= L + rs o) t, ui i SS A . aie c ete 4p a ei a ep eet oss Ss Seats See =e we ~~ Fele as eget bears i, Creede { steht err lete’ Hee eE he Lc uatsS PENANCE Leto ts { MALARIA egies 3 ae eee as ea a — oe ~ ee, ~ — = Cornell Aniversity Library sees e erent ee center erent nett cnet eee eeeee erence e tenets tor nreeeecentteeeteneeeeetaeeeeteenetetcesasseeeeeseaadeseaeenge mii THE REIGN OF WILLIAM RUFUS. VOL, 1. a London HENRY FROWDE OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS WAREHOUSE 7 PATERNOSTER ROW THE REIGN OF WILLIAM RUFUS AND THE ACCESSION OF HENRY THE FIRST. BY EDWARD A. FREEMAN, M.A., Hon. D.C.L., LL.D. HONORARY FELLOW OF TRINITY COLLEGE. IN TWO VOLUMES. VOLUME I. Oxford: AT THE CLARENDON PRESS. 1882. ty [All rights reserved. } A, 5 fit = rE “CORNELL UNIVERSITY LIBRARY PREFACE. —_—+— I HAVE now been able to carry out the design which I spoke of in the Prefaces to the fifth volume and to the second edition of the fourth volume of my History of the Norman Conquest. I have en- deavoured to work out in detail the two sides of the memorable years with which I deal in these volumes, their deep importance for general and specially for constitutional history, and their rich store of per- sonal and local narrative. In the former aspect, I believe I may claim to be the first to have dealt at length with the history of Bishop William of Saint- Calais, a history of deep constitutional importance in itself, and more important still with reference to the career of Anselm. It is no small matter to be able to show that it was not Anselm, but Anselm’s enemy, who was the first to appeal from an English court to the see of Rome. In this matter I have, I trust, brought out into its full importance a piece of history which has never, as far as I know, been told at length by any modern writer, though Dr. Stubbs has shown full appreciation of its consti- tutional bearings. Of less importance, but still more vi PREFACE. novel, is the mission of Abbot Jeronto to England, to which I have never seen any reference in any modern writer whatever. With regard to the career of Randolf Flambard, I have now worked out more fully many points which have been already spoken of both by myself and by Dr. Stubbs; but I cannot claim to have brought forward anything of great moment that is absolutely new. In the part which consists of military and other narrative, I have, as usual, given all the attention that I could to the topography. I have visited every place that I could, and I have generally in so doing had the help of friends, often with more observant eyes than my own. I must specially thank Mr. James Parker for his help in Normandy and Maine, the Rev. J. T. Fowler of Durham for his help in Normandy, Maine, and Northumberland, Mr. G. T. Clark in Shropshire, Mr. F. H. Dickinson at Ilchester, the Rev. William Hunt at Bristol, and the Rev. W. R. W. Stephens in Sussex and Kent. T have also to thank His Grace the Duke of Norfolk for free access to Arundel castle, and M. Henri Chardon of Le Mans for much valuable help in that city. And, above all, I must again thank Mr. James Parker for much more than help in preparing the maps and plans which illustrate the book. Without him they could not have been done at all. In North Wales and in some parts of Normandy and France I was left to my own inquiries. In South Wales I made no particular researches for this volume; but I hope that an old-standing knowledge PREFACE. vii of a large part of that country may not have been useless. Where I feel a real deficiency is in Hamp- shire. I could not have made any minute inquiries there without delaying the publication of the book for many months. But I have in former years been at Portchester, and I have seen something of the New Forest. And I feel pretty certain that no amount of local research can throw any real light on the death of William Rufus, unless indeed in the way of showing how local legends grew up. But something might perhaps be done more minutely to illustrate the landing and march of Duke Robert in IIOI. On this last point the place of the conference between Henry and Robert is satisfactorily fixed in the new text of Wace published by Dr. Andresen. I did not come across his volumes till most of the references to Wace had been copied and printed from the edition of Pluquet. But in the course of revision I was able in some cases to refer to Andresen also. His text is clearly a better one than that of Pluquet. But I cannot say that I have learned much from his notes, perhaps from the singularly repulsive way in which they are printed. Another German writer, Dr. Liebermann, has done good ser- vice to my period by publishing several unpublished chronicles to which I have often referred. Those of Saint Edmundsbury are of very considerable local importance. But there are other things that want printing. I hear from Mr. E. C. Waters that there lurks in manuscript a cartulary of Colchester Abbey, viii PREFACE. which contains distinct proof that Henry the First spoke English familiarly. I have never doubted the fact, which has always seemed to me as clear as anything that rested on mere inference can be. But it is something to know that there is direct witness to the fact, though it would be more satisfactory if one could refer to that witness for oneself. In the story, as told me by Mr. Waters, a document partly in English is produced in the King’s presence ; the clerk in whose hands it is put breaks down at the English part; the King takes the parchment, and reads and explains it with ease. I may mention one point with regard to topo- graphy in Normandy and Maine. I have now care- fully written the names of all places in Normandy, Maine, and the neighbouring lands, according to the forms now received, as they appear for instance on the French Ordnance map. I am sure that people constantly read names like “ Willelmus de Sancto Carilepho,” “Robertus de Mellento,” without clearly taking in that “Sanctus Carilephus,” “Mellentum,” &e. are names of real places, as real as any town in England. When one reads, as I have read, of “Bishop Karilef,” “the Honour of the Eagle,” and so forth, it is plain that those who write in that way have no clear notion of Saint-Calais and Laigle as real places. Yet all these towns are still there; to most of them the railway is open, and there are tiains. On the other hand, the confusions of French writers about English places are, if possible, more amazing. A German writer, meanwhile, is pretty PREFACE. ix sure to know where any place, either in France or England, is, though he may be sometimes a little lifeless in his way of dealing with it. I have now pretty well done with the history of the Norman Conquest of England, except so far as I still hope to put forth my story on a scale inter- mediate between five—or rather seven —large volumes and one very small one. But I should be well pleased to go on with another piece of history of the same date, the essential importance of which and its close connexion with that with which I have been dealing is being always brought more and fully home to me. The Norman in the great island of the Ocean and the Norman in the great island of the Mediterranean naturally form companion pieces. I have made some acquaintance with the Rogers and Williams of Sicily in their own home, and I should be well pleased to make that acquaintance more intimate. Palermo follows naturally on Winchester and Rouen. The pleasure-house of William the Bad is the skeleton of the Conqueror’s Tower with a wholly different life breathed into it by Saracenic artists. But the points of view from which we may approach Sicily, the meeting-place of the nations, and the rich and various sources of interest which are supplied by the history of that illustrious island, are simply endless. In all technical points these volumes follow the exact pattern of the History of the Norman Con- quest. And I take a knowledge of that work for granted, and I assume all points which I believe x PREFACE. myself to have explained or established in it. But I have added to these volumes, what I have not added to any of their predecessors, a Chronological Summary, distinct from the Table of Contents. It is, I think, a necessary companion to a narrative in which I could not strictly follow chronological order, but had to keep several contemporary lines of story distinct. Alongside of the History of William Rufus I set his Annals. CONTENTS. CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION, Character of the reign of William Rufus The Norman Conquest in one sense completed, in another undone. . Feudal developement under Rufus and Flawhard Growth of anti-feudal tendencies 3 Extension of the power of England at home Beginning of rivalry between England and France Change in the European position of England Personal character of William Rufus His companions and adversaries; Anselm and Holias Last warfare between Normans and English ; results of the struggle . The Norman kingship | — English Effects of the French war. . Scheme of the work CHAPTER IL. THE EARLY DAYS OF WILLIAM RUFUS. 1087-1090. Character of the accession of Rufus; general accept- ance without formal election . The Coronation and Acknowledgement of William Rufus. September, 1087. Rufus the enemy of the Church, yet his election specially ecclesiastical : : . Wishes of the late King in his favour é Special agency of Lanfranc . : . . PAGE AnNnup Pp Pw owas 9—I0 10 Il 12 xii A.D. Sept. 8, 1087. Sept. 26. Dec. 1087— Jan. 1088, March, 1088. March, 1088. March-May, 1088, April 16. CONTENTS. William Rufus leaves his father’s death-bed and hastens to England He brings with him Morkere and " Wulfnoth, ine again imprisons them Duncan and Wulf set free by Robert Meeting of William and Lanfranc. Coronation of William Rufus at Westniastes His special oath His gifts to churches and to ha poor ‘ The Christmas Assembly; Odo restored to bis earldom 3 ‘ ‘ Special aionmetumess of William’ 3 accession; no other available choice; comparison between Wil- liam and Robert § 2. The Rebellion against William Rufus. March—November, 1088. Beginning of the rebellion; discontent of Odo; in- fluence of William of Saint-Calais . Gatherings of the rebels; speech of Odo; atrinents on behalf of Robert . Comparison of the elder and younger William Geoffrey of Coutances joins the rebels Treason of the Bishop of Durham; different Htate: ments of his conduct Early movements in Kent and fiuaten The Bishop forsakes the King; his Cena pavaltiiey seized a He is summoned ie the King’s eons action of Ralph Paganel Lands of the bishopric laid waste The Easter Assembly ; the rebels refuse to come List of the rebels Loyalty of Earl Hugh of Chester Ravazes of the rebels; of Bishop William, — Bigod, and Hugh of Grantmesnil History and description of Bristol a Bristol occupied by Bishop Geoffrey; his warts : ravages of William of Eu and Robert of Mowbray Robert of Mowbray burns Bath His siege and defeat at Ilchester ‘ . William of Eu plunders in Gloucestershire; history and description of Berkeley Rebel centre at Hereford; action of Earl Hopes . PAGE 12—I3 13—14 13 15 15 16 17—18 18—I19 I9—22 22—24 24—26 26—27 27 28—29 29 30 31 32 32 33—35 34 35—36 36—4o0 40—41 41—42 42—44 44—46 49—47 June 4, 1088, CONTENTS. The rebels march on Worcester; history and descrip- tion of the city 3 ‘ . Action of Wulfstan ; dative of Worcester . Movements of Odo in Kent; he occupies Rochester Rochester, Tunbridge, and Pevensey The war at Rochester; history and decription of (iia city and castle - Duke Robert sends over Bustaee of ‘Biilagne and Robert of Belléme . . 7 . ‘ The three sons of Earl Roger Earl Roger at Arundel; history and daveriiiton of the castle . : . William of Warren; his earldom of Surrey ; hia loyalty; he keeps Lewes . The King wins over Earl Roger Robert of Mortain holds Pevensey against the fee, Loyal Normans; Robert Fitz-hamon . The Church and the people for the King . William’s proclamations and promises; the English arm for him : Meeting of the English aenty at London + William accepted as English king . : . William’s march ; English hatred of Odo . . Taking of Tunbridge castle . " ‘ 5 March towards Rochester ; Odo at Pevensey Duke Robert fails to help the rebels . The English besiege Odo in Pevensey Robert at last sends help; the Norman ending hindered by the English . . . ‘ Alleged death of William of Warren . . . Pevensey surrenders; terms granted to Odo; Rochester to be surrendered . . The garrison of Rochester refuse to jumtendety Odo taken prisoner by his own party William’s Niding proclamation; second Bngish muster . . ' Siege of Rochester; strata of the besieged ; they a to surrender . Lesson of the war; the Ring stronger din any one noble; the unity of England ‘ i: The King refuses terms to the besieged . Pleadings for the besieged, Odo and others; the King grants terms - . The honours of war refused 6 Odo; his atniliatton : he leaves England . . The Whitsun Assembly ; cuatiesgdans and abies amnesty of the chief rebels . ° xiii PAGE 47—49 48—51 52 52—53 52—56 56 57 58—59 59—60 60—61 62 62 63 63—65 65—67 67 68—70 Jo WI 72—73 74-75 76 76 7 78 79—80 80—81 81 82—85 87—89 88 xiv Sept. 8 Nov. 2. Nov. 14 Nov. 21-26 July 3 CONTENTS. The Bishop of Durham again summoned His dealings with Counts Alan and Odo; he comes with a safe-conduct The Bishop’s ecclesiastical claims ; he goes "Buck to Durham Agreement between the Bishop and ne Canna Meeting at Salisbury; trial of the Bishop; he denies the authority of the court . . . : Lanfranc and William of Saint-Calais The charge and the Bishop’s answer Lanfranc and Geoffrey of Coutances Debate in the Bishop’s absence ; ooieleticlion of the court * Debate on the word fof The Bishop’s seven counsellors He appeals to Rome; character of the ppl position of Lanfranc The sentence pronounced ; he renews ‘his cereal Dialogue between the King and the Bishop ; inter- vention of Count Alan : The Bishop appeals again ; the final auntaane The Bishop’s demand for money ; answer of Lanfranc The King’s offer ; the Bishop gives sureties Question of the safe-conduct ; charges of the Bishop’s men ‘ . : 3 : Conditions of the Bishop’s leaving England . Durham castle surrendered to the King The Bishop's voyage delayed New charges and summonses; the Bishop’s dealings with Osmund and Walkelin He at last sails to Normandy ; his reception by Thales Robert Character and ‘eigutians of the sous William of Saint-Calais the first to appeal to Rome Behaviour of the King, of Lanfranc, and of the ieee actors State of Wales ; Rhys vedtorad bya fleet iis Tdlend Gruffydd son of Cynan attacks Rhuddlan Action of Robert of Rhuddlan ; he returns to N atk Wales Robert at Bieyeatine 3 description engl fiisdary of the place . Approach of Gruffydd’s fleet death of Haber of Rhuddlan . . : é : . His burial and epitaph End of the Norman Conquest; its conimnien aid undoing p PAGE 89 go—9t gI—g2 92—93 95—97 97 98—99 100101 100—IOi 102 103 103—I06 106—107 107—109 109—1II0 IIO—III III—112 112—113 113—I114 114 115 116—117 117 I17—1I19 I19—I20 121 122 123 123—124 124—127 127—129 129—I30 Sept. 25 1088—1122 May 24, 1089 I108 CONTENTS. Tendencies to union; the new dynasty and ean accepted in an English character . : Rufus’ breach of his promises ; his general oppression ; no oppression of the English as such His employment of mercenaries ; their presence tials the fusion of races . Sale of ecclesiastical offices ; aualgwtiog atv vacancies Restoration of Thurstan of Glastonbury Death of Geoffrey Bishop of Chichester Death of Abbot Scotland of Saint Augustine’s, Abbot Ailfsige of Bath, and Bishop Gisa of Wells The bishopric of Somerset granted to John of Tours ; he removes the see to Bath . _ He obtains the temporal lordship of Bath Complaints of the canons of Wells and the monks of Bath Guy forced on the ninanils of Saint Augading 8 5 flies turbances and their punishment § 3. Character of William Rufus. Death and burial of Lanfranc ; his ee in ee and Normandy Change for the worse in the King’s oe re- bukes of Lanfranc . : Personal description of William Rufus His conduct in youth; his filial duty; his conduct during the rebellion . General charges against William Biufas fis nae ee personality His alleged firmness of purpose ; his gal of a steadiness; his unfinished campaigns His alleged magnanimity; his boundless jie 3 story of the chamberlain 5 . His alleged liberality ; his miotatilnee His rewards to the loyal troops after the rebellion His extortions : F His generally strict government His lavishuess to his foreign mercenaries They are restrained by the statute of Henry : Stricter forest laws; story of the fifty English acquitted by ordeal Special vices of Rufus; old and new fealitans of sree His irreligion ; his favour to the Jews True position of the Jews in England . Dispute between Jews and Christians xv PAGE 131—132 132—133 133—134 134—135 135 135 136 136—137 137 138—139 139—140 140—142 I142—143 143—144 145—146 147 148—149 149—I51 15I—152 152 153 153 153—154 154 155—157 1§7—159 159—161 160 162 Xvi August 11, 1089 I1IO 1118 CONTENTS. He makes the converted Jews turn back; story of the convert Stephen 2 : William’s defiance of God and the wainta® eee of blasphemy : ‘ Redeeming features in Rufus ; “little personal aeuélty ; ; respect for his father’s memory His chivalrous spirit ; his word when kept ; ead wen broken Chivalry a new hing ; William Rufus a the hes ginning of a new era Illustrations of the chivalrous iuiivies Grouping of events in the reign of Rufus CHAPTER IIL. THE FIRST WARS OF WILLIAM RUFUS. 10go—I092. Character of the year 1089 ; natural phenomena The great earthquake Fi . . Character of the year 1090; beginnings of favetin adventure and domestic oppression 3 The years 1090—1091; affairs of Normandy, Seot- land, and Cumberland Connexion of English and Norman Liston ; the same main actors in both Contrast between England and Meany as " private war The old and the new cenenion History of Robert of Belléme His character; his engineering skill ; his doadial iad wanton cruelty His enmity towards Helias, Abbot Ralph, and ais His final imprisonment by Henry History and character of Robert Count of teen and Earl of Leicester His fame for wisdom and influence reall Rufus and Henry . Story of his death ted § 1. Normandy under Robert. 1087—1090. State of Normandy ; interegt of those who held lands in both countries : ‘ é Temptations to invasion = - . PAGE 162—165, 165—167 167—169 169—171 169—171 171-174 174 175—176 176 177 177 177 178 179 179—181 181—183 183—184 184 184—187 185—186 187 188—189 188—189 Summer, 1088 Autumn, 1088 April 21, 1085 CONTENTS. Character of Robert ; his weak good-nature and lack of justice. , . . Spread of vice and sit Hahtons Building of castles ; garrisons kept by the Gonuusecs in the castles of the nobles Robert of Belléme and others drive out the Duke's forces ‘i : . ‘i Robert’s lavish innks: Ivry ; Biioune The Aitheling Henry claims his mother’s lands He buys the Cétentin and Avranchin ; his firm rule 3 Henry goes to Bugtind : William reecanioea ‘hn his mother’s lands 7 He seizes them again; and mas stk & Robert Fitz-hamon : 5 3 . Influence of Odo with Robert Henry comes back to Normandy with Robert of Bel- léme ; they are seized and imprisoned Earl Roger makes war on the Duke; his fortresses QOdo’s exhortation to Robert . Affairs of Maine ; relations with Fulk of aio Robert acknowledged in Maine Chief men of the county; Bishop Howel, eoithey of Mayenne, Helias of La Fléche . Appointment of Howel to the see of Le Mans; ie loyalty to the Norman dukes 4 Temporal relations to the see of Le Mans_.. ‘ Robert before Le Mans; general submission of the county Aug.-Sept. Ballon holds out ; desertion of the plies siege aul 1088 VOL. I, surrender of the castle Robert attacks Saint Cenery ; ‘eserpton ait fistoey of the place Geroy and his descendants ; Saint Gay weiaall iy Mabel 4 . Siege and surrender of Saint Corents ‘ uinding of Robert Carrel Z Castle granted to Robert iesditi of Geroy . Surrender of Alengon, Belléme, and other castles ; Robert disbands his army . - Robert of Belléme set free at his father" 8 sane Henry set free; his good government of Coutances and Avranchied * 7 . XVii PAGE 190—I9g1 Ig! 192 193 194 195 196—197 197 198 198 199 199—200 200—202 202—204 204 205 205—208 207 208—209 209—211 21I—215 214—215 215—217 217 218—2I1g 219—220 220—222 xviii A.D, Easter, 1090 November, 1090 November 3. November CONTENTS. § 2. The First Successes of William Rufus. t10go. Schemes of William Rufus; assembly at Winchester ; the King’s speech; war voted by the Witan William stays in England; his policy ; his advantages in his struggle with Robert é Power of William’s wealth ; mercenaries ; bribes Submission of Saint Valery; beginning of English action on the continent Submission of various castles; Aumale, Eu, Gamay, Longueville; description of Gournay and Longue- ville ‘ ‘ ; A . : Ralph of Toesny and Count William of Evreux ; their kindred ; enmity of their wives Heloise of Evreux and Isabel of Toesny War between Ralph and Count William ; Ralph vainly asks help of the Duke ; he submits to King William =. * Helias of Saint- Spies he marries Rebailty sativa daughter His faithfulness ; fenetttins of his cagiles ; Sita Saens, Bures, and Arques . William’s dealings with France ; Hobart aes bil of Philip; Philip sets out, but is bribed to go back : The first English axthatdy's first direct dexiinxs be: tween England and France; results of Rufus’ dealings with Philip 4 Private wars not interrupted by ee invasion ; action of Robert of Belléme Robert of Meulan imprisoned and deb free Duke Robert takes Brionne . Movement at Rouen; the municipal epiniba ; sitababe of Conan ; his treaty with William Rufus . A day fixed for the surrender to William; Duke Robert sends for help Henry and Robert of Belléme come Bs the help of Duke Robert is : Rouen in the eleventh soiling . . Fright of Duke Robert ; division in the city ; Henry sends Duke Robert away . é Gilbert of Laigle enters Rouen; aisngider of the citizens; Conan taken prisoner . ‘ 3 Conan put to death by Henry 7 Robert brought back ; treatment of the Siiteenas im- prisonment of William son of Ansgar ‘3 ‘ Count William of Evreux marches against Conches . PAGE 221—224 224—226 226—227 227—228 228—231 231—232 232-234 234 235 236—237 237—239 239—241 241—242 243 244 245—247 248 248—249 249—253 253—256 256 257—260 260—261 261—266 CONTENTS. Siege of Conches; settlement of the county of Evreux on Roger of Conches The three dreams; death of Roger of a 1100—1108 Later history of Ralph and William and their wives Christmas, 1090 Feb, 1091 January Lent, 1091 Feb. 1091 Aug. Iogt May, 1091 Aug. 1091 Orderic’s picture of Normandy ; his English feelings § 3. Personal Coming of William Rufus. 1091. Assembly at Westminster . . . . The King crosses to Normandy i Duke Robert helps Robert of Belléme; dave of Courey ‘ The siege raised at the news af William’ 's coming Treaty of Caen; cession of Norman territory to William Saint Michael’s Mount passes to William, the ead of the Cétentin and Maine to Robert ; msi to despoil Henry 5 Settlement of the English and Nosmen succession ; growth of the doctrine of legitimacy . Dealings with Henry and Eadgar; Eadgar fiaiitahed from Normandy ; he goes to Scotland ‘ Partisans on each side to be restored < The treaty sworn to; it stands but a little while Robert and William march against Henry Henry’s preparations; Hugh of Chester and atlers surrender their castles Henry defends himself on Saint Michael's Mount ; he is welcomed by the monks Siege of the Mount; its position ; oe of ithe siege Personal castes win of Rufus a ihe night who unhorsed him . 5 Contrast between William and Robert; Hewes sitgyed to take water, and William’s answer Henry surrenders William returns to England with hie brothers Stories of Henry’s adventures; evidence for his presence in England in 1091 § 4. The Scottish Expedition of William Rufus. August—Oclober, 1091. Affairs of Scotland; Malcolm’s invasion of Northum- berland ; he is driven back William and Robert in England; relations baton Robert and Malcolm; stronger side of Robert and Eadgar b 2 xix PAGE 262—268 268—270 270—271 271—272 273 273 273-274 274 275—276 277—279 279—280 280—282 282 283 283 283 284—285 a85—287 287— 290 29I1—292 292—293 293 793—295 295—297 297—2938 XX CONTENTS. A.D. “PAGE September 3 William’s march; state of Durham; restoration of Bishop William; his renewed influence . . 298—300 Michaelmas Loss of William's sites . 300 The kings by the Scots’ Water ; misdintisn of Robert and Eadgar; Malcolm does homage to William 30I—304 Questions as to the betrothal of Margaret and the earldom of Lothian 7 303—304 Return of William; signatures os the Tartine charters. 305—306 December 23 Fresh disputes eiwenn: William and Fatiee Robert and Eadgar leave England J 7 . 306—307 October 15 Fall of the tower at Winchcombe i ‘ 307 October 17 Great wind in London . : : 7 308 1092 Fire in London . : 3 308 March 28 Consecration of the church of Satlituiey , » 308—309 April1o The tower and roof blown down ‘ 309 May 9 Completion of Lincoln minster; the church sandy for consecration ; Thomas of York claims the jurisdiction of Lindesey ; the King orders the consecration . 309—312 May 6 Remigius dies before the appointed a ; the church remains unconsecrated a ‘ : 312 § 5. The Conquest and Colonization of Carlisle. 1092. William’s conquest of Carlisle; popular mistakes as to Cumberland and Westmoreland . 313—314 603—685 Early history of Carlisle; it forms ey of fea Northumbrian kingdom. 314 Scandinavians in Cumberland ; Sasioue tion of Carlisle 315 1092 Dolfin lord of Carlisle; he is driven out; the city restored and the castle built 7 . : 315 The Saxon colony at Carlisle . . 316 The earldom of Carlisle; later history of tia ty: : the castle and the bishopric f 317—318 1093 Fortunes of Henry ; the men of Domfront tices ica as their lord; description of Domfront ‘ + 319—320 Henry’s wars with Robert ; he wins back his county 320—321 The castle of Saint James is granted to Earl Hugh . 321—323 CHAPTER IV. THE PRIMACY OF ANSELM AND THE ACQUISITION OF NORMANDY. 1093—I097. 1087—1092 Character of the early years of William Rufus ; chronological sequence of the history . + 325—326 CONTENTS. xxi A.D. PAGE 1093—1098 Character of the next period; distinct lines of story 326—328 Ecclesiastical affairs ; working of the new ideas; new 7 position of the King ‘ 328 1o8g—1093 Vacancy of the see of Cantatas bnipenes of Randolf Flambard . 2 ‘ 4 - 328—329 § 1. The Administration of Randolf Flambard. 1089—1099 Early history of Flambard ; question as to his settle- ment in England T. R. E. ri 3 5 329 His service with the Bishop of London : 329—330 Flambard a priest, and said to have been Dean of Twinham . 5 330 Character of Flauibard: his patanie: his gunning his financial skill . : 330—331 His probable share in Domesday ; his siteoed new Domesday . ‘ 331—332 His rise under Rufus; he holds is saaticanahiey growth of the office under him. é + 332—333 His logs of land for the New Forest . 2 333 His systematic charges and exactions ; the King to he every man’s heir . 333—-335 The feudal tenure; musing ; marriage; deditvs with bishoprics and abbeys : 335—336 Agency of Flambard ; RE of die feudal tenures 3 336—337 Flambard’s theory of land- Ahdldtng's; 3; relief al re- demption ; dealings with wills ‘ ‘ 337—339 Wardship; its oppressive working; wardship td marriage special to England and Normandy + 339—340 The two sides of feudalism ; iia in what sense feudal 3 340—341 Flambard’s oppression falls “gina dinally. on ihe greatest estates; no special oppression of the English as such. 341—342 Dealings of the tenants-in- chief = fhe sinter tenants 342 Submission of the mobleds eekian of the Taine clerks 5 342—343 Position of Rufus oars fig his epianans effect on national unity . : . : + 343-344 Abuse of the old laws 5 344 Dealings with church property ; ppidirbnat sult investiture of bishops and abbots . : 345 Grant of the temporalities by the king; elinreh lands become fiefs; analogy between lay and spiritual fiefs; Flambard’s inferences : » 340—347 XXli CONTENTS. Vacant prelacies held by the King; power of pro- longing the vacancy 3 i 3 Sale of bishoprics and abbeys ; simony not systematic before Rufus Treatment of vacant hughes ; Planbad ihe chief agent Novelty of the nities ‘Suns in dlghatnetan 1092—1100 Resignation and restoration of Abbot Odo of Chertsey Distinction between bishoprics and abbeys; the va- cancies longer in the case of the abbeys English abbots; story of the appointment to an un- named abbey , ‘ 3 , Sees vacant in 1092 1091—1123 Ralph Luffa Bishop of Chichester ; hits snpotutbcnik 10g 1088—1091 and episcopate Death of Bishop William of Thetford ; isetory of Herbert Losinga; he buys the bishopric Three years’ vacancy of New Minster 1cgI—I1093 Herbert buys the abbey for his father Robert 1093 Herbert repents; receives his bishopric again from the Pope; novelty of the act . 1092—1094 Wacancy of the see of Lincoln : 1089—1093 Vacancy of Canterbury § 2. The Vacancy of the Primacy and the Appointment of Anselm. 1080 1089—1093. Effects of the vacancy of the see of Canterbury Special position of the metropolitan see ; place of the Archbishop as the leader of the nation Appointment to the archbishopric; the see fib granted to the King’s clerks The King’s purpose to keep the see racanit iis motives . No fear of a bad appointment No thought of election either by the ee or by the Witan ; silent endurance of the nation Results of the vacancy ; corruption of the eo 7 lack of ecclesiastical discipline Anselm ; debt of England to foreigners; the Hyun dian saints, Anselm and Hugh Birth and parentage of Anselm; Aosta ‘ Comparison of Lanfranc and Anselm; various sides of Anselm’s character; he is not preferred in England by the Conqueror 7 Anselm and Eadmer; references to Hadmer 4 in athe writers PAGE 347 347—348 349 350 350 350—352 352—353 353 353-354 354 355 355 355—350 3506 350 357 358—359 359 359—361 361— 362 362—363 363—365 365 366—368 368—369 365—370 A.D. 1057—1060 1060 1063 1078 1090 1078 September 8 1092 February, 1093 Christmas, 1092—1093 March 6, 1093 CONTENTS. Childhood of Anselm; his youthful licence He leaves Aosta; his sojourn at Avranches . He becomes a monk at Bec . a . He is elected Prior ; stories of him as Prior ‘ He is elected Abbot ; Bec under his government ; his widespread fame . : ‘ . . His correspondence Relations between Bec and Haglund: Foundation of the priory of Clare Frequency of lawsuits; Anselm’s desire to ie subtly His first visit to England; his friendship with the _ monks of Christ Church ; his first acquaintance with Eadmer His general sopulastty i in England; his love for tap. land; his preaching and alleged miracles . His friendship with the cee and with Earl Hugh Feeling as to the vacancy ‘of she, sighbidhopates ; Anselm looked to as the coming archbishop . Earl Hugh changes the canons of Saint Werburh’s at Chester for monks; he asks help from Anselm Anselm refuses to go; repeated messages and re- fusals ; he at last goes at the bidding of his own monks : - : ? Anselm at Canterbury His first interview with Rufus; his ieBaties of the King; settlement of the affairs of Bec Anselm at Chester The King refuses him ise to go a William's 8 feeling towards Anselm The Christmas assembly ; the vacancy diennesed iy the Witan; petition of the assembly to the King . Prayers for the appointment of an archbishop drawn up by Anselm - Character of the year 1093. ‘ ‘ . Discourse about Anselm before the King ; the King’s mockery . . He falls sick at Adiveatnnt and is 2 tadaved to Giouseyiie Repentance of Rufus; advice of the prelates and nobles ; Anselm sent for; Rufus promises amend- ment ‘ His proclamation of refiemn ‘ general aitlatectinn . Beginnings of reform; prisoners set free; the bi- shopric of Lincoln granted to Robert Bloet Rufus names Anselm to the archbishopric ; unwilling- ness of Anselm XXL PAGE 370—371 371 371 372 373 374 374376 376 376—377 377-378 378—380 380—381 381—382 382 382—385 385 385—387 387 388 387—389 389—390 390 39°—391 391 392—393 393—394 394—395 390 Xxiv CONTENTS. Arguments of the bishops, of the eee and his own monks 3 : : He is invested and fantalled by fone, Anselm’s renewed protest; his parable of the two oxen ; the King orders the restitution of the tem- poralities of the see : . 3 The royal right of investiture not “auentioned no scruples on the part of Anselm ; later change in his views No ecclesiastical aisctien: wale setiin of ic rae ; Gundulf’s letter to the monks of Bec 2 Anselm tarries with Gundulf ; consent of the Dike, the Archbishop of Rouen, and the monks of Bec . April 17, The King’s recovery; the Easter Gemét The King falls back into evil ways ; he recalls his acts of mercy é : . . He keeps his purpose as to Knactah = ; March—Dec. Affairs of England and Wales; dealings between 1093 William and Malcolm; designs of William on Normandy Action of William of oe ie ee an sithande on Normandy . Dealings of Rufus was the Canis of Flanders Oct. 4 or 13, Death of Robert the Frisian; accession of Robert 1093 of Jerusalem 4 : . Interview between Anselm and the King at Ro- chester ; his three conditions Anselm requires to be allowed to slendiledps Pope Urban; question of the acknowledgement of Popes ; English feeling on the subject The King’s answer ; his special counsellors; Count Robert of tender: and Bishop William of Duchan The King prays Anselm to take the archbishopric ; he asks for the confirmation of aon made him during the vacancy Anselm refuses ; statement of the case on both iting: the King’s advocatio of the archbishopric . State of public feeling; special Gemét at Win- chester; Anselm receives the archbishopric and does homage “ 3 ‘ : The King’s writ; the’ Archbishop’s thegns; clauses in favour of the monks Relations of the Archbishop to the dity of Canterbury and the abbey of Saint Alban’s 1093 Death of Abbot Paul of Saint Alban’s; fan years’ vacancy of the abbey 2 : : : PAGE 397—399 398—401 401—403 403—404 404—405 406 407 407—408 408 —409 409—410 410—4I1 4lI—412 41I—412 412—4i4 414—416 417 418 418—421 421—422 422—~423 423—424 423—424 CONTENTS. XXV A.D. . PAGE The question as to the Pope left unsettled; no re- ference to the Pope in English episcopal appoint- ments . . + 424—-425 Order of episcopal appolutmenta that wird now; theory of the two systems : 425—427 Sept. 25, Enthronement of Anselm; Flambard icing a aut 1093 against him on the day of his enthronement « 427—428 December 4 Consecration of Anselm at Canterbury; list of the officiating bishops . 429—430 Successful objection of rifioniag of Vark to the jihesa ‘Metropolitan of Britain” + 430—432 Anselm’s general profession to the Ratha anced + 432—433 Thomas claims jurisdiction over Lincoln ; Robert Bloet’s consecration delayed . 433 Christmas, Assembly at Gloucester; Anselm scasived by the 1093—1094 King : . 5 ‘ : F 434 § 3. The Assembly at Hastings and the second Norman Campaign. Tog4. Events of the year 1094; affairs of Normandy; their connection with Anselm. ‘ ‘ + 434-435 Christmas, Be Atis ‘Taya = 1093—1094 Robert’s challenge of William ; war decreed . + 435—436 Contributions collected for the war; Anselm un- willing to contribute; he at last gives five hundred pounds. 437—438 William first accepts ‘ite money anit then wotinide it 438—440 Dispute with Bishop Maurice of London; judgement of Wulfstan - 5 . : » 440—441 oe ? Assembly at Hastings ; fleet delayed by the wind . 441-442 February 11 Consecration of the church at Battle; William and Anselm at Battle . : + 442—445 February 3, Death of Bishop Geoffrey of Gontonces: ‘ite suc- 1093 cessor Ralph at Hastings and Battle z 444 February 12 Consecration of Robert Bloet to Lincoln ; his gift the King; plot against Anselm; compromise with York 3 . + 445—446 I104—1123 Character and episcopate of Bobect Bloet ‘ 447—448 Return of Bishop Herbert of Thetford; he is depsived by the King . ‘ 448 1094 His restoration; he removes his see . Norwich ‘ 448 February 17 The ceremonies of Ash-Wednesday; Anselm rebukes the minions : 449—450 Anselm’s interview with the ina : his dilenes abe the war. 7 : : < + 450—451 XXV1 March 19, 1094 October 31 CONTENTS. Anselm asks for help in his reforms; he asks leave to hold a synod; his appeal oer the fashionable vices i z Grievances of the (Giacche aes of the guundh tenants . . He prays the King te fill tiie vacant abbeys ; ok relation to the King; hostile answer of Rufus Comparison vf Lanfranc and Anselm; estimate of Anselm’s conduct : Anselm tries to recover the iinet tyes the bishops advise him to give more money; his grounds for refusing é 3 . The King more hostile than ever; Anselm leaves Hastings . 5 . 7 : William cros:es to Normandy Vain attempts to settle the dispute between William and Robert; verdict of the guarantors against William Castles held by William; asking of Bures Robert calls in Philip; siege and surrender of re gentan; ransom of the prisoners : Robert takes La Houlme Difficulties of Rufus; further eeation: : ley of Eng- lish soldiers; Flambard takes away the soldiers’ money : ‘ : Rufus buys off Philip é Contemporary notices of the campaign ; differeines between i ngland and Normandy; private wars go on in Normandy Relations between Rufus and coon war at Saint Cenery; the castle taken by Robert of Belléme Henry and Earl Hugh summoned to Eu They go to Southampton and keep Christmas in London December 28 The King comes to Breland William jai | Henry February, 1095 Jan., Feb, 1095 reconciled . ‘ . : Henry goes to Normandy; his warfare with Robert . Norman supporters of William Wretchedness of England; causes for ie iene return; affairs of Scotland and Wales; plots at home F F . . § 4. The Council of Rockingham. December, 1094—March, 1095. Notes of the year 1095; councils of the year > Movements of William ; alleged Welsh campaign PAGE 451 —453 454 454—456 450—457 457—460 460 401 461 462—463 463—464 465 405—466 466—467 467—468 468—469 469 470 470 470—471 471—474 474-475 476 476—477 A.D. CONTENTS. April, 1094— Last days and sickness of Wulfstan ; his friendship Jan., 1095 January 18, 1095 January 22 Sunday, March 11 Monday, March 12 with Bishop Robert of Hereford , Death of Wulfstan; his appearance to Hise Robert ; Fi . . ‘ His burial ; Anselm and Urban; need of the pall aaa altige usage as to it Anselm asks leave to go i ‘Uitian for thé ‘als lium; William refuses to acknowledge any pope ; Anselm asks for an sscenitily #o Giiaae the aueiions ‘ he will leave the realm if he may not ne Urban Frequency of aaniities wailee Rufus; a ape meeting summoned Assembly at Rockingham Estimate of the question; the King technically right; no real objection to Urban on his part History and description of Rockingham Place of meeting; the King’s inner council . Anselm’s opening speech < The real point avoided on the King’ s side ; ‘owen treated as an accused person Conduct of the bishops; the meeting sod till Monday. . The bishops counsel wgolithittoitg ; Aen 8 ait speech; he asserts no exclusive claims; his two duties Position of England lowarils the popes ; Mawes dine William of Saint-Calais Anselm not the first to appeal to Rone Answer of the bishops; the King’s messages ; the bishops advise him to submit to the King in all things 7 . K ‘ Anselm sleeps during the dehinte The bishops’ definition of freedom; Anselm ah sia forsake Urban Schemes of William of Saint- Calais aindient one ; he aspires to the archbishopric Objects of the King ; promises of William of Saint- Calais; his speech to Anselm William’s imperial claims ; his relations at the ine to the vassal kingdoms The real question hitherto evaded ; “Aneel? 8 hat lenge ; he states the real case New position of the bishops . Xxvil PAGE 477—479 480 480 481—484 484—485 485—486 487 487 487—489 499—491 “491 492 493 493-494 494-496 496 —497 497 497—499 498 499—500 5OO—501 502—503 503—505 505—506 506 XXViil Tuesday, March 13 Wednesday, March 14 March-May, 1095 March 1-7, 1095 April ro May 13 CONTENTS. Anselm insulted ; popular feeling on his side ; story of Anselm endl the knight . : Perplexity of the King; failure of William of Saint- Calais; the assembly adjourned Debates in the inner council; William of Saint Calais recommends force ; the lay nobles refuse ; speeches of the King and Robert of Meulan The King bids the bishops renounce Anselm; he withdraws his protection; Anselm’s answer The King turns to the lay lords; they support Anselm j F - : Shame of the titepe: the King further examines them ; his rewards and punishments Anselm “ttilies to leave oor another aici ment “ . Anselm summoned to the ings presence ; the lay lords propose a truce; adjournment to May 20 Importance of the steel at ‘PiaclGactiaast é William keeps faith to Anselm personally, but op- presses his friends . : - g § 5. The Mission of Cardinal Walter. 1095. Events of the time of truce ; assemblies of the year Position of Urban. “ Council of Piacenza ; its aorees no neubtas of Eng- lish affairs a William’s schemes to turn the Pope against Macdieas ; mission of Gerard and William of Warelwast Urban at Cremona; dealings of William’s messengers with Urban The Sicilian monarchy ; sistas betwee Balad and Sicily . 2 Gerard and William bring ‘Walter of Youn as Legate ; he brings a pallium Secrecy of his errand ; his interview with fhe iia ; William acknowledges Urban 3 . é Walter refuses to depose Anselm William and his counsellors outwitted by the ‘Legates ; he is driven to a reconciliation with Anselm Whitsun Assembly; the King’s message to Anselm Anselm will not pay for the pallium; Anselm and William reconciled ; their friendly discourse Anselm refuses to take the pallium from the King . Popular aspect of the assembly PAGE 506—508 508—509 510—5I11 51I—513 513—514 514—516 516—517 517—519 519 519—521 521 521 §22—523 523-524 525 525—526 520—527 527—528 528—529 529 530 531—532 532 533 June 10 June 26 Christmas, 10g5—1096 January 6 June 6 March 7, 1095. Nov. 18 Easter, April 13 June 2 CONTENTS. Anselm absolves two bishops, Osmund of Salisbury and Robert of Hereford ; he restores Wulfrith of Saint David's Anselm receives the pallium at Gantesbury’.. Death of Bishop Robert of Hereford ; the Legate tae in England; his dealings with Anselm The King’s northern march ; Anselm entrusted with the defence of Canterbury . Letters between Anselm and the Legate ; the ishéos object to Anselm’s position ; his answer Question about the monks at Christ Church ; Mian and his tenants. . 3 2 . Assembly at Windsor and Salisbury Anselm attends William of Saint-Calais on his death-bed : ‘ : - Consecration of bishops ; Samson of Worcester and Gerard of Hereford : : - Anselm consecrates Irish bishops. : 7 § 6. The Crusade and the Mortgage of Normandy. November 1095—March 1097. Council of Piacenza; appeal of the Emperor Alexios Council of Clermont ; the first crusade : Bearing of the crusade on our story; no king en- gaged in the first crusade; share of Normandy and Flanders : The crusades a Latin maverient name of Franks Decrees of the Council; lay investitures forbidden ; sentence against Clement and the Emperor ; against Philip and Bertrada ‘ Urban preaches the crusade ; his seems French, Norman, and other crusaders « Marriage of Robert of Meulan . Duke Robert takes the cross; he applies to William for money ; position of William towards the crusade Mission of Abbot Jeronto; he rebukes William The Pope sends his nephew ; peace between William and Robert . . y . : Normandy pledged to William . - Whitsun Assembly; taxation to raise tie: pledge- money ; protest of the prelates ji Oppression of the tenants ; plunder of the —e ‘ Contribution of Anselm; he mortgages Peckham to his monks . : é . ‘ XXIX PAGE 533—534 534—535 535—537 537—538 538—540 540—541 541—542 542 §42—544 544 545 545—547 546—547 546 548—549 549—550 550—552 551 552—553 553—554 554—555 555 556—557 557—558 558—559 XXX CONTENTS. A.D. PAGE September, Conferences between William and Robert; Robert~ 1096 goes on the crusade ; his companions 3 559—550 Conduct of Robert; his treatment at Rome ; his reception by Robert of Apulia. 560—561 1096—1097 The crusaders winter in Apulia; siege of ‘Amal, Bohemond takes the cross . : 562 Feb. 1097 Odo of Bayeux dies at Palermo 2 563 Duke Robert crosses to Dyrrhachion ; he eas! homage to Alexios . 563—564 Robert at Tsdailcoiag ; Hagh of J augy joins fhe crusaders; the rope-dancers of Antioch . 564—5065 Robert refuses the crown of Jerusalem and goes back 566 William takes possession of Normandy; character of his rule there : ‘ 3 . 566—567 The Cétentin restored to Henry 5 567 1096 Synod of Rouen; the Truce of God eonbitined ; other decrees ; small results of the synod : « 568—569 William’s appointments to Norman prelacies 570 1ogo—1101 Tancard Abbot of Jumitges . ‘ : 570 1096—1107 Etard Abbot of Saint Peter on Dives p : 570 1og8—1105 Turold Bishop of Bayeux. ‘ , z 571 § 7. The Last Dispute between William and Anselm. 1097. Events of the year 1096-1097 : A ‘ 571 State of Wales at the end of 1096. . . 571 April, 1097 Assembly at Windsor ; Welsh war and seeming con- quest . 572 William complains of denadleit 8 aintianths ; ‘aodtion of the Archbishop’s knights; Anselm summoned to the King’s court . : 572—574 Change in Anselm’s feelings ; his yearnings teqaalls Rome ; aspect of his conduct 4 3 - 574—578 Causes of his loss of general support . 5 578 His continued demands of reform; he detenenines not to answer the summons but to make a last effort ‘ 579—580 May 24, Whitsun assembly; anaalai fvourbl vocals hig 1097 last appeal . : 581 He determines to ask leave te, go to Hones the King refuses : 581—5 83 June—Aug., The charge against apelin “withdeanh : affairs of 1097 Wales; another assembly ; Anselm’s request again refused ‘ “ : 5 583 Wednesday, Assembly at Winchester ; oe renews his re- October 14 quest; he is again impleaded : . - §84—585 CONTENTS. xXxi A.D. PAGE Thursday, Anselm and the bishops and lords; speech of Walke- October 15 lin; the bishops’ des of themselves; Anselm’s answer 3 - §86—588 Part of the lay ieki Anwelact 3 sivoniba to Shey the customs; he is charged with breach of promise ; alternatives given him . . « §88—589 Anselm and the King; Anselm’s ean answer of Count Robert ; the barons against Anselm . 589—592 Anselm allowed to go, but the archbishopric to be seized d 592—593 Anselin’s last dndevetene with Rufiie: he lenses idm. 593—594 Anselin at Canterbury; he takes the pilgrim’s staff . 594 His treatment at Dover ; he crosses to Whitsand . 595 The King seizes the archbishopric; Anselm’s acts declared null; the monks keep Peckham . 595—596 Rebuilding of the choir of Christ Church; works of Prior Ernulf , 596—5907 Comparison of the trials of William of SaineCuiale Anselm, and Thomas . ‘ » 597—605 Anselm does not strictly appeal to dis Pope . : 598 He asserts no clerical privilege . 7 . 599 Question of observing the customs . ‘ : 600 Comparison of the proceedings in each case . + 600—60r Architectural arrangements . * . 601—602 Constitution of the assemblies; they become jens popular; lessened freedom of speech i . 602—603 The inner and outer council; foreshadowing of Lords and Commons : ‘ . 603—604 The Witan and the sThewirigeasnidgenitt 2 ‘ 604 Behaviour of Rufus, of Henry the First, of Henry the Second . A 3 : 605 Effect on Anselm of his ee Seschies . 606 His journey; dealings of Odo of Burgundy; ie reaches Rome ‘ 607 Councils of Lateran and Bartz isis of fis cope of Beneventum e + 607—610 Position of Rufus; he is never areoniuntaia: probable effect of excommunication : . 611—612 Anselm at Lyons; his letters to the Pope. 612 His letters to the King from Rome; William’s real ment of the letters , 5 ‘ 7 613 Mission of William of Warelw ast. : . 614—620 TE a William on the Continent . e . : 614 Anselm at Schiavia ; he writes “Cur Deus Homo” . 615 Anselm and Urban before Capua; Anselm and the Saracens . ‘ : ; i » 615—617 XXxIl October I, 1098 April 12, 1099 July 29 CONTENTS. Anselm wishes to resign the archbishopric; Urban forbids him . 3 : : . Council of Bari Anselm at Rome; dealings idee the Sas and William of Warelwast; the excommunication threatened and respited Urban’s treatment of Anselm ‘ Council of Lateran; protest of one of oe Anselm goes to Lyons Death of Urban; William’s words on as dearh Aug. 13, 1099 Paschal the Second Pope ; William’s words on his —Jan.21 11108 election : PAGE 617—618 618 618—620 620—621 621—622 622—623 623 CHRONOLOGY OF THE YEARS 1087-1102. 1087 September 8 William Rufus leaves his father’s death-bed and hastens to England. He imprisons Morkere and Wulfnoth. He is accepted by Lanfranc. In Normandy Robert of Belléme and others drive out the Duke’s garrisons, September 26 William is crowned at Westminster. December 25 1088 —January 6 March He makes gifts for his father’s soul. The Christmas assembly. Odo restored to his earldom. Death of Abbot Scotland. Abbot Guy appointed at Saint Augustine’s, Conspiracy against the King. Rebellious movements in Kent and Sussex. Bishop William secures London, Dover, and Hastings for the King. ose The Bishop forsakes the King ; his temporalities seized. April 16 April—J une June July 3 July August— September VOL. I. He is summoned to the King’s court, and his lands laid waste. The Easter assembly ; the rebel nobles fail to appear. Ravaging of Gloucestershire and Somerset. Deliverance of Worcester. Attempted invasion of Robert. Sieges of Tunbridye, Pe- vensey, and Rochester, Return of Rhys; Gruffydd and the wikings harry Rhuddlan. Bishop William at the King’s court. Henry, now Count of the Cdtentin, comes to England for his mother’s lands. Death of Robert of Rhuddlan. John of Tours consecrated to the bishopric of Somerset void by the death of Gisa. Henry and Robert of Belléme go back to Normandy and are imprisoned. Duke Robert received at Le Mans; sieges of Ballon and Saint Cenery. Henry is released and restored to his county in the course of the autumn. Cc XXXIV CHRONOLOGY OF THE YEARS 1087-1102. September 6 Agreement between Bishop William and the Counts. September 25 Death of Bishop Geoffrey of Chichester. November 2 Bishop William before the assembly at Salisbury. November 14 Durham castle surrendered to the King. after 26 November ? 1089 May 24 1090 = April 21 June 28 November 3 December 35 1091 —January 6 January February February May August September 3 Bishop William crosses to Normandy. Grant of the abbey of Bath to Bishop John; the bishopric of Somerset removed thither. The priory of Blyth founded in the course of the year by Roger of Bully. Death of Lanfranc. Easter assembly at Winchester; war declared against Normandy. : A large part of eastern Normandy won by William without crossing the sea, Maine revolts from Robert’; reign of Azo of Este; Howel imprisoned by Helias and visits England. Howel returns to Le Mans. Intrigues of Conan at Rouen. Rouen secured to Duke Robert ; death of Conan. War of Evreux and Conches; peace between them. Anselm visits England for the first time as abbot in the course of the year. Christmas assembly at Winchester. Siege of Courcy. Helias buys the county of Maine from Hugh. The King crosses to Normandy. Treaty of Caen. William and Robert besiege Henry at Saint Michael’s Mount. ; Malcolm invades Northumberland and is driven back. William, Robert, and Henry go back to England: March towards Scotland. Bishop William restored to his bishopric, September 29 Loss of ships. October 15 October 17 1092 March 28 April Io Treaty with Malcolm. Fall of the tower at Winchcombe. Great wind in London. Death of Cedivor; victory of Rhys son of Tewdwr over Gruffydd son of Meredydd in the course of the year. In the course of the year come the death of William Bishop of Thetford, the consecration of his successor Herktert Losinga, who also buys the abbey of New Minster for his father, and the consecration of Ralph Luffa Bishop of ChicLester. Fire in Lordon. Consecration of the church of Salisbury. The tower blown down. CHRONOLOGY OF THE YEARS 1087-1102, /XXKV May6 Death of Bishop Remigius; the church of Lincoln re- mains unconsecrated. William’s conquest and colonization of Carlisle. Marriage of Philip and Bertrada. September 8 Anselm comes to England ; his reception at Canterbury ; his first interview with the King. Anselm helps Earl Hugh in his changes at Chester. December 25 Christmas assembly; discussion of the vacancy of the 1093 —January6 — archbishopric. February William refuses leave to Anselm to go back to Nor- mandy. February 3 Death of Bishop Geoffrey of Coutances; Ralph succeeds. Lent, Sickness of the King ; his repentance and proclamation ; March 2 he grants the see of Lincoln to Robert Bloet. March 6 The King names Anselm to the archbishopric; his first installation. April17 Easter assembly at Winchester; the King recalls his reforms. : Scottish embassy at Winchester; Malcolm summoned to appear in the King’s court. April 17—24 Defeat and death of Rhys at Brecknock, April 30 Cadwgan harries Dyfed. Julyz | The Normans enter Geredigion and Dyfed. Advance of the Harls in North Wales; seeming conquest of all Wales. August 11 Malcolm lays a foundation-stone at Durham. August 24 Malcolm at Gloucester ; William refuses to see him. Questions between the King and Anselm; his investiture. Intrigues of William of Eu; dealings of William with the Counts of Flanders. September 25 Enthronement of Anselm. October 4—13 Death of Robert the Frisian. October 17 Translation of Saint Julian at Le Mans. November 13 Death of Malcolm at Alnwick. November 17 Death of Margaret. Donald King of Scots; driving out of Margaret’s children. December 4 Consecration of Anselm. Death of Abbot Paul of Saint Alban’s, Henry received at Domfront and wins back the Cotentin. Christmas assembly at Gloucester. Challenge received from Robert; Duncan claims the Scottish crown and receives it from William. Contributions for the Norman war ; Anselm’s gift refused. February 2 Assembly at Hastings. February 11 Consecration of the church of Battle. February 12 Robert Bloet consecrated Bishop of Lincoln. Bishop Herbert of Thetford deprived of his bishopric. February 22 Anselm’s Lenten sermon ; he rebukes the King. 2c December 25 1094 —January 6 XXXVI CHRONOLOGY OF THE YEARS 1087-1102. March 1g William crosses to Normandy. Campaign of Argentan, Bures, &c.; the French king bought off. May The foreigners driven out of Scotland. October 31 Henry and Earl Hugh summoned to Eu; they sail to Southampton. November Duncan killed ; Donald’s second reign in Scotland. December 28 The King goes back to England. Deaths of Roger of Beaumont, Roger of Montgomery, and Hugh of Grantmesnil, in the course of the year. In the course of the year the Welsh revolt under Cadwgan and recover the greater part of the country ; Pembroke castle holds out. 1095 January 18 Death of Walfstan. February 9 Henry goes to Normandy. February Interview of William and Anselm at Gillingham. March 1—7 Council of Piacenza. March 11—14 Assembly at Rockingham. Gerard and William of Warelwast sent to Pope Urban. March 25 Assembly at Winchester; Earl Robert of Mowbray suim- moned, but does not appear. April 10 Urban at Cremona ; Cardinal Walter sent to England. May 13 Assembly at Windsor; Anselm and William reconciled ; Earl Robert fails to appear. June 1o Anselm receives the pallium at Canterbury. June 26 Death of Bishop Robert of Hereford. April 30 Translation of Saint Eadmund. The King’s northern march; Anselm’s command in Kent. Suly—Sept. Taking of Newcastle and Tynemouth ; siege of Bamburgh. Michaelmas Montgomery taken by the Welsh; the King marches against them. November 1 The King reaches Snowdon ; ill-success of the campaign, November 18 Council of Clermont. Pope Urban at Le Mans. Robert of Mowbray taken at Tynemouth ; surrender of Bamburgh. December z 2 7 1096 —January é Christmas assembly at Windsor. January I Death of Bishop William. January 13 The assembly adjourned to Salisbury; sentences of Wil- liam of Eu, William of Alderi, and others. Imprisonment of Robert of Mowbray. Synod of Rouen ; confirmation of the Truce of God. Mission of Abbot Geronto. ae He is superseded by the Pope’s nephew. Normandy pledged to William. June 8 Consecration of Bishop Gerard of Hereford and Samson of Worcester. CHRONOLOGY OF THE YEARS 1087-1102. XXXVil August September 1097 ~=February April 4 May 14 June— August July 24 August September October 14 November William takes possession of Normandy. Helias takes the cross; mutual defiance between him and William, Duke Robert, Bishop Odo, and others go to the crusade. The King spends the winter in Normandy. In the course of the year the Welsh take Rhyd-y-gors; Gwent and Brecknock revolt; Pembroke is besieged, but holds out; Gisors is fortified by Pagan Theobald. Odo dies at Palermo. William comes back to England. Assembly at Windsor. The King’s campaign in Wales; seeming conquest of the country. The King complains of Anselm’s knights. Whitsun assembly ; the charge against Anselm dropped ; he asks leave to go to Rome, but is refused. Revolt of Cadwgan in Wales. The King’s last campaign in Wales;. its ill-success. Death of Howel; Hildebert Bishop of Le Mans. Assembly; an expedition against Donald decreed ; Anselm’s request again refused. The two Eadgars march to Scotland; exploits of Robert son of Godwine; Donald defeated and blinded; the younger Eadgar King of Scots. Assembly at Winchester; Anselm allowed to go, but his temporalities to be seized; his parting with the King. Anselm leaves England. William demands the French Vexin. He crosses to Normandy for the war with France and Maine. Flambard and Walkelin joint regents. Nov. 1097— French war; Lewis and William; fortification of Gisors Sept. 1098. by Robert of Belléme. December 19 Death of Abbot Baldwin of Saint Eadmund’s. December 25 The King demands money of Walkelin. 1098 = January 3 January April 28 May 5 June July 20 August Death of Walkelin. Beginning of the war of Maine; castles occupied by Robert of Belléme. Victories of Helias. Helias taken prisoner. Fulk Rechin at Le Mans. The King invades Maine; he retreats from Le Mans. William at Ballon. Convention between Helias and Fulk. William enters Le Mans. Helias set free; he strengthens himself in his southern castles. September 27 William’s march against France. XXXVI 1099 1100 October 1 Christmas April 10 Aprilr2 April May 19 June 3 June-July July 5 July 12 July 19 August 12 August 13 September November 3 December 3 Dec. 25-Jan. 6, I100 April 1 May 20 CHRONOLOGY OF THE YEARS 1087-1102. Attacks on Pontoise, Chaumont, and other castles. Coming ef William of Aquitaine; attacks on the Mont- fort castles; failure of the two Williams. Council of Bari; Anselm pleads for William. In the course of the year the Welsh withdraw to Anglesey. The Earls Hugh in Anglesey. Expedition of Magnus of Norway; death of Earl Hugh of Shrewsbury at Aberlleiniog. Establishment of Robert of Belléme in England; he buys his brother’s earldom. His works at Bridgenorth. He receives the estates of Roger of Bully. The King spends the winter in Normandy; truce with France. Mission of William of Warelwast to Rome; he wins over Urban. The King in England; Easter assembly. Council of Lateran; William’s excommunication delayed. Anselm leaves Rome for Lyons. Movements of Helias in southern Maine. Whitsun assembly in the new hall at Westminster; the bishopric of Durham granted to Randolf Flambard. Consecration of Flambard. Helias recovers Le Mans; the King’s garrisons hold out in the castles ; burning of the city. The news brought to William ; his ride and voyage. Helias leaves Le Mans and strengthens himself at Chateau-du-Loir. William passes through Le Mans to southern Maine. His failure before Mayet. He enters Le Mans, Taking of Jerusalem ; exploits of Duke Robert. Duke Robert refuses the crown of Jerusalem ; Geoffrey chosen King. Death of Pope Urban the Second. Battle of Ascalon. Paschal the Second elected Pope. The King returns to England. The great tide in the Thames. Death of Bishop Osmund of Salisbury. Christmas assembly at Gloucester. In the course of the year Gruffydd and Cadwgan return, and Anglesey and Ceredigion are recovered by the Welsh, Eadgar goes on the crusade. Affairs of Robert son of Godwine in Scotland. Easter assembly at Winchester. Whitsun assembly at Westminster. 1101 1102 CHRONOLOGY OF THE YEARS 1087-1102. eae May June—July July 13 August 1 August 2 August 3 August 5 September September 23 November November 11 November 18 December 25 —January 6 April 21 June 9 July July 20 Michaelmas December 25 —January 6 April 6 Great schemes of William Rufus. Death of Richard son of Duke Robert in the New Forest. Preparations for war. Consecration of Gloucester abbey. Abbot Fulchered’s sermon at Gloucester. Death of William Rufus. Burial of William Rufus ; Henry elected King ; he grants the bishopric of Winchester to William Giffard. Coronation of Henry; his charter; he fills the vacant abbeys, He imprisons Flambard, and asks Anselm to come back. Helias recovers Le Mans; the castle holds out. Duke Robert comes back to Normandy. ‘War between Henry and Robert, Anselm comes back to England. Meeting of Anselm and Henry; question of homage and investiture ; truce till Easter; mission to the Pope. Helias recovers the castle. Marriage of Henry and Matilda. Death of Archbishop Thomas of York. Empty legation of Guy of Vienne. Plots in England on behalf of Robert. Christmas assembly at Westminster. Escape of Flambard to Normandy ; he stirs up Robert to action. Easter assembly at Winchester; the question wate. Anselm again adjourned. Growth of the conspiracy. Whitsun assembly ; mediation of Anselm ; renewed pro- mise of good laws. Robert's fleet at Tréport ; the English fleet sent against him; some of the crews join him. Henry’s preparations at Pevensey. Robert lands at Portchester; he declines to attack Win- chester, The armies meet at Alton; conference of Henry and Robert ; the treaty of 1101. Robert goes back to Normandy. Henry’s rewards and punishments ; banishment of Ivo of Grantmesnil and others. Robert of Meulan Earl of Leicester. Christmas assembly at Westminster. Easter assembly at Winchester ; Robert of Belléme sum- moned, but does not appear, War against Robert of Belléme in England and Nor- mandy. 1103 1104 1106 1107 CHRONOLOGY OF THE YEARS 1087-1102. Autumn Failure of Duke Robert’s troops at Vignats. Surrender of Arundel to Henry. Surrender of Tickhill. Henry’s Shropshire campaign. Siege of Bridgenorth. The King wins over Jorwerth and the Welsh. Dealings of Robert of Belléme with Murtagh and Magnus. Surrender of Bridgenorth. The King’s march to Shrewsbury. Surrender of Shrewsbury and banishment of Robert of Belléme and his brothers. Death of Magnus. Jorwerth tried at Shrewsbury and imprisoned. Banishment of William of Mortain, Battle of Tinchebrai. Compromise with Anselm. ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS. VOL. I. p. 33, 1.17, dele “the father of one of the men who had crossed the sea to trouble England.” Robert of Belléme had not come yet; see p. 56. Pp. 37, note 3. The comparison of Bristol and Brindisi is a good deal exag- gerated; but a certain measure of likeness may be seen. p- 94, 1. 18, dele ‘‘of the same kind.” See the distinction drawn in p. 604. p. 96, note 2, for “ abjuvare ” read “ abjurare.”” p. 133, note. See vol. ii. p. 330. p- 180, note, I do not know how “Esparlon”—Epernon—comes to be reckoned among the possessions of Robert of Belléme. We shall find it in vol. ii, p. 251 in the hands of the French house of Montfort. p. 183, 1. 4 from bottom, for “ Rotrou” read “ Geoffrey.” 184, note 1. See vol. ii. p. 396. 214, side-note, for “ William of Geroy” read ‘‘ William son of Geroy.” 217, 1.13, for “ uncle” read ‘‘ brother.” 238, note 3, for “Aunde” read “Aumale.” p. 243, note 2. I really ought to have mentioned the wonderful forms of torture which the man of Belial inflicted on his lord and his other prisoners (Ord. Vit. 705 A, B); “Per tres menses in castro Brehervallo eos in carcere strinxit, et multotiens, dum nimia hiems seviret, in solis camisiis aqua largiter humectatis in fenestra sublimis aulze Borex vel Circio exposuit, donec tota vestis circa corpus vinctorum in uno gelu diriguit.” p. 247, L. 3. I suppose that Walter of Rouen, son of Ansgar, who appears high in the King’s confidence in vol. ii. pp. 241, 370, is a brother of this Wil- liam. This is worth noting, as showing how Rufus picked out men likely to serve his purpose from all quarters. p- 251,15. See below, p. 461, note 3. It would be worth enquiring whether this name Champ de Mars is old or new. There is a Campus Martius at Autun, whose name is certainly at least medieval ; but, as it is within the Roman walls, it can hardly date from the first days of Augustodunum. It divides the upper and lower city, quite another position from that at Rouen. p. 298, 1. 6. Orderic is hardly fair to Edgar when he says (778 B), “ Hic corpore speciosus, lingua disertus, liberalis et generosus, utpote Edwardi regis Hunorum filius [see yor D and N.C. vol. ii. p. 672], sed dextera segnis erat, ducemque sibi coevum et quasi collectaneum fratrem diligebat.” p- 302, note 1, for “‘ Witan” read “Gemét.” p. 307, 1. 6. Something of the kind was actually done somewhat later ; see below, p. 435. But that was a challenge through ambassadors. VOL. I. d p- p. Pp. p- xlii ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS. p. 326, note. In strictness Anselm did not appeal to the Pope at all. See below, p. 598. p. 335, 1. 15, for “ unrighteousness ” read “ unrighteousnesses.” p. 353, 1. 6 from bottom. I ought not to have forgotten the character of Ralph Luffa given by William of Malmesbury (Gest. Pont, 205); “ Radulfus proceritate corporis insignis, sed et animi efficacia famosus, qui contuitu sacer- dotalis officii Willelmo juniori in faciem pro Anselmo archiepiscopo, quem im- merito exagitabat, restiterit. Cumque ille, conscientia potestatis elatus, minas ingeminaret, nihil alter reveritus baculum protendit, annulum exuit, ut, si vellet, acciperet. Nec vero vel tunc vel postea austeritatem inflecteret si asser- torem haberet. Sed quia discessu suo spem ejus et ceterorum, si qui boni essent, Anselmus enervavit, et tunc causa decidit et postmodum damno succu- buit.” This seems at first sight to stand in contradiction to Eadmer’s picture of all the bishops, except possibly Gundulf (see below, pp. 497, 513, 516), forsaking and renouncing Anselm, We can understand that Eadmer would be inclined to make the worst of the bishops as a body, while William of Malmesbury would be inclined to make the best of the particular bishop of whom he was writing. This is one of the passages in which William of Malmesbury in his second edition watered down the vigorous language of the first. As he first wrote it, the King appeared as “leo ferocissimus Willelmus dico minor.” On second thoughts the comparison with the wild beast was left out. p. 355, 1.15. Ihave sent Herbert to Rome at this time, in order to bring him back for the meeting at Hastings in 1094. See below, pp. 429, 448. I find that some difficulty has arisen on account of the words of Eadmer (see p. 429), which have been taken as implying that Herbert joined in the consecration of Anselm. Dr. Stubbs puts him on the list in the Registrum. But surely the words might be used if all the bishops came who were in England and able to come, P. 355, side-note, for “1091-1093” read “ 1091-1098.” See vol. ii. p. 267. p- 375, note 6, for “ perversitatam ” read ‘‘perversitatem.” p- 385, 1. 2, for “‘ undoubtedly ” read “ by himself.” p. 408, 1.15. There must however have been some exceptions. See the Additions and Corrections to vol. ii, p. 508. Pp. 450, L. 3 from bottom. Yet the guarantors, even on William’s own side, held him to be in the wrong. See p. 461. p- 469, note 1. The reference is to the passage of Orderic, quoted in vol. ii. p- 537. But it is hard to understand how Henry can have been at war with William in 1094. Yet there is the passage from Sigebert quoted in p. 471, note 3, where the date must be wrong, but which seems to hang together both with this passage of Orderic and with the suspicions on the King’s part implied in the narrative in the Chronicle. p. 469, 1. 10, and note 3, for “son” read “ grandson.” p. 485, l. 3, for “ of” read “ to.” Pp. 492, 1. 2, put semicolon after “‘ within.” p. 506, note 2. This passage is very singular, especially the words “nec ipsum advertere posse putaverunt.” On this last point the bishops seem to have been right, as Anselm himself nowhere puts forward any such claim to exemption, ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS. xliii p. 516, note 3. Besides the difficulty about Gundulf, there is the further difficulty about Ralph of Chichester, who, as we have just seen, is said by William of Malmesbury to have taken Anselm’s side. He at least stood in no such special position to the Archbishop as the Bishop of Rochester did. Pp. §22, side-note, for “ May” read “ March.” p- 546, 1.12. Worthiest certainly when any actual work was to be done; but the idle sojourn at Laodikeia (see p. 565) makes the general epithet too strong, Pp: 551, 1. 10, for “ Rotrou” read “ Geoffrey.” p. 571,13. I believe there is no authority for this English form, “ Ever- mouth,” though it is not unlikely that “ Ebremou” may, like so many other names in Normandy, really be a corruption of some such Teutonic name, The place is in Eastern Normandy, in the present department of Lower Seine. p- 579, note 1. This is that singular use of the words ‘‘ Christianitas ” and the like which we find in such phrases as “Courts Christian ” and ‘“ Deanery of Christianity.” We must not think of such a “subventio Christianitatis” as the Spanish Bishop sought for at the hands of Anselm, See vol. ii. p. 582. p. 586, |. 25. For “three” read “ four,” and add the name of Robert Bloet. He is the Robert referred to in the next page. p. 604, note1. The right to be tried is confined to the Peers; other persons of course may be so tried, if they are impeached by the Commons. p- 609, note 1. When I was at Benevento this year (1880), I had hoped to get a sight of the cope, as the treasury of the metropolitan church is rich in vestments. But they are all of much later date, and I could hear nothing of the relic which I sought for. p. 614, last line. See more in vol. ii. p. 403. THE REIGN OF WILLIAM RUFUS. VOL. I. B CHAPTER IL INTRODUCTION. HE reign of the second Norman king is a period of Character English history which may well claim a more es i special and minute examination than could be given to Rufus. it when it took its place merely as one of the later stages in the history of the Norman Conquest, after the great work of the Conquest itself was done. There is indeed a point of view in which the first years of the reign of William the Red may be looked on as some- thing more than one of the later stages of the Conquest. They may be looked on, almost at pleasure, either as The Nor- the last stage of the Conquest or as the reversal of the sae Conquest. We may give either name to a struggle in one sense . 3 completed, which a Norman king, the son of the Norman Con- in another queror, was established on the English throne by war- aia fare which, simply as warfare, was a distinct victory won by Englishmen over Normans on English soil. The truest aspect of that warfare was that the Norman Conquest of England was completed by English hands. But, in so saying, we must understand by the Norman Conquest of England all that is implied in that name to its fullest extent. When Englishmen, by armed support of a Norman king, accepted the fact of the Norman Conquest, they in some measure changed its nature. In the act of completing the Conquest, they in some sort undid it. Ifwe hold that the end of the Conquest came in the days of Rufus, in the days of B CHAP. I. Feudal de- velopement under Rufus and Flambard. Growth of anti-feudal tendencies. . Extension of the power of England at home, Wales ; Carlisle. INTRODUCTION. Rufus also came the beginnings of the later effects of the Conquest. The reign of William the Red, the admi- nistration of Randolf Flambard, was, above all others, the time when the feudal side, so to speak, of the Con- quest put on a systematic shape. The King and his minister put into regular working, if they did not write down in a regular code, those usages which under the Conqueror were still merely tendencies irregularly at work, but which, at the accession of Henry the First, had already grown into abuses which needed redress. But, on the other hand, it was equally the time when the anti-feudal tendencies of the Conquest, the causes and the effects of the great law of Salisbury,! showed how firmly they had taken root. The reign of Rufus laid down the two principles, that, in the kingdom of England, no man should be stronger than the king? but that the king should hold his strength only by making himself the head of the state and of the people. As a stage then in the history of the Conquest and its results, as a stage in the general constitutional history of England, the thirteen years of the reign of Rufus form a period of the highest interest and importance. But those years are a time of no less interest and im- portance, if we look at them with regard to the general position of England in the world. Within our own island, the reign of William the Red was marked by a great practical extension of the power of England on the Welsh marches. On another side it was marked yet more distinctly by an enlargement of the kingdom itself, by the settlement of the north-western frontier, by the winning for England of a new land, and by the restoration of a fallen city as the bulwark of the new boundary. What the daughter of Hlfred was at Chester, the son of the Conqueror was at Carlisle. Beyond the 1 See N.C. vol. iv. p. 692. ? Will. Malms. iv. 306. CHARACTER OF THE REIGN OF RUFUS, 5 sea, we mark the beginnings of a state of things which cnap. 1. has ceased only within our own memories. The rivalry Beginning between France and Normandy grows, now that England a: ri is ruled by Norman kings, into a rivalry between France Es and England. In will, if not in deed, the reign of Rufus forestalls the reigns of Edward the Third and Henry the Fifth. It sets England before us in a character Wealth of which she kept through so many ages, the character of B"s4™* the wealthy land which could work with gold as well as with steel, the land whence subsidies might be looked for to flow into the less well-filled coffers of the princes of the mainland. In the reign of Rufus we see England Change holding an European position wholly different from what ie she had held in earlier days. She passes in some sort oa from the world of the North into the world of the West. That change was the work of the Conqueror; but it is under his son that we see its full nature and meaning. The new place which England now holds is seen to be one which came to her wholly through her connexion with Normandy; it is no less seen to be one which she has learned to hold in her own name and by her own strength. And, if we pass from the domain of political history into the domain of personal character and personal inci- dent, we shall find few periods of the same length richer in both. The character of William Rufus himself, re- Personal pulsive as from many points it is, is yet a strange and ont instructive study of human nature. The mere fact that Rufus. no prince ever made a deeper personal impression on the minds of the men of his own age, the crowd of personal anecdotes and personal sayings which, whether true or false, bear witness to the depth of that impres- sion, all invite us to a nearer study of the man of whom those who lived in his own day found so much to tell, and so much which at first sight seems strange CHAP. I. His com- panions and adver- saries. Anselm and Helias. Rufus and England. The last warfare of Normans and English. INTRODUCTION. and contradictory. William Rufus stands before us as the first representative of a new ideal, a new standard. Our earlier experiences, English and Norman, have hardly prepared us for the special place taken by the king who has some claim to rank as the first dis- tinctly recorded example of the new character of knight and gentleman. In the company of the Red King we are introduced to a new line of thought, a new way of looking at things, of which in an earlier generation we see hardly stronger signs in Normandy than we see in England. For good and for evil, if William Rufus bears the mark of his age, he also leaves his mark on his age. His own marked personality in some sort entitles him to be surrounded, to be withstood, by men whose personality is also clearly marked. A circle of well-defined portraits, friends and enemies, ministers and rivals, gathers around him. Among them two forms stand out before all. The holy Ans- elm at home, the valiant Helias beyond the sea, are the men with whom Rufus has to strive. And the saint of Aosta, the hero of La Fléche, are men who of themselves are enough to draw our thoughts to the times and the lands in which they lived. Each, in his own widely different way, stands forth as the repre- sentative of right in the face of a power of evil which we still feel to be not wholly evil. All light is not put out, all better feelings are not trampled out of being, when evil stands in any way abashed before the presence of good. Looked at simply as a tale, the tale of Rufus and Anselm, the tale of Rufus and Helias, is worth the telling. But better worth telling still is the tale of Rufus and England. The struggle which kept the crown for Rufus, the last armed struggle between Englishmen and Nor- mans on English ground, the fight of Pevensey and the EFFECTS OF THE REIGN OF RUFUS. 7 siege of Rochester, form a stirring portion of our annals, cuar. 1. a portion whose interest yields only to that of a few great days like the days of Senlac and of Lewes. But the really great tale is after all that which is more silent and hidden. This was above all things the time when the Norman Conquest took root, as something which at once established the Norman power in England, and which ruled that the Norman power should step by step change into an English power. The great fact of Results Rufus’ day is that Englishmen won the crown of ois England for a Norman king in fight against rebellious Normans. On that day the fact of the Conquest was The Con- fully acknowledged; it became something which, as to deprad anil its immediate outward effects, there was no longer any "ified. thought of undoing. The house of the Conqueror was to be the royal house; there were to be no more revolts on behalf of the heir of Cerdic, no more messages sent - to invite the heir of Cnut. And with the kingship of the Norman all was accepted which was immediately implied in the kingship of the Norman. But on that The Nor- day it was further ruled that the kingship of the aia al Norman was to change into an English kingship. [tpi issn, became such in some sort even under Rufus himself, when the King of England went forth to subdue Nor- mandy, to threaten France, to dream at least, as a link between Civilis and Buonaparte, of an empire of the Gauls.1 The success of the attempt, the accomplish- Effects of ment of the dream, would have been the very over- oS throw of English nationality; the mere attempt, the mere dream, helped, if not to strengthen English nationality, at least to strengthen the national posi- tion of England. But these years helped too, in a more silent way, if not to change the Norman rule at home into an English rule, at least to make things 1 Tac. Hist. iv. 59. 8 CHAP. I. Scheme of the work. INTRODUCTION, ready for the coming of the king who was really to do the work. It was perhaps in the long run not the least gain of the reign of William the Red that it left for Henry the Clerk, not only much to do, but also something directly to undo. In a former volume we traced the history of the Conqueror in great detail to his death-bed and his burial. In another volume we followed, with a more hasty course, the main features of the reign of Wil- liam Rufus, looked at specially as bearing on the history of the Conquest and the mutual relations of English and Normans. We will now again take up the thread of our detailed story at the bed-side of the dying Con- queror, and thence trace the history of his successor, from his first nomination by his father’s dying voice to his unhallowed burial in the Old Minster of Winchester. And thence, though the tale of Rufus himself is over, it may be well to carry on the tale of England through the struggle which ruled for the second time that Eng- land should not be the realm of the Conqueror’s eldest son, and, as such, an appendage to his Norman duchy. The accession of Henry is essentially a part of the same tale as the accession of Rufus. The points of likeness in the two stories are striking indeed, reaching in some cases almost to a repetition of the same events. But the points of unlikeness are yet more striking and in- structive. And it is from them that we learn how much the reign of Rufus had done alike towards completing the Norman Conquest and towards undoing it. CHAPTER II. THE EARLY DAYS OF WILLIAM RUFUS." 1087-1090. HE way by which the second William became Character fully established on the throne of his father has Le some peculiarities of its own, which distinguish it of Rufvs. from the accessions of most English kings, earlier and later. The only claim of William Rufus to the crown was a nomination by his father which we are told that his father hardly ventured to make. Of election se forng} election. by any assembly, great or small, we see no trace. Yet the new king is crowned, and he receives the national Hisgeneral submission at his crowning, with the fullest outward i national consent, with no visible opposition from any quarter, and, as events proved, with the hearty good will of the native English part of his subjects. Yet the King is hardly established in his kingdom before } There is not much to say about the authorities for this chapter. The main sources are those with which we have long been familiar, the Peter- borough Chronicle, Orderic, Florence, William of Malmesbury. The last three of these increase in value at every step, as they become more and more strictly contemporary. So Henry of Huntingdon, beginning his seventh book in the second year of Rufus, formally puts on the character of a contempo- rary writer. Hitherto he had written from his reading or from common fame ; “nune autem de his que vel ipsi vidimus, vel ab his qui viderant audivi- mus, pertractandum est.” But he still wisely kept the Chronicle before him, He is himself largely followed by Robert of Torigny (or De Monte—that is Abbot of Saint Michael’s Mount) in his chronicle. From Robert we have also the so-called eighth book of William of Jumitges, which may pass as a History of Henry the First. He is not strictly contemporary for any part of our immediate story. Eadmer, so precious a few years later, gives us as yet only a few touches and general pictures, The French riming chroniclers are of some value later in the reign of Rufus; but we have hardly anything to do with them as yet. A crowd of accessory, occasional, and local writings have to be turned to as usual. 10 THE EARLY DAYS OF WILLIAM RUFUS. cuar. 1. he has to fight for his crown. William Rufus had, like his father, to win the kingdom of England by war after he was already its crowned king. But, as regards those against whom he fought and those at whose head he fought, his position was the exact reverse of that of his father. Nominated by his father, elected, one might say, by Lanfranc, crowned with no man gainsaying him, William Rufus was at last really established in the royal power by the act of the conquered English. It was they who won the crown for the son of their Conqueror in fight against his father’s nearest kinsmen and most cherished comrades. i oe 4 § 1. The Coronation and Acknowledgement of William Rufus. September, 1087. One prominent aspect of the reign of William Rufus sets him before us as the enemy, almost the persecutor, of the Church in his realm, as the special adversary of the ecclesiastical power when the ecclesiastical power was represented by one of the truest of saints. And yet there have been few kings whose accession to the throne was in so special a way the act of the ecclesi- astical power. William Rufus was made king by Lan- franc in a somewhat fuller sense than that in which every king of those times might be said to be made king by the prelate who poured the consecrating oil upon his head. Nomination by the last king, in the form of recommendation to the electors, had always been taken into account when the people of England came together to set a new king over them. The nomination of Eadward had formed a part, though the smallest part, of the right of Harold to become the chief of his own people.’ An alleged nomination by Eadward } See N. C. vol. iii. p. 583. NO FORMAL ELECTION. 11 formed the only plausible part of the claim by which cua. 1. William asserted his right to thrust himself upon a people of strangers. And now a nomination by Wil- liam himself was the only right by which his second surviving son claimed to succeed to the crown which he had won. Modern notions of hereditary right would have handed over England as well as Normandy to the eldest son of the last king. English feeling at the time would doubtless, if a formal choice had to be made among the sons of the Conqueror of England, have spoken for his youngest son. Of all the three Henry alone was a true Aitheling; he alone had any right to the name of Englishman; he alone was the son of a crowned king and a man born in the land! But the last wish of William the Great was that his island crown should pass to William the Red. He had not, as our fullest narrative tells us, dared to make any formal nomination to a kingdom which he had in his last days found out to be his only by wrong. He had not dared to name William as his successor; he left the kingdom in the hands of God; he only hoped that the will of God might be that William should reign, and should reign well and happily.? And as the best means of finding out whether the will of God were so, he left the actual decision to the highest and wisest of God’s ministers in his kingdom. He gave no orders for the 1 See N.C. vol. iv. pp. 228, 795. So Will. Neub. i. 3; ‘ Filiorum qui- dem Willelmi Magni ordine nativitatis novissimus, sed prerogativa primus. Quippe, aliis in ducatu patris natis, solus ipse ex eodem jam rege est ortus,” This is noteworthy in a writer in whom (see Appendix A) we see the first sign of a notion of Robert’s hereditary right. The author of the Brevis Relatio (g) goes yet further, and seems to assert that a party at least was for Henry’s immediate succession; “Sicut postea multi dixerunt, justum fuit ut ipse rex Anglize post patrem suum esset qui de patre rege et matre regina genitus extitisset.” 2 See N. C. vol. iv. p. 706, note 3. 12 THE EARLY DAYS OF WILLIAM RUFUS. cuar.u. coronation of Rufus; he simply prayed Lanfranc to crown him, if the Primate deemed such an act a rightful one. As far as the will of the dying king went, one alone of the Witan of England, the first certainly among them alike in rank and in renown, was bidden to make the choice of the next sovereign on behalf of the whole kingdom. The special agency of Lanfranc in the promotion of William Rufus is noticed by all the writers who give any detailed account of his accession. Nor was it likely that, when the Archbishop was to be the one elector, the claims of the candidate should be refused. It would seem indeed as if Lanfranc doubted for a moment whether he ought to take upon himself the responsibility of the choice. But everything must have helped to make him ready to carry out the wishes of his late master. That they were the Conqueror’s last wishes was no small matter, and Lanfranc had every per- sonal reason to incline him the same way. To make William Rufus king was to promote the man who stood in a special relation to himself, who had been in some sort his pupil, and whom he had himself girded with the belt of knighthood. And it really seems as if there was no other elector besides Lanfranc himself. For once in our history we read of a king succeeding without any formal election, without any meeting of the Witan before the coronation. Within three weeks of the death of the first William, the second William was full king over the land. As soon as he had heard the last wishes of his father, as soon as the dying king had dictated the all-important letter which was to ex- 1 See N.C. vol. iv. p. 706, note 3. 2 See Appendix A. 3 See Appendix A. * Will. Malms. iv. 305. ‘Eum nutrierat et militem fecerat.” So Matthew Paris, Hist. Ang. i. 35. WILLIAM REACHES ENGLAND. 13 press those wishes to the Primate, William Rufus left cma. u. the bedside of his father while the breath was still in him. He started for the haven of Touques, a spot of which we shall get a vivid picture later in our story. With him set forth the bearer of the letter, one of the great King’s chaplains, and, as some say, his Chan- cellor. This was Robert Bloet, he who was presently to succeed Remigius of Fécamp in his newly-placed throne on the hill of Lincoln. Before they had left Norman ground, the news came that all was over, that England had no longer a king.? William crossed with all speed, seemingly to Southampton, and found in Eng- land no rival, English or Norman. He indeed brought with him two men, either of whom, if Englishmen had still heart enough to dream of a king of their own blood, might have been his rival. Among the captives whom the Conqueror set free on his death-bed were two men who represented the mightiest of the fallen houses of conquered England. These were Morkere the son of fflfgar, once the chosen Earl of the Northumbrians, and Wulfnoth, the youngest son of Godwine and bro- ther® of Harold. Two other captives of royal blood, Wulfand Duncan the son of Malcolm and Ingebiorg, so long eo ae = hostage for his father’s doubtful faith to his over-lord,* Robe 1 Orderic has two statements as to the port from which William set sail. In his account of the Conqueror’s death (659 D), he makes him sail from Witsand. But afterwards (763 D), when speaking of Robert Bloet, he says, “Senioris Guillelmi capellanus fuerat, eoque defuncto de portu Toloche cum juniore Guillelmo mare transfretaverat, et epistolam regis de coronanda prole Lanfranco archiepiscopo detulerat.” This latter is to be preferred, as the more circumstantial account. Touques moreover is at once the more likely haven to be chosen by one setting out from Rouen, and the one: less likely to come into the head of a careless narrator. Robert of Torigny also (Cont. Will. Gem. viii. 2) makes the place Touques. 2 Ord. Vit. 659 D. “Ibi jam patrem audivit obiisse.” 8 Fl. Wig. 1087. ‘“ Willelmus ... Angliam festinato adiit, ducens secum Winothum et Morkarum.” * See N.C. vol. iv. p. 517. 14 THE EARLY DAYS OF WILLIAM RUFUS. cuap. 11 and Wulf the son of Harold and Ealdgyth, the babe who had been taken when Chester fell,) were set free at the same time. Duncan and Wulf were in the power of Robert. They in no way threatened his possession of Normandy, and Robert, with all his faults, did not lack generous feeling. They were knighted and set free.” Of Wulf we hear no more; Duncan lived to sit for a moment on the throne of his father. The fate of their fellow-sufferers was harsher. Morkere and Wulfnoth had come, by what means we know not, into the power of William. As Morkere had once crossed the sea with the father, he now came back with the son. But their day of freedom was short. The son of Godwine and the grandson of Leofric might either of them be dangerous to the son of William. They therefore tasted the air of freedom only for a few days. William, acting as already king, went to his capital at Winchester, and there thrust the delivered captives once more into the house of bondage.t Of Morkere we hear no more; we must suppose that the rest of his days, few or many, were spent in this renewed imprisonment. Wulfnoth seems to have been released at some later time, to enter religion, and to be made the subject of the praises of a Norman poet.° 1 See N.C. vol. iv. p. 315. 2 Fl.Wig.1087. “ Robertus...Ulfum, Haroldi quondam regis Anglorum filium, Dunechaldumque regis Scottorum Malcolmi filium a custodia laxatos et armis militaribus honoratos, abire permisit.” 5 See N.C. vol. iv. p. 76. * Flor. Wig. 1087. ‘‘Mox ut Wintoniam venit, illos, ut prius fuerant, custodiz mancipavit.” > See N.C. vol. iv. p. 855. The Winchester Annals (1087; Ann. Mon. ii. 35) give him, like Prior Godfrey, the title of Earl, and say that he was not released at all, The Conqueror releases all his prisoners in England and Normandy “‘exceptis duobus comitibus Rogero et Wlnodo.” These three captives are joined together in the signatures to an alleged charter of Bishop William of Saint-Calais in the Monasticon, i. 237, and in the Surtees volume, THE CORONATION. 15 Such was the first act of authority done by the new omar. u. ruler. Having thus disposed of the men whom he seems to have dreaded, William found no opposition made to his succession. But it was important for him to take possession without delay. The time, September, was not one of the usual seasons for a general assembly of the kingdom, and William could not afford to wait for the next great festival of Christmas. No native English competitor was likely to appear; but he must at least make himself safe against any possible attempts on the part of his brothers beyond the sea. From Winchester he hastened to the presence of Lanfranc— seemingly at Canterbury; as the story is told us, it seems to be taken for granted that it rested with the Primate to give or to refuse the crown.! Whether the younger William himself brought the news of the death of the elder is not quite clear; but we are not surprised to hear from an eye-witness that the first feeling of Lan- franc was one of overwhelming grief at the loss of the king who was dead, a king who, if he had been to him a master, had also been in so many things a friend and a fellow-worker.2— The formal consecration of his Rufus is ' dat successor was not long delayed; the new king wasWet. solemnly crowned and anointed by the hands of Lanfranc September in the minster of Saint Peter, on Sunday the feast of the 26, 1087. Hist. Dun. Scriptt. Tres, v, of which I may have to speak again ; ‘ Morkaro et Rogerio [clearly meant for Roger of Hereford] et Siwardo cognomento Bran et Wlnoto Haraldi regis germano.” They are made to sign, along with Abbot Aithelwig, who died in 1077, in a Council in London in 1082, The whole thing is clearly spurious; but what put the signatures of the captives into anybody’s head ? ‘ 1 See Appendix A. 2 Kadmer, Hist. Nov. 13 Selden. “ Quantus autem meror Lanfran- cum ex morte ejus perculerit quis dicere possit, quando nos qui circa illum nuncia morte illius eramus, statim eum pre cordis angustia mori time- remus?” This seems to imply that the news reached Lanfranc when he had his monks about him, that is at Canterbury. 16 THE EARLY DAYS OF WILLIAM RUFUS. cuar. 1. saints Cosmas and Damian. So the day is marked by a scholar who had specially explored the antiquities of Rome; Englishmen, who knew less of saints whose holy place was by the Roman forum, were content to mark it by its relation to the great festival three days later, or even by the mere day of the month! On that day, before the altar of King Eadward’s rearing, the second Norman lord of England took the oaths which bound an English king to the English people. And, besides the prescribed oaths to do justice and mercy and to defend the rights of the Church, Lanfranc is said to have bound the new king by a special engagement to follow his own counsel in all things.? William Rufus was thus king, and, if anything had been lacking in the way of regular election before his crowning, it was fully made up by the universal and seemingly zealous acceptance of him at his crowning. “All the men on England to him bowed and to him oaths swore.”® The crown which had passed to Eadward from a long line of kingly forefathers, the crown which Harold had worn by the free gift of the English people, the crown which the first William had won by his sword and had kept by his wisdom, now passed to the second of his name and house. And it passed, to all appearance, with the per- fect good will of all the dwellers in the land, conquerors and conquered alike. William the Second, William the Younger, William the Red, took his place on the seat } William of Malmesbury (iv. 305) marks the coronation as being done “die sanctorum Cosme et Damiani.” In the Chronicle it is “ breom dagum ér Michaeles messedeg;” while Florence simply gives the day of the month. Wace (14482) says inaccurately “Li jor de feste saint Michiel;” and the Chronicon de Bello (40) still more inaccurately, “in nativitate Christi, intrante anno incarnationis ejusdem Verbi Dei mlxxxviii.” 2 See Appendix A. § Chron. Petrib. 1087. “Ealle ba men on Englalande him to abugon, and him adas sworon,” DISTRIBUTION OF GIFTS, 17 of the great Conqueror without a blow being struck or cuar. u. a dog moving his tongue against him. The first act of the uncrowned candidate for the kingly office had been one of harshness—harshness which was perhaps politic in the son, but which trod under foot the last wishes of a repentant father. The first act of the crowned King was one which might give good hopes for the reign which was beginning, and which certainly carried out his father’s wishes to the letter. From Westminster William Rufus went again to Win- chester, this time not to make fast the bars of his father’s prison-house, but to throw open the stores of his father’s treasury. Our native Chronicler waxes van eloquent on the boundless wealth of all kinds, far treasury beyond the powers of any man to tell of, which had *t Wi= been gathered together in the Conqueror’s hoard during his one and twenty years of kingship. The Chronicler had, as we must remember, himself lived in William's court, and we may believe that his own eyes had looked on the store of gold and silver, of vessels and robes and gems and other costly things, which it was beyond the skill of man to set forth.1 These were the spoils of England, and from them were made the gifts which, in the belief of those days, were to win repose in the other world for the soul of her despoiler. Every Gifts to churches, minster in England received, some six marks of gold, some ten, besides gifts of every kind of ecclesiastical ornament and utensil, rich with precious metals and precious stones, among which books for the use of 1 Chron. Petrib,1087. ‘‘ Disum pus gedone, se cyng ferde to Winceastre, and sceawode pet madmehus, and pa gersuman pe his feder £r gegaderode, pa weron unasecgendlice znie man hu mycel per wees gegaderod, on golde and on seolfre and on faton and on pellan and on gimman and on manige ore deorwurSe pingon pe earfode sindon to ateallene.” Yet Henry of Hunting- don (p. 211) knew the exact amount of the silver, sixty thousand pounds, one doubtless for each knight’s fee. VOL. I. Cc 18 THE EARLY DAYS OF WILLIAM RUFUS. cuar. u. divine service was not forgotten. And, above all, wuts tthe special foundation of his father, the Abbey of the Abbey. Battle, received choicer gifts than any, the royal mantle of the departed King among them.” Every upland church, every one at all events on the royal lordships, re- Gifts to the ceived sixty pennies.? Moreover a hundred pounds in per money was sent into each shire to be given away in alms to the poor for William’s soul.4 Such a gift might be bountiful in a small shire like Bedford, where many Englishmen still kept their own; but it would go but a little way, even after eighteen years, to undo the work of the great harrying of Yorkshire. Meanwhile Robert, already received as Duke of the Normans, was doing the same pious work among the poor and the churches of his duchy.6 The dutiful son and the rebel were both doing their best for the welfare of their father in the other world. The Gate From Winchester the new King went back to West- m. se . menitly. minster, and there he held the Christmas feast and 1087-1088. 5 «sembly. It was attended by the two archbishops and by several other bishops, among whom the saint 1 Florence brings in the books in a list of gifts which is longer than that of the Chronicler; ‘‘ Cruces, altaria, scrinia, textos, candelabra, situlas, fistulas, ac ornamenta varia gemmis, auro, argento, lapidibusque pretiosis, redimita, per ecclesias digniores ac monasteria jussit dividi.” ? Chron. de Bello, 40. ‘‘ Regni diadema suscepit. Quod adeptus, paterni mandati non immemor, patris pallium regale et feretrum unde supra memi- nimus, cum ccc4s philacteriis, sanctorum pignorum excellentia gloriosis, eccle- sie beati Martini quantocius delegavit, que simul apud Bellum viii Ka- lendas Novembris suscepta sunt.” % The Chronicler says, ‘‘to elcen cyrcean uppe land Ix. pen.’ But Florence limits it ; “ ecclesiis in civitatibus vel villis suis per singulas de- narios lx. dari.” * Chron. Petrib. 1087. “Into elcere scire man seonde hundred punda feos, to delanne earme mannan for his saule.” © Flor. Wig. 1087. ‘‘ Ejus quoque germanus Rotbertus in Normanniam reversus, thesauros quos invenerat monasteriis, ecclesiis, pauperibus, pro anima patris sui largiter divisit.” THE CHRISTMAS FEAST. 19 of Worcester is specially mentioned. At this meeting cuar. u. too appeared Odo of Bayeux, who received again from eee his nephew his earldom of Kent.! Released from bis earl- his bonds by the pardon which had been so hardly euit wrung from the dying Conqueror,? he already filled the first place in the councils of the new Duke of the Normans,’ and he hoped to win the like power over the mind of his other nephew in England. But before long events came about which showed how true had been the foresight of William the Great, when he had said that mighty evils would follow if his brother should be set free from his prison. It is certainly something unusual in those times for a Unusual : : : : haracter of king thus to make his way to his crown by virtue, as Witiam's. it were, of an agreement between a dead king and a cession. living bishop, without either the nobles or the nation at large either actively supporting or actively opposing his claim. It is clear that men of both races had very decided views about the matter; but they gave no open expression to them at the time. The discussion of the succession came after the coronation, among men who had already acknowledged the new King. It may be that all parties were taken by surprise. The accession ? Chron. Petrib.1087. ‘Se cyng wes on pam midewintre on Lundene.” So Henry of Huntingdon (211); “Rex novus curiam suam ad Natale tenuit apud Lundoniam.” He adds a list of bishops who were present. There were the two Archbishops, Maurice of London, Walkelin of Winchester, Geoffrey [it should be Osbern] of Exeter, William of Thetford, Robert of Chester, William of Durham, as also “ Wlnod [sic] episcopus sanctus Wirecestriz.” On the presence of Odo, see Appendix B. Robert of Torigny (1087) writes ‘‘Vulnof.” I cannot see much in his editor’s suggestion that the Geoffrey spoken of is the Bishop of Coutances, because the so-called Bromton, of all people, has made a blunder about him; X Scriptt. 984. 2, N.C. vol. iv. p. 708. 3 Ord. Vit. 664 D. ‘‘Totum in Normannia pristinum honvrem adep- tus est, et consiliarius ducis, videlicet nepotis sui, factus est.” C2 20 THE EARLY DAYS OF WILLIAM RUFUS. caar. u. of William Rufus had not indeed followed the death of his father with anything like the same speed with which the accession of Harold had followed the death of his brother-in-law. But then the death of Eadward had long been looked for; the succession of Harold had long been practically agreed on; above all, the Witan were actually in session when the vacancy took place. Every- thing therefore could be done at a moment's notice with perfect formal regularity. Now everything, if much less sudden, was much more unlooked for. The kingdom found itself called on to acknowledge a king whom no party had chosen, but whom no party had at the moment the means, perhaps not the will, to oppose. The Normans, we may believe, would, if they had been formally asked, have preferred Robert. The English, we may be sure, would, if they had been form- ally asked, have, at least among Norman candidates, William preferred Henry. And practically the choice lay among oe ce Norman candidates only, and among them Henry was oo the one who was practically shut out. All hopes, we may be sure, had passed away of seeking for a king either in the house of Cerdic, in the house of Godwine, or in the house which, if not the house of Cnut, was, at least by female succession, the house of his father Swegen. Of the sons of the Conqueror, Henry, the one who was at once Norman and Englishman, was young and beyond the sea. William was in England, with at least his father’s recommendation to support him. The practical question lay between William and Robert. Was William to be withstood on behalf of Robert ? Pumparieon Between William and Robert there could at the mo- William ment be little doubt in the minds of Englishmen. Their and Robert. f, ther’s policy had kept both back from any great op- portunity of doing either good or evil to the conquered kingdom. But, as far as their personal characters went, CIRCUMSTANCES OF WILLIAM'S ACCESSION. 21 Robert had as yet shown his worst side and William caar. u. his best. There could be little room for doubt between the man who had fought against his father and the man who had risked his life to save his father. And, besides Poe ; this, the accession of William would separate England William's and Normandy. England would again have, if not as king of her own blood, yet at least a king of her own. The island world would again be the island world, no longer dependent on, or mixed up with, the affairs of the world beyond the sea. The harshness which had again thrust back Morkere and Wulfnoth into prison might be passed by, as an act of necessary precaution. Morkere too might by this time be well nigh forgotten, and Wulfnoth had never been known. Ifa native king was not to be had, William Rufus was at the moment by no means the most unpromising among possible foreign kings. But in truth neither Normans nor Englishmen were No real in this case called on to make any real choice. Both sea were called on, somewhat after the manner of the sham plebiscita of modern France, to acknowledge a sovereign who was already in possession. Whatever might have been the abstract preference of the Normans for Robert or of the English for Henry, neither party felt at the moment that degree of zeal which would lead them to brave the dangers of opposition. At any rate, William Rufus was a new king, and a new king is commonly welcome. Men of both races might reasonably expect that the rule of one who had come peacefully to his crown would be less harsh than that of one who had made his entry by the sword. It is further hinted that Employ- William partly owed his recognition to his early posses- a sion of his father’s hoard, perhaps to his careful discharge of his father’s will, perhaps, even thus early in his reign, to CHAP, II, Beginning of the rebellion. THE EARLY DAYS OF WILLIAM RUFUS. some other discreet application of his father’s treasures.! Certain it is that, from whatever cause, all men accepted Rufus with all outward cheerfulness, though perhaps without any very fervent loyalty towards him on any side. It needed the events of the next few months, it needed strong influences and strong opposing influences, to turn the Normans in England into the fierce oppo- nents of the new King, and the native English into his zealous supporters. It needed the further course of his own actions to teach both sides how much they had lost when they passed from the rule of William the Great to that of William the Red. §2. The Rebellion against Wilkam Rufus. March-November, 1088. The winter of the year which beheld the Conqueror's death passed without any disturbance in the realm of his son But in the spring of the next year it became plain that the general acceptance which Rufus had met with in England was sincere on the part of his English subjects only. As the native Chronicler puts it, “the land was mightily stirred and was filled with mickle treason, for all the richest Frenchmen that were in this land would betray their lord the King, and would have his brother to King, Robert that was Earl in Nor- mandy.”® The leaders in this revolt were the bishops » Will. Malms. iv. 305. ‘‘ Claves thesaurorum nactus est; quibus fretus totam Angliam animo subjecit suo.” ? Th. “ Reliquo hiemis quiete et favorabiliter vixit.” * Chron. Petrib. 1088. “On pisum geare wes pis land swide astirad, and mid myceleswicdome afylled; swa pzet pa riceste Frencisce men pe weron innan pisan lande wolden swican heore hlaforde pam cynge, and woldon habban his broSer to cynge, Rodbeard, pe wes eorl on Normandige.” The duty of faithfulness to the lord, whoever he may be, is always strongly felt ; still William Rufus is only ‘“‘heora hlaford se cyng,” not “ heora INTRIGUES OF ODO. 23 whom the Conqueror had clothed with temporal power. cuar. u. And foremost among them was his brother, the new Discontent King’s uncle, Odo Bishop of Bayeux, now again Karl of ote Kent; and, according to one account, already Justiciar and chief ruler in England.! But whatever might be his formal position, Odo soon began to be dissatisfied with the amount of authority which he practically enjoyed. He seems to have hoped to be able to rule both his nephews and all their dominions, and, in England at least, to keep the whole administration in his own hands at least as fully as he had held it before his imprisonment. In this hope he was disappointed. The Earl of Kent was not so great a man under the younger William as he had been under the elder. The chief place in the con- fidence of the new King was held by another man of his own order. This was William of Saint Carilef or Influence Saint Calais, once Prior of the house from which he took of wiia™ his name, and afterwards Abbot of Saint Vincent's with- Calais. out the walls of Le Mans.2 He had succeeded the murdered Walcher in the see of Durham, and he had reformed his church according to the fashion of the time, by putting in monks instead of secular canons.* His place in the King’s counsel was now high indeed. “So well did the King to the Bishop that all England went after his rede and so as he would.” * Besides this newly cynehlaford.” But the notion that Robert had any special right as the eldest son seems not to have come into any purely English mind of that age. 1 He appears in the list given by Henry of Huntingdon (see above, p. 19) as “justiciarius et princeps totius Anglie.” Simeon of Durham (1088) calls him ‘‘secundus rex.” 2 See Florence, 1081; Sim. Dun. Hist. Eccl. Dun. iv. 1. 3 See N. C. vol. iv. p. 674. * Chron. Petrib. 1088. ‘Swa wall dyde se cyng be pam bisceop pet eall Englaland ferde efter his rede and swa swa he wolde.” So Florence; “Ka tempestate rex predictus illius, ut veri consiliarii, frucbatur prudentia ; bene enim sapiebat, ejusque consiliis totius Anglie tractabatur respublica.” 24 CHAP. II. Action of Odo. March 1, 1088, Gatherings of the rebels, THE EARLY DAYS OF WILLIAM RUFUS. born jealousy of the King’s newly chosen counsellor, Odo had a long standing hatred against the other pre- late who had so long watched over the King, and whose advice the King was bound by oath to follow.1 He bore the bitterest grudge against the Primate Lanfranc, as the inventor of that subtle distinction between the Bishop of Bayeux and the Earl of Kent which had cost the Earl five years of imprisonment.” Of the two personages who might thus be joined or separated at pleasure, it is the temporal chief with whom we have now to deal. Lent was now come. Of the spiritual exercises of the Bishop. of Bayeux during the holy season we have no record; the Earl of Kent spent the time plotting with the chief Normans in England how the King might be killed or handed over alive to his brother.? We have more than one vigorous report of the oratory used in these seditious gatherings. According to some accounts, they went on on both sides of the sea, and we are admitted to hear the arguments which were used both in Normandy and in Arguments England. Both agree in maintaining the claims of on behalf of Robert. Robert, as at once the true successor, and the prince best fitted for their purpose. But it is: on Norman ground that the necessity for an union between Nor- mandy and England is set forth most clearly. The main Cf. Ann. Wint. 1088. ‘‘Episcopus Willelmus Dunelmensis, qui paulo ante quasi cor regis erat.’” 1 Will. Malms. iv. 306. “ Immortale in eum [Lanfrancum] odium anhelans, quod ejus consilio a fratre se in vincula conjectum asserebat.” ? See N.C. vol. iv. p. 680. 3 Chron. Petrib. 1088. ‘And pes unred weard gewesen innan fam Leng- tene.” So Florence; ‘ Pars nobilioruam Normannorum favebat regi Wil- lelmo, sed minima; pars vero altera favebat Roberto comiti Normannorum, et maxima; cupiens hunc sibi adsciscere in regnum, fratrem vero aut fratri tradere vivum. aut regno privare peremptum.” Here is the end. of a hexameter. 4 See Appendix B. GATHERINGS OF THE REBELS, 25 object is to hinder a separation between the two king- omar. u. doms, as they are somewhat daringly called. It is clear that to men who held lands in both countries it would be a gain to have only one lord instead of two; but, if we rightly understand the arguments which are put into the mouths of the speakers, it was held that, if England had again a king of her own, though it were a king of the Conqueror’s house, the work of the Conquest would be undone. The men who had won England with their blood would be brought down from their dominion in the conquered island? If they have two lords, there will be no hope of pleasing both; faithfulness to the one will only lead to vengeance on the part of the other.® William was young and insolent, and they owed him no duty. Robert was the eldest son; his ways were more tractable, and they had sworn to him during the life-time of his father. Let them then make a firm agreement to stand by one another, to kill or dethrone William, and to make Robert ruler of both lands.4 Robert, we are told, approved of the scheme, and pro- mised that he would give them vigorous help to carry it out.® 1 Ord. Vit. 665 D. ‘“ Optimates utriusque regni conveniunt, et de duobus regnis nunc divisis, que manus una pridem tenuerat, tractare satagunt.” Cf. the language used at an earlier time about Normandy, N.C. vol.i. p. 221. 2 Ib. 666 A. “ Labor nobis ingens subito crevit, et maxima diminutio potentiz nostre opumque nobis incumbuit. ... Violenta nobis orta est mutatio et nostre sublimitatis repentina dejectio.’’ It is now that he makes the flourish about “Saxones Angli” (see N..C. vol. i. p. 542); there is also a good deal about Jeroboam and Polyneikés. 8 Ib. “ Quomodo duobus dominis tam diversis, et tam longe ab invicem remotis competenter servire poterimus ?”” ‘Ib. B,C. “Inviolabile fcedus firmiter ineamus, et Guillelmo rege dejecto vel interfecto, qui junior: est et protervus, et cui nihil debemus, Robertum ducem, qui major natu est et tractabilior moribus, et cui jamdu- dum vivente patre amborum fidelitatem juravimus, principem Angliz ac Neustriz ad servandam unitatem utriusque regni constituamus.”” 5 Ib..C. “ Decretum suum. Roberto duci detexuit. Ile vero, utpote levis 26 CHAP, II, Speech of Odo. THE EARLY DAYS OF WILLIAM RUFUS. These arguments of Norman speakers are given us without the names of any ringleaders. We may suspect that the real speaker, in the idea of the reporter, was no other than the Bishop of Bayeux. We hear of him more distinctly on English ground, haranguing his accomplices somewhat to the same effect; only the union of the two states is not so distinctly spoken of. It may be that such a way of putting the case would not sound well in the ears of men who, if not English- men, were at least the chief men of England, and who might not be specially attracted by the prospect of another conquest of England, now that England was Reasonsfor theirs. The chief business of the Bishop’s speech is to preferring Robert to William. compare the characters of the two brothers between whom they had to choose, and further to compare the new King with the King who was gone. The speaker seems to start from the assumption that, in the interests of those to whom he spoke, it was to be wished that the ruler whom they were formally to acknowledge should be practically no ruler at all. William the Great had not been a prince to their minds; William the Red was not likely to be a prince to their minds either. Robert was just the man for their purpose. Under Robert, mild and careless, they would be able to do as they pleased; under the stern and active William Comparison they would soon find that they had a master. The of the elder and younger William. argument that follows is really the noblest tribute that could be paid to the memory of the Conqueror. It sets him before us, in a portrait drawn by one who, if a brother, was also an enemy, as a king who did justice and made peace,and who did his work without shedding et inconsideratus, valde gavisus est promissis inutilibus, seseque spopondit eis, si inchoarent, affaturum in omnibus, et collaturum mox efficax auxilium ad perpetrandum tam clarum fecimus.” * See Appendix B. HARANGUE OF ODO. 27 of blood. It is taken for granted that the death of the cnar. u. great king, at whose death we are told that peaceable men wept and that robbers and fiends rejoiced,’ was something from which Odo and men like Odo might ex- pect to gain. But nothing would be gained, if the rod of the elder William were to pass into the hands of the younger. The little finger of the son would be found to be thicker than the loins of the father. Their release from the rule of the King who was gone would profit them nothing, if they remained subjects of one who was likely to slay where his father had merely put in bonds.? In this last contrast, though we may doubt whether there could have been any ground for drawing it so early in the reign of Rufus, we see that the men of the time were struck by the difference between the King whose laws forbade the judicial taking of human life and the King under whom the hangman began his work again. To pleadings like these we are told that the great mass of the Norman nobility in England hearkened; a small number only remained faithful to the King to whom they had so lately sworn their oaths. Thus, as the national Chronicler puts it, “the unrede was read.’ As the chief devisers of the unrede we have the names Bishop Geoffrey of Coutances joins the of two bishops besides Odo. One name we do not wonder to find along with his. Geoffrey Bishop of Coutances was a prelate of Odo’s own stamp, one of 1 See N.C. vol. iv. p. 710. 2 Will. Malms. iv. 306. ‘“Multos eodem susurro infecit [Odo] ; Roberto regnum competere, qui sit et remissioris animi, et juveniles stulti- tias multis jam laboribus decoxerit ; hunc delicate nutritum, animi ferocia (quam vultus ipse demonstret), pretumidum, omnia contra fas et jus ausu- rum; brevi futurum ut honores jamdudum plurimis sudoribus partos amit- tant; nihil actum morte patris, si quos ille vinxerit iste trucidet.” (Again the ending of a hexameter.) A good deal of this seems to come from later experienee of Rufus. 3 Chron, Petrib. 1088. “ Pas unred werd gered.” 28 CHAP. IT. THE EARLY DAYS OF WILLIAM RUFUS. whose doings as a wielder of the temporal sword we have heard in northern, in western, and in eastern England.1_ But we should not have expected to find as partner of their doings the very man whose high Treason of promotion had filled the heart of Odo with envy. It the Bisho; Different statements of his conduct. of Durham, Wa8 indeed the most unkindest cut of all when the Bishop of Durham, the man in whose counsel the King most trusted, turned against the benefactor who had raised him so that all England went at his rede. What higher greatness he could have hoped to gain by treason it is hard to see. And it is only fair to add that in the records of his own bishopric he appears as a persecuted victim,’ while all the writers of southern England join in special reprobation of his faithlessness. The one who speaks in our own tongue scruples not to make use of the most emphatic of all comparisons. “He would do by him”—that is, Bishop William would do by King William —“as Judas Iscariot did by our Lord.”? We should certainly not learn from these writers that, after all, it was the King, and not the Bishop, who struck, or tried to strike, the first blow. It is certainly far from easy to reconcile the different accounts of this affair. At a time a little later the southern account sets Bishop William before us as one who “did all harm that he might all over the North.”* But at Durham it was believed that at all events a good deal of harm had been already done by the King to the Bishop; and the Bishop claims to have at an earlier time done the best of good service to the King.® That service must have been rendered while ' See N.C. vol. iv. pp. 276, 580, 673. ? See Appendix C. * “He pohte to donne be him eall swa Iudas Scariod dide be ure Drihtene.” * “Se bisceop of Dunholme dyde to hearme pet he mihte ofer eall be nordan.” 5 See Appendix C. BISHOP WILLIAM OF DURHAM. 29 the Lenten conspiracy was still going on; for at no later cuap. 1. time does the Bishop of Durham seem to have been any- His alleged where in the south of England. Then, according to his Legis own story, the Bishop secured to the King the possession : , of Hastings, of Dover, and of London itself. We have only William of Saint-Calais’ own statement for this display of loyal vigour on his part; but, as it is a state- ment made in the hearing of the King and of the barons and prelates of England, though exaggeration is likely enough, the whole story can hardly be sheer invention. Bishop William claims to have kept the two southern havens in their allegiance when the King had almost lost them. He claims further to have quieted disturb- His action ances in London, after the city had actually revolted, ia by taking twelve of the chief citizens to the King’s presence. Our notes of time show that the events of which the Bishop thus speaks must have happened at the latest in the very first days of March. It follows Early that there must have been at the least seditious mover” ments in south-eastern England, before the time of the rs ts open revolt in the west. In short, the rebellion in Kent 1088. and Sussex must have begun very early indeed in the penitential season. We gather from the Durham narrative that, even at this early stage, both Bishop Odo and Earl Roger were already known to the King as traitors. We gather Bishop further that it was by the advice of the Bishop ofadvice to Durham that the King was making ready for military ‘* Sits: operations against them, and that, when the Bishop was himself summoned to the array, he made answer that he would at once join with the seven knights whom 1 Mon. Angl. i. 248. “ Monstrabo quod Dorobernium et Hastingas, que jam pene perdiderat, in sua fidelitate detinui, Londoniam quoque que jam rebellaverat, in ejus fidelitate sedavi, meliores etiam duodecim ejusdem urbis cives ad eum mecum duxi, ut per illos melius ceteros animaret.” 30 CHAP. II. THE EARLY DAYS OF WILLIAM RUFUS. he had with him—seven chief barons of the bishopric, as it would seem—and would send to Durham for more. Heforsakes But, instead of so doing, he left the King’s court with- the King. His tem- poralities seized, March, 1088, He writes to the King. out his leave; he took with him some of the King’s men, and so forsook the King in his need.1. Such was afterwards the statement on the King’s side. Certain it is that, whatever the Bishop’s fault was, the royal vengeance followed speedily on it. Early in March, whether with or without the advice of any assembly,” Rufus ordered the temporalities of the bishopric to be seized, and the Bishop himself to be arrested. The Bishop escaped to his castle at Durham, whence it would not be easy to dislodge him without a siege. Meanwhile the King’s men in Yorkshire and Lincoln- shire, though they failed to seize the Bishop’s own person, took possession in the King’s name of his lands, his money, and his men. From Durham the Bishop wrote to the King, setting forth his wrongs, protesting his innocence, and demanding restitution of all that had been taken from him. He goes on to use words which remind us in a strange way at once of Godwine nego- tiating with his royal son-in-law and of Odo in the grasp of his royal brother. He offers the services of himself and his men. He offers to make answer to any charge in the King’s court. But, like Godwine, he asks for a safe-conduct before he will come;? like Odo, he declares that it is not for every one to judge a bishop, and that he will make answer only according to his ? Mon. Angl.i.247. “Ipse [rex] te summonuit ut cum eo equitares; tu vero respondisti ei, te cum septem militibus quos ibi habebas libenter iturum, et pro pluribus ad castellum tuum sub festinatione missurum, et postea fugisti de curia sua sine ejus licentia, et quosdam de familia sua tecum adduxisti, et ita in necessitate sua sibi defecisti.’’ ? See Appendix C. 5 Mon. Angl. i. 245. “ Presto sum in curia vestra vobis justitiam facere convenienti termino, securitate veniendi accepta.” Cf. N. C. vol. ii. pp.149, 150, THE BISHOP SUMMONED TO THE KING'S COURT, 31 order! On the receipt of this letter, the King at once, car. 1. in the sight of the Bishop’s messenger, made grants of the episcopal lands to certain of his barons;? those lands were therefore looked on as property which had undergone at least a temporary forfeiture. He however He is sun- 3 : aye : + , moned to sent an answer to the Bishop, bidding him come to his ¢,. King's presence, and adding the condition that, if he would not Comt. stay with the King as the King wished, he should be allowed to go back safe to Durham. It must however be supposed that this promise was not accompanied by any formal safe-conduct; otherwise, though it is not uncommon to find the officers of a king or other lord acting far more harshly than the lord himself, it is hard to understand the treatment which Bishop William met with at the hands of the zealous Sheriff of Yorkshire. That office was now held by Ralph Paganel, a man Action of : : ; 1 who appears in Domesday as holder of lands in various Pea parts, from Devonshire to the lands of his present sheriffdom,? and who next year became the founder of the priory of the Holy Trinity at York* The Bishop, on receiving the King’s answer, sent to York to ask for peace of the Sheriff. But all peace was re- 1 Mon. Angl. i. 245. “Non est enim omnium hominum episcopos judi- care, et ego vobis secundum ordinem meum omnem justitiam offero; et si ad presens vultis habere servitium meum vel hominum meorum, illud idem secundum placere vestrum vobis offero.” 2 Tb. ‘‘Rex acceptis et auditis istis litteris episcopi, dedit baronibus suis terras episcopi, vidente legato quem sibi miserat episcopus.” I suppose that these barons are no other than the Counts Alan and Odo, of whose share in the matter we shall hear much more as we go on. 5 See Ellis, i. 464. It is there remarked that Ralph’s lands in Devon- shire had largely been Merleswegen’s. This is equally true in Yorkshire. He must have succeeded Hugh the son of Baldric as sheriff. See N. C. vol. iv. p. 8or. * See the foundation charter in the Monasticon, iv. 682; though it is hard to understand how Pope Alexander could have confirmed anything in 1089. According to the charter, the church had once been held by a body of canons, which had come to nothing. Ralph now restored it as a Bene- dictine monastery, a cell to Marmoutiers. 32 CHAP, II. The lands of the bishopric laid waste. March— May, 1088. General rebellion. The Easter Gemét. April 16, 1088, The rebels refuse to come. THE EARLY DAYS OF WILLIAM RUFUS. fused to the Bishop, to his messengers, and to all his men. A monk who was coming back from the King’s presence to the Bishop was stopped; his horse was killed, though he was allowed to go on on foot. Lastly, the Sheriff ordered all men in the King’s name to do all the harm that they could to the Bishop everywhere and in every way. The Bishop was thus cut off from telling his grievances ; and for seven weeks, we are told, the lands of the bishopric were laid waste! This date brings us into the month of May, by which time important events had happened in other parts of England. We have seen that, in south-eastern England at least, the unrede of this year’s Lent must have gone beyond mere words, and must have already taken the form of action. But it seems not to have been till after Haster that the general revolt of the disaffected nobles broke forth throughout the whole land. By this time they had all thoroughly made up their minds to act. And we may add that it is quite possible that the King’s treatment of the Bishop of Durham may have had some share in helping them to make up their minds. They may have been led to think that open rebellion was the safest course. The first general sign was given at the Easter Gemét of the year, which, according to rule, would be held at Winchester. The rebel nobles, instead of appearing to do their duty when the King wore his crown, kept aloof from his court. They gat them each man to his castle, and made them ready for war. Soon 1 «Precepit omnibus regis fidelibus de parte regis ut malum facerent episcopo ubicumque et quomodo cumque possent. Cumque episcopus per se vel per legatos suos regem non posset requirere, et terras suas destrui et vastari absque ulla ultione per vii. septimanas et amplius sustineret,” etc. ? Their absence from the assembly comes from Florence; ‘ Execrabile hoc factum clam tractaverunt in quadragesima, quod cito in palam prorumpi posset post pascha; nam a regali se subtrahentes curia, munierunt castella, ferrum, flammam, predas, necem, excitaverunt in patriam.” Cf, Orderic, THE REBEL NOBLES. 