Anglo-Norman Studies V: Proceedings of the Battle Conference 1982

ANGLO -NORMAN STUDIES V: PROCEEDINGS OF THE BATTLE CONFERENCE 1982 R. Allen Brown Editor

BOYDELL PRESS . BIBLIO

ANGLO-NORMAN STUDIES V PROCEEDINGS OF THE BATTLE CONFERENCE 1982

ANGLO -NORMAN STUDIES V

PROCEEDINGS O F THE BATTLE CONFERENCE 1982

Edited by R. Allen Brown

BOYDELL PRESS

. BIBLIO

Disclaimer: Some images in the original version of this book are not available for inclusion in the eBook.

O Contributors 1982,1983

All Rights Resmed. Except as permitted under current legislation no part of this work may be photocopied, stored in a retrieval system, published, performed in public, adapted, broadcast, transmitted, recorded or reproduced in any form or by any means, without the prior permission of the copyright owner

First published 1983 The Boydell Press, Woodbridge Transferred to digital printing

ISBN 0 85115 178 7 ISSN 0261-9857

The Boydell Press is an imprint of Boydell & Brewer Ltd PO Box 9, Woodbridge, Suffolk IM2 3DF, UK and of Boydell & Brewer Inc. 668 Mt Hope Avenue, Rochester, NY 14620, USA website: www.boydellandbrewer.com A CiP catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

This publication is printed on acid-free paper

CONTENTS LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS EDITOR'S PREFACE ABBREVIATIONS

Interlace Patterns in Norman Romanesque Sculpture: Regional Groups and their Historical Background Maylis Bayle Poetry as History? The Roman de Rou of Wace as a source for the Norman conquest Mattfzew Bennett The Blinding of Harold and the Meaning of the Bayeux Tapestry David Bernstein Military Service in Normandy before 1066 Marjorie ChibnaZl England and Byzantium on the Eve of the Norman Conquest (the reign of Edward the Confessor) Krifiie Cisgaar La datation de l'abbatiale de Bernay: quelques observations architecturales et resultats des fouilles rbcentes Joseph Decaens The Early Romanesque Tower of Sompting Church, Sussex Richard Gem The Sheriffs of William the Conqueror Judith Green The House of Redvers and its Monastic Foundations Frederick Hockey On Scanning Anglo-Norman Verse R. C. Joknsron The UmfraviIles, the Castle and the Barony of Prudhoe, Northumberland Laurence Keciz The Chronicon ex Chronicis of 'Florence' of Worcester and its Use of Sources for English History before 1066 The late R. R. DarEingron and P. McGurk Stantford: the Development of an Anglo-Scandinavian Borough Christine Mahany and David Roffe Crown and Episcopacy under the Normans and Angevins David Walker

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Interlace Patterns in Noman Romanesque Sculpture 1 Base in the choir of Rernay Abbey church 2 Capital from the transept of the abbey church of Nbtre-Dame at Jumi6ges 3 Capital in Lion-sur-Mer 4 Capital in Lion-sur-Mer 5 Capital in Lion-sur-Mer 6 Capitals in Sainte-Marie-du-Mont nave 7 Capita1 outside Beaumais apse 8 Capital in the nave of Saint-Etienne, Caen 9 Capital in Quilleboeuf nave 10 Capital in Barneville nave 11 Rocquancourt fonts 12 Montebourg font 13 Slab from Tingstade on Gotland, Sweden 14 Distribution map of interlace patterns in Normandy 15 Capital in Martinvast church The Blinding of HuroEd 1 Bastings: climax of the battle 2 Death of Harold 3 English scout and Harold 4 Experiment 5 Enigmatic stitch marks, death of Harold scene 6 Gyrth '7 Cavalry charge 8 Harold swears oath to William 9 Detail, oath scene 10 Haley's comet I 1 Giovanni Arnolfini and his bride, by Jan van Eyck 12 Virtue blinding vice on reliquary at Troyes Cathedral 13 Fides blinding Worship-of-the-Old-Gods 14 Attack on Jerusalem: Nebuchadnezzar orders the blinding of Zedekiah 15 Nebuchadnezzar, blinding of Zedekiah, decapitation of sons 16 Climax of battle: unarmed Englishman La dutation de 1 'ubbutialede Bernay I Abbatiale de Bernay: nef 2 Bernay: plan de l'abbatiaie 3 Rernay: nef, 616vation laterale sud 4 Bernay: nef, 6lkvation lat6rale sud 5 Rernay: nef, socle primitif d'un pilie!

Bernay: nef, Emposte passant derriere le tailioir d'un chapiteau Bernay: croige du transept Bernay: transept, croisillon sud, mur est Bernay: transept, croisillon sud, mur west Bernay: choeur, dlkvation latBrale nord Bernay: choeur, BlBvation latdrale sud Bernay: nef, les diffiirents dallages Bernay : nef, coup au droit de la deuxieme pile nord Bernay: coupe perpendiculaire au mur oriental du bltiment d6couvert au sud du choeur

The Ear& Romanesque Tower of Sornpting Church 1 Sompting church: tower from south-west 2 Sompting church: north face of tower 3 Sompting church: north face of tower, window at intermediate level 4 Sompting church: tower arch, detail of north side The Umfravilles, the Castle and the Barony ofhudhoe 1 The area between Newcastle and Hexham: archaeological finds, and the barony of Prudhoe 2 Prudhoe Castle. Phase One 3 Prudhoe Castle. Phase Two 4 Prudhoe Castle. Phase Three 5 North elevation of gatehouse 6 Print by Samuel and Nathaniel Buck 7 Ground plan of keep Stam ford: the Development of an A nglo-ScandinavianBorough 1 Stamford: the medieval town 2 Stamford: parishes 3 Stamford castle 4 Stamford: the Saxo-Norman town 5 Stamford: topography 6 Speed's map of Stamford, c.1600A.D. 7 Stamford: the political context, ninth to eleventh centuries 8 Lincolnshire: general topography

105 107 108 109 110 112 115

117 119

122 123 124 125

PREFACE The fifth Battle Conference in Anglo-Norman Studies took place between 23 and 28 July at Battle, in Pyke House as of old, and was as well-attended and enjoyable as is customary. Our enjoyment was, of course, very much due to those who gave papers even more than to those who animatedly discussed them, to the hospitable labours of the staff of Pyke House under its new warden, Mr Peter Birch, and to the scarcely less hospitable labours of the landlord and staff of the 'Chequers' inn next door, without which the Conference could never be the same. We are very much obliged also for the continuing support and organisation provided by the East Sussex County Council, more particularly Mrs GilIian Murton and Miss Verity Frampton, and to those who, additionally, made the Outing as notable a feature of our proceedings as always - on this occasion Dr Richard Gem for all churches visited (Shoreham, both Old and New, and Sompting) and His Grace the Duke of Norfolk, with his staff, for their kind reception, access and red-carpet treatment to us at Arundel. M r Ian Peirce as always, armed and accoutred, stands representative of the kind welcome given t o us by the local community of Battle and district, and we are particularly grateful also t o Miss June Parker, the Headmistress of Battle Abbey School, who generously allowed us t o continue the privileged tradition of holding our opening reception in her Abbot's Hall. It is also very necessary to thank the British Academy for a generous grant to help us defray the expenses of those coming to give papers from overseas. All the papers read at the Conference are printed in this volume substantially as read, with the exception of that by Dr David Dumville which could not be made ready in time for publication. In an attempt to hold down the price of the volume, there is no index. The next index t o appear will be that for volumes 1-10, and thereafter indexes will be published for every five volumes. The general editor must especially thank the publishers, Boydell and Brewer, and particularly Dr Richard Barber, for a great deal of help in seeing the volume through the press. One very satisfying piece of general news remains to be recorded. The Battle Conference now has a daughter-house in America in the form of the Haskins Society, recently founded by Professor C. Warren Hollister, which held its first memorable conference at the University of Houston, Texas, in November 1982. We wish them we1 and Iook forward t o much fruitful cross-fertilisation.

R. AIlen Brown Thelnetham, Suffolk 26 December I982

ABBREVIATIONS Antiqs. Journ. Arch. Jourrr. ASC Battle Chmnicle

Cal, Docs. France Carmen De gestis potrrifictirn

De gestis regurn

Eadmer

E m

GEC

HhISO Huntingdon

The Antiquaries Jounza?(Society of Antiquaries of London). Archaeological Joirrnal (Royal Arcl~aeologicalInstitute). Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, ed. D. Whitelock et al., London 1969. The Ci~rotricieof Rattle Abbey, ed. Eleanor Searle, Oxford MedievaI Texts. 1980. BuNetirr of the lizstiture nj Historical Research British Library Riblioth6que Nationale Tile Buye~lxTapestcv, ed. F. M . Stenton, 2nd ed. London 1965. Caletrrlar of~c~crr~izenrs[)~esewedin France. . . i, 918-1 216, ed. J. I-I. Round, H.M.S.O., 1899. The Carnzetz de Hasrirzgae Proelin of Cuv hislzop of A miens, ed. Catherine Morton and Hope Munz, Oxford Medieval Texts, 1972. Williarn of Nalmesbury, De gestis porrt$icurn Ai~glorunr,ed. N . E. S. A. Hamilton, RS 1870. William of Malmesbury, De gestis regzitla Atiglor!rm, ed. W . Stubbs, RS 1887. I)of?zesciay Rook, serf iihcr ceiuzca2is . . ., ed. A. Farley, 2 vols., 'Record Colnniission', 1783. Dc. t?innbus er actis prim(rrimz Nomzatlrziae Dunitn atictore Dudone Sarrcti Ouintini Decailo, ed. J . Lair, SociktC de Antiquaires de Normandie, 1865. Hi.srnria tzovof~tvzit?At~glia,ed. M. Rule, RS 1884. f--r~glishHistnn'cat Dociimettrs, i, ed. D. Whitelock, London 1955; ii, ed. D. C. Douglas, London 1953. Lrrglish Historical Review R~~eueil dcs actcs des cltics tle Nonrzandie (911-1066), ed. X4. Fauroux, hrlelnoires de la SocietC des Antiquaires de Normandie, xxxvi, 196 1. Ci)tnpletc Peerage r!f' i:'Irgland, .%oliand, Erelatzd, Great Britain and the tftzired Kingdonz, 13 vols. in 14, London 1910-59. \Villiaru of Poitiers, Geata G~iillelrrzi. . ., ed. R. Foreville, Paris 1952. Willian~of Malrnesbury, Hisroria il/n~le!la,ed. K. R. Potter, Nelson's Medieval Texts, London 1955. I.1er Majesty's Stationery Office, London. Henry of Huntingdon, Hixtoria Aiiglor~crn,ed. T . Arnold, RS 1879.

Jo~trn.BAA Jumi&ges Lurzfra~lcs' Letters Med. A rch. MGH Mottasticotz ns Orderic PRO fiocs. RA Regesta KS ser. Trans. TRHS VCH Vira Eniiwa~di

Vita Hcrluirzi Wace Worccstcr

Jountal of the Rritisli Archaeological Association William of Jumi&ges,Gesta Nonnannonlnz Ducctnz, ed. J. hlarx, SociktC de I'hiscoire de Nonnandie, 1914. The Lerrers oj' I,atjjkntzc Archbishop of Catrterhmry, ed. El. Clover and M. Gibson, Oxford Medieval Texts, 1979. Medieval Arclfa~~olng?~ ilfotamtcnra Gcrnzarriar Histc)rica, Scriptares. WiIlia~nDugdale, Monasticorl Attglicatzum, ed. J . Caley, H.Ellis and B. Bandinel, 6 vols. in 8, London 1817-30. New Series Ordericus Vitalis, Elistoriu [:icle~iu~tica,ed. M . Chihnall, Oxford Wedieval Texts, 1969Public Record Office Proccedirrgs rtf the Bririsl? Araclcny Rcgesra Rcgz~rri~t At{fl)-hfomlatlaon~i?r, i, ed. [-I. W. C. Davis, Oxford 1913; ii, ed. C. Johnson, H. A. Cronne, Oxford 1956; iii, ed. if. A. Cronne, R. 14. C. Davis, Oxford 3968. Rolls Series, London. series Transactions Trart sacriot~so f tlr c Roval l~isrr~ricaf Sociery Victoria County History The Life of Edward the Confessor, cd. F. Barlow, Nelson's Medieval Texts, London 1962. ed. J. Armitage Robinson in his Gilbert Crispb~abhor qf [tlc.srttzi)rster,Cambridge 19 1 1. Wace, Le Rortiatr ~ l Rori. c ed. A. J. Holden, 3 vols. Societe des anciens textes franqais, Paris 1970-3. Florence of Worcester. CIzro~ricc)rrc..u CIzrotricis. ed. B. Tilorpe, English Historical Society, London 1848-9.

The publishers gratefully acknowledge the assistance of the British Academy in providing a grant towards the cost of illustrations in the present volume.

INTERLACEPATTERNS IN NORMAN ROMANESQUE SCULPTURE: REGIONAL GROUPS AND THEIR HISTORICAL BACKGROUND Maylis Bay14 Architectural sculpture in Normandy from the beginning of the eleventh century to the end of the Romanesque period offers many fascinating aspects, although a regrettable lack of interest relegated it t o the background of art history until recent years. Fortunately, the studies of Professor G. Zarneckil have described its development and its links with English sculpture before and after the Conquest of 1066, the consequences of which were at least as important in the field of art as in those of politics and economics. On the French side, important papers from the late L. Grodecki2 and from Professor L. Musset3 showed the real interest and importance of Norman sculpture in Bernay, Goult, Rucqtleville andother places. In fact, copious chapters could be dedicated t o some particular and significant points, such as the development of Corinthian-derived capitals which first appear in Bernay Abbey church, the origins of geometric chip-carving so powerfully implanted in the AngloNorman area after 1066, or the exact links between ornamental styles in manuscript illtimination and similar decoration on capitals in JumiQes, GouIt, F k c a n ~ p . ~ Professor Zarnecki very accurately summarized for members of the 1978 Battle Conference the meaning and importance of each one of these subjects, and, after many years of research on eleventh-century Norman sculpture, I hope to be able to publish shortly the results of a comprehensive study.5 Rut in this paper, I would 1 G. Zarnecki, English Romanesque Sculpture, 1066-1140, London 1951; Iater English Romanesque Sculpture 1140-1210, London 1953; '1066 and Architectural Sculpture', tn Procs. BA, 1966, 87-104; 'Romanesque Sculpture in Normandy and England in the Eleventh

Century',ante, i, 1978. 2 I,, Grodecki, 'Leu dgbuts de ka sculpture somane en Normandie. Bernay' in Bulletin Monu.

mental 1950, 7-67; 'Le prieurd de Goult', in Congks archblagique de France 1 953 (Orne). 350-5; 'Notrc-Dame-sur-l'Eau de Domfront', ibid. 221-35. 3 L. Musset, 'Les chapiteaux de Rucquevillc', in Art de Basse N o m n d i e 1959 No 13. 1215 'Les chapiteaux du prieurti de Goult', in Art de Basse-Normandie 1959 No 16, 14ff.; Normandie Romane, 1-11, Zodiaque, 1967 and 1974. 4 Probier11 first studied by Profeswr Earnccki for English Rornanesque Sculpture: see G. Zarnecki, Regional Schools of English Sculpture in the Twelfth Cenfxtry unpub. thesis, University of London, 1951; 'The Winchester Acanthus in Romanesque Sculpture', in Wallraf-Richartz Jahrbuch, XVII, 1955, 1-4 (rptd Studies in Romenesque Sculpture, London 1979); Tl~eBmly Sculpture of Ely Cathedral, London 1958; 'The Romancsque Capitals in the South Transept of Wor~rsterCathedral', in British Archaeological Association Conference nansactions, I; Medieval Art and Architecture at Worcester Cathedral, London 1978, 38-42. See atsa the above bibliography n. 1. For Norman Sculpture, see n.3 and M. RaylB, 'La Sculpture du XIe siecle ri Jumigges et sa place dans le decor architectural des abbayes normandes', in Aspects du rnonachisme en

.

Normandie ( I p - X V I I P sie'cie), Actes du Colloque Scientifique de IXnnke des Abbayes Normandes 1979, Parts 1982, 75-96, 'La sculpture ii Lonlay-1'Abbayc ct dans scs pricurd-s', in Bulletin du Comitk des Travaux Iiisforiques ct Scicntifques, 14A, I 982, 7 5 -1 03. 5 l~nportantaspectr of this research partly published in ill. Rayll., IA Trittitk de &en, Paris-

2

Artgio-Nornzan Studies V

like to deal with a peculiar kind of ornamental sculpture which does not belong exactly to any of the artistic trends above-mentioned; that is, carved interlace, one of the oldest types of ornament in art history, and one of the most widespread in medieval art. A study of Norman interlace carving may seem at first sight far-fetched: while carved strapwork was extremely intricate and highly developed in Celtic6 and Scandinavian art,' as well as in Lombard sculpture,8 and frequently appears in some groups of Romanesque carving^,^ it does not seem t o have been greatly favoured by Norman sculptors. It remained very rare in the eleventh century and, even at the time at which geometric ornament was most widespread, it does not appear as repeatedly as chevron, chip-carved stars and other very common patterns. Yet a complete list of ornaments shows that each of the different groups of sculptures with carved interlacing decoration gives new insights into the study of Nonnan art. Moreover, they raise questions of some interest for the history of refations between Normandy and other regions, Both for the eleventh century and for the twelfth century, these interlace patterns are significant. Sometimes they only confirm what we already know from other sources. This is true for the only important example in the first haIf of the eleventh century: some bases and capitals in Bernay Abbey church. In other cases, later capitals belonging to the end of the eleventh century or more frequentIy to the twelfth century suggest links of some complexity with Italian, English or AngloScandinavian art. Reforc dealing with those sculptures, it may be useful to enquire to what extent interlace ornament, sowell-known in pre-Romanesque Europe,was used in Normandy before the eleventh century. In spite of the many artistic losses due toViking invasions, we can outline an answer, as a few remains have been preserved. From Saint-Samsonsur-Risle, at the beginning of Carolingian times, t o the former monastery of Evrecy, the carved stones of which (in my opinion) date t o the tenth century, there is a continuous sculptural tradition which, in some respects prepares the way for the art of Norman sculptors in the eleventh century. The workshop of Evrecy which was published by Professor L. Musset,1° deserves a comprehensive study, particularly of Gcnsve 1979. 6 1'. Henry, La sculpture irlandaise pendant Ees douze premiers siecles de h Chrdtientd, 2 vol., Par~s1933, 89ff. and L'art irlandais, 3 vol. Zodlaque 1963. 7 Recent works: 0. Kl~ndt-Jenscnand D.M. Witson, Viking Art, l,ondon 1966; P . Ankcr and A Andcrsson, L'Art scandinave, 1, Zodiaquc 1969. 8 On Lornbdrd ornamentation see: E. h. Stuckelberger, Langobardische Plastik, Leipzig 1898 f\onicwhnt out of date; good catalogue of patterns); A. Ilaseioff, Die vorromanischePlastikin Italien, Rcriin 1 930; I . Sclla ffra n, Die Ku~zstder Langoharden, Jena 1 94 1 ; R. Ku tzli, Lamobardische Kunst, Stt~ttpart1974 (questionable in h ~ 1rypothec;is; s dcta~lcdcuctrnplcs and 11lustrdtion). 9 I-.g. in southern fiance, Rousstllon, Lanpucdoc. Auvergne, with a strong influence of thc C~roiinpiantrddition. Scc P. Dcccharnps, 'Le decor d'entreiacs carolingiens e t sa survivance j. I'Cpoqur rornanc'. in Comptes-rendus Academie des Inscriptions e t Belles Lettres, 1 939,387-96; 61. Kuis, IA s m l p t u ~ ea enhelacs carotingienne duns le sud-est de la France, Thesis, Aix 1975, Recherches stlr Ls sculptures mlingiennes a erztrehcs dans Ie sud-est de la France, Ec. Antique de Nimes, 1973-74, 1 1-26: J. C. f an, 'CJn dicor o r ~ g ~ n aI'cntrclacs l: dpanoui en palmette sur lcs chaprtcau\ romans de I'ancicnne Septimdn~c',in Cahiersde Saint-Michel de Cwra, 1978, 129ff.; J . B o u q u e t , La sculpture a Conques, L ~ l l c1973. 'LC motif dc I'cntrclacs en kventail', in Cahiers S. Michel de C u m , 1978. An ornnrncntation of grrllc., and wickerwork is equally devclopcd in w n ~ groups e of S p a n l ~ hRoniancsque capitals. 10 L. Llussct. 'L'eglise d'rvrecy ct scs sculptures prbrornancs', in Bulletin de la Socidtd des

Interlace Patterns in Norman Ronzanesque Sculpture

3

its foliage carving and also of its architectural reconstruction. The surviving fragments from Evrecy include numerous examples of interlace patterns. These, however, do not directly relate t o the present discussion. While other figural and ornamental carvings from Evrecy have parallels with later works, and suggest an evolution towards eleventh-century styles, the interlace motifs, on the contrary, are of a very common type. The latter only attest the survival of the Carolingian tradition after the settlement of Norman invaders. tt is interesting t o note that they show no sinlilarity to eleventh or twelfth-century carved interlaces. That points to the fact that Eater interlacing decoration depends on different sources. The first important Romanesque sculpture workshop in Normandy is found in Bernay Abbey. The dates and architectural history of thismonument remain controversial." In my opinion this church, founded by the Duchess Judith but barely raised above the foundations before her death, was built between 1025 and the middle of the century (at the latest 1050- 1060), without any distinct break between the three campaigns (a first campaign relating to the choir and transeptsand possibly to the beginning of the nave; a second involving the upper storeys of those eastern parts and including a change of design for the transepts, while the nave was continued; then a third ending with the upper part of the nave andcro~singtower).~~ Two kinds of sculpture may be seen in the choir and transept. The first group, studied in 1950 by the late Professor L. Grodecki,13 comprises block-capitals with elegant scrolls and leaves of Byzantine and Italian origin, but also related to Ottonian ornamentation. A second workshop, which seems to have been active at the same time and a little later, specidised in the application of interlace t o bases and capitals. The shape of these bases has equivalents in the crypt of Rouen Cathedral but apart from these it was uncommon in eleventh-century Normandy. As for the interlace patterns (pl. I), it would be very inaccurate to relate them t o the geometrical ornamentation deveIoped in t l ~ esecond half of the century; nor can they be compared t o any other Nornian sculpture. On the other hand, there are many examples which receive similar treatment (the angular loop, the three threads and the regularity of drawing) in preRomanesque and eleventh-century sculpture in north Italy, wliere these patterns existed in stone as well as in metalwork from Lombard times.14 Other comparisons are to be found in monuments of the Rhdne valley and near Lyon. Among them, the chapel of Saint-Pierre of Montmajour, built before 1046,15has the same type of bases and capitals with rows of interlace. The churches at Saint-Romain-le-Puy and Antiquairesde Normandie 1955-56, 116-36. L. Musset dates the remains o f Evrecy pre-Romanesque rnonaqtery to the eighth or posgibly ninth ccntury. In my opinion styhstic evidence seems to point to a later date, especially as regards foliage ornamentation. 11 J . Decaens' paper and bihltography, below; my study of the monument is t o bc published in Cingre's arch~ologiquede France, 1980. 12 T h ~ sstatement is simplified as I cannot discuss archaeological evidence in this paper. 'The main point of difference between scholars concerns the structure o f the building: was it hullt flrst without half-columns, ~3pit;rlsand roil-mouldings and then cornpteted with those elements when at least the first two qforeys had been erected, or was it built from the beginning as i t may now be seen? f t h ~ n kthat, except tor w m e foundations and some lower layers, the second cxplanation is indicated by 3 close architectural analysis. 1 3 N. 2. above. 14 Comparison proposed by M. Raudot, 'Les dglises de Bernay', in Nouvellesde t a r e , No 66, 21. 15 On Montmyour: A. Horg, Architectural Sculpture in Romnesque F'rovence, Oxford 1972, 20ff.; E. Mognett~,'L'abbayede I\llontmajOur',in Congrks archt'olopque de France, Pays djtrles, 1976,182-95.

4

Anglo-Norman Stlrdies V

Image not available

Plate 1 Base in fJze choir of Bertzay Abbey ci?urcfl Saint-Martin-d'Ainay are indebted to the same tradition.16 There is a great variety of designs in the Bernay interlaces, and some of them may even be related t o carved ornament in the oldest part of Saint-Philibert at Tournus. One must therefore keep in mind the historical background of Bernay Abbey church, and the part played by William of VoIpiano or by Thierry of Dijon in its design or construction. Both were Italian by birth and they established close relations between Italian, Burgundian and Norman abbeys. William had been a prior of SaintSaturnin-on-the-Rh6ne (Pont-Saint-Esprit) before his appointment as abbot of Saint-R6nigne;17 and Dijon was on the main route from Italy and southern France to northern countries. Links between the architectural decoration of Bernay and Dijon have already been recognised. Interlace patterns designed by the second workshop confirm the direction in which we must look t o explain some puzzling aspects of the sculpture of Bernay. Later examples of such carvings cannot be found in Normandy, and interlace ornament in sculpture remains very uncomn~onuntil late in the eleventh century. I shall only mention a capital from the half-destroyed transept of Jurni&gesAbbey church (pl. 2). This belongs to a series whose links with Anglo-Saxon illumination l6 First proposed by R. Ourset, Floraison de la sculpture romane, 11, Zodiaque 1976, 201-3. l7 Rodulfus Glaber, Vita Sancti GuiElelmi. . ., P. L. 142, cal. 707,

Interlace Patterns in Noman Romanesque Sculpture

5

Image not available

Plate 2 Capital from the transept o f the a b b g ~church of Notre-Dame at Jumiiges

are clearly d e m ~ n s t r a b l e .But ~ ~ the strapwork pattern, with its beading and grilleplait, may also be found in Italy ( S . Maria d'Aurona, Milan; fragments belonging to an eleventh-century campaign) as well as in Anglo-Saxon crosses; moreover, it already existed in barbarian metalwork, as on a belt buckle found in Verson, near Caen.I9 On account of the Anglo-Saxon style of other carvings on the same capital, an Insular influence would seem more likely, althougfi the Italian comparison cannot be entirely rejected.20 During the following decades, no strong taste for interlace ornament was developed by Norman workshops. This is all the more surprising as geometrical decoration became more fashionable towards 1070. Chip-carved stars were the first patterns t o he developed by Norman sculptors. One of the earliest examples of their use occurs on the four arches of the crossing in the abbey church of La Triniti in Caen. They rapidly become very common, while other shapes and M. Bayl6,op. cit above, n.4. J. Lernike and D. Levafet. 'Saint-Martin-de-Verson', in ArchkoIogie Mddidwale, 1980, 5 9 104, fig. 2 (9); dated to the seventh century, 78. In a recent letter, N. Stratford argued that there is no reason to preclude such a variety of influence in Jumi&gesworkshop, the Italian origin being in his opinion more satisfactory explanation for that peculiar kind of interlacing. la f9

6

Aizglo-Norman Studies V

patterns appear gradually: chevron (in Cerisy-la-For&), zig-zag, imbrication. The architectural decoration of Graville-Sainte-Honorine or of Secqueville-en-Bessin shows how many formulas were current. But among them we find only a few examples of interlace ornament (e.g. Fiquefleur random reliefs, or late works such as the tympanum of Montgaroult). In Normandy, amid the overwhelming prevalence of geometric decoration, interlace was rarely included, while it was more developed in England, probably under the influence of Celtic art. The scarcity ofthis ornament in Normandy also distinguishes the geometric art of this area from that of the Soissonais and Beauvaisis which originated in a revival of barbarian art.21 Further important examples of interlace ornamentation are t o be found on some capitals carved towards the end of the eleventh century in Lion-sur-Mer (Calvados) and, later, in the abbey church of Saint-Etienne, Caen, in the Cotentin area and in the region of the Seine estuary. The Lion-sur-Mer capitals were fornlerly part of the destroyed nave of the parish church. They are now kept in the bell tower of this church. We have, in an old drawing and in a short description written by A. de C a u m ~ n t some , ~ ~ record of the nave as it existed in the nineteenth century. It was built in herringbone, with very small windows, and had had aisles (or had been planned with aisles that were never built). Herringbone masonry was very often used at the end of the eleventh and at the beginning of the twelfth centuries. it does not serve as evidence of great antiquity, at least as regards Normandy. The same is true for the small windows, which may belong to any date of the Romanesque period. The earliest reference to the church occurs in a charter of 1089, when it was given by Odo of Conteville t o Saint-Vigor in B a y e u ~ This . ~ ~ text may refer to the monument to which belonged the loose capitafs. These are of two kinds, but carved by the same workshop. The first group is peculiar in shape, as their big, angular volutes, sometimes turned into interlaces (pl. 3), do not correspond to what is known of other parts of Normandy; even in the nave of the church of La Trinit6 in Caen, where some capitals show similar proportions, no identical design can be found. The decoration at Lion-sur-Mer consists of complicated interlace patterns, arranged almost, but never exactly, symmetrically and joining the volutes, or the angular heads, together. In one case (pl. 4), interlacing patterns are inhabited by small beasts biting the scrolls in a way that occurs very often in nlanuscript illumination. as well as in sculpture. But, in manuscripts as in sculpture. exact points of coniparison are difficult to find for these works. They are of course related to the masks linked by an ornamental pattern which occur in eleventh-century sculpture in Normandy. Such rnasks exist in the nave of La Trinitk, Caen, in the crypt of Bayeux Cathedral and in many other places.24 Yet the design of the interlace at Lion-sur-Mer seems unmatched in local architectural decoration. At first it might appear reminiscent of capitals in Le Mans (Notre-Dame-de-la-Couture and Notre-Dame du PrPI). But a close comparative analysis does not prove satisfactory. If there is some relationship in the technical treatment of the thick ribbons, the overall design and the details of foliage ornament remain quite different in Lion-surMer. It is difficult to believe that a direct influence could have been transmitted from 21 For the same reason, I d o not agree witit the nlethodolopy of M.Chussen, 'RomanischeTym-

pana and T~irsturzein der Normandie', in Muinzer Zeitschrift, Vol.75,1980,1-61, who examines as a perfectly coherent group the geonictrisn~sofNormandy, Beauvuisis, Sornmcand Soissonais. 22 A. deCaumont, Statistique monzrmentaledu Calvudos, 1, ed. 1874, 389-93. 2 3 Livre Rouge of Bayeos, I , 124tf. 24 M. Baylh, Le Trinite'de Caen, Paris-GenEvc 1 9 7 9 , 8 3 f f .

Image not available

Plate 3 Capifalin Lion-szir-Mev (Photo L. GrodeckiJ

Image not available

Plute 4 Cupitulut L'iort-srrr-Mer (Photo L. Grodecki)

8

Anglo-Noman Studies V

one workshop to the other. Yet a common source of inspiration may be hypothe ~ i s e d As . ~ wiII ~ be seen later, this source must have been an English one. Comparisons with manuscript illumination would seem at first glance especially interesting. The beast heads and the almost symmetrical forms can be found in AngloSaxon and Anglo-Norman illumination. But general comparisons of that kind are insufficient: although these capitals are very weathered (they were left outside the new nave for more than fifty years), their treatment, sometimes in deep, round carving, shows a technique which belongs to a tradition of sculptors. Some details are worth a closer investigation. One is the way the rear parts of the small beasts end in a threadlike interlace. Such figures occur in Anglo-Saxon sculptures, such as the eleventh-centuryJevington Slabwith Christ treading on the beasts,26 where the lion ends in interlace of characteristically Scandinavian type. A similar comparison is suggested by a cross-shaft from Knaresborough (kept in West M a r t ~ n ) . ~ ~ Other examples are known, both in England and in Scandinavia. As for the intricate and almost symmetrical arrangement of interlace on each of these Norman capitals, we again find comparable formulas in works of English or Scandinavian art. The Knook with its Anglo.Saxon flavour, its symmetrical beasts and scrolls, and the Viking slab in Ardres ~ h u r c h y a r d two , ~ ~ works belonging t o different dates, represent a single tradition in which Anglo-Saxon and Viking elements are blended. Moreover, details of the scrolls on the Lion-sur-Mer capitals (pl. 3) show great affinities with Anglo-Saxon manuscript painting. In spite of an initial impression of disorder, the stems prove t o be rigorously arranged. The intersections of ribbons are identical to those often found in manuscripts, and especialIy in Anglo-Saxon manuscripts, for example in the Winchcomhe Psalter (Cambridge University Library, MS Ff 1 23), the links of which with Scandinavian art are well known.30 The double circle and interlace on a third capital are likewise frequent in Anglo-Saxon sculptures, such as a shaft fragment from L e e d ~ . ~Al last capital, very weathered (pl. S), shows unusual patterns comparable to those decorating a bronze die from Mammen.32 At the supposed date of the Lion-sur-Mer capitals, the question whether such ornamental elements are of Anglo-Saxon or of Viking origin is not so important as for works of the first half of the eleventh century. It is interesting t o find a blend of diverse influences in these Norman capitals: except for the arrangement of masks and for the presence of volutes, which are typically Norman, there is a definite 2s Links between Le Mans capitals from La Couture or Notre-Damedu-PrC and ornamental sculpture in southern England can be easily detected. Yet the problem of artistic exchanges between the two region9 is a cornpticated one, as they are not one way relations, and it deserves a detailed study. On these churches, A. Mussat, 'Notre-Dame-do-Pd', in Congisarch&ologique 1961, 100ff.. F . Lesucur, ' L ' k l i ~ ede tit Couture au Mans', ibid., 1 19ff. 2 6 T. D. Kendrick, Late Saxon and Viking Art, London 1949, 120, who insists on the treatment of the beasts in Urnes style; D. Talbot Rice, English Art871-1100, Oxford 1952,95 and pl. IOa; 0.ti. MOC,'Urnes and the British Isles', in Acta Archaeologica, vol. XXVI, 1955, 18; 0. Klindt-Jensen and D. M . Wilson, op. cit., 154 and pl. LXXXV. The Jevington Christ is usualIy dated to circa 1050. 27 T. D. Kendr~ck,op.cif., 123 and pl. LXXXVIII. 28 C. Keyser, A List o f Norman 7jvnpanaand Lintels, London 1927, fig.34. 29 W. Holmqv~st,'Viking Art in the Eleventh Century', in Acta Archaeologica, XXII, 1948, 34 and pl. 31. 30 Ibid.,15 ff. and C. Temple, Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts 900-1066, London 1976, No 80. 31 T. D. Kendrick,op. cit., 107. 32 National Museuin, Copenhagen. See 0 . Klindt-Jensen and D. M. Wilson,op. cif., pl.XXX1Ilc and p.98.

