FOOTNOTES
[1] This chapter makes no pretence of being based upon an exhaustive examination of all the sources. Scattered as these are through the historical and romantic literature of several centuries, it is not unlikely that important printed materials have been overlooked, while many manuscripts of the poetic cycle of the Crusade still lie unprinted. It is hoped, however, that enough material has been found and used to give an adequate view of the legendary accretions which gathered about Robert’s name, and to throw an interesting light upon the repute in which he was held in after times.
[2] See supra, p. 118, and n. 156.
[3] G. R., ii, pp. 460-461; cf. the superlatives of William of Newburgh, writing at the end of the twelfth century: “Qui tamen armis tantus fuit, ut in ilia magna et famosa expeditione Ierosolymitana in fortissimos totius orbis procres clarissimae militiae titulis fulserit.” Historia Rerum Anglicarum, ed. H. C. Hamilton (London, 1856), i, p. 15.
[4] Roman de Rou, ii, pp. 415-416.
[5] Lestorie des Engles, ed. T. D. Hardy and C. T. Martin (London, 1888-89), i, pp. 244-245.
[6] “Le duc de Normandie a été, en tant que croisé, le héros de tout un cycle poétique qui s’est perdu, mais non sans laisser des traces.” “Robert Court-Heuse à la première croisade,” in Comptes rendus des séances de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, 1890, 4th series, xviii, p. 208.
[7] Gaston Paris (op. cit., p. 211, n. 3) believes that the Robert legend was extinguished first by Robert’s disastrous and inglorious end, and second by the growing popularity of the Godfrey cycle. He thinks that the “lutte des deux traditions poétiques, de provenances différentes, dont l’une avait pour héros Robert et l’autre Godefroi” can be seen in an episode of the Chanson d’Antioche which may be briefly paraphrased as follows. Godfrey, “because he is preux and courageous and of the lineage of Charlemagne,” has just been chosen to represent the Christian army in a proposed single combat with a champion from Kerboga’s host; on hearing which Robert is so incensed at being himself passed over that he prepares to withdraw with his forces from the crusading army. Compared with his own splendid lineage, the ancestors of Godfrey, he declares, are not worth a button. Thereupon the descent of Godfrey from the Chevalier au Cygne is explained to him. And then Godfrey himself comes and humbles himself before Robert and expresses his willingness to yield the honor to him. At that Robert is mollified and consents to remain. La Chanson d’ Antioche, ed. Paulin Paris (Paris, 1848), ii, pp. 177-183. It is difficult to see where support for Paris’s theory can be found in the matter thus summarized. All that concerns Robert, it seems clear, exists not for itself at all, but as a mere literary foil for setting off the merits of Godfrey and his descent from the Chevalier au Cygne. The evidence of the Saint-Denis window which Gaston Paris cites must be ruled out. See Appendix G.
The Chanson d’ Antioche, in the form in which we now have it, is held to have been composed early in the reign of Philip Augustus by Grandor of Douai, a Flemish trouvère, upon the basis of an earlier poem, now lost, by Richard le Pèlerin, a minstrel who actually took part in the First Crusade. Histoire littéraire de la France, xxii (1852), pp. 355-356; Auguste Molinier, Les sources de l’histoire de France (Paris, 1901-06), no. 2154.
[8] Supra, p. 190.
[9] Li estoire de Jérusalem et d’ Antioche, in H. C. Oc., v, pp. 629-630. This chronicle, in old French prose of the second half of the thirteenth century, is based ultimately upon Fulcher of Chartres, but it is filled with matter of a purely imaginary character. It seems to contain almost no points of contact with the other sources from which the Robert legends are to be drawn. It represents Robert as taking part in the battle with Kilij Arslan at Nicaea—actually Robert had not yet arrived at Nicaea—and overthrowing him and taking his horse. It also portrays Robert as the principal leader at Nicaea, and the one to whom Kilij Arslan sent the messenger Amendelis to open negotiations.
[10] H. C. Oc., iii, p. 761; cf. the fifteenth century Anonymi Rhenani Historia et Gesta Ducis Gotfredi, ibid., v, p. 454.