33 after the festival the flame burst forth. The great body cuar. nu. of the Norman lords of England were in open revolt against the son of the man who had made England theirs. The list of the rebel nobles reads like a roll of the The rebel Norman leaders at Senlac or a choice of the names” which fill the foremost places in Domesday. With a few marked exceptions, all the great men of the land are there. Along with Odo, Bishop and Earl, the other Robert of brother of the Conqueror, Robert of Mortain and of newer Cornwall, the lord of Pevensey and of Montacute, joined in the revolt against his nephew.' So did another kins- o be man, a member of the ducal house of Normandy and gorged with the spoils of England, William son of Robert Count of Eu, grandson of the elder William and his famous wife Lescelina.? Of greater personal fame, and Earl Roger of higher formal rank on English soil, was the father aorta of one of the men who had crossed the sea to trouble" England, Roger of Montgomery, whose earldom of Shrewsbury swells, in the statelier language of one of our authorities, into an earldom of the Mercians.2 He brought with him a great following from his own border- land. Among these was Roger of Lacy, great in the shires from Berkshire to Shropshire;*+ and with him Osberm. came the old enemy Osbern of Richard’s Castle, whose 666 C; “ Munitiones suas fossis et hominibus, atque alimentis hominum et equorum, abundanter instruebant.” 1 On Count Robert, see N.C. vol. ii. p. 296; iv. pp. 78,168,170. His name does not now occur in the Chronicles, nor in Orderic, who does not mention the siege of his castle of Pevensey. But his action comes out strongly in Florence, who classes him with Odo as a leader, though in his narrative he appears merely as his tool. The Hyde writer (297) also dwells fully on his share in the work, but he has no special facts or legends. 2 See N.C. vol. iii. pp. 117, 672; iv. pp. 39, 562, 825. 3 In Orderic, 667 B, he appears as “ Rogerius Merciorum comes,” * Flor. Wig. 1088, “ Rogerius de Laceio, qui jam super regem invaserat Herefordam.” He appears in Domesday in Berkshire, Gloucestershire, Worcestershire, Shropshire, but most largely in Herefordshire. See Ellis, i, 442. VOL. I. D 34 THE EARLY DAYS OF WILLIAM RUFUS. cur. 1. name carries us back to times that now seem far away." With Osbern came his son-in-law Bernard of Neufmarché or Newmarch, sister's son to the noble Gulbert of Hugle- ville, the man who was soon to stamp his memory on the mountain land of Brecheiniog.2? From the same border too came the lord of Wigmore, Ralph of Mor- temer.* But the treason of the great Earl of the central march was not followed by his northern neighbour. Loyalty of Hugh of Chester clave to the King, while the mightiest Earl Hugh: of his tenants joined the rebels. For the old Hugh of Grantmesnil raised the standard of revolt in North- hamptonshire, and in Leicestershire, the land of his Rebellion sheriffdom.t And his rebellion seems to have carried with Miedo, it that of his nephew the Marquess Robert of Rhuddlan, the terror of the northern Cymry.® Robert thus found himself in arms, not only against his king, but against his immediate and powerful neighbour and lord Earl Hugh. But the tie which bound a man to his mother’s brother was perhaps felt to be stronger than duty towards of Roger either king or earl. Along with the lords of the British the Bigod ; 3 marches stood the guardian of the eastern coast of Eng- land against the Dane, Roger the Bigod, father of earls, whose name, fated to be so renowned in later times, appears in the records of these days with a special brand eee or of evil.6 And with Odo and William of Durham a Coutances ; third prelate joined in the unrede, a prelate the worthy compeer of Odo, the warrior Geoffrey of Coutances, the bishop who knew better how to marshal mailed knights for the battle than to teach surpliced clerks to chant their psalms in the choir.’ He brought with ? See N.C. vol. ii. pp. 138, 352. 2 Tb. vol. iii. p. 132; iv. p. 448. 8 Ib. vol. iii. p. 737. * Ib. vol, iii. p. 233. 5 Ord. Vit. 666 D. See N.C. vol. iv. pp. 74, 489. & See below, p. 36. * See his picture in Orderic, 703 B. “ Preefatus presul nobilitate cluebat, magisque peritia militari quam clericali vigebat. Ideoque loricatos milites BEGINNING OF THE WAR. 85 him the last of the elder succession of Northumbrian cwav. u. earls, his nephew Robert of Mowbray, tall of stature, of Robert swarthy of countenance, fierce, bold, and proud, who i looked down on his peers and scorned to obey his betters, who loved better to think than to speak, and who, when he opened his lips, seldom let a smile soften his stern words! With these leaders were joined a crowd of others, “mickle folk, all Frenchmen,” as the Chronicler significantly marks.? The sons of the soil, we are to believe, had no part in the counsels of that traitorous Lent, in the deeds of that wasting Easter. The war now began, a war in which, after the example Ravages of of the chief combatants, fathers fought against sons, one brothers against brothers, friends against their former friends.2 The rebel leaders, each from the point where his main strength lay, began to lay waste the land, specially the lordships of the King and the Archbishop. And among these evil-doers the loyal monk of Peter- Evidence borough distinctly sets down William of Saint-Calais, chop fe meek victim as he seems in the records of his own Pham. house. The Bishop may have argued that he was only returning what the King had done to him; but the witness is such as cannot be got over; “The Bishop of Durham did to harm all that he might over all the ad bellandum quam revestitos clericos ad psallendum magis erudire nove- rat.” ! See N.C. vol. iv. p 672. Orderic gives his portrait along with that of his uncle ; ‘‘ Robertus Rogerii de Molbraio filius potentia divitiisque admo- dum pollebat, audacia et militari feritate superbus pares despiciebat, et superbioribus obtemperare, vana ventositate turgidus, indignum autumabat, Erat erim corpore magnus, fortis, niger et hispidus, audax et dolosus, vultu tristis et severus, Plus meditari quam loqui studebat, et vix in con- fabulatione ridebat,” 2 Chron. Petrib. 1088. ‘Swide mycel folec mid heom, ealle Frencisce men.” He must mean that all the leaders were French. We shall see (see below, p. 47) that there were both Englishmen and Britons in the rebel army, 3 Flor, Wig. 1088. D2 36 CHAP. II. Ravages of Roger Bigod ; of Hugh of Grant- mesnil. Bristol and its castle. THE EARLY DAYS OF WILLIAM RUFUS. north.” Some others of the confederates and their doings are sketched in a few words by the same sarcastic pen ; “Roger hight one of them that leapt into the castle at Norwich, and did yet the worst of all over all the land.”? So does the English writer speak of the first Bigod who held the fortress which had arisen on the mound of the East-Anglian kings.2? Roger had succeeded to the place, though not to the rank, of Ralph of Wader, and, as Ralph had made Norwich a centre of rebellion against the father, so Roger now made it a centre of rebellion against the son. Then we read how “Hugo eke did nothing better neither within Leicestershire nor within Northampton.”® This was the way in which the lord of Grantmesnil, so honoured at Saint Evroul, was looked on in the scriptorium of the house which had once been the Golden Borough. In some other parts of the country we get fuller accounts than these of the doers and of what was done. Three districts in the west and in the south-east of England became the scene of events which are set down by the writers of the age in considerable detail. Of Bristol, the great merchant-haven on the West- Saxon and Mercian border, we last heard when the sons of Harold failed to make their way within its walls, and when its greedy slave-traders cast aside, for a while at least, their darling sin at the preaching of Saint Wulfstan.? The borough was now beginning to * Chron. Petrib. 1088. “ Roger hét an of heom se hleop into pam castele zt Nordwic, and dyde git eallra werst ofer eall pet land.” He ig “ Rogerius Bigot” in William of Malmesbury. We shall find him behaving better later in our story. ? See N. C. vol. iv. pp. 68, 590. * Chron. Petrib. 1088. “Hugo eac an pe hit ne gebette nan ping, ne innan Legreceastrescire ne innan NorSamtune,” He is “ Hugo de Grente- mesnil” in William of Malmesbury, See N. C, vol. iv. PP- 74, 232. * See N.C. vol. iv. p. 226, 5 Ib. p. 382. BRISTOL IN THE ELEVENTH CENTURY. 37 put on a new character, one which, in the disturbances cuar. 1. half a century later, won for it the name of the step- mother of all England. A fortress, the forerunner of the great work of Robert Earl of Gloucester,? had now arisen, and its presence made Bristol one of the chief military centres of England down to the warfare of the seven- teenth century. The Bristol of those days had not yet Bristol occupied the ground which is now covered by its two eee chief ecclesiastical ornaments. The abbey of Saint century. Augustine, the creation of Robert Fitz-Harding, had not The chief yet arisen on the lowest slope of the hills to the west, aaa : nor the priory of Saint James, the creation of Earl >ullt. Robert, on the ground to the north of the borough. These foundations arose in the next age on the Mercian ground without the walls. And any forerunner which may then have been of the church of Saint Mary on the Red cliff, for ages past the stateliest among the parish churches of England, stood beyond the walls, beyond the river, on undisputed West-Saxon ground. The older Peninsular Bristol lay wholly on the Mercian side of the Avon, a at the point where the Frome of Gloucestershire still poured its waters into the greater stream in the sight of the sun.2 But nowhere, unless at Palermo, have the relations of land and water been more strangely turned about than they have been at Bristol. The course of the The two greater river, though not actually turned aside, is dis-""°™ guised by cuts and artificial harbours which puzzle the 1 Gesta Stephani, 41. ‘ Totius Angliz noverca Bristoa.” 2 Simeon of Durham (1088) speaks of the ‘‘castellum fortissimum”’ at this time. 3 Gesta Steph. 36. ‘Est Bristoa civitas ... ipso situ loci omnium civi- tatum Anglie munitissima, Sicut enim de Brundusio legimus, quedam provinciz Glaornensis pars ad formam lingue restricta, et in longum pro- tensa, duobus fluviis gemina ejus latera proluentibus, inque inferiori parte, ubi ipsa terra defectum patitur, in unam aquarum abundantiam coeuntibus, efficit civitatem.” 38 cHAP, II, THE EARLY DAYS OF WILLIAM RUFUS. visitor till the key is found. The lesser stream of the Changes in Frome has had its course changed and shortened, and later times. +14 remnant is, like the Fleet of London, condemned by The castle. art to the fate which nature has laid on so many of the rivers of Greece and Dalmatia;! it runs, as in a kata- bothra, under modern streets and houses. The marshy ground lying at the meeting of the streams has been reclaimed and covered with the modern buildings of the city. In the twelfth century, still more therefore in the eleventh, this space was covered at every high tide, when the waters rushing up the channels of both rivers made Bristol seem to float on their bosom like Venice or Ra- venna.2 Of the castle again the more part of its site is covered by modern buildings; a great part of its moat is filled up; the donjon has vanished; the green is no longer a green; it is only by searching that we can find out some parts of the outer walls of the fortress, and some still smaller parts of the buildings which they fenced in.? But, when the key is once found, it is not hard to follow the line both of the borough and of the fortress. Bristol belongs to the same general class of peninsular towns as Chilons, Shrewsbury, Bern, and Besancon; but, as at Chalons, the height above the rivers is not great; and it is at Bristol made quite insig- nificant by comparison with the hills to the west and north. Yet on the narrow neck of the isthmus itself, the actual slope towards the streams on either side is 1 One might quote nearer instances in the streams which flow out of Mendip; only they have their katabothra at the beginning. ? Gesta Steph.u.s. ‘“ Viva quoque et fortis maris exestuatio, noctibus et diebus abundanter exundans, ex ambabus civitatis partibus fluvios ipsos in latum et profundum pelagus regurgitare in seipsos cogit, portumque mille earinis habillimum et tutissimum efficiens, ambitum illius adeo prope et con- juncte constringit ut tota civitas aquis innatare, tota super ripas considere videatur.” 3 In what was the castle green is a very pretty undercroft of early thir- teenth century work, most likely the support of a chapel. THE CITY AND CASTLE, 39 not to be despised. To the west of that isthmus, within cuar. 1. the peninsula, stood the original town, girded to the north by the original course of the Frome, to the south- west by the marshy ground at the junction of the rivers. To the west of the isthmus, outside the peninsula, stood the castle. Standing on the exposed side, open to an attack from the east, it was fenced in on three sides by a moat joining the two rivers at either end. A writer Works of of the next age gives us a picture of Bristol Castle as Bae. it then stood, strengthened by all the more advanced art of that time.? But the great keep of Earl Robert, slighted in the days of the Commonwealth, was not yet. We can only guess at the state of borough and fortress, as they had stood when the sons of Harold were driven back from the walls of Bristol, or as they stood now at the opening of the civil war which we have now reached. But there are few towns whose general look must have been more thoroughly unlike what it is now. The | central and busy streets which occupy the area of the older Bristol must, allowing for the difference between the eleventh century and the nineteenth, still keep the general character of the old merchant-borough. But Growth of few changes can be greater than those which have affected Bristol both in earlier and in later times. One period of change first surrounded the elder town 1 The course of the stream and the line of the walls have been altered more than once; but the description in the Gesta Stephani of the pen- insula, as long and tongue-shaped, shows that the Frome cannot, when that was written, have taken the line of the present Baldwin Street. The town was on the peninsula, but it covered only the north-east part of it. 2 Gesta Steph. ‘“ Ex una tamen ejus regione ubi ad obsidendum oppor- tunior magisque pervia habetur, castellum plurimo aggere exaltatum, muro et propugnaculis, turribus, et diversis machinis firmatum, impugnantium coercet accessus.” This is doubtless equally true in its measure of the state of things in 1088 ; but there is not now much sign of the “ plurimus agger.” The old prints of Bristol show Earl Robert's keep, a square tower of the best class. the town. 40 CHAP. II, Lristol occupied by Bishop Geoffrey. His rela- tion to the town. THE EARLY DAYS OF WILLIAM RUFUS, with a fringe of ecclesiastical buildings, and then took them within a more extended line of wall. Another in later days has swept away well nigh every trace of the fortress which was so famous both in the twelfth century and in the seventeenth, and has covered the whole range of the neighbouring hills with a new and airy city of modern days. The castle of Bristol then, though not perched, like so many of its fellows, on any lofty height, was placed on a strong and important site. That site, commanding the lower course of the Avon and the great borough upon it, and guarding the meeting-place, still of two shires, as once of two kingdoms, supplied an admirable centre for the work of those whose object was, not to guard those shires, but to lay them waste. To that end Bristol was occupied and garrisoned by the warrior Bishop of Coutances, Geoffrey of Mowbray. It is not unlikely that he was already in command of the castle. He was not only a land-owner in the two neighbouring shires, a very great land-owner in that of Somerset ;* but the meagre notice of Bristol in the Great Survey also shows that he stood in some special relation to the borough as the receiver of the King’s dues within it.? He doubtless added anything that the castle needed in } The description of the later occupation of Bristol (Gesta Steph. p. 37) will serve equally for this earlier one. ‘‘E diversis siquidem provinciis et regionibus emersi, tanto illic abundantius et gratulantius affuerunt, quanto sub divite domino ex munitissimo castello, quicquid libentium animo occur- reret, in uberrima committere Anglia fuit eis permissum.” * His estates in Somerset are very large. See Domesday, 874 et seqq. In Gloucestershire (165) he appears as “ Episcopus de Sancto Laudo”—the older seat of the bishopric of Coutances. 5’ Domesday, ¥63. Under “ Bertune apud Bristou,’ now Barton Regis, we read, ‘Hoc manerium et Bristou reddit regi c. et x. markas argenti. Burgenses dicunt quod episcopus G. habet xxsiii. markas argenti et unam markam auri propter firmam regis.” This looks like the Earl’s third penny; but Geoffrey certainly had no formal earldom in Gloucester- shire. To face page 41. Freeman's William Rufus. Vol.1. Map Berkeley. illustrating the SOMERSET AND GLOUCESTERSHIRE CAMPAIGN. 1088. English Miles if 4 az 2 3 + ; ¢ ™ rr. ih ess, f GLOUGCES PER x4 Alveston ‘ i =A rin q 4 % BRISTOL Aven ? a | gti ininsinge. at : ae, BUM one : "he ae . = : f i a j y B. 2 = For the Delegates of the Clarendon Press. BRISTOL OCCUPIED BY BISHOP GEOFFREY. 41 the way of further defences, and conjecture has attri- cmap. mn. buted to him one of the several lines which the city is wo". walls have taken, that which brought the line of de- fence most closely to the banks of the Frome.’ But whatever were his works, we have no record of them; we know only that the fierce prelate, at the head of his partisans, turned Bristol Castle into a den of robbers. His chief confederates were William of Eu, of whom we Ravages of have already spoken”, and his own nephew Robert of A eee . Mowbray. Among them they harried the land, and ae brought in the fruits of their harrying to the castle. The central position of Bristol made a division of labour easy. Of Bishop Geoffrey's two younger confederates, Robert undertook the work in Somerset and William in Gloucestershire. Robert marched up the valley of the Robert Avon to the Roman town of Bath, emphatically the “old ae borough.” + At the foot of the hills on either side, lying, as wicked wits put it, amid sulphureous vapours, at the gates of hell,> the square, small indeed, of the Roman walls sheltered the abbey of Offa's rearing, now widowed by the death of its English abbot Ailfsige.6 The city had been overthrown by the arms of Ceawlin; it had lain 1 This is Camden’s conjecture ; it does not greatly matter for my purpose. ? See above, p. 33. 3 Chron. Petrib. 1088. “Gosfrid bisceop and Rodbeard a Mundbreg ferdon to Bricgstowe and hergodon, and brohton to pam castele pa hergunge.” So Florence ; ‘‘Gosfridus episcopus Constantiensis, in castello Brycstowa, socium conjurationis et perfidiea habebat secum nepotem suum Rotbertum de Mulbraio, virum gnarum militiz.” * In the song in the Chronicles, 973, Eadgar is crowned “On pere ealdan byrig, Opre worde Acemannes ceastre, Beornas BaSan nemnad.” Eac hie egbuend. In the prose entries in Worcester and Peterborough this is done “at Hata- baSum.” _ 5 See Richard of the Devizes, 62. “‘ Bathonia, in imis vallium, in crasso nimis aere et vapore sulphureo posita, imo deposita, est ad portas inferi.” § See N.C. vol. iv. p. 385. 42 THE EARLY DAYS OF WILLIAM RUFUS. cuap. 1. waste like the City of the Legions;? it had risen again as an English town to share with the City of the Legions in the two chief glories of the days of the peaceful Eadgar. If Chester saw his triumph,” Bath had seen his crown- ing. And now the hand of the Norman, not the Norman Conqueror but the Norman rebel, fell as heavily on the English borough as the hand of the West-Saxon invader had fallen five hundred years before. Bath was a king’s town; as such it drew on itself the special wrath of the rebels; the whole town was destroyed by fire, to Hemarchesrise again presently in another character.? From through Wiltshire to Iches- ter. Bath, the greatest town of Somerset, but which, as placed in a corner of the land, has never claimed to be one of its administrative centres, the destroyer passed on to another town of Roman origin, which once did aspire to be the head of the Sumorszetan, but from which all traces of greatness have passed away. From Bath Robert first marched into Wiltshire, most likely following the line of the Avon; he there wrought much slaughter and took great spoil. He then turned to the south-west along the high ground of Wiltshire; he made his way into the mid parts of Somerset, and laid siege to the King’s town of Givelceaster, Ivelchester, Ilchester, Position of the Ischalis of a by-gone day.4 The town lay at the Ilchester. foot of the most central range of the hills of Somerset, 1 Mr. Earle has, I think, made it morally certain that the Old-English poem on a ruined city in the Codex Exoniensis refers to Bath. It is a pity that his account is hidden in the Proceedings of the Bath Natural History and Antiquarian Field Club, vol. ii, no. 3, 1872. 2 See N.C. vol. iv. p. 310. 3 Chron. Petrib. 1088. ‘“ And syd8on foron ut of pam castele and her- godon Ba%on, and eall pet land per abutan.” Florence adds the burn- ing; “ Rotbertus . . . congregato exercitu invasit Bathoniam, civitatem regiam, eamque igne succendit.” * Flor. Wig. 1088. ‘Illa [Bathonia] depredata, transivit in Wiltu- sciram, villasque depopulans, multorumque hominum strage facta, tandem adiit Givelceastram, obsedit, et expugnare disposuit.” SIEGE OF ILCHESTER. 43 on the edge of one of the inlets of the great marshland cnar. 1. of Sedgemoor. The site was marked by the junction of the great line of the Fossway with a number of roads in all directions. The spot was defended by the river, the Ivel, which gives the town its English name. Here, at the foot of the high ground, the stream widens to surround an island, a convenient outpost in the de- fences of the town which arose on its southern bank. Ichester, like Bath, drew on itself the special enmity of The siege. the rebels as being a king’s town, an enmity likely to be the sharper because Ilchester stands within sight of Count Robert's castle of Montacute, and is divided only by the river from lands which were held by his fellow-rebel William of Eu.’ The Ilchester of our day seems a strange place for a siege; but in the days of the Red King the town was still surrounded by strong walls, and those walls were defended by valiant burghers. The walls and gates have perished ; the ditches have been filled up; yet the lasting impress of the four-sided shape of the Roman chester may still be traced in the direction of the roads and buildings of the modern town.? The importance of Ilchester had passed away even in the sixteenth century, when of its five or six churches all but one were in ruins; but, in the times with which we are dealing, its hundred and seven 1 Geveltone, now Yeovilton, was held by one Ralph under William of Eu (Domesday, 966). Givele, now Yeovil, was held by Count Robert (Domesday, 93). All these names come in various corruptions from the river Givel or Ivel, also called Yeo. Only in Yeovil we may trace a bit of false etymology, which has also set the pattern to Yeovilton. 2 T took with me to Ilchester a bovk by the Rev. W. Buckler, “ Ilchester Almshouse Deeds ” (Yeovil, 1866), which contains the accounts of Ilchester from Leland, Camden, and Stukeley, together with Stukeley’s map. The last-named writer may have drawn somewhat on his imagination; but I could trace the line of the walls, represented in a great part of their course by modern buildings, Under the circumstances of the site, the usual carfax is not to be found at Ilchester, any more than at Godmanchester. 44 CHAP. II. Robert of Mowbray driven back from Ilchester. William of Eu plun- ders in Gloucester- shire. He harries Berkeley. THE EARLY DAYS OF WILLIAM RUFUS. burgesses, with their market held in the old forum at the meeting-place of the roads, held no inconsiderable place among the smaller boroughs of Western England.’ What the men of Ilchester had they knew how to defend; the attack and the defence were vigorously carried on on either side. Our one historian of the leaguer—he becomes almost its minstrel—tells us how the besiegers fought for greed of booty and love of victory, while the besieged fought with a good heart for their own safety and that of their friends and kinsfolk. The stronger and worthier motive had the better luck. The dark and gloomy Robert of Mowbray, darker and gloomier than ever, turned away, a defeated man, from the unconquered walls of Ichester.? This utter failure of a man who stands forth in a marked way as one of the skilful captains of the age was a good omen for success at points which were still more important in the struggle. Meanwhile the work of destruction was going steadily on in the Jands on the other side of Bristol, among the flock of the holy Wulfstan. Gloucestershire was assigned as the province of William of Eu, and he did his work with a will along the rich valley of the Severn, still the land of pasture, then also the land of vines.? The district called Berkeley Harness was laid waste with fire and sword, and the town of Berkeley itself was plundered.* Berkeley, once * Domesday, 86a. “In Givelcestre sunt 107 burgenses, reddentes xx. solidos. Mercatum cum suis appendiciis reddit xi. libras.” * Flor. Wig. 1088. ‘“Pugnant exterius spe capti prede et amore vic- tori, repugnant intrinsecus acriter pro se suorumque salute. Tandem inter utrumque necessitatis vicit causa; repulsus et tristis recedit Rotbertus privatus victoria.” The Chronicle and William of Malmesbury do not speak of Ilchester. William thus sums up the campaign; ‘Gaufridus episcopus, cum nepote, Bathoniam et Bercheleiam partemque pagi Wiltensis depopulans, manubias apud Bristou collocabat.” ° See N.C. vol. ii. p. 144. * Chron. Petrib. 1088. “And eall Beorclea hyrnesse hi awzeston.” . WILLIAM OF EU BURNS BERKELEY. 45 the abode of Earl Godwine and the scene of the pious cuar. u. scruples of Gytha,! is now simply marked as a king's town;? the abbey had vanished in a past generation ; the famous castle belongs to a later generation; but the place was not defenceless. Berkeley is indeed one of Position of those places which have become strongholds almost by accident. It looks up at a crowd of points on the bold outlying promontories of the Cotswolds, points some of them marked by the earthworks of unrecorded times, which in Normandy or Maine could hardly fail to have been seized on for the site of fortresses far sooner than itself. Nor is it near enough to the wide estuary of the Severn to have been of any military importance in the way of commanding the stream. It is rather one of those places where the English lord fixed his dwelling on a spot which was chosen more as a convenient centre for his lands than with any regard to purposes of warfare. The mound, the church, the town, rose side by side on ground but slightly higher than the rich meadows around them. But the mound on which the great Earl of the West-Saxons had once dwelled had been, as usual, turned to Norman military uses. Berkeley. Earl William of Hereford, whose watchful care stretched The castle. on both sides of the river, had crowned it with what Domesday marks as “a little castle.’* One would be well pleased to know in what such a defence was an advance on the palisades or other defences which may have surrounded the hall of Godwine. In after days Florence more fully; ‘‘ Willelmus de Owe Glawornensem invadit comitatum, regiam villam depredatur Beorchelaum, per totam ferro et flamma grande perpetrat malum.” 1 See N. C. vol. ii. p. 557- 2 See Domesday, 164. But it had already given a name to Roger and Ralph of Berkeley ; Domesday, 168. From Roger’s descendants it passed by marriage to Robert the son of Harding. See N.C. vol. iv. p. 758. 5 Domesday, 163. “In Nesse [Sharpness] sunt v. hide pertinentes ad Berchelai quos W. comes misit extra ad faciendum unum castellulum.” 46 CHAP. II. Rebel centre at Hereford. THE EARLY DAYS OF WILLIAM RUFUS. the “little castle” was to grow into the historic home of that historic house in whom, whether they themselves acknowledge it or not, history must see the lineal offspring, not of a Danish king, but of an English staller1 At present however the savage William of Eu had not to assault the stronghold of Robert, son of Harding and grandson of Eadnoth, but merely to overcome whatever resistance could be offered by the castellulum of William Fitz-Osbern. Its defences were most likely much less strong than the Roman walls of Ilchester. Berkeley and the coasts thereof were thoroughly ravaged. On the whole, notwithstanding the defeat of Robert of Mowbray, the Bishop of Coutances and his lieutenants had done their work to their own good liking. No small spoil from each of the three nearest shires had been brought in to the robbers’ hold at Bristol. Meanwhile the same work was going on busily to the north and north-west of Bishop Geoffrey’s field of action. Ofthe movements in Herefordshire and Worcester- shire we have fuller accounts, accounts which, before we have done, land us from the region of military history into that of hagiography. The centre. of mischief in this region was at Hereford. The city which Harold had called back into being, and where William Fitz- Osbern had ruled so sternly, had now no longer an earl; the rebel Roger was paying the penalty of his treason at some point far away alike from Hereford, from Flanders, and from Breteuil.? The city had now the King for its immediate lord. It was presently seized by Roger of Lacy,* and was turned into a meeting-place ' Since I wrote the fourth volume of the Norman Conquest, there has been much controversy about the origin of Robert Fitz-Harding. (See Notes and Queries, Jan. 3rd, 1880.) I am confirmed on the whole in my old belief that he was the son of Harding the son of Eadnoth. ? See N. C. vol. iv. pp. 590, 835. 5 See above, p. 33. _ THE REBELS MARCH ON WORCESTER, 47 for the disaffected. The host that came together is cuar. u. marked as made up of “the men that eldest were of Hereford, and the whole shire forthwith, and the men of Shropshire with mickle folk of Bretland.”! Some of their names, besides that of Roger of Lacy, we have heard already. And we are significantly told that the men Action of of Earl Roger—the men of Shropshire—were with them, Merl hagats a formula which seems specially meant to shut out the presence of the Earl himself? And though the leaders were “all Frenchmen,’* yet among their followers were men of all the races of the land. Not only Normans and Britons, but Englishmen also, were seen in the rebel ranks. So it seemed, if not in the general prospect as it was looked at from distant Peterborough, yet at least in the clearer view which men took from the watch-towers of more nearly threatened Worcester.® For it was the “faithful city” of after days on which The rebels the full storm of the Western revolt was meant to burst. abate The Norman lords of the border, with their British allies, now marched on Worcester, as, thirty-three years before, 1055. an English earl of the border, with his British allies, had marched on Hereford.6 They came of their own will to deal by, Worcester, shire and city, as, forty-seven years 104!. before, English earls had been driven against their will to deal with them at the bidding of a Danish king.” “They harried and burned on Worcestershire forth, and they came to the port itself, and would then the port burn and the 1 Chron. Petrib. 1088. ‘pa men fe yldest weron of Hereforde, and eall peo scfr forpmid, and pa men of Scrobscyre mid mycele folce of Brytlande.” 2 See above, p. 33. § Flor, Wig. 1088. “Cum hominibus comitis Rogerii de Scrobbesbyria.” Yet the Chronicler says distinctly, “ And Rogere eorl wes eac et pam un- rede.” That is, he joined in the conspiracy, but did not take a personal share in the war. 4 See above, p. 35, note 3. 5 Flor. Wig. 1088. ‘Congregato magno Anglorum, Normannorum, et Walensium exercitu.” © See N.C. vol. ii. p. 395. 7 Th, vol. i. p. 520, 48 CHAP. II. Deliver- ance of Worcester. Action of Wulfstan. THE EARLY DAYS OF WILLIAM RUFUS. minster reave, and the King’s castle win to their hands.”? But Worcester was not doomed to see in the days of the second William such a day as Hereford had seen in the days of Eadward, as Worcester itself had seen in the days of Harthacnut. The port was not burned, the minster was not reaved, nor was the King’s castle won into the hands of his enemies. And the deliverance of Worcester is, with one accord, assigned by the writers of the time to the presence within its walls of its bishop, the one remaining bishop of English blood, whose un- shaken loyalty had most likely brought the special wrath of the rebels upon his city and flock. The holy Wulf- stan was grieved at heart for the woes which seemed coming upon his people; but he bade them be of good courage and trust in the Lord who saveth not by sword or spear.” The man who had won the heart of North- humberland for Harold,? who had saved his own city for the first William,* was now to save it again for the Position of second. At Worcester, castle, minster, and episcopal palace Worcester. rose side by side immediately above the Severn. But Worcester is no hill city like Durham or Le Mans. The height above the stream is slight ; the subordinate build- ings of the monastery went down almost to its. banks. The mound, traditionally connected with the name of Eadgar the Giver-of-peace, has now utterly vanished; 1 Chron. Petrib. 1088. “ ba men... comon and hergodon and berndon on Wivreceastrescire ford, and hi comon to pam porte sylfan, and woldon pa pene port bernen, and pet mynster reafian, and pes cynges castel gewinnan heom to handa.”’ Florence adds, “grandem de regis incolis fidelibus sumpturos vindictam.” On the deliverance of Worcester, see Appendix D. * Florence brings in his own Bishop with a panegyric; “Vir magne pietatis et columbine simplicitatis, Deo populoque quem regebat in omnibus amabilis, regi, ut terreno domino, per omnia fidelis, pater reverendus Wistanus.” In the Chronicle he is simply “se arwurSa bisceop Wlfstan.” He goes on to make his exhortation after the manner of Moses. 3 See N. C. vol. iii. p. 61. * Ib, vol. iv. p. 579. WULFSTAN DEFENDS WORCESTER. 49 it then stood to the south of the monastery, and had car. n. become, as elsewhere, the kernel of the Norman castle. It will be remembered that it was the sacrilegious ex- tension of its precincts at the hands of Urse of Abetot which had brought down on him the curse of Ealdred.1 But by this time the new minster of Wulfstan’s own building, whose site, we may suppose, was further from the castle, that is, more to the north, than that of the church of Oswald,? was, if not yet finished, at least in making. It may be that at this moment the two minsters—the elder one which has wholly passed away, the newer, where Wulfstan’s crypt and some other portions of his work still remain among the recastings of later times,—both stood between the mound of Eadgar and its Norman sur- roundings, and the bishop’s dwelling, whatever may have been its form in Wulfstan’s day. Still along the line of the river, lay the buildings of the city further to the north, with the bridge leading to the meadows and low hills beyond the stream, backed by the varied outline of the heights of Malvern, the home of the newly- founded brotherhood of Ealdwine.* At the moment when the rebels drew near to Worcester, all the inhabitants of the city, of whatever race or order, were of one heart and of one soul under the inspiration of their holy Bishop. Like the prophets and judges of old, Wulfstan Wulfstan suddenly stands forth as first, if not in military action, the fierce Sheriff or some captain of a milder spirit formally bore rule in the castle. But we read that the Norman garrison, by whom the mild virtues of the English bishop were known and loved, practically put him at their head. They prayed him to leave his epi- scopal home beyond the church, and to take up his abode 1 See N.C. vol, iv. p. 174. 2 See N. C, vol. iv. p. 379. 5 Ib, VOL. I, E the com- at least in military command. We know not whether ™n4. 50 CHAP, II. Wulfstan enters the castle, THE EARLY DAYS OF WILLIAM RUFUS. with them in the fortress. If danger should be pressing, they would feel themselves all the safer, if such an one as he were among them.! Wulfstan agreed to their pro- posal, and set out on the short journey which he was asked to make, a journey which the encroachments of the Sheriff had made shorter than it should have been.? On his way he was surrounded by the inhabitants of Worcester of all classes, all alike ready for battle. He himself had, after the new fashion of Norman prelates, a military following,? and the soldiers of the King and of the Bishop, with all the citizens of Worcester, now came together in arms. From the height of the castle mound, Wulfstan and his people looked forth beyond Advance of the river. The foes were now advancing; they could be the rebels. Sally of the royal forces, seen marching towards the city, and burning and laying waste the lands of the bishopric. Soldiers and citizens now craved the Bishop’s leave to cross the river and meet the enemy. Wulfstan gave them leave, encouraging them by his blessing, and by the assurance that God would allow no harm to befall those who went forth to fight for their King and for the deliverance of their city and people.® Grieved further by the sight of the harrying of 1 Flor. Wig. 1088. ‘ Normanni interim, ineuntes consilium, rogant ipsum episcopum ut ab ecclesia transiret in castellam, tutiores se affirmantes de ejus presentia, si majus incumberet periculum; diligebant enim eum valde. Ipse enim, ut erat mire mansuetudinis, et pro regis fidelitate, et pro eorum dilectione, petitioni eorum adquievit.” ? See N.C, vol. iv. p. 174. 5’ Flor. Wig. u.s. ‘‘Interea audenter in arma se parat episcopalis fa- milia.” On the nature of this “familia,” see N. C. vol. v. p. 496. * Th. “Inter quos [hostes] magna belli jam fervebat insania; contu- maciter enim episcopi contemnentes mandata, in terram ipsius posuerunt incendia.” On the order of events, see Appendix D. * Tb. ‘“Conveniunt castellani et omnis civium turma, occurrere se affir- mant hostibus ex altera parte Sabrinz fluminis, si hoc eis pontificis annueret licentia, Parati igitur et armis instructi, ipsum ad castellum euntem habent obviam, quam optabant requirunt licentiam ; quibus libentur annu- ens, ‘Ite,’ inquit, ‘ filii, ite in pace, ite securi, cum Dei et nostra benedictione. DELIVERANCE OF WORCESTER. : 51 the church-lands, and pressed by the urgent prayer of all cuar. 1. around him, Wulfstan pronounced a solemn anathema Wulfstan : : “ys curses the against the rebellious and sacrilegious invaders.’ The rebels. loyal troops, strengthened by the exhortations and promises of their Bishop, set forth. The bridge was Victory of made firm; the defenders of Worcester marched across oes it;? and the working of Wulfstan’s curse, so the tradi- tion of Worcester ran, smote down their enemies before them with a more than human power. The invaders, scattered over the fields for plunder, were at once over- taken and overthrown. Their limbs became weak and their eyes dim; they could hardly lift their weapons or know friend from foe.2 The footmen were slaugh- tered; the horsemen, Norman, English, and Welsh, were taken prisoners; of the whole host only a few escaped by flight. The men of the King and of the Bishop marched back to Worcester—so Worcester dutifully believed—without the loss of a single man from their ranks. They came back rejoicing in the great salvation which had been wrought by their hands, and giving all thanks to God and his servant Wulfstan.* Among the sorrows which rent the breast of the holy Bishop of Worcester, one may have been to see a man of Confidens ego in Domino, spondeo vobis, non hodie nocebit vobis gladius, non quicquam infortunii, non quisquam adversarius. State in regis fidelitate, viriliter agentes pro populi urbisque salute.” 1 Ib. ‘Episcopus ingenti concutitur dolore, videns debilitari res ecclesia, acceptoque inde consilio, gravi eos, ab omnibus qui circumaderant coactus, percussit anathemate.” See Appendix D. 2 Tb. ‘*Alacres pontem reparatum transeunt, hostes de longinquo accelerantes conspiciunt.” 3 See Appendix D. _ * Flor. Wig. u.s. “ Caduntur pedites, capiuntur milites, cum Nor- mannis tam Angli quam Walenses, cxteris vero vix debili elapsis fuga [were the ‘milites’ spared for the sake of ransom 7] regis fideles cum pontificis familia, exultantes in gaudio, sine ulla diminutione suorum, redeunt ad propria; gratias Deo referunt de rerum ecclesie incolumitate, gratias episcopo referunt de consilii ejus salubritate.” EZ 52 THE EARLY DAYS OF WILLIAM RUFUS. cuar. u. hig own order, one whom he had, somewhat strangely perhaps, honoured with his friendship, acting as a tem- poral leader in the rebellion against which he had to wield his spiritual arms. It was, it may be remem- bered, Geoffrey of Mowbray, the lord of the robbers’ hold at Bristol, who had rebuked the lamb-like simpli- city of Wulfstan’s garb! The lamb of Severnside had now overthrown alike the wolves of Normandy and the wild cats of the British hills. But, if Wulfstan mourned over the evil deeds of the warlike Bishop of Coutances, he had no such personal cause for grief over either the sins or the sorrows of another bishop who was meanwhile, like himself, besieged in an episcopal city. That bishop however was not, like Wulfstan, de- fending his own flock with either spiritual or temporal arms ; he was doing all the wrong in his power to the Movements flock of another. The source and leader of the whole of Odo in Kent. mischief? Odo, Bishop and Earl, chose his own earldom of Kent for the scene of his ravages. Our notes of time are very imperfect, and we have seen that there were movements in Kent, movements in which Odo seems to have had a share, much earlier in the year. But it would seem that the great outbreak of rebellion in south-eastern England happened about the same time as the great outbreaks more to the west and north. As the Bishop of Coutances had fixed his head-quarters in the castle of Bristol, so the Bishop of Bayeux now fixed his head-quarters in the castle of Rochester, and thence ravaged the lands of the King and the Archbishop.+ 1 See N. C. vol. iv. p. 386. 2 Chron. Petrib, 1088. “ be wes erur heafod to pam unrede.” 3 See above, p. 29. * Chron. Petrib. 1088, “De bisceop Odo, pe pas cyng of awocan, ferde into Cent to his earldome and fordyde hit swySe, and pes cynges land and pes arcebisceopes mid ealle aweston, and brohte eall pat géd into his castele on Hrofeceastre.” This follows at once on the accounts of Roger the TPM pMPr ‘sealg UopiBLD ey so sexobepg my Log 2 SOT ene : ‘SsoU'av ‘NOTVAWVO XASSOS OV LNT zg ebod any of ODO AT ROCHESTER. 53 Another great Kentish fortress, that of Tunbridge, was cmap. 1. also in rebellion. So in Sussex was Pevensey, the very ee firstfruits of the Conquest, where Odo’s brother Count Pevensey. Robert also held out against the King. These three fortresses now become the busy scene of our immediate story; but the centre of all is the post occupied by the Bishop of Bayeux and Earl of Kent. This part of the war is emphatically the war of Rochester. The city by the Medway had been a fortress from the Early earliest times. We have seen that it had already played eee a part both in foreign and in civil wars. In the days of Aithelred it still kept the Roman walls parts of which still remain, walls which were then able to withstand two sieges, one at the hands of the King himself, and one at those of the Danish invaders.’ In truth the Import- position of Rochester, lying on the road from London cont ag to Canterbury, near to the sea on a navigable river, made it at all times a great military post.? The chief ornament of the city did not yet exist in the days of Odo. The noble tower raised in the next age by Arch- The later bishop Walter of Corbeuil, the tower which in ane struggle held out against John® and in the next held out for his son,* and still remains one of the glories of Bigod and Hugh of Grantmesnil. So William of Malmesbury, who here brings in the story of Lanfranc’s share in Odo’s imprisonment in 1082, in order to account for Odo’s special hatred towards the Archbishop. * See N. C. vol. i. pp. 267, 2g6. On the early history of Rochester generally, see Mr. Hartshorne’s paper in the Archzological Journal, September, 1863. * This is brought out by Orderic, 667 B; “ Oppidum igitur Rovecestre sollicita. elegerunt provisione, quoniam, si rex eos non obsedisset in urbe, in medio positi laxis habenis Lundoniam et Cantuariam devastarent, et per mare, quod proximum est, insulasque vicinas, pro auxiliis conducendis nuntios cito dirigerent.” The islands must be Sheppey and Thanet. 8 See the siege of Rochester in 1215 and his defence by William of Albini in Roger of Wendover, iii. 333. 4 For the siege of 1264 see W. Rishanger, Chron. p. 25 (Camd. Soc.). On Simon’s military engines he remarks that the Earl “exemplum relinquens 54 CHAP. IT. The cathedral church. The castle site forti- fied by the Conqueror. The city. THE EARLY DAYS OF WILLIAM RUFUS, Norman military architecture, had perhaps not even a forerunner of its own class.1. And the minster of Saint Andrew, which the enlargements of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries have still left one of the least among the episcopal churches of England, had then only the lowly forerunner which had risen, which per- haps was still only rising, under the hands of Gundulf? But the steep scarped cliff rising above the broad tidal stream was a stronghold in the Conqueror’s days, as it had doubtless been in days long before his. Whether a stone castle had yet been built is uncertain; the fact that such an one was built for William Rufus by Gun- dulf later in his reign might almost lead us to think that as yet the site, strong in itself, was defended only by earthworks and defences of timber.2 Below the castle to the south-east lay the city, doubtless fenced Anglicis qualiter circa castrorum assultationes agendum sit, qui penitus hujusmodi diebus illis fuerant ignari.” A forerunner of Kanarés, he had a fire-ship in the river; he also used mines, as the Conqueror had done at Exeter. 1 Mr. Hartshorne showed distinctly that the present tower of Rochester was not built by Gundulf, but by William of Corbeuil. See the passages which he quotes from Gervase, X Scriptt. 1664, and the continuator of Florence, 1126. But we have seen (see N. C. vol. iv. p. 366) that Gundulf did build a stone castle at Rochester for William Rufus (‘‘ castrum Hrofense lapidum ”), and we should most naturally look for it on the site of the later one. On the other hand, there is a tower, seemingly of Gundulf’s building and of a military rather than an ecclesiastical look, which is now almost swallowed up between the transepts of the cathedral. But it would be strange if a tower built for the King stood in the middle of the monastic precinct. ? The odd position of the cloister at Rochester suggests the notion that Gundulf’s church occupied only the site of the present eastern limb, and that the later Norman nave was an enlargement rather than a rebuilding. * Domesday, 26. “ Episcopus de Rouecestre pro excambio terre in qua castellum sedet, tantum de hac terra tenet quod xvii.s. et iv.d. valet.” This is said of land at Aylesford ; but the castle spoken of must surely be that of Rochester. The Domesday phrase “sedet” seems beautifully to describe either the massive square donjon or the shell-keep on the mound; yet it may be doubted whether Rochester had either in the Conqueror’s day. Yo face page 54, ROCHESTER For the Delegates of the Clarendon Press. seman’s William Rufus. Volt. @ “” DESCRIPTION OF ROCHESTER, 5 5 by the Roman wall; and a large part of its space had cuap. 1. now begun to form the monastic precinct of Saint Andrew. The town is said to have been parted from the castle by a ditch which, as at Le Mans and at Lincoln, was overleaped by the enlarged church of the twelfth century;! in any case the castle, in all its stages, formed a sheltering citadel to the town at its feet. Neither town nor castle by itself occupies a penin- Nature of sular site; but a great bend of the river to the south makes the whole ground on which they stand penin- sular, with an extent of marshy ground between the town and the river to the north and east. The strong- hold of Rochester, no lofty natural peak, no mound of ancient English kings, perhaps as yet gathering round no square keep of the new Norman fashion, but in any case a well-defended circuit with its scarped sides strength- ened by all the art of the time, was the chief fortress of the ancient kingdom over which the Bishop of Bayeux now ruled as Earl. It now became, under him, the great The castle centre of the rebellion. Gundulf, renowned as he was for his skill in military architecture, must have been sore let and hindered in the peaceful work of building his church and settling the discipline of his monks,? when his brother bishop filled the castle with his men of war, five hundred of his own knights among them.? But 1 This ditch is said to have been traced right across the middle of the cathedral, with the twelfth-century nave to the west of it. TI can say nothing either way from my own observation ; but such an extension of the church to the west would exactly answer to the extension of the churches of Le Mans and Lincoln to the east. In both those cases the Roman wall had to give way. 2 See N.C. vol. iv. p. 367. 3 Ord. Vit. 667 A. ‘Tune Odo Bajocensis cum quingentis militibus intra Rofensem urbem se conclusit, ibique Robertum ducem cum suis auxiliaribus secundum statuta que pepigerant prestolari proposuit.” The last clause of course implies the supposed earlier agreement with Duke Robert, on which see above, p. 25, and Appendix B, by Odo. 56 THE EARLY DAYS OF WILLIAM RUFUS. onar. . Odo was not satisfied with his garrison. He sent beyond mie asks sea to Duke Robert for further help. The prince in conte. whose name Rochester was now held was earnestly prayed to come at once at the head of the full power of his duchy, to take possession of the crown and kingdom which were waiting for his coming! The news According to the narrative which we are now fol- proneht © lowing, it would seem that Robert now heard for the first time of the movement which was going on in his behalf in England. His heart is lifted up at the un- looked for news; he tells the tidings to his friends; certain of victory, he sends some of them over to share in the spoil; he promises to come himself with all speed, as soon as he should have gathered a greater force.? He sends At the head of the party which was actually sent were over Eu- was stace of two men whose names are familiar to us.2 One of Boulogne them, Count Eustace of Boulogne, united the charac- and Robert ; of Belléme. ters of a land-owner in England and of a sovereign prince in Gaul. This was the younger Eustace, the son of the old enemy of England, the brother of the hero who was within a few years to win back the Holy 1 Flor. Wig. 1088. “ Rumore autem percussus insolito, comes exultat, amicis nunciat, quasi jam de victoria securus triumphat, plures ad predam incitat ; Odoni episcopo, patruo suo, auxiliarios in Angliam legat, se quanto- cius, congregato majori exercitu, secuturum affirmat.” ? Tb. “Preedictus episcopus Baiocensis, munita Roveceastra, misit Normanniam, exhortans comitem Rotbertum cito venire in Angliam, nuntians ei rem gestam, affrmans paratum sibi regnum, et si sibi non desisteret, paratam et coronam.” * Ib. “Missi a comite Rotberto venerunt in Angliam, ab Odone episcopo ad custodiendum receperunt Roveceastram ; et horum ut primates Eustatius junior, comes Bononie, et Rotbertus de Beleasmo gerebant curam.” Here we have (see Appendix B) the true moment of their coming. From this point we may accept the account in Orderic (667 B) ; ‘ Praedictum oppidum Odo presul et Eustachius comes atque Robertus Bellesmensis, cum multis nobilibus viris et mediocribus, tenebant, auxiliumque Roberti ducis, qui desidia mollitieque detinebatur, frustra exspectabant.” We meet them again in 765 B. COMING OF ROBERT OF BELLEME. 57 City for Christendom. With him came Robert of Bel- cuar. 1. léme; his share in the rebellion is his first act on English ground that we have to record. Himself the hve, abt eldest son of Earl Roger of Shrewsbury, he had either Roper ‘at brought with him two of his brothers, or else they had Rochester. already embraced the cause of Odo in England. Three sons of Roger and Mabel were now within the walls of Rochester? The second was Hugh, who was for Hoth of @ moment to represent the line of Montgomery while sotnery, Robert represented the line of Belléme, and who was to be as fierce a scourge to the Britons of the Northern border as Robert was to be to the valiant defenders of the land of Maine. And with them was the third brother, Roger of Roger of Poitou, the lord of the debateable land between ae Mersey and Ribble,’ carrying as it were to the furthest point of the earldom of Leofric the claim of his father to the proud title which the elder Roger bears at this stage of our story. It is as Earl of the Mercians that Action of one teller of our tale bids us look for a moment on the "8 lord of Montgomery and Shrewsbury.® But the Earl of 1 « Kustatius junior,” “ Hustatius pe iunga.” See N.C. vol. iv. p. 745. ? They are mentioned in the Chronicle along with the incidental mention of Eustace; “Innan pam castele weron swiSe gode cnihtas, Eustatius pe iunga, and Rogeres eorles preo sunan, and ealle pa betstboren men pe weron innan pisan lande oSSe on Normandige.” This is followed by William of Malmesbury (iv. 306); “ Erat tunc apud Roveceastram omnis pene juyen- tutis ex Anglia et Normannia nobilitas ; tres filii Rogerii comitis, et Eusta- chius Bononie junior, multique alit quos infra curam nostram existimo.” 3 The three sons of Earl Roger can hardly fail to be his three eldest sons (see Will. Gem. vii. 16; Ord. Vit. 708 D), Robert, Hugh, and Roger, all of whom figure in our story. Arnulf does not appear in English history till later, and Philip the clerk does not appear at all. Geoffrey Gaimar (Chron. Ang. Norm. i. 35), after setting forth the possessions of Robert of Belléme, mentions the other three ; but one does not exactly see why he says, “Le conte Ernulf ert le quarte frére, Par cors valeit un emperére.” Cf. Ord. Vit. 708 D, 808 C. * See N.C. vol. iv. p. 488. 5 See above, p. 33. 58 OHAP, II, THE EARLY DAYS OF WILLIAM RUFUS. the Mercians was not with his sons at Rochester any more than he had been with his men before Worcester. He was in another seat of his scattered power. His presence was less needed at Shrewsbury, less needed at the continental or the insular Montgomery, than it was in the South-Saxon land where the lord of Arundel and He stays at Chichester held so high a place. While his men were Arundel, overthrown before Worcester, while his sons were strengthening themselves at Rochester, Earl Roger him- self was watching events in his castle of Arundel.t The spot was well fitted for the purpose. Arundel lies in the same general region of England as the three great rebel strongholds of Rochester, Tunbridge, and Pevensey; it lies in the same shire and near the same Position of coast as the last named of the three. But it lies apart Arundel. from the immediate field of action of a campaign which should gather round those three centres. A gap in the Sussex downs, where the Arun makes its way to the sea through the flat land at its base, had been marked out, most likely from the earliest times, as a A castle at fitting spot for a stronghold. The last slope of this Arundel T.R.E. Descrip- tion of the castle. part of the downs towards the east was strengthened in days before King William came with a mound and a ditch, and Arundel is marked in the Great Survey as one of the castles few and far between which England contained before his coming.? The shell-keep which crowns the mound, and the gateway which flanks it, have been recast at various later times from the twelfth century onward, but it would be rash to assert that the mere wall of the keep may not contain portions either of the days of King William or of the days of King Eadward. The traces of a vast hall, more immediately } Flor. Wig. 1088. ‘‘Rogerus fautor Rotberti erat in castello suo Arundello, comitis predicti opperiens adventum.” 2 See N, C. iv, 66, v. 808, EARL ROGER AT ARUNDEL. 59 overlooking the river, reared as usual on a vaulted sub- cuap. 11. structure, almost constrain us to see in them the work of no age earlier or later than that of Roger or his successor of his own house.' The site is a natural watch- tower, whence the eye ranges far away to various points of the compass, over the flat land and over the more distant hills, and over the many windings of the tidal river which then made Arundel a place of trade as well as of defence.? Less threatening than his vulture’s nest at Tre Baldwin, less tempting to an enemy than his fortresses on the peninsula of Shrewsbury and within the walls of Chichester,* the stronghold of Arundel seems exactly the place for an experienced observer of men and things like Earl Roger to look out from and bide his time. He had to watch the course of things in the three rebel fortresses ; he had further to watch what might come from a nearer spot, another break in the hill ground, where, between his doubtful Arundel and re- wWiniam of bellious Pevensey, the twin mounds of loyal Lewes the home of William and Gundrada, looked up to what was one day to be the battle-ground of English freedom. Its lord, long familiar to us as William of Warren, stood 1 See Tierney’s History of Arundel, i. 43. ? Domesday, 23. “Modo inter burgum et portum aque et consuetu- dinem navium reddit xii. libras et tamen valet xiii. libras.. De his habet S. Nicolaus xxiii. solidos.” ‘Clerici sancti Nicolai” are mentioned again in the next column. The church then was secular in 1086; but the clerks must have soon given way to the priory of Saint Nicolas, founded by Earl Roger himself as a cell to his abbey at Seez; in 1386 it gave way to the college of Arundel. 3 See N.C. iv. p. 501. * Domesday, 23. ‘Modo est ipsa civitas in manu comitis Rogerii.” Here he had one quarter of a Roman chester, while the Bishop had another; yet there were sixty houses more than there had been T. R. E. 5 See the customs of Lewes and the rights of William of Warren in Domesday, 26. The toll on selling 2 man was threepence, The two mounds of the castle, the smaller known as Brack Mount, are rare, perhaps unique. The inner gateway seems to be of Earl William’s building. 5 Warren at > Lewes. 60 CHAP. II. His earl- dom of Surrey. Hisloyalty, Action of the King. THE EARLY DAYS OF WILLIAM RUFUS. firm in his allegiance, and it was now, according to some accounts, that he received his earldom of Surrey, an earl- dom to be borne in after times along with that which took its name from Roger's own Arundel.! William became the King's chief counsellor, and his position at Lewes must have thrown difficulties in the way of any com- munication between Arundel and Pevensey. And in truth, when Earl Roger found it safest to watch and be prudent, we are not surprised to find events presently shaping themselves in such a way as to make it his wisest course to play the part of the Curio of the tale.? But meanwhile where was King William? Where was the king who had taken his place on his father's seat with so much ease, but whose place upon it had been so soon and so rudely shaken? We have been called on more than once in earlier studies to mark how the two characters of fox and lion were mingled in the tempers of the Conqueror and his countrymen, and assuredly the Conqueror’s second surviving son was fully able to don either garb when need called for it. At this moment we are told in a marked way that William Rufus showed himself in the character of that which is conventionally looked on as the nobler beast. He had no mind to seek for murky holes, like the timid fox, but, like the bold and fearless lion, he gave himself mightily to put down the devices of his enemies.* Yet the first time when ' T suspect that the original title of the Earls of Arundel was Earl of Sussex, and that the name of the castle came to be used, much as the successors of William of Warren, strictly Earls of Surrey, are more com- monly called Earls Warren, See more in Tierney’s History of Arundel. 2 Lucan, iv. 819. 5 See N.C. vol. iii. p. 161, * Ord. Vit. 666 D. “Rex Guillelmus, ut vidit suos in terra sua contra se pessima cogitare, et per singula crebrescentibus malis ad pejora proce- THE KING WINS OVER EARL ROGER. 61 we distinctly get a personal sight of him, the Red cuar. 1. King is seen playing the part of the fox with no small eae Earl effect. Earl Roger was assuredly no mean master of Roger. Norman craft; but King William, in his first essay, showed himself fully his equal. By a personal appeal he won the Earl over from at least taking any further personal share in the rebellion. At some place not men- tioned, perhaps at Arundel itself, the Earl, disguising, we are told, his treason, was riding in the King’s com- pany! The King took him aside, and argued the case with him. He would, he said, give up the kingdom, if such was really the wish of the old companions of his father. He knew not wherefore they were so bitter against him; he was ready, if they wished it, to make them further grants of lands or money. Only let them remember one thing; his cause and theirs were really the same; it was safer not to dispute the will of the man who had made both him and them what they were. “You may,” wound up Rufus, “despise and overthrow me; but take care lest such an example should prove dangerous to yourselves. My father has made me a king, and it was he alone who made you an earl.’? Roger felt or affected conviction, and followed the King, in his bodily presence at least, during the rest dere ; non meditatus est ut timida vulpes ad tenebrosas cavernas fugere, sed ut leo fortis et audax rebellium conatus terribiliter comprimere.” 1 Will. Malms. iv. 306, “Nec minori astutia Rogerium de Monte Gomerico, secum dissimulata perfidia equitantem, circumvenit.” 2 Tb. “Seorsum enim ducto magnam ingessit invidiam; dicens, Libenter se imperio cessurum, si illi et aliis videatur quos pater tutores reliquerat. Non se intelligere quid ita effranes sint: si velint, pecunias accipiant pro libito; si augmentum patrimoniorum, eodem modo; prorsus, que velint, habeant. Tantum videant ne judicium genitoris periclitetur : quod si de se putaverint aspernandum, de se ipsis caveant exemplum ; idem enim se regem, qui illos duces fecerit, His verbis comes et pollicita- tionibus incensus, qui primus factionis post Odonem signifer fuit, primus defecit.” Roger of Wendover (ii. 33) adds the words ‘‘ penitentia ductus.” 62 CHAP. II. Count Robert at Pevensey. Loyal Normans. THE EARLY DAYS OF WILLIAM RUFUS. of the campaign.!. But Robert, Count of Mortain and lord of Cornwall, still made Pevensey one of the strongholds of the revolt. Of the third great neighbour of these two lords, Count Robert of Eu, father of the ravager of Berkeley, we hear nothing on this side of the water. But, amid the general falling away, the throne of William Rufus was still defended by some men of Norman birth on whom he could better rely than on the Earl Hugh. doubtful loyalty of the Earl of Shrewsbury. Earl Hugh William of of Chester remained faithful; so, as we have seen, did Warren. Robert Fitz- hamon. Forces on the side of Rufus, Earl Roger’s neighbour, now or afterwards Earl William.? And to these already famous names we must add one which was now only beginning to be heard of, but which was presently to equal, if not to surpass, the renown of either. This was Robert Fitz-hamon, the son or grand- son of Hamon Dentatus, the rebel of Val-és-dunes.2 But it was not on the swords of the Norman followers of his father that the son of the Conqueror rested his hopes of keeping the crown which the Conqueror had left him. William Rufus had at his side two forces, either of which, when it could put forth its full power, was ! Orderic a little later (667 B) says, “‘Rogerus Merciorum comes, mul- tique Normannorum, qui cum rege foris obsidebant, clam adminiculari quantum poterant inclusis satagebant.” 2 Orderic (680 C) puts the creation of this earldom somewhat later, at the Gemét held just before the invasion of Normandy in 1090. He adds that the new earl died soon after (“quem paulo post mors nulli parcens e medio rapuit”), and records his burial at Lewes, and adds his epitaph. There is no better authority than that of the Hyde writer (298) for placing the creation at this time or for placing the Earl’s death a little later (see below, p. 76). But his narrative is so minute that one would think that he must have had some kind of ground for it. His words are; “Rex Willelmus . . . videns igitur principes regni nutantes et exercitum a se dilabi, sapienti usus consilio, Willelmum de Warennia, virum bellicosum, animo ferum et corpore strenuum famaque preclarum, in amicitia Asarum {what this may mean I have no notion, but the editor vouches that such is the reading of the MS.] comitis honore sublimat, multa impendit multaque promittit.” 3 See N.C. vol. ii. p. 251. THE KING'S APPEAL TO THE ENGLISH. 63 stronger by far than the Norman nobles. All that in cnar. 1. any way represented the higher feelings and instincts of man was along with him. All that in any shape was an embodiment of law or right was arrayed against the men whose one avowed principle was the desire to shake off the restraints of law in any shape. Against the theChurch, 1 laimed reign of lawl he Ki east openly proclaimed reign of lawlessness the King could people, rely on the strength of the Church and the strength of the people. With the single exception of him of Durham, the marauding bishops of Bayeux and Coutances found no followers among the men of their order in England. Lanfranc stood firmly by the King to whom he had Loyalty ‘ : t given the crown; and the other bishops, of whatever Bishops: origin, sought, we are told, with all faithfulness of purpose, the things which were for peace! Either by The King their advice or by his own discernment, the King saw °PPf!s that his only course was to throw himself on the true English. folk of the land, to declare himself King of the English in fact as well as in name. A written proclamation went His procla- i : oa tion. forth in the name of King William, addressed, doubtless eae in their own ancient tongue, to the sons of the soil, the men of English kin. The King of the English called on the people of the English, on the valiant men who were left of the old stock; he set forth his need to them and craved for their loyal help.2 At such a 1 Ord. Vit. 667C. ‘“Omnes episcopi Anglie cum Anglis sine dolo regem juvabant, et pro serena patrize pace, que bonis semper amabiles est, laborabant.” 2 The appeal to the English is strongly marked in the Chronicle; ‘Da pe cyng undergeat ealle pas ping and hwilcne swicdom hi dydon toweard his, pa weard he on his mode swiSe gedrefed. Sende pa efter Englisce mannan, and heom fore sede his neode and gyrnde heora fultumes.” Simeon of Durham gives a free translation quite independent of Florence; “Hoe audito, rex fecit convocare Anglos, et ostendit eis traditionem Normannorum, et rogavit ut sibi auxilio essent.” But the appeal comes out no less strongly in Orderic (666 D); ‘Lanfrancum archiepiscopum cum suffraganeis presulibus, et comites, Anglosque naturales convocavit, et conatus adversariorum, ac velle suum expugnandi eos indicavit.” The 64 CHAP. II. His pro- mises, The Eng- lish take up the King’s cause, THE EARLY DAYS OF WILLIAM RUFUS. moment he was lavish of promises. All the wrongs of the days of William the Elder were to be put an end to in the days of William the Younger. The English folk should have again the best laws that ever before were in this land. King William would reign over his people like Eadward or Cnut or Ailfred. The two great grievances of his father’s days were to cease; the King’s coffers were no longer to be filled by money wrung from his people; the King’s hunting-grounds were no longer to be fenced in by the savage code which had guarded the Conqueror’s pleasures. All unrighteous geld he forbade, and he granted to them their woods and right of hunting.t’ At the sound of such promises men’s hearts were stirred. At such moments, men commonly listen to their hopes rather than to their reason; the prospects and promises of a new reign are always made the best of; and there was no special reason as yet why the word of William the Red should be distrusted. He had not conquered England; he had not as yet had the means of oppressing England; he had shown at least one virtue in dutiful attachment writ comes from William of Malmesbury, iv. 3¢6 ; ‘“ Ille, videns Normannos pene omnes in una rabie conspiratos, Anglos probos et fortes viros, qui adhue residui erant, invitatoriis scriptis accersiit.” It is singular that Florence mentions the English only in an incidental way a little later ; “Congregato quantum ad presens poterat Normannorum, sed tamen maxime Anglorum, equestri et pedestri, licet mediocri, exercitu.” Does the precious document spoken of by William of Malmesbury still lurk in any manuscript store ? ? Chron. Petrib. “And behet heom pa betsta laga pe efre zr wes on pisan lande, and le unriht geold he forbead, and geatte mannan heora wudas and slétinge.” William of Malmesbury (iv. 306) translates, “‘ Bonas leges et tributorum levamen, liberasque venationes pollicens.”” Florence is less literal ; “Statuens leges, promittens fautoribus omnia bona.” Simeon gives another version; “Eo tenore, ut si in hac necessitate sibi fideles exist- erent, meliorem legem quam vellent eligere eis concederet, et omnem in- justum scottum interdixit, et concessit omnibus silvas suas et venationem. Sed quicquid promisit, parvo tempore custodivit, Angli tamen fideliter eum juvabant.” THE ENGLISH SUPPORT WILLIAM. 65 ‘to his father; his counsellor was the venerated Primate; omar. 1. chief in loyalty to him was one yet more venerated, the one native chief left to the English Church, the holy Bishop of Worcester. If the English dealt with William as an English king, he might deal with them as an English king should deal with his people. In fighting Motives for for William against the men who had risen up against Sl him, they would be fighting for one who had not himself wronged them against the men who had done them the bitterest of wrongs. If the Bishop of Bayeux and the Bishop of Coutances, if Robert of Mortain and Robert of Mowbray, if Eustace of Boulogne and the fierce lord of Belléme, could all be smitten down by English axes or driven into banishment from the English shores, if their estates on English soil could be again parted out as the reward of English valour, the work of the Norman Conquest would indeed seem to be undone. And it would be undone none the less, although the king whose crown was made sure by English hands was himself the son of the Conqueror of England. With such feelings as these the sons of the soil Loyalty gathered with glee around the standard of King William. finish, Not a name is handed down to us. We know not from what shires they came or under what leaders they marched. We see only that, as was natural when the They meet stress of the war lay in Kent and Sussex, the trysting-™ me place was London.! How did that great city stand at this moment with regard to the rebellion? It will be remembered by what vigorous means Bishop William of Durham claimed to have secured the allegiance of the citizens some time earlier.? At all events, whether by 1 Flor. Wig. 1088. ‘‘Jure regio, militari, ut impiger, fretus audacia, mittit legatos, vocat quos sibi credit fidos, vadit Lundoniam, belli tracta- turus negotia, expeditionis provisum, necessaria,” 2 See above, p. 29. VOL, I. F 66 CHAP. II. William’s English army. Their zeal in his cause. William accepted as the English king. THE EARLY DAYS OF WILLIAM RUFUS, the help of William of Saint-Calais or not, London was now in the King’s hands. There the royal host met, a motley host, a host of horse and foot, of Normans and English, but a host in which the English element was by far the greatest, and in which English feeling gave its character to the whole movement. Thirty thousand of the true natives of the land came together of their -own free will to the defence of their lord the King.! The figures are of much the same value as other figures ; it is enough if we take them as marking a general and zealous movement. The men who were thus brought together promised the King their most zealous service; they exhorted him to press on valiantly, to smite the rebels, and to win for himself the Empire of the whole island” This last phrase is worth noting, even if it be a mere flourish of the historian. It marks that the change of dynasty was fully accepted, that the son of the Con- queror was fully acknowledged as the heir of all the rights of Aithelstan the Glorious and of Eadmund the Doer-of-great-deeds. A daughter of their race still sat on the Scottish throne; but for Malcolm, the savage devastator of Northern England, Englishmen could not be expected to feel any love. William was now their king, their king crowned and anointed, the lord to whom their duty was owing as his men.? Him they would make fast on the throne of England; for him they were ready to win the Empire of all Britain. The English followers of Rufus loudly proclaimed their Chron. Petrib. 1088. ‘Ac Englisce men swa peah fengon to pam cynge heora hlaforde on fultume.” The numbers come from Orderic (667A); “Anglorum triginta millia tune ad servitium regis sponte sua convenerunt.” ? Ord. Vit. 667 A. ‘Passim per totum Albionem impera, omnesque rebelles deice regali justitia.” * Ib, “ Viriliter age, ut regis filius et legitime ad regnum assumptus ; securus in hoc regno dominare omnibus.” MARCH OF THE ENGLISH ARMY. 67 hatred of rebellion. They even, we are told, called on cuap. 1. their leader to study the history of past times, where he would see how faithful Englishmen had ever been to their kings. At the head of this great and zealous host William William's the Red set forth from London. He set forth at the™"”” head of an English host, to fight against Norman enemies in the Kentish and South-Saxon lands. And in that host there may well have been men who had marched forth from London on the like errand only two-and-twenty years before. Great as were the changes which had swept over the land, men must have been still living, still able to bear arms, who had dealt their blows in the Malfosse of Senlac amidst the last glimmer- ings of light on the day of Saint Calixtus. The enemy was nationally and even personally the same. The English work before all others at the present moment was too’ * seize the man whose spiritual exhortations had stirred up Norman valour on that unforgotten day, and whose temporal arm had wielded, if not the sword, at least the war-club, in the first rank of the invaders. Odo, the invader of old, the oppressor of later days, the head and front of the evil rede of the present moment, was the foremost object of the loyal and patriotic hatred of every Englishman in the Red King’s army. Could he be seized, it would be easier to seize his accomplices.2 The great object of the campaign was therefore to recover the castle of Rochester, the strong- hold where the rebel Bishop, with his allies from 1 Ord. Vit. 667 A. “Solerter Anglorum rimare historias, inveniesque semper fidos principibus suis Angligenas.” Fancy William Rufus sitting down to study the Chronicles, as his brother Henry may likely enough have done. 2 Chron. Petrib. 1088. ‘Ferdon pa toweard Hrofeceastre and woldon pone bisceop Odan begytan, pohtan gif hi hefdon hine, pe wees erur heafod to pam unrede, pet hi mihton pe bet begytan ealla pa o8re.” F2 68 THE EARLY DAYS OF WILLIAM RUFUS. cuar. 1. Boulogne and from Belléme, bade their defiance to the King and people of England. It was not however deemed good to march at once upon the immediate centre of the rebellion. A glance at the map will show that it was better policy not to make the attack on Rochester while both the other rebel strongholds, Tunbridge and Pevensey, remained Tunbridge unsubdued. The former of these, a border-post of Kent caste. and Sussex, guarding the upper course of the stream that flows by Rochester, would, if won for the King, put a strong barrier between Rochester and Pevensey. Attack on The march on Rochester therefore took a roundabout eee course, and this part of the war opened by an attack on Tunbridge which was the first exploit of the Red pe o King’s English army. Ata point on the Medway about °* four miles within the Kentish border, at the foot of the high ground reaching northward from the actual frontier of the two ancient kingdoms, the winding river receives the waters of several smaller streams, and forms a group of low islands and peninsulas. On the slightly rising ground to the north, commanding the stream and its bridge, a mound had risen, fenced by a ditch on the exposed side to the north. This ancient fortress had grown into the castle of Gilbert the son of Richard, called of Clare and of Tunbridge, the son of the famous Count Gilbert of the early days of the Conqueror. As Tunbridge now stands, the outer defences of the castle stand between the mound and the river, and the 1 It is somewhat singular that, though Richard appears in Domesday as “Ricardus de Tonebrige” as well as “ Ricardus filius Gisleberti comitis” (14 et al.), and though his “leva” or “lowy” (see Ellis, i. 212) is often spoken of, yet Tunbridge castle itself is not entered. See on Richard of Bienfaite, Clare, or Tunbridge, N. C. vol. ii. p.196; iv.579. A singular story is tuld in the Continuation of William of Jumigges (viii. 15), how Tunbridge was granted in exchange for Brionne, and measured by the rope. See Appendix 8. TAKING OF TUNBRIDGE CASTLE. 69 mound, bearing the shell-keep, is yoked together in a cnar. m. striking way with one of the noblest gateways of the later form of medieval military art.! The general arrangements of the latter days of the eleventh century cannot have been widely different. The mound, doubt- less a work of English hands turned. to the uses of the stranger, was the main stronghold to be won. It was held by a body of Bishop. Odo’s knights, under the com- mand of its own lord Gilbert; to win it for the King and his people was an object only second to that of seizing the traitor prelate himself. The rebel band bade defiance to the King and his army. The castle held. out for two days; but the zeal of the English was not to be withstood; no work could be more to their liking than that of attacking a Norman castle on their own soil, even with a Norman King as their leader. The The castle castle was stormed; the native Chronicler, specially recording the act of his countrymen, speaks of it, like the eastles. of York in the days of Waltheof, as “to- broken.”? Most likely the buildings on the mound were thus “tobroken;” but some part of the castle en- closure must have been left habitable and defensible. For the garrison, with their chief Gilbert, were ad- mitted to terms; and Gilbert, who had been wounded 1 At Tunbridge the mound and the gateway stand side by side, as indeed they do, though less conspicuously, at Arundel and Lewes. A wall is built from the gateway to the keep on the mound, losing itself, as it were, in the side of the mound. The mound thus stands half within and half without the enclosure formed by the gateway. 2 Chron. Petrib. 1088. “ Pa Englisce men ferdon and tobracon pone castel, and pa men pe pberinne weron gridodon wid pone cyng.” So Simeon of Durham; “Sed viriliter Angli insilientes in illud, destruxerunt totum.castrum, et qui intus erant in manus regi dederunt.” Florence gives some further details; “Tunebrycgiam cui preerat Gilebertus filius Ricardi, contrarium sibi invenit: obsedit, in biduo expugnavit, vulneratum Gilebertum cum castello ad deditionem coegit.” Is it possible that, according to Orderic’s second account of the rebellion (765 A, B), we are still only in the Easter week ? 70 THE EARLY DAYS OF WILLIAM RUFUS. cuar. 1. in the struggle, was left there under the care of a loyal guard. The first blow had thus gone well to the mark. Such an exploit as this, the capture by English valour of one of the hated strongholds of the stranger, was enough to raise the spirit of William’s English followers to the highest pitch. And presently they were summoned to a work which would call forth a yet fiercer glow of They national feeling. After Tunbridge had fallen, they set rade forth on their march towards Rochester, believing that Rochester. the arch-enemy Odo was there. Their course would be to the north-east, keeping some way from the left side of the Medway; Bishop Gundulf’s tower at Malling, if it was already built, would be the most marked point on the road. But they were not to reach Rochester by so easy a path. While they were on their way, news came to the King that his uncle was no longer San at Rochester. While the King was before Tunbridge, ’ the Bishop with a few followers had struck to the south-east, and had reached his brother's castle of Odo ex- Pevensey.’ The Count of Mortain and lord of Cornwall ie of Was perhaps wavering, like his neighbour at Arundel. wis? The Bishop exhorted him to hold out. While the King besieged Rochester, they would be safe at Pevensey, and meanwhile Duke Robert and his host would cross the 1 See N.C. vol. iv. p. 366. While I am revising my text, an account of this tower by Mr. Clark has appeared in the Builder, November 27, 1880. ? Chron. Petrib. 1088. “Se cyng mid his here ferde toweard Hrofe- ceastre, and wendon pet se bisceop were prinne, ac hit weard pam cynge cud pet se bisceop wes afaren to pam castele on Pefenesea.” Florence helps us to an hexameter in the middle of his prose; “ Relatum erat ei ibi esse episcopum Odonem cum omnibus suis et cohortem ultramarinam .... Fama volans dicti pervenit Odonis ad aures, et cum sociis inito consilio, relinquens Roveceastram, cum paucis adiit cas- trum fratris sui Roberti Moritanensis comitis quod Pevenessa dicitur.” «ire the “cohors ultramarina,” those who had come with Eustace and Robert of Belléme ? ODO AT PEVENSEY. 71 sea. The Duke would then win the crown, and would cap. 1. reward all their services.! It is well to be reminded by words like these what Tateress . . 0. Uke the professed object of the insurgents was. It would Robert in be easy to forget that all the plundering that had been cael done from Rochester to chester had been done in the name of the lawful rights of Duke Robert. The men. who harried Berkeley and who were overthrown at Worcester were but the forerunners of the Duke of the Normans, who was to come, as spring went on, with aus emit . - _ looked for. the full force of his duchy.? It was not for nothing ‘ that King William had gathered his English army, when a new Norman Conquest was looked for. But He fails to help th as yet the blow was put off; Duke Robert came not;ros),.- he seemed to think that the crown of England could be won with ease at any moment. When the first news of William’s accession came, when those around him urged him to active measures to support his rights, he had spoken of the matter with childish scorn. Were he at the ends of the earth—the city of Alexandria His child- é é » ish boast- is taken as the standard of distance—the English would ne. a not dare to make William king, William would not dare to accept the crown at their hands, without waiting for the coming of his elder brother.? Both the impossible 1 Flor. Wig. 1088. ‘‘Fratrem reperiens, cum ut se teneat hortatur, pol- licens se securos ibi posse esse, et dum rex ad expugnandam Roveceastram intenderet, comitem Normannie cum magno exercitu venturum, seque suosque liberaturum et magna fautoribus. suis dando premia regnum accep- turum.” ? Ord. Vit. 666 D. “Statuerat precursores suos vere redeunte sequi cum multis legionibus militum.” 3 Cont. Will. Gem. viii. 2. “Quum sui fideles eum exhortarentur ut regnum Angliz sibi a fratre prereptum velocius armis sibimet restitueret, simplicitate solita et, ut ita dicam, imprudentiz proxima, respondisse fertur, ‘Per angelos Dei [Gregory's pun in another form], si essem in Alexandria, exspectarent me Angli, nec ante adventum meum Regem sibi facere aude- rent. Ipse etiam Willelmus frater meus, quod eum presumpsisse dicitur pro capite suo sine mea permissione minime attentaret.” 72 THE EARLY DAYS OF WILLIAM RUFUS. cuap. u. things had happened, and Robert and his partisans had now before them the harder task of driving William from a throne which was already his, instead of merely hindering him from mounting it. Up to this time Robert had done His pro. nothing; but now, in answer to the urgent prayers of mss his uncles, he did get together a force for their help, and promised that he would himself follow it before long. William The news of Odo’s presence at Pevensey at once ea changed the course of William’s march. Wherever the Bishop of Bayeux was, there was the point to be aimed at.2 Instead of going on to Rochester, the King turned and marched straight upon Pevensey. The exact line of his march is not told us, but it could not fail to cross, perhaps it might for a while even coincide with, the line of march by which Harold had pressed to the South-Saxon The Eng- coast on the eve of the great battle. Things might seem oe to have strangely turned about, when an English army, Pevensey. Jed by a son of the Conqueror, marched to lay siege to the two brothers and chief fellow-workers. of the Con- queror within the stronghold which was the very first- fruits of the Conquest. The Roman walls of Anderida were still there; but their whole circuit was no longer desolate, as it had been when the Conqueror landed, and The castle aS we see it now again. One part of the ancient city had iia again become a dwelling-place of man. As Pevensey now stands, the south-eastern corner of the Roman en- 1 Chron. Petrib 1088. “ Betwyx pissum se eorl of Normandige Rod- beard, bes cynges brover, gaderode swie mycel fol, and pshte to gewinnane Englelande mid pera manna fultume pe weron innan pisan lande- ongean pone cyng, and he sende of his mannan to pisum lande, and wolde cuman himsylf efter.” ? Florence seems here to translate what the Chronicler had said:a little before (see above, p. 67); “ Inito itaque salubri consilio, ium eo usque cum exercitu persequitur, sperans se belli citius finem assequuturum, si ante triumphare posset de principibus malorum predictorum.” SIEGE OF PEVENSEY.. 73 closure, now again as forsaken as the rest, is fenced: in omar. u. by the moat, the walls, the towers, of a castle of the later type, the type of the Edwards, but whose towers are built in evident imitation of the solid Roman bas- tions. Then, or at some earlier time, the Roman wall itself received a new line of parapet, and one at least of its bastions was raised to form a tower in the restored line of defence. When the house of Mortain passed away in the second generation, the honour of Pevensey became the possession of the house of Laigle, and from them, perhaps in popular speech, certainly in the dialect of local antiquaries, Anderida became the Honour of the Eagle! Within the circuit of the later castle, close on the ancient wall, rises, covered with shapeless ruins, a small mound which doubtless marks the site of the elder keep of Count Robert. Within that keep the two sons of Herleva, Bishop and Count, looked down on the shore close at their feet where they had landed with their mightier brother two-and-twenty years before. Within that stern memorial of their victory, they had now to defend themselves against the sons and brothers of men who had fallen by their hands, and whose lands they had parted out among them for a.prey. The siege of Pevensey proved a far harder work than Thesiegeof the siege of Tunbridge. The Roman wall with its new*°™’” Norman defences was less easy to storm than the an- cient English mound. William the Red. had to wait longer before Pevensey than William the Great had had to wait before Exeter. The fortress was strong; the spirit of its defenders was high; for Odo was among them. The King beset the castle with a great host; 1 So I find it called in several papers in the Sussex Archeological:Collec- vions. But. the local antiyuaries seem hardly to have fully grasped the fact that there is a town in Normandy called Laigle, and that the family with which.we are concerned.took its name from it.. 74 THE EARLY DAYS OF WILLIAM RUFUS. cuap. 1. he brought the artillery of the time to bear upon its defences; but for six weeks his rebellious uncles bore up against the attacks of William and his Englishmen.' Duke Ro- And, while the siege went on, another of the chances of rs ee war seemed yet more thoroughly to reverse what had happened on the same spot not a generation back. Again a Norman host landed, or strove to land, within the haven of Pevensey. But they came under other guidance than that which had led the men who came before them on the like errand. When William crossed the sea, his own Mora sailed foremost and swiftest in the whole fleet, and William himself was the first man in his army to set foot on English ground. William in Hoag short led his fleet; his son only sent his. Robert still behind. tarried in Normandy; he was coming, but not yet; his men were to make their way into England how they could without him. They came, and they found the South-Saxon coast better guarded than it had been when Harold had to strive against two invaders at once. ae When Robert's ships drew nigh, they found the ships the Nor- of King William watching the coast; they found the ca soldiers of King William lining the shore.? On such a spot, in such a cause, no Englishman’s heart or hand was likely to fail him. The attempt at a new Norman landing at Pevensey was driven back. Those who escaped the English sailors drew near to the shore, but only to fall into the hands of the English land-force. It must not be forgotten that, as the coast-line then stood, when the sea covered what is now the low ground between the + Chron, Petrib. 1088. “And se cyng mid his here ferde efter, and beszett pone castel abutan mid swide mycele here fulle six wucan.” The artillery comes from Florence; ‘“Accelerat, machinas parat, patruum utrumque obsidet ; locus erat munitissimus ; ad expugnationem indies la- borat.” William of Malmesbury cuts the siege of Pevensey short, and Orderic leaves it out altogether. -* See Appendix E, DEFEAT OF THE NORMAN INVASION, 75 castle and the beach, the struggle for the landing must cuar. 1. have gone on close under the walls of the ancient city and of the new-built castle. The English who beat back the Normans of Duke Robert’s fleet as they strove to land must have been themselves exposed to the arrows of the Normans who guarded Count Robert’s donjon. But the work was done. Some of the in- vaders lived to be taken prisoners; but the more part, a greater number than any man could tell, were smitten down by the English axes or thrust back to meet their doom in the waves of the Channel. Some who deemed that they had still the means of escape tried to hoist the sails of their ships and get them back to their own land. But the elements fought against them. The winds which had so long refused to bring the fleet of William from Normandy to England now refused no less to take back the fleet of Robert from England to Normandy. And there were no means now, as there had been by the’ Dive and at Saint Valery, for waiting patiently by a friendly coast, or for winning the good will of the South- Saxon saints by prayers or offerings.) Even Saint Martin of the Place of Battle had no call to help the eldest son of his founder against his founder’s namesake and chosen heir. The ships could not be moved; the Eng- lish were upon them; the Normans, a laughing-stock to their enemies, rather than fall into their enemies’ hands, leaped from their benches into the less hostile waters. The attempt of the Conqueror’s eldest son to Utter do by deputy what his father had done in person fur of had utterly come to nought. The new invaders of. England had been overthrown by English hands on the spot where the work of the former invaders had begun. After the defeat of this attempt to bring help to the 1 See N. C. vol. iii. p. 395. 76 CHAP. Ii. Alleged death of THE EARLY DAYS OF WILLIAM RUFUS. besieged at Pevensey, nothing more was heard of Duke Robert’s coming in person. If we may believe a single William of confused and doubtful narrative, the defenders of the Warren. The castle surrenders. Terms granted to Odo. Rochester to be sur- rendered. castle had at least the satisfaction of slaying one of the chief men in the royal army. We are told that Earl William of Warren was mortally wounded in the leg by an arrow from the walls of Pevensey, and was carried to Lewes only to die there.1 However this may be, the failure of the Norman expedition carried with it the failure of the hopes of the besieged. Food now began to fail them, and Odo and Robert found that there was nothing left for them but to surrender to their nephew on the best terms that they could get. Of the terms which were granted to the Count of Mortain and lord of Cornwall we hear nothing. The Bishop of Bayeux and Earl of Kent was a more important person, and we have full details. of everything that concerned him. The terms granted to the chief stirrer up of the whole rebellion were certainly favourable. He was called on to swear that he would leave England, and would never come back, unless the King sent for him, and that, before he went, he would cause the castle of Rochester to be sur- rendered.? For the better carrying out of the last of his engagements, the Bishop was sent on towards Rochester 1 Liber de Hyda, 299. ‘‘ Willelmus de Warennia apud obsidionem Peveneselli sagitta in crure valde vulneratus, Leuwias cum omnium merore deportatus est.” The writer goes on to describe Earl William’s last testa- ment and death. It will be remembered (see above, p. 62) that Orderic makes William of Warren die quietly at a later time; but, small as is the authority of the Hyde writer, it is strange if he altogether invented or dreamed this minute account. ? Chron. Petrib. 1088. ‘ Sy3éan heom ateorede mete widinnan pam castele, pa gyrndon hi griSas, and agefan hine pam cynge, and se bisceop swor pet he wolde ut of Englelande faran, and n4é mare cuman on pisan lande butan se cyng him efter sende, and pet he wolde agyfan pone castel on Hrofeceastre.” So William of Malmesbury (iv. 306); ‘“‘Captum ad quod: libuit jusjurandum impulit, ut Anglia decederet et Rovecestram traderet.” ‘ODO ENTERS ROCHESTER. 77 in the keeping of a small body of the King’s troops, cmap. 1. while the King himself slowly followed. No further treachery was feared; it was taken for granted that those who held the castle for Odo would give it up at once when Odo came in person to bid them do so. These hopes were vain; the young nobles who were left in the castle, Count Eustace, Robert of Belléme, and the rest, were not scrupulous as to the faith of treaties, and they had no mind to give up their stronghold till they were made to do so by force of arms. Odo was brought before the walls of Rochester. The leaders of the party that brought him called on the defenders of the castle to surrender; such was the bidding alike of the King who was absent and of the Bishop who was there in person. But Odo’s friends could see from the wall that the voices of the King’s messengers told one story, while the looks of the Bishop told another. They threw open the gates ; The garri- they rushed forth on the King’s men, who were in no case to resist them, and carried both them and the he again became the life and soul of the defence. 1 Chron. u.s. ‘‘ Ealswa se bisceop ferde and sceolde agifan bone castel and se cyng sende his men mid him.” So Will. Malms. “ Ad quod implen- dum eum cum fidelibus suis premisit, lento pede preeuntes subsecutus. . . . Regii cum episcopo pauci et inermes (quis enim eo presente insidias time- ret ?) circa muros desiliunt, clamantes oppidanis ut portas aperiant ; hoc epi- scopum presentem velle, hoc regem absentem jubere.” ? Will. Malms. u.s. “ At illi, de muro conspicati quod vultus episcopi cum verbis oratorum non conveniret, raptim apertis portis ruunt, equos involant, omnesque cum episcopo vinctos abducunt.” This explains the shorter account in the Chronicle; ‘pa arisan ba men pe weron innan pam castele, and namon pone bisceop and pes cynges men, and dydon hi on heftmenge.” It is now that both the Chronicle and William give the names of the chief nobles who were in the castle. Henry of Huntingdon (1088, p. 215) strongly marks Odo’s treachery ; ‘‘ Eustachius consul et ceteri proceres qui urbi in- erant, fallacia ipsius, episcopum regisque ministros ceperunt et in carcerem retruserunt.” son refuse to surren- der; Odo taken pri- Bishop prisoners into the castle.2 Odo was doubtless cs by a willing captive; once within the walls of Rochester, ni Giese 78 CHAP. II. William’s Niding Proclama- tion. The second English muster, THE EARLY DAYS OF WILLIAM RUFUS. It perhaps did not tend to the moral improvement of William Rufus to find himself thus shamefully de- ceived by one so near of kin to himself, so high in ecclesiastical rank. At the moment the treachery of Odo stirred him up to greater efforts. Rochester should be won, though it might need the whole strength of the kingdom to win it. But the King saw that it was only by English hands that it could be won. He gathered around him his English followers, and by their advice put out a proclamation in ancient form bidding all men, French and English, from port and from upland, to come with all speed to the royal muster, if they would not be branded with the shameful name of Nith- ing. That name, the name which had been fixed, as the lowest badge of infamy, on the murderer Swegen,' was a name under which no Englishman could live; and it seems to have been held that strangers settled on English ground would have put on enough of English feeling to be stirred in the like sort by the fear of having such a mark set upon them. What the French- men did we are not told; but the fyrd of England answered loyally to the call of a King who thus knew how to appeal to the most deep-set feelings and tradi- tions of Englishmen. Men came in crowds to King 1 See N. C. vol. ii. p. 104. 2 Will. Malms, iv. 30€. ‘Ille [rex] .... Anglos suos appellat ; jubet ut compatriotas advocent ad obsidionem venire, nisi si qui velint sub nomine Niding, quod nequam sonat, remanere. Angli, qui nihil miserius putarent quam hujusce vocabuli dedecore aduri, catervatim ad regem confluunt, et invincibilem exercitum faciunt.” This leaves out the fact that the pro- clamation was addressed both to French and English. The words of the Chronicle are express; “ Da se cyng undergeat pat ping, pa ferde he efter mid bam here pe he peer heefde, and sende ofer eall Englalande, and bead pet ele man pe were wnniding sceolde cuman to him, Frencisce and Englisce, of porte and of uppelande.” We can hardly doubt that we have here the actual words of the proclamation. It must not be forgotten that, by the law of the Conqueror, Frenchmen who had settled in King Eadward’s day were counted as English. See N.C. vol. iv. p. 620. SIEGE OF ROCHESTER. 79 William’s muster, and, in the course of May, a vast host cnap. 1. beset the fortress of Rochester. According to a practice The siege of which we have often heard already, two temporary eee forts, no doubt of wood, were raised, so as to hem in the besieged and to cut off their communications from with- out The site of one at least of these may be looked for on the high ground to the south of the castle, said to be itself partly artificial, and known as Boley Hill.? The besieged soon found that all resistance was useless. They were absolutely alone. Pevensey and Tunbridge were now in the King’s hands; since the overthrow of Duke Robert’s fleet, they could look for no help from Normandy; they could look for none from yet more distant Bristol or Durham. Till the siege began, they Straits had lived at the cost of the loyal inhabitants of Kent id and London. For not only the Archbishop, but most of the chief land-owners of Kent were on the King’s side.® This is a point to be noticed amid the general falling away of the Normans. For the land-owners of Kent, a land where no Englishman was a tenant-in-chief, were a class preeminently Norman. But we can well believe that the rule of Odo, who spared neither French nor English who stood in his way,*may have been little more to the liking of his own countrymen than it was to that of 1 Ord. Vit. 667 B. ‘“ Animosus rex....oppidum Maio mense cum grandi exercitu potenter obsedit, firmatisque duobus castellis omnem exe- undi facultatem hostibus abstulit.” It must have been late in May, as six weeks had been spent before Pevensey. Indeed, if the siege did begin in the Easter week, it must have been June. ? See Mr. Clark in the Archzological Journal, vol. xxxii. p. 205. 3 This appears from the words of Florence; ‘ Hrofenses Cantwarien- sibus et Lundoniensibus cedes inferunt et incendia, Landfrancus enim archiepiscopus et pene omnes optimates ejusdem provincie erant cum rege.” Orderic too (u.s.) points out the advantageous position of Rochester for such purposes; “In medio positi laxis habenis Lundoniam et Cantuariam devastarent.” * See N.C. vol. v. p. 748. 80 CHAP, II. Plague of flies. THE EARLY DAYS OF WILLIAM RUFUS. the men of the land. But all chance of plunder was now cut off; a crowd of men and horses were packed closely together within the circuit of the fortress, with little heed to health or cleanliness. Sickness was rife among them, and a plague of flies, a plague which is likened to the ancient plague of Egypt, added to their distress. There was no hope within their own defences, and beyond them a host lay spread which there was no chance of overcoming. At last the heart of Odo himself They agree failed him. He and his fiercest comrades, Eustace of to surren- der, Lesson of the war: the King stronger than any one noble, Odo and Roger of Montgo- mery. Boulogne, even Robert of Belléme, at last brought them- selves to crave for peace at the hands of the offended and victorious King. It was a great and a hard lesson which Odo and his accomplices learned at Pevensey and Rochester. It was the great lesson of English history, the great result of the teaching of William the Great on the day of Salisbury, that no one noble, however great his power, however strong the force which he could gather round him, could strive with any hope of success against the King of the whole land. In the royal army itself Odo might see one who had risen as high as himself among the conquerors of England, the father of the fiercest of the warriors who stood beside him, following indeed the King’s bidding, but following it against his will. Roger of Montgomery was in the host before Rochester, an unwilling partner in a siege which was waged against his own sons. Both he and other Normans in the King’s army are charged with giving more of real help to the besieged than they gave to the King whom * Ord. Vit. 667 C. ‘In oppido Rofensi plaga similis A°gyptiorum plagse apparuit, qua Deus, qui semper res humanas curat et juste disponit, antiqua miracula nostris etiam temporibus recentia ostendit.” N obody could eat, unless his neighbour drove away the flies; so they wielded the flapper by turns. THE LESSON OF THE WAR. 81 they no longer dared to withstand openly.! But it was cuar. u. in vain that even so great a lord as Earl Roger sought to strive or to plot against England and her King. The The unity policy of the Conqueror, crowning the work of earlier *=™2'"* kings, had made England a land in which no Earl of Kent or of Shrewsbury could gather a host able to with- stand the King of the English at the head of the English people? When the days came that kings were to be brought low, it was not by the might of this or that overgrown noble, but by the people of the land, with the barons of the land acting only as the first rank of the people. Those days were yet far away; but an earlier stage in the chain of progress had been reached. The Norman nobles had taken one step towards be- coming the first rank of the English people, when they learned that King and people together were stronger than they. The defenders of Rochester had brought themselves Rufus re- to ask for peace; but they still thought that they could em make terms with their sovereign. Let the King secure Pes*g*. to them the lands and honours which they held in his kingdom, and they would give up the castle of Rochester to his will; they would hold all that they had as of his grant, and would serve him faithfully as their natural lord? The wrath of the Red King burst forth, as well it might. Odo at least was asking at Rochester for more favourable terms than those to which he had already sworn 1 See above, p. 62. ? Will. Malms. iv. 306. ‘Nec diutius potuere pati oppidani quin se traderent, experti quamlibet nobilem, quamlibet consertam manum, nihil adversus regem Angliz posse proficere.” 8 Ord. Vit. 667 D. “ Guillermum regem nuntiis petierunt ut pacem cum eis faceret, ac oppidum ab eis reciperet, tali tenore ut terras, fundos, et omnia quz hactenus habuerant, ab ipso reciperent, et ipsi eidem ut naturali domino [cynehlaford] fideliter amodo servirent.” VOL, I. G 82 CHAP. II, THE EARLY DAYS OF WILLIAM RUFUS, at Pevensey. William answered that he would grant no terms; he had strength enough to take the castle, The King’s whether they chose to surrender it or not. And the threats. Pleadings for the besieged. story runs that he added—not altogether in the spirit of his father—that all the traitors within the walls should be hanged on gibbets, or put to such other forms of death as might please him.’ But those of his followers who had friends or kinsfolk within the castle came to the King to crave mercy for them. A dialogue follows in our most detailed account, in which the scriptural reference to the history of Saul and David may be set down as the garnish of the monk of Saint Evroul, but which contains arguments that are likely enough to have been used on the two sides of the question. An appeal is made to William’s own greatness and victory, to his position as the successor of his father. God, who helps those who trust in him, gives to good fathers a worthy offspring to come after them. The men in the castle, the proud youths and the old men blinded by greediness, had learned that the power of kings had not died out in the island realm. Those who had come from Normandy—here we seem to hear an argument from English mouths — sweeping down upon the land like kites, they who had deemed that the kingly stock had died out in England, had learned that the younger Willam was in no way weaker than the elder.2 Mercy ? Ord. Vit. 667 D. “ His auditis rex iratus est, et valde rigidus intu- muit, et in nullo flexus legatorum postulationibus non acquievit; sed perfidos traditores in oppido virtute potenti capiendos juravit, et mox patibulis suspendendos, et aliis mortium diversis generibus de terra delendos asseruit.” * Ib. “Ecce turgidi juvenes et cupiditate cecati senes jam satis edocti sunt quod regiz vires in hac insula nondum defecerunt. Nam qui de Normannia, tamquam milvi ad predam, super nos cum impetu advolarunt, et in Anglia regiam stirpem defecisse arbitrati sunt, jam Guillelmum ju- venem Guillelmo sene non debiliorem, cohibente Deo, experti sunt,” DEBATE BEFORE ROCHESTER, 83 was the noblest attribute of a conqueror; something cuar. 1. too was due to the men who had helped him to his victory, and who now pleaded for those who had under- gone enough of punishment for their error. Rufus is Answer of made to answer that he is thankful both to God and ‘° Sis to his faithful followers. But he fears that he should be lacking in that justice which is a king’s first duty, if he were to spare the men who had risen up against him without cause, and who had sought the life of a king who, as he truly said, had done them no harm.! The Red King is made to employ the argument which we have so often come across on behalf of that severe discharge of princely duty which made the names of his father and his younger brother live in men’s grateful remembrance. He fears lest their prayers should lead him away from the strait path of justice. He who spares robbers and traitors and perjured persons takes away the peace and safety of the innocent, and only sows loss and slaughter for the good and for the unarmed people. This course is one which the Red King was very far from following in after years; but it is quite possible that he may have made such professions at any stage of his life, and he may have even made them honestly at this stage. But on behalf of the chiefest Pleadings of all culprits, the counsellors of mercy had special ®* 0% arguments. Odo is the King’s uncle, the companion of his father in the Conquest of England. He is moreover a bishop, a priest of the Lord, a sharer in the privileges to which, in one side of his twofold character, he had 1 Ord. Vit. 668 B. ‘Quid sceleratis peccavi? quid illis nocui? quid mortem meam totis nisibus procuraverunt, et omnes pro posse suo contra me populos cum detrimento multorum erexerunt ?” 2 Tb. ‘ Quisquis parcit perjuris et latronibus, plagiariis et execratis proditoribus, aufert pacem et quietem innocentibus, innumerasque cades et damna, serit bonis et inermibus.” We seem to be reading the cover of the Edinburgh Review. G2 84 THE EARLY DAYS OF WILLIAM RUFUS. cup. 1. once appealed in vain. The King is implored not to lay hands on one of Odo’s holy calling, not to shed blood which was at once kindred and sacred. Let the Bishop of Bayeux at least be spared, and allowed to go back to Pleadings his proper place in his Norman diocese.! Count Eustace for Eustace and Robert too was the son of his father’s old ally and follower— of Belléme. the invasion which Eustace’s father had once wrought in that very shire seems to be conveniently forgotten.’ Robert of Belléme had been loved and promoted by his father; he held no small part of Normandy; lord of many strong castles, he stood out foremost among the nobles of the duchy.’ It was no more than the bidding of prudence to win over such men by favours, and to have their friend- ship instead of their enmity.* As for the rest, they were valiant knights, whose proffered services the King would do well not to despise. The King had shown how far he surpassed his enemies in power, riches, and valour ; let him now show how far he surpassed them in mercy and greatness of soul. 1 Ord. Vit. 668 C. ‘Baiocensis Odo patruus tuus est et pontificals sanctifi- catione preditus est.” ‘Cum patre tuo Anglos subjugavit ’—a merit which would hardly be pleaded in the hearing of the King’s army. He is “‘antistes Domini,” and so forth. “ Omnes precamur ut illi benevolentiam tuam con- cedas et illesum in Normanniam ad diocesim suam abire permittas.” 2 Tb. ‘Comes Boloniensis patri tuo satis fuit fidelis, et in rebus arduis strenuus adjutor et contubernalis.”” There must be some confusion between father and son. 3 Ib. “Magnam Normannie partem possidet, fortissimisque castellis corroboratus pene omnibus vicinis suis et Neustrize proceribus praeminet.” * Here (ib. D) a hexameter peeps out ; “Tdem qui ledit, fors post ut amicus obedit.” It is the doctrine of Aias in Sophoklés (659) ; éya 8 énictapyar yap dpriws, oe & 7’ éxOpds piv és roadvd’ éxOapréos, ds kal prqnowy adds. The balancing clause was not called for. 5 They were (ib.) ‘‘eximii tirones”—swide gode cnihtas "—“ quorum servitutem, inclite rex, parvi pendere non debes.” ‘Ib. “Igitur, quos jam superasti potestate, divitiis, et ingenti probi- SURRENDER OF ROCHESTER, 85 To this appeal Rufus yielded. It was not indeed an ouar. mn. appeal to his knightly faith, which was in no way Yield pledged to the defenders of Rochester. But it was an appeal to any gentler feelings that might be in him, and still more so to that vein of self-esteem and self-exaltation which was the leading feature in his cha- racter. If Rufus had an opportunity of showing himself greater than other men, as neither justice nor mercy stood in the way of his making the most of it, so neither did any mere feeling of wrath or revenge. As his advisers told him, he was so successful that he could afford to be mereiful, and merciful he accordingly was. To have hanged or blinded his enemies would not have so distinctly exalted himself, as he must have felt him- self exalted, when those who had defied him, those who had tried to make terms with him, were driven to accept such terms as he chose to give them. The Red He grants King then plighted his faith—and his faith when once ™* so plighted was never broken—that the lives and limbs of the garrison should be safe, that they should come forth from the castle with their arms and horses. But they must leave the realm; they must give up all hope of keeping their lands and honours in England, as long at least as King William lived.! To these terms they had to yield; but Odo, even in his extremity, craved for one favour. He had to bear utter discomfiture, the Odo asks failure of his hopes, the loss of his lands and honours; (27°, but he prayed to be at least spared the public scorn of of war. the victors. His proud soul was not ready to bear the looks, the gestures, the triumphant shouts and songs, of the people whom he had trodden to the earth, and who tate, subjuga tibi magnificentia et pietate.” On the sense of “ magnifi- centia,” cf. N.C. vol. i. p. 261. ! Ord. Vit. 668 D, ‘“ Omnem spem habendi hereditates et terras in regno ejus, quamdiu ipse regnaret, funditus abscidit.” 86 THE EARLY DAYS OF WILLIAM RUFUS. car. 1, had now risen up to be his conquerors. He asked, it would seem, to be allowed to march out with what in modern phrase are called the honours of war. His par- ticular prayer was that the trumpets might not sound when he and his followers came forth from the castle. This, we are told, was the usual ceremony after the overthrow of an enemy and the taking of a fortress.! The King was again wrathful at the request, and said that not for a thousand marks of gold would he grant Humilia- it.2 Odo had therefore to submit, and to drink the cup tion of Odo. f his humiliation to the dregs. With sad and downcast looks he and his companions came forth from the strong- hold which could shelter them no longer. The trumpets sounded merrily to greet them.? But other sounds more fearful than the voice of the trumpet sounded in the ears of Odo as he came forth. Men saw passing before them, a second time hurled down from his high estate—and this time not by the bidding of a Norman king but by the arms of the English people—the man who stood forth in English eyes as the imbodiment of all that was blackest and basest in the foreign dominion. Odo might keep his eyes fixed on the ground, but the eyes of the Wrath of nation which he had wronged were full upon him. The oe English followers of Rufus pressed close upon him, him. crying out with shouts which all could hear, “ Halters, bring halters; hang up the traitor Bishop and his accom- plices on the gibbet.” They turned to the King whose throne they had made fast for him, and hailed him as a national ruler. “Mighty King of the English, let * Ord. Vit. 668 D. ‘Tune Odo pontifex a rege Rufo impetrare tempta- vit, ne tubicines in eorum egressu tubis canerent, sicut moris est dum hostes vincuntur et parvum oppidum capitur.’” Why “parvum” ? * Ib. “Nec se concessurum etiam propter mille auri marcos palam asseruit.” * Ib. “‘Oppidanis cum meerore et verecundia egredientibus, et regalibus tubis cum gratulatione clangentibus.” HUMILIATION AND BANISHMENT OF ODO. 87 not the stirrer up of all evil go away unharmed. The cnar. u. perjured murderer, whose craft and cruelty have taken away the lives of thousands of men, ought not to live any longer.”! Cries like these, mingled with every form of cursing and reviling, with every threat which could rise to the lips of an oppressed people in their day of vengeance, sounded in the ears of Odo and his com- rades.2 But the King’s word had been passed, and the thirst for vengeance of the wrathful English had to be baulked. Odo and those who had shared with him in He leaves the defence of Rochester went away unhurt; but they eee had to leave England, and to lose all their English lands and honours, at least for a season. But Odo left England and all that’ he had in England for ever.2 The career of the Earl of Kent was over; of the later career of the Bishop of Bayeux we shall hear again. The rebellion was now at an end in southern Eng- End of the land. Revolt had been crushed at Worcester, at Pe-‘>elic™- vensey, and at Rochester, and we hear nothing more of those movements of which Bishop Geoffrey had made Bristol the centre, and which had met with such a re- verse at the hands of the gallant defenders of Ilchester. 1 Ord. Vit. 669 A. “Multitude Anglorum que regi adherebat cunctis audientibus, vociferabatur, et dicebat ; Torques, torques afferte, traditorem episcopum cum suis complicibus patibulis suspendite. Magne rex Anglo- rum, cur sospitem pateris abire incentorem malorum? Non debet vivere perjurus homicida, qui dolis et crudelitatibus peremit hominum multa milia.” 2 Tb. ‘Hee et alia probra meestus antistes cum suis audivit.” 3 Chron. Petrib. 1088. ‘Se bisceop Odo mid pam mannum pe innan pam castele weron ofer sz ferdon, and se bisceop swa forlet pone wurd- scipe pe he on pis land hefde.” Orderic (669 A)—in his character of “Angligena” — moralizes; ‘Sic irreligiosus presul de Anglia expulsus est, et amplissimis possessionibus spoliatus est. Tunc maximos questus, quos cum facinore obtinuit, justo Dei judicio cum ingenti dedecore perdidit, et confusus Baiocas rediit, nec in Angliam postmodum repe- davit.” ‘ 88 THE EARLY DAYS OF WILLIAM RUFUS. cuar. 1. The chronology of the whole time is very puzzling. We Order of have no exact date for the surrender of Rochester; we are events. told only that it happened in the beginning of summer. But, as the siege of Pevensey lasted six weeks,’ it is im- possible to crowd all the events which had happened The since Easter into the time between Easter and Whitsun- Nomen tide. Otherwise the pentecostal Gemét would have been a the most natural season for some acts of authority which took place at some time during the year. The King was Confisca- now in a position to reward and to punish; and some oe e confiscations, some grants, were made by him soon after the rebellion came to an end. “ Many Frenchmen forlet their land and went over sea, and the King gave their land to the men that were faithful to him.’® Of these confiscations and grants we should be glad to have some details. Did any dispossessed Englishmen win back their ancient heritage? And, if so, did they keep their recovered heritage, notwithstanding the amnesty which at a some- what later time restored many of the rebels? One thing is clear, that the Frenchmen who are now spoken of were not the men of highest rank and greatest estates among the rebellious Normans. For them there was an amnesty Amnesty at once. Them, we are told, the King spared, for the Sir beta love of his father to whom they had been faithful fol- lowers, and out of reverence for their age which opened a speedy prospeet of their deaths. He was rewarded, it is added, by their repentant loyalty and thankfulness, ? Ord. Vit. 669 A. “Anno primo Guillelmi Rufi regis, in initio estatis, Rofensis urbs ei redita est, omniumque qui contra pacem enses acceperant, nequam commotio compressa est.” We shall see by the story of Robert of Rhuddlan, to which we shall presently come, that some of the King’s fol- lowers were at home again by the end of June. 2 See above, p. 74. ° Chron. Petrib. 1088. ‘Eac manige Frencisce men forleton heora land and ferdon ofer se, and se cyng geaf heora land pam mannum pe him holde weron.” CONFISCATIONS AND GRANTS, 89 which made them eager to please him by gifts and ser- cuar. u. vice of all kinds. The speed with which some of the greatest among the rebel leaders were restored to their old rank and their old places in the King’s favour is shown by the way in which, within a very few months, we find them acting on the King’s side against one who at the worst was their own accomplice, and who himself professed to have had no part or lot in their doings. We must now take up gens of again the puzzling story of Bishop William of Durham. of the nm We left him, according to his own version, hindered ae vene from coming to the King by the violence of the Sheriff of Yorkshire, and suffering a seven weeks’ harrying of his lands which carries us into the month of May.’ This is exactly the time when the national Chronicler sets the Bishop himself before us as carrying on a general harrying of the North country.’ It is likely enough that both stories are true; in a civil war above all it is easy, without the assertion of any direct false- hood, to draw two exactly opposite pictures by simply leaving out the doings of each side in turn. Anyhow the King had summoned the Bishop to his presence, and the Bishop had not come. The King now sends a more The King special and urgent summons, demanding the Bishop's *#" 7" presence in his court, that is, in all likelihood, at the Bishop. Whitsun Gemét, or at whatever assembly took its place 1 Ord. Vit. 669 B. “Quorumdam factiones sevissimis legibus puniit, aliquorum vero reatus ex industria dissimulavit, Antiquis baronibus, quos ab ipso aliquantum desciverat nequitia, versute pepercit, pro amore patris sui cui diu fideliter inheserant, et pro senectutis reverentia, sciens profecto quod non eos diu vigere sinerent morbi et mors propria. Porro quidam, quanto gravius se errasse in regiam majestatem noverunt, tanto ferventius omni tempore postmodum ei famulati sunt, et tam muneribus quam servitiis ac adulationibus multis modis placere studuerunt.” 2 See above, p. 32. 3 See above, p. 28. 90 CHAP. II. The Bishop’s complaints. Doings of Counts Alan and Odo. THE EARLY DAYS OF WILLIAM RUFUS. for that year! The message was sent by a prelate of high rank, that Abbot Guy who had just before been forced by Lanfranc upon the unwilling monks of Saint Augustine’s2 The Bishop was to accompany the Abbot to the King’s presence. But, instead of going with Guy, Bishop William, fearing the King’s wrath and the snares of his enemies, sent another letter, the bearer of which went under the Abbot’s protection. The letter curi- ously illustrates some of the features of the case. We learn more details of the Sheriff's doings. He had divided certain of the Bishop’s lands between two very great personages, Count Alan of the Breton and of the Yorkshire Richmond, and Count Odo, husband of the King’s aunt, and seemingly already lord of Holderness.* The Sheriff had not only refused the King’s peace to the Bishop ; he had formally defied him on the part of the King.» Some of the Bishop's men he had allowed to redeem themselves; but others he had actually sold. Were they the Bishop’s slaves, dealt with as forfeited ‘chattels, or did the Sheriff take on himself to degrade freemen into slavery?® The Bishop protests that he is 1 See above, p. 88. 2 See N.C. vol. iv. pp. 409, 825, and below, p. 139. 3 Mon. Ang. i. 245. ‘“ Tandem misi sibi rex abbatem sancti Augustini, mandans ei ut, sicut prius mandaverat sibi, ad curiam suam cum abbate veniret. Episcopus autem, inimicorum suorum insidias cum regis ira metuens, sine bono conductu se non posse venire respondet et legatos suos per abbatis conductum cum subscriptis litteris regi misit.” * Ib. “Homines meos et terras et pecuniam quam vicecomites vestri ubicumque poterant, mihi abstulerunt, scilicet Offedene et Welletune quas diviserunt Odoni et Alano comitibus, cum ceteris terris in Ewerwickschire.” See above, p. 31. On Count Alan, see N.C. vol. iv. p. 294, and on Odo, vol. iv. pp. 301, 805, : 5 Ib. “Quod breve cum mississem Radulfo Paganello non solum mihi pacem negavit sed et de parte vestra me diffidavit.” On difidatio see Ducange in voce. In N.C. vol. v. p. 270 we have a case of the man defying his lord. Here the lord defies hisman. In either case there is the withdrawal of one side of the mutual duty of lord and man. ® Ib. ‘‘Hominum vero quosdam vendidit, quosdam redimi permisit.” BISHOP WILLIAM AT THE KING’S COURT. 91 ready to come with a safe-conduct, and to prove before cuar. 1. all the barons of the realm that he is wholly innocent of any crime against the King. He adds that he would willingly come at once with the Abbot. He had full faith in the King and his barons; but he feared his personal enemies and the unlearned multitude. Who were these last? Are we again driven to think of the old popular character of the Assembly, and did the Bishop fear that the solemn proceedings of the King’s court would be disturbed by a loyal crowd, ready to deal out summary justice against any one who should be even suspected of treason? The King sent the safe-conduct The Bishop that was asked for, and the Bishop came to the King’s cs hada court.? conduct, The two Williams, King and Bishop, now met face to face. William of Saint-Calais pleaded his rights as a bishop as zealously, and far more fully, than they had been pleaded by the bishop who was also an earl. The Bishop of Durham, as Bishop of Durham, heldThe | great temporal rights; but William of Saint-Calais was poe not, like his predecessor Walcher, personally earl of any ie earldom. Bishop William’s assertion of the new ecclesi- astical claims reminds us of two more famous assemblies, in the earlier of which William of Saint-Calais will appear on the other side. In forming our estimate of the whole story, we must never forget that the man who surprised the Red King with claims greater than those of Anselm is the same man who a few years later became the counsellor of the Red King against Anselm. In 1 Mon. Ang.i. 245. ‘‘ Hoc in veritate vobis mando quod libenter cum hoc abbate venissem, nisi plus inimicos meos et indoctam populi multitudinem timuissem quod de vestro brevi et baronum vestrorum fiducia dubitassem.” 2 Tb. ‘Rex visis his litteris misit conductum episcopo et bene affidavit eum per litteras suas quod per eum vel per suos homines nullum ei damnum eveniret usque quo de rege rediens Dunelmum intraret. Perrexit ergo episcopus ad regem.”” 92 THE EARLY DAYS OF WILLIAM RUFUS. cuar. 1. this first Assembly the Bishop refuses to plead otherwise than according to the privileges of his order. The demand is refused. He craves for the counsel of his Metropolitan Thomas of York and of the other bishops. This also is refused. He offers to make his personal purgation on any charge of treason or perjury. This is refused. The King insists that he shall be tried before He goes the Court after the manner of a layman. This the ee Bishop refuses ;! but the King keeps his personal faith, and the Bishop is allowed to go back safely to Durham. We hear much of the ravages done on the Bishop's lands, both while he was away from Durham and after he had gone back thither.? Of ravages done by the Bishop we hear nothing in this version. In this version William of Saint-Calais, blackest of traitors in the Peterborough Chronicle, is. still the meekest of confessors. ae ‘ We get no further details of the Bishop of Durham's 1088. Story till the beginning of September. But in the meanwhile the Bishop wrote another letter to the King, again asking leave to make his purgation. The only answer, we are told, on the King’s part was to imprison the Bishop’s messenger and to lay waste his lands more thoroughly than ever. But, from the beginning of September, the story is told with great detail. By that time southern England at least was at peace, and by that time too men who had taken a leading part in the rebellion were acting as loyal subjects to the King. Agreement On the day of the Nativity of our Lady an agreement was b : fie Eicon come to between the Bishop and three of the barons of * Mon. Ang. i. 245. ‘‘Episcopus . . deprecatus est eum ut rectitudinem sibi consentiret sicut episcopo suo. Rex autem respondit ei, Quod si lai- caliter placitare vellet, et extra pacem quam rex ei dederat se mitteret, hoc modo rectitudinem sibi consentiret, et, si hoc modo placitare recusaret, Dunelmum faceret eum reconduci.” ? Ib, ‘Dunelmum rediit episcopus, cui rex interim plus quam septin- gentos homines cum multa preda abstulerat,” THE BISHOP AND THE COUNTS. 93 the North. Two of these were the Counts Alan and Odo, caar. u. who had received grants of the Bishop’s lands. They, 274 the it seems clear, had had no share in the rebellion; but ae with them was joined a leading rebel, Roger of Poitou, son of the Earl of Shrewsbury, whom we last heard of as one of Odo’s accomplices at Pevensey. These three, acting in the King’s name, pledged their faith for the Bishop’s personal safety to and from the King’s court. The three barons seem to make themselves in some sort arbiters between the King and the Bishop. His personal safety is guaranteed in any case. But the place to which he is to be safely taken is to differ according to the result of the trial. The terms seem to imply that, if the three barons deem justice to be on the side of the Bishop, he is to be taken back safely to Durham, while, if they deem justice to be on the side of the King, he is to be allowed freely to cross the sea at any haven that he may choose, from Sandwich to Exeter.1 In case of the Bishop’s return to Durham, if he should find that during his absence any new fortifications have been added to the castle, those for- tifications are to be destroyed.? If, on the other hand, the Bishop crosses the sea, the castle is to be surrendered to the King. No agreement contrary to this present one was to be extorted from the Bishop on any pretext. 1 They were to have (Mon. Ang. i. 246) the ‘‘securitas et conductus regis” till they had crossed—‘donec ultra mare ad terram siccam cum rebus suis essent.” The catalogue of the “res sue” is curious; “Et liceret eos per conductum regis secum ducere et portare [dye xal pépetv] aurum et argentum, equos et pannos et arma et canes et accipitres, et sua prorsus omnia que de terra portari debent.” The hawks and hounds remind us of Harold setting sail from Bosham in the Tapestry. See N.C. vol. iii. p. 222. 