Inferlace Patterns in Norman Romanesque Sculpture

9

Image not available

Plate 5 Cupital in Lion-sirr-Mer (Photo L. Grodecki)

Anglo-Saxon flavour in such ~culptures.3~ This could be related to the historical context of the years following 1066, and especially of the end of the century. During these latter years when Norman architecture and sculpt~trewere taking hold in England, some features of Anglo-Saxon art developed in Normandy to a greater extent than hitherto. As regards Lion-sur-Mer, this general explanation may be reinforced with a special one. In 1066, Williar~lde Mohun, lord of Lion-sur-Mer and one of the Conqueror's knights, was given extensive English Iandsin Somerset, where he patronised certain religious foundation^.^^ Although the parish of Lion-sur-Mer was dependent on Saint-Vigor in Bayeux, William controlled a part of its tithes, and close relations between Lion and the south-wst of England rnay have been aH the more fostered as the fornler was a small harbour not far from the mouth of the River Odon. With the exception of Lion-sur-Mer, a catalogue of carved interlace shows that the period of its greatest development in Normandy was the first half of the twelfth century; but it does not seem t o have been closely related to workshops producing other geometrical ornamentation. A first type of interlace ornamentation is very simple and somewhat crude, This is strictly localised in the Cotentin. Capitals in the nave of the parish church of Sainte-Marie-du-Mont (pi. 6) and in the former priory of Saint-CBrne-du-M~nt~~ 33 It must be added that another capital from Lion-sur-Mer belonping to a second group of sculptares stlows a small beast imprisoned in n thin intcxlace frequent from Ringerike to Urncs style. 34 Domesday Rook, facsin~ilccd., FI. James, London 1862, Somerset, p.XX-XXII; Abbe de la Rue, Ess~ishistonques sur la viUe de Caen. 11, Caen 1 820. 363. 35 On these churches, R. Vilhnd. 'L'kglisc dc Saint-Ci,nic-d~l-Xlont', in CongrisarchebEog&ue

10

Anglo-Norman Studies V

Image not available

Plate. 6 Capitals in Sairztc-Marie-du-h.Iotzt rlavc

exenlptify such sculptures. These interlace patterns are made of very thin, threadlike ribbons, and volutes often play the part oflinks between two threads. Such interlaces seen1 at first sight entirely disorganised, but this disorganisation was clearly intentional. Threads end either in a volute or in a small snake's head. They sometimes hang from a curious half ring which can be seen in representations of ropes on Viking ships (pi. 13). One may wonder if the very thin ribbon, the intricate and asymmetrical interlace are not rooted in Anglo-Scandinavian elements derived from the Urnes style. Many examples of interlace on Viking slabs could be proposed as comparisons (e.g. the runic stone of Stav (Uppland)).36 In England, capitals of the nave windows of Kirkburn church (Korks.) show similar influences. Kirkburn is somewhat later than the two Norman c h ~ r c h e s , ~which ' belong respectively to the beginning and to the first half of the twelfth century, but all three depend on the same very old ornamental tradition. The very loosely arranged ornament that is found on a great number of capitals 1 966, 204-1 I ;Prieurh de Saint-Cbme-du-Mont fed, Ann& des Abbayes Normandes), Rouen f 979; L. Musset, Normandie romane, 1, 4 0 - 1 . M . f I . Since, 'Art roman dam l'est du Cotent~n', in Art de BQW-Normandie, special iqsoe N o 68. 36 0. Klindt-Jensen and D. M. IVilson, op. cit. pl. LXXllb. Many other comparison5 could be propoqed. e.p. rune $tone from Skram~ka,ttapa, Uppfand. ibid. p. LXXtIa. 37 G. Zarneck~( 1 0 6 6 . . . p.100) date5 Kirkburn to rhe second half of the twelfth century.

Interlace Patterns in Norman Rornanesquc Sculpntre

11

Image not available

Plate 7 Capitaf outside Beaznmais apse around Caen and Falaise is quite different from such carvings. Here, interlaces are made either of a beaded ribbon or of two thin ribbons, with only a few loops, and with an entirely disorganised appearance (pi. 7). Capitals from the 'Exchequer' hall in Caen, others in Beaumais, in Notre-Dame-de-Guibray (Falaise) and in many other places, mainly near Caen, belong to thls group. Such ornament inay be a simplified version of more complicated schemes, often linked wit11 manuscript illun~inationand showing, together with the loose interface, masks and inhabited scrolls (as can be seen, for example, in the apse of the abbey church of La Triniti in Caen, or on a capital in the crypt of Canterbury Cathedral). From an artistic point of view. this is a very common but minor aspect of Norman sculpture. From a chronological point of view, it is of some importance, as it only occurs in the very end of the eleventh century and in the first twenty years of the twelfth century. (At any rate, an architectural study of the churches in which it is found leads to such a dating.) In these sculptures, as well as in the Sainte-Marie-du-Mont capitals, interIace was not used to cover the whole block. On the other hand, an all-over pattern, carefully arranged on the whole surface of a capital, proves widespread in the Cotentin, in the Bec-de-Caux and in Caen. This peculiar type of interlace is made of a thicker ribbon divided by incised lines into two or three threads. Some consist of a plain grille, one of the most well-known patterns in interlace decoration. Good exaniples of this type are found in the upper parts of the nave in the abbey church of Saint-Etienne, Caen (pl. 8). Some of the block-shaped capitals capping the wall-shafts of the minor supports are covered with an overall pattern which, unfortunatety, was recut in the nineteenth century, but without changing the design. A similar strapwork also decorates a few corbels and capitals of the major supports. All belong to the same

I2

Anglo-Norman Studies V

Image not available

Plate 8 Capital in the !-raveof Saint-Etienne, Caen (upper part of tzortlren~wall) architectural campaign, dating from c.1 125.j8 It is tempting to relate those capitals to the sixth-century Byzantine formula of the basket capital, in which thelower part . ~ ~ were common of the block was covered with an imitation of w i ~ k e r w o r k These in Italy. and were roughly imitated by eleventh-century sculptors. The Caen capitals, however, are very different from such remote models. But they may, nevertheless, derive from an Italian source, for Italian influence is well attested in other aspects of Norman sculpture. In this particular case, did this influence reach Caen directly or was there an English intermediary'? The historical context would support the hypothesis of an immediate artistic link. But the problem is a difficult one. A clue is possibly provided by the small snakes entwined on some of the clerestory capitals, which can hardly be accorded a purely southern origin. A close study of these sculptures proves that they belong to tile same workshop as the rest, and we must suggest a conlplicated blend of influences for this group. Capitals with an overall grille-plait were also frequent in churches of the Bec-deCaux and at the mouth of the river Seine. Unfortunately, many were drastically 3 8 F.. C. Carltan, The abbey church of Saint-Etienne at Caen in the eleventh and early twelfth century, unpub. Ph.D. Yale 1968,188 and 324. 39 On these capitah, R . Kautzsch, K~pitelbhtdien,Beslin 1936, 163-4, 192 and 227, and Nos 522, 523, 524i'f. Apart from the 'Korbkapiteli', simphfied formulas do exist (e.g. Kautzsch No 81 8 in Srnyrna museum) with block-capitals covered with interlacing.

Interlace Patterns in Nonnan R o m a n e s q u e S c u l p t u r e

13

Image not available

Plate 9 Capital in Quillebocuf nave

restored in the nineteenth century. Examples of such restorations are found in Graville-Sainte-Honorine, Quilleboeuf (pi. 9), but we know from old drawings that the modern or recut sculptures in these places are accurate copies of the original designs. Moreover, original works with this type of decoration survive in Saint-Arnoul, ManBglise, Le Bourg-Dun and Saint-Georges de Boscherville, all churches belonging to the period between the last decade of the eleventh century and c.1 140.40Such capitals may be found in many English monuments, for example Liverton churcl~ (Yorks.), the sculptures of which are a good illustration of mixed influences. Another group of very similar carvings is spread over the Cotentin area, mainly by the coast: Portbail, Saint-Germain-sur-Ay, Barneville (pi. 10) on the western coast;41 40 Dr Coutan, 'Le Rourg-Dun', Congr6s arch&olo&ue 1926 (Rouen), 332-55; J. Valbry-Radot, 'Etretat', ibid. 459-76; L. Musset,Normai-dieromane,11,245-7 (Quilleboeuf), 203-5 (Mankgliw); A. M. Carment-Lanfry, 'tes $lises romanes dans les anciens archidkcones du Grand et du Petit Caus au diocbse de Rouen', in Revue des Socie'tks Skuantes d e Haute-Normandie, 1960-1973, G. Priem,Prieur&deCraville-Sainte-Honorine(ed. ~ n n e des e Abbayes Normandes) Rouen 1979; M. RayfB, 'Aspects de la sculpture normandc autour de 1100. A propos dc Gravillc-SainteHonorine', in Annales de Normandie, June 1979, 157ff. For Saint-Georges de Uoschervillc, .I.Vallery-Radot, 'Le deuxikmc colloque international de la S.T.A.', in Bulletin Monumental 1969. p.143 ff. 41 See J. J. Hertaux, 'Portbail', in Congres arche'ologique 1966, p.83-92, 'Barneville', ibid. 93108.

14

Anglo-Norman Studies V

Image not available

Plate 10 Capital in Barneville nave Boutteville on the eastern side;and, in the south Cotentin, Sainte-Croix abbey church, in Saint-f-5, heavily restored and rebuilt, and Saint-Pierre de Semilly. In these two last groups, however, there is a predominance of a different type of interlace: at the upper and lower part of the pattern, there is a border of loops with a supporting line, and, instead of the plain grille, a sequence of eights. It may appear as a trifling detail of no importance. Yet, while the simple grille or a plain 'eightinterlacing' are widely spread over Romanesque Europe, and can be assigned t o many possible influences, it is very difficult to find similar examples outside Normandy. The Etretat or BarnevilIe pattern (pl. 10) also decoratesbaptismal fontssuch asthose from Racquancourt or from Montebourg in Cotentin (pl. 1 t and 12).42 It has a possible symbolic meaning: the running water symbolism of interlace is well known; 4 2 The foundation of Montebourg abbey took place before William the Conqueror's death and

the abbey church was also a parish church until the thirteenth century: see A. Cauchon,Monop p h i e s d e I'hglise de I'abbaye e t de I'hglise paroissiafe Saint JacquesdeMontebourg, Caen 1902; G. Dupont, Le Cotentin et ses Zles, I, Caen 1870, 271 ; M. Tliibout, 'Montebourg', in Congr2s Arcke'ologique 1966, 178-87 who dates the fonts to theeleventh century. I think they may be later work, at least of the beginning of the twelfth century. Montebourg was in close relations with England and the alien priories of Appuldurcombe Wants) and Loders (Dorsct) belonged t o the Norman abbey (David Knowles, The Relfgious Houses ofMedieval England, London 1940, 125). The Rocquancourt fonts, formerly in the parish church of this name but possibly carved efsewhere, now belong to the Society of Norman Antiquaries mu%um, Caen,

hterlace Patterns in Norman Romanesque Sculpture

15

Image not available

Plate 11 Rocquancourt fonts but there may ajso be a signification of eternity in this particular pattern. But this does not account for the exact design of such interlace patterns. They show at the same time a very classical treatment with a subdivision into two or three threads, and a general pattern which seems especially characteristic of Normandy. Is that way of drawing interlaces from one supporting line t o the other inspired by manuscript iIlumination? Arrangements with similar loops exist in some English or Norman manuscripts, the supporting line being part of the main shafts of an initial. But they remain rare and very different from the Nornlan carvings. On the other hand, a more exact comparison may be found in later English sculpture, for example in the upper part of Barford tympanum (c. 1 1 5 0 ~ ? ~ The coastal position of most of the abavea~entionedchurches (see map pl. 14) may be significant. A slab from Tingstade (Gotland), showing an arrangement of ropes in the form of the rigging of a Viking ship (pl. 13), provides a more satisfactory comparison with these puzzling Norman interlaces. It does not necessarily suggest direct links with Viking art. Nevertheless, such interlacings belong n~ostlyto coastal or river harbour c h u r c h e ~ ? ~

43

Oxfordshire: G . Zarnccki, Lnter Romanesque Sculpture, fig. 1 1 and p.54.

16

Anglo-Norman Srudies V

Image not available

The Cotentin and the Lower Seine developed particularly close relations with England. After 1066, comnlercial exchanges were mainly focused on this part of Normandy and on the coast adjoining the mouth of the River Odon. Ships sailing from the mouth of the Seine or the Pays-de-Caux either reached England directly or sailed first to the Cotentin and from there t o British harbours." But the Cotentin and Bec-de-Caux also give evidence of a strong particularism that is evident especially in the tenth, eleventh and twelfth centuries, and which remains in Normandy even now. \lie know from medieval sources and from modern historical studies46 that a significant proportion of the Viking population had settled in these parts of Normandy. This character was especially marked in the Cotentin area. The Viking settlers were not only different in origin from the Normans who came with Rollo. They also remained in close contact with the peoples of England and Scandinavia. Moreover, it has been proved that new Viking settlers, coming from England, estab4 4 On this slab, A.Rugyc, 'Thc Gntden Vanes o f Viking Ships', in

ActaArchaeologim,lI, 1931,

175 and fig. 14. U 4 5 L Musset. 'La Seine normande et le comtnerce maritime dti 111' a u XI ~ikcle',in Revue des Son'e'tis Savantes de Haute Normattdie, 1969. 1 1. 46 I+. Prentout, Essai sur les ori,gi~zesdu Duchd de Nomtandie, Caen 191 1 , 255-7; J . Adigard des Gautries, I.esnomsdepersonnesscandinavesen Normandie de 911 a 1066, Lund 1 9 5 4 , 2 6 2 -4 ; and L. Muscet in Histoire de la Xormandie, Toulouse 1970, 104 (distribution map).

Interlace Patterns irz Norman Romanesque Sculpture

Image not available

Plate 13

Slab from Tirtgstade on Gotlar~d,Swcden (After A. Hugge, The Golden Vanes. . .I

lished themselves in the Cotentin during the tenth and eleventh ~enturies."~And harbours of the coast provided many means of contact with foreign elements. From an artistic point of view, the particularism of these two regions, and especially of the Cotentin, could be perfectly illustrated with examples other than interlace ornament. Ornamental and figural capitals inspired by manuscript illumination of the beginning of the twelfth century form a group distinct from what we know in other places of Normandy. A good example of this is the little known 47 L. Musset, 'Pour f'btude des relations entre les colonies scandinaves d'hgleterre et de Normandie', inMe'langes F. Mosse, Paris 1959,330-9.

Image not available

Interlace Patterns in Norman Romanesque Sculpture

19

Image not available

Plate 1.7 Capital it? Marrirzvast church sculpture in the small parish church of M a r t i n ~ a s t .A~ ~dozen capitals supporting rib-vaulting on two bays are carved with interlace patterns and very elegant scrolls delicately underlined by thinly cut incisions. The interlace patterns terminate with flowers and foliate ornaments. Some of them are found in manuscript illumination of the twelfth century in England, for example in a Herefordshire manuscript (Cambridge, Trinity Nall MS 4) which comes from Monkland Priory and can be dated to circa 1 140,49 a very convenient date, as architectural evidence in Martinvast points to 1140-50. The history of this small church is almost unknown. It depended on the Abbey du Voeu in Cherbourg. No illuminatedmanuscript from themonastery at Cherbourg has been preserved; but on account of the historical relations between the parish church and the abbey, the stylistic resemblances to English manuscripts and the strong links between Le Voeu and EngIand, it is probably to the latter that one must look to explain the peculiarity of that Martinvast workshop. Finally it must be stated that the Martinvast sculptures show technical and ornamental affinities with later wood-carvings on some stave church doorways;s0 a fact that deserves more discussion than is possible within the limits of this paper. It first suggests that the Norman capitals of Martinvast are in some way related t o an intricate AngloScandinavian artistic context; but it also points to the important influence of woodcarving on stone sculpture. 4 8 On thischurch,L.Musset,'Martinvast~inCon~~sarchkolo&ue1966,142-6,andNormandie

romane, 1,34-5.

49 C . M. Kaufmann, Romanesque Manuscripts 1066-1190, London 1975, NO 63. 50

P. Anker,op. cit, pl. 21 8. Hylestad doorway is now kept in Oslo M. A. U.

20

Anglo-Norman Studies V

If there is evidence of a traditional particularism in the Cotentin and if we know from contemporary sources that, as in the Lower Seine, it had special links with England, a distribution map of interlace ornamentation in Norman sculpture gives another puzzling clue: two important groups of capitals with ail-over patterns are found respectively in these two regions. Between the two, and with the notable exception of Saint-Etienne in Gaen, there are only a few series of very loose interlacings, and, apart from these tendencies, the Lion-sur-Mer and Sainte-Marie-du-Mont groups. One is then inclined to look for peculiar geographical and historical circumstances to explain this distribution. Interlace was not a favourite motif for Norman sculptors. It is undoubtedly the relative lack of rich and varied patterns which has until now dissuaded scholars from any research in this field. Yet, despite its extreme simplicity, Norman interlace decoration supplies invaluable information. In the first half of the eleventh century, it only appears when a remote influence is exerted, as is the case in Bernay. Later, it is not common in carved geometrical decoration, and this very fact indicates that Norman geometrism is not a revival of barbarian ornamentation, a fact that distinguishes it from other contemporary geometric art. It is only at the end of the eleventh century that we find, with interlacing, some hints of Anglo-Scandinavian influences and possible relations with England in Lion-sur-Mer. A few years later, the widespread taste for interlace ornament probably reveals a debt to English sculptors (wherever the latter borrowed some of their designs), a distant Italian contribution, and regional particularisms which depended on local traditions as well as the closeness of relations between the two sides of the Channel. Distinct from the great tendencies in Norman sculptures, though sometimes blended with scrolls and figures, these interlace carvings offer a good illustration of Norman eclecticism in art.

I wish to express my thanks to Dr Deborah Kahn who carefully corrected the many grammatical inaccuracies of this text and to Miss Elizabeth Real who typed the manuscript.

POETRY AS HISTORY? THE 'ROMAN DE ROU' OF WACE AS A SOURCE FOR THE NORMAN CONQUEST

Matthew Bennett Describing the forces that William, duke of Normandy gathered for his invasion of England, Wace, writing a hundred years after the event, declares that he will not attempt t o set down their numbers. He adds: mais jo oP dire a mon pere

But I heard my father say/

- bien ni'en sovient, mais vaslet ere --

- I remember it well, although

que set cenz nes, quatre meins, furent quant de Saint Valeri s'esmurent, (6423 -6)

I was only a lad -/ That there were seven hundred ships, less four,/When they left St Valeri.

There were also many smaller craft carrying arms and equipment. He then cites written evidence that there were 3,000 sail, concluding that there must have been a large number of nlen t o fill so many vesse1s.l Wace considered himself to be a serious historian, critical of his sources. For example, he gives two reasons for Harold's trip t o Normandy, saying: Issi l'ai jo trove escrit; e uns altres livres me dit (5597-8)

This I found written down; but another book tells me . . .

It is perhaps as a conveyer of oral'tradition about the events of the Conquest, that Wace has been considered of most value. Freeman used him extensively, especially for his glorious description of the Battle of Hastings. Indeed, he preferred 'honest Wace' (as he calls him) to other source^.^ The pointed, but often destructive, criticism of Wace as a late and unreliable source by J . H. Round, did much t o reduce his influence. Then, nearly forty years ago, in an article called 'The Companions of the Conqueror', D. C. Douglas dealt the death blow t o using Wace as Freeman had once done.3 He pointed out that of the 117 Norman lords named as fighting at Hastings, only 32 men could be shown by 'express evidence' from earlier sources to have taken part in the battle. There the matter has rested. The 'Roman de Rou' has been considered as, on the whole, totally unsuitable for historical study.4 I would like to thank Professor R. A. Rrown for suggesting to me that Wace was worthy of further study, and Mr John Gillingham, Drs Judith Green, Christopher Harper-Bill and John Palmer for their helpful advice. References to Le Roman de Rou are to Holden's edition, part 111, unless otherwise stated. 1 Jumikges, p.134, gives this number, also used by Benoit de Sainte-Maure, Chronique des dues dehrormndie, ed. C . Fahlin, 3 vols,Bibliotheka Ekmaniana nos. 56,60,64,1953-66. I. 39,452. 2 E. A. Freeman, The History of the Norman Conquest of England, 6 vols, Oxford 1870-9, vol. 3, note R, 675, also 377 n.l and vol. 5,581. 3 History, 1943, 129-47. Seealso J. F. A. Mason, EHR 1956,61-9. 4 M . de Bouard and R. Louis produced an interesting series of short notes on selected passages of Wace, in AnnalesdeNormndie, 2,1952, supplements I-IV and 3,1953, supplementsV1-VII.

22

A nglo-Nomtan Studies V

My concern then, is to attempt to rescue Wace for the historian, to see if there is anything he can tell us, to try and understand his motives and gauge his intended audience. In order to do this we need first t o study the author and the circumstances of his life. In fact, we know very little of him - only what he himself tells us. Wace was born in Jersey, apparently in the first decade of the twelfth century, and 'put to his letters' at Caen. He then studied at a school in Paris, he does not say where, and returned to Caen as 'clerc lisant', or teacher. He followed this profession under three King Henries (i,e. Henry I, Henry I1 and the Young King) whose reigns spanned at least five decades, from pre-I 135 to post-l 170, He does not give his first name, and calls himself 'Maistre Wace', never canon, although Henry 11 made him a prebendary of Bayeux. We cannot be sure when he received this honour. A 'magister Wascius' appears in a charter of bishop Henry I1 (1165-1 205), 'Wacius canonicus' is referred t o in the bishop's letter of 1169, and as 'Wascius' is again a witness in 11 74.5This is the sum of our certain knowledge, although to U. T. Holmes, the presence of 'Ricardus Wascii' as a prebendary of Bayeux circa 1 200, suggests that Wace was a married clerk in lower orders, and that his son followed him in the post.6 So, what we principally know of Wace is from the works he produced. He wrote in the vernacujar, the Anglo-Norman form of Old French. His surviving works include three small retigious pieces and the much longer and more ambitious Roman de Brut and Roman de Rou, all in verse. The Brut is based on Geoffrey of Momouth's History of the Kings of Britain, largely a fantasy, was finished in 1 155, and according to Layamon, who translated it into Middle English in the next century, was presented to Eleanor of ~quitaine.' Rou is Rollo, the Viking chief who founded Normandy, and Wace's intention was t o provide a history of the dukes from his first hero to his own day. A. J. Holden, the editor, describes the work as: a 'geste' of the Normans t o add t o the 'geste' of the Bretons to form an immense work of propaganda in favour of the Plantagenets. Together they provided the ruling dynasty with a place and justification in history. It is an irrefutable demonstration of the continuity of Iegitimate power from Brutus until Henry II.% But this is not t o decry the Rou as propaganda, for so were the 'Norman' sources on which Wace relied. It is important that Wace wrote in the vernacuiar, for the French-speaking court of his patrons, Henry and Eleanor. He says of his religious works: I wish to write a little in 'romanz' about something which we hear in Latin, so that lay people may understand this, people who cannot understand at in.^

His purpose then, was to make accessible t o a secular audience works of an improving and instructive nature. He was not the first t o do so. Adeliza, the second wife of 3,17-18. U. T. Holmes Jnr, 'Norman Literature and Wace' in Medieval SecuIar Literature, ed. \V. Matthews, Berkeley 1965,46-67. 7 Layamon, Le Roman de Brut, ed. G . L. Brook and R. F. Leslie, 2 vols, Earty English Text Society, 1963, vol 1 , 11.20-5. See also E. G . S?anley, T h e date of Layamon's Brut',Natesand Queries, March 1968.85-8, 8 Wace, 3, 10. 9 Holmes, 'Norman Literature', 48. 5 Wace, 6

Poetry as History?

23

Henry I, had been influential in encouraging the growth of the vernacular chronicle, and circa 1140, Gaimar produced his Estoire des Engleis.lo This was based on Geoffrey of Monmouth, but included the Conquest, which was seen mainly from the Breton (and even English) point ofview, But this was not Wace's aim. He wrote: Pur le onur a1 secunt Henri, kl del lignage Roul nasqui, (185-6)

In honour of Henry 11, born of Rollo's line . .

When he abandoned his work, grumbling that the king had failed to fulfil his promises, Benoit de Sainte-Naure took up the pen, only to produce an inflated copy of the Rou. So Wace is the man chiefly responsible for collecting, translating and presenting a history to be sung in the Angevin court. In order t o understand his motivation, we need to examine his sources and see whether his interpretation of them displays any bias. For the Latin chronicles this can only be touched on briefly here. Holden, whose addition contains a comprehensive study of such borrowings, freely admits that the Rou is 'Essentiellement ouvrage de seconde main'." Indeed, Wace is remarkable for the fidelity of his translation from identifiable works. These are, in chronological order: Dudo of Saint-Quentin, William of Jumieges, William of Poitiers, Ordericus Vitalis, William of Malmesbury and Robert of Torigny, to name the major works, often overlapping and cutting from one to another. This he does, not only t o find the liveliest story with which to entertain his listeners, but also with a view to establishing the true course of events, as a serious historian. To a lesser extent there are indications of use of the Brevis Relatio and the Camen de Hastingae Proeliu. Furthermore, the Bayeux Tapestry seems to act as a backdrop t o the action for the Conquest.12 As a canon of the cathedral, it is inconceivable that Wace should have been unaware of it, yet at no point does his narrative coincide exactly enough with its scenes to identify the Rou as the oral version of this visual source. It may be that as a literary man, proud of his discriminating use of information, he did not consider the Tapestry suitable; but there is no doubt that it reflects the spirit of the poem very well.'3 As a vernacular work the Rou has another aspect, its connection with the oral French tradition, the 'chansons de geste' celebrating a legendary Charlemagne ~ n d his knights. That Wace drew on similar material is apparent, especially in his anecdotes concerning the early dukes. When recounting the assassination of William Longsword, he says: A jugleors oi en m'effance chanter14

As I heard jongleurs sing in my childhood

though he goes on t o express doubts as t o the explanation given by such travelling f 0 Geffrot Gaimar, L'Estoire des EngZejs, ed. A. Bell, Anglo-Norman Text Society nos. I4 and 15,1960. See also U. T. Holmes, The Anglo-Noman Rlzymed Chronicle, Linguistic and Literary Studies in honor of H. A. Hatzfeld, cd. A. S. Crisafulli, Berkeley 1968, 23 1-6. 11 Wace, 3 , 100. '2 Wace, 3, 116-17. '3 It is interesting that neither Wadard nor Turold appear in the poem, as they do on the Tapestry, despite the poet's links with Bayeux. BT, pl. 12 and 47. As to possible influences on the Tapestry by the 'chansons de geste', see C. R. Dodwell, 'The Bayeux Tapestry as a secular epic', Burlington Magazine, civ, 1966. l4 Wace, f , I I , 1.1361.

24

Anglo-Norman Studies V

singers of the murderer's desire for revenge. Similarly, he tells anecdotes of Robert the Magnificent's profligate generosity whilst on pilgrimage. When at Rome he provides a statue of Constantine with a rich cloak, considering that the citizens do the hero a disservice by leaving him exposed t o wind and weather. He shoes his mule with gold, and burns chestnuts when there is no wood to be had. After an audience with the emperor in Constantinople, the Byzantine courtiers are amazed when the duke and his entourage leave behind their rich mantles on which they have been squatting. Jeo ne port pas mun banc od mei. (3080)

I am not accustomed to take my seat away with me.

says the duke. All these stories turn up in the 'chanson de geste' of Aimeri de Narbonne, suggesting that such material formed part of the 'jongleur~\epertoire.'~ There must then be a strong possibility that Wace had access to family and local traditions of (at least) Caen, its area and its lords, celebrating deeds of arms, of which llastings was a shining example. I shall discuss four passages in this context later on, but first I shall explain the lay-out of the Roman deRou and how I have approached it. As published the poem consists of over 16,000 lines, and is divided by its editor into four sections. Part I is 750lines long, in octosyllabic rhymed couplets, anddeals with the career of the pirate Hasting, a predecessor of Rollo. olde en-considers that this was a first attempt, soon abandoned, as the sources Wace was translating were not concerned with the dukes of Normandy. Part 11 is much longer, 4,425 lines in twelve-syllable mono-rhymed 'laisses" ft covers the period from Rolto's conquest down t o the middle of duke Richard 1's reign, when it stops abruptly, concluding with some comments on the harshness of a poet's life. This time, Holden suggests that Wace was experimenting with a new verse form, which did not suit his public, and so was given up. (If this is the case it must have been a very time-consuming experiment.) In the same form are the 3 15 lines of the 'Chronique Ascendante' (socalled by a nineteenth-century scholar). This is a brief summary of the careers of the dukes of Normandy, in reverse order, from Henry I1 back t o Rollo. The introduction praises Henry and Eleanor, his queen, and states that the work was begun in 1160, by Wace, a clerk of Caen. Some, or all, of the 'Chronique Ascendante' must have been written after the defeat of the great rebellion led by the Young King, against his father, in 1174, as it alludes t o the siege of Rouen in that year. Hotden's view is that the entire duodecasyllabic section was begun in 1160, then given up at some time later, the work not being resumed until after 1170. He deduces this, because in the first 200 lines of Part I11 there is a reference to three King Henries (i.e. including the Young King, crowned in that year). He regards the comments on the events of 1174 as an up-to-the-minute interpolation, that clashes badly with the praise of Eleanor, in disgrace since her rebellion of the previous year.16 I shall return t o the discussion of the date of the work later, and for now will concentrate on Part 111, which contains the description of the Norman Conquest. This makes up the bulk of the surviving poem, consisting of 11,440 lines, once ffi See Rent! Louis, 'Les ducs de Normandie dans les chansons d e geste', Byzantfon 28, 1948, 391-41 9. Recent work on the interpolators of William of Jumi&gesmay lead to a revision of views on the antiquity of such stories. See E. M. C. van Hours, 'The Gesta Normannorum Dunrm: a history without an endl,ante, iii, 1981, 106-18 and n.12,

16

Wace, 3, 13-14.

Poetry as Ilistory?

25

more in octo-syllabic rhymed couplets. After some philosophical comments on the ephemeral nature of human activity, remarks on his career and a brief rdsumd of the story so far, Wace plunges once more into narrative. Me carries events from where he left off up t o the battle of Tinchebrai in 1106, by which Henry I, his patron's grandfather, established his right t o the whole Norman inheritance. A breakdown of the lines allocated t o various topics may help t o show what mattered most to Wace and his audience in the history he laid before them. The first 3,240 lines cover the period up to William the Bastard's accession. His life, deeds, death and burial take up until line 9,340 t o describe. (These 6,000 lines take up over half of Part 111 and well over a third of the entire work.) This can be further divided into some 2,500 lines dealing with William's youth, the assertion of lzis authority over Normandy, and the history of his claim t o the English throne. 1,500 lines cover the duke's preparations and invasion, and as many again the Battle of Hastings. Less than 600 are allocated to William's coronation, reign and death. The remaining 2,000 lines deal with the reign of William Rufus (briefly), and the civil war between Henry and Robert Curthose (in more detail). To sum up: duke William's life and achievements take up nearly half the work, and the events of 1066 comprise half of his story. The battle itself is 10% of the poem, more if the extensive parleying that Wace invents is taken into account (2,200 lines). Clearly, Hastings represents to Wace the greatest of the Norman 'gestes' about which he wrote. The bias is, perhaps, easily explained. The conquest of a rich kingdom by the Normans was one of the greatest achievements in their history. As to the long description of Hastings, vastly extended even on William of Poitier's account, this may reflect the undoubted delight that a secular, military audience took in hearing of deeds of arms. Or does it reflect a genuine oral tradition of events passed down to their children by participants? Also, and not contradicting this approach, does it represent a story told according to contemporary literary conventions? I shall look at four examples where Wace atone provides information for events, or introduces additional information, to aonsider whether his treatment of the story relies on an oral source. These are: the battle of Val-2s-Dunes, events at Caen 1100-06, HaroId7s oath, and finally in more detaif, the list of the Norman lords at Hastings. First, ValPs-Dunes, fought in 1047 between the young duke William and rebels chiefly from Bayeux, the Cotentin peninsula and the Cinglais region, between Caen and Falaise. The battlefield is just a few miles south of Caen, and Wace describes it carefully as a flat plain, with no obstructions, bordered to the south by the river Semillon. (True, this conforms to the standard description of a suitable battleground, found in the 'chansons de geste', but Wace knew the area and accurately records the topography of the region.) Despite the assistance of his overlord, Henry, king of France, William and his men were hard pressed, and faced defeat, had it not been for the timely defection of Ralph Taisson, lord of Thury-Harcourt in the Cinglais. Only Wace tells the story of his critical intervention." Worried by the fact that he opposes his lord, yet having sworn an oath on relics that he will strike a blow against the duke, which he dare not break, Ralph finds a cunning way out of his dilemma. Drawing his men t o one side, he seeks a parley with William, and riding up to the duke, strikes him with his glove. His oath fulfilled, he and his large following then change sides and help to ensure a ducal victory. Is this a genuine tradition, remembered by old men, or simply a good story? It is interesting that Wace also records the l7 11.3849-914, and Benoit follows him 1t.35.528-662, see also n.6, supplement VII.

26

Anglo-Norn~anStudies Y

exploit of the rebel lord of Creullly, Haimon-as-Denz (Toothy Aimeri), who unseated King Henry in the joust. He was killed for his pains; but Wace tells us that the peasants of those parts still sing: Re Costentin issi la lance, qui abati le rei de France.18

From the Cotentin came the lance, which overthrew the king of France.