[11] H. C. Oc., iii, p. 622. Ralph’s whole account of the battle is almost epic in character; cf. the poems (pp. 625-629) devoted to the exploits of individual heroes, and especially the two lines on p. 627:
[12] P. 221.
[13] Chronique de Robert de Torigni, i, pp. 82-83; Ralph de Diceto, Opera Historica, ed. William Stubbs (London, 1876), i, p. 222; Roger of Wendover, Flores Historiarum, ed. H. O. Coxe (London, 1841-44), ii, p. 87; Matthew Paris, Chronica Maiora, ed. H. R. Luard (London, 1872-83), ii, p. 64; idem, Historia Minor, ed. Frederick Madden (London, 1866-69), i, pp. 85-86; Flores Historiarum, ed. H. R. Luard (London, 1890), ii, p. 29; Le livere de reis de Brittanie e le livere de reis de Engletere, ed. John Glover (London, 1865), p. 166; Robert of Gloucester, Metrical Chronicle, ed. W. A. Wright (London, 1887), ii, pp. 585-586; Thomas Walsingham, Y podigma Neustriae, ed. H. T. Riley (London, 1876), p. 79.
[14] Supra, p. 106.
[15] P. 224.
[16] Chronique de Robert de Torigni, i, p. 84; Ralph de Diceto, i, p. 223; Matthew Paris, Chronica Maiora, ii, p. 74; Flores Historiarum, ii, p. 29; Robert of Gloucester, ii, p. 591; Walsingham, Y podigma, p. 80. See also the references given in nn. 17 and 18 infra.
[17] Roger of Wendover, ii, p. 103; Matthew Paris, Historia Minor, i, p. 102.
[18] Le livere de reis, p. 168.
[19] Supra, pp. 107-108.
[20] G. R., ii, p. 460.
[21] Geoffrey Gaimar, in the extract quoted on p. 191, supra; Gesta Regis Henrici Secundi, ed. William Stubbs (London, 1867), i, p. 329; cf. Roger of Hoveden, i, p. 274.
[22] Roman de Rou, as quoted on p. 191, supra.
[23] The reading and the meaning are here uncertain. I follow the conjecture of the editor.
[24] “Le trebuche el begart.” According to Godefroy (Dictionnaire de l’ancienne langue française) the meaning of begart is undetermined. Again I follow the conjecture of the editor.
[25] Chanson d’ Antioche, ii, pp. 245-246.
[26] Ibid., p. 261. Red Lion is perhaps to be identified with Kilij Arslan, sultan of Iconium.
[27] Paul Riant and Ferdinand de Mély, in Revue de l’art chrétien, 1890, pp. 299-300. Their view has been rightly rejected by Gaston Paris in Comptes rendus de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, 1890, p. 208. See Appendix G. In Le Chevalier au Cygne et Godefroid de Bouillon, ed. F. A. F. T. le Baron de Reiffenburg (Brussels, 1846-59), ii, pp. 231-232, Red Lion is killed by Count Baldwin.
This version of the Godfrey matter has been assigned to the fourteenth century both by Paulin Paris (Histoire littéraire, xxv, p. 508) and by Célestin Hippeau (La conquête de Jérusalem, p. ix), but A.-G. Krüger, in a more recent discussion, has placed it as late as the first half of the fifteenth century. “Les manuscrits de la Chanson du Chevalier au Cygne et de Godefroi de Bouillon,” in Romania, xxviii (1899), p. 426.
[28] Le Chevalier au Cygne et Godefroid de Bouillon, ii, p. 212-213.