2 Mon. Ang. i. 246. ‘‘Episcopus dedit fidem suam Rogero Pictavensi, quod si ipse per prescriptam condicionem castellum reduceretur, et major fortitudo in castello missa vel facta esset in hominibus vel in munitione vel in castelli fortitudine quam eadem die ibi erat, episcopus totum illud destrui faceret, ita quod episcopus inde nullum proficuum haberet nec rex damnum.” 94 CHAP. II, The Meet- ing at Salisbury. Novem- ber 2, 1088, Urse of Abetot. THE EARLY DAYS OF WILLIAM RUFUS. The terms were agreed to by the Bishop, and were sworn to, as far as the surrender of the castle was concerned, by seven of the Bishop’s men, seemingly the same seven of whom we have heard before and of whom we shall hear again. All matters were to be settled in the King’s court one way or the other by the coming feast of Saint Michael; but, as this term was plainly too short, the time of meeting was put off by the consent of both sides to an early day in November. On the appointed day Bishop William of Durham appeared in the King’s court at Salisbury. We have not now, as we had two years before, to deal with a gathering of all the land-owners of England in the great plain. The castle which had been reared within the ditches that fence in the waterless hill became the scene of a meeting of the King and the great men of the realm which may take its place alongside of later meetings of the same kind in the castle by the wood at Rockingham and in the castle by the busy streets of Northampton. We have—from the Bishop’s side only, it must be remembered—a minute and lifelike account of a two days’ debate in the Assembly, a debate in which not a few men with whose names we have been long familiar in our story,in which others whose names and possessions are written in the Great Survey, meet us face to face as living men and utter characteristic speeches in our ears. We are met at the threshold by a well-known form, that of the terrible Sheriff of Worcestershire, Urse of Abetot. Notwithstanding the curse of Ealdred, he flourished and enjoyed court favour, and we now find him the first among the courtiers to meet Bishop William, and to bid him enter the royal presence. That presence the Bishop entered four times 1 Mon. Angl. i. 246. “In quarto nonas Novembris .. venit episcopus Salisbiriam, quem cum Ursus de Habetot unus ex servientibus regis ad regem THE MEETING AT SALISBURY. 95 in the course of the day, having had three times to cmar. 1. withdraw while the Court came to a judgement on points of law touching his case. At every stage the Bishop a raises some point, renews some protest, interposes some Bishop. delay or other. And during the whole earlier part of the debate, it is Lanfranc who takes the chief part in answering him ; the King says little till a late stage of the controversy. Before Bishop William comes in to the King’s presence, he prays again, but prays in vain, to have the counsel of his brother bishops. None of them, not even his own Metropolitan Thomas, would give him the kiss of peace or even a word of greeting. When he does come in, he first raises the question whether he ought not to be judged, and the other bishops to judge him, in full episcopal dress. To the practical mind of Lanfranc Lanfranc’s questions about vestments did not seem of first-rate Vo" 1 , importance. “We can judge very well,” he said, “clothed as weare; for garments do not hinder truth.”! This point, Case of it will be remembered, again came up at Northampton, eae seventy-six years later. The entrance of Thomas into: the King’s hall clad in the full garb of the Primate of all England was one of the most striking features of that memorable day.” A long legal discussion followed, in which Bishop William and Lanfranc were the chief speakers. Some points were merely verbal. Much turned on the con- struction of the word bishopric. The Bishop of Durham intrare moneret.” On Urse of Abetot, see N. C. vol. iv. pp. 173, 383, 579, 820. . 1 Ib. ‘‘Episcopus requisivit ab archiepiscopis utrum revestitus ingredi deberet, dixitque, ‘Nihil se prorsus acturum ibi nisi canonice et secundum ordinem suum et sibi videbatur quod ecclesiastica consuetudo exigebat ut ipse revestitus ante revestitos causam suam diceret et causantibus canonice responderet.’ Cui Lanfrancus archiepiscopus respondens, ‘ bene possumus,’ inquit, ‘hoc modo vestiti de regalibus tuisque negotiis disceptare, vestes enim non impediunt veritatem.’” 2 See William FitzStephen, iii, 56, Robertson. 96 CHAP. II. Hostile dealings of the Bishop’s own men. THE EARLY DAYS OF WILLIAM RUFUS. asked to be restored to his bishopric. Lanfranc answered that he had not been disseized of it.! In the course of this dispute one or two facts of interest come out. It appears from the Bishop's complaint that some of the chief men of the patrimony of Saint Cuthberht had made their way to the meeting at Salisbury, and that not as their bishop’s friends. They, his own liegemen, had abjured him; they held the lands of the bishopric in fief of the King; they had made war upon him by the King’s orders, and were now sitting as his judges.’ The Bishop But the main point was that the Bishop should, before called on to “do right.” matters went any further, do right to the King, that is, acknowledge the jurisdiction of the Court. This de- mand the Bishop tried to evade by every means; but it was firmly pressed both by Lanfranc and by the lay members of the Court. These last seem to act in close concert with the Primate, and the ecclesiastical writer brings out in a lively way the energy of their way of speaking.* In answer to them the Bishop spake words which amounted to a casting aside of all the earlier jurisprudence of England, but which were only a natural 1 Mon. Angl. u.s. ‘“ Episcopus surgens precatus est regem ut episcopa- tum suum quem jamdiu sine judicio abstulerat sibi redderet. ‘Lanfrancus vero, rege tacente, dixit, ‘Rex de episcopatu tuo nihil tibi abstulit vel aliquis per eum neque breve suum vidisti per quod te de episcopatu tuo dissaisiret vel dissaisiri preciperet.’” ? The Bishop now tells his grievances at length. After other wrongs the King “ misit comites et barones cum exercitu suo, et per eos totum episco- patum meum vastavit, terras quoque et homines et pecuniam Sancti Cuth- berti et meam mihi abstulit. Nostram etiam sedem me ad tempus abjuvare coegit ; ipsi etiam casati ecclesiz qui mei homines ligii fuerant et quidquid habebant de casamento ecclesie tenebat ex precepto regis guerram mihi fecerunt, et terras suas de rege tenentes pacifice hic eos cum rege video adversum me convenisse.”’ a 3 «Rectitudinem facere” is the technical phrase. See Appendix C. * «Tune laici hujusmodi verbis Lanfranci totius Anglie primatis ani- mati, adversus episcopym exclamantes dixerunt ‘injustum esse quod rex episcopo responderet antequam regi fecisset justitiam.’ Laicis vero hac et alia multa declamantibus et iterantibus, facto silentio, dixit episcopus.” POSITION OF LANFRANC, 97 inference from that act of the Conqueror which had cuap. 1. severed the jurisdictions which ancient English custom had joined together. He told the barons of the realm He denies and the other laymen who were present that with them ne aie he had nothing to do, that he altogether refused their ©" jurisdiction; he demanded, that, if the King and the Bishops allowed them to be present, they should at least not speak against him.!' The doctrine of ecclesi- Growth of astical privilege had indeed grown, since, six and thirty ee years before, the people of England, gathered beneath the walls of London, had declared a traitorous arch- bishop to be deprived and outlawed, and had by their own act set another in his place. Yet the position Position of of William of Saint-Calais was more consistent than a ae the position of Lanfranc. William of Saint-Calais Walliams. wholly denied the right of laymen to judge a bishop; Lanfranc, the assertor of that right, had been placed in his see on the very ground that the deposition of Robert and the election of Stigand were both invalid, as being merely acts of the secular power. Still, however logical might be the Bishop’s argument, his claims were practically new, either in English or in Norman ears. If they had ever been heard of before, it had been only for a moment from the lips of Odo. And we may mark again that, though the words of William of Saint-Calais would have won him favour with Hildebrand, they won him no favour with Lanfrane. Lanfranc represented the traditions of the Conqueror, and in the days of the Conqueror, all things, divine and human, had depended on the Conqueror’s nod? 1 “Domini barones et laici, permittite me, queso, que dicturus sum regi dicere, archiepiscopis et episcopis respondere, quia nihil vobis habeo dicere, et, sicut huc non veni judicium vestrum recepturus, ita illud omninv recuso, et si domino nostri regi et archiepiscopis et episcopis placuisset vos hic negotio interesse, nec me taliter obloqui decuisset.” ? See the complaints from the ecclesiastical side in N.C, vol. iv. p. 436. VOL, I, H 98 THE EARLY DAYS OF WILLIAM RUFUS. eae At this stage the King speaks for the first time, and, in apeaks, 5 this first speech the words of William the Red are mild enough. He had hoped, he said, that the Bishop would have first made answer to the charges which had been brought against him, and he wondered that he had taken any other course. But the charge had not yet been form- sa i ally made. Amid the Bishop's protests about the rights mands that of his order, this somewhat important point was pressed qhe charg? by one of his fellow-rebels. This was Roger the Bigod, he who from the castle of Norwich had done such harm in the eastern lands, but who now appears as an adviser of the king against whom he had been fighting a few months before. Let the charge, he said, be brought in due form, and let the Bishop be tried according to it." After more protests from the Bishop, the charge was ee ee made by Hugh of Beaumont.? It contained a full brought. statement of the Bishop’s treason and desertion, as already described,? and the time is said to have been when the King’s enemies came against him, and when his own men, Bishop Odo, Earl Roger, and many others, strove to take away his crown and kingdom.* It is demanded that, on this charge and on any other charges that the King may afterwards bring, the Bishop shall abide by the sentence of the King’s court. We have 1 Mon. Angl. i. 247. ‘*Tunce Rogerus Bygotus dixit regi, ‘Vos debetis episcopo dicere unde eum appellare vultis, et postea, si ipse nobis voluerit respondere de responsione sua facite eum judicari; sin autem, facite inde quod barones vestri vobis consulerent.’ ” - I cannot identify this Hugh. “Hugo cognomento pauper” (Ord. Vit. 806 A), son of Count Robert of Meulan, and afterwards Earl of Bedford (Gest. Steph. 61), was not yet born. 3 See above, p. 30. * Mon. Angl. u.s. “Rex te appellat quod, cum ipse audivit quod inimici sui super eum veniebant, et homines sui, episcopus scilicet Baiocensis et Rogerus comes et alii plures regnum suum pariter sibi et coronam auferre volebant, et ipse per consilium tuum contra illos equitabat.” There is something odd in this calm mention of Earl Roger as an open rebel. “THE CHARGE AGAINST THE BISHOP. | 99 this statement only in the version of Bishop William omar. u. himself or of a local partisan. Yet there is no reason Its pro- to doubt that it is a fair representation of the formal pene eee charge which was brought in the King’s court. That charge brings out quite enough of overt acts of treason to justify even the strong words of the Peterborough Chronicler.! With the secret counsels of the rebels during Lent it does not deal; what share Bishop William had had in them might be hard to make out by legal proof, and the charge is quite enough for the King’s purpose without them. But it brings out this special aggra- vation of the Bishop’s guilt, that, after the rebellion had broken out, after military operations had begun, the Bishop was still at the King’s side, counselling action while he was himself plotting desertion. The flight of Bishop William, as we have already told it, really reads not unlike the flight of Cornbury and Churchill just six centuries later; and it would be pressing the judgement of charity a long way to plead in his behalf the doctrine that in revolutions men live fast.2 We may notice also Points not that nothing is said about the Bishop’s harryings in ‘¥@!¢¢™ Northern England. They might, according to the custom of the time, be almost taken as implied in the fact of his rebellion ; or they might be among the other charges which the King had ready to bring forward if he thought good. The formal charge was thus laid before the Court, and The _ it was for the Bishop to make his answer. It was the aor ag same as before. Hugh of Beaumont might say what he chose;? only according to his own ideas of canonical rule would he answer. By this time the wrath of the lay 1 See above, p. 28. ? Macaulay, ii. 496-499, 510, 511. ° Mon. Angl, u.s. “Episcopus autem Hugoni respondit, ‘Hugo, dicas quidquid volueris, non tibi tamen hodie respondebo.’” H2 100 THE EARLY DAYS OF WILLIAM RUFUS. caap. 1. members of the Assembly was waxing hot ; they assailed a of the Bishop, some, we are told, with arguments, some members. with revilings. At this stage Bishop William found a friend where we should hardly have looked for one. Speech of The brigand Bishop of Coutances, already changed from ee on@ rebel into a loyal subject, was there among the great behalf of men of the realm. England knew him, not as a prelate Vent of the Church, but as one of the greatest of her land- owners ; but now, like Odo, he speaks as a bishop. He appeals to the Archbishops at least to give a hearing to Bishop William’s objection. They, the bishops and abbots, ought no longer to sit there; they ought to withdraw, taking with them some lay assessors, to dis- cuss the point raised by the Bishop of Durham, whether he ought not to be restored to his bishopric before he Answer of is called on to plead?. Again the great ecclesiastical Tanfranc. tatesman is inclined to scorn, almost to mock, the -scruples of lesser men. Canonical subtleties might dis- turb the conscience of a bishop who had a few months before headed a band of robbers; but the lawyer of Pavia, the teacher of Avranches, the monk of Bee, the Abbot of Saint Stephen’s, the Patriarch of all the nations beyond the sea, had learned, in his long experience, that, as changes of vestments did not greatly matter, so changes of place and procedure did not greatly matter either. As Lanfrane had told Bishop William that they could judge perfectly well in the clothes which they then had on, so now he tells Bishop Geoffrey that they can judge * Mon. Angl, u.s, “Tum multum tumultuantes laici, quidam rationibus, quidam vero contumeliis, adversus episcopum deiterarent.” 2 Ib. “Domini archiepiscopi, nos non oporteret diutius hac ita con- siderare, sed deceret nos surgere et episcopos et abbates convocare, quosdam etiam baronum et comitum istorum nobiscum habere, et cum eis juste decernere si episcopus debeat prius investiri vel ante investituram de querelis regis intrare in placitum.” The text has “S. Constantiensis episcopus,” but Bishop Geoffrey must be meant. ARGUMENTS OF LANFRANC, 101 perfectly well in the place and company in which they cuar. m. were now sitting. There was no need to rise; let the The Bishop Bishop of Durham and his men go out, and the rest of °°" the Court, clergy and laity alike, would judge what was right to be done. The Bishop warned the Court to act according to the canons, and to let no one judge who might not canonically judge a bishop. Lanfranc calmly, but vaguely, assured him that justice would be done.2 Hugh of Beaumont told him more plainly, “ If Defiance of I may not to-day judge you and your order, you and pee, your order shall never afterwards judge me.” > With one more protest, one more declaration that he would dis- own any judgement which was not strictly canonical,* Bishop William and his followers left the hall of meeting. Our only narrative of these debates, the narrative of Debate Bishop William himself or of some one writing under Bishop's his inspiration, complains of the long delay before the *>snce- Bishop was allowed to come back, and gives a descrip- tion, one which reads like satire, of the assembly which stayed to debate the preliminary point of law. There was Constitu- the King, with the bishops and earls, the sheriffs and the aoe n lesser reeves, with the King’s huntsmen and other offi- cials.5 The great officers of state, Justiciar, Chancellor, 1 Mon. Angl. u.s. “ Ad hec Lanfrancus archiepiscopus, ‘Non est necesse,’ inquit, ‘nos surgere, sed episcopus et homines sui egrediantur, et nos remanentes, tam clerici quam laici, consideremus equaliter quid inde juste facere debeamus.” 2 Tb. ‘ Vade, nos enim juste faciemus quidquid fecerimus.” 3 Ib. “Si ego hodie te et tuum ordinem judicare non potero, tu vel tuus ordo nunquam me amplius judicabitis.” * Ib. “ Vide autem qui in domo ista remanent et me judicare disponunt ut et canonicos judices habeant et canonice me judicent; si enim aliter agerent, eorum judicia penitus recusarem.” 5 Ib. “Rege, cum suis episcopis et consulibus et vicecomitibus et prepositis et venatoribus aliisque quorumlibet officiorum, in judicio re- manente, 102 THE EARLY DAYS OF WILLIAM RUFUS. cuar, mx. Treasurer, had not yet risen to their full importance ; still it is odd to find them, as they would seem to be, thrust in, after the manner of an et cetera, after, it may be, Osgeat the reeve and Croc the huntsman.’ But anyhow, in this purely official assembly, we may surely see the Theningmannagemét gradually changing into the Curia Regis? The Court, however constituted, debated in the Bishop’s absence on the point of the law which The Bishop he had raised. On his return, his own Metropolitan, ae Thomas of York, announced to him the decision of the Assembly. Till he acknowledged the jurisdiction of the Court, the King was not bound to restore anything Debateon that had been taken from him. We seem to hear the a word voice of Flambard, when, in announcing this decision, Thomas makes use of the word fief, which had not hitherto been heard in the discussion.* Bishop William catches in vain at the novelty; Archbishop Thomas declines all verbal discussion; whether it is called bishopric or fief, nothing is to be restored till the juris- diction of the court is acknowledged. Thus bafiled, Bishop William has only to fall back on his old pro- tests, his old demand for the counsel of his brother bishops. Lanfranc meets him as a lawyer ; the bishops 1 We have met with Osgeat the Reeve in Domesday. See N.C. vol. v. p. 812. Croc the hunter, like others of his craft, appears in 49, 74. See Ellis, i. 403. This odd mixture of great and small officials is not unusual. In the “Constitutio Domus Regis” in Hearne’s Liber Niger, i. 341, the descent from the Chancellor to the bakers and cooks—the huntsmen come at the end—is more sudden than one would have looked for, though certain chaplains and seneschals break the fall, ? See N. C. vol. v. pp. 423, 878. * Mon. Angl. u.s. ‘ Dominus noster archiepiscopus et regis curia vobis judicat quod rectitudinem regi facere debetis antequam de vestro feodo revestiat.” * Tb. “Nullus mihi hodie vel ego alicui de feodo feci verbum,” says Bishop William. To which Archbishop Thomas answers, “ Vobis judicat curia ista, quia de nulla re debet vos rex resaissire antequam sibi rectitu- dinem faciatis.” DEBATES IN THE ASSEMBLY, 103 are his judges, and therefore cannot be his counsel.) cuar. 1, The King now steps in; the Bishop may take counsel with his own men, but he shall have no counsel from any man of his. The Bishop answers that, in the seven The _ men whom be has with him—clearly the same seven or. of whom we have twice heard already—he will find but little help against the power and learning of the whole realm which he sees arrayed against him. But he He goes gets no further help; he withdraws the second time for le consultation, but it is only with the seven men of his me own following. The result of their secret debate suggests that Bishop William in truth took counsel with no one but himself. Surely no seven men of English or Norman birth could have been found to suggest the course which William of Saint-Calais now took. For he came back to utter words which must have sounded strange indeed either in English or in Norman ears. “The judgement which has He comes ‘here been given I reject, because it is made against the sear os canons and against our law; nor was I canonically ®°™* summoned; but I stand here compelled by the force of the King’s army, and despoiled of my bishopric, beyond the bounds of my province, in the absence of all my comprovincial bishops. I am compelled to plead my cause in a lay assembly; and my enemies, who refuse me their counsel and speech and the kiss of peace, lay- ing aside the things which I have said, judge me of things which I have not said; and they are at once accusers and judges; and I find it forbidden in our law to admit such a judgement as I in my folly was 1 Mon. Ang. u.s. ‘‘Episcopi sunt judices, et eos ad consilium tuum habere non debes.” 2 Tb. “Cum tuis ibi consule, quia de nostris in consilio tuo nullum prorsus habebis.” 3 Tb. “ Parum consilii in his septem hominibus habeo contra virtutem et sclentiam totius hujus regni quod hic adversum me video congregatum.” 104 CHAP. IT. Character of the appeal. THE BARLY DAYS OF WILLIAM RUFUS. willing to admit.1 The Archbishop of Canterbury and my own Primate ought, out of regard for God and our order, to save me of their good will from this en- croachment. Because then, through the King’s enmity, I see you all against me, I appeal to the Apostolic See of Rome, to the Holy Church, and to the Blessed Peter and his Vicar, that he may take order for a just sen- tence in my affair; for to his disposition the ancient authority of the Apostles and their successors and of the canons reserves the greater ecclesiastical causes and the judgement of bishops.” ? Such an appeal as this was indeed going to the root of the matter. It was laying down the rule against which Englishmen had yet to strive for more than four hundred years. William of Saint-Calais not only de- clared that there were causes with which no English tribunal was competent to deal, but he laid down that among such causes were to be reckoned all judgements where any bishop—if not every priest—was an accused party. Bishop William could not even claim that, as one charged with an ecclesiastical offence, he had a right to appeal to the highest ecclesiastical judge. Even such a claim as this was a novelty either in Normandy or in England; but William of Saint-Calais was not charged with any ecclesiastical offence. Except so far as the indictment involved the charge of perjury, that debateable ground of the two jurisdictions, the offence * Mon. Angl. u.s. “In lege nostra prohibitum invenio, ne tale judicium suspiciam.” This strange phrase, twice repeated, most likely refers to the False Decretals, of which he seems to have had a copy with him. See below, p. 109. 2Tb. “Apostolicam sedem Romanam, sanctam ecclesiam et beatum Petrum ejusque vicarium appello, ut ipsius ordinatione negotii mei justam sententiam suscipere merear, cujus dispositioni majores causas ecclesiasticas et episcoporum judicia antiqua apostolorum eorumque successorum atque canonum auctoritas reservavit.” Yet, according to the doctrine held long after by Thomas Stubbs (see N. C. vol. iv. p. 260), the Bishop of Durham need not have gone very far to find a Vicar of Saint Peter. BISHOP WILLIAMS APPEAL TO ROME, 105 laid to the Bishop’s charge was a purely temporal one, cnar. n, that of treason against his lord the King. So arraigned, he refuses the judgement of the King of the English and his Witan, and appeals from them to the Bishop of Rome. He justifies his appeal by referring to some law other than the law of England, some special law of his own order, by which, he alleges, he is for- bidden to submit to any such judgements as that of the national assembly of the realm of which he is a subject. We again instinctively ask, how would William the Great have dealt with such an appeal, if any man had been so hardy as to make it in his hearing? But we again see how the ecclesiastical system which William the Great had brought in was one which needed his own mighty hand to guide He was indeed, in all causes and over all persons, ecclesiastical and temporal, within his dominions supreme. But the moment he himself was gone, that great supremacy seems to have fallen in pieces. Lanfranc himself, steadily as he main- Antena tains the royal authority throughout the dispute, seems aa to shrink from boldly grappling with the Bishop’s claim. Some lesser fallacies we are not surprised to find passed over. The daring statement that the sole right of the Bishop of Rome to judge other bishops was established by the Apostles may perhaps have seemed less strange even to Lanfranc than it does to us. But Lanfranc must have William's smiled, and Thomas of York must have smiled yet more, yinclals at the Bishop of Durham’s grotesque complaint that he was deprived of the help of his comprovincial bishops.” It was a vain hope indeed, if he thought that King Mal- colm would allow him the comfort of any brotherly counsel from Glasgow or Saint Andrews. But the real 1 See N.C. vol. iv. p. 338. 2 Mon. Angl.u.s. “ Dispoliatus episcopio extra provinciam meam, ab- sentibus omnibus comprovincialibus meis, in laicali conventu causam meam dicere compellor.” 106 OHAP. II. THE EARLY DAYS OF WILLIAM RUFUS. point is that Lanfranc seems to avoid giving any direct answer to Bishop William’s claim to appeal to a court beyond the sea. Instead of stoutly denying the right of any English subject to appeal to any foreign power from the judgement of the highest court in England, he falls back into Bishop William’s own subtleties about “fief” and “bishopric;” and he appeals to the case of Odo, where it was only the Earl and not the Bishop who was dealt with The verbal question goes on, till the Bishop declares that he has no skill to dispute against the wisdom of Lanfranc; he has been driven to appeal to the apostolic see, and he wishes to have the leave of the King and the Archbishop to go to the see to The Ty which he has appealed.? A third time does he, at Lan- goes 0 the hind time. He comes back, and sentence is pro- nounced, He renews his appeal. frane’s bidding, leave the hall while this question is de- bated by the King and his council. On his return the final sentence is pronounced by the mouth of Hugh of Beaumont. As the Bishop has refused to answer the charges brought against him by the King, as he invites the King to a tribunal at Rome, the Bishop’s fief is de- clared forfeited by the judgement of the King’s court and the barons. It really says a good deal for the long- suffering of the prelates and barons, and of the Red King himself, that Bishop William again ventured to make his appeal in more offensive terms than before. He is ready, in any place where justice reigns and not violence, to purge himself of all charges of crime and perjury. He will prove in the Roman Church that the * Mon. Ang. u.s, “ Nos non de episcopio sed de tuo te feodo judicamus, et hoc modo judicavimus Baiocensem episcopum ante patrem hujus regis de feodo suo, nec rex vocabat eum episcopum in placito illo, sed fratrem et comitem.” 2? Ib. “Quia Dei gratia sapientissimus et nominatissimus estis, in hoc sapere vestrum tam sublime intelligo, quod parvitas mea illud comprehendere non potest; sed apostolicam sedem quam ex necessitate appellavi per licen- tiam regis et vesiram adire volo.” SENTENCE OF THE COURT. 107 judgement which has just been pronounced is false and omar. 1. unjust.1. Hugh of Beaumont is driven to a retort; “I and my companions are ready to confirm our judgement in this court.” The Bishop again declares that he will enter into no pleadings in that court. Let him speak never so well, his words are perverted by the King’s par- tisans. They have no respect for the apostolic authority, and, even after he has made his appeal, they load him with an unjust judgement. He will go to Rome to seek the help of God and of Saint Peter.” Up to this time the King has taken only a secondary part in the lively dispute which has been going on in his presence. We have listened chiefly to the pithy sayings of Lanfranc and to the official utterances of Hugh of Beaumont. But now Rufus himself steps in as a chief nce of speaker, and that certainly in a characteristic strain. : His patience had borne a good deal, but it was now beginning to give way. The King’s short and pointed sentences, uttered, we must remember, with a fierce look and a stammering tongue, are a marked contrast to the long-turned periods and legal subtleties of the Bishop. He now steps into the dispute from a very practical side; “My will is that you give me up your castle, as you will not abide by the sentence of my court.”? More dis- tinctions, more protests, more appeals to Rome, only stir up the Red King to the use of his familiar oath ; * Mon, Ang. u.s. ‘In omni loco in quo non violentia sed justitia dominetur, de scclere et perjurio me purgare paratus sum, et hoc quod hic pro judicio recitasti in Romana ecclesia falsum et injuste dictum esse monstrabo.” * Ib, “In curia ista nullum ad presens placitum subintrabo, quia nibil ibi tam bene dicerem quin fautores regis depravando perverterent, qui ip- sam et non reverentes apostolicam auctoritatem post ejus appellationem me Judicio non legali gravant, sed Dei et Sancti Petri postulans auxilium Romam vadam,” 3 Ib. “ Tune rex ait, ‘Modo volo ut castellum tuum mibi reddas, quoniam judicium mez curie non sequeris,’” 108 CHAP. II. THE EARLY DAYS OF WILLIAM RUFUS. “By the face of Lucca, you shall never go out of my hands till I have your castle.”! The Bishop was now fairly in the mouth of the lion; yet he again goes through the whole story of his wrongs and his innocence, with some particulars which we have not hitherto heard. When his possessions were seized by the King’s officers, though a hundred of his own knights looked on, no resistance had been offered to the King’s will? He had now nothing left but his episcopal city; if the King wished to take that, he would offer no resistance, save by the power of God. He would only warn him, on behalf of God and Saint Peter and his Vicar the Pope, not to take it. He would give hostages and sureties that, while he went to Rome, his own men should keep the castle, and that, if the King wished, they should keep it for his service.” The King again spoke; “Be sure, Bishop, that you shall never go to Durham, nor shall your men hold Durham, nor shall you escape my hands, unless you freely give up the castle to me.” * The Bishop The Bishop now for once says not a word about appeals to Counts Od and Alan. ocanonical rights; he appeals, more shortly and more prudently, to the plighted faith of the two Counts who had promised that he should go back to Durham. But Lanfranc argues that the Bishop has forfeited his safe- conduct, and that, if he refuses to give up the castle, the 1 Mon. Ang. i. 248. ‘Per vultum de Luca nunquam exibis de manibus meis donec castellum habeam.” 2 Tb. “Ego passus sum per tres servientes vestros aufferri mihi terras et pecuniam ecclesiz, presentibus centum meis militibus, et in nullo prorsus vobis restiti.” 3 Durham is described as “ Urbs ipsa in qua sedes est ecclesiz.” The Bishop adds; ‘‘Paratus sum bonos obsides et fiducias dare vobis, quod homines mei quos ibi dum Romam vado volo dimittere in fidelitate vestra eam custodient, et, si volueritis, libenter vobis servient.” * «Tune rex ait, ‘In veritate credas, episcope, quod nullo modo Du- nelmum reverteris et quod homines tui Dunelmi nullatenus remane- bunt, nec tu manus meas evades donec castellum tuum liberum mihi reddas.’” INTERPOSITION OF THE COUNTS. 109 King may rightly arrest him At this hint the lay cap. 1. members of the Assembly joined in with one voice, the ae of e lay foremost among them being that Randolf Peverel of members, whose possessions and supposed kindred we have had elsewhere to speak.? “Take him,” was the cry, “take him; for that old gaoler speaks well.”? But at this stage the Bishop finds friends in the Counts whose faith had been pledged to his safe-conduct. Count Alan Interven- formally states the terms of the agreement, and prays “pay the King—Odo and Roger joining with him in the4!#. prayer—that he may not be forced to belie his faith, as otherwise the King should have no further service from him. But in Lanfranc’s view the second of the two cases which were contemplated in the agreement had taken place. The King was not bound to let the Bishop go back to Durham; all that he was now bound to do was to give him ships and a safe-conduct out of the realm.’ The dispute goes on in the usual style. The Bishop continues his appeal to Rome; he again in- The Bishop vokes what he calls specially the Christian law, point- nae aot ing, it would seem, to a volume in his own hand;° while 1 Mon. Ang. u.s. “Si episcopus amplius castellum suum vobis contra- dixerit, bene eum capere potestis, quia conductum quem hactenus habuit nune dimittit, cum prior conventionem frangit, et barones vestros probare appetit quod fidem suam servarent non bene,” ? On Randolf Peverel and his alleged connexion with William, see N.C. vol. iii. p. 662; iv. 200; v. 26. 3 Mon. Angl. i. 248. “Tunc Radulfus Piperellus et omnes laici unani- miter conclamantes dixerunt ; ‘Capite eum, capite eum, bene enim loquitur iste vetustus ligaminarius.’” One would like to have the original French of this somewhat irreverent description of the Archbishop, but gaoler seems to be the most likely meaning of the unusual word ligaminarius. * Ib. “Multum precor dominum meum regem ne fidem meam inde faciat me mentiri, nullum enim proficuum in me haberet ulterius,”” 5 Ib. “Rex bene vos adquietavit; plenam namque rectitudinem epi- scopo obtulit, et ipse eam vobis audientibus recusavit, regem quoque Romam injuste invitavit; recognoscat igitur episcopus hoc justum fecisse judicium, et si illud sequi nollet, et rex sibi naves inveniet et conductum.” 6 « Christianam legem quam hic scriptam habeo, testem invoco.” See above, p. 104, 110 THE EARLY DAYS OF WILLIAM RUFUS. caar. 1. Lanfranc asserts the authority of the King’s court.1 The The final sentence. King then steps in with one of his short speeches ; “You may say what you will, but you shall not escape my hands, unless you first give up the castle to me.”? The Bishop then makes a shorter protest than usual, the drift of which seems to be that he is ready to suffer any loss rather than be personally arrested.? The sen- tence of the Court is now finally passed. A day is fixed by which the Bishop’s men should leave the city of Durham and the King’s men take possession of it instead.* The judgement of the Assembly had thus formally gone against the claims of the Bishop of Durham; but his resources were not at an end. Defeated on all points of law, he makes an appeal to the King’s generosity. The Bishop Will his lord the King, he now prays, leave him some- asks for an allowance, thing from his bishopric on which he may at least be Answer of able to live? Lanfrane again answers; “Shall you go to Lanfranc. Rome, to the King’s hurt and to the dishonour of all of us, and shall the King leave lands to you? Stay in his land, and he will give back to you all your bishopric, except the city, on the one condition that you do right to him in his court by the judgement of his barons.” > * Mon. Ang. u.s. “Non est justum ut placitum vel judicium regis pro aliqua contradictione longius procedat, sed quotiens in curia sua judicium agitur, ibidem necesse est ut concedatur vel contradicatur, tu ergo judicium nostrum vel hic concede, vel hic evidenti ratione contradicito.” * Tb. “ Rex ait, ‘ Dicas licet quidquid velis, non tamen effugies manus meas nisi castellum prius mihi reddas,’” The Bishop has just before spoken of “ Roma, ubi debeo et ubi justitia magis quam violentia.” ° Ib. “Cum vos non solum episcopatum, verum et omnia mea, injuste abstuleritis, et ipsam modo sedem violenter auferre velitis, pro nulla re quam facere possim capi me patiar.” * Ib. “Constituta est ergo dies qua episcopus urbem suis hominibus vacuaret et rex ibi suos poneret.” 5 Ib. Tu pro regis damno et omnium nostrcrum dedecore vadis Romam, et ipse tibi terram dimitteret? Remane in terra sua, et ipse episcopatum tuum preter urbem tibi reddet, ea conditione quod in curia sua judicio baronum suorum rectitudinem sibi facias,” THE KING'S OFFERS. 111 Bishop William, almost parodying the words of a much cuar. u. earlier appeal to Rome, says that he has appealed to the Apostolic See, and to the Apostolic See he will go. Lanfranc retorts; “If you go to Rome without the King’s leave, we will tell him what he ought to do with your bishopric.” Bishop William answers in a long speech, renewing his protests of innocence and his offers of pur- ‘gation, and setting forth the services which he claimed to have done for the King at Dover, Hastings, and London. The Bishop many times makes his prayer, and the King as often refuses. Then Lanfranc counsels him to throw himself wholly on the King’s mercy; if he will do so, he himself will plead for him at the King’s feet. But the Bishop still goes on about the authority of the canons and the honour of the Church; he will earnestly pray for the King’s mercy, but he will accept no uncanonical judgement. The King then makes a new The King’s proposal; “Let the Bishop give me sureties that he will oa do nought to my hurt on this side the sea, and that neither my brother nor any of my brother’s men shall keep the ships which I shall provide to my damage or against the will of their crews.”? It certainly was demanding a good deal to expect Bishop William to go surety for either the will or the power of Duke Robert to do or to hinder anything. The Bishop pleads that the Counts pledged their faith that he should not be obliged to enter into any agreement except the one which had been made at Durham. And the Sheriff of The King Yorkshire, Ralph Paganel, the same who had been the Cac 1 Mon. Ang. u.s. “Ego apostolicam sedem aprellavi, quia in curia ejus nullum justum judicio audio et nullo modo dimittam quin illuc vadam.” 2 Tb. “Tune rex ait, ‘Faciat mihi episcopus fiduciam quod damnum meum citra mare non qurat vel recipiat, et quod naves meas quas sibi in- veniam non detinebit frater meus vel aliquis suorum ad damnum meum contra nautarum voluntatem,’” 112 THE EARLY DAYS OF WILLIAM RUFUS. car. u. spoiler of the Bishop’s goods, bears witness that his Question of the safe- conduct. claim was a just one.' By this time the wrath of the Red King was gradually kindling; he turns on the Sheriff with some sharpness; “Hold your peace; for no surety will I endure to lose my ships; but if the Bishop will give this surety which I ask, I will ask for no other.”? The Bishop falls back on his old plea; he will enter into no agreement save that into which he entered with the Counts. The King again swears by the face of Lucca that the Bishop shall not cross the sea that year, unless he gives the required surety for the ships. The Bishop then protests that, rather than be arrested, he will give the surety and more than the surety which is demanded; but he calls all men to witness that he does this unwillingly and through fear of arrest. He gives the surety, and another stage in the long debate ends. A new point, happily the last, was raised when the Bishop, having given the required surety, asked for ships and a safe-conduct. The King says that he shall have them as soon as the castle of Durham is in the King’s power; till then, he shall have no safe-conduct, but shall stay at Wilton.© He again meekly protests; he will endure the wrong against which he has no means of 1 Mon. Ang. u.s. ‘‘Reginaldus Paganellus ait, ‘Certe comites vestri promiseruut hoc quod dicit episcopus et convenienter inde eos custodite.’” “ Reginaldus”’ must surely be a slip for “ Radulfus.” 2 Ib. “¢Tace,’ inquit rex, ‘quia pro nullius fiducia naves meas perdere patiar, sed, si episcopus inde se fiduciam fecisse cognoverit, super illam aliam non requiram,’” ° Ib. ‘Tune rex iratus ait, ‘Per vultum de Luca, in hoc anno mare non transibis, nisi fiduciam quam de navibus requiro prius modo feceris.’” * lb. ‘‘Faciam hanc et multo majorem, si necesse fuerit, fiduciam ante- quam hic in captione detinear ; sed bene omnes audiant quod ea invitus faciam et captionis timore coactus.” > Ib. “Rex ait, ‘Nullum conductum habebis, sed Wiltone moraberis donec ego vere sciam quod castellum habeam in mea potestate, et tunc demum naves recipies et conductum.’” Wilton seems an odd place for the purpose ; should it be “ Wintonie ?” NEW POINTS RAISED, 113 striving! Then a man of Bishop Geoffrey of Coutances omar. u. steps in with a new count. The men who held the aie Bishop of Durham’s castle had—before the Bishop came Bishop's to the King’s court; therefore, it might be inferred, with his knowledge—taken two hundred beasts belonging to the Bishop of Coutances which were under the King’s safe- conduct. Bishop Geoffrey had surely seen more than two hundred beasts brought into Bristol as the spoil of loyal men in Somerset, Gloucestershire, and Wiltshire; but he is careful to exact the redress of his own loss from his brother bishop and rebel. The men of the Bishop of Durham had refused to pay the price of the beasts; they refused even when Walter of Eyncourt—we have met him in Lincolnshire?—bade them do so in the King’s name ; he William, the man of Bishop Geoffrey, demands that the price be paid to his lord. The King puts it to the barons whether he can implead the Bishop on this charge also. Lanfrane, for the first time helping his Interposi- brother prelate, rules that this cannot be done. Bishop Oa OF William cannot be impleaded any further, because he rr aaa now holds nothing of the King—the surrender of the Bishop. castle of Durham is thus held to be already made—and is entitled to the King’s safe-conduct.2 The Assembly The Bishop now breaks up for the day; the Bishop is to choose the Engl. haven from which he will sail, and to make known his choice on the morrow. The next day the Court again comes together. The 1 Mon. Ang. u.s. “Cum quod vellem et deberem facere non valeam, hoc ipsum quod dicitis injuste patiar et coactus.” 2 See N.C. vol. iv. p. 215. ‘‘ Walterus de Haiencora,” or ‘‘ Haiencorn,” must be a corruption of his name. 3 Mon. Angl. i. 249. ‘Precamur vos ut faciatis domino meo reddi pecuniam.”” The name of the speaker is given as “‘ Willelmus de Merlao.” * Ib. “Rex ait, ‘ Videant barones isti si ego juste possum implacitare episcopum.’” 5 Ib, “Injustum esset si amplius implacitaretis eum, cum de vobis mihi teneat et securum conductum habere debeat.” VOL, I. I 114 CHAP, II, THE EARLY DAYS OF WILLIAM RUFUS, Bishop of Durham asks Count Alan to find him a haven Conditions and ships at Southampton. The King steps in; “Know of the Bishop’s sailing. November 21, 1088, November 14. well, Bishop, that you shall never cross the channel till I have your castle”—adding, with a remembrance of the doings of another prelate at Rochester—‘ for the Bishop of Bayeux made me smart with that kind of thing.” If the castle of Durham was in the King’s hands by the fixed day, the fourteenth day of November, the Bishop should have the ships and the safe-conduct without further delay. The King then bids Count Alan and the Sheriff Gilbert? to give the Bishop at Southampton such ships as might be needful for his voyage seven days after the day fixed for the surrender of the castle. Meanwhile, on the appointed day, the castle of Durham was received into the King’s hands by Ivo Taillebois and Erneis of Burun—names with which we have long been familiar.® They disseized the Bishop of his church and castle and all his land; but they gave to the Bishop’s men a writ under the King’s seal, promising the most perfect safety to the Bishop and his men through all England and in their voyage.* And, according to the most obvious meaning of the narrative, Heppo, the King’s balistarius —a man of whom, like Ivo Taillebois, we have heard in Lincolnshire—was put into their hands as surety for the observance of the safe-conduct. It might have seemed that the Bishop’s troubles were now ended, so far as they could be ended by leaving the land which he professed to look on as a land of perse- * Mon. Ang. u.s. ‘Bene scias, episcope, quod nunquam transfretabis donec castellum tuum habeam ; episcopus enim Baiocensis inde me castigavit.” ? Gilbert of Bretevile appears as a considerable landowner in Hampshire (Domesday, 48) and Wiltshire (71), He may have been Sheriff of either shire, * See N. C. vol. iv. pp. 215, 800. Besides Erneis himself, we have heard of a Ralph Fitz-Erneis at Sevlac, vol. iii. p. 494. * Mon, Ang. u.s. “ Dissaisiverunt episcopum de ecclesia et de castello et de omni terra sua xviii. Kal. Dec., et liberaverunt hominibus episcopi Helponem balistarium regis.” The King’s writ follows. Helpo must be Heppo, See N.C. vol. iv. p. 216. See Appendix C. FURTHER DIFFICULTIES, 115 cution. But a crowd of hindrances were put in the way of omar. 1. his voyage. Notwithstanding the safe-conduct given to Action of 4 5 Ivo Taille- the Bishop’s men, a number of wrongs were done to them jpis, by Ivo Taillebois, whose conduct may be thought to bear out his character as drawn in the legendary history of Crowland. The great grievance was that in defiance— so men thought at Durham—of Lanfranc’s judgement that Bishop William was not bound to plead in the matter of the beasts taken from the Bishop of Coutances, two of his knights were forced to plead on that charge.’ Meanwhile the day came which had been appointed for November the Bishop's voyage. He had been waiting at Wilton, *™ under the care of a certain Robert of Conteville, who had been assigned, at his own request, to keep him from all harm.2 The castle had been duly given up; all seemed The ready for his crossing. Bishop William asked the Sheriff seri Gilbert and his guardian Robert for ships, to cross in delayed. the company of Robert of Mowbray. Under orders from the King,* they kept him for five days longer, November when Robert of Conteville took him to Southampton. The wind was favourable, and the Bishop craved for leave to set sail at once. The King’s officers forbade him to sail that day; the next day, when the wind had become contrary, they, seemingly in mockery, gave him 1 Mon. Ang. u.s. “ Accepit Ivo Taillesbosci duos milites episcopi, et coegit eos placitare de animalibus Constantiensis episcopi dequibus judicatum fuerat ante regem Dunelmensi episcopo non debere respondere.” It is of course possible that there might be some ground for impleading the knights, though not for impleading the Bishop. 2 He had before asked; “dum in Anglia fuero, habetote mecum unum bonum hominem, qui et bospitia mihi inveniat et ab impedimento me de- fendat.” The “good man” assigned is “ Robertus de Comitisvilla.” One would think that he was a kinsman of the husband of Herleva, the King’s step-grandfather. 8 Roger in the text ; but Robert must surely be meant, * Mon. Ang. u.s. “Illi responderunt se nullam sibi navem liberaturos, et dixerunt regem sibi precepisse ut bene servarent episcopum, ne de potestate regis exiret usque quo quid de eo fieri praciperet, illis per suas sigillatas literas remandaret.” 12 116 CHAP. II. Charge against the monk Geoffrey. New summons against the Bishop. His argu- ment with Osmund. THE EARLY DAYS OF WILLIAM RUFUS. leave to sail. While he waited for a favourable wind, a new charge was brought against him, founded on the alleged doings of one of his monks, Geoffrey by name, of whom we shall afterwards hear as being in his special confidence. By the sentence of forfeiture pronounced by the Court, all the Bishop's goods had become the property of the Crown. It was therefore deemed an invasion of the King’s rights when, after the Bishop had gone to the King’s court, Geoffrey took a large number of beasts from the Bishop’s demesne. He had also taken away part of the garrison of the castle, who had killed a man of the King’s. On this charge Bishop William was summoned to appear in the King’s court at the Christmas Gemét to be held in London. One of the bearers of the summons was no less famous a man than Bishop Osmund of Salisbury, a man of a local reputa- tion almost saintly.!. Bishop William again appeals to the old agreement; he protests his innocence of any share in the acts of Geoffrey, though he adds that he might lawfully have done what he would with his own up to the moment when he was formally disseized.? These words might seem to imply that the act of Geoffrey, though done after the Bishop had left Durham, was done before the sentence was finally pronounced. But he cannot go to the King’s court; he has nothing left; he has eaten his horses; that is seemingly their price.? He is 1 Mon. Ang.u.s. ‘‘Venerunt ad eum Salesberiensis episcopus et Robertus de Insula et Ricardus de Cultura, et summonuerunt eum de parte regis, Kal. Decembr., ut in nativitate Domini esset Londonie ad curiam regis, et faceret ei rectitudinem de Gaufrido monacho suo, qui, postquam episcopus ad curiam venerat, de dominicatu episcopi quingenta et triginta novem animalia acceperat, et munitionem castelli abstulerat. de quibusdam suis aliis homi- nibus, qui unum hominem regis occiderant.” The Gemét was therefore to be at Westminster, not in its regular place at Gloucester. 2 Tb. “Quamvis juste facere potuissem, potui enim de meis facere quid- quid volui, usquequo de mea sede me dissaisivit.” 8 Ib. “Ad curiam ejus amplius ire non possum, ipse enim omnia mea mihi abstulit, et equos meos jam venditos manducavi.” BISHOP WILLIAM LEAVES ENGLAND. 117 still repeatedly forbidden to cross, even alone.’ In cnap. 1. answer to an earnest message that he might be allowed to go to Rome, the King sent Walkelin Bishop of Win- The Bishop chester with two companions, one of them Hugh of Port, tioned by a well-known Domesday name, to summon him to send Walkelin. Geoffrey for trial to Durham and to appear himself in London at the Christmas Gemét to answer for the deeds of his men.? In defiance of all prayers and protests, the King’s officers kept the Bishop in ward night and day; in his sadness he sent a message to the Counts who had given him the safe-conduct, praying them by the faith of their baptism to have him released from his imprisonment and allowed to eross the sea.* They answered his appeal. Interposi- At their urgent prayer, the King at last let him cross. a aa He sailed to Normandy, where he was honourably re- He at last ceived by Duke Robert, and—so the Durham writer uncaaty believed—entrusted with the care of his whole duchy.* Perhaps it was owing to these new worldly cares that, though we often hear of him again, we do not hear of him as a suppliant at the court of Rome. The tale of Bishop William of Durham is long, perhaps Import- ; ede : Sp f th in some of its stages it is wearisome; but it is too tesy eo important a contribution to our story to be left out x ig of or cut short. It sets before us the earliest of those Calais. debates in the King’s court of which we shall come 1 He offers, ‘‘ Solus, si liceat, transfretabo.” ? Mon. Angl.u.s. ‘‘ Rex misit ei Wintoniensem episcopum et Hugonem de Portu et Gaufridum de Traileio, et per illos sibi mandavit ut Gaufridum monachum ad placitandum de przdictis forisfactis Dunelmum mitteret, et ipse Londoniam iret, ut in nativitate Domini de hominibus suis ibi rectitu- dinem regi faceret.” 3 Ib. “Episcopus tristis misit'ad comites Alanum et Rogerum et Odonem, mandans eis impedimenta sua, et conjuravit eos per eam fidem quam in baptismo susceperant et quam sibi promiserant.” ‘Ib. “A Roberto fratre regis comite Normannorum honorifice sus- ceptus, totius Normanniz curam suscepit.” 118 THE EARLY DAYS OF WILLIAM RUFUS. car. 1 across other memorable examples before the reign of Mllustra: Rufus is over. We see the forms and the spirit of ie the jurisprudence of England in the days immediately dence. following the Norman Conquest, a jurisprudence which, both in its forms and its spirit, has become strongly technical, but which still has not yet become the ex~- clusive possession of a professional class. Bishops, earls, sheriffs, are still, as of old, learned in the law, and are fully able to carry on a legal discussion in their own persons. And we see that a legal discussion in those days could be carried out with a good deal of freedom Legal of speech on all sides. As to the matter of the debate, the Soke. all that we know of Bishop William, both afterwards and at this time from other sources, can leave hardly any doubt that he was simply availing himself of every legal subtlety, of every pretended ecclesiastical privilege, in order to escape a real trial in which he knew that he would have no safe ground on the merits of the case. Reasons for And, if it be asked why the Bishop of Durham should ae ms have been picked out for legal prosecution, while his Bi accomplices were forgiven and were actually sitting as his judges,the answer is to be found in the circumstances of the case. As we read the tale in all other accounts, as we read of it in the formal charge brought by Hugh of Beaumont, we see that there was a special treachery in Bishop William’s rebellion which distinguished his case from that of all other rebels. Why he should have joined the revolt at all, how he could expect that any change could make him greater than he already was, is certainly a difficulty; but the fact seems certain, and, if ib be true, it quite accounts for the special enmity with which he was now pursued. The idea of the Bishop which the story conveys to us is that of a subtle man, full of resources, well able to counterfeit innocence, and to employ the highest ecclesiastical claims as a IMPORTANCE OF BISHOP WILLIAM'S TRIAL. 119 means to escape punishment for a civil crime. It was caap. 1. from the mouth of William of Saint-Calais that, for the ee first time as far as we can see, men who were English Rome made by birth or settlement heard the doctrine that the King ecole of the English had a superior on earth, that the decrees sia of the Witan of England could be rightly appealed from to a foreign power. The later career of the Bishop makes him a strange champion of any such teaching. The largest charity will not allow us to give him credit for the pure single-mindedness of Anselm, or even for the conscious self-devotion of Thomas. We feel throughout that he is simply using every verbal technicality in order to avoid any discussion of the real facts. A trial and conviction would hardly have brought with them any harsher punishment than the forfeiture and banishment which he actually underwent. But it made a fairer show in men’s eyes to undergo forfeiture and banishment in the character of a per- secuted confessor than to undergo the same amount of loss in the character of a convicted traitor. The part played by Lanfranc is eminently character- Hanne of Lan- istic. Practically he maintains the royal supremacy 0D franc ; every point; but he makes no formal declaration which could commit him to anti-papal theories. As for William oftheKing. Rufus, one is really inclined for a long while to admire his patience through a discussion which must have been both wearisome and provoking, rather than to feel any wonder that, towards the end of the day, he begins to break out into somewhat stronger language. But in the latter part of the story, like Henry the Second but unlike Henry the First, he stoops from his own thoroughly good position. He shows a purpose to take every advantage however mean, and to crush the Bishop in any way, fair or foul. So at least it seems in our story; but one would like to hear the other side, as one is unwilling 120 CHAP. II. The lesser actors. THE EARLY DAYS OF WILLIAM RUFUS. to fancy either Bishop Walkelin or Bishop Osmund directly lending himself to sheer palpable wrong. But, after all, not the least attractive part of the story is the glimpse which it gives us of the lesser actors, some of them men of whom we know from other sources the mere names and nothing more. We feel brought nearer to the real life of the eleventh century every time that we are admitted to see a Domesday name becoming something more than a name, to see Ralph Paganel, Hugh of Port, and Heppo the Balistarius playing their parts in an actual story. The short sharp speeches put into the mouths of some of the smaller actors, as well as those which are put into the mouth of the King, both add to the liveliness of the story and increase our faith in Conduct of its trustworthiness. As in some other pictures of the the laity, kind, the laity, both the great men and the general body, stand out on the whole in favourable colours. It not favour i8 perfectly plain, from Bishop William’s own words,! able to the Bishop. that he had not, like Anselm and Thomas, the mass of the people on his side. It is equally plain that the majority of the assembly, though they certainly gave him a fair hearing, were neither inclined to his cause nor convinced by his arguments. And the conduct of the Counts Alan and Odo and their companion Roger of Poitou is throughout that of strictly honour- able men, anxious to carry out to the letter every point to which they have pledged their faith. The Red King, having merely pledged his faith as a king, and not in that more fantastic character in which he always held his plighted word as sacred, is less scrupulous on this head. The affair of Bishop William brings us almost to the last days of the year of the rebellion. But, much } See above, p. 91, where he is afraid of the “indocta multitudo.” AFFAIRS OF WALES. 121 earlier in the year, events of some importance had been cuar. n. happening in other parts of the island. We are almost No re- tempted to take for granted that so great a stir in et northern England as that which accompanied the banish- aa ment of the Bishop of Durham must have been accom- panied or followed by some action on the part of King Malcolm of Scotland. None such however is spoken of. But the stirs on the Western border had been taken Move- advantage of by the enemies of England on that side. ig We have seen that British allies played a part on the side of the rebels in the attack on Worcester. Further north, independent Britons deemed that the time was come for a renewal of the old border strife. When Earl Hugh of Chester and the Marquess Robert of Rhuddlan took opposite sides in a civil war, it was indeed an inviting moment for any of the neighbouring Welsh princes. The time seems to have been one of even more confusion than usual among the Britons. The year after the death of State of the Conqueror is marked in their annals as a special time oe of civil warfare, in which allies were brought by sea from Scotland and Ireland. Rhys the son of Tewdwr, Rhys of whom we have already heard, was driven from his pepe kingdom by the sons of Bleddyn, and won it again by Tland. the help of a fleet from Ireland.2? Men were struck by the vast rewards in money and captives with which he repaid his naval allies, who are spoken of as if some of them were still heathens.? These movements 1 See N. C. vol. iv. pp. 502, 675. 2 Ann. Camb. 1087. “ Resus filius Teudur a regno suo expulsus est a filiis Bledint, scilices Madauc, Cadugan, et Ririt. Resus vero ex Hibernia classem duxit et revertitur in Britanniam.” The Brut is to the same effect. 3 Ib, ‘“‘Ingentem censum captivorum gentilibus et Scotis filius Teudur tradidit.” The Brut for ‘“gentiles et Scoti” has “ Yscotteit ar Guydyl,” marking the Gwyddyl as heathen Ostmen. This is the most common use of the word in the British writers; but we can hardly think that the Scots here spoken of are Scots in the elder sense. 122 CHAP, IT, THE EARLY DAYS OF WILLIAM RUFUS. are not recorded by any English or Norman writer, nor do the Welsh annals record the event with which Norman and English feeling was more deeply concerned. But there was clearly a connexion between the two. Gruffydd the son of Cynan appears in the British annals Gruffydd’s as an ally of the restored Rhys,! and we now find a Trish allies. King Gruffydd, not only carrying slaughter by land into the English territory, but appearing in the more unusual character of the head of a seafaring expedition. We may feel pretty sure that it was the presence of the allies from Ireland—both native Irish, it would seem, and Scandinavian settlers—which combined with the dis- turbed state of England to lead Gruffydd to a fright- ful inroad on the lands of the most cruel enemy of the He attacks Britons, the Marquess Robert. The Welsh King and his Rhuddlan. Robert of Rhuddlan. allies marched as far as the new stronghold of Rhuddlan ; they burned much and slew many men, and carried off many prisoners, doubtless for the Irish slave-market.* It was clearly through this doubtless far more profitable raid on the English territory that Rhys and Gruffydd found the means of rewarding their Irish and Scandi- navian allies. This inroad took place while the civil war in England was going on,*? a war in which it must be remembered that other British warriors had borne their part.t While ‘In Ann. Camb, 1082, Trahaern (see N.C. iv. 675), with others, “a Reso filio Teudur et a Grifino filio Conani occidisus est.” This Gruffydd must be distinguished from Gruffydd son of Meredydd. He may be the “Grifin puer” of Domesday, 180 b. ‘Griffin rex” in p. 269 is surely Gruffydd son of Llywelyn. ? Ord, Vit. 669 B. “ Grithfridus rex Guallorum cum exercitu suo fines Angliz invasit, et circa Rodelentum magnam stragem hominum et incendia fecit, ingentem quoque predam cepit, hominesque in captivitatem duxit.” ® Orderic (u. 8.) specially marks Gruffydd’s invasion as happening “cum supradicta tempestate vehementer Anglia undique concuteretur et mutuis vulneribus incole regni quotidie mactarentur.” * See above, pp. 34, 47. Now is the time for the exploits of the grand- sons of Jestyn ap Gwrgan. See N.C. vol. v. p. 822, and Appendix DD, GRUFFYDD ATTACKS RHUDDLAN. 123 the lands of Rhuddlan were wasted, the Marquess Robert caar. u. was busy far away at the siege of Rochester. This would His make us think that, like Earl Roger, he changed sides ee early,! and that he was now in the royal camp, helping PY: to besiege Odo and his accomplices. After the surrender He returns of Rochester, the news of the grievous blow which had ica been dealt to himself and his lands brought Robert back to North Wales, wrathful and full of threats.2 The enemy must by this time have withdrawn from the neighbourhood of Rhuddlan; for we now hear of the Marquess in the north-western corner of the land which he had brought under his rule. He was now in the The penin- peninsula which ends to the north in that vast headland aa which, like the other headland which ends the penin- sula of Gower to the west, bears the name of the Orm’s Head. The mountain itself, thick set with remains which were most likely ancient when Suetonius passed by to Mona, forms a strong contrast to the flat ground at its foot which stretches southward towards the tidal mouth of the Conwy. But that flat ground is broken by several isolated hills, once doubtless, like the Head itself, islands. Of these the two most conspicuous, two peaks of no great height but of marked steepness and ruggedness, rise close together, one almost immediately above the Conwy shore, the other landwards behind it. They are in fact two peaks of a single hill, with a dip between the two, as on the Capitoline hill of Rome. ' We have seen him among the rebels. See above, p. 34. ? Ord. Vit. u.s. ‘Robertus Rodelenti princeps de obsidione Rofensi rediens, et tam atroces damnososque sibi rumores comperiens, vehementer dolens ingemuit, et terribilibus minis iram suam evidenter aperuit.” 3 Tb. 670 B. “Tertio die Julii Grithfridus rex Guallorum cum tribus navibus sub montem qui dicitur Hormaheva littori appulsus est.” It needs a moment’s thought to see that Hormaheva is Ormesheafod, the Orm’s Head, Here the name bears the Scandinavian form given to it doubtless by Northern rovers. The Worm’s Head in Gower, in its English form, marks the presence of Low-Dutch settlers, whether Flemish or Saxon, 124 , CHAP. II. The castle of Dwy- ganwy. Robert at_ Dwy- ganwy. Approach of Gruf- fydd. July 3, 1088. THE EARLY DAYS OF WILLIAM RUFUS. Here was the old British stronghold of Dwyganwy, famous in early times as the royal seat of Maelgwyn, him who is apostrophized in the lament of Gildas by the name of the dragon—the worm—of the island’ That stronghold had now passed into the hands of the Mar- quess Robert, and had been by him strengthened with all the newly imported skill of Normandy. The castle of Dwyganwy plays a part in every Welsh war during the next two centuries, and we can hardly fancy that much of Robert’s work survives in the remains of build- ings which are to be traced on both peaks and in the dip between them. But it is likely that at all times the habitable part of the castle lay between the two peaks, while the peaks themselves formed merely mili- tary defences. Here then Robert was keeping his head- quarters in the opening days of July. At noon on one of the summer days the Marquess was sleeping—between the peaks, we may fancy, whether in any building or in the open air. He was roused from his slumber by stirring tidings. King Gruffydd, at the head of three ships, had entered the mouth of the Conwy; he had brought his ships to anchor; his pirate crews had landed and were laying waste the country. The tide ebbed ; the ships stood on the dry land; the followers of Gruffydd spread themselves far and wide over the flat country, and carried prisoners and cattle to their ships.2. The Marquess rose; he climbed the height im- 1 Ord, Vit. 670 B. “Incolis Britonibus sevo Marte repulsis, fines suos dilatavit, et in monte Dagaunoth, qui mari contiguus est, fortissimum castellum condidit.” Orderic has clearly got hold of the right names and the right incidents ; but he has misconceived the topography. Dwyganwy passes as the stronghold of that Maglocunus or Maelgwyn, whom Gildas (Ep. 33) addresses as “insularis draco, multorum tyrannorum depulsor, tam regno quam etiam vita” (cf. Nennius, c. 62, and Ann. Camb, 547, the year of his death). See Giraldus, It. Kamb. ii. 10; Descrip. Kamb. i. 5 (where he calls it “nobile castellum ”), vol. vi. pp. 136, 176. ? Ord. Vit. 670 C. “Interim mare fluctus suos retraxit, et in sicco litore GRUFFYDD AT DWYGANWY. 125 mediately above him, a height which looks on the flat onap. n. land, the open sea, the estuary now crowned on the other side by Conwy with its diadem of towers, over the inland hills, and on the Orm’s Head itself rising in the full view to the northward. He saw beneath him a sight which might have stirred a more sluggish soul. As King Henry had looked down on the slaughter of his troops at Varaville,) so Robert, from his fortified post of Dwyganwy, saw his men carried off in bonds and thrown into the ships along with the sheep.2 He Eagerness sent forth orders for a general gathering, and made ready for an attack on the plunderers at the head of such men as were with him at the moment. They were few; they were unarmed; but he called on them to make their way down the steep hillside and to fall on the plun- derers on the shore before the returning tide enabled them to carry off their booty. The appeal met with no hearty answer; the followers of the valiant Mar- quess pleaded their small numbers and the hard task classis piratarum stetit. Grithfridus autem cum suis per maritima discurrit, homines et armenta rapuit, et ad naves exsiccatas festine remeavit,” * See N. C, vol. iii. p. 176. ? Ord. Vit. u. s. ““Clamor vulgi Robertum meridie dormitantem ex- citavit, eique hostilem discursum per terram suam nuntiavit. TIlle vero, ut jacebat, impiger surrexit, et mox precones ad congregandum agmen armatorum per totam regionem direxit. Porro ipse cum paucis bellatoribus imparatus Guallos prosecutus est, et de vertice montis Hormoheve, qui nimis arduus est, captivos a piratis ligari, et in naves cum pecoribus precipitari speculatus est.” Orderic must surely have confounded the Orm’s Head itself with the lower hill of Dwyganwy. It is there, in or near his own castle, that we must conceive Robert sleeping, not on the Orm’s Head itself, or on any casual point of the flat ground between the two. To climb the higher of the two peaks of Dwyganwy would be perfectly natural, and would give him a wide enough view over the whole country. But to conceive him first crossing the flat, and then climbing a huge mountain for no particular object, seems quite out of the question. 3 Ib. ‘“Marchisus audax, ut leo nobilis, vehementer infremuit, homines- que paucos qui secum inermes erant, ut, antequam zstus maris rediret, super Guallos in sicco litore irruerent, admonuit.” of Robert. 126 THE EARLY DAYS OF WILLIAM RUFUS. cuar. u. of making their way down the steep and rocky height. Death of Robert. But Robert was not to be kept back ; he still saw what was doing through the whole of the peninsular low- lands. He could not bear to let the favourable moment pass by. Without his cuirass, attended only by a single knight, Osbern of Orgéres, he went down to attack the enemy on the shores of the estuary. When the Britons saw him alone, with only a single companion and no defence but his shield, they gathered round him to over- whelm him with darts and arrows, none daring to attack him with the sword.? He still stood, wounded, with his shield bristling with missiles, but still defying his enemies. At last his wounds bore him down. The weight of the encumbered shield was too much for him; he sank on his knees*, and commended his soul to God and His Mother. Then the enemy rushed on him with one accord; they smote off his head in sight of his followers, and fixed it as a trophy on the mast of one of the ships.© Men saw all this from the hill- top with grief and rage; but they could give no help. 1 Ord. Vit. 670C. “ Pretendunt suorum paucitatem, et per ardui montis precipitium descendendi difficultatem.” 2 Ib. “ Nimis doluit, impatiensque more per difficilem descensum sine lorica cum uno milite nomine Osberno de Orgeriis, ad hostes descendit.” I cannot identify this Osbern, unless he be “Osbernus filius Tezonis,’’ who in Domesday (267, 268 6) holds a good deal of land in Cheshire under Earl Hugh, but none seemingly under Robert himself. For Orgeres see Stapleton, ii. lxxxv. 5 Tb. 670 D. ‘Quem cum viderent solo clypeo protectum et uno tantum milite stipatum, omnes pariter in illum missilia destinant, et scutum ejus jaculis intolerabiliter onerant, et egregium militem letaliter vulnerant. Nullus tamen, quamdiu stetit et parmam tenuit, ad eum comminus acce- dere, vel eum ense impetere ausus fuit.” Cf. the account of the death of Siccius in Dion. Hal. xi. 26. He has an éraomoris to play the part of Osbern of Orgeres. * Ib. ‘‘Bellicosus heros spiculis confossus genua flexit, et scutum missilibus nimis onustum viribus effcetus dimisit.” 5 Tb. “In conspectu suorum caput ejus abscindunt ac super malum navis pro signo victorie suspendunt.” . DEATH OF ROBERT OF RHUDDLAN, 127 A crowd came together on the shore; but it was too omar. u. late; the lord of Rhuddlan was already slain. By this time the invaders were able to put to sea, and the followers of Robert were also able to get their ships together and follow them. They followed in wrath and sorrow, a8 they saw the head of their chief on the mast.1 Gruffydd must have felt himself the weaker. He ordered the head to be taken down and cast into the sea. On this the pursuers gave up the chase; they His burial took up the body of the slain Marquess, and, amidst’ Chester much grief of Normans and English,? buried him in Saint Werburh’s minster at Chester.’ We are well pleased to have preserved to us this living piece of personal anecdote, which reminds us for a moment of the deaths of Harold and of Hereward. Its preservation we doubtless owe to the connexion of Connexion Robert of Rhuddlan with the house of Saint Evroul. ee Otherwise we might have known no more of the con- 2vroul. queror of North Wales than we can learn from the entries in Domesday which record his possessions.* But Robert, nephew of Hugh of Grantmesnil, had en- riched his uncle's foundation with estates in England, and in the city of Chester itself> He was therefore ! Ord. Vit. 670 D. ‘Classe parata piratas per mare fugientes perse- quebantur nimis tristes, dum caput principis sui super malum puppis intue- bantur.” 2 Tb. 671 A. “Cum nimio luctu Anglorum et Normannorum.” This may be well believed. Normans and English soon forgot their own differences in warfare with the Welsh. 8 But Orderic has forgotten his dates whenhe says, “ Nuper illudcenobium Hugo Cestrensis consul construxerat, eique Ricardus Beccensis monachus abbas preerat.” We shall see as we go on that the monks were not planted at Saint Werburh’s till 1092 (see N.C. vol. iv. pp. 312, 491). It is now that Orderic speaks of the “ belluini ccetus’”—we are not told whether they were Norman, English. or Wel-h—among whom Abbot Richard had to labour. * See N. C. vol. iv. p. 489. 5 His gifts in lands, tithes, and villains, in Normandy and in England, are reckoned up by Orderic, 669 C, D. Among them was ‘in a Cestra ecclesiain sancti Petri de mercato et tres hospites,” 128 CHAP. II, His trans- lation to Saint Evroul. Orderic writes his epitaph. Its character. THE EARLY DAYS OF WILLIAM RUFUS. not allowed to sleep for ever in the foreign soil of Chester. He had a brother Arnold, a monk of Saint Eyroul, zealous in all things for his house, who had begged endless gifts for it from his kinsfolk in Eng- land, Sicily, and elsewhere. Some years after Robert's death, Arnold came to England, and, by the leave of Bishop Robert of Chester or Coventry—Bishop of the Mercians in the phrase of the monk who was born in his diocese—translated the body of Robert to the min- ster of Saint Evroul. There a skilful painter, Reginald surnamed Bartholomew—most likely a monk who had taken the apostolic name on entering religion—was employed to adorn the tomb of Robert and the arch which sheltered it with all the devices of his art. And the English monk Vital—we know him better by his English and worldly name—was set to compose the epitaph of one who had in some sort, like himself, passed from Mercia to Saint Evroul.? In his history Orderic deemed it his duty to brand Robert's dealings with the Welsh as breaches of the natural law which binds man to man. And it may be that something of the same feeling peeps out in the words of the epitaph itself, which prays with unusual fervour for the forgive- ness of Robert’s sins.t Yet in the verses which record his acts, his campaigns against the Briton appear as worthy exploits alongside of his zeal for holy things and his special love for the house of Ouche. It is not ? Ord. Vit. 671 B. ‘ Rainaldus pictor, cognomento Bartolomeus, variis coloribus arcum tumulumque depinxit.” * Ib. “Vitalis Angligena satis ab Ernaldo rogatus epitaphium elegiacis versibus hoc modo edidit.” 3 See N. C. vol. iv. p. 490. * Ord. Vit. 672 A; “ Eripe tartareis Robertum, Christe, camcenis [caménis] ; Est nimis ipse reus; terge, precor, facinus ;”” with four more lines to the same effect. TRANSLATION AND EPITAPH OF ROBERT, 129 easy to track out all these exploits, even in the narra- cnap. 11. tive of Orderic himself, much less in the annals of Robert's British enemies. But all the mightiest names of the Cymry are set forth in order, as having felt the might of the daring Marquess. He had built Rhuddlan and had guarded it against the fierce people of the land. He had ofttimes crossed beyond Conwy and Snowdon in arms. He had put King Bleddyn to flight and had won great spoil from him. He had carried off King Howel as a prisoner in bonds. He had taken King Gruffydd and had overthrown Trahaern. That Howel, his former captive, should rejoice at his fall is in no way won- derful ; but the epitaph speaks further of the treachery of a certain Owen, of which there is no mention in the prose narrative In any case Robert of Rhuddlan stands out as one of the mightiest enemies of the Northern Cymry, and the tale of his end is one of the most picturesque in this reign of picturesque incidents. » The rebellion was now over, and the new King was End of the firm upon his throne. And with the rebellion, the last scene, as we have already said, of the Norman Conquest 1 Ord. Vit. 671 C, D. “ Montem Snaudunum fluviumque citum Colvenum, Pluribus armatis transiliit vicibus. Precipuam pulcro Blideno rege fugato Predam cum paucis cepit in insidiis. Duxit captivum lorisque ligavit Hoéllum Qui tune Wallensi rex preerat manui. Cepit Grithfridum regem vicitque Trehellum ; Sic micuit crebris militiz titulis. Attamen incaute Wallenses ausus adire, Occidit zstivi principio Juli. Prodidit Owenius, rex est gavisus Hovellus ; Facta vindicta monte sub Hormaheva, Ense caput secuit Grithfridus, et in mare jecit, Soma quidem reliquum possidet hunc loculum.” The exploits of Robert fully entitled him to Orderic’s pet Greek word. “Colvenus” must be some corrupt form of Conwy. VOL. I. K Norman Conquest. 130 THE EARLY DAYS OF WILLIAM RUFUS. cuar. 11. was over also. Englishmen and Normans had, for the last time under those names, met in open fight on Eng- lish soil. Whether of the two had won the victory? Such a question might admit of different answers when the Norman King vanquished the Norman nobility at The Con- the head of the English people. In one sense the Con- “easel quest was confirmed; in another sense it was undone. baa Men must have felt that the Conquest was undone, that undone. the wergeld of those who fell two-and-twenty years back was indeed paid, when the second Norman host that strove to land on the beach of Pevensey, instead of marching on to Hastings, to Senlac, to London, and to York, was beaten back from the English coast by the arms of Englishmen. They must have felt that it was undone, when the castles on which Englishmen looked as the darkest badges of bondage were stormed by an English host, gathered together at the same bidding which had gathered men together to fight at Sherstone and at Stamfordbridge. He must have been Nithing indeed who did not feel that the wrongs of many days were paid for, when the arch-oppressor, the most loathed of all his race, came forth with downcast looks to meet the jeers and curses of the nation on which he had trampled. Days like the day of Tunbridge, the day of Pevensey, and the day of Rochester, are among the days which make the heart of a nation swell higher for their memory. They were days on which the Englishman overcame the Norman, days which ruled that he who would reign over England must reign with the good Tendencies will of the English people. The fusion of Normans and ‘ounion- English was as yet far from being brought to perfection; indeed nothing could show more clearly than those days that the gap between the two nations still yawned in all its fulness. But nothing did more than the work of those days at once to fill up the gap and to rule in what THE CONQUEST CONFIRMED AND UNDONE. 131 way it should be filled up. Those days showed that the onar. u. land was still an English land, that the choice of its ruler rested in the last resort with the true folk of the land. Those days ruled that Normans and English should become one people; but they further ruled, if there could be any doubt about the matter, that they were to become one people by the Normans becoming Englishmen, not by the English becoming Normans. It is significant that, in recording the next general re- bellion, the Chronicler no longer marks the traitors as “the richest Frenchmen that were on this land;” they are simply “the head men here on land who took rede together against the King.” ? But, if in this way the Conquest was undone, if it was How far ruled that England was still to be England, in another way the Conquest was confirmed. The English people showed that the English crown was still theirs to be- stow; but at the same time they showed that they had no longer a thought of bestowing it out of the house of their Conqueror. When the English people came to- The Norman gether at the bidding of the Conqueror’s son, when they confirmed. dynasty willingly plighted their faith to him and called on him, 2. reputed wickedness. Lord through his mother of the Her in- castle from which he took his name, lord of a crowd sac of other castles on the border-lands of Normandy, Perche, and Maine, Robert of Belléme, Robert Talvas, stands forth for the present as the son of Mabel rather 1 See N. C. vol. iv. pp. 558, 638. 3 Ib. p. 493. N2 180 THE FIRST WARS OF WILLIAM RUFUS. cHAP. 1. than as the son of Roger. In after times counties and ee lordships flowed in upon him from various sources and is father 2 ‘ at Mont- jn various quarters. The death of his father gave him desde the old Norman possessions of the house of Montgomery; andhis the death of his brother gave him the new English aia possessions of that house, the great earldom of Shrews- ie bury and all that went with it. We seem to be carried His wife back to past times when we find that Robert of Belléme Po was married to the daughter of Guy of Ponthieu, the gaoler of Harold, and that, at the accession of William Guy Count Rufus, Guy had still as many years to reign as the Red ener King himself. Guy’s death at last added Ponthieu to the possessions of the house of Belléme, nominally in the person of Robert’s son William Talvas, practically Greatness in that of Robert himself. The lord of such lands, ae master of four and thirty castles ranked rather with princes than with ordinary nobles; and even now, when Robert held only the inheritance of his mother, the extent and nature of his fiefs gave him a position almost princely. The man alike of Normandy and of France, he could make use of the profitable as well as the dangerous side of a divided allegiance, and it is not 1 Ord. Vit. 708 B. He does not say distinctly at what stage he means. Geoffrey Gaimar (Chron. Angl. Norm. i. 35) has an elaborate picture of Robert at his greatest ; “Li quens Robert, cil de Belesme, Roche-Mabilie estait en sa pees. Mil chevalers out en son esme ; En Rom out rues assez. En Engleterre out treis contez, Il esteit quen de sis contez; Quens de Pontif estait clamez, Co ert le meillur chevaler Si ert conte de Leneimeis, Ke l’em séust pur querreier. D’Esparlon e de Sessuneis ; Cil vint & son seignur le rei, Sue estait Argenton, Seis, Mil chevalers menat od sei.” He then goes on to mention his brothers. (See above, p. 37.) Many of the places on this list will come in our story. “Rom,” it is hardly needful to say, is only the capital of Normandy, not of the world. But what are the three counties in England? There is Shropshire, and most likely Sussex, What is the third? Yorkshire, on the strength of Tickbill? But Robert had no earldom there. ROBERT OF BELLEME, ——~ 181 without reason that we find the lord of the border-land car. 1. spoken of by the fitting title of Marquess’. From the Great part death of the Conqueror onwards, through the reigns i ae oe of Robert and William, till the day when Henry sent him to a life-long prison, Robert of Belléme fills in the history of Normandy and England a place along- side of their sovereigns. With the inheritance of Mabel and William Talvas, His cha- their son and grandson was believed to have succeeded pe in full measure to the hereditary wickedness of their house. That house is spoken of as one at whose deeds deemons themselves might shudder,? and Robert himself His sur- bears in the traditions of his Cenomannian enemies the” frightful surname which has been so unfairly transferred to the father of the Conqueror. His name lives in proverbs. In the land of Maine his abiding works are pointed to as the works of Robert the Devil. Elsewhere the “wonders of Robert of Belléme” became a familiar saying.» That Robert was a man of no small natural gifts is plain; to the ordinary accomplishments of the Norman warrior he added a mastery of the more in- tellectual branches of the art of warfare. As the His skillin Cenomannian legend shows, he stood at the head of, Se ae his age in the skill of the military engineer.* Firm and daring, ready of wit and ready of speech, he had in him most of the qualities which might have made him great in that or in any other age. But, even in His special and wanton that age, he held a place by himself as a kind of in- queity, 1 Ord. Vit. 675 D. ? Hen. Hunt. De Cont. Mund. 11. ‘ Gens ipsis demonibus horrenda.” 3 See N. C. vol. i. p. 468. The Archdeacon of Huntingdon himself, with a slight contempt of sex and species, calls him “ Pluto, Megera, Cerberus, vel si aliquid horrendi scribi potest.’’ He speaks of the proverb, ‘ Mirabilia Roberti de Belesme.” ‘ See his two pictures in Orderic, 675 C, D, and 707 C, D. In his character of engineer we shall meet him at Gisors. See 766 B, 182 THE FIRST WARS OF WILLIAM RUFUS, caar, mm. carnation of evil. Restless ambition, reckless contempt of the rights of others, were common to him with many of his neighbours and contemporaries. But he stands almost alone in his habitual delight in the infliction of human suffering. The recklessness which lays waste houses and fields, the cruelty of passion or of policy which slays or mutilates an enemy, were common in his day. But even then we find only a few men of whom it was be- lieved that the pangs of other men were to them a direct source of enjoyment. In Robert sheer love of cruelty displaced even greediness; he refused ransom for his prisoners that he might have the pleasure of putting them to lingering deaths.1_ The received forms of cruelty blinding and mutilation, were not enough for him; he brought the horrors of the East into Western Europe ; men, and women too, were left at his bidding to writhe on the sharp stake? Distrustful of all men, artful, flattering, courteous of speech, his profession of friendship was the sure path to destruction.? The special vices of William Rufus are not laid to his charge; it is at least to the credit of Latin Christendom in the eleventh century that it needs the union of its two worst sinners 1 Ord. Vit. 707 D. ‘Magis affectabat supplicia miseris inferre quam per redemptionem captivorum pecuniasaugere.” So Hen, Hunt.u.s. Yet, as some of his captives escaped, he lost the ransom for nothing. * Ib. “Homines privatione oculorum et amputatione pedum manuumve deformare parvipendebat, sed inauditorum commeditatione suppliciorum in torquendis miseris more Siculi Phalaris tripudiabat. Quos in carcere pro reatu aliquo stringebat, Nerone seu Decio vel Diocletiano sevior, indicibiliter cruciabat, et inde jocos cum parasitis suis et cachinnos jactabundus exerce- bat. Tormentorum quz vinctis inferebat delectatione gloriabatur, hominum- que detractione pro penarum nimietate crudelis letabatur.” The special detail of the impaling comes from Henry of Huntingdon, who says also, “ Erat ei ceedes horribilis hominum cibus jucundus anime.” 3 Will. Malms. v. 398. “Simulationis et argutiarum plenus, frontis sereno et sermonum affabilitate credulos decipiens, gnaros autem malitize exterritans, ut nullum esset majus future calamitatis indicium quam pre- tense affabilitatis eloquium.” Something of the same kind was said of King Henry himself. See N.C. vol. v. p. 841. SPECIAL CRUELTY OF ROBERT OF BELLEME. 183 to form the likeness of an Ottoman Majesty, Excellency, caar. mr. or Highness in the nineteenth. But his domestic life was hardly happy. His wife Agnes, the heiress of His treat- Ponthieu, the mother of his one child William Talvas, ee was long kept by him in bonds in the dungeons of Belléme.! And, more piteous than all, we read how and his a little boy, his own godchild, drew near to him in all acne loving trust. Some say, in the sheer wantonness of cruelty, some say, to avenge some slight fault of the child’s father, the monster drew the boy under his cloak and tore out his eyes with his own hands.’ The list of the men, great and small, who were simply wronged and dispossessed by Robert of Belléme, is long indeed. Some of them, it is true, were now and then able to revenge their wrongs with their own arms. He seems, as might have been expected, to His enmity have been the special enemy of all that was specially good in individuals or in communities. He was the to the bitter foe of the valiant and faithful men of Domfront.* Darationts He was before all things the enemy of Helias of La to Helias; Fléche. He was the enemy of his neighbour Count to Rotrou Rotrou of Perche, who also bears a good character among cere the princes of his day. As temporal lord of Seez, he to the prelates of was the enemy of its churches, episcopal and abbatial ; Scez, he had not that reverence for the foundation of his 1 Ord. Vit. 708 B. She at last escaped to Countess Adela at Chartres, and got to her own land of Ponthieu. 2 The story is told with the difference spoken of in the text by Henry of Huntingdon (de Cont. Mundi, 11) and by William of Malmesbury (v. 398). Henry says only, “ Filioli sui oculos sub chlamide positi quasi ludens pollicibus extraxit.” William supplies a kind of motive; “ Puerulum ex baptismo filiolum, quem in obsidatum acceperat, pro modico delicto patris excecarit, lumina miselli unguibus nefandis abrumpens.” That is, the Archdeacon makes the ugly story still uglier, just as in the case of the children of Juliana. See N. C. vol. v. pp. 157, 841. 3 Ord. Vit. 708 A. “Ob insolentiam et cupiditatem plurima contra collimi- taneos preelia ccepit ; sed sepe victus cum damno et dedecore aufugit.” * See further on in this chapter. 5 Ord. Vit. 675 D. 184 THE FIRST WARS OF WILLIAM RUFUS. cHar. 11. father which is one of the redeeming features in the ae character of the Red King. He underwent excommuni- afterwards cation from the zeal of Bishop Serlo, and by the wrongs Archbishop done by him to Abbot Ralph of Seez, which drove that of Canter- ms bury prelate to seek shelter in England, he unwittingly gave . England a worthy primate and Anselm a worthy successor! One is inclined to wonder how such a man gained the special favour of the Conqueror, whose politic sternness had nothing in common with the fiendish brutality of Robert.? Perhaps, as in William Rufus, the worst features of his character may for a while have been hidden. It is less surprising that, in the days of William’s sons, we find him in honour at the courts of England, Normandy, and France. Hisim- But at last vengeance came upon him. When King prisonment ( 2 7 ; 4 : : by Henry. Henry sent him to spend his days in prison, it was in a me prison so strait and darksome that the outer world knew not whether he were dead or alive, nor was the time of his death set down in any record.? baa : The other Robert, the son of the other Roger, was a Rs man of a different mould, a man who would perhaps and Earl of ssem more in place in some other age than in that in Leicester. His father Which he lived. He was the son of the old and worthy ere: Roger of Beaumont, the faithful counsellor of princes, who, like Gulbert of Hugleville, refused to share in 1 See Ord. Vit. 707 D for the Bishop; ib. 678 A and Will. Malms. Gest. Pont. 127 for the Abbot. With the bishopric there was a question of the right of advowson ; “ Episcopium contra jus et fas comprimebat, et Guillelmo Belesmensi avo ejus a Ricardo duce datum asserebat.” Cf. on the bishopric of Le Mans, N. C, vol. iii. p. 194. From the Abbot too he demanded an oath of allegiance, “de sacramento et homagio abbatem exagitare.” This was in Henry’s time. 2? Ord. Vit. 668 C. “ Robertus Belesmensis qui patri tuo fuit valde di- lectus, et multis honoribus olim ab ipso promotus.” See above, p. 84. 3 Hen. Hunt. u.s, “Quem tantopere fama coluerat dum viveret, in carcere utrum viveret vel obisset, nescivit, diemque mortis ejus obmutescens ignoravit,”” ROBERT COUNT OF MEULAN. : 185 the spoils of England. Great, like his namesake, in cna. m. France, Normandy, and England, Robert passed through a long life unstained by any remarkable crime, though it was hinted that, of his vast possessions on both sides of the sea, some were not fairly come by. He is known He inherits in history by the name of his French county of Meulan, een which he inherited from his mother’s brother, Count "™ Ord. Vit. 672 D. “ Rex Guillelmus benigniter eum, ut decuit fratrem, suscepit, et quod poterat fraterne concessit. Deinde, peractis pro quibus ierat, in autumno regi valefecit.” An actual possession of something seems implied in the words of Orderic, 689 C, “ Regi Anglie hostis erat pro terra matris sue, qua rex eumdem in Anglia dissaisiverat, et Roberto Haimonis filio dederat.” 198 CHAP. III, He seizes them again. “They are granted to Robert Fitz- hanon. Influence of Odo with Robert. Autumn, 1088, THE FIRST WARS OF WILLIAM RUFUS. character which was yet newer to him, that of a sharer in his father’s conquest, a great land-owner on the other side of the sea. But his luck, which was to shine forth so brightly in after times, forsook him for the present. If Henry ever came into actual possession of his English estates, his tenure of them was short. At some time which is not distinctly marked, the lands which had been Matilda’s were again seized by William. They were granted to one of the rising men of the time, one of the few who had been faithful to the King in the late times of trouble, to Robert Fitz-hamon, perhaps already the terror of the southern Cymry. Thus the old posses- sions of Brihtrie passed into the hands of the lord of the castle of Cardiff, the founder of the minster of Tewkes- bury. In the next generation the policy of Henry was to win them back, if not for himself, yet for his son? If the Count of Coutances failed of his objects in Eng- land, a worse fate awaited him for a season on his return to Normandy. He had enemies at the court of Duke Robert; first of all, it would seem, his uncle Odo, lately Earl of Kent and still Bishop of Bayeux. He was now driven from his earldom to his bishopric, like a dragon, we are told, with fiery wings cast down to the earth.* The tyrant of Bayeux, the worst of prelates—such are the names under which Odo now appears in the pages of our chief guide+—had again become Robert’s chief counsellor. His counsel seems to have taken the 1 See Appendix GG. ? See N. C. vol. v. p. 853; Ord. Vit. 681 A. ° This flight is Orderic’s own. In 673 A we have, “Baiocensis Odo, velut ignivolus draco projectus in terram.” * Th. 672 D, “Baiocensis tyrannus;” 673 A, “ pessimus prasul Odo.” This last phrase comes at the beginning of Odo’s speech in the Duke’s council ; at the end of it our historian has waxed milder, and tells us (674 A) how “exhortatoriam antistitis allocutionem omnes qui aderant laudaverunt.” IMPRISONMENT OF HENRY AND ROBERT OF BELLEME. 199 form of stirring up the Duke’s mind to abiding wrath cuar. 1. against his brother of England, and against all who were, or were held to be, his partisans.!_ When Henry Henry left England to come back to Normandy, he brought prives > ae with him a dangerous companion in the person of Belléme. Robert of Belléme. That rebel of a few months back was now thoroughly reconciled to Rufus. Duke Robert was even made to believe that his namesake of Bel- léme, so lately his zealous supporter, was joined with Henry by a mutual oath to support the interests of the King of the English at the expense of the Duke of the Normans.? The measures of Robert or of Odo They are were speedily taken; the coasts were watched; the seated voyagers were seized before they could disembark from their ships. They were put in fetters, and presently consigned to prisons in the keeping of the Bishop. They had not even the comfort of companionship in bonds. While the Aitheling, Count of the Cédtentin, was kept in Odo’s episcopal city, the place of imprisonment for the son of the Karl of Shrewsbury was the fortress of Neuilly, in the most distant part of Odo’s diocese, near the frontier stream of Vire which parts the Bessin from Henry’s own peninsula. The less illustrious cap- tive was the first to find a champion. Earl Roger, by Earl Roger the licence of the King, left England, crossed into Nor- "4s" mandy, entered into open war with the Duke on behalf Puke. of his son, and garrisoned all his own castles and those of his son against him. Vassal of three lords, the lord 1 Ord. Vit. 673 A. “ Variis seditionibus commovebat Normanniam, ut sic de aliquo modo nepoti suo, a quo turpiter expulsus fuerat, machinaretur injuriam.” ? Orderic here (672 D) speaks only of “quidam malevoli discordie satores ... falsa veris immiscentes.” But surely the Bishop was at their head. : 3 I think we may accept this circumstantial account of Orderic. For other versions, see Appendix I, 200 THE FIRST WARS OF WILLIAM RUFUS. cuar. 11. of Montgomery and Shrewsbury, the father of the lord of His fortresses, Odo’s ex- hortation to Robert Belléme, might almost rank as their peer. As a prince rather than as a mere baron, Earl Roger took to arms. The border-fortresses on the frontier ground of Nor- mandy, Maine, and Perche were all put into a state of defence.t Alencon, by the border stream, was again, as in the days when its burghers mocked the Tanner's grandson,” garrisoned against his son and_ successor. Belléme itself, the cradle of the house of Talvas—the Rock of Mabel, bearing the name of her who had united the houses of Talvas and Montgomery, and whose blood had been the price of its possession—Saint-Cenery on its peninsula by the Sarthe, another of the spoils of Mabel’s bloody policy—all these border strongholds, together with a crowd of others lying more distinctly within the Norman dominions, had again become hostile spots where the Duke of the Normans was defied. The episcopal gaoler of Bayeux, in his character of chief counsellor of Duke Robert, is described as keeping his feeble nephew somewhat in awe. But his counsels, it is added, were sometimes followed, sometimes de- spised.? Now that all Normandy was in a blaze of civil war, Odo came to Rouen, and had an audience of the Duke, seemingly in an assembly of his nobles.* If our guide is to be trusted, Robert, who had no love for hearing sermons even from the lips of his father, was now condemned to hear a sermon of no small length from the perhaps even readier lips of his uncle. Odo 1 Ord. Vit. 672 D. ‘* Rogerius comes Serobesburie, ut Robertum filium suum captum audivit, accepta a rege licentia, festinus in Neustriam venit, et omnia castella sua militari manu contra ducem munivit.” 2 See N. C. vol. ii. p. 297. ° Ord. Vit.673 A. “Ipsum nempe dux multum metuebat, et quibusdam consiliis ejus adquiescebat, quedam vero flocci pendebat.” * At least there were others besides the Duke to hear and to cheer. See p. 198, note 4. ODO’S SPEECH TO THE DUKE. 201 gave Robert a lecture on the good government of his cuap. m. duchy, on the duty of defending the oppressed and putting down their oppressors. A long list of princes are held up as his examples, the familiar heroes of Persia, Macedonia, Carthage, and Rome, among whom, one hardly sees why, Septimius Severus takes his place along with the first Cesar. On the same list too Rivalry of come the princes of his own house, the princes whom the warlike French had ever feared, winding up with the name of his own father, greatest of them all.? In all this we hear the monk of Saint Evroul rather than the Bishop of Bayeux; but any voice is worth hearing which impresses on us a clearer understanding of the abiding jealousy between Normandy and France. But we may surely hear Odo himself in the practical Normandy France. advice that follows. Now is the time to root out the The lineof T whole accursed stock of Talvas from the Norman duchy. een They were an evil generation from the beginning, not° one of whom ever died the death of other men.? It is as the son of Mabel, not as the son of Roger, that Robert of Belléme comes in for this frightful inheritance, and Odo could not foresee how pious an end the Earl of Shrewsbury was to make in a few years.2 He re- minded the Duke that a crowd of castles, which had been ducal possessions as long as his father lived, had been seized on his father’s death by Robert of Belléme, and their ducal garrisons driven out. It was the 1 Ord. Vit. 673 B. ‘“Reminiscere patrum et proavorum, quorum mag- nanimitatem et virtutem pertimuit bellicosa gens Francorum.” It is curious to see how often Norman patriotism falls back on the memory of the wars with France rather than on the conquest of England. So it is in the speech of Walter of Espec before the battle of the Standard. See N. C. vol. v. p- 832. 2 Ib. 673 D. “Hoc nimirum horrenda mors eorum attestatur, quorum nullus communi et usitato fine, ut ceteri homines, defecisse invenitur.” 3 See Ord. Vit. 708 B, * See above, p. 193. 202 CHAP. III, Affairs of Maine. THE FIRST WARS OF WILLIAM RUFUS. Duke’s duty, as the ruler of the land, as a faithful son of Holy Church, to put an end to the tyranny of this usurper, and to give to all his dominions the blessing of lawful government at the hand of their lawful prince. But the overthrow of the house of Talvas was not the only work to which Odo stirred up his nephew. There was another enterprise to be undertaken before the great lord of the Cenomannian border could be safely attacked. These early days of Robert lead us on at once to that side of the continental wars and continental policy of Rufus which seems to have drawn to itself the smallest amount of English interest at the time} but which is that on which we are now led to look with a deeper interest than any other. Before Robert could safely attack Belléme, he must make sure of Le Mans and of all Maine. Every mention of that noble city, of its counts and its bishops, its renowned church, and its stout-hearted citizens, has a charm which is shared by no other spot between the Loire and the Heliasand Channel. And at no stage of its history did the Ceno- Hildebert. mannian state stand forth with greater brilliancy than in the last days of its independent being, when Le Mans had Helias to its count and Hildebert to its bishop. Those days are still parted from us by a few years; but the advice given by Odo to Robert brings us to the be- ginning of the chain of events which leads straight to them. The historian of William Rufus must now begin to look forward to the days when Rufus, like his father, tried his strength against the valiant men of the Cenomannian land and city, and tried it at a time 1 The only entry which the Chronicler has on Rufus’ wars in Maine is the short one in 1099 (more was said about the expedition of the elder William in 1063), but some parts of the Norman war are given in great detail. AFFAIRS OF MAINE. 203 when land and city could put forth their full strength caar. m. back again under a leader worthy of them. But as yet the land of Maine has neither to deal with so mighty a foe nor to rejoice in the guardianship of so worthy a champion. In the stage of the tale which we have now reached, Rufus plays no part at all, and Helias plays only a secondary part. The general story of History Maine Le Mans and Maine has been elsewhere carried down under the to the last mention of them in the days of the Con- queror! It has been told how the land passed under William’s power in the days before he crossed the sea to win England?—how the city and land had revolted against the Norman—how, after trying the rule of a foreign branch of their own princely house, its people had risen as the first free commonwealth north of the Loire —how they had been again brought into William's hand, and that largely by the help of his English war- riors*—and how, after the final submission of the city, isolated spots of the Cenomannian land had again risen against the Norman power. The last act of this earlier drama was when a single Cenomannian fortress success- fully withstood the whole strength of Normandy and England. We have seen how Hubert of Beaumont be- held the Conqueror baffled before his hill fortress of Sainte-Susanne, the shattered keep which still stands, sharing with Dol in the Breton land the honour of being the two spots from which William had to turn away, conqueror no longer. But, if Hubert had beaten back William from his castle, he had found it expedient to return to his allegiance; and, at the death of the Con- queror, Maine seems to have been as thoroughly under William’s power as Normandy and England. Things 1 See N. C. vol. v. pp. 543-563, 652-655. 2 Th. vol. iii. pp. 182-215. 3 Th. vol. iv. pp. 483, 557, 827. * Ib. vol. iv. p. 652. 5 Tb. vol. iv. pp. 635, 657. Conqueror. 1063. 1073. 1083. 1086, 204 THE FIRST WARS OF WILLIAM RUFUS. cuap. mr. Changed as soon as the great King had passed away. Dissatisfac- The land and city which had striven so often against ME, the Conqueror himself were not likely to sit down quietly Relations under the feeble rule of Robert. And, besides the stand- pavers ing dislike of the people of Maine to Norman rule, there was a neighbour who was likely to be stirred up by his own ambition to meddle in the affairs of Maine, and to whom the actual provisions of treaties gave at least a colourable claim to do so. By the terms of the peace of Blanchelande, the new Duke of the Normans had be- come the man of Count Fulk of Anjou for the county of Maine! It is true that the homage had been of the most formal kind. There had been no reservation of authority on the part of the superior lord, nor, as far as we can see, was any service of any kind imposed on the Robert's fief, if fief it is to be called. The homage might almost homage to Folk. seem to have been a purely personal act, a homage expressing thankfulness for the surrender of all Angevin rights over Maine, rather than an acknowledgement of Angevin superiority over the land and city. Still Robert, as Count of Maine, had, in some way or other, become Count Fulk’s man, and Count Fulk had, in some way or other, become Robert’s lord. A relation was thus established between them of which the Rechin was sure to take advantage, whenever the time came. epee Robert, on his father’s death, had taken his title of Maine. Prince of the Cenomannians as well as that of Duke of the Normans,? and his authority seems to have been State of acknowledged at Le Mans no less than at Rouen. We things in Maine. may suspect that there was no very deep felt loyalty in the minds of a people whose rebellious tendencies had deeply impressed the mind of William the Great. He is 1 N.C. vol. iv. p. 563. ? Ord. Vit. 673 C. “Normannorum dux et Ccenomannorum princeps nomine tenus multis annis factus est.” . . CHIEF MEN OF MAINE, 205 said—though we may guess that the etymology comes cuar. u1. rather from the reporter than from the speaker—to have derived the name of their land and city from their currish madness.’ But there was as yet no open resistance. Of the three chief men in Church and State, Bishop Howel Howel. was an active supporter of the Norman connexion, while Geoffrey of Mayenne and Helias of La Fléche were at least not ready openly to throw it off. Geoffrey, who Geoffrey of had fought against the Conqueror twenty-five years ™*!°™"* before,? who had betrayed the young commonwealth of Le Mans fifteen years before,? must have been now ad- vanced in life; but we shall still hear of him for some years to come. Helias, the chief hero of later wars, was of a Helias. younger generation, and now appears for the first time. He was, it will be remembered, the son of John of La His descent Fléche and of Paula the youngest sister of the last Count ae, Herbert.*| He was therefore, before any other man in the land, the representative of Cenomannian indepen- dence, as distinguished both from Norman rule and from Angevin superiority. But his father had, in the Con- queror’s second Cenomannian war, remained faithful to the Norman, alike against commonwealth, Lombard, and Angevin.® His son for the present followed the same course. Bishop Howel was in any case a zealous Norman Story of partisan ; according to one story he was a special nominee ae of the Conqueror, appointed for the express purpose of nt helping to keep the people of Maine in order. According to the local historian, he had been appointed Dean of Saint Julian’s by his predecessor Arnold, and was, on 1 Ord. Vit. 531 A. ‘ Coenomanis, a canina rabie dicta, urbs est antiqua, et plebs ejus finitimis procax et sanguinolenta, dominisque suis semper contumax et rebellionis avida.” Following the diphthongal spelling of the text, one might rather be tempted to derive the name from the commune or kody set up by its men. : 2 N. C. vol. iii. pp. 167, 203, 209-212. 3 Th. iv. 546-555. ‘ Ib. vol. iii. p. 197. : 5 Ib. vol. iv. pp. 545, 560, 563. 206 CHAP. III. Samson re- commends him for the see, THE FIRST WARS OF WILLIAM RUFUS. Arnold’s death, freely and unanimously chosen to the bishopric.’ In Normandy it was believed that King William, on Arnold’s death, offered the bishopric to one of his own clerks, Samson of Bayeux, who declined the offer on the ground that a bishop, according to apostolic rule, ought to be blameless, while he himself was a grievous sinner in many ways. The King said that Samson must either take the bishopric himself or find some fit person in his stead. Samson made his nomina- tion at once. There was in the King’s chapel a clerk, poor, but of noble birth and of virtuous life, Howel by name, and, as his name implied, of Breton birth or descent.2 He was the man to be bishop of Le Mans. Howel was at once sent for. He came, not knowing to what end he was called. Young in years, slight and mean in figure, he had not the stately presence with which Walcher of Durham had once impressed the mind of Eadgyth, perhaps of William himself? But Howel was not called upon, like Walcher, to be a goodly martyr, but only a confessor on a small scale. William was at first tempted to despise the unconscious candidate for the chair of Saint Julian. But Samson, who, sinner as he may have been, seems not to have been a bad preacher or reasoner, warned the King that God looked not at the 1 Mabillon, Vet. An. 288. ‘Favore totius cleri ejusdem ecclesize decanum statuerat; in quo gradu tanto amore totius populi erga se illexit affectum, ut eo jam tempore non minorem quam episcopo omnes illi rever- entiam exhiberent. ... Unde factum est, ut post decessum memorati antistitis in electionem ipsius omnes unanimiter convenirent, ipsumque episcopatu dignissimum voce consona proclamarent.” 2 Ord. Vit. 531 B. ‘** Ecce in capella tua est quidam pauper clericus, sed nobilis et bene morigeratus. Huic presulatum commenda in Dei timore, quia dignus est (ut estimo) tali honore.’ Regi autem percunctanti quis esset, Samson respondit : ‘ Hoélus dicitur, et est genere Brito; sed humilis est, et revera bonus homo.’” On Samson himself, see N, C, vol. iv. p. 641. 3,N. C. vol, iv. p. 478. BISHOP HOWEL OF LE MANS. 207 outward appearance, but at the heart. William examined omar. m1. further into Howel’s life and conversation, and presently gave him the temporal investiture of the bishopric.’ At the same time a congé @élire went to Le Mans, which led to Howel’s “pure and simple” election by the Chap- ter A point both of canon and of feudal law turned up. The old dispute between the Norman Duke and the Temporal Angevin Count about the advowson of the bishopric had a never been settled; the Peace of Blanchelande was silent ae on that point. Legally there can be no doubt that the Mans. true temporal superior of the Bishop of Le Mans was neither Fulk nor William, but their common, if forgotten, lord King Philip. But, whoever might be his temporal lord, no one doubted that the Bishop of Le Mans was a suffragan, and the suffragan highest in rank, of the Arch- bishop of Tours.* Yet, as things stood, as Tours was in the dominions of Fulk, a subject of William who went to that metropolis for consecration might have been called on to enter into some engagement inconsistent with his Norman loyalty. By a commission therefore from Arch- Howel con- bishop Ralph of Tours, Howel received consecration at 1 Ord. Vit. 531 C. ‘* Ei curam et seculare jus Ccenomanensis episcopa- tus commisit.’” I have elsewhere spoken of this kind of document in England (N. C. vol. ii. p. 588). Only it would seem that in England the King either acted wholly of himself or else confirmed an election already made by the Chapter. Here the Chapter, as in later times, elects on the King’s recommendation. 2 Ib. “Decretum regis clero insinuatum est, et prefati clerici bone vite testimonium ab his qui noverunt ventilatum est. Pro tam pura et simplici electione devota laus a fidelibus Deo reddita est, et electus pastor ad caulas ovium suarum ab episcopis et reliquis fidelibus, quibus hoc a rege jussum fuerat, honorifice perductus est.” The regale, or rather ducale, comes out strongly in these matters, as it always does in Normandy. 3 See N. C. vol. iii. p. 194. * Vet. An. 290. ‘‘Celeberrimum est enim Cenomannensis ecclesie presulem post Turonensem archiepiscopum totius Turonensis dicceseos obtinere primatum.” Déacesis here stands for province, as parochia con- stantly stands for diocese, : secrated at, April 21, ‘ 208 CHAP. III. Howel’s Norman loyalty. Robert before Le Mans. THE FIRST WARS OF WILLIAM RUFUS. Rouen from the Primate of the Normans, William the Good Soul. This story is worth telling, as it is thoroughly charac- teristic of the Conqueror; but there is this difficulty about it, that we can hardly understand either how the historian of the Bishops of Le Mans could fail to know the succession of the deans of his own church, or else how the head of the chapter of Saint Julian’s could be lurking as a poor clerk in King William’s chapel. Be this as it may, there is thorough agreement as to the episcopal virtues of Howel, as to his zeal in continuing the works in the church of Saint Julian,? and as to his unwavering loyalty to the Norman house. And, builder and adorner of the sanctuary as he was, he did not seruple to rob the altars of the saints of their gold and silver to feed the poor in the day of hunger.’ His loyalty to Robert seems to have carried with it, for a time at least, the submission of the city. The Duke drew near at the head of his army. Bishop Odo was again in har- ness as one of his nephew’s chief captains. With him came not a few of the lords who had seized castles in the Duke’s despite, but who were nevertheless ready to follow his ? Vet. An, 288. “Quia propter contentionem que inter Vvillum regem Anglorum, et Fulconem Andegavorum comitem de eodem episcopatu exorta erat, Radulfus Turonorum archiepiscopus Turonis eum ordinare non potuit, ipsius assensu atque precepto omniumque suffraganeorum ejus, cum magno honore ordinatus est in Rotomago civitate, a domno Willelmo ejusdem urbis archiepiscopo xi, Kalend, Maii, anno ab Incarnatione Domini millesimo Ixxxv.” 2 See Appendix MM. % Vet. An. 290. “Cum fames populum oppressisset, essetque impossibile unius copiis generalem afflictorum indigentiam sustentari, ex communi clert plebisque consilio, aurum et argentum quod erat in tabula altaris sanctorum martyrum Gervasii et Protasii pius temerator accepit ; illudque fideli dispensatione pauperibus erogavit.” Compare the action of Abbot Leofric of Saint Alban’s, and the “predictz rationes” which led him so to act, together with the argument of Matthew Paris with regard to its lawfulness ; Gest. Abb. i. 29, 30. MAINE SUBMITS TO ROBERT. 209 banner. There was the elder Ralph of Toesny, he who cnar. 1m. had taken the strange message to King Henry after the day of Mortemer, and who had refused to bear the banner of Normandy on the day of Senlac.t With him was his nephew, William of Breteuil, the elder and more lucky of the two sons of William Fitz-Osbern. He had been one of Robert's companions in his day of rebellion, along with the younger Ralph of Toesny and with Robert of Belléme, now their enemy.2 The host entered Le Mans without resistance, and was received, we are told, with joy by clergy and citizens alike. Messages were sent forth to summon the chief men of the county to come and do their duty to their new lord. Helias came; so did Geoffrey of Mayenne. When two General such leaders submitted, others naturally followed their ae example. All the chief men of Maine, it would seem, ‘y- became the liegemen of Duke Robert. One obstinate rebel Ballon holds out. alone, Pagan or Payne of Montdoubleau, defended with his followers the castle of Ballon against the new prince.* The fortress which still held out, one whose name The castle we shall again meet with more than once in the immediate story of the Red King, was a stronghold indeed. About twelve miles north of Le Mans a line of high ground ends to the north in a steep bluff rising above the Cenomannian Orne, the lesser stream of that name which mingles its waters with the Sarthe. The river is not the same prominent feature in the land- scape which the Sarthe itself is at Le Mans and at some of the other towns and castles which it washes; it does not in the same way flow directly at the foot of the hill. But it comes fully near enough to place 1 See N. C. vol. iii. pp. 159, 465. 2 Tb. vol. iv. p. 659. 5 See Appendix KK. 4 Ord. Vit. 674 B. ‘ Paganus de Monte Dublabelis, cum aliis con- tumacibus castrum Balaonem tenebat et venienti duci cum turmis suis acriter resistebat.” VOL. I. P of Ballon. 210 THE FIRST WARS OF WILLIAM RUFUS. car. uw. Ballon in the long list of peninsular strongholds. The hill forms a prominent feature in the surrounding land- scape; and the view from the height itself, over the wooded plains and gentle hills of Maine, is wide indeed. He who held Ballon against the lord of Normandy, the new lord of Le Mans, might feel how isolated his hill- fort stood in the midst of his enemies. To the south Le Mans is seen on its promontory; and, if the mighty pile of Saint Julian’s had not yet reached its present height, yet the twin towers of Howel, the royal tower by their side, the abbey of Saint Vincent then rising above all, may well have caught the eye even more readily than it is caught by the somewhat shapeless mass of the cathedral church in its present state. To the north and north-west the eye stretches over lands which in any normal state of things would have been the lands of enemies, the lands of the houses of Montgomery and Belléme. But at the moment of Robert’s siege the defenders of Ballon must have looked to them as friendly spots, joined in common warfare against the Norman Duke. To the north the eye can reach beyond. the Norman border at now rebellious Alencon, to the butte of Chaumont, the isolated hill which looks down upon the Rock of Mabel. To the north-east the horizon skirts the land, at other times the most dangerous of all, but which might now be deemed the most helpful, the native home of the fierce house of Talvas. But, even if Ballon had been begirt on all sides by foes, its defenders might well venture to hope that they could defy them all. The hill had clearly been a stronghold even from prehistoric times. The neck of the promontory is cut off by a vast ditch, which may have fenced in a Ceno- mannian fortress in days before Cesar came. This ditch takes in the little town of Ballon with its church. A second ditch surrounds the castle itself, and is carried SURRENDER OF BALLON. 211 fully round it on every side. The castle of Ballon there- cuap. m1. fore does not, like so many of its fellows, strictly over- hang the stream or the low ground at its foot. At no point does it, like many other fortresses in the same land, mingle its masonry with the native rock. Ballon is more like Arques! on a smaller scale than like any of the strictly river fortresses. Within the ditch, the wall of the castle remains, a gateway, a tower, a house of delicate detail; but every architectural feature at Ballon is later than the days of Rufus; the greater part of the present castle belongs to the latest days of medizval art. This Siege of stronghold, to be fought for over and over again in the pane course of our story, now underwent the earliest of its sieges which concerns us. It held out stoutly for some August— time during the months of August and September. The ee loss on both sides was great. At last the besieged The castle surrendered, and were admitted to the Duke’s grace.2 Surenders. Robert was for a moment the undisputed lord of all Maine. , The first part of Bishop Odo’s counsel was thus suc- Further cessfully carried out. But the submission of Maine was acl . in Odo’s scheme only a means to the thorough rooting out of the house of Belléme. And Robert found himself in such sure possession of Le Mans and Maine that he could call on the warriors of city and county to follow him in carrying out the second part of the Bishop’s scheme. The first point for attack among the fortresses held on Robert behalf of Earl Roger or his captive son was the castle of ae Saint Cenery. This was a border fortress of Normandy Cee: and Maine, one which could boast of a long and stirring ae are history, and its small remains still occupy a site worthy pie | 1 N.C, vol. iii. p. 122. 2 Ord, Vit. 674 B. “ Post plurima damna utriusque partis, Balaonenses pacem cum duce fecerunt,” P2 212 CHAP. III. Monastery of Saint Cenery. THE FIRST WARS OF WILLIAM RUFUS. of the tale which they have to tell. Just within the Norman border, some miles west of the town and castle of Alencon, not far from the junction of the lesser stream of Sarthon with the boundary river, a long narrow penin- sula is formed by the windings of the Sarthe. It forms an advanced post of Normandy thrust forward with the Cenomannian land on three sides of it. The greater part of the peninsula consists of a steep and rocky hill,! which, as it draws near to its point, is washed by the stream on either side, though nearer to the isthmus the height rises immediately above alluvial meadows between its base and the river. The site was a tempting one for the foundation of a castle, in days when, though there might be hostile ground on three sides, yet no bow-shot or cata- pult from any hostile point could reach the highest part of the hill. Yet, as the name of the place is ecclesiastical, so its earliest memories are ecclesiastical, and its occupation as a fortress was, in the days of our story, a thing of yesterday. Cenericus or Cenery, a saint of the seventh century, gave the place its name. A monastery arose, where a hundred and forty monks prayed around the tomb of their patron. His memory is still cherished on his own ground. A church contemporary with our story, a church of the eleventh century crowned by a tower of the twelfth, rises boldly above the swift stream which flows below the three apses of its eastern end. Within, the art of a later but still early age has adorned its walls with the forms ofa series of holy persons, among whom the sainted hero of the spot holds a chief place.2 But if 1 Ord. Vit. 674.D. “ Habitatoribus hujus municipii quies et pax pene semper defuit, finitimique Cenomannenses, seu Normanni insistunt. Scopu- losum montem anfractus Sarte fluminis ex tribus partibus ambit, in quo sanctus Cerenicus venerandus confessor tempore Milehardi Sagiorum ponti- ficis habitavit.” * In local belief, Saint Cenery on his own ground seems to have supplanted the Archangel himself as the weigher of souls. MONASTERY OF SAINT CENERY. 213 the name of Saint Cenery first suggests the ecclesiastical car, 1m. history of the place, its surname! marks a chief feature in its secular history. The place is still Saint Cenery- le-Gerey. That is, it keeps the name of the famous house of Geroy, the name so dear to the heart of the monk of Saint Evroul.? For the monastery of Saint Cenery was but short-lived. When the wiking Hasting was laying The monks waste the land, the monks of Saint Cenery fled away Aas with the body of their patron, like that of Saint Cuth- Thierry. berht in our own land, to the safer resting-place of Chateau-Thierry in the land of Soissons.? As things now stand, the peninsula of Saint Cenery, with its church and the site of its castle, might suggest, as a lesser object suggests, a greater, the grouping of abbey and castle on that more renowned peninsula where the relics of Saint Cuthberht at last found shelter. The forsaken monastery was never restored. The holy place lost its holiness ; over the tombs of the ancient monks arose a den of thieves, a special fortress of crime.* In other words, after a century and a half of desolation, a castle arose on the tempting site which was supplied by the neck of the peninsula.® Fragments of its masonry may still be * On surnames of places, see N. C. vol. v. p. 573. 2 Tb. vol. ii. p. 233. * Ord. Vit. 674.D. ‘“Carolo Simplice regnante, dum Hastingus Danus cum gentilium phalange Neustriam depopulatus est, sanctum corpus a fidelibus in castrum Theodorici translatum est et dispersis monachis monas- terium destructum.” Yet at a later time (see Ord. Vit. 706 D) Saint Cenery still possessed an arm of the eponymous saint, though monks of Seez, not of Saint Cenery, were its keepers; and there is still a bone or fragment of a bone under the high altar of the parish church which claims to be a relic of him. * Ib. ‘“Sanguinarii predones ibi speluncam latronum condiderunt,” “scelesti habitatores,” &c. 5 Unless Orderic’s words just quoted are mere rhetoric, we must infer that the site of the castle, and not the site of the present church, had been the site of the forsaken monastery. Well suited as the whole peninsula was for the purposes of a castle, the actual isthmus, where three small knolls 214 THE FIRST WARS OF WILLIAM RUFUS. cHap. 1. seen, and its precinct seems to have taken in the church and the whole peninsula, though in the greater part of its cireuit no defence was needed beyond the steep and ae ae searped sides of the rocky hill itself. The castle was Geoffrey ' the work of a man whose name has been familiar to oe us for thirty years, a man who was still living, and William who was actually in the host before the fortress of his of Geroy. ‘ own rearing. Geoffrey of Mayenne was closely con- nected, as kinsman and as lord, with William the son of Geroy. When Geoffrey fell into the hands of William Talvas, the faithful vassal ransomed his lord by the sacrifice of his own castle of Montacute, which stood just beyond the Sarthon within the borders of Maine. To repair this loss of his friend, no doubt also to repay the invasion of Cenomannian soil by a like invasion of Norman soil, and to put some check in the teeth of the house of Belléme, Geoffrey built the castle of Saint Cenery on the left bank of the Sarthe, and gave it as a gift of thankfulness to the son of Geroy.! But the inhabitants of the new stronghold, in their dangerous border position, never knew peace or good luck, but were mp of visited with every kind of evil.2~ The sons of the pious scendants @0d virtuous Geroy yielded to the influence of the spot; of Gerey. they fell into crime and rebellion, and were punished by banishments and strange deaths. The second lord of Saint Cenery, Robert the brother of William, had re- belled against the Conqueror; he had held his fortress against him, and he had died in a mysterious way of a poisoned apple.*? His son and successor Arnold found how rise above the general level of the hill, must have been the most tempting spot of all. On two of the knolls remains of its masonry are still to be seen, and the outworks reach far down the hill on its western side. The place seems to have been a simple fortress, with no town or village, beyond such houses as may have grown up arcund the castle. 1 Orderic tells the story, 674 C. ? See the extract in the last page. 8. N.C. vol. iv. p. 184. CASTLE OF SAINT CENERY. 215 dangerous was the greed and hate of a powerful and un- cuar. im. scrupulous neighbour. Nearly north from Saint Cenery, Roche- at much the same distance as Alengon is to the east, not M@Pille. far from the foot of the hill of Chaumont which makes so marked a feature in the whole surrounding landscape, on a peninsula formed by a bend of the Sarthon, just within the borders of Maine as Saint Cenery is just within the borders of Normandy, rises the solitary rock which once had been known as Jaugy. There we still trace the ruins of the castle which bore the name of the cruel Countess, the despoiler of the house of Jaugy, the castle of the Rock of Mabel.t To the possessor of the Rock of Mabel the mightier rock of Saint Cenery, form- ing part of the same natural line of defence, could not fail to be an object of covetousness. Arnold died of poison, by the practice of the ruthless wife of Roger of Montgomery. Saint Cenery became part of the pos- Saint sessions of the fierce line of Belléme; and, under its ae present master, it doubtless deserved the strongest Mabel. of the names bestowed on it by the monk of Saint Evroul. At this moment Saint Cenery was held on behalf of Saint Robert of Belléme by a specially valiant captain named hey Robert Carrel.2_ We have no details of the siege. We are nae told nothing of the positions occupied by the besiegers, or The siege. how they became masters of the seemingly impregnable height. We are told that the resistance was long and fierce; but at last the castle was taken; and, as failure of Bienen of Saint provisions is spoken of as the cause, we may guess that ¢ Cenery. 1N. C. vol. iii. p. 169. 2 Ord. Vit. 674 D. ‘Ibi familia Roberti Belesmensis erat, cui Robertus Quadrellus, acerrimus miles et multo vigore conspicuus, preerat, qui hortatu Rogerii comitis obsidentibus fortiter obstabat.’ The modern form of “ Quadrellus ” would be “Carrel.” “ Fulcherius Quarel” appears among the knights of Perche bearing harness under Philip Augustus; Duchesne, p. 1032. 216 CHAP. III. Robert Carrel blinded. Other mu- tilations. Question of the military tribunal, THE FIRST WARS OF WILLIAM RUFUS. the garrison was driven to surrender. If so, the surrender must have been to the Duke’s mercy, and the mercy of Duke Robert or of his counsellors was cruel. The Duke, we are told, in his wrath, ordered the eyes of Robert Carrel to be put out. The personal act of the Duke in the case of the rebel leader seems to be contrasted with the sentence of a more regular tribunal of some kind, by which mutilations of various kinds were dealt out to others of the garrison. Yet personal cruelty is so in- consistent with the ordinary character of Robert that we are driven to suppose either that some strong personal influence was brought to bear on the Duke’s mind, or else that Robert Carrel had given some unpardonable offence during the course of the siege. But it is worth while to notice the words which seem to imply that the punishment of the other defenders of Saint Cenery was the work of some body which at least claimed to act in a judi- cial character. We can hardly look as yet for the subtlety of a separate military jurisdiction, for what we should now call a court-martial. That can hardly be thought of, except in the case of a standing body of soldiers, like Cnut’s housecarls, with a constitution and rules of their own? But as in free England we have seen the army— that is, the nation in arms—act on occasion the part of a national assembly, so in more aristocratic Normandy the same principle would apply in another shape. The chief men of Normandy were there, each in command of his own followers. If Robert or his immediate counsellors wished that the cruel punishments to be dealt out to the revolted garrison should not be merely their own work, ! Ord. Vit. 674 D. ‘ Preefatus municeps jussu irati ducis protinus oculis privatus est, Aliis quoque pluribus qui contumaciter ibidem restiterant principi Normanniz [this almost sounds like the wording of an indictment] debilitatio membrorum inflicta est ex sententia curie.” 2 N.C. vol. i. pp. 445, 470. PUNISHMENT OF THE DEFENDERS OF SAINT CENERY. 217 if they wished the responsibility of them to be shared by omar. in. a larger body, the means were easy. There was a court of peers ready at hand, before whom they might arraign the traitors. But if there were those within Saint Cenery who Claims of were marked for punishment, there was one without its ae af walls who claimed restitution. A son of Geroy’s son Se°Y: Robert, bearing his father’s name, had, like others of his family, served with credit in the wars of Apulia and Sicily. He was now in the Duke’s army, seemingly among the warriors of Maine, ready to play his part in winning back the castle of his father from the son of the murderess of his uncle. Geoffrey of Mayenne and the rest of the Cenomannian leaders asked of the Duke that the son of the former owner of the castle, Geoffrey's own kinsman and vassal, should be restored to the inheritance of his father, the inheritance which his father held in the first instance by Geoffrey’s own gift. The warfare which was now waging was waged against the son of the woman by whom one lord of Saint Cenery had been treacherously slain. The triumph of right would be complete, if the banished man were restored to his own, at the prayer of the first giver. The Duke consented ; The castle Saint Cenery was granted afresh to the representative of nee ee the house of Geroy; Geoffrey saw the castle of his own rearing once more in friendly hands. The new lord strengthened the defences of his fortress, and held it as a post to be guarded with all care against the common enemy, the son of Mabel.! Two fortresses were thus won from the revolters; and the success of the Duke at both places, his severity at 1 This is told by Orderic, 674 D. He adds, “TIlle fere xxxvi annis postmodum tenuit, muris et vallis zetisque munivit, et moriens Guillermo et Roberto filiis suis dereliquit.” Yet he lost it for a season to the old enemy. See 706 D. 218 THE FIRST WARS OF WILLIAM RUFUS, cuar. 1. one of them, had their effect on those who still defended Baas other castles for Robert of Belléme.! Alencon, where of Alencon, Aaah the great William had wrought so stern a vengeance for the mockeries of its citizens, stood ready to re- of Belléme. ceive his son without resistance. So did Belléme itself, the fortress which gave its name to the descendants of the line of Talvas, the centre of their power, where their ancient chapel of Mabel’s day still crowns the elder castle hill, standing isolated below the town and fortress of later date.2 Its defenders made up their minds to submit to the summons of the Duke, if only the Duke The other would come near to summon them. So did the gar- castles . r . 6 % ready to risons of all the other castles which still remained in surrender. yehellion. Frightened at the doom of Robert Carrel and his companions, they stood ready to surrender as soon as the Duke should come. But it is not clear whether the Duke ever did draw near to receive the fortresses which were ready to open their gates to him. Robert had had enough of success, or of the exertions which were needful for success. It would almost seem as if the siege of Saint Cenery had been as much as he could go through, and as if he turned back at once on its surrender. At all events he stopped just when complete victory was within his grasp. He longed for the idle } Ord. Vit. 675 A. ‘“Municipes Alencionis et Bellesmi aliarumque munitionum, ut audierunt quam male contigerit Roberto Quadrello et com- plicibus qui cum eo fuerant, valde territi sunt, et ut debitas venienti duci munitiones redderent, consilium inierunt.’”’ But the words which imme- diately follow are; ‘“ Verum Robertus ab inccepta virtute cito defecit, et mollitie suadente ad tectum et quietem avide recurrit, exercitumque suum, ut quisque ad sua repedaret, dimisit.” This leaves it not quite clear, whether he stayed to receive in person the surrenders which were ready for him. * The site of the true castle of Belléme may easily be distinguished from the later fortress. The native home of Mabel stands quite apart from the hill on which the town and the later castle stand, being cut off from it by art. The chapel is but little altered, and has a crypt, the way down to which reminds one of Saint Zeno and other Italian churches. THE DUKE DISBANDS HIS ARMY. 219 repose of his palace. His army was disbanded; every omar. m. man who followed the Duke’s banner had the Duke's Ropert, | licence to go to his own home. his army. All this while, it will be remembered, Robert of Belléme Robert of himself was actually in bonds in the keeping of Bishop es Odo. The war had been waged rather against his father P"8°- Earl] Roger than against himself. But it was wholly on Robert’s account that it had been waged. Whatever we may think of the right or wrong of his imprisonment at the moment when it took place, there can be no doubt that it was for the general good of the Norman duchy that Robert of Belléme should be hindered from doing mischief. He was the arch-rebel against his sove- reign, the arch-plunderer of his neighbours, the man who, in that fierce age, was branded by common consent as the cruellest of the cruel. It was to break his power, to win back the castles which he had seized, that the hosts of Normandy and Maine had been brought together; it was for the crime of maintaining his cause that Robert Carrel and his comrades had undergone their cruel punishment. But the fates of the chief and of his subaltern were widely different. Duke Robert, weary of warfare, was even more than ever disposed to mercy, that is more than ever disposed to gratify the biddings of a weak good-nature. Earl Roger marked the favourable moment, Earl Roger when the host was disbanded, and when the Duke had Py°¥8 i" gone back to the idle pleasures of Rouen. He sent elo- release. quent messengers, charged with many promises in his name—promises doubtless of good behaviour on the part of his son—and prayed for the release of the prisoner.? 1 See note 1, last page. ? Ord. Vit. 675 A. “Per dicaces legatos a duce pacem filiique sui abso- lutionem postulans, multa falso pollicitus est.” Robert, he adds, “qui improvidus erat et instabilis, ad lapsum facilis, ad tenendum justitie rigorem mollis, ex insperato frivolis pactionibus infidorum adquievit.” It is now that Orderic gives us his full picture of Robert of Belléme and his doings. 220 CHAP. III. Robert of Belléme set free. His career. Henry set free. THE FIRST WARS OF WILLIAM RUFUS. With Duke Robert an appeal of this kind from a man like Earl Roger went for more than all reasonable fore- thought for himself and his duehy. The welfare of thousands was sacrificed to a weak pity for one man. Robert of Belléme was set free. His promises were of course forgotten; gratitude and loyalty were forgotten. Till a wiser sovereign sent him in after days to a prison from which there was no escape, he went on with his career of plunder and torture, of utter contempt and defiance of the ducal authority.1 But, under such a prince as Robert, contempt and defiance of the ducal authority was no disqualification for appearing from time to time as a ducal counsellor.” Robert of Belléme was thus set free, because his father had asked for his freedom. She was the daughter of William the First, Count of Auxerre and Nevers, by his first wife Ermengarde, daughter of Reginald Count of Ton- nerre, See Art de Vérifier les Dates, ii. 559. ® Orderic has two pictures of her. In the second (834 B), drawn a few years later than our present time, when Count William “ natura senioque THE LADIES OF EVREUX AND CONCHES. 233 of the nobles of Normandy, with Count Robert of Meu- cur. 11. lan among them, and stirred up her husband to many disputes and wars to gratify her fierce passions.’ At this time some slight which she had received from the lady of Conches had led her to entangle her husband in a bitter feud with his half-brother. Isabel or Elizabeth Isabel of ; wee Montfort. —the two names are, as usual, given to her indifferently — the wife of Ralph of Toesny, was a daughter of the French house of Montfort,? the house of our own Simon. Like her rival, she must now have been long past her youth; but, while Heloise was childless,*? Isabel was the mother of several children, among them of a son who has already played a part in Norman history. This was that younger Ralph of Toesny who married the daughter of Waltheof and who had taken a part in the present Duke’s rebellion against his father.* Hand- some, eloquent, self-willed, and overbearing, like her rival, Isabel had qualities which gained her some- what more of personal regard than the Countess of Evreux. She was liberal and pleasant and merry of aliquantum hebescebat,” we read, ‘Uxor ejus totum consulatum regebat, que in sua sagacitate plus quam oporteret confidebat. Pulcra quidem et facunda erat, et magnitudine corporis pene omnes feminas in comitatu Ebro- arum consistentes excellebat, et eximia nobilitate, utpote illustris Guil- lelmi Nivernensis comitis filia, satis pollebat. Hc nimirum consilio baronum mariti sui relicto, estimationem suam preeferebat, et ardua nimis secularibus in rebus plerumque arripiebat atque immoderata temptare pro- perabat.” Elsewhere (688 A), he says, “ Ambe mulieres que talia bella ciebant, loquaces et animose, ac forma elegantes erant, suisque maritis im- perabant, subditos homines premebant, variisque modis terrebant.”” When Orderic (576 C), recording Isabel’s widowhood and religious profession, speaks of her as “ letalis lascivie cui nimis in juventute servierat pcenitens,” the word need not be taken in the worst sense. He uses (864 A) the same kind of language of Juliana daughter of Henry the First, who, whatever she was as a daughter, seems to have been a very good wife and mother. 1 Ord. Vit. 834 B. “Pro feminea procacitate Rodberto comiti de Mel- lento aliisque Normannis invidiosa erat.” 2 Ord. Vit. 576 B, C. 5 Tb. 834 C. 4 See N.C. vol. iv. pp. 605, 643. 2 234 THE FIRST WARS OF WILLIAM RUFUS. cHaP. ut, speech, and made herself agreeable to those immediately about her. Moreover, while of Heloise we read indeed that she stirred up wars, but not that she waged them in her own person, Isabel, like the ancient Queens of the Amazons, went forth to the fight, mounted and armed, War and attended by a knightly following.' The struggle be- plat tween the ladies of Evreux and Conches was at its height Bes. at the moment when the castles of eastern Normandy were falling one by one into the hands of Rufus. Isabel Ralph in and Ralph were just now sore pressed. The lord of help asks , Conches therefore went to Duke Robert and craved his Duke. help; but from Duke Robert no help was to be had He sub- for any man. Ralph then bethought him of a stronger mits to . . ‘ . William, protector, in the sovereign of his English possessions. King William gladly received such a petition, and bade Count Stephen and Gerard of Gournay, and all who had joined him in Normandy, to give all the help that they Advance of could to the new proselyte® The cause of the Red ree King prospered everywhere; well nigh all Normandy to the right of Seine was in the obedience of Rufus. All its chief men had, in a phrase which startles us in that 1 Ord. Vit. 688 A. ‘‘ Magna in eisdem morum diversitas erat. Heluisa quidem solers erat et facunda, sed atrox et avara. Isabel vero dapsilis et audax atque jocosa, ideoque coessentibus amabilis et grata. In expedi- tione inter milites, ut miles, equitabat armata, et loricatis equitibus ac spicu- latis satellitibus non minori prestabat audacia quam decus Italie Turni manipularibus virgo Camilla.” He goes on to liken her to Penthesileia and all the other Amazons. 2 Tb. “Radulfus Robertum ducem adivit, querelas damnorum que a contribulibus suis pertulerat intimavit, et herile adjutorium ab eo poposcit ; sed frustra, qui nihil obtinuit.” 3 Tb. B. “Hine alias conversus est, et utile sibi patrocinium querere compulsus est. Regem Anglize per legatos suos interpellatur, eique sua infortunia mandavit, et si sibi suffragaretur, se et omnia sua permisit, His auditis rex gavisus est, et eflicax adminiculum indigenti pollicitus est. Deinde Stephano comiti et Gerardo de Gornaco, aliisque tribunis et centu- rionibus qui preerant in Normannia familiis ejus, mandavit ut Radulfum totis adjuvarent nisibus et oppida ejus munirent necessariis omnibus,” RALPH OF CONCHES JOINS WILLIAM. 235 generation, “joined the English.”! And for them the cuar. ur. King of the English was open-handed. Into the hoard at Winchester the wealth of England flowed in the shape of every kind of unlawful exaction. Out of it it flowed as freely to enable the new subjects of King William to strengthen the defences of their castles and to hire mer- cenaries to defend them.” During all this time Duke Robert himself does not seem Helias of to have thought of striking a blow. But there was one aed man at least between Seine and Somme who was ready both to give and to take blows on his behalf. Robert He marries had given one of his natural children, a daughter born ey to him in his wandering days,’ in marriage to Helias, lord of Saint-Saens.* Helias, like so many of the Nor- H's man nobles, came of a house which had risen to im-“™* portance through the loves of Gunnor and Richard the Fearless.2 A daughter of one of Gunnor’s sisters mar- ried Richard Viscount of Rouen, and became the mother of Lambert of Saint-Saens, the father of Helias.® Helias and the daughter of Robert had thus a common, though distant, forefather in the father of Gunnor. With his He has wife Helias received a goodly dowry, nothing less, wee *,t, are told, than the whole land of Caux.’? Helias’ own 2°wry- lordship of Saint-Saens lies on the upper course of the eae = Saens. 1 Ord. Vit. 681 A. ‘ Robertus Aucensium comes, et Gauterius Gifardus et Radulfus de Mortuomari, et pene omnes qui trans Sequanam usque ad mare habitabant, Anglicis conjuncti sunt.” 2 Ib. “De regiis opibus ad muniendas domos suas armis et satellitibus copiosam pecuniam receperunt,” 3 See N. C. vol. iv. p. 644. 4 Ord. Vit. 681 A. “ Robertus dux contra tot hostes repagulum paravit, filiamque suam quam de pellice habuerat, Helic filio Lamberti de Sancto Sidonio conjugem dedit.” 5 N.C. vol. i. p. 253. 6 Will. Gem. viii. 37. 7 Ord. Vit. 681 B. “ Archas cum Buris et adjacente provincia in ma- ritagio tribuit, ut adversariis resisteret Calegiique comitatum defenderet. Ille vero jussa viriliter complere coepit.” 236 THE FIRST WARS OF WILLIAM RUFUS. caar. 1. Varenne, in a deep bottom girt on all sides by wooded hills, one of which, known as the Cdtelier, overhanging the town to the north, seems to have been the site of the castle of Helias. His stronghold has vanished; but the church on which the height looks down, if no rival to Saint Hildebert of Gournay, still keeps considerable remains of an age but little later than that with which we Importance have to do. The possessions of Helias, both those which of his position. Bures. Helias holds Arques. he inherited and those which he received with his wife, made his resistance to the invader of no small help to the cause of his father-in-law. They barred the nearest way to Rouen, not indeed from Gournay, but from Eu and Aumale. They came right between these last fortresses and the domain of Walter Giffard at Longue- ville. Of the three streams which meet by Arques, while Helias himself held the upper Varenne at Saint- Saens, his wife’s fortress of Bures held the middle course of the Bethune or Dieppe below Gerard’s Gaillefontaine, and below Drincourt, not yet the New Castle of King Henry.1 The massive church, with parts dating from the days of Norman independence, rises on the left slope of the valley above an island in the stream. But the site of the castle which formed part of the marriage portion of Duke Robert's daughter is hard to trace. But lower down, nearer the point where the streams meet, the bride of Helias had brought him a noble gift indeed. Through her he was lord of Arques, with its donjon and its ditches, the mighty castle whose tale has been told in recording the history of an earlier generation.?. A glance at the map will show how strong a position in eastern Normandy was held by the man who commanded at once Saint-Saens, Bures, and Arques. But the son-in-law of Duke Robert deserves our notice 1 Neufchatel-en-Bray, famous for cheeses, 2 See N. C. vol. iii. p. 121, FAITHFULNESS OF HELIAS OF SAINT-SAENS. 237 for something better than his birth, his marriage, or his cua. m1. domains. Helias of Saint-Saens was, in his personal Faithful- character, a worthy namesake of Helias of La Fléche. ac Among the crimes and treasons of that age, we dwell uted with delight on the unswerving faithfulness with which, through many years and amidst all the ups and downs of fortune, he clave to the reigning Duke and to his son after him.’ But this his later history lies beyond the bounds of our immediate tale. What directly concerns us now is that Helias was the one noble of Normandy whom the gold of England could not tempt. It would be almost ungenerous to put on record the fact that, unlike most of his neighbours, he had no English estates to lose. The later life of Helias puts him above all suspicion of meaner motives. Saint-Saens, Arques, Bures, and all Caux, remained faithful to Duke Robert. With this honourable exception, an exception which greatly lessened the value of his new conquests, William Rufus had won, without hand-strokes, without his per- sonal presence, a good half of the original grant to Rolf, the greater part of the diocese of Rouen. He was soon William’s to win yet another triumph by his peculiar policy. By a those arms which were specially his own, he was to win Fr over an ally, or at least to secure the neutrality of an enemy, of far higher rank, though perhaps of hardly greater practical power, than the Count of Aumale and the aged lord of Longueville. Robert in his helplessness Robert cried to his over-lord at Paris. Had not his father done ped the same to Philip’s father? Had not King Henry played a part at least equal to that of Duke William among the lifted lances of Val-és-dunes?? Philip had ’ Ord. Vit. 681 B, “ Roberto duci et Guillelmo filio ejus semper fidelis fuit, et sub duobus regibus Guillelmo et Henrico multa pertulit, labores videlicet ac exhereditationem, damna, exsilium, ac multa pericula.” See N. C. vol. v. pp. 84, 182. 2N.C. vol. ii. p. 254. 238 THE FIRST WARS OF WILLIAM RUFUS. caap. 11. had his jest on the bulky frame of the Conqueror, and his jest had been avenged among the candles of the bloody churching at Mantes! By this time at least, so some of our authorities imply, Philip had brought him- self to a case in which the same jest might have been Philip | made upon himself with a good deal more of point. At comes to help, the prayer of his vassal the bulky King of the French left his table and his dainties, and set forth, sighing and groaning at the unusual exertion, to come to the help of the aggrieved Duke.? It was a strange beginning of the Mesting direct rivalry between England and France. King Philip eas came with a great host into Normandy. And Robert entt aa must somewhere or other have found forces to join those of his royal ally. And now was shown the value of the position which was held by the faithful Helias in the land They of Caux. It must have been by his help that the com- sl bined armies of Robert and Philip were able to march to the furthest point of the Red King’s new acquisitions, to the furthest point of the Norman duchy itself, to the castle of Eu, which was held, we are told, by a vast host, Norman and English.? Let an honest voice from Peter- 1 N.C. vol. iv. p. 700. ? Will. Malms. iv. 307. “Domino suo regi Francie per nuntios vio- lentiam fratris exposuit, suppetias orans. Et ille quidem iners, et quoti- dianam crapulam ructans, ad bellum singultiens ingluvie veniebat.” 3 The place is not mentioned in the Chronicles nor in any other of our accounts, except by Robert of Torigny in the Continuation of William of Jumitges, viii. 3. He tells his story backwards in a very confused way, and mixes up the events of this year and the next; “Facta est itaque tandem inter eos [Robertum et Willelmum] apud Cadomum, ut diximus, adminiculante Philippo rege Francorum, qui in auxilium ducis contra Will- elmum regem apud oppidum Auci ingenti Anglorum et Normannorum exercitu tune morantem venerat, qualiscumque concordia.” This means the peace of 1092, when William was in Normandy, and when Philip cer- tainly did not come to Eu. On the other hand, William was certainly not at Eu in 1091. But as Philip did in rogr come to some castle which must have been either Eu, Aunde, or Gournay, we may perhaps accept this as evidence in favour of Hu. WILLIAM AND PHILIP. 239 borough tell what followed. “And the King and the cmap. m1. Earl with a huge /yrd beset the castle about where the King’s men of England in it were. The King William Philip of England sent to Philip the Franks’ King, and he for ae his love or for his mickle treasure forlet so his man the Earl Robert and his land, and went again to France and let them so be.’? A Latin writer does not think it needful to allow Philip the perhaps ironical alternative of the English writer. Love between Philip and William Rufus is not thought of. We are simply told that, while Philip was promising great things, the money of the King of England met him—the wealth of Rufus seems to be personified. Before its presence his courage was broken; he loosed his girdle and went back to his banquet.’ Thus the special weapons of Rufus could overcome The first even kings at a distance. But, ludicrous as the tale a sounds in the way in which it is told, this negotiation between Philip and William is really, in an European, and even in an English point of view, the most im- portant event in the whole story. We should hardly be wrong in calling this payment to Philip the first instance of the employment of English money in the shape of subsidies to foreign princes. For such it in strictness was. It was not, like a Danegeld, money paid to buy off a foreign invader. Nor was it like the simple hiring of mercenaries at home or abroad. It is, like later subsidies, money paid to a foreign sovereign, on 1 Chron. Petrib. 1090. “Se cyng Willelm of Englalande sende to Philippe Francena cynge, and he for his lufan oSde for his mycele gersuma, forlet swa his man pone eorl Rodbeard and his land, and ferde ongean to France, and let heom swa weorSan.” The spirit is lost in the Latin of Florence ; ‘‘Quod cum regi Willelmo nuntiatum esset, non mo- dica pecunie quantitati regi Philippo occulte transmissa, ut obsidione dimissa, domum rediret, flagitavit et imperavit.” ? Will. Malis. iv. 307. “ Occurrerunt magna pollicenti nummi regis Angliz, quibus infractus cingulum solvit et convivium repetiit.” 240 THE FIRST WARS OF WILLIAM RUFUS. cuar. u1. condition of his promoting, or at least not thwarting, the policy of a sovereign of England. The appetite’ which was now first awakened in Philip of Paris soon came to be shared by other princes, and it lasted in full force for First direct many ages. Again, we have now for the first time direct Pencntane. political dealings between a purely insular King of Eng- nie land—we may forestall the territorial style when speak- ing of England as a state rather than of Englishmen as a nation—and a French King at Paris. The embassies which passed between Eadward and Henry, even when Henry made his appeal on behalf of Godwine,? hardly Different make an exception. William the Great had dealt with oe of France as a Norman duke; if, in the latter part of his Williams. yeion, he had wielded the strength of England as well as the strength ‘of Normandy, he had wielded it, as far as France was concerned, wholly for Norman purposes. But William the Red, though his position arose wholly out of the new relations between England and Nor- mandy, was still for the present a purely English king. Relation The first years of Rufus and the first years of Henry see the First are alike breaks in the hundred and forty at years of union between England and Normandy.? Had not a Norman duke conquered England, an English king would not have been seeking to conquer Nor- mandy; but, as a matter of fact, an English king, who had no dominions on the mainland, was seeking to con- quer Normandy. And he was seeking to win it with 1 Macaulay, Hist. Eng. iv. 265. ‘The Elector of Saxony . .. had, together with a strong appetite for subsidies, a great desire to be a member of the most select and illustrious orders of knighthood.” For this last passion there was as yet no room, but William Rufus did a good deal towards bringing about the state of things in which it arose. 2N.C., vol. ii. p. 318. * So are the Norman reigns of Geoffrey Plantagenet and his son Henry. But their position in Normandy was quite different from Robert’s, while they claimed England in quite a different sense from the claims of Robert, and had—the son at least had—partisans there. RELATIONS OF ENGLAND, NORMANDY, AND FRANCE, 241 the good will, or at least the neutrality, of the French cuap. i. King. This was a state of things which could have happened only during the few years when different sons of the Conqueror ruled in England and in Normandy. Whenever England and Normandy were united, whether by conquest or by inheritance, the old strife between France and Normandy led England into the struggle. But at the present moment an alliance between England and France against Normandy was as possible as any other political combination. And the arts of Rufus Results of secured, if not French alliance, at least French neu- Acie trality. But either alliance or neutrality was in its own nature destructive of itself. Let either Normandy win England or England win Normandy, and the old state of things again began. The union of England and Normandy meant enmity between England and France, an enmity which survived their separation.’ Friendly dealings between William and Philip were a step to- wards the union of England and Normandy, and thereby a step towards that open enmity between England and France which began under Rufus himself and which lasted down to our fathers’ times. The bribe which Philip took at Eu has its place in the chain of events which led to Bouvines, to Crécy, and to Waterloo. But while things were thus, unknown to the actors in State of them, taking a turn which was permanently to affect the history of mankind, the immediate business of the time went on as before in the lands of Northern Gaul. In Normandy that immediate business was mutual destruc- tion—civil war is too lofty a name; in Maine it was deliverance from the Norman yoke. I am not called on to tell in detail the whole story of every local strife be- tween one Norman baron and another, not even in those 1 N.C. vol. v. pp. 85, 95, 96. VOL. I. R Normandy. 242 THE FIRST WARS OF WILLIAM RUFUS. cHaP. 11. rare cases when the Duke himself stepped in as a judge or as a party in the strife. Those who loved nothing so well as slaughter, plunder, and burning, had now to make up for the many years during which the strong hand of William the Great had kept them back from Private those enjoyments. They had no thought of stopping, es though the kings of England and France, or all the py the kings of the earth, should appear in arms on Norman soil. Many a brilliant feat of arms, as it was deemed in those days, must be left to local remembrance; even at events which closely touched many of the chief names of our story we can do no more than glance. The revolt of Maine will have to be spoken of at length in Action of another chapter; among strictly Norman affairs we Robert of ; i : Belléme, naturally find Robert of Belléme playing his usual part towards his sovereign and his neighbours, and we find the tower of Ivry and the fortified hall of Brionne ever supplying subjects of strife to the turbulent nobles. We see Robert of Belléme at war with his immediate neighbour Geoffrey Count of Perche and driving Abbot Ralph of Seez to seek shelter in England.2 We also find him beaten back from the walls of Exmes by Gilbert of Laigle and the other warriors of his house, the house of which we have heard in the Malfosse of Senlac ? The character of this Count Geoffrey (son of the Rotrou who figures in the war of the Conqueror and his son, N. C. vol. iv. pp. 637,639) as drawn by Orderic (675 D; see above, p. 183) is worth studying; “ Erat idem consul magnanimus, corpore pulcher, et callidus, timens Deum et ecclesize cultor devotus, clericorum pauperumque Dei defensor strenuus, in pace quietus et amabilis, bonisque pollebat moribus.” Yet he was also “in bello gravis et fortunatus, finitimisque intolerabilis regibus et inimicus [cis ?] omnibus.” Moreover “multas villas combussit multasque predas hominesque adduxit.” The truth is that the curse of private warfare drew the best men, no less than the worst, into the common whirlpool ; and, once in arms, they could not keep back their followers from the usual excesses, even if any such thought occurred to themselves. Cf. Ord. Vit. 890 B for another mention of Geoffrey, ? See above, p. 184. PRIVATE WARS IN NORMANDY, 243 and beneath the rocks of Sainte-Susanne.’ William of cuap. m1. Breteuil loses, wins, and loses again, his late grant of the tower of Ivry, and the second time he is driven to give both the tower and the hand of his natural daughter as his own ransom from a specially cruel imprisonment at the hands of a rebellious vassal. Brionne forms the centre of a tale in which its new lord and his son, the other Roger and the other Robert of our story, play over again the part of the Earl of Shrewsbury and his son of Belléme. Robert of Meulan comes from Robert of England to assert his claim among others to the much- Pets contested tower of Ivry. The Duke reminds him that jower of ; ese : é NEY he had given Brionne to his father in exchange for Ivry. The Count of Meulan gives a threatening answer. The Duke, with unusual spirit, puts him in He is im- : : r ae prisoned, prison, seizes Brionne, and puts it into a state of de- but set free fence. Then the old Roger of Beaumont, old a genera- . the ia ercession tion earlier,* obtains, by the recital of his own exploits, ie ather,. 1 Ord. Vit. 685 A,B. This Gilbert is son of Eginulf, who died at Senlac (N.C. vol. iii. p. 503, note), and brother of Richer, who died before Sainte- Susanne (N.C. vol. iv. p. 659). His sister Matilda married Robert of Mowbray. ? Tb. 684 D, 685 C, D; Will. Gem. viii. 15. The offender, 2 man of Belial, was Ascelin surnamed Goel. The marriage was blessed or cursed with the birth of seven sons, all, according to both our authorities, of evil report. . 8 See above, p. 194. The bandying of words, as given by Orderic (686 A), is worth notice ; “ Robertus comes Mellenti muneribus et pro- missis Guillelmi regis turgidus de Anglia venit, Rothomagum ad ducem accessit, et ab eo arcem Ibreii procaciter repetiit. Cui dux respondit, AEquipotens mutuum patri tuo dedi Brioniam nobile castrum pro arce Ibreii. Comes Mellenti dixit, Istud mutuum non concedo, sed quod pater tuus patri meo dedit habere volo, Alioqui per sanctum Nigasium faciam quod tibi displicebit. Iratus igitur dux illico eum comprehendi et in carcere vinciri precepit, et Brioniam Roberto Balduini filio custodiendam commisit.” This Robert in 686 D sets forth his pedigree, as grandson of Count Gilbert the guardian of the Conqueror (see N. C. vol. ii. pp. 195, 196). He was nephew of Richard of Bienfaite (see above, p. 68), the founder of the house of Clare. * He is now brought in as “ callidus senex.” R2 244 THE FIRST WARS OF WILLIAM RUFUS. cuap. us, the deliverance of his son.1 He then prays, not without Robert takes Brionne. golden arguments, for the restitution of Brionne.2 The officer in command, Robert son of Baldwin, asserts his own hereditary claim, and, at the head of six knights only, stands a siege, though not a long one, against the combined forces of the Duke and of the Count of Meulan and his father.? This siege is remarkable. The summer days were hot; all things were dry; the besiegers shot red-hot arrows against the roof of the fortified hall, and set fire to itt So Duke Robert boasted that he had taken in a day the river-fortress which had held out for three years against his father.° These events concern us only because we know the actors, and because they helped to keep up that state of confusion in the Norman duchy which supplied the Red King at once with an excuse for his invasion, and with Advance ofthe means for carrying out his schemes. It must be Rufus. remembered that the two stories are actually contem- porary; while Robert was besieging Brionne, the fort- resses of eastern Normandy were already falling one by one into the hands of Rufus. It is even quite possible that 1 Ord. Vit. 686C. The Duke speaks of the old Roger’s “ magna lega- litas,” “loyalty,” according to its etymology. Is it characteristic of the “‘callidus senex” that he addresses the Duke as “vestra sublimitaa,” “ vestra serenitas,” and thanks him for imprisoning his son, “temerarium juvenem”? Yet it was twenty-four years since the exploits of Robert of Meulan at Senlac. 2 Tb. D. ‘Ob hoc ingens pecunie pondus promisit.” 3 Tb. 687 A, * Tb. A, B. “Tune calor ingens incipientis estatis, et maxima siccitas erant, que forinsecus expugnantes admodum juvabant. Callidi enim obsessores in fabrili fornace que in promptu structa fuerat, ferram missilium calefaciebant, subitoque super tectum principalis aule in munimento jacie- bant, et sic ferrum candens sagittarum atque pilorum in arida veterum lanugine imbricum totis nisibus figebant.” 5 Ib. ‘Sic Robertus dux ab hora nona Brioniam ante solis occasum obtinuit, quam Guillelmus pater ejus cum auxilio Henrici Francorum regis sibi vix in tribus annis subigere potuit.” See N.C. vol. ii. p. 268. MOVEMENTS AT ROUEN. 245 Robert of Meulan’s voyage from England to Normandy, car. m. and the demands made by him and his father on the Duke, were actually planned between the cunning Count and the Red King as a means of increasing the confusion which reigned in the duchy. But there are tales of local strife which concern us more nearly. The war of the The war of half-brothers, the war of the Amazons, the strife between ee Conches and Evreux, between Isabel and Heloise, is an Eve™*- immediate part of the tale of William Rufus. The lord of Conches was strengthened in his struggle with his brother by forces directly sent to his help by the King’s order.1 The war went on; and, while it was still going Movement on, a far more important movement began in the greatest * ®°"™ city of Normandy, a movement in which the King of the English was yet more directly concerned. Up to this time his plans had been everywhere crowned with success. His campaign, if campaign we can call it, had begun soon after Easter. Half a year had passed, and nearly the whole of the oldest, though not the truest, Normandy had fallen into his hands without his stirring out of his island realm. It now became doubtful whether Robert could keep even the capital of his duchy. The month of November of this year saw stirring November, scenes alike in the streets of Rouen and beneath" the walls of Conches. But, while Conches was openly aided by the King’s troops, no force from England or from the parts of Normandy which William had already won had as yet drawn near to Rouen. Rufus knew other means to gain over the burghers of a great city as well as the lords of castles and smaller towns. The glimpse which we now get of the State of internal state of the Norman metropolis tells us, like @iré'™ so many other glimpses which are given us in the his- tory of these times, just enough to make us wish to be * See above, p. 234. 246 CHAP. III. The muni- cipal spirit. Conan de- magogue or tyrant. THE FIRST WARS OF WILLIAM RUFUS. told more. A state of things is revealed to us which we are not used to in the history of Normandy. Rouen appears for a moment as something like an independent commonwealth, though an enemy might call it a common- wealth which seemed to be singularly bent on its own destruction. The same municipal spirit which we have seen so strong at Exeter and at Le Mans’ shows itself now for a moment at Rouen. We may be sure that under the rule of William the Great no man had dreamed of a commune in the capital of Normandy. His arm, we may be sure, had protected the men of Rouen, like all his other sub- jects, in the enjoyment of all rights and privileges which were not inconsistent with his own dominion. But in his day Rouen could have seen no demagogues, no tyrants, no armies in civic pay, no dealings of its citizens with any prince other than their own sovereign. But the rule of William the Great was over; in Robert’s days it may well have seemed that the citizens of so great a city were better able to rule themselves, or at all events that they were entitled to choose their own ruler. When the arts of Rufus, his gifts and his promises, began to work at Rouen in the same way in which they had worked on the castles of the eastern border, his agents had to deal, not with a prince or a lord, but with a body of citizens under the leadership of one of whom one doubts whether he should be called a demagogue or a tyrant. We seem to be carried over two hundred and forty years to the dealings of Edward the Third with the mighty brewer of Ghent. The Artevelde of Rouen was Conan—the name suggests a Breton origin—the son of Gilbert sur- named Pilatus. He was the richest man in the city; his craft is not told us; but we must always remember that a citizen was not necessarily a trader.2 His wealth 1 See N.C. vol. iv. pp. 145, 451. * Tb. vol. v. pp. 466, 474. CONAN OF ROUEN. 247 was such that it enabled him to feed troops of mercen- cuar. m1. aries and to take armed knights into his pay.1 Another leading citizen, next in wealth to Conan, was William - the son of Ansgar,? whose name seems to imply the purest Norman blood. Conan had entered into a treaty Conan’s with William, the object of which, we are told, was to betray the metropolis of Normandy and the Duke of the Normans—the sleepy Duke, as our guide calls him—into treaty with William. the power of the island King? Nor was this merely The citi- zens favour the scheme of Conan and William; public feeling in the winian, city went heartily with them. A party still clave to the Duke; but the mass of the men of Rouen threw in their lot with Conan, and were, like him, ready to receive William as their sovereign instead of Robert. They may well have thought that, in the present state of things, any change would be for the better; the utter lawlessness of the time, which might have its charms for turbulent nobles, would have no charms for the burghers of a great city. Or the men of Rouen may have argued then, much as the men of Bourdeaux argued ages later, that they were likely to enjoy a greater measure of municipal freedom, under a King of the English, dwelling apart from them in his own island, than they would ever win from a Duke of the Normans, holding 1 Ord. Vit. 689 D. ‘“Hujus nimirum factionis incentor Conanus Gisleberti Pilati filius erat, qui inter cives, utpote ditissimus eorum, pre- cellebat. Is cum rege de tradenda civitate pactum fecerat, et immensis opibus ditatus in urbe vigebat, ingentemque militum et satellitum familiam contra ducem turgidus jugiter pascebat.” 2 Th. 691 A. ‘Guillelmus Ansgerii filius, Rodomensium ditissimus.” This is after Conan’s death. A 3 Ib. 689 D. “Cives Rothomagi regiis muneribus et promissis illecti de mutando principe tractaverunt, ac ut Normanniz metropolim cum somno- lento duce regi proderent consiliati sunt.” * Ib. “ Maxima pars urbanorum eidem adquiescebant. Nonnulli tamen pro fide duci servanda resistebant, et opportunis tergiversationibus de- testabile facinus impediebant.” 248 THE FIRST WARS OF WILLIAM RUFUS, cuar.m. his court and castle in Rouen itself. Yet the friends of ee for Robert might have their arguments too. The party of mere conservatism, the party of order, would naturally cleave to him. But other motives might well come in. True friends of the commune might doubt whether William the Red was likely to be a very safe protector of civic free- dom. They might argue that, if they must needs have a master, their liberties were less likely to be meddled with under such a master as Robert. But the party of the Duke’s friends, on whatever grounds it stood by him, was the weaker party. A majority of the citizens was A day fixed zealous for William. A day was fixed by Conan with for me SY the general consent, on which the city was to be given William. yp, and the King’s forces were invited to come from Robert Gournay and other points in his obedience. Robert ae fr seems to have stayed in the capital which was passing from him; but he felt that, if he was to have supporters, he must seek for them beyond its walls. He sent to tell his plight to those of the nobles of Normandy in whom he still put any trust.? And he also hastened to seek help in a reconciliation with some neighbours and sub- jects with whom he was at variance. Henryand It is certainly a little startling, after the history of the rable past year, to find at the head of the list of Duke Robert’s Cee tv's new allies the names of the Atheling Henry and of help. Robert of Belléme. We may well fancy that they took up arms, not so much to support the rights of the Duke against the King as to check the dangerous example of a great city taking upon itself to choose among the * Ord. Vit. 689 D. “Conanus de suorum consensu contribulium securus, terminum constituit.” Orderic most likely means nothing in particular by this odd word “contribules.” But the later history of free cities sup- plies a certain temptation to begin thinking of gilds, Ziinfte, Geschlechter, abbayes, and alberghi. Tb. “Dux, ubi tantam contra se machinationem comperiit, amicos in quibus confidebat ad se convocavit.” Freeman's William Rufus Vol.1. To face page 249. ROU EN 100 200 300 400 500 600¥ards E Weller, for the Delegates of the Clarendon Press. HENRY AT ROUEN, 249 claims of kings, dukes, and counts. Robert of Bel- -#4?. m1. léme may indeed have simply hastened to any quarter (272 a from which the scent of coming slaughter greeted him. ae = But Henry the Clerk could always have given a reason for anything that he did. Popular movements at Rouen might supply dangerous precedents at Coutances. The Count of Coutances too might have better hopes of be- coming Duke of Rouen, if Rouen were still held for a while by such a prince as Robert, than he could have if the city became either the seat of a powerful common- wealth or the stronghold of a powerful king. But, from whatever motive, Henry came, and he was the first to come.1 Others to whom the Duke’s messengers set forth Others his desolate state? came also. Robert of Belléme, so lately vo his prisoner, Count William of Evreux and his nephew William of Breteuil, all hastened, if not to the deliver- ance of Duke Robert, at least to the overthrow of Conan. And with them came Reginald of Warren, the younger son of William and Gundrada,? and Gil- bert of Laigle, fresh from his victory over his mightiest comrade.* At the beginning of November Duke Robert November was still in the castle of Rouen; but his brother Henry Seale was now with him within its walls, and the captains Rouen. who had come to his help were thundering at the gates of the rebellious city. The Rouen of those days, like the Le Mans, the York, Rouen and the Lincoln, of those days, was still the Roman city, eh the old Rothomagus. As in those and in countless other °""Y: cases, large and populous suburbs had spread themselves over the neighbouring country; at Rouen, as at York, 1 Ord. Vit.690 A. “ Henricus igitur primus ei suppetias venit, et primo subsidium fratri contulit, deinde vindictam viriliter in proditorem exercuit.” 2 Tb. “ Fidelibus suis desolationem sui cita legatione intimavit.” 3 Ib. See above, p. 76, and N. C. vol. iv. p. 654. 4 See above, p. 242. He was killed next year. See Ord. Vit. 685 B. 250 CHAP. III. THE FIRST WARS OF WILLIAM RUFUS. those suburbs had passed the river; but the city itself, the walled space to be attacked and defended in war- time, was still of the same extent as it had been in the days before Rolf and before Chlodwig. The rectangular space marking the Roman camp stretched on its southern side nearly to the Seine, whose stream, not yet fenced in by quays, reached further inland on that side Position of than it now does. Rouen is essentially a river city, not the city. The ducal castles. a hill city. The metropolitan church does indeed stand on sensibly higher ground than the buildings close to the river; but to one fresh from Le Mans or Chartres the rise which has to be mastered seems trifling indeed. For a hill city the obvious site would have been on the natural akropolis supplied by the height of Saint Katharine to the south-east. Yet Rouen is a city of the mainland; the islands which divide the waters of the Seine must have been tempting points for Rolf in his Wiking days; but even the largest of them, the Isle of the Cross, was hardly large enough for a town to grow upon it. Of the walls of Rothomagus not a fragment is left; yet the impress of a Roman chester is hard to wipe out; it is still easy to trace its lines among the streets and build- ings of the greatly enlarged medizeval and modern city. Frightful as has been the havoc which the metropolis of Normandy has undergone in our own time, merci- lessly as the besom of destruction has swept over its ancient streets, churches, and houses, the demon of modern improvement has spared enough to enable us, if not to tell the towers, yet in idea to mark well the bulwarks, of the city where the Conqueror reigned. Near the south-west corner of the parallelogram, not far from the river-side, had stood the earlier castle of the Dukes. Its site in after times became the friary of the Cordeliers, a small fragment of whose church, as well as another desecrated church within the castle ROUEN IN THE ELEVENTH CENTURY. 251 precinct, does in some faint way preserve the memory cuap. 11. of the dwelling-place of Rolf.1 But by the days of Robert, the dukes had moved their dwelling to the south-eastern corner, also near the river, where the site of the castle is marked by the vast halles, and by the graceful Renaissance porch, where the chapter of our Lady of Rouen yearly, on the feast of the Ascension, exercised the prerogative of mercy by saving one pri- soner condemned to die. Here the memory of the castle, though only its memory, lives in the names of the Haute and the Basse Vieille Tour, one of which is soon to be famous in our story. On the eastern side the wall was Theeastern washed by a small tributary of the Seine, the Rebecgq, a a stream whose course has withdrawn from sight almost as thoroughly as the Fleet of London or the Frome of Bristol? On this side of the city lay a large swampy tract, whose name of Mala palus still lives in a Rue Malpalu®, though a more distant part of it has taken the more ambitious name of the Field of Mars. Within the wall lay the metropolitan church of our The arch- Lady and the palace of the Primate of Normandy. eo this last reached to anything like its present extent to the east, the Archbishops of Rouen, like the Counts of 1 This earlier castle of the dukes must be carefully distinguished from the Vieux Palais, which, though it is no longer standing, still lives in street nomenclature. This last was the work of our Henry the Fifth, and lay to the west, between the Roman wall and the wall of Saint Lewis. On this side of the city the modern street lately called Rue del’ Impératrice, and now promoted to the name of Rue Jeanne Dare, is not a bad guide. It runs a little outside of the Roman wall and may fairly represent its fosse. So the other great modern street called Rue de Hotel de Ville, and now Rue Thiers, runs a little further outside the northern wall of the ancient city, which is marked by the Rue de la Ganterie. ? On this side again a modern street helpsus, The Rue de la République, lately Rue Impériale, marks, though less accurately than the others, the eastern side of the city. The Rebecq may be traced for a little way, but it presently loses itself, or at least is lost to the inquirer. 3 Ord. Vit. 690 B. See below, p. 255. 252 CHAP. III. Abbey of Saint Quen. Priory of Saint Gervase. Castle of Bouvreil. Walls of Saint Lewis. The gates. THE FIRST WARS OF WILLIAM RUFUS. Maine,! must have been reckoned among the men who sat on the wall. Outside the city, but close under the wall, near its north-eastern corner, stood the great abbey of Saint Ouen, the arch-monastery,? still ruled by its Abbot Nicolas, though his long reign was now drawing to an end.? At the opposite north-western angle, but much further from the walls, where the higher ground begins to rise above the city, stood the priory of Saint Gervase, the scene of the Conqueror’s death.* Saint Gervase indeed stood, not only far beyond the Roman walls, but beyond those fortifications of later times which took Saint Ouen’s within the city. For Rouen grew as Le Mans grew. On the higher ground like Saint Gervase, but more to the east, rose the castle of Bouvreil, which Philip of Paris, after the loss of Norman independence, reared to hold down the con- quered city. Between his grandfather's castle and the ancient wall Saint Lewis traced out the newer line of fortification which is marked by the modern boulevards. His walls are gone, as well as the walls of Rothomagus ; but of the house of bondage of Philip Augustus one tower still stands, while of the dwelling-place of her own princes even medizeval Rouen had preserved nothing. The four sides of the Roman enclosure were of course pierced by the four chief gates of the city, of three of which we hear in our story. Of these the western, the gate of Caux, is in some sort represented by the Renais- sance gate of the Great Clock*® with its adjoining 1 See N. C. vol. iii. p. 203. ? « Archimonasterium ” is a title of Saint Ouen’s. See Neustria Pia, 1. 3 See N.C. vol. ii. pp. 183, 468. 4 See N. C. vol. iv. p. 704. * The “Tour de la Grosse Horloge” and the gate close by are con- spicuous features in that quarter of Rouen. The noble Palace of Justice was not even represented in the times with which we have to do. ROBERT AT ROUEN. 253 tower. The northern gate bore the name of Saint caar. m. Apollonius. The river was spanned by at least one bridge, which crossed it by way of the island of the Cross, near the second ducal castle. Beyond the Suburbs stream lay the suburb of Hermentrudeville, now Saint a Sever, where Anselm had waited during the sickness of the Conqueror.1 There too the Duchess Matilda, soon to be Queen, had begun the monastery of the meadow, the monastery of our Lady of Good News, the house of Pratum or Pré, whose church still stood un- finished, awaiting the perfecting hand of her youngest son.” Meanwhile the elder and best-beloved son of Matilda Fright of was trembling within the city on the right bank of the pins, broad river. Luckily he had the presence of his youngest brother, the English Atheling, the Count of the Cétentin, to strengthen him. Personal courage Duke Robert never lacked at any time; but something more than personal courage was now needed. Robert was perhaps not frightened, but he was puzzled; at such a moment he seemed to the calm judgement of Henry to be simply in the way; it was for wiser heads to take counsel without him. But deliverance was at hand. Both sides Approach of the Seine sent their helpers. Gilbert of Laigle crossed at Bek the bridge by the island close under the ducal tower, and 2/4. turned to the left to the attack of the southern gate. Reginald of Warren at the head of three hundred knights drew near to the gate of Caux. Against® Efforts of this twofold attack Conan strove hard to keep up the pea hearts of his partisans. He made speeches exhorting to a valiant defence. Many obeyed; but the city was Division already divided; while one party hastened to the ons the citizens. southern gate to withstand the assault of Gilbert, 1 See N. OC. vol. iv. p. 706. ? Neustria Pia, 611. 3 Ord. Vit. 690 A. ‘Ad Calcegiensem portam properavit.” 254 THE FIRST WARS OF WILLIAM RUFUS. cuar. m1. another party sped to open the western gate and to Utter let in the forces of Reginald. Soldiers of the King of PONS ire English, the advanced guard doubtless of a greater host to come, were already in the city, stirring up the party of Conan to swifter and fiercer action. Soldiers and citizens were huddled together in wild confusion ; shouts passed to and fro for King and Duke; men at either gate smote down neighbours and kinsmen to the sound of either war-cry.2. The strength of the city was turned against itself. The hopes of the commonwealth of Rouen, either as a free city or as a favoured ally of the island King, were quenched in the blood of its citizens. Le Mans and Exeter had fallen; but they had fallen more worthily than this. Henry Meanwhile Henry and those who were with him in eee the castle deemed that the time had come for the de- away: fenders of the ducal stronghold to join their friends within and without the city. But there was one inha- bitant of the castle whose presence was deemed an encumbrance at such a moment. Men were shouting for the Duke of the Normans; but the wiser heads of his friends deemed that the Duke of the Normans was just then best out of the way. Robert came down from the tower, eager to join in the fray and to give help to the citizens of his own party.2 But all was 1 Ord. Vit. 690A. ‘‘Jampridem quidam de regiis satellitibus in urbem introierant, et parati, rebellionem tacite prestolantes, seditionis moram zegre ferebant.” 27Tb. B. “Dum militaris et civilis tumultus exoritur, nimius hine et inde clamor attollitur, et tota civitas pessime confunditur, et in sua viscera crudeliter debacchatur. Plures enim civium contra cognatos vicinosque suos ad utramque portam dimicabant, dum quedam pars duci, et altera regi favebant. . .. Dum perturbationis ingens tumultus cuncta confunderet, et nesciretur quam quisque civium sibi partem eligeret.” 3 Ib. B. “Dux ubi furentes, ut dictum est, in civitate advertit, cum Henrico fratre suo et commanipularibus suis de arce prodiit, suisque velo- citer suffragari appetiit.” ROBERT SENT AWAY. 255 wild tumult; it needed a cooler head than Robert's to cuar. m. distinguish friend from foe. He might easily rush on destruction in some ignoble form, and bring dishonour on the Norman name itself1 He was persuaded by his friends to forego his warlike purposes, and to suffer himself to be led out of harm’s way. While every other man in the metropolis of Normandy was giving and taking blows, the lord of Normandy, in mere personal prowess one of the foremost soldiers in his duchy, was smuggled out of his capital as one who could not be trusted to let his blows fall in the right place. With a few comrades he passed through the eastern gate into the suburb of the Evil Swamp, just below the castle walls. It is to be noticed that no fighting on this No attacks specially looked for to approach from Gournay, and the east gate was the natural path by which an army from Gournay would seek to enter Rouen. One would have expected that one at least of the relieving parties would have hastened to make sure of this most important point. Yet one division takes its post by the southern gate, another by the western, none by the eastern. Were operations on that side made needless, either by the neighbourhood of the castle, by any difficulties of the marshy ground, or by the disposition of the inhabitants of the suburb? Certain it is that Duke Robert’s nearest neighbours outside his capital were loyal to him. The men of the Evil Swamp received the Duke gladly as their special lord? He allowed himself to be put into a boat, and ferried across to the suburb on the left bank. 1 Ord. Vit. 690 B. “Ne perniciem inhonestam stolido incurreret, cunctisque Normannis perenne opprobrium fieret.” ? Ib. “Fugiens cum paucis per orientalem portam egressus est, et mox a suburbanis vici, qui Mala-palus dicitur, fideliter ut specialis herus sus- ceptus est.” side of the city is mentioned. The King’s troops were oo oS 256 THE FIRST WARS OF WILLIAM RUFUS. cuar. m1. There he was received by one of his special counsellors, Gilbert enters Rouen. Slaughter of the citizens. Conan taken prisoner. William of Arques, a monk of Molesme, and was kept safely in his mother’s monastery till all danger was over.! It was clearly not wholly for the sake of such a prince as this that so many Norman leaders, Henry of Coutances among them, had made up their minds that the republican movement at Rouen was to be put down. The moment for putting it down had come. Gilbert of Laigle had by this time, by the strength of his own forces and by the help of the citizens of his party, entered Rouen through the southern gate. His forces now joined the company of Henry; they thus became far more than a match for the citizens of Conan’s party, even strengthened as they were by those of the King’s men who were in the city. A great slaughter of the citizens followed; the soldiers of Rufus contrived to flee out of the city, and to find shelter in the neighbouring woods;? the city was full of death, flight, and weeping; innocent and guilty fell together ; Conan and others of the ringleaders were taken pri- soners. Conan himself was led into the castle, and ~ 1 Ord. Vit. 690 B. “Cimba parata Sequanam intravit, et relicto post terga conflictu trepidus ad Ermentrudis-villam navigavit. Tune ibidem a Guillelmo de Archis Molismensi monacho susceptus est, ibique in basilica sancte Marie de Prato finem commote seditionis prestolatus est.” On this William of Arques, see above, p. 220. William of Malmesbury (v. 392) has quite another account, in which the Duke’s flight is not spoken of, and in which Henry at least urges him to action; “ Regios eo interdiu venientes, qui dolo civium totam jampridem occupaverant urbem, probe expulit [Henricus], admonito per nuntios comite ut ille a fronte propelleret quos ipse a tergo urgeret.” This account does not come in its chronological place, but in William’s account of the early life of Henry. And he misconceives the date, placing the revolt of Rouen after the coming of William into Normandy; “ Willelmo veniente in Normanniam uti se de fratre Roberto ulcisceretur, comiti obsequelam suam exhibuit [Henricus], Rotomagi positus.” 2 Ord. Vit. 690 C. “Regia cohors territa fugit, latebrasque silvarum que in vicinio erant, avide poscens, delituit, et subsidio noctis discrimen mortis seu captionis difficulter evasit.” TAKING OF ROUEN. 257 there Henry took him for his own share of the spoil, cmap. ut. not indeed for ransom, but to be dealt with in a strange and dreadful fashion. It is one of the contrasts of human nature that Henry, the great and wise ruler, the king who made peace for man and deer, the good man of whom there was mickle awe and in whose day none durst hurt other, should have been more than once guilty in his own person of acts of calm and de- liberate cruelty which have no parallel in the acts of his father, nor in those of either of his brothers. So Fate of now Conan was doomed to a fate which was made the sterner by the bitter personal mockery which he had to endure from Henry’s own mouth. The Atheling led his victim up through the several stages of the loftiest tower of the castle, till a wide view was opened to his eyes through the uppermost windows.! Henry bade Conan Henry and onan in look out on the fair prospect which lay before him. He the tower. bade him think how goodly a land it was which he had striven to bring under his dominion.? These words well express the light in which Conan’s schemes would look in princely eyes; the question was not whether Robert or William should reign in Rouen; it was whether Conan should reign there as demagogue or tyrant in the teeth of all princely rights. Henry went on to point out the beauties of the landscape in detail; the eyes of the scholar-prince could perhaps better enjoy them than the eyes of Rufus or of Robert of Belléme. Beyond the river lay the pleasant park, the woody land rich in beasts of chase. There was the Seine washing the walls of the city, the river rich in fish, bearing on its waters the ships which enriched Rouen with the wares of many 1 On the different versions of the death of Conan in Orderic and in William of Malmesbury, see Appendix K. 2 Ord, Vit. 690 C. “Considera, Conane, quam pulcram tibi patriam conatus es subjicere.” VOL. I. 8 258 THE FIRST WARS OF WILLIAM RUFUS. cuar. 11. lands. On the other side he bade him look on the city itself thronged with people, its noble churches, its goodly houses. The modern reader stops for a moment to think that, of the buildings which then met the eye of Conan, churches, castles, halls of wealthy burghers like himself, clustering within and without the ancient walls, all doubtless goodly works according to the sterner standard of that day, hardly a stone is left to meet his own eye as he looks down from hill or tower on the great buildings of modern Rouen. It was another Saint Romanus, another Saint Ouen, of far different outline and style from those on which we now gaze, which Henry called on Conan to admire at that awful moment. He bade him mark the splendour of the city; he bade him think of its dignity as the spot which had been from of old the head of Normandy? The trembling wretch felt the mockery; all that was left to him was to groan and cry for mercy. He confessed his guilt; he simply craved for grace in the name of their common Maker. He would give to his lord all the gold and silver of his hoard and the hoards of his kinsfolk; he would wipe out the stain of his past disloyalty by faith- ful service for the rest of his days. The Conqueror would have granted such a prayer in sheer greatness of soul; the Red King might well have deemed it beneath him to harm so lowly a suppliant. But the stern pur- pose of Henry was fixed, and his wrath, when it was 1 Ord. Vit.690C. “ En, ad meridiem delectabile parcum patet oculis tuis. En saltuosa regio silvestribus abundans feris. Ecce Sequana piscosum flumen Rotomagensem murum allambit, navesque pluribus mercimoniis refertas huc quotidie deveh't.” * Ib. D. “En ex alia parte civitas populosa, mcenibus sacrisque templis et urbanis zdibus speciosa, cui jure a priscis temporibus subjacet Norman- nia tota.” ° Ib. “Pro redemptione mei domino meo aurum dabo et argentum, quantum reperire potero in thesauris meis meoramque parentum, et pe eulpa infidelitatis fidele usque ad mortem rependam servitium.” DEATH OF CONAN. 259 once kindled, was as fierce as that of his father or his cmap, 1. brother. “By the soul of my mother”—that seems to have been the most sacred of oaths with Matilda’s de- frauded heir, as he looked out towards the church of her building—“ there shall be no ransom for the traitor, but rather a hastening of the death which he deserves.”? Conan no longer pleaded for life; he thought only of the welfare of his soul. “For the love of God, at least grant me a confessor.”? Had the Lion of Justice reached that height of malice which seeks to kill the soul as well as the body? At Conan’s last prayer his wrath reached its height ;* Conan should have no time for shrift any more than for ransom. If the clergy of Saint Romanus already enjoyed their privilege of mercy, they were to have no chance of exercising it on behalf of this arch- criminal. With all the strength of both his hands, Henry Death of thrust Conan, like Eadric,* through the window of the tower. He fell from the giddy height, and died, so it was said, before he reached the ground. His body was tied to the tail of a pack-horse and dragged through the streets of Rouen to strike terror into his followers. The spot from which he was hurled took the name of the Leap of Conan.6 The tower, as I have said, has perished; the site of the Leap of Conan must be 1 Ord. Vit. 690 C. “Per animam matris mez, traditori nulla erit re- demptio, sed debitee mortis acceleratio.”” ? Tb. “Conanus gemens clamavit alta voce; Pro amore, inquit, Dei, confessionem mihi permitte.” 8 Tb. “ Henricus acer fraterne ultor injurie pre ira infremuit.” Simple wrath is an attribute which we are more used to assign to Henry the Second, with his hereditary touch of the Angevin devil, than to the calm, deliberate, Henry the First. Yet we can understand how, through the stages of the “jronica insultatio,” as Orderic calls Henry's discourse to Conan, a de- termination taken in cold blood might grow into the fierce delight of destruction at the actual moment of carrying it out. * See Appendix K. ° Ord, Vit. 691 A. “Locus ipse, ubi vindicta hujusmodi perpetrata est, saltus Conani usque in hodiernam diem vocitatus est.” 82 Conan. 260 CHAP. III. Policy of Henry. Robert brought back. Treatment of the citizens. THE FIRST WARS OF WILLIAM RUFUS. sought for in imagination, at some point, perhaps the south-eastern corner, of the vast Aad/es of ancient Rouen. The rule of Robert was now restored in Rouen, so far as Robert could be said to rule at any time in Rouen or elsewhere. It is remarkable that after the death of Conan we lose sight of Henry; that is, as far as Rouen is concerned, for we shall before long hear of him again in quite different relations towards his two brothers. He may well have thought that one fearful example was needed, but that one fearful example was enough. He would secure the punishment of the ringleader, even by doing the hangman’s duty with his own hands; but mere havoc and massacre had no charms for him at any time. His policy might well have forestalled the later English rule, “Smite the leaders and spare the commons.” If Robert or anybody else was to reign in Rouen, nothing would be gained by killing, driving out, or recklessly spoiling, the people over whom he was to reign. But there were men at his side to whom the utmost licence of warfare was the most cherished of enjoyments. The Duke, never personally cruel,! was in a merciful mood. When all danger was over, he was brought across the river from his monastery to the castle. He saw how much the city had already suffered; his heart was touched, and he was not minded to inflict any further punishment. But he had to yield to the sterner counsels of those about him, and to allow a heavy vengeance to be meted out.2 He seems however to have prevailed so far as to hinder the shedding of blood. At least we hear nothing of any general slaughter. The fierce men who had brought him back seem to have contented themselves with plunder and leading into captivity. The citizens 1 See above, p. 190. * Ord. Vit. 691 A. ‘“ Robertus dux, ut de prato ad arcem rediit et que gesta fuerant comperit, pietate motus infortunio civium condoluit, sed, fortiori magnatorum censura prevalente, reis parcere nequivit,” TREATMENT OF THE CITY. 261 of Rouen were dealt with by their countrymen as men cmap. 11. deal with barbarian robbers. They were spoiled of all their goods and led away into bondage. Robert of Belléme and William of Breteuil, if they spared life, spared it only to deal out on their captives all the horrors of the prison-house.! The richest man in Imprison- Rouen after the dead Conan, William the son of asc Ansgar, became the spoil of William of Breteuil. After Wiliam a long and painful imprisonment, he regained his liberty Ansgar. on paying a mighty ransom of three thousand pounds.” Before his captive was set free, the lord of Breteuil himself learned what it was to endure imprisonment, this time doubtless of a milder kind than that which he inflicted on William the son of Ansgar or that which himself endured, at the hands of Ascelin.® The Count of Count Evreux and his nephew of Breteuil must have marched Hine ie almost at once from their successful enterprise at Rouen 2s*nst Conches. to a less successful enterprise at Conches. For it was November, still November when Count William or his Countess 19% resolved on a great attack on the stronghold of their rival.* Evreux was doubtless the starting-point for an undertaking which followed naturally on the work which had been done at Rouen. The Count of Evreux might keep on the garb of Norman patriotism which he had worn in the assault on the rebellious capital, and 1 Ord. Vit. 691 A. ‘“ Robertus Belesmensis et Guillelmus Bretoliensis affuerunt, et Rodomanos incolas velut exteros praedones captivos abduxe- runt, et squaloribus carceris graviter afflixerunt..... Sic Belesmici et Aquilini ceterique ducis auxiliarii contra se truculenter seviunt, civesque metropolis Neustriz vinculatos attrahunt, cunctisque rebus spoliatos, ut barbaros hostes male affligunt.” 2 Tb. “A Guillelmo Bretoliensi ducitur captivus, et post longos carceris squalores redimit se librarum tribus millibus.” 5 See above, p. 243. ‘ Ib. 688 B. ‘Mense Novembri Guillelmus comes ingentem exer- citum aggregavit, et Conchas expugnare ccepit.” One would like to know what number passed for “ingens exercitus” in this kind of warfare. 262 CHAP. III. THE FIRST WARS OF WILLIAM RUFUS. his Countess might add to the other crimes with which she charged Ralph and Isabel a share in the crime of Conan, that of traitorous dealing with the invading enemy. The forces of Evreux and Breteuil were there- fore arrayed to march together against the stronghold of the common kinsman and enemy at Conches. No contrast could well be greater than the con- trast between the spot from which Count William set forth and the spot which he led his troops to attack. Position of Near as Conches and Evreux are, they are more Evreux and Conches, thoroughly cut off from one another than many spots which are far more distant on the map. The forest of Evreux parts the hills of Conches from the capital of Count William’s county. The small stream of the Iton flows by the homes of both the rival heroines. But at Conches it flows below the hill crowned by castle, church, and abbey ; at Evreux its swift stream had ages before been taught to act as a fosse to the four walls of Position of a Roman chester. Low down in the valley, like our own Medio- lanum or Evreux. History of Evreux. Bath, with the hills standing round about his city, the Count of Evreux lived among the memorials of elder days. The walls of Mediolanum, which can still be traced through a large part of their circuit, fenced in to the south the minster of Our Lady and the palace of the Bishop, then still tenanted by the eloquent Gilbert. His home, like that of his metropolitan at Rouen,? might seem to stand upon the Roman wall itself. At the north-west corner, the wall fenced in the castle from which Count William had driven out the Conqueror’s garrison, and where he, either then or at some later time, overthrew the Conqueror’s donjon.? The wall of Medio- lanum, like the wall of the Athenian akropolis, had 1 See N. C. vol. iv. p. 713. ? Tb. p. 713. ° Ord. Vit. 834 C. “ Predictus comes et Heluisa comitissa dangionem regis apud Ebroas funditus dejecerunt.”’ Freemans Wilkiam. Ruties. Vol. 2. Th face paae 262. ie MEDIOLANUM BVREUOX 40 too 120 «140 180Yards the Clarendow Press. E Weller. EVREUX IN THE ELEVENTH CENTURY. 263 fragments of ornamental work, shattered columns, capi- cuar. ur. tals, cornices, built in among its materials. It would thus seem to belong to a late stage of Roman rule, when the Frank was dreaded as a dangerous neighbour, per- haps when he had already once laid Mediolanum waste. To the north, much as at Le Mans and at Rouen, the city in later times enlarged its borders, as, in later times still, it has enlarged them far to the south. The “Little City” —a name still borne by a street within the Roman cir- cuit—is a poor representative of the Old Rome on the Cenomannian height;' but both alike bear witness to the small size of the original Roman encampments, and to the gradual process by which they were enlarged into the cities of modern times. But in the days of William The and Heloise the cireuit of Roman Mediolanum was still £7" the circuit of Norman Evreux. And, as in so many other places, the oldest monuments have outlived many that were newer. Neither church, castle, nor episcopal mall palace, keeps any fragments of the days of the warlike ae Countess; it is only in the minster of Saint Taurinus en without the walls that some small witnesses of those times Evreux. are to be found. Even the Romanesque portions of the church of Our Lady must be later than Count William’s day, and the greater part of the building of the twelfth century has given way to some of the most graceful con- ceptions of the architects of the fourteenth. The home of the Bishop has taken the shape of a stately dwelling in the latest style of medizval art; the home of the Count has vanished like the donjon which Count William over- threw. But the old defences within which bishops and counts had fixed themselves in successive ages still live on, to no small extent in their actual masonry, and in the greater part of their circuit in their still easily marked lines. And, high upon the hills, the eye rests 1 See N.C, vol. iii. p. 204. 264 THE FIRST WARS OF WILLIAM RUFUS. caar. 11. on the stronghold of yet earlier days, bearing the local The Catelier. Position of Conches. name of the Cvtelier, the earth-works which rise above Evreux as the earth-works of Sinodun rise above the northern Dorchester. Here we may perhaps see the point where the Gaul still held out on the hill, when the Roman had already entrenched himself by the river- side. At Evreux the works of the earliest times, the works of the latest times, the works of several inter- mediate times, are there in their fulness. But there is nothing whatever left in the city directly to remind us of the times with which we are now dealing. A man might pass through Evreux, he might make a diligent search into the monuments of Evreux, and, unless he had learned the fact from other sources, he might fail to find out that Evreux had ever had counts or temporal lords of any kind. It is otherwise with the fortress of the warlike lady of the hills, against which the warlike lady of the river-city now bade the forces of her husband’s county to march. The home of Isabel has no more of her actual work or date to show than the home of Heloise; but the impress of the state of things which she represents is stamped for ever on the stronghold of the house of Toesny. At Evreux the Count and his followers lived in the midst of works which, even in their day, were ancient; at Conches, on the other hand, all was in that day new. Conches had already its minster, its castle, most likely its growing town; but all were the works of its present lord or of his father. The hill of Conches is another of those peninsular hills which, as the chosen sites of castles, play so large a part in our story. But the castle of Conches does not itself crown a promontory, like the castle of Ballon. The cause doubtless was that at Conches the abode of peace came first, and the abode of warfare came only second. Either Ralph himself, the THE ABBEY AND CASTLE OF CONCHES. 265 first of his house who bears the surname of Conches as onar. mr. well as that of Toesny, or else his fierce father in some a ae milder moment, had planted on the hill a colony of monastery. monks, the house of Saint Peter of Conches or Castel- lion.t The monastery arose on that point of the high ground which is most nearly peninsular, that stretching towards the north. To the south of the abbey presently grew up the town with its church, a town which, in after times at least, was girded by a wall, and which was shel- tered or threatened by the castle of its lords at the end The castle. furthest from the monastery. To the east, the height on which town and castle stand side by side rises sheer from a low and swampy plain, girt in by hills on every side, lying like the arena of a natural amphitheatre. On the hill-side art has helped nature by escarpments ; the mound of the castle, girt by its deep and winding ditch, rises as it rose in the days of Ralph and Isabel; but the round donjon on the mound and the other remaining buildings of the fortress cannot claim an earlier date than the thirteenth century. The donjon and the apse of the parish church, a gem of the latest days of French art, now stand nobly side by side; in Isabel’s day they had other and ruder forerunners. But of the abbey, The abbey. which must have balanced the castle itself in the general view, small traces only now remain; it has become quite 1 On the foundation of the abbey of Concues or Castellion, see Neustria Pia, 567, and the passages from Orderic and William of Jumigges there cited. William (vii. 22) puts it among the monasteries founded in the reign of William the Great, and calls its founder Ralph. But Orderic (460 A) attributes the foundation to a Roger, seemingly the old Roger who came back from Spain. I can hardly accept the suggestion in Neustria Pia that the Roger spoken of is the young Roger of whom we shall pre- sently hear, the son of Ralph and Isabel, and that he was joint-founder with his father Ralph. Orderic twice (493 B, 576 A) distinguishes Ralph of Conches, the husband of Isabel, from his father Roger of T'oesny ; ‘‘ Rodulphus de Conchis, Rogerii Toenitis filius,” “ Radulfus de Conchis, filius Rogerii de Toénia.” 266 OHAP. III. Siege of Conches. Near kindred of the com- batants. Death of Richard of THE FIRST WARS OF WILLIAM RUFUS. secondary in the general aspect of the place, which gathers wholly round the parish church and the donjon. The western side of the hill, towards the forest which takes its name from Conches, shows nearly the same features as the eastern side on a smaller scale. It looks down on another plain girt in by hills; but on this side the slope of the hill of Conches itself is gentler, and the town is here defended by a wall. Altogether it was a formidable undertaking when the lord of the ancient city in the vale carried his arms against the fortress, the work of his brother, which had arisen within his own memory on the height overlooking his own river. Count William thus began his winter siege of Conches ; but, as usual, we get no intelligible account of the siege as a military operation. We are told nothing of the Count’s line of march, or by what means he sought to bring the castle to submission. But, as usual too, we have no lack of personal anecdotes, anecdotes some of which remind us how near were the family ties be- tween the fierce nobles who tore one another in pieces. We have already mentioned one nephew of the Count of Evreux who came with him to the attack of Conches. But William of Breteuil was nephew alike of both the contending brothers. His mother Adeliza, daughter of Roger of Toesny, wife of Earl William of Hereford before he went to seek a loftier bride in Flanders,’ was the whole sister of Ralph of Conches and the half-sister of Count William of Evreux. Another nephew and fol- lower of Count William, Richard of Montfort, son of his whole sister, was moreover a brother of the Penthesileia of Conches.? The fate of these two kinsmen was dif- ferent. Richard, in warring against his sister’s castle, Montfort, With some chance of meeting his sister personally in the 1 See N.C, vol. iv. p. 534. 2 Will. Gem, vii. 22. 3 Ord. Vit. 688 B. PEACE BETWEEN EVREUX AND CONCHES. 267 field, did not respect the sanctity of the neighbouring cuar. m. abbey of her husband’s foundation. He heeded not the tears of the monks who prayed him to spare the holy place. A chance shot of which he presently died was looked on as the reward of his sacrilege. Both sides mourned for one so nearly allied to both leaders.’ William of Breteuil, the ally of his uncle of Evreux, William of became the captive of his uncle of Conches. That wary Breteuil captain, when the host of Evreux came a-plundering, was P™°*- at the head of a large force of his own followers and of the King of England’s soldiers.2, But he bade his men keep back till the foe was laden with booty; they were then to set upon them in their retreat. His orders were successfully carried out. Many of the party became the prisoners of the lord of Conches, among them the lord of Breteuil, the gaoler of William the son of Ansgar.® Of this incident came a peace which ended the three years’ warfare of the half-brothers.* The captive William of Breteuil procured his freedom by a ransom of three thousand pounds paid to his uncle of Conches, which Ord. Vit.688 B. “Dum ceenobialem curiam beati Petri Castellionis in- vaderet, nec pro reverentia monachorum, qui cum fletibus vociferantes Dominum interpellabant, ab incceptis desisteret, hostili telo repente per- cussus est, ipsoque die cum maximo luctu utriusque partis mortuus est.” He is described as “ formidabilis marchisius.” 2? Tb. C. “Radulfus pervalidum agmen de suis, et de familia regis habuit.” 3 Ib. ‘ Cupidis tironibus foras erumpere dixit, Armamini et estote parati, sed de munitione non exeatis donec ego jubeam vobis. Sinite hostes prada onerari, et discedentes mecum viriliter insectamini. Ili autem principi suo, qui probissimus et militie gnarus erat, obsecundarunt, et abeuntes cum preda pedetentim persecuti sunt.” Cf. the same kind of policy on the part of the Conqueror, N. C. vol iii. p. 152. * Ib. “ Ebroicenses erubescentes quod guerram superbe cceperant et inde maximi pondus detrimenti cum dedecore pertulerant, conditioni pacis post triennalem guerram adquieverunt.” The peace was clearly made about the end of rogo or the very beginning of 1091. The three years of war must therefore be reckoned from the death of the Conqueror, or from some time not long after, 268 THE FIRST WARS OF WILLIAM RUFUS. cHaP, I. was presently made good to him by the ransom of his Settlement own victim from Rouen. Moreover, as he had no lawful of the a 1 a 7 : county of issue, he settled his estates on his young cousin ct °? Roger, the younger son of Ralph and Isabel. The same oe youthful heir was also chosen by his childless uncle of Evreux to succeed him in his county.? Perhaps Duke Robert confirmed all these arrangements as a matter of course; perhaps the consent of such an over-lord was not deemed worth the asking. The young Roger of Toesny thus seemed to have a bril- liant destiny opened to him, but he was not doomed to be lord either of Evreux or of Breteuil. He was, it is implied, too good for this world, at all events for such a world Character as that of Normandy in the reign of Robert. Pious, ee gentle, kind to men of all classes, despising the pomp of apparel which was the fashion of his day,® the young Roger attracts us as one of a class of whom there may have been more among the chivalry of Normandy than we are apt to think at first sight. An order could not be wholly corrupt which numbered among its members such men as Herlwin of Bec, as Gulbert of Hugleville,* 1 Ord. Vit. 688 D. He had at least two natural children, a daughter Isabel, of whom we have already heard (see above, p. 243), and a son Eustace, who succeeded his father in the teeth of all collateral claimants. Eustace is best known as the husband of Henry the First’s natural daughter Juliana (see N.C vol. v. p. 157, note), in whose story we come again to the ever-disputed tower of Ivry. See Will. Gem. viii. 15 ; Ord. Vit. 577B; 810 C; 848 B, C. 2 Ib. ‘“Ebroicensis quoque comes eundem Rogerium, utpote nepotem suum, consulatus sui heredem constituit.” This was to the prejudice of his nephew Amalric of Montfort, son of his whole sister Agnes, and half-brother of Isabel. After Count William's death in 1108, the strivings after his county were great and long, till Amalric recovered full possession in 1119. Ord. Vit. 863 C. 3 Ib. “ Pretiosis vestibus quibus superbi nimis insolescunt, uti dedigna- batur, et in omni esse suo sese modeste regere nitebatur.” This must be taken in connexion with Orderic’s various protests against the vain fashions of the day, especially the great one in p. 682. * See N.C. vol. ii. p. 219; iv. p. 448, STORY OF THE THREE DREAMS. and the younger son of Ralph of Conches. A tale is told of him, a tale touching in itself and one which gives us our only glimpse of the inner and milder life of the castle of Conches under the rule of its Amazonian mis- tress. A number of knights sat idle in the hall, sporting and amusing themselves with talk in the presence of the lady Isabel. At last they told their dreams. One, whose name is not given, said that he had seen the form of the Saviour on the cross, writhing in agony and looking on him with a terrible countenance. All who heard the dream said that some fearful judgement was hanging over the head of the dreamer. Then spoke Baldwin the son of Count Eustace of Boulogne, one of the mightier sons of an ignoble father.? He too had seen his Lord hanging on the cross; but the divine form was bright and glorious; the divine face smiled kindly on the dreamer; the divine hand blessed him and traced the sign of the cross over his head. All said that rich gifts of divine favour were in store for him. Then the young Roger crept near to his mother, and told her that he too knew one not far off who had beheld his vision also. Isabel asked of her son of whom he spoke and what the seer had beheld. The youth blushed and hesitated, but, pressed by his mother and his comrades, he told how there was one who had lately seen his vision of the Lord, how the Saviour had placed his hand on his head, and had bidden him, as his be- loved, to come quickly that he might receive the joys of life. And he added that he knew that he who was thus called of his Lord would not long abide in this world. 1 Ord. Vit. 688 D. ‘Quondam milites otiosi simul in Aula Conchis ludebant et colloquebantur, et coram domina Elisabeth de diversis thema- tibus, ut mos est hujusmodi, confabulabantur.” Then follows this beautiful atory of the three dreams. 2 See N.C. vol. iv. p. 130. * Ord. Vit. 689 A. ‘ Dextera sua me benedicentem, signumque crucis super caput meum benigniter facientem.” ; 269 CHAP. III. The three dreams. Baldwin of Boulogne. Roger's dream. 270 CHAP, III. Fulfilment of the dreams, Death of young Roger. Later treaty between the two brothers. I1oo. Banish- ment and death of Count William. April 18, 1108, THE FIRST WARS OF WILLIAM RUFUS. Such talk as this in the hall of Conches, in the pre- sence of its warlike lady, whether we deem it the record of real dreams or a mere pious imagining after the fact, seems like a fresh oasis in the dreary wilderness of un- natural war. Each vision was of course fulfilled. The nameless knight, wounded ere long in one of the combats of the time, died without the sacraments. Baldwin of Boulogne, afterwards son-in-law of Ralph and Isabel,’ was indeed called to bear the cross, but in a way which men perhaps had not thought of six years before Pope Urban preached at Clermont. Count of Edessa, King of Jerusalem, the name of Baldwin lives in the annals of crusading Europe; to Englishmen it perhaps comes home most nearly as the name of a comrade of our own Robert son of Godwine.? But a brighter crown than that of Bald- win’s kingdom was, long before Baldwin reigned, the re- ward of the young Roger. A few months after the date of the tale, he died peacefully in his bed, full of faith and hope, and, amid the grief of many, his body was laid in the minster of Saint Peter of his father’s rearing.® There was thus peace between Conches and Evreux, a peace which does not seem to have been again broken. Ten years later, in a time of renewed licence, we find the two brothers joining in a private war against Count Robert of Meulan.* Eight years later again, when Count William and his Countess were busy building a monastery at Noyon, they fell under the displeasure of King Henry, and died in banishment in the land of Anjou.’ Ralph of Toesny was succeeded by his son 1 He married their daughter Godehild, the former wife of Robert, son of Henry Earl of Warwick. See Ord. Vit. 576 C; Will. Gem. viii. 41. The strange story of his two later marriages does not concern us, and the way in which he became Count of Edessa was hardly becoming in a holy warrior. ? See N. C. vol. v. pp. 94, 819, and Appendix HH, 8 Ord. Vit. 689 C. * Ib. 784 B. 5 Tb. 834 C. There is a singular contrast in the words with which ORDERICS PICTURE OF NORMANDY. 271 the younger Ralph, and Isabel, after a long widowhood, cuar. m1. withdrew as a penitent to atone for the errors of her youth, one would think of her later days also, in a life of religion.? It is after recording the war of Conches and the sack Orderic’s of Rouen that the monk of Saint Evroul takes up his ga parable to set forth the general wretchedness of Nor- mandy in the blackest colours with which the pictures of Hebrew prophets and Latin poets could furnish him. And it is Orderic the Englishman? that speaks. In his His _ Norman cell he never forgot that he first drew breath by es the banks of the Severn. In his eyes the woes of Nor- mandy were the righteous punishment for the wrongs of England. The proud people who had gloried in their conquest, who had slain or driven out the native sons of the land, who had taken to themselves their possessions and commands, were now themselves bowed down with sorrows. The wealth which they had stolen from others served now not to their delight but to their torment.® Normandy, like Babylon, had now to drink of the same cup of tribulation, of which she had given others to drink even to drunkenness. A Fury without a curb raged through the land, and smote down its inhabitants. Orderic disposes of the dead bodies of the Count and the Countess ; “ Comitissa nempe defuncta prius apud Nogionem quiescit; comes vero, postmodum apoplexia percussus, sine viatico decessit, et cadaver ejus cum patre suo Fontinella computrescit.” 1 See above, p. 233. ? See N. C. vol. iv. p. 496. 8 Ord. Vit. 691 A, B. “Ecce quibus exrumnis superba profligatur Normannia, que nimis olim victa gloriabatur Anglia, et naturalibus regni filiis trucidatis sive fugatis usurpabat eorum possessiones et imperia. Ecce massam divitiarum quas aliis rapuit eisque pollens ad suam perniciem inso- lentur tumuit, nunc non ad delectamentum sui sed potius ad tormentum miserabiliter distrahit.” He has an earlier reflexion to the same effect (664 B); “Sic proceres Neustriz . ... patriam divitiis opulentam propriis viribus vicissim exspoliaverunt, opesque quas Anglis aliisque gentibus violenter rapuerunt merito latrociniis et rapinis perdiderunt.” 2 ~ ( 2 THE FIRST WARS OF WILLIAM RUFUS. caar. 1. The clergy, the monks, the unarmed people, everywhere wept and groaned. None were glad save thieves and robbers, and they were not long to be glad.!- And so he follows out the same strain through a crowd of prophetic images, the locust, the mildew, and every other instru- ment of divine wrath. We admit the aptness of his parallel when he tells us that in those days there was no king nor duke in the Norman Jerusalem; we are less able to follow the analogy when he adds that the rebellious folk sacrificed at Dan and Bethel to the golden calves of Jeroboam.2 At last, when his stock of metaphors is worn out, he goes back to his story to tell the same tale of crime and sorrow in other parts of the Norman duchy.? § 2. Personal Coming of William Rufus. 1091. In a general view of the state of affairs, William Rufus had lost much more by the check of his plans at Rouen ‘ Ord. Vit. 691 A, B. “Soli gaudent, sed non diu nec feliciter, qui furari seu predari possunt pertinaciter.”” * Tb. ‘In diebus illis non erat rex neque dux Hierusalem, aureisque vitulis Jeroboam rebellis plebs immolabat in Dan et Bethel.” We are used to this kind of analogy whenever any one goes after a wrong Pope; but Normandy, with all its crimes, seems to have been perfectly orthodox. 3 Ib. C. ‘Multa intueor in divina pagina que subtiliter coaptata nostri temporis eventui videntur similia. [Every age, except perhaps the eighteenth, has made the same remark.] Ceterum allegoricas allegationes et idoneas humanis moribus interpretationes studiosis rimandas relinquam, simpli- cemque Normannicarum historiam rerum adhuc aliquantulum protelare satagam.”’ This praiseworthy resolve reminds us of an earlier passage (683 B) where he laments the failure of the princes and prelates of his day to work miracles, and his own inability to force them to the needful pitch of holiness; “Ast ego vim illis ut sanctificentur inferre nequeo. Unde his omissis super rebus que fiunt veracem dictatum. facio.” It would seem from this that Orderic dictated his book. (See also bis complaint in 718 C, when at the age of sixty he felt too old to write and had no one to write for him.) We need not therefore infer in some other cases that, because an author dictated, therefore he could not write. WILLIAM CROSSES TO NORMANDY. 273 than he could gain by any successes of his Norman cnar. m. allies at Conches. The attempt of the Count of Evreux on the castle of his new vassal had been baffled; but his own far greater scheme, the scheme by which he had hoped to win the capital of Normandy, had been baffled also. It may have been this failure which led the King to see that his own presence was needed beyond the sea. The Christmas Gemét of the year was Christmas held, not, as usual, at Gloucester, but at Westminster. ay me At Candlemas the King crossed to Normandy with a great aa fleet... The two things are mentioned together, as if to The King imply that a further sanction of the assembled Witan was Nena: given to this new stage of the war. War indeed between February, William and Robert there was none. It does not seem — that a single blow was struck to withstand the in- vader. But blows were given and taken in Normandy throughout the winter with as much zeal as ever. And this time Duke Robert himself was helping to give and take them. Stranger than all, he was giving and taking Duke them in the character of an ally of Robert of Belléme ie against men who seem to have done nothing but defend Repert of themselves against the attacks of the last-named common enemy of mankind. Old Hugh of Grantmesnil, once the Hugh of Conqueror’s lieutenant at Winchester and afterwards his yee Sheriff of Leicestershire? was connected by family ties Richard of C ‘ with Richard of Courcy,3 and the spots from which they rey 1 The Chronicle (1091) says expressly, “ On pisum geare se cyng Willelm heold his hired to Xpes messan on Westmynstre, and perefter to Candel- messan he ferde for his broder unpearfe ut of Englalande into Normandige.” So Florence; ‘‘ Mense Februario rex Willelmus junior Normanniam petiit.” Orderic (696 D) seems to place his voyage a little earlier; ‘ Mense Januario Guillelmus Rufus rex Anglorum cum magna classe in Normanniam transfretavit.” But he places it late in the month; for in 693 B, having recorded the death of Bishop Gerard on January 23, he adds that the King’s voyage happened “ eadem septimana,” 2 See N.C. vol. iv. pp. 72, 234. 8 Richard of Courcy’s son Robert married Rohesia, one of the many daughters of Hugh of Grantmesnil. Ord. Vit. 692 A. VOL. I, T 274 CHAP. III. Siege of Courcy. January, Iogl. News of William’s coming. February. The siege raised, THE FIRST WARS OF WILLIAM RUFUS. took their names, in the diocese of Seez, between the Dive and the Oudon, lay at no great distance from one another. They thus lay between Earl Roger’s own Montgomery’ and a series of new fortresses on the Orne and the neigh- bouring streams, by which Earl Roger’s son hoped to ex- tend his power over the whole land of Hiesmes.?, Hugh and Richard strengthened themselves against the tyrant —such is the name which Robert bears— gathering their allies and putting their castles in a state of defence. Their united forces were too much for the lord of Bel- léme. He sought help from his sovereign, and the Duke, who was not allowed to strike a blow for his own Rouen, appeared as the besieger of Courcy, no less than of Brionne. He who had fought to turn the tyrant out of Ballon and Saint Cenery now fought to put Courcy into the tyrant’s power. The siege of Courcy began in January.2 At the end of the month or the beginning of the next, a piece of news came which caused the Duke and the other be- siegers to cease from their work. Robert himself could see that there was something else to be done besides making war on Hugh of Grantmesnil on behalf of Robert of Belléme, when the King of the English was in his own person on Norman ground. The host before Courey broke up; some doubtless went to their own homes;* but we may suspect that some found their way to Eu. For there it was that King William had fixed his quarters; there the great men of Normandy were gathering around him. They did not come empty- handed. They welcomed the King with royal gifts; but it 1 See N. C. vol. ii. p. 197. ? Ord. Vit. 691 C. 3 See Appendix L. * Ord. Vit. 693 B. “ Cujus [Guillelmi] adventu audito, territus dux cum Roberto aliisque obsidentibus actutum recessit, et unusquisque propria repetiit.” He is more emphatic in 697 A; ‘“ Robertus de Belesmo cum suis complicibus aufugit.” TREATY BETWEEN WILLIAM AND ROBERT. 275 was to receive far greater gifts in return. Thither too omar. mt. men were flocking to him, not only from Normandy, but Mo feck from France, Flanders, Britanny, and all the neighbour- ee ing lands. And all who came went away saying that the King of the English was a far richer and more bountiful lord than any of their own princes.! In such a state of things it was useless for Robert to think of meeting his brother in arms. His only hope was to save some part of his dominions by negotiation before the whole Nor- man land had passed into the hands of the island king. A treaty of peace was concluded, by which Robert kept Treaty of his capital and the greater part of his duchy, but by pe which William was established as a powerful and dan- gerous continental neighbour, hemming in what was left of Normandy on every side. The treaty was agreed to, seemingly under the media- tion of the King of the French, in a meeting of the rival brothers at Caen.? The territorial cession made by Ro- Con of bert mainly took the form of recognizing the commenda- carylteny tions which so many Norman nobles had made to the % Wiliam. Red King. They had sought him to lord, and their lord he was to be. The fiefs held by the lords of Eu, Aumale, Gournay, and Conches, and all others who had submitted to William, passed away from Robert. They were to be held of the King of the English, under what title, if any, does not appear. To hold a fief of William Rufus meant something quite different from holding a fief of Robert. The over-lordship of Robert meant nothing at all; it did 1 Ord. Vit. 693 B. ‘“Mox omnes pene Normannorum optimates certatim regem adierunt, eique munera, recepturi majora, cum summo favore contule- runt. Galli quoque et Britones et Flandrite, ut regem apud Aucum in Neustria commorari audierunt, aliique plures de collimitaneis provinciis, ad eum convenerunt. Tune magnificentiam ejus alacriter experti sunt, domumque petentes cunctis cum principibus suis divitiis et liberalitate preeposuerunt.” ? On the Treaty of 1091, see Appendix M. . T 2, 276 CHAP, III. Their geo- graphical aspect. Cession of Fécamp and Cherbourg. THE FIRST WARS OF WILLIAM RUFUS. not hinder his vassal from making war at pleasure either on his lord or on any fellow-vassal. But the over-lord- ship of William Rufus, like that of his father, meant real sovereignty; the lords who submitted to him had given themselves a master. If any of them had a mind to live in peace, their chance certainly became greater; in any case the dread of William’s power, combined with the attractions of the rich hoard which was so freely opened, might account for the sacrifice of a wild independence. The territory thus ceded to the east, the lands of Eu, Aumale, and Gournay, involved a complete surrender of the eastern frontier of the duchy. The addition of the lands of Conches formed an outpost to the south. Rouen was thus hemmed in on two sides. But this was not enough, in the ideas of the Red King, to secure a scien- tific frontier. The lord of the island realm must hold some points to strengthen his approach to the main- land, something better than the single port of Eu in one corner of the duchy. Robert had therefore to surrender two points of coast which had not, as far as we have heard, been occupied by William or by his Norman allies. Rouen was to be further hemmed in to the north-west, by the cession of Fécamp, abbey and palace. The occupation of this point had the further advantage ~ for William that it put a check on the districts which had been kept for Robert by Helias of Saint-Saen. These were now threatened by Fécamp on one side and by Eu and Aumale on the other. And William’s de- mands on the Duke of the Normans contained one clause which could be carried out only at the cost of the Count of theCétentin. Henry’s fortress of Cherbourg, not so long before strengthened by him,! was also to pass to William. So early was the art known by which a more powerful prince, with no ground to show except his own } See above, p. 221, CESSIONS MADE TO WILLIAM. 277 will, claims the right to shut out a weaker prince or cmap. m1. people from the seaboard which nature has designed for them. Besides Cherbourg, the Red King demanded the island William demands fortress of Saint Michael’s Mount, the abbey in peril of gaint the sea. Otherwise he seems to have claimed nothing Se in the west of Normandy. Robert might reign, if he could, over the lands which his father had brought into submission on the day of Val-és-Dunes. Nor were the great cessions which Robert made to be wholly without recompence. It might be taken for granted that the Duke whose territories were thus cut off was to have some compensation in another shape out of the wealth of England. So it was; vast gifts were given Money by the lord of the hoard at Winchester to the pauper prince at Rouen.’ But he was not to be left without territorial compensation also. William not only under- The lost took to bring under Robert’s obedience all those who ae oe were in arms against him throughout Normandy; he pone further undertook to win back for him all the domi- restored to" nions which their father had ever held, except those lands which, by the terms of the treaty, were to fall to William himself. This involved a very considerable enlargement of Robert’s dominions, besides turning his nominal rule into a reality in the lands where he was already sovereign in name. It was aimed at lands both within and without the bounds of the Norman duchy. Maine, city and county, was again in revolt against its Projected Norman lords.? By this clause of the treaty William yore * bound himself to recover Maine for Robert. This obli- gation he certainly never even attempted to fulfil. He did not meddle with Maine till the Norman lord and the English King were again one. Then the recovery of 1 Ord, Vit. 693 B. ‘Tune ingentia Robertus dux a rege dona recepit.”’ ? See Appendix M; and for the affairs of Maine, see below, Chapter VI. 278 CHAP. III. Henry to be despoiled of the Cétentin. Character of the agreement. THE FIRST WARS OF WILLIAM RUFUS. Maine, or at least of its capital, became one of the chief objects of his policy. But this clause had also a more remarkable ap- plication. Its terms were to be brought to bear on one nearer by blood and neighbourhood to both the contending princes than either Cenomannian counts or Cenomannian citizens. The terms of the treaty amounted to a partition of the dominions of the Count of the Cétentin between his two brothers. Cherbourg and Saint Michael's Mount were, as we have seen, formally assigned to William, and the remainder of Henry’s principality certainly came under the head of lands which had been held by William the Great and which the treaty did not assign to William the Red. As such they were to be won back for Robert by the help of William. That is to say, William and Robert agreed to divide between themselves the territory which Henry had fairly bought with money from Robert. No agreement could be more unprincipled. As between prince and prince, no title could be better than Henry’s title to his county; while, if the welfare of the people of Coutances and Avranches was to be thought of, the proposed change meant their transfer from a prince who knew the art of ruling to a prince whose nominal rule was everywhere simple anarchy. Neither Robert nor William was likely to be troubled with moral scruples; neither was likely to think much of the terms of a bargain and sale; but one might have ex- pected that Robert would have felt some thankfulness to his youngest brother for his ready help in putting down the rebellious movement at Rouen.) William 1 William of Malmesbury (v. 392) is becomingly strong on this head ; “Parum hic labor apud Robertum valuit, virum animi mobilis, qui statim ad ingratitudinem flexus, bene meritum urbe cedere coegit.” This comes just after the death of Conan, His whole account is very confused. WILLIAM AND ROBERT AGAINST HENRY. 279 might indeed on that same account look on Henry cur. m. as an enemy; but such enmity could hardly be decently professed in a treaty of alliance between Robert and William. We may perhaps believe that the chief feeling which the affair of Rouen had awakened in Robert’s mind was rather mortification than gratitude. A brother who had acted so vigorously when he himself was not allowed to act at all was dangerous as a neigh- bour or as a vassal. The memory of his services was hv- . miliating; it was not well to have a brother so near at hand, and in command of so powerful a force, a brother who, if he had at one moment hastened to his elder brother's defence, might at some other moment come with equal speed on an opposite errand. But whatever were their motives, King and Duke agreed to rob their youngest brother of his dominions. And the importance Henry which was attached to this part of the treaty is shown pce by the speed and energy with which it was carried out. While the recovery of Mame was delayed or forgotten, the recovery of the Cétentin was the first act of the contracting princes after the conclusion of the treaty. But, when we look to some other terms of the treaty, Probable it is possible that, in the mind of William at least, the Winn. spoliation of Henry had a deeper object. One pur- Settlement pose of the treaty was to settle the succession both to Eeglich the kingdom of England and to the duchy of Normandy. nd Ner- Neither the imperial crown nor the ducal coronet had cession. at this moment any direct and undoubted heir, accord- ing to any doctrine of succession. Both William and Robert were at this time unmarried; Robert had more than one illegitimate child ; no children of William Rufus are recorded at any time. The treaty provided that, William if either King or Duke died without lawful issue during {> pees the lifetime of his brother, the survivor should sueceed ke 280 THE FIRST WARS OF WILLIAM RUFUS, caar. ut. to his dominions. I have spoken elsewhere of the ria constitutional aspect of this agreement... It was an sated _ attempt to barter away beforehand the right of the ment, Witan of England to bestow the crown of a deceased king on whatever successor they thought good. And, like all such attempts, before and after, till the great act of settlement which put an end to the nineteen Growth years’ anarchy,? it came to nothing. But that such coe an agreement should have been made shows what fresh principle, strength had been given by the Norman Conquest to the whole class of ideas of which the doctrine of here- ditary succession to kingdoms forms a part.? But, putting this view of the matter aside, the objects of the provision, as a family compact, were obvious. It was William’s manifest interest to shut out Robert's sons from any share in the inheritance of their father. and of the This was easily done. The stricter doctrine of legiti- een macy of birth was fast growing.* It was but un- willingly that Normandy had, sixty years earlier, acknowledged the bastard of an earlier Robert; it was most unlikely that Normandy would submit to a bastard of the present Robert, while there yet lived lawful sons of him who had made the name of Bastard glorious. Robert, on the other hand, might not be unwilling to give up so faint a chance on the part of his own children, in order to be himself declared pre- sumptive heir to the crown of England. But there were others to be shut out, one of whom at least was far more dangerous than the natural sons of Robert. Thetwo There were then in Normandy two men who bore the fe English title of Aitheling, one of the old race, one of the new; one whom Englishmen had once chosen as the last of the old race, another to whom Englishmen looked 1 See N. C. vol. v. pp. 87-90. 2 Tb. vol. v. p. 328. 3 Ib. vol. v. p. 388. ‘ Tb. vol. v. p. 89. EADGAR AND HENRY. as the first of the new race who had any claim to the privileges of kingly birth. We must always remember that, in English eyes, Henry, the son of a crowned King of the English, born of his crowned Lady on English ground, had a claim which was not shared by his brothers, foreign-born sons of a mere Norman Duke and Duchess.!. The kingly and native birth of Henry might put his claims at least on a level with those of Eadgar, who, male heir of Ecgberht and Cerdic as he was, was born of uncrowned parents in a foreign land.2 Indeed it might seem that by this time all thoughts of a restoration of the West- Saxon house had passed out of the range of practical politics, and that the claims of Eadgar were no longer entitled to a thought. The Red King however seems to have deemed otherwise. He was clearly determined to secure himself against the remotest chances of danger. Henry was to be despoiled; Eadgar was to be banished. Eadgar had eome back from Apulia;* he was now living in Normandy on terms of the closest friendship with the Duke, who had enriched him with grants of land, and, as we have seen, admitted him to his inmost counsels. We know not whether Eadgar had given the Red King any personal offence, or whether William was simply jealous of him as a possible rival for the crown. At any rate, whether by a formal clause of the treaty or not, he called on Robert to confiscate Eadgar’s Norman estates and to make him leave his dominions. Neither towards Henry nor towards Eadgar would the policy of William Rufus seem to have been wise; but ' See N.C. vol. iv. pp. 288, 796. 2 Ib. vol. iii. p. 7; see vol. ii. p. 376. 3 Th. vol. iv. p. 694. 4 We have seen him already as a counsellor ; see above, p. 220. Orderic, giving a picture of him some years later (778 B), adds that ‘‘ ducem sibi coevum et quasi collectaneum fratrem diligebat.” 5 See Appendix M. 281 CHAP. Ill. Henry ; Eadgar. Eadgar banished from Normandy, William’s policy towards 282 CHAP. III. Henry and Eadgar. Eadgar goes to Scotland. The fol- lowers of each side to be restored. The rebels of 1088 to be restured. THE FIRST WARS OF WILLIAM RUFUS. sound policy, in any high sense, was not one of the attributes of William Rufus. Whatever may be said of Henry’s relations towards Normandy, he was more likely to plot against his brother of England if he be- came a landless wanderer than if he remained Count of Coutances and Avranches. As for Eadgar, it might possibly have been a gain if he could have been sent back to Apulia or provided for in his native Hungary. As it was, he straightway betook himself to a land where he was likely to be far more dangerous than he could ever be in Normandy. As in the days of William the Great, he went at once to the court of his brother- in-law of Scotland. It may be that William presently saw that he had taken a false step in the treatment of both the Athelings. At a later time we shall see both Henry and Eadgar enjoying his full favour and confidence. The man before whose eyes the crown of England had twice been dangled in mockery, and the man who was hereafter to grasp that crown with a grasp like that of the Conqueror himself, were thus both doomed to be for the moment despoiled of lands and honours. To men of less exalted degree the treaty was more favourable. King and Duke alike, so far to the credit of both of them, stipulated for the safety and restoration of their several partisans in the dominions of the other. All supporters of William in any of those parts of Nor- mandy which were not to be ceded to him were to suffer no harm at the hands of Robert. And, what was much more important, all those who had lost their lands in England three years before on account of their share in the rebellion on behalf of Robert were to have their 1 See N.C. vol. iv. pp. 194, 508, 567. ? Chron. Petrib. 1091. ‘And ut of Normandig for to pam cynge his adume to Scotlande and to his swustor.” INVASION OF HENRY'’S DOMINIONS. 283 lands back again. An exception, formal or practical, cuar, mm. must have been made in the case of Bishop Odo. He certainly was not restored to his earldom of Kent. The treaty was sworn to by twelve chief men on each The treaty side? The English Chronicler remarks, with perfect oe truth, that it stood but a little while.2 But one part but alittle : : : while. at least was carried out. at once and with great vigour. Within less than a month after William had landed in William : Normandy to dispossess Robert, he and Robert marched ee together to dispossess Henry. They spent their Lent in tone besieging him in his last stronghold. When the Count Lent, 1091. of Coutances heard of the coalition against him, he made ready for a vigorous resistance. He put his two cities Henry's of Coutances and Avranehes and his other fortresses?” "°™ into a state of defence, and gathered a force, Norman and Breton, to garrison them.? Britanny indeed was the only quarter from which he received any help in his struggle.t Those who seemed to be his. firmest friends Earl Hugh turned against him. Even Karl Hugh of Chester, the fore- a sr most man in the land from which his father had taken pares his name,> had no mind to jeopard his great English castles to William. palatinate for the sake of keeping his paternal Avranches in the obedience of the Aitheling. Henry’s other sup- porters, Richard of Redvers, it is to be supposed, among them, were of the same mind. They saw no hope that Henry could withstand the might, above all the wealth, of Rufus; they accordingly surrendered their fortresses 1 Chron. Petrib. 1091. ‘Pas forewarde gesworan xii. pa betste of pes cynges healfe, and xii. of pes eorles.”” In Florence the “ betste”’ become. “ barones.” 2 « beah hit sy¥an litle hwile stode.” 8 Ord. Vit. 697 A. “ Aggregatis Britonibus et Normannis, Constantiam et Abrincas aliaque oppida munivit, et ad resistendum totis nisibus insur- rexit,” * Ib. 697 B. “Britones, qui sibi solummodo adminiculum contulerant.” 5 See N. C, vol. ii. p. 209. 284 THE FIRST WARS OF WILLIAM RUFUS, cuar. mr. into the King’s hands. One stronghold only was ee now left to Henry, one of the two which had been een specially marked out to be taken from him, the mo- a EDb el Michael's nastic fortress of Saint Michael. The sacred mount Mount. vas then famous and venerable through all Normandy, The build- and far beyond the bounds of Normandy. Of that vast ings on the snd wondrous pile of buildings, halls, cloister, church, buildings which elsewhere stand side by side, but which here are heaped one upon another, little could then have been standing. The minster itself, which crowns all, had begun to be rebuilt seventy years before by the Abbot Hildebert? and it may be that some parts of his work have lived through the natural accidents of the next age? and the destruction and disfigurement of later times. But the series of pillared halls, knightly and monastic, which give its special character to the abbey of the Mount, are all of far later date than the war of the three brothers. Yet the house of the warrior archangel was already at once knightly and Abbot monastic. The reigning abbot Roger was, in strict oe ecclesiastical eyes, a prelate of doubtful title. He had come in—as countless other bishops and abbots of Normandy and England had come in—less by free election of the monks than by the will of the great 1 Ord. Vit. 697 A. ‘“ Hugo Cestrensis comes aliique fautores, ejus pau- pertatem perpendentes, et amplas opes terribilemque potentiam Guillelmi regis metuentes, egregium clitonem in bellico angore deseruerunt, et munici- pia sua regi tradiderunt.” Wace tells quite another tale, more favourable to Earl Hugh, but much less likely. See Appendix N. 2? Ann. 8. Mich. 1023. “Hoc anno inchoatum est novum monasterium a Richardo secundo comite et Hildeberto abbate, qui abbas ipso anno obiit.” This is Hildebert the Second, appointed in 1017. 3 Tb. r100. “Hoc anno pars non modica ecclesie montis sancti Mi- ‘chaelis corruit . . . . in cujus ruina portio quedam dormitorii monacho- rum destructa atque eversa est.” Ib. 1112. “Hoc anno combusta esf heec ecclesia sancti Michaelis igne fulmineo, cum omnibus officinis mona- -chorum.” SAINT MICHAEL'S MOUNT, 285 Duke and King.1 What personal share Roger took in the ,caar, m. struggle is not recorded; but some at least of his monks, like the monks of Ely in the days of Hereward,? wel- The monks comed the small body of followers who still clave to io Henry, and at whose head he now took up his last position of defence in the island sanctuary.® Here Henry was besieged by his two brothers, Duke Siege of and King. Yet we hear of nothing which can in strict- fa ay ness be called a siege. The Mount stands in the mouth of a bay within a bay. At high water it is strictly an Its island; at low water it is surrounded by a vast wilder-P°%4™- ness of sand—those treacherous sands from which thirty years before Harold had rescued the soldiers of the elder William‘, and which stretch back as far as the rocks of Cancale on the Breton shore. In this sense the bay of The inner Saint Michael may be counted to stretch from Cancale ee to the opposite point on the Norman coast, where the land begins to bend inwards to form the narrower bay. This last may be counted to stretch from the mouth of the border stream of Coesnon below Pontorson to Genetz lying on the coast nearly due west from Avranches. The Mount itself and its satellite the smaller rock of Tombelaine lie nearly in a straight line between these two points. Alternately inaccessible by land and by: water, accessible by land at any time only by certain known routes at different points, the Mount would seem to be incapable of direct attack by any weapons known in the eleventh century. On the other hand, it would be easy to cut it off from all communication with the outer world by the occupation of the needful points on 1 Ann, S. Mich. 1085. ‘Huic [Rannulfo] successit Rogerius Cado- mensis, non electione monachorum, sed vi terrene potestatis.” 2 See N.C. vol. iv. p. 468. 8 See Florence’s account in Appendix N. 4 See N. C. vol. iii. p, 235. 286 CHAP. III. Later sieges. THE FIRST WARS OF WILLIAM RUFUS. the shore and by the help of a blockading fleet. And in the great siege three hundred and thirty years later — 1417-1424. when Normandy had again a kingly duke of the blood No men- tion of ships. Positions of the besicgers. Character of the siege. of Rolf and Henry, but when the Mount clave to the King of Paris or of Bourges—we hear both of the block- ading fleet of England and of the series of posts with which the shore was lined. Without a fleet the Mount could hardly be said to be besieged; but, on the other hand, its insular position would be of no use to its defenders, unless they had either ships at command or friends beyond sea. In the present case we hear nothing of ships on either side, nor of any help coming to the besieged. Nor do we hear of any systematic occupation of the whole coast. We hear only that the besiegers occupied two points which commanded the two sides of the inner bay, On the north the Duke took up his quarters at Genetz; to the south the be- siegers occupied Arderon, not far from the mouth of the Coesnon, while King William of England estab- lished himself in the central position of Avranches.! The siege thus became an affair of endless small attacks and skirmishes. We hear of the plundering expeditions which Henry was able to make into the lands of Avranches and even of Coutances, lands which had once been his own, but which had now become hostile ground? We hear too how, before each of the 1 I take this from Wace, 14660; “Li Munt asistrent environ, N’issent del mont se par els non. De Genez de si & Coisnon A Avrenches li reis séeit E la reviére d’Ardenon ; Et a Genez li dus esteit.” On the value of Wace’s general story, see Appendix N ; but we may trust the topography of the Jerseyman. 2 See Florence’s account in Appendix N. So Will. Malms. iv. 308; “Crebris excursibus obsidentem militiam germanorum contristavit.” Wace (14652) says, “ Sovent coreit par Costentin, Li vilains prist, si fist raendre, E tensout tot Avrencin ; Ne leissout rien k’il péust prendra.” efeen ‘song UopwwL) mp jo sorvbaeq FYE OT ‘ C NAG seurel 3S , b 4 3% ; z Si =} sS Wos10}; UOT 7 9 nN : = “os, & : ne SAHONVUAV B®. " \ mit: T 309 e ¢ + cs 8 = son Us bug : "TI60U' CV : “INQOW STAVHOIW iS dO HOUIS aw syepsnyr oy dey TOA SER UETETY SuOUeT ‘992 abnd oxy OF SIEGE OF THE MOUNT. 287 extreme points occupied by the besiegers, before Genetz omar. m1, and before Arderon, the knights on both sides met every Combats. day in various feats of arms, feats, it would seem, savour- ing rather of the bravado of the tourney than of any rational military purpose.t We now get, in the shape of those personal anecdotes Personal _ in which this reign is so rich, pictures of more than one oe side of the strangely mixed character of the Red King. At the other end of Normandy William had won lands and castles without dealing a single blow with his own sword, and with a singularly small outlay of blows from the swords of others. At Eu, at Aumale, and at Gournay, the work had been done with gold far more than with steel. Beneath Saint Michael’s Mount steel was to have its turn; and, when steel was the metal to be used, William Rufus was sure to be in his own person the foremost among those who used it. The change of scene seeined to have turned the wary trafficker into the most reckless of knights errant. Amidst such scenes he be- came, in the eyes of his own age, the peer of the most renowned of those Nine Worthies the tale of whom was made up only in his own day. We shall see at a later William stage how the question was raised whether the soul of Ompe' the Dictator Ceesar had not passed into the body of the der. Red King; by the sands of Saint Michael’s bay he was held to have placed himself on a level with the Mace- donian Alexander. The likeness could hardly be carried on through the general military character of the two princes; for Alexander, when he began an enterprise, commonly carried it on to the end. And it may be doubted whether Alexander ever jeoparded his own life 1 Wace, 14666; “Mult véissiez joster sovent, E la rivitre de Coisnon. E tornéier espessement Chescun jor al flo retraiant Entre li Munt.et Ardenon ' Vint chevaliers jostes menant,” 288 CHAP, III. Knight- errantry of William. The King upset, THE FIRST WARS OF WILLIAM RUFUS. in the senseless way in which Rufus in the tale is made to jeopard his. We must picture to ourselves the royal head-quarters between the height of Avranches and the sands of Saint Michael's bay. The King goes forth from his tent, and mounts the horse which he had that morning bought for fifteen marks of silver.1 He sees the enemy at a distance riding proudly towards him. Alone, waiting for no comrade, borne on both by eagerness for the fray and by the belief that no one would dare to withstand a king face to face, he gallops forward and charges the advancing party. The newly bought horse is killed; the King falls under him; he is ignominiously dragged along by the foot, but the strength of his chain-armour saves him from any actual wound.’ By this time the knight who had unhorsed him has his hand on the hilt of his sword, ready to deal a deadly blow. William, frightened by the extremity of his danger, cries out, “Hold, rascal, I am the King of England.”* The words had that kind of magic effect which is so often wrought by the personal presence of royalty. From any rational view of the business in hand, to slay, or better still to capture, the hostile king should have been the first object of every man in Henry’s garrison. To no case better applied the wise order of the Syrian monarch, “Fight neither with small nor great, save only with the King of Israel.”® But as soon as a voice which some at least of them knew pro- claimed that it was a king who lay helpless among them, every arm was stayed. The soldiers of Henry tremble at the thought of what they were so near 1 On the two versions of this story, if they are meant to be the same story, in William of Malmesbury and in Wace, see Appendix N. ? Will, Malms, iv. 309. “Solus in multos irruit, alacritate virtutis impatiens, simulque confidens nullum sibi ausurum obsistere.” 3 Ib. “ Fides lorice obstitit ne lederetur.” * Ib. “Tolle, nebulo, Rex Angliz sum.” 5 y Kings xii, 31. STORY OF RUFUS AND THE KNIGHT. 289 doing; with all worship they raise the King from the cua. m. ground and bring him another horse.! William springs His treat, ment of the unaided on his back; he casts a keen glance on the knight band around him,? and asks, “Who unhorsed me?” As who un they were muttering one to another, the daring man who had done the deed came forward and said, “I, who took you, not for a king but for a knight.” A bold answer was never displeasing to Rufus; he looked approval, and said, “By the face of Lucca,* you shall be mine; your name shall be written in my book,* and you shall receive the reward of good service.” Here the story ends; we are to suppose that William, instead of being carried a prisoner to the Mount, rode back free to Avranches, having lessened the small force of Henry by a stout knight and two horses. The tale is told as an example of the magnanimity of Character the Red King. And there is something which moves oa. kind of admiration in the picture of a man, helpless among a crowd of enemies, yet bearing himself as if they were his prisoners, instead of his being theirs. The point | of the story is that Rufus did no harm, that he felt no ill will, towards the man who had unhorsed, and all but killed him; that he honoured his bold deed and bold bearing, and promised him favour and promotion. But had the soldiers of Henry done their duty, William would have had no opportunity, at least no immediate oppor- tunity, of doing either good or harm to his antagonist. 1 Will. Malms. iv. 309. ‘Tremuit, nota voce jacentis, vulgus militum, statimque reverenter de terra levato equum alterum adducunt.” 2 Ib. “Non expectato ascensorio, sonipedem insiliens, omnesque cir- cumstantes vivido perstringens oculo, Quis, inquit, me dejecit?” 3 See Appendix G. We have had this favourite oath already. * Will. Malms. u.s, ‘“ Meus amodo eris, et meo albo insertus laudabilis militie premia reportabis.” Of William’s “album” or muster-roll we hear elsewhere. Wace, 14492; “‘ N’oist de chevalier parler Ki en son brief escrit ne fust, Ke de proesce cist loer, E ki par an del suen n’éust.” VOL. I. U 290 THE FIRST WARS OF WILLIAM RUFUS. car, i. William assumes that the enemy will not dare to with- stand him, and his assumption is so far justified that he is withstood only by one who knows not who he is, and whose words imply that, if he had known, he would not have ventured to withstand him. Trusting to this kind of superstitious dread, Wiliam is able to speak and act as he might have spoken if the man who unhorsed him had been brought before him in his own Comparison tent. Richard of the Lion-heart, when the archer who with Richard the First. Contrast between Willivm and Robert. had given him his death-wound was brought before him, first designed him for a death of torture, and then, on hearing a bold answer, granted him life and freedom." In this, as in some other cases, the Red King, the earliest model of chivalry, certainly does not lose by comparison with the successor who is more commonly looked on as its ideal. Another and perhaps better known story which is told of this siege puts the character of William Rufus in another light, while it brings out the character of Robert in a lively form. The Duke, heedless of the consequences of his acts but not cruel in his own person, was, above all men, open to those passing bursts of generosity which are quite consistent with utter weakness and want of principle. William Rufus was always open to an appeal to his knightly generosity, to that higher form of self- assertion which forbade him to harm one who was be- neath him, and which taught him to admire a bold deed or word even when directed against himself. But the ties 1 See Roger of Howden, iv. 83. The King is wounded before Chaluz ; the castle is taken, ‘‘ yuo capto, preecepit rex omnes suspendi, excepto illo solo qui eum vulneraverat, quem, ut fas est credere, turpissima morte damnaret, si convaluisset.”’ * See N.C. vol. v. p. 73. Where did William of Malmesbury find his story of Alexander, “ qui Persam militem se a tergo ferire conatum, sed pro pertidia ensis spe sua frustratum, incolumem pro admiratione fortitudinis conservavit’’? The story in Arrian, i. 15, is quite different. STORY OF ROBERT AND HENRY. 291 of kindred, still more the ties of common humanity, sat cmap. 11. very lightly on him. The gentler soul of Robert was by no means dead to them. He did not shrink from waging an unjust war against his brother and deliverer; he did not shrink from despoiling that brother and de- liverer of dominions which he had sold to him by his own act for a fair price; but he did shrink from the thought of letting the brother against whom he warreéd suffer actual bodily hardships when he could hinder them. The defenders of the Mount had, according to one ac- Lack of count, plenty of meat; but all our narratives agree as tof rong, the difficulty of providing fresh water for the fortress which twice in the day was surrounded by the waves.' Henry sent a message to the Duke, praying that he Henry asks might be allowed access to fresh water; his brothers os #6 might, if they thought good, make war on him by the *ke water. valour of their soldiers; they should not press the powers of nature into their service, or deprive him of those gifts of Providence which were open to all human beings.? Robert was moved; he gave orders to the Answer of sentinels at Genetz not to hinder the besieged from ae coming to the mainland for water.? One version even adds that he added the further gift of a tun of the best wine.t “This kind of generosity, where no appeal was made to his own personal pride, was by no means to 1 The stock of meat comes from Wace, 14700; “De viande aveient plenté, Asez aveient a mengier, Maiz de bevre aveient grant chiert¢é; “Maiz molt trovoent li vin chier.” The lack of water is secondary in his version. See Appendix N. 2 Will. Malms. iv. 310. “Impium esse ut eum aqua arceant, que essét communis mortalibus ; aliter, si velit, virtutem experiatur; nec pugnet violentia elementorum sed virtute militum.” If this represents a real mes- sage from Henry, it must surely have been meant as an argumentum ad hominem for Robert. 3 Ib. ‘Genuina mentis mollitie flexus, suos qua pretendebant laxius habere se jussit.”” This must mean the quarters of Robert at Genetz, aa distinguished from those of William. ‘ See Appendix N. U2 292 CHAP. III, Henry sur- renders. THE FIRST WARS OF WILLIAM RUFUS. the taste of Rufus; as a commander carrying on war, he was ready to press the rights of warfare to the uttermost. When he heard what Robert had done, he mocked at his brother's weakness; it was a fine way of making war to give the enemy meat and drink.’ Robert answered, in words which do him honour, but which would have done him more honour if they had been spoken at the beginning as a reason for for- bearing an unjust attack on his brother—‘*Shall we let our brother die of thirst?) Where shall we find another, if we lose him?”? Such are these two famous stories of the war waged beneath the mount of the Archangel. Both are eminently characteristic ; there is no reason why both may not be true. But we must withhold our belief when one of our tale-tellers adds that William turned away from the siege in contempt for Robert's weakness.2 A more sober guide tells us that when, for fifteen days, Henry and his followers had held up against lack of water and threatening lack of food,* the wary youth saw the hope- lessness of further resistance, and offered to surrender the Mount on honourable terms. He demanded a free 1 Will. Malms. iv. 310. ‘‘Belle scis actitare guerram, qui hostibus pre- bes aque copiam; et quomodo eos domabimus si eis in pastu et in potu indulserimus ?” : 2 Ib. “lle renidens illud come et merito famosum verbum emisit, Papx, dimitterem fratrem nostrum mori siti? et quem alium habebimus si eum amiserimus?” For the other version, see Appendix N. M. le Hardy (80), who is a knight of the order of Pius the Ninth, translates ‘ Pape,” ‘par le Pape.” 3 See Appendix N. * Ord. Vit. 697 A. ‘Fere xv. diebus cum suis aque penuria maxime coarcuerunt. Porro callidus juvenis, dum sic a fratribus suis coarc- taretur, et a cognatis atque amicis et confcderatis aftinibus undique desti- tueretur, et multimoda pene omnium quibus homines indigent inedia angeretur,” &, The siege began “in medio quadragesime,” and lasted fifteen days. Florence is therefore wrong in saying “per totam quadra- gesimam montem obsederunt.” SURRENDER OF THE MOUNT. 293 passage for himself and his garrison. William, already oar. mu. tired of a siege in which he had made little progress and which had cost him many men and horses,! gladly ac- cepted the terms. Henry, still Atheling, though no longer Count, marched forth from his island stronghold with all the honours of war.2. We are to suppose that, according to the terms of the treaty, the King took possession of the Mount itself, and the Duke of the rest of Henry’s former county. William stayed on the main- William land, in the parts of Normandy which had been ceded to pea him, for full six months, having his head-quarters at Eu. In August the affairs of his island kingdom called ne pe him back again; and, strange to say, both his brothers Eneland. went with him as his guests and allies.* at At this moment the past and the future alike lead us Fortunes of to look with more interest on the fates of the dispos- ne sessed Aitheling than on those of any other of the actors in our story. But there is at first sight some little diffi- culty in finding out what those fates were. From our His pre- English authorities we could only gather that Henry Buca i was in England before the end of the year in which the 19?- siege took place, and that three years later he was again beyond sea, in favour with William and at enmity with Robert. From other writers we get a version, which 1 Flor. Wig.1ogt. ‘“Frequenter cum eo preelium commiserunt, et homines et equos nonnullos perdiderunt. At rex, cum obsidionis diutine pertesus fuisset, impacatus recessit.” 2 Ord. Vit. 697 A. “Liberum sibi sociisque suis exitum de monte ab obsidentibus poposcit. Illi admodum gavisi sunt, ipsumque cum omni apparatu suo egredi honorifice permiserunt,” On the honours of war, see above, p.86. See Appendix N. 3 Ib. “Rex in Neustria usque ad Augustum permansit, et dissidentes qui eidem adquiescere voluerunt regali auctoritate pacavit.” So in 693 C he mentions the lands of Eu, Gournay, and Conches, and adds, “ ubi praefatus rex a Januario usque ad kal. Augusti regali more cum suis habitavit.” I assume Eu as his actual head-quarters, as it was before and after. ‘Ib. D. See the next chapter. 294 THE FIRST WARS OF WILLIAM RUFUS. cuap. 111. takes no notice of any visit to England, but which gives’ Story of Henry’s us a moving tale of Henry’s experiences in Normandy adventures. and the neighbouring lands. It is one of those cases where a writer, telling his own part of the story, alto- gether forgets, perhaps without formally contradicting, other parts. In such a case he is likely to stumble in some of his dates and details; but this need not lead us altogether to cast aside the main features of his story. It is plain that, for some time after the surrender of the Mount, Henry was, to say the least, landless. In the pictures of his actual distress and adversity there may well be somewhat of exaggeration; but they draw from one who is not a flatterer the important remark that, having known adversity himself, he learned to be gra- cious in after years to the sufferings of others.1_ We are perhaps startled by such a saying when we think of some particular acts of Henry; but this witness does not stand alone; and, among the contradictions of human nature, there is nothing impossible in the belief that such a spirit may have existed alongside of many particular acts of cruelty.” But it is certain that Henry's season of adversity must have been shorter than it appears in the picture of it which is given to His allegedus. We are told that, soon after he left the Mount, wander- ings. he found himself very nearly a solitary wanderer. He first went into Britanny, the only land from which he had received any help, and thanked his friends there for their services. Thence he betook him- self to France, and spent, we are told, nearly two years in the borderland of the Vexin, the land which had been the scene of his father’s last and fatal warfare, and which 1 Ord. Vit. 697 B. “Sic regia proles in exsilio didicit pauperiem perpeti, ut futurus rex optime sciret miseris et indigentibus compati, eorumque dejectioni vel indigentiz regali potentia seu dapsilitate suffragari, et ritus infirmorum expertus eis pie misereri.” ? See N. C. vol. v. pp. 156, 843. ADVENTURES OF HENRY. 295 was again to be the scene of warfare before his brother’s caap. 1. reign was ended. There, with a train cut down to one knight, one clerk, and three esquires, Henry wandered to and fro, seeking shelter where he could.!. Whatever truth there may be in these details, the time of Henry’s probation could not have been spread over anything like a period of two years. He may have been a wanderer during the few months which immediately followed the surrender of the Mount; but, if so, he was reconciled to both his brothers long before the end of the year. Or he may, from some unexplained reason, have again become a wanderer during some months of the following year. There is nothing in any way impossible or unlikely in either story. What is certain is that, before the end of the next year, Henry had again an establishment on Gaulish ground, and one gained in the most honourable way. And it is equally certain that when King William Robert and went back to England in the month of August in the present year he took both of his brothers with him.? § 4. The Scottish Expedition of William Rufus. August— October, 1091. Henry ac- company William to England. The business which called William back to his king- Affairs of dom was a serious one; it was no other than to drive back or to avenge a Scottish invasion. King Malcolm, who seems to have stayed quiet during the rebellion three years before, now took up arms. We cannot help connecting this step with the visit of his brother-in- law, and the words of the Chronicler seem directly to imply that Malcolm’s invasion was the consequence of 1 See Appendix O. 2 Will. Malms. iv. 310. “In regnum se cum ambobus fratribus recepit.” I should hardly have accepted this evidence, if it had not been confirmed * by the signatures to a charter of which I shall presently speak. See below, p. 305. Scotland. 296 CHAP. III, Malcolm's invasion of Northum- berland. May, 1091. He is driver hack, THE FIRST WARS OF WILLIAM RUFUS. Eadgar’s coming.! From one version we might almost think that Malcolm had been called on to do homage and had refused.2 This is perfectly possible in itself; but the time of William’s special occupation with Nor- man affairs seems oddly chosen for such a summons. An earlier time, some point in the blank period between the rebellion and the Norman campaign, would have seemed more natural for such a purpose. However this may be, now, in the month of May, Malcolm took ad- vantage of William’s absence in Normandy to invade Northumberland for the fourth time. He designed, we are told, to go much further and do much more, words which might almost suggest a purpose of asserting the claims of Eadgar to the English crown. Whatever were his objects, they were not carried out, save one which was doubtless not the least among them, that of carrying off great spoil from Northumberland.? The furthest point that Malcolm reached was Chester-le-Street, a point un- pleasantly near to the bishopless monks of Durham.‘ There the men in local command went against him and drove him back. In the national Chronicle they appear as “the good men who guarded this land.”® In this way 1 Immediately after the words quoted in p. 282, follows the entry about Malcolm; “ Onmang pam pe se eyng W. ut of Englelande wes ferde se cyng Melcolm of Scotlande hider into Englum, and his mycelne del ofer hergode.”” 2 Ord. Vit. 7or A. “In illo tempore Melcoma rex Scotorum contra regem Anglorum rebellavit, debitumque servitium ei denegavit.” See Appendix P. * Flor. Wig. 1091.“ Mense Maio rex Scottorum Malcolmus cum magno exercitu Northymbriam invasit; si proventus successisset, ulterius proces- surus, et vim Angliz incolis illaturus. Noluit Deus: ideo ab incepto est impeditus: attamen antequam rediisset, ejus exercitus de Northymbria secum non modicam predam abduxit.” 4 Sim. Dun. 1093 (where he reckons up Malcolm’s invasions) ; ‘‘ Quarto, regnante Willelmo juniore, cum suis copiis infinitis usque Ceastram, non longe a Dunelmo sitam, pervenit, animo intendens ulterius progredi,” ® Chron, Petrib. 1091. “O8 pet pa gode men pe pis land bewiston, him MALCOLM INVADES NORTHUMBERLAND, 297 of speaking, as in many other phrases in our own and ona. m1. other tongues, the word “good” means rank and office rather than moral goodness. Yet the latter idea is not The “good wholly absent ; the name would hardly be given to men wi who were engaged in a cause which the writer wholly condemned. The “good men” here spoken of must have been mainly Normans, with Earl Robert of Mowbray at their head. Earl Robert was not likely to have won much love from the English people. Yet he passed for a “good man,” when he did his duty for England, when he guarded the land and drove back the Scottish invader. Of any wish to put Malcolm in the place of either the elder or the younger William we see no trace at any stage of our story. Beyond this emphatic sentence, we get no details. As in so many other cases, if conquest was the object of Malcolm’s expedition, plunder was the only result. The news of this harrying of the northern part of his William kingdom brought King William back from Normandy in ae the course of August. With him, as we have said, came er Robert and Henry. Why was the Duke’s presence needed? 1091. One account hints that his coming had some reference to the actors in the late rebellion, some of whom at least were now restored to their estates.1 Another version Relations speaks of an old friendship between Robert and Mal- a colm;? and there was a tie of spiritual affinity between Matvalat. fyrde ongean sendon and hine gecyrdon.” Did they not go in their own persons ? 1 See above, p. 282. The words of Orderic (701 A) are odd ; “ Guillelmus rex .,.cum Roberto fratre suo pacem fecerat, ipsumque contra infidos prodi- tores qui contra regem conspiraverant secum duxerat.” This surely cannot mean the Scots; it must mean the rebels of three years before. Robert cannot have been brought to act in any way against them; yet the words of Orderic must have a confused reference to some real object of his coming. 2 Will. Malms. iv. 311. ‘Satagente Roberto comite, qui familiarem jamdudum apud Scottum locaverat gratiam, inter Malcolmum et Willelmum concordia inita.” See Appendix P. 298 THE FIRST WARS OF WILLIAM RUFUS, cuar. mm. them arising out of Robert's relation as godfather to a child of Malcolm It was perhaps in this character that Robert came to act, if need should be, as a welcome one negotiator with his Scottish gossip. One strange thing Robert andis that, on more than one occasion in our story, both Eadgar. Robert and Eadgar, two men who seem so incapable of vigorous or rational action on behalf of themselves, play a distinctly creditable part when acting on behalf of others. But this is really no uncommon inconsistency of human nature; men are often found who are good advisers in the affairs of others, while they are by no means wise managers of their own. Robert in truth appears to most advantage anywhere out of his own duchy. Neither the warrior of the crusade nor the negotiator with the Scot seems to be the same man as the Duke who could not be trusted to defend his own palace. William In the present case there was more of negotiation sets forth than of warfare. Of actual fighting there seems to have been none. William got together, as his father had done in the like case,? a great force by land and sea for the invasion of Scotland. With the land force the King and the Duke set forth; but seemingly with no haste, as time was found for a great ecclesiastical ceremony on pee * the way. For three years the church of Durham had of Bishop been without a shepherd, and the castle of Durham had William. been in the hands of the King. The monks of Saint Cuthberht’s abbey had feared that this irregular time would be an evil time for them. But they put their trust in God and their patron saint, and went to the King feet to ask his favour. Rufus was specially gracious and treatment Merciful; he rose up to greet Prior Turgot, the head of the te embassy, and he gave orders that the monks of Durham should be in no way disturbed, but should keep full 1 See Appendix BB. ? See N.C, vol. iv. p. 513. RESTORATION OF BISHOP WILLIAM. 299 possession of their rights and property, exactly as if the cuar. m. Bishop had remained in occupation of his see! We may even venture to guess that they had a somewhat fuller possession of them during the Bishop’s absence. We are expressly told by the local historian that the Red King did not deal with Durham as he dealt with other churches; he took nothing from the monks, and even gave them something of his own.? The new society — Works at for it must be remembered that the monks of Durham were a body of Bishop William’s own bringing in'— flourished so greatly during this irregular state of things that it was now that they built their refectory.* But a Durham. time of more settled order was now to come. Bishop Reconcilia- William of Saint-Calais, whatever had been his crimes three years back, was among those whom King William their lands and honours. Besides this general claim, it was believed, at Durham at least, that the banished prelate had earned his restoration by a signal service done to the King. In the third year of his banishment an unnamed Norman fortress was holding out for the King; but its garrison was sore pressed, and its capture by the enemy seemed imminent. The Bishop, by what means of persuasion we are not told, but it does not seem to have been by force, caused the besiegers to raise the siege.© This service won the King’s thorough good 1 Sim, Dun. Hist. Eccl. Dun. iv. 8.‘ Priori ad se venienti humiliter assurgens, benigne illum suscepit, et ita per omnia sub se, quemadmodum sub episcopo, curam ecclesia cum omni libertate agere pracepit.”” 2 Tb. “ Licet in alia monasteria et ecclesias ferocius ageret, ipsis tamen non solum nihil auferebat, sed etiam de suo dabat, et ab injuriis malignorum sicut pater defendebat.” 8 See N.C. vol. iv. p. 674. * Sim. Dun. u. s. ‘ Hoc tempore refectorium, quale hodie cernitur, monachi eedificaverunt.” 5 Ib. “Tertio anno expulsionis episcopi, cum homines regis quoddam in Normannia castellum tenentes obsiderentur, et jamjamque capiendi essent, William with the had engaged by his treaty with his brother to restore to King. 300 CHAP. ITI, He is re- stored tohis bishopric. September 3, 10gT. His renewe 1 influence with the King. Loss of the ships. Michael- mas, [0g1. THE FIRST WARS OF WILLIAM RUFUS. will, and William, on his march to Scotland, personally put the Bishop once more in possession of his see and of all its rights and belongings, temporal and spiritual.’ Bishop William did not come back empty-handed; he brought with him costly gifts for his church, ornaments, gold and silver vessels, and, above all, many books.” And, at some time before the year was out, we find him confirming with great solemnity, with the witness of the great men of the realm, certain grants of the Con- queror to the monks of his church.’ The return of the Bishop was an event not only of local but of national importance. He was restored by the King, not only to his formal favour, but to a high place in his innermost counsels. Bishop William was not one of those who come back from banishment having learned nothing and forgotten nothing. He had, in his sojourn beyond the sea, learned an altogether new doctrine as to the rela- tions between bishops and kings. The march which had been interrupted by the cere- mony at Durham was clearly a slow one. William was at Durham in the first days of September; much later in the month a heavy blow fell on one part of the ex- pedition. The greater part of the ships were lost a few days before the feast of Michaelmas, and we are told that this happened before the King could reach Scotland. The King was therefore several weeks in journeying eos episcopus a periculo liberavit, et consilio suo ut obsidio solveretur effecit.” 1 Sim. Dun. Hist. Eccl. Dun. iv. 8. “Unde rex placatus, universa que in Anglia prius habuerat, ei restituit.”” More formally in the Gesta Regum, 1091; “ Veniens Dunelmum, episcopum Willelmum restituit in sedem suam, ipso post annos tres die quo eam reliquit, scilicet tertio idus Septembris.” The time of three years is not quite exact; see above, p. 94. ? Hist. Eccl. Dun. u.s, ‘“Ille nequaquam vacuus rediit, sed non pauca ex auro et argento sacra altaris vasa et diversa ornamenta, sed et libros plurimos ad ecclesiam preemittere curavit.” 3 See above, p. 295, and below, p. 305. . THE KINGS AT THE SCOTS’ WATER, 301 from Durham to the border of the true Scotland, the cuar. m. Firth of Forth; and we are told that many of the land force also perished of cold and hunger.) The army however which remained was strong enough to make Malcolm feel less eager for deeds of arms than he had most likely felt in May. At last, near the shore of the Wile Scots’ Water, the estuary which parted English Lothian }y ep from Scottish Fife, the two kings met face to face, ° te oy seemingly in battle array, but without coming to any Tee exchange of blows. It is marked in a pointed way that Malcolm had crossed from his kingdom to his earldom. He “went out of Scotland into Lothian in England, and there abode.” * There a negotiation took place. The Mediation . f Robert ambassadors or mediators were Duke Robert and theana Aitheling Eadgar.8 According to the most picturesque #48" version, Malcolm, who is conceived as still keeping on the northern side of the firth, sends a message to 1 Chron. Petrib. rog1. ‘(Se cyng W..... sona fyrde hét ut abeodan egder scipfyrde and landfyrde; and seo scipferde, er he to Scotlande cuman mihte, elmest earmlice forfér, feowan dagon toforan Ste Micheles meessan.” Florence calls the host “classis non modica et equestris exercitus,” and adds that ‘‘ multi de equestri exercitu ejus fame et frigore perierunt.” ? Chron. Petrib. 1091, ‘Ac pa ba se cyng Me'colm gehyrde pet hine man mid fyrde secean wolde, he for mid his fyrde ut of Scotlande into Lodene on Englaland, and per abad.” Florence, followed by Simeon, oddly enough translates this ; ‘“ Rex Malcolmus cum exercitu in provincia Loidis oceurrit.” Hence some modern writers have carried Malcolm as far south as Leeds, I presume only to Leeds in Yorkshire. Orderic (7o1 A), though, as we shall see, he somewhat misconceives the story, marks the geography very well; ‘‘ Exercitum totius Angliz conglobavit, ut usque ad magnum flumen, quod Scotte Watra dicitur, perduxit.” The ‘Scots’ Water” is of course the Firth of Forth. So Turgot in the Life of Margaret (Surtees Simeon, p. 247) speaks of “ utraque litora maris quod Lodoncium dividit et Scotiam.” See Appendix P. 3 Chron. Petrib. ib, ‘“ Da Sa se cyng William mid his fyrde genealehte pa fer.lon betwux Rodbeard eorl and Eadgar epeling, and pra cinga sehte swa gemacedon.” So Florence; “Quod videns comes Rotbertus, clitonem Eadgarum, quem rex de Normannia expulerat, et tunc cum rege Scottorum degebat, ad se accersivit: cujus auxilio fretus, pacem inter reges fecit.” On the details in Orderic, see Appendix P, 302 THE FIRST WARS OF WILLIAM RUFUS. cuar. 11. William to the effect that he owes no homage to him, but that, if he can have an interview with Robert, he Soelerente will do to him whatever is right. By the advice of his and Wise Men,! William sends his brother, who is cour- Malcolm. toously received by the Scottish King for three days. Somewhat like the Moabite king of old, though with quite another purpose, Malcolm takes his visitor to the tops of various hills, and shows him the hosts of Scot- land encamped in the plains and dales below. With so mighty a force he is ready to withstand any one who should try to cross the firth; he would be well pleased ec if any enemy would make the attempt. He then sud- Robert. denly turns to the question of homage. He had re- ceived the earldom of Lothian from King Eadward, when his great-niece Margaret was betrothed to him. The late King William had confirmed the gifts of his predecessor, and, at his bidding, he, Malcolm, had become the man of his eldest son, his present visitor Duke Robert. To him he would discharge his duty; to the present King William he owed no duty at all. He appealed to the Gospel for the doctrine that no man could serve two lords, the doctrine which had been so practically pressed on Robert’s behalf three years be- fore.” Robert admitted the truth of Malcolm’s state- ment; but he argued that times were changed, and that the decrees of his father had lost their old force. It would be wise to accept the reigning King as his lord, a lord nearer, richer, and more powerful, than he could pretend to be himself. Malcolm might be sure of a gracious reception from William, if he came on such an Hesubmitserrand. Malcolm was convinced; he went to the King ge the English; he was favourably received, and a peace 1 « Ex consultu sapientum,” says Orderic. These ancient formule cleave to us wherever we go, even in the camp. On the action of the military Witan, see above, p. 216. * See above, p. 25. NEGOTIATIONS BETWEEN WILLIAM AND MALCOLM. 303 was agreed on. It is added that the two kings then cusp. m. disbanded their armies, and went together into Eng- land.! This last statement throws some doubt upon the whole of this version; for Malcolm’s alleged journey to England at this moment is clearly a confusion with events which happened two years later. The references Question too to the earldom of Lothian and to an earlier betrothal #3)'° iS o¢ of Margaret are a little startling; yet it is perhaps not Margaret. quite hopeless to reconcile them with better ascertained facts. As I have elsewhere suggested, this earlier be- trothal of Margaret to Malcolm is not necessarily incon- sistent with his later marriage with her after the inter- mediate stage of Ingebiorg? Malcolm may at one time have been in no hurry to carry out a marriage dictated by political reasons; yet he may have afterwards become eager for the same marriage after he had seen her whose hand was designed for him. As for the Lothian earldom, Question of we here see the beginning of the later Scottish argu- eas ment, that homage was due from the Scottish to the English king only for lands held within the kingdom of England. At this stage Lothian was the land held within the kingdom of England; it was what Northum- berland, Huntingdon, or any other confessedly English land held by the Scottish king, was in later times. When Malcolm was restored to his crown by the arms of Siward,? no doubt Lothian was granted to him among other things. Only Malcolm takes up the line, or our historian thinks it in character to make him take up the line, of implying, though not directly asserting, that Lothian was the only possession for which homage was due. And, on the strictest view of English claims, Mal- colm would be right in at least drawing a marked 1 See Appendix P. ? See N. C. vol. iv. p. 175. 8 Tb. vol. ii. p. 272. ; 304 CHAP, II. Treaty between William and Malcolm. Malcolm does homage. THE FIRST WARS OF WILLIAM RUFUS. distinction between Scotland and Lothian. He owed both kingdom and earldom to the intervention of Eadward and Siward; but Lothian was a grant from Eadward in a sense in which Scotland was not. Over Scotland neither Eadward nor William could claim more than an external superiority. Lothian was still English ground, as much as the land which is now beginning to be dis- tinguished as Northumberland. The version of Malcolm’s submission which I have just gone through is certainly worth examining, and I do not see that it contradicts the simpler and more certain version. According to this account, the negotia- tion was carried on between Robert and Eadgar. The agreement to which the mediators came was that Mal- colm should renew to the younger William the homage which he had paid to the elder.! On the other hand, he was to receive all lands and everything else that he had before held in England, specially, it would seem, twelve vills or mansions for his reception on his way to the English court.2 On these terms Malcolm became the man of William ; Eadgar also was reconciled to William. The two kings parted on good terms, but the Chronicler notices, in a phrase of which he is rather fond, that it “little while stood.” * William, Robert, and Eadgar now took their journey 1 It is specially marked that the homage now done was the renewal of the old homage. So the Chronicle, 1091; “Se cyng Melcolm to uran cynge com, and his man wear to ealle swilcre gehyrsumnisse swa he ér his feder dyde, and pet mid a¥e gefestnode.” So Florence; ‘“ Ea conditione, ut Willelmo, sicut patri suo obedivit, Malcolmus obediret.” 2 The Chronicle says only; “Se cyng William him behét on lande and on ealle pinge pes pe he under his feder &r hefde.” Florence is fuller ; “Et Malcolino xii. villas, quas in Anglia sub patre illius habuerat, Willel- mus redderet, et xii. marcas auri singulis annis daret.” See Appendix P. 3 Chron. Petrib. u.s. ‘On pisum sehte weard eac Eadgar epeling wid pone cyng gesehtlad, and pa cyngas ba mid mycclum sehte tohwurfon, ac pet litle hwile stod.” Florence is to the same effect. See Appendix P. TREATY WITH MALCOLM. : 305 back again, as it is specially marked, from Northum- cmap. m1. berland into Wessex.) The realm of Alfred is still looked Return of on as the special dwelling-place of his successors from car beyond the sea. But it would seem that, at some stage of their southward journey, at some time before the year was out, they joined with other men of royal and princely descent in setting their crosses to a document, in itself of merely local importance, but which is clothed with a higher interest by the names of those who sign it. A grant of certain churches to the convent of Dur- Evidence ham becomes a piece of national history when, besides the pelle signatures for which we might naturally look, it bears the cb="ter. names of King William the Second, of Robert his brother, of Henry his brother, of Duncan son of King Malcolm, of Eadgar the Aitheling, and of Siward Barn.? This is the only time when all these persons could have met. There is no sign of any later visit of Robert to England during the reign of William. But the signatures of Henry and Duncan teach us more. Duncan, it will be remembered, Duncan. had been given as a hostage at Abernethy ;* he had been set free by the Conqueror on his death-bed ; he had been knighted by Robert, and allowed to go whither he would.* Had he already made his way back to his own land, or did he come in the train of his latest benefactor? In the former case, had he been again given as a hostage ? Or had William found out that the son of Ingebiorg might possibly be useful to him? It is certain that, two years later, Duncan was at William’s court and in Wil- liam’s favour; and it looks very much as if he had, in whatever character, gone back to England with the 1 Flor, Wig. 1091. ‘Post hae rex de Northymbria per Merciam in West-Saxoniam rediit.” 2 See Appendix P. 3 See N. C. vol. v. p. 121. The Chronicle in 1093 brings him in as “Dunecan...se on pes cynges hyrede W. wees, swa swa his feeder hine ures cynges feder er to gisle geseald hzfde,.” * See above, p. 14. VOL, I. x 306 CHAP. III, Eadgar, Henry. Siward Barn. Fresh dispute between William and Robert. THE FIRST WARS OF WILLIAM RUFUS. King. The signature of Eadgar shows that the document must be later than the treaty with Malcolm by which he was reconciled to William, that is, that it was signed on the journey southward, not on the journey northward. The signature of Henry is our only hint that he had any share at all in the Scottish business, and it throws a perfectly new light on this part of his history. He was plainly in England, seemingly in favour with both his brothers, and things look as if he too, though he is nowhere mentioned, must have gone on the march to Scotland. Siward Barn, like Duncan, was one of those who were set free by William the Great on his death-bed. We now learn that he shared the good luck of Duncan and Wulf, not the bad luck of Morkere and Wulfnoth. He signs as one of the great men of the north, with Arnold of Perey, with the Sheriff Morel, and with Earl Robert himself. One thing is plain, namely, that this document was not signed in the regular Christmas Assembly of the year. By that time Robert and Eadgar were no longer in England. By that time Robert and William had again quarrelled. We may guess that some of Robert’s old partisans had been less lucky than the Bishop of Durham. At all events, some points in the treaty of Caen remained unfulfilled. Then, as in later times, a diplomatic engagement was not found strong enough to carry itself out by its own force, like a physical law of nature. We are not told what was the special point complained of; but something which the Red King should have done for Robert or for his partisans was left undone.’ It was simply as a man and a king that Rufus had entered into any engagements with his brother. His knightly honour was not pledged; the treaty therefore came under the head of those promises which no man can ? Could there be any reference to the non-restoration of Odo? See above, p. 283. NEW QUARREL BETWEEN WILLIAM AND ROBERT. 307 fulfil. We are told in a pointed way that Robert stayed cuar. 1. with his brother till nearly the time of Christmas. The matter in dispute, whatever it was, might have been fittingly discussed in the Christmas Assembly; only it might have been hard to find the formula by which the Duke of the Normans was to appeal the King of the English of bad faith before his own Witan. Two days Robert and before the feast Robert took ship in Wight, and sailed a to Normandy, taking the Aitheling Eadgar with him.” ihe dean 23, 1091. Either the reign of Rufus was really richer than other Sele times in striking natural phenomena, or else they were Fea specially noticed as signs of the times. About the time Fall of the tower at of the King’s Scottish expedition, the tower of the Winch- minster at Winchcombe was smitten by a mighty October ss, thunderbolt, and fell in ruins on the body of the church, crushing the most hallowed images in its fall. The Chtho- nian Zeus had no place in the mythology of the times; but this destruction, which left behind it a thick smoke and an evil smell, was deemed to be the work of the evil one, the signs of whose presence were got rid of only by the most solemn chants and processions.? Two days later, 1 See above, p. 143. 2 Chron. Petrib. 1091. ‘And se eorl Rodbeard her 03 Xpes messe forneah mid pam cynge wunode, and litel soSes per onmang of heora fore- warde onfand; and twam dagon er pere tide on Wiht scipode and into Normandig for, and Eadgar epeling mid him.” So Florence; “Rex... secum fere usque ad nativitatem Domini comitem retinuit, sed conventionem inter eos factam persolvere noluit. Quod comes graviter ferens, x9, kal. Januarii die cum clitone Eadgaro Normanniam repetiit.” 3 Florence (1091) tells this tale; ‘Magnus fumus cum nimio fcetore subsecutus, totam ecclesiam replevit, et tamdiu duravit, quoad loci illius monachi cum aqua benedicta et incensu et reliquiis sanctorum, officinas monasterii psalmos decantando circumirent.” William of Malmesbury (iv. 323) gives more details, and is better certified as to the cause; ‘“Se- cutus est odor teterrimus, hominum importabilis naribus. Tandem monachi, felici ausu irrumpentes, benedict aque aspergine prestigias inimici effuga- runt.” A modern diplomatist might have said that the prestige of the evil one was lowered. x 2 308 THE FIRST WARS OF WILLIAM RUFUS. caar.m, London was visited by a fearful wind, which blew down Great wind seven churches and houses to the number of six hundred. in London. October 17, Above all, the wooden roof of the church of Saint Mary- 1ogr. Fire in London. March 28, 1092. Consecra- tion of the church of Salisbury. April 5, 1092. le-bow was carried off, and its beams were hurled to the ground with such force that they were driven into the hard earth, and had to be sawn off as they stood. Two men who were in the church were crushed. The citizens could have hardly repaired their houses before another blow came upon them. Early in the next year the greater part of London was destroyed by fire.? By Eastertide the cathedral churches of two of the dioceses whose seats had been moved in the late reign stood ready for consecration. On the waterless hill which then was Salisbury, within the everlasting ditches of the elder time, looking down on the field of battle which had decreed that Britain should be English* and on the field of council which had decreed that England should be one,? Norman Osmund, the doctor of the ritual lore of England, had finished the work which Lotharingian Hermann had began. The new mother church of the lands of Berkshire, Wiltshire, and Dorset, the elder minster of Saint Mary, whose stones were borne away to build the soaring steeple of its suecessor but whose foundations may still be traced on the turf of the for- saken city, now awaited its hallowing. There was then 1 Florence again tells the tale ; but William of Malmesbury (iv.324) again is far more emphatic, and seems to look on the winds as moral agents; “ Quid illud omnibus incognitum seculis? Discordia ventorum inter se dissiden- tium, ab Euro-austro veniens decimo sexto kal. Novembris Londoniz plus- quam secentas domos effregit ... Majus quoque scelus furor ventorum ausus, tectum ecclesiz sancte Marie que ‘ad Arcus’ dicitur pariter sublevavit.” But Florence is simply setting down events under their years, while William is making a collection of “ casualties,” to illustrate the position that “ plura sub eo [Willelmo Rufo] subita et tristia acciderunt,” and notes this year as specially marked by “ tumultus fulgurum, motus turbinum,” 2 Flor. Wig. 1092. ‘Civitas Lundonia maxima ex parte incendio con- flagravit.” 5 See N. C. vol. i. p. 321. * See N.C. vol. iv. p. 691. DEDICATION OF SALISBURY CATHEDRAL, 309 no archbishop in southern England; the rite was done cuar. m. by Osmund himself with the help of his two nearest episcopal neighbours, Walkelin of Winchester and John of Bath! The ceremony had thus a specially West-Saxon character. The three bishops who came together at Salisbury represented the three—once four— churches, among which the old West-Saxon diocese, the diocese of Winchester, had been parted asunder.? But at Salisbury too, the elements, if somewhat less hostile than at Winchcombe and London, were by no means friendly. Five days only after the hallowing, the light- The tower ning fell, as at Winchcombe; the peaked roof or low ie spire which sheltered the tower—doubtless of wood ae covered with lead—was thrown down, and its fall did much damage to the walls of the new minster.* A day later by a month had been fixed for another ceremony of the same kind, the crowning of the work of a prelate who seems to have wished for a more stately ceremony and a greater gathering than the almost do- mestic rite which had satisfied Bishop Osmund. Remigius, Almoner of Fécamp, Bishop of Dorchester, Bishop of 1 Flor. Wig. 1092. ‘“Osthundus Searesbyriensis episcopus, ecclesiam quam Searesbyriz in castello construxerat, cum adjutorio episcoporum Walcelini Wintoniensis et Johannis Bathoniensis, nonis Aprilis feria ii. dedicavit.” Cf. Will. Malms. Gest. Pont. 183. The foundation charter (Mon. Ang. vi. 1299) was signed in 1091, “ Willelmo rege monarchiam totius Angliz strenue gubernante anno quarto regni ejus, apud Hastinges ” —most likely on his return from Normandy in August. The signatures come in a strange order. Between the earls and the Archbishop of York come “Signum Wlnoti. Signum Croc venatoris.” Wulfnoth here turns up in the same strange way in which he so often does. Croc the huntsman we have heard of already. See above, p.102. We get also the signatures of Howel Bishop of Le Mans, and of Robert the dispenser, who invented the surname Flambard (see below, p. 331). On the signature of Herbert Losinga, see Appendix X. ? See N. C. vol. ii. p. 606. 3 Will. Malms, iv. 325. ‘“ Eadem violentia fulminis apud Salesbiriam tectum turris ecclesiz omnino disjecit, multamque maceriam labefactavit, quinta sane die postquam eam dedicaverat Osmundus, preclare memoria episcopus,”” 310 THE FIRST WARS OF WILLIAM RUFUS. caar. ur. Lincoln, was drawing near the end of his famous epi- Remigius of Lincoln scopate. He had reformed the constitution of his chapter ‘and diocese; and we hear that he was no less zealous in reforming the manners of his flock.! The darling sin of Bristol—most likely the darling sin of every great trading-town—was rife at Lincoln also; and Remigius, like Wulfstan, preached against the wicked custom by which men sold their country-folk, sometimes their kins- folk, to a life of shame or of bondage in foreign lands.’ ee But beyond all this, he had finished his great work on minster. the hill of Lincoln; the elder church of Saint Mary had grown into the great minster of which later rebuildings and enlargements have still left us some small remnants.° The eastern limb had as yet no need to overleap the Roman wall of Lindum; but Remigius had reared, and sought to consecrate, no fragment, but a perfect church. His doorways are there in the western front to show that the building has received no enlargement on that side from Remigius’ day to our own. The work was done, and its founder felt his last end coming. He was eager to see the house which he had builded dedicated to its holy use before he himself passed away. But an unlooked-for hindrance came. The only archbishop in the land, Thomas of York, claimed the distriet in which 1 See N. C. vol. iv. p. 419, and Giraldus, Vita Rem. e, 3, 4, 5 (vol. vii. p.17 et seqq. Dimock), Giraldus is, I believe, the only writer who makes a saint of Remigius. He enlarges on the effects of Remigius’ preaching, and consequently on the wickedness of those to whom he had to preach. * Giraldus, Vit. Rem. ch. v. “ Prolem propriam quam genuerat, nepotes etiam et neptes, alienigenis in servitutem detestanda avaritia venalem ex consuetudine prostituebant.” Cf. N. C. vol. iv. p. 381, and the stories in Will. Malms. ii. 200, about Godwine’s supposed first wife. See N. C. vol. i. p. 737. 5 I mentioned in N. C. vol. iv. p. 212, that Lincoln minster grew out of an earlier church of Saint Mary. The history of John of Schalby printed by Mr. Dimock shows that this elder parish church went on within the minster. This is a very important case of a double church, See Giraldus, vil. xxx. 194, 209. DISPUTE BETWEEN LINCOLN AND YORK. 311 Remigius had built his church as belonging to his own cmar m. diocese.!_ This does not seem to have been by virtue of Shomas of the claim that the whole diocese of Dorchester came claims the within his metropolitan jurisdiction? The argument ar was that Lindesey, won for the Christian faith by Limdesy- Paullinus, won for the Northumbrian realm by Eegfrith, was part of the diocesan jurisdiction of the Bishop of York. And, whatever the truth of the case might be, the warmest of all admirers of Remigius goes some way to strengthen the doctrine of Thomas, when he speaks of Lindesey almost as a conquered land won by the prowess of Remigius from the Northumbrian enemy.* The time was. not one for doubtful disputations. Re- Remigius migius, saint as he is pictured to us, knew how to use” Bink: those baser arguments which were convincing above all others in the days of the Red King. His original appointment in the days of the Conqueror had not been altogether beyond suspicion;* and it was now whis- pered that it was by the help of a bribe that he won the zealous adhesion of William Rufus to his cause. Rufus was at least impartial; he was clearly ready to give a fair day’s work for a fair day’s wages, and what he would do for a Jew he would also do for a bishop. All 1 See N.C. vol. iv. p. 369. 2 See N.C. vol. iv. p. 355. 8 Giraldus, Vit. Rem. ch. iv. ‘‘Operam erga regem et archiepiscopum, excambium Eboracensi pro Lindeseia donantes, prudenter effectui, Deo cooperante mancipavit. Et sic Lindeseiam terramque totam inter Widhemam scilicet Lincolnie fluviam et Humbriam diocesi sue provincizeque Cantuari- ensi viriliter adjecit.” This is Giraldus’ improvement on the local record copied by John of Schalby (Giraldus, vii. 194) ; ‘‘ Datis per regem preedictum Eboracensi archiepiscopo in excambium possessionibus, totam Lyndesyam sue diocesi et provincie Cantuariensi conjunxit.” It must be remembered that a bishopric of Lindesey had once been set up by the Northumbrian Ecgfrith. See Beda, iv. 12. * See N.C. vol. iv. pp. 90, 354. This seems to be delicately referred to in the record copied by John of Schalby (Giraldus, vii. 193) ; ‘ Remigius natione Normannus ac monachus Fiscanensis, qui 0b certam causam venerat cum eodem [Willielmo rege] in episcopum Dorkecestrensem,” 312 CHAP. ITI, Gathering for the consecra- tion at Lincoln. May 9, 1og2. Death of Remigius. May 6, 1092, THE FIRST WARS OF WILLIAM RUFUS, the bishops of England were bidden by royal order to come together at the appointed day for the dedication of the church of Lincoln.! A vast crowd of men of all ranks came to Lincoln; the course of the story suggests that the King himself was there; all the bishops came, save one only. Robert of Hereford, the friend of Wulf- stan, the Lotharingian skilled in the lore of the stars, knew by his science that the rite would not take place in the lifetime of Remigius. He therefore deemed it needless to travel to Lincoln for nothing.? His skill was not deceived; three days before the appointed time Remigius died.? The dedication of the church was de- layed; it was done in the days of his successor, some years later.t Meanwhile Remigius himself won the honours of a saint in local esteem, and wonders of heal- ing were wrought at his tomb for the benefit of not a few of divers tongues and even of divers creeds.° 2 So says Florence. Remigius is eager to dedicate his church, ‘“ quia sibi diem mortis imminere sentiebat.”” Thomas objects, ‘‘affirmans eam in sua parochia esse constructam.” “At rex Willelmus junior, pro pecunia quam ei Remigius dederat, totius fere Anglie episcopis mandavit ut, in unum convenientes, septennis idibus Maii ecclesiam dedicarent.” Of course there is nothing about the bribe in Giraldus, nor yet in William of Malmes- bury, Gest. Pont. 313, where the King’s order to the bishops is issued “ magnanimi viri”—Remigias has got the King’s own epithet— “ hortatu.” Matthew Paris, in the Historia Anglorum, i. 42, credits the Red King with an unlooked-for degree of zeal; ‘ Postea rex Willelmus, cujus consilio et auxilio ecclesia illa fuit a primo loco suo remota, et quam pro anima patris sut [this at least is characteristic] multis ditaverat possessionibus, procuravit ut ea magnifice consummaretur.”” ? Will. Malms. Gest. Pont. 313. ‘Solus Rotbertus Herefordensis venire abnuerat, et certa inspectione siderum dedicationem tempore Remigii non processuram viderat, nec tacuerat.” 5 On the exact date, see Mr. Dimock’s note to Giraldus, vii. 20. Ascen- sion Day came on the feast of Saint John ante Portam Latinam. * «Ecclesiz per hoc remansit dedicatio.’ William of Malmesbury (u. 8.) says, ‘Rem dilatam successor ejus non graviter explevit, utpote qui in labores alterius delicatus intrasset.”” There seems to be no mention of this in the Lincoln writers. ° Giraldus (vii. 22-31) has fifteen chapters, very short ones certainly, of the miracles of Remigius. One takes most to the healings of the crippled DEATH OF REMIGIUS. 313 § 5. The Conquest and Colonization of Carlisle. A? 1092. It was seemingly from this fruitless gathering at Lin- William’s coln that William the Red went forth to what was in se a truth the greatest exploit of his reign. He went on a strange errand, to enlarge the bounds of England by overthrowing the last shadow of independent English rule. Hitherto the northern border of England had shown a tendency to fall back rather than to advance, and a generation later the same tendency showed itself again. But Rufus did what neither his father nor his brother did ; he enlarged the actual kingdom of England by the addition of a new shire, a new earldom—in process of time a new bishopric—and he raised as its capital a re- newed city whose calling it was to be the foremost bulwark of England in her northern wars. Whatever any other spot on either side of the sea may be bound to do, Carlisle, city and earldom, is bound to pay to the Red King the honours of a founder. And the Saxon branch of the English people must see in him one who planted a strong colony of their blood on the lands of men of other races, kindred and alien. There is a certain amusement in see- Mistakes ing the endless discussions in which men have entangled *{0,"r° position of themselves in order to explain the simple fact that Cumber- land and Cumberland and Westmoreland are not entered in Domes- Westmore- day, forgetful that it was just as reasonable to look a for them there as it would have been to look there for women Leofgifu and Allfgifu; Remigius “huic precipue languori se pro- pitium dedit.” A Norman, Richard by name, who tried to pull a hair from the beard of the saint’s uncorrupted body (cf. N.C. vol. iii. p. 32), became crippled himself. But a certain deaf and dumb Jewess, who came to blaspheme—doubtless mentally—was smitten to the earth and suddenly endowed with hearing and speech, beginning by uttering the name of Remigius in French. ‘ Ex quo patet, quia non propter merita semper aut devotionem, sed ut manifestetur gloria Dei, miracula fiunt.” She was bap- tized by Bishop Alexander, and was carried about by him hither and thither to declare the praises of his predecessor. 314 CHAP, IIT, History of Carlisle. 603-685. THE FIRST WARS OF WILLIAM RUFUS. Caithness or the Cétentin. Cumberland and Westmore- land, by those names, formed no part of the English king- dom when the Conqueror drew up his Survey. Parts of the lands so called, those parts which till recent changes formed part, first of the diocese of York, afterwards of that of Chester, are entered in Domesday in their natural place, as parts of Yorkshire The other parts are not entered, for the simple reason that they were then no part of the kingdom of England. It was now, in the third or fourth year of William Rufus, that they became so. Lugubalia or Caerluel was reckoned among the Roman cities of Britain. It was reckoned too among the cities of the Northumbrian realm, in the great days of that realm, from the victory of Aithelfrith at Deegsanstan to the fall of Ecgfrith at Nectansmere.2. Then the Northumbrian power fell back from the whole land between Clyde and Solway, and all trace of Lugubalia is lost in the confused listory of the land of the Northern Britons. Its site, to say the least, must have formed part of that northern British land whose king and people sought Eadward the Unconquered to father and lord. It must have formed part of that well nigh first of territorial fiefs which Eadmund the Doer-of-great-deeds granted to his Scottish fellow-worker.* It must have formed part of the under-kingdom which so long served as an appanage for the heirs of Scottish kingship. But, amidst all these changes, though the land passed under the over-lordship of the Basileus of Britain, yet it never, from Ecgfrith to Rufus, passed under the immediate dominion of any English king. And, as far as the city itself was concerned, for the last two centuries before Rufus the site was all 1 See Appendix R. ? See Beda, Hist. Eccl. iv. 29. But we bave a more distinct notice in the Life of Saint Cuthberht, c. 27 (ii. 101 Stevenson), of “ Lugubalia civitas, que a populis Anglorum corrupte Luel vocatur.” In Ecgfrith’s day there might be seen “ meenia civitatis, fonsque in ea miro quondam Romanorum opere extractus.” ® See N.C, vol. i. pp. 58, 576. * Ib. vol. i. pp. 63, 580. CONQUEST OF CARLISLE, 315 that was left to pass to any one. The history of Scan- cuar.in. dinavian influence in Cumberland is one of the great Ese in f puzzles of our early history. The Northman is there to Cumber- speak for himself; but it is not easy to say how and #" when he came there. But one result of Scandinavian occupation or Scandinavian inroad was the overthrow of Lugubalia. We gather that it fell, as Anderida fell Carlisle before Aille and Cissa,as Aquee Solis fell before Ceawlin, ty goat as the City of the Legions fell before Aithelfrith.2 But "> now the son of the Conqueror was to be to Lugubalia what the daughter of Alfred had been to the City of the Legions. The king who made the land of Carlisle English bade the walls of Carlisle again rise, to fence in a city of men, a colony of the Saxon land. At this moment the land of Carlisle, defined, as weDolfin lord can hardly doubt, by the limits of the ancient diocese, ee was the only spot of Britain where any man of English race ruled. Its prince, lord, earl—no definite title is given him—was Dolfin the son of Gospatric, a scion of the old Northumbrian prineely house and sprung by female descent from the Imperial stock of Wessex.3 When or how Dolfin had got possession of his lordship we know not; but it can hardly fail to have been a grant from Malcolm, and it must have been held by him in the character of a man of the Scottish king. We are not told whether either Dolfin or Malcolm had Dolfin given any new offence to William, or whether there hae was any other motive for the King’s action at this as a andl moment. We can record only the event. Rufus wentthe castle northward with a great force to Carlisle. He drove out 093. Dolfin; he restored the forsaken city; he built the castle; he left a garrison in it, and went southward again.‘ 1 See N.C. vol. i. p. 647. 2 Flor. Wig. 1092. “Hee civitas, ut illis in partibus alie nonnulle, a Danis pagavis ante cc. annos diruta, et usque ad id tempus mansit deserta.”” 3 See N. C, vol. iv. p. 134. * Chron, Petrib. 1092. “On pisum geare se cyng W. mid mycelre fyrde 316 CHAP. ITI, The Saxon colony. Supposed connexion with the making of the New Forest. THE FIRST WARS OF WILLIAM RUFUS. But this was not all. Not only was the restored city to be a bulwark of England, but the conquered land was to become a colony of Englishmen. Many churlish folk were sent thither with wives and cattle, to dwell in the land and to till it. We thus see, what seems always to be forgotten in discussions of Cumbrian ethnology, that, at least in the immediate district of Carlisle, the last ele- ment in its mixed population was distinctly Saxon In- genious writers have guessed that the men who were now settled at Carlisle were the very men who had been deprived of their homes and lands at the making of the New Forest. There is no evidence for this guess, and every likelihood is against it. Though I hold that the dispossessed land-owners and occupiers of Hampshire are not an imaginary class,® yet I cannot think that they can have formed so large a class as to have gone any way towards colonizing even so small a district as the old diocese of Carlisle. But it is plain that the land needed inhabitants, and that the new inhabitants were sought for in the south of England. In the Carlisle dis- trict then the order of settlement among the races of Britain is different from what it is anywhere else. Else- where it is Briton, Angle or Saxon, Dane or Northman. Here, as far as one can see, the order must be Briton, Angle, Pict, Northman, Saxon. ferde hord to Cardeol, and pa burh gezstapelede, and pone castel arerde, and Dolfin it adraf, pe eror per pes landes weold, and pone castel mid his mannum gesette.” Florence seems to connect this with the unwrought ceremony at Lincoln; ‘His actis, rex in Northymbriam profectus, civi- tatem que Brytannice Cairleu, Latine Lugubalia vocatur, restauravit et in ea castellum edificavit.” Orderic brings together the old and the new when he speaks (917 B) in David’s time of ‘‘Carduilum validissimum oppidum, quod Julius Cesar, ut dicunt, condidit.” ? The Chronicler goes on; ‘“ And sySSan hider sué gewznde, and mycele menige cyrlisces folees mid wifan and mid orfe pyder swende per to wuni- genne pet land to tilianne.” So Henry of Huntingdon, vii. 2; ‘“ Rex re- edificavit civitatem Carleol, et ex australibus Anglie partibus illuc habita- tores transmisit.” Florence leaves out both the colonization and the driving out of Dolfin. ? See Appendix R. 5 See N. C. vol. iv. p. 858. COLONIZATION OF CARLISLE. 317 The land now added to England is strictly the land of omar. m. Carlisle. We do not hear the names of Cumberland or ae sa Westmoreland till after the times with which we are dom of dealing. The restored city gave its name to the land, toits ae earls, when it had earls, to its bishops when it had bishops.! And truly of all the cities of England none is more memorable in its own special way than that which now for the first time became a city of united England. The History local history of Carlisle stands out beyond that of almost a any other English city on the surface of English history. the city. It has not, as local history so often has, to be dug out of special records by special research. Called into fresh being to be the bulwark of England against Scotland, Carlisle remained the bulwark of England against Scot- land as long as England needed any bulwark on that side. In every Scottish war, from Stephen to George the Second, Carlisle plays its part. Nor is it perhaps Its analogy unfit that a city whose special work was to act as aoraroh ant. check upon the Scot should itself have in its general Stirling. look somewhat of a Scottish character. The site of the city and castle instinctively reminds us of the sites of Edinburgh and Stirling. It is a likeness in miniature; but it is a likeness none the less. The hill which is crowned by Carlisle castle is lower than the hills which are crowned by the two famous Scottish fortresses ; but in all three cases the original city climbs the hill whose highest point is crowned by the castle. At Carlisle the castle stands at the northern end of the city, and its look-out over the Eden, towards the Scottish march, is emphatically the look-out of a sentinel. It looks out towards the land which so long was hostile; but it looks out also on one spot which suggests the memories of times when Scots, Picts, and Britons may have been there, but when they found no English or Danish adver- saries to meet them. The Roman wall avoids Lugubalia 1 See Appendix R. 318 CHAP. III. The wall and the castle, Work of Rufus and Henry at Carlisle. Fortunes of Henry. THE FIRST WARS OF WILLIAM RUFUS. itself, though the inner line of foss, which runs some way south of the wall itself, is said to be traced along the line which divides the castle from the city. But among the most prominent points of view from the castle is Stanwix, the site of the nearest Roman station, which seems to bear about it the memory of the stones of the ancient builders. Here, on the brow of the hill, cut off by a ditch like so many headlands of the same kind, on a site which had doubtless been a place of strength for ages before the Roman came, the Red King reared the new bulwark of his realm. Of the works of his age there are still large remains; how much is the work of Rufus himself, how much of his successor, it might be hard to say. The square keep is there, though sadly disfigured by the unhappy use of the castle as a barrack ; a large part of the wall, both of city and castle, is still, after many patchings and rebuildings, of Norman date; it is still in many places plainly built out of Roman stones. Here and there one is even tempted to think that some of those stones in the lower part of the wall may have stood there since Carlisle was Lugubalia. Castle and city bear about them the memories of many later times and many stirring scenes in history. But on that spot we are most called on to trace out, in church and city and castle, every scrap that reminds us of the two founders of Carlisle, the two royal sons of the Conqueror. The names which before all others live on that site are those of William who raised up city and fortress from the sleep of ages, and of Henry who completed the work by adding Carlisle to the tale of English episcopal sees.! In the same year in which King William of England thus advanced and strengthened the borders of his 1 On the bishopric, see N. C. vol. v. p. 230. SETTLEMENT OF HENRY AT DOMFRONT. 319 kingdom by strength of arms, his youngest brother again omar. u. became a ruler of men by a nobler title. Whatever was the date or the length of Henry’s day of distress, it came to an end about the time of the restoration of Carlisle. No call could be more honourable than that which again set him in a place of power. Among the many victims Domfront of Robert of Belléme were the people of Domfront, the ee of old conquest of William the Great. The castle had Belléme. passed into the hands of the tyrant, and grievous was the oppression which Domfront and the coasts thereof suffered at his hands. The inhabitants, under the lead The men of Domfront of a chief man of the place, Harecher or Archard by choose name, rose in revolt, and chose the banished Count of ee * the Cétentin as their lord and defender against the com- !°93- mon enemy of mankind. In company with this local patriot, Henry came to Domfront; he accepted the offered lordship, and entered into the closest relations with those who had chosen him. He bound himself to respect all their local customs, and never to give them over to any other master. Henry kept his word; amidst all changes, he clave to Domfront for the rest of his days as a specially cherished possession.! It was indeed, both in its position and in its asso- Position of ciations, a noble starting-point for one who had to pee carve out a dominion for himself by his wits or by his sword. It was a place of happy omen for a son of William the Conqueror, as the place where his father first began to deserve that title, his first possession be- yond the elder bounds of his own duchy.? Henry was now lord of the rocky peninsula, which, impregnable as it had once been deemed, had yielded to the terror of his father’s name, and where the donjon of his father’s rearing opened its doors to receive his greatest son as a .prince and a deliverer. On one side, the Varenne flowed 1 On Henry’s election at Domfront, see Appendix P. 2 See N.C. vol. ii. p. 287; vol. iii. p. 165. 320 CHAP. III, Change in Henry’s affairs. His old friends join him. THE FIRST WARS OF WILLIAM RUFUS. far beneath the rock, parting it from the wilder rocks beyond the stream. On the other side, on the same level as the castle, but with a slight dip between the two, just like the dip which parts town and castle at Notting- ham,! was the walled town, in after days itself a mighty fortress, girded with double walls and towers in thick array, and entered by a grim and frowning gateway with two massive flanking towers grounded on the solid rock. But, of all spots in the world, Domfront is one whose lord could never bear to be lord of Domfront only. From few spots not fixed on actual Alps or Pyrenees can the eye range over a wider prospect than it ranges over from the castle steep of Henry’s new lordship. To the north the view is by comparison shut in; but on this side lies the way into the true heart of Normandy, to Caen and Bayeux and all that les be- tween. To the west the eye catches the hills of the Avranchin; to the south the land of Maine stretches far away, the land of his father’s victories at Ambriéres and at Mayenne, the land whose sight suggests that the land of Anjou lies yet beyond it. To the south Henry might look on lands which were to be the inheritance of his children; to the north he looked on lands which were one day to be his own; but to the south-west, towards | Mortain and Avranches and the Archangel’s Mount, his eye might light on a region some of the most famous spots of which he was presently to win with his own right hand. For the tide in Henry’s affairs turned fast, as soon as the wanderer of the Vexin became the chosen lord of Domfront. His old friends in his former principality began to flock around him once more. Earl Hugh was Earl Hugh. again on his side, with Richard of Redvers and the rest.? And he had now a mightier friend than all. King 1 See N. C. vol. iv. p. 198. 3 See Appendix P. RENEWED GOOD FORTUNE OF HENRY. 321 William of England soon found out that he had not caap. m1. played a wise part for his own interests, or at least for ey ha his own plans, in strengthening his elder brother at the William’s expense of the younger. He was now again scheming“ against Robert; he therefore favoured the growth of the Henry at new power on the Cenomannian border. It was with the ae Red King’s full sanction that Domfront became the head-quarters of a warfare which Henry waged against both Roberts, the Duke and the tyrant of Belléme.’ He made many expeditions, which were largely rewarded with plunder and captives, and in the course of which some picturesque incidents happened which may call for some notice later in our story.2. For the present we are concerned rather with the re-establishment of Henry’s power, of which his possession of Domfront was at once the earnest and the beginning. F avoured by William, He gets helped by his former friends, Henry was soon again aoe powerful prince, lord of the greater part of his old county of Coutances and Avranches. And this dominion was secured on his southern border by the occupation of another fortress almost as important as Domfront itself, and no less closely connected with the memory of Henry’s father. This was the castle of Saint James, the stronghold Castle of which the Conqueror reared to guard the Breton march,° sme Bi which stands close on that dangerous frontier, in the pied by southernmost part of the land of Avranches. That hilly and wooded land puts on at this point a somewhat bolder character. A peninsular hill with steep sides, Its and with a rushing beck, the Beuvron, between itself oe and the opposite heights, was a point which the eye of William the Great had marked out as a fitting site for a border-castle. Yet the castle did not occupy the exact spot where one would have looked for it. We should have 1 See Appendix P. ? See Appendix P, ° See N.C. vol. iii. p. 253. VOL. I. XY 322 CHAP. III, Slight re- mains of the castle. THE FIRST WARS OF WILLIAM RUFUS. thought to find it at the very head of the promontory, commanding the valley on all sides. It is so at Ballon; it is not so at Saint Cenery or at Conches. But in a more marked way than either of these, the castle of Saint James stood on one side of the hill, the south side cer- tainly, the side looking towards the dangerous land, but still not occupying the most commanding position of all. In this choice of a site we may perhaps see a mark of the Conqueror’s respect for religion. The ecclesiastical name of the place shows that, in William’s day, the church of Saint James already occupied the lofty site which its successor still keeps. Castle-builders less scrupulous than the great William might perhaps have ventured, like Geoffrey of Mayenne at Saint Cenery,! to build their fortress on the holy ground. The Conqueror had been content with the less favourable part of the hill, and at Saint James, as at Conches, church and castle stood side by side. The natural beauty of the site cannot pass away; the look-out over the valley on either side is fairer and more peaceful now than it was in William’s day; but every care has been taken to destroy or to mutilate all that could directly remind us of the days when Saint James was a stronghold of dukes and kings. The elder church has given way to a structure strangely made up of modern buildings and ancient fragments. The tower of the Conqueror still gives its name to the Place of the Fort; but there are no such remains as we see in the shattered keep of Domfront, hardly such remains as may be traced out at Saint Cenery and on the Rock of Mabel. A line of wall to the south, strengthening the scarped hill-side like the oldest walls of Rome, is all that is left to speak to us of the castle which was William’s most famous work on that border of his dominions. Nothing beyond these small scraps is left of the fortress whose 1 See above, p. 213. CASTLE OF SAINT JAMES. 323 building led to that memorable march against the Breton cuar. mr. in which William and Harold fought as fellow-soldiers.! We are not told what were Henry’s relations with The castle Britanny at the time when this great border fortress Bet ugh, passed into his hands. Bretons had been his only friends at the time of the siege of the Mount; but their friendship for the Count of the Cétentin was perhaps felt for him, not so much in that character as in that of the enemy of the Norman Duke and the English King. It may possibly mark a feeling that the Celtic peninsula might again become a dangerous land, when the guardian- ship of the chief bulwark against the Bretwealas of the mainland was given to one who had full experience of warfare with the Bretwealas of the great island. The Earl of Chester had a hereditary call to be the keeper of the castle of Saint James. The fortress had, on its first building, been entrusted by the Conqueror to the guardianship of Earl Hugh’s father, the Viscount Richard of Avranches. Hugh’s treason when King and Duke came against him was now forgotten; his earlier and later services were remembéred ; and the restored prince, now once more Count as well as Aitheling, granted the border castle, not as a mere castellanship, but as his own proper fief, to the lord of the distant City of the Legions.? We have thus seen the power of William the Red firmly established on both sides of the sea. He had received the homage of Scotland; he had enlarged the 1 See N. C. vol. iii. p. 228. * Will. Gem. viii. 4.“ Quia in hoc negotio et in aliisque plerisque suis necessitatibus Hugo comes Cestrensis ei fidelis exstiterat, concessit ei ex integro castellum quod sancti Jacobi appellatum est, in quo idem comes tune temporis nihil aliud habebat, prater custodiam munitionis istius oppidi.” He goes on to describe the building of the castle, in words partly borrowed from William of Poitiers, and the grant to Richard of Avranches. On Richard, see N. C. vol. ii. pp. 209, 296. Y2 324 THE FIRST WARS OF WILLIAM RUFUS. caar. 1. hounds of England; he had won for himself a Norman dominion hemming in the dominions which are left to the nominal sovereign of the Norman land. And it is wonderful with how little fighting all this had been done. It was only before the island rock of Saint Michael that the chivalrous King had any opportunity of winning renown by feats of chivalry. A year follows, crowded with events, but all of them events which happened within the four seas of our own island. Our next chapter will therefore deal mainly with English affairs, and with some aspects of English affairs which yield in importance to none in the whole history of England. One of the chief personages of our story now comes before us in the form of the holy Anselm. Few more striking personal con- trasts are to be found in the whole range of history than those parts of our tale where Anselm and William meet face to face. But more memorable still, in a general aspect of English history, is the work which has been silently going on ever since William Rufus was made fast on his throne, the work which stands broadly forth as a finished thing when the controversy between King and Primate begins. Assuredly no “feudal system” was ever introduced into England by any law of William the Great; but it is only a slight stretch of language to say that something which, if any one chooses, may be called a “feudal system” was, during these years, devised in and for England by the craft and subtlety of Randolf Flambard. CHAPTER IV. THE PRIMACY OF ANSELM AND THE ACQUISITION OF NORMANDY.! 1093-1097. HE story of the first five years of the Red King’s Character of the early reign may be written with little, if any, forsaking years of of strict chronological order. The accession, the rebel- ee lion, the affairs of Normandy, the affairs of Scotland, 1087-1092. 1 During this chapter, the authorities for the life of Anselm become of primary importance. We have the invaluable help of the two works of Anselm’s friend and faithful companion, the English monk Eadmer, after- wards Bishop-elect of Saint Andrews. Both Orderic and William of Malmes- bury speak of Eadmer with the deepest reverence, and cut short their own accounts of Anselm, referring to his. He first wrote the Historia Novorum, and then the Vita Anselmi as a kind of supplement, to bring in certain points more purely personal to his hero, The subject of the Historia Novorum we might call ‘‘ Anselm and his Times.” The subject of the Vita is naturally Anselm himself. Eadmer’s history is of course most minute and most trustworthy for all that concerns Anselm; other matters he cuts short. In most cases one can see his reasons; but it is not easy to see why he should have left out the mission of Geronto recorded by Hugh of Flavigny (see Appendix AA). Along with the works of Eadmer, we have also a precious store in the Letters of Anselm himself (see Appendix Y), which, besides the picture which they give of the man, throw a flood of light on the history. All these materials, with the other writings of Anselm, will be found in two volumes of Migne’s Patrologia, 158 and 159. I have used this edition for the Letters and for the Life; the Historia Novorum I have gone on quoting in the edition of Selden. I need hardly say that Anselm’s English career, with which alone I am concerned, is only one part of his many-sided character. I have kept mainly to the history of Anselm in England ; I have cut short both his early life and even the time of his first banishment. With his theology and philosophy I have not ventured to meddle at all. Anselm has had no lack of biographers from the more general point of view; Hasse (Anselm von Canterbury, Leipzig, 185 2), Charles de Rémusat (Saint Anselme de Cantorbéry, Paris, 1853), Charma (Saint-Anselme, Paris, 1853), Croset-Mouchet (S. Anselme \ 326 CHAP, Iv. Chronolo- gical se- quence of the history. More com- plicated character of the next period. 1093-1098. THE PRIMACY OF ANSELM. follow one another in successive or nearly successive years, as the main subjects which challenge our atten- tion. One set of events leads to another. The rebellion followed naturally on the accession ; the interference of Rufus in Normandy followed naturally on the rebellion ; the Scottish invasion seems to have been the immediate occasion of the banishment of Eadgar from Normandy. But during the whole of the five years there is no great interlacing of different parts of the main story; at no stage are two distinct sets of events of equal moment going on at the same time; the historian is hardly called on to forsake the arrangement of the annalist. While the events recorded by the annalist were in doing, some of the greatest changes in English history were silently going on; but they were not changes of a kind which could be set down in the shape of annals. From the end of the year which saw the restoration of Carlisle the nature of the story changes. Different scenes of the drama of equal importance are now acting at once. For the next five years we have three several lines of contemporary story, which are now and then inter- d’Aoste, Archevéque de Cantorbéry, Paris, 1859). I lave made some use of all these; but the value even of Hasse and De Rémusat for my strictly English purpose is not great, M. Croset-Mouchet writes with a pleasant breeze of local feeling from the Pretorian Augusta, but he is utterly at sea as to everything in our island. In our own tongue the life of Anselm has been treated by a living and a dead friend of my own, holding the same rank in the English Church. Dean Hook, I must say with regret, utterly failed to do justice to Anselm. This is the more striking, as he did thorough justice to Thomas. From Dr. Hook’s point of view it needed an effort to do justice to either, a smaller effort in the case of Anselm, a greater in the case of Thomas. As sometimes happens, he made the greater effort, but not the smaller. I am however able to say that he came to know Anselm better before he died. Dean Church, on the other hand, has given us an almost perfect example of a short sketch of such a subject. The accuracy of the tale is as remarkable as the beauty of the telling. It lacks only the light which is thrown on the story of Anselm by the earlier story of William of Saint-Calais. It is most important to remember that Anselm was not the first to appeal to the Pope. CHARACTER OF THE PERIOD, 327 twined, but which on the whole did not seriously affect cuar. 1v. one another. Each is best told by itself, with as little Three dis- reference to either of the others as may be. And each eke ll begins in the year of which we have now reached theP™™y threshold. The sixth year of William Rufus saw the beginning of the primacy of Anselm, the beginning of the main dealings of the reign with Wales and Scotland, the beginning of renewed interference in the Norman duchy. It will be well to keep these three lines of narrative as Aspects of distinct as may be. They show the Red King in three Hit big different characters. In the first story he appears as the au ‘ representative of the new form which the kingship of dace England has taken with reference both to temporal and to spiritual matters within the kingdom. In the second story we see him asserting the powers of the English crown beyond the kingdom of England, but within the island of Britain. And here, alongside of the affairs of Affairs of Scotland, perhaps not very closely connected with them eg by any chain of cause and effect, but forming one general subject with them as distinguished alike from purely domestic and from continental affairs, will come the relations between England and Wales during the reign of William Rufus. In the third story we see the begin- Continental ning of the events which led to those wider schemes of Ronen continental policy which almost wholly occupy the last three years of the reign. One event only of much me- Be of ment stands apart from the general thread of any of the co. three stories. It stands by itself, as one of those events '°9> which might easily have led to great changes, but which, as a matter of fact, passed away without much result. This is the conspiracy and revolt of Robert of Mowbray and William of Eu, which may, dramatically at least, be connected with either the Scottish or the Norman story, but which, as a matter of actual English history, stands apart from all. 328 THE PRIMACY OF ANSELM. cuar.tv. Of these three the first on the list must claim the oe precedence. The relations between Rufus and Anselm ak tant involve the whole civil and ecclesiastical policy of the Working reign. The dispute between King and Primate was the ae new outcome of all that had been working in silence while the Red King was winning castles in Normandy, re- ceiving the homage of Scotland, and enlarging the bounds of England. During those years one side of the results of the Norman Conquest was put into formal shape. Between the fall of Rochester and the restoration of Carlisle, new ideas, new claims, had come to their full New posi- growth. Those ideas, those claims, had made the king- King oe ship of William the Red something marked by not a few points of difference from the kingship either of the Con- Ecclesiasti- fessor or of the Conqueror. Nowhere does the difference rae between the elder and the younger William stand forth Conqueror. more clearly than in their dealings with the spiritual power. No king, as I have often shown, was more truly Supreme Governor of the Church within his realm than was the Conqueror of England, her defender against the en claims of Rome. But William the Great sought and Tania found his fellow-worker in all things in an archbishop likeminded with himself. We can hardly conceive the reign of the Conqueror without the primacy of Lan- EEE franc. But the great object of William the Red was to Rufus. avoid the restraints which could not fail to be placed upon his self-will, if he had one standing at his side whose place it was to be at once the chief shepherd of the English Church and the tribune of the English pean, = people. For three years and more from the death of Canter. Lanfrane the see of Canterbury remained vacant. Such ee “1093. % Vacancy was without precedent; but it was designed itself to become a precedent. It was by no accident, from no momentary cause, that William delayed the appoint- ment of any successor to his old guardian and coun- RANDOLF FLAMBARD. 829 sellor. It was part of a deliberate policy affecting the omar. rv. whole ecclesiastical and civil institutions of the realm, 1s policy. And that. policy, there can be little doubt, was the device Influence of a single subtle and malignant genius by whom the ee whole internal administration of the Red King’s reign was guided. §1. Lhe Administration of Randolf Flambard. 1089-1099. The chief minister, if we may so call him, of William Rufus, during these years, and indeed to the end of his reion, was that Randolf Flambard or Passeflambard of whom we have already heard. His early history is ~ his- not easy to trace, beyond the general fact that he rose es, to power by the same path by which so many others rose in his day, by service in the King’s chapel and chancery.2 It has been generally thought that he was said to settled in England as early as the days of Eadward ; bave heen but it may be doubted whether the evidence bears out a ee this belief. And the course of his life is certainly easier to understand, if we do not bring him into England so soon, or attribute to him so great a length of life, as we must do if we look on him as having been already a land- owner in England before the Conquest. On the other Said to hand, if we accept the story which makes him pass to #7 P°™ the King’s service from the service of Maurice Bishop of Suhee o London, he must have been the King’s clerk for so short Maurice a time before the death of the Conqueror as hardly to eee - give room for the usual stages of official promotion. a Another version places him in the King’s service from his earliest years. Perhaps we may guess that the name of 1 See N.C. vol. v. p. 131. 2 Tb. p. 135. 5 Tb. vol. iv. p. 521, and see Appendix S. * See the extract from Orderic (678 C) in Appendix 8. 330 THE PRIMACY OF ANSELM. cua. Iv. the Bishop of London is wrongly given, and that Flam- bard had really been in the service of one of Maurice's predecessors, of Hugh of Orival or of the more famous ae we William. His reason for leaving his episcopal patron is thedeanery Said to have been that a deanery which he held was es taken from him, a story which oddly connects itself with another, according to which he was at one time dean or other head of the canons of Twinham—better known as Prefer- | Christchureh—in Hampshire.’ The story, true or false, oe re like the earlier life of Thomas of London, illustrates the tee q way in which the highest ecclesiastical preferments short bishops. of bishoprics and abbeys were held by these clerical ser- vants of kings and bishops. Clerical they often were only in the widest sense; they were sometimes merely tonsured, and they seldom took priest's orders till they Flambard were themselves promoted to bishoprics.? Randolf Flam- priest. bard however was a priest ;? he could therefore discharge the duties of his deanery in person, if he ever troubled Character himself to go near it. Otherwise there was very little Set ae of the churchman, or indeed of the Christian, about the future Bishop of Durham and builder of Saint Cuthberht’s nave. At all events it was wholly by his personal quali- ties, such as they were, that Randolf Flambard made his way to the highest places in Church and State. In his day the Church supplied the readiest opening for the service of the State, and service to the State was again rewarded by all but the highest honours of the Church. His The man who was practically to rule England had at parents. Jeast little advantage on the score of birth. He is set 1 See Appendix S. * So Liebermann truly remarks (Einleitung in den Dialogus de Scac- carlo, 40). He adds; “ Diese pflegten die Priesterweihe méglichst spit zu empfangen ; desto eifriger erjagten sie fette Pfriinden.”’ * Florence (1100) notices emphatically that the doings of Flambard were done “contra jus ecclesiasticum, et sui gradus ordinem, presbyter enim erat.” So he is marked by Anselm (Epp. iv. 2) as “sacerdos.” EARLY CAREER OF FLAMBARD. 331 before us as the son of a low-born priest in the diocese omar. 1v. of Bayeux and of a mother who bore the character of a witch, and who was reported to have lost an eye through the agency of the powers with which she was too familiar. Handsome in person, ready of wit, free of speech and of hand, unlearned, loose of life, clever and unscrupulous in business of every kind, he made friends and he made enemies; but he rose. The surname which The name cleaves to him in various shapes and spellings is said to Pees have been given to him in the court of the Conqueror by the dispenser Robert, because he pushed himself on at the expense of his betters, like a burning flame.? But his His finan- genius lay most of all in the direction of finance, oe days when finanee meant to transfer, by whatever means, the greatest amount of the subject’s money into the coffers of the King. One story describes him as sent Mention of on such an errand by the Conqueror into the lands of foes his future bishopric, and as smitten for his crime by aha the wonder-working hand of Saint Cuthberht himself.’ His share There is every reason to believe that he had a hand in pe fet drawing up the Great Survey.* But, while William the Great lived, he seems not to have risen to any high place. Towards the end of his reign the Conqueror did begin to give away bishoprics to his own clerks,> but still hardly to such clerks as Randolf Flambard. Nor 1 See Appendix 8. The story about Flambard’s mother, which Sir Francis Palgrave suggests may have come from a ballad, is told by Orderic in another place (787 A); ‘Mater, que sortilega erat et cum demone cerebro locuta, ex cujus nefaria familiaritate unum oculum amiserat.” One thinks of a later dabbler in mischief; “Our minnie’s sair mis-set, after her ordinar, sir—she’ll hae had some quarrel wi’ her auld gudeman—that’s Satan, ye ken, sirs.” William of Malmesbury (Gesta Regum, iv. 314) calls him “ fomes cupiditatum, Ranulfus clericus, ex infimo genere hominum lingua et calliditate provectus ad summum.” In the Gesta Pontificum, 274, he is more guarded, and says only “ex quo ambiguum genere.” ? See Appendix S. 3 See N. C. vol. iv. p. 522. * See Stubbs, Const. Hist. i. 348. 5 See N.C. vol. iv. p. 687. 332 CHAP. IV, His rise under Rufus. THE FRIMACY OF ANSELM. did the Conqueror need a minister, in the sense of needing one who should in some sort fill his place and exercise his powers. The elder William could rule his kingdom himself, or at most with the advice of the special coun- sellor whom ancient custom gave him in the person of Lanfranc. But the younger William, sultan-like in his mood, needed, like other sultans, the help of a vizier. And he found the fittest of all viziers for his purpose in the supple clerk from the Bessin. The reion of Flambard seems to have begun as soon as Lanfranc was gone. He thoroughly suited the Red King’s views. He was ready to gather in wealth for his master from every quarter; he knew how to squeeze the most out of rich and poor; when a tax of a certain amount was decreed, he knew how to make it bring in double its nominal value. He alone thoroughly knew his art; no one else, said the laughing King, cared so little whose hatred he brought on himself, so that he only pleased His allegedhig master. He stands charged in one account of his new Domesday. His official position. deeds with declaring the Great Survey to be drawn up on principles not favourable enough to the royal hoard, and with causing it to be supplanted by a new inqui- sition which made the Red King richer than his father.® This story is very doubtful; but it is thoroughly in character. In any case Flambard rose to the highest measure both of power and of official dignity that was open to him. His office and its duties are described in various ways; in that age official titles and functions 1 Will. Malms. iv. 314. “Is, si quando edictum regium processisset ut nominatum tributum Anglia penderet, duplum adjiciebat.” ? Ib. “Subinde, cachinnantibus quibusdam ac dicentibus, solum esse hominem qui sciret sic agitare ingenium nec aliorum curaret odium dummodo complacaret dominum.” This is one of the passages where William of Malmesbury thought it wise to soften what he first wrote. For “cachinnantibus quibusdam ac dicentibus” some manuscripts read “cachinnante rege ac dicente.” 3 See Appendix U. é FLAMBARD UNDER RUFUS. 333 were less accurately distinguished than they were a little onar. 1. later But there seems no doubt that Flambard, the He holds lawyer whom none could withstand,? held the formal ae office of Justiciar. Till his time that post had not, as a distinct office, reached the full measure of its greatness. It was Flambard himself who raised it to the height of Growth of ene a 2 : . * the offi power and dignity which accompanied it when it was area rh held by Roger of Salisbury and Randolf of Glanville. He was to the post of Justiciar what Thomas of London two generations later was to the post of Chancellor; he was the man who knew how to magnify his office. InHis that office “he drave all the King’s geméts over all Eng- ae land.” The King’s thegns who had come to the local Gemés. assembly on the King’s errand in the days of Aithelred and Cnut® had now grown into a mighty and terrible power. How Flambard drave the geméts we learn else- where. He was fierce alike to the suppliant and to the rebel.© Suppliant and rebel alike were in his eyes useful only as means for further filling the mighty chest at Win- chester. Strangely enough, he himself, clerk and Norman He loses as he was, had found neither birth nor order protect him oo when the Conqueror had needed a part of his land for the Forest creation of the New Forest.’ On the principle that man His zeal : bea - 4 for th is ever most ready to inflict on others the wrongs which King's he has borne himself, Flambard, who himself in some ‘terests. ? See N.C. vol. v. p. 430. 2 Will. Malms. iv. 314. ‘Invictus causidicus, et tam verbis tam rebus immodicus.” One thinks of Lanfranc’s successes in the law-courts of Pavia (see N.C. vol. ii. p. 226); but knowledge of the Imperial law was a matter of professional learning; with the simpler law of England age and ex- perience were enough. 3 See Stubbs, Const. Hist. i. 384, and Appendix T. * Chron. Petrib. 1099. ‘‘ Rannulfe his capellane ... fe eror ealle his gemot ofer eall Engleland draf and bewiste.” 5 See N.C. vol. v. p. 445. § Will, Malms. iv. 314. ‘‘ Juxta in supplices ut in rebelles furens.” "7 See Appendix T. 334 CHAP, IV. His changes and exac- tions sys- tematic. His alleged spoliation of the rich. His dealings with the Aatheling Henry. Witness of the Chronicle. THE PRIMACY OF ANSELM. sort ranked among the disinherited, was of all ministers of the royal will the most eager to draw the heritage of every man, without respect to birth or order, into the hands of the master whom he served too faithfully. But we shall altogether misunderstand both Flambard and his master, if we take either of them for vulgar spoilers, living as it were from hand to mouth, and casually grasping any sources of gain which chanced to be thrown in their way. Whatever Flambard did he did according to rule and system; nay more, he did it according to the severest rules of logic. Amidst the vague declamations which set him before us as the general robber of all men, we light on particular facts and phrases which give us the clue to the real nature of his doings. It is worth notice that, in more than one picture, the rich are enlarged on as the special victims of his extortions; in one the Aitheling Henry himself is spoken of as having suffered deeply at his hands.! We may guess that this has some special reference to the way in which Henry was defrauded of the lands of his mother, a business in which Flambard is likely enough to have had a share.” These references to the wrongs done to the rich have their significance; they point to a cunningly devised system of Flambard’s, by which, the greater a man’s estate was, the more surely was he marked for extortion. The legislation of Flam- bard, if we can call that legislation which seems never to have been set down in any formal statute,? was not at all of the kind which catches the small flies and lets the large ones get through. As we have seen in some other cases,* a seemingly casual expression of our native ' See the extract from Orderic, 786 C, in Appendix T. ? See above, p. 198. * See N.C. vol. v. p. 398. * As in the case of the general redemption of lands (see N. C. vol. iv. p. 25) and the great confiscation and distribution in the midwinter Gemét _ of 1067 (ib. p. 127). THE FEUDAL TENURES. 335 Chronicler is the best record of a matter of no small cuap. rv. constitutional importance. The Red King “would be eo ilk man’s heir, ordered and lewd.”! In those words lay everyman’s the whole root of the matter. The great work of the netn, i 2 _ Flambard’s administration of Flambard, the great work of the reign lasting of Rufus, was to put in order a system of rules by co di which the King might be the heir of every man. Those °#¥e¥* The great temporal position of a bishopric was ac- ceptable to men of this class, and they found in the king’s service the means of making up a purse such as would tempt the king to end the vacancy in their favour®. A bishopric was therefore likely to be filled, unworthily filled doubtless, but still filled, before any very long time had passed. The abbeys, on the other hand, would have small attractions for the king’s ser- vants, who in fact, as secular clerks, could not hold them. And the men for whom such a post would have attractions, the monks of the vacant abbey or the abbots or priors of lesser houses, would not have the same means as the king’s servants of making up a purse. 1 Chron. Petrib. 1100. 2 Take two cases at random with a great interval between them, the vacancy of the see of Lincoln under Henry the Second, and that of Oxford, which one might have thought hardly worth keeping vacant, under Elizabeth. Hugh Curwin (see Godwin, 405) died in 1568, and his successor John Underhill was not appointed till 1589. 3 Orderic (764 A) gives a picture of the kind of men who became bishops under this system ; “Sic utique capellani regis et amici prasulatus Angliz adepti sunt, et nonnulli ex ipsis preposituras ad opprimendos inopes, sibique augendas opes nihilominus tenuerunt. . . . Plerumque leves et indocti eliguntur ad regimen ecclesie tenendum, non pro sanctitate vite vel ecclesiasticorum eruditione dogmatum liberaliumve peritia litterarum, sed nobilium pro gratia parentum et potentum favore amicorum.” 352 CHAP. IV. Case of Peter- borough. 1098. English abbots. Story of the ap- pointment to an unnamed abbey. THE PRIMACY OF ANSELM. The abbeys therefore were likely to remain vacant longer than the bishoprics. When they were filled, it was not without simony, or at least not without a pay- ment of some kind to the King. For it is rather harsh to apply the word simony to the payment by which the monks of Peterborough bought of the King the right to choose an abbot freely—a free congé d’élire in short, without any letter missive! Another thing may be noticed. The bishops appointed at this time all bear Norman names ; Normans were the most likely men to find their way into the King’s chapel and chancery. But the abbots are still not uncommonly English.? Rufus, who welcomed brave mercenaries from any quarter, also welcomed bribes from any quarter, with little of narrow prejudice for or against particular nations. An English monk wasas likely as his Norman fellow to have, by some means quite inconsistent with his rule, scraped together money enough to purchase preferment. And when a body of monks bought the right of free election, they were likely to choose an Englishman rather than a stranger. At all times the kings interfered less with the elections to abbeys than they did with the elections to bishoprics.? And, if there is any truth, even as a legendary illustration, in a tale which is told both of Rufus and of other kings, there were moments when the Red King could prefer a practical joke to a bribe. An abbey—the name is not given—is vacant; two of its monks come to the King, trying to outbid one another in offers of money for the vacant office. A third brother ? See N. C. vol. v. p. 224. 2 Tb, ° See Stubbs, Const. Hist. vol. iii. pp. 318, 319. He gives amongst the reasons for the difference; “‘The abbots were not so influential as the bishops in public affairs, nor was the post equally desirable as the reward for public service; with a very few exceptions the abbacies were much poorer than the bishoprics, and involved a much more steady attention to local duties, which would prevent attendance at court.” APPOINTMENT TO ABBEYS. has come with them, and the King asks what he will give. He answers that he will not give anything; he has simply come to receive the new abbot, whoever he may be, and to take him home with all honour. Rufus at once bestows the abbey on him, as the only one of the party worthy of it. The tale is not impossible; had it been placed in Normandy and not in England, we might have even said that it was not unlikely. For we shall see, as we go on, that, from whatever cause, Rufus dealt with ecclesiastical matters in Normandy in a different spirit from that in which he dealt with them in England. 353 OHAP. IV. At the point which we have reached in our general Sees vacant story, the time of the restoration of Carlisle, two English sees only were vacant. Two had been filled during the year of the Norman campaign, and both of them by pre- in 1092. lates of some personal mark. Ralph Luffa, Bishop of Ralph Chichester, holds a high place in the history of his own Bishop of church, as the founder alike of the existing fabric and Chichester. of the existing constitution of its chapter? He bears altogether so good a character that he is not likely to have come to a bishopric in the way which was usual in the days of Rufus. Did the King give him his staff in some passing better moment, like that in which he gave the staff to the worthy abbot at the nameless monas- tery? But the other episcopal appointment of the same 1 This story has no better authority than that of the Hyde writer (299); still it is, to say the least, remarkable that it should be told of William Rufus. But there is an element of fun in the tale, and the Red King may for once have preferred a joke to a bribe. The description of the three monks at all events is good; “Cum coram rege astarent pariter, et uno plura promittente, alius pluriora promitteret, rex sagaciter cuncta’ per- scrutans, tacentem monachum tertium quid quesivit, ille se nil omnino promittere aut dare respondit, sed ad hoc tantum venisse ut abbatem suum cum honore suscipiendo domum deduceret.” 2 See Stephens, Memorials of Chichester, p. 47. VOL. I. Aa IogI-1123. 354 CHAP. IV. Death of William Bishop of Thetford. 1091. Herbert Losinga, Prior of Fécamp. Abbot of Ramsey. ~ 1087. He buys the see of Thetford. THE PRIMACY OF ANSELM. year was one of the usual kind, as far as the motive of the appointment went, though the person to whom the bishopric was given or sold was not one of the class who in this reign commonly profited by such transactions. Bishop William of Thetford, the successor of the un- learned Herfast,! died in the year of negotiations, the year of the peace with Robert and the peace with Mal- colm. His bishopric was not long kept vacant; before the end of the year the church of Thetford had a new pastor, and one who plays no small part in local history. This was the famous Herbert Losinga,® who, if we may trust such accounts of him as we have, made so bad a beginning and so good an ending. Norman by birth, an immediate countryman of the Conqueror, as sprung from the land of Hiesmes, a man of learning and evident energy, he became a monk of Fécamp and prior of that great house. Early in the reign of Rufus or in the last days of the Conqueror, he was raised to the abbey of Ramsey, when the long and varied life of Aithelsige came to an end. He now, on Bishop William’s death, at once bought for him- self the see of Thetford for one thousand pounds.® Before the end of the year he was consecrated by Archbishop Thomas of York, making his profession to a future Archbishop of Canterbury.’ At the same 1 See N. C. vol. ii. p. 666. ? On the chronology, see Appendix X. $ T have already sketched his career, N. C. vol. iv. p. 420. * So says Bartholomew Cotton, in his History of the Norwich Bishops ; Hist. Angl., ed. Luard, p. 389; ‘‘Hic prius fuit prior Fiscanni, postea abbas Ramesseye, et pater suus Robertus abbas Wintonie. Hic Her- bertus in pago Oxymensi natus, Fiscanni monachus, post ejusdem loci prioratum strenue administratum, translatus in Angliam a rege Willelmo, qui secundus ex Normannis obtinuit imperium, Ramesseye abbatis jure prelatus est.” 5 See N. C. vol. iv. pp. 36, 747. ® See Appendix X. ™ See Appendix X. HERBERT LOSINGA BISHOP OF THETFORD. 355 time he also bought preferment for his father Robert, cmap. iv. who, it must be supposed, had embraced the monastic life. The New Minster of Winchester had now been for Three three years, since the death of its last Abbot Ralph, in a eee the hands of Flambard.!_ Herbert now bought the abbacy of New Minster. for his father.2?. This twofold simony naturally gave great 1088-1091. offence, and formed a fertile subject for the eloquence ne of the time, both in prose and verse.? The reign of the ane father was short; two years later Flambard again held the wardship of New Minster.t The career of the son in his East-Anglian bishopric was longer and more varied, and we shall come across him again in the course of our story. At present it is only needful to say that Herbert Herbert very soon repented of the shameful way by which he era had climbed into the sheepfold, that he went to Rome, Sed that he gave up his ill-gotten bishopric into the hands ee of Pope Urban, and received his staff from him again in c. 1093. what was deemed to be a more regular way.’ Herbert's repentance was to his credit; and, as things stood at the moment, there was perhaps no better way of making amends. But the course which he took was not only one which was sure to bring on him the displeasure of the Red King; it was in the teeth of all the customs of William the Great and of the kings before him. A journey to Rome, without the royal licence, and seem- ingly taken by stealth,® the submission to a Pope whom the King had not acknowledged,’ the surrender to any 1 Ann. Wint. 1088. ‘ Radulfo abbate Wintonie defuncto, commisit rex abbatiam Radulfo Passeflabere capellano suo.” 2 See Appendix X. 3 See Appendix X. * Mon. Angl. ii. 431. 5 See Appendix X. 6 «Latenter,” says the extract from Florence quoted in Appendix X. 7 See N.C. vol. iv. p. 437. So in Eadmer, Vit. Ans. ii. 3. 23. William Rufus says, “Se illum [Urbanum] pro papa non tenere, nec suz consue- Aa 2 856 THE PRIMACY OF ANSELM. crap. 1v. Pope of the staff which he had received from the King of the English, were all of them offences, and the last act Novelty of was distinctly a novelty. Ulf, Ealdred, Thomas, Remigius, ooo had all been deprived of their staves and had received them again ;+ but no English prelate of those times had of his own act made the Pope his judge in such a matter. When the holy Wulfstan was threatened with deposi- tion, he had, even in the legend, given back his staff, not to the Pope who ruled at Rome, but to the King who slept at Westminster.2 No wonder then that the Red King was moved to anger by a slight to his authority which his father could not have overlooked, and which might have stirred the Confessor himself to one of his passing fits of wrath. The return of Herbert from Rome forms part of a striking group of events to which we shall pre- sently come. The two bishoprics of Chichester and Thetford were thus Vacancy of filled soon after they became vacant. In the year after os 4. the consecration of Ralph and Herbert, a third see, as we have seen, fell vacant by the death of Remigius of Lin- coln.* That see was not filled so speedily as Chichester and Thetford had been; still it did not remain vacant so long as some of the abbeys. But a longer vacancy befell, a lasting vacancy seemed designed to befall, the mother bed church of all of them. All this while the metropolitan bury. throne of Canterbury remained empty. No successor to 1089-1¢93. Lanfrane was chosen or nominated; it was the fixed purpose of the Red King to make no nomination himself, to allow no choice on the part of the ecclesiastical electors. Here at least the doctrines of Randolf Flam- tudinis esse, ut absque sua electione alicui liceret in regno suo papam nominare.” 1 See N.C. vol. ii. pp. 118, 464; vol. iv. p. 354. 2 See N.C. vol. iv. pp. 376, 820. 3 See above, p. 312. VACANCY OF THE SEE OF CANTERBURY. 357 bard were to be carried out in their fulness. It is the cuar. rv. state of ecclesiastical matters during this memorable vacancy, and the memorable nomination which at last ended it, which call for our main attention at this stage of our story. § 2. The Vacancy y of the Primacy and the Appointment of Anselm. 1089-1093. It needs some little effort of the imagination fully to Effects take in all that is implied in a four years’ vacancy of the oe of see of Canterbury in the eleventh century. For the the see of King to keep any bishopric vacant in order to fill his bury. coffers with its revenues was a new and an unrighteous thing, against which men cried out as at once new and unrighteous. But to deal in this way with the see of Special Canterbury was something which differed in kind from haguonied the like treatment of any other see. That the bishopric Polit” see of Lincoln was vacant, that the Bishop of Durham was in banishment, was mainly a local grievance. The churches of Lincoln and Durham suffered; they were condemned to what, in the language of the times, was called a state of widowhood. The tenants of those churches suffered all that was implied in being handed over from a milder lord to a harsher one. The dioceses were defrauded of whatever advantages might have flowed from the episcopal superintendence of Robert Bloet or of William of Saint-Calais. But the general affairs of the Church and realm might go on much the same; there was one councillor less in the gemdt or the synod, and that was all. It was another thing when the patriarchal throne was left vacant, when Church and realm were deprived of him who in a certain sense might be called the head of both. An Archbishop of Canterbury was something more than merely the first 358 CHAP. Iv, Its anti- quity and dignity. Place of the Arch- bishop in the assembly. His leader- ship of the nation, THE PRIMACY OF ANSELM. of English bishops. Setting aside his loftier ecclesias- tical claims as the second Pontiff of a second world, he held within the realm of England itself a position which was wholly his own.! He held an office older and more venerable than the crown itself. There were indeed kings in England before there were bishops; but there were Archbishops of Canterbury before there were Kings of the English. The successor of Augustine, the “head of Angle-kin,’? had been the embodiment of united English national life, in days when the land was still torn in pieces by the rivalry of the kings of this or that corner of it. This lofty position survived the union of the kingdoms; it survived the transfer of the united kingdom to a foreign Conqueror. Lanfranc stood by the side of William, as Dunstan had stood by the side of Eadgar. In every gathering of the Church and of the people, in every synod, in every gemét, the Arch- bishop of Canterbury held a place which had no equal or second, a place which was shared by no other bishop or earl or ztheling. If we reckon the King as the head of the assembly, the Archbishop is its first member. If we reckon the King as a power outside the assembly, the Archbishop is himself its head. He is the personal counsellor of the King, the personal leader of the nation, in a way in which no other man in the realm could be said to be. As of old, under the Empire of Rome, each town had its defensor civitatis, so now, under the king- ship of England, the successor of Augustine might be said to hold the place of defensor regni. The position which 1 See N.C. vol. v. pp. 661, 662. 2 In the poem on the captivity of Ailfheah in the Chronicles, ror1, he is “Se pe er wes heafod Angeleynnes And Cristendomes.” * Cf Stubbs, Const, Hist. i. 211 et seqq. with 245. SPECIAL POSITION OF THE ARCHBISHOP, 359 Lanfranc had held, and in which during these dreary cuap. rv. years he had no successor, was a position wholly unlike that of the class of bishops to which we are now getting accustomed, royal officials-who received bishoprics as the payment of their temporal services. It was equally unlike that of the statesman-bishops of later times, who might or might not forget the bishop in the statesman, but whose two characters, ecclesiastical and temporal, were quite distinct and in no way implied one another. An archbishop of those times was a statesman by virtue of his spiritual office; he was the moral guardian and moral mouth-piece of the nation. The ideal archbishop was at once saint, scholar, and statesman; of the long series from Augustine to Lanfranc, some had really united all those characters; none perhaps had been al- together lacking in all three. Hence the special care Appoint- with which men were chosen for so great a place both oe before and for some time after the time with which bishopric. we are dealing. The king’s clerks, his chancellor, his treasurer, even his larderer,) might beg or buy some bishopric of less account; but, seventy years after this time, the world was amazed when King Henry be- thought him of placing Chancellor Thomas, not in the Thomas of seat of Randolf of Durham or Roger of Salisbury, but inn. oe the seat of Ailfheah, Anselm, and Theobald.? The sur- The King’s prise which was then called forth by what was looked ee si on as a new-fangled and wrongful nomination to the Sm archbishopric of Canterbury may help us to judge of the surprise and horror and despair which came over the minds of men, as it became plain that the wish, perhaps 1 So we read of Henry the First in Florence, 1102; ‘‘Duos de clericis duobus episcopatibus investivit, Rogerium videlicet cancellarium episcopatu Saresbyriensi, et Rogerium larderarium suum pontificatu Herefordensi.” 2 See N. C. vol. v. p. 662, and Contemporary Review, 1878, pp. 493, 496. 360 CHAP. IV. The King’s motives. THE PRIMACY OF ANSELM. the fixed purpose, of the Red King was to get rid of archbishops of Canterbury altogether. The motives of the King are plain. He sought some- thing more than merely to get possession of the rich revenues of the archbishopric, though that was doubtless not a small matter in the policy of either Rufus or Flam- The estatesbard. The estates of the see of Canterbury furnished a of the see, Further motives, very perceptible addition to the royal income, and they gave the King a convenient means of rewarding some of his favourites, to whom he granted archiepiscopal lands on military tenure.’ Lanfranc himself had already done something like this;? but the usual tendency of lands so granted to pass away from the Church would be greatly strengthened when it was not the Archbishop, but the King, at whose hands they had been received, and to whom the first homage had been paid. But all this was doubtless very secondary. In the case of other sees it was a mere reckoning of profit; Rufus had no objection to fill them at once, if any one would make it worth his while to do so. But it is plain that he had a fixed determination to keep the archbishopric vacant, if possible, for ever, at all events as long as the patience of his kingdom would endure such a state of things. To Rufus, whether as man or as king, the appointment of an archbishop was the thing of all others which was least to be wished. To fill the see of Canterbury would be at once to set up a disagreeable monitor by his side, and to put some check on the reign of unright and unlaw, public and private. William doubtless remem- bered how, as long as Lanfranc lived, he had had to play an unwilling part, and to put a bridle on his worst and most cherished instincts. An archbishop of his own naming could not indeed have the personal authority of his ancient guardian; but any archbishop would have ? See below, p. 418. ? See N.C. vol. iv. p. 372. MOTIVES OF THE KING. 361 a charge to speak in the name of the Church and the ouar. tv. nation in a way which could hardly be pleasing in his ears. The metropolitan see therefore remained unfilled till the day when William Rufus became for a short season another man. ; It is worth remarking that what might have seemed a No fear of very obvious way out of the difficulty clearly did not come into the head of the King or of any one else. The long vacancy of the archbishopric made men uneasy; they were grieved and amazed as to what might happen in so unusual a case; but they felt sure that the present distress must end some time, and they seem to have taken for granted that, when it did end, it would end by the appointment of some one worthy of the place. Men were troubled at the King’s failure to appoint any arch- bishop; they do not seem to have been at all troubled by fear that he might appoint a bad archbishop.1 Rufus himself seems never to have thought of granting or selling the metropolitan see to any of his own creatures, ‘to Flambard for instance or to Robert Bloet. He might so deal with Lincoln or Durham; something within or without him kept him from so dealing with Canter- bury. It is throughout taken for granted that the choice lay between a good archbishop or none at all. EKadmer, Hist. Nov. 21. Walkelin reads the writing till he comes to the words which set forth how “hac Dorobernensis ecclesia totius Britan- nize metropolitana suo sit viduata pastore.” Then Thomas “subintulit, dicens totius Britannia metropolitana? Si totius Britannie metropolitana, ecclesia Eboracensis que metropolitana esse scitur, metropolitana non est. Et quidem ecclesiam Cantuariensem primatem totius Britannize esse scimus, non metropolitanam.” 432 THE PRIMACY OF ANSELM. cuar. iv. the rights of Canterbury admits that the objection of His ob- jection admitted. Anselm’s consecra- tion. Thomas was a good one.' The wording of the document was at once changed ;? the rite went on, and Anselm was consecrated as Archbishop of Canterbury and Primate of all Britain. If the more northern suffragans of York had any objections to make, they were just then less likely than ever to be at Canterbury to make them. The position of the newly-consecrated Primate within his own island was thus settled to the satisfaction of the man who thought that he had a special interest in the Question of matter. It was perhaps more difficult to settle his rela- acknow- ledging the tion to the ecclesiastical powers beyond his own island. Pope. Anselm had warned the King that, if he became arch- bishop, he must yield obedience to Urban. But, as the King had not acknowledged Urban, it would have been deemed unlawful to speak of Urban as Pope in any public act. The difficulty seems to have been got over by Anselm making a profession of obedience to the 1 Eadmer, Hist. Nov. 21. “Quod auditum ratione submixum esse, quod dicebat intellectum est.” ? Ib. “Tune statim scriptura ipsa mutata est, et pro totius Britannie metropolitana, totius Britannie primas scriptum est, et omnis controversia conquievit. Itaque sacravit eum ut totius Britannie primatem.” The Yorkist version, as given by T. Stubbs (X Scriptt. 1707), is of course quite different. Thomas is there attended by several members of his church, Hugh the Dean and others. This might almost imply the absence of his one suffragan. The words objected to are in this version “ Primas totius Britannie.” As soon as they are heard, Thomas and his companions go out and take off their robes. Anselm and Walkelin follow them ; they fall at the feet of Thomas, and ask for his forgiveness (‘‘ pedibus archiepiscopi affusi humiliter deprecati sunt, ne moleste acciperet”’). Thomas stands firm. “Cum duo tantum, inquit, sint metropolite in Britannia, alter super alte- rum esse non potest.” He might have erred in his youth by admitting the claims of Canterbury ; he would at least not err in the like sort again. He would consecrate no man as primate. Anselm and Walkelin submit; the word “ primate” is struck out, and Anselm is consecrated as ‘‘ metropolitan.” It will be seen that in this version the place of the two titles, ‘‘ primate” and ‘‘ metropolitan,” is simply turned round. We can have no doubt as to preferring the contemporary account; but it is well to see how matters looked at York several centuries later, CLAIMS OF THOMAS ON LINCOLN. 433 Roman Church, without mentioning the name of any omar. 1. particular pontiff! Thus passed the day of the consecra- tion; but, on the morrow, Thomas of York, successful Thomas thus far, found yet another point to assert on behalf Sse of the alleged rights of his church. He had, it will beyir remembered, striven to hinder Remigius from trans- ferring the see of Dorchester to a spot which he deemed to be in his own province and diocese.? Since that time, notwithstanding his remonstrances, the minster of Lin- coln had arisen; but it remained unconsecrated, and its builder was dead. To the mind of Thomas these facts perhaps seemed to be signs as clear in their meaning as any which the Bishop of Hereford would find out from the lore of the stars.’ Thus emboldened, on the day after he had consecrated Anselm to the see of Canterbury, Thomas warned the new Primate against proceeding, as he had purposed, to consecrate Robert Bloet to the see of Lincoln. He might consecrate him, if he would, to the ancient see _ of Dorchester; but not to Lincoln or to any other place in that land of Lindesey which belonged to the jurisdiction of York.* Anselm seems to have yielded; at least the Robert Bloet’s con- matter remained unsettled, and the elect of Lincoln re- secration mained unconsecrated for two months longer. delayed. Anselm now, after so many difficulties, was at last fully Archbishop. He remained in his metropolis for 1 There is no mention of this in Eadmer’s account of the consecration ; but such seems to be the meaning of Anselm himself in a letter to Walter, Bishop of Albano, which I shall have to quote again (Epp. iii. 36). He there says, ‘‘Sub professione obedientie Romani pontificis me consecra- runt.” This is an answer to a charge of being schismatically consecrated while the kingdom was not under the obedience of Urban. 2 See above, p. 311. 5 See above, p. 312. 4 T. Stubbs, X Scriptt. 1707. ‘Non prohibebat quin eum Dorkaces- trensem ordinaret episcopum, sicut et antecessores sui fuerant; verum Lyndecoldinum oppidum, et magnam partem provincie Lyndisie dicebat fuisse, et jure esse debere, parochiam Eboracensis ecclesie, et injuria illi ereptam esse.” VOL. I. rf 434 THE PRIMACY OF ANSELM. cap. 1v. eight days only after his consecration. He then set forth oe for the Christmas Assembly of the realm, to be held at Gloucester. Gloucester. The prayer which he had drawn up at the eee assembly held there twelve months before had indeed been answered. The King’s heart had been stirred; the Archbishop had been appointed. Unhappily also the King’s heart had been stirred back again. William was again the king who had mockingly bidden his bishops to pray as they thought good, not the king who had passionately called on Anselm to step in between him and eternal death. The breach between King and Pri- mate had begun before Anselm was fully Primate, when Flambard had insolently summoned him in his own church on the day of his enthronement. Whatever the matter of the summons was, Anselm was now ready in the King’s court to answer it. But of that dispute we hear Anselmre- no more. The Archbishop came to Gloucester, and was the King courteously and cheerfully received, not only by the assembled nobles, but by the King himself? But the Witan were not to depart from the place of meeting till new grounds of quarrel had arisen between the two unequal yokefellows who were at last fully coupled together. § 3. The Assembly at Hastings and the Second Norman Campaign. 1094. Eventsof THE events of the year on which we have now en- i. “tered consist partly of warlike movements in Normandy and Scotland, partly of matters directly touching eccle- siastical questions, above all touching Anselm. Of these, ? Eadmer does not mention the place; but it appears from the Chronicle that it was at the usual place, namely Gloucester. ? EKadmer, Hist. Nov. 21. ‘“ Consummato ordinationis suze die octavo, Cantuariam egrediens, ad curiam regis pro imminente nativitate Domini vadit. Quo perveniens, hilariter a rege totaque regni nobilitate suscipitur.” ROBERT'S CHALLENGE OF WILLIAM. 435 the affairs of Scotland and the affairs of Anselm have cuar. iv. hardly any bearing on one another. But the affairs of Affairs of Normandy and the affairs of Anselm have a close con- Raia ‘ nexion. They were discussed in the same assemblies; and ar one ground of quarrel between King and Primate arose Anselm. directly out of the discussion of Norman affairs. Some of the details of the two stories are so mixed up with one another that it would be hard to keep them apart. Again, the Scottish warfare of this year is part of a con- tinuous series of Scottish events spread over several years. But the Norman warfare is a kind of episode. It is connected by the laws of cause and effect with things which went before and with things which came after; but, as a story, it stands by itself or is mixed up with the story of Anselm. It cannot be dealt with, like the King’s first Norman war, as a distinct chapter of our history. It will therefore be better, during the year which follows the consecration of Anselm, to keep Scot- tish affairs apart from the history of the ecclesiastical dispute, but to treat the Norman campaign as something filling up part of the time between two great stages in Anselm's history. The chief business of the assembly which now met at Robert's Gloucester was the reception of a hostile message from Sk the Duke of the Normans. This fact makes us wish to 1093-1994 know more in detail what Count William of Eu had suggested, and what King William of England had done. It is certain that King William needed no pressing to make him inclined for another attempt on his brother's dominions; but it is clear that the coming of Count William had led to some special action which had given Duke Robert special ground of complaint. The Norman embassy came, and challenged one brother in the name of the other, almost as an earlier Norman embassy had challenged Harold in the name of the father of both of Ff a 436 THE PRIMACY OF ANSELM. cuar.tv them.! The diplomacy of those days was clear and out- Formofthe spoken. The bodes of Duke Robert seem to have spoken message. War decreed. to King William in the midst of his Witan, much as the bodes of the Athenian commonwealth spoke, with a greater amount of personal deference, to King Philip on his throne. They told the King of the English that their master renounced all peace and treaty with him, unless he would do all that was set down in the treaty; they declared him forsworn and truthless, unless he would hold to the treaty, or would go and clear himself at the place where the treaty had been made and sworn to. Such a message as this was hardly wise in Robert, whatever it might have been in a prince who had the resources of his dominions more thoroughly at his com- mand. It was in some sort an appeal to arbitration ; but it was put in a shape which was sure to bring on war. William had no doubt made up his mind for a Norman enterprise in any case; the message of Robert would really help him by turning a certain amount of public feeling to his side. An expedition was decreed; Normandy was to be a second time invaded by the Red King. And now came the question how ways and means were to be found for the new war. That some of the ways‘and means which were employed were unworthy of all kingly dignity * is not wonderful in this reign. But the only one of which we distinctly hear seems in itself less un- 1 See N. C. vol. iii. pp. 69, 260. ? Again it is from the Chronicler that we get the most formal statement of the words of the challenge. They would doubtless be uttered in French ; but we may believe that we have an authorized English version ; “ Him pider fram his broder Rodbearde of Normandig bodan coman, pacyddon pet his broSer grid and forewarde eall eftercwxS, butan se cyng gelestan wolde eall pet hi on forewarde hzefdon zr gewroht, and uppon pet hine forsworenne, and trywleasne clypode, buton he pa forewarda geheolde, od%e pider ferde, and hine peer betealde per seo forewarde &r wes gewroht and eac gesworen.” * Eadmer, Hist. Nov. 21, “Adeo ut nonnullas etiam difficultates pate- retur, quas regiam pati excellentiam indecens videbatur.” CONTRIBUTIONS FOR WAR. 437 worthy than some others, though the particular form which cua. 1. it took is eminently characteristic of Rufus. The great Contribu- ti ]- men who had come together to the assembly made presents jected for to the King, forerunners of the benevolences of later times. ‘be ¥#"- The great men of Normandy had, twenty-eight years be- fore, made contributions of ships for the invasion of Eng- land.! Now the great men of England, some of them the same persons, made contributions of money for the in- vasion of Normandy. This was at least less unworthy of the kingly dignity than some of the tricks by which Flam- bard wrung money out of more helpless victims. But the Red King’s way of dealing with such gifts shows the mixture of greed and pride which stands out in all his doings. Ifthe sum offered was less than he thought it ought to be, he cast it aside with scorn; nor would he ever again admit the offerer to his friendship, unless he made amends by a second offer of such a sum as the King might think becoming.? To this custom Anselm Anselmun- ‘ : -, willing t now conformed, with the other nobles and prelates ; but it smimbute. was with some pains that his friends persuaded him to conform to it.? With his usual fear of being misconstrued, he dreaded that if, so soon after his consecration, he gave the King any sum which the King would think worth taking, it might have the air of a simoniacal bargain.* He might also hold that the goods of the Church ought not to be applied to worldly, least of all to warlike, 1 See N. C. vol. iii. p. 300. 2 Eadmer, u.s. ‘“Siquidem hunc ipse rex morem erga cunctos quibus dominatur habebat, ut quum quis eorum aliquid ei pecuniarum, etiam solius gratize obtentu, offerebat, oblatum, nisi quantitas rei voto illius con- curreret, sperneret. Nec offerentem in suam ulterius amicitiam admittebat, si ad determinationem suam oblatum munus non augeret.” 3 He does it only “suasus ab amicis suis.” * Anselm himself gives this motive in his letter to Archbishop Hugh (Ep. ili. 24); ‘‘Gratias Deo, quo miserante simplicitatem cordis mei hoc factum est, ne, si nihil aut parum promisissem, justam videretur habere causam irascendi; aut si accepisset, verteretur mihi in gravamen, et in suspicionem nefandz emptionis,” 438 CHAP. IV. He gives five hundred pounds, William persuaded to refuse the money. THE PRIMACY OF ANSELM. uses; he might even feel some scruple in helping towards a war against a prince who had so lately been his own worldly lord. But he was won over by the argument that a gift in season might win the King’s favour for ever, and that he might be allowed to give his mind with less disturbance to the spiritual duties of his office! He brought himself therefore to offer the King five hundred pounds of silver. William was satisfied with the amount, and received the gift with courteous thanks.” What followed showed that William Rufus had coun- sellors about him who were worse than himself, or who at any rate were not ashamed to play upon the worst parts of his character to obtain their own ends. In this case they are nameless. Are we to fill up the blank with the names of the Bishop of Durham and the Count of Meulan? Or is it safer to lay any evil deed the doer of which is not recorded on the broad back of Randolf Flambard? At any rate, some malignant per- sons, whoever they were, came about the King, and per- suaded him that the gift of the Archbishop was a contemptible sum which he ought to reject. One whom he had exalted and enriched above the other great men of England ought, in such need as that in which the King found himself, to have given him two thousand pounds, or one thousand at the very least. To offer so little as five hundred was mere mockery. Let the King wait a little, let him change his face towards the Archbishop, and Anselm would presently come, delighted to win back the King’s favour with the gift of five hundred pounds more.* 1 EKadmer (Hist. Nov. 21) gives these motives at length. 2 Tb. Rex tali oblatione audita, bene rem quidem laudando re- spondit.” 