667. Milo, i. 282. “In primævâ ætate patre orbatus, quum ei in honorem et dignitatem succedere deberet.” Was Hanbald’s post, whatever it was, hereditary?
668. Dr. Hook (ii. 76, 80) discusses the question at length. I cannot infer from the use of the word “exsilium” by Orderic (519 A), that Lanfranc was driven from Pavia by any political revolution, any more than Orderic himself, when “tenellus exsul” in Normandy. See above, p. 216.
669. Chron. Becc. i. 195. Hook, ii. 77.
670. The sojourn at Avranches comes from Milo, i. 282. The other accounts seem to bring him to Bec at once.
671. The Bishoprick of Avranches is now merged in that of Coutances, and the cathedral is destroyed; Lisieux is also merged in Bayeux, but the cathedral remains.
672. Will. Gem. vi. 9. “Beccum itaque adiit, quo nullum usquam pauperius æstimabatur vel abjectius cœnobium.” Ord. Vit. 519 B. “Cœnobiolum Beccense loci situ et paupertate elegit.” Milo, i. 282, 283. “Locum adire nolebat, ubi litterati qui eum honori ac reverentiæ haberent.... Rogavit sanè ut vilius et pauperius cœnobium quod in regione nossent sibi demonstrarent.” Will. Malm. Gest. Pont. 116 b. “Multis diu locis circumspectis, ex omni abbatiarum copiâ Beccum apud Normanniam potissimùm elegit, paupertate loci et monachorum religione captus.”
673. The legend is found in a simpler form in Milo, i. 282, 283, and in a fuller shape in the Chronicon Beccense, i. 195, 196, followed by Hook, i. 81, 82. I do not see the chronological difference spoken of by the Dean, except that the Chronicler, like most of the other writers, leaves out the sojourn at Avranches. The two versions are worth comparing, as illustrating the growth of a legend, which is not the less plainly a legend because it contains nothing miraculous. The earlier form is the more consistent with the general story, as it represents Lanfranc as ignorant of Scripture and divine things. The meeting between Lanfranc and Herlwin is well conceived and well told.
674. Milo, i. 285.
675. Milo, i. 286. “Lanfrancum Priorem constituit, et quidquid ditioni monasterii subjacebat, interiùs et exteriùs ipsius curæ commisit.”
676. Ib. 284. “Vir sapiens sciens magis obedientiam Christo debere quam Donato, dimisit quod bene pronunciaverat, et dixit quod non rectè dicere jubebatur. Nam producere brevem vel longam corripere syllabam non capitale noverat crimen; verùm jubenti ex parte Dei non parere culpam non levem esse sciebat.”
677. Will. Gem. vi. 9. “Accurrunt clerici, Ducum filii [one would like to know their names], nominatissimi scholarum Latinitatis magistri, laici potentes, altâ nobilitate viri. Multi pro ipsius amore multas eidem ecclesiæ terras contulere.”
678. Will. Gem. vi. 9. “Adunatam etenim illic fratrum multitudinem quia domorum spaciositas jam capere non valebat, et quia situs loci degentium incolumitati contrarius exsistebat.”
679. William of Jumièges (u. s.) describes the work, and says that “post triennii completionem, solâ necdum completâ basilicâ,” Lanfranc became Abbot of Saint Stephen’s. This last appointment did not happen till 1066 (Ord. Vit. 494 B). Did the rebuilding not begin till 1063?
680. I reserve the account of Lanfranc’s connexion with William till I come to the history of the Duke’s marriage.
682. See Hook, ii. 89.
683. Orderic (519 D) describes the work of Lanfranc against Berengar as “dilucido venustoque stilo libellum, sacris auctoritatibus ponderosum, et indissolubiliter constantem consequentiis rationum, veræ intelligentiæ adstructione de Eucharistiâ copiosum, facundo sermone luculentum, nec prolixitate tædiosum.” One could wish that the excellent Orderic had, in this last respect, imitated the work which he so much admired.
684. The whole early history of his house is given by Orderic at great length, 609 et seqq. So also Will. Gem. vii. 23.
685. Ord. 609 C. “Degens adhuc sub laicali habitu vitam instituerat ut nihil ab his discrepare videretur, quos imperium regulare coercebat.” His piety however was not wholly after the type of Eadward the Confessor, for we read (609 D), “conjugem, ut patris nomen haberet, acceperat.”
686. One legend of Saint Ebrulf (611 C) is the same as the well known story of Ælfred and his last loaf.
687. Ord. Vit. 623 C. “Olim dum Daci, qui adhuc pagani erant, cum Hastingo Neustriam vastaverunt, et rursus Rollone cum suis sæviente, plures ecclesiæ cum urbibus et oppidis desolatæ sunt; nos, suffragante Deo, in silvestri sterilique rure latuimus, et debacchantium gladios, licèt in timore nimio et egestate, sospites evasimus.” This must have been forgotten when it is said in Neustria Pia, p. 90, that Saint Evroul was ravaged by the Danes.
688. See vol. i. pp. 237, 238. Orderic gives his version of these events in p. 619. He calls Hugh “Hugo Magnus Aurelianorum Dux,” and Lewis receives his surname of “Ultramarinus,” which we do not find in contemporary writers. Most names of the kind were doubtless used in common discourse during the lifetime of the princes designated by them, but they did not find their way into written history till later.
689. Ord. Vit. 619 D, 622 D.
690. Ib. 621 B. “Rusticorum pecudes sive supellectilem non curaverunt; sed Uticensis hospitii memores, illuc reversi sunt, et ex insperato cum suis in cœnobium irruerunt.” Then follow the details of the plunder.
691. Ord Vit. 622 D.
692. Ib. 624 C. This holy man, like Orderic’s own father, was married. “Uticum perrexit, ibique cum conjuge et Ilberto filio suo primus habitavit.” (625 A.) He afterwards had a companion named Ingram. (461 A.)
693. Ib. 625 C, D.
694. He is described as “Ernaldi Grossi de Corte Sedaldi Abonii Britonis filii filius.” (Ord. Vit. 463 A.) He goes on to say that he “ex magnâ nobilitate Francorum et Britonum processit, mirâque probitate et audaciâ temporibus Hugonis Magni [clearly a mistake for Hugh Capet] et Roberti Regum Francorum nobiliter viguit.”
695. Ib. 463 A.
696. Orderic (464 A, B) tells a curious story about these lordships. When they were granted to Geroy, they were, by what accident does not appear, not included in the diocese of any Bishop. Geroy’s conscience was troubled at a state of things so contrary to all ecclesiastical rule. He accordingly inquired which of the neighbouring Bishops was the most worthy, and, hearing much of the virtues of Roger, Bishop of Lisieux (990–1024), he annexed his lands to that diocese. He procured however certain privileges for the clergy of his lordships, especially an exemption from the oppressive jurisdiction of the Archdeacons; “Ut clerici terræ suæ non irent ad placitandum extra potestatem eorum, nec opprimerentur injustis circumventionibus Archidiaconorum.” He might well make this stipulation, if the Archdeacons of his time were like those described by John of Salisbury some generations later (Ep. clxvi. ap. Giles, i. 260).
In Mr. Stapleton’s map Escalfoy is marked in the diocese of Lisieux, but Montreuil in that of Seez.
697. William of Jumièges (vii. 11.) makes him receive these lordships from Duke Richard, “Richardi Ducis, cujus dono in Normanniâ duo municipia obtinuit,” but it seems from Orderic (463 B) that the ducal grant was only a confirmation of the will of Helgo; “Liberalis Dux agnitâ virtute ejus honoravit, eique totam terram Helgonis hæreditario jure concessit.”
698. Will. Gem. u. s. “Ex his filiorum et nepotum militaris turma propagata est, quæ barbaris in Angliâ vel Apuliâ seu Trachiâ vel Syriâ nimio terrori visa est.”
699. Ib. vi. 7.
701. He held lands of Count Geoffrey of Mantes, who was taken prisoner by William Talvas, who required the destruction of the castle of Montacute as his ransom. This castle belonged to William the son of Geroy, who at once destroyed it to bring about the liberation of his lord. Ord. Vit.
702. Ord. Vit. 464 A. “Episcopales consuetudines Monasterioli et Escalfoii fundo habebat, nec ullus Archidiaconorum ibidem presbyteros ejusdem honoris circumvenire audebat.”
704. 578 A.
705. According to William of Jumièges (vii. 23), he died at Gaeta on his return from a mission of some sort (pro quibusdam rationalibus caussis) to Apulia.
706. Ord. Vit. 461 A. Chron. Becc. i. 195. This is doubtless the grange which Lanfranc found greatly troubled by rats. His biographer (i. 284, 285) cites it as a proof of his humility that he personally carried a cat to make war upon them.
707. They were the sons of Robert of Grantmesnil (see above, p. 199) and Hadwisa, daughter of Geroy (Orderic, 465 B). After Robert’s death Hadwisa married William, son of Archbishop Robert. Their daughter Judith, having taken the veil, afterwards married Roger, Count of Sicily (484 B), but, as a punishment for her sacrilege, remained childless.
709. William of Jumièges (vii. 23) puts into his mouth a long historical discourse, in which, I am sorry to say, he speaks of Charles the Simple as “filius Ludovici cognomine Nihil-fecit.”
710. Ord. Vit. 461 C et seqq., 625 D. Will. Gem. vii. 23. He was the only monk for whom the cruel Mabel had any reverence. Ord. Vit. 470 A.
711. See his character, Ord. Vit. 467 D; his intrigues, 474 C et seqq.; his election, 477 A. He began a new church, but did not finish it, 480 C. He also gave to the house (468 B) an illuminated psalter—doubtless of English work—which the Lady Emma had given to her brother Archbishop Robert. His son William seemingly stole it from his father, and gave it to his wife Hadwisa, mother of Robert of Grantmesnil; “de camerâ patris sui familiariter sustulerat, dilectæque suæ conjugi Hadwisæ omnimodis placere volens detulerat.” On Abbot Robert see also Will. Gem. vii. 26.
712. Ord. Vit. 481 B.
713. The whole story is given at some length in Neustria Pia, pp. 104–110. But remark the expression of William of Jumièges (vii. 23), “multos labores postea in procuratione servorum Dei perpessus est.” There were probably two sides to his story, as to most others.
714. Was the Truce of God ever preached, or ever needed, in England? I am not aware of any mention of it, unless the so-called Laws of Eadward, c. 2 (Schmid, 492), at all refer to it. See below, p. 238.
716. See History of Federal Government, i. 128.
717. The account is in R. Glaber, iv. 5. “Tunc ergo primitùs cœpere in Aquitaniæ partibus ab Episcopis et Abbatibus, ceterisque viris sacræ religionis devotis ex universâ plebe, coadunati conciliorum conventus.” He goes on to give a summary of their legislation; “In quibus potissimum erat de inviolabili pace conservandâ, ut scilicet viri utriusque conditionis, cujuscumque antea fuissent rei obnoxii, absque formidine procederent armis vacui. Prædo namque aut invasor alterius facultatis, legum districtione arctatus, vel donis facultatum seu pœnis corporis acerrimè mulctaretur. Locis nihilominùs sacris omnium ecclesiarum honor et reverentia talis exhiberetur, ut si quis ad ea cujuscumque culpæ obnoxius confugium faceret, illæsus evaderet, nisi solummodò ille qui pactum prædictæ pacis violâsset, hic tamen captus ab altare præstitutam vindictam lueret. Clericis similiter omnibus, monachis, et sanctimonialibus, ut si quis cum eis per regionem pergeret nullam vim ab aliquo pateretur.” He adds some more purely religious provisions about fasting and the like.
718. R. Glaber, iv. 5. “Quibus universi, tanto ardore accensi ut per manus Episcoporum baculum ad cœlum elevarent, ipsique palmis extensis ad Deum, Pax, pax, pax, unanimiter clamarent. Ut esset videlicet signum perpetui pacti de hoc, quod spoponderant inter se et Deum.”
719. R. Glaber, iv. 5. “In hâc tamen ratione ut evoluto quinquennio confirmandæ pacis gratiâ id ipsum ab universis in orbe fieret mirum in modum.”
720. Ib. “Dehinc per Arelatensem provinciam atque Lugdunensem, sicque per universam Burgundiam usque in ultimas Franciæ partes, per universos episcopatus indictum est qualiter certis in locis à præsulibus magnatisque totius patriæ de reformandâ pace et sacræ fidei institutione celebrarentur concilia.” In Martène and Durand’s Thesaurus, i. 159, is a circular letter on the subject from Ragenbald, Archbishop of Arles, and other Burgundian Prelates.
721. Rudolf, under the year 1041 (v. 1, Duchèsne, Rer. Franc. Scriptt. iv. 55 A), recurs to the subject; “Contigit verò ipso in tempore, inspirante divinâ gratiâ, primitùs in partibus Aquitanicis, deinde paullatim per universum Galliarum territorium firmari pactum propter timorem Dei pariter et amorem. Taliter ut nemo mortalium, à feriæ quartæ vespere usque ad secundam feriam incipiente luce, ausu temerario præsumeret quippiam alicui hominum per vim auferre, neque ultionis vindictam à quocumque inimico exigere, nec etiam à fideijussore vadimonium sumere. Quod si ab aliquo fieri contigisset contra hoc decretum publicum, aut de vitâ componeret aut à Christianorum consortio expulsus patriâ pelleretur. Hoc insuper placuit universis, veluti vulgò dicitur, ut Treuga Domini vocaretur.” I conceive this relaxation to mark a change from the Pax Dei to the Treuga Dei. See Ducange in Treuga, and Palgrave, iii. 201. Something must be allowed to the inherent confusion of Rudolf’s way of expressing himself.
722. Hugo Flav. Chron. ap. Pertz, viii. 403.
723. Gest. Epp. Cam. ap. Pertz, vii. 474, 485. Gerard’s objections are given at great length, and are well worth studying, as a setting forth of the Regale and Pontificale. Some of the French Bishops seemed to have ventured on a pious fraud; “Unus eorum cœlitùs sibi delatas dixit esse literas, quæ pacem monerent renovandam in terra.” The chronicler of Cambray quite approves the opposition of the local Prelate; “Alia quoque importabilia quamplurima dederunt mandata, quæ oneri visa sunt replicare. Hâc novitate pulsatus mandati præsul noster, infirmitatique peccantium condescendens, secundùm decreta sanctorum patrum ad singula suum formavit eloquium.”
724. Hugo Flav. ap. Pertz, viii. 403. “Quam quum noluisset recipere gens Neustriæ, viro Dei Richardo prædicante, et ut eam susciperent, quia voluntas Domini erat, et à Deo non ab homine decretum, hoc processerat, admonente divino judicio cœpit in eos desævire ignis qui eos torquebat; eo anno ferè totus orbis [was the whole world plagued for the sins of Normandy?] penuriam passus est pro raritate vini et tritici. Sequuta est è vestigio mortalitas hominibus præmaxima ab inc. Dom. 1042.” This passage is made up out of R. Glaber (u. s.), where however Richard is not mentioned.
725. Hugo Flav. u. s.
726. The decree of the synod of Caen is given at length in the Concilia Rotomagensis Provinciæ, p. 39. The Fathers are stringent against “caballicationes et hostilitates.” The main decree runs, “In pace quæ vulgò dicitur Trevia Dei, et quæ die Mercurii sole occidente incipit, et die Lunæ sole nascente finit, hæc quæ dicam vobis promptissimâ mente dehinc inantea debetis observare. Nullus homo nec femina hominem aut feminam usquam assaliat, nec vulneret, nec occidat, nec castellum, nec burgum, nec villam in hoc spatio quatuor dierum et quinque noctium assaliat nec deprædetur nec capiat, nec ardeat ullo ingenio aut violentiâ aut aliquâ fraude.” See Roman de Rou, 10485 et seqq. The church of Sainte Paix at Caen was built to commemorate the event, but Prevost (note to Roman de Rou, ii. 99) places its building in 1061.
727. Will. Pict. 113 (Giles). “Sanctissimè in Normanniâ observabatur sacramentum pacis quam Treviam vocant, quod effrænis regionum aliarum iniquitas frequenter temerat.”
728. Ord. Vit. 552 A. It was confirmed again for Christendom generally at the Council of Clermont in 1095. Will. Malms. iii. 345.
729. Will. Pict. 80 (Giles). “Hujus vesaniæ signifer prosiluit Guido.” Will. Malms. iii. 230. “Sator discordiarum erat Guido quidam.”
730. Will. Pict. u. s. “A puerilibus annis cum ipso familiariter nutritus.” Will. Gem. vii. 17. “Crudelem convivam ... qui cum eo à puerilibus annis educatus fuerat.” Will. Malms. u. s. “Convictus familiaritatem, familiaritas amicitias, paraverat.” So Roman de Rou, 8758 et seqq.
733. William, in his autobiography in Orderic (657 A), is made to say, “Ille [Guido] verò verbis et actibus mihi derogavit, me nothum degeneremque et principatu indignum detestatus judicavit et hostiliter diffamavit.” Roman de Rou, 8770;
So again, 8782;
734. Roman de Rou, 8786;
So Will. Pict. 80. “Sed aut principatum aut maximam portionem Normanniæ ambiebat.”
735. Roman de Rou, 8896 et seqq.
738. Both Neals bear the title of Viscount of the Côtentin, but others also bore it in their lifetime. See Delisle, Histoire du Château et des Sires de Saint-Sauveur-le-Vicomte (Valognes, 1867), p. 23. The collection of Charters in this work is most valuable.
739. See vol. i. p. 330. The three chief conspirators, Neal, Randolf, and Hamon, are mentioned in various accounts. Will. Pict. 80. Will. Malms. iii. 230. Roman de Rou, 8748, 8778. William of Jumièges (vii. 17) speaks of Guy and Neal (“Nigellus Constantiensis præses”) only.
741. The Abbey was founded by Neal himself in the next year, 1048, according to Neustria Pia, 540. Cotman, Antiquities of Normandy, i. 9. But what seems to be Neal’s foundation charter in Delisle (Preuves, p. 42; cf. 55, 59) is placed by him in 1080.
742. See vol. i. p. 243, for Harold Blaatand’s occupation of Cherbourg. I cannot however believe that Cherbourg is really “Cæsaris burgus.” Is it not rather the same word as Scarborough?
743. This very curious fact comes out in a Charter of the Abbey of the Holy Trinity at Caen, printed by Mr. Stapleton in the Archæologia, xxvi. 355. “Adeliza, Ricardi Comitis filia, Ricardi Comitis soror, contra eumdem prædictum fratrem suum, scilicet Robertum Comitem, castrum quid dicitur Hulme in Constantino situm cum omnibus ibidem pertinentibus mercata est. Quod postea Guido filius suus, injustè sibi auferens, dedit illud Nigello Vice-comiti.” See also Stapleton, Roll of Exchequer, ii. xxix. The charter bears date in 1075, when Adeliza was still living.
744. Roman de Rou, 8938.
745. Ib. 9182;
On Creuilly church and castle, see Cotman, ii. 91. De Caumont, i. 320.
746. William of Malmesbury introduces him (ii. 230) as “Haimo Dentatus [Dan As Dens], avus Roberti quo nostro tempore in Angliâ multarum possessionum incubator exstitit.” Robert died of a wound received at Tinchebrai, 1106 (Will. Malms. v. 398), and his daughter Mabel married the famous Robert Earl of Gloucester (Hist. Nov. i. 3).
747. Benoît, 32, 742;
The expression is very strange, but it is so taken by M. Le Cointe (see Appendix O), and I see not what else it can mean.
748. Taylor’s Wace, 11. Castle Rising is eminently the castle of dowager Queens, the earlier parts having been built for Adeliza, and the later for Isabella, mother of Edward the Third.
749. Roman de Rou, 8796;
751. See Roman de Rou, 9347 et seqq. For the present story see vv. 8800–8895, and Palgrave, iii. 212.
752. Roman de Rou, 8803. “Par li boiz chacié et bersé.” “Berser” is explained (Roquefort, Glossaire de la Langue Romaine) by “tirer de l’arc.” On William’s skill with the bow, see Will. Malms. iii. 279.
754. On the church of Rye, parts of which may be as old as this time, see De Caumont, iii. 572.
755. Roman de Rou, 8846;
Hubert seems to have been an early riser and a good church-goer. The “mote” is the mound or “agger” (see above, p. 191), whence the name is sometimes transferred to the castle itself. Thus we find in the Gesta Com. Andeg. (D’Achery, iii. 257), “Domum munitissimam quæ usque hodie ‘Mota Fulcoii’ a vulgo vocatur.”
756. Ib. 8860 et seqq. I see no reason to doubt the general truth of the story, but there is a passage in the sequel which sounds mythical. William’s pursuers presently ask Hubert which way the Bastard is gone, and he puts them on a wrong scent (vv. 8874). This story is as old as the babyhood of Hermês.
757. On Eudes see Ellis, Introduction to Domesday, i. 415. Orderic (489 C) calls him “Normannici Ducis dapiferum, qui in pago Constantino divitiis et potestate inter Normanniæ proceres eminebat.” The good character of Eudes comes from the Colchester History of the Monasticon, iv. 607, which I shall have to refer to again. He married Roberia, daughter of Richard son of Count Gilbert (Ib. 608).
758. We learn the place of meeting from Orderic (372 A); “Unde coactus juvenis Dux Pexeium convolavit, ibique pronus ad pedes Henrici Regis corruit, et ab eo contra malefidos proceres et cognatos auxilium petivit.” So Roman de Rou, 8942;
Other writers are less eager to set forth William’s humiliation. William of Jumièges (vii. 17) says, “Necessitate coactus Henricum Francorum Regem expetiit pro subveniendi obtentu.” The Brevis Relatio (ap. Giles, Scriptt. 3) says simply, “Contulit se ad Regem Franciæ.” William of Poitiers (81) slurs over William’s application to the King, and takes no further notice of Henry’s share in the campaign, beyond adding, after his account of the battle, “Interfuit huic prœlio Franciæ Rex Henricus, victrici caussæ auxilians.”
759. The original writers of course do not greatly trouble themselves about the seeming inconsistency of Henry’s conduct. There is perhaps a slight touch of sarcasm in the words of William of Jumièges (vii. 17), “Tunc tandem Rex memor beneficii quod a patre ejus sibi quondam impensum fuerat, vires Francorum simul coëgit.” So William of Malmesbury knows no motive but pure gratitude (iii. 230); “Necessitas Regem tutorem excivit ut desperatis partibus pupilli succurreret. Itaque paternæ benevolentiæ recordatus, quod eum favore suo in regnum sublimaverat, apud Walesdunas in defectores irruit.” We then find ourselves in the thick of the battle. Orderic (372 A) seems to make it an act of simple magnanimity on the King’s part; “At ille [Henricus], ut erat clemens, desolato adolescenti compatiens, robur exercitûs Francorum excivit, et in Neustriam Duci auxiliaturus perrexit.” William, or Orderic, in the death-bed summary (657 E), leaves out the French aid altogether; “Tunc auxiliante Deo, qui justus judex est, inter Cadomum et Argentias hostes vici.”
760. Roman de Rou, 8997. “La s’asemblerent li cumunes.” For the list of the districts which helped William see vv. 8946 et seqq.
761. See Appendix O.
762. My account of the field and battle of Val-ès-dunes is drawn from an examination made on the spot in May, 1867. In company with Mr. J. R. Green, I went over the whole ground, Wace in hand. No modern description can do more than amplify Wace’s few topographical touches (Roman de Rou, 8978 et seqq.), and his minute and spirited account of the battle. Every detail shows in how thoroughly honest and careful a spirit he set to work. On the topography, see De Caumont, Statistique Monumental du Calvados, ii. 84 et seqq., and Appendix O.
763. I should greatly like to come across some explanation of this puzzling name (see De Caumont, i. 53). Nothing is more likely than a Teutonic colony anywhere in these parts, but such a colony would hardly be called Allemannia. The name is ancient, as it occurs in William’s foundation charter of Saint Stephen’s. See Neustria Pia, 626. The copy there is not very accurate, as I can witness from having (for once) examined an original manuscript.
764. Roman de Rou, 8986;
765. Ib. 8982;
766. Ib. 8988:
767. Roman de Rou, 8990;