[29] La conquête de Jérusalem, ed. Célestin Hippeau (Paris, 1868), pp. 308-311. There is as yet no edition of this poem worthy of the name. Much difference of opinion has been expressed as to the date of its composition. It has been ascribed by its editor to the thirteenth century. Ibid., pp. xviii, xix, xxv. But Paulin Paris held it to be a part of the work of Grandor of Douai, compiler of the Chanson d’Antioche, and thought it, too, like the latter, was based upon the lost work of Richard le Pèlerin. Histoire littéraire, xxii, p. 370, and cf. p. 384. And Molinier has somewhat carelessly assigned it to circa 1130. Sources de l’histoire de France, no. 2154. On the other hand Henri Pigeonneau, while he would ascribe it to the late twelfth century, still holds that it certainly is not by the author of the Chanson d’Antioche, and that it is a later composition than the latter. Le cycle de la croisade et de la famille de Bouillon (Saint Cloud, 1877), pp. 42-55. Certainly one works over the poem with a growing conviction that it is late rather than early. It is almost wholly a work of imagination, in which traditions of events centring around Antioch are hopelessly mingled with others pertaining to the region of Jerusalem. One can hardly say whether the imaginary battle of Ramleh contains more of the battle of Ascalon or of the battle against Kerboga.
It may be noted in passing that in the battle of Ascalon Robert performed an actual feat of arms (cf. supra, pp. 115-116) which may perhaps form the basis of all the legendary exploits which we have been passing in review. The references to the enemy’s ‘standard’ in Wace (supra, p. 190) and in the Chanson d’Antioche (supra, p. 195) would seem to lend some color to this view. But it should be borne in mind that such exploits of knightly valor are a commonplace of the chansons de geste, and are attributed to Godfrey and to other chiefs as well as to Robert.
[30] Gaimar is specific in his statement that the election of Robert was due to his reputation for valor (supra, p. 191), as is also the author of an anonymous Norman chronicle of the thirteenth century, excerpted by Paul Meyer from a Cambridge manuscript in Notices et extraits des manuscrits, xxxii, 2, p. 65: “Li quens Rob., por les granz proesces que il feseit e qu’il avoit fetes, e por sa grant valor e son grant hardement, fu eslit a estre roi de Sulie.”
[31] Supra, p. 114.
[32] G. R., ii, p. 461.
[33] Pp. 229, 236.
[34] H. C. Oc., iii, p. 225.
[35] Chronique de Robert de Torigni, i, p. 87; Annales de Waverleia, in Annales Monastici, ii, p. 207; Gesta Henrici Secundi, i, p. 329; Gervase of Tilbury, Otia Imperialia, in H. F., xiv, p. 13; Chronique de Normandie, ibid., xiii, p. 247; Matthew Paris, Chronica Maiora, v, p. 602; Flores Historiarum, ii, p. 32; Robert of Gloucester, ii, pp. 607-608; John Capgrave, Chronicle of England, ed. F. C. Hingeston (London, 1858), p. 133; idem, Liber de Illustribus Henricis, ed. F. C. Hingeston (London, 1858), p. 55.
[36] Supra, p. 114.
[37] H. C. Oc., iv, p. 485.
[38] La conquête de Jérusalem, pp. 183-191. The legend is repeated in substantially the same form in Le Chevalier au Cygne et Godefroid de Bouillon, iii, pp. 81-88.
[39] Chronica Universalis, in M. G. H., Scriptores, xxvii, p. 334.
[40] An inedited Flemish chronicle of uncertain date, cited by Pigeonneau, Le cycle de la croisade, p. 76; Roger of Wendover, ii, p. 146; Matthew Paris, Historia Minor, i, pp. 149-150; Ranulf Higden, Polychronicon, ed. J. R. Lumby (London, 1865-86), vii, p. 424; Eulogium Historiarum, ed. F. C. Haydon (London, 1858-63), iii, p. 64. Roger of Wendover and Matthew Paris make the explanation that when his candle had been lighted, Robert secretly extinguished it, meaning to refuse the crown.
[41] Peter Langtoft, Chronicle, ed. Thomas Wright (London, 1866-68), i, p. 460.
[42] H. C. Oc., iii, p. 225. The account of the election given in Li estoire de Jérusalem et d’Antioche appears to have no connection with any of our other sources. Ibid., v, p. 639.