3 These are the arguments which Eadmer puts into the mouths of the King’s advisers; “Quidam maligne mentis homines regem, ut fieri solet, ad hoc perduxerunt quatenus oblatam pecuniam spernendo recipere non adquiesceret.” THE KING REFUSES ANSELM’S GIFT. 439 Thus the Primate’s enemies, whoever they were, sought cnap. rv. to frighten him, and to get more money out of him for the King’s use. But their schemes were disappointed.! Anselm was presently surprised by a message to say that the King refused his gift—the gift which he had already cheerfully accepted.2 He then sought an au- Anselm dience, and asked the King whether such a message Pitas to was really of his sending. Some tyrants might have La seen in this question an escape from a difficulty. It would have been easy for Rufus to have denied his own act; but his pride was up, and direct lying was never in his vein. He avowed his message. Then Anselm prayed him not to refuse his gift; it was the first that he had offered ; it should not be the last. It would be better for the King to receive a smaller sum from him as a friend, than to wring a larger sum from him as a slave.’ Of the alternative of increasing the amount of the gift he said not a word. One motive was that he could not raise a greater sum without doing wrong to his tenants—the wrong which he had declared Ailfheah to be a true martyr for refusing to do.* The King was Rufus _ now in the mood for short and wrathful speeches. eee “Keep your money and your jaw to yourself; I have enough of my own. Get you gone.”® Anselm obeyed, remembering that at his enthronement the Gospel had been read which said that no man could serve two masters. He rejoiced that no one now could deem that he had been guilty of any corrupt bargain with 1 Kadmer here quotes a psalm; “Mentita est iniquitas sibi.” Ps. xxvii. 12. 2 Tb. “Mandatur illi regem oblatam pecuniam refutare, et miratus est.” 3 Tb. 22. “Amica nempe libertate me et omnia mea ad utilitatem tuam habere poteris, servili autem conditione nec me nec mea habebis.” 4 See N.C. vol. iv. p. 441. 5 Fadmer, u.s. “TIratus rex, Sint, inquit, cum jurgio tua tibi, sufficient mea mihi, Vade.” 440 CHAP, IV. Dispute with the Bishop of London, THE PRIMACY OF ANSELM. the King. Yet he tried once more through messengers to persuade the King to take his gift, but, as he steadily refused to double it, it was still thrust aside with secrn. The assembly broke up; the Archbishop, still in the King’s disfavour, went away, and the money which the King had despised was given to the poor. This business over, Anselm had now a few weeks, but a few weeks only, to give to his immediate pastoral work. Even those weeks were disturbed by a dispute with one of his suffragans. The point at issue was the right of the Archbishop to consecrate churches and do other episcopal acts in such of his manors as were locally in other dioceses. This right was denied by Bishop Maurice of London, who sent two of his canons to forbid the Archbishop to conse- erate the newly built church of Harrow.!| The matter was settled by an appeal to one who knew the ancient laws of England better than either Maurice or Anselm. Judgement Wulfstan of Worcester, now “one and alone of the ancient of Wulf- stan, fathers of the English,” wrote back his judgement in favour of the Primate’s right. The question was thus 1 The story is told by Eadmer, 22. The objection of Maurice takes this shape; ‘‘ Dicebat ipsam ecclesiam in sua parochia esse, et ob hoe, licet in terra archiepiscopi fuerit, dedicationem illius ad se pertinere.” The right of the Archbishop seems to have rested on good ancient precedent ; but there is something odd in EKadmer’s way of stating the controversy. The pre- sumption was surely in favour of the diocesan bishop. ? The letter of Anselm to Wulfstan appears among the Epistles (iii. 19). Wulfstan’s answer is given in the text of the Historia Novorum. Anselm speaks of the action of the earlier archbishops in this matter; “Quod etiam sanctus Dunstanus et alii praedecessores mei fecisse probantur, ipsis ecclesiis quas dedicaverunt adhuce stantibus.” This isa little touch from a time when the churches of Dunstan’s day were being largely rebuilt, that of Harrow most likely among them, Wulfstan is well described by Eadmer ; ‘‘ Super- erat adhuc beatz memorize Wolstanus episcopus unus et solus de antiquis Anglorum patribus, vir in omni religione conspicuus, et antiquarum Angliz consuetudinum scientia apprime eruditus.” There is something very re- markable in the way in which Wulfstan speaks of the archbishop to whom he made his first profession (see N. C. vol. ii. pp. 473, 655); “Extant THE ASSEMBLY AT HASTINGS, 441 decided; Maurice did not dare to set up his judgement cuar. tv. on such a matter against that of the venerable saint, the relic of a state of things which had passed away. Those of the great men of England who had come to the Gemét at Gloucester from the more distant parts of the kingdom could hardly have reached their homes when they were again summoned to give the King the benefit of their counsels, William Rufus was so strong upon his throne that in his days assemblies were sure to be frequent. He was moreover planning a campaign beyond the sea, so that it was very doubtful whether he would be able this year to wear his crown in England at the usual times of Easter and Pentecost. The Easter Assembly Gemot was therefore in some sort forestalled. As the orga starting-point for his second invasion of Normandy the at a King had chosen the spot which had been his father's head-quarters in the great invasion of England. At Pevensey he had once beaten back the invasion of his Norman brother; at Hastings he now gathered the force which was for the second time to avenge that wrong. The quippe et in nostra diccesi altaria, et quedam etiam ecclesiz in hiis scilicet villis quas Stigandus vestre excellentie predecessor, haut tamen jure eccle- siasticee hereditatis sed ex dono possederat secularis potestatis, ab ipso de- dicata.” Wulfstan, speaking his own words in his own letter, speaks of Stigand in quite another tone from that which he had used in the profession which was put into his mouth by Lanfranc (see N.C. vol. ii. p. 655). The places referred to are in Gloucestershire, and will be found in Domesday, 164 b. Most of the lands had passed to the Archbishop of York; some of them first to William Fitz-Osbern, and then to the King. It would seem then that, in whatever character Stigand held them, it was not as Arch- bishop of Canterbury. Wulfstan’s witness therefore goes so far as to give the archbishop the right to oust the diocesan bishop, not only on the lands of the archbishopric, but on any lands which he may hold as a private man. 1 There is something amusing in the tone of glee in which Eadmer records his patron’s triumph; “Secure deinceps suorum morem antecessorum emu- labatur, non solum ecclesias, inconsultis episcopis, sacrans, sed et queeque divina officia in cunctis terris suis per se suosve dispensans,” 442 THE PRIMACY OF ANSELM. car. iv. chief men of England were again brought together. We The fleet delayed by the wind. may perhaps see in this assembly a case of the military Gemét. Anselm and several other bishops were there; but it is said that their presence was required to give their blessing to the King and his army before they crossed the sea But that final blessing could not be given till many weeks after the army or assembly first came together. When the younger William sought to invade Normandy, he was kept lingering at Hastings, as the elder William had been kept lingering at Saint Valery when he sought to invade England. For six weeks the north wind refused to blow. While thus kept back from warfare, the King seems to have amused himself with ecclesiastical business and ecclesiastical ceremonies, and he further brought on himself the sharpest of ecclesiastical rebukes.” But one of the ceremonies which filled up the time of enforced leisure must have been something more than a matter of amusement to William the Red. Whatever traces of good feeling lingered in his heart gathered round the memory of his parents. And he was now called on to join in a rite which was the crowning homage to his father’s name, the most speaking me- morial of his father’s victory and his father’s bounty. Again was a William encamped at Hastings called on to make his way to the hill of Senlac. But this time he could make his way thither in peaceful guise. The 1 Eadmer, 22. ‘Ex precepto regis, omnes fere episcopi una cum prin- cipibus Angliz ad Hastinges convenerunt, ipsum regem in Normanniam transfretaturum sua benedictione et concursu prosecuti.” ? The Chronicler seems distinctly to mark the ecclesiastical business which we have now come to as casually filling up the time lost by the bad weather. The whole entry runs; “Da ferde se cyng to Hestingan to bam Candelmessan, and onmang bam pe he per wederes abad he let halgian pet mynster et pere Bataille. And Herbearde Losange pam bishop of Theotfordan his stef bename and perefter to midlengtene ofer se for into Normandige.” We shall take these things in order, BATTLE ABBEY. 443 place was no longer a wilderness or a camp, no longer cnar. iv. the hill of the hoar apple-tree, no longer bristling with ae ioe as the thickset lines of battle, no longer heaped with the corpses of the conquerors and the conquered. The height which had once been fenced in by the palisade of the English host was now fenced in by the precinct wall of a vast monastery; its buildings, overhanging the hill side, covered the spot where Gyrth had fallen by the hand of William ;! its church, fresh from the hands of the crafts- man, covered the ground which had beheld the last act of the day of slaughter; its high altar, blazing doubtless with all the skill of Otto and Theodoric,2 marked the spot where Harold, struck by the bolt from heaven, had fallen between the Dragon and the Standard. After so Completion many years had passed since the Conqueror had bidden hua that the memorial of the Conquest should rise on that spot and on no other, the minster of Saint Martin of the Place of Battle stood ready for consecration. Moved by the prayer of Abbot Gausbert, prompted too by his own reverence for the memory and the bidding of his father, William the younger bade that his father’s church should at once be hallowed in his own presence. On a Saturday consecra- then in the month of February, in the twenty-eighth year fiom of since the awful Saturday of Saint Calixtus, the two who February were so unequally yoked together to draw the plough of ay the Church of England made their way to the place of Battle. A crowd of nobles and commons came together to the sight; and with them, besides the Primate, were seven 1 See N.C. vol. iv. p. 404. 2 Tb. gor. 3 In the Battle Chronicle (40) the consecration is naturally an event of great importance. But here too the presence of the King and so great a company is accounted for by their presence in the neighbourhood on other grounds ; “‘ Cumque jam operis fabric peroptata advenisset perfectio, rege quibusdam causis obortis eandem provinciam cum multis optimatibus forte adeunte, ex instinctu ejusdem abbatis, paterni memor edicti, eandem dedicari basilicam decrevit.” 444 THE PRIMACY OF ANSELM. cuar. tv. bishops of three different provinces. There was Ralph of Bishops Chichester, bishop of the diocese, whose jurisdiction Ralph of within the favoured abbey was so zealously denied by ae every monk of Battle.’ There were Walkelin of Win- chester, Osmund of Salisbury, John of Bath, and Gun- dulf of Rochester. There was the Primate’s great northern enemy, William of Durham. And there too was a suffragan of Rouen, the immediate successor of one of the fierce prelates who had blessed the Con- queror’s host on the morning of the great battle.? Death of Geoffrey of Mowbray, Bishop and once Earl, had died Buhao ot a year before, and the episcopal chair of Coutances ae was now filled by his successor Ralph. How, it may be ary 3, 1093. asked, came a Norman bishop in the court, almost in the army, of a king who was about to invade Nor- mandy? The answer is easy. The Codtentin was now again in the hands of Henry,‘ and the presence of its bishop at the court of William was a sign of the good understanding which now reigned between the William two younger sons of the Conqueror. But on such a day ee oT as this all interest gathers round the two main figures Battle. in the assembly, the two of highest rank in their several orders. William the Red, strange assistant in any reli- gious rite, seems less out of place than usual as assistant in the rite which was to dedicate the work of his father. And if prayers and offerings were to go up on that spot for those who had fallen there on the defeated as well as on the victorious side, there was no mouth in which we should more gladly put them than in the mouth of him who was the chief celebrant on that day. Anselm, standing at the head of his foreign suffragans— ' See N. C. vol. iv. p. 405. 2 See N.C. vol. iii. p. 453. 5 He was consecrated the year before; the date of his death seems not to be known. See Bessin, 531. * See above, p. 321, CONSECRATION OF THE CHURCH OF BATTLE, 44 5 English Wulfstan stood not by him—before the altar of cuar. rv. Saint Martin of the Place of Battle, seemed like a repre- sentative of universal Christendom, of universal peace and love. The holy man from Aosta sang his mass in honour of the holy man of Tours. And he sang it on the spot where Harold of England had stood by his standard in the morning, where William of Normandy had held the feast of victory in the evening, the morning and evening of the most memorable day in the history of our island since England became one kingdom. From the hill of Battle William went back to the hill The King at Hast- ings. of Hastings, now crowned by the castle into which the hasty fortress of his father had grown.1 Six years William of earlier the Bishop of Durham, charged with treason, had in answer, pleaded that he had kept Hastings and its castle in the King’s obedience? Notwithstanding that answer, he had been banished; he had been re- called, and he now stood, with all his former authority, chief counsellor of the King, chief enemy of the Arch- Saint- Calais. bishop. On the morrow of the dedication of Saint Consecra- Martin’s, William of Saint-Calais joined with Anselm in the long-delayed consecration of the elect of Lincoln. tion of Robert Bloet to Lincoln. The rite was done in the church of Our Lady within the February castle of Hastings, by the hands of the same prelates who had the day before dedicated the church of Battle. It was to the see of Lincoln, not to the see of Dorchester, that Robert Bloet was consecrated. Thomas of Bayeux was not there to repeat his protest. He would have been there in vain. The bishop-elect had, in the course of his chancellorship, got together the means of settling such questions. His bishopric, granted at the time of the King’s repentance, had cost him nothing. It was now a matter of regret with Rufus that it had 1 See N.C. vol. iii. p. 411. ? See above, p. 29. 12, 1094. 446 THE PRIMACY OF ANSELM. cuar. rv. cost him nothing; Robert had therefore to pay all the more for the establishment of the rights of his see. Robert's One who had the means of knowing says that he gave ene ee the King the great sum of five thousand pounds to decide the cause in favour of Lincoln.! This was done, the York writer complains, without the consent of the Archbishop of York and without the knowledge of his chapter.2 The case must have been settled either at Gloucester or now at Hastings. It was most likely at Hastings, as we can hardly fancy Thomas keeping away from the great Christmas gathering. Our Canterbury guide tells us a not very intelligible story which may show us how the claim of Thomas was spoken of in the southern metropolis. The cause of York had found at least professing friends among the great men at Hastings, though it met with no Plot favour from the King himself. Not knowing perhaps against with what weighty arguments the elect of Lincoln had proved his case, certain unnamed bishops and lords deemed that they would please the King by any- thing which could annoy or discredit Anselm. They therefore insidiously tried to persuade the Archbishop to consecrate Robert without his making due profession to the church of Canterbury. Anselm stood firm. The King, when he heard of the plot, took to his mag- nanimous vein. His personal quarrel with Anselm should 1 See Appendix Z. 2 So says T. Stubbs, X Scriptt. 1708. “Rex Willelmus quamdam con- cordiam, vel potius dispensationem, fecit inter illos, Thoma quidem archi- episcopo invito et renitente et coacto nec consentiente, sed inconsulto Eboracensi capitulo.” 5 Hadmer, 23. ‘‘Quidam de episcopis atque principibus conati sunt contra Anselmum scandalum movere, intendentes ad hoc ut eundem episcopum absolute absque debita professione consecraret. Quod nullo jure fulti, ea solummodo re sunt aggressi, quia putabant se animo regis aliquid ex conturbatione Anselmi, unde letaretur inferre, scientes eum pro suprascripta caussa adversum ipsum non parum esse turbatum.” ROBERT BLOET BISHOP OF LINCOLN, 447 never lead him to do anything against the dignity omar. iv. of the Church of Canterbury his mother! The King and Flambard perhaps enjoyed the joke together. But Robert Bloet made the needful profession, and was conse- crated as Bishop of Lincoln by Anselm and the assembled prelates. The controversy with York was at last formally Compro- settled, by a compromise which was announced in avis," royal charter. By this the Archbishop of York accepted the patronage of the new abbey of Selby in his own diocese, and that of the church of Saint Oswald at Wor- cester—the city and diocese so long connected with York—in exchange for his claims over Lindesey.? The isle and city of Lindum has ever since remained an undisputed member of the southern province. The new Bishop of Lincoln, the first prelate conse- Character crated to that see, has left a doubtful character behind 3,.0?** him. He held his bishopric for thirty years, living on far into the reign of Henry, and keeping the royal favour till just before his death. Chancellor under both Wil- His offices. liams, he, as usual, resigned that post on his consecra- tion; but under Henry he ruled with great power in the higher office of Justiciar.2 Bountiful in his gifts to his see and to his church, the number of whose prebends he doubled, splendid and liberal in his manner of life, boun- tiful to the poor, winning the hearts of all around him, not himself a scholar, but a promoter of scholars, skilful in worldly business of every kind, he does not show us the best, but neither does he show us the worst type of the prelates of his day. He was charged with looseness of life; but his chief accuser found it wise to strike out 1 Eadmer, 23. ‘“‘ Asseruit se nullo pacto consensurum ut, pro inimicitia quam contra archiepiscopum habebat, matri sue ecclesie Cantuariensi de sua dignitate quid quivis detraherat.” ? See Appendix Z. 5 On the history and character of Robert Bloet, see Appendix Z. 448 THE PRIMACY OF ANSELM. cuap. iv. the charge, and his son Simon, Dean of his own church, was born while he was Chancellor to the Conqueror, His death. quite possibly in lawful wedlock. His last days form ee a striking incident in the next reign; here he chiefly concerns us as being in some sort, however strangely, bracketted with Anselm, as the other bishop whom the Red King named during his short time of repentance." Local Anyhow it was hard on him to tell in after days how his ek ghost hindered anybody from praying or giving alms near his tomb in the minster, and that only because he re- moved the monks of Stow to Eynsham, because he sub- jected his see to the gift of a precious mantle to the King, or because he agreed to the wise measure which lessened the extent of his vast diocese. ae Another bishop appeared at this gathering, whose coming Thetford, Was, for the time, less lucky for himself than that of Robert Bloet. Herbert of Thetford, struck with penitence for his simoniacal bargain, had, as it will be remembered, gone be- yond sea on an errand which of all others was most offen- sive to the King. He had gone to receive again from the Pope—doubtless from Urban—the bishopric which he had He isde- already bought of the King? For this offence William Bing now took away his staff; that is, he deprived him of his bishopric. With whose advice or consent this was done, and what line Anselm took with regard to such a step, we are not told. At all events the King now deprived a bishop of his office on the ground of what he deemed to be treason done without the realm. This was the converse of the act by which, forty-two years before, the nation had deprived another bishop on the ground of what they deemed to be treason within the realm. William however did not set up any doubtful 1 See above, p. 395. ? See above. p. 355, and Appendix X. * This deprivation of Herbert by the King—most likely with the consent of somebody, but we are not toll—is quite as contrary to strict ecclesiastival HERBERT LOSINGA. 449 Stigand of his own in the church of Thetford. About a cnar. iv. year later Herbert was again in possession of his see.! How he was restored to the King’s favour we are not told. He may have deemed it no sin to win it by means which he had learned to look upon as sin when applied to the obtaining of a spiritual office. Next year he re- moved the seat of the East-Anglian bishopric once more. Herfast had moved it from Elmham to Thetford. With the good will and help of Roger Bigod Herbert now translated it to its final seat at Norwich. He there began the foundation of that vast church and monas- tery, the creation of which caused his name to be ever since held in at least local honour. Meanwhile the north wind still refused to blow, and the King with his prelates, lords, and courtiers, still tarried at Hastings. Lent began before the fleet had Lent, ro94. a chance of sailing. The penitential season began with the usual ceremonies. The Archbishop said his mass and preached his sermon in the ears of the multitude who came together on the day of ashes, to receive, accord- ing to custom, the ashes of penitence from the hands of the Primate. Among them came the minions and young gallants of the court of Rufus, with their long combed and twined hair, their mincing gait, defying alike the commands of the Apostle and the dictates of common. decency and manliness. The voice of Anselm Anselm re- rebuked them, as well he might, when the outward garb eas was but the sign of the deeper foulness within. Nota few were moved to repentance; they submitted to the notions as the deprivation of Stigand by the English people. The Parliaments of Elizabeth, William and Mary, George the First, followed that precedent. I will not speak of the reign of Edward the Sixth, as that was a time of “unlaw” nearly equal to the days of Rufus himself. 1 See Appendix X. VOL. 1. Gg 450 CHAP, IV. Anselm’s interview with the King. His silence about the war. THE PRIMACY OF ANSELM. loss of their flowing locks, and put on again the form of men. Others were stubborn; they received neither ashes nor absolution. In this battle with a foolish custom which was in truth far more than a foolish custom, Anselm had not a few forerunners or followers. Saint Wulfstan, Gundulf, Serlo of Seez, all preached and acted vigorously against the long hair which was the symbol of the crying vice of the time. Anselm deemed that the evil called for something more than a single act of discipline. The man of God felt called on to strike at the root of the mischief; he was moved to make a warning appeal to the conscience, if any conscience was left, of the chief sinner of them all, and he made it, after his wont, at once gently and vigorously. We may guess that the King had not been present at the ceremonies of Ash-Wednesday; had he been there, his presence would surely have been dwelled upon. It seems that Anselm, though openly out of the King's favour, still visited him from time to time. One day therefore he went and sat down beside him, and spoke what was in his heart.? The King was setting forth to conquer Normandy. It is to be noticed that Anselm does not say a word as to the right or wrong of the war. Perhaps, after the challenge of Robert, the cause of Rufus may have seemed, even to him, to be technically just. Perhaps he knew that anything that could be 1 Here we come personally across the class of offenders of whom we lave before spoken generally (see above, p. 158, and Appendix G). Eadmer draws their picture; “Eo tempore curialis juventus ferme tota crines suos juvencularum more nutriebat, et quotidie pexa, ac irreligiosis nutibus circumspectans, delicatis vestigiis, tenero incessu, obambulare solita erat. De quibus cum in capite jejunii sermonem in populo ad missam suam et ad cineres confluente idem pater habuisset, copiosam turbam ex illis in peenitentiam egit, et attonsis crinibus, in virilem formam redegit.” ? See Appendix G. 3 This is pointed out by Eadmer. “Die quadam ad eum ex more ivit, et juxta illum sedens eum his verbis alloqui ccepit.” We shall come to other instances of this custom of the Archbishop sitting down beside the King. ANSELM’S APPEAL TO THE KING. 451 said on that subject would be fruitless. He may even cuar. wv. have deemed, a view which had much to be said for it, that a conquest of Normandy by the Red King would be a good exchange for the rule of its present sovereign. And we must remember that wars of all kinds were in those days so constantly going on that they would seem like a necessary evil, a dark side of the economy of things, but one which could not be hindered. Even men lke Anselm would come to look with less horror than one might expect on wars which were waged only by those whose whole business might seem to be war- fare. Anyhow Anselm said nothing directly against the war, even though it was to be waged against the prince to whom he had lately owed allegiance and against the land which had been to him a second birth-place. But He asks he asked the King whether he had any right to look for help for success in that or any other enterprise, unless he did teforms. something to check the evils which had well nigh up- rooted the religion of Christ in his realm. He called on William to give him the help of the royal authority in his own schemes of reform. The King asked what form his help was to take,’ and Anselm then put forth his views at length. First and foremost, the King was to help in the work He asks Conqueror, no synod could be held without the King’s licence, and the acts of the synod were of no force without the King’s confirmation.2 But under the Con- queror Lanfranc had, on the conditions thus laid down, held his synods without hindrance. That is to say, the elder William, in all causes and over all persons 1 «Qbsecro primum, fer opem et consilium qualiter in hoc regno tuo Christianitas, que jam fere tota in multis periit, in statum suum redigi possit. Respondit, ‘Quam opem, quod consilium ?’” 2 See N.C. vol. iv. p. 437. Gg 2 leave to of reform by allowing Anselm to hold a synod of the yoga realm. It will be remembered that, by the laws of the ‘yr. 452 CHAP. IV, Advan- tages of the synod, No synod held under Rufus, Anselm’s apy eal avainst the fashionable vices. THE PRIMACY OF ANSELM. within his dominions supreme, used that supremacy as the chief ruler of the Church from within, while the younger William turned that same supremacy into a weapon wherewith to assault the Church as an enemy from without. It is plain from the earnestness of Anselm one way—one might almost say, from the earnestness of Rufus the other way—that the synod was a real instru- ment for the reformation of manners. It is plain that the assembled bishops, when they came together in a body, could do more both for ecclesiastical discipline and for moral improvement than they could do, each-one in his own diocese. One cause may have been that, in a synod, the assembled prelates might seem to be really speaking as fathers in God, while the exercise of their local juris- diction was too much mixed up with the petty and not always creditable details of their courts, with those tricks and extortions of archdeacons and other officials of which we have often heard. Anyhow, as the Roman Senate had good enough left in it to call forth the hatred of Nero, so an ecclesiastical synod had good enough left in it to call forth the hatred of William Rufus. Not one synod had he allowed to be held during the whole time of his reign, now in its seventh year. Anselni earnestly prayed to be allowed to hold one for the restoration of discipline and the reformation of manners. The King answered; “T will see to this matter when I think good; I will act, not after your pleasure but after my own. And, pray,” added he mockingly, “when you have got your synod, what will you talk about in it?” The man of God did not shrink from going straight to the crying evil of the time. What weighed most on Anselm’s mind + Anselm is made to say; “Generale concilium episcoporum ex quo tu rex factus fuisti non fuit in Anglia celebratum, nec retroactis pluribus annis.”” Yet Lanfranc had held many synods, and one notable one as late as 1085. See N, C. vol. iv. p. 687. ANSELM ASKS FOR A SYNOD. 453 was not any mere breach of ecclesiastical rule—such cuar. iv. breaches he had to speak of, but he would not speak of them first ;! the burthen on his soul was the hideous moral corruption, a new thing on English ground, which had become rife throughout the land. Unless King and Primate, each in his own sphere, each with his own weapons, worked together to root out this plague, the kingdom of England might share the fate of the cities which it had come to resemble. A strict law was needed, the very hearing of which would make the guilty tremble? The words of Anselm were general; there was no personal charge against William; the Archbishop simply appealed to him as King to stop the sins of others. But all this makes us feel more strongly the wonderful character of such a scene, where two such men could be sitting side by side and exchanging their thoughts freely. But the heart of Rufus was hardened; he answered only by a sneer. “And what may come of this matter for you?” “For me nothing,” said Anselm; “for you and for God I hope much.” 1 He passes by the smaller matters—“ ut illicita consanguineorum con- nubia et alia multa rerum detestandarum facinorosa negotia taceam ”—and goes straight to the sin of the reign, ‘ noviter in hac terra divulgatum,” which “jam plurimum pullulavit multosque sua immanitate foedavit.” See Appendix G. 2 « Conemur una, queso, tu regia potestate et ego pontificali auctoritate, quantus tale quid inde statuatur, quod cum per totum fuerit regnum divulgatum, solo etiam auditu quicunque illius fautor est paveat et de- primatur.’ What would have been the nature of the punishment? Something more, one would think, than an ecclesiastical censure, as it was to be a decree of the King. Anselm had no objection to very severe punishments on occasion (see N.C. vol. v. p. 159; cf. vol.iv.p.621). But when he was able to legislate on this subject (see N. C. vol. v. p. 223), it was in an ecclesiastical synod, and the penalties are milder. 3 “Non sederunt hee animo principis, et paucis ita respondit, ‘Et in hac re quid fieret pro te?’ ‘Si non,’ inquit Anselmus, ‘pro me, spero fieret pro Deo et te.” I suppose the meaning is something like what I have given. Again one longs for the actual words in their own tongue. 454 CHAP, IV. Ecclesi- astical grievances. Wrongs of the church tenants. He prays the King to fill the vacant abbeys. THE PRIMACY OF ANSELM, There is so much of simple moral grandeur in this appeal of the righteous man against moral evil that we might almost have wished that Anselm’s discourse had ended at this point, and that he had not gone on to speak of matters which to us seem to have less of a moral and more of a technical nature. Yet Anselm would doubtless have thought himself faithless to his duty, if he had left the King’s presence without making a special appeal about the special grievances of ecclesias- tical bodies. Moreover the wrongs of the bishoprics and abbeys were distinctly moral wrongs; the King’s doings involved breach of law, breach of trust; they were grievances on which the head of the ecclesiastical order was, as such, specially bound to enlarge. But they were also grievances which did not touch the ecclesiastical order only; the wrongs done to the tenants of the vacant churches are constantly dwelled on as one of the worst features of the system brought in by Rufus and Flambard. Anselm therefore deemed it his duty, before he parted from the King, to say a word on this matter also, a matter in which there could be no doubt that the King himself was the chief sinner. No bishopric was now vacant; but several abbeys, Saint Alban’s among them, were in the hands of Flambard. Such a state of things called for his own care as Primate; he appealed to William to give him his help as King. In the monas- teries which were left without rulers discipline became lax; the monks fell into evil courses; they died without confession. He prayed the King to allow the appoint- ment of abbots to the vacant churches, lest he should draw on himself the judgement which must follow on the evils to which their vacancies gave cause! The King seems to have been less able to endure this rebuke * “Ne in destructione monasteriorum et perditione monachorum tibi, quod absit, damnationem adquiras.” THE VACANT ABBEYS. 455 than the other. The disorders of his courtiers and of cHA4P. 1v. his own private life he could not defend on any showing; but the demand that the abbeys should be filled touched what he looked on as one of his royal rights. Rufus burst forth in wrath. “Are not the abbeys mine? Tush, The abbeys you do as you choose with your manors; shall not ie oe do as I choose with my abbeys?”! The answer of King’s Anselm drew a distinction which was a very practical one in those days, and which affects our legal language still. To this day the King, the Bishop, the Chapter, all speak of any episcopal see as “our cathedral church,” and all speak, from their several points of view, with equal truth. Such a church is the king’s church by virtue of the fundatorial rights which he claims, in some cases by real historic succession, in all cases by a legal theory. By virtue of those fundatorial rights, he claims to be informed of every vacancy, and to give his consent to a new election. In this sense Anselm did not deny that the abbeys were the King’s abbeys ; he did deny that they were the King’s in the further sense in which Rufus claimed them, “The abbeys are yours,” he said, “to defend and guard as an advocate; they are not yours to spoil and lay waste. They are God’s; they are given that his servants may live of them, not that you may make campaigns and battles at their cost.2 You have manors and revenues of many kinds, out of which you may carry on all that belongs to you. Leave, may it please you, the churches to have their own.” “Truly,” says the King, “you know Hostile that what you say is most unpleasing to me. Your pre- (Rufus, decessor would never have dared to speak so to my father. I will do nothing on your account.” When 1 «Quid ad te? Numquid sunt abbatie mee? Hem, tu quod vis agis de villis tuis, et ego non agam quod volo de abbatiis meis ?”” 2 «Tus quidem sunt ut illas quasi advocatus defendas atque custodias, non tuze autem ut invadas aut devastes. Dei scimus eas esse, ut sui ministri inde vivant, non quo expeditiones et bella tua inde fiant.” 456 CHAP. IV. Lanfranc and Anselm, THE PRIMACY OF ANSELM. Anselm then saw that he was casting his words to the winds, he rose and went his way. It may be that William Rufus spoke truly, and that Lanfrane would not, in any case, have dared to speak to the Conqueror as Anselm dared to speak to him. Lan- franc, with much that was great and good in him, was not a prophet of righteousness like Anselm. But it is far more certain that Lanfranc was never put to the test. The Conqueror never gave him any need to speak to him as Anselm had now need to speak to his son. What we blame in William the Great, what men like Wimund of Saint Leutfred dared to blame in him, Lanfranc could not blame. The position of Lanfranc in England involved the position of William. And, once granting that position, there was comparatively little to blame in the elder William. The beheading of Waltheof, the making of the New Forest, stand almost alone; and the beheading of Waltheof was at least no private murder ; it was the judgement of what was in form a competent court. The harshness and greediness with which the Conqueror is justly charged was, after all, a small matter compared with the utter unlaw of his son’s reign. No need to And on the two subjects of Anselm’s present discourse, rebuke the Conqueror the elder William needed no rebuke at any time. His on these points. Estimate of Anselm’s conduct. private life was at all times absolutely blameless, and, neither as Duke nor as King, did he ever turn his ecele- siastical supremacy into a source of gain. On both those points Lanfranc had as good a right to speak as Anselm; but on those points he was never called on to speak to his own master. Whether, in Anselm’s place, he would have dared to speak as Anselm did, we cannot tell. But surely the holy boldness of Anselm cannot be looked on as in any way blameworthy, as either insolent or untimed. To him at least the time doubtless seemed most fitting. * “Tntellexit ergo Anselmus se verba in ventum proferre, et surgens abiit.” LANFRANC AND ANSELM, 457 He called on the King, before he exposed himself to the cuar. wv. dangers of a campaign beyond the sea, to do something to win God's favour by correcting the two grossest of the evils which were rife in his kingdom. The Assembly was clearly not dissolved when Anselm spoke; William could at once have filled the abbeys, he could at once have put forth a law against the other class of offenders, in the most regular form, by the advice of his Wise Men. Anselm might even have held his synod while the wind was wait- ing. The synod in Lanfranc’s day followed on the Gemét, and it took up only three days.! Most of the bishops were present at Hastings; those who were absent had doubt- less been summoned and, by the rule of the Great Charter and of common sense, they would be bound by the acts of those who obeyed the summons. Moreover, according to The Arch- the precedents of the late reign, Anselm would be the sole bishop’s claim to the or chief representative of the King during his absence. regency. He might fairly ask to be clothed with every power, temporal and spiritual, which was needed for the fit discharge of kingly as well as pastoral duties. Anselm was deeply grieved at the ill success of his Anselm personal appeal to the King. He was now wholly out of the King’s favour, and he felt that, without some measure of support from the King, he could not carry out the reforms, ecclesiastical and moral, for which he longed.2, He was ready to do anything that could be done with a good conscience in order to win back the King’s good will. He sent the bishops to William, to crave that he might, of the King’s free grace, be again admitted to his friendship. If the King would not grant him his favour, let him at least say why he would not grant it; if Anselm had wronged him in any way, he was 1 See N. C. vol. iv. p. 687. 2 “Considerans offenso principis animo nequaquam posse pacem rebus dari.” attempts to recover the 458 THE PRIMACY OF ANSELM. cuap. 1v. ready to make the wrong good.!_ The bishops laid the prayer of their metropolitan before the King. The answer was characteristic. “I have no fault to find with the Archbishop; yet I will not grant him my favour, because I hear no reason given why I should.”? What those words meant in the mouth of Rufus the bishops knew very Advice well. They went back to tell the Primate that the mys- of the : bishops to tery was clear.? The King’s favour was to be won only by sas money, and by money in no small store. Their counsel was that Anselm should at once give the King the five hundred pounds which he had before ofiered, and that he should promise him another gift of the same amount as soon as he could get it out of his men.* On those terms they fully believed that the King would grant him his peace and friendship. They saw no other way for him; they were in the same strait themselves, and knew no other way out of it. In the counsel thus given to Anselm by his suffragans we hear the words, not of utterly worldly and unscrupu- lous men, but of the ordinary prelates of the time, good men, many of them, in all that concerned their own per- sonal lives and the ordinary administration of their churches, but not men disposed to risk or dare much, men disposed to go on as they best might in very bad times, without doing anything which might make things Anselm’s still worse. In the eyes of Anselm, on the other hand, ag things hardly could be made worse; if they could, it would be by consenting to them. By an unflinching + «Deprecatus est ut in amicitiam sui sese gratis admitteret. Quod si, ait, facere nonvult, cur nolit edicat, et si offendi, satisfacere paratus sum.” 2 « De nulla re illum inculpo, nec tamen ei gratiam meam, quia non audio quare, indulgere volo.” The words which I have put in Italics in the two speeches must be taken together. 8 « Mysterium hoc, inquiunt, planum est.” * «Tantundem pecuniz quam ab hominibus tuis accipies illi promitte.”’ ° “Aliam qua exeas viam non videmus, nec nos, pari angustia clausi, aliam exeundi habemus.” ANSELM AND THE BISHOPS. 4 5 9 assertion of principle things might be made better; cuar. 1. in the worst case the assertor of principle would have delivered his own soul. In Anselm’s eyes the course which his suffragans suggested was sinful on every ground; moreover—an argument which some of them might better understand—it was utterly inexpedient. He refused to make his way out of his difficulties by the path which they proposed. The King allowed that he had no ground of complaint; he was simply angry be- cause he could not get five hundred pounds out of him as the price of his favour. If now, while his appoint- ment was still fresh, he should win the King’s favour at such a price, the King would get angry with him at any other time that might suit him, in order to have his wrath bought off in the same way. This last argument seems to show that Anselm was after all not so lacking in worldly wisdom as some have thought. But his main He will not argument was that he would not commit the crime o wringing any more money out of his tenants. They had been frightfully oppressed and robbed during the vacancy; he had not as yet been able to do anything to relieve them; he would not lay fresh burthens upon them; he would not flay alive those who were already stripped to their skins.1 Again, he would not deal with his lord the King as if his friendship was a thing to be bought and sold. He owed the King faith and honour, and it would be doing him dishonour to treat his favour like a horse or an ass to be paid for in vile money. He utterly f oppress his tenants. refused to put such an insult upon his sovereign. He His answer told his suffragans that they should rather do their best to persuade the King to deal of his free grace as it was fit for him to deal with his archbishop and spiritual father. Then he, on his part, would strive to do all that 1 «Et ego cum hucusque nihil eis unde revestiri possint contulerim, jam eos nudos spoliarem, immo spoliatos excoriarem.”” bishops. 460 CHAP. IV. The King more hostile than ever. Anselm leaves Hastings. THE PRIMACY OF ANSELM, he could and might do for his service and pleasure. This ideal view of the relation of King and Primate was doubtless above the heads of John of Bath, of Robert of Lincoln, of Robert of Chester, and of William of Durham in his present mood. It was surely one of them, rather than Osmund or Robert of Hereford, who answered ; “ But at least you will not refuse him the five hundred pounds which you once offered.” Anselm answered that he could not give that either; when the King refused it, he had promised it to the poor, and the more part of it had been given to them already. The bishops went back to the King on their unpromising errand. William bade them tell the Archbishop that he hated him much yesterday, that he hated him much to-day, and that he would hate him more and more to-morrow and every other day. He would never hold Anselm for father or archbishop; he cursed and eschewed his blessings and prayers. Let him go where he would; he need not stay any longer there at Hastings, if it was to bless him on his setting sail that he was waiting." The Red King had thus cast aside another offer of grace. Our guide tells us; “We departed from the court with speed, and left him to his will.” The pronoun is emphatic. From that time, if not from an earlier time, English Eadmer was the inseparable companion of Anselm. Anselm and Eadmer then turned away, at what exact date we are not told. But the north wind seems not to have blown till more than half the month of March had passed. Then at last King William of Eng- land set sail from Hastings for the conquest. of Nor- mandy. He went without Anselm’s blessing; yet some of the ceremonies which had been gone through during 1 « Kat quo vult, nec me transfretaturum pro danda benedictione diutius exspectet.” WILLIAM CROSSES TO NORMANDY. 461 his sojourn at Hastings must surely have dwelled in his cuar. tv. mind. Fresh from the rite which in some sort marked the completion of his father’s work in England, the younger William set out so far to undo his father’s work as to bring Normandy into political subjection to England. At what Norman haven he landed we are William not told; it was seemingly in some part of the lands of crosses to Normandy. his earlier conquest, the lands on the right bank of the ie 19, Seine. Before swords were drawn, an attempt was vain attempts to settle made to settle the dispute between the brothers. King and Duke met in person; what was their place of the dis- ‘meeting we are not told; but no agreement could be” come to.1 A second meeting took place, in which the guarantors of the former treaty were appealed to, much as Cnut had appealed to the witnesses of the treaty pute. between him and Eadmund.? The guarantors, the Verdict of the twenty-four barons, twelve on each side, who had sworn guarantors to the treaty, agreed in a verdict which laid the whole blame upon the King. The words of our account—it is the English Chronicler who speaks—clearly imply that the guarantors on William’s side agreed in this verdict no less than those who swore on behalf of Robert.’ And he adds from himself that Rufus would neither allow that he was in fault nor abide by his former engagement. This meeting therefore was yet more 1 Chron. Petrib. 1094. ‘‘SySdan he pider com, he and his broder Rodbeard se eorl gecweSan, pet hi mid griSe togedere cuman sceoldan, and swa dydon, and gesemede beon ne mihtan.” So Florence; “Rex... ad fratris colloquium sub statuta pace venit, sed impacatus ab eo recessit.” 2 See N, C. vol. i. p. 435. 3 Chron, Petrib. 1094. “Sy88an eft hi togedere coman mid pam ilcan mannan pe er pet loc makedon, and eac pa ad’as sworen, and ealne pone bryce uppon pone cyng tealdon.” The version preserved in one manuscript of Florence says, ‘‘denuo in campo Martio convenere.” Can this be the “Champ de Mars” just outside Rouen? I had fancied that the name was modern. 4 Ib. “Ache nolde pes gepafa beon, ne eac ba forewarde healdan.” against William. 462 THE PRIMACY OF ANSELM. cnap. tv. fruitless than the former; the brothers parted in greater anger than ever.1 The Duke went back to Rouen; the King again took up his head-quarters at Eu.? Again on Norman soil, William began to practise the arts which had stood him in such stead in his former enterprise on the duchy. He hired mercenaries; he gave or promised money or lands to such of the chief men of Normandy as were willing to forsake the alle- giance of Robert; he quartered his knights both in the . castles which he had hitherto held, and in those which he won to himself by these means.? Some of these last Neale ne Were Very far from Eu. It shows how successful were 2 y the : : : : kines the arts of Rufus, how wide was the disaffection against Robert, when we find castles, far away from one another, far away from the seat of William's power in eastern Normandy, but hemming in the lands in the Duke's obedience on two dangerous frontiers, garrisoned by the King’s troops. We are reminded of the revival of Henry's power in the Cétentin when we read LaHoulme.that the castle of La Houlme, at the junction of the two rivers Douve and Merderet, lying south-east from Valognes and nearly east from Saint Saviour, was Argentan. now held for William.t So was another stronghold in quite another quarter, not far from the Cenomannian border, the castle of Argentan on the upper course of the Orne, to the south of the great forest of Gouffers. Two 1 Chron. Petrib. 1094. “And forpam hi pa mid mycelon unsehte tocyrdon.” ? The mention of the places comes from Florence ; “ Comes quidem Roto- magum perrexit ; rex ad Owe rediit et in illo resedit.” 3 Flor. Wig. 1094. ‘‘Solidarios undique conduxit, aurum, argentum, terras, quibusdam primatum Normannie dedit, quibusdam promisit, ut a germano suo Rotberto deficerent, et se cum castellis suze ditioni sub- jicerent: quibus ad velle suum paratis, per castella, vel que prius habu- erat vel que nunc conduxerat, suos milites distribuit.” * The “ castel et Hulme ” of the Chronicler is the castle of Hulmus, Le Homme, or L’Isle Marie. See Stapleton, ii. xxv, xxviii. It must not be confounded with the “ pagus Holmensis” or ‘‘Holmetia regio” in the Hiesmois. See Stapleton, ii. xc, xev, and Ord. Vit. 691 C. ROBERT AND PHILIP BEFORE ARGENTAN,. 463 famous captains held these threatening posts. Argentan cmap. rv. was commanded by Earl Roger’s son, Roger the Poitevin.! La Houlme was held by William Peverel, the lord of Not- tingham and the Peakland.? But the first military exploit Taking of : : Bures. of the campaign was wrought in a land nearer to Eu. Bures—whether still held or not by the faithful Helias we are not told—was taken, and the garrison were made prisoners ; some of them were kept in Normandy, others were sent by Rufus for better safe-keeping in his own kingdom.? Rufus thus pressed the war vigorously against his brother, with the full purpose of wholly depriving him of the duchy. Robert, in his distress, again called Robert on his over-lord, and this time with more effect than tin before. The French intervention was at least able to Php. turn the balance for a while against Rufus. No object was more important for Robert than the recovery of the two strongholds which threatened him, one in the dangerous land on the upper Orne, the other in the no less dangerous Constantine peninsula. A joint expe- Siege of dition of the new allies was agreed on, and King and ere Duke appeared side by side before Argentan. The castle stood on a height of no great elevation above the river, with the town, as usual, spreading down to its banks. The existing fragments show that the fortress and its precinct covered a vast space, but no architectural feature remains as a witness of the siege of Argentan by Philip 1 See N. C. vol. iv. p. 488. See above, p. 57. 2 Tb. vol. iv. pp. 200, 201. 3 Chron. Petrib. 1094. ‘‘And se cyng sy38an pone castel zt Bures gewann; and pes eorles men perinne genam; pa sume hyder to lande sende.” Florence adds, “ partim in Normannia custodie mancipavit; et fratrem suum multis modis vexans, exheredare laboravit.” * The Chronicler casually mentions Philip’s coming when speaking of the siege of Argentan; Florence is more emphatic; “At ille, necessitate com- pulsus, dominum suum regem Francorum Philippum cum exercitu Norman- niam adduxit,” 464 CHAP, IV. Surrender of Ar- gentan. Ransom of prisoners. THE PRIMACY OF ANSELM. and Robert. The town contains several attractive buildings of later date, ecclesiastical, civil, and military. There are churches, town-walls with their towers, the later chdteau within the fortress; but of the stronghold which Roger of Poitou had to guard against the powers of Rouen and Paris but little can be traced. There are some massive and irregular pieces of wall, and part of a polygonal donjon, the latter at least far later than Roger’s day. But of the size and strength of the castle there can be no doubt. It is therefore with some little wonder that we read that the besiegers found its capture so easy a matter as they did, especially when its de- fender was one of the house of Montgomery and Belléme. On the very first day of the siege the castle surrendered without bloodshed. Roger of Poitou, with seven hundred knights and as many esquires—a name which we are now beginning to come across—and his whole garrison were made prisoners and were kept in ward till they were ransomed.! Here we see the hand of Philip; we see, as in some other cases which we have come across already, the beginning of one of the institutions of chivalry. We shall presently see the custom of the ransom become a marked feature of the wars between France and Eng- land—so we shall soon find ourselves obliged to call them—in the eleventh century no less than in the fourteenth. But the bulky King of the French was for the present contented with this one exploit and with so valuable a stock of captives. Philip went back into France, and left his Norman vassal to go on with the campaign alone.? Robert now drew some spirit from 1 The Chronicler (1094) says only, ‘‘ Der togeanes se eorl mid pes cynges fultume of France gewann pone castel et Argentses and pearinne Rogger Peiteuin genam, and seofen hundred pes cynges cnihta mid him.” Florence adds, “ipso die obsessionis dec. milites regis, cum his totidem scutariis et castellanis omnibus qui intus erant, sine sanguinis effusione cepit [rex], cap- tosque in custodia tamdiu detineri mandavit, donec quisque se redimeret.” * So says Florence; ‘Post hec in Franciam rediit.” As however he WILLIAM’S ENGLISH LEVY. 465 success. He marched westward, and attacked La Houlme. caar. 1v. The castle surrendered ; the lord of the Peak, with eight Robert - hundred men, became the prize of the Duke’s unusual Houlme. display of vigour.? The war went on; each side burned the towns and took the men of the other side.2 But the tide had for the moment decidedly turned against the Red King. The loss of Argentan and La Houlme, with their com- Difficulties manders and their large garrisons, was a serious military psoee blow. The payment of their ransoms might be a still more serious financial blow. And the payment of a ransom, by which he only got back again what he had had before, would be less satisfactory to the mind of Rufus than the payment of bribes and wages by which he had a hope of gaining something fresh. The hoard at Winchester seems at last to have been running low; but when William Rufus was king and when he had Randolf Flambard to his minister, there could be no lack of ways and means to fill it again. Specially Further heavy were the gelds laid on England both in this year ep ae and in the following.? And money was gained by one device which surely would have come into the head of no king and no minister save those by whom it actually was devised. A great levy was ordered; King Levy of William sent over his bidding that twenty thousand Pngiis? Englishmen should come over to help the King in Nor- mandy.‘ Englishmen had by this time got used to service says nothing of Philip’s coming to Longueville, he may mean his return after that. 1 The Chronicler says only, after the taking of Argentan, “and syS¥an pone (castel] et Hulme.” Florence makes it the special exploit of Robert; “@omes vero Rotbertus castellum quod Holm nuncupatur obsedit, donec Willelmus Peverel et decc. homines, qui id defendebant, illi se dederent.” 2 Chron. Petrib. 1094. ‘‘ And oftredlice heora egSer uppon oSerne tunas beernde, and eac men lehte.” 8 Flor. Wig, 1094. ‘‘Interea gravi et assiduo tributo hominumque mor- talitate, presenti et anno sequenti, tota vexabatur Anglia.” 4 Chron. Petrib, 1094. “Da sende se cyng hider to lande, and hét VOL, I. Hh 466 : THE PRIMACY OF ANSELM. cuar.1v. beyond sea. Nothing is said of any difficulty in getting this great force together. The troops were gathered at Hastings, ready to set sail. Each man had brought with him ten shillings, the contribution of his shire for his maintenance in the King’s service. For the men who answered to Rufus’ bidding were no mercenaries, not even housecarls; they were the fyrd of England, summoned, by a perhaps unjustifiable but not very wonderful stretch of authority, to serve their king Flambard beyond the sea. But, when they were ready to sail, tkes*"8Y Flambard came, and by the King’s orders took one away each man’s money, and bade them all go home again! One would like to know something of the feelings of the men who were thus strangely cheated ; we should surely have heard if there had been any open resistance. Anyhow, by this amazing trick, the Red King had exchanged the arms of twenty thousand Englishmen for a sum of ten thousand pounds of English money. After all, the money might be of greater use than the men in a war with Philip of Paris. If William thus reckoned, he was not deceived. He was still at Eu. Philip was again in arms; his forces joined those of Robert; again King and Duke marched side by side, this time with the purpose of besieging the Rufus King of the English in his Norman stronghold. The Phe ten thousand pounds now served William’s turn quite as well as the twenty thousand men could have served it. The combined French and Norman host had reached abeodan tt xx. pusenda Engliscra manna [‘ xx. millia pedonum’ in Florence] him to fultume to Normandig.” 1 Chron. Petrib. 1094. “ Ac pa hi to se coman, pa het hi man cyrran, and pet feoh to pes cynges behdfe pe hi genumen hefdon; pet wes ele man healf punda, and hi swa dydon.” Florence tells us the place and the doer ; “Quibus ut mare transirent Heastinge congregatis, pecuniam que data fuerat eis ad victum Rannulphus Passeflambardus precepto regis abstulit, scilicet unicuique decem solidos, et eos domum repedare mandavit, pecuniam vero regi transmisit,” FLAMBARD ROBS THE SOLDIERS, 467 Longueville on the Scie, with streams and forests be- cuap. iv. tween them and Eu.) Longueville was the last stage of their march. Thither Rufus sent those who knew how to bring his special arguments to bear on the mind of Philip. The King again went back to France, and the confederate army was broken up. There is something’ very singular in the way in which Contem- -this second Norman war of William Rufus is dealt with by those who wrote at or near the time.. Some make no mention of it at'all; others speak of it only casually; our own Chronicler, who gives the fullest account of all, does not carry it on to any intelligible issue of success or of failure. In his pages, and in those of some others, the war drops out of notice, without coming to any real end of any kind.? The monk of Saint Evroul, so lavish in local Norman details; seems to have had his head too full of the local strifes among the Norman nobles ‘to tell us anything of a warfare which in our eyes comes so much nearer to the likeness of a national struggle. It must always be remembered that the local wars which tore every district of Normandy in pieces did not stop in the least because two hostile kings were encamped on porary notices of the campaign. Norman soil. There cannot be a more speaking com- Difference ment, at once on the difference between Robert: and between England either of his brothers and: on the essential difference #"4 Nor- 1 Chron. Petrib. 1094. “And se eorl innon Normandig efter pison, mid pam cynge of France and mid eallon pan pe hi gegaderian mihton, ferdon towardes Ou per se cyng W. inne wes, and pohtan hine inne to besittanne, and swa foran o8 hi coman to Lungeuile.” 2? Ib. “Der weard se cyng of France purh gesmeah gecyrred, and swa sy3dan eal seo fyrding téhwearf.” 3 Florence, as we have seen, stops with the taking of La Houlme in 1094. ‘The Chronicler goes on to Henry’s Lenten expedition in 1095. After that, neither says anything about Norman affairs till the agreement of 1096, though both of them imply (see below, p. 555) that the war lasted till that time. Hh2 mandy, 468 THE PRIMACY OF ANSELM, caar. iv. between the ordinary state of Normandy and of England. With us private war was never lawful; we needed not the preaching of the Truce of Godt William the Great, when his authority was fully established, kept England in peace; and in his later years the peace of Normandy itself, as distinguished from the border lands, was broken only by the rebellion of his own son. So in England there still were rebellions alike against Rufus and against Henry; but, when the rebellion was crushed, the land Private was at rest. In Normandy, as soon as the hand of the in No. great ruler was taken away, things fell back into the mandy. state in which they had been during his own minority. And they remained in that state till William the Red in his later years again established order in the duchy. One can well understand that the endless ups and downs in the local struggles which went on close to every man’s door really drew to themselves far more of men’s thoughts than the strife of King William, King Philip, and Duke Robert himself. The two kings were but two more dis- putants added to the crowd, and they were disputants who really did much less harm to the land in general than was done by its own native chiefs. It is not very wonderful then that we hear so little of this war from the Norman side. It is not wonderful that, on the English side, when stirring events began again before long to happen in England, the Norman war dropped out of sight. And presently events in the world’s his- tory were to come which made even the warfare of England and France seem trifles amid the general stir of “ the world’s debate.” bes For the last events of Rufus’ second Norman war re} ulus . < andHenry, We have to go wholly to our one witness in our own tongue. It is plain that the King, even after his gold 1 See N.C. vol. ii. p. 241. HENRY AND HUGH OF CHESTER. 469 had turned Philip back, did not feel at all at ease in omar. iv, his Norman quarters. He seems to have distrusted two important personages at the other end of the duchy, his other brother and one of the mightiest of his own sub- jects. Henry, Atheling and again Count, was safe in his castle of Domfront, among the people who had chosen him as their protector. At one period of this year, he is described as at war with both his brothers at once." We find him taking the part of the lord of Saint Cenery, Robert son of Geroy,? against the common enemy, Robert of Belléme. His help however did not hinder the che- Saint rished fortress from falling into the hands of the tyrant.® ene! by : : Robert of We hear of him before the end of the war in a way which pose implies at least some suspicious feeling between himself and the King his brother. Besides Henry, Hugh of Chester—rather Hugh of Avranches or Hugh of Saint- James—was also in his own continental possessions. The Heiiy and. King summoned both of them to come to him at Eu, 5 come across Normandy by land, he sent ships to bring them.* But Henry and Hugh, from whatever causes, 1 Ord. Vit. 706C. See Appendix P. ? Ord. Vit. ib. See above, p. 217. 3 This is one of Orderic’s best stories (706 C, D). A false tale of its lord’s death is brought to Saint Cenery. His allies, Pagan of Mont- doubleau (see above, p. 209) and Rotrou of Montfort, at once forsake the castle which they had been defending. Robert’s wife Radegund cannot get them to wait till more certain news can be had. Robert of Belléme comes just in time for dinner. ‘‘Ingressi castrum, lebetes super ignes fer- ventes invenerunt carnibus plenas, et mensas mappulis coopertas et escas cum pane super appositas.” He spoils and burns the castle. Robert son of Geroy is left homeless ; his wife (‘‘ proba femina et honesta’’) dies; his little son William, whom Robert of Belléme somehow has as a hostage, is poisoned ; he then defends his new castle of Montacute against Robert of Belléme. Robert of Belléme brings Duke Robert to besiege him. Peace is made by the mediation of Geoffrey of Mayenne; Montacute is destroyed, and Saint Cenery is restored to Robert son of Geroy. * Chron. Petrib. 1094. ‘‘ Her onmang pison se cyng W. sende efter his broSer Hennrige se wes on pam castele et Damfront, ac forpi pe he mid ummoned and, as the state of the duchy did not allow them tot ©. 470 THE PRIMACY OF ANSELM. cua. Iv. did not choose to meet the King face to face. Instead ake go of sailing to Eu or its port, they made for Southampton, hapten, where they landed and seemingly stayed—with what a 3" objects we are not told—for some weeks.' Thence they They keep went to London, and kept Christmas there. King Wil- me ae liam was not this year wearing his crown either at Westminster or at Gloucester. But it is clear that the movements of his youngest brother had an effect upon his own. For the first three days of the holy twelve he The King stayed at Whitsand. On the fourth day, the feast of t : ae Hngland, the Innocents, the anniversary of the dedication of tel the West Minster, he crossed the sea and landed at Dover. Thence he seemingly came to London, where William Henry was. Whatever quarrels or suspicions had sprung ae up between the King and the Aitheling were now made up. Henry was received into his brother’s fullest confidence. He stayed in England till Lent began, when he went to spend the penitential season in Normandy. ae goes But it was not to be an idle season; in the month to Nor- mandy. between Epiphany and Lent, the Red King had made ora % is preparations for a campaign in which Henry was to take his place. The Count of Coutances then went again beyond sea with great treasures to be used on the King’s behalf against his brother— Earl Robert, His war- as English lips called him. “And ofttimes upon the fare with é é 5 Robert, Earl he won, and to him mickle harm either on land and on men did.” Here ends our story. We get no further friSe purh Normandig faran ne mihte, he him sende scipon efter, and Hugo eorl of Ceastre.” ' Chron. Petrib. 1094. ‘Ac pa pa hi towardes Ou faran sceoldan per se cyng wees, hi foran to Englelande and tip coman et Hamtune on ealra halgena messe zefne, and her syS3on wunedon, and to XPes messan weron on Lunden.’ ? Tb. 1095. “On pisum geare wes se cyng Willelm to Xpes messan pa feower forewarde dagas on Hwitsand; and efter pam feordan dege hider to lande fér, and upp com et Doferan.” 5 Ib. “ And Heanrig pes cynges brover her on lande oS Lengten wunode, and pa ofer se for to Normandig mid mycclon gersuman, on pes cynges WARFARE OF HENRY IN NORMANDY. ‘471 details till William became master of all Normandy by caar. 1v. quite another process. But though we get no details of General the war from Norman sources, we do get a general oo picture of its results. The no-rule of Robert is once P#8- more set before us in speaking words. The soft Duke, who feared his ‘subjects more than they feared him, was benumbed with softness and idleness! He is contrasted with both his brothers. Henry held his stronghold at Progress Domfront, together with a large but undefined part of ane the duchy, including without doubt the more part of his old peninsular county. Some places he had won by arms; others, like Domfront itself, had sought his rule of their own free will? Within these bounds he yielded to his brother the Duke just so much service as he thought good,’ which at this particular moment would be little indeed. And the other brother who wore the diadem of England held more than twenty castles on Norman ground. He, unlike Robert, was a ruler whom men feared; and his gifts, and the fear of him together, kept many of the great men of the land, not only in his allegiance, but in his zealous service.* If Normandy was not conquered, it was at least effectually dismembered. The list of the Norman nobles who joined the King Norman : +41, supporters from beyond sea takes in most of the names with Sei iniam. heldan, uppon heora broSer Rodbeard eorl, and gelomlice uppon pone eorl wann, and him mycelne hearm egSer on lande and on mannan dyde.” 1 Ord. Vit. 722 D. “ Rodbertus: mollis dux a vigore priorum decidit, et pigritia mollitieque torpuit, plus provinciales subditos timens quam ab illis timebatur.” 2 Ib. “ Henricus frater ducis Danfrontem fortissimum castrum possidebat, et magnam partem Neustrie sibi favore vel armis subegerat.” 3. Ib. “ Fratri suo ad libitum suum, nec aliter, obsecundabat.” I do not see what is meant in Sigebert’s Chronicle under 1095 (Pertz, vi. 367) ; “ Rex Anglorum a fratribus sollicitatur in Normania et Anglia.” 4 Ib. “Porro alius frater qui Angliz diadema gerebat in Normannia, ut reor, plusquam xx. castra tenebat, et proceres oppidanosque potentes mu- neribus sibi vel terroribus illexerat. .. . Perplures cum omnibus sibi subditis munitionibus et oppidanis regi parebant, eique, quia metuendus erat, totis nisibus adherebant.” 472 CHAP. Iv. William of Eu. Stephen of Aumale, Robert of Meulan. Walter Giffard. Death of Roger of Beaumont. 1094. Henry Earl of Warwick. THE PRIMACY OF ANSELM. which we are most at home. There is Ralph of Conches, Gerard of Gournay, Richard of Courcy. We hear now too of Philip of Braose, a name to become famous in more than one part of our island. And we find the names of men yet higher in power, and nearer to the ducal house. There is the first author of the late troubles, Count William of Eu, for the present still an adherent of Rufus, before long to be heard of in quite another character. With him stands Count Stephen of Aumale, also before long to play a part in our story wholly different from that which we find him playing now. And it is needless to say that Count Robert of Meulan was the Red King’s servant in his Norman, as well as in his English character.! Nor do we wonder to find in the same list—for he was Earl of Buckingham as well as lord of Longue- ville—the name of Walter Giffard, him who appeared as an aged man forty years before? He still lived, while, during this very year, more than one of the elder generation of the famous men of Normandy passed away. The father of the Count of Meulan, the old Roger of Beaumont, renowned so many years before alike in arms and in council,® died on the Norman soil which he had guarded so well, and which he seems never to have left. He had for some years left the world, to become a monk in the monastery of Preaux of his father’s rearing.* His estates had passed to his son at Meulan, the mighty vassal of three lords. His younger son Henry had his lot cast in England, where, perhaps before this time, the Red King bestowed on him the earldom of Warwick. And, in the same year as the lord of Beaumont, died, far away in England, another Roger, ! He appears in Orderic’s list, 722 D. ? See N. C. vol. iii. p. 129. 3 See N.C. vol. iii. p. 288. * Ord. Vit. 708 C. He makes the remark just before, “In diebus illis antiqui optimates qui sub Roberto duce vel filio ejus Guillelmo rege mili- taverant humane conditionis more hominem exuerunt.” NORMAN SUPPORTERS OF WILLIAM. 473 like him a monk, but four days before a mighty earl, caap. 1. Roger of Montgomery, of Arundel, and of Shrewsbury, Hoes - the youngest brother of the house beyond the Severn Mont- bridge of which he at least claimed to be the founder. foo4. His vast possessions were divided at his death. Robert Robert of of Belléme, already heir of his mother in the border-peyeme, land, now became heir of his father in Normandy. The Bice earldom of Shrewsbury and Roger’s other English estates mandy, passed to his second son Hugh, who bears the character ae oan of being the only one of the sons of Mabel who was mild #"*- and gentle?—mild and gentle, we must understand, to Normans, perhaps even to Englishmen, but certainly not to captive Britons. Of Hugh, as well as of Robert of Belléme and Roger of Poitou, as well as of Arnulf of Mont- gomery, a fourth son of the same fierce stock, we shall hear much as our tale goes on. In England too, perhaps within Death of his sheriffdom of Leicester, died Hugh of Grantmesnil, of oe whom we have lately heard in the civil wars both of ™s"- Normandy and of England, and whom his own shire and his neighbours of Northamptonshire had no reason to bless. His body, we need hardly say, found its way His burial across the sea, to lie among his loyal bedesmen at Saint ane Evroul.? These men all left the world in the year with which we are now dealing, and left the hoary Earl of Death of Buckingham to be for eight years longer the representa- Cn tive of an earlier day. The hands which eight and '°- twenty years before had been too feeble to bear the banner of the Apostle® were still, it would seem, ready to do whatever was still found for them to do in the service of the Red King. But the warfare of the King and his ' Ord. Vit. 708 C. See N. C. vol. iv. p. 498. ? See above, p. §7. We shall come across his fuller picture in a later chapter. 5 Ord. Vit. 718 D. He adds the epitaph of his own making. * He records his death and adds his epitaph, 809 C, D. William of Breteuil and Ralph of Conches died the same year, 1102. ® See N.C. vol. iv. p. 465. 474 THE PRIMACY OF ANSELM. cHar.rv. partisans is set down simply as one among the many ways in which Normandy was torn in pieces by her Eadmer’s own children.! An English writer meanwhile, on whose re main subject the Norman campaigns of Rufus had but campaign. 9 very indirect bearing, speaks casually of this expedi- tion as an undertaking on which a vast deal of money was spent, but by which very little was gained.” It is indeed to be borne in mind, as supplying at least a partial explanation of the way in which the second Norman expedition comes to an end without any end, that things in England were, just as they had been three years and a half before, in a state which urgently ealled Wretched- for the presence of the King within his kingdom. We f * i Basia: know not whether it at all moved him that the heavy taxation which had been laid on his kingdom for the cost of his warfare had brought the land to the lowest pitch of wretchedness. Men, we are told, had ceased to till the ground; hunger followed; there were hardly left any who could tend the dying or bury the dead.* These things might not have greatly stirred the heart of the Red King; but he may, like other tyrants, have felt that there was a bound beyond which oppression could Causes not be safely carried. And there were political and for th ye a ‘ King's military reasons which called him back. He could not return. afford to jeopard his undisputed possession of England for the sake of a few more castles in Normandy. He 1 Ord. Vit. 723A. “Sic Normannia suis in se filiis furentibus misera- biliter turbata est, et plebs inermis sine patrono desolata est.” ? Eadmer, Hist. Nov. 25. “Ipse quidem in Normanniam transiit, expensaque immensa pecunia eam sibi nullatenus subigere potuit. Infecto itaque negotio in Angliam reversus est.” 3 Will. Malms. iv. 327. ‘“Septimo anno, propter tributa que rex in Normannia positus edixerat, agricultura defecit, qua fatiscente, fames e vestigio, ea quoque invalescente, mortalitas hominum subsecuta, adeo crebra ut deesset morituris cura, mortuis sepultura.” This is copied by the Margam annalist. STATE OF ‘ENGLAND, SCOTLAND, AND WALES. 475 could hardly afford to jeopard for their sake the impe- cap. 1. rial supremacy of his crown over the whole isle of Britain, a supremacy which he was at that moment specially called on to assert. The year of the second Norman campaign was a year of special importance in the history both of Scotland and of Wales. While the Affairs of Red King was warring and bribing in Normandy, Scotland had, as in the days of Siward, received a king from England, and, what had not happened in the days of Siward, her people had slain the foreign nominee, and had again chosen a king of their own. The first reign of Donald, the momentary reign of Duncan, the beginning of the second reign of Donald, all of them-events which were not mere changes of sovereign, but real revolutions in the state of the nation, had happened between the death of Malcolm and the return of William from Normandy thirteen months Scotland later. Wales too had risen in a movement which had and Wales. more than was usual of the character of real national insurrection, and the movement had called for all the energies of the new Earl of Shrewsbury and of the King himself on his return. And a plot yet nearer home, a Plots at plot to deprive the King of his crown and life, a plot devised by men who had been just now the foremost in supporting his cause, broke out soon after his return. It broke out so soon after it that one is tempted to think that it was already hatching, and that it was one of the causes which brought him back. The seeming break-down of the Red King’s second Norman campaign thus be- comes more intelligible than some of the other cases where he began an undertaking and failed to finish it. William had plenty to do in Britain, both in camp and in council. As soon as he was assured of the adhesion of his brother Henry, he could afford, indeed he was driven, to leave him to do the work which had to be done in Normandy. home. 476 CHAP, IV. Notices of the year 1095. Councils of the year. Alleged Welsh campaign. January 9, 1095? THE PRIMACY OF ANSELM. § 4. The Council of Rockingham. December, 1094—WMarch, 1095. The year to which the last Christmas feast intro- duces us brings strongly home to us the singular way in which our general chroniclers follow one line of events, while the special biographer of the Archbishop fol- lows another. There is no contradiction; but the gaps which have to be filled up in each narrative are re- markable. It is not perhaps wonderful that the bio- grapher of Anselm should, even in a work which bears a general title, pass by events which in no way affected the history of Anselm. It is more remarkable that one of the most striking scenes in Anselm’s history should not have been thought worthy of notice by the more general annalists of our land. But so it is. The year 1095 is a year of very stirring events, and it is preeminently a year of councils. But, with a single exception, our two authorities do not record the same events and the same councils. Both tell us of the pallium being brought to Anselm; but, while one tells us nothing of the most striking of the assemblies in which Anselm bore a part, the other tells us nothing of the conspiracy, the revolt, the war, which specially mark this year in the general story of England. If our story is rightly told, the Christmas meeting of William and Henry, followed before long by a Norman campaign on the part of Henry, was followed yet more immediately by a Welsh campaign on the part of Wil- liam. The King took the affairs of his own island into his own hands, and, for the present, he left those of the mainland to the Count of Coutances. A winter cam- paign in Wales does not sound very promising, and we are not surprised to hear that it did not add much to the ALLEGED WELSH CAMPAIGN, 477 glory of the Red King’s arms.! At all events it must have cxap. iv. been short, for, in the course of January and February we find him at points at a considerable distance from the Welsh border. In January he was at Cricklade in Wilt- Move- : ‘ aaa % ments of shire; in February he was at Gillingham in Dorset, near William, to Alfred's monastery of Shaftesbury, and itself the scene stat a Y> of the election of the Confessor.2 In both cases we hear 1095. of the King’s movements through incidental notices in our ecclesiastical story. The second is part of the story of Anselm; the first does not concern Anselm himself; it forms part of the tale of the holiest of his suffragans. In this month of January the soul of the last surviving Death of English bishop, the sainted Wulfstan of Worcester, passed ¥™*'*"- away. In the eyes of one annalist his death was the great event of the year, and was announced by signs and wonders in the heavens. “There was a stir among 1 Flor. Wig. 1094. “Post hee rex Willelmus iv. kal. Januarii Angliam rediit, et ut Walanos debellaret, mox exercitum in Waloniam duxit, ibique homines et equos perdidit multos.” I am not at all clear that this entry in Florence is not a confusion. The Chronicle under the same year records the return of the King, and directly after sums up the Welsh warfare of the year; but it is not implied that the King took any part in it. He could not have done so before his return from Normandy, and, to say nothing of the un- likelihood ofa winter campaign in itself, the incidental notices of the King’s movements hardly leave time for one. 2 See N. C. vol. ii. p.9. Eadmer writes the name Jllingham, a change which might easily have happened after the pattern of Ilchester (see above, p- 63) and Islip (see N. C. vol. ii. p. 15), but the g remains in use to this day. There is something very amusing in the note of Henschenius reprinted in Migne’s edition of Eadmer and Anselm, col. 394 ; “Alia plura dominia, ut Rochingeham, Ilingeham, Seeftesburia, quee jam ante occurrerunt, et plura secutura, potuissent designato locorum situ ex- plicari, si opere pretium visum esset eorum causa totas Anglici regni tabulas perlustrare, et esset qui exsoleta jam nomina, ubi requirenda sint, indicaret. Poterit postea curiosior aliquis hune defectum supplere.”’ Fancy a man reading his Eadmer, and not making the faintest effort to find out where any place was. But perhaps this is better than M. Croset- Mouchet, who always turns the Bishop of Exeter into a Bishop of Oxford (cf. N. C. vol. iv. p. 779), and who has a place Srewsbury, which does duty alike for the earldom of Shrewsbury and for the bishopric of Salisbury. 478 THE PRIMACY OF ANSELM: cuar.iv. the stars, and Wulfstan Bishop of Worcester died:”! Biclenbas of The health-of the good old man had been for some time “mailing; we have seen that he had latterly been unable 3) to show himself in assemblies and ceremonies. At the Easter, Easter of the year before his death, while the King was mae in Normandy, he told his steward that on the day of the feast he meant to dine in state with “good men.” He dines The steward, mistaking the meaning of a phrase which with “ good 2 men.” is ambiguous in several languages and which was specially so in the English of his day,? got together many of the rich men of the neighbourhood—we are not told whether the Sheriff Urse was among them. The day came; the Bishop entered the hall with a large company of the poor, and ordered seats to be set for them among the other guests. The steward was dis- pleased ;* but Wulfstan explained that those whom he brought with him were the men who had the true riches ; he had rather sit down with such a company than sit down, as he had often done, with the King of the English* For Rufus, we are told, always received 1 So say the Margam Annals, 1095; “Commotio fuit stellarum,:et obiit Wlstanus Wigorniensis episcopus.” But unluckily it appears from Florence that the stars did not shoot till April 4. Still it is edifying to mark the different results of the death of a saintly and of a worldly bishop. The next entry is, ‘“‘ Moritur Willelmus episcopus Dunelmensis, et hic commotio hominum.” According to Hugh of Flavigny (Pertz, viii. 474) the stars pad regard to the death of an abbot who in no way concerns us ; ‘‘ Stellz de ceelo cadere visee sunt, et eadem nocte Gyraldus abbas Silve majoris [in the diocese of Bourdeaux] migravit ad Dominum,” Sigebert’s Chronicle (Pertz, vi. 367) has some curious physical details. ? See above, p. 297. 3 The story is told by William of Malmesbury, Vit. Wlst. Angl. Sacr. ii. 266. “Premonuerat ministros velle se ad illud pascha convivari accuratis epulis cum bonis hominibus.” He then brings the poor people into the hall and “ precepit inter eos sedili locato epulas sibi apponi.” * The steward’s doctrine is “‘ competentius esse, ut episcopus convivaretur cum paucis divitibus quam cum multis pauperibus.” The bishop makes his scriptural quotation, and adds, “ illis debere serviri, qui non haberent unde redderent.” He then winds up, “ Letius.se videre istum consesgum, quam si, LAST DAYS OF WULFSTAN, 479 Wulfstan with honour; we may doubt whether either cuar. 1. knew enough of the other's language for rebukes to be Geveral respect for met by repartees. The great men of the realm did the Wulfstan. like. Foreign princes, prelates, and potentates honoured him with gifts and asked for. his prayers.1 Among his His corre- correspondents were the Pope—doubtless Urban—Mal-‘P°™"*"** colm and Margaret of Scotland, and the kings of Ireland. To this list are added the Archbishop of Bari and the His : ba? increased Patriarch of Jerusalem, which last name suggests corre- sickness, spondence on the common needs of Christendom. ee Pentecost Wulfstan was very sick ; he sent for his special friend Bishop Robert of Hereford, him whose skill had foretold that Remigius would never dedicate his min- ster.2. Robert came; the humble Wulfstan made his Wulfstan confession and submitted to the discipline* But he ia lived on during the rest of that year. Shortly after the "4. beginning of the new year, he had another visit from Bishop Robert and two abbots of his diocese, Serlo of Gloucester and Gerald, abbot of ‘the still unfinished house which Robert Fitz-hamon was raising at Tewkes- bury. Wulfstan again confessed; he foretold his own ut sepe, consedisset regi Anglorum.” One would like to have Wulfstan’s English. We must remember that Wulfstan was commonly surrounded at dinner by a knightly following. Vit. Wlst. 259. ‘‘Excepto si quando cum monachis reficeretur, semper in regia considentibus militibus palam convivabatur.” 1 Vit. Wlst. 266. ‘‘Multo eum suspiciebat rex honore, multo proceres ; ut qui spe ipsum ascirent convivio, et assurgerent ejus consilio.” Then follows the list of his foreign admirers, but it is only of the Irish kings that we read that “ magnis eum veneratantur favoribus.” Malcolm and Margaret “ipsius se dedebant orationibus ;” the foreign prelates “ epistolis quae adhuc supersunt ejus ambierunt apud Deum suffragia,”” * See above, p. 312. 3 Vit. Wlst. 267. ‘“ Humanorum excessum [had he given in a little too much to foreign ways?] confessione facta, etiam disciplinam accepit. Ita vocant monachi virgarum flagra, que tergo nudato cedentis infligit acri- monia.” * Serlo we have heard of before; see N.C. vol. iv. p. 383. Of Tewkes- bury I shall have to speak below, and see N, C, vol. v. pp. 628, 629. 480 CHAP. IV. Death of Wulfstan. January 18, 1095. His ap- pearance to Bishop Robert. His burial. Jan. 22. THE PRIMACY OF ANSELM. death ; he comforted his friends; he gave himself to re- ligious exercises, causing his seat in his chamber to be so placed that he could see the altar in his chapel.! At last, not many: days after Robert's visit, the one remaining bishop of the old stock passed away from his church and from the world. Men believed that he appeared in transitu to his friend Bishop Robert, who, as one who reconciled his episcopal virtues with skill in the affairs of the world, was now with the King at Cricklade.2 The vision bade Robert come to his friend’s burial; he came, and the ceremony took place four days after Wulfstan’s death, among a mighty gathering of those who had honoured him in life. A generation later it was made a subject of complaint, a subject of rebuke to an age which, we are told, was loath to believe in signs and wonders, that so holy a man was not formally enrolled on the list of saints.? Aftertimes made up for this neglect. Wulfstan 1 Vit. Wlst. 267. “ Magis sedens quam jacens, aures psalmig, oculos altari applicabat, sedili sic composito ut libere cerneret quicquid in capella fieret.” That is, there was a squint between his bed-room and the chapel, a not un- common arrangement, one of the best instances of which is to be seen in Beverstone Castle, in Wulfstan’s diocese, though of a date long after God- wine’s days and his. This use of the squint is only one of several ways for enabling the inmates, whether of houses, hospitals, or monastic in- tirmaries, to hear mass without going out of doors. ? The vision is recorded by William of Malmesbury in the life of Wulfstan (268), where he says that Bishop Robert was ‘‘in curia regis,” and adds that he was “homo seculi quidem fretus prudentia, sed nulla solutus ille- cebra.” Florence says that Robert was ‘in oppido quod Criccelad vocatur.” The inference is that the King was at Cricklade. Cricklade does not appear among the King’s lordships in Wiltshire ; but both he (Domesday, 65) and other lords had burgesses there, and there is an entry in 64 b about the third penny, which brought in five pounds yearly. In the Gesta Pontificum William of Malmesbury does not mention the vision ; but he brings Bishop Robert to Worcester to bury Wulfstan without any such call. There is surely something a little heathenish in his descrip- tion of the bishop’s body lying im “ Libitina ante altare.” 3 Gest. Pont. 289. “ Profecto, si facilitas antiquorum hominum adjuvaret, jamdudum elatus in altum sanctus predicaretur, sed nostrorum incredulitas, que se cautelz umbraculo exornat, non vult miraculis adhibere fidem etiamsi DEATH OF WULFSTAN. 481 became the chief object of local devotion, and no small cuap. rv. object of devotion throughout the land. The saint whom Rufus had honoured in life became after death the special object of the devotion of King John, who hoped to be safer in the next world if his body lay in Wulfstan’s church under the shadow of Wulfstan’s shrine. Another link with the past was thus snapped, and, what the King at least thought more of, another bishopric passed into the hands of Flambard. About a month after the shade of Wulfstan had appeared to Bishop Robert in the King’s court at Cricklade, the living Anselm showed himself to the King in person in his court at Gilingham.! Notwithstanding the hatred which William had expressed towards him at Hastings, the Archbishop had reasons which urged him to seek — another interview. The errand on which he came was Anselm one at which he had hinted before he had been invested 4 U8" with the archbishopric. He had then fairly warned the King that, if he became archbishop, he must acknow- ledge Urban as Pope.? He had as yet done nothing towards acknowledging him; he had taken no step which involved the acknowledgement of Urban or of any other pope. With Anselm moral questions came first. The points on which he had first striven to awaken the conscience of the King had been the moral corruption of his court and kingdom, and the synod conspicetur oculo, etiamsi palpat digito.’ Yet, though he says that prayers offered at Wulfstan’s tomb were always answered, yet he says nothing about miracles being wrought there (unless we count the wonderful preservation of the tomb itself during a fire), and not much of miracles done during his lifetime. There is more in the Life. : 1 Eadmer, Hist. Nov. 25. “Quem consistentem in quadam villa que tribus miliariis a Sceftesberia distans Llingeham vocatur Anselmus adiit.” See above, p. 477. By what follows this must have been some t.me in February. 7 See above, p. 414; VOL. I. i 482 THE PRIMACY OF ANSELM. cuar.1v. which, in Anselm’s eyes at least, was the best means for Need of the pallium. Elder usage as to the pallium. its reformation. But William had so utterly refused his consent to the holding of a synod, he had so utterly refused to give Anselm any help in his schemes of moral reform, that Anselm perhaps thought it useless to press those subjects again upon him. The point which he still thought it his duty to press was one which to us seems of infinitely less importance than either, but with regard to which we must look at matters with the eyes of An- selm’s day and not with the eyes of our own. Anselm was full archbishop in all points spiritual and temporal, as far as the spiritual and temporal powers of England could make him so. But he still lacked one badge of metropolitan authority, without which his position would certainly be deemed imperfect anywhere out of England. He had not received the archiepiscopal pal- lium from Rome. He naturally wished for this final stage of his promotion, this sign of recognition, as he would deem it, on the part of the Universal Church and her chief pastor. Now this supposed need of the pallium was not, like some of the claims of the Roman see, any- thing new. English archbishops had gone to receive the pallium at Rome, or they had had the pallium sent to them from Rome, in the days of the elder William, in the days of Eadward, in the days of kings long before then.? Lanfrane had gone to Rome for his pallium with the full good will of the Conqueror,? and one of the chief eccle- siastical difficulties of the time immediately before the Conqueror’s coming was the belief that Stigand had re- ceived his pallium in an irregular way.? The amount of dependence on the Roman see which was implied in the receipt of this badge of honour may perhaps be questioned. It would be differently understood at Rome and at Can- ? See N. C. vol. ii. pp. 122, 462, and Hook, Archbishops, i. 27, 270. ? See N.C. vol. iv. p. 353. 3 See N.C. vol. ii. p. 441. THE PALLIUM. 483 terbury. It would be differently understood atCanterbury, cuar. 1v. according to the temper of different archbishops, or according to their English or foreign birth. But it is at The pal- least plain that the possession of the pallium was not at ae this time looked on as at all needful for the validity of Padity any archiepiscopal act. Anselm, as yet unclothed with of archi- it, had consecrated a bishop and had. proposed to hold gee synod. Still for the new archbishop to go to Rome to receive that badge of his office which was still lacking was a simple matter of course. Doubtless the journey needed the formal leave of the king; but no king but William Rufus would have thought of refusing his leave for the purpose. William had indeed not acknowledged Urban; but Anselm had warned William that, if he became archbishop, he must continue to acknowledge Urban, and William had allowed him to become arch- bishop on those terms. The earlier conduct of William in such matters could not have led Anselm to think that he attached much real importance to the matter. William of Saint-Calais had put forth the loftiest views of papal authority in the hearing of William and Lanfranc, and they had been objected to on quite other grounds. King and Primate had rightly objected when the Bishop of Dur- ham appealed from the King and his Witan to the Pope of Rome; they had not quarrelled with the Bishop of Durham simply because he had implied that there was a Pope of Rome. The refusal to allow Anselm to go for Character the pallium could have come only from a king who was or determined to raise every point which could annoy the tefusal. archbishop, above all to raise every point which could by any chance drive him to a resignation of the arch- bishopric. Or better still than all in the Red King’s eyes would it be to find some point which could any- how lead to Anselm’s being deprived of the arch- bishopric. If such an end could be gained, it would 112 484 CHAP. IV. Anselm asks leave to go to Urban for the pallium. William will ac- knowledge no pope. Anselm’s argument. William’s answer, THE PRIMACY OF ANSELM. matter not by what power or by what process it was done; it would matter not if it involved the forsaking on William’s own part of every position which he had taken up. Anselm then came to Gillingham, and asked the King’s leave to go to the Pope to ask for his pallium. William at once asked to which Pope he meant to go." Anselm of course answered, To Urban. The King said that he had not yet acknowledged Urban as Pope, that it was neither his custom nor that of his father to allow any one in his kingdom so much as to call any one Pope without his leave. So precious was this right to him that to seek to take it from him was the same thing as to seek to take away his crown.” Anselm then set forth the case of the two contending Popes, and his own per- sonal case in the matter. He reminded the King of what he had told him at Rochester before he took the arch- bishopric, that, as Abbot of Bec, he had acknowledged Urban, and that he could not withdraw from the obedience which he had pledged to him. The King, in great wrath, said that Anselm could not at once keep his faith towards himself and the obedience which with- Position of out his leave he had promised to Urban.? Now, when Anselm towards Urban. Anselm pledged his obedience to Urban, he was not an English subject, and he needed no leave from the King of England for anything. He acknowledged Urban, as all the rest of Normandy acknowledged him. The obedi- ence which he had thus pledged Anselm looked on as still personally binding on him, though his temporal 1 Eadmer, Hist. Nov. 25. ‘Eique suam voluntatem in hoc esse inno- tuit, ut Romanum pontificem pro pallii sui petitione adiret. Ad quod rex, A quo inquit papa illud requirere cupis?” 2 Th. “ Quicunque sibi hujus dignitatis potestatem vellet preripere, unum foret ac si coronam suam sibi conaretur auferre.” 3 Tb, “Ire stimulis exagitatus, protestatus est illum nequaquam fidem quam sibi debebat simul et apostolice sedis obedientiam, contra suam voluntatem, posse servare.”” ANSELM AND WILLIAM AT GILLINGHAM. 485 allegiance was transferred to a kingdom where Urban cusp. sv. was not acknowledged. William, not unnaturally, took no heed of Anselm’s personal obligations. Whatever the Abbot of Bee might have done, neither the Archbishop of Canterbury nor any other English subject could acknowledge any Pope without the King’s leave. After all, Anselm’s acknowledgement of Urban had not yet gone further than speaking of him as Pope. He had had no dealings with him of any kind. He indeed proposed to do an act which would have been the fullest ac- knowledgement of Urban’s claims. But he had proposed to do it only with the King’s leave. What he should do in case the King refused to give him leave to go, he had not said, very likely he had not settled in his own mind. He would do nothing contrary to his obedience to Urban; but as yet his obedience to Urban was wholly in theory. The King’s words now made it a practical question; any kind of adhesion to Urban was declared by the King’s own mouth to be inconsistent with: the duties of one who was the man of the King of England. Anselm, it is plain, was most anxious to do his duty twofold alike as churchman and as subject. He saw no kind of aoey ot inconsistency between the two. No such questions had bishop. been raised in the days of Lanfranc, and he had not done, or proposed to do, anything but what Lanfranc had done before him. Reasonably enough, he was not prepared to admit the King’s interpretation of the law which declared that he could not be the friend at once of Urban and of William. And, in a thoroughly consti- He asks tutional spirit, he demanded that the question should be ae referred to a lawful assembly of the kingdom. Let the ee bishops, abbots, and lay nobles come together, and let tion. them decide whether the two duties were so inconsistent with each other as the King said they were.! By their 1 EKadmer, Hist. Nov. 26. “ Petivit inducias ad istius rei examinationem 486 CHAP, IV. Anselm’s purposes. He will leave the realm if he may not ac- knowledge Urban. THE PRIMACY OF ANSELM. judgement on the point of law he would abide. If they ruled that it was as the King said, that obedience to Urban was inconsistent with allegiance to William, then he would shape his own course accordingly. If such should be their verdict, he could not abide in the land without either openly throwing off the obedience of Urban or else openly breaking his duty as subject and liegeman to William. He would do neither. In such a case he would leave the realm till such time as the King should acknowledge Urban.1. By that means he would avoid all breach of either duty. The case might well have been argued on another ground, whether it was not being righteous overmuch to bring back again, for the sake of a technical scruple of any kind, all the evils which would at once follow if the land were again left without an archbishop. Anselm’s answer would doubtless have been that he could not do evil that good might come, And it would be much clearer to the mind of Anselm than it would have been to the mind of any native Englishman that a withdrawal of obedience from Urban was the doing of evil. The feelings of Aosta, even the feelings of Bec, were not quite at home in the air of Gillingham. But the bringing in of foreign ideas, feelings, and scruples, was one of the necessary consequences of foreign conquest. Anselm obeyed his own conscience, and his conscience taught him as a quatenus episcopis, abbatibus, cunctisque regni principibus, una coéuntibus communi assensu definiretur, utrum salva reverentia et obedientia sedis apostolicee posset fidem terreno regi servare, annon.’” These words must be specially attended to, as they contain the whole root of the matter with regard to the council of Rockingham. The word “indutie” is rather hard to translate. It means an adjournment, but something more than an adjourn- ment. The word “ truce,” commonly used to express it, is rather too strong ; yet it is sometimes hard to avoid it. 1 Eadmer, Hist. Nov. 26. “ Quod si probatum, inquit, fuerit, utrumaque fieri minime posse, fateor malo terram tuam, donec apostolicum suscipias, exeundo devitare, quam beati Petri ejusque vicarii obedientiam vel ad horam abnegare.” THE ASSEMBLY SUMMONED TO ROCKINGHAM. 487 conscience schooled at Aosta and Bec could not fail to cmap... teach him. To Anselm’s proposal for referring the matter to the Frequency Witan of the kingdom William made no objection. The. \iies Red King seems never to have had any objection fie meeting either his great men or the general mass of his subjects. He was in truth so strong that every gathering of the kind became little more than a display of his power. But it is not easy to see why the question could not have been kept open till the ordinary Easter Gemét. That Gemdt was held this year at Winchester, and, as Easter we shall see in another chapter, matters of no small aos moment had to be treated in it. The King’s authority 1°95- was beginning to be defied in northern England, and at this Easter it had to be asserted. But, for whatever A special reason, it was determined that a special assembly should eae be summoned a fortnight before the regular meeting at Winchester, for the discussion of the particular point which had been raised between the King and the Arch- bishop. It illustrates the way in which the kings and great men of that time were always moving from place to place that a spot was chosen for the special meeting, far away from the spot where William and Anselm then were, far away from the place where the regular as- sembly was to be held so soon after. Gillingham and Winchester were comparatively near to each other; but the assembly which was to give a legal judgement as to Assembly Anselm’s conflicting duties was summoned to meet on rane the second Sunday before Easter at the royal castle of ee ne Rockingham on the borders of Northamptonshire and Leicestershire, a place which had at least the merit of being one of the most central in England. . In the question which was now to be argued, there can be little doubt that the King was technically in the 488 CHAP. IV, The King technically right. Moral estimate of his conduct. Position of the rival Popes. THE PRIMACY OF ANSELM. right, as the law was understood in his father’s time. By the custom of the Conqueror’s reign, no Pope could be acknowledged without the King’s leave ; and, though Anselm had not taken any active or public step in acknowledgement of Urban, he had acknowledged him in words spoken to the King himself, and he had de- clared that he would not on any account withdraw his obedience from Urban. At the same time one can hardly conceive a more pettifogging way of interpreting the law, or a meaner way of abusing a legal power. There was no reasonable ground for refusing to ac- knowledge Urban, except on the theory that the deposi- tion of Gregory and the election of Clement were valid. Urban represented the claims of Gregory; Clement still lived to assert his own claims. But though Lanfrane had used cautious language about the dispute,! England and her King had never thought of acknowledging Cle- ment or of withdrawing their allegiance from Gregory. Gregory had been the Conqueror’s Pope, as long as the two great ones both lived. And, if Clement’s election was void from the beginning, Gregory’s death could not make his right any better. Victor had succeeded Gregory, and Urban had succeeded Victor. There could be no excuse for objecting to Urban, except on a ground which William Rufus might have been glad to take up, but which he could not take up with any decency. He might, not unreasonably from his own point of view, have thrown himself into the Imperial cause, as the common cause of princes. But he could not do this without throwing blame on the conduct of his father. Or again, if he had tried, in any legal or regular way, either to limit the papal power like Henry the Second, or to cast it off altogether like Henry the Eighth, we at least, as we read the story, could not have blamed him. } See N. C, vol. iv. p. 435. THE CASE BETWEEN ANSELM AND WILLIAM. But it was not in the nature of William Rufus to do anything in a legal or regular way. It was not in him to take up any really intelligible counter position, either by getting rid of Popes altogether or by acknowledging the Imperial Pope. It is true that he might have found it hard to carry with him even his servile prelates, still -harder to carry his lay nobles, in either of those courses. But then it was just as little in him honestly to take the third course which was open to him, by frankly acknow- ledging Urban. It pleased him better to play tricks with his claim to acknowledge popes, just as he played tricks with his claim to appoint bishops and abbots. To keep the question open, to give no reason on either side, but practically to hinder the acknowledgement of any pope, was a more marked exercise of his own arbitrary will than if he had ruled the disputed question either way. But, just as he was ready to fill up a bishopric as soon as he thought it worth his while in point of money, so he was quite ready to acknowledge a pope as soon as it seemed worth his while to do so, in point either of policy or of spite. All this while he had not the slightest real objection to acknowledge Urban. Either now or very soon after, he was actually intriguing with Urban, in hopes of carrying his point against Anselm by his means. And now the Assembly came together which was to declare the law of England as to the point in dispute between Anselm and the King. It was not gathered in any of the great cities, or under the shadow of any of the great minsters, of the realm. Nor yet was it gathered, as some councils were gathered before and after, in one of those spots which were simply the seats of the King’s silvan pleasures. Rockingham, placed on the edge of the forest which bears its name, the wooded 489 CHAP, Iv. William’s treatment of the question, No real objection to Urban on his part. Position of Rock- ingham, 490 CHAP, IV. History of the place. The castle. THE PRIMACY OF ANSELM. ground between the sluggish streams of Nen and Wel- land, was preeminently a hunting-seat; but it was not merely a hunting-seat; it was also a fortress. As in so many cases, the Norman, in this case the Conqueror _ himself, had seized and adapted to his own use the home and the works of the Englishman. On a height just within the borders of Northamptonshire, looking forth- across the valley of the Welland over the Danish land to the north, the Englishman Bofig had in King Ead- ward's days held sac and soc in his lordship of Rocking- ham. His dwelling-place, like those of other English thegns, crowned a mound on a site strong by nature, and which the skill of Norman engineers was to change into a site strong by art. In the havoc which fell upon Northampton, borough and shire, when William went forth to subdue the Mercian land,’ the home of Bofig had become waste; and on that waste spot the King ordered a castle to be built.2 At Rockingham, as almost everywhere else, we find works earlier and later than the time of our story, but nothing that we can positively assign to the days of either William. There is no keep, as at Bridgenorth and at Oxford, which we can assign to any of the known actors in our tale. The mound of Bofig is yoked on to a series of buildings of various dates, from the thirteenth century to the sixteenth. But we can still trace the line of the walls and ditches which the Conqueror or his successors added as new defences to the primitive mound and its primitive ditch. Art and nature together have made the site almost peninsular ; but a considerable space, occupied by the parish church 1 See N. C. vol. iv. p. 224. ? Domesday, 220. ‘Rex tenet Rochingeham.... Hance terram tenuit Bovi cum saca et soca T.R. E. Wasta erat quando rex W. jussit ibi castel- lum fieri.” On Rockingham Castle, see Mr. G. T. Clark, Archzological Journal, xxxv. 209. THE MEETING AT ROCKINGHAM. 491 and by the town which has sunk to a village, lies between cmap. rv. the castle and the stream that flows beneath the height. The site is a lordly one, and is almost the more striking Descrip- because it commands no other great object such as those #0" °t which are commanded by those castles which were raised to protect or to keep down a city. When the forest was still a forest in every sense of the word, the aspect of the castle of Rockingham, one of the wilder retreats of English kingship, must have been at once ‘lonelier and busier than it is now. At Rockingham then the Assembly met, a fortnight Meeting before Easter. The immediate place of meeting was the cae church within the castle.t| The church has perished, but ae uy its probable site may be traced among the buildings to the north of the mound. But it is hard to understand Place of how the narrow space of a castle-chapel could hold the fooms)_ great gathering which came together at Rockingham. *bapel. The King and his immediate counsellors sat apart in a The King’s inner separate chamber, while outside were a numerous body, council. among whom we hear of the bishops and nobles, but which is also spoken of as a vast crowd of monks, clerks, and laymen.? It may be that, according to an arrangement which is sometimes found elsewhere, but of which there is no present trace at Rockingham, the great hall opened into the chapel, so that, while the church was formally the place of meeting, the greater space of the hall would be open to receive the over- flowing crowd.? The time of meeting was the early 1 Eadmer, Hist. Nov. 26. ‘‘ Fit conventus omnium dominico die, in ecclesia qua est in ipso castro sita, ab hora prima, rege et suis secretius in Anselmum consilia sua studiose texentibus.” ? « Anselmus autem, episcopis, abbatibus, et principibus, ad se a regio ~ secreto vocatis, eos et assistentem monachorum, clericorum, laicorum, nume- rosam multitudinem hac voce alloquitur.” ; 5 See above, p. 480, for somewhat similar arrangements. But the present hall of Rockingham, dating from the thirteenth century, is divided by the width of the court from what seems to be the site of the chapel. 492 CHAP. IV. Early hours of the assembly, Anselm’s opening speech, He states his case, THE PRIMACY OF ANSELM. morning; a midnight sitting of the Wise Men was an unknown thing in those days. The King sat within in the outer space, whatever was its nature, Anselm addressed the assembly, calling forth the bishops and lords from the presence-chamber to hear him. We must remember that, in the absence of the King, he was the first man in the Assembly and its natural leader. He laid his case before his hearers. He had asked leave of the King to go to Pope Urban for his pallium. The King had told him that to acknowledge Urban or any one else as Pope without his leave was the same thing as trying to take his crown from him. The King had added that faith to him and obedience to Urban were two things which could not go together; Anselm could not practise both at once. It was this point which the Assembly had come together to decide; it was on this point that their counsel was needed. He bade his hearers remember that he had not sought the arch- bishopric, that in truth he would gladly have been burned alive rather than take it. They had themselves forced him into the office—the bishops certainly had in a literal and even physical sense. It was for them now to help him with their counsel, to lessen thereby the burthen which they themselves had laid on his shoulder.2 He appealed to all, he specially appealed to his brother bishops, to weigh the matter carefully, and to decide. Could he at once keep his plighted faith 1 Eadmer, Hist. Nov. 26. ‘“Fateor verum dico, quia salva reverentia voluntatis Dei maluissem illa die, si optio mihi daretur, in ardentem rogum comburendus precipitari, quam archiepiscopatus dignitate sub- limari.” 2 «Rapuistis me, et cvegistis onus omnium suscipere, qui corporis im- becillitate defessus meipsum vix poteram ferre....attamen videns im- portunam voluntatem vestram, credidi me vobis, et suscepi onus quod imposuistis, confisus spe auxilii vestri quod polliciti estis. Nune ergo, ecce tempus adest quo sese causa obtulit, ut onus meum consilii vestri manu levetis.” OPENING OF THE ASSEMBLY. 493 to the King and his plighted obedience to the Pope? It cuar. rv. was a grave matter to sin against either duty. Could not both duties be observed without any breach of either? This was indeed the question which the Assembly was The real brought together to consider and to decide. The ped Pe meeting had been called, at Anselm’s own request, to eee inform him on the point of law, whether he could acknowledge Urban without disloyalty to Wiliam. But during a long debate of two days, that real issue is never touched, till Anselm himself calls back men’s minds to the real object of their coming together. It Assump- is assumed throughout by the King and the King’s ae iLing’s party that the point of law is already settled in the ae é sense unfavourable to Anselm, that Anselm has done Anselm. something contrary to his allegiance to the King, that He is he is there as an accused man for trial, almost as aes convicted man for sentence. That he is a member of Peo? the Assembly, the highest subject in the Assembly, that the whole object of the meeting is to decide a question in which the King and his highest subject understand the law in different ways, seems not to come into the head of any of the King’s immediate counsellors. Least of all does it come into the heads Conduct of the bishops, the class of men who play the most ishens. prominent and the least creditable part in the story. To Anselm’s question then the bishops were the first Answer to make answer. They are spoken of throughout as ta acting in a body; but they must have had some spokes- man. That spokesman could not have been the Bishop of Durham, who must surely have been sitting with the King in his inner council. William of Saint-Calais comes on the scene afterwards, but no bishop is mentioned by name at this stage. The answer of the episcopal body was not cheering. The Archbishop had no need of their 494 THE PRIMACY OF ANSELM. cuap.1v. counsel. He was a man prudent in God and a lover of goodness, and could settle such points better than they could. If he would throw himself wholly on the King’s will, then they would give him their advice; or they would, if he wished, goin and report his words to the King. The meet- They did so; and Rufus, with a scruple which one would oe ol tu rather have looked for from Anselm, ordered that, as the Monday. day was Sunday, the discussion should be adjourned to the morrow. Anselm was to go to his own quarters, and to appear again in the morning. One might like to know where, not only the Archbishop, but the whole host of visitors at times like this, found quarters. Un- less they were all the King’s guests in the castle, and filled its nooks and corners how they might, it must have been much harder to find lodgings at Rockingham than Meeting of it was at Gloucester. Monday morning came; Anselm, Se am with his faithful reporter Eadmer, went to the place oe of meeting. Sitting in the midst of the whole Assembly, bishops. he told the bishops, as it would seem, that he was ready to receive the advice which he had asked for yesterday. They They again answered that they had nothing to say but os what they had said yesterday; they had no advice to submission. ive him, unless he was ready to throw himself wholly on the King’s will. If he drew distinctions and reserva- tions, if he pleaded any call on behalf of God to do any- thing against the King’s will, they would give him no help. So low had the prelacy of England fallen under > Eadmer, Hist. Nov. 27. “Si, remota omni alia conditione, simpliciter ad voluntatem domini nostri regis consilii tui summam transferre velles, prompta tibi voluntate, ut nobis ipsis, consuleremus.” * “In medio procerum et conglobate multitudinis sedens.” Judges and bishops can still deliver charges sitting ; but it would seem hard to carry on a debate in that posture. * «Si pure ad voluntatem domini regis consilii tui summam transferre volueris, promptum, et quod in nobis ipsis utile didicimus, a nobis consilium certum habebis. Si autem secundum Deum, quod ullatenus voluntati regis ANSELM AND THE BISHOPS. 495 the administration of Rufus and Flambard. Neither as omar. iv. priests of God, nor as Witan of the realm, nor simply as iaon freemen of the land, was there any strength or counsel bishops. in them. Their answer seems almost to imply that they cast aside the common decencies, not only of prelates but of Christian men, that they fully accepted the ruling of their sovereign, that the will of God was not to be put into comparison with the will of the King. Anselm Anselm is not doing like some before and after him, not even a like his chief enemy in the present gathering. He is “#™* not asserting any special privilege for his order; he is not appealing from a court within the realm to any foreign jurisdiction. He asks for counsel how he may reconcile his duty to God with his duty to the King; and the answer he gets is that he has nothing to do but to submit to the King’s will; the law of God, and seemingly the law of England with it, are to go for nothing. But there was at least some shame left in them; when they had given their answer, they held their peace and hung down their heads, as if waiting for what Anselm might lay upon them. Then the His second Primate spoke, seemingly not rising from his seat, but? a with uplifted eyes, with solemn voice, with a face all alive with feeling? He looked at the chiefs of Church and State, prelates and nobles, and told them that if they, shepherds and princes,’ could give no counsel save according to the will of one man, he must betake him to the Shepherd and Prince of all. That Shepherd and obviare possit, consilium a nobis expectas, frustra niteris; quia in hujus- modi nunquam tibi nos adminiculari videbis.” ' Eadmer, Hist. Nov. 27. “Quibus dictis conticuerunt, et capita sua quasi ad ea que ipse illaturus erat demiserunt.” 2 «Tunc pater Anselmus, erectis in altum luminibus, vivido vultu, reve- renda voce, ista locutus est.” ‘Nos qui Christian plebis pastores, et vos qui populorum principes voeamini.” 496 CHAP. IV, His two duties, THE PRIMACY OF ANSELM. Prince had given a charge and authority to Peter first, and after him to the other Apostles, to the Vicar of Peter first and after him to all other bishops, a charge and authority which He had not given to any temporal prince, Count, Duke, King, or Emperor. He owed a duty to his temporal prince, for the Lord had bidden . him’ to render to Cesar the things that were Czesar’s. Position of England towards the Popes. But he was bidden also to render to God the things that were God’s. He would, to the best of his power, obey both commands. He must give obedience to the Vicar of Peter in the things of God; in those things which belonged to the earthly dignity of his lord the King, he would ever give his lord his faithful counsel and help, according to the measure of his power. The words are calm and dignified, the words of a man who, forsaken by all, had no guide left but the light within him. There is indeed a ring about some of Anselm’s sayings which is not pleasing in English ears; we may doubt whether Dunstan would have drawn the distinction which was drawn by Anselm. And yet that distinction comes to no more than the undoubted truth that we should obey God rather than man. The only question was whether obedience to Pope Urban was a necessary part of obedience to God. The foreign clergy doubtless held stronger views of papal authority than had been known of old in England; but we may be sure that every man, native or foreign, held that the Bishop of Rome had some claim on his reverence, if not on his obedience. The ancient custom that an English arch- bishop should go to him for the pallium shows it of itself. The craven bishops themselves would, if secretly pressed by their consciences or their confessors, have spoken in all things as Anselm spoke. And there was 1 Eadmer, Hist. Nov. 27. “ Non cuilibet imperatori, non alicui regi, non duci, non comiti.” Ihave ventured to prefer the climax to the anti-climax. ANSELM AND WILLIAM OF SAINT-CALAIS. 497 one hard by, if not present in that company, yet within cuar. rv. the wall of the same castle, who had gone many steps further Romeward than Anselm went. Closeted with the Anselm King, caballing with him against the man of God, was ee Bishop William of Durham, the man who had openly ef Saint appealed to the Pope from the sentence of an English court, the man who had openly refused to Caesar what was most truly Ceesar’s, who had denied the right of the King and Witan of England to judge a bishop, even in the most purely temporal causes.'. Anselm had made no such appeal; he had made no such exclusive claims; it is needless to say that he did not, like William of Saint-Calais, take to the policy of obstruction, that he did not waste the time of the assembly by raising petty points of law, or subtle questions as to the befitting dress of its members.” Anselm was a poor Papist, one might almost say a poor churchman, beside that still recent phase of the bishop who had now fully learned that the will of God was not to be thought of when it clashed with the will of the King. It was not Anselm, but the man who Anselm sought to supplant Anselm, who had taken the first and 7°, ‘2° greatest step towards the establishment of foreign and ereca 0 usurped jurisdictions within the realm. The bishops heard the answer of their Primate. They Answer rose troubled and angry; they talked confusedly to oe one another; they seemed as if they were pronouncing Anselm to be guilty of death. They turned to him in wrath; they told him that they would not carry to the King such a message as that, and they went out to the room where the King was. But it was right that the King should know what Anselm’s answer had been. 1 See above, p. 104. 2 See above, p. 95. 8 Eadmer, Hist. Nov. 27. ‘‘Turbationem suam confusis vocibus expri- mentes, ut eos illum esse reum mortis una clamare putares.” The reference seems to be to St. Matthew's Gospel, xxvi. 66. VOL. I. Kk 498 CHAP, IV. Anselm goes in to the King. Anselm asleep. The King’s message. Advice of the bishops. THE PRIMACY OF ANSELM. Anselm had no one whom he could send on such an errand; it was not in his nature to thrust another into the mouth of the lion when he could brave the danger himself. He went into the presence-chamber; he re- peated his own words.to the King, and at once with- drew. The wrath of William was kindled; he took counsel with the bishops and the nobles of his party, to see what answer he could make; but they found none. As in the hall at Lillebonne, when the Conqueror put forth his plan for the invasion of England,! men were to be seen talking together by threes and fours, seeking for something to say which might at once soften the King’s wrath and at the same time not directly deny the doctrine set forth by Anselm.? They were long over their discussion ; the subject of their debates meanwhile sat leaning against the wall of the place of meeting, in a gentle sleep. He was awakened by the entrance of the bishops, accompanied by some of the lay nobles, charged with a message from the King. His lord the King bade him at once, laying aside all other werds—the words, one would think, of dreamland so cruelly broken in upon—to hear, and to give his answer with all speed.? They had not as yet to announce any solemn judgement of the King and his Witan; their words still took the form of advice; but it was advice which was meant to be final and decisive. As for the matters which had 1 See N.C, vol. iii. p. 295. Only the groups at Lillebonne seem to have been larger than those at Rockingham. ? Eadmer, Hist. Nov. 28. ‘ Hic duo, ibi tres, illic quatuor, in unum con- siliabantur, studiosissime disquirentes, si quo modo possent aliquod re- sponsum contra heee componere, quod et regiam animositatem deliniret et prelibatas sententias Dei adversa fronte non impugnaret.” * “ Adversariis ejus conciliabula sua in longum protelantibus, ipse ad parietem se reclinans leni somno quiescebat.” + «Vult dominus noster rex, omissis aliis verbis, a te sub celeritate senten- tiam audire.” 5 «Hee rogamus, hee consulimus, hee tibi tuisque necessaria esse dici- mus et confirmamus.” ADVICE OF THE BISHOPS, 499 been talked about between him and the King at Gilling- omar. 1. ham, the matter for whose decision he had sought the present adjournment, the matter at issue was plain and easy. The whole realm was complaining of the Arch- bishop, because he was striving to take away from the common lord of all of them his crown, the glory of his Empire. For he who seeks to take away the King’s dig- nities and customs seeks to take away his.crown; the one cannot be without the other.1 They counselled Anselm Anselm to at once to throw aside all obedience and submission to Urban, who could do him no good, and who, if he only made his peace with the King, could do him no harm. Let him be free, as an Archbishop of Canterbury should be in all his doings; as free, let him wait for the will and bidding of the King in all things.? Let him, like a wise man, confess his fault and ask for pardon; then should his enemies who now mocked at his misfortunes, be put to shame as they saw him again lifted up in honour.® Such was the advice which the stranger bishops of England, with such of the stranger nobles as acted with them, gave to the stranger Primate. Such was their prayer, such was their counsel; such was the course which they insisted on as needful for Anselm and for all who held submit to the King with him. Among those was the true Englishman who Their defi- wrote down their words, and who must have smiled over the definition of freedom which, even in their mouths, 1 Eadmer, Hist. Nov. 28. ‘‘Noveris totum regnum conqueri adversum te quod nostro communi domino conaris decus imperii sui, coronam, auferre, Quicumque enim regie dignitatis ei consuetu_ines tollit, coronam simul et regnum tollit.” 2 «“ Urbani illius, qui offenso domino rege nil tibi prodesse nec ipso pacato tibi quicquam valet obesse, obedientiam abjice, subjectionis jugum excute, et liber, ut archiepiscopum Cantuariensem decet, in cunctis actibus tuis volun- tatem domini regis et jussionem expecta.” What more could Henry the Kighth have asked. of Cranmer ? : 3 « Quatenus inimici tui qui casibus tuis nunc insultant, visa dignitatis tuz sublevatione, erubescant.” Kk 3 nition of freedom. 500 CHAP. IV. Anselm will not reject Urban. William of Saint- Calais. His schemes against Anselm. THE PRIMACY OF ANSELM. hag a sound of sarcasm. Anselm said that, to speak of nothing else, he could not cast aside his obedience to the Pope. But it was evening; let there be an adjournment till the morrow; then he would speak as God should bid him.1_ The bishops deemed either that he knew not what more to say or else that he was beginning to yield. through fear? They went back to the King, and urged him that the adjournment should not be allowed, but that, as the matter had been discussed enough, if Anselm would not agree to their counsel, the formal judgement of the Assembly should be at once pronounced against him.? And now for the first time we come across a dis- tinct mention of an individual actor, standing out with a marked personality from the general mass of the assembled Witan. Foremost on the King’s side, the chosen spokesman of his master, was the very man who had gone so far beyond Anselm, who had forestalled Thomas himself, in asserting the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome within this realm of England. William of Saint-Calais, who, when it suited his purpose, had appealed to the Pope, who had been so anxious to go to the Pope, but who, when he had the means of going, had never gone, stood now fully ready to carry out the Imperial teaching that what seems good to the prince has the force of law. This man, so ready of speech—that we have seen long ago—but, in Eadmer’s eyes at least, not rich in any true wisdom, was all this time stirring the King up to wrath against Anselm, and doing all that he 1 Hadmer, Hist. Nov. 28. ‘Respondeam quod Deus inspirare digna- bitur.” 2 «Suspicati illum aut quid diceret ultra nescire aut metu addictum statim coepto desistere.” 