FirstpublishedinGreatBritainin1964byEyreMethuenLtd

Firstpublishedinpaperbackin1969byMethuenLondonLtd

ThiseditionfirstpublishedbyYaleUniversityPressin1999

Copyright©1964DavidC.Douglas

Newedition©1999TheEstateofDavidC.Douglas

NewForeword©1999FrankBarlow

Allrightsreserved.Thisbookmaynotbereproducedinwholeorin

part,inanyform(beyondthatcopyingpermittedbySections107

and108oftheU.S.CopyrightLawandexceptbyreviewersforthepublicpress),withoutwrittenpermissionfrom

thepublishers.

PrintedinGreatBritainbyGoodNewsDigitalBooks

LibraryofCongressCatalogCardNumber99-61176

ISBN978-0-300-07884-8(pbk.)

Acataloguerecordforthisbookis

availablefromtheBritishLibrary.

357910864

TOEvelynDouglas

CONTENTS

HalfTitleTitlePageCopyrightDedication

FOREWORDTOTHEYALEEDITION(byFrankBarlow)PREFACE

ABBREVIATIONSPROLOGUE

PartI·THEYOUNGDUKE

1BirthandInheritance2AccessionandMinority(1035–1047)3TheWarforSurvival(1047–1060)

PartII·THEDUKEINHISDUCHY

4TheDukeandtheNewAristocracy5TheEcclesiasticalRevival6TheRuleofDukeWilliam

PartIII·THEESTABLISHMENTOFTHEANGLO-NORMANKINGDOM

7NormandyandEngland(1035–1065)8TheConquestofEngland

(January1066–March1067)9TheDefenceoftheAnglo-NormanKingdom(March1067–November1085)

PartIV·THEKINGINHISKINGDOM

10WillelmusRex11TheFeudalPolity12TheRoyalAdministration13TheKingintheChurch

14TheEndoftheReign(Christmas1085–9September1087)Epilogue

APPENDICES

AThebirthofWilliamtheConquerorandtheconnexionsofHerleveBThechronologyofDukeWilliam'scampaignsbetween1047and1054

CThemarriageofWilliamandMatildaDThesequenceofeventsin1066EThechronologyofKingWilliam'scampaignsbetween1073and1081FOnpoisoningasamethodofpoliticalactionineleventh-centuryNormandy

SELECTCHARTPEDIGREES

SELECTBIBLIOGRAPHYSCHEDULEOFSELECTEDDATES

INDEX

MAPS

INormandyinthetimeofWilliamtheConquerorIIEnglandandNormandyinthetimeofWilliamtheConqueror

FOREWORDTOTHEYALE

EDITIONbyFrankBarlow

Full of honours, DavidDouglas died in 1982,eighteenyearsafterthisbook

wasfirstpublished.Althoughinterest in the Normanconquest of England hasincreased rather than abatedsince he wrote, Douglas'sWilliam the Conqueror hasnot been superseded. Theconquest has always beenregardedasthegreatturning-point in English history. Itwas the moment when thekingdom,which had evolvedout of the settlement of

Germanic peoples in Britaininthefifthcentury,andwhenalready shaken by theScandinavian conquest at thebeginning of the eleventhcentury, was given acompletely new and lastingdirection.Inpopularhistoryitisakeyevent; forscholars itis a stopping place,convenient for consideringseveral constitutional,economic and socialmatters.

It has attracted manydistinguished historians sincethe mid-Victorian age. E. A.Freeman published his TheHistory of the NormanConquest of England in sixvolumes between 1867 and1879, while concurrentlyexpanding and revising it.The conquest wasinvestigated by WilliamStubbs in the first volumeofhis The Constitutional

History of England (1873),and by Sir Frederick Pollockand F. W. Maitland in theirHistory of English Lawbefore Edward I (2 vols.,1895). And in the last yearsofthecenturyJ.H.Round,byattacking the views ofFreeman and his disciples inarticlesandreviews,madethesubjecthighlycontroversial.No one has doubted that

theNormanconquestwasthe

sole responsibility ofWilliam, duke ofNormandy:that without his ambition,drive and military talents itwould not have taken place.He is, therefore, one of thegreats of history. But for avariety of reasons he has notusually been found veryattractive. Ordericus Vitalis,theAnglo-Normanmonkandhistorian at Saint-Evroult,who, as a patriotic

Englishman, did not careovermuch for theConqueror,in his Ecclesiastical Historyreferred those of his readerswho wished to learn moreabout him to the judiciousaccount of William ofPoitiers, archdeacon ofLisieux, and, morehesitatingly, to the epic ofGuy, bishop of Amiens. HecouldhaveaddedWilliamofJumièges's contribution to

TheDeedsoftheDukesoftheNormansandrecommendedalook at theBayeuxTapestry.All these sources areinterrelated, with the epicmost probably the earliest indate. They did, indeed,provide an account of someparts of William's life anddeeds(vitaetgesta),butshedlittle light on his privatebehaviour (conversatio).Thereisscarcelyananecdote

in thewhole corpus. Perhapsrevealingly, themost vivid –and horrible – episode isWilliam's death and burial.AnditwaslefttoL.J.Engelsto point out in 1973 that thehitherto influential charactersketch in De Obitu WillelmiDucis NormannorumRegisque Anglorum wascopied almost verbatim fromEinhard's Life ofCharlemagne and the

‘Astronomer's’ Life of Louisthe Pious. In Bishop Guy'sepic William is just abloodthirsty warrior, ofamazingstrengthandcourageand without pity or remorse,in no way ‘chivalrous’. TheAnglo-SaxonChronicle in itsobituary notice followed theking's love and patronage ofmonksandhisdignityaskingwithastrongdenunciationofhis tyranny and injustice,

althoughallowingthathehadkept good order in thekingdom. In contrast,William's two elder sons,Robert, duke of Normandy,and William Rufus, king ofEngland, but not theyoungest, King Henry I,inspired much gossip andmany good stories.BiographersoftheConquerorare therefore forced toconcentrate their attention on

theeventsandtheireffectsonthe kingdom, the duchy andtheirneighbours.David (Charles) Douglas

(1898–1982),aScotandkeengolfer, studied at Oxfordunder a number of mostdistinguished medievalists, J.E. A. Jolliffe, E. A. Lowe,ReginaldLane Poole and thelegendary Vinogradoff – apupil of Mommsen and asometime professor in

Moscow University. And,after a foray into the East-Angliansocialscene,inspiredby Vinogradoff, he settleddownalmostexclusively toastudy of the Normans. Hisinterests were two-fold. Heexplored the historiographyof the Norman conquest ofEngland, attending especiallytotheEnglishantiquariansofthelate-Stuartperiod.Andbyadding to Freeman's

comprehensive knowledge ofthe chronicles a profoundstudy of charters and otherdocumentary evidence, bothEnglishand,mostly,Norman,he equipped himself well tocommemorate the Normanachievement. He alsodeveloped an excellentliterarystyle.Hebelievedthathistory is a branch ofliterature and that thehistorian shouldaimatbeing

intelligible and attractive tothe general reader. He wrotewell, displaying tactfully thefruits of wide reading. He isalways lucidandhad thegiftofmakingapt referencesandproducing interestingillustrations. At his grandesthe can be very grand. In anarticle on theHundredYearsWarDouglasclaimed, ‘Innoexact sense does historyrepeat itself. But the flux in

humanaffairsisconstant,andas the spiral unfolds, so aresimilar problems posed todifferent men with differentcapacities and desires. “Thegreat and exemplary wheelsof heaven” revolve, and wewhowatch them are broughtto contemplate afresh themarriage between Time andthe Hour.’ Likewise in thelecture hall he was a greatrhetorician; andwith his fine

voice his lectures were oftenastonishingperformances.For the English the

Norman conquest has alwaysbeenthemostagonizingcruxin their history. Was it adefeat or a triumph? Aturning-point or a newbeginning? The tensionbetween admiration of thenew French aristocracy andindignation at thedisplacement of the Old

English nobility isunbearable. Even Freeman,caught between his heroworship of Earl Godwin andhisrespectforDukeWilliam,did not know quite whichway to turn. BasicallyDouglas, in contrast to mostof his forerunners, inparticular Sir Frank Stenton,who published his WilliamtheConquerorin1908,wasaRomanist, more sympathetic

to the Romance features ofNorman culture than to theEnglish and Scandinaviantraditionstheyoverlaidandinpart replaced. Yet he pickshis way neatly among hispredecessors in the field andavoids unnecessarydisagreement andcontroversy. Douglas wasvery fair-minded. Althoughan admirer of the Normansand the first to write a

Normanno-centric account ofthe duke, he was withoutRound's contempt for theAnglo-Saxons. Indeed, hisbelief in continuity and ‘theseamless robe of history’made him soften Round'sasperitiesandcataclysmsandbrought him in some waysclosertoFreeman.WilliamtheConquerorwas

firstpublishedin1964andin1969Douglas followed it up

with The NormanAchievement, 1050–1100(London), a wide-rangingsurvey. Since 1964 there hasbeen a great output of booksand even more articles ondifferent aspects of theNorman conquest, most ofwhich elaborate or refinerather than refute Douglas'swork.Thebest reviewof thecontinentalbackgroundtotheconquest, based on recent

Frenchandhisownresearch,is David Bates, Normandybefore 1066 (Harlow, 1982),to which he added in 1989William the Conqueror(London). In 1994 he andAnne Curry producedEngland and Normandy intheMiddle Ages (London), acollection of essays byvarious hands. Among otherbooks published since 1964which have a bearing on the

conquest, the followingshould be noticed: C. W.Hollister, The MilitaryOrganization of NormanEngland (Oxford, 1965);FrankBarlow,William I andthe Norman Conquest(London, 1965); DorothyWhitelock, David C.Douglas, Charles H.Lemmon, Frank Barlow andC.T.Chevalier,TheNormanConquest (NewYork, 1966);

R. Allen Brown, TheNormans and the NormanConquest (Woodbridge,1969); The Impact of theNorman Conquest (London,1969),ed.C.W.Hollister;R.H. C. Davis, The Normansand their Myth (London,1976);FrankBarlow,WilliamRufus (London,1983);RobinFleming,Kings and Lords inConquest England(Cambridge, 1991); Ann

Williams, The English andthe Norman Conquest(Woodbridge, 1995); andJudith A. Green, TheAristocracy of NormanEngland (Cambridge, 1997).Many of these containexcellent bibliographies,useful for the periodicalliterature.This spate of largelymore

specialized monographs hasnot, however, destroyed the

value of Douglas's Williamthe Conqueror. R. H. C.Davis summed the positionupwellinhisveryperceptiveand sympathetic obituarymemoirintheProceedingsofthe British Academy, vol.LXIX (1983), a body whichDouglas adorned. Heconsidered that thebookwasa triumph. ‘It combined thequalities which he [Douglas]valued most, broad

scholarship, enthusiasm andimagination.Itbecamebothastandard work and abestseller.’

January1999

PREFACE

In 1963 I was appointedFord's Lecturer in EnglishHistory to the University ofOxford, and my firstobligation in connexion withthisbookistotheElectorstothat Lectureship whoseinvitation not only did mehonour, but impelled me to

bring to a conclusion certainstudies in Anglo-Normanhistory which had occupiedmuchofmy leisure formorethan twenty years. Thepresent volume differs in itsarrangement, and in itsmoreextended content, from thelectures I delivered on thesametheme.Butmygratitudefor the stimulus thus givenmeisnot therebyinanywaydiminished.

The importance of thesubject here considered hasbeen reflected in thecontinuous interest it hasexcited over the centuries,and in the continuouspropaganda it has inspired.Nonetheless,itishopedthata new study of William theConqueror and his times canbejustified,andtheparticularpurpose of this book will beapparent to readers of its

introductory chapter. Briefly,myaimshavebeentoeschewthe controversies of the past;to bring French and Englishscholarship here into closerrelation; and, throughout, tobase my study upon theoriginal testimony, some ofwhich has, I believe, beengiven a new cogency as aresultof recentcriticism.Forthis reason, a somewhat fullcitationof theauthoritieshas

been supplied since thisseems emphatically to be acasewherereadersshouldbegiven the opportunity oftesting for themselves theadequacy of the evidence aswell as the contrastedinterpretations which havebeen placed upon it. It isbelieved, however, that thosewho wish to do so will beable to read the textindependentlyofthecitations

which support it, and moredetailed discussion of certaindifficult questions has beenrelegatedtoappendices.A glance at the

bibliography will indicatehowheavilyIamindebtedtotheworkofothers,butitwillnotsufficetorecordthemanypersonal kindnesses I havereceived in connexion withthiswork. These are, in fact,too numerous to be

individually acknowledged,but I here offer my gratefulthanks to all thosewho havehelpedmeinsomanyways.I must, however, allude

specially to allmy friends intheUniversityofBristol.Mypupils have taught me morethantheyperhapsrealize,andamong them I wouldparticularly mention DrDavid Walker and Mr PeterHull.AsformycolleagueMr

James Sherborne, he hasincreasedmyexistingdebttohimbyhisvaluablecriticismofmuchthatIhavewritten.Iam obliged to Mr Freke forhelp in thepreparationof themaps, and I cannot besufficiently grateful for theinexhaustible patience andinterestofmysecretary,MissKathleenHek.Inaveryspecialsense,too,

I have been indebted to the

encouragementgivenmeoverthe years by my friends, SirFrank Stenton, Professor V.H.Galbraith,andMrDouglasJerrold.DomDavidKnowlesand Professor RichardSouthern have, moreover,been so kind as to read andcomment upon much of thebook in the laterstagesof itspreparation.Imustbecarefulnot to implicate any of thesedistinguished writers in such

errors of statement orinterpretation as may remainin my book, but the barerecital of their names willindicate themagnitudeof theobligationsIhaveincurred.Evenso, thegreatestdebts

remaintoberecorded.Itwasthat fine feudal scholar, MrLewis Loyd, who firstdirected my attentionconstructively to Anglo-Norman history, and who,

withcharacteristicgenerosity,allowedme to profit withoutstintfromhisinstruction,andfrom his own researches.Again, it wasMrs GermaineMason, my colleague in theUniversityofBristol,who,ata later date, with equalgenerosity, ledme to a freshappreciation of many of theproblems of French literatureandhistory.Mydebttothesetwo scholars, now, alas, both

dead,isnottobeexpressedina sentence. I only wish thatthisbookwasmoreworthyoftheir memory, and of theirfriendship.Certainly, no author has

ever been more fortunate inthe kindness of others, andthroughout the wholeprotracted undertaking mywife has played her ownessentialpart.Withouther, itwould never have been

sustained. She would notwishme tospeak indetailofherindispensableshareinourcommon work, or of all thatthis book owes to her. Thededication is gratefully hersbyright.

D.C.D.Bristol,1964

ABBREVIATIONS

The following abbreviationsareusedinthefootnotes.Forsome other books short titlesare used, and these are fullyextendedinthebibliography.

AS.Chron.

Anglo-SaxonChronicle.[Citedbyversionand

year.]

BayeuxTapestry.

ThisiscitedbyreferencetotheplatesintheeditionbyF.M.Stenton(1957),andbyreferencetotheplatesinE.H.D.,vol.11.

Cal.Doc.France.

J.H.Round,CalendarofDocumentspreservedinFrance,vol.1(1899).[Citedby

number.]

Carmen. CarmendeHastingaeProelio(oftenattributedto‘GuyofAmiens’).

Cart.Bayeux.

AntiquusCartulariusecclesiaeBaiocensis(LivreNoir),ed.V.Bourrienne,2vols.(1902,1903).

Cart.ÎlesNorm.

CartulairedesÎlesnormandes(Soc.

Jersiaise,1918–1924).

Cart.S.PèreChartres.

CartulairedeSaint-PèredeChartres,ed.Guerard(1840).

Cart.S.Trin.Roth.

ChartulariumMonasteriiSanctaeTrinitatisdeMonteRothomagi,ed.A.Deville(1840).

ChartesdeJumièges.

Chartesdel'AbbayedeJumièges,ed.J.J.Vernier,2vols.(1916).

D.B. DomesdayBook,2vols.(RecordCommission,1783).

E.H.D. EnglishHistoricalDocuments,vol.11,ed.D.C.DouglasandG.W.Greenaway(1953).

Eng.Hist.Rev.

EnglishHistoricalReview.

Flor.Worc.

FlorenceofWorcester.[Citedfromtheeditionby

B.Thorpe,2vols.,1848,1849.]

Gall.Christ.

GalliaChristiana(16vols.ofvaryingdate).

Lanfranc.Epp.

LanfranciEpistolae.[CitedbynumberfromtheseriesgiveninPat.Lat.,vol.CL.

LePrévost,Eure.

MémoiresetNotesdeM.AugusteLePrévostpourserviràl'histoiredu

Départementdel'Eure,3vols.(1862–1869).

Lot,Saint-Wandrille.

F.Lot,Étudescritiquessurl'abbayedeSaint-Wandrille(1912).

Mon.Ang. W.Dugdale,MonasticonAnglicanum,6vols.in8(1817–1830).

Ord.Vit. OrdericusVitalis,Historia

Ecclesiastica,ed.A.LePrévostandL.Delisle,5vols.(1838–1855).

Pat.Lat. PatrologiaeLatinaeCursusCompletus,ed.J.P.Migne.

R.A.D.N. RecueildesActesdesDucsdeNormandie(911–1066),ed.M.Fauroux(1961).[Thedeedsarecitedbynumber.]

Rec.Hist.Franc.

RecueildesHistoriensdesGaulesetdelaFrance(‘DomBouquet’),24vols.ofvaryingdates.

Regesta. RegestaRegumAngloNormannorum,vol.1,ed.H.W.C.Davis(1913);vol.11(1956),ed.C.JohnsonandH.A.Cronne.

R.Hist.Soc.

RoyalHistoricalSociety.[TheTransactionsarecitedbyseriesandvolume.]

Will.Jum. WilliamofJumièges,GestaNormannorumDucum,ed.J.Marx(1914).

Will.Malms.

WilliamofMalmesbury.[HisGestaRegumiscitedfromthe

editionbyW.Stubbs,2vols.(1887,1889);hisGestaPontificumfromtheeditionbyN.E.S.A.Hamilton(1870).]

Will.Poit. WilliamofPoitiers,GestaGuillelmiDucisNormannorumetRegisAnglorum,ed.R.Foreville(1952).

PROLOGUE

The subject of this book isWilliam the Conqueror. Itsobject is to consider theNorman impact uponEngland. It seeks to showhow, within the lifetime ofoneman,andlargelythroughhis acts, a single province ofGaul was enabled to effect

the conquest of an ancientkingdom, and it attempts toanalyse the character and theresults of that conquest.These topics (it will befurther suggested) maychallenge attention not onlyfor their intrinsic importance,but also by reason of theirenduring relevance to thesubsequent development ofEngland and of westernChristendom. And they are

made themore interestingbybeing inseparably connectedwith one of the mostspectacular biographies ofhistory.In one sense the theme is

familiar.NomedievalkingofEnglandismorefamousthanWilliam the Conqueror, andno event in the whole ofEnglish history has beenmore discussed than theNorman conquest. To call

attention to the massivetradition of scholarship1which has been inherited bythestudentofAnglo-Normanhistory in this period, itwould, indeed, beunnecessary to domore thanrecollect, for example, howthe seventeenth-centurylabours of André Duchesneand Jean Pommeraye inFrance were matched bythose of their great English

contemporaries – Selden,Spelman, and Dugdale; howthe eighteenth-centuryeditions of Wilkins andBessin still together offermaterialforcomment;orhowthis topic was later enrichedby Stapleton and Freeman inEngland; by Haskins inAmerica; by Steenstrup inDenmark;andbyAugusteLePrévost, Henri Prentout, andLéopoldDelisleinFrance.

Nordoesthisactivityshowany signs of abating. InEngland new editions areproviding students of thissubject with freshopportunities, and the finecollection of early Normancharters which has justappeared at the hands ofMadame Fauroux has mademore accessible than everbefore a wide range ofindispensablematerial.2 Such

textualstudiesare,moreover,beingmatchedbyneweffortsat interpretation. Thus inEnglandtheoriginsofAnglo-Norman feudalism are beingsubjected to re-examination,and the ecclesiastical historyof the age is being displayedwith ever-increasingelaboration.Atthesametime,inFrance,anewapproach toAnglo-Norman history isbeing successfully made by

Professors M. de Bouard,Jean Yver, Lucien Musset,and their colleagues in theuniversity of Caen. The listcould, of course, be easilyextendedanditwouldincludethe fundamental workassociated with Dom DavidKnowles and Sir FrankStenton. But even the baremention of a few selectednames may indicate thecontinuing interestwhich the

subject excites. It might alsoservetoraiseadoubtwhetheranythingnewcanbeaddedtothisaccumulatederudition.Nevertheless, a

reconsideration of this thememay perhaps be justified ifonlybecausewidedifferencesof opinion still appear in thework of its mostdistinguished exponents; andthese disagreements extendeven to the largest issues

involved. Thus Frenchscholars remain sharplydivided on the relativeimportance of theScandinavian factor in thegrowth of Normandy; and inrespectofthedevelopmentofAnglo-Norman feudalism,new theories are now beingpropounded in opposition tothoseof JohnHoraceRound,who himself reacted sovigorously against his

predecessors.Again(toquoteno more instances) theappraisal of the ecclesiasticalconsequences to England ofthe Norman conquest assupplied in the work ofHeinrich Böhmer or Z. N.Brooke may be contrastedwith that offered byProfessors Stenton andDarlington. Examples couldbe multiplied, but these maysuffice to point the paradox.

Thereis,ofcourse,nofinalityinhistoricalresearch,andtheebbandflowofcriticismandcorrection is essential to itsvitality. None the less thesituation here revealed issurely remarkable. Despitethe fact that the history ofWilliamtheConquerorandofthe Norman conquest ofEnglandhasbeenassiduouslystudied for three centuries,few periods of our history

remain more the subject ofcontroversy.Thereis,moreover,another

reason why a freshexamination of this thememay not be without profit.The modern student ofAnglo-Norman history findshimself today in a quiteextraordinary position. He isnot only the heir to a greattraditionofscholarship:he isalso subject to the influence

ofanevenlongertraditionofpropaganda. The treatmentaccorded to William theConquerorandtotheNormanconquest of England is,indeed, one of the curiositiesofEnglishliterature,anditissurely strange howconsistently over thecenturies the history of thisdistant age should haveprompted statesmen andlawyers, pamphleteers and

ecclesiastics into a war ofwords inspired by currentcontroversies or immediatepolitical stress.3 Argumentsconcerning the Normanconquest cover almost theentire span of English prose.ThusevenbeforethedeathofQueen Elizabeth I,Archbishop Matthew Parkerand his associates wereseeking in the Old EnglishChurch uncorrupted by the

Normans a prototype of thereformed establishment theywere called upon toadminister;andfewindeedofthecontentions–politicalandreligious – which vexedEngland during theseventeenth century weredebated without somereference either to theConqueror or to the Normanconquest. Here, for example,the common lawyers came

intoconflictnotonlywiththesupporters of the king butwith the new historiography,and it may be recalled howimportant to the Levellerswas their conception of the‘Norman yoke’.4 In theeighteenthcentury thedebatewas vigorously continued intheconstitutional sphere; andin the nineteenth it becameeven more highly colouredunder the influenceof liberal

andnationalsentiments.The result has been truly

astonishing. The posthumouscareer of William theConqueror in controversialliterature is almost asremarkable as his actualcareer in eleventh-centuryhistory. For generations hehas remained, so to speak, afigure in contemporarypolitics. He has beenpresented in terms of Whig

theory, of sectarian fervour,and of modern nationalism.Hehasbeenhailedasoneofthe founders of Englishgreatness,andasthecauseofoneofthemostlamentableofEnglish defeats.He has beenpicturedasthespecialenemyof protestantism, and as oneof the most strenuousopponents of the papacy. Hehas been envisaged as boththe author, and also as the

subverter, of the EnglishConstitution. In France, too,the tradition, though distinct,has not been dissimilar.William of Normandy hastherebeensalutedasaFrenchnational hero. He has alsobeen denounced as achampion of superstition andasanenemyofthepeople,sothat Calvinists andRevolutionaries were ledsavagely to desecrate his

tomb, and to scatter hisremains. Was he notrepresentative of that‘feudalism’ which has stillformally to be renounced byall new members of theLegion of Honour? Fewpersonalities in history havebeen more praised andblamedforactsinwhichtheyhadnoshare.It is, indeed, important to

realize how persistent has

been this polemical tradition,and to recall the lengths towhich,evenincomparativelyrecent times, it has beenexploited. As an example,there might be cited theutterancesoftwomenwhoonallgroundsmaybereveredaseminentVictorians–thatistosay, distinguished men in amostdistinguishedage.Here,for instance, is ThomasCarlyle in 1858 echoing in

somesense the sentimentsofJohnMilton, butwriting in amannerwhollyhisown:

Without the Normans [heexclaims]whathaditeverbeen?Agluttonous race of Jutes andAngles capable of no greatcombinations; lumbering about inpot-bellied equanimity; notdreamingofheroictoilandsilenceandendurance,suchas lead to thehigh places of the Universe, and

the golden mountain tops wheredwellthespiritsoftheDawn.5

The exclamation may wellprovokesurprise.Butitcouldbe matched (in the oppositesense)byremarksmadeafewyears earlier by EdwardFreeman in connexion withthe establishment of thepresent School of ModernHistory in the university ofOxford:

We must recognize [wroteFreeman, when debating the newExamination Statute of 1850] thespiritwhichdictatedthePetitionofRight as the samewhich gatheredall England round the banners ofGodwin, and remember that the‘goodoldcause’wastrulythatforwhichHarolddiedonthefieldandWaltheofonthescaffold.6

These, it will be recalled,were notable men who were

justly revered by theircontemporaries as exponentsof history. And the fact thatthey could write in such away about an episode ofeleventh-century historytestifies tothestrengthof thecontroversial tradition whichtheyinheritedandwhichtheysought to pass on to us theirsuccessors. Nor were theywholly unsuccessful in sodoing. Even today it is very

evident that the influence ofthis long polemical traditionhas not wholly evaporated,and it is something againstwhich every student ofeleventh-century Englishhistory should be set onguard.And if a specialobligation

is thus imposed upon abiographer of William theConqueror to avoid suchcontroversiesasextraneousto

his subject; to attemptobjectivity; and to eschewanachronistic sentiments; soalsoshouldhestrive toplacethe general problems withwhichheisconcernedintheirwidest contemporary setting.Beyond doubt, the latter halfof the eleventh centurywitnessed a turning-point inthe history of westernChristendom, and beyonddoubt Normandy and the

Normans played a dominantpart in the transformationswhich then occurred. By theconquest of a great kingdomthey effected a politicalregrouping of north-westernEurope with lastingconsequences both to Franceand England. They assistedthe papacy to rise to a newposition of politicaldominance, and they becameclosely associated with the

reforming movement in theChurch which the papacycame to direct. Theycontributed also to a radicalmodification of the relationsbetween eastern and westernEurope with results that stillsurvive. The Normanconquest of England maythusinonesenseberegardedas but part of a far-flungendeavour, the implicationsofwhichweretostretcheven

intothesphereofculture.TheNormans by linking Englandmore straitly toLatinEuropehelped what may be calledthe Romance-speakingpeoples to achieve thatdominance inwesternculturewhich they exercised duringthe twelfth-centuryrenaissance, so that, forexample, the great monasticmovements of that age,crusading sentiment and

troubador song, the newuniversities and the learningthat was fostered therein, allcame from a world that wascentred upon France, andwhich included not only theEngland which the NormansconqueredbuttheItalywhichthe Normans helped totransform.7This transferenceofpower

and influence was a primefactor in the making of

Europe, and the Normancontribution to it, thoughinspired by many diversemotives, was undoubtedlyconsiderable. But it was notinevitable,anditcamefromaprovince which some fortyyears before the Normanconquest of England showedbut few signs of its futureachievement. On the daywhenWilliam theConquerorwasbornitcouldhardlyhave

been foreseen.Whenhediedafter a career which was inevery way astonishing, itsresultswerealreadyassured.Here, then, is a problem

which invites solution. HowhadtheNormanpowerwhichwas to be so notablyexhibited under William theConqueror been attained?How had the specialcharacteristics of Normandyat that time been acquired?

AndwhatwerethefactorsofNorman policy which wasthen brought to itsculmination? Thesequestions, it would seem, lieacross the threshold of oursubject. But even to posethem indicates an importantconclusion.It is that thelongdebate on the consequencesto England of the Normanconquest can no longer beprofitably sustained unless a

fresh attempt be made toappraise,foritsownsake,thesocial and political characterof the Normandy whichconfronted England in 1066.This conviction is at alleventsimplicitinthechapterswhichherefollow,andithasdetermined their sequence. Ifthe Norman achievement atits zenith cannot bedissociatedfromthecareerofthe greatest of the Norman

dukes,itiscertainlynottobeexplained solelyby referenceto a single personality. Todiscriminate, in this sense,among the causes – generalandpersonal–oftheNormanimpact uponEngland, andofthehighlyindividualresultsitentailed is, in fact, aprimaryobject of the present study,and one which is largelyresponsible for the pattern ofthisbook.

William was theoutstanding member of anexceptional dynasty, and heruled over an exceptionalprovince of Gaul. What heaccomplished was thus inlarge measure due to hisinheritance.8 But thecircumstancesofhisbirthandof his accession were alsoexceptional,9 and before hecould be assured of hisheritagehewas forced intoa

hazardous struggle whichtested his courage, andannealed his character.10 Onthe outcome of that struggle,which involved not onlyNormandybuta largepartofnorthern France, thesubsequent strength of ducalNormandy was largely todepend, and only after itssuccessful conclusion couldWilliam complete theconsolidationoftheduchyon

which his power washenceforth to be based. Inthat work, too, he wasdependent upon social andpolitical movements whichhad begun before hisaccession. The Normanmilitary successes in theeleventh century weredirectlydependentontherisein the province of a newsecular aristocracy,11 and thequalityoftheinfluencewhich

Normandy was to exerciseduringthelifeofWilliamtheConqueror was conditionedby the ecclesiastical revivalwhich at the same timetransformedtheChurchintheprovince of Rouen.12 It wasWilliam's achievement notonlytofosterandco-ordinatethese movements but also todominate them. Only thus istobeexplainedthesuccessofhis rule overNormandy, and

the subsequent expansion ofNormaninfluenceoverseas.13The same considerations

apply also to William's latercareer. He was placed in apositionofcrucialimportanceat a critical moment in thepolitical development ofwestern Europe, but he wascapable of turning thatsituation to his ownadvantage,andtotheprofitofthe Norman duchy. The

Scandinavian impact onEurope in the tenth andeleventh centuries hadalready bound together thefates of Normandy andEngland, and posed for thefuture the fundamentalquestion whether, for theremainder of the MiddleAges, England should belinked toLatinEurope ratherthan to the Scandinavianlands. That problem,

complicated by so manypersonalandpoliticalfactors,dominated Anglo-Normanrelations until the climax of1066, and to its solutionWilliam undoubtedly madehis own individualcontribution.14 Prepared andmade possible by previoushistory, the conquest ofEngland owed itsaccomplishment,andmanyofitsmajorconsequences,tohis

initiative, and the Anglo-Norman kingdom wasestablishedthroughhim.15Itscontinued existence was,however, long in doubt andits defence, conductedthrough years of hazard,displayed to the full theenergy and capacity of itsruler. That defence (as willhere be suggested) was aunifiedendeavourinvolvingacontinuous series of

interconnected operations onboth sides of the Channel,and it was the essentialprerequisiteforthefulfilmentof William's constructivework.16William's claim to be

considered as a man oforiginal genius must restultimatelyuponhisruleoftheconjoint realm which hecreatedanddefended.In1066he achieved royalty with all

thesanctifiedauthoritywhichthis implied.17 By thusacquiring a special status inthe secular and ecclesiasticalworldoftheeleventhcentury,hefoundhimselfpossessedofnew opportunities andresources. He used them tothefull,andinamanner thatwas characteristically hisown. He established inEngland the new aristocracyhe brought from overseas,

and through its agency hemodified the structure ofEngland's society by theapplication of new principlesof social organization whichwereinturntoreactupontheprovince from which hecame.18 Yet, both inNormandyandinEnglandhewas faithful to tradition, andin England, especially, itbecame a cardinal feature ofhis administration to respect,

and toutilize, thecustomsofthe kingdom he hadconquered.19 Similarly,William brought to Englandthe influence of theecclesiastical revival whichhadtakenplaceinNormandyunder his rule, and theChurch in England whoseorganization was therebyremodelled was brought intoa new relationship with themovementofreformwhichin

the time of Hildebrand wasbeginning to pervade thepolitics of Europe.Nevertheless, William'secclesiastical policy as aconsecrated king of Englandremained highly individual,and the position he came tooccupy in the EuropeanChurch was scarcely lessnotable than that which hefilledintheEuropeansecularorder.20 Nor was there any

abatement of his activities asageadvanced.Thelasttwentymonths of his reign were toinvolve a final crisis in thedefenceofhisrealm,andalsotheproductionofthegreatestwritten memorial to hisadministration. His work didnot cease until his tragicdeath and still more terriblefuneral.21His life possessed an

heroic quality and men soon

found little difficulty inapplying to him phrasescomparable with those usedin lauding the fabledCharlemagne in the ‘Song ofRoland’.22 In view of this,and stillmorebecauseof thelater controversies of whichhe was the object, it is noteasytomakeasoberestimateof what he accomplished.Certainly this could only beachieved,ifatall,byadirect

study of the contemporaryevidence such as here hasbeen attempted. It deservesnote, therefore, that,consideringtheremoteperiodfrom which it derives, suchevidence is surprisinglyplentiful. A bare recital of afew selected items may ofitself suffice to display itsabundance. It is not merelythat the great king left inDomesday Book his own

magnificent record of thekingdom he had conquered,or that the Bayeux Tapestrysupplied shortly after theevent a unique pictorialrepresentation of the centralepisode of his career. Thewhole period is illustrated inthe Anglo-Saxon Chronicle,and is completely covered inone of its recensions, whilstwritersinEnglandofthenextgeneration, such as William

of Malmesbury, Simeon ofDurham,Eadmer,andtheso-called ‘Florence ofWorcester’, give fullprominence to the events ofthese years. Again, afascinating early life ofEdward the Confessor,together with the lives andletters of ArchbishopLanfranc,mayby themselvessuffice to indicate how fullythehistoricalnarrativeofthis

age can be supplemented bythe biographies and thecorrespondence it produced.Equally copious are thecharters. Nearly threehundred instruments issuedbyWilliam theConqueroraskingbetween1066 and1087havebeen calendared, and tothese can be added aconsiderable number ofprivate deeds,most ofwhichhavebeenreproducedinprint

from original or cartularytexts.The extended scope of the

evidence deriving fromEnglandisfairlywellknown,but the fact that the Normansources of Anglo-Normanhistory in this period arelikewise abundant is lessgenerally appreciated on thisside of the Channel. TheNorman annals23 are, it istrue, less full than their

Anglo-Saxon counterparts,but as has recently beendemonstrated, they presentfeaturesofunusual interest,24whilst the Acta of thearchbishops of Rouen25 arenot only interesting inthemselves, but arerepresentativeofafairlylargeclass ofmaterial. InWilliamof Jumièges, whose accountcontinues until 1070–1071,we have a contemporary

Norman chronicler of goodstanding,26 and his work isgiven colour by the treatiseon the Conqueror composedabout the same time byWilliam of Poitiers. It is,moreover, particularlyfortunate that the productionof both these writers, whosework stands in close but atpresent undefined relation toeachother,shouldinthenextgeneration have fallen under

the notice of an author ofsome genius. Theinterpolations made byOrdericus Vitalis to theseventhbookofthechronicleofWilliamofJumiègesareofparticular value,27 and most,if not all, of the lost portionof the work of William ofPoitiers is embodied inQrderic's own great HistoriaEcclesiastica, whichmust bejudged the most valuable

single narrative source ofAnglo-Normanhistoryinthisperiod.Nor is there any lack of

documentary materialderiving from the duchy atthis time. The records of theNorman church councils arebothcopiousandinformative.Norman private charters ofthe eleventh century are alsofairly numerous, and inaddition to those still

awaiting investigation in theArchives of Eure and Seine-Maritimemanyofthemareinprint, though, being scatteredthrough many volumes ofvarying date and accuracy,they are difficult of access.Again, many of the chartersissued by William himselfafter 1066 are likewise ofNorman origin. But it is thepre-Conquest ducal texts thatare here particularly

noteworthy. There is awidespread impression inEnglandthatsuchinstrumentsarerare.Onthecontrary,theyare very numerous. Itdeserves considerableemphasis that not less thanone hundred and thirtycharters, issuedorsubscribedby William as duke ofNormandybetween1035and1066,areextantandinprint28– a number which

approximatesfairlycloselytothat of all the genuinesurviving charters and writsissued by Edward theConfessor during the wholeof his reign for thewhole ofEngland. If less is known ofpre-ConquestNormandy thanofpre-ConquestEnglanditisassuredlynotbecauseoflackof testimony. Perhaps theevidence has been somewhatneglected by English

scholars. At all events thisessentialmaterialremainstheleast worked source ofAnglo-Normanhistoryinthisage.ThebiographerofWilliam

theConquerorhasinshortnoreasontocomplainoflackofevidence. The difficulty liesin its assessment. It is by nomeans easy, for example, toelucidate the interrelationbetween thevariousnarrative

sources; the interpretation ofDomesday Book isnotoriously difficult; andthere are few harder tasksthan to criticize eleventh-centurycharters in respectoftheir form, their dating, andtheir authenticity. A furtherproblem is posed by thespecial character of thesubject, and the unevenspread of the testimony.Legendgatheredveryquickly

aboutWilliamtheConqueror,and much that is frequentlyrelated of him is fabulous.Muchmore, thoughprobablytrue, derives from evidencethat is very scanty. There ishere, therefore, a specialnecessitytorecallthesalutarycaution of Mabillon that theduty of the historian is notonlytoproclaimcertaintiesascertain and falsehoods asfalse,butalsouncertaintiesas

dubious. For this reason amodern study of theConqueror must includemuch criticism of evidencerelating to points of detail.29But the investigation cannone the less be justified bythe wider issues that wereinvolved. For these in truthwere fundamental, and theconsequences of what thenoccurredarestillaliveamongus today. Seldom can a

decisive and constructiveepochinhistorybeexaminedmore directly through thecontemplation of a particularseries of events – and in oneman'slife.

1MostoftheolderworksarecitedinC.Gross,SourcesandLiteratureofEnglishHistory(ed.1915),andinE.Frère,Manueldebibliographenormand(1858,1860)–a

whollyadmirablework.Cf.alsoDouglas,NormanConquestandBritishHistorians(1937),andtheselectbibliographygivenbelowonpp.427–447.

2RecueildesActesdesDucsdeNormandie(MémoiresdelaSociétédesAntiquairesdeNormandie,vol.XXXVI,1961).CitedhereafterasR.A.D.N.

3Douglas,op.cit.;alsoEnglishScholars,chaps.IIIandVI.

4J.A.Pococke,Ancient

ConstitutionandtheFeudalLaw(1957);C.Hill,DemocracyandtheLabourMovement(1959).

5FredericktheGreat,vol.I,p.415;quotedbyW.Stubbs,ConstitutionalHistory(ed.1891),vol.I,p.236.Cf.J.Milton,HistoryofBritain(ed.1695),pp.356,357.

6LifeandLetters(ed.W.R.W.Stephens),vol.I,p.125.

7Cf.R.W.Southern,MakingoftheMiddleAges,especiallypp.

15–57.8Chap.1.9Chap.2.10Chap.3.11Chap.4.12Chap.5.13Chap.614Chap.7.15Chap.8.16Chap.9.17Chap.10.18Chap.11.19Chap.12.

20Chap.13.21Chap.14.22Cf.thephrasesinAS.Chron.,s.a.1087,withthoseusedintheChansondeRoland(vv.371–374andvv.2331,2332).Cf.Douglas,FrenchStudies,vol.XIV(1960),pp.99–114.

23Mon.Germ.Hist.Scriptores,vol.XXVI,pp.489–495.

24J.Laporte,AnnalesdeJumièges(1954),pp.7–23.

25Rec.Hist.Franc.,vol.XI,pp.70

etsqq.Cf.E.Vacandard,Rev.catholiquedeNormandie,vol.III,p.123.

26SeparatedfromitslateradditionsintheeditionofJ.Marx(1914).Citedhereafteras‘Will.Jum.’.

27L.Delisle,Bibliothèquedel'ÊcoledeChartes,vol.LXXI(1910).

28R.A.D.N.,pp.242–449.29Forthisreasonasomewhatfullcitationoftheoriginaltestimony

hasbeengiveninthefootnotestothepageswhichfollow.

PartI

THEYOUNGDUKE

Chapter1

BIRTHANDINHERITANCE

William the Conqueror –Duke William II ofNormandy,KingWilliamIofEngland–wasbornatFalaisein 1027 or 1028, andprobably during the autumn

ofthelatteryear.1HewasthebastardsonofRobertI,sixthduke of Normandy, byHerleve, a girl of that town.His parentage was thusremarkable. Little is knownabout his mother, forcontemporary writers arediscreetly silent about herorigins. Later testimony,however, indicates that herfather's name was probablyFulbert, and there is

substantial evidence tosuggestthatthis‘Fulbert’wasa tanner.2 Herleve'sconnexionwith thedukewasnone the less to advance notonly her own fortunes butthoseofherkinsfolk.Fulbertwas apparently given asubordinate office at theducal court, and Herleve'sbrothers, Osbert and Walter,appear as witnesses toimportant charters.3 Herleve,

herself, shortly after theConqueror's birth, wasmarried off to Herluin,vicomte ofConteville, and tohimshewastobeartwoverydistinguished sons, namelyOdo, the famous bishop ofBayeuxandsubsequentlyearlofKent,andRobert,countofMortain, later one of thelargest landowners ineleventh-century England.Thewholesubsequenthistory

of north-western Europe wasthus to be influenced by theoffspring of this obscure butremarkable girl, who died itwould seem in or about1050.4 Students of genetics,and of ‘hereditary genius’,may,moreover,betemptedtocomment on the youth ofWilliam's parents. Robertcannot have been more thantwenty-oneat the timeofhisconnexion with Herleve, and

in all likelihood he wasyounger, possibly in hisseventeenth year.5 The girlherself was probably noolder.If, however, William's

motherwasof humble stock,his fatherbelonged tooneofthe most interesting familiesof Europe. For he was thedirect descendant ofRolf theViking,who,afteracareerofdepredation, had, in or about

911, been recognized as alegitimaterulerinNeustriabytheemperor,CharlesIII(‘theSimple’), and had thereafterpassed on his power in anunbroken succession to hisson William, nicknamed‘Longsword’ (died 942), tohis grandsonDukeRichard I(942–996), and to his great-grandson Duke Richard II,the Conqueror's grandfather,who was to survive until

within three years ofWilliam's birth. Little morethanacentury thus separatedthe establishment in Gaul oftheVikingRolffromthebirthof his most illustriousdescendant, and William'sinheritance,which hewas sosignallytoenlarge,derivedinlarge measure from theposition acquired in theViking dynasty in Gaul, andfrom the manner in which

their power had beendeveloped.6Rolf,7 known to his

Frankish posterity as Rollo,was probably of Norwegianstock, being the son ofRögnvald, earl of Möre, andbefore his formalestablishment inGaulhehada long career as a Viking,raidingnotonlyinFrancebutalso, as it seems, inScotlandand Ireland. In 911, having

entered Gaul afresh, perhapsbywayoftheLoirevalley,hewas defeated in a pitchedbattle outside the walls ofChartres,anditwasafterthisthatheandhisfollowersweregivenlandsbytheemperorinthevalleyofthelowerSeine.Whetherthisfamousgrantoflands and recognition wasmade (as tradition laterasserted) after a formalinterview between Charles

and Rolf at Sainte-Clair-sur-Epte is questionable, and theapplication of the term‘treaty’tothesearrangementsis undoubtedly too precise.What, however, is certain isthat before 918 Rolf and hisfollowers already heldconsiderable lands in thisregion,andthattheyhadbeenformally confirmed inpossession of them by theemperor.8 Equally certain is

that in token of the newpositionhewashenceforthtooccupy in Gaul, RolfacceptedbaptismatthehandsofthearchbishopofRouen.9His power was steadily to

grow. The muniments ofJumièges,Saint-OuenandLeMont-Saint-Michel, taken inconjunctionwiththenarrativeof Flodoard of Rheims,indicate that the earliestdemesne of the dynasty was

confined to an area boundedbytheEpte,theOrne,andthesea:itwasconcentratedinthedistrictlyingonbothsidesofthe Seine between LesAndelys and Vernon, andstretchedtothewestnearlyasfarasÉvreux,andtotheeastalong the Epte towardsGisors.Between911and918RolfwasalsoinpossessionofRouen itself and of certaindistricts on the sea-coast

dependentonthatcity,andby925 he was apparentlyestablished as far to the eastas Eu. Westward, however,the progresswas to bemuchmore gradual. Not until 924was the rule of the newfamily extended from theOrneto theVire,andonlyin933 (after the death of Rolf)was it carried by his sonWilliam Longsword as farwestastheCouesnon.10

These frontiers (whichwere to endure) are of thehighest interest. For theywerenot imposedbyNature.Indeed, the Normandy overwhich William waseventually to rule may beregarded as an expression ofhistory rather than as aproduct of geographicalconditions. Its physicalstructurewasdiversified,andit possessed on the landward

side no clearly definednatural boundaries.11 TheBresle and the Epte on theeast, the Sélune and theCouesnon on the west, aresmall streams, and in thesouth the Avre,marked as itwas to be by the strongholdsof Nonancourt, Tillières andVerneuil,wasa strategic linerather than a natural frontier.By contrast, the great valleyof the Seine running through

themidstoftheprovince,anddividing it, led past thedebatable land of the VexinintotheveryheartofFrance.Up and down that waterwaythere was always constantpassage which linkedNormandy to Burgundy, andRouentoParis.EvenbetweenRouenandOrléansisnogreatdistance,andtheriverswhichlie in between are neitherlarge nor formidable. Thus,

though eleventh-centuryNormandy was a highlyindividualland,itwasalwayslinked to France. Two of theancient road systemsofGaulpassed across it.12 The routefromMarseillesandLyonstotheEnglishChannel, bywayofParisandMantes,followedthe Seine valley to meet thesea at Lillebonne andHarfleur. Similarly, the roadwhich united the Channel

with the valley of the Loireproceeded from Tours to LeMans, and then on to SéesandBayeux.Toandfroalongthese roads, as up and downthe valley of theSeine, therepassed a commerce ofmerchandiseand ideaswhichflowed across the frontierswhich were the product ofhistoricalcircumstance.Not only were the land

frontiers of Normandy

insubstantial, but the regionthey enclosed wasgeographically divided. Thedistinction between Upperand Lower Normandy is, inthisrespect,wellmarked.Theeast of the province isgrouped naturally round thereaches of the lower Seine,for thewide district boundedby the Bresle and Epte, theAvre, the uplands of Perche,andthoseoftheupperVireis

all dominated by the greatriverwhich flows through itsmidst. Within these areasthere are defined regionsmarked by their ownpeculiarities, but all areunitedinacommonterritorialstructurewhichhasproducedan open countryside ofcornfields, orchards, and offarm life. This landmakes acontrast with the countrywhichlies tothewest,which

forms, geologically, theeastern bastion of theBretonmassif. Here the fertile plaingivesplacetomoorlands,andtothesouthoftheBessin,theBocage normand resemblesthe Breton Vendé moreclosely than it does thecountry of the Seine valley.Lower Normandy lookswestward and feels thewestern sea. Its maritimeconnexions link it with

Brittany rather than to theSeine basin. The westernseaboard of the Cotentin,rocky and forbidding, heremeets the north shore ofBrittany, and, with it,encloses a bay which mightserve as the frontier of asingle province, while thepoint at which the coastsintersect might appear thenatural site for a provincialcapital. Attempts were,

indeed, actually made in theeighth century to givepolitical expression to thisgeographicaldemand.13Theywerenot toendure.Nonetheless, if today the estuary ofthe Couesnon marks thewestern boundary of theNorman land, this isdue,nottoNature,buttothehistoricalprocess which createdmedieval Normandy. And,even so, the distinction

between Upper and LowerNormandy was long topersist. It substantiallymodified the heritage ofWilliam the Conqueror, andatonepointinhiscareerwasnearly to bring destructionuponhim.The duchy to which

William succeeded in 1035thus owed its politicaldefinitionnottoNaturebuttoan historical development

whichintheeleventhcenturywasalreadyof longduration.It was the Romanadministrators who perhapsfirst realized that the greatcoastal curvewhich stretchesfrom Eu to Barfleur (andwhich, unlike the coast ofPicardy, faces north) mightimpart a special identity tothe lands it bounds. At allevents, they established heretheadministrativeprovinceof

Lugdunensis Secunda, whichabouttheyear400,accordingtotheNotitiaProvinciarumetCivitatum, comprised theterritory appurtenant to theseven cities of Rouen (theprovincial capital), Bayeux,Avranches, Évreux, Sées,Lisieux, and Coutances.14This, as might be said, wasthefirstpoliticaldefinitionofmedieval Normandy, andhereaselsewhereinGaulthe

permanence of the Romanarrangements was to beassured by the Church. Theprovincial organization, asdescribed in the time ofHonorius, was coeval withthe introduction ofChristianity into this region.Rouen had become aChristian metropolis by theclose of the fourth century,and there are reasons forbelievingthatthebishopricof

Bayeux, where Christianitywas preached at a very earlydate, was established shortlyafter 400. Bishops fromAvranches, Évreux, andCoutances took part in thecouncil of Orléans in 511,whilstin533thereisspecificreferencetoabishopofSées,and in 538 to a bishop ofLisieux.15 Before the end ofthe sixth century, therefore,the Norman bishoprics had

beenfirmlyestablishedintheancient Roman civitates, andthus itwas that the traditionsof the Second Lyonnaisewere to be carried intoMerovingian Neustria andbeyond. The results were toinfluence the wholesubsequent history ofNormandy. The identity ofthe province was to surviveeven the Viking devastationsof the ninth century. And in

the eleventh century,Normandy could still bedefinedasroughlycoincidentnot only with LugdunensisSecunda but also, and moreparticularly, with theecclesiastical province ofRouen and its six dependentbishoprics.By 933, therefore, the

conquests of the newVikingdynasty had been made tostretch over an ancient

administrative province, butthey had not overpassed itsbounds. Their limitationswere thus as remarkable astheir extent. Less than ahundredyearsbeforethebirthofWilliamtheConqueror,therule of the Scandinavianfamily to which he belongedhad been halted at frontierswhich were indicated not byphysical conditions but by along process of earlier

history. The crucial questionthus arises as to how far hispoliticalinheritance–howfarthe character of theNormandywhich he came torule – had been modifiedduring the ninth and tenthcenturiesbytheScandinaviansettlementsinNeustria.16It is generally agreed that

Normandy in 1066 was anexceptionalprovince,anditisbothplausibleandveryusual

to account for itsindividuality by reference tothe intrusion of aScandinavian population intothis area of Gaul. Nor isevidence wanting to supportthis suggestion. The numberofRolf's followerswhoweregiven land in Neustria is notknown, but the region inwhich they were settled hadthen been subject tocontinuous visitations from

Scandinavia for nearly ahundred years. Theexceptional violence of theVikingattackinthevalleyofthe lower Seine is wellattested, and Normanchroniclersofa laterdateareunanimous in asserting thatconsiderable depopulationthen took place. Dueallowancemustherebemadefor exaggeration, but thetestimonyalbeit late isnot to

be wholly set aside easily.The process, moreover, didnot end with the coming ofRolf. It is known thatconsiderable migration intothis region took place duringthe central decades of thetenthcenturyandtheagrarianrevolt in Normandy whichmarked its close was soremarkable both for its dateandforitsorganizationthatitmight be tempting to explain

it by the survival among anewly settled warriorpeasantry of traditions ofpersonal freedomcomparableto those which the peasantryof the North MercianDanelaw retained until thetimeofDomesdayBook.17Asimilarconclusionmight

be suggested by reference totheChurch inNeustria.Laterwriters were naturally proneto magnify the devastation

caused by the paganadversaries of Christendom,but there is no doubt thatduring the earlier half of thetenth century theecclesiastical life which hadformerly distinguished theprovince of Rouen had beendisrupted.The surviving listsof Norman bishops showgaps at this time which areeloquent testimony to whathad occurred. In the tenth

centurytheseeofCoutances-Saint-Lô seems to have lostall connexion with a districtthat had lapsed intopaganism, and no less thanfive successive bishops ofCoutances resided atRouen.18 In the Avranchinconditions were equally bad,andlateinthetenthcenturyabishopofSéesistobefoundusing stones from the citywall to rebuild his

cathedral.19 The monasticcollapse was even morepronounced, and it isprobable that in the thirddecade of the tenth centurynot a single monasteryremainedintheNormanland.It would appear, also, that

despite the baptism of Rolf,theVikingdynastyitselfonlyslowly renounced thetraditionsofitspaganpast.Itis not impossible that Rolf

reverted to paganism beforehisdeath,anditiscertainthata pagan reaction sweptthroughtheprovinceafterthemurder of his son WilliamLongsword in 942. In theensuing years the wholeprovince was given over towarfarebetween rivalVikingbands, and during the earlyreign of Rolf's grandson,RichardI, thechiefsupporterof settled order appears to

have been not the duke butthe French king, Louisd'Outre-Mer, who in 942overthrew the pagan Sihtric,and who in 945 suffereddefeat at the hands of theViking Harald.20 Sixteenyears later a veritable crisisdeveloped, and the terriblewar which ravaged theprovince between 961 and965 reproduced many of theworst features of the ninth

century.21 The settlementwhich marked its close was,however, to prove decisive.In 965DukeRichard ImadeapactwithLothairatGisors,and in the following year hewas to restore themonasteryof Le Mont-Saint-Michelwith the king's approval.22 Itwas an arrangementcomparablewith that of 911,and,asmarkingastageinthedevelopmentofNormandy,it

was to prove scarcely lessimportant.Fromthistimeforwardthe

position of the Vikingdynasty was rapidly tochange. It entered into closerrelations with the politicaland ecclesiastical authoritiesofGaul,andatthesametimeNormandy itselfbecameevermoresusceptibletoLatinandChristian influences. But,even so, the Scandinavian

affinities of the provinceendured, and Normandycontinuedtobeinonesenseaperipheral part of theScandinavian world, sharingin its commerce and itsinterests, and to some extentparticipating also in itsViking adventures. In theclosing decades of the tenthcentury, Ethelred II ofEngland was moved toprotest thatViking raiders of

England were receivinghospitality and assistance intheNormanports, and itwasnotfornothingthataslateas996Richer, the chronicler ofRheims, could refer to aNorman duke as the Vikingleader, pyratarum dux.23Evenmorestrikingperhapsisthe fact that in 1014, withinfifteen years of the birth ofWilliam the Conqueror – hisgrandfather,DukeRichardII,

could welcome in hisChristian capital of Rouen apagan host from ScandinaviawhichundertheleadershipofOlaf and Lacman hadrecently spread devastationover a considerable area ofnorth-westernGaul.24In faceof suchevidence it

would be rash to minimizetheScandinavianfactorinthemaking of Normandy. Nonethe less, it might be easy to

overestimate its importance.It is becoming increasinglyopen to question whetherScandinavia in the ninth andtenth centuries could haveproducedsuchalargesurpluspopulation as to account forsuch extensive migrations asare currently postulated.25And apart from this generalquestion, the particularconditions in Neustria mightmerit closer consideration.

The exhaustive examinationwhich has recently beenundertakenofNormanplace-namesastheyarerevealedintextsofthetenthandeleventhcenturies, has displayed asurprising number of Latin-Scandinavian hybrids, andthishasbeenheld to indicatethat the settlement of largegroups of peasant warriorsfromScandinavia inNeustriawas, to say the least,

exceptional.26 Still moresignificant is it that onmanylarge estates in the province,the events of the early tenthcentury do not seem to haveinterrupted a tenurialcontinuity which hereproceeded with scarcely lessmodification than elsewhereinnorthernGaul.27DoubtlessScandinavian influencevariedfromdistricttodistrictin Neustria, and certainly it

wasstrongerinthewest thanintheeast.Butalreadybythesecond quarter of the tenthcentury,Scandinavianspeechhad become generallyobsolete in Rouen, though itpersistedinBayeux,28andthelater assimilation ofNormandy into thecultureofFrance was eventually to beso rapid, and finally tobe socomplete, that of itself itmight suggest an

administrative and politicalcontinuity betweenCarolingian Neustria andducalNormandy.There is, moreover,

positive evidence to showthat such continuity did infacttakeplace.Itisinevitablein this matter to turn first tothe Church, which was thenatural repository of thetraditions of ChristianNeustria.ThebaptismofRolf

had been the cardinal featureof the arrangements of 911–912,andit imposeduponthenew ruler ecclesiasticalobligationswhichhemaynotwholly have evaded. Hisreputedattempt to resuscitatethe earlier religious life ofNeustriamustbe regardedasan exaggeration of laterwriters,butsomeconcessionsmay have been exacted fromthe newly converted Viking,

and some of his allegedbenefactions, particularlythosetoSaint-OueninRouen,may in fact have beenmade.The reputation of his sonWilliam Longsword as afriend of the Church, thoughlikewiseundulymagnifiedbyhis posterity, rests, however,on surer foundations. Theevidence of the charters ofthreereligioushousesgivesatleast some support to later

legendsthathewasinterestedin the re-foundation of theNeustrian monasteries, andthat he was particularlyassociated with the re-establishmentofJumièges.29Not, however, until after

965 did the process gathermomentum. The pactbetween Richard I andLothairmarkedthebeginningof a period wherein Normanmonasticism became, under

ducal initiative, subjected tothe influence of greatmonastic reformers fromoutside the province. Thuslate in the tenth century,MainardwastointroduceintoNormandy the ideas of SaintGérard de Broigne fromGhent, and early in theeleventh,amorefundamentalinspiration came with theadvent,byducalinvitation,ofWilliam of Volpiano who

brought to the duchy the fullforce of Cluniac teachingfrom Dijon. As a result,through the agency of theViking dynasty, four of thegreatest monasteries ofCarolingian Neustria hadbeenre-establishedbeforetheaccessionofDukeWilliam,30and other new foundationshadbeenmade.31Atthesametime the organization of theprovinceofRouenwasbeing

reconstituted. A famouscharter of Duke Richard I in990 displayed the Normanbishoprics once more in fullaction.32 The manner inwhich this ecclesiasticalrevivalwasbegun,andhowitwas extended and developedin the time of William theConqueror, will beconsidered in some detaillater in this book, for itconditioned his personal

achievement, and itsubstantially affected thecharacter of the NormanimpactuponEngland.Hereitmust suffice to note that theduchy to which DukeWilliam succeeded in 1035might already be regarded asanecclesiasticalunit fortifiedbyancient traditions thathadbeen revived by the ducalhouse.The same continuity

betweenCarolingianNeustriaand ducal Normandy issuggested by many featuresof the political structure ofthe duchy at the time of theConqueror, and by referencetothemannerinwhichithadbeendeveloped.Therecanbelittle doubt, for instance, thatthe grant by Charles theSimple to Rolf vested theViking leader with some atleast of the rights and

responsibilities of aCarolingiancount,33 and it iscertainthat‘count’wasatitlemuch favoured by earlymembersofhis family.Whatwas the formal practice ofRolfandWilliamLongswordin this matter is not known,since apparently they did notnormally issue writteninstruments to confirm theirgifts.34 But the Icelandicwriter,AritheLearned,could

in the eleventh century referto Rolf as Ruðu jar , and acharter for Jumièges whichpassedin1012coulddescribehis son as count of Rouen.35In like manner the LatinLament for WilliamLongsword, which wascomposed about the end ofthe tenth century, salutedRichard I as count ofRouen,36 and the usage wasthereafter very frequently

followed in officialdocuments.Inachartergivento Fécamp in 990 Richard Istyled himself ‘count andconsul’, and between 1006and 1026 not less than ninecharters of the time ofRichard II spoke of him ascount.37 Other titles wereused alongside this, andwiththe advance of the eleventhcenturythatof‘duke’cametopredominate.But inmany of

his chartersWilliam's father,Robert I, is styledcount, andthe practice was kept up bytheConquerorhimself.38Much more was here

involved than merely formalusage. By acquiring thetraditional title of count, theViking dynasty not onlyvested itself with thesanctionsoflegitimacy,butitcould in consequence layclaimstoimportantprivileges

and powers. TheCarolingiancount by virtue of his officehadwide rights to theprofitsof public justice, and fiscalrights also over the imperialestates which lay within hisjurisdiction.39 All theseadvantages seem to haveaccrued to the new rulers ofNeustria, and they did so,moreover, at a time, and inconditions, when they mightbe especially valuable. With

the decline of the centralauthority, the countseverywhere gained moreindependence,andtheycouldin addition now exploit totheirownbenefittheimperialestates which had beenentrusted to theiradministration. This process,as iswell known, took placethroughout northern Gaul.But in tenth-centuryNeustriathe situation was particularly

favourable to the rulingfamily. For owing to theprolonged Viking wars, andowing to the rapidexpansionof the power of the newdynasty between 919 and933,therehadsurvivedinthewhole wide region betweentheBresleand theCouesnon,betweentheAvreandthesea,no rival count who coulddisputepowerwiththenewlyestablished counts of

Rouen.40 The significance ofthis fact to the growth ofducal authority in Normandywas certainly veryconsiderable, and itsconsequencesweretobeseeninthepoliticalstructureoftheduchy in the time of theConqueror. Duke William IIafterhisaccessionwastofindhimself surrounded bycounts. But the comitalhouses to which they

belonged were all then of avery recent establishment,and all of them withoutexception were closelyconnected with the ducaldynastyitself.The process by which this

had takenplacewas toentailresults of such importance tothe future that it deservessome illustration.41 The firstprivateindividualtobestyledcount in Normandy was

Rodulf of Ivry, half-brotherof Duke Richard I, whoassumed the title between1006and1011,andthereafterseveral of the sons of thatduke were similarlydesignated,perhapsbyreasonof their birth. ArchbishopRobert of Rouen, forinstance, claimed to be alsocountofÉvreux,andin1037hewastopassonthedignityto his eldest son Richard.

Again, about 1015 twoillegitimate sons of DukeRichard I, Godfrey andWilliam, became counts, thelatterbeingcertainlycountofEu; and after their deaths,GilbertofBrionne,thesonofGodfrey,was a count,whilstWilliam's son, Robert, wasbefore 1047 recognized ascount of Eu. In LowerNormandy a similardevelopmentoccurred.About

1027,therewasestablishedinthe extreme west of theprovince a certain CountRobert, who was veryprobably one of DukeRichard I's bastards: he maywell have been count ofMortain as was certainlyWilliam Werlenc, who waspossibly his son and whosurvived until after 1050.Apart from the Conqueror'sfather, who may have been

count of the Hiémois beforehe became duke, no othercount can be discovered inNormandy before 1050 withtheexceptionofWilliam,sonofDukeRichardII,whoveryearlyintheConqueror'sreignwasmadecountofArques.42Here may be found a

further indication of themanner in which the Vikingdynasty had been enabled toextend and make effective

over the whole of Neustriathe comital powers which ithad itself inherited from theCarolingian past. Indeed, theappearance as count of cadetmembers of the reigningfamily may well have beenconnectedwith some schemeof defence for the Vikingprovince as a whole. Theearliest Norman countsappear to have beenestablished at Ivry, Eu, and

Mortain. The first faced thecountofChartres, thesecondguardedtheeasternborderofNormandy, whilst Mortainlay across the line of BretonadvancebywayofPontorson.These were frontier districtseven as were the principalearldomsoverwhichatalaterdatetheConquerorwastosethis comites in England.43There is thus no reason tosupposethattheadvancement

to comital status ofmembersoftheducalfamilyduringtheearlier half of the eleventhcentury indicated anydiminution of the ducalauthority. Rather, it may beconsideredaspartofasettledpolicy by which the Vikingdynasty, relying on earliertraditions, had extended itsownadministrativepower.Thesameconclusioncould

be reinforced by reference to

the vicomtes who werelikewise a characteristicfeature of eleventh-centuryNormandy.Even as thedukehad for long been the solecount in Normandy so alsohadvicomtesbeenestablishedin the province before thelocal counts. A vicomte ofArques can, for instance, befoundinthatdistrictbeforeacount was set over it,44 andthose regions of Normandy

such as the Cotentin, theAvranchin, and the Bessinwhich were to produce thegreatest families of vicomtesneverinthisperiodpossesseda count of their own. Theearly development of theofficeisalsonoteworthy.Notlessthantwentyvicomtescanbe personally identified inNormandybetween1015and1035, and the number wassoon to be increased.45

Equally significant is it thatthevicomtes seem from theirfirst appearance in ducalNormandy to have beenagents of the ducaladministration, and regularsuitors to the ducal courtwhere they performed manyof the functions laterdischarged by the householdofficials. It is in factimpossible to escape theconclusionthatthevicomtein

eleventh-century Normandywas not simply (as his titleimplies) the deputy of acount: he was morespecifically thedeputyof thecount of Rouen who hadbecomedukeofNormandy.Both the Norman comtés

and the Norman vicomtéswhich had come intoexistencebythetimeofDukeWilliamIIthusderivedmuchoftheirspecialcharacterfrom

an earlier process of history.They were based, moreover,notuponnewterritorialunitsbut upon the administrativedivisions of CarolingianNeustria which hadthemselves survived theViking wars.46 If theConqueror's fatherwascountof the Hiémois he presidedover a district whose earlieridentityisillustratedinalongseries of Merovingian and

Carolingian texts; and thecount of Évreux exercisedjurisdiction over the ancientEvreçin which had enjoyedanindividuallifeintheeighthand ninth centuries. Thecomté of Eu likewiserepresented a territory whichwas distinct in the time ofRolf. And it was the samewith the vicomtés. TheCotentin is mentioned, forinstance, in a sixth-century

Life of Saint Marculf; theAvranchin was similarlydefined at an early date; andthe Bessin was of veryancient origin. A similardevelopment might bedetectedinthechurch.Inthereconstructionof theNormanchurch which wascharacteristic of the eleventhcentury,manyofthedioceseswhich were thenreconstituted, and many of

the archdeaconries whichwere then established, werebased, albeit withconsiderablemodification,ontheancientterritorialunits.The continuity here

revealed deserves comment.Thecharacteristicsubdivisionof Carolingian Neustria hadbeen the pagus. But at thetime when Rolf wasestablished in Gaul, the pagiwithin the western empire

were everywhere beginningto disintegrate, though theirdisruptionwasnottobecomegeneralbefore the endof thetenth century.47 Rolf and hisimmediate successors,therefore, possessed ofspecial powers through theirunique comital status inNeustria,wereheregiventhespecial opportunity to arrest,or to postpone, adisintegration which was

taking place with greatrapidity elsewhere. It wouldseem that they seized it, andcontinued for some time topreserve thepagi as units oftheir own administration. Atthe beginning of the secondquarter of the eleventhcentury,forexample,thepagiofSaire,Hague,andBauptoisin the extreme north of theCotentin were given in theirentirety by the Conqueror's

uncleDukeRichardIIItohiswifeAdela,andabout1040acharter could correctlydescribe the newlyconstituted comté of Arquesas the Pays de Talou.48 Thegrowthofanewfeudalorderbasedupontenureandservicewas soon tomask the earliergrowth. Nevertheless, theconformity of eleventh-century Normandy, as awhole, and in its parts, to

ancient areas and institutionsof government merits fullemphasis. The Vikingdynasty had thus acquiredthroughspecialcircumstancesa special authority. Its verysurvival during thetumultuousyearsofWilliam'sminoritywas,aswillbeseen,to depend in no smallmeasureonthisfact.The debt of ducal

Normandy to older political

and ecclesiastical institutionslendsa special interest to therelationshipwhichatthetimeof William's birth had beenestablished between theNorman dynasty and theruling house of France. Forthis too is only to beexplained by reference to anearlier development.Whatevermayhavebeen theprecise terms on which thegrant of land was made to

Rolf by Charles III – andthese are open to dispute49 –there is no doubt thatvassalagewasclaimed,andifitspracticalimplicationswereoftenignoredbyRolfandhisimmediate successors, itseems also that they weresometimes acknowledged.The solemn reception ofLouis d'Outre Mer at Rouenby William Longsword in942 was probably a

recognition of thisrelationship, and thesubsequent murder of theduke later in that year maynot have been unconnectedwith it. Again, if the famousstory of the abduction of theyoungDukeRichardIbytheFrench king undoubtedlycontains legendary elements,it may well represent theassertionofanoverlordofhisright to bring up the infant

sonofadefunctvassalathisowncourt.50What, however, is more

relevant to the Conqueror'sinheritance is that thisvassalage, always claimedand sometimes recognized,was in due course to betransferredtotherisinghouseof Capet, and in thisdevelopment, too (thoughtherewereearlierconnexionsbetweenthetwofamilies),the

period following thesettlement of 965 was toprove decisive. In 968RichardIformallyrecognizedHugh the Great as hisoverlord, and after the royalcoronation of Hugh Capet in987, the French kings of thenew family consistentlyregarded the Norman dukesas their vassals.51 Moreover,throughouthislongreign,theConqueror's grandfather,

Duke Richard II, repeatedlydischarged the duties whichsuchvassalageimplied.52Theconsequences to the futurewere to be profound. Indeed,the relationship was in duecourse to prove an importantfactor in the survival of boththe dynasties concerned. In1031–somethreeyearsafterthe birth of William – theyoung King Henry I ofFrance,flyingfromthewrath

of his mother, Constance,took refuge in Rouen, andcalling on the Norman dukefor support was therebyenabled to regain hiskingdom.53 Correspondingly,in 1047, it was theintervention of Henry I onbehalf of his Norman vassalwhichthenrescuedtheyoungDuke William fromdestruction.54Of less intrinsic interest,

but equally indicative of theincreasingparticipationoftheNormandynastyintheaffairsof Gaul, were the relationswhich had developed aboutthe same time between theducalhouseandBrittany.Thefuture pattern of theserelations was in fact setduring the firstdecadeof theeleventh century by twonotable marriages.55 Theformer of these was a union

betweenHawisa, daughter ofDukeRichardIofNormandy,andGeoffreyofRennes,whowas subsequently count ofBrittany. The latter was amarriage between DukeRichard II of Normandy andJudith of Brittany who wasGeoffrey's sister. These twomarriages followed closelyuponeachother, and there isreason to suppose that theywerealsoconnectedaspartof

a common design tosafeguard the welfare of thetwo families. Such, at allevents, was the result. OnGeoffrey's departure in 1008on the pilgrimage duringwhich he died, his two sonsAlan III and Eudo, then oftender age, were left underthe tutelage of their Normanmother, and in consequenceRichard II, who was bothbrother and brother-in-law to

Hawisa, immediately begantoplayadominantpartinthegovernment of Brittany.56Similarly, after Richard II'sdeath, and particularly afterWilliam's succession as dukein1035,AlanIIIofBrittany,the son of Geoffrey, was tofindhimselfdeeply involved,and highly influential, inNormanaffairs.57TheNormaninheritanceof

William the Conqueror was

thusmadeupofmanydiverseelements, and in particular itderived from two contrastedtraditions. The extent ofScandinavian influence uponthe growth ofNormandy hasperhaps sometimes beenoverestimated, but itsconsequences were none theless considerable, and ithelped to distinguish theprovinceoverwhichWilliamcame to rule from its

neighbours in Gaul. On theother hand, the family towhich William's fatherbelonged, and which wasitself a characteristic productof Scandinavian expansion,had from the start rested itspower on other and moreancient foundations which itsought to strengthen ratherthan to destroy. It had beenestablishedbyimperialgrant;it had utilized and vitalized

theadministrative institutionsoftheCarolingianage;ithadassociated itself with theCapetian rulers of France;and it had linked its fortuneswith those of the Church inthe province of Rouen. Theprocess by which this hadbeen achieved was gradual.Before the pact of Gisors in965 the Scandinavianaffinities of Normandy,though weakening, remained

strong. Between 965 and1028 they becamesubordinate, as the duchybecameincreasinglyabsorbedin the surrounding Latin andChristian civilization ofFrance. As a result, theNormandy, which under theleadership of William theConqueror was in the thirdquarter of the eleventhcentury to reorientate thehistory of England, was

French in its speech, in itsculture, and in its politicalideas.Such was the heritage to

whichWilliamtheConquerorwas eventually to succeed.Butwould thebastardboyatFalaise ever be permitted tograspit?And,ifseized,couldheretainit?Andhowmightitbe so exploited as to deflectthe future development ofwesternChristendom?

1Below,AppendixA.2Otheroccupationshavebeensuggested;e.g.thathewasamanwhopreparedcorpsesforburial.Thetraditionthathewasatanneris,however,strong,andthetanneriesatFalaisewerefamous.

3Ord.Vit.,interp.Will.Jum.,p.157;R.A.D.N.,no.102,andperhapsLot,Saint-Wandrille,no.20.

4Below,AppendixA.

5ThismaybeinferredfromthedateofthemarriageofRobert'sparents.ThetraditionaldateforthemarriageofRichardIIandJudith,namely1008,canhardlybeaccepted,butevenifthemarriagebeplacedfiveyearsearlier,theimplicationsareremarkable.Inthatcase,allowingforthenormalperiodsofpregnancy,Robert,whowasjuniortohisbrotherRichardIII,couldnot,attheearliest,have

beenbornbefore1005.Buttoplacehisbirthasearlyasthisitisnecessarytostretchalltheevidencetothelimitofpossibility,byassumingthatamongthesixchildrenofRichardIIbyJudiththetwoeldersonswerebeforeanyofthethreegirls–afactforwhichthereisnoevidence.SeeDouglas,inEng.Hist.Rev.,vol.LXV(1950),pp.289–303.

6Douglas,RiseofNormandy

(1949);publishedseparately,andalsointheProceedingsoftheBritishAcademyforthatyear.

7ThecontroversialliteratureconcerninghimisconsideredbyDouglas,inEng.Hist.Rev.,vol.LVII(1942),pp.417–436.ThenamemayrepresentO.NorseHraithulfr;orO.Swed.Hrithulf.

8Rec.Actes–CharlesIII(ed.Lauer),no.XCII.

9PrentoutÉtudesurDudon,pp.

250–259.10Douglas,RiseofNormandy,pp.7–9.

11VidaldelaBlache,TableaudelagéographiedelaFrance(Lavisse,HistoiredeFrance,vol.I,partI,pp.171–183).

12Powicke,LossofNormandy(1913),pp.14and15.

13SolomonofBrittanythusincludedtheCotentininhisdominion,andanattemptwasmadetoerectDolintoa

metropolitansee(ChroniquedeNantes(ed.Merlet),pp.26–28).

14Stapleton,Rot.Scacc.Norm.,vol.I,pp.xxxvii–xxxviii.

15Gall.Christ.,vol.XI,p.136;Prentout,LaNormandie(1910),p.33.

16Onthismuchdebatedquestion,seeM.deBouard,‘DelaNeustriecarolingienàlaNormandieféodale’(Bull.Inst.HistoricalResearch,vol.XXVIII(1955),pp.1–14);J.Yver,‘Le

développementdupouvoirducaleenNormandie’(AttidelCongressodiStudiRuggierani,Palermo,1955);andL.Musset,‘Lesdomainesdel'époquefranqueetlesdestinéesdurégimedomainialeduIXeauXIe

siècle’(Bull.Soc.Antiq.Norm.,vol.XLIX(1942),pp.9–98).

17Dudo(ed.Lair),pp.129–131;Will.Jum.,pp.7–13;F.Lot,‘Lagrandeinvasionnormande856–861’(Bibliothèquedel'Écolede

Chartes,vol.LXIX,pp.5–62).18L.B.deGlanville,PrieurédeSaint-L6,vol.I(1890),pp.21–24.

19Ord.Vit.,interp.Will.Jum.,pp.165–168.

20Flodoard,Annales(ed.Lauer),p.63;Lauer,Louisd'OutreMer,pp.100,287.

21F.Lot,LesderniersCarolingiens(1891),pp.346–357.

22Rec.ActesLothaireetLouisV

(ed.Halphen),no.XXIV;Prentout,ÉtudesurDodon,pp.447–451.

23Ed.Waitz(1877),p.180.24Will.Jum.,pp.85–87;TranslatioS.Maglorii(Bibliothèquedel'ÉcoledeChartes,vol.LVI,pp.247,248).

25Cf.P.H.Sawyer,inBirminghamUniv.Hist.Journal,vol.VI(1958),pp.1–17.

26SeethenotableseriesofarticlesbyJ.AdigarddesGautriesin

AnnalesdeNormandie(1947),etsqq.Cf.Stenton,inR.Hist.Soc.,Transactions,series4,vol.XXVII,p.6.

27Musset,op.cit.28Dudo(ed.Lair),p.221.Cf.AdémardeChabannes(ed.Chavanon(1897)),p.148:‘ManyofthemreceivedtheChristianfaith,andforsakingthelanguageoftheirfathersaccustomedthemselvestoLatinspeech.’

29Douglas,RiseofNormandy,p.13;J.G.Philpot,MaistreWace,aPioneerinTwoLiteratures(1925),pp.85–127.

30Jumièges;SaintWandrille;LeMont-Saint-Michel;Saint-Ouen.

31e.g.Fécamp;Bernay;HolyTrinity,Rouen;Cerisy-la-Forêt.

32R.A.D.N.,no.4.33J.Yver,op.cit.,p.186.34R.A.D.N.,nos.36,53.35Ibid.,no.14,bis;OriginesIslandicae(ed.Vigfussonand

YorkPowell),vol.I,p.187.36Lair,GuillaumeLongue-Epée(1893),pp.66–68.Cf.AdémardeChabannes(1897),p.189:‘RicardusRothomagensiscomes.’

37R.A.D.N.,no.4andnos.9,17,18,22,23,29,32,44,and46.

38Ibid.,nos.64,65,73,80,andpp.239–454.

39Cf.FusteldeCoulanges,Transformationsdelaroyauté(1922),pp.421–434.

40Yver,op.cit.,p.186.41Forwhatherefollows,seetheevidencegiveninDouglas,‘TheEarliestNormanCounts’(Eng.Hist.Rev.,vol.LXI(1946),pp.129–156).

42WillJum.,p.119.43Below,pp.294–296.44RainaldwasvicomteofArquesbefore1026(ChevreuxetVernier,ArchivesdeNormandie,plateIX).WilliamwasnotmadecountofArquesuntilafter1035.

45Ihavenotedthefollowingamongthosenamedasvicomtesinchartersbetween1015and1035:Nigel;Tescelin(andRichardhisson);Thurstan(Goz);AlfredtheGiant;Richard;Wimund;Odo;Siric;Geoffrey;Rainald;Goscelin(sonofHedo);Ersio;Aymon;Hugh;Rodulf;Anschetil;Gilbert;Erchembald;Gerard.Thecareersofmanyofthem,oroftheirdescendantsinthereign

ofDukeWilliamII,willbeillustratedbelow.

46LePrévost,‘LesanciennesdivisionsterritorialesdelaNormandie’(Soc.Antiq.Norm.,Mémoires,vol.XI(1840),pp.1–19).Whatfollowsinthisparagraphisderivedfromthatremarkablearticle.

47J.-F.Lemariginer,inMélanges–Halphen(1951),pp.401–410.

48R.A.D.N.,no.58;ChartesdeJumièges,vol.I,no.XX;

Musset,op.cit.,p.96.49Flodoard(Annales(ed.Lauer),pp.39.55,75),threetimesseemstospeakofformalcommendation,andCharles'sdiplomaof918(Rec.ActesCharlesIII(ed.Lauer),no.XCII)statesthatthegrantwasmadeforthedefenceofthekingdom(protutelaregii).Ontheotherhand,thesamecharterspeaksofthegrantsasbeingmadeto‘theNormansofthe

Seine’–Nortmannissequanensibus–apluralformofwordsinappropriatetoafeudalgrantaslaterunderstood.

50Flodoard,Annales,p.84;Richer(ed.Waitz),p.53;Dudo(ed.Lair),p.209.

51R.A.D.N.,no.3;Lot,FidèlesouVassaux?pp.177–192.

52Douglas,RiseofNormandy,p.12.

53Will.Jum.,p.105;Lot,Saint-Wandrille,no.13.

54Below,pp.48–50.55Will.Jum.,p.88;Ann.S.Michel(Delisle,RobertdeTorigni,vol.II,p.231);Douglas,Eng.Hist.Rev.,vol.LXV(1950),pp.289–291.

56LaBorderie,HistoriedeBretagne,vol.III,pp.8–10.

57Below,pp.36–38.

Chapter2

ACCESSIONAND

MINORITY1035–1047

Little is known of William'schildhood, and it must bepresumed that it was passed

in the obscurity of hismother's home at Falaise.Later, legends inevitablydeveloped that his greatnesswas immediately recognized,and his future achievementsanticipated.1 But there is noevidence to warrant thissupposition. Posterity mightdwell on the romanticcircumstancesofhisbirth,butsentiment could not alter thefactsofthesituationnormask

William's essentialillegitimacy. William,although to be in due coursestyled ‘the Conqueror’2 or‘the Great’,3 was for hiscontemporaries emphatically‘WilliamtheBastard’.Nor isthere any reason to supposethatduringhisinfancyhewaseverconsideredasapossiblesuccessor to the Normanduchy. It is noteworthy thathis father never sought to

legitimize him by makingHerlevehiswife.Nevertheless, during these

yearstherewasemergingthatpattern of Norman politicswhich was to make possiblehiseventualaccession,andtoprovidethebackgroundtohisminority as duke. Hisgrandfather, Richard II, haddied on 23 August 1026,4afterareignofnearlytwentyyears, leavingsixchildrenby

hisBretonwife,namelythreedaughters5andthreesons,6ofwhomtheeldestwasRichard,and the second Robert, theConqueror'sfather.Itwastheformerof these, thenperhapsabout eighteen years of age,who succeeded as DukeRichard III in 1026, whilstRobert apparently becamecount of the Hiémois.7 Thearrangement, however,proved unstable. Robert

disputed his brother'sposition, and establishedhimselfatFalaise.Asaresult,during the autumn of 1026andtheearlymonthsof1027,hostilities persisted betweenthem.Thenon5or6August1027, Richard III suddenlydied.8Posteritywasnot slowtoaccuseRobertoffratricide,and though this cannot beproved, he was certainly thechief gainer by his brother's

death.ForthoughRichardIIIhad left a young legitimatesonnamedNicholas,thechildwas immediately relegatedfirst to the monastery ofFécamp and then to that ofSaint-Ouen inRouen,9 and itwasRobert,whowashimselfscarcely more than a boy,whobecamethesixthdukeofNormandy.He was to rule Normandy

foreightyears,10 but inview

ofthecircumstancesinwhichhe had acquired power it isnot surprising that his reignshould have opened withviolence. The civil warbetween him and his brotherhad divided the duchy, andinvited further disorder.There is evidence, forinstance, that thenewseculararistocracy, whose rise topower in theprovincewas tobesonotableafeatureofthis

period,11 took advantage ofthe situation to advance theirfortunes by private waragainst their neighbours,whilst many of the lessfortunate in these struggleswere, about this time, todepart from the duchy inorder to rehabilitatethemselves elsewhere andparticularly in southernItaly.12 There is testimony,too, thatmanyof them, such

asthefamilyofMontgomery,tooktheopportunitytoenrichthemselves at the expense ofthe church, and that theyoften did so with theconnivanceoftheduke.13Itissmall wonder, therefore, thatthe monastic records andannals became filled withcomplaints, or that the dukehimself should have fallenunder ecclesiasticalcensure.14 By 1028, indeed,

matters were approaching acrisis. In that year Robert,archbishop of Rouen, whohad apparently endeavouredto restrain the young duke,was besieged by him atÉvreux, and was forced intoexile,whereuponhepromptlylaid Normandy under aninterdict.15NorwereRobert'searly troubles circumscribedby the bounds of his duchy,for during the opening years

ofhis reignhefoundhimselfat war with his cousin AlanIII of Brittany, who mayperhaps (by reason of hisparentage) have hopedhimself to succeed to theNorman duchy.16 In thesecircumstances, there wassomedangerthat inthevividphrase of Hugh of Flavigny,Normandy might become‘debauched’withanarchy.17By 1031, however, the

situation had been largelyretrieved, and thechiefagentineffecting the recoverywasthe metropolitan archbishopofRouen.Robert,archbishopofRouen,was inmanywaysa most remarkable man.Brother to Duke Richard II,hehadbeenappointed to themetropolitan see as early as989, and ever since he hadbeencloselyassociatedinthegovernmentof theduchy.He

appears, for instance, as awitness to not less thanfourteen charters of RichardII.18 He was reputedlyresponsiblefortheconversionof the future Saint Olaf in1014, and hewas certainly amunificent benefactor of theabbey of Saint-Père ofChartres.19 But his interestswerebynomeansexclusivelyecclesiastical.HetooktowifeawomannamedHerleve,and

by her he had three sons:Richard, Ralph of Gacé, andWilliam.20Further,accordingto later testimony, he wascount of Évreux at the sametimeashewasarchbishopofRouen.21 Certainly, he heldthe lands which laterpertained to the comté ofÉvreux,andequallycertainlyhis son, Richard, becamecount ofÉvreux immediatelyafter his father's death.22

Robert,thus,mightbesaidtohavecombinedinhimself,byhis inheritance, and throughhiscareer,manyoftheducal,aristocratic, and evenecclesiasticaltraditionswhichwerelatertoprovidethebasisof Norman might. Possessedof such power, so diverselyderived,andhimself ruthless,mundane, and capable, hissupportwasby1030essentialto his young nephew, the

dukeofNormandy.The archbishop's recall

from exile thus becameimperative, and with it ageneral stabilization of theduchy began. The interdictwas lifted, and thereconciliation between DukeRobert I and his uncle wasmarkedbytheissueofoneofthe most interesting chartersof the period23 whereby theduke and archbishop,

apparently by way of treaty,confirmed the possessions ofthe cathedral church ofRouen. Equally significantwas theendingof theBretonwar. The archbishop broughthis two nephews together atLe Mont-Saint-Michel, andpersuaded them to a trucewhose terms are uncertain,but which possibly includedthe performance of homageby Alan to Duke Robert.24

What was more important,however, was that by thesemeans the archbishop hadonce more renewed theadvantageous connexionbetween the two dynastieswhichhadbeencharacteristicof the latter years of DukeRichardII.Alanwasleftfreeto consolidate his position inBrittanyagainsthisnumerousrivals. Robert was liberatedfrom menace on the western

border of his duchy, andmight hope for support fromAlan III in any policy hemightadoptathome.From this time forward

until his death in 1037Archbishop Robert of Rouenwas tobe thedominant forcein Normandy, andresponsible, in part at anyrate, not only for theincreased prosperity of theduchy during the remainder

ofthereignofDukeRobertI,but also in largemeasure forthe conditionswhichwere tomake possible the successionof William in 1035. Duringthese years, for instance,there can be seen forming apowerful group of Normanmagnateswhowere speciallypledged to Robert's support.Prominent among them wasGilbertofBrionne,thecount,a grandson of Duke Richard

I,andtheancestorofafamilywhichwastobeverynotableboth in Normandy andEngland.25 A man of largepossessions, particularly incentral Normandy, and ofunbounded ambition, hebecame closely associatedwith Duke Robert about thistime, and is to be foundfrequently witnessing hischarters.26 Nor was he alonein this respect, for during

these same years a yet moreinteresting person is to befound with the young duke.ThiswasOsbernwhosesisterGunnor had married DukeRichard I, and who washimself to found the fortunesofoneofthegreatestofthosefeudal familieswhose rise inNormandywillhereafterhaveto be considered.27 Alreadyby 1034 he had become oneof the foremost of the new

territorial lords in theprovince, and it wassymptomaticof the improvedposition of Duke Robert thatsuchamanshouldhavebeennow content to serve asdapifer, or steward, in theducalhousehold.28Such, then, was the

positionoftheducalpowerinNormandy during the lastyearof thereignofRobert I.The elements of disorder

inherent in a society whichwas ina stateof fluxhad,ofcourse, by no means beensuppressed, and it issignificant that evenafterhisreconciliation withArchbishop Robert, the dukewas compelled to resort toarms when Hugh, bishop ofBayeux, refused the ducalordersandfortifiedhimselfinhis castle of Ivry.29Nevertheless the duke's

authority had been preservedand strengthened, and hisprestige outside his duchywas considerable. Rulers ofother lands were eager toobtainhis support,orat leastrespected his enmity. HisrelationswithCnut theGreatwill hereafter call to beexamined, and Ethelred II ofEngland together with hiswife and two sons hadalready sought protection in

Normandy.30 Baldwin IV ofFlanderswasforashort timeathiscourt,andhehadmadean ally of Alan III ofBrittany.31Most importantofall, he had by the promptdischarge of his feudal dutyin 1031 placed the king ofFranceinhisdebt.32Athomehe had gained the adherenceof a strong group among therisingaristocracy,andhehadsecured the support of the

powerful archbishop ofRouen, who, more thananyone else, could make hisrulerespectedandeffective.It was in these

circumstances that late in1034 Duke Robert made thesudden and astoundingresolvetodepartforthwithonpilgrimage to Jerusalem.33Thesecularirresponsibilityofthe decision naturallyprovoked an outraged

opposition on the part ofthoseNormanmagnateswhohad assisted him to build uphis power. Yet Robert wasnot to be dissuaded, and inseeking to account for an actwhichseemstobafflemodernexplanation, it must berememberedthathewasheremovedbyoneofthestrongestimpulses of the age.34 ThusFulkNerra, the terriblecountofAnjou,hadin1002goneto

Jerusalem to expiate hiscrimes, and, despite greathardships, he was twice toreturn there.35 Similarly, in1008, Geoffrey of Brittanyhad likewise set forth onpilgrimage to the HolyLand.36 And soon SweynGodwineson,brotherofKingHarold II of England, amanwhose violence and brutalityhad caused him to becondemned as ‘nithing’, or

worthless,byhisassociates,37was to set out for Jerusalem,andtoperishfromcoldintheAnatolian mountains on thejourney.38 Such, moreover,were but outstandingexamples of this particularexhibition of penitenceoperatinginthemostunlikelyquarters. The strangeatmosphere of the eleventhcentury was charged withviolent emotions resulting in

lurid crimes and fantasticpenances. And the idea ofpilgrimage was pervasive.Already the shrine of SaintMichael at Monte Garganowasattractingasteadystreamofpilgrims,particularly fromNormandy,andabout1026aNorman duke had sponsoredthe great pilgrimageassociated with Richard,abbot of Saint-Vanne.39Certainly, the impulse to

pilgrimage was strong, andperhaps Robert felt somespecial need to attempt togainbysuchmeansaprivateabsolution. It was lateralleged that he wished topurge himself from guilt inthedeathofhisbrother.40Atall events, in thecontemporary circumstances,it is not wholly inexplicablethat the call to Jerusalemshould have been answered

by a young man who seemsalways to have combinedwithin himself a violent lackof scruple with a strain ofromanticrashness.Resolute in his

determination, he thereforeconvoked a notable meetingof Norman magnates, who,ledbythearchbishop,soughtin vain to turn him from hispurpose. They urged withtruththatitwasfollyforhim

now to leave a duchy whichhe had acquired only afterwarfare, and which he hadonly with difficulty retained.Theyadded,withequaltruth,thathecouldpointtonomanwho might be able, or whocouldbetrusted,tosafeguardhis interests during hisabsence; nor in the event ofhisfailingtoreturnwasthereanyheirwhocouldexpect tosucceed himwithout dispute.

Robert'sresolvewashoweverformed,andatlengthheevensecured some support. Hebrought forward his infantson, his bastard by Herleve,and persuaded the magnatesto recognize William as hisheir. They did so, and sworethecustomaryoathsof fealtyand obedience. Shortlyafterwards, Duke RobertdepartedfromNormandy.41He was never to return.

The story of his pilgrimagepassed speedily into legend:men told of the splendour ofhis retinue, and how hiswealth andmagnificence hadimpressed even the emperorof the East. They addedpraise for his devotion, andextolled the lavishgenerositywith which he endowed theHoly Sepulchre.42 Thoughthere is evidently here muchexaggeration the whole story

should not be dismissed asfalse. Other Norman dukeshad been noted for theirbenefactions to the HolyLand,andWacewhotellsthestory of Robert's pilgrimagein greatest detail was hererelying, in part at any rate,upon traditions which hadlong been current.43 Robert'spilgrimage undoubtedlyinspired the admiration ofcontemporaries whose

sentiments respecting it wereperhapsfurther influencedbyits unfortunate conclusion.Onhishomewardjourneytheyoungdukewasstrickenwithmortalsicknesswhilepassingthrough Asia Minor. Theusual stories of poisoningwerecurrentasearlyas1053,and were soon to beelaborated.44 What is certainis that Robert, sixth duke ofNormandy, styled by

posterity the ‘Magnificent’,died at the Bythinian Nicaeaononeof the first threedaysof July 1035.45 The Normanreign of William theConquerorhadbegun.It could hardly have

opened in less auspiciousconditions. Even apart fromthe fact that the new dukewas a child of some sevenyears of age, his illegitimacywould itself have made it

inevitable that his accessionwouldbechallenged,andhissurvival in 1035 was due inthe first instance to thesupport of the group whichhad gathered round DukeRobert I during the closingyears of his reign. The firstguardians of Duke Williamwerethusthechiefsupportersof his father: the archbishopof Rouen, Count Alan ofBrittany, and Osbern the

powerfulstewardatthecourt.Tothemmustalsobeaddedacertain Turchetil or, as he isalso styled, Turold, who isasserted to have been thepedagogus or even thenutriciusoftheinfantduke.46Little is known of thefunctions of the office thusstrangely described, butTurchetil, who possessedlandsatNeufmarché,wastheancestor of a family which

was toplaya significantpartin the history both ofNormandyandWales,and togive Duke William notablesupportata latercrisis inhisreign.47 In 1035, however,Turchetil must have been oflowerstanding than theothertutoresoftheduke,thoughhewasasignificantfigureinthesmall group which assistedWilliam to secure hisinheritance.

Themost importantpersonin Rouen during the criticalautumn of 1035 wasundoubtedly the elderlyarchbishop.Hemight,indeed,byreasonofhisdescenthaveclaimed the succession forhimself,butdoubtlessinviewof his advancing years, andhis ecclesiastical office, hepreferred not to contemplateany further extension of hispower. He was, however,

uniquely placed to dominatethe crisis. The metropolitansee of Rouen had alwayssince the days of Rollo beenplaced in a specialrelationship with the ducaldynasty, and Robert had notonlyhisoffice tobuttresshisauthority but also theextensive lands of the comtéof Évreux which he hadacquired.Moreover,itwashewhohadbeenfirstamongthe

counsellorsofDukeRobertatthe close of his reign, and itwashealsowhohadbroughttogether his Norman andBreton nephews, doubtlessthereby securing forWilliamthesupportofAlanIII.Itmayagain have been thearchbishop who by virtue ofhis connexions in Francebrought about what was notthe least significant event ofNorman history in 1035.

Shortly before, or shortlyafter,Robert'sdeparturefromNormandy the ‘consent’ toWilliam's succession hadbeen obtained from KingHenry,48 and it is probablethat at this time the boywasactually sent to the king inorder to perform homage tohis royal overlord assuccessor to the Normanduchy.49None the less, even with

thesupportof thearchbishopof Rouen, and with therecognition of King Henry,the position of the youngduke was extremelyprecarious, and it wasfortunate for him that overtopposition from thosemembers of the dynastywhom he had supplantedcould for various reasons bepostponed for a time. ThusNicholas,whoassonofDuke

Richard III was perhapsnearest in succession in thelegitimate line and who hadbeenplaced in themonasteryof Saint-Ouen by Robert Iwhenstillaboy,nowshowedno disposition to disputeWilliam's accession. Indeedhe was always to be a loyalsupporterofhiscousinunderwhom he was in about 1042to become abbot of themonasteryoverwhichhewas

to preside for fifty years.50More formidable oppositionmight, however, have beenexpected from Mauger andWilliam, the sons of DukeRichard II by Papia, or evenfrom ‘Guy of Burgundy’,who through his motherAdelizawasgrandsonof thatduke.Intheeventallofthesewere in due course to leadformidable revolts, but theyevidently did not as yet feel

strong enough to rebel. In1035 neither Mauger norWilliam had attained thepositions of authority whichtheywere soon to attain, andGuywasnotasyetpossessedof those lands in centralNormandy from which hewas later to draw hisstrength.51 ArchbishopRobertbackedbyhisprestigeand position could thuscontrol the situationwith the

aidoftheducalofficials.Detailed evidence of the

conditions prevailing inNormandy during the firstcriticalmonthsofthereignofDukeWilliam II is naturallyhard to obtain, but a charterof this timeis illuminatinginthis respect. This was issuedby Hugh, bishop of Bayeux,between August 1035 andMarch 1037.52 In it thebishopnotesthedepredations

whichhadtakenplaceonthelands of his bishopric ‘afterthe death of Duke Richard[II] and after the death ofDuke Robert [I]’, and statesthat he had determined tohave his rights restored andsafeguarded. He thereforebrought a suit before a courtwhich consisted of ‘Robertthe archbishop, Eudo thecount,53 Nigel the vicomte’,and othermagnates who had

rights of justice in thekingdom;54 and it was thiscourtwhich after hearing theplea gave judgment in hisfavour. The procedure is ineverywaynotable. Itwill beobserved that the archbishopisclearlythedominantfigurein the proceedingswhilst theyoungdukeisnotmentioned.On the other hand, thepresence of the vicomte andthe other lords possessed of

judicial rights indicates thatthe ducal administration wasbeingcontinued.Even this measure of

stability depended, however,directly upon the personalpowerofArchbishopRobert,andwhenthatprelatediedon16 March 1037,55 thesituation degenerated withdisastrousrapidity.Soviolentwas the confusion whichensued that it has proved

tempting to assume that themenwhowere involved in itwere moved by a simplelikingofdisorder for itsownsake.Yetthisunderratestheircapacity, for they were latertoprovetheirability,andfewofthemhadnotmuchtoloseif sheer chaos had beenallowed to prevail. It isuseful, therefore, to attempttoanalyse themotiveswhichimpelled the chief

participants in thesesanguinary struggles. Thechief feudal families of ahighly competitive nobilitywhichwasonlynowrisingtoitsfullpowerwerecompelledby the decline in the ducalauthority to take their ownmeasures to safeguard theirnewly won possessions, andtempted to enlarge these bythe sword at the expense oftheir neighbours. The ducal

dynasty in its turn (whichcould in one sense beregarded as the mostimportantfeudalfamilyintheprovince) was similarlyplaced,andwhilstmanyofitsmembers were ready todisputewithWilliamthetitleof duke, none of them couldwish that theauthorityof thecount of Rouen should becompletely destroyed. Indeedat one crisis in the minority

they were notably to acttogether in the interests oforder. Finally, there was theFrench king who might wellfeel that during the minorityof his vassal he had a directresponsibility tomaintain hisownrightsintheduchy.What was of immediate

moment was the question ofwho shouldobtain control ofthe young duke, and inconsequence the ducal

householdwasforsomeyearsgiven over to such shockingdisorder that almost all thosewho had closely supportedWilliamathisaccessionwereto perish by violence. CountAlanIIIdiedsuddenly,eitherin1039,ormoreprobably inOctober1040.56 His place aschief tutor was taken byGilbert, the count, who hadbeenanotherof the intimatesofDukeRobertI,butwithina

few months Gilbert himselfwas murdered, when outriding, by assassins actingunder the orders of Ralph ofGacé, one of the sons ofArchbishop Robert.57 Aboutthe same time Turchetil waslikewise assassinated.58 AndOsbernthestewardwaskilledatVaudreuilafterascuffleinthe very bedchamber of theboy duke.59 William'shousehold was in fact

becoming a shambles, andsome idea of the conditionswhich had come to prevailthereinmaybegatheredfromthe story that Walter, thebrotherofHerleve,waswontat this time to sleep in thecompany of Duke Williamhisnephew,andfrequentlyatnight was forced to fly forsafetywithhischargetotakerefuge in the cottages of thepoor.60 It is not surprising

that these years left a lastingimpression on the characterof the boy who was chieflyinvolved.The crimes which

disgracedtheducalhouseholdat this time were of suchdramatic horror that theymight easily mask the morefundamental issues of thecrisis. In truth, they formedthebackgroundtoaconcertedmovementbymembersofthe

ducal dynasty to obtain amore active control of itsaffairs. In particular, thisperiod saw the rise todominance of Mauger andWilliam, the sons of DukeRichard II by Papia. In, orshortly after, 103761 Maugerwas appointed archbishop ofRouen in succession toRobert, whilst William hisfull brother became count ofArques.62 The appointments

mayinsomesensebeheldtohave been made in theinterests of the dynasty. It isnoteworthy, for instance, thatWilliamreceivedhiscomtéofArques as a benefice to beheldspecifically in returnforhis discharging the loyalservice of a vassal to theduke,63 whilst Mauger asarchbishop took immediatelya prominent position in thegovernmentof theduchy.He

appears among the witnessesto many ducal charters ofthese early years, and he cansometimes be watched aspresidingoverthecourtoftheyoung duke, whoseattestation occasionallyfollows after that of thearchbishop. The situationresulting from theadvancement of these twobrothers can in fact be seenvery clearly in a charter

which was issued about1039.64By itCountWilliam,styling himself ‘son of DukeRichard’, gave land to theabbey of Jumièges, andamong the leadingattestations to the act theseare given in the followingorder: ‘Mauger thearchbishop;William,countofthe Normans; William, thecount's “master”;65 andWilliam, count of Arques’.

Thetwobrotherswereclearlyadvancing towards adominating position in theduchy. After 1040 it wasMauger, archbishop ofRouen, who was in chiefcontrol, backed by William,countofArques,andpossiblyby Nicholas, abbot of Saint-Ouen. But othermembers ofthe family were alsomovingtowards a position of greaterimportance. Chief of these

was Ralph of Gacé,66 themurderer of Count Gilbert,and the son of ArchbishopRobert, whilst at about thistime Guy of Burgundy,grandsonofDukeRichardII,received both Vernon andalsoCountGilbert's castle ofBrionne.67 Clearly the ducalfamily was not going torelinquishitspowerwithoutastruggle.But the province of

Normandywaslapsingintoafell disorder. The confusionof these years cannot, it istrue, be illustrated in fulldetail, but enough is knownto mark the minority ofWilliamafter1037asoneofthe darkest periods ofNorman history. Long-standing feuds among thesecular aristocracy werereopened,andeachcrimewasmadetheoccasionforfurther

bloodshed.Most of the greatfamilieswhoserisewillhavetobeconsideredaspartofthegrowth of a new nobility intheprovincewereinvolvedatthis time in violence ordisaster.ThusBjarniofGlos-la-Ferrières, a vassal ofOsbern the steward, avengedthe murder of his lord bykilling William ofMontgomery.68 Roger ofTosny, having ravaged the

lands of his neighbourHumphrey ‘of Vieilles’, wasinduecourseassassinatedbyHumphrey's son Roger ‘ofBeaumont’,69 and the feudwas continued by the houseof Clères who weredependants of the family ofTosny.70 Again, Hugh ofMontfort-sur-Risle andWalkelin of Ferrières bothperished in the private warthey waged against each

other,71 and the family ofBellême conducted againstthe sons of Geré ofÉchauffour an onslaughtwhich was marked byunspeakablecrimes.72A feature of the private

wars which ravagedNormandy at this time wasthe use made therein ofcastles. Some of the ducalfortresses which hadsometimesbeenbuiltofstone

were seized by themagnatesto whom they had beenentrusted. Thus WilliamTalvasofBellêmeestablishedhimself at Alençon, Hugh,bishop of Bayeux, at Ivry,andThurstanGozatTillières.At the same time a largenumber of smallerfortifications of a differenttype were hastily erected.73These were woodenstructures built on artificial

mottes, surrounded bypalisades and encircled bymoats which might be filledwith water.74 Undoubtedly afamily needed to be of somestanding to erect such astronghold for its own use,and to man it, but theybecamesufficientlynumerousduring these years to give aspecial character to the civilwarfare which wasconvulsing the province. It

was from them that thefamilies who were mostdirectly involved in thesedisorders could conducthostilities against each other,and defend themselves fromthe onslaught of theirenemies.It is true that the recordof

these disorders has survivedfor the most part in thewritings of monasticchroniclerswhomayperhaps

have been disposed to paintthemintooluridcolours,andin consequence thedisturbancesofthetimehaveperhaps been exaggerated.75Certainly the ducaladministration never seemsduring these years wholly tohavecollapsed,andthismusthavebeendirectlydue to thetradition of public authoritywhichtheVikingdynastyhadinheritedanddevelopedfrom

Carolingian Neustria.76 Itcouldbeillustratedinseveraldirections. The Bayeuxchartertowhichreferencehasbeen made indicates thatbetween 1035 and 1037recognized legal sanctionswere still appealed to andapplied,77 and even after thedeath of Archbishop Robertthere is evidence that someattempt was made – and notwholly without success – to

maintain this situation.ThoughThurstanGozwas tolead a rebellion fromTillières, nearly all thevicomtes between 1035 and1046 regularly dischargedtheir duties, and the vice-comital attestations to ducalchartersinthisperiodarenotinfrequent.78 Again, thebishopsofNormandyseemingeneral to have given theircorporatesupporttothechild

ruler, andmost if not all theducal revenues as from thecomtéofRouenwillbefoundto have been regularlycollected at this time.79 Theduke, or thosewho acted forhim,seemalsotohavehadaspecifically ducal force attheir disposal since if thetestimonyofalaterwritercanbe believed, at the worstperiodofthedisorders,Ralphof Gacé, who was then

dominant at the ducal court,could be described as ‘headof the armed forces of theNormans’ (princeps militieNormannorum), and as suchheseemstohavecommandedaconsiderablebodyoftroopswhich he used to goodpurpose.80 In short, theancient traditions of ducalauthority, and some of theadministrative machinerywhich might give it effect,

survived during these yearsand contributed much topreservingtheintegrityoftheNorman duchy through thiscritical decade. Howimportant this was will beseen in the lethal situationwhich at once arose in 1047whenthewesternvicomtesatlastrevolted.Nevertheless, the

conditions of William'sminority were sufficiently

terrible. The feudal familieswere becoming ever moredesperately involved in aninternecinestrugglewitheachother, and the plight ofhumblerfolkintheduchycanbe imagined. Not the leastsignificant feature of theseyears is the action by groupsof peasantry who organizedthemselves (sometimesundertheir parish priests) forcorporate defence. When the

sons of Soreng sought todominate the district roundSées, a savage struggleensued, in the course ofwhichthecathedralitselfwaspartiallyburnt.Buttheywereat last capturedandkilledbythemenof thecountryside.81The power of the ducalgovernment to dispense localjustice was evidentlybecoming severely restricted,and perhaps for this reason

menin theduchywerebeingled to look elsewhere formeanstomitigatedisorder.It was during these years

that there occurred inNormandy amost interestingjuridical development whichwas to entail wideconsequences in the future.During the tenth and earlyeleventh centuries there hadbeen made, first in southernand central France, and later

in Burgundy, the famousattempt of the Church torescuepublicorderbymeansof the institution known astheTruceofGod,82whereby,under episcopal sanction, anundertaking was made toprohibit private warfareduring certain days of theweek, or during certainseasonsoftheChristianyear.Among the ecclesiasticswhowereforemost inpropagating

the Truce of God none weremore influential thanOdilon,abbotofCluny,andRichard,abbot of Saint-Vanne ofVerdun.83 Consequently it isremarkable that althoughRichard of Saint-Vanne hadclose connexions with theNorman ducal court in thelatter years of Duke RichardII, and during the reign ofDuke Robert I,84 no attemptwas made by him or anyone

else to introduce the Truceinto Normandy at that time.The reason must be that theducal authority was thenconsidered to be itselfcapable of preserving publicorder by means of judicialprocesses which weregenerally respected.85 Now,however, the situation hadradically changed, and in1041–1042Richard of Saint-Vanne,acting,itwouldseem,

with the approvalof those inchargeof ducal policy,madea strong move to bring theTruceofGod to theduchy.86Themethodsheemployedaresomewhat obscure since noecclesiastical council seemsto have been called at thistime, and it ismoreprobablethat an individual approachwas made to the bishops ofthe province.87 The attempt,however, failed. The private

interests of the rising feudalfamiliestowhichthebishopsbelonged proved too strong.And though some five yearslater, in changedcircumstances, the earliereffort of Richard of Saint-Vanne was at last to befruitful, in the meantime theTruce was rejected byNormandy, and thedisintegration of public orderproceededapace.88

It is indeed a matter ofsome wonder that the youngdukesurvived the troublesofhis minority, and theexplanation must in part besought outside Normandy.OneofthedecisivefactorsofNormanhistoryatthistimeisto be found in the policy ofthe king of France. Theposition of King Henry I inrespect of Normandy duringthese years was

misrepresented by Normanchroniclers who wrote at atime when the relationsbetween the ducal house andthe French monarchy werebeing transformed, and whofor patriotic reasons werepronetodepictsuchrelationsas those existing betweenindependent sovereignprinces. Nor has thismisconception been whollyavoided by some modern

scholars.89 In truth, however,as has been seen, thevassalage of the duke ofNormandy had for long beenadmitted, and sometimesenforced; and it had nowbecome of high importance.EvenasDukeRobertIhadin1031 acknowledged andassisted King Henry I as hisnaturallord,90sonow,ontheaccession of a minor inNormandy, the French king

claimed and exercised hisfeudal rights over the duchy.KingHenry'srecognitionandsupportforthechilddukehadbeen an essential feature ofthe arrangements of 1035,and it was largely owing tothe French king that thosearrangementsweretoendure.The ‘consent’ which had

beengivenbyKingHenrytothe accession of DukeWilliam was of cardinal

importance. The king couldclaim right of wardship overthe infant heir of a defunctvassal, and by so doing hemade himself to some extentresponsible for that vassal'ssafety. It is significanttherefore that not only hadWilliam been sent to dohomageinpersontothekingat the time of his father'spilgrimage, but that, at somesubsequent date, Henry

invested the duke with theinsignia of knighthood.91Throughout the minority theking claimed, and exercised,direct rights overNormandy,and regarded William asbeing in some special senseunder his protection. Whenafter 1040, for example,GilbertofBrionne,thecount,became tutor to the duke, hewas considered as acting inthatcapacityasthedeputyof

theFrenchking,92andalaterwriterwasprobablycorrectinsayingthatduringtheseyearsKing Henry treatedNormandyas if itwere focusregalis – part of the royaldemesne.93Only in the light of such

considerations can beexplained the confusedpoliticalhistoryofNormandyduring this period, or theFrench king's intervention

therein.Thus,sometimeafter1040, Henry is to be foundinvesting Tillières-sur-Avre,94 a fortress which hadoriginallybeenbuiltbyDukeRichardIIasabastionagainstthe counts of Chartres,95 butwhich,afterthecessionoftheterritory ofDreux byOdoofBlois to King Robert, hadfaced the ancestralpossessions of the house ofCapet. The fortress was at

this time inchargeofGilbertCrispin,96 an undertenant ofCount Gilbert, and the uncleof a distinguished abbot ofWestminster.97 Crispinrefused to surrender it, butmany Norman notablessupported the king,whowasthus enabled to capture thestronghold and in due coursetodismantleit.98Again,whenshortly afterwards theFrenchking decided once more to

intervene in the Normananarchy a strictly similarsituation immediatelydeveloped. Now, Henryentered the Hiémois, andpassed on into the valley ofthe Orne, where he stormedthe town of Argentan.99 Onthis occasion, also, he hadNorman support. ForThurstanGoz,whowastobethe ancestor of the earls ofChester, and who was then

vicomteofExmes,atonceco-operated with the Frenchtroops and himself occupiedFalaise. There he wasinvested by Ralph of Gacé,who had control of the boyduke, and after considerablefighting Falaise wasrecaptured.Thurstanwassentintoexile(fromwhichhewassoontoberecalled),andKingHenryreturnedtowardsParis,but not before he had

regained the fortress ofTillières, and placed his owngarrisonwithinitswalls.100The conduct of the French

king in these events wasbitterly condemned by laterNorman chroniclers asexhibiting base ingratitudetowardsthedynastytowhichinpartheowedhisthrone.101There is, however, littlereason to suppose thatHenrywasat this timeeveranxious

to supplant the young vassalwhose succession inNormandyhehadrecognized.The French king had cause,moreover, to view theanarchy within the Vikingprovince with some dismay,the more especially as itaffected a large area ofnorthernFrance.Theconcernof Brittany with the Normansuccession had beendisplayed in the career of

Alan III, and there wasalways a possibility that theNorman crisis might haverepercussions also inFlanders. Baldwin V, whosucceeded to the rule ofFlandersin1035,wasalreadytryingtoplayofftheemperoragainst the French kingwhose sister he hadmarried,and he watched the Normansituation with deep interest.Heisindeedreportedtohave

given positive assistance toDuke William during theminority,102 and traditionlater asserted that it wasduring these years that therewas first formed the projectof a marriage betweenWilliam and Baldwin'sdaughter Matilda.103 Theimplications of the Normancrisis were thus widespread,andcertainlynokingreigningin Paris could afford to

neglect its possiblerepercussions on the politicalbalanceofnorthernFrance.King Henry's intervention

in Norman politics at thistime is thus to be explained,not as the incursion of aforeign prince, but as theattempt of an overlord tosafeguard his rights, and toimprove his position, duringthe minority of one of hischief vassals. For this reason

he always had support fromwithin Normandy, not onlyfrom among the warringgroups ofmagnates but also,as itwould seem, from thosewho might well haveconsidered that in the royalpowermightbefoundahopefortheeventualrestorationoforder out of chaos. Indeed,during the minority of DukeWilliam the policy of theFrench king appears on the

whole to have been directedtowards safeguarding theposition of the young dukeagainst those who soughteither to supplant him or tomake him a passive agent oftheirwill. Certainly,Williamstood in need of any suchintervention as might beavailable, for during thisperiod he could hardlymakeany personal contribution tothegovernmentofhisduchy.

Towards its close, however,there were already signs thathe was beginning todiscriminate among hiscounsellors,andtoactonhisown initiative.104 But hispersonal authority was stillweak, and he was strictlydependentuponsuchNormanfactions as would supporthim, and still more on thebackingofhisroyaloverlord.And it was thus that on the

thresholdofmanhoodhewassuddenly called upon toassume independently hisown responsibilities, and toface a new crisis in hisaffairs.In the lateautumnof1046

the disorder in Normandywhichhadravagedtheduchysince March 1037 began tocrystallizeintoaco-ordinatedassaultupon theyoungduke.Hitherto, the continued

existence of his nominalauthority had depended inlarge measure upon themutual rivalry between thecontending factions in theduchy, and more particularlyupon the continued operationof the ducal administrationwhichinits turnwasdirectlydependent upon the loyalsupportofhisvicomtes.Now,a wider-spread and moreclosely organized movement

of revolt took place. Basedupon Lower Normandy, itinvolved many of theforemost feudal families ofthe duchy, and its mostdangerous feature was theimplication of the twoprincipal vicomtes of thewest. Its avowed object,moreover,was theoverthrowof William and thesubstitutionofanewrulerfortheduchy.

The prime mover in thisrevoltwasGuyofBurgundy,oneofthepossiblesuccessorsto the dukedom in 1035, andnow possessed of theimportant strongholds ofVernon on the Seine, and ofBrionne on the Risle, whichhe had received on the deathofCountGilbert.105Thismannow sought to make himselfduke, and he rallied to hissupport a very powerful

group of Normanmagnates.106 These came,moreover, not only from theneighbourhood ofGuy's ownpossessions in middleNormandy but moreparticularly from the west,and the army which was tocomeverynear todestroyingDukeWilliam was to be ledby Nigel I, vicomte of theCotentin, and Rannulf I,vicomte of the Bessin.107

These were joined by manylordsfromLowerNormandy,and especially by a group ofmagnates established in thedistrict of the Cinglaissituated between Caen andFalaise.108AmongthemwereRalph Tesson, lord of Thury(now Thury-Harcourt),Grimoald of Plessis,109 andHaimo dentatus, lord ofCreully, the ancestor of afamily later to be famous in

England.110 It was aformidable rebellion and itthreatenedtheveryidentityofNormandy.According to later

tradition, the revolt beganwithanattempt,sponsored,itwas said, by Grimoald ofPlessis,tocaptureandmurderthe duke as he tarried atValognes in the heart of hisenemies' territory.111 Beingwarned of his danger,

however, William managedto make a hurried escape bynight,andridinghardthroughthe darkness he forded theestuary of the Vire at lowtide. Morning saw him atRyes, where he receivedsuccour, and at length hereached Falaise.112 The storyof that famous ridemaywellcontain legendary elements,but at least it may serve toemphasize theextremeplight

of the young duke at thiscrisis. One resource aloneremained to him: he couldappeal to his overlord.William, therefore, hastenedto the king of France whomhe found at Poissy, andthrowing himself at his feetheclaimedasafaithfulvassalthesuccourofhissuzerain.113The French king, moreover,felt himself directly involvedin this threat to one of the

greatest of the French fiefs,and it is thus that hissubsequent action should beexplained. Later Normanwriters were to represent thetransactionasapactbetweenequals, and it is possible thatHenrymay have recalled thesupport given to his dynastyseventeen years before byDuke Robert I. But thecircumstanceswerenowverydifferent, and such an

interpretation cannot besustained. The young dukewasindesperatestraits,anditwas as the king's liegemanthat he pleaded his cause.Correspondingly it was asoverlord of Normandy thatHenry could regard therebellionagainsthisvassalasdirected in some measureagainsthimself.ThuswastheFrench king moved to takeperhaps themostmomentous

decisionofhisreign.Earlyin1047heenteredNormandyattheheadofanarmyresolvedtorescueDukeWilliamfromhisenemies.TheFrencharmyadvanced

towards Caen by way ofMézidon.Thereitwasmetbysome sparse levies whichDuke William had managedto raise from UpperNormandy. These had madetheirwaywithdifficultyover

the marshy plain of the Vald'Auge,passingArgentanandencamping at the side of theLaison in the neighbourhoodof the royal host. The nextday, very early, the kingmoved through Valmerayewhere he heard Mass, andthenproceededtotheplainofVal-ès-Dunes,114afeaturelessstretchofcountryboundedbythe hamlets of Serqueville,and Begrenville, Bill, and

Airan – villageswhose placeintheannalsofwarwastobere-emphasized in thetwentieth century. It wasthere that the royal armyencountered the force of therebels who, advancing fromthe west, had previouslyeffected a crossing of theriverOrne.ThebattleofVal-ès-Dunes

which ensuedwas a decisiveevent in the development of

Normandy,butfewdetailsofthe engagement have beenpreserved.Itseems,however,thatnogreatgeneralshipwasdisplayed by either side, andthe battle consisted ofisolated conflicts betweendetached forces of cavalry.No use was made ofsupportingarms, andnothingisheardoftheemploymentofthearcherswhoseactionwasto be so successfully co-

ordinated with that ofmounted troops nineteenyearslateratHastings.Long-rangeweaponsdonotappearto have been used, and ifinfantry were present theirpart of the battle wasnegligible.Thoseaccountsofthe battle which are mostnearly contemporary areshort. William of Jumiègesmerelysays:

Thekingandtheduke,unafraidofthe strength and enmity of theirenemies, offered them battle, andafter many engagements betweengroups of cavalry inflicted a greatslaughterontheirfoes,whoatlastwere seized with panic, and tookrefuge in flight, throwingthemselves into the waters of theOrne.115

The account given byWilliam of Poitiers though

more rhetorical ishardly lessbrief:

The greater part of the Normansfought [he says] under the bannerof iniquity, but William, chief oftheavenginghost,wasundismayedby the sight of their swords.Hurling himself upon his enemiesheterrifiedthemwithslaughter….Most of them perished in thedifficult country: some met theirdeathonthefieldofbattle,crushed

or trampled upon by those whofled; and many of the horsemenwiththeirmountsweredrownedintheriverOrne.116

It is probably legitimate,however,tosupplementtheseshort accounts by means ofthemagnificentbattlepicturepaintedinthetwelfthcenturybyWace,117fortheRomandeRou, which is so oftenuntrustworthy, is here of

unusualvalue,sinceitsauthorwasformanyyearsaclericatCaen, where he had everyopportunity for becomingacquainted with localtraditions, and his minutedescriptions leave littledoubtthat he himself actuallyvisited the field of battle.According to the informationsupplied by Wace it wouldseem that before theengagement began the rebel

forces were somewhatdisorganizedby thedefectionofRalphTessontothesideofthe duke, but even so thestrugglewasextremelybitter.DuringitsearlierstagesKingHenry was unhorsed byHaimo dentatus, who was,however, himself killedbefore he could inflict amortalwounduponhis royalmaster.118 Elsewhere in thefield Duke William was

giving proof of that personalprowessinbattleforwhichhewas later to be famous, bystriking down with his ownhand a certain Hardez fromBayeux, noted as a greatwarrior and a faithful vassalof Rannulf of Avranches.Later Rannulf himself lostheart, and with his flaggingenergies the tide of battlebegan to turn against theinsurgents. Nigel of the

Cotentin long put up astrenuous and desperateresistance, but it wasunavailing. The defeatbecamearoutaspanicseizedtherebelhostwhichbegantobreakupintosmallbandsandto fly in great disorder. Andthe riverOrne completed thedestructionofthearmy.

Great was the mass of fugitives[concludes Wace], and fierce the

pursuit. Horses were to be seenrunning loose over the plain, andthefieldofbattlewascoveredwithknights riding haphazard for theirlives.TheysoughttoescapetotheBessin, but feared to cross theOrne. All fled in confusion, andstrovetocrossbetweenAllemagneand Fontenay by fives and sixesand threes. But the pursuers wereat their heels bent on theirdestruction. Many of them weredriven into the Orne, and there

killedordrowned,andthemillsofBorbillon were stoppedwith deadbodies.119

The defeat of the westernvicomtesatVal-ès-Duneswasto prove a decisive event inthe career of Duke William,and in the development ofNormandy,andthoughitsfullconsequences were onlyslowly to be disclosed someindication of its significance

was immediately to besupplied. In October 1047outside Caen, and in nearproximity to the battlefield,there met an ecclesiasticalcouncil120 at which werepresentnotonlythedukebutmost of the chief prelates ofNormandy, notablyArchbishop Mauger andNicholas, abbot of Saint-Ouen, who were both of theducal house.121 It was a

solemn assemblage, and in ittheTruceofGod,whichhadbeen rejected in Normandyfive years previously in thetime of Richard of Saint-Vanne, was formallyproclaimed, whilst thosepresent swore to observe ittaking their oaths on holyrelics and particularly onthose of Saint-Ouen whichhadbeenbroughtfromRouenfor thepurpose.122The exact

nature of the Truce whichwasthusproclaimedcanonlybeconsideredbyreferencetotextswhichwerecompiledata later date,123 but its termsarereasonablycertain.Privatewar was prohibited fromWednesday evening untilMondaymorning,andduringthe seasons of Advent, Lent,Easter, and Pentecost.124 Inthis the arrangementsfollowedapatternwithwhich

other regions of France hadalreadybeenmadefamiliar.The value of any such

legislation depended,however, always on theefficacy of the means bywhich it could be enforced,and here the Normanarrangements were of a typenot paralleled elsewhere atthis date except in Flanders,and in the province ofRheims.125Hereaselsewhere

the chief sanctions wereecclesiastical, for the TruceitselfwasaninstitutionoftheChurch, and it was theprelates of the Church whowere primarily heldresponsible for itsenforcement. At the councilof Caen therefore the chiefpenalties invoked againstthose who might violate theTrucewereexcommunicationandthedenialtotheoffender

ofallspiritualbenefitswhichthe Church alone couldbestow.126 But in theordinances enacted at Caenthe secular power was alsoinvoked, and not the leastimportantfeatureofwhatwasdecreed was the expressexclusion from the Truce ofthe king and the duke, whowere permitted to wage warduring the prohibited periodsand allowed to maintain

forcestoenablethemtodosointhepublicinterest.127Hereagain there is a clearindication of the authoritystill recognized as beingvested in the ducal office,128anditwasthiscombinationofsecular and ecclesiasticalsanctions that at a later datewas to enable the duke totransformtheTruceofGodinNormandy into the moreeffective pax ducts129 which

induecoursehewastomaketo prevail over all hisdominion.The proclamation of the

Truce of God at Caen inOctober1047wasamatterofrejoicing, particularly amongthe peasantry,130 but at thetime it must have seemeddoubtful whether it wouldproveoperativeevenovertherestrictedregionwhereitwasfirst tobeapplied.For in the

light of what is known oflaterhistory itwouldbeeasyto exaggerate what were theimmediate consequences ofthe battle of Val-ès-Dunes.Norman chroniclers writingaftertheconquestofEnglandwhen the Conqueror was attheheightofhispowercouldrightly discern in the battlethe beginnings of theConqueror'sdominanceinhisduchy.131 ‘The Normans,’

exclaimed William ofPoitiers, ‘feeling themselvesmastered, all bowed theirnecks before their lord.’132Such rhetoric should not,however, be taken at its facevalue, and in any case it hadtowait on subsequent eventsfor its justification. In 1047many hazards had still to beovercome before even orderandsecuritycouldberestoredto the duchy. The victory of

Val-ès-Dunes had in truthbeendecisive,butithadbeenwon by the king rather thanby the duke, and William'sown power was still bothprecariousandcircumscribed.He had escaped from theimminent threat ofdestruction, and he hademerged from tutelage. Buthis future was still perilousand uncertain. The minoritywas over: the duke's war for

survivalwasabouttobegin.

1WilliamofMalmesbury(GestaRegum,vol.II,p.285)was,before1125,tellingthatRobertfirstsawHerlevewhenshewasdancingintheroad(washingherclothesinastreamisanotherversion–cf.Benoit(ed.Michel),vol.II,pp.555–557),andforthwithbroughtherintothecastle.Andthatnight,afterWilliam'sconception,Herleve

dreamtthatatreegrewoutofherbodywhosebranchesovershadowedallNormandyandEngland.Itisagoodstory.

2Foranearlyexampleofthis,seeDouglas,E.H.D.,vol.II,no.69.

3Freeman,NormanConquest,vol.II,noteT.

4Cf.Douglas,inEng.Hist.Rev.,vol.LXV(1950),pp.289–303.

5Will.Jum.,p.88.Thegirlswere(i)AdelizawhomarriedRainaldofBurgundy–theirsonGuy

wastoplayalargepartinNormanhistory;(ii)EleanorwhomarriedBaldwinIVofFlanders;and(iii)anunnameddaughterwhodiedyoungandunmarried.

6BesidesRichardandRoberttherewasasonnamedWilliamwhobecameamonkatFécampanddiedyoung.

7Will.Jum.,p.97.Butthematterisnotwhollycertain(Douglas,Eng.Hist.Rev.,vol.LXI(1946),

pp.145,146).ItissignificantthatRobertwasatFalaiseintheHiémoiswhenheencounteredHerleve.

8Douglas,Eng.Hist.Rev.,vol.LXV(1950),pp.289–303.

9Gall.Christ,vol.XI,cols.141–144.Hispubliccareerwasnonethelesstobeinteresting.

10HisreignissurveyedinWill.Jum.,pp.97–114.

11Below,chap.4.12F.Chalandon,Domination

normande,vol.I,pp.88–111.13Below,pp.90–92.14Will.Jum.,p.100;MiraculaS.Wulframni(Soc.Hist.Norm.,Mélanges,vol.XIV(1938),p.47);R.A.D.N.,no.66.

15LetterofFulcherofChartres(Pat.Lat.,vol.CXLI,cols.224,225).

16Will.Jum.,p.106.17Mon.Germ.Hist.Scriptores,vol.VIII,p.401.

18Douglas,Eng.Hist.Rev.,vol.

LXI(1946),pp.132,133.19Cart.S.PèreChartres,vol.I,p.115.

20Ord.Vit.,vol.II,p.365.21Ibid.22ChartresdeJumièges,vol.I,no.XIX;R.A.D.N.,no.92.

23R.A.D.N.,no.67.24Lobineau,HistoiredeBretagne(1707),vol.I,p.91;LaBorderie,HistoiredeBretagne,vol.III,p.9.

25Below,pp.86,87.

26VitaHerluini(ed.Robinson,GilbertCrispin,p.88);R.A.D.N.,nos.64,65,67,70,80,85.

27Below,pp.89,90.28R.A.D.N.,nos.69,82.Cf.Ord.Vit.,vol.III,p.229.

29Will.Jum.,p.102.30Below,pp.162,163.31Will.Jum.,p.104.32Above,pp.28,29.33Will.Jum.,p.111.34Cf.Musset,inAnnalesde

Normandie,October1962.35K.Norgate,EnglandunderAngevinKings,vol.I,pp.153,192–196.

36Ann.MontS.Michel,s.a.1008;Hist.S.Flor.Saumur(MarchegayandMabille,Églisesd'Anjou,p.261);Morice,Hist.deBretagne,Preuves,vol.I,col.354.

37AS.Chron.,‘C’,s.a.1049.38Freeman,NormanConquest,vol.II,noteBB;Runciman,

Crusades,vol.I,p.47.39Runciman,loc.cit.;Southern,MakingoftheMiddleAges,pp.51–54.

40Below,AppendixF.41Will.Jum.,p.111.42MiraculaS.Wulframni,loc.cit.43RomandeRou(ed.Andresen),vol.II,pp.148,149;Haskins,NormanInstitutions,pp.268–272.

44Below,AppendixF.45Thedateisfixedbythe

necrologiesofJumièges,Saint-Évroul,andLeMont-Saint-Michel(Rec.Hist.Franc.,vol.XXIII,pp.420,487,579).TheplaceisgiveninWill.Jum.,p.114;inOrd.Vit.,vol.I,p.179;vol.II,p.11;vol.III,p.224;andalsobyRodulfGlaber(ed.Prou,p.108).

46Ord.Vit.,vol.I,p.108;vol.II,p.369;vol.III,p.229;interp.Will.Jum.(ed.Marx),p.156.

47Ord.Vit.,vol.III,p.42.His

grandsonwasBernardofNeufmarché,lordofBrecknock.

48RodulfGlaber(ed.Prou),p.108.

49Wace,RomandeRou(ed.Andresen),vol.II,p.150.

50Gall.Christ.,vol.XI,cols.141–143.

51Below,pp.48,49.52Cart.Bayeux,vol.I,p.27,no.XXI.ThedateisdeterminedbythefactthatthedeathofDukeRobertisrecorded,whilst

ArchbishopRobertisstillalive.53TherewasnoNormancountofthisname,Ibelieve,atthistime.ItmightbetemptingtoconsiderOdoII,countofBlois,whodied11November1037,butthereferencemayratherbetoEudoofPenthièvre,acountofBrittany.

54‘Robertus,scilicetarchiepiscopus,Odocomes,etNiellusvicecomes,alii-quesenioresjusticiamregni

obtinentes.’55ThedeathofArchbishopRobertIin1037iswellestablishedbutthemodernauthoritiessuchasGalliaChristiana,Vacandard,andBourriennedonotseemtohavegivenitfurtherprecision.Perhapsthisisbecause,verystrangely,itdoesnotappearintheobituaryofRouenCathedral(Rec.Hist.Franc.,vol.XXIII,p.358).Nonetheless,inthenecrologyofLeMont-Saint-

Michel,thereappearstheobituaryofRobertusarchiepiscopusRotomagensis(ibid.,p.577).ThiscouldrefereithertoRobertIorRobertIIwhodiedin1221.ButRobertIIisknowntohavediedinMay(Gall.Christ.,vol.XI,col.60),soitmustbeRobertIwhoisheredesignated.

56Ord.Vit.,vol.II,p.369;vol.III,p.225;LaBorderie,HistoiredeBretagne,vol.III,p.13.

57Ord.Vit.,interp.Will.Jum.(ed.Marx),pp.153,154.

58Will.Jum.,p.116.59Ibid.Cf.R.A.D.N.,no.96.60Ord.Vit.,vol.III,p.229.61E.Vacandard,inRev.catholiqucdeNormandie,vol.III,p.103.

62Will.Jum.,p.119.63HicenimWillelmusaducejaminadolescentiapollentecomitatumTalogipercipiens,obtentubeneficii,utinde

existeretfidelis.64R.A.D.N.,no.100.65Washeapersonalguardianortutortotheboy?HeappearsalsoinacharterforSigy(R.A.D.N.,no.103).

66Ord.Vit.,interp.Will.Jum.(ed.Marx),pp.159,161.

67Will.Jum.,p.122;Will.Poit.,p.16;Ord.Vit.,vol.III,p.830.

68Ord.Vit.,interp.Will.Jum.(ed.Marx),p.157.

69Ibid.,vol.I,p.180;vol.II,pp.

40,41;vol.III,p.229.70Ibid.,vol.III,pp.426,427.71Will.Jum.,p.116.72Ord.Vit.,interp.Will.Jum.(ed.Marx),pp.159,161,162.

73J.Yver,‘Châteauxforts’(Bull.Soc.Antiq.Norm.,vol.LIII(1957),pp.53–57).

74DeBouard,GuillaumeleConquérant(1958),p.33.

75DeBouard,inAnnalesdeNormandie,October1959,p.174.

76Above,pp.22–29.77Notethatthereferenceistothoseexercisingjusticeasofrightinthekingdom(regni),nottheduchy(above,pp.38,39).

78e.g.R.A.D.N.,nos.92,102,103.79Below,pp.133,135.80Ord.Vit.,interp.Will.Jum.(ed.Marx),p.159.

81Will.Jum.,pp.165,167.82OnallthatconcernstheintroductionoftheTruceofGodinNormandy,seeM.deBouard,

‘TrèvedeDieu’(AnnalesdeNormandie,(October1959),pp.168–189).Thisfundamentalarticleinmyopinionsupersedesallthathadbeenwrittenbeforeonthesubject,andinparticularitcorrectsmyownill-advisedremarksonthistopicinCambridgeHistorialJournal,vol.XIII(1957),pp.114,115.

83H.Dauphin,LeBienkeureuxRichard(1946),pp.254–264.

84DeBouard,loc.cit.

85Ibid.86HughofFlavigny(Mon.Germ.Hist.Scriptores,vol.XIII,p.403).

87DeBouard,op.cit.,p.117.88HughofFlavigny,loc.cit.89Freeman,NormanConquest,vol.II(1860),pp.199,203.

90Will.Jum.,p.105:‘perfideidebitumsibi’.

91Will.Malms.,GestaRegum,vol.II,p.286.

92Gislebertuscomestutorpupilli

constituitur;tutelatutorisregiFrancorumHenricoassignatur–Will.Malms.,ibid.,p.285.

93HenryofHuntingdon,HistoriaAnglorum(ed.Arnold),pp.189,190.

94Will.Jum.,p.117.95Will.Jum.,pp.84,87.96Ibid.,p.117.97J.A.Robinson,GilbertCrispin,p.14.

98Will.Jum.,p.117.99Ibid.,p.118.

100Ibid.101Ibid.,p.117.102ChronicleofTours(Rec.Hist.Franc.,vol.XI,p.107).

103Below,pp.391–393.104Will.Jum.,p.122.105Will.Poit.,p.14;Will.Malms.,GestaRegum,vol.II,p.286;Ord.Vit.,vol.III,p.230.

106Will.Poit.,p.16.107Will.Jum.,p.122.108Onthisdistrictanditslords,seeF.Vaultier,Soc.Antiq.

Norm.,Mémoires,volX(1837),pp.1–256.

109Wace,RomandeRou(ed.Andresen),vol.II,vv.3773etsqq.;3863etsqq.

110Will.Malms.,GestaRegum,vol.II,p.287;Pezet,BaronsdeCreully,pp.16,17.

111RomandeRou,vv.3657–3750.

112ThelegendsaysthathewaswelcomedbyHubertofRyes,fatherofEudothesteward,later

famousassheriffofEssex.ManyofEudo'stenantsinEnglandcamefromtheneighbourhoodofRyes.

113Will.Jum.,p.123;Ord.Vit.,vol.I,p.182.

114RomandeRou,vol.II,vv.3807–3815.

115Will.Jum.,p.123.116Will.Poit.,pp.12–18.117RomandeRou,vol.II,vv.3865etsqq.

118Will.Malms.,GestaRegum,

vol.II,p.287.119RomandeRou,vol.II,vv.4155–4170.

120DeBouard,op.cit.,pp.172–174.TheActsoftheCouncilareindicatedinthetextsprintedinBessin,Concilia,p.39.

121DeBouard,op.cit.,p.175.122MiraculaS.Audoeni(ActaSanctorum,August,vol.IV,pp.834,835).

123DeBouard,op.cit.,pp.176–179.

124Bessin,Concilia,loc.cit.125DeBouard,op.cit.,pp.186,187.

126Bessin,Concilia,loc.cit.127Ibid.128DeBouard,op.cit.,pp.187,188.

129EspeciallyatthecouncilofLillebonnein1080.

130MiraculaS.Audoeni:‘Gaudentomnesetmaximeagricolae.’

131Yver,‘Châteauxforts’(Bull.

Soc.Antiq.Norm.,vol.LIII(1957),p.48).

132Will.Poit.,p.18.

Chapter3

THEWARFORSURVIVAL1047–1060

The period 1047–1060 is ofcardinal importance in thehistory of Normandy. Oftendismissed as comprising

merely a welter ofdisconnected politicaldisturbances, it none the lesspossessed its own cohesion,andwithout doubt it entailedmomentous consequences forthe future. It began with therevolt which in 1047 camenear toannihilating theducalpower, and it reached itssecond crisis when in 1052–1054 the dukewas forced towithstand not only a hostile

confederation formed by hisown magnates, but also acoalition of French fiefs ledbythekingofFrance.Duringthesefourteenyears thedukeof Normandy was almostcontinuallyatwar.Untilafter1054hissurvivalwasalwaysin some doubt, and not untilafter 1060 could it at last beregardedasfullyassured.Theunityof thisperiod in

the development of

Normandy needs therefore tobe stressed. The openingbattle in these campaigns –Val-ès-Dunes–isproperlytobeconsideredasmarking theend of the anarchic minorityof the duke, and setting thesealonhis authority.Yet thecritical engagement on thebanks of the Orne was butone episode in the duke'sstruggle for survival, and itwas the beginning of a long

period of uninterruptedwarfare. The disturbances oftheseyears are in short toberegarded not as a series ofisolated revolts, but rather asembodyingaprolongedcrisiswhichlastedinthemostacuteformfrom1046to1054;andthe threat to the NormanfuturewasnolessformidableatMortemer than ithadbeenat Val-ès-Dunes. Only after1054cantherebediscerneda

relaxationof the tension, andno subsequentmenace to theintegrity of Normandy wasever so severe during theConqueror's reign as thatwhich had been continuousbetween 1046 and 1054.Varaville in 1057 was anengagement of only minorimportance,andthedeathsofthe count of Anjou and theking of France in 1060 didbut give final assurance that

the perils which had beenfaced during the previousfourteen years had at lastbeensurmounted.The condition of

Normandy, and its place inthe European order, was infactsodifferentin1066fromwhatithadbeenin1046thatit would be easy tounderestimate the hazardswhich attended thistransformation. It was not

merely the survival of DukeWilliam that was at stake.The events of this periodassuredly offer the strongesttestimony of the indomitablepurpose of the young manwhowastheprincipalactorinthis embattled drama, butthese related campaignsdecided much more than hisown personal fate. Theantagonism between Upperand Lower Normandy which

was partially reflected in theconflict of 1047 had forpolitical purposes beenresolved by 1060; and thesame period witnessed thebeginningofthelongstrugglebetween Anjou andNormandyfor thedominanceof north-western Gaul.Finally, a yet morefundamental change wasmade at this time in therelationsbetweenthedukeof

Normandy and the king ofFrance–achangewhichhasbeen justly described asmarking nothing less than a‘turning-point of history’.1Theultimateconsequencesofthese developments were,indeed, to stretch into the farfuture,andwerenotinfacttobe fulfilled until theestablishmentofHenry,countofAnjou,asKingHenryIIofEngland. The confused, but

alwaysinterconnected,eventsof these years, when suchlarge issues were still inquestion,thusdeservecarefulexamination, for theoutcomeof the crisis which theyreflected, and determined,was sensibly to affect thefortunes of Normandy andAnjou, of France andEngland, for more than acenturyandahalf.On the morrow of the

battleofVal-ès-Dunes,DukeWilliam was still not securein his duchy. Nor did thatbattle mark the end of thewarfareofwhich it formedapart.KingHenryhimself leftNormandy shortly after hisvictory,2 but hostilitiescontinued withoutinterruption. It is in factperhaps indicative of theduke's continuing insecurityat this time that most of the

survivingleadersoftherevoltwere to escape somewhatlightly. Nothing is known oftheimmediatefateofRannulfof theAvranchin,buthewasnot deprived of his vicomtéand he was to transmit it tohis son.3 Nigel of theCotentin was in moredesperate plight, but he toowastreatedwithconsiderableleniency.Hewasforcedtogointo exile in Brittany, but

before long he returned; by1054hewasre-establishedinhis vice-comital lands, andnearly all his forfeitedpossessions were restored tohim.4 As for Guy ofBurgundy, althoughwounded, he managed toescape from the battlefieldwithaconsiderableforce,andhe promptly fortified himselfinhisstrongholdofBrionne.5The reduction of Brionne

with the minimum of delaywas thus imposed upon theduke as an imperativenecessity ifhis authoritywasto be restored, and it was aconsiderable check to hisfortunes when he failed totakeitbystorm.Hewasthuscompelledtoinvest it,andtoundertakeanoperationwhichmight prove to bedisastrously protracted. Hecertainly did not minimize

either the importance or thedifficulty of his task. Heerected large siege-works onboth banks of the Risle and,in particular, wooden towerswhich might make the siegecloser and at the same timeprotect his own investingtroops against sorties by thegarrison.6 Even thesemeasures, however, for longproved ineffective, and itwould seem that nearly three

years elapsed before thecastle surrendered.7 Thelength of this operation,indeed, deserves someemphasis. For the delay wasfraught with peril for theduke, and it postponed anyreimposition of his authorityover aunitedduchy.So longasBrionneremaineduntaken,Duke William could neverproceed with any confidencemuch beyond the

neighbourhood where hisprincipalenemy,thepotentialleader of a new rising, wasestablished. There is in factno record of DukeWilliam'spresence inUpperNormandyat any time during the years1047–1049,and it ispossiblethatduringtheseyearsRouenitself passed out of hiscontrol. Excluded from therichestpartofhisduchy,andwithastrongcastleincentral

Normandy holding outagainst him, Williamremained throughout theperiod 1047–1049 in anequivocal position. It wasprobably not until thebeginningof1050,afterGuyhad surrendered and beenbanished from Normandy,thatWilliamwas at last ableoncemoretore-enterhisowncapital.8During these years

William's authority was infact largely circumscribed bythe extent of the power hehad recently regained inLower Normandy, and thefact was to entailconsiderable consequences.He found himself establishedin precisely that part of theduchywhich had comemosttardily under the control ofthecountsofRouen,anditispossible that he realized that

here might be provided anopportunityofmitigatingthatdichotomy between Upperand Lower Normandy whichhad always tended to impairthe political unity of theduchy. At all events, it issignificant that thegrowthofCaen to a position of greaterimportance begins about thistime.9By theendof the firstquarter of the eleventhcentury a cluster of villages

had been formed at thejuncture of the Orne and theOdon, and the importance ofthis site was evidentlyrecognized in 1047 when itwas chosen as the meeting-place of the council whichproclaimedtheTruceofGod.ThenceforwardWilliam,whodoubtless appreciated thestrategic and commercialadvantages of this position,took positive action during

theensuingyearstofosterthegrowth of an urbanagglomeration at this place,providing it with walls ofstone and perhaps with acastle,andmakingitalsooneof his principal residences.The regard he had for it isdisplayed today in the twomagnificent abbey-churcheswhichremainthegloryofthetown,anditissignificantthatat the lastWilliamwas tobe

buried, not like his ancestorsin Rouen or Falaise, but atCaen. Although not anepiscopal city, Caen roseduring his lifetime to be thesecond town in Normandy,and its early growth owesmore to William theConqueror than to any othersingleman.The riseofCaenduring the Conqueror's reignis thus symptomatic of hiseventual success in

integratingUpper and LowerNormandy finally into asinglepoliticalunit.Itwas,likewise,duringthe

periodimmediatelyfollowingthe battle of Val-ès-Dunesthat the rise of Anjou begantointroduceanewfactorintoNorman politics. Therelations between Normandyand Anjou, which were tocoloursomuchofthehistoryof the twelfth century and

eventually to result in theformation of a greatcontinental empire, enteredon their first critical phasebetween 1047 and 1052, anditwasthenthattherebegantotake shape a new politicalgrouping in north-westernFrance which was vitally toaffect the future. So wide-reaching were to be theresults of this development,and so fraught was it with

immediate peril to the duke,that its obscure origins inAngevin policy need here tobewatched in so faras thesehazardously affected thesubsequent course ofWilliam's career, andmodified the fortunes of theduchyoverwhichheruled.Hitherto, the expansion of

Anjou had been directedsouthward. It had beenachieved mainly at the

expense of the counts ofBlois,10 and so successfullythat in 1044, a bare threeyears before Val-ès-Dunes,King Henry I had beenconstrained to give formalrecognition to Angevindominance over Touraine.11HenceforthAnjou,holdinginTours the key to the Loirevalley, could block theRoman road of Capetiangovernance which ran from

Paris to Orléans and onwardintoPoitou.12Inthiswaywasjustified the political insightof earlier counts of Anjouwho had realized that theirpower could best be basedupon a control of the Loire,and it was Geoffrey Martel,who, succeeding as count in1040, reaped the reward oftheir endeavour. Brutal,unprincipled, crude, andstrong, Geoffrey lacked

finesse in his ambitions andstatesmanship in his policies.But he had in his charactermuch of the hammer afterwhichhewasnamed,andhisachievements are not to beminimized. From 1044 untilhis death in 1060 he wasalways a formidable menacetothedukeofNormandy,andformostofthatperiodhewasa stronger force than DukeWilliam in the affairs of

northernFrance.It is not surprising that

such a man finding himselfnow secure in the southshould at once strive to pushnorthward in his conquests.And the comté of Mainepresenteditselfastheobviousfield for his operations. ForMaine at this time was in astateofgreatdisorder.Itwasprecisely during the earlierhalf of the eleventh century

that a new feudal aristocracyaroseinMaine.Suchfamiliesas those of Mayenne,Château-Gonthier, Craon,Laval, and Vitré were beingestablished in theirpossessions and in manycasesthereischarterevidenceto show that the earlyeleventh-centurylordwastheoriginal grantee.13 In face ofthis development the comitalhouse of Maine found itself

unable to exercise anyeffectivecontrol,andafterthedeathofHerbert‘Wake-Dog’about 1035,14 his successorCountHugh IVwasengagedin constant warfare with hisvassals, many of whom hadnow fortified themselves innewlybuilt castles.15 Amongthese, moreover, there wasone feudal familywhichwasto play a crucial part in thewider conflict which ensued.

ForattheexactpointwhereatCapetian, Norman andAngevin interests were tomeet, there was establishedthehouseofBellême.Neither the French king,

nor the count of Anjou, northeyoungdukeofNormandy,could ignore the family ofBellême, for it controlled aregion thatwasvital toallofthem–awildstretchofhillycountry on the border

between Maine andNormandy which held thekey to important lines ofcommunications. At Bellêmeitself, six roads convergedlinking Maine with theChartrain and withNormandy.ThroughAlençonpassed the old Roman wayfromLeManstoFalaise.Andin the singlegap in the ridgebetween Alençon andDomfront there ran yet

another Roman road leadingtowards Vieux.16 It had forlongbeentheambitionofthefirst house of Bellême17 toobtain control of this vitaldistrict and by 1040, thatambition had been virtuallyfulfilled. The family heldBellêmeitselfnominallyfromthekingofFrance,DomfrontfromthecountofMaine,andAlençon from the duke ofNormandy. But in reality it

was possible for the lords ofBellême to act as virtuallyindependent of their variousoverlords, and to play theseoff one against the other.18Moreover, the power of thefamily had been yet furtherincreased by the dominatingpositionithadacquiredinthechurch. Between 992 and1055threesuccessivebishopsofLeMans–Siffroi,Avejot,and Gervais – were

connexions of the family ofBellême,19andin1035Yves,then head of the family,becamebishopofSées.20Such was the situation in

Mainewhen shortly after thebattle of Val-ès-Dunes, thecount of Anjou began toextend his activitiesnorthwards. In the extremesouth ofMaine, and near theAngevin border, was thefortress of Château-du-Loir

whereat was establishedGervais, bishop of LeMans,21 and it was thisstronghold that GeoffreyMartel now attacked.22 Hefailed to take the castle,which was partially burntduringtheoperation,23buthehad the good fortune tocapture the bishop,whomhepromptly threw intoprison.24A situation was clearlyarisingwhichtheFrenchking

could not ignore, the moreespecially, when in 1050,PopeLeo IX,whohadmadeunavailing protests againstthe imprisonment ofGervais,25 formallyexcommunicatedthecountofAnjou.26 Finally, on 26March1051,CountHugh IVof Maine died,27 and thecitizens of Le Mansimmediately offered theirtown toCountGeoffrey.The

countofAnjouatonceseizedhis opportunity and occupiedthecapitalofMaine.28The crisis which ensued

inexorably involved not onlythe French king but theNormanduke.Hugh'swidowBertha with her son Herbertand her daughter Margaretwere expelled fromMaine.29At the same time, Gervais,who at last obtained hisrelease by ceding Château-

du-Loir to Count Geoffrey,repairedtotheNormancourt,andtogetherwithotherexilesceaselesslyurged theduke totakeaction inMaine.30DukeWilliam must have realizedthat his own interests werenow involved, and in anycase he could hardly haverefusedassistancetohisroyaloverlordonwhosesupportherelied. Hostilities had in factbecome inevitable and it is

possible that about this timethe duke joined the king inblockading the Angevinstronghold of Moulihernenear Baugé.31 Whether thisengagement (which is onlyreported in William ofPoitiers) ever took place, orwhetherinthatcaseitshouldbereferred(asisprobable)tothe spring of 1051 isdoubtful. Soon, however, thewarwastobeextendedupto

theveryborderofNormandy.OncesecureinLeMansafterthe cession of the town inMarch1051,Geoffreymovednorth-eastward and occupiedthe fortresses of Domfrontand Alençon. The Normanduchy was now directlythreatened by the Angevinexpansion and its duke wasforcedintoaction.32Inthelatesummerorearly

autumn of 1051,33 therefore,

Duke William, with theapproval of King Henry,entered the territory ofBellême to dispute with thecountofAnjouthepossessionof the key fortresses of thisregion.His first advancewastowards Domfront, and soimmediate did the threatappearthatCountGeoffreyatonce hurried to the rescue.34After considerable fightingthe count was compelled to

retire,andperhapsowingtoathreat to Anjou by KingHenry from Touraine, hesubsequently left Maine.35Even so, William could nottakeDomfront by storm, andafter constructing siege-workssimilartothosehehadused at Brionne, he settleddowntobesiegeit.Butintheabsenceofhischiefopponenthe was not content merelywith the prolonged blockade

which certainly lasted for aconsiderable time during themonths of winter.36 Onenight, therefore, leaving asectionofhisforceinfrontofDomfront, he suddenlymoved under cover ofdarkness to Alençon. Heachieved surprise, stormedthetown,andhavinginflictedhorrible barbarities upon thedefenders, heplacedhis owngarrison within its walls.

Then he moved back toDomfront, and so great wasthe fear excited by theatrocitieshehadsanctionedatAlençon that the inhabitantsof Domfront determined tosurrender in return for apromise of mercy andprotection. Duke Williamthus found himself inpossession of the twostrongholds.37The importance of this

campaign was considerable.Alençon and Domfront wereboth in the future to stand inneedofdefence,butthedukehad retained his overlordshipover the one, and added theother to his dominion. Thecustoms of Normandy thussoon came to prevail also inDomfront, whilst thesurrounding district of thePassais was gradually to beabsorbed in the duchy.38 A

certain stabilization of thisfrontier had thus beenachieved in the interests ofNormandy, and the resultswere reflected in thechanging position of thehouse of Bellême within thefeudal structure of north-western France. The lords ofBellême were always toprove difficult subjects, butthough the Capetian kingswere ever ready to assert

direct overlordship overthem,theNormandukesfromthistimeforwardwereabletotreat themmore andmore asvassals,andthenewsituationwasforciblyexpressedinoneof the most important feudalalliancesofthisperiod.Aboutthis time Roger II ofMontgomery, whose familyhad risen to power with thesupport of Duke Robert I,acquired for wife Mabel,

daughter of William TalvasofBellême.39ShewasheiressofalargepartoftheBellêmelands, and her marriage wasyet further to advance thefortunes of Montgomery.Henceforth the fortunes ofBellêmewere tobe linked tothoseofNormandy,andwitha family already closelyassociated with the Normanducalhouse.Thecontrolobtainedbythe

duke over the debatableterritory of Bellême was inthefuturetoprovideWilliamwith a base from which hemight extend his authoritywestward. But thisdevelopmentwas still remotein1051,forGeoffreywasforlong to remain the dominantforce in Maine. Nor is itperhaps always realized howgreatathreattothedukewaslatent in this war.

Throughout, itwould appear,he was surrounded bytreachery,40 and any failurewould undoubtedly haveprovoked a widespreadrevolt.Intheevent,however,his position was to besubstantially strengthened byhis success, and it isnoteworthy that in thiscampaign William had beenparticularly assisted not onlyby Roger of Montgomery

(whohadaspecialinterestinthe Bellême inheritance) butalso byWilliam fitz Osbern,the son of Duke Robert'smurdered steward.41 Theseyoungmenweretobeamongthe architects of the Normanconquest of England, andtheir presence along withothers with William in frontofDomfrontindicatesthatthedukewasalreadyattractingtohissupportrisingmembersof

the new Norman nobility,who were now willing tostake their personal fortunesonhissurvival.He was in truth almost

immediately to stand in needof all the support he couldinspire, for his fatewas nowto be perilously intertwinedwith a political movementwhichwastoinfluencemuchof the future of France andEngland, and which after all

but destroying the NormanpowerwastodeterminemuchofthesubsequentcharacterofNorman policy. Hitherto, thesurvival of the duke haddepended in large measureupontheFrenchking.Duringthe minority Normandy hadbeen treated almost as if itwere part of the royaldemesne of France. Theprime feature of Val-ès-Duneshadbeentheactionof

King Henry; and in thesubsequentwarsthedukehaddischarged his feudal duty tothe king. In 1052, however,the ancient connexionbetween theNorman dynastyand the house of Capet wasdisrupted. Val-ès-Dunes hadbeenwonby thekingfor theduke; Alençon had beenstormed by William whenfighting against the enemiesof Henry; but when, shortly

after the fall of Domfront,Duke William had to face arebellion comparable inmagnitudewith that of 1047,he did so, not with Capetianassistance, but in oppositionto the armed strength of theFrenchking.There thus tookplace a transformation in thelong-established relationsbetween the Norman duchyand the French monarchy,and as a result a new epoch

opened wherein Normandywas no longer to appear asthe vassal and supporter ofthe Capetian monarchy, buthenceforth,forahundredandfifty years, as its mostformidableopponentinGaul.This transformation in

political filiations was, ifjudged by its futureconsequences, one of themost important events in theNorman reign of Duke

William, but the manner inwhichitwasaccomplishedisdifficulttoascertain.Itwouldseem, however, that thechange must have beeninitiated by the king ratherthan the duke. The warfarebetweenHenry andGeoffreyhad dragged oninconclusively, and it mayhave become clear to theFrenchking thathehad littleto gain from its continuance.

At all events, arapprochement between thecountandthekingtookplaceduring the first half of 1052,and a definite reconciliationbetween themwascompletedbefore15Augustofthatyearwhen the king and the countwere together in amity at theroyal court at Orléans.42William on his part wasboundtobeconcernedatthisdevelopment. It would seem

thathehurriedtothekingforhe is himself to be found on20 September 1052 in theroyal presence at Vitry-aux-Loges,43 where he doubtlessstrove to hinder thereconciliationbetweenHenryand Count Geoffrey. Hefailed;andinfactthiswasthelast time he was ever to bepresentasafriendatthecourtof the French king. The newalliance between Henry and

Geoffrey at once began totake shape, and its criticalconsequences for Normandywere immediately to bedisclosed. Anjou andNormandy had already beenbrought into direct collision,andnowtheformerprotectorofthedukeofNormandyhadpassed over to the duke'smost dangerous opponent innorthernGaul.Itonlyneededa formidable rebellion to

break out within the duchy,and in connexion with thenew alliance, to produce oneof the most acute crises ofNorman history. And such arebellion was immediatelyforeshadowed when in themidst of the siege ofDomfront,William, count ofArques,suddenlyandwithoutexcuse, deserted from theducal army, renounced hisvassalage,anddepartedtohis

own lands in easternNormandy.44The establishment of this

man as count of Arques hadbeen one of the features oftheminority, and in 1052 heand his full brother Mauger,now archbishop of Rouen,could between them exercisean overwhelming authorityover the whole of UpperNormandy. In view,therefore, of the critical

situation now developing innorth-western France theirsupport might almost haveseemed essential to thesurvival of the young duke.From the first, however,William, count of Arques,seems always to have shownhimself ill-disposed towardshisnephewwhomwithsomecomplacency he despised asillegitimate.45Hewas in factoverwhelmingly ambitious,

and having failed to becomeduke himself, he perhapshoped to establish himself asan independent ruler east ofthe Seine.46 Not withoutreasondidWilliamofPoitiersassert that his efforts toincrease his own power andto diminish that of the dukewere constant and of longduration.47His importanceasan opponentmay, further, begaugednotonlybytheextent

of his possessions, whichwere vast,48 but also by thefrequency with which hisattestation was sought inorder to fortify privatecharters. He appears aboutthis time aswitness to deedsrelating to Jumièges andSaint-Ouen, to Saint-Wandrille, and Holy Trinity,Rouen.49 Nor was it onlyfrom his brother, thearchbishop, that he might

expect to receive support inhis designs. He had alreadymarried a sister ofEnguerrand II, count ofPonthieu, and his sonWaltermight expect to succeedhim.50 Here in truth was amost formidable connexionbased on Upper Normandywhich by itself might haveseemed capable of menacingthe existence of the ducalpower.

The formation withinNormandy of this powerfulcoalition in opposition to thedukewas,moreover,effectedat the same time as the kingof France and the count ofAnjouweremakingtheirownalliance,andby1052thetwodevelopments, which werenot wholly dissociated, hadcombined to threaten theducal authority withextinction. It is in fact in the

light of these events that thechange in the traditionalrelationshipbetweenthedukeofNormandy and the Frenchmonarchy is best to beappraised.DukeWilliamhadatthistimenothingtogainbyan assertion of independencefrom the French monarchysuch as was the delight oflater Norman chroniclers toacclaim, and for a long timehe seems to have been very

reluctant even to recognizethe breach that had beenmade.51 Both Norman andlater English writers thusinsist thathe showedhimselfaverse from engaging in anypersonal conflict with hisoverlord.KingHenry,on theother hand, having madepeace with the count ofAnjou,appearstohavehopedthat his dominance overNormandycouldbesustained

by means of a powerfulfaction within the duchywhich would support theFrenchkingagainsttheduke.Onlyinpartthereforewasthesignificance of the ensuingwar to be explained byOrdericus Vitalis when heaccurately reported thatCount William of Talourebelled with the counsel ofArchbishop Mauger hisbrother, and that together

these succeeded in bringingthe king of France to theiraid.52 King Henry after hisnegotiationswithAnjouhadastillmorepositiveparttoplayin the drama.He assumed it:and the significance of hisaction was perhaps felt by amonkofHolyTrinity,Rouen,whosawfittodateoneofhischarters by reference to theevent.53 The king and thedukewerenowatwar,anda

new era had opened in therelations betweenFrance andNormandy.Certainly, the threat to the

ducal dynastywas lethal; forif the full strength of thiscoalition from Talou andRouen, from Paris, Anjou,andPonthieu,couldeverhavebeen brought at one time inunisontoattacktheduke,itisvery doubtful whether hecould have survived. As it

was,thehostilitiesopenedonNorman soil where theinsurgents had acquired agreat accession of strengthfrom thegreat fortresswhichthe count of Talou hadrecently built on the heightsoverlooking Arques.54 Thisfamouscastle,whoseerectionmarked an epoch in thedevelopment of Normanmilitary architecture, wasdesignedtobeimpregnableto

direct assault. Itwas perhapsbuilt of stone, and furtherstrengthened by a deepsurrounding fosse which canstill be seen. The erection ofsuchacastlebyacountwhowas notoriously ill-disposedtowards his nephew musthave been a source of greatdisquiet to the duke, andaccording to William ofPoitiers he early placed agarrisonofhisownwithinit.

Whether he was in fact ableto take this step against themagnate who had certainlybuilt the castle for his ownuse is a little doubtful, asmustalsobetheassertionthatthe ducal garrison afterwardsbetrayed the fortress to thecount. In any case, at theopening of hostilities thecastle of Arques was in fullpossession of the count ofTalou, and his revolt was

baseduponit.Stronginhisgreatfortress,

the count of Arques couldbegin to make himselfsupreme in the surroundingcountryside, and at first heseems to have encounteredlittleoppositionexceptinonequarter where an interestingfamily group decided towithstand him. In what isnow the small village ofHugleville,55 some twelve

miles south of Arques, therewas established a certainRichard who was related tothe ducal house since hismother, Papia, who hadmarriedGulbert,advocatusofSaint-Valery, was herself adaughter of Duke RichardIII.56 This man who was indue course to build the littletownofAuffay,57haderectedforhimself a strongholdnearSaint-Aubin between

Hugleville and Arques. Herehestoodagainstthecountandbrought to his assistanceGeoffrey of Neufmarché58andHughofMorimont,59 thetwo sons60 of that Turchetilwho had about 1040 beenkilled while acting asguardian of the ducal court.GeoffreyofNeufmarchéhad,moreover,previouslymarriedone of Richard's Ill'sdaughters,61 and so it was a

close connexion of relatedmagnates,allofwhomhadindifferent ways becomeassociated with the ducaldynasty,thatnowdeterminedto resist thecountofArques.At first their opposition wasineffective, and Hugh ofMorimontwith certain of hisfollowers was slain after anencounterwith themen fromArques at Esclavelles.62 Thefamily connexion of Saint-

Valery andAuffay was soontoplayagreatpartinNormanhistory, but for the momenttheir opposition to the countof Arques was checked. Thecount could, in fact, nowboast that he had on his side‘almost all the inhabitants ofthecountyofTalou’.63The news of the count's

overt rebellioncame toDukeWilliam when he was in theCotentin.64 He may already

have unsuccessfullysummoned the count toappear before him, or itmayhave been a report of thebetrayal of the castle whichfirst reached him.65 At allevents he acted with speed.Hesetoutatoncewithaveryfew followers, and ridingrapidly eastward, was joinedonhiswaybyasmallbodyofmen from Rouen who hadalready without success

striven to prevent theprovisioning of Arques. Onhis arrival at the castle heengaged in a skirmish withsome of the count's menoutside the walls and drovethembackwithinthefortress.Then realizing that the castlewasnottobetakenbystorm,he determined to besiege it,and following his earlierpractice, he erected a largewooden tower by means of

which he might threaten thedefenders from outside.Having done this, he leftWalterGiffardtoconductthesiege and himself retired inorder to prepare tomeet anyrelieving force that mightcome from outside to theassistance of the beleagueredgarrison.66The duke's prime purpose

was to invest the castle ofArques before the count of

Talou could be joined by hisallies from outsideNormandy. In this hewas sofar successful that when inthe autumn of 105367 KingHenry in company of CountEnguerrand of PonthieuenteredNormandybywayofthe Scie valley, he foundArques already cut off, andan opposing force lyingbetween him and thestronghold.68 It therefore

became the king's majorobjective to bringreinforcements andprovisions to the garrison.Duke William, whose chiefhope was to prevent suchassistance reaching Arques,still seems to have beenreluctant to oppose hisoverlordinperson,buton25October69 some of hisfollowers succeeded inambushing a part of the

French force near Saint-Aubin and in cutting it topieces. The casualties wereheavy, and Enguerrandhimself was among theslain.70This engagement which

brought consternation to thedefenders of Arques was adecided reverse for theenemiesoftheduke,anditistherefore little wonder thathis panegyrists were

concerned to emphasize itsimportance.71 King Henrywas able to give some helpboth in men and material tothe garrison, but he wascompelled soon towithdraw.Thereafterthecastlecouldbestarved into surrender, andlate in1053 ityieldedon thesoleconditionthatthelivesofthegarrisonshouldbespared.The fortress of Arques, soessentialtothegovernanceof

Upper Normandy, thuspassed into the hands of theNormanduke.CountWilliamofArqueswas granted termsofsurprising leniency,buthewas constrained to leave theduchy, and he fled to thecourt of Eustace, count ofBoulogne. He troubledNormandynomore.72Whilst the fall of Arques

was of the first importance,thecaptureofthefortressdid

not itself decide thecampaign. Already CountGeoffrey of Anjou wasmaking his preparations, andon the western borders ofNormandy there were menwho were ready to supporthim.ThusevenwhileArqueswas being besieged, manymagnates elsewhere inNormandy rebelled, and themen of Moulins which laynear the territory of Bellême

actuallygaveuptheirtowntoGuy-William of Aquitaine,thebrother-in-lawandallyofthecountofAnjou.ThekingofFranceinhisturnwasonlydelayedforaveryshortwhileby the defeat of his men ontheScie.Itisnotcertainhowlong the reduction ofArquestookafter theactionatSaint-Aubin on 25 October 1053,but several weeks wereprobably occupied in this

task, and Duke William canhardly have been master ofthe fortress much, if at all,beforeDecember.Yet beforethe beginning of February1054 the coalition arrayedagainst the duke was readyfor joint action, and a largedoubleinvasionofNormandythentookplace.73The offensive planned by

the French king wasorganized on a wide scale.

The main body of theinvadersassembledunder theking at Mantes, and enteredthe comté of Évreux whichwas given over to pillage. Inthis body were troops drawnfrom all over north-westernFrance, from Berri, forexample, from Sens, Blois,and Tourraine and it wouldseemthattherewerealsomenfrom Anjou perhaps withCountGeoffreyat theirhead.

The other body of invaderswasrecruitedchieflyfromthenorth-eastern fiefs of theFrenchkingandplacedunderthe leadership of Odo, hisbrother, together withRainald, count of Clermont,and Guy, count of Ponthieu,who was doubtless eager toavenge the death of his ownbrother who had fallen theprevious year outside thewalls of Arques. This force

entered eastern Normandyand immediately began awidespread devastation. Itwasinallaformidableattack.Fullallowancemustbemadefor the exaggerations of laterNorman chroniclers whowere naturally prone tomagnify the threat to theduchy. But their remarksreceive some independentconfirmation, and it wouldseemthataveryconsiderable

part of the feudal strength ofthe Capetian monarchy hadbeen mobilized againstNormandy.74It was at this moment of

peril that Duke William'sprevious capture of Arquessaved him from destructionfor he was able to collect adefendingforcefromalloverhisduchywithoutthemenaceofahostilefortresswithinhisown borders. Wace gives a

longlistofthemagnateswhorallied to his support,75 andmore reliablewriters indicatethat there was a wideresponse to his summons.76This was in itself a notableachievement. For whilst it isvery significant thatmany ofthemenparticularlynotedbyWilliamofPoitiersashavingtaken part in the campaignseems to have been asmuchconcerned to preserve their

own estates as to defend theduchy,77 none the less theirinterests had clearly becomeidentified with those of theirruler. William's force was atanyratelargeenoughforittobe divided into twocontingents operatingrespectively to the west andeast of the Seine. The dukehimself with men frommiddle Normandy faced theinvaderswhowereadvancing

under the French kingthroughtheÉvreçin.78Ontheothersideoftheriver,Robert,count of Eu, with Hugh ofGournay, Walter Giffard,Roger of Mortemer, and theyoung William of Warenne,came out from their ownlandstowithstandtheeasternincursion under Count OdoandCountRainald.79The French force under

Odoand the counts seems to

havebeenunpreparedforthislevyfromeasternNormandy.Having entered the duchy bywayofNeufchâtel-en-Bray,itadvanced to theneighbourhood of Mortemer,and there gave itself up tounrestrainedrapeandpillage.Widely scattered anddemoralized, it thus offereditself as an easy target forattack,andwhenthetroopsofthe count of Eu rapidly

advanced they achievedsurprise, and fought with aninitial advantage which wasultimately to prove decisive.The engagement lastedmanyhours and was fiercelycontested, but no disciplinecould apparently be imposedon the French force, and theslaughterwasconsiderable.Itisunfortunatethatnodetailedaccount which meritscredencehas survivedof this

battle which was to be ofdecisive importance, but ofthe issue there could be nodoubt. Odo and Rainaldescapedwith difficulty;Guy,count of Ponthieu, wascaptured;and their forcewasdispersed. So complete wastheNormanvictorythatwhenthenewsofthebattlereachedthe two opposing forces onthe other side of the Seine,thekingofFrancedecidedto

withdraw. The duke ofNormandyhadbeensaved.80The battle of Mortemer

reflected a major crisis inNorman history, and neveragain was Duke William tobe faced by so formidable athreat to the continuedexistence of his power.WithinNormandy the resultswereimmediatelyapparentasthe strong coalition whichhadbeenarrayedagainsthim

began rapidly to break up.The king of France and thecountofAnjouhaddeparted,and William, count ofArques, who had alreadygone into exile, lost all hopeof return. His comté wasforfeit; his son, Walter,disinherited; and for theremainder ofNorman historyTalouwasnever topossessacount of its own, but wasdirectlysubjecttothedukeat

Rouen. Even morenoteworthy were theconsequences to thearchbishop of Rouen. VerysoonafterMortemer,perhapsin1055,81butmoreprobablyin 1054,82 an ecclesiasticalcouncil,meetingatLisieuxinthepresenceofHugh,bishopof that see, together withotherbishopsof theprovinceand under the presidency ofErmenfrid, bishop of Sitten,

the papal legate, solemnlydeposed Mauger andappointed a reformingarchbishop of a new type tosucceed him.83 DukeWilliam's power had beenfirmlyre-establishedinUpperNormandy, and his victorymightevenseemtohavehadtheblessingofthechurch.Itisthereforereasonableto

conclude that at Mortemer aturning-point in the Norman

reign of Duke William hadbeenreachedandpassed,andit is interesting to considerhow far he had himself beenpersonallyresponsiblefortheachievement.Before1046hecan hardly have had muchinfluence on the conduct ofaffairs, andhe clearly playeda subordinate part in thecampaign which culminatedat Val-ès-Dunes. But hisenergy at that time was

remarkable and his influencewas not negligible, whilst inthe succeeding years hemovedrapidlyintoapositionof greater prominence. Hispersonal prowess during thewarfare in Maine was notedwith admiration,84 and henow began to show for thefirst time those qualities ofefficient leadership whichwere later so signally toimpress his generation. It is

not known whether theplanned methods of siege-work which he employedsuccessively at Brionne,Domfront, and Arques wereof Norman origin, butcertainlytheyoungdukeusedthem with great effect, andhis night march to Alençon,by which he achievedsurprise, was a remarkabletactical feat. During the warinMainehealsoexhibitedfor

the first time that calculatedcombination of ferocity andleniency which was later tomark so much of his career.The horrible savagery withwhich he treated those whoresisted him at Alençon wasused as an example to thedefenders of Domfront, whowere offered pardon andprotection in return forsurrender. It was a devicewhichhecontinuallyrepeated

andwithnotableresults,bothin Normandy and England.His successes in thiswarfarecertainly caused him to besurrounded at this time withan ever-increasing regard,and the widespread supporthe received during the crisisof 1052–1054 wasundoubtedly due to theprestige he had acquired byhis character and through hisacts.

He now reaped the rewardof his endeavours. But if hisposition in Normandy after1054wasstrongerthanithadever been before, there wasstill to be much fightingbefore there could be formalpeace between him and theFrench king. Yet the dukewas able to take theoffensive,anditwasprobablyat this time thatWilliam fitzOsbernwaschargedwith the

fortification of Breteuil overagainst Tillières.85Meanwhile negotiationsbetween the duke and theking proceeded. The detailsof these have been lost, andeventhedateandtermsoftheensuing agreement areuncertain. It would seem,however, that by the end of1055 Duke William hadbecome formally reconciledtohisoverlord, andon terms

which were notdisadvantageous to himself.The French king, it wouldappear, obtained the releaseof some of his vassals whohad been captured atMortemer,andinreturnheissaid to have confirmedWilliam in possession of allthelandswhichthedukehadtakenfromCountGeoffrey.86The count of Anjou,

however, could hardly be

expectedtoacquiesceinthesearrangements, and it isprobably to the years 1054and 105587 that should bereferred a renewal ofhostilitiesbetweenNormandyand Anjou. These wereconcentrated once again inthe border country aroundDomfront, where DukeWilliam had garrisoned thestrongholds of Mont BarbetandAmbrières.88Onceagain,

also, a great border familybecame involved in thesedisputes. In 1054 Mayenne,which is some seven milesfromAmbrières,washeldbyacertainGeoffrey,theson,asit seems, of Haimo ‘deMedano’, who wasestablished as early as1014.89 This Geoffrey ofMayenne held land not onlyin Maine but also in thediocese of Chartres, and he

was later found witnessingcharters in favour both ofMarmoutier and Le Mont-Saint-Michel.90 His positionwas in fact (on a smallerscale) analogous to thatoccupied by the lords ofBellême, and it was in hisinterests likewise to preventtoo close a definition as towho were his immediateoverlords: the counts ofMaine or Anjou, the king of

France, or the duke ofNormandy. Faced by theNorman advance, he nowappealed to Geoffrey ofAnjou, and the countimmediately responded. Hecalled to his assistance Guy-William of Aquitaine andCount Eudo of Brittany, andtogether with Geoffrey ofMayenne theymovedagainstAmbrières. Duke Williamthereuponcame to rescue the

stronghold,andhecompelledthe besiegers to withdraw.Geoffrey of Mayenne washimself captured, and carriedoff to Normandy, where hewascompelledtodohomage.Thusthevassalageofanotherof the great border familieswaspassingtoNormandy.91Itwouldbe easy, none the

less, to overemphasize theduke's success on thisoccasion. Whatever he may

have achieved at Ambrières,hisexploitsatthistimedonotseem sensibly to haveaffected the Angevindominance over Maine. InAugust 1055, when BishopGervais was translated toRheims, the count of AnjouwasablewithoutdifficultytosecuretheappointmenttothevacantseeofLeMansofhisown nominee Vougrin, whohad formerly been abbot of

Saint Sergius at Angers,92and throughout these yearsthere can be little doubt thatGeoffreyMartel continued tobemasterofMaine.Assuch,he remained a perpetualmenace to theNorman duke,and the natural centre of anycoalition against Normandywhichmightbeformed.Thusit was that King Henry,anxious to avenge the defeatofMortemer, again turned to

the count of Anjou, andcharters indicate that he wasassociated very closely withhim during the early monthsof1057.93 The same alliancewhich had dominated thecrisisof1054thusoncemorecame into being, andimmediately precipitated anew attack on Normandy. ItwasinAugust1057thattherethus occurred a combinedinvasion of the duchy by the

kingofFrance and the countofAnjou.94On this occasion the king

and the count enteredNormandy by way of theHiémois with the object oflayingwastethewholeofthatdistrict, and pushing theirdestruction northwardtowards Bayeux and Caen.DukeWilliam, however, stillseems to have been reluctanttoopposehisFrenchoverlord

in person, and he contentedhimself with massing aconsiderable force in theneighbourhood of Falaise,where by means of spies hekept himself informed of themovements of the enemy. Indue course his opportunitycame. Glutted with pillage,the invaders reached theDives at the ford nearVaraville, and proceeded tocross the river.Whenpart of

the force was across, theincoming tide made itimpossible for the remainderto follow.William thereuponlaunched a savage attack onthose who had not effectedthecrossing,andaccordingtohis panegyrists inflictedsomething like a massacreupon them. So heavy werethe losses sustained by theFrenchthat,asweunderstandfromtheNormanwriters, the

kingofFrancefelthehadnooption but to beat a hastyretreat.NeveragainwashetoinvadeNormandyattheheadofahostilearmy.95The so-called battle of

Varavilledoesnotpossessthesame critical significance inthe history of Normandy asdoesthatofMortemer,anditsimportance has beenoverestimated. UnlikeMortemer, it is scarcely

noticed by the annalists whorecord the earlier battle.William of Poitiers andWilliam of Jumièges arealmost the only early writersto describe it; William ofMalmesbury very brieflyrepeats their story; but mostof the chroniclers, includingOrdericus himself, pass bythiscampaignwithlittleornonotice;96anditisnotuntilthetime of Wace that the full

Norman tradition of a greatvictory is developed.97 Itmight therefore be wise tosuspect some exaggerationhere in a Norman traditionwhich is so littlecorroborated.Nevertheless,inthe years 1057–1060 thereseems to have been asignificant extension of theNorman influence in Maine.It will be recalled that afterthe death of Count Hugh of

Maine in 1051, Herbert hissonhadbeendrivenintoexileby GeoffreyMartel. He nowturned with some confidencetowardstheNormandukeforsupport against his Angevinsupplanter. William, on hisside, was quick to see theadvantage that might begained by promotingHerbert's claims under hisown direction. As a result,and some time after 1055, a

notable pact was madebetween them.By it,Herbertpromisedtomarryadaughterof the Norman duke, andengagedhissisterMargarettomarryWilliam's son, Robert.Moreover, it was agreed thatin the event of Herbert'sdying without children thecomté of Maine should passto the duke of Normandy.98From this time forwardHerbert could be regarded as

William's protégé, if not hisvassal, and it was in thiscapacity that during theseyears he began to recoversome authority in Maine.99Duke William, on his part,might see opening up beforehim the distant prospect ofadding Maine eventually tohisowndominion.In themeantime, however,

it was with King Henry thatthe Norman duke was most

closely engaged. AfterVaraville he could take theinitiative,andsoonheistobefound on the south-westernfrontier of his duchy. Heretherewasadistrictwhichwasto provide the occasion forlong disputes between thedukes of Normandy and thekings of France. InCarolingian times the wholeregion between the Andelleand the Oise had formed a

single pagus – the Vexin –butafter theestablishmentofthe Viking dynasty, thenorthernpartofthishadbeenmade an effective part ofNormandy,whilst thesectionsouth of the Epte containingthe towns of Mantes andPontoise passed under thecontrol of local counts.100 Inthe time of William's father,one of these, named Dreux,came under the overlordship

of Duke Robert, and afterDreux's death his eldest son,Walter, continued in thisvassalage.101 The FrenchVexin was, however, alwaysliable to cause disturbance,and itscountswere in fact toplay an important part in therelations betweenNormandy,France, and England duringthe central decades of theeleventh century. For Dreuxhad married a sister of

Edward the Confessor, andhisson,Ralph,wastohaveanotable career in England,102whilstWalter,onhispart,bysubsequently claiming thecomté of Maine, was toprecipitate one of the mostimportant of William'scontinentalwars.103In 1058, however, the

Norman overlordship in theFrench Vexin was notimmediately threatened, and

itwas slightly to thewest ofthisdistrict–thatistosayonthe northern borders of theChartrain–thatWilliamnowbeganhostilitiesagainstKingHenry. According to oneaccountitwasaboutthistimethat he regained Tillièreswhich he had lost during theminority,104 and certainly henow succeeded in capturingthe French king's strongholdof Thimert, some twelve

miles from Dreux.105Between 29 June and 15August 1058106 King Henrythereforecametolaysiegetothisfortress,andthereopenedthe last episode in the warbetween him and DukeWilliam. The siege ofThimert was in fact to lastalmostaslongasthesiegeofBrionne. Several royalcharters are dated byreference to it in 1058 and

1059, and it was stillcontinuingwhenPhilipIwasconsecratedon23Mayofthelatter year.107 The contestwas, however, losing itssignificance, and there werealready tentative negotiationsfor a truce. According to aNorman chronicler, thebishops of Paris and Amienswere sent to Normandy byHenry on an embassydesigned to bring about a

peace,108 and the fact thatabout this time William andmany of his magnates are tobe found near Dreux109suggests that a personalinterview may have takenplace between the king andthe duke. None the less thewardraggedon.Itisunlikelythat thesiegeofThimertwasoverinAugust1060,anditisprobable that King Henrydied before peace was

concluded with DukeWilliam.110The negotiations of Duke

William with Herbert ofMaine and with the Frenchking, together with thedesultory fighting whichaccompanied them, form afitting epilogue to the longperiod of almostuninterrupted warfare whichoccupied the Norman dukefrom 1047 to 1060. During

these years the duke ofNormandy was engaged in acontinuous struggle forsurvival, and it falsifies thecharacter of this prolongedcrisis in theNormanfortunestotreatitsvariousepisodesinisolation. The siege ofBrionne began within a fewweeks of Val-ès-Dunes, andBrionne was scarcely takenbeforetheopeningofthewarin Maine. The campaign

roundDomfrontandAlençonwas in turndirectly linked tothe revolt of Count Williamof Arques, and this mergedinto the invasion ofNormandy by King Henrywhich was repelled atMortemer. Thus while it istrue that thebattleofVal-ès-Dunesmarksthebeginningofthe effective reign of DukeWilliam,itisequallytruethathis authority was never

undisputed or secure duringthe seven years whichfollowed the victory on thebanksoftheOrne,andduringthe last two years of thatperiod, the revolutionarychangewhichturnedthekingof France from a friend intoanenemyprovidedanewandmost formidable element ofdanger. In retrospect it mayeven appear a matter ofwonder that the ducal power

wasenabled in thisperiod tosurvive the onslaught whichwas directed against it fromso many quarters, and itspreservation reflectsauthentically not only thestrong tradition of ducalauthority which was neverallowed todisappearbutalsothe indomitable character ofthe future conqueror ofEngland.Between 1054 and 1060

thetensionwasrelaxed,butitremained acute. The jointinvasion of the duchy byKing Henry and CountGeoffrey in 1057 gave someindication of the dangerwhich was still latent. Evenafter Varaville, Mainecontinued to be an Angevinrather than a Normandependency, and until hisdeath GeoffreyMartel was astronger force in north-

western Gaul than was theyoungDukeWilliam.Onhisother frontier, it is true, theduke was now able, albeitwithsomereluctance, to takethe offensive against hisoverlord,thoughtheCapetianmonarchy had large reservesofstrengthwhichmightagainbe turned againstNormandy.But the tide had evidentlyturned in favour of the dukebefore two events completed

the deliverance which hadbeen so hardly earned. On 4August 1060 King Henry Idied, leaving the Frenchrealmin thehandsofhissonPhilip,who passed under theguardianship of William'sfather-in-law, Baldwin V,count ofFlanders.111Andon14 November 1060 thereoccurred the death ofGeoffrey Martel, whichremoved William's greatest

rivalinthewest,andplungedbothAnjouandMaine intoacivil war in which theNorman duke might take hisprofit.112 Thus the stage wascleared for a new act in thepersonal drama of DukeWilliam,andthereopenedforthe architect of Normangreatness a new era ofNormanopportunity.Certainly his success in

surmounting the difficulties

which faced him between1046and1060hadbeenduein large measure to his ownpersonality. Consequently itisnoteworthythatthepoliticsof these years, and theirhazards,werethroughoutthisperiodfurthercomplicatedbyaseriesofeventswhichwereinaspecialsensepersonal tohimself. Before 1049, that isto say shortly after the battleof Val-ès-Dunes, plans had

been made for a marriagebetween the duke andMatilda,daughterofBaldwinV, count of Flanders, byAdela,daughterofRobert II,king of France.113 Theprojected marriage was,however, forbidden by LeoIX at the council of RheimsinOctober1049,andthough,in the report of the council,no specific reason for theprohibition is given, it is

generally assumed that theground for the objectionwasthat William and Matildawere within the prohibiteddegrees of relationship.114The marriage none the lesstook place. Perhaps in 1050,probably in 1051, and at alleventsnotlater than1052,115Baldwin V brought hisdaughter to Eu, where themarriagewas celebrated, andtheduke forthwithconducted

hisbridewithfittingpomptoRouen. Not until 1059,however, was the papalsanctiontotheunionobtainedfromPopeNicholas II at thesecondLateranCouncil.116The marriage of Duke

William, and thecircumstances in which ittook place, were sensibly toaffectthepositionofthedukein his duchy, and indeed theplacehewastooccupyinthe

political structure of westernEurope. And no event in hiscareerhasgiven rise tomorecontroversial discussion.117Much speculation has, forinstance,takenplaceastotheecclesiastical objections tothe match, and the nature ofthe consanguinity (if suchexisted)betweenWilliamandMatilda. At one time it washeld that when Williamsoughtherhand,Matildawas

already the wife of a certainGerbod, by whom she had adaughter, Gundrada, wholater became the wife ofWilliamofWarenne,thefirstearlofSurrey.This,however,has now been finallydisproved, and it is in thehighest degree improbablethat Matilda was married toanyonebeforetheConqueror.Some other explanation hasthereforetobesoughtfor the

ecclesiastical ban on themarriage. It has thus beensuggested that both Williamand Matilda were cousins inthe fifth degree, being bothdirectly descended fromRolfthe Viking. It has also beensuggested that thegroundfortheprobitionwasamarriage,whichisallegedtohavebeencontracted (though it wascertainly not consummated)betweenDukeRichard III of

Normandy and Adela(Matilda'smother) before thelatterwasmarriedtoBaldwinV. Finally it has beensuggested (perhaps withgreater probability) that theprohibitionwas based on thefact that after the death ofBaldwin V's mother, Ogiva,his father, Baldwin IV, hadmarried a daughter of DukeRichard II ofNormandy.Allthese theories have

difficulties to overcome, andthemattermaywellthereforebeleftinsomesuspense.It is thus much more

profitable to considerWilliam's marriage, theopposition it excited, and thepolitical consequences itentailed, in relation to thepolitics of the age. Viewedagainstthebackgroundoftheduke's war for survival, it isnotdifficult toconjecture the

motives which impelled himtoseekthematch.AfterVal-ès-Dunes hewas still strictlydependentupontheloyaltyofa few trusted magnates, andonthesupportofhisoverlordthe king of France.Consequently, it isnoteworthythatthedukewas,as it seems, urged to themarriage by his followers,and it is equally significantthatMatildawas thenieceof

the French king.118 Themarriage must furthermorehave in itself seemed highlyadvantageoustoayoungmanlabouringunderthestigmaofbastardy, and as yet onlypartially in possession of hisinheritance. Moreover, therising power of Flandersunder Baldwin V wasinvolved,119 and might wellhave appeared tooffer to theNormanduke theprospectof

a useful alliance. In anycircumstances, therefore,such a marriage might beexpected to increase theinfluence of Normandy inGaul, and its results were tobemore profitable than eventhe astute duke could haveforeseen in 1049. Much wasto happen in the ensuingdecade, andWilliam was, inparticular, to lose thesupportof his royal overlord. But

after the deaths of CountGeoffreyandKingHenryIin1060 when Baldwin V hadbecome guardian to Philip I,the earlier marriage betweenWilliam and Matilda ofFlanders thus began in somemeasure to condition thepattern of power in north-western Europe that formedthe essential background tothe Norman conquest ofEngland.

It is, perhaps, harder tounderstand why the count ofFlanders should havewelcomed the project, butsuch was apparently thecase,120 and here too theexplanationmaybesoughtinthe political situation thenprevailing in Europe.Baldwin V was alreadyengaged in turning Flemishpolicy in the direction ofFrance and away from the

empire.121 His ownmarriageto Adela the daughter of theFrenchkinghadbeenofgreatmomenttohim,122anditwasto be the corner-stone ofFranco-Flemish relations forthe ensuing forty years.123Moreover,in1049,hisaffairswereapproachingacrisis,forin that year both he and hisally,DukeGodfreyofUpperLorraine, were being hardpressed by Emperor Henry

III,124 and the repercussionsofthisstrugglewerefeltevenin England, where Edwardthe Confessor collected afleet to serve if necessaryagainst the count ofFlanders.125Finally,thepope–LeoIX–wasalsoinvolved,being still himself committedto the imperial cause.126 Thetwo opposing interests at thecouncil of Rheimswere thusneatly defined. Baldwin V

might feel constrained toreceivefavourablytheprojectof marriage between hisdaughterandaloyalvassalofthe French king who hadrecently been rescued by hisoverlord at Val-ès-Dunes.The pope, by contrast, musthaveviewedwithsomealarmthe prospect of theconfederation against theemperor being sosubstantiallystrengthened.

The prohibition thusconformed broadly to thegroupingofpoliticalforcesinwestern Europe in 1049, andintheeventthemarriagewaspostponed. When, about1052–1053 it did take place,the situation had changed inso far as Duke William andthe French king were nolongeralliesbutenemies.Butthe war in Germany stilldragged on, and Baldwin V

cannot have wished torenounce the alliance, themore especially as he hadbecome more directlyinvolved at this time in theturbulentpoliticsofEngland.He had evidently notforgotten the action of theConfessor in 1049. In orbefore1051,hehadgivenhishalf-sister Judith in marriageto Tosti, son of EarlGodwine,whenthelatterwas

still one of Edward'sopponents, and in 1052 hesponsoredthearmedreturnofGodwine to England in theking's despite.127 In 1053,therefore, the count ofFlanders was still himself inneedof allies, so thathehadlittle reason to do other thanwelcome the marriage ofWilliamandMatilda.Andthemarriageitselfwasnotablytoaffect the course not only of

Flemish but also of FrenchandAnglo-Normanhistory.The general political

implicationsofthisimportantmarriagewere,however,onlyslowlytobedisclosed,andatthe beginning of the project,the ecclesiastical oppositionto the match must havesensibly increased thedifficulties of Duke Williamwithin his own duchy. It issignificant that Norman

writersof theperiod seem tohave been very reluctant todiscuss the ban, or thereasonsforitsimposition,andtheir silence was later to bebroken only by legendswhich, however picturesque,are historically valueless.128Thematterwasevidentlyoneof great delicacy. A strongtradition supports the viewthat the marriage was, forwhatever reason, a matter of

deep concern to the Normanchurch, and it has even beensuggestedthattheverystrongcontingent of Normanbishops at the council ofRheimsin1049hadbeensenttherebythedukeinthehopethat they might prevent thebanbeingpromulgated.Afterthe prohibition had beenpronounced it would seemthataninfluentialpartyintheprovince of Rouen was

actively hostile to themarriage,129 and it was laterasserted that ArchbishopMauger's denunciation of thematchwas one of the causesof his eventualbanishment.130 Disloyaltycouldcertainly,inthismatter,cloakitselfinthegarmentsofrighteousness, and jealousenemies of the duke mightfind themselves in companywith ecclesiastical reformers.

AccordingtowritersfromLeBec, Normandy was actuallyplaced under an interdict atsome time during thisperiod.131Thesituationwascertainly

dangerous for a young rulerwhose own position wasprecarious, and whose owntitle was weakened byillegitimacy. It is notsurprising therefore that afterthe improvement in his

fortunes in the yearsfollowingMortemer,theduketook active steps to try toeffect a reconciliation withthe papacy, and it is furthersignificant that the longcontroversy about themarriage which then tookplace should have played itspart in developing thepersonalrelationshipbetweenDuke William and Lanfranc,then prior of Le Bec, whose

later co-operation was to bethe basis of the ecclesiasticalpolicy of the Anglo-Normankingdom.Since,however,theduke was never at any timepreparedtorecognizeanybarto his marriage, negotiationsinevitablymovedslowly.Notuntil 1059 did thereconciliation eventually takeplace, and then apparentlyonly on conditions. PopeNicholas II removed the ban

but (as is alleged) only inreturn for a promise that thedukeandhiswifeshouldeachbuild and endow a monastichouse at Caen.132 Certainly,these two magnificentchurches can be regarded assymbolizing an importantfeature of the growth ofeleventh-century Normandy.A close interconnexionbetween temporal andecclesiasticalauthoritywithin

theduchywastoproveoneofthe chief sources of DukeWilliam'sNormanpower,andthe longcontroversyoverhismarriage was mainlyimportant in so far as itimpeded or retarded therealization of that harmony,whichtodayatCaenisstillsostrikingly represented instone.William'smarriage,andhis

eventual reconciliation with

the papacy which had takenplace by 1060, form a fittingcounterpart to theduke'swarforsurvivalanditssuccessfulconclusion. After 1054, andmore particularly between1060 and 1066, the dukestrengthened his duchy sothat he could undertake asuccessfulforeigninvasion.Itmust, however, beemphasized that only twelveyears and seven months

separated Mortemer fromHastings,and less thansevenyears elapsed between thedeath of King Henry andWilliam's own coronation atWestminster. The intervalwas too short for even theablest ruler to attain suchpowerhadhenotbeenabletorely upon earlier institutionsof government which hadescaped destruction duringthe period of confusion, and

hadhenotbeenable,also,tolink tohispurpose the socialand ecclesiasticalmovementswhich in his time weresweeping with exceptionalforce through an exceptionalprovince. In particular, hispoliticalpowerwas toderivefromtheriseofaremarkablesecular aristocracy, from anotablerevivalintheNormanchurch, and from the duke'scontrol and co-ordination of

boththesemovements.Thesedevelopments have nowthereforetobeconsidered,formuch of the future historyboth of Normandy andEnglandwas to dependuponthem. The culminatingachievement of William theConquerorwastobesecurelybased upon the developingstrength ofNormandy duringthe decades immediatelypreceding the Norman

conquest of England, and tothe position then attained bythedukeinhisduchy.

1F.Lot,FidèlesouVassaux?,p.198:‘untournantd'histoire’.

2Will.Jum.,p.123.3Below,pp.92,93.4Delisle,SaintSauveur,pp.20,21.

5Will.Poit.,p.18;Ord.Vit.,vol.III,p.232.

6Will.Poit.,p.21.

7Ord.Vit.,vol.III,p.342;vol.IV,p.335.

8Will.Poit.,p.18.HesaysthatafterWilliamre-enteredRouen,hepunishedthosewhohadrecentlyrevoltedagainsthiminthecity.

9DeBouard,GuillaumeleConquérant,pp.58–61.

10Norgate,EnglandunderAngevinKings,vol.I,pp.143–185.

11Halphen,Comtéd'Anjou

(1906),p.48.12Powicke,LossofNormandy(1913),vol.II,p.14.

13B.deBroussillon,MaisondeCraon(1893),vol.I,pp.18etsqq.;MaisondeLaval(1895),chap.I;R.Latouche,ComtéduMaine(1910),pp.60–62,116–127.

14Latouche,op.cit.,pp.22–31.15Ibid.,pp.60–62.16J.Boussard,inMélanges–Halphen(1951),pp.43,44.

17Onthisfamily,seeG.H.White,R.Hist.Soc.,Transactions,series4,vol.XXXI(1940),pp.67–68.

18Lemarignier,HommageenMarche(1945),pp.65,66.

19Latouche,op.cit.,pp.132–136.Siffroi(d.c.1000)wasbrother-in-lawtoYvesofBellême(d.after1005),andAvejot(d.c.1032)wasthesonofthatYves.Gervais,bishopofLeMans(1038–1055),wasnephewof

WilliamofBellêmewhodiedin1027.

20Gall.Christ.,vol.XI,cols.680–682.

21TheoriginalgranteewasHaimo,thefatherofGervais:hewasalreadyestablishedthereby1007(Latouche,op.cit.,p.62).

22Ibid.,pp.27–28.23Cart.Château-du-Loir(ed.E.Vallé(1906)),no.27.

24ActuspontificumCenommanis(Rec.Hist.Franc.,vol.XI,p.

136).25AlreadyattheopeningofthecouncilofRheims(3–6October1049)LeoIXwasconcernedwiththeimprisonmentofGervais.

26Act.pont.Cenomm.(Rec.Hist.Franc.,vol.XI,p.138).

27NecrologiedelaCathédraleduMans(ed.BussonandLedru),p.72;Latouche,op.cit.,p.29;Halphen,Comtéd'Anjou,p.73.

28Act.pont.Cenomm.(Rec.Hist.

Franc.,vol.XI,p.138).29Latouche,op.cit.,p.29.30Act.pont.Cenomm.,loc.cit.31EverythingconnectedwiththeepisodeatMouliherne,includingitsdate,isobscure.Itmayhavetakenplacein1048(Halphen,op.cit.,p.72),thoughinthatcaseitmusthavebeenbeforeOctoberwhenthekingwasatCarignan,nearSedan.Theactioncould,however,bebetterreferredtothespringof1051

(Prentout,DuedeNormandie,p.146).Thereis,however,nothinginWill.Poit.(thesoleauthority)toconnectitwiththeoperationsroundDomfront.

32Will.Poit.,pp.23,34–36;Will.Jum.,pp.124–126.

33Thetraditionaldateof1048forthiscampaignisonlytoberejectedwithhesitation.AcceptedbyHalphen(op.cit.)whenthatnotablescholarwasaveryyoungman,hisconclusion

hasbeenverygenerallyfollowed.HenriPrentout(DucdeNormandie,pp.140–143)has,however,showngoodreasonwhyitisunacceptable,andinthishehasbeenfollowedbydeBouard,thoughwithoutfurthercomment(op.cit.,p.41).Someoftheevidenceissetoutbelow(AppendixB),andIhavefewdoubtsinassigningtheoperationroundDomfrontandAlençontotheautumnof1051

andtheearlyspringof1052.34Will.Poit.,p.40.35Ibid.,p.42.36Ibid.,p.38.37Will.Jum.,p.126.38Lemarignier,HommageenMarche,pp.19,20,35.

39TheCompletePeerage(vol.XI,p.686)placesthemarriage‘probablybetween1050and1054’.TheinferencetakenfromthedateofthebirthofRoger'sson,RobertofBellême(ibid.,p.

689,notej),isvalueless,sincethedateofRobert'sbirthisinfactunknown,andsinceitisuncertainwhetheranyorallofthedaughtersofRogerIIofMontgomerybyMabelofBellêmewerebornbeforeRobert,whowashimselfthesecondsonofthatmarriage.ThedatesuggestedbyJeanMarx(Will.Jum.,p.125)of‘1048–1049’isevidentlybasedontheassumptionthattheDomfront

campaigntookplaceinthoseyears.

40Will.Poit.,p.36.41Ibid.,p.38.42CharterprintedinRec.Hist.Franc.,vol.XI,p.590;cf.Soehnée,Actesd'HenriI,no.91.

43CharterprintedinRec.Hist.Franc.,vol.XI,p.588.Fordate,seeSoehnée,op.cit.,no.92.

44Will.Poit.,p.52.45Ord.Vit.,vol.III,p.232.46Will.Poit.,p.52.

47Ibid.48HehadlandsasfarwestastheforestofBrotonne(R.A.D.N.,no.100).

49R.A.D.N.,nos.113(Jumièges),103(Sigy);Lot,Saint-Wandrille,nos.22,29(R.A.D.N.,nos.108,125);ChevreuxetVernier,ArchivesdeNormandie,plateIV;Cart.S.Trin.Roth.,p.447,no.50.

50Lot,Saint-Wandrille,no.15.51Will.Poit.,p.26;Will.Malms.,

p.289.52Ord.Vit.,vol.I,p.184.53Cart.S.Trin.Roth.,no.VII(R.A.D.N.,no.130).

54Will.Jum.,p.119;Will.Poit.,p.54;A.Deville,Châteaud'Arques.

55Seine-Maritime;cant.Longueville.

56Ord.Vit.,vol.III,pp.41–42and483–484.RobertdeTorigni(ed.Delisle),vol.I,pp.33–34.

57Ord.Vit.,vol.III,p.42.

58Seine-Maritime;cant.Gournai.59MorimontisahamletofEsclavellesnearNeufchâtel.

60Ord.Vit.,vol.III,pp.42,43;R.A.D.N.,no.104.

61ThefullbrotherofthisgirlwasGulbertofAuffay,whowaspresentatthebattleofHastings,foundedtheabbeyofAuffayin1079,anddied14or15August1087.

62Ord.Vit.(vol.III,p.45)placesthisfightinglater–atthetimeof

theactionatSaint-AubininOctober1053.

63Ord.Vit.,vol.III,p.42.64Will.Poit.,p.54.65Will.Jum.,p.119.66ThesequenceofeventsherefollowedisthatgivenbyWill.Poit.,whichisnotwhollyconsistentwiththatsuppliedbyWill.Jum.orbyWace(RomandeRou,vol.II,pp.167etsqq.).

67Below,AppendixB.68Will.Poit.,pp.58–60.

69ThedateisfixedbytheobituaryofEnguerrand(C.Brunel,ActesdesComtesdePonthieu,p.iv).

70Will.Poit.,p.58;Will.Jum.,p.120.

71Will.Poit.,p.50.Accordingtoalaterchronicler(Rec.Hist.Franc.,vol.XI,p.330)thedyingcriesofEnguerrandwereheardbyhissisteronthewallsofArques.Itisagoodstorywhichmightevenbetrue,forlessthan

amileseparatesthecastlefromSaint-Aubin-sur-Scie,andtheexactsiteoftheengagementisunknown.

72Will.Poit.,p.60;Will.Jum.,p.120.

73Will.Poit.,pp.62,65;Will.Malms.,GestaRegum,vol.II,p.290;Ord.Vit.,vol.III,pp.234–238.

74Will,Poit.,pp.68–72.Freeman(NormanConquest,vol.III,pp.144,164)deniesthatGeoffrey

waspresent,butWill.Jum.(p.129)mentionshim.

75RomandeRou(ed.Andresen),vol.II,pp.224,225.

76Will.Poit.,p.72.77ManyofthemagnatessuchasthecountofEu,HughofGournai,WilliamofWarenne,andWalterGiffardmentionedashavingtakenpartinthebattleofMortemercamefromthatneighbourhood.

78Forexample,RalphofTosny,

whowaswiththedukewestoftheSeine(Ord,Vit.,vol.III,p.238),wasagreatlandownerinCentralNormandy.

79Will.Poit.,p.70.80Ibid.,p.72;Will.Jum.,p.130;Ord.Vit.,vol.III,pp.237,238.

81TheNormanannalsgivethisdatewhichhasbeengenerallyaccepted,butitisbasedondoubtfulevidence.ThecharterwhichmightsupportithasbeenprintedinR.A.D.N.(no.133),

andinCart.Îlesnormandes(p.185,no.116).IthasalsobeencalendaredinCal.Doc.France(no.710).Allthreeeditorsassignthisinstrumentto25December1054,andsinceitissubscribedbyMaugerasarchbishopthiswouldimplythathehadnotbeendeposedatthattime.Thechartercould,however,inmyopinion,bedatedwithequalplausibility(accordingtomodernreckoning)

at25December1053,forChristmaswasfrequentlytakentomarkthebeginningofthenewyear.

82TheActaofthearchbishopsofRouen(Rec.Hist.Franc.,vol.XI,p.70)speakofMaugerashavingbeendeposedbytheauthorityofLeoIX,whodied19April1054.Thisbyitselfisnotwhollyconclusive.ButacharterforLeMont-Saint-Michel(R.A.D.N.,no.132),whichall

theelementsofacomplicateddateseemtoplacein1054,iswitnessedbyMauger'ssuccessorMauriliusasarchbishop.Thematterisnotremovedfromdoubt,butIhaveonlyslighthesitationinassigningMauger'sdepositionto1054.

83Bessin,Concilia,pp.46,47.84Will.Jum.,p.127;Will.Poit.,p.44.

85Ord.Vit.(Will.Jum.,p.180);Benoit(ed.Michel),vol.III,p.

132.86Will.Poit.,p.74.87Will.Poit.(p.74)statesthattherewasmuchfightingbetweenthebattleofMortemer(February1054)andthetrucebetweenWilliamandKingHenry(?1055).Inparticular,heassignstothisperiodoperationsroundAmbrières.Will.Jum.(p.127)placesanattackonAmbrièresatthetimeoftheDomfrontcampaign,andthis

maywellhavetakenplace.Butthesamewriteralludestotheseizureof‘twotownships’inMaineafterMortemer,andOrdericus,interpolatingthispassage(p.184),saysthisactionwasintheneighbourhoodofAmbrières.

88Ord.Vit.,interp.Will.Jum.,p.184.

89Cart.S.VincentduMans,no.IV

90Cart.S.PèreChartres,pp.149,

184,193,211,403;Round,Cal.Doc.France,no.1168;Cart.S.MicheldeI'Abbayette,no.5.

91Will.Poit.,pp.66–78.92Latouche,op.cit.,pp.32,79.93ThekingandthecountweretogetheratTourson19January1057,andatAngerson1March1057(Rec.Hist.Franc.,vol.XI,pp.592,593;Soehnée,op.cit.,nos.106,107).

94Not1058,ashasbeenverygenerallysupposed.Thecorrect

datehasbeenestablishedbyJ.Dhondt(Normannia,vol.XII(1939),pp.465–486;alsoRevueBelgedePhilologieetd'histoire,vol.XXV(1946),pp.87–109).ThattheexpeditiontookplaceinAugust(of1057)isindicatedbytheremarkofWace(RomandeRou,vol.II,pp.238)thatthecropswerestillonthegroundandreadyforharvest.

95Will.Jum.,p.131;Will.Poit.,pp.80–82.

96GestaRegum,vol.II,p.291.TheNormanannalsareallsilentonthiscampaign,andthenameVaravilleisnotmentionedbyeitherWill.Poit.orWill.Jum.

97RomandeRou,vol.II,pp.236etsqq.;Benoit(ed.Michel),vol.II,pp.14etsqq.

98Will.Poit.,p.88;Ord.Vit.,vol.II,pp.102,252;C.W.David,RobertCurthose,pp.7,8.

99AchartergivenbyHerbertofLaMilessebetweenAugust

1055and14November1060isassentedtobyhislords,Geoffrey,countofAnjou,andHerbertofMaine(Cart.S.VincentduMans,no.303).

100LePrévost,Soc.Antiq.Norm.,Mémoires,vol.XI(1840),pp.20–25.Cf.Stenton,Anglo-SaxonEngland,p.611.

101Ord.Vit.,vol.III,p.224.102Round,StudiesinPeerageandFamilyHistory,pp.147,149.

103Below,pp.173,174.

104Ord.Vit.,interp.Will.Jum.(ed.Marx),p.184.

105Onwhatfollows,seeR.Merlet,inMoyenAge,vol.XVI,1903.

106Dhondt,Normannia,vol.XII,p.484.

107Rec.Hist.Franc.,vol.XI,pp.431,598;Soehnée,op.cit.,no.116.

108ChronicleofFécamp(Rec.Hist.Franc.,vol.XI,p.364).

109Cart.S.PèreChartres,vol.I,

p.153(R.A.D.N.,no.147).110Merlet,op.cit.,vol.XVI(1903),p.208.

111Rec.Actes–PhilippeI(ed.Prou),p.xxviii.

112Halphen,op.cit.,p.12.113Below,AppendixB.114Hefele-Leclerc,HistoiredesConciles,vol.IV,p.1018.

115Below,AppendixB.116Will.Jum.,pp.127,128.117Below,AppendixB.118Will.Jum.,p.127.

119Grierson,inR.Hist.Soc.,Transactions,series4,vol.XXIII(1941),pp.95etseq.

120Will.Poit.,pp.52–54.121Lot,FidèlesouVassaux?,p.13.

122Will.Jum.,pp.103–104.123Flach,Originesdel'ancienneFrance,vol.IV,p.71.

124Grierson,op.cit.,p.98.125AS.Chron.,‘C’,s.a.1049.126Grierson,lot.cit.127Below,pp.169,170.

128ThemostpicturesqueofthesederivesfromtheChronicleofTours(Rec.Hist.Franc.,vol.XI,p.348).Ittellsthattheduke,whohadbeensustainedbyBaldwinV,askedforthecount'sdaughterinmarriage.Thegirldeclaredthatshewouldnevermarryabastard.Whereupon,DukeWilliamwentsecretlytoBrugeswhereshewaslivingandforcedhiswayintoherbedroom,wherehebeatand

kickedher.Thegirlthentooktoherbed,butwassoimpressedwiththetreatmentshehadreceivedthatshedeclaredthatshewouldnevermarryanyoneelse.Thetalemayberegardedasofmoreinteresttothestudentofpsychologythantothestudentofhistory.

129MiloCrispin,VitaLanfranci(Opera(ed.Giles),vol.I,p.286);Ord.Vit.,interp.Will.Jum.(ed.Marx),pp.181–182.

130Will.Malms.,GestaRegum,vol.II,p.327.

131MiloCrispin,loc.cit.;ChroniqueduBec(ed.Porée),p.190.

132MiloCrispin,loc.cit.;ChroniqueduBec(ed.Porée),p.190.

PartII

THEDUKEINHISDUCHY

Chapter4

THEDUKEANDTHENEWARISTOCRACY

By1060thepoliticalpositionof Duke William had beenstabilized as a result offourteen years of continuous

war.Hehadmovedoutofhisperilous minority, and freedhimself from dependencyupon the king of France. Hehad withstood a combinedassault from Paris and fromAnjou; and the deaths ofCount Geoffrey and KingHenry had removed fromhispathhistwomostformidableopponents in Gaul. Neverbefore, during his reign, hadNormandy been so secure

fromattack,anditsrulerwasnow offered the opportunityyet further to strengthen hisposition during the six yearswhich were to elapse beforehe undertook the invasion ofEngland.Hewas inhis earlythirties, and it is smallwonder that what he hadaccomplished had won forhim an ever-increasingprestige. This appears in allthe comments of

contemporaries. Of itself,therefore, it merits someattentionsinceitwastomakearealcontributiontowhathewaslatertoachieve.A warrior age salutes a

warrior, and in the youngWilliamit foundawarrior tosalute. Tall in stature and ofgreat physical strength, hispersonal exploits in battle(particularlyinthecampaignsof 1051 and 1052) had

attracted notice, and moresober contemporaries mightalready have detected in himacommanderofconsiderablecapacity. Yet these attributes(whichwere shared bymanyofhiscontemporaries)donotsuffice by themselves toaccount for the specialadmiration with which in1060hewasbeginning tobesurrounded. An explanationhas therefore to be sought in

hismore individual qualities.Brutal himself, it was notmerely through successfulbrutalitythathehadbeenabletoelicitsupportfromsomanyof the ruthless men whomight have been expected towithstand him. Doubtless,fortune had sometimesfavoured him, and certainlyNorman chroniclers, writingafter 1066, were liable tooffer him fulsome adulation.

Butwhenalldeductionshavebeen made, his courage inadversity had in fact beenoutstanding,anditcommandsadmiration. There must,moreover, have been awonderfultenacityofpurposein this young man, whothreatened by murder ininfancy and menaced bytreachery inadolescence,hadnone the less saved himselfby long years of war

conductedagainstgreatodds.His success in his strugglebetween1046and1060mustin the last resortbeadjudgedasinsomemeasureatriumphofcharacter.The value of the prestige

he had acquired was to beabundantly displayed in thefuture.Butbyitselfitwillnotexplain the power of theNorman duchy whichconfronted England in the

third quarter of the eleventhcentury. If in 1066 theNorman duke in theNormanduchy could aspire tobecome, by force of arms,oneof thedominantrulersofEurope, this was due in thefirst instance to the politicalstructure of pre-ConquestNormandy. In particular itdepended upon the results oftwo movements which hadalreadyby1066beenbrought

to fruition in the province,namely the rise of a veryremarkablearistocracy,andamost notable revival in theNorman church. The onesupplied the sinews ofNorman strength, the othergave a special direction toNorman policy. Both thesemovementshadstartedbeforeDuke William II began hiseffective rule, but bothgathered new impetus under

his direction; and he was tobe signally successful in co-ordinating them to his ownadvantage. To thesedevelopments – aristocratic,ecclesiastical, and ducal –attentionmustnowbeturned,for they were to mould thefuture, and to provide notonly the force but alsomuchof the character of theNorman impact uponEngland. The greatest period

of Norman achievement didnotbeginuntiltheyhadtakenplace,orbeforetheyhadbeenfused together by a greatconstructive statesman toprovide the overmasteringenergyofaprovincewhichin1066 was unique inChristendom.Of these developments the

rise of the Norman feudalaristocracymust, both for itscauses and its consequences,

challenge immediateattention. For it is by nomeans easy to ascertain withany precision why it tookplace. General theories oflordship and vassalage willclearly not of themselvessufficetoaccountfortheriseof an exceptional aristocracyin an exceptional province,andifactualityistobegiventotheinquiry,referencemustbe made to the particular

familieswhichthenarose.Anendeavour must be made todetermine how they acquiredsuch power, and how theirdoing so affected theirrelationswith theduke.Suchan investigation mustinevitably on occasion beconcerned with points ofdetail, but it can be justifiedby the magnitude of theissues which were involved.Even so (as must be

confessed) the evidence issomewhat intractable. Thestatementsoflaterchroniclersrespecting the ancestors oftheir patrons are notoriouslysuspect, and in the case ofNormandy a special problemis posed in connexion withthe pedigrees which, late inthetwelfthcentury,RobertofTorigny added to thechronicle of William ofJumièges.1 These famous

genealogieshavebeenwidelyusedbymodernscholars,butitisusuallyhazardoustorelyon them unless they can becorroborated by independenttestimony. In short, anyaccount of the rise of thatNorman secular aristocracywhichwasunder theduke toeffect the Norman conquest,and togiveanewnobility toEngland, must not only berelated to individual families:

it must also be firmly basedupon the testimony of theNormancharters.Four such families may

here therefore be selected asillustrating this developmentwhich was to be of suchimportance to Europe. Thefirst of these is the house ofTosny.2ItsearliestundoubtedmemberisacertainRalphdeTosny, and this man (whomay be styled Ralph II) or

perhaps another Ralph whowas possibly his father (andmay thus be styled Ralph I)was the original grantee ofTosny,3 which had belongedto the see of Rouen in thetime of Hugh, archbishop ofRouen, from 942 to 990.RalphII,aboutwhomthereisdefinite information, was in1013 or 1014 entrusted byDuke Richard II with thedefenceofTillières,4 but just

before this, or shortly after,heistobefoundinItaly,andwhen and where he died isnotknown.Hewassucceededas lord of Tosny by his sonRoger Iwho, likewise, had avariedcareer,bothwithinandoutside Normandy. At sometime he went adventuring toSpain,5 and he is known tohavemarriedawomannamedGodehildis, who later (afterRoger's death) became the

wife of Richard, count ofÉvreux. Roger himselfperished in one of the feudsof the minority, for in, orshortly after, 1040 he wasslaininprivatewarbyRogerof Beaumont. This disaster,however, did not preventRoger's son by Godehildis –Ralph III – from succeedingtoTosny,andhetooplayedaprominent part in Normanpolitics.Ralph IIIwas active

against the king ofFrance inthe campaign of 1054, andlater he fought at Hastings.6Nevertheless,itwasalwaysinNormandy that his chiefinterests lay, and before hisdeath,which occurred before24 March 1102, he hadbecome, within the duchy, abenefactor of many religioushouses, including Saint-Évroul, La Croix-Saint-Leuffroi, Le Bec-Hellouin,

andJumièges.7Tosnyistheearliestfamily

to be discovered inNormandy wherein aterritorialappellationisfoundto be descendable in themannerofasurname,andthesuccession which has herebeen displayed is thus ofexceptional interest.Similarly, the marriagealliances formedbymembersof this family are

symptomatic of its growingpower. Not only did thewidow of Roger I marry acountofÉvreux,buthissisterlinked Normandy to Maine,by allying herself with Guyde Laval, and one of hisdaughters married Williamfitz Osbern, steward ofNormandy, and later earl ofHereford.8 Nor was the OldEnglish aristocracy itself tobe unaffected by the Tosny

fortunes, for Ralph IV ofTosny (the son of the manwho fought at Hastings)married a daughter ofWaltheof,sonofEarlSiwardof Northumbria.9 A betterillustration of the expandinginfluence of a risingNormanfamilyintheeleventhcenturycouldhardlybeobtained.The rise of Tosny was,

however, not to beunchallenged even in central

Normandy, for some twentymiles to the west of it layBeaumontontheRislewhichwas to give its name to anequallyillustriousandbitterlyhostile house.10 The firstmember of this family whopossessed Beaumont wasHumphrey ‘of Vieilles’ whowas probably the son of one‘Thorold of Pont-Audemer’,andmoredoubtfullygrandsonof a certain ‘Torf’.11 This

HumphreywasasupporterofDuke Robert I in whosecompany he is frequently tobefound,andbefore1035hefoundedatPréauxnearPont-Audemer two monasteries:Saint-Pierre for men, andSaint-Léger forwomen.12 Hedied before 1047 and wassucceeded by his son Roger,soon to be styled ‘ofBeaumont’,whofirstbroughtthefamilytogreatness.Fora

long time, however, itsfortunes were precarious,since during the minority ofDuke William a fiercestruggle took place betweenBeaumont and Tosny inwhich not only Roger II ofTosny but also Robert thebrother of Roger ofBeaumont perished.13Nevertheless, Roger ofBeaumont himself prospered.Leaving Vieilles, he

established himself on theneighbouring hill ofBeaumont, where he built afamous castle, and there heremained in powerthroughout the Conqueror'slifetime.14 He did not takepart in the campaign atHastings,butwasrepresentedatthatbattlebyhiseldestson,Robert.15 His own interests,in fact, remained inNormandy,thoughin1086he

is recorded as possessingsome estates in Dorset andGloucestershire.16 But histwo sons, Robert and Henry,became great landowners inEngland and in due courserespectively earls ofLeicestershire and Warwick.Thus it was that a man whohad been active in Normanpolitics in the time of DukeRobert I survived until afterthe time ofDomesdayBook,

and having established thefortunes of a great Normanfamily, left behind him twosons who were to acquireEnglishearldoms.TheriseofBeaumont can in truth bedescribed as both rapid andspectacular.Few Norman families of

the eleventh century weremore powerful than those ofTosnyandBeaumont,butthesame period also witnessed

the rise of many lesserhouses, and of these the firstfamily of Vernon may betaken as an example. When,some timebetween1032and1035, Duke Robert I gaveland to Saint-Wandrille atSierville, some ten milesnorth of Rouen, he did sowith the consent of a certain‘Hugh of Vernon’,17 andother documents show thatthe family of Hugh had

already become possessed ofotherestatesinthisdistrict,18for in 1053 William ‘ofVernon’, together with hisfatherHugh,whohadbynowbecomeamonk,gavetoHolyTrinity, Rouen, land atMartainvillewithinfivemilesof the city.19 It is probable,moreover, that the fulllordshipofVernonpassed tothis family at some timebetween these two dates.

Early in his reign DukeWilliamhadgivenVernontohis cousinGuyofBurgundy,and Guy's disgrace andforfeiture after 104720 maywell have provided theopportunityfortheriseofthenew family. A charter forSaint-Père of Chartres,21which was passed before1061, and probably before1053, shows that at that timethe family had then obtained

full lordship of Vernon,togetherwithitscastle;22andWilliam of Vernon retainedthis lordship until after theNorman conquest, his lastrecorded act being in 1077when hemade a grant to themonastery of Le Bec.23 It israre indeed that the origin ofaNormanterritorialfamilyofthe second class can beillustrated with thisparticularity from the

independent charters of fourreligioushouses.Finally,theremaybetaken

the instance of the family ofMontfort-sur-Risle.24 Thefirst known ancestor of thishouse is Thurstan ofBastembourgwho appears ina ducal charter of 1027 aspossessed of land at Pont-Authou, and who, perhaps,also subscribed two chartersfor Saint-Wandrille which

passed at the ducal court atabout the same time.25 ThisThurstanhadadaughter,withwhom the notorious Geré ofÉchauffourfellinloveatfirstsight while dining with herfather,26 and also two sons –William Bertram, who canperhaps be seen in chartersfor Le Mont-Saint-Michel,and Hugh I of Montfort(some five miles from Pont-Authou) who perished in

privatewarwithWalchelinofFerrières during theanarchy.27 It was, however,the son of Hugh I, namelyHugh II of Montfort, whofinally established thefortunesofthehouse.Hewasone of the leaders of theNorman forces at Mortemer,and between 1060 and 1066attested ducal charters forBayeux and Caen.28 Hefought at Hastings, and so

influentialhadhebecomebythat timethat in1067hewasleftinEnglandtoassistinthegovernment of the kingdomduringWilliam'sabsenceandplaced in charge of theimportant castle of Dover.29In due course he was tobecome a great landowner inEngland,andinNormandytoadd to his hereditas ofMontfort the distinct honourofCoquainvillers.30

The four families, whoseoriginshaveherebeenbrieflyillustrated, may safely beregarded as typical of theNorman aristocracy whichcame to supply the greaterpart of Norman strength inthe time of William theConqueror. It will be noted,moreover, that in all thesecases the family onlyacquired the lands fromwhichit tookitsfeudalname

during the earlier half of theeleventh century. At a laterdate the family of Tosnymight claim descent from anuncle of Rolf,31 but itsassociation with Tosny onlystartedwithRalphIIorRalphI, and its feudal greatnessonlybeganwithRalphIII.Inlike fashion the lords ofBeaumont mightsubsequently cite remoteancestors, but the authentic

history of their house reallystarts with Humphrey ofVieilles, and their full powerwas only attained under aman who was to survive theConqueror. Again, the firstfamily of Vernon has beenshown to have acquired itsdomainallandsbetween1035and1053,whilstthehouseofMontfort-sur-Risle beganabout the same time withThurstan of Bastembourg,

and only achieved greatnesswith a man who is recordedin Domesday Book. Thehistory of these familiesthereforepointsinexorablytoan important conclusion.TheNorman aristocracy whichsurrounded Duke William,and which he led to theconquest of England, was inhis time of comparativelyrecentgrowth.The manner in which this

new aristocracy acquired itslands can only be sparselydemonstrated in the availabledocuments, for the survivingtexts are not sufficientlynumerous to reveal in anycomprehensive fashion whatwasthedistributionoflandinNormandy before theestablishment of the greatfeudal honours. Thepedigrees of Robert ofTorigny suggest, however,

that the advancement of thekindred of the DuchessGunnor,widowofRichard I,mayhavebeenafactorintherise ofmanyNorman housesduring the latter years of thereignofhisson,32andthereischarter evidence whichindicatesthatsomeatleastofthese families acquired landswhichhadformerlybelongedto the ducal dynasty. Thusamong thepossessionsof the

Duchess Judith, first wife ofDukeRichard II,was a largeblock of territory in theLieuvin.33 After her deathmostofthiswenttotheabbeyofBernay,34 but some of themanors do not seem to havebeen thus disposed, and ofthese Ferrières-Saint-Hilaireand Chambrais which hadbothbelongedtotheDuchessJudith became the specialendowmentofoneofthenew

Normanhouses.WalchelinofFerrières was clearlyestablished at that placebefore his death about 1040,and Chambrais (which is themodern Broglie) probablycame into the possession ofthis familyatabout the sametime, since Chambrais,situated but threemiles fromFerrières, was at a later dateheldby the lordsofFerrièresin demesne, and afterwards

became the head of theirNormanbarony.35A clearer example of the

acquisitionbyafeudalfamilyof lands, which had earlierbeen part of the ducaldemesne, can be seen in thedescent of thepossessionsofCountRodulf,half-brother toDukeRichardI.36Amongthelands held by this man wereestates situated on the Rislenear Saint Philibert; estates

on the Eure, includingCocherel,Jouy,and, itwouldseem, Pacy; lands dependentonBreteuil;andlandscentredonIvry.Manyoftheselands,particularlythoseontheEure,were inextricablyintermingledwith the earliestdemesne of the NormandukesandmusthavecometoRodulf throughhis stepfatheror his half-brother. Theirsubsequentdevolutionisthus

of particular interest. Part ofthe Ivry lands went to thecount's eldest son Hugh,bishop of Bayeux,whilst thebarony of Saint Philibertpassed through the count'ssecond son, John, bishop ofAvranches, to that cathedralchurch.But thelargerpartofRodulf's possessions,including thehonourofPacyand the distinct honour ofBreteuil, descended through

the count's daughter, Emma,to her husband Osbern, thesteward of Duke Robert I,and one of the guardians ofthe infant William. AndOsbern was typical of thenewaristocracywhichat thistime was rising to power.Few of his wide estates hadbeen held by his fatherHerfast, whose meagrehereditaspassedeventuallytothe monastery of Saint Père

of Chartres.37 Osbern's ownextensivelandswereacquiredby him between 1020 and1040. Carved out of theoriginaldemesneoftheducaldynasty, they passed after1040 to Osbern's great son,William fitz Osbern, thefuture earl of Hereford, andbecame the endowment ofone of the greatest feudalhonoursofNormandy.If the new magnates thus

enriched themselves withlands which had previouslybeen in lay possession, theyalso effected a considerablespoliation of the Church. Itwas not for nothing that anecclesiastical synod before1046 denounced prelates inthe province who gave landsto laymen.38 When Ralph IIof Tosny went to Apulia hewas already known by thename of his chief Norman

possessionwhichhadfromanearly date belonged to thecathedral church of Rouen,and if this particularalienation may perhaps beexplained by the kinshipbetween Ralph andArchbishop Hugh, none thelessaboutthesametimeotherarchiepiscopalestatescentredonDouvrendpassed likewiseinto lay hands.39 Similarly,Robert, bishop of Coutances,

was accused of havingbestowed cathedral prebendsonhis relatives tobeheldbythem as lay fiefs.40 It isprobable, however, that theolder monasteries ofNormandy were the chiefvictims. As late as 1025, forinstance,theabbeyofBernaywasinpossessionofVieilles,Beaumont, and Beaumontelwhich had been given to themonks by the Duchess

Judith,41 but shortlyafterwards Humphrey ‘deVetulis’ obtained Vieilles,and Beaumont was ceded tohim before 1035.42 The bestexample of this processmight, however, be takenfromthehistoryofthefamilyofMontgomerywhich seemsto have acquiredmany of itsearliest possessions frommonastic lands. Roger I, thefirst ascertainablemember of

thathouse,isreportedtohaveabstracted lands in thepossession of Bernay,43 andbetween 1028 and 1032 heseems to have acquiredVimoutiers,44 which in 1025had been held by the monksof Jumièges.45 Again, acharter of Duke Richard IIdisplays Troarn with itsdependencies asbelonging tothe abbey of Fécamp, and in1025 this abbey also held

Airan and Almenèches. YetTroarn and Airan appear tohave been possessed byRoger I of Montgomery,while Almenèches is knownto have belonged at sometime to his son Roger II.46Three of the oldest monastichouses of Normandy clearlyhad reason to regret the riseofMontgomeryinthesecondquarter of the eleventhcentury.

Such transactions maysafely be regarded asrepresentative, for ourknowledge of them dependsupon the chance survival oftexts from a remote age, andon the possibility of makingcertain identifications of theplaces mentioned in them.ThespoliationoftheNormanchurch by the new Normanaristocracy must have beenconsiderable, and the

numerous new religioushouses, which in the latterpart of the eleventh centurywere founded by thesemagnates, were oftenendowed by themwith landswhich had fairly recentlybeen taken from the olderducal foundations. It should,however, be noted that theseecclesiastical alienationswould tend to figure withundue prominence in the

documents, and thetransferenceoflaylandsmustalso have been extensive,eventhoughforthemostpartit was unrecorded. Onlybecause the monastery ofSaint-Taurin of Évreux wasinterested in the property isanything known of themanner in which Meules,which was part of the ducaldemesne in the timeofDukeRichard I, passed into the

handsofthefamilyofGilbertof Brionne, the count, tosupply at last a territorialname for the first NormansheriffofDevon.47The large-scale

transference of landedproperty which created thenew Norman aristocracyinvolvedatenurialrevolutionwhich coloured the wholehistory of the duchy duringthe Norman reign of Duke

William II. For while thebeginnings of this socialmovementmaybereferredtothe first half of the eleventhcentury (though not earlier)its end had not been fullyaccomplishedevenontheeveof theNormanconquest.Thedisorders in the duchybetween 1035 and 1060provided plentifulopportunity for men of thenewaristocracytowinestates

and power by means of thesword, andeachcrisiswithinthat period involved the fateof families which were laterto rise to dominance inNormandy and England. Thedisturbances of the minoritydirectly concerned thefortunesofTosny,Beaumont,Montgomery, Ferrières, andMontfort, whilst thecampaignsof 1047 and1051not only brought misfortune

to many magnates in LowerNormandy but alsoinfluenced the riseofmenasfar to the east asWilliam ofVernon. But probably thegreatest changes in thisperiod occurred after theforfeiture of William, countof Arques, in 1053. Thecount's possessions hadstretchedwestwardacrosstheSeine,48 and in that regionBeaumontandMontfortwere

readytotakeadvantageofhisdisgrace, whilst within thePays de Talou itself theupheaval must have beeneven wider spread. Thus,while Bolbec, some twentymiles from Le Havre, seemsto have been the originalhome of the Giffards,49 theywere enabled about this timeto establish themselves atLongueville in the heart ofthe Pays de Talou, and this

was to remain the head oftheir Norman honour.50Similarly, the establishmentofWarenne at Bellencombrecertainly took place duringtheseyears,andasaresultoftheseevents.Theriseof thisaristocracy

inevitably presented aproblemofspecialurgencytoDuke William, the moreespecially as several of thesefamilies not only obtained

extensivepossessionsbutalsoacquired official positionswithin the duchy. Emphasishas already been laid on theimportance of the vicomte inbridging the transitionbetweenCarolingianNeustriaand ducal Normandy, and inproviding an instrument ofadministration for thedescendants of Rolf. It wastherefore a matter of greatmoment when during the

earlier half of the eleventhcentury many of the chiefNorman vicomtés themselvespassed into the hereditarypossession of some of themost important of the feudalfamilies. Nigel of SaintSauveur, vicomte of theCotentin, who rebelled in1047, was either the son orpossibly the grandson of thefirstmanknowntohaveheldthis office, and he was

himselfalordofgreatpower.Hewas to regainhisvicomtéafter Val-ès-Dunes, and tosurvive until long after theNorman conquest.51 Equallynotable were the hereditaryvicomtes of the Avranchin.Richard, later vicomte ofAvranches, who wasestablished by 1046,52 andwhowasperhapsalsolordofCreully,53 was the son ofThurstan Goz, likewise a

vicomte54 and he was tocontinueinthatofficeatleastas late as November 1074.55TheBessin, too,producedanoutstanding dynasty ofvicomtes.AtthebeginningofDuke William's reign thevicomte of the Bessin wasRannulf,whowas the son ofa vicomte namedAnschitil.56He married a daughter ofDuke Richard III57 and wasamong the defeated rebels at

Val-ès-Dunes.None the less,the office continued in thefamily, forhewas succeededby another Rannulf (II) whowasestablishedatAvranchesbefore theNorman conquest,and who survived until afterApril 1089.58 Moreover, thissecond Rannulf marriedMaud, daughter of Richard,vicomte of the Avranchin,thus linking together twopowerful vice-comital

dynastieswhichwere later inturn to determine thesuccession of the earldom ofChester.59These descents have far

more than merely agenealogical interest. Theyreflecttheriseofgreatfeudalfamilieswhose possession ofthevice-comitalofficewastoinfluence the growth ofNormandy and the fate ofEngland. Moreover, whilst

the greatest vice-comitaldynastiesweretobefoundinLower Normandy – in theCotentin, the Avranchin, andtheBessin–thesameprocesscould be watched elsewherein the duchy. In 1054, forexample, one Rainald wasvicomte of Arques.60 Hispossessions passed in duecourse to Goscelin, son ofHedo, vicomte of Rouen,61and Goscelin's daughter

married a certain Godfreywho in turn became vicomteof Arques.62 The feudalconnexion thus exhibitedbetween the vicomtés ofArques and Rouen in theseyears is not unremarkablesince it affected the socialstructureofUpperNormandyatacriticalperiod.Butfartherto the west, in the centre ofthe duchy, a more strikingmanifestation of the same

process was taking place.Between July 1031 and July1032 therewas included in acharter for Saint-Wandrillethesignof‘Roger,vicomteofthe Hiémois’, and this wasnone other than Roger I ofMontgomery.63 His father isunknown, and his career isobscure, but he was to besucceededbyhisfamousson,Roger II, who was to bringthe family to its full power.

Already in1051,ashasbeenseen, Roger II ofMontgomery wasdistinguishing himself roundDomfront, and at about thesame time he made hisbrilliantmarriagewithMabel,heiress to many of the landsofBellême.64From that timeforwardhiscareerwasboundup with that of William theConqueror, but he was stillproud to be vicomte of the

Hiémois even after (about1075)hehadbecomethefirstearlofShrewsbury.65The establishment of the

great vice-comital familieswas fraught with danger tothe ducal power. But it alsoprovided DukeWilliam witha great opportunity which inthe event hewasnot slow toseize. The vicomte had been,andwas to remain, the chiefagentofducaladministration,

so that while the acquisitionof vicomtés in hereditarypossessionmight ina specialway challenge the ducalauthority, it might also bemade to provide the meanswhereby prominent membersof the new nobility could bemade to act, like theirpredecessorsinthisoffice,asdeputies of the count ofRouen. As will be seen,66Duke William was enabled,

even in the changedconditions, continuously toemployhisvicomtesasagentsof his administration, but hissuccess in so doing none theless depended directly uponhis solution of the moregeneral problem whichconfronted him in respect ofthe aristocracy. For the vice-comital families were but asection of that aristocracy,and their risewasbutpartof

thesameprocesswhichatthesame time led to theadvancement of otherfamilies of equal or greaterpower.TheprogressofTosnyand Beaumont, for example,was not essentially differentfrom that of the hereditaryvicomtes of the Cotentin andtheBessin,andthepossessionofthevicomtéoftheHiémoiswas as much a result as acause of the enrichment of

Montgomery. The crucialtask for Duke William wasthus in this matter the samethroughout.Itwastomaintainhis own position within asocial structure whichthroughout his reign wasbeing progressively modifiedby the rapid acquisition oflandedwealthbymembersofanewnobility.For the establishment in

Normandybetween1030and

1060 of so many of thefamilies which were later todominate the feudal provinceentailedalsotheadvancementof their dependants, andcontributed to the formationof a new politicalorganization of the duchybased upon lordship andvassalage. The chief tenantsof the greater Norman lordsinEnglandaftertheConquestoften bore territorial names

whichrevealtheirfamiliesasnearneighboursoftheirlordsin Normandy;67 and it isimpossible to avoid theconclusion that they owedtheir rise to power to anearlier connexion with thegreat feudal houses fromwhomtheywerelatertoholdtheirwidelyscatteredEnglishestates. Sometimes indeedpositive evidence of this canbe found in pre-Conquest

Norman documents. Theconnexion between Pantulfand Montgomery, forinstance,whichwas to be sostrikingly exhibited inShropshire at the time ofDomesday Book may thus,for instance, be confidentlyreferred back to the time ofRogerIofMontgomery,whobetween 1027 and 1035issued for the abbey ofJumièges a charter which is

subscribed with the sign of‘WilliamPantulf’.68The best example of the

early growth of Normanvassalage may, however, befound in the dependency ofClères upon Tosny whichlikewise was to continue inEngland after the Conquest.At the end of the eleventhcentury,GilbertofClères,thesonofRogerIofClères,gaveland at La Puthenaye to the

abbey of Conches with theassentofRalph(III)ofTosny‘to whose fief it belongs’.69Similarly, the sameRalph ofTosny, between 1071 and1083,confirmedtotheabbeyof Croix-Saint-Leuffroi allthe possessions of Gilbert'ssonRalphwhohadbecomeamonk.70 Moreover, shortlybeforetheConquest,Gilbert'sfather – Roger I of Clères –madeagranttoSaint-Ouenof

Rouenwith the assent of hislord Ralph (III) of Tosny,71andataboutthesametimehegave land to the abbey ofConches for the soul of hisformer overlord Roger (I) ofTosny,andwiththeassentofRalph(III)ofTosnywhowasthen the chief lord of thefief.72 It is seldom, indeed,that early Norman vassalagecan be illustrated with thisparticularity, and in this case

the connexion between thetwofamiliescanbenoticedatan even more remote date.Among the numerous acts ofviolence characteristic ofDukeWilliam'sminority twoare in this respect especiallyheinous. Roger I of Tosnywas killed by Roger ofBeaumont, and shortlyafterwards Robert ofBeaumont (Roger's brother)was assassinated by Roger I

of Clères.73 In the light ofsubsequent evidence it isimpossible not to regard thislatter act as the revenge of avassal for the murder of hisoverlord. The dependence ofClèresuponTosny (which infactwas tocontinueuntil thethirteenth century) can thusbe traced back to thebeginning of the reign ofDukeWilliam.Such early connexions

betweenNormanfamiliesarechallenging, but it would bewrongtodeducefromthemaconclusion that before theNorman conquest thestructure of Norman societyhad as yet been made toconformtoanorderedfeudalplan.Norman charters of theperiod 1035–1066 revealunmistakably in the duchy asociety which was basedupon vassalage, but with

equalcertaintytheydisplayasocial structure in whichfeudal arrangements had notas yet been reduced to auniform pattern capable ofprecise definition in theinterestsofthedukeasfeudaloverlord. Dependent tenureis, however, to be met withon every side, and gifts ofland seem normally to haverequired the consent of asuperior. When a certain

Urso, about 1055, gave landto Holy Trinity, Rouen, heasserted the previous consentof his lord (who was dead),and also the approval of hislord's wife and sons;74 andwhen, about the same time,Ansfred, son of Osbern thevicomte, granted hishereditary possessions to thesame monastery, he did sowiththeconsentof‘mylordsEmma,thewifeofOsbernthe

steward, and her sonsWilliamandOsbern’.75 Suchvassalage could in fact beverywidely illustrated, but itwould seem impossible todefine it in termscharacteristic of later feudalsociety; and the drafters ofNorman charters at this timemade little attempt to do so.Right down to the Normanconquest the most commonwordforadependentestatein

Normandywastheoldertermbeneficium. About 1050Rodulf I of Warenne, forinstance, assigned to HolyTrinity, Rouen, land whichhad previously pertained tothe‘oldbenefice’ofacertainRoger,76andwhenGuidmundgave land in Normandy toSaint-PèreofChartreshedidsowithdeference‘tomylordWilliam the count fromwhom I hold it as a

benefice’.77 In like mannerwhenGuazoin1060foundedthe priory of Croth in theÉvreçin, his endowmentswere made with the consentofhislordHughBardo,‘partof whose benefice theywere’.78The terminology of the

Norman charters of this timeis characteristic of an age inwhichfeudalobligationshavenotyetbeenfullydefinedand

fewofthesedeedsuseanyofthe terms of feudal status inanything like the precisesense they subsequentlyacquired.Thewordbaro, forinstance, is rare in Normandocumentsofthisperiod,andmuch more frequent is thevaguer term fidelis(liegeman).ThusGilbert, sonofErchembaldthevicomte,isthe fidelis of Osbern thesteward;79 Oylard is the

fidelis of the CountessLescelineofEu;80andRoger,son of Humphrey, is thefidelis of Duke William.81Most significant of all is thevague connotation in thesetextsofthewordmiles,whichlateracquiredthemeaningof‘knight’. The father ofWilliam ofWarenne can, forinstance, be described as amiles;82 so also can thefounder of the priory of

Croth; and so also can amultitude of lesser men. Itwould indeed be very rasheven to suppose that at thistime the word milesinevitably designated amounted warrior. Many ofthese men undoubtedlyfought on horseback at Val-ès-Dunes and Mortemer, butitwouldbedifficult toassertwhatwastheprecisestatusofthose seven equites given to

the abbey of Saint-Ouen byOsbern of Écquetot before1066,83 or that of Atselinequitismei whose landDukeWilliamhimself, about1050,confirmed to the monasteryofSaint-Wandrille.84There thus seems little

warranty for believing thatanything resembling tenurebyknight-service, inthelatersense of the term, wasuniformly established, or

carefully defined, in pre-Conquest Normandy. Suchdefinition as was attained inthe duchy during theConqueror'sreignisrecordedfor the most part in Normancharters issued after theconquest of England. Nor isthere anything in thetestimony to suggest thatbefore the Conquest,Normandy had been madegenerally familiar with the

‘feudal incidents’ which halfa century later were socarefullytobediscussedafterthecoronationofKingHenryI of England. In all the textsthat have been examinedtherewouldappeartobeonlyone mention before 1066 ofthepaymentofa‘relief’,andthisoccursinacharterwhichwas issued only a very fewyears before the Normanconquest.85

The evidence revealswithin the duchy between1035and1066a society inastate of flux, and it must inthis sense qualify any suchgeneralization as that‘Normansociety in1066 isafeudalsociety,andoneofthemost fully developed feudalsocieties in Europe’.86Dependent tenure, of variouskinds and in differentdegrees, was widespread

throughNormandy, but thereseems little reason to believethat feudal law and feudalobligations were generallyaccepted and enforced in theduchy at this time in themanner characteristic of alater age. The feudal orderwhich the Conqueror wasable to imposeuponEnglandbefore his death was muchmore developed, and muchmore centralized, than

anything that can bediscovered in Normandybefore 1066, and it was hissuccessinhiskingdomwhichenabled him to attain in hisduchy a part of those feudalobjectives which mightotherwisehaveeludedhim.IfNormandy gave feudalprinciples to England,EnglandundertheConquerorprofoundly influencedNormandy in the matter of

feudal practice. Before 1066older notions of vassalagewere still widespread inNormandy, and stillimperfectly co-ordinated in aregularfeudalscheme.Itwastherefore a vital problem forDuke William whether hecould so link his owninterests with those of thearistocracywhich surroundedhim between 1047 and 1066asultimately todominate the

developing social order towhich they belonged. Andupon the outcome of thisendeavour was to dependmuchof the futurehistoryoftwo countries, for if it hadfailed, the Norman conquestof Englandwould have beenimpossible.The character of Duke

William's success in thismatter can only be appraisedin relation to the difficulties

he faced and the manner inwhich he overcame them.Duringtheearlieryearsofhisreign the duke's position inthe new social order mightseem to have depended lesson the enunciation of legaltheorythanuponthecreationof such personal, andparticular, loyalties as theyoung ruler could elicit fromthemagnateswhosurroundedhim. In themidst of a social

transformation controlled bygreatfamilieseagertoextendtheir newly won power, itwas essential for the dukejudiciously to favour thefortunesofthoseuponwhomhe could rely. This he seemsto have done from an earlydate as a matter of definitepolicy. William fitz OsbernandRogerIIofMontgomery,themselves still ‘youngwarriors’,hadalreadyin1051

beenselectedbythedukeforhis special confidence,87 andboth these men consistentlyenjoyedtheirmaster'ssupportin their advance to power,and co-operated with himclosely, both in NormandyandEngland.Torewardsuchmen could, however, before1066, only be done byimpoverishing the ducaldemesne, or at the expenseeither of their fellow

magnates inNormandy or ofthe Norman church, so thatthepolicywasalwaysfraughtwith the danger of openconflict.It may, therefore, be

regarded as a sign of thegrowing strength of the dukethatin1055or105688hewasable very summarily todisinherit William Warlenc,count of Mortain, and toestablish in that comté his

ownhalf-brotherRobert,wholater guarded NormanEnglandfromtheSussexrapeofPevensey,andbecameoneof the richest Englishlandowners. Often, however,theadvancementoftheduke'ssupporters came about withgreater hazard. One of hisfirstactsappearstohavebeento grant the comté ofArquesto his uncle,William, on theunderstanding that the new

count, ‘having obtained thisbenefice would in returnremainfaithfulinallthingstothe duke’. The confidencewas woefully misplaced asthegreatrevoltof1052–1054was to prove, but the count'sdefeat, as has been seen,enriched several otherfamilies, and the duke wasabletousethissituationinitsturn tohisadvantage. Itwas,for instance, by William's

direct intervention that thecount'sforfeiturewasmadetoentail the decline ofMortemer and the rise ofWarenne.The early history of

Warenne89may indeed serveasanexcellentdemonstrationof the duke's feudal policyduring these critical years,andatthesametimeillustratehow,asaresultofthatpolicy,a particular family might be

made to rise from smallbeginningstogreatpower.Atthe opening of the reign,Warenne was of littleaccount. A certain Rodulf ofWarenne can be discernedholding some estates nearRouen,90 and he apparentlysurvived until 1074.91 Hehad, moreover, two sons,Rodulf the elder andWilliam.92 As a younger sonthis William can have

inherited little of the meagrehereditas of his father.93 Yetitwasnone the less thismanwhoestablishedthegreatnessofthehouse.Inthecampaignof 1052–1054 hedistinguished himself by hisspecial loyalty to the duke,andthoughstillayoungman(tiro legitimus), hewas, afterthe fall of the count ofArques, singled out by theduke for special favour. It is

specially recorded thatwhen,after the critical campaign,Roger of Mortemer forfeiteda large part of his Normanlands, thecastleofMortemeritself was bestowed uponWilliam of Warenne.94 Norwasthisall;fortheextensivelands later held by Warennein the neighbourhood ofMortemer must have beenacquiredatthesametimeandas a result of the same

forfeiture. Such at leastmusthave been the origin of theWarenne possessions roundBellencombre (some fifteenmiles from Mortemer), andthosesituatedintheregionofDieppe some eighteen milestothenorthofBellencombre.Itwasanotableadvance,buteven the acquisition of theselands was not of itselfsufficienttoraiseWarennetothe front rankof theNorman

aristocracy. Only after 1066was this to be achieved, andthen too as a consequenceofcontinuing service as aspecially trusted adherent oftheConqueror.To establish relationships

such as these, which mightassure him faithful servicefrom important men in hisduchywas a cardinal featureofthepolicyofDukeWilliamduringhisNormanreign,and

upon his success in thismatter depended to a largeextent the position he waseventually to occupy in thefeudalorder thatwassoon tobe established. Thesuppression of successiverevolts in theseyearsdidnotmerely enable the duke tosurvive; it enabled him ineach case to reward hisfriendsoutofthelandsofhisdefeated enemies, and very

gradually to mould thedeveloping feudalism ofNormandy according to apattern that might subservehis own interests. Theprocess, which must besharply contrasted with themore sudden introduction ofmilitary feudalism intoEngland,was inNormandyaslow one, and only after aconsiderabletimediditmakepossible the practical

application in the duchy ofthose feudalprincipleswhichtheNormansweresosoontointroduceintoEngland.Inhiskingdom, the Conqueror, byinterpreting Norman feudalcustom in a senseadvantageous tohimself,wasenabled to assume, as if bylegal right, a position in thefeudalorder towhichhehadlong aspired, but which henever wholly attained in

NormandybeforetheNormanconquest.It would therefore be

misleading to describe thearistocratic structure of pre-Conquest Normandy in thelight of the conditionsprevailing in England, orindeed in Normandy, at theclose of the Conqueror'sreign. In particular, therewould seem no reason tosuppose that before 1066 the

greaterNormanmagnateshadbeen made generally toregard their position asdepending upon ducal grant,or as conditional on theirperforming military servicefor the dukewith a specifiednumber of trained andequipped knights. Theprinciple of the ‘serviceowed’,theservitiumdebitum,precisely defined and rigidlyenforced, was one of the

cardinal features of feudalorganization in the Anglo-Norman kingdom between1070 and 1087.95 But it isvery doubtful how generallyit had been applied in theduchy before the Normanconquest of England. Themagnates who were mostdirectlyconcernedhad,ashasbeen seen, established manymilitary tenureson theirownlands, but, as must be

supposed, they had done thisin their own interest, beingcompelled in a fiercelycompetitivesocietytotakeallpossible measures tosafeguard the possessionstheyhadsorecentlywon.Thefeuds during the minority inwhich so many members ofthese families perishedmadeit necessary for them toattract to their support asmanydependentsaspossible,

andthepersistenceofprivatewar as a recognizedinstitution in Normandycertainly encouraged sub-infeudation far in excess ofany demands that the dukemight have felt himself abletomake.Perhaps, indeed, theremay

here be discerned a factor offeudal development whichhas received less attentionthan itdeservesandwhich is

particularly applicable to thesituation here beingdiscussed. It is generallyassumed that the impositionof a fixed servitium debitumwas in the interests, and forthe benefit, of the ruler, andsuch was undoubtedly thecase in England after theNormanconquest.Butinpre-Conquest Normandy thesituation may have beendifferent. The fixed payment

of the ‘relief’waswelcomedat a later date by the feudaltenants of the king asprotecting them againstarbitrary and excessivedemands. A fixed servitiumdebitum may on occasionhavebeenlikewisewelcomedasconferringasimilarbenefitinachangingsocietywhereintheincreasingauthorityofthedukemight have appeared tomenaceanaristocracyalready

entrenchedinpower.Inotherwords,theimpositioninsuchcases may sometimes haveoccurred by mutual consent,and have approached veryclosely to a free bargain. Atall events, it was not untilaftertheconquestofEnglandthat William was able toattempt a uniform regulationof Norman vassalage in hisowninterests.None the less, it deserves

full emphasis that theimposition of servitia debitain Normandy began to bewidelymadeduringthereignof Duke William II. Indeedthereistestimonytoshowthemanner in which the burdenwasimposedinhis time,andsometimes on estates whichhad not been so burdenedwhen they were originallyacquired. Thus in 1072 theabbey of Saint-Évroul owed

the service of two knights,96andsincethiswasnotaducalfoundationitisdifficulttoseehow a conditional service tothe duke would have beenattached to the original grantof these lands, and in anycasetheservitiumdebitumofthis abbey could not havecomeintoexistencebeforeitsre-establishment about 1050.There is, again, reason tosuppose that no defined

service attached either to theBreteuil or the Ivry baronieswhen these were in thepossession of Count Rodulfearly in theeleventhcentury,and the later service of fiveknights owed to the duke bythe count of Meulan cannothave been established beforethe acquisition of Beaumont-le-Roger, with itsdependencies, by the familybetween 1026 and 1035, and

may very possibly be of stilllater origin.97 Finally, theservice of five knights owedin the twelfth century to theduke by Hugh of Mortemermust derive from the partialrestoration of the Mortemerlands after their forfeiture in1054.98Itisrarelypossibletosupply such specificillustrations from thesurviving testimony. But itmay be added as very

probable that before hisrebellion in 1047 Grimoaldhad been made to performknight-serviceforhislandsatPlessis,99 and that between1060 and 1066 John, bishopof Avranches, rendered aservice of five knights inrespect of the honour ofSaint-Philibert.100The results of such

arrangements were sosubstantially to increase the

military strength ofNormandythatitisimportantto realizehowgradually, andwith what difficulty, theywere achieved in the time ofDukeWilliam.Atthetimeofhisaccession theprocesscanscarcely have begun. TheNormanexodustoItalyinthetime of his father may bediversely explained, but it isinconceivablethatarulerableto exact a servitium debitum

regularly from his magnateswould, like Duke Robert I,have allowed so many ofthem to depart with theirfollowers to distant lands.101Moreover,thedisorderwhichafflicted Normandy between1037 and 1047, followed bythe continuous war whichlasted until 1054, must haveprohibited any more generalapplication of ducal rights inthismatter.Thepoint,indeed,

deservessomeemphasis.TheperiodwhichelapsedbetweentheaccessionofDukeRobert(1028) and the battle ofMortemer (1054) wasprecisely that in which thenew aristocracy establisheditself in Normandy. Butduring these years there canhave been little opportunityfor formal assertion of themilitarydemandsofthedukeover his magnates. If the

specialpositionofthedukeinthe military organization ofNormandy, and his legalclaims on the service of hismagnates, were moregenerally recognized in 1066than they had been threedecades earlier, this must beattributed to particulararrangements which DukeWilliam had from time totime been able tomakewithindividuals, and more

especiallytohisruleoverhisduchyduringthetwelveyearswhich preceded the NormanconquestofEngland.By the beginning of 1066

the process was welladvanced. It seems certainthat before the Normanconquest of England,contractual military servicehad been imposed on all theolder Norman monasteries,andonmost,ifnotall,ofthe

Norman bishops. It had beenimposed also upon many, ifnot on most, of the laymagnates. This for the dukewas a practical success of ahighorder.Ontheotherhand,it isbynomeanscertain thateven in 1066 the Normansecular aristocracy had beenbrought uniformly to acceptthe principle that they heldtheirlandsconditionallyuponservice, or that at that time

they had generally, or in aformal manner, recognizedthedukeasheadofaunifiedfeudal order dependent uponthe regular discharge ofspecifiedmilitaryobligations.Only after William hadsuccessfully imposed suchlegal doctrine on hisfollowers in a newlyconquered kingdom was heable at last to apply itgenerally, and as amatter of

principle, to his Normanduchy.Feudal organization

developed gradually inNormandy in connexionwiththe tumultuous rise of a newaristocracy: it was notimposed rapidly, as inEngland, by theadministrative policy of aprince. All the morenoteworthy, therefore, wasWilliam'ssuccess inbringing

thismovementsomuchunderhis control during his ownhazardous reign as duke; forthemenwhoatthistimefirstarise to greatness inNormandy were themselvesremarkable.Theirvigourwasastonishing, and if thesuperabundant virility whichwas apparent in their privatelives was in part responsiblefor bringing them todominance in their own

province,none the lessmanyof them early learnt thatpolitical sagacity which wonfor them the panegyric ofWilliam of Poitiers.102 Yet,stained as they were withmanyof theworst vices of aviolent age, and as yetunorganized in any rigidfeudal scheme, they were invery truth unamenable tocontrol. Consequently, it iswholly noteworthy that they

found in William a leaderable todominate thembyhispersonality, and capable alsoof directing their immenseenergy into the paths ofconstructive statesmanship.Only thus were these menenabled to claim the futurefor their inheritance, so thatmuch of the history ofNormandy and of Englandwas to be a record of theiracts. Not the least of the

achievements ofWilliam theConqueror was that before1066hemadetosubservehispurposetheambitionsandthedivergent interests of themost remarkable seculararistocracy produced ineleventh-centuryEurope.

1Ed.Marx,pp.320–329.2CompletePeerage(G.H.White),vol.XII,partI,pp.753etsqq.

3Eure,cant.Gaillon.

4Will.Poit.,p.64;Pfister,RobertlePieux,p.213.

5OnapossibleliteraryinferencederivingfromRoger'sSpanishexploits,seeDouglas,‘SongofRolandandtheNormanConquestofEngland’(FrenchStudies,vol.XIV(1960),pp.110,111).

6Will.Poit.,p.197.7Ord.Vit.,vol.II,p.404;vol.IV,p.183.

8Cal.Doc.France,no.1171;Le

Prévost,Eure,vol.I,p.415.9Ord.Vit.,vol.IV,p.198;VitaetPassioWaldevi(ed.Michel),p.126.

10CompletePeerage,vol.VII,pp.521–523.

11Ord.Vit.,vol.II,p.14;vol.III,p.339;RobertofTorigny,interp.Will.Jum.,p.324.

12CompletePeerage,vol.VII,p.521,note‘c’.

13Ord.Vit.,vol.II,p.370;vol.III,p.426.

14Hewasaconstantwitnesstoducalchartersbefore1066.SeeR.A.D.N.,passim.

15Will.Poit.,p.197.16D.B.,vol.I,fols.80,168.17Lot,Saint-Wandrille,p.54,no.14.

18Cart.S.Trin.Roth.,no.LXX;p.460,no.LXXVIII.

19Ibid.,p.441,no.XXXVII.20Ord.Vit.,vol.III,p.230;vol.IV,p.335.

21Cart.S.PèreChartres,p.178.

22Cart.S.Trin.Roth.,no.LXX.23NeustriaPia,p.442;Porée,L'abbayeduBec,vol.I,p.373.

24Douglas,DomesdayMonachorum,pp.65–70.

25ChartresdeJumièges,vol.I,p.41,no.XII;Lot,Saint-Wandrille,nos.9,14.

26Ord.Vit.,interp.Will.Jum.,p.163.

27Cal.Doc.France,nos.703,704;Will.Jum.,p.116.

28Will.Poit.,p.73;R.A.D.N.,no.

219;Regesta,vol.I,no.4.29Will.Poit.,p.267.Seealsobelow,pp.207,208.

30Cart.S.Ymer-en-Auge(ed.Breard),no.I;Cal.Doc.France,no.357.

31Ord.Vit.,interp.Will.Jum.,p.157.

32Will.Jum.,pp.320–329;cf.G.H.White,inGenealogist,NewSeries,vol.XXXVII,p.57.

33R.A.D.N.,no.11.34Ibid.,no.35.

35Will.Jum.,p.116;Ord.Vit.,vol.I,p.180.

36Douglas,Eng.Hist.Rev.,vol.LIX(1944),pp.62–64;vol.LXI(1946),p.131.

37Cart.S.PèreChartres,vol.I,p.108.

38Bessin,Concilia,p.42,cl.X.39Valin,DucdeNormandie,Preuves,no.1;Stapleton,inArchaeologicalJournal,vol.III,pp.6–7.

40Gall.Christ.,vol.XI;

Instrumenta,col.218.41R.A.D.N.,nos.11,35.42Gall.Christ.,vol.XI;Instrumenta,col.199;RobertofTorigny,DeImmuatationeOrdinisMonachorum(Mon.Ang.,vol.VI,p.1063).

43RobertofTorigny,loc.cit.44ChartesdeJumièges,vol.I,no.XII.

45Ibid.,no.XIII,buttheeditor'scommentsneedcorrection.

46R.A.D.N.,no.34;Sauvage,

L'abbayedeTroarn,Preuves,no.I;ChartesdeJumièges,no.XII.

47Douglas,RiseofNormandy,p.19.

48ChartesdeJumièges,no.XX.49G.H.White,inGenealogist,NewSeries,vol.XXXVII,p.59.‘OsbernofBolbec’seemsnonethelessasomewhatnebulousfigure.

50Stapleton,Rot.Scacc.Norm.,vol.I,p.civ.

51OnallthatconcernsthefamilyofStSauveur,andthevicomtéoftheCotentininthisperiod,seeL.Delisle,Saint-Sauveur(1867).

52R.A.D.N.,no.110.53L.Musset,ActesInéditsdeXIe

Siècle,pp.8,9.(ThisisBull.Soc.Antiq.Norm.,vol.LII,1954.)

54Hisreputedfatherwas‘AnsfridtheDane’,andhiscareerisillustratedinmanycharters

between1015and1040(R.A.D.N.,passim).

55Cart.Bayeux,vol.I,nos.2,3;Cal.Doc.France,no.1211.

56R.A.D.N.,no.111.ThecareerofAnschitilisillustratedinmanyotherchartersofanearlydate,particularlyinthoseofSaint-Wandrille(e.g.Lot,op.cit.,nos.13,14).

57Gall.Christ.,vol.XI;Instrumenta,col.70;RobertofTorigny(ed.Delisle),vol.I,p.

34.58Cart.Bayeux,no.IV.59ItseemstohavebeengenerallyassumedthattherewereonlytwoRannulfs,vicomtesoftheBessin,atthistime,namelyRannulf‘Meschin’whobecameearlofChesterin1120,andRannulfhisfatherwhomarriedMaud,daughterofRichard,vicomteoftheAvranchin.Chronology,however,makesitimperativetodistributethem

intothree:namely(i)Rannulf,sonofAnschitil,whofoughtin1047atVal-ès-Dunes;(ii)Rannulf,presumablyhisson,whooccursinorbefore1066;and(iii)Rannulf‘Meschin’.

60ChevreuxetVernier,ArchivesdeNormandie,plateIX.Fordate,seeHaskins,op.cit.,p.258.

61MartèneandDurand,ThesaurusAnecdotorum,vol.I,col.167;R.A.D.N.,no.72;Valin,op.cit.,

Preuves,no.I.HeisusuallydescribedashavingbeenvicomteofArques,butthiscanhardlyhavebeenthecasesinceheappearsinchartersalongsideofRainald,vicomteofArques(ChevreuxetVernier,op.cit.,plateIX),andalsoalongsideofGodfrey,Rainald'ssuccessorasvicomteofArques(Cart.S.Trin.Roth.,no.I).ThatGoscelinwasvicomtenotofArquesbutofRouenisindicatedbyno.IXof

thesamecartulary.62Ibid.63Lot,Saint-Wandrille,no.13.64Above,pp.90,91.65Below,pp.294,295.66Below,pp.141–144.67Below,pp.270,271.68D.B.,vol.I,fols.257,257b;ChartesdeJumièges,no.XIII.

69Gall.Christ.,vol.XI;Instrumenta,col.132;Delisle-Berger,Rec.Actes–HenryII,vol.I,p.553.

70Lebeurier,Notice–surCroix-Saint-Leuffroi,p.46,no.III.

71LePrévost,Eure,vol.III,p.467.72Gall.Christ.,vol.XI;Instrumenta,col.132.Round,Cal.Doc.France,no.625.Ord.Vit.,vol.II,p.403;vol.V,p.180.

73Ord.Vit.,vol.I,p.180;vol.II,pp.40,41.

74Cart.S.Trin.Roth.,no.X.75Ibid.,no.XLIX.76Ibid.,no.XXX.

77Cart.S.PèreChartres,vol.I,p.145.

78LePrévost,Eure,vol.I,p.570.79Cart.S.Trin.Roth.,no.VI(R.A.D.N.,no.96).

80Ibid.,no.LXIX.81R.A.D.N.,no.128.82LePrévost,Eure,vol.III,p.324.83Ibid.,vol.II,p.38.84R.A.D.N.,no.109.85Gall.Christ.,vol.IX;Instrumenta,col.132;LePrévost,Eure,vol.III,p.467.

86Haskins,NormanInstitutions,p.5.

87Will.Poit.,p.38.88William‘Werlenc’wasstillwitnessingchartersascountaboutthistime(R.A.D.N.,nos.161,162).

89L.C.Loyd,‘TheOriginoftheFamilyofWarenne’(Yorks.Arch.Soc.Journal,vol.XXXI(1933).pp.97–113).

90Cart.S.Trin.Roth.,nos.XXVII,XXIX,XL,XLI;Man.

Ang.,vol.VI,p.1101.91Cart.S.Trin.Roth.,no.XXXV.92Ibid.,no.XXXI.93Loyd,op.cit.,pp.106–110.94Ord.Vit.,vol.III,p.237.95Below,pp.281–283.96RedBookofExchequer(ed.Hall),p.626.

97Ibid.Cf.Ord.Vit.,vol.III,pp.263,336.

98Ibid.99Haskins,op.cit.,pp.16,17,andtheauthoritiestherecited.The

inferencemay,however,havebeenpushedsomewhattoofar.

100Ibid.Cf.LePrévost,Eure,vol.III,p.183.

101Stenton,Anglo-SaxonEngland,p.551.

102Will.Poit.,p.149.

Chapter5

THEECCLESIASTICAL

REVIVAL

The developing strength ofNormandyduringthereignofDukeWilliamwasdueinthefirst instance to the rise of a

new aristocracy, and to theidentification of its interestswith those of the duke. ButthegrowthofNormanpowerduring this period was neverwholly secular, either in itscauses or consequences, andthe achievement of WilliamtheConquerorwastodependalso in large measure on anecclesiastical revival in theprovince, which had alreadybegun at the time of his

accession,butwhichgatheredincreasing momentum in histime. The interconnexionbetween the secular andecclesiastical strength ofNormandy was, in fact, tobecome so close by the thirdquarter of the eleventhcentury that there is evensome danger of forgettingthat it was then ofcomparatively recent growth.The collapse of ecclesiastical

life in theprovinceofRouenatthetimeoftheVikingwarswas in truth only slowlyrepaired. The first definiteevidence that the bishopricsof Normandy had been fullyreconstituted comes from atext of 990.1 And of the tenprincipal religious housesexisting in Normandy at thetime of William's accession,only four had beenreconstituted before 1000,2

and four more had beenfounded or re-establishedsince his birth.3 These factsdeserve some emphasis. Theecclesiastical development ofNormandy during the earlierhalf of the eleventh centurywas almost as remarkable asthe growth at the same timeof its secular strength, andunless it be explained noassessment of what wasaccomplished by the greatest

Normandukecanhope tobeadequate.Two major factors can be

watched in this process. Inthe first place, there was amonasticrevivalwhichbeganunder ducal sponsorship andcontinued on highly originallines. And secondly theretookplaceareorganizationofthe Norman church by astrong group of bishopsacting in close co-operation

with the duke. Of these, itwas the monastic movementwhichwas toentail themorenotableconsequences.Indeedthe growth of Normanmonasticism during thedecades immediatelypreceding the Normanconquest was so remarkablethat it has properly attractedthe attention of a longsuccession of historians, andeven now its dramatic

character may still excitewonder. Less than a hundredyears before the accession ofWilliam the Conqueror it isprobable that not a singlemonastery survived in theprovince of Rouen. Thehouses were desolate, thecongregations dispersed. Afew of these had, it is true,maintained a precariousexistence bymigration. Thuscertain of the monks of

Jumièges had departed toHaspres in the diocese ofCambrai, whilst others fromFontanelle had gone toPicardy and subsequently toFlanders.4 But in general thedestruction had beencomplete.Yetlittlemorethanacenturylater–ontheeveofthe Norman conquest ofEngland – Normandy,plentifully filled withreligious houses, was

renowned for its monasticlife.Scarcely less notable than

the rapidity of thisspectacular transformationwas the part played by theVikingdynasty inbringing itabout. It is possible that, byvirtueofthecomitalstatushehad acquired, Rolf had beengiven custody of the abbeyswithin the comté of Rouen,but later assertions of his

monastic benefactions mustbe received with somecaution.5Ontheotherhand,avery strong tradition assertsthat his son WilliamLongswordhadbeenactivelyinterested in projects toresuscitate monastic life inhis dominion.6 In particular,he is said to have welcomedbacktoJumiègesmonksfromthat congregation who wereatHaspres,andtohavebegun

the rebuilding of thatmonastery to which hebroughtothermonksfromtheabbey of Saint-Cyprien atPoitiers.7 Legendundoubtedly magnified thepart played by WilliamLongswordasachampionofChristianity, but it would berash to assert that laterNorman monasticism owednothingtohisacts.The pagan reaction which

followed his murder arrestedanyprogress in thisdirectionwhich may have been made,and itwas not until after thepactbetweenDukeRichardIand Lothair in 965 that anyappreciable advance can bediscerned. Here again,moreover, the primaryimpulse seems to have comefrom the ducal dynasty, andnow it was to be reinforcedby an influence radiating

from the abbey of SaintPeter's, Ghent, under thedirection of Saint Gérard ofBroigne. The impact of thisFlemish movement uponNormandy could, forinstance, be illustrated withparticular clarity in thefortunes of the dispersedcongregation of Fontanellewhich, ashasbeen seen,hadafter some wanderingsreachedFlanders.Adesire to

re-establish the ancientmonastery of Fontanelle hadlonginspiredthefollowersofSaint Gérard. And in 960 to961 there departed fromGhent to Normandy a smallparty of monks under theleadershipof oneofGérard'sdisciples named Mainard.These obtained from DukeRichard I the devastated siteof Fontanelle, and there theybegan to reconstruct a new

religious house in honour ofSaint-Wandrille.Othermonkscame in due course to jointhem, and Mainard acquiredbooks and ornaments fromGhent. The re-establishmentof Fontanelle under its newstyle of Saint-Wandrille wasthusachieved.8The work of Mainard in

Normandy entailedconsiderable consequences.Heonlyremainedafewyears

at Fontanelle which after hisdeparture seems to havesufferedadecline.Butinduecourse Duke Richardtransferred him to Le Mont-Saint-Michel. Thereconstitution of the famoussanctuary on the Mount wasindeed one of the mostimportantactsofRichard theFearless. Carried out by theducal energy, with theauthority of the pope, and

with the collaboration ofArchbishop Hugh of Rouen,itwasconfirmedbyacharterof Lothair.9 Monks wereinstalled in place of canons,and the community receivedpossessions and privileges.10Mainard himself was to rulethis community for twenty-five years, and his influence,supported by the duke, waswidespread.11 Jumièges, forinstance, received new ducal

grantsatthistime,andSaint-Ouen experienced a revival.In short, the significance ofthe latter part of the reign ofRichard I in the growth ofNorman monasticism hasperhaps been undulyminimized, and Mainard'sowncareerandachievementswould probably repay acloser study. The effects ofthe Flemishmonastic revivalon the English church in the

age of Dunstan andEthelwold have been wellestablished. Its influence onthe development andmonastic life in Normandyhas been less generallyappreciated.The dominant external

influence on the Normanmonasticismwhichwastobedeveloped underWilliam theConqueror as duke, was,however, derived not from

Flanders but from Cluny, orat least from the movementwhich, starting at Cluny,achieved new life at centressuch as Dijon.12 ThetransitioncanbestbewatchedinconnexionwithyetanotherNorman monastery. AmongtheecclesiasticalbenefactionsofDukeRichardInoneweremore notable than those toFécamp to which he wasparticularly attached. There

he established a communityofsecularcanonstoservethefinenewchurchwhichhehadbuilt. But the canons, as itwould seem, provedunworthy of their task, andsome time late in his reignDuke Richard I took theimportantstepofappealingtoMaieul, abbot of Cluny, tosendmonks to replace them.The appeal was at firstunsuccessful but after the

duke's death it entailed adecisiveresult.In1001attheinvitationofDukeRichardII,there came to Fécamp,William of Dijon, whosearrival was to inaugurate anew era in the monasticgrowth of Normandy.13 Hewas to remain abbot ofFécamp for more than aquarter of a century, and indue course to pass on hispolicy to his great successor

Abbot John, who surviveduntil 1079.14 His influencewas, in fact, todetermine thecharacter that Normanmonasticism assumed duringthe reign of William theConqueror.WilliamofVolpiano,orof

Dijon,15 was of noblePiedmontese stock. He hadbeen at Cluny under Maieuland had been sent in 989 bythat abbot to reform the

ancient monastery of Saint-BenigneofDijon.Fromtherehis activities rapidly spreadsothatitwastoamanofhighreputation in the Europeanchurch that Duke Richard IImade his appeal. At first thefamousabbotwasreluctanttoundertake the mission,alleging the barbarousconditions still surviving inthe Viking province. But atlength the duke's insistence

prevailed, and thoughWilliam of Dijon neverconfined his attention toNormandy, it was there thathis greatest work was done.As a result, Normanmonasticism was henceforthdominated not only byCluniac ideas, but on theindividualadaptationofthoseideas supplied by his highlyoriginal mind. The earliestcentre of this development

was of course Fécamp itself,where a new monasticcommunity was forthwithestablished, but the greatabbot's influence speedilyradiated throughout theprovince. Thus he is allegedtohaveintroducedreformsatSaint-Ouen and Jumièges,andaccordingtoalaterwriterhe also had Le Mont-Saint-Michel ‘under his rule’.16Moreover, such was his

ascendancy that when in theten years before theConqueror's accession newducal foundationsweremadein Normandy, these in theirturnweremodelledaccordingto his ideas. Bernay in thismannerwasfoundedinabout1026bytheDuchessJudith,17and of the same characterwere the twomonasteries setup during the reign of DukeRobertI,theoneatCerisy-la-

Forêt,andtheotherdedicatedto the Holy Trinity on SaintCatherine's Mount atRouen.18 Of similar patternwere two nunneries: the oneestablished at Montivilliers,and the other dedicated toSaint-AmandinRouen.19The reviving Norman

monasticism which DukeWilliaminheritedin1035andwhich was so signally to bedeveloped during his reign

had thus become Cluniac inspirit, even as it had beenducal in direction. Traces ofthe earlier influence fromFlanders remained, it is true,atLeMont-Saint-Michel andatSaint-Wandrille,whence itmight in part be transmittedto the daughter houses ofFontanelles at Préaux andGrestain. But the mainstimulus was now fromCluny, whose influence,

modifiedbyWilliamofDijonandRichardofSaint-Vannes,was predominant.20 Norcould the ducal connexionwith the movement beignored or its essentialcharacter masked. It isnoteworthy that among thefoundationsmadebyNormandukes before 1035 all savetwoweremadeonthesitesofancient religious houses, sothat this endeavour can

legitimatelybeheldtoreflecta conscious attemptmade bythe Viking dynasty to revivethe flourishing ecclesiasticallife of Neustria, which hadbeenallbutannihilatedintheVikingwars.Furtherjustificationforthis

opinion could be found ifreference was made to theendowments which the newducal monasteries hadreceived.Forthesewere,asit

wouldseem,frequentlymadefrom lands which hadpreviously been held by theabbeys that had beendestroyed, or from estatesover which the dukes, byvirtue of an earlier traditionof secular authority, hadcome to claim custody.ThusCerisy-la-Forêt inthetimeofDuke William's fatherreceived estates which hadearlier belonged to the

destroyed abbeys of Deux-Jumeaux,Saint-Fromond,andSaint-Marculf, whilst HolyTrinity, about the same time,acquiredsomeofthelandsofthe earlier monastery ofSaint-Philibert.21 Otherrestitutionsofasimilarnaturewere undoubtedly made inthis period, and even apartfrom these the directbenefactions of the ducalhouseweremost notable.Of

the ten religious houseswhich William found inexistenceinNormandyat thetime of his accession –Jumièges, Saint-Wandrille,LeMont-Saint-Michel,Saint-Ouen, Fécamp, Bernay,Cerisy, Montivilliers andHoly Trinity, Rouen, andSaint-Amand–allowedtheirfoundation or re-establishment, directly orindirectly, to ducal action.

The young Duke Williamthus succeeded to a traditionof monastic patronage whichhad become a characteristicfeature of Norman ducalauthority.Moreover, while the ducal

dynastyhadestablished itselfas the guardian of monasticlifewithinNormandy,soalsowere the re-establishedNorman monasteries linkingtheir own temporal fortunes

to thoseof theduchy.Beforethe Viking wars, themonasteriesofthisregionhadheld estates widely scatteredthroughout Gaul. ThusFontanelles in addition to itspossessions in the valley ofthe Lower Seine had heldlandsinPicardy,inProvence,in Saintonge, and inBurgundy, whilst Jumiègeshad possessed estates inAnjou,Maine,Poitou,andthe

Vexin.22 Even after therestorations which weregradually and imperfectlymade during the tenthcentury, the Normanmonasteries still sought toretain their rights overpossessionsoutsideaswellaswithinNormandy.Duringthethree decades beforeWilliam's accession,however, this policy wasreversed, and the Norman

monasteries now began toshow themselves anxious toconcentrate their landedwealth within the dominionsof the Norman duke. ThusJumiéges in 1012 ceded oneof its Poitevin estates to theabbey of Bourgeuil inexchange for lands nearVernon, and in 1024dispensed with Haspres by asimilar arrangement with themonks of Saint-Vedast of

Arras.23 The abbey of Saint-Wandrille adopted the sameprocedure,24 and from thistimeforward,withthepartialexceptionof the abbeyofLeMont-Saint-Michel, theNorman monasteries appearto have renounced until after1066 any policy of enrichingthemselvesoutsidetheduchy.By 1035 they had come inshort to identify theirterritorial fortunes with the

secular development andexpansion of Normandyitself.The development of

Norman monasticism duringthe reign of Duke Williamwas thus conditioned by acomplex tradition which hadalready linked the dynastywith monastic restoration,andwasmergingtheinterestsof the reformed monasterieswith those of the Norman

duchy.Nevertheless, thenewreignwas towitness a phaseof monastic growth inNormandy which was ineverywaynotable,andwhichwas marked by its ownespecial features. Not onlywas the earlier traditionsustained, but its operationwas enlarged, and this wasbroughtaboutbyanewwaveof enthusiasm and ofpatronage. In 1035, as has

been seen, all the religioushouses of the province hadowed their eleventh-centuryexistence to the ducaldynasty. Now a newinfluencewasbroughttobearon this growth. Already in1030 itwasat the instigationof Goscelin, vicomte ofRouen, and Emmeline hiswife, thatDukeRobert I hadgrantedthefoundationcharterto Holy Trinity, Rouen,25 to

which the venerated relics ofSaint Catherine had comesometimebetween1033and1054.26 And Goscelin andEmmeline had also beeninfluential, a few years later,inestablishingthenunneryofSaint-Amand.27Itwastypicalof a new type of patronagethatwassoontobedominantintheduchy.AfterRobertI'sdeath no new ducalmonasterywastobefounded

in Normandy until in 1063William and Matilda set uptheir twin houses at Caen.None the less, between 1035and1066at least twentynewreligious houses wereestablished in the duchy.They owed their origin tomembers of the newaristocracy, and this ferventactivity is not the leastsurprising feature of the actsof that astonishing group of

interrelated families. Itcommands attention, eventhough it may baffle fullexplanation.For this movement was

sudden.Notonlyhadthenewnobility taken little directshare in the earlier monasticfoundations, but in their riseto power they had frequentlyenriched themselves at theexpense of the Church.Jumièges, Saint-Wandrille,

and Le Mont-Saint-Michelhadall,forexample,sufferedparticular losses in thisrespect.28 Yet between 1035and 1050, when the ducalpower was in partial eclipse,this same competitivearistocracyaddresseditselftothe development of Normanmonasticlifeand,until1066,took over much of thepatronage which had earlierbeen exercised by the dukes.

Thisendeavourwasinfactsogeneral that it commandedtheadmiringeulogyofalatermonk.Atthistime, remarkedOrdericusVitalis,inafamouspassage,29 the nobles ofNormandy, imitating theactions of their dukes, viedwithoneanother inmonasticbenefactionstosuchanextentthat any one of thesemagnates held himself cheapifhehadnotestablished,and

endowed, clerks, or monks,on his estates. In suchlanguagetheremayofcoursebe detected overtones ofenthusiasm. But the factualrecord of the origins ofNormanmonasteriessuppliedby Robert of Torigny showsthat therewasherenoundueexaggeration.30It is indeed hard to avoid

monotony in recalling theparticular foundations made

by the new aristocracy inNormandybetween1035and1066, for few of the greatfeudal families whose risethen took place failed tocontribute something to thisendeavour. Thus about 1035Roger I ofTosny establishedamonasteryatChâtillon,andabout the same timeHumphrey of VieillesfoundedtwohousesatPréaux– the one, Saint-Pierre, for

men, and the other, Saint-Léger, for women.31 TheCountess Lesceline and hersonRobert,countofEu,wereresponsible for the abbey ofSaint-Pierre-sur-Dives, andlater the same Count Robertset up the abbey of Saint-Michel-du-Tréport.32Herluin,vicomte of Conteville, hiswife Herleve, and his sonRobert, count of Mortain,founded the abbey of

Grestain; and before 1055RalphTesson,amemberofanotable family in middleNormandy, established themonastery of Fontenay.33William fitz Osbern, son ofDukeRobert'ssteward,inlikemannerestablished theabbeyof Lire, and subsequentlyfollowed this up with asimilar foundation atCormeilles.34 In UpperNormandy,thehouseofSaint

Victor-en-CauxwassetupbyRoger of Mortemer as apriory of Saint-Ouen, whilstfarther to the west Odo ‘auCapel’ and Robert Bertram,bothofwhomheldforatimethe title of vicomte of theCotentin, respectivelyestablishedthemonasteriesofLessay and Beaumont-en-Auge.35 Finally (to cite nomoreexamples),thefamilyofMontgomerywas responsible

duringtheseyearsfornolessthanthreefoundations:Saint-Martin at Sées, Saint-MartinatTroarn,andthenunneryatAlmenéches.36 Itwas by anystandard a most vigorousmovement of patronage, andit must further be noted thatthese men did not confinetheir benefactions to thosehouseswhichtheythemselveshad founded. Roger I ofTosny made lavish gifts not

onlytohisownfoundationatChâtillon but also to Lire,whilsthissonRalphIIIwasabenefactor of Saint-Évroul,La Croix-Saint-Leuffroi, andJumièges.37Richard,countofÉvreux, likewise, made giftsto Jumièges; and Saint-WandrillecouldcountamongitsbenefactorsWilliam,countof Arques, and Roger ofBeaumont.38 Among thosewhoendowed thenunneryof

Saint-Amand in Rouen wasBaldwin, son of Gilbert ofBrionne, and William fitzOsbern, in addition tofounding Lire andCormeilles, made substantialgifts to Holy Trinity,Rouen.39As a result of this

widespread activity,Normandy before 1066 hadbecome famous throughoutnorth-western Europe for the

number of its monasteries.But their distribution withinthe duchy needs also to beremarked. Of the ten ducalhouses no less than eight laywithinarestrictedarearoundRouen. In the metropolitancity itself there were three:Saint-Ouen,HolyTrinity,andSaint-Amand. A little fartherdown the Seine wereJumièges and Saint-Wandrille, whilst near its

mouthwasMontivilliers,andsome fifteenmiles north-eastof this was Fécamp. On theother side of the capital butnot far distant from it wasBernay.OnlyLeMont-Saint-Michel – a shrine ofimmemorable antiquity – layisolated on its island facingthe Atlantic, and it was notuntil about 1030 that Cerisy-la-Forêt was established inthe diocese of Bayeux. In

short, the ducal monasterieswere concentrated verynotably in the regiondominated by the Christiancapitalofthedukes.The aristocratic

endowments were to enlargethis area since the newfoundationsweremadeontheestates of the nobles whoestablished them. None theless, it was still centralNormandy that continued to

receive the bulk of the newreligious houses. Themajorityofthesewereinfactin the area watered by theSeine,theRisle,theTouques,and the Dives. Le Bee wasbut some twenty miles fromJumièges, less from Bernay,and only about fifteen milesfromthetworeligioushousesat Préaux. A circle of somefifteen miles radius could bemade to include Préaux,

Cormeilles, and Grestain, allsituated between the Risleand the Touques, whilst acircle of twelve miles radiuscould be made to surroundthe monasteries of Châtillon,Saint-Taurin, and LirewhichlaybetweentheRisleandtheSeine. Lire, moreover, wasbut about twenty miles fromSaint-Évroul, and Saint-Évroullessthanthatdistancefromtheneighbouringhouses

of Almenéches and Saint-MartinofSées.OntheDives,also were Troarn and, sometwelve miles distant from it,theabbeyofSaint-Pierre.Themultiplication of monasticfoundations at this period incentral Normandy is indeedmostnotable.Outsidethisarea,however,

the foundations were lessnumerous.Between1059and1066 there was, it is true, a

definite movement ofcolonization from Fécampwhich included not only amigration to Bonneville-sur-Touques,whereinduecoursetheprioryofSaintMartin-du-Boscwasfounded,butalsoamission of monks farther tothe west which resultedeventually in theestablishmentoftheprioryofSaint-Gabriel by the lords ofCreully.40 In the diocese of

Bayeux there was alsoFontenay, not far fromCerisy-la-Forêt, whilst Saint-Vigoraroseoutside thewallsof the cathedral city. Again,atLeTréportthecountsofEuerected their own monasticbastionofNormandytowardsthe east, and when Lessayarose to look upon theAtlantic from thewestof theCotentin, it was a symbol ofan extension of the

movement, this time into themost distant part of abackwarddiocese.Despiteallthesefoundations, itnonetheless remains true that before1066 the monasteries ofNormandy were stillconcentrated in the centralareaoftheduchy.Even so, the scope of the

aristocratic endowment ofNorman monasticismbetween 1035 and 1066

remainssoastonishing that itis necessary to consider themotives which inspired it. Itwould of course be rash toconsider these transactionssimplyasbenefactions,ortheendowments themselves assimply gifts. In the eleventhcentury was beginning themovement which was in duecourse to make themonasteries of westernEurope depots of credit for

secular lords, and certainlythe greater Normanmonasteries, such as Fécampunder Abbot John, playedtheir full part, during thelatter half of that century, inthe development of a moneyeconomy in the duchy.41Even before 1066 many ofthe new Norman nobilitywere beginning to use themonasteries of the duchy asagents whereby they could

make available some of theirrecently acquired landedwealth as expendable cash,and the endowment of amonastery with estates inreturn foranannualpaymenttobemadetothe‘donor’wasone of the means by whichthis could be effected. Norshoulditbeforgottenthattheestablishment of amonasterymight provide a means forincreasing the wealth of a

great estate, and it is notwithout significance thatmany of the Normanfoundations were situated inproximity to land ready fornew colonization orexploitation.42Yet whilst the part played

by theNormanaristocracy inpromoting the monastic lifeof the duchy is certainly insome measure thus to beexplained, it can hardly be

attributed solely to economiccauses. More complexmotives are also to bediscerned. In an age whenprestige counted for much,something may have beendue to rivalry in this matterbetween the greater familiesaswasapparently thecaseatSaint-Évroul between thehouses of Montgomery andGrandmesnil.43 Reputationsthus questionably coveted

could also be disreputablyenhanced. It is certain, forinstance, that in many casesthe new foundations wereenriched by lands which hadbeenillegitimatelytakenfromthe older monasteries ofNormandy.ThusbothTroarnand Almenèches receivedfrom the house ofMontgomery estates whichhad formerly belonged toFécamp,44 and Ralph Tesson

endowed his own abbey ofFontenay with some landswhich had previously beengiven by the Duchess JudithtoBernay.45 All this is true.But the eleventh-centurymind is not to be interpretedby indiscriminate cynicismany more than it is to bejudged in terms of creduloussentimentality; and it isperhaps permissible in thisconnexion to recall how

many of these ruthless menretiredtoendtheirlivesintheabbeys which they hadenriched.46There was at any rate one

monastery founded at thistime in Normandy whoseestablishment mightreasonably be cited asillustrating the influence ofprivate spirituality on secularhistory.47 About 1035 acertain knight of Count

Gilbert of Brionne, namedHerluin, being moved by animpulse towards thereligiouslife, sought to satisfy hisdesire first as a lay-brother,andthenasamonk,inoneofthe existing monasteries ofthe province. This waswithoutsuccess,andso,withtwo followers, he retired toone of his estates atBonneville near the Risle,wherehewasjoinedbyafew

more men of like mind, andin 1039 the little companymoved to Le Bec-Hellouin,where they began acommunity life of greatsimplicity and where theirchurch was consecrated byArchbishop Mauger on 23February 1041.48 There was,as will be seen, no desire toinaugurate a monasticmovement, or to acquirewealth, prestige, or external

influence. Yet such was theoriginofwhatwassoontobeforaperiod themost famousmonasteryofwesternEurope,sending its members topreside over bishoprics andabbeys, and imparting itscultureofmindandspirittoalarge area of westernChristendom.TherapidriseofLeBecto

famemay be dated from theentry into this little

community of one whosecareer was to be part ofAnglo-Normanhistory.WhenLanfranc entered Le Bec,about 1042, he was alreadysome thirty-five years of ageand had won fame as ateacher in North Italy and atAvranches.Forthreeyearsheobtained on the banks of theRisle theobscurity forwhichhecraved,buthisgeniuswasnot to be suppressed, and in

due course he became priorunder Herluin and resumedhis teaching. Pupils thusbegan to come to Le Becfrom all parts, and the fameofLeBecgrew.Itwasinfactalreadycelebratedasahouseof studies when about 1060another man, even moreremarkable, entered itswalls.This was Anselm, the futurearchbishop of Canterbury.The consummation was thus

rapidlyachieved.Theprayersof Herluin, the genius ofLanfranc, the sanctity ofAnselm, together with theoutstanding religious life oftheir companions, producedat length an influence thatwas worthy of theirendeavour.LeBec,‘inalittleover a quarter of a centuryfrombeinganwhollyobscureventurewhichwasinasensea reaction from the

monasticism around it, cameto rival and surpass itsneighbours in their mosttypical activities, and to bethemodelandthemistressofNormanmonasticism’.49A monastery which

between 1058 and 1063 hadwithin its walls ‘two of themost powerful intelligencesand more than two of themost saintly men of a greatformativeepoch’50 inevitably

stands apart in respect of itsindividual pre-eminence. Itwould,however,bewrongtodissociateitsachievementtoosharply from the generalmonastic growth of theNormanprovinceatthistime.During these years not onlydid the Norman monasteriesmultiply, but they wereestablished in close relationto the great reformingmovement which was

beginning to sweep overnorth-western Europe, andthey were linked together bytheir progressive acceptanceof the Cluniac discipline.William of Dijon hadintroduced the reforms atFécamp and Bernay, whilsthis disciples performed thesame task at Jumièges, LeMont-Saint-Michel, andSaint-Ouen; and from thesehousesthenewdisciplinewas

rapidly to spread by stagesthroughout the newfoundations.51 Thus Fécampgave the first abbots to theTosnyfoundationatConches,andtheMontgomeryhouseatTroarn. Le Mont-Saint-Michelsuppliedanabbotandmonks to the monastery ofSaint-VigoratBayeux.Inlikemanner, Jumièges gave thefirstabbottotheGrandmesnilfoundations at Saint-Évroul,

and this latter monasterysupplied several of the earlyabbots of William fitzOsbern's foundation at Lire.Butthehousesestablishedbythe Norman nobility at thistime probably owed most inthis respect to Saint-Ouen.The first five abbots ofHolyTrinity, Rouen, came fromthis abbey, and Holy Trinitypassed on the succession bysupplying thefirstabbotsnot

only of the count of Eu'sfoundationsatLeTréportandSaint-Pierre-sur-Dives, butalso ofWilliam fitzOsbern'smonastery at Cormeilles.Cerisy-la-Forêt, likewise,took its first superior fromSaint-Ouen.And from Saint-Ouen too came the firstabbotsof thereformedhouseofLaCroix-Saint-Leuffroi,ofRogerofMortemer'sabbeyofSaint-Victor-en-Caux, and of

Robert Bertram's foundationatBeaumont-en-Auge.Most of the monasteries

established in Normandybefore 1066 have beenmentioned in this summarylist,andamongtheomissionsare some which arethemselves very significant.LeBec,ashasbeenseen,wasthe result of an indigenousmovement, which, whilstrepresenting a highly

distinguished form ofmonastic life, was in manyways unique. Nevertheless,despite its individuality, itcame to conform in manyrespects to the prevailingpatternandhandedonitsowndiscipline directly to theabbeyofLessay, and later totheducalfoundationofSaint-Stephen's, Caen.52 Again, atSaint-Wandrille thereprobably survived traditions

fromtheearliermovementinFlanders,andthesemayhavebeeninsomesensehandedonto the Beaumont foundationat Préaux, toHerluin's houseatGrestain, and perhaps alsoto Ralph Tesson's house atFontenay.53Butevenheretheexception is in part illusory,for thereseemsnodoubt thatSaint-Wandrille was itselfreformed fromFécampabout1063.54 In general, therefore

(with the exception of LeBec), the Normanmonasteries before theNorman conquest can beregarded as a closelyconfederated group withobservance in the mainderiving from Cluny.Founded either by the ducaldynasty, or by the rivalmembers of a highlycompetitive aristocracy, theyyet, through their connexions

with one another, came toserve as a cohesive forcewithin Normandy. They thuscontributed not only to theecclesiastical character butalso to the political unity ofthe duchy ruled by DukeWilliam.So outstanding was the

monastic development ofNormandyduringthereignofDukeWilliam that it is easytoforget that this, thoughthe

chief,wasnot the sole factorin promoting theecclesiastical revival whichwas to condition the impactof Normandy on Europe inhis time. It is proper tocontrast the fine spiritualityexhibited, for example, byRichard of Saint-Vannes, orin the monastery of Le Bec,withthemundaneinterestsofthe contemporary secularchurch,anditisverytruethat

the reform of the Normanchurch was primarilymonastic rather thanepiscopal in its essence. YettheNorman bishops between1035 and 1066 formed agroup of prelates which wasin many ways remarkable.55They were, it is true, out oftouch with the reformingideals which were radiatingfromClunyanditsoffshoots,and their conception of the

episcopal office had little incommon with that envisagedby later reformers. Theytherefore attracted censurewhich in many cases theirprivate lives did much tojustify. None the less theywere never negligible, andmuch of what they wroughtendured.If, however, the

ecclesiastical development ofNormandybetween1035and

1066 owed something to thebishopswho then held officewithintheprovinceofRouen,the contrast between thesemenandthoseresponsibleforthe monastic reforms nonethe less remains striking.Thoughprecisionastodatingis hard to obtain, theepiscopal succession inNormandybetween1035and1066 iswell established, andthe bare recital of the names

which it involves reveals thecardinalfact that theNormanepiscopacy during the reignof Duke William isoverwhelminglyrepresentative of the newseculararistocracywhichwasthen being established in theduchy, and which was itselfclosely connected with theducal dynasty. The see ofRouen before 1055was heldby two sons of Norman

dukes, namely Robert andMauger. The bishopric ofBayeuxwasoccupiedfirstbyHugh, son of Count Rodulf,half-brother toDukeRichardI, and then after 1049–1050byOdo,half-brotherofDukeWilliam himself. John, whobecame bishop of Avranchesin 1060, and subsequentlyarchbishop of Rouen, wasanother of Count Rodulf'ssons, and Hugh who was

made bishop of Lisieux in1049–1050 was the son ofWilliam, count of Eu, andgrandson of Duke Richard I.Geoffrey,whobecamebishopof Coutances in 1049, was aMowbray, and Yves, bishopof Sées throughout thisperiod,washeadof thegreatfamily of Bellême. Again,William, son of GérardFlaitel,whowasmadebishopof Évreux some time after

1040, was the relative andprobably the first cousin ofRadbod, a former bishop ofSées; and one of Radbod'ssons was William whobecame archbishop of Rouenin 1079. Such facts deserveclose consideration. TheyindicateunmistakablythattheNorman episcopate, duringthe reign of Duke William,was dominated by a smallclose-knit aristocratic group

whose principal filiationscouldbedisplayedwithinthescope of two very restrictedand connected pedigreesketches.Such men were often

hardly to be distinguished asto character and policy fromtheir lay kinsfolk, and manyof them had children byunions which wererecognized, if not regular.56Owing their appointment to

their dynastic connexionstheywerenaturallyconcernedto further the fortunes of thefamilies to which theybelonged,andasmembersofthe new aristocracy inNormandy they were deeplycommittedtothemaintenanceofthatnobilityinpower.Asaresult the establishment ofgreat lords in ecclesiasticaloffice led naturally to such asituationaswascreatedwhen

Archbishop Robert of RouenbecamealsocountofÉvreux,or when Yves added thebishopric of Sées to hissecular inheritance ofBellême. It was by a logicalextension of these ideas thatOdo, bishop of Bayeux, waslater to become earl ofKent,and both he and Geoffrey,bishop of Coutances,acquired,asindividualsratherthan as bishops, lands in

Englandwhichintheirextentand wealth could becompared with the verygreatest of the temporalbaronies constituted by theNorman conquest. Suchconditions, unedifying inthemselves, were particularlyshocking to commentatorswriting in the time of StAnselmwhowere convincedthat the root of evil in thechurch was the mingling of

sacredandsecularthings,andit is little wonder that,especially by comparisonwith the monastic reformers,the Norman bishops beforethe Norman conquest shouldhave been branded with anevilreputationbyposterity.Nevertheless, it would

perhaps be rash to indulgehere in too sweeping acondemnation. There isdoubtless little to be said in

favour of Archbishop Robertas a prelate, but he wascertainlyastabilizingforceinthe duchy, andMauger, whowas universally criticized, atleast convoked, early in hispontificate,asynodatRouenwhich vigorously denouncedsimonybeforethepapacyhadlaunched with Leo IX itsgreat reforming campaign.Geoffrey ofCoutances in histurn might be dismissed too

readily as an able secularadministrator who enrichedhimself out of the spoils ofthe Conquest, for hisadministration of his diocesewas notable; he left a greatcathedral for his memorial,and he is said to havecombined his zeal for hisbishopric with considerablepersonal austerity.57 Even ofOdo of Bayeux an adversejudgment might well admit

modification. Hisoverwhelming ambitionswere a source of strife, hisruthless oppressions madehimhated,andhisprivatelifewas a source of scandal.Nevertheless, the see ofBayeux enjoyed greatbenefitsfromhisrule,andhispatronage was both lavishandwelldirected.Certainlyaprelatewhosepolitical careeraffected the fortunes of both

Normandy and England sosignally cannot be dismissedasnegligible,andperhapsthetwelfth-century monk wasjust as well as charitablewhen he concluded that inthisextraordinarymanvirtuesand vices were strangelymingled.58 Finally, withHughofLisieuxand JohnofAvranches we come uponprelateswhowere personallydistinguished and of high

repute. There is little doubtthat the former deserved theattractive eulogy pronouncedupon him by William ofPoitiers, who knew himwell.59 And as for John ofAvranches, his abilities werelater to be fully displayed asarchbishop of Rouen, andwhen he was still bishop ofAvranches he won forhimself by his writings anassuredplaceinthehistoryof

the liturgy of the westernchurch.These prelates all

belonged, however, to anolder ecclesiastical traditionwhich was attacked andcondemned by the reformersof the succeedinggeneration,and only one occupant of aNorman see before theConquestcanbesaidtohaveconformed to laternotionsofepiscopacy. This was

Mauriliuswho in exceptionalcircumstances becamearchbishop of Rouen inMay1055 after the deposition ofMauger.Maurilius60 was nota Norman, nor was heconnected with the Normanaristocracy. Born about 1000in the neighbourhood ofRheims, he had received histraining at Liége, and laterbeen scholasticus in thechapter of Halberstadt. He

then became a monk atFécamp,whencehemigratedto live a hermit's life atVallombrosa. From there hewas called to become abbotof the Benedictine house ofSaint Mary of Florence, buttherigourofhisruleinspireda revolt among the monks,andhereturnedoncemoretoFécamp. And it was fromFécamp that he was broughtin 1054–1055 to undertake

thedutiesofthemetropolitanarchbishopofNormandy.Hisremarkable career had thusbeenpassed in themostvitalcentres of Europeanintellectual and spiritual life;he had experienced thelearning of Liége, thespiritual fervour ofVallombrosa, the Cluniacmonasticism of William ofDijon. Even so, hisadvancement to the

archbishopric was surprising.A new and extraneouselement was thus introducedinto the secular hierarchy ofthe province of Rouen, andthepersonalinfluenceofsucha man with such experiencemusthavebeenverygreat.Nevertheless, the

individual contribution madeby Maurilius to theecclesiastical development ofNormandy might be

exaggerated. It was the dukewho was chiefly responsiblefor his appointment, andthroughouthispontificate thedukewastoexerciseanever-increasing power over theNorman church. In 1055William had just surmountedthegreatcrisisofhisNormanreign, and it was perhapsowing to him as much as tothe ageing archbishop thatduring the decade preceding

the Norman conquest therewas a further quickening inthe ecclesiastical life of theprovince.Thedukemayevenhave appreciated the contrastbetween the influence on theNorman episcopate and thatof the Norman monasteries,and conscious that each hadmuch to contribute to thewelfareofhisduchy,hemayhave sought to harmonizethembytheadvancementofa

distinguished monk to thearchiepiscopal see. Certainly,hewasfortunateinhavingasarchbishopduringtheseyearsamanwhosesaintlycharacterinspired widespread respect.None the less it would beunwise to distinguish whatoccurred in the ecclesiasticallife of Normandy after 1055from what had beenaccomplished before.61 Themonastic revival took on

increasedmomentum,buttheoriginal impetuswas still thesame,andamongthebishopsof Normandy Maurilius wasalwaysanexceptional figure.The achievements of thesebishops between 1035 and1066mustthusbeconsideredas awhole (with no break at1054),andastheworkunderthe duke of an episcopalgroupwhich, with the singleexception of Maurilius, was

madeupofselectedmembersof the newly establishedaristocracyofNormandy.Calledupontoadministera

recently disorganized churchin a province which longremained subject to disorder,these prelates displayed infull measure the vigour oftheir class, and thoughmanyof them were lamentablylacking in spirituality theyaffected a notable

reconstruction. Many ofthem, notably Hugh ofLisieux, John of Avranches,Geoffrey of Coutances, andOdoofBayeux,werepraisedfor the benefits theyconferredontheirsees,andifsucheulogymightofitselfbeconsidered suspect, it couldbesupportedbymoreprecisetestimony. In 1035 thebishoprics of the province ofRouen still felt the effects of

earlier disintegration, andeven in 1050 they remainedin need of furtherrehabilitation. The well-organized bishopricscharacteristic of medievalNormandy may thus becontrasted sharplywith thosein existence in 1035, andmuch of the transformationwas the work of the bishopswho presided over theNorman church during the

reignofDukeWilliam.Their work in this respect

can be suitably assessed inthefirstinstancebyreferenceto the archidiaconate inNormandy,62 for thearchdeacon was an essentialagent in the orderedadministration of anymedieval bishopric. TheNormanarchdeaconriesofthethirteenth century, togetherwith the rural deaneries into

whichtheywerethendivided,are well known, and a longseries of twelfth-centuryinstruments testifies to theearlier prevalence ofarchdeaconries and to theactivities of their holders.Further, this chain oftestimony can be stretchedinto the eleventh centuryitself. The archidiaconate asan office was fullyrecognized in the provincial

council summoned byMauger about 1040, andevidence exists relative to itsinstitution at Rouen, atCoutances, and at Lisieux.More precisely the fourarchdeaconswhowitnessedanotable charter of Odo,bishop of Bayeux,63 canreasonably be held torepresent the fourarchdeaconries which werelater attached to that church,

whilst the five territorialarchdeaconries laterestablished in the diocese ofSéesmustlikewisehavebeenrepresentedinthefivenamedarchdeacons who between1040 and 1065 ratified a giftbyBishopYves to theabbeyof Saint-Vincent du Mans.64By contrast, apart from thetwoarchdeacons,presumablyof Rouen, who attested acharterofArchbishopRobert

for Chartres in 1024,65 itmight be hard to find areference to a particulararchdeacon in Normandybefore the time of DukeWilliam. The office wouldseem to have been re-established in the duchy bythe bishops who presidedover the Norman sees in histime.The archdeacon was,

however, only one of the

dignitaries normally attachedto a cathedral church, for asecular cathedral in theMiddle Ages wasdistinguishedbythecharacterand composition of itschapter. The Normancathedral chapters were fullyestablished in the thirteenthcentury,andinmanyrespectsthey can be traced backthrough the twelfth and eveninto the latter part of the

eleventh century.66 For SéesandAvranchesearlyevidenceis lacking, but there isdefinite testimony that thevery peculiar chapter ofCoutancestookitsoriginwithBishop Geoffrey. The firstreferencetothedecanalofficeatÉvreuxcomesfromthelastquarter of the eleventhcentury,andthereseemslittledoubt that the bulk of thechapterofLisieuxwassetup

in the time of Bishop Hugh.AtBayeuxthechapteriscitedinacharterofBishopOdo,67and most of the dignitarieswho later composed it arementioned by name in theinstrument. Finally, thoughthe titles of the officialsconcernedwereinduecourseto be somewhat varied, thereisnodoubtthatthechapterofthemetropolitan cathedral ofRouen was in all essentials

fully reconstituted during theNorman reign of DukeWilliam.68Doubtless,hereaselsewhere in Normandy, theconquest of Englandstimulated the process, for achapterneededmoney for itsupkeep, and some of theseprelates, notably Geoffrey ofCoutances and Odo ofBayeux, devoted to thispurpose revenues that theyhad derived from England.

But the essential work hadbeen done during thepreceding decades, and thereseems no doubt that thehighly individual chapters oftheNorman cathedrals beganto take shape under thebishops who were appointedto the Norman sees between1035and1066.Such an achievement was

of importance to the growthof the Norman church, and

whilst the work of thesebishopsneededthecorrectionwhichthemonasticreformerscould supply, the twoactivities should not beconsideredas if theywere inopposition the one to theother. It is true that shortlybefore the advent of DukeWilliam certain of theNorman monasteries hadsucceeded in asserting,‘accordingtotheprivilegesof

Cluny’, an exemption fromepiscopal jurisdiction: theright, in theory, to elect theirown abbots, and sometimesthe distinct privilege ofcollecting the episcopal duesfrom a specified number of‘exempt’churches.69Butitisdoubtful how far suchprivileges were extended orenforced between 1035 and1066, and when in 1061 anagreement was made after

controversy between John,bishop of Avranches and theabbey of Le Mont-Saint-Michel, the compromiseachieved was indicative ofthesuperiorjudicialauthorityof the bishop.70 From theopposite point of view thebishops on their part can beseen as giving substantialsupport to the monasticmovement. Maurilius,himselfamonk,tookthelead

in this matter by standing asthe friend of Saint-Ouen,Jumièges, Le Tréport, andSaint-Ymer;71 but he did notstand alone, andmanyof hisepiscopal colleagues addedtheir own benefactions tothose of their kinsfolk.William, bishop of Évreux,wasabenefactorofthehouseofSaint-Taurin,whilstHugh,bishop of Lisieux, joined hismother, the Countess

LescelineofEu,inhergrantsto Holy Trinity, Rouen.72 InlikemannerGeoffrey,bishopof Coutances, seems to havebeen concerned to sponsor arevival of monastic life in adistracted diocese, and thegifts of Odo, bishop ofBayeux,werenotconfinedtohiscathedral.73The resuscitation of

ecclesiastical life in theprovinceofRouenwasinfact

due to many agencies andwas manifested in manyways. It was, for instance,reflected in an architecturalrevival which has attractedthe admiring attention ofcritics.74 The earliestsurviving eleventh-centurychurch in Normandy isprobably that of Bernay, anditwasmarkedbymanynovelfeatures.Moreover, the othergreat monastic churches

which arose during theseyears conformed generally tothesameplanwhichisfoundnotonlyatBernaybutalsoatLe Mont-Saint-Michel, HolyTrinity, Rouen, and Saint-Taurin at Évreux; and againat Saint-Ouen, Montivilliers,Lire, Lessay, and Jumièges.Here, then, was a concertedmovementwhich promoted adistinct architectural style,and which though not

peculiar to Normandy hasbeenheldtohaveproducedinthe duchy what wasstructurally‘themostlogicalof the various schools ofRomanesque’.75Yetwhile ‘itwas the monastic revivalwhich gave the necessaryimpetus to the architecturalrevivalinNormandy’76atthistime, the bishops of theprovincealsomadetheirowncontribution to it. Recent

excavations in the crypt ofRouencathedralhave thrownfreshlightonthegreatchurchbuilt by Maurilius,77 andtraces can still be seen atBayeux of the cathedralbegun by Bishop Hugh, andcompletedwith characteristicmagnificence by BishopOdo.78 A new cathedral isknowntohavebeenbegunatLisieux before 1049, and itwasfinishedbyBishopHugh

and dedicated by him on 8July 1060.79 Finally, atCoutances, Geoffrey left hisown memorial in a greatchurch whose structure stillsurvives in parts of thepresentcathedral.80Nor was it only in

architecture that theecclesiastical renaissance inNormandy at this time foundexpression. It was the samewith learning and literature.

The Cluniac discipline withits stress on formal worship,andwith itsmultiplicationofthe hours of liturgicalobservance, was, as is wellknown, somewhat indifferentto the development ofmonastic scholarship andteaching. Its application toNormandy, however, was toentail different results.WilliamofDijonwashimselfa man of wide cultural

interestswhoheldthatpartofthemonastic functionwas tostudy and to teach. As aconsequence, intellectual andeducational interests were tobecome strong at Fécampfrom an early date. TheschoolsatFécampestablishedatthistimehaveinparticularattracted much attention.81 Ithas been held, for instance,that theywere open not onlyto ecclesiastics but to lay-

folk, and it would seem thatfreelodgingwasprovidedforsomeofthestudents.Perhapsthere has here been someexaggeration, and certainlytheFécampschoolswerenotunique inNormandyfor theyhad their counterparts, as itwould seem, at Saint-OuenandHolyTrinity,atLeMont-Saint-Michel, and perhaps atJumièges and Saint-Évroul.82Theirmainfunctionseemsto

havebeen to trainmonks forthe cloister, but theeducational activityprosecuted in Normandybefore the Norman conquestwasundoubtedlynotable.The scholarly interests of

Fécamp,asestablished in thetimeofWilliamofDijon,andthe influence it exercised onthoseotherNormanhousestowhich it sent superiorsreacheditsclimaxinthework

of a writer of the firstimportance. John (orJohanellinus), abbot ofFécamp from 1031 to 1079,was one of the makers ofNorman monasticism.83 ALombard, like Lanfranc hecame to Normandy early inthe eleventh century, andthroughout his long life hewas prominent in the affairsoftheduchy.Butitwasinthesphere of learning, andmore

particularly of devotionalliterature,thathisfinestworkwas done.84 His survivingletters are of interest, and hewas apparently versed in themedical knowledge of theday.Itwas,however,throughotherproductionsthathewasto establish himself as a‘spiritual guide and writerunique among hiscontemporaries’. So notableand so influential were his

devotional treatises thatparadoxically their veryexcellence was for long tocontribute to their author'sanonymity. One of histreatises was, for instance,attributed to St Augustine,and when another waspublished in 1539 it wasassigned to John Cassian.None the less his work hasendured. The moving andbeautiful prayers in

preparation for Mass whichhave found their place in theMissale Romanum85 (wherethey are attributed to StAmbrose) were, in fact,written by this eleventh-century abbot of Fécampwhose pervasive inspirationthuscontinuestoday.In surveying the

intellectual revival associatedwith the ecclesiasticaldevelopment of Normandy

before theNorman conquest,it is inevitable that attentionshould be turned chieflytowardsLeBec.The schoolsof Le Bec were not in theirorigin essentially differentfrom those established atFécamp and elsewhere, butthey advanced to a uniquedistinctionunderthedirectionof Lanfranc, who began toteach there in 1045 or 1046,andwhoraisedthenewabbey

on the banks of the Risle tothe status of a centre ofEuropean education. Thepolitical achievements ofLanfranc relate chiefly to theperiod after 1066, but hisgreatest work in scholarshipand teachingwas donewhenhewasamonkatLeBec,forit was then that hemade hiswidely read Biblical andpatristic commentaries, andcompiled his treatise against

Berengar, the importance ofwhich in the development ofmedieval theology hasrecently been emphasized.86Hisprestigeasa teacherwasmoreover immense, and henumbered among his pupilsanastonishinglylargenumberof men who weresubsequentlytoattaintohighpositions. Among them, forinstance,mightbementionedWilliam ‘ Bonne-Ame’, later

archbishop of Rouen, threeabbots of Rochester, GilbertCrispin, abbot ofWestminster, and a largegroup of abbots in Englandand France.87 Such a list(which is by no meansexhaustive) may occasionsurprise. It is certainlysufficient to testify to theintellectual influence of LeBec before the Normanconquest, even if it be not

added that among Lanfranc'spupils was Anselm himself,who became a monk at LeBec in 1060, and who wassoon to win for himself apermanent place as a doctoroftheChurch.LeBec at its zenith stands

distinct. But its brilliancemust, none the less, be takeninto account in anyassessment of theecclesiastical revival in the

Normanlandwhereinitgrew.Nor should its brilliance beallowed to obscure the workwhich at the same time wasbeing done in other Normanmonasteries. The picture ofSaint-Évroul before theNorman conquest painted inthe twelfth century byOrdericusVitalis isdoubtlessat times distorted byenthusiasm;butitisnonetheless substantially authentic,

and the obvious sympathybetween this writer and hisabbey makes it legitimate toconsider his own great book,perhaps the most brillianthistorical work produced inNormandy or England in histime,asatonceadescriptionand a reflection of theintellectual interestsprevailing in the morefavoured monasteries ofNormandy in the middle of

theeleventhcentury.NordidSaint-Évroul stand alone. Itslibrary, for example, ifrespectable, was notoutstanding, and it had itscounterparts in othermonasteries such as Fécamp,Lire, and doubtless otherplaces.88 The list of scholarmonkswho achieved at leasta temporary fame inNormandy before theConquest is not negligible,

andthereseemstohavebeena definite policy to placethese in positions ofresponsibility.Thus(toselectbutafewnames)Thierrywasknown as a scholar atJumièges before he becamethe first abbot of Saint-Évroul, and Isembard, thefirst abbot of Holy Trinity,Rouen, had been praised forhisearliereminenceinliberalstudieswhenatSaint-Ouen.89

Again,Durand, first abbotofTroarn, who at Saint-Ouenhad been Isembard's pupil,was justly described as‘learned’; and Ainard, thefirstabbotofSaint-Pierre-sur-Dives, was known as ateacher of music who alsocomposedwidely readversesin honour of SaintCatherine.90Gerbert,abbotofSaint-Wandrille, couldactually be compared to

Lanfranc as a scholar,91 andthough this was a fantasticoverestimate, modernstudents of history have hadabundant reason to begrateful for the sober andinteresting chronicle writtenbyWilliamofJumiègeswhileamonkatthathouse.It was not to be expected

that the Norman bishops ofthis time, immersed as theywere in practical affairs,

should personally participatein this literary activity. Butthey cannot be dissociatedfrom it, and two of themmade an individualcontribution thereto.MauriliusofRouenwaswithjustice reputed for hiserudition, and as for John ofAvranches, his De OfficiisEcclesiasticis has beenwidelyrecognizedbymoderncommentators for its

importance in thedevelopmentoftheliturgyofthe western church.92Maurilius and John, ofcourse, stood apart, in thismatter, from their episcopalcolleagues, but their fellowbishopsinNormandywerebyno means indifferent to thedevelopment of letters, andmany of them dischargedwith high distinction theduties of patronage.93 Most

notable in this respect were,forinstance,Geoffrey,bishopof Coutances, and Odo,bishopofBayeux.Geoffrey'sprincelymunificence becameindeedsomethingofalegendin medieval Normandy, andthough many of hisbenefactionsweremadeafter1066 out of the spoils ofconquest, it is specificallystatedthatmostof themtookplaceatanearlierdate.94Nor

can there be any doubt thatmany of these were directedtowards fostering scholarshipandthearts,forheisstatedtohave provided his churchwithnumerousservicebooks,many of which weredecorated by the bestmanuscript workers of thetime; and among the earliergifts to Coutances werebeautifulaltarvesselsofgoldandsilver,andrichlywrought

vestments. Due allowancemust, of course, bemade forexaggeration,buttherecanbelittle question that during thefifteen years which elapsedbetween 1049 and 1066Geoffrey of Coutanceslaboured constructively totransform an enfeebledChurch in a demoralizeddiocese into a cathedralworthy of an imperialduchy.95

The patronage of Odo,bishop of Bayeux, was evenmore notable, and it isattested with greaterparticularity. His munificentencouragement ofcraftsmanship may beillustrated in his enrichmentofthefabricandornamentsofhis cathedral, and there islittle doubt that he waslargely responsible for thedevelopment of the cathedral

school at Bayeux.96Moreover,at a laterdate, theBayeux Tapestry itself mostprobably took itsorigin fromhis initiative,97 and it haseven been suggested, thoughwith less probability, that hispatronage may havecontributed to the productionof theChansondeRoland inthe earliest complete formnowknowntous.98Bethatasit may, Odo of Bayeux was

clearly in touch withneighbouring prelates ofintellectual eminence such asMarbod of Rennes, andperhaps Hildebert of Tours,and itwas inconnexionwithhis patronage of youngscholars that his activitiesweremostnotable.Itwas,forinstance, his practice to sendpromisingyoungclericsfromhis diocese at his ownexpense to study in the

centres of Europeanscholarship, and moreparticularly at Liége;99 andmanyof themenhe selectedas fitting recipients of hissupport were afterwards towinfor themselveshighrankintheAnglo-Normanchurch.Thus, among the scholarswhoweresustainedbyOdoatLiége was Thurstan, later tobe an unfortunate abbot ofGlastonbury, and William of

Rots, subsequently dean atBayeux and abbot ofFécamp.100 The mostremarkable results of thisenlightened patronage could,however, be discerned inconnexion with two youngclerics named Thomas andSamson, sons of a certainOsbert and Muriel of whomlittle further is known.101Both of these youths weresenttoLiégebytheirbishop,

and their subsequent careerswere spectacular. Thomasbecame in due coursetreasurerofBayeux,andthen,from 1070 to 1100,archbishop of York, whilstSamson, who was likewisefor a time treasurer atBayeux, was bishop ofWorcester from 1096 to1115.102 Whatever judgmentmaybepassedonthepoliticalactivities of Odo, bishop of

Bayeux,hemustcertainlybereckoned as one of the greatpatronsoftheage.There is no mistaking the

vigour of the intellectual lifewhich was beginning todevelop in the Normanchurch,andparticularlyintheNorman monasteries duringthe period immediatelypreceding the NormanconquestofEngland.Even ifthe outstanding achievement

of Le Bec were to beregarded as exceptional, therange of these activitieswould remain impressive. Itextended from thewriting ofhistory to theologicalcontroversy, from medicineto devotional literature, fromverse-making to thecultivationofmusicinwhichthe Norman monasteries ofthe eleventh century seem tohaveexcelled.103Itistrue,of

course,thatmanyofthemostdistinguished exponents ofthe monastic life inNormandy at this time weredrawn from elsewhere –particularly from North ItalyandtheRhineland.104ButthemerefactthatsuchmenchosetheViking province for theirhome and were welcomedtherein is itself a matter oflarge significance. Itmust betaken into account alongside

the native endeavour. It wasthe counterpart of thepatronage of scholarship byNorman bishops and thelavishendowmentofNormanmonasteries by the Normanaristocracy. Strong in theaspirations of a brighteningrenaissance not peculiar toitself, the Norman church ofthis age was alreadybeginning to impart by itsvery vigour something of its

owntotheintellectualrevivalwhichwastobecharacteristicoftwelfth-centuryEurope.ThevitalityoftheNorman

church at this time, and itsunity, could not be betterillustratedthaninthecouncilswhich were held in theprovince of Rouen duringthesedecades.Thuswhilenotexts have survived to recordany meeting of anecclesiastical council in

Normandy during the tenthcentury, there can be noquestion that there wasconsiderableconciliaractivityin the duchy during theNorman reign of DukeWilliam. The bishops of thatperiodwerewonttosummondiocesan synods with someregularity, and numerouscouncils of the wholeprovincewerealsoheld.105Itis true that a record of their

acts has only been preservedin a few cases, and that it isoften difficult to assignprecise dates for theirmeetings. But the evidencehere is none the lessremarkable.Thus,earlyinhispontificate, and certainlybefore 1048, Maugerconvokedaprovincialcouncilin Rouen whose acts areextant, and it was at anecclesiasticalassemblageheld

outsideCaeninOctober1047that the Truce of God wasproclaimed. In 1054 or 1055a provincial council atLisieuxratifiedthedepositionofMauger,andit isprobablethateitherin1055oratsomedate between 1055 and 1063Maurilius held a council atRouen.106 More certainly on1 October 1063, Mauriliusheld a provincial council atRouen,107 and in 1064 there

met another provincialcouncilatLisieuxwhoseactshave survived,108 whilst asynod was held at Caen inJuly1066on theoccasionofthededicationoftheabbeyofHolyTrinity.109Our knowledge of these

assemblies depends upon thechance survival of particulartexts, but the testimony is atall events sufficient toindicate the scope of this

activityanditscharacter.Theproceedings at these councilsconforms to the generalpattern of the reforminglegislation in the westernchurchatthistime,andoffersa fresh indication of themanner in which thesereforms were starting topervade the Viking duchy.The first council of Mauger,for instance, denouncedsimony, and in the councils

thatwere held in the time ofMaurilius, legislation wasconsistentlypassedrespectingclerical celibacy, the conductof parish clergy, and thecontroversial aspects of theteaching of Berengar.110None the less, the Normancouncils of this period hadtheir own special features. Itis, for example, surelyremarkable that some yearsbefore, in 1049, Leo IX

introduced his reforms at thecouncilofRheims,aNormancouncil summoned byMauger, an archbishop of.nohigh repute, should havelegislatedagainstthetrafficinecclesiastical offices, andshould have taken measuresdesigned to provide theprovince of Rouen with aninstructed clergy.111 Thereseems here to have been acontinuity of policy between

Mauger and Maurilius, andtheactsofthosecouncilsheldin the time of the latterarchbishop were related bothto earlier and to laterlegislation.112 Theecclesiastical policy ofWilliam the Conquerorbetween 1066 and 1087,whichentailedsuchimportantresults for England and forwestern Europe, was in factto flow easily out of the

ecclesiastical legislationwhich took place in theNorman Church during hisreignasduke.For there can be no doubt

that before 1066 the dukehimselftookaprominentpartintheconciliaractivitywhichtook place in his duchy. Hewas perhaps too young to beatthefirstcouncilofMauger,but he was at the council atCaen in 1047, and it would

seem that he was present,alongwiththepapallegate,atthe council of Lisieux in1054–1055, and again at thecouncil at Rouen in 1063.The important council ofLisieux of 1064 was in itsturn held ‘underWilliam themost noble duke of theNormans’.113 In the light ofthis testimony, there wouldthus seem no reason toquestion the emphatic

assertion of William ofPoitiers that the Normanecclesiastical councils of thisperiod met ‘at the commandand with the encouragementof theduke’.William, itwassaid, was careful to attendtheir meetings and to be the‘arbiter’of theirproceedings.He was, it is added, alwaysunwilling to learn atsecondhand about matterswhich he held to be of such

importance to the welfare ofhisduchy.114Before 1066 his concern

had indeed been amplyrewarded. The Normanchurch during his reign hadso waxed in strength as towinwidespreadadmirationofcontemporariesforitsvigour,its aspirations, and itsintellectual life. Themen, sodiverse in character and yetso personally outstanding,

who had risen to eminencewithin it were themselvessufficient to give itdistinction. An ecclesiasticalprovinceofnoabnormalsizewhich at the beginning of1066couldberepresentedbymen of such contrasteddistinctionasOdoofBayeuxand Geoffrey of Coutances,Maurilius of Rouen, John ofAvranches, and Hugh ofLisieux, Lanfranc of Saint-

Stephen's, John of Fécamp,Herluin of Le Bec, and theyoungAnselmwas assuredlynot to be ignored. It is notsurprising, therefore, that itssubsequent influence was tobe pervasive. The Normanecclesiastical revival had inshortbeenmadeinitsturntosubserve the developingstrength of Normandy undertheruleofDukeWilliam.

1R.A.D.N.,no.4.2Jumièges,LeMont-Saint-Michel,Saint-Wandrille,Saint-Ouen.

3Cerisy,Montivilliers,HolyTrinity,Rouen,andSaint-Amand.Fécamphadbeenreconstitutedin1001,andBernayestablishedabout1026.

4Prentout,ÉtudesurDudon,p.300;InventioS.Wulframni(Soc.Hist.Norm.,Mélanges,vol.XIV(1938),pp.1–83).

5Douglas,inEng.Hist.Rev.,vol.LVII(1942),p.433.

6Lair,GuillaumeLongue-Epée(1893);Hist.deJumièges(ed.Loth),vol.I,pp.122–126.

7Will.Jum.,p.38;Ord.Vit.,vol.II,p.8;RobertofTorigny(ed.Delisle),vol.II,p.192.

8InventioS.Wulframni(op.cit.,p.32);Lot,Saint-Wandrille,pp.xl–xlv.

9Rec.ActesdeLothairetdeLouisV(ed.Halphen),no.XXIV.

10Gall.Christ.,vol.XI,col.513;J.Huynes,Hist.–duMont-St-Michel(ed.Beaurepaire),vol.I,pp.149–151.

11Hedied16April,991)Rec.Hist.Franc.,vol.XXIII,p.579).

12Knowles,MonasticOrder,pp.83,89.

13LiberdeRevelatione(Pat.Lat.,vol.CLI,col.699);LerouxdeLincy,Essai–surFécamp(1840),pp.5–9.

14Knowles,op.cit.,p.85.

15Forwhatfollows,seeWatkinWilliamsinDownsideReview,vol.LII,pp.520–534.

16RobertofTorigny(ed.Delisle),vol.I,p.193.

17LePrévost,Eure,vol.I,p.285;A.Goujou,HistoiredeBernay,chap.II.

18Mon.Ang.,vol.VI,p.1073;R.A.D.N.,no.61.

19LeCacheux,SaintAmand,chap.I;the‘foundationcharter’(p.242)is,however,aforgery.

20H.Dauphin,LeBienheureuxRichard(1946),pp.260–264.

21LeMusset,‘Lesdestinsdelapropriétémonastique’(Jumièges–XIIIeCentenaire,pp.49–55).

22Lot,Saint-Wandrille,pp.xiii–xxviii;Musset,op.cit.,p.50.

23R.A.D.N.,nos.14bis,26.24Musset,op.cit.,p.50.25R.A.D.N.,no.61.26R.Fawtier,‘LesReliquesrouennaisesdeSainteCatherined'Alexandrie’(Analecta

Bollandiana,vol.XLI(1923),pp.357–368).M.FawtiershowsthatHughofFlavigny'sstoryoftherelics,andofthefoundation,isnottobereliedupon.

27M.J.LeCacheux,op.cit.,chap.I.

28Above,pp.80–91.29Ord.Vit.,vol.II,p.12.30TheDeImmuatationeOrdinisMonachorumisprintedintheeditionoftheworksofRobertofTorignybyL.Delisle(vol.II,pp.

184–207).Thetractis,onthewhole,moreaccuratethantheindividualnoticessuppliedbytheauthorinhisotherwritings.

31RobertofTorigny(op.cit.,vol.II,pp.197,199);Gall.Christ.,vol.XI;Instrumenta,cols.199–203;Douglas,inFrenchStudies,vol.XIV(1960),pp.110,111.

32RobertofTorigny(op.cit.,vol.II,pp.200,201);Gall.Christ.,vol.XI;Instrumenta,cols.153–157.

33RobertofTorigny(op.cit.,vol.II,pp.202,203);Cart.–FontenayleMarmion,ed.L.Saige(Monaco,1895),p.xviii.

34RobertofTorigny,op.cit.,vol.II,p.198;Guéry,Hist.–deLire(1917),chap.I.Thefoundationcharter(pp.563–567)isgrievouslyinflated.

35RobertofTorigny(op.cit.,vol.II,pp.201,202);Gall.Christ.;Instrumenta,cols.13,224–228.

36RobertofTorigny(op.cit.,vol.

II,pp.199,200);R.N.Sauvage,Saint-Martin-de-Troarn(1911).pp.3–31.

37CompletePeerage,vol.XII,pp.756,759.

38R.A.D.N.,nos.92,129;Lot,Saint-Wandrille,no.41.

39R.A.D.N.,nos.118,182.40ChevreuxetVernier,ArchivesdeNormandie,plateV;L.Musset,‘ActesInédites’(Bull.Soc.Antiq.Norm.(1954),pp.8–10).

41Cf.R.Génestal,‘DuRôledesmonastèrescommeétablissementsdecrédit’(1901).

42J.Sion,PaysansdeNormandie(1909),p.131.

43Ord.Vit.,vol.II,pp.20–60.44R.A.D.N.,no.34.45GiftsbyRalphIandRalphIIofTessontoFontenayincludeestatesintheCinglaisatThury,Essay,andFresnay-le-VieuxwhichfigureinthedotaliciumofJudith(R.A.D.N.,no.11),but

thereisnoproofthatthesewentwithJudith'sotherlandstoBernay.Ontheseestates,seealsoVaultierinSoc.Antiq.Norm.,Mémoires,vol.X(1837).

46ThusGoscelin,vicomteofRouen,becameamonkofHolyTrinity,andhiswifeenteredSaint-Amand.TheCountessLescelineofEuenteredreligion,whilebothHumphreyofVieillesandhissonRogerofBeaumontpassedtheirlastdaysatSaint-

Peter,Préaux(Gall.Christ.,vol.XI,cols.728,729;Ord.Vit.,vol.II,p.163;vol.III,pp.33,426).Manyotherexamplescouldbegivenbutthesewillsufficetopointtheconclusion.

47OfthevoluminousliteratureontheoriginsofLeBec,theremaybecited:A.Porée,L'abbayeduBec(1901);J.A.Robinson,GilbertCrispin(1911);M.D.Knowles,MonasticOrder(1940),pp.88–91.

48Porée,op.cit.,vol.I,p.43.49Knowles,op.cit.,p.92.50Ibid.,p.89.51RobertofTorigny,op.cit.,vol.

II,pp.184–206.52Ibid.,vol.II,p.202.ThefirstfourabbotsofLessaycamefromLeBec,andthefifthfromSaint-Stephen's,Caen,whereLanfrancwasabbot.

53RobertofTorigny,op.cit.,pp.199,202.

54Will.Poit.,p.134.

55Douglas,‘TheNormanEpiscopatebeforetheNormanConquest’(CambridgeHistoricalJournal,vol.XII(1957),pp.101–116).

56Richard,sonofArchbishopRobert,wascountofÉvreux,andasonofOdoofBayeuxwasafamiliarfigureatthecourtofKingHenryIofEngland.

57LePatourel,Eng.Hist.Rev.,vol.LIX(1944),pp.129etsqq.

58Ord.Vit.,vol.II,p.222;vol.III,

pp.263,264.59Will.Poit.,pp.136–142.60ThechiefauthorityforMauriliusistheActaArchiepiscoporumRothomagensium.VacandardshowedthatthesectionrelatingtoMauriliusisanearlycontemporarytext,whereassubsequentsectionswereaddedsomewhatlaterbyamonkofSaint-Ouen(Rev.catholiquedeNormandie,vol.III(1893),p.

117).61Aswillbeseenlater,therewasacontinuityofconciliarpracticebetweenMaugerandMaurilius.

62Forwhatfollows,seeDouglas,op.cit.,pp.108–110.

63Cart.Bayeux,no.XXII.64Cart.S.VincentduMans,no.545.

65Cart.S.PèreChartres,p.116.66Fordetails,seeDouglas,op.cit.,pp.110–114.

67Cart.Bayeux,no.XXII.

68Douglas,op.cit.,p.109.69J.-F.Lemarignier,Privilègesd'Exemption,esp.pp.44–84.

70Ibid.,p.152;E.A.Pigéon,Diocèsed'Avranches,pp.658–660.

71R.A.D.N.,no.213;LePrévost,Eure,vol.I,p.152;vol.II,p.32;Cart.S.MichelduTréport(ed.LaffleurdeKermingant),pp.i–xxxii;Cart.S.YmerenAuge(ed.Bréard),no.I.

72Gall.Christ.,vol.XI;

Instrumenta,col.126;Cart.S.Trin.Roth.,no.LXIX.

73Gall.Christ.,vol.XI,cols.354,870.

74SeeA.W.Clapham,EnglishRomanesqueArchitectureaftertheConquest(1934),chap.I–onwhichwhatherefollowsisbased.

75Ibid.,p.8.76Ibid.,p.12.77G.Lanfry,LaCathédraledanslaCitéromaneetenNormandie

ducale(1957),pp.20–46.AmongearlierworksonRouencathedralmaybementionedthoseofE.H.Langlois,whowasnotonlyacompetentantiquarianbutanexquisitedraftsman(seeP.Chirol,ÉtudesurE-HLanglois(1922)).AgoodaccountoftheearliereruditionisgiveninA.AlinneandA.Loisel,LaCathédraledeRouenavantl'incendiede1100(1904).

78Gall.Christ.,vol.XI,col.353;Will.Poit.,p.240.

79Will.Poit.,p.138;Ord.Vit.,vol.II,p.308.

80Gall.Christ.,vol.XI,col.219;E.A.Freeman,SketchesofTravel,pp.80–83.

81WatkinWilliams,op.cit.,p.529;Knowles,op.cit.,p.490.

82SeeDelisleinhisgreatintroductiontotheeditionofOrd.Vit.

83Gall.Christ.,vol.XI,cols.206,

207.84A.Wilmart,AuteursspirituelsettextesdevotsduMoyenAgelatin(1932),pp.101–125.

85IntheLatin-EnglishMissalpublishedbyBurnsandOatesin1949thesewillbefoundonpp.664–672.Seealso:J.LeclercandJ.P.Bonnes,Unmâitredelaviespirituelle(1946).

86R.W.Southern,inEssays–F.M.Powicke(1948),pp.28–48.

87Porée,L'abbayeduBec,vol.I,

pp.103,104.88Ord.Vit.,introductionbyLéopoldDelisle.Cf.J.P.Martin,Labibliothèqued'Avranches;lesmanuscritsduMontStMichel(1924).

89Ord.Vit.,vol.II,pp.42,95;Hist.Litt.delaFrance,vol.VII(1746),p.70.

90Ord.Vit.,vol.II,pp.29,247,292,411.

91Ibid.,vol.III,p.240.92R.Delamare,Le‘DeOfficiis

ecclesiasticis’deJeand'Avranches(1923);Southern,St.Anselm,pp.41,42.

93Theybroughtbooksfromoverseas.ArchbishopRobert,forexample,elicitedfromhissisterEmmainEnglandthegiftofamagnificentliturgicalworkwhichpassedeventuallytothearchbishop'ssonWilliamandthencetoWilliam'swife,Hawise(Ord.Vit.,vol.II,p.41).Thisisdistinctfromtheso-called

‘MissalofRobertofJumièges’(BradshawSoc.,vol.XI,1896),whichisrecordedinacontemporarycharter(ChartesdeJumièges,no.XXIII),andwasperhapsgiventoJumiègesbyRobertwhenbishopofLondon.Seefurtheronthis:J.B.L.Tolhurst,inArchaeologia,vol.LXXXIII(1933),pp.29–41.

94Gall.Christ.,vol.XI;Instrumenta,col.220;LePatourel,op.cit.

95Cf.ToustaindeBilly,Hist.deCoutances(ed.1874),vol.I,p.123.

96Gall.Christ.,vol.XI,cols.353,354.

97E.Maclagan,TheBayeuxTapestry(1943),p.27.

98P.Andrieu-Guitrancourt,L'Empirenormandetsacivilization(1952),pp.386–391:‘LeTurpindelalégendeetOdondeBayeuxsontunmêmepersonnage.’ButseeDouglas,in

FrenchStudies,vol.XIV(i960),p.103.

99Ord.Vit.,vol.III,p.265.100Ord.Vit.,vol.II,pp.129,244;vol.IV,pp.269,272.

101C.T.Clay,Yorks.Arch.Journal,vol.XXXI(1945),pp.1,2.

102TwoofSamson'ssons,ThomasandRichard,becamerespectivelyarchbishopofYork(1109–1119)andbishopofBayeux(1108–1113).

103Ord.Vit.,vol.II,pp.94–96,247.

104e.g.JohnofFécampandLanfranc.FromtheRhinelandcame,forinstance,IsembardofSaint-Ouen,AinardofSaint-Pierre-sur-Dives,andArchbishopMaurilius.

105TheOrdoprovincialisconciliicelebrandi,whichwasinsertedintothe‘BenedictionalofArchbishopRobert’(BradshawSoc.,vol.XXIV(1903),p.154)

apparentlyinthelatterhalfoftheeleventhcentury,assumesthattwoprovincialcouncilsareheldeachyear,andthoughthispracticewasprobablynotfollowedbeforetheNormanconquest,thestatementissignificant.BishopJohnofAvranchesin1061claimedtherighttoholdtwodiocesansynodseachyear(E.A.Pigéon,Diocèsed'Avranches,pp.658–660).

106Bessin,Concilia,p.47.Itispossible,however,thatthisisthecouncilwhichmetin1063.

107Ibid.,p.49.108EditedbyL.DelislefromaMS.inTrinityCollege,Cambridge,andprintedinJournaldesSavants(1901),pp.516–521.

109R.A.D.N.,no.231.110Bessin,Concilia,pp.47,49;JournaldesSavants(1901),p.517,cl.I,II,andIII.

111Bessin,Concilia,p.41,canonsVIandVIII.

112Below,pp.331–335.113JournaldesSavants(1901),p.517.

114Will.Poit.,p.124.

Chapter6

THERULEOFDUKE

WILLIAM

William's rule overNormandyduringthedecadespreceding the Normanconquest must be considered

in direct relation to thearistocratic and ecclesiasticaldevelopmentswhichwehaveexamined. To harmonizethese movements, and tocontrol them, was here themajor object of his policy;and the measure of hissuccess in so doing isreflected in the contrastbetween his weakness in1046 and his strength in1066. In 1035 it might have

seemed doubtful whether theducalauthoritycouldsurvive:in1066itwassecure,andtheduke could regard himself asthefirmlyestablishedrulerofoneofthestrongestandmostunitedprovincesofGaul.Thetransformation is itself soremarkable, and itsconsequences were in theevent to prove so far-reaching, that it is importantto consider how far and in

what manner the ducaladministration of Normandyduring these years hadcontributedtothisresult.The greatest asset which

accrued to the boy whosucceeded in 1035 lay inthose rightswhichwere heldby tradition to pertain to theducal office.Hemight claimto be able to declare lawthroughout the duchy, andwithinlimitstobecompetent

to dispense justice; he mightmintmoney and levy certaintaxes; and as ‘ lord ofNormandy’1hehadatleastintheory amilitary force at hisdisposal. Whether suchclaims could ever be madeeffective on behalf of theinfant ruler was of coursedoubtful, but itwas surely inrecognition of them that hewas brought as a child withhis tutor into the ducal court

to pronounce judgment, orthat as a very youngman hewas called in 1047 to take aprominent part in theecclesiastical council whichproclaimedtheTruceofGod.Suchideascouldonoccasionbe turned to practical effect,and, as has been seen, theduke's survival during theminority may have been duein large measure to them.Later they were to be

exploited with ever-increasing vigour as theduke's personal authoritygrew,andtheyhelpedhimtomaintain and to enhance hisspecial position within asocial order which was itselfinastateofflux.Nowhere were they to

provemoreimportantthaninconnexion with the rightswhich might thus beexercised by the duke in

exploiting the economicresources of his duchy. Forthesewereveryconsiderable.Pre-Conquest Normandy hasrecently been termed by anEnglish scholar an‘impoverished duchy’,2 butthere is little warranty forsuch a description. There isevidence to suggest thatNormandy at that time was(comparatively speaking)thicklypopulatedandthatthe

cultivation of its soil wasextensive. The Scandinavianconnexions of the provincehad promoted a considerableexternal trade, andmen fromNormandy, looking out overtheir own especial sea, hadkeptcommercialcontactwiththe northern world fromwhich their rulers came.Rouenwasaprosperousport,and its prosperity wasreflected elsewhere in the

duchy. The rise of Caenduringtheseyearshasalreadybeen noted, and Bayeuxwasevidently also growing inimportance. Indeed there iseventestimonytoindicatetheformationinNormandyaboutthis time of what has beentermed an ‘aristocracy ofmoney’.3 Ernald of Bayeux,chaplain successively toRichard II, Robert I, andDuke William, could be

described in a contemporarytext as ‘powerful inpossessions and houses bothwithin and outside the citywhichhehadpurchasedwithhisowngoldandsilver’.4Again, the lavish

ecclesiastical endowmentscharacteristic of the periodaresignificantinthisrespect,since they could not havebeen undertaken withoutconsiderable financial

support. Cathedral chaptersneed money for theirestablishment, and thenumerous monasticfoundations of the time ofthemselves presuppose theexistence of surplus wealth.Some idea of the degree towhich it was in factexpendable can be gatheredfrom the fact that within acircleof twenty-fivemiles inthe neighbourhood of Rouen

there existed in 1066 no lessthan five great monasteries:Saint-Ouen, Holy Trinity,Saint-Georges deBoscherville, Jumièges, andSaint-Wandrille. All of thesehad been founded, or hadbeen re-established, beforetheNormanconquest,andallof them together with thecathedralchurchofMauriliuswere, in the time of DukeWilliamII,adornedwithnew

buildings. Pre-ConquestNormandycouldwithgreaterpropriety be described as arichprovincerather thanasapoorone.There is good reason to

believethattheducaldynastyderived full benefit fromthese conditions. The largessof the Norman duke wasknown early in the eleventhcenturyasfarasMountSinai,and the liberality of the

Conqueror's father when onhis last pilgrimage passedinto legend.5 These storieswereevidentlybasedonsomereality, and there is littledoubt that William inheritedconsiderable hoarded wealth.He had, moreover, his ownmeans of augmenting it. Hepossessed,ofcourse,hisownvery large estates, but itappears that he was lessexclusively dependent upon

hisdemesnesandforeststhanweremostofhisfellowrulersin Gaul.6 He had also whatmight be called his publicrevenues as duke, some ofwhich had descended to himfrom Carolingian times. Andthese were numerous. Manyoftheitemsofducalrevenuespecified in the earliestsurviving fiscal record of theprovince – the ‘Rolls of theNorman Exchequer’ of 1180

– can be traced back to theConqueror's reign andbeyond.7 And in particularthere might be noted thegraverie–thechiefdirecttaxof the age which is wellattested, together with theofficials who were chargedwith its collection.8 Scarcelylessimportantweretherightswhich the duke possessed incustoms and tolls, and histoll-collectors – telonarii –

were evidently men ofconsiderablesocialstanding.9How far before the

Norman conquest suchpayments were taken inmoneymustdependupontheextent to which a moneyeconomyhadcometoprevailinNormandyatthistime.Theextreme rarity of survivingcoins from pre-ConquestNormandymightsuggestthatthey were never very

plentiful,but reference to theprecious metals and to theircirculation are not infrequentin the texts.10 The case ofErnald of Bayeux which hasalready been cited issignificantinthisrespect,andafter 1066 the circulation ofmoney in the duchy wascertainly considerable. Thiswas, of course, due in largemeasuretoprofitstakenfromthe English adventure, but

earlier wars of conquest hadenriched William'spredecessors, and it isunlikelythatthetreasurethenamassed had been dissipatedbefore his accession. Nor isevidence lacking of theminting of money inNormandyatthistime.Atextdrawn up shortly after theConqueror's death refers totheducalmintsatRouenandBayeux,11andthereseemsno

reasontodoubtthatthesehadbeen set up before 1066. Atleast four ducal moneyersestablished about this timeare known by name,12 andtwo of these belonged to afamilywhichwas toexerciseconsiderable influence. ThusRannulf the moneyer heldthatofficeveryearlyinDukeWilliam's reign, and one ofhis sons, Osbern, succeededhis father as moneyer before

1066,13 whilst another son,who was likewise implicatedin Duke William's financialtransactions, was in duecourse to pass over intoEngland.14 Some suggestionof the extent of William'srevenues as duke before theConquest is in fact given bythe standing of themenwhowere responsible for theiradministration, and while itwould be difficult to attempt

any precise reckoning of hisincome from all sources atthistime,thereisatleastoneimpressive indication that itmust have been large. In thespring and early summer of1066hewasabletomaintaina very large force ofmercenaries in his service,andweareexpresslytoldthathe did so withoutimpoverishing thecountryside on which they

werequartered.15The administrative

problem which faced DukeWilliam during his Normanreignwasthusnotwhatrightshe might claim as duke, buthow far, in circumstances ofpeculiar difficulty, he couldtranslate those rights intopractice. It was here that hisrelationwiththenewNormanaristocracy became of suchparamount importance. For

by 1050 that aristocracy wasdominant inboth secularandecclesiastical affairs, and theducaladministrationhadbeenconductedanddevelopedinaduchy wherein power hadbecome concentrated to aremarkable degree in thehandsofa fewgreat familiesofwhichthatofthedukewasthe chief.16 The nexus ofauthority that resulted couldin fact be plentifully

illustrated.At the centrewasthe duke himself. His twohalf-brothers wererespectively bishop ofBayeuxandcountofMortain,andthecountsofÉvreuxandEuwerehiscousins.WilliamfitzOsbern,perhapsthemostpowerful magnate of centralNormandy, who was theduke's steward, wasdescendedonbothsidesfromthe ducal house.Anuncle of

William fitz Osbern wasbishopofAvranches,and thebrother of the count of EuwasbishopofLisieux.Again,Rannulf I, vicomte of theBessin, married the duke'sfirst cousin, and her brother,or half-brother,was abbot ofSaint-Ouen. The brother ofthecountofEuwasbishopofLisieux, the bishop ofCoutances was a Mowbray,and the bishop ofSées uncle

to the wife of Roger II ofMontgomery. Elsewhere thesame connexions had beenreinforced by thecharacteristic marriagealliances of the period, suchas that of Montgomery withBellême, Beaumont withGrandmesnil, or fitz Osbernwith Tosny. Such facts havemore than a genealogicalinterest. They illustrate howcompletely, before 1066, a

few powerful families,dominated by that of theduke, had spun over thewholeofNormandyawebofauthorityfromwhichnoneofitsinhabitantscouldescape.It is misleading, therefore,

todissociate the resuscitationof ducal power inNormandyunderDukeWilliamfromtherise of the feudal aristocracyat that time. There was, ofcourse, truth in the bitter

complaint attributed to theConqueror on his death-bedthathisworstfoeshadalwaysbeen those from his ownduchy, and of his ownfamily.17 But the rapidincrease of Norman strengthinthetwentyyearsprecedingtheNormanconquestisnottobeexplainedbyreferencetoacontinuedoppositionbetweenthe Norman duke and theNorman magnates. In the

early part of his reignWilliam, by himself, wouldnever have been strongenough to withstand aconcerted attack from thegreatmenof the duchy, and,from the start, there wasalways a party of magnateswhich was ready to supporthim. And, as time went on,the interests of the greaterNormanfamilieswereseentobe becoming ever more

notably linked with those ofthe duke, until at last asituation was reached inwhich the duke coulddemand, and increasinglyreceive, their support, whilsttheyinturncouldusuallyrelyontheduketosustainthem.Duke William's

contributioninbringingaboutthis resulthasalready inpartbeen indicated. It wasexemplified, for instance, in

the manner in which heextended the feudalobligationsofhismagnates.Itwas also displayed in theindividual and constructiveshare he took in thegovernment of the Normanchurch during his Normanreign. Such a policy couldnot, however, have beenimplemented apart from thepersonal prestige he gainedduringhiswarsbetween1047

and 1060. The men withwhom he had to deal in hisduchywerecrudeandviolent,but many of them were alsoshrewd and politic, and theywould never have acceptedthecontrolofanymanwhoseown character and exploitshadnotwontheirrespect.NobetterillustrationofWilliam'sdominance,andthemannerinwhich itwas built up, could,in fact, be found than in his

relationswithLanfranc,who,when prior of Le Bec, hadbeenestrangedfromthedukein the matter of William'smarriage. Their later co-operation was to be a factorin the subsequent history ofthe Anglo-Norman kingdom,and it is highly significantthat their reconciliation wasbroughtaboutlargelythroughthe influence ofWilliam fitzOsbern,whowashimselfone

of the architects of theNorman conquest ofEngland.18 Upon suchpersonal relationships wasmuch of William's laterpolicytodepend.The task which here

confronted William as heapproached maturity was toimplement the inherent rightsofhisdynastyinthemidstofachangingsociety,and,asfarasmight be, to implicate the

newly established feudalaristocracy with theadministrative authority thattraditionally pertained to aNorman duke. It was anendeavour that was to affectthe whole social structure ofNormandy, but its operationwas most noteworthy – andmost critical – in connexionwith those institutions wherethe interests of the duke andhis magnates most strongly

converged, where oppositionbetween them might haveproveddisastrous,andwhere,if harmony could beachieved,theresultswouldbemost far-reaching. Chief ofthesewerethecomtésandthevicomtéswhichbythemiddleof the eleventh century hadbecome inseparablyconnected with the feudalnobility, but which remainedalso as units essential to the

ducal administration. It wasin fact an indispensableprerequisite for thedevelopment of Normanstrength during these yearsthatWilliamshouldbeabletoutilize the Norman comtésand the Norman vicomtés inthegovernmentofhisduchy.In the case of the comtés

his policy might be said tohave been fairly clearlyindicatedbyprevioushistory.

As has been seen, theNormancountsdidnotmaketheirappearanceuntilthefirstquarter of the eleventhcentury, and theirestablishment at that timecould be considered in somesense as an extension of thecomital power of the duke.These men were all drawnfrom the ducal family; theircomtés were situated atstrategic points suitable for

thedefenceoftheduchy;andthe one danger that mightensue from thesearrangements was personaldisloyalty on the part of amember of the ruling familyagainst its head. AfterWilliam's accession this infact took shape with therebellionofWilliam,countofArques, but with hisforfeiture in 1054 thesolidarityofthegroupwasre-

established,anditwasfurtherstrengthened when in, orshortly after, 1055, DukeWilliamfoundhimselfstrongenoughtodispossessWilliamWerlenc, count of Mortain,apparentlyuponaveryflimsyexcuse, and to set up in hisplace his own half-brotherRobert, the son of Herluinand Herleve.19 By 1060,therefore, theNormancountshad come to form a small

aristocratic group whosecohesion could hardly bematched elsewhere incontemporary Europe. Theyowedtheirallegiancenottoaking to whom they wereunconnectedbyblood,but toa duke to whom they werenearly related. Prominentmembers of the feudalaristocracy, they had at thesame time becomeinextricably involved in the

ducal administration ofNormandy.Much more crucial was

William's problem inconnexion with the vicomtéswhich, ashasbeen seen,hadnow passed into hereditarypossession of the new feudalfamilies. On his ability tomake these perform, asdeputies to the count ofRouen, the duties formerlyinherent in the vice-comital

office inNormandy,muchofthesuccessofDukeWilliam'sadministration was in fact todepend.Themannerinwhichthis was brought about thusdeserves some illustration. Itwould seem, for example,that in his time, and before1066, the collection of ducalrevenue and the discharge ofducal payments had becomerecognized as part of theobligations of any Norman

vicomte, however personallydistinguished. Shortly afterthe Conquest, the vicomte ofAvranches was heldresponsible for payingannually to the church ofSaintStephen,Caen,thesumof eighty pounds from theducal manor of Vains;20 andshortly before the Conquestthe vicomté of the Hiémoiswas similarly charged withpayingonbehalfof theduke

an annual sum to the monksof Saint-Martin of Sées.21These men belonged to themost powerful section of theAnglo-Norman aristocracy,for the one was father ofHugh,earlofChester,andtheother was Roger ofMontgomery,himselfsoontobecome earl of Shrewsbury.That they should at thisperiodhavethusbeencontenttoserveasthefiscalagentsof

the duke is in every waynotable. Nor is there anydoubt that the practice offarming the Normanvicomtés22 was in operationbefore the Conquest, and atanearlydatecertainNormanmonasterieswereenrichedbygrants assessed not onindividual estates but uponvicomtés as a whole.23 It isclear therefore that, before1066, the Norman vicomté

couldberegardedas,insomesense,a fiscalunitdependentuponthecourtofRouen,andthat at the sameperiod someof the greatest among theNorman magnates were, asvicomtes, activelyadministering the fiscalpolicyoftheduke.Equally clear is the

evidencewhichshowsthatatthis time the vicomtes inNormandy were being

regularly employed as agentsand executants of the ducaljustice. Between 1070 and1079Richard,vicomte of theAvranchin, was ordered byDukeWilliamtosummonthemenofCaensothatjudgmentmightbepronouncedbetweenRalph Tesson and the abbeyofFontenay,24andin1080atthe council ofLillebonne thevicomtes of Normandy werespecifically entrusted with

enforcing the Truce of Godon behalf of the duke.25AboutthesametimeRannulf,vicomteoftheBessin,heardaplea in which he gavejudgment in favour of theabbey of Le Mont-Saint-Michel, whilst Richard,vicomte of the Avranchin,was one of the judges who,about 1076, pronouncedsentence against RobertBertram.26 These examples

have been taken from theperiod immediatelysubsequent to the Normanconquest, but it seems clearthat they reflected earlierconditions.Sometimebefore1028 the duke ofNormandy,having given judgment infavouroftheseeofRouen,inrespect of a disputed estate,forthwith sent Goscelin, sonofHedo(whowasvicomteofRouen), and Richard, the

vicomte, son of Tescelin, togive effect to the decision ofhis court.27 And whenbetween 1035 and 1037 thebishop of Bayeux soughtjustice,hiscasewasheard inthepresenceamongothersofNigel, vicomte of theCotentin.28 Evidently at thebeginning of the reign thevicomtes of Normandy werenumberedamongthese‘lordswho conducted the justice of

the kingdom’, and it was tobeoneoftheachievementsofDuke William to make thisjudicial position to dependever more strictly on theducalcourt.Probably the most

important responsibilities ofthe Norman vicomtes weremilitary. Just as the Normancomtés of the eleventhcentury can be seen inrelation to a scheme for the

defenceof theduchy,soalsocan the vicomtés, and theirholders,belikewiseregarded.The great vicomtes of theCotentin, the Avranchin, andthe Bessin faced bothBrittany and the sea, and thevicomté of the Hiémois withits centre at Exmes lookedsouth across the debatablefrontier into Maine. Morespecifically was the Normanvicomte from his first

appearance the normalcustodian of a ducal castle.Nigel, who had previouslyrepelled an English invasionoftheCotentin,wasentrustedby Duke Richard II with thedefence of Tillières, and hewas, likewise, at a later dateto hold the castle of LeHomme which had formerlybelonged to Richard III andsubsequently to Guy ofBurgundy.29 Alfred ‘the

Giant’,anothervicomteofthetimeofDukeRichardII,wassimilarly one of thecustodians of the castle ofCherrieux, which likewisewasinduecoursetopassintothekeepingofthevicomtesofthe Cotentin. Thurstan Goz,yet another of the earlyvicomtes,wasassociatedwiththecustodyoftheducalcastleof Falaise; and the castle ofSaint-James de Beuvron,

which was built by DukeWilliam in connexion withtheBretonwar of 1064,wasconfided to Richard, vicomteoftheAvranchin.30Some of the Norman

castles of this period such asArques and Brionne, andpossiblyTillièresandFalaise,wereconstructedofstone,butmost of themwere doubtlessofthe‘motteandbailey’typewithwhichEnglandafter the

Conquest was to be madefamiliar. All alike, however,had become pivotal points inthedefenceofNormandyandin the maintenance of orderwithin the duchy. Castleswere already in factbecoming essential to theefficient conduct of warfare,and it is small wonder thatwithin Normandy the dukesshould have wished to retainfull control over them.

Indeed, before 1035 itwouldseem to have beenexceptional in Normandy fora castle to be held by amagnateotherthanacomteorvicomte;andthemenwhodidsucceed in acquiring castlesof their own were usuallythemselves of the higheststatus and power.31 Nor is itwithout significance thatmany of the most importantof the early ‘private’ castles

in Normandy were situated,like Échauffour, Laigle, andMontreuil-l'Argille, indistricts where the ducalauthority was perhaps lesseffective.32 The Normandukeswerewellawareoftheperilofcastlespassingoutoftheircontrol,andthefactthatducal castles had been soconstantly placed in thecharge of vicomtes illustratesfrom a new angle the

connexion between the earlyvicomtes and the counts ofRouen.No aspect of the

disturbances followingWilliam's accession was,therefore, more menacingthan the attempt of certainvicomtes to gain forthemselves full possession ofthe castles with which theyhad been entrusted. ThurstanGozdefiedthedukefromthe

castleofFalaise,andNigelofthe Cotentin obtained fromGuy of Burgundy the castleof Le Homme which in duecoursehewastoholdagainsthis young master.33 Suchdevelopments weresymptomatic of the generalthreat to ducal authorityduring these years; and thevicomtes were by no meansthe only magnates in theduchywhoatthistimesought

tobuttresspowerbybuildingstrongholds from which theycould advance their fortunesby force of arms. But in thecase of the vicomtes themenace was particularlygrave. The revolt of thewesternvicomtesin1047wasrightly regarded as a specialtreason, and it is noteworthythat after Val-ès-Dunes therewasawidespreaddestructionof many of the illicit castles

that had been built. ‘Happybattle’,exclaimedWilliamofJumièges with someexaggeration,‘thatinasingleday caused all the castles tofall.’34 In this, as in somanyother ways, the suppressionof the rebellion of 1047 wasof cardinal importance inpreventing the vice-comitalpower in Normandy frompassing out of dpcal control,and thereafter William was

able with ever-increasingsuccess to reimpose uponNormandy the doctrine thatthe Norman vicomte was theagent of the duke, holdingofficeathispleasure,chargedwith specific duties on hisbehalf, and in the last resortremovableathiswill.The degree to which this

was accomplished before1066 was due in the firstinstance to William's own

successful wars, and to thedominant position heeventuallyattainedwithinthefeudal structure ofNormandy. But he seems atthe same time to haveattempted to alter in somemeasure the character of thevicomtés themselves, seekingtocreate,albeitundertheoldname, new and smaller unitsof administration. The fullresults of this development

were not to be attained untilthe twelfth century. But itsbeginnings can belegitimately assigned to thereign of the Conqueror, andto the period before 1066.Thus a charter of DukeWilliamwhich passed beforethe Conquest alludes to thevicomté of Gavray, andsubsequenttextsrevealthistohave been a comparativelysmall jurisdiction established

within theCotentin.35 Again,OrdericusVitalis speaks of avicomté of Orbec as alreadyestablished before 1091.36And when, before 1066,Herluin, the husband of theDuke-William's mother,became a vicomte he wasgiven the small vicomté ofConteville, about whichnothing is previouslyknown.37 The evidence isadmittedly scanty, but the

establishment of littlevicomtés, suchas these,musthaveaffectedthecharacteroftheofficewhichwasheldbythe great Norman vicomtesbefore the Conquest. Itbetokenedthebeginningsofachange whereby the numberof the Norman vicomtes wasincreasedat thesametimeastheir personal importancetendedtodiminish.In the sphere of local

government, therefore, thedevelopment of ducal powerin Normandy during theseyears can be seen in theextent to which Williammade important men in theduchyserveasducalofficialswho were not merely hisdomainal agents, but officersin charge of largeadministrative districts.Correspondingly,thegrowingcooperationbetweenWilliam

and his magnates in theadministration of Normandyas a whole can be illustratedin the activities of the ducalcourt during this period, andhere the resuscitation of thetraditional powers pertainingto the duke was also to bedisplayed. The compositionofthatcourtattracted,indeed,theattentionofcontemporarychroniclers. William ofPoitiers spoke in glowing

termsoftheecclesiasticalandlay counsellors by whomWilliam was surrounded,mentioning in particular thebishops of Normandy, and(among the laity) the countsof Eu andMortain,Roger ofBeaumont, William fitzOsbern, and Roger ofMontgomery.38 Thestatement is, of course,tainted with rhetoric, and itrefers to the latest period in

theduke'sNormanreign.Butit may be confirmed withsome particularity by theattestations to ducal chartersbetween1035and1066.Attendance at the ducal

court naturally varied withthe events of thesetumultuous years, since itdepended not only on thebusiness to be transacted butalsoontheabilityofthedukeat any given time to enforce

the presence of particularnotables in the duchy. Nonethe lessageneralpatterncanbe discerned which differslittle from the descriptiongivenbythechronicler.Thusin 1038–1039, at the verybeginning of the reign, aninstrument ratified by theducal court was attested bythe duke himself, by Hugh,bishop of Évreux, and byAdso, the vicomte.39 Again,

sometimebetween1049and1058, a formal charter of theduke was subscribed in hispresence byHugh, bishop ofLisieux, Roger ofMontgomery, William fitzOsbern, Robert, the duke'shalf-brother, and Richard,vicomte of the Avranchin.40Withthegrowthoftheduke'spower, his court naturallybecame more imposing, andwithin a few months of the

invasionofEnglanditcanbewatched in full session. On18 June 1066 a charter,41which can be dated byreference to the famouscomet,wassubscribedbytheduke, his wife Matilda, hisson Robert, his half-brotherRobert, count of Mortain,Archbishop Maurilius, thebishops of Évreux, Bayeux,and Avranches, William fitzOsbern, and Roger

Montgomery in his capacityofvicomteoftheHiémois.Such examples (selected

from amongmany) go far tosuggest that the chronicler'sdescription of the duke'sentourage on formaloccasionswas accurate in itsessentials. A full session ofthe ducal court might beexpected to includemembersof the duke's family such ashis wife, his eldest son, and

his half-brothers.42 Amongthe lay magnates, moreover,the most frequent witnessesare precisely those whomWilliamofPoitiersdescribedas his most constantcounsellors:thatistosay,thecounts of Eu, Mortain, andÉvreux,William fitzOsbern,Roger of Beaumont, andRoger of Montgomery – towhom should perhaps beadded Ralph Tesson and the

elder Walter Giffard.43Again, the presence of highecclesiastics is also normal.Abbots,withtheexceptionofNicholas of Saint-Ouen, sonof Duke Richard III, appearperhaps less frequently thanmightbeexpected,butalltheoccupantsoftheNormanseeswereconstantlyinattendanceat the ducal court, inparticularthetwoarchbishopsin their turn (Mauger and

Maurilius), Odo of Bayeux,Hugh of Lisieux,William ofÉvreux, and John ofAvranches.44 Further, anexecutiveactofthedukewasusually witnessed by one ormore of his vicomtes, amongwhom the vicomtes of theCotentin and the Avranchinwereprominent.Suchwereinfact themainelementsof theducal court during William'sNorman reign, but this curia

could always be enforced,and the presence of visitingmagnates, both lay andecclesiastical, is a feature ofthe period. A remarkablecharter of Duke Robert I45hadbeensubscribednotonlybytheFrenchkingbutbytheexiled English athelings,Edward and Alfred. Chartersof Duke William between1035 and 1066 were in likemanner attested by Walter,

count of the Vexin, Gervais,bishop of Le Mans, Hugh,count of Maine, Waleran,countofMeulan,andperhapsby Robert of Jumièges whenarchbishopofCanterbury.46Theducalcourt appears to

have met at irregularintervals, and at variousplaces as occasion required,though there is someevidencetosuggestapracticeof holding anEastermeeting

at Fécamp.47 The curia alsovaried greatly in size, but atitscentretherecanalreadybedetected the beginnings of ahousehold administrationcharged particularly with theducal administration. It willbe recalled that during thereign of King Henry I ofFrance, the Capetianhousehold began to take onits later form. Instruments ofthat king were very

frequently expedited byBaldwin the chancellor, andduring the reign of Philip Itheroyaldiplomatastarttoberegularly attested by the fourgreat officers – the steward,the constable, thechamberlain,andthebutler.48Such a development mightreasonably be expected tohavefoundsomereflectioninNormandy,andinfactseveralof the counterparts of the

great officers of the court ofParis make their appearancein the duchy between 1035and1066.Chiefamong thesewasthesteward.TherecanbenodoubtthatduringthereignofDukeRobertItheofficeofsteward in Normandy washeld by no less a personagethan Osbern, son of Herfast,and nephew of the DuchessGunnor,whohimselfmarriedEmma thedaughterofCount

Rodulf, half-brother to DukeRichard I.He isdescribed assteward by the chroniclers,49and as steward he witnessedcharters for Saint-Wandrilleand for Holy Trinity,Rouen.50 Doubtless becauseofhisoffice,hebecameafter1035oneof theguardiansofthe young duke, and about1040 hewasmurderedwhilein attendance on his youngmaster.51

The association of theNormanstewardshipwithoneofthemostpowerfulfamiliesof thenewnobilitywasitselfa fact of considerableimportance.Osbern,however,was not the only steward atthe ducal court during theseyears,52 and though, after hisdeath,hisofficewasinheritedby his famous son WilliamfitzOsbern, early charters ofDuke William are also

attested by other stewards.Such, for instance, wasGerard senescallus, whoappears in several of theseinstruments;53 and of evengreater interest is Stigand,dapifer. For thisStigandwasnotonlyhimselfsteward,but,even during his lifetime, thetitleofdapiferwasapparentlyheld also by his son, Odo,until hisdeath in1063at theage of twenty-six.54

Moreover, Stigand, in 1054,witnessedasdapiferacharterwhich is attested byWilliamfitz Osbern without furtherdesignation.55 It cannottherefore be asserted withcomplete confidence that nointerval elapsed between thedeathofOsbernand the timewhen William fitz Osbernassumed theofficewhichhisfather had held. But it iscertain thatbefore theendof

the Norman reign of DukeWilliam,WilliamfitzOsbern,closest among the duke'sadvisers,was also steward attheducalcourt, andhisgreatpersonal distinctioninevitably gave an additionalprestigetotheoffice.56The importance of the

steward in the pre-Conquestcourt in Normandy was dueless to the office than to thepersonal standing of themen

whoheldit.Butsomeparallelto this development can beseen in respect of thechamberlainship. Many pre-Conquest Norman chartersare attested by Radulfuscamerarius or cubicularius,and thiswas none other thanRalph, sonofGerald, lordofTancarville.57 He appears aschamberlain as early as1035,58 and during theNorman reign of Duke

Williamhewasconstantly inattendance at court. He died,as it seems, before 1066,whenhissonRalph inheritedan office which, like that ofthe Norman steward, hadgrownindignityowingtothepersonal importance of itsholder.59 Similarly, theexistence of the office ofbutler at the Norman courtduring this period is wellattested. Charters for

Jumièges, Holy Trinity,Rouen, and Coulombes areattestedbyHughpincernaorbuticularius, and one textshows that thiswasHugh ofIvry,amanofsomestandingin Normandy, who latercrossedoverwithhisduketoEngland, but none the lesscontinued as butler inNormandy, survivingapparently until after 1086.60As to the fourth of the great

Capetian officials – theconstable – there is lessevidence in pre-ConquestNormandy. But when at alater date Robert of Verbecameoneoftheconstablesin England, he did so byinheritancefromthefamilyofMontfort-sur-Risle. And thisfamily, which held the‘honour of the constable’(honor constabulariæ) inEngland,waswellestablished

in Normandy before theNorman conquest, and thenalready closely associatedwiththeNormanduke.61There remains the

chancellorship; and here theCapetian parallel needsparticularly to be considered.Before 1060, as has beenseen, many of the Frenchroyal diplomata had beenformally subscribed by acertain Baldwin who acted

regularly as chancellor.Moreover, the evolutionelsewhereof chanceries fromorganized groups of courtchaplains iswell known, andthe clerical element in thepre-Conquest court of DukeWilliam was evidentlyconsiderable. Thus Theobaldand Baldwin witnessed aschaplains one of the duke'schartersforMarmoutierabout1060, and Rannulf the

chaplain attested anothercharter for that house at aslightly later date.62 Indeed,the biography of one of theduke's chaplains has in thisconnexion a particularinterest. This was Herfastwhosubscribed theearlierofthe two Marmoutier chartersmentioned above, and who,three years after the Normanconquest,wastoappearinanEnglish charter with the title

of cancellarius,63 beingperhaps,thoughnotcertainly,thefirstmaninEnglandtobeso styled.64 His career hastherefore attracted attention,and there have even beensomewho have not hesitatedto conclude therefrom thepresenceofachanceryinpre-ConquestNormandy, and theimportationof this institutionfrom the duchy into thekingdom.

It is, however, extremelyunlikely that any organizedchancery existed, either infact or name, in Normandyduring the Norman reign ofDukeWilliam.Herfast is notknowntohavebeengiventhetitle of chancellor before hecame to England,65 and theclerksofWilliam'schapeldonotappearwithanyregularityas witnesses to the ducalcharters of the period.66

Moreover, the character oftheducalcharterswhichwereissued between 1035 and1066 itself forbids anyassumption that there existedat this time in Normandy aducal scriptorium whosework followed a regularpattern, or whose activitieswere inspired by anestablished tradition.67 Thereis,for instance,nothingtobefound in Normandy to

correspond with theformalized writs which,during these years, werebeing regularly produced bythescriptoriumofEdwardtheConfessor.68 By contrast, theducal charters of this periodexhibit such diversities ofstructurethatitistemptingtosuppose that theymust oftenhave been compiled in thereligious houses for whosebenefit they were granted,

andthereispositiveevidencetoshowthatthispracticewasfollowed.69 Itwouldseem,inshort,thatthedevelopmentofthe duke's chapel into anorganized chancery hadbefore the Norman conquestmadelittleornoprogress.The official household of

thedukeofNormandywasin1066 still in a transitionalstageofdevelopment,aswasthat of the French king, and

there may well have beensome mutual influencebetween them. Many of thegreat officials characteristicoftheFrenchroyalhousehold– notably the steward, thebutler,and thechamberlain–werealreadyatthattimewellestablishedinNormandy,andthey were surrounded bylesser functionaries, such asthe marshal,70 and thenumerous ushers (hostiarii),

who appear fairly frequentlyaswitnessestothecharters.71Itwouldthusbeerroneoustosuppose that this householdhad as yet achieved theorganization that it was latertoassume.Whilstthetitlesofmaster butler and masterchamberlain may have beenused inNormandybefore theConquest,72 it would seemthat the principal officers oftheNormanhouseholdatthis

time were not as yet clearlydistinguished from lesserofficialswith the same titles,and no regular order ofprecedence among them wasas yet established. There canbenodoubtthatinthetimeofWilliam fitz Osbern thesteward was the mostimportant official of theNorman household, and herethe development antedatedthatof theFrenchhousehold,

where the pre-eminence ofthe steward was notestablisheduntilafter1071.73ButeveninNormandyclaimsto priority for thechamberlainshipseemtohavebeen made by the family ofTancarvilleatanearlydate.74The organization of thehousehold of the Normandukewasstill,itwouldseem,dependent upon personalitiesrather than upon institutional

growth, or administrativetradition.Itwas,nevertheless,important that some of thegreatest feudatories ofNormandyshouldatthistimehave been serving ashousehold officers of theduke, for their doing soinevitably gave additionalstrengthtohiscourt.Thechartersshowthatthis

court met fairly regularlyevenin theearlyyearsof the

minority. Two instrumentsfor two religious houses,which were passed about1040, indicate, for instance,the extreme youth of theduke, who was apparentlypresent with a guardian atcourtswhich, it would seem,were presided over byMauger, archbishop ofRouen.75 A court of thisnature was also, doubtless,heldwhen,atabout thesame

time, the comté of Arqueswas bestowed on Mauger'sbrother William.76 Again,between 1045 and 1047 theduke'sconfirmationofgiftstoJumiègeswasmadeinacourtattendedby threecounts,andby William fitz Osbern.77And after Val-ès-Dunes theducal court seems to havebeenenlarged. Itwasacuriaofdistinctionthatabout1050met to ratify grants that had

beenmadetotheabbeyofLeMont-Saint-Michel,78 and in1051itwasinthepresenceofafullcourtthatthemonasteryof Saint-Wandrille sought tovindicateitsrights.79Such records are

impressive, and they indicatethe continuity of the ducaladministration during thetroubles of the minority.Nonetheless,itissignificantthat most of William's pre-

Conquestcharterscomefromthe period subsequent toMortemer, and that theirsubscriptions display a curiathatwasevergrowinginsizeand importance. It would behard to find in the earliercharters evidence of a courtcomparabletothatwhichlatein the duke's Norman reignattested the duke'sconfirmation of the giftsmade tohishalf-brotherOdo

tothechurchofBayeux,80orthecourtwhichsometimein1066 confirmed at Fécampthe restitutions then made tothe monastery ofCoulombes.81 The growingprestige of the duke was infact being displayed in theassembly which surroundedhim. And on the eve of theNorman conquest Williamwas able to collect in hissupport a most notable court

which attracted the attentionofcontemporarywriters.Thatneither William ofMalmesbury nor William ofPoitiers82 were exaggeratingin theiradmiringdescriptionsof this assemblage isconfirmed by thesubscriptions to the charterwhichwas issuedon17June1066 for Holy Trinity,Caen.83The list, repletewithillustrious names, both

secular and ecclesiastical,reflects the existence of aducal court in Normandy ofwhich any prince incontemporary Europe mighthavebeenproud.This was essentially a

feudalcourtwhosefunctionitwas to give general supportand counsel to the lord,though,asthepresenceofthevicomtesmightsuggest, therewas perhaps always scope

within this assembly for theexpressionofthosetraditionalducal powers which DukeWilliam inherited, andwhichhe was to revive. Thebusiness of the court before1066seems,however,tohavebeen largely undifferentiated.Thereis,forinstance,littletosuggest that any fullydeveloped financialorganizationhadbeenformedinducalNormandybeforethe

Norman conquest. It is truethat there are references to acamera (or treasury) in thetime of Duke Richard II,84and the process of collectingthemiscellaneous revenue towhich Duke William wasentitled, and of occasionallygranting tithes out of it,implies of itself not onlysome system of accounting,however crude, but alsoperhaps the existence of

officials specially devoted tothis work.85 The importanceofthechamber-lainshipinthehands of the family ofTancarville is significant inthis respect, but the progresstowards the formation ofanything that might belegitimately termed a financebureau seems to have beenvery limited before 1066. Itwas a full curia, and not apart thereof, which about

1042 confirmed to Cerisy-la-Forêt the tithes of certainvicomtés,86andlaterasimilarassembly ratified toMontivilliers the grant of ahundred shillings in theprévôtéofCaen.87BeforetheConquestitwasstillthecourtas a whole which under thedukewasconcernedwith theducal revenue as with allother aspects of the duke'saffairs.

Theactsof theducalcourtduring the Norman reign ofDukeWilliamforwhichmostevidence has survived arenaturally those whichconcerned the confirmationby the duke of land orprivilegestoreligioushouses.It was at a full court thatabout 1050 the dukeconfirmed the foundation ofthe monastery of Saint-Désirat Lisieux by Bishop Hugh

andhismother, theCountessLescelineofEu;andasimilarcourt some ten years laterratified the gift by Nigel ofSaint-Sauveur toMarmoutierof six churches in the islandof Guernsey.88 About 1054the benefactions of GilbertCrispin to Jumièges wereattested in the presence ofDuke William by William,bishopofÉvreux,Stigandthesteward, Hugh the butler,

William fitz Osbern, andothers;89whilstatalittlelaterdate a larger assembly of asimilar character ratified thegiftsmadebyRogerofClèresto the Tosny foundation ofConches.90 Such transactionswhich normally involved thegranting of a charter are forthat reason of courseexceptionally well recorded.But there is little doubt thatthey occupied much of the

attention of the ducal courtduringthisperiod.Formal ratification of

ownership was at timeshardly to be distinguishedfromthesettlementofclaimsthathadlongbeenindispute,anditisinthisconnexionthatthejudicialworkoftheducalcourt can best in the firstinstance be considered.Records of several pleas ofthe time have survived, and

theymeritattention.Between1063 and 1066 there was along dispute between theabbeyofMarmoutierandthatof Saint-Pierre-de-la-Coutureat Le Mans respecting thelandwhichGuyofLavalhadgiven toMarmoutiernearhiscastle of Laval for making a‘borough’.91 At length whenDuke William was holdinghis court at Domfront ‘heheld a plea on this matter’,

andorderedthatthemonksofMarmoutier should offer theordeal, but that Reinald,abbot of Saint-Pierre, needonly swear thathehadnevergiventhepropertyindispute.Abbot Reinald refused theoath, and the property wastherefore restored to themonks ofMarmoutier. ‘Thusthe plea which had so longremainedindoubtwasfinallydetermined by means of a

public and lawful judgment.’Again, in 1066, thereoccurred a long disputebetween the church ofAvranches and Roger ofBeaufou, nephew of BishopJohn, respecting the lordshipof Saint-Philibert whichRogerclaimedby inheritancefrom his uncle. In thisinstance,also, thematterwasbrought into the ducal court,and a complicated settlement

was theremade, judgment atlengthbeinggivenon18June1066ingeneralfavourof thechurch at Avranches.92Finally, itmaybenotedhowafteralongdisputerespectinga mill at Vains, AbbotRannulf of Le Mont-Saint-Michel in like manner askedforthejudgmentoftheduke'scuria, and the resultingcharterrecordsthatonlyaftera careful examination of all

the points at issue was themilldeclaredtobelongtothemonksoftheMount.93Narratives such as these,

together with the charterswith which they areconnected, tempt speculationon thenatureofducal justicein this period. But here itwould be rash to attempt toogreat precision. In one sensethe ducal court at this timecould be regarded as but the

greatest of the feudal courtsin Normandy, and asadministeringonbehalfoftheduke a judicial authoritywhich was not readilydistinguishable in respect ofsecular affairs from thatenjoyedbyhisgreatervassalsovertheirowntenants.94Theolderview that, aloneamongthe great feudatories ofFrance, the duke ofNormandyhadamonopolyof

haute justice within hisdominion cannot be justifiedby evidence from before theNormanconquest.95Manyofthe greater magnates ofNormandy at that time, suchasRogerofBeaumontor thecount of Évreux, certainlyexercised very wide judicialrights,andit isverydoubtfulwhether until after 1066William was able to makegenerally recognized in

Normandy the doctrine thattheyheldtheserightsonlybyvirtueofaspecificgrantfromthe duke.96 Whatever mayhave been strict legal theory,it would seem that thegrowing importance of theducalcourtbetween1047and1066 could better beexplained by reference tomorepracticalconsiderations.ItwasduringtheseyearsthatWilliam was able to assert

moreclearlyhisfeudalrightsover his vassals, and hisincreasingpowermadeitevermore desirable that anyimportant transaction shouldhave the sanction of hisformer confirmation. Notwithout reason did Robert,abbot of Saint-Wandrillefrom 1048 to 1063, declareononeoccasion:‘Itookcareto bring this charter toWilliamlordoftheNormans,

and he confirmed it with thesignofhisauthoritywith theagreement of many of hisownlords.’97Nevertheless, there

remained inNormandy thosepre-feudal traditions whichdistinguished the judicialauthority of the duke fromthat of his Norman vassals,and the political events ofDukeWilliam'sreignweretostrengthen their influence.

The comital authorityacquired in the tenth centuryby the Viking counts ofRouen remained as a sourceof potential strength to thedescendantsofRolf,andnowthe changing relationsbetween Duke William andthe French king imparted tosuch prerogatives anenhanced significance. Solong as the duke ofNormandy remained the

vassal of the king of France,he could be regarded in asenseasmerelytheholderofan exceptionally privileged‘immunity’. But after theevents of 1052–1054 theauthority of the French kingwas vitally impaired inNormandy, andothernotionsfavouring the judicialindependence of the dukewere inevitably put forward.In this respect the position

occupied by the duke in thechurch of the province ofRouen was to proveespecially important.William's ancestors, havingacquired specialresponsibilities towards theChurch, had exercised theseto their own advantage, andWilliamhimselfwasfromthestartdirectlytobeimplicatedinecclesiasticalaffairs.Inthejudicial sphere, for example,

the introduction of the Truceof God in 1047 was here ofparticular significance, fornot only had the duke beeninvolved in its inception, buthe was in due course toassume increasingresponsibility for itsexecution, so that before hisdeath the Treuga Dei inNormandy was to becomescarcely distinguishable fromthe pax Ducis.98 The

influenceofthisdevelopmentmight easily be exaggeratedfor the period 1047 to 1066,but itwouldprobablybetrueto say that ‘by slowlyassuming responsibility fortheswornpeace, theNormandukes succeeded inestablishing a prerogativeover certain causes criminalwhichgavethemanauthoritymore far reaching than theyhad theretofore exercised as

lordsparamount’.99Whatever may have been

the precise influence of theenforcement of the Truce ofGod in developing thejudicial prerogatives of theduke, there can be noquestion that these wereenhanced in a more generalwayby theposition assumedby Duke William between1047 and 1066 within theNorman church.Ashas been

seen,hetookapersonalsharein most of the ecclesiasticalcouncils of the province ofRouenduringtheseyears,andat the same time the greaterprelates of Normandy were,liketheirlaykinsfolk,regularsuitors to the ducal court.100In this compact duchycoincident with anecclesiastical province, anddominatedbothsecularlyandecclesiastically by a small

groupofinterrelatedfamilies,any clear-cut demarcationbetween the two spheres ofadministration was almostimpossible. And the duke'sauthority was therebyincreased, since he washimself the apex of thisclosely integrated socialstructure. As his traditionalpowers as duke wereprogressively made toreinforcehis feudal rights,so

alsodid itbecomeevermoredifficult to define with anyprecision any ecclesiasticalmatters with which, in theduchy,heandhiscourtmightnot feel themselvesconcerned.There are indeed

indications that, even before1066, the intimate relationbetween the Norman dukeand the Norman church wasimparting to William's

position as a ruler anecclesiastical sanctiondifferentfromthatclaimedbyhis fellow feudatories inGaul.Itisunlikelythatbefore1066 a Norman duke was athis installation ever blessedby any special consecrationpeculiar to his office, andaccording to a later traditionthe essential act in therecognition of a duke ofNormandy lay in his being

girt with a sword.101 On theother hand, the significanceof the original baptism ofRolfwasnotforgotten,orthepropagandawhichhadsoughtto display WilliamLongsword as the dedicatedchampionof theChurch;andif the presence of thearchbishop of Rouen wasalwaysheldtobeessentialtothe installation of a duke ofNormandy, this can hardly

have been solely because ofthat prelate's position in thefeudal structure of theprovince.102Ithas,moreover,beensuggestedthatLaudesoftheChristus vincit type suchas had been chanted at thecoronation of Charlemagnewere sung when a Normandukewasaccepted,103butthisthough possible cannot beproved, and there is noevidence that any Norman

duke before 1066 was eitheranointedorcrowned.104 It is,however, noteworthy that atan early date, and probablybefore1066,105 a litany sungat important church festivalsin the cathedral of Rouencontained a specialacclamation on behalf ofDukeWilliam.106And this isthe more remarkable in thatno such particular salutationisknowntohavebeenusedin

any similar litany for anyother lay magnate who wasnot of royal or imperialrank.107Itwouldbeaseasytounderestimate as toexaggeratetheimplicationsofsuch a usage. Duke Williamof Normandy, exceptional inthis matter among themagnatesofGaul,wasbefore1066 being accorded, invirtue of his ducal office,special powers and special

responsibilities within theNormanChurch.Andhewasthereby enabled to claim acertain religious sanction forhisadministrativeacts.During the decades

preceding the Normanconquest of England, thearistocratic and ecclesiasticaldevelopment of Normandyhad been merged under theruleofDukeWilliamIIintoasingle political achievement.

It might perhaps besummarizedbysayingthatin1065 a man might go fromend to end of the duchywithout ever passing outsidethe jurisdiction, secular orecclesiastical, of a smallgroup of interrelated greatfamilieswiththedukeattheirhead. The new aristocracy,now firmly established, hadsponsored the monasticrevivalintheNormanchurch:

correspondingly, the Normanbishops, drawn from thatsamearistocracy,weregivingorder to the province ofRouen which had itselfbecome almost coincidentwith theNormanduchy.Andat the centre of thisinterconnected progress wasthe duke. He had identifiedthe ambitions of thearistocracy with his ownpolitical aims, and he had

gone some way towardsenforcing their feudalobligations towards himself.He had imposed his controllikewise upon the reformedNorman church so that withsomejusticehemightposeasthechampionofthechurchinone of the most progressiveprovinces of westernChristendom. Thus had beenattained that intenseconcentrationofpowerinthis

province of Gaul which wasamong the most remarkablepolitical phenomena ofeleventh-century Europe.Herealsowastobethebasisof the greatest Normanachievement which was nowabouttobefulfilledundertheleadershipofDukeWilliam–the establishment of theAnglo-Normankingdom.

1ConsuetudinesetJusticie

(Haskins,NormanInstitutions,p.281).

2Galbraith,MakingofDomesdayBook,p.45.

3L.Musset,AnnalesdeNormandie,vol.IX(1959),pp.285–299.

4Stapleton,Archaeologia,vol.XXXVII(1839),pp.26–37.

5Southern,MakingoftheMiddleAges,pp.53,54.

6Cf.Musset,‘Aristocratied'argent’(Annalesde

Narmandie,vol.IX,1959).7Haskins,op.cit.,p.39.8Musset,op.cit.,p.289;Cart.S.Trin.Roth.,nos.LXXIII,LXXX,LXXXVII.

9Haskins,op.cit.,p.47;Musset,op.cit.,p.290.Oneofthesetelonariicanberankedamongtheoptimates(Cart.S.PèrtChartres,p.146).

10Musset,op.cit.,pp.285,286.11ConsuetudinesetJusticie,cl.XIII(Haskins,op.cit.,p.283).

12Musset,op.cit.,pp.290eisqq.;Cal.Doc.France,nos.711,712.

13Musset,op.cit.,p.292.14Below,pp.303,304.15Will.Poit.,p.152,andseebelow,pp.191,192.

16Above,pp.83–104.17Ord.Vit.,vol.III,p.229.18VitaHerluini(Robinson,GilbertCrispin,p.27);Will.Malms.,GestaPontificum,p.150.

19Ord.Vit.,vol.II,p.259;vol.III,

p.246.20Haskins,op.cit.,appendixE,no.I;Delisle-Berger,Rec.Actes–HenriII,vol.I,p.345.

21Haskins,op.cit.,AppendixE,no.II.

22Ibid.,pp.42,43.23R.A.D.N,no.99.24Gall.Christ.,vol.XI;Instrumenta,cols.61–65;Regesta,vol.I,no.117.

25Ord.Vit.,vol.II,p.316.26Delisle,SaintSauveur,Preuves,

nos.35,36.27Valin,DucdeNormandie,Preuves,no.1.

28Cart.Bayeux,vol.I,no.21.29Will.Jum.,pp.76,84;Yver,Châteauxforts,pp.39–48.

30Will.Jum.,pp.105,106,272.31Yver,op.cit.,p.57.32Ord.Vit.,vol.II,pp.23,27,295;Yver,op.cit.,pp.40,41.

33Will.Jum.,p.118;Yver,op.cit.,p.46.

34Will.Jum.,p.123;Yver,op.

cit.,p.48.35Mon.Aug.,vol.VI,p.1073;R.A.D.N.,no.99;Powicke,LossofNormandy,p.114.

36Ord.Vit.,vol.III,p.371.37Douglas,DomesdayMonachorumpp.27,28;Powicke,op.cit.,p.108.

38Will.Poit.,pp.135,149;Ord.Vit.,vol.II,p.121.

39R.A.D.N.,no.92.40Ibid.,no.140.41Regesta,vol.I,no.4.

42e.g.R.A.D.N.,nos.138,141,158,202.

43R.A.D.N.,passim.44e.g.R.A.D.N.,nos.100,129,229,230;cf.Cal.Doc.France,nos.709,710,1165,1167,1172.

45R.A.D.N.,no.69.46Ibid.,nos.104,107,113,137.Theassignationofthedateof1055tothelast-nameddeedisnotcertainandthelistofwitnessespresentsdifficulty.Lot(Saint-Wandrille,no.17)

suggeststhevisitofRobert,archbishopofCanterbury,buttheascriptionisnotcertain.

47Haskins,op.cit.,p.55.48Prou,Rec.Actes–PhilippeI,pp.l–liii.

49Ord.Vit.,vol.III,p.229.50R.A.D.N.,nos.69,82.51Will.Jum.,p.116.52Harcourt,HisGracetheSteward,p.7.

53R.A.D.N.,passim.54P.Eudeline,Hist.deHauteville

(1948),plateII;R.A.D.N.,no.158.

55R.A.D.N.,no.188.56Will.Jum.,p.117;cf.Cart.S.Trin.Roth.,no.LXVII.

57R.A.D.N.,nos.138,204;Cart.ÎlesNorm.,nos.298,399,300;LePrévost,Eure,vol.III.p.467(R.A.D.N.,no.191).

58R.A.D.N.,no.89.59CompletePeerage,vol.X,AppendixF.

60R.A.D.N.,nos.138,188,233;

Round,King'sSerjeants,pp.140,141.

61Douglas,DomesdayMonachorum,pp.65–67;Round,GeoffreydeMandeville,p.326.

62R.A.D.N.,no.141;cf.Cart,ÎlesNorm.,nos.297,300.

63Regesta,vol.I,no.28.64Harmer,Anglo-SaxonWrits,pp.59–61.

65InthreeNormanchartersoftheearlyeleventhcentury

(R.A.D.N.,nos.18,34;Pommeraye,Saint-Ouen,p.422)personsappearunderthestyleofchancellor,butitwouldbeveryrashtoarguefromthephraseologyofthetextsintheirpresentform.ReferencemaybemadeinthisconnexiontoNouveauTraitédeDiplomatique,vol.IV,p.255,andtoplateIIIinHaskins's,NormanInstitutions.Whateverconclusionsshouldbedrawnon

thismatter,itremainstruethattheredoesnotseemtobeanyreferencetothetitleofchancellorinanytextemanatingfromNormandyduringthereignofDukeWilliamII.

66Haskins,op.cit.,p.52.67Fauroux,R.A.D.N.,pp.40–47.68Below,pp.292–294.69R.A.D.N.,no.134.70IlbertandMiloappearasmarshalsinNormandybefore1066(CompletePeerage,vol.

XI,AppendixE).71Haskins,op.cit.,p.51.72CompletePeerage,vol.X,AppendixF.

73Prou,Rec.Actes–PhilippeI,vol.I,p.cxxxvi.

74A.Deville,S.GeorgesdeBoscherville,pp.57–62.

75R.A.D.N.,no.100;Gall.Christ.,vol.XI;Instrumenta,col.12.

76Will.Jum.,p.119.77R.A.D.N.,no.113.78Ibid.,no.110.

79ChevreuxetVernier,ArchivesdeNormandie,plateIV(R.A.D.N.,no.124).

80R.A.D.N.,no.219.81Ibid.,no.230.82GestaRegum,p.299;Will.Poit.,p.149.

83Regesta,vol.I,no.4.84Haskins,op.cit.,pp.40,41.85Ibid.86R.A.D.N.,no.99.87Ibid.,no.171.88Ibid.,nos.140,141.

89Ibid.,no.188.90Ibid.,no.191.91Ibid.,no.159.92Ibid.,no.229.93R.A.D.N.,no.148;Lechaudéd'Anisy,GrandsRôles,p.196;Cal.Doc.France,nos.711,712.Cf.Regesta,vol.I,no.92.

94J.Goebel,FelonyandMisdemeanour,p.283.

95Cf.Luchaire,ManueldesInstitutions,pp.245,246,criticizedbyF.M.Powicke

(LossofNormandy,p.52).96Haskins,op.cit.,p.29,note112;cf.LePrévost,Eure,vol.III,pp.96,97.

97R.A.D.N.,no.153.98Goebel,op.cit.,chap.V.99Ibid.,p.xxvi.100Above,pp.130–132.101ThishappenedinthecaseofRichard,sonofKingHenryII,whenhebecamedukeofNormandy(HistoiredeGuillaumeleMaréchal(ed.

Meyer),vol.I,v.9556).102L.Valin,DucdeNormandie,p.44.

103E.H.Kantorowicz,LaudesRegiae(1946),pp.19,166–171.

104Ibid.,pp.170,178.105JulienLoth,LaCathédraledeRouen(1879),pp.553–562.

106‘GuillelmoNormannorumducisalusetpaxcontinua.’

107E.H.Kantorowicz,op.cit.,p.170.

PartIII

THEESTABLISHMENT

OFTHEANGLO–NORMANKINGDOM

Chapter7

NORMANDYAND

ENGLAND1035–1065

The Norman conquest ofEngland was prepared andmade possible by the growth

of Norman power during theearlier half of the eleventhcentury, and by theconsolidation of the duchyunder the rule of DukeWilliam II. To explain whythat Conquest wasundertaken, and to accountforitssuccessanditspeculiarconsequences it is necessary,however,toconsidernotonlythe character of the Normanduchyinhistimebutalsothe

development of Normanpolicy during the sameperiod.Not otherwise is it tobeunderstoodwhy,andhow,the medieval destinies ofEnglandwereduringthethirdquarter of the eleventhcentury to be deflected fromScandinavia towards LatinEuropebyadescendantoftheVikingRolf.An intimate political

relationship between

Normandy and England waspart of the inheritance ofDuke William.1 The greatViking leaders of the ninthcentury had transferred theiroperations indiscriminatelyonbothsidesoftheChannel,and the resulting settlementswere associated both in theorigin and in their character.InonesensetheDanelawcanbe regarded as the EnglishNormandy, and Normandy

the French Danelaw,inasmuch as in both casessimilar problems arose as totheir assimilation into theolderpoliticalorder inwhichthey were planted. Moredirect political connexionsinevitably ensued. BothAthelstan and WilliamLongsword were concernedwith the fate of Louisd'Outre-Mer,2 and after theintensification of the Viking

onslaughtstowardstheendofthe tenth century, theinterrelationsbetweenthetwodynasties became morepronounced. Ethelred II ofEngland(whohadtobearthebrunt of these attacks) wasnaturally interested in whatmight be the policy of theVikingprovinceofGaul,andthe Norman dukes were notalways unwilling to turn thesituation to their own

advantage. The matter wasclearly one of generalimportance to westernEurope, and it is notaltogether surprising thatPope John XV himself feltconstrainedtointervene.Asaresult a remarkable assemblymet at Rouen in March 991under the presidency of thepapalenvoy.3 Itconsisted(asit would seem) of Roger,bishop of Lisieux, and other

Norman notables, togetherwith Æthelsige, bishop ofSherborne, and two Englishthegns.4 There it was agreedthat neither the duke nor theking should henceforth aidtheenemiesof theother, andthe pact aptly symbolizedboth the special positionwhich Normandy wasattaining in westernChristendom, and also thedeveloping relationship

betweentherulingfamiliesofNormandyandEngland.As the eleventh century

advanced, the connexionbecame ever closer. Thetreaty of 991 was evidentlyonly partially effective, for aNorman tradition which hassome claims to credencerefers to an unsuccessfulEnglish attack on theCotentin in 1000, and if thisin fact took place it was

probably in the nature of acutting-out operationdesigned to inflictpunishmentonaVikingfleetwhich after raiding Englandwas refitting in the Normanharbours.5 Something morewas, therefore, necessary tocement between the EnglishkingandtheNormandukeanalliancewhichwasbecomingincreasingly necessary toboth. And this took place

with the famous marriage in1002 between Emma, sisterof Duke Richard II, andEthelred II of England.6 Thefull consequences of thismomentousmatch were onlyto be revealed during thereign of the Conquerorhimself, but even before hisbirthsomeofits implicationsbecameapparent.Forwhenin1013 Sweyn Forkbeard wassuccessful in his last, and

greatest,invasionofEngland,and the West Saxon royalfamilytookrefugeinflight,itwas, as if inevitably, toNormandy that they turned.Intheautumnof1013Emmaarrived in theduchywithhertwosonsEdwardandAlfred,andtheretheywerejoinedinJanuary 1014 by Ethelredhimself.7 It was fromNormandy,andwithNormanbacking, that in the next

monthEthelredIIreturnedtoEngland to wage his lastunavailing war againstSweyn'sson,CnuttheGreat.8ThefatesofNormandyand

England were in factbecoming intertwined. Thusin 1013, during the samemonths when Sweyn wasconducting his attack uponEngland, Olaf and Lacmanwere ravaging Brittany, andafter their depredations they

were received as guests inRouenbyDukeRichardII.9Itissmallwonder that thekingof France was alarmed, andthe assembly of Gaulishnotables that he convoked atCoudreswasameasureofhisconcern.10 The danger wasaverted when Richard,perhaps by bribery, divestedhimself of his pagan allies,andthechangingcharacterofNorman policy at this period

was further illustrated whenOlaf – later to be the patronsaint of the Scandinavianworld – received baptismfrom the archbishop ofRouen.11 Much of the futurewas here foreshadowed, andthe situation was givenfurther precision,when, afterthe death of Ethelred II,Emma joined her fortunes tothose of his Scandinaviansupplanter, and in July 1017

became the wife of Cnut theGreat,12whowasnowkingofEngland and soon to be thelord of a wide Scandinavianempire. All these eventsconcernedNormandy no lessthan England. Nor was itmerely the ruling families inthe two countries that wereaffected. The politicalfiliations of England withScandinavia, the changingposition ofNormandywithin

Gaul, were equally andreciprocally involved. Andthe consequences were to befar-reaching.Duke William's relations

with England were thusconditioned by aninterconnexion between theduchy and the kingdom,which had been formedbeforehisbirth.Butifhewasheretheheirtoatradition,henone the less transformed it.

His achievements in thismatter, the manner in whichtheywere accomplished, andthe personalities who wereinvolved have, therefore,always to be regarded inrelation to those largerpolitical problems whichwere posed before his time,butwhichweretobegivenaspecial and permanentsolutionasaresultofhisacts.At the time of his birth the

politicalpatternwhichwastoresult from the relationbetweenEngland,France,andthe Scandinavian world hadnot been determined; and itwas Normandy, uniquelyplaced within that pattern,which was, through DukeWilliam, to give it finalshape.DukeWilliam'spolicytowardsEnglandmaythusbeseen to possess, even in itscomplex details, a logical

coherence. It progressivelyinvolved the chief powers ofwestern Europe. And itculminatedinoneofthemostdramaticepisodesofhistory.Even during his boyhood

some of the many issuesinvolved in this criticalsituation were being givenmore precise definition. ItwouldseemthatshortlyafterCnut's establishment as kingof England, the English

athelings,EdwardandAlfred,Emma's children by her firstmarriage, returned toNormandy as exiles. Theirinfluence upon the formationofNormanpolicyatthistimeisnoteasytodetermine,butitwas not negligible. Theremarriage of their motherand the friendship whichprevailed between Cnut andDuke Richard II towards theend of the latter's reignmust

have kept them for someyears in the background.After1028,however, thereistestimonytosuggestthattheymayhavebeeninfairlycloseattendanceonDukeRobertI,so that William must oftenhaveseenthemathisfather'scourt. A charter given byDuke Robert for Fécampabout 1030 is, for instance,subscribedwith their signs,13as is also a gift to Saint-

WandrillemadebyRobert in1033.14 Certain other textsalso deserve consideration inthisrespect.ThusacharterofDuke William for Le Mont-Saint-Michel, which ifgenuine would fall in, orshortlybefore,1042,containsin an early copy theattestation Haduardus rex.15The authenticity of this deedhas, however, beenlegitimately questioned, and

partlyon theassumption thatEdwardwouldnothaveusedthetitleofkingatthattime.16On the other hand, a chartergiven by Duke Robert toFecamp between 1032 and1035 commands greaterconfidence, and in both theearly copies in which thisdeedsurvivesthereoccursthesignofEdwardiregis.17Itis,of course, very probable thatin this text (as in the suspect

charter of Duke William forLe Mont-Saint-Michel) theroyal title was given toEdward by a scribe writingafter his accession to theEnglish throne in 1042. Thematter cannot, however, beregarded as finally settled,and whether Edward did, ordidnot,use theroyalstyleatthis early date, the Normancharters in which his nameoccursgive strongsupport to

thestatementsoftheNormanchroniclers that the Englishathelings in their exile keptalive at the Norman courttheir claims to the throne ofEngland.Noristhereanydoubtthat

theseclaimswere recognizedand fostered by William'sfather. It was during thisperiod, for example, thatGoda, Edward's sister, whowas with her brother in

Normandy, was given inmarriage to Dreux, count ofthe Vexin, who was DukeRobert'sfriendandally,18andbeyondquestion the relationsbetweenNormandyandCnutsteadily deteriorated duringDuke Robert's reign. It waslateralleged,and it iswidelybelieved, that the enmitybetween the two princeswascaused by an intimatepersonal quarrel between

them.Cnut,itissaid,inordertopropitiatetheNormandukegaveRoberthissisterEstrith,whom Robert married andsubsequently repudiated. Theevidence for this tale is,however,mostunsatisfactory,and there is no need to haverecourse to such a story toexplain Robert's attitudetowards England and itsDanish ruler.19 Robert may(as his apologists suggest)

have been genuinely movedbytheplightoftheathelings,butatalleventshehadeveryreason to be apprehensive atthe rapid extension of Cnut'spower in the Viking world.Asaresulthewasdrawnintohostility with Cnut andbecameimplicatedinEnglishaffairs on the side of thedispossessed West Saxondynasty. A statement by anearlyNormanchroniclereven

asserts that he planned aninvasionofEnglandonbehalfof Edward and Alfred, andcollected ships for thatpurpose. The story, which isunconfirmed, should betreated with caution, but itcannot be summarilydismissed. According to thenarrative,thefleetactuallysetsail for England, but beingharassed by a storm wasdivertedtoBrittanytoaidthe

Norman troops who werethere engaged against CountAlanIII.20CnutandRobertbothdied

in 1035, and Anglo-Normanrelations thereupon entered anew phase. In both countriesthesuccessioninvolvedgraveproblems. In England, Cnut'sdesignatedheirseemstohavebeen Harthacnut, Cnut's sonby Emma, but in 1035 thismanwasinDenmark,andhis

half-brother, Harold‘Harefoot’, succeeded ingettinghimself recognizedasjoint king despite theopposition of Emma and ofGodwine,thepowerfulearlofWessex.21 In Normandy thetroublesofWilliam'sminoritywere beginning. In thesecircumstances any NormaninterventioninEnglishaffairswas clearly impossible, andtheathelingswhowerestillin

the duchy were left to lookafter theirown fortunes.AndoneyearaftertheConqueror'saccession there occurred anevent which was to have anenduring influence upon hissubsequent policy. In 1036Alfred thebrotherofEdwardcame to England fromNormandy,ostensiblytovisithismotherEmma.Hisadventwas embarrassing to allparties in England and

particularly to the supportersof Harold Harefoot withwhom Earl Godwine wasnow joined. As a result,Godwine seized Alfred withhis followers before theycould reach Emma. He putmany of the atheling'scompanions to death, anddeliveredAlfredhimselftoanescort of Harold Harefoot'smenwho took him on boardship, and there blinded him

before bringing him to Ely,where he died from hismutilation.22 It was a crimewhichshockedtheconscienceof even that callous age, andit was to leave a legacy ofsuspicionandhatred.Thereisgood reason to believe thatEdward, later king ofEngland, always heldGodwine guilty of hisbrother'smurder, and that henever forgave the earl.23

Moreover, it soon becameclearthatifinthefuturetherewas to be further Normanintervention in Englishaffairs,theterriblefateoftheAtheling Alfred might becitedasajustification.24The conditions prevailing

inNormandy andEngland atthis time were such as toprevent the development ofany settled policy betweenthem. The death of

Archbishop Robert of Rouenin1037precipitatedincreaseddisturbanceintheduchy,andtheEnglishsituation likewisebecame increasinglydominated by the rivalries ofcontending factions. HaroldHarefoot was recognized assolekingfrom1037untilhisearly death in June 1040,when Harthacnut becameking in his turn.25 Already,however,someoftheEnglish

magnateswerelookingacrossthe Channel for a successor,and in 1041 the AthelingEdward was invited to comefrom Normandy to England.It must have demandedconsiderable courage for himtoacceptsuchaninvitationinviewofwhathadso recentlyhappenedtohisbrother.Nonethe less he crossed theChannel, became a memberof the household of

Harthacnut, and (as it seems)was recognized, at least byone faction, as the successorto the English throne.26 Onthe other hand, there wereScandinavian princes whoseclaims could not be easilyignored.SweynEstrithson,ofDenmark, though still ayouth, might, as Cnut'snephew, be said to have anhereditary interest, whilstMagnus, king of Norway,

had, apparently in 1038 or1039,enteredintoapactwithHarthacnut that in the eventof either of them dyingwithout direct heirs thesurvivor should inherit hiskingdom.27 A criticalsituation was thus createdwhen on 8 June 1042Harthacnut, then no morethan twenty-three years old,diedsuddenly‘ashestoodathisdrink’.28

It is not wholly certainwhether theAthelingEdwardwasinNormandyorEnglandat the time of Harthacnut'sdeath, but he was at onceacclaimed king by a strongparty in England ‘as was hisnatural right’.29 For somemonthsitwouldseemthathisposition may have beendoubtful,buthewasatlengthfully recognized, andcrowned on Easter Day

1043.30Theeventwasclearlyofmajorimportancenotonlyto England but also toNormandy. Edward, ofcourse, owed his acceptanceto the fact that he was therepresentative of the ancientand honoured West Saxondynasty.Buthewasnonetheless in a special sense theprotégé of Normandy, wherehehadspentsomanyyearsofhis exile, and the Norman

ducal house might well feelitself to some extentcommittedtohiscause.DukeWilliam himself was, it istrue, only some fourteenyearsoldat this timeandhisownpositionwas precarious,but the connexion thusestablished was to prove ofspecial consequence to thelater development of hispolicytowardsEngland.Normandy was thus

concernedfromthestartwiththe fortunes of the new kingof England, who had beenplaced in a situationof somehazard. Edward hadsucceeded despite the claimsof Scandinavian princes;there remained a very strongScandinavian element in hiscourt;31 and the Danelawdistricts in England hadstrong Scandinaviansympathies. It is not

surprising therefore that theopeningyearsof the reignofEdward theConfessorshouldhave been coloured by animminent threat fromScandinavia, and marked bythe efforts which were madeto withstand it. In 1043, forinstance, Edward, supportedby the earls of Wessex,Northumbria, and Merciaseized the person of Emma,whowasapparentlyscheming

on behalf of Magnus, andconfiscated her property. In1045 Magnus planned alarge-scale invasion ofEngland, and was onlyprevented from sailingbecause of his ownwarwithSweyn Estrithson ofDenmark. Sweyn actuallyappealed toEdward for help,which was refused, and themenace to England becamemore acute when Magnus,

having expelled him fromDenmark, was once morereadytoinvadeEngland.Thesudden death of Magnus on25October1047may indeedhave saved Edward fromdisaster,butthemenacenonethelessremained.In1048thesouth-eastern shires wereharried by a considerableScandinavianforce,andiftheobject on this occasion wasplunder, it is clear that

aspirations for the politicalreconquest of England werebeingfosteredinthenortherncourts.32Edward's hope of

combating this threatdependeduponthesupporthecould elicit from hismagnates, and here too hefoundhimselfinapositionofdifficulty. For the earldomswhich had been created byCnut as administrative

provinceshadnowfallenintothe hands of powerfulfamilies who between themexercisedjurisdictionoverthegreater part of England. Toimplement any consistentpolicy therefore,Edward hadin the first instance toreconcilethebitterrivalriesofhis great earls—Siward ofNorthumbria, Leofric ofMercia, and Godwine ofWessex—and if possible to

use them to his ownadvantage. The strugglesamong them which ensued,and in particular the rise todominanceduringtheseyearsof Godwine, earl ofWessex,was thusofmajorconcern tothe English king, and byimplication a matter ofmomenttoNormandyalso.In1045 Earl Godwine,presumablyasthepriceofhisallegiance, had forced the

king to marry his daughterEdith,33 and from that timeforward the increase of thepowerofGodwinethoughnotundisputed was constant. Hehad, it is true, to overcomethe opposition of the otherearls, and this, as in 1049,sometimes resulted inviolentdisorder. But by 1050 thefamilyofGodwinehadcometo dominate the Englishscene. The earl of Wessex

himself held all southernEngland from Cornwall toKent; his eldest son Sweyn,whose career had beenruthless and disreputable,held five shires in the south-western Midlands; whilstHarold, his second son, wasestablished as earl in Essex,EastAnglia,Cambridgeshire,andHuntingdonshire.Itwasaconcentrationofpowerinthehands of a single family that

was in itself amenace to theroyal authority, and it wasespecially repugnant to theking since it had beenachievedbythemanwhowascharged with his brother'smurder.34In these circumstances it

was inevitable that the kingshouldendeavourtoformhisownparty,anditwasnaturalthat he should turn to theconnexions he had made

during his exile, and inparticular to the Normanduchywhich had for so longgiven him hospitality andprotection.35 Thus Normanclerksbegan to appear in theroyal household, andtransferences of property infavour of Normans weremade in the country. InSussex, for instance,Steyning, then a port, wasgiven to the abbey of

Fécamp,36 and Osbern thebrother of William fitsOsbern, and himself a clerk,was established at Boshamwhich commanded theharbour of Chichester.37 Inthe west, a more significantdevelopment took place inconnexion with theadvancement of Ralph,nicknamed ‘the Timid’, theson of Dreux, count of theVexin, who had married

Edward'ssister.Thismanhadcome to England with theking in 1041, and receivedextensive lands inHerefordshire,Worcestershire, andGloucestershire. In duecourse he became earl ofHerefordshire,andunderhima Norman colony wasestablished. Richard, son ofScrob (a Norman), wassettled in Herefordshire

before 1052, and about thesame time another Norman,nicknamed ‘Pentecost’,acquired the importantmanorsofBurghillandHope.Before 1050, or shortlyafterwards, both these menconstructed castles:‘Richard's castle’ nearHereford, and the morefamous stronghold of EwiasHarold which dominated theGolden Valley.38 More

important, however, was theking's success in introducingNorman prelates into thechurch. About 1044 Robert,abbotofJumièges,wasmadebishop of London;39 in 1049Ulf,anotherNorman,becamebishopofDorchester, the seewhich stretched acrossEnglandtoincludeLincoln;40and in 1051, after Robert ofJumièges had been promotedto Canterbury, William, a

Norman clerk in the king'shousehold, was appointedbishopofLondon.41TheinfiltrationofNormans

into England during theseyears has attracted muchcomment, but it might beeasy to exaggerate theoriginalityoftheking'spolicyin this respect. There isreasontobelievethatagroupof men from Normandy hadfollowed Edward's mother to

England at the time ofEmma'smarriage to EthelredII, and though these recededinto thebackgroundafterhermarriagetoCnut,theycanberegarded as the precursors ofthemenwhorespondedtoherson's invitation.42 Edward'sNorman policy was in shortonly partially dictated by hispersonal predilections: itflowed naturally out of theprevious relations between

NormandyandEngland.Nor,exceptintheChurch,diditatfirst entail any verywidespread consequences. Itis to be remembered thatduring these years Edwardcould expect no personalsupport from Duke Williamwhowashimselfengagedinastruggle for survival, and thegreater men of Normandywere likewise too fullyoccupied in establishing

themselves in the duchy topay much attention toEngland. Among the laymenwho came to England fromoverseas during these years,few except Earl Ralph theTimidwere of the first rank,andnoNormanlaymanatthistime seems to have beengivenpossessions inEnglandofverywideextent.Nonetheless the tenacity with whichthekingpursuedhisNorman

policy in opposition to EarlGodwine between 1042 and1051wasbringingtheaffairsoftheduchyandthekingdomintoevercloserjuxtaposition.And when in 1051 Edwardfound himself at last able toconfront Earl Godwine on amajor issue of policy, therelationship betweenNormandy and England wasbroughttoacrisis.The narratives which

describe this crisis aremutually contradictory, andmuch controversy has takenplace as to its immediatecauses and consequences.43What is certain is that, veryearly in 1051, Robert ofJumièges, then bishop ofLondon,wastranslatedtothemetropolitan see ofCanterbury, and shortlyafterwards, in the same year,the citizens of Dover were

involvedinanaffraywiththeretinue of Eustace ofBoulogne, the king's brother-in-law,whowas returning toFrance after a visit to KingEdward. Edward called inEarl Godwine to punish thecitizens, but the earl, beingperhaps already outraged bytheappointmentofRobertofJumièges, refused to do so,andforthwithcollectedleviesin all the earldomsunder the

controlofhis family inorderto oppose the king. On hispart, thekingappealedtotheloyaltyofhis subjects, calledfor the assistance of theNormanpartyhehadcreated,and managed also to obtainthe support of Earls Siwardand Leofric against therebellious earl of Wessex.The two northern earls thuscamewith troops to the kingat Gloucester where they

were joined by Earl Ralph,and they sent to theirearldoms for furtherreinforcements. It was a trialof strength, and Edward wasvictorious. The opposingarmies were disbanded bymutualconsent,butGodwineandhis sonswere ordered toappear before the royalcouncil in London to answerfor their misconduct. Whenthey refused to do so, they

were condemned tobanishment as rebels andforced to fly the country. Itwasanotabletriumphfortheking. Indeed, as acontemporary remarked: ‘Itwould have seemedremarkable to everyone inEngland if anyone had toldthem that it could happenbecause he [Godwine] hadbeen exalted so high even tothe point of ruling the king

andallEngland,andhissonswere earls, and in the favourof the king, and his daughtermarried to the king.’44Edward had been forced towait longforhisdeliverance,but by the end of 1051 itseemedcomplete.The events of 1051 are,

however,chieflyimportantinthis context because theybrought to a logicalconclusion the earlier

development of Anglo-Norman relations which wehave been concerned towatch.Edwardwaschildless;a feature of his triumph in1051hadbeenhisrepudiationof his wife who wasGodwine's daughter;45 andthere can be no reasonabledoubt that before the end of1051 he had nominatedWilliam of Normandy as hisheir. It is,moreover, to 1051

itself that in all probabilitythis grant should beassigned.46 One authorityevenseemstosuggest that in1051 the duke came over toEngland to receive the grantinperson.47Butthis,althoughvery generally believed, ismost unlikely48 – if only forthe fact that William wasdesperately concerned withaffairs in Normandythroughout that year.49 It is

more probable that, asanother narrative states,50Robert of Jumièges was sentto acquaint the duke of thebequest, and that he did sobetween mid-Lent and 21June 1051,when on hiswayto Rome to seek his palliumas archbishop of Canterbury.The rebellion of the earl ofWessexmay even have beencaused by knowledge of thistransaction, and the affair at

Dover would in that casehavetoberegardedasonlyasecondary cause of theupheavalwhich followed.Atallevents,bytheendof1051,Godwine and his sons hadbeenbanished fromEngland;the king who had for longreceivedNormansupportwasmaster of his Englishkingdom; and Duke Williamof Normandy was hisdesignatedheir.

Iftheconditionsprevailingin England at the close of1051 had been allowed tocontinue, it is even possiblethat the political union ofNormandyandEnglandunderthe royal rule of a Normanduke might have beenpeacefully achieved. Eventson both sides of theChannelwere, however, at once tomodify this situation. InEngland the year 1052 saw

the re-establishment ofGodwine and his sons byforce of arms. The great earlhad taken refuge in Flanderswhilst his sons Harold andLeofwine fled to Ireland.From these countries a co-ordinated and brilliantlyorganized attack uponEnglandwasmade by sea. Itwas overwhelminglysuccessful, and the king wasforced to submit. He was

compelled to readmitGodwineandhissonstotheirEnglish dignities, and toreceive back to favourGodwine's daughter Edith ashis wife. Whilst moreoversomeoftheking'scontinentaladvisers, such as Ralph theTimidandWilliam,bishopofLondon, were allowed toremain in England, most ofthe members of the Normanparty were sent

ignominiously into exile,including Robert thearchbishop of Canterbury. Acounter-revolutionhadinfacttaken place, and itsconsequences were to beprofound.51TheexpulsionofRobertof

Jumiègesraised, for instance,the question of themetropolitanseeheheld,anda new element wasintroduced into Anglo-

Norman politics when hisplace was promptly filled byStigand, bishop ofWinchester.52 This man,whose reputation as achurchman was notuntarnished,53 had been astrongsupporterofGodwine,andhispromotionwasclearlydue to the triumphant earl.Butthesubstitutionofsuchaprelate,bysuchmeans,foranarchbishopwhohadnotbeen

canonicallydeposedofferedachallengetothemovementofecclesiastical reform whichwasnowbeing sponsoredbythe papacy. Stigand was infact to be excommunicatedand declared deposed by noless than five successivepopes, and even in Englandhispositionwasheldtobesoequivocal that prelateshesitatedtobeconsecratedbyhim.54 From 1052 onwards,

therefore, the family ofGodwine was to find itselfout of favour with thereforming party in theChurch,andforthisreasonitincurred the constantopposition of the papacy.William in Normandy could,bycontrast,takeconsiderableadvantagefromthissituation,andhewas to exploit it.Thesupportwhichin1066hewasto receive from the papacy

wasinfactpartlyinspirednotonlyby thereformedstateofthe province of Rouen butalso by the ecclesiasticalsituation which had beencreated in England twelveyears earlier.And one of theinevitable consequences oftheNormanconquestwhenitcame was to be the finaldepositionofStigand.In 1052, however, the

victorylaywiththefamilyof

Godwine.Theroyalauthorityin England had beenchallenged and defeated, andtheNormanpolicyofthekinghad been broken. Nor couldthe ultimate consequences ofthistothefuturedevelopmentofAnglo-Normanrelationsbeother than catastrophic. Theevents of 1052 (as has beenshrewdly observed)‘established the house ofGodwine so firmly in power

that neither the king nor anyrival family could everdislodge it. It reduced theNormans in England topolitical insignificance, andthereby decided that if theduke of Normandy was evertobecomekingofEnglanditcouldonlybethroughwar.’55Whether the duke of

Normandy would ever bestrong enough forcibly toassert his claims on England

was, however, in 1052 stillvery doubtful.Between 1052and1054thedukewasfacingone of the great crises of hisNorman reign, and this wasnot to be resolved until afterthe battle of Mortemer. Notbefore 1060 was he to bewhollyfreefromperil.Everystage in the very confusedhistory of England duringtheseyearswas thus tobeofvital concern to his future,

and he must have watchedwith intense interest themanner in which death waschanging the pattern ofEnglish politics at this time.In1053EarlGodwinedied,56and since Sweyn, his eldestsonhaddiedonpilgrimagein1052, the leadership of thefamily passed to his secondson Harold. Two years lateroccurred the death of EarlSiward, and the

Northumbrian earldom wasgiven to Harold's brotherTosti, thus further increasingthe power of the family.57Finally in 1057 two otherdeaths were to take placewhich were of greatconsequence to the future. Inthat year Earl Leofric ofMercia passed from thescene, leavinghisearldom tohis son Ælfgar, and on 21December 1057 there died

Earl Ralph the Timid58 who,as a grandson of Ethelred IIthrough his mother Goda,might have been consideredas one of the possibleclaimants to the Englishthrone. He passed on hisclaims to his brotherWalter,countoftheVexin.It was against this rapidly

changing background thatbetween1053and1057therewas formed a plan to deflect

the English succession awayfrom Normandy and tosubstituteforDukeWilliamamember of the West Saxonroyal house. This wasEdward, son of EdmundIronsides, who since 1016hadbeeninexileinHungary.He was quite unknown inEngland, but negotiationswere opened for his return,59and eventually in 1057 hearrived in England

accompanied, as it wouldseem,byhiswifeAgathaandhisthreechildren–Margaret,Edgar,andChristina.60Itwasan importantoccasion, forhecame in state, with thesupport of the emperor, agreat noble with muchtreasure.AswasthecasewithAlfred in1036, therefore,hisadvent was recognized ashaving deep politicalsignificance, and again, as in

thecaseofAlfred,hiscomingwas the prelude to tragedy.He died in mysteriouscircumstances before hecould reach the royal court.‘Wedonotknow,’exclaimeda contemporary, ‘for whatreason it was brought aboutthat he was not allowed tovisit his kinsman KingEdward. Alas, it was amiserablefateandgrievoustoall the people that he so

speedily ended his life afterhe came to England.’61 Thewords, it is true, do not inthemselves warrant anyspecific accusation of foulplay, but the phrases seemalmost designed to invitesuspicion, and there weremany powerful men inEngland to whom Edward'sarrival, like that of Alfredfifteen years earlier, musthave been unwelcome. Nor

was his removal withoutadvantages to some of them.At all events, from this timeforward Harold, earl ofWessex,seemstohavebegunto thinkof thesuccessionforhimself.After 1057 the pre-

eminence of Earl Harold inEnglandrapidlybecamemoremarked. No royal athelingremained in the country toovershadow his prestige, and

the deaths of Earls Leofricand Ralph enabled him oncemoretoincreasetheterritorialpossessions of his house. Hehimself annexedHerefordshire; East Angliapassed into the hands of hisbrother Gyrth; whilstLeofwine, another brother,was given an earldomstretching fromBuckinghamshire to Kent.62As a result of these

arrangements Harold and hisbrothers, Tosti, Gyrth, andLeofwine, controlled thewhole of England under thekingwiththeexceptionoftheMercian earldom underÆlfgar which now had beendiminished in size. It is littlewonder that Ælfgar felthimself menaced. He wasconstantly in rebellionduringthese years, seeking supportfrom Griffith, king of North

Wales, and even fromScandinavian raiders.Sometimes in exile, andsometimes in precariouspossession of Mercia, hesurvived until after 1062.63After his death his earldompassed to his young sonEdwin, who could offer noeffective opposition to thegreat earl of Wessex. By1064, therefore, Harold hadreached the apogee of his

power, and it is littlewonderthatanannalistcouldrefertohim as ‘under-king’ (sub-regulus).64 Nor could it beany longer doubted that hewas hoping eventually toacquire the royal dignityitself.A new factor was thus

intruded into the impendingquestion of the Englishsuccession, and it was notonly the duke of Normandy

whose interests werechallenged. Walter, count oftheVexin,forinstance,mightfeelhimselfconcernedas thegrandson of Ethelred II, asmight also Eustace, count ofBoulogne,whoas thesecondhusband of Goda was theConfessor's brother-in-law.65More formidable reactions toHarold'srisemight,however,be expected fromScandinavia, for after the

deathofMagnusthekingdomof Norway had fallen toHarold Hardraada, half-brother to St Olaf, a manwhose adventures werealreadylegendary,andwhoseambitionswereboundless.Hecertainly considered that thepact betweenHarthacnut andMagnus had given him aclaim to the English throne,andhewasreadytoseizeanyopportunitytoenforceit.The

developing ambitions of theearlofWessexthuspresentedto Harold Hardraada achallenge which he couldhardly ignore. It issignificant, therefore, that in1058 his son attackedEnglandonhisfather'sbehalfwith a large fleet collectedfrom the Hebrides and fromDublin,66 and though theattemptwasnotsuccessful, itclearly foreshadowed the

larger invasionwhichHaroldHardraada was himself tomakein1066.Nonetheless,itwasDuke

William of Normandy whowas most directly concernedwith thedevelopmentswhichweretakingplaceinEngland.Few political relationships innorthern Europe were closerthanthatwhichhadgrownupbetween Normandy andEngland during the earlier

half of the eleventh century,and this connexion had beenfortifiedbythecircumstancesof Edward's accession, andmore particularly by thepromise of the Englishsuccession to the Normanduke. William was,moreover, just at this timehimself attaining a positionfrom which he couldeffectively assert the rightswhich he considered to have

devolved upon him. Thefeudal and ecclesiasticalconsolidation of Normandyunder its duke was now faradvanced, and William'ssituationinFrancewasmuchimproved. The battle ofMortemer in 1054 was thelast of the great crises ofWilliam'sNorman reign, andthe deaths of Geoffrey ofAnjou and ofHenry, king ofFrance, in1060removedtwo

most formidable rivals fromhispath.Thesameyears thatwitnessed the rise of EarlHarold in England thus alsosawtheadvancementofDukeWilliam to a pre-eminentposition in northern France,andin1062hewasgiventheopportunity of turning thatpre-eminence to practicaladvantage.ThewarofMainewhich ensued was in fact tobe of cardinal importance in

producing the conditions thatwerenecessarytothesuccessofhisEnglishenterprise fouryearslater.Itwillberecalledthatafter

theoccupationofLeMansbyGeoffrey Martel in 1051,DukeWilliamhad sponsoredthecauseof theexiledCountHerbert IIofMaine,and thata pact had been madebetween them by which itwas agreed that if Herbert

diedwithout children,Maineshould pass to the Normanduke.67 At the same timeHerbert engaged himself tomarryadaughteroftheduke,whilstRobert,theduke'sson,wasbetrothedtoMargarettheinfant sister of Herbert. Solong as Geoffrey Martellived, such arrangementswere of little consequence,but after 1060 they began tobe significant, and on

Herbert's death on 9 March106268 they precipitated acrisis. Duke Williamimmediately claimed Maineonbehalfofhisson,whilstastrong party inMaine led bythe border lord, Geoffrey ofMayenne, determined toresisthimbyputtingforwardas their candidate for thesuccession Walter, count ofthe Vexin, who had marriedHerbert's aunt Biota.69 The

situation was of particularinterestsincetwoofthemostdisputedfiefsofFrancewerecalledinquestionbyasinglechallenge: Maine which hadfor so long been a battle-ground between Normandyand Anjou, and the Vexinwhich had been similarlydebatable between the dukeofNormandy and the Frenchking. William's reply to thischallenge was thus

understandably vigorous.Normantroopsbegantoharrythe Vexin while the dukehimself invaded Maine. Thewar was prolonged, butbefore the end of 1063William, who had capturedLeMans, had already beguntoconsolidatehisconquestofthe comté. The fortificationsof Le Mans werestrengthened; Mayenne wastaken and sacked; and

probably about this time thedukereconstructedhiscastlesat Mont Barbet andAmbrières. By the beginningof1064hehadmadehimselfthe effective master ofMaine.70TheNormanacquisitionof

Maine altered the balance ofpower in Gaul in a mannerthat was substantially toaffect the course of eventsduring the next critical

decade. It helped to ensurethat the duke need fear nointerference from northernFrance in any enterprise hemight undertake overseas.Count Walter and his wifeBiota,whoafterthefallofLeMans had been taken intocustody, died shortlyafterwards in suspiciouscircumstances,71 and thecomital house of the Vexin,robbed of its chiefmembers,

passed under the leadershipofacollateralbranch.Walterwas succeeded by his cousinRalphofCrépi, orofValois,whose policy towardsNormandy had still to bedisclosed. Similarly, thesuccessful campaigns of1062–1063hadfreedWilliamat last from the Angevinmenace. After the death ofGeoffrey Martel in 1060 astruggle for the Angevin

successiondeveloped,andforthe next decade no Angevincount was to be able asheretoforetouseMaineasaneffective base for operationsagainst Normandy. Finally,William's position in respectoftheFrenchroyalhousehadalsobeenstrengthened.Since1060theyoungKingPhilipI,himself a minor, was theward of the count ofFlanders,72 and able to

exercise as yet no personalcontrol over the conduct ofaffairs, and now just at thetime when the Capetianmonarchy was in eclipse theduke of Normandy hadenhanced his prestige, andmultiplied his resources bytheconquestofMaine.In 1064, therefore, Duke

William might feel that hischanceofeventuallywinningthe long promised realm of

England had beensubstantially improved, buthe must also have realizedthat therisingfortunesof theearl ofWessexhaderected aformidableobstacleacrosshispath.Thenewsecurityoftheduke in Gaul had been wonduring the same years as theearlhadsosignallyprosperedin England, and now, as thelife ofEdward theConfessorebbed to its close, the two

men confronted each otheracross the Channel aspossible rivals for thesuccession to the childlessking.Itwasasituationwhichcalledfordramatictreatment,and it was soon to receiveworthy commemoration inthe famous stitchwork of theBayeux Tapestry. The storytheredisplayedwasofcourseonly one factor in thedeveloping crisis which was

overtaking northern Europe,but it was none the less anessentialfeatureofthatcrisis.The connexion betweenEngland and Normandywhich had been developinginexorably since 1035 wasalready in 1064 becomingcrystallizedintoanindividualopposition between two ofthe most remarkablepersonalities of eleventh-centuryEurope.

The relations of DukeWilliamandEarlHarold,andtheir modification during thelast two years of theConfessor's reign, thuspossess a general importanceas well as the personalinterestwhichattachestooneof the most picturesque andcontroverted episodes ofhistory.In106473(asitwouldseem) Earl Harold set sailfromBosham inSussexona

mission to Europe. Almostevery detail of his ensuingadventures,andtheirpurpose,hasbeenmade the subjectofcontroversy and no finalitycanbeclaimedforanysingleinterpretation which may beput upon them.74 Followingthe three earliest accounts75of these events which havesurvived, it may, however,seem reasonable to suggestthat the earl of Wessex on

this occasion had beencommandedbytheConfessorto proceed to Normandy inorder formally to confirm inthe presence of William thegrantof thesuccessiontotheEnglish throne which hadpreviously beenmade by thekingtotheduke.EarlHarold,doubtless,hadlittlelikingforthis task, but he may wellhavefeltitunwisetodisobeythe king's order, and hemay

also have hoped to derivesome personal advantagesfrom its execution.76 At allevents he set out, butencountering a stiff wind hewas blown out of his courseand compelled to make aforcedlandingnearthemouthoftheSommeonthecoastofthe comté of Ponthieu.77There, ‘according to thebarbarous custom of thecountry,’ he was seized by

Guy,thereigningcount,‘asifhe were a shipwreckedmariner,’ and thrown inprison within the castle ofBeaurain situated some tenmilesfromMontreuil.78The situation presented an

immediate opportunity toDukeWilliam which he wasquick to seize. Perhaps theNormandukewasaware thatHarold's journey wasconnected with the promise

which had previously beengiven by Edward, and heappreciated at once theadvantages he might obtainfrom personal contact withthe earl of Wessex incircumstances highlyfavourable to himself. Hetherefore lost no time indemanding the person ofHaroldfromCountGuy(whosince1054couldberegardedas in some sense a vassal of

Normandy),79andheperhapsagreedtopaythecountsomeransom. Count Guy on hispart felt it prudent orprofitabletoaccedeatoncetothe duke's request. HebroughtHarold to Eu,wherethe duke with a troop ofarmed horsemen came toreceive him. The earl wasthereupon conducted withhonour to Rouen.80 Andeither atRouen,81 or perhaps

at Bayeux,82 but moreprobablyinthepresenceofanassemblyofmagnatesheldatBonneville-sur-Touques,83Earl Harold was brought toswear his famous oath offealty to the Norman duke,with particular reference totheimpendingquestionoftheEnglish succession. WilliamofJumiègesstatesbaldlythatthe earl ‘swore fealtyregarding the kingdom with

many oaths’,84 whilst theBayeuxTapestryindicatesthesolemn character of thetransaction, and emphasizesthe relics on which the oathwas taken.85 William ofPoitiers,however,recordstheterms of the undertakingwhich was so solemnlygiven.86Theearlsworetoactas the duke's representative(vicarius) at the Confessor'scourt; he engaged himself to

doeverythinginhispowertosecure the duke's successionin England after theConfessor's death; and in themeantime he promised tomaintain garrisons in certainstrongholds, and particularlyat Dover. About the sametime, and as part of thesearrangements, Duke Williamvested the earl as his vassalwith the arms of Normanknighthood,and(asitseems)

also entered into anundertakingwhereby the earlbecamepledgedtomarryoneoftheduke'sdaughters.Such are the only facts

given in theearliest accountsof this famous transaction,though legend was soon toadd many embellishments tothe story. Whether, asEadmer suggested,87 Haroldacted under duress on thisoccasion, or was the subject

of trickery,88 must remain indoubt.Certainly, the positionof the earl inNormandywasa difficult one. Hemay wellhave hesitated to defy theorders of his king, and theforceful desires of the dukewhoatthistimewasbothhishostandhisprotector.Ontheother hand, it is notimpossible that he willinglyconsentedtowhattookplace,andperhapseven(asWilliam

of Malmesbury asserted) heacted here on his owninitiative.89 The perils whichsurrounded his own designson the English throne werevery obvious, for such anattemptcouldonlysucceedifhe could obtain sufficientsupport at home to overridethe rights of survivingmembersoftheEnglishroyalhouse and the claims ofstrong Scandinavian princes.

The earl may thus perhapshavethoughttosafeguardhisfuturepositionintheeventofhis own failure or the duke'ssuccess. And he may havefelt that inanycasehecouldlater repudiate the oath, orplead that it had been takenundercompulsion.Whatever may have been

Harold's motives on thisoccasion, there can be nodoubt that William's policy

had been clearly conceived,and the newly establishedrelationship between the twomenwasdemonstratedbeforeHaroldreturnedtoEngland,90when thedukeassociated theearlwithhimashisvassal ina venture which was yetfurther to strengthenWilliam'spowerontheeveofthe English crisis. Theacquisition of Maine whichhad been accomplished by

1064 had stabilized thewestern frontier ofWilliam'sduchv. There remained,however, Brittany as apotentialmenace that neededto be removed. Since thedeathofAlan III in1040 thenominalrulerofBrittanyhadbeenhisyoungson,ConanII,whose interests wereprotected, albeit with greatdifficulty, by his motherBertha, and opposed by his

uncle Eudo of Penthièvre.91The result was prolongeddisturbance, and it was notuntil 1057 that Conan wasable to assert his ownauthority as sole ruler. Evenso, he was dependent uponthe precarious allegiance ofthenewfeudalnobilitywhichhadariseninBrittany.92Herewas therefore anotheropportunity for DukeWilliam. In 1064Conanwas

engagedinoperationsagainstthe Breton rebels near thestrongholdofSaint-James-de-Beuvron which William haderected near the Normanborder.93 Someof the rebels,notably Riwallon of Dol,thereupon appealed to theduke, who forthwith invadedBrittany with the earl ofWessex in his force. Hecrossed the estuary of theCouesnon with some

difficulty, and advanced tothe relief of Riwallon, whowas besieged in Dol. Thetown fell to the Normanassault, and Conan retreatedtowards Rennes. Williamthereupon moved to Dinant,which he captured. He thenretired,leavingConantotakehis revenge in due courseuponRiwallon,whowassentintoexile.94The details of William's

Bretonwarof1064arehighlyobscure,buttheresultsofthisinconclusive fighting wereconsiderable. A powerfulBrittany,activeandhostileonhis western frontier, mighthavebeenagravemenace toDuke William during 1066,and in 1064 this danger wasby no means to be ignored.The declaration alleged tohave been made by Conanthat he would resist any

expedition made by Williamagainst England may safelybe regarded as apocryphal,95butitrepresentedwhatmightvery well have proved adisturbing factor in thedevelopment of Normanpolicy at this time. It hadthereforebeenanastutemoveon William's part to fosteropposition to Conan amongtheBretonmagnates, and hisraids into Brittany in 1064

also served to turn Conan'sattention elsewhere thanNormandy during the criticalyears that followed. In 1065ConanistobefoundatBloisseeking an alliance againstAnjou, and all through 1066hewasengagedinoperationsin Angevin territory until hediedsuddenlyinDecemberofthat year while besiegingChâteau-Gonthier.96 Hisdeathwas a further stroke of

goodfortuneforWilliam,butevenmore importantwas thefactthatthedukehadalreadycreated a powerful party ofhis own in Brittany. No lessthanfourofthesonsofCountEudo of Penthièvre were tofollow Duke William acrossthe Channel, and togetherwith many other Bretons toreceive in due course largeestatesinEngland.It is impossible not to

admire the high competenceof Duke William's policy in1063–1064, or themanner inwhich it was steadfastlydirected towards the eventualfulfilment of his Englishpurpose. Full advantage hadbeentakenoftheweaknessofthe Capetian and Angevindynasties; Maine had beenadded tohis resources;andastrongfactioninBrittanyhadbecome favourable to his

cause. Finally, one of themost formidable of hispotential opponents hadpublicly given anundertaking, recognized assacrosanct by the feudal andecclesiastical opinion ofEurope, to support theduke'sclaimuponEngland,oratallevents not to oppose it.During this same year, also,this same English magnatehad been publicly displayed

as the duke's vassal in acampaign which wasindirectlytofacilitatethelaterdeployment of Norman armsinEngland.When before theend of 1064 Earl Haroldreturned to England, ladenwith gifts from Rouen,97 hispositionasapossiblerival toDukeWilliamfortheEnglishthrone had, in the publicopinion of Europe, becomeirreparablycompromised.

Theadvantagegainedoverthe earl of Wessex by DukeWilliam in1064wassoon tobeincreasedbyeventswithinEngland itself. In theautumnof 1065 a rebellion occurredin Northumbria against EarlHarold's brother, Tosti, whohad been earl since 1055.98Therevoltrapidlyspreadandthe rebels, having massacredmany of the earl's supportersin the north, took it upon

themselves to proclaim Tostianoutlaw.They thenofferedhis earldom to Morcar, thebrother of Earl Edwin ofMercia, and in order tocompel the king to confirmtheir acts, they marchedsouthward in force toNorthampton. Earl Haroldtried to arrange somecompromise in favour of hisbrother,buthefailedtodoso,andKingEdwardwasforced

torecognizeMorcarasearlofNorthumbria. Tosti and hiswifeJudithfledfromEnglandto take refuge with Judith'shalf-brother, Count BaldwinVofFlanders.99EarlHarold'sposition inEnglandwas thusseriously weakened by theseevents which removed hisbrother from an importantearldomandsubstitutedinhisplace, and against thewishesof the earl of Wessex, a

memberoftheMercianhouseofLeofricwhohadnoreasonto feel friendly to anyrepresentative of the familyofGodwine.The immediate advantage

which thus accrued to DukeWilliamisobvious.Buttherewas a further implication ofthe Northumbrian revoltwhich was equallysignificant. It is whollyremarkable that despite the

bitterness of the dispute of1065 there seems to havebeennodesireon thepartofthe rebels to establish aseparatekingdomnorthoftheHumber.100KingEdwardhadbeen compelled to accept anearlofwhomhedisapproved,but his status as the solelegitimate king over allEngland had been preservedfor his successor. England,albeit comprising two

ecclesiastical provinces andthree great earldoms, wasevidently conceived as asingle kingdom whosepolitical identity mustoverride the differencesinherent in the individualtraditionsof its several parts.At the same time as theresources of the earl ofWessexhadbeendiminished,the unity of the inheritancewhich Edward the Confessor

would leave to his successorhad been sustained andindeed re-emphasized. Theprizewassoontobedisputed:its integrity remainedunimpaired.The long developing

relationship betweenNormandy and England hadthus at last produced asituation which involved themedieval destiny of a largepart of northern Europe. The

aged childless king, reveredand qualifying for sainthood,was approaching his finalproblems. Earl Harold ofWessex, weakened by theevents of 1064–1065, wasstill strong, and might yetacquire sufficient support inEnglandtoholdthecrownhecoveted. In the northernworld, Harold Hardraada,representing a very strongtradition that England's true

links were with the Balticlands, was reaching theclimax of his power as kingof Norway, and must soonput to the test his longexpressed claim to theEnglish throne. These wereno mean opponents for theduke of Normandy who,having welded a uniqueprovinceintoapoliticalunity,wasnow,at thebeginningof1066,brought to thecrisisof

hisfate.

1Above,chap.I.2Freeman,NormanConquest,vol.

I,pp.197—205.3SeethepapallettergiveninWill.Malms.,GestaRegum,vol.I,pp.191–193.Theletterisnotwhollysatisfactoryinitspresentstate,butinsubstanceitisprobablygenuine(Stenton,Anglo-SaxonEngland,p.371).

4Will.Malms.referstoBishop

Roger.ThebishopofLisieuxwastheonlyNormanbishopatthisdatewiththatname,andheappearsinacharterof990(R.A.D.N.,no.4).Itisnotinconceivable,however,thatWill.Malms,madeamistakeoverthenameandthatRobert,archbishopofRouen,isintended.

5ThestoryisonlyfoundinWill.Jum.(p.76),andmustbetreatedwithcaution.Itmaybenoted,

however,thataVikingfleetin1000onleavingEnglandwenttoNormandy,andthatinthenextyearthecoastofEnglandoppositeNormandywasravaged,soperhapsthereissomeconfirmation(AS.Chron.,‘C’,s.a.1000,1001).

6AS.Chron.,‘C’,s.a.1002.7Ibid.,s.a1013,1014.8Campbell,EncomiumEmmae,vol.XLIV.

9Above,p.21.

10Pfister,RobertlePieux,pp.214,215.

11ActaSanctorum(Palmé),July,vol.VIII,p.125.

12AS.Chron.,‘C’,s.a.1017.13R.A.D.N.,no.70.14Ibid.,no.69:acceptedasgenuinebyLot(Saint-Wandrille,no.13)andbyRound(Cal.Doc.France,no.1422).

15R.A.D.N.,no.III;Cart.#afllesNorm.,plateI.

16Haskins,NormanInstitutions,

p.261.17R.A.D.N.,no.85;Haskins,op.cit.,platesIVandV

18Above,pp.73,74.19Douglas,inEng.Hist.Rev.,vol.

LXV(1950),pp.292–295.20Will.Jum.,p.110.21Stenton,op.cit.,p.414.22AS.Chron.,‘C’,s.a.1036;Campbell,op.cit.,p.lxiii.

23Will.Malms.,GestaRegum,vol.I,p.240;andbelow,AppendixF.

24Will.Poit.,pp.11–13.25AS.Chron.,‘C’,s.a.1040.26Ibid.,s.a.1041.27Stenton,op.cit.,p.415.28AS.Chron.,‘C’,s.a.1042.29Ibid.,s.a.1042.30Ibid.,s.a.1043.31Oleson,WitenagemotintheReignofEdwardtheConfessor,AppendixB.

32AS.Chron.,‘C’,s.a.1043;‘D’,s.a.1045,1047(equals1046,1048);‘E’,s.a.1043(equals

1045).33AS.Chron.,‘E’,loc.cit.34Stenton,op.cit.,p.553.35Round,FeudalEngland,pp.317–341.

36Edward'sdeclarationtothiseffect(Harmer,Anglo-SaxonWrits,p.16)isnotabovesuspicion.HaroldhadretakenSteyningin1065,butFécamppossesseditin1086(D.B.,vol.I,fol.17).Thatagrantwasinfactmadebefore1066is

indicatedbytwoconfirmationsbyWilliam(Regesta,vol.I,no.1;ChevreuxetVernier,Archives,platesVIII).ThematterisfurtherdiscussedbyD.Matthew,NormanMonasteriesandtheirEnglishPossessions,pp.38–41.

37Will.Malms.,GestaPontificum,pp.201,202;D.B.,vol.I,fol.17.HebecamebishopofExeterin1072.

38Stenton,op.cit.,p.554.

39Freeman,op.cit.,vol.II,p.69.40AS.Chron.,‘C’,s.a.1049.41Ibid.,‘D’,s.a.1052(equals1051);‘E’,s.a.1048(equals1051).

42R.L.G.Ritchie,NormansinEnglandbeforeEdwardtheConfessor(Exeter,1948).

43B.Wilkinson,‘FreemanandtheCrisisof1051’(Bull.JohnRylandsLibrary,1938).

44AS.Chron.,‘D’,s.a.1052(equals1051).

45Ibid.46Stenton,op.cit.,p.553.47AS.Chron.,‘D’,s.a.1052.48ThewholematterisdiscussedbymeinEng.Hist.Rev.,vol.LXVIII(1953),pp.526–534;butseealsoOleson,inEng.Hist.Rev.,vol.LXII(1957),pp.221–228.

49Above,pp.55–69,andbelow,AppendixB.

50‘Will.Jum.,pp.132,133.51AS.Chron.,s.a.1052.

52AS.Chron.,‘E’,s.a.1053.53HecontinuedtoholdWinchesterwithCanterburyinplurality.

54Stenton,op.cit.,p.460.55Ibid.,pp.558,559.56AS.Chron.,‘D’,s.a.1053;below,AppendixF.

57Ibid.,s.a.1055.58Ibid.,s.a.1057.59Stenton,op.cit.,p.563.60Ritchie,NormansinScotland,p.8.

61AS.Chron.,‘D’,s.a.1057.62Stenton,op.cit.,p.566.63Oleson,Witenagemot,p.117.64Flor.Worc,vol.I,p.224.65Round,StudiesinPeerageandFamilyHistory,pp.147–155.

66Stenton,op.cit.,p.597.67Above,pp.72,73.68Latouche,ComtéduMaine,p.33,note3.

69Ibid.,pp.113–115.70Will.Poit.,pp.91–93;Will.Jum.,pp.130,184;Prentout,

GuillaumeleConquérant(1936),pp.149–153.

71Below,AppendixF.72Fliche,PhilippeI,chap.I.73Itishighlyprobablethoughnotabsolutelycertainthatthevisittookplaceinthatyear.

74Douglas,Eng.Hist.Rev.,vol.LXVIII(1953),pp.535–545;Oleson,ibid.,vol.LXXII(1957),pp.221–228.

75Will.Jum.,pp.132,133;Will.Poit.,pp.100–106;Bayeux

Tapestry.76HemayhavewishedtosafeguardhiseventualpositionintheeventofDukeWilliam'ssuccess,anditisveryprobablethatmembersofhisfamilywereattheNormancourtashostagestosafeguardtheduke'ssuccession,andHaroldmayhavewishedtoobtaintheirrelease.

77BayeuxTapestry,platesVI,VII.Thereisnosuggestionofa

shipwreck.78Will.Poit.,pp.100–102;BayeuxTapestry,platesIX,X–‘Belrem’(E.H.D.,vol.II,p.242).

79Ord.Vit.,vol.II,pp.237,238.80Will.Poit.,p.102.81Ord.Vit.,vol.II,p.217.82BayeuxTapestry,platesXXVIII,XXIX–‘Bagias’.

83Will.Poit.,p.102.84Will.Jum.,p.133:‘Factafidelitatederegnoplurimis

sacramentis.’85PlatesXXVIII,XXIX(E.H.D.,vol.II,p.251).

86Will.Poit.,pp.104–106,230.87HistoriaNovorum(ed.Rule),p.8.

88Thestorythattheoathwastakenonconcealedrelicsisoflaterdate.ItappearsinWace,RomandeRou(ed.Andresen),vol.II,p.258.PlateXXIX,BayeuxTapestry,maybestudiedinthisconnexion.

89GestaRegum,vol.I,p.279.90Will.Poit.andtheBayeuxTapestrydifferastothesequenceofevents,thelatterplacingtheBretoncampaignbeforethetakingoftheoath.

91Lobineau,HistoiredeBretagne,vol.I,pp.93–98;LaBorderie,HistoiredeBretagne,vol.III,pp.14–23;DurtelledeSaintSauveur,HistoiredeBretagne,vol.I,p.118.ThechaoticconditionofBrittanyunder

BerthaiswellillustratedintheremarkablecharterprintedbyMorice,HistoiredeBretagne:Preuves,vol.I,col.393.

92ThecharacterofthatnobilityinBrittanyatthistimeisrevealedinacharterofConan(Cart.deRedon,p.23);Morice,op.cit.,Preuves,vol.I,col.408;seealsoLaBorderie,LesNeufsBaronsdeBretagne(1905),pp.xiii,xiv.

93Will.Poit.,p.106.94Will.Poit.,pp.106–112;

DurtelledeSaintSauveur,op.cit.,p.119;BayeuxTapestry,platesXXI–XXIV(E.H.D.,vol.II,pp.248,249).

95Ord.Vit.,interp.Will.Jum.,pp.193,194;andbelow,AppendixF.

96LaBorderie,HistoiredeBretagne,vol.III,p.20;LeBaud,HistoiredeBretagne,p.157.HeapparentlycapturedPouancéandSegrébeforehisdeath.

97Will.Jum.,p.133.98B.Wilkinson,‘NorthumbrianSeparatismin1065and1066’(Bull.JohnRylandsLibrary,vol.XXXII(1939),pp.504–526).

99AS.Chron.,‘C’‘D’,s.a.1065.100Wilkinson,loc.cit.

Chapter8

THECONQUESTOFENGLAND

January1066–March1067

On 5 January 1066 Edwardthe Confessor died childless,

and the question of theEnglishsuccessionwhichhadfor so long loomed overnorthern Europe immediatelyenteredonitsfinalphase.Norcouldtherebeanydoubt thatits settlement would involvewar, or that in the conflict acrucialpartmustbeplayedbyDuke William whose policytowardsEnglandhadbeensoconsistentlydevelopedduringthe previous fifteen years.

The chief actors in theensuing drama had in factalready been brought to theforefront of the stage: EarlHarold of Wessex; HaroldHardraada, king of Norway;Tosti, the exiled earl ofNorthumbria; and DukeWilliam himself. Thepersonal rivalry betweenthese men reflected,moreover, with considerableaccuracy, thewider issues of

politics which (as has beenseen)hadbeencreatedbytheearlier relations betweenNormandy, Scandinavia, andEngland. The future of theEnglish monarchy (and itscharacter) was in truth butoneof the issueswhichwereat stake. The position ofEngland for the remainderoftheMiddleAgesinrelationtoScandinaviaandLatinEuropewas also to be determined,

and the political andecclesiastical structure ofwestern Christendom was tobe substantially modified.Contemporaryobserverswerefully conscious that a crisiswas at hand, and it is littlewonderthatmanywerereadyto see a portentoussignificance in the cometwhich now began toilluminate the skies ofwesternEurope.1

Duke William must havebeenawareforseveralweeksthat the English king wasdying, but even so theimmediate challenge whichhe received must havecontained an element ofsurprise. On the morrow oftheConfessor'sdeath–ontheverydayofhisfuneral2–EarlHarold Godwineson, havingobtained the support of agroup of English magnates

who were in London,3 hadhimselfcrownedasking,asitwould seem by Aldred,archbishop of York,4 in theConfessor's new abbey ofSaint Peter of Westminster.The indecent haste of theseproceedingsindicatesthattheearl's seizure of the thronewaspremeditated,andthathefeared opposition. It is veryprobable, however, that theConfessor on his death-bed,

eitherofhisownfreewillorunder persuasion, hadnominated the earl as hissuccessor,5 and the solemncoronation by a metropolitanarchbishop might supply areligious sanction to his newdignity. Finally, it might beargued that the perilouscircumstances of the timedemanded quick action. Itwasknown thatanewattackonEnglandfromScandinavia

was imminent, andTosti, theearl's brother, following theprecedentsetbythefamilyin1052,mightbeexpectedverysoontoattempttoreturnfromFlanders by force. In theseconditions, strong leadershipwas demanded, and suchleadership could best befound in the earl ofWessex,who was already the mostpowerfulmaninEngland.Forthese reasons the chief

surviving member of the oldroyal house, Edgar, son ofEdwardtheatheling,whowasthenalad,wassetaside;andanearl,withnopretensionstoroyaldescent,wasallowedtoacquire theEnglish throne. Itwas, in itself, somethingofarevolution, and the act borethe appearance of a coupd'état executed with extremespeedandgreatresolution.Harold Godwineson

himself realized that he wasstakinghis fortuneson force.None the lesshe couldpleadnecessity, and he couldcommand support. Achronicler of the nextgenerationdidnothesitate toregardhimas,ineveryway,alegitimate king of England.He had been nominated byEdward the Confessor –wrote ‘Florence ofWorcester’6 – he had been

chosenbythechiefmagnatesof all England, and he hadbeen ceremoniouslyhallowed. Moreover, he wasto prove a just king, and hewastolabourfor thedefenceofhisrealm.Itwasanotabletribute made after death to adefeated monarch who hadshownhimselfanoutstandingsoldier and a brave man.Moreover, it receives someconfirmation in the fact that

the royal administrativesystem seems to havecontinued unimpaired underhis direction.7 Nevertheless,there was always somethingequivocal in HaroldGodwineson's position asking.OneofthemostancientroyaldynastiesofEuropehadbeensetasidebyaprominentmemberofafamilywhichinthe past had often beenruthless in the pursuit of

power, and the act generatedresentment in many quartersof England.8 It was not onlybecause of threats fromoverseas that (as acontemporary observerwrote)Harold‘metlittlequietas long as he ruled therealm’.9Attheopeningofhisreign,

itwasevendoubtfulwhetherhe would secure recognitionoutside his own earldom of

Wessex. Little is known ofthe composition of theassembly which, in London,on the Confessor's death,acclaimed him as king. Thefact that it was so rapidlysummonedmightsuggestthatit consisted merely of localpersonalities hastily collectedto give assent to a decisionalreadymadebythepowerfulearl. On the other hand, theillness of the Confessor may

have brought to Londonimportant men from outsideWessex. How far (as waslater asserted)10 any of thosepresent dared to oppose theearl is likewise doubtful: theresult could certainly beafterwards paraded as aunanimous acclamation.11But the acquiescence ofmany, and especially ofEdwin and Morcar, earlsrespectively of Mercia and

Northumbria, must at besthave been half-hearted, anddisaffection immediatelybroke out in the northernprovince.12 In consequence,veryearlyinhisreign,Haroldmoved up to York, andwiththeaidofWulfstan,bishopofWorcester,anddoubtlessalsoof Aldred the archbishop, hesucceeded in stifling theopposition. This, however,could only be regarded as a

temporary measure, and inorder to retain the allegianceof Edwin and Morcar heconsented, probably duringtheearlymonthsofhisreign,tomarrytheirsisterEdith,thewidowofGriffithofWales.13A king, so placed, was

insecurely poised towithstand the assaults whichmight at any time bedelivered against him by hisbanished brother, or by the

powerful king of Norway.Indeed,ifanapologiaistobemade for HaroldGodwineson, earlofWessex,who became the last Anglo-Saxon king of England, itshouldsurelybebasednotonlater considerations ofnational patriotism (to whichhe was probably a stranger),nor on constitutionalarguments(derivedfromlaterWhig doctrine) as to the

doubtful legality of his royaltitle, but upon themanner inwhich a great warrior and acourageous man battled fornine months against adversecircumstances which, to theultimate benefit of England,atlastoverwhelmedhim.ToDukeWilliam,Harold's

seizure of power came as apersonal affront as well as apolitical challenge. He hadlong recollections of

Edward's original bequest oftheEnglish crown, andmorerecent remembrance ofHarold's oath and vassalage.Hisreaction, therefore, tothenews from England wasswift. A protest wasimmediately sent to theEnglishcourt,14butthiswasaformality, for the dukerealizedfromthefirstthathiswhole political future nowdepended upon his ability to

vindicatehisclaimsbyforce.Thechronologyof theduke'sactsduring theearlierhalfof1066 is somewhat confused,but their nature and purposeisclear,asisalsotheultimateendtowhichtheywereallsosteadfastly directed. Duringthis critical interval, DukeWilliam of Normandysecured the support of hisvassals.Hefostereddivisionsamong his rivals. He

successfully appealed to thepublic opinion of Europe.Andhemadethepreparationsessential for equipping theexpeditionwhichwas,atlast,to take him to victoryoverseas.One of his first acts after

he received the news ofHarold's coronation was totake counsel with hismagnates, and in particularwith that inner circle of the

new Norman nobility whichhad shared in his rise topower. Many of these menappear at first to have beendoubtful about the risks of aprojected attack on England,and a later tradition assertsthat it was William fitzOsbern who persuaded themthat the adventure waspracticable.15Atall events, anotable unity of purposewasearly achieved, and this was

deliberately fostered by theduke in a series ofassemblies. William ofMalmesbury asserts that agreat council was held atLille-bonne, and Wace(though without naming aplace) likewise speaks indetail of a large assemblywhich was broughtenthusiastically to supportDuke William's designs.16Again, it appears that when

he was supervising thebuilding of his ships on theDives, the duke took councilwithsomeofhismagnatesatBonneville-sur-Touques, andthe project of the Englishinvasion was certainlydiscussed in the greatconcourse of Normannotables, secular andecclesiastical,whoassembledatCaen in June 1066 for thededication of the abbey of

HolyTrinity.17Howmanyofthese assemblies were held,or what was their precisecharacter, cannot beascertained, but there can beno doubt that during thesemonths the duke lost noopportunityofassociatinghismagnateswith his plans, andin view of his earlierstruggles to establish hisauthority, the support whichhe was able to elicit was

whollyremarkable.Co-operation of this type

wasessentialifthehazardousventure was to be given anychanceofsuccess.Evenso,itmighthaveseemeddangeroustoleavetheduchydenudedofits ruler, and of much of itsarmed strength. Special stepswere taken therefore by theduke to provide for theadministration of his duchyduring his absence. Thus the

Duchess Matilda assumedspecialresponsibilitiesduringthese critical months,18 inassociation with her sonRobert, who was then somefourteenyearsofage.Roberthad already appearedalongside his mother aswitnesstoducalcharters,andin 1063, when he was lessthan twelve years old, he isspecifically described in aninstrument for Saint-Ouen as

the heir designate to hisparents. In 1066 his positionas the future ruler ofNormandy thus becamecrucial when his father wasabout to set out on anexpedition from which hemight never return, and itwould seem that at homeduring the spring or summerofthatyear,DukeWilliam,atone of the assemblies of hismagnates, solemnly

proclaimed Robert as heir tothe duchy, and exacted fromthe chief men of Normandyan oath of fidelity to hisson.19 Robert's specialpositionat this timeseemstohave been recognized evenoutside the boundaries of theduchy, for Bartholomew,abbot of Marmoutier, sentone of his monks to Rouen,asking for confirmation ofDuke William's gifts to that

house, and thiswasgivenbyRobert, ‘at the request of hisfather, who was thenpreparingtocrosstheseaandto make war against theEnglish’.20Nevertheless, the duke's

own experiences in youthmust have made himconscious how inadequatemight prove such oaths offidelityatatimeofcrisis,anda province notoriously

susceptible to anarchy couldnotbeleftwithconfidencetothe unaided tutelage of awomanandaboy.Prominentmembers of the newaristocracy were thereforedirectly associated with theadministration of Normandyduring the duke's absence.ChiefamongthesewasRogerof Beaumont, already anelderly man, who was to berepresentedatHastingsbyhis

son Robert, subsequently tobecomecountofMeulanandearl ofLeicester.21With himwas Roger of Montgomery,who likewise remainedbehindinNormandytoassistthe duchess.22 Other trustedmen were left in theircompany, among whom wasHugh, son of Richard, thepowerful vicomte of theAvranchin, and himselfeventually earl of Chester.23

These arrangements,interesting in themselves, aremainly significant asillustrating once again theclose association at this timebetween the Normanaristocracy and the Normanduke. It is in every waynotable that no revoltoccurredinNormandyduringthe critical period of theEnglish venture. On thecontrary, thebulkof thenew

Norman nobility were eagerto support an extremelyhazardous enterprise, andeven to stake their personalfortunesonitssuccess.Nor was the Church in

Normandy neglected at thiscrisis. Perhaps it was naturalthat Norman prelates shouldbe anxious to obtainconfirmations of grantsbefore the duke left hisduchy,anddoubtlessontheir

part Duke William and hisfollowers wished to settletheir relations with Normanreligious houses before theirdeparture. At all events, avery interesting group ofsurviving charters testifies inthis respect to theurgencyofthe situation. Lanfranc wasappointed to Saint Stephen's,Caen, in 1063, and on 18June 1066, the dedicationceremony of Holy Trinity in

thesame towngaveoccasionfor the ratification of thelavish endowment ofMatilda's new foundation.24About the same time, theduke confirmed Fécamp inpossession of land atSteyning inSussex, thegrantto take effect only if GodshouldgivehimthevictoryinEngland.25 In June, also, therightsoftheseeofAvranchesover certain disputed

properties werecomprehensively ratified bythe duke in a notablecharter.26 Similar action wasalso taken by many of theduke's followers, often in hispresence, and with thesanction of his court.Thus itwas recorded that Roger ofMontgomery,with the assentof the duke, had in 1066given land at Giverville toHoly Trinity, Rouen, at the

time when ‘the duke of theNormans set out across thesea with his fleet’.27 Lessermen followed the sameexample. Roger, son ofTurold,‘beingabouttosettoseawithDukeWilliam’,gavea small estate in Sotteville-lès-Rouen to Holy Trinity,andsimilargrantsweremadeinthesamecircumstancesbyErchembald, the son ofErchembald the vicomte, and

also by ‘a certain knight’,named Osmund de Bodes,who in the event was toperish on the expedition.28Suchchartersmayreasonablybetakenasrepresentativeofalarger number of similarinstruments which have notsurvived, and they serve toillustrate from a new anglethe temper prevailing inNormandy on the eve of theexpeditiontoEngland.

Not only with his ownduchy was Duke Williamconcerned at this time. Hewasalsoatpainstojustifyhiscause before the publicconscience of Europe. Atsome undetermined datewithin the first eight monthsof 1066 he appealed to thepapacy, and a mission wassent under the leadership ofGilbert, archdeacon ofLisieux,toaskforajudgment

in the duke's favour fromAlexanderII,29Norecordsofthe case as it was heard inRome have survived, nor isthere any evidence thatHaroldGodwinesonwaseversummoned to appear in hisown defence. On the otherhand, the arguments used bythe duke's representativesmaybeconfidentlysurmised.Foremost among them musthave been an insistence on

Harold's oath, and itsviolationwhentheearlseizedthe throne. Something mayalso have been allegedagainstthehouseofGodwinebyreferencetothemurderofthe atheling Alfred in 1036,and to the counter-revolutionof 1052. The duke could,moreover, point to the recentand notable revival in theprovinceofRouen,andclaimthat he had done much to

foster it. For these reasons,the reforming papacy mightlegitimately look for someadvantage in any victorywhich William might obtainover Harold. Thus was thedukeofNormandyenabledtoappear as the armedagentofecclesiasticalreformagainstaprince who through hisassociation with Stigand hadidentified himself withconditions which were being

denounced by the reformingparty in the Church.Archdeacon Hildebrand,therefore,camevigorously tothesupportofDukeWilliam,and Alexander II was ledpublicly to proclaim hisapproval of Duke William'senterprise.30Thesuccessof theduke in

thus obtaining a formaljudgment in his favour fromthe highest ecclesiastical

tribunal in Europe was toentail far-reachingconsequences, and itssignificance is not to beappraised without somereference to a complex ofideas which at this time wasbeginning to be formed inwestern Christendom. DukeWilliam'spropagandawas,infact, admirably attuned notonly to papal policy but alsoto sentiments which in the

third quarter of the eleventhcentury were beginning topervade the self-consciousNormanworld.Eversincethebattle of Civitate (1053) andthesynodofMelfi(1059)thepapacy had becomeincreasingly dependent on analliance with the Normansfrom which it could notescape, and the Normans ontheir side had been quick toappreciate the solid

advantagestheymightobtain,sayinSpainorItalyorSicily,byposingasthechampionsina holy war. The fullimplications of these ideaswillhereafterbediscussed ingreaterdetail,fortheyhelpedto mould the character ofWilliam's royalty, and theinfluence which he and hisfellow Normans were toexercise on England and onEurope.31 Already in 1066,

however, they must havecontributedtotheoutcomeofthe important negotiationsbetween the pope and theNorman duke. It was by nomeansoutofkeepingwiththegeneralcharacterofpapalandNormanendeavourinthisagethat, in the event, DukeWilliam was to fight atHastings under a papalbanner, andwith consecratedrelics round his neck.32 The

venture had been made toappear – and in westernEurope it was widelyregarded – as something inthenatureofacrusade.It was a triumph of

diplomacy. The attack uponHarold was never henceforthtobegenerallyconsideredasa matter of pure aggression,andpotentialoppositionfromother European princes wasthus to some degree

forestalled. The duke,moreover, took othermeasures to exploit thisadvantage. The preciserelationsat thistimebetweenDukeWilliamand theyoungKingPhilip I ofFrance,whowasthenunderthetutelageofBaldwin V, count ofFlanders, are difficult todetermine. Later traditionasserted that there was aninterview between them, and

more nearly contemporarywriters suggest that theformal recognition of Robertas the duke's heir was madeinthepresenceofKingPhilipand with his consent.33 Bethisasitmay,itiscertainthatmany men from France andFlanders were in due coursetojoinintheEnglishventure.NordidWilliamrefrainfromeliciting support, or at leastneutrality,fromotherprinces.

Envoys were sent to theimperialcourt;andHenryIV,or the counsellors on whomtheyoungemperordepended,were induced to make somepublic declaration in favouroftheNormanduke.34As a result, therefore, of

papal and imperial approval,and in consequence also ofthe conditions prevailing inFrance, Duke William couldappealwith some confidence

for volunteers from outsidehis duchy, and that appealcould be made in termswhereby a crude promise ofplunder was buttressed byhigher considerations ofmoral right. As will be seenhereafter,theresponsetothatappeal was to beconsiderable,sothatthearmywhich followed the dukeacrosstheseatoEnglandwasto include numbers of men

recruited from outside theNorman duchy.Norwas thisall. In consequence of thesuccess of his earlier policyhefoundhimselfatthiscrisisvery favourably placed inrelation to his moreimmediate neighbours. Since1054 Ponthieu had beenunder his over-lordship.35Farther to the north-west,Eustace, count of Boulogne,was for the time being

disposed to stand by hisfriend; and his earlier warshad assured him not only ofstrong support from amongthemagnatesofBrittany,butalsoofdirectassistancefromMaine. He was thussingularlywellplacedforhisenterprise, the moreespecially, as owing to theposition he had attained innorthern Gaul, he had by1066 acquired virtual

command over every Frenchharbour on the coaststretchingfromtheCouesnonup to the frontier ofFlanders.36Control of these harbours

wasoftheutmostimportancefor the safety of an invadingexpedition, but a yet moreimperative need was for theconstruction of ships. Apermanent Norman fleetexistedasearlyasthetimeof

Duke Robert I,37 but thismusthavebeenofsmallsize,and it was certainly in 1066quite inadequate to serve forthe transport of a largeinvadingforce.By thespringof 1066, therefore, activesteps were being taken inNormandyforthebuildingofships,38 and something isknown of the methods bywhich these were produced.The magnates of Normandy

were required severally tomake contributions of ships,and these were considerable.Thetestimonyastocertainofthe quotas individuallyimposed is late, and notwholly satisfactory, but it isclear that thesevaried insizeandwere imposed inmannernot unlike that to be lateradopted in respect of theservitiadebitaoftheNormantenants-in-chief inEngland.39

In their totality they weresufficienttoproduceafleetofvarioustypesofvesselwhosenumbers are variouslyestimated, but which wascertainlylarge.40Nor is thereany reason to doubt the latertradition that the largedecorated vessel displayed inthe Bayeux Tapestry ascarrying theduke toEnglandhad been given by his wifeMatilda, and was named the

Mora.41 The construction ofthese vessels was pushedforward with the utmostspeed in the Norman ports.After May the new shipsbegan to be concentrated inthemouthof the riverDives,where the work wascontinued withoutinterruption. Nevertheless,despite the zeal displayed inthe whole undertaking, it islikely that it was not

completed much if at allbefore the beginning ofAugust.42 Even so, it was aremarkableachievement.Eventswereinfactalready

demonstrating to DukeWilliam the necessity ofspeed. Early in May 1066Tosti, the brother of HaroldGodwineson,whoinhisexilehad taken refuge with hisrelativethecountofFlanders,madehisexpectedattempt to

return to England by force.Heharried the IsleofWight,then occupied Sandwich,where he enlisted nativeseamen in his service, andafterwards with a fleet ofsixty ships sailed up the eastcoast to the mouth of theHumber. While raiding innorth Lincolnshire, however,hisforcewascuttopiecesbyleviesraisedbyEarlEdwinofMercia, and many of his

surviving followers promptlydeserted.43 Tosti thereuponmade his way north with adiminished fleet of twelvevessels and took refuge withMalcolm, king of Scotland,with whom he had alreadyenteredintoastrictalliance.44His abortive attempt againstEngland is indeed mainlysignificant for its bearing onthe larger question of theEnglishsuccessionwhichwas

every day becoming moreclearly the major issue ofnorthern European politics.For Tosti had already madecontact with HaroldHardraada. Whether he everwent to Norway himself isuncertain, but theNorwegianking had been made sofavourable to his cause thatseventeen ships came to hisaid from the Orkneys whichwere then under Harold

Hardraada's control.45 DukeWilliam had likewise takenan active interest in anexpedition which was likelyto prove embarrassing to hisEnglish opponent. A latertradition asserted that Tostihad actually visitedNormandy to seek theduke'sassistance,46 and it isprobable that at least hereceivedsomelimitedsupportfrom the duchy. Certainly

HaroldGodwineson,reigningprecariously as king inEngland, considered thatTosti'sattackwasthepreludeto a larger invasion fromNormandy. He, therefore,moved down to the Isle ofWight and began actively toorganize the defence of thesouth coast against theNormanduke.47During June, July, and

August, DukeWilliam could

thus watch the rapiddevelopment of the situation.InNorway,HaroldHardraadawas already known to bemaking elaboratepreparations for invadingEngland,andhewasintouchnot only with his ownmagnates in the Orkneys butalso with Tosti who wastarrying expectantly at thecourtofMalcolmofScotland.These were formidable

threats to the English king,but Harold Godwineson wascontent to give his primaryattentiontoNormandy.Eitherbecause he considered thatthe Norman attack wouldcome first, or because hewished to reserve his fullstrengthforthedefenceofhisown earldom of Wessex, heconcentratedhisforcesonthesouth coast. The mosteffectivepartofhisarmywas

his trained corps ofhousecarls,buthealsocalledout the local levies of thesouthern counties, andmustered all the ships at hiscommand.48 It was a largeforce, and it waitedexpectantly while William'sown preparations were beingpushed forward on the othersideoftheChannel.Williamhimselfwaslosing

no time. His greater vassals

were assembling with theirownmilitary tenants to formthe nucleus of his force, andvolunteers were pouring intotheduchy fromother lands–particularly from Maine,Brittany, and Picardy andPoitou, and probably alsofrom Burgundy, Anjou, andeven southern Italy.49 Someof thesemenmay have beenmoved by the crusadingcharacter which propaganda

was giving to the enterprise,butmoreweremovedby theprospectoftheplunderwhichwould be the reward of itssuccess. Most of them were,however, simplemercenaries.50 William ofPoitiersspeaksofthegiftsbywhich William purchasedtheir services,51 and thePenitentiary alleged to havebeen issued in 1070 byErmenfrid, bishop of Sitten,

in respectof thewarof1066clearly states that among thetroops which supported theduke on that occasion werenotonlythefeudal leviesbutalsomanywhowerehired tofight.52 In the spring andearly summer of 1066 itwasthus William's most urgenttask to create a disciplinedforce out of thesemiscellaneous contingentsand toensure that theycould

act in harmony with oneanother, and with the feudaltroopsfromtheduchy.Atthesame time he forced forwardthe completion of the shipswhich were being massed atthe mouth of the Dives. Byabout 12 August53 this fleetwas at last ready, and therivals thus faced each otheracross the waters of thenarrowseas.The first crucial stage in

the ensuing struggle wasreached, and passed, on 8September 1066,54 a date ofcardinal importance in thehistory of the Normanconquest of England. Theproblemofbothcommanders,William and HaroldGodwineson,wastomaintaina large force during theprolonged period ofpreparation withoutdevastating the countryside

on which it was quartered,and it was here that theNorman duke obtained hisfirst successoverhisEnglishopponent.Forawholemonth,remarks William of Poitiers,the duke ‘utterly forbadepillage’, and the extent towhich his commands wereobeyed is a most impressiveindication of his personaldominance, and of thedisciplined leadership which

hewasabletoexerciseofthemiscellaneous force whichhad gathered under hiscommand.

Hemade generous provision bothfor his own knights and for thosefrom other parts, but he did notallow any of them to take theirsustenance by force. The flocksandherdsofthepeasantrypasturedunharmedthroughouttheprovince.The crops waited undisturbed for

the sickle without either beingtrampled by the knights in theirpride, or ravaged out of greed byplunderers. A weak and unarmedman might watch the swarm ofsoldiers without fear, andfollowing his horse singingwherehewould.55

There is of course anelement of exaggeration inthis statement, but the eventwas to show the degree to

which itwas true.Foron theother side of the Channel,Harold was unable to matchtheachievement.Afterweeksof waiting, it became clearthat he could no longerprovision, or hold together,his force. On 8 September,therefore, he was compelledto disband it. The Wessexmilitiawasdismissed,andtheking with his housecarlsretired to London. The ships

werealsoorderedtorepairtothe capital, and on the waythither many of them werelost.56 The south coast thusbecameundefended,andfourdays later Duke William,eagertoseizehisopportunity,movedhisownfleetfromtheDives to the mouth of theSomme in order to takeadvantage of the shorter sea-crossing. It arrived at Saint-Valery, having sustained

some damage in the transit.But it was speedily refitted,andtheduke,everythingnowat last in readiness, onlywaited for a favourablewindinordertosetsail.57The wind, however,

continued to blow from thenorth, and during the sameweeks when it kept Williampent in the estuary of theSomme, the situationconfronting the duke of

Normandy was transformed.HaroldHardraada,findinghisown preparations at lastcomplete, now launched hisown attack upon England –an expedition comparable tothegreatViking invasionsoftheageofCnut.Itispossible,but improbable, that hewentfirst to theOrkneys togatherfreshreinforcements,butit iscertain that while Williamwas still waiting at Saint-

Valery, the Norwegian kingarrived off the Tynewith noless than three hundredships.58 At this point (itwould seem) he was joinedbyTostiwithsuchsupportashehadbeenabletocollectinScotland. Tosti became theman of the Norwegian king,and by 18 September thewhole expedition had pushedupthemouthof theHumber,and effected a landing at

Riccall on the YorkshireOuse. They then marchedtowards York, and at GateFulford outside the city theyfound their way barred byEdwin and Morcar with alarge army summoned fromMercia and the north. Thereon 20 September was foughtthe first of the three greatEnglish battles of 1066. Itwas a prolonged and verysanguinary engagement, but

at itscloseHaroldHardraadawas completely victorious.Overthewreckedarmyoftheearls he advanced to hisobjective. York welcomedhim with enthusiasm, andafter making arrangementsforthesubmissionofthecity,he withdrew his troopstowardshisshipswhichwerestillatRiccall.59Thenewsmusthavecome

toHaroldGodwineson in the

south as an overwhelmingshock. Nevertheless hisreaction to the menace wasswift. The problem beforehim was, in fact, clearlyposed. Was it possible forhim to march north, copewiththeNorwegianhost,andget back to the south beforethe wind in the ChannelchangedsufficientlyforDukeWilliamtosail?Heattemptedthe formidable task, and his

conduct of the ensuingcampaign is a conclusivetestimonytohisvigour.Witha full force, he immediatelyset out for the north.He canhardly have heard reliablenewsoftheNorwegianattackbefore Harold Hardraada'slanding at Riccall, but fourdays after the battle ofFulford, forced marches hadbrought him to Tadcaster.The following day he

marched through York andcame upon the Norwegianhost which had now movedfrom Riccall to StamfordBridge on theDerwent.60 Heimmediately attacked, andbefore nightfall of 25Septemberhehadgainedoneof the most completevictories of the MiddleAges.61 Harold Hardraadaand Tosti were among theslain, and the shattered

remnants of their defeatedhost retreated to the ships atRiccall. Harold Godwinesonhad regained control of thenorth.ThecampaignofStamford

Bridge marks HaroldGodwineson as a notablecommander. Doubtless, theNorwegian host had sufferedheavylossesatFulford,butitwas none the less aformidable army under the

leadershipofoneof themostrenownedwarriorsoftheage.Moreover, the force at thedisposal of HaroldGodwineson had itself beenhastily collected, and it hadfought under the handicap ofseveral days of forcedmarches. What, however,stamps the campaign asexceptional is the fact that acommander operating fromLondon was able to achieve

surpriseagainstahostwhosemovements since 20Septemberhadbeenconfinedwithin twenty-five miles ofYork.TheNorwegianking,itistrue,hadafterFulfordbeenengaged in arranging for thesubmission of York, inwithdrawing his victorioustroops to Riccall and thenbringingthemupagaintotheroad junction at StamfordBridge, which he probably

did not reach until the 24th.Even so, the achievement ofHarold Godwineson incoming upon him unawareswith an army hastily broughtup from the south is verynotable. His success was asdeserved as it was complete,but it was yet to be seenwhether it would be possiblefor him, after his victory, toreturn to the south in time toopposetheimpendinglanding

ofthedukeofNormandy.The uncertain factor was

the Channel wind. DukeWilliam was himself fullyconscious of this, andcontemporary writersdescribe his supplications fora change in theweather, andpicture him during thesefateful days as constantlygazing towards the vane onthe church tower of Saint-Valery.62 The event was to

justifyhisconcern.Twodaysafter Stamford Bridge, whileHarold was resting his tiredtroops at York a favourablewindbeganat last toblowinthe Channel. The haste withwhich the duke immediatelystartedtoembarkhistroopsisgraphically displayed in theBayeux Tapestry,63 and atnightfallon27Septemberthefleet put to sea led by theduke's own galley which

carried a lantern at its mast-head.64 In mid-Channel thisship lost touch with theothers, and the duke wasfaced with yet anotherpersonal crisis in hisadventurous life. He quelledtheincipientpanicamonghiscrew by supping at leisureand in good spirit ‘as if hewereinaroomofhishouseathome’,65andafteranintervalthe remainder of the fleet

appeared. The rest of thevoyage was accomplishedwithoutincident,andearlyohthemorningof28Septemberthe duke with his troopslanded almost unopposed atPevensey, thus completingwhat, judgedbyresults,mustbe regarded as one of themost important amphibiousoperations in the history ofwar.Ithadbeenachievedpartly

by good fortune, for it wasclearly to the duke'sadvantage that HaroldGodwineson should havebeen engaged in the north ofEngland during these criticaldays.Nevertheless,thetransitcould never have beeneffected if the duke had notpossessed for at least anumber of hours thecommandofthenarrowseas,and his initial success must

thus be related both to theprogressive reductions in theEnglishroyalnavywhichhadtaken place in 1049 and1050,66 and also to thecontrol which he hadobtained of the ports on thesouth side of the Channel.Evenso,thefullresultwouldnot have been attained hadnot Duke William been abletokeephisforceinreadinesson his side of the Channel

longerthandidHaroldonthesouth coast of England. IfWilliamwasenabledtocrossthenarrowseasunopposedonthe night of 27–28September,andtolandinthemorning on an undefendedshore, this was due in largemeasure to the fact that on8September HaroldGodwineson had beencompelled to disperse hismilitia, and to send his own

ships on their unfortunatevoyage toLondon.Finally, itmust be noted that in sailingwhen he did, without furtherdelay, Duke William boldlyseized a hazardousopportunity. For when hesailed from Saint-Valery atnightfallon27Septemberhecouldhardlyhaveknown theresult of Stamford Bridge,which was not decided untiltheeveningof25September.

In other words, when he puttoseaonhisgreatadventure,he probably did not knowwhich of the two Haroldswouldeventuallyopposehim:the king of Norway, backedby a Scandinavian host withits supporters from the northof England, or HaroldGodwineson at the head oftroops recruited mainly fromWessex.He had put his fortunes to

the supreme hazard, and inthe meantime he must takesteps to safeguard his forceduring the precarious daysfollowing his landing in ahostile country. He hastilyconstructed an inner rampartwithin theoldRoman fort ofPevensey,67 and then hesought to take advantage ofthe configuration of theneighbouring coastlinewhichwas thendifferent fromwhat

it is today.68 It was essentialthat he should keep in touchwithhisshipsuntilhefoughtthe decisive battle, andHastings he knew to be aconsiderableportwhichcouldprovide him with a suitableharbour. Moreover, Hastingswasthenatthebaseofalittlepeninsula which could bedefendedbyacoveringactionifitbecamenecessaryforhimtore-embarkhisforce.Tothe

eastandwestitwasprotectedby the shallow estuaries ofthe Brede and Bulverhythewhich are now dry land, andit was guarded on the northby the resulting isthmus thatwasdominatedbytheheightsaround Telham Hill. Beyondstretched the thickly woodedcountryof theweald throughwhich troops could onlyproceedwithsomedifficulty.ToHastings, therefore,Duke

William took both his troopsand his ships. Within thetown he erected afortification, and there heawaited the outcome of hisventure, ravaging thesurroundingcountry inorder,if possible, to stimulate hisopponent toattackbeforehisown resources were tooseriouslywasted.69The plan was well

conceived,butforitsultimate

success the duke was muchindebtedtotheimpetuosityofhis opponent.70 Harold'smovements at his time arevery difficult to elucidatewith certainty.71 It is usuallybelieved that hewas atYorkwhen he first heard ofWilliam's landing, but it isnot impossible thatwhen thenews reached him he wasalready on his way to thesouth.Atallevents,heseems

to have reached London on,or about, 6 October. Hetarriedforsomedays,waitingfor the reinforcements whichhe had summoned, and thenon 11 October, accompaniedby a force consisting largelyof foot-soldiers, he movedsouthward to Hastings. Hiscourageous response to theNorman challenge mustcommand respect, and itwasundoubtedly stimulated (as

William had hoped) by adesire to stop thedevastationof his earldom. But there islittle doubt that his actionswere here unwise. He hadtakentothenorthalargepartof the armed forcesimmediately available tohim,72 but suchhadbeen thespeedonhisreturnsouththathe had been compelled toleavebehindhimmuchofhisinfantry, and many of his

archers.NorwashispauseinLondonlongenoughfortheseto be adequately replaced.Furtherdelaywouldcertainlyhave served his purpose, forWilliam had everything tolose by procrastination, andHaroldwouldhavegainedbyit. Instead, he resolvedon animmediate offensive, and byinviting an early engagementwith depleted resources heplayed into the hands of his

opponent.He evidently wished to

repeat the strategy he hademployed with such successat Stamford Bridge, namelyto take William by surpriseand,ifpossible,bythismeanstocuthimofffromhisships.But hismarch over the fifty-eight miles which separateLondon from the SussexDowns again imposed tooheavy a strain uponhis foot-

soldiers. He seems to havereachedtheDownsduringthenightof13–14October,73andin thedarkness tohave takenup his position near themodern town of Battle. Histroops were evidently in astateofgreatexhaustion,andinsoreneedofrest.Whenthenews came to William, herealized that he had beengiven his great opportunity,and hewas quick to seize it.

HeleftHastingsveryearlyinthemorningof14October,74and when he reached thesummit of Telham Hill hewas made aware that Haroldwas established on theneighbouring summit. It wasnow 9 am,75 and heimmediately advanced acrossthe intervening valley toattack.76 He had been giventhe early battle he desired.And, in the event, it was he

andnotHaroldwhoachievedsurprise.William came uponHarold ‘by surprise’ says theAnglo-Saxon chronicler, and‘before his army was drawnupinbattlearray’.77This achievement was,

indeed, to be so crucial indetermining the issue that itcalls for some comment. Itcan in part be explained byassuming that Harold's forceonly reached the scene of

battle very late in thedarkness of 13 October orperhapsevenduringthesmallhours of the followingmorning,78 and that his tiredtroops, some of whom mayhave arrived later than theirleader, rested overlong aftertheir forced march:79otherwise it is hard tounderstand why they wereonly being arranged in battleorder as late as 9 am. The

implications of the situation,however, stretched wider. Itis improbable that whenHarold left London he evercontemplated fighting adefensivebattleatall.Hehadlittletogainthereby,forevenif,insuchanengagement,hehadbeengrantedanysuccessthat was not total, he mightstill not have been able toprevent William from re-embarking. It is of course

easy to criticize a man whowas acting under terriblestress after conducting acampaign at the other end ofEngland, and it is also truethattheEnglishlossesbothatFulford and at StamfordBridge had been heavy.Nevertheless, Harold stillpossessed reserves that weredeniedtohisopponent,80andhis best chance of successwould surely have been to

wait until he could attackwith overwhelming force anenemywhowas operating inalien territory. As it was, hewas compelledwith depletedresources to fight an earlydefensive battle against anenemy who could not afforddelay. He had been out-generalled.None the less, he was

tactically well placed toconduct the defensive action

which had been forced uponhim. The size of the armyunderhiscommandhasbeenvery variously estimated, butit probably numbered some7,000men.81Many of these,however, were inadequatelyequipped, and his realstrengthlayinthewell-armedhousecarls, professionalwarriors of high repute, whohad followed Harold and hisbrothers, Leofwine and

Gyrth,toSussex.Whetherall,or some, of these had foughton horseback at StamfordBridgehasbeendisputed,butnow the situation wasdifferent. The infantry andarchers whom Harold hadcommanded when on 25September he had defeatedoneofthegreatestwarriorsoftheage,hadforthemostpartbeen leftbehind in thenorth,and now it was abundantly

necessary that the hastilysummoned levies who hadreplaced them should bestiffened by seasoned troops.The housecarls were,therefore, dismounted, andtook their place on the hill,supplied with javelins whichthey could hurl, and armedwiththetraditionalweaponofthebattle-axe.82Suchwastheforce that Harold had withhim on his commanding

summit. Its exact dispositionhas been much debated.83Traditionstatesthatheplacedhis two standards – theDragon of Wessex and hispersonal banner of theFighting Man – on the spotlater occupied by the highaltarofBattleAbbey,anditisreasonabletosupposethathisfront extended some 300yards to the east andwest ofthis, where in each case the

ground begins to fallsharply.84 In this restrictedareaonthesummit,hisarmywas grouped in very closeformation, and it wasprotected in front and on theflanks by the shields of thehousecarls.85Suchaforce,soplaced, would evidently bevery difficult to dislodge.And it blocked the road toLondon.It was, thus, against a

strong position, formidablydefended, that Williamadvanced.86 His army wasprobably slightly lessnumerousthanthatofHarold,but it contained a higherproportion of professionalwarriors, and a much largercontingent of archers. Itmovedforward in threemaingroups. On the left were theBreton auxiliaries, perhapsunder Count Brian. On the

right was a moremiscellaneous body inwhichwas found Robert ofBeaumont and doubtlessmany knights from theBeaumont manors on theRisle. In the centre was themainNormancontingentwithDukeWilliam himself, relicsroundhisneck,andthepapalbanner above his head.87Thustheymovedforwardandin regular formation. In the

vanwere lightly armed foot-soldiers with slings andspears, and possibly thearchers. Then followed otherinfantrymore heavily armed.Finallycamethesquadronsofmounted knights equippedwith hauberks and helmets,andwithswordsorjavelins.88The battle89 began when

William'slightarmedinfantrycame within range of thedefenders on the hill. They

dischargedtheirownmissilesand received in return a hailof weapons of all kinds:javelins, hatchets, and stonesfastened to pieces of wood.Thus assailed, the attackbegan to waver, for theEnglishhad theadvantageofthe ground, and if William'sarchers were now employed,their arrowsshot frombelowmust either have struck theshields of the housecarls or

passedovertheirheads.DukeWilliam,therefore,sentinhisknights in thehopeofgivinghis mounted men theopportunity to use theirswords. Fierce hand-to-handfighting ensued, consistingmainlyofsinglecombats,anditwasperhapsatthisstageofthe battle that Harold'sbrothers, Gyrth andLeofwine,werekilled.Butatlengthitbecameapparentthat

the attack had failed in itsobjective,whichwastobreakthe line of Harold's force.William's advancing infantryhadbeenhalted,andnowhishorsemenwavered,andwere,atlast,turneddownthehillinsuch confusion that theirretreat took on the characterofadisorderedflight.90It was the crisis of the

battle, for itwould seem thatDukeWilliam's army was to

some extent demoralized.One picture in the BayeuxTapestry shows Bishop Odoattemptingtorallythefleeinghorsemen, and a rumourspread that Duke Williamhimself had been killed.91Here perhaps was Harold'slastopportunity.Forifhehadordered a general advance,and had been able to controlit,hemightwellhaveputthedisorganized enemy to

flight.92 In the event,however, he neither orderedsuch a general advance, norcould he enforce thediscipline necessary for acontinued defensive action.Many of his men, thinkingvictory had been achieved,abandoned themainbodyonthehill,andstartedinpursuit.Itwasafatalmove,sincethemounted knights could takeadvantage of their superior

mobility against the isolatedgroups which pursued them.They wheeled, and cut themto pieces.93 So successful,indeed, was this manœuvrethat on at least twosubsequent occasions itwould seem that it wasrepeated,whentheknightsbymeans of feigned flightsenticed groups of thedefenders from the hill inordertodestroythem.94

In any case, the attackershad been given anopportunity to recover.DukeWilliam doffed his helmet,andhavingdisplayedhimselfto his men as still alive hesucceeded in restoring orderamong them. The issue was,none the less, still in doubt.Harold's position had beenweakened, but it was stillstrong, and both sides werebecomingexhausted.Itwasat

this juncture, apparently, thatWilliam introduced a newelement into his conduct ofthebattle.Hithertotheattacksof his horsemen and hisfootmen had beenuncoordinated: now theywere to be combined.William,itissaid,orderedhisarchers to shoot from adistance high into the air sothattheirarrowsmightfallonthe heads of the defenders,

and at the same time he senthis weary horsemen onceagain up the hill for yetanother attack.95 This timethey were successful. It wasperhaps now that Haroldhimselfwaskilled,96andnowthe defenders wereoverwhelmed, and the hillposition taken. A group ofhousecarls managed to rallyfor a while at a spotunsuitable for cavalry in the

rearofthemainposition,andto inflict damage on theirpursuers.97Buttherecouldnolonger be any doubt of theoutcome. The flight becamegeneralandsoonturnedintoaslaughter, until at last, asdarkness was beginning tofall, the duke called off thepursuit and brought his forceback to the hill itself. Heencamped for the night amidthecarnage.98

The battle of Hastings hasbeen described as ‘a victoryover infantrywonbycavalrysupported by the long-rangeweaponofthearchers’.99Thejudgment seems substantiallytrue, but it needsqualification.Itshouldnotbetaken, for instance, asimplyingthatHaroldcouldatno time inhis reignhaveputarmed horsemen into thefield,orthatifhehadmoved

with less precipitation fromthe north he might not havehad more archers under hiscommandatHastings.Again,Hastings cannot beconsidered a typicalengagement between cavalryand infantry.100 There is nosuggestion in theevidenceofwhat can be called the‘classic’useofcavalry–thatis to say amassed charge ofheavily armed horsemen,

riding knee-to-knee, usingtheir mounts to overwhelmtheir opponents, and thenattacking with lances andswords. Nor is there anyindication of the mosteffective reply by infantry tosuch an assault: namely afirm stand in concentratedmass, with a hedge ofprotecting spears so disposedas to make the horses‘refuse’. On the contrary, at

the beginning of the action,bothsidesseemtohavemadeabundant use of missileweapons which are notnaturally to be associatedeither with attacking cavalryor with defending infantry.The housecarls had theirbundlesofjavelins,andmanyof the knights were as muchconcernedtohurltheirspears(as javelins) as to strikewiththem(intruecavalryfashion)

aslances.Nevertheless, though

William relied much onmercenaries, it was theNorman knights who,together with the archers,were chiefly responsible forthe victory, and theirachievementwasdirectlydueto the fact that, howeverrudimentary their knowledgeof cavalry tactics as laterdeveloped, theywere in truth

professional warriors trainedto fight on horseback. Soimportant were their mountsto their efficiency that thesewerebroughtoverwith themin the little ships.101 Indeedthis transportation of horsesdeserves note as a factor inthe campaign. The VikingancestorsoftheNormanshadusedhorsesintheirraids,butin general they had reliedupon finding them in the

countrieswhichtheyinvaded.Norapparentlywasthereanyhorse transportation inearlierViking expeditions againstthe English coast. On theother hand, the presence ofhorses in the boats whichcrossed the Channel in 1066isgivengreatemphasisintheBayeux Tapestry, as acharacteristic feature of thevoyage. But the transport ofhorsesinsmallshipspresents

great difficulties; it is an artwhich needs to be learnt.Consequently it is significantthat such transportation hadbeen successfully employedin 1060–1061, by theNormansinSicily,perhapsasa result of Byzantineinstruction,forthecarryingofhorses by sea, had from anearly date been a feature ofthe strategy of the easternempire.102It isverypossible,

therefore, that DukeWilliamin1066washeredeliberatelyusing knowledge recentlygained by his compatriots intheMediterranean,andthisinturn may even have beentranslated into practice bythose knights from Apuliaand Sicily who accompaniedhisexpedition.Certainly, the duke placed

special reliance upon hismounted men, and in the

decisive battle at Hastingsthese in turn undoubtedlyreliedtosomeextentupontheforceoftheircharge.Norcanit be doubted that these menwere (in the true manner ofcavalry)accustomedtoact inconcert.103 They were thecompanions, and thefollowers, of the newaristocracy whose recent riseto power was a mark of theduchyfromwhichtheycame.

Many of the greatest figuresof that nobility – such asRobert,countofEu,HughofMontfort-sur-Risle, Williamof Warenne and Robert ofBeaumont – are specificallyrecorded as having beenpresent atHastings,104 and itis known that they broughttheir own knightswith them.Each of these groups musthave been conscious of itsunity, being composed of

men who were alreadyassociated as members of anhonour,assuitorstothecourtofthesamelord,andaswonttofightincompanyunderhisleadership.Perhapsitwasthecohesion which this impliedthat enabled the knights tosustain their protracted effortatHastingsduringthoselongand adverse hours when theissue hung in the balance.More particularly did it

contribute to the ultimatevictory. A feigned flight isone of the most hazardousmovementstocarryoutattheheight of an engagement, forsimulatedpanicisveryliableto be transformed into areality of confusion. Yet ifthe earliest account of thebattle is to be believed thisperilous device wasrepeatedly and successfullyused. It could never have

been conducted with troopswho were not acting inconcert, and to some extentunderdiscipline.Discipline,however, in the

last resort, depends uponultimate command, and themorethebattleofHastingsiscontemplated, the moreclearly appears the personalcontributionofDukeWilliamtothefinalresult.Thequalityof his leadership had indeed

beendisplayed from the startof the war. The restraintwhich he imposed on histroopsduring the longperiodof waiting in Normandyenabledhimtokeephisforcein being after Harold hadbeen compelled to disbandthe fyrd, and to disperse hisships; and this in turn hadmade possible the duke'ssuccessful passage across theChannelsomeweekslater.In

the meantime, the duke hadtransformed a collection ofmiscellaneous contingentsinto an army, so that hewasable to seize the opportunityaffordedhimbythechangeinthe wind on 27 September.Between 28 September and13 October he once againshowed himself superior tohis opponent whom hesuccessfully provoked (withthe minimum of risk to

himself) to the earlyengagementthatwasessentialto his survival.Lastly, in thedeciding battle, which hestartedwith the advantage ofsurprise, the final result (solong in doubt) was firstindicatedwhenHarold failedto impose on his troops thediscipline which might haveturnedaninitialsuccessintoavictory, whilst William wasable to rally his forces after

their first reverse.When fullrecognitionhasbeengiventothe good fortune whichattended him, and when alldeductions have been madefor the exaggerations ofpanegyrists, who, likeWilliam of Poitiers, are everready to gild the laurels ofvictoriouscommanders, therecan be no doubt that DukeWilliam, by his ability, andthrough his personality,

dominated the battlefield ofHastings, and the campaignof which it was the climax.When on the evening of 14October he rested on the siteof his victory, he was at thepeak of his career.Outstanding intelligence hadbrought him from obscurityto be the central figure in acrisis of European history:will and tenacity, which hadfor so long been his

companions, had enabled hiscause to survive in theculminatingconflict.After his victory the duke

returned to Hastings to resthis troops, and to allow timefor offers of submission tocome in. But no suchovertures were made. Edwinand Morcar were in thecapital, and stepswere takenby them, by Stigand, andeven by Aldred, archbishop

of York, with a view torecognizing Edgar Athelingas king.105 But the northernearls were clearly notenthusiastic over the project,which was also opposed bysome of the bishops.106Indeed,itwasnotlongbeforeEdwin andMorcar withdrewto their own earldoms,leaving the south to solve itsownproblems.107Onceagainthe political disunion of

England became apparent,and after five days DukeWilliamthoughtitprudenttomove. His progress wasmarked by that blend ofruthlessness and conciliationwhichhadalreadyservedhimso well in France. Thus anattack on one of hiscontingents was punished bysavage retaliation againstRomney, and this severityinduced Dover to submit

without resistance. FromDover the duke advancedtowards Canterbury, andbeforehereacheditsgateshewasofferedthesubmissionofthecity.108Allthisapparentlytook place before the end ofOctober,butthentheNormanprogress was stayed. Fiveweeks'hazardoussojourninahostile country made itextremelydifficulttofeedthetroops,anditisnotsurprising

that widespread dysenterynow assailed them. Williamhimself was stricken, and hewas compelled to delay forthespaceofnearlyamonthinthe neighbourhood ofCanterbury.109 This pausewas not, however, withoutadvantage. The fullsignificance of the Hastingsbattle was becoming moregenerallyappreciated,andtheKentish regions, one after

another, began to surrender.Soon,too,ayetmorenotablesuccess was achieved.Winchester, the ancientcapital of the West SaxonkingswasatthistimeheldindowerbyEdiththewidowofthe Confessor, and now,perhaps in response to aformal demand from theduke, she offered toWilliamthe submissionof thecity.110As November drew to its

close, therefore, DukeWilliamcouldregardhimselfas master in south-easternEngland. Sussex, Kent, andpartofHampshirewereunderhiscontrol.Buttheattitudeofthe north was still uncertain,and London lay enigmaticand formidable across hispath.The key to William's

success in the campaign ofthe autumn of 1066 is to be

found in his appreciation ofthe strategic importance ofLondon. London dominatedthe communications of thecountry inasmuch as it wasthe nodal point at which theRomanroadsfromYorkshire,the Midlands, and EastAngliaconvergedtocrosstheThames and link upwith theroads that gave access to theChannel ports that were inturn essential to William's

own contact with his duchy.Yetat thesame timeLondonwastoolargebothinareaandpopulation for William tocontemplate its capture bydirect assault with the forcethat he had at his command.He therefore determined toisolate thecapital.HemoveduptothesouthendofLondonBridge, where he beat off abody of Edgar Atheling'stroops which sallied out to

attackhim.ThenhavingfiredSouthwark, he movedwestward, devastatingnorthern Hampshire andpassing on into Berkshire.Turning north, he thenmadethecrossingoftheThamesatWallingford and thence, inhis circuitous movement, heat last came toBerkhampstead.111 It was abrutal march, but William'smilitary objective had been

gained. The capital had beenisolated, and the resultswereimmediatelytobedisclosed.Already, while William

was at Wallingford, Stigandcame out from the city totransfer his allegiance to theduke,112 and then atBerkham-stead: ‘[William]was met by ArchbishopAldred, and the AthelingEdgar and Earl Edwin andEarlMorcar,andallthechief

men of London. And theysubmitted after most damagehad been done … and theygave hostages, and hepromised that he would be agraciousliegelord.’113Itwasa formal recognition by thechiefmenofEngland,andallthat remained necessary wasfor the Norman magnates intheir turn to acquiesce inWilliam's assuming the royaltitle.Thisrecognitiontoowas

given after an interval, andthus itwas thatWilliamwasat last enabled, with thesupport of leading men ofEngland and Normandy, tomake a direct advance uponLondon.Whether any furtherresistancewasofferedby thecity is uncertain.114 In anycase,nooppositioncouldanylonger stand a chance ofsuccess, and a few daysbefore Christmas William

enteredhisnewcapital.Arrangements were

immediately made for hiscoronation.And at length onChristmasDay1066William,duke of Normandy, washallowed as king of theEnglish in the Confessor'sabbey of Westminsteraccording to the ancientEnglishrite,theunctionbeingperformed by Aldred,archbishop of York, in place

of theschismaticStigand.Asan innovation, however, thenewkingwaspresentedtothepeople by ArchbishopAldred, speaking in English,and by Bishop Geoffrey ofCoutances, speaking inFrench. And this provoked amishap, for the mercenarytroopswhowereguardingtheminster,misunderstandingtheshouts which marked theacclamation, and thinking a

riotwasstarting,begantosetfire to the neighbouringhouses.115 It was indeed aportentous event, and for atime it caused alarm andconfusion within the abbeyitself. Nothing, however,could impair the legalconsequence of what hadtakenplace.DukeWilliamofNormandy was now king oftheEnglish.The full significance of

William's coronation will bediscussed hereafter.116 Atonceitenabledhimtoassumeall the rights andresponsibilities of an OldEnglish king, to employ theserviceofthoselocalofficialswho were in office, and,though he was as yet inpossession of only a portionof the country, to proclaimthe king's peace over allEngland. Much remained,

however, to be done beforesuch claims could betranslated inpractice,andforthe moment the militarysituation demanded the firstattentionofthenewking.Heforthwith began to constructthe fortress which laterbecametheTowerofLondoninordertocontrolthecapital,and himself moved out withhis force to Barking, thuscompleting the encirclement

of the metropolis.117 AtBarking,too,hesummonedafurther concourse of Englishmagnates from whom hedemanded submission andrecognition, and to whom inreturnhegavea freshpledgeof good government. It wasthe logical terminationof thecampaign which had startedsome four months earlierwhenhehadsetsail,withsomuch in doubt, from Saint-

Valery.The success of that

campaign which had beenspectacularlydemonstratedinthe coronation was such thatby the beginning of March,within three months of hiscrowning,Williamfeltitsafeto return to Normandy,leavingEnglandinthechargeof trustedNormanmagnates.William fitz Osbern, hissteward, was established at

Norwich, or perhaps atWinchester, whilst Odo,bishop of Bayeux, the king'shalf-brother,wasentrusted,inparticular, with the castle ofDover and the region ofKent.118WiththemalsowereHugh of Grandmesnil fromthe neighbourhood ofLisieux, and Hugh ofMontfort-sur-Risle.119Having made thesearrangements,thekingsetoff

towards the south, and hetook with him as hostages alarge group of the mostimportant men of England,particularly those who hadbeen among his formeropponents. The processionwhich moved towards theSussex coast from London,andonpasttheDownswherethe great battle had sorecentlytakenplace,includednot only the new king's

personal entourage, but alsoEdgar the atheling, the EarlsEdwinandMorcar,Waltheof,and Archbishop Stigand.120In the king's absence therewas to remain inEnglandnoobvious leader who couldserve as the rallying point ofarevolt.It was in the nature of a

triumphal progress, and so itwasmadetoappear.Theportappropriately chosen for

embarkation was Pevensey,andwhite sailswere fitted tothe ships in token of victoryand peace. Thus across acalm sea did the new kingpassovertohisnativeduchy.The occasion was indeedexactly calculated to fire theNorman imagination. Thecurious and detailedcomparisonmadebyWilliamof Poitiers between theEnglish invasions ofWilliam

and of Julius Caesarillustrates the kind ofimpression which might becreated in themindofamanofletterslivinginNormandy.But less sophisticatedindividuals had other, andmore convincing proofs, ofwhat had been achieved.Theycould seedisplayed thetreasureinmoneyandinkindwhichhadbeenbroughtfromEngland as spoils of victory,

and they could watch in thenew king's court prominentand powerful men who hadrecently resisted him. Smallwonder that the victoriousruler of Normandy was, onhis return, hailed withenthusiastic acclamation, orthat the inhabitants ofRouenswarmed out to meet him ashe approached. Some of theolder among them couldrecall how sixteen years

before he had regained hiscapital after a long war inwhichhehadbarelysurvived,and in the interval anastonishing transformationhad occurred. Only sevenmonths ago Michaelmas hadbeen commemorated in theRouen churches while theissueoftheEnglishenterprisestillhunginthebalance.Nowit was Lent. But a greatkingdom had been added to

theNormandominion;and itseemed fitting thatpreparations shouldimmediatelybebegunforthecelebrationofEaster.121Nor was it entirely out of

keeping either with theoccasion, or with earlierNorman policy, that verymuch ofWilliam's victoriousprogress through Normandyat this timeshouldhavebeendirected towards theNorman

churches. The new king keptEaster 1067 at the ducalmonasteryofFécamp, and atthefeastthefullpageantryofthe Conquest was displayed.The court was splendid. Itwas attendedby a very largeassemblage of Normanmagnates, both lay andecclesiastical, and also byvisitingnotables fromFrancesuch as Ralph ofMondidier,the step-father of the young

king of France. A greatgathering admired the statureand bearing of the Englishnobles who were in gildedcaptivity, and the spectatorswere astonished at therichnessofthegoldandsilvervessels, the treasures ofmetalwork and embroiderywhich had been brought toadorn thebanquets.122 Itwasperhaps the climax of theNorman celebration of

victory,anditwasmarkedofcourse by lavish gifts to themonastery itself, for Fécamphad for long been speciallyinterested in the Englishventure by reason of thepossessions it had alreadyacquiredinSussex,andthesewere doubtless nowconfirmed. Nor was this theonly Norman monasterywhich was enriched. Thechroniclers insist that the

royal gifts were lavish andwidespread, and someillustrationofthislargessistobe found in the charters ofHolyTrinity,Rouen.123By1May, William moved on toSaint-Pierre-sur-Divesneartowherehehadwaited throughso many anxious weeksduring the previous autumn.There the abbey of SaintMary had been founded bytheCountessLescelineofEu,

whoseson,CountRobert,hadfought at Hastings, and nowthe church was formallyconsecrated.124Thenthekingcontinued his progress.Towards the end of June hereached Jumièges, where hewas met by Maurilius, theaged metropolitan of Rouen,who arrived in time toperformthe lastpublicactofhis own distinguished career.On1July, in thepresenceof

a large company, includingthe bishops of Lisieux,Avranches, and Évreux,Maurilius solemnly hallowedthe abbey-church which hadbeenbegunmorethantwentyyears before by AbbotRobert, later archbishop ofCanterbury.125 The king alsotook part in the ceremony,anditwasaboutthistimethatby royal charter he gaveHayling Island to the great

Normanmonastery.126Little further is known

about William's acts in hisduchyduringthesemonthsoffestival,thoughhewasatthistimetosponsortwoimportantecclesiastical appointments,the one to the metropolitanseeofRouen,andtheothertothe bishopric ofAvranches.127 But enoughtestimony has survived toindicate themanner inwhich

his victory was received inNormandy, and how theduchy appears to have beenconscious of having beenbrought to the zenith of itsachievement by the greatestof its dukes. Theremaywellbe truth, as well asadmiration,intheassertionofthe chroniclers that duringthis time William wasparticularly zealous in theproclamation of law, and the

maintenance of order,128 forhe too had reached a newpeakofauthority, and, in theplenitude of royalty, he wasfacedwith new opportunitiesand new obligations. AmidtheacclaimofRouen,andthesplendour of the Fécampfeast, during the celebrationsontheDivesandatJumièges,William must surely oftenhave reflected on theastonishing careerwhich had

brought him to this pinnacleofpower.Buthemust at thesame time have been acutelyconscious that the verymagnitudeofhisachievementnowconfrontedhimwithnewandintractableproblems.TheAnglo-Norman kingdom hadbeen established. But it wasstill uncertain whether itcouldendure.

1‘Whenbeggarsdiethereareno

cometsseen.’Thecometof1066(apparently‘Halley'scomet’)ismentionedwithemphasisinWill.Jum.(p.133)andisshownengaginglyintheBayeuxTapestry(plateXXXV;E.H.D.,vol.II,p.255).TheAS.Chron.(‘C’,s.a.1066)saysitfirstappearedon24April,andthisisconfirmedbyR.A.D.N.(no.299).ToitFreemandevotedoneofhismostfascinatingappendixes(NormanConquest,

vol.III,noteM),andcollectedreferencestoitfromasfarapartasAnjouandPoland.WhatischieflyremarkableaboutthemoredistantreferencesisthefrequencywithwhichtheyconnectthecometwiththeEnglishcrisis.

2Will.Poit.,p.146.3Flor.Worc.,vol.I,p.226;Will.Malms.,GestaRegum,p.280.

4Flor.Worc.(vol.I,p.224)declaresthatHaroldwas

crownedbyAldred,andthiswasprobablythecase.ButWill.Poit.(p.146)andOrd.Vit.(vol.II,p.219;vol.IV,p.432)statethatHaroldwascrownedbyStigand.TheBayeuxTapestry(plateXXXIV;E.H.D.,vol.II,p.255)showsStigandperforminganactevidentlynotunconnectedwithHarold'saccessionasking.Perhapsthereforethemattershouldnotberegardedasfinallysettled.

5AS.Chron.,‘C’,‘D’,s.a.1065;‘E’,s.a.1066.ButwasunduepressureusedbythegroupdepictedintheBayeuxTapestryassurroundingthedyingking(plateXXXIII;E.H.D.,vol.II,p.254)?SomesupportforthissuspicionisgivenbytheVitaEdwardi(ed.F.Barlow,pp.LXXIV,77),whichhintsthatEdward'sintelligencewasthenimpaired,andwhichindicatesthatatthelastthekingwas

‘brokenwithageandknewnotwhathesaid’.

6Flor.Worc.,vol.I,p.224.7Stenton,Anglo-SaxonEngland,pp.573,574.

8Will.Malms.,GestaRegum,p.280.

9AS.Chron.,‘C’,s.a.1065.10Will.Malms.,op.cit.,p.297.11Flor.Worc,loc.cit.12Will.Malms.,VitaWulstani(ed.Darlington),p.22.

13Stenton,op.cit.,p.523.

14Will.Jum.,p.133.15Will.Poit.,p.149;Ord.Vit.,vol.II,p.122;Wace,RomandeRou,vol.II,pp.270–275.

16Will.Poit.,p.149;Will.Malms.,GestaRegum,p.299.

17R.A.D.N.,no.231;Ord.Vit.,vol.II,p.125.

18Will.Poit.,p.260.19R.A.D.N.,nos.158,213;David,RobertCurthose.p.12.

20R.A.D.N.,no.288.21Will.Poit.,pp.193,260.

22Ord.Vit.,vol.II,p.178.Inviewoftheauthor'sconnexionswiththefamily,thisisdecisiveagainstotherevidence.

23AWhitbytradition(Mon.Ang.,vol.I,p.149)assertsthatHughofAvranchesandWilliamdePercyarrivedinthiscountryin1067.

24Macdonald,Lanfranc,p.56.LanfrancwasprobablyappointedtoSaintStephen's,Caen,in1063.ThegiftstoHoly

Trinity,Caen,weremadein1066andarerecordedinR.A.D.N.no.231.

25Regesta,vol.I,no.1.26R.A.D.N.,no.229.27Cart.S.Trin.Roth.,no.XXXIX.

28Ibid.,nos.XLVII,LVII,LXIII.29Will.Poit.,p.152;Ord.Vit.,vol.II,p.122.

30Jaffé,MonumentaGregoriana,pp.414–416.

31Below,pp.247–264.

32Will.Poit.,pp.155,185.33David,RobertCurthose,p.12.34Stenton,op.cit.,p.578.35Ord.Vit.,vol.I,p.184;vol.III,pp.237,238.

36Stenton,op.cit.,p.577.37Will.Jum.,p.109.38Will.Poit.,p.190;Ord.Vit.,vol.II,p.134;BayeuxTapestry,platesXXXVII,XXXVIII(E.H.D.,vol.II,p.257).

39ThecurioustextgiveninGiles,ScriptoresWillelmi(pp.21,22),

presentsmanydifficulties,butitmayprobablybegenerallyreliedupon.Cf.Hardy,CatalogueofMaterials,vol.II,p.1.

40Thelistofquotasaddsup,itseems,toabout777,butthesamerecordgivesthetotalsizeofthefleetas1,000ships.Will.Jum.(p.134)mentionsthefigure3,000.Muchexaggerationmayherebesuspected,butsomeofthedivergencecouldbeduetotheextenttowhichmanyvery

smallcraftwerecounted.41Giles,op.cit.;BayeuxTapestry,plateXLIII(E.H.D.,vol.II,p.260).

42Forthedatesontheeventsin1066,seebelow,AppendixD.

43AS.Chron.,‘C’,s.a.1066;Stenton,op.cit.,p.578.

44Ibid.Cf.SimeonofDurham(Opera,vol.II,p.174).

45Gaimar(Michel,Chroniques,vol.I,pp.2,3).

46Ord.Vit.,interp.Will.Jum.,p.

192.47AS.Chron.,loc.cit.48Ibid.49Carmen,vv.252–260;Ord.Vit.,vol.II,p.125;Will.Poit.,pp.197,219.PoitouwasrepresentedbyAimeri,vicomteofThouars,forwhomseeH.Imbert,Hist.deThouars(Niort,1871).Hewastoplayanimportantpartinthesubsequentevents.

50J.O.Prestwich,inR.Hist.Soc.,

Transactions,series5,vol.IV,p.24.

51Will.Poit.,p.150.52Bessin,Concilia,pp.50,51.IamencouragedbytheremarksofF.M.Stenton(op.cit.,p.653)totakethistextatitsfacevalue.Nonethelessitpresentssomeperplexingfeatures.

53Below,AppendixD.54AS.Chron,‘C’,s.a.1066.55Will.Poit.,p.152.56AS.Chron.,loc.cit.

57Will.Poit.,p.160.58Freeman,NormanConquest,vol.III,p.344;Stenton,op.cit.,p.580.

59Freeman,op.cit.,p.711;Stenton,op.cit.,p.581.

60AS.Chron.,loc.cit.61AbiographyofWilliamtheConquerorneednotenterintothecontroversiesrespectingthecampaignofStamfordBridge.AgoodaccountofthebattleisgiveninF.W.Brooks,The

BattleofStamfordBridge(EastYorks.LocalHist.Soc.,1956).

62Will.Poit.,p.160;Carmen,VV.50–75.

63PlatesXXXVIII–XLII(E.H.D.,vol.II,pp.258,259).

64Will.Poit.,p.164;BayeuxTapestry,plateXLIII(E.H.D.,vol.II,p.260).

65Will.Poit.,p.165.66AS.Chron.,‘C’,s.a.1049,1050.

67Will.Poit.,p.168.

68Cf.J.A.Williamson,EvolutionofEngland,pp.69–72.

69Will.Poit.,p.168.70ThebattleofHastings,andthecampaignofwhichitwastheclimax,havebeenexhaustivelydiscussedbymodernhistorians,andwithmuchdisagreement.Freemandevotedagreatpartofhisthirdvolumetothetheme,andthecriticismslevelledathisdescriptionsbyJ.H.Roundwouldfillasmallbook.HereI

haveusedwithgratitude:W.Spatz,DieSchlachtvonHastings(1896);Stenton,op.cit.,pp.584–588;andastimulatingarticlebyR.Glover,‘EnglishWarfarein1066’(Eng.Hist.Rev.,vol.LXVII(1952),pp.1–18).ReferencemayalsobemadetoA.H.Burne,BattlefieldsofEngland,pp.19–45.IhavebeenparticularlyindebtedtoJ.F.C.Fuller,DecisiveBattlesoftheWestern

World,vol.I,pp.360–385.71Below,AppendixD.72AS.Chron.,‘C’,s.a.1066.73Below,AppendixD.74About6am,saysColonelBurne.GeneralFuller(op.cit.,p.377)thinksthatthestartmusthavebeenbetween4.30and5amtoallowforassembly,thesix-milemarch,andthedeployment.

75Flor.Worc.,vol.I,p.227.76Will.Poit.,p.185.

77AS.Chron.,‘D’,s.a.1066.78Will.Jum.(p.134)saysHaroldrodeallnightandarrivedatthebattlefieldveryearlyinthemorning.

79ThefamousstorylatertoldbyWill.Malms.(GestaRegum,p.302)thattheEnglishspentthenightof13–14OctoberinfeastingandtheNormansinprayermaywithoutunduemisgivingsbedismissedaspropaganda.TheEnglishhadno

opportunityforsuchjunketings,andtheNormanswereprobablypreparingfortheengagement.Inviewoftheself-styledcrusadingcharacterwhichhadbeengiventotheexpeditionitisnotimpossiblethatWilliamheardMassbeforesettingout.

80Flor.Worc.(vol.I,p.227)statesthatHaroldleftLondonbeforehalfhisarmywasassembled(cf.Stenton,op.cit.,p.584).

81IherefollowSpatz(op.cit.,p.33).GeneralFuller(op.cit.,p.376)makestheinterestingcalculationthat‘ifHarolddrewuphisarmyinaphalanxoftenranksdeeptoallowtwofeetfrontageforeachmaninthefirstrank–theshieldwall–andthreefeetfrontageforthoseintheninerearranks,thenona600-yardfronthistotalstrengthwouldbe6,300men,andifintwelveranks,7,500’.

82BayeuxTapestry,platesLXIV–LXV(E.H.D.,vol.II,pp.272,273).

83ThesiteontheDownswasbarren,beingmarkedaswassaid(AS.Chron.,‘D’,s.a.1066)onlybyadesolateappletree.

84Cf.Fuller,op.cit.,pp.376,377.85Will.Poit.,p.186;Spatz,op.cit.,pp.34–46.

86Will.Malms.(GestaRegum,p.303)saysthattheNormantroopsadvancedsinginga

cantilenaaboutRoland.Thisisnotunlikely.Ontheotherhand,thereisnothingtosuggestthatthiscantilenawasthe‘SongofRoland’asitappearsintheearliestcompleteformknowntous.TheCarmen(vv.390–400),HenryofHuntingdon(ed.Arnold,p.202),andWace(RomandeRou,vv.8035–8040)saythattheywereprecededbyaminstrelnamed‘Taillefer’,singingandjugglingwithhis

sword.Itisagoodstoryanditmightevenbetrue,thoughithastheelementsofmyth(Faral,JongleursdeFrance,pp.56,57).IhavecommentedonthisfurtherinFrenchStudies,vol.XIV(1960),pp.99,100.

87Will.Poit.,pp.180–192.88BayeuxTapestry,platesLXIV,LXVI(E.H.D.,vol.II,p.273).

89TheprimaryauthoritiesforthebattleofHastingsareWill.Poit.andtheBayeuxTapestry.The

AS.Chron.onlysuppliesafewincidentaldetailsasdoesWill.Jum.Otherauthoritieswhichhavebeenused,suchasthepoemofBaudriofBourgeuil,arenowdiscreditedinthisrespect.G.H.White,CompletePeerage,vol.XII,partI,AppendixL,hasarguedalsothattheCarmenoftenattributedtoGuy,bishopofAmiens,before1068wasinfactwrittenlaterandshouldlikewisebe

disregardedasanindependentsourceforthebattle.Itsauthorshipiscertainlyopentodispute,andthereisundoubtedlysomerelationshipbetweentheCarmenandWill.Poit.Itisdifficult,however,alwaystobecertainwhowasthecopier,andrashtoassertthatinnocasedidthelaterwriteraddanythingfromhisownindependentknowledge.But,certainly,afterG.H.White'scriticism,the

Carmenmustbeusedwithcaution.Seefurther,below,AppendixD.

90Will.Poit.,pp.188,189.91BayeuxTapestry,plateLXVIII(E.H.D.,vol.II,p.274).

92Fuller,op.cit.,pp.378,379.93Will.Poit.,p.189.94Will.Poit.,p.194.ColonelBurneandR.Gloverarescepticalaboutthefeignedflights.Theyare,however,welltestified,andtheywereafeature

ofcontemporarytactics.Afeignedflightwasused,forinstance,byNormanknightsatanengagementnearMessinain1060(Waley,‘CombinedOperationsinSicilyA.D.1060–1078’,PapersoftheBritishSchoolatRome,vol.XXII(1954),p.123),andbyRobertleFrisonatthebattleofCasselin1071(Fliche,PhilippeI,pp.252–261).

95Will.Poit.,p.196.

96OnthedeathofHaroldtherehasbeenmuchdispute,andthematterisexhaustivelydiscussedbyG.H.White(op.cit.).ThetraditionthathewaskilledbyachancearrowisacceptabletoSirFrankStenton(op.cit.,p.587),buthemayhavebeenotherwiseslain.ThecontradictoryevidenceissuppliedbytheBayeuxTapestry(platesLXXI,LXXII;E.H.D.,vol.II,pp.276,277),byWill.Malms.(Gesta

Regum,p.363)andintheCarmen(vv.540–550).

97Will.Poit.,pp.202–204.Theplacewasafterwardsknownas‘Malfosse’.

98BayeuxTapestry,platesLXXII,LXXIII(E.H.D.,vol.II,pp.276–278);Will.Poit.,p.204.

99Douglas,NewEnglishReview,November1945,p.634.

100Onwhatfollows,seeGlover,op.cit.Cf.J.W.Hollister,Anglo-SaxonMilitary

Institutions,esp.pp.136–140.101BayeuxTapestry,platesXLII,XLIII(E.H.D.,vol.II,pp.259,260).

102D.P.Waley,op.cit.,pp.118–125.

103Stenton,op.cit.,p.585.104Individualswhocan,byexpressevidence,beshowntohavebeenpresentinWilliam'sforceatHastingsarenotnumerous.G.H.White(op.cit.;alsoinGenealogists'Magazine,

vol.VI(1932),pp.51–53)givesalistoffifteennames.Anindependentinvestigationhasledmetobelievethatitisreasonabletoextendthislisttothirty-threeorthirty-fournames(‘CompanionsoftheConqueror’,History,vol.XXVII(1943),pp.130–147).Forafurthercomment,seeJ.Mason,inEng.Hist.Rev.,vol.LXXI(1956),p.61.Suchmeasureofdifferenceasthereisbetween

MrWhiteandmyselfonthismattermaybecontrastedwithouremphaticagreementinrepudiatingthehundredsofnameswhichhavesooftenbeencited.CouldtheexcellentcustodiansofthecastleofFalaisetodaybepersuadedtorevisetheirmemorialtablets?Toassertthataman‘cameoverwiththeConqueror’ishazardous.ThearmywhichsailedfromNormandyto

Englandin1066wasofconsiderablesize.Theascertainable‘CompanionsoftheConqueror’arefew.Onthismatter,seefurtherA.J.BlissinLitera,vol.III(Valetta,1956).

105AS.Chron.;‘D’,s.a.1066;Will.Poit.(p.215)omitsthenameofAldred,perhapsrightly.

106Will.Malms.,GestaRegum,p.307.

107Flor.Worc.,vol.I,p.228.108Will.Poit.,pp.210–214.

109ThisplaceisdescribedbyWill.Poit.asthe‘BrokenTower’.

110Carmen,vv.620–630.111AS.Chron.,‘D’,s.a.1066.112Will.Poit.,p.216.113AS.Chron.,loc.cit.114Will.Jum.(p.136)suggestsafurtherskirmishoutsidethewalls.Will.Poit.(p.220)andtheAS.Chron.(loc.cit.)implythatthecitysurrenderedwithoutfurtherresistance.

115Will.Poit.,p.220.116Below,chap.10.117Will.Poit.,pp.218,237.ButthepossibilityofaconfusionwithBerkhamsteadcannotbedisregarded.

118Will.Poit.,p.238;Stenton,WilliamtheConqueror,p.244.

119Will.Poit.,p.240;Ord.Vit.,vol.II,p.167;Douglas,DomesdayMonachorum,p.66.

120AS.Chron.,‘D’,s.a.1066.121Will.Poit.,pp.242–260;Ord.

Vit.,vol.II,pp.167,168.122Ibid.123Cart.S.Trin.Roth.,nos.XLVII,LXIII.

124Ord.Vit.,vol.II,p.168;Gall.Christ.,vol.XI;Instrumenta,col.153.

125Will.Jum.,p.187.Theremainsofthischurchcanstillbeseen.

126ChartesdeJumièges,no.XXIX.Theargumentsoftheeditorfordatingthisdeed‘about

1073’seeminadmissible.Ontheotherhand,theabsenceofprelatesamongtheattestationssuggeststhatitwasnotgivenontheoccasionoftheconsecrationbyMauriliusofthecathedralatRouen.PerhapsitwasgiveninEnglandeitherearlyin1067orin1068afterWilliam'sreturnfromNormandy.

127Mauriliusdied8August1067.John,sonofCountRodulf,wastranslatedfromAvranchesto

Rouen.HisplaceatAvrancheswastakenbyanItaliannamedMichael.

128Will.Poit.,p.262.

Chapter9

THEDEFENCEOFTHEANGLO-NORMANKINGDOMMarch1067–November1085

In the summer of 1067, asWilliam moved in triumphfromRouen toFécamp, fromtheDivestoJumièges,hewasnot only, as few of hispredecessors had been,effectively master ofNormandy, but he was alsothe consecrated andacknowledged king of theEnglish. None the less hisposition was by no meanssecure. InFrance,Maineand

Brittanywererestive,andtheFrenchmonarchy,whoseheirwasgrowingup tomanhood,was ill-disposed towards itsmost powerful vassal. InEngland, only a part of thecountry was as yet underNorman control, and beyondthe English frontiers, whichwere themselves ill-defined,stoodapprehensivetheWelshprincesandtheScottishking.Finally, there remained the

longstanding opposition ofScandinaviatoanycontrolofEngland by Normandy. ThedefeatofHaroldHardraadaatStamford Bridge hadprepared the way forWilliam's victory, but othernorthern rulers would notlightlyrelinquishtheirancientclaims on a country whichhadrecentlyformedapartofthe Scandinavian politicalworld.

Thuswhile thedecisionof1066wastomarkanepoch,itwas not in itself final, and ithad to be confirmed. Itsfulfilment in fact dependeduponthreemainconditions.Itwas essential that Normanstrength,asdevelopedduringthepastfiftyyears,shouldbemaintained,sothat theduchyshould retain its predominantplace among the powers ofnorthern Gaul. Secondly, the

conquest of England had tobe completed, and thesurviving elements ofopposition to the new orderreduced to obedience.Thirdly, the continuingScandinavian threat to theAnglo-Norman state had tobe withstood. These threeproblems were, moreover,closely linked, and themannerinwhichoneorotherof themwasdominantatany

period of the reign can beroughly deduced from themovements of Williamhimself. From the end of1067 to 1072 he wasprimarily engaged insuppressing Englishrebellions, and establishinghis power. From 1073 to1085 he spent most of histime in Normandy. And,throughout,hehadconstantlyto withstand attacks from

Scandinavia. These tookplace, for instance, in 1069and1070;thethreatappearedagain in1075;and itwas themenace of another and veryformidable attack whichbrought the Conqueror backtoEnglandtowardstheendof1085. Between December1085andSeptember1087hewastomakesomeofhismostlasting contributions to thefuture development of

England, but, none the less,his last days were spent indefensive warfare on theNormanfrontiers,andhewasto die within sound of thechurchbellsofRouen.In 1067, however, it was

the English situation whichwas themostprecarious.Thetask of the regents Williamfitz Osbern and Bishop Odowas not easy. They hadsubstantial control over the

south-eastofthecountry,andthe formal submission of thechief English magnates gavethem a claim to obedienceelsewhere.Neverthelessthereweremanywhowerereadytotake advantage of theunsettled conditions, andprominentamongthemwasawest-countrymagnate namedEdric theWild who raised arevolt in Herefordshire, andcalled to his assistance the

Welsh princes, Bleddyn andRiwallon.1 They did muchdamage but failed to obtaincontrol of the shire, andretired with their booty backinto Wales, where theyprepared for further raiding.Meanwhile, a betterorganizedrevolttookplaceinKent, where the insurgentscalled to their assistanceEustace, count ofBoulogne.2Itwasastrangeappeal,since

Eustace in the previous yearhad fought at William's sideat Hastings. He may now,however, have beeninfluenced by the death on 1September 1067 of hisoverlordCountBaldwinVofFlanders, who in 1066 hadbeen friendly, or at leastneutral,towardsWilliam.3Atall events,Eustace, doubtlessrecalling his earlieradventures in Kent in 1051,

crossed over the Channelwith a substantial contingentof knights. Both the regentswereatthattimenorthoftheThames, and Eustace wasenabledtooccupythetownofDover. But he failed to takethe newly erected castle, andasortie fromthegarrisoncuthis force to pieces;whereupon he made anignominious escape acrosstheChannel.Neitherof these

risings had in fact seriouslydisturbed the newgovernment. But a threat ofmore serious danger wasalready foreshadowed.According to William ofPoitiers, overtures were nowbeing made to the Danes,4and an invasion of Englandby Sweyn Estrithson wasbecoming an imminentpossibility. It was in factprobably with this

apprehension that on 6December 1067 Williamhimself came back fromNormandytoEngland.5Onhisreturn,however,his

immediate attention wasdirected towards the south-west. The city of Exeterrefused to accept the newrégime,andsought to formaleague of resistance amongthe neighbouring towns.William'sreplywastomarch

atonceintoDevonshireatthehead of a force whichincluded many Englishmercenaries. The thegns ofDevonshire seem to haveaccepted the new king, butExeter itself held out againsthim for eighteen days, andthen at last only surrenderedon the understanding that itsancient privileges should beconfirmed.6 Thereupon theking built a castlewithin the

city, and proceeded intoCornwall,wherewas soon tobe established his half-brother, Robert, count ofMortain.7 Resistance in thesouth-west in fact waseverywhere breaking down.To this period must beassigned the submission ofGloucester, and evidentlyBristol had also by nowaccepted the new order.8Indeed,inthissamesummer,

whenthreeoftheillegitimatesons of Harold came overfrom Ireland, they wererepelled by the citizens ofBristol, and on their retreattheir forcewas routedby thethegnsofnorthernSomerset.9William's rapid campaign inthe south-west had in factbeen so successful that hecould return at once towardshis capital. He celebratedEaster 1068 at Winchester,

and atWhitsuntide he held agreat court at WestminsterwhichwasattendedbymanyEnglish notables. Thither toocameMatilda,hiswife, tobesolemnlycrownedasqueen.10These ceremonies were

impressive, but the respitethey reflected was short-lived. Very soon there weresignificant desertions fromthe new king's court. Edgartheathelinghadalreadytaken

refugewithMalcolm,kingofScotland, and now EarlsEdwin and Morcar departedto their earldoms. TheNormansettlementhadasyetbarely affected the north,where despite the efforts ofArchbishop Aldred a seriousmovement of resistance wasrapidly growing. During theperiodimmediatelyfollowingKing William's accession,Northumbria had been

disputed between Osulf, aprotégé of Earl Morcar, andCopsigeaformeradherentofTosti. Both had perished inthe struggle between them,but in 1068 local resistancewas forming not only roundEarlMorcar himself but alsoround Gospatric, adescendant of the moreancient Northumbrian house.Appeals were also beingmadebothtoMalcolmandto

Sweyn Estrithson. In thesecircumstances, Williamthought it necessary tomovenorthward at once. He wentfirst to Warwick, where heplacedHenryofBeaumontinchargeofanewlybuiltcastleand then on to Nottingham.FromtherehemovedupintoYorkshire and was able toenter York without a battle.Having received the formalsubmission of many of the

localmagnates,henegotiateda temporary truce with theScottish king, and aftererecting a castle on the spotnow marked by Clifford'sTower, he turned southwardto enforce the submission ofLincoln, Huntingdon, andCambridge.11William's extraordinary

activity during the first ninemonths of 1068 deservesnote, for during this short

period he had conducted analmostuninterruptedseriesofcampaignswhichhadbroughthim in turn to Exeter, toWarwick, to York, and thenthroughalargepartofeasternEngland. Yet such respite ashad thus been gained was tobe short-lived, for the northwassoonagaintodemandhispresence. Late in 1068 aNorman, Robert deCommines, had been sent,

with the title of earl, torestore order north of theTees. But, on his arrival atDurham, he was, on 28January1069,setuponinthestreets of that city, andsubsequentlyburnttodeathinthe bishop's house.12 ThenewsquicklypassedtoYork,where the Norman garrisonwas immediately attacked bylocal insurgents, and onhearingoftheseeventsEdgar

Atheling at once madepreparations to move downfromScotland.KingWilliamwas thus forced to return tothe northwith all speed, andhis march in this respectdeserves some comparisonwith that of Harold toYorkshire in 1066. The kingwas in York before hisenemiesexpectedhim,andhedispersedthebesiegersofthecastle, thus takingpossession

of the city for the secondtime. On this occasion hetooksignalvengeanceon therebels,andsetupanewcastlenear the town. Then,doubtless as a temporarymeasure,heplacedGospatricinchargeoftheearldom.Buthecouldnothimselfaffordtodelay, and by 12 April 1069he was back again atWinchester.13Perhaps the most salient

featureoftheconfusedeventsthat occurred in Englandbetween the beginning of1067 and the spring of 1069was the comparative easewithwhich the king, and hislieutenants, having at theirdisposal only a limitednumber of troops in a newlyoccupied land, were enabledto suppress each rising as itoccurred. Thismay partly beascribed to the severe losses

which had assailed thewarrior class in Englandduring the great battles of1066. Still more must it beattributed to the lack of anycommon purpose among theinsurgentswhoseeffortsweremadeinisolationandwithoutanycontactwithoneanother.Again, there was, almostfrom the first, a substantialbody of opinion which wasfavourable, or at least not

actively hostile, to the newrégime. Many of theecclesiastics who had beenappointedduring thereignofEdwardtheConfessorsuchasGiso, bishop of Wells,William, bishop of London,orBaldwin,abbotofBuryStEdmunds were committed tothe cause of the new king,and it is yetmore significantthat respected Englishprelates such as Wulfstan of

Worcester and Aldred ofYork were likewise ready tosupport him. Nor could theirexample be whollydisregarded by lesser men.The ‘Englishmen’ whomarchedunderKingWilliamto the assault of Exeter in1068 may have been for themostpartadventurersservingforpay,but thereweremanythegnsandlocalofficialswhowerereadytoacceptWilliam

as their king, and to helpcarry on the administrationwhich he conducted. It wasthe thegns of Somerset whorepelled the sons of Harold,and sheriffs of native stockfound themselves withBishops Giso and Wulfstanthe recipients of the newking'swrits.14It was William's

achievement to exploit thesefavourable conditions, by

developing such advantagesas he possessed in thetechniques of war. Thetrained mounted troops whohad stood him in such goodstead at Hastings could beemployed in effecting theswift reduction of scatteredforces in a hostilecountryside, but they werelittleuseinoperationsagainstcities, and, by themselves,they were ill-adapted for

holding down regions whosedoubtfulsubmissionhadonlybeen hazardously acquired.For this purpose theestablishment of fortifiedstrong-points was essential,and contemporaries areunanimous in their opinionthat much of William'ssuccess in these campaignswas due to his use of thecastle15 which, as has beenseen, had been consistently

developedinNormandy,bothby thedukesandby thenewaristocracy.The employment of the

castle, not only as a fortifiedcentre of administration butalso as a means forconducting a campaign, hadalreadybefore1066becomeanormal feature of Normanmilitary life. In England, onthe contrary, except inNormanized Herefordshire,

its use had hardly beenadopted, and it was regardedasacontinentalinnovationofdoubtful value. To theabsence of castles, indeed,OrdericusVitalis,whoisherefollowingWilliamofPoitiers,attributes the lack of successof the opponents of KingWilliam in England duringthis warfare.16 Such was theEnglishsituation.Bycontrast,William in his English

campaigns evidentlyemployed precisely the samedevice which he had earlierused in France, and theBayeux Tapestry shows nosubstantial differencebetween the castles at Dol,Rennes, or Dinant, and thatwhich was erected atHastings in 1066.17 Here,again, the castle is of thetypical motte and baileypattern which was already

familiarintheduchy–thatisto say, an earthen moundsurrounded by a fosse, andsurmounted by a palisadedrampart, crowned with awooden tower. It could bespeedily constructed, and itproved highly effective.CastlesofthistypewerethusatoncesetupatPevensey,atHastings, and even atLondon,whereanerectionofthistype,builtaboutthetime

of the coronation, precededthe stone fortification whichwas to be the Tower ofLondon.18 It was, however,during the campaigns of1067, and more particularlyin 1068, that the Normancastleasaninstrumentofwarwas fully used for the firsttime in England. Thesurrender of Exeter wasmarked by the beginnings of‘Rougemont Castle’, and as

William proceedednorthwardsthesameplanwascontinued at Warwick andNottingham.Yorkatthistimereceived its first castle, andon William's return marchcastles were erected atLincoln, Huntingdon, andCambridge.19Some idea of the

importance attached to thesecastles can be obtained by acontemplation of the men to

whom they were entrusted.For these were chosen fromamong themost importantofthe Norman magnates. ThusDover, within the specialprovince of Odo of Bayeux,was put under Hugh ofMontfort-sur-Risle.20 Thecastle atHastings, first givenin charge to Humphrey ofTilleul, was soon to be theresponsibility of Robert,count of Eu.21 The castle at

Exeterwas given toBaldwinof Meules, the brother ofRichard fitz Gilbert, later ofClare, and the son ofGilbertof Brionne, the count.Warwick was assigned toHenry of Beaumont, brotherof Robert, and son of theveteran Roger of Beaumont,whohad in1066been left inNormandy as one of theregents.22 The first castle atYork was entrusted to

William Malet of Graville-Sainte-Honorine, near LeHavre,23 and the secondcastleatYorkwastobegivento William fitz Osbernhimself.24 Soon the Normancastles in England were tomultiply, and what in 1068was essentially a device ofwar came to be a permanentfeature of the new feudaladministrative order whichtheNorman here established.

Indeed,before the endof theeleventh century there hadbeen erected in England atleast eighty-four castles, andafewofthesewereeventhenbeing reconstructed instone.25Already,however,bythe beginning of 1069, themotte and bailey castle, inchargeofa trusted lieutenantoftheking,wasprovingitselfan essential, and a highlyeffective, instrument by

which the conquest ofEnglandmightbecompleted.Yet,whenallissaid,much

ofWilliam'ssuccessbetweenJanuary1068andthesummerof1069mustbeattributed tothephenomenalenergywhichhe personally displayed atthis time. To appreciate thequality of his astonishingactivity it is, however,necessary also to note thepossibility that during these

months, possibly towards theend of 1068,26 but moreprobablyintheearlysummerof 1069,27 he found itnecessary to return toNormandy. Perhaps hedeemed it necessary at thiscritical juncture in his affairstodisplayhisauthority southoftheChannel,anditisatallevents certain that about thistime Matilda returned toNormandy so that she might

be received with royalhonours in the duchy.28 Buthis sojourn in Normandy, ifin fact it occurred, must inany case have been brief,29for the English situationdemanded his constantvigilance. By the summer of1069 William might be saidtohaveestablishedhimselfineffectivecontrolovermostofEnglandsouthoftheHumber.Now, however, the whole

Norman position in Englandwas to be tested moredrasticallythaneverbefore.In the summer of 1069

Sweyn Estrithson launchedhis long anticipated attackuponEngland.Itwasplannedon a scale comparable withthatoftheinvasionofHaroldHardraada of Norway threeyears previously. A fleet of240 ships sailed under theleadership of King Sweyn's

sons,HaroldandCnut,andofOsbernhisbrother.ItbroughttoEnglandanarmyoftrainedwarriors which includedmany men of high rank inDenmark, and the threat ofthe expedition was enhancedbythefactthatitcouldcounton considerable supportwithin those regions ofEngland which hadScandinavian affinities. Theships first appearedoffKent,

and then proceeded up theeast coast. Raiding partieswere thrown off, but wererepelled, and at length thefleet reached the safeanchorageof theHumber. Itsarrival was the signal for ageneral rising in Yorkshire.Edgartheatheling,Gospatric,and Waltheof collected aconsiderable force, andforthwith joined the Danes.Then the whole body

marched upon York. TheNorman garrisons wereunabletoholdthecastles,andon19September they salliedoutandstartedtofirethecity.Theyperishedafterprolongedfighting, and on 20September York fell. TheDanes thereupon repaired totheir ships, and, havingmovedacross to thesouthernshore of the Humber, theyfortified the isleofAxholme.

Many of their troopsdispersed over thecountryside of NorthLincolnshire, where theywere welcomed by thepeasantry, andentertainedbythematthevillagefeasts.30ThewholeNormanventure

in England had thus beenplaced inperil, forat last theresistance to William wasassuming a coherence whichit had hitherto lacked. A

strong Scandinavian forcewas at large in England, andit was supported by aconsiderable army led bypowerful Saxon magnates.Nor is it surprising that thenews of these events spreadrapidly throughEngland, andgave occasion for revoltselsewhere: in Dorset andSomerset, for example, inStaffordshire and SouthCheshire.31 But the centre of

the crisis was in the north.Yorkshire had been lost, andbeyond Yorkshire in ‘SaintCuthbert's land’, north of theTees, there was whirlingchaosinwhichwasemergingthe authority of Malcolm,king of Scotland. TheScottishkinghadinfactnowthrown in his lot withWilliam's opponents inEngland,and itwasprobablyaboutthistimethat,byoneof

themostinfluentialmarriagesin English history, he alliedhimselftoMargaret,thesisterof Edgar Atheling.32 Thepossibilities latent in thedeveloping situation were infact incalculable, and in theautumnof1069 itmusthaveseemed possible that aScandinavian kingdommightonce more be established innorthern England, or even arealm created for Edgar

Atheling, buttressed by thesupport of Malcolm andSweyn, and perhaps even tobesanctionedwithaseparatecoronation by a metropolitanarchbishop of the distinctecclesiastical province ofYork.The magnitude of this

crisis indicates theimportance of the ensuingcampaign, and explains(thoughitdoesnotexcuse)its

terrible sequel. Never didWilliamactwithmorevigouror at greater risk. Heimmediately moved uptowards Axholme, where hisapproachcausedtheDanestomove back again over theHumberintoYorkshire.ThenleavingthecountsofMortainandEutowatchthesituationin Lindsey, the Conquerorstruckwestwardtocopewiththe rebellion which had

broken out under Edric theWild and theWelsh princes.This he suppressed,apparently without muchdifficulty, and then at onceadvanced towardsLincolnshire, leavingGeoffrey, bishop ofCoutances, to cope with theDorset rising that wasthreatening the newlyconstructed castle ofMontacute. When the king

reached Nottingham,however, he learnt that theDanes were preparing toreoccupy York, and so heturned northward. He foundtheAiregapdefendedagainsthim, but after some delay hemanaged toeffectacrossing,and advanced directly on thenorthern capital which theDanes evacuated once more.On his route he savagelydevastated the land through

which he passed, sparing nomale and leaving nothingbehind him which couldsupport life. Just beforeChristmas he reached York,and there in a burnt city,surrounded by a desolatedcountryside,hecelebratedtheNativityofChrist.33The devastation which the

kingcarriedoutonhismarchhad been part of a rapid andcriticalcampaign.Thatwhich

he now orderedwas inspiredby a more cold-bloodeddesign. The Norman troopssplit up into smaller bandsand carried out a systematicharrying of Yorkshire. Soterriblewasthevisitationthatits results were still apparenttwenty years later. But theking himself could not tarryin Yorkshire. In appallingweather he moved up to theTees on a rapid and

hazardous raid, and thenwithoutpausehesetoutuponwhat was probably the mostdifficult and arduous marchof his career. Realizing thatthe western rebellion wasbarely suppressed, and thatChester still remained as theone outstanding centre ofresistance, the king struckdirectly right across thePennine Chain. It was thedepth of winter, and the

hardshipsof theroutecausedeven his seasoned troops tothreaten mutiny. But hepushed on, harrying as hewent, and reached Chesterbefore his enemies wereready to meet him. Heoccupied the city withoutdifficulty,andplacedacastlethere, and also at Stafford.The resistance which had sonearlyoverwhelmedhimwasfinally broken, and the

Danish fleet, seeing itsEnglish allies defeated,accepted a bribe to departfrom the Humber. The kinghimself moved back to thesouth.HereachedWinchesterbeforeEaster1070.34King William's campaign

of 1069–1070 must rank asone of the outstandingmilitary achievements of theage, and it was to provedecisive in ensuring that the

Norman domination ofEnglandwouldendure.Nonethe less, the cost of thatachievement and itsconsequencesdeservenote inany estimate of the Normanimpact uponEngland, andofthe character of William theConqueror. An eleventh-century campaign wasinevitably brutal, but themethods here displayedwerewidely regarded as

exceptional and beyondexcuse,35 even by those whowere otherwise ferventadmirersoftheNormanking.

Onmanyoccasions [writesoneofthese] I have been free to extolWilliam according to his merits,butIdarenotcommendhimforanactwhichlevelledboththebadandthegoodinonecommonruinbyaconsuming famine … I am moredisposed to pity the sorrows and

sufferings of the wretched peoplethantoundertakethehopelesstaskofscreeningonewhowasguiltyofsuchwholesalemassacre by lyingflatteries. I assert moreover thatsuch barbarous homicide shouldnotpassunpunished.36

Suchwastheviewofamonkin Normandy. A writer fromnorthern England suppliesmore precise details of thehorrible incidents of the

destruction, and recalls therottingandputrefyingcorpseswhich littered the highwaysof the afflicted province.Pestilence inevitably ensued,and an annalist of Eveshamtells how refugees in the laststate of destitution pouredinto the little town. Nor is itpossible to dismiss theseaccounts as rhetoricalexaggerations, for twentyyears later Domesday Book

shows the persisting effectsof the terrible visitation, andthere is evidence that theseendured until the reign ofStephen. Yorkshire, whoseprosperitywasthusdestroyedfor more than a generation,was, moreover, not the onlyregion to suffer, for thedevastation, though to adiminishingdegree,spreadasfar west as Merseyside, andasfarsouthasDerby.37

NeveragaindidWilliaminEngland have to face suchperils as those whichmenaced his rule in 1069–1070, and such subsequentopposition as he encounteredwas in the nature of anaftermath to the stormwhichhad recently ravaged thecountry. The continuingcentreofdisturbancewas theDanish fleet which hadreturnedtotheHumber.Toit

in the spring of 1070 cameKing Sweyn himself, andunder his leadership theDanish force sailedsouthward towards theWash.38 The soldiers enteredEast Anglia, and entrenchedthemselvesintheIsleofEly,where they were joined bymen of the countryside, andin particular by aLincolnshire thegn namedHereward.39 The first

objective of the compositeforce was the abbey ofPeterborough.40 Brand theabbot,whohadsupportedthecauseofHarold,hadrecentlydied,andtheabbeyhadbeengiven to a certain Turold,who took possession with aconsiderable body of troopswithwhich he hoped to holddown the countryside. On 2June, however, amiscellaneous force

composed of Danes andEnglish,calledvaguelybythechronicler ‘Hereward and hiscompany’, enteredPeterborough and gave theabbeyovertofireandloot.Itwas an outrage whichchallenged constituted orderin the region, but at firstWilliam did not go furtherthan to negotiate with theDanes. Doubtless by meansofanotherbribe,KingSweyn

waspersuadedtoatruce,andat last the great Danish fleetset sail for home laden withbooty. It had been off thecoasts of England for nearlytwo years, and its departuremarkedadefinitestageinthefinalsettlementofEngland.41Inparticular, the sailingof

theDanishfleetwastoprovefatal to the cause ofHereward.William,whowasat this timepreoccupiedwith

the much more formidablethreat to his power that wasdeveloping on theContinent,did not at first think itnecessary to proceed againstthe outlaw, and his delaymadethesituationintheFensmore serious than it needotherwise have been, for inthe absence of the king,Herewardwasnowjoinedbyother more prominent men,including Earl Morcar

himself. But withoutScandinavian support therising in the Fens wasdoomed to failure and whenWilliamadvancedagainstElyin person, the rebelssurrendered unconditionally.Earl Morcar was takenprisoner, and Hereward,having escaped withdifficulty, passed out ofhistoryintolegend.42The Norman régime in

England had thus survivedthe first disturbances whichfollowed its establishment.The chief English cities hadsubmitted;thenorthhadbeensubdued; the Fenlandrebellion suppressed; EarlMorcar was a prisoner andsoon to die; whilst EarlEdwin about this time waskilled by his own followerswhile flying to Scotland.Nevertheless, the problems

facingKingWilliamhadonlybeen partially solved, andindeed they were now insome measure to beincreased. To treat theresistance which hisgovernment met in Englandas if it was something to beregarded in isolation is tomisconceivethenatureofthedominion which he hadestablished. This was aconjoint dominion stretching

across the Channel, andpolitically united under asingle rule. Any attack uponany of its parts from anyquarterwasequallyamenaceto its survival, and both itsenemies and its defendersweretoshowthemselveswellaware of the fact. Indeed, itwas to become a cardinalfeature of the policy ofKingPhilip I of France to exploitthis situation. The intimate

connexion in this respect ofEnglish and continentalpolitics between 1067 and1085 deserves, therefore,moreemphasisthanitusuallyreceives. The suppression ofrisings in England wasalways connected with theimminence of attacks fromScandinavia or Scotland,from Anjou or Maine; andthroughoutall thisperiod themaintenance of the northern

frontier beyond Yorkshirecould never be dissociatedfrom concurrent threats fromFrance, from Flanders, orfrom theBaltic lands. It wasonly bymeans of a far-flungand integrated defence thatthe Anglo-Norman kingdomwas tosurviveunder theruleofWilliamtheConqueror.The freedom from attack

enjoyedbyNormandyduringthe period of the English

conquest had been a primefactor in its success, but thiscontinuedimmunitycouldnotbepresumed,anditwasnowtobedisrupted.In1069,evenwhile the king wasconducting his desperatecampaign in the north ofEngland,thecityofLeMansrevolted against Normanrule.43 The event mightdoubtlesshavebeenexpectedbut it was none the less

sudden. Arnold, the bishopwhosucceededVougrinatLeMansin1065,wasanomineeandpartisanofKingWilliam,and, to judge from a charterallegedtohavebeengiventothe abbey of La Couture in1068,Norman administrationwas still operative in Maineinthatyear.44Now,however,a powerful party in Mainesupported the citizens of LeMansintheinterestsofAzzo,

lord of Este in Liguria, whowas the husband ofGersendis,thesisterofCountHugh IV. Azzo, who arrivedinMainebefore2April1069,managed to collect a largebody of adherents, and inparticular attracted to hiscause Geoffrey of Mayenne,the powerful border lordwhose influencehadsooftenbeen decisive in the politicsof the comté. The

confederation thus formedwas too strong for theNorman rulers of Maine toresist. A certain Humphrey,described as the senescallusof King William was killed,andtheNormanknightswereexpelled, among them beingWilliam of La Ferté-Macé, abrother-in-lawofOdo,bishopof Bayeux. Azzo, havingachieved thus much, nowretired tohis Italian lordship,

leaving in charge of Maine,Gersendis and their youngson Hugh, who wasrecognizedascount.Geoffreyof Mayenne, who forthwithtook Gersendis for hismistress, remained thedominant figure in thepartnership.45From the first it was an

unstable government. InMarch1070thecitizensofLeMans revolted once more,

this time against Geoffrey,and formed themselves intowhat was described as acommune.46 They forcedGeoffrey to recognize theirclaims to special privileges,but were unable to maintaintheir position. Setting out incompanywiththeirbishoptoreduce the castle of Sillé,whichwasheldagainstthem,they were betrayed byGeoffrey and routed.

Geoffrey himself, however,didnot think it safeasyet tore-enter thecitytorescuethecountess. He took refugetherefore in Château-du-Loir,andtheyoungHughwassentfor safety to his father inItaly. None the less, beforetheendoftheyear,therevoltwas finally crushed, and thecountess and Geoffrey weretogether re-established in LeMans.47

These events must havecausedthegreatestconcerntoKing William in England.Within a few months theNormanruleinMaine,whichhad been operative since1063, had collapsed, and thedisturbance of Maine invitedthe intervention of somestronger power which as inthe pastmight use the comtéasthebaseforanattackuponthe duchy. Moreover, before

the end of 1070 there hadoccurred another revolutionon the Continent whichentailed peril to Normandy.On16 July1070,within fiveweeks of the departure ofSweyn's fleet from EastAnglia, there died KingWilliam's brother-in-law,Baldwin VI, count ofFlanders. A successionquestion was immediatelyopened with which

Normandywas to be at onceconcerned. The two youngsons of Baldwin VI, namelyArnulfandBaldwin,receivedrespectively Flanders andHainault,andinviewoftheiryouth the government wasconducted by their mother,Richildis. Her rule wasstrongly resisted, particularlyin Flanders, and theopposition was headed byRobert, ‘le Frison’, a son of

Baldwin V. RichildisimmediatelysoughttheaidofKing Philip I, and, lookingabout for further assistance,turnedtoWilliamfitzOsbern,the closest personal associateat this timeofKingWilliam.Early in 1071 the king hadsent the earl to Normandy,doubtless to watch over thedeveloping danger fromMaine, and now Richildisofferedherself inmarriageto

William fitz Osbern, andplaced her son Arnulf in hiswardship. He accepted theoffer, and, in support of hisward and of his designatedwife,hehastenedtoFlanders,‘as if to a game’,accompanied, as it was said,by only ten knights. Thedecisive battle was fought atCassel on 22 February 1071,and it resulted in theoverthrow of Richildis, the

establishment of Robert leFrison as count of Flanders,and thedeathofWilliamfitzOsbern.48 KingWilliam thuslosthismostpowerfulsecularsupporter in England, and,withinafewmonthsofMaineslipping from his control, hesaw established a hostilepowerintheLowCountries.During 1070–1071 the

eventsinMaineandFlandersmust have disturbedWilliam

far more than the continuingresistanceofHerewardintheFens, and even in Britainthere were other matterswhich were beginning topress more urgently on hisattention. The Normanrégime which had beenestablished in EnglandconfrontedbothCelticWalesand Celtic Scotland with achallenge. On the Welshborder the great Norman

palatine lordshipswereaboutthis time being established,49andthedefeatofBleddynandRiwallon set the stage for anew Norman movementwestward.Butin1070itwasScotland that was mostimmediately affected. Eversince 1066 Scotland hadserved as a refuge fordisinherited Englishmagnates. Edgar Athelingremained an honoured guest

at Malcolm's court; andMalcolmhadmarriedEdgar'ssister Margaret. In thesecircumstances, the victoriouscampaigns of Williamthrough thenorthofEnglandduring the winter of 1069–1070 was bound to provokean immediate reaction fromScotland, which now couldprovide a new and mostformidable threat to theAnglo-Normankingdom.

The situation was, indeed,of wider significance theneven these facts would bythemselvessuggest.Herewasa question of frontiers. ThecentreofMalcolm'sdominionwas the kingdom of Albanbased upon Perthshire, andflanked to the north by theScandinaviansettlements,andto the southby theprovincesof Cumbria and Lothian:Cumbria stretching from the

Clyde to the Westmorlandfells, and Lothian from theForth southward; and bothwith their southernboundaries still undefined.Both theseprovinceswereofvitalinterestaliketoMalcolmand toWilliam, and on bothof them the impact of thecampaigns of 1069–1070wereimmediatelyfelt.Inthismanner there was at onceposedthequestionwhichwas

to dominate Anglo-Scottishrelations for the next quarterof a century. Whathenceforward were to be thepoliticalfiliationsofCumbriaand Lothian, or (in otherwords) what was to be thenorthernfrontierofthenewlyestablished Anglo-Normanstate?50Thatquestionwasnotin fact to be even partiallyresolved before 1095, but in1070 it was already urgent.

The devastation of the northhad created, so to speak, avacuum of political authorityin the debatable region, andalreadyinthespringof1070,almost before William hadreachedWinchester,Malcolmwas carrying out a terribledevastation of Durham andCleveland, whilst Gospatric,as earl, was taking reprisalsagainst his former Scottishally in Cumbria.51 It was a

measure of the menace toWilliamfromthenorth.The problem before the

Conquerorattheendof1071wasinitsessencenotwhollydissimilar from that whichfaced Harold Godwineson inthe autumn of 1066. TheAnglo-Norman state wasbeingthreatenedontwoofitsextreme frontiers, and it wasa question which dangershould first be met. How

pressing was the problem,and how closely connectedwere its two parts, can bejudged by the astonishingrapidity of William'smovements during the nextfifteenmonths. In the winterof 1071–1072, with thenorthernmenacebehindhim,he departed for his duchy.52His actions in Normandy atthis juncture are but sparselyrecorded, but it may be

assumed that the court he atonceheldwasconcernedwiththe situation inMaine, and itis significant that his half-brother,Odo ofBayeux,wasalso in the duchy at thistime.53 The king, however,could not tarry long, andbefore Easter 1072 he wasback in England,54 and therehis first action was to beginthe extensive preparationessential for coping with the

threat from Scotland. Themeasureshetookwereinfactto have a considerableinfluence upon theestablishment of the Normannobility régime in England,andtheyimposedburdensnotonlyontheNormanmagnatesbut on the bishoprics andabbeys of England.55 Theywere also executed with theutmost speed, and during thesummertheywerecompleted.

In theearlyautumnthereforehe was ready to act, and heforthwith ‘led a land forceand a naval force toScotland’.56So began one of the most

remarkable of the manymilitary ventures of theConqueror. His plan was tomakeatwo-prongedthrustbyseaand land into theheartofMalcolm's kingdom. Thearmy, consisting chiefly of

horsemen, moved up by theeastern route throughDurham,andthenonthroughLothian,crossingtheForthbythe ford near Stirling to turneastward towards Perth andtheupperreachesof theTay.The fleet, acting inconjunction,saileduptheeastcoast of Britain and enteredthe estuary of the Tay tomake contact with the landforces.Itwasaboldplan,and

it achieved a hazardoussuccess. Doubtless, theConqueror hoped for anengagement somewhere inLothian where his horsemenmight be able to show toadvantage, but Malcolm wasnot disposed to afford himthis opportunity. He was,however, so daunted by theinvasion thatheconsented tonegotiate, and the two kingsmet at Abernethy within a

few miles of the Normanships. As a result, MalcolmgavehostagestoWilliamandbecame his man.57 Whethersuch homage was held toinvolvethekingdomofAlbanitself, or merely lands inCumbria and Lothian isuncertain.Norwasitofgreatsignificance. What wasimportant was that theScottish king had beenbroughtformallytorecognize

the new régime in England,andas a tokenof this,EdgarAtheling was expelled fromtheScottishcourt.This campaign must be

regarded as one of the mostbizarre exploits of Normanarms in the eleventh century,and the risk which attendedthe enterprise of bringingknightsfromtheRisleandtheSeine, from the Bessin andtheHiémoisuptothegatesof

the Highlands were veryconsiderable.William, late ina campaigning season, wasoperating perilously far fromhis base, and even the shipswhich might serve in anemergency as a means ofretreat could hardly diminishthemenaceofhisisolation.Inthese circumstances, bysecuringfromMalcolmapactso far favourable to himself,he made at great risk a

notable contribution to thedefenceoftheAnglo-Normanstate. Its existence had beenformally recognized in thenorth; a centre for theassembly of its enemies hadbeen neutralized; and itsnorthern frontier had beenassertedifnotdefined.William's expedition to

Scotland must, moreover, beviewed as part of a largerpolitical strategy, and here

timewasoftheessenceofhistask. The safety of the statehe had created now involveda unified defence whichstretched from Abernethy toNonancourt,fromFlanderstothe boundaries of Brittany,and in the autumn of 1072events on the Continent hadmade it imperative not onlythat a settlement should beobtainedinthenorth,butthatthis should be accomplished

with the minimum of delay.Mainewasinrevolt;Flandershad become hostile; andWilliam's presence wasurgently needed inNormandy. The preservationof the Anglo-Norman statehad in fact become a singleproblem: it was essentiallythe same whether it wasconducted in Britain or inFrance; and events in eithercountry had immediate

repercussions on the other.Immediately after his pactwith Malcolm, Williamtherefore moved south withspeed. By 1 November hewas at Durham.58 Where heheard the Christmas Mass isnotknown–butearlyin1073he was back again inNormandy at the head of alarge force which he hadtranshippedfromEngland.His return was not too

soon, for even during themonths of his Scottishcampaign his position inFrance had againdeteriorated. The instabilityof the government ofGeoffrey ofMayenne invitedintervention in Maine by astronger power, and sometime in 1072 a new turnwasgiven to the situation whenthe citizens of Le Mansinvited the help of Fulk le

Rechin, count of Anjou.Anjou was no longer theforce it had been in the timeof Geoffrey Martel, but by1072 the repulsive Fulk leRechin had so far overcomethe anarchy he had donemuch tocreate, thathecouldno longer be disregarded asanopponent.Theinvitationtothe count was thus ofconsiderable significance inreconstructing an earlier

pattern of politics. Nor didFulk hesitate to accept it.Heimmediately entered Maine,and advanced towards LeMans.Thecitizensroseinhisfavour, and with the count'said, Geoffrey of Mayennewas expelled. Once again acount of Anjou had gonesome way towardsestablishing himself on thefrontiersofNormandy.59Such was the developing

situation which had broughtthe Conqueror with suchhaste from Scotland, and theunified character of thedefensive campaigns onwhichhewasengagedcanbeseeninthecompositionoftheforce which accompaniedhim.EvenasNormanknightshad been concerned in theexpedition to Scotland, sonow did English troops takepart in the campaign in

France,andtheirparticipationin the warfare which ensuedwas both noteworthy andnoted.60Onceagain,thechieffeatureofWilliam'splanwasspeed.Fulkhimself seems tohave left Anjou at this time,andWilliamdid notwait forhis return. Although thecampaigning season hadbarely begun he enteredMainebywayofthevalleyofthe Sarthe and attacked

Fresnay. This strongholdtogether with theneighbouring fortress ofBeaumont surrenderedwithoutmuch resistance, andWilliam then attacked Sillé,which likewise submitted.61ThewaywasnowopentoLeMans, which Williaminvested and captured. Theseizureofthecapitalentailedthegeneralsubmissionofthecomté.62 By 30 March (as it

would seem) it was all over,and the Conqueror was backat Bonneville-sur-Touques,having re-established theNorman ascendancy inMaine.63The rapidity with which

the successful campaign inMaine followed theexpedition to Scotlandundoubtedly enabled theConqueror to escape from adangerouscrisisinhisaffairs,

and by the summer of 1073his position was muchstronger than it had beentwelve months before.Nevertheless, the defence ofhiscompositerealmcouldnotbe relaxed, the moreespeciallyasanewfactorwasbeginning to complicate theproblem. The Frenchmonarchywasemergingfromthe eclipse into which it hadentered with the minority of

Philip I. In 1067 the youngking left the tutelage of thecount of Flanders,64 and hewasnowdevelopinganactivepolicy of his own, againstNormandy. For that purposehe sought allies, and thesewere available. He seems inthe first instance to haveturned towards Flanders. Hehad, it is true, in 1071opposed the advancement ofRobert le Frison, but when

the latter was established, itwasapparentthattheinterestsof the Flemish count werehere attuned to those of theFrench king. Robert, withjustice, regarded theNormanduke as his most dangerousrival;hehadnotforgottentheintervention of William fitzOsbern in Flemish affairs;and it is significant that verysoon after the pact betweenWilliam and Malcolm he

gave Edgar Atheling asylumin Flanders.65 Philip, on hisside,indealingwithhisover-mighty Norman vassal, hadobviouslymuch togain fromfriendship with the count ofFlanders. A rapprochementbetween them thereforerapidlytookplace,anditwassymbolized by the marriage,in or before 1072, of PhilipwithBerthaofHainault,whowasRobert'shalf-sister.66

Flanders was, moreover,not theonlyquarter towhichtheFrenchkingcouldturnforhelp against Normandy.There was also Anjou.Alreadyby1068,profitingbythewarbetweenFulkandhisbrother Geoffrey for theAngevin inheritance, he hadmade a pact with the formerby which he obtained theGâtinais, and there isdocumentaryevidence that in

1069 the relations betweenPhilip and the count werefriendly.67 Fulk's incursioninto Maine in 1072 mustthereforehavebeenwelcometo the French king, and thesituationcouldbedeveloped.The fundamentalcharacteristicofthepolicyofPhilip I during the nexttwenty years was thusdisclosed. It was to be aceaseless opposition to

Normandy, conducted inalliance with Flanders andAnjou.Soconsistentlyinfactwas this policy pursued thatWilliam was compelledhenceforth to spend most ofhis time in Normandy, andthe defence of his kingdomfortheremainderofhisreignwas to be concentrated inFrance, though (as in 1075and 1085) it had constantrepercussionsuponEngland.

It was in fact during 1074that William's opponents onboth sides of the Channelbegan noticeably to act inconcert.Thusinthecourseofthat year Edgar Athelingreturned from Flanders toScotland where he wasreceived with honour,68 andthe French king at once sawhow he might be used as acentre for an alliance againstNormandy. He therefore

offered him the importantcastle of Montreuil-sur-Merwhichwouldhaveplacedhiminapositionofgreatstrategicadvantage.69 For Montreuilwas thechiefCapetianoutlettotheEnglishChannel;itwaswithin easy access ofFlanders; and it was at thesame time a base from theeast. It seemed indeed as ifEdgarmightonceagainserveas a rallyingpoint for all the

enemies of the Anglo-Norman kingdom, and soseriouslydidWilliamtakethethreatthathetreatedwiththeatheling, and consented toreceive him back at his owncourt.70TheFrenchkinghad,therefore, to seek anothercentre of opposition toWilliam, and he was to findthis in Brittany where asituation was arising thatcould be made highly

dangerous to Normandy. Itwas,indeed,throughBrittanythat between 1075 and 1077there was now to develop amovement in which allWilliam's opponents –English, French, andScandinavian – became oncemoreforatimeassociated.As has been seen,

William'sBretoncampaignof1064 had prevented theestablishment of a hostile

state on the border ofNormandyduringthetimeofthe English expedition, andthe death of Conan inDecember 1066 had stillfurther reduced the power ofthe Breton ruling house. Hewassucceededbyhisson-in-law Hoel, count ofCornouailles. The new rulerinherited all Conan'sdifficultiesincopingwiththefeudal magnates of Brittany.

Among these a mostimportant group wasestablished in the northernand eastern part of Brittanyfacing Normandy. Prominentamong them were themembers of the cadet branchof the ruling houserepresented in Eudo ofPenthièvre and his sons. Ofthese,mosthadalreadybeguntheircareersinEnglandunderKing William,71 but there

remainedtheeldest,GeoffreyBoterel I, whose lordshipstretched all along thenorthern coast, and includedwide lands in thediocesesofDol, Saint-Malo and Saint-Brieuc.72 Again, there wasGeoffrey ‘Granon’, a bastardson ofAlan III, whose landswerelikewiseconcentratedinthe diocese of Dol.73 Finallyto the southof thesehonourswas the great lordship of

Gael, a compact baronyimmediately to the west andnorth-west of Rennes, whichat this time included bothMontfortandMontauban,andstretched westward as far asTremorel and Penpont tocomprise no less than fortyparishes.74 This lordship ofGael was in 1074 held byRalph ‘de Gael’, whotogether with many otherBreton lords had established

himselfinEngland,andwho,about 1069, had become earlofNorfolk.RalphdeGael75wasinfact

tobethecentralfigurein thecrisis that now ensued. Hehad inheritedbothhisBretonlandsandhisEnglishearldomfrom his father, also namedRalph, who had served asstallerat thecourtofEdwardthe Confessor, and who hadlater assisted the Conqueror

in the settlement ofEngland.Ralph de Gael, the son, hadtherefore both Breton andEnglish connexions, and hewas particularly strong inbeing a natural leader of allthoseBretonsofmiddle rankwhohadfollowedinthewakeof the Conqueror to receivelands in England. It was infact to them in the firstinstance that Ralph appealedwhen in 1075 he conceived

the plan of rebelling againstthe Conqueror in England,and he managed to associatewith his rising no less apersonage than Roger ‘ofBreteuil’, earl of Hereford,thesecondsonofWilliamfitzOsbern.Theprecisecausesofthe rebellionareobscure,butitsoccasionwasthemarriageof Ralph with Roger'sdaughter, and the plot washatched at the wedding feast

held at Exning nearNewmarket.76 Furtherimportance was moreovergiventotherevoltbythefactthat Waltheof, son of EarlSiward of Northumbria, andnow earl ofHuntingdon, andhigh in the Conqueror'sfavour,allowedhimself tobeassociated with it.77 ThusBreton and Englishopposition to the Conquerorwas combined and, as if to

make the movement morelogically complete, Ralphappealed to Denmark forhelp.78 Meanwhile, Ralph'sfellow magnates in Brittanywere ready to revolt againstHoel, or to raid intoNormandy, whilst CountRobert of Flanders, Fulk leRechin of Anjou, and KingPhilip were alertly watchingthedevelopingsituation.When the rebellion began

inEngland,Williamwasstillin Normandy and it issignificant that ArchbishopLanfranc, inwhose hands hehad left theadministrationofEngland,wroteatoncetothekinginordertopersuadehimnot to return.79 The king'splace at this juncture was inNormandy,anditwouldbeadisgrace if his loyal vassalscouldnotby themselvesdealwiththerevoltinEngland.In

the event, they were able todosowithoutgreatdifficulty.Wulfstan, bishop ofWorcester, and Æthelwig,abbot of Evesham, bothnative prelates, combinedwith the Norman lordsalready established in thewestern Midlands to preventEarl Roger from advancingout of Herefordshire to joinhis fellow rebel, whilst Odo,bishop of Bayeux, and

Geoffrey of Coutances,Richard, son of CountGilbert, and William ofWarenne in like mannerbarred thewestwardprogressofEarlRalphfromNorfolk.80Ralph thereupon retreated toNorwich, and then, leavingthe castle at that place to bedefended by his wife, hedeparted overseas. He mayhave gone to Denmark toincite his Scandinavian allies

to action, and he eventuallyreached Brittany.81 Norwichwas forthwith besieged andafter some resistancesurrendered upon termswhich allowed the countessand many members of thegarrison to depart forBrittany. Meanwhile theexpedition had sailed fromDenmark. Sweyn Estrithsonhadrecentlydied,buthissonCnut, accompanied by many

Danishmagnates, led a greatfleet of over two hundredwarships to England. Itarrivedtoolate.Norwichhadalready fallen to the king'smen,andtheDanescontentedthemselves with sailingnorthward from Norfolk,pillaging thecoast-lands, andYork. After this, theydeparted home with theirbooty byway of Flanders sothat Lanfranc could report to

hiskinginNormandythatthesouth was now in greatertranquillity than at any timesince the king's lastdeparture.82 Thus atChristmas 1075 Williamcould return to a pacifiedcountry in order to deal outpunishment to the rebels.83The Bretons were savagelydealt with, Earl Roger wasthrown into captivity, andEarl Waltheof was

immediately cast into prison,there to languish for severalmonthsuntilon31May1076he was beheaded on SaintGiles Hill outsideWinchester.84 By that time,however, William wasalreadybackagainacrosstheChannel ready for thewar inBrittany.Therevoltoftheearlsisof

great interest as illustratingtheproblemsarisingfromthe

establishment of Normanfeudalism in England, whilstthe participation of EarlWaltheof–andhisexecution– has a considerable bearingupon the policy adopted bythe Conqueror towards hisEnglish subjects. But inrespect of the defence of theAnglo-Norman kingdom, thechief importance of therebellion of 1075 lies in itsconnexion with continental

politics. The appeal toScandinavia immediatelygave to the English rising awidersignificance,anditwasin fact this aspect of thesituation which mostconcerned King William,who,whilestillinNormandy,wrote urgently to Lanfranc,ordering that the east coastshould be put in a state ofdefence.85NorisitonlywithScandinavia that this rising

must be related. This was aBreton aswell as anEnglishrevolt; it was the Bretons inEngland who wereappropriately singled out forWilliam's vengeance; and itwas in this connexion alsothat the movement mostconcernedWilliam's enemiesinFrance.EarlRalphatoncecontinued the war from hisBretonpossessions,andifhisrebellionshouldbesuccessful

it was clear that Williamwould find a hostile powerestablished on his westernfrontier. Such a situation,,providing constantopportunities for furtherattack, would be to theadvantageofKingPhilipandhis associates. William, onhis part, was equallyconcernedtopreventit.The war that followed in

1076 had thus wide general

implications, and it is notsurprisingthat itattractedtheattentionnotonlyofNormanand Breton writers, but alsoof English and Angevinannalists. Their testimony isnot wholly consistent and isdifficult to interpret, but thegeneral course of events canbe discerned with areasonable degree ofprobability.86 At the time ofEarl Ralph's return to

Brittany, Count Hoel wasalready engaged in war withGeoffreyGranon.EarlRalph,it would seem, joined withGeoffrey Granon, andtogether the two magnatesestablished themselves in thecastle of Dol.87 It was asituation that King Williamcould not ignore. Dol wasnear the Norman frontier; itschief defender was the rebelearl of Norfolk, and the

whole operation could beregardedasdirectedasmuchagainst William as againstHoel.Forthisreason,too,thedefenders of Dol were earlyreinforcedbyacontingentoftroops from Anjou.88William, therefore, inSeptember advanced againstDol,and,accordingtoBretonwriters, he acted in thecampaign which followed inclose association with Hoel.

But despite all the resourcesof siege-craftDol held out.89And it was then that theFrench king seized hisopportunity. Philip was atPoitou early in Octoberurgently seeking theassistance ofGeoffrey, countof Aquitaine,90 and towardsthe end of the month hemovedatlastattheheadofalarge force to the relief ofDol. His intervention was

well timed, and wascompletely successful. Dolwas relieved, and William,having suffered heavy lossesin men and material, wasforcedtoretire.91William'sdefeatatDolwas

the first serious militarycheck thathehadsuffered inFrance for more than twentyyears, and its importancehasbeen unduly minimized.92Indeed,hisfailureinBrittany

in 1076 went some way tocounterbalance thesuccessfulsuppression of the rebellionoftheearlsinEnglandduringthe previous year. Ralphremained a great lord inBrittany, strongly entrenchedinpower,anditissignificantthat during 1077King Philipwas able to consolidate hispositionintheVexinwithoutserious opposition fromWilliam. William's losses at

Dol had been severe,93 thedamage to his prestigeconsiderable, and hisopponents were given anopportunitytofollowuptheirsuccess. Thus it was that,probablyinthelateautumnof1076, or during the earlymonths of 1077, Fulk leRechin, with the assistance(as it seems) of Breton aswell as Angevin troops tookthe offensive and attacked

John of Le Flèche, one ofWilliam's strongestsupporters in Maine.94 John,however, managed to holdoutinhiscastleuntilWilliamcame to his assistance, andFulk, who appears to havebeen wounded in the courseof the siege, was compelledto withdraw.95 An uneasytrucewas thereuponmade. Itwas marked by a pactbetween William and Philip

(which was certainly ratifiedin1077),96andsecondlybyapact between William andFulk which may have beenmade at the same time andwhichatalleventscanhardlybe placed elsewhere than in1077or1078.97The real victor in the

French campaigns of theseyearswasineffecttheFrenchking.His policy had attaineditsfirstobjective.Thereverse

suffered by William at Dolhad been due to Philip'sdiplomacy and intervention,and William had now beenbrought to negotiate at adisadvantage. Philip wasquick to turn the occasion tohisprofit,andhisopportunitycame in the Vexin. ThereRalph of Crépi had beensucceeded by his son Simon,whohadalbeitwithdifficultymaintained his position

against the French king. Butnowhewasseizedbyoneofthose violent impulseswhichwere so characteristic of theeleventh century. Havingobtained in marriage Judith,daughter of Robert II, countof Auvergne, he chose theoccasionofhisweddingnightto vowhimself and his brideto continence, and forthwithrenouncing the world, heentered the monastery of

Saint-Claude in theJura.Theevent, which not unnaturallyinspired widespreadcomment, gave King Philipthe opportunity he had solongdesired.Heimmediatelyoccupied theVexin, and thusextended his demesne up tothe Norman frontier on theEpte.98 The act constituted anew menace to Normandy,but Duke William in hispresent circumstances could

do nothing to prevent it. Hewas perforce to acquiesce inthe change, though in thesequel he was to meet hisdeathintryingtoreverseit.DukeWilliam'sposition in

France had in fact beenimpaired. It is true that hewas not himself forced tocede territory, and althoughthe Angevin overlordshipover Maine was once morerecognized, the Norman

administration there wascontinued under Robert, theduke'sson.Butthesettlementof 1077–1078 was clearlybased upon a compromisewhich could not be expectedto endure, and it marked areverse inWilliam's fortunes.Forthefirsttimesince1054alimit had been placed on thegrowth of Norman power inFrance,anditisimpossibletoescape the impression that

from now on until the deathofWilliamtheConquerortheinitiative of the struggle inFrance lay with the Frenchking.KingPhilipcouldcertainly

atoncegiveanewturntohisoffensive against William,and he did so by fosteringdivisions within Normandy,and by exploiting thedifficulties latent in therelations between William

andhiseldestson.Roberthadforlongbeenusedasafactorin the Conqueror's policy. In1063 he had been given thetitle of count of Maine, andthis had been confirmed inthe arrangements of 1077–1078. Moreover, on morethan one occasion he hadbeen formally recognized ashis father's heir, and whenWilliam returned to EnglandinDecember1067hebecame

permanently associated withthe government of theduchy.99 Thus it was thatafterMatilda'sowndeparturefor her crowning in Englandin1068,Robertwasmade,asit appears, primarilyresponsible for the Normanadministration.100 Hisinfluence steadily grew, andduring theensuingdecadehemay even on occasion havebeen recognized as duke of

Normandy under his fatherthe king, for in two chartersissued in 1096 he seems toreckon his tenure of theduchyfrom1077or1078.101Such arrangements might

well entail a threat to theunity of the Anglo-Normankingdom unless they werehandled with discretion.Much here depended uponRobert himself, andunfortunately the young

man'scharacterwasill-suitedto the delicate situation inwhich he was placed.Ordericus Vitalis was in thismatter perhaps a harsh critic,but his vivid description ofthe young count carriesconviction.102 Robert (hesays) was personally brave,andveryadventurous,awittytalker, and an attractivecompanion.Buthisactswerefrequently ill-considered. He

was extravagant inword anddeed, so that he wasted hissubstance, and was lavishwith promises upon whichlittlereliancecouldbeplaced.‘Wishing to pleaseeverybody, hewas too readyto accede light-heartedly toany request.’ The portrait isofayoungmanpossessedofthecruder feudalvirtues,anditisnotsurprisingthathewasvery popular among those of

likemindtohimself.Norisitwithout interest that hespeedily came to be a firmfriend of Edgar Athelingwhom Orderic describes insomewhat similar terms.But,equally certainly,Robertwasdevoid both of statesmanshipand sagacity. Impetuous andvain, he was suitablyfashioned to be a tool in thehands ofmen less frank, andmoreastute,thanhimself.

In 1077 Robert was notmore than twenty-five yearsof age, and so far he hadshownhimself a loyal son tohis father. Late in that year,however, or possibly in thespring of 1078, the fatalweaknessofhischaracterwasdisplayed with lamentableresults. Yielding to theflatteryofhiscompanions,henow demanded from hisfather that he should

henceforth have independentcontrol of Normandy andMaine.103 Such a schismwithin the Anglo-Normanrealm would at this juncturehave been fraughtwith peril.William, however, seems tohave refrained from anyprematureactionuntilhewasforcedtoquellabrawlwhichbroke out at Laigle betweenthe followers of Robert andthose of his other sons,

William and Henry. Thisbrought matters to an openrupture. Robert precipitatelywithdrew from his father'scourt,and,accompaniedbyalargefollowing,heattemptedwith incredible folly to gainpossession of Rouen itself.Roger d'lvry, the king'sbutler, who was then incharge of the castle at thecapital,wasabletowithstandthe assault, but William

realized that the situationdemanded prompt action.Heordered the immediate arrestof the insurgents, and hethreatened to confiscate theirlands.Robertwithmostofhisassociates thereupon fledfromNormandy.104The full consequences of

Robert's action were,however,stilltobedisclosed.Robert's position withinNormandy and Maine had

already received recognition,and his personal popularityamong theyoungnobleswasso great that he was able toattracttohissupportmanyofthe cadet members of thegreatest houses inNormandy.105 Chief amongthesewasRobertofBellême,sonofRogerofMontgomery,earl ofShrewsbury, andwithhim was associated hisbrother-in-law, Hugh of

Châteauneuf-en-Thimerais,whose castles ofChâteauneuf, Sorel, andRémalard thus became readyto provide the fugitives withbases outside the Normanfrontiers from which theycould conduct operationsagainst the duchy. At thistime, too, or perhaps a littlelater, the rebels were joinedby William of Breteuil, theeldest son of William fitz

Osbern,whosebrotherRogerhad forfeited his Englishearldomaftertherebellionof1075, and who stilllanguished in prison. YvesandAubrey,sonsofHughofGrandmesnil, likewiseformedpartof this company,as did also at some timeRogerthesonofRichardfitzGilbert, lord of Tonbridgeand Clare. All these wereyoung men, and their action

wasdistastefultotheheadsofthe great families to whichtheybelonged–menwhohadachieved the conquest ofEngland and who were evennoworganizingthesettlementof the conquered kingdom.None the less, a threat haddevelopedwhichmenacedtheNorman unity which since1060 had been the chiefsourceofNormanstrength.Such a situation could not

fail to attract the attention ofWilliam'senemies inEurope,and it is not surprising thatRobert's action led to animmediate revival of thecoalition which hadpreviously menaced theAnglo-Norman kingdom.Thus, about this time Robertvisited thecountofFlanders,andperhapswentontosolicitthe aid of the archbishop ofTrèves.106 But the most

interested partywas the kingof France, who saw here anadmirable opportunity ofdeveloping a policy againstWilliam which had alreadyachieved much success.Robert evidently sought hisaid, and not in vain, and anunnamed ‘steward’ of theking of France is known atthis time to have kept incontactwith the rebels.As aresult, Robert was joined by

contingents from France andBrittany, from Maine andAnjou.107 The earlier co-operation of William'senemies had in fact beenreproduced, but this time itscentre was the Conqueror'sheir.Williamcouldnotaffordto

delay. At the time of theoutbreak, he was apparentlyengaged against Rotrou I ofMortagne, but he

immediately broke off thesehostilities and attacked therebels who were gathered atRémalard.108 In thisengagement at least one ofthechiefsupportersofRobertwas killed,109 and the rebelsforthwith moved from thesouth-western frontier ofNormandy round to itseastern border, establishingthemselves at Gerberoi, acastle near Beauvais which

had been placed at theirdisposal by the French king.There Robert was joined notonly by a flux of newadherentsfromNormandybutalso by many knights fromFrance.110Itwasanewcrisis,andWilliamwas constrainedtoadvanceatonceagainstthestronghold. The siege ofGerberoiwhichbeganshortlyafterChristmas1078111lastedsomethreeweeks,anditwas

only terminated when therebels sallied out to risk apitched battle. They wereunexpectedly successful.William himself wasunhorsed,possiblybyhisson,andwounded in thearm.Hislifewasindeedonlysavedbyone of hisEnglish followers,Toki son ofWigot,whowashimself killed.112 Thereafterthe king's forces were put toflight, and Robert was left

master of the field. It was areverse for the Conquerorcomparable to that which hehadsustainedin1076atDol,and it was even moredamaging to his prestige.William of Malmesburyindeed speaks of it as thegreatest humiliation sufferedby the Conqueror in hiswholecareer.113After his defeat at

Gerberoi,Williamreturnedto

Rouen, and there he wasforced to enter intonegotiations with hisopponents. An influentialgroup of senior members ofthe Norman aristocracyincluding Roger ofMontgomery (now earl ofShrewsbury), Hugh ofGrandmesnil,and theveteranRoger of Beaumont114 atonce strove to effect apacificationintheinterestsof

Robert and his youngassociates, many of whomwere the sons or youngerbrothers of the negotiatingmagnates. King Philip, whohadmadetheircausetosomeextent his own, supportedthem,115 andWilliam was atlast forced to treat. Perhapsbefore the end of 1079, andcertainly before 12 April1080, Robert was reconciledto his father, and William

solemnly renewed tohim thegrant of succession to theNormanduchy.116Hiscontroloverhis sonhad in factbeensubstantially weakened, andKing Philip in particular hadgood reason to be satisfiedwith the results of Robert'sfirstrebellion.TheseparationofNormandyfromEngland–always the fundamentalobjectiveoftheFrenchking'spolicy – had been brought a

stage nearer. And it is notwholly surprising that it wasforashorttimetobeactuallyachieved immediately aftertheConqueror'sdeath.William's defence of the

dominionheruledhadalwaystotakeaccountofthemenacewhich threatened all itsfrontiers,andareverseinoneregion was almost invariablyfollowed by an attack fromelsewhere. Consequently as

soon as the news of theengagement at Gerberoipenetrated to the north,Malcolm, king of Scotland,took immediate advantage ofWilliam'sdefeatinFrance.117Between 15 August and 8September 1079 he ravagedthe whole area from theTweed to the Tees. It was asevereraidwhichbroughttheScottish king much plunder,andthefactthatithadforthe

time being to remainunpunished,stimulatedallthelatent opposition to Normanrule in Northumbria. Allthrough the ensuingwinter itwould seem the unrest grew,and in the spring of 1080 arevolt broke out whichthreatenedthewholeNormansettlement in the north, andculminatedinoneofthemosthorrible crimes of violencethatdisgracedtheage.

In 1071 the bishopric ofDurham had been given toWalcher, a clerk fromLorraine. He was in somerespects a notable man, andheplayedasignificantpartinthe monastic revival whichtook place at this time in hisdiocese.Moreover, in all hispolicyheseemstohavebeendisposed to collaborate tosome extent with the nativemagnates, and he is known,

forexample, tohavebeenongood terms with EarlWaltheof. Indeed, Walcher'sprestige had become so highby 1075 that when EarlWaltheof rebelled, andforfeited his possessions fortreason,thekingwasinducedto confide to the bishop theNorthumbrian earldom itself.Walcher's qualities, however,were not suited to maintainorder in a savagely turbulent

province. From the first heseems to have compromised,leaving much of theadministrationtoGilbert,oneof his kinsmen, and at thesame time seeking to placatelocal feeling by favouring acertain Ligulf who was acadetmember of the comitalhouse of Siward. Such apolicy could hardly hope tosucceed, and the inevitableclash occurred. In the spring

of 1080 Gilbert overthrewandkilledLigulfwiththeaidof the bishop's householdknights, and with theapproval of Leobwin, thebishop's chaplain. Walcherhimself, who had probablybeen guilty of nothingworsethan negligence, wasthereupon accused ofconnivance in the crime, andwith more candour thanwisdom he offered to prove

his innocence by oath beforean assembly which hesummonedtoGateshead.Thefolly of this proceeding wasat once demonstrated whenthe supporters of Ligulfarrived armed at themeetingand drove Bishop Walcherwith Gilbert, Leobwin, andsome of his knights into theadjoining church. This waspromptly fired, and as thebishop with his followers

emerged from the burningbuilding they were severallybutchered. The insurgentsthen proceeded to Durham.Theyfailedtotakethecastle,buttheresultingchaosinvitedafreshattackfromthehostilekingofScotland.118The massacre of Bishop

Walcher and his retinue tookplace on 14 May 1080.William was then still inNormandy, and indeed he

was not able to return toEngland until late in July.119In the meantime, however,Odo, bishop of Bayeux, wassenttothenorthonapunitiveexpedition,andintheautumnRobert,nowreconciledtohisfather, set out for Scotlandwith a large force.120 Hepushed north as far asFalkirk, ravaging Lothian onhisway,andforcedMalcolmtoapactwhichrecalledmost

of the provisions of theformer agreement atAbernethy.121 Then turningsouthwardhesetupafortressat the place afterwards to beknown as Newcastle-on-Tyne.122 It was a notableexpedition,butitachievednofinal solution to the problemof the frontier. The selectionof Newcastle for Robert'sfortress indicated that thecountrynorthoftheTynehad

still to be regarded as adebatable land, whilst to thewest the dominion of theScottish king extended as farsouth as Stainmoor.123 Thefuture filiations of Lothianand Cumbria had beenforeshadowed, but they werestill undetermined at theConqueror's death, and thenorthern boundary of hiskingdom never ceased tocausehimanxiety.

Indeed, the threat whichWilliam constantlyexperienced from the northcan be contrasted with hiscomparative immunity fromattack from Wales. Duringthe Confessor's reign Waleshad been dominated byGriffith ap Llewellyn, princeof North Wales, who hadbeen able to take advantageoftherivalriesoftheEnglishearls.124 In August 1063,

however, he had perishedwhen campaigning againstHarold Godwineson, and forthe next twenty years therewas no one inWales to takehis place. As a consequence‘therewasnomoreheedpaidto the Welsh’,125 and theWelsh border in the time ofKingWilliam constituted forhimnotsomuchaproblemofdefenceasanopportunityforNorman expansion. The

establishment of the marcherearldoms of Chester,Shrewsbury, and Hereford,whichwas to be a feature ofthe Norman settlement ofEngland,126 marked thebeginning of a persistentNorman penetration intoWales. William fitz Osbern,earlofHereford,forinstance,plantedcolonies atChepstowand Monmouth before hisdeath; Hugh of Avranches,

earl of Chester, extended hispower as far as the riverClwyd, and provided meansfor further encroachments byhis cousin Robert ofRhuddlan;whilstRoger II ofMontgomery, earl ofShrewsbury,hadbefore1086acquiredmuch of the countywhichwasafterwardstobearhis name. The effects uponWales of the Normanconquest of England were

not, however, to be fullydeveloped until after theConqueror's death.127 Andduring his lifetime Walesadded little to his difficultiesin defending the Anglo-Normankingdom.It was otherwise with

Scotland. A threat from thenorthpersistedthroughouttheConqueror'sreign,and,ashasbeen seen, it could never bedissociated from the attacks

made against his dominionsin France. It was fortunate,for instance, that Robert'sexpedition of 1080 permittedthe Conqueror to turn hisattention across the Channel,for early in the next yearFulk, count of Anjou,doubtlesstakingadvantageofWilliam's absence inEngland,beganafreshattackon Normandy throughMaine.128 Supported by

Count Hoel of Brittany, headvanced again against LaFlèche,and this timehe tookthestrongholdandburntit.129Once again, therefore,William was compelled tocross the Channel in haste,andshortlyafterthefallofLaFlèche he was advancingacross Maine with a largeforce composed both ofNorman and English troops.According to one account, a

great battle impended, butthis was averted by certainecclesiasticswhowere in theneighbourhood.130 A newpact was thenmade betweenthe king and the count. Itreproduced the compromiseof 1077, and it appears tohave been ratified at a placevaguely described by a laterchronicler asBlancalanda orBrueria.131 Even so, Mainecontinued to be a source of

danger. It was only aftercontroversy and with papalsupport that in 1081 Hoel, abishop with Normansympathies,wasappointed tosucceed Arnold at Le Mans,and when some years laterHubert,vicomteofBeaumont,revolted against the Normanadministration it provedimpossible even after alengthysiegetodislodgehimfrom his castle of Sainte-

Suzanne except on his ownterms.132At this time, moreover, a

newthreattotheConqueror'sposition came from his ownfamily. It was in 1082 – theyear after Fulk's secondattack on La Flèche – thatthere occurred the famousquarrel betweenWilliam andhis half-brother, Odo bishopof Bayeux and earl of Kent.Odo, as has been seen, had

been active in support of theking during 1080, and heseems to have remained inEngland when William wasin Normandy in 1081. In1082, however, he wasarrested by the king.133 Thecircumstances surroundingthis important event areobscure, but according to alater chronicle it wouldappear that Odo had aspiredtothepapacy,andthathehad

alsosought toenticesomeofthemoreprominentvassalsofthe king to follow him onfresh adventures to Italy.134Certainly, no medievalmonarch could afford tocountenance this latterproject, and it is stated thatWilliam forthwith crossed toEngland, and despite thereluctance of many of hiscounsellors seized the personof the earl of Kent, and

brought him back captive toNormandy. Odo seemsindeed to have been kept inprisonfromthistimeuntiltheConqueror's death in 1087,but his possessions were notforfeited, since in DomesdayBookheappears,as,aftertheking, the largest singlelandownerinEngland.135The defection of Odo

involveda seriousmenace tothe Norman dynasty, and

before the end of 1083 thisdangerwasfurther increased.Shortly after 18 July in thatyear Robert, whose personalstatus inNormandyhadbeenmuchadvancedasa resultofhis first revolt, decided oncemore to rebel, and departedfrom the duchy. Hismovements during the nextfour years are uncertain, buthe remained the ideal agentfortheFrenchking,whogave

him full support, and hebecame the centre of all theopposition to the Conquerorin France.136 As 1084advanced therefore KingWilliam and his realmmightbe seen to be approaching anewperiodofperil,andwiththe two most powerfulmembers of his family inopen opposition, the king'ssense of isolation must havebeenacute.Beforetheendof

theyearitwasmadeyetmoredistressfulbythedeathofhiswife to whom, according tothe widespread opinion ofcontemporaries, he had beenexceptionallyattached.QueenMatilda died on 2November1083 and was buried in herown nunnery at Caen,whereone of the finest epitaphs ofthe eleventh century stilltestifiestohermemory.137Thus at the beginning of

1085 the security of theAnglo-Norman realm wasstill not assured, and in factthe final crisis of theConqueror'sreignwasnowathand.138 None the lessWilliam's achievement inensuring its survival between1067 and 1084 (which it hasbeen the purpose of thischaptertowatch)isnottobeminimized. It was onlyaccomplished despite

reverses by means of anunremitting effort which,through two decades, hadperforce tobeexpendedoverwide areas and againstmanyenemies. Indeed, on lookingbackonthatdefence,itschieffeature may well seem tohave been the closeinterrelation whichthroughout existed betweenall its parts. The defence ofthe Anglo-Norman kingdom

throughout the English reignoftheConquerormustinfactalways be viewed as a unity,and the related campaignswhich were conducted byWilliam and his lieutenantshad a common purpose,whether they were waged inNorthumbria or Maine, orwere directed against SweynEstrithson or Fulk leRechin,KingMalcolmofScotland,orKingPhilipofFrance.Finally

theastonishingenergyonthepartofKingWilliamthatwasinvolved in this defensiveendeavour also deservesemphasis, for only thus canthe total achievement of theConqueror be appraised. Thevitally constructive workcarried out by KingWilliambetween 1067 and 1087(which has now to beconsidered) wasaccomplished in themidst of

incessant warfare, and in arealmwhose rulerwas neversecurefromattack.

1AS.Chron.,‘D’,s.a.1067.OnEdrictheWild–‘Silvaticus’,‘Guilda’–therehasbeenmuchlearning.ThecuriousmaybereferredtoFreeman(NormanConquest,vol.IV,noteI),andtoRitchie(NormansinScotland,chap.I).SeealsoDouglas,FeudalDocuments,pp.xci–

xciii.Ordericus(vol.II,p.166)sayshemadehissubmissionatBarking.Legends,moreover,gatheredrapidlyabouthim.Thusafterdinneronenighthecameonthefairiesdancing,andfellinlovewithoneofthemwhomhemarried(WalterMap,DeNugis,vol.II,p.12).Thekingheardofthisandorderedhertobebroughttocourt.AconversationbetweenWilliamtheConquerorandtheQueenof

theFairieswouldhavebeenworthhearing.

2Will.Poit.,p.264;Will.Jum.,p.138.

3Prou,Rec.Actes–PhilippeI,p.xxxii.Ifthissuggestionwerecorrect,theraidofEustacetookplaceintheautumnof1067.

4Will.Poit.,p.264.5AS.Chron.,‘D’,‘E’,s.a.1067.6Ibid.;Ord.Vit.,vol.II,p.180;Round,FeudalEngland,p.433.Gytha,thewidowofGodwine,

hadtakenrefugeatExeter,andonitssurrendershewenttotheislandofFlatholmeintheBristolChannel.

7Ord.Vit.,vol.II,p.180;CompletePeerage,vol.III,p.428.

8Freeman,op.cit.,vol.IV,p.175.9AS.Chron.,loc.cit.10Ibid.;Ord.Vit.,vol.II,p.181;Regesta,vol.I,no.23.

11Ord.Vit.,vol.II,p.185;Stenton,WilliamtheConqueror,

p.265.12SimeonofDurham,Hist.Regum(Opera,vol.II,p.187).

13Regesta,vol.I,no.23.14Regesta,vol.I,nos.7,9.15Seegenerally,E.S.Armitage,EarlyNormanCastlesintheBritishIsles(1912).

16Ord.Vit.,vol.II,p.184.17E.H.D.,vol.II,p.250.18Will.Poit.,p.169;Ord.Vit.,vol.II,p.165;Armitage,op.cit.,p.229.ThestoneTowerof

LondonwasbegunaboutadecadelaterunderthesupervisionofGundulf,bishopofRochester(Hearne,TextusRoffensis,p.212).

19Ord.Vit.,vol.II,pp.181–185;Armitage,op.cit.,pp.151,242.

20Will.Poit.,p.267;Will.Jum.,p.138.

21Ord.Vit.,vol.II,p.186;vol.III,p.111;Mason,Eng.Hist.Rev.,vol.LXVI(1956),p.61.

22Ord.Vit.,vol.II,pp.181,184.

Henrymusthavebeenveryyoungatthetime,forhiselderbrotherRobertwasatiroatHastings.

23Ord.Vit.,vol.II,188.WilliamMaletisadifficultpersonality.HemayhavebeeninEnglandbeforetheConquest,andonereportsaysthattheConquerorentrustedtohimtheburialofHaroldafterHastings(Freeman,op.cit.,vol.III,p.514).

24HeisbackatWinchesteron13

April1069(Regesta,vol.I,no.26).

25e.g.Lincoln,Colchester,Dover,Richmond.

26ItisusuallystatedthattheConquerorwascontinuouslyinEnglandduring1068.Thisisdoubtlesscorrect,butthematterisbynomeansclear.TwoNormancharterswhichpassedinhispresencearedated1068.TheoneisforTroarn(Sauvage,L'abbayedeTroarn,Preuves,

no.II;cf.Regesta,vol.II,p.391);theotherisforSaint-PierredelaCouture(Cart.S.Pierre,no.XV).Neitherofthesetextsiswhollysatisfactoryinitspresentform,butthemainreasonwhysuspicionhasfallenuponthemisthattheyconflictwiththeassumedchronologyofWilliam'smovementsatthistime.Recently,however,L.Mussethasprintedthetextoftwochartersfortheabbeyof

Saint-GabrielinCalvados.ThesearestatedtohavepassedinWilliam'spresenceatValognes,andtheyaredated1069(ActesInéditsduXīe

Siècle,pp.21–23–Bull.Soc.Antiq.Norm.,1954).Ifthese,infact,weregivenatChristmas1068theymighthavebeenthusdatedbyaclerkwhobegantheyearatChristmas.Onthishypothesis,theycouldbemadetosupplysomeconfirmationof

theothertwoNormancharters.Toomuchrelianceshouldcertainlynotbeplacedontestimonyofthischaracter.ButthepossibilitythatWilliammayhavevisitedNormandyduringthewinterof1068–1069isnottobewhollydisregarded.

27Ord.Vit.(vol.II,p.189),withoutgivingaprecisedate,placesMatilda'svisittoNormandyafterWilliam'ssecondcampaigninthenorth;

thatistosay,betweentheEastercourtatWinchester(4–11April1069)andthebeginningofthe‘RisingoftheNorth’intheearlyautumnofthatyear.AndtheValogneschartersnotedabovecouldwithequal,orgreater,proprietybecitedinsupportofthisdate.

28Ordericus(loc.cit.)laysspecialemphasisonthispoint,anditissignificantthatthechartersgivenatValogneswerethere

ratifiednotonlybythekingbutalsobythequeen.

29Theonlypossibletimesforsuchavisit(orvisits)toNormandybyKingWilliamare:(1)verylatein1068,i.e.betweentheendofthefirstnortherncampaignandtheopeningthesecondnortherncampaignin(?)February1069;or(2)betweenApril1069(theWinchestercourt)andSeptember1069,bywhichtime

WilliamwasbackinEnglandpreparingtowithstandtheinvasionofSweyn.

30AS.Chron.,‘D’,‘E’,s.a.1069,1070;Ord.Vit.,vol.II,p.191;SimeonofDurham,Hist.Regum(Opera,vol.II,pp.187,188).

31Ord.Vit.,vol.II,p.194.32AS.Chron.,‘D’,s.a.1067(aninterpolation).Themarriageprobablytookplacelatein1069.Cf.Ritchie,NormansinScotland,pp.25,26.

33AS.Chron.,‘D’,s.a.1069;Ord.Vit.,vol.II,pp.192–195.

34Ord.Vit.,vol.II,p.197;SimeonofDurham(op.cit.,vol.II,p.198).

35SimeonofDurhamshows,however,thatthecrimescommittedbyMalcolminthenorthhadbeenequallyhorrible(op.cit.,vol.II,p.191).

36Ord.Vit.,vol.II,p.196.37SimeonofDurham(op.cit.,vol.II,p.188);Chroniconde

Evesham(ed.W.D.Macray),pp.90,90;Will.Malms.,GestaRegum,p.309;G.Creighton,HistoryofEpidemics,vol.I,pp.27,29.

38AS.Chron.,‘E’,s.a.1070.39Allthatisknown,orcouldpossiblybesurmised,aboutHerewardisexhaustivelydiscussedbyFreeman(op.cit.,vol.IV,pp.454–487).Onhisallegeddescendants,seeRound,PeerageandPedigree,vol.II,

pp.259–286.40TheconfusedchronologyoftheseeventsisdiscussedbyE.O.Blake(LiberEliensis,pp.lv,lvi).

41AS.Chron.,loc.cit.42Ibid.,‘E’,s.a.1071.43Latouche,ComtéduMaine,chap.V.ThechiefauthorityistheActuspontificumCenomannisinurbedegentium(ed.BussonandLedru(1902)).

44Cart.S.PierredelaCouture,

no.XV.45Actus,pp.376–377;Latouche,op.cit.,p.37;Douglas,DomesdayMonachorum,pp.35,36.

46Whetherthiscouldwithanyproprietybecalleda‘commune’inthelatersenseofacollectivefeudallordshipisdiscussedbyLatoucheinMélanges–Halphen,pp.377–383.

47Actus,pp.278,379.48AS.Chron.,‘E’,s.a.1070;Ord.

Vit.,vol.II,p.235;Fliche,PhilippeI,pp.252–261.ForthedateofthebattleofCassel,seeJ.Tait,inEssays–LanePoole,pp.151–167.

49Below,pp.295,296.50SeeG.W.S.Barrow,TheBorder(Durham,1962).

51SimeonofDurham(op.cit.,vol.II,p.190).

52Ord.Vit.,vol.II,p.237.53Ord.Vit.,vol.II,p.238.54Regesta,vol.I,no.63.

55Below,pp.325,326.56AS.Chron.,‘D’,‘E’,s.a.1072.57AS.Chron.,‘E’,s.a.1072;Skene,CelticScotland,vol.I,p.424.

58SimeonofDurham,Hist.Dunelm.Eccl.(Opera,vol.I,p.106).

59Actus,p.379;Latouche,op,cit.,p.38;K.Norgate,AngevinKings,vol.I,pp.219–220.

60AS.Chron.,‘D’,s.a.1074(equals1073).

61Actus,pp.380,381.62Ord.Vit.,vol.II,p.255.63On30March1073WilliamwasatBonneville-sur-TouquesinthecompanyofArnold,bishopofLeMans,andthereheconfirmedtherightsinMaineoftheabbeyofSolesmes(Cart.S.PierredelaCouture,no.IX).ItwouldseemunlikelythathewouldhaveissuedthischarterbeforehehadhimselfrecoveredhisjurisdictioninMaine,andif

thisbeso,thecampaignmusthavetakenplaceveryearlyin1073.Themattercannot,however,betakenascertain.AcharterforSaint-VincentduMans(Cart.S.VincentduMans,no.177)probablypassedonthesameoccasion.

64Prou,Rec.Actes–PhilippeI,p.xxxii.

65AS.Chron.,‘D’,s.a.1075(equals1074).

66Fliche,PhilippeI,p.36.

67Prou,Rec.Actes–PhilippeI,no.XLI;Fliche,op.cit.,pp.138,142,143.

68AS.Chron.,loc.cit.69Ibid.70Ibid.,‘E’,s.a.1074.71e.g.Brian,AlantheRed,andAlantheBlack.

72LaBorderie,HistoiredeBretagne,vol.III,p.11.

73Chron.S.Brieuc(Rec.Hist.Franc.,vol.XII,p.566).

74LaBorderie,op.cit.,vol.III,pp.

68,69.Seealsotheadmirablemapinthesamewriter'sNeufBaronsdeBretagne(1895).

75CompletePeerage,vol.XIpp.573etsqq.

76AS.Chron.,‘E’,s.a.1075.Itmighthavebeenthoughtthatthemarriagewasmadeagainsttheking'sprohibition.AletterofLanfranc(Ep.39)showsthiswasnotthecase.ThespeechesputintotheconspiratorsbyOrd.Vit.(vol.II,pp.258,259),

thoughinteresting,areimaginative.

77Ord.Vit.(vol.II,p.260)makesWaltheofagreeonlyreluctantly.

78AS.Chron.,loc.cit.79Ep.34.80AS.Chron.,loc.cit.Flor.Worc.(vol.II,p.11)saystheengagementtookplacenearCambridge.Ord.Vit.(vol.II,p.262)putsitataplacehecalls‘Fageduna’.

81Ord.Vit.,vol.II,p.263.

82Lanfranc,Ep.40.83AS.Chron.,loc.cit.84Ord.Vit.,vol.II,pp.265–267.‘Itcanonlybeleftanopenquestionwhetherhisexecutioncanbejustifiedinmoralityaswellasinlaw.’(Stenton,op.cit.,p.603.)

85Lanfranc,Ep.35.86Below,AppendixE.87Chron.S.Brieuc;Chron.Britannicum(Rec.Hist.Franc.,vol.XI,p.413;vol.XII,p.566),

Flor.Worc.,s.a.1076.88Ann.‘deRenaud’(Halphen,Annales,p.88).

89Ibid.90Prou,Rec.Actes–PhilippeI,nos.LXXXIII,LXXXIV.

91AS.Chron.,‘E’,s.a.1076.92Cf.Stenton(WilliamtheConqueror,p.341):‘asmallcontinentalwar’.

93AS.Chron.,loc.cit.;Ord.Vit.,vol.II,p.291;Prou,op.cit.,nos.LXXXIX,XC.

94Ann.SaintAubinandSaintFlorent(Halphen,op.cit.,pp.5,129).

95Halphen,Comtéd'Anjou,p.311,no.233.

96AS.Chron.,‘E’,s.a.1077.97TheremaybeareferencetothisinacharterforSaint-VincentduMans(Cart.S.VincentduMans,no.99).Andseebelow,AppendixE.

98Fliche,PhilippeI,pp.147,149.99David,RobertCurthose,pp.

17–41.100Will.Jum.,p.139;Ord.Vit.,vol.II,p.188.

101Gall.Christ.,vol.XI;Instrumenta,col.76;Haskins,NormanInstitutions,p.67.

102Ord.Vit.,vol.III,p.262.103Therevoltmusthavestartedafter13September1077whenRobertwasstillathisfather'scourt(Gall.Christ.,vol.XI;Instrumenta,col.72)andsometimebeforetheopeningofthe

siegeofGerberoiaboutChristmas1078.

104Ord.Vit.,vol.II,pp.297,298.105Ord.Vit.givestwolistsofthesupportersofRobert(vol.II,pp.296—298;vol.II,pp.380,381).AllofthesepersonswerecertainlyassociatedwithRobertatonetimeoranotherinhisrevoltsagainsthisfather.

106AS.Chron.,‘D’,s.a.1079;Ord.Vit.,vol.II,p.381.

107Ord.Vit.,vol.II,p.296.

108Ibid.Thecauseofthequarrelisunknown.

109Itwasclearlyalocalrevolt.VilleraiiswithinafewmilesofRémalard,andRémalardissometenmilesfromMortagne.

110Ord.Vit.,vol.II,p.387.111Below,AppendixE.112AS.Chron.,‘D’,s.a.1079.TokihasbeenpresumedtobethesonofWigotofWallingfordwhoisfrequentlymentionedinDomesdayBook.

113Will.Malms.,GestaRegum,p.317.

114Ord.Vit.,vol.II,p.388.115Thereisagreatdifficultyhere,foracharterofunimpeachableauthenticity(Prou,op.cit.,no.XCI)showsPhilipandWilliaminassociationoutsidethewallsofGerberoi.TheonlyhypothesiswhichIcantentativelyadvanceisthatWilliamafterhisdefeatwasforcedtoretreat,andPhilip,inreturnforsomeconcession,

mediatedonhisowntermsbetweenRobertandhisfather,andtookstepstoenforcesometemporarysettlementtohisownadvantage.

116Ord.Vit.,vol.III,p.390;vol.II,p.242.Fordate,seeCart.S.Trin.Roth.,no.LXXXII.

117AS.Chron.,‘E’,s.a.1079,implicitlyconnectsMalcolm'sinvasionwiththeengagementatGerberoi.

118SimeonofDurham,Hist.

Dunelm.Eccl.(Opera,vol.I,pp.105,106,114);Hist.Regum(Opera,vol.II,p.200).

119WilliamandRobertwerestillinNormandyon14July(Regesta,vol.I,no.135).TheymusthavereturnedtoEnglandveryshortlyafterwards.

120SimeonofDurham,loc.cit.121Ibid.(Hist.Regum–Opera,vol.II,p.211);Hist.Mon.Abingdon,vol.II,pp.9,10.

122Ibid.

123Ritchie,NormansinScotland,p.50.

124J.E.Lloyd,HistoryofWales,vol.II,pp.358–371.

125Gaimar,v.5084.126Below,pp.294,295.127Thewholeprocess(whichfallsoutsidethescopeofthisbook)isadmirablysurveyedbySirGoronwyEdwardsin‘TheNormansandtheWelshMarch’(Brit.Acad.,Proceedings,vol.XLII(1956),pp.155–177).

128AnnalsofSaint-Aubin,and‘deRenaud’(Halphen,Annales,pp.5,88).

129Ord.Vit.,vol.II,p.256.130Below,AppendixE.131Ord.Vit.,vol.II,p.356.Allattemptstoidentifytheplacehavehithertoprovedmoreinterestingthanconvincing.

132AnnalsofVendôme(Halphen,op.cit.,p.65);Ord.Vit.,vol.III,pp.194–201;Latouche,ComtéduMaine,p.39;David,Robert

Curthose,p.35.133AS.Chron.,‘E’,s.a.1082.134Ord.Vit.,vol.III,pp.189–192,247.

135Ibid.Butthematterisdifficult.IfRegesta,vol.I,no.147,wasissuedinEngland,Odowasinthiscountryin1082,butheappearsalsotohavewitnessedacharterinNormandyinthatyear(ibid.,no.150).TheDurhamcharter(ibid.,no.148)citedbytheCompletePeerage(vol.VII,

p.128)is,Ithink,aforgery.136David,op.cit.,p.36.137Ord.Vit.,vol.III,p.192.138Below,chap.14.

PartIV

THEKINGINHISKINGDOM

Chapter10

WILLELMUSREX

The coronation of DukeWilliamofNormandyaskingof the English on ChristmasDay 1066 was theculminating event in theConqueror's career. It also

markedaturning-point inthehistory both of Normandyand England, and a stage inthe development ofmedievalEurope. To England it gavespectacular illustration alikeof the continuance of heridentity, and also of thereorientation of her politics,whilst for Normandy itsconsequences were scarcelyless profound, and nokingdom in western Europe

was to be unaffected by thenewpoliticalgroupingwhichit symbolized. Again, thecoronationtookitsplaceasacrucial episode in aninterrelated process ofNorman endeavour whichwithin the spaceofacenturywas to stretch from Spain toSicily, from Apulia toConstantinople, and ontowards Palestine. Nor wasthe impact of the coronation

restricted to secular affairs.Itself a religious act, itoccurred at a moment whenthe papacy was beginning toeffecta radicalchange in thestructure of westernChristendom, and when newideas of political theologywere being voiced with everwiderpracticalconsequences.It is smallwonder, then, thatWilliam's coronationcommanded attention.

Heralded, as it might seem,by celestial portents,consequent upon a notablefeat of arms, and blessed bythe Church, it fired theimagination ofcontemporaries.Its full implications were

not of course immediatelyapparent, and much of theimportance of William'scoronation was in fact todependuponthecontroversial

interpretations which werelater placed upon it. InDecember1066theceremonymight well have beenregarded as a simplerecognition of existing fact:the inexorable result of aconquesteffectedbysuperiorgeneralship, superiordiplomacy, and superiorforce.Such,forexample,wasprobably the dominantsentiment of those sorrowing

English magnates who,before the Conquerorproceeded to Westminster,came to Berkhamstead,defeated and deeply moved,tomaketheirsubmission,andwho, it is said, were kindlyreceived by William, whopromised to be their goodlord.1 Somewhat morecomplex sentiments are,however, suggested by thedebates which are said to

have followed. The Englishare reported to have urgedWilliam to take the crown,because they wereaccustomedtohaveakingfortheir lord,2 and this, as willappear, involved far morethan a change of title: itinvoked a complex ofloyalties,sometraditionalandsome religious, but allemotionallycompelling.To the Normans

surrounding William thesituation was inevitablydifferent.Thesemen,ruthlessand astute, were naturallyanxious to push the conquesttoitsconclusion,butsomeofthem were doubtlessapprehensive lestWilliam askingmightbeableunduly toenlarge in Normandy therights which he alreadyexercised as duke. At allevents, William himself

thought it prudent to displaysomehesitationinthematter,and it is perhaps significantthat in the debate whichensued the most strenuousargument in favour of animmediate coronation wasmade not by a Normanmagnate but by the Poitevin,Haimo, vicomte of Thouars.3In reality, the decision musthave appeared to be almostimplicit in the facts of the

situation. No alternativecourse readily presenteditself. Thus it was with theformal support of leadingmen both of Normandy andofEnglandthatWilliamcameat last to his crowning atWestminster. And there itwasspecificallyaskingoftheEnglish that he wasconsecrated.The ceremony which then

took place is of the highest

interest, and it is fortunatethat there have survived notonly contemporarydescriptions of what tookplace, but also a text of theOrdo4whichmay reasonablybe supposed to reflect thatusedonthisoccasion.5What,moreover, is of particularimportance is that theseproceedings followed thetraditional English pattern sothat William was hallowed

accordingtoaritewhichwassubstantially thesameas thatwhich had been followed inthe coronation of EnglishkingsfromatleastthetimeofEdgar.6Inthismanner,atthesolemn inauguration of hisreign as king, every effortwas made to stress thecontinuity of English royalrule.ItwasAnglo-Saxonici,itwas the Populus Anglicus,whowererituallycalledupon

to salute the king as he wasconsecrated to rule over ‘theKingdom of the Angles andtheSaxons’.7Theclaimtobethe inheritor of an unbrokenroyal succession was thusspectacularly made at thevery beginning of William'sEnglish reign. It was togovern his policy until hisdeath.None the less, significant

changes were made on this

occasion. The circumstancesof 1066 obviously called forsome special acceptance ofthe new ruler, and it wasforthcoming. Geoffrey,bishop of Coutances(speaking in French), andAldred, archbishop of York(speaking in English),formally demanded of theassembled congregationwhether they would acceptthe new king.8 This was an

innovation imported fromFrance,9anditwastobecomeinduecourseanintegralpartoftheEnglishcoronationrite.Another interesting changeoccurred in the prayer Sta etRetine. In earlier times thishad contained a reference tothe new king's father, and in1066 this was clearlyinappropriate: the phrase ‘byhereditary right’ wastherefore substituted.

Similarly, the position of thequeen had to be considered.Matilda was not to becrowned until 1068, but thenshe received more signalhonoursthanhadbeforebeencustomary. She wasacclaimed as having beenplaced by God to be queenoverthepeople,andhallowedby unction as a sharer in theroyaldominion.10The most significant

addition to Englishcoronation ritual introducedby theNormans is, however,to be found in the litanywhichcontainedtheliturgicalacclamations known as theLaudes Regiae.11 TheseLaudes(whichhadbeensungat the coronation ofCharlemagne)had,beforetheConquest, been sung inNormandyonthechieffeastsoftheChurch,andtherein,as

has been seen, Williamreceived as duke theexceptional honour ofmention by name.12 On theotherhand,itisdoubtfulhowfar,ifatall,theseLaudeshadbeen employed in pre-Conquest England.13 Nonethe less theyweresung,as itseems, at the coronation ofQueenMatilda inWinchesterat Pentecost 1068,14 and indue course they were to

become a recognized part ofthe English coronationservice. It is,moreover, veryprobable that theywere sungat William's own coronationin 1066, and more certainlytheywere chanted before theking at the solemn crown-wearingswhichcame to takeplace regularly at Christmas,Easter, and Pentecost, andwhich were noted as acharacteristic feature of his

rule.15The form of these Laudes

so far as they concernedWilliamwas,moreover, nowmost notably changed. In thepre-Conquest NormanLaudes, the duke is namedonlyafterthekingofFrance.The saints invoked on hisbehalf come low in thesequence of the litany,16 andthe salutation runs: ‘ToWilliam Duke of the

Normans, health andperpetual peace.’17 Bycontrast, intheLaudeswhichwere sung after 106618 thereis nomention of the king ofFrance; the saints nowinvoked are Our Lady, StMichael,andStRaphael.Andthesalutationis:‘TothemostsereneWilliam,thegreatandpeacegiving King, crownedby God, life and victory.’19The change is in every way

remarkable.VitaetVictoriaisan old imperial formula, andserenissimus is a very oldimperial designation.20Moreover, the salutation as awhole is one which in themiddle of the eleventhcentury was accorded to noother lay ruler in westernEuropesave theemperorandthe king of France. Theimplication is clear. In theliturgy of the Church, Duke

William of Normandy hasnowbeenrecognizedasarex.He is saluted as of equalstatus with the French king:oneofthechiefsecularrulersofwesternChristendom.The coronation ofWilliam

gavesanction to thekingshiphehadwonbyarms,andwasdesigned to glorify theregality into which he hadentered.Itwasofcoursetrue– and it was everywhere

apparent – that a revolutionhadtakenplace,andthat thishad been brought about byinvasion and battle. ButWilliamandthosewhospokeforhimwerenevercontenttoleavethematteratthatpoint.By contrast, it wascontinuously argued thatWilliam was the legitimatesuccessor of Edward theConfessor after aninterregnum caused by

usurpation, and that he wasking of England not only defacto but also de jure. Theclaims put forward byWilliam in this matter are,moreover,nottobedismissedasmerelyspeciousargumentsdesigned to justify spoliationafter the event.Theydeserveconsideration both for theireffectoncontemporaries,andin relation to theachievements of William

between1066and1087.Theargumentsadducedby

William to show that thefactors normally operating inthe succession of a king ofEngland applied to his ownsituation thus demandattention. Most curious ofthese was his emphaticassertion of hereditary right.‘Right of blood’ (jussanguinis) was, in fact,placed in the forefront of his

justification by William ofPoitiers, who buttressed thecontentionbyreferencetotheConqueror's relationshipwithEmma, thedaughter ofDukeRichard I, and themother ofEdward theConfessor.21 Theargumentwas,intruth,weak,but it probably appeared lessspecious in the eleventhcentury than it would today.Hereditary right lay at thebasisofAnglo-Saxonroyalty,

but it was a hereditary rightofthefamilyasawhole,andnotspecificallyofanyoneofits members.22 In assertingjus sanguinis for himselfWilliamwasthereforepayingdeference to ancient Anglo-Saxon(andindeedGermanic)tradition, without necessarilyweakening his positionagainst such men as EdgarAtheling who by moderntheoryweresomuchcloserin

thesuccession.The royal family's right to

the thronewas held to be asinviolable as the rightof anyindividual prince to succeedwas weak. To belong to theroyalstock(stirpsregia)wasan indispensable conditionoflegitimate kingship.Consequently, William feltconstrained to stress atwhatever hazard hisconnexion with the English

kingly house, which derived,as it might seem, fromWoden himself. That is whythe phrase ‘by hereditaryright’ appeared so strangelyintheritualofhiscoronation.And for the same reason theclaimwas reiterated in someof his earliest formal acts asking. In a vernacular writissued between 1066 and1070thenewkingconfirmedto the abbey of Bury St

Edmunds the rights whichhadbeenheldbytheabbeyinthe time of Edward ‘mykinsman’.23 And in a charterwhichwasgiventoJumiègesaboutthesametime,William,usinga titlederivedfromtheeastern empire, solemnlydeclared: ‘I,William, lord ofNormandy, have becomeKing (Basileus) over thefatherland of the English byhereditaryright.’24

Inallprimitivemonarchiesdependent upon the rights ofthe kindred, it was of coursenecessary to devise somemeans whereby theundisputed claim of thefamily to the thronecouldbetranslated into the right of aparticular individual tosucceed. In Anglo-SaxonEngland two considerationsseem here to have beenparticularly influential. The

one was the expressed wishof the reigning kingrespecting his successorwithin the royal family; theother was the acceptance ofanindividual(alsowithinthefamily)by themagnates, andthe recognition of reciprocalrights and duties betweenthemasratifiedbyoath.Boththese notions were to havesome bearing on thelegitimacy of the William

kingship,andtobothofthemhewastopayovertrespect.There is no reasonable

doubt that, as has been seen,in or about 1051 Williamreceived formal designationby theConfessor as his heir,and the question beforecontemporaries was whetherthisnominationhadeverbeenformally rescinded. Within afew years of the Confessor'sdeath, it was asserted that

Edwardonhisdeath-bedhadbequeathed the throne toHarold Godwineson, andthere is very strong evidenceto suggest that this in factoccurred. The matter is not,however, entirely removedfrom doubt; nor can thepossibility be ignored thatthis promise may have beenextracted by duress from adying man during the lastconfusedmomentsofhis life

bytheinterestedgroupwhichis known tohave surroundedhisbedside.25Norisitcertainwhatweightwouldhavebeengivenbycontemporaries toabequest made at such a timetoonewhowasemphaticallynot of the stirps regia, orwhetherthiswouldhavebeengenerally regarded asinvalidating the earlierpromise to William. At allevents,whatevermay in fact

have happened on 5 January1066 around the Confessor'sdeath-bed, William neverceased to claim that he hadbeen formally designated bythe king as the legitimatesuccessor to Edward theConfessor.Inthematterofrecognition

by oath he was placed,however,inamoreequivocalposition. His acceptance askingbytheNormannoblesat

Berkhamstead followedrecognizedpractice,butinthecaseof theEnglishmagnatesit was obvious that he wasdealing by constraint withmen whom he had recentlybeaten in battle. None theless, both at Berkhamsteadand at Barking, Englishnotableshadswornloyaltytohim, receiving in return apromiseofgoodgovernment,and these transactions could

be construed, albeit withsome difficulty, as followingthe English tradition that isexemplified, for instance, inthe oaths which had beengiven and exacted byEdmund in 940–946. It is,however, the procedurewhich was deliberatelyadopted at the coronationwhichisheresignificant.Thenoteworthy innovation of thequestionsby theprelateswas

certainly introduced as anappeal to tradition, and thesequestions were preceded bytheConquerorpronouncingacoronation oath which isalmost identical with thatwhich had been employed atEnglish royal hallowingssincethetenthcentury.Itwasapparently delivered ‘in aclearvoice’.26The character ofWilliam's

kingship was to depend not

only on such respect as hecould assert for Englishtradition, but also on suchreligious sanctions as hecould invoke for the royaltyhe acquired. The coronationof 1066 has in short to beplacedinitspropersettingofcontemporary politicaltheology. In the eleventhcentury, thenotionofChrist-centred kingship wasgenerallyacceptedinwestern

Europe.27 Thus Otto II hadbeen depicted in the AachenGospels (c. 990) as set highabove other mortals and indirect communion with theGodhead, whilst Conrad IIhad later been hailed as theVicarofChristonearth.Norwere such attributes, derivedand developed from the ageofCharlemagne, restricted tothe emperors. In France thehouse of Capet, similarly

adapting Carolingiantradition, formallyclaimed torule by the ‘grace of God’,and their sacredmissionwaswidely asserted.28 Suchsentiments had in factbecome so pervasive thatWilliam in 1066 byexchanginghistitleofduxforthat of rex was, byimplication, demanding anexaltationofhisauthority.Fornowherehadthedivine

rightofmonarchybeenmoreforcibly emphasized than inEngland.IfWilliamwastobeaccepted as a lawful king itwas as the true successor ofEdward the Confessor, andthe sacred character ofEdward's kingship is notablyasserted in his earliestbiography. There, forinstance, it is stated thatEdwardruled‘bythegraceofGod and by hereditary right’

whilst the crown he wore isdescribedas‘thecrownofthekingdom of Christ’.29 ‘Letnot the King be perturbedeven though he has no son,for God will assuredlyprovideasuccessoraccordingto His pleasure.’ Edward, infact, had been ‘divinelychosen to be King evenbefore his birth, and hadthereforebeenconsecrated tohis kingdom not by men but

by God’.30 Such statementsare not to be dismissed asmererhetoric.Theyrepresenta view of kingship, whichwas soon to be challenged,butwhichinthemiddleoftheeleventh century was widelyaccepted and politicallyinfluential. By assumingEnglish royalty, William in1066wasinfactlayingclaimto a position which wasgenerally recognized as

possessingattributesspeciallydelegatedtoitbyGod.The prestige to which he

thus aspired could be furtherillustratedbyreferencetothethaumaturgic powersattributed to eleventh-centurykings.31 There is no doubtthat preternatural powers ofhealinghadbeenclaimed forRobert II of France, and theVitaEdwardirecountsseveralmiraculous cures as effected

by Edward the Confessor.32Later, Philip I of Francewascredited with the limitedpower of healing scrofula bytouch,anditwouldseemthatthesamepowerwasascribedtoHenryIofEngland.33Theprecise nature of the powerthusexercisedwas, it is true,ill-defined. In the earlier halfof the twelfth century theefficacy of the ‘touch’ ofLouisVIwasattributedtohis

heredity as king of France,and that the power wasinherentinroyaltycamelatertobeacceptedinbothFranceand England.34 During theInvestitures controversy, onthe other hand, manyecclesiastics were quick todeny any such supernaturalattributestothekinglyoffice,and in consequence to assertthat the healing miracles ofRobert I and Edward the

Confessor were due not totheir royalty but to theirpersonal sanctity.35 No suchdistinctions were drawn,however, in popular opinion,andWilliam ofMalmesbury,writing for sophisticatedreaders about 1125, wasconstrainedtochidethelargepublic who believed that itwas specifically as king thatEdward the Confessor hadperformed his miracles of

healing.36The royal state into which

William entered wassurrounded by a strangeatmosphere of veneration.Whether he himself ever‘touched’ for scrofula mustremain uncertain, but, set ashe was between Edward theConfessor and Henry I (bothof whom were later creditedwiththaumaturgicpowers),itis not impossible that he did

so.37 Indeed, there is indirecttestimonywhichpoints,albeitdoubtfully, towards thisconclusion. About 1080Goscelin, a monk of Saint-Bertin,whocame toEnglandin 1059, composed a Life ofStEdith,thedaughterofKingEdgar,whichhededicated toLanfranc. In this work, hedescribes a posthumousmiracle performed by theroyal saint whereby Ælviva,

abbess of Wilton from 1065to 1067, was cured of amalady affecting her eyes(oneofthesignsofscrofula),and the disease is describedas ‘the royal sickness’.38Evidently,towardstheendofthe reign of William theConqueror, something likethe disease later held to bespecially susceptible to theroyal ‘touch’ was alreadybeingdescribedinEnglandas

the ‘King's Evil’. And,equally certainly, the crown-wearings which Williammadea regular featureofhisEnglish reign, and at whichthe laudes regiae were sung,could have suppliedappropriate occasionswhereat suchceremonial actsof healing might have beenperformed.Whatever place may be

assigned to William the

Conqueror in the curioushistoryof royalhealing therecan be no question of thereligious attributes of theroyaltywhichwashenceforthto be his. It was thusinevitable that he shouldclaim that his kingdom hadcometohimasagiftofGod.The ecclesiastical supportaccorded to his expeditioncould be cited in favour ofsuch a view, and Hastings

itself might be likened to atrial by battle in which Godhad delivered a just verdict.WilliamofPoitiersdevelopedthis idea,39and ifhemustberegarded as a prejudicedwitness,nosuchcriticismcanbe levelled at Eadmer. YetEadmer comments on thebattle of Hastings in exactlythe same sense. So heavywere the losses inflicted ontheNormans,hesays, that in

the opinion of eyewitnessesWilliam must have beendefeated but for theintervention of God.Therefore (concludesEadmer) William's victorymust be considered as‘entirely due to a miracle ofGod’, who was not willingthat Harold's perjury shouldgo unpunished.40 The ideawas capable of widedevelopment. As early as

1067 William is formallydescribed in a charter forPeterborough as ‘king of theEnglish by the grant ofGod’.41 And the claim thatWilliam's royalty had in aspecial way been granted tohimbyGodwasnotallowedtodie.Itwasherethattheunction

accorded to him at thecoronationbecameimportant,since it emphasized the

religiousnature of his office,and at the same timeindicated the manner inwhich his power mightperhaps in the future becircumscribed. Unction wasreservedforpriestsandkings.NoNormandukehadhithertobeen anointed. William'sunction therefore marked astage in the growth of hisauthority,anditthusattractedthe attention of

contemporaries. The Anglo-Saxon chronicler confineshimself to the statement thatWilliam was hallowed, butEadmer calls emphaticattention to the unction, andWilliam of Poitiers insiststhat it was performed by aprelate of unblemishedreputation.42 The Carmenwas later toglorify theact inrhetoricalverse,43 but amongcontemporaries it was

William of Jumièges whoperhapsbestsummedupwhattookplace.Notonly(hesays)wasWilliam accepted by theNorman and Englishmagnates; not only was hecrownedwitharoyaldiadem;but he was also ‘anointedwith holy oil by the bishopsof the kingdom’.44 In thismanner was the change ofdynasty in England formallylegitimized by one of the

most solemn of the rites oftheChurch.There was, moreover, a

special importance attachingtotheanointingofWilliamin1066. If unction in theeleventh century wasregarded as an essentialfeature of every royalinauguration, it wasparticularlyappositeatatimeof dynastic change, since itwas part of ecclesiastical

doctrine that suitability torule rather than stricthereditary right must in thelast resort be held to justifyany sacramental sanctionsbestowedbytheChurch.45Atthe timeof the coronation ofPippin in the eighth century,PopeZachariusisreportedtohave declared that it werebetterthatheshouldbecalledking who possessed thepowerratherthanhewhohad

none, and a parallel mightnow profitably be soughtbetween Edgar Atheling andChilderich III. In the intervalAdémar of Chabannes hadstated much the sameprinciple in favour of HughCapet,46andGregoryVIIwashimself torepeat thedoctrinewith perfect clarity.47 Thenotion that dynastic changemight be formally andsolemnly ratified by

consecration, and moreparticularly by unction, wasthus peculiarly applicable totheEnglishsituationin1066.Thepreciseimplicationsof

the unction were, however,liable to dispute, and theywere later to form part of agreat controversy. Twocontrasted interpretations ofthe unction might in fact bemade.48 Itmight be regardedas a recognition of existing

rightspertainingtothedivineinstitution of royalty, or itmightbeheldasthesourceofthoserights.Itgavethekingaplaceapartfromthelaity,andmight even vest him withsacerdotal powers. But itmight also be held to makehis status dependent upon areligious service performedby the clergy. Thesequestionswere to loom largein the arguments on the

relationsbetweensecularandreligious power in westernEurope which were to beginbefore the close ofWilliam'sEnglish reign, and whichwere to be developed duringtheInvestituresContest.It is,therefore, appropriate toconsider what was William'sown situation in this matteron the day on which he wassolemnly anointed inWestminster Abbey ‘by the

tomb of Edward theConfessor’onChristmasDay1066.49Itwasinevitablethatatthe

time of the InvestituresContest, those ecclesiasticswho were concerned tosubordinate secular authorityto theChurch should seek todeny that royal unction wasanindeliblesacrament,givingthe king the status of priest,and though the papalist case

in this matter was not to befully setoutuntil the timeofInnocent III, most of thearguments he reviewed hadbeen stated byHildebrandinewriters during the previouscentury.50Adenial thatroyalunctionwasasacramentwas,indeed, implicit in the claimofGregoryVII to be able todeposeanointedkings, and itisthereforenotsurprisingthatwhen in the course of the

twelfth century thesacraments of the churchwere defined, graded, andlimited to seven, royalunction found no placeamong them, though theconsecration of priests ofcourse remained.Consequently, there wastowardstheendofthetwelfthcentury a consistent attemptmadetominimize,inthecaseof kings, the dignity of the

anointing ceremony itself.Suchcontentions indicate thestrength of the laterecclesiastical opposition tothe notion of the priest-king,which in factwas towane inpolitical importance duringthe twelfth century. But theyalso suggest how generalmust have been the supportfor that notion during thepreviouscentury.51Therecan, indeed,be little

question of the strength ofthese ideas inEngland in thetimeofKingWilliam.Itwas,in fact,Normanwriterswho,in all Europe,were to be themostprominentindevelopingthe notion of the priest-kingin favour of the Anglo-Norman monarchy hefounded. The famoustractates formerly attributedto the Norman ‘AnonymousofYork’52 arenowgenerally

believed to have beencompiled inRouen about theend of the eleventh century,and it is not impossible thattheir author was WilliamBonne-Ame who in 1079became archbishop of Rouenwith the Conqueror'sapproval.53 In these tractates,as is well known, the royaloffice was exalted toextraordinary heights. Byunction (it is there asserted)

the king is sacramentallytransformed; he becomes aChristus domini; he becomesasanctus;andtheremayevenbe found in his office areflection of the authority ofGod Himself. It must ofcourse be remembered thatthisauthorwaswritingat thebeginning of the InvestituresContest,andwith thefervourof a controversialistsupportingthesecularpower.

But his ideas are generallyregarded as having beentraditional,54and,ashasbeenseen, they reflectedsentiments which had beenwidely current at an earlierdate, and particularly in theearly biography of Edwardthe Confessor. They mayreasonably be held thereforeto represent the view of theEnglish royalty that was in1066acquiredbytheNorman

duke, and the effect of suchideasonpopularsentimentinboth England and Normandymusthavebeenconsiderable.Lanfranc(itissaid)wasonceconstrainedtoreproveaclerkwho, watching Williamseated in splendour at oneofhiscrown-wearingscriedout:‘BeholdIseeGod.’55It would of course be

difficulttoassesstheeffectofsuch sentimentsonWilliam's

authority,butitmightbeeasyto underestimate their force.They must certainly havecontributed to theconsolidation of his powerduring the early years of hisEnglish reign, and from thestartheattemptedtotranslatethem into practice. Claimingthe loyalties inherent inEnglish kingship, he beganhisadministrationspecificallyas an English king. An

interesting group of chartershas survived which wereissuedveryearlyinhisreign.The most famous of thesewas in favour of the city ofLondon,56 but others wereaddressed to variouschurches:toWestminster,forexample, and to ChertseyAbbey; to Saint Augustine'sAbbeyatCanterbury;toGiso,bishop of Wells; and toBaldwin, abbot of Bury St

Edmunds.57 It will be notedthat all these granteesbelongedtosouthernEnglandbeyondwhich thenewking'spower did not extend.Already,however,thepurportof all these charterswas thatthe customs which prevailedunder Edward the Confessoraretobepreserved.Thereignof Harold Godwineson istreated as an interregnum.The Conqueror is made to

appearasthedirectsuccessorto the Confessor: as thelegitimate, and consecrated,holder of all the royal rightsof the ancient Englishdynasty.Nor can there be any

question that the specialqualities of the royalty hethusassumedwouldaffecthispolicy towards theChurch ata time when the relationsbetween secular and

ecclesiastical authoritythroughout western Europewere becoming increasinglycontroverted. Many of hisEnglish predecessors hadruled specifically ‘by thegrace of God’;58 most ofthem, including Edward theConfessor, had intervened inthedetailedadministrationofecclesiastical affairs;59 andindeed one of them hadactually been likened to the

GoodShepherdwhosesacredduty it was to tend the flockof the faithful. Now, in thecoronation Ordo which wassung in 1066, it was oncemore prayed that this newNorman king would foster,teach, strengthen, andestablish ‘the church of thewholekingdomoftheAnglo-Saxons, committed to hischarge, and defend it againstall visible and invisible

enemies’.60 Such a position,sonotablyreassertedatatimeof violence and change, wasfortified by tradition. Notonly did it derive strengthfrom the religious sanctionsofOldEnglish royalty,but itharmonized with the long-standingclaimsofCanterburyto leadership over the wholeecclesia Anglicana – a termwhichnotonlyembraced theprovincesbothofCanterbury

and York but might evenstretch into Scotland orIreland. On this matterWilliam, the great king, andLanfranc, the greatarchbishop, were to findthemselvesatone.61Andinawider sphere also the impactof these ideaswas to be felt.They offered a counterpoiseto rising theories, which,whileseekingtodiminishthesanctity of royalty, at the

same time claimed completefreedomfor theChurch fromsecular authority. One of thegreatest practical advantageswhich accrued to Christ-centredmonarchywas that itlegitimized the control by aking over the Churchthroughoutallhisdominions.The chief effects of

William's coronationwere ofcourse to be felt in England.But its consequences

extended to Normandy also.It was not merely that hispersonalstandingwastherebyincreasedsothatawidergulfwas henceforth to separatehimfromeventhegreatestoftheNorman nobles.Norwasit solely that the feudalarrangements of Normandyweretobealtered(aswillbeseen)inWilliam'sfavourasaresult of the conquest ofEngland. It was, also, a

matter of prestige. NoNorman duke had ever beenanointed.62 NoNorman dukehadhithertobeensalutedwithsuch impressive Laudes, andcertainly the faithful inNormandy had never beforeheard their duke mentionedbynameasWilliamnowwas,asking,ineveryrecitaloftheCanonoftheMass.63Williambroughtthegloryofmedievalregality to theNorman ducal

dynasty, and his authority inNormandy was inevitablyenhancedbythefact.There was, moreover, a

particular reason why inNormandy, at this time,William's acquisition of thekingly dignity must havebeen especially influential.The manner in which theEnglish expedition had beenblessed by the Church wasonly part of a process

whereby during these criticaldecades the Normans hadadopted the notion of a holywar and exploited it in theirown interests. Again andagain the same theme hadbeen stressed. In 1062–1063PopeAlexander II had givenhis blessing and a banner toNorman knights fighting inSicily. In 1064 the Normanswere prominent in the‘crusade’ at Barbastro.64 In

1066William himself foughtin Sussex under a papalbanner, and with dedicatedrelicsroundhisneck.In1068Norman knights such asRousselofBailleulandRogerCrispin,whoseexploits seemto have been known toWilliam of Poitiers,65 wereserving with the easternemperor against the Turks.66In 1070 the religiouscharacter of William's own

expedition was proclaimedafresh at Windsor, and in1071 Norman warriors wereengaged with the emperor atManzikiert.67 In 1072, whileWilliam was advancing intoScotland, Roger son ofTancred captured Palermofrom the Saracens,68 and,however mixed the motiveswhichinspiredit,theNormanconquestofSicily resulted inthemostimportanttriumphof

Christians over Moslems inthe eleventh century. Theseevents so closely connectedin time were also intimatelyrelated in spirit for, as mustbe emphasized, they wereundertakenbymenwhowerebrothers and cousins of oneanother, fully conscious oftheir kinship, and consciousalso of their common andmilitant purpose. And nowthis self-styled ‘crusading’

endeavourwhich involved somany lands had beencrownedbytheassumptionofdivinely sanctioned royaltybyaNormanduke.How potent might be the

effect of these ideas issuggested by a comparisonbetween some of the literaryand liturgical texts of thistime. The continuoussequence of events of whichthe Norman conquest of

Englandmaybesaid tohaveformed a part, is generallyheld, for instance, to haveinspired the Song of Roland,which probably assumed itspresent form towards thecloseoftheeleventhcentury,oratalleventsbefore1124.69ButintheSongofRolandnotonlyisthenotionoftheHolyWar glorified, but also theconception of the divinelysponsored monarch who is

himself both priest and king.The fabled Charlemagne is,there, a man of supernaturalage, and of supernaturalsanctity; St Gabriel watchesover his sleep, and when hefights, theangelofGodgoeswith him. Moreover, he iscertainly the priest-king. Hegives the priestly blessing;likeapriest,hesignswiththecross; and, as only a priestcan, he pronounces

absolution.70 Now, it is notimpossible that the Rolandassumed its present formunder Norman influence,71butwhetherthisbesoornot,its relevance to thecontemporary idea of theHolyWarasexploitedbytheNormans, and to the Christ-centred monarchy to whichWilliam aspired, is evident.Indeed,inrespectofthelatternotion, the closest parallel to

the Roland in contemporarytexts is to be found in thosetracts by the Anonymous ofRouen (or of York) whichwere certainly of Normanorigin, and which equallycertainly reflected the sameideasofkingship.The direct bearing of this

on the question of William'sroyalty could be furtherillustrated by renewedreference to those Laudes

whichwere sungbeforehim,most probably at hiscoronation, and certainly athis subsequent crown-wearings. In 1068 theseLaudes contained theinvocation: ‘To all the lordsof the English, and to thewholearmyoftheChristians,life and prosperity.’72 Now,the hail to the ‘army of theChristians’ is entirelyappropriate to the fabled

Charlemagneoftheeleventh-century Roland. And it mayhavebeenbroughttoEnglandby the Normans. Moreover,its particular relevance to thecircumstances of 1066 asenvisaged by theNormans ismadeclearbythesubsequenthistory of the Laudes inEngland. For while thesecontinued to be sung inhonour of the kings ofEngland until at least the

early thirteenth century, yetby the middle of the twelfthcentury the phrase ‘army ofthe Christians’ had beenreplaced by ‘army of theEnglish’.73 The special‘crusading’ sentimentcharacteristicof theNormansin the eleventh century haddeparted, and itsdisappearance shows byimplication how strong hadbeen that sentiment at the

time of William'scoronation.74These considerations

indicatefromanewangletheeffectofWilliam'scoronationnotonlyonNormandybutonthewiderNormanworld.Forthatworldtowardstheendoftheeleventhcenturywasinareal sense a unity. Normanprelates such as Geoffrey ofCoutances and Odo ofBayeux received

contributions from theirkinsfolk in Italy to enablethemtobuildtheircathedralsathome.TheNormanLaudeswith which England wasmadefamiliarafter1066weretopasson toApulia,75and itwasnotedasasourceofpridethatthechantofSaint-Évroulrose to God from themonasteriesofSicily.NotfornothingwasRouensoontobehailedasanimperialcity–as

asecondRome–for (aswassaid) theNorman people hadgone out from thence tosubdue so many otherlands.76 These weresentimentsof themid-twelfthcentury,but theyreflectedanearlier tradition. TheConqueror, it is said, waswont to confirm his courageby recalling the deeds ofRobert Guiscard,77 and hiscontemporary biographer

boasted that the troops hebrought to England belongedto the same race that tookpossession of Apulia, battledin Sicily, fought atConstantinople, and broughtterror to the gates of‘Babylon’.78 Certainly, theNormanworldofthisagewasareality,proudofitsassertedChristianmission, and proudalsoofitsarmedmightwhichby 1072 had been made to

stretch from Abernethy toSyracuse, from Barbastro toByzantium, from Brittany tothe Taurus. And within thisvast zone of interconnectedendeavour, William between1066 and 1087 occupied aspecial place. He was theonlyNormanrex;hewas theonly Norman ChristusDomini. As such, throughoutthe self-conscious Normanworldoftheeleventhcentury

he might claim – and hemightsometimesbeaccorded–auniqueprestige.79Herein lay the peculiar

importance toNormandyandthe Normans of the act of1066 by which William,using all the Old Englishprecedentsinhissupport,laidclaim to Christ-centredkingship. And for thesereasons, also, the same actwas to foster a common

purpose in both parts of hisrealm. In England he couldcall to loyalties which hadlong been centred on anancient royal house. InNormandy, as the duke whohadrisentoroyalty,hecouldappeal to the particularpatriotism of a uniqueprovince,andalsotoNormanpride in a far-flung militaryendeavour that had beenlinked to a self-asserted

Christian purpose.And thesesentiments, distinct inEnglandandNormandy,werein some measure fusedtogether by the centralreligious act of ChristmasDay1066.In this sense therefore it is

appropriate toapply the term‘Anglo-Norman kingdom’80to those dominions on bothsides of the Channel which,between1066and1087,were

unitedundertheruleofKingWilliam. Some importantqualificationsmust, however,always be borne in mindwhen the term isused in thissense. William was not onlyking: he was morespecifically king of theEnglish; and after 1066, asbefore, he was also duke ofthe Normans. In charters ofNorman provenance between1066and1087bothtitlesare

normally used,81 and if theducal style is made to yieldprecedence to the royal, thedouble description remainedanditsimplicationsarenottobe ignored. Nor were itspolitical consequences to benegligible. They were at thelast to find expression afterWilliam's death, when theConqueror's realm becamedivided for nineteen yearsbefore it was reunited under

theruleofoneofhissons.82Nevertheless, when all

proper qualifications havebeen made, it remains truethat in a real sense thedominions of King Williambetween 1066 and 1087constitutedasinglerealmanda political unity. DukeWilliam IIofNormandywasnow King William I ofEngland, but it was equallytrue that the Norman duchy

was now under the rule of aking. And this was to affecthis position in NormandyscarcelylessthaninEngland.Itwasasking thathewas tohold his courts which, onboth sides of the Channel,comprisedmuchthesamesetof people. It was as aconsecratedking thathe, andhe alone, between 1066 and1087,attendedanddominatedthe ecclesiastical councils

whichmetbothinNormandyand in England. And it wasunder a single king that asingle aristocracy,predominantly Norman incomposition, controlled theadministrationofhisconjointrealm.Asaresult,duringthisperiod Normandy andEngland were to exercise acontinual and reciprocalinfluence on each other, andthe transformations which

then occurred were alwaysdependentuponthedukewhohad become a king, andwhose royal status wasessential to his subsequentachievement.ThusitwasthatWilliam's coronation in 1066accurately foreshadowedmany of the specialcharacteristicsoftherealmheruled, and indicatedmuch ofitsfuturehistory.

1AS.Chron.,‘D’,s.a.1066.2Will.Poit.,p.216.3Ibid.,p.218.4PrintedinThreeCoronationOrders,ed.J.WickhamLegg(HenryBradshawSoc.,vol.XIX(1891),pp.54–64).

5P.E.Schram,EnglishCoronation,p.234.

6Ibid.,p.28.7WickhamLegg,loc.cit.8Will.Poit.,p.221.9Schram,op.cit.,p.151.

10Ibid.,p.29.11E.H.Kantorowicz,LaudesRegiae(1946).

12Ibid.,pp.63,166,andabove,pp.153,154.

13Ibid.,p.178.ButseealsoRichardsonandSayles,GovernanceofMedievalEngland(1963),pp.406–409.

14SeeW.G.Henderson,SurteesSoc.,vol.LXI(1875),pp.279etseq.;Maskell,MonumentaRitualia(1882),vol.II,pp.85–

89.15AS.Chron.,‘E’,s.a.1087;Kantorowicz,op.cit.,pp.178,179.

16SaintMaurice;SaintSebastian;SaintAdrian.

17‘GuillelmoNormannorumduci,salusetpaxcontinua.’ThisbeautifullitanyisprintedinJ.Loth,LaCathédraledeRouen(1879),inLeGradueldel'églisedeRouenauXIIIèmesiècle,ed.Loriquetandothers(1907),and

inKantorowicz(op.cit.,pp.167,168).

18ThetextofthissecondlitanyisdifficulttoreconstructsinceitderivesfromBrit.Mus.Cott.MS.VitelliusE.xii,whichin1731wasmuchdamagedbyfire.IfollowtheversiongivenbyHendersoninhisedition(op.cit.,p.279).

19‘WilhelmoserenissimoaDeocoronato,magnoetpacificoregivitaetvictoria.’

20Kantorowicz,op.cit.,p.29.21Will.Poit.,p.222.22Kern,KingshipandLaw(trans.Chrimes),pp.12–21.

23Douglas,FeudalDocuments,p.48,no.3.

24CharlesdeJumièges,vol.I,no.XXIX:EgoWuillelmusNormanniedominus,jurehereditarioAnglorumpatrieeffectussumBasileus.

25Above,pp.181,182.26Schram,op.cit.,p.184.

27Kantorowicz,TheKing'sTwoBodies(1957),chap.III.

28M.Bloch,LesRoisthaumaturges(1924),pp.185–215.

29WilliamtheConqueror‘hadacrownmadeforhimselfbyaGreekwhichwithitsarcandtwelvepearlsresembledthatofOttotheGreat’(Leyser,R.Hist.Soc,Transactions,series5,vol.X(1960),p.65).Wasthisthecrownwhichwasapparentlyin

Normandyin1087(‘MonkofCaen’–Will.Jum.,p.146),andwhichwasgiventoWilliamRufusbytheConqueroronhisdeath-bed?OntheConqueror'scrowns,seefurtherSchram,HerrschafszeichenundStaats-symbolik,vol.II,pp.393etsqq.,andBarlow,VitaEdwardi,p.117.

30VitaEdwardi(ed.Barlow),pp.9,13,27,59.

31Bloch,op.cit.

32VilaEdwardi,pp.60–63.33Bloch,op.cit.,pp.31,46–49.34Ibid.,p.31.35Ibid.,pp.45,120.36GestaRegum,p.273.37R.W.Southern,‘TheFirstLifeofEdwardtheConfessor’(Eng.Hist.Rev.,vol.LXII(1943).p.391).

38A.Wilmart,AnalectaBollandiana,vol.LVI(1938),pp.294,295.

39Will.Poit.,pp.171,206.

40Eadmer,Hist.Novorum(ed.Rule),p.9:‘absquedubiosolimiraculoDeiascribendaest’.

41Mon.Ang.,vol.I,p.383:‘DeibeneficioRexAnglorum.’Thephrasehasfeudalconnotations.

42AS.Chron.,‘D’,s.a.1066;Eadmer,Hist.Novorum,loc.cit.;Will.Poit.,p.220.

43Carmen(Michel,Chroniques,vol.III,p.38).

44Will.Jum.,p.136.45Kern,op.cit.,pp.37–43.

46Ed.Chevanon,pp.150,151.47MonumentaGregoriana(ed.Jaffé),p.458.

48Bloch,op.cit.,pp.69–74;Kern,op.cit.,pp.27–61.

49Ord.Vit.,vol.II,p.156.50Kantorowicz,King'sTwoBodies,p.36;Schram,op.cit.,p.120.

51Eveninthetwelfthcentury,JohnofSalisburycouldcomplainthatignorantpeoplestillthoughtthatkingshadthe

spiritualauthorityofpriests(Southern,MakingoftheMiddleAges,p.94).

52SeeG.H.Williams,NormanAnonymousof1100(1951).

53Ibid.,pp.24–82,102–127.54Kantorowicz,King'sTwoBodies,pp.42–61.

55MiloCrispin,VitaLanfranci(Pat.Lat.,vol.CL,col.53);cf.Williams,op.cit.,p.161.

56Liebermann,Gesetz,vol.I,p.286,andelsewhere.

57Mon.Ang.,vol.I,pp.301,431;Elmham,Hist.monasteriiS.AugustiniCantuariensis(ed.C.Hardwick),p.36;Douglas,FeudalDocuments,p.49,no.4.

58Stenton,Anglo-SaxonEngland,pp.537,538.

59Apartfromhisappointmenttobishoprics,notehistreatmentofthenunneryofLeominister(Freeman,NormanConquest,vol.II,noteN).

60WickhamLegg,op.cit.,pp.54–

64.61Below,pp.321–323.62Schram,op.cit.,p.47;Bloch,op.cit.,pp.496,497.

63Thereseemsnodoubtofthis.ThekingismentionedbynameintheCanonintheSarumandHerefordritesafterthenameofthebishop(Maskell,AncientLiturgyoftheChurchofEngland,pp.82,83).Thisisalsotheformulaofthe‘MissalofRobertofJumièges’(Henry

BradshawSoc.,vol.XL,1896),sopresumablyitgoesbackinEnglandbeforetheNormanconquest.FortheFrenchpractice,seeR.Fawtier,CapetianKings(1950),p.76.TheconnexionsbetweentheritesofRouen,Salisbury,andHerefordarediscussedwithawealthoflearninginE.Bishop,LiturgicaHistorica,pp.276–301.

64SettonandBaldwin,Historyof

theCrusades,vol.I,p.21;R.Dozy,Recherchessurl'histoiredelalitteraturedel'Espagne,vol.II,pp.335–353.TheAnnalsofSaint-MaxenceofPoitiers(Rec.Hist.Franc.,vol.XI,p.220)callparticularattentiontotheparticipationoftheNormansintheaffairatBarbastro.

65Ord.Vit.,vol.II,p.199.66Schlumberger,inRevuehistorique,vol.XVI(1881),pp.289–303.

67Runciman,Crusades,vol.I,pp.66,67.

68SettonandBaldwin,op.cit.,p.64.

69Bédier,Légendesépiques,vol.III,pp.183etsqq.ManyofthedetailsofBédier'smagnificentexpositionhavebeenquestioned,butthecentralfactseemsestablished.

70Ibid.,vol.IV,pp.458,459.71Cf.Douglas,‘SongofRolandandtheNormanConquestof

England’(FrenchStudies,vol.XIV(1960),pp.99–114).

72OmnibusprincipibusAnglorumetcunctoexercituiChristianorum,vitaetsalus.

73Kantorowicz,LaudesRegiae,p.236.

74Ibid.,p.179.75Ord.Vit.,vol.II,p.91;L.T.White,LatinMonasticisminNormanSicily,p.48.

76E.M.Jamison,‘TheSicilianNormanKingdomintheMinds

ofAnglo-NormanContemporaries’(Brit.Acad.,Proceedings,vol.XXIV(1938),pp.249–250).

77Will.Malms.,GestaRegum,p.320.

78Will.Poit.,p.228.Whereis‘Babylon’?

79Asearlyastheeleventhcentury,chroniclersweresalutingWilliamtheConquerorasifhehadbeeninthissenselordnotonlyofNormandyand

EnglandbuteveninsomesensealsoofApuliaandSicily(Kantorowicz,LaudesRegiae,p.157).

80Thetermis,ofcourse,alsousedtodesignate,andwithperfectpropriety,‘TheKingdomofEnglandundertheNormanKings’.

81RexAnglorumfollowedbyDux(orsometimesPrinceps)Normannorum.AnycharterofNormanprovenancepurporting

tohavebeenissuedbyWilliambetween1066and1087withouttheroyalstyleisforthatreasonhighlysuspect.

82Below,pp.360,361.

Chapter11

THEFEUDALPOLITY

The coronation of Williamthe Conqueror marked thebeginning of a formativeperiod which producedchangesoflastingimportanceto both parts of his conjoint

realm, but it was inevitablethat England should be themore immediately and themore profoundly affected.Norman influence uponEngland was now in fact tobe fully extended, and onhighly individual lines, by aNorman king, and the earliergrowthofNormanpowerandpolicy already indicatedclearly themaindirections inwhich that influence would

bemostnotablyfelt.Normanpowerhadbeenbaseduponanew feudal nobility whichnow claimed the rewards ofconquest.Normanpolicyhadbeen fortified by a revival inthe province of Rouen. Theresults to England of theNorman conquest might,therefore, be expected to bein the first instancearistocraticandecclesiastical.Andsuchwasinfacttobethe

case. But even as Williamhad dominated the recentdevelopmentsinhisduchybyadapting more ancientinstitutions tohispurpose,soalso might it be anticipatedthat he would now utilize tothefullthetraditionalpowersofthemonarchyhehadwon,and the institutions of thecountry he had conquered.This also was to take place,with the result that the

NormanimpactuponEnglandwastobedrasticallymodifiedbyEnglishtraditionunderthedirectionoftheNormanking.The political union of

NormandyandEnglandunderWilliam the Conqueror, andthe manner in which it hadbeen consummated, entailedinexorably radical changes inthehigher ranksof thesocialorder in both countries.Between 1066 and 1087

NormandyandEnglandwerenot only brought under therule of a Norman king, butthey were also progressivelyand together subjected to thedominance of the Normanaristocracy. The results wereto be far-reaching. ForNormandy it meant that anewly formed aristocraticgroup was to be vastlyenriched, and at the sametime brought into more

closelydefinedrelationswiththe duke who had become aking. For England the sameprocessinvolvednothinglessthan the destruction of anancient nobility, andsubstitution in its place of anew aristocracy importedfrom overseas. This was, infact, perhaps the greatestsocialchangewhichoccurredinEnglandduringthereignofWilliamtheConqueror,andit

waseffectedtoalargeextentunderhismanagement.ThefateoftheOldEnglish

nobility during these yearswasintruthcatastrophic,anditsdownfallisoneofthebestdocumented socialtransformations of theeleventh century.1 The threegreat battles of 1066 inEngland had taken a heavytoll of this class, and thosewho escaped the carnage of

Fulford, Stamford Bridge,and Hastings, the defeatedsupporters of a lost cause,faced a future which couldonly be harsh and bleak.TheirpositionafterWilliam'scoronation was at bestprecarious, and it soondeteriorated.At first thekingwas content to make use ofEnglish officials and to haveathiscourtmagnatessuchasEdwin, Morcar, and

Waltheof. But these earlswere soon to disappear fromthe political scene, and theeventsof1068–1071were tobring fresh calamities to themen whom they might haveprotected. The early wars ofKing William in Englandentailed further widespreaddestruction to the lives andproperty of the Old Englishnobility,andatthesametimebrought to an endanypolicy

of compromise which thekingmightperhapshavebeendisposed to adopt towardsthem. It was fatal to theirfortunes. Many went intoexile: to Scotland, toFlanders, or to Byzantium,and those who remained,robbed of their naturalleaders,anddeprivedof theirpossessions, foundthemselves powerless in theface of the new aristocracy

which was ready to supplantthem.Their downfallwas allbut complete. DomesdayBook records all the greaterland-owners in England in1086and it is rare to findanEnglish name among them.BytheendoftheConqueror'sreign, it has been calculated,only about 8 per cent of theland of England remained inthe possession of this class.2It had ceased to be a

dominant part of Englishsociety.Thenewaristocracywhich

supplanted it, thoughpredominantly Norman, wasnot exclusively so. Many ofthose who took part in theConqueror's venture camefrom other provinces inEurope, and some of thesesettledinthecountrytheyhadhelped to subdue. Animportant group of men

derived, for instance, fromregions to the east ofNormandy, and among thesewere some who were eitherFlemishinorigin,or tosomeextent dependents of thecounts of Flanders. Eustace,count of Boulogne, despitehisadventuresin1067wastoestablish his family inEngland, and many lesserlandowners in 1086 couldsimilarly be traced to the

Boulonnais.3 Such, forinstance,asGunfridandSigarfrom Chocques in Hainault,who were established inNorthamptonshire, and thefamilyofCuinchy,whowerelater to supply earls ofWinchester.4 Similarly,Arnulf from Hesdins, in thePas-de-Calais,was,in1086,atenant-in-chief in manyshires,andGilbert‘deGand’,who likewise received large

estates in England, was thesonofacountofAlost.5ButofallthisgroupwithFlemishconnexions, the mostinteresting was a certainGerbod, who was probablyadvocatus of the abbey ofSaint-Bertin. Described asFlandrensis, he wasapparently thesonofanotheradvocatus of the samename,andin1070hewasentrustedwiththeearldomofChester.6

At about the same time hisbrother, named Frederic,receivedlandsinEastAngliawhile his sister, Gundrada,married William ofWarenne.7 It was animportant connexion, and, ifit had been establishedpermanently in England, theFlemish element in thesettlement might have beenlargerthaninfactitwas.ButGerbod, after holding his

earldom for less than a year,returned to Flanders, andhaving fallen into the handsofhisenemies,perhapsatthebattle of Cassel, passed intoobscurity; whilst Fredericseems tohavebeenkilledbythe followers ofHereward in1079.8 None the less, menfrom Flanders continued toprovide a significant elementin the new nobility, andwhen,beforetheendof1069,

William protected the landsof Aldred, archbishop ofYork,hedidsobymeansofavernacular writ whichcontained a solemn warningto‘NormansandFlemishandEnglish’.9More numerous than the

Flemings, were the Bretons.Among these the mostprominent were the sons ofEudo, count of Penthièvre.The second of them, Brian,

received extensive lands inthe south-west and perhapsbecame earl ofCornwall.Hewitnessed a charter of theConquerorforExeterin1069,and in the same year hehelped to repel the attack ofthe sonsofHarold.10But hissojourn in England wasapparentlybrief.Hispositionin Cornwall was soon to betaken by Robert, count ofMortain,anditwasnotBrian

but his brother Alan I, ‘theRed’,whoinfactwastherealfounder of the Englishfortunes of the family. ThisAlan, who served in theBreton contingent atHastings, was in constantattendance upon theConqueror, and receivedmore than four hundredmanors in eleven shires, hisestates being concentrated inYorkshire, Lincolnshire, East

Anglia, and the south-west.11At Richmond he built thegreat castle which dominatestheSwaleandgavethenameto his barony. And after hisdeath about 1093 theextensive ‘honour ofRichmond’ was to passsuccessively to his brother,Alan II (‘the Black’), andStephen, who at last unitedthe Breton and Englishpossessionsofthefamily.12

The establishment on thisscaleofacadetbranchoftheruling house of Brittanyindicates the importance ofthe Breton element in thefeudalsettlementofEngland.The presence of Ralph ofGaelasearlofNorfolkduringthe earlier years of theConqueror's reign wasanother sign of the extent ofBretoninfluence,andintruththere was scarcely a shire

whichwasnotaffected.13Thelands pertaining to theRichmondfeebecamethicklystudded with Breton names,many of whom wereimportant. Again, Judhael ofTotnes possessed in 1086 alarge honour in the south-west; Oger ‘the Breton’,AlfredofLincoln, andEudo,son of Spirewic, wereestablished in Lincolnshire;whilst in Essex, Tihel of

Helléan gave his name inperpetuity to HelionsBumpstead.14 Indeed, theassimilation of the Bretonsinto the new feudalaristocracy of England wasnot to be completed beforethe Conqueror's death. Norwas it achieved withoutdifficulty. The closeconnexion of the rising ofRalphdeGaelwiththeaffairsof Brittany has already been

noted,and thesuppressionofthat rebellion led to theimposition of fierce penaltiesagainstcertainoftheBretonsin England.15 It is notimpossible that thesubstitution of Count RobertofMortainforCountBrianinCornwall was a consequenceofthesemeasures.Despite the influential

groups which derived fromFlandersorBrittany,thebulk

of the new aristocracywhichwas established in EnglandunderWilliamtheConquerorcamefromthenobilitywhichhad arisen in Normandyduring the earlier half of theeleventh century. Its rewardswereimmense.Ofallthelandin England surveyed inDomesdayBook,aboutafifthwashelddirectlybytheking;aboutaquarterbythechurch;andnearlyhalfbythegreater

followersoftheConqueror.16Moreover, this seculararistocracy was not onlyextremely powerful andpredominantly Norman: itwas also small. Theimmediatetenantsofthekingas recorded in DomesdayBookwere, it is true, a largeand miscellaneous class, butthose who were predominantamong themwere few. Thusabout half the land, held by

lay tenure in England undertheConqueror,was given byhim to only eleven men.These were Odo, bishop ofBayeux and earl of Kent;Robert, count of Mortain;WilliamfitzOsbern;RogerofMontgomery; William ofWarenne; Hugh, son ofRichard, vicomte of theAvranchin;Eustace, count ofBoulogne; Count Alan theRed; Richard, son of Gilbert

of Brionne the count;Geoffrey, bishop ofCoutances, who had a largesecular barony in England;and Geoffrey fromManneville in the Bessin.17The names may wellchallenge attention; for allexcept Eustace and CountAlan were Normans; and allexcept Geoffrey ofManneville and Count Alanhadplayedaconspicuouspart

in the history of Normandybetween 1040 and 1066. Onthem nearly a quarter ofEnglandwasbestowed.Most of what remained to

be distributed among thesecular followers of Williamwas likewise acquired bycomparatively few persons.Among the men who werelavishly endowed were, forinstance, the representativesof the comital dynasties of

Évreux and Eu; Roger BigotfromCalvados;RobertMaletfrom the neighbourhood ofLe Havre; Hugh ofGrandmesnil;andRobertandHenry the sons of Roger ofBeaumont. And to thesemight be added WalterGiffard from Longueville-sur-Scie, Hugh of Montfort-sur-Risle, and Ralph III ofTosny.18 It is an impressivelist, but while it could of

course be supplemented inmany directions with nameswhich were later to becomefamous in English andEuropeanhistory,itcouldnotbeimmeasurablyextended.Itdeserves emphasis that lessthan 180 tenants-in-chief arerecorded in Domesday Bookas possessed of Englishestates which are rated at anannual value of more than£100.19 And from among

these,thegreatmen–andthegreat families – stand out toshow the manner in whichunder the direction of theConqueror the territorialwealth of England wasconcentrated between 1070and 1087 into a few verypowerfulhands.This small and dominant

aristocracy preserved inEngland the cohesion it hadpreviously attained in

Normandy. Not only didinter-marriages between thegreater families continue tostrengthen the ties betweenthem, but the magnatesthemselves were able toreproduce in England theclose relationship with theirdependents which they hadestablished in Normandybefore the Conquest. Thiselement in the NormansettlementofEnglandwas in

fact so important that itperhaps deserves moreillustration than it alwaysreceives. The great Normanhonours in England were, asis well known, widelyscattered, but the tenurialconnexions among theirmembers were veryfrequently the outcome ofearlier territorialassociationsbetween them in Normandy.In other words, the chief

tenantsofaNormanmagnatein England might be widelyseparated from one another,holding lands in differentshires, but they very oftenbore territorial names whichreveal their families as nearneighbours in Normandy.Thus, among the DomesdayBooktenantsofRobertMaletweremenwhocanbeshownto have come from Claville,Colleville, Conteville, and

Émalleville, all of which aresituated close to Graville-Sainte-Honorine, the centreof the Malet power inNormandy.20 Again, astenantsinEnglandofRichardfitzGilbertorhis soncanbefound men who took theirnames from Abenon, Saint-Germain-le-Campagne, LaCressonière, Fervaques,Nassandres,andLaVespière,all of which are close to

Orbec the head of Richardfitz Gilbert's Normanbarony.21 Examples could bemultiplied.Ashasbeenseen,the early connexion betweenPantulfandMontgomerywasreproduced in eleventh-century Shropshire, and the-long-standing dependence ofClères upon Tosny wascontinuedinYorkshirewherein the middle of the twelfthcentury, members of the

family of Clères held landswhichbeforethedeathoftheConqueror had belonged toBerengar ‘de Tosny’ ofBelvoir.22 Similarly, amongthe tenants in England ofRobert, count of Eu, weremenwhose names reveal theorigin of their families inCreil-sur-Mer, Floques,Normanville, Ricarville,Sept-Meules, and Mesnières,whichlieinacircleroundEu

itself.23The manner in which the

Norman aristocracy wasintroduced into Englandprovidesstrikingtestimonytothe constructivestatesmanship of theConqueror.Twourgent taskswerehereimposeduponhim.On the one hand, it wasessential that theestablishment of this highlycompetitive nobility in a

recently conquered landshould be effected in such amanner that general anarchyshould not ensue. On theotherhand, itwas imperativethat the enrichment of theNorman magnates should bemade to enhance, and not todiminish, the king's authorityandpowerbothinNormandyand in England. Theseproblems were formidable.But upon their solution the

survival of the Anglo-Norman state would in largemeasuredepend.In England, William's

claimtoruleas the legalandsanctified successor toEdward the Confessor herestood him in good stead.Even so, it was by personalmastery of a difficultsituation that he was ablegenerally to insist that hismagnates should take up not

only the rights, but also theobligations, of their Englishpredecessors.Thus,itbecameusual for a Norman lord inEngland to find himselfendowed within each shirenot with a miscellaneouscollection of manors butrather with all the landswhichhadformerlybelongedto one ormore pre-Conquestlandowners. Theconsequences of thiswere to

beprofound.Ithasfrequentlybeen noted that, with certainexceptions, the lands grantedto the king's followers werenotasaruleconcentrated,butscattered throughout thecountry. This process hassometimes been attributed tothe king's political design,andsometimestothefactthatas the Conquest proceededpiecemeal, so also did theallocationof lands takeplace

graduallyaseachnewregioncame under the Conqueror'scontrol. Both these viewsdeserveconsideration,butbythemselves they offer only apartial explanation of whatoccurred. In the first place,the‘scatteringofthemanors’can itself be exaggerated, forwhile one of William'sgreater followers wasnormally given land inmanyshires, it was by no means

uncommonforhimtoacquirea concentration of landedwealth in some particularregion in which he wasdominant.24 Again, the largeandscatteredestatewasbynomeans unknown in Englandin the reign of Edward theConfessor,wheremanyofthegreaternoblespossessedwidelands which (like those oftheir Norman successors)were largely farmed under a

system of stock and landleases.25 In this respect,therefore,thenewaristocracyoftenfoundlittledifficultyinadapting themselves, undertheking'sdirection, toearlierconditions.Moreover, while the

transference of possessionwas of course sometimesaccompanied by privateviolence, it was more ofteneffected without disturbance,

and it is wholly remarkablehow frequently cases ofdispute were settled at theking'scommandbyreferencetotraditionallegalprocess.Inthe great trials whichwere acharacteristic feature of theConqueror'sreignappealwasregularly made to Anglo-Saxon custom,26 and one ofthe objects of the Domesdaysurveywasnotonlytorecordthe conditions prevailing in

the time of Edward theConfessorbutalsotoprovideevidence of the legality ofsuchchangesashadoccurredsince his death. Here, again,William was concerned torepresenthimselfasakingofEngland by due succession,and itwasunder theguiseofan astute conservatism thatthe redistribution of Englishlands took place. A declaredrespect for legal precedent

was thus paradoxically madetopervade thewholeprocesswhereby within the shortspace of twenty years a newnobility was given toEngland, and this in partexplainsWilliam's success ineffecting so great aredistributionof landwithoutprovoking irreparabledisorderinhiskingdom.The survival of his

composite realm depended,

however, even more directlyupon his ability to make theestablishment of thisaristocracy itself subserve itsmilitarystrength. Indeed, thisdominant purpose wasdisplayed from the veryoutset of his reign. Atstrategic points in hiskingdomheatonceendowedwith compact blocks ofterritory those members ofthe Norman nobility who

weremost deeply committedtohiscause.ThusthebulkofKent was given to his half-brother Odo, and the fiverapes of Sussex – Hastings,Pevensey, Lewes, Arundel,and Bramber – werebestowedonthecountsofEuand Mortain, William ofWarenne, Roger ofMontgomery,andWilliamofBriouze.27 The Isle ofWighthadin1067beenentrustedto

WilliamfitzOsbern,andafter1076Cornwallwasunderthedominance of Robert, countof Mortain.28 Finally, thegreatmarcherearldomscameinto being – Hereford,Shrewsbury, and Chester –and these passed to Williamfitz Osbern, Roger ofMontgomery, and Hugh, sonof Richard, vicomte ofAvranches.29 From KentroundtoChester,inshort,the

most vital defensive areaswereallinduecourseallottedto the king's half-brothers,and to William fitz Osbern,William of Warenne, thecount of Eu, Roger ofMontgomery, and Hugh ofAvranches – precisely thatgroup of Norman magnateswhich had most consistentlysupported William inNormandy, and which nowwas to receive the largest

shareof the landedwealthofEngland.Of even greater

importance,was the fact thateverywhere in England theNorman aristocracy wasmade to receive its land onconditions which increasedWilliam's power as king. Itwasindicativeofhispersonalauthority that he was able tomakethesemenfromthestarthis tenants-in-chief in

England, holding their lands,not in absolute ownership asspoils of conquest but inreturn for providing aspecified number of knightsfortheroyalservice.30 Itwastheking, again,who fixed ineach case the number ofknights required – theservitium debitum as it wascalled – by means ofindividual bargains whichbore no fixed relationship to

the amount or value of thelands granted.31 Thesearrangements which, as iswell known, involved theinstitution of militaryfeudalisminEngland,wereinshort the product of a royalplan,adoptedandenforcedbyKing William in the yearsimmediately following theConquest. Early narrativessuggest that it was alreadyusedtoprovidetroopsforthe

expedition to Scotland in1072;32 a writ from the kingto the abbot of Eveshamshowsthesysteminoperationbefore1077;33andrecordsofa slightly later date indicatethat many of its details hadbeen worked out before theendofthereign.34The successful imposition

of tenurebyserviceuponhismagnates in respect of theirEnglish lands must be

regarded as one of the mostnotable of the Conqueror'sachievements.Notonlydiditestablish his followers as adominant aristocracy inEngland, but it made theirendowment meet thedefensiveneedsofhis realm.The conditions under whichthese men received theirlands supplied the king withbetween 4,000 and 5,000trained troops,35 and the fact

that the provision of thesetroopsrestedinthehandsofacomparatively few men, allclosely associated with theking, made the arrangementsthe more efficient. Nor wasthere any doubt of theirnecessity.AtnotimewastheAnglo-Norman state immunefrom attack. Its preservationwas, as has been seen, thehazardous result of twodecadesofalmostcontinuous

war.36 The feudal policy ofthe Conqueror was thus aresponse to immediatemilitary needs. The Anglo-Norman polity became anaristocracyorganizedforwar.Only as such was it enabledtoendure.The success of these

arrangements depended inlargemeasure on themannerin which they were made.Two stages marked their

institution. The first was theimposition of the servitiadebitaonthetenants-in-chief,a series of acts by the kingwhichtookplaceshortlyaftertheConquest,andwhichwerea direct concomitant of theallocationofEnglishlandstohis greater followers. Thesecond stage in the processconcernedthemeanstakenbythe tenants-in-chief to meetthemilitaryobligationswhich

hadthusbeenlaiduponthem.IntheearliestdaysofAnglo-Norman feudalism many ofthe knights supplied to theking by his tenants-in-chiefdid not themselves possessland, but discharged theirmilitary service as membersof the household retinues oftheir lords.37 Such, forinstance,werethe‘armedandmounted men’ who riotedoutside Westminster Abbey

during the coronation of theConqueror, or the Normanretainers of Abbot Thurstanwho, ‘fully weaponed’,outraged the monks ofGlastonbury in the abbey-church in 1083.38 Theywerea dangerous class. Theknightly retinue of the abbotof Ely caused havoc on theabbey lands about 1070, andthe household knights ofWalcher, bishop of Durham,

precipitated the northernrebellion of 1080.39 Thehousehold knight belongs, infact, to a state of societywhich, as between 1066 and1072, had not yet beenperfectly stabilized. When itwas no longer necessary forlords tohaveknightsathandready for instantdefence, thenumber of household knightsbegan rapidly to decline inEngland, though they tended

to survive longer in suchareas as Lincolnshire andEast Anglia where suddenattack from Scandinaviamight be anticipated.40Certainly, the king had nowish to perpetuate theexistence of bodies of menwho were always liable tocause disorder, and hediscouraged the retention ofsuch men by his tenants-in-chief.

ThusitwasthatduringtheConqueror's reign it becameprogressively the practice ofhis tenants-in-chief inEnglandtomakeprovisionontheir own estates for theknights whose service wasowed to the king. Earlycharters of enfeoffment inEngland are rare, and notalways unambiguous, butsome survive from theeleventh century.41 The

enfeoffed knightwas alreadya characteristic figure inEnglishsocietyatthetimeofDomesday Book;42 and bythe middle of the twelfthcentury the typical knight inEngland was a man holdingland by primogenitalhereditarytenureinreturnfora liability to special dutiesandpayments.Hischiefdutyremained the performance ofspecialized military service,

or the financing of such,together with attendance athis lord's court. His chiefpayments were involved inthe ‘feudal incidents’ – sumsto be paid on specialoccasions to his lord.43Within a century of theNorman conquest,knighthood in England thuscame tobe recognizedas thebadge notmerely ofmilitaryaptitude but of social class

characterized by a privilegedformofland-tenure.Such conditions were

characteristic not of theeleventhcenturybutoffeudalsociety as fully formed. Butthe process which was toentail thisresultwasinherentin the military arrangementsmade by William, and itbegan during his reign. Heencouraged the enfeoffmentof knights by his tenants-in-

chief, and on occasion hepersonally intervened in theparticular arrangements theymade.44 Nevertheless, it wasagradualdevelopmentwhichwasbynomeanscompleteatthe time of William's death.The enfeoffment of knightsproceeded sporadically, andno attempt was made toregularize the ‘feudalincidents’ before the twelfthcentury.45 Throughout the

Conqueror'sreign,theknightsin England formed a verymiscellaneous class.Alongside humble retainersliving within the householdsof their lords, there werealreadydescribedas‘knights’important men possessed oflarge estates who weresocially the equals of theirlords, and who might holdland directly from the kingelsewhere. Such were

probably the ‘landholdingmen of account’ whoattendedthefamousSalisburymootin1086andtheresworedirect allegiance to theking.46Theestablishmentofanew

aristocracy on a basis ofcontractual military tenurewasthegreatestsocialchangeeffected in England by KingWilliam, and no topic hasinspired more controversy

thanthequestionwhetherthebasic institutions of militaryfeudalism which it involvedwere themselves introducedintoEnglandforthefirsttimeby the Conqueror and hisfollowers. Broadly speaking,untiltheendofthenineteenthcentury,itwasgenerallyheldthatthemilitaryarrangementsmade by KingWilliam wereevolved by adaptation out ofthe Old English past when

many forms of dependenttenure of course existed.Subsequent scholars,following the lead of J. H.Round, and fortified by theerudition of Sir FrankStenton,47 have consideredthattherewashereabreakincontinuity, and that a newphase of social developmentbegan when every great lordheld his land in return for adirectobligation toprovidea

recognized amount ofmilitary service. Thearguments adduced in favourof this interpretation arecertainlycogent, and today itis probably true that moststudentsof thesubjectwouldacceptthem,findingithardtodetect any significant trendtowards organized militaryfeudalism in Anglo-SaxonEngland, and regarding thefeudal institutions and

practices established inEngland as essentially animportation into England byWilliam the Conqueror. Ontheotherhand,inrecentyearsthisviewhasbeenvigorouslychallenged by severalscholars who are being ledback to the opinion thatAnglo-Norman feudalismowed very much to theinstitutions of Anglo-SaxonEngland.48

This is assuredly not theplace toenter into thedetailsofthisdebate,butsomeofthepointswhichwillneedfurtherconsideration before theseproblems are finally solvedmay here be briefly andneutrally noted in so far asthey relate to the personalcareer of William theConquerorhimself.Thusit isclearly necessary in thismatter todistinguishbetween

the imposition of the servitiadebita and the subsequentenfeoffments. Despiteargumentstothecontrary,49itwould seem that there is asyet insufficient evidence todisturb the belief that theallocationofthesequotaswasan innovation introduced intoEngland by the first Normanking, and one which owedlittle or nothing to Anglo-Saxonprecedent.Withregard

totheenfeoffments,however,more complex questionsarise. In the Confessor'sEngland the typical warriorwasthethegn:bythetimeofWilliam's death he was theknight. A contrast betweenthe thegn and the knight hastherefore been a cardinalfeature of all theories whichregard military feudalism inEngland as essentially acreation of the Conqueror's

reign. The enfeoffed knight(itissaid)whoseestatevariedinsize,performedhisserviceinreturnforthelandheheld,andhewasessentiallyamantrainedtofightonhorseback,and possessed of theequipment for so doing. Thethegnbycontrast(itisadded)wasnormallypossessedofanestate of five hides; hismilitary service derived fromhis rank and not from his

tenure; and when he foughthefoughtonfoot.50How far these distinctions

(which have been verygenerallyreceivedastrue)areinfactvalidmustbeamatterof opinion, since they aretoday being both defendedanddeniedbyexpertcritics.51Itmay,however,beusefultodiscriminate among them.Thus it has been suggestedthat not every thegn in the

timeofEdwardtheConfessorwould have denied that heowedhisserviceinreturnforthe land he held, andevidencehasbeenadducedtoshowthaton the landsof thebishop of Worcester, theknights' fees created in theConqueror'sreignwerebasedonthefive-hideestateswhichhadpreviouslybeenoccupiedby thegns.52 Such testimonydeserves weighty

consideration, but it must benotedthatitrelatestobutoneregion of England, and thatelsewhere suchcorrespondence isdemonstrably lacking.53Thesemattersmay,therefore,beleftinsomesuspense.Butit may be reasonable tosuppose that in practice thetheoretical distinctionbetween the thegn and theknight may sometimes have

loomed less large in theeyesofcontemporaries than ithasdone in the minds of latercommentators. In the timeofWilliamtheConqueroritwasnot unknown for the samemantobedescribedbothasathegn(tainus)andasaknight(miles);54 and on one of thegreatest baronies in EnglandthereappearveryshortlyaftertheConquestmilitary tenantsof native ancestry and pre-

Conquest connexions,alongside Norman magnatessomeofwhomare known tohavefeughtatHastings.55Perhaps, indeed, the

contrastbetweenthemountedknight and the unmountedthegn has itself beensomewhat overstressed. It istruethatdisasterovertooktheHerefordshire thegns who in1055 were made by EarlRalph the Timid to fight,

continental fashion, onhorseback,56 and it is truealso that theNorman knightsin 1066 brought their horseswith them, and used themeffectivelyatHastings.Butitis possible that at StamfordBridge, Harold had mountedtroops at his disposal, andusedsomeofthemascavalryduring the engagement.Similarly, the conception ofthe Norman knight as

exclusively a mountedwarrior appears to breakdownwhenreferenceismadeto his subsequentachievements. At Tinchebrai(1106)KingHenrymade hisbarons fight on foot; atBrémule (1119) similarmethods were used; at thebattle of the Standard (1138)the knights fought in closecolumn on foot, sheathed inarmour; and at the battle of

Lincoln (1141)KingStephenordered his knights todismount, and drew them upin close order as infantry.57These men were theimmediatedescendantsofthemen who effected theNormanconquestofEngland,and gave the tone to themilitary organization whichresultedtherefrom.Theymaywell have learnt much fromthe military practices which

their fathers had found inEngland, but the extent towhich they fought on footnone the less deserves fullconsideration in any estimateof the techniques which theConqueror introduced intoEngland. After all, much ofthewarfare he hadwaged asduke before 1066 hadconsisted of attacks onfortified strongholds such asBrionne, Domfront, and

Arques; and in suchoperations mounted troopswould have had but a smallpart to play. Indeed, it is amark of the military historyof the latter half of theeleventhcentury that infantryand cavalry were beingincreasingly combined inoperations and sometimeswith considerable tacticalskill.58 William himself hadshown how effectively this

could be done. If his victoryat Hastings was due in largemeasure to his havingtransformed a number ofmiscellaneous contingentsinto a disciplined force, soalso did it derive from theskill with which he co-ordinatedtheonslaughtofhismounted warriors with theactionofhisarchers.Moreover, the feudal host

ofsomefivethousandknights

produced by theestablishment of his greaterfollowers in England canneverhavebeensufficientbyitself for the king to conductthedefenceofhisrealmovera period of some twentyyears. He was bound,therefore, to supplement itfrom elsewhere, and thereseemsnodoubtthatheturnedin this matter to the militaryorganization which already

existedinEnglandatthetimeofhiscoming.59He found inthis country a royal army –thefyrd;hefoundalsoforcesforlocaldefenceorganizedintheshiresofEngland.Inbothof these the duty of serviceseems to have been assessedintermsofhidesormultiplesofhides,andindispensabletothe system were the thegns,who were the characteristicwarriorsoftheroyalhost,and

alsothenaturalleadersofthelocal levies.60 Much isobscure about thesearrangements, but there is nodoubt that they survived theConquest, and provided theNorman king with aninstrument that he was notslow to use. In 1068 hesummoned English troops tohis servicewhen hemarchedagainst Exeter,61 and in thesameyearthemenofBristol,

on their own volition,repulsed the sons of Harold,inthesamewayasthethegnsof north Somerset hadrepelled Harold himself in1052.62In1073Williamtooka large force of English toMaine, and in1075Lanfrancsuccessfully called out locallevies against the rebelearls.63 In 1079 there was astrong English contingent inWilliam's army at Gerberoi,

and in the fighting the kingwas to owe his life to anEnglish thegn.64 Such eventsareimportantindispellingthemyth that the Normanconquestcanbeinterpretedinterms of nationalism.65 Theyarescarcelylesssignificantinillustrating the manner inwhich the militaryarrangements of pre-Conquest England wereutilized by the Conqueror

during the decades when hewas establishing in thiscountry the formalinstitutions of militaryfeudalism.Nor was it only on the

military organization of pre-Conquest England that herelied to supplement hisfeudal force. Emphaticattention has recently beencalled to the extent to whichhe depended upon

mercenaries.66 As has beenseen, he used paid troops inhis expedition of 1066, andthoughhedisbandedmanyofthese in 1068, he engagedmoreforhisservicein1069–1070.67 The treasure allegedto have been taken from thechurches of England in 1070wasdoubtlessusedtofinancethe campaigns of thefollowing years, and about1078 William employed the

profits of estates confiscatedfrom his continental enemiestoincreasethenumbersofhisown mercenaries.68 It is notwithout relevance to thisquestionthattheperiodoftheConqueror'swarssawtheriseto some temporaryimportance of a moneyedclass in Normandy whichowed its prosperity to themanagement of hisrevenues,69 and the same

circumstances must also beconsidered inconnexionwiththe process by which thestructure of English feudalsociety was formed. The‘money-fief’ has been tracedback in England to the reignof the Conqueror.70 So alsohas the institution of scutage–thecommutationofmilitaryobligations into moneypayments – and it has beensuggested that its assessment

may not have been whollyunconnected with the hidagesystemofanearlierage.71Bethatasitmay,thecontinuousmaintenance of a large bodyof mercenary troops by theConqueror is certain, and ithelps to explain his terriblyheavytaxationofEngland.In1085 when he returned toEngland with anexceptionally large force, theproblem of finding means to

sustain it was one of thecauses of the Domesdayinquiry into the taxablecapacityofEngland.72Nevertheless, when all

qualifications have beenmade, there can be noquestion that the destructionofonearistocracyinEnglandand the substitution ofanother holding its lands bymilitary tenure involved arevolutionary change.

Doubtless, the feudalarrangements thus madecould not supply all theConqueror's needs, and allconcernedintheoperationofthe new order had here tomakeconcessions toastrongnative tradition ofadministration which in anycase would not be lightlyabandoned by a ruler whoclaimed all the rights of anAnglo-Saxonking.Itremains

true,however,thatbytheendofWilliam's reign the wholearistocratic structure ofEngland had beentransformedbytheactionofaNormankingandinfavourofNorman magnates. The‘honour’ of the tenant-in-chief, created by grant fromthe Conqueror, and normallycomprising land in manyshires, had before 1087becomeafundamentalunitof

Englishsociallife.73Ithaditscentre – its caput – whichwasthelord'schiefresidence,andwhichmight be a castle.Ithaditscourt–towhichthemilitarytenantsofthehonourowed suit. It was highlyorganized.74A greatNormanlord in England might wellhave a corps of officialscomparable even to those ofthe king himself: he mighthave his steward, his

chamberlains,andsoforth;hemight even have his justicesand sheriffs. His household,smaller and lessdifferentiated,mightbeofthesame pattern as that of theking. His chief militarytenants sometimes calledthemselves ‘peers’ of thehonour,75 and in the lord'scourt these men took theirshare in shaping their lord'spolicy, settling disputes

among his tenants, andgenerally in giving himcounsel and support. Theassociation was close. Liegehomagewhichamanowedtothe lord from whom he heldhis chief tenement was thestrongest bond in the feudalworld, and it was also thebond which linked thetenants-in-chief to theking.76Correspondingly,thehonoursof the tenants-in-chief set up

by theConqueror inEnglandwere in a sense microcosmsofthefeudalstateheruled.The feudal practices

established by theConquerorinEnglandbetween1070and1087 thus not only entailedpermanent consequences forthis country, but linkedEngland and Normandytogether in a single feudalpolity subjected to the sameking and the same

aristocracy. The feudalstructure of England was,however, never to becomeidentical with that ofNormandy,andthis, too,wasdue in large measure to theproblems which facedWilliam during his Englishreign, and to the manner inwhich he attempted to solvethem. In England he wasconcerned to establish acompleted feudal

organization by means ofadministrative acts: inNormandy he inherited afeudal organization whichhad slowly developed, andwhich in 1066 had not yetbeen fully formed. TheConqueror was thus enabledto assert from the start inEngland a larger measure ofroyal control than he hadpreviously possessed overfeudal arrangements in

Normandy. This was clearlydemonstrated in the vitalmatter of the servitia debita.The original assessments inEngland can be ascertainedwith some confidence fromreturns made in 1166 whichthemselves faithfullyreflected conditionsprevailingbefore1135.77TheNorman assessments can becalculated, at leastapproximately, by reference

to the list of Norman feeswhich was drawn up forHenry II of England in1172,78 and from a list ofNorman fees which wascompiledforPhilipAugustusbetween 1204 and 1208,79and which can, on occasion,be supplemented fromearlierevidence.80 The contrast thatis here revealed is notable.There is nothing inNormandy to compare with

the heavyquotas inEngland.In Normandy it is rare,indeed, to find any tenant –lay or ecclesiastical – with aservice of more than tenknights, but in Englandbefore 1135 not less thanelevenlaylordsowedsixtyormore knights, and at leasttwenty-seven more owed aserviceoftwenty-fiveknightsor over,whilst six bishopricsand three abbeys owed forty

knightsormore.The imposition inEngland

of these exceptionally heavyservices indicate the strengthofWilliam as a feudal king.Scarcely less significant wasthe relationship in Englandbetween the service owed tohimbyhismagnates,andthenumberofknightswhomtheyactuallyenfeoffed.Itmustberecalled that suchenfeoffments were in theory,

if not always in practice, theaffair of the tenant-in-chiefwho might establish on hisown lands sufficient knightstoperform theking's service,or more, or less than thatnumber.Ifless,thetenant-in-chief would be compelled tosecure mercenary knights todischargehisdutytotheking:if more, he would have aprivate forceathiscommandin excess of the knights he

provided for the king. Itwasclearly in the interestsofanyking anxious to possess anefficientfightingforce,andatthe same time to preserveorder in his dominions, thatthe number of knights owedfor the royal service, and thenumber of knights enfeoffedby his magnates should asnearlyaspossiblecorrespond.And in England, before theend of his reign, the

Conqueror seems to havebeen able to make aremarkable approach to thatideal.Themeasureofhissuccess

inthisimportantmattercouldnot be better illustrated thanby a further comparisonbetween England andNormandy. In Normandythere was always a markeddiscrepancy between theamount of service owed and

the number of knightsenfeoffed. In 1172, forinstance, the bishop ofBayeux, whose Normanhonourmaybetracedbackatleast to the time of BishopOdo, had in Normandy aservitium debitum of twentyknights,buthehadenfeoffednoless thanonehundredandtwenty knights on his lands.The chamberlain ofTancarvillewho in1066was

represented by Ralph ofTancarville had institutedninety-fourknights'feesforaserviceoften.Norwerethesecasesexceptional.Onmostofthe larger Norman honoursthe number of enfeoffedknights was quite commonlyfive times that of the serviceowed, and it wascomparatively seldom that itfellbelow three timesof thatamount.81 In England, by

contrast, the variationsbetween the enfeoffment andthe service owed werecomparativelyinsignificantinextent, and they grew lesswiththeprogressivedismissalof stipendiary knightsbetween 1070 and 1087.There was never in feudalEnglandanything tocomparewith the conditions wherebyin France, John, count ofAlençon, was to have one

hundred and eleven knightsenfeoffed for a service oftwenty; the count of Meulanseventy-threeforaserviceoffifteen; and Robert III ofMontfort-sur-Risle forty-fourfor a service of seven. Suchdetails have in truth a widegeneralsignificance.Theygofar to explain the success ofthe Conqueror in makingprivate war in England acause of forfeiture, whereas,

inNormandy, it continued tobe regarded as part of aknight's duties to fight in theprivatebattlesofhislord.82Nonetheless,despitethese

significant and importantcontrasts, the reciprocalinfluence between thekingdom and duchy in theformation of the feudalstructure of the Anglo-Norman state is not to bedisregarded. If English

feudalism was essentiallyNorman,soalsowasNormanfeudalism by the end of theeleventh century, in somesense, English. In Normandyfeudalinstitutions,whichhadslowly grown up, had not,even in 1066, been broughtfullyunderducalcontrol,andeventheessentialprincipleofthe servitium debitum, withwhich Normandy was ofcourse familiar, as has been

seen, does not seem at thatdate to have been uniformlyapplied to all the greaterNorman baronies. Now,between 1070 and 1087, inEngland, a feudal order wasestablished in which therightsoftheprincewerefromthe outset legally recognizedand rigidly enforced.But thesame families were involvedinthefeudalarrangementsonboth sides of the Channel,

andtheiroverlordwasineachcase the same. If, therefore,the rights of the king asoverlord in England wereasserted with specialemphasis,recognitionofsuchrights was bound to spreadalso in the duchy. And so itwas. In 1050, whatever mayhavebeentheducaltheory,itisverydoubtfulwhethersuchgreat families as Beaumont,Tosny, and Montgomery

would have admitted thatthey held their lands byconditional tenure from theduke.DuringtheConqueror'sEnglishreign,however,thesethree houses, and manyothers, became tenants-in-chief in England, and theresubmitted to large servitiadebita. And by 1087 noNorman lord would havebeen soboldas to claim thathe did not hold his lands

conditionally by service,although such servicewas inNormandy less onerous thanin England. The Normansgave the essentials of feudalorganization to England, butthe completion of feudalorganization in Normandywas none the less due to theconquestofEngland.The feudal unity of the

Anglo-Normanstatewasthusconditioned by the influence

on each other of the duchyand the kingdom under theguidance of a king whoassumedspecial rightswithinthe feudal organization hecontrolled, andwho claimed,in addition, the fullprerogatives of the Englishroyalty he had won. It wasbased, moreover, upon thatcommunity of interestbetween king and aristocracywhich William as duke had

beensosuccessfulincreatinginNormandybefore1066.Asthe feudal pattern of theAnglo-Norman kingdom wasdependent by the settlementin England of the Normanaristocracy under conditionswhich were speciallyadvantageous to the king, soalso was its government todepend in the first instanceupontherelationshipbetweenthat nobility and the

Conqueror.The central institution of

William'sgovernmentwashiscourt, and the king's court –the curia regis – could fromonepointofviewberegardedsimply as the court of thegreatest feudal honour in theland. The duty of the feudalvassal everywhere includedattendanceat thecourtofhislord,andthisdutywassharedby the king's own tenants.

When the servitia debita hadbeen imposed by the kingupon ecclesiastics as well asupon lay lords, the feudalcharacterofhiscourtbecamestill more pronounced, andthough the principle wasneverexclusivelyapplied,thecuria regis of the Conquerorcouldwithoutmuchdistortionbe viewed as composed ofmen who were linked to theking by the conditions under

whichtheNormanaristocracyheld its lands in the duchyand in the kingdom. In thissense, therefore, the curiaregis which regularly metunderWilliamaskingdidnotdiffer in essence from thecuria ducis which before1066 had surrounded him asduke.Inbothcourtscouldbefoundmembersofhis family–hiswifeandsons–togetherwith his chief magnates, lay

and ecclesiastical. The greatcourt which met at Laycocktowards the end of theConqueror's reign83 was, iflarger, very similar incharacter to the court whichin 1051 had ratified theprivileges of Saint-Wandrille,84 or that whichbefore 1066 had met atFécamptoasserttherightsofSaint-FlorentofSaumur,85orthat again which in 1063

passed a notable charter forSaint-OuenofRouen.86Thesessionsof this feudal

court under King William,which took place in Englandbetween 1066 and 1087, didnot,however,implysoabrupta transition in Englishpractice as might have beenimagined. For in EnglandWilliam found already inexistence a royal council ofancientorigin,which, though

formedaccording todifferentprinciples, constituted anassembly of magnates notunlike that which hadsurrounded the duke in hisduchy. Thewitan of Edwardthe Confessor in its fullestsessions had likewiseconsisted of the greaterecclesiastics and lay lords(particularly the earls),together with such othernotables as the king might

order to attend.87 LikeWilliam's ducal court inNormandy before theConquest,itwasanassemblyofmagnates summoned by aruler who needed theircontinuous support, and it islittle wonder therefore thatthe Conqueror was at firstready to accept it. Thecouncilswhichwitnessed hisgreater English charters in1068–1069 were thus very

comparable with the largerwitans of the Confessor'sreign. In them William fitzOsbern and Roger ofMontgomery, for example,took their place alongsideEdwin, Morcar, andWaltheof;SaxonandNormanprelatesattendedincompany;and among the officialspresentwereseveralwhohadservedtheConfessor.88These early courts of

William'sEnglishreignareofpeculiarinterestinillustratinghis policy of making whatwas to prove a fundamentalconstitutional change, bothsmooth and efficacious. Notuntilafter1070didpersonnelofhiscuriabecomeradicallyaltered. Then, however, thedevelopmentwasrapidasthesubstitutioninEnglandofthenew aristocracy for the oldwas inexorably reflected in

the compositionof thecuria.In the greater courts towardstheendof the reign it is rareindeed to find an importantEnglish name. Thetransformation might thusseem to have been madealmostcomplete,but even soits constitutional significanceneeds to be carefullyappraised. Despite theintroduction of newmen andnewfeudalideas,thecourtof

William the Conqueror evenat the end of his reignmightstill in one sense be foundcomparable to the witan ofEdward the Confessor, sincein1080as in1050 this courtconsistedofthemonarchandmembers of his family, thegreat ecclesiastics and laylords, and certain officials.Nor was William, posingalways as the Confessor'srightfulsuccessor,everlikely

to forget the special positionhe occupied by virtue of hisEnglish royalty.On theotherhand, it remains true to saythat by the time of theConqueror's death, the curiaregishadbecomeNorman inpersonnel, and Norman alsoin the fact that its membersattended by reason of amilitary tenure which theNormans hadmade a normalfeatureofEnglisharistocratic

life.This curia met with

considerable frequency. Butalreadybefore1087therewasa tendency to hold its fullsessionsatChristmas,Easter,and Pentecost, and suchoccasions were alwaysmarked by magnificentceremonial and lavishentertainment. Indeed nomore effective illustration ofthe character of Anglo-

Norman monarchy, or of itsrelationship to the men onwhose support it depended,couldbe found than in a fullmeetingofWilliam'scourtatone of the great festivals ofthe Christian year. Here, forinstance,wastheoccasionfora crown-wearing, which ashas been seen, formed soessential a part of themanifestation of eleventh-centurykingshipinitssacred

andseculardignity.Seatedinmajesty, clad in full regaliawith his lords and prelatesaround him, the king'sauthoritywasexaltedandtheultimate sanctions of hispowerdisplayed.Atthesametime, the intimate connexionbetween the king and hisimmediate vassals, and theircommon interests wereasserted. These assembliespermitted the effective rulers

ofNormandyandEngland tomaintain personal contactwith each other, and theyenabled the king to becomeacquainted with all theregions of his realm throughintercoursewiththemenwhowere directly responsible fortheiradministration.Such,forexample,was theatmospherewhich surrounded the ‘deepspeech’ held by theConqueror in his Christmas

court at Gloucester in 1085,when the Domesday inquestwasplanned,andanassemblyof this nature might wellinclude magnates whoseinterestscoveredthewholeofEngland.89It was not, however, only

on such occasions of specialmagnificence that KingWilliam sought counsel withhis magnates. His curia wasoften of smaller dimensions

consisting only of such menon whose advice the kingparticularly depended. ThusArchbishopLanfranc,andtheking's half-brothers,Odo andRobert,togetherwithAlanofBrittany,RichardfitzGilbert,Roger of Montgomery, andWilliam ofWarenne seem tohave formed, as it were, aninnercircleofadviserswhosepresence the king veryfrequently demanded. Here,

again, there is a comparisonto be made between Englishand Norman usage, for bothbefore, and after, theConquest,William's curia inNormandylikewiseexpandedand contracted in this way.Moreover, after 1070, thechief personalities inWilliam'scourt,onbothsidesof the Channel, weresubstantially the same. Localofficialsvaried,ofcourse,on

each occasion, and menconcerned with particularbusinessweredrawnfromthelocalities which were mostaffected. But the greatermagnates moved with theking.MensuchasRobertandHenryofBeaumont,RogerofMontgomery, Robert, countof Mortain, and Richard fitzGilbert–allgreatlandownersin England – appear at leastas often in theNorman as in

theEnglishcourts.90Keepingcompanywiththekingonhistransits across the Channel,they gave to the royal curiathe same essential character,whether it was held inNormandyorinEngland.Nor was the business

which occupied theConqueror'scourt inEnglandessentiallydifferentfromthatwhich, at least since 1054,hadconcernedhiscourtinthe

duchy. As in Normandyduring the decades precedingthe Conquest, so now, themajority of the instrumentswhich passed in the curia inEngland between 1070 and1087 were concerned withconfirmations of land orprivilege, and, as aconsequence, with judicialdecisions relating to thesettlement of claims. InEngland,thecircumstancesof

the Conquest, and of theensuingsettlement,madethistask of special importance,and, as will be seen, specialmachinery was frequentlyemployed to deal with it.Nevertheless, the normalwork of the feudal court ofthe Conqueror continued tobe the same, both inNormandy and in England.ThetrialatLaycock,91whichlasted from dawn to dusk

before the full royal curia,mightbetakenasanexampleof the practice in England,but it could be paralleled inNormandy. It was before afull court held at Rouenbetween 1072 and 1079 thatthekingheardasuitbetweenRalph Tesson and the abbeyof Fontenay,92 and a similarcourt held in 1080 gavejudgment in favour of HolyTrinity, Rouen, against the

bishopofÉvreux.93Examplescouldbemultiplied.Nocourtoneither sideof theChannelwas more notable than thatwhich in 1080 adjudicatedbetweenthefamilyofCreullyand the abbey of Fécamp,94orthatwhichon5September1082vindicatedatOissel thejudicial privileges of theabbot of Saint-Wandrilleagainst William, archbishopofRouen.95

It would, however, beunwise to particularize toocloselyupon the functionsofthe Conqueror's court. Theessence of his governmentwas a personal monarchywhose power stretched overNormandy and England. Theking ruled his realm, andsummoned to his assistancethosemembersof theAnglo-Norman aristocracy, lay andecclesiastical,whobestcould

help him in his work. Theduty of his council was,therefore, inthemostgeneralsense,toadvisetheking;andthe king on his part wouldalways wish to secure thesupportofthemenwhoalonecouldmakehisruleeffective.There was thus as yet nodifferentiation ofgovernmental function, andnotuntilafterWilliam'sdeathwastheretobeevolvedoutof

his court specialized bodiescomposed of men chargedwith particular fiscal andjudicial duties. As is wellknown,theexchequerandthelater courts of law wereoffshootsofthecuria,aswasalsothechanceryasadistinctoffice. In the Conqueror'sreign, government was stillviewedinasimplerway.Theking ruled the land, and hisfeudal vassals were called

upontoassisthiminhistask:to offer him counsel, and tosupporthisexecutiveacts.The feudal organization of

King William's realm thusserved to link togetherNormandy and England, andto join together inacommonpurpose the Anglo-Normanking and the Anglo-Normanaristocracy.Theverysurvivalof that aristocracy,particularlyinEnglandwhere

it constituted a smallminority, depended upon itsmembers co-operating withone another, and with theirking. It was as much to theinterest of these men as tothat of William himself thatsuch inevitable rebellions asmightoccur–suchas thatof1075 – should be suppressedas quickly as possible, andthehistoryoftheNormansinEngland, especially during

thereignoftheConqueror,isnever to be explained by aninherent opposition between‘king’ and ‘baronage’. Morelegitimately is it to beconsidered as a feudalsettlement of a recentlyconquered country by anexceedingly able group ofmen with the king at theirhead. For their ideas ofgovernment werefundamentally the same. All

alike inhabited a feudalworld,which inEnglandwaslargely their own creation,and they believed that itwasto the advantage of everyoneinthisfeudalworld,includingthe king, to hold fast to hisproper rights, and not toencroach upon the rights ofothers. The definition offeudal rights and obligationsmightcausedispute,buttheirultimate sanction was not

denied. It was a commonacceptanceoffeudalprinciplebybothkingandmagnates,inbothNormandyandEngland,which permitted the survivalof the Anglo-Normankingdom, and went far todetermineitscharacter.Itwasto modify at every turn theoperations of localgovernment, and the fortunesof humbler folk whose liveswere everywhere to be

affected by the interrelationsof great families.And itwasto provide the essentialbackground for thedeveloping administration ofa great kingwho exalted theroyalpower.

1F.M.Stenton,‘EnglishFamiliesandtheNormanConquest’(R.Hist.Soc,Transactions,series4,vol.XXVI(1944),pp.1–17).

2W.J.Corbett,inCambridge

MedievalHistory,vol.V,chap.XV,towhichIamparticularlyindebted.

3Round,StudiesinPeerageandFamilyHistory,pp.142–145.

4Farrer,HonoursandKnights'Fees,vol.I,p.20;Round,King'sSerjeants,p.257;L.C.Loyd,Anglo-NormanFamilies,p.84.

5Stenton,Anglo-SaxonEngland,p.621;Loyd,op.cit.,p.51.

6C.T.Clay,EarlyYorkshireCharters,vol.VIII,pp.40–46;C.

Waters,GundradadeWarenne,p.1;Cart.S.Bertin(ed.Guerard),pp.176–184.

7Clay,loc.cit.;C.Brunel,Actes–ComtesdePontieu,no.IV.

8Ord.Vit.,vol.II,p.219;LiberMonasteriideHyda(ed.Edwards),p.295.

9EarlyYorkshireCharters,vol.I,no.12;Stenton,EnglishFeudalism,p.24.

10J.Tait,inEng.Hist.Rev.,vol.XLIV(1929),p.86;Regesta,vol.

I,no.23;Will.Jum.,p.141.11A.Wilmart,inAnnalesdeBretagne,vol.XXXVIII(1929),pp.576–602;CompletePeerage,vol.X,p.784;forthefamily,seeClay,inEarlyYorkshireCharters,vols.IVandV.

12CompletePeerage,vol.X,p.785.ThathewasthebrotherofAlantheRedappearsfromacharterforBuryStEdmunds(Douglas,FeudalDocuments,p.152,no.169).AccordingtoSt

Anselm,thetwobrothersaspiredtomarryGunhild,daughterofKingHarold,whenshewasanunatWilton(Southern,StAnselmandhisbiographer(1963),pp.183–195).

13Stenton,EnglishFeudalism,pp.24–26.

14Ibid.SeealsoRoundinEssexArch.Soc.,Transactions,vol.VIII,pp.187–191.

15AS.Chron.,‘D’,s.a.1076(equals1075).

16Corbett,op.cit.17Ibid.18Ibid.Cf.CompletePeerage,vol.IX,p.575,andvol.XII,partI,p.758;Loyd,op.cit.,pp.45,56;Douglas,DomesdayMonachorum,pp.65–71.

19Corbett,op.cit.20Loyd,op.cit.,pp.29,30,31,40,56.

21Ibid.,pp.1,34,41,71,112.22EarlyYorkshireCharters,vol.I,nos.593–596.

23Loyd,op.cit.,pp.36,43,63,73,86,97.

24Stenton,Anglo-SaxonEngland,p.619.

25Lennard,RuralEnglandchaps.V,VI,VII.

26Below,pp.305–310.27D.B.,vol.I,fols.16–29.28CompletePeerage,vol.III,p.428;andabove,p.267.

29Below,pp.295,296.30Round,FeudalEngland,pp.225etsqq.

31Ibid.,p.261.32Chron.Mon.Abingdon,vol.II,pp.1–5;LiberEliensis(ed.Stewart),p.274.

33Round,FeudalEngland,p.304.34Douglas,DomesdayMonachorum,p.105.

35Stenton,Anglo-SaxonEngland,p.626.

36Above,pp.211–244.37Stenton,EnglishFeudalism,pp.139–141.

38Will.Poit.,p.220;AS.Chron.,

‘E’,s.a.1083.39LiberEliensis(ed.F.O.Blake),pp.216,217,andabove,pp.240,241.

40Stenton,op.cit.,p.138.41e.g.Douglas,FeudalDocuments,p.151,no.168;Galbraith,Eng.Hist.Rev.,vol.XLIV(1929),pp.353–372.Theambiguityofboththeseinstrumentsisemphasizedbytheireditors.SeealsoA.Robinson,GilbertCrispin,p.38,

foranearlyWestminsterenfeoffment,andcomparethiswiththeAbingdonchartercommentedonbymeinE.H.D.,vol.II,no.242.

42SeethesectiongiventotheknightsofLanfranc(D.B.,vol.I,fols.4,4b).

43OntheseseePollockandMaitland,HistoryofEnglishLaw(2nded.),vol.I,pp.296–356.Theprincipalitemswerethereliefpayablewhenthe

knighttookoverhisestate,andaidsliabletobegiventothelordonspecialoccasions.Thelordwasalsoentitledtowardshipoveraknightwhosucceededwhenunderage,andcoulddisposeoftheheiresstoaknightinmarriage.

44Douglas,FeudalDocuments,p.xcix;alsoEconomicHistoryReview,vol.IX(1939),pp.130,131.

45See‘coronationcharter’of

HenryI(Stubbs,SelectCharters(1913),p.100).

46Stenton,EnglishFeudalism,pp.85etsqq.;andseebelow.

47Round,FeudalEngland,pp.225–316;Stenton,EnglishFeudalism,chaps.I–IV.

48ThedebateissurveyedbyC.W.HollisterinAmericanHistoryReview,vol.LXVI(1961),pp.641–665;andbyJ.C.HoltinEconomicHistoryReview,vol.XIV(1961),pp.

333–340.49M.Hollings(seebelow)presentsargumentswhicharerelevanttothisquestion.E.John(LandTenureinEngland,p.160)ismoreemphatic.

50Stenton,op.cit.,chap.IV,esp.pp.116,118,131.

51e.g.J.C.HoltandM.Hollings;andH.R.Loyn,Anglo-SaxonEnglandandtheNormanConquest(1962),pp.330–323.

52Hollings,‘TheSurvivalofthe

FiveHideUnitintheWesternMidlands’(Eng.Hist.Rev.,vol.LXIII(1948),pp.453–487).

53C.W.Hollister,Eng.Hist.Rev.,vol.LXXVII(1962),pp.418–436.

54Douglas,inEconomicHistoryReview,vol.IX(1939),pp.128–143.

55Douglas,DomesdayMonachorum,pp.58,59,105.

56AS.Chron.,‘C’,s.a.1055.57A.L.Poole,ObligationsofSociety,p.37;David,Robert

Curthose,p.247.58J.F.Vcrbuggen,DeKrijgskunstinWest-EuropaindenMiddeleeuwen(1954),pp.148–149.

59Hollister,Anglo-SaxonMilitaryInstitutions(1962),chap.VII.

60MichaelPowicke,MilitaryObligationsinMedievalEngland,pp.1–25.

61Ord.Vit.,vol.II,p.180.62AS.Chron.,‘C’,s.a.1052;‘D’,s.a.1067(equals1068).

63Ibid.,‘E’,s.a.1073,1075.64Ibid.,s.a.1079.65InthisconnexionitmaybenotedthatEarlRalphfromtheVexin,whoin1055madethethegnsofHerefordshirefight,continentalfashion,onhorseback,hadawifenamedGythaandasonnamedHarold(Barlow,VitaEdwardi,p.lxxiv).

66J.O.Prestwich,‘WarandFinanceintheAnglo-Norman

State’(R.Hist.Soc.,Transactions,series5,vol.IV(1954),pp.19–43),fromwhichmostoftheinformationwhichherefollowsisderived.

67Ibid.,p.24.68Ord.Vit.,vol.II,p.297.69L.Musset,AnnalesdeNormandie(1959),pp.285–297.

70BruceD.Lyon,Eng.Hist.Rev.,vol.LXVI(1951),p.178.

71Hollister,‘TheSignificanceofScutageRatesinEleventhand

TwelfthCenturyEngland’(Eng.Hist.Rev.,vol.LXXV(1960),pp.577–588).

72AS.Chron.,‘E’,s.a.1085,andbelow,pp.347–354.

73Forexample,thehonourofthearchbishopofCanterbury(c.1096)describedinDomesdayMonachorum,p.105.

74Stenton,op.cit.,pp.54–58.75Douglas,FeudalDocuments,no.122;Cart.Mon.Rameseia(ed.Hart),vol.I,p.133.

76Stenton,op.cit.,pp.29,30.77RedBookoftheExchequer(ed.Hall),pp.186–445.

78Ibid.,pp.624–647.79Rec.Hist.Franc.,vol.XXIII,pp.705–711.Seealsothesomewhatlaterlistsgivenibid.,pp.608etsqq.Fortherelationshipofthesetexts,seeF.M.Powicke,LossofNormandy,pp.482,483.

80Particularlyinthe‘BayeuxInquest’,whichisbestdiscussedbyH.Navel,inBull.Soc.Antiq.

Norm.,vol.XLII(1935).81RedBookoftheExchequer,loc.cit.;Rec.Hist.Franc.,loc.cit.

82Stenton,op.cit.,p.14;Douglas,DomesdayMonachorum,p.72.

83Regesta,vol.I,no.XXXII.84R.A.D.N.,no.126.85Ibid.,no.199.86Ibid.,no.158.87J.T.Oleson,WitenagemotintheReignofEdwardtheConfessor(1955).

88Regesta,vol.I,nos.22,23,28.

89AS.Chron.,‘E’,s.a.1085.90e.g.Regesta,vol.I,nos.69,72,73,117,121.

91Op.cit.,vol.I,no.XXXII.92Gall.Christ.,vol.XI;Instrumenta,cols.61–65.

93Cart.S.Trin.Roth.,no.LXXXIV.

94Cal.Doc.France,no.1410.95Lot,Saint-Wandrille,no.39.

Chapter12

THEROYALADMINISTRATION

Itisnopartofthepurposeofthis book to re-tell theconstitutional history ofEngland between 1066 and1087,but a studyofWilliamtheConqueror cannotwholly

avoid the task of attemptingto isolate the Norman factorin such changes as thenoccurred, and of estimatingthe personal contributionwhichwasmade by the kingin bringing them about. Yeteven if the problem be thusrigorously restricted, it doesnot admit any easy solution.The institutionaldevelopments of these years,and their social

consequences, were due to abewildering interplay ofNorman and Englishinfluences. In governing hisconjointrealmWilliamfoundhimself at the mercy ofdistinct and often opposedtraditions, and he was facedalso with the results ofpowerfulsocialandeconomictendencieswhichtheNormanconquesthadsetinmotionoraccelerated.

Nevertheless, it would berash to minimize the king'sownimportanceininstigatingor deflecting thedevelopments which ensued.It was a personal monarchywhich he exercised, and hispersonal influence was herealwayspotent,andsometimesdecisive. He was feudaloverlord with direct andcompelling rights over hisgreater vassals: he was a

sanctifiedking, inheriting theprestige of the Old Englishmonarchy, and theadministrative machinerywhich that monarchy hadcreated.Hewasplacedattheverycentreofpower,anditisinconceivable that a king ofdominating will and politicalgenius should not havewished to seize theopportunitiesofferedby suchaposition.Anyconsideration

of his administration, or ofthe influence he individuallyexercised on the socialchanges which he witnessed,must, therefore, begin withthekinghimselfandwiththeofficials who were the chiefexecutiveagentsofhiswill.It was in the king's

household that the king'smost intimate and trustedservantswere to be found. Itis fortunate therefore that

there has survived adocument of slightly laterdate – the Establishment ofthe King's Household1 –which reflects what musthavebeentheorganizationofthe Conqueror's household,and reveals the primitivenotions of government stillprevailinginhistime.Aswasproper to a personalmonarchy, the king'sadministration could still be

regardedas the responsibilityof the king's personalservants.Inthehousehold,asdescribed in this text, thechancellor will be found inthe company of personalservants such as the king'shuntsmen, while importantofficials bear such titles assteward, butler, andchamberlain. The holders ofthese offices were none theless among the most

important men of the land.Many, if not all, of theirpurely domestic duties weredischarged by deputy, andtheythemselvesweredirectlyresponsible for much of theroyal administration. Thedevelopment of the royalhousehold under theConqueror is thus ofconsiderable importancesince it contributedsubstantially to theefficiency

ofhisrule,andsinceitwastoentailextensiveconstitutionalconsequences in the future.Andtheprocesswillbefoundonce again to illustrate theConqueror's policy ofeffectingamajorchangewiththe least possible disturbanceofEnglishusage.William had found

establishedinEnglandaroyalhousehold which was notdissimilar from the ducal

household in Normandy, butthe men who surrounded theConfessorweredesignatedbytitles unknown to LatinEurope, and the widespreaduse of the Danish term‘staller’ to describe any‘placeman’ makes itimpossibletodistinguishwithany precision among theduties discharged by hishousehold officials.2 Therewere, however, at the

Confessor's court men ofstandingwhowerecontenttoholddomestictitlesasamarkof honour, and the roughequivalents of the butler, thechamberlain,andthemarshal,as these offices wereunderstood in Normandy,could already, before 1066,be found in England. It waspossibleforWilliamtoretainin his household during theearly years of his reign

severallaymenwhohadbeenofficials at the Confessor'scourt. Bundi the staller wasoneof these;sopossiblywasEdnoth the staller; and so,certainly, was Robert ‘fitzWimarc’, a man of Bretonorigin, and perhaps of royalconnexions,who served boththe Confessor and theConqueror.3 Very soon,however, William began, inhishousehold,toreplacemen

ofnativeEnglishancestrybymembers of the Normanaristocracy who had risen topower during his reign asduke. Haimo, who was asteward in England as earlyas 1069, was the son ofHaimo dentatus who waskilledatVal-ès-Dunes;RogerBigodwhowasprominent inthe Cotentin before 1064possibly acquired during thereign of William the

Conquerorthestewardshiphesubsequently held; and Eudodapifer, already a steward inEngland from about 1072,wasthesonofthatHubertofRyes who gave sanctuary tothe young Duke William in1047.4 The advancement ofthese men was typical of apolicy which by the time ofthe Conqueror's death wasalmost fulfilled.By 1087 thehousehold of the king of

EnglandwasoverwhelminglyNormaninpersonnel.Such men, scions of the

new Norman nobility,brought to the offices theyheldthetraditionswithwhichthey had been made familiarat theNorman court. Indeed,many of them had alreadyheld office in the ducalhousehold. Chief amongthese was William fitzOsbern,who,alreadysteward

before 1066, retained theoffice even after he hadbecome an English earl.5Despite his exceptionalpower, however, he wasrepresentative of anaristocratic group whoperformed service in theConqueror'scourtbothbeforeand after the Conquest.Similarly, Hugh of Ivrysucceeded to the office ofbutler before 1066 and

retained the title until after1082.6 Finally there is theconstableship, which in thisrespect is particularlysignificant.7Fortheconstablewas essentially the man incharge of the householdknights of his lord, and themilitary organization ofEngland in the time of theConfessorhadasyetgivennooccasion for such an officertobeestablishedathiscourt.

The office, however, alreadyexisted in Normandy, whereit was held by Hugh II ofMontfort-sur-Risle, and thisman,whofoughtatHastings,retainedthepositionafter theConquest, receiving the‘HonouroftheConstable’forhisservices.8Itwould,moreover,berash

to assume that during theConqueror's reign there wasany rigid separation between

hishouseholdinEnglandandhishousehold inNormandy.9The instance of thechamberlain is here ofinterest.Theoffice, itwillberecalled, had been held inNormandy as early as 1034byacertainRalph,whosesonRalph of Tancarville wasWilliam's chamberlain bothbeforeandafter1066,passingontheofficeafterhisdeathin1079 to the great family he

founded.10 Now, Ralph ofTancarville does not appearever to have come toEngland, so that somedistinction between the twohouseholds might here besuspected.Ontheotherhand,no master chamberlainappears to have beenappointed in England duringWilliam's reign, and it istherefore probable thatRalph's duties in England

weredischargedbydeputy.11Atallevents,hiscasewasinsome respects exceptional,and in general it wouldappear that these householdofficials of the Conquerorserved the king wherever hewent. Whether there was asyet any settled order ofprecedence among them ishard to determine. Thesteward, the butler, thechamberlain, and the

constable seem to haveretained in varying degreesthe prominence which theyhadenjoyedbefore1066,andamong these offices therewere distinctions, which,likewise, appear to havederived from earlier Normantraditions. Thus, between1070 and 1087, as in pre-Conquest Normandy, therenormally existedsimultaneously in the

household two or morestewards, and two or moreconstables, but the offices ofbutler and chamberlain werenot so divided, so that thetitles of master butler andmaster chamberlain wereemployed to distinguish theirholders from theirsubordinates.12Alikeinitsorganization,in

itspersonnel,andinthetitlesof itschiefofficers, theroyal

householdofKingWilliamatthe close of his reignresembled in most respectsthe earlier ducal household.Nevertheless, one importantdevelopment within thehouseholdatthistimederivedfrom English precedent. Noman in Normandy between1035 and 1066 bore the titleof chancellor, though theofficewasbetween1060and1067 becoming fully

established in the court ofPhilip I.13 Nor did the ducalchaplains during these yearsform a highly organizedscriptorium. In England,however, the case had beenvery different. The shortsealed writs, uniform incharacter, which were issuedwith great frequency byEdward the Confessor,14presuppose a body of royalclerks who had developed

settled traditions ofadministrative practice. Noristheremuchreasontodoubtthatfromtimetotimeoneofthese chaplains obtainedwithintheroyalscriptoriumaposition of control, and hemayhavebeenentrustedwiththe great seal which theConfessor is known to havepossessed.15 That any ofEdward's chaplains was everstyledchancelloris,however,

extremely doubtful, though acertain Regenbald, whosurvived the Conquest andreceived grants from KingWilliam, was subsequentlyreferredtounderthistitleandmayhavedischargedsomeatleastofthedutieswhichwereto be associated with thechancellor's office during theConqueror'sreign.16The first man certainly to

be styled chancellor in

England was Herfast, whosecareer as one of DukeWilliam's chaplains hasalready been noted, andwhoin 1069 is described aschancellor in a charter forExeter.17 There was,however,at first littlechangeinthescriptoriumoverwhichhepresided,forbetween1066and 1070 there continued tobe issued inEnglandwrits inthe vernacular, which are

indistinguishable in formfrom those of Edward theConfessor, and which areunlike any documentsproduced then, or at anyprevious time, inNormandy.18 Nor was thiscontinuity of practicesubstantially broken even in1070 when Herfast waspromoted to the see ofElmham.Nevertheless, underhis successor, Osmund,

likewise styled chancellor,19certain significant changesbegan to appear.20Henceforward, theConqueror's writs were,generally speaking, couchednot in the vernacular but inLatin, and they wereprogressively employed totransact a wider variety ofbusiness. The writs of theConfessor normally recordeda grant of land or rights: the

later writs of the Conquerorwere increasingly used toannounce commands orprohibitions.Theybecame,inshort, the most characteristicexpression of the king'sadministrative will; and theoffice of chancellor, nowfirmly established,was filledin a continuous successionthrough the reign.21 ThusHerfast who became bishopof Elmham in 1070 was

succeeded by Osmund whoreceived the see of Salisburyin 1078; he in turn wasreplacedbyMauricewhowasmade bishop of London in1085, and Maurice wasfollowedbyGerardwhowasstill chancellor at the end ofthe reign. These chancellorsremained, however, simplyofficials of the king'shousehold, whose servicesafter a few years were

normally rewarded with abishopric. The separation ofthe chancery from thehousehold, and itsdevelopment as a greatjudicial office, only tookplaceatalaterdate.Under the Conqueror, the

king's household officialsdirected the royaladministration in all itsaspects,buttheapplicationofthat administration to the

kingdomatlargewasinotherhands, and the most crucialpoint in the blending ofNorman and Englishtraditions took place in thesphere of local government.Here theConqueror found athisdisposalnotonlythegreatfeudal families he hadestablished in England, butalso operative units of localadministration – the shiresandthehundreds–whichhad

pursuedavigorouslifebeforeeverhecametothisisland.Itwas in harmonizing theseelements of social life underthe control of a monarchywhich had direct relationswith both, that some of thegreatest achievements of theAnglo-Norman dynasty werelater to be made. But theprocess which was to entailsuch lasting results wasbegun under the Conqueror,

and its later successes owedmuchtohisinitiative.The character of the

transformation of aristocraticpower in England, and itseffects upon English localgovernment under thedirection of the firstNormanking, could not be betterillustrated than by referenceto the curious history of theEnglish earldoms and of theEnglish shrievalties in his

time. England before 1066had been familiar with earlsand sheriffs: Normandy withcounts and vicomtes. By theend of William's reign theseofficeswereallpossessedbymen of the same aristocracy,and they were, moreover, inthe Latin documents of theage described in identicalterms. Both the earl inEngland and the count inNormandy were designated

comes: both the sheriff andthe vicomte appear in thetexts as vicecomes. The factdeserves some emphasis.King William was neverindifferent to Englishtraditions,norweretheclerkswho drafted his official actslacking either in knowledgeoradesireforprecision.Thatthey found no difficulty indescribing offices, whoseearlier history had been

different, by identical names,tempts speculation how far,owing to the Normansettlement, the earls andsheriffs in England weremade to approximate as tostatus and function, to thecounts and the vicomtes ofNormandy.Thequestionismademore

interesting when reference ismade to the personalitiesmost directly concernedwith

thetransition.Normancountstook a large part in the theconquest of England, andreceived a large share of thespoils.Butwithonedoubtfulexception, no Norman count(comes) became during theConqueror'sreignatanytimean earl (comes) in England.Neither Robert, count of Eu,norRichard,countofÉvreux,received anEnglish earldom,and it isunlikely(thoughnot

impossible) that Robert,count of Mortain, was everearl of Cornwall.22 Bycontrast it was a bishop ofBayeuxwho in1067becameearlofKent;andWilliamfitzOsbernwhoataboutthesametime was made earl ofHerefordwasneveracountinNormandy. An equallystriking situation is revealedin connexion with theshrievalty. The Norman

aristocracy was to takepossessionof this office.Butno Norman vicomte(vicecomes) became a sheriff(likewise vicecomes),whereas two members ofnotable vice-comitaldynasties – to wit, Hugh ofAvranches and Roger II ofMontgomery – became earlsinEngland.23During the reign of the

Conqueror,thepositionofthe

earlwithin theEnglishpolitywas so transformed that itcame to approximate moreclosely to that of the pre-ConquestNormancount thanto that of the pre-ConquestEnglish earl. In the time ofEdward theConfessoralmostthe whole of England hadbeen divided into earldoms,and although the notion thatthe earl was a royal officialhad never been allowed to

die,inpracticethepoliticsofthereignhadbeendominatedby the quasi-independentrivalries of the great comitalhouses. The events of 1066were, however, fatal to thesepowerful families. After thebattleofHastingsnomemberof the house of Godwineremained with authority, andthere were to be no moreearls of Wessex. Edwin andMorcar, earls at that time of

Mercia and Northumbria,were likewise disinherited,and after a few years ofpolitical insignificance theypassedfinallyfromthescene,theonebydeathandtheotherthrough perpetualimprisonment. In the farnorth, Gospatric was onlybriefly titular earl of atruncated Northumbrianearldom,andWaltheofsonofEarl Siward was to survive

but for a short time. Hisexecutionfortreasonin1076brought to an end thetradition of the Old Englishearldoms.William had no intention

of allowing them to revive.He had no desire to see hiskingdomparcelled out afreshinto semi-independentprincedoms, and instead,while exercising greatcaution, he reverted in his

English policy to notionsconsonantwithhisexperienceof the Norman comté TheNorman counts before theNorman conquest had allbeen closely connected withthe ducal dynasty, and theircomtés, smaller in size thanthe English earldoms, hadbeen situated in regionsspecially important to thedefenceoftheduchy.Similarconditions were now to be

reproduced in England. Thusthe bestowal in 1067 of theearldom of Kent upon hishalf-brother Odo, and, in thesameyear, of the earldomofHereford on William fitzOsbern were clearlydefensive measures, and theearly establishment of theearldom of Norfolk wascertainlyinspiredbytheneedof protection against theDanes. Similarly, the

earldoms of Chester andShrewsbury which before1077 had passed into thehands ofHugh ofAvranchesand Roger II ofMontgomery24 wereconstructed to guard theWelsh frontier.These specialcreations, important as theywere, covered, moreover,onlyafractionoftheterritorywhich had been held by thegreat earls of theConfessor's

reign, and theywere soon tobe yet further diminished.After the forfeiture of RalphGael in 1075 the earldom ofNorfolkwasnottoberevivedduring theConqueror's reign,andafter thedisgraceofOdoin 1082 the earldom of Kentwas allowed to lapse.By theendof theConqueror's reign,therefore, a remarkabletransformation had here beeneffected. Whereas in 1065

almost thewhole of Englandhadbeensubjectedtotheruleof earls drawn from threedominantfamiles,in1087theonlyearldomsinbeingwereasmall region in the extremenorthwhich in 1080or 1081had been entrusted to Robertof Montbrai, and the threepalatineearldomsofChester,Shrewsbury, and Hereford,one ofwhose holders, RogerofBreteuil,hadlanguishedin

prison since 1075.25 Theearldom which in 1065 hadbeen in England the normalunitofprovincialgovernmenthad by 1087 become anexceptional jurisdictioncreated like the Normancomtésoncertainfrontiersforspecial purposes of securityanddefence.If the approximation of

EnglishtoNormanusagethusresultedinadiminutionofthe

importanceof theearlwithinthe English polity, a similarapproximation in the case ofthe sheriff entailed a directlyopposite result.26 No Englishsheriff in pre-ConquestEngland had the standing orpowerof thegreathereditaryNorman vicomtes such asthose of the Cotentin, theAvranchin,ortheBessin.Thesheriff under Edward theConfessor was a landowner

of the second rank whosestatus depended upon hisbeing the agent of the king.BytheendofWilliam'sreignhis place had been taken bymen who, like the earlierNorman vicomtes, wereamong the most powerfulmembers of the aristocracy.Moreover,justastheNormanvicomtehadbeensubordinatenottoalocalcountbuttotheduke,whowas also count of

Rouen,soalsodidthesemen,as sheriffs, enter into atransformed politicalstructure where, unlike theirEnglish predecessors, theynormally found no earl astheirimmediatesuperior.Itissmall wonder, therefore, thatthere came to be ‘a stronglikeness between the Englishsheriff and the Normanvicomte’, and indeedcontemporaries found little

difficulty in describingEnglish shires as vicomtés27Theearlierhistoryofthetwooffices had of course beendifferent, but the functions,andstatus,of theirholders intheAnglo-Normanstateweremade to some degree tocorrespond, and when allproper qualifications aremade it remains true to saythat ‘the sheriffs of the halfcentury succeeding the

Conquest resemble theirFrench contemporaries muchmorethaneithertheirEnglishsuccessors, or the shire-reeves of the Anglo-Saxonperiod’.28Theassimilationofthetwo

offices (which was never tobe complete) was none theless gradual. In the openingyears of his English reign,William turned naturally tothe existing sheriffs as

primary agents of the royalpower, and some of hisearliest writs were addressed(in thevernacular) tosheriffssuchasEdricofWiltshireorTofi of Somerset, who hadbeen in office during the oldrégime.29Notuntilafter1070was there any consistentattempt to replace sheriffs ofnative ancestry by men of adifferent type recruited fromthe duchy. Then, however,

the processwas rapid, and itbecame an essential part ofWilliam's policy to placeprominentmenfromthenewaristocracyinanofficewhichprovidedsopowerfulameansof giving effect to the royalwill.Such, for instance,wereHaimo, sheriff of Kent, theson of Haimo dentatus whofought at Val-ès-Dunes, orBaldwinofMeules,sheriffofDevon, the son of Gilbert of

Brionne, the count.30 Such,too, were Hugh of Port-en-Bessin, sheriffofHampshire,Urse of Abetôt, sheriff ofWorcester,andRobertMalet,sheriff of Suffolk, who inNormandy was lord of thehonour of Graville-Sainte-Honorine.31 And theimportance of Geoffrey ofManneville, sheriff ofMiddlesex, Roger Bigot,sheriff of Norfolk, Edward

‘of Salisbury’, sheriff ofWiltshire,andDurand,sheriffof Gloucestershire, isindicated by the fact that theheirs of all of them became,within two generations, earlsinEngland.32The acquisition of the

office of sheriff by men ofthisimportancecouldonlybemadeofservicetothekingifthey were themselvessubjected to his control and

made to serve, like theirhumbler Saxon predecessors,as royal agents. To achievethisobjectwasnot,however,easy. The office providedgreat opportunities for theenrichmentofitsholders,andmany of theNorman sheriffsof this period becamenotorious for theirdepredations. Churches andmonasterieswereparticularlyloudintheircomplaints:Urse

of Abetôt had robbed thechurches of Worcestershire,Pershore, and Evesham,whilstElyhadsufferedheavylosses at the hands of Picot,sheriff of Cambridgeshire.33Suchprotestscould,however,only be made by the strongand influential. It was,therefore,ofhigh importancethat the king himself shouldstrive to check abuse by hissheriffs of the great powers

theywielded.In1076or1077hesetupacommissionwhichincluded Lanfranc, Robert,countofEu,andRichardfitzGilbert to inquire into theconduct of sheriffsthroughoutEngland,orderingthem in particular to makerestitutionofanylandswhichhad been seized from thechurch.Survivingwritsshowthe attempt to give effect tothis decision,34 and in many

ofthegreattrialsofthereignsheriffs came up forjudgment. In its turn theDomesday inquisitionwas toentail the restitution ofmanyestates which had beenwrongfully acquired by thesheriffs.35 The essential partplayed by the Conqueror'ssheriffs in the Normansettlement of Englanddepended,however,lessuponsuch specific control than on

the loyalty which theynormally displayed towardsthe king. The acquisition ofthe English shrievalty by theNormanaristocracythusinitsturn contributed substantiallyto the Conqueror's policy ofestablishing that aristocracyin his kingdom without toogreat a disruption of existinginstitutions of localgovernment.For the Anglo-Norman

sheriffs took over all theduties of their Anglo-Saxonpredecessors.36 They wereresponsible for the collectionof the royal revenue; theywere the executants of royaljustice; they controlled thelocal courts of shire andhundred. In addition, theyperformed as in the keepingof castles, some of thefunctions associated in theduchy with the vicomte; and

like the Norman vicomtes,many of them becamespecially connected with theroyal court. They brought totheir position in England theprestige of great feudalmagnates, and this, added totheroyalauthoritywhichtheyrepresented, gave them thepower to enforce the king'sorders, even when thesemightaffect thegreatestmanin the land. It was through

them that the Norman kingwas able togivenewvitalityto an ancient English office,and to bring the strengthlatent in Anglo-Saxon localinstitutions to the service ofthefeudalpolityhefounded.Nowherewasthistoprove

more important than in theessential matter of finance,andheretooitwasWilliam'spolicy to takeoverwhatwasbest in the traditions of the

duchy and the kingdom. Thedevelopment of the fiscalsystem of Normandy beforethe Norman conquest hasalready been noted, and, ashas been seen, itsorganization had beensufficienttoprovidethedukebefore 1066 with a revenuesuperiortothatofmostofhisneighbours in Gaul.37 Itsmost characteristic featurewas the assessment of taxes

onadministrativeareasratherthan on individual estates,and the farming of thevicomtés by the vicomtes. Atthe same time the utilizationof the ducal revenues hadbecome the responsibility ofthe ducal camera whoseexistence can be traced backto Duke Richard II, andwhich during the Normanreign of Duke William wasunder the control of the

chamberlain. Many of thedetails of the fiscalarrangements of pre-Conquest Normandy areobscure, but they hadcertainly provided DukeWilliambefore1066withtheexceptionally large resourceswhich had been necessary toenablehim tomakehisgreatadventure overseas in thatyear. Now, they might beexpected to offer the

Conqueror indispensablefinancial support in the taskswhich confronted him asking.In England, William

inherited a distinct financialsystemandonewhichwasinmany respects unique. LiketheNormanduke,theEnglishking had drawn his revenuefrom many sources. He hadhis customary dues; he hadthe profits of coinage and of

justice; and he had therevenuesfromhisownestateswhichwerefrequentlyfarmedby his sheriffs. But inaddition the king in Englandhad for long exercised theright to levy a general taxover the whole country,which was described as a‘geld’, and this geld wasbased upon an assessmentwhich, while it varied indetail from region to region,

was everywhere organizedupon similar principles.38Each shire was assessed around number of geldableunits, which in Wessex andthe southern Midlands werecalled‘hides’;theassessmentwas then subdivided withineach shire among thehundreds; and the quota ofthe hundred was thenrepartitioned once moreamongthevillagesusuallyin

blocks of five or ten hides.The systemwas undoubtedlycumbrous, but it enabled theking to impose a roughlyuniform tax over the wholerealm, and it has beendescribedas ‘the first systemofnationaltaxationknowntowesternEurope’.39Williamwas quick to take

advantage of it. Thevernacular NorthamptonshireGeld Roll, drawn up as it

seems between 1072 and1078,40 shows that theConqueror was alreadyutilizingtheOldEnglishgeldarrangements for his ownpurpose; and there has alsosurvived a group of Latinrecords, collectively knownastheInquisitioGeldi,whichdescribes the manner inwhich a levywasmade overthefivewesternshires.41TheConqueror, in fact, imposed

these gelds at fairly regularintervalsduringhisreign,andtheimportanceheattachedtothem is strikingly illustratedin the great survey whichmarked its close. DomesdayBook is not simply a geldbook, but one of its chiefpurposes was to record theliability to geld throughoutEngland, and it is from thissurvey,drawnupby the firstNorman king, that most of

our knowledge of the geldsystem of Anglo-SaxonEnglandisderived.42William, in fact, brought

under a single politicaldomination two countrieswhose individual fiscalarrangements were relativelywell developed, and it istherefore of interest toconsider how far, under hisdirection, theseweremadetoinfluenceeachother.Thereis

no evidence that the Englishmethods of geld assessmentwere ever in his timetransported toNormandy.Onthe other hand, the centralcontrol of all the royal andducal revenues continued tobeinthecamera,whichafterthe Conquest, as before,remained under thesupervision of masterchamberlains of the house ofTancarville. It is not,

however, certain whetherduring the Conqueror's reignthe process had begunwhereby the treasury, underanindependenttreasurer,wastobeestablishedasanofficeseparate from the camera, orhowfarthisdevelopmenthadbeen foreshadowed before1066 in either Normandy orEngland.43 A certain Henry,holding lands in Hampshire,was in Domesday Book

(1086) styled ‘the treasurer’and this Henry (thoughwithout the title) isindependently recorded ashaving held land inWinchester, where from thetime of Cnut the royaltreasure, or part of it, wasstored.44Again,thefamilyofMauduit, which, at a laterdate, held one of thechamberlainships of theexchequer, can likewise be

traced to Winchester in1086.45 It would, none theless, be rash to draw toopreciseconclusionsfromsuchtestimony. There is adistinctionbetweenatreasurywhich is a mere storehouse,and a treasury which is anoffice concerned, also, withdealing with the king'screditors, and withadjudicating on financialdisputes.46Themost thatcan

besaidisthat,withintwenty-fiveyears of theConqueror'sdeath, some progress hadbeenmade towards the latterconception. Domesday Bookwaskeptinthetreasuryfroman early date, and between1108 and 1113 an importantpleawasheld‘inthetreasuryatWinchester’.47It would be irrelevant,

therefore, in this context toattemptanypreciseanswerto

the controversial questionhow far, if at all, the originsof the laterexchequercanbetraced to the Conqueror'sreign. As is well known, thetwelfth-century exchequerconsisted of two relatedbodies: the upper exchequerwhichwasacourtcontrollingfinancial policy, and thelower exchequer which wasconcerned with the receiptand payment of money. It is

the lower exchequer that hasbeen derived from thetreasury,whichinsomeformoranotherasdistinctfromthecamera has been detected inthe time of the Conqueror,and even perhaps in that ofthe Confessor. Some of thelater practices of theexchequer,such,forinstance,as the blanching or assayingof money, were apparentlyusedundertheConfessorand

extended under theConqueror. Again, theimportance of treasuries asrecognized royal storehouses– particularly those ofWinchesterandRouen–wasmuch enhanced underWilliam.Finally,themethodsofaccountinglaterusedintheexchequer – the abacus andthecareful accounts recordedon rolls – were probably offoreignorigin, andmayhave

owed something to Normanpractices and officialsintroduced into England bytheConqueror.48Whatever conclusionsmay

bedrawnabouttheoriginsofthe twelfth-centuryexchequersofNormandyandEngland, the generalcharacter of William's fiscalpolicy is clear, and themanner in which he hereblendedthedistincttraditions

of his duchy and hiskingdom, combining themefficiently into a singleoperative system. So far asEngland is concerned, thisresult depended directly onthefactthat,ashasbeenseen,theshrievaltyduringhisreignwastakenoversocompletelyby the Norman aristocracy.Forthesheriffremained,after1066 as before, the chiefroyal finance officer.49 He

collected the royal dues; hecollected fines such as themurdrum; and eachMichaelmas he helped tosupervise the payment of‘Peter's Pence’. He collectedthe profits of justice for theking, and was probablyresponsibleforseeingthatthefeudal obligations of theking's tenants were properlydischarged. He exploited theroyalmanorswithinhisshire,

andtookintohiskeepinganyestatesthathadbeenforfeitedto the king. Under William,moreover, it was the sheriffwho was ultimatelyresponsible for the collectionofthegeld.Howfarthelaterpractice whereby the sherifffarmed his shire wasdeveloped by William isuncertain. There is at leastonecaseof a farmofa shireby a sheriff before 1066, but

itwouldberashtoassertthatthepracticewas thengeneralin England, or even toconclude that the systemhadbeen fully established by1087.50 Before the death ofWilliam, however, thepractice had certainly beenwidelyextended,andheretheexampleofthefarmingoftheNorman vicomtés by thevicomtes may perhaps havebeeninfluential.

Of the efficiency ofWilliam's financialadministration, and of itssuccess, there can be nodoubt.Therevenueswhichasduke he had drawn from hisduchy were exceptionallylarge for a province ofGaul,and after 1066 these werevastly increased. Togetherwith his half-brothers heowneddirectlynearlyhalfthelandinEngland,andhedrew

a very large annual revenuetherefrom through hissheriffs. Again, thecircumstances in which thenew honours had beenestablishednotonlygavehimvery lucrative rights inrespectofthefeudalincidentsin England, but enabled himto enforce a stricter paymentof these dues in connexionwith the Norman honourswhichwereheldbythesame

men.Profitsofjusticeintheirturnhadalwaysbeenasourceof wealth to the duke, andnow these profits were alsodrawnfromalloverEngland.More important still was theEnglish geld which he musthave regarded as one of themostvaluable legacieswhichhe inherited from his royalAnglo-Saxon predecessors.Four times at least he isknowntohaveraisedthistax

from all over England, andthe imposition was veryheavy. To judge from laterpractice it was normallylevied at the rate of twoshillings for every hide ofland, but on rare occasionstheratewasevenhigher,andin thenotoriousgeldof1083the assessment was at sixshillings a hide.51 It is truethatmanyestates,particularlythose of the church, were

exempted from this savagetax, but even so the amountcollected must have beenenormous.Nor were these the only

sources from which Williamdrew his revenue.Before theConquest he had acquired anextensive income from taxeson Norman trade, and whenhe became king he couldvastlyincreasethisbysimilartaxation in England. By the

Conquest he acquired akingdom which was rich notonly in its landedwealth butalso in respect of its trade.52London especially was atrading centre of highimportance.To it in the timeof the Confessor there camemerchants from NormandyandnorthernFrance,fromtheLow Countries, and theRhineland. A trade withSweden was conducted from

York, Lincoln, andWinchester, andperhaps to alesser degree from Stamford,Thetford, Leicester, andNorwich. Chester was acentre of a trade in furs;English cheese was exportedto Flanders; and bothDroitwich andNorwichwereimportant salt markets. Allthis activity now came underthe control of the Normanking and could be taxed for

his profit. It is true that theConquest to some extentdisrupted theflowofEnglishoverseas trade, but even soWilliam's revenue from thissource must have been verylarge. And from the townsthemselves, in which it wascentred, he derived greatwealth. The boroughs ofAnglo-Saxon England weretoo diverse in character toallow easy generalization to

be made about them. But agreater borough normallybelonged to the king inrespect of two-thirds of theprofit tobeextractedfromit,and such revenue, derivingperhaps from a mint, andmore certainly from burgagetenements and from markettolls, might be veryextensive.53 It undoubtedlycontributed substantially tothe Conqueror's wealth and

power.It must be remembered

also that such economiclosses as England sustainedasan immediate resultof theConquest were often madefor the benefit ofNormandy,and thus in turn added toWilliam's resources. Thetreasure brought back toNormandy from England in1067 attracted attention,54andmuchofthedevelopment

ofNormandyduring thenextdecades was undoubtedlyfinanced out of wealth takenfrom England. There wasmuch direct spoliation ofEngland for the sake of theduchy,butingeneralitwasinamoreindirectwaythatafter1066thewealthofNormandywas increased. NormanabbeysandNormanlordshadbecomepossessed ofEnglishlands, and as these were

exploited, a financial basiswas supplied for theextension of Normancommerce. The materialprosperity of the abbey ofFécamp under the wise ruleof Abbot John is wellattested,55 and elsewherethere is testimony of a greatexpansion of Norman trade.The tolls leviedbyGeoffrey,bishop of Coutances,increased fourteen times

between 1049 and 1093, andit has been estimated that asimilarincreasetookplaceinthetollsofCaenandperhapsof Bayeux.56 As for Rouen,the development was evenmore striking.Theprosperityof the city as a trading portwas now further enhanced,withtheresultthatthewealthof its merchants becamenotorious, and a mercantilearistocracywas in process of

formation.57 By 1091 acertain Conan, who was amemberofthepowerfulcivicfamily of the Pilatins, wasfamed for his riches, andthese were in fact so greatthatoutofhisown resourceshe could hire a considerableforce of mercenaries insupportofWilliamRufus.58All this activity on both

sides of the Channel was tothe king's advantage, and

particularly in respect of theincreased flow of moneywhich it stimulated. Williamhad claimed as duke, and hewas to retain as king, amonopoly of coinage. In theduchy there were but twomints, those of Bayeux andRouen,but the importanceofthese was now naturallymuch increased. And inEngland,William found herea more notable source of

revenue. In England it hadbeen characteristic of aboroughtohaveitsmint,andcoinsareknowntohavebeenstruckforKingHaroldduringhisshortreignatnolessthanforty-four minting places.59The exclusive right ofWilliam to mint money thusbecameafter theConquestofthe first importance, and theNormanmoneyersofthekingweremenofsubstancewhose

management of the royalfinance enabled them toamass theirownconsiderablefortunes. The activities ofRannulf, the minter, inNormandy, before theConquest have already beennoted.His sons inheritedandincreased their father'swealth, and one of them,Waleran, himself a moneyer,extended his operations toEnglandwithsucheffect that

he acquired lands inCambridgeshire, Suffolk,Essex,andHertfordshire,andalso a house inWoodStreet,London.60It is impossibletoestimate

withanyaccuracythepreciseamountoftheannualrevenuewhichWilliamcollectedfromNormandy and England.Figuresaredifficulttoobtain,and when available it ishazardous toexpress them in

terms ofmodernmoney.Butthe total sum bycontemporary standards wasextremelylarge.Williamwasknown as a wealthy prince,and when he died hisfinancial position wasperhaps stronger than that ofany other ruler in westernEurope.Moreover, thoughhelefttreasuretohissuccessors,hehimselfneverneededtobeparsimonious.61 The

splendourofhiscourtandthelavishness of his alms werenotorious. His son-in-lawrated his largess as secondonlytothatoftheemperorofByzantium,and,according toWilliamofMalmes-bury, thecrown-wearings which heinstituted were so costly thatHenry I effected aconsiderable economy bydiscontinuing them.62 Moreparticularly,theconstantwars

waged in defence of hiskingdom could only havebeen financed out of a largerevenue. Inheriting financialorganizations of considerableefficiencyinbothpartsofhisrealm, he developed these tosuch purpose that theresources of Normandy andEnglandcouldbeexploitedtosubserve the political needsof the Anglo-Normankingdom.Indeed,thesurvival

of that kingdom was todepend in large measure onthewealthhecametocontrol.The ultimate test of the

government of any medievalking must, however, alwaysbe sought in connexion withthe administration of justice,and here the quality of theConqueror's statesmanshipwas displayed with especialclarity in both parts of hisrealm.As has been seen, the

curiaregisofWilliamaskingwas,likethecuriaducisoverwhichhehadearlierpresidedas duke, essentially a feudalcourt endorsing feudal lawand custom; and someaccount of its operationbetween 1066 and 1087 hasalreadybeengiven.63ButjustasinNormandy,Williamhadusedhisvicomtés as units oflocal justice, so also inEngland did he find, in the

shires and hundreds, localcourts of ancient origin, andthesetooheatoncebegantouseinanattempttomakehisjustice pervade the kingdomhe had conquered. Nowhere,indeed, in the Conqueror'sEngland was the blend ofNorman feudal ideas withpre-feudal English traditionsto be more apparent than inhis utilization of local courtstosupplementthejurisdiction

ofhiscentralcuria.The chief agent in forging

this link which was soessential to the Conqueror'spolicy was undoubtedly thesheriff.Before the endofhisreign the sheriff had becomea great feudal magnate, andas such he was personallyvested with judicial rights.But hewas also by virtue ofhis office placed in a specialrelation to thecourtsof shire

and hundred, and it wasnatural that he should, as hisSaxonpredecessorshaddone,hear pleas concerning theking and the kingdom inthose courts.64 He may, it istrue,havesharedthesedutieswith others. The office oflocal justiciar65 wasestablishedinEnglandbeforethe end of the reign ofWilliam Rufus, and it is notimpossible that it existed

sporadically, and at intervalsoftime,inEnglandduringthereign of the Conqueror.Æthelwig,abbotofEvesham,clearly had some officialjudicial position in thewesternshiresin1072,andsoalsodidothermenelsewhereat later times in his reign,though these were seldomspecifically named asjusticiars of particular shires.Nevertheless, whatever other

expedientsWilliammayhaveused to introduce his justiceinto the shire courts ofEngland, it was the sheriffwho in this matter remainedthe natural executant of theking'swill, and itwas to thesheriff that the king's writordering someparticularpleato be held was normallyaddressed. At the same timeWilliam exercised a moredirect intervention in local

justice by the dispatch ofmembersofhisowncourt toconduct local trials ofparticularimportance.Aswillbe seen, many of the chiefmembers of the Normanaristocracy, bothecclesiastical and lay, wereemployed in this way by theConqueror as itinerantjustices, and among themGeoffrey, bishop ofCoutances, was to be the

mostactiveinthiswork.Thesuccesswithwhichthe

ancient local courts ofEngland were brought to theservice of the first Normanking,andtheextent towhichthey were made to upholdtradition at a time of changedeserve to be reckoned asamong the greatest of theConqueror's achievements,andinnoothermatterwashisstatesmanship to be more

influential on his Englishposterity. His policy in thisrespect thus deserves someillustration, and it could notbebetterexemplifiedthanbyreferencetosomeofthegreattrialswhichweresomarkedafeature of his English rule.66Thus in his time a series ofpleas were held respectingcertain estates which werealleged to have beenwrongfully taken from the

abbey of Ely.67 Between1071and1074,forinstance,agreat inquiry,heldbefore theunited courts of theneighbouring shires, wasconducted by the bishops ofCoutances and Lincoln, EarlWaltheof, and the sheriffsPicot and Ilbert. Judgmentwas given for the abbey, butat least one, and probablytwo, more trials concerningtheElylandsoccurredduring

the Conqueror's reign. Sometimebetween1080and1084,forinstance,agreatpleawasconducted at Kentford byGeoffrey, bishop ofCoutances, inthepresenceofmanyoftheking'stenants-in-chief, andbeforeacombinedsession of the courts of thethree adjacent shires, andonce again judgment wasgiven in favour of themonastery. These Ely pleas

were, indeed, notableoccasions, but even morespectacular, perhaps,was thetrial held, either in 1072 orbetween 1075 and 1076, atPinnenden Heath in Kent toadjudicate betweenArchbishop Lanfranc andBishop Odo of Bayeuxrespecting lands which thebishopwassaidtohavetakenfromtheseeofCanterbury.68This trial, also, was held

under the presidency ofGeoffrey, bishop ofCoutances, before anassembly of the king'stenants-in-chief, meeting thistimewithintheshirecourtofthe countyofKent.Lanfrancobtained judgment in hisfavour, but the execution ofthe verdict seems to havebeen delayed, since many ofthedisputedestateswerestillin Odo's possession in

1086.69 Finally may bementionedtheplearelatingtoa dispute between Wulfstan,bishop of Worcester, andWalter, abbot of Evesham,overtheirrespectiverightsinthe manors of Bengeworthand Great Hampton.70 OnceagainthepresidingjudgewasGeoffrey of Coutances, andthetrialwasheldatasessionofneighbouringshirecourts.Thesearethebestreported

trials of the reign, but theywere certainly representativeofmanyothers,andtheymayfairlybetakentoillustratethegeneral principles of theConqueror'sadministrationofjustice. The king's directinterest in them is evident.Theywereinstitutedbyroyalwrit, and the presiding judgewas in every case the king'sdeputy.71 At PinnendenHeath,GeoffreyofCoutances

is described as representingthe king, whilst in theWorcestershire plea he wasbidden by the king to act inmeo loco.72 Odo of Bayeuxconducted a later Eveshampleainthesamecapacity,andhe likewise presided for thekingatatrialbetweenBishopGundulf of Rochester andPicot the sheriff concerningland at Freckenham inNorfolk.73 The presence of

thesemenasroyalmissi–orcommissioners–marks theseoccasions as trials before theking'scourt,andtothatcourtthere came, as in feudaldutybound,tenants-in-chiefofthelord king, men who mightsometimes be drawn fromoutsidetheshireswhichweremore particularly affected.74Nevertheless, in these trialsuse was also made ofspecifically English

institutions. The pleas wereheld in full sessions of theshire courts, and to thesemeetingstherecamenotonlythe francigenae of the shirebutalsoEnglishmen.Andtheshirecourts,assuch,togetherwith the sheriffs, played avital part in the trialsthemselves. TheWorcestershirepleawastriedby the barons with thewitness of thewhole county,

and at Kentford the verdictwas formally recorded asbeing also the judgment ofthe shires.75 Just as the Elyplea was ordered to be held‘by several shire courtsbefore my barons!, so alsowas the Freckenham suitheardbytheking'scommand‘in a combined session offour shire courts in thepresence of the Bishop ofBayeux and others of my

barons’.76 By holding hisfeudalcourtsinassembliesofthe English shires Williamwas grafting the royal rightsofaNormankingofEnglandon to the ancient institutionsofthelandhehadconquered.Nor was this merely a

matter of expediency.Nothing is more remarkablein these trials than the king'sdesire that the traditionallegal customs of England

should be maintained. Thebishop of Worcester wasallowed toproducewitnessesof native origin to testify tohis established rights, and atKentford the English took asignificant part in theinquiry.77 At PinnendenHeath there were assembledtogether ‘not only all theFrenchmen in the shire butalso, and more especiallythoseEnglishwhowerewell

acquaintedwith the lawsandcustoms of the land’.78 Inparticular there came to thistrial Æthelric, a formerbishop of Selsey, ‘a man ofgreat age, and very wise inthe law of the land, who bythe king's command wasbrought to the trial in awaggoninorderthathemightdeclare and expound theancient practice of thelaws’.79 Such acts possess

more thanmerelyantiquarianinterest.Lanfranc,archbishopofCanterbury,wastheking'sprincipaladviser,whilstOdo,bishop of Bayeux, was theking'shalf-brotherandoneofthe most powerful of hissubjects. A dispute betweenthemmightwell threaten thewhole fabric of the newlyestablished Anglo-Normanstate. It is thereforenoteworthy that such a

controversy at such a timecould, by the king's order,have been adjudicated byreference to traditionalEnglish customs. Fewconquerors, medieval ormodern, have shown morestatesmanlikeconcern for thetraditions of countriesrecentlywonbythesword.The procedure adopted in

these trials also calls forcomment.Themethodof the

ordeal, which was stillemployed, had long beenused on both sides of theChannel,asalsohadbeentheinquiries by means ofwitnesses or by theproduction of charters.80 Onthe other hand, theConqueror's practice ofsending commissioners tohold his local courts wassubstantiallyan innovation inEngland and itwas to prove,

underWilliam'ssuccessors,apowerful agency fordeveloping the royal power.Notonly,moreover,didthesemenbringtheking'sauthoritymore directly than everbeforeintotheshirecourtsofEngland,but in their conductof the pleas over which theypresided they made use of amethodofproofwhichwastohave the most extensiveinfluence upon English

judicial practice at a laterdate.Foritwasinthesetrialsthat use was, for the firsttime,consistentlymadeofthejury as ‘a group of menappointedbyacourttogiveacollective verdict uponoath’.81The origin of this

institution has been muchdebated. Traces of it havebeen found in the Danishdistricts of England before

the Norman conquest,82 but,accordingtomanyscholars,itwas introduced into Englandby the Normans, whodevelopeditoutofthesworninquestswhichhadbeenusedby the Carolingian kings.83The matter may, therefore,herebeleftinsuspense.Whatis certain, however, is thatWilliamemployedsuchjuriesmore consistently, and togreater effect, than had ever

before been the case inEngland, and between 1066and 1087 their use became acharacteristic feature of hisjudicial administration. Sucha jury can, for instance,probablybeseenatKentford,whilstintheFreckenhampleaOdo,bishopofBayeux,usedtwo juries in an attempt toascertain the facts underdispute.84 Similarly, inNormandy, at a trial held

beforethekingbetween1072and 1079, the rights of thepriory of Bellême werevindicatedbywhatappearstohavebeenacollectiveverdictdeliveredbyajurycomposedof men of great age.85 Thepractice was evidentlybecoming more general, andsoon it was to bespectacularly extended. TheDomesday inquest, whichwas not wholly unconnected

withtheearlierlitigation,wasitselfin1086tobeconductedlargely by means of swornverdicts given by juries upand down the land.86 AllEnglandwasthustobemadefamiliar with this institutionwhich the Conqueror hadestablished as a regular partoftheroyaladministration. Itwas not the least of hiscontributions to the futuredevelopment of English

justice.The royal administration

conducted by King Williamentailed many consequenceswhichwerenottobefulfilleduntillongafterhisdeath,andit would be hard to assesswhat were its immediateeffectsuponthedailylivesofthe people over whom heruled. The establishment ofthe Anglo-Norman kingdomwrought no such changes on

peasant life as it produced inthe higher ranks of society.The rural conditionsprevailing in Normandy donot appear to have beensubstantiallymodified duringthe third quarter of theeleventh century,87 andthough theConquest,and thedisturbances which followedit, brought havoc anddestruction to many Englishvillages, the agrarian

structure of Englandwas notessentiallydifferentattheendoftheConqueror'sreignfromwhat it had been in 1066.88The new rulers of Englandseemtohavebeenunwilling,or unable, to modify thevarieties of peasantorganizationwhichexisted inpre-Conquest England, andnothing is more remarkablethan the persistence duringthese decades of diverse

provincial traditions. Thevillage customs of Kent andNorthumbria were, forexample, to remain distinct,and there is ample evidencethat the peasantry of EastAngliaandtheNorthMercianDanelaw still possessed aftertwenty years ofNorman rulean exceptional degree ofpersonalfreedom.The rural organization of

eleventh-centuryEnglandhas

been exhaustively discussedby a long succession ofscholars,89anditneedsnoticein thisplaceonly so far as itwas affected by the personaladministration of William asking. In this connexion it issignificant that the bulk ofour knowledge of Englishpeasant life in the time ofEdwardtheConfessorderivesfrom the great survey thatwascompiledbyhisNorman

successor, and it is likewisesignificant that the men whodrew up that survey appliedto England the same termsthat they used in describingthe peasantry of Normandy.The Latin terms used inDomesdayBookundoubtedlylackprecision,buttheyreveala rural society which is notessentiallydifferentfromthatwhich is described in pre-Conquest texts in the

vernacular, such as thetreatiseonestatemanagementknown as the Rights andRanks of People.90 Thecategories of peasants whichappear in Domesday Bookare not strictly defined ormutuallyexclusive,but,as inthe earlier record, they rangefrommenwhose obligations,though manifold, were notincompatible with personalfreedom, toheavilyburdened

cottagers, and to slaves whomight be regarded as humanchattels. Intermediate amongthem was the villein – thecentral figure of peasantsociety. He was the peasantwithashareintheopenfieldsof the village, who despiteelements of freedom in hiscondition was subjected toheavyservices.Heperformedforcedlabouronseveraldayseachweekonhis lord's land,

wasliabletoforcedpaymentsin money or in kind, and,whenhedied,hispossessionswere legally forfeit to hislord.The essential continuity of

English rural life during thelatter half of the eleventhcentury has long beenrecognized, and all that hasbeen noted of William'sadministration suggests thathis influence was directed to

maintain it. Such changes ashere took place during hisreign might perhaps bebrieflysummarizedashavingoccurred in two maindirections. The first is therapid decline between 1066and 1086 in the number ofslavesinEngland.Inthetimeof Edward the Confessorslavery had been acharacteristic feature ofEnglishvillagelife,andithas

been calculated, though withsomeuncertainty, that on theeve of the Norman conquestabout one in every elevenpersons in England was aslave.91 By 1086 thisproportion (whatever itsaccuracy) had been sodrastically reduced that amodern commentator hasfound here ‘the most vividfeatureofchange revealed inDomesdayBook’.92 It is not

altogether easy to explain.Doubtless, economic factorsplayedtheirpart,andthenewlandlords, rapacious andavaricious,mayhavefounditmore profitable to exploittheir estates bymeans of theforced labour of a dependentpeasantrythanbytheworkofslaveswhosefoodtheymighthave to provide. Again, theinfluence of a vigorouslyreformed church should not

be ignored. But when all issaid, some credit in thismatter may reasonably beassigned to William's ownadministration.Averystrongtradition, which probably atleast partially reflects thetruth, asserts that there waslittle in pre-ConquestNormandy to correspond tothewidespread prevalence ofslavery – and of the slavetrade – in pre-Conquest

England.93AndWilliammayperhapshavebeeninfluencedby this. He is known, forexample, to have striven –albeitwithoutmuchsuccess–to suppress the Bristol slavetrade,94 and one of the lawslater attributed to himspecificallyforbidsthesaleofone man by another outsidethecountry.95Atallevents,itdeserves note that, forwhatever reasons, slavery in

England rapidly declinedduring the reign of Williamthe Conqueror, and withinhalf a century of his death ithad virtually disappearedfrom the Englishcountryside.96The other broad change in

English peasant life whichwas characteristic of theseyears was in the oppositedirection. The moreindependent of the English

peasantry,normallydescribedin Domesday Book as‘freemen’,or‘sokemen’,sankrapidly in the social scale.The consequences of suchorganized devastations astook place in the north in1069and1070mayeasilybeimagined, and even in areaswhich were not so tragicallyaffected it is not uncommonto find villages where thewhole population had

deteriorated in economicstatus between 1066 and1086. Itwould, doubtless, berash to generalize too freelyfrom isolated examples, forevery village was a flux ofrising and falling fortunes.But the changes which,duringtheseyears,tookplaceamong the landowners ofEngland must often haveafflicted the peasantry. Thenewaristocracy,possessedof

large and scattered estates,whichtheywereconcernedtoexploit,wereharshlandlords,and their stewards, movingfromregiontoregion, tendedto enforce a uniformity ofsubjection which operated tothe disadvantage of themorefavoured villagers.97Inheriting the rights of theirSaxon predecessors, thesemenpossessedalsothefeudalsuperiorities they had

acquired from the Normanking. And at the same timetheNorman legal theory thatpeasant status should bedetermined not by inheritedpolitical right but in relationto services performed, cut atthe root of such traditionalclaimstopersonalfreedomaswere still precariouslyasserted by the moreindependent peasants. Forthese reasons, while slavery

began to disappear fromEngland under Norman rule,predialservitudeincreased.The reign of William the

Conqueror undoubtedlywitnessed very great distressamong the English peasantrywho comprised someninetenths of the populationof England. Their existencewas at best precarious, forthey had few reserves. Thefailure of a crop could

produce immediate scarcity,and two successive badharvests might bring on oneof those terrible faminepestilences which were somarkedafeatureoftheage.98Yet such distressfulconditions, in which life andhealth might be preservedonlywithdifficulty,werenotthe product of the Normanconquest, and it is doubtfulwhether they were much

aggravated by it. When allallowancehasbeenmade forthe inevitable hardshipsfalling on the less fortunateduring a period of politicalchange, it remains true thatthere was no fundamentalbreak in the continuity ofEnglishpeasantlifeundertheadministrationofWilliamtheConqueror.Nor was the impact of his

rulemarkedlydifferentonthe

inhabitants of the Englishtowns.99Theking'sinterestinEnglish trade and theboroughs in which it wasconcentrated, has alreadybeen noted, but for the menwho lived in theseplaces theperiod was full of hazard.Sometimes sheer disastersoccurred. The successivesackings of York, forinstance, must have entailedterrible distress, and the

practiceoferectingcastles inthe chief cities of Englandoften provoked somethinglike a catastrophe, as atLincoln where no less thanonehundredandsixtyhouseswere destroyed tomakewayforthenewstronghold.100Forthese and other causes, theurban proletariat wasincreased during these yearsby men who had recentlybeen impoverished.None the

less, the growth of Englishmunicipal life was not in itsessentials disrupted. Duringthe Conqueror's reign itcontinued to suffer from theshock and disturbance of theConquest, and its recoverywasnotcomplete in1086.101Yetwithin sixty years of theConqueror's death the townsof England were enjoying amore flourishing life thanever before, and this

development probably owedsomething to Normandirection, and to William'spolicy of conservation.102Much of the municipalorganization characteristic oftwelfth-century England hadexistedinembryointhetimeofEdwardtheConfessor,andWilliam preserved anddevelopedit.It isnoteworthyhow many of the Anglo-Norman charters to English

towns are retrospective incharacter.The composition of the

English urban populationdoesnotappear tohavebeensubstantially modified as animmediate result of theNorman conquest. But thebeginnings of onedevelopment which was toentail wide futureconsequences can perhaps betraced to the Conqueror's

acts.103ItisdoubtfulwhetherbeforetheConquesttherehadbeen any permanent Jewishsettlements in England, butthe existence of a Jewishcommunity in Rouen duringthe central decades of theeleventh century is certain.Nor is theremuchdoubt thatacolonyoftheseRouenJewscametoEngland in thewakeof the Conqueror, and wasthere established at his

instigation.104 It was rapidlytoincreaseinimportance,andby 1130 it was evidently asettled and prosperouscommunity.105 On the otherhand, it would be erroneousto postulate for the eleventhcentury anythingcorresponding to thewidespread Jewish activitycharacteristic of AngevinEngland. The consequencesof William's acts in this

respectwerethustolieinthefuture. He facilitated theadvent of Jews intoEngland,and Jewry in England wasthroughout the twelfthcentury to retain not only apredominantly Frenchcharacter, but also specialconnexions with the Anglo-Norman monarchy.106 But ifthis process began in theConqueror's reign, and underhis administration, itwasnot

far advanced during his life,and it is doubtful whether inhis time there was a settledJewishcolonyinanyEnglishtownexceptLondon.107Thedailylifeofthepeople

of England depended in theeleventhcenturyverydirectlyupon customs and traditionswhich William wasconsistently concerned tomaintain. For this reason hisadministration, harsh and

brutalas itwas,probablydidsomething to mitigate thedistress which fell on thehumbler of his subjects at atimeofupheaval.TheEnglishpeasantry had reason to bethankful that the newaristocracy was establishedwithout wholesaledisturbance,andthelitigationwhich is recorded inDomesdayBookshowsmanycases when some restitution

was made to native tenantswho had been dispossessedby thenewlandownersorbyrapacious sheriffs. Thepeasantry on their part wereto gain in the long run fromthe king's rigoroussupervision of localpolicing.108 Here again hefollowed his normal practiceof adapting existinginstitutions to his purpose.Thus by a famous ordinance

he made the hundredcorporately responsible forthe murder of any of hisfollowers, commanding thatif the murderer was notapprehended by his lordwithin five days the hundredin which the crime wascommitted shouldcollectively contribute suchpart of the very heavymurdrum fine of forty-sixmarks of silver as the lord

might be unable todischarge.109 Order, thusmaintained, was, in truth,bought at a heavy price, butits benefitswere recorded byWilliam's contemporaries onbothsidesoftheChannel.AnEnglishman gratefully notedthe good order heestablished,110 and Normanchroniclers are unanimous inlamenting the disintegrationof public security which

occurred in the duchy afterhisdeath.111The administration of his

conjointrealmbyWilliamtheConquerorwas in everywayremarkable.Harshandbrutal,it was never blindlytyrannical. Frequentlyrepulsive in its cruderapplications,itwasadaptedtoNorman and Englishconditions, and, particularlyin the spheres of justice and

finance, it was to entailenduring consequences. Norshould itbe forgotten that itsoperations stretcheduniformly over his wholedominion. His court movedwith the king wherever hewent,andthedevelopmentofroyal justice was to followmuch the same course inNormandy and England.Again, William's chancellorswereconcernedwithbusiness

inbothpartsofhisrealm,andoften accompanied the kingtoandfroacrosstheChannel.Herfast was connected withcharters relating both toNormandy and England,112Osmundwasfrequentlyintheduchy in his officialcapacity,113 and so also wasMaurice.114While, therefore,between1066and1087everydepartment of Englishadministration was affected

byNormaninfluence,Englishadministrative practices wereintheirturnoftentransportedacross the Channel. Andcertainly the disorders whichbegan in Normandyimmediately after William'sdeath serve to demonstratethat the more stableconditionswhichprevailedinthe duchy between 1066 and1087 were due in largemeasure to the efficiency of

hisrule.It was inevitable that the

advent into England of aNorman king should haveproduced greateradministrative changes in thelandheconqueredthanintheduchy from which he came.But it is the quality of thesechanges that challengesattention, for in England theConqueror's genius wasdisplayed as much in

adaptation as in innovation,and it was his personalachievementthatinthemidstof the confusions attendantupon conquest he neverdisrupted the administrativeframeworkofthekingdomheacquired. This in turn maypartly explain why theadministrative developmentswhich he sponsoredproceededwithoutsubstantialinterruptiondespitetheking's

own long absences fromEngland. Between 1066 and1087 William spent moretime in France than inEngland, and it is ameasureof his prestige that he couldtrust others to carry on thehighly individual policy heinaugurated.Ashasbeenseenin 1066 he confidentlyentrusted the government ofNormandy toMatilda, RogerofMontgomery,andRogerof

Beaumont, and in 1067 Odoof Bayeux, William fitzOsbern, and Hugh II ofMontfort-sur-Risle were leftin charge of England.115Later,inEngland,itwasmostfrequently ArchbishopLanfranc who wascommissioned to act for theking, but Odo,116 and alsomany laymen from the greatNorman houses, such asWilliam of Warenne and

Richard fitzGilbert, likewiseserved in this capacity, andwithsuccess.117Hereagaintheunityofthe

Anglo-Norman feudal politycreatedbytheConquerorwasdisplayed, and the extent towhich this fostered theinfluence of Normandy andEngland upon each other.When, after William's death,NormandyandEnglandweredivided, the administrative

consequencestobothweretobe unfortunate. And when,after 1106, they were oncemore united, theadministrative conditionsestablished by theConquerorwere to be restored, and inconsequence the reign ofHenry I was to witnessimportant developments inthe spheres of justice andfinance on both sides of theChannel.

1‘ConstitutioDomusRegis’:fortext,seeC.Johnson,DialogusdeScaccario(1956).AcommentaryisgivenbyG.H.WhiteinR.Hist.Soc.,Transactions,series4,vol.XXX(1948),pp.127–155.

2L.M.Larson,King'sHousehold(1904);Stenton,Anglo-SaxonEngland,p.632.

3Regesta,vol.I,nos.7,18,23,29;Round,FeudalEngland,pp.330,331.

4Regesta,vol.I,nos.26,63,andp.xxiv.

5Douglas,Eng.Hist.Rev.,vol.LIX,pp.77–79.

6White,op.cit.,p.141.7White,Genealogist,NewSeries,vol.XXXVIII(1922),pp.113–127;Stenton,loc.cit.

8Douglas,DomesdayMonachorum,pp.65–70.

9White,R.Hist.Soc.,Transactions,series4,vol.XXX,p.127.

10CompletePeerage,vol.X,AppendixF.

11CompletePeerage,vol.X,AppendixF.

12White,op.cit.,p.128.13Prou,Rec.–ActesPhilippeI,p.lxvii.

14OnallthatconcernstheAnglo-SaxonWrit,seeM.E.Harmer,Anglo-SaxonWrits(1952),whichmaybesupplementedbyT.A.M.BishopandP.Chaplais,FacsimilesofEnglish

RoyalWritsto1100(1957).15Harmer,op.cit.,pp.101–105.16Ibid.,pp.29,60;R.L.Poole,ExchequerintheTwelfthCentury,p.25,no.2.

17Mon.Aug.,vol.II,p.531;Regesta,vol.I,no.28.

18BishopandChaplais,op.cit.,p.xiii.

19Cart.S.VincentduMans,no.177.

20BishopandChaplais,op.cit.,pp.xiii,xiv.

21Stenton,op.cit.,p.634.22CompletePeerage,vol.III,p.428.

23Ibid.,vol.III,p.165;vol.XI,p.685.

24Chesterbefore1077;Shrewsburybetween1and4November1074(CompletePeeragevol.XI,AppendixK–byL.C.Loyd).

25CompletePeerage,vol.IX,p.568.

26Oneverythingconnectedwith

theAnglo-Normansheriff,seeW.A.Morris,TheMedievalEnglishSheriff(1927),chap.III.

27Ibid.,p.41;MiraculaS.Eadmundi(Liebermann,Ungedruckte,p.248).

28Stenton,WilliamtheConqueror,p.422.

29Round,FeudalEnglandp.422;Hunt,TwoCartulariesofBath,p.36.

30Douglas,RiseofNormandy,p.19.

31Douglas,DomesdayMonachorum,p.54;Loyd,Anglo-NormanFamilies,p.56.

32Morris,op.cit.,p.49.33‘Heming'sCartulary’(ed.Hearne),vol.I,pp.253,257,261,267–269;M.M.Bigelow,PlacitaAnglo-Normannica,p.22;E.MillerinEng.Hist.Rev.,vol.LXII(1947),pp.441etsqq.

34E.H.D.,vol.II,nos.38,39,40.35e.g.D.B.,vol.I,fob.208,375–377.

36Morris,op.cit.,pp.54etsqq.37Above,pp.133–135.38Stenton,Anglo-SaxonEngland,pp.635–639.

39Ibid.,p.636.40A.Robertson,Anglo-SaxonCharters,pp.230–235(E.H.D.,vol.II,no.61).

41Theserecordshavebeenassignedto1084(Stenton,op.cit.,p.636,note2)andconnectedwiththelevyofthepreviousyear.V.H.Galbraith

(Eng.Hist.Rev.,vol.LXV(1950),pp.7–15)placesthemin1086andconnectsthemwiththeDomesdayInquest.

42Below,pp.347–355.43T.F.Tout,ChaptersinAdministrativeHistory,vol.I,p.86.

44R.L.Poole,ExchequerintheTwelfthCentury,p.35.

45Round,CommuneofLondon,pp.81,82.

46Tout,op.cit.,vol.I,pp.74,75.

47Round,FeudalEngland,p.143;Chron.Mon.Abingdon,vol.II.

48Allthesequestionshave,however,recentlybeenventilatedafreshinRichardsonandSayles,GovernanceofMedievalEngland(1963),pp.216–251.

49Morris,op.cit.,pp.62–69.50Morris,op.cit.,p.29.51AS.Chron.,‘E’,s.a.1083.52Darlington,inHistory,vol.XXIII(1938),pp.141–150;H.R.

Loyn,Anglo-SaxonEnglandandtheNormanConquest,esp.chaps.II,III,andIX.

53Loyn,op.cit.,p.383.54Will.Poit.,pp.256–258.55L.Musset,Fécamp–XIIIe

centenaire,p.79.56Musset,AnnalesdeNormandie(1959),p.297.

57S.Dek,AnnalesdeNormandie(1956),pp.345–354.

58Ibid.Cf.Prestwich,R.Hist.Soc.,Transactions,series5,vol.

IV,p.27.59Stenton,op.cit.,p.573.60Musset,op.cit.,pp.293,294;Actes–HenriII,vol.I,nos.CLII,CLIV.

61Ord.Vit.,vol.IV,pp.87,88.62Runciman,Crusades,vol.I,p.168;Will.Malms.,GestaRegum,p.488.

63Above,pp.284–288.64Morris,op.cit.,pp.54–56.65Onallthatconcernsthelocaljusticiar,seeH.A.Cronne,in

UniversityofBirminghamHistoricalJournal,vol.VI(1958),pp.18–38.

66Thesehaveattractedmuchattention.MuchoftheevidenceisinBigelow,PlacitaAnglo-Normannica(1879).Foracommentary,seeG.B.Adams,CouncilsandCourtsinAnglo–MormonEngland(1926),pp.70–98.

67E.Miller,‘TheElyLandPleasintheReignofWilliamI’(Eng.

Hist.Rev.,vol.LXII(1947),PP.441etsqq.).

68J.H.LePatourel,inStudies–F.M.Powicke,pp.15–26;E.H.D.,vol.II,no.50.

69Douglas,Essays–JamesTait,pp.54,55.

70‘Heming'sCartulary’(ed.Hearne),vol.I,pp.77–83.

71Adams,op.cit,p.71;Miller,op.cit.,pp.446–448.

72LePatourel,op.cit.,p.23;‘Heming'sCartulary’,vol.I,p.

77.73Bigelow,op.cit.,pp.34–36.74Adams,op.cit.,p.75.75D.B.,vol.I,fol.175b;Bigelow,op.cit.,p.22.

76Bigelow,loc.cit.77Bigelow,op.cit.,p.22;E.H.D.,vol.II,no.52.

78LePatourel,op.cit.,p.22.79Ibid.80Adams,op.cit.,pp.77,78,97,98;Haskins,NormanInstitutions,p.35.

81Stenton,op.cit.,p.642.82Ibid.,p.649.83PollockandMaitland,HistoryofEnglishLaw(2nded.),vol.I,pp.141–142.

84Stenton,op.cit.,p.642;Bigelow,op.cit.,pp.34–36.

85Lechaudéd'Anisy,GrandsRôles,pp.196,197.

86Douglas,Essays–JamesTait,pp.56,57.

87L.Delisle,Classeagricole,pp.1–26.

88Stenton,op.cit.,p.473.89Forthelatestwork,seeR.Lennard,RuralEngland(1959);andLoyn,op.cit.(1962).

90Liebermann,GesetzederAngelsachsen,vol.I,p.442;andseethetranslationbyS.I.Tucker,inE.H.D.,vol.II,no.172.ItisusuallyreferredtobythetitleoftheearlyLatintranslation:RectitudinesSingularumPersonarum.

91Loyn,op.cit.,pp.350–352.

92Ibid.,p.328.93PollockandMaitland,HistoryofEnglishLaw(2nded.),vol.I,p.77:‘SuchevidenceaswehavetendstoshowthattheConquerorleftalandwheretherewerefewslavesforoneinwhichthereweremany,foroneinwhichtheslavewasstilltreatedasavendiblechattel,andtheslavetradewasflagrant.’

94VitaWulfstani(ed.Darlington),pp.43,91.

95Stubbs,SelectCharters(ed.1913),p.99;E.H.D.,vol.II,no.18.

96Vinogradoff,GrowthoftheManor,p.337.

97Lennard,RuralEngland,p.33.98C.Creighton,HistoryofEpidemicsinBritain(1891),vol.I,chap.I.

99Darlington,inHistory,vol.XXIII(1938),pp.141–150;J.Tait,MedievalEnglishBorough(1936);CarlStephenson,

BoroughandTown(1933).IprescindthecontroversybetweenTaitandStephensononEnglishmunicipaldevelopment.

100J.W.F.Hill,MedievalLincoln,p.54.

101Loyn,op.cit.,p.377.102Loyn,op.cit.,p.324.‘TradedidnotflourishimmediatelyasaresultoftheConquest,thoughincreasedregularcontactwiththeContinentandaninfusionofnewbloodwereboth

characteristicsthatpromisedwellforthefuture.’ThisseemstoaccordwiththeconclusionofTait(MedievalEnglishBorough,p.36)‘thattheNormanConquestultimatelygaveagreatimpulsetoEnglishtradeandurbandevelopmentisnotindispute’.

103Onallthatfollowsinthisparagraph,seeH.G.Richardson,TheEnglishJewryunderAngevinKings(1960),

andparticularlypp.1–5,23–25.104Ibid.,pp.1–2:‘ThattheLondoncommunitywasanoffshootofthecommunityatRouenishardlyopentodispute:inanycasetheJewsofEnglandweresocloselyalliedtothoseofNormandythattherecanbenodoubtoftheircountryoforigin.’

105Ibid.,p.25.106Ibid.,p.3.107Ibid.,p.8.108Williamisknown,for

instance,tohavedevelopedthesystemofthetithingalreadyexistingincertainpartsofEngland,wherebymenwereorganizedingroupsoftenwhichcouldbemadecollectivelyresponsiblefortheirgoodbehaviour.Thepartheplayedinmakingthisinstitutionmoreeffective,andwiderspread,isamatterofsomedispute,butalltheevidencepointstotheConqueror'sreignashaving

beenacriticalperiodinthedevelopmentofwhatafterwardsbecametheinstitutionoffrankpledge(W.A.Morris,TheFrankpledgeSystem,chap.I).

109Stenton,op.cit.,p.676.110AS.Chron.,‘E’,s.a.1086(equals1087).

111Haskins,NormanInstitutions,pp.62–64.

112Regesta,vol.I,nos.22,28.113Cart.S.VincentduMans,no.177;Cart.Bayeux,no.III.

114Gall.Christ.,vol.XI;Instrumenta,col.266.

115Will.Poit.,p.226.116Regesta,vol.I,nos.78–85;Ord.Vit.,vol.III,p.244;Macdonald,Lanfranc,p.73.

117Will.Malms.,GestaRegum,p.334;SirChristopherHatton'sBookofSeals(ed.L.C.Loyd),plateVIII.

Chapter13

THEKINGINTHECHURCH

No aspect of the career ofWilliam the Conqueror is ofmore interest – or of moreimportance–thanthepartheplayed in the history of thewestern Church between

1066and1087.Hispolicyinthis respect thus invitesparticularattention,but ifhispersonal contribution to theecclesiasticallifeofhisageishere to be appraised, it mustbe viewed in its totality andplaced in its contemporarysetting. Thus the enduringresults of his work on theChurch inEnglandcannotbeexplained without referenceto the earlier and continuing

ecclesiastical development ofNormandy; and neither theChurch inNormandy nor theChurch in England at thistime can be properlyenvisagedunlesstheyarealsotobeseenasintegralpartsofthe Church in Europe.William'svictoryin1066hadbrought together under asingle temporal dominationthe three ecclesiasticalprovinces of Rouen,

Canterbury, and York; andalso twopartsof thewesternChurch which in Normandyand England had hithertoresponded to differentinfluences.TheConquestwasthus to alter the politicalbalance of westernChristendom which at thissame time was itself underpapal direction, passingthroughacrisis.The ecclesiastical

consequences of the Normanconquest were thus to bewidespread, and need to beconsidered against abackground of conflictingloyalties. Between 1066 and1087 the ecclesiasticalinfluence on the province ofRouen was in Englandbrought to bear on a Churchwhich cherished its ownindividual traditions. Again,William, as king, showed

himself resolute not only toretain his royal rights in theChurch,butalso todischargewhat he conceived to be hisecclesiastical duties. And hewastodothisatatimewhenthe papacy, sponsoring thereforms which had alreadypermeated the province ofRouen, was also seeking tofree theChurch from secularcontrol. Finally (as must beemphasized), this same

NormankingofEngland,andall his subjects both NormanandEnglish, lived inaworldin which the Church wasrecognized as an all-embracing unitwhose claimsto spiritual authority wereunquestioned.ForWilliam,asfor his contemporaries, theconception of Christendomwasneitherapiousaspirationnor a threat to nationalindependence. Itwasa factor

ofpracticalpolitics.Thesecontrastingloyalties,

sincerely held andcourageously sustained,colour the ecclesiasticalpolitics of this age, and theinherent interest ofWilliam'spolicy in respect of them isfurther enhanced if referencebe made to the chiefpersonalities it was toinvolve. Thus the papacywhich since 1049 had

emerged from politicaleclipse was, during theseyears, occupied by two menwho could not be ignored.Alexander II (1061–1073)wasavigorouspontiffwhoseactivities were widespread,whilst Gregory VII (1073–1086)mustonallgroundsbeadjudgedtohavebeenoneofthe most dominatingpersonalities ever to occupythe chair of Saint Peter.

Again, in 1066 thearchbishopric of Rouenpassed to John, bishop ofAvranches, a cadet of theNorman ducal house whoseprevious career had beendistinguished,andwhowastoleave his mark, both on thepolitics and on the literatureof his age.1 Finally, in 1070,as an inevitable consequenceof the Conquest, theschismatic Stigand was

deposed from the see ofCanterbury, and therereplaced by Lanfranc, nowabbot of Saint Stephen's,Caen,whohadalreadybyhisprevious career at Le Bec,and elsewhere, won forhimself an acknowledgedreputation as one of theoutstanding ecclesiasticalfigures of the age. He hadpreviously refused the see ofRouen, and his appointment

to Canterbury wasundoubtedly due in the firstinstance toWilliamhimself.2Henceforth, their associationwas to be so close that it isalways difficult, andsometimes impossible, todecide whether the policy,which, in England, theyjointly implemented, wasinspired by the one or theother.The great king was thus

matched by a greatarchbishop.3 When hereachedCanterbury,Lanfrancwas not less than fifty-fiveyears of age, and famed as alawyer, a controversialist, adiplomatist, and a teacher.His greatest achievementswere, however, still to come.His character is bestdisplayed in his acts, but hisletters, which are models oftheir kind, reveal something

ofthemanwhowrotethem.4Concise and decisive, theyare informed with authority,and inspired with soundjudgment.Though tendernessandaffectionarenot lacking,these letters more frequentlyconveyadvicewithprudence,admonition with severity, orcommands with force. Anauthoritative and intenselyable man stands revealed, aprelateinpowerwhowithall

his knowledge of themanagement of men washimself sincere. Nor doesLanfranc's public life, takenas a whole, belie thisimpression. His monasticvocation was undoubtedlygenuine, and there is noreason to question thesincerity of his expressedreluctance to be archbishop.Nevertheless, after 1070,though still a monk and a

friend of monks, it was as astatesman that he shone.Contemporaries wereimpressedbyhissagacity,hispolitical sense, and hiscapacity for leadership. Hecould ruthlessly chastisepolitical rebels orcontumaciousmonks,5buthissenseofjusticewasconstant,as was his devotion to theChurch. He could adapt hispolicy to changing

circumstances, but it waspursued with inflexiblepurpose.HisassociationwithWilliam the Conqueror wasthus in the conditions of thetime to entail far-reachingresultsinEngland.‘Itmaybedoubted’–remarksamodernauthority–‘whetherofalltheeminent men who filled thesee of Canterbury betweenAugustine and Cranmer anyindividual save only

Theodore of Tarsus had agreatersharethanLanfrancinorganizing theChurch in thiscountry.’6The policy which in

conjunction with the king hewastoimplementinEnglanddepended directly upon thedevelopmentoftheChurchinNormandy, which has beennoted as having taken placeduring the Conqueror'sNorman reign. The special

character of the province ofRouenhadalreadybeenfixedbefore theNorman conquest,and when in 1066 itsinfluence was extendedoverseas by force of arms itunderwent no essentialchange. The Normanepiscopate, for example,continuedthroughoutmostofthis period to be dominatedby men who had risen topower before the Conquest.

The appointment of John ofAvranches to Rouen in 1067merely gave greater scope tothe activities of a notableprelate; and thebishopricsofBayeux and Coutances wereheld until after the death ofthe Conqueror by Odo andGeoffrey, though both ofthese extraordinarymen nowdevoted most of theirenergiestothesecularaffairsof England.Hugh of Lisieux

wastosurvive,honouredandrespected, until 1072, andwas succeeded by GilbertMaminot of Courbépine, amember of a substantialNormanfamilyofthemiddlerank, whilst on the death ofYves, the bishopric of Sées,wrested at last from thefamily of Bellême, passed toa brother of Eudo thesteward.7TheappointmentofBaldwin, one of the duke's

chaplains, to Évreux in 1066wasaninnovationinspiredbyEnglish example, butBaldwin's successor in 1071was another man ofillustrious Normanconnexions.8 In short, after1066 as before, the Normanepiscopate wasoverwhelminglyrepresentative of theNormansecular aristocracy.9 WilliamBonneAme, himself,who in

1079passedfromthecloisterto become an admirablearchbishop of Rouen was anephewofGerardFleitel,andthesonofaformerbishopofSées.10Asimilarcontinuitycanbe

seen in the monastic lifewhichcontinuedtosupplythegreatestelementofdistinctionto theNorman church.Therewere, it is true, fewer newfoundations, and not all the

appointments to abbacieswerehappy.But someof thegreat figures from the pastsurvived.JohnofFécampdidnotendhisastonishingcareeruntil 1079, and Le Bec hadstill to reach thezenithof itsgreatness under SaintAnselm. And there weresomeothermonasteriesintheprovince which were notwholly unworthy to beassociatedevenwithLeBec.

The picture painted byOrdericus Vitalis of Saint-Évroulasahomeofpietyandlearning in his time is bothconvincing and attractive. Inshort,thoughthereweretobeboth episcopal and monasticscandals in Normandybetween 1066 and 1087, aselsewhere in theChurch, andthough reforms were bothneeded and undertaken, itremains true that the high

prestige of the province ofRouen was enhanced ratherthan diminished during theseyears.Thebishopscarriedonanefficientadministrationforthe benefit of their sees.Conciliaractivitywas,aswillbe seen, vigorous andconstant. And the continuingmomentum of thatastonishing monastic revivalwhich had marked the reignof William as duke may be

judged by the fact thatbetween 1066 and 1087Norman monasteries were togive no less than twenty-twoabbots and five bishops toEngland.11TheprovinceofRouenwas

not, however, unaffected bythe Conquest. Its materialresources were muchincreased. There is no doubt,for instance, that both Odoand Geoffrey brought wealth

from England to enrich theirsees, and before 1086 morethan twenty Normanmonasteries, of both ducaland private foundation, hadreceived land in twenty-fiveEnglish shires.12 Some ofthese endowments weresmall, but the English landsacquired, for instance, byFécamp, Grestain, Saint-Wandrille, Saint-Évroul,Troarn,andthetwohousesat

Caen were in bulkconsiderable. At the sametime the ecclesiastical powerof the secular ruler over theNormanchurchwasfortified,in being now exercised by aconsecrated king. InNormandyeveryappointmentto a bishopric between 1066and 1087 was directlydependent on William'sdecision, and throughout allthe canons of the council of

Lillebonnein1080thererunsthe assertion of the ultimateauthorityofthedukewhohadbecome a king.13 In Englandthe situation was the same,though the circumstanceswere very different.Ecclesiastical appointmentsremained in theking'shands,andtheprelacywhichhewasto establish in the land heconquered was brought evermore closely under his

control by being subject tothefeudalobligationshewastoimpose.In England, moreover, the

king's ecclesiasticaldominance was to beexercised in such closeassociationwithLanfrancthatthe essential preliminary tothe policy which they werejointly to base on NormanexamplewastheassertionbyLanfrancofprimacyoverthe

whole Church in England.The famous controversybetweenCanterburyandYorkwhich this assertion was toinvolve began in fact withinfour years of the battle ofHastings.14 InMay 1070 theking gave the archbishopricofYork,made vacant by thedeathofAldred,toThomas,acanon of Bayeux, on theunderstanding that he shouldlater receive consecration

from Lanfranc. Lanfranc'sown consecration asarchbishop of Canterburytook place on 29 August1070,butwhenThomascamesouth to be consecratedLanfranc refused to performtheriteunlesshewasgivenawritten profession ofobédience from Thomas.15Thomas, pleading theprivilegesofhisownchurch,atfirstrefusedtosupplythis.

According to some accounts,he furthermore appealed tothe king who, after somehesitation, supportedLanfranc.16 At all events,Thomas at length submitted,albeitwithsomereservations,and was duly consecrated.This was, however, by nomeans the end of thematter.In the autumn of 1071 botharchbishopswent toRometoreceivetheirpallia,andwhen

atthepapalcourtThomasnotonlyreopenedthequestionofthe primacy but claimed thatthe sees of Worcester,Dorchester, and Lichfieldbelonged to the northernprovince. The pope referredthe matter to an Englishcouncil,andatWinchester in1072 the whole matter wasformally debated. At length,judgmentwasgiveninfavourof the archbishop of

Canterbury on all essentialpoints.17 The disputedbishoprics were assigned tothe southern province; theright of the archbishop ofCanterburytoaprofessionofobedience from themetropolitan of York washeld to be established; andLanfranc was recognized asprimateofEngland.Lanfranchad in fact made good hisclaim. Only formal

confirmation by the papacywas needed to make hisvictorycomplete.Butthis,aswillbeseen,hewasnever toobtain.The details of this notable

controversy (which has herebeen very brieflysummarized)are,however,offar less importance than theissues which were involved,and the manner in whichLanfranc'scasewaspresented

andsustained.Theking'sowninterest in thematter becameapparentataveryearlystage.William had been able toappreciate, as duke, theadvantage of ruling over acountry which was a singleecclesiastical province, andthe division of England intotwo such provinces he couldonly regard as a source ofweakness. Indeed, it is notimpossiblethathissupportof

Lanfranc may, in thecircumstances of 1070, havebeen due in part to hisapprehension that ametropolitan archbishop ofYork, acting as head of anindependent province not yetfully under Norman control,might seek to buttress hisown position by crowning arival king – perhaps aScandinavian prince or amember of the Old English

royal house – as a legitimaterulerinthenorthofEngland.But such considerations,

weighty as they may seem,only touched the fringes oftheissue.WhatwasfarmoresignificantwasthatLanfranc,supported by the Normanking,here sawfit tobasehiscaseonEnglish tradition.Hefound at Canterbury strongclaims to primacy, and heappealed to English

precedent,citinginhisfavourthewritingsofBede,theactsof early English churchcouncils,andalongseriesofearly papal letters. Some ofthese letters wereundoubtedly forgeries, andLanfranc'scomplicityintheirconcoction has been muchdebated.18 Most scholarswouldnowacquithimof thecharge, and it is moreprobable that he relied

(perhaps too readily) upon abrief which had beenprepared for him by themonksofhiscathedralchurchat Canterbury. The matterneed not here bereconsidered.Whatisinpointis the character ofLanfranc'sargument, and the nature ofWilliam's support of it. Inorder to give effect to anessentially Norman policy,thisNormanprelateofItalian

birth utilized an Englishtradition to which he gavefresh vitality. The characterof the Norman impact uponEngland could hardly bebetterexemplified.Western Christendom was

also involved. Lanfranc'sassertion of primacy entailedrights comparable to thosewhichhad in the remotepastbeen exercised, for instance,by sees such as Milan,

Carthage,andToledo.Butthewhole policy of thecentralizing papacy in thelatter half of the eleventhcentury was directed againstsuch superiorities. It is truethat in 1079 Gregory VIIsought for the benefit ofGebuin to erect thearchbishopricofLyonsintoaprimatialseewithjurisdictionover Sens and Rouen.19 Butthe scheme, which was

successfully resisted,wasnotreally a deflection of papalpolicy in thismatter, since itwas inaugurated in theinterest of a particularindividual, and was assumedtoberevocableatanytimebypapal action. The claims ofLanfranc were of a whollydifferent nature, for theychallengedatavitalpointthepolicy of popes who werestrivingwithsomesuccessto

make the ecclesiasticalprovince, and not thekingdom,theessentialunitofthe church. It is notsurprising, therefore, thatWilliam and his archbishopfailed to obtain formalconfirmation of theCanterburyprimacyatRome.Indeed the nature of thesituationwasclearlyrevealedinthesequel.Itwasnotforanewgrantthattheappealhad

been made, but for therecognition of an existingright, and when thatrecognition was refused, theright was none the lesscontinuously exercised.Linking his position to thefullest imperial pretensionsevermadebytheOldEnglishmonarchywhich theNormanking had acquired, Lanfrancasserted an authority whichcould be extended over all

England and even beyond itsbounds.20Itwasthusamatterof right that he laterintervened in theecclesiastical affairs ofIrelandandstillmorenotably,through Saint Margaret theQueen,inthoseofScotland.21Inthesecircumstances,and

through this agency, theNorman impact on theChurchinEnglandwasmade,and there is no mistaking

either its nature or its force.During the reign of Williamthe Conqueror the church inEngland underwent changeswhose effects endured, andwhile the results of thesechanges have been diverselyjudged, the source of theirinspiration is not to bequestioned. The expressedpolicy of the Conqueror washere ‘to sustain in Englandthe same usages and laws

which he and his ancestorshad been wont to observe inNormandy’,22 and thestatement aptly summarizedthetransformationwhichtookplace in his time.The earlierdevelopmentoftheChurchinNormandywe have found tohave been achieved underducal control: the changeswhichovertookthechurchinEngland during his reign asking were royal in direction

andNormanininspiration.Theprocesswasmarkedin

thefirst instancebyachangein the prelacy of Englandcomparabletothatwhichhadtaken place in the seculararistocracy.Stigand,whohadheld the sees of Canterburyand Winchester in pluralitywas, of course, destined fordeposition, and hisreplacement by Lanfranc atCanterbury in 1070might be

regarded as an inevitablepolitical consequence of theNorman conquest. But manyof the other English bishopswere in hardly better case.Æthelmær of Elmham wasStigand'sbrother;ÆthelricofSelsey had been closelyassociated with him; andLeofwine themarried bishopof Lichfield was to becondemned by Lanfranc.23 Itis thus hardly surprising that

all threewere to vacate theirsees before 1070, Æthelricand Æthelmær by formaldeposition, and Leofwine byresignation.24 In the north,AldredofYorkwasaprelateof a very different type, buthe died on 11 September1069, and left the way openforanewappointment,whilstthe confusion of the see ofDurham also invited drasticaction. From the early years

of his reign, therefore,William found himself in aposition to begin theNormanization of theepiscopacy of England, andthis policy he wasconsistently to pursue. By1080 Wulfstan of Worcesterwas the only bishop ofEnglishbirth left inEngland,and, of the remainingoccupants, all save one25were of Norman birth or

training.The same policy was

adopted in respect of theEnglishabbeys.In1066therewere thirty-five independentBenedictine houses inEngland, and many of thegreater abbots were to showthemselveshostiletoWilliamfrom the start. Ælfwig ofNew Minster in Winchesterwho was Harold's uncle fellon the field of Hastings.

LeofricofPeterborough,whowas cousin to Edwin andMorcar, also died as a resultof wounds received in thebattle, and his successorBrand, who was uncle toHereward the Wake, madeimmediateoverturestoEdgarAtheling on hisappointment.26 Æthelsige ofSaint Augustine's,Canterbury, helped toorganize the Kentish

resistance, and William hadgood reasons for suspectingthe disaffection ofÆthelnothofGlastonbury, ofGodric ofWinchcombe, of Sihtric ofTavistock, and of Wulfric,Ælfwig's successor at NewMinster.27 It was natural,therefore, that within sixyearsofWilliam'scoronationall these men should havebeen removed, and theirplaces were filled in every

casebymenfromoverseas.28Such acts were, moreover,part of the Conqueror'sgeneralpolicy.Ofthetwenty-one abbots who attended thecouncil of London in 1075,only thirteen were English,and only three of theseremainedinofficeatthetimeoftheConqueror'sdeath.29The Normanization of the

prelacy in England was acardinal feature of the

Conqueror'srule,anditisnotdifficulttoassessthemotiveswhich inspired it. Theprelates of England were, asof right, among the closestcounsellors of the king. Thebishops were great servantsof state by reason of theiroffice, and though themonasteries varied inimportance many of themwere extremely rich, andtogether they possessed

perhaps a sixthof the landedwealth of England.30Moreover, the prelatesthemselves were soon tobecome among the mostimportant of the king'stenants-in-chief responsiblefor a large section of thefeudal array.William, as hasbeenseen,hadalreadybefore1066subjectedmany,butnotall, of the Normanmonasteriestoknight-service,

and now in, or shortly after,1070 he imposed the sametenure on the bishoprics andon most of the abbeys ofEngland, adopting the samemethods as he had employedin the case of his laymagnates. The quotasimposed varied greatly insize. The sees of Canterburyand Winchester and theabbeys of Peterborough andGlastonbury had each, for

instance, to provide sixtyknights, whilst the bishopricofChichesterwasassessedatonly two and the wealthyabbey of Ramsey at onlyfour.Theseassessmentsweremoreover to prove final;generallyspeaking,theywerenot subsequently altered; andwhat is more remarkable,abbeys founded after theConqueror's reign do notappeartohavebeensubjected

totheobligationatall.31William himselfmust thus

be held responsible forimposing on the Church inEnglandthisburdenwhichinits totalitywas to prove veryheavy.Atfirst,asonmanyofthe lay lordships, theobligationwas discharged bystipendiary knights, butwidespread sub-infeudationrapidly took place and theconsequences were far-

reaching.Bishopsandabbotswere at once involved moreclosely than ever before insecularaffairs,andinthecaseof the abbeys a divisionwasnormally made between theland of the abbot and that ofthe monastery, so that theabbot as a great feudal lordbecameremovedfromthelifeof his monks.32 The fullimplications of this were notto be revealed until after the

Conqueror's death. But theimposition by him of tenureby knight-service on thebishoprics and abbacies ofEnglandmust, none the less,be regarded as one of themostimportant–andperhapsthemostdeleterious–resultsof his ecclesiastical policy inEngland.In these circumstances it

was clearly impossible forWilliam to retain in high

ecclesiasticalofficemenwhohad committed themselves totherégimehehadsupplanted,or who were personallyhostile tohimself; and itwasnaturalthatheshouldturnfortheir successors towards theprovince from which hecame.Itwould,nonetheless,bewrongtoconcludethattheConqueror was here guidedsolelybymotivesofpoliticalexpediency. William had

some excuse for believingthat a transportation fromNormandy, and particularlyfrom the Normanmonasteries, would be ofbenefit to the Church inEngland; and he is known tohave taken ecclesiasticaladvice in this matter fromprelates of high repute, suchasHugh,abbotofCluny,andJohn,abbotofFécamp.33Nordid he act here without

discrimination. The mostnotable occupants of Englishsees at the beginning of hisreign were Giso of Wells, aLotharingian, and Leofric ofExeter, who had beeneducatedinLorraine,togetherwith the more outstandingprelates of English birth –Aldred, archbishop of York,and Wulfstan, bishop ofWorcester.All of thesewereretained in office until death,

and the Englishmen, inparticular, received much ofthe Conqueror's favour. Norwould it be easy to criticizevery severely the Normanappointments to Englishbishoprics which he made.ThegiftoftheseeofLincolntoRemigiusofFécampwasareturn for political service,andWilliamwas to continuetheearlierEnglishpracticeofrewarding with bishoprics

clerks from the royalscriptorium.34 But Remigiusserved Lincoln well, and ofthe household officials onlyHerfast was a discreditablebishop. For the rest, thebishopswhomtheConquerorestablished in England were,generally speaking, hard-working men, goodadministrators, and oftengreat builders, and many ofthem left a fine reputation

behind them. Osmund ofSalisbury (later to achievecanonization), Gundulf ofRochester, and Walcher ofDurham were rememberedfor their personal sanctity,whilst Robert of Herefordwas renowned for hislearning. All of these left apermanent mark on the seestheyruled.Similar conclusions may

alsobedrawnconcerningthe

Conqueror's monasticappointments. With theexceptionofÆthelwig,abbotof Evesham, who washonoured by William andkept in office until his deathin1077,35 theEnglishabbotsas a body wereundistinguished at thebeginning of William'sreign36 – some of them likeSihtric of Tavistock weredisreputable37 – and their

replacement by monks fromthe reformed Normanmonasteries could bedefended for ecclesiastical aswell as political reasons.There were here of coursesome serious mistakes.Turold from Fécamp,successively abbot ofMalmesbury andPeterborough, was a soldierrather than a monk and nofriendtothemonasteriesover

which he presided, whilstThurstan from Caen whobecameabbotofGlastonburytreated his monks with suchviolent harshness that heprovoked a scandal.38 Thesewere, however, exceptional,andthemajorityofWilliam'sabbots inEnglanddischargedtheir duties with distinction.The future greatness of SaintAlbansdatedfromthetimeofAbbot Paul from Caen, who

was a nephew of Lanfranc.SimeonfromSaint-Ouenwhowas set over Ely won theadmiration of his monks forhis administration of theiraffairs through a period ofdifficulty. Serlo, who camefrom Le Mont-Saint-MicheltoGloucester,notonlyrebuiltthe abbey-church butintroduced a new spirit ofdevotion into his monastery.But perhaps none of the

English abbeys was betterserved in thisperiod than theConfessor's own foundationof Westminster. Nothing butgood is known of Vitalis,who arrived there fromBernay in 1075, and hissuccessor Gilbert Crispin, amember of a great Normanfamily who came from LeBec in 1085, must on allgrounds be adjudged as oneof the outstanding abbots of

theage.39These Norman abbots

brought to England ‘a newdiscipline and a new or atleast a revitalized,observance’,40 and thecharacter of their influencecanbeillustratedbyreferenceto the ‘constitutions’ whichLanfranchimselfdrewupfortheguidanceofhismonks atChrist Church, Canterbury.41In these consuetudines the

monk-archbishop embodiedwhat he found to be best inthe reformed Norman andcontinental usage, andadapted this to the particularneeds of England. Theconsuetudines of Lanfrancwerenevertobeimposedasacode, but they camethroughout England to behighly influential on theactivitiesof thenewNormanabbots.Itwasthusinrelation

tothegeneraltoneofEnglishmonastic life rather thanthroughanymultiplicationofhouses that the Normaninfluence is here to bediscerned.42 William, it istrue, founded the abbey ofBattle to commemorate hisvictory, and filled it withmonks from Marmoutier,whilst between 1078 and1080 William of WarenneestablishedatLewes the first

Cluniac monastery in thiscountry.43 But apart fromthese, there were fewimportantnewfoundations inEngland at this time. On theother hand, there is littlereasontoquestionthegeneralbelief of contemporaries thatduring these years thereoccurred a quickening of themomentum of Englishmonastic life. The opinionmight, indeed, be further

supportedbyreference to theremarkable monastic revivalwhichtookplaceinthenorthduring theConqueror's reign.This was due in the firstinstance to Reinfrid, aNorman knight who hadbecome amonk at Evesham,and to Eadwine, an Englishmonk at Winchcombe. TheysettledwithafewfollowersatBede's ruined church atJarrow, and in 1083, after

diverse experiences, theircommunity, which nownumbered twenty-threepersons, was transferred toDurham by Bishop WilliamofSaint-Calaistotakechargeofhiscathedralchurch.44The Norman influence on

the English bishoprics wasscarcely less remarkable. Itsmost notable feature was thetransference of English seestothecities,wheretheywere

to remain for centuries.Already in 1050 Leofric hadtransferred his see fromCrediton to Exeter, and in1075 the council of LondonauthorizedtheremovaloftheseesofLichfield,Selsey,andSherborne to Chester,Chichester, and Salisbury.45A few years earlier Herfasthad removed the see ofElmham toThetford,whenceit was soon to be transferred

to Norwich, while Remigiusmoved his own see fromDorchester to Lincoln.46Scarcely less important thanthis was the remodelling ofthe cathedral constitutions ofEngland. Here Lanfrancfound two principal types oforganization inbeing.On theonehand, by an arrangementwhich was almost unique,fouroftheEnglishcathedrals– namely Canterbury,

Winchester, Worcester, andSherborne – were served bymonks.47 On the other hand,in several cathedrals whereregular monks had not beenintroduced an attempt hadbeen made to compel thecanons to live a communallife under a rule whichenjoined not only celibacybut the use of a commondormitoryandrefectory.Howfar this practice had been

extended is notwholly clear,butseveralEnglishcathedralshadby1066beenaffectedbyit.48For the former of these

practices Lanfranc had greatsympathy, although it wasdifferent from anything hehadknown inNormandy.Hewas himself a monk, and hewatched with approval theappointment of monks asbishops inEngland, andnow

the number of monasticcathedrals in England waslikewise to be increased.Norwich under Herfast,RochesterunderGundulf,andDurham under William thusall received monasticconstitutionsinhistime.49Bycontrast the seeofSherbornelost its monastic constitutionafteritsremovaltoSalisbury,but after a brief disputeWinchester remained

monastic, and before the endof the reign there were thussix monastic cathedrals inEngland.50 In respect of thesecular cathedrals thedevelopment was equallystriking. Full emphasis hasbeen given to the manner inwhich the cathedral chaptersand the cathedral dignitarieswere established inNormandy in the decadesimmediately preceding the

Conquest.51 Now this sametypeoforganizationwastobebrought to England, and inthe case of the secularcathedrals it replaced anycommunal constitutions thatmay previously have existed.Induecoursetherethuscameto be nine English secularcathedrals servedbychaptersand dignitaries similar tothose which had existed inNormandybeforetheNorman

conquest. These wereSalisbury, London, Lincoln,York, Exeter, Hereford,Lichfield, Chichester, andWells;and theywere later tobeknownascathedralsofthe‘OldFoundation’.52The manner in which this

took place is, however,somewhat obscure. It wasonce thought that theconstitution characteristic ofEnglish secular cathedrals

based upon the four greaterdignitariesofdean,precentor,chancellor, and treasurer hadbeen imported to EnglandfromBayeux,whereThomasI, archbishop of York, hadbeen a canon.53 It would,however,appearunlikelythateitherBayeuxorRouenintheeleventh century could havesupplied the precise modelfor this constitution.54 Nonethelessthebasicprinciplesof

theconstitutionoftheEnglishsecular cathedrals of theMiddle Ages derived fromchangesbroughtaboutbytheNorman conquest. It is truethat the earliest definiteevidence of this secularorganization is not earlierthan 1090–1091 whenOsmund of Salisbury,Remigius of Lincoln, andThomasofYorkreconstitutedtheir chapters, but these

prelates had all beenappointed by William, andthey must have derived theirgeneral ideas on this matterfrom the duchy from whichtheycame.Atallevents,asaresult of changes introducedunder the Conqueror, theorganizationofthebishopricsof England, both secular andmonastic, was within agenerationofWilliam'sdeathto assume the form it

preserved until theReformation.The position of the bishop

withintheEnglishpolitywasthus substantially modifiedduring theConqueror's reign.He had been brought underthe closer supervision of hismetropolitan, and as a greatfeudal lord he had beenabsorbed into the militarystructure of the land. At thesame time, the redistribution

of the sees and thereorganizationofthechaptershadgivengreat scope forhisadministration. A notablefeature of this was, forexample, the emergence atthis time in England, as inpre-Conquest Normandy, ofthearchdeaconasthebishop'sregularagentinallmattersofdisciplineand justice.Withinsix years of the battle ofHastings a council at

Winchester ordered allbishops to appointarchdeacons,55andinviewofthe earlier Normandevelopment thecommand issignificant. It marked achange. Archdeacons werenot unknown in Englandduring the reign of Edwardthe Confessor,56 butreferences to them are rare;and itwas not until after theNorman conquest that they

became, in England aspreviously in Normandy, anormal part of theadministrative hierarchy ofthe Church. Here, therefore,may be seen anotherillustrationof the importationof Norman organization intoEngland,andotherchangesinthe conduct of ecclesiasticaljusticefollowednaturallyasaconsequence of the sametendency. The famous writ

issued by William in, orshortly after, 1072 removingecclesiastical pleas from thehundredcourtswasavowedlyinspired by his convictionthatthelitigationwhichitfelltobishopstoconducthadnotpreviously been properlyadministered in England.57Henceforth, spiritual pleaswere to be heard not in thehundredcourtsbutbybishopsandtheirarchdeaconsintheir

owncourts, and the resultingconditions might be aptlycompared with thoseenvisaged in the regulationsconcerning episcopaljurisdictionsetoutin1080inthe canons of the council ofLillebonne.58The expansion of Norman

influence on the Churchthroughout William'sdominions, and the characterof its effect upon England,

could not in fact be betterindicatedthanbyreferencetothe ecclesiastical councilswhich were held inNormandy and inEngland atthis time. The conciliarhistoryofthisagewillnotbewritten with confidence untilthe completion ofinvestigations nowproceeding of themanuscriptevidence upon which it isbased. In particular some of

the dates generally assignedtotheseassembliesmaystandinneedofrevision.Butinthemeantime a comparison ofthematerialprintedbyBessinfor Normandy59 and byWilkins for England60 mayprompt some interestingreflections. There may havebeen conciliar activity in theConfessor's England, butthereisnoevidenceofit,andat this time the metropolitan

authority of Canterbury wasnotoriously weak. On theother hand, there is abundanttestimony to show thatcouncils were regularly heldin Normandy from 1040 to1080, and in Englandprovincial councils became,after 1066, a regular featureof English church life. Thepointissufficientlyimportanttodeserveabrief illustration.Councilswere held atRouen

about1046,atCaen in1047,atLisieuxin1054or1055,atRouen in 1063, and again atLisieuxin1064–andthisatatime when no comparableactivity is recorded forEngland.61 After 1066 theNorman councils continuewith equal regularity, atRouen for example in 1069–1070, again in 1072, andapparently also in 1074, andat Lillebonne in 1080.62 But

nowtheNormanactivitywasfully reflected in England.Councils met at, as it wouldseem,Winchesterin1070and1072,atLondonin1075,andatWinchester again in 1076.Andwhile no record of theiractshassurvived,Lanfrancisknown to have held at leastthree other councils beforethe end of the reign, atLondon in 1077–1078 and atGloucester, both in 1080–

1081 and in 1085.63 Makingall allowance for evidencestill to be discovered, orfreshly appreciated, it issurely impossible to escapethe conclusion that underNorman influence thereoccurredafter1066amarkedrevivalofconciliaractivityinEngland.The significance of this

conclusion is, moreover,much enhanced if reference

be made to the mattersdiscussedinthesecouncils.Inthe first place it deservesmoreemphasisthanitusuallyreceivesthattherewasinthisrespect no break in 1066 inthe province of Rouen. It issurely noteworthy thatArchbishopMauger,aprelategenerally condemned for hismundane activities, shouldhave convoked a reformingcouncil at Rouen at least

seven years before Leo IXlaunched his own reformingprogramme at the council ofRheims, and the samepreoccupation with thereforms continued inNormandy withoutinterruption. The canons ofthecouncilofRouenin1072areexpresslyreferredtothoseenacted at Lisieux in 1064,and the council ofLisieux in1080madedirectreferenceto

conditions established in thetimeofWilliamasduke.64Equally significant in this

respect was the closerrelationship between theenactments of the Normanand English councils duringthe reignofWilliamasking.Between 1066 and 1087 theChurch in England and theChurch in Normandy werefaced in common withwestern Europe by similar

problems in respect of thereforms, and adopted similarmeasures for solving them.Prominent among the abuseswhichcalled for redresswas,forinstance,thatof‘simony’;that is to say, the traffic formoney in ecclesiasticaloffices – and here aremarkable parallel is to beobserved between Normandyand England. In Normandy,simony had been attacked as

early as the time ofArchbishopMauger,andnowsimony became the object ofvigorous legislation alike atRouen between 1072 and1074 and at London in1075.65 A similar unity ofpurpose can be seen inrespect of the burningquestion of ecclesiasticalcelibacy which occupied somuch of the attention of thereforming party, and which

metwithsuchresistancebothin England and inNormandy.66 The council ofRouen, assigned to 1072,repeated and hardened theorders on celibacy made in1064 at the council ofLisieux,67 and in 1076 thecouncil ofWinchester issuedimportant decrees relating tothis matter in England.68 InEngland, however, there wasapparently some concession

to earlier custom. The rulewastobestrictlyenforcedoncanonsandthehigherclergy,anditwascommandedthatinthefuturenopriestshouldbeordained without adeclaration of celibacy. Butparish priests who werealready married were notcompelled to put away theirwives.Hereclearlytherewasan effort at compromise, butnone the less thespiritof the

regulations was the same inEngland and Normandy, andeven in England a strictinterpretation of them wassometimes attempted. ThestarkalternativepresentedbyBishop Wulfstan to themarriedclergyof thedioceseof Worcester to choosebetween their churches andtheir wives is in strictconformity with the 13thcanonofthecouncilofRouen

of‘1072’.69The wide scope of the

ecclesiastical legislation onboth sides of the Channelduring William's reign alsocalls for comment. As hasbeenseen,thejudicialpowersofthebishopswerereviewedin much the same sense atWinchester in 1076, and atLillebonnein1080.Butinthemiddle years of the reignconciliar legislation was

concerned more especiallywith the lower ranks of thehierarchy, and even with thelaity. The simoniacalpracticesdenouncedatRouenbetween1072and1074werereferred, particularly, not tobishoprics but toarchdeaconries and parishchurches, andmore thanhalfthe conciliar activity inRouenduringtheseyearswasdevoted to the parochial

clergy.70 Similarly, theconcern of the council ofWinchester in 1076 with theconcubinage of parish priestsformedpartofapolicywhichaimed at strengthening theparochial organization of theChurch in England. Theprotectionoftheparishpriestagainst his manorial lordwhose rights in the revenuesof the manorial church wererecognized was particularly

necessary at a time when anew secular aristocracy wasassuming power in thecountry, and it was equallynecessaryinatimeofchangeto safeguard the parish priestagainst those who mightintrude upon his spiritualfunctions.71 Theseenactments have, moreover,to be viewed against awiderbackground.InmanypartsofEnglandwideareaswerestill

served by communities ofpriests attached to ancientminster churches, but duringthese years further progresswas made towards replacingthis system by parishes eachserved by a single priest,supported by revenues of asingle church and normallycoincident with the villagesof which they were theecclesiastical counterparts.72Thus was the reign of

William the Conqueror towitness a significant stage inthe evolution of the Englishparish.The interconnexion

between the ecclesiasticalaffairs of Normandy andEnglandduringtheseyearsinthematterofreformisinpartto be explained by the greatreforming decrees whichwere issuing from Rome atthis time, and which,

particularly after 1073, werenaturally reflected in thelegislation of the Church oneachsideoftheChannel.Butthiscontinuousactivitywhichfound expression year afteryear, now in Normandy andnow in England, was alsoinspired by the commonconcerns of a Church whichwas now under a singlesecular domination, andwhichwasadministeredbya

hierarchy which wasthroughout predominantlyNorman. Apart from theirjoint acceptance of commondoctrine and of papaldirection, the chiefconnecting link between theChurches of Normandy andEngland during these yearswasWilliamhimself,andanysurvey of the councils of thetimeindicateshowcloselyhewas personally responsible

for their activities. Heattended their meetingswhether they were held inNormandy or England. Thusin 1070 he took a prominentpart at the council ofWinchester, and in 1072,oncemore atWinchester, hepresided over the meetingwhich settled the disputebetween Lanfranc andThomas.73Again,thecouncilofRouenwhichisassignedto

1074 is expressly stated tohave met under hispresidency, and he waslikewise present at thecouncil of Winchester of1076.74 Perhaps, however, itwas in 1080 that his interestintheaffairsofthechurchinboth parts of his realm wasmostnotablydisplayed,foratPentecost in that year hepresided over the greatcouncil which met at

Lillebonne, while sevenmonths later the council ofGloucester met in connexionwith the session of hisChristmas court. Finally, theecclesiastical council ofGloucester in 1085 was heldin connexion with themeeting of the royal courtwhichplannedtheDomesdaysurvey.75William's personal

supervision of the

ecclesiastical councils ofNormandy and England atthis time is in every waynotable.Healonewaspresentat these assemblies on bothsides of the Channel.Lanfranc never attended aprovincial council inNormandy after he becamearchbishop, and there is noevidence that an archbishopofRouenwaseverinEnglandduring theConqueror's reign.

OdoofBayeuxandGeoffreyof Coutances, being closelyconnected with the king'ssecularadministration,passedfrequently with him betweenEngland and Normandy, butno other Norman bishop isknown to have witnessed aroyal charter in Englandbetween 1070 and 1087,76and no occupant of anEnglish see attended aNormanecclesiasticalcouncil

during these years. The twohierarchies, although bothpredominantly Norman inorigin, remained distinct sofar as ecclesiastical councilswere concerned. WhenGeoffrey, bishop ofCoutances, attended thecouncilofLondonin1075hewas pointedly described as a‘bishop from overseas’, andhispresenceon thatoccasionwas probably due to the fact

that he was the recognizedagent of the king deputed tosupervise any transference ofproperty that might bedecreed.77It was the king – and the

king alone – who both inNormandy and in Englandtook part in this connectedseries of ecclesiasticalcouncilswhereat a reformingprogramme was successivelydecreedincanonswhichwere

alikeinspirit,andoftenalikeeven in the words in whichtheywereexpressed.Williamwas in fact anactiveandco-ordinatingagentinpromotingthe reforms throughout theChurch inhisconjoint realm.Heassumedresponsibilityforthe welfare of the Churchthroughout all his dominion,and he claimed also fullauthority as king in directingitsaffairs.

TheecclesiasticalauthorityexercisedbyWilliamboth inNormandy and England waspervasive. In the duchy itderived from earlierconditions which theConquest altered, if at all,only in the Conqueror'sinterest. In the kingdom itwas buttressed not only byNormanprecedentbutalsobyWilliam's royal consecrationastheConfessor'slegitimated

heir.Prelatesonbothsidesofthe Channel were after 1070subjecttohimasfeudallords,andnoepiscopalorimportantabbatial appointment duringhis reignwasmadeexceptathiscommand,oratleastwithhisconsent.Again,while thejurisdictional rights ofbishopswerestrengthened,asatWinchester in1076andasatLille-bonnein1080,itwasassumed that these shouldbe

exercised by virtue of theroyal ‘concession’.78 It wasthe king who shouldintervene if episcopal justicewas lax or ineffective, and itwas the king, likewise, whomight,andwhodid,decideinhis own court disputesbetween prelates, or disputesbetween prelates andlaymen.79 When, in 1073,controversy broke outbetween John, archbishop of

Rouen, and Nicholas, abbotof Saint-Ouen, both prelateswere summoned to the royalcourt,andtheensuingriotsinthe city were quelled by thevicomte.80 Similarly, in 1079a dispute between BishopRobertofSéesandthecanonsof Bellême was heard in thefirst instance in the royalcourt before William andMatilda,andafewyearslaterthe litigation between

William, abbot of Fécamp,and William of BriouzerespectinglandinSussexwasdecided at a meeting of theroyalcourtheldatLaycock.81The dominant position

occupied by William in theChurch throughout hisconjointrealm,andtheextenttowhichheusedthistofosterthe reforms, goes far toexplain the special nature ofhis relations with the papacy

between 1066 and 1087.Indeed, those relationsderivednaturally fromearlierNorman policy and its laterapplication to England. Theking did not differ from hiscontemporaries inrecognizing the ecclesiasticalcohesion of westernChristendom under papalleadership. Moreover, theclose interdependencebetween papal and Norman

policy which had alreadybeen achieved in secularaffairshadcreatedasituationfrom which neither partycouldescape.Thepapacyhadsince 1054 come to rely onNorman support in itsrelations with the easternempire,andtheNormanshadgained solid advantages byposingas thechampions inaholy war. The Englishexpedition had itself been

made to fit into this pattern,and ithadmoreovergiven tothe Norman duke a kingdomwhoseownpreviousrelationswith the papacy had beenclose, and which wasparticularly characterized,along with Poland and theScandinavian lands, by theannual payment of ‘Peter'sPence’.82 It is not surprisingtherefore that immediatelyafter the Conquest a close

harmony should haveprevailedbetweenthepapacyand the Norman duke whohad become king. His newstatus, hallowed byconsecration, was to bespeciallyproclaimedbypapallegates. In 1067 Alexander'sapproval was given to thepromotion of John ofAvranches to Rouen, and in1070 not only did thedeposition of Stigand take

place in full accord withpapal policy, but thetransferenceofLanfrancfromCaen to Canterbury waseffected with the pope'ssupport.Andwhenattheendof 1071 the new archbishopvisited Rome for his palliumhe was received withexceptionalhonour.83This underlying accord

derivingfromearlierNormanpolicy, and implicit in the

circumstances of theConquest, deserves someemphasis, for though it waslater to be strained almost tobreaking-point, it alwayspersisted, and it was never,during theConqueror's reign,to be disrupted. The crucialpoint of contact lay in thereforms,andthenewNormanking had therefore somejustification in claiming thatafter 1066hewas the proper

agent for promoting thereforms which he hadpreviously sponsored inNormandy, and which thepapacy was now assiduouslyfostering throughout westernChristendom. As time wenton, however, the papacy,particularly in the person ofGregory VII, came to insistwith ever greater precisionthat the reforms could neverbe made effective unless the

Church itselfwas tobe freedfrom secular control in thematter of appointments, andunless the hierarchy shouldbe submitted to the papacynot only in all spiritual butalso in many temporalmatters. The ultimate meritsof this policy need not bedebated. But it is fair toremark that in the thirdquarter of the eleventhcentury it represented an

innovation on existingpractice. William between1066 and 1087 claimed noecclesiastical powers that hehad not previously exercisedinNormandytothebenefitofthe Church, and no rightswhich had not been asserted,for example, byHenry III inthe empire, or indeed byEdward the Confessor inEngland.Therewascertainlyground here for controversy,

but the implication of suchdisputes as arose should beclearly envisaged. Before1089 such differences asoccurredbetweentheNormanking and the papacy can forthemost part be legitimatelyregarded as concerning themeans by which might bestbe implemented a reformingprogramme which, generallyspeaking, they held incommon.

The latent tensions werethus only gradually to bedisplayed. The advent ofGregory in 1073 imparted anewprecisiontopapalpolicy,anditwassoonapparent thatthe Canterbury primacy wasnotgoingtobeconfirmedbyRome.Nor should the sequelbe viewed out of relation topolitical events. It wasbetween 1076 and 1080 thatGregory VII advanced

through Canossa to the peakofhispoliticalpower.And itwas precisely during thesesame years that, as has beenseen, William suffered hisgreatest reverses. A disputeabouttheseeofDoloccurredwithin weeks of William'sdefeatoutsideitswalls,84andthe most intransigent ofGregory's demands weremadeinthemonthsfollowingthe Conqueror's reverse at

Gerberoi. It was in factbetween 1079 and 1081 thatthe issues between the popeand the king becameformidably acute. Williamwas determined to assumeresponsibility for the Churchwithin his dominions, and toprevent his bishops frombecoming subject to a dualclaimupon their loyalty.Thepopewas equally determinedto override divisions within

the Church, and to exercise,either directly or through hislegates,adetailedsupervisionofallmattersofecclesiasticaldiscipline and appointments.During these thirty months,therefore,whenGregorywasreaching the climax of hispower he made a concertedeffort to overthrow thebarrierswhichWilliamsetuparound the Anglo-Normanchurch. It was made,

moreover, in three principaldirections.Gregory sought toenforcetheregularattendanceat Rome of the prelates ofNormandy and England. Heendeavoured to diminish theauthority of the metropolitanseeofRouen.And finallyheattemptedtoestablishaclaimof fealty to the papacy fromWilliam as king of England.These three endeavourswereall part of a single policy,

which it was William's aimsuccessfullytoresist.Thedemandfortheregular

attendance of the Anglo-NormanprelatesatRomewasmade in a series of letterswhichbeginningon25March1079 continued withincreasing severity until atlast Lanfranc was himselfthreatened with deposition.85Theseletterswereineffective,but a breach between king

and pope was none the lessavoided. William, thoughfirminhisrefusal,actedwithcommendable caution, andthe pope, though indignant,refrained from putting histhreats into execution. Asimilar situation arose inconnexion with the movemade by the papacy aboutthis time to diminish thejurisdictional authority of thesee of Rouen. As has been

seen, inApril 1079Gregory,curiously claiming to bereviving the institutions ofimperial Rome, sought toconferonGebuin,archbishopofLyons,aprimacyover thethree ancient Romanprovinces of the Lyonnaise,namely Lyons, Rouen, andSens.86 The motives whichanimated the pope in thismatterwerecomplex,andthescheme was probably as

impractical as it wasambitious. Its inception,however, imperilledWilliam's authority inNormandy by menacing thestructure of the Normanchurch which had alwaysbeen closely knit under thecontrol of the duke and themetropolitan see. It is smallwonder that the papal planwas rejected out of hand byWilliam, who naturally also

found no difficulty inpreventing the Normanbishops from conforming toit. The scheme in fact never,becameoperative.87It had, however, one

immediateresult.Gebuin,thearchbishop of Lyons, byvirtue of the primatialauthorityconferreduponhim,sawfitin1079todeposebothArnold, bishop of Le Mans,and Juhel, abbot of La

Couture in the same city, inconsequence of a quarrelbetween them.88 There wasnodoubtthatconditionsinLeMans at this time were suchthat the action could bejustified, and on generalgrounds it could hardly beresisted with conviction. Butit none the less offered achallenge to William. Hecould not allow withoutprotest an archbishop of

Lyons,withorwithout papalapproval, to depose a prelatein his own realmwithout hisconsent, and the matter wascomplicated by the fact thatArnold, who had originallybeen appointed as theNorman nominee inopposition to Anjou, hadalwaysshownhimselfoneofWilliam's most zealoussupporters.89 The mattertherefore was one of great

delicacy, and it was furtherexacerbated by the situationwhich now developed atRouen.Asearlyas1078Johnthe archbishop was strickenwith paralysis and unableproperly to carry on hisduties.90Thepope, therefore,had here some reasons forcomplaint, and after John'sdeath on 9 September 1079he hesitated to recognizeWilliam Bonne-Ame whom

the king nominated to thesee.91 It seemed an impasse,but once again no overtrupture was allowed to takeplace.Early in 1080WilliamsentaconciliatorymissiontoRome,andthepopeevidentlythought it inadvisable tobreakwiththereformingkingof England. The bishop andthe abbot at Le Mans wereboth reinstated by papalorder, and William Bonne-

Ame received recognition asarchbishopofRouen.92Finally, itwas probably in

1080 thatGregorymade–orrepeated – his famousdemand that William shoulddohimfealtyinrespectofthekingdom of England.93 Thedemand was apparentlyconveyed verbally on thepope's behalf by the legateHubert of Die, and it wasmade, as it would seem, not

specifically in virtue of thepope's spiritual authority,which was recognized inEngland as elsewhere, butrather on certain othergrounds, alleged to relateespeciallytoEngland.Weightmay have been given in thisrespect to the ‘FalseDecretals’ now receivingincreasingattention inRome,and more especially to the‘Donation of Constantine’.

More importance was,however, probably attachedtoPeter'sPencewhich,itwasasserted, represented tributeanddenoteddependency.Butthe main reason for thedemand was undoubtedlyconnected with William'sown application for papalsupport in 1066.94 The kingstatedthatonthatoccasionhehad never proffered homagetothepopeintheeventofhis

success, but this disclaimerwas not accepted in Rome,and here it is important tonote that Gregory's demandwasinthisrespectnonoveltysinceasimilarclaimhadasitseems been previously madeby Alexander II.95 Gregory'saction, however, brought thevexed question to an issue,andWilliam'sreplywasclear,terse, and final. He admittedthe obligation to Peter's

Pence, and promised thathenceforth it should be paidwithgreaterregularity.Buthedenied that this paymentbetokened temporalsubjection,andheconcluded:

Yourlegate…hasadmonishedmeto profess allegiance to you andyoursuccessors,andtothinkbetterregarding the money which mypredecessorswerewont tosend tothe Church of Rome. I have

consentedtotheonebutnottotheother. I havenot consented topayfealty, nor will I now because Inever promised it, nor do I findthatmypredecessorseverpaidittoyourpredecessors.96

It was explicit and decisive.Nor was the issue raisedagainduringtheremainderofWilliam's reign. After 1081,indeed, Gregory was hardlyin a position to revive the

mattereven ifhehadwishedtodo so. In January1081herevoked the sentences ofsuspension passed on theNorman bishops by hislegates at the council ofSaintes,andthereafterhewasto find himself ever moredisastrously engaged in hisstruggle with the emperoruntil his death in exile fromRomein1085.97Interesting as they are, the

disputes which occurred in1079 and 1080 must not beregarded as typical of therelations between theConqueror and the papacy,for,speakinggenerally, thoserelations were constructiveand co-operative. Nothingoccurred after the Conquestto mar the close associationbetween William andAlexander II, and in 1073William had found no

difficulty in sendingimmediate congratulations toGregoryonhis succession. Itwas to be remembered thatHildebrandasarchdeaconhadmade a personal contributiontoWilliam's success in1066,and if he was perhaps pronetoexaggeratethedebtthatthekinghadtherebyincurred,henever seems to haveconsideredthathissupportonthat occasion had been

misplaced. His first letter toWilliamaspopein1074wascordial, and even in 1080 atthe height of theirdisagreement he could referto the Conqueror as a ‘jewelamongprinces’.98Onat leasttwo occasions he restrainedhis legates when they actedagainst the king of England,and he was quick todistinguishWilliam from hisfellow rulers in Europe by

virtueof theking'sprudence,probity, and justice. Theauthentic expression of hisattitudetoWilliam,andofthequalityoftheirrelationship,isindeed to be found in aconfidential letter which thepope sent to two of hislegates within a year ofWilliam's rejection of hisdemand for fealty, and boththedateandthewordsofthismissive deserve careful

attention:

Although in certain matters theking of the English does notcomport himself as devoutly asmight be wished, nevertheless hehas neither destroyed nor sold theChurches of God; he has takenpains to govern his subjects inpeace and justice; he has refusedhis assent to anything detrimentalto the Apostolic See, even whensolicitedbycertainenemiesof the

cross of Christ; he has compelledpriests on oath to put away theirwives and the laity to forward thetithes theywerewithholding fromus. In all these respects he hasshown himself more worthy ofapprobationandhonour thanotherkings….99

It was an accurate summaryof the underlying accordwhich, despite difficulties,persisted between the

reforming pope and thereformingking.WilliamtheConquerorand

Gregory VII stand out fromamong their contemporariesas the two great constructivestatesmen of the age. Bothwere men of irondetermination; both weresincere; and together theywere among the makers ofmedieval Europe. Thewonderisnotthattherewasa

clashbetween theirdominantpersonalities, but that theyworked together so much inunity for a commonpurpose.The extent of their co-operation does credit to bothofthem,anditisnotperhapstoo much to assert that theyrecognized each other'sgreatnessacrossthewelteroflesser rulers by whom theywere surrounded. Williamnever ceased to foster the

reforms thatwere the specialconcernofthepapacy,andaslate as 1082 he was askingGregoryforadvicerespectingthe affairs of the see ofDurham.100 Gregory on atleast twooccasionsrescindedthe acts taken by his legatesagainst William. How muchcontroversy was in factavoided can be guessed by acomparison between theAnglo-Norman kingdom and

the rest of western Europe.Thepapaldecreeagainst lay-investiture which waspublished in Rome in 1074did not enter England beforethe end of the eleventhcentury, despite the fact thatevery bishop appointed inNormandy and Englandbetween 1070 and 1087,except only Ernost andGundulf of Rochester,received his pastoral staff

from the king.101 There wasneveran‘investiturescontest’in the Anglo-Normankingdom during the reign ofWilliamtheConqueror.William's own conception

of his rights as king withinthe Church were to be aptlysummed up in the ‘customs’which a writer of the nextgeneration attributed tohim.102 As king he wouldperform his duty of securing

the welfare of the Churchwithin his dominions, and asking he would resist anydivisionofloyaltyamonghissubjects.Thusinthecaseofadisputed papal election nopope was to be recognizedwithin his realm without hisconsent; no papal letter wasto be received withuot hispermission; no ecclesiasticalcouncil within his kingdomwas to initiate legislation

without his approval; and nobishop must excommunicateanyofhisofficialsortenants-in-chief without his leave. Itwasaclear-cutposition,butitwas traditional rather thananti-papal. When Lanfrancabout 1081 stated in a letterto Gregory, ‘I am ready toyield obedience to yourcommands in everythingaccording to the canons’,103hewasperfectly sincere, and

he was voicing the views ofhis royal master. But thecanons, as interpreted byLanfranc and by William,were different in emphasisfromthecanonlawbeginningtobepropoundedatRomebyGregory VII. William tookhis stand on a theory ofroyalty,andofitsobligations,whichhadbeencurrentintheprevious century, and towhich expression had been

given at his coronation. Theking had his special dutiestowards the Church, and hewould fulfil them. William'secclesiasticalpolicywas thusthroughout (in the admirablephrase of Professor Z. N.Brooke) ‘entirely natural andregularlyconsistent’.104In view of the theory of

royalty which he embodied,and in view also of thepractical use he made of it

with regard to the Church,Williammusthimselfbeheldvery responsible for theecclesiastical changes whichmarkedhisreign.Ashasbeenseen, most of those changestook place in Normandybefore 1066, whilst inEngland they occurred afterthat date when the king'spolicy was influenced andsometimes modified byLanfranc.Itwouldbewrong,

however, to distinguishbetween William'secclesiastical policy asexpressed before and after1066. In this respect, also, itwas ‘regularly consistent’.Williamhadbeenbroughtupin the midst of anecclesiastical revival in hisduchy which he had someshare in promoting. Hecarried its principles toEngland to suchpurpose that

between 1070 and 1087 theChurchinEnglandwasmadetoconform to thecontinentalpattern and subject to thereforming ideas which werepermeating western Europe.Thus William, who ‘nevertried to create a national orindependent church’,‘brought the English churchout of its backwater into theregularcurrentoncemore’.105It is no part of the present

studytopassjudgmentonthecondition of the late OldEnglish church, the moreespecially as scholars findthemselves much divided onthe subject. Somecommentators are stilldisposed to give credence tothe adverse criticisms made,for example, by William ofMalmesbury,106whilstothers,though properly cautious ofaccepting them at their face

value,arenonethelesscharyof eulogy.107 By contrast anemphatic and erudite protesthas been made against thenotion that the Church inEngland between 950 and1050was‘decadent’orthatitstood in any special need ofreforms imported fromoverseas.108The matter may here,

therefore, properly be left insuspensewiththeremarkthat

it was inevitable that suchwidespread changes as havebeen outlined in this chaptershould have entailed loss aswell as gain. ThefeudalizationofthechurchinEnglandwas in the future toproduce unhappyconsequences, and whatevermay be thought of thediscipline, the organization,andthespiritualityofthelateOldEnglishchurch, itcannot

be regarded as having beenineffective in thesponsorshipof art and literature. In thisrespect, at least, England in1050 was in no sense abackwardcountry.Hermetal-work was famous, and hercoinage was fine. Englishembroidery was particularlyesteemed, and English bookproduction, particularly thatof the Winchester school, ofoutstanding excellence.109 It

hasevenbeenassertedthatinrespect of the minor arts theNorman conquest was ‘littleshortofacatastrophe’,andifthe glories of theRomanesque architecturewhich the Normans broughtto England are apparent toanytraveller,itwouldberashtodisparagetheecclesiasticalbuilding which took place inEngland during the earlierhalf of the eleventh century,

most of which has failed tosurvive.110 Finally, it needsno emphasis that in thedecades preceding theNorman conquest, Englandwas continuing to produce aliterature in the vernacular,which in this respect waswithout parallel incontemporaryEurope.111This vernacular culture,

between 1066 and 1087,receivedalethalblow,andits

place was taken in Englandby a culture which drew itsinspiration in art andliterature from the vividintellectual interests of LatinEurope, which had alreadypermeated the province ofRouen. Henceforth for morethan a century, with rareexceptions, whatever wasthought and written byEnglishmen was thought andwritten in Latin, and the

English contributions tophilosophyandtheologywereto form part of controversieswhich were common to theContinent. Despite theirreparable damage that hadbeeninflictedupontheearlierindigenous endeavour,England had therefore beenbroughtbypoliticaleventsina special sense into themainstream of Europeandevelopment. And this had

occurred at a propitious timeof reformation and revival.For thereby England was, inthe near future, enabled totake her full share in therenaissance of the twelfthcenturywhichhasbeenjustlydescribed as marking one ofthe brightest epochs in thehistory of Europeancivilization.Shewastomakeher notable and highlyindividual contribution to all

thosegreatmovementsinart,in literature, in scholarship,andineducation,whichwerecharacteristic of westernChristendom at the zenith ofitsmedievalachievement.A final assessment of the

gain and loss that was hereinvolved is probablyimpossible. Certainly, it hasstill to be made. There can,however, be no doubt thatbetween 1070 and 1087 the

Church both in Normandyand England was broughtever more firmly under thecontrol of ‘a ruler who wasresolved of set purpose toraise the whole level ofecclesiasticaldisciplineinhisdominions’.112 Nor can therebe much question ofWilliam's success inimplementing that resolve.Duringtheseyearshecarriedthe revival, which had

previously marked theNorman duchy, to its logicalconclusion, and he gave tothe Church in England thecharacter it was to retain forthe remainder of the MiddleAges. At a time ofrevolutionary ecclesiasticalchange in Europe he acted,moreover, with suchcircumspection, and withsuchregardfor tradition, thathe postponed for his lifetime

any crisis in the relationsbetween temporal andspiritual authority within hisrealm. Nor can hisecclesiastical policy beregardedasotherthansincereandconstructive,foralthoughhewasofnecessityoccupiedincessantly with theacquisition and retention ofpower, he never allowedhimself to be whollyimmersed in secularity. His

motives were undoubtedlymixed, but hemade his ownenduring contribution to themovement of ecclesiasticalreform that marked the age,andwhichwasitselfapotentfactor in the formation ofmedievalEurope.

1Gall.Christ.,vol.XI,cols.31,32;andabove,pp.122–124.

2MiloCrispin,VitaLanfranci(Giles,LanfranciOpera,vol.I,

p.291).3OnLanfranc,seeA.J.Macdonald,Lanfranc(ed.1944),andKnowles,MonasticOrder,pp.85–145.

4TheyareeditedinGiles,LanfranciOpera,vol.II,andinPat.Lat.,vol.CL.TheyareherecitedbynumberasgiveninPat.Lat.,orfromthetranslations(byG.W.Greenaway)giveninE.H.D.,vol.II,nos.89–106.

5ActaLanfranci(Earleand

Plummer,TwoSaxonChroniclesParallel,vol.I,p.220);AS.Chron.,‘E’,s.a.1075.

6Knowles,op.cit.,p.143.7Gall.Christ.,vol.XI,cols.681,770;Ord.Vit.,vol.II,p.311;Hommey,DiocèsedeSées,vol.II,p.331;Douglas,DomesdayMonachorum,p.29.

8Gall.Christ.,vol.XI,cols.571,572.

9ThechiefexceptionisAvrancheswhichin1067wasgivento

Michael,anItalian,withapparentlynoNormanconnexions.

10Ord.Vit.,vol.II,pp.64,213,336.

11Knowles,op.cit.,p.704.12SeeD.Matthew,TheNormanMonasteriesandtheirEnglishPossessions.

13L.Valin,DucdeNormandie,p.72;Haskins,NormanInstitutions,p.32.

14OnthisseeBöhmer,Kircheund

Staat,pp.86–126;Z.N.Brooke,EnglishChurchandthePapacy,pp.112–126;Macdonald,op.cit.;andR.W.Southern,‘TheCanterburyForgeries’(Eng.Hist.Rev.,vol.LXVIII(1958),pp.193–226).

15ActaLanfranci.16HughtheChanter(ed.Johnson),pp.2–7;Will.Malms.,GestaPont.,p.40.

17Wilkins,Concilia,vol.I,p.324;Stenton,Anglo-SaxonEngland,

p.657.18ThewholecontroversyissurveyedbySouthern(op.cit.).

19Fliche,Réformegregorienns,vol.II,pp.230–232.Alsobelow,pp.338,339.

20Southern,op.cit.21Epp.nos.36,37,38,51;ActaLanfranci;A.Gwynn,IrishEccl.Rev.,vol.LVII,p.213.

22Eadmer,Hist.Novorum,p.9.23Will.Malms.,GestaPont.,p.150;Freeman,Norman

Conquest,vol.II,pp.414,557.24Wilkins,Concilia,vol.322;Knowles,op.cit.,p.103.

25Giso,bishopofWells,whowasaLotharingian.PeterofLichfieldwouldseemtohavebeenaNormanandsowasprobablythephysicallyafflictedHughofOrival,whosucceededtotheseeofLondonin1075(Will.Malms.,GestaPont.,pp.145,308).

26Knowles,op.cit.,pp.103,104.

27Mon.Ang.,vol.I,p.3;vol.II,pp.297,430.

28ThurstanatGlastonbury;Galland(probablyaNorman)atWinchcombe;Ruallon(possiblyaBreton)atNewMinster;andGeoffreyatTavistock.

29Wilkins,Concilia,vol.I,p.364;Stenton,op.cit.

30Corbett,Camb.Med.Hist.,vol.V,p.509.

31Round,FeudalEnglandpp.221etsqq.;Chew,Ecclesiastical

TenantsinChief(1932);Knowles,op.cit.,p.609.

32Knowles,op.cit.,pp.395–411,614.

33Pat.Lat.,vol.CXLIX,cols.923,927;Robinson,GilbertCrispin,p.1.

34Remigiushadapparentlymadeacontributionofshipstotheexpeditionof1066(Giles,ScriptoresWillelmi,p.22).

35Onhim,seeR.R.Darlington,inEng.Hist.Rev.,vol.XLVIII

(1933),pp.1–22,177–198.36Stenton,op.cit.,p.652.37HelefthisabbeytojointhesonsofHaroldinpiracy(Will.Malms.,GestaPont.,p.204).

38AS.Chron.,‘E’,s.a.1083;Knowles,op.cit.,p.114.

39LiberEliensis,pp.253,261;Will.Malms.,GestaPont.,p.293;Robinson,op.cit.,pp.1–8.

40Knowles,op.cit.,p.121.41Editedin1956withatranslationandacritical

commentarybyM.D.Knowles,TheMonasticConstitutionsofLanfranc,fromwhichisderivedwhatherefollows.

42ThehousesofShrewsbury,Wenlock,Tewkesbury,andSelbyought,however,heretobementioned.

43EarlyYorkshireCharters(ed.C.T.Clay),vol.VIII,pp.59–62.

44Knowles,op.cit.,pp.165–172.45Wilkins,Concilia,vol.I,pp.363,364.

46J.W.F.Hill,MedievalLincoln,pp.76–81.

47Knowles,op.cit.,pp.129,619.48Darlington,Eng.Hist.Rev.vol.

LI(1936),pp.403–404.49Knowles,op.cit.,pp.131–134.50Canterbury,Winchester,Worcester,Durham,Rochester,Norwich.Wells(withBath)andLichfield(withChester)standbythemselves.

51Above,pp.122,123.52Edwards,EnglishSecular

Cathedrals,p.12.53BradshawandWordsworth,StatutesofLincolnCathedral,vol.I,pp.33–36,101–113;G.W.Prothero,MemoirofHenryBradshaw,p.345.

54Edwards,op.cit.,pp.14–17,basedonmaterialsuppliedbyL.C.Loyd.

55Wilkins,Concilia,vol.I,p.363.56Harmer,Anglo-SaxonWrits,p.530.

57Stubbs,SelectCharters(ed.

1913),pp.99–100.58Bessin,Concilia,pp.67–71,esp.canonsIIIandXLVI.

59ConciliaRotomagnensisProvinciae(1717).Thisbookisakindofnewedition,muchaugmented,oftheSanctaeRotomagensisEcclesiaeConcilia,producedbyJeanPommerayein1677.

60ConciliaMagnaeBritanniaeetHiberniae,4vols.(1737).Fortherelationofthistoearlier

workonthesubject,seeF.M.Powicke,‘SirHenrySpelmanandthe“Concilia”’(Brit.Acad.,Proceedings,vol.XVI,1930).

61Above,pp.130–132.62Bessin,Concilia,pp.52–72.63Wilkins,Concilia,vol.I,pp.323,325,362–370.AvaluablecommentaryonthearrangementofthismaterialisgiveninthefootnotestoStenton,Anglo-SaxonEngland,pp.657–659.

64Bessin,Concilia,p.56;Haskins,NormanInstitutions,pp.30–35.

65Bessin,Concilia,p.64;Wilkins,Concilia,vol.I,p.363.

66ArchbishopJohnwasstonedbythecanonsofRouenwhenhebadethemputawaytheirconcubines(Ord.Vit.,vol.II,p.171).

67Bessin,Concilia,p.56(canonsXIII,XVII);Delisle,JournaldesSavants(1901),pp.516–521.

68Wilkins,Concilia,vol.I,p.367.69VitaWulfstani(ed.Darlington),pp.53,54;Bessin,Concilia,p.56.

70Bessin,Concilia,pp.54–56.71Stenton,op.cit.,p.661.72Cf.Douglas,DomesdayMonachorum,pp.7–12.

73Ord.Vit.,vol.II,p.199.74Wilkins,op.cit.,vol.I,p.369.75ActaLanfranci;Darlington,op.cit.

76Hugh,bishopofLisieux,

perhapsescortedQueenMatildatoEnglandin1068(Round,CommuneofLondon,pp.30–35),andBaldwin,bishopofÉvreux,waspresentattheConqueror'scourtatWinchesterinthenextyear(Regesta,vol.I,no.26),butthesewereexceptionaleventsandtheywerenottoberepeated.

77Wilkins,Concilia,vol.I,p.363;Stenton,op.cit.,p.658.

78Wilkins,Concilia,p.363;

Bessin,Concilia,pp.65–71.79Will.Poit.,pp.124–126;Bessin,Concilia,pp.71,77(canonIII).

80Gall.Christ.,vol.XI,cols.23,34.

81Hommey,DiocèsedeSées,vol.II,p.145;Regesta,vol.I,no.127.

82E.H.D.,vol.II,nos.74–76;Southern,MakingoftheMiddleAges,p.27.

83Macdonald,op.cit.,p.64;

Eadmer,Hist.Novorum,p.11.84In1076Gregorywrotetothekingannouncingthedeposition,forgoodreason,ofBishopJuhel,whowasapartisanofWilliam.Thekingresistedthedeposition,andinconsequenceJuhel,thoughexcommunicate,wasstillinprecariouspossessionofhisseeayearlater(Jaffé,MonumentaGregoriana,pp.318–320,541).

85Ibid.,pp.377,494.

86Ibid.,p.370;Fliche,op.cit.,vol.II,pp.230–232.

87Fliche,loc.cit.88SeeletterofGebuintoRaoul,archbishopofTours(Rec.Hist.Franc.,vol.XIV,p.668).

89Latouche,ComtéduMaine,pp.79,86,87.

90Ord.Vit.,vol.II,p.310.91Jaffé,MonumentaGregoriana,pp.315,380.

92Rec.Hist.Franc.,vol.XIV,p.648;Gregory'slettertoWilliam

of1081(Jaffé,op.cit.,p.469)impliesthattherecognitionhadalreadybeengiven.Seefurther,Brooke,EnglishChurchandthePapacy,p.140.

93InthismatterIfollowBrooke(op.cit.,pp.139–142),whotheresummarizesandsupplementstheconclusionsofhisclassicarticleonthesubject(Eng.Hist.Rev.,vol.XXVI(1911),pp.225–238).ThedatingofGregory'sdemandin

1080,thoughextremelyprobable,isperhapsnotfinallydetermined(cf.Stubbs,ConstitutionalHistory,vol.I,p.285,note1).

94Brooke,op.cit.,p.142.95Ibid.,p.141.96E.H.D.,vol.II,no.101.97Macdonald,Hildebrand,pp.227–241.

98Jaffé,MonumentaGregoriana,pp.89,414.

99E.H.D.,vol.II,no.102.

100SimeonofDurham(Opera,vol.I,p.121).Itshouldbenotedthatin1084Lanfranc,althoughwithsomedetachment,declinedtoendorsethecriticismsofGregorymadebythesupportersoftheanti-PopeClement(E.H.D.,vol.II,no.106).

101Brooke,op.cit.,p.138;Macdonald,Lanfranc,p.212.

102Eadmer,Hist.Novorum,p.9.103E.H.D.,vol.II,no.103.104Brooke,op.cit.,p.134.

105Ibid.,p.136.106Will.Malms.,GestaRegum,p.305.

107Brooke,loc.cit.;Knowles,MonasticOrder,p.94.

108R.R.Darlington,‘MovementsofReforminthelateOldEnglishChurch’(Eng.Hist.Rev.,vol.LI(1936),pp.385–428);cf.alsoHistory,vol.XXII(1937),pp.1–13.SeealsothejudicioussurveynowsuppliedbyProfessorF.BarlowinThe

EnglishChurch,1000–1066(1963).

109SeegenerallyR.W.Chambers,‘TheContinuityofEnglishProse’(EarlyEnglishTextSoc.,vol.186),andmoreparticularlythefineessaybyProfessorF.Wormaldon‘StyleandDesign’inTheBayeuxTapestry(ed.Stenton),pp.25–36.

110A.W.Clapham,EnglishRomanesqueArchitecturebefore

theNormanConquest,esp.p.117.

111Chambers,op.cit.;K.Sisam,inReviewofEnglishStudies,vol.VII,p.7;vol.VIII,p.51;vol.IX,p.1.

112Knowles,op.cit.,p.93.

Chapter14

THEENDOFTHEREIGNChristmas1085–9September1087

The last two years ofWilliam's life possess aspecial interest for his

biographer.Inonesensetheyrepresent the epilogue to agreat career, but in anotherthey can be regarded asembodying the final crisis ofhisreignwhereinall itschiefcharacteristicsweredisplayedin conjunction. The twenty-four months that elapsedbetween the autumn of 1085and William's death inSeptember 1087 saw therevival of a hostile

confederation against theAnglo-Norman kingdom in aform reminiscent of earlierdecades. They witnessed thecontinuation of William'sprevious defence of thatkingdom,thoughthistimebyexceptionalmeans.And theywitnessed, also, theConqueror's greatestadministrative achievement.These months were all spentby him either in war or in

active preparation for war,but they also included thetaking of the Domesdaysurvey which was the mostnoteworthy illustration ofwhat his governmentinvolved. Nor can theseevents be dissociated fromeach other. Throughout hislife, war and a struggle forsurvival had formed thebackground,andtheessentialcondition, of his constructive

acts.Theycontinuedtodosountildeath.Thebeginningofthiscrisis

is aptly recorded in theAnglo-Saxon Chronicle for1085: ‘In this year peoplesaid, and declared for a fact,that Cnut, king of Denmark,son of King Sweyn wassetting out towards England,and meant to conquer thatland with the aid of Robert,count of Flanders.’1 The

traditional enemies of theAnglo-Norman kingdomwere thus all becomingarrayed against it. St Cnut(Cnut IV), son of SweynEstrithson, was reviving theScandinavian claims onEngland which had beenassertedwith such force, andwith such long-standingsanctions, not only by hisfather but also by HaroldHardraada and Magnus.

Robert of Flanders, whosesisterhadmarriedtheDanishking,wasagaininthefieldasin 1074. In France, KingPhilip with the memories ofDolandGerberoiinhismindwas actively supportingWilliam's son Robert, whoremainedinopenenmitywithhis father,whileOdo,bishopof Bayeux, although incaptivity, could incite thetreason of William's English

andNormansubjects.Finally,Malcolmstoodhostileon theScottish border, and Fulk leRechinofAnjouwasreadytoturn the situation to hisadvantage. Such was thethreat which William nowhadtomeet,andhispersonalcircumstances must haveimposed an additional strainupon him. He was ageing,and had recently been bereftof his wife to whom he had

beendevoted.Therewerefewmembers of his own familyon whom he could rely, andhis own health was failinginasmuch as he wasbecomingincreasingly–evennotoriously – corpulent. Theenergy with which he facedthecoalitionofhisenemiesinthe closing months of hisreign is thus not the leastnotable illustration of hisfortitudeanddetermination.

AssoonashewasawareofCnut'sthreatenedinvasion,heactedwith speed and vigour.He caused certain of thecoastaldistrictsofEnglandtobelaidwasteinordertodenyprovisions to any invadingforce. For his own part,leaving to others the defenceofNormandy, he crossed theChannel ‘with a larger forceof mounted men and foot-soldiers than had ever come

into this country’. ThestatementmadebyanEnglishwriter who may well havebeenalivein1066challengesattention,anditselftestifiestothe magnitude of William'spreparations. It merits,however, some furtheranalysis.There is little doubtthat this great force waslargely composed ofmercenaries, and William'sability to pay them is

remarkable, and must surelybe related to the great geldwhich he had levied onEngland during the previousyear. Even so, themaintenance of such a hostcreated difficulties. ‘Peoplewondered how this countrycouldmaintainallthatarmy.’In the event Williamdispersed them over theestates of his vassals,compellingthesetoprovision

themaccording to thesizeoftheir lands. It was a drasticact, yet it may be doubtedwhether by itself it wassufficient, even though someof themercenarieswere laterdisbanded. The next twoannalsofthenativechronicleare understandably full oflaments about the heavytaxation which was beingleviedontheland.2It was in these

circumstances that atChristmas 1085 Williamcame to Gloucester to holdhiscourt.Therehe‘hadmuchthought and very deepdiscussion with his councilabout this country – how itwasoccupied, andwithwhatsort of people’.3 And theresult was the taking of theDomesday survey. Sonoteworthy was this vastundertaking,andsoimportant

was the result, that everydetailoftheprocessbywhichthe inquiry was conducted,themotiveswhichinspiredit,and the record which wasproduced have been theobject of erudite andcontroversial comment.4 Thegeneralcourseofeventswas,however,succinctlydescribedby early writers in wordswhich though familiardeservequotation.5Thechief

of these notices is containedin a famous passage of theAnglo-SaxonChronicleitself:

[The king] sent his men over allEngland into every shire and hadthem find out howmany hundredhides there were in the shire, orwhat land and cattle the kinghimselfhadinthecountry,orwhatdues he ought to have annuallyfrom the shire. Also, he had arecordmadeofhowmuchlandhis

archbishops had, and his bishopsandhis abbots andhis earls– andthoughIrelateitattoogreatlength– what or how much everybodyhad who was occupying land inEngland, in land and cattle, andhowmuchmoneyitwasworth.Sovery narrowly did he have itinvestigated that there was nosingle hidenor a yardof landnorindeed(shameitistorelateitbutitseemed no shame to him to do)wasoneoxoronecoworonepig

left out, thatwas not put down inhis record. And all these writingswerebroughttohimafterwards.6

In many particulars thisstatement is less precise thanmight be desired, but itsgeneral purpose is clear, andit is fortunate that it can besupplemented by anothercontemporarynoticeof equalauthority.Thisiscontainedina passage written by Robert

Losinga, bishop of Herefordfrom1079 to1095,whowasalmost certainly presenthimself at the deep speechthatwasheldatGloucester:

In the twentieth year of his reign,by order of William, King of theEnglish, there wasmade a surveyofthewholeofEngland,thatistosay of the lands of the severalprovinces of England, and of thepossessions of each and all of the

magnates.Thiswasdoneinrespectof ploughlands and of habitations,and of men both bond and free,both those who dwelt in cottages,andthosewhohadtheirhomesandtheir share in the fields; and inrespect of ploughs and horses andotheranimals;andinrespectoftheservicesandpaymentsduefromallmen in the whole land. Otherinvestigatorsfollowedthefirst;andmen were sent into provinceswhich they did not know, and

where they were themselvesunknown, inorder that theymightbe given the opportunity ofchecking the first survey, and ifnecessary, of denouncing itsauthors as guilty to the king.Andthe land was vexed with muchviolencearisingfromthecollectionoftheroyaltaxes.7

It would appear, moreover,that for the purposes of thisinvestigation England was

dividedupintosevenormorecircuits to each of which aseparate panel of these royalcommissioners wasassigned.8 And the methodand scope of their inquiriesare succinctly stated in arecord known as the ‘ElyInquiry’ (Inquisitio Eliensis).The Domesday inquest, it istherestated,was:

… the inquiry concerning lands

which the king's barons madeaccordingtotheoathofthesheriffof the shire, and of all the baronsand their Frenchmen, and of thewhole hundred court – the priest,the reeve and six men from eachvillage. They inquired what themanorwascalled,andwhohelditin the time of King Edward; whoholds it now; how many hidesthere are; how many ploughs indemesne;andhowmanybelongingto the men; how many villeins;

how many cottars; how manyslaves; how many freemen; howmany sokemen; how muchwoodland; how much meadow;how much pasture; how manymills; how many fisheries; howmuchhasbeenadded to, andhowmuch taken away from the estate;whatitusedtobeworthaltogether;what it is worth now; and howmuch each freeman and sokemanhadandhas.Allthistoberecordedthrice:towit,asitwasinthetime

of King Edward; as it was whenKingWilliamgave the estate; andasitisnow.Anditwasalsonotedwhethermorecouldbetakenfromtheestatethanisnowbeingtaken.9

The magnitude of theundertaking needs no furtheremphasis. And in general –with certain modifications –the resulting texts, nowcollectively known asDomesday Book, reflect

fairly faithfully the answerstothesequestions.Domesday Book consists

of twovolumesof somewhatdifferent character nowpreserved in the PublicRecord Office in ChanceryLane.10One of these (vol. II,or the ‘Little Domesday’)relates to Norfolk, Suffolk,and Essex. The other (vol. I,or the ‘Great Domesday’)deals with all the rest of

England that was surveyed.There are, however, othertexts which were also theproduct of this inquiry, andchief of these is that knownas the ExonDomesday, nowpreserved in the cathedrallibrary at Exeter, whichrelates to the five south-western shires.11 These threevolumes all possessindividual characteristics. Inparticular both the Little

Domesday and the ExonDomesday aremore inchoatein form and contain moredetailed information than theGreat Domesday. On theother hand, all these threevolumesclearlyderivedfromthesameinquest,andtheyallconform to the samefundamental plan. They areterritorial in arrangement insofarastheinformationtheysupply is presented shire by

shire; and they are feudal inarrangement in that, withineach shire, the information isgiven under the holdingstherein of the king and histenants-in-chief.The chief difficulty in

ascertaining the manner inwhich William caused thisvast investigation tobemadeconsistsindiscerninghowthemassof informationobtainedby the Domesday

commissioners was digestedinto the ‘books’ which wereeventually compiled. Arecord known as ‘TheCambridgeshire Inquest’12indicates that in that shire aninquiry was made in courtwhereat jurors from theseveral hundreds gave sworntestimony, and it has beenvery generally believed thatthis procedure was adoptedthroughout England; that the

‘writings’whichwere in duecourse brought to the kingwerethereturnsthuselicited;and that only subsequentlywere they rearrangedaccording to a feudal plan atWinchester.13 It has,however, been recentlysuggested with authority14that such inquiries beforejurorsofthehundredsformedonly one part of theDomesday inquisition;15 that

the original returns from theshires were compiled locallyaccording to a feudal plan;and that it was these feudalreturns (breves) of the fiefswithin each shire of the kingand his tenants-in-chief,which were brought in duecourse toWinchester. In thisway,itissaid,thedifferencesas well as the similaritiesbetween the three Domesday‘books’ can best be

explained. The ExonDomesdaywasafirstdraftofonecollectionofthesefeudalbreves, which in due coursewassummarizedanddigestedinto the Great Domesday,whereas theLittleDomesdaywas another of these draftswhich, for reasons unknown,never received suchtreatment, and thus remainedinitsoriginalform.16Every theory as to the

making of Domesday Bookhas some difficulties toovercome.Butwhatevermayhave been the exact processby which Domesday Bookwas compiled, it remains anastonishing product of theConqueror's administration,reflecting at once theproblemswith which he wasfaced,andthecharacterofhisrule.Itwasimperativethatheshouldknowtheresourcesof

his kingdom, for his need ofmoney was always pressing,and never more so than in1085.He sought therefore toascertain the taxable capacityof his kingdom, and to seewhether more could beexactedfromit.Theelaboratecalculations, runningthroughout thewhole survey,ofhidesandcarucatesintheirfiscal connotation as geldpaying units, is by itself

evidenceofthis,asisalsotheprevalence throughout thesouthandwestofEnglandofassessments in multiples offive hides.17 In DomesdayBook there is in fact suretestimony of the manner inwhichWilliam took over (ashas been seen) the taxationalsystem of the Old Englishstate, and used it to his ownadvantage.Itissmallwonder,therefore, that this was the

aspect of the matter whichmost impressed – anddistressed – contemporaryobservers. The termdescription18 which theynormally used in referring tothe survey itself indicates anassessmenttopublictaxation,and fear of the consequenceswas everywhere apparent. Infact, the whole inquiry wasclearly most unpopular. Itprovoked violent opposition,

andevenbloodshed.19Yet if theneed for amore

efficientcollectionofrevenuesupplied the chief motiveprompting King William tothis great endeavour, hispurpose in the undertakingshould not be too rigidlycircumscribed. William waslord of a feudal kingdomwhich was threatened withattack, and its feudalresourceshad tobedeployed

to theutmost advantage.Thecourt which had decided onthegreatinquestwasafeudalcourt,andthearrangementofthe survey was, within eachshire, according to the greatfiefs. And this was whatmight have been expected. Itwasimportantfortheking(as‘Florence of Worcester’20observed in describing thesurvey) to ascertain howmuchlandeachofhisbarons

possessed, for they wereresponsible for the provisionof the enfeoffed knightswhowere necessary for thedefence of the realm. And ifDomesday Book gives littleinformation about feudalorganization as such, sincefor the most part it omits toindicate the amount ofknight-service owed to thekingbyhistenants-in-chief,itnone the less supplied

William with more detailedfeudal information than hehad possessed at any timesincehis coming toEngland.Itgavehimforthefirsttimeacomprehensive account ofhow the landofEnglandhadbeen allocated among hisgreater followers. DomesdayBook, in fact, assumedthroughout the existence ofthe newly established feudalorder and indicated its

territorialbasis.Domesday Book was not,

however, merely a fiscalrecord (though that was itsprimary purpose), nor was itin addition merely a feudalstatement, though that, to alesserdegree,italsoservedtosupply. In yet another waydid it offer a furtherillustration of the authoritywhich William assumed inthecountryhehadconquered.

Throughout his reign, fromthetimeofhiscoronation,hehadclaimedtoberegardedasthe legitimate successor ofEdward the Confessor, andthis claim was reflectedthroughout Domesday Book.No feature of the survey ismore noteworthy, or moresignificant, than its design torecordconditionsnotonlyastheywere in 1066 and 1086,but also as they had been in

the time of King Edward.And in this connexion thesurvey could be regarded asin a sense the result of ajudicialinquiryandrelatedtothe earlier litigation of theConqueror's reign.21 Inmanydistricts a continuousprocessoflitigationhadleduptotheDomesday inquest, and theDomesday commissioners,who had themselves often,like Geoffrey of Coutances,

conducted the previous trialsby the same method of thesworn inquest, werefrequently, in 1086, dealingwithmatterswhichwerestillindispute.William,regardinghimself as the Confessor'ssuccessor, evidently wishedfor a complete record ofEnglish conditions before hiscoming, and he also desiredto legalize the great changeswhich the Conquest had

caused.DomesdayBookthusbears unmistakable traces ofbeing connected with thecontroversies respectingownership and possessionwhich had marked the twoprevious decades. Individualentries often describe, andattempt to reconcile,contesting claims byreference to thepast, and theaccounts of Yorkshire,Lincolnshire, and

Huntingdonshire record theclamores or disputes whichcameupforsettlementat thetime of the Domesdayinquisition.22ThecharacterofDomesday

Book and the achievement itembodied can, in truth, onlybe appraised by reference toWilliam himself. Indeed,perhaps the most remarkablefact about the Domesdayinquest is that it was ever

undertaken, and eversuccessfully completed. AsProfessorGalbraith observes,‘itisourbestevidenceoftheiron will of the Conqueror,and the measure of thedifference between theauthoritywieldedbyhimandeven the greatest of hispredecessors’.23 Hispersonality and his purposearereflectedoneverypageofDomesday Book. A country

had been conquered, andsince that conquest the kinghadbeencompelled to spendmost of his time outsideEngland. Very muchconcerning England, and theNorman settlement therein,must still have remainedunknown to him, and theinformation he required wasessential to his governmentand to the defence of hisrealm. He desired, therefore,

to know everything thatmencould tell him about his newkingdom, its inhabitants, itswealth, its provincialcustoms,itstraditions,anditstax-paying capacity. As aresult, the record, soastonishing in its scope,escapes classification since itsubserved so many needs.Consequently, whileDomesdayBookhassomeofthe characteristics of a geld

inquest, of a feudal record,andofajudicialstatement,itsspecial nature must never beforgotten. It is a recordwithout parallel. It is notsimplyageldbooksinceitisunlikeallothergeldbooks.Itis not a true feodary for it isunlikeallotherfeodaries.Itisnot simply the result of agreat judicial inquiry for itsscopewasmuchwider.Itwasthe unique product of a

unique occasion. The eventsof 1085 gave urgency to thedesire of a great king toobtain the fullest possibleamount of information aboutthekingdomhehadwon,andthe result was the mostremarkable statistical recordever produced in anymedievalkingdom.Such was the prestige

whichsooncametoattachtoDomesdayBook that there is

some danger that itsimportance may even beexaggerated. Throughout theMiddle Ages, and beyond,men turned to the greatsurveyastoacourtofappeal,and in more recent timessome scholars have beenprone to seek in it forinformation which it couldhardly be expected tosupply.24 In truth, of course,Domesday Book was not

made to provide laterhistorians with material fortheir interpretations of thepast, but to subserve theadministrativepurposesofthekingwhocreatedit.Itshouldberemembered,also,thatnotthe whole of England wascovered by the inquiry, forthe royal commissioners didnotextendtheirinvestigationsnorth of the Tees or theWestmorland fells. Nor was

Domesday Book itself asinfallible as some weretemptedtosuppose; thereareto be found within it bothduplicationsandinaccuracies,and since its compilers werefrequently ‘describing analiensocietyinalienterms’,25it is not always to be reliedupon in respect of thetechnical classifications itattempts of estates, of status,andoftenure.

Yet when all properdeductions are made, theking's achievement which isembodiedinDomesdayBookremains astonishing, andrecentscholarshavepaidfulltribute to it. ‘As anadministrative achievement,’writes Sir Frank Stenton, ‘ithas no parallel in medievalhistory.’26 It is a supremedemonstration of theefficiency of those who

served theConqueror, andofthe energywithwhich at thecloseofhis lifehecouldstillenforce the execution of agreat design. Nor must it beforgotten that all this wasdone in the teeth ofopposition from a reluctantcountry. And the finalproduct was commensuratewith the strength ofwill thatcreated it. Domesday Bookhas been correctly and

strikingly described byanotherauthorityas‘markingan epoch in the use of thewritten word ingovernment’.27 And it isscarcely an exaggeration toadd that there had been‘nothinglikeitsincethedaysofimperialRome’.28After the momentous

decisions of his Gloucestercourt at Christmas 1085,William moved through

southern England during themonths when the Domesdayinquestwasbeingconducted.He heard the EasterMass of1086 at Winchester, and atPentecost he was atWestminster, where heconferred knighthood on hissonHenry.Andthenhe

…travelledaboutsoastocometoSalisburyatLammas,andtherehiscouncillors came to him, and all

the people occupying land whowere of any account over allEngland whosoever's vassals theymightbe;andtheyallsubmittedtohim,andsworeoathsofallegianceto him that theywould be faithfultohimagainstallothermen.29

Itwasthesecondofthegreatadministrative acts of thesecriticalmonths.TheOath of Salisbury30 is

deservedly famous.But there

have been some who havesought to invest it with aconstitutional significancewhich it can hardly havepossessed. It has even beensuggested that there came toSalisbury on this occasion‘not only every feudaldependent of the king, buteveryfreemanandfreeholderwhatsoever’.31Itis,however,beyond the bounds ofpossibility that an assembly

ofthisnaturecouldhavebeenbrought together at SalisburyinAugust1086,andeventheknights who had beenenfeoffed by that time overall England were probablytoo numerous, and in manycases of too little socialimportance, for the king tohave wished for them all toattendameetingofhiscourt.Undoubtedly, the Salisburycourtwas one of exceptional

size and splendour, but the‘landowning men of anyaccount’ were probably themoreimportantmesnetenantsof the great honours,men ofsimilar social standing astheir lords, the ‘peers’ of thehonourswhosespecialroleinthe feudal administration ofEngland has already beennoted.32 Such an assembly,though large and imposing,would not have been of

inordinate size, and it wouldprecisely have served theking'simmediatepurpose.None the less, while

William is not to be creditedwith having on this occasionattempted to substitute somemore modern conception ofsovereignty for the positionhe held as king in the feudalstate, his acts, on thisoccasion,wereexceptionalintheir nature, and of high

importance. The specialposition of the king in thefeudal order of Anglo-Norman England, and thereasons for it, have alreadybeen analysed, and theproceedings at Salisbury in1086 did something to makethe royal authority moreeffective.Themeasurestakenby the king were certainlyunprecedented, and wereregarded as such, but they

werenot‘anti-feudal’intheirpurpose. Rather, they weredesigned to give additionalstrength to the feudalorganization which inEngland, from thecircumstances of theConquest, already possessedspecial features. TheSalisbury oath, like theDomesday inquest, of whichit was in some sense thecounterpart, was the king's

response to a challenge. TheAnglo-Norman kingdom wasfacing a crisis, and it wasclearlyimportantthatitsrulershould establish a closerelationwithallthegreatmenin England with a view tofortifying the militaryorganization on which herelied. Once again thepersonal dominance of KingWilliamwasdisplayed.Thecrisisitselfmightnow,

however,seemtobepassing.Cnut had assembled a largearmy, and collected a greatfleet in the Limfjord totransport it to England. Butthroughout the period of hispreparations he was facedwith disaffection among hissubjects, and in the ensuingdisturbances he was himselfcapturedand in July1086hewas murdered in the churchof Odensee.33 His death

meantthattheexpeditionhadto be abandoned, and theimmediate threat of aninvasion of England fromScandinavia was removed.Butthesituationnonethelessremained perilous. Robert,the king's son,was in revolt,and Odo, his half-brother,wasfosteringtreason.Robert,count of Flanders, was adeclaredenemy,andathomeEdgar Atheling showed

himselfsodisaffectedthattheking thought it prudent toallow him to depart forApuliawithno less than twohundredfollowers.Moreover,the former pattern of theattacksontheAnglo-Normankingdom was nowreproduced. During 1086William's attention hadinevitably been concentratedon England, and this gaveKingPhiliptheopportunityto

renewoperationsinFrance,Itis not surprising thereforethat, very shortly after theSalisbury court, theConquerormadepreparationsto return toNormandy.He isreported to have gone to theIsle of Wight, and to havebeen vigorous at this time incollecting additional taxes,doubtless to pay for moremercenary troops. About theend of 1086 he crossed over

toFrance,butwherehespentthe last Christmas of his lifeisnotknown.34William's movements

during the early months of1087 are, in fact, highlyobscure. The chroniclers aresilent on the matter, and thedocumentary evidence isdifficult to interpret. It wasdoubtless during themeetingoftheSalisburycourtthattheking issued two writs in

favourofMaurice, thenewlyappointed bishop ofLondon,35 and it wasprobably at some later datethat he gave to the abbey ofWestminster two furtherwrits,36oneofwhichisdated‘afterthesurveyofthewholeof England’. Finally, there isextant a confirmation madeabout this time in favour ofthe nunnery of Saint-Amandat Rouen,37 and this, which

wasgiveninthepresenceofaconsiderable number ofnotable witnesses, may bepresumedtohavebeenissuedafter the king's return toNormandy. These texts havean exceptional interest asbeing among the lastdocumentary products of theConqueror's rule, but theysupply little informationabouthisactivitiesduringtheclosingmonthsofhisreign.

There can be no doubt,however, that his mainpreoccupationcontinuedtobewith defence, and it is notsurprising that his attentionshould have been directedonce more to the long-standing threat latent in theFrench king's control of theVexin, which William hadbeen forced to accept in1077.38 In the interval,moreover, there had taken

place in this region a changewhich was favourable toWilliam's prospects. Sometime between July 1080 andChristmas 1081 the comté ofMeulan situated towards thesouthoftheVexinhadpassedbymarriageintothehandsofRobert of Beaumont, one ofthe duke's most trusted andpowerful supporters, so thathe now possessed a strongallyinthedebatableregion.39

For these reasons, when inthe late summer of 1087 theFrench king's garrison atMantes crossed over into theEvreçin and began to pillageNormandy, William decidedto retaliate in force.40 BeforeAugust 15 he launched anexpeditiondesigned to regaintheVexinforNormandy,andparticularly the towns ofMantes, Chaumont, andPontoise.41

The campaign whichfollowed was not only thelast,butalsooneof themostbrutal of the Conqueror'sreign. He crossed the Epte,andwithalargeforceharriedthecountrysideuptoMantes.Then, when the garrisonsallied out without dueprecaution,hefelluponthemwith a surprise attack. Theyretreatedinconfusionintothecity hotly pursued by

William's troops, and aterrible destructionfollowed.42Mantes itselfwassocompletelyburntthateventoday it ishard to find in thetown any traces of eleventh-century buildings.43 Suchbarbarity was inexcusable,but it raises the questionwhether William now, as onpreviousoccasions,meanthisruthlessness to be apreparation for more

extensive operations. Hiscampaign of 1087 is usually,and perhaps rightly,dismissed as an unimportantepisode notable only becauseof its tragic personal sequel.But Mantes is only somethirty miles from Paris, andWilliam with his greatresources ofmen andmoneymight conceivably havefollowed up his successwithfar-reaching consequences to

the future of the Frenchmonarchy. Such speculationsare, however, profitless, forthe conclusion was verydifferent.ThesackofManteswasthelastmilitaryactoftheConqueror, since as he rodethroughtheburningstreetsofthe town, calamity camesuddenlyuponhim.Somesaythat his horse, taking frightfrom the burning embers,threwthecorpulentkingwith

such force against the highpommelofhis saddle thathewas lethally ruptured; othersaffirm that he was suddenlyafflicted with some violentintestinal complaint. At allevents he was incapacitated.In the greatest pain hereturned from the devastatedVexin through the summerheat to Rouen. There herested. But his illness anddiscomfort increased daily,

andhefoundthenoiseofthecity intolerable. After somedays, he gave orders that heshouldbecarriedtotheprioryof Saint-Gervais on a hill inthe western suburbs, andthere he went, attended byGilbert Maminot, bishop ofLisieux, and Gontard, abbotof Jumièges, both of whomwere reputedly skilled inmedicine. He was obviouslydying.44

Two accounts of whattranspiredduringthelastdaysof the Conqueror's life havesurvived.Theonewaswrittenby an anonymous monk ofCaenshortlyaftertheevent.45The other is from the giftedpenofOrdericusVitaliswhowrote some fifty years later.Ordericus Vitalis wasconcerned to give a fulldescriptionofwhatherightlyconsidered to be a most

noteworthy occasion, and headoptedthedeviceofmakingthedyingkingreviewhislifein a long speechwhich is initself a notable summary oftheConqueror'scareer.46Thespeech itself is clearlyimaginative,butitmaysafelybe held to reproduce theauthentic atmosphere of thescene, and the backgroundpaintedbyOrdericusbearsallthe marks of authenticity,

since the writer, who washimself an acute observer,was familiar with Normantraditions and had, besides,many contacts with thosewho had been closelyconcerned.47 Indeed, hiselaborate descriptions canoften in their essentials beconfirmed by the morelaconic statements of themonkofCaen.It was a large company

which gathered round thedying king at the priory ofSaint-Gervais, but the twomost prominent members ofhis family were significantlyabsent.Robert,hiseldestson,was in revolt and keepingcompany with his father'schief enemy King Philip,whilst Odo, the powerfulbishop of Bayeux, was stillbeing held in captivity inRouen. Lanfranc too was

absent,since,loyaltothelast,he was looking after theking's interests in England.Buttheking'sothersurvivingsons were there, and withthem was his half-brotherRobert, count of Mortain,William Bonne-Ame,archbishop of Rouen, andmany others, includingGerard, his chancellor, andthe chief officials of hishousehold. The great king

was slowly dying inharrowing circumstances, buton his death-bed he wassurroundedbyanassemblagewhich was not essentiallydifferent from one of thegreat courts which hadsupported so many of themajor decisions of his reign.Itwas thus toaconcourseofmagnates who had shared inhiswork that hewas able tomake his final dispositions,

for, to the end, though inincreasing pain, he preservedtheclearnessofhismindandhispowerofspeech.48Inhisextremityhewasnot

unnaturally anxious to mendhissoul,andthoughthescenemay have been overcolouredby later writers for thepurposes of edification, thereis no reason to question thepiety he exhibited, or thepenitence he expressed,

particularlyforthebloodshedthat had been the inevitableprice of his achievement.Hemade his confession, andreceived absolution. Then hecommanded a lavishdistribution of alms, andmade the attendant clerksrecordwithparticularitythosewhowere tobenefit fromhisgifts. He made a specialdistribution to the clergy ofMantestorestorewhathehad

burnt, and he exhorted thosepresent to have a care afterhisdeathforthemaintenanceofjusticeandthepreservationof the faith. Finally, hecommanded that thosewhomhe held in prison should beset free, with the singleexception of the bishop ofBayeux. Here he foundhimself faced with theopposition of those whosurrounded him, and Robert,

count of Mortain, wasparticularly pressing indemanding his brother'srelease. The argument wasprolonged, and at length theking in sheerweariness gaveway, though not withoutinsisting on the fellconsequenceslikelytoensue.Odo was therefore released,and very soon he was to bepresent at the Conqueror'sfuneral.49

The disposal of the realmwas a matter of greatermoment. William expressedhimself with justifiablebitterness against his sonRobert whose disloyalty haddishonoured his father's age,and whom he judged to beunfittoruleunlessconstantlyadmonished and controlled.But once again, as in 1080,theNormanmagnates soughtto heal the breach between

fatherandson,andatlasttheking, having expressed hisforgiveness, consented tohonour his former promises,and formally committed theduchy of Normandy toRobert, his first-born son.The case of England was,however, different. Themotives here ascribed to theConqueror at a later date byOrdericus Vitalis areinteresting.According to this

highly coloured account,50the king was conscious thathe had acquired his royaltynotbyhereditaryrightbutbyjudgmentofbattle,andattheexpenseofcountlesslives.Hedared not, therefore, leave akingdom thuswon elsewherethan to God. But he hopedthatGodwouldgrantittohissecond surviving son,William,towhomhegavehissceptre, his sword, and his

crown.51 Conscious,moreover,ofthedisturbanceswhich would inevitablyfollowhisdeath,headdressedto Lanfranc in England asealed letter confirming hisacts, and he orderedWilliamto depart without delay. Theyoung man thereuponpromptly left his father'sdeath-bed,andridinginhastehad already reached WissantenrouteforEnglandwhenhe

heard of the Conqueror'sdeath. Finally, the king gaveto his son Henry aconsiderable sum of money,and he too immediately leftSaint-Gervais in order tosecureit.52These arrangements which

were directly to affect thefuture deserve somecomment. For instance, thegiftofmoneymadetoHenryhas sometimesbeen regarded

as meagre and inadequate,whereas in truth, viewed inrelation to eleventh-centuryvalues, it was substantial.53The treatment accorded toRobert and William mightlikewise be misunderstood.Themotiveshereassigned tothe Conqueror by Ordericuscontaincurioushints,bothofwhat might have beenEnglish feeling in thematter,andalsoofroyaltyconceived

as a God-given dignity. Butthe king's action could befurtherexplainedbyreferenceto contemporarycircumstances. As has beenseen,thesuccessionofRobertto Normandy had beenprepared by a long series ofevents,anditwasnotonlyhisincompetence and disloyaltywhich prevented hissuccession to England. TheConqueror was here

following the establishedpractice of the Normanaristocracy which was thattheNormanlandsofafamily(the lands of inheritance)shouldpasstotheeldestson,whereas the English lands(thelandsofconquest)shoulddevolve on the second son.This usage had been verygenerally adopted,54 and itwas a custom which in anyevent William might have

foundithardtoignore.Nonethe less, the resultwasa set-back to the Conqueror'spolicy. The separation ofNormandy fromEnglandhadfor long been a primeobjective of King Philip ofFrance, which William hadconsistently opposed.55 Nowthatobjectiveseemedtohavebeen attained, and the dyingking must have felt that hehad here suffered a last

reverse.Having made his

dispositions, William wasanointed, and received thesacrament from thearchbishop of Rouen,56 andthe final scene of his life isdescribed in a famouspassage from OrdericusVitalis, which, thoughdoubtless overcharged withemotion, may none the lessbeacceptedas trustworthy in

its main outlines. The kingpassed the night of 8Septemberintranquillity,andawoke at dawn to the soundof the great bell of RouenCathedral.

Onhisaskingwhatitsignified,hisattendants replied: ‘My lord, thebell is ringing for Prime in thechurch of Saint Mary.’ Then theking raised his eyes and lifted hishands and said: ‘I commend

myselftoMarytheholyMotherofGod, my heavenly Lady, that byher intercession I may bereconciled to her Son our LordJesusChrist.’Andhavingsaidthishedied.

Immediate confusionfollowed his passing, andsome of the attendantsbehaved as if they had losttheirwits.

Nevertheless, the wealthiest ofthem mounted their horses anddeparted in haste to secure theirproperty. Whilst the inferiorattendants, observing that theirmasters had disappeared, laidhands on the arms, the plate, thelinen, and the royal furniture, andhastened away, leaving the corpsealmost naked on the floor of thecell.57

William the Conqueror –

Duke William II ofNormandy,andKingWilliamI of England – died early inthe morning of Thursday, 9September1087.58Theblendoftheearthyand

the sublime in thesedescriptions of theConqueror's death were evenmore blatantly displayed inthe circumstances of hisburial. Itwasdecided thatheshould be interred in the

monastery of Saint Stephenwhich he had founded atCaen,butitwouldappearthatthere was at first somedifficulty in makingarrangements for the suitabletransportation of the body.None the less it was in duecourse borne down the Seineand then transported by landto the outskirts of Caen,where it was met by adistinguished company of

mourners. But the pomp ofthe procession wasinterrupted by an accidentalfire which broke out in thetown. At last, however, thechurchwasreached,andthereanotablecompanyassembledtohearMass,andto listentoa sermon by Gilbert, bishopof Lisieux. The king's son,Henry, and many laymagnates were present,togetherwith all theNorman

bishops and many Normanabbots, including the agedNicholas of Saint-Ouen, andalso Anselm from Le Bec.Thus at his funeral theConqueror was once againsurrounded by a Normancourt comparable to thosewhichhadsooftengracedhisreign.59Thedignityoftheoccasion

was, however, soondisrupted. One Ascelin, a

local worthy, protested thathe had been robbed of thegroundinwhichthekingwasto be buried, and claimedcompensation, which hereceived.60 And then a stillmore macabre episode tookplace, for the attendantsactually broke the unwieldybody when trying to force itintothestonecoffin,andsuchan intolerable stench filledthe church that the priests

were forced to hurry theservice to a close.61Norwaseven this the last outrage tobe inflicted on theConqueror's body. His sonWilliam caused a finememorial to be erected byOtto the goldsmith, and thiswith an inscription byThomas II, archbishop ofYork, was to surviveundisturbed until 1522.62 Inthat year, however, the tomb

was opened on instructionsfrom Rome, and the bodyhaving been examined wasreverentlyreinterred.63Butin1562 a complete devastationtookplaceatthehandsoftheCalvinists. The tomb wasrifled, the monumentsdestroyed, and the remains,with the exception of onethigh bone, scattered andlost.64 The single remainingrelic was, however,

preserved,andin1642itwasreburied under a newmonument which about acenturylaterwasreplacedbya more elaborate structure.Buteventhiswasnotallowedto endure.65 It wasdemolished in therevolutionary riots of 1793,andtodayasimplestoneslabwith a nineteenth-centuryinscription records what wasthe burial place of William

theConqueror.

1AS.Chron.,‘E’,s.a.1085.CnutIVbecamekingofDenmarkin1080insuccessiontohisbrotherHarold‘Hein’.HehadtakenpartintheexpeditionsagainstEnglandin1069and1075.

2AS.Chron.,‘E’,s.a.1085,1086.3Ibid.,s.a.1085.4Itneedhardlybesaidthatnoattemptisheremadetoreviewthesetheoriesindetail.The

importantrecentworkstowhichIhavebeenparticularlyindebtedare(inorderofpublication):DomesdayRebound(H.M.StationeryOffice,1954);R.WelldonFinn,TheDomesdayInquest(1961);andV.H.Galbraith,TheMakingofDomesdayBook(1961).TheearliereruditionwillbestbefoundinJ.R.Round,FeudalEngland(1895),andinF.W.Maitland,DomesdayBookand

Beyond(1897).Thesetwogreatbooks,thoughsavagelyhandledbyProfessorGalbraith,stillretainmuchoftheirvalue,andoftheirpowertoinspire.ReferencemayalsobemadetoDouglas,inHistory,vol.XXI(1936),pp.249–257;inDomesdayMonachorum(1944),pp.16–30;andinE.H.D.vol.II,pp.847–893.Bibliographieswillbefoundatpp.802–811ofthelast-namedwork,inA.Ballard,

TheDomesdayInquest(ed.1923),andinV.H.Galbraith,op.cit.,pp.231–233.

5Inadditiontothepassagesquoted,seeFlor.Worc.(vol.II,pp.18,19);Will.Malms.,GestaRegum,p.317;andtheWorcesterAnnalistprintedbyLiebermann(Anglo-NormannischeGeschichtsquellen,p.21).OtherearlyreferencestotheDomesdaysurveyaregivenin

E.H.D.,vol.II,nos.198–204.6AS.Chron.,‘E’,s.a.1085.7AddedbytheauthorasanotetotheChronicleofMarianusScotus.FirstprintedbyW.H.Stevenson,inEng.Hist.Rev.,vol.XXII(1907),p.74.

8ThelateCarlStephenson(MedievalInstitutions(ed.BruceD.Lyon,1954),p.188)reconstructedthesecircuitsasfollows:

(1)$Kent,Sussex,Surrey,

Hampshire,Berkshire.(2)$Wiltshire,Dorset,Somerset,Devonshire,Cornwall.

(3)$Middlesex,Hertford,Buckingham,Cambridge,Bedford.

(4)$Oxford,Northampton,Leicester,Warwick.

(5)$Gloucester,Worcester,Hereford,Stafford,Shropshire,Cheshire.

(6)$Huntingdon,Derby,Nottingham,Rutland,York,

Lincoln.(7)$Essex,Norfolk,Suffolk.ThenamesofsomeoftheDomesdaycommissionersareknown.ChiefofthemwouldappeartohavebeenGeoffrey,bishopofCoutances.ForWorcestershirethecommissionerswouldseemtohavebeenRemigius,bishopofLincoln,WalterGiffard,HenryofFerrières,andAdam,sonofHubertofRyes(cf.Galbraith,

op.cit.,pp.8,36).9E.H.D.,vol.II,no.215.10EditedbyAbrahamFarley,andprintedintwofoliovolumesin1783bytheRecordCommission.TranslationsforvariouscountiesareincludedintheVictoriaHistoryoftheCountiesofEngland.

11PrintedbytheRecordCommissionasasupplementaryvolumetotheireditionofDomesdayBook(vol.III,1816).

TheshiresconsideredareWiltshire,Dorset,Somerset,Devonshire,Cornwall.

12E.H.D.,vol.II,no.314;VictoriaCountyHistory,Cambridgeshire,vol.I,pp.400–437.

13This,crudelystated,isthetheorydevelopedwithawealthoferuditionbyRound,op.cit.,pp.3–147.

14V.H.Galbraith,op.cit.Thefullscopeofthis‘hypothesis’andits

implicationscanonlybeappreciatedbyreferencetothedetailedevidenceonwhichitisbased.

15Perhapstheirchieffunctionwasinadjudicatingondisputedclaims.

16These‘books’mightthusperhapsbeheldtobebasedoncircuits(2)and(7)asindicatedabove.

17Round,loc.cit.18D.B.,vol.II,fol.450:the

colophontothe‘LittleDomesday’.

19RobertLosinga(seeabove,p.349);theWorcesterAnnalist(Liebermann,op.cit.,p.21)refersto‘multiscladibus’.

20s.a.1086.21Douglas,Essays–JamesTait,pp.47–57.

22e.g.D.B.,vol.I,fols.207,208,375–378.

23Op.cit.,p.215.24Cf.Douglas,inHistory,vol.XXI

(1936),p.255.25Stenton,inEng.Hist.Rev.,vol.

XXXVII,p.250.26Stenton,Anglo-SaxonEngland,p.610.

27Galbraith,StudiesinthePublicRecords,p.90.

28ItisinterestingtonotethataWinchesterannalist(AnnalesMonastici,vol.II,p.34)alludestothesurveythus:‘EdictumaregeexiituttotaAngliadescriberetur.’Thisisclearlyan

echooftheGospelfortheFirstMassofChristmas:‘ExiitedictumaCaesareAugustoutdescriberaturuniversusorbis.’

29AS.Chron.,‘E’,s.a.1085(equals1086).

30ThemostimportantrecentdiscussionsareinStenton,EnglishFeudalism,pp.111–113andH.A.Cronne,inHistory,vol.XIX(1934),pp.248–252.

31Stubbs,ConstitutionalHistory,vol.I,p.299.

32Above,pp.275,280,281.33Stenton,WilliamtheConqueror,p.364.

34AS.Chron.,‘E’,loc.cit.35Gibbs,EarlyChartersofStPaul's,nos.5,12.MauricebecamebishopofLondoninoraboutApril1086,andthementioninbothdocumentsofOsmund,bishopofSalisbury,perhapssuggeststheoccasionwhenthesewritswereissued.

36Thesearegiveninfacsimileas

platesXXIVandXXVinBishopandChaplais,EnglishRoyalWritstoA.D.1100.TheeditorsshowconclusivelythatboththesewritswereissuedbytheConqueror.Theyplacethemin1087.Thisisprobablycorrect,butitmayberemarkedthatboththesewritsareEnglishinorigin,andthatoneofthemisinthehandofaknownscribeintheEnglishchancery.Doesthissuggestthatthekingwas

himselfinEnglandwhentheyweregiven?Ifso,itmightbenecessaryeithertoplacethemattheendof1086,or,alternatively,topostulateavisitbythekingtoEnglandinthespringof1087.Intheabsenceofanyevidencetothecontraryitisusually,anddoubtlesscorrectly,assumedthatWilliamcrossedtheChannel(toNormandy)forthelasttimeabouttheendof1086.

37LeCacheux,HistoiredeSaintAmand,p.252,no.13.

38Above,p.234,235.39CompletePeerage,vol.VII,p.524;J.Depoin,Cart.deS.MartindePontoise,pp.308–316.

40Ord.Vit.,vol.III,p.222.41AS.Chron.,‘E’,s.a.1085(equals1086).Ord.Vit.(vol.III,p.225)saysthattheexpeditionstartedinthelastweekofJuly.

42Ord.Vit.,vol.III,p.225.

43Freeman,NormonConquest,vol.IV,pp.701–703.

44Will.Malms.,GestaRegumpp.336,337;AS.Chron.,loc.cit.;Ord.Vit.,vol.III,pp.226,227.

45PrintedbyJ.MarxinhiseditionofWill.Jum.AtranslationisgiveninE.H.D.,vol.II,no.6.

46Ord.Vit.,vol.III,pp.228–243.47Ordericushad,forinstance,closeconnexionswiththedioceseofLisieux,andGilbert,whowasbishopofLisieuxfrom

1077to1101,wasincloseattendanceontheConquerorduringhislastdays.

48MonkofCaen;Ord.Vit.,vol.III,p.228.

49MonkofCaen;Ord.Vit.,vol.III,pp.228,245,248,251.

50Ord.Vit.,vol.III,pp.242,243.51MonkofCaen.52Ord.Vit.,vol.III,p.244.53Thesumgivenwas£5,000.Perhapsthismightbemultipliedbyseventyoreightytogivea

modernvaluation,butthereckoningisinnowayprecise.

54Examplescouldbemultiplied.TheinstancesoffitzOsbern,Montgomery,Harcourt,andMontfort-sur-Rislecometomind.

55Above,chap.9.56MonkofCaen.57Ord.Vit.,vol.III,pp.248,249.58TheMonkofCaengives10September,but9SeptemberisgivenbytheAS.Chron.andby

Ord.Vit.9Septemberiscertainlycorrect.TheanniversarywascelebratedatJumiègeson9Septemberasisindicatedbythenecrologyofthatabbey(Rec.Hist.Franc.,vol.XXIII,p.421).

59MonkofCaen;Ord.Vit.,vol.III,p.251.Allthesecametotheobsequiesofthis‘renownedbaron’(famosibaronis).Thephraseisstrictlyreminiscentofthe‘SongofRoland’.

60Ord.Vit.,vol.III,pp.252,253;Will.Malms.,GestaRegum,pp.337,338.

61Ord.Vit.,vol.III,pp.254,255.TherepulsivestoryisonlygivenbyOrd.Vit.,butitcanhardlyhavebeeninvented.

62MonkofCaen;Ord.Vit.,vol.III,p.356.ForOttotheGoldsmithandhispossessionsinEngland,seeDouglas,FeudalDocuments,no.20,andD.B.,vol.II,fols.97b,286b.HenryI

ofEnglandalsocontributedtothemonument(Will.Malms.,GestaRegum,p.337).

63C.Hippeau,L'abbayedeSaint-ÉtiennedeCaen(1855),pp.169,170.

64Ibid.,p.181.65Ibid.,p.354.Whereisthethigh-bonenow?Freeman(op.cit.,vol.IV,p.273)statesthatitwasdestroyedin1793.ButopinioninCaentodayisthatitisstillinthegrave.

EPILOGUE

Thus ended the life ofWilliam the Conqueror, ‘andthis was the last end of allthat was mortal in himbesides his fame’.1 Abiographer is always apt toexaggerate the importance ofthe man he portrays, andundoubtedlythemaininterest

of the historical processwhichhasherebeensurveyedliesoutside the careerof anyindividual, however eminent.The Norman conquest ofEngland (which was thecentral event in that process)was perhaps the mostrevolutionary event inEnglish history between theConversion and theReformation. It gave toEngland a new monarchy, a

feudal polity of a specialtype, a reconstituted Church,and a changed concentrationon a new set of political andintellectual ideas. But, at thesametime,itwassoachievedas to ensure the essentialcontinuityofEnglish life.Bycombining much that wasnewwiththerevivalofmuchthat was old, it went far todetermine the highlyindividual character of

medievalEngland.Transformations of this

magnitudecannotbe referredsimplytoasinglepersonality.Still less are they to beassessed by means ofjudgments inspired by thepreoccupations of laterperiods–themoreespeciallyas these may often dependupon religious political andsocial criteria which arethemselves open to dispute.

By what ultimate standardshould one compare theChurchofLanfrancwith thatof Aldred, the spirituality ofJohn of Fécamp with that ofWulfstan, the virtues andvices of the Anglo-Normanaristocracywiththoseoftheirpredecessors in England?How should one judge withanyfinalitytherelativemeritsof English politicalconnexions in the Middle

Ages with France andScandinavia? How – again –should one place in thebalance the literaryproductionofÆlfricwiththatof St Anselm, or weigh themerits of the vernacularannals of the Anglo-Saxonchronicleragainstthoseofthegreat Latin history ofOrdericus Vitalis, monk ofSaint-Évroul who, be it said,was also Anglicanus? The

most that can be donetowards assessing thesechanges is to place them intheir contemporary setting.The Norman conquest ofEngland was prepared byprevious history; it dependedupon the developing powerand policy of a uniqueprovince;anditderivedfroma complex of politicalrelations which before 1066had come to enmesh France,

Scandinavia, Italy, andmuchofwesternEurope. Its results(forgoodorill)werenotonlypolitical and mundane: theywere also social,ecclesiastical, and cultural.Andtheystretchedwide.Theestablishment of the Anglo-Norman kingdom altered thepoliticalbalanceofEurope.Itconditioned much of thefuturehistoryofFrance.Andit modified the internal

structure, and the externalinfluence, of westernChristendom in the MiddleAges.Theprolongedcrisisofthe

central decades of theeleventh century – socomplex in its causes and sopervasive in its results – fartranscends in importance theexploits of any one man.Nevertheless,whenallproperqualifications have been

made,itstillremainsdifficultto explain the momentousdevelopments which thentook place without referencetoWilliam'sowninfluenceonevery one of the politicalmovements which have herebeen examined. A man'splace in history depends onthe extent to which he canmould, and also respond to,theneedsofhistime.Buthisability to do so derives from

his own qualities, and hisopportunities in this respectareenhanced inanagewhengovernment is essentiallypersonal.Forthesereasons,iffor no others, William'scharacter and personalitymust challenge attention,since they were among thefactors in the making ofEnglandandofEurope.What did he look like –

this man who made such a

profound impression on hiscontemporaries? Therepresentations ofWilliam inthe Bayeux Tapestry, on hisseal in England, and on thecoins which were struck forhim as king, are too stylizedto give any clear idea of hispersonal appearance. But theliterary evidence is moreilluminating. A Normanmonk, who may well haveseenhim,describedhimas a

burly warrior with a harshgutteralvoice,greatinstaturebut not ungainly.2Writers inEngland say that he wasmajestic, ‘both when seatedand standing’, though theexcessive corpulence whichlaterdisfiguredhimdoubtlessbegan in his middle years.3He enjoyed remarkably goodhealth, we are told, until thevery end of his life, and hisexceptional physical strength

is often noted. William ofPoitiers and William ofJumièges dilate on hisprowessinthefieldofbattle,and there are plenty ofexamples of his capacity toendure great physicalhardship.4 It is a compositedescription which, drawnfrom so many sources,inspiresconfidence.It can, moreover, be

supplementedbytestimonyof

a special character. When in1522William's tombatCaenwasopenedforthefirsttime,the body in its original stonecoffin was found to be in astate of good preservation,and, according to an earlyaccount,itwasthatofalargeman with notably long armsandlegs.5Thisdetailalsocanbe confirmed. For the singlefemur which escaped thesubsequent destructions by

Calvinists, when measured,was found to indicate a manwho must have been somefivefeetteninchesinheight.6Finally, there is yet anotherpiece of evidence to record.When the tomb was firstopenedin1522aportraitwasdrawn from the remains, andthis, painted on wood, washung over the sepulchre. Indue course it too wasdestroyed, but there survives

at Caen an extraordinarypicture made early in theeighteenthcenturywhichmaywell be a copy of thesixteenth-century painting.7This depicts a large anddominatingmonarch,massiveinbulk,withfull-fleshedfaceandrussethair.Heisdressedin themannerof a sixteenth-century king, and heresembles closely the famouscontemporary portraits of

Henry VIII of England. Toomuchreliancemustobviouslynot be placed upon a pictureof this character and of thisdate.8 But taken inconjunction with the otherevidence it may notunreasonably be supposed toreflect insomemeasurewhatwas in fact the personalappearance of William theConqueror.This portlywarrior, robust

and domineering, may becontrastedphysicallywiththewifewhomhewonwithsuchdifficulty, andwithwhomhewas so closely associated.Contemporaries, who werefully conscious of herinfluence speak frequently ofhervirtues,butseldomofherappearance,buthere too it ispossible to utilize somespecial testimony. Matilda'stomb in the church of Holy

Trinity, Caen, suffereddevastation comparable tothat which destroyed thesepulchre of her husband inSaint Stephen's. The originalcoffinwasthusdestroyed,butin her case the bones weresaved, and having beenplaced in a small casket theywere reburied under theoriginal and beautiful stoneslab which, with itsinscription, still remains in

the church.9 In 1961,moreover, this casket wasitself disinterred, and itscontents examined withremarkable results.10 For thebones proved to be those ofan extremely small womanwhoseheightcanhardlyhaveexceeded fifty inches. Thepicture thus suggested issurely challenging. Nor is itwithoutinteresttoreflectthatthe famous duchess and

queen, who could act as oneof William's regents inNormandy, and who on atleast one occasion opposedthe will of her formidablehusband, may have been alady of this diminutive size.William and his wife whenthronedandadornedatoneoftheirsolemncrown-wearings,surrounded by the greatNormanecclesiastics,andtheNorman warrior aristocracy,

mustintruthhaveappearedaremarkablecouple.As to William's personal

character there is no need torepeat the astonishinglydiverse judgments whichpropagandahas inspiredoverthecenturies.11Itisfortunate,however, that there havesurvived two contemporarydescriptions made by menwhoknewhim.Oneof thesewas written shortly after his

deathbyamonkatCaen,anditdeservesquotation:

This king excelled in wisdom allthe princes of his generation, andamongthemallhewasoutstandingin the largeness of his soul. Henever allowed himself to bedeterred from prosecution of anyenterprise because of the labour itentailed, and he was everundaunted by danger. So skilledwashe inhis appraisalof the true

significance of any event, that hewas able to cope with adversity,and to take full advantage inprosperous times of the ficklepromises of fortune.Hewas greatin body and strong, tall in staturebut not ungainly. He was alsotemperate in eating and drinking.Especially was he moderate indrinking, for he abhorreddrunkenness in all men, anddisdained it more particularly inhimselfandathiscourt.Hewasso

sparing in his use of wine andother drink that after his meal herarely drank more than thrice. Inspeech he was fluent andpersuasive, being skilled at alltimesinmakingknownhiswill.Ifhis voicewas harsh, what he saidwasalwayssuited to theoccasion.He followed the Christiandiscipline in which he had beenbrought up as a child, andwhenever his health permitted heregularly and with great piety

attended Christian worship eachmorning and evening, and at thecelebrationofMass.12

This remarkable descriptionechoes an earlier account ofCharlemagne himself, whichin its turn is dependant onSuetonius, and while it mustof course be received withproper discrimination,13 it isnottobesetaside.Itmustberegarded as an impressive

tribute made by a man whowasinapositiontoknowthefacts.It needs, however, to be

compared with the estimateoftheConquerormadeaboutthe same time by anEnglishmanwhohad ‘lookedupon him and once lived athis court’.14 Here againWilliam appears as ‘a verywiseman,andverypowerfuland more worshipful and

strongerthananypredecessorof his had been’. But he isshown also as a harsh andviolentoppressor, andasonewho was himself brutal,avaricious, and cruel. Thebalanced nature of thisnotable assessment isindicated by its conclusion.‘Thesethingswehavewrittenabout him both good andbad.’These early accounts of

WilliamtheConquerorareofthe highest interest, and it isimportanttoconsiderhowfartheycanbeconfirmed.Thereisnodoubt,for instance, thatWilliam shared in thesavagery which marred somanyof the secular rulersofhisage,andinonerespecthewas held in England to havebeen exceptional in hiswanton disregard of humansuffering. There is no reason

to question the tradition thatthe New Forest wasmade athis instigation,andwritersofthe twelfth century foundlittle difficulty in assertingthat it was divine vengeancefor this crime which causedso many members of hisfamilytoperishatthatplace:hissecondsonRichardabout1075;histhirdsonWilliamin1100; and his grandsonRichard (Robert's bastard) at

some other date.15 Theamount of devastation whichwas in fact involved hasperhaps been exaggerated,16but certainly many villageswere depopulated and therewas doubtless somedestruction of churchproperty.17Andevenmoretobe deplored were the savagepenalties threatened againstthose who robbed the royalgame. The Anglo-Saxon

chronicler breaks intodoggerelverseatthispointtoventhisindignation:

Hemadegreatprotectionforthegame

Andimposedlawsforthesame

ThatwhoslewhartorhindShouldbemadeblindHepreservedthehartsandboars

Andlovedthestags

Asifheweretheirfather.18

Itisinfactasorryindictment,and there is moreover nodoubt that the forest lawwhich came to becharacteristic of medievalEnglandwas in its essentialsan importation fromNormandy.19 None the less,themattershouldbeplacedinits context. William came

from a province which, thenasnow,wasplentifully filledwith forests, and the ducalrights therein are attested ineleventh-century charters.20But in England, too, beforetheConquest,theroyalforestartificially created andfiercely protected was afamiliar institution.21 Cnutlaid heavy penalties on thosewhohuntedinhisforests,andEdward theConfessor shared

in the passion for the sport.The Conqueror undoubtedlyincreased the royal forests inEngland, and with callouscruelty, but he did not createthe conditions which madesuchactspossible,norwashealoneintheirperpetration.Amore serious indictment

against William in thisrespectcouldindeedbemadein connexion with thebrutality which marred so

many of his campaigns. Thehorrors at Alençon in 1051were matched by those atMantes in 1087, and themarchroundLondonin1066was accompanied bywholesale devastation.Yet ifthese acts are not to bepalliated, they were notwanton or purposeless. Thesack of Alençon ended theresistance of Domfront; in1066 the destruction of

Romney made possible thebloodless occupation ofDover; the isolation ofLondon in the same yearcould be defended as astrategic measure; and afterthe surrender of Exeter in1068 William successfullyprevented plundering by histroops.Thedevastationofthenorth of England in 1069–1070wasofcourseofamorelethal and terrible character,

and it is hard to find anyexcuse for it even byreference to the crisis whichthen threatened the Anglo-Norman kingdom fromNorthumbria and fromScotland, Norway, andMaine. William was withoutdoubt, on occasion, bestiallycruel. But it might, none theless, be possible to indulgehere in too complacent acondemnation. He was not

the first king of England –nor the last – to lay waste acountrysideforhissport,andthe twentieth century hasperhaps little right to sit injudgment on the eleventh inthematterofruthlesswarfare.William was stained with

blood. But his avarice wasalmostequallyrepulsive.Thisappears in most of theaccounts,andEnglandwasofcourse the chief victim. It is

true that his greed wasoccasioned chiefly by hisneed for mercenaries, buteven so his rapacity wasinfamous, and the distress itcaused widespread. Theruthlessness with which heexactedmoneyfromEnglandmust be set against theefficient administration heprovided. His taxes weresavage, and they wereimposed without mercy and

oftenwithoutequity:

HehadcastlesbuiltAndpoormenhardoppressed

Thiskingwassoverystark

Anddeprivedhissubjectsofmanyamark

Ofgoldandmorehundredsofpoundsofsilver

Thathetookbyweight

andwithlittlejusticeFromhispeoplewithlittleneed

ForsuchadeedIntoavaricedidhefallAndlovedgreedinessaboveall.22

No wonder that theDomesday inquiry in 1086caused riots, for he then‘acted according to hiscustom, that is to say he

obtainedaverygreatamountof money wherever he hadanypretextforitwhetherjustorotherwise’.23The other side of the

pictureis,however,not tobeignored. It was this sameEnglishman who afterdescribing the harshness ofWilliam's government notedhis patronage of the Church;the majesty of his crown-wearings; his regal dignity

and the respect it inspired;and above all the good orderpromoted by his sternadministration. ‘No onehowever powerful dared doanythingagainsthiswill’,andas a result ‘any honest mancouldtraveloverhiskingdomwithoutinjurywithhisbosomfull of gold, and no mandared strike [?or kill]another’. This was a strongandpitilessking.Buthewas

not simply a self-regardingtyrant,norwasheregardedassuch by those he ruled. Theseverity of his administrationthey had felt for themselves,but having experienced also‘thegoodsecurityhemadeinthis country’, they left it toGod to judge his ruthlesssuppressionofdisorder.24Itwas a charitable verdict,

for the personal portraitwhich emerges is

undoubtedlyrepellent.Itwas,however, a duty imposedupon medieval royalty toprovide strong justice, andany eleventh-century kingmust have had much ado tosave his soul. Nor incontemplating William'scareer is it possible not toshare, in some measure, theadmiration felt bycontemporaries for thecourage and determination

which informed it. Williamdisplayed the ineluctableconnexion betweenpersonality and power, anddemonstrated how, in theshaping of events, decisionandfortitudemaybeofmoreimportance than materialresources, and how purpose,if it be inflexible,mayproveultimately decisive.Doubtless, his character hadbeen bitterly annealed during

his terrible childhood, andduring the years when inyouth he had waged againstodds his long war forsurvival.Buttheremusthavebeen a wonderful strength inthis man which enabled himto rise from his bastardbeginnings to a plenitude ofpower, and to elicit from thehard-faced men whosurrounded him the supportwhich alone made possible

his success. Only thus wasthisNorman duke enabled toreach a dominant position inthe crisis which overtookwestern Christendom in histime, so that he could makehis own contribution towardslinking the destinies ofmedieval Englandwith thoseofLatinEuropeatamomentwhen its political andecclesiastical structure wasbeing formed (partly through

his acts) into the patterncharacteristic of the highMiddleAges.His energy likewise

deserves somecommemoration. Between1051 and 1054, for example,when still in his twenties heconducted a campaign inMaine;he tookpossessionofRouen; he captured Arques;hequelledagreatrebellioninUpper Normandy; he

organized the defence of hisduchy against the fullstrength of the French king;he convoked the council ofLisieux; and he deposed anarchbishop of Rouen.Throughout his life hisactivity was constant and hewas ever on the move. Thushis great war in Maine in1073 followed very closelyuponhiscampaignlateintheprevious year on the

threshold of the Highlands,and his frequent passages toand fro across the Channelwere probably morenumerous than those whichcan be specifically recorded.Ofthequalityofhisvigorousleadership there can be nodoubt, and something of itsnaturecanbeseeninmanyofthe incidents of his life. Aswhen, for instance, heprevented a large force of

undisciplined mercenariesfrom plundering the Normancountryside, or when on thatfatefulnightof27September1066 he lost touch with hisfleet, and finding himselfalone in mid-Channel, withallhisfortunesinthebalance,he thereupon feasted ‘as if athome’ to restore the courageof his men.25 Inherentauthoritymade him amasterofmen.

Assuredlyhewasamantofear. ‘Earls he had in hisfetters – he expelled bishopsfrom their sees, and abbotsfrom their abbacies; he putthegns in prison and finallyhe did not spare his ownbrotherOdo.’26 On the otherhand, with the exception ofWaltheof, the justice ofwhose fate remains a subjectof controversy, few if any ofthe magnates who

unsuccessfully opposed himin Normandy, or England,beforeorafter1066,suffereddeath after they weredelivered intohis hands.Thestorieslatercirculatedthatheresorted to poison arecertainly apocryphal,27 andno violent death ever allegedagainstWilliamissohorribleasthebutcheryoftheathelingAlfred in 1036, or thedisgustingmurder in1049of

Beorn in the ships ofSweyn.28 On occasion, too,the Conqueror could besurprisingly lenient toopponentswhocame intohispower.HistreatmentofNigelofSaint-Sauveur,orofCountWilliam of Arques, or ofEdgartheathelingmightevenbedescribedasgenerous.There was in fact an

element of paradox in hischaracter. His brutalities, his

avarice, and his oppressionsspeak for themselves, andthey were lamentable. But itwould be wholly false toregardhimasacruderuffian,or as simply a sanguinarybrute. It was not merelybecause of his overtpatronage of the Church thathe won the respect of manyof his most illustriouscontemporaries. Hisecclesiastical appointments

were, generally speaking,good; his co-operation withLanfranc did credit to themboth; and the popewhomheopposed paid tribute to hisrespect for religion. Hispersonal piety wasundoubtedly sincere; he wasabstemious in the matter offood and drink; and hiscontinence was regarded asexceptional. He was capableof affection, and sometimes

abletoinspireit.Hecouldonoccasion even be affable andgenerous. Indeed, it was thissurprising trait in hischaracter that cameprominentlyintothemindsofthat little group whichassembled in an upper roomat Caen after his funeral toreflect upon the vicissitudesof his astonishing career.29Heremainsthensomethingofan enigma: admirable;

unlovable;dominant;distinct.His private character was

reflected inhispublicpolicy,andfewstudentsoftheeventswhich have here beenrecorded will be tempted tounderestimate his personalcontribution to the history ofhis age. As duke, theconcentration of Normanpower and the developmentofNormanpolicyowedmuchto his direction. In 1066 his

diplomacy was as notable aswashismilitary capacity.Asking of England heestablished without anarchy,though by spoliation, a newfeudal order. He, helped totransform the conditions ofEnglish ecclesiastical life.Finallyhenotonlypreservedthekingdomhehadwon,buthe vitalized many of itsancient institutions.Hemadehismark on all the countries

heruled,andhisdeath,whenit came, was widely held topresage disaster. It was notfor nothing that so many ofhisgreaterfollowersthenleftthe world to spend their lastdaysinmonasticseclusion,orthatagreatfearspreadamonglesser folk who apprehendedthe disturbances that wouldfollowhispassing.He was, of course, the

product of his time, and his

achievement was dependentupon developments inNormandy and England, inFrance and Italy over whichhe had little control. But itwas the mark of hisconstructive statesmanshipthatheattunedhispurposetothe conditions of the criticalage in which he lived. Hebestrode his generation, buthealsoservedit:heseized,aswellascreated,opportunities.

If hemagnified themight ofNormandy he derived fromthe Norman past, and if heconquered England heresuscitated many Englishtraditions. His essentialgreatnessistobefoundinthepermanence of what heachieved. The Normanconquest would have beenimpossible without him, andwithouthimits resultswouldhavebeenverydifferent.The

futurehistoryofEnglandandof Europe was substantiallymodifiedbyhisacts:

Verely,hewasaverygreatPrince:full of hope to undertake greatenterprises, full of courage toatchieue them: in most of hisactions commendable, andexcusable in all.And thiswas notthe least piece of hisHonour, thatthe kings of England whichsucceeded,didaccompttheirorder

onely from him: not in regard ofhis victorie in England, butgenerally in respect of his vertueandvalour.30

So, in 1613, wrote JohnHayward of William theConqueror. And his words –those of a contemporary ofShakespeare – may aptlyserve as a conclusion to thisbook.

1JohnHayward,TheLivesoftheIIINormans,KingsofEngland(1613),p.22.

2MonkofCaen.3Will.Malms.,GestaRegum,p.335;AS.Chron.,s.a.1086(equals1087).

4Will.Poit.,pp.36,196–199;Will.Jum.,pp.122,123;Will.Malms.,loc.cit.

5C.Hippeau,L'abbayedeSaint-ÉtiennedeCaen(1855),pp.169,170,181.

6Ibid.,p.182.7Ibid.,pp.181,182;deBouard,GuillaumeleConquérant,p.124.

8ItwillberecalledthatHenryVIIIhadvisitedFrancein1520forthe‘FieldoftheClothofGold’.

9ReproducedinJ.S.Cotman,ArchitecturalAntiquitiesofNormandy(1822),asplateXXXIIIinvol.I.

10InformationsuppliedbyProfessordeBouard.

11Apartfromthetwocontemporaryaccounts,perhapsthebestdescriptionsofWilliamtheConqueroraretobefoundinthemagnificentdeath-bedspeechputbyOrdericusintothemouthofthedyingking(Ord.Vit.,vol.II,pp.401–418),andtheestimatewhichLordLyttletonincludedinhisHistoryofKingHenryII,vol.I(1767),pp.49–52.Iconfess,moreover,toadmirationforthelapidary

conclusionofProfessorSouthern.‘Williamhadanundauntedmasteryoftheproblemsofthesecularworld–thatistosayofothermen'swills–inbothfightingandrulingunapproachedincreativepowerbyanyothermedievalrulerafterCharlemagne’(SaintAnselmandhisBiographer(1963),p.4).

12PrintedinWill.Jum.atp.145.TranslatedinE.H.D.,vol.II,no.6.

13TheauthorwasaNormanproudoftheNormanachievementwhichWilliamhadbroughttofulfilment.HewasalsoamonkofanabbeywhichWilliamhadfounded.

14AS.Chron.,‘E’,s.a.1086(equals1087).

15Cf.Will.Malms.,GestaRegum,pp.332,333.

16PossiblybyOrd.Vit.(vol.IV,p.32),certainlybyFreeman(NormanConquest,vol.IV,pp.

611–613).17ThechiefauthorityisF.Baring(Eng.Hist.Rev.,vol.XVI(1901),pp.427etsqq.;andibid.,vol.XXVII(1912),pp.513etsqq.).HisconclusionsaresummarizedbyC.Petit-Dutaillis(StudiesSupplementarytoStubbs'ConstitutionalHistory,vol.II,p.171)thus:‘WilliamIfoundinacornerofHampshire75,000acresofalmostdesertedcountry,andofthishemadeaforest.He

added,however,fifteenortwentythousandacresofinhabitedlandonwhichtherewereascoreofvillagesandadozenhamlets;anddoubtlessthroughfearofpoaching,heevicted500familiesnumberingabout2,000persons.’

18AS.Chron.,‘E’,s.a.1086(equals1087);translatedbyS.I.Tucker.

19Petit-Dutaillis,loc.cit.20L.Delisle,Classeagricole,pp.

334etsqq.21Stenton,Anglo-SaxonEngland,p.674.

22AS.Chron.,‘E’,s.a.1086(equals1087);translatedbyS.I.Tucker.

23Ibid.,s.a.1085(equals1086).24AS.Chron.,‘E’,s.a.1086(equals1087).

25Will.Poit.,p.163.26AS.Chron.,‘E’,loc.cit.27Below,AppendixF.28AS.Chron.,‘C’,s.a.1036;‘D’,

s.a.1050(equals1049).EarlGodwinewaslaterheldtohavebeenresponsibleforthemurderofAlfred(below,pp.412,413),andthisSweynwasGodwine'ssonandtheelderbrotherofKingHarold.

29HughofFlavigny(Mon.Germ.Hist.Scriptores,vol.VIII,p.407).

30JohnHayward,TheLivesoftheIIINormans,KingsofEngland(1613),p.122.

APPENDIXA

ThebirthofWilliamtheConqueror,andtheconnexionsofHerleve

William the Conqueror wasthe bastard son of Robert I,duke of Normandy. He wasborn at Falaise, and hismotherwasHerleve,agirlofthattown.

If, however, these factsrespecting William's birthmay be thus baldly stated, itmust be added that all thecircumstances surroundingthe event are obscure, andthattheevidencerelatingtoitis tenuous and contradictory.Thus,WilliamofPoitiershasherenopreciseinformationtoimpart; William of Jumiègesmerely records Robert'spaternity; and William of

Malmesbury, who gives agraphic account of Robert'sfirstencounterwithWilliam'smother,doesnotmentionhername or the place where themeeting took place.1Herleve'snameseemstohavebeen supplied for the firsttime by Ordericus Vitalis;2and thatWilliamwasbornatFalaise appears first to havebeencategoricallyassertedbywriters of the twelfth

century.3 There was, indeed,a later legend that Herlevewas of Flemish stock, andthat William was born atRouen.4Butsuchstorieshavenothing to commend them.5The tradition that theConqueror was born atFalaise is very strong, andcan (as will be seen) besupported by circumstantialevidence. Itmaybe acceptedwithoutunduemisgiving.

The origins of Herlevewere humble. Contemporarywriters are discreetly silentabout her father, butOrdericus Vitalis gives hisname as Fulbert, and alsotells thatwhenata laterdateWilliam was besiegingAlençon, the defenderswaved hides and skins fromthe walls to taunt the dukewiththefactthathismother'srelatives were polinctores.6

The very firm tradition thatHerleve's fatherwas a tanneris thus supported, and thetanneries of Falaise werefamous. Itmust,however,benoted that thewordpolinctorcould more readily betranslated as embalmer.7 Theconclusionwould seem tobethatHerleve'sfatherwasveryprobably named Fulbert, andthat Fulbert was veryprobably a tanner, but

perhaps amanwho preparedcorpsesforburial.ThedateofWilliam'sbirth

has been exhaustivelydiscussed.Ihaveacceptedtheconclusions of M. HenriPrentout,asreinforcedbythetestimonyexaminedbyMrL.C.LoydandMrG.H.Whitein the Complete Peerage.8Theevidenceis,however,notas conclusive as might bewished. In the death-bed

speech, which OrdericusVitalisputsintothemouthofWilliam the Conqueror, it isstated that at that time (i.e.9September 1087) Williamwas sixty-four years of age,andthiswouldputhisbirthinor about 1023.9 In view ofother testimony, this may beconfidentlysetaside.Williamof Malmesbury remarks thatwhen Robert I departed onpilgrimage, that is to say in

January 1035 or at the veryearliestattheendof1034,theConqueror was seven yearsold,10andOrdericussaysthathe was then a boy of eightyears.11TheseremarkswouldplaceWilliam'sbirth in1027or early in 1028. Similarly,William is said to have beeneight years old when RobertdiedinJuly1035.12Itwillappearhowdifficult

itistogiveprecisiontothese

remarks, many of whichmight be translated withalmost equal propriety as ‘inhis seventh (or eighth) year’,or ‘seven (or eight) yearsold’. Ordericus, and indeedWace, are, moreover, self-contradictory. An earlynarrativeDeObituWillelmi13written by a monk of Caenbeforetheendoftheeleventhcentury states, however, thatin September 1087 William

was in the fifty-ninthyearofhis life.14 This statementcarries higher authority thanthe others which have beencited. If taken literally, itwould place William's birthbetween 9 September 1028and 9 September 1029. Inview, however, of the othertestimony which inclines toan earlier date, I am myselfdisposed to place theConqueror'sbirthearlywithin

theselimits.Adateduringtheautumnof1028hasthereforehere been adopted, but thematter cannot be regarded asfinallysettled.It is probable, though not

certain, that Herleve bore toRobert another child – a girlnamed Adelaide who in duecourse married (i)Enguerrand, count ofPonthieu; (ii) Lambert ofLens; and (iii)Odo, count of

Champagne.15 It is certainthat the Conqueror had asister, or half-sister, of thisname,andwiththiscareer; itis also certain that she wasnot thedaughter ofHerleve'shusband,Herluin, vicomte ofConteville. She may,however, have been thedaughter of Robert by somemistress other than Herleve,but it is perhaps moreprobable that she was the

Conqueror's sister of thewholeblood.Herleve's career advanced

thefortunesofherkinsfolk.Itseems that the obscureFulbertbecameinduecoursea cubicularius in the ducalhousehold,16 and somethingis known of Herleve'sbrothers. Charter evidencegives their names as Osbernand Walter.17 Walter,moreover, is stated to have

watched over the futureConquerorduringhisperilouschildhood, and on oneoccasion to have saved hislifebysnatchingtheladfromhis cot and carrying him forsafety into the ‘dwellings ofthe poor’.18 This Walter hadat least two daughters. OnenamedClarabecameanunatMontivilliers.19 The other,Matilda, married RalphTesson.20TheTessonswerea

very considerable family inMiddle Normandy, and thismarriage further illustratestheadvancementofHerleve'srelatives.Some time after the

Conqueror's birth, Herlevewas married to Herluin,vicomte ofConteville, and tohim she was to bear twofamous sons, Odo, bishop ofBayeux,andRobert,countofMortain, and at least one

daughter who marriedWilliam, lord of La Ferté-Macé.21 Ordericus states thatHerluin'smarriagetoHerlevetook place after 1035,22 butthoughthestatementhaswonsome credence, it is open tograve objections. Odobecame bishop of BayeuxbetweenOctober1049and23April 1050,23 and ifOrdericus's assertion wereaccepted, Odo would then

have been barely fourteen.Such an appointment wouldhardly have passed withoutnoticebyOdo'shostilecritics,who would certainly havecalled attention to such ascandal at the beginning ofhis career. Much interesttherefore attaches to theremark of William ofMalmesburythatHerlevewasmarriedoff toHerluinbeforethe death of Robert.24 And I

havemyself very little doubtthat the marriage took placevery soon after the birth oftheConqueror;and thatOdo,being born about 1030, wassomenineteenyearsoldwhenhebecameabishop.Besides Herleve, Herluin

marriedacertainFredesendis,and there seems little doubtthat she was his secondwife.25Fromthisunion therewere at least two children,

RalphandJohn,theformerofwhom may possibly be theRadulfus de Contivilla whoheld lands in Somerset andDevonin1086.26Some inferences are

possible respecting the dateof Herleve's death. Towardsthe end of his life, Herluinfounded the abbey ofGrestain,27 and Robert ofTorignyasserted thatbothheand Herleve were buried

there.28 It is, however, mostimprobable that Herleve wasburied at Grestain,29 and theabsenceofhernamefromthelist of benefactors to thatabbey, and the presencetherein of the name ofFredesendis,30 suggests verystrongly that Herleve diedbefore Herluin founded themonastery.31 The foundationof Grestain is, moreover,usually placed in or shortly

after1050.32IfHerleve,infact,died,as

isheresuggested,about1050,she can hardly have beenmore than forty years of ageat the time of her death.Yetshe had accomplished much.In view of her humbleorigins, her career andconnexions33 may even nowchallengesomeattention.Shewasaremarkablegirl.

1Will.Jum.,p.115;Will.Malms.,GestaRegum,p.285.

2Interp.Will.Jum.,p.157.3Wace,RomandeRou(ed.Andresen),vol.II,p.204;Benoit(ed.Michel),vol.II,p.555.

4Cf.J.DepoinCongrèsmillenairenormand,vol.I,pp.305–309.

5H.Prentout,GuillaumeleConquérant:légendeethistoire(Caen,1927),pp.20–23.

6Interp.Will.Jum.,p.171.7CompletePeerage,vol.XII(1),

AppendixK,p.30.ThematterisfurtherconfusedbythefactthatWace(RomandeRou,vol.II,p.204)callsFulbertparmentierwhichmightberendered‘tailor’.

8Prentout,‘DelaNaissancedeGuillaumeleConquérant’(ÉtudessurQuelquesPointsd'HistoiredeNormandie(Caen,1927),pp.73–89);CompletePeerage,vol.XII(1),AppendixK,whereallthetestimonyisassembled.

9Ord.Vit.,vol.III,p.228.10Will.Malms.,GestaRegum,vol.II,p.285:habebattuncfiliumseptennem.

11Ord.Vit.,vol.III,p.229:puerutpoteoctoannorum.

12Ord.Vit.,vol.II,p.11:tuncoctoannorumerat.

13Will.Jum.,pp.145–149.14annovitaesuaequinquagesimonone.

15Rot.Scacc.Norm.,vol.II,p.xxxi;CompletePeerage,loc.cit.

16Ord.Vit.,interp.Will.Jum.,p.157.

17R.A.D.N.,no.134(SignumWalteriavunculicomites).ThismaylegitimatelybeplacedbesidethelistofwitnessesgiveninLot,Saint-Wandrille,no.17(Osbernusavunculuscomitis.Walteriusfratereius).

18Ord.Vit.,vol.III,p.229.19Gall.Christ.,vol.XI;Instrumenta,col.329.

20Ibid.,col.65a.

21L.C.Denis,ChartesdeSaint-JuliendeTours,nos.24,29;Douglas,DomesdayMonachorum,pp.35,36.

22Interp.Will.Jum.,p.157.23Gall.Christ.,vol.XI,col.353.24GestaRegum,p.333.25Douglas,DomesdavMonachorum,p.34.

26Bréard,L'abbayeNotre-DamedeGrestain,nos.I,II;Douglas,loc.cit.ButthereareseveralContevilles.

27Bréard,loc.cit.28Ed.Delisle,vol.II,p.202.Thereis–orwasrecently–aninscriptionamongtheruinstothiseffect.

29Gall.Christ.,vol.XI,col.83.30Bréard,op.cit.,nos.I,II.31Herluinwasalivein1059(ChevreuxetVernier,ArchivesdeNormandie,plateV),butsincenoneofhisgiftstoGrestainwereinEnglanditisprobablethathediedbefore,or

veryshortlyafter,theConquest.32Bréard,op.cit.,p.20.33Below,Table6.

APPENDIXB

ThechronologyofDukeWilliam's

campaignsbetween1047and1054

Theverydifficultchronologyof Duke William's warsduring these years has beenconsidered with greatlearning and with contrasted

results by several continentalscholars,suchasL.Halphen,1R.Latouche,2andJ.Dhondt,3and I have been particularlyindebted to the remarkableappendix which HenriPrentout added to his essayon the early life of DukeWilliam, which waspublished posthumously in1936.4Aswillbeseen,Ihavebeenablegratefullytoaccept,with only slight

modifications, most ofPrentout'sconclusionsonthismatter, but the subject hasbeen, and still is, so much asubject of controversy that itis necessary here to set outthe evidence which has ledme to adopt the dating ofthese events,which has beengivenintheprecedingpages.There is fortunately no

needtoquestiontheaccepteddateof1047 for thebattleof

Val-ès-Dunes. It must,however, be remarked thatannals of Caen, and of Lire,give 1046, as does alsoRobert of Torigny in hissupplement to the chronicleof Sigebert ofGembloux.5 Itis notwholly impossible thatthis variation may perhapshave been due to anemploymentoftheLadyDayreckoning for the beginningoftheyearwhichwouldhere

be relevant since the battlewas evidently fought, aswillbeseen,before25March.Bethat as it may, the date of1047 is well attested. It isgiven, for instance, in theannalsofJumièges,6ofSaint-Évroul,7 and of Sainte-ColombeofSens.8Moreover,Ordericus Vitalis not onlygives the year 1047 in hisinterpolations to William ofJumièges, but repeats this in

his own history, where herelates the date convincinglytootherevents.9ThebattleofVal-ès-Dunes may thus beassigned without unduehesitation to 1047, or moreprecisely(bearinginmindthenormal practice of beginningthe year at Christmas) tosometimeafter25December1046; and it is in everydegree probable that itoccurred early in that period.

The flooded waters of theOrnewhichplayedsolargeapart in the victory would beconsistent with a date inwinter or in very earlyspring.10Although Henry I himself

retired from Normandy afterthebattle,thewarisknowntohave continued withoutinterruption. Guy ofBurgundy fortifiedhimself atBrionne,andthesiegeofthat

castlebegan.BothWilliamofPoitiers and William ofJumièges state that thedefencewas very stubborn,11butgivenopreciseindicationof its duration. OrdericusVitalis on the other handstatesthatthesiegelasted‘forthreeyears’(pertriennium),12and that this is not a mereverbal flourish is shown inanother passage in hisHistory, where alluding to

Duke Robert II (theConqueror'sson)hespeaksof‘Brionne…which his fatherwith the aid of the FrenchkingcouldscarcelysubdueinthreeyearswhenGuythesonof Rainald of Burgundydefended itafter thebattleofVal-ès-Dunes.’13 It is ofcourse possible to suggestthat there might here beexaggeration,14 but to do sowouldbeflyinginthefaceof

the evidence.There seems infact no warranty fordisregarding these curiouslyprecise statements of aninformed writer, and itappears impossible to avoidthe conclusion that the siegeofBrionne continued at leastuntiltheendof1049.These considerations have,

moreover, some bearing onthe most important and themostdifficultquestioninthis

chronology, namely the dateof William's campaignsduring this period in Maine.A very strong tradition hasassigned thewarfarebetweenthedukeandGeoffreyMartelroundDomfrontandAlençonto1048–1049,andthisdatingwas endorsed in the brilliantreconstruction of thiscampaign made in 1906 byLouisHalphen in his notablebookon thehistoryofAnjou

in the eleventh century.15There it is suggested that thehostilities between the countand the duke began shortlyafter Geoffrey's attack onChâteau-du-Loir and thecaptureofGervais,bishopofLeMans, so that ‘before theautumn’ of 1048 DukeWilliam and King Henrywere together engaged inattacking Mouliherne inAnjou, and afterOctober the

duke on his own accountcaptured Alençon andbesieged Domfront,completing the operation inthe early months of 1049.Though thiswasaveryearlybook by this great scholar,published when its authorwas only twenty-six years ofage, his detailed conclusionsonthischronologyhavebeenaccepted by nearly allsubsequent writers on the

subject. Nevertheless, before1936 Henri Prentout hadboldly challenged theacceptedview,andplacedthefighting round Alençon andDomfront in the winter of1051–1052.16 Prentout'sarguments (which do notappeartobewidelyknowninEngland)17 seem to thepresent writer to be socompelling that they warranta reconsideration of the

matter.It must immediately be

emphasizedhowscantyisthepositive evidence that can beadduced in favour of thetraditional view.Thewarfareis not mentioned by theAngevin chroniclers, and itreceivesnonoticeintheearlyNorman annals. It is,therefore, necessary todependinthefirstinstanceonthe accounts given by

William of Jumièges andWilliam of Poitiers,18 andneither of these writerssupplies a date. Onedifference between themmay, moreover, be noted:William of Poitiers givessome prominence to a siegeofMoulihernebyKingHenryassisted by Norman troops,whilst William of Jumiègesmakes no mention of thisepisode. The two narratives,

however, have this incommon. They both placetheseeventsintheirsequencebetween the capture ofBrionne (which can hardlyhave fallen much if at allbefore the beginning of1050), and the revolt ofCount William of Arqueswhich,aswillbeseen,begansome time in the course of1052. Whilst, therefore, thechronological arrangement of

bothWilliam of Poitiers andWilliam of Jumièges leavesverymuchtobedesired,theirtestimony (for what it isworthchronologically)wouldseem to point to a date forthese campaigns later thanthat which has traditionallybeenassignedtothem.Nor is the other evidence

which has been cited infavour of the date of 1048–1049 for this war

unequivocal.19 It is veryreasonabletosuggestthatthecapture of Gervaise atChâteau-du-Loir early in1048 may have provokedhostilities between the kingand the count of Anjou, butthis does not necessarilyimply that the duke ofNormandy's expeditionagainstDomfrontoccurred inthatyear.Finally,anallusionmadebyAnselmthemonkin

hisdescriptionof thecouncilof Rheims (1049) tohostilities then taking placebetween the king of Franceand hismagnates, which hasbeen held to refer to thewarbetweenHenryandGeoffrey,mightwithequalproprietybemade to apply to almost anycontemporary disturbance inthe dominions of the king,andtherewasin fact in1049a siege of Neufchâtel-sur-

AisnenearRheimswherethemonk was writing.20 On allgrounds it would seem thatthe theory which placeWilliam's campaign roundAlençon and Domfront in1048–1069 is at best aplausiblehypothesiswhich isinadequatelysupportedbythesurvivingtestimony.This being so, it becomes

imperative to considerwhether some other

interpretation will not betterconform to the known facts.And in this connexion theblockade ofMouliherne fallsfor separate consideration,since scholars have perhapsbeentoohastyintreatingitasinevitably part of the samequestion as that involvingDomfront and Alençon.21There is, in truth, nothing inWilliam of Poitiers (the soleauthority) to warrant this

assumption.Thearrangementof his treatise at this pointmerits in fact careful note.22The passage respectingMouliherne followsimmediatelyaftertheaccountof the fall of Brionne. Thencomes an account of therising enmity of Geoffrey ofAnjou towards DukeWilliam. Then ensues a longpassage about the accessionof Edward the Confessor to

the English throne, and notuntil after all this does therebegin the description of thewar round Alençon andDomfront. Moreover,Mouliherne is far removedfromthesceneof these lattercampaigns: it is beyondMaine itself and in Anjou.The date of the blockade ofMoulihernemustthereforebeconsidered by itself. It mayconceivablyhaveoccurred in

1048 for it is not far distantfromChâteau-du-Loir.Ontheother hand, a letter fromGeoffrey of Anjou to PopeLeoIX,thetextofwhichhassurvived albeit in a latecopy,23 suggests that theking's war against the countentered a new phase in 1051and theMouliherne blockadecould thus be placed in thespring of that year. In thatevent the operations

conducted by Duke Williamaround Domfront (whichoccurredaftertheMouliherneepisode) would also fallinevitably in 1051. While,however, it is probable thattheMouliherne blockade didinfacttakeplaceinthespringof 1051, it is not impossiblethat it was further distinct intime from Duke William'slaterwarinMaine.Notemustnowbetakenof

certain dates in Angevinhistorywhichcanberegardedas firmly established. Theseare:

Early1048,orpossiblylate1047

AssaultonChâteau-du-LoirbyGeoffreyMartel,andimprisonmentofGervais.24

October1049

OpeningofthecouncilofRheims.

Geoffreyisthreatenedwith

excommunicationforhistreatmentofBishopGervais.25

1050 Geoffreyisexcommunicated.26

26March1051

DeathofHugh,countofMaine.27

Shortlyafter

26March1051

GeoffreyMarteltakespossessionofLeMans.28

Shortlyafter

26March1051

ReleaseofBishopGervaiswhoforthwithgoestotheNormancourt.29

15August1052

HenryIandGeoffrey,countofAnjou,havingbeenreconciled,areincompanyattheroyalcourtatOrléans.30

Now, if these dates be

considered itwill appear thatthere is one time, and onetime only, in this sequencewhen it might seemoverwhelminglyprobablethatGeoffreyofAnjou,havingatlastestablishedhispositioninthe south of Maine, shoulddirect his operationsnorthward towards theNorman frontier, and that isin the period following hisown establishment at Le

Mans (March–April 1051).And there is, moreover, aconsiderable amount ofconverging testimony thatthis in fact occurred,provoking the retaliation ofDuke William and theconsequent war round theborder fortresses. ThusGeoffrey's own letter to LeoIX, to which reference hasalready been made,specifically says that at this

time Bishop Gervais, havingobtained his release, brokefaithwiththecountandwenttoNormandywhereheurgedtheduke,andalsotheking,totake action in Maine. DukeWilliam with the siege ofBrionne now over, would atlast be able, and doubtlessready, to respond. IndeedWilliam of Poitiers says thathe did so, strong in theknowledge that the domestic

disturbances in Normandywere ended31 – a remarkwhich would not have beenappropriate had Brionne stillbeholdingout.Finally the same

conclusion is imposed if thecampaign round Domfrontand Alençon is brought intorelation with the subsequentrevolt of Count William ofArques. One of the mostsignificant events of the war

in Maine was the suddendesertion of the duke by thecountofArques.Atacriticalmoment in the siege ofDomfront, we are told, herenounced his vassalage anddeparted, doubtless toorganizehisownrebellion ineastern Normandy.32 Aremarkable chronologicalconformity thus seems to behere revealed, indicatingafresh that the Domfront

operation must surely havetaken place in 1051–1052.Foraslateasthebeginningof1051, the count of Arques,still in possession of hisdignity, was still in officialharmony with the duke,having been then associatedwith him in the issue ofgrants for Saint-Wandrille,33so that his renunciation ofvassalage can hardly havetaken place before 1051. On

the other hand, the count'sdesertion from Domfrontduring the winter of 1051–1052 would be the naturalprelude to the count's ownrebellion which, as will beseen,musthavebegun in thesummer or autumn of thelatteryear.The rebellion of Count

WilliamofArqueswhichwasconnected with thereconciliation between King

HenryandGeoffreyMartel34took place between thecaptureofDomfrontbyDukeWilliam and the battle ofMortemer. The battle ofMortemer can, moreover, beprecisely dated. NeitherWilliam of Poitiers norWilliamofJumiègessuppliesa date, but Ordericus Vitalisin interpolating the lattergives 105435 and in his ownHistoryhenotonlystatesthat

the battle occurred in 1054,but that it was fought inhiemeantequadragesimam.36Now, Ash Wednesday in1054fellon16FebruaryandQuadragesima Sunday on 20February. The battle ofMortemer must thus beplaced early in February1054.Two other events

connectedwith the hostilitiespreceding the battle of

Mortemer can also be datedwith some precision. ThereconciliationbetweenHenryand Geoffrey Martel tookplacebefore15August1052,since a dated charter showsthem together at Orléans inamity on that day.37Secondly, the obituaries ofSaint-Wulfram and Saint-Riquier unite in placing thedeathofEnguerrand,countofPonthieu, on 25 October,38

andthissuppliesalsothedateof the action at Saint-AubinwhereCountEnguerrandwaskilled.39Now,aswillbeseenfromtheprecedingargument,there are only two years towhich this obituary could beassigned–1052and1053.Ofthese 1052 is theoreticallypossible and should not beabsolutely discarded. On theother hand, 1053 is muchmore probable, for the siege

of Arques is known to havebeenveryprotracted, and theaction at Saint-Aubinapparentlycame late in theseoperations. There are, it istrue, discrepancies in thevarious accounts of thiswar.According to William ofPoitiers,40 Duke Williamoriginally came to Arques toplace his own garrison there,and the fortress was laterbetrayed to the count;

thereupon Duke WilliamcameagaintoArques,foughtan action in front of thecastle,andleftWalterGiffardto besiege it; and only afterthis did King Henry and thecountofPonthieucometoitsrelief with the consequentaffrayatSaint-Aubin.On theother hand, William ofJumiègesomitsanyreferenceto the first betrayal of thecastle, and Ordericus Vitalis

speaksonlyofonemarchbyDuke William into Talou.41Butwhateverversionoftheseeventsbeaccepted, itwillbeseen that before the eventualfall ofArques there occurredat leastoneandpossibly twoexpeditionsbyDukeWilliam,not to mention theengagement which involvedthe death of Hugh ofMorimont, and the action atSaint-Aubin which cannot

have occurred later than 25October 1053. It seems,therefore, impossible toescapetheconclusionthattherebellion of William ofArques must have begun in1052, and since the rebelsappealed to King Henry42 itshould be related to thereconciliation between theFrench king and CountGeoffreywhichwascompleteby15Augustofthatyear.

After a review of theevidence, and with allpossiblereserveinviewofitsdifficult nature, I havetherefore adopted thefollowing chronology forthese events. The battle ofVal-ès-Dunestookplaceveryearly in 1047, and thereafterensued the siege of Brionnewhich lasted until the end of1049. In the meantimeGeoffreyofAnjou(late1047

or early 1048) had attackedChâteau-du-LoirandcapturedBishopGervais.Itispossible,thoughunlikely,thatthekingwith Norman assistanceblockaded Mouliherne aboutthis time, but that eventshould more probably beassigned to the spring of1051. In March–April 1051GeoffreyMartel occupiedLeMans, and thereafter movedup to the Norman frontier.

Duke William, urged on byBishop Gervais, who wasnow in Normandy after hisrelease, thereupon in theautumn of 1051 came to therelief of Domfront andAlençon. The siege ofDomfront lasted through thewinter months, and wasconcluded early in 1052.During the siege CountWilliamofArquesrenouncedhis vassalage, went eastward

to prepare his own rebellion.He appealed to the king ofFrance, who becamereconciledtoGeoffreyMartelbefore 15 August 1052. Thewar involving the siege ofArques began in the summeror autumn of 1052, and wasstillcontinuingon25October1053.Thecastlefellverylatein1053,andearlyinthenextyearKingHenrylaunchedhisdoubleinvasionofNormandy

which was repelled at thebattle of Mortemer inFebruary1054.

1Comtéd'Anjou(1906),pp.70–80.

2ComtéduMaine(1910),pp.27–32.

3‘LesRelationsentrelaFranceetlaNormandie’(Normannia,vol.XII(1939)pp.465–486);‘HenriIer,l'Empireetl'Anjou’(RevuebelgedePhilologieetd'Histoire,

vol.XXV(1946),pp.87–109).4HistoiredeGuillaumeleConquérant–LeDucDeNormandie(Mém.Acad.Nat.deCaen,vol.VIII,1936).Thisisanincompleteworkissuedposthumously.

5Rec.Hist.Franc.,vol.XI,pp.166,366.

6Ed.J.Laporte,p.55.7Ord.Vit.,vol.V,p.157.8Rec.Hist.Franc.,vol.XI,p.292.9Will.Jum.,p.171;Ord.Vit.,vol.

I,p.182;vol.II,p.373;vol.III,p.159.

10Above,p.50.11Will.Poit.,pp.19–21;Will.Jum.,p.123.

12Ord.Vit.,vol.IV,p.335.13Ibid.,vol.IV,p.335.14Cf.Freeman,NormanConquest,vol.II,p.262;Stenton,WilliamtheConqueror,p.85.

15Op.cit.,pp.70–73.16Op.cit.,pp.140–144.

17Inote,however,thatdeBouardplacestheactionroundDomfront,withoutfurthercommentin1050–1051(GuillaumeleConquérant,p.41).

18Will.Jum.,pp.125–127;Will.Poit.,pp.23,37–39.

19Cf.Prentout,loc.cit.20Ibid.Cf.Rec.Hist.Franc.,vol.

XI,p.465.21IamnotwhollyconvincedbyPrentout'sargumentinthissense

(ibid.,p.142).22Will.Poit.,pp.22–40.23Sudendorf,BerengariusTuronensis(1851),AppendixVIII.

24ActusPont.Cenomm.;Halphen,op.cit.,p.71;Latouche,op.cit.,p.28.

25Above,p.58.26Ann.S.Maxence(MarchegayetMabille,ChroniquesdesÉglises,p.398).

27NecrologiedelaCathédraledu

Mans(ed.BussonandLedru),p.72.

28ActusPont.Cenomm.29Ibid.,andSudendorf,loc.cit.30Rec.Hist.Franc.,vol.XI,p.590;Soéhnée,Cat.Actes,HenriI,no.91.

31Will.Poit.,p.65.32Will.Poit.,p.63.33ChevreuxetVernier,Archives,plateIV.

34Ord.Vit.,vol.I,p.184.35Will.Jum.,p.180.

36Ord.Vit.,vol.III,pp.160,237.37Soéhnée,op.cit.,no.91.38C.Brunel,Rec.ActesdesComtesdePonthieu(1930),p.iv.

39Will.Jum.,p.120.40Will.Poit.,pp.55–61.41Will.Jum.,p.119;Ord.Vit.,vol.III,pp.42,232,233.

42Ibid.,vol.I,p.184.

APPENDIXC

ThemarriageofWilliamandMatilda

Few episodes in theConqueror's life have givenrisetomorecontroversythanhis marriage to Matilda,daughterofBaldwinV,countof Flanders, by Adela,daughterofRobert I, kingof

France.Eventheprecisedateof the marriage is uncertain.It was projected in or before1049, but it had not takenplace by the autumn of thatyear when it was forbiddenbyLeo IX at the time of thecouncil of Rheims.1 On theother hand, it had beencelebrated before the end of1053, in which year Matildaappears as theduke's consortin a dated charter given to

HolyTrinity,Rouen.2Withinthese dating limits it is,however, very hard toparticularize. The annals ofTours, themselves anunreliable compilation in thismatter, were erroneouslycitedbyFreemaninfavourof1053,3 but the date itself isnot impossible, for theimprisonment of Leo IX bythe Normans after the battleof Civitate (June 1053)4

might have provided anoccasion for defying thepapal prohibition. On theother hand, there are reasonsfor placing the marriageearlier, and for viewing it inconnexion with thetransformationintherelationsbetween the duke ofNormandy and the king ofFrance which took place in1051–1052. Thus MlleForeville gives 1050–1051

for the marriage,5 andProfessordeBouardplacesitsans doute en 1050 ou peuaprès.6 These opinions carryconviction, and some of thefacts in the early career ofRobert, William's eldest son,can be cited in its support.Robert was Matilda's eldestchild, and he was born inwedlock. His birth has beenplaced circa 1054, but it isnot impossible that he was

bornearlier.7He isdescribedashavingbeenadolescens in1066,8 and in that year alsohewas cited as confirming acharter for Marmoutier quiascilicet maioris iam Meaetatis ad praebendumspontaneum auctoramentumidoneus esset.9 Althoughtherefore the tender age ofMatilda (see below) must betaken into account inassigning a date for her first

pregnancy, it seems notunreasonable to place hermarriagein1050–1051,10butdefinite proof of this islacking.The view once held that

Matilda was already marriedwhen William sought herhand, and was then themother of a daughter,Gundrada, later the wife ofWilliamofWarenne,hasnowbeen conclusively disproved

by the researches of ChesterWaters11 and Sir CharlesClay.12There isno reason tosuppose that Gundrada wasthe daughter either ofWilliam or Matilda.Moreover, it is unlikely thatMatildaherselfwasofanagetobeamother in1049whenthe papal ban waspronounced. Her age cannotbe precisely ascertained butthemarriageofBaldwinVto

her mother, Adela, wasapparently not consummateduntil 1031, for William ofJumièges states that this wasone of the factors instimulating Baldwin V'srebellionagainsthis father inthat year.13 On this showingMatilda could not have beenmorethanseventeenin1049,and she may have beenyounger since there is noevidencetoshowthatshewas

theeldestofthefourchildrengivenbyAdelatoBaldwinV.All theories respecting the

reasons of the papalprohibition of the matchbetweenWilliamandMatildaare therefore now based onthesuggestion that (ashintedby Ordericus Vitalis)14 theparties were within theprohibited degrees. Scholars,however, have differedsharplyastothenatureofthe

alleged relationship betweenthem. Three views on themattermaybebrieflynoted:

1.Ithasbeensuggested15thattheprohibitionwasduetoamarriagebetweenDukeRichardIIIofNormandyandMatilda'smother,AdelaofFrance.Thereare,however,objections.Certainly,RichardIIImarriedawomannamedAdela,but

itisdoubtfulifthiswasAdelaofFrance,and,inanycase,amarriagebetweenRichardIIIandAdelaofFrancecouldnothavebeenconsummated.16

2.Ithasbeensuggested17thatthebanwasbasedonacommondescentofWilliamandMatildafromRolftheViking,whichwouldhavemadethem

cousinsinthefifthdegree.Whetherthisdescent(whichisitselfnotbeyondquestion)wouldhavebeensufficientfortheprohibitionevenifithadbeenknowninRomeisperhapssomewhatdoubtful.

3.IthasbeenheldontheauthorityofWilliamofJumièges18thatBaldwin

IVofFlandersmarriednotonlyOgiva,daughterofRichard,dukeoftheArdennes,whowasthemotherofBaldwinV,butalsoadaughterofRichardIIofNormandy.Thismarriage,ifitoccurred,mightperhapshavebeenmadetoserveasareasonfortheban.

Allthesetheoriesareopento

some criticism, and despitethe erudition that has beenlavished upon them, thequestion cannot be regardedassettled.The marriage of William

and Matilda was by allaccounts very happy, and itwascertainlyfruitful.Matildabore her husband four sonsand at least five daughters.19The sons were Robert, laterduke of Normandy; Richard;

and William and Henry,subsequently kings ofEngland. Richard wasaccidentallykilledintheNewForest at an early age.20 Thedate of the mishap is notknown, but since he wasyoung at the time, and sincehe was Matilda's second son(though not necessarily hersecond child), his death canreasonablybeplacedbetween1070 and 1080, and perhaps

circa1075.The question of the

daughters of William andMatilda ismorecomplicated,and the essential evidencemay be briefly tabulated asfollows:

A.WilliamofPoitiersstates:21(i)thatadaughterofWilliam(unnamed)wasbetrothedtoHerbert,countofMaine;(ii)thatadaughter

ofWilliam(unnamed)wassoughtforinmarriagebytworivalkingsofSpainwhowerebrothers,oneofwhomhasbeenreasonablyidentifiedasAlphonsoIV,laterkingofLeon;and(in)(byimplication)thatadaughterofWilliam(unnamed)wasatonetimebetrothedtoHaroldofWessex.

B.OrdericusVitalis22mentionsfivedaughtersofWilliam'smarriagewhomhenamesanddescribesasfollows:(i)Agatha,whowasbetrothedsuccessivelytoHaroldofWessexandAlphonsoofSpain.SheprotestedvigorouslyagainstgoingtoSpain,anddiedavirgin,beingburiedatBayeux;(ii)

Adeliza,whoundertookreligiousvowsearlyinlifeandlivedundertheprotectionofRogerofBeaumont;(iii)Constance,whomarriedAlanIVofBrittany;(iv)Adela,whomarriedStephenI,countofBlois;and(v)Cecily,whobecameabbessofHolyTrinity,Caen.

C.WilliamofMalmesbury23

mentionsfivedaughters,namelyCecily,Constance,andAdelaasabove,andtwootherdaughters(unnamed),oneofwhom,hesays,wasbetrothedtoHarold,andtheothertoAlphonso.

D.RobertofTorigny24atalaterdatespeaksoffourdaughters,Cecily,Constance,andAdelaasabove,andalso‘Adeliza’,

whoaccordingtohimwasbetrothedtoHarold.

E.DomesdayBook25mentionsadaughterofWilliamnamedMatilda.

Both the similarities andthe contradictions in theseaccounts are interesting.Cecily,Constance,andAdelaare well known from theirsubsequent careers. Agathaand Adeliza have on theevidence been thought to

represent only one person.26It may be so, but I ampersonally inclined here toaccept Ordericus's curiouslyprecise statement aboutAdelizaatitsfacevalue.TheremarkofWilliamofPoitiersat least helps to confirm hisstatement that one of thesedaughters was betrothed toAlphonso of Spain, thoughwhether one of them wasbetrothedtoHerbertofMaine

as well as to Harold ofWessex must remain indoubt.Itwillbenotedfurtherthatnoneofthesechroniclersmentions Matilda, and itmight be tempting to doubther existence or herlegitimacy were it not that aCaen narrative apparentlymentions her in connexionwithbothhermotherandhersisterCecily,thusconfirmingthe reference in Domesday

Book.27It may therefore be

concluded that William andMatilda had four sons, borninthefollowingorder:

1.Robert,laterdukeofNormandy.Born1051–1054.Died10February1134.

2.Richard.Bornbefore1056.Diedcirca1075?

3.William,laterkingofEngland.Born1056–

1060.Died2August1100.

4.Henry,laterkingofEngland.Bornlate1068.Died1December1135

It would appear also thatWilliam and Matilda mayhave had six daughters who(without reference toseniority) might beenumeratedasfollows:

1.Agatha,betrothed

successivelytoHarold,earlofWessex,andtoAlphonseofLeon(andpossiblypreviouslytoHerbert,countofMaine).Diedavirgin.

2.Adeliza.3.Cecily,bornbefore1066,subsequentlyabbessofHolyTrinity,Caen.Died1127.

4.Adela,married,1080,StephenI,countofBlois.

Died1137.5.Constance,married,1086,AlanIV,countofBrittany.Died1090.

6.Matilda.

Dogmatism would here,however,beoutofplace.Theseparate existence of Agathaand Adeliza is not certain,and the evidence aboutMatilda is less thansatisfactory.28 The relativeages of the daughters is

moreovernotknown,andoneat least of them, Cecily, wasborn beforeHenry I. Finally,it may deserve a note ofsurprise(andadmiration)thataladyofsuchdiminutivesizeas was William's wife29should have produced solargeafamilybeforeherowndeathin1083.

1Hefele-Leclerc,HistoiredesConciles,vol.IV,partII,p.1018.

2Cart.S.Trin.Roth,no.XXXVII.3Freeman,NormanConquest,vol.

IV,noteO.4Chalandon,Dominationnormande,vol.I,p.137.

5Ed.Will.Poit.,pp.46,66.6GuillaumeleConquérant,p.36.7David,RobertCurthose,p.5.8Will.Malms.,GestaRegum,p.450.

9BertranddeBroussillon,MaisondeLaval,vol.I,p.45,no.30.

10HandbookofBritish

Chronology(R.Hist.Soc.(1961),p.31).

11GundradadeWarenne(Exeter,1884).

12EarlyYorkshireCharters,vol.VIII,pp.40–46.

13Will.Jum.,pp.103–104.14Interp.Will.Jum.,pp.181–182.15W.H.Hutton,inDict.Nat.Biog.,sub.‘Mathilda’.

16AdelaofFrancewasbroughttotheFlemishcourtwhenthegirlwasincunis,andshewaskept

thereforsomeyears–annosusqueadnubiles–untilthemarriagecouldbeconsummated,aneventwhichapparentlyoccurredin1031(Will.Jum.,p.103).ButRichardIIIwasdukefrom1026to1028andonthisreckoningAdelaofFrancecouldthenhavebeenlittlemorethananinfant.

17Prentout,‘LemarriagedeGuillaumeleConquérant’(Étudessurquelquespoints

d'histoiredeGuillaumeleConquérant,Caen,1930)–amostvaluablearticlewhichdiscussesmuchoftheevidencehereconsidered.

18Will.Jum.,p.88.19Freeman,NormanConquest,vol.IV,noteO;HandbookofBritishChronology,loc.cit.

20Will.Malms.,GestaRegum,p.332.

21Will.Poit.,pp.89,143,230.22Ord.Vit.,vol.II,pp.189,391,

392;vol.III,p.159.23GestaRegum,p.333.24Interp.Will.Jum.,pp.317,318.25D.B.,vol.I,fol.49.26HandbookofBritishChronology,loc.cit.

27Freeman,NormanConquest,loc.cit.

28ThematteriscomplicatedbythefactthatOrdericus(vol.II,p.182)saysthatoneofWilliam'sdaughterswasbetrothedtoEdwinofMercia.

29Above,pp.369,370.

APPENDIXD

Thesequenceofeventsin1066

The purpose of this note isnot to dispute the acceptedchronology for the principalevents of this crucial year.The object of the followingremarks ismerely to indicatetheevidenceuponwhichthat

chronology is based and tosuggest adistinctionbetweenthose dates for which thetestimony seems conclusive,andthoseforwhichitappearsto be less than completelysatisfying. Otherwise theremay in the future (as in thepast) be some danger ofunduedogmatism.Thechronology(whichhas

been followed in this book)maybesetoutasfollows:

Thursday, 5 January. DeathofKingEdward.1Friday, 6 January. Burial ofKingEdward.2CoronationofHarold.3May.TostiattackstheIsleofWight.4Sunday, 18 June. DukeWilliamatCaen.5Saturday, 12 August.William's fleet assembled intheDives.Friday, 8 September. Harold

disbandsthefyrd.6Tuesday, 12 September.William's fleet at Saint-Valery.Wednesday, 20 September.BattleofFulford.7Sunday, 24 September.HaroldatTadcaster.8Monday, 25 September.BattleofStamfordBridge.9Wednesday, 27 September.Change in theChannelwind.Embarkation of the Norman

fleetatnightfall.Thursday, 28 September(early morning). William'slandingatPevensey.Friday, 29 September.WilliamoccupiesHastings.Friday, 6 October. Harold inLondon.Wednesday, 11 October.HaroldleavesLondon.Friday night, 13–14October.HaroldontheSussexDowns.Saturday, 14 October. Battle

ofHastings.10Sunday, 15 October–Friday,20 October. William atHastings.Friday, 20 October. WilliamstormsRomney.Saturday, 21 October.SubmissionofDover.Saturday, 21 October–Saturday, 28 October.WilliamatDover.Sunday, 29 October.SubmissionofCanterbury.

All November. William at‘Broken Tower’ outsideCanterbury.First half of December.William's march roundLondon–Surrey–NorthHampshire–Wallingford–Berkhamstead.Monday, 25 December.Coronation of DukeWilliamas king of England inLondon.11

As will be seen from the

foregoing citations, many ofthesedateswouldseemtobeestablished beyond anyreasonable doubt. For others,however, the evidenceappears to be less conclusivethanmightbedesired.For instance, even the

cardinal date of DukeWilliam's crossing of theChannel presents somedifficulty. Thus we have thefollowing statements in the

Anglo-SaxonChronicle:12

D E

ThenCountWilliamcamefromNormandytoPevenseyonMichaelmasEve,andassoonastheywereabletomoveontheybuiltacastleatHastings.

CountWilliamlandedatHastingsonMichaelmasDay.

At first sight, there mightseem here to be adiscrepancy,andindeedsomescholars of repute haveconcluded (following ‘E’)that William sailed on thenight of 28 September (not27), and landed on themorning of Michaelmas Day(notMichaelmasEve).13 Thedifficultymaymost probablybe resolved by reference toWilliam of Jumièges, who

states that the ConquerorlandedatPevensey,wherehesetinhandtheconstructionofacastle,andthenleavingthisin the hands of some of histroops himself hurried on toHastings.14Both Freeman15 and

Stenton16placethelandingatPevensey (following ‘D’) onthemorningof28September,and the occupation ofHastings on 29 September.

There seems little doubt thatthisiscorrect.Nonethelessitremains curious that ‘E’, theCanterburychronicler,shouldeither (i) have been ignorantof the true date of thecrossing, or (ii) have ignoredthe landing at Pevensey andspokenofthelandingonlyinconnexion with thesubsequent occupation ofHastings.Someofthedatesprevious

to the crossing are lesssecurely determined. Theyappear to be derived in thefirst instance from a coupletwhich occurs in theCarmenattributed to Guy, bishop ofAmiens, respecting the timespent by William's fleet atSaint-Valery. This states(according to one reading)that William remained atSaint-Valery, waiting for afavourable wind for ‘thrice

five days’ – ter quinquedies.17Acceptingtheeveningof 27 September for thecrossing of the Channel, thiswouldbringthearrivalofthefleet at Saint-Valery to 12September,whichfitsinverywellwithHarold'sdisbandingthefyrdon8September.AndsinceaccordingtoWilliamofPoitiers the fleet was in theDivesforamonth,12Augustis suggested for its

completion. It is all veryprobable, and, doubtless, atleast approximately, correct.Nevertheless the positivetestimony remains fragile.The Carmen has recentlybeenimpugnedasanoriginalauthority for the events of1066,18 and even if thatcriticism be not fullyaccepted, the couplet inquestion is itself somewhatequivocal, since the key

words ter quinque areapparently only one reading,the other, according to twoeditors,19 being tum quinque,which would supply a verydifferentbasisforcalculation.Itmay also be remarked thatWilliam of MalmesburyassertsthatthefleetarrivedatSaint-Valery as early asAugust.20No part of the chronology

of 1066 presents more

difficulties than the sequenceof Harold's actions betweenStamford Bridge andHastings. The problem maybesummarizedasfollows:The battle of Hastings

began about 9 am21 on 14October. Harold musttherefore have reached theDowns on 13 October, orduring the night of 13–14October.Thesiteofthebattleof Hastings is some fifty-

eightmilesfromLondon,andif Harold left Londonwith aforce consisting mainly offoot-soldiersonthe11ththerewould be time, though noneto spare, for him to havecovered the distance. Haroldis, moreover, stated to havespent six22 or possibly five23daysinLondon,whichwouldplacehisarrivalinthecapitalon 5 or 6 October. But atradition which is generally

accepted is that he onlymoved south after he hadheard of William's landingand that this news reachedhim when he was still atYork.24 The news couldhardly have reached Yorkbefore the evening of 1October.25 To arrive inLondonevenby6Octoberhewould thus have to havecovered some one hundredandninetymilesinfivedays,

which would be good goingeven ifhewereaccompaniedonly by a small force ofmounted men, and quiteimpossible for an army offoot-soldiers.Such then is the problem,

and no solution to it cancommand full confidence.The weakest point in theaccepted storymay lie in thestatement that Haroldreceived the news of

William's landing when stillat York. The twelfth-centurytradition that this was so iscertainly strong, but it is notimpregnable, and it containssome contradictoryelements.26 It is thus notimpossible that Harold wasalready on his way southwhenheheard thenews,andinthatcasesome(thoughnotall) of the difficulties wouldbe removed. It has also been

asserted that Harold leftLondon not on 11 Octoberbuton12October,27andherean additional complication issupplied by the statement ofWilliam of Jumièges thatHarold ‘after riding all nightappearedonthefieldofbattleearly in the morning’.28 Inview of the distance to becovered, I cannot, however,myself believe that Haroldleft London as late as 12

October, even if he resortedtoanightmarch,orevenifitwereassumed29thathisforceof foot-soldiers became sostraggled over the Sussexcountryside that a portion ofitmaynot even have arrivedintimefortheopeningoftheengagement.I have, therefore, though

with considerable hesitation,thought it plausible tobelieve: (i) that wherever it

was that Harold heard thenewsofWilliam'slanding,heprobably reached Londonwithasmallforceofmountedmenon6October;(ii)thatheleft London with his newlycollected army, consistingmainlyoffoot-soldiers,on11October; and (iii) that hereached his position on theDowns during the night of13–14 October.30 Anyreconstructionoftheseevents

depends, however, partly onunconfirmed hypotheses, andit needs emphasis that manyof the most widely receivednarratives of what happenedduring this momentousfortnight imply a certaintywhich the available evidencedoesnotjustify.The dates of the events

between Hastings and thecoronation, as indicatedabove, accord with those

given inFreeman's book, butthough very plausible andprobably correct, they, too,are not fully vouched for bythe existing testimony, and itis noteworthy that Sir FrankStenton at this point in hisstandard history31 wiselyrefrains from supplyingdetailedinformation.WilliamofPoitiers,whomayherebefollowed with confidence,givesthesequence:Romney–

Dover and the submission ofCanterbury.32HealsorecordsthatWilliamspenteightdaysatDover.33 Greater precisioncan only be attempted byfurther reference to theCarmen. Thus, belief thatWilliam spent five days atHastings immediately afterthe battle derives from thissource.34 It is, however,plausible, and if taken withthe other evidence it would

bring William to Canterburyearly in November. TheCarmen also states thatWilliamspentamonthintheneighbourhood of that city,35and this assertion may belegitimately connected withthe sickness that William ofPoitiers says afflicted histroops about this time.36 If itbe accepted, the campaignround London would fall inthe first fortnight of

December. The famousnegotiations followed, andWilliam was crowned onChristmasDay.

1AS.Chron.,‘E’,s.a.1066.2Ibid.3Will.Poit.,p.146.4AS.Chron.,‘C’,‘D’,s.a.1066–‘soonafter’24April.

5R.A.D.N.,no.231.6AS.Chron.,‘C’,s.a.1066.7Ibid.,‘D’,s.a.1066.

8Ibid.,‘C’,s.a.1066.9Ibid.10Ibid.,‘D’,1066.11Ibid.12Ibid.,‘D’and‘E’,s.a.1066.13e.g.Ramsay,FoundationofEngland,vol.II,p.19.

14Will.Jum.,p.134.15NormanConquest,vol.III,p.733.

16Anglo-SaxonEngland,p.583.17Ed.HenryPetrie,MonumentaHistoricaBritannica,vol.I

(1848),p.857:Namterquinquediescomplestifinibusillis

ExpectanssummiJudicisauxilium.18G.H.White,CompletePeerage,vol.XII,partI,AppendixL.

19Michel,Chroniquesanglo-normandes,vol.III,p.4;J.A.Giles,ScriptoresWillelmi,p.29.IamdisposedtoacceptPetrie'sreading.

20GestaRegum,p.293.

21Flor.Worc.,vol.I,p.227.22Ord.Vit.,interp.Will.Jum.,p.196.

23Gaimar(Michel,Chroniques,vol.I,pp.6–7).

24HenryofHuntingdon,HistoriaAnglorum(ed.Arnold),bk.VI.

25Stenton,op.cit.,p.584,note1.26HenryofHuntingdon(loc.cit.)saysthathereceivedthenewsofWilliam'slandingintheeveningofStamfordBridge–thatistosay,beforeithadevertaken

place!27Freeman,whogives11Octoberinavaluableappendix(op.cit.,vol.III,noteFF)contradictsthisinthebodyofhisbook(ibid.,vol.III,p.437)wherehemakesWilliamleaveLondonon12October.InthisheisfollowedbyColonelBurne(BattlefieldsofEngland,p.20).

28Will.Jum.,p.134:totanocteequitansincampobellimaneapparuit.

29Burne,loc.cit.30ThiswouldtosomeextentallowfortheremarkofWill.Jum.MoreparticularlywouldithelptoexplainthefactthatWilliamcameuponHarold‘bysurprisebeforehehaddrawnuphisarmyinbattlearray’(AS.Chron.,‘D’,s.a.1066).Harold'swearytroopshadarrivedlateduringthenightandhadperhapsrestedoverlongonthesummit.

31Op.cit.,p.588.

32‘Will.Poit.,p.210.33Ibid.,p.212.34vv.598,599.35v.624:perspatiummensiscumgenteperendinatillic.

36Will.Poit.,p.212.

APPENDIXE

ThechronologyofKingWilliam's

campaignsbetween1073and1081

The chronology of theConqueror's campaignsbetween 1073 and 1081 isbeset with difficulty, and ithas engaged the attention of

many scholars asdistinguished as Freeman,MissNorgate,LouisHalphen,Sir Frank Stenton, M.Latouche, A. Fliche, andProfessorC.W.David.Since,however, among thesescholars there has beenconsiderable disagreement,the matter may properly beventilated afresh. Though indebttoalltheseauthoritiesinwhat follows, I am myself

inclined to accept, althoughwith somemodifications, thesolution propounded in 1906by Halphen,1 and developedlaterbyFliche2andProfessorDavid.3 The matter is,however, sufficientlycomplicated to warrant theevidencebeingrestated.An essential part of the

problem concerns thequestionofhow far, if at all,the statements of Ordericus

Vitalis on this matter can beaccepted.Apart from two detached

notices concerning the revoltof Robert and the battle ofGerberoi,4 the narrative ofOrdericusofthesecampaignsiscontained inhisHistory inBook IV, chapters XII, XIII,XIV, and XVII.5 Chapters XVand XVI contain a longdigression inspired by thenotice of the death of Earl

Waltheof at the end ofchapter XIV. The whole thusforms a unity, and beginsshortly after Ordericus haslost the support in hisnarrativeofthelostportionofthe history of William ofPoitiers.The sequence of events

given by Ordericus is asfollows:

1.William'scampaigninMaine.EntryintoLe

Mans.2.FulkleRechinattacksLaFlèche.(AccordingtoOrdericus,Fulkissupportedby‘CountHoel’withalargeforceofBretons.WilliamleadsanarmyofNormansandEnglishagainsthim.Agreatbattleisavertedbytheinterventionofclerics.)

3.Apactisarranged

betweenWilliamandthecountofAnjou.(AccordingtoOrdericusthiswasconcludedataplacecalledBlancalandavelBrueria,andthewriteraddsthatthispeaceremainedunbrokenuntilthedeathoftheConqueror.)

4.TherevoltoftheearlsinEnglandandthedeathofWaltheof.

5.William'scampaigninBrittany,culminatinginhisunsuccessfulsiegeofDol.(AccordingtoOrdericus,DolwasrelievedbyAlanFergant,‘countofBrittany’.WilliamwascompelledtoretreatandAlanFergantmarriedConstance,William'sdaughter.)

William's campaign inMaine (O. V. 1) can be

preciselydated:itoccurredin1073 andprobablybefore 30March of that year.6Similarly,thereisnoquestionthattherevoltoftheearls(O.V. 4) took place in 1075.7These notices by Ordericusthusneednofurthercommentin this place. The remainder,however, call for carefulexaminationandcriticism.In the first place, the

campaign of William in

Brittany needs consideration.The Anglo-Saxon, Breton,andAngevinannals, togetherwith the charters of Philip I,makeitquitecertainthat thiscampaign and William'sdefeat at Dol took place inSeptember–earlyNovember1076:8thecampaignfollowedindeed logically upon therevolt of Earl Ralph inEngland, and it wasconnected also with Count

Hoel'swarfarewith the rebelmagnates of Brittany.9 Thisbeing so, the narrative ofOrdericus at this placebecomes at onceunintelligible for thefollowingreasons:

(i)HemakesnomentionofKingPhilip'sinterventionatDol,whichcertainlytookplaceandwasprobablydecisive.

(ii)CountHoeldidnotdie

until1084,10anditwasthenthathewassucceededbyhissonAlanFergant.UnlessOrdericushasheregivenAlanthecomitalstylesimplyasatributetobirth,hisbringinghimintothestoryinthismanner,in1076,wouldseemtobeanerror.

(iii)Itisinthehighestdegreeunlikelythat

ConstancemarriedAlanFergantin1076or1077.Ordericus,himself,seemselsewheretoimplythatshewasstillunmarriedin1081,andthereispositiveevidencetosuggestthathermarriagetoAlanFerganttookplacein1086.11ItmaybefurthernotedthatOrdericusisnot,ingeneral,verysureaboutAlanFergant,since

elsewherehecallshimcountofNantes,whereashewasthesonofHoel,countofCornouailles.12

(iv)If,astheBretonannalsassert,HoelactedinalliancewithWilliamatthetimeofthesiegeofDol,itwouldbeveryunlikely(thoughnotimpossible)thatAlanFergantshouldhaveactedagainsthisfatherinthis

campaign,andthisimprobabilityisenhancedbythefactthatin1077AlanrescuedhisfatherfromtheBretonrebels.13

Some of these difficultieswere well appreciated byFreeman in a remarkableappendix,14 whose value isonly partially vitiated by amisconception of the datingof one of the Angevin

annals.15Hisguess thatAlanFergant may have beenbetrothed to Constance in1077,andonlymarriedtohernineyears later,16wouldnot,however (even if it wereplausible), bring Ordericus'saccount into line with theother sources. Indeed,Freemanhimselfhazardedthesuggestion(whichhadbeforebeen made by Lobineau)17that Ordericus was here

referring to some warfare inBrittanyatalaterdate.Eitherthiswas so– and there is nootherevidencetosupportit–orOrdericuswashererelyingon erroneous information. Inany case, his account addsnothing of value to ourknowledge of the campaigninBrittanyin1076.Itcanbesetaside.Further difficulties arise in

connexion with the account

given by Ordericus of theattack onLaFlèche byFulk.Aswillbeseen,Ordericusinhis narrative places this afterthe campaign in Maine andthefallofLeMans.18Forthisreason, Freeman, Stenton,and (with some hesitation)MissNorgateplacetheattackon La Flèche in 1073.19 Itwould seem, however, thatOrdericus himself does notgive warranty for this

conclusion.Afterspeakingofthe fall of Le Mans, hesuggests that an intervalmayhave occurred before thesubjugation of Maine,20 andin any case the affair at LaFlèche (as described byOrdericus) is made by thatwriter to lead directly up tothepactbetweenWilliamandFulk at Blancalanda velBrueria.21 Thus, even if thenarrative of Ordericus was

here to be taken at its facevalue, itwouldbereasonableto place the episode hedescribes as taking place atLa Flèche at any timebetween the fall of LeMans(spring,1073)andthepactatBlancalanda vel Brueria forwhichhesuppliesnodate.Infaceofsuchobscurityit

is necessary to turn to otherevidence.The Angevin annals make

it clear that there were twoattacks about this time byFulk Rechin on La Flèche.The first (which wasunsuccessful) occurred in1076, 1077, or possibly1078.22 The second (whichwas successful and involvedtheburningofthecastle)tookplacein1081–that is tosayaftertherevoltofRobert,andWilliam's reverse atGerberoi.23 It would seem,

therefore, that Ordericus'saccount must refer to one orother of these, unless (as isvery probable) he hasconfused the two. It will berecalled, moreover, that heplaceshisnoticeimmediatelybefore, and in connexionwith, the pact betweenWilliam and Fulk atBlancalandavelBrueria.Thedate of the pact thusdescribed, therefore,needs to

be settled, and here thedescription given byOrdericus of Fulk's armyduring the attack on LaFlèche is relevant. Heremarks that Fulk on thisoccasion was assisted by‘Count Hoel’ and ‘a verylarge force of Bretons’.24Now, it is likely enough thatBreton troops should havesupportedtheirAngevinalliesin Brittany in following up

theirsuccessatDol,butthesewouldhavebeenfromamongtheBretonrebelswhoin1076had been fighting not onlyagainst William but againstHoel.25 It seems, in short,inconceivable that Hoelshould have attacked LaFlèche and the Normans inMaine in conjunction withFulkatanytimeduring1076or 1077: indeed, during thelatter year he himself fell a

prisoner to the Breton rebelsand was only rescued by hisson Alan Fergant.26 Twoalternative conclusions seemthus to be imposed. EitherHoelmustbeeliminatedfromOrdericus'sstory,orthetreatywhich he describes betweenFulk and William must beconnected with the secondattack onLaFlèche – that istosay,in1081.Consequentlyit is important that theannals

‘of Renaud’ specificallyspeak of a pact betweenWilliam and Fulk in 1081,and in termswhichappear tosupplement Ordericus'sdescription.27 Not only, asOrdericus says, was there ageneral amnesty, and theperformance of Robert'shomage to Fulk ut minormajori, but, as the annals ‘ofRenaud’would add,Williamhad to offer hostages to

Fulk.28Finally,theremarkofOrdericus that this pact gavepeace between Anjou andNormandy until the death oftheConqueror,29thoughinnocase fullyaccurate,wouldbeunderstandable in relation toa treaty ratified in 1081, butquite incomprehensible inconnexionwithatreatymadein 1076–1078 when Robert'srebellion, and the battle atGerberoi, and the second

attackonLaFlèchewerestillto come. On all grounds itseems impossible (or at leastvery hazardous) to place theso-called ‘treaty ofBlanchelande’elsewherethanin1081.What, then, happened

betweenWilliamandFulk in1077–1078? It is certain thatin 1077 there occurred atreaty between William andKing Philip ‘which did not

last long’,30 and it wouldseemunlikelythattheFrenchking(sosoonaftertheeventsin Brittany in the autumn of1076)would here have actedwithout associating hisAngevin vassal and ally inanyarrangementswhichwerethen made. It is thusimprobable that Fulk's firstattackonLaFlècheoccurredafter the pact betweenWilliam and Philip, and

equally unlikely that it tookplace before the end of theBreton campaign in earlyNovember 1076. TheAngevin annals, it will berecalled, give three dates forthisattack–1076,1077,and1078.ThelastyearisgivenintheannalsofSaint-FlorentofSaumur,buttheseareoftenayear in error,31 and for thereasons given above I aminclined to reject it.32 MS.

‘D’ of the annals of Saint-Aubin gives 1076, but sincethe numeral occurs twice inthe manuscript, it has theappearance of a repeatedentry,andMSS.‘B’,‘C’,and‘A’oftheseannalsgive1077,whichwouldalsobemore inkeeping with thecircumstantial evidence.33 I,therefore, place the firstattack of Fulk on La Flècheearlyin1077orperhapsvery

latein1076.34This unsuccessful

operationbyFulkmightwellhave resulted in sometemporary agreementbetween him and William,made inconjunctionwith thepact entered into betweenWilliam and King Philip in1077. It is thereforesignificant that a charter forSaint-Vincent-du-Mans givenabout this time is dated by

reference to a pact beingmade between King Williamand Count Fulk at a placecalled Castellum Vallium.35This charter certainly passedbefore5November1080, forit iswitnessedbyWilliamasabbot of Saint-Vincent, andthisWilliamwas at that dateappointedbishopofDurham.Consequently,iftheso-called‘treaty of Blanchelande’ wasmade, as has been here

suggested, in1081, this trucemust be distinct from it. Itwould thus seem reasonabletoplaceitin1077–1078,andin direct relation to the pactof 1077 made between KingWilliamandPhilip.There only remain to be

considered the eventsbetween 1077 and 1081.Malcolm's invasion ofnorthern England is fixed bytheAnglo-SaxonChronicleas

having occurred between 15August and 8 September1079.36 Again, Robert'scounter-raid on Scotland isfirmly placed by ‘Simeon ofDurham’in1080,anditmusthaveoccurredafter14JulyofthatyearwhenRobertandhisfather were still inNormandy.37 The dates ofRobert'sfirstrebellionagainsthisfather,andofthebattleofGerberoi present, however,

some difficulties. Freemanassigned the siege ofGerberoi to the winter of1079–1080;38 this, however,is demonstrably wrong.Ordericus Vitalis states thatthe siege (which lasted sometime)beganimmediatelyafterChristmas, and the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle (whichnormally begins the year atChristmas) places it in1079.39 The significance of

this combined testimony is,moreover, conclusivelyconfirmed by a charter ofKing Philip I of France40whichiswitnessedbyRobertthe steward, and which notonly refers to the siege ofGerberoi as in progress, butcontains a dating clause41which could indicateChristmas1078,butcouldnotpossibly indicate Christmas1079 – indeed during the

courseof1079Robertwastobe replaced as steward byAdam.42 The siege ofGerberoi thus took place inthelastdaysof1078andwasconcluded during the firstweeksofJanuary1079.Robert's first quarrel with

hisfatherobviouslybrokeoutsome time before this, but itoccurred later than 13September 1077, whenRobert took part with his

father at the dedication ofSaint-Stephen's, Caen.43 Hisrebellion must, therefore,havebeguneitherverylatein1077, or, more probably,earlyin1078.AfterGerberoi,he was in due coursereconciledwithWilliam,and,certainly, this reconciliationtook place before 12 April1080,whenheistobefoundonce again at his father'scourt.44

The chronology of theseevents is so obscure, and somanypointsrespectingitstillawait full elucidation, that itwould be signally rash todogmatize too confidentlyabout it. These remarks will,however, explain why, withwhatever hesitations, I haveadopted the followingsequenceinthisbook:

1073 (?before30March)

William'scampaigninMaine.FallofLeMans.

1073 (30March)WilliamatBonneville-sur-Touques.

1074 EdgarAthelinggoestoScotland;isofferedMontreuil-sur-MerbyPhilip;isreconciledtoWilliam.

1075 RevoltoftheearlsinEngland.

1076 (SeptembertoearlyNovember)CampaigninBrittany.William'sdefeat

atDol.

1077 (early,orperhapsverylate,in1076)FulkleRechin'sfirstattack(unsuccessful)onLaFlèche.

1077 HoelcapturedbytheBretonrebels,andrescuedbyAlanFergant.

1077 William'spactwithPhilipI.

1077 (orperhaps1078)FirstpactbetweenFulkand

William(possiblyatCastellumVallium).

1078 (early,orpossiblylate,1077)Robert'squarrelwithhisfatherandfirstrevolt.

1079 (January)William'sdefeatatGerberoi.

1079 (15August–8September)Malcolm'sinvasionofnorthernEngland.

1079 (12April1080)Robertisreconciledtohisfather.

1080 (14July)WilliamandRoberttogetheratCaen.

1080 (latesummerorautumn)RobertinvadesScotland.Foundationof‘NewCastle’.

1081 (spring)RobertandWilliamstillinEngland.

1081 SecondattackbyFulkonLaFléche.Thisissuccessfulandthecastleisburnt.

1081 Secondpactbetween

WilliamandFulk(possiblyatBlancalandavelBrueria).

1Comtéd'Anjou,esp.pp.181–183.

2PhilippeI,pp.271–274.3RobertCurthose,chaps.IandII.4Ord.Vit.,vol.II,pp.294–298,386387.

5Ibid.,vol.II,pp.254–267,290–292.

6AS.Chron.,‘E’,s.a.1073;

Regesta,vol.I,nos.67,68.7AS.Chron.,‘E’,s.a.1075.8AS.Chron.,‘E’,s.a.1076;Chron.BritannicumandChron.S.Brieuc(Rec.Hist.Franc.,vol.XI,p.413;vol.XII,p.566);AnnalesSaint-AubinandAnnales‘deRenaud’(printedinHalphen,AnnalesAngevines,pp.5,88);Prou,Rec.Actes–PhilippeI,no.LXXXII.

9Ann.S.Brieuc(Rec.Hist.Franc.,vol.XI,p.413).

10Clay,EarlyYorkshireCharters,vol.IV,p.84.

11Ord.Vit.,vol.III,p.28;Rec.Hist.Franc.,vol.XII,pp.559,562,563.

12Ord.Vit.,vol.II,p.392;Clay,loc.cit.

13Rec.Hist.Franc.,vol.XI,p.413;vol.XII,p.566;Morice,Hist.deBretagne,Preuvies,vol.I,p.102;Chron.Quimperlé(Rec.Hist.Franc.,vol.XII,p.561).

14NormanConquest,vol.IV,p.817.

15AsshownbyMarchegayandMabille(ChroniquesdesÉglises,p.12)theentryMDLXXXVIintheAnnales‘deRenaud’isascribalerrorforMDLXXVI.

16Freeman,loc.cit.17HistoiredeBretagne,vol.I,p.104.

18Ord.Vit.,vol.II,p.255.19Freeman,NormanConquest,

vol.IV,p.561;Stenton,WilliamtheConqueror,p.313;K.Norgate,AngevinKings,vol.I,p.257.

20Ord.Vit.,vol.II,p.255.21Ord.Vit.,vol.II,p.258.22Halphen,Comtéd'Anjou,p.311,no.233;Halphen,Annales,pp.5,119;David,RobertCurthose,p.32,note71.

23Halphen,Annales,pp.5,88.24Ord.Vit.,vol.II,p.256.25Above,pp.233–235.

26Rec.Hist.Franc.,vol.XII,p.561.

27Halphen,Annales,p.88;Comtéd'Anjou,pp.183,184.

28Halphen,Annales,p.88;Ord.Vit.,vol.II,p.257.

29Ord.Vit.,vol.II,p.258.30AS.Chron.,‘E’,s.a.1077.31Halphen,Annales,p.119.32‘ButseeDavid,op.cit.,p.32,note71.

33Halphen,Annales,p.5.34ContrastHalphen,Comté

d'Anjou,p.182.35Cart.S.VincentduMans,no.99.Thispassed‘eotemporequoWillelmusrexAnglorumcumFulconeAndavagensicomitejuxtacastellumValliumtrevisamaccepit’.

36AS.Chron.,‘E’,s.a.1079:‘betweenthetwofeastsofSaintMary’.

37Opera,vol.II,p.211;Gall.Christ.,vol.XI;Instrumenta,col.266.

38Op.cit.,pp.646,647.39Ord.Vit.,vol.II,p.387;AS.Chron.,‘E’,s.a.1079.

40Prou,Rec.Actes–PhilippeI,no.XCIV.

41ActumpubliceinobsidionepredictorumregumvidelicetPhilippiregisFrancorumetGuillelmiAnglorumregiscircaGerborredum,annoIncarnatiVerbi,millesimoseptuagesimoVIII,annoveroregniPhilipporegisFrancorumXIX.

42Prou,op.cit.,no.XCVII.43Gall.Christ.vol.XI;Instrumenta,col.72;Regestavol.I,no.96.

44Cart.S.Trin.Roth.,no.LXXXII.

APPENDIXF

Onpoisoningasamethodofpoliticalactionineleventh-centuryNormandy

NoestimateofearlyNormanhistory or of the character ofWilliam the Conqueror canafford to neglect thepossibilitythatpoisoningwas

rife in the duchy in his time.Steenstrup in fact calledattention to this point, andexamined some of thetestimonywhichrelatestoit.1Nevertheless, the subjectinvites further considerationin this place. Among thepersons intimately connectedwithNormanhistorywhoarealleged to have perished bypoisonaretheDukesRichardIIIandRobertI;AlanIIIand

Conan II, counts ofBrittany;Walter, count of the Vexin,and Biota his wife; Robert,son of Geré; Arnold ofÉchauffour; and Gilbert,brother of Roger II ofMontgomery. The list is,indeed, astonishing, and if itreflected the truth it wouldthrowaluridlightonNormanconditions. The subject hastherefore itsownimportance,and its consideration may

have some relevance to thedevelopment of Anglo-Normanchronicles. Itmerits,therefore,someexamination.DukeRichardIII'sdeathis

attributed to poison byWilliam of Jumièges, albeitwith a certain reservation: ‘Manypeoplesaythathediedfrom poison.’2 And WilliamofMalmesburyinduecourseelaboratesthisbyaddingthatthe instigator of the crime

wasDukeRobertI:‘Thereiscertainly a widespreadrumour that hewas poisonedwith the connivance of hisbrother Robert.’3 The samestory is given in the GestaConsulum Andegavorum4 –and itappearsonce(butonlyonce) in the numerousreferences to Duke RichardIIIintheHistoryofOrdericusVitalis.5 The evidence that acrime was committed cannot

therefore be regarded asstrong,andweakerstillisthetestimony that Duke Robertwas the culprit.On the otherhand, it deserves emphasisthat a belief that poison washere used was current at avery early date, for theassertion appears in Adémarof Chabannes, who wrotebefore William of Jumièges,and indeed very shortly afterthe event. He baldly states:

‘Richard succeeded [to theduchy of Normandy]… andnot longafterheperishedbypoison.’6Duke Robert I died at the

Bythinian Nicaea on one ofthe first three days of July1035; and some time before1060 it was being reportedthat he had been poisoned.TheauthoroftheMiraculaS.Wulframni remarks (againwith some reservation): ‘As

we are told, he died frompoison at Nicaea.’7 Later,William of Malmesbury,relying apparently on somerumourwhichconvincedhim,not only repeated the story,but added to it manycircumstantialdetails:

Onhis returnhome,Robert endedhis life at Nicaea, a city ofBythinia. He died, it is said, bypoison administered to him by an

officialnamedRalphMowin.ThisRalph committed the crime in thehope of obtaining the dukedom,but when he came home hisoffence became known, and,shunned by all, he departed intoexile.8

Both thenameof theallegedculprit and the motiveascribed to him prompt theliveliest scepticism, and it isnoteworthy that Rodulf

Glaber,whowasmuchnearerthe event and who washimself deplorably avid ofscandal, never mentionsvenominconnexionwith thedeath of Duke Robert I.9 Itwas left to Wace and hissuccessors to develop thetale.10AlanIII,countofBrittany,

diedasitseemson1October1040, and Ordericus, threetimes in his History, asserts

that he was poisoned.11 Thestorywaslatertoberepeated,butIhavefoundnoreferenceto it before the time ofOrdericus, and its credibilitywould seem further to beweakened by the treatmentaccorded byOrdericus to thedeathofAlan'sson,ConanII.Here he twice suggests thatConanalsowaspoisonedandat the instigation of DukeWilliam himself. Thus in his

History he makes the rebelsof 1075 state that DukeWilliam‘poisonedConan,thevaliant count’,12 and in aninterpolation to William ofJumièges he expands thestory yet further. Conan ishere alleged to have refusedtojointheexpeditionin1066because of the poisoning ofhis father, Alan, by theNormans at Vimoutiers, and‘when Duke William heard

thishewasmuchtroubled’:

ButGodsoondeigned tofreehimfromthethreatofhisenemies.ForoneoftheBretonlordswhowasavassalbothofConanandWilliam,and who acted as an intermediarybetween them, smeared withpoison Conan's hunting horn, thereins of his horse, and his gloves.… Conan was at this time layingsiege to Château-Gonthier. …Having put on his gloves and

touched the reins of his horse, heunfortunately raised his hands tohis lips, and thus became infectedwith poison. He died soonafterwards. … The man who hadbetrayed him, seeing that hispurpose had been achieved, leftConan's force and went to tellDukeWilliamofhisdeath.13

The tale itself hardlycommands credence, and itseems unsupported by any

adequate testimony.Moreover,Conandidnot dieuntil 11 December 1066;14that is to say, considerablyafter the expedition toEngland had taken palace.His death is conciselyrecorded in the necrology ofChartres Cathedral: III IdusDecembris: Obit ConanusBritannorumcomes.15The case of Walter, count

of the Vexin, and his wife

Biota presents somewhatsimilar features. This man,who was nephew to Edwardthe Confessor, married adaughter of Herbert ‘Wake-Dog’,countofMaine,andindue course laid claim toMaine against DukeWilliam.16 Thereupon (saysOrdericus)‘…thenobledukeattackedtherebels,andwhilethe warfare was continuingwithvaryingfortunes,Walter

and Biota his wife died as aresult, it is said, of poisontreacherously given them bytheirenemies’.17 The cautionof ‘as they say’ should benoted,andalso thediscretionwith which Ordericus hererefrains from assigning thecrimespecificallytotheduke.Nevertheless, he makes theparticular accusation throughthe mouths of the rebelliousearls of 1075 who are made

to declare of Duke William:‘He caused to perish bypoison on one and the samenight Walter, count ofPontoise, nephew of KingEdward, and Biota his wife,andthiswhiletheywerebothhis guests at Falaise.’18ThoughM.Latouche acceptsthestoryatitsfacevalue,19itmay be doubted whetherOrdericus himself fullybelieved in the tale,which in

any case is out of characterandotherwiseunconfirmed.When individually

considered,alltheseaccountstend to invite scepticism to agreater or lesser degree.There is a similar pattern tobe discerned in many ofthem, and often the earliestmention of venom isaccompaniedby somephrasesuggesting uncertainty. It isnot quite true to say with

Steenstrup20 that all theaccounts are somewhat late,for the testimony of Adémarof Chabannes and theMiracula S. Wulframni ascited above is reasonablyearly.Nonetheless,itisfromthe twelfth century thatmostof the stories of eleventh-century Normandypoisonings derive.Moreover,the practice of Ordericus inbecomingmoredefiniteinthe

wordsheputsintothemouthsof his characters than whenspeakinginhisownpersonisalso significant. Nor shouldthe lamentable conditions ofeleventh-centuryhygiene andeleventh-century diet beforgotten in considering thebodily disorders of that age.Thedysenterywhichafflictedthe army of William theConqueror after Hastings iseasily explicable, and

sometimes (as may besuspected) a less criminalinterpretation than that ofdeliberate poisoning can beplaced on some of thesedeaths from illness. The lasthours of King Henry I weredescribed in almostembarrassing detail.21 Hisdeathwas evidently due to acommonplacemishap:adoseof purgative physic, honestlyif over-enthusiastically

prescribed, carelesslydispensed and injudiciouslyadministered – a routinehazard, at all times, of anysick-bed.Yet, if itwouldbehard to

find any particular case ofallegedpoisoningineleventh-centuryNormandywhere theevidence is whollyconvincing, the frequencywith which this accusationwas made must of itself

challenge attention. It mightalmost seem that any writeronNormanaffairswasproneto attribute to venom anysudden death that could notbe explained by reference tomore obvious violence, andtheregularitywithwhichthiswasdoneinvitescomment.Itisherethatacomparison

with contemporary Englandbecomes instructive.Here anaccusation of poisoning was

very rare. There were,moreover, between 1042 and1057 at least three notableandsuddendeathsinEnglandwhich might have invitedsuspicion, and wouldundoubtedly have done so ifthey had occurred inNormandy. These were thedeaths of Harthacnut, of theathelingEdward, and ofEarlGodwine. ConcerningHarthacnut, two versions of

the Anglo-Saxon Chronicleremark:

[Harthacnut] was standing at hisdrink, and he suddenly fell to theground with fearful convulsions,and those who were near caughthim, and he spoke no wordafterwards.Hediedon8June.22

Here,aswillbeseen,thereisno suggestion of poisoning,and the account falls rather

into line with an earliertradition of continentalwriting, as when Richer ofRheims attributed the deathof Duke Richard I ofNormandy in 996 to ‘theminorapoplexy’.23And evenmoresignificantwasthecaseoftheathelingEdwardwhosedeathoccurredsuddenlyafterhisreturntoEnglandin1057,and in circumstances whichundoubtedly contained an

elementofmystery:

Wedonotknowforwhatreasonitwasbroughtaboutthathewasnotallowed to visit his kinsmanKingEdward.Alas,thatwasamiserablefate andgrievous to all hispeoplethat he so speedily ended his lifeafter he came to England – to themisfortuneofthispoorrealm.24

Theauthorispuzzled,buttheobvious temptation to speak

of venom (which fewNorman writers would haverepelled) is here firmlyresisted.There remains the case of

EarlGodwinewhosedeathin1053 occurred incircumstances which mighthave seemed to call for anaccusationofvenenation.TheVitaEdwardiRegis,however,merely remarks: ‘There diedtheearlofhappymemory.’25

But the Anglo-SaxonChronicleisfuller:

On Easter Monday, as he wassittingwith the king at ameal hesuddenly sank towards thefootstool bereft of speech, anddeprived of all his strength. Thenhewascarriedtotheking'sprivateroom, and they thought it wasabouttopassoff.Butitwasnotso.On thecontrary,hecontinued likethis without speech or strength

righton to theThursday,and thendepartedthislife.26

Sucharetheearliestaccounts,and they voice no suspicionof foul play. Nor does anysuch appear in the twelfth-century elaboration whichAilredofRievaulxsuppliesina remarkable passage whichfor more than one reasonmeritssomeattention:

One day which was a popularfestival, the king was sitting attable,andEarlGodwinewasintheroyal company. During dinner awaiter inhishaste struckone footagainst some obstacle, and nearlyfell. But advancing his other foot,he recovered his balance, andremaining upright, he suffered nomishap. Many of those presentexclaimed at the incident sayinghow right it was that one footshould help another. The earl

jokinglycriedout:’So shouldonebrother help another, and a mansupporthisfriendintimeofneed.’Towhichtheking,turningtowardshim, immediately replied: ‘Sowouldmy brother have helpedmeifGodwinehadallowedit.’AtthisGodwine turned pale, and with adistorted countenance heexclaimed:‘WelldoIknowOkingthat in your mind you hold meguiltyofyourbrother'sdeath.Welldo I know, also, that you do not

disbelieve those who say I was atraitor to him and to you. But letGodwhoknowsall secretsbemyjudge!MaythiscrustwhichIholdinmyhandpassthroughmythroatand leave me unharmed to showthat I was guiltless of treasontowards you, and that I wasinnocent of your brother's death!’He spoke; and putting the crustintohismouthhethrust it into themidstofhisgullet.Hetriestopushitfurtherandcannot.Hethentries

topullitoutbutitsticksevermorefirmly. The passage of hisbreathing soon becomes choked;his eyes turn up; and his limbsgrow rigid.The kingwatches himdie thusmiserably, and, consciousthatthedivinevengeancehasbeenfulfilled,hesays to thosestandingby:‘Dragoutthatdog.’27

The description, whosedramatic power may appeareven in a translation, is an

obvious elaborationconnected with thedeveloping cult of SaintEdward.28Ontheotherhand,certainof thedetails,notablythe picture of the trippingwaiter and the jokes whichfollowed hismishap, possessan actuality which it is hardto ascribe to pureimagination. What, however,is important, in the presentcontext, is that in all these

accounts of the death of anEnglish magnate whenfeasting in hostile company,there is no suggestionwhatever of poison havingbeen either contemplated oradministered. The contrastwiththenarrativesrelatingtoNormandyisverystriking.Why then was the

suspicionofpoisonsoreadilyentertained respecting anysudden death in eleventh-

century Normandy whereas,in respect of England therewas apparently littledispositiontoindulgeintheseaccusations? Was it becausethefearofvenomwas,duringthe eleventh and twelfthcenturies,widerspreadintheduchy than in the kingdom?And was there any specialjustification for theseapprehensionsinNormandy?Perhaps certain stories

related by Ordericus Vitalishave some relevance to anyattempt to answer thesequestions. Thus of Robert,son of Geré, who died in1060,hesays:

He was at table, and snatched anapple which his wife held. It waspoisoned, and he died five daysaftereatingit.29

And, later, Ordericus

expatiates on this fatalconsequence of suchdeplorabletable-manners:

One day when [Robert son ofGeré] was sitting happily by thefire,hewatchedhiswife,Adelaide,holdinginherhandfourapples.Heplayfully snatched two of thesefrom her, and ignorant that theywerepoisoned,heatethemdespitehiswife'sprotests.Thepoisonsoontookeffect–andafterfivedayshe

died.30

Whatever the insinuation,there is no necessaryimplication of foul play in adeath following the over-hasty eating of rotten apples.But another story fromOrdericus is more sinister.Mabel of Bellême, wife ofRoger IIofMontgomery(weare told), plotted to poisonher husband's enemy,Arnold

of Échauffour. She preparedthe lethal dose, and placed itin readiness.ButGilbert, herhusband's brother, returningheated from riding, drainedoff the poisoned goblet, andinconsequenceperished.Norwas this all. After thisabortiveattemptwhichendedso disastrously, Mabel isstated to have bribed thechamberlain(cubicularius)ofArnold, and entrusted to him

poisons to be offered to hismaster. This time her planswere successful, with theresult that, ‘aftersomedays’,Arnolddied.31To accept these tales at

theirfacevaluewouldindeedbe rash. But it might bepossible to underestimatetheir significance. Ordericus,if credulous, was neithermaliciousnoraliar;andtheseaccountsconcernedpeopleof

whom he had specialknowledge. Both Arnold ofÉchauffour and Robert, sonofGeré, played an importantpart in the history of Saint-Évroul where Ordericus wasa monk, and Ordericus hadhimself been brought up inthe household of Mabel'shusband, Roger II ofMontgomery, where hisfather held a position oftrust.32 Ordericus may even,

when a boy at Shrewsbury,have seenMabel of Bellêmeof whom he paints aconvincingportrait. It is thusnoteworthy that he did notexpect such storiesconcerning the wife andbrother of his father's lord tobe received with incredulityor with indignation. Theyevidently did not appeareither to Ordericus or to hisreaders as too monstrous to

bebelieved.In this connexion it is

perhaps relevant to repeatanother story relating to thefamily of Montgomery inwhich poisoning is neithermentioned nor implied. TheLadyMabel(wearetold)waswont constantly to visit theabbeyofSaint-Évroulwithanover-large retinue which sheexpected to be lavishlyentertained. The abbot's

protests were disregarded,andatlength:

[the abbot] warned her that suchfolly must stop. To this Mabelangrilyreplied:‘WhennextIcomemy retinue will be much morenumerous.’ Whereupon the abbotsaid: ‘Believe me, unless yourepentof thiswickednessyouwillsuffer something you don't like.’And so it happened. For that verynight she suddenly became ill and

began to suffer great pain.Immediately she caused herself tobe carried out of the abbey, andhurryingfromtheestatesofSaint-Évroulshepassedby thehouseofacertainmancalledRogerSuisnar.She ordered that his baby girlshould be made to suck her papswhichwere causing her particularpain. This was done. The babygave suck, and soon afterwardsdied.…ButMabel got better andreturnedtoherownhome.33

The story is highlycoloured, but circumstantialphysicaldetailsperhapscarrysome conviction. It would,doubtless, be uncharitable tosuppose that the abbot haddoctored the lady's supper,34but the possibility cannot bewhollysetaside.A review of the available

evidence may thereforesuggest that in no case is itsafe to accept without the

utmost reserve any assertionthat a particular Normanmagnate during the earlierhalf of the eleventh centuryperished as a result ofdeliberate poisoning. Eachsurviving accusation whenindividually tested fails tocarryconviction.Ontheotherhand, the exceptionalfrequency with which suchaccusations were maderespecting Normandy (by

contrast, for example, withEngland) deserves note. Itmight even suggest that suchcrimes were held to bepossible, and might even beexpected. Did anapprehensionofvenomhauntthehouseholdsoftheNormanaristocracybetween1035and1066 when Normandy wasrising to greatness in the ageof William the Conqueror,Lanfranc, andSaintAnselm?

35

1NormandietsHistorie,p.284.2Will.Jum.,p.100.3GestaRegum,p.211.4Ed.HalphenandPoupardin,p.50.

5Ord.Vit.,vol.II,p.366.6Ed.Ghavanon,p.189.7Soc.Hist.Norm.,Mélanges,vol.

XIV(1938),p.47.8GestaRegum,p.212.9Ed.Prou,p.108.

10RomandeRou(ed.Andresen),vol.II,p.159;Benoit(ed.Michel),vol.II,p.574.

11Ord.Vit.,vol.IIpp.252,369;vol.III,p.225.

12Ibid.,vol.II,p.259.13Will.Jum.(ed.Marx),pp.193,194.

14Lobineau,HistoiredeBretagne,vol.I,p.97.

15Cart.Notre-DamedeChartres,vol.III,p.220.

16Above,pp.174,175.

17Ord.Vit.,vol.II,p.102.18Ibid.,vol.II,p.259.19ComtéduMaine,p.34.20Op.cit.,p.290.21Ord.Vit.,vol.II,p.79;interp.Will.Jum.,p.185.

22AS.Chron.,‘C’,‘D’,s.a.1042.23Ed.Waitz(1877),p.180.24AS.Chron.,‘D’,s.a.1057.25Ed.Barlow,p.30.26AS.Chron.,‘C’,s.a.1053.27HistoriaeAnglicanaeScriptoresX(Twysden),1632,cols.294,

395.28SeeF.Barlow,VitaEdwardiregis.Appendix‘D’.

29Ord.Vit.,vol.II,p.28.30Ord.Vit.,vol.II,p.73.31Ibid.,vol.II,pp.106,107.32Ibid.,vol.II,pp.220,416–420.33Ibid.,vol.II,pp.52,53.34Cf.G.H.White,R.Hist.Soc.,Transactions,series4,vol.XXII,p.87.

35Thesubjectofmedievalpoisoningisinexhaustible,and

itsfascinationhastobeexperiencedtobebelieved.Icannot,however,riskrobbingmyreadersofpossibleentertainmentbyfailingtociteO.Sheperd,TheLoreoftheUnicorn(1930),orthefantasticbuteruditeChroniclesoftheHouseofBorgia(1901),writtenaswassaidby‘BaronCorvo’,butinrealitybyFrederickRolfeincircumstancesthatarefelicitouslydescribedbyA.J.A.

SymonsinTheQuestforCorvo(1935).

SELECTCHART

PEDIGREES

1.TheNormanducaldynasty:A.

2.TheNormanducaldynasty:B.

3.TheOld-Englishroyal

dynastyintheperiodoftheNormanconquest.

4.TheScandinavianinterestinthesuccessiontothethroneofEngland,asillustratedintheconnexionsofEmma.

5.ThecountsofÉvreuxandthecountsofEu,withsomeoftheirconnexions.

6.SomeconnexionsofHerleve(toillustrateAppendixA).

7.ThecountsofMaineandthecountsoftheVexin.

8.ThefamilyofWilliamfitzOsberninrelationtoAnglo-Normanhistory,1035–1075.

9.TheAnglo-NormanconnexionsofcountsofBrittanyandlordsofRichmondintheeleventhcentury.

Table1.TheNormanducaldynastyintheeleventhcentury:A.

Table2.TheNormanducaldynastyintheeleventhcentury:B.

Table3.TheOld-EnglishroyaldynastyintheperiodoftheNormanconquest.

Table4.TheScandinavianinterestinthesuccessiontothethroneofEnglandasillustratedintheconnexionsofEmma.

Table5.ThecountsofÉvreuxandthecountsofEu,withsomeoftheirconnexions.

Table6.SomeconnexionsofHerleve.(ToillustrateAppendixA.)

Table7.ThecountsofMaine,andthecountsoftheVexin.

Table8.ThefamilyofWilliamfitzOsberninrelationtoAnglo-Normanhistory,1035–1076.

Table9.TheAnglo-NormanconnexionsofcountsofBrittany,andlordsofRichmondintheeleventhcentury.

SELECTBIBLIOGRAPHY

The list which follows is inno sense to be regarded as afull bibliography for thehistory of William theConqueror and his times. Itspurpose is simply to givefurther precision to the

citations supplied in thefootnotes to this book; todirectattentiontosomeoftheprincipalauthoritiesonwhichthe author has relied; and toindicate, if only in part, hisdebt to his fellow-scholars.The conventional distinctionbetween primary andsecondary authorities hasbeen retained, but itmust beemphasized thatmany of theworks given in the latter

category contain texts oforiginal documents, and areoften here included for thatreason. The editions quotedare normally those whichhave been cited in thefootnotes. Volumes in the‘Rolls Series’ aremarked bythe letters ‘RS’; publicationsoftheSociétédesAntiquairesde Normandie and of theSociété de I'Histoire deNormandie are indicated

respectively by the letters‘SAN’ and ‘SHN’. Otherabbreviations used will befoundonpp.vii-viii.

I

PRIMARYSOURCES

A.CHRONICLESANDNARRATIVES

ActaArchiepiscoporum

Rothomagensium(Rec.Hist.France,vol.XI,pp.70–73).

ActaLanfranci(EarleandPlummer,TwooftheSaxonChroniclesParallel,vol.I,pp.283–292).

ActuspontificumCenomannisinurbedegentium,ed.G.BussonandA.Ledru(LeMans,1902).

AngliaSacrasiveCollectioHistoriarumdeArchiepiscopisetEpiscopisAngliae,ed.H.Wharton,2vols.(London,

1691).Anglo-SaxonChronicle,arevised

translation,editedbyD.WhitelockwithD.C.DouglasandS.I.Tucker(London,1961).

——,TwooftheSaxonChroniclesParallel,ed.J.EarleandC.Plummer,2vols.(Oxford,1892,1898).

AnnalesdeSaint-Aubin,deSaint-Serge,deSaint-Florent,etdeVendôme,ed.L.Halphenand

R.Poupardin(Paris,1913).AnnalesFontanellensespriores

(Saint-Wandrille),ed.J.Laporte(SHN,Mélanges,vol.XV,1951).

AnnalesGemmeticenses(Jumièges),ed.J.Laporte,1954.

AnnalesduMont-Saint-Michel,ed.L.Delisle(RobertdeTorigni,vol.II,pp.207–236).

AnnalesRothomagenses(Rouen),ed.HolderEgger(Mon.Germ.

Hist.Scriptores,vol.XXVI,pp.488–500).

Benoit,ChroniquedesDuesdeNormandie,ed.F.Michel,3vols.(Paris,1836–1843).

BrevisRelatiodeorigineWillelmiConquestoris,ed.J.A.Giles(SeriptoresWillelmi,pp.1–23).

CarmendeHastingaeProelio,ed.F.Michel(Chroniquesanglo-normandes,vol.III,pp.1–38);also,ed.H.Petrie(Monumenta,pp.850–872).

Chabannes,Adémarof,Chronicon,ed.J.Chavanon(Paris,1897).

ChansondeRoland,ed.J.A.Jenkins(Oxford,1929).

ChroniconMonasteriideAbingdon,ed.J.Stevenson,2vols.(RS,1858).

ChroniconMonasteriideBello(BattleAbbey)(London,1846).

ChroniconBritannicum(Morice,HistoiredeBretagne,Preuves,vol.I,cols.1–8).

ChroniconAbbatiaedeEvesham,

ed.W.D.Macray(RS,1863).ChroniconNamnetense(Nantes),

ed.R.Merlet(Paris,1896).Chroniquesanglo-normandes,ed.

F.Michel,3vols.(Rouen,1836–1840).

Clare,Osbertof,TheLettersofOsbertofClare,ed.E.W.Williamson(Oxford,1929.

DudoofSaintQuentin,DeMoribusetActisprimorumNormanniaeDucum,ed.J.Lair(SAN,1865).

Durham,Simeonof,OperaOmnia,ed.T.Arnold,avols.(RS,1882,1885).

[IncludestheHistoriaDunelmensisEcclesiaeandtheHistoriaRegum.]

Eadmer,HistoriaNovorum,ed.M.Rule(RS,1884).

——,VitaAnselmi,ed.R.W.Southern(Edinburgh,1962).

EdwardtheConfessor,LivesofEdwardtheConfessor,ed.H.R.Luard(RS,1858).

——,VitaædwardiRegisquiapudWestmonasteriumrequiescit,ed.F.Barlow,Edindurgh,1962).

Emma,queenofEngland,EncomiumEmmae,ed.A.Campbell(London,1949).Flavigny,Hughof,Chronicon(Mon.Germ.Hist.Seriptores,vol.IX,p.317).

Flodoard,Annales,ed.P.Lauer(Paris,1906).

Fécamp,abbeyof,Liberde

Revelatione(Pat.Lat.,vol.CXLI,cols.702–704).

Gaimar,Geoffrey,L'estoiredesEngles,ed.T.D.HardyandC.T.Martin,2vols.(RS,1888,1889).

GestaFrancorumetaliorumHierosolimitanorum,ed.R.Hill(Edinburgh,1962).

GestapontificumCameracensium(Mon.Germ.Hist.Seriptores,vol.VII,pp.389–439)

Gestasanctorumpatrum

Fontanellensiumcoenobii,ed.F.LohierandJ.Laporte(SHN,1936).

Glaber,Rodulf,FrancorumHistoria,ed.M.Prou(Paris,1886).

Hariulf,Chroniconcentulense,ed.F.Lot(Paris,1894).

HaroldII,kingofEngland,VitaHaroldi,ed.W.deG.Birch(London,1885).

Herluin,abbotofLeBec,VitaHerluini,ed.J.A.Robinson,in

GilbertCrispin,pp.87–110.Herman,MiraculaSancti

Edmundi,ed.F.Liebermann(Ungedruckte,pp.203–279).

HistoriaeAnglicanaeScriptoresX,ed.R.Twysden,2vols.(London,1652).

HistoriaeNormannorumSeriptoresantiqui,ed.A.Duchesne(Paris,1619).

HughtheChanter,HistoryoftheChurchofYork,ed.C.Johnson(Edinburgh,1961).

Huntingdon,Henryof,HistoriaAnglorum,ed.T.Arnold(RS,1879).

InventioetmiraculasanctiVulframni,ed.J.Laporte(SHN,Mélanges,vol.XIV,1938).

Jumièges,Williamof,GestaNormannorumducum,ed.J.Marx(SHN,1914).

Lanfranc,OperaOmnia,ed.J.A.Giles,2vols.(Oxford,1844).

——,VitaLanfranci,auct.Milo

Crispin(Pat.Lat.,vol.CL,cols.19–98).

——,Epistolae(Pat.Lat.,vol.CL,cols.515–624).

LiberEliensis,ed.E.O.Blake(London,1962).

Lisieux,Arnulfof,Letters,ed.F.Barlow(London,1939).

Malmesbury,Williamof,DeGestisPontificumAnglorum,ed.N.E.S.A.Hamilton(RS,1870).

——,GestaRegumAnglorum,ed.

W.Stubbs,2vols.(RS,1887,1889).

——,HistoriaNovella,ed.K.R.Potter(Edinburgh,1955).

——,VitaWulfstani,ed.R.R.Darlington(London,1928).

MiraculasanctiAudoeni(ActaSanctorum,August,vol.IV,p.834).

MiraculasanctiWulframni(SHN,Mélanges,vol.XIV,1938).

‘MonkofCaen’,DeObituWillelmi,ed.J.Marx(inGesta

ofWilliamofJumièges,pp.145–149).

MonumentahistoricaBritannica,ed.H.Petrie,vol.1(London,1848).

NeustriaPia,ed.A.duMonstier(Rouen,1663).

OrdericusVitalis,HistoriaEcclesiastica,ed.A.LePrévostandL.Delisle,5vols.(Paris,1838–1855).

——,InterpolationstotheGestaofWilliamofJumièges(ed.Marx,

pp.151–198).Poitiers,Williamof,Gesta

GuillelmiducisNormannorumetregisAnglorum,ed.R.Foreville(Paris,1952).

Recueild'annalesangevinesetvendômoises,ed.L.Halphen(Paris,1903).

RecueildesHistoriensdesGaulesetdelaFrance(‘DomBouquet’),24vols.,1738–1904[containsalsochartersandobituaries].

Rievaulx,Ailredof,DeVitaetmiraculisEdwardiConfessoris(R.Twysden,HistoriaeAnglicanaeScriptores,vol.I,cols.370–414).

RicherofRheims,Historiae,ed.G.Waitz(Hannover,1877).

ScriptoresrerumDanicarummediiaevi,ed.J.Langebekandothers,9vols.(Copenhagen,1772–1878).

ScriptoresrerumgestarumWillelmiConquestoris,ed.J.

A.Giles(London,1845).Snorri,Sturlason,Heimskringla,

ed.E.MonsenandA.H.Smith(Cambridge,I932)

Torigny,Robertof,ChroniquedeRobertdeTorignisuiviedediversopusculeshistoriquesdecetauteur,ed.L.Delisle,2vols.(SHN,1872,1873).

——,DeImmutationeOrdinisMonarchorum(Chronique,ed.Delisle,vol.II,pp.181–206).

––,InterpolationstoGestaof

WilliamofJumièges,ed.Marx,pp.199–341.

Wace,LaConceptionNotre-DameditelaFêteauxNormands,ed.G.MancelandG.S.Trebutien(Caen,1842).

Wace,RomandeRouetdesDucsdeNormandie,ed.H.Andresen,avols.(Heil-bronn,1877);also,ed.F.Pluquet,2vols.(Rouen,1827).

Worcester,Florenceof,ChroniconexChronicis,ed.B.Thorpe,2

vols.(London,1848,1849).

B.DOCUMENTSANDRECORDS

(Cartulariesandcollectionsofcharters are normally listedunder the name of the king,the monastery, or the regionto which they particularlyrelate.)Angers,Cartulairedel'abbayede

Saint-Aubind'Angers,ed.BertranddeBroussillon,3vols.

(Paris,1903).——,Cartulairenoirdela

Cathédraled'Angers,ed.D.Urseau(Angers,1908).

Anglo-SaxonCharters,ed.A.J.Robertson(Cambridge,1939).

Anglo-SaxonLaws,DieGesetzederAngelsachsen,ed.F.Liebermann,3vols.(Halle,1903–1916).

Anglo-SaxonWills,ed.D.Whitelock(Cambridge,1930).

Anglo-SaxonWrits,ed.F.Harmer

(Manchester,1952).ArchivesdeNormandieetdela

Seine-Inférieure:RecueildeFacsimilésd'écritures,ed.P.ChevreuxandJ.Vernier(Rouen,1911).

Bath,TwoChartulariesofthePrioryofStPeteratBath,ed.W.Hunt(SomersetRecordSociety,1893).

Bayeux,AntiquuscartulariusecclesiaeBaiocensis(LivreNoir),ed.V.Bourrienne,2

vols.(SHN,1902,1903).BayeuxTapestry,ed.F.M.

Stentonandothers,1957(alsoinE.H.D.,vol.II,pp.232–278).

Beaumont-le-Roger,CartulairedeI'églisedelaSainte-TrinitédeBeaumontleRoger,ed.E.Deville(Paris,1911).

BenedictionalofArchbishopRobert,ed.H.A.Wilson(H.BradshawSociety,vol.XXIV,1903).

BookofFees,commonlycalledthe

TestadeNevill,3vols.(PublicRecordOffice,1920–1931).

BuryStEdmunds,FeudalDocumentsfromtheAbbeyofBuryStEdmunds,ed.D.C.Douglas(BritishAcademy,1932).

Caen,Analysed'unanciencartulairedel'abbayedeSaint-ÉtiennedeCaen,byE.Deville(Évreux,1905).

CalendarofCharterRolls(PublicRecordOffice,1903–in

progress).CalendarofDocumentspreserved

inFrance,illustrativeofthehistoryofGreatBritainandIreland,ed.J.H.Round,vol.I(PublicRecordOffice,1899).

Canterbury,AnEleventhCenturyInquisitionofStAugustine's,Canterbury,ed.A.Ballard(BritishAcademy,1902).

——,CartularyofthePrioryofStGregory,Canterbury,ed.A.M.Woodcock(London,1956).

——,TheDomesdayMonachorumofChristChurch,Canterbury,ed.D.C.Douglas(London,1944).

CartulairenormanddePhilippe-Auguste,LouisVIII,SaintLouisetPhilippe-le-Hardi,ed.L.Delisle(SAN,1852).

ChannelIslands,CartulairedesÎlesnormandes(Jersey,1918–1924).

CharlesIII,kingofFrance,RecueildesActesdeCharlesIII(le

Simple),ed.P.Lauer,2vols.(Paris,1940,1949).

Chartres,CartulairedeNotre-DamedeChartres,ed.E.deLepinoisandL.Merlet,3vols.(Chartres,1861–1865).

——,Cartulairedel'abbayedeSaint-PèredeChartres,ed.B.E.C.Guérard,2vols.,1840.

ChâteauduLoir,CartulairedeChâteau-du-Loir,ed.M.E.Vallée(LeMans,1905).

Cluny,ChartersandRecords

amongtheArchivesoftheancientAbbeyofCluny,ed.G.F.Duckett,2vols.(Lewes,1888).

CodexdiplomaticusaeviSaxonici,ed.J.M.Kemble,6vols.(London,1839–1848).

Colchester,CartulariumMonasteriiSanctiIohannisBaptistaedeColecestria(RoxburgheClub,1897).

ConsuetudinesetIusticie(Haskins,NormanInstitutions,pp.277–

284).CoutumesdeNormandie,Letrès

anciencoutumierdeNormandie,ed.E.-J.Tardif,2vols.(SHN,1881,1903).

——,SummadeLegibusNormanniae,ed.E.-J.Tardif(SHN,1896).

ConciliaRotomagensisProvinciae,ed.G.Bessin(Rouen,1717).[Thisisinthenatureofanewedition,muchaugmented,oftheConciliapublishedbyF.

Pommerayein1677.]ConciliaMagnaeBritanniaeet

Hiberniae,ed.DavidWilkins,4vols.,1737.

ConstitutioDomusRegis(inDialogusdeScaccario,ed.C.Johnson).

Craon,familyof,LaMaisondeCroon.ÉtudehistoriqueaccompagnéeducartulairedeCraon,ed.BertranddeBroussillon,2vols.,1893.

DialogusdeScaccario,ed.A.

Hughes,C.G.Crump,andC.Johnson(Oxford,1902);alsoed.C.Johnson,1950.

DomesdayBook,ed.RecordCommission,vols.IandII,1783.

EnglishHistoricalDocuments,ed.D.C.Douglas;vol.I(c.500–1042),ed.D.Whitelock;vol.II(1042–1189),ed.D.C.DouglasandG.W.Greenaway(London,1955and1953).

‘ExonDomesday’,includedinvol.

IVoftheRecordCommission'seditionofDomesdayBook(London,1816).

EynshamCartulary,ed.H.E.Salter,2vols.(Oxford,1907,1908).

FacsimilesofEnglishRoyalWritsto1100A.D.,ed.T.A.M.BishopandP.Chaplais(Oxford,1957).

FacsimilesofRoyalandotherChartersintheBritishMuseum,vol.I,ed.G.F.

WarnerandH.J.Ellis(London,1903).

Fontenay-Le-Marmion,CartulairedelaSeigneuriedeFontenayleMarmion,ed.G.Saige(Monaco,1895).

GalliaChristiana,vol.XI(Paris,1759).[AbouthalfofthislargevolumeconsistsofInstrumentarelatingtoNormandyandEngland.]

Gloucester,HistoriaetCartulariumMonasteriiS.

PetriGloucestriae,ed.W.H.Hart(RS,1863–1867).

GregoryVII,Pope,MonumentaGregoriana,ed.P.Jaffé(Berlin,1865).

——,RegistrumPapaeGregoriiVII,ed.E.Caspar(Berlin,1893).

Hatton,C.,SirChristopherHatton'sBookofSeals,ed.L.C.LoydandD.M.Stenton(Oxford,1950).

HenryI,kingofFrance,Catalogue

desActesd'HenriIer,roideFrance,ed.F.Soehnée(Paris,1907).

HenryI,kingofEngland,LesDiplômesdeHenriIer,roid'Angletene,pourl'abbayedeSaint-PierresurDive,ed.R.N.Sauvage(SHN,Mélanges,vol.XII,1933).

——,seealso,RegestaRegumAnglo-Normannorum,vol.II.

HenryII,kingofEngland,RecueildesActesdeHenriII,roi

d'Angleterre,concernantlesprovincesfrançaises,ed.L.Delisle,4vols.,1909–1927.[Containsmuchmaterialrelatingtotheeleventhcentury.]

HydeAbbey,LiberMonasteriideHyda,ed.E.Edwards(RS,1866).

InquisitiocomitatusCantabrigiensis;subjiciturInquisitioEliensis,ed.N.E.S.A.Hamilton(London,1876).

Jumièges,Chartesdel'abbayedeJumièges,ed.J.J.Vernier,2vols.(SHN,1916).

Lanfranc,DecretaLanfanciMonachisCantuariensibustransmissa,ed.M.D.Knowles(Edinburgh,1951).

Laval,familyof,LaMaisondeLaval.ÉtudehistoriqueaccompagnéeducartulairedeLavaletdeVitré,ed.BertranddeBroussillon,5vols.(Paris,1895–1903).

LegesWillelmi(Stubbs,SelectCharters,ed.1913,pp.98–99).

LeMans,CartulairedeSaint-VicteurauMans,ed.BertranddeBroussillon(Paris,1905).

——,CartulairedeSaintVincentduMans,ed.R.CharlesandMenjotd'Elbenne,2vols.(LeMans,1886,1913).

LeTréport,Cartulairedel'abbayedeSaint-MichelduTréport,ed.P.LaffleurdeKermingant(Paris,1880).

Lewes,TheChartularyofthePrioryofStPancrasetLewes.Sussexportion,ed.L.F.Salzmann(2vols.,SussexRecordSociety,1932,1934);Cambridgeshireportion,ed.J.H.BullockandW.M.Palmer(Cambridge,1938);Yorkshireportion,ed.C.T.Clay(YorkshireArchaeologicalSocietyJournal,1933).

LiberNigerScaccarii,ed.T.Hearne,2vols.(Oxford,1728).

Lincoln,TheRegistrumAntiquissimumoftheCathedralChurchofLincoln,ed.C.W.FosterandK.Major(LincolnRecordSociety,1931,etc.).

——,StatutesofLincolnCathedral,ed.H.BradshawandC.Wordsworth,3vols.(Cambridge,1882–1897).

LincolnshireDomesdayandLindseySurvey,ed.C.W.FosterandT.Longley(LincolnRecordSociety,1924).

London,EarlyCatersoftheCathedralChurchofStPaul,ed.M.Gibbs(London,1939).

Longueville,ChartresduPrieurédeLongueville,ed.P.leCacheux(SHN,1934).

——,Newington-LonguevilleCharters,ed.H.E.Salter(OxfordshireRecordSociety,1921).

Lothair,kingofFrance,RecueildesActesdeLothaireetdeLouasV,roisdeFrance,ed.L.

Halphen(Paris,1908).Louviers,CartulairedeLouviers,

ed.Th.Bonnin,5vols.(Louviers,1870–1883).

MagniRotuliScaccariiNormanniaesubRegibusAngliae,ed.T.Stapleton,2vols.(London,1840,1844).

Meulan,RecueildesCharlesdeSaint-NicaisedeMeulan,ed.E.Houth(Pontoise,1924).

MissalofRobertofJumièges,cd.H.A.Wilson(H.Bradshaw

Society,vol.XI,1896).MonasticonAnglicanum(W.

Dugdale):newedition,6vols,in8(London,1817–1830).

MonasticonDiœcesisExoniensis,ed.G.Oliver(Exeter,1846).

Northamptonshire,FacsimilesofEarlyChartersfromNorthamptonshireCollections,ed.F.M.Stenton(NorthamptonshireRecordSociety,1930).

Oxford,FacsimilesofEarly

ChartersinOxfordMunimentRooms,ed.H.E.Salter(Oxford,1929).

PhilipI,kingofFrance,RecueildesActesdePhilippeI,roideFrance,ed.M.Prou(Paris,1908).

PlacitaAnglo-Normannica,ed.M.M.Bigelow(Boston,U.S.A.,1879).

Pontefract,TheChartularyofStJohnofPontefract,ed.R.Holmes,2vols.(Yorkshire

ArchaeologicalSociety,1899,1902).

Ponthieu,RecueildesActesdesComtesdePontieu,ed.G.Brunel,1930.

Pontoise,Cartulairedel'abbayedeSaint-MartindePontoise,ed.J.Dehorne,2vols.(Pontoise,1895,1900).

PouillésdelaProvencedeRouen,ed.A.Longnon,1903(Rec.Hist.Franc.,4tocontinuation).

RamseyAbbey,Cartularium

MonasteriideRameseia,ed.W.H.Hart,3vols.(RS,1884–1893).

RecueildesActesdesDucsdeNormandiede911à1066,ed.M.Fauroux(SAN,1961).

RecueildeFacsimilésdeChartesnormandes,ed.J.J.Vernier(SHN,1919).

RedBookoftheExchequer,ed.H.Hall,3vols.(RS,1896).

Redon,Cartulairedel'abbayedeRedon,ed.A.deCourson

(Paris,1863).RegestaRegumAnglo-

Normannorum,vol.I,ed.H.W.C.Davis(Oxford,1913);vol.II,ed.C.JohnsonandH.A.Cronne(Oxford,1956).

RegistrumHonorisdeRichmond,ed.R.Gale(London,1722).

RobertII,kingofFrance,CataloguedesActesdeRobertII,roideFrance,ed.W.M.Newman(Paris,1837).

Rochester,RegistrumRoffense,ed.

J.Thorpe(London,1769).——,TextusRoffensis,ed.T.

Hearne(Oxford,1720).Rouen,monasteryofHolyTrinity,

ChartulariumMonasteriiSanctaeTrinitatisdeMonteRothomagi,ed.A.Deville.Thisispp.402–487ofCartulairedeSaintBertin,ed.B.Guérard(Paris,1841).

Saint-Calais,monasteryof,Cartulairedel'abbayedeSaint-Calais,ed.L.Froger(Le

Mans,1888).Saint-Leud'Esserent,prioryof,

Cartulaire,ed.E.Muller(Pontoise,1901).

Saint-Micheldel'abbayette,CartulairedeSaint-Micheldel'abbayette,ed.BertranddeBroussillon(Paris,1894).

Saint-PierredelaCouture,seeSolesmes.

Saint-Wandrille,abbeyof,chartersof,seebelow,Lot,F.

Saint-YmerenAuge,Cartulaires

deSaint-YmerenAuge,etdeBricquebec,ed.C.Bréard(SHN,1908).

Salisbury,TheRegisterofStOsmund,ed.W.H.R.Jones,2vols.(RS,1883,1884).

Saumur,Chartesnormandesdel'abbayedeSaint-FlorentprèsSaumur(SAN,1880).

Savigny,Cartulairedel'abbayedeSavigny,ed.A.Bernard,2vols.(Paris,1853).

Scotland,EarlyScottishCharters,

ed.A.C.Lawrie(Glasgow,1905).

Sele,TheChartularyofthePrioryofStPeteratSele,ed.L.F.Salzmann(Cambridge,1923).

Solesmes,CartulairedesabbayesdeSaint-PierredelaCouture,etdeSaint-PierredeSolesmes(LeMans,1881).

ThreeCoronationOrders,ed.J.WickhamLegg(H.BradshawSociety,vol.XIX,1891).

Tours,ChartesdeSaint-Juliende

Tours,ed.L.Denis(Laval,1913).

Vendôme,Cartulairedel'abbayecardinaledelaTrinitédeVendôme,ed.C.Metais,5vols.(Paris,1893–1900).

Whitby,CartulariumAbbathiaedeWhiteby,ed.J.C.Atkinson,2vols.(SurteesSociety,1879,1881).

Worcester,HemingiChartulariumecclesiaeWigorniensis,ed.T.Hearne,2vols.(Oxford,1723).

Yorkshire,EarlyYorkshireCharters,ed.W.FarrerandC.T.Clay,11vols.(Edinburgh,andYorkshireRecordSociety,1914–1955).

II

SECONDARYAUTHORITIESANDWORKSOFREFERENCE

Adams,G.B.,CouncilsandCourtsinAnglo-NormanEngland(NewHaven,U.S.A.,1962).

AdigarddesGautries,L.,LesNomsdelieuxduCalvados–del'Eure–desÎlesnormands–delaManche–delaSeine-Maritime–attestésentre911et1066.(InAnnalesdeNormandiecontinuouslyfrom1951to1959.)

Andrieu-Guitrancourt,P.,Histoire

del'Empirenormandetdesacivilisation(Paris,1952).

AnnalesdeNormandie,aquarterlyreview(Caen,1951),inprogress.

Ancestor,The,aquarterlyreview(London,1902–1905).

Armitage,E.S.,TheEarlyNormanCastlesoftheBritishIsles(London,1912).

(L')ArtdeVerifierlesDates,3vols.(Paris,1783–1787).

Ballard,A.,TheDomesdayInquest

(London,1906).Barlow,F.TheFeudalKingdomof

England(London,1961).——,TheEnglishChurch,1000–

1066(London,1963).Barrow,G.W.S.,TheBorder

(Durham,1962).Bédier,J.,LesLégendesépiques,4

vols.(Paris,1908–1913).Bentham,J.,Historyand

AntiquitiesoftheConventualandCathedralChurchofEly,2vols.(Cambridge-Norwich,

1771,1817).Béziers,M.,Mémoirespourservir

àl'étathistoriqueetgéographiqueduDiocèsedeBayeux,ed.G.LeHardy,3vols.(SHN,1894–1896).

Bigelow,M.M.,HistoryofProcedureinEngland(London,1880).

Bishop,Edmund,LiturgicaHistorica(Oxford,1962).

Bishop,T.A.M.,‘TheNormanSettlementofYorkshire’

(Studies–F.M.Powicke,pp.1–14).

Bliss,A.J.,‘TheCompanionsoftheConqueror’(Litera,vol.III,Valetta,1956).

Bloch,M.,LaSociétéféodale,2vols.(Paris,1939,1940).

——,LesRoisthaumaturges(Strassburg,1924).

——,‘LaviedeSaintÉdouardleConfesseurparOsbertdeClare’(AnalectaBollandiana,vol.XLI(1923),pp.5–131).

Blosseville,Marquisde,DictionnairetopographiqueduDépartementdel'Eure(Paris,1877).

Bodin,R.,Histoire–deNeufchâtel-en-Bray,suiviedu–cartulaire,ed.F.Bouquet(SHN,1885).

Böhmer,H.,KircheundStaatinEnglandundinderNormandie(Leipzig,1899).

——,DiefälschungenErzbishofLanfranksvonCanterbury

(Liepzig,1902).Bonnenfant,G.,Histoiregénérale

dudiocèsed'Évreux,2vols.(Paris,1933).

Bouard,Michelde,‘DelaNeustriecarolingienàlaNormandieféodale:continuitéoudiscontinuité’(BulletinoftheInstituteofHistoricalResearch,vol.XXVII(1955),pp.1–14).

——,‘LeDuchédeNormandie’(F.LotandR.Fawtier,

Institutionsfrançaises,vol.I,pp.1–33).

——,‘LaChansondeRolandetlaNormandie’(AnnalesdeNormandie,1952,pp.34–38).

——,GuillaumeleConquérant(Paris,1958).

——,‘SurlesoriginesdelaTrêvedeDieuenNormandie’(AnnalesdeNormandie,1959,pp.169–189).

Boussard,J.,‘LaseigneuriedeBellêmeauxXeetXIesiècles

(Mélanges–Halphen,pp.43–55).

Bradshaw,H.,CollectedPapers(Cambridge,1889).

Bréard,C.,L'abbayedeNotre-DamedeGrestain(Rouen,1904).

BritishAcademy,Proceedings,1904–inprogress.

Brooke,Z.N.,TheEnglishChurchandthePapacyfromtheConquesttotheReignofJohnCambridge,1931).

——,‘PopeGregoryVII'sDemandforFealtyfromWilliamtheConqueror’(Eng.Hist.Rev.,vol.XXVI(1911),pp.225–258).

BrossarddeRuville,HistoiredelavilledesAndelis,2vols.(LesAndelys,1863,1864).

Burne,A.F.,TheBattlefieldsofEngland(London,1951).

Caumont,A.de,StatistiquemonumentaleduCalvados,5vols.(Paris,1848–1867).

Chalandon,F.,HistoiredeladominationnormandeenItalieetenSicile,2vols.(Paris,1907).

CharpillonandCarème,DictionnairedetouteslescommunesduDépartementdel'Eure,2vols.(LesAndelys,1868,1879).

Chesnel,P.,LeCotentinetl'AvranchinsouslesducsdeNormandie(Caen,1912).

Chew,H.M.,TheEnglish

EcclesiasticalTenants-in-Chief(Oxford,1932).

Chibnall,M.,TheEnglishLandsoftheAbbeyofBec(Oxford,1946).

Clapham,A.W.,EnglishRomanesqueArchitectureaftertheConquest(London,1934)

Clay,C.T.,AWorcesterCharterofThomasII,ArchbishopofYork(YorkshireArchaeologicalSocietyJournal,vol.XXVI,1945).

Cleveland,duchessof,TheBattleAbbeyRollwithsomeAccountoftheNormanLineages,3vols.(London,1889).

Cochet,J.B.D.,RépertoirearchéologiquedudépartementdelaSeine-Inférieure(Paris,1871).

CompletePeerageofEngland,Scotland,Ireland,GreatBritain,andtheUnitedKingdom,byG.E.C.:newedition,revisedandmuch

enlarged,13vols.in14(1910–1959).

CongrèsduMillénairedelaNormandie:Compte-rendudesTravaux,2vols.(Rouen,1912).

Coquelin,F.-B.,Histoiredel'abbayedeSaint-MichelduTréport,ed.C.Lormier,2vols.(SHN,1879,1888).

Corbett,W.J.,‘TheDevelopmentoftheDuchyofNormandy,andtheNormanConquestof

England’(CambridgeMedievalHistory,vol.V(1926),chap.XV).

Cotman,JohnSell,ArchitecturalAntiquitiesofNormandy,accompaniedbyHistoricalandDescriptiveNoticesbyDawsonTurner,2vols.(London,1822).

Cottineau,L.H.,Répertoiretopo-bibliographiquedesabbayesetprieurés,2vols.(Mâcon,1936,1937).

Creighton,C,AHistoryof

EpidemicsinBritainfromA.D.664totheExtinctionofPlague(Cambridge,1891).

Cronne,H.A.,‘TheOfficeofLocalJusticiarinEnglandundertheNormanKings’(UniversityofBirminghamHistoricalJournal,vol.XI(1957),pp.18–38).

——,‘TheSalisburyOath’(History,vol.XIX(1934),pp.248–253).

Darlington,R.R.,‘Aethelwig,

abbotofEvesham’(Eng.Hist.Rev.,vol.XLVIII(1933),pp.1–22,177–198).

——,‘EcclesiasticalReforminthelateOldEnglishPeriod’(Eng.Hist.Rev.,vol.LI(1936),pp.385–428).

——,‘TheEarlyHistoryoftheEnglishTowns’(History,vol.XXIII(1938),pp.141–150).

——,‘TheLastPhaseofAnglo-SaxonHistory’(History,vol.XXII(1937),pp.141–150

Dauphin,H.,LeBienheureuxRichard,abbédeSaintVannes(Louvain,1946).

David,C.W.,RobertCurthose,DukeofNormandy(HarvardU.P.,Cambridge,U.S.A.,1920).

Davis,G.R.C,MedievalCartulariesofGreatBritain(London,1858).

Debidour,L.,Essaisurl'histoiredel'abbayebenedictinedeSaint-Taurind'Évreux(Évreux,

1908).DéfensedesTitresetdesDroitsde

l'abbaiedeS.Ouen(Paris,1743).

Delamare,R.,Le‘DeOfficiisecclesiasticis’deJeand'Avranches,archevêquedeRouen(Paris,1908).

Delisle,L.,ChâteauxdelaManche(Saint-Lô,1922).

——,Étudessurlaconditiondelaclasseagricoleetl'étatdel'agricultureNormandieau

MoyenAge(Évreux,1851;Paris,1903).

——,HistoireduChâteauetdesSiresdeSaint-Sauveur-le-Vicomtesuiviedepiècesjustificatives(Paris,1867).

——,‘Matériauxpourl'éditiondeGuillaumedeJumiègespreparéeparJulesLair’(Bibliothèquedel'ÉcoledeChartes,vol.LXXI(1910),pp.481–526).

——,‘DesRevenuspublicsen

NormandieauXIIesiècle’(Bibliothèquedel'ÉcoledeChartes,vol.X(1848);vol.XI(1849);vol.XIII(1853)).

——,‘CanonsduConciletenuàLisieuxen1064’(JournaldesSavants,1901,pp.516–521).

——,‘Mémoiresurd'ancienssacramentaires’(Mémoiresdel'Institut,vol.XXXII(1886),pp.57–423).

Depoin,J.,Étudespréparatoiresàl'histoiredefamillespalatines

(Paris,1908).Deslandes,R.,Étudesurl'églisede

Bayeux–antiquitédesoncéremonialsonchapitre–dispositionduchæurdelacathédrale(Caen,1917).

Desroches,M.,Noticesurlesmanuscritsdelabibliothèqued'Avranches(SAN,Mémoires,vol.XI(1840),pp.70–156).

Deville,A.,HistoireduChâteauetdesSiresdeTancarville(Rouen,1834).

——,Essaihistoriqueetdescriptifsurl'égliseetl'abbayedeSaint-GeorgesdeBoscherville(Rouen,1827).

——,HistoireduChâteaud'Arques(Rouen,1839).

Deville,E.,NoticessurquelquesmanuscritsnormandsconservésàlaBibliothèqueSainte-Genevieve,6parts(Évreux,1904,1905).

Devoisin,A.J.,HistoiredeNotre-DameduDésert(Paris,1901).

Dhondt,J.,‘HenriI,l'Empireetl'Anjou’(RevuebelgedePhilologieetd'Histoire,vol.XXV(1947),pp.87–109).

——,‘LesRelationsentrelaFranceetNormandiesousHenriI’(Normannia,vol.XII(1939),pp.465–486).

——,‘Quelquesaspectsdurègned'HenriI’(Mélanges–Halphen,pp.199–208).

DomesdayRebound(PublicRecordOffice,1954).

Douglas,DavidC,‘AncestorsofWilliamfitzOsbern’(Eng.Hist.Rev.,vol.LIX(1944),pp.62–79).

——,‘CompanionsoftheConqueror’(History,vol.XXVIII(1943),pp.129–47).

——,‘TheEarliestNormanCounts’Eng.Hist.Rev.,vol.LXI(1946),pp.129–156).

——,‘EdwardtheConfessor,DukeWilliamofNormandyandtheEnglishSuccession’

(Eng.Hist.Rev.,vol.LXVIII(1953),pp.526–545).

——,EnglishScholars(London,1951).

Douglas,DavidC,‘TheFirstDucalCharterforFécamp’(Fécamp–XIIIeCentenaire,pp.45–53).

——,‘LesEvêquesdeNormandie1035–1066’(AnnalesdeNormandie,vol.III,pp.88–102).

——,TheNormanConquestand

BritishHistorians(Glasgow,1946).

——,‘TheNormanConquestandEnglishFeudalism’(EconomicHistoryReview,vol.ix(1939),pp.128–143).

——‘Odo,LanfrancandtheDomesdaySurvey’(Essays–JamesTait,pp.47–57).

——,‘RobertdeJumiègesetlaConquêtedel'Angleterre’(Jumièges–XIIIecentenaire,pp.282–287).

——,‘TheRiseofNormandy’(BritishAcademy,Proceedings,vol.XXXIII(1947),pp.101–131,andseparately).

——,‘RolloofNormandy’(Eng.Hist.Rev.,vol.LVII(1942),pp.417–436).

——,TheSocialStructureofMedievalEastAnglia(Oxford,1927).

——,‘SomeProblemsofEarlyNormanChronology’(Eng.Hist.Rev.,vol.LXV(1950),pp.

289–303).——,‘TheSongofRolandand

theNormanConquestofEngland’(FrenchStudies,vol.XIV(1960),pp.99–116).

Dozy,R.,Recherchessurl'histoiredelalitteraturedel'Espagne,2vols.(Paris,1881).

Drogereit,R.,‘GabeseineangelsächsischeKönigskanzlei?’(ArchivfürUrkundenforschung,vol.XIII(1935),pp.335–446).

Ducarel,A.C.,Anglo-NormanAntiquitiesconsideredinaTourthroughPartofNormandy(London,1767).

Duchesne,L.,Lespremierstempsdel'étatpontifical(Paris,1911).

Dugdale,W.,TheBaronageofEngland,3vols.(London,1675,1676).

Dumaine,L.V.,TinchebraietsaRégionauBocagenormand,3vols.(Paris,1883–1885).

[DuPlessis,Toussaints],DescriptiongéographiqueethistoriquedelaHauteNormandie,2vols.(Paris,1740).

Dupont,E.,LaparticipationdelaBretagneàlaconquêtedel'AngleterreparlesNormands(Paris,1911).

DurtelledeSaintSauveur,E.,HistoiredeBretagne,2vols.(Paris,1935).

Edwards,J.G.,‘TheNormansand

theWelshMarch’(BritishAcademy,Proceedings,vol.XLII(1956),pp.155–179).

ÉtudesLexoviennes,3vols.(Paris,1915–1928).

Eudeline,P.,Hauville:monographieparoissiale(Évreux,1918).

Faral,E.,LesJongleursdeFrance(Paris,1910).

Farcy,P.de,Abbayesdel'évêchédeBayeux(Laval,1887).

Farin,F.,Histoiredelavillede

Rouen,3rded.,2vols.(Rouen,1738).

Fauroux,M.,see:RecueildesActesdesDucsdeNormandie.

Fawtier,R.,‘LesreliquesrouennaisesdeSainteCatherined'Alexandrie’(AnalectaBollandiana,vol.XLII(1923),pp.357–368).

Fécamp,abbeyof,OuvragescientifiqueduXIIIecentenaire(Fécamp,1958).

Finn,R.W.,TheDomesday

InquestandtheMakingofDomesdayBook(London,1961).

——,AnIntroductionofDomesdayBook(London,1962).

Flach,J.,LesOriginesdel'ancienneFrance,4vols.(Paris,1886–1917).

Fliche,A.,LeRègnedePhilippeI,roideFrance(Paris,1912).

——,LeRéformegrégorienne,2vols.(Paris,1924,1925).

Foreville,R.,‘Auxoriginesdelalegendeépique:GuillaumedePoitiers’(MoyenAge,vol.LXI(1950),pp.95–219).

——,‘GuillaumedeJumiègesetGuillaumedePoitiers’(Fécamp–XIIIeCentenaire,pp.643–653).

Formeville,H.de,Histoiredel'ancienévêché-comtédeLisieux,2vols.(Lisieux,1873).

Freeman,E.A.,TheHistoryoftheNormanConquestofEngland,

5vols.,andindexvol.(Oxford,1870–1879).

——,TheReignofWilliamRufus,2vols.(Oxford,1882).

——,SketchesofTravelinNormandyandMaine(London,1897).

Frère,E.,ManuelduBibliographenormand,2vols.(Rouen,1858,1860).

Fuller,J.F.C.,DecisiveBattlesoftheWesternWorld,vol.II(London,1954).

Galbraith,V.H.,‘TheEastAnglianSeeandtheAbbeyofBuryStEdmunds’(Eng.Hist.Rev.,vol.XL(1925),pp.222–228).

——,‘Anepiscopalland-grantof1085’(ibid.,vol.XLIV(1929),pp.353–372).

——,‘GirardtheChancellor’(ibid.,vol.XLVI,1931).

——,‘TheMakingofDomesdayBook’(ibid.,vol.LVII(1942),pp.161–177).

——,TheMakingofDomesdayBook(Oxford,1961).

——,‘TheLiteracyofMedievalEnglishKings’(BritishAcademy,Proceedings,vol.XXI(1935),pp.201–238).

——,‘MonasticFoundationChartersoftheEleventhandTwelfthCenturies’(CambridgeHistoryJournal,vol.IV(1934),pp.205–222,296–298).

Ganshof,F.L.,Qu'est-cequelaFéodalite?(Brussels,1947).

Genestal,R.,DuRôledesMonastèrescommeétablissementsdecrédit(Paris,1901).

GeslindeBourgoyne,J.,andBarthélemy,A.de,AnciensÉvêchésdeBretagne,6vols.(Paris,1855–1879).

Giry,A.,ManueldeDiplomatique(Paris,1894).

Glanville,L.(Boistard)de,HistoireduprieurédeSaint-LôdeRouen,2vols.(Rouen,

1890,1891).Gleason,S.E.,AnEcclesiastical

BaronyoftheMiddleAges:theBishopricofBayeux,1066–1204(HarvardU.P.,Cambridge,U.S.A.,1936).

Glover,R.,‘EnglishWarfarein1066’(Eng.Hist.Rev.,vol.LXVII(1952),pp.1–18).

Goebel,J.,FelonyandMisdemeanour(NewYork,1937).

Goujou,A.,HistoiredeBernayet

desoncanton(Évreux,1875).Grierson,P.,‘Therelations

betweenEnglandandFlandersbeforetheNormanConquest’(R.Hist.Soc.,Transactions,series4,vol.XXIII(1941),pp.71–113).

Grosse-Duperon,R.,L'égliseNotre-DamedeMayenne,NotesetDocuments,2vols.(Mayenne,1911,1912).

Guéry,Ch.,Histoiredel'abbayedeLire(Évreux,1917).

Guillhiermoz,P.,Essaisurl'originedelanoblesseenFranceauMoyenAge(Paris,1902).

Guitard,M.,DocumentsnormandsconservésàLondres(Rouen,1934).

Gurney,D.,TheRecordoftheHouseofGournay,2vols.(London,1848,1858).

Halphen,L.,Lecomted'AnjouauXIesiècle(Paris,1906).

——,Mélangesd'histoiredu

MoyenAge–dediésàL.Halphen(Paris,1951).

HandbookofBritishChronology,ed.EM.PowickeandE.B.Fryde(R.Hist.Soc.,1961).

Harcourt,Vernon,HisGracetheStewardandTrialbyPeers(London,1907).

Hardy,T.D.,DescriptiveCatalogueofMaterialsrelatingtotheHistoryofGreatBritainandIreland,3vols.in4(RS,1863–1871).

Haskins,C.H.,NormanInstitutions(HarvardU.P.,Cambridge,U.S.A.,1918).

——,TheNormansinEuropeanHistory(NewYork,1915).

——,AnniversaryEssayspresentedtoC.H.Haskins(NewYork,1929).

Hayward,John,TheLivesoftheIIINormans,KingsofEngland(London,1613).

Hefele-Leclerc,HistoiredesConciles,vols.IVandV(Paris,

1911,1913).Hill,C.,‘TheNormanYoke’

(PuritanismandRevolution,London,1958).

Hill,J.W.F.,MedievalLincoln(Cambridge,1948).

Hippeau,C,L'AbbayedeSaint-ÉtiennedeCaen(Caen,1855).

——,DictionnairetopographiquedudépartementdeCalvados(Paris,1866).

Hollings,M.,‘TheSurvivaloftheFiveHideUnitintheWestern

Midlands’(Eng.Hist.Rev.,vol.LXIII(1948),pp.453–487).

Hollister,C.W.,Anglo-SaxonMilitaryInstitutions(Oxford,1962).

——,‘TheNormanConquestandtheGenesisofEnglishFeudalism’(AmericanHistoricalReview,vol.LXVI(1961),pp.641–664).

Holtzmann,W.,PapsturkundeninEngland,3vols.(Berlin,1930–1952).

Hommey,L.,HistoiregénéraleecclésiastiqueetciviledudiocèsedeSées,5vols.(Alençon,1898–1900).

Hunger,V.,HistoiredeVerson(Caen,1908).

Huynes,J.,Histoiregénéraledel'abbayeduMont-St-Michel,ed.E.deR.deBeaurepaire,2vols.(SHN,1872,1873).

Imbert,H.,HistoiredeThouars(Niort,1871).

Inman,A.H.,Domesdayand

FeudalStatistics(London,1900).

Jamison,E.,‘TheSicilianNormanKingdominthemindofAnglo-NormanContemporaries’(BritishAcademy,Proceedings,vol.XXIV(1938),pp.237–286).

Jumièges,Histoiredel'abbayeroyaledeSaint-PierredeJumiègesparunreligieuxbénédictinedelaCongrégationdeSaintMaur,ed.JulienLoth,

3vols.(SHN,1872–1875).——,Jumièges:Congrès

scientifiqueduXIIIecentenaire(Rouen,1955).

Kantorowicz,ErnstH.,LaudesRegiae:astudyinLiturgicalAcclamations(UniversityofCalifornia,1946).

——,TheKing'sTwoBodies:aStudyinMedievalPoliticalTheology(PrincetonUniversityPress,1957).

Kelham,R.,DomesdayBook

Illustrated(London,1788).Kern,F.,KingshipandLawinthe

MiddleAges,trans.S.D.Chrimes(London,1939).

Knowles,M.David,TheMonasticOrderinEngland(Cambridge,1940).

——,‘LesRelationsmonastiquesentrelaNormandieetl'Angleterre’,(Jumièges–XIIIe

centenaire,pp.261–267).Knowles,M.David,andHadcock,

R.N.,MedievalReligious

HousesinEnglandandWales(London,1953).

LaBorderie,A.leM.de,ÉtudehistoriquesurlesNeufBaronsdeBretagne(Rennes,1895).

LaBorderie,A.leM.de,andPoquet,B.,HistoiredeBretagne,6vols.(Rennes,1896–1914).

Laheudrie,E.de,HistoireduBessin,2vols.(Caen,1930).

Lair,J.,GuillaumeLongue-Epée(Paris,1893).

LaMorandière,G.de,HistoiredelaMaisond'EstoutevilleenNormandie(Paris,I9O3).

Langlois,P.,NouvellesrecherchessurlesbihliothèquesdesarchevêquesetduchapitredeRouen(Rouen,1854).

LaRoque,G.-A.de,HistoiregénéalogiquedelaMaisondeHarcourt,4vols.(Paris,1663).

Larson,L.M.,TheKing'sHouseholdinEnglandbeforetheNormanConquest

(Madison,U.S.A.,1904).Latouche,R.,HistoireduComté

duMainependantlesXeetXIe

siècles(Paris,1810).Lauer,P.,LeRègnedeLouisIV,

d'OutreMer(Paris,1900).LeBaud,P.,HistoiredeBretagne

(Paris,1638).Lebeurier,P.F.,Noticesur

l'abbayedelaCroix-Saint-Leufroy(Paris,1866).

LeBrasseur,P.P.,HistoirecivileetecclésiastiqueduComté

d'Évreux(Nevers,1722).LeCacheux,M.J.,Histoirede

l'abbayedeSaint-AmanddeRouen(Caen,1937).

LeCacheux,P.,‘UnechartedeJumiègesconcernantl'é'preuveparleferchaud’(SHN,Mélanges,vol.XI(1927),pp.203–217).

Lecanu,CA.F.,HistoiredudiocèsedeCoutancesetAvranches,2vols.(Coutances,1877,1888).

Lechaudé-d'Anisy,LesanciennesabbayesdeNormandie(SAN,Mémoires,vols.VII,VIII).

——,GrandsRôlesdesEchiquiersdeNormandie(Caen,1846).

Leclercq,I.J.,etBonnes,J.P.,UnmaîtredelaviespirituelleauXIesiècle:JeandeFécamp(Paris,1946).

Lemarignier,J.-F.,‘AutourdelaroyautéfrançaiseduIXeauXIIIesiècle’(Bibliothèquedel'ÉcoledeChartes,vol.CXIII,

1955).——,‘LadislocationduPaguset

leproblèmedesConsuetudines’(Mélanges–Halphen,pp.401–411).

——,Recherchessurl'hommageenmarcheetlesfrontièresjéodales(Paris,1945).

——,LesPrivilègesd'exemptionetdejurisdictionecclésiastiquedesabbayesnormandes(Paris,1937).

Lennard,R.,RuralEngland,1086–

1135(Oxford,1959).LeNoir,J.L.,Preuves

généalogiquesethistoriquesdelaMaisondeHarcourt(Paris,1907).

LePatourel,J.H.,‘Geoffrey,BishopofCoutances’(Eng.Hist.Rev.,vol.LIX(1944),pp.129–140.

——,‘TheReportsoftheTrialonPennendenHeath’(Studies–Powicke,pp.15–26).

LePrévost,A.,‘Lesanciennes

divisionsterritorialesdelaNormandie’(SAN,Mémoires,vol.XI(1840),pp.1–59).

——,MémoiresetNotesdeM.AugusteLePrévostpourserviràl'histoiredudépartementdel'Eure,3vols.(Éivreux,1862–1869).

LeRouxdeLincy,A.J.V.,Essaihistoriqueetlittérairesurl'abbayedeFécamp(Rouen,1840).

LeRoy,T.,Livredescurieuses

recherchesduMont-Saint-Michel(1647),ed.E.deR.Beaurepaire(SAN,Mémoires,vol.XXIX(1877),pp.223–246).

Licquet,F.T.,HistoiredeNormandie,2vols.(Rouen,1835).

Liebermann,F.,UngedruckteAnglo-NormannischeGeschichtsquellen(Strassburg,1879).

——,seealso;Anglo-SaxonLaws,DieGesetzeder

Angelsachsen.Lobineau,G.A.,Histoirede

Bretagne,2vols.(Paris,1707).[ThesecondvolumecontainsthePreuves.]

Lot,F.,L'artmilitaireetlesarméesaumoyenâge(Paris,1946).

——,‘ÉtudessurleslégendesépiquesfrançaisesV:LachansondeRoland’(Romania,vol.LIV(1928),pp.357–378).

——,FidèlesouVassaux?(Paris,

1940).——,Étudescritiquessurl'abbaye

deSaint-Wandrille(Paris,1913).

——,Mélangesd'histoire–offertsàF.Lot(Paris,1925).

Lot,F.,andFawtier,R.,HistoiredesInstitutionsfrançaisesauMoyenAge,3vols.(Paris,1958–1963).

Loth,J.,LaCathédraledeRouen(Paris,1879).

LottindeLaval,V.,Bernayetson

arrondissement(Bernay,1890).

Loyd,L.C.,TheOriginsofsomeAnglo-NormanFamilies(HarleianSociety,vol.CIII,1951).

——,‘TheOriginoftheFamilyofWarenne’(YorkshireArchaeologicalSocietyJournal,vol.XXXI(1933),pp.97–159).

Loyn,H.R.,Anglo-SaxonEnglandandtheNormanConquest

(London,1962).Luchaire,A.,Histoiredes

InstitutionsmonarchiquesdelaFrance(987–1180),2vols.(Paris,1891),

Lyon,B.D.,FromFieftoIndenture(Cambridge,U.S.A.,1957).

——,‘TheMoneyFiefundertheEnglishKings’(Eng.Hist.Rev.,volLVI(1941),pp.161–193).

——(editor),MedievalInstitutions

(CornellUniversityPress,1954).

Mabillon,J.,DeReDiplomatica,1681;supplement,1704.

Macdonald,A.J.,Lanfranc:aStudyofhisLifeandWriting(Oxford,1944).

Maclagan,E.,TheBayeuxTapestry(KingPenguinBooks,1943).

Madox,T.,BaroniaAnglica(London,1736).

——,FormulareAnglicanum(London,1702).

Maitland,F.W.,DomesdayBookandBeyond(Cambridge,1897).

——,CollectedPapers,3vols.(Cambridge,1911).

Martène,E.,andDurandU.,Thesaurusnovusanecdotorum,5vols.(Paris,1717).

Martin-du-Gard,Roger,L'abbayedeJumièges(Montdidier,1909).

Marx,J.,‘GuillaumedePoitiersetGuillaumedeJumièges’

(Mélanges–F.Lot,pp.515–542).

Maskell,W.,AncientLiturgyoftheChurchofEngland(London,1846).

——,Monumentaritualiaecclesiaeanglicanae(Oxford,1882).

Mason,J.F.A.,‘TheCompanionsoftheConqueror:anadditionalname’(Eng.Hist.Rev.,vol.LXVI(1956),pp.61–69).

MatthewDonald,Norman

MonasteriesandtheirEnglishPossessions(Oxford,1962).

Merlet,L.,DictionnairetopographiqueduDépartementd'EureetLoir(Paris,1861).

Morgan,J.F.,EnglandundertheNormanOccupation(London,1858).

Morice,P.H.,HistoireecclésiastiqueetciviledeBretagne,5vols.(1742).[Thelastthreevols.containthePreuves.]

Monstier,A.du,see:NeustriaPia.Morris,W.A.,TheMedieval

EnglishSheriffto1300(Manchester,1927).

Musset,L.,‘ActesinéditsduXIe

siècle’(SAN,Bulletin,vol.LII,pp.117=155;vol.LIV,pp.115–154;1952–1955).

——,‘Lesdestinsdelapropriétémonastiquedevantlesinvasionsnormandes’(Jumièges–XIIIecentenaire,pp.48–55).

——,‘Lesdomainesdel'époquefranqueetlesdestinéesdurégimedomanialduIXeauXIe

siècle’(SAN,Bulletin,vol.XLIX(1942–1945),pp.7–97).

——,‘Lavieéconomiquedel'abbayedeFécampsousl'abbatiatdeJeandeRavenne’(Fécamp–XIIIecentenaire,pp.67–79).

——,‘A-t-ilexistéenNormandieauXIesiècleunearistocratied'argent?’(Annalesde

Normandie(1959),pp.285–299).

Navel,H.,‘L'enquêtede1133surlesfiefsdel'évêchédeBayeux’(SAN,Bulletin,vol.XLII(1935),pp.5–80).

——,‘RecherchessurlesinstitutionsféodalesenNormandie’(SAN,Bulletin,vol.LI,1953).

Nicole,J.,Histoire–desévêquesd'Avranches,ed.Ch.-A.deBeaurepaire(SHN,Mélanges,

vol.IV(1898),pp.1–110).Norgate,K.,Englandunderthe

AngevinKings,2vols.(London,1887).

NouveauTraitédeDiplomatique,6vols.(Paris,1750–1765).

Offler,H.S.,‘TheTractate,DeIniustaVexacioneWillelmiepiscopi’(Eng.Hist.Rev.,vol.LXVI(1951),pp.321–341).

Oleson,T.J.,TheWitenagemotinheReignofEdwardtheConfessor(Oxford,1955).

——,‘EdwardtheConfessor'sPromiseoftheThronetoDukeWilliamofNormandy’(Eng.Hist.Rev.,vol.LXXII(1957),pp.221–228).

Oliver,G.,LivesoftheBishopsofExeter(Exeter,1861).

Petit-Dutaillis,C.,StudiesandNotesSupplementarytoStubbs'ConstitutionalHistory,3vols.(Manchester,1908–1929).

Pezet,R.AL.,LesbaronsdeCreully(Bayeux,1854).

Pfister,C.,ÉtudesurlerègnedeRobertlePieux(Paris,1885).

Philpot,J.H.,MasterWace:aPioneerinTwoLiteratures(London,1925).

Pigeon,E.A.,LaDiocèsed'Avranches,2vols.(Coutances,1887,1888).

Pluquet,F.,NoticesurlavieetlesécritsdeRobertWace(Rouen,1824).

Pocock,J.G.A.,TheAncientConstitutionandtheFeudal

Law(Cambridge,1957).Pollock,F.,andMaitland,F.W.,

TheHistoryofEnglishLawbeforethetimeofEdwardI,2nded.,2vols.(Cambridge,1898).

Pommeraye,F.,Histoiredel'abbayeroyaledeSaintOuendeRouen–ensemblescellesdesabbayesdeSainteCatherineetdeSaintAmand(Rouen,1662).

——,HistoiredesArchevêquesde

Rouen(Rouen,1667).——,Histoiredel'église

cathédraledeRouen(Rouen,1686).

Poole,A.L.,ObligationsofSocietyintheTwelfthandThirteenthCenturies(Oxford,1946).

Poole,R.L.,TheExchequerintheTwelfthCentury(Oxford,1912).

——,ChroniclesandAnnals(Oxford,1926).

——,‘LeopoldDelisle’(BritishAcademy,Proceedings,vol.V,1911).

——,StudiesinChronologyandHistory(Oxford,1934).

——,EssaysinHistoryPresentedtoReginaldLanePoole(Oxford,1927).

Porée,A.A.,Histoiredel'abbayeduBec,2vols.(Évreux,1901).

Pottier,A.,Revuerétrospectivenormande(Rouen,1842).

Powicke,F.M.,TheLossof

Normandy(Manchester,1913).——,‘SirHenrySpelmanandthe

“Concilia”’(BritishAcademy,Proceedings,vol.XVI(1930),pp.345–382).

——,StudiesinMedievalHistorypresentedtoF.M.Powicke(Oxford,1948).

Powicke,M.,MilitaryObligationinMedievalEngland(Oxford,1962).

Prentout,H.,EssaisurlesoriginesetfondationduDuchéde

Normandie(Paris,1911).——,ÉtudecritiquesurDudonde

Saint-Quentin(Paris,1916).——,Étudessurquelquespoints

del'histoiredeGuillaumeleConquérant(Caen,1930).

——,Étudessurquelquespointsdel'histoiredeNormandie(Caen,1926;NouvelleSéries,Caen,1929).

——,LaNormandie(‘RégionsdelaFrance’,1910).

Prestwich,J.O.,‘WarandFinance

intheAnglo-NormanState’(R.Hist.Soc.,Transactions,series5,vol.IV(1954),pp.19–44).

Richard,A.,HistoiredesComtesdePoitou,2vols.(Paris,1903).

Richardson,H.G.,‘TheCoronationinMedievalEngland’(Traditio,vol.XVI(i960),pp.111–202).

Richardson,H.G.,andSayles,G.,TheGovernanceofMedievalEnglandfromtheConquesttoMagnaCarta(Edinburgh,

1963).Rickard,P.,BritaininMedieval

FrenchLiterature(Cambridge,1956).

Ritchie,R.L.G.,TheNormansinEnglandbeforeEdwardtheConfessor(Exeter,1948).

——,TheNormansinScotland(Edinburgh,1954).

Robinson,J.A.,GilbertCrispin,AbbotofWestminster(Cambridge,1911).

——,SomersetHistoricalEssays

(BritishAcademy,1911).Round,J.H.,TheCommuneof

London,andotherStudies(London,1899).

——,FamilyOriginsandotherStudies(London,1930).

——,FeudalEngland(London,1895).

——,GeoffreydeMandeville(London,1892).

——,PeerageandPedigree,2vols.(London,1910).

——,StudiesinPeerageand

FamilyHistory(London,1901).

——,seealso:CalendarofDocumentspreservedinFrance.

RoyalHistoricalSociety;Transactions,5series(inprogress).

Runciman,Steven,AHistoryoftheCrusades,3vols.(Cambridge,1951=1954).

Sackur,E.,DieCluniacenser,2vols.(Halle,1892,1894).

Sauvage,H.,LesChartesdefondationduPrieurédeBacqueville-en-Caux:Étudecritique(Rouen,1882).

——,Notesurlesmanuscritsanglo-saxonsetlesmanuscritsdeJumiègesconservésàlaBibliothèquemunicipaledeRouen(LeHavre,1870).

Sauvage,R.N.,Lesfondsdel'abbayedeSaint-ÉtiennedeCaenauxArchivesdeCalvados(Caen,1911).

——,L'abbayedeSaint-MartindeTroarn(Caen,1911).

Schlumberger,G.,‘Deuxchefsnormandsdesarméesbyzantines’(Revuehistorique,vol.XVI,1881).

Schram,P.E.,HistoryoftheEnglishCoronation(Oxford,1937).

Setton,K.M.,andBaldwin,M.W.(editors),AHistoryoftheCrusades,vol.I:‘TheFirstHundredYears’(Philadelphia,

1955).Sion,J.,LesPaysansdela

Normandieorientale(Paris,1909).

Sisam,K.,‘Ælfric'sCatholicHomilies’(ReviewofEnglishStudies,vol.VII,pp.7–22;vol.VIII,pp.51–68;vol.IX,pp.1–11;1931–1933).

Skene,W.F.,CelticScotland,3vols.(Edinburgh,1876–1880).

SocialLifeinEarlyEngland,ed.G.Barraclough(London,

1960).SociétédesAntiquairesde

Normandie:Mémoires,1825–inprogress.

Sociétédel'HistoiredeNormandie:Mélanges,1891–inprogress.

Southern,R.W.,‘TheCanterburyForgeries’(Eng.Hist.Rev.,vol.XXIII(1958),pp.193–226).

——,‘TheEnglishOriginsofthe“MiraclesoftheVirgin”’(MedievalandRenaissance

Studies,vol.IV(1958),pp.176–216).

——,‘TheFirstLifeofEdwardtheConfessor’(Eng.Hist.Rev.,vol.LVII(i943),pp.385–400).

——,‘LanirancofBecandBerengarofTours’(Studies–Powicke,pp.27–48).

——,SaintAnselmandHisBiographer(Cambridge,1963).

Spatz,W.,DieSchlachtvonHastings(Berlin,1896).

Stapleton,T.,see:MagniRotuli.

Steenstrup,J.,NormandietsHistorieunderdesyvførstehertuger(Copenhagen,1925).

Stein,H.,Bibliographiegénéraledescartulairesfrançais(Paris,1907).

Stenton,F.M.,Anglo-SaxonEngland(Oxford,1943).

Stenton,F.M.,‘TheDanesinEngland’(BritishAcademy,Proceedings,vol.XIII(1927),pp.203–246).

——,TheFreePeasantryofthe

NorthernDanelaw(Lund,1926).

——,TheLatinChartersoftheAnglo-SaxonPeriod(Oxford,1955).

——,‘TheDevelopmentoftheCastleinEnglandandWales’(SocialLifeinEarlyEngland,pp.96–123).

——,‘NormanLondon’(ibid.,pp.179–207).

——,TypesofManorialStructureintheNorthernDanelaw

(Oxford,1910).——,WilliamtheConquerorand

theRuleoftheNormans(London,1908).

Stephenson,C.,‘FeudalismanditsAntecedentsinEngland’(AmericanHistoricalReview,vol.XLVIII(1943),pp.245–265).

Stevenson,W.H.,‘AContemporaryDescriptionoftheDomesdaySurvey’(Eng.Hist.Rev.,vol.XXII(1907),pp.

74–78).——,‘AnOld-EnglishCharterof

WilliamtheConqueror’(ibid.,vol.XI(1896),pp.731–744).

Stubbs,W.,TheConstitutionalHistoryofEngland,3vols,(manyeditions).

——,SelectChartersandotherIllustrationsofEnglishConstitutionalHistory(manyeditions).

StudiGregoriani,ed.G.S.Borino,3vols.(Rome,1947).

Tait,J.,‘AnAllegedCharterofWilliamtheConqueror’(Essays–R.L.Poole,pp.151–167).

——,TheMedievalEnglishBorough(Manchester,1933).

——,HistoricalEssaysinHonourofJamesTait(Manchester,1933).

Tardif,E.-F.,‘Étudessurlessourcesdel'ancienDroitnormandetspécialmentsurlalégislationdesducsde

Normandie’(Congrèsmillénaire–Normandie,vol.I,pp.570–619).

Tolhurst,J.B.L.,‘AnexaminationoftwoAnglo-SaxonMSS.oftheWinchesterSchool:theMissalofRobertofJumiègesandtheBenedictionalofStÆthelwold’(Archaeologia,vol.LXXXIII(1933),pp.27–49).

ToustaindeBilly,R.,HistoireecclésiastiqueduDiocèsedeCoutances,ed.F.Dolbet,3

vols.(SHN,1874–1886).Tout,T.F.,Chaptersinthe

AdministrativeHistoryofMedievalEngland,6vols.(Manchester,1920–1937).

——,EssaysinMedievalHistorypresentedtoT.F.Tout(Manchester,1925).

Turner,G.Dawson,AccountofaTourinNormandy,2vols.(London,1820).

Ullmann,W.,MedievalPapalism(London,1949).

Vacandard,E.,‘Unessaid'histoiredesarchevêquesdeRouenauXIesiècle’(RevuecatholiquedeNormandie,vol.III(1893),pp.117–127).

——,‘ListechronologiquedesarchevêquesdeRouen’(RevuecatholiquedeNormandie,vol.XIII(1904),pp.189–202).

Valin,L.,LeDucdeNormandieetsacour(Paris,1910).

Vaultier,F.,‘Rechercheshistoriquessurl'ancienpaysde

Cinglais’(SAN,Mémoires,vol.X(1837),pp.1–296).

Vigfusson,G.,andPowell,F.York,CorpusPoeticumboreale,2vols.(Oxford,1883).

——,OriginesIslandicae,2vols.(Oxford,1905).

Verbuggen,J.F.,DieKrijskunstinWest-Europaindemiddeleeuwen(Brussels,1954).

Villars,J.B.,Lesnormandsen

Mediterranée(Paris,1951).Vinogradoff,P.,EnglishSocietyin

theEleventhCentury(Oxford,1908).

Waley,D.P.,‘CombinedOperationsinSicilyA.D.1060–1078’(PapersoftheBritishSchoolofRome,vol.XXII,1954).

Waters,R.E.C,GenealogicalMemoirsoftheCountsofEu(London,1886).

——,GundradadeWarenne

(Exeter,1884).Wharton,H.,see:AngliaSacra.WhiteG.H.,‘TheBattleof

HastingsandtheDeathofHarold’(CompletePeerage,vol.XII,partI,AppendixL).

——,‘TheConqueror'sBrothersandSisters’(ibid.,AppendixK).

——,‘MarshalsundertheConqueror’(ibid.,vol.XI,AppendixE).

——,‘TheHouseholdofthe

NormanKings’(R.Hist.Soc,Transactions,series,4,vol.XXX(1948),pp.127–145).

——,‘TheFirstHouseofBellême’(ibid.,series4,vol.XXII(1940),pp.68–99)

——,‘TheSistersandNiecesofGunnor,DuchessofNormandy’(Genealogist,newseries,vol.XXXVII,1920).

White,T.L.,junr.,LatinMonasticisminNormanSicily(Cambridge,U.S.A.,1938).

Wilkins,D.,see:Concilia.Wilkinson,Bertie,‘Freemenand

theCrisisof1051’(BulletinJohnRylandsLibrary,vol.XXXIV(1938),pp.368–387).

——,‘NorthumbrianSeparatismin1065and1066’(ibid.,vol.XXXII(1936),pp.504–526).

Williams,G.H.,TheNormanAnonymousof1100A.D.(Cambridge,U.S.A.,I951

Williams,Watkin,‘WilliamofDijon’(DownsideReview,vol.

LII(1934),pp.520–545).Wilmart,André,Auteursspirituels

ettextesdévotsduMoyen#afAge(Paris,1932).

——,‘AlainleRouxetAlainleNoir’(AnnalesdeBretagne,vol.XXXVIII(1929),pp.576–602).

Yver,J.,‘Lebrefanglo-normand’(RevueHistoriquedeDroit,vol.XXIX,,1962).

——,‘LesChâteauxfortsenNormandiejusqu'aumilieudu

XIIesiècle’(SAN,Bulletin,vol.LJIII,1955).

——,‘LeDéveloppementdupouvoirducalenNormandiedel'avènementdeGuillaumeleConquérantàlamortd'HenriI’(AttidelConvengnointernationalediStudiRuggeriani,Palermo,1955).

——,‘L'interdictiondelaguerreprivéedansletrèsanciendroitnormand’(TravauxdelaSemainedeDroitnormand,

Caen,1928).

SCHEDULEOFSELECTEDDATES

The list which follows setsout some of the principaldates which have beenadopted in this book. Whereno precise date has been

suggestedinthetext,thishasbeen indicated by a questionmark. No finality is claimedfor this list, since thechronology of the age ofWilliam the Conqueror isbeset with difficulties, and,eveninrespectofsomeofthemost important events, theevidence is less conclusivethanmight be desired.Manyofthequestionshereinvolvedhave been considered above

intheappendices.

1028? (autumn)1BirthofWilliamtheConqueror.

1031 DukeRobertIofNormandysupportsKingHenryIofFranceinthelatter'swartoobtainhiskingdom.

1035 (July)DeathofDukeRobertIinBithynia:accessionofWilliamasdukeofNormandy.

(12November)DeathofCnuttheGreat.

1036 MurderoftheathelingAlfred(brotherofEdwardtheConfessor).

1037 (16March)DeathofArchbishopRobertIofRouen:hissuccessorwasMauger,William'suncle.

1040 (23February)Consecrationoftheabbey-churchatLeBec.GeoffreyII(Martel)

becomescountofAnjou.

1040? CountAlanIIIofBrittany,CountGilbertofBrionne,andOsbernthesteward(William'sguardians)dieatvariousdatesbyviolence.

1041 (or1042)UnsuccessfulattempttointroducetheTruceofGodintoNormandy.

1042 (afterJune)Accession

ofEdwardtheConfessoraskingofEngland.

1043 CoronationofEdwardtheConfessor.

1044 LanfrancbecomespriorofLeBec.

1045 (January)MarriageofEdwardtheConfessortoEdith,daughterofEarlGodwineofWessex.

ThreatenedinvasionofEnglandbyMagnus,kingofNorway.

1046? EcclesiasticalcouncilatRouen.

1046 (late)RevoltofthewesternvicomtesandGuyofBurgundyinNormandy.KingHenryintervenesonbehalfofWilliam.

1047 (January)BattleofVal-és-Dunes.

(October)EcclesiasticalcouncilnearCaen(Williampresent).Proclamationofthe

TruceofGodinNormandy.

(25October)DeathofMagnus,kingofNorway.

1048 (late)LeoIXbecomespope.

1049 (October)OpeningofthecouncilofRheims.

(late–early1050)WilliamrecapturesBrionne.

1050 (early)Williamre-enters

Rouen.

1051 (?January)Robert,formerlyabbotofJumiéges,nowbishopofLondon,becomesarchbishopofCanterbury.

(26March)DeathofHughIV,countofMaine,

(shortlyafter26March)LeManssurrenderedtoGeoffrey,countofAnjou.

UnsuccessfulrebellionbyEarlGodwineofWessexandhissonsagainstEdwardtheConfessor;theyaresentfromEnglandintoexile.AboutthistimeWilliamispromisedthesuccessiontothekingdomofEngland.

(summer-?February1052)2WarfarebetweenWilliamandGeoffrey,countofAnjou,roundDomfrontandAlençon.

1051 or1052?3MarriageofWilliamtoMatilda,daughterofBaldwinV,countofFlanders.

1052 (summer)OutbreakoftherebellionofWilliam,countofArques.

(15August)CountGeoffreyofAnjouandKingHenryofFrance,havingbeenreconciled,aretogetheratOrléans.

(beforeSeptember)Returnbyforceto

EnglandofEarlGodwineandhissonsHaroldandLeofwine.Theyarere-establishedintheirearldoms.ExpulsionofmanyNormansfromEngland,includingRobert,archbishopofCanterbury.StigandisgiventhearchbishopricofCanterbury.

1053 (13April)DeathofEarlGodwineofWessex.

(June)BattleofCivitate.

(NovemberorDecember)CaptureofArquesbyWilliam.

(December-January1054)KingHenrysummonsleviesfromFrance.

TherefollowshisinvasionoftheÉvreçin,whileOdo,hisbrother,withhisassociatesinvadeseasternNormandy.

1054 (1–20February)Battle

ofMortemer.

(later)EcclesiasticalcouncilatLisieux(Williampresent).DepositionofMauger,archbishopofRouen:heissucceededbyMaurilius.

1055 DeathofSiward,earlofNorthumbria.

1056? Robert,William'shalf-brother,becomescountofMortain.

1057 (January-March)KingHenryandCountGeoffreyofAnjouinassociation.

(August)KingHenryinvadesNormandy.BattleofVaraville.

ReturntoEnglandfromHungaryoftheathelingEdward(sonofEdmundIronsides),togetherwithhischildren,Margaret,Edgar,andChristina.Hediesshortlyafterhis

arrival.

1057 (30September)DeathofLeofric,earlofMercia.

(22December)DeathofRalphtheTimid,earlofHereford.

1058 (17March)MalcolmIII(Canmore)becomeskingofScotland.

CaptureofThimertbyWilliam.BeginningofthesiegeofThimertbyKingHenry.

AttackonEnglandbyMagnus,sonofHaroldHardraada,kingofNorway.

1059 SynodofMelfi.

1060 (4August)DeathofKingHenryIofFrance;heissucceededbyPhilipI,thenaminor.

(14November)DeathofCountGeoffreyofAnjou.

1061 (October)AlexanderIIbecomespope.

1062 (9March)DeathofHerbert,countofMaine.

1063 InvasionandconquestofMainebyWilliam.DeathofWalter,countofMaine,andhiswifeBiota.

1064 VisitofHaroldGodwinesontoNormandy.

WilliaminvadesBrittany.

Ecclesiasticalcouncilat

Lisieux(Williampresent).

‘Crusade’ofBarbastro.

1065 (autumn)RevoltinNorthumbria.ExileofEarlTostiGodwineson.

10664 (5January)DeathofEdwardtheConfessor.

(6January)CoronationaskingofHaroldGodwineson.

(spring)NormanmissiontoRomeunder

Gilbert,bishopofLisieux,seekingpapalsupport.

(May)TostiattacksIsleofWight.

(July)EcclesiasticalcouncilatCaen(Williampresent).

(September)William'sfleetassemblesintheDives.

(8September)HaroldGodwinesoninsouthernEnglanddisbandshis

army.

(September)William'sfleetatSaint-Valéry-sur-Somme.

(September)InvasionofnorthernEnglandbyHaroldHardraada,kingofNorway,supportedbyTostiGodwineson.

(20September)BattleofFulford.

(25September)BattleofStamfordBridge.

(28September)WilliamlandsatPevensey.

(29September)WilliamoccupiesHastings.

(6October)HaroldGodwinesoninLondon.

(14October)BattleofHastings.

(21October)SubmissionofDover.

(29October)SubmissionofCanterbury.

(MostofNovember)WilliaminneighbourhoodofCanterbury.

(firsthalfofDecember)William'smarchroundLondon.

(25December)CoronationofWilliamaskingoftheEnglishinLondon.

1067 (circa1March–6December)WilliaminNormandy.

(1July)DeathofMaurilius,archbishopofRouen;heissucceededbyJohn,bishopofAvranches.

(autumn)RaidonKentbyEustace,countofBoulogne.

Odo,bishopofBayeux,becomesearlofKent.

WilliamfitzOsbernbecomesearlofHereford.

1068 (early)SubjectionofExeter.

(summer)William'sfirstentranceintoYork.

OccupationofWarwick,Lincoln,Huntington,Chester,etc.

1069 (February–April)Yorkrebels,andisretakenbyWilliam.

RevoltinMaine:lossofLeMans.

(summer)InvasionofYorkshirebySweynEstrithson,kingofDenmark;generalrisingofthenorthsupportedbyMalcolmIII,kingofScotland.

(20September)OccupationofYorkbytherebels.

(beforeChristmas)WilliamretakesYork.

1069? MarriageofKingMalcolmtoMargaret,

sisterofEdgartheatheling.

1069or1070

EcclesiasticalcouncilatRouen.

1070 (January–March)‘HarryingoftheNorth’;William'scampaigninTeesdale;hismarchoverthePennines;occupationofChesterandStafford.

(4April)WilliamatWinchester.

(April)EcclesiasticalcouncilatWinchester(Williampresent);depositionofStigand.

(15August)LanfrancbecomesarchbishopofCanterbury.

(summer)KingMalcolmravagesnorthernEngland.

1071 (22February)BattleofCassel;deathofWilliamfitzOsbern.

(16April)CaptureofBaribytheNormans.

(19August)BattleofManzikiert.

(summer)DepartureoftheDanishfleetfromtheEnglishcoast.

(October)EndofHereward'sresistanceintheFens.

1072 (January)CaptureofPalermobytheNormans.

(April)EcclesiasticalcouncilatWinchester(Williampresent).

(autumn)William'sinvasionofScotland;pactofAbernethy.

(1November)WilliamatDurham.

1072 EcclesiasticalcouncilatRouen.

1073 (perhapsbefore30March)WilliaminvadesandreconquersMaine.

(30March)WilliamatBonneville-sur-Touques.

(21April)DeathofPopeAlexanderII:heissucceededbyGregoryVII.

1074 EdgartheathelingisofferedMontreuil-sur-MerbyKingPhilipI.

EcclesiasticalcouncilatRouen(Williampresent).

1075 Revoltoftheearlsin

England.

(August–October)EcclesiasticalcouncilatLondon(Williampresent).

1076 (April)EcclesiasticalcouncilatWinchester(Williampresent).

(31May)ExecutionofWaltheof.

(September–earlyNovember)CampaigninBrittany.WilliamdefeatedatDol.

1077 (early)Firstattack(unsuccessful)onLaFlèchebyFulkleRechin,countofAnjou.

PactbetweenWilliamandKingPhilip.

(December)RogerIIofMontgomerybecomesearlofShrewsbury.

1078 (earlyorperhapslate–1077)Firstpact(?atCastellumVallium)betweenFulkleRechin

andWilliam.

FirstrevoltofRobert,William'seldestson,againsthisfather.

1079 (January)WilliamdefeatedatGerberoi.

(15August–8September)DevastationofnorthernEnglandbyMalcolm,kingofScotland.

(9September)DeathofJohn,archbishopofRouen:heissucceeded

inthenextyearbyWilliamBonne-Ame.

1080 (early–orperhapslate,1079)Robertisreconciledtohisfather.

(Pentecost)EcclesiasticalcouncilatLillebonne(Williampresent).

(latesummerorautumn)RobertinvadesScotland:foundationof‘NewCastle’.

(Christmas)

EcclesiasticalcouncilatGloucester(Williampresent).

1080? GregoryVIImakes(orrepeats)ademandtoWilliamforfealtyinrespectoftheEnglishkingdom.Thisisrefused.

1081 Second(andsuccessful)attackonLaFlèchebyFulkleRechin.

Secondpactbetween

WilliamandFulk(possiblyatBlancalanda).

1082 ImprisonmentofOdo,bishopofBayeux,andearlofKent.

1083 (after18July)NewrevoltofRobertagainsthisfather.

(2November)DeathofMatilda,wifeofWilliamtheConqueror.

1084 (?Pentecost)Williamat

Westminster.

(19June)WilliamatRouen.

1085 (25May)DeathofPopeGregoryVII.

CnutIV,kingofDenmark,preparestoinvadeEnglandwiththesupportofRobert,countofFlanders,andothers.

(December)WilliamholdshisChristmascourtatGloucester,

whereattheDomesdaysurveyisplanned.

1086 (July)MurderofCnutIV,kingofDenmark.

(August)AssemblyatSalisbury;‘TheSalisburyOath’.

(later)WilliamcrossestoNormandy.

1087 (summer)KingPhilipraidstheÉvreçin.WilliaminvadestheVexinandsacksMantes.

(9September–veryearlyinthemorning)WilliamtheConquerordiesatSaint-GervaisoutsideRouen.

1SeeAppendixA.2Idonotabsolutelyexcludethepossibilitythat(asfrequentlyasserted)thesecampaignstookplacein1048–1049,butIconsiderthistobehighlyimprobable.SeeAppendixB.

3SeeAppendixC.

4SeeAppendixD.

I.NormandyinthetimeTheNormanbishoprics:1.Rouen.2.Bayeux.3.AvranchesÉvreux.5.Sées.6.

Lisieux.7.Coutances.

II.EnglandandNormandyinthetimeofWilliamtheConqueror.

INDEX

Abenon,(i)Abernethy,pactof,(i),(ii)Abingdon,abbeyof,(i)Adela,d.ofWilliamtheConqueror,(i)

Adelaide,sisterofWilliamtheConqueror,(i)

Adeliza,?d.ofWilliamtheConqueror,(i)

Adsothevicomte,(i)Ælfgar,e.ofMercia,(i)Edith,d.of,(i)Edwin(q.v.),sonofMorcar(q.v.),sonof

Æthelric,bp.ofSelsey,(i),(ii)Æthelwig,abbotofEvesham,(i),(ii),(iii)

Agatha,?d.ofWilliamtheConqueror,(i)

Aimeri,vicomteofThouars,(i)Airan,(i),(ii)AlanIII,c.ofBrittany,(i),(ii),

(iii),(iv),(v),(vi),(vii),(viii),(ix)

AlanIV(Fergant),c.ofBrittany,(i)

AlantheBlack,c.ofBrittany,lordofRichmond,(i),(ii)

AlantheRed,c.ofBrittany,lordofRichmond,(i),(ii)

Aldred,archbp.ofYork,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v),(vi),(vii),(viii)

Alençon,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v),(vi)AlexanderII,Pope,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v),(vi)

Alfredtheatheling,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v)

Alfredthegiant,(i),(ii)AlfredofLincoln,(i)Almenèches,monasteryat,(i),(ii),(iii)

Ambrières,(i),(ii)Angers,seeAnjouAnglo-Normanhistory,earlierinterpretationsof,(i)evidencefor,(i)

Anglo-Normankingdom,characterof,(i)

defenceof,(i)establishmentof,(i)unityof,(i),(ii),(iii)

Anglo-SaxonChronicle,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v),(vi),(vii)

Anjou,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v),(vi),(vii)annalsof,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv)countsof,seeFulkNerxa;FulkleRechin;GeoffreyMartel

Anschitilthevicomte,(i),(ii)Anselm,St,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v)Apulia,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv)

Archdeacons,inEngland,(i),(ii)inNormandy,(i),(ii),(iii)

Argentan,(i)Arithelearned,(i)Arnold,bp.ofLeMans,(i),(ii)Arques,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v)countof,seeWilliamvicomtesof,seeGodfrey;Rainald

Arras,monasteryofStVedastat,(i)

Arundel,rapeof,(i)

AscelinofCaen,(i)Athelstan,k.ofEngland,(i)Auffay,familyof,(i)Gulbertof,(i)

Avejot,bp.ofLeMans,(i)Avranches,(i)bishopricof,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v),(vi)

bishopsof,seeJohn;MichaelAvranchin,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v),(vi)vicomtesof,seeHugh,e.ofChester;RannulfMeschin;

RichardAvre,river,(i),(ii)Axholme,(i)Azzod'Este,c.ofMaine,(i)Gersendis,wifeof,(i),(ii)

Bailleul,Rousselof,(i)BaldwinIV,c.ofFlanders,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv)Judith,d.of,seeTostiOgiva,wifeof,(i),(ii)

BaldwinV,c.ofFlanders,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v),(vi),(vii),(viii)

Adela,wifeof,(i),(ii),(iii)Matilda,wifeofWilliamtheConqueror(q.v.),d.of

BaldwinVI,c.ofFlanders,(i)Arnulf,sonof,(i)Baldwin,sonof,(i)Richildis,wifeof,(i),(ii)

Baldwin,bp.ofÉvreux,(i)Baldwin,chancellorofKingPhilipI,(i)

Barbastro,‘crusade’of,(i)Barfleur,(i)Barking,(i),(ii),(iii)

Bastembourg,Thurstanof,(i)BattleAbbey,(i),(ii)BaudryofBourgeuil,(i)Bauptois,(i)Bayeux,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v),(vi)abbeyofSaint-Vigorat,(i),(ii)bishopricof,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v),(vi)

bishopsof,seeHugh;OdoBayeuxTapestry,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v),(vi),(vii)

Beaufou,Rogerof,(i)Beaumont,familyof,(i),(ii),(iii),

(iv)Rogerof,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v),(vi),(vii),(viii),(ix),(x)

Robertof,sonofRoger,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v),(vi),(vii),(viii),(ix)

Henryof,sonofRoger,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v)

seealsoVieilles,HumphreyofBeaumont-en-Auge,monasteryat,(i),(ii)

Beaumontel,(i)Beaurain,(i)

Bec(Le),abbeyof,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v)seealsoAnselm;Herluin;Lanfranc

Bede,(i),(ii)Bellême,familyof,(i),(ii),(iii)seealsoMabel;WilliamTalvas;Yves,bp.ofSées

Bellencombre,(i),(ii),(iii)Bengeworth,(i)Berkhampstead,(i),(ii),(iii)Berkshire,(i)Bernay,abbeyof,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),

(v),(vi)Bessin,(i),(ii),(iii)vicomtesof,seeRannulfI;RannulfII;RannulfMeschin

Bessin,Guillaume,(i),(ii)Bishoprics,inEngland,(i)inNormandy,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v),(vi)

Blancalanda,(i),(ii)Bleddyn,(i),(ii)Blois,(i)Odo,c.of,(i),(ii)

Stephen,c.of,(i)Adela,d.ofWilliamtheConqueror(q.v.),wifeofStephen

Böhmer,Heinrich,(i)Bolbec,(i)Bonneville-sur-Touques,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv)

Borbillon,(i)Bosham,(i),(ii)Bouard,Michelde,(i),(ii),(iii)Bourgeuil,monasteryat,(i)Bramber,rapeof,(i)

Brand,abbotofPeterborough,(i),(ii)

Brecknock,(i)Brémule,battleof,(i)Bresle,river,(i),(ii)Breteuil,(i),(ii),(iii)Rogerof,e.ofHereford,(i),(ii)Williamof,(i),(ii)

BretonsinEngland,(i),(ii)Brian,c.ofBrittany,(i),(ii)Brionne,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v),(vi),(vii),(viii),(ix)seealsoGilbertof,theCount

Briouze,Williamof,(i),(ii)Bristol,(i),(ii)Brittany,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v)annalsof,(i),(ii),(iii)countsof,seeAlanIII;AlanIV;AlantheBlack;AlantheRed;Brian;EudoofPenthièvre;Geoffrey;Geoffrey‘Granon’;HoelofCornouailles;Stephen

feudalismin,(i)Solomon,k.of,(i)

Brooke,Z.N.,(i),(ii),(iii)Bruges,(i)

Buckinghamshire,(i)Bundithestaller,(i)Burghill,(i)Burgundy,(i),(ii),(iii)BuryStEdmunds,abbeyof,(i),(ii)Baldwin,abbotof,(i)

Butler,officeof,(i)seealsoIvry,Hughof

Caen,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v),(vi),(vii),(viii),(ix),(x),(xi),(xii),(xiii),(xiv)

councilsat,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v)originsof,(i)William'sconnexionswith,(i)seealsoHolyTrinityabbey;StStephen'sabbey

Cambridge,(i),(ii)Cambridgeshire,(i),(ii)Picot(q.v.),sheriffofSurveyof,(i)

Canossa,(i)Canterbury,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv)archbishopsof,seeLanfranc;RobertofJumièges;Stigand

primacyof,(i),(ii),(iii)provinceof,(i)seealsoStAugustine'sabbey

Carlyle,Thomas,(i)CarmendeHastingaeProelio,(i),(ii),(iii)

Cartularies,(i),(ii)Cassel,battleof,(i),(ii),(iii)Cassian,John,(i)CastellumVallium,(i),(ii),(iii)Castles,(i),(ii),(iii)Cathedrals,ofOldFoundation,(i)

monastic,(i)Cathedrals,capitularorganizationof,inEngland,(i),(ii)inNormandy,(i)

Catherine,St,relicsof,(i)Cavalry,useof,(i),(ii)Celibacyofclergy,(i),(ii)Cerisy-la-Forêt,abbeyof,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v)

Chabannes,Adémarof,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv)

Chamberlain,officeof,(i),(ii)

seealsoTancarvilleChambrais(nowBroglie),(i)Chancellor,officeof,(i),(ii),(iii)inEngland,(i),(ii),(iii)inFrance,(i)

Charlemagne,(i)CharlesIII,Emperor,(i),(ii)Charters,(i)English,(i),(ii)Norman,(i),(ii),(iii)seealsoWrits

Chartres,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v)cathedralof,(i)

seealsoSaint-PèredeChartresChâteau-du-Loir,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv)Haimoof,(i)

Château-Gonthier,familyof,(i)Châteauneuf-en-Thimerais,(i)Châtillon(Conches)monasteryat,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv)

Chaumont,(i)Chepstow,(i)Cherrieux,(i)Chertsey,abbeyat,(i)Cheshire,(i)Chester,(i),(ii)

earldomof,(i)earlsof,seeGerbod;Hugh

Chichester,(i)bishopricof,(i),(ii),(iii)

ChilderichIII,(i)Chocques,(i)Gunfridof,(i)Sigarof,(i)

Christina,d.ofEdgartheatheling,(i)

Christusvincit,(i)Cinglais,districtof,(i),(ii)Civitate,battleof,(i)

Clare,familyof,seeRichardfitzGilbert

Claville,(i)Clay,C.T.,(i),(ii),(iii)Clères,familyof,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv)Rogerof,(i),(ii)Gilbertof,(i)

Cleveland,(i)Cluny,abbeyof,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v),(vi),(vii),(viii)Hugh,abbotof,(i)Maieul,abbotof,(i)Odilon,abbotof,(i)

CnuttheGreat,k.ofEngland,(i),(ii),(iii)Emma(q.v.),wifeofHarold‘Harefoot’(q.v.),sonofHarthacnut(q.v.),sonof

CnutIV,k.ofDenmark,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v)

Cocherel,(i)Coinage,seeMintsColchester,(i)Colleville,(i)Comet,(i)Commines,Robertde,e.of

Northumbria,(i)‘CompanionsoftheConqueror’,203n.

ConanII,c.ofBrittany,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv)

Conches,seeChâtillonConradII,EmperorConstable,officeof,(i),(ii)seealsoMontfort-sur-Risle

Constance,d.ofWilliamtheConqueror,(i)seealsoAlanIV,c.ofBrittany

Constance,wifeofRobertI,k.of

France,(i)Constantinople,(i),(ii)ConstitutioDomusRegis,(i)Conteville,vicomteof,(i)seealsoHerluin,vicomteof

Coquainvillers,(i)Cormeilles,monasteryat,(i),(ii),(iii)

Cornouailles,seeHoelCornwall,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v)Coronation,ofHaroldGodwineson,(i)ofWilliamtheConqueror,(i),

(ii),(iii)Cotentin,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v),(vi),(vii)seealsoNigel,vicomteof

Coudres,(i)Couesnon,river,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv)Coulombes,abbeyof,(i),(ii)Councils,ecclesiastical,inEngland,(i)inNormandy,(i),(ii)

Count,officeof,inNormandy,(i),(ii),(iii)comparisonof,withearldomsin

England,(i),(ii),(iii)Coutances,bishopricof,(i),(ii)

bishopsof,seeGeoffrey;RobertCraon,familyof,(i)

Creil-sur-Mer,(i)Crépi,Ralphof,(i),(ii)Simonof,(i)Judith,wifeofSimon,(i)

Creully,familyof,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv)

Crispin,familyof,(i),(ii)seealsoGilbert;Milo;Roger

Croix-Saint-Leuffroi,monasteryof,(i),(ii),(iii)

Croth,prioryof,(i)Crown-wearings,(i)Crusade,notionof,(i),(ii),(iii)Cuinchy,familyof,(i)Cumbria,(i),(ii)CuriaRegis,(i)

Danelaw,(i),(ii),(iii)Darlington,R.R.,(i),(ii),(iii)David,C.W.,(i)Delisle,L.,(i)

Denmark,seeCnutIV;SweynEstrithson

Derby,(i)Deux-Jumeaux,monasteryof,(i)Devon,(i),(ii)BaldwinofMeules(q.v.),sheriffof

Dhondt,J.,(i)Die,Hubertof,(i)Dijon,Williamof,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv)

Dinant,(i),(ii)Dives,river,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv)

Dol,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v)Riwallonof,(i)

DomesdayBook,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v),(vi),(vii),(viii),(ix),(x),(xi),(xii),(xiii),(xiv),(xv),(xvi)characterof,(i)controversiesrespecting,(i)makingof,(i)motivesinspiringcompilationof,(i)

Domfront,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v),(vi),(vii)

‘DonationofConstantine’,(i)

Dorchester,bishopricof,(i),(ii),(iii)Ulf(q.v.),bp.of

Dorset,(i)Douvrend,(i)Dover,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v),(vi),(vii),(viii)

Dreux,(i),(ii)Dreux,c.oftheVexin,(i),(ii),(iii)Goda(q.v.),wifeofRalphtheTimid(q.v.),sonofWalter,c.oftheVexin(q.v.),sonof

Droitwich,(i)Dublin,(i)DucalcourtinNormandy,(i)Duchesne,André,(i)DudoofSaint-Quentin,(i)Dugdale,William,(i)Dunstan,(i)Durham,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv)bishopricof,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv)bishopsof,seeWalchere;WilliamSimeonof,(i)

Eadmer,(i),(ii)

Earl,officeof,inpre-ConquestEngland,(i),(ii)changeincharacterafterNormanconquest,(i)

comparisonof,withNormancounts,(i),(ii),(iii)

EastAnglia,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v)Échauffour,(i)Géréof,(i),(ii)Robert,sonofGéré,(i),(ii),(iii)

Écquet#aft,Osbernof,(i)Edgartheatheling,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v),(vi),(vii),(viii),(ix)

Edith,d.ofEarlGodwine,wifeofEdwardtheConfessor,(i),(ii)

EdmundIronsides,k.ofEngland,(i)

EdrictheWild,(i),(ii)Edwardtheatheling,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv)Agatha,wifeof,(i)childrenof,seeChristina;Edgartheatheling;Margaret

EdwardtheConfessor,(i),(ii)birthandparentage,(i)exileinNormandy,(i),(ii)

kingoftheEnglish,(i),(ii)favoursNormans,(i)relationswithEarlGodwine,(i),(ii)

relationswithHaroldGodwineson,(i)

bequeatheskingdomtoWilliamtheConqueror,(i)

relationswithchurch,(i),(ii),(iii)

relationswithScandinavia,(i)courtof,seeWitanhouseholdof,(i),(ii)

scriptoriumof,(i),(ii)writsof,(i)deathof,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv)cultof,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv)

Edwin,e.ofMercia,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v),(vi),(vii),(viii),(ix),(x),(xi)

Elmham,bishopricof,(i)Æthelmær,bp.of,(i)seealsoHerfast

Ely,(i),(ii),(iii)abbeyof,(i)trialsrelatingto,(i)

Simeon,abbotof,(i)seealsoInquisitioEliensis

Émalleville,(i)Emma,d.ofDukeRichardI,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v)seealsoCnuttheGreat;EthelredII

Empire,eastern,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v)

Empire,western,seeConradII;HenryIII;HenryIV;OttoII

England,unityof,(i)

divisionsin,(i)O.E.aristocracyin,(i)churchin,before1066,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v)

earldomsin(i),(ii)militaryorganizationof,before1066,(i)

introductionoffeudalismin,(i)fiscalorganizationof,(i)tradeof,(i)wealthof,(i)culturalachievementsof,(i),(ii)townsin,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv)

hundredsof,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v),(vi)

shiresof,(i)seealsoSheriffpeasantryof,(i)prelacyin,(i)Normanizationof,(i)bishopsin,(i)changeinseesofbishops,(i),(ii)

monasteriesof,(i),(ii)persistingtraditionsin,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v),(vi)

EnguerrandII,c.ofPonthieu,(i),(ii),(iii)

Epte,river,(i),(ii),(iii)Erchembaldthevicomte,(i),(ii),(iii)Gulbert,sonof,(i)

Ermerfrid,bp.ofSitten,(i),(ii)penitentiaryof,(i),(ii)

ErnaldofBayeux,(i),(ii)Ernost,bp.ofRochester,(i)Esclavelles,(i)Essex,(i),(ii),(iii)EudotheSteward(q.v.),sheriff

ofEthelredII,k.ofEngland,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv)Alfredtheatheling(q.v.),sonofEdwardtheConfessor(q.v.),sonof

Emma(q.v.),wifeofEu,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v),(vi)countsof,seeRobert;WilliamseealsoHugh,bp.ofLisieux;Lesceline

Eudo,sonofSpiriwic,(i)EudoofPenthièvre,c.ofBrittany,

(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v)AlantheBlack(q.v.),sonofAlantheRed(q.v.),sonofBrian(q.v.),sonofStephen(q.v.),sonof

EudotheSteward,(i),(ii),(iii)Eure,river,(i)Eustace,c.ofBoulogne,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v),(vi),(vii)Goda(q.v.),wifeof

Eveshamabbey,(i),(ii)Æthelwig(q.v.),abbotof

Évreçin,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv)

Évreux,(i),(ii),(iii)bishopricof,(i),(ii),(iii)bishopsof,seeBaldwin;Hugh;William

countsof,seeRichard;WilliammonasteryofSaint-Taurinat,(i),(ii)

seealsoRobert,archbp.ofRouen

Ewias,Harold,(i)Exeter,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v),(vi)bishopricof,(i),(ii)bishopsof,seeLeofric;Osbern

Exmes,seeHiémoisExning,(i)‘ExonDomesday’,(i)

Fageduna,(i)Falaise,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v),(vi),(vii),(viii)

Falkirk,(i)Fauroux,M.,(i)Fécamp,abbeyof,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v),(vi),(vii),(viii),(ix),(x),(xi),(xii),(xiii),(xiv)abbotsof,seeWilliamofDijon;

John;WilliamofRots

Ferrières,familyof,(i),(ii)Walkelinof,(i),(ii)

Fervaques,(i)Feudalism,growthofinNormandy,(i),(ii)originsofinEngland,(i),(ii),(iii)

variationsof,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v)

‘FeudalIncidents’,(i),(ii)Fitz-Osbern,familyof,(i),(ii),(iii)

OsberntheSteward(q.v.)Emma(q.v.),wifeofOsbernWilliamfitzOsbern(q.v.),sonof

seealsoBretueil;HerfastFive-hideestates,(i)Flanders,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v),(vi),(vii),(viii)countsof,seeBaldwinIV;BaldwinV;RobertleFrison

seealsoMatilda,wifeofWilliamtheConqueror

Flavigny,Hughof,(i)

FlemingsinEngland,(i),(ii)Fliche,A.,(i)Flodoard,(i)Floques,(i)Florence,abbeyofStMaryat,(i)‘FlorenceofWorcester’,(i),(ii),(iii)

Fontanelle,seeSaint-WandrilleFontenay,abbeyof,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv)

France,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v),(vi),(vii),(viii),(ix),(x),(xi)kingsof,seeHenryI;Hugh

Capet;Lothair;Louisd'Outre-Mer;LouisVI;PhilipI;RobertII

Frankpledge,(i)Freckenham,(i),(ii)Freeman,E.A.,(i),(ii),(iii)Fresnay,(i),(ii)Fulbert,grandfatherofWilliamtheConqueror,(i),(ii)

Fulford,battleof,(i),(ii),(iii)FulkNerra,c.ofAnjou,(i)FulkleRechin,c.ofAnjou,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv)

‘Fyrd’,(i),(ii)

Gacé,Ralphof,(i),(ii),(iii)Gael,lordshipof,(i)seealsoRalphofGael

Galbraith,V.H.,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv)Gateshead,(i)Gâtinais,(i)Gelds,(i)Gembloux,Sigebertof,(i)Geoffrey,bp.ofCoutances,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v),(vi),(vii),(viii),(ix),(x),(xi)

GeoffreyBoterel,c.ofBrittany,(i)Geoffrey,c.ofAquitaine,(i)Geoffrey,c.ofBrittany,(i),(ii)Hawisa,wifeof,(i)

GeoffreyFlaitel,bp.ofLisieux,(i)Geoffrey‘Granon’,c.ofBrittany,(i)

GeoffreyMartel,c.ofAnjou,(i),(ii),(iii)

GérarddeBroigne,(i),(ii),(iii)Gerardthechancellor,(i),(ii)Gerberoi,siegeof,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv)

Gerbod,e.ofChester,(i)Frederic,brotherof,(i)

GersendisofMaine,(i),(ii)Gervais,bp.ofLeMansandarchbp.ofRheims,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v)

Ghent,abbeyofStPeterat,(i),(ii)Giffard,Walter,(i),(ii),(iii)GilbertofBrionne,theCount,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v)BaldwinofMeules(q.v.),sonofRichardfitzGilbert(q.v.),sonof

GilbertCrispin,abbotof

Westminster,(i),(ii),(iii)GilbertCrispin,(i),(ii)Gilbert‘deGand’,(i)GilbertMaminot,bp.ofLisieux,(i),(ii),(iii)

Giso,bp.ofWells,(i),(ii)Gisors,(i),(ii)Giverville,(i)Glastonbury,abbeyof,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv)Æthelnoth,abbotof,(i)Thurstan,abbotof,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv)

Glos-la-Ferrières,Bjarniof,(i)Gloucester,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v),(vi)seealsoSerlo

Gloucestershire,(i),(ii)Durand,sheriffof,(i)

Goda,sisterofEdwardtheConfessor,(i)seealsoDreux,c.oftheVexin;Eustace,c.ofBoulogne

Godfrey,theCount,(i)GilbertofBrionne(q.v.),sonof

Godfrey,vicomteofArques,(i)

Godwine;e.ofWessex,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv)Gytha,wifeof,(i)childrenof,seeEdith;Gyrth;Harold;Leofwine;Sweyn;Tosti

Goscelin,vicomteofRouen,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv)Emmeline,wifeof,(i),(ii)

GoscelinofSaint-Bertin,(i)Gospatric,e.ofNorthumbria,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v)

Grandmesnil,familyof,(i),(ii),

(iii)Hughof,(i),(ii),(iii)Aubrey,sonofHugh,(i)Yves,sonofHugh,(i)Robertof,(i),(ii)

Graverie,(i)Graville-Sainte-Honorine,(i),(ii)GreatHampton,(i)GregoryVII,Pope,(i),(ii)characterof,(i)demandsfealtyfromWilliamtheConqueror,(i),(ii)

policyof,(i),(ii),(iii)

Grestain,abbeyofNotre-Dameat,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv)

Griffith-ap-Llewellyn,(i),(ii),(iii)GrimoaldofPlessis,(i),(ii)Guazo,(i)Guernsey,(i)Gundulf,bp.ofRochester,(i),(ii)Gunhild,d.ofHaroldGodwineson,(i)

Gunnor,wifeofDukeRichardI,(i),(ii),(iii)hersistersandnieces,(i)

Guy,bp.ofAmiens,(i)

Guy,c.ofPonthieu,(i),(ii),(iii)Guy‘ofBurgundy’,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v)

Guy-William,c.ofAquitaine,(i),(ii)

Gyrth,(i),(ii),(iii)

Hague,(i)Haimo,‘dentatus’,(i)theSteward,sonof,(i),(ii)

Halberstadt,(i)Halphen,L.,(i),(ii),(iii)Hampshire,(i)

HughofPort-en-Bessin,sheriffof,(i)

Harfleur,(i)HaroldGodwineson,k.ofEngland,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v),(vi)takespartinrebellionof1051,(i)

relationswithEdwardtheConfessor,(i),(ii)

takesoathtoWilliamtheConqueror,(i)

characterof,(i),(ii)

militaryabilitiesof,(i)campaignagainstHaroldHardraada,(i),(ii)

campaigninSussex,(i)atbattleofHastings,(i)deathof,(i)sonsof,(i),(ii)Gunhild,d.of,(i)

HaroldHardraada,k.ofNorway,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v)

Harold‘Harefoot’,k.ofEngland,(i),(ii)

‘HarryingoftheNorth’,(i),(ii)

Harthacnut,k.ofEngland,(i),(ii),(iii)

Haskins,C.H.,(i),(ii)Haspres,(i)Hastings,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v)battleof,(i),(ii)rapeof,(i)

Havre(Le),(i),(ii),(iii)Hawisa,d.ofDukeRichardI,(i)HaylingIsland,(i)Hayward,John,(i),(ii)HelionsBumpstead,(i)Héllean,Tihelof,(i)

HenryI,k.ofFrance,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v),(vi),(vii)

HenryI,k.ofEngland,(i),(ii),(iii)HenryII,k.ofEngland,(i)HenryIII,Emperor,(i),(ii)HenryIV,Emperor,(i)HenryofBeaumont,seeBeaumontHerbert‘Wake-Dog’,c.ofMaine,(i)Gersendis(q.v.),d.of

HerbertII,c.ofMaine,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv)

Hereford,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v),

(vi),(vii),(viii),(ix)bishopricof,(i),(ii)bishopof,seeRobertLosingaearldomof,seeBreteuil,Rogerof;RalphtheTimid;WilliamfitzOsbern

HerewardtheWake,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv)

Herfast,chancellorandbp.ofElmham,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v)

Herfast,fatherofOsberntheSteward,(i),(ii),(iii)

Herleve,motherofWilliamthe

Conqueror,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv)seealsoFulbert(father);Herluin(husband);Odo,bp.ofBayeux(son);Osbern(brother);RobertI,dk.ofNormandy;Robert,c.ofMortain(son);Walter(brother)

Herluin,abbotofLeBee,(i),(ii),(iii)

Herluin,vicomteofConteville,(i),(ii),(iii)Fredesensis,wifeof,(i)

Herleve(q.v.),wifeofsonsof,seeOdo;Robert

Hertfordshire,(i)Ilbert,sheriffof,(i)

Hesdins,Arnulfof,(i)Hiémois,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v),(vi)Hildebrand,seeGregoryVII,PopeHoel,bp.ofLeMans,(i)HoelofCornouailles,c.ofBrittany,(i),(ii),(iii)AlanIV,c.ofBrittany(q.v.),sonof

HolySepulchre,(i)

HolyTrinity,Caen,abbeyof,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v),(vi),(vii)

HolyTrinity,Rouen,abbeyof,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v),(vi),(vii),(viii),(ix),(x),(xi)Isembard,abbotof,(i)

Honours,establishmentof,inEngland,(i)organizationof,(i)

Hope,(i)Horses,transportof,bysea,(i),(ii)Housecarls,(i),(ii),(iii)HughI,archbp.ofRouen,(i),(ii),

(iii)Hugh,bp.ofBayeux,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv)

Hugh,bp.ofÉvreux,(i)Hugh,bp.ofLisieux,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v),(vi),(vii)

HughIV,c.ofMaine,(i),(ii),(iii)HughV,c.ofMaine,(i)Hugh,e.ofChester,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v),(vi),(vii)

HughBardo,(i)HughCapet,(i),(ii)HughtheGreat,(i)

Hugleville,Richardof,(i)Humber,river,(i),(ii),(iii)Hundredcourts,(i),(ii),(iii)Huntingdon,(i),(ii),(iii)

InquisitioEliensis,(i)InquisitioGeldi,(i)Investiturescontroversy,(i),(ii)Ireland,(i),(ii),(iii)IsleofWight,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv)Italy,(i),(ii),(iii)Normansin,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v)

Ivry,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v)Hughof,(i),(ii),(iii)Rogerof,(i)seealsoHugh,bp.ofBayeux;Rodulf

Jerusalem,(i),(ii)Jews,(i),(ii)JohnXV,Pope,(i)John,abbotofFécamp,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v),(vi)

John,bp.ofAvranches,andarchbp.ofRouen,(i),(ii),(iii),

(iv),(v),(vi),(vii),(viii),(ix),(x)

Jouy,(i)JudhaelofTotnes,(i)JudithofBrittany,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v)seealsoRichardII,dk.ofNormandy

Jumièges,abbeyof,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v),(vi),(vii),(viii),(ix),(x),(xi),(xii),(xiii)Gontard,abbotof,(i)seealsoRobertof,archbp.of

CanterburyJumièges,Williamof,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v),(vi),(vii),(viii),(ix),(x)

Jurisdiction,ducal,(i),(ii)royal,(i)ecclesiastical,(i),(ii)seealsoCuriaRegis;ducalcourt;hundredcourts;shirecourts;trials

Jury,useof,(i),(ii)Justiciars,(i)

Kent,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v),(vi),(vii),(viii),(ix)earldomof,seeOdoHaimo,sheriffof,seeHaimotheSteward

Kentford,trialat,(i)Knighthood,characteristicsof,(i),(ii)obligationsof,(i),(ii)

Knights,(i),(ii)differencesamong,(i),(ii),(iii)enfeoffed,(i)stipendiary,(i)

serveascavalry,(i),(ii),(iii)serveonfoot,(i)

Knights'fees,(i)Knowles,M.D.,(i),(ii),(iii)

Lacman,(i)LaCressonière,(i)LaFerté-Macé,familyof,(i)Williamof,(i),(ii)

Laigle,(i)LambertofLens,(i)Lanfranc,earlycareerof,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),

(v)priorofLeBec,(i),(ii),(iii)abbotofStStephen's,Caen,(i),(ii)

archbp.ofCanterbury,(i),(ii),(iii)

ecclesiasticalpolicyof,(i),(ii)convokescouncils,(i)vindicatesprimacyofCanterbury,(i)

co-operateswithWilliamtheConqueror,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv)

regentfortheking,(i),(ii),(iii),

(iv)relationswithEnglishbishoprics,(i)

relationswithEnglishmonasteries,(i)

baronyof,(i)consuetudinesof,(i)characterof,(i),(ii)

Latouche,R.,(i),(ii)LaudesRegiae,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv)Laval,familyof,(i)Guyde,(i)

LaVespière,(i)

Laycock,trialat,(i),(ii),(iii)LeHomme,(i)Leicester,(i),(ii)LeMans,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v),(vi),(vii),(viii),(ix),(x)bishopricof,(i),(ii)bishopsof,seeArnold;Avejot;Gervais;Hoel;Siffroi;Vougrin

seealsoSaint-Vincent;Saint-Pierre-de-la-Couture

LeoIX,Pope,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv)Leobwin,(i)

Leofric,bp.ofExeter,(i),(ii)Leofric,e.ofMercia,(i),(ii),(iii)Leofwine,Godwineson,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv)

LePrévost,A.,(i)LesAndelys,(i)Lesceline,countessofEu,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v)

Lessay,abbeyofHolyTrinityat,(i),(ii),(iii)

Lewes,(i)prioryat,(i)

rapeof,(i)

Lichfield,bishopricof,(i),(ii),(iii)Leofwine,bp.of,(i),(ii)

Liége,(i),(ii)Liege-homage,(i)Lieuvin,districtof,(i)Ligulf,(i)Lillebonne,(i),(ii)councilof,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv)

Limfjord,(i)Lincoln,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv)bishopricof,(i)bishopof,seeRemigius

Lincolnshire,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv)

Lire,monasteryat,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv)

Lisieux,(i),(ii)bishopricof,(i),(ii)bishopsof,seeGerard;Gilbert;Hugh;Roger

councilsat,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv)Gilbert,archdeaconof,(i)Lobineau,G.A.,(i)Loireriver,(i)London,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v),(vi),(vii),(viii),(ix)bishopsof,seeMaurice;Robert;

Williamcouncilsat,(i),(ii)strategicimportanceof,(i)Towerof,(i),(ii)tradeof,(i),(ii)

Longueville-sur-Scie,(i),(ii)Lothian,(i),(ii)Lothair,k.ofFrance,(i),(ii),(iii)Louisd'Outre-Mer,k.ofFrance,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv)

LouisVI,k.ofFrance,(i)Loyd,L.C,(i),(ii)LugdunensisSecunda,(i),(ii)

Lyons,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv)Gebuin,archbp.of,(i),(ii),(iii)

MabelofBellême,(i),(ii)seealsoRogerIIofMontgomery;WilliamTalvas

Mabillon,Jean,(i)Magnus,k.ofNorway,(i),(ii)Mainard,(i),(ii)Maine,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v),(vi),(vii),(viii),(ix),(x),(xi)countsof,seeAzzod'Este;Herbert‘Wake-Dog’;Herbert

II;HughIV;HughV;WalterMalcolmIII(Canmore),k.ofScotland,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v)

Malet,Robert,(i),(ii),(iii)William,(i)

‘Malfosse’,(i)Malmesbury,Williamof,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v),(vi),(vii)

Manneville,Geoffreyof,(i),(ii)Mantes,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv)Manzikiert,battleof,(i)Margaret(St),d.ofEdwardtheatheling,(i),(ii),(iii)

seealsoMalcolmIII,k.ofScotland

Marmoutier,abbeyof,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v),(vi)Bartholomew,abbotof,(i)

Marseilles,(i)Marshall,officeof,(i)Martainville,(i)Matilda,wifeofWilliamtheConqueror(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v),(vi),(vii),(viii),(ix),(x)seealsoBaldwinV,c.ofFlanders

Matilda,d.ofWilliamtheConqueror,(i),(ii)

Maud,d.ofRannulf,vicomteoftheAvranchin,(i)

Maudit,familyof,(i)Mauger,archbp.ofRouen,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v),(vi),(vii),(viii)

Maurice,chancellorandbp.ofLondon,(i),(ii),(iii)

Maurilius,archbp.ofRouen,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v)

Mayenne,familyof,(i),(ii),(iii)Geoffreyof,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),

(v)Melfi,synodof,(i)Mercenaries,employmentof,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v),(vi),(vii)

Mercia,earldomof,(i),(ii),(iii)earlsof,seeÆlfgar;Edwin;Leofric

Mesnières,(i)Messina,(i)Meules,Baldwinof,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv)

Mezidon,(i)Michael,bp.ofAvranches,(i)

Middlesex,(i)Sheriffof,seeManneville,Geoffreyof

MiloCrispin,(i)Milton,John,(i)Mints,(i),(ii)MiraculaSanctiWulframni,(i),(ii)Monasteries,inEngland,(i)inNormandy,(i)

Monasticcathedrals,(i),(ii)Mondidier,Ralphof,(i)Money-fief,(i)

‘MonkofCaen’,(i),(ii),(iii)Montacute,(i)MontBarbet,(i),(ii)Montbrai,Robertof,e.ofNorthumbria,(i)

MonteGargano,(i)Montfort-sur-Risle,familyof,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v)HughIof,(i)HughIIof,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v)HughIIIof,(i)RobertIIIof,(i)seealsoBastembourg,Thurstan

ofMontgomery,familyof,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v),(vi),(vii)RogerIof,(i),(ii)RogerIIof(q.v.)RobertofBellême,sonofRogerII,(i)

Montivilliers,nunneryof,(i),(ii),(iii)

Montreuil,(i),(ii)Montreuill'Argille,(i)Mont-Saint-Michel(Le),abbeyof,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v),(vi),(vii),

(viii),(ix),(x),(xi),(xii),(xiii)Rannulf,abbotof,(i)

Mora,the,(i)Morcar,e.ofNorthumbria,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v),(vi),(vii),(viii),(ix),(x),(xi),(xii)

Mortain,(i)countsof,seeRobert;WilliamWerlenc

Mortemer,battleof,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v),(vi),(vii),(viii)

familyof,(i),(ii)

Hughof,(i)Rogerof,(i)

Mouliherne,(i),(ii)Moulins,(i)Murdrumfine,(i),(ii)Musset,L.,(i)

Nassandres,(i)Neufchâtel-en-Bray,(i)Neufchâtel-sur-Aisne,(i)Neufmarché,familyof,(i),(ii)Bernardof,(i)Geoffreyof,(i)

seealsoTurchetilNeustria,(i)Newcastle-on-Tyne,(i)NewForest,(i)NewMinster,abbeyof,(i)Ælfwig,abbotof,(i)Wulfric,abbotof,(i)

Nicaea,(i),(ii)NicholasII,Pope,(i),(ii)Nicholas,abbotofSaint-Ouen,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v)

Nigel,vicomteoftheCotentin,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v),(vi),(vii)

Nonancourt,(i),(ii)Norfolk,(i),(ii)earlof,seeRalphofGaelsheriffof,seeRogerBigot

Norgate,Kate,(i)Normanconquest,contrastedinterpretationsof,(i)propagandarespecting,(i)

Normandy,annalsof,(i)unityof,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v),(vi)

divisionsin,(i),(ii),(iii)

physicalstructureof,(i)ducalpowerin,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv)dukesof,seeRichardI;RichardII;RichardIII;RobertI;RobertII;Rolf;William‘Longsword’;WilliamtheConqueror

Carolingiantraditionsin,(i),(ii)Scandinavianinfluenceon,(i),(ii),(iii)

bishopricsof,(i),(ii),(iii)monasteriesin,(i),(ii)ecclesiasticalrevivalin,(i)

seculararistocracyin,(i),(ii),(iii)

countsin,(i),(ii)vicomtesin,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v)

peasantryin,(i),(ii),(iii)place-namesof,(i),(ii)fiscalorganizationof,(i)wealthof,(i)seealsoWilliamtheConqueror

Normantractates,(i),(ii),(iii)Normanville,(i)Northampton,(i)

NorthamptonshireGeldRoll,(i),(ii)

Northumbria,earldomof,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v),(vi)earlsof,seeCommines,Robertde;Gospatric;Morcar;Siward;Tosti;Walchere;Waltheof

Norway,(i)Norwich,(i),(ii),(iii)bishopricof,(i)

Nottingham,(i),(ii)

‘OathofSalisbury’,(i),(ii),(iii)Odensee,(i)Odo,bp.ofBayeux,ande.ofKent,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v),(vi),(vii),(viii),(ix),(x),(xi),(xii),(xiii),(xiv),(xv),(xvi),(xvii),(xviii),(xix)

Odo,c.ofBlois,(i),(ii),(iii)OgertheBreton,(i)Oise,river,(i)Oissel,trialat,(i)Olaf(St),(i),(ii),(iii),(iv)Orbec,

honourof,(i)vicomtéof,(i)

OrdericusVitalis,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v),(vi),(vii),(viii),(ix)

Orkneys,(i),(ii),(iii)Orléans,(i),(ii),(iii)councilat,(i)

Orne,river,(i),(ii),(iii)OsberntheSteward,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v),(vi)Emma,wifeof,(i),(ii),(iii)Osbern,bp.ofExeter(q.v.),sonof

WilliamfitzOsbern(q.v.),sonof

Osbern,bp.ofExeter,(i)Osbernthevicomte,(i)Ansfrid,sonof,(i)

Osbern,brotherofSweynEstrithson,(i)

Osbernthemoneyer,(i)Osmund,bp.ofSalisbury,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv)

OsmunddeBodes,(i)OttoII,Emperor,(i)OttotheGoldsmith,(i)

Pacy,(i)Pagi,(i),(ii)Palermo,(i)Pantulf,familyof,(i),(ii)Papacy,allianceof,withNormansinItaly,(i),(ii)

supportsNormaninvasionofEngland,(i),(ii)

reformingpolicyof,(i)relationswithWilliamtheConqueror,(i)

seealsoAlexanderII;Gregory

VII;JohnXV;LeoIX;NicholasII;Zacharias

Paris,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv)Parishpriests,(i),(ii),(iii)Parker,Matthew,(i)Passais,districtof,(i)Penpont,(i)Perche,(i)Pershore,abbeyof,(i)Peterborough,abbeyof,(i),(ii)abbotsof,seeBrand;Leofric;Turold

‘PetersPence’,(i),(ii)

Pevensey,(i),(ii),(iii)rapeof,(i)

PhilipI,k.ofFrance,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v),(vi),(vii),(viii)BerthaofHainault,wifeof,(i)

Picardy,(i),(ii),(iii)Picot,sheriffofCambridgeshire,(i),(ii),(iii)

Pilatins,familyof,(i)Pilgrimages,(i),(ii)PinnendenHeath,trialat,(i),(ii)Plessis,(i)Poisoning,(i)

Poissy,(i)Poitiers,Williamof,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v),(vi),(vii),(viii),(ix),(x),(xi),(xii)

Poitou,(i),(ii),(iii)Pommeraye,Jean,(i),(ii)Pont-Audemer,Thoroldof,(i)Pont-Authou,(i)Ponthieu,(i)countsof,seeEnguerrand;Guy

Pontoise,(i)Port-en-Bessin,(i)Hughof,sheriffofHampshire,

(i)Pouancé,(i)Préaux,monasteryofSaint-Pierreat,(i),(ii)

nunneryofSaint-Léger,at(i),(ii)

Prentout,H.,(i),(ii)Provence,(i)

Radbod,bp.ofSées,(i)Rainald,c.ofClermont,(i),(ii)Rainald,vicomteofArques,(i)

Godfrey,sonof,(i)Rainald,dk.ofBurgundy,(i)Adeliza,d.of,(i)GuyofBurgundy(q.v.),sonof

RalphofGael,e.ofNorfolk,(i),(ii),(iii)

Ralphthestaller,(i)RalphtheTimid,e.ofHereford,(i),(ii),(iii)

Ramsey,abbeyof,(i)RannulfI,sonofAnschitil,vicomteoftheBessin,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv)

RannulfII,vicomteoftheBessin,(i),(ii),(iii)Maud,wifeof,(i)seealsoRichard,vicomteoftheAvranchin

RannulfMeschin,e.ofChester,(i)Rannulfthemoneyer,(i),(ii)RectitudinesSingularumPersonarum,(i)

Regenbald,(i),(ii)Reinfrid,monkofEvesham,(i)‘Relief’,(i)Rémalard,(i),(ii)

Remigius,bp.ofLincoln,(i),(ii),(iii)

Rennes,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv)Marbod,bp.of,(i)

Rheims,councilat,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv)Gervais(q.v.),archbp.of

Rhuddlan,Robertof,(i)Ricarville,(i)Riccall,(i),(ii)RichardI,dk.ofNormandy,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v),(vi),(vii),(viii)

Gunnor(q.v.),wifeofHawisa,d.of,(i)childrenof,(i)

RichardII,dk.ofNormandy,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v),(vi),(vii),(viii)JudithofBrittany(q.v.),wifeofPapia,wifeof,(i)childrenof,(i)

RichardIII,dk.ofNormandy,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v),(vi),(vii),(viii)Adela,wifeof,(i),(ii)

Nicholas,abbotofSaint-Ouen(q.v.),sonof

Papia,d.of,(i)Richard,sonofWilliamtheConqueror,(i),(ii),(iii)

Richard,c.ofÉvreux,(i),(ii),(iii)Godehildis,wifeof,(i)seealsoTosnyWilliam,c.ofÉvreux,sonof,(i),(ii)

Richard,vicomteoftheAvranchin,(i),(ii),(iii)Hugh,e.ofChester(q.v.),sonof

Maud,d.of,(i)Richard,abbotofSaint-Vannes,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v)

RichardfitzGilbert,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v),(vi),(vii)Roger,sonof,(i)

Richard‘Pentecost’,(i)Richard,sonofScrob,(i)Richard,sonofTescelinthevicomte,(i),(ii)

Richmond(Yorks),honourof,(i),(ii)seealsoAlantheBlack;Alan

theRedRievaulx,Ailredof,(i),(ii)Risle,river,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v)RiwallonofWales,(i),(ii)RobertII,k.ofFrance,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv)Constance,wifeof,(i)Adela,d.of,(i)HenryI,k.ofFrance(q.v.),sonof

RobertI,dk.ofNormandy,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v),(vi),(vii),(viii),(ix),(x),(xi)

WilliamtheConqueror(q.v.),sonof

seealsoHerleveRobertII,dk.ofNormandy,sonofWilliamtheConqueror,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v),(vi),(vii),(viii),(ix),(x),(xi)Richard,sonof,(i)

RobertI,archbp.ofRouen,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v),(vi),(vii)RalphofGacé(q.v.),sonofRichard,c.ofÉvreux(q.v.),sonof

William,sonof,(i)Robert,bp.ofCoutances,(i)RobertofJumièges,bp.ofLondonandarchbp.ofCanterbury,(i),(ii),(iii)

RobertLosinga,bp.ofHereford,(i),(ii),(iii)

Robert,c.ofEu,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v),(vi),(vii),(viii),(ix)

Robert,c.ofMortain,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v),(vi),(vii),(viii),(ix),(x),(xi)

RobertleFrison,c.ofFlanders,(i),

(ii),(iii),(iv),(v),(vi),(vii),(viii)

RobertofBeaumont,seeBeaumont

RobertBertram,(i),(ii),(iii)RobertfitzWimarc,(i)RobertGuiscard,(i)Rochester,(i)Ernost,bp.of,(i)Gundulf,bp.of,(i),(ii),(iii)

RodulfGlaber,(i)RodulfofIvry,theCount,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v)

Emma,d.of,seeOsberntheSteward

Hugh,bp.ofBayeux(q.v.),sonof

John,archbp.ofRouen(q.v.),sonof

Roger,bp.ofLisieux,(i)RogerofBeaumont,seeBeaumontRogerBigot,(i),(ii),(iii)RogerCrispin,(i)Roger,e.ofHereford,seeBreteuilRogerIIofMontgomery,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v),(vi),(vii),(viii),

(ix),(x),(xi),(xii),(xiii)vicomteoftheHiémois,(i),(ii),(iii)

e.ofShrewsbury,(i),(ii)MabelofBellême(q.v.),wifeof

Roger,sonofTancred,(i)Rögnvald,e.ofMöre,(i)Rolf(Rollo),dk.ofNormandy,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v),(vi),(vii),(viii),(ix)

Rome,(i),(ii),(iii)seealsoPapacy

Romney,(i),(ii)

Rotrou,c.ofMortagne,(i)Rouen,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v),(vi),(vii),(viii),(ix),(x),(xi),(xii),(xiii),(xiv),(xv),(xvi),(xvii),(xviii),(xix),(xx),(xxi)archbishopricof,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v),(vi),(vii),(viii),(ix),(x),(xi)

cathedralof,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v),(vi),(vii)

councilsat,(i),(ii),(iii)provinceof,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv)archbishopsof,seeJohn;

Mauger;Mauritius;Robert;William‘Bonne-Ame’

abbeysin,seeHolyTrinity;Saint-Amand;Saint-Ouen;Saint-Gervais

Round,J.H.,(i),(ii)Royalty,divinerightof,(i)nominationto,(i)hereditarysuccessionto,(i)sanctityof,(i)unctionof,(i)

Ryes,Hubertof,(i),(ii)

EudotheSteward(q.v.),sonof

SaintAlbans,abbeyof,(i)Paul,abbotof,(i)

Saint-Amand(Rouen),nunneryof,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v)

Saint-Aubin,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv)SaintAugustine'sabbey,Canterbury,(i),(ii)Æthelsige,abbotof,(i)

Saint-Bertin,abbeyof,(i)Saint-Brieuc,(i)Saint-Clair-sur-Epte,pactat,(i)

Saint-Claud,monasteryof,(i)Saint-Évroul,abbeyof,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v),(vi)Thierry,abbotof,(i)

Saint-Fromond,monasteryof,(i)Saint-Gabriel,monasteryof,(i),(ii),(iii)

Saint-Georges-de-Boscherville,abbeyof,(i),(ii)

Saint-Gervais(Rouen),monasteryof,(i)

Saint-James-de-Beuvron,(i),(ii)Saint-Lô,(i)

Saint-Malo,(i)Saint-Marculf,monasteryof,(i)Saint-Martin-de-Sées,abbeyof,(i),(ii)

Saint-Martin-de-Troarn,abbeyof,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v)Durand,abbotof,(i)

Saint-Martin-du-Bosc,monasteryof,(i)

Saint-Micheldel'Abbayette,monasteryof,(i)

Saint-Michel-du-Tréport,abbeyof,(i),(ii),(iii)

Saint-Ouen(Rouen),abbeyof,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v),(vi),(vii),(viii),(ix),(x)Nicholas(q.v.),abbotof

Saint-PèredeChartres,abbeyof,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v)

Saint-Philibert,honourof,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv)monasteryof,(i)

Saint-Pierre-de-la-Couture,abbeyof,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v)Juhel,abbotof,(i),(ii)Reinald,abbotof,(i)

Saint-Sauveur,familyof,seeCotentin,vicomtesof

SaintStephen's,Caen,abbeyof,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v),(vi),(vii),(viii)Lanfranc(q.v.),abbotof

Sainte-Suzanne,(i)Saint-Valery,familyof,(i)Saint-Valery-sur-Somme,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v)

Saint-Victor-en-Caux,monasteryat,(i),(ii)

Saint-Vincent-du-Mans,abbeyof,

(i),(ii),(iii)Saint-Wandrille,abbeyof,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v),(vi),(vii),(viii),(ix),(x),(xi),(xii),(xiii)Gerbert,abbotof,(i)Robert,abbotof,(i)

Saint-Ymer-en-Auge,abbeyof,(i),(ii)

Saintes,councilat,(i)Saintonge,(i)Saire,(i)Salisbury,assemblyat,(i),(ii),(iii)

bishopricof,(i),(ii)seealso‘OathofSalisbury’;Osmund

Samson,bp.ofWorcester,(i)Sandwich,(i)Saracens,(i)Sarthe,(i)Saumur,abbeyofSaint-Florentat,(i)

Scandinavia,influenceonEngland,(i),(ii),(iii)

influenceonNormandy,(i),(ii),

(iii),(iv)threattoWilliamtheConquerorfrom,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v),(vi)

Scotland,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v),(vi),(vii),(viii)seealsoMalcolmIII;Margaret

Scriptorium,royal,inEngland,(i),(ii)

Scrofula,the‘King'sEvil’,(i),(ii)Scutage,(i)Sées,(i),(ii),(iii)bishopricof,(i),(ii)

bishopsof,seeRadbod;YvesseealsoSaint-Martin-de-Sées

Segré,(i)Seine,river,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v)Selden,John,(i)Selsey,bishopricof,(i)Sélune,river,(i)Sens,abbeyofSainte-Colombeat,(i)bishopricof,(i),(ii)

Sept-Meules,(i)Serlo,abbotofGloucester,(i)Serqueville,(i)

Servitiumdebitum,inEngland,(i),(ii),(iii)inNormandy,(i),(ii),(iii)impositionof,onbishopricsandabbeys,(i)

Sherborne,bishopricof,(i),(ii)Æthelsige,bp.of,(i)

Sheriff,officeof,(i)changeincharacterafterNormanconquest,(i),(ii)

comparisonof,withofficeofvicomte,(i),(ii),(iii)

Shipsandfleets,(i),(ii),(iii)Shirecourts,(i)Shrewsbury,earldomof,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv)seealsoRogerIIofMontgomery

Sicily,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv)Sierville,(i)Siffroi,bp.ofLeMans,(i)Sigy,prioryof,(i)Sihtric,(i)Sihtric,abbotofTavistock,(i)Sillé,(i)

Simony,(i),(ii),(iii)Siward,e.ofNorthumbria,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv)

Slavery,(i)Solesmes,abbeyof,(i)Somerset,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv)Tofi,sheriffof,(i)

Somme,river,(i)SongofRoland,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv)Sorel,(i)Sotteville-les-Rouen,(i)Southern,R.W.,(i),(ii)Southwark,(i)

Spain,(i)Alphonzo,k.in,(i)Normansin,(i),(ii),(iii)

Spelman,John,(i)Staffordshire,(i),(ii)Stainmoor,(i)Staller,officeof,(i)Stamford,(i)StamfordBridge,battleof,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv)

Standard,battleofthe,(i)Stapleton,Thomas,(i)Steenstrup,J.,(i),(ii),(iii)

Stenton,F.M.,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v),(vi),(vii)

Stephen,c.ofBrittany,(i)Steward,officeof,(i),(ii)seealsoEudo;Haimo;Osbern;Stigand;WilliamfitzOsbern

Steyning,(i),(ii),(iii)Stigand,bp.ofWinchesterandarchbp.ofCanterbury,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv)

StigandtheSteward,(i),(ii)Odo,sonof,(i)

Suffolk,(i),(ii)

Surrey,(i)Sussex,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv)rapesof,(i)

SweynEstrithson,k.ofDenmark,(i),(ii),(iii)CnutIV(q.v.),sonofHarold,sonof,(i)Osbern,brotherof,(i)

Sweyn‘Forkbeard’,k.ofDenmark,(i)

SweynGodwineson,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv)

Tadcaster,(i),(ii)‘Taillefer’,(i)Talou,(i),(ii)seealsoArques

Tancarville,familyof,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v)Geraldof,(i)RalphIof,(i)RalphIIof,(i),(ii)

Taxation,inEngland,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv)inNormandy,(i)

Tay,river,(i),(ii)

Tees,river,(i),(ii),(iii)TelhamHill,(i)Telonarii,(i),(ii)Tenants-in-chief,establishmentof,inEngland,(i)obligationsof,(i)

Tesson,familyof,(i),(ii),(iii)Ralph,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v),(vi),(vii)

Thames,river,(i),(ii),(iii)Thegns,(i)Thetford,bishopricof,(i)Thimert,siegeof,(i)

ThomasI,archbp.ofYork,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v)

ThomasII,archbp.ofYork,(i)Thurstan,abbotofGlastonbury,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv)

ThurstanGoz,vicomte,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v)Richard,vicomteoftheAvranchin(q.v.),sonof

Thury,(i)Tilleul,Humphreyof,(i)Tillières,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v),(vi)Tinchebrai,battleof,(i)

Toki,sonofWigot,(i)Tonbridge,(i)Torigny,Robertof,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv)

Tosny,familyof,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v),(vi),(vii)Berengarof,(i)RalphIIof,(i),(ii),(iii)RogerIof,sonofRalphII,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv)

Godehildis,wifeofRogerI,(i)RalphIIIof,sonofRogerI,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v),(vi)

RalphIVof,(i)TostiGodwineson,e.ofNorthumbria,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv)Judith,wifeof,(i)seealsoBaldwinIVTouques,river,(i)

Tours,(i),(ii)Hildebert,bp.of,(i)

TowerofLondon,(i)Treasuries,(i),(ii),(iii)Trémorel,(i)Tréport(le),seeSaint-Michel-du-Tréport

Trials,inEngland,(i)inNormandy,(i),(ii)seealsoJurisdiction

Troarn,(i)seealsoSaint-Martin-de-Troarn

TruceofGod,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v),(vi),(vii)

TurchetilofNeufmarché,(i)Turold,abbotofPeterborough,(i),(ii)

Tyne,river,(i)

Ulf,bp.ofDorchester,(i)UrseofAbetôt,sheriffofWorcestershire,(i)

Vains,(i),(ii)Val-ès-Dunes,battleof,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v),(vi)

Vallombrosa,(i)Valmeraye,(i)Valognes,(i),(ii),(iii)Varaville,battleof,(i),(ii),(iii)Verneuil,(i)Vernon,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv)

familyof,(i)Hughof,(i)Williamof,(i)

Vexin,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v),(vi)countsof,seeDreux;RalphofCrépi;Walter

seealsoRalphtheTimidVicomte,officeof,(i),(ii),(iii)comparisonwithofficeofsheriffinEngland,(i)

Vieilles,Humphreyof,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv)RogerofBeaumont(q.v.),son

ofVilleray,(i)Vimoutiers,(i),(ii)Vire,river,(i),(ii),(iii)VitaEdwardiregis,(i),(ii)Vitalis,abbotofWestminster,(i)Vitré,familyof,(i)Vitré-aux,Loges,(i)Volpiano,Williamof,seeDijon,Williamof

Vougrin,bp.ofLeMans,(i),(ii)

Wace,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v),(vi)

Walchelin,bp.ofWinchester,(i)Walchere,bp.ofDurham,e.ofNorthumbria,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv)

Waleran,c.ofMeulan,(i)Wales,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v),(vi),(vii),(viii)

Wallingford,(i)Walter,abbotofEvesham,(i)Walter,brotherofHerleve(q.v.),(i),(ii)

Walter,c.oftheVexin,andc.ofMaine,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v),(vi),(vii)

Biota,wifeof,(i),(ii),(iii)Waltheof,sonofSiward,e.ofNorthumbria,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v),(vi),(vii),(viii)

Warenne,familyof,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v)Rodulfof,(i),(ii)Williamof,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v),(vi),(vii),(viii),(ix),(x)

Gundrada,wifeof,(i),(ii),(iii)Warwick,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv)Waters,Chester,(i)Wells,bishopricof,(i)

seealsoGisoWessex,earldomof,(i),(ii),(iii)seealsoGodwine;HaroldGodwineson

Westminsterabbey,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v),(vi),(vii),(viii),(ix),(x)abbotsof,seeGilbertCrispin;Vitalis

White,G.H.,(i),(ii),(iii)Wilkins,David,(i),(ii)WILLIAMTHECONQUEROR

Career

birthandparentage,(i),(ii),(iii)boyhood,(i),(ii),(iii)accessionasduke,(i)guardiansof,(i)minorityof,(i)vassaloftheFrenchking,(i)facesrebellionofGuyofBurgundyandthevicomtes,(i)

appealstoHenryI,(i)atbattleofVal-és-Dunes,(i)attendscouncilatCaen,(i),(ii)besiegesBrionne,(i),(ii)

re-entersRouen,(i)favoursCaen,(i),(ii)supportsHenryIagainstGeoffreyMartel,(i),(ii)

capturesDomfrontandAlençon,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv)

marriesMatilda,(i),(ii)receivesnominationassuccessortoEdwardtheConfessor,(i)

faceshostilecoalitioninFrance,1051–1054,(i)

doesnotvisitEnglandin1051,(i)

capturesArques,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv)

sendsWilliam,c.ofArques,intoexile,(i)

strengthenedbyNormanvictoryatMortemer,(i)

securesdepositionofArchbp.Mauger,(i)

favoursappointmentofArchbp.Mauritius,(i),(ii)

garrisonsMontBarbetandAmbrières,(i)

disinheritsWilliamWerlenc,c.

ofMortain,(i),(ii)facesinvasionofNormandy,1057,(i)

atbattleofVaraville,(i)capturesThimert,(i)conquersMaine,1063,(i),(ii)receivesoathfromHaroldGodwineson,(i),(ii)

invadesBrittany,(i),(ii)receivesnewsofHarold'ssuccessionask.ofEngland,(i),(ii)

preparestoinvadeEngland,(i)

takescounselwithNormanmagnates,(i),(ii)

buildsfleet.(i)negotiateswithpopeandemperor,(i)

collectsmercenariesanddisciplinesthem,(i)

atSaint-Valery-sur-Somme,(i)crossesChannelandlandsatPevensey,194—196

consolidatespositioninSussex,(i),(ii)

forcesearlyactiononHarold,(i)

atbattleofHastings,(i)takesCanterbury,(i),(ii)isolatesLondon,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv)

holdscouncilatBerkhampstead,(i)

receivessubmissionofEnglishmagnates,(i),(ii)

iscrownedkingoftheEnglish,(i),(ii)

holdscouncilatBarking,(i)returnstoNormandy,(i)capturesExeter,(i)

occupiesYork,(i)receivessubmissionofmanyEnglishcities,(i),(ii)

buildscastles,(i),(ii)facesrisingoftheNorth,(i)retakesYork,(i)harriestheNorth,(i)campaignbeyondtheTees,(i)marchesacrossthePennines,(i)takesChester,(i)receivesfurthersubmissions,(i),(ii)

suppressesrisingofHereward,

(i)facesrevoltinMaineandattackfromScotland,(i)

invadesScotland,(i)makespactatAbernethywithMalcolmIII,(i)

recapturesLeMans,(i)faceshostilityofPhilipIandofAnjou,(i),(ii)

facesrevoltsinEnglandandBrittany,(i)

ordersexecutionofWaltheof,(i)defeatedatDol,(i),(ii)

losescontroloftheVexin,(i)facesrevoltofhissonRobert,(i),(ii)

defeatedatGerberoi,(i)makespactswithFulkleRechinandPhilipI,(i),(ii),(iii)

reconciledtoRobert,(i)ordersinvasionofScotland,(i),(ii)

atcouncilofLillebonne(1080),(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v)

refusesdemandforfealtyfromGregoryVII,(i),(ii)

imprisonsOdoofBayeux,(i),(ii)

facesnewrebellionofRobert,(i)

attacksSainte-Suzanne,(i)facesinvasionfromCnutIVofDenmark,(i),(ii),(iii)

holdscourtatGloucester,1085,(i)

ordersDomesdaysurvey,(i)receives‘OathofSalisbury’,(i),(ii)

invadesVexin,(i)

sacksMantes,(i)mortallywounded,(i)returnstoRouen,(i)disposesofhisdominions,(i)dies,(i)funeralof,(i)childrenof,(i)

GovernmentandAdministrationpoliticalinheritanceof,(i)hischartersandwrits,(i),(ii),(iii)

hiscourt,(i),(ii)

hishousehold,(i),(ii)hispowersasduke,(i)hisstatusasking,(i)hisrealmapoliticalunity,(i)crown-wearings,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv)

fiscaladministration,(i),(ii)feudalpolicy,(i),(ii)judicialacts,(i),(ii)ecclesiasticalpolicy,(i),(ii)presidesatchurchcouncils,(i)holdspleasinEngland,(i)hisrespectforEnglishtraditions,

(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v),(vi),(vii)

hisuseofEnglishinstitutions,(i),(ii),(iii)

PolicyrespectingChurchinEngland,(i)Englishearlsandsheriffs,(i)Englisharistocracy,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v),(vi)

Englishmilitaryinstitutions,(i)Englishpeasantry,(i)Jews,(i),(ii)

feudalisminNormandy,(i),(ii)Normanaristocracy,(i)Normancountsandvicomtes,(i),(ii)

Normanbishoprics,(i)Normanmonasteries,(i)

PersonalrelationswithAlexanderII,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v),(vi),(vii)

CnutIV,(i),(ii),(iii)EdgarAtheling,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v),(vi),(vii)

EdwardtheConfessor,(i)FulkleRechin,(i),(ii),(iii)GeoffreyMartel,(i),(ii)GregoryVII,(i)GuyofBurgundy,(i)HaroldGodwineson,(i)HenryI,k.ofFrance,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v)

Lanfranc,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v),(vi),(vii)

Malcolm,k.ofScotland,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv)

Maurilius,archbp.ofRouen,(i),

(ii),(iii)Odo,bp.ofBayeux,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v),(vi)

PhilipI,k.ofFrance,(i),(ii),(iii)

Robert,hisson,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv)SweynEstrithson,(i),(ii)Waltheof,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v)William,c.ofArques,(i),(ii),(iii)

PoliticalrelationswithAnjou,(i),(ii),(iii)

Brittany,(i),(ii)Frenchmonarchy,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v)

Maine,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v),(vi)

Papacy,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv)Scandinavia,(i),(ii),(iii)Scotland,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv)Vexin,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v),(vi)Wales,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v),(vi)

Characteristicsandreputationavarice,(i),(ii)

courageinadversity,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v),(vi),(vii),(viii)

continence,(i)cruelty,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv)contemporaryopinionsof,(i),(ii),(iii)

contrastedjudgmentson,(i)diplomaticskill,(i),(ii)dignity,(i),(ii)geniusforleadership,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v),(vi),(vii)

militaryability,(i),(ii),(iii)personalappearance,(i),(ii)

subjectoflegends,(i),(ii)subjectofpropaganda,(i)piety,(i)energy,(i)statesmanship,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv)strengthofwill,(i)

WilliamII,k.ofEngland,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v)

William‘Longsword’,dk.ofNormandy,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v),(vi),(vii),(viii)

William‘Bonne-Ame’,archbp.ofRouen,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v),

(vi)William,bp.ofÉvreux,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv)

William,bp.ofLondon,(i),(ii),(iii)

WilliamofSaint-Calais,bp.ofDurham,(i),(ii)

William,c.ofArques,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v),(vi),(vii),(viii),(ix),(x)Walter,sonof,(i)

William,c.ofEu,(i)Lesceline(q.v.),wifeof

Robert,c.ofEu(q.v.),sonofWilliamWerlenc,c.ofMortain,(i),(ii),(iii)

WilliamofRots,abbotofFécamp,(i),(ii)

WilliamBertram,(i)WilliamfitzOsbern,e.ofHereford,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v),(vi),(vii),(viii),(ix),(x),(xi),(xii),(xiii),(xiv),(xv),(xvi)WilliamofBreteuil,sonof,(i)RogerofBreteuil(q.v.),sonof

WilliamTalvasofBellême,(i),(ii)

Wilton,nunneryof,(i)Ælviva,abbessof,(i)

Wiltshire,(i)Edric,sheriffof,(i)

Winchcombe,abbeyof,(i)Godric,abbotof,(i)Eadwine,monkof,(i)

Winchester,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v),(vi),(vii)bishopricof,(i),(ii),(iii)bishopsof,seeStigand;Walchelin

councilsat,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v)

seealsoNewMinsterWitan,(i)Worcester,bishopricof,(i),(ii)bishopsof,seeSamson;Wulfstan

Worcestershire,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv)sheriffof,seeUrseofAbetôt

Writs,characterof,(i)Englishoriginof,(i),(ii)Normanuseof,(i),(ii)

Wulfric,abbotofNewMinster,(i)

Wulfstan,bp.ofWorcester,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v),(vi),(vii)

York,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v),(vi),(vii),(viii)archbishopsof,seeAldred;ThomasI;ThomasII

provinceof,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv)Yorkshire,(i),(ii)Yver,Jean,(i)Yves,bp.ofSées,(i),(ii),(iii),(iv)

Zacharias,Pope,(i)