[43] Henry of Huntingdon, pp. 229-230, 236; Chronique de Robert de Torigni, i, pp. 87, 128-129; Annales de Waverleia, in Annales Monastici, ii, p. 207; Gesta Henrici Secundi, i, pp. 329-330; Roger of Wendover, ii, p. 146; Matthew Paris, Chronica Maiora, ii, pp. 106-107, 132; v, p. 602; idem, Historia Minor, i, p. 205; Flores Historiarum, ii, p. 32; Robert of Gloucester, ii, pp. 607-608, 628-629; Capgrave, Chronicle of England, p. 133; idem, De Illustribus Henricis, pp. 55, 57.
[44] Supra, p. 179.
[45] “Rex autem, memor fraternitatis, eundem comitem Robertum in libera carceris custodia, sine ciborum penuria vel luminis beneficio vel preciosarum vestium ornatu, salvo tamen fecit reservari. Liceret etiam ei ad scaccos et aleas ludere. Robas etiam regis, sicut ipse rex, accipiebat; pomeria vicina et saltus et loca delectabilia perambulando, ex regis licentia, visitavit.” Flores Historiarum, ii, p. 39.
[46] Gesta Henrici Secundi, i, p. 330.
[47] Annales de Wintonia, in Annales Monastici, ii, p. 50; Chronicon Thomae Wykes, ibid., iv, p. 15; Annales de Wigornia, ibid., iv, p. 378; Matthew Paris, Chronica Maiora, ii, p. 133; idem, Historia Minor, i, pp. 30, 213; Flores Historiarum, ii, p. 39; Henry Knighton, Chronicon, ed. J. R. Lumby (London, 1889-95), i, p. 113; Eulogium Historiarum, iii, p. 58; Capgrave, De Illustribus Henricis, p. 65.
[48] H. F., xii, p. 432.
[49] Matthew Paris, Historia Minor, i, pp. 212-213; idem, Chronica Maiora, ii, p. 133; Flores Historiarum, ii, p. 39.
[50] Matthew Paris, Historia Minor, i, p. 213.
[51] Matthew Paris, Historia Minor, i, p. 248. The translation is a free and somewhat condensed rendering of the original. Cf. the same, Chronica Maiora, ii, pp. 160-161; Capgrave, De Illustribus Henricis, p. 65.
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
NOTE ON THE SOURCES
In a field already so well explored as that of Normandy and England in the eleventh and twelfth centuries, there is little need to enter into a detailed discussion of primary materials. A brief review, however, of the sources upon which the present volume is based may be a convenience and serve a useful purpose.
Among the narrative sources for the life of Robert Curthose, the Historia Ecclesiastica[1] of Ordericus Vitalis is, of course, by far the most important. One of the greatest historical writers of the twelfth century, the monk of Saint-Évroul has treated of Robert’s character and career at great length and with much vivacity and insight. And while one may admit with Gaston Le Hardy[2] that he was no friend of the duke, indeed, that as a churchman and as a lover of peace and of strong and orderly government he was strongly prejudiced against him and sometimes treated him unfairly, still it must be confessed that in the main his strictures are confirmed by other evidence and are presumably justified. Unfortunately, Ordericus Vitalis stands almost alone among early Norman writers in paying attention to the career of Robert Curthose. Some assistance, however, has been gained from William of Poitiers[3] and from the Gesta Normannorum Ducum, a composite work once solely attributed to William of Jumièges, but now at last made available in a critical edition which distinguishes the parts actually written by William of Jumièges, Ordericus Vitalis, Robert of Torigny, and others.[4] The Roman de Rou of Wace[5] has also been drawn upon, sometimes rather freely, but it is hoped always with due caution and discretion, for much picturesque detail concerning events in western Normandy, about which the author clearly possessed special information. For Robert’s relations with Maine, the contemporary Actus Pontificum Cenomannis in Urbe degentium[6] have been an almost constant guide, often confirming and even supplementing the more extensive but less precise narrative of Ordericus Vitalis. Matter of much importance has also from time to time been gleaned from the works of French and Flemish writers, such as the famous Vie de Louis le Gros by Abbot Suger of Saint-Denis,[7] the anonymous Chronique de Morigny,[8] and the Histoire du Meurtre de Charles le Bon by Galbert of Bruges.[9]
The English writers of the period have naturally proved invaluable. Of these, William of Malmesbury,[10] as we should expect, possesses the keenest insight into Robert’s character; but the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle treats[11] of the events of Robert’s life with greater fulness and in more coherent and trustworthy chronological order. Florence of Worcester[12] is in general dependent upon the Chronicle, but occasionally he presents a different view or supplementary matter of independent value; and the same may be said of the Historia Regum, which is commonly attributed to Simeon of Durham,[13] in its relation to Florence of Worcester. Henry of Huntingdon,[14] who is also largely dependent upon the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, professes himself a first-hand authority from the accession of Robert Curthose and William Rufus to the ducal and royal thrones in 1087;[15] and his narrative becomes increasingly valuable as it advances, though he cannot be considered a really independent writer before 1126, i.e., a score of years after the close of Duke Robert’s active career at the battle of Tinchebray. For all the facts bearing upon Robert’s life with which it deals, the Historia Novorum in Anglia of Eadmer,[16] the companion and confidential adviser of Archbishop Anselm, is a strictly contemporary narrative of the highest value, though its specialized character considerably restricts its usefulness for the purposes of the present study. The brief chronicle of Hyde abbey,[17] which was compiled during the reign of Henry I, has often proved helpful, as have also other minor monastic narratives such as the chronicle of Abingdon[18] and the annals of Winchester,[19] of Waverley,[20] etc.
The documentary sources for the life of Robert Curthose are very meagre; but, such as they are, they are now all conveniently accessible. As a result of prolonged researches in the archives and libraries of Normandy and in the Bibliothèque Nationale, and after a careful sifting of all the printed materials, Professor Charles H. Haskins has been able to give us, in another volume of the Harvard Historical Studies, a definitive edition of seven hitherto unpublished ducal charters, together with a complete and annotated list of all the charters of the reign.[21] The best guides to the remainder of the documentary material bearing upon Robert’s life are the Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum by H. W. C. Davis[22] and the Calendar of Documents preserved in France illustrative of the History of Great Britain and Ireland by J. H. Round.[23] While both these works leave something to be desired, they have proved invaluable in the preparation of the present study; and it is earnestly to be hoped that the publication of the second volume of Davis’s work, containing the charters of Henry I, will not be long delayed.[24] For the full texts of documents, and for other scattered materials not calendared by either Round or Davis, it has been necessary to consult many special collections, e.g., the Livre noir of Bayeux cathedral,[25] the Chartes de Saint-Julien de Tours,[26] the Cartulaire de l’abbaye de Saint-Vincent du Mans,[27] the letters of Pascal II,[28] of Ivo of Chartres,[29] and of St. Anselm,[30] which are too numerous to be listed here in detail, and which have been fully cited in their proper places in footnotes.
The Crusade forms a special chapter in the record of Robert’s life for which it is necessary to draw upon a different group of sources. Of works by contemporary or early writers on the Crusade, the anonymous Gesta Francorum[31] is, of course, invaluable for all the facts with which it deals; but the Historia Hierosolymitana of Fulcher of Chartres[32] has proved of even greater service in the present study, because of the author’s close association with Robert Curthose on the Crusade from the time when the expedition left Normandy until it reached Marash in Armenia; concerning later events also Fulcher was by no means ill informed. The Historia Francorum qui ceperunt Iherusalem of Raymond of Aguilers[33] is also a first-hand narrative by an eyewitness; and, while the author is at times rather hostile to Duke Robert and the Normans, he is nevertheless invaluable as representing the point of view of the Provençaux. Inferior to any of the foregoing, but still by a writer who was in the East and who was well informed, the Gesta Tancredi of Ralph of Caen[34] has proved of great assistance, as has also the voluminous, but less trustworthy, work of Albert of Aix,[35] which, when it has been possible to check it with other evidence, has contributed valuable information. Of western writers on the Crusade who did not actually make the pilgrimage to the Holy Land, apart from Ordericus Vitalis,[36] who has already been mentioned, Guibert of Nogent[37] and Baldric, archbishop of Dol,[38] have been most helpful. The English writers, except William of Malmesbury,[39]—whose account is based almost wholly upon Fulcher of Chartres, and, apart from an occasional detail, is of little value—have not treated the Crusade with any fulness, and are of little service except for the beginnings of the movement. Of the Greek sources only the Alexiad of Anna Comnena[40] has been of much assistance. The Oriental writers are in general too late to be of great importance for the First Crusade, and they had, of course, no particular interest in Robert Curthose; but their writings have not been overlooked, and Matthew of Edessa,[41] Ibn el-Athir,[42] Kemal ed-Din,[43] and Usama ibn Munkidh[44] have been of service. The contemporary letters bearing upon the Crusade have been admirably edited, with exhaustive critical notes, by Heinrich Hagenmeyer.[45] Of charters, or documents in the strict sense of the word, there are almost none relating to the Crusade; but such as there are, they have been rendered easily accessible by the painstaking calendar of documents dealing with the history of the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem by Reinhold Röhricht.[46] It would be going too far afield to describe at this point the scattered materials from which the attempt has been made to draw up a list of the known associates and followers of Robert on the Crusade. They are fully cited in Appendix D.
For the chapter on Robert Curthose in legend, with which the narrative part of the present volume ends, it has been necessary to depart from the narrow chronological limits within which the rest of our researches have been conducted, and to explore a wide range of literature extending to the close of the Middle Ages. Most of the Robert legends make their appearance early, and can be traced to a certain extent in William of Malmesbury and Henry of Huntingdon and in Robert the Monk and Ralph of Caen. But their elaboration was in the main the work of chroniclers and romancers of a later period. Among Norman and English sources, the works of Geoffrey Gaimar, Wace, William of Newburgh, Ralph de Diceto, and Ralph Niger have proved most helpful for the twelfth century; of Roger of Wendover, Matthew Paris, and Robert of Gloucester, together with the anonymous Flores Historiarum and Livere de reis de Engletere, for the thirteenth; of Peter Langtoft, Ranulf Higden, and Henry Knighton, together with the anonymous Eulogium Historiarum, for the fourteenth; while Thomas Walsingham in the fifteenth century has occasionally been of service. Much material of a legendary character relating to Robert’s exploits in the Holy War has also been gleaned from the various versions of the poetic cycle of the Crusade, the most notable of which are the Chanson d’Antioche of the late twelfth century, the Chanson de Jérusalem, which probably dates from the thirteenth century, and the Chevalier au Cygne et Godefroid de Bouillon, edited by the Baron de Reiffenberg, which belongs to the fourteenth or fifteenth century. Such detailed criticism as it has seemed necessary to make of these widely scattered materials bearing upon Robert Curthose in legend has been placed in the footnotes of Chapter VIII, where the editions used have also been fully cited.
FOOTNOTES
[1] Ed. Auguste Le Prévost. 5 vols. Paris, 1838-55. The critical introduction (i, pp. i-cvi) by Léopold Delisle is definitive.
[2] Cf. supra, pp. vii-viii.
[3] Gesta Willelmi Ducis Normannorum et Regis Anglorum, in H. F., xi, pp. 75-104.
[4] Ed. Jean Marx. Paris, 1914. Most of the material of value for the present study comes from the interpolations of Robert of Torigny.
[5] Ed. Hugo Andresen. 2 vols. Heilbronn, 1877-79.
[6] Ed. G. Busson and A. Ledru. Le Mans, 1901 (Archives historiques du Maine, ii).
[7] Ed. Auguste Molinier. Paris, 1887.
[8] Ed. Léon Mirot. Paris, 1909.
[9] Ed. Henri Pirenne. Paris, 1891.
[10] De Gestis Regum Anglorum, ed. William Stubbs. 2 vols. London, 1889. De Gestis Pontificum Anglorum, ed. N. E. S. A. Hamilton. London, 1870.
[11] Two of the Saxon Chronicles Parallel, ed. Charles Plummer. 2 vols. Oxford, 1892-99.
[12] Chronicon ex Chronicis, ed. Benjamin Thorpe. 2 vols. London, 1848-49.
[13] Simeon of Durham, Opera Omnia, ed. Thomas Arnold, ii. London, 1885. Cf. infra, p. 216.
[14] Historia Anglorum, ed. Thomas Arnold. London, 1879.
[15] “Hactenus de his quae vel in libris veterum legendo repperimus, vel fama vulgante percepimus, tractatum est. Nunc autem de his quae vel ipsi vidimus, vel ab his qui viderant audivimus, pertractandum est.” Ibid., pp. 213-214.
[16] Ed. Martin Rule. London, 1884.
[17] Chronicon Monasterii de Hyda, in Liber de Hyda, ed. Edward Edwards, pp. 283-321. London, 1866.
[18] Chronicon Monasterii de Abingdon, ed. Joseph Stevenson. 2 vols. London, 1858.
[19] Annales Monasterii de Wintonia, in Annales Monastici, ed. H. R. Luard, ii, pp. 1-125. London, 1865.
[20] Annales Monasterii de Waverleia, ibid., pp. 127-411.
[21] Norman Institutions (Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1918) pp. 285-292, 66-70.
[22] Vol. i. Oxford, 1913.
[23] Vol. i. London, 1899 (Calendars of State Papers).
[24] “An Outline Itinerary of King Henry the First,” by W. Farrer, in E. H. R., xxxiv, pp. 303-382, 505-579 (July, October, 1919), came to hand just as the present volume was going to press. I am indebted to it for the location of certain charters which until then had escaped my notice.
[25] Antiquus Cartularius Ecclesiae Baiocensis, ed. V. Bourrienne. 2 vols. Paris, 1902-03.
[26] Ed. L.-J. Denis. Le Mans, 1912 (Archives historiques du Maine, xii).
[27] Ed. R. Charles and S. Menjot d’Elbenne, i. Le Mans, 1886.
[28] Migne, clxiii.
[29] H. F., xv.
[30] Migne, clix.
[31] Ed. Heinrich Hagemneyer. Heidelberg, 1890.
[32] Ed. idem. Heidelberg, 1913.
[33] H. C. Oc., iii, pp. 235-309.
[34] H. C. Oc., iii, pp. 587-601.
[35] Liber Christianae Expeditionis pro Ereptione, Emundatione, Restitutione Sanctae Hierosolymitanae Ecclesiae, ibid., iv, pp. 265-713.
[36] Bk. ix of the Historia Ecclesiastica is devoted to the history of the First Crusade.
[37] Gesta Dei per Francos, in H. C. Oc., iv, pp. 115-263.
[38] Historia Hierosolymitana, ibid., pp. 1-111.
[39] G. R., ii.
[40] H. C. G., i, 2, pp. 1-204.
[41] Chronique, in H. C. A., i, pp. 1-150.
[42] Histoire des Atabecs de Mosul, in H. C. Or., ii, 2, pp. 1-375; Kamel-Altevarykh, ibid., i.
[43] Chronique d’Alep, ibid., iii.
[44] Autobiographie, French translation by Hartwig Derenbourg. Paris, 1895.
[45] Die Kreuzzugsbriefe aus den Jahren 1088-1100: eine Quellensammlung zur Geschichte des ersten Kreuzzuges. Innsbruck, 1901.
[46] Regesta Regni Hierosolymitani. Innsbruck, 1893. Additamentum. Innsbruck, 1904.
APPENDIX B
DE INIUSTA VEXATIONE WILLELMI EPISCOPI PRIMI[1]
The anonymous tract De Iniusta Vexatione Willelmi Episcopi Primi[2] is worthy of more attention and of a more critical study than it has yet received.[3] Since it gives the only detailed account which we possess of the dispute between William Rufus and William of Saint-Calais, bishop of Durham, and of the trial of the latter before the curia regis at Salisbury upon a charge of treason in connection with the rebellion of 1088, final judgment as to the bishop’s guilt or innocence must in large measure depend upon a just estimate of its value. Freeman was very reluctant to recognize its high authority as compared with his favorite ‘southern writers,’ the Anglo-Saxon chronicler, Florence of Worcester, and William of Malmesbury;[4] but his distrust appears to be unwarranted.
The tract is manifestly made up of two distinct parts: (1) the main body of an original libellus, concerned exclusively with the bishop’s ‘vexation,’ and beginning (p. 171), “Rex Willelmus iunior dissaisivit Dunelmensem episcopum,” and ending (p. 194), “rex permisit episcopo transitum”; and (2) introductory and concluding chapters, which contain a brief sketch of the bishop’s career before and after his unfortunate quarrel with the king and his expulsion from the realm. The joints at which the separate narratives are pieced together are apparent upon the most cursory examination. Not only is there a striking contrast between the detailed and documentary treatment found in the body of the libellus and the bare summaries which make up the introductory and concluding paragraphs, but the reader is actually warned of the transition in the last sentence of the introduction by the phrase (p. 171), “quam rem sequens libellus manifestat ex ordine.” The two parts of the tract are evidently derived from different sources and written at different times by different authors.
The libellus properly so called, i.e., the central portion of the tract, is a narrative well supplied with documents; it has all the appearance of being contemporary and by an eyewitness, and is manifestly a source of the greatest value for the facts with which it deals. Liebermann, with his unrivalled knowledge of mediaeval English legal materials, has declared that there is no ground for doubting its authenticity;[5] and Professor G. B. Adams, who also finds abundant internal evidence of its genuineness, points out, as an indication that it was written by an eyewitness in the company of Bishop William, the fact that no attempt is made to tell what went on within the curia while the bishop and his supporters were outside; and further, he considers it more “objective and impartial” than Eadmer’s better known account of the trial of Anselm before the council of Rockingham.[6] The author, it may be conjectured, was a monk of Durham who stood in somewhat the same favored position among the intimates of Bishop William as that occupied by Eadmer with regard to Anselm; and while we know nothing of his personality, it is perhaps worth remarking in passing that he may very well be the ‘certain monk’ (quendam suum monachum) who acts on at least two occasions as the bishop’s messenger (pp. 172, 175). The account in the earlier instance is so intimate and personal as strongly to support this hypothesis: “Ipsum quoque monachum episcopi, qui de rege redibat, accepit et equum suum ei occidit; postea peditem abire permisit.”
The introduction and the conclusion of the tract, on the other hand, are not a first-hand narrative; and fortunately we possess the source from which they are derived. The introduction (pp. 170 f.), dealing with the bishop’s career prior to 1088, contains nothing which is not told with much greater fulness in the opening chapters of the fourth book of the Historia Dunelmensis Ecclesiae of Simeon of Durham.[7] It is in fact a mere summary of those chapters; and while the author is no servile copyist, he evidently had no other source of information. It seems safe to conclude, therefore, that he was not identical with the author of the original libellus. Judged by style and method, the conclusion of the tract (pp. 194 f.) appears to be by the same author as the introduction. It, too, is clearly an abridgment of certain chapters of the Historia Dunelmensis Ecclesiae,[8] though with this notable difference from the introduction, that it contains some matter not to be found in the Historia, e.g., the statement that the exiled bishop was intrusted by the duke with the administration of all Normandy, and the notices of the expedition of William Rufus against King Malcolm in 1091, and of the presence of the Scottish king at the laying of the first stones in the foundation of the new cathedral at Durham in 1093. Apparently, for these more recent events, the writer was drawing upon his own first-hand knowledge. The date at which the introductory and concluding chapters were appended to the original Durham libellus cannot be fixed with exactness. The reference to Anselm as “sanctae memoriae” (p. 195) shows that they were written after his death in 1109;[9] and since, as will appear below, they in turn were used in the Historia Regum, which is commonly attributed to Simeon of Durham, the terminus ad quem cannot be placed much later than 1129.[10]
The relationship between the above mentioned additions to the Durham libellus and the Historia Regum may be displayed by the following quotations.
The introduction to the Durham tract closes with the following sentence (p. 171):