3 “ Persuaserunt inducias nulla ratione dandas, sed causa recenti exami- natione discussa, supremam, si suis adquiescere consiliis nollet, in eum judicii sententiam invehi juberet.” SCHEMES OF WILLIAM OF SAINT-CALAIS, 501 could to widen the breach between them.! Men believed, cuar. rv. on Anselm’s side at least, that his object was to bring He aspires about the Archbishop’s deprivation or resignation by any bishopric. means, in hopes that he might himself succeed him.? Was this mere surmise, or had the Bishop of Durham any solid ground for looking forward to a translation to Canter~ bury? Had he the needful means? William of Saint- Calais was not a servant of the King’s to make a fortune in his service, like Randolf Flambard or Robert Bloet. He had risen, like Anselm himself, through the ranks of monk, prior, abbot, and bishop. But so too had Herbert Losinga, who had managed to buy a bishopric for him- self and an abbey for his father. William of Saint- Calais had since his consecration spent three years in banishment while his bishopric was in the King’s hands. Still he may, during his two terms of possession before and after, have screwed enough out of the patrimony of Saint Cuthberht to pay even the vast price at which the archbishopric would doubtless be valued. Or he may have fondly dreamed that, if Anselm could be got rid of by his means, the service would be deemed so great as to entitle him to Anselm’s place as a free gift. Anyhow he worked diligently on the King’s behalf. We are told—and the picture is not out of character— Objects of that Rufus wished to get rid of Anselm as the repre- pS sentative within his realm of another power than his own. He deemed himself to be no full king as long as there was any one who put the will of God before the will of the King, or who named the name of God as a power to 1 Eadmer, Hist. Nov. 28. “ Erat quasi primus et prolocutor regis in hoc negotio Willelmus supra nominatus Dunelmensis episcopus, homo linguze volubilitate facetus quam pura sapientia preditus. Hujus quoque discidii quod inter regem et Anselmum versabatur erat auctor gravis et incentor.” 2 «Omni ingenio satagebat, si quo modo Anselmum calumuniosis objecti- onibus fatigatum regno eliminaret, ratus, ut dicebatur, ipso discedente, se- archiepiscopatus solio sublimandum.” 502 CHAP, IV. Bishop - William’s promises to the King. His speech to Anselm. THE PRIMACY OF ANSELM. which even the King must yield! In his hatred to Anselm, he hoped to carry one of two points. Either the Archbishop would abjure the Pope, and would abide in the land a dishonoured man who had given up the cause for which he strove. Or else, if he still clave to the Pope, the King would then have a reasonable excuse for driving him out of the kingdom. To these intrigues of the blaspheming King the Bishop of Durham was not ashamed to lend himself. He recked nothing of the dishonour under which it was thought that Anselm would hardly bear to live. He promised to the King that he would bring about one of two things; either the Archbishop should renounce the Pope, or else he should formally re- sign the archbishopric by restoring the ring and staff? Now seemingly was the time to press him, when he was weary with the day’s work and sought for a respite, when his enemies were beginning to hope that, either through fear or weariness, he would be driven to yield. So the bishops again went back from the King to the Archbishop, with him of Durham as their leader and spokesman. The time-server made his speech to the man of God. “Hear the King’s complaint against you. He says that, as far as lies in your power, you have robbed him of his dignity by making Odo Bishop of Ostia”— William of Saint-Calais had had other names for him in an earlier assembly—*“ Pope in his England® without his bidding. Having so robbed him, you ask 1 Eadmer, Hist. Nov. 28. “Nec regia dignitate integre se potitum sus- picabatur, quamdiu aliquis in tota terra, vel etiam secundum Deum, nisi per eum quicquam habere (not dico) vel posse dicebatur.” * “Spoponderat se facturum ut Anselmus aut Romani pontificis funditus obedientiam abnegaret, aut archiepiscopatui, reddito baculo et annulo, ab- renunciaret.” S Ib. 29. “ Dicit quod quantum tua interest eum sua dignitate spoliasti, dum Odonem episcopum Ostiensem sine sui auctoritate precepti papam in sua Anglia facis.” SPEECH OF WILLIAM OF SAINT-CALAIS, 503 for an adjournment that you may devise arguments to caar. iv. prove that that robbery is just. Rather, if you please, clothe him again with the dignity of his Empire,! and then talk about an adjournment. Otherwise know that he will invoke the wrath of Almighty God upon him- self, and we his liegemen will have to make ourselves sharers in the curse, if he grants you an adjournment of an hour. Wherefore at once make answer to the words of our lord, or else expect presently a judgement which shall chastise your presumption. Do not think that all this is a mere joke; we are driven on by the pricks of a heavy grievance.? Nor is it wonderful. For that which your lord and ours claims as the chief thing in his whole dominion, that in whieh it is allowed that he surpasses all other kings,> that you unjustly take away from him as far as les in your power, and by taking it away you throw scorn on the oath which you have sworn to him, and plunge all his friends into this distress.” ‘Here are forms of words which may make us William's stop to study them. In this speech, and in the one ae which went before it, we see the ground on which William founded a claim to which he attached such special importance. It was not merely the King of the English, it was the Basileus of Britain, the Czesar of the island world, whose dignity was deemed to be touched. To allow or to refuse the acknowledgement of Popes is here declared by William of Saint-Calais to be no part of the prerogative of a mere king; it is spoken of as the special attribute of Empire. He who, alone 1 Hadmer, Hist. Nov. 29. ‘ Revesti eum primo, si placet, debita imperit sui dignitate, et tunc demum de induciis age.” 2 «Nec jocum existimes esse quod agitur; immo in istis magni doloris stimulis urgemur.” 3 “Quod dominus tuus et noster in omni dominatione sua precipuum habebat, et quo eum cunetis regibus prestare certum erat.” 504 CHAP, IV, William and the vassal kingdoms. His ill- success at this moment, THE PRIMACY OF ANSELM. among Christian princes, knew no superior either in the — elder or the younger Rome, was alone entitled to judge how far the claims of the Pontiff of one world should be acknowledged in another. This sole claim to Imperial power on behalf of the Monarch of all Britain’ might have been disputed in the last age in Bulgaria and in the next age in Castile; at that moment William of England was without a rival. He might even, if he chose to take up Anselm’s line of argument, bear him- self as more truly Imperial than the German king whose Roman crown had been placed on his head by a schismatic pontiff. And yet at no moment since the day when Scot and Briton and Northman bowed to Eadward the Unconquered had the Emperor of the Isle of Albion been less of an Emperor than when Anselm met the Red King at Rockingham. The younger Wil- liam had indeed fallen away from the dominion of the father who had received the homage at Abernethy and had made the pilgrimage to Saint David’s. The Welsh were in open and triumphant revolt; the Scots had driven out the king that he had given them. The Welsh had broken down his castles; the Scots had de- clared their land to be barred against all William’s subjects, French and English? True he was girding himself up for great efforts against both enemies; but those efforts had not yet been made. William was just then as far away as a man could be from deserving his father’s surnames of the Conqueror and the Great. At such a moment, we may really believe that he would feel special annoyance at anything which might be con- strued as casting doubt even in theory on claims which he found it so hard to assert in practice. In the moment of his first great success in England, there had been less to 1 See Appendix F, ? We shall come to these matters in the next chapter. WILLIAM'S EMPIRE. 505 bring the wider and loftier side of his dominion before cuar. 1. his mind. He had thought less of his right to allow or to refuse the acknowledgement of Popes in the days when the regale was asserted by Lanfranc and the pon- tificale by William of Saint-Calais, than he thought now that the regale was asserted by William of Saint-Calais and the pontificale by Anselm. The shamelessness of the words of William of Saint- Calais in the mouth of William of Saint-Calais might have stirred even the meek Anselm to wrath. But he bore all with patience; he only seized, with all the skill of his scholastic training, on the palpable fallacy of the Bishop’s argument. The Assembly had come together The real to discuss and settle a point of law. Was the duty which (ye Anselm professed towards the Pope inconsistent or not evaded. with the duty which he no less fully acknowledged towards the King? On that point not only had no judge- ment been given, but no arguments either way had been heard. Messages had gone to and fro; Anselm had been implored, advised, threatened; but prayers, advice, and threats had all assumed that the point which they had all come there to discuss had already been ruled in the sense unfavourable to Anselm. William of Saint-Calais could talk faster than Anselm; but, as he had not Anselm’s principle, so neither had he Anselm’s logic. Anselm saw both his intellectual and his moral advantage. His answer to the Bishop of Durham took the shape of Anselm’s a challenge. “If there be any man who wishes to prove “™/ens* that, because I will not give up my obedience towards the venerable chief Pontiff of the holy Roman Church, I thereby break the faith and oath which I owe to my earthly King, let him stand forth, and, in the name of the Lord, he will find me ready to answer him where I ought and as I ought.” The real issue was thus at He states last stated; Anselm demanded that the thing should ‘7 case, 506 CHAP. IV. New posi- tion of the bishops. THE PRIMACY OF ANSELM. at last be done which the Assembly had been called for the very purpose of doing. The bishops were puzzled, as they well might be; they looked at one another, but no one had anything to say; so they went back to their lord.t. Our guide however puts thoughts into their hearts which Anselm had certainly not uttered, which his position in no way implied, and which one is tempted to think that both Anselm and Eadmer first heard of in later times when they came to talk with a pope face to face. The bishops, we are told, remembered, what they had not thought of before, that an Archbishop of Canterbury could not be judged on any charge by any judge except the Pope.2. This may be so far true as that William of Saint-Calais may have remembered the day when he had urged those very claims on behalf, not only of an Archbishop of Canterbury, but of a Bishop of Durham. If the other bishops had any such sudden enlightenment, they did well to keep their new light to themselves. The doctrine that no one but a Pope could judge the Archbishop, combined with the doctrine that there could be no Pope in England without the King’s leave, amounted, during the present state of things, to a full licence to the Archbishop to do anything that he might think good. Meanwhile things were taking a new turn in the outer place of assembly. There a state of mind very unlike that of the King’s inner council began to show itself. There were those, as there will always be in every gathering of men, whose instinct led them to insult and trample on one who seemed to be falling. By such men + Eadmer, Hist. Nov. 29. ‘ Aspicientes sese ad invicem, nec invenientes quid ad ista referrent, ad dominum suum reversi sunt.” ? “Protinus intellexerunt quod prius non animadverterunt, nec ipsum ad- vertere posse putaverunt, videlicet archiepiscopnm Cantuariensem a nullo hominum, nisi a solo papa, judicari posse vel damnari, nec ab aliquo cogi pro quavis calumnia cuiquam, eo excepto, contra suum velle respondere,” POPULAR FEELING ON ANSELM’S SIDE. 507 threats, revilings, slanders of every kind, were hurled cuap. rv. at the Archbishop, as he sat peacefully waking and Anselm sleeping, while William of Saint-Calais marched to and fro at the head of his episcopal troop. But threats and revilings were not the only voices that Anselm heard. The feeling of the great mass of the assembly was with Popular him. Well might it be so. Englishmen still abiding one wi.” their own soil, Normans who on English soil were growing into Englishmen, men who had brought with them the spirit which had made the Conqueror himself pause on the day of Lillebonne, were not minded to see the assembly of the nation turned into a mere tool to carry out a despot’s will. They were not minded that the man whose cause they had come together to judge according to law should be judged without law by a time-serving cabal of the King’s creatures. English thegns, Norman knights, were wrought in another mould from the simoniacal bishops of William’s court. A spirit began to stir among them like the spirit of the old times, the spirit of the day which called back Godwine to his earldom and drove Robert of Jumiéges from his arch- bishopric. When Anselm spoke and William of Saint- Calais stood abashed and speechless, the general feeling of the assembly went with the man who was ready to trust his cause to the event of a fair debate, against the man who could do nothing but take for granted over and over again the very question which they had come there to argue. There went through the hall that deep, low murmur which shows that the heart of a great as- sembly is stirring and that it will before long find some means of clearer utterance. But for a while no man dared to speak openly for fear—it is Eadmer’s word—of the tyrant. At last a spokesman was found. A knight 1 Kadmer, Hist. Nov. 29. “ Ortum interea murmur est totius multitudinis pro injuria tanti viri summissa inter se voce querentis, Nemo quippe palam 508 CHAP, Iv. Anselm and the knight. «Vox populi vox Dei.” Perplexity of the King. THE PRIMACY OF ANSELM. —we should gladly know his name and race and dwelling- place—stepped forth from the crowd and knelt at the feet of Anselm,! with the words, “Father and lord, through me your suppliant children pray you not to let your heart be troubled at what you have heard; remember how the blessed Job vanquished the devil on his dunghill, and avenged Adam whom he had vanquished in paradise.’ Anselm received his words with a pleased and cheerful look; for he now knew that the heart of the people was with him. And his true companions rejoiced also, and grew calmer in their minds, knowing the scripture—so our guide tells us— that the voice of the people is the voice of God.? While a native English heart was thus carried back to the feelinos of bygone times, the voice of the stranger King, to whom God was as a personal enemy, was speaking in another tone. His hopes had utterly broken down; his loyal bishops had made promises to him which they had been unable to fulfil. When he heard how popular feeling was turning towards Anselm, he was angered beyond measure, to the very rending asunder of his His speech soul. He turned to his bishops in wrath. “What is to the bishops, William of Saint- Calais breaks down. this? Did you not promise that you would deal with him altogether according to my will, that you would judge him, that you would condemn him?” The boasted wisdom, the very flow of speech, of their leader the Bishop of Durham now failed him; he spoke as one from whom pro eo loqui audebat ob metum tyranni.” We have had the word “ tyran- nis” already; see above, p. 397. 1 Eadmer, Hist. Nov. 29. ‘Miles unus de multitudine prodiens viro adstitit flexis coram eo genibus.” * «Confidentes juxta scripturam, vocem populi vocem esse Dei.” “Scrip- tura” must here be taken in some wide sense; Eadmer could hardly have thought that these words were to be found in any of the canonical books. * “ Ad divisionem spiritus sui exacerbatus.” PERPLEXITY OF THE KING. 509 all sense and reason had gone away.! All that he could cmap. rv. say who had so lately with curses and threats refused ats Anselm’s plea for an adjournment was to propose an adjourned. adjournment himself. It was night; let Anselm be bidden to go to his own quarters; they, the bishops, would spend the night in thinking over what Anselm had said, and in devising an answer on the King’s behalf.* The assembly was accordingly prorogued till the next morning, and Anselm went to his own quarters, uncon- demned, with his cause as yet unheard and unanswered, but comforted doubtless that he had put his enemies to silence, and that he had learned that the hearts of the people were with him. Tuesday morning came, and Anselm and his compa- March 13, nions took their seats in the accustomed place,’ awaiting '°?* the King’s bidding. That bidding was slow in coming. The debates. in the King’s closet were perplexed. The King and his inner counsellors were working hard to find some excuse for the condemnation of Anselm. The Debates in King asked the Bishop of Durham how he had passed camel the night;* but the night thoughts of William of Saint- Calais, sleeping or waking, did not bring much help to the royal cause. He confessed that he could find no way to answer Anselm’s argument, all the more because it rested on holy writ and the authority of Saint Peter. We must always remember that the texts which Anselm quoted, and the interpretation which he put upon them, were in no way special to himself. Every 1 Eadmer, Hist. Nov. 29. “Dunelmensis ita inprimis tepide et silenter per singula loquebatur, ut omnis humane prudentiz inscius et expers putaretur.” 2 “Cogitabimus pro te usque ad mane.” 3 “ Mane reversi sedimus in solito loco exspectantes mandatum regis. At ille cum suis omnimodo perquirebat quid in damnationem Anselii compo- nere posset, nec inveniebat.” 4 « Requisitus Willielmus Dunelmensis quid ipse, ex condicto, noctu egerit apud se.” 510 CHAP. IV. William of Saint- Calais re- commends force, The lay nobles refuse. Speech of the King. THE PRIMACY OF ANSELM, one acknowledged them; William of Saint-Calais had appealed to them when it suited his purpose to do so. But the bishop who had once laid the lands of northern England waste could recommend force when reason failed. He whose dealings towards the King in whose - cause he was now working had been likened to the deed of Judas was now ready to play Judas over again towards the Patriarch of all the nations beyond the sea. “ My counsel,” he said in plain words, “is that he be put down by force;! if he will not consent to the King’s will, let the ring and staff be taken from hin, and let him be driven from the kingdom.” This short way of dealing with the Archbishop, proposed by the man who had once argued that none but the Pope could judge any bishop, suited the temper of the King; it did not suit the temper of the lay nobles. Many of them had great crimes of their own to repent of; but they could see what was right when others were to practise it. Besides Anselm was in one way their own chief; if they were great feudatories of the kingdom, so was he, the highest in rank among them. The doctrine that the first vassal of the kingdom was to be stripped of his fief at the King’s pleasure might be dangerous to earls as well as to bishops. The lay nobles refused their con- sent to the violent scheme of the Bishop of Durham. The King turned fiercely on them. “If this does not please you, what does please you? While I live, I will not put up with an equal in my kingdom.” Speaking confusedly, it would seem, to bishops and barons alike, he asked, “ If you knew that he had such strong grounds for his cause, why did you let me begin the suit against him? Go, consult, for, by God’s face, if you do not con- 1 Eadmer, Hist. Nov. 29. “ Verum mihi violentia videtur opprimendus, et, si regie voluntati non vult adquiescere, ablato baculo et annulo, de regno peHendus. Non placuerunt hee verba principibus,” THE LAY NOBLES, 511 demn him according to my will, I will condemn you.”? cuar. 1. The common spokesman was found in him whose counsel was held to be as the oracle of God.2 Count Robert of Speech of : . Robert of Meulan spoke, and his speech was certainly a contrast Meulan, to that of Bishop William, though both alike, these two special counsellors, confessed that Anselm had been too much for them. “All day long were we putting together counsels with all our might, and consulting how our counsels might hang together, and meanwhile he, thinking no evil back again, sleeps, and, when our devices are brought out, with one touch of his lips he breaks them like a spider’s web.”? When the temporal lords, the subtlest of counsellors be pane . . . . an e among them, thus failed him, the King again turned to pishops. his lords spiritual. “And you, my bishops, what do you say?” They answered, but their spokesman this time is not mentioned ; Bishop William, it would seem, had tried and had failed. They were grieved that they could not satisfy the pleasure of their lord. Anselm was Primate, not only of the kingdom of England, but of Scotland, Ireland, and the neighbouring islands—lands to which William’s power most certainly did not reach at that moment. They were his suffragans;* they could not 1 Eadmer, Hist. Nov. 30. “Per vultum Dei si vos illum ad voluntatem meam non damnaveritis, ego damnabo vos,” The oath “per vultum Dei” is the same as that “ per vultum de Luca.” See Appendix G. 2 « Robertus quidam ipsi regi valde familiaris” would seem to be no other than the Count of Meulan. We shall hear of him by name later in the story. It might be Robert the Dispenser (see above, p. 331), but that seems much less likely. 3 « De consiliis nostris quid dicam, fateor ‘nescio. Nam cum omni studio per totum diem inter nos illa conferimus, et quatenus aliquo modo sibi co- hereant conferendo conferimus, ipse, nihil mali e contra cogitans, dormit, et prolata coram eo statim uno labiorum suorum pulsu quasi telas aranew rumpit.” + «Primas est, non modo istius regni, sed et Scotia et Hibernie, necne adjacentium insularum, nosque suffraganei ejus.” We have had one or two other cases, in which, in Eadmer’s language at least, the Archbishop of York is spoken of as the suffragan of Canterbury. 512 CHAP. Iv. The king bids the bishops withdraw their obedi- ence from Anselm, He with- draws his protection. The bishops and abbots carry the message. THE PRIMACY OF ANSELM. with any reason judge or condemn him, even if any crime could be shown against him, and now no crime could be shown. “What then,’ asks William, “can be done?” The question was answered by a suggestion of his own, one which sounds as if it really were his own, and not the device of Bishop William or Count Robert. If the bishops could not judge him, could they not withdraw from him all obedience and brotherly friendship? This, they said, if he commanded it, they could do. It is not clear by what right they could withdraw their obedience from a superior whom they could not judge; but both king and bishops were satisfied. The bishops were to go and do the business at once; when Anselm saw that he was left alone, he would be ashamed, and would groan that he had ever forsaken his lord to follow Urban.t And, that they might do this the more safely, the King added that he now withdrew from Anselm all protection throughout his Empire, that he would not listen to or acknowledge him in any cause,’ that he would no longer hold him for his archbishop or ghostly father. Though the King’s commandment was urgent, the bishops still stayed to devise other devices against Anselm; yet found they none. At last the bishops, now taking with them the abbots, a class of whom we have not hitherto heard in the story, went out and announced to Anselm at once their own with- drawal of obedience and friendship and the King’s with- drawal of protection. The Archbishop’s answer was amild one. They did wrong to withdraw their obedi- ence and friendship where it was due, merely because 1 Eadmer, Hist. Nov. 30. ‘‘ Properate igitur, et quod dicitis citius facite, ut cum viderit se a cunctis despectum et desolatum, verecundetur, et in- gemiscat se Urbanum me domino suo contempto secutum.” 2 «Et quo ista securius faciatis, en ego primum in imperio meo penitus ei omnem securitatem et fiduciam mei tollo, ac deinceps in illo vel de illo nulla in causa confidere, vel eum pro archiepiscopo aut patre spirituali tenere volo.” THE BISHOPS RENOUNCE ANSELM. 513 he would not withdraw his where it was also due. But cuar. 1. he would not deal by them as they dealt by him. He ees would still show them the love of a brother and a father; he would do what he could for them, as brethren and sons of the church of Canterbury, to bring them back from their error into the right way. And whereas the King withdrew from him all protection and would no longer acknowledge him as father and archbishop, he would still discharge to the King every earthly duty that lay upon him, and, so far as the King would let him, he would still do his duty for the care of the King’s soul. Only he would, for God’s service, still keep the name, power, and office, of Archbishop of Canterbury, whatever might be the oppression in outward things that it might bring upon him. His words were reported to the King.2 We are again The King . , a turns again admitted to witness the scene in the presence-chamber. i the ny The bishops had proved broken reeds; William would !°"4s. make one more appeal to the lay nobles. “Everything that he says,” began the King, “is against my pleasure, and no one shall be my man who chooses to be his. Where- fore, you who are the great men of my kingdom, do you, as the bishops have done, withdraw from him all faith and friendship, that he may know how little he gains by the faith which he keeps to the Apostolic See in defi- ance of my will.” But the lay lords were not like the bishops ; one would like to know by what mouth they made their calm and logical answer. They drew a clear distinction between spiritual and temporal allegiance. 1 Eadmer, Hist. Nov. 30. ‘‘Paterno more diligentiam, anime illius curam, si ferre dignabitur, habebo.” 2 « Ad hee ille respondit,” says Eadmer ; but it can only mean an answer through messengers, as it is plain that the King and the Archbishop were still in different rooms. 3 “QOmnino adversatur animo meo quod dicit, nec meus erit, quisquis ipsius esse delegerit.” VOL. I. Ll 514 CHAP. IV. The lay lords support Anselm. THE PRIMACY OF ANSELM. The King had told them that no one could be his man and the Archbishop’s at once, and he had bidden them to withdraw their faith—clearly using the word in the feudal sense—from the Archbishop. They answered that they were not the Archbishop's men, that they could not withdraw from him a fealty which they had never paid to him. This of course was true of the lay nobles as a body, whatever questions there might be about Tun- bridge castle or any other particular fief’ But they went on to say that, though Anselm was not their lord, yet he was their archbishop, that it was he who had to “ govern Christianity” in the land; that, as Christian men, they could not, while in that land, decline his master- ship, all the more as there was no spot of offence in him which should make the King treat him in any other way.! The King's Such an answer naturally stirred up William’s wrath; difficulties. but the earls and great barons of his kingdom were a body with whom even he could not dare to trifle. He was stronger than any one among them; he might not be stronger than all of them together, backed as they now were, as the events of the day before had shown, by popular feeling. He had once beaten the Norman nobles at the head of the English people; he might not be able to beat the Norman nobles and the English people to- gether. He therefore made an effort, and kept down any open outburst of the wrath that was in him.? But 1 The answer of the lay lords must be taken as a formal setting forth of their position ; one would be glad to know whose are the actual sentiments and words. It runs thus (Eadmer, 30) ; “Nos nunquam fuimus homines ejus, nec fidelitatem quam ei non fecimus abjurare valemus. Archiepiscopus noster est ; Christianitatem in hac terra gubernare habet, et ea re nos qui Christiani sumus ejus magisterium, dum hic vivimus, declinare non possumus, presertim cum nullius offense macula illum respiciat, quze vos secus de illo agere compellat.” 2 «Quod ipse repressa sustinuit ira, rationi eorum palam ne nimis offen- derentur contraire preecavens,” This is perhaps a solitary case of recorded self-restraint on the part of William Rufus, at all events since the death of THE LAY LORDS SUPPORT ANSELM. 515 the bishops were covered with confusion; they felt that cuar. 1v. all eyes were turned on them, and that their apostasy To ps. was loathed of all This and that bishop was greeted, seemingly by this or that earl or baron, with the names usual in such cases, Judas, Pilate, and Herod.2? Then the The King King put the trembling bishops through another examin- tae the ation. Had they abjured all obedience to Anselm, or bishops. only such obedience as he claimed by the authority of the Roman Pontiff? The question was hard to answer. Anselm does not seem to have claimed any obedience by virtue of the authority of the Pope; he had simply refused to withdraw his own obedience from the Pope. Some therefore answered one way, some another. But it was soon plain which way the King wished them to answer. The real question in William’s mind had nothing to do with the Pope; any subtlety about acknowledging this or that Pope was a mere excuse. It was Anselm himself, as the servant of God, the man who spake of righteousness and temperance and judgement to come, that Rufus loathed and sought to crush. Those bishops therefore who said that they had abjured Anselm’s obe- dience utterly and without condition were at once Lanfranc. It is significant that it should be in answer to the lay lords and not to the bishops. 1 Eadmer, Hist. Nov. 30. ‘ Episcopi hee videntes, confusione vultus sui operti sunt, intelligentes omnium oculos in se converti, et apostasiam suam non injuste a cunctis detestari.” It must be remembered that apostasia is a technical term, meaning, besides its usual sense, a forsaking of his monastic vows and calling by a professed monk. THadmer speaks of the bishops as guilty of a like offence towards their metropolitan. 2 The picture is very graphic; “ Audires si adesses, nunc ab isto, nunc ab illo istum vel illum episcopum aliquo cognomine cum interjectione indig- nantis denotari, videlicet Jude proditoris, Pilati, vel Herodis horumque similium.” One of the bishops had been likened to Judas some years before on somewhat opposite grounds. 3 « Requisiti a rege, utrum omnem subjectionem et obedientiam, nulla conditione interposita, an illam solam subjectionem et obedientiam, quam pretenderet ex autoritate Romani pontificis, Anselmo denegassent.” Lla 516 CHAP. IV. His treat- ment of them. Anselm wishes to leave England. THE PRIMACY OF ANSELM, bidden to sit down as his friends in seats of honour.! Those who said that they had abjured only such obedience as was claimed by the Pope’s authority, were sent, like naughty children, into a corner of the room, to wait, as traitors and enemies, for their sentence of condemna- tion? But they debated among themselves in their corner, and soon found the means of winning back the royal favour. A heavy bribe, paid at once or soon after, wiped out even the crime of drawing distinctions while withdrawing their obedience from a metropolitan whom the King hated.? While his suffragans were undergoing this singular ex- perience of the strength of the secular arm, Anselm sent a message to the Kine. He now asked that, as all protection within the kingdom was withdrawn from him, the King would give him and his companions a safe-conduct to one of his havens, that he might go out of the realm till 1 Eadmer, Hist. Nov. 31. “ Hos quidem qui, nulla conditione interposita, funditus ei quicquid prelato suo dehebant se abjurasse professi sunt, juxta se sicut fideles et amicos suos honorifice sedere pracepit.” 2 «Tilos vero qui in hoe solo quod praciperet ex parte apostolici sese subjectionem et obedientiam illi abnegasse dicere ausi sunt, ut perfidos ac suz voluntatis inimicos, procul in angulo domus sententiam sue damnationis ira permotus jussit prestolari, Territi ergo et confusione super confusionem induti, in angulum domus secesserunt.” 3 « Reperto statim salubri et quo niti solebant domestico consilio, hoc est, data copiosa pecunia, in amicitiam regis recepti sunt.” All this suggests the question, what was the course taken by Gundulf of Rochester, Anselm’s old friend, and the holder of a bishopric which stood in a specially close relation to the archbishop. In the Historia Novorum there is no mention of Gundulf; the bishops are spoken of as an united body, except so far as they were divided on this last question. But it seems implied that all disowned Anselm in one way or another, Yet in the Life (ii. 3. 24) the bishops disown him, “ Rofensi solo excepto.” How are these accounts to be reconciled? IfGundulf had stood out in any marked way from the rest, Eadmer would surely have mentioned him in the Historia Novorum. One might suppose that the Bishop of Rochester, as holding of the Archbishop, was not in the company of the King’s bishops at all. But, if he had stayed outside with Anselm and Eadmer, one would have looked for that to be mentioned also. He can hardly lurk in the first person plural which Eadmer so often uses. ANSELM PROPOSES TO LEAVE ENGLAND. 517 such a time as God might be pleased to put an end to omar. iv. the present distress.1 The King was much troubled and Perplexity perplexed. He wished of all things for Anselm to leave Kine the kingdom; but he feared the greater scandal which would arise if he left the kingdom while still in pos- session of the archbishopric, while he saw no way of depriving him of it.2 He again took counsel; but this time he did not trouble the bishops for their advice. Of them he had had enough; it was their counsel which had brought him into his present strait.2 He once more turned to the lay lords. They advised yet another Another adjourn- adjournment. The Archbishop should go back to his ment, own quarters in the Kino’s full peace,* and should come again in the morning to hear the King’s answer to his petition. Many of the King’s immediate courtiers were troubled; they groaned at the thought of Anselm’s leaving the land.® But he himself went gladly and cheer- fully to his lodgings, hoping to cross the sea and to cast off all his troubles and all the burthens of the world.® The fourth day of the meeting came, and the way Wednes- Fi day, M in which its business opened marks how the tide was Te — turning in Anselm’s favour. A body of the nobles came Anselm straight from the King, asking the Primate to come so" 1 Eadmer, Hist. Nov. 31. ‘Donec Deus tante perturbationi modwn dignanter imponeret.” 2 «Licet discessum ejus summopere desideraret, nolebat tamen eum pontificatus dignitate saisitum discedere, ne novissimum scandalum quod inde poterat oriri pejus fieret priore. Ut vero pontificatu illum dissaisiret, impossibile sibi videbatur.’ The feudal language creeps in at all corners. 83 « Episcoporum consilio per quod in has angustias se devolutum quere- batur omisso, cum principibus consilium iniit.” *“Quatenus vir cum summa pace moneatur ad hospitium suum redire.” 5 “ Perturbatis etiam curialibus plurimis.. . rati sunt quippe hominem a terra discedere, et ingemuerunt.” 6 «Letus et alacer sperabat se perturbationes et onera seculi, quod semper optabat, transito mari, evadere,” 518 CHAP. Iv. King’s presence. The lay lords pro- pose a “truce.” Adjourn- ment till May 20. THE PRIMACY OF ANSELM. to the royal presence. Anselm was tossed to and fro between the hope of leaving the kingdom and the fear of staying in it. Eadmer was eager to know what would be the end of the whole matter.2 They set forth and reached the castle. They were not however, at first at least, admitted to the presence-chamber, but sat in their wonted place. Before long the lay nobles, accom- panied by some of the bishops, came to Anselm. They were grieved, they said, as old friends of his, that there had been any dispute between him and the King. Their object was to heal the breach, and they held that the best means towards that object was to agree to an adjournment —a truce, a peace ?—1till a fixed day, during which time both sides should agree to do nothing which could be counted as a breach of the peace. Anselm agreed, though he said that he knew what kind of peace it would bet But it should not be said of him that he preferred his own judgement to that of others. To all that his lord the King and they might appoint in the name of God he would agree,’ saving only his obedience to Pope Urban. The lords approved; the King agreed; he pledged his honour to the observance of the peace till the appointed day, the octave of Pentecost. The day seems to have been chosen in order that the other business of the Whitsun Gemdét might 1 Eadmer, Hist. Nov. 31. ‘Ecce principes a latere regis mane directi”— the style of Emperors and Popes. 2 « Ascendimus, inimus, et supremam de negotio nostro sententiam avidi audire, in quo soliti eramus loco consedimus.” The word ‘ascendimus” might show that Anselm’s lodgings were at some point lower than the castle. 5 “Tnducias utrimque de negotio dari quatenus hine usque ad definitum aliquod tempus inter vos pace statuta.” * «Pacem atque concordiam non abjicio; veruntamen videor mihi videre quid ista quam offertis pax habeat in se.” ° « Concedo suscipere quod domino regi et vobis placet pro pacis custodia secundum Deum statuere”—Anselm’s invariable reservation. ADJOURNMENT TO THE WHITSUN GEMOT. 519 be got over before the particular case of Anselm came omar. rv. on. If matters had not been brought to an agreement before that time, the case was to begin again exactly at the stage in which it had left off at Rockingham.! Tt is not clear whether, even at this last moment, William and Anselm again met face to face. But the Archbishop, by the King’s leave, went to Canterbury, knowing that the truce was but an idle and momentary veiling of hatred and of oppression that was to come.* So it soon proved; yet the scene at Rockingham was Importance a victory, not only for a moment but for ever. No slight Pon at step had been taken in the great march of English freedom, ne when Anselm, whom the King had sought to condemn without trial or indictment, went back, with his own immediate case indeed unsolved, but free, uncondemned, untried, with the voice of the people loud in his favour, while the barons of the realm declared him free from every crime. It was no mean day in English history when a king, a Norman king, the proudest and fiercest of Norman kings, was taught that there were limits to his will. It is like a foreshadowing of brighter days to come when the Primate of all England, backed by the barons and people of England—for on that day the very strangers and conquerors deserved that name— overcame the Red King and his time-serving bishops. The day of Rockingham has the fullest right to be marked with white in the kalendar in which we enter the day of Runnymede and the day of Lewes. The honour of the chivalrous King was pledged to the peace with Anselm. But the honour of the chivalrous 1 Kadmer, Hist. Nov. 31. “ Danturinducie usque ad octavas Pentecostes, ac regia fide sancitur, quatenus ex utraque parte interim omnia essent in pace.” 2 «Presciens apud se pacem et inducias illas inane et momentaneum velamen esse odii et oppressionis mox future. 520 CHAP. IV, William keeps faith to Anselm personally. He op- presses | is friends. THE PRIMACY OF ANSELM. King was construed after a truly chivalrous fashion. William doubtless thought that he was doing all that a true knight could be expected to do, if he kept himself from any personal injury to the man to whom he had personally pledged his faith. Anselm was unhurt; he was free; he went whither he would; he discharged the ordinary duties of his office undisturbed; it does not appear that he was in any way personally molested, or that any of the property of his see was taken into the King’s hands. But William knew full well how to wreak his malice upon Anselm without breaking the letter of the faith which he had pledged. He knew how to grieve Anselm’s loving heart far more deeply than it could be grieved by any wrong done to himself. The honour of the good knight was pledged to Anselm person- ally ; it was not pledged to Anselm’s friends and tenants. Towards them he might, without breach of honour, play the greedy and merciless king. A few days after Anselm had reached Canterbury, Rufus sent to drive out of England the Archbishop’s cherished friend and counsellor the monk Baldwin of Tournay,! and two of his clerks. Their only crime was standing by their master in the trial which still stood adjourned? The Archbishop’s chamberlain was seized in his master’s chamber before his master’s eyes; false charges were brought against his tenants, unjust imposts were laid upon them, and other wrongs of many kinds done to them.? The church of Canterbury, it was said, began to doubt whether it had * Eadmer, Hist. Nov. 31. ‘Baldwinum monachum, im quo pars major consiliorum Anselmi pendebat.” ? “ Prescripti discidii causa.’” * “Quid referam camerarium ejus in sua camera ante suos oculos captum, alios homines ejus injusto judicio condemnatos, depreedatos, innumeris malis afflictos ?” All this was “infra dies induciarum et prefixe pacis,” Eadmer reproaches the “regalis constantia fidei.”” Rufus would have said that his faith was plighted to Anselm, not to Baldwin. ° WILLIAM OPPRESSES ANSELM’S FRIENDS. 521 not been better off during the vacancy than now that car. rv. the archbishopric was full.1 And all this while, heavy ds William professed to deem the crime of so much as giving Urban the title of Pope, William’s own dealings with Urban were neither slight nor unfriendly. §5. The Mission of Cardinal Walter. 1095. The months of truce between the King and the Arch- Events of : 3 the months bishop were, as our next chapter will show, busy months oF truce, in other ways. William Rufus was all this time engaged Mar Teo in another dispute with a subject of a rank but little below that of the Primate, a dispute in which, at least in its early stages, the King appears to much greater advantage than he commonly does. A conspiracy against William’s throne and life was plotting; Robert of Mowbray was making ready for revolt, and his refusal to appear, when summoned, at the Easter and Whitsun assemblies of this year was the first overt act of his rebellion. We Assemblies may conceive that Anselm did not attend either of those ee gatherings; that of Whitsuntide we know that he did not. It might be more consistent with the notion of the truce that he should keep away from the King’s presence and court till the time which had been fixed for the controversy formally to begin again. At Easter and for some time after, Anselm seems to have stayed at Canterbury, and, while he was there, the metropolitan city received an unexpected visitor, who did not allow himself to be treated as a guest. The year which we have reached was one of the most Position of memorable in the history of the papacy. Urban, though abi not in full possession of Rome, had kept his Christmas there a year before, and his cause was decidedly in the 1 Fadmer, Hist. Nov. 32. ‘“ Ut fere universi conclamarent melius sibi absque pastore jam olim fuisse quam nunc sub hujusmodi pastore esse.” 522 CHAP. Iv. Council of Piacenza, May 1-7. Its decrees. No men- tion of English affairs. THE PRIMACY OF ANSELM. ascendant throughout the year of the Red King’s second Norman campaign.! At the beginning of the next year, after keeping Christmas in Tuscany, Urban went on into Lombardy, where the Emperor still was, though his rebel son Conrad, crowned and largely acknowledged as King of Italy, was far more powerful than his father.” Almost on the same days as those which in England were given to the council of Rockingham, Urban held his great council of Piacenza, a council so great that no building could hold its numbers; the business of the assembly was therefore done, as we have seen it done in our own land, in the open fields.? There the Empress Praxedes told her tale of sorrow and shame; there the ery of Eastern Christendom, set forth in the letters of the Emperor Alexios, was heard and heeded; there the heresy of Berengar, already smitten by Lanfranc,* was again condemned; there a new set of anathemas were hurled at the married clergy,’ and a more righteous curse was denounced against the adulterous King of the French. But no mention seems to have been made of English affairs; one is a little surprized at the small amount of heed which the dispute between the King and the Archbishop seems to have drawn to itself in 1 The movements of Urban at this time will be found in the Chronicle of Bernold in the fifth volume of Pertz, p. 461. Cf. Milman, Latin Chris- tianity, iii. 215. ? Bernold, ib, ‘‘Henricus autem rex dictus eo tempore in Longobardia morabatur, pene omni regia dignitate privatus. Nam filius ejus Chon- radus, jam dudum in regem coronatus, se ab illo penitus separavit, et domnz Mathildi reliquisque fidelibus sancti Petri firmiter conjunctus totum robur paterni exercitus in Longobardia obtinuit.” 3 Tb. “Ad quam sinodum multitudo tam innumerabilis confluxit, ut nequaquam in qualibet ecclesia illius loci posset comprehendi. Unde et domnus papa extra urbem in campo illam celebrare compulsus est; nec hoc tamen absque probabilis exempli auctoritate.” He justifies the act by the example of Moses; in England Godwine and William might have been precedents enough. * See N. C. vol. ii. p. 230. ° The matters discussed are reckoned up by Bernold, u.s. COUNCIL OF PIACENZA. 523 foreign lands. Yet, next to the ups and downs of the Em- cuar. w. peror himself, one would have thought that no change could have so deeply affected the Roman see as the change from William the Great to William the Red. It is part of the same general difficulty which attaches to the Red King’s career, the strange fact that the worst of all crowned sinners, the foulest in life, the most open in blasphemy, the most utter scorner of the ecclesiastical power, never felt the weight of any of those ecclesiastical censures which so often lighted on offenders of a less deep dye. But if Urban was not thinking about William, William was certainly thinking about Urban. It was at this stage that we light on the curious picture which we have before seen, showing us England in a state of un- certainty, and seemingly of indifference, between the rival Pontiffs.1 But just now it suited William to acknow- William's ledge some Pope, because he thought that his only chance : schemes to turn the of carrying out his purposes against Anselm was by the help of a Pope. He had found that no class of men in against his kingdom, except perhaps some of the bishops, would support him in any attempt to deprive the Primate of his own arbitrary will. Mere violence of course was open to him; but his Witan would not agree to any step against Anselm which made any pretence to legal form, and, with public feeling so strongly on Anselm’s side, with a dangerous rebellion brewing in the realm, the King might well shrink from mere violence towards the first of his subjects. His new device was to acknowledge a Pope, and then to try, by his usual arts, arts which Rome commonly appreciated, to get the Pope whom he acknowledged to act against the Arch- bishop. To see Anselm deprived, or in any way humbled, by an exercise of ecclesiastical power, would be to wound Anselm in a much tenderer point, and would therefore be 1 See above, p. 415. Anselm, 524 THE PRIMACY OF ANSELM. cHar.rv. a much keener satisfaction to his own spite, than any- thing that he could himself do with the high hand. Mission of | As soon therefore as William found, by the issue of Stee the meeting at Rockingham, that Anselm could not be — bent to his will, and that he could practically do nothing against Anselm, he sent two trusty clerks of his chapel and chancery on a secret and delicate errand. They were men of the usual stamp, both of whom afterwards rose to those high places of the Church which were just then commonly reserved for men of their stamp. They were Gerard, afterwards Bishop of Hereford and Arch- bishop of York, and William of Warelwast, afterwards Their com- Bishop of Exeter. As we read our account of their m= commission, it would almost seem as if they were em- powered to go to Rome, to examine into the state of things, and to acknowledge whichever seemed to be the true Pope, or rather whichever Pope was most likely They are to suit their master’s purpose. But practically they racticall . Eent to ac. had no choice but to acknowledge Urban. Local Eng- ain lish feeling might indeed set little store by one who simply “hight Pope, though he nothing had of the settle at Rome;”! but Urban was plainly the stronger Pope, the Pope acknowledged by all who were not in the immediate interest of the Emperor. And, what was more, Urban was the only Pope who could carry out William’s purpose. A censure from Urban would be a real blow to Anselm and to Anselm’s partisans ; a cen- sure from Clement would in their eyes go for nothing, or rather it would be reckoned as another witness in their favour. Practically Gerard and William of Warel- wast went to acknowledge Urban, and to see what they could make of him. They went secretly. Anselm knew nothing of their going. Most likely nothing was known 1 So speaks our own Chronicler the next year. See above, p. 415. WILLIAM'S MISSION TO URBAN. 525 of their errand by any man beyond the innermost cabal cuar. 1v. of the King’s special counsellors. Their mission is said to have been to Rome; but the name Rome must be taken in a conventional sense for any place where the Pope might be. It is not likely that they really reached the Eternal City. In the former Urban at Cremona. part of April Urban was at Cremona, and was received April 10, there with great state by the rebel King Conrad.? The 1°95: momentary effort of Henry which followed, his vain attempt on Nogara, only raised the position of Urban and the Great Countess yet higher.* It was most likely at Cremona that the ministers from England met Urban. They were to try, if possible, to win over the Dealings of Pontiff, by gifts, by promises, by any means, to send ane pallium to England for the King to bestow on the Arch- Tn, bishop of Canterbury, without mentioning the name of Anselm. They were, it seems, to try to obtain for the TheSicilian King a legatine authority like that which, then or later, ie had been granted to the Norman princes of Sicily.* 1 Eadmer, Hist. Nov. 32. ‘Siquidem ipse rex, ubi sensit Anselmum sue voluntatis in prescripto negotio nolle obtemperare, clam et Anselmo igno- rante, eosdem clericos [Girardum et Willielmum] Romam miserat, Romane statum ecclesiz per eos volens certo dinoscere.” 2 Bernold (Pertz, v. 461) gives the details. The part which most con- cerns us is that the King and future Emperor is received only “salva justitia illius [Romane] ecclesiz, et statutis apostolicis, maxime de investi- turis in spiritalibus officiis a laico non usurpandis.” 3 Bernold merely glances at this matter. It will be found described more at length in the hexameters of Donizo, ii. 9, Muratori, v. 374; and in the prose life of Matilda, 13, Muratori, v. 395. + Eadmer, Hist. Nov. 32. ‘“Scire veritatem hujus rei Romam missi sunt hii duo clerici, eaque cognita, jussi sunt sacris promissionibus illectum ad hoc si possent papam perducere, ut ipsi regi ad opus archiepiscopi Cantu- ariensis pallium, tacita persona Anselmi, destinaret, quod ipse rex, Anselmo a pontificatu simul et regno dejecto, cui vellet cum pontificatu vice apo- stolici postmodum daret.” The formal grant of the hereditary legation to Count Roger comes somewhat later, being given by Urban himself in 1099. (See William of Malaterra, iv. 29, Muratori, v. 602.) But the language used seems to imply that some such power practically existed already. 526 CHAP. IV. Relations between England and Sicily. Gerard and William come back, THE PRIMACY OF ANSELM. A Norman king of England was surely as worthy of such powers as a Norman Great Count of Sicily; and through- out these disputes we ever and anon see the vision of the “Sicilian Monarchy,” as something at which kings of England were aiming, and which strict churchmen con- demned, whether in Sicily or in England It is even possible that Gerard and William of Warelwast may have discussed the matter with some members of the Sicilian embassy which about this time brought the daughter of Count Roger to Pisa as the bride of King Conrad.” Close intercourse between the Norman princes of the great Oceanic and the great Mediterranean island is now beginning to be no small element in European politics. Some commission of this kind from the Pope was what William’s heart was set upon; he thought he had good right to it; he thought that his hope of it could not be doomed to disappointment.* Did the proudest of men look forward, as an addition to royal and imperial power, to a day when he might fill a throne in the mother church of England, looking down on the patriarchal chair, as the empty thrones of later Williams still look down on the lowher metropolitan seats of Palermo and Monreale? The dates show that the journeys must have been hasty, and that the business was got through with all speed. The two clerks could not have left England before the middle of March, and May was not far 1 Ep. 8. Thom. ad Cardinales, Giles, 8. T. C. iii. 93. ‘‘ Eo jam perventum est ut sequatur rex noster etiam Siculos, immo certe precedat.” On the ques- tion of the legatine power supposed to have been granted, or designed to be granted, to Henry the Second, see J. C. Robertson, Becket, 106. For my purpose the general belief that something of the kind was done or designed is enough. ? Bernold, ap. Pertz, v. 461. 3 Eadmer, Hist. Nov. 32. ‘Hoc quippe disposuerat apud se; hoc suspi- catus est non injuria sibi concedi posse, hoc indubitato fieri promittebat opinioni sue.” WALTER OF ALBANO LEGATE. 527 advanced before they were in England again, and a ouar. wv. papal Legate with them. This was the Cardinal Walter, and bring . ates s dinal Bishop of Albano, whose good life is witnessed by our Walker a0 own Chronicler His Italian subtlety showed itself 18%! quite equal to the work of outwitting the King and his counsellors whenever he chose; but his Roman greedi- ness could not always withstand their bribes. He He brings came, bringing with him a pallium, but the whole affair”? oe was, by the King’s orders, shrouded in the deepest mystery. Not a word was said about the pallium; indeed the Legate was not allowed to have any private discourse with any man. His two keepers, Gerard and Secrecy of William, watched him carefully; they passed in silence “* °™"* through Canterbury, and took care not to meet the Archbishop A few days before Whitsuntide, Cardinal His inter- view with Walter had an interview with the King. He spoke s0 the King. that William understood him to be willing to abet all his purposes. Some special privilege was granted to William, which amounted at the least to this, that no legate should be sent into England but one of the King’s own choosing.? Not a word did Cardinal Walter say on 1 Chron. Petrib. 1095. ‘“Eac on pis ylean geare togeanes Eastron com pes papan sande hider to lande, pet wes Waltear bisceop swide god lifes man, of Albin pere ceastre.” The date is strange, as he did not and could not come till after Easter. 2 Eadmer, Hist. Nov. 32. ‘‘ Prefatus episcopus Angliam veniens, secum archiepiscopatus stolam papa mittente clanculo detulit. Et silenter Can- tuaria civitate pertransita, Anselmoque devitato, ad regem :properabat, nulli de pallio quod ferebat quicquam dicens, nullum in absentia ductorum suorum familiariter alloquens. Rex denique preceperat ita fieri, nolens mysterium consilii sui publicari.” 3 Tb. 33. ‘‘Sentiens rex episcopum ex parte Urbani cuncta sue voluntati coniventia nunciare, et ea, si ipsum Urbanum pro papa in suo reyno susci- peret, velle apostolica authoritate sibi dum viveret in privilegium promul- gare, adquievit placito.” This is put somewhat more distinctly in the account by Hugh of Flavigny (Pertz, viii. 475, see Appendix AA); * Con- ventionem fecerat cum eo [Willelmo}] Albanensis episcopus, quem primum illo miserat papa, ne legatus Romanus ad Angliam mitteretur nisi quem rex preciperet.” 528 CHAP. IV. William acknow- ledges Urban, Walter refuses to depose Anselm. THE PRIMACY OF ANSELM. behalf of Anselm, not a word that could make peace between him and the King, not a word that could give Anselm any comfort among all the troubles that he was enduring on behalf of the Christian religion and of the authority of the Holy See! Many who had looked for great good from the Legate’s coming began to murmur, and to say, as Englishmen had learned to say already and as they had often to say again, that at Rome gold went for more than righteousness.?, To King William every- thing seemed to be going as he wished it to go. Fully satisfied, he put out a proclamation that throughout his Empire—through the whole patriarchate of Anselm—Ur- ban should be acknowledged as Pope and that obedience should be yielded to him as the successor of Saint Peter.? Walter had now gained his point; William fancied that he had gained his. He at once asked that Anselm might be deprived of his archbishopric by the authority of the Pope whom he had just acknowledged. He offered a vast yearly payment to the Roman See, if the Cardinal would only serve his turn in this matter.* But Walter stood firm; he had done the work for which he had come; England was under the obedience of Urban. And, much as gold might count for at Rome, neither the Pope nor his Legate had sunk to the infamy of taking money to oppress an innocent man and a faithful 1 Eadmer, Hist. Nov. 32. “Nil penitus ipsi pro Anselmo locutus est, quod pacem inter eos conciliaret, quod tribulationes in quibus pro fidelitate sedis apostolice desudabat mitigaret, quod eum ad sublevandum in Anglia Christiane religionis cultum roboraret.” 2 Tb. “Pape, quid dicemus? Si aurum et argentum Roma preponit justitie,” &c. It must be remembered that in this sentence ‘ Pape” has nothing to do with “ Papa.” See above, p. 292. 3 Tb. 33. “Pracipiens Urbanum in omni imperio suo pro apostolico haberi, eique vice beati Petri in Christiana religione obediri.” ‘Tb, “Egit post hee quibus modis poterat ipse rex cum episcopo, qua- tenus Romani pontificis autoritate Anselmum ab episcopatu, regali potentia fultus, deponeret, spondens immensum pecuniz pondus ei et ecclesiz Romane singulis annis daturum, si in hoc suo desiderio satisfaceret.” WILLIAM ACKNOWLEDGES URBAN. 529 adherent. Anselm was indeed treated by them as Eng- o#aP. iv. lishmen, whether by race, by birth, or by adoption, whether Edmund, Thomas, or Anselm, commonly were treated by Popes. He was made a tool of, and he got no effectual support; but Urban was not prepared for such active wickedness as the Red King asked of him. William was now thoroughly beaten at his own William and his weapons. The craft and subtlety of Randolf Flambard, .ounsellors of William of Saint-Calais, of the Achitophel of Meulan outwitted himself, had proved of no strength before the sharper Legate. wit of Walter of Albano. The King complained with good right that he had gained nothing by acknowledging Urban.1 In truth he had lost a great deal. He had lost every decent excuse for any further attack upon Anselm. The whole complaint against Anselm was that he had acknowledged Urban. But the King had now himself acknowledged Urban, and he could not go on persecuting Anselm for simply forestalling his own act. In legal technicality doubtless, if it was a crime to acknowledge Urban when the King had not yet acknow- ledged him, that crime was not purged by the King’s later acknowledgement of him. Rufus himself might have been shameless enough to press so pettifogging a point; but he had learned at Rockingham that no man in the land, save perhaps a few servile bishops, would support him in so doing. There was nothing He is driven to a reconcilia- to be done but for William to make up his quarrel with Anselm, to make it up, that is, as far as appearances oe went, to make it up till another opportunity for a quarrel could be found. But till such opportunity was found, Anselm must be openly and formally received into the King’s favour. The thing had to be done; 1 Eadmer, Hist. Nov. 33. ‘Reputans apud se nihil in requisitione vel susceptione Romani antistitis se profecisse.” 2 « Qualiter, servata singulari celsitudinis sus dignitate, viro saltem specie VOL. I. Mm 530 CHAP, Iv. Whitsun Gemét at Windsor. May 13, 1095. THE PRIMACY OF ANSELM. only if some money could be squeezed out of Anselm in the process of doing it, the chivalrous King would be the better pleased. The feast of Pentecost came, and with it the second of the assemblies at which the rebellious Earl of Northumberland refused to show himself. The King and his Witan were at Windsor; the Archbishop was keeping the feast at his manor of Mortlake. On the octave he was himself, according to the truce made at Rockingham, The King’sto appear at Windsor. In the course of the Whitsun- message to Anselm. The Le- gate’s coming re- vealed to Anselm, week a message was brought to him from the King, bidding him go to Hayes, another of his manors nearer to Windsor, in order that messages might more easily go to and fro between him and the King.' He went, and Eadmer went with him. The next day nearly all the bishops came to him; some of them, it will be remembered, had kept the King’s favour throughout, and the others who had lost it had bought it again. Their object was to try to persuade the Archbishop to give money to the King for the restoration of his favour. Anselm answered stoutly, as before, that he would not so dishonour his lord as to treat his friendship as something which could be bought and sold.2 He would faithfully dis- charge every temporal duty to his lord, on the one condition of being allowed to keep his obedience to Pope Urban. If that was not allowed, he would again ask for a safe-conduct to leave the kingdom. They then told him—the secret must have been still kept, though Urban was acknowledged—that the Bishop of Albano had brought a pallium from the Pope; they did not tenus amorem suum redderet, cui crudeliter iratus nihil poterat cupitee dam- nationis pro voto inferre.”’ 1 Eadmer, Hist. Nov. 33. “Ad eum venire et verba regis illi et illius possent regi deferre.” ? « Dixi vobis jam, quod nunquam domino meo hance contumeliam faciam ut facto probem amicitiam ejus esse venalem.” ANSELM AND WILLIAM RECONCILED. 531 scruple to add that he had, at the King’s request, brought cuar. rv. it for Anselm.! Would not the Archbishop pay something for so great a benefit?? Would he not at least, now that the pallium had come to him instead of his going for the pallium, pay the sum which the journey to Rome would otherwise have cost him?’ Anselm would pay nothing. Anselm : . i ts The King had thus to make the best of a bad bargain. ts As Anselm would not pay for either friendship or pal-Pallium. lium, there was nothing to be done but to let him have both friendship and pallium without paying. The King Anselmand : - - 4 William once more consulted his lay nobles, and, by their advice,* reconciled. he restored Anselm to his full favour, he cancelled all former causes of quarrel, he received him as archbishop and ghostly father, and gave him the fullest licence to exercise his office throughout the realm. One condition only seems to have been made; Anselm was to promise that he would observe the laws and customs of the realm and would defend them against all men.6 The promise was made, but with the express or implied reservation of duty to God. That was indeed the reservation which William most hated; but in his present frame of mind he may have brought himself to consent 1 Eadmer, Hist. Nov. 33. ‘Dominus papa Urbanus, rogatu domini nostri regis, stolam illi archiepiscopatus per episcopum qui de Roma venit direxit.’ The pallium, they said, was sent to the King, but the words which follow show that they wished it to be understood that it was meant for Anselm. 2«Tuum igitur erit considerare quid tanto beneficio dignum regi rependas.”” 3 “«Taudamus et consulimus ut saltem quod in via expenderes si pro hoc Romam ires regi des, ne si nihil feceris injurius judiceris.” They enlarge also on the dangers of the way; these had certainly proved fatal to some of Anselm’s predecessors. * « Principum suorum consilio usus.” 5 This is not mentioned now, but it comes out afterwards; Hist. Nov. 39. See below, p. 588. 6 Tb. 39. “Scio quippe me [Anselmum] spopondisse consuetudines tuas, ipsas videlicet quas per rectitudinem et secundum Deum in regno tuo possides, me secundum Deum servaturum, et eas per justitiam contra omnes homines pro meo posse defensurum.” Mm 2 532 CHAP. Iv. Their friendly discourse, Anselm asked to take the pallium from the King. He refuses, THE PRIMACY OF ANSELM. to it. Anselm came to Windsor, and was admitted by the King to his most familiar converse in the sight of the lords and of the whole multitude that had come together! Cardinal Walter came in at the lucky moment, and was edified by the sight. He quoted the scripture, “Behold, how good and joyful it is brethren to dwell together in unity.” He sat down beside the friendly pair; he quoted other scriptures, and expressed his sorrow that he himself had not had any hand in the good work of bringing them together. The wild bull and the feeble sheep thus seemed for a moment to pull together as friendly yokefellows. But a Norman king did not, in his character of wild bull, any more than in his character of lion, altogether cast aside his other character of fox. He, or Count Robert for him, had one shift left. Or it might almost seem that it was not the King’s own shift, but merely the device of flatterers who wished to win the royal favour by pro- posing it. Would not the Archbishop, for the honour of the King’s majesty, take the pallium from the King’s hand?? Anselm had made no objection to receiving the staff from the King’s hand, for such was the ancient custom of England. But with the pallium the King had nothing to do; it belonged wholly to the authority of Saint Peter and his successor. Anselm therefore refused to take the pallium from the King. The refusal was so clearly according to all precedent, the proposal the other way was such a manifest novelty, that nothing more was said about the matter. It was settled that, on a 1 Eadmer, Hist. Nov. 33. ‘Cum curie illius apud Windlesorum se presentasset et familiari alloquio in conspectu procerum et coadunatz multi- tudinis ipsum detinuisset.” * «Ut pro regia majestatis honorificentia, illud per manum regis susciperet.”” $ “Rationabiliter ostendens hoc donum non ad regiam dignitatem, sed ad singularem beati Petri pertinere auctoritatem.” ANSELM WILL NOT TAKE THE PALLIUM FROM THE KING, 533 fixed day, the pallium should be laid on the altar of Christ owar. rv. in the metropolitan church, and that Anselm should take it thence, as from the hand of Saint Peter himself. The expression used is remarkable, as showing that the popular character of these assemblies had not utterly died out. “The whole multitude agreed.’? They agreed A aa most likely by a shout of Yea, Yea, rather than by any ane more formal vote; but in any case it was that voice of the people which Eadmer at least knew to be the voice of God. The Archbishop and his faithful comrade now set out Anselm for Canterbury. But he was called on to do some ee archiepiscopal acts by the way. They had hardly left cian Windsor when two bishops came to express their re- pentance for the crime of denying their metropolitan at Rockingham.’ These were the ritualist Osmund of Robert and Salisbury, and Robert of Hereford, the friend of Wulfstan. ee It was believed that, besides the visit at the moment of his departure, the saint of Worcester had again appeared to Bishop Robert. He had warned him of divers faults in his life and in the administration of his diocese, giving him however good hopes if he mended his ways. Notwithstanding this voice from the dead, Robert had consented to the counsel and deed of them at Rockingham; he now came with Osmund to ask 1 Hadmer, Hist. Nov. 34. ‘Quasi de manu beati Petri, pro summi quo fungebatur pontificatus honore, sumeretur.” 2 « Adquievit istis multitudo omnis.” 8 « Penitentiam apud illum agentes pro culpa suse abnegationis, quam cum aliis coepiscopis suis fecerant apud Rochingeham,” * William of Malmesbury (Gest. Pont. 302) has two appearances of Saint Wulfstan to Robert ; but both come before Wulfstan’s burial. The one here meant is recorded by Florence (1095). Robert was, according to the Wor- cester writer, ‘‘ vir magne religionis,” and we have a pleasing picture of “‘ambo patres nimia caritate in Dei dilectione et ad se invicem conjuncti.” In the Life of Wulfstan (Ang. Sac. i, 268) the Bishop of Hereford is “ homo seculi quidem fretus prudentia, sed nulla solutus illecebra.” 534 CHAP. Iv. Wilfrith of Saint David’s restored. Anselm receives the THE PRIMACY OF ANSELM. pardon. Anselm turned into a little church by the way- side, and gave them absolution. Then and there too . he did another act of archiepiscopal clemency to a more distant suffragan. Wilfrith Bishop of Saint David’s had been—we are not told when—suspended for some fault— we are not told what. Anselm now restored him to his episcopal office. The Archbishop went on to Canterbury, and there pallium at @waited the coming of the Roman Cardinal. On the Canter- bury. June Io, 1095. appointed day, a Sunday in June, Bishop Walter came. He was met with all worship by the convents of the two monasteries, Christ Church and Saint Augustine’s, by a great body of clergy,and by a vast crowd of layfolk of both sexes. The Bishop of Albano bore the precious gift in a silver casket. As they drew near to Christ Church, Anselm, with bare feet, but in the full dress of his office, supported on either side by the suffragans who had come to the ceremony, met the procession. The pallium was laid on the altar; it was taken thence by the hand of Anselm, and reverently kissed by those who were near him.? The Archbishop was then clothed with his new badge of honour; nothing was now wanting to his position. Already invested, consecrated, clothed with full temporal and spiritual powers within his own province by the King and the bishops of England, he now received the solemn recognition of the rest of the 1 Eadmer, Hist. Nov. 34. ‘Ibi etiam Wilfrido episcopo sancti David de Gualis que vulgo Dewi vocatur, ipsa hora reddidit episcopale officium, a quo, exigente culpa ejus, jam antea ipsemet illum suspenderat.” Was Wilfrith there in person? We shall hear of him again. ? Flor. Wig. 1095. ‘ Pallium... quod juxta condictum die dominica, que erat iv. idus Junii, ab eodem [Waltero] Cantuariam super altare Salva- toris delatum, ab Anselmo assumptum est, atque ab omnibus pro reverentia S. Petri suppliciter deosculatum.” The details come from Eadmer; the Chronicler tells only how Walter ‘pam arcebisceop Ansealme uppon Pentecosten, of bes papan healfe Urbanus, his pallium geaf, and he hine underfeng et his arcestole on Cantwarabyrig.” ANSELM RECEIVES THE PALLIUM. 535 Western Church, in the person of its chief Pontiff’ cmap. rv. Anselm and England were again in full fellowship with the lawful occupier of the apostolic throne. Nothing now was wanting. The Archbishop, clad in his pallium, sang the mass. But, as at his consecration, men found an evil omen in part of the words of the service. The gospel of the day told of the man who made a great supper and bade many, but whose unthankful guests began to make excuse. The reception of the pallium by Anselm was the last great ceremony done in the metropolitan church during this his first primacy; it was one of the very few great ceremonies done in the unaltered church of Lanfrane. And, if we are to understand that all the suffragans of Canterbury were present, one of them was soon taken away. Not many days after Anselm first put on the pal- Death of lium, his late penitent, Bishop Robert of Hereford, left the ice of world, to join for ever, as the charity of Worcester believed, aad the saintly friend whom he had twice wonderfully seen.? 1095. Cardinal Walter meanwhile stayed in England during the The Legate : tays j greater part of that year, and according to some accounts Hae lad for some months of the year which followed. Notwith- standing the good life for which the Chronicler gives 11 hardly know what to make of the words of Hugh of Flavigny (Pertz, viii. 475); ‘Adeo auctoritas Romana apud Anglos avaritia et cupiditate legatorum viluerat, ut eodem Albanense presente et consen- tiente nec contradicente, immo precipiente, Cantuariensis archiepiscopus fidelitatem beato Petro et papz juraverat salva fidelitate domini sui regis,” One cannot conceive any time during the Cardinal's visit in which Anselm could be called on to make any such oath either to Pope or King except at the time of his receiving the pallium; there may be some confusion with the promise mentioned in p. 531. 2 This coincidence is noticed by Eadmer, Hist. Nov. 34. 3 Such is the pious belief of Florence; ‘Credi fas est, ipsum qui prius de hoc seculo ad Deum migravit sollicitudinem egisse sui dilectissimi, quem in hoc seculo reliquit, et ut quam citius simul ante Deum gauderent operam dedisse.”” 536 CHAP. IV. Objects of Walter's mission, His dealings with Anselm, THE PRIMACY OF ANSELM. him credit, he seems, like other Romans, to have been open to the King’s special means of influence, and a foreign writer who had good means of knowing seems to speak of his general conduct in England as having greatly tended to bring his office into discredit.’ His commission from Pope Urban was a large one. Among other things, he had to look to the better payment of the Romescot, which, it will be remembered, had not always flowed regularly into the papal coffers even in the days of the Conqueror,? and which of course did not flow at all in the days when no Pope was acknow- ledged in England. He had also to enquire generally into the state of things in England, and to consult with Anselm as to the means of reform. It is plain however from most independent testimonies that the Archbishop and the Cardinal were by no means suited to work together. Two letters from Anselm to Walter throw a singular light on some points in the story which are not recorded in any narrative. The personal inter- course of the two prelates was interfered with by a cause which we should hardly have looked for, namely, the occupation of Anselm in the duties of a military command. But it is plain that Anselm did not look for much good from any special intercourse between himself and the Cardinal. He writes that private con- ferences between the two were of no use; they could do nothing without the King’s consent and help.* But 1 Hugh of Flavigny, directly after the passage just quoted (Pertz, viii. 475), goes on to say, “ Que res in tantum adoleverat, ut nullus ex parte pape veniens honore debito exciperetur, nullus esset in Anglia archiepiscopus, episcopus, abbas, nedum monachus aut clericus, qui litteras apostolicas suscipere auderet, nedum obedire, nisi rex juberet.” ? This is noticed by the Chronicler ; “And se bisceop Waltear has on lande pes geares sySdan lange wunode, and man syddan pet Romgesceot be him sende, swa man manegan gearan eror ne dyde.” 3 See N. C. vol. iv. p. 430. * Epp. iii. 35. “ Vestra prudentia non ignorat quia nos duo nihil effice- OBJECTS OF WALTER'S MISSION. 537 Anselm seems to have taken a more constitutional view onap. rv. of the way by which the King’s consent and help was to be got than the Roman Legate was likely to take. Anselm says that they would meet to no purpose, except when the King, the bishops, and the nobles, were all near to be referred to.! This reads very much as if Anselm was aware of some underhand practices between the King and the Legate, and had no mind to meet the emissary of Rome except when he himself would have the constitutional voice of the nation to back him. But as things stood at the moment, circumstances seem to have hindered the meeting for which Walter seems to have wished and Anselm not to have wished. We are now in the thick of the revolt of Earl Robert The King's the next chapter. The King was on his march north- ward to put down the revolt. King, Archbishop, and Legate, had parted as if the Legate at least was not to see either of the other two again in England? Atsuch a time the desired conference could not be held; and Anselm himself was bound for the time within a very northern of Mowbray, the tale of which will be told in full in march. narrow local range. While the King marched on towards Anselm Northumberland, the Archbishop was entrusted with the care of Canterbury, perhaps of Kent generally, against remus, nisi regi suggestum esset, ut ejus assensu et auxilio ad effectum perduceretur quod disponeremus.” The military history which this letter casually opens to us, and of which we have no mention elsewhere, will come in the next chapter. 1 «Expecto reditum domini mei regis, et episcoporum et principum qui cum eo sunt, quatenus illi que agenda sunt, opportune et rationabiliter sug- geramus.” So in the next letter (Epp. iii. 36) he says more distinctly that he would like to meet the Cardinal, ‘‘si congruo tempore factum esset, id est quando dominus meus rex, et episcopi, et principes hujus regni vobis pre- sentes aut propinqui erant.” 2 Epp. iii. 36. ‘ Vos ab illis et ego a vobis discessimus, veluti non nos in hac terra amplius invicem visuri.” entrusted with the defence of Canter- 538 CHAP, Iv, Letters between Anselm and Walter. Position of the bishops. THE PRIMACY OF ANSELM. an expected Norman invasion.! If Anselm’s conscience would have allowed him to take part in actual warfare, we can hardly fancy that he would have proved a captain to the liking of the Red King. Yet it does sometimes happen that a simple sense of duty will carry a man with credit through business the most opposite to his own temper and habits. It is more likely however that the duty really laid upon Anselm, as upon Wulfstan at Worcester, was rather to keep the minds of the King’s forces up to the mark by stirring exhortations, while the task of personally fighting and personally com- manding was given to others. Still he was, both by the King’s word of mouth and by his writ and seal, entrusted with the care of the district,” and he deemed it his duty - not to leave Canterbury, except to go to any point that might be immediately threatened.? Why Walter could not have come to Canterbury is not clear. Anyhow personal communication was hindered, and to that hindrance we owe a letter which gives us a further insight into the almost incredible shamelessness of the King’s courtly bishops. Walter, it is plain, had been rebuking them for their conduct towards Anselm. They were open to ecclesiastical censure for denying their archbishop, and he blames Anselm himself for too great lenity towards them. Anselm pleads that they had returned to him and had promised obedience for the future.> The others, it would seem, had followed the 1 Epp. iii. 35. See the next chapter. 2 Tb. ‘Rex ore suo mihi precepit...et postquam Cantuarberiam reddi mihi mandavit per litteras proprio sigillo signatas.” 3 Ib. ‘Idcirco de Cantuaria exire non audeo, nisi in illam partem ex qua hostium expectamus adventum.” * Ib. 36. ‘Quod queritis a me cur et qua justitia episcopi alii me abnegantes a me discesserunt, nec sunt reversi dignam agentes pcenitentiam, hoc potius ab illis querendum erat quam a me.” > Ib. ‘Reversi hactenus sunt ut illam obedientiam quam Cantuariensi sedi promiserant se mihi servaturos faterentur.” ANSELM AND WALTER. 539 example of the Bishops of Hereford and Salisbury. But cup. 1v. it comes out in the letter that some of these undutiful suffragans had taken up the strangest and most self- condemning line of defence. These men, cringing slaves of the King, who had carried every mean and insulting message from the King to the Primate, who had laid down the rule that neither bishops nor other men had anything to do but to follow the King’s will in all things, were not ashamed to plead that Anselm was no lawful The archbishop, that he could claim no duty from them, nee : simply because he had done what they had themselves Loi a done in a far greater degree. These faithful servants of King William were not ashamed to urge that their master and his kingdom had been in a state of schism, cut off from the Catholic Church and its lawful head, and that Anselm had been a partaker in the schism. He had received investiture from a schismatic King; he had done homage to that schismatic King, and had received con- secration from schismatic bishops. In other words, they plead that Anselm is no lawful archbishop, because he had been consecrated by themselves. A more shameless plea than this could hardly be thought of, but Anselm does not seem stirred by its shamelessness. He simply answers the doubt which was His cast on his own appointment and consecration as calmly *“”™ as if it had been started by some impartial outsider.t Those who consecrated him were not schismatics; no judgement had cut them off from the communion of the Church. They had not cast off their allegiance to the Roman Pontiff; they all professed obedience to the Roman 1 Epp. iii. 36. ‘‘ Dicitis quosdam illorum vobis dixisse ideo non offendisse in me, quia permisi me a catholica ecclesia transferri ad schismaticos et ab illis consecrari, si fieri, sicut additis, potest; et a schismatico rege investituram accepisse, et illi fidelitatem et hominium fecisse, quos omnes sciebam esse schismaticos et divisos ab ecclesia Christi, et a capite meo Ur- _ bano pontifice, quem ipsi, me audiente, abnegabant.” 540 CHAP. IV. Question about the monks of Christ Church. THE PRIMACY OF ANSELM. See; they had not in any way denied that Urban was the lawful Pope; they had simply, in the midst of the controversy which was going on, doubted whether it was their clear duty to receive him as such." That his own position was perfectly good was shown by the conduct of the Pope himself. Urban knew all that had happened between him and the King, together with all the circumstances of his consecration. So knowing, he had treated him as lawfully consecrated, and had sent him the pallium by Walter’s own hands.’ If such objections had any force, why had not Walter spoken of them before he, Anselm, had received the pallium?? Another passage in this letter would seem to imply that some complaint had been made as to Anselm’s dealings with the monks of his own church. The Cardinal asks Anselm to leave them in free pos- session of their goods. Anselm answers that he earnestly desires the peace and advantage of his monks, and with God’s help he will do all that lies in his power to settle everything for their advantage.® Anselm and his 1 Epp. iii. 36. ‘Illi non abnegabant canonicum Romanum pontificem, quicunque esset, nec Urbanum negabant esse pontificem; sed dubitabant propter illam que modo nata est dissensionem, et propter dubitationem illum suscipere quasi certum differebant; nec ullum judicium illos ab ec- clesia segregaverat, et omnino obedientiam Romane sedis tenere se fatebantur et sub professione obedientiza Romani pontificis me consecrarunt.” 2 Ib. “Denique dominus papa sciebat me esse consecratum et a quibus, et cui regi feceram quod feci. Et tamen pallium quod archiepiscopus Cantuarie solet habere, mihi per vestram caritatem, non ut schismatico, sed ut accepto, non ut reprobans, sed ut approbans misit, et sic quod de me factum erat confirmavit.” 3 Tb. ‘Si vobis hee calumnia attendenda videtur, cur eam ante pallii concessionem mihi tacuistis? Si negligenda putatur, vos judicate quam dili- genter sit a vobis inculcanda.” ‘Ib. ‘“ Rogatis me ut fratres nostros Cantuariensis ecclesia quiete ac pacifice possidere dimittam res suas,” 5 Ib. “Nullus magis desiderat quietem ac pacem illorum quam ego, nec magis sollicitus est pro utilitate ejusdem ecclesiz ; et idcirco voluntas mea est ut res ejus, Deo annuente, disponam ad utilitatem presentem et futuram, prout melius sciam et potero.” ANSELM AND HIS MONKS. 541 monks seem to have been commonly on the best of cnar. tv. terms. Still we seem here to see the beginnings of those disputes which grew into such terrible storms a hundred years later. The lands of the monks had, as we have seen,’ not been spared during the vacancy of the arch- bishopric. And it may be that some wrong had been again done to them when the King was molesting the Archbishop’s men during the time of truce. We heard not long ago of great complaints going up during that time; some of them may have taken the formal shape of an appeal to the Cardinal. Angelm’s reeves may have been no more scrupulous than the reeves of other men. Indeed we find a curious witness that it was so. The question was raised why Anselm, a monk and a special lover of monks, did not always live at Canterbury, among his monks. Several answers are given. The most Anselm and his remarkable is that his presence in his manors WAS tenants, needed to protect his poorer tenants from the oppression of his reeves.2 When such care was needed on behalf of the tenants, it is quite possible that the reeves might sometimes meddle wrongfully with the possessions of the monks also. A time of peace for Anselm followed, though hardly a time of peace for England. Before the year was out the King had put down the revolt in Northumberland ; Earl Robert of Mowbray was his prisoner. An expedi- tion against the Welsh was less successful, and Scotland still remained under the king of her own choice. The 1 This question is argued by Eadmer in the Life, ii. 1. 9. 2 Ib. “Si Cantuariam assidue incoleret, homines sui ex advectione vic- tualium oppido grayarentur; et insuper a prepositis, ut spe contingebat, multis ex causis soe si quem interpellarent, nunquam presentem habe- rent, magis ac magia oppressi in destructionem funditus irent.” Of the doings of reeves of all kinds we have often heard, See specially N.C. vol. iv. p. 616, 542 THE PRIMACY OF ANSELM. onap. 1v. Christmas Gemét, of which we shall have presently to oe speak at length, was a famous, and, what was not usual and Salis- in our early assemblies, a bloody gathering. It was mes held at Windsor and was then adjourned to Salisbury ; 1095-1096. at the former place at least Anselm was present, and he had an opportunity of showing Christian charity to an Anselm at-enemy. At Windsor Bishop William of Durham sickened ae and died. His latter days are so closely connected Durem with the fall of Earl Robert that they will be better death-bed. spoken of elsewhere. It is enough to say here that his as ’ last hours were cheered by the ghostly help of the holy man against whom he had so deeply sinned. Meanwhile Anselm, comforted by the recall of his friend Baldwin, was doing his duty in peace; ruling, writing, exhorting, showing love to every living creature? ever and anon Consecra- called on to discharge the special duties of his office. In tie this interval he consecrated two bishops to sees within the realm, The churches of Worcester and Hereford were vacant by the deaths of the two friends Wulfstan and Robert. Both sees were filled in the year after they fell vacant. Were they filled after the usual fashion of the Red King’s day, or was Anselm, now, outwardly at least, in William’s full favour, able during this interval of peace to bring about some relaxation of the crying evil of this reign? There is no direct statement either way; we can judge only by what we know of the characters of the two men appointed. Neither of them, one would think, Samson was altogether to the mind of Anselm. In the place es of the holy Wulfstan, the diocese of Worcester received as its bishop, and the monks of Worcester received as their abbot, a canon of Bayeux, Samson by name, a 1 Eadmer, Hist. Nov. 34. ? This would seem to be the time when Anselm’s practice of various virtues is so fully described by Eadmer in the first and second chapters of the second book of the Life. CONSECRATION OF BISHOPS, 543 brother of Archbishop Thomas of York. The influence cuar. 1v. of the Northern Primate may perhaps be seen in the appointment of his kinsman to a see so closely con- nected with his own. Samson was one of the school of learned men with whom Odo—it was his one re- deeming merit—had filled his church of Bayeux. He was as yet only in deacon’s orders, and he was possibly married, at least he is said to have been the father of the second archbishop Thomas of York.? He seems to have been one of those prelates, who, without any claim to special saintship, went through their course at least decently. He was bountiful to all; to the monks of Worcester he did no harm—some harm seems to have been looked for from a secular—beyond suppressing their dependent monastery of Westbury.® Of the new Bishop of Hereford we know more. He was Gerard Bishop of Hereford, Archbishop : of York orders, and a thorough time-server.t We cannot help 1100. that’ Gerard who had helped to bring Cardinal Walter to England, one of the King’s clerks, not even in deacon’s 1 See N.C. vol. iv. p. 340. He appears in the Gesta Pontificum, 289, as “Samson, canonicus Baiocensis, non parve literature vir nec contemnendz facundiz. Antiquorum homo morum, ipse liberaliter vesci, et aliis dapsi- liter largiri.” But this last description is substituted for an amazing account of his appetite, specially in the way of fowls and swine’s flesh (ef. the ac- count of King Atthelred in N. C. vol. i. p. 658), and how he died of fat. He fed however three hundred poor men daily. ? His kindred to the elder and the younger Thomas appears in the sup- pressed passage of William of Malmesbury. Eadmer (Hist. Nov. 35) says of the two bishops-elect, “ Qui cum in summum promovendi sacerdotium ad Anselmum pro more venissent, necdum omnes inferiores ordines habuissent, ordinavit eos pro instanti necessitate, ad diaconatum et presbyteratum unum, et alium ad presbyteratum.” The canon of Bayeux would be more likely than the King’s clerk to have the higher degree. 3 Will. Malms, Gest. Pont. 290. But the first and second versions are worth comparing. It has a curiously modern sound when we read, “ Quo- tiens Lundonia rediret, aliquid pretiosum afferret, quod esset ornamento ecclesie.” But it is a witness to the growing importance of London. * William of Malmesbury has a first and a second edition (Gest. Pont. 259) in the case of Gerard also. According to rumour, “ multorum criminum et maxime libidini obnoxius erat,” He was suspected of magic, from his 544 THE PRIMACY OF ANSELM. cHap. Iv. suspecting that his bishopric was not granted for nothing, whatever may have been the case with Samson at Consecra- Worcester. The bishops-elect came to Anselm for con- tion of Gerard and secration. He was then with his friend Gundulf at ee * Lambeth, then a manor of the see of Rochester. In the 7090: chapel of the manor Anselm ordained them priests.’ The next day he consecrated them in the cathedral church of London, with the help of four of his suffragans, three of whom, Thomas of York, Maurice of London, and Gundulf of Rochester, had in different ways a special interest in the ceremony. The fourth was Herbert, de- scribed as of Thetford or Norwich. It was in the course of this year that he began his great work in his last-named see.? Anselm This year too Anselm was able to show that his style seers of Patriarch of all the nations beyond the sea was not an bishops. empty title. It was now that he consecrated two bishops ' to sees in Ireland, Samuel of Dublin and Malchus of Waterford. They were both Irish by birth, but monks of English monasteries, Samuel of Saint Alban’s, Malchus of Winchester. They came with letters from the clergy and people of their sees, and from King Murtagh or Mur- chard, of whom we shall hear again, and who takes to himself the sounding title of King of Ireland. Both were consecrated by Anselm, Samuel at Winchester, Malchus at Canterbury.’ It was no new claim; two predecessors of Samuel had already been consecrated by Lanfranc. constant study of Julius Firmicus. According to Hugh of Flavigny (Pertz, viii. 496), he sacrificed a pig to the devil, while of his brother more wonderful things still were told. See Pertz, viii. 496, and Ap- pendix G. 1 Eadmer, Hist. Nov. 35. 2 See above, p. 448, and Appendix X. 3 Eadmer gives the account of these Irish bishops (Hist. Nov. 34, 36). Samuel is described as being “‘a rege Hibernia Murierdach nomine, necne a clero et populo in episcopatum ipsius civitatis electus est, atque ad An- selmum, juxta morem antiquum, sacrandus cum communi decreto directus.” Of King Muirchertach, whose name is written endless ways, and whom it is CONSECRATION OF IRISH BISHOPS, 545 §6. The Crusade and the Mortgage of Normandy. — ©#AP. Iv. November, 1095-March, 1097. We must now for a while again turn our eyes to Nor- mandy, but to Normandy mainly as affected by the most stirring scenes in the history of the world. We have Council of seen Urban at Piacenza; we have heard him there make woe his appeal to Western Christendom on behalf of the op- 1995. pressed churches and nations of the East. Their ery came up then, as it has come up in our own ears; and it was answered in those days as one only among Christian nations has been found to answer it in ours. In those days the bulwark and queen of the Eastern lands still stood untouched. The New Rome had not then to be won back for Christendom; it had simply to be pre- served. By the prince who still kept on the unbroken Appeal succession of Constantine and Diocletian and Augustus es the appeal was made which stirred the hearts of nations 4!exios. as the heart of one man. The letters of Alexios had been read at Piacenza; the great call from the mouth of Council of the Western Pontiff was made in the ears of a vaster Clea aos multitude still in the memorable assembly of Clermont. !8: 1°95- But the tale of the first Crusade needs not to be told The first here. The writers of the time were naturally called cate away from what might seem the smaller affairs of their own lands to tell of the great struggle of two worlds. Some of the fullest accounts of the gathering and march well perhaps to shorten into Murtagh, we shall hear again. He was King of Leinster, and Bretwalda, so to speak, of all Ireland, though it seems that he was not acknowledged always and everywhere. He signs the letter to Anselm which appears in Eadmer (Hist. Nov. 36) on behalf of Malchus, which professes to come from the “clerus et populus oppidi Wataferdiz, cum rege Murchertacho, et episcopo Dofnaldo.” There are also two letters of Anselm to him (Ep. iii. 142, 147), chiefly about ecclesiastical reforms in Ireland, Anselm also speaks of a brother Cornelius, whom the Trish king had asked for, but who could not go, because he was taking care of his aged father. This is one of those little personal touches which make us wish to know more, VOL. I. Nn 546 CHAP. IV. THE PRIMACY OF ANSELM. of the crusaders are to be found in the writings to which we are in the habit of turning in every page for the history of England and Normandy.! Our native Chroni- cler can spare only a few words, but those are most pithy Bearing of words, to set forth the great stirring of the nations.2, And the crusade , on our story. No king engaged in the first crusade, The cru- sades a Latin movement. Name of Franks. in our present tale the holy war directly comes home to us, chiefly because so many men whom we have already heard of took a part in it. Above all, it places two of our chief actors before us in parts eminently character- istic of the two. We see how Duke Robert of Normandy went forth to show himself among the foremost and the worthiest in the struggle, and how King William of England took occasion of his brother’s zeal to gain his duchy by money wrung from English households and English churches. I have noticed elsewhere,’ as has been often noticed before, that the work of the first crusade was strictly the work of the nations, and of princes of the second rank. Dukes and counts there were many in the crusading army, but no king of the West joined in its march. The Western Emperor was at open war with the Pope who preached the crusade. The kings of Spain had their own crusade to wage. The kings of England and France were of all men in their kingdoms the least likely to join in the enterprise. The kingdoms of the North were as yet hardly stirred by the voice of Urban. It is indeed plain that the whole movement was primarily a Latin movement. It is with a true instinct that the people of the East have from those days onward given the name of Mranks to all the Christians of the West. It is a curious speculation, and one at which I have already hinted elsewhere, what would have been the share of England in the crusades, if there had been ? Orderic and William of Malmesbury stand conspicuous. * See the Chronicle, 1096. I quoted the passage in N.C. vol. iv. p. 93. > Ib. » THE CRUSADE. 547 no Norman Conquest.! As it was, the part of the Teu- cuar. 1v. tonic nations in the crusades is undoubtedly secondary to that of the Latin nations. Germany takes no leading part till a later stage; Scandinavia takes no leading part at all; England is brought into the scene as an appendage to Normandy. The English crusaders served Share of under the banner of the Norman Duke.? Among the ee secondary powers Flanders indeed appears among the flnders. foremost; but Flanders, a fief of the crown of Paris, was, as a power, though not as a people, more Latin than Teutonic. The elder Count Robert had won the honour of forestalling the crusade by sending help to the Eastern Emperor on his own account.’ It was fittingly Place in a Latin city, in a Gaulish city, that Urban, himself ee by birth a Frenchman in the stricter sense,* called the nations of the West to arms. But it was equally fitting that it should not be within the immediate dominion of a king who had no heart for the enterprise, of a king whose own moral offences it was one of the duties of the Pontiff and his council to denounce. Not in the dominions of any king, not in the dominions of any of the great dukes and counts who were in power on a level with kings, but in the land of the lowlier counts, not as yet dauphins, of Auvergne, the assembly met whose acts were to lead to the winning back of the Holy City for Christendom, but with which we are more directly concerned as causing William the Red to reign at Rouen as well as at Winchester. 1 See N.C. vol. v. p. 356. ? Tb. p. 93. 3 See above, p. 411. * Urban came from Rheims, but it is important to remember how little entitled Auvergne was in that day to the French name. This comes out oddly enough in an entry in the Chronicle, 1102, when thieves of all parts seem to have conspired to rob the minster of Peterborough; “ba coman peofas sum of Aluearnie, sum of France, and sum of Flanders, and breokan pet mynstre of Burh.” Nn 2 548 CHAP, IV. THE PRIMACY OF ANSELM. The preaching of the crusade was not the only busi- Decrees of ness of the great assembly at Clermont. A crowd of the council. Lay in- vestiture forbidden, canons of the usual kind were passed against the usual abuses. Those abuses were not confined to England and Normandy. We are told that in all the lands on our side of the Alps—and we may venture to doubt whether things were likely to be much better on the other side— simony prevailed among all classes of the clergy, while the laity had taken to put away their wives and to take to themselves the wives of other men The great ex- ample of this last fault was certainly King Philip of France, whose marriage or pretended marriage with Bertrada of Montfort, the wife of Count Fulk of Anjou, was one of the subjects of discussion at the council. All abuses of all these kinds were again denounced, as they had often been denounced before, and were often to be denounced again. But what coneerns us more immediately is the decree that no bishop, abbot, ‘or clerk of any rank, should receive any ecclesiastical benefice from the hand of any prince or other layman.” 1 William of Malmesbury (iv. 344) draws a grievous picture of the state of things among the “Cisalpini,” who “ad hee calamitatis omnes devenerant, ut nullis vel minimis causis extantibus quisque alium caperet, nec nisi magno redemptum abire sineret.” He then speaks at some length of simony, and adds; “Tunc legitimis uxoribus exclusis, multi contrahebant divortium, alienum expugnantes matrimonium; quare, quia in his et illis erat confusa criminum silva, ad penam quorundam potentiorum designata sunt nomina,” ? The great provision of all is (Will. Malms. iv. 345), ‘Quod ecclesia catholica sit in fide, casta, libera ab omniservitute ; ut episcopi, vel abbates, vel aliquis de clero, aliquam ecclesiasticam dignitatem de manu principum vel quorumlibet laicorum non accipiant.” This decree does not appear among the acts of Piacenza in Bernold, 1095 (Pertz, v. 462). Among so many more stirring affairs, one decree of this council, which has a good deal of interest, might easily be forgotten. This is one which was meant to reform the abuses of the privileges of sanctuary; “Qui ad ecclesiam vel ad crucem confugerint, data membrorum impunitate, jus- titi tradantur, vel innocentes liberentur.” Are we to see here the first beginning of a feeling against mutilation, which came in bit by bit in the COUNCIL OF CLERMONT, 549 This struck straight at the ancient use both of Eng- cmap... land and of Normandy. It forbad what Gregory the Seventh had, if not allowed, at least winked at, during his whole reign, in the case of the common sovereign of those two lands. This decree, we cannot doubt, had an important bearing on the future position of Anselm. Wibert, calling himself Clement, was of Sentences course excommunicated afresh, along with the Emperor as his supporter. So were the King of the French and against Clement and the Emperor ; his pretended queen, for their adulterous marriage. So against were all who should call them King and Queen or Lord and Lady, or should so much as speak to either of them for any other purpose except to rebuke their offences.2 The thunders of the Church could have found only one more fitting object than the reformation of this great moral scandal. But we see to what a height ecclesiastical claims had grown, when the council took on itself to de- clare the offenders deprived of their royal dignity and their feudal rights. Then followed the great discourse which called men to the Holy War. Urban told how, of the Urban pee the cru- from Christendom; how Asia and Africa were theirs— 4s; three parts of the world, the infidels had rent away two Philip and Bertrada. h a saying wholly true of Africa, and which, when the erential Turk held Nikaia, seemed even more true of Asia than it really was. Kurope alone was left, our little portion. Of that, Spain had been lost—the Almoravids had come next century? The guilty man is to be punished, but in some other way than by loss of limb. 1 See N. C. vol. iv. p. 429. ? Philip had professed all intention of coming to Piacenza; he had even set out; “Se ad illam itiner incepisse, sed legitimis soniis se impeditum fuisse mandavit.” (Bernold, u.s.) He was allowed, like Anselm, “ indutie" till Whitsuntide; but now the decree went forth (Will. Malms. iv. 345) against Philip himself; ‘ Et omnes qui eum vel regem vel dominum suum vocaverint, et ei obedierint, et ei locuti fuerint nisi quod pertinet ad eum corrigendum. Similiter et illam maledictam conjugem ejus, et omnes qui eam reginam vel dominam nominaverint, quousque ad emendationem vene- rint, ita ut alter ab altero discedat.” 55C CHAP. IV, French and other crusaders, 1096. Hugh brother of King Philip. THE PRIMACY OF ANSELM. in since our last glimpse of Spanish matters'—while most of the northern parts of Europe itself were still shrouded in heathen darkness. It needs some little effort to remember how true to the letter Urban’s re- ligious geography was. The south-western peninsula was then, what the south-eastern is now, the land of Christian nations slowly winning back their own from infidel masters. And, before Swedish kings had crossed the Baltic, before Sword-brothers and Teutonic knights had arisen, before Russia had made her way northward, southward, and eastward, all north-eastern Europe was still heathen, while Scandinavia, Poland, and Hungary, were still recent conquests for the faith. Into the central strip of Christian land which lay between the heathen of the north and the Turks and Saracens of the south, east, and west, the enemy was now ready to cross. Urban called on his hearers to go forth and stop the way; and not a few of the men whose names have been famous, some whose names have been infamous, in our own story were among the foremost to go forth on the holy errand to which the voice of the Pontiff called them. Those among the recorded crusaders whose names come more immediately home to Englishmen did not join the holy war till a later time. But not a few names which have been long familiar to us are to be found in the list of those who joined in the first regular expedi- tion which set forth in the course of the year which followed the assembly at Clermont. Beyond the bounds of England and Normandy we may mark the names of Hugh surnamed the Great, the brother of King Philip, Count of Vermandois, Count of Valois in succession to the holy Simon,? but who appears in our chief list of crusaders by the lowlier title of the Count of Crépy. He went to the work, leaving his fiefs to 1 See N. C. vol. iv. p. 696. ? Th. vol. iv. p. 648. FRENCH AND OTHER CRUSADERS. 551 his sons. His daughter Isabel or Elizabeth he gave in cuar. 1v. marriage to Count Robert of Meulan, by this time no oo very youthful bridegroom.t Among princes of greater marries his power, but of less lofty birth, the foreign allies of the “8% Norman house were represented by the younger Count Robert of Robert of Flanders, nephew of the Conqueror’s queen, ee and by Stephen Count of Chartres and Blois, husband of Se the Conqueror’s noblest child, and father of a king of England and of a bishop of an English see more personally eminent than his royal brother. Rotrou of Mortagne and Walter of Saint Valery went from the border lands so closely connected with Norman history. In Everard of Puiset we hear the name of a house which was in the next century to become famous in England on the throne of Saint Cuthberht, the throne at that moment empty and widowed by the death of William of Saint-Calais. And The from a house most hateful to England, but which had re- coe ceived no small share of the spoils of England, went forth Boulogne ; three brethren, one of whom was to show himself the wor- thiest, and to be placed the highest, in the crusading host. Eustace of Boulogne, a prince beyond the sea but in Eustace, England lord of lands scattered from Mendip to the Kentish and East-Saxon shores,? marched with his two brothers, both of whom were to reign as kings in the Holy City. The part of Baldwin in the enterprise had Baldwin, been already foreshadowed in visions told in the hall of Conches.? Visions were hardly needed to foretell the 1 The marriage is recorded by Orderic (vii. 23 D). There is a letter of Bishop Ivo of Chartres addressed to the clergy of Meulan and to all per- sons within the archdeaconry of Poissy. He denounces the intended marriage _on the ground of kindred, and bids them send the letter to the Count of Meulan. The kindred is said to be “ nec ignota, nec remota ;”” but it consisted in this, that Robert and Isabel had a common forefather removed by four degrees from Robert and five from Isabel. Robert was thus, as we should have expected, a generation older than his wife. 2 See N. ©. vol. iv. pp. 130, 166, 744. 3 See above, p. 269. 552 CHAP. Iv. Godfrey of Lorraine. Norman crusaders. Ralph of Wader. Duke Robert. His need of money. THE PRIMACY OF ANSELM. greatness of Godfrey of Lorraine, who had won his duchy as the prize of faithful service to the Emperor, but who was none the less ready to discharge the duties of a higher allegiance at the bidding of the Pontiff. From Normandy itself went, among a crowd of others, some of that younger generation which is beginning to supply the chief actors in our tale. Philip, the son of the lately deceased Roger of Montgomery, Ivo and Alberic the sons of the lately deceased Hugh of Grantmesnil,' all went forth ; so did Gerard of Gournay and his wife Eadgyth, he to die, she to come back for another marriage.?, And with them went another married pair whose names carry us back to earlier times. The double traitor, Ralph of Wader, traitor to England, traitor to William, went forth with his valiant Emma, to do something to wipe out his old crimes by good service beneath the walls of Nikaia, and to leave his bones and hers in lands where his memory was not a memory of shame.* We may be sure that among the crowd of men of every rank who were stirred by the voice of Urban none took up the cross with a more single mind than the Duke of the Normans. It was an appeal which spoke at once to the better side of him, an appeal which took him away from that land of his birth and dominion which was to him a land of such utter failure. Asa son and a ruler, he had much to repent of; as a warrior, a worthy object of warfare was for the first time opened to him. But how was he to go, at least how was he to go as became the prince of a duchy which under other princes had been so great? His hoard was empty; half his barons 1 See above, p. 473. ? Her second marriage with Drogo of Moncey is recorded in Will. Gem. viii. 8. Drogo was a fellow crusader (Ord. Vit. 723 D). ® See Ord. Vit. 535 C, 724 C, 729 D, where we hear of him before Nikaia. DUKE ROBERT. 553 were in practical rebellion; his brothers held no small cnap. rv. part of his duchy. He had no resource but one, to seek eed help, at whatever cost, from the brother who could com- to apply to mand the wealth of England, even though the price should W##™- be nothing short of yielding the whole of Normandy to him who already held a part. It is needless to say that King William of England had no thought of going on the crusade himself. He was not indeed hindered, as Position of the Emperor and the King of the French were hindered, satis by actually lying under the censures of the Church. But he was as little likely as either of them to gird on his sword in the great quarrel. The voice which stirred the heart of Robert to the quick found no kindred chord to strike on in the mocking soul of Rufus. The enemy of God felt no call to march in the cause of God. He was not likely to spend his treasures or to display his chivalry in warfare which could not bring him any direct increase of wealth or power. It was rather for him to stay at home, and to reap what he could in the way of either wealth or power at the cost of those whose mad- ness led them on errands which could bring in neither. Palestine was far away and hard to win. Normandy, so much as was left of Normandy, so much as was not already his own, was near and was easy to win with his own special arms. William Rufus was not at all likely to turn aside from any offer of the kind which Robert might make to him. The brothers were however at war, and the services of Mission ; 258 of Abbot a mediator were needed to open negotiations between Jeronto. them. The Pope becomingly undertook the office, and sent a prelate from the more distant parts of Gaul, Jeronto, Abbot of Saint Benignus at Dijon, to make peace between the King and the Duke. We are told that Walter of Albano’s greediness and subserviency to 554 CHAP, IV, Jeronto rebukes William. The Pope sends his nephew. Easter, April 13, 1096, THE PRIMACY OF ANSELM. the King had brought the name of Legate, and of Rome itself, into discredit. Jeronto was therefore trusted with a commission to make an appeal to William, such as Walter had clearly never made, about the evils which were allowed to go on under his government.! Of the two branches of this commission one prospered better than the other. At first, we are told, the Abbot’s righteous boldness and plainness of speech seemed to have made an effect on the King, while it raised general hopes of reform among the nation But the King or his counsel- lors knew how to deal, if not with Abbot Jeronto, at least with those in greater authority. He had, so the story runs, sent a messenger of his own to the Pope— most likely during his sojourn in northern Gaul, of which we shall hear again—carrying with him the weighty argument of ten marks of the purest gold. Trusting to this means of gaining his end, the King kept the Abbot of Dijon with him, till the Easter of the next year. By that time the King’s messenger came back, bringing with him a commissioner from the Pope, a layman, the sister's son of Urban, by whose word of mouth it would seem the Abbot's commission was cancelled and all questions were adjourned till the next Christmas.t| When the next 1 This comes from Hugh of Flavigny, Pertz, viii. 474; ‘‘Tunc temporis pro componenda inter fratres Willelmi regis filios concordia, Willelmum videlicet regem Anglorum et Robertum comitem Normannorum, abbas Divionensis ex praecepto pape mare transierat, et ut prescriptum regem ammoneret de multis que illicite fiebant ab eo, de episcopatibus videlicet et abbatiis quas sibi retinebat, nec eis pastores providebat, et reditus proventus- que omnium sibi assumebat, de symonia, de fornicatione clericorum.” ? Tb. “Qui veniens tanta libertate usus est, ut rex, integritate ejus in- specta et inadulata mentis constantia, se consiliis et votis ejus adquieturum promitteret, ut omnes fideles gratularentur eum advenisse, ad cujus ad- ventum quasi respiraret et resurgeret decus et vigor ecclesie Anglice et libertas Romane auctoritatis,” 3 Ib, “Sed quid imperturbatum relinquit inexplebilis gurges Romane avaritiz ? Rex suspectam habens viri auctoritatem, quem jam diu venturum audierat, legatum pape premiserat, et in manu ejus auri probati et puris- simi 10 marchas.” * See Appendix AA, NORMANDY PLEDGED TO WILLIAM. 555 Christmas came, the King was not in England, to attend cuar. wv. to ecclesiastical reform or to anything else. The other object for which Jeronto came to England Peace was fully carried out, whether Jeronto himself had any ed real hand in bringing it about or not. Peace was made Wiliam. between the Duke of the Normans and the King of the English. In order that Robert might have money to go Normandy to the crusade, the duchy of Normandy was pledged to Ca his brother for a sum of ten thousand marks. The trans- 1°9°- action was not a cession or a sale; it was a mere pledge. The duchy was to pass to William merely for a season, for three years, or for so long a time as Robert should be away. If the Duke should come back, and should find himself able to pay the money, the duchy was to be his again.’ Still William’s possession seemed likely to be a lasting one. There seemed but small chance of Robert's 1 The accounts do not exactly agree; but every version makes the terms such that the duchy was not ceded for ever, but could under some circum- stances be recovered. The Chronicler puts it pithily, but without details; “Durh pas fare [that is the crusade] weard se cyng and his broSor Rodbeard eorl sehte swa pet se cyng ofer sz fér, and eall Normandig et him mid feo alisde, swa swa hi pa sehte weron.” Florence calls the transaction “ vadi- monium,” and mentions the price, 10,000 marks, or 6,6661. With this William of Malmesbury agrees; Eadmer and Hugh of Flavigny make it a pledge for three years. Hugh’s words (Pertz, viii. 475) are; ‘‘ Pro compo- nenda inter fratres pacis concordia in Normannia substitit donec, pace facta, decem milium marcarum pensione accepta, terram suam comes Normannize regi Anglorum usque ad trium annorum spacium custodiendam traderet.” “ Pensio” must here be taken in the sense of a single payment, Eadmer’s words are; “ Normanniam spatio trium annorum pecunie gratis in domi- nium tradidit.” Orderic (723 A) makes the time five years; “Rex An- glorum....Normanniam usque ad quinque annos servaturus recepit, fratrique suo ad viam Domini peragendam decem milia marcos argenti erogavit.” Robert of Torigny (Will. Gem. viii. 7) mentions no number of years, but makes the bargain last as long as Rubert shall be away; ‘‘ Rex Willelmus in Normanniam transfretans, decies mille marcas argenti ea con- ditione Roberto duci commodavit, ut quamdiu idem Dux in predicta peregrinatione moraretur, ipse ducatum Normanniz pro eis vadem haberet, illum duci restituturus cum ipse sibi pretaxatam pecuniam rediens recon- signasset.” 556 CHAP, Iv. The price not large. Heavy taxation to raise the money. Whitsun Assembly, 1096. THE PRIMACY OF ANSELM. ever coming back, and smaller still of his coming back with ten thousand marks to spare out of the spoils of the infidels. If he ever did come so laden, William Rufus doubtless trusted that, by some means either of force or of fraud, his brother’s restoration to his duchy might be either evaded or withstood. The price for which Normandy was thus handed over does not, when compared with other payments of the time, seem a large one. It was not very much higher than the sums which Herbert Losinga was said to have paid for a bishopric for himself and an abbey for his father... The price to be paid for at least a three years’ possession of all Normandy was not much more than three times the sum which courtiers at least had looked on as a reasonable contribution for an Archbishop of Canterbury to make towards a single Norman expe- dition.2, Yet the sum which was now to be paid is spoken of as a drain upon the whole kingdom. Rufus had no thought of paying the money out of any rightful revenues of the crown or out of any stores which he had already wrung from his people. Something was to be wrung from them yet again for the special object of the moment. The time would seem to have been the summer of the year which followed the gathering at Clermont, the year which in England began with the death of Bishop William of Durham and the frightful punishment of Count William of Eu. The matter may have been discussed at the Whitsun Assembly of that year, of which we have no record. At any rate a heavy tax was laid on the whole kingdom; we may be sure that the Red King took the occasion to wring more out of the land than the actual sum which he had to pay to his brother. Otherwise, except on the view that everything had been taken already, the payment of a sum less than 1 See Appendix X. 2 See above, p. 438, TAXATION FOR THE PLEDGE-MONEY, 557 seven thousand pounds could hardly have weighed on cuap. 1v. the whole kingdom ag this benevolence is said to have weighed. For a benevolence it was, at least in form; Extortion men were invited to give or to lend ; but we gather that shee some more stringent means was found for those who failed to give or to lend willingly! The English’ Chronicler sends up his wail for the heavy time that it was by reason of the manifold gelds, and he tells us how, as so often happened, hunger followed in the wake of the extortioner.? Other writers describe the King as demanding loans and gifts from his prelates, earls, and other great men. The great lay lords, we are told, raised Oppression their share by the plunder of the knights who held fiefs res of them and of the churls who tilled their demesne lands.* It is the ery of these last that we hear through the voice of the Chronicler. The bishops and abbots are said to Protest have made a protest, a thing which almost passes belief Se on the part of the bishops of the Red King’s day. When called on for their shares, they are said to have answered, in the spirit, or at least in the words, of Alfheah, that they could not raise the money by any means save the oppression of the wretched tillers of the earth+ Judged by the conduct of the two classes at Rockingham, the prelates and the lay barons seem to have changed places. It is the churchmen now who have the conscientious Compari- scruple. Yet the difference is not wonderful. The barons anes were used to general havoc and violence of every kind Hoe a 1 Eadmer, Hist. Nov. 35. “Qua pecunia per Angliam, partim data, partim exacta, totum regnum in immensum vastavit.” 2 Chron. Petrib. 1096. “Dis was swide hefigtime gear geond eall Angel- cyn, egder ge purh menigfealde gylda and eac purh swide hefigtymne hunger, pe bisne eard pes geares swide gedrehte.” 3 Flor. Wig. 10g. ‘“Comites, barones, vicecomites, suos milites et villanos spoliaverunt.” * Will. Malms. iv. 318. “Super violentia querimoniam facientes, non se posse ad tantum vectigal sufficere, nisi si miseros agricolas omnino effugarent,” 558 CHAP, Iv. Plunder of the churches. Contribu- tion of Anselm. THE PRIMACY OF ANSELM. what they scrupled at was the deliberate perversion of forma] justice to crush a single man who claimed their reverence on every ground, official and personal. The prelates, on the other hand, might be ready for any amount of cringing and cowardice, and might yet shrink from being made the agents of direct oppression in their own persons. Anyhow another means of payment was suggested by the cunning agents of the impious King. It may have been the future Bishop of Durham who answered, “Have ye not chests full of the bones of dead men, but wrought about with gold and silver?”! In this strait the churchmen took the sacrilegious hint. The most sacred objects were not spared; books of the gospels, shrines, crucifixes, were spoiled of their precious ornaments, chalices were melted down, all the gifts of the bounty of the old time were seized on, not to relieve the poor, but to fill the coffers of the King with the money that was needed for his ambitious schemes.? In all this we have learned to suspect some exaggera- tion; extreme measures taken at some particular places must have been spoken of as if they had been universal throughout the land. In one case, and that the case of the highest personal interest, we get the details, and they are a good deal less frightful than the general picture. Among the other great men of the land, the Archbishop of Canterbury was called on for his con- tribution. His friends advised compliance with the request, and he himself did not complain of it as 1 Will. Malms. iv. 318. ‘‘ Quibus curiales, turbido, ut solebant, vultu, ‘Non habetis,’ inquiunt, ‘scrinia auro et argento composita, ossibus mortuorum plena? nullo alio responso obsecrantes dignati.’ ” 2 Tb. “Ita illi, intelligentes quo responsio tenderet, capsas sanctorum nudaverunt, crucifixos despoliaverunt, calices conflarunt, non in usum pau- perum, sed in fiscum regium: quicquid enim pene sancta servavit avorum parcitas, illorum grassatorum absumsit aviditas.” Cf. the account of the spoliation of Waltham in Appendix H. CONTRIBUTION OF ANSELM. 559 unreasonable.! But Anselm had no great store of money caar. rv. in hand. He consulted the Bishops of Winchester and Rochester, Walkelin and Gundulf, and by their advice he borrowed a sum of money from the hoard of his monks, who seem to have been better provided than himself. The convent, by a vote of the majority, agreed He mort- to help the Archbishop with a present sum of two hundred pounds, in return for which Anselm made over to them for seven years his manor of Peckham, which monks. brought in thirty pounds yearly. The money supplied by the monks, together with what Anselm could raise himself, made up a sum which seems to have satisfied the King; at least no complaint or dispute is recorded.? The ten thousand marks were raised and paid. We may well believe that more than the ten thousand marks were raised; but we may be sure that not a penny more than his bargain entitled him to found its way into the hands of Duke Robert. In September the gages the mnanor of Peckham whole business was finished. King William crossed the Conference sea, and met his brother in a conference held under the between William mediation of the King of the French, at some point of 4Robert. the border-land of the Vexin, at Pontoise or at Chau- mont, places of which we shall have to speak again.? » Eadmer, Hist. Nov. 35. ‘“Conventus est et Anselmus per id temporis, et ut ipse quoque manum auxilii sui in tam rationabili causa regi exten- deret, a quibusdam suis est amicis admonitus.” ? Eadmer describes this transaction at length; and adds that Anselm gave the two hundred pounds to the King, “cum illis que de suis habere poterat pro instanti necessitate, ut rebus consuleret.” 5 This fact comes from a letter of Bishop Ivo of Chartres (Du Chesne, iv. 219) addressed to King Philip; “ Excellentie vestre litteras nuper accepi, quibus submonebar ut apud Pontesium vel Calvummontem cum manu militum vobis die quam statueratis occurrerem, iturus vobiscum ad pla- citum quod futurum est inter regem Anglorum, et comitem Normannorum, quod facere ad presens magn et multz cause me prohibent.” One of these reasons is that he will not have anything to do with Bertrada, against whom he again strongly exhorts the King. He himself will not be safe in 560 THE PRIMACY OF ANSELM. caar.1v. The money was paid to the Duke; the duchy was na ee handed over to the King, and Robert of Normandy set Gate forth for the holy war. He went in company with his September, cousin the Count of Flanders and his brother-in-law the ae Count of Chartres. And with them went a kinsman of panions, an elder generation, whose long history, though not Robert, . ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ Slain specially long life, is now drawing to an end. Bishop and Odo. Odo of Bayeux could not bear to stay in Normandy again to become a subject of the nephew to whom he had surrendered himself at Rochester.1 He joined the forces of his elder nephew, and with him went the elo- quent Bishop of Evreux, Gilbert, who had preached the Conduct of funeral sermon of the Conqueror.2 The Duke on his Robert. armed pilgrimage showed new powers. He could now, often but not always, overcome his love of idleness and pleasure, and whenever the moment of real danger came, he was ever foremost, not only in the mere daring of the soldier, but in the skill and counsel of the com- mander.’ Another hand has traced his course with all the King’s court, because of her devices; such at least seems to be the meaning of the general remark, ‘“ Postremo novit vestra serenitas, quia non est mihi in curia vestra plena securitay, in qua ille sexus mihi est suspectus et infestus, qui etiam amicis aliquando non satis est fidus.” Another reason is more curious, and seems to imply that some fighting was looked for; “ Preterea casati ecclesie, et reliqui milites pene omnes vel absunt, vel pro pace violata excommunicati sunt: quos sine satisfactione reconciliare non valeo et excommunicatos in hostem mittere non debeo.” 1 Ord. Vit.675 A. ‘Odo Baiocensis episcopus cum Rodherto duce, nepote suo, peregrinatus est. Tantus enim erat rancor inter ipsum et regem pro transactis simultatibus, ut nullatenus pacificari possent ab ullis caduceato- ribus. Rex siquidem magnanimus et iracundus et tenacis erat memoriz, neé injuriam sibimet irrogatam facile obliviscebatur sine ultione.” ? See N. C. vol. iv. p. 714. 3 We learn a great deal about Robert on the crusade from the Life of Lanfranc by Ralph of Caen, in the fifth volume of Muratori. One passage describing his character has been already quoted, We shall see some special cases as we go on. But it is worth while to compare the “regius sanguis Willelmides” of c, 22 with the picture in c.58. In this last Robert makes up to the English at Laodikeia “spe dominationis.” Were they to help him in any attempt on the English crown ? DUKE ROBERT GOES ON THE CRUSADE. 561 vividness, but with less sympathy than one could have cuap. ww. wished for the general objects of the holy war.1 A few points in Robert’s eastern career are all that need now be touched on. He and his companions passed by Lucca, and there received the blessing of the orthodox Pope Urban.? They went on to what should have been Urban’s see, Robert at and found how truly the English Chronicler spoke when ®°™* he said that Urban nothing had of the settle at Rome. When they went to pay their devotions in the basilica of Saint Peter, they met with much such entertainment from the followers of the schismatic Clement as the monks of Glastonbury had met with from their abbot Thurstan.* They reached southern Italy, now a duchy His recep- of the house of Hauteville, and the reigning Duke Horeca Roger, son of the renowned Wiscard, is said to have Apulia. welcomed his natural lord in the head of the ducal house of his ancestral land.* At the time of their coming, Duke Roger, his uncle Count Roger of Sicily, who had won back a realm for Christendom, and his brother Bohemond— Mark Bohe- 1 T refer to Sir Francis Palgrave’s chapter “ Robert the Crusader,” the eleventh in the fourth volume of his “ Normandy and England.” He goes further off from the scene of our common story than I can undertake to follow him. 2 Will. Malms. iv. 350. But our best account just at this moment is that by Fulcher of Chartres in the ‘‘Gesta Dei per Francos,” which Orderic (718 B) witnesses to as a “‘certum et verax volumen.”’ Here we read (385), ‘‘Nos Franci occidentales, per Italiam excursa Gallia transeuntes cum usque Lucam pervenissemus, invenimus prope urbem illam Urbanum apo- stolicum, cum quo locuti sunt comes Robertus Normannus, et comes Ste- phanus, nos quoque cteri qui voluimus.” 3 Fulcher (u.s.) graphically describes this scene; ‘Cum in basilica beati Petri introissemus, invenimus ante altare homines Guiberti, pape stolidi, qui oblationes altari superpositas, gladios suos in manibus tenentes, inique arripiebant: alii vero super trabes ejusdem monasterii cursitabant ; et inde deorsum ubi prostrati orabamus, lapides jaciebant.” 4 Ord. Vit. 724 D. ‘“Rogerius dux, cognomento Bursa, ducem Nor- mannie cum sociis suis, utpote naturalem dominum suum, honorifice suscepit.” VOL. I. Ooo 562 CHAP. Iv. Siege of Amalfi. Bohemond takes the cross. The cru- saders winter in Apulia. 1096-1097, THE PRIMACY OF ANSELM. mond we find him accurately called'—were warring against the famous merchant town of Amalfi,’ rebel- lious in their eyes against the Norman Duke, in its own eyes loyal to the Eastern Emperor. At the coming of the crusaders Bohemond took the cross, and rent up a goodly cloak into crosses for his followers.* Count Roger was left almost alone to besiege Amalfi, and he went back to his own island. Yet, after this outburst of pious zeal, those who were highest in rank among the warriors of the cross tarried to spend a merry winter in that pleasant land, while many of the lower sort, already weary of the work, turned aside and went back to their homes.* The Norman prelates, from whatever motives, crossed to the great island of the Mediterranean, a trophy of Norman victory only second to the yet greater island of the Ocean. There, under the rule of the Great Count of Sicily, the whilom Earl of Kent might see how conquerors of his own blood could deal 1 He is ‘“‘ Marcus Buamundus” in Orderic, who afterwards (817 A) tells the story of his two names. When he went through Gaul, he stood god- father to many children, “ quibus etiam cognomen suum imponebat. Mar- cus quippe in baptismate nominatus est ; sed a patre suo, audita in convivio joculari fabula de Buamundo gigante, puero jocunde impositum est. Quod nimirum postea per totum mundum personuit, et innumeris in tripertito climate orbis alacriter innotuit. Hoc exinde nomen celebre divulgatum est in Galliis, quod antea inusitatum erat pene omnibus occiduis.” Orderic is always careful about names, specially double names. See another account in Will. Malms,. iv. 387. ? Orderic (724 D) says merely “‘quoddam castrum,” but it appears from Geoffrey Malaterra (iv. 24) and Lupus Protospata, 1096 (Muratori, v. 47), that the place besieged was Amalfi. Count Roger of Sicily brought with him ten thousand Saracens, ° Ord. Vit. u.s. “Sibi tandem optimum afferri pallium precepit, quod per particulas concidit, et crucem unicuique suorum distribuit, suamque sibi retinuit.” * Fulcher, 585. ‘“ Tunc plurimi de pauperibus vel ignavis, inopiam futu- ram metuentes, arcubus suis venditis, et baculis peregrinationis resumptis, ad mansiones suas regressi sunt. Qua de re viles tam Deo quam hominibus facti sunt: et versum est eis in opprobrium.” So William of Malmesbury, iv. 353, who adds that “ pars pro intemperie soli morbo defecit.” DEATH OF ODO OF BAYEUX. 563 with the men of conquered lands after another sort from omar. rv. that in which he had dealt with the men of his English earldom. There, in the happy city of the threefold speech, the Bishop of Bayeux might mark, in the great temple of Palermo, once church, then mosque, and now church once more, those forms of art of the Greek and the Saracen, which had lost in grace, if they had gained in strength, in taking the shapes which he had himself followed in his great work in his own Saxon city. There the Earl and Bishop at last ended a career of Odo dies which Kent and Bayeux could tell so different a tale. renal Gilbert of Evreux discharged the last corporal work of 1°97. mercy for his fiercer brother; and the tomb of Odo of Bayeux arose within the walls of the great church of Palermo, soon to boast itself the head of the Sicilian realm And, after all the changes of later days, amid the small remains which the barbarians of the Renais- sance have left us of the church of English Walter, we may, even beside the tomb of the Wonder of the World, stop for a moment to remember that the brother of our Conqueror, the scourge of our land, found his last resting-place so far away alike from Bayeux, .from Senlac, and from Rochester. The Bishop went no further than Palermo; the Duke Duke went on by the course which the warfare of the Apulian pati o Normans had lately made familiar. They entered the Pia Eastern world at Dyrrhachion, where the valour of Nor- mans and Englishmen had been lately proved.§ They Use of the passed, in the geography of our authors, through Bul- oe Saas garia;* that is, they passed through those Illyrian and 1 See Historical Essays, Third Series, 473, 474. 2 Ord. Vit. 765 B, C. 5 See N. C. vol. iv. pp. 625, 626. * Orderic (u. s.) says, “ tranquillo remige in Bulgariz partibus applicuit.” Fulcher is naturally more exact. They land at Dyrrhachion (386), and then “ Bulgarorum regiones, per montium prerupta et loca satis deserta, transivimus.” He gives several curious details of the voyage and march, 002. 564 CHAP. IV. Robert does hom- age to Alexios, Robert at Laodikeia. THE PRIMACY OF ANSELM, Macedonian lands where the rule of Byzantium had again displaced the rule of Ochrida, but to which the name of the people whom Samuel had made terrible still clave, as in the language of fact, though not of diplomacy, it cleaves still. They reached Thessalonica, they reached Constantinople, and wondered at the glories of the New Rome.’ There, as in duty bound, they pledged their faith to the truest heir of the Roman majesty, whose lost lands they were to win back from the misbelievers. Before the throne of Alexios Robert the Norman knelt; he placed his hands between the Imperial hands, and arose the sworn liegeman of Augustus.? The homage of Harold to Robert's father was not more binding than the homage of Robert to Alexios; but an English earl and a Norman crusader were measured in those days by different standards. The host passed on; at Nikaia, at Antioch, at Jerusalem, Robert was ever foremost in fight and in council. Yet the old spirit was not wholly cast out. When the English Wa- rangians at Laodikeia hailed their joint leaders in the son of their Conqueror and in the heir of their ancient kings,’ 1 Fulcher bursts into ecstasy at the sight of Constantinople, and William of Malmesbury takes the opportunity to tell its history. From iv. 356 and the note it appears that he knew his Emperors, and that his editor did not. 2 See Fulcher, 386; Orderic, 728A; Will. Malms. iv. 357. They all record the homage, except in the case of Count Raymond of Toulouse, who would only swear, but not do homage. The Count of Flanders seems a little doubtful; but the words of William of Malmesbury are explicit as to Robert ; ‘“‘Normannus itaque et Blesensis comites hominium suum Greco prostraverunt ; nam jam Flandrita transierat, et id facere fastidierat, quod se meminisset natum et educatum libere.” Orderic seems to take a real pleasure in speaking of Alexios as Augustus and Cesar, the latter title being a little beneath him. His subjects however are not only “Greci,” but “ Pelasgi,” “ Achzi,” anything that would do for the grand style. Presently Nikaia appears (728 B) as “ totius Romaniz caput.” So William of Malmes- bury speaks of “ Minor Asia quam Romaniam dicunt.” Here “ Romania” means specially the Turkish kingdom of Rowm; in more accurate geography it takes in the European provinces of the Empire. ° See above, p. 560, and Ord. Vit. 778A, B, where he describes the coming of EFadgar, of which more in a later chapter, and his near friendship with Robert, THE TWO ROBERTS ON THE CRUSADE. 565 the pleasures of Asia, like the pleasures of Apulia, were cuar. 1v. too much for the Duke, and it needed the anathemas of the Church to call him back from his luxurious holiday to the stern work that was before him.!' Before the walls of Jerusalem he found a strange ally. Hugh of Jaugy, Hugh of one of the murderers of Mabel, after his long sojourn i tne among the infidels, greeted his natural prince, returned ‘™s4es. to his allegiance, and by his knowledge of the tongue and ways of those whom he forsook, did useful, if not honourable, service.2. A worthier comrade was a noble and valiant Turk, who of his own accord came to seek for baptism and for admission to share the perils of the pilgrims. The Norman Duke ever appears as the fellow- soldier of his kinsman and namesake of Flanders; the two Roberts are always side by side. It is needless to The “rope- say that neither of them shared in that shameful descent ee * from the walls of Antioch which gained for some of the heroes of Normandy the mocking surname of the rope- dancers.* It is hard to find any absolutely contemporary 1 The words of Ralph of Caen (c. 58) on this head are very emphatic ; “ Normannus comes ingressus Laodiciam somno vacabat, et otio; nec in- utilis tamen, dum opulentiam nactus aliis indigentibus large erogabat ; quoniam conserva Cyprus Baccho, Cerere, et multo pecore abundans, Lao- diciam repleverat, quippe indigentem vicinam Christicolam, et quasi col- lacteam ; ipsa namque una in littore Syro et Christum colebat et Alexio serviebat. Sed nec sic excussato otio, praedictus comes frustra semel atque iterum ad castra revocatur. Tertio sub anathemate accitus, redit invitus; difficilem enim habebat transitum commeatio, que comiti ministrare Lao- dicia veniens debebat.” 2 Ord. Vit. 753 A. We have heard of Hugh before, N.C. vol. iv. p. 493. We now read that ‘‘Susceptus a Normannico duce, multum suis profuit et mores ethnicos ac tergiversationes subdolas et fraudes, quibus contra fideles callent, enucleavit.” 3 Ib. “Cosan etiam, nobilis heros et potens de Turcorum prosapia, Christianos ultro adiit, multisque modis ad capiendam urbem eos ad- juvit. In Christum enim fideliter credebat, et sacro baptismate regenerari peroptabat. Ideoque nostratibus, ut amicis et fratribus, ad obtinendum decus Palestine et metropoli Davitici regni summopere suffragari sata- gebat.” + « Furtivi funambuli” was the name given to Ivo and Alberic of Grant- 566 CHAP. IV, THE PRIMACY OF ANSELM. authority for the statement which was very soon afloat, Robert said that the crown of Jerusalem was offered to Robert and to have refused os was refused by him.t Robert could not have been as crown of Jerusalem, His return. William takes pos- session of Normandy. Godfrey; but we can believe that his career would have been more honourable in a Syrian than in a Norman dominion. He was at least one of the first to stand on the rescued walls of the Holy City ;? and in the fight for the newly-won realm against the Fatimite Caliph, it was not merely by cutting down the Saracen standard-bearer with his own hand, but by a display of really skilful tactics, that Robert did much to win the day for Christendom.* He then turned his face towards Constantinople and towards Apulia, and we shall meet him again in his own land. As soon as Robert had set forth for Jerusalem, William took possession of the duchy of Normandy—in modern phrase, he took upon him its administration—without opposition from any side. There was indeed no side, except the side of mere anarchy, from which opposition could come. It was perhaps a little humiliating for a great duchy to be handed over from one prince to another by a personal bargain, like a house or a field. But there mesnil and certain others. See Orderic, 738 D. Stephen of Chartres too decamped for a while in a manner which did not please his wife. 1 The words of William of Malmesbury (iv. 389) are remarkable; ‘ Ro- bertus, Jerosolymam veniens, indelibili macula nobilitatem suam respersit, quod regnum, consensu omnium sibi utpote regis filio delatum, recusaret, non reverentie, ut fertur, contuitu, sed laborum inextricabilium metu.” 2 His exploits in the storm come out in all the accounts. In William of Malmesbury (iv. 369) he and his namesake of Flanders are as usual grouped together; “He quidem victoria in parte Godefridi et duorum Robertorum evenit.” 3 Will. Malms. iv. 371. “Duces, et maxime Robertus Normannus, qui antesignanus erat, arte artem, vel potius virtute calliditatem eludentes, sagittariis et peditibus deductis, medias gentilium perruperunt acies.” This seems to prove more than the story in iv. 389, where Robert, with Philip of Montgomery and others, makes use of the worn-out stratagem of the feigned flight. SETTLEMENT OF HENRY. 567 was no practical ground for opposing William’s entry. cur. iv. All classes, save mere robbers, lordly or vulgar, must have had enough of Robert. And now Robert was gone, and in going, he had handed them over to the prince for whom many of them had fought or intrigued, and who already held some of the most important points of the country. Whether it was good or bad for England and Normandy to have the same ruler, it was clearly a gain for all Normandy to have only one ruler. In one sense in- deed this object was not even now attained. William’s first step was to dismember the duchy which he had bought. Henry, it will be remembered, had been left in Normandy Grants to a year and a half before, and had been, perhaps ever since, acting in William’s interests against Robert. He now received the reward of his services in a noble fief indeed. He became again acknowledged Count of the whole Cétentin. And to his peninsular dominion he was allowed to add the whole Bessin, except the city of Bayeux and the castle and town of Caen.1 The spot which contained the foundations of his parents, the tombs of his parents, William Rufus could not bring himself to give up, even to reward the faithful service of a brother. But for Henry, in full friendship with his brother, to hold a corner of Normandy as a fief of his brother was a partition of Normandy of quite another kind from such a partition as had been when William, as Robert's Henry. enemy, hemmed in Robert in his capital. There can be Rule of © no doubt that the exchange from Robert to William was beso an unspeakable gain to the duchy. During the remainder of the life of Rufus Normandy had a stern master; but, after the anarchy of Robert, what the land most needed 1 Robert of Torigny, 1096. “Comes Henricus contulit se ad regem Willermum, atque omnino cum eo remansit; cui idem rex comitatum Con- stantiensem et Baiocensem, preter civitatem Baiocas et oppidum Cadomi, ex integro concessit.” 568 THE PRIMACY OF ANSELM. cuap. Iv. was a master of almost any kind. The kind of work Synod of Rouen. 1096. Truce of God con- firmed. Other decrees. which was needed is shown in the acts of a synod which had been gathered at Rouen by Archbishop William, while Robert still nominally ruled, almost immediately after the greater gathering at Clermont. Three Nor- man bishops had been at Clermont in person, Odo of Bayeux, Gilbert of Evreux, and Serlo of Seez. They brought back the decrees of the council to their brethren, who forthwith assembled to accept and enforce in their own province all that had been ordered at Clermont for the Church and the world in general. They confirmed the Truce of God! with all its enactments on behalf of the more useful and helpless members of society. They drew up an oath to be taken under pain of anathema by all men, which bound them to observe the Truce in their own persons, and to give the help of the temporal arm to the efforts of the ecclesiastical powers against those who should break it.2 In those days at least peace could be had only through war, and the Truce of God itself be- came the occasion of more fighting against those who scorned its wholesome checks. Other anathemas were pronounced against robbers, false moneyers, and buyers of stolen goods, against those who gathered themselves together in castles for purposes of plunder, and against the lords who sheltered such men in their castles. Such castles were put under an interdict; no Christian rite might be done in them? In going on to pronounce 1 Ord. Vit. 721 B. This decree heads the acts of the council; “Statuit synodus sancta, ut trevia Dei firmiter custodiatur,” &c. ? Ib. C. All persons from twelve years of age are to swear that they will keep the Truce, and will help their several bishops and archdeacons, “ita ut, si me monuerint ad eundum super eos, nec diffugiam nec dissimu- labo, sed cum armis meis cum ipso proficiscar, et omnibus, quibus potero, juvabo adversus illos per fidem sine malo ingenio, secundum meam con- scientiam,” ° Ib. D. “Hoc anathemate feriuntur falsarii et raptores et emptores predarum, et qui in castris congregantur propter exercendas rapinas, et SYNOD OF ROUEN. 569 further anathemas against the invaders of ecclesiastical cuar. xv. rights, against the unlawful occupiers of Church lands, against laymen who claimed to have a right in tithes and other Church dues,! the synod uses a formula which shows how keenly Normandy felt the difference between the great William and his eldest son. What the days of The days the Confessor were in England, the days of the Conqueror ae. were in his own duchy. The synod decreed that all churches should enjoy their goods and customs as they had been in the time of King William, and that no burthens should be laid upon them but such as King William had allowed.? . It would be too much to think that William the Red at once brought back the Norman duchy to the state in which it had been in those golden days of William the Great. And it is still less needful to stop to prove that even the days of William the Great would not have seemed golden days as compared with the state of any well-governed land in our own time. But there can be no doubt that the coming of the new ruler wrought a real reform. And a reform was grievously needed. We read Small re- synod. The bishops, Odo among them, did what they could—it is Odo’s last recorded act in the lands with which we have to deal, and it is something that he leaves us in the shape of a reformer and not in that of an oppressor. But very little came of the efforts of the prelates. The Duke did nothing to help them—his mind was perhaps too full of the crusade—and things were at the moment of William’s coming in almost greater confusion than domini qui amodo eos retinuerint in castris suis. Et auctoritate apostolica et nostra prohibemus ut nulla Christianitas fiat in terris dominorum illorum.” * Ord, Vit. 721 D. “Et quod nullus laicus participationem habeat in tertia parte decime, vel in sepultura, vel in oblatione altaris.” 2 Tb. “Nec servitium, nec aliquam exactionem inde exigat, preter eam que tempore Guillelmi regis constituta fuit.” that very little came of the well-intentioned decrees of the cari me 570 THE PRIMACY OF ANSELM. cuar. ty. ever! He at least gave the land the advantage of a William's strong rule; he kept the luxury of oppression to himself. Normandy. The lesser scourges of mankind were thoroughly put down. We hear no more of that private warfare which had torn the land in pieces in the days of Robert. William recalled many of the lavish grants of Robert; what his father had held, he would hold.2 Even in ecclesiastical matters Rufus is not painted in such dark colours in Hisap- Normandy as he is in England. He is not charged with ae keeping ecclesiastical benefices vacant in order that he might enjoy their revenues. He found two great abbeys vacant, those of Jumiéves and Saint Peter-on-Dives; and he at once supplied them with abbots. They were abbots of his own choosing, but it is not said that Tee they bought their places.? Tancard, the new abbot of Jumitges, Jumieges, may lie under some suspicion, as a few years 1090-1101. after he was deposed on account of a shameful quarrel with his monks.t Saint Peter’s was vacant, not by the death, but by the deposition and banishment—unjust we ae ot oe told—of its abbot Fulk. William appoi:ted a monk Saint of Jumiéges called Etard or Walter, who ruled well, we ree are told, for eleven years, till Fulk came back with letters from the Pope, on which his successor cheerfully made way for him again.® No Norman bishopric was vacant at the time of William’s entry, nor did any be- come vacant for more than a year. Then in the midst oe of events which are to be told hereafter, the news came 1 Orderic draws a special picture (722 D, 723 C), winding up with “ Sic Normannia suis in se filiis furentibus miserabiliter turbata est, et plebs in- ermis sine patrono desolata est,” ? Ord. Vit. 765 C. ‘“Guillelmus itaque rex Normanniam possedit, et dominia patris sui, que frater suus insipienter distraxerat, sibi manci- pavit.” 3 Tb. “Eecclesias pastoribus viduatas electis pro modulo suo rectoribus commisit.” Or do these words imply simony? They might merely imply lay nomination and investiture. ‘Tb. * Ib, WILLIAM'S APPOINTMENTS TO NORMAN CHURCHES. 571 that the throne of Bayeux was vacant by the death of cuar. 1. Odo far away at Palermo. William at once bestowed the staff on Turold the brother of Hugh of Evermouth, Turold seemingly the same Hugh who figures in the legend of Pee Hereward as his son-in-law and successor! This pre- 1098-1195. late sat for seven years, and then, for reasons of his own, gave up his see, and became a monk at Bec.” §7. The Last Dispute between William and Anselm. 1097. The year which followed William’s acquisition of Normandy was a busy year in many ways. The King Christmas, passed the winter in the duchy; the greater part of the ee year he spent in England. He was largely occupied with the affairs of Wales and Scotland, and in this year came the last dispute between the King and the Arch- bishop, and the first departure of Anselm from England. Since their reconciliation at Windsor two years before, there had been no open breach between them. The State of first difference arose out of the events of the Welsh war. nea Ss At the end of the year which saw William master of 1°9° Normandy, he seemed to have wholly lost his hold on Wales. Except Glamorgan and the one isolated castle of Pembroke, the Britons seemed to have won back their whole land.* The affairs of Wales brought the King Easter, back from Normandy, and he designed to hold the reg S Easter Gemét in its usual place at Winchester. Stress of weather however hindered him from reaching England William in time for the festival. He landed at Arundel on Easter Tralee 1 Ord. Vit. 765 C. “Turoldo fratri Hugonis de Ebremou episcopatum dedit.” Hugh of Evermouth occurs in the false Ingulf, 77 (not so in Domes- day), as lord of Bourne and Deeping. 2 Tb. “Pro quibusdam arcanis ultro reliquit.” 3 T shall speak of these Welsh wars in full in the next chapter. 572 THE PRIMACY OF ANSELM. cuar. 1v. eve, and thence went to Windsor, where the Assembly Assembly was therefore held, somewhat later than the usual time.’ of Windsor. 3 Seeming The meeting was followed by a great expedition into Wales, i fand by a submission of the country which events a few months later proved to be very nominalindeed.? But there was at last an apparent success. William seemed to be greater than ever; he had, by whatever means, won Normandy and recovered Wales. And, more than this, the beginnings of his Norman government had been good; he had thus far shown himself a better nursing- father of the Church in his duchy than his brother Good bopes Robert had done. A hope therefore arose in many minds se that the days of victory and peace might be days of reformed government in England also, and that King and Primate might be able to join in some great measure for the improvement of discipline and manners.’ In this hope they were disappointed, as they were likely to be, especially if they reckoned on any long time of peace with the Britons. But the first renewed breach between the King and the Archbishop arose from quite a new cause. William When the King came back from the Welsh war, he sent panel letter to Anselm, angrily complaining of the nature of contingent the Archbishop's military contingent to his army. The Welsh war. knights whom Anselm had sent had been so badly equipped and so useless in war that he owed him no thanks for 1 Chron. Petrib. 1097. ‘Se cyng Willelm ....togeanes Eastron hider to lande for, forSam he pohte his hired on Winceastre to healdenne; ac he weard purh weder gelét odSet Eastre eefen, pet he up com zrost et Arundel, and forpi his hired at Windlesoran heold.” ? Eadmer (Hist. Nov. 37) makes a great deal more than enough of this submission, when he says; ‘“‘Super Walenses qui contra eum surrexerant exercitum duxit, eosque post modicum in deditionem suscipit, et pace un- dique potitus est.” But this would doubtless be the impression of the moment. Ib. ‘Cum jam multi sperarent, quod hec pax servitio Dei deberet niilitare, et attenti exspectarent aliquid magni pro emendatione Christiani- tatis ex regis assensu archiepiscopum promulgare.” COMPLAINTS AGAINST ANSELM’S KNIGHTS. 573 them but rather the contrary.!. This story is commonly cuar. iv. told as if Anselm had been the colonel of a regiment whose men were, through his fault, utterly unfit for service. Anselm had indeed, as we have seen, once held somewhat Estimate of a warlike command, but it had been of a passive kind Social he was certainly not expected to go to the Welsh war himself. In truth the complaint is against knights; doubtless, if the knights were bad, their followers would be worse; butit is of knights that the King speaks. If I rightly understand the relation between the Arch- Position of bishop and his military tenants, these knights were men Buheg en who held lands of the archbishopric by the tenure of nights. discharging all the military service to which the whole estates of the archbishopric were bound.? It was doubt- less the business of their lord to see that the service was paid, that the proper number of knights, each with his proper number of followers, went to the royal standard. But one can hardly think that it was part of the Arch- bishop’s business to look into every military detail, as if he had been their commanding officer. It was not Anselm’s business to find their arms and accoutrements; they held their lands by the tenure of finding such things for themselves. The King was dissatisfied with the archiepiscopal contingent, and, from his point of view, most likely not without reason. Anselm’s troops might be expected to be among the least serviceable parts of the army. Gentlemen and yeomen of Kent—we may begin to use those familiar names—could have had no great experience of warfare ; there were no private wars to keep their hands in practice ; they could not be so well fitted for 1 Kadmer, Hist. Nov. 37. ‘“ Ecce spei hujus et exspectationis turbatorias literas rex, a Gualis reversus, archiepiscopo destinat, mandans in illis se pro militibus quos in expeditionem suam miserat nullas ei nisi malas gratias habere, eo quod nec convenienter, sicut aiebat, instructi, nec ad bella fuerant pro negotii qualitate idonei.” 2 See N. C. vol. v. p. 372. 574 CHAP. IV. Anselm summoned to the King’s court. Anselm’s distress. His weari- ness of England. THE PRIMACY OF ANSELM. war in general or specially for Welsh war, either as the picked mercenaries of the King or as the tried followers of the Earl of Chester and the Lord of Glamorgan. William, as a military commander, might naturally be annoyed at the poor figure cut by the Archbishop's knights; but there is every reason to think that, in point of law, his complaint against the Archbishop was unjust. It seems to be shown to be so by the fact that the charge which the King brought against Anselm on this account was one which in the end he found it better to drop. But he now bade Anselm to be ready to do right to him, according to the judgement of his court, whenever he should think fit to summon him for that end.? Anselm seems to have been thoroughly disheartened by this fresh blow. And yet it was no more than what he bad been looking for. Over and over again he had said that between him and William there could be no lasting peace, that under such a king as William there could be no real reform. And the new grievance was a personal one; whether the charge was right or wrong, it had nothing to do with the interests of the Church or with good morals; it simply touched his relations to the King as his temporal lord. Since the meeting at Windsor two years before, though William had given Anselm no kind of help in his plans, he does not seem to have openly thwarted them, except, as seems im- plied throughout, by still refusing his leave for the holding of a synod. At the same time there had been quite enough to make Anselm thoroughly weary of England and her King and of everything to do with her. And the visits of the Cardinal of Albano and the Abbot 1 Eadmer, Hist. Nov. 37. ‘“Precepit ut paratus esset de his, juxta judicium curiz sue, sibimet rectitudinem facere, quandocumque sibi placeret inde eum appellare.” ? Th. “Licet jam olim sciverit se, eodem rege superstite, in Anglia Christo non adeo fructificaturum.” NEW POSITION OF ANSELM. 575 of Saint Benignus had done Anselm no good. From this car. rv. time we mark the beginning of a certain change in him Change in ‘ : 7 : : Anselm’s which, without in any way morally blaming him, we feelings. must call a change for the worse. Leftto himself, he seems not to have had the faintest scruple as to the customs which were established alike in England and in Nor- mandy. He was unwilling to accept the metropolitan office at all; but he made no objection to the particular way of receiving it which was the use of England and of Normandy. He had, without scruple or protest, received the staff of Canterbury from the son as he had received the staff of Bec from the father. His wish to go to Rome to receive the pallium was fully according to precedent, and it was only the petty captiousness of the King that turned it into a matter of offence. But His _ the mere talking about Rome and the Pope which the ae discussion had led to was not wholesome; and every- ®™* thing that had since happened had tended to put Rome and the Pope more and more into Anselm’s head. The coming of the Legate, the rebukes of the Legate, even the base insinuations of his undutiful suffragans against the validity of his appointment, would all help to bring about a certain morbid frame of mind, a craving after ‘Rome and its Bishop as the one centre of shelter and comfort among his troubles. The very failure of Walter’s mission, the unworthy greediness and subserviency into which the Legate had fallen, the utter break-down of the later mission of Abbot Jeronto, would all tend the same way. Anselm would hold, not that the Pope was corrupt, but that none but the Pope in his own person could be trusted. He would have nothing more to do with his unfaithful agents; he would go himself to the fountain-head which could not fail him. And he to whom he would go was not simply the Pope, any Pope; it was Urban the Second, the reformer, the preacher of 576 THE PRIMACY OF ANSELM. cuar.1v. the crusade. Since Anselm's work had begun, the world Personal had been filled with the personal fame of the Pontiff position of , Urban. Ideal aspect of Rome. in whose cause he had striven. In the same council which had stirred the common heart of Christendom Urban had denounced those customs of England to which Anselm had conformed in his own appointment and which he had promised to defend against all men. The rules laid down at Clermont against the acceptance of ecclesi- astical benefices from lay hands not only condemned his own appointment, made before those decrees were issued; it condemned also the consecrations to the sees of Hereford and Worcester which he had himself performed since they had been issued. Amid the reign of unlaw, amid the constant breaches of discipline, the frightful sins against moral right, which he had daily to behold and which he was kept back from duly censuring, with none to support him outwardly, none but a few chosen ones to understand his inward thoughts, it is not wonderful if distant Rome seemed to him a blessed haven of rest from the troubles and sorrows of England. Let him flee thither at any cost, and have peace. Let him seek the counsel of the ghostly superior to whom he looked up in faith, and to whom he had been so faithful; to him he would open his soul; from him he would receive guidance, perhaps strength, in a course which was beset with so many difficulties on all sides. Rome, seen far away, looked pure and holy; its Pontiff seemed the one embodiment of right and law, the one shadow of God left upon earth, in a world of force and falsehood and foulness of life, a world where the civil sword was left in the hands of kings like William and Philip, and where an Emperor like Henry still wielded it in defiance’ of anathemas. At such a distance he would not see that the policy of Popes had already learned to be even more worldly and crooked than that of kings and emperors. He had not ANSELM’S FEELINGS TOWARDS ROME. 577 learned, what Englishmen had already learned, that gold cuar. 1v. was as powerful in the counsels of the Holy See as ever it was in the closet of the Red King. The Pope’s agents and messengers might take bribes; the Pope himself, the holy College around him, would never sink to such shame. The majestic and attractive side of the Roman system was all that would present itself to his eyes. He would flee to the blessed shelter and be at peace. He had had enough of the world of kings and courts, the world where men of God were called on to send men to fight the battles of this life, and were called in question if swords were not sharp enough or if horses were not duly trained and caparisoned. Weary and sick at heart, he would turn away from such a scene and from its thankless duties; he would, for a while at least, leave the potsherds of the earth to strive with the potsherds of the earth; he would go where he might perhaps win leave to throw aside his burthen, or where, failing that, he might receive renewed strength to bear it. In all this we can thoroughly enter into Anselm’s New posi- feelings, nor are we called upon to pronounce any cen- ey sure upon either his feelings or his conduct. But it is plain that he was now taking up a wholly different posi- tion from that which he had taken at Rockingham, a position in which he could not expect to meet with, and in which he did not meet with, the same support which he had met with at Rockingham. At Gillingham and at Rockingham Anselm did nothing which could be fairly construed as a defiance of the law or an appeal to the Pope against any lawful authority of the King. All that he did was to ask the King’s leave to go for the pallium, that'is to do what all his predecessors had done, to obey what might be as fairly called a custom of the realm as any other. In the discussions which now began, his Aspect conduct would, to say the least, have, in the eyes of ae VOL, I. Pp 578 OHAP, IV. Causes of his loss of general support. THE PRIMACY OF ANSELM. any but the most friendly judges, another look. He was asking leave to go to Rome, not to discharge an estab- lished duty, but, as it might be not unfairly argued, simply to gratify a caprice of his own. He might rightly ask for such leave; but it rested with the King’s dis- cretion to grant or to refuse it, and no formal wrong would be done to him by refusing it. And to ask leave to go and consult the Pope, not because of any meddling with his spiritual office, not on account of any religious or ecclesiastical difficulty, but because the King had threatened him with a suit, just or unjust, in a purely temporal matter, had very much the air of appealing from the King’s authority to the Pope. We must re- member throughout that Anselm nowhere makes the claim which Odo and William of Saint-Calais made before him, which Thomas of London made after him, to be exempt from temporal jurisdiction on the ground of his order. As such claims had no foundation in English law, neither was it at all in the spirit of Anselm to press them. All that he wanted was to be allowed to seek help in his troubles in the only quarter where he believed that help might be found. But the petition for leave to seek it was put in a form and under circumstances which might well have awakened some distrust, some unwillingness, in minds far better dis- posed towards him than that of the Red King. We may not for a moment doubt the perfect singleminded- ness of Anselm, his perfect righteousness from the point of view of his own conscience. But we cannot wonder that, in the new controversy, he failed to have the barons and people of England at his side, as he had had them on the day of trial at Rockingham and on the day of peace-making at Windsor. The belief that the supposed season of peace might be a ANSELM DESIGNS A LAST APPEAL, 579 season of reform had been shared by Anselm himself. cuar. 1v. He had more than once urged the King on the subject ; Anselm's continued but William had always answered that he was too demands of busy dealing with his many enemies to think about oe such matters! Such an answer was a mere put-off; yet a more discouraging one might have been given. Anselm had therefore fully made up his mind to make the most of this special opportunity, and to make yet one more urgent appeal to the King to help him in his work.2 And now, at the meeting where he trusted to make this attempt, he was summoned to appear as defendant on a purely temporal charge. To that He deter- 5 mines not charge he determined to make no answer. But surely to answer the reason which is given is rather the reason of Eadmer the 2°¥ summons, afterwards than of Anselm at the time. Anselm is Working of made to say that in the King’s court everything de- te Ki™s* pended on the King’s nod, and that his cause would be examined in that court, without law, without equity, without reason.? He had not found it so at Rockingham, 1 Kadmer, Hist. Nov. 37. “ Rogatus de subventione Christianitatis, non- numquam solebat respondere se propter hostes quos infestos cireumquaque habebat eo intendere non valere.” 2 Tb. “Jam tune illum pace potitum cogitaverat super hac re convenire, et saltem ad consensum alicujus boni fructus exsequendi quibus modis posset attrahendo delinire.” 3 Ib. “Quod ille dinoscens, et insuper cuncta regalis curie judicia pendere ad nutum regis, nilque in ipsis nisi solum velle illius considerari certissime sciens, indecens zstimavit pro verbi calumnia placitantium more contendere, et veritatis suze causam curiali judicio, quod nulla lex, nulla equitas, nulla ratio, muniebat, examinandam introducere.” As I understand this, he does not decline the authority of the court; he simply determines to make no defence, and to leave things to take their course. How far did the court deserve the character which Eadmer gives of it? At this stage of the constitution, we are met at every step by the diffi- culty of distinguishing between the greater curia regis, which was in truth the Witenagemét, and the smaller curia regis of the King’s immediate offi- cials and counsellors, the successor of the Theningmannagemét (see N. C, vol. v. pp. 423, 878). Eadmer's picture would, under Rufus, be true enough of the smaller body. The event at Rockingham had shown that it was not always true of the larger. Pp 2 580 CHAP. IV. He deter- mines on a last effort, THE PRIMACY OF ANSELM. nor did he find it so now. But we can quite understand that, with his mind full of so much greater matters, he might think it better to let his Judges settle matters as they might, for or against him, in questions as to horses and weapons and military training. The worst that could happen would be another payment of money.! Anselm believed that the charge was a mere pretence, devised simply to hinder him from making the appeal to the King which he designed.? He therefore made up his mind to make no answer to the summons, and to let the law, if there was any law in the matter, take its course.? When he looked around at the spoliation of the Church, at the evils of all kinds which had crept in through lack of discipline, he feared the judgement of God on himself, if he did not make one last effort.* His heart indeed sank when he saw that, of all the evil that was done, the King either was himself the doer or took pleasure in them that did it. But he would strive once more; if his last effort failed, he would appeal to a higher spiritual power than his own; he would see what the authority and judgement of the Apostolic See could do.* 1 We read directly after (Eadmer, Hist. Nov. 37) what was expected to happen ;—“‘ ut culpe addictus, aut ingentem regi pecuniam penderet, aut ad implorandam misericordiam ejus, caput amplius non levaturus, se totum impenderet.” Anselm was determined to avoid the latter alternative. ? “Causa discidii utique, non ex rei veritate producta, sed ad omnem pro Deo loquendi aditum Anselmo intercludendum malitiose composita.” 5 Ib. “Tacuit ergo, nec quicquam nuntio respondit, reputans hoc genus mandati ad ea perturbationum genera pertinere que jam olim sepe sibi recordabatur illata, et ideo hoc solum ut Deus talia sedaret supplici corde precabatur.” ‘Ib. “ Verebatur ne hee Dei judicio sibi damno fierent, si quibus modis posset eis obviare non intenderet.” 5 Tb. “Sed obviare sibi impossibile videbat, quod totius regni principem aut ea facere aut eis favere perspicuum erat. Visum itaque sibi est aucto- ritatem et sententiam apostolice sedis super his oportere inquiri.” Yet that he did design a last effort with the King, before he said anything about the Pope, is plain by his actually attempting it. THE WHITSUN ASSEMBLY. 58f The Whitsun festival came, and Anselm went to the cuap. 1v. Assembly. The place of meeting is not mentioned ; Whitsun according to usage it would be Westminster. Though May 24, the suit was hanging over Anselm, he went, not as a de- seat: fendant in a suit, but as a chief member of the Gemét. He seems to have been graciously received by the King; Anselm at least we hear of him at the royal table, and he had ae opportunities of private access to the royal ear. Of these ar chances he did not fail to take advantage for his purpose; but all was in vain; nothing at all tending to reform was to be got out of William Rufus.1 In this way the earlier days of meeting, the days of the actual festival, were spent. Then, as usual, the various matters of business which had to be dealt with by the King and his Witan were brought forward.2~ Among other questions men Surmises were eagerly asking what would become of the charge riraciaas against the Archbishop as to the bad equipment of his y ee : knights in the late Welsh campaign. Would he have to pay some huge sum of money, or would he have to pray for mercy, and be thereby so humbled that he could never lift up his head again?? Anselm’s thoughts mean- while were set upon quite other matters. He had made his last attempt on the King’s conscience, and he had failed. There was nothing more to be done by his own unaided powers. He must seek for the counsel and help He deter- of one greater than himself. He called together a body ee, 1 Hadmer, Hist. Nov. 37. ‘‘ Cum igitur in Pentecoste, festivitatis gratia, regie curie se presentasset, et modo inter prandendum, modo alias quemad- modum opportunitas se offerebat, statum animi regalis quis erga colendam equitatem esset studiose perquisisset, eumque qui olim fuerat omnimodo reperisset, nihil spei de futura ipsius emendatione in eo ultra remansit.” 2 Tb. “ Peractis igitur festivioribus diebus, diversorum negotiorum cause in medium duci ex more ceeperunt.” This notice is important as showing us the order in which business was done in these assemblies, 3 Ib. “ Ut culpe addictus aut ingentem regi pecuniam penderet, aut ad implorandam misericordiam, ejus caput amplius non levaturus, se totum impenderet.” 582 CHAP. IV. to go to Rome. Hedeclares his purpose to a chosen body. Aspect of the demand. THE PRIMACY OF ANSELM. of nobles of his own choice, those doubtless in whom he could put most trust, and he bade them carry a message from him to the King, to say that he was driven by the utmost need to ask his leave to go to Rome.! We ask why he who had been on such intimate terms with the King during the earlier days of the meeting, was now forced to send a message instead of speaking to the King face to face. We may suppose that the arrangement was the same as at Rockingham, that there was an outer and an inner chamber, and that, while the suit against the Archbishop was pending, he was not allowed to take his natural place among the King’s counsellors. During the days of festival, he had been a guest and a friend; now that the days of business had come, he had changed into a defendant. We are not told what the lords of his choice said or thought of the message which he put into their hands. Unless it was accompanied by a rather full explanation, it must have been startling. With the help of Eadmer we can follow the workings of Anselm’s mind ; but to one who heard the request suddenly it must have had a strange sound. Did the Archbishop wish to complain to the Pope because the King was displeased with the trim and conduct of his military contingent? The King at least, when the message was taken to him, was utterly amazed. But William was not in one of his worst moods; he was sarcastic, but not wrathful. He The King’s refused the licence. There could be no need for Anselm answer. to go to the Pope. He would never believe that Anselm had committed any sin so black that none but the Pope could absolve him. And as for counsel, Anselm was much better fitted to give it to the Pope than the Pope was to give it to Anselm. Anselm took the refusal meekly. 1 Eadmer, Hist. Nov. 37. ‘‘ Accersitis ad se quos volebat de principibus regis, mandavit per eos regi se summa necessitate constrictum velle, per licentiam ipsius, Romam ire.” ANSELM ASKS LEAVE TO GO TO ROME. 583 “Power is in his hands; he says what pleases him. cmap. 1. What he refuses now he may perhaps grant another day. I will multiply my prayers.”! Anselm had there- fore to stay in England. But the formal charge against The charge him was withdrawn. Perhaps the King had merely made ae it in a fit of ill humour, and had long given up any “#hd=w»- serious thought of pressing it. And, if he really wished to annoy Anselm, he had now a way in which he might annoy him far more thoroughly and with much greater advantage than by any mere temporal suit. This year was a year of gatherings, alike for counsel Affairs of and for warfare. The seeming submission of Wales was bd ‘ soon found to be utterly hollow. From Midsummer till a August William was engaged in another British expe- dition, one which brought nothing but immediate toil and trouble, but of whose more distant results we shall have again to speak. On his return he summoned, perhaps Another not a general Geméot, but at any rate a council of pre- aii lates and lords, to discuss grave matters touching the state of the kingdom.? We would fain hear something of their debates on other affairs than those of Anselm; but that privilege is denied us. We only know that, when Anselm’s the council was about to break up, when all its members A were eager to get to their homes, Anselm earnestly craved Teused. - that his request to go to Rome might be granted, and that the King again refused.’ William Rufus seems never to have been happy save when he was himself moving and keeping everybody else in motion. It must have been in his days as in the days 1 EFadmer, Hist. Nov. 38. ‘Potestas in manu sua est; dicit quod sibi placet. At si modo non vult concedere, concedet forsitan alia vice. Ego preces multiplicabo.” 2 Tb. “Insequenti mense Augusto cum de statu regni acturus rex episcopos, abbates, et quosque regni proceres, in unum precepti sui sanc- tione egisset.” 3 Anselm made his petition, ‘ dispositis his que adunationis illorum cause fuerant, dum quisque in sua repedare sategisset.” 584 CHAP. IV. Assembly at Win- chester. October 14, 1097. Anselm renews his request. Anselm again impleaded. Alterna- tive given to Anselm. THE PRIMACY OF ANSELM. of Constantius, when the means of getting from place to place broke down through the multitude of bishops who were going to and fro for the endless councils.! In the month of October the bishops and great lords at least, ifno one else, were brought together for the fourth time this year. This time the place of meeting was Winchester; the day was the day of Saint Calixtus, the thirty-first anniversary of the great battle. We hear nothing of any other business, but only of the renewed petition of Anselm. It is clear that the idea of going to the Pope had seized on Anselm’s mind to an unhealthy degree. He could not help pressing it in season and out of season, clearly to the weakening both of his influence and of his position. He made his request to the King both with his own lips—this time he was no defendant—and by the lips of others. The King was now thoroughly tired of the subject; he was now not sarcastic, but thoroughly annoyed and angry. He was weary of Anselm's endlessly pressing a request which he must by this time know would not be granted. Anselm had wearied him too much ; he now directly commanded that he should cease from his importunity, that he should submit to the judgement of the court and pay a fine for the annoy- ance which he had given to his sovereign.2? The King had an undoubted right to refuse the licence; but it is hard to see why the Archbishop was to be fined for asking for it. By this turn Anselm was again made a defendant. Anselm now offers to give good reasons, such as the King could not gainsay, for the course which he took. The King refuses to hear any reasons, and, with a mixture of licence, threat, and defiance, he 1 Ammianus, xxi. 18. * EKadmer, Hist. Noy. 38. “Conturbat me, et intelligentem non conce- dendum fore quod postulat, sua graviter importunitate fatigat ; quapropter jubeo ut amplius ab hujusmodi precibus cesset, et qui me jam seepe vexavit, prout judicabitur mihi emendet.” ASSEMBLY AT WINCHESTER. 585 gives the Archbishop a kind of alternative. Anselm cuar. 1Vv. must understand that, if he goes, the King will seize the archbishopric into his own hands, and will never again receive him as archbishop.! There was some free expres- sion of feeling in these assemblies; for this announce- ment of the King’s will was met by a storm of shouts on different sides, some cheering the King and some the Archbishop.2, Some at last, the moderate party perhaps, The meet- proposed and carried an adjournment till the morrow, hoping meanwhile to settle matters in some other way.® ing ad- journed. The next morning came; as so often before, Anselm Thursday, and his friends sat waiting the royal pleasure. Some October 15, bishops and lords came out and asked Anselm what Anselm and the his purpose now was about the affair of yesterday. pishops He had not, he answered, agreed to the adjournment "4 lords. because he had any doubt as to his own purpose, but only lest he should seem to set no store by the opinion of others. He was in the same mind in which he had been yesterday; he would again crave the King’s leave to go. Go he must, for the sake of his own soul’s health, for the sake of the Christian religion, for the King’s own honour and profit, if he would only believe it. The bishops and lords asked if he had anything else to say; as for leave to go to Rome, it was no use talking; the King would not grant it. Anselm answers that, if the King will not grant it, he must follow the scripture and obey God rather than man. We here see that Anselm had brooded over his griefs till he had 1 Eadmer, Hist. Nov. 38. ‘Si iverit, pro certo noverit quod totum archiepiscopatum in dominium meum redigam, nec illum pro archiepiscopo ultra recipiam.” 2 Tb. “Orta est ex his quedam magna tempestas diversis diverse parti acclamantibus.” 3 Tb. “Quidam permoti suaserunt in crastinum rem differri, sperantes eam alio modo sedari.” 4 Ib. “Indubitanter sciens quod causa mez salutis, causa sanctz Christian- itatis, et vere causa sui honoris ac profectus, si credere velit, ire dispono.” 586 CHAP. Iv. Speech of Bishop Walkelin. Anselm and the bishops. THE PRIMACY OF ANSELM. reached the verge of fanaticism. Such language would have been exaggerated, had it been used when he was forbidden to go for the pallium according to ancient custom; it was utterly out of place when no clear duty of any kind, no law of eternal right, no positive law of the Church, bade him to go to Rome in defiance of the King’s orders. At this stage we again meet a personal spokesman on the other side; Bishop Walkelin of Winchester speaks where doubtless William of Saint-Calais would have spoken, had he still lived. Walkelin’s argument was one hardly suited to the mind of Anselm. The King and his lords knew the Archbishop's ways; they knew that he was a man not easily turned from his purpose; but it was not easy to believe that he would be firm in his purpose of casting aside the honour and wealth of the great office which he held, merely for the sake of going to Rome.! Anselm’s face lighted up, and he fixed his keen eyes on Walkelin, with the words, “Truly I shall be firm.’ This answer was taken to the King, and was debated for a long while in the inner council. At last Anselm bethinks him that his suffragans ought rather to be advising him than advising the King; _ he sends and bids them to come to him. Three of them come at the summons, Walkelin, the ritualist Osmund, the cunning leech John of Bath. They sat down on each side of their metropolitan. Anselm called on them, as bishops and prelates in the Church of God. If they were really willing to guard the right and the justice of God as they were ready to guard the laws and usages of a mortal man,’ they will let him tell them in full his ~ 1 EKadmer Hist. Nov. 38. ‘In hoc scilicet, ut, spreto tanti pontificatus honore simul et utilitate, Romam petas, non leve est credere quod stabilis maneas.” ? Tb. “Si ita fideliter et districte vultis in mea parte considerare atque tueri rectitudinem et justitiam Dei, sicut in parte alterius perpenditis atque tuemini jura et usus mortalis hominis,” ANSELM AND WALKELIN. 587 reason for the course which he is taking, and they will cnar. rv. then give him their counsel in God’s name.! The three bishops chose first to confer with their brethren ; Walkelin and Robert were then sent in to the King, and the whole body of bishops came once more to Anselm. We now The bishops’ portrait of see the portrait of the prelates of the Red King’s day, as it is drawn by their own spokesman. Anselm they knew themselves. to be a devout and holy man who had his conversation in heaven. But they were hindered by the kinsfolk whom they sustained, by the manifold affairs of the world which they loved; they could not rise to the loftiness of Anselm’s life or trample on this world as he did. But if he would come down to them, and would walk in their way,’ then they would consult for him as they would consult for themselves, and would help him in his affairs as if they were their own. If he would persist in standing alone and referring everything to God,* they would not go beyond the fealty which they owed to the King. This was plain speaking enough; the doctrine of interest against right has seldom, even in these later times, been more openly set forth. One would think that the bishops simply meant to strengthen Anselm’s fixed purpose; they could not hope to move him with arguments which certainly did not do justice to their own case. Anselm’s scholastic training always Anselm's enabled him to seize an advantage in argument. “You have spoken well,” he answered; “go to your lord; I 1 Eadmer, Hist. Nov. 38. ‘‘Audiam sequarque consilium quod mihi inde vestra fida Deo industria dabit.” 2 Tb. 39. ‘* Domine pater, scimus te virum religiosum esse ac sanctum, et in celis conversationem tuam. Nos autem, impediti consanguineis nostris quos sustentamus et multiplicibus seculi rebus quas amamus, fatemur, ad sublimitatem vite tue surgere nequimus, nec huic mundo tecum illudere.” 3 Ib. “Si volueris ad nos usque descendere, et qua incedimus via nobiscum pergere.” 4 Ib. “Si te ad Deum solummodo quemadmodum ceepisti tenere dele- geris solus,” : answer. 588 CHAP. Iv. Part of the lay lords. Anselm’s promise to obey the customs, THE PRIMACY OF ANSELM. will cleave to God.”' They did as he bade them; they went, and Anselm was left almost alone; the few friends who clave to him sat apart at his bidding, and prayed to God to bring the matter to a good ending.” In all these debates it is the bishops who play the worst part. They seem to say in calm earnest the same kind of things which the King said in wrath or in jest. After a short delay, they come back, accompanied by some lay barons, and the tone of their discourse is at once raised. Anselm has no longer the laity on his side, as he had at Rockingham; nor can we wonder at the change. The speech which is now made is harsh, per- haps captious; but at all events the stand is now taken on direct legal grounds, no longer on the base motives confessed to by the bishops. The King sent word that Anselm had troubled him, embittered him, tortured him, by his complaints.? The Archbishop is reminded that, after the suit at Rockingham and the reconciliation which fol- lowed at Windsor—a reconciliation which is now attri- buted to the earnest prayers of Anselm’s friends+—he had sworn to obey the laws and customs of the realm, and to de- fend them against all men.® After this promise the King had believed that Anselm would give him no more trouble.® 1 Eadmer, Hist. Nov. 38. ‘“ Bene dixistis, Ite ergo ad dominum vestrum, ergo me tenebo ad Deum.” 2 Th. ‘“ Unoquoque nostrum qui admodum pauci cum eo remansimus ad imperium illius singulatim sedente, et Deum pro digestione ipsius negotii interpellante.” There is something strange in this last word. 3 We here get a climax; “Sepe diversis eum querelis exagitasti, exa- cerbasti, cruciasti.”” * The wording is remarkable and subtle ; “Cum tandem post placitum quod totius regni adunatione contra te apud Rockingeham habitum est, eum tibi sicut dominum tuum reconciliari sapienter peteres; et, adjutus meritis et precibus plurimorum pro te studiose intervenientium, petitioni tuz effectum obtineres,”” * See above, p. 531. ® Hist. Nov. 39. ‘‘ Quibus opem credulus factus sperabat se de ceetero quietum fore.” ANSELM’S PROMISE TO OBSERVE THE LAW. 589 But he had already broken his oath—the charge is omar. 1. delicately worded—when he threatened to go to Rome a = A without the King’s leave! For any of the great men of withbreach the realm so to do was utterly unheard of; for him most ae of all. Anselm’s enemies had now the advantage of him; he certainly had uttered words which might be not un- fairly construed as an intended breach of the law. They therefore called on him to make oath that he would never appeal to the Holy See in any shape in any matter which the King might lay upon him; otherwise he must Alterna- leave the kingdom with all speed, on what conditions he a already knew. And if he chose to stay and take the oath, he must submit to be fined at the judgement of the court for having troubled the King so much about a matter in which he had after all not stuck firm to his own pur- pose.2 This last condition seems hard measure; there was surely no treason in making a request to the King which it rested with the King to grant or to refuse. With regard to the alleged breach of promise they undoubt- edly stood on firmer ground. The King’s messengers did not wait for an answer. Anselm therefore rose; followed by his companions, he went in to the King, and, according to custom, sat down beside him. He asked whether the message which he had just heard had really come from the King, and he re- ceived for answer that it had. Anselm then said that he Anselm had undoubtedly made the promise to observe the laws, oe but that he made it only in God’s name, and so far as the laws were according to right, and could be obeyed in 1 Eadmer, Hist. Nov. 39. “Hance pollicitationem, hance fidem, en tu patenter egrederis, dim Romam, non expectata licentia ejus, te iturum minaris,” 2 Tb. “Tunc te ad judicium curie sue praecepit sibi emendare, quod de re in qua non eras certus te perseveraturum, ausus fuisti eum totiens inquietare.” 3 Ib. “Dextram illius ex more assedit.” Here is the distinct mention of a custom which we have come across before. 590 CHAP. Iv. Qualifica- tions and distinc- tions. Anselm’s discourse ; duty to God always excepted. THE PRIMACY OF ANSELM. God’s name.1 The King and his lords answered that in the promise there had been no mention of God or of right.2 We should be well pleased to have the actual words of the promise ; but we need not suppose any direct misstatement of fact on either side; the forms of oaths and promises are commonly capable of more than one interpretation. Words which one side looks on as sur- plusage another side looks on as the root of the whole matter. But the form of the answer gave Anselm, if not a logical, at least a rhetorical, advantage. If there was no mention of God or right, what was there mention of? No Christian man could be bound to observe laws which were contrary to God and right. We have here reached the beginning of those distinctions and qualifi- cations which play so great a part in the debates of the next century; but with Anselm the appeal is simply to God and right; there is not a word about the privileges of his order. His hearers murmured and wagged their heads, but said nothing openly. So the Primate went on to lay down at some length the doctrine that every promise of earthly duty involved in its own nature a saving of duty to God. Faith was pledged in earthly matters according to the faith due to God; faith to God was therefore excepted by the very terms of the promise.‘ The argument is doubtless sound, as regards the indi- vidual conscience ; it leaves out of sight, and any argu- ment of that age would probably have left out of sight, ? Eadmer, Hist. Nov. 39. “Scio me spopondisse consuetudines tuas, ipsas videlicet quas per rectitudinem et secundum Deum in regno tuo possides, me secundum Deum servaturum.” 7 Ib. ‘Cum rex et principes sui ceca mente objicerent, ac jurisjurandi interjectione firmarent, nec Dei nec rectitudinis in ipsa sponsione ullam mentionem factam fuisse.”” * Tb. 40. “Cum ad hee illi summurmurantes contra virum capita mo- verent, nec tamen quid certi viva voce proferrent.”” * Ib. “Cum fides que fit homini per fidem Dei roboretur, liquet quod eadem fides, si quando contraria fidei Dei admittit, enervatur,” ANSELM AND ROBERT OF MEULAN. 591 the truth that men may differ as to what is duty cuar..z. towards God, and that no lawgiver or administrator of the law can possibly listen to every scruple which may be urged on such grounds in favour of disobedi- ence. To Anselm’s mind the case was clear. A custom which hindered him from going to consult the Vicar of Saint Peter for his own soul’s health and for the good of the Church was a custom contrary to God and right, a custom which ought to be cast aside and disobeyed. No man who feared God would hinder him from going to the head of Christendom on God’s service. He ended with a parable. The King would not think himself well served if any powerful vassal of his should by terrors and threatenings hinder any other of his subjects from doing his duty and service to him. It was perhaps not wholly in enmity that the Count Answer of Meulan, who at Rockingham had frankly professed ae i his admiration of Anselm, joined the King at this stage in trying to turn off the matter with a jest. The Primate, he said, was preaching them a sermon; but prudent people could not admit his line of argument.! And certainly Anselm’s present line of argument, the assertion of individual conscience against established law, could not be admitted by any legislative or judi- cial assembly. A disturbance followed; the barons who The barons had stood by the Archbishop when he lay under Pcie manifestly unjust charge joined in the clamour against him when he declared that the law of the land was something to be despised and disobeyed. But Anselm’s conscience was not disturbed; he sat quiet and silent, with his face towards the ground, till the clamour wore itself out? He then finished hig sermon, as Count 1 Hist. Nov. 40. “Tune rex et comes de Mellento Robertus nomine, in- terrumpentes verba ejus, ‘O, O, dixerunt, preedicatio est quod dicit, preedicatio est: non rei de qua agitur ulla que recipienda sit a prudentibus ratio.’ ” 2 Tb. “Ipse inter ora perstrepentium, demisso vultu, mitis sedebat, et 592 THE PRIMACY OF ANSELM. cuap. 1v. Robert called it. No Christian man ought to demand ne iy of him that he would never appeal to the blessed Peter course. or his Vicar. So to swear would be to abjure Peter, and to abjure Peter would be to abjure Christ who had set Peter as the chief over his Church. He then turned to the King with a kind of gentle defiance; “When I deny Christ, O King, for your sake, then will I not be slow to pay a fine at the judgement of your court for my sin in asking your leave.” Half in anger, half in mockery, Count Robert said, “ You will present yourself to Peter and the Pope; but no Pope shall get the better of us, to our knowledge.”! “God knows,” answered Anselm, “what may be in store for you; He will be able, if He thinks good, to guide me to the threshold of his apostles.” With these words the Archbishop rose, and went again into the outer chamber. The King and his counsellors seem to have been moved by the calm resolution of Anselm, even when the letter of the law was on their own side. Hither Rufus was not in his most savage mood, or his wily Achitophel contrived to keep him in some restraint. Nothing could be gained by keeping Anselm in the kingdom. He had already Anselm to had the choice set before him. He might go; but, if he = Pee went, the archbishopric would be seized into the King’s ee hands. He had made his choice, and he should be ae pel allowed to carry it out without hindrance; only he knew on what conditions. The decision was on the whole not altogether unfair; but the inherent pettiness of the mag- nanimous King could not help throwing in an insult or two by the way. If Anselm chose to go, all that he had, in Rufus’ version of the law, at once passed to the King. clamores eorum quasi surda aure despiciebat. Fatigatis autem eis a proprio strepitu, sedatoque tumultu, Anselmus ad verba sua remeat.” + Eadmer, Hist. Nov. 49. ‘‘ His verbis prefatus comes indignando sub- urgens, ait, Eia, eia, Petro et papz te presentabis, et nos equidem non trans- ibit quod scimus.” I can only guess at the meaning of these last words. ANSELM ALLOWED TO GO. 593 He was therefore told, in the message which was sent ouar.1v. out to him, that he might go, but that he might take Anselm allowed to nothing with him which belonged to the King. Anselm go, but did not, like William of Saint-Calais, bargain for the pisnpee means of crossing in state with dogs, hawks, and ser- to beneized. vants.2 He seems tacitly to raise a point of law. The lands of the archbishopric might pass to the King; but that could not take from him his mere personal goods. “T have,” he said, “horses, clothes, furniture, which per- haps somebody may say are the King’s. But I will go naked and on foot, rather than give up my purpose.” When these words were reported to Rufus, for a moment he felt a slight sense of shame.* He did not wish the Archbishop to go naked and barefoot. But within eleven days he must be ready at the haven to cross the sea, and a messenger from the King would be there to tell him what he and his companions would be allowed to take with them. The King’s bidding was announced to the Archbishop, and Anselm’s companions wished, now the matter seemed to be settled, to go at once to their own quarters. But Anselm would not leave the man who was his earthly lord, who had once been, in form at least, his friend, to whom he held himself to stand in so close an official and personal relation, without one word face to face. He entered the presence-chamber, Anselm’s and once more the saint sat down side by side with oe the foulest of sinners. “My lord,” said Anselm, “I am the King. going. IfI could have gone with your good will, it would have better become you, and it would have been more pleasing to every good man. But since things are 1 Eadmer, Hist. Nov. 40. ‘Ecce ibis. Veruntamen scias dominum nos- trum pati nolle te exeuntem quicquam de suis tecum ferre.” 2 See above, p. 93- 3 Hist. Nov. 40. “In istis princeps pudore suffusus, dictum suum non ita intellexisse se respondit.” VOL. I. aq 594 CHAP. IV. He blesses Rufus. Anselm at Canter- bury. He takes the pil- grim’s staff. THE PRIMACY OF ANSELM. turned another way, though it grieves me as regards you, as regards myself I will, according to my power, bear it with a calm mind. And not even for this will I, by the Lord's help, withdraw myself from the love of your soul’s health. Now therefore, not knowing when I may again see you, I commend you to God, and, as a ghostly father speaking to a beloved son, as an Arch- bishop of Canterbury speaking to a King of England, I would, before I go, give you my blessing, if you do not refuse it.” For a moment Rufus was touched; his good angel perhaps spoke to him then for the last time. “I refuse not your blessing,” was his answer. The man of God arose; the King bowed his head, and Anselm made the sign of the cross over it. He then went forth, leaving the King and all that were with him wondering at the ready cheerfulness with which he spoke and went.’ Rufus and Anselm never met again. From Winchester the Archbishop went to his own home at Canterbury.? The day after he came there, he gathered together his monks, and addressed them in a farewell discourse.® Then, in the sight of a crowd of monks, clerks, and lay- follx, he took the staff and scrip of a pilgrim before the altar. He commended all present to Christ, and set forth amidst their tears and wailings. The same day he and his comrades reached Dover. There he found that the passing current of better feeling which had touched the King’s heart as he bowed his head for Anselm’s blessing had been but for a moment. Rufus had gone back to 1 Eadmer, Hist. Nov. 41. ‘“Mox ille surgens, levata dextra signum sancte crucis super regem ad hoc caput humiliantem edidit, et abscessit, viri alacritatem rege cum suis admirante.” ? «Ubi sedes pontificalis, ubi totius regni caput est atque primatus,” Eadmer takes care to add. 8 For the discourse we have to go to the Life, ii. 3. 30. It contains the remarkable passage which I referred to in N. C. vol. iv. p. 52. PARTING OF ANSELM AND RUFUS. 595 his old mind, to the spirit of petty insult and petty gain. omar. rv. The King’s obedient clerk, William of Warelwast, one William of day to be the builder of the twin towers of Exeter, Me Sa was there already. For fifteen days Anselm and his companions were kept at Dover, waiting for a favourable wind. Meanwhile William of Warelwast went in and out with Anselm; he ate at his table, and said not a word of the purpose which had brought him. On the fifteenth day the wind changed, and the sailors urged the Archbishop’s party to cross at once. When they were on the shore ready to start, William stopped the Arch- bishop as if he had been a runaway slave or a criminal escaping from justice? and in the King’s name forbade him to cross, till he had declared everything that he had in his baggage. ‘ In hope of finding money, all Anselm’s bags and trunks were opened and ransacked, in the sight of a vast crowd that stood by wondering at so unheard of a deed, and cursing those who did it. The bags were opened and ransacked in vain. Nothing was found that the King’s faithful clerk thought worth his master’s taking. The Archbishop, with Baldwin and Anselm Eadmer, was then allowed to set sail, and they landed Shay safely at Whitsand. As soon as the King heard that Anselm was out of the The arch- kingdom, he did as he had said that he would do; he sand by again seized all the estates of the archbishopric into his *e King. own hands. This was only what was to be looked for; it was fully in accordance with the doctrines of Flam- bard, and better kings than William Rufus would 1 Eadmer, Hist. Nov. 41. ‘In qua mora idem Willielmus, cum patre intrans et exiens et in mensa, illius quotidie comedens, nihil de causa pro qua missus fuerat agere volebat.” 2 Ib, “ Patrem patric, primatem totius Britannie, Willielmus ille, quasi fugitivum vel alicujus immanis sceleris reum, in littore detinuit.” 3 Ib. “Ingenti plebis multitudine circumstante ac nefarium opus, pro sui novitate, admirando spectante et spectando exsecrante.” a¢* 596 THE PRIMACY OF ANSELM. caap.ty. have done the like in the like case. But Rufus or his agents went much further. Our guide implies that he acted as if Anselm had been an intruder in the arch- Anselm’s bishopric. All the acts and orders of Anselm during See all his four years’ primacy—that is, we must suppose, all leases, grants, and legal transactions of every kind— were declared null and void. Much loss and wrong must have been thus caused to many persons. A man who had, in the old phrase, bought land of the archbishopric for a term or for lives? would lose his land, and, we may be sure, would not get back his money. A clerk collated by the Archbishop might be turned out of his living to make room for a nominee of the King. It is no wonder then that the wrongs which were done now were said to be greater than the wrongs which had been done when the archiepiscopal estates had before been seized after the death of Lanfrane.? For at any rate the acts of Lanfranc were not reversed. One feels a certain desire to know what became of the Archbishop’s knights whose array had so displeased the King earlier in the year. But we hear nothing of them or of any particular class; all is quite general. In one case indeed it is quite certain that the rule that all Anselm’s acts should be treated as in- ve moaks valid was not carried out. The monks of Christ Church Peckhan. Clearly kept their temporary possession of the manor of Peckham. For they spent the whole income of it on great architectural works which Anselm himself had begun. The metropolitan church, so lately rebuilt by Lanfrane, had already become small in the eyes of a younger generation, as indeed it was smaller than many + Eadmer, Hist. Nov. 41. ‘“Irrita fieri omnia que per ipsum mutata vel statuta fuisse probari poterant, ex quo primo venerat in archiepiscopatum.” ? See N.C. vol. v. p. 772. Hist. Nov. 41. “Ut tribulationes que facte sunt in illo post mortem venerande memoriz Lanfranci ante introitum patris Anselmi parvipense sunt comparatione tribulationum que factz sunt his diebus.” ANSELM’S ACTS DECLARED NULL. 597 minsters of the same date. The church of Lanfranc had enar. xq. followed the usual Norman plan; the short eastern limb, the monks’ choir, was under the tower! The Rebuilding < f the choi arrangements of the minster were now recast after a new of Ck pattern which did not commonly prevail till many years Church. later. The eastern limb was rebuilt on a far greater seale, itself forming as it were a cruciform church, with its own transepts, its own towers, one of which in after days received the name of Anselm. This work, begun Ernulf by Anselm before his banishment, was carried on in his ae absence by the prior of his appointment, Ernulf—Earn- aed Bh wulf—a monk of his old house of Bee, but perhaps of borough, English birth, who rose afterwards to be Abbot of Peter- Bishop of borough and Bishop of Rochester.?, In marked contrast ope to the speed with which Lanfranc had carried through his work, the choir begun by Ernulf and carried on by his successor Prior Conrad was not consecrated till late in the days of Henry? After reading the accounts of these two great debates Compari- or trials, at Rockingham and at Winchester, it is im- oe possible to avoid looking both backwards and forwards. Leong vt aint- The story of these proceedings must be told, as I have Calais, elm, throughout tried to tell it, with an eye to the earlier ana proceedings against William of Saint-Calais, to the later Te proceedings against Thomas of London. The three stories 1 See N.C. vol. iv. p. 359. ? Hadmer (Hist. Nov. 35) describes the new building as ‘“‘novum opus quod a majori turre in orientem tenditur, quodque ipse pater Anselmus inchoasse dinoscitur.” Its minute history must be studied in Gervase and Willis. 3 This was the time when Henry the First broke out into the fit of devout swearing of which I spoke in N.C. vol. v. p. 844; Ann. Osney, 1130; «Rex Henricus ecclesiam Christi Cantuariensis nobiliter dedicari fecit, adeo ut, coruscante luminaribus ecclesia, et singulis altaribus singulis episcopis deputatis, cum simul omnes inciperent canticum ‘Terribilis est locus iste,’ et classicum mirabiliter intonaret, rex illustris, pra letitia se non capiens, juramento per mortem Domini regio affirmaret vere terribilem esse.” 598 - CHAP. IV, Compari- son of the men. THE PRIMACY OF ANSELM. supply an instructive contrast. In each case a bishop is arraigned before a civil tribunal; in each case the bishop appeals to the Pope; but beyond that the three men have little in common. William and Thomas were both of them, though in widely different senses, playing a part; it is Anselm alone who is throughout perfectly simple and unconscious. Through the whole of Anselm’s life, we feel that he never could have acted otherwise than as he did act. He never stopped to think what was the right thing for a saintly archbishop to do; he simply did at all times Position of what his conscience told him that he ought todo. Thomas, Thomas; of William of Saint- Calais. Anselm does not strictly appeal to the Pope. perfectly sincere, thoroughly bent on doing his duty, was still following a conscious ideal of duty; he was always thinking what a saintly archbishop ought to do; above all things, we may be sure, he was thinking what Anselm, in the like case, would have done. Thus, while Anselm acts quite singly, Thomas is, consciously though sincerely, playing a part. William of Saint-Calais is playing a part in a far baser sense; he appeals to the Pope, he appeals to ecclesiastical privileges in general, simply to serve his own personal ends. He appealed to those privileges more loudly than anybody else, when he thought that by that appeal he might himself escape con- demnation. He trampled them under foot more scornfully than anybody else, when he thought that by so doing he might bring about the condemnation of Anselm and his own promotion. But it is curious to see how in some points the sincere acting of Thomas and the insincere acting of William agree as distinguished from the pure single-mindedness of Anselm. Both William and Thomas distinctly appeal to the Pope from the sentence of the highest court in their own land. We cannot say that Anselm did this ; he does not refuse the sentence of the King’s court; he does not ask the Pope to set aside the sentence of the King’s court; the utmost that he does is THE THREE TRIALS. 599 to say that it is his duty to obey God rather than man, omar... and that his duty to God obliges him to go to the Pope. To the Pope therefore he will go, even though the King forbids him; but he is ready at the same time to bear patiently the spoiling of his goods as the penalty of going. This is assuredly not an appeal to the Pope in the same sense as the appeals made by William and Thomas. Among the marks of difference in the cases is that both William and Thomas strongly assert the privileges of their order; none but the Pope may judge a bishop. Anselm never once, during his whole dispute with William Anselm Rufus, makes the slightest claim to any such privilege; he never breathes a word about the rights of the clerical order. The doctrine that none but the Pope may judge the Archbishop of Canterbury—nothing is said about other priests or other bishops—is heard of only once during the whole story. And then it is not put forth by Anselm; it is not openly put forth by anybody; it is merely mentioned by Eadmer as something which came into the minds of the undutiful bishops as a kind of after-thought. This most likely means that it was not really thought of at the time, either by the bishops or by anybody else, but that Eadmer, writing by fresh lights learned at Rome and at Bari, could no longer understand a state of things in which it was not thought of by somebody. The truth doubtless is that in Anselm’s day the doctrine of clerical exemption from temporal jurisdiction was a novelty which was creeping in. It was well known enough for Odo and William of Saint-Calais to catch at it to serve their own ends; it was not so fully established that it was at all a matter of conscience with Anselm to assert it. By the time of Thomas every doctrine of the kind had so grown that its assertion had become a point of conscience 1 See above, p. 516. does not clerical privileges. 600 CHAP, IV, Question of obseryv- ing the customs, Nature of our reports of the trials. Compari- son of the proceed- ings in each case, THE PRIMACY OF ANSELM. with every strict churchman. But there is another point in which the case of Anselm and the case of Thomas agree as distinguished from the case of William of Saint- Calais. In this last case nothing turned on any promise of the Bishop to obey the customs of the realm. Much in the case of Anselm, much more in the case of Thomas, turned on such a promise. In each case the Archbishop pleads a certain reservation expressed or understood; but there is a wide difference between the reservation made by Anselm and the reservation made by Thomas. The favourite formula with Thomas, the formula which he proposes, the formula which he is at Clarendon with difficulty persuaded to withdraw and on which he again falls back, is “saving my order.” Anselm has nothing to say about his order; he is not fighting for the privi- leges of any special body of men; he is simply a righteous man clothed with a certain office, the duties of which office he must discharge. It is not his order that he reserves; he reserves only the higher and more abiding names of God and right. As for the cases themselves and the tribunals before which they were heard, we must always remember that our reports, though very full, are not official. Their authors therefore use technical or non-technical language at pleasure. They assume familiarity with the nature of the court and its mode of procedure; they do not stop to explain many things which we should be very glad if they had stopped to explain. But it is clear that the nature of the proceedings was not exactly the same in the three cases. And it is singular that, in point of mere procedure, there seems more likeness between the case of Anselm and the case of Thomas than there is between either and the case of William of Saint-Calais. William + “Salvo ordine meo.” See Herbert of Bosham, iii. 24, vol. iii. p. 273, Robertson. POINTS OF LIKENESS AND DIFFERENCE. 601 of Saint-Calais and Thomas were both of them, in the omar. rv. strictest sense, summoned before a court to answer aoe charge. The charges were indeed of quite different Thomas kinds in the two cases. William of Saint-Calais was genes charged with high treason. Thomas, besides a number “bs of demands about money, was charged only with failing to appear in the King’s court in answer to an earlier summons. Anselm, on the other hand, cannot be said Anselm to have been really charged with anything, though the aca on King and his party tried to treat him as though he had oe been. The assembly at Rockingham was gathered at Anselm’s own request, to inform him on a point of law. The King and his bishops tried to treat Anselm as a criminal; but they found that the general feeling of the assembly would not allow them to do so. At Winchester again, Anselm was not summoned to answer any charge, for the charge about the troops in the Welsh war had been dropped at Windsor. The charges, such as they are, which are brought against him turn up as it were casually in the course of the proceedings. Yet the order of things seems much the same in the case of Anselm and in the case of Thomas, while in the case of William of Saint-Calais it seems to be different. In the case of Proceed- William of Saint-Calais everything is done in the cae of une King’s presence. The Bishop himself has more than Wiliam of once to leave the place of meeting, while particular Calais. points are discussed; but there is not that endless going to and fro which there is in the other two cases. In the case of Thomas, as in the case of Anselm, we see plainly the inner room where the King sits with his immediate counsellors, while the Archbishop waits in an outer place with the general body of the assembly. At Northamp- Architec. ton we see the architectural arrangement more clearly ae than either at Rockingham or at Winchester. Thomas ™m's. enters the great hall, and goes no further, while the 602 CHAP. IV. Constitu- tion of the several assemblies, The Witena- gemét ; its consti- tution becomes gradually less popular. THE PRIMACY OF ANSELM. King’s inner council is held in the solar.’ It is possible, as indeed I have already hinted,? that there was a differ- ence in the nature of the assembly in the case of William of Saint-Calais and in the two cases of Anselm and Thomas. We must remember that in the reign of William Rufus the judicial and administrative system was still only forming itself, and that many things were then vague and irregular, both in fact and in name, which had taken a definite shape in the time of Henry the Second. Between the case of Anselm and the case of Thomas came the justiciarship of Roger of Salisbury and the chancellorship of Thomas himself. I am in- clined to think that, at Rockingham, at Winchester, at Northampton, the assembly was strictly the great assembly of the nation, the ancient Witenagemdt, with such changes in its working as had taken place between the days of the Confessor and the days of William Rufus, and again between the days of William Rufus and the days of Henry the Second. Each of these periods of change would of course do something towards taking away from the old popular character of the assembly. At Rockingham that popular character is by no means lost. We are not told where the line, if any, was drawn; but a multitude of monks, clerks, and laymen were there. At Northampton we hear of no class below the lesser barons; and they, with the sheritts, wait in the outer hall, till they are specially summoned 1 The Archbishop enters the hall (“aula”), while the King is in “ ccena- culo seorsum” (Herbert, iii. 37, vol. iii. p. 305). From pp. 307, 309 it appears that this cenaculum was simply a solar or upper chamber; ‘“ Universis quotquot erant de ccenaculo ad domum inferiorem in qua nos eramus, de- scendentibus.” William Fitz-Stephen (vol. iii. p. 57) seems to speak of the hall as “camera ;” cf. p. 50. ? See above, p. 94. 3 Will. Fitz-Steph. 58, vol. iii. p.67. ‘A comitibus et baronibus suum exigit rex de archiepiscopo judicium. Evocantur quidam vicecomites et secunde dignitatis barones, antiqui dierum, ut addantur eis et assint judicio,” CONSTITUTION OF THE SEVERAL ASSEMBLIES, 603 to the King’s presence. At Rockingham too and at cuap. tw. Winchester there seems much greater freedom of speech poe ay than there is at Northampton. The whole assembly speech. shouts and cheers as it pleases, and a simple knight steps forth to speak and to speak boldly.1. At Northamp- ton, as at Rockingham and at Winchester, the Arch- bishop is allowed the company of his personal followers. William Fitz-Stephen and Herbert of Bosham sit at the feet of Thomas, as Eadmer and Baldwin sit at the feet of Anselm. But at Northampton the disciples are roughly checked in speaking to their master, in a way of which there is no sign in the earlier assemblies. At Rockingham and Winchester again, though the Arch- bishop stays for the most part outside in the hall, yet he more than once goes unbidden into the presence-chamber, and is even followed thither by his faithful monks. At Northampton Thomas is never admitted to the King’s presence, and no one seems to go into the inner room who is not specially summoned. This may be merely because, as is likely enough, strictness of rule, form, and etiquette had greatly advanced between William Rufus and Henry the Second. Or it may have been because Thomas was strictly summoned to answer a charge, while Anselm was really under no charge at all, but came as a member of the assembly. Another point here arises. I cannot but think that in The inner these great assemblies, consisting of an inner and an outer pale body, we must see the same kind of distinction which we saw on the great day of Salisbury between the Witan and the landsitting men. That is, I see in the inner and fone ; outer bodies the foreshadowing of Lords and Commons. ieee To this day there is one chamber in which the King’s °°" throne is set; there is another chamber whose occupants do not enter the presence of that throne, except by 1 See above, p. 508. 604 THE PRIMACY OF ANSELM. caar. 1v. special summons. I am inclined therefore to see, both in the case of Anselm and in the case of Thomas, a true Tham gathering of the Witan of the realm. Thomas comes, Witan ; like Strafford or Hastings, to answer a charge before the Court of our Lord the King in Parliament,' that court, which from an assembly of the whole nation, gradually shrank up into an assembly of the present peerage. In the case of Anselm I see the same body acting, not strictly as a court, but rather as the great inquest of the nation, but at the same time fluctuating somewhat, as was but natural in that age, between its judicial and its William legislative functions. But in the tribunal which sat on Tien William of Saint-Calais I am, as I have already said, a inclined to see, not the Ifiekle Gemét of the whole nation, but rather the King’s court in a narrower sense, the representative of the ancient Theningmannagemét, the more strictly official body.? Here we have no division of chambers; the proceedings are strictly those of a court trying a charge, and the King, as chief judge, is present throughout. 1 The distinction between the Court of our Lord the King in Parliament and the Court of the Lord High Steward is most clearly brought out in Jar- dine’s Criminal Trials, i. 229. Lord Macaulay (iv. 153) is less accurate. He speaks of the Court of our Lord the King in Parliament as one form of the Court of the Lord High Steward. But in truth, the Court of our Lord the King in Parliament is simply the Witan sitting for a judicial purpose. The Lords alone sit, because the Commons have never attained to a share in the judicial functions of the Witan. The right to be tried before the Witan thus sitting judicially is naturally confined to those classes of persons who have kept or acquired the right to the personal summons, that is, to the peers. If it should be objected that this privilege does not now extend to the spiritual peers, the reason is most likely to be found in the fact that for some ages a bishop would not be tried before any temporal court at all. When such trials began again in the sixteenth century, the later notion of peerage had grown up, and those peers whose holding was still strictly official was looked on as in some meagure less fully peers than those whose peerage was “hereditary” in the modern sense. ? See N. C. vol. v. pp. 423, 878. ESTIMATE OF THE THREE CASES. 605 As for the matter of the three cases, the trial of omar. iv. William of Saint-Calais was in itself the perfectly fair ne trial of a rebel who, in the end, after the custom of the cases. age, came off very lightly for his rebellion. There really Behaviour seems nothing to blame William Rufus for in that matter pao —William Rufus, that is, still largely guided by Lanfranc —except some characteristic pettinesses just towards the end of the story.1 Towards Anselm William appears— save under one or two momentary touches of better feeling—simply as the power of evil striving, by what- ever means, to crush the power of good. He seems none the less so, even when on particular points his own case is technically right. Henry the Second, acting honestly ee for the good of his kingdom, both technically and morally right in his main quarrel, stoops to the base and foolish course of trying to crush his adversary by a crowd of charges in which the King seems to have been both morally and technically wrong, and which cer- tainly would never have been brought if the Archbishop had not given offence on other grounds. William Rufus again, and Henry the Second also, each forsook his own position by calling in, when it suited their momentary purposes, the very power which their main position bade them to control and to keep out of their kingdom. Not Compari- so the great king who came between them. The Lion of Homey the Justice knew, and he alone in those days seems to have F#s*- known, how to carry on a controversy of principle, without ever forsaking his own position, without ever losing his temper or lowering his dignity, without any breach of personal respect and friendship towards the holy man whom his kingly office made it his duty to withstand. The three years of Anselm’s first sojourn beyond sea 1 See above, p. 115. 606 CHAP. IV. Effect on Anselm of his foreign sojourn. Change in him. His journey. Alleged scheme of Odo Duke of Bur- gundy [1078- 1102] against Anselm. THE PRIMACY OF ANSELM. concern us for the most part only indirectly. Of their most important aspect, as concerns us, I have spoken elsewhere,! and we shall again see their fruit before the present work is ended. In his journeyings to Lyons, to Rome, to Bari, Anselm learned a new doctrine which he had never found out either at Bec or at Canterbury. It was not for his good that he, who had, like the Primates who had gone before him, received his staff from the King’s hands, and placed his own hands in homage between them, should hear the anathema pronounced against the prince who should bestow or the clerk who should receive any ecclesiastical benefice in such sort as no prince had scrupled to give them, as no clerk had scrupled to receive them, in the days of King Eadward and in the days of King William.2 When Anselm came back to England, he came, as we shall see, the same Anselm as of old in every personal quality, in every personal virtue. But in all things which touched the relations of popes, kings, and bishops, he came back another man. But in the course of Anselm’s adventures, in his foreign journeys, there are details here and there which no Englishman can read without interest. We come across constant signs of the place which England and her Primate held in the minds of men of other lands. We read how no less a prince than Odo Duke of Bur- gundy, already a crusader in Spain and afterwards a crusader in Palestine, was tempted by the report of the wealth of the great English see to sink into a common robber, and to set forth for the purpose of plundering the Primate as he passed through his land. We read how he was turned from his purpose, when he saw the white hair, the gentle and venerable look, of the Archbishop, 1 See N. C. vol. v. p. 145. ? See the decree of the Council, Hist. Nov. 53. ANSELM BEYOND SEA. 607 the look which won all hearts. Instead of harming him, cmap. tv. Odo received his kiss and sought his blessing, and sent him under a safe guard to the borders of his duchy... We read how the likeness of that venerable face had been painted by cunning limners in the interest of Clement, that the robbers who were sent to seize the faithful follower of Urban might better know their intended victim. We read with some national pride how, at his Anselm at first interview with Urban, when Anselm bowed himself at the Pontiff’s feet, he was raised, received to his kiss, and seated by him as one of equal rank, the Pope and Patriarch of another world. We read how, in Council of the great gathering in the head church of the city and‘ of the world, when no man knew what was the fitting place in a Roman council for a guest such as none had ever seen before, the English Archbishop was placed at the papal bidding in a seat of special honour. Anselm took his seat in that apse which was spared when papal barbarism defaced the long arcades of Constantine, when the patriarchal throne of the world was cast forth as an useless thing,? but which the more relentless havoc of our own day, eager, it would seem, to get rid of all that is older than the dogmas of modern Rome, has ruthlessly swept away. We read how visitors and pilgrims from England bowed to kiss the feet of Anselm, as they would have kissed those of Urban himself, and how the humble saint ever refused 1 Eadmer, Hist. Nov. 42. We are told that the Duke, “succensus amore pecuniz quam copiosam illum ferre rumor disperserat, proponit animo eam ipsi auferre.” But there is really nothing in what Odo is said to have done which implies any such bad purpose. Perhaps Eadmer judged him uncharitably. 2 See Historical Essays, Third Series, p. 20. On my last visit to Rome (1881) I found the apse of Saint John Lateran destroyed, not by Huns or Turks, but by its own chapter, with the approval, it is said, of its present and late bishops. I believe there is some pretence of enlarging the church, and of replacing the mosaics in a new apse. 608 THE PRIMACY OF ANSELM. cHap.ty. such unbecoming worship.! And we are most touched Council of Bari. of all to hear how, among all these honours, Anselm ‘was commonly spoken of in Rome, not by his name, not by the titles of his office, but simply as “the holy man.”? At Rome, that name might have a special mean- ing. It was well deserved by the one suitor at the Roman throne who abstained from the use of Rome’s most convincing argument. But in the record of Anselm’s wanderings there is one tale which comes home more than any other to the hearts of Englishmen, a tale which carries us back, if not strictly to the days of English freedom, at least to the days when we had a conqueror whom we had made our own. The fathers are gathered at Bari, in the great minster of the Lykian Nicolas, where the arts of northern and southern Christendom, the massiveness of the Norman, the finer grace of the Greek, are so strangely blended in the pile which was then fresh from the craftsman’s hand. There, in his humility, the pilgrim from Canterbury takes to himself a modest place amongst the other bishops, with the faithful Eadmer sitting at his feet.2 The Pope calls on his father and master, Anselm Archbishop of the English, to arise and speak. There, in the city so lately torn away from Eastern Christendom, Anselm is bidden to justify the change which Latin theology had made in that 1 Eadmer, Vit. Ans. ii. 5. 48. ‘‘ Angli illis temporibus Romam venientes, pedes ejus ad instar pedum Romani pontificis sua oblatione honorare desi- derabant. Quibus ille nequaquam acquiescens, in secretiorem domus partem fugiebat, et eos pro tali re nullo patiebatur ad se pacto accedere.” ? Hist. Nov. 49. ‘‘Hinc etiam erat quod non facile a quoquam Rome simpliciter homo vel archiepiscopus, sed quasi proprio. nomine sanctus homo vocabatur.” * Eadmer brings this out with all vividness, Hist. Nov. 49; “Sedebat enim idem pater in ordine ceterorum inter primos concilii patres, et ego ad pedes ejus.” Then the Pope calls him, “ Pater et magister Anselme, An- glorum archiepiscope, ubi es ?” THE COPE OF BENEVENTUM. 609 creed of the East which changeth not. The Pope cnar..v. harangues on the sufferings of the Church in various lands, and, above all, on the evil deeds of the tyrant of England. The assembled fathers agree with one voice that the sword of Peter must be drawn, and that such a sinner must be smitten in the face of the whole world. Then Anselm kneels at the feet of Urban, Anselm and craves that no such blow may be dealt on the a on man who had so deeply wronged him. But, while these high debates were going on, the curious eye of Eadmer had lighted on an object which spoke straight to his heart as an Englishman and a monk of Christ Church. Among the assembled prelates the Archbishop The cope of Beneventum appeared clad in a cope of surpassing % Pee richness. Eadmer knew at once whence it came; he knew that it had once been one of the glories of Canter- bury, worn by Primates of England before England had owed either to the Norman or to the Dane. Eadmer, brought up from his childhood in the cloister of Christ Church, had been taught as a boy by aged monks who could remember the days of Cnut and Emma. Those Dealings elders of the house; Eadwig and Bleecman and Farman, nue had told him how in those days there had been a mighty aries famine in the land of Apulia, how the then Afchbishop of Beneventum had travelled through foreign lands to seek help for his starving flock, how he brought with him a precious relic, the arm of the apostle Bartholo- mew, and how, having passed through Italy and Gaul, he was led to cross the sea by the fame of the wealth of 1 The whole story is charmingly told by Eadmer, Hist. Nov. 50. His picture of himself and his curiosity in the new world which is opened to him is delightful. So is his joy when he sees the cope of which he has so often heard and shows it to Anselm ; “ Cum, ut dixi, concilio preesens antis- titem Beneventanum, cappa reliquis prestante ornatum, viderem, et eam ex his que olim audieram optime nossem, non modice letatus et cappam et verba mihi puero ex inde dicta patri Anselmo ostendi.” VOL, I, Rr 610° CHAP. IV. Emma buys the arm of Saint Bar- tholomew. AKthel- noth’s gift of the cope. Eadmer recognises the cope. THE PRIMACY OF ANSELM. England and of the piety and bounty of Emma its Lady. She gave him plenteous gifts for his people, and he asked whether she would not give yet more as the price of the precious relic. The genuineness of the treasure was solemnly sworn to;! a great price was paid for it by the Lady, and, by the special order of King Cnut, it was added as a precious gift to the treasures of the metropolitan church. For in those days, says Eadmer, it was the manner of the English to set the patronage of the saints before all the wealth of this world. The Archbishop of Beneventum went back, loaded with the alms of England, and bearing with him, among other gifts from his brother Primate A’thelnoth, this very cope richly embroidered with gold with all the skill of Eng- lish hands. Eadmer, taught by the tradition of his elders, knew the vestment as he saw it in that far land on the shoulders of the successor of the prelate who had come to our island for help in his day of need. He saw it with joy; he pointed it out to Father Anselm, and, feigning ignorance, he asked the Beneventan Archbishop the history of the splendid cope which he wore. He was pleased to find that the tradition of Beneventum was the same as the tradition of Canterbury.2 Now that we have made our way into other times and other lands, it is pleasing to look back for a moment, with our faithful Eadmer, to days when England still was Eng- land, even though she had already learned to bow to a foreign King and a foreign Lady. More important in a general view than the details of ? Eadmer, Hist. Nov. 51. Some one, seemingly the Lady herself, requires that he shall swear “super corpus Dominicum et super sanctorum reliquias quas ei proponam jurejurando reliquias de quibus agitur veraciter esse de corpore beati apostoli Bartholomzi, et id remota omni equivocatione atque sophismate.” The Archbishop was quite ready to swear. * Ib, “Inter alia mutue dilectionis colloquia ccepi de eadem cappa loqui, et unde illam haberet quasi nescius interrogavi.” WILLIAM NOT EXCOMMUNICATED. 611 Anselm’s journey are the negotiations which went on cnr. rv. during this time between William, Urban, and Anselm. The Red King’s day of grace was now over. The last Position of touch of feeling recorded of him is when he bowed his aia head to receive Anselm’s blessing. Henceforth he stands out, in a more marked way than ever, in the character which distinguishes him from other kings and from other men. We have had evil kings before and after him; but we have had none other who openly chose evil to be his good, none other who declared himself in plain words to be the personal enemy of the Almighty. Yet,as we have already noticed, the bolts of the Church never lighted on the head of this worst of royal sinners. We have just seen how once at least he was spared by the merciful intercession of his own victim. We are tempted to stop Possible and think how a formal excommunication would have ‘ft ofex- worked on such an one as William Rufus had now been on come. We must remember that the weight of papal excom- Papalex- munications of princes had not yet been lowered, as it came mas to be lowered afterwards, either by their frequency or by not yet their manifest injustice. The cases which were then fresh ee in men’s minds were all striking and weighty. The ex- The Em- communication of the Emperor was, from the papal point Feary. of view, a natural stage of the great struggle which was still raging. Philip of France had been excommunicated Philip of for a moral offence which seemed the darker because it "°° involved the mockery of an ecclesiastical sacrament. And no man could wonder or blame when, in the days Boleslaus of Hildebrand, Boleslaus of Poland was put out of the oa communion of the faithful for slaying with his own hands before the altar the bishop who had rebuked him for his sins! The case most akin to the wanton excom- munications of later times had been when Alexander the 1 The story is told in the Annales Capituli Cracoviensis (Pertz, xix. 588), 3079, and more briefly in other annals in the same volume, RY 2 612 CHAP. IV. The case of Harold. Probable effect of an excommu- nication on the people. Anselm writes to the Pope from Lyons. His new tone. THE PRIMACY OF ANSELM. Second in form, when Hildebrand in truth, had de- nounced Harold without a hearing for no crime but that of accepting the crown which his people gave him. But men are so apt to judge by results that the fall of Harold and of England may by this time, even among Englishmen, have begun to be looked on as a witness to the power of the Church’s thunders. In the days of Rufus a papal excommunication was still a real and fearful thing at which men stood aghast. It might not have turned the heart of Rufus; it might even have hardened his heart yet further. But among his people, even among his own courtiers, the effect would doubt- less have been such that he must in the end, lke Philip, have formally given way. As it was, the bolt never fell; the hand of Anselm stopped it once; other causes, as we shall soon see, stopped it after- wards. And, instead of the formal excommunication of Rome, there came that more striking excommunication by the voice of the English people, when, by a common instinct, they declared William the Red to have no true part in that communion of the faithful from which he had never been formally cut off. The negotiations, if we may so call them, which fol- lowed the departure of Anselm may be looked on as beginning with a letter written by Anselm to the Pope from Lyons." The Archbishop, once out of England, seems to take up a new tone. His language with regard to the King’s doings is still singularly mild;? but he now begins to speak, not only of God and right, but of the canons of the Church and the authority of the Pope, 1 Eadmer, Hist. Nov. 43. ; 2 Tb. “Ipse rex faciebat quedam que facienda non videbantur de ecclesiis, quas post obitum prelatorum aliter quam oporteret tracta- bat.” LETTERS TO THE KING. 613 as something to which the arbitrary customs of Eng- ouar. rv. land must give way.' To those customs he cannot agree without perilling his own soul and the souls of his successors. He comes to the Apostolic See for help and counsel? When he had reached Rome, he again set Anselm forth his case more fully, as it had been set forth in the ee letter from Lyons. Letters both from Anselm and from Letters to the Pope were sent to the King by the same messenger, ee letters which unluckily are not preserved. The summary of the papal letter seems to point to a lofty tone on the part of the Pontiff. He moves, he exhorts, he at last commands, King William, to leave the goods of the Arch- bishop free, and to restore everything to him.’ Anselm’s own letter was doubtless in a milder strain. The mes- senger came back, to find both Urban and Anselm again at Rome after the synod at Bari. The letter from Urban His recep- had been received, though ungraciously; the letter from eo me Anselm was sent back. As soon as the King knew that the bearer was a man of the Archbishop’s, he had sworn by the face of Lucca that, unless the messenger speedily got him away out of his lands, he would have his eyes torn out without fail.* The Pope however could hardly be left wholly with- Mission of ae : William of out some answer, however scornfully William might deal A Wavelet, 1 Eadmer, Hist. Nov. 43. ‘‘ Legem Dei et canonicas et apostolicas auctori- tates voluntariis consuetudinibus obrui videbam. De his omnibus cum loquebar, nihil efficiebam, et non tam simplex rectitudo quam voluntarie consuetudines obtendebantur.” 2 He gives among his reasons, “ Nec de his placitare poteram; nullus enim aut consilium aut auxilium mihi ad hec audebat dare.” 3 Ib. 45. ‘Scribit literas Willielmo regi Angliz, in quibus ut res An- selmi liberas in regno suo faceret, et de suis omnibus illum revestiret, movet, hortatur, émperat.” 4 Ib. 51. “Susceptis quidem quoquo modo literis pape, literas Anselmi nullo voluisse pacto suscipere, imo, cognito illum [nuntium] esse hominem ejus, jurasse per vultum Dei quia, si festine terram suam non exiret, sine retractatione oculos ei erui faceret,” 4 614 CHAP. IV. William on the continent. November, 1097— April, 1099. Affairs of Southern Italy. Siege of Capua, THE PRIMACY OF ANSELM. with the letter of his own subject. But the answer was not speedy in coming. Its bearer was the trusty clerk William of Warelwast, of whom we have already heard more than once. The King’s business did not now call for the same haste as it had done when the same man was sent to find out who was the true Pope.!| Much happened before he came. Amongst other things, not a few travellers came from England and Normandy, bringing with them fresh and fresh reports of the evil doings of the King, some of which we have already heard of. William was now in Normandy. He crossed at Martinmas,? and spent the whole of the next year in the wars of France and Maine. He did not come back to England till the Easter of the year following that. It was now that he played at Rouen the part of a missionary of the creed of Moses.* But he kept his eye upon England also; for to this time is as- signed the story of the fifty Englishmen who so enraged the blaspheming King by proving their innocence by the ordeal. Nor was it merely rumours of William’s doings at home which found their way into Italy from Nor- mandy and England. While the King was devising his answer to the Pope, his emissaries were busy in other parts of the peninsula. The affairs of the Normans in their two great settlements are always joining in one stream. While Bohemund and Tancred were on their Eastern march, the reigning princes of their house, Roger of Apulia and Roger of Sicily, were carrying on their schemes of advancement west of Hadria. Their armies now lay before Capua. Meanwhile Anselm had with- See above, p. 526. * Chron. Petrib. 1097. We shall come to his crossing and returning in another chapter, 3 Ib. 1099. * See above, p. 162. 5 See above, p. 155. ANSELM IN SOUTHERN ITALY. 615 drawn with John Abbot of Telesia to seek quiet ina town cuap, rv. of the Abbot’s on the upper Vulturnus, whose name of Anselm at Schiavia, Schiavia may suggest some ethnological questions.! Our guide specially marks that this journey was a journey into Samnium; he may not have fully taken in how truly Telesia was the heart of Samnium, alike in the days of the Pontins of the Caudine Forks and in the days of the Pontius of the Colline Gate.2 Here, in his He writes Samnite retreat, Anselm was moulding the theology of all ee ie later times by his treatise which told why God became Man.? Meanwhile William of England, at war with right- eousness in all its forms, held Helias in his prison at Bayeux,* and plotted against Anselm in his hermitage at Schiavia. When Duke Roger’s army was so near, the master of Normandy deemed that something might be done for his purpose by Norman arms or Norman craft. He sent letters—his letters could go speedily when speed was needed—to stir up Duke Roger to do some mis- chief to the man whom he hated. The plot was in vain. Anselm was invited to the Duke’s camp; he was Anselm received there with all honour during a sojourn of some aaa time, as he was at every other point of the Duke’s Capua. dominions to which he went. The Pope and Anselm, 1 Eadmer, Hist. Nov. 45. “ Ducit eum [abbas] in villam suam Sclaviam nomine, que in montis altitudine sita, sano jugiter aere conversantibus illic habilis exstat.” 2 See Historical Essays, Second Series, p. 357, ed. 2; Arnold, Hist. Rome, ii. 365. 3 Vita Anselmi, ii. 4. 43. * We shall come to this in another chapter. 5 The reception of Anselm by Duke Roger is described by Eadmer in both his works (Hist. Nov. 46, and in the Life, ii. 5.45). The plots of William Rufus come from William of Malmesbury (Gest. Pont. 98); “ Adeo ut Rogerus dux Apuliz, apud quem rex Angliz illum litteris in- simulandum curaverat, spretis neniis, longe aliter sententiam suam in viri honorem transferret.” 6 There is something rather singular in the picture of the Pope and Anselm dwelling in the camp of the besiegers (Hist. Nov. 46) ; “ Plures . 616 THE PRIMACY OF ANSELM. omar. rv. patriarchs of two worlds, were Duke Roger's guests at Anselm and the Saracens, the same time. But only the rich dared to present themselves in the presence of the Pope of the mainland, while the shepherd of the nations beyond the sea wel- comed men of all kinds lovingly... The very Saracens whom Count Roger had brought from Sicily to the help of his nephew pressed to visit the holy man of another faith, to be received and fed at his cost, to kiss his hands, and to cover him with prayers and blessings. Not a few of them were even ready to embrace Anselm’s creed ;* but proselytism among his soldiers formed no part of the policy of the conqueror of Sicily. Count Roger was ready enough to extend the territorial bounds of exhinc dies in obsidione fecimus, remoti in tentoriis a frequentia et tumultu perstrepentis exercitus. . . . Sicque donec civitas in deditionem transiit, obsidio illius dominum papam et Anselmum vicinos habuit, ita ut familia illorum magis videretur una quam due.” This is one of several passages in which Anselm and others seem to take a state of war for granted. There is no protest, no pleading of any kind, on behalf of the besieged city. There are some remarks of M. de Rémusat (Saint Anselme, p. 362) on this sub- ject, with regard to the correspondence between Henry and Anselm after the battle of Tinchebrai. But in this last case the victory of Henry was surely a gain to humanity. In the Life Eadmer gives some curious details of their life in the camp, and of a remarkable escape of Anselm. ! Hadmer seems to take a certain pleasure in little hits against Urban, which his conduct presently made not wholly undeserved. Thus, in Hist. Nov. 46, he points out how the Pope came to the camp “ ingenti secularis glorie pompa.”” So now in the Life (ii. 5. 46) he contrasts the demeanour of Urban with that of Anselm at some length, and ends, “ Multi ergo, quos timor prohibebat ad papam accedere, festinabant ad Anselmum venire, amore ducti qui nescit timere. Majestas etenim papz solos ad- mittebat divites, humanitas Anselmi sine personarum acceptione suscipiebat omnes.” 1 Vita, ii. 5.46. “ Et quos omnes? Paganos etiam, ut de Christianis taceam.” Eadmer then goes on to speak at some length of the Saracens brought over by Count Roger, whom he pointedly speaks of as the man of his nephew; “Homo ducis Rogerus, comes de Sicilia.” We read how Anselm received and entertained many of the Mussulmans, and how, when he passed through their camp, “ingens multitudo eorum elevatis ad celum manibus ei pros- pera imprecarentur, et osculatis pro ritu suo manibus propriis necne coram eo genibus flexis, pro sua eum benigna largitate grates agendo venera- rentur.” ANSELM AND THE SARACENS. 617 Christendom by his sword; but he found, as his great- cuar, 1. grandson found after him, that in war no followers were ad to be trusted like the misbelievers. Once enlisted in his forbids con- service, they had no motive to forsake him for any other eee Christian leader, while they had no hope of restoring the supremacy of their own faith. With them too neither Clement nor Urban, nor any votary of Clement or Urban, had any weight. So useful a class of warriors was not to be lessened in number. Whatever might be his missionary zeal at Palermo or Syracuse, Count Roger allowed no conversions in the camp before Capua. The men who were ready to hearken to Anselm’s teaching had to turn away at the bidding of their temporal lord, and the father of Christian theology was forbidden the rare glory of winning willing proselytes to the Christian faith among the votaries of Islam.! Meanwhile the tales of William’s misdoings in Nor- Anselm wishes to mandy and England were brought in day by day. The yesign heart of Anselm was moved ever more and more; he eenee saw that, come what might, he and such a king could never agree; the only course for him was to cast aside the grievous burthen and responsibility of his arch- bishopric. He earnestly craved the Pontiff’s leave to resign it into his hands.? Urban was far too wary for this. He enjoined Anselm, by virtue of holy Urban for- obedience, to do no such thing. The King, in his uidentma, 1 Vita, ii.5.46. “ Quorum etiam plurimi, velut comperimus, se libenter ejus doctrine instruendos submisissent, ac Christiane fidei jugo sua per eum colla injecissent, si credulitatem [crudelitatem?] comitis sui per hoc in se seevi- turam non formidassent. Nam revera nullum eorum pati volebat Chris- tianum impune fieri.” He adds the comment; “Quod qua industria, ut ita dicam, faciebat nihil mea interest; viderit Deus et ipse.” 2 Anselm’s motives are set forth at length in Hist. Nov. 46. One reason is that his teaching was so much more listened to on the continent than it was in England. The stories of William’s evil doings are brought in at this point. 618 CHAP. Iv. Council of Bari. October 1, 1098. Anselm at Rome. THE PRIMACY OF ANSELM. tyranny, might seize his temporalities and might keep him out of the land; but in the eye of the Church he remained none the less the Archbishop of the English kingdom, with his power of binding and loosing as strong as ever.! Anselm was not only not to give up his office; he was to make a point of always appearing with the full badges of his office? Even now Anselm seems to have been in some difficulties how to reconcile his two duties to God and to Cesar, difficulties which he would doubtless have got rid of altogether by resigning the archbishopric. But he submits to the Pontiff’s will, and he is bidden to meet him again at Bari, where judgement will be given in the matter of the King of the English and of all others who interfere with the liberties of the Church.* Then came the meeting at Bari, the disputation against the Greeks, the excommunication of Rufus stopped by Anselm’s intercession.» That Anselm was playing an arranged part we cannot believe for a moment; but we may believe, without breach of charity, that Urban threatened the excommunication of Rufus in the full belief that Anselm would intercede for him. Urban and Anselm then went back to Rome; and thither presently came the messenger from Normandy, who had to tell of the King’s frightful threats to- 1 A debate on this head, in rather long speeches between Urban and Anselm, is given in Hist. Nov. 48. The main doctrine stands thus; “Si propter tyrannidem principis, qui nunc ibi dominatur, in terram illam redire non permitteris, jure tamen Christianitatis semper illius archiepiscopus esto, potestatem ligandi atque solvendi super eam dum vixeris obtinens.” * Ib. “Et insignibus pontificalibus more summi pontificis utens ubi- cunque fueris.” ° He again describes his whole struggle between the two duties, how he believed that he could reconcile both, how others told him that he could not, and he asks, “ Et ego, pater, inter tales quid facerem ?” * Tb. 49. “De ipso rege Anglico suisque et sui similibus qui contra liber- tatem ecclesiz Dei se erexerunt.” 5 See above, p. 608, WILLIAM AND URBAN. 619 wards himself. Soon after came William of Warel- cnar. rv. wast, with a message from the King to the Pope. William of arelwast The diplomacy of the future bishop of Exeter was at and Urban. least straightforward. “My lord the King sends you word that he wonders not a little how it can have come into your mind to address him for the resti- tution of the goods of Anselm.” He added, “If you ask the reason, here it is. When Anselm wished to depart from his land, the King openly threatened him that, if he went, he should take the whole archbishopric into his demesne. Since Anselm then would not, even when thus threatened, give up his purpose of going, the King deems that his own acts were right, and that he is now wrongfully blamed.”1 The Pope asked whether the King had any other charge against Anselm. “None,” answered the envoy. Urban had gained an advantage. He poured forth his wonder at a thing so Urban’s unheard of in all time as that a king should spoil the*“”™ primate of his kingdom of all his goods merely because he would not refrain from visiting the Roman Church, the mother of all churches.” William of Warelwast Excommu- might go back to his master, and might tell him that oe: the Pope meant to hold a council at Rome in the Easter-week next to come, and that, if by that time April 12, Anselm was not restored to all that he had lost, the 9” sentence of excommunication should go forth.® 1 Hist. Nov. 51. “Si causam queris, hec est. Quando de terra sua discedere voluit, aperte minatus est se illo discedente totum archiepisco- patum in dominium suum accepturum. Quoniam igitur, nec his minis con- strictus, quin exiret omittere noluit, juste se putat fecisse quod fecit et injuria reprehendi.”” 2 Th. 52. ‘Quis unquam audivit talia? pro hoc solo primatem regni suis omnibus spoliavit, quia ne sanctam matrem ecclesiam omnium Romanam visitaret. omittere noluit? . . . . Et pro tali responso mirabilis homo huc te fatigasti?” 3 Ib. ‘Certissime noverit se in eodem concilio damnationis sententia puniri quam promeruit.” 620 THE PRIMACY OF ANSELM. caar. tv, Brave words were these of Pope Urban, but William the Red knew how to deal with mere bravery of words, even in the Pope whom he had acknowledged. Walter of Albano had once outwitted William and his counsel- lors; but Walter of Albano had in the end yielded to William of William’s most powerful argument. William of Warel- beg wast was not the least likely to outwit Urban; but he ae a had it in commission from his master to overcome the Urban. Pope by the same logic by which his Legate had been overcome. We may copy the words of our own Chroni- cler four-and-twenty years later; “That overcame Rome that overcometh all the world, that is gold and silver.”? To Urban’s well conceived speech the answer of William of Warelwast was pithy and practical; “Before I go away, I will have some dealings with you more in Theex- private.” He went to work prudently, as the Red communi- a cation King’s clerks knew how to do; he made friends here respited. and there; the Pope’s advisers were blinded; the Pope Se i himself was blinded; a respite from Easter to Michael- To99. Mas was granted to King William of England.’ Position of This adjournment was a heavy blow for Anselm. He Anselm. “had in no way stirred up the Pope to any action against the prince whom he still acknowledged as his sovereign. At Bari, when no answer had as yet been received 1 Chron. Petrib. 1123. ? Fadmer, Hist. Nov. 52. ‘“ Priusquam abeam, tecum secretius agam.” 3 Ib. “Prudenter operam dando hos et illos sue cause fautores effi- cere, ac, ut domini sui voluntati satisfaceret, munera quibus ea cordi esse animadvertebat dispertiendo et pollicendo parvi habere. Deductus ergo a sententia Romanus pontifex est.” William of Malmesbury (Gest. Pont. 101) is still more distinct on this head; ‘Arte qua peritus erat negotium conficiens, singulos ambiendo, muneribus et pollicitationibus, regi terminum ad festum sancti Michahelis obtinuit. Cunctatus est multum ad id concedendum Urbanus, quod luctarentur in ejus animo Anselmi religio et munerum oblatio; sed prevaluit tandem pecunia, Itaque omnia superat, omnia deprimit nummus. Indignum factum ut pectori tanti viri, Urbani dico, vilesceret famz cura, Dei respectus cederet, et pecunia justitiam preeverteret.” URBAN’S DEALINGS WITH ANSELM. 621 from the King, Anselm had pleaded for him; it was cuar. rv. indeed only common justice to give him that one more chance. But, when the answer had come, and had proved to be of such a kind as we have seen, Anselm most likely thought that the time for action had come. He might indeed fairly deem that the excom- munication would in truth be an act of kindness to- wards William. All other means of reclaiming the sinner had failed; that final and most awful means might at last succeed. At all events, Anselm’s soul was grieved to the quick at the thought that the Pope’s sentence, whatever it might be, could be changed or delayed by the power of filthy lucre. He had borne Urban’s every kind of grief, he had borne insults and banish- ac. ment and the spoiling of his goods, for the sake of Rome and the Pope, and he had now found out what Rome and the Pope were. He had found that the master was no better than his servants. He had found Rome to be what Rome was ever found to be by every English bishop, by every Englishman by birth or adoption, who ever trusted in her. Urban proved the same broken reed to Anselm which Alexander in after days proved to Thomas. Anselm had gone through much in order to have the counsel and help of the Pope. But no counsel or help had he found in him.t He craved leave to Anselm depart from Rome, and again to tarry at Lyons with Bharti the friend in whom he could better trust, the Primate of all ria the Gauls.2 The request was refused. Urban had still April 12, to make use of Anselm for his own purposes. He Bre had to show his guest and the Church’s confessor— 1 Eadmer, Hist. Nov. 52. “Quod videntes vane nos ibi consilium, nihil auxilium operiri intelleximus.” 2 Will. Malms. Gest. Pont. 102, ‘“ Visum est ergo Anselmo circa tam venalem hominem expectationem non perdere, sed Lugdunum remeare. Sed enim licentiam impetrare non potuit, retinente papa, ut invidiam facti aliquo levaret solatio.” 622 CHAP. IV, Protest of Reingar of Lucca. End of the Council. Anselm goes to Lyons. Death of Urban. July 29, 1099. THE PRIMACY OF ANSELM. the guest and confessor whom he had sold for William’s gold—to the whole world in his Lateran Council. The special honours which were there paid to Anselm must have been felt by him as little more than a mockery. It may have been a preconcerted scene, it may have been a burst of honest indignation, when Reingar, Bishop of Lucca, bore an emphatic witness on Anselm’s side. Reingar, chosen on account of his lofty stature and sounding voice to announce the decrees of the Council, broke forth in words of his own declaring the holiness and the wrongs of the Archbishop of the English, and thrice smote his staff on the floor with quivering lips and teeth gnashed together.!. The Pope checked him; Reingar protested, and renewed his protest. Anselm simply wondered; he had never said a word to the Bishop of Lucca on any such matter, nor did he believe that any of his faithful followers had done so either.? The council broke up. The great general anathema was pronounced which would take in William along with the other princes of the earth;*? but nothing was said or done directly for Anselm or his cause. Anselm now at last left Rome for Lyons. He there heard of the deaths both of him who was to issue the excommunication and of him against whom it was to be issued. Urban did not live to hear how his preaching at Clermont was crowned by the deliverance of the Holy City. Yet the work was done while he still lived. Fourteen days after the storm of Jerusalem, seven days after the election 1 Hist. Nov. 53. ‘His dictis, virgam pastoralem quam manu tenebat tertio pavimento illisit, indignationem spiritus sui, compressis exploso murmure labiis et dentibus, palam cunctis ostendens.” 2 Ib. “Oppido miratus est, sciens se nec homini de re locutum fuisse, nec a se vel ullo suorum, ut talia diceret, processisse.” A little characteristic touch follows ; ‘‘Sedebat ergo uti solebat, silenter auscultans.” 3 See above, p. 606. * Hist. Nov. 53. “ Nil judicii vel subventionis, preeterquam quod diximus, per Romanum presulem nacti.” DEATH OF URBAN. 623 of King Godfrey, Pope Urban died. The news of his omar. rv. death was brought to William while he was in the midst of his last warfare for Le Mans. Let God’s hate, he an- William’s swered, be upon him who cares whether he be dead or he eat, alive! Fourteen days after Urban’s death, the hosts of Battle of Egypt were smitten at Ascalon; and the city which had cent te just been won was again made safe. The next day a fresh *°9% Pope was chosen, Paschal, who, in the course of a long Paschal reign, had to strive alike with a Henry of Germany and aaa with a Henry of England. The news of his election was — 13s brought to William, and he asked what manner of man January the new Pope might be. He was told that he was a man otoer in many things like Archbishop Anselm. “Then by God's William's face,” said the Red King, “if he be such an one, he is no ae good.” But William felt that his wished for time was now “lection. come. Now at least there should be no trouble about acknowledging Popes against his will. “Let the Pope be what he will, he and his popedom shall not this time come over me by little and little. I have got my freedom again, and I will use it.”? The time fixed for the excom- munication passed unmarked over the head of the living Rufus. But before a full year had passed from Paschal’s election, the dead Rufus was excommunicated by the voice of his own kingdom. We leave Anselm at Lyons; we shall meet him again when he comes back in all honour to crown and to marry a king and a queen who filled the English throne by the free call of the English people. Mean- while we must take up the thread of our story, and see more fully what has been happening in the other lands which come within the Red King’s world, while Anselm was so long and so wearily striving for 1 Eadmer, Hist. Nov. 54. ‘‘ Dei odium habeat qui inde curat.” 4 Ib. “Ego interim libertate potitus agam quod libet.” 624 , THE PRIMACY OF ANSELM. cuap. tv, righteousness. The tale of Normandy, the tale of Jeru- salem, so far as it concerned us to tell it, could hardly be kept apart from the tale of Anselm. But we have still to tell the tale of Scotland, of Northumberland, of Wales, of France, above all the tale of Maine and its noble Count, during the years through which we have tracked the history of Anselm. We have to go back to the beginning of the story through which we have just passed, and to begin afresh while Rufus in his short day of penitence lies on his sick-bed at Gloucester. END OF THE FIRST VOLUME. oe ger tes ats ine ae: ~ es Shee oe ~~ Cg +‘ » . SE ee aoe : TS : Eon rec at ie see. Ue Coes