mp

INDEX OF SOURCES ix. 72 ix. 349±50 ix. 441±2 ix. 446±9 ix. 472 ix. 514 ix. 613 ix. 757±9 ix. 762 ix. 778 x. 474±87 x. 510 x. 641 x. 718 x. 859±60 x. 898±9 xi. 72 xi. 182 xi. 183 xi. 218 xi. 335 xi. 587 xi. 647 xi. 812 xii. 155 xii. 282 xii. 331±6 xii. 668

220 22 316 329 157 122 38 166 253 335 197 37 107 320 124 239 43 125, 209 209 223 18 382 234 162 226 223 311 225, 283

xii. 695 xii. 710 xii. 731±2 Ecl. iii. 102 iii. 108 v. 37 vi. 3±4 vi. 9±10 ix. 2±4 x. 52 x. 53 Georg. i. 47±8 i. 102±3 i. 464 ii. 51 ii. 246±7 ii. 399 ii. 461±2 ii. 471 iii. 9 iii. 66 iv. 218 iv. 286 iv. 486 iv. 489 iv. 496 iv. 523 Vitruvius x. 8

463 223 116 274 224 262 122 268 17 143 37, 121 37 306 311 116 23 337 226 237, 381 254 133, 151 209 234 400 343 165 137 202 156

medieval Literary Abbo of Fleury, Passio S. Edmundi

198, 202 Adalbold, Epistola ad Gerbertum 154 In Boethii de consol. philosophiae 154 Vita Heinrici II imperatoris 154 Ado of Vienne 54, 83 áthelnoth, Vita Canuti regis 247 áthelweard prol. 106, 109 i. 2 68 i. 3 20 i. 4 90 ii. 7 30 ii. 10 34 ii. 12 34 iii. 4 81, 88±9 iv. 2 79 iv. 3 102 iv. 4 113 Alcuin, Dialectica 53 Epist. vii 66, 152

viii xvi xvii xix xliii lxxxvii c ci cxiv cxxi cxxii cxxvi cxlix clxxi ccxxx cclv Rhetorica Aldhelm, De virginitate (prose) De virginitate (verse)

58 57 58 56 57 66 66 57±8, 66 53 53 57, 67 53 53 53 62 65 53 31, 35, 79, 311 31

/3thomson/sind.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 9:47 ± disk/mp

464

INDEX OF SOURCES

Alexander of Canterbury, Dicta Anselmi 248±9 Alfred, Handboc 9, 102±3 translations (associated with): Augustine, Soliloquies 102±4 Bede, HE 102 Boethius, De consol. philosophiae 102 Gregory, Dialogi 102 Regula pastoralis 101±2, 104±5 Orosius 102 Psalter 102, 104 and see below under Laws Anglo-Saxon Chronicle 9, 12±13, 21±30, 32±40, 42, 45±8, 52, 56, 58±61, 63, 66±70, 72, 75±82, 86±92, 94±6, 98±9, 107±10, 114±15, 119±21, 127±33, 139±41, 143±6, 148±9, 160±3, 165±73, 175, 178±80, 185±93, 199, 210, 212±16, 239±42, 244, 246±7, 252±3, 257±9, 268±75, 277, 281, 283±6, 288, 356±63, 367, 375, 383±4, 400, 403±4 Annales Mettenses priores 54±5 Asser c. 1 88±9 2 89 8 80±1 11 80 12 78, 87 13 78, 87 14 78, 87 15 78, 87 16 78, 82, 87±8 17 90 18 90 19 90±1 20 90 21 91 22±3 102 24 102±3 27 92 29 97 37±9 91 41 92 42 91 53 94 55 94 56 96 71 99 73 97 74 97 75 97, 102 76 41 77 97

79 97 88 102±3 89 102±3 91 97, 103, 108 92 97 94 97 96 101 97 100±1 98 97 99±102 102, 105 103 102 104 102, 105 106 102, 106 B., Vita Dunstani 130±2, 400 Bayeux Tapestry 215, 232±4 Bede, Epistola ad Pleguinum 50 Hist. abbatum 47, 49 HE praef. 50, 75, 397 i. 3 70 i. 5 17, 20, 70 i. 8 17, 311 i. 9 18 i. 11 18 i. 12 18 i. 13 403 i. 14 19 i. 15 17, 19±21 i. 16 21 i. 20 403 i. 25 22, 24 i. 29 264 i. 34 40 ii. 1 39±40 ii. 2 40, 73 ii. 5 22±3, 42, 46, 69 ii. 6 23, 70 ii. 9 42 ii. 12 40, 42 ii. 13 42 ii. 14 42, 404 ii. 15 69 ii. 16 42, 98, 404 ii. 17 52 ii. 20 41±2, 52, 59 iii. 1 42±3 iii. 3 42 iii. 6 42, 44±5, 205 iii. 7 29±30, 59±60 iii. 8 24, 203 iii. 9 41±2 iii. 10 42 iii. 11 42, 45 iii. 12 42

/3thomson/sind.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 9:47 ± disk/mp

INDEX OF SOURCES iii. 13 42 iii. 14 41, 45 iii. 18 59, 69 iii. 21 60 iii. 22 70±1 iii. 24 45±6, 59±60, 69 iii. 25 30, 45 iii. 26 30 iii. 28 30 iii. 29 45 iii. 30 70±1 iv. 1 24, 30, 45 iv. 3 60 iv. 5 46±7 iv. 10 35 iv. 11 70±1 iv. 12 30, 32, 46 iv. 13 60, 72 iv. 14 198 iv. 15 32 iv. 16 32±3 iv. 19 46, 198, 203, 397 iv. 20 203 iv. 21 46, 60 iv. 23 46 iv. 26 25, 33, 46±7 iv. 30 198 iv. 32 120 v. 7 32±3, 36 v. 8 405 v. 13 61 v. 18 35, 47, 62 v. 19 30, 47, 61±2, 70 v. 22 62 v. 23 25, 47 v. 24 48, 50, 60±2 De locis sanctis 312, 322, 336 In Luc. 397 De nat. rerum 164 In I Sam. 51 Vita Cuthberti 46±7, 164, 198 Bernard the Monk, Itinerarium 322±3, 325 Boniface, Epistolae 61±2, 164 Byrhtferth, Vita Oswaldi 131, 140±4, 146 Colman, Life of Wulfstan 266 Commendatio et obitus Aelfredi regis 411 Continuatio Adonis 84 Cuthbert, Epistola de obitu Bedae 51 David the Scot 384±8, 391±2 Dominic of Evesham, Miracula B.V.M. 110 Vita S. Wistani 201

465

Eadmer, Hist. nov. xxxiii n. 27, 187, 212±13, 229, 231, 251, 264, 266, 268, 276±80, 282, 288, 358, 368, 375, 378±80, 382, 388±9 Vita Anselmi 49, 279, 286, 394 Vita Dunstani 132, 140±1, 143, 176 Vita Oswaldi 135 Einhard, Vita Karoli 54, 56, 256 Faricius, Vita Aldhelmi 9 Freculf of Lisieux, Chronicon 400 Fulbert of Chartres, Epistolae 176±8 Hymni 176 Responsoria 176 Fulcher of Chartres, Historia Hierosolymitana 268, 299, 302±3, 306±12, 315±22, 326±9, 332±5, 337±43, 345, 348±9 Gerbert, Epistola de sphaera 155 Regulae de abaco 154 Gesta Francorum 299, 303, 316, 319±21, 326, 348 Gildas c. 3. 2 237 4. 3 24, 237 13 18 14 18 14±17 18 17. 2 18 23. 3 19 Godfrey of Cambrai, Carmina 395 Epigrammata 395 Epistolae 395 Goscelin, Historia, miracula et translatio S. Augustini 49, 67, 284, 299 Translatio S. Mildrethae 187, 199, 203 Vita S. Edithae 139, 160, 205 Vita S. Mildrethae 25, 60, 203 Vita S. Werburgae 202 Guitmund of Aversa, De corpore et sanguine Domini 259 Herbert Losinga, Epistolae 295 Sermones 295 Hermann the Archdeacon, De miraculis S. Edmundi 130, 163, 167±8, 172, 202, 215 Hildebert, Carmina 260, 308, 393, 400 Historia Brittonum c. 15 18 20 19, 20 24 18, 20 25 21 26 22 27 21

/3thomson/sind.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 9:47 ± disk/mp

466

INDEX OF SOURCES

Historia Brittonum (cont.) 31 22 38 38 56 22 58 22 Historia de S. Cuthberto 52, 95 Hugh of Fleury, Historia ecclesiastica 54, 56, 83 Itinerarium urbis Romae 308±9 Ivo of Chartres, Panormia 195 John the Deacon, Vita Gregorii 40 John of Worcester 12±13, 16, 21±2, 24±5, 27±9, 32±6, 38±9, 45, 48, 58, 60, 63±4, 66, 68±70, 72, 76±82, 86±94, 96±7, 99±100, 102±3, 105±9, 112±15, 119, 127±8, 130±3, 137, 139±43, 146±8, 151, 162±73, 178±81, 185±90, 192±3, 195, 196, 199±201, 203, 207±10, 213±16, 240±2, 251±4, 258±9, 268, 270±1, 273±4, 277, 280±1, 284±8, 295, 324, 352, 358±9, 363±4, 385±8, 397, 403, 411 Lanfranc, De corpore et sanguine Domini 259 Epist. vii 264 Scriptum de primatu 266 Lanzo, Death of 394±5 Liber ponti®calis 82±3, 400 Liber vitae of Winchester New Minster 106±7, 131 Marianus Scotus 182, 262±3 Mathematica Alhandrei 153±4 De miraculis et translationibus S. Cuthberti 44, 95 Ps.-Odo of Cluny, De reuersione b. Martini a Burgundia 96 Osbern, Historia de translatione corporis S. Elphegi 147±8, 172, 198 Vita S. Dunstani 119, 128, 130±2, 134, 138, 140±4, 146±7, 165, 176 Vita S. Elphegi 147±8 Otbertus Peccator 160 Paschasius, De corpore et sanguine Domini 261 Passio S. Edwardi 141, 143±4, 146 Paul the Deacon, Hist. Lang. i. 1 19 i. 6 373 v. 11±12 313 vi. 48 175 Historia Romana 325

Vita Gregorii 40 Proverbs: Otto, SprichwoÈrter 96, 138, 394 Walther, Proverbia 26852 355 Reginald of Canterbury, Carmina 299 Simeon of Durham, Liber de exordio . . . Dunelmensis ecclesie 52 Stephen of Ripon, Vita Wilfridi 33, 47, 66, 405 Sylloge inscriptionum 52 ?Turgot, Vita Margaretae 8, 275, 364, 380 De utilitatibus astrolabii 153 Verse: SK 2573 101 5130 197 12463 52 Walther, Initia 1333 63 2287 185 3362 393 5194 394 6192a 393 6528 197 8129 248 13945 248 18920 295 On King áthelstan 116±26 Visio Eucherii 62, 196 Visio Karoli crassi 85 Vita ádwardi confessoris 172, 180, 188±92, 206±8, 210, 212, 214±15, 240±1 Vita SS. áthelredi et áthelberti 199 Vita S. Ethelberti 200 Vita et miracula S. Kenelmi 68, 83, 200, 241 Vita S. Edburgae 204 Vita prima Grimbaldi 99±100, 106 Vita Swithuni 77±8, 80 Vita S. Withburgae 198 Wandalbert, Miracula S. Goaris 63 William of JumieÁges, GND 37, 86, 110±11, 129, 147, 149, 162±3, 170, 177±8, 180, 213±14, 219±24, 226, 235, 237, 250 William of Poitiers 163, 180, 189, 213±14, 219±21, 223±5, 227, 229±36, 250 Wulfstan Cantor, Breviloquium super musicam 134 Vita S. Aethelwoldi 134

/3thomson/sind.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 9:47 ± disk/mp

INDEX OF SOURCES

467

Documentary Anonymus Mercati Burghal Hidage Donation of Constantine

314 108 311

Treaty of Ponte Mammolo its retraction

385±7 388

Charters `Coronation Charter' of Henry I 175, 280, 357, 363 Sawyer 6 24 65 71 92 62±3 128 57 149 66 167 68 188 77 227 405 250 406 257 406 302±15 80 322 88 325 82 357 100 365 88 370 106 399 122 400 122, 405 419 100 429 100 434 126

435 436 439 443 455 499 566 629 725 745 783 796 808 838 909 951 954 966 1245 1478 1495 1526

126 126 115 115 407 128 133 131 138 142±3 135 136 133 164 164 172 164 176 31 186 164 176

Councils Clermont, 1095 Clovesho, 746/7 Clovesho, October 803 Lambeth 1100 London 1074/5

299, 302±3 62 64 380±1 265

Reims 1119 368, 389, 392 Westminster 1102 134, 251, 278, 397 Westminster 1107 379±80 Winchester and Windsor 1072 264±5

Genealogies and Regnal Lists BL, MS Cott. Vesp. B. vi 39, 71 Bodl. Libr., MS Lat. class. d. 39 54, 83 Catalogue of Anglo-Saxon kingdoms and bishoprics 13 Catalogue of Eastern Emperors 313±14 Catalogue of Patriarchs of Jerusalem 324±5 Catalogue of Popes 118, 151, 154, 185, 408

Domus Carolingiae genealogia 55 JW Accounts 24, 32, 36, 58±61, 68±73, 103, 109, 140, 164, 192, 199, 201, 411 JW Gen. 22, 27±9, 32±3, 38±9, 48, 59, 61, 64, 68±72, 76, 78, 97, 203 Oxford, Corpus Christi Coll., MS 157 55

Laws áthelbert áthelred II

23 174

Alfred Cnut

98, 174 174

/3thomson/sind.3d ± 27/1/99 ± 9:47 ± disk/mp

468 `Edward the Confessor' Ine Pseudo-Isidorean Decretals

INDEX OF SOURCES 168, 174±5 34, 88, 174 259, 311

Quadripartitus 98, 174, 412 William the Conqueror 175, 251, 281, 412

Letters Councils, I(1), no. 4 (Fulk archbp. of Reims to K. Alfred) 99 i(1), no. 9 (Radbod to áthelstan) 407 i(1), no.35 (Ps.-Formosus) 112 i(1), no.65 (Cnut) 173 Decretum spurium Hadriani I papae de Investituris 194±5 H & S iii. 248±50 50 iii. 360±76 62 iii. 521 65 iii. 523±5 65, 83 JL 2140 34 2511 66 2645 80 3506 112

3751 3752 3840 5883 5928 5956 6073 6290 6635 6902 6986 RRAN no. 501 784 1485

408 136 150 361 378 378 378 387 389 390 391 375 408 408±9

Liturgical Coronation Ordines: Ordo X (Elze) Ordo XIV (Elze) Prayers

387 379 88

Response Sequence Tract

156±7 156±7, 184 160

/3thomson/gind.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:38 ± disk/mp

GENERAL INDEX Aaron 338 Abbeville 259 Abbo of Fleury 153 Abingdon 125, 189, 288; abbots of, see áthelwold, Faricius, Siward Abu'l-Qasim Abbas b. Firnas, Cordovan astronaut 211 Acha, w. of K. áthelfrith 43 Acre 339, 342 Adalbold, bp. of Utrecht 154 Adam 335±6 Adam of Bremen 167±8, 183, 188 Adamnan 336 Adam's Grave 28 Adela (Adeliza) of Louvain, w. of K. Henry I 381 Adela, d. of Robert the Frisian 245 Adela, d. of K. Robert the Pious 179, 398 Adela, d. of K. William I 254, 383 Adelaide, w. of Roger I of Sicily 342 Adelaide, d. of K. William I 255 Adelard of Bath 263 Adelina, prioress of PreÂaux 255 Adeliza, nun of PreÂaux 255 Adeliza, d. of Richard II duke of Normandy 221 Adhemar of Chabannes 225 Adhemar, bp. of Le Puy 306 Adulf, count of Boulogne 106, 123 Advice to an Emperor 245 Aedan, Irish k. of Dal Riata 40 álf¯ñd, d. of K. Alfred 97 álf¯ñd, d. of K. Oswiu 46 álfgar, s. of Earl Godwine 192 álfgifu, ?w. of K. áthelred the Unready 162, 164 álfgifu (properly áthelgifu), d. of K. Alfred 100 álfgifu, w. of K. Eadwig 131 álfgifu, w. of K. Edmund I 86, 100, 137 álfgifu, d. of K. Edward the Elder 109, 123 álfgifu of Northampton, consort of K. Cnut 162, 179 álfheah, abt. of Bath, bp. of Winchester,

archbp. of Canterbury 30, 148, 160, 172, 175, 198 álfhelm, ealdorman of Northumbria 179 álfhere, ealdorman of Mercia 143±4, 146±8 álfhun, bp. of London 162 álfric, abt. of Eynsham 102, 133 álfric, ealdorman of Hampshire xxvii, xxxi, 136, 148 álfric, abt. of Malmesbury 126 álfric, ealdorman of Mercia xxvii, xxxi, 136, 148 álfric, archbp. of York 174 álfsige, abt. of Bath 297 álfsige, abt. of Peterborough 60, 162 álfsige, abt. of Ramsey 245 álfstan, bp. of Lindsey 65 álfstan, bp. of Rochester 147 álfthryth, w. of Ealdorman áthelwold and of K. Edgar I 137±8, 140, 142, 144 álfthryth, d. of K. Alfred 97, 106, 123 álfwald, k. of Northumbria 58 álfweard, abt. of Glastonbury 135±6 álfweard 109, 115, 127; see also áthelweard, k. of W. Saxons álfwine, br. of K. Ecgfrith 47 álle, k. of Deira 39±40, 92 álle, usurping k. of Northumbria 59 áscwine, k. of W. Saxons 103 áthelbald, k. of Mercia 38, 61±3 áthelbald, k. of W. Saxons xix, 90±1 áthelberht, ealdorman 164 áthelberht, St, k. of E. Angles 200 áthelberht, s. of Eormenred 199, 400 áthelberht I, k. of Kent 22±3 áthelberht II, k. of Kent 25±6 áthelberht, k. of W. Saxons 91 áthelberht, archbp. of York 53 áthelberht, see áthelred I k. of Northumbria, Eadberht Prñn áthelburh, d. of K. Anna 202 áthelburh, w. of K. Ine 35±6 áthel¯ñd, w. of K. áthelred the Unready 164 áthel¯ñd, d. of K. Alfred 108, 119, 382

/3thomson/gind.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:38 ± disk/mp

470

GENERAL INDEX

áthel¯ñd Candida, w. of K. Edgar I 140 áthelfrith, k. of Bernicia 43 áthelgar, abt. of New Minster Winchester, bp. of Selsey, archbp. of Canterbury 107, 176 áthelgifu, d. of K. Alfred 97, 100 áthelheard, archbp. of Canterbury 58, 65±7 áthelheard, subregulus of K. Ine, ?later k. of West Saxons xxx n. 22, 36 áthelheard, abt. of Malmesbury 67 áthelheard, bp. of Winchester 67 áthelhelm, see Athelm áthelnoth, archbp. of Canterbury 174±6 áthelnoth, s. of Wigstan 150 áthelred, s. of Eormenred 400 áthelred I, k. of Mercia 60 áthelred II, k. of Mercia 119 áthelred I (also called áthelberht), k. of Northumbria xx, 57±9 áthelred, k. of W. Saxons 91 áthelred `Mucill', father-in-law of K. Alfred 97 áthelred the Unready, k. of England xliii & n. 76, 1±2, 8, 74, 140, 142±7, 149±50, 161, 164±5, 168, 170, 199, 267 áthelric, k. of Bernicia 40 áthelsige I, bp. of Sherborne 150 áthelstan, k. of England xxviii±xxix, 2, 9, 74, 93, 96, 98, 100, 109, 113±20, 127±8, 132, 407; `ancient volume' about 74, 116±26, 154; foreign relations 121±4; relics 124; wars 114±16 áthelstan, bp. of Ramsbury 113 áthelstan, subregulus of S.E. counties 79 áthelswith, d. of K. Alfred 97, 123 áthelswith, w. of K. Burhred 69 áthelthryth, St, w. of K. Ecgfrith 198, 203, 397 áthelwalh, k. of the S. Saxons 33 áthelweard, ealdorman 168 áthelweard, abt. of Glastonbury 136 áthelweard, historian 15, 131 áthelweard, bp. of Sherborne 99 áthelweard (also known as álfweard), k. of W. Saxons 109 áthelwine, ealdorman of E. Anglia 199 áthelwold, St, abt. of Abingdon, bp. of Winchester 30, 60, 106±7, 133, 381 áthelwold, bp. of Dunwich 65 áthelwold, ealdorman of E. Anglia 137, 140 áthelwulf (also known as Athulf), k. of

W. Saxons xix, 77±83, 88, 90; his decimation 80, 88; his visit to Rome 80±2 al-Afdal, vizier of Egypt 328 Africa, Africans 158, 230, 305, 372±3 Agatha, virgin 314±15 Agatha, called by W. sister-in-law of the k. of Hungary 8, 169 Agatha (Adelida or Adeliza), d. of William the Conqueror 254 Agnes de Ribemont 352 Agnes, countess of VendoÃme 222 Agrippina (= Cologne) 160 Aidan, St, bp. of Lindisfarne 46, 49, 205 Ailred of Rievaulx 164 Aistulf, k. of the Lombards 56 Alan III, count of Brittany 220, 228 Alan the Black, count of Brittany 380 Alan IV Fergant, count of Brittany 254, 300 Alan the Red, count of Brittany 380 Albania 310 Alberic, abt. of CõÃteaux 293 Alberic of Trois Fontaines 211, 344 Albert, abbot of Saint-Erard (called by W. Herbert) bp. of Tripoli 350 Albert of Aachen 316, 318, 331±2, 339±41, 348±9, 352 Albo (rightly Aldo?), cardinal deacon of SS Sergius and Bacchus 386 Alcuin xxviii, 2, 12, 235, 407; letters of xxi & n. 7, xxxiv n. 34, 53, 63, 66, 77, 150; other works of 53 Alderney 373 Aldfrith, k. of Northumbria 46±7 Aldhelm, abt. of Malmesbury, bp. of Sherborne xxix±xxx, 2, 9, 12, 31±2, 34±5, 79, 116, 125±6, 136; style of 31±2; works of 31 Aldhelm II, abt. of Malmesbury 67 Aldwulf, bp. of Lich®eld 64 Alemanni, Alemannia 19, 54 Alexander of Canterbury 248±9 Alexander, king over the Jews 29 Alexander the Great 29, 274 Alexander, bp. of Lincoln 14 Alexander I, k. of Scots 213, 238, 363 Alexander III, k. of Scots 238 Alexius I Comnenus, emperor 210, 239, 244, 301, 314±15, 320, 348 Alfonso VI, k. of Spain 254, 258, 347 Alfred, s. of K. áthelred the Unready 180

/3thomson/gind.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:38 ± disk/mp

GENERAL INDEX Alfred, rebel v. K. áthelstan 126 Alfred, bp. of Sherborne 116 Alfred, k. of W. Saxons 2, 8, 74, 80±2, 91±108, 116, 119, 235, 411; his administrative divisions 97±8; his aestel 104±5; his buildings 103, 105±8; his candle-clock 105; his Handboc 9, 102±3; division of his revenue 105, 107; his scholars 99±101; his translations 102±4; and see under Laws Alhmund, ancestor of K. áthelwulf 76 Alhred, k. of Northumbria 58 Alice, d. of Baldwin II 345 Almodis de la Marche 346 Almoravides 258 Alnwick 238 Alphonse-Jordan, s. of Raymond IV count of Toulouse 350 Alric, s. of Heardberht 26 Alric, joint k. of Kent 25±6 Alton 358, 360 Alton Priors 28 Alwih, nephew of K. Penda 61 Amasya 349 Ambrosian rite 293 Anagni 150 Anastasius Bibliothecarius 146 Anatolia 334 Andover 28, 138 Andrew, k. of Hungary 169 Andrew, St 315 Angilbert 183 Angles 20±1, 38, 66, 95; see also East Anglia Anglesey, Mevanian Isles 42, 246, 285 Anglo-Saxon Chronicle xli±xlii & nn. 70± 1, 73, 12±13 Anjou, Angevin 3, 218±19, 225; counts of, see Fulk III, IV and V, Geoffrey II Martel, Geoffrey III the Bearded, Geoffrey IV Martel, Geoffrey V; countess of, see Bertrada of Montfort Anlaf (Olaf), s. of Guthfrith II, k. at York 128 Anlaf (Olaf), s. of Sihtric, k. at York 126, 128 Anna Comnena 244, 301, 314, 340 Anna, k. of E. Angles 29, 69 Annals: Bermondsey 360; Chichester 115; Fulda 125; Lewes 395; Margam 285; Montacute 395; Saint-Bertin 79, 87; St Neots 80, 85, 91, 196, 200; Tewkesbury 361; Waverley 191;

471

Winchester 77, 98, 107, 113, 115, 287, 363 Anselm, archbp. of Canterbury xli n. 67, 9±10, 15, 49, 278±9, 281, 288, 354, 357±8, 361, 369±70, 376±80, 394 Anselm of Laon 369 Anselm of LieÁge 285 Antioch 4, 124, 256, 267, 316, 318, 320±1, 333, 343, 348; church of St Mary in 317; siege of 317±19, 331, 352 Antiochus, f. of Seleucus I 317 Antipater 332 Antony of Novgorod 315 Antwerp 331 Apuleius, Golden Ass 158±9 Apulia 247±8, 301; dukes of, see Robert Guiscard, Roger Borsa Aquitaine 288, 373; dukes of, see Poitou, counts of; monk from 150, 158, 345 Ardennes 241 Arezzo 385, 392 Argences 346 Aristobolus 33 Arkona 183 Armes Prydein 121 Arnold, lord of Ardres 372 Arnulf III, count of Flanders 243 Arnulf, bp. of Ravenna 184 Arnulf of Choques, patriarch of Jerusalem 328 Arnulf, k. of Germany, emperor 85±6 Arnulf I the Great, count of Flanders 106, 129 Arnulf, br. of Robert of BelleÃme 360, 371 Arqah 350 Arques 366 Arsur 335 Artah, battle of 345 Arthur, K. 3, 21, 218, 261, 397, 403 Arundel 359 Ascalon 326, 328±9, 332, 335, 341, 349 Ascelin, a Norman knight 259 Ashdod 335 Ashingdon 166 Ashdon 166 Asia 17, 311; minor 210, 304 Assandun, battle of 95, 166, 171 Asser, bp. of Sherborne 92±3, 97±9, 102, 105 Astronomer, Vita Hludovici 119 Asturias 152 Athelm (or áthelhelm), bp. of Wells, archbp. of Canterbury 113, 176

/3thomson/gind.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:38 ± disk/mp

472

GENERAL INDEX

Athelney 94, 101, 105; abbot of, see John the Old Saxon Athulf, see áthelwulf Atticus 332 Aubrey de Vere 256 Audoen, St 188 Augustine of Hippo, St 75, 175, 205 St Augustine's, see Canterbury Augustus, emperor 157; see also Octavian Aurillac 151 Axminster 38 al-Aziz bi'llah, caliph of Egypt 325 Azotus 335 Azov, Sea of 54 Babylon in Egypt (mod. Cairo) 239, 328, 332 Bacsecg (and other spellings) 92 Bñdde 402 Bñldñg, ancestor of K. áthelwulf 39, 89 Baldred, k. of Kent 27 Baldwin, monk of Bec 379 Baldwin I, count of Edessa, k. of Jerusalem 267, 299, 333±5, 339, 341±2, 373 Baldwin II of Le Bourg, count of Edessa, k. of Jerusalem xvii, xxv, 334, 343, 345 Baldwin II, count of Flanders 97, 106 Baldwin V, count of Flanders 179, 243, 365, 398 Baldwin VI, count of Flanders 243, 330, 365 Baldwin VII, count of Flanders 244, 365±6 Baldwin II, count of Hainault 243 Balearic Islands 373±4 Balzo the Short 129 Bamberg 260 Bamburgh 43±4, 49, 121 Bangor (Gwynedd) 40±1, 72, 385; bishops of, see David, Hervey Bangor Iscoed 41 Bannu-Ammar 334 Bantomp 402 Barcelona, count of 373 Bardney 44±5 Barking 35; abbess of, see Hildelith Basil, St 314±15 Basil I 125 Bate 402 Bath 138, 142, 265, 297; bishop of, see John of Villula Battle abbey 250, 299, 324

Baudri de Bourgeuil 254, 303, 306, 331, 348 Bayeux 170, 232, 356; bishop of, see Odo; Tapestry 215, 232±4 Bearn 402 Bebba, Queen 44 Bec 203, 377±8 Bede xxxix, 2, 11, 14±16, 23, 50, 52, 113, 235, 262; death of 12, 48; letters concerning 50±1 Benedict V, pope 408 Benedict X, pope 191, 197, 210 Benedict of Aniane 266 Benedict Biscop 49 Benedictine Rule 31 Benno 150 BenoõÃt de Sainte-Maure 235 Beorn Ulfsson, cousin of Swein s. of Earl Godwine 193, 272 Beornheah, bp. of Selsey 113 Beornred, k. of Mercia 61 Berengar of Tours 3, 218, 259±61 Berhtwald, said to be abt. of Glastonbury and of Reculver, archbp. of Canterbury 402, 405±6 Berhtwulf, k. of Mercia 68±9, 201 Berkeley 190 Berkshire 286 Berkyaruk, sultan 317 Bermondsey 360 Bernard the Monk 322±3 Bernard, bp. of St David's 404 Bernard, founder of Tiron 394 Bernelin 155 Bernicia, kings of, see áthelfrith, áthelric, Eanfrith, Ida, Oswald, Oswiu Bernwood Forest 208 Berold (Berout), butcher of Rouen 382 Bertha, d. of Charlemagne 183 Bertha, w. of K. Eadbald of Kent 90 Bertha, d. of Floris I count of Holland 244, 345 Bertha, cousin of Raymond IV count of Toulouse 346 Bertrada of Montfort, w. of Fulk Rechin and K. Philip I 227, 244, 303, 345, 366±7, 379 Bertram of Toulouse, count of Tripoli 346±7, 350 bezants 310 Bigod, see Roger Black Book of Carmarthen 261 Bleddyn ap Cynfyn, Welsh king 215

/3thomson/gind.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:38 ± disk/mp

GENERAL INDEX Blithhere 402 Blois, counts of, see Stephen, Theobald III and IV Bodmin 261 Boethius 97, 102 Bohemond I, prince of Antioch 4, 248, 267, 301, 319, 321, 333±4, 343±4, 348±9 Bohemond II, prince of Antioch xxv, 343, 345 Boniface, archbp. of Mainz 79; letters of 12, 61±2 Boniface, cardinal priest of St Mark 386 Bordeaux 222 Borgo, see Rome Boso, k. of Provence 85±6 Bosphorus (`Arm of St George') 304 Boulogne, counts of, see Adulf, Eustace II and III; countess of, see Ida, Mary Bourdin, see Maurice BozuÈyuÈk 316 Bradford-on-Avon 29 Braga, bp. of, see Maurice Bourdin Brecgwine, archbp. of Canterbury 62 Bregden 402 Bregored, abt. of Glastonbury 402, 405 BreÂmule, battle of 367 Brent Knoll 402 Brent Marsh 402 Breteuil-sur-Iton 409 Brian Fitz Count 300 Bridgnorth 359 Brie 24 Brihtheah, bp. of Worcester 181 Brihtric, k. of W. Saxons 76, 87 Brihtwold, abt. of Glastonbury, bp. of Ramsbury xxviii, 207 Brill 208 Brionne, counts of, see Gilbert, Guy of Burgundy Bristol 241 Britain 48±9; as `alter orbis' 48±9; kings of, see Arthur, Cadwallon, Gereint, Vortigern Britford 193 Britons 18, 28, 402±3 Brittany, Bretons 3, 38, 218, 228, 242, 261, 274, 365, 371; counts of, see Alan III and IV, Alan the Black, Alan the Red, Conan II Brunanburh, battle of 114±15, 125 Bruno, bp. of Segni 388 Bruno, bp. of Speyer 185 Bruno, bp. of Toul (= Pope Leo IX) 185

473

Brut y Tywysogion 364 Buckingham 108 Bulgaria 311 Bures-en-Brai 365 Burgos 374 Burgundy 221; counts of, see Raynald, William I; dukes of, see Odo I; kings of, see Rudolf II, Rudolf III; see also Guy, Matilda Burhred, k. of Mercia 69 Burkhard, bp. of Cambrai 386 Bury St Edmunds 85, 172, 196, 202, 208±10, 288 Byrhtferth of Ramsey 93±4; Hist. regum 59, 87, 92, 127, 198±9 Byzantium, Byzantines 209, 226, 301, 304; see also Constantinople Cadwallon, prince of Gwynedd 43 Cñdwalla, k. of W. Saxons 32±3, 37 Caen, abbaye aux hommes 250, abbot of, see Lanfranc; abbaye aux dames 250, abbess of, see Cecilia Caernarvonshire 40±1 Caesar, see Augustus, Julius Cahors 347; bishops of, see Gerald of Cardaillac, Gerald of Gourdon Cairo, see Babylon Caistor 65 Caithness 371 Calabria 247 Calixtus II, pope xxv, 262, 291, 368, 370, 384, 388±90 Callaecia 152 Cambridgeshire 202 Cambyses, k. of Persia 328 Camel, R. 76 Campus Martius, see Rome Canossa 249 Canterbury xxv n. 13, 3, 24, 50±1, 53±4, 57, 64±5, 67, 99, 104, 112, 147, 188, 199, 206, 208, 212, 218, 238, 264, 288, 298, 368, 379, 401; archbishops of, see álfheah, áthelgar, áthelheard, áthelnoth, Anselm, Athelm, Berhtwald, Brecgwine, Cuthbert, Dunstan, Eadsige, Jñnberht, Lanfranc, Oda, Plegmund, Ralph of Escures, Robert of JumieÁges, Sigeric, Stigand, Theodore, William, see also Joseph, Osbern; St Augustine's 13, 24, 191, 232, 298; abbots of, see Hadrian; St Gregory's priory 199

/3thomson/gind.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:38 ± disk/mp

474

GENERAL INDEX

Capua, prince of, see Richard count of Aversa Carlisle 17, 73 Carloman, s. of Louis the German 85±6 Carmen de Hastingae proelio 233 Carolingians 2, 54, 56, 74, 77, 83, 86, 120, 125, 128, 183, 185, 278, 281, 406 Cassel, battle of 243 Cassian, St 101 Castell Gwalchmai 261 Castor, monastery at 60 Catalonia 153 Catigirn (Catigis), s. of Vortigern 21 Cato 376 Ceawlin, k. of W. Saxons 23, 28, 32 Cecaumenos, Strategicon 246 Cecilia, d. of K. Philip I, w. of Tancred, then of Pons count of Tripoli 345, 350 Cecilia, d. of K. William I, abbess of Caen 254 Cencio, Wibertine cardinal bp. of St Chrysogonus 389 Cenfus, k. of W. Saxons 103 Cenred, k. of Northumbria 47 Centwine, k. of W. Saxons 36, 401±2 Cenwealh, k. of W. Saxons 29, 32 Cenwulf, bp. of Dorchester 113 Cenwulf, k. of Mercia 65±6, 83 Ceol, see Ceolric ceolae 19 Ceolfrith, abt. of Wearmouth-Jarrow xxxi, 49 Ceolred, bp. of Leicester 65 Ceolred, k. of Mercia 61±2 Ceolric (also Ceol), k. of W. Saxons 28 Ceolwulf, k. of Northumbria 48, 52 Cerdic, k. of W. Saxons 27, 33, 89, 214 la Chaise-Dieu 347 Chalcedon, council of 325 Charlemagne 66, 76, 152, 183, 330, 384 Charles II, k. of England 376 Charles the Bald 120, 123 Charles the Fat 85±6 Charles the Good, count of Flanders 244, 365±6 Charles Martel 62 Charles the Simple, k. of E. Franks 86, 109 Chartres 377; bishop of, see Fulbert Charybdis 374 Chef-Boutonne, battle of 222 Chelles 24 Cherbourg 362

Chertsey 288; abbots of, see Wulfwold Chester 41, 72, 119, 265; bishop of, see Robert of Limesey; earls of, see Hugh of Avranches, Richard, see also Otuel Fitz Count; St Werburg's abbey 203 Chester-le-Street 46, 265 Chichester 65, 265; bishop of, see Stigand Chinese 285 Cholsey 146 Christina, d. of Edgar the átheling 169, 213, 380 Chronicle of Melrose 363 Chron. de Hyda 189, 215, 221, 256, 275±6, 281, 366±7, 380 Chron. Laureshamense 183 Chron. Turonense 111, 129, 157, 163, 177, 282 Chron. monasterii de Abingdon 125, 277 Chrysippus 31 Chur, Churwelsch 84 Cicero 29, 76, 276, 332 Cirencester 377 Cistercians 1, 4, 267, 288±94 CõÃteaux 293±4; abbots of, see Alberic, Robert, Stephen Harding Claudius, emperor 256 Cleophas, br. of Joseph 324 Clermont, Council of 299±306, 347 Clodio, s. of Faramund 55 Clovesho, Synods at 62, 64 Cluny, Cluniacs 204, 296±7, 377; abbots of, see Hugh, Odilo, Odo; monk of, see Lanzo Cnut, k. of England, Denmark and Norway xxvii, 3, 74, 95, 165±74, 176, 178±9, 192, 201; marriage 169±70; generosity to the Church 171±2, 175±6; Scandinavian campaigns 169, 172±3; visits Rome 173 Cnut IV, k. of Denmark 245±7, 258 Coel, British k. 17 Colchester 288 Collectio Britannica 81 Colman, bp. of Lindisfarne 46 Colman, monk of Worcester 266 Coln Rogers 409 Cologne, archbishops of, see Heribert, Pilgrim; see also Agrippina comets 143, 209, 211, 285 Conan, killed by K. Henry I 273, 356 Conan II, count of Brittany 228 Conrad, s. of Henry IV, king of Lombardy 262

/3thomson/gind.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:38 ± disk/mp

GENERAL INDEX Conrad I, k. of Germany 56, 86 Conrad II, k. of Germany, emperor 173, 184, 385 Constance, d. of K. Philip I 345 Constance, w. of K. Robert the Pious 177±8 Constance, d. of K. William I 254 Constans II, emperor 314 Constantine IV, emperor 314 Constantine V Copronymos 146 Constantine X Ducas 210 Constantine the Great 159, 311, 387; Donation of 311 Constantine, son of Michael VII Ducas 314 Constantine IX Monomakh 209, 325 Constantine, abbot of St-Mesmin 154 Constantine II, k. of Scots 91, 114±15, 120 Constantinople 4, 209±10, 246, 267, 299, 311±12, 315, 317, 320, 340, 349, 373±4, see also Byzantium; churches in 374; list of emperors of 313; relics at 210, 314±15 Corbridge, battle of 91 Cor®nium 283 Corfu 301 Cornwall, Cornish 76, 113, 121±2, 261, 405; bishops of, see Leofric, Ly®ng; earl of, see William, count of Mortain Cotentin 359 Coventry 176, 298 Coxon (mod. GoÈksun) 316 Cranbourne 361 Crediton 113; bishops of, see álfric, Eadwulf, Leofric, Ly®ng Cremona 392 Creoda, ancestor of K. áthelwulf 89 Creoding, ancestor of K. áthelwulf 89 Crescentius, cardinal 386, 388 Cross, relics of 124, 159, 315, 342 Crowland xli n. 67, 240 Crusade: First xxvi, xxxvii n. 44, xlii, 1, 4, 124, 208, 210, 267±8, 280, 299±352; of 1101 288, 340, 349, 392; of Sigurd of Norway 354, 373±4 Culkerton 409 Cumbria 133, 186; king of, see Malcolm Cutha, br. of K. Ceawlin 28 Cutha, s. of K. Ceawlin 28, 32 Cutha, ancestor of K. áthelwulf 89 Cuthbald, br. of K. Cynegils 33 Cuthbert, abt. of Malmesbury, archbp. of Canterbury 62, 67

475

Cuthbert, St, bp. of Lindisfarne 44, 46, 95, 198, 396 Cuthburh, sister of K. Ine, w. of K. Aldfrith xix, 35 Cuthgils, br. of K. Cynegils 33 Cuthred, k. of Kent 27 Cuthred, k. of W. Saxons xxvii, xxx & n. 22, 30, 36±7 Cuthwulf, br. of K. Ceawlin 28 Cwenburh, sister of K. Ine 35 Cwichelm, k. of W. Saxons 29 Cyneburh, d. of K. Penda 60 Cynegils, k. of W. Saxons 29, 33 Cyneheard, br. of Sigeberht k. of W. Saxons 38 Cyneswith, d. of K. Penda 60, 71 Cynewulf, k. of W. Saxons 37 Cynric, k. of W. Saxons 28, 89 Dacia 389 Dacre 120 Daedalus 212 Daimbert, archbp. of Pisa, Latin patriarch of Jerusalem 333 Dal Riata 40 Damascus, see Dukak, Toghtekin Danes, Denmark 3, 38, 49, 59±60, 77, 96, 143, 145, 149, 161, 169, 172, 174, 192, 218, 389; kings of, see Cnut, Cnut IV, Eric I, Harold III, Harthacnut, Niels, Olaf the Hungry, Swein I and II; see also Vikings Daniel, prophet 315 Danishmend 334 David, Tower of, see Jerusalem David I, k. of Scots xvii±xviii, xxi, 6±8, 213, 363±4 David the Scot, bp. of Bangor 355, 384±6 Dead Sea 336±8 Dee, R. 41, 133, 183 Deira, Deiri 39; kings of, see álle, Edwin, Osric, Oswine; earl of, see Thored; see also Northumbria Demetrius, St 320 Deneberht, bp. of Worcester 64 Denis, St, see Dionysius Denisesburn, battle of 42 Desiderius, see Victor III Devil's Dyke 202 Devoll, R. 310 Devon(shire) 122, 405 Dionysius, St 125; his church at Wilton 205; see also Saint-Denis

/3thomson/gind.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:38 ± disk/mp

476

GENERAL INDEX

Dionysius Exiguus 263 Dol, see Levenanus, Radbod Domesday inquest 239, 241, 244 Domfront 365 Dominic of Evesham 201 Domitius 283 Domne Eafa, sister of Eormenburh 203 Donald Bane, k. of Scots 275, 363±4 Dorchester 65, 113, 265; bishops of, see Cenwulf, Eadnoth, Hñtla Dore abbey xxxviii n. 48, 262 Dorylaeum, battle of 315±16, 320 Drinizi, R. 310 Drogo (Dreux), count of Mantes 190 Dudo of St Quentin 86, 110±11, 323 Dukak shams al-Muluk, ruler of Damascus 317, 334 Dumnonia 403, 405 Duncan II, k. of Scots 185±6, 275, 363±4 Dunfermline abbey 238 Dunstan, abt. of Glastonbury, bp. of Worcester, archbp. of Canterbury 74, 100, 109, 130±3, 137, 139, 141, 143, 156, 161, 176, 205, 401 Dunwich 265; bishops of, see áthelwold, Tidferth Durazzo (DuÈrres) 301, 310, 344 Durham xxxix n. 51, 43, 46, 49, 52, 265, 391, 396; bishops of, see Ealdhun, Ranulf Flambard, Walcher, William of Saint-Calais; see also Gilbert, Leofwine, Reginald of, Robert of, Simeon, Turgot Dyfnwal, k. of Strathclyde 132±3 Eadbald, k. of Kent 23±4, 90 Eadberht, k. of Kent 25±6 Eadberht Prñn, k. of Kent 26, 65, 68 Eadberht (called by W. Ecgberht), k. of Northumbria xx, 52, 57 Eadburh, St, d. of K. Edward the Elder 204±5 Eadburh, d. of K. Offa 66 Eadgifu I, d. of K. Edward the Elder 109 Eadgifu II, d. of K. Edward the Elder 86, 109, 123 Eadgyth, d. of K. Edgar I 139 Eadgyth St, d. of K. Edward the Elder 109, 122, 205, 381 Eadhñth, bp. of Ripon 265 Eadhild, d. of K. Edward the Elder 109, 111, 123 Eadmer of Canterbury xli n. 67, 15, 50, 137, 140±1, 144, 401

Eadnoth, bp. of Dorchester 186 Eadnoth the Staller 241 Eadred, k. of England 2, 130 Eadric, k. of Kent 33 Eadric Streona, ealdorman of Mercia 145, 148, 161; his treachery 165±6, 168; his death 170 Eadsige, abp. of Canterbury 189 Eadwig, s. of K. áthelred the Unready 165, 168 Eadwig, `king of the ceorls' 168 Eadwig, k. of England 2, 131±2, 252 Eadwulf of Bamburgh 115, 121 Eadwulf, bp. of Crediton 113 Eadwulf, abt. of Malmesbury 9±10 Ealdgyth, w. of Sigeferth, then K. Edmund II 164 Ealdhun, bp. of Durham 162 Ealdred, s. of Eadwulf 115, 121 Ealdwulf II, bp. of Lindsey 64 Ealhstan, bp. of Sherborne 77, 79 Ealhswith, w. of K. Alfred 97 Eamont 120 Ean¯ñd, w. of K. Oswiu 46, 401±2 Eanfrith, k. of Bernicia 43 Earconberht, k. of Kent 24 Earcongota, d. of K. Earconberht 24 Eardwulf, joint k. of Kent 26 Eardwulf, k. of Northumbria 58±9 East Anglia xix, 2, 12, 16, 27, 59, 96, 167, 199, 202; kings of, see áthelberht, Anna, Edmund, Guthrum; bishops of, see Herfast, Stigand; ealdormen of, see áthelwine, Ordmñr; earls of, see Ralph of Gael, Ralph the Staller, Roger Bigod East Saxons, Essex xix, 2, 12, 27, 59, 78± 9, 167; kings of, see Sñberht, Sñward, Seaxbald, Seaxred, Sigebald, Sigeberht I and II, Sigered, Swñfred, Swithred Eastry 199 Eawa, ancestor of K. áthelwulf 76 Ebissa, relative of Hencgest 38 Ecclesiastica of®cia 291±3 Ecgberht I, k. of Kent xxviii, 25, 199 Ecgberht, k. of W. Saxons xlii, 2, 12, 38, 59, 72, 76±9, 214 Ecgberht, archbp. of York 52±3, 61 Ecgfrith, k. of Mercia 66±7 Ecgfrith, k. of Northumbria 41, 46±7 Ecgwine, St, bp. of Worcester 72 Ecgwynn, w. of K. Edward the Elder 109 Edessa (Urfa) 333, 343; counts of, see Baldwin I and II, Joscelin I

/3thomson/gind.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:39 ± disk/mp

GENERAL INDEX Edgar I, k. of England xxvii, xxxi±xxxii, 2, 15, 74, 132±3, 135±43, 167, 183, 199 Edgar II the átheling 169, 212, 229, 238±9, 247 Edgar, k. of Scots 213, 275, 363, 381 Edington, battle of 95 Edmund, St, k. of E. Angles 92, 163, 198, 202; see also Bury St Edmunds Edmund, s. of K. Edgar 139, 142 Edmund, s. of K. Edmund II 168±9 Edmund, s. of K. Malcolm III 364 Edmund I, k. of England xxvii, 2, 49, 100, 128±9 Edmund II Ironside, k. of England xxviii, xliii & n. 76, 8, 95, 164±8, 357 Edward, s. of K. Edmund II 8, 168±9, 357 Edward, s. of K. Malcolm III 213, 238, 275, 381 Edward the Elder, k. of W. Saxons xviii± xix, 2, 86, 88, 96, 106±8, 111, 113, 119, 123; his forti®cations 108 Edward I the Martyr, k. of England 2, 138, 140±6, 148 Edward II the Confessor, St, k. of England 3, 74, 175, 180, 185±6, 188, 206±7, 210, 212±14, 226, 229, 242, 357, 382 Edwin, k. of Deira 39, 41±2, 45, 69, 98 Edwin, s. of K. Edward the Elder 127 Edwin, br. of Morcar earl of Northumbria 166, 240 Egmond 295 Egypt, Egyptians 98, 323, 329, 341 Eilmer, monk of Malmesbury 209, 211±12 Einhard 183 Eisc, k. of Kent 22 Ekkehard of Aura 262, 385, 387, 392 El Cid 374 Eleazar 305 Electa, see Helen Elmham 265; bishop of, see Stigand Elvira, d. of Alfonso VI 347, 350 Ely 72, 180, 191, 202±3, 288; bishop of, see Hervey Emma (also called álfgifu), w. of K. áthelred the Unready and K. Cnut 146, 149, 162, 169, 179, 187±8 Emma, w. of K. Eadbald 24 Emma, d. of William Fitz Osbern 242 Encomium Emmae 157, 161±2, 167, 170, 173, 179±80, 187 England, English 4±8, 11±12, 14, 16, 20, 66, 95, 120, 145, 149, 189, 209±11,

477

215±16, 230±1, 240, 267, 272, 351, 356, 358±9; Schola Anglorum in Rome 82±3; contrasted with Normans 232±3, 235±6; kings of, see áthelred the Unready, áthelstan, Charles II, Cnut, Eadred, Eadwig, Edgar I, Edmund I and II, Edward I and II, Harold I and II, Harthacnut, Henry I±III, Stephen, Swein Forkbeard, William I and II; see also Angles Enguerrand II, count of Ponthieu 224 Eoppa, ancestor of K. áthelwulf 76 Eormenburh, w. of K. Merewald 203 Eormenhild, d. of K. Earconberht 203 Eormenred, br. of K. Earconberht 400 Eormenric, k. of Kent 22 Eowa, br. of K. Penda 61 Ephesus 210 Epirus 301 Erchinoald, mayor of the Neustrian palace 24 Eric I, k. of Denmark 246 Eric Bloodaxe, k. at York 130 Eric of Hlathir, earl of Northumbria under K. Cnut 165, 170±1 Ermengard, d. of Fulk Rechin count of Anjou 254 Ermengard, sister of Geoffrey II Martel count of Anjou 225 Ermengard, d. of Louis II 85 Essex 22, 78, 166; see also East Saxons Estrith, sister of K. Cnut 192 Ethel-, see áthel`Ethiopians' 338 Eu 366; counts of, see Gilbert, Robert, William Eudo, count of PonthieÁvre 228 Eudo, s. of Robert the Strong 111 Eugenia, w. of Lucianus 197 Eugenius, see Owain Eulogium Historiarum 157±8, 160, 196±7, 263, 295 Euphrates, R. 343 Europe 17 Euryalus 329 Eustace II, count of Boulogne 190, 235, 272, 329 Eustace III, count of Boulogne 213, 272, 330, 334, 342 Eutropius xlv Evenlode, R. 31 Evesham 61, 201 EÂvreux 409

/3thomson/gind.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:39 ± disk/mp

478

GENERAL INDEX

Exeter 104, 115, 122, 140, 164, 237; bishops of, see Leofric, William Warelwast Exning 242 Exordium Cistercii et Summa cartae caritatis 289, 291±2, 294 Exordium parvum 289±91, 293±4 Eycot 409 Eynsham 186 Eystein I, k. of Norway 169, 245 Eystein, Passio et miracula beati Olavi 169 Falaise 361 Faramund, k. of the Franks 54±5 Faricius, abt. of Abingdon 9, 125, 369 Farisia, a horse, 341 FeÂcamp 149, 162, 231, 273; abbot of, see William of Ros; council at 220 Ferdinand I, k. of Castile and Leon 152 Finchamstead 286 Five Boroughs 164 Flanders, Flemish, Flemings 38, 112, 131, 174, 233, 239, 242, 274, 330, 364±5; counts of, see Arnulf I, III, Baldwin II, V, VI and VII, Charles, Robert I and II; see also Matilda, Richildis Fleury 151, 153±4, 367 Flintshire 41 Flodoard 123 Florence 385 Florence of Worcester xx, 70, 93, 108; see also John of Worcester Florilegium morale Oxoniense 51 Floris I, count of Holland 244 Foggia 174 Folcuin 127 Fontevrault 367, 393 Forest laws 280±1 Formosus, pope 112 Fountains abbey 323, 372 Foxcote 409 France, French 3, 17, 54, 76, 78, 112, 248±9, 278±9, 291, 320, 344, 372, 377; kings of, see Henry I, Hugh Capet, Louis VI, Louis VII, Philip I, Robert the Pious; see also Gaul Foxcote 409 Franks 12±13, 19±20, 54±5, 196; Trojan origins of 53, 55; rulers of, see Arnulf, Carloman, Charlemagne, Charles the Bald, Charles the Fat, Charles Martel, Charles the Simple, Faramund, Lothar I, Louis the Child, Louis the German,

Louis II, III±IV, Louis the Pious, Louis the Stammerer Frealaf, ancestor of K. áthelwulf 89 Frederick, count of Arnsberg 386 Frederick, count of Freising 386 Frig 20 Frisia 330; see also Robert I the Frisian Frithestan, bp. of Winchester 113 Frithuwald, ancestor of K. áthelwulf 89 Frithuwulf, ancestor of K. áthelwulf 89 Fulbert, bp. of Chartres 176±8, 261 Fulcher of Chartres 268, 299±300 Fulchred, abt. of Shrewsbury 286 Fulda 184, abbot of 184 Fulk III Nerra, count of Anjou 225±6, 258 Fulk IV Rechin, count of Anjou 222, 225±7, 244, 254, 279, 366 Fulk V, count of Anjou, k. of Jerusalem 225, 227, 383 Fulk, archbp. of Reims 99±100 al-Fustat 328 Gabriel, lord of Melitene (mod. Malatya) 334 Gaeta, John of, see Gelasius II Gaini 97 Galbert of Bruges 365 Gall, St 184 Galloway 265 Gaul, Gauls 18, 112, 241 Gautier the Chancellor 344 Gawain, nephew of K. Arthur 261 GCA 222±3, 226±7 Gelasius II, pope 384, 386 Genoa, Genoese 350, 373 Geoffrey V, count of Anjou 7 Geoffrey III the Bearded, count of Anjou 225, 227 Geoffrey of Chateaulandon 225 Geoffrey of Conversano 352 Geoffrey, bp. of Coutances 270 Geoffrey Gaimar 137, 167, 169, 216, 284 Geoffrey II Martel, count of Anjou 221±3, 225±7 Geoffrey IV Martel, count of Anjou 225, 227 Geoffrey of Monmouth 5, 10, 17, 21, 121, 158, 397 George, St 320±1 George Maniakes 209 Gerald of Cardaillac, bp. of Cahors 344, 347

/3thomson/gind.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:39 ± disk/mp

GENERAL INDEX Gerald of Gourdon, bp. of Cahors 347 Gerald of Wales 262 Gerard, archbp. of York 153, 379 Gerard de Blavia, bp. of AngouleÃme 388 Gerbert (= Pope Silvester II) 2, 74, 150±1, 153±5, 263; his `clock' 155; his organ 155±6; horrible death of 151, 154, 197 Gereint, k. of Dumnonia 405 Germans 19±20 Germany 2, 19, 74, 182, 218 Gertrude of Saxony, w. of Floris I count of Holland, then of Robert I the Frisian 244 Gervase of Canterbury 407 Gesta Ambaziensium dominorum 227 Gesta Francorum Iherusalem expugnantium 312, 318, 320, 322, 327 Gesta Romanorum 157, 197±8 Gewisse (= W. Saxons) 113 Ghent 374 Ghor as-Sa® 338 Giferth (also Siferth) 133 Gilbert, count (of Brionne or Eu) 220±1 Gilbert, chaplain of Henry I 386 Gilbert, nephew of Walcher bp. of Durham 252 Gilbert of MinieÁres 409 Gilbert Pilatus 356 Gilbertus Anglicus 337 Gildas 12 Gillingham 180, 188 Gilo of Paris 307, 316, 323, 328, 332 Gisela, d. of Charles the Simple 86 Gisela, w. of K. Stephen of Hungary 169 Gislebert, a Fleming 330 Gisors 368 Glastonbury xxvii±xxx & n. 22, xxxi, xxxii & n. 25, xxxv, xli n. 66, 2, 12, 34, 36, 46, 49, 67, 118, 132, 136, 176, 191, 288; privileges of xxxi & n. 24, xxxii, 2, 12, 74, 132, 135, 400±8; pyramids at 401±2; relics at 49±50; abbots of, see álfweard, áthelweard, Berhtwald, Bregored, Brihtwold, Dunstan, Hñmgils, Henry of Blois, Thurstan, Tyccea Gloucester 107±9, 186, 260, 274±5, 286±7, 312, 386, 388, 394; abbot of, see Serlo; St Oswald's priory 45, 107±8; earl of, see Robert; see also Miles, Roger Gloucestershire 241, 409 Goar, St 63 Godfrey, bastard son of ?Eustace III of Bouillon 342

479

Godfrey I, duke of Lorraine 330 Godfrey II, duke of Lower Lorraine 329 Godfrey III Bocard, duke of Lower Lorraine 329, 330±1 Godfrey IV of Bouillon, duke of Lower Lorraine, `advocatus S. Sepulchri' 4, 267, 300, 307, 328±32, 334, 342, 348±9, 352 Godfrey of Cambrai, prior of St Swithun's Winchester 355, 395±6 Godfrey of JumieÁges, abt. of Malmesbury xxxviii n. 50, 280 Godfrey VII, count of Louvain 381 Godgifu, w. of Earl Leofric 186 Godwine, earl of Wessex, 172±3, 178, 180±1, 187±93, 239 Godwine (of Winchester), f. of Robert 239 Goscelin, hagiographer 4, 139±40, 199± 200, 267, 298±9 Goslar 184 Goths 90, 245, 307 GoÈtland 245 Govan 261 Greece xxxix, 314, 372 Gregory I, pope 40, 103, 152, 196, 261 Gregory III, pope 62 Gregory V, pope 154, 160 Gregory VI, pope (= John Gratian) 3, 74, 194±5, 197 Gregory VII, pope 3, 19, 218, 248±9, 255, 331, 346 Gregory VIII, pope 389±90 Grimbald, called abt. of New Minster Winchester 99±100, 107 Gruffydd ap Llywellyn 187, 215 Gruffydd ap Rhydderch 186±7 Guadiana R. 166 Guaramund 111 Guibert of Nogent 207, 280, 303, 306, 317, 320, 331±2, 339 Guildford 180 Gumley 63 Gundulf, bp. of Rochester 358 Gunnhild, sister of K. Harthacnut 180±2 Gunnhild, sister of K. Swein Forkbeard 161 Guthfrith 121, 128 Guthfrith Haroldsson 133 Guthrum, k. of E. Angles and Northumbrians 96, 128 Guy, archbp. of Vienne, see Calixtus

/3thomson/gind.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:39 ± disk/mp

480

GENERAL INDEX

Guy of Burgundy, count of Brionne and Vernon 221 Guy-Geoffrey-William, count of Gascony, then VI of Poitou and VIII duke of Aquitaine 222, 224 Gwalchmai 261 gypsum 338 Gyrth, s. of Earl Godwine 192 Gytha, w. of Earl Godwine 192, 236 Hadrian, emperor 322 Hadrian, abt. of St Augustine's Canterbury 24 Hñdde (also Hedde) 402 Hñdde, bp. of Winchester 30, 402 Hñmgils, abt. of Glastonbury 402, 406 Hñsten 110 Hñtla, bp. of Dorchester 401 Haimo dapifer 221 Haimo Longtooth 221 Hainault, counts of, see Arnulf III, Baldwin II, Herman I al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah, caliph of Egypt 325 Hakon, earl of the Orkneys 371 Hakon Ericsson 171 Hakon Magnusson, k. of Norway 245 Hakon Sweinsson 231±2 Halley's Comet 209, 211 Hamburg 174 Hampshire 28, 94 Hampstead Marshall 286 Hampstead Norris 286 Harding, s. of Eadnoth the Staller 241 Harding, an Englishman in Constantinople 246 Harding, see Stephen Harewood 138 Hariulf of St Riquier 84±5, 111, 410 Harold, s. of Earl Hakon 371 Harold, s. of K. Harold II Godwinesson 241, 285 Harold I Cnutsson (Harefoot), k. of England 3, 166, 178±80 Harold Fairhair (Harfagri), k. of Norway 122, 215, 245 Harold II Godwinesson, k. of England 187, 190, 192±3, 213±16, 228±34, 236, 240, 252, 254, 285 Harold Hardrada, k. of Norway 90, 169, 188, 215±16, 229, 245±6 Harold III the Simple, k. of Denmark 172, 246

Harran 343 Harthacnut, k. of England and Denmark 3, 178, 180±1, 370 Hastings, battle of 216, 230±5 Hat®eld, Council of 72 Haute BruyeÁre 367 Hebron 335±6 Hector Boece 238 Hedeby 90 Helen (or Electa), w. of Bertram count of Toulouse 346±7 Helen, d. of Robert Guiscard 314 Helena, Empress 17 Helgaud of Fleury 155 Helias, count of Maine 282 Helinand of Froidmont 197, 211, 344 Helmstan, bp. of Winchester 88 Hencgest, k. of Kent 20, 22, 38 Henry I, k. of England xviii n. 2, xx, xxxvii & n. 45, xxxviii, xli, 4, 7±8, 10, 56, 98, 175, 210, 257±8, 269, 274, 279±80, 314, 354±60, 363, 365±70, 373, 376±81, 383, 398; administrative reforms 374±5; Coronation Charter of 175, 280, 357, 363; education 355; justice 363, 375; rebellions against 356±62, 371; wars 361±2, 367±8; his zoo 372±3 Henry I, k. of France 169, 177, 211, 223, 224, 307 Henry I, k. of Germany 86, 122 Henry II, emperor 3, 74, 169, 184 Henry II, k. of England 56, 262 Henry III, k. of England 73 Henry III, emperor 180±1, 183±5, 195, 211 Henry IV, emperor 184, 195, 239, 248±9, 301, 331 Henry V, emperor xxv & n. 14, 4, 6±7, 19, 56, 184, 262, 354, 384±5, 387, 391±2 Henry I of Beaumont, earl of Warwick 357, 369 Henry of Blois, abt. of Glastonbury, bp. of Winchester xxviii, xli n. 67, 8, 296, 300, 408 Henry of Huntingdon 14, 17, 22±3, 36, 50, 55, 64, 83, 127, 146, 149, 162, 166±7, 171±2, 186, 189, 196, 203, 213, 216, 233±4, 236, 243, 269, 276, 282±3, 286, 296, 352, 362, 366±7, 369±70, 381± 2, 397 Henry Knighton 211

/3thomson/gind.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:39 ± disk/mp

GENERAL INDEX Herbert, see Albert, abbot of Saint-Erard Herbert, chamberlain of K. Henry I 375 Herbert Losinga, bp. of Norwich 295±6, 379, 397 Herbert I `Wakedog', count of Maine 225 Herbert II, count of Maine 227 Hereford(shire) 191, 200, 260, 263; bishops of, see Robert, Wulfheard; earls of, see Leofric, Miles, Ralph, Roger, William Fitz Osbern Hereman, bp. of Ramsbury-Sherborne, then Salisbury 298 Heremod, ancestor of K. áthelwulf 89 Herfast, bp. of E. Anglia 296 Heribert, archbp. of Cologne 160 Herleve 255 Herluin, viscount of Conteville, husband of Herleve mother of K. William I 255 Herman I, count of Hainault 243 Hermann of Laon 261, 369 Hermenigild 151 Hertfordshire 239 Hervey, bp. of Bangor, then of Ely 72, 397 Hethum 333 Hexham xxxix n. 51, 41, 58, 265; bishop of, see Tidferth Hild, abbess of Whitby 46 Hildebert, bp. of Le Mans, archbp. of Tours xviii n. 2, 9, 260, 286, 308, 393 Hildebrand, see Gregory VII Hildegar 178 Hildelith, abbess of Barking 35 Hildesheim, bp. of 184 Hisn Ziyad, see Kharpurt Hispalis, see Seville Historia Brittonum 12 Historia et cartularium S. Petri Gloucestriae 109, 394, 409 Historia peregrinorum 318, 344±5, 352 Historia de translationibus et miraculis S. Cuthberti 95 Historiola de primordiis episcopatus Somersetensis 297 Hlothhere 402 Hlothhere, k. of Kent 25 Holland 330±1; counts of, see Floris, Theoderic V Holy Lance 124 Holy Land, see Palestine Horace xlv Horncastle 65 Horsa 21, 38

481

Hospitallers 377 Hrotsvitha 115 Hugh, abt. of Cluny 248 Hugh, bp. of Lincoln 107 Hugh, archbp. of Lyon 379 Hugh IV, count of Maine 227 Hugh, s. of K. Robert the Pious 177 Hugh, s. of Waleran, count of Meulan 369 Hugh of Arles, k. of Italy 129 Hugh of Avranches, earl of Chester 383 Hugh Bardulf 224 Hugh de Brulis 341 Hugh Capet, k. of France 56, 111 Hugh the Chanter 254, 368, 382 Hugh Falconburg 341 Hugh of Flavigny 150, 280, 369 Hugh of Grandmesnil 271 Hugh the Great, count of Paris 109, 111, 123 Hugh the Great, count of Vermandois 247, 307, 320 Hugh of Lusignan, count of Arles 346 Hugh of Montgomery, earl of Shrewsbury 241, 246, 272 Hugh of Mortemer 272 Hugh of St Victor 75 Hungary 165, 168±9, 389; kings of, see Andrew, Solomon, Stephen Huntingdonshire 190 Hwicce, bps. of, see Ecgwine hydraulis 156 Hygebeorht, archbp. of Lich®eld 64 Hyrcanus 26, 29, 147 Hywel (ab Idwal) the Good 115, 121, 132±3 Iago ab Idwal (the Bald), k. of Gwynedd 132 Ibn al-Qalanisi 339, 342 Ida, k. of Bernicia 38±9, 48 Ida, w. of Eustace II of Boulogne 329 Idwal Foel ab Anarawd 115, 137 Idwal (or Ieuaf), son of Idwal Foel 137 Ile de France 112 Illyricum 304 Imma 183 India 98±9 Indract, St 401 Ine, k. of W. Saxons xxvii, xxx, 9, 23, 33±6, 61, 83, 406 Ingild, br. of K. Ine 76 Inventio . . . S. Vulfranni 163

/3thomson/gind.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:39 ± disk/mp

482

GENERAL INDEX

Investiture Dispute 1, 3±4, 195, 218, 296, 330, 376±9, 384±92 Ireland, Irish 4, 47, 135, 246, 285, 371; kings of, see Muirchertach; see also Indract, Maeldubh, Patrick Isaac Comnenus, emperor 210 Isembard 111 Isembard, see Enguerrand, count of Ponthieu Isidore, St, bp. of Seville 152 Isis 158 Islam 152, 183, 304±5, 322, 349 Italy, Italian 2±3, 74, 158, 218, 248, 273, 301, 330, 372, 390±1 Ithel ab Idwallon, k. in Morgannwg 133 Ivar, k. at York 92 Jabal Harun (Mt Hor) 338 Jabala 333 Jñnberht, archbp. of Canterbury 62, 67 Jaffa 335, 339 James, br. of Our Lord 315, 324 James, s. of Alphaeus 324 Jarento, abt. of Saint-BeÂnigne Dijon 369 Jaroslav I, k. of Kiev 169 Jarrow, see Wearmouth-Jarrow Jerome, St 103 Jerusalem 4, 147, 190, 226±7, 237, 239, 267, 299±300, 322, 325, 335±6, 341±3, 348, 350, 352; al-Aqsa mosque 322; bishops and patriarchs of listed 324, see also Daimbert; church of the Holy Sepulchre 323, 325; Dome of the Rock 322; Jaffa gate 327; kings of, see Baldwin I and II, Fulk V, Godfrey of Bouillon; pilgrimages to 226±7, 244, 347; siege of 299±300, 326±8; Tower of David 322, 327, 348 Jews 29, 152, 261, 279±80, 305, 374 Joan, d. of Rainer count of Montferrat 384 John, abbot of Malmesbury xlvii John VIII, pope 408 John XII (also called Octavian), pope 408 John XIII, pope xxvii, xxxi±xxxii, 135, 408 John XIV, pope 136, 408 John XV, pope 136, 151, 408 John XVI, pope 136, 151, 154 John XVII, pope 136 John XVIII, pope 136 John, cardinal deacon of S. Maria in Cosmedin, see Gelasius II

John Chrysostom 315 John II Comnenus, emperor 210 John of Glastonbury xlvi, 49, 404 John Gratian, see Pope Gregory VI John of Hexham 18 John the Old Saxon 101 John of Salisbury 182, 283, 287 John the Scot 97, 100±1 John Trevisa 198 John of Tynemouth 60, 71 John of Villula (of Tours), bp. of Wells (later Bath) 265, 297 John of Worcester xx n. 5, xli n. 67, xlii n. 71, 12±13, 92±3, 103, 397; see also Florence of Worcester Jordan, R. 342 Joscelin I of Courtenay, count of Edessa, lord of Turbessel 343 Joseph, monk of Canterbury 314 Joseph, husband of Mary 324 Joseph, patriarch 335±6 Judas Maccabaeus 37 Judith, w. of K. áthelwulf and of K. áthelbald his son 83, 87 Jugurtha 269 Julius Caesar 230, 283, 310 Julius Firmicus 153 Jully 289 JumieÁges 214 Jutes 20, 38, 90 Juvenal xlv Kelso 238 Kenelm, St, son of K. Cenwulf 68, 200 Kenneth II, k. of Scots 132 Kent 2, 12, 22±3, 26, 33, 38, 78±9, 127, 281; kings of, see áthelberht I, II, Alric, Baldred, Cuthred, Eadbald, Eadberht, Eadberht Prñn, Eadric, Earconberht, Eardwulf, Ecgberht I, Eisc, Eormenric, Hencgest, Hlothhere, Ohta, Sigered, Wihtred; earl of, see Odo Kenten, br. of K. Ine 9 Kerbogha, Kiwam ed-daula, atabeg of Mosul 319, 348, 351 Kharpurt (= Hisn Ziyad) 343 Kilij Arslan, sultan of Roum 316 King's Evil 207 Kingston 119 Kunigund, see Gunnhild La Cava 390 La Marche, count of 360

/3thomson/gind.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:39 ± disk/mp

GENERAL INDEX Lademund 402, 405 Lambert of Ardres 243, 372 Lambeth, council at 380±1 Lampert of Hersfeld 184, 330 Lamport 407 Landolf of Milan 330 Lanfranc, abt. of Caen, archbp. of Canterbury 211, 240, 250, 256, 265±6, 268±9, 276, 288, 394 Languedoc 346 Lanzo, prior of St Pancras, Lewes 355, 394±5 Laodicea 239, 333, 349 Laon 261 Larissa 158 L'AumoÃne 291 laws: of áthelberht 23, 174; of áthelred 174; of áthelstan 122, 174; of Alfred 97±8, 174; of Cnut 174; of Edgar 174; of Edward the Confessor 168, 174±5; of Ine 34, 88, 174; of Wihtred 175; of William I 251, 280±1; Quadripartitus 175; Visigothic 152 Leander, bp. of Seville 151 Leicester 265; bishops of, see Ceolred, Werenberht; earl of, see Robert of Beaumont Leland, John xxxvi, xxxviii & n. 48, xlvii, 53, 118, 403 Le Mans 281±2; see also Hildebert, Maine Lentulus 305 Leo III, pope 66, 83 Leo IV, pope 80, 82±3 Leo VIII, pope 408 Leo IX, pope 159, 185, 250 Leo, bp. of Trevi 150 Leofric, bp. of Crediton and Cornwall, then of Exeter 265 Leofric, earl of Mercia 185±6, 190 Leofstan, ealdorman of Sussex 150 Leofstan, a sheriff 202 Leofwine, dean of Durham 252 Leofwine, s. of Earl Godwine 192 Leominster 186, 204, 295 LeÂon, St Martin's at 152 Les MinieÁres 409 Lewes, St Pancras 394 Libellus de diuersis ordinibus 289 Liber de compositione castri Ambaziae 111 Liber Eliensis 103, 191, 202±3, 397 Liber de Hyda 99, 107, 115, 131, 211, 256 Liber usuum, see Ecclesiastica of®cia

483

Liber vitae of San Salvatore, Brescia 69 Lich®eld 64±5, 265; bishop of, see Aldwulf; archbishop of, see Hygebeorht Lillebonne, council of 229 Limerick 132 Limoges 344 Lincoln 207, 265; bishops of, see Hugh, Remigius, Robert Lincolnshire 65 Lindisfarne 44, 46, 52, 265; bishops of, see Aidan, Colman, Cuthbert Lindsey 45, 65, 265; bishops of, see álfstan, Ealdwulf Lisan Peninsula 337 Lisieux, bishop of, see Roger; council of 250 Liudhard, Frankish bp. 23 Liulf 252 Liutici 182, 195 Liutprand, k. of the Lombards 175 Liuvigild 151 Livy xliv De locis sanctis martyrum 309 Logwor 402 Logworesburh 402 Loire, R. 112 Lombards 56, 248; kings of, see Aistulf, Desiderius, Liutprand Lombardy 347 London xxxi & n. 24, 65, 104, 147, 166± 7, 169, 180, 189, 216, 231, 283, 380; bishops of, see álfhun, Mellitus, Robert of JumieÁges, Theodred; Bridge 284; Council of 150, 265; Tower of 284, 357, 360 Lorraine 328, 330±1; dukes of, see Godfrey II, III and IV Lothar I, k. and emperor 84±5 Lotharingia, Lotharingians 19, 295 Louis, br. of Rudolf II, k. of Burgundy 109, 123 Louis the Blind 85±6 Louis the Child, k. of E. Franks 86 Louis the German, k. of the E. Franks 85, 125 Louis the Pious, emperor 84, 111, 119 Louis II, s. of Lothar I 85±6 Louis the Stammerer 86 Louis III 84, 111 Louis IV d'Outremer 111, 123, 129 Louis VI the Fat, k. of France 112, 207, 244, 353, 367±8 Louis VII, k. of France 384

/3thomson/gind.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:39 ± disk/mp

484

GENERAL INDEX

Louth 67 Lucan xlv & n. 81 Lucca 273, 392 Lucianus 197 Lucius 158 Lucretius xlv & n. 81 Lucy, St 314±15 Ludgershall 208 Luke, St 315 Lydda (Lod) 321 Ly®ng, abt. of Tavistock, bp. of Crediton, Cornwall and Worcester 265 lynx, in Henry I's zoo 371 Lyon 379; archbishop of, see Hugh Mabel, w. of Robert earl of Gloucester xx Macbeth, k. of Scots 185 Maccabees 320 Macedonia 301 Machpela, cave of 336 Maeldubh 30, 136 Magdeburg 155 Magnus, k. of the Western Isles 132 Magnus I the Good, k. of Norway 188, 245 Magnus II Haroldsson, k. of Norway 216, 245±6 Magnus III Barelegs, k. of Norway 245±6, 285, 371 Maine 225; counts of, see Helias, Herbert I, II, Hugh IV Majorca 374 al-Makkari 211 Malberge, w. of viscount of ChaÃtellerault 392 Malcolm, k. of Cumbrians 132 Malcolm I, k. of Scots 128 Malcolm III Canmore, k. of Scots 185±6, 213, 237±8, 274±5 Malik Ghazi GuÈmuÈshtekin, Danishmend emir 334 Malik Shah, sultan 317 Malmesbury abbey xix, xxi±xxii, xxxvii & n. 44, xxxviii & nn. 49±50, xlvii, 2, 7, 9±10, 12±13, 15, 30, 52±3, 62, 67, 77, 101, 104, 117, 120, 126, 128, 136±7, 156, 188, 336, 369±70; monks of xvii, 170, 225; plundering of 7, 65±6, 79; privileges xxxi, 35, 80, 114; abbots of, see álfric, Aldhelm I and II, Cuthbert, Eadwulf, Godfrey of

JumieÁges, John, Turold; see also Maeldubh Man, isle of 42, 246, 285 mancus 34, 105 Mantes 258 Mantua 392 Manuscripts: Cambridge: Corpus Christi Coll. 12 104 23 137 71 154 183 120 290 196 308 200 330 xlvii 367 200 Trinity Coll. O. 2. 1 202 O. 3. 32 51 O. 5. 20 xlvii, 101 R. 5. 22 104 R. 5. 33 118 University Library Ff. i. 25 xxxvii n. 44 Ii. 2. 4 104 Dd. 13. 2 xlvii Kk. 4. 6 103 Kk. 6. 15 299 Canterbury, D & C. Ch. Ant. A. 1 264 Ch. Ant. M. 340 57 Dublin, Trinity Coll. B. 2. 17 260 Durham Cathedral B. II. 11 177 B. IV. 18 391 Evreux, Bibl. mun. 101L 77 Florence, Bibl. Laurenziana 68. 2 158 Gloucester Cathedral Libr., Deeds and Seals, vol. vii. 3 (fo. 2) 409 Gotha, Landesbibl. I. 81 201 Hereford Cath. O. II. 6 312 P. I. 3 386 P. I. 15 260 Leiden, Bibl. der Rijksuniv. lat. 130 295 Lips. 41 51 Voss. lat. F. 69 51 Lincoln Cath. 134 177 149 204 London: British Library: Add. 15350 82; 17808 153; 23211 70; 34633 204; 34890 99

/3thomson/gind.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:39 ± disk/mp

485

GENERAL INDEX Arundel 169 77 Cotton Calig. A. xiv 199; Claud. A. i 391; Claud. E. v 264; Cleop. E. i 264±5; Domit. viii 391; Faust. B. i 323; Galba A. xviii 124; Nero A. vii 264; Nero C. v 263; Otho A. i 62; Otho A. x 15; Otho A. xii 15; Otho B. ii 104; Otho B. ix 120; Tib. A. xiii 170; Tib. A. xv 50, 53, 136, 150; Tib. B. v 17, 136, 324; Tib. B. xi 104; Tib. C. ii 198; Vesp. B. vi 39, 71; Vitell. A. xv 104; Vitell. C. viii 112; Vitell. E. ii 323 Egerton 3088 xxxviii n. 48, 262 Harley 495 228; 2253 186, 201; 3202 393; 3262 295; 3969 xlvii; 7322 228 Lansdowne 417 88 Royal 4 B. iv 312; 5 F. iv xlvii; 8 E. xviii 295; 11 D. viii 388 Stowe 944 106 Lambeth Palace Libr. 224 xlvii, 118 Lincoln's Inn 185 297 Public Record Of®ce, Chancery (C.150/1) 409 Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibl. Clm 560 153 New York, Columbia University Libr., Plimpton 161 153±4 Oxford: All Souls Coll. 90 134 Bodleian Library: Arch. Seld. B. 16 xlvii, 313 Auct. F. 3. 14 xlvii, 118, 153, 263 Bodl. 77 134; 297 208; 579 112±13; 633 51; 868 51, 382 Digby 5 51; 23 152, 233; 112 314 Hatton 20 104; 113 63 Lat. class. d. 39 xxviii, xlvii, 54±5, 83, 128, 185, 406 Laud. misc. 636 13 Rawlinson G. 139 xlvii, 277 Corpus Christi Coll. 157 13, 55, 70, 72, 113, 324 Lincoln Coll. lat. 96 323 lat. 100 xlvii, 118, 326, 376

Merton Coll. 181 xlvii Oriel Coll. 42 xlvii Paris, BN lat. 13413 302 Rochester Cathedral, Dean & Chapter Library A. 3. 5 (on deposit in Kent Archives Of®ce, Maidstone, MS DRc/R1) 23 Saint-Omer, Bibl. mun. 115 393 St Gallen, Stiftsbibl. 18 155 Tours, Bibl. mun. 890 197 Urbana, University of Illinois Libr. 128 52 Vat. Reg. lat. 285 264 Vienna, Nationalbibl. 2521

260

mappae mundi 17, 90 Marbod of Rennes 9, 296 Marcigny 254 Margaret, w. of K. Malcolm III 8, 168±9, 213, 237±8, 275, 357, 364, 380 Maria, niece of Empress Zoe 246 Marianus Scotus 3, 76, 218, 262±3 Marinus I, pope 99 Marius 42, 126 Marra 318, 348 Martianus Capella 124 Martin of Tours, St 96; monastery of at Dover 411, at Tours 407 Mary, Virgin 126, 245, 341 Mary, d. of K. Malcolm III 213, 380±1 Masada 305 Maserfeld, battle of 42 Massacre of St Brice's Day 149, 161, 164 Mathematica Alhandrei 153±4 Matilda, d. of Baldwin V count of Flanders 243 Matilda, empress, d. of K. Henry I xvii± xviii, xxi±xxii, xlvi, 6±10, 56, 384 Matilda, d. of K. Malcolm III, w. of K. Henry I xvii, 8±10, 275, 353, 357, 359, 380±1 Matilda, w. of Odo I duke of Burgundy 346 Matilda, countess of Perche 383 Matilda, w. of Raymond IV count of Toulouse 346 Matilda, w. of Richard earl of Chester 383 Matilda, d. of Roger II of Montgomery 360 Matilda, countess of Tuscany 253, 330, 347

/3thomson/gind.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:39 ± disk/mp

486

GENERAL INDEX

Matilda, w. of K. William I 243, 250, 252, 398 Matthew Paris 65, 181, 184 Matthias, St 315 Mauger, archbp. of Rouen 250 Maurice Bourdin, bp. of Braga, see Gregory VIII Maurilius, archbp. of Rouen 3, 218, 250 Mawdud, Sharaf al-Din, lord of Mosul 342 Maximus, emperor 18 Medeshamstede, see Peterborough Melitene (mod. Malatya) 334 Mellitus, bp. of London 70 Mercia, Mercians xix, 2, 12, 15, 25, 32, 39, 57, 60, 72, 92, 95, 119, 131, 143, 190, 405; kings of, see áthelbald, áthelred I, II, Beornred, Berhtwulf, Burhred, Cenwulf, Ceolred, Ceolwulf, Ecgfrith, Offa, Osred, Penda, Wiglaf, Wulfhere Mercurius, St 320 Merewald, s. of K. Penda 186 MeÂrida 166 Meroe 158 Merovingians 55 Merseburg 184 Mersivan 349 Metz 226, 293 Meulan, counts of, see Hugh, Robert of Beaumont, Waleran I Mevanian Isles, see Anglesey Michael I, patriarch of Alexandria 325 Michael VI, emperor 210 Michael VII Ducas, emperor 313±14 Michael the Syrian 347 Middlesex 22 Milan 293, 392 Mildburh, St 203±4 Mildenhall 18 Mildgyth, St 203 Mildred, St 25, 203 Miles of Gloucester, earl of Hereford 409 Milford Haven 261 Milred, bp. of Worcester 52 Milton Abbas xxviii, 115, 127, 407 Milton, John 212 Mimicon, page of Q. Gunnhild 181 Minorca 374 Moesia 311 Molesme 289±90, 293; abbot of, see Robert Moll, k. of Northumbria 58 Monkwearmouth, see Wearmouth-Jarrow

Montacute 364, 402 Mont-CoueÈr, battle of 222 Monte Cassino 158; abbot of, see Victor III Monte Gargano 174 Montpellier 349; count of, see William V Montreuil 129 Mont-Saint-Michel 164, 273±4, 357, 365 Moray 185 Morcar, earl of Northumbria 166, 240 Morcar, thegn of the Seven Boroughs 164 Morgannwg 133 Mortain, counts of, see Robert, William Mortemer, battle of 178, 224 Moses 338 Mosul, see Kerbogha, Toghtekin Mouliherne 223 Muchelney abbey xxviii, 115, 407 Muirchertach, Irish k. 371 Munster 371 al-Musta'li, caliph of Egypt 328 al-Mustazhir, caliph of Baghdad 317 Mysia 311 Nablus (Neapolis) 336 Nahr-al-Kalb, battle of 335 Narbonne 346 Narcissus, patriarch of Jerusalem 324 New Forest xxv, xxvi n. 17, 253±4, 281 Nicaea 307, 315±16 Nicephorus Botaniates, emperor 313±14 Nicholas I, pope 323 Nicholas II, pope 118, 154, 191, 210, 250 Nicholas, s. of Harding 241 Nicholas, prior of Worcester xli n. 67, 137, 140±1, 144 Nicodemus 273 Niels, k. of Denmark 246±7 Nigel II, viscount of the Cotentin 221 NõÃmes 346, 348 Niort 393 Nissa 311 Nisus 329 nithing 272 nitrum 337±8 Norfolk, earls of, see Ralph of Gael, Roger Bigod Normandy xx, xxxix n. 51, 1±3, 74±5, 112, 146±7, 170, 177, 193, 213, 219, 223, 228, 232±3, 243, 258±9, 269, 272±4, 279, 291, 352, 356, 359, 368, 370, 377, 398; dukes of, see Richard

/3thomson/gind.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:39 ± disk/mp

GENERAL INDEX I±III, Robert I±II, William II, William Longsword Normans 3, 49, 191, 216±17, 236, 241±2, 248, 272, 278, 286; their conquest of England xxxvii, xli±xlii, 2±3, 74, 109, 127, 218, 230, 233, 278, 301 North Sea 174 Northampton 361; church of the Holy Sepulchre in 377 Northmen 20 Northumbria, Northumbrians 2, 12, 15, 20, 38, 58±9, 92, 96, 98, 130±1, 190, 193, 240, 252, 274±5; kings of, see álfwald, álle, áthelred I, Aldfrith, Alhred, Cenred, Ceolwulf, Eadberht, Eardwulf, Ecgfrith, Guthrum, Moll, Osbald, Osberht, Osred, Oswiu, Oswulf; earls of, see Eric, Morcar, Siward Norway, Norwegian(s) 3, 171, 173±4, 216, 218; kings of, see Cnut, Eystein, Hakon Magnusson, Harold Fairhair, Harold Hardrada, Magnus I±III, Olaf II and III, Olaf Tryggvasson, Sigurd I, Swein Cnutsson Norwich 242, 265, 295; bishop of, see Herbert Losinga Notker 156 Nouy, battle of 223 Novara 392 Octavian, see Augustus, John XII Oda, bp. of Ramsbury, archbp. of Canterbury 116, 131, 252 Odilo, abt. of Cluny 395 Odo, s. of K. Robert the Pious 177±8, 224 Odo, bp. of Bayeux, earl of Kent 232, 255±6, 270, 360, 367 Odo I, duke of Burgundy 346 Odo, abt. of Cluny 91, 395 Odo, cardinal of Ostia 204 Offa, k. of Mercia 57, 63±4, 66, 71, 76, 83 Ohrid 310 Ohta, k. of Kent 22, 38 Olaf, k. of Sweden 241 Olaf II Haroldsson, St, k. of Norway 169, 171, 173, 241, 245 Olaf the Hungry, br. of Cnut IV, k. of Denmark 246±7 Olaf III Kyrre, k. of Norway 216, 245 Olaf Tryggvasson, k. of Norway 147 Olaf, see Anlaf

487

Orderic Vitalis xli n. 67, 182, 193±4, 255, 267; GND 230±1, 234, 252, 254±5; Hist. eccles. 122, 151±2, 162, 168±9, 190, 192±3, 210, 213, 216, 223±4, 227, 229±31, 235±7, 239±43, 247±8, 251, 253±9, 268±71, 273±5, 277±82, 284±9, 291±4, 296, 302±5, 307, 340±1, 344, 348±9, 351±3, 355±62, 364, 366±8, 374, 376, 380±5, 392 Ordgar, ealdorman of Devon 137, 140 Ordmñr, ealdorman of E. Anglia 140 Orestes, patriarch of Jerusalem 325 Orkney Islands 42; earls of, see Hakon, Paul Orkneyinga Saga 371 OrleÂans 112 Orontes, R. 318 Osbald, k. of Northumbria 59 Osberht, Mercian noble 57 Osberht, k. of Northumbria 59, 92 Osbern of Canterbury 134, 141, 298±9 Osbern the Steward 220 Osbert of Clare 189, 192, 200, 204, 206± 9, 212 Osecg, see Bagsecg Osgot, a Dane 241 Osmear, a soldier 166 Osred I, k. of Northumbria 47, 62 Osric, k. of Deira 39, 47±8 Osthryth, sister of K. Ecgfrith of Northumbria 61 ostrich, in Henry I's zoo 372 Oswald, St, k. of Bernicia xx, 38, 41±2, 45, 69, 205; relics of 43±5, 108±9 Oswald, W. Saxon atheling 36 Oswald, St, bp. of Worcester and archbp. of York 133, 135, 199±200 Oswine, k. of Deira 39 Oswiu, k. of Bernicia and then Northumbria xx, 41, 46, 402 Oswulf, k. of Northumbria xx, 57 Otto, duke of Saxony 86 Otto I the Great, emperor 56, 86, 109, 122, 372 Otto III, emperor 154±5 Otuel, br. of Richard earl of Chester 383 Owain, k. of Gwynedd 115, 121 Owain, k. of Strathclyde 120±1 Oxfordshire 31 Palermo 256 Palestine 98, 239, 256, 304, 323, 325, 336, 346, 373

/3thomson/gind.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:39 ± disk/mp

488

GENERAL INDEX

Pallig, Danish jarl 161 Papia, w. of Richard II duke of Normandy 223 Paris 112, 279; count of, see Hugh the Great Parker, Matthew xxxvii n. 44 Parthians 305 Paschal II, pope 247, 298, 361, 367±9, 376, 384, 388 patriarchs, bodies of 335±6 Patrick, St 401, 403 Paul, St 304 Paul, earl of the Orkneys xviii n. 2, 371 Paulinus, bp. of Rochester, archbp. of York 404 Pavia 69, 129, 175±6, 392 Peace of God 302 Peada, s. of K. Penda 60 Pembrokeshire 261, 274, 364 Penda, k. of Mercia 45±6, 59±61, 63±4, 71, 186 Penselwood 30, 166 Pershore 205 Persius xlv Peryddon 261 Peter, companion of Stephen Harding 289 Peter, St 126, 304 Peter Abelard 194, 290 Peter the Hermit 308, 319 Peter Lombard 194 Peter, bp. of Poitiers 4, 354, 394 Peter the Venerable 228 Peter's Pence 80, 83 Peterborough 13, 39, 43, 60; abbot of, see álfsige Petra 338 Petrus Pictor 158 Pharsalia 230 Philip I, k. of France 179, 207, 227, 243±4, 273, 303, 345, 350, 366±8, 379 Philip of Montgomery 352 Philistines 335, 349 Piacenza 377, 392 Picquigny 129 Picts 42 Pilgrim, archbp. of Cologne 160 Pion, Mt (mod. Panayir Dagi) 209 Pipe Roll of 31 Hen. I Michaelmas 1130 409 Pippin II, mayor in Austrasia 55±6 Pippin III 55±6 Pisa, Pisans 373, 392; archbishop of, see Daimbert

Plato 75 Plecgils, priest in Germany 261 Plegmund, archbp. of Canterbury 113 Poema de mio Cid 374 Poitiers, bishop of, see Peter II Poitou 288; counts of, see Guy-GeoffreyWilliam, William III±V, VII; countess of 392 Pompey 33, 161, 305, 308 Pons, count of Toulouse 345±6, 350 Pons, count of Tripoli 347, 350 Pontaudemer 365 Ponte Mammolo, treaty of 384±5 Ponthieu 259; counts of, see Enguerrand, Guy I Popes, see Benedict V, X, Calixtus II, Celestine I, Formosus, Gelasius II, Gregory I, III, V±VII, John VIII, XII±XVIII, Leo III±IV, VIII±IX, Marinus I, Nicholas I±II, Paschal II, Sergius I, Silvester II (see Gerbert), Siricius, Stephen IX, Urban II, Victor II, III; see also Wibert porcupine, in Henry I's zoo 372±3 Porphyreon 335 Portishead 28 Praeceptum canonis Ptolemaei 153 PreÂaux 255; see also Adelina, Adeliza Priam, k. of Troy 55 Purton 65±6 qadi 339 Qasr at-Tuba 338 Qumran 337 Radbod, prior of St Samson's Dol xxviii, 407 Ragnald 92, 128 Rainer, count of Montferrat 384 Ralph of Caen 349, 351 Ralph of Diss 160, 180±1, 248, 407 Ralph of Escures, abt. of SeÂez, archbp. of Canterbury 15, 359, 370, 396, 412 Ralph of Gace 220 Ralph of Gael, earl of Norfolk 240, 242 Ralph Glaber 129, 177, 223 Ralph, earl of Hereford 191 Ralph, prior of Hexham 238 Ralph the Monk 220 Ralph the Staller 242 Ramah 239 Ramlah 239, 321, 339, 341±2

/3thomson/gind.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:39 ± disk/mp

GENERAL INDEX Ramsbury 113, 265; bishops of, see áthelstan, Brihtwold, Hereman, Oda Ramsey 153, 198±9, 295 Ranulf Flambard, bp. of Durham, chancellor of Henry I 277, 357±8, 369, 396 Ranulf Higden 160, 197±8, 211 ar-Raqqa 343 Ravenna 392; bishops of, see Arnulf, Walter Raymond of Aguilers 318, 332, 348, 352 Raymond of Lusignan 340 Raymond IV of Saint-Gilles, count of Toulouse 4, 267, 315±16, 328, 332±3, 344±50, 352 Raymond-Berengar, count of Barcelona 346 Raynald, count of Burgundy 221 Reading 377 Rebecca 335 Reccared, k. of Spain 151±2 Reculver 405 Red Book of the Exchequer 409 Red Book of Worcester 409 Redwald, k. of E. Angles 69 Reginald of Durham, Vita Oswaldi 41, 43±5, 52 Reims 85, 150, 154; archbishops of, see Fulk, Gerbert; Council of 368, 389, 392 Remigius, bp. of Lincoln 186 Rendcomb 409 Renwein (and other spellings) 21 Repton 38, 201 Rhiwallon ap Cynfyn, Welsh k. 215 Rhos, region of Wales 261, 364 Rhys, br. of Gruffydd ab Rhydderch 186 Rhys ab Owein, ruler of Deheubarth 215 Richard, count of Aversa 247 Richard, earl of Chester 383 Richard, abt. of Ely 397 Richard, count of EÂvreux 366 Richard, illegitimate s. of K. Henry I 383 Richard I, duke of Normandy 162, 220 Richard II, duke of Normandy 147, 149, 162, 221, 223, 226 Richard III, duke of Normandy 163 Richard of the Principate 345 Richard of Reviers 358 Richard, s. of Robert Curthose 253 Richard, s. of K. William I 253 Richard of Cirencester 189, 192 Richard's Castle 191

489

Richer 150, 155 Richildis, w. of Baldwin VI count of Flanders 243, 330 Ripon, bishops of, see Wilfrid, Eadhñth Riulf, slayer of William I duke of Normandy 129 Robert, count of Eu 224 Robert II, count of Flanders 244, 315, 348, 353, 365±6 Robert, earl of Gloucester xviii, xx, xxxiii n. 26, xxxvii n. 44, xli & nn. 67±8, 6, 10±11, 75, 221, 269, 354, 398 Robert, s. of Godwine of Winchester 239 Robert, abt. of Molesme 290, 293 Robert I, duke of Normandy 163, 170, 177, 220, 226, 255, 258 Robert, s. of K. Robert the Pious 177±8 Robert, archbp. of Rouen 150, 162, 220 Robert, a courtier of K. William II 279 Robert of Arbrissel, founder of Fontevrault 393±4 Robert of Beaumont, count of Meulan and earl of Leicester 369, 379 Robert II of Beaumont 369 Robert of BelleÃme, earl of Shrewsbury 272, 327, 359±60, 362±3, 371 Robert Bloet, bp. of Lincoln 186 Robert Corbet 364 Robert of Cricklade xxxvii nn. 43, 45, xxxviii n. 48 Robert II Curthose, duke of Normandy xxv, 4, 10, 239, 243, 253, 259, 267, 269, 272±3, 280, 328, 331, 351±3, 356, 358±62, 365, 368±9, 398 Robert of Durham 238 Robert Fitz Hamon xx, 221, 287, 361, 398 Robert Fitz Harding 241 Robert I the Frisian, count of Flanders 243±7, 330, 365±6 Robert Giroie 363 Robert Guiscard, duke of Apulia 3, 218, 247±8, 301, 314 Robert of JumieÁges, bp. of London, archbp. of Canterbury 189 Robert of Limesey, bp. of Chester (later Coventry) 298 Robert Losinga, bp. of Hereford 154, 263, 295 Robert Losinga, abt. of New Minster Winchester 295 Robert of Meulan 358 Robert the Monk 303, 306, 351

/3thomson/gind.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:39 ± disk/mp

490

GENERAL INDEX

Robert, count of Mortain, half-br. of K. William I 360 Robert of Mowbray, earl of Northumberland 271, 281 Robert the Pious, k. of France 155, 157, 177, 178±9, 207, 398 Robert the Strong 111 Robert of Torigni 98, 111, 219, 244, 253±4, 258±9, 272±3, 280, 282, 287, 352, 356, 359, 365, 367, 377, 380, 382 Rochester 23, 147, 271, 287, 323; bishops of, see álfstan, Gundulf, Paulinus rock-salt 337±8 Rodingar, a German giant 181 Roger, bp. of Lisieux 150 Roger, bp. of Salisbury xxxvii n. 44, xli n. 67, 7, 79, 256, 370 Roger I, count of Sicily, 247, 342 Roger Bacon 211 Roger of Beaumont 255 Roger Bigod 271 Roger (Borsa), s. of Robert Guiscard 301, 344 Roger Fitz Richard de Clare 386 Roger of Gloucester xx, 361 Roger II of Montgomery, earl of Shrewsbury 270±1, 352, 360 Roger of Mortemer 224 Roger of PõÃtres, sheriff of Gloucester 361 Roger of Poitou, br. of Robert of BelleÃme 272, 360 Roger of Salerno, s. of Richard of the Principate, prince of Antioch 344±5 Roger of Wendover 64±5, 83, 158, 160, 167, 181, 184±5, 197, 228, 262±3, 272, 380 Roland, Song of 152, 233±4 Rollo, count of Rouen 86, 98, 111, 149, 228 Romans 18, 347; avarice of 296, 390 Romanus, (Wibertine) cardinal priest of St Marcellus 389 Rome xlvii, 3±4, 23, 32±3, 36, 66, 69, 71±2, 74, 78, 80±1, 99, 113, 171, 173±5, 195, 248±9, 256, 263, 266, 291, 308, 314, 331, 377, 379, 384, 391, 407; Borgo 82; Campus Martius 197; churches in: St Maria in Cosmedin 386, St Peter's 387, Santa Croce in Gerusalemme 159, Santo Spirito in Sassia 82; Council of 259; gates and sanctuaries of 267, 299, 308±9; in time of Pope Gregory VI 194±5; Sessorian palace 159; stories set

in 197, 228; `schola anglorum' in 80, 82±3 Romsey 169, 380 Romulus 159 Rothasia, see Edessa Rotrou, count of Perche 383 Rouen 188, 273, 356, 377, 382; church of Sainte-Marie-des-PreÂs in 377; Council of 278; old wrecks to be seen at 170; Jews in 279±80; count of, see Rollo; archbishops of, see Mauger, Maurilius, Robert I, William Rouergue 346 Rubicon, R. 310 Rudolf II, k. of Burgundy 109, 123 Rudolf III, k. of Burgundy 174 Rudolf, duke of Swabia 249 RuÈgen 183 Russia 168±9 Sñberht, k. of E. Saxons 70±1 Sñward, f. of Sigeberht, k. of E. Saxons 71 Saewulf 336 as-Sa® 338 St Aaron, church of 338 St Albans abbey 64, 154, 191, 196 Saint-Aubin, battle of 223 Saint-Bertin 100, 127, 206 St Breward 405 St Clement's Dane 180 St David's, bp. of, see Bernard Saint-Denis 84±5, 123 St Edmunds, see Bury Saint-Gilles 346, 348 St Govan's Head 261 Saint-LeÂonard-la-Noblac 344 Saint-Martin-des-Champs 377 Saint-MeÂdard Soissons 84 Saint-Mesmin de Micy 154 Saintes 222, 225 Saintonge 222 St Simeon (mod. Magaracik) 318 Saint-Wandrille 55 St Werburg, see Chester Salerno 390 Salisbury 193, 244, 265, 288, 298; buildings at 370; cathedral 370; bishops of, see Hereman, Roger Sallust xlv, 29 Salonica 301 Salzwedel 387 Samuel, prophet 314±15

/3thomson/gind.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:39 ± disk/mp

GENERAL INDEX Sandyhaven Pill 261 Sarah 335 Sardinia 175 Saucourt, battle of 84, 111 Saxo Grammaticus 183 Saxons 66; see also East Saxons, South Saxons, West Saxons Saxony (meaning England) 66 Scandinavia, Scandinavians 19, 89±90, 173, 272, 371; see also Vikings Scandza 90 Sceaf, ancestor of K. áthelwulf 89 Schleswig 90 Scipio Africanus 51 Scotland, Scot(s), Scottish 4, 20, 30, 42, 46, 130, 133, 173, 239, 274±5, 353, 363±4, 371; kings of, see Aedan, Alexander I, III, Constantine II, David I, Donald, Duncan, Edgar, Kenneth, Macbeth, Malcolm I, II and III Sdom, Mt 338 Seaxa, br. of K. Sñberht 71 Seaxbald, k. of E. Saxons 71 Seaxburh, k. of W. Saxons xx, 32, 103 Seaxred, k. of E. Saxons 71 Seaxsige 402 Seaxwig 402 SeÂez 279, 302±3 Secgan 101 Segor, see Zoar Seine, R. 129, 373±4 Seleucus, s. of Antiochus 317 Selsey 64±5, 113, 265; bishops of, see áthelgar, Beornheah, Stigand Sem 89 Seneca the Elder 51 Seneca the Younger 251 Sergius I, pope 30 Serlo, canon of Bayeux 361 Serlo, abt. of St Peter's Gloucester 286, 394 Serlo of Wilton 10±11 Seth 89 Seven Sleepers, legend of 208±9 Seville 152; bishops of, see Isidore, Leander Shaftesbury, nunnery 2, 143±5, 178, 230, 241, 381; foundation 145; body of St Edward at 144 Shams ad-Daula Kamaladdin, s. of Yagi Siyan 317 Sherborne 30, 64, 98±9, 113, 265, 289; bishops of, see áthelsige, áthelweard,

491

Aldhelm, Alfred, Asser, Ealhstan, Hereman, Wñrstan Sherston, battle of 165±6 Shkumbin, R. 310 Shrewsbury 286, 359; abbot of, see Fulchred; earls of, see Hugh of Montgomery, Robert of BelleÃme, Roger of Montgomery Sibyl Corbet 364 Sibyl, w. of Alexander I k. of Scots 364 Sibyl of Conversano, w. of Robert Curthose 352 Sibyl, d. of Fulk V count of Anjou 383 Sichem (Shechem) 336 Sicily, Sicilians 24, 247, 315; count of, see Roger I Sidnacester 65 Sidon 339, 373 Sigebald, k. of E. Saxons 71 Sigeberht I, k. of E. Saxons xxx n. 22, 70±1 Sigeberht II, k. of E. Saxons 71±2 Sigebert of Gembloux 110, 151, 285 Sigeferth, thegn of the Seven Boroughs 164 Sigegar, bp. of Wells 135±6 Sigehelm 98 Sigered, k. of E. Saxons 72 Sigered, joint k. of Kent 26 Sigeric, archbp. of Canterbury 147 Sighvat the Scald 173 Sigurd I, k. of Norway 4, 245±6, 354, 373±4 Sihtric, k. in Northumberland 109, 115 Silvester II, pope, see Gerbert Simeon of Durham 46, 48, 52, 59, 87, 92, 95, 127, 162, 198, 252, 256, 277, 364, 382, 391, 396 Simon Magus 296 as-Sinnabrah, battle of 342 Siponto 174 Siricius, pope 103 Siward, abt. of Abingdon, 189 Siward, earl of Northumbria 185, 190, 241 SkaÊne 89 Skokholm 261 Skomer 261 slavery 39, 192, 251 Slavs 61, 90, 182±3; see also Liutici, Wends Snorri Sturlasson 163, 173, 216, 241, 246, 252, 373±4 Socrates 158

/3thomson/gind.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:39 ± disk/mp

492

GENERAL INDEX

Soissons 84 Solomon, k. of Hungary 168±9 Somerset 28, 30, 94, 115, 166, 241, 364, 405 Somme, R. 129 South Saxons 33, 78±9 Spain, Spanish 150±2, 258, 305, 347, 371 Speyer, see Nemetum; bishop of, see Bruno Spyridon, St 315 Stamford Bridge, battle of 216, 230±1 Stephen, Jew of Rouen 279 Stephen IX, pope 210 Stephen, count of Blois 254, 318±19, 383 Stephen, k. of England xlii, xlvi, 17±18, 256, 318 Stephen, k. of Hungary 168±9 Stephen of Aumale 281 Stephen Harding, abt. of CõÃteaux 289±91, 293±4 Stigand, bp. of Elmham, bp. of Winchester and archbp. of Canterbury 191, 212 Stigand, bp. of Selsey, then Chichester 191 Stow, St Mary 65, 186 Strabo 337 Strathclyde 121, 133; kings of, see Dyfnwal, Owain Streph, ancestor of K. áthelwulf 89 Streoneshalh, see Whitby Stuf 27 Sturmi 181 Styr, servant of K. Harthacnut 181 Suger, Vita Ludovici 111±12, 247, 287, 296, 366±8, 375, 388, 390 Sulcard 214 Suleiman ibn Kutulmish 315 Sulla 42 Surrey 78±9 Sussex 22, 78; see also South Saxons Svantovit, Slavonic god 183 Sweden, Swedes 89, 168±9, 172, 245 Swñfred, k. of E. Saxons 71 Swein Cnutsson (`Hardhand'), k. of Norway 179, 245 Swein I Forkbeard, k. of Denmark and England 161, 163, 202 Swein II Estrithsson, k. of Denmark 188, 245±6 Swein, son of Earl Godwine 193, 272 Swithhelm, K. Alfred's envoy to India 99 Swithhun, St, bp. of Winchester 77±8, 88

Swithred, k. of E. Saxons 71±2 Syria 210, 343 Taillefer 233 Tancred, prince of Galilee, regent of Antioch 321, 333, 339, 345, 349 Taphnis (mod. Tell Defenneh) 328 Tarascon 346 Tarsus 333 Tavistock 164±5; abbot of, see Ly®ng Templars 377 Tetbury 65 Tetta, s. of K. Ine 35 Teutons 19 Teuzo, Wibertine legate in ?Hungary 389 Tewkesbury abbey 221, 361, 398 Textus Roffensis 23, 34, 175, 313, 324 Thames, R. 170, 285 Thanet 25; Minster-in- 199 Theobald I, count of Blois 223 Theobald II, count of Blois 368, 383 Theodora, empress 210 Theodore, archbp. of Canterbury 24 Theoderic V, count of Holland 330 Theoderic the Monk 197 Theodore the Sabaite, Life of 323 Theodred, bp. of London 116, 176 Theophanes 146 Thessaly 301 Thetford 265, 295 Theuderic 55 Thietmar of Merseburg 155, 160, 182±3 Thomas of Bayeux, archbp. of York 266 Thomas of Marlborough 201 Thored son of Gunnar 165 Thorkill Skallason 240 Thorkils Sprakalegg 192 Thunor, servant of K. Ecgberht I 199 Thurkil (the Tall), earl under K. Cnut 160±1, 171 Thurstan, abt. of Glastonbury 251 Thurstan, archbp. of York 109 Tiberias 339 Tiberias, Lake 342 Tidferth, bp. of Dunwich 64 Tidferth, bp. of Hexham 265 Tinchebray, battle of 353, 360, 362, 365, 378 Tirana 310 Tiron, see Bernard Titus, emperor 236 Toghtekin, Zahir ad-Din, atabeg of Damascus 342

/3thomson/gind.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:39 ± disk/mp

GENERAL INDEX Toledo 152, 258 Torksey 164 Toros, prince of Edessa 333 Tortosa 350 Tostig, earl of Northumbria 193, 215, 230, 240 Toulouse, counts of, see Bertram, Pons, Raymond IV, William IV Tours 223, 249, 407; see also Berengar, Hildebert Tractatus de investitura episcoporum 195 Traprain Law 18 Trevi 150 Trier 150 Tripoli 321, 334, 347, 349±50; bishop of, see Albert; counts of, see Bertram, Pons Troy 53, 55 Turbessel (mod. Tell Bashir) 333 Turchetil 220 Turcopoles 349 Turgot, prior of Durham 8 Turk(s), Turkish 98, 239, 304, 315, 317, 320, 323, 332, 334, 347±8 Turkey 333, 343 Turold, tutor of William I 220 Turold, abt. of Malmesbury 220 Tuscany 347; countess of, see Matilda Tyccea, abt. of Glastonbury 49 Tyne, R. 19, 49 Tynemouth 238 Ulf, br.-in-law of K. Cnut 192 Ulfcytel, ealdorman of E. Anglia 148 Urban II, pope 49, 150, 262, 293, 299±300, 302, 306, 328, 347±8, 366, 369, 390; speech at Clermont 301, 303±6, 344 Ursio, bp. of Senlis 367 Usus antiquiores Ordinis Cistercienses, see Ecclesiastica of®cia De utilitatibus astrolabii 153 Val-eÁs-Dunes, battle of 221 Venice, Venetians 301, 315 Verona 387 Vesuvius, Mt 268 Vexin 368 Via Egnatia 310 Victor II, pope 210, 249 Victor III, pope, formerly Desiderius abt. of Montecassino 118, 154, 249 Vikings 38, 59, 92, 111, 147, 192, 235; see also Danes

493

Vimeu 84 Vincent of Beauvais 197, 211 Virgil xlv & n. 81 Visigoths 226, 245, 307 Vita Alcuini 407 Vita sancti Petri prioris Iuliacensis 289 Vitellius, emperor 19 Vortigern 18, 21, 29, 403 Vortimer, s. of Vortigern 21 Wace 21, 163, 221, 232, 234, 259, 356, 359, 382 Wadi Musa 336, 338 Wñgdñg 39 Wñrburh, St 202±3 Wñrferth, bp. of Worcester 102 Wñrstan, bp. of Sherborne 113, 116 Waga, ancestor of the Mercian kings 39 Wakering 199 Walcher, bp. of Durham 252 Walcher, prior of Great Malvern xli n. 67, 263±4 Waleran I, count of Meulan 369 Waleran, s. of Robert I of Beaumont 369 Wales, Welsh 4, 76, 121, 133, 137, 191, 200, 215, 274, 359, 364±5, 371; kings of, see Bleddyn, Cadwallon, Dufnal, Giferth, Gruffydd, Hywel, Iago, Idwal, Rhiwallon; see also Rhos, Rhys Walgar, a Dane 169 Walkelin, bp. of Winchester 3, 30, 251 Walter, count of Mantes 190 Walter, bp. of Ravenna 184 Walter Map 167, 292, 384 Walter sans-Avoir 307 Walter Tirel, slayer of K. William II 287 Waltham Abbey 236 Waltham Chronicle 236 Waltheof, earl of Northumberland 240, 242 Walwyn's Castle 261 Wansdyke 28 Wareham 144, 362 Warin, prior of Worcester 251 Warwick, earl of, see Henry of Beaumont Waverley 291 Wear, R. 19, 49 Wearmouth±Jarrow xxix n. 51, 43, 49; abbots of, see Benedict Biscop, Ceolfrith Wells 113, 265, 297; bishops of, see Athelm, John of Villula, Sigegar Wencrest 402 Wenlock, Much 204; see Mildburh, nun of

/3thomson/gind.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:39 ± disk/mp

494

GENERAL INDEX

Wends 182, 195 Weothelgeat, ancestor of the Mercian kings 39 Werenberht, bp. of Leicester 64 Werner, marquis 387 Weslieas 402 Wessex, West Saxons 2, 9, 12, 32, 39, 76, 78, 93, 113, 167, 193; bishop of, see Leuthere; earls of, see Godwine, Harold; kings of, see áscwine, áthelbald, áthelberht, áthelred, áthelweard, áthelwulf, Alfred, Brihtric, Cñdwalla, Ceawlin, Cenfus, Centwine, Cenwealh, Ceolric, Cerdic, Cuthred, Cwichelm, Cynegils, Cynewulf, Cynric, Ecgberht, Edward the Elder, Ine, Sexburh Westminster 188, 208, 265, 268; building of the abbey 214; councils at 134, 251, 278, 379, 397; Hall 283±4 Wherwell 138, 144 Whitby 46; abbess of, see Ean¯ñd, Hild White Ship, wreck of 367, 382±3, 398 Wibert, antipope 195, 288, 389 Widukind of Corvey 372 Wight, Isle of 27, 32±3 Wiglaf, k. of Mercia 68, 77 Wigstan, St 201 Wihtburh, St 198, 202±3 Wihtgar, nephew of K. Cerdic 27±8 Wihtlñg, ancestor of the Bernicians 39 Wihtred, k. of Kent 25±6 Wilfrid, bp. of Ripon, archbp. of York 33, 265, 401 Wilkins, John 211 William, Master 220 William I, count of Burgundy 221 William, count of Eu 281 William, s. of K. Henry I 212, 383 William, II duke of Normandy, I k. of England xxv, xl, xlii±xliii, 3, 10, 98, 175, 193, 213±16, 218, 220±1, 223±4, 227±31, 232, 235±7, 239±41, 243, 250, 252±4, 257, 269±71, 278, 356, 359±60, 365, 383, 398; upbringing and rule in Normandy 219±21; conquest of England 229±37; revolts against 221, 223, 239±40; physical description and character 256±7; children 253±4; see also Laws William II, k. of England xxv, xliii, 4, 7, 79, 193, 232, 238±40, 251, 253, 257, 267±75, 275±8, 280±1, 352, 355±7, 363,

365, 372, 379; physical description 284; courage 281±3; cynicism 276, 279±80; exactions 277±8, 280±1, 283; moral laxity 278±9, 288; buildings 283±4; death 284±7 William, count of Arques 223 William V, count of Montpellier 373 William, count of Mortain 360 William III, count of Poitou, V duke of Aquitaine 222 William IV, count of Poitou, VI duke of Aquitaine 222 William V, count of Poitou, VII duke of Aquitaine 222, 224 William, VII count of Poitou, IX duke of Aquitaine xviii n. 2, 4, 288, 340, 354, 392±3, 398 William IV, count of Toulouse 346 William of Aldery 281 William Bonne-Ame, archbp. of Rouen 367, 379 William Clito, s. of Robert Curthose 352, 365, 383 William of Conversano 352 William of Corbeil, archbp. of Canterbury 369±70 William Crispin 224 William Fitz Osbern, earl of Hereford 242±3 William I Longsword, duke of Normandy 129, 149 William of Malmesbury: career xxxvi±xxxviii education xxxviii±xl as historian xl±xliv scholarship xxxix±xli style xlv±xlvi travels xxxix & n. 51 writings xxxvii n. 43, xli n. 66, xlvi±xlvii AG xxvii±xxviii, xxx & n. 22, xxxi±xxxii, xxxiii n. 25, xxxv & nn. 38±40, xli n. 66, 8, 34, 36, 46, 49, 128±9, 132, 135±6, 141, 167, 176, 251, 400±8 Commentary on Lamentations xxxvii & nn. 43, 45, xxxviii n. 47, 23, 30±1, 51, 304, 372, 382 GP xix n. 4, xxi n. 7, xxiii, xxviii, xxxi, xxxiv & nn. 32±4, xxxv & nn. 35±6, 39, xxxvii & n. 44, xxxviii nn. 47±9, xl & nn. 59, 65,

/3thomson/gind.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:39 ± disk/mp

GENERAL INDEX xlii n. 72, lvi n. 84, 7, 9, 13, 16± 18, 32±5, 37±8, 40±1, 43 45±6, 49, 52±3, 57, 60±72, 76±9, 84, 88, 94, 98, 100±1, 103, 106±10, 112±13, 115±20, 122, 125±8, 130±1, 133± 40, 143, 145±8, 154, 156, 163, 169, 172±3, 175, 180, 186±9, 192, 196, 198±206, 214, 224, 230, 235± 7, 240, 245, 251±2, 262, 264±6, 269, 271, 273, 276±80, 282, 295± 8, 306, 316, 327, 329, 332, 336±7, 360±3, 369, 376±80, 394±8, 401, 405, 407 HN xxxiii n. 26, xxxviii and nn. 48±9, xli n. 69, xlii, xlv n. 83, xlvi & n. 84, 7, 14, 17, 21, 38, 41, 46, 75, 79, 141, 158, 160, 162, 191, 256, 279, 283, 368, 370, 398±9 Letter to Peter 100±1 Liber pont. 34, 50, 55±6, 103, 112± 13, 150±1, 185, 194, 247, 249, 300, 302±3, 378, 385±9, 408 Mir. B.V.M. xxxvii n. 43, 51, 79, 101, 110, 137, 152, 157, 160, 164, 175±6, 177, 205, 221, 228, 245, 247, 260±1, 282, 296, 301, 308, 312±13, 317, 329, 338±9, 341, 345, 382±3 Polyhist. 31, 153, 162, 257, 306 VD xxviii, xxxii±xxxiii n. 25, xxxv & nn. 38±40, xl n. 65, xli n. 66, 30, 44, 50, 97, 115, 129±32, 134± 5, 137±8, 141, 143, 146±9, 156, 160, 176, 205, 220, 259, 306, 338, 393 Vita Patricii 403 VW xli n. 66, xlv n. 80, 14, 20, 27, 33, 40, 44, 46, 52, 161, 181, 196, 205, 215±16, 219, 224, 229, 237, 247, 251, 266, 278, 307, 310, 393 Select topics: on Celts 4, 371 geographical knowledge 17±18 on Germans 182, 184 on Islam 183, 304 on Jews 279±80 on the Slavs 183 on women 381±2 and Anglo-Saxon Chronicle 12±13 and Asser 92±3 and Fulcher of Chartres 299±300 and John of Worcester 12±13, 93, 397

495

and the Latin classics xlv & n. 81, 29 and Orderic Vitalis 255 William of Newburgh 107 William of Ros, abt. of FeÂcamp 162 William of Saint-Calais, bp. of Durham 256, 270±1, 274, 396 William Taillefer, count of Toulouse 345±6 William of Tyre 316, 325, 328, 332 William of Volpiano 149 William Warelwast, clerk, later bp. of Exeter 378±9 William of Warenne, earl of Surrey 380 William-Jordan the Pilgrim, relative of Raymond IV of Saint-Gilles 350 Wilton 139±40, 150, 205, 380 Wiltshire 94, 166, 207, 241, 402 Wimborne 35 Winchcombe 68, 200, 388 Winchester xxiv, 9, 17, 30, 77±8, 82, 100, 104, 115±16, 119, 127, 139, 178, 189, 191, 204±5, 288, 314, 358, 411; bishops of, see álfheah, áthelheard, áthelwold, Frithestan, Hñdde, Helmstan, Henry of Blois, Stigand, Swithhun, Walkelin; St Swithun's 130, 156, 395±6, prior of, see Godfrey; New Minster (Hyde Abbey) 99, 106±7, 114, 131±2, 142±3, 191, 288, abbots of, see áthelgar, Grimbald, Robert Losinga; councils at xxxviii n. 48, xli n. 67, 256, 264 Windsor 189, 208, 264, 281 Winethegn 402 Wipo 173 Wirtgeornesburg 29 Wise, John 212 Wissant 190 witereden 88 Withington 409 Woden 20, 27, 39, 59 Woodstock, Henry I's zoo at 372 Worcester xix±xx n. 5, xli n. 66, 13, 51± 2, 63, 72, 102, 104, 114, 133, 137, 141, 154, 170±1, 173, 200, 271, 312, 363, 397, 401, 409; bishops of, see Brihtheah, Deneberht, Dunstan, Ecgwine, Ly®ng, Milred, Oswald, Wñrferth, Wulfstan II; see also John of, Nicholas, Warin, Wulfstan cantor Worgret 402, 405 Worms, Concordat of 391

/3thomson/gind.3d ± 28/1/99 ± 8:39 ± disk/mp

496

GENERAL INDEX

Wroughton 76 Wulfheard, bp. of Hereford 64 Wulfhere, k. of Mercia 60, 405 Wulfhild, St 140 Wulfnoth, s. of Earl Godwine 193, 231±2 Wulfred 402 Wulfstan II, bp. of Worcester 3, 14, 181, 192, 251, 266, 271, 278, 397, 401 Wulfstan cantor 134, 138 Wulfthryth 139 Wulfwine 208 Wulfwold, abt. of Chertsey 264 Wurgeat 405

WuÈrzburg 385 Yagi Siyan, emir of Antioch 317, 348 York 3, 18, 53, 92, 164, 193, 218, 241, 368; archbishops of, see álfric, áthelberht, Eanbald, Ecgberht, Gerard, Oswald, Paulinus, Thomas of Bayeux, Thurstan, Wilfrid Yorkshire xxxix n. 51, 43 Yusuf ibn Tash®n 258 Zoar (Segor) 338 Zoe, empress 246