So Wace seems to be recording local traditions of events that occurred 120 years before Ize wrote, using orally transmitted information, as fie describes the story of the 'sin' of duke Richard I, passed on from father t o son.I9 A similar inference might be taken from his description of the events around Caen, during the civil war between Henry I and Robert Curthose in f 105-06 (to which he devotes 400 lines). Tinchebrai, the decisive battle which ended the conflict in Henry's favour, is briefly mentioned, almost as an afterthought. This occurs right at the end of Part III, just before Wace hands over t o Master Benoit. His interest is centred on Caen and Bayeux. For example, he describes a ditch dug in defence of Caen and its exact route. He celebrates Roger de I'Aunei, a vassal of Robert set in command of the two towns. He deplores the trick by which some (named) knights of Caen are captured by the king's men. Their freedom is only arranged on condition of the town's submission - not something that was likely t o be f ~ r g o t t e n . ~Most ' interesting, he describes a joust that took place outside Bayeux, in which Brun, the king's partisan, is killed. Wace tells this story, stating: go conte cil qui set 1'estoirezg

So those retale who know history

'Conter' is to tell a story - an oral source, This might be guessed at from the lay-out of the passage, with its use of formulas (standardised phrases) describing the combatants spurring their horses and striking great blows. which are found frequently in the 'chansons de geste', but which Wace eschews elsewhere. The conventions of contemporary vernacular literature may well have influenced Wace in my next example, the treatment of Harold Godwinson and his oath t o Willianl to secure the duke's succession t o the English throne. As Imentioned above, Wace gives us two stories of Edward the Confessor's intentions. One is that he sent Harold to Normandy specifically t o confirm William's claim.22 The other, that he warned Harold not to go, in order to secure the release of two kinsmen held as hostages for Godwin's good behavioux following his rebellion of 105 112. Whatever the case, Harold arrives in Ponthieu, is recognised, captured by Guy, count of Ponthieu, and handed over to duke William (5605-5664). Now, Haroldis consistently described as a brave man, and Wace does not deny him great and legitimate powers in England. Accordingly, he holds the seneschalcy, the same office ascribed t o Richard 11's 'good' uncle Bernart during the minority. That is, control over:

'"11.3989-90. Benoit says that the man's name is unknown, U.35,824 and 35,840. 11.557-60; 3,114. The ditch: U.10,893-8; the lord of Aunei: 11.10,935-44 and 11,065-72; the capture and ransom: 11.1 1,163-308. 21 1.10,946; the joust and its results are described in 11.10,945-t 1,060. 22 11.5581-604. Wace always calls Edward 'King' and never 'Saint'. although the latter title might seem to add glory to William's claim. Henry I1 certainly used Edward's canonisation in 1161 and a magnificent translation ceremony in 1163, to enhance his prestige. W. L. Warren, Henry II, London 1973,223 and n.2,456. 19 20

Poetry as History ? lez terres et lez rentes et I'autre manar~tie~~

The lands and rents and other wealth.

Harold holds England 'en sa baillie' (under his author it^).^^ William treats his captive guest with a11 due honour, taking him on expeditions to Brittany, and giving him the arms and a m o u r of a knight. This sympathetic treatment need not surprise us, for even Muslim enemies were often made the epitome of military virtue in the 'chansons de geste'.25 Harold is still the villain of the piece, and he is so because of another literary convention. the opposition of a good and bad 'lignage' (line, descent). Godwin, Harold's father 'of lowly birth', was a traitor 'fell and false'(4669-70,54 171, the murderer of Edward the Confessor's brother, Alfred, in 1035, in order to please the Danish king. Meanwhile, William's father was sheltering Edward and supervising his upbringing. Godwin dies, having declared that if he were ever unfaithful to his lord, let the food he eats at his table choke him - it does so (5454-6). Harold can be nothing less than treacherous then, when he is required to take the oath. Wace places the oath-swearing at Bayeux (as does the Tapestry, contradicting the Latin sources), and confirms Edward's fears that William would ensnare Harold. For, as he describes the scene, the reliquary is hidden under drapes, on top of which is placed a valuable philactery. This is described as the 'Bull's Eye', as in the Brevis Relatio, (and as Professor Bernstein has identified, is so shown on the T a p e ~ t r y ) . ~ ~ Contrast the picture there, however, where the two boxes are clearly shown, with Wace's covert use of relics. This seems like special pleading for Harold's cause; but is it really favourable? When the relics are revealed, and he realises the seriousness of the oath, his hand trembles and the blood drains from his face. Harold is afraid because he knows already that he will break his word (5673-724). This point is emphasised just before Nastings. Harold is forsworn, and so he and his men must go down before the cause of justice. It is his knowledge of this which leads him to lose his nerve at the fast minute, so that his brother Gyrth must egg him on (6983-7050). The theme runs through the battle itself, as several of the named Normans declare their wish to seek out and personally kill 'the perjurer'.27 We arrive, then, at the Battle of Nastings, the longest description we possess. Generally Wace follows the Latin chronicles, with additional touches, except for one important departure which I shall discuss later. The scene is this: the two hosts face one another, the English on foot, drawn up tight-packed at the top of a hill. Below them, deployed in three divisions, the Normans and their allies are composed of spearmen, archers and knights. Tailtefer, a 'jongleur', rides between the lines, flourishing his sword and singing the "ong of Roland'. He deals the first blow, but is killed in return. Then William orders an advance and combat becomes general. 2 3 Wace, 1 , 11.1.2044. 24 1.5571. The position of the seneschal was Important in an Angevin context. Henry I1

claimcd to bc the seneschal of the French Crown by hereditary right, to authorise his activities in Brittany in 1158. It wasalso the title of the vice-regal officiafsof his 'Empire', Warren, 77, 294. See also A. Lucltaire, 'Hugh de Clers et le "De Senescalcia Franciae"', Mt!lQRge~ d'histoire du Moyendge, ed. A. Luctiaire, Paris 1897, 1, 1-38. 2 5 P. Jonin, 'Le climat de croisade des chansons de geste', Cizhlers de Civilhtian Mkdikvnle, VII, 1963, 279-88, esp. 284-5. 26 BT, pl.29; 11.5691-4. See below, pp.50-1. 27 11.7206, 8585-88. Duke William specificaIly refers to Godwin's treacherous murder of Alfred and a subsequent massacre of Normans, durirqx his speech before Hastings, stressing the eviI acts of HaroEd's line and the need for vengeance, 11.7403-41.

28

Anglo-Norman Studies V

The Normans are forced back, but a potential rout is prevented by the efforts of bishop Odo. The Norman archers then Fie high into the air, so that their arrows drop onto the heads of the English. Many are wounded in the face by this tactic, including Harold, who is struck above the eye. Returning t o the attack, but still failing t o make any headway against the English line, the knights confer and decide t o resort to a feigned flight. The ruse succeeds, the English are drawn from theirimpregnable position down to the 'plain' below. The deeds of the Norman baronage are recounted. Eventually the English falter, and, led by William, the knights launch a charge on the English standard. Harold is killed, the standard falls and the English take flight. The victorious duke pitches his tent amidst the corpses - the epic hero (7989-8948). Wace's account differs little from his sources. Events are not necessarily in the same order as William of Poitiers, for instance, but the matter is there. It is, perhaps, unfortunate that the only point of detail t o have occasioned much interest amongst historians is Wace's statement that the English erected a barricade in front of them to keep the mounted Normans out. This lead to bitter argument between Round and partisans of Freeman in the 1890s, and has clouded the issue.2a Freeman believed the story to be an example of Wace's use of eyewitness reports via an oral tradition; Round maintained that it was rubbish. What they failed to consider properly was that Wace was only elaborating on the description given by Henry of H u n t i n g d ~ n . ~ ~ The argument centred on what was, anyway, a meaningless detail. Wace is more concerned t o stress the importance of good, close order in the battle-line, a very practical requirement, in explaining the initial success of the English resistance (77678,7845,7977). What is far more interesting, and where Wace departs dramatically from his Latin sources, who name only a handful of men as present at Hastings, is the long list of Norman lords. Edgar Taylor, the first English translator of the Rou,in 1837, provides . ~ when he reaches the section that he calls 'The Battle a clue as to the r e a ~ o n For, Roll of Normandy', his footnotes expand to almost fill the page, identifying individuals and indicating their descendants. Clearly, he is writing for a squirearchy who liked t o believe that their ancestors 'came over with the Conqueror'. I think the words of Acton Warburton, writing a decade later, might be helpful in explaining the impact of such genealogical history. He describes how a noble heard the deeds of his ancestors in the old days: No parchment told his lineage t o the warrior of those days, but the heroic names were branded each night upon his swelling heart by the burning numbers of the bard.31 Warburton goes on t o criticise: 2 8 EHR, viii, 1893,677-83 (J. H. Round), ix, 1894,l-41 and 602-8 (T. A. Archer), 41-76 and 608-11 (K. Norgate), 209-59 (Round). The debate grew so acrimonious that the editor was forced to end it. 2 9 Henry of Huntingdon, Historia Angbrum, ed. T. Arnold, Rolls Series, 1879,203. See R. A. Brown, The Nomans and the Norman Conquest, London 1969, who discussesthe matter fully 167-8 n.129. 30 E. Taylor, Master Wace, his Chronicle of the Normun Conquest, London 1 83 7. The book is dedicated to Hudson Gurney, an M.P. who believed himself a descendant of Hugh de Gournai. See frontispiece and LINB, 7, 803-4,14,407. 31 A. Warburton, Rollo and his Raw, or, In the Footsteps of the Nonnans, 2nd edn, London 1848, 2,177.

Poetry as History? the "sophisters, economists and calculators" of the present day, (who) wonder at the importance which the Norman of ancient line attaches to his family records. They cannot understand the regard with which he contemplates what, to them, is a mere list of names; as t o blood, it is in their eyes a red fluid, capable of reduction t o certain vulgar elements . . .32 He sees the ancient virtues of the Norman race passed down t o those who 'rule the waves' (as he puts it). Is Wace doing much the same thing? This is how he begins Part 111: Pur remem brer des ancesurs les feiz e les diz e les murs, les felunies des feluns e les barnages des baruns, deit l'um les livres e les gestes e les estoires lire a festes. (1 -6)

T o remember the deeds, words and customs of our ancestors, the evil deeds of evil men, and the valour of the barons, books and songs and histories must be read at festivals.

But the question is, does Wace in this seek only to flatter the descendants of those who took part in the great 'geste' of the Conquest? Douglas certainly thinks so, pointing out that 74 names on the list refer t o places alone; the Lord of So-and-so. Wace seems to make his intention clear in his description of the deeds of Robert de Beaumont: (Douglas uses the mistaken 'Roger' of the editions as another case against Wace. In fact, the British Library manuscript has 'Robert', and a few lines later 'Roger'in the text, corrected t o 'Robert' in the margin.)33 Merveillos pries eu i ont, 90 pert as eirs qui riches sunt. Bien poet l'en saveir as plusors que il'orent boens anceisors, e furent bien de lor seignors, qui lor donerent tels enors. De cest Robert en descendant vint le lignage de Mellant. (8331-8)

He was of great service as is pIain by the wealth his heirs enjoy. Anyone may know they had good ancestors, standing well with their lords, who gave them such honours. From this Robert came the line of the lords of Meulan.

The fact that the great majority of the names come from places near Caen, and nearIy half of them from the Cotentin, suggest that his intended audience may have been local. The first group of knights (as opposed t o individuals) described as fighting at Hastings are those of the Bessin and C ~ t e n t i n These . ~ ~ regions provide some 8 and 28 names respectively, with 8 coming from the Avranchin and Mortain and 10 in the district around Caen: in other words, the regions lying between Wace's birthplace, Jersey, and his home, Caen. Few names come from the other borders of the duchy, except those of great fame: Montfort (8366, 8479), Gournai (8455), and de 1'Aigle (8459), for example. This situation is not, perhaps, particularly surprising; but we need to study the list closely in order t o understand Wace's purpose. One of :he first names is Beaumont, just mentioned. He was one of the men described as present at the battle by William of Poitiers, who furthermore comments 32 Warburton, 208-9.

Douglas, 144. Holden notes the corrections in his edition, U.8329 and 8337. 34 U.8353-4. M. D. Leggc, 'Les origines de 1'Anglo-Normand Littbraire', Revue

de Linguistique Rornane, xxxi, 1967, 4 4 -5 4 , draws attention to the importance of Lower Normandy as an area where vernacular literature was patronised and developed at an early date.

30

A ~zglo-NomanStudies V

on the exceptional valour of this 'tiro'. During the first part of Henry Il's reign, there was no more influential figure than Robert de Beaumont, earl of Leicester, who, although faithful to Stephen until E 153, quickly became the new king's righthand-man. He was joint chief justiciar (with Richard de Lucy), and held what was effectivejy a vice-regal position in England during Henry's absences, until his death in 1168. His brother Waleran (the count of Meulan), who died two years earlier, was a less successful trimmer, and was deprived of his castles in 1161, but was nevertheless an important character.35 They were the twin sons of the 'tiro' Robert, friend and councillor of the Conqueror and his successors. His support was vital to the young Henry I, and he was the only man known to have fought both at Hastings and T i n ~ h e b r a i .If~ anyone ~ epitomised the generation of the Conquest, it was he, and his descendants were doubtless happy to be associated with his fame. Simifar reasons might be ascribed for the inclusion of other names. The 'lord of Orbec' is Richard de Bienfaite, founder of the house of Clare, whose grandsons, Richard fitzGilbert 'Stongbow', the conqueror of Ireland, and Roger fitzRichard were contemporaries of W a ~ eHumphrey .~~ de Boliun appears, representing a dynasty of royal stewards (and briefly a constable) of that name, under Henry 11.38 There is Richard, vicomte d'Avranches, father of Hugh, earl of Chester (made notorious by Ordericus Vitalis), whose descendant Hugh of Cyreiliog held that honour, together with the vicomte of B a y e ~ x There . ~ ~ are 'M0rtmer',4~ 'A~bemere',"~and Warenne, the lands of the last falling t o Hamelin, the bastard son of Geoffrey, count of Anjou, when he married the heiress in 1159.42 With his references t o Aubigny artd the closely associated Mowbray, the poet is nodding t o the earl of Art~ndel,William, who had married Henry Ss widow, and his kin.43 A11 those names of fiefs could refer t o Wace's contemporaries by association, of course. For example, William fitzosbern, who figures prominently in the poem, does not have any warlike deeds ascribed t o him, but his 'men of Breteuil' are included. In Wace's day this belonged .~~ Nehou refers to the Reviers family (it was the 'caput' t o the B e a ~ m o n t s SimiIarly, 3s Warren, Robert and Waleran de Beaumont sub verba, eap. 55.

3 6 J. 0.Restwich, 'The mllitary household of the Norman kings', B R , xcvi, 1981, 1-35, esp. 16-1 7. 37 Dictionary of National Biography, edd. 1,. Stephen and S. Lee, Oxford 1920-1, 4, 375-7; Wace, 1.8536. 38 1.8450; DNB, 2, 769-71. Ftumphrey de Bohun 111, royal steward, d.1166. J. E. A. Jolliffe, Angevin Kingship, 2nd edn, London 1963,204, suggests that the constableship was at best only 'an ambiguous reality' in the years following the fall of ifenry de Esscv (see below, n.90), until Humphrcy IV was appointed in the wake of the 1173174 rebellion. Ife adds (204, n.2) that it lasted only eight years, even as a title, although, during this period, the 'Dklogusde Scaccario' attributes to the constable the important duty of supervising the pay of the stipendnrii at the Exchequer. 39 t.8467;DNB, 10,161-2,16,729-31. 40 1.861 7; DNB, 13, 1023-5 for Hugh de Mortimer, a powerful and independent baron of Shropshire, d.1181. 41 1.8419. See Warren, 60, 123, 364, for William 'le Gros', count of Aumale and 'earl of York' (1138.55). until he was brought ta heel by Iienry 11, and forced to hand over Scarborough castle. (d.1179) 42 1.8453; Warren, 365. 43 1.8470, the description 'li boteillers', shows that Wacc had Wifliam I 'Pincerna' in mind, whose son William I1 td.1176) was the earl. William I's brother Nigel married the widow of the rebel Robert de Mowbray and took his name. He was succeeded by his son Roger (d.1188). 1.8576 is probdbty an allusion. DNB, 13,1122-4. 44 1.8507; DNB, 2, 648. Breteuil was burnt by the loyatists in 1173, when Robert 111 de Beaumont 'Blanchemains' supported the rebellion of the Young King.

Poetry as History?

31

of their barony in the C ~ r e n t i n ) .This ~ ~ list of the great and the good could be extended, but let us look at one name in more detail. A man called 'I'ancestre Hue le Bigot' appears, described as lord of Maltot, very near Caen (8547- 58). Hugh Bigod was a very powerful man. His oath that Henry I, on his deathbed, had chosen the count of Boulogne as his heir, gave Stephen the crown.46 Hugh maintained an aggressive independence in East Anglia throughout Stephen's reign, was instrumental in the Treaty of Westminster in 1153, which confirmed Henry fitzEmpress' succession, and was allowed his claim as earl of Norfolk by the new king. A dispute with Stephen's younger son, William, who acquired lands in East Anglia by marrying the Warenne heiress, and also pretended to the earldom, led to the judgement of the Council of Bury St Edmunds, in 1157, depriving them both of their castles. Hugh bought his back, but never recovered his previous independence. His feeling that he had beenungratefully treated by Henry I1 may have influenced his involvement as a supporter of the Young King's rebellion in 1173, in which he played an active part, despite his advanced years (he was in his eighties).47 The fact that Wace does not record the name of Hugh's ancestor is used by Douglas to show how insubstantial is his fist.48 Roger Bigot, a 'prominent CBtentin baron before the Conquest', the recipient of extensive lands in England in reward for his services, steward to the Conqueror, and sheriff of Norfolk, was Hugh's father (and a far from invisible It is inconceivable that Wace was not aware of his name. Perhaps what the poet is doing is t o further flatter a close neighbour by including his own name, not just his 'ancestor's' on the list. Naturally, as bishop of Bayeux, Odo's deeds are celebrated. He is described, as he appears on the Tapestry, as stemming a Norman flight with a flourish of his mace.50 Wace's enthusiasm extends to calling that most unreformed of prelates: 'li boens coronez' (8107). The name 'Crievecoer' refers to Hamo, Odo's steward and sheriff of Kent, whose grandson Daniel figures (although not prominently) in Henry Il's reign.5' Where tilere are tenants of Bayeux, the bishop can surely be found. It cannot be coincidence that the name 'Herecort' (Harcourt), for which Taylor can find no justification, belonged to bishop Philip (1 142-65). He was a protdg6 of Waleran de Meulan, and his successor was Henry 11 de B e a ~ m o n t . ~ ~ 4 5 1.8423, and Revier%1.8483. I t is interesting that Rtchard de Reviers isdepicted by Wace as fulfilting the same sort of role for the young Henry 1 as William the Marshal did for the Your18

King. Thdt is, leading him to tournaments and teaching him 'corteisie': 11.9397-422. Richard was a loyal supporter of Henry I, as was his son Baldwin de Rcdvers of the En~pressMatilda and Henry If. Contempo~ary with Wace were Rtchard I1 (d.1162) and his son Baldwin 11 (d.1188). See I. J. Sanders, English Baronies, Oxford 1960,42. 137. 46 R. tl. C. Dam, King Stephen. 2nd edn, London 1977,18. 47 Warren, 66-8, 140, 234-5. 48 Douglas, 'Companions', 132. 49 The quotation is alqo ftom D. C. Doughs, WiIIiorn the Conqueror, London 1964, 290-1. t or Roger as IIugh'~father see: DNB, 2,484; Sanders, 47 and n. I . 50 11.8097-128;8T, pl. 68. S1 1.8642; Sanders, 3 1 and 13.2. William I1 Patrick (poqsibly d.1174) also had a Kent connection, his father having benefited from the forfeiture of Odo's lands in 1088-9. It is interesting that 'Guillrme Patr~cde la Lande' (La Landc-Patri; Orne; arr. Dumfront) is given a passage during the battle, in which Wace describes hlm as a witneF4 to the knighting of ILrold by Cuke Wtlliam on the way to Brittany m 1064. He is therefore outraged by Harold's 'perjury'. Wacc, 2, 111, 11.8585-600; Sanders, 135 and n.5. s2 Davis, 32; Wace, 3, 18.

Wace's interest is not overwhelmingly local, however; many names that appear seem t o be associatedwith royal office-holders. De Bohun has already been mentioned. In addition 'cels de Homez' alludes t o the Hommet family, constables in Normandy and frequently found in attendance on Henry William Malet, whose synonomous ancestor was entrusted by the Conqueror with the burial of Harold's body, and later with the defence of York, was royal seneschal in Wace's day.54 'Li seneschals de Corci4' can be taken t o refer t o William de Courcy, who held this office in Normandy (I 166-76).55 Other names are associated with royal 'familiares' of lower social standing. The Trussebot (8581) family first came to prominence through Henry 1's 'new men', while Robert Marmion (8490). '1i sire de VaaciC' (8530) (for whom read William de Vesci?) and Robert de Stuteville (8428) were advisors to his grandson.56 So, the list seems increasingly to represent the court circle of Henry 11. I think this might also explain the use Wace makes of the adjective 'old', when describing some of the baron^.^' He does this on nine occasions. An obvious reason would be that he was aware of a son or sons active at the time of the Conquest. 'Old' Roger de Beaumont might furnish such an example. But I have already shown that Robert was the intended name, that borne by the justiciar, his son and nephew. It is interesting that of the seven names I can clearly identify, bearing the addition 'old', a11 are the same as their descendants, contemporaries of Wace. What the poet may be saying, in effect, is not that these heroes were old men, but that they were the men of the 'olden days' with the same names as the barons in the intended audience.58 There is one man whom I have scarcely considered so far, yet whose deeds receive more attention than any of the barons mentioned, who iscompared t o Roland and Oliver (8935): duke William himself. As we have seen, his life spans half the work; the Romarr de Rou is his 'geste'. Wace treats William's deeds as in many ways paralleling his great ancestor's. For example, in the battle which wins Normandy for Rollo, his host is divided into three bodies (as at Hastings), and the passages which describe the generosity of the two great conquerors in distributing lands and wealth t o their followers, are almost identical.59 If we ask whom William represents to Wace, it can only be Henry I1 (the idea of 'lignage' persists). Their careers do bear great similarity. Both succeeded as vulnerable minors; both had t o struggle with 'wicked uncles' - William of Arques and King Stephen - to gain their inheritance. Both were knighted in a period of great difficulty for their cause, and both achieved 5 3 1.85 13; Richard du Hommet was constable of Normandy 1154-80. and also held shrievalties in England. Warren, 80,264 1 ~ 2 , 3 0 n.2, 8 309. 5 4 11.8339 and 8351 ; William Matet fl.1156-69, Sanders, 38. His political career (of attestations) can be traced sub verba in R. W. Eyton, Court, Household and Itinerary of Henry I& London 1878. This appliesalso t o those named infootnotes 73-7 and 80. Although Eyton's identifications and dates must be treated with caution, they give a rough idea of the careers of those named. 55 1.8576. The reference in 1.8481 may be t o the Courcelles family from Courseulessur-Mer, just to the north of Caen, Sanders, 38 and n.6. 56 Warren, 308-9. 57 Holden considers this use to be 'purely conventional', Wace, 3,239, note to 1.8449. 5 8 Those with the same names are: Robert de Beaumont, E.8329-38; I+umphrey de Bohun 111 and IV, 1.8450; Hugh de Gournai 1167-83, Eyton, 1.8455-8; William de 'Moyzn'(M0hun) 111, d.1176, Sanders, 114, 1.8487-8; Hugh de Bolbec, d.1165, Sanders, 62,1.8535; 'Roger' (should be Robert) de Marmion, whose descendant Robert I1 fl.c.1144-81, Sanders, 145 and n.2. The other two are Geoffrey de 'Mayennr', 1.8449 (Hotden prefers 'Nortagne', 3,239) which may be a reference to 'the most powerful baron of Maine', Warren, 95, brought under Henry's control in 1162, and Gilbert d'Asnieres, 1.8533. 59 11.1 180-9 and 2,111,11.8992-7.

Poetry as Eiisfory? their victory at the age of twenty (1047 and 1153). William decisively crushed his opposition at Val-&-Dunes, while Henry forwent military glory for the negotiated 'Baron's Peace'.60 In fact, William's progress was far tougher than Henry's, but the similarities were obvious in an age when a man was supposed to live up t o the inherited virtues of his line. The possibility that Wace saw, in his patron's career, parallels with the hero of his poem, and expressed contemporary events in an archaic setting, can be pointed up by two anecdotes, that he alone tells. The first concerns the bearer of the Norman standard at Hastings, named by Ordericus Vitalis as Thurstan f i t z R ~ u . ~Wace ' elaborates on the circumstances of this. He describes William offering his 'gonfanon' to Ralph de Conches (de Tosny) as hereditary standard bearer of Normandy. KaIph asks to be released of the duty, vowing that he will be of more service if allowed to fight unimpeded (7579-98). William then turns t o Walter Giffard, a councillor and close friend. Walter declines because of his age, saying 'the standard should be borne aH day by one who can endure the long labour' (7599-628), and because of his responsibilities to his followers. FinaIIy, the duke asks Thurstan to carry his banner (and in return, Wace adds, his heirs are quit of at1 service, and hold in perpetuity).62 Why does Wace concentrate on this incident? During the battle he makes frequent references to the banners of both sides. This is only right, for in the dust and confusion of battle the standard represented the commander, its movements conveyed his orders, Only when Harold's standard falls do the English flee. Thurstan's impeccable performance of his duty is noted by Wace: dejouste le duc chevaucoit, quel part que if aloit aloit, e quant li dus tornout tornout e quant ti dus arestout arestout; (8677- 80)

He rode close to the duke, went where he went, turned when he turned, and stood when the duke stood,

The obligation to keep the standard erect, while unable to defend oneself, was an onerous but valuable duty. This might appear to be an intelligent rendering of military matters by Wace, as when he describes the inability of the English to wield their huge, two-handed axes and protect themselves at the same time (8603-13). were it not for an incident that took place in 1157. In that year, Henry I1 was con. ducting a campaign in Wales. During a battle, his standard bearer, Henry of Essex, took flight, crying that the king was down. He was disgraced for this conduct, and six years later lost his lands in a judicial duel when charged with cowardice and . ~ ~ story was well known to Wace's audience, treason by Robert de M ~ n t f o r t The who would have taken the moral when he praised Thurstan's exemplary perfomlance of his duty. The second anecdote concerns William's preparation for the Conquest, and gives an insight into the workings of feudal society. Taking from William of Poitiers the story that the Norman barons were by no means unanhnous in supporting their dukes venture, Wace again elaborates on this bare statement.64 60 William was knighted in his teens, possibly by the king of France, and Hcnry at the age of sixteen by the king of Scots. Brown, 46-7 and n.147; Warren, 36. 61 Orderic, 2, Bk. 111, 172 and n.2. For some interesting remarks by Dr ChibnaIi on Wace's use of Orderic, from a manuscript formerly at St Etienne's, Caen, see 2, xxii-iii and xxix. 62 Quite who ir meant by this (even if it were true) is difficult to say. 63 Warren, 70 n.1, 308 n.2. 64 Gesta Guillelmi, 148. Wace, 2,111, 11.5979-6180.

34

A nglo-Norman Studies V

William is shown consulting with his magnates, Roger de Montgomery, William fitzosbern and Walter Giffard, and his brothers, Robert, count of Mortain and bishop Odo. They advise him that 'all should come to the council who shall share the labour' (603 1-7,). The barons are assembled and Harold's treachery is explained t o them. William's requirements are made clear. They beg for time todiscussan~ongst themselves, and argue long, complaining that they are already much burdened with service. They split into groups t o carry on heated discussions, whether t o accede to the duke's wishes or not. Then fitzosbern offers to speak for them and they gladly accept his intercession, explaining that they fear the sea, over which they are not obliged to serve. Thinking they have found a spokesman, the vassals are appalled when fitzosbern proffers their willing acceptance to follow the duke, with double their nomiai obligations. The court Is thrown into uproar, as they are afraid that this: e en costunte seit tenuz e par costume seit r e n d ~ z ; ~ ~

shall be held a custom and by custom shall be rendered

To quiet the rumpus. William interviews each vassal individualIy and assures him that he will owe no more in future than ancestors did. e l i dus fist tot enbrever, nes fist e chevaliers n ~ m b r e r , ~ ~

and the duke had everything written down, ships to be built and the number of knights required

I think this epitomises the feudal arrangement. a series of personal and individual agreements made between lord and vassal. But there is also another interesting parallel with Wace's own day. In the 1160s, Henry I1 was attempting t o define the extent and nature of military service owed to the Crown, and he was keen t o revise thcsc obligations at a higher level. His enquiries resulted in the 'Cartae Baronum' of 1166, and roused concerted baronial opposition in 1168, as they asserted that they owed only traditional knight-service. Henry's attempt to do the same in Normandy in 1172. was described by the chronicler Ralph Diceto as a contributory cause to the great revolt of 11 73/4.67 Clearly the discussion of military obligations was an important political issue when Wace wrote. Perhaps the interview with William represents in the poet's mind a meeting with his own fearsome king, before whoni strong men trembled. If it is accepted that the Rou contains allusions to contemporary political events, this may help to explain a notable absence from the 'roll-call', and a curious slant that Wace alone places on the relationship between William and his father-in-law at the time of the Conquest. As to the barons named at Hastings, 1 hope 1 have shown that the list is far froni I-taphazard; there is a good reason for the inclusion of any name. But what are we to make of the absence of Eustace of Boulogne? Hecertainly played an important part in the Conquest, providing William with valuable men and resources. True, Ile rebelled in 1067, but other barons or their sons were to rebel also, 6 5 11.61 33-4. lloldcn draws attention t o the simihrity between Robert of Torigny's treatment o f t l ~ i gscene. ~ n iVace, d under the year 1065 (= 1066). 3. 150. It is of further interest that under the >ear I I 71. Torigny speaks of Henry I1 doubling his income after investigationsinto hisrights there. See Warren, 124: Torisny, in Clzronicleso f the Reigns of Stephen, Henry IIand Richard I , RS. ed. R. Ho\vlert. iv, 251. 66 11.61 57-8: 3, 150-1 note o n 11.6033-81). Brown, 149, calls the list o f ships 'quaui-authentic' th'lt i\ foilnd after tile BrevisRelatio and published by J. A. Giles, Sc~iptorumRerum Gestarum ItfillelmiCortquestris, London 1845, 21 -2. 67 Warren. 124, 368.

Poetry as History?

35

notably Odo, and were not ignored. The Bayeux Tapestry shows Eustace bearing the Papal banner,68 and Wace cannot have been unaware of his significance. That he is ignored, may, I suggest, be the product of contemporary politics. King Stephen was count of Boulogne in right of his wife, until hegave the honour t o his elder son Eustace (in 1146-7). When Eustace died in 1153, his younger brother Willianl succeeded. After his death on the Aquitanian expedition of 1159. his sister Mary became countess. In the same year she married Matthew, the younger son of Thierry, count of Flanders. In 1173, he was killed before the walls of Driencourt while in the host of his brother Philip, who was supporting the Young King's r e b e l l i ~ n .During ~~ the period in which Wace wrote, then, the county of Boulogne was in the hands of what Henry 11 regarded as the usurper's dynasty, and frequently hostile. It would have been imprudent on the poet's part t o praise its counts by inlplication, as I have suggested he does the Norman barons. The relationship between the counts of Boulogne and Flanders may well explain the story that Wace tells about Baldwin V's role in the Conquest. At the time of William's marriage, Wace praises Baldwin as the noble father of the bride, Matilda (4496-508). Yet during the preparations for the invasion, he adopts a different tone. Having asked, and been denied, aid from his overlord, Philip, king of France, William is shown turning to his father-in-law for a s s i ~ t a n c e .The ~~ count asks what he will receive in way of reward in England, if he does help. Then, and only Wace tells this story, William sends him a sealed note that is con~pletely blank, commanding the messenger to tell Baldwin that he will receive as much as is written in the letter (i.e. nothing). Not surprisingly, the count is depicted as angered by this, and does nothing t o favour Williant's cause (8252-92). This is directly contrary to the truth, however, for Baldwin was regent of France until his death in 1067, and used his influence over the minor, Philip, to ensure that Normandy was not attacked during the duke's absence. Henry I1 had an uncertain relationship with the counts of Flanders. In 1163, he renewed with Thierry the money fief that had first been instituted by Henry I in 1103. After his father's death in 1 168, Philip seems t o have been negotiating for a continuation, and f ~ ~ r t h e r : He felt that he was being deprived of his due rights in England, and Henry did nothing to assuage his grievance beyond sending him deer from the New Forest .7" The knowledge that the count had been snubbed could well have stimulated Wace's anecdote. Furthermore, the generous offer that the Young King was prepared to make to Philip, for his support in 1173, may well indicate how extensive these claims were.72 If, as I think, references to contemporary politics are important in the Rou, perhaps we can examine more closely his motives for writing the work, and make some attempt at dating it more precisely. 68 BT, pis 67, 68 and 69. The editor is in no doubt that it is :he Papal banner that Eustace is shown as carrying, 175. 69 Holden i s certain that 'Wiestacc d'Abevile' does not refer to 1:ustace of Boulogne, Wace, 3, 239, note on 1.8429. See aiso Warren, 2 5 , 3 5 , 8 7 n.4,127. 70 11.6249-51; Holden comments on the mistaken descrjption of Baldwin as Wiiliam'r hxotherin-ldaw3, 111. 71 Warren, 224. 72 Warren, 121-2.

36

Anglo-N~mzanStudies V

As regards motive, the list of Norman barons might be interpreted in the light of a scene in the Battle Abbey Chronicle. This describes the Council of Colchester in 1157, where Richard de Lucy is shown defending the privileges of the abbey, of which his brother was abbot, against the claims of the bishop of Chichester. With the vocal encouragement of Robert de Beaumont and the otlzer barons, he sets the baroniaI view of the Conquest before the king. This was achieved, he tells Henry, by 'the aid and counsel of our kinsmen'. Rattle enjoyed a special position, the abbey was especially deserving of immunity, for it was: There he (William) acquired wealth and crown for himself and his successors. By the closeness of your relationship through right of inheritance, the whole people of the realm rejoice that you now reign from his throne. As for us, it is by virtue of gifts conferred by William, and succeeding to our kin, that we possess great estates and riches. Compare this with the passage on Robert de Beaumont, cited above. In short, the Conquest was 'your and our triumph'.73 Ifenry is being treated as a second William, and the debt that he and his predecessors owe the baronage is made clear. It may be that Wace's list of barons of Normandy shown winning the plize that Henry had inherited, served the same purpose: to remind the king of his obligations to the men of ancient iineage he now ruled over. Perhaps it was seen as such by the monks of Battle Abbey, who kept a copy, dating to the early thirteenth century (and the earliest t o survive) in their library. This we know, because it was taken from there by Henry V11. like his namesake the founder of a new dynasty (although neither of them would have seen it that way), who may have -wished to acquaint himself with Wace's view of the legitimate descent of the Kings of England.74 If the Rou was in any sense intended as a political tract, it becomes even more important t o try and date it. Wace telh us he began the work in 1160, but he does not say when he received his prebend. It seems that he started by writing in alexandrines, very much '& la mode' following the success of the Crusade 'chansons' of the 1 I S O S . ~I ~think it possible that he was already a canon, in reward for his Roman de Bmt, which, he says in its last lines, was completed in 1155. If Layamon can be believed, and the work was presented to Eleanor of Aquitaine, there was ample opportunity for it to have found favour during her visit to Normandy between summer 1 I56 and spring 1157.76 The fact that in the same four lines where Wace mentions the date of starting, he calls himself 'a clerk of Caen',77 need not, as some commentators have suggested, prove that he had not received his prebend. I consider that the articles showing that 'clerc lisant' = 'niagister scholae', rather indicate that Wace would prefer to use the title of 'Master' t o the office of canon, in describing himself.78 7 3 Battle Gtronicle, Intro. 14, text 180-2. Theabove paragraph owe? much to the interpretation of the editor. It may not be coincidental that Holden considers the 'A' ms. may have been produced in England, Wace, 3, 172. 74 That Edward IV had sin~ilarinterests is shown in B L ms. Harley 326. The first seven folios of this comprise a 'breff tretis' showing the kinp'~deqcent from Rollo and hk claim upon the Crown of France. See H. L. D. Ward, Catalogue of Romances in the Department of Manuscripts in the BritishMuseum, London 1883,1,782. 7 5 K. Togeby, 'Hlstaire de l'alexandrin franpis', krudes Andreas Blinkenberg, Copenhagen 1963,240-66.247. 7 6 Eyton, 19,24, 25, 77 Wace, 1 , 'Chronique Ascendante', 1.3. 78 See M. D. Legge, 'Clerc lisant', Modern Language Review, xlvii, 1952, 554-6; F. Lyons,

Poetry as History?

37

It may be, however, that Wace worked unrewarded on Part 11, and for this reason abandoned it with a grumble about his poverty at some time in the 1 1 6 0 s . ~He~ became a canon by 1169 at the latest,80 which may have encouraged him t o start anew. At first he began at the beginning (Part I) with the story of Hasting and had just introduced Rollo before he stopped again, and decided rather to resume where he left off, with Part 111. After 1170, but before 1173, he includes the biographical details (5294 - 318): he is half-way through Part 111. This interjection comes just after a description of the battle of Varaville, that is before the long section on the invasion and the battle of Mastings. Another contentporary reference may help to pin down a moment in composition. Wace describes the Normans disembarking and constructing a wooden castle at Hastings, from pieces ready cut and transported in barrels. There is no indication that this was ever done in the eleventh century, but in the Pipe Roll of 11 70171 there is a record of two wooden castles being ferried across t o Ireland.8i So, Wace was writing the history of the Conquest in the early 1170s. When did he present his work to Henry, and why did he stop writing altogether? The 'Chronique Ascendante' rnay provide the clue. As I have mentioned, it contains an allusion to the events of 1 I 73/4.82 It is dearly written as an advertisement for the poem and Part I1 follows on neatly from it. I think it was written (or re-written as Holden suggests) to include the reference to the recent rebellion of the Young King. The section describing this talks of the treachery of the French, the unnatural act of a son rebelling against his father, and of the generosity with which Henry dealt with the rebels. 'None were hanged or mutilated',83 Wace remarks, also noting that their homes and castles were destroyed.84 A11 this was taking place in the six months following the treaty agreed in October, solemnising the peace t e n s between Henry, his sons and king Louis. I consider that the 'Chronique Ascendante' was (at least) re-constructed to draw Henry's attention once more to Wace's work, possibly for the Christmas court at Argentan in f 174.85 Perhaps this had been neglected since the Battle of Hastings had been completed, and the history was quickly added too, taking events up t o Tinchebrai. This enabled Wace to prcsent to Henry, at the moment of his triumph, a work that showed how he emulated his ancestors throughout the centuries, not least his illustrious grandfather, who had defeated his rebellious subjects sixty-eight years before. Why did Wace not succeed with this ploy? Several reasons have been suggested for the poet ceasing to work. One is, that he wrote too slowly, so Benoit was taken on to do the job. (He certainly wrote a lot; 44,500 lines in all.) Another, that Wace's devotion to all things Noman, led him t o seem t o favour Robert Curthose's cause against Henry I (from whom Henry 11 drew his claim).86 There is something more 'CIerc Lisant and Maistre Lisant', Mod. Lung. Rev., Ivi, 1961, 224-5. 79 Wace, 1,1I, ll.4420-5. 80 Wace, 3,17. 81 K. A. Brown, H. M. Colvin and A. J. Taylor, The History of the King's Works. I , 70 n.6; 11.6504-27. 82 Wace, 1, C.A., 11.59-96. 8 3 Wace, 1, C. A., 1.76. 84 Wace, 1, C. A., 1.86. Warren. 140. 85 Eyton, 187-8. Henry was at Caen itself in March 1175. 86 See Holmes, 'Norman Literature', 66, for these suggestions. As regards Wace favouring Curthose, it is not so much that he prefers his ehim to Henry's, but that he thinks the knights

38

Anglo-Norman Studies V

in this, together with a tendency t o describe the counts of Anjou as mortal enemies of the Norman dukes, in unflattering terms. Benoit is rather more circumspect in his depiction of Henry's Angevin ancestor^.^' I would like to add another reason that the list of barons represented as participants at Hastings would be bound t o rouse Henry's ire. Any work that seemed to praise E-fugh Bigod, Robert, earl of Leicester, Robert de Ferrers, Hugh (of Cyreiliog). earl of Chester, Roger de Mowbray and William, count of Aumale, t o name but a few, was not going to please the king in the immediate aftermath of the revolt of 1 173/4.88 If the Hastings section was written in happier days, it was ill-suited to times when Wace presented his poem. In this case, it may be significant that Benoit restricts himself to a handful of names, and his reason. that it would take three quires of parchment to praise all the warriors,89 rings a little hollow in view of his normal profligacy with the material. In conclusion, a study of the Rornan de Rou raises several points of interest. The work as it stands does contain orally transmitted material, and probabty conveys genuine traditions trot found in other sources.90 Having said that, elements of the poem do seem to reflect political events and pre-occupations of the 1150s, 1160s and I 170s. As a version of the Conquest it represents the Norman, baronial view, stressing the value of tradition against what were seen as the alarming innovations of Henry 11's government. The order of composition of the various parts of the poem can perhaps be deduced by reference t o political events, remarked on directly or obliquely in the work. In this way vernacular poetry can provide a rich source for material on the history of the period during which it was composed, rather than that which it purports to tell. Indeed, there is every reason to believe that, as C. H. Haskins suggested in a brief article over fifty years ago,gl a broader study of the many products of Angevin 'court literature' would provide a valuable supplement to administrative records, for a vision of the monarchy and its self-image. But, as a n epilogue, I wauld like to stress the potent image that the Conquest had in the minds of later generations, by mentioning the British Library manuscript of Part 111 (Royal 4. c. XI). There are six works contained in it (the Rou is preceded by Historia Regun1 Brirafzniae which Wace translated as the Brut), the last being a French version of the Pscudo-Turpin Chrorricle. The introduction to this states that it was translated on the orders of Rainald, count of Boulogne, and an historical and inhabitants of Caen betrayed their lord (1.e. Robert) when they changed sides. Wdce is concerned for the honour of a narrow locality, which he feels has been slighted. Hence the story of the garden that never bloomedagain,where the surrender wasagreed. Seell.l f ,061-337, covering the circumstances under which Caen was given up to the royahrts, esp. 11,289-308. 87 Warn, 1. 11, 1.3779; 2, 111, 1.4995 for Angevin hatred of the Norman dukes, and 1.51 29 for Geoffrey Martel as instigator of attacks on Normandy, cf. generally favourable comments of Renoit on the same count, 2,11.36,472-4;37,477-9. 88 Warren, 123. For thc i i ~ t sof those in rebellion, and a shorter list of those who remained loyal, see Roger of fiowden, Gesta Regis Henrici Secundi, ed. W . Stubbs, 2 vats, RS, 1867, 2, 43-5l. It is, perhaps, strange that Wace makes no mention of Robert Curthose's rebell~on,In similar circumstances t o the Young King, in 1078-9; but then he jumps straight front the coronation to William'~fatal injury and death in a bare few lines, Wace, 11.8972-9010 (coronation), 9055-94 (exped~t~on to Manten). g9 Renoit. 2.11.39,743-56. 90 For example, the reference to Witliam's half-sister Muriel, married to Eudo Haldup, 11.6003-8. She appears as a wltness m Regesta, i, no. 125, 32-3, which is described as spurious, but I am assured by Dr David Bates, who IS reed~tingthe volume, that it is authentic. 9 i C. H. Haskins, 'Henry I1 as a patron of literature', Essays in Medieval Histwy presented fo T. F. Tout, blanchester 1925, 71-7.

Poetry as Histop?

39

reference at the end makes it clear that it was written up before 1223. The Rou (followed by a work that covers only part of a folio) is somewhat earlier.92 It is not impossible that it was inscribed following the loss of Norman independence to the French Crown, when Philip Augustus was bringing the duchy under his control in the years after 1204. This was, perhaps, a time when the Norman baronage needed t o be comforted by recollection of the deeds of their glorious ancestors.

92 Holden provides a

description of the manuscript, Wace, 3, 20.

THE BLINDING OF HAROLD AND THE MEANING OF THE BAYEUX TAPESTRY David Bernstein Like the Parthenon Frieze or Trajan's Column, the Bayeux Tapestry is a familiar and manifestly wonderful work of art which remains baffling in many ways, Although embroidered shortly after 1066 and filled with vivid, detailed depictions of the Norman Conquest, its value as an historical source is, nonetheless, disputed for a number of reasons. Within the Tapestry itself some key episodes remain difficult to decipher because it is not clear which figure is the one identified by name in the inscription above or because the normal sequence of events has been reversed. Also there are marginal figures, some derived from nlythology or Aesopic fables, whose ~ to our difficulties is the present condition of purpose, if any, is d i ~ p u t e d .Adding the Tapestry. We know it has been extensively restored but without a critical edition of the work, it is not always possible t o distinguish a restored area from an original one, and if it Is restored whether it was accurately done. Turning from the object itself to its place within its historical context two questions remain sources of perplexity. First, why does the Tapestry occasionally diverge in a striking fashion from contemporary written accounts, and secondly, if the Tapestry was designed and embroidered, as we now believe, not by Normans but by the English for their new masters, how did this unusual circumstance of the conquered telling the story of their own defeat at the command of the victorsaffect the selection of what to include and what t o leave out, the ordering of events, and the creation of the iconography? This problem of its unusual origin has rightly been called 'one of the most puzzling in medieval art h i s t ~ r y ' . ~ I am glad to acknowledge help generously given by Professor Michael Paull, Professor Ann Lauinger and Ms Adrienne Anne Shirley in the preparation of this paper, and by the American Council of Learned Societies in helping make it possible for me to attend the Battle Conference. I BT, pls 12-14, 32-3, 71-2. H. Chefnew, 'Les Fables dans la Tapisserie de Bayeux', Romania, Ix, 1934, 1-35, 153-94; L. Flerrmann, Les Fables antiques de Ia brodene de Bayeux, Brussels 1964 ;A. Goldschmid t, An Early Manuscn'pt of the Aesopic Fables o f A vianus and Related Manuscripts, Princeton 1947, 48-50: C. R. Dodwefl, 'The Hayeus Tapestry and the French Secular Epic', BurlingtonMagazine, cviii, 1966,549-60. 3 0. Pa'cht, The Rise of Pictoriaf Narrative in Twelfth-Century EngFand, Oxford 1962, 9. The English orisin has beenagued on the basis of Ietteringand spclling by M. Fijrster, 'Zur Geschichte des Reliquienkultu~in Alten9land: Sitzungsberichte der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, (Phil-hist. Abt.) 1943, Hft 8, 16-19; and by R. Lepelley, 'Contribution a I'etude des inscriptions de la Tapisserie de Rayeux', Annales de Normandie, xiv, 1964,313-41. Close links between thc Tapestry and late Anglo-Saxon manuscript illuminations, particularly those from Canterbury, have been demonstrated by Sir Francis Wormald (BT, 25-36). C. R. Dodwell, 't'Originalit8 iconopraphique de plusieurs illustrations angio-srtxonnes de I'Ancien Testament', Gzhiers de CIvilisation Mt'diPttaZe, xiv, 1971, 319-28. Also the very important contribution by N. P. Brooks dnd the late 14. E. Walker,ante, 1, 1978. 1-34, esp. 9-18 (hereafter cited as Brooks and Walker).

*

The Blinditlg oj*Haro W

41

Image not available

Plate I Hastings: clinzax qf'thc harrle (A1afionalGeographic) 111 the midst of these large questions I propose to deal with what might appear to be one very limited problem: why did the artist of the Bayeux Tapestry depict Harold as blinded by an arrow at the battle of Hastings when not oneofthe contemporary written accounts mentions this extraordinary detail? However, in our search for answers t o this question let us keep in mind the other problems mentioned above, for 1 believe that an inclusive answer t o this question of the iconography of Harold's death might provide us with a key t o unlocking the secrets of the Bayeux Tapestry.4 The Tapestry portrays the king's death under the inscription Hic Harctld rcx interfectus est at the end of the battle when the Normans, with a combined archery and cavalry attack, have broken through tlte English lines [pl. 11. As we approach the clin~axwe pass an Englishman about to be decapitated. Why is he unarmed and why is the Norman knight on foot when every one of his knightly peers at the battle is depicted on horseback? It is a puzzling episode t o which we shall return. Next. a mounted knight with lance and shield is advancing at a gallop, his horse's left foreleg about to crt.1~11the head of the dragon which served as I-larold's battle standard. Crushing the enemy or his symbol underfoot is, of course, a part of traditional battle imagery starting with ancient Near Eastern royal art, and later adapted from Roman imperial monuments by medieval artists. He is advancing on a group of three Englishmen, each girt with a sword and each carrying in his left hand a shield bristling with arrows shot from the bows of the diminutive marginal archers. The first Saxon holds a javelin above his head, the second a dragon standard. and the third has transferred his javelin to his left hand while with his other he tries to pull an arrow from the right side of his head. With great skill the artist has captured the essence of what made this a very strange battle: one side being in constant motion, the other standing as though rooted to the ground. Tlielen comes another Norman knight armed only with a sword, leaning forward while preparing t o slash the thigh of an Englishman who, before falling to the ground, had been armed with a sword and the characteristically Anglo-Saxon battle axe. There are no visible arrows. Which figure or figures is Harold? What is the manner of his death? Until 1957 Due to litnitations of space much of the following argument and supporting documentation is necessarily brief. Fuller evidence will be presented in a forthcoming book on the Tapestry which will offer a new interpretation of i t s iconography and purpose. 4

A tgln-Nomzan Stttdies V

Image not available

Plate 2 Death of fiurokd (front BT, pls 71-2) most observers held that the standing figure pulling the arrow out of his head was the king, though some said that Harold was the prostrate soldier at the end of the scene, and a few suggested that both were intended to be understood as Harold [pl. 21. In the notes to the influential volume edited by Sir Frank Stenton, the popular view that the Tapestry depicts Harold receiving an arrow in the eye was vigorously challenged by Charles Gibbs-Smith, who went on t o elaborate his opinions in subsequent p~blications.~ Because of the authority of the Stenton volume and the seeming plausibility of Gibbs-Smith's views his revisionist interpretation has enjoyed such wide acceptance that it is now comnlon to see in popular and scholarly publications that Harold is not the arrow-in-the-eye figure but rather the one about t o have his leg cut by a mounted Norman k n i g l ~ t . ~ The critical paper by N. P. Brooks and the late H. E. Walker, presented in 1978 at the first Rattle Conference, offered a searching critique of Gibbs-Smith's arguments. and established on a firm foundation of historical and artistic evidence that it is very likely that both figures are Harold. Statements from twelfth-century writers who may have seen the Tapestry suggested that contemporaries read the scene as showing Harold first struck by an arrow in the eye (or the brain) and BT, 188; C. H. Gibbc-Smith, 'The Death of Harold at the Battle of Ffastings', History Today, 1960, 188-91 ;Gibbs-Smith, The Bayeux Tapestry, London 1973, t5. 6 H. Loyn, Harold, Son of Godwin, London 1966, 14-15; R. Allen Brown, Tke Normansand the Norman Conquest, New York E969, 1 7 3 n.154; D. J. A. Matthew. The Norman Conquest. London 1966,84: K . Spence, Companion Guide to Kenf and Sussex, London 1973, 286. 5

\,

The Blirzclitzg of Harold

43

Image not available

Plate 3 Englislr scout and ffarclld (from RT, pl. 58)

then being cut down,7 The Brooks and Walker article also demonstrated for the first time that the Tapestry designer shared a predilection with other later Saxon artists - the creator of the Alfric Heptateuch in the British Museum, Cotton MS. Claudius B. TV, and the artist of the so-called Caedmon manuscript, Junius 11, at Oxford - for duplicating important figures within a singlc scenes8 En the Tapestry the English scout running toward Harold [pl. 31 is probably the same one looking for the approaching Norman army, and the bearer of the dragon standard, the old bearded man, is shown almost certainly twice in the scene depicting the death of Haroid [pl. 1 1 . Indeed duplication is most conspicuously used by the artist in rendering the demise of important men, that day when they wore 'both alive and dead" the passing of King Edward the Confessor, the violent ends of Harold's brother Gyrth [pl. 71, the standard bearer and the dragon, and King Harold as weIL9 Racing the Tapestry in tile context of the artistic conventions of the time allows us to accept niore readily the apparent unnaturalness of Harold shown twice within the length of a horse wearing different stockings and having changed weapons.'O Another medieval artistic convention - the integration of tcxt and image - is perhaps better known. yet little detailed analysis of the Tapestry's inscriptions as 7 William of Malmesbury (c.1 125), De gestis regum, 303; Henry of Huntingdon (c.l130), Histo& Anglomm, 203; Wace (c.1160), Le Roman de Rou, ed. A. J . Ilolden, Paris 1970-73, ii, 189. For discussion of evrdence and source quotations see G. 1-1. White, 'The Death of Harold', in The CompletePeerage, xii, pt. i, London t 953,appendiu L; aim Brooksand Walkcr, 27-8 and notcs. 8 Brooks and Walker. 29-34. 9 BT, pis 33,65, 71-2. lo As to the different hose worn by both figures identified as Harold in the final scene, note that the lower part of the fallen figure has been extensively reworked in modern wool; whether the restorers preserved the original colours and design requires textile analysig. Change of cotoils and pattern is not uncommon in medieval duplication since naturalism is not the canon. In the duplication of the bearded scout, the artist has varied the colour of his leggings, the pattern of hrr wrist bands, and the colour of his sword; the dragon ~tandarditself is shown in two different colours. When Gyrth is shown alive and dead the pattern and colour of hrs lcggrngs are altered. See the best available colour reproduction to date in National Geographic, cxxx, Aupust. 1966,206-51, esp. 244 and 249.

44

Anglo-Norman Studies V

Image not available

PIare 4 I3xperinzerzt (acfapred frouz HT,pls 71-2) part of the overall design, compositionally and iconographicaIly, has appeared to date, one exception being Otto Paclzt's observation that in the oath scene the attending soldiers seemed aware of the inscription over their heads, pointing to it as if to say to us viewers, rrota betze [pl. 81 .I1 Turning t o the death-of-Harold scene, if it was assumed that the king had t o be one or the other figure, the inscription's placement made it difficult to determine which it was - the one whose head is framed by the name or the one above whose body the words interfectus est are written. Let us call the first one Harold A and the second Harold B. If the argument be accepted that duplication is being used in this scene, the inscription's apparent ambiguity is resolved and the location of the words above both Harotd A and Harold B permits the viewer t o read both figures as the king, first alive, then dead. In fact, the inscription of this scene is so carefully placed that any attempt to alter it disturbs the meaning. Had the artist wished, for example, to indicate that only the second figure was Harold, this could have been done merely by relocating the words. Let us perform an experiment and rearrange the inscription so that it is clear that only the prostrate figure is Harold [pl. 41. If one comparesthe new version with the original [pls 1 and 41 it is obvious that without having to delete any letters it was possible for the artist to make emphatic that the second and only the second figure was Harold. The new version is an improvement in clarity of communication; the only trouble, of course. is that it does not convey what the artist intended. Focusing on the inscription reveals that while the designer was conscious of the gross relationships between words and images, he was also aware of smaller connections between letters and images. Observe that in the original, Harold's name is divided in such a way that a slightly diminished '0' is situated closest to his brow and nose-piece, with the arrow almost touching it. If this were the only place in the Tapestry where there was a deliberate adjustment of the '0' in Harold's name t o an image, little emphasis should be given t o it, but of the sixteen times Harold is identified in the Tapestry, in four instances the letter '0' is distinguished by unusual placement or by being grazed by a weapon.12 A striking parallel with the death-ofRire of Pictorial ffanutive 10. BT, pls 7 . IS, 58,77. Not all diminution of letter size implies dcepcr meaning. In BT, pl. 51 the final 'A' of kiestin~aand the final '0' of Willelmo, both smaller and elevated, are ordinary 11 I2

The Blirzding u f Harold

45

Harold scene occurs in the animated episode of the English scout running toward Harold with news of the approaching Norman army [pl. 31 . Harold, on his hog-maned horse and sporting a long moustache, points in the direction of the approaching danger, while his left hand holds a shield and spear, the latter forming a diagonal with his body, echoing the diagonal arrangement of the two spears to the left while at the same t h e completing a zig-zag design similar t o the zig-zag in the upper margin above ISTE. Considerations of meaning as well as of design guide the placement of Harold's spear. As in the death-of-Harold scene, the king's name frames the figure's head. In both cases attention is drawn t o one letter, the '0'' which in the contexr of this particular version of how King Ilarold was wounded at Hastings has an obvious association with the shape of an eye, and is the first letter of the word 'eye' in Latin and French. By appearing significantly sn~allerthan its neighhours the '0' seerns t o have moved aside t o make room for an intruder into its space. That such relationships between inscriptions and images were consciously being adjusted by the artist and his embroiderers can be deterniined by comparing the way the scout's spear is aimed downward, directly at William's name, while the back end of his spear overlaps ISTE, the 'E' seeming to ignore the presence of the weapon, Moreover, as a11 of the embroidery in this scene appears to be original, the fact that the back end of the lance overlaps the inscription indicates that the embroiderers did not simply work the figures and then fit in the text, but that there was a more complicated process or interplay between words and images with the inscriptions sometinies having a priority and an image or part of an image added afterwards. Since the battle is about to begin Harold's own lance grazing the ocular-shaped letter is a foreshadowing of what will occur at the end of the battle, and perhaps an indication that he is not without responsibility for his own fate. By foreshadowing with inscriptions here and with Aesopic fables in other scenes our artist uses techniques not dissimilar t o those of medieval epic poets, even in the employment of rather heavy irony.I3 But in doing so he activates his visual rnediun~so that what are usually marginal zones become charged with a vitality and purposefulness that breaks down the usual boundaries between main figures and peripheral ones. By allowing the '0' t o serve as both a letter and an ideograph, the integration of text and image could hardly go further. Related t o the questions of whether Harold is shown twice in this scene and how much importance was attached by the artist t o the arrow which blinded him is a detail which has gone unnoticed in the literature. 1 refer to several sn~allholes in the linen ground adjacent t o the head of the figure we have labelled Harold B [pl. 51. Although visible without magnification, we have here an enlargement of the area in question, thanks t o the generosity of the National Geographic in providing a 5 in x 7in internegative from their original of the same size. To the left of the axe handle are three large holes due to wear and tear with which we are not concerned, but to the right of the handle is a series of six holcs, surrounded by discoloration of the linen, forming a diagonal with Harold B's brow. Since comparison of the size and spacing of these holes with others in the Tapestry suggests t o me and to Mlle Bertrand,14 the former curator of the Bayeux Tapestry, that these are needle holcs, adjustments of a final kttcr to fit the avaiL?blc space. In Ilarold's case the lcttcr is both within the name and grazed by a weapon. 1 3 Dodwell, 'Raycux Tapestry and the French Secular Epic', 558-60, 14 Mlle Bertrand, private communication, 1979.

46

Anglo-Norman Studies V

Image not available

Pfate 5 Enigmatic stitch marks, death o(Hamld scene (National Geographic] the question that needs to be answered is why are there stitch marks in aline leading t o the fallen figure's forehead at this critical moment in the narrative? Three possibilities might be considered: 1 . The holes are traces of an eleventh-century embroiderer's stitchery. If so, the only plausible explanation for a straight line at this point is an arrow lodged in Harold B's forehead directly above his eye. 2. The holes are traces of an arrow, but one sewn in later by an 'inspired' restorer who perhaps thought that there should be one there. After putting it in, presumably he or someone else removed the offending improvement. 3. Tlle holes are traces of a repair done on the linen ground and their placement adjacent t o Harold B's head is merely by chance and quite unrelated t o questions of narrative meaning.I5 These speculations, and no doubt there are other possibilities, need to be tested by carefut examination of the Tapestry itself, a task which can only be carried out by experts in medieval embroideries and in textiIe analysis. When I first discovered these enigmatic hoIes over three years ago such an analysis seemed impossible because of the conditions under which the Tapestry is displayed, but now there isa possibility that an analysis could be performed. In the winter of 1982 a full-scale restoration and cleaning of the Tapestry is scheduled to commence under the auspices of the French Ministry of Culture, Direction du Patrimoine. We all eagerly await the results The possibility that the original embroiderers put an arrow there and decided to remove it thernsclves has been ruled out because of the discoloration around the holes. As to the third possibility,traces of a repair to the linen, I have been unable to inspect the back of the Tapestry.

The Slindirtg qf fIaroEd

47

of their studies, because at the moment themost important gap in scholarship on this major monument of medieval art and life is a detailed, comprehensive, scientific survey of the whole Tapestry which will allow students t o discriminate between what is original and what is restoration, and if restoration what is accurate. Because such scientific analyses need to be correlated with our historical texts and knowledge of artistic traditions, I would like tooffer the following considerations on what seen1 to me to be the two most likely candidates for explaining the presence of these enigmatic holes: are they traces of an original arrow or are they the work of an inspired restorer? Because the end scenes have suffered extensive damage to the originat yams and because much of the figure in question, especially lzis body and to a lesser extent the head, is worked in ninetcenthcentury yarns there is a natural presumption in favour of saying that these holes must be the work of a restorer. E-lowever, there are many reasons for thinking that these holes might be original. First, our understanding of the artistic conventions in the Tapestry leads us t o note that the blinding motif was central to the artist's presentation of King Harold and that when the artist duplicated a figure in a single scene he usually repeated a distinctive motif, no doubt t o permit ease of identification. Hence the repeated arrow would be sitltilar t o the repetition of the beards on the banner carriers at the beginning of this scene and to the representations of Harold's brothcr Cyrth alive and dead with identical facial wounds, Secondly, the fact that the holes lead t o a spot above the eye is consistent with the repeated word-image relationship we have observed in that the weapon did not enter but was adjacent to the letter '0'. Lastly, there is the testimony of the twelfth-century poetical historian of the Norman Conquest, Master Wace. As a canon of the cathedra1 of Bayeux he would naturally have had occasion to study the Tapestry if it had been located in Bayeux in the midtwelfth century. While there is no conclusive evidence that he had seen the Tapestry, recent observers think it most likely,I6 and certain details of the death-of-llarold scene appear t o confirm his knowledge of the Tapestry's depiction. Wace describes Harold being hit by an arrow above the right eye. then reaching up to pluck it out. In attempting to dislodge it, he breaks the shaft." Note that if we assume that there had been an original arrow in Harold B's brow, Wace's account would agree with the Tapestry on four unusual details: the arrow's entry above the eye; the blinding of the right eye; Harold reaching up to pull it out; and the breaking of the shaft. In this last picturesque detail we may have Wace's reasonable explanation for the lack of feathers on the hypothetical arrow in I-larold R's f ~ r e l l e a d . ' It ~ is difficult to account for so many correspondences except on the assumption that Wace saw the Tapestry when there was a line of stitchery forming a diagonal with Harold's head. Taken together, this evidence on duplication being a common device in late16 See the paper hy Matthew Rennet above, pp.21-39. I profited greatly troni this paper and from conversations wtth Mr Bennett at the conference. Two details sugesting Wace'5 knowledge of the Tapeytry are his plac~ngHarold's oath to William at Bayeux and his saying tlldt ilarold's hand trembled when approaching a part~cuh~r reliquary (see notes 24 dnd 27 and pl. 8). Note other correspondcnccs mentioned in the text above. '7 Wacc, ed. Molden, ii, 189, 11.8161-6: Issi avinr qu'une saete,/qui deverg le c r l ert chaetc,/ feri Heraut d e w s I'oil dreit;/que I'un de\ or!? t i a toleit;/e Hcraut I'a par a i traite,/gctee ~ l'a, m a s ainz I'out fraite; I s The tack o f feathers could be due to the axe handle overlapping the arrow shaft. Rationdl, consistent perspective is clearly not important t o the artht; note In the death x e n e that the falling banner carrier's legs are behind the standing javelin thrower while hi\ sword IS mcongruously placed in front o f the latter's thigh.

Anglo-Nomzan Studies V

Image not available

Plate 6 (;yr.tf-r(B'l", pf. 65) Saxon art and in the Tapestry, on the central importance of the blindingmotif, on the location above the right eye, and on the detailed account by Wace suggests that there is no theoretical objection t o Harold B having had a wound in the same place as does Harold A. l r is now the task of textile experts to determine if the size and location of the needle holes are consistent with holes that are incontestably original. In addition, the discoloration around the holes may yield valuable clues. Two questions remain. Why, if they are possibly original, are these holes not recorded in the drawings made in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries? While those niade for Montfaucon are notoriously inexact about details, Stothard was much more careful and possessed of a great interest in this scene.19 At this point our knowledge of his work is not complete enough to answer the question. More research may yield clues, though it is certainly unfortunate that his original drawings cannot be located; perhaps they would reveal tietails missing in the printed version. The second question is whether it is likely that a restorer could have embroidered a new arrow for Harold B that conforms so closely to all of the stylistic features of the original. While it is hypothetically possible that he was very attentive to the original artist's techniques or that he was inspired by Wace's Ronzan de Rou, one is left with the puzzle of why no one recorded his deed or noticed the stitches. If he put in an arrow and quickly took it out again, why is the linen ground around the holes discolored? Original arrow or work of a restorer? Evidence can be found t o support and t o raise questions about either interpretation. It is hoped that textile analysis wiH help us answer the puzzle of these ambiguous stitch Irrespective of these holes it is our belief that both Harold A and Harold B are intended as the English king and that the artist emphasised an arrow which blinded l 9 B. de Montfaucon, Les Monuments de la Monarchie Frawaise, Paris 1 7 2 9-3 3 , i and ii. C. A. Stothard, VetustaMonumenta, vi, 1819. pl. xvi (3l),and essay in Archaeologia, xix (18211, 184-91. 2* Paradouially, if the IioIes are traces o f a restorer's hand, the intended arrow is totafiy con\ntent ~ c r f hthe rnedninf and drtlxtic conventronq of the Tape~try,making this unknown restorer's work truly 'inspired'.

The Blinding o f HaroId

Image not available

Plate 7 Cavalry chmge (BT, pl. 70) Harold as one of the, if not the, most important motif in his narrative. Why did the artist emphasise the blinding of Harold by an arrow when not one of the six accounts written by contemporaries - William of Jumi&ges,William of Poitiers, the anonymous author of the Carmen de Hastingae Proelio, and three anonymous Anglo-Saxon chroniclers - mentions this extraordinary detail?" It has been suggested that by the arrow the artist found a means of rendering those facial blows which made Harold so unrecognisable that he could be identified only by certain marks on his body, which in the next century were said to be known solely t o his mistress Edith S ~ a n - n e c k Ilad . ~ ~ the artist wished t o show Harold receiving a disfiguring facial wound, he had other means of doing so, as in the earlier episode when Harold's brother dies from a lance thrust into his face [PI. 61 or in the powerfully rendered scene of the Normansbreaking through the English lines [pl.71. One Saxon is depicted at the moment a sword strikes his face with such impact that the knight appears to be losing his grip on the hilt, and another Englishman is hit by an arrow near his mouth. It is thus unlikely that the arrow is intended to be documentary in the sense of a disfiguring facial wound. 1 believe the blinding of Harold is an iconography invented by the artist because it had historical and cultural associations which were present in the minds of Englishmen and Normans, and could be related by then1 t o the main theme of the Tapestry. It is now generally agreed that the theme of theTapestry is themoral and religious perjury of Harold in first making an oath on relics wherein he pledged to assist William to the English throne, or at all events not t o oppose him, and then pe jured himself by accepting the crown on Edward the Confessor's death.23 If we view the Tapestry as a two-act drama, the perjury committed at the end of the first act is not punished until the end of the second. with some forty scenes intervening. The artist thus had to solve the problem of how to show that Harold's death was due not just to Norman superiority s n the field of battle gained by using cavalry and archers, 21 Jumicges, 1 35;Gesta Guillel~ni,204; Carmen, 34-6; EHD, ii, 142-6. 22 Brooks and Walker, 33-4; Gesta Guillelmi, 204;DNB, viii, 1303. 'Harold'. 2 3 BT, 15-16. Breaking the oath is the dominant note sounded by rhe Norman propagandists,

END, ii, 215 and 224.

SO

Anglo-Norman Studies V

Image not available

Plate 8 HizroEd swears oath to William (from BT, pl. 29)

but that it was also retribution for perjury. Had he included the hand of God in the battle episodes as he did in the portrayal of Edward's funeral progressing t o the newly completed Westminster Abbey, divine involvement in history would be obvious. But since he didn't, let us turn to the portrayal of the oath scene for clues [pl. 81. First of all, no other source confirms that the oath had any connection with Bayeux; William of Poitiers places it at Bonnevitle-sur-Touques and Qrdericus Vitalis at R ~ u e n No . ~ doubt ~ we have here an ecclesiastical 'invention' or 'translation' similar to those Joseph Redier showed to be discernible in several epic legends.25 Bishop Odo of Bayeux, the presumed patron of the Tapestry, being naturally glad to spread the fame of his church and of the relics which constituted itsmost precious possession, could hardly have failed t o recognise in the Tapestry an unrivalled medium of publicity. Secondly, the oath scene has some strikingly unusual iconography. William sits on an elaborate cushioned throne, holding his sword of authority and power. Harold, weaponless and looking rather vulnerable with his outstretched arms, stands between two carefully distinguished altars, touching the left one with the two forefingers in ~ the other hand appears a prescribed form of swearing in the Middle ~ g e s ?while t o hover above a small box set on the altar with a stepped base. Given the permanent appearance of this altar one expects the scene to be set in a church, yet it is heId out of doors. Also unusual is the amount of ocular-shaped objects in this scene the brooch holding Harold's cloak together, the bosses or jewels at the uppercorners of the portable reliquary on the right, and, most noticeably, the mushroom-shaped object on top of that reliquary [pl. 91. Set on a short stem is what appears t o be a single stone which by its design evokes an eye. What is this object and why is it there? Contemporaries did not record any details about the relicson which Haroldswore his oath to WilIiam, but in the next century it is noteworthy that in describing the

z4

Gesta Guillelmi, 1 0 2 -4 ; Orderic, ii, 134-6. Only Wace places it at Bayeux (ii, 97, L5683). Les Ldgendes epiques: Recherches s w la formation des cfiansonsdegeste, 4 v, Paris 1908-1 3; and his brief recapitulation in 'De la formation des clmnsonsdegeste', Romania, xli,+l912,5-31. z6 Jacob Grimrn, Deutsche Rechtsaltertumer, 4th edn, 1899, ii, ch. vii ('kid'), 555. 25

The Blinding ofHarold

Image not available

Plate 9 fitail, oath scerze (fronz RT, pl. 29) oath ceremony first the author of the Brevis Relaticl and then Wace singled out one reliquary by name.27 It was called the oculus bollis or the oeil d'boeuf, because, according to the author of the Brevis Relatio, it 'contained in its middle a stone as precious as it was large'. While it is naturally tempting t o make a connection between the appellation 'bull's eye' and Harold's blinding by an arrow, we must be cautious. To the modern mind a bull's-eye immediately connotes the centre of a target or a shot that hits the mark, but this usage apparently developed after our period. In pre-modern Europe the term was usua11y associated with gtassmaking, a bubble or boss in a sheet of glass being called a bull's-eye, and by extension a piece OF convex glass inserted in a lantern or side of a ship. In architecture a round opening in a walI or the ceiling was also called an oculus or oeiE d'hoeuf Any association with archery or hitting the target being unlikely, we should probably recognise nothing more in the name than a term like cat's-eye or tiger's-eye, appellations For the numerous stones which by their cotours, luminosity, and design evoke the eye. 2 7 Edwlrd Edwards, ed., LiherMomsteriideHyda, London 1866, R S 45, 290; Wace, ii, 97-8, 11.5691-6. The Hyde writer tells us why it is called tile 'bull's eye': 'Infinitam sanctarum multit u d i n e ~ nreliquiiiu~ndeferrt juqsit, superque eas filacterium gloriod martyris Pancratii, quod oculwm bovis vocant, eo quod gemrnarn tam ~peciosamqudm spatlo\am in medio sui contineat, collocw~t,certiss~mgsciens tantum martyrem nulli temeritate posse deludi.' The mention of St Pancras is tantalising, d s hc was a protector of oaths, but probably apocryphal a s there wa5 n o cult o f Pancras in Bayeuh. Wace, for example, does not mcntion him.

52

A nglo-Norman Studies V

Although we rule out a link between the term 'bull's eye' and hitting the mark as anachronistic, a linguistic connection is still possible. A poetic association between words and deeds has often been observed in the formation of legends, not least in those which explain detaiEs about violent acts which although famous are sketchily known. The Hebrew legend that Cain killed Abel with a rod is based on the resemblance of Kain with the Hebrew word for rod, k ~ n e hIn. ~medieval ~ inventions the same process of linguistic transference may be operating in the Anglo-Saxon vernacular custom of specifying that Cain used not a rod or a stone or a hoe but a jawbone for his murder weapon, as suggested by Meyer S ~ h a p i r o It . ~is~also well-documented in medieval culture that a particular saint's powers were often related not to any deed he or she performed but to a poetic association with the saint's name - hence St Clair, Santa Lucia, and St Augustine were invoked by those who hoped for brighter eyes or clearer vision.30 The popularity of St Clair in Normandy and of St Augustine in England, especiafly in Canterbury, the most likely site for the creation of the Tapestry, might have a bearing on the invention of the ocular Turning from the name to the object itself, we note that the representation of an eye on the reliquary or in association with saints was not unique to the Tapestry. In some cases it symbolised the nature of the martyrdom of the saint whose relics were contained within the reliquary, or the ability of the saint to cure eye diseases or ward off the evil eye, or the incorruptibility of the saint who was said to see as well as when he or she had been alive.32 Is it not probable that a simple eye-shaped object on top of the reliquary used for swearing a sacred oath was understood as a symbol for the all-seeing power of the saint invoked or even for the omniscience of God? The role of Cod's vision in preserving the sacramental nature of solemn oaths is well attested. In medieval oath-swearing ceremonies, the sacredness of the oath was based on two things: touching an object with the idea that the object would bring destruction if one swore falsely, and using a formula invoking the Divine as witness: 'By the Lord before whom this holy thing is holy . . .'33 God and the saints would not only 28

L. Ginzberg, The Legends of the Zews, Philadelphia 1925, v, 139, n. 20.

29 Meyer Schapiro, 'Cain's Jaw-Bone That Did The First Murder', in his volume of selected

papers, Late Antique, Early Christian, and Medieval Art, New York 1 977, 249-65, esp. 256. I am indebted t o Scliapiro's approach for much of the material in this section. For other explanations, see the articles by G. Henderson in Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, xxiv, 1961, 108-14, and A. A. Rarb in the same journal, xxv, 1972. 386-9. 3O H. Delahaye, Les LPgendes hagiagraplziqu~s, Brussels 1927,45 ff (now also available in English translation); K. Nyrop (and I-{. Gaidoz), 'L'Etymologie popuhire et le folk-lore', Mklusine, iv, 1899,504-24, v, 1890, 12-1 5, 148-52; C . Cahier, Caract&ristiquesdessaiPltsdmlirrf populaire, Paris 1867, i,'Aveuglcs', 104-6. 31 Brooks and Walker, 13-1 8. adduce further evidence than that given by Wor~natdin BT linking the Tapestry to Canrerbury, and offer examples which suggest that the designer of the Tapestry was especially familiar with manuscripts from the monastery of St Augustine's rather than those from the cathedral monastery of Christ Church. For anothcr possible link between the artist and a tradition at St At~gustine'ssee below, note 56. 32 Cahier, Caractkristiques des saints, i, 104-6. Saint Lcger, Saint Satomin, Saint Odina, Saint Clair. Saint Kosceline was represented carrying a reliquary containing her eyes which could see as welt as when she had been alive and Saint Clair's ability t o affect eyes was depicted o n a coin by placing his name beneath a single eye. Also Waldeniar Deonna, Le symbolisme de 18ei1, Paris 1965, 270-90 ('La lumiire e t la veritk: L'oeil justicier'), and 96, 134. with many references t o the cye of justice in differcnt cultures. Also Dw Cange, 'oculus' for references to texts linking a represenlation of an eye o n a stone to the omniscience of God. 33 'in ill0 Deo, pro quo sanctum hoc sanctifactum est'; 'In omnipotenti Deo'; 'On aelmihtiges

The Blinding of Harold

53

be witnesses but avengers as well, God being offended because the swearer who perjured himself had broken the second commandment by taking God's name in vain. Moreover, the pe rjurer, by not fulfilling his promise, was denying either God's full-knowledge of man's behaviour or God's interest in justice. Hence symbols of vision developed in many cultures, and are common in Judeo-Christian writings; for example, in Ezekiel those guilty of abominations say 'The Lord has forsaken the land and the Lord does not see' but about them God says to the prophet, 'As for me, my eye will not spare, nor will I have pity, but 1 will requite their deeds upon their heads'. In Paul's letter t o the Hebrews, 'before him no creature is hidden, but all are open and laid bare to the eyes of him with whom we have to d ~ ' . ~ ~ That the eye on the reliquary is associated with Divine observation of the proceedings between William and Harold is strengthened by two unusual features of this scene, the placement out of doors, a designated locale in Biblical, Roman, and some medieval oath-swearing customs, so that no secret could be hidden from the Divine,35 and the curious marginal decoration above the reliquary in question. Unlike any of the dozens of decorative objects which appear in floral, or cruciform, and candIeholder shapes, this one is unique. It shares a small base and a slender tapered shaft with many of its companion pieces, but this object has what appears to be a star or rays clustered at the top. Is this the embroiderer's attempt to portray a lit candle? Comparison of the blazing comet [pl. 101 with this object indicates a close correspondence in the rendering of fire by small triangular shapes.36 If this is meant t o be a lit candle it fulfils one of the customary requirements of an oath c e r e n ~ o n y While . ~ ~ no other contemporary depiction of such a ceremony has been located, in late medieval art a single lit candle in connection with a solemn oath is depicted in the portrait of Giovanni Arnolfini and his bride by Jan van Eyck in the National Gallery, London [pl. 1 11. That portrayal of a young couple solemnly exchanging marriage vows in the privacy of a bridal chamber, however persuasively realistic the domestic setting appears, is replete with symbolism conveying the sacramental nature of their exchanging vows. The shoes which the couple have taken off remind us that they are standing on 'holy ground'; the inscription not only identifies Van Eyck's role as artist but as witness as well; and the single candle in the chandelier, burning in broad daylight, is a common symbol for the all-seeing Christ.38 Godes naman' were three of the usual opening expressions In Anglo-Saxon oath-formulas, F. Liebermann, Die Gesetze der Angelsachsen, Halle 1898-1916, i, 396-9; also see %id', 'Bidesformeln', and 'Meineid' in Liebermann, ii. As with other Germanic peoples the swearing pervon in England continually touched something which in the case of deceit would bring destruction on the perjurer, Liebermann, ii, 376. For perjury asa heinouscrime, counting along withmurder, adultery, and witchcraft as one of the moyt serious, see Liebermann, ii, 580-1. 34 tzekiel, ix. 9-10; Hebrews, iv. 13. 35 Grimm, op. cit., ii, 545, with references to lawsand secular literature on swearing in the opcn. In Rome, according to historians of ancient legal customs, perhap7 the majority of oaths were sworn out of doors so that no secret could be hidden from the sight of the Divine. This older view has been somewhat mod~fiedby Hirzel, Der Eid, ch. xvi, n.7. In the Old Testament, to cement a covenant with David, Jonathan said to him, 'Con~clet usgo out into the fietd' where Jonathan added, 'The Lord, the God of Israel be witness' (I Samuel, xx. t 1-12). It would be interesting to know if such thinking had any bearing on why medieval courts werc often held in the open air. See F. Pollock and F. W. Maitland, History of English ILZW, 2nd edn, Cambridge 1838, i, 5 5 5 . 36 BT, pls 26, 52 for other repreqentations of fire. 37 Grimm, op. cit., ii, 546. Wetzer and Wekte, Kirchenfexicon, 'Eid'. 38 Erw~nPanofsky, 'Jan van Eyck's Arnolfini Portrait', m e Burliagton Magazine, 64, 1934, 11 7-27, reprinted m C. Gilbert, ed., Renaissance Art, New York t 970, 1-20.

54

Anglo-Norman Studies V

Image not available

Plate 10 ifulc)~'s cor~er(fronzST, pi. Sj} If light and the power to see clearly were attributesof divinity in medieval thought and art, darkness and blindness were associated with sinful humanity.39 Loss of sight was not just a physical handicap but a moral attribute as well. It placed one the wrong side of the moral universe. In the words of a medieval writer, blindness 'connotes to us only something negative and never positive, and by the blind man we understand the sinner".40 Some sins were more associated with blindness than others. In linking blindness with infidelity one could point to the expression from ~ lust, and any St Augustine: 'Caecifas est intjidelitas et illunzitzatio f i c i e ~ ' . ~Avarice, uncontrollable desire were associated with blindness; the avaricious were said, in a metaphorical way, to be 'in the grip of blind greed'.42 The association between loss 39 John, iii, 19: 'And this m the judj?ment, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than fight, because their deeds were evil'. 40 Petros Berchorius, cited in L. Panofsky, 'Blind Cupld', Studies in Iconology, New York 1962, 109. for blindness in medteval thought and art see thisessay and I)eonn~,Symbolisme, op. cit., 233-45 ('La Cecite symbolique') and Deonna, 'La Ccciti mentale', Rev. Suisse d'art ctd'arch., 1958, xviti, 68ff. 41 In Jmnnis Evangelium Tractatis, Migne, Patrologia Lutina. xxxv, 17 1 3. Panotsky notes that in this expression 'I ides' could mean both 'True Belief' and 'Faithfulness' ('Arnolfini Portrait', op. cit., 19, n.32). 42 The phrase ceca cupidine capti, common in classical literature, was used in the eleventh century in describing the motivationof foliowersof tar1 Godw~n,fatherof Harold,in committing il particularly heinous deed, the n~urderand mutilntion of Prince Alfred and his followers.

The Blinding o f Harold

Image not available

Plate I I Chvanni A r~~olf'ini a d his bride, buyJan van byck (London, National (hlleiy) of sight and avarice was manifest in one of the most popular books in the Middle Ages, the Psychomachia of Pcudentius. In his description of the conflicts between virtues and vices, personified as women, he had Avarice, with her attendants Anguish, Treachery, Falsehood and Pe jury, descend upon the world causing men to do evil. 'One made sightless, his eyes prised out, she leaves to wander blindly . . . ,' while another she 'captures by ~neilnsof his sight and cheats him with eyes open by displaying to him some splendid thing . . .'.43 Often copied and illustrated, the Psyckomachia influenced all the visual arts. In representations of the victory of the virtues over vices, the personifications are often treading upon their vanquished counterparts in the evil world (Humilitas on Superbia, Fides on Idolatria), plunging a lance into one of the foe's eyes. On the side of a reliquary from Troyes Cathedral a figure of Largitas holds Avaritia by the ankle while she steps on her breast and most ungenerously blinds her [pl. 121, and in an Encomium Emrnae Reginae, ed., A . Campbell, Koyel Hist. Soc. 1949,44-5. Prudentius, eti. and trans. H. J . Thornson, Cambridge, Mass. 1969, 3104 3.

43

56

Anglo-Norman Studies V

early twelfth-century English Psychomachia (British Museum, Cotton Ms. Titus D XVI, f. 6a) Fides blinds her opponent [pl. 131 .44 In Norman propaganda Harold was characterised as rapacious. In contrast to his brother Tosti, he is called 'purse proud and puffed-up with the profits of pillage'.45 Before the battle commences, according to William of Poitiers' invented speeches, Harold refused to accept Image not available William's offer of a duel rather than a battle involving thousands of men, because he was 'blinded by his lust for dominion'.46 The death of Harold in the Bayeux Tapestry could serve to associate him with those who sinned and were punished by blinding. In medieval lore there were also famous tales recounting how kings were miraculously blinded by an 12 V i r t ~ blljzdill~ e 1.h~ arrow because they had offended the divine on reliquaiy at Tra?les Cathedraf order. Accotding t o legend when a king ordered (from Kafze@ellenbogen,fig.21) St Christopher bound to a post and transfixed with arrows the shafts just hung in the air. For a whole day they stayed there until the king approached Christopher asking, 'Where is thy God7 Let him come now and deliver thee from these arrows'. Instantly one of the arrows leapt away and struck the king in his eye, blinding him.47 Thus, without explicitly depicting God's presence at Hastings, the artist could give pictorial expression to the widely held belief that the king's defeat was a fitting punishment for his perjury on holy relics. If we turn from the reaims of reiiglon, metaphor, and legend to the world of actual historical events we find further evidence for our hypothesis that the artist invented the blinding of Harold because of associations present in the minds of contemporaries. Since the Tapestry was not created until perhaps a decade or more of Norman rule had elapsed it is not surprising that the nature of that rule would affect the iconographical choices of tlte artist and his fellow workers. The historical records speak often of the brutal punishments inflicted by the new governors, and while physical brutality was hardly new to the Anglo-Saxons, blinding as a legal punishment apparently was. Only in the laws of Cnut do we meet with it before 1066, and then only as one of many tortures, but in the so-called Articles ofWilliam the Conqueror it is dramatised and given wide application '1 also forbid that anyone shall be slain or hanged for any fault, but let his eyes be put out and let him be 4 4 A. Katzenellenbogen, Allegories of Virtues and Vices in Medieval Art, London 1939, reprinted New York 1964. R. Stettincr, Die iRustrierfenPncdentius-Handschriften,Berlin 18951905, H. Woodruff, 'The Illustrated Manuscripts o f Ptudentius', Art Studies, 1929, 33ff.

45 Gesta Guillelmi, 166: EHR, ii, 222. 46 Gesta GuiZZelmi, 1 78 - 8 1 ;EHD, ii, 224. 47 The Old tngllsh version of St Christopher's nlartyrdom is edited by Stanley Ryping, Three

OM English Prose Texts, London 1924, EETS. 161, pp.68-76. For the tcvt o f Vita Sancti ~ristoplzori,from the Acta Sanctoruwt (25 July) see Rypins, 108-10. Also see Jacobu~,dc Voraginus, The Golden Legend, London 1941, far St Christopher, and St Savianus, about wllom the same story is told. In some versions tcvo arrons miraculously blind the king.

The Blinding of Harold

Image not available

Plate 13 Fides blinding Worship-of-the-Old-Gods, Psychomachia MS,c. 1100, English (from Stettiner, pl. 193 B ) ~ a s t r a t e d ' .Nor ~ ~ was this an idle threat, as the rebels who aided the traitor Ralph 'Gauder', the earl of Norfolk, learned, and as did the citizens of Canterbury who were Minded for siding with the monks of St Augustine7s in their rebellion against an alien Norman abbot.49 Also prominent in contemporary English historical writing is the linkage between the extension of the King's forests and this particularly brutal and demeaning punishment. In his obituary on William, the Anglo-Saxon chronicler vents his indignation on a king who loved the stags so much that He made great protection for the game And imposed laws for the same That those who slew hart or hind Should be made blind.50 It is, however, in the history of events befare the Conquest that there are incidents which have never, t o my knowledge, been associated with the Bayeux Tapestry, yet which have a direct bearing on our inquiry into its iconographical sources. Because of their unusual associations with events depicted in the Tapestry they are also of central importance in clarifying the more general question posed by the puzzle inherent in the Tapestry's origin: did the Anglo-Saxon artist and his embroiderers include in this account of their own defeat only ideas and associations for which approval would have been forthcoming from their Norman overlords and patrons? Put another way, while it is true that the Tapestry's account in general accords with the Norman point of view, does it also contain a secondary meaning that is less flattering? Let us examine two incidents which have a bearing on the blinding of Harold with this general consideration in mind. We are led t o the first incident by a clue in Willianl of Jumitges'brief account of 48 I1 Cnut, 30, 5; 'Ten Articles of Willian~I', no. 10. EHI?, i, 423; ii, 400. See Liebermann, Gesetze, 'Auge' for references to Saxon and Norman materials. 49 Anglo-Saxon Chronicle f1075), KHD,ii, 156-8; 'Acts of LanEranc',EHD, ii, 633-5; also see document quoted by P. Bnrlow, Willhm I and the Norman Conquest, New York 1 9 6 7 , 8 3 , For blinding as a punishment in rhe la\t two centuries of Saxon England tliere is scant evidence, E m , I , 21 3 , 2 1 8 , 249; Liehermann, Gesetze, 'Augc'. 50 'E' Chronicles, 1086(7), EHD, ii, 164.

58

Anglo-Norman Studies V

the Conquest. Commenting on the thousands of Englishmen who had died, William of Jumieges records that many people thought that God's hand could be seen in the outcome of the battle; in his words, "They say . . . that Christ thus recompensed them [the English] for the foul and unjust murder of Alfred, brother of King E d ~ a r d , Why ' ~ ~ did it seem that a crime committed thirty years in the past, when William was ten and Harold was fifteen, and involving none of the principals in the battle, was justly punished on Senlac Hill? It will be recalled that in 1036 just as in 1066 there was a disputed succession t o the throne. Cnut had intended that his one legitimate son, Harthacnut, be ruler of both Denmark and England, but at Cnut's death his son was already acting as king in Denmark, awaiting an imminent invasion from Norway. While he lingered abroad, incapable of claiming his English inheritance, two factionsentered the powervacuum in England. One, headed by his mother, pressed to have him elected by thc witan despite his absence, while the other advanced the claims of his illegitimate halfbrother Harold, later known as Harold 'Harefoot'. Gaining increasing support from noble families, Harold 'Harefoot' took advantage of Harthacnut's absence and advanced from regent to king of England. We know little about his kingship, and indeed our authorities record only one important event in the reign.s2 In 1036 Alfred the Aetheling, son of King Aethelred I1 and Emma, a Norman princess, arrived in England with many Norman soldiers, ostensibly to visit his mother, Perceiving his arrival as the first step in a claim for a disputed throne, Earl Codwin, who had joined HaroId Harefoot's party, arrested Alfred and put many of his followers to death. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle recounts: some were sold for money, some were cruelly killed, some were put in fetters, some were blinded. some were mutilated. some were scalped. No more horrible deed was done in this land since the Danes came . . .53 Alfred himself was taken on board ship out of Godwin's custody, savagely blinded, and taken to Ely where he died of his injuries. Here was a crime that 'shocked the conscience of even that callous age'.54 After the Conquest, Norman propaganda laid great emphasis on the death of Alfred and his companions as justification for the Norman descent upon England. Most of the Aetheling's companions had been Norman and he was half Norman himself. William of JumiCges spoke of how the Normans served as God's agent in punishing the English for the 'foul and unjust murder'.55 The person heId responsible for these deeds by Norman and English sources, with the exception of two of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles, was Earl Godwin, the father of the English king who fought at ~ a s t i n g s . 5William ~ of Poltiers combined history and propaganda by describing 51

EHD, ii, 216.

52 Anglo-Saxon Chronicle (1036), END, i, 232-3; Florence of Worcester (1 (136), E

m , i, 289. For discussion see Sir Frank Stenton, Anglo-Saxon England, 3rd edn, Oxford 1971, 419fY; C . Plumrner, Two of the Saxon Chronicles Parallel, Ovtord 1892, 1899, ii, 21 1-15; A. Campbell, Encomium Ernme, Ikiv-lsvii, 4 2 -7. $ 3 EMD, i. 233. 54 D.C. Douglas, WiIEiam theConqueror, Berkeley 1964. 164. 55 EHD, ii, 216. 56 Chronicle 'C' cxplicitly 1rnphcate5Godain, whereas 'D' dlters the 'C'text with minor variants and ambiguous pronouns in such a way that the bidme shifts front Godwin to Harold 'Harefoot'. The 'E' Chronicle, made at St Auguqtine's mondctery, Canterbury, at this time, cvpilrgates the reccived text by completely omitting any ret'erencc to the murder of Alfred. END, i, 233 and

The Blinding of Harold

59

Codwin's hospitable reception of Alfred, complete with a pledge of loyalty sealed with a kiss, which concealed his plan to turn Alfred over t o Harold Harefoot. After recounting the blinding of Alfred, William of Poitiers turns from his audience, and with dark theatricality addresses Earl Godwin in an apostrophe which ends with this 'prediction': It is certainly lugubrious and sad to speak of such crimes: but our glorious duke William, whose exploits we record for future generations, with divine aid and an avenging sword will strike themortd blow to your offspring, Harold. Because of treason, you have spilled innocent Norman blood; by a just recompense, Norman weapons will spill the blood of your children.57 Thus Godwin, who had not ordered the blinding but who had carried out the arrest and without whose consent the aethelingcould not have been given to his tormentors, was held responsible for the death by the principal Norman propagandists. Thirty years after the blinding of Alfred, the Normans used that crime as a justification for punishing Godwin's son and his English followers. This invective suggests two observations in regard to our quest for why the Tapestry artist invented the blinding of Harold. First, since both Norman propagandists, William of JumiBges and William of Poitiers, wrote after the Conquest we have an insight into how Normans linked past and present. We can thus imagine a Norman who shared their sense of divine vengeance for Alfred's murder viewing the Tapestry. In passing the story of Harold's fateful voyage across the Channel, is it not Iikely that a Norntan would have compared Harold's capture on arrival in Normandy with Alfred's capture many years earlier, and noted the contrast between liarold's safe return home with Alfred's death at Ely? Is it not likely that seeing Harold's death at Hastings he would have exclaimed, 'Aha, justice was done! An eye for an eye!'? A contemporary could have thus interpreted the blinding of Harold as validating the Norman claim that a crime committed thirty years earlier helped justify the invasion of England. But did the artist make this connection? We look in vain for any reference i n the Tapestry to Alfred, llarold 'Harefoot', or Godwin. With only slight alteration in the inscriptions the artists could have labelled Harold as 'Harold Godwinson' rather than as Harold Dux or Harold Rex or as sin~plyHarold. Given the notoriety of the Alfred episode and its prominence in Norman propaganda our artist must have been aware of it, yet in not making any allusion ta it he avoided linking Harold's death to his father's That the artist was silent about the notes. I wish t o thank Dr David DumvilIe for his kind assistance with the Chronicle traditions. Cfidwin's complicity in the murder of Alfred left a legacy of suspicion and animosity against him, which in the next reign he had to clear himself of by a gift of a warship to the king and by an oath, attested t o by rnagnates ttom at1 over the h n d , that 'it was not by his advice, nor by his will, that [Alfred] had been blinded'. Florence of Worcester, Chronicon, i, 194-5. How little liis oath was regarded is suggested by a popular story known from twelfth-century sources. The circumstance was a dinner with King Edward the Confessor, Alfred's brother. Whenever the conversation turned tc) the sub.ject of Alfred, Godwin remarkcd that the King's face showed anger. Affirming his innocence, Godwin :~nnounccd,'May the morsel which I have in my hand choke me t o death if I amguilty'. It did. Loyn, Harold, 7; Doughs, WlIliem,412-13;Lieber~nann, Gesetze, ii, 473. 5' Gesta GuilleEmi, 10-13. This is merely a loose rendering of William of Poitier's language. 5 s In avoiding any reference t o Godwilt in regard t o the Conquest the artist's treatment of 1066 is consistent with the English written sources and in not linking Godwin to Alfred's blinding he shares a proGodwin allegiance with two of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles, 'I)' and 'E', the latter being t'ron-~St Au~ustine'smonastery, Canterhury (see note 56, abovc).

Anglo-Norman Studies V

60

crime itself may indicate that he did not believe Codwin was responsible for the blinding of Alfred or that he was unwilling t o subscribe to the Norman justification for conquering England. The omission of Codwin in the context of Harold's blinding also suggests that while there is probably a reference here for his Norman audience, the artist had something else in mind, The historical events which the Tapestry artist did see as having a connection with the conquest of England are to be found, I believe, not in Anglo-Norman history but in the Old Testament. In the Biblical account of the conquest of the kingdom of Judah by the Babylonians one finds events which have an uncanny re. semblance to the history of England in 1066 as it happened but especially as it was depicted in the Bayeux Tapestry. In 586B.C., the Hebrew kingzedekiah was captured and brought before Nebuchadnezzar. There judgment was passed on him for having violated his oath of fealty to Nebuchadnezzar in rebelling against him. The importance of Zedekiah's perjury is brought out in the words of the prophet Ezekiel, who, after recounting how the Hebrew king broke his oath, spoke the words of the Lord: 'Can a man escape who does such things? Can he break the covenant and yet escape? . . Because he despised the oath and broke the covenant, because he gave his hand and yet did all these things, he shalt not escape. Therefore thus says the Lard God: As I live, surely my oath which he despised, and my covenant which he broke, I will requite upon his head . . . And ali the pick of his troops shall fall by the sword, and the survivors shall be scattered to every wind; and you shall know that I, the Lord, have spoken.'s9

.

Nebuchadnezzar, in passing judgment on his faithless vassal, ordered a cruel punishment. Zedekiah's sons were slain before his eyes; then Zedekiah himself was blinded and taken in chains to Babyl~nia.~* Using the violation of a sacred oath as justification, Nebuchadnezzar brought destruction on the Hebrew king and his family. But the blinding of Zedekiah and the execution of his sons were not just personal tragedies. The defeat of Zedekiah marked the pivotal moment in the history of the whole kingdom of Judah. The Babylonians reduced Judah to the status of a coIony. There followed the execution or exile of her royal officials, warriors, and intellectuals. The Temple and the houses of Jerusalem were burned to the ground. All the Temple vessels were carried t o Babylon as booty. Thus began the seventy-year Babylonian exile. After I066 the history of England must have looked very similar. With Harold's death the independent English kingdom was no more. Her aristocracy was killed or exiled; her churches looted, their precious vessels taken abroad; just as in Biblical times, a reign of terror swept the land: some tried to throw off the conqueror's yoke but revenge was swift and terrible. Depopulation and destruction followed in the wake of' each r e ~ i s t a n c e . ~ ~ Given the singular correspondence between the history of the Hebrew and English kingdoms, even to having the victorious rulers claim legitimacy because a vassal had violated an oath taken before God, is it not probable that the Tapestry artist found in the Old Testament an additional reason, or perhaps his primary Ezekiel, xvii, 13-21. I1 Kings, xxv; Jeremiah, lxxiu, 1-8 and lii. 61 11 Chronicles, xxxvi, 17-21; 11 Kings, xxv, 1-21; Jeremiah, xli-ii; compare with Norman looting of England and reprisals for resistance, R. Allen Brown, The Normansand the Normnn Conquest,ch. 5,esp. 183, 187-8, 193-8. $9

60

The Blinding of Harold

61

Image not available

Plate 14

Attack on Jerusalem: Nebuchadnezzar orders the blinding ofZedekiah (NEW York, Pierpoint Morgan Library, Morgan Beafus)

one, for inventing the motif of Harold's blinding? 1 believe the artist did have the Biblical story in mind and that visual evidence substantiates this hypothesis. The btinding of Zedekiah was often illustrated in the early Middle Ages. It is found In the Roda Bible of the early eleventh century and in most manuscripts of the celebrated commentary on the Apocalypse of St John written by the Spanish priest Beatus. Twenty-two illustrated copies, many dating from the tenth and eleventh centuries, have come down to us. Following the text of Beatus in most manuscripts was an illustrated version of Jerome's commentary on the Book of A fine example is the tenth-century version in the Morgan Library [pl. 141 .63 On facing pages the artist has illustrated the siege of Jerusalem with the propl~et Jeremiah seated, head in hand, lamenting the fate of the city. At the bottom of the second page he has placed the approaching Babylonian troops, and at the top, the judgment on Zedekiah. A crowned Nebuchadnezzar sits in the centre of a throne, holding a lance and a scroll. A soldier cuts off the head of one of Zedekiah's sons while the body of the other lies on the ground. King Zedekiah, hands and feet fettered, is being blinded by another soldier. With minor modifications this conception of the blinding of Zedekiah remained stable in most copies of the Reatus manuscript; 6 2 W . Neuss, Die Apokalypse des Hf. Johannes in der altspanischen und altchrisflichenBibelnlustration. Miinster in Westfallen 1931. 2v. esw. i. ch. 4 , 63 ~ o r ~ a n ' ~ e a(mid-10th tus century), New ~ b r k Pierpoint , Morgan Library, M.644, fol. 240v-

2411.

62

Anglo-Noman Studies V

Image not available

Plate 15 Nebuchadnezzar, hlindingc>fZedekiah, decapitation of sons (London, British Museunz, Silos Beatus) for example, the version presently in VaHadolid, or the splendid one in the British Museum, the Silos Beatus [pl. 151 .64 A clue to the artist's linking of the story of William and Harold to that of Nebuchadnezzar and Zedekiah is the inclusion in the death of Harold scene of the slaying of the unarmed Englishman [pl. 161. We remarked earlier on the puzzling nature of this episode where an Engfish soldier, having neither a m o u r nor weapon, is about t o be dispatched by a Norman knight, the only one on foot in the battle, Compare this episode with the British Museum's copy of the Commentary on Daniel. Zedekiah's son and the unidentified Englishman are in similar postures: both are erect with their hands open and close together in front of their stomachs, as If manacled. Both are being seized by the forelock and are about to be decapitated. To the left and below each group of executioner and victim is an already dispatched figure. Moreover, with regard to the ordel: of events, the placement of this unique scene in the Tapestry directly before the blinding of Harold conforms to the Biblical text: 'They slew the sons of Zedekiah before his eyes.' Such a comparison is not intended to suggest that the Tapestry artist knew the British Museum Beatus - this is out of the question as this Beatus was made some 64 Valladolid Beatus (c.970), Valladolid University Library, fol. 193v, reproduced in J.

Dominguez Bordona, Spanish nlumination, New York 1930, i, pl. 18; Silos Beatus (complctcd 1109), London, British Library, Add. Ms. 11695: also see Neuss, ii, pl. 198 for a comparable illustration from the Beatu$ in the Bibliorcca National, Madrid, B 31 (c.1047), fol. 268v-269r: Neuss, i, 224 for other references.

The Blinding of Harold

Image not available

Plate 16 Climax of battle: urwrmed Englishman ( j k t n Bei-trand,Bayeux Tapestry, p.138)

thirty years later than the Tapestry but rather to indicate that in a whole group of manuscripts we have a stable iconography that isvery close to diat of the Tapestry in this episode. Nor is it necessary that the artist ever had a Beatus at hand, because the blinding of Zedekiah and the execution of his sons is found in modified form in illustrated Rible~.~" Time does not permit further exploration of ties between the Old Testament and the Bayeux Tapestry, a principal subject of a forthcoming book on the Tapestry's iconography, but in conclusion I would like t o draw together some of the results which have emerged from our investigation. By close analysis of the Tapestry's deliberate adjustment of words and images we have found that the blinding motif was often foretold by word-image manipulations, which in turn helped us to single out I larold's blindingas central to thc artist's intentions. We havealso drawn attention 6 5 Roda Bihle, Rtris, BN \at. 6, iii, fol. 19v; Farfa Bible, Komc, Cod. Vat. Lat. 5729, fol. 160v161 r. These are not precisely like t hc depictionsof tire siege of .lerusatem and blinding of Zedekiali in the Beatus manuscripts hut do indicate that the scene would have been found in itsappropriate place in an illustrated Bihle. I t is important to note that the entire picture in t h e Commentary o n Daniel found in t h e Beatus manuscripts does not stem from Daniel or Jerome's commentary since the blinding of Zcdekiah is not mcntioncd in these tests. I'erhaps the artist of the Baycux Tapestry had an illustrated Bible containing scenes similar to those which influenced the Reatus tradition. See Ncuss, i, 224.

64

Anglo-Nomm Studies V

t o the puzzling stitch marks in the climactic scene. Their existence has been relayed to the French restoration team who we hope will be successful in solving this mystery. In terms of iconography it is the central contention of this paper that the blinding of Harold was not intended t o be reportorial but rather was an invention by the artist to convey the main theme of the Tapestry: the English defeat being punishment by the saints of Bayeux and by God for f-IaroldYs perjury. Moreover, because of the charged meaning attached t o blinding in medieval art and thought, we have observed that by having Harold blinded the artist placed him in the company of sinners: the avaricious, the rash, the faithless. Finally, one cannot help but marvel at the ingenuity of the artist in creating a motif which, depending on how one was predisposed to understand it, flattered each of the interested parties involved in the Tapestry. Duke William and the official Norman propagandists could have seen confirmation of their principal claims to legitimacy in England: divine retribution on a perjurer and the just punishment for the blinding of Alfred. Bishop Odo and his cathedral city were credited with a divinely onlniscient reliquary that was instrumental in bringing about Harold's death. But most remarkably, the blinding of Harold could speak directly to the conflicting feelings of the defeated Anglo-Saxons who were caIIed upon t o create a monument to their own humiliation. Their defeat had been part of God's plan, just as had been the defeat of the Hebrews. Perhaps their release from captivity might also be part of that plan. If the relationship between Zedekiah and Nebuchadnezzar prefigured the feudal ties and the sacred covenant between Harold and William, perhaps the future of the English nation would resemble that of the Hebrew kingdom after seventy years in Babylonia. In the midst of their abject humiliation the English could find hope that their Babylonian captivity would end and their kingdom be restored.

In January, 1983, six months after this paper was delivered, the author was kindly permitted to examine the back of the Tapestry in the company of a team of textile experts under the supervision of Francois Mac6 de Lepinay, lnspecteur C6ndral des Monuments Historiques. My findings about the enigmatic stitch holes adjacent to the head of Harold B are, first, that there is no reason to regard them as merely traces of a repair to the linen ground. Secondly, whereas six holes are visible in photographs taken from the front. with magnification seventeen can be observed from the back, forming a straight line approxinlately the same length as arrows in the Tapestry and terminating t o the left of the axe handle in a pattern suggestive of a feather, though this point is uncertain due to compression af the linen ground at that spot. Thirdly, with regard t o the question of whether this was an original arrow or a restorer's invention, the size, spacing, and configuration of the holes, the discoloration of the surrounding Einen on the front and back, in conjunction with the iconographic importance of the arrow to the eye motif. lead this observer t o conclude that these holes are traces of an arrow embroidered in the eleventh century according t o the artist's programme. Additional data will no doubt be provided in the forthcoming publication of the Monuments Historiques.

MILITARY SERVICE IN NORMANDY BEFORE 1066

In the half-century that has elapsed since C. H. Haskins published his Norman Institutions a number of documents and studies relating to the subject of early Norinan military service have appeared. Few scholars who have looked closely at the subject would now accept the clear and persuasive hypothesis Haskins then put forward; indeed he himself, with his keen critical sense and respect for sources, would probably have been one of the f rst to wish to modify it, had he been writing at the present day. But because his views have crept in an over-simplified form into general histories, to be repeated and exaggerated, the whole question of possible changes after the Normans came to England has tended to become distorted by wrong assumptions about their earlier customs in Normandy. Haslcins looked at the feudal obligations of Norman abbeys and bishoprics in the 1172 returns and, starting from the fact that only tile older foundations (though not all the older foundations) owed such service, argued plausibly enough that fixed quotas must have been imposed in ducal Normandy, probably (in spite of the slight anomaly of Saint-Evroult, founded in 1050) at least as early as the reign of Robert the Magnificent.' He did not, in fact, explicitly argue that a11 the later accepted incidents of knight service - forty days a year at the vassal's own expense, castleguard, reliefs, aids, wardships - existed in their final fonn at so early a date. But others have certainly assumed that this was so. Henry Navel, for example, saw the obligations of feudal scrvicc as fixed and unchangeable over a long period; in discussing the vavassors of Le Mont-Saint-Michel he asserted that the military service owed to the abbey after it acquired certain properties c.1024 must have been imposed in its entirety by the duke at an earlier date, because 'we know how difficult it was for a lord to impose fresh services on a vassal at this period'; yet his proof consists of a case occurring in 1157, over a hundred years latere2 Even Powicke set the seal of approval on the general hypothesis when he wrote: 'Before 1066 the Norman dukes were able to regard their country as divided for the most part into a number of knights' fees. . . The grouping of warriors was symmetrical and was evidently imposed from a b ~ v e ' .And ~ as recently as 1979 Eric John alleged, in an article published in the k-nglislz Historical Review, that in pre-Conquest Normandy feudal service was limited t o forty days, offering as proof only that 'all the text-books tell us so'.4 It seems, then, that the time has come to look again with care both at the original hypothesis and at the assumptions that have been built upon it. Wrong assumptions, of course, are by no means universal. We have had for over 1

C. H . Ifaskins, Norman Institutions, Harvard Hisrctrical Studies, x\iv, 1925, 5-30,

2 H. Navel, 'Les vzvassories du Mont-Saint-Michel', Bulletin d e la Socidtd des Antiquaires de

Nonnandie, xlv, 1938, 149-51. 3 1%. M. Powickc, TheLossofNornwndy, 2nd edn I961,40. 4 Eric John, 'Edward thc Confessor and rhc Nornia~isuccc\srctt~',EHR,uciv, 1979, 241.67.

66

Anglo-Norman Studies V

twenty years now, in the edition of Marie Fauroux, a collection of early ducal chart e r ~ the , ~ need for which was emphasised by Haskins himself. Their evidence has not been overlooked: D. C. Douglas used it t o some p ~ r p o s e and , ~ so did Jean Yver. Yver, indeed, was most explicit in his address to the Spoleto conference in 1968: citing Douglas, he suggested that perhaps the Norman feudal and military system was developed only after the conquest of England, in imitation of the more logical order that William had been able t o impose in a conquered country. In support of this, he noted that the words feviunz, fevurn, feodum, feudum, do not appear t o become widespread in Normandy before the middle of the eleventh century, and that there is scarcely a mention of feudum rniliti*sor feudurn loricae except in charters that are suspect or at least tampered with later. In the ensuing discussion A. Marongiu added his complete agreement with what he called 'the important assumption, fundamental yet at the same time surprising' that in Normandy before the conquest there were no true fiefs.7 To many this may now seem obvious; but it is a point of departure forexamining the nature of what might for convenience be called pre-feudal military obligations in early eleventh-century Normandy, and attempting to reinterpret the evidence used by I-Iaskins. For Normandy was full of vassals and mailed knights; the basic fighting unit was in practice the conroi, usuaIly of some multiple of ten men; there were castles manned by vavassors and knights, and courts held by some lords for their vassals; from the 1040s sub-vassals even are beginning to be discernible. Yet there is no clear proof of any general system of military quotasimposed from above; or of an accepted norm for feudal services and obligations, legally enforceable on the initiative of either side in a superior ducal court - and this surely is a necessary corollary for any accepted general norm. It is at least arguable that the services owed were either relics of older. Carolingian obligations, or the outcome of individual life contracts between different lords and their vassals, and that their systematisation was the result only of the intense military activity of the period of the conquest, and the very slow development of a common Law in the century after it. In the pre- 1066 ducal charters collected by Marie Fauroux the word feudurn or one of its variants occurs half-a-dozen times: in one charter whose terminology has ; ~a notice actually written just been characterised as 'swspicious' by Jean Y ~ e r in after the conquest referring to a grant by bishop John of Avranches to his bishopric of certain lands together with the service of five knights (this is the first reference to the 'honour of Saint-Pl~ilbert');~ and four times in charters from the period 10501066, referring to single small 'fees' of land or churches or tithes held by laymen or canons of Nonnan magnates, not of the duke.1° One must, of course, be careful not to assume that the feudun?.itself is not there because the Ianguage has not yet caught up with it. The concepts familiar to the writers of charters were the precarial gift, the hcneficiutn, and the hereditary tenure, the akjdium; what is crucial is the date when - in Maitland's words - 'the herieficiurn 5 Marie E.'aumu~,Recueil des actes des ducs d e Normandie (PI 1-1 0661,196 t .

C. flouglas, WiIlium the Conqueror, London 1964,96-8. Jean Yver, 'Les premiker institutions ~ L duchkde I Normandie', INormannielaloroespansione in Europu nell'alto medioevo, Scttimane di studio dcl Centro itaiiano di studi sult'alto medioevo, xvi, Spoleto 1969, 334-7.591. 8 Yver, 335 n.84; Fauroui, no. 208. 9 Fauroux, nu. 229; for Saint-Philbert see below, p.73. lo Fauroux, nos. 120, 165, 183. 213. 6 D.

Military Service in Normandjp before 1066

67

and alodium met in the feodum'." Maitland, however, did not attempt t o put it before the mid-eleventh century, and Robert Carabie put it decidedly later.12 Both terms occur here and there in the early charters. Gilbert Crispin (1046-66)conveys t o the abbey of Jumieges the beneficium of Hauville, which he had obtained from his lord, the duke, by fighting for him.13 Gifts to Saint-Georges-de-Boscherville include six acres from 'the men who hold Anxtot as a benefi~iurn'.'~ Duke William himself, before 1040, grants - or restores - to F6camp a miscellany of lands and men: 'in the Cotentin one of my knights called Alfred with all his land, and another called Anschetil with his land, Bore1 and Mod01 with their whole alod . . . also Godebold the knight and all his brothers, with the whole of their alod, but not the beneficium which they hold in Le Talou and in the Pays de Caux'.'S In another early charter (I043 - 8) Roger I of Montgomery confirms a grant to Jumi6ges by Geoffrey, one of his vassals, of an alod which Geoffrey held in the viHage of Fontaines, 'for which he did service to me because that alod was within my sway'; in return for this the abbot and Geoffrey gave Roger of Montgomery a horse worth 30 livres and a hauberk worth 7 livres.16 The tenures, then, are loosely defined; the men are clearly visible. There are knights (milites and equites) and vavassors in plenty in these charters. In 1050-66 Roger of ClBres, with the consent of his lord Ralph of Tosny, grants Saint-Ouen various lands with their churches and tithes, reserving only the reliefs of the vavassors and one guard service a year.17 Ralph the Chamberlain grants Saint-Georges-deBoscherville everything he holds in Manneville, in church, lands or meadows, 'without the knights7.'$ Robert Bertram grants Saint-Ouen '40acres of land, and two peasants, and the tithe of his mares, and two knights, namely Goscelin and Osbern'.I9 Osbern dYEctot,on becoming a monk at Saint-Ouen, grants 'ten acres of meadow, and fisheries . . . and the churches and tithes of Ectot, and part of the wood, and seven knights at Grainville, and the vineyards of Giverny . . .'20 Other vavassorsand knights are granted, with and without land. At times one is reminded of passages in Domesday Book, where men commend themselves in different ways t o their lords, and the land may or may not go with them. There is no clear pattern; most of the grants are, naturally, to religious houses, in whose archives the records were preserved. Most refer to a single benefice, or perhaps t o a group of brothers holding an alodium. On the rare occasions when the term honor is used it is usually exactly equivalent to benefici~rn.~' Occasionally a larger unit is just discernible: the grant of Roger of Cl6res (1050-66) was witnessed by homines ipsius h ~ n o r i s And . ~ ~ on the eve of the conquest (1 063-6) Odo Stigand F. Pollock and F. W. Maitland, A History of English Law,2nd edn, Cambridge, 1968, i, 72. R. Carabie, La propfikte' fonciere duns Ee rr& ancien droit normand, Biblioth&qued'histoire du droit normand, Caen 1943,237-8. 13 I:auroux, no. 188. 14 'auroux, no. 197, p.383. 15 Fauroux, no. 94. 16 Fauroux, no. 113, '1s itaque Goisfredus alodtlm pussidebat In villa que dicitur Fontanas, et ~ n d emichi serviebat pro eo quod ipse alodug in mea ditione manebat'. Geoffrey had become a monk at Jumikgen with Roger's consent. 17 Fauroux, no. 191 (c.1050-1066). 18 Fauroux, no. 197, p.383. 19 Fauroux, no. 205 (1051-1066). 20 Fauroux, no. 210 (1055-1 066). 21 c.g. Fauroux, nos. 122, 197, 234 (a later charter containing details of earlier donations). 22 Faurouw, no. 191, 'homines etiam ipsius honoris . . . testes fuerunt'. 11 12

68

Angl(>NomzanStudies V

made a grant to Saint-Martin d7Ecajeul which the church was to hold 'as freely as his other vassals (burones),and as he had received his honor from the duke of the N o n n a n ~ ' Both . ~ ~ charters are evidence of the existence of large honours where subvassals had received grants of land. But they are not evidence of imposed quotas, or of stereotyped contracts. The language of the early Norman chroniclers implies the social structure one would expect from the charters. Dudo of Saint-Quentin twice goes into some detail on oaths of fealty. There is the famous agreement between Rollo and Charles the Bald at Saint-Clair-sur-Epte, confinned by mutual oaths, when Rollo is said t o have placed his hands between those of the king, and the king to have granted him the land between Epte and the sea 'in alodo et in fundo' - that is, 'as his patrimony, by hereditary tenure'.24 Whatever may have taken place in 911, this is likely to have been the relationship between duke and king which would have seemed appropriate in Dudo's day; the fealty implies vassalage on the Carolingian pattern, and it is still too early for any attempt to force it into a pattern of developed feudal homage. Dudo's description of the fealty sworn to young William Longsword belongs to the same world; the Breton count and the magnates of Normandy all swore fealty and vowed to fight for him against neighbouring peoples without further s p e c i f i c a t i ~ n . ~ ~ There is no convincing evidence that anything more precise was ever undertaken in the early years of the eleventh century, when Dudo wrote. The language of William of Poitiers and William of Juntieges, who both wrote a few years after the conquest, is only very slightly more feudal. WilIiam of Jumihges calls the county granted to William of Arques a beneficium,and uses the same term to describe two or three grants of castles by the duke.26 Mounted knights (milites) are particularly numerous in the long-term garrisons of castles. Neither writer ever calls anyone a vavassor; but William of Poitiers divides the milites into those of some standing (mediae nohilitatis) and the rank and file (greg~n'i);~'and William of Jumieges distinguishes between the n~ilitesand the stipendiarii in castle garrisons.28 If both were eiements in household troops, which is perfectly possible, the former were probably vassals or the sons of vassals, and the latter fighting men bound by a less formal oath, serving purely for wages. Neither writer ever suggests that military service was owed to the duke by any Norman abbey; and it is worth noting Incidentally that before 1066 there is no charter or chronicle evidence for the exaction of homage from any Norman abbot for the temporalities which might be granted by inve~titure.~~ On the other hand, the charters show that there were a number of knights settled on the lands of some of the older Norman abbeys, and that some kind of unspecified 2 3 Faurouu, no. 222.

x4 Dudo, 168-9. Carabie, 239, ctresccs that the meaning is most probably tenure with full hereditary right and not. as it has often been interpreted, full possession in contrast t o tenure in fee. 2 5 Dudo, 182. 2 6 Jumi&ges,119, $01. 27 Gesta Gui16elmi,237. 2 8 Jumi&ges, 140, 142. z9 There is one example from the year 1059 of the abbot of SaintJulien d e Tours kissing the duke7\ knee when hc received investiture cum baculo o f a property near Bavent,wl~ichhad becn granted to him. subject to the duke's permission, by one of theduke'sextled vassals. The complicated transaction is described in Eauroux, no. 142, But this concerns an isohted property, transferred by a vasral to an abbey outside Normandy,and even then theceremony isstightly archaic.

Military Service in Normandy before I066

69

service might be due to those abbeys; moreover a few references in later chronicles give some indication of the forms that service might take. Several monasteries, notably JumiBges, Saint-Wandrille and FBcamp, suffered considerable spoliation of their lands by their hereditary patron and protector, Duke Robert the Magnificent, who was anxious to make provision for his vassals during the years when military needs were pressing and his respect for the Church barely perfunctory.30 The years immediately after 1028 have been characterised as the years of the great usurpations. His later reconciliation with the Church involved a partial restoration of some of the plundered estates, and this continued during the minority of his son William. One of Robert's charters restoring Argences, HeudebouvilIe, Maromme and other territories to F6camp states that he had applied them to the uses of his militia - his military dependents. Among these dependents was one Haimo, who had been rewarded for his service with a grant of Ticheville, a property of Saint-Wandrille. In this case provision was made for Haimo to be compensated elsewhere when Ticheville was restored to the abbey.31 Sometimes intruding occupants remained on the land. When Richard restored to FBcamp the lands at Arques, Tourville and Saintigny, which made up a vicomt6, he stipulated that the abbot should grant the vicomtB to Goscelin son of Heddo, who had a claim t o it; and Goscelin subsequently distributed some of the lands t o his own men.32 It was always possible for the duke to retain some rights t o the service of his men in his acts of restitution. So there is a possible alternative to Haskins' hypothesis that military quotas must have been imposed early because they affected only the older abbeys. Only the older abbeys had held estates long enough for them to have been secularised and restored with sitting military tenants. And here the case of Saint-Evroult is particularly valuable. Though much of the evidence comes from the early twelfth century and is recorded in slightly anachronistic language, some facts can be checked against the abbey's re-foundation charters; and one crucial fact is that the act of I050 was a re-foundation. A Merovingian monastery had existed on the site, and though no traces of regular life and only ruined buildings remained, the ecclesiastical arigins of some of the secularised estates had not been forgotten. Some of those in the Hikmois had been absorbed by the vicomtes of the HiBmois and other lords, of whom Heugon was one. If Orderic's account of the early history of the patrons of his abbey is correct, Giroie, a vassal of William of Belleme, obtained properties in the region of Saint-Evroult by right of his deceased betrothed, a daughter of Heugon, with the consent of Duke Richard, round about 1026.33 Also, St Peter's church, which was part of the scattered monastic complex of the first abbey, was in the fee of Bocquenc6, and at some date before the restoration Baudry the German, who had come to Normandy to serve Duke Richard, was settled on it. The family tree is not entirely clear; but Baudry, one of Duke William's archers, possibly the son of the original Baudry, was settled there in 1050 with his brother Viger as a vassal of one of Giroie's grandsons, Arnold 30 See, for example, L. Musset, 'La vie C.conomiquc de I'abbaye d e FCcamp rous I'abbatiat de Jean de Ravenne (1028-1078)', L'Abbaye bt'nddicrine de Edcamp, Ouvrege scientifique du xiiie centenaire, FCcamp 1959-60, i, 78. 31 F. Lot, ktudes critiques sur I'abbtxye de Saint-Wandrille, Paris 1913, 61-2; the agreement was that the land was to be restored within three years even if liai~nohadnot been compensated within that time. 32 L. Musset, 'Acres inedits du ui%sii.clc', Bulletin de la SociPtP des Antiquaires de Nonnandie, lii, 1952-4.32-6. 33 Ordcric, i, 11-1 3; ii, 22-4, 34-6; iii, sv-sviii.

Anglo-Norman Studies V

70

of fichauffour, who gave the land to the new abbey. The brothers, according to Orderic, were unwilling t o accept the monks as their lords; and when Robert of Grandmesnil succeeded the gentle Thierry of Matlionville as abbot in 1059 he took effective action. He handed them back, apparently with their land, for life t o Arnold of hhauffour. Arnold, Orderic relates, piled all kinds of services on them, and forced them and their men to perform guard duties in his castles of Echauffour and SaintCBneri. As a result they begged the abbot t o take them back, and it was arranged that Baudry and his men and the land of BocquencBshould be restored t o the monks, who in return gave Arnold a magnificent war-horse they had just received from Engenulf of Laigle. Baudry did homage t o Abbot Robert, promised that he and his men would submit to the abbot's justice, and asked that 'his honour should never again be alienated from the lordship of the monks'. If Orderic gave the names correctly, the transfer of homage had not lasted long, for Abbot Robert was driven into exile only two years after taking office. 'To this day,'concIuded Orderic, writing in the early twelfth century, 'Baudry and his son Robert after him have done military service for the land of Bocquenct? t o the abbot alone.'34 Orderic may occasional1y have used technical terms more appropriate t o his own day than to the mid-eleventh century; but at least his story of the acquisition of Bocquencd and of Cullei (Rabodanges), the second of the abbey's later military fees, is entirely consistent with the foundation charters, which is more than can be said for some of the charters attributed to Henry I. According to the foundation charter, precisely cited by Orderic, Hugh of Grandmesnil gave Cullei to the monks 'at the request and with the consent of the lords of the vill, who held it as an alod (quonlrn alodium erat)".35 This means that they held it by hereditary tenure, and Orderic gives no further information about its later history. But one of the abbey's early charters describes how Samson of Cullei confirmed the gifts of his ancestors t o the monks, promising to give himself and all his possessions to the abbey at his death, and received in return a horse from Abbot Roger of Le Sap (1091-1 123).36 Two royaI charters of doubtful authenticity carry on the story, progressively converting the tenure of Cullei into a stereotyped knight's fee. The more reliable of Henry 1's charters on the subject confirms the grant of Cullei by the abbot and monks to Nigel of Aubigny, t o hold of them in fee and inheritance, on condition that he perform at their summons and on their behalf the service of one knight, which was owed for it.37 There are already some doubtful features in the wording of this charter, and the alleged confirmation charter of 1128 contains some even more suspicious passages. Haskins judiciously observed that 'there are some difficulties with regard to it'. As it stands in the version printed in Gallia Christiarza allegedly from a lost original, it runs:

I grant also to them the whole vill of Culfei . . . by gift of . . . Robert and Hugh of Grandmesnil, which is one knight's fee; and another knight's fee of Orderic, ii, 80-5. 35 Orderic, ii* 32, Terram uero de Cueleio dedit Hugo petentibus sponte dominis eiusdem

uillae, quorum alodium erat'. CuIlei is now Rabodanpes. 36 Orderici VitalisEcclesiasticlle Historiae libri tredecim, ed. A . Le PrBvost, Soci6t6 de l'kiistoire de France, 1838-55, v, 193-4. 3' Le Prbvost, v, 200-1 ; Regest~,ii, no. 1595. The charter survives in the thirteenth-century certulary of Saint-Evroult, and there are some suspicious features in the wording, especialIy in the witness clause beginninp, 'Testibus me ipso . . .', In its present form it may bea later recording of a grant made orally to N~gel.The date i s not later than 29 Juiy, 1129.

71

Military Service ia Normandy before I066

the gift of William Giroie, which is between Touquettes and the vill of Vitlers and is called RocquencB, of the fee of Montreuil; and which my father William (with the consent of Thierry the first abbot . . . and Robert and Hugh of Grandmesnil and William Giroie their uncle, the founders of the abbey) constituted a barony for the service of him and his heirs in all his expeditions throughaut Normandy, in such a way that Richard of Cullei and Baudry son of Nicholas, the knights to whom Abbot Tliierry gave these two knight's fees in inheritance to hold of him, with the assent of my father William, shall be obliged to perform this service, each one for his fee with horses and arms at his own expense, and his heirs after him, whenever the abbot of Saint-Evroult is summoned by me, and they by the abbot.38 If the language of the charter for Nigel of Aubigny is to some extent that of Henry I towards the end of his reign, this is the Ianguage of the reign of Henry 11. Neither is the language of 1050, though some of the facts recorded are near enough t o the truth to have deceived Haskins. Yet the second charter is quite incompatible with what Orderic had to say about the transfer of Raudry's service to Arnold of Bchauffour in the time of Abbot Robert. And if we may accept that Orderic'sundertaking to write the history of his abbey received impetus from Henry I's visit to Saint-Evroult at Candlemas, 11 13, when the monks sought confirmation of their properties and privilege^,^^ then his history is likely to contain as true an account of conditions up to that date as he could ascertain from sources then in existence. The cartulary copies of the foundation charters of Saint-Evroult have certainly been tampered with; the election cIauses were interpolated at a later date, probably in O process of interpolating Henry 1's later charters may have begun the 1 1 3 0 ~ . ~The at the same time and continued into the reign of his grandson, to bring them into tine with what was becoming customary. If the history allegedly recorded in these later, suspicious charters, was true and not interpolated history. why had Orderic nothing to say about it? And why did he say that Raudry of BocquencB fought only for the abbey? Haskins' interpretation of the more probable truths in these documents is not the only one that fits the few known facts. In 1050. when Saint-Evroult was founded in a marcher region where war was endemic. knights and vavassors were fairly numerous on lands that came into the possession of the abbey. The lords of Bocquence had certainly been military dependants of the duke; the same may have been true of the lords of Cullei, who had come to hold the land alodially under the Grandmesnil. The abbey undoubtedly had its own knights. When William Giroie, old and blind, went to visit his kinsmen En south Italy to collect gifts for the abbey he was accompanied by a dozen of the abbey's knights, who gave him escort. He himself and all but two of the knights died of the fevers of tta1y;when one of the two su~ivorsmisappropriatedthe abbey's wealth entrusted t o his care he was brought to justice in the abbot's court and condemned to forfeit his land until he made amendsjl If the abbot did not need knights for castle-guard, he needed them for his own protection, and particularly for escort service. Land could be given and service retained; it is possible that the dukes still had a claim to service from one or two of the knightsof Saint-Evroult from an earlier v

38 Hsskins, 1 1-14; Gallia Christiaw, xi, instr. 2044 0. 39 See Orderic, i, 32.

4 O Orderic, i, 66-75. 41 Orderic, ii, 58-65.

72

Angh-hrman Studies V

period of vassalage. Baudry of BocquencC had been the duke's archer. We know nothing of Richard of Cullei, but Samson of Cullei may have been his son; the gift of a horse and the provision for the reversion of the land, suggests that he may have been a knight who was allowed t o hold the property from the abbey forhislifethe, and was equipped to serve the abbot. Though there is no evidence of service being exacted on behalf of the duke when the land was given, ducal claims may have remained dormant and finally been satisfied in the course of the next century by the progressively more feudal arrangements recorded in interpolated royal charters and in the returns for 1172. By that time Saint-Evroult was recognised as a barony, owing the service of two knights: and in the registers of Philip Augustus they were ~~ the arrangements charged against the fees of Cullei and B o ~ q u e n c B .Whether crystallised before the death of William I or - as I think more likely - in the late 1120s or 1130s, they cannot have existed with anything like their final precision before tlte Norman conquest. Military service, though variable at all levels, weighed more heavily on fay vassals and even on bishops than on any of the abbeys. These men, in any case, kept up substantial military households for their own protection; and though Duke William aimed at keeping as many of the castles of the duchy as possible in his own demesne under castellans appointed by him, a number of castles - especially in the marcher regions - fell into private hands and remained there.43 I have already mentioned that Arnold of Echauffour held castles at Echauffour and Saint-CBneri; and there were others in this region at Pont-Echanfray and Moulins-la-Marche, where the duke attempted to assert his authority with only partial success. Some vassals were certainly forced into service in these castles, thougli hired knights provided some of the garrisons, together with a good stiffening of the ch;itelain's own brothers and sons.44 Any evidence that the duke exacted a minimum period of service is sadly lacking; service was governed by need, and household troops and more casual mercenaries were both prominent. Much has been made of Orderic's statement that Guy, count of Ponthieu, was only released from prison after his capture at Mortemer in 1054 on condition that he did homage and promised to give the duke military service every year at his command. with a hundred knights.45 But even if the figure is correct, the transaction reads more like a treaty of peace and alliance with a neighbouring lord than a record of the normal relations of the duke with his Norman vassals. That knights would tend to become organised in groups of five or ten was, in the long run, inevitable; it was a fact of military tactics. Chroniclers' accounts of battles in this period were vitiated because they used a language that had been perfected t o describe infantry engagements, and was not really adapted to cavalry warfare. They write of Iines, columns, squadrons, wedges and so forth with a fine variety of phrase; but not until the vernacular became the language of narrative does the cotzroi clearly emerge fronl the classical verbiage.46 Mounted knights were trained as far as possible 4 2 7ke Red Book of the Exchequer, ed. Flubert Hall, R S 1896, ii, 626; Haskins, Norman Institutions, 12. 43 See J. Y ver. 'Les chlteau\ forts en Normandie', Bulletin de la Socihtk des Antiquaires de Nonnandie, liii, 1 9 5 5 - 6 , 4 2 4 3 for a discussion of castles in the reign o,f William the Conqueror. 44 See, for aantple. Gesta GuiZleZmi, 54, the case o f Arnold o f Cchauffour, above, p.00; lzaurouu, no. 1 1 7. 4 5 Orderic, iv, 88-9. 46 See Orderic, i, 104: J. 1'. Verbruggen, The Art of Warfare in Western Europe during the .+fiddleAges, trans. Sumner Willard and S. C. 21. Southern, Amsterdam, 1977, 16-1 7.

Miliraty Service in Norman& before 1066

73

in small groups of five or ten, combined in larger units under their rnagistrr'rnilituin.47 A number of explanations might be offered for Orderic's statement that,when William fitzosbern (as regent of Normandy) was summoned to accompany King Miilip of France in the disastrous expedition of f 071 against Robert the Frisian, he rode off gaily with only ten knights as though he were going to a t o ~ r n a m e n t i.t~may ~ mean that ten was the fixed quota obligation owed by the duke of Normandy to the king of France; but alternatively it may mean that ten was the nlinirnum team that a knight of substance would put into the field for a tournament. Charles the Good, count of Flanders, who could have mustered many vassals with their contingents, was said by Galbert of Bruges to keep his knights in training by engaging in tournaments in Normandy or France, with 200 knights.49 On the eve of the conquest, or just after, we find the first charter reference t o a fief on which five knights were settled, so that the tenurial corresponded with tlie tactical unit. The place is a charter of Duke William for the church of Avranches, recording a complicated family transaction by which John, bishop of Avranches, arranged for the transfer to his bishopric after his death of part of his own personal i n h e r i t a n c ~ .The ~ ~ Norman episcopate (with the solitary exception of the see of Rouen) was filied at this date with members of the highest Norman aristocracy, who were prepared to use their family lands to provide for the needs of their sees, and whose reconstruction of their bishoprics - as the history of Geoffrey of Coutances and Odo of Bayeux abundantly illustrates - was as military as it was p a s t ~ r a l . ~John ' of Avranches had made a gift of half his territory of Vi&vre(now Saint-Philbert); his nephew Robert contested this, and was finally bought off by the payment of ten pounds; the commendation of five knights to the bishop was allowed, with the stipulation that after the death of Bishop John the knights should hold their land as a fee of the bishop of Avranchcs. In 1 172 the bishop of Avranches owed the duke of Normandy the service of five knights from the honour of Saint-Pliilbert; and it is very likely that a protliise of service may have been made c. 1066 when the gift wasconfirmed and recorded. At this date military needs were particularly pressing; it was necessary for the duke to know the military resources available both for his expedition and for the defence of the duchy he was Ieaving behind. The commendation of knights settled on the lands of laymen to a prince of the church would be more acceptable if their swords would remain available for the needs of the duke no less than those of the bishop. I would suggest that it is only at this date, in the thick of the preparations for the great expedition to England, that the widespread obligations of vassalage began t o be more clearly systernatised as obligations to provide at least a minimum contingent for the ducal armies in Normandy. If the lands of knights had passed into the possession of the Church the men might still be held to a duty of serving the duke. and the responsibility for producing them could be put upon their lord. 47 J. F. Verbruggen, 'La tactique des ar~ntterdc chevaliers', Revue du Nord. uxix, J 947, 163-4, cites examples of groups of 30 or 4 0 combdttants, though the size of the conroi might vary. 48 Orderic, ii, 282. 49 Galbert of Bruges, 77ze W d e r of CharIes the Good, trans. Je~nesBrt~ceRoss, New York/ Evanston/London 1967, ch. 4. 50 Fauroux, no. 229. 51 See D. C. Douglas, 'The Norman episcopate before the Norman Conquest', Cambridge Historicat Journal, uiii. 101-1 5 : J, Lc Patourel, 'Geoffrey of Montbr;ty, bishop of Coutances i 049-1093', EHR, lis, 1944, I 29-61; David R , Rates. 'The character and career of Odo, hishop of Bayeuv (1049/50-1097)', Speculum, f , 1975,I-20.

74

Anglo-Nomzan Srztdies V

The relation of these commended knights to their land is a very complex one. A great deal of the land of Normandy was held by hereditary tenure, and was regarded as an inalienable patrimony; but many of the holders were vassals, and benefices were for life.52 This apparent contradiction can be explained by the facts that benefices were granted for past service; that a feudal vassal might occasionally be moved from one benefice to another; and that any inheritance, whilst passing by customary family law (a law that was slowly crystallising into parage), wouId not necessarily give the best share to the man most capable of bearing Once Iordship and feudal service became so important that the lord's influence on the choice of an heir among the kindred became greater than the influence of the kindred, the benefice and alod could be said to have met in the fief. There is a twilight period when the process of determining the heir, and the nature of his claim to any particular fief, were matters of custom, not of right. In early ducal Normandy the kindred of a minor sometimes acted as guardian; only gradually did the lord assume this function.54 Henry I, winning the support of his vassals of Norman birth by his coronation charter, would scarcely have agreed that the children of widows should be in the guardianship of their mother or another refative unless this had still been customary in Normandy no less than in England as late as 1 But his practice of taking money from the chosen guardian shows that the lord's right was making headway.56 Hereditary right was rooted in the patrimony, andin time thiscombined with military needs to produce feudal customs. And it was only when feudal custom became feudal law that the lawful incidents could be defined with precision. There is no clear evidence of the amount of feudal service that would have been regarded as reasonable in early ducal Normandy; if any theories had existed they would have been tempered by the harsh necessities of a struggle for survival and the lure of the spoils of war. Orderic has a story of how, during King William's difficult campaigns in Yorkshire and the West Midlands in the winter of 1069-70, the men of Anjou, Brittany and Maine complained and wished to go home. The king made no concessions; and when the army was disbanded at Salisbury and the men had received their rewards he kept back those who had wished to desert, and made them . ~Orderic ~ took all his facts from William serve an extra forty days as a p u n i ~ h r n e n t If of Poitiers, this would be a nearly contemporary tradition; but although the passage s 2 The complexities of the situation arc well illustrated in the VTta Herluiniot Gilbert Crispin, which describes how, after Herluin had withdrawn from Count Gilbert's service and forfeited what he held of the count, he still had twenty knights among his own men. See 5. Armitage Robinson, Gilbert Ofspin, Abbot o f Westminster, Cambridge 191 I , 87-90, and the discussion by Christapher Harper-Rill, 'Herluin, abbot of Bec, and hic biographer', Studiesin ChurchHistory, ed. Derek Baker, sv, 1978, 15-16. 5 3 See R. GPnBstal, Le parage n o m n d , Caen 19f 1; John Le Patourel, 77ze Nonnan Empire, Oxford 1976,264. J . Yvcr, kga~it&entreh&ntierset exclusiondesenfantsdos Wris 1966,106ff. has described the rapid crystdllisation of custom in Normandy before the end of the eleventh century, even though rules of law were not forn~ulateduntil the twelfth. s4 R. GPnkstal, IA futelle, Caen 1930, however, considers that in Norman custom the ford had rights of wardship earlier than in French custom, and that in any case the rights of the duke were more extenswe than those of another feudal lord. 5 5 William Stubby, Select Charters, 9th cdn, Oxford 1921, 118, '12 terrae et liberorum custos erit sive uvor sive alius propinquorum qui justius etse debehit'. 5 6 Henry 1's dealing with the four orphan children of Walter of Auffay shows how the rights of lord and kindred were kept in balance; he entrusted the wardship to the boys' uncle, who paid for the privilege. Orderic, iii, 258-61. 57 Orderic, ii, 234-7.

Military Service in Normandy hefiore 1066

75

has some statements in common with the Liber Eliensis which also used the lost text of William of Poitiers for these campaigns, the figure of forty days is peculiar t o Orderic; and he wrote in the middle of I-lenry 1's reign, when forty days service was an accepted norm for many vassals.58 In any case, the men were malcontents from outside the duchy, not Normans. The implication seems to be that those who served under the ducal banner might expect t o serve as long as they were needed, or take the consequences. For loyal service the rewards might be great. As for the other obligations, they seem t o have depended on individual contracts and to have been variable, both before the conquest and for some time afterwards; some indeed were never standardised. Baudry of Rocquenck had to meet different demands for castle guard from his two lords. The first aid 'pour fille marier' taken by a Norman king in England was Henry 1's aid for his daughter Matilda's marriage in 1109, and it was assessed on the hide, not the fee; there is no evidence that it was collected in Normandy.S9 As late as I133 the Bayeux Inquest produced a statement on the obligations of the bishop's The bisftop was entitled to receive from the fief of each knight a relief consisting of a hauberk and stirrup, or fifteen Iivres; each knight in addition owed an aid of 20s. if the bishop had to go t o Rome on the business of his church, and an aid of an unspecified amount for rebuilding the cathedral church if necessary, or rebuilding the houses of the city ifthey were burnt. These obligations were clearly tailor-made for the bishopric, and were different from those appropriate for a lay lord with daughters to marry or sons to knight. They may very well have been fixed during the period when Odo was most active in building up the wealth and strength of his bishopric some time in the later part of the reign of William I. The duty of support if he went to Rome on the business of his church does not seem realistic before the 1070s at the earliest; although any Norman might undertake a south Italian adventure under guise of pilgrimage in the early eleventh century, constant recourse to Rome on ecclesiastical business was not a characteristic of the Norman church until considerably later, when reform began to bite. When Odo was arrested in 1082 he was accused of trying to take knights to Rome to further his awn ambitions, but that was hardly the business o r the see.61 On the other hand some of the obligations might have been found in other lordships; the relief of fifteen livres in silver, which ultimately became standard in Normandy and remained so for a considerable period, may already have been customary in many honours.62 Whatever the terms of individual contracts, feudal obligations were enforceable 58 As late as 1172, however, there arc indications that the length of service was not entirety uniform; see The Red Book oftIteExchequer, ii, 643, 'De honore cornitis Mortonii per Ricardum Sllviinum, uxix milites et dimidium et octavam partem; ad servitium Regis, per nlanus Cotnitis, ad marchiam per ul dies ad custum eorum, deinceps ad custum K c ~ i svcl Comitis. lit Comiti serviebant prout debebant'. 59 Huntingdon, 237, 'Rcu cepit ab unitquay uc h ~ d aAngliae iii so1idos':ASC E,sub unno 1110, 'This was a very severe year in this country because o f t a w s thnt the king took for the marriage o f his daughter'. Various churchmen, includ~ngthe bishops of Lincoln and Norwich, the abbots of Rattle and Abingdon and the prior of Spalding, secured writs stating that this aid was not to impair the exempttons granted to same of thcir Innds, or introduce new customs (Regesta, ii, nos. 9 4 2 , 9 4 6 , 9 5 9 , 9 6 3 , 9 6 4 , 9 6 8 ) . 60 Anti~uuscarhnlarius ecclesrhe Baiocensis, ed. V. Bour~enne,SociCt6 de 1'1-listoire normande, 190~-3,i9. Degestis regum, ii, 334; Orderic, iv, 40; Liber monosterii de Iliyda, ed. E. Edwards, R S 1866, 296. 62 H. Navel, 'L'enquEtc d e t 133 sur tes fiefs d e I'4vZch6 de Bayeils', Bulletin de la Socidte! des Antiquaires de Normandie, xlii, 1935, 57.

76

Anglo-Norman Studies V

in honorial courts. There seems little doubt that such courts existed in ducal Normandy before 1066, though it is not easy to separate formaljudicial proceedings from general business. The court was a place for the meeting of lords and vassals for various activities, including knightly sports and the discussion ofmatters of common interest. Witness lists of charters indicate that grants were sometimes made in such a s ~ e m b l i e s Chroniclers .~~ writing in the first generation after the conquest certainly believed that pleas were heard and judgements enforced in them. Gilbert Crispin's Vita Herlui~tidescribes a debate on whether Herluin should have been deprived of his lands for failure to carry out a mission on behalf of his lord, Count Gilbert of Brionne, and implies that it took place in the lord's court.64 Somewhat later, Orderic recorded proceedings in the court of Saint-EvrouIt, allegedly in the time of the first two abbots. The knight Anquetil of Noyer, who had misappropriated the treasures he was supposed to carry back from Italy, was summoned to judgement in thecourt of Saint-Evroult and condemned to lose what Orderic, in the language of 11 20, calls 'the whole fief he held from Saint-Evroult', but which appears t o have included a third of the bourg of Saint-Evroult which he held as his inheritance from his father.6s Orderic (nay be less than clear on the precise legal condition of Anquetil's land, and like Gilbert Crispin he may have read back into the earlier period the more formal procedures of his own day. But it is diffictrlt to doubt theexistence andcompetence of the courts whose proceedings both chroniclers described. Much is obscure in the history of honorial courts in the eleventh century; and the diffuculties of interpreting the evidence continue well into the twelfth. Charters no less than chronicles used anachronistic language, and were themselves liable to later interpolation. The cartulary copy of Henry I's charter to Saint-Evroult, confinning the grant to Nigel of Aubigny of Cullei to hold in fee of the abbey, contains detailed arrangements about jurisdiction in these words: 'In order to secure the relief of the land and the royal services or dues granted to the abbey of Saint-Evroult by me or my heirs, the abbot and tnonks shall have the right of exercising jurisdiction in that vill as often as they find necessary ;and if Nigel or his heirs at tempt to impose any customs on the knights or other men of the vill beyond those which of right are owed to the abbot and monks of Saint-Evroult, and if the men bring any pleaarising out of this, the abbot and monks shall bring him to justice in that vill until suitable penalties have been exacted; similarly for all forfeitures and other penalties which Nigel may incur against the monks.' I have shown that there are suspicious features in the wording of this charter, parts of which may even have been interpolated after the reign of Henry But, taking it together with Orderic's narrative, we may safely concludc that the monks of Saint-Evroult were exercising jurisdiction as a matter of course over their vassals in the third decade of the twelfth century, and that they had held a court of some kind to deal with failure to perform service even before 1066, in the lifetinte of the first abbot. Moreover, anachronistic language shows the way in which feudal law was developing, and may indicate the realities that had underlain earlier customs. The development was slow. But as the duke came t o have a defined interest in the military obligations of his sub-vassals, the workings of the honorial courts became a matter of direct concern to him. To a certain extent it is true, as Professor Milsom has clearly 6 3 t'auroux, no. 191. 64 Arrnitilge Robinson, 90.

6s Orderic, ii, 62-5. 66 Le Prdvost, v, 200-1. and \ee above, p . 7 0

11.37.

Military Sewice in Norma~zdyhefore 1066

77

demonstrated, that the feudal courts were a law unto themselves; there was at first no regular procedure of appeal from them to a higher court.67 Nevertlleless the ducal power was held in reserve, and might, in the course of time, intervene and guarantee the smooth workings of the honorial courts. By the end of I-tenry 1's reign feudal service, with all its incidents, was becoming precisely defined, and custom was hardening into law. As a consequence of this, the residual power of the ducal court soon became a reality for enforcing customary law. But this is a far cry from the tangle of incipient feudal customs, partly built up from below, that had existed in Normandy during the period before William the Bastard became Wiiliani the Conqueror of EngIand.

67 1;. M. Stcnton, me First Century of EngtisEz Feurlalism, 2nd edn, ch. 2; S. I:. C . Milsorn, The I,eMFrarnework of EngIish Feudalism, Cambridge t 976, especiatly 183-6.

ENGLAND AND BYZANTIUM ON THE EVE OF THE NORMAN CONQUEST (THE REIGN OF EDWARD THE CONFESSOR) Krijnie Ciggaar At this same conference, in 1978, John Godfrey said in his paper on Anglo-Saxon refugees t o Byzantium that 'towards the close of the preConquest period there is evidence that some departments of English life were influenced by Byzantiurn'.' This most intriguing remark, given without further references, has prompted me t o searcll for evidence in the two leading articles on relations between Engtand and Byzantium in the tenth and eleventh centuries: R. S. Lopez, 'Le prubl6me des relations anglo-byzantines du septieme au dixieme ~ii?cle'~ and A. A. Vasiliev, 'The opening Stages of the Anglo-Saxon Immigration to Byzantium in the Eleventh C e n t ~ r y ' . ~ Neither article proved to be very revealing. Lopez' article, as was to be expected, does not deal with king Edward's reign. Vasiliev starts his study after the crucial year 1066; we will see that his hypotflesis about the beginning of thismigrationmay be wrong. The year 1066 was also the starting-point for V. Laurent in a more recent arti~le.~ It is worth investigating the period preceding the Norman invasion, that is the reign of king Edward the Confessor (104213-1066), t o see if traditions we assumed to have started after duke William's coming to the British Isles, may not belong t o an earlier period. In this article I will try t~ review indications of contact between the Byzantine empire and Anglo-Saxon England during king Edward's reign. Some of these indications were neglected by earlier scholars, some did not receive sufficient attention. The reader, however, will be offered more questions than answers, more suggestions than conclusions. f hope that historians, art historians, archaeologists and other people interested may be stimulated to keep an eye open for anything that may contribute to a better understanding of the relations between East and West in the period mentioned. So far only K. M. Dawkins, D. M. Nicol and Constance Head have explicitly I am very grateful to the Socictp of Antiquariea, London, for sending me material not avaihble in the Netherlands. J. Godfrey, 'The Defeated Anglo-Saxons take Service with the Eastern Emperorl,ante, i, 66. Did he have in mind the gold Harald Hardrada amassed in the E,ast when serving as a Varangian, Annalists S a w , MGH, VIII, vi, 695? Cf. Adam of Bremen, Gesta ffammaburge~zsisecclesiae ponfificum, ed. R. Schmeidler, MCH, 3rd edn. 191 7 . rcholium $3 {84), 196, who says that the gotd fell into the hand%of iVilliam the Conqueror. 2 Byzantion, 18,1948,139-62. 3 Annales de I Ynstitut Kondakov, 9,1937,39-70. 4 'Bytance et 1'Angleterre au lendelnain dc la Conqudte normande', The Numismatic Circular, 1963,93-6.

England and Byzantium on thc Eve ofthe Norman Conquest

79

referred to connections with the East during the reign of E d ~ a r d Dawkins .~ seems to take for granted that relations between the Greek and Anglo-Saxon courts existed: From a curious story told by William of Malmesbury we know that earlier than this, even before the Conquest, there were connections between England and Constantinople. King Edward the Confessor, we are told, had a prophetic dream about the Seven Sleepers of Ephesus, in which he had seen them turn from their right on t o their left sides, and so to remain for seventy-four years. He sent to the Greek emperor to inquire into the matter. The king, says the Saga of the Confessor, made a prophecy that they would remain in their new position for eighty-four years and that all this time the world would be beset by apocalyptic terrors. The Saga goes on to say that the Emperor received the English envoys welt, and sent them back after verifying at Ephesus that the Sleepers had in fact turned over and were sleeping on their left sides. l-ie also sent the king relics of the S i e e p e r ~ . ~ Dawkins refers to a passage in the De Gestis Regum of William of Malmesbury where we read

. . . His auditis, comes militem, episcopus clericum, abbas n~onachum,ad veritatem verborum exsculpendam, Manicheti Constantinopolitano imperatori misere, adjectis regis sui Iitteris et muneribus . . .7 His second source is the Icelandic Saga of Edward the C o n f e s ~ o r . ~ D. M. Nicol on the other hand mentions, apart from the Re Gestis Regum, the L(fe of king Edward where the tale occurs in a more elaborate form. Nicol seems less convinced of the veracity of events told in this story There seems t o be Iittle evidence of official diplomatic exchanges between the Anglo-Saxon kings of England and the Emperors of Constantinople. Rut one curious tale is told about King Edward the Confessor, who died in 1066. The English chronicles record that Edward sent ambassadors to the Emperor in Constantinople to enquire about a dream that h e had had . . . We arc told that 5 B. Ebels-Hoving, Byzantium in Westerse ogen, 1096-1204, Assen t 97 1, 106, and J. P. A. van de Vin, Travellers to Greece and Constantinople, Leiden 1980, 156, di$miss the passage in the De gestis regum as 'fairylike' and 'doubtful', without considering relations between Britain and Byzantium. Mrs Ebels ignores the tact that Willtanl borrowed from another source; van de Vin wrongly speaks in the plural form (3ourneys (sic) to Asia Minor of a number of Englishmen under Edward the Confessor'). 6 R. M. Dawkins, 'The Later History of the Varangian Guard: Some Notes', Journal of Roman Studies, 37, 1947,40. 7 De gestis Regum, i, 275. The envoy3 were not sent by the king as suggested by Dawkins. 8 G. V i ~ f u s o n Icelandic , Sagas, RS, 88, i, 1887, 388-400 (English transl. G. W. Dasent, RS, 88, iii, 1894, 4 16-28); C. R. Unger and G. Vigfusson, Flateyjarbdk, iii, Christiania 1868,46372. Cf. 0. Widding, 1-i. Bekker-Nielsen and L. K. Shook, 'The Live5 ot the Sainta in Old Norse Prose, 3 Handfi~t',Mediaeval Studies, 25, 1963, 308-9. See dlso C . Fell, 'The Icehndic Saga of Edward the Conf'essor: the hagrographic sources', Anglo-Saxon England, 1 , 1972, 247-58; eadem, 'Thc Icebndic Saga of Fdward the Confewor: its version of the Anglo-Saxon emigration to Byzantium', Anglo-Saxon England, 3, t974, 179 -96; eadem, 'English History and Norman Legend in the lceland~eSaga of Edward the Confe~s~',Anglo-Saxon England, 6, 1977, 223-36; L. Rogers, 'Anglo-Saxon\ and Icelanders at Byzantium. With special reference t o the Icelandic Saga of S t Edward the Confessor', Byzantine Papers (Byzantim Australiensia), Canberra 1 981, 82-9. An Icelandic poem on Edward has beenlost, cf. J.dcVrics. AlmordischeLiteraturgeschichte, Berlin 1 9 6 7 ~i,, 277.

80

Atzglo-Norman Studies V the Emperor received the English envoys with kindness and sent them on t o Ephesus t o make investigations. They then returned to England t o report t o King Edward that the Seven Sleepers had in fact turned over. . .9

Constance Head is more positive about the arrival of an English delegation at the Byzantine court, in the nleantirne leaving t o king Edward the privilege of his dream While it is easy to disniiss the whole story as fantasy, it is also conceivable given the thinking of the times, that the Byzantine Emperor actually received such envoys and that ttteir glimpse of the holy relics in Ephesus was prompted by tactful diplon~acy.'~ F. Barlow, the editor of the anonymous Vita Eadwardi and author of the monograph on Edward the Confessor, simply denies the existence of any diplomatic relations saying that 'there is no evidence for official contacts in the eleventh century'.11 It is evident that tlie three texts referred to so far, are no strong evidence oflasting diplomatic relations between the Anglo-Saxon and Byzantine courts. We have t o turn elsewhere to find proof or material to confirm such relations. But first we have to take a closer look at the Iegerld of the Seven Sleepers in order to detect some indications of historicity. The legend became popular in England and occurs in later historical sources and in the Old French and Old English versions of king Edward's I,ife.12 The journey of the envoys to the Greek emperor was even depicted in Westminster Abbey in the later Middle Ages, in the fifteenth century.I3 The Miracle itself, that is the scene of the Seven Young Men, found its way into several miniatures.14 One of the curious elements of the tale is the ignorance of Edward's party of the Miracle of Ephesus, whereas the king was familiar with it. Had he been informed about this mysterious event in his dream? And what is in a dream? Iiow can we ever solve the problem of prophecies, visions and dreams? Were king Edward's guests really so ignorant or was it part of the storyteller's technique to enhance his tale? Long before Edward's reign the legend of the Seven Sleepers was known in England. lS D. M, Nicol, 'Hqzant~umand England', Balkarz Studies, 15, 1974, 183, who refers to thc Vita Eadwavdi, ed. and transl. I-. Barlow, 67-71. Darlow reetl~tedand translated the Miracle from the Vita by O ~ b e r tof Clare (1 138) (cf. M. Hloch, 'La Vie de S. Edouard le Confessekrr par Osbert d e Clarc',Amlecta Bollandiam, 41, 1923.98-103) because BL, MS Harleian 526 isdefectivc here. C. Head, 'Alexios Komneno\ and the Englith', Byzantion, 47, 1977,187. Vita Eadwardi, 69, n. 1 . l2 E.g. tligden,Palychronicon, ed. J . Rauson Lumby, RS 1879, 218F. (the Greek emperor is called Nicetus): Vincent of Beauvais, Speculum Historiale, Douai 1624 (repr. Graz 19651, Book 25, ch. xx. 13 A. P. Stanley, Historical Memorials of Westminsterdbbey, London 1876,26, n.5, and 52930, mentions the screen; M. H uber, Die Wandertegende von den Sieben Schltifm, Leipzip, 19 10, 147, 154, a relief and a glass n ~ n d o w .Cf. L. E. Tanner, 'Some Representations of St Edward the Confenor in \Vestminster Abbey and elsewhere',Journ. BAA. 3rd ser. xv, 1952, 1-12. l4 In Fngtand PRO E 361284, 13th century f l . Barlou, Edward the Confessor, 1,ondon 1970, pi. 15b): Cambr~dgeUL, h1S Lc 3, 59, f.46, t 3th century (M. R. .lame\, St Edward, London 1920,54, pI.46); B L MS Add. 19352, i.3bV,1066, a Greek psalrer that can hardly havcreached England in the I l t h century. Other examples are Vattean Llbrary, MS gr. 1613, Menologron of Basilius It, t 1000, f. 133 (A. Grabar. Byzanz, Raden-Baden 1964, 155) and a Slcilian MS of the 14th ccntury In the Natrvnd\ and University t ~ b m r y T . u r ~ n(C. I ass, EphesusafterAntiquity:a late Antique, Byzantineand Turkish City, Cambridge 1979, 42, fig. 10). The Index of dlrrisfim Art, Princeton/Utrecht, is not complete. Aelfpic's Lives of the Saints, ed. W.W. Skeat, h r l y Engtish Text Society, 76, London 1881, i, 488-541; The Homilies of Aelfric, cd. B. Thorpe. London, ii, 1846, 424-7; cf. Iluber, 155.

England and Bj~zantiumon the h-l):i,eof the Norman Conquest

81

Dedications of churches t o these saints, however. do not exist in England, nor have 1 found any trace of the relics of the Young Men in England, although Dawkins says that the Greek emperor sent such relics to his English c ~ l l e a g u e On . ~ ~the other hand it is not exceptional that a party of Englishmen should have visited Ephesus which was on the land route to Jerusalem.17 The story goes that Edward, from a book he had received from his father, used to read stories (was he literate?) to his court at Easter time. In this book the story1 saga of seven holy men was also written; it is tempting to see in them the Seven Sleepers of Ephesus.18 F. Barlow has successfully tried to determine the place of this miracle in the tradition of the Life of the king, and to detect historical elements in the tale. He also published an unknown version of the story, the so-called 'Florence version'.19 According to his view the legend existed before 1100 in an 'unknown abbey' and was expanded and revised in later times. In his opinion the legend 'hangs badly together' and the 'piece has been unskiIfully put together from a the saint's legend, b a recollection of Georg Maniaces, and c two setsof proof,oriental and Eur~pean'.~' I think that one can say that in this tale several layers of historical events have been combined. Since I tackle the subject from the Byzantine side, let us have a closer look at those elements that seem to originate from Byzantine history. Barlow only sees Oriental elements under b and c. But the setting of the legend of the Seven Sleepers (not t o be confounded with the Miracle alone) may also be an Oriental element, as M. Huber has pointed out. He regards it as belonging to an Arabic t r a d i t i ~ n Three . ~ ~ examples are known of sovereigns who, one way or another, were informed about the Seven Young Men, either about their wakening up after a very long and profound sleep, or about a change in their position. In Byzantium it was the emperor Theodosius I1 (408-450) who was told what happened in the grotto and who personally went to Ephesus. In England, some 600 years later, it was Edward the Confessor who, instead of going himself, inspired a delegation t o go and to verify his vision. In another source, an Italian chronicle, it was an Hungarian king who sent an embassy to the Greek emperor.22 This is not the place to deal at length with the presence of this tale in European literature. It is curious that so far no attention has been paid to its appeararlce in See also note 16. 16 F. Arnold-Forster. Studies in Church dedioations o r Ennland's natron saints, London 1899, 3 vols; F. Bond, ~ e d i & t i o n sand Patron Saints of English &urches; Oxford 1914; Nuber, 141f. 17 In the 8th century, for example, bishop Willibald visited the tomb of the Seven Sleepers, Foss, 110. See also van de Vin, IS, 131, 299,484 (W~llibald),500-1. 18 P. E. Riant, Expkdittons et pklennages des Scandinaves en Terre Sainte, Paris 1865, 1 18: 'ce lisle contenait le rtcit des aventures du roi [Olaf Tryggvason] et la vie de sept autres saints personnages'. In Old Norse the term s p p r (9ives') is used. It is po5siblc that theLife of seven ~ndividua)saints is meant. Only the codex mateyensis speaks of seven saints, the other mss. give six, cf. Oldfs saga Tiyg;pyasonar en mesta, ed. 0. tlallddrsson, ii, Copenhagen t961, 320 (1 owe this reference to Robert Cook). TheMii-acle existed in Old Icelandic, Widding, 331. 19 F. Barlow, 'The Vita Xdwardi (Book 11): the Seven Sleepers: some further Evidence and Reflections',Speculrtm, 40. 1965, 396f (the article seems to have passed unnot~ced). 20 Barlow, Seven SZeepers, 3921. The cluonology of this 'Florence'verliion is the most accurate. Before the troubles leading to the firsf crusade, i,e. the captureof Nicace, Antioch and Jerusalem (including Ephesus, according to Wlllrarn of Malmesbury and the Saga) the death of threepopes, Victor (1055-1057). Stcphanus (1057-1058) and Nicholas (1058-1061) is mentioned. 21 tiuber, 132-5. 22 J. Ebersolt, Constantinople. Recueit d'dtudes d'archdologie e t d'histoie, Paris 1951, 142; Zluber. 134.

82

Anglo-Norman Studies V

England, and some discussion of it may be useful taking into account in particular the relations between England and Hungary during Edward'sreign. The text in which the Hungarian king sends envoys t o Byzantium is inaccessible tome. 1 therefore have to rely upon the resume given by Koch and H ~ b e r In . ~a ~dream the Hungarian king saw the seven young men who had been sleeping for 600 years and who now turned upon their left side. To verify this the king sent a delegation to the Byzantine emperor. If we start from the Decian persecutions, around 250, this would take us t o the year 850. If we start in 450, when the Miracle of the awakening of the seven men took pIace, we arrive at a date around 1050. In the ninth century no Hungarian kingdom existed, but this was not the case in the middle of the eleventh century when relations with the Byzantine empire became quite frequent." It is noticeable that in the 1050s king Edward arranged t o bring back t o England Edward the Exile who had been staying at the Hungarian ~ a u r t Bishop . ~ ~ Ealdred of Worcester was in charge of the mission. Later, in 1058, the bishop went to Jerusdem by way of Hungary and probably stopped at C o n ~ t a n t i n o p l eOne . ~ ~ wonders whether there is some reminiscence of all this in the wresent tale. In the late 1030s. when still an exile in Normandy, Edward the Confessor is said to Ilave gone to Hungary to help his nephews who were engaged in a war.27 Even if some of the elements may be doubtful or legendary, they point to contacts between Hungary and Anglo-Saxon England in the eleventh century. Whether this resulted in a transmission of tales, is still a mystery. Let us return t o the tale itself. There is a certain correlation between the vision and Easter, when the Resurrection of Christ is celebrated. This may explain why Edward had his vision on this specific day. At the same time there may be a vague reminiscence of the coronation of Edward, which also took place at Easter. Not too much emphasis should be put on the fact that in thisMiracle he is said to have been 'coronatus', wearing his crown.28 The first historical layer ( h ) is represented by the recollection of Ceorg Maniaces. The English embassy was sent to an emperor called Manichetis, which must stand 2 3 Huber, 134-5; J. Koch, Die SiebenschGferZegende, Leipzig 1883, 158 (both refer to A.

d'Ancona, Sacre rappresentazioni dei secoli 14, 15 e 16, Firenze 1872, i t , 350f. which is i n a o cessible to me). z4 G. Moravcsik, 'Die byzantinische Kultur und das rnittelalterliche UngarnY,Sifzun@berichfe der Deutschen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, Kbsse fur Philosophie, Geschichte, Staats-, Rechts- und Wirtschaftswissenschaften,1955, 16s.; idem, Byzantium and theMagyas, Budapest/Amsterdam 1970,61f. (seealso note 96 below). E.Marosi, 'Die Rollc der hyzantinischen Beziehungen Stir die Kunst Ungarns im t I. Jahrhundert', in Byzantinischer Kunstexport, ed. H. L. Nickel, Halle 1978, 39f. 2s Barlow, Edward. 215f.; S. Fest, 'The Sons of Eadmund Ironside, Anglo-Saxon king at the Court of Saint Stephen', Archivum E m p a e Centro-Orientalis, iv, Budapest 1938, 115-46. Recently R.Theodoreseu, 'Marginalia to 11th Century Anglo-Saxons in the Pontic area', Revue Roumaine d'ffistoire, 20, 1981, 637-45, drew attention t o their familiarity with ltungarian affairs when post-Norman refugees in Bymntium turned to the Hungarian church to have their bishops consecrated (he %ems to refer to a separate edition of Fest's study). 26 Cf. below, note 64. Fest, 146, %ys that even a son of Andrew i accompanied the exiles to England, 27 Geoffrey Gaimar, Estoire des Englds, RS 9 1 , i, 1888, p.202,1.4785f. Cf. Fest, 137. 2 8 Barlow, Seven Sleepers, 392. The reader who is ignorant of Old French should not be misled by the rksum8 given by the editor of the Anglo-Norman version of the Vita, saying 'Un jour de Pgques, 1e roi fut couronnk', La Vie d'Edouard le Confesseur, p&me anglo-nonnand du XIle siicle, ed. 0.Soderglrd, Uppsala 1948, 10, whereas the Old French is very clear ('Un jur de Pasche ert eurunt! plus pur hus que pur volentk', ibid., 224).

England and Byzantiurn on the Eve of the Noman Conquest

83

for Georg Maniaces. In 1043 this Greek general, who had been active in Southern Italy and in Sicily, was proclaimed emperor by his troops. By then Edward was recognised as king but had not yet been crowned as such.29 As a general, Maniaces had under his command a regiment of Varangians, among whom was Harald Hardrada, the future king of Norway, who was to play a part in the drama of 1066. In Old Norse literature Georg Maniaces is remembered as Gyrgir, for instance in Harald's Saga, where he is a general often in conflict with the Northern prince. Orderic Vitalis, who in this particular passage seems to go back to the same source as William of Malmesbury, is the only English source as far as I know who calls him a rebellious emperor.3"ne wonders how this information reached England and how and why it was distorted in later times. There is no evidence that Anglo-Saxons served in the Greek army in the 1030s and 1040s, which would explain the reminiscence of such a famous Greek name, but it is not altogether impossible. The suggestion has been made that after the death of king Canute in 1035 Anglo-Danes joined the Varangian Guard, imitating their Scandinavian and Norman cousins in doing so.31 Would the Byzantines have noticed the difference between Anglo-Danes and Anglo-Saxons? There are other possible ways in which such tales could have been spread, for example by the Normans, scattered all over Europe and some serving in the Imperial army .32 In this context it is noticeable that Normandy, where the young Edward lived in exile until 1042, was familiar with the 'Byzantine' material. Edward's nephew Robert 11 the Magnificent visited Constantinople in 1035 on his way to Jerusalem. He was splendidly entertained by the emperor Michael 1Vthe Paphlagonian (1034-41) which gave birth t o an extraordinary report of thisofficial visit in Norman sources. On h s return journey he died and was buried in Nicaea, where Norman pilgrims and mercenaries may have visited his tomb until William the Conqueror had his bones removed to Western Europe (Apulia).33 On the other hand one should not forget the good relations between England and Normandy. fn Normandy there also existed a tradition among certain families of serving as mercenaries in Byzantium and making their fortune there.34 Information about events in Byzantium may have 2 9 Barlow, Edwurd, 340 It-ccognised as king o n 8 June 1042, crowned 3 April 1043, on Easter day, at Winchester). In this short interval Maniaces reigned. 3O Orderic, iii, 8617, 'Maniaces the rival emperor of Constantinople led an insurrection, and mustering the imperial force8 repulsed the infidels after inany wt-backs, freeing the frontiers of Christendom. Also he carefully carried the bones of St Agatha, virgin and martyr, to save them from desecration if the pagans should return'. T h e ~ erelics arc also mentioned in theDegestis regum, 1, 413, in a list of relics in the Greek capital. Orderic and William probably go back to a common source. Manlaces inciced brought the relics to the Greek capital, Ebersolt, 108. 31 Ville-tIardouin, L'Histoire de I'empire de Constantinople sous les empereurs franqois, par Charles du Presnc du Cangc, Paris 1657, 296-9; Vasiliev, 45; Head, 188. 32 J. de Vries, 'Normannisches Lehngut in den islindischcn Konigssagas', Arkiv for Nordisk Filologi, 47, Lund 1931, 51-79 (repr. Heine Sc!iriften, Berlin 1965, 331 -50); A. StenderPetersen, Die Varagersage als Quelle der altrussischen Chronik, Aarhus 1934, 77-90 (Acta Jutlandica, vi). 33 Jumiiges, 112-1 4, 247 (a new edition is being prepared by Elizabethvan Houts, Groningen): Wace, 275 (1.3067f.). 34 G. Schlumberger, 'Dcux chefs ~ 0 m I a n d sdes armkes byzantines au XIe siicie', Revue historfque, 16, 1881, 289-303; t.. BrBhier, 'Les aventures d'un chef normand en Orient au XIe sikcle, Roussel d e Bailleul', Revue des Coum et Confhrences, Paris 191 2 (annec scolaire 191 1121, 172-88. Shortly after 1049 bishop Yves of %es went to Constantino~leto raise funds among wealthy Normans for hischurch, Jumiigcs, 168, cf. L. Musset, 'Les conditions financi6res d'une reussite axchitecturalc: fes grandes Bgli~esromanes de Normandie', Mhlanges R. Oozet, Poitiers 1966, 310-1 I.

84

Anglo-Norman Studies V

reached England by such channels as well. It has even been suggested that certain war tecltniques which heEped duke William to conquer England, came from Byzantium.35 These techniques may have been adopted by Normans who had served in the Greek army. So far we have seen that 'Byzantine news' could have filtered back to Britain in various ways. If we stay for a while with Ceorg Maniaces there is another possibility still. Edward's coming coronation may have stimulated the sending of envoys to other sovereigns, among them the Greek emperor, either the newly acclaimed emperor in Italy, or the one in Constantinople; Maniaces' short reign ended before Edward was actually crowned king on 3 April, 1043.j6 And why, if the English envoys discovered the change of fate, would they not have proceeded to the real, more remote Byzantine court? The sending of gifts, as mentioned in some versions of the tale, seems very authentic. It may have been a pledge of goodwill or a remuneration for presents sent to England by an earlier Greek embassy, as was usual in these times.37 We hear of congratulations coming in from abroad on the occasion of Edward's coronation, of the presence of foreign envoys (there had been plenty of time to come over to England) and of an exchange of gifts.38 Rarlow suggests that English pilgrims or returning exiles (he must have had in view those who left the country after 1066) brought the story back t o England, without specifying when this had h a ~ p e n e d . ~It" seems unlikely that those who fled the country after 1066 would have been familiar with the name of Maniaces whose reign lasted a few months only. Not much attention has been paid to the overseas Saxons mentioned by the Bodleian 297 version ('Florence') and by Osbert of Clare. We are told that they verified what had happened. The two accounts vary slightly. Osbert of Clare says that Witnesses of this event [Miracle in Ephesus] were the overseas Saxons, whom king Edward sent to inspect the saints, and, on their return to England, t o proclaim their glory .40 The Bodleian version, apparently an earlier version, is more sober and says that God revealed through the overseas Saxons to the inhabitants of Ephesus, how his soldiers, that is the Seven Young Men, had fared in their grotto."' They are not said 35

He transported horses to England, a technique apparently unknown in Western Europe,

D. C. Doughs, W i a m the Conqueror, London t969, 202-3. CE M. Mollat, 'Probl6mes navals de i'histoire des ~roisades',Cahiers de civilisation me'didiPvale,10, 1967, 352-3. 36 G. Ostrogorsky, Geschichfe des Byzantinischen Sfaates, Munich 1963, 275; V. von Falkenhausen, Untersuchungen li'ber die Byzantilrische Herrschaft in Siiditalien vom 9. bis ins If. Jahrhundert, Wie\baden 196 7 , 9 I - 2. 37 'Florcnce version', De gestis regum and the Saga. I:or the sending of rifts cf. F.-L. Ganshof, 'Le Moyen Age', Histoire des relations intemationales, i, ed. P . Renouvin, Paris 1953,42, 125, and note 69 below. 38 Vita Eadwardi, 10 -1 1, cf. Barlow, Edward, 64 - 5 . 39 Barlow, Seven Sleepers, 393. 40 Vita Eadwardi, 70 ('Huius rei testes facti sunt transmarini Saxones, quos Rex Eadwardus misit ut sanctos cernerent et revertentes ad fines Anglie eorum gloriam predicarent'). They could have been sent or recrt~itedon an earlier occasion to serve in Byzantium, e.g. ina coastalgarrison llke other Varangians (Tarente, Cypru5, Crete, Chevetot). They may have acted as interpreters having some knowledge of Greek. I think the term transmuTiniSaxones indicates Englishmen living beyond the seas, seen from England (cf. Barlow, ibid., xxxix, xl, n. I , xlvi). 4l Barlow, Seven Sleepers, 397, 'et per transmnrinos Savones Ephesiisqualiter se haberent sui contubernales nescientiRus propalaverit'.

fingland and Byzantium on the Eve of the Norman Conquest

85

to have been sent by Edward in this version. The use of the term oversea.s Saxons is very strange in this setting, that is, in a talc that was written and partly tookplace in England. It could mean that Anglo-Saxons lived in Ephesus (as a coastal regiment?) or elsewhere in the Byzantine empire. One can hardly imagine that the king would have mistrusted the envoys sent by the audience in Westminster by sending a separate group of Englishmen at the sane time. To which period the presence of such an Anglo-Saxon group should be assigned is a mystery for the moment. I think that Barlow is right when he says that English refugees played a role in the transmissio~lof the tale, but that this is limited to the second historica1 layer (c) only. This second layer consists of a list of the Greek emperors who reigned after Maniaces, who was killed in battle early in 1043. He was succeeded by Diogenes (= Romanus IV Diogenes, 1067-71), according to Bodleian 297, Osbert of Clare, Orderic VitaIis and William of Malmesbury. All except Orderic add to this list the names of Michalis (= MichaeI VIl Ducas Parapinakes, 1071-78), Butinacius (= Nicephorus 111 Botaniates, 1078-81) and Alexius (= Alexius I Comnenus, 108 1 1 1I 8).42 It is noticeable that Maniaces' successors all made their appearance on the scene after 1066 and were not contemporaries of king Edward. In the same passage the death of king Henry I of France in 1060 is mentioned, which takes 11s to the end of king Edward's reign.43 An element not belonging to category b or c is the term sacra designating theletter sent by the Greek emperor to the bishop of Ephesus. This letter was given to the English party as an introduction when they left the Greek capital. Eos ille, benigne secum habitos, episcopo Ephesi destinavit, epistola pariter quam sacram vocant ~ o r n i t a n t e ~ ~ 'Sacra' is the Creek word for imperial diploma.45 The use of such a term seems an indication of the veracity of the tale or of part of it, in any case of a certain knowledge of 'Byzantine affairs'. The same applies, but t o a lesser extent, to the mentioning of the bishop of Epf~esus.Indeed Ephesus was a metropolis, although earlier visits by Englishmen may have kept the memory alive.46 1 think that without any real contacts with the Byzantine empire, or the imperial court in Constantinople, theMiracle of king Edward could hardly have taken root in England. It seems therefore as though two tales were combined, one dealing with the early reign of Edward, possibly including his coronation, the other one dealing with events happening in the 1060s. For the transmission of the latter events Anglo-Saxons who were in Byzantium in the 1060s were responsible; they were there either as regular mercenaries (before 1066?), or as refugees after 1066. It may be useful to remind the reader of the tradition among Anglo-Saxon kings 2 Orderic, iii,86. 43 Barlow, Seven Sleepers, 393. R. Makluyt, The Prindpal Navigations, voyages, @affiquesand

discoveries of the English Nation, iv, Glasgow 1904, 282-3, gives the year 1056 (cf. van de Vin, 1.761. 44 De gestis regum, 275; the Saga also has this element, Vigfusson, 392, Unger/Vigfusion, 466 (Dasent, 420). Fell, ffagioqaphtc sources, 251. states that the saga writer translates from the De gestis regum; they may, however, go back to a common source. 4 5 I:. Dalger - J. Karayannopulos, Byzantinische Urkundenlehre,Munich 1968,24,89. Cf. E. A. Sophocles, Greek Lexicon o f the Roman and Byzantine period (From B.C.146 to A.D.1100), Cambridge, Mass., 1870, 1887, repr. New York (n.d.). 46 The 1:lateyjarbok version of the Saga i s more accurate by calling him archbishop (erchibyskup), UngerlVigfusson, iii, 466.

86

Anglo-Norman Studies V

of designating themselves hasileus. Without regular contacts with the East to reinforce the aura of such a title, this tradition would hardly have persisted until Edward's reign. In other words the Anglo-Saxon kings must have received from time to time fresh information about the glorious position of the Eastern emperor, or they would not have preserved this Eastern title. From the very beginning of his reign Edward styled himself Angktrurn basileus, although he did not use the title as frequently as some of his predecessor^.^' Edward's seal, the first royal seal to have been preserved in Britain, also carries the title Angfontm h~sileus$~ a title more Byzantine than the one used by the Greek emperors One wonders what the reaction was of the real basileus when he received a letter from a far distant colleague using this sacrosanct title,50 especially when announcing a future coronation, if such was the case. Another seal deserves our attention. It is a Ryzantinelead seal foundin Winchester during excavations some years ago. It was published by V. Laurent who excluded the possibility of it being a personal memento or a small icon (representing the Virgin with Christ on one side) as it was in a mutilated state from the beginning.51 It could have served to guarantee the secrecy of a letter, a diploma or a parcel containing precious things of silver, gold, relics, silks or cash. John Raphael, protospatharios, as he is called on the reverse side, was commander of the Palace Guard. It means that he had under his command foreign mercenaries. The use of this title takes us t o the period from 1060 t o 1080, an eventful period in English history. Was John Raphael, who had been commander of a Varangian regiment in Southern Italy in the 1 0 4 0 ~ , ~ ~ sent to England on a recruiting mission, as suggested by Laurent? Did he have some experience with Anglo-Saxons in his regiment, and was this the reason why he was sent t o Britain? As commander of the Palace Guard he was stationed in the capital and his mission must have been an official one. We should like to know when he came to England, before or after the Norman invasion. After 1066 quite a few AngloSaxons left their country to seek exile in B y ~ a n t i u m It . ~was ~ Laurent's hypothesis that John Raphael came to England after 1066, hence his title Byzance er l3ngleten-e au lendemain de /a conqu6re n o r m ~ n d e But . ~ ~it could well be that he arrived in the late 1050s or early 1060s and that his mission stimulated Anglo-Saxons to go t o the East after the defeat by the Norman conquerors. In the East they were sure t o 47 W. de Gray Birch, 'Index of the Styles and Titles of Engiish Sovereigns', Report of the First AnnualMeetingof thePndexSociety, London IR79,52-3,69;Lopez, 161 f. See also R. Driigereit, 'Kaiseridee und Kaisertitel bei den Angelsachsen', Zeitschnft fir Rechtsgeschichte, 69, Germaniqtische Abteilung, 1952, 24-73; P. E. Schramm, fferrschaftszeichenund Staatssymbolik, ii, Stuttgart f 955, 394, n. 1. 48 F. E. Harmer, Anglo-Saxon Writs, Manchester 1952,94,455; cf. Barlow, Edwrd, 135. 49 Dalger Karayannopulos, 43 (6eandrqc). 50 'Cum rcgiis muneribus et litteris sigillo r g i s Eadwardi signatis', Barlow, Seven Sleepers, 396. 51 Laurent, 94. 52 Von I:alkenhausen, 92-3, advances the hypothesis that an Englishman may have taken it home with a diploma. 5 3 K. N-Clggaar, 'L'Bmigration anglaise 3 Byzance aprh 1066, un nouveau texte en latin sur les Varangues d Constantinople', Revue des Etudes Byzantines, 32, 1974, 301-42. C. Morrisson, 'Le rcile des Varangues dans la transmission de la monnaie byzantine en Scandinavie', in Les Pays du Nord etByzance, Uppsala 1981, ed. R. Zeitier, 136,140,corroboratesanearlydeparture of Anglo-Saxons: c.1067 Byzantine coins stop short in the North, suggesting that, at least for some time, Northmen were no longer prominent in the guard. 54 Few ambassadors in this period are known by name, T. C. Lounghis, Les ambassades byzantines en Occident depuis la fondation des Ptats barbares jusqu 'aux Croisades (407-1 0961, Athens 1980,478f.

-

Efzglund and Byrantiurn on the Eve c$ the Nornzatr Conquest

87

meet with a warm welcome, since there was a permanent lack of well-trained soldiers. It is believed that individual Anglo-Saxons went there before 1066.55 English soldiers in the Creek army are not mentioned before 1066 in Greek sources, although there are earlier references to Varangians of uncertain nationality. The Armenian chronicler Matthew of Edessa, who wrote in the twelfth century, describes the preparations for the battle of Manzikert (1071). Romanus IV Diogenes (I 068-71 ), aware of the threat of hostilities by the Turks, sent envoys to the West to recruit new forces. The Creek army was composed of many nationalities, among whom were 'inhabitants of the far distant islands': DiogBne, instruit des dksastres rkcents de I'ArmCnie, rugit conlme un lion; il ordonna de rassembler to~ttesses troupes, fit proclamer des Bdits et envoya des hCrauts partout dans Ies contr4es d'occident. I1 rBunit des forces irnmenses parmi ies Goths, les Boulgares, les habitants des iles 6lolgnkes, ceux de la Capadoce, de la Bitllynie . . .56 Who were these islanders? The plurat form means that not only Iceland, whence mercenaries came regularly, could have been meant. The term may include or even exclusively refer to the British The Greek historian Nicephorus Bryennius supports this conclusion when he says that after the battle of Manzikert, in October 1071, the imperial residence in Constantinople was taken over by the new rulers with the help of the palace-guards who originated from a barbarous country near the Ocean and who, from ancient times, had been faithful to the Roman (= Greek) emperors: Alors le cksar, craignant que lui-m&meet ses neveux ne subissent quelque malheur, si Diogbne reprenait le pouvoir, se conciiia aussit6t les gardes de La cour. Ces hommes viennent de la terre barbare voisine de 1'OcCan et sont fid6Ies aux basileis des Romains depuis I'origine; tous portent le bouclier et sur I'epaule une surte de h a c l ~ e . ~ ~ The word cipx~j0ev('from the beginning') seerns to indicate an enduring loyalty, starting at the time when Britain was part of the Roman empire.59 Sonie form of loyalty was preserved until the times we speak of, probably by the coming of mercenaries. of whom the emperor was always short, although it is unlikely that there was a constant flow of mercenaries through the centuries. One must be careful in drawing conclusions. Nicephorus was a child when these events took place. He must have been familiar with the Anglo-Saxons who arrived some years later. Rut as a son-in-law of Alexius I he must have been a well informed man. The question arises whether English mercenaries, recruited around 1071, would have been irnmedi5s N. Skabalanovich, Byzantine Stafe and Church in the eleventh century, St Petersbug (in Russian), 1884, 338 (inacccwible to me); cf. Vasiliev. 49, 54. 56 CPlronique de Matthieu d'Edesse (962-I136j, cd. E. Dulaurier, Paris 1858, 166. A recent transiation (cf. Byzantion, 47, 1977, 302. n.3) based upon a new collation of available manuscipts by A , 13. Dostourian (PI1.D. Din., Rutgers University, New Brunswick, N.J., 1972), is inaccessibIe to me. 57 Vasiliev, 58-9; Laurent, 96, n. 28. s8 Nicephorus Bryennius, History, ed. B. Gautier, Brussels 1975, 122-3 (with French trl.) = ed. A. Meineke, Bonn 1836,45. The palace revolt took place in October 1071; cf. D. I. Polemis, 'Notes on EfeventhCentury Cluonology',Byzantin&che Zeitschrift, 58, 1965,64-5. S9 Cf. S. Bkondal, Vaen'ngjasaga,Reykjavik 1954 (in Icelandic), tri. and rev. by B. S. Benedikz, The Varangians o f Byzantium, Cambridge 1978,114.

88

Anglo-Norman Studies V

ately entrusted with the safeguarding of the palace. It seems logical that their loyalty had to be tested before getting such a responsible task, unless there was a tradition justifying this. In my opinion the Greek historian means that for some time AngloSaxons had been coming to Byzantium, even before the Norman conquest. It is a pity that we do not know his source for such a statement. It is unfortunate that Matthew of Edessa is not more precise when speaking of Greek recruiting missions sent t o the West; nor does he tell us whether the soldiers of which the Greek army was composed had been serving for some time already. When duke William crossed the Tharnes to go to London, he did so at Wallingford. William of Jumi&ges, for some inexplicable reason, calls it Warengeforth. Whether we have here an example of folk etymology as the resuIt of a reminiscence of Varangians departing from here t o the East, or a simple error of the author, is hard to tell. Similar names have been interpreted as being derived from the personal name Warengarius, but this can hardly have been the case here.60 The Byzantine coins found in the British Isles are not of much help in establishing the extent of the relations between East and West. Mr G. C. Boon of the National Museum of Wales keeps a record of these coins.61 King Edward's reign coincides for the major part with the reign of Constantine IX (1042-55)and Constantine X(I05967);62 between 1055 and I059 three emperors succeeded each other and the issue of their coins must have been very restricted. Only two folles of Constantine X have been found in Britain, one in Stafford, the other near E ~ e t e r these ; ~ ~ finds may be dubious. We cannot telf whether Byzantine coins found their way into Britain via travellers or pilgrims,64 Greeks or Englishmen, soldiers or ambassadors, or even by modern col1ectors or tourists. But it is interesting that, so far, the period immediately after the Norman conquest does not reveal coins of Byzantine origin.65 But here we are on very thin ice. Let us return for a while t o the Winchester seal, which we assume was brought t o this country by John Raphael. It cannot have accompanied an imperial letter: if so, it would have carried the effigy of the emperor and would have been of a more precious material. We hear of recruiting missions sent to North-Western Europe carrying imperial letters with gold seals, the so-called c h t y s ~ b u l l s The . ~ ~ Winchester 6 0 JumiZges, t 36 (other readingsare Waranpefordth, Warcngliefort); BlSndal, 1 12. Cf. M. Gelling, The Place-Names of lerkshire, London 1974, 535. 61 P.D. Whitting, 'The Byzantine Empire and the Coinngeof the Anglo-Saxons', in Anglo-Saxon &ins, London 1961, ed. K. H. M. Dolley (studies presented to F. E. Stenton on the occa~ionof his 80th birthday), 27. The presence of coins of Constantine IX (1042-1055) is not confirmed by Mr G. C. Boon (cf. note 6 3 below). 62 Theodora, 1055-1056; Michael VI, 1056-1057; Isaac I Comnenus, 1057-1059. 63 Letter of Mr G. C. Boon, Cardiff (2212182). Cf. note 61. 64 In the 1050s and 1060s Englishmen went to Jerusalem via Constantinople. C.1055 the Canterbury monk Aethelwine did some shopping in the Greek capital (cf, note 72). Ingulf, later abbot of Croyland was received by the emperor Alexis (!) according to some discredited tradition, Hakluyt, 289, cf. Ordcric, ii, 346; there is no proof that Englishmen participated in the pilgrimage of 1064 (Nicol, 183), cf. E. Joranson, 'The Great German Pilgrimage of 10641065" in The Crusades and other Historical Essays presented t o D. C.Munro, New York 1928, 7, n.13, 11. Bishop Ealdred of Worcester probably passed by Constantinople, Worcester, i, 217. See also Vita E a d w d i , 69, n.1. 65 St Wulfstan had a Byzantine coin, pierced by the Holy Lance, which workcd wonders, R e Vita Wulfstaniof W a r n of Malmesbury, ed. R. R. Darlington, London 1 928,33, cf. F. Bar low, The English C7zurch 1000-1066, London I963,21, n.6. 66 Sverris Saga, ch. 127, ed. G. Indrebd, Oslo 1920, 133, English trl. J. Sephton, The Saga of King Sverri o f N o w , London 1899,157.

England and Ryzantium on rhe Eve of the Norman Conyuesr

89

seal must have served to guarantee the indemnity of a parcel containing, for example, a gift for the sovereign. Nothing is known of the sending of relics, a much valued gift in those days;67 I have not been able t o confirm Dawkins' statement that the Greek emperor sent relics of the Seven Sleepers to his English colleague.68 As far as the sending of money is concerned, we can be brief. Whenever money was sent, it was a payment for services rendered, to buy alliances or to buy off h o ~ t i l i t i e s For .~~ England only the former possibility c o d d make sense, if mercenaries were sent by the rulers, but the sources are silent in this respect. I know nothing of a great influx of gold or silver in this period either.70 Silks were another article given or sent by Byzantine emperors t o colleagues, clerical authorities and other important guests and relations. Silks were highly coveted and many a church treasury on the continent possesses some pieces of Eastern silk. I deliberately do not call them Byzantine silks, as much research is still to be done in this field: the dating, the texture, the place of origin, and the dyeing are still to ' the British Isles Oriental silks are less numerous than on the be d e t e ~ n i n e d . ~On continent; those found during recent excavations in York belong to an earlierperiod and are still to be published, while others have been found in the tombof St Cuthbert at Durham.72 Some have even been found in Westminster Abbey, in the tomb of king Edward, who was buried in Oriental silks. We do not yet know whether they were made in Constantinople or came from a provincial workshop or were even imported from one of the neighbouring countries. Fragments of these silks are kept in the Victoria and Albert Museum, London.73 Silks were precious and those of good b 7 Between 1050 and 1073 relics arrived in Exeter, Monasticon, ii, 530, cf. A. Frolow, La Relique de [a Vraie Croix, Paris 1961, 273-4, no. 220, and V. Laurent, 'Un sceau inCdit du patriarche dc Jhusalem Sophrone It, trouvC Winchester', The Numismatic Circular, 72, 1964, 50 (some of the relics were kept in Byzantium and in Jerusalem, cf. K. N. Ciggaar, 'Une description dc Constantinople traduite par un pklerin anglais', Revuedes ErudesByzantiPres, 34,1976,245f.) One of the two fotles of Constantine X (1059-1067) was found at Poltin~ore,near Exeter, but may be a modern loss, cf. note 63. 68 Iluber, I53f. Ebersolt does not mention them. R. Janin, Constantinople byzantine, Les dglises et les monast&-es,Paris 1969, 2nd edn, does not list a sanctuary dedicated to them. 69 E.g. Anna Comnena, Alexiad, ed. B. Leib, i, Paris (1937) 1967, I34 (with French trl.; English trl. E. R. A. Sewter, The Alexiad ofAnna Comnena, Harmondsworth 1969,127): money was sent to the German emperor Henry IV. See also L. Brbhier, Le Monde Byzantin, ii, Les Institutions de I'empdre byzantin, Paris (1949) 1970,229-62 (La diplomatie). 70 If money was sent cf. D. Talbot Rice for Byzantine influence on Anglo-Saxon coins, English Art 871-1100, Oxford 1952, 34 (ef. Whitting, 34-5). Cf. W. Hahn,'Regensburger Denare mit dem Bildnis Kaiser HeinrichsIV.im Byzantinischen Stil als Schliissmiinzen in nordischen Schatzfunden', in Les Pays du N o d e t Byzmce, 117-24; Ph. Grierson, 'Commerce in the Dark Ages', TRHS, 1959, 136; idem, 'ffarold Hardraada and Byzantine Coin-Types in Denmark', Byzantinische Forschungen, 1, 1966, 124-38; K. Skaare, 'Weimkehr eines Waragers, Die Miinzprggung Harald Hardrades in IXnemark', in Dona Numismatim, Walter Hivernick zum 23. Januar 1965 dargebracht, Hamburg 1965,99-111 (less positive). 71 A corpus of medieval silks is being prepared by Mrq A. M. Muthesius, 'A unique archive of early medieval and later silks at the University OF East Anglia, Norwich', xvi. Internationaler Ryzantinistenkongress, Akten IIBeiheft, Jahrbuch der Osterreichischen Byzantinistik, 1981, section 3.2. 72 Personal communication by Mrs Muthesius and by letter of 25/11 /81. For the silks at Durham, cf. C. F. Battiscornbe (ed.), The Relics o f SaintCuthbert, Oxford 1956, 375f. and 498, n.2. In the early 11th century Anglo-Saxon merchants bought silks in Italy: Lopez, 152-3. C.1055 the monk AetheIwine bought a precious pall (silk?) for St Dunstan, in Constantinople, W. Stubbs, Memorials of St Dunstan, R S 1857, 245, cf. Barlow, Edward, 69, n, I. 73 Victoria and Albert Museum, T. 2, 3 , 4 - 1944, 1 am grateful to Natalie Rothstein, Deputy Keeper of the Dept of Textiles and Dress, for supplying me with information. For the silk

quality often reached the West as imperial gifts.74 One of the silks from Edward's tomb (T4-1944, Victoria and Albert Museum) can be dated back to the tenth/ eleventh century, and presents similarities with silks found in the grave of Pope Clement 11 who died in 1047 and was buried in Bamberg. His tomb remained undisturbed until the eighteenth century.75 The 'contemporary' death of the two leaders seems t o exclude the possibility that the sitks were added in later times when king Edward's tomb was opened.76 The high position of the two men, one a king, the other a pope (he reigned for only one year), makes it likely that the material came directly from the East, from Constantinople, was not bought on the local market, and did not reach the West through commercial channels. One should consider the possibility that both received silks when they entered their new position. We know of pilgrims buying precious palls in Constantinople, but details are not known, and they certainly did not have access to the more precious qualities. The quality of the silks would decide whether they were too exclusive to be sold, and were therefore gifts from the Eastern emperors. It is my guess that the English king received them as a coronation gift (but certainly not from Georg Maniaces, who was hardly in a position to distribute silks), as a remuneration for services rendered (the sending of mercenaries?) or for some unknown reason. A more exact dating of John Raphael's mission would be very welcome in this respect. The silks were then probably preserved in the royal treasury and when the king died he was clothed in this exclusive, precious material. Some six hundred years later they were rediscovered when the king's tomb was violated in the seventeenth century. The silks are now recognised as being Oriental and will be published shortly.77 Silks were not the only gift sent from the East. On several occasions we hear of Greek emperors sending a pectoraE cross, an encotpion, to one of their Western colleagues, as a pledge of their goodwill.78 The emperor acted as a parer f~milias distributing the treasures of Christianity. An encolpion often contained a fragment of the Holy Cross and was a much coveted acquisition in those times. Not many of these encolpia have been preserved. In Western Europe an exquisite enamelled cross which, according to tradition, belonged to queen Dagmar of Denmark (1205-121 1) was found in the queen's grave in the seventeenth century.79 King Edward also possessed a Byzantine cross, although this fact has passed aImosl unnoticed, especially in Byzantine circles. L. E. Tanner was the last scholar who showed interest in this cross, but he hardly paid any attention to the fact that it was a Greek work of industry cf. R . S. Lopez, 'S~lkIndustry in the Byzantine Empire', Speculum, 20, 1945, If.; D. Simon. 'Die byzantinlschen Seidcnzunfte', Byzantinische Zeitschrifr, 68, 1975,23f. 74 Br6hier, 253 f, 75 J. Beckwith, The Art of Constanrinople, London 1961, 101; idem, Early CPln'stian and Byzantine Art, Harmondsworth 1970, 2nd edn, 1979, 218. S. Muller-Christensen, Sakmle Gewri'nder des Mittelalters, Aussteltung Nationalmuseums Miinchen, Munich 1955,22-3;eadem, Das Grab des Papstes ffemens I.. im Dom zu Bamberg, Munich 1960, 33,&7. 76 Barlow, Edward, 254. The vestment taken from his tomb in 1102 may alw have been an Oriental silk,ibid., 279-80,311-12. T7 C. R. Dodwell, Anglo-Sbcxon Art: The Literary Perspective, forthcoming (chapter on textiles; it would be interesting to compare the designs with those on the Bayeux Tapestry). 78 Reallexikon zur Byzantinischen Kunst, ed. K . Wessel, ii, Stuttgart 1971, c.162; Reallexikon fur Antike und Christenturn,v , c. 328f. T9 G . Stephens, Queen Dagmar's Cross, London/Copenhagen 1863, 1 3 (Danish trl. A. Schou, Copenhagen 1863, 7); cf. K. N. Ciggaar, 'Denmark and Byzantium from 1184 to 1212 (Queen Dagmar's Cross, a Chrysobult of Atexius 111 and an 'ultramarino' connection)', Mediaeval Scandinavia, forthcoming.

E~?g/andand Byzantium on the Eve of the Norman Corzquest

91

art.S0 The probiem of how the ewcolpion came to England has not been touched upon so far. I will try to follow its traces. even if it is a rather long story, and even if my hypothesis about its ultimate fate must be rather disappointing. When work was in progress in Westminster Abbey in June 1685, after the coronation of James 11, it was discovered that there was a hole in king Edward's coffin. A certain CharIesTaylour put his hand into it and found a gold chain with a crucifix attached to it. In the end the cross was offered to James 11, who must have loved this precious object because he wore it sometimes and showed it to some of his intimates. Two contemporary writers, John Evelyn and Samuel Pepys, report that they have seen it." ln the meantime Charles Taylour had a drawing made of the cross which, unfortunately, seems t o have been lost. In 1688 he published the story of his discovery without the drawinga2 The rather elaborate description he gives does not hetp, however, to make a good reconstruction of the cross

. . , And putting my hand into the hole, and turning the Banes (which I felt there) I drew from underneath the Shoulder-Bones a Crucifix richly adorned and enamelled, . . . For the form of the cross it comes nighest to that of an Humettee FIory among the heralds, or rather the Botony, yet the pieces here are not of equal length, the direct or perpendicular beam being nigh one-fourth part larger than the traverse, as being four inches to the extremities, whilst the other scarce exceeds three; yet all of them neatly turned at the ends, and the botons enamelled with figures thereon. The cross itself is of the same gold with the chain; but then it exceeds it by its rich enamel, having on one side the picture of our Saviour Jesus Christ in his Passion wrought thereon, and an eye from above casting a kind of beam upon Him; whilst on the reverse of the same cross is pictured a Benedictine monk in his habit, and on each side these capital letters:

P

(A) Z

A

X

A

C

This cross is hollow and to be opened by two little screws towards the top, wherein it is presumed some relic might have been conserved . . .83 L. E. Tanner, The Quest for the Cross of St Edward the Confessor',Journ.BAA. 17, 1954, 1-14. 81 Memoirsof John Evelyn, ed. W . Bray, London 1819,485-6; Lettersand the seconddiary of SamuelPepys, ed. R. G . Howarth, London 1932, no. 225, p.235-6. Tanner, Quest, 7, refers to a pamphlet by John L. C. Gibbon, Edovardus Confessor Redivivus. ?Re piety and virtuesof Holy

Edward the Confessor revived in the sacred Majesty of king James fl; being a relation of the admirable and unexpected Pitding of a sacred relique of that pious prince, . . , since worne sometimes b y his present majesty, London 1 688 (inaccessible to me). 82 A true and perfect iarratii~eof the strange and unexpected finding the crucifuc and gold chain of that pious prince, S Edward the king and Confessor, which was found after 620 years of interment, and presented to his most sacred Majesty king James the Second, by Charles Taylour, gent. London; printed by J . B., and are to be sold by Randal Taylor, near Stationers Hall, 1688 (~naccessibleto me): cf. J . T. Micklethwaite,Proceedfngsof thesoriety ofAntiquaries uf London, Second Sex., vol. ix (Nov. 1881- June 1883),227f., Tanner, Quest, 2f. Cf. Archaeologia, 3,1786,390. * 3 Cf. Micklethwaite, 228-9; Tanner, Quest, 3-4.

92

Anglo-Norman Studies V

The description makes it clear that it was an enamelled cross, having on one side the Crucifixion, a rather common scene on an encolpion, on the other side what It could be opened by two little screws at the Taylour calls a Benedictine top and enclosed a r e I i ~ Two . ~ ~of themen who kept the king company at Faversham (after the king bad tried t o escape the country) were told by the king that the relic was a splinter of the Holy Cross.86 Was Edward's cross a piece of Anglo-Saxon workmanship, as supposed by D, Wilson?87 Anglo-Saxon artists produced magnificent enamels, but Taylour's description, even if it is incomplete and inaccurate, gives the answer. Taylour says that the inscription on the reverse side consisted of 'capital Roman letters', suggesting that it was a Western piece of art. In the nineteenth century a very satisfactory explanation of this inscription was given by J . T. Micktethwaite who was convinced that it was a Byzantine cross and who wanted to make more sense of the inscription. He regrouped the letters more systematically and proposed the following readinga8

Z

A

X

. which stands for the Holy Prophet Zachary, " Ayioc ZAXAPIAC ~ p o w q cThe abbreviation (A) for "Aywc which, according t o Taylour, stood between brackets (or in a circle?) is very common in Byzantine art and is definite proof that the king possessed a Greek cross. We can therefore dismiss the hypothesis that the cross was made by an Anglo-Saxon artist.89 Taylour did not copy the inscription that normally goes with the Crucifixion scene, that is, IC XC (Ihesus Christus), but it may have been written on the cross itself as the so-called ritulus, so that it was not considered to be a real inscription. One may ask why an encolpion with the picture of saint Zachary was sent and which saint of this name was meant, there being several saints of this name in the

a4 a. M. Dalton, Byzantine Art and Archaeology, Oxford 191 1 (repr. New York I961 ), 508, $peaks of a 'kneeling figurc'; the contemporary record kept with T 2-1944, Victoria and Albert Museum, says thar 'there was also (?) found a gold cros hanging to a gofd chaine, soposed to have bin about his neck, ye cros was very neatly maid on on side a crusifax o n ye other a pict of ye then pope, & was to open but nothing then in it, yc gold waied about 30 peaces, ye king had it &now hath it'. 8s The Dagmar Cross (National bluseum, Copenhagen), secms t o be of the same making. Near the top arc two little pins/screws, apparently mcant to hold together the two halves of thecross, cf. K. Wessel, Dte Byzantinisehe Emuiikunst vom 5. bis 13. Jahrhundert, Recklinghausen 1967, pl. 59alb (= Byzantine Enamels from the 5th to the 13th Century, Greenwich, Conn. 1968), and F. Lindahl, D a m korset. Or$- on - RoskiZde korset, Copenhagen 1980 (front cover) and a letter of 61 1182. 86 BritannicMaguzine, v, 1797,85;Notesand Queries, 3rd ser., v, 1864,392. Frolow, La Relique, and idem. Les Rellouafres de la Vraie Ooix. Paris 1965, does not mention this encotpion. The informatibn sheet in the Victoria and Albert Museum (ef. note 84), says that it was empty. 87 D. Wilson, 7%e Anglo-Saxons, Harmondsworth (1971), 19. 88 Micklethwaite, 229-30, thinks that the smallImight easily have been overlooked. I think it was pressed against the enamelled f i u r e of the saint. 89 In the Lindisfarne gospel, 69718, the Greek Agios is used to designate the Evangelists, but this is quite unusual in Anglo-Saxon art, cf. D. Talbot Rice, 'Britain and the Byzantine World', in Byzaatine Art - A European Art, Athens 1964,27.

England and Byzantiunz fJrr the Eve of the Norman Conqiscst

93

Greek calendar.90 We can limit ourselves to those who had the epithet 'prophet'. First there is the Old Testament prophet Zachariah who was represented as a young, beardless man." The Old Testament prophet enjoyed a certain popularity in Byzantine churches where his prophecies were revealed to the audience by the roll he holds in his hands.92 Naturally enough he received the epithet agios. Second there is saint Zachary, father of John the Baptist who, in Greek texts, is sometimes called prophet.93 I-Ie was depicted as an old man with a long beard, wearinga priest's robes.94 To both saints sanctuaries were dedicated in Constantinopie, but, as for texts, the identification is sometimes Both saints were we11 known in Byzantium. Since king Edward was a man of spiritual vision as well, one may consider it a gesture of great diplomacy and consideration on behalf of the Creek emperor, to send such a cross t o his far distant colleague, assuming that the king was considered as such during his lifetime." As is to be expected, no representation of king Edward wearing his cross exists. People have wondered what happened to the cross in Iater times. Micklethwaite wondered whether 'Jarnesdid return the cross to the coffin whence it was taken' or 'kept it, . . . and did take it with him when he fled the country' or 'whether he did leave it behind'.97 At the beginning of this century the mystery was still unsolved when 0. M.Dalton wrote: 'What wasprobably a Byzantine pectoral cross of great interestwas lost to us at the end of the seventeenth century, though it may yet be in existence in some other country.'98 My attempts to check upon Micklethwaite's questions have not been very successful. There is no evidence that the king left it behind, since the cross is not in the royal collection^.^^ A search among cncofpia that were published and a consultation of missing and undetermined encolpia in the Index of Christian Art fPrinceton/Utrecht), or among enamels with the prophet Zachary, has not been successful either.loO I have only been able to follow it untiI the end of I688. In December of that year king James 11 tried to leave England by ship t o seek exile in France. Fishermen of Faversham boarded the ship with the royal refugee and robbed the king of his belongings. In his diary Thoresby tells ,that on this occasion the king lost two objects that once belonged to king Edward, a ring (where does it come from all of a sudden?) and a crucifix.i01 Our other informants are the two anonyrnouseyewitnesscs who attended 90 Lexikon fiir 7'heologie und Kirche, s.v. Zacharias. 91 llze 'Patnter's Manual' of Dionysius o f Fourna, En~lishtrl. P . lietherinpton, London (1974)

1978, 29. 9 2 A.- M. Gravgaard, Inscriptions o f Old Testamenf Prophecies in Byzafltine Churches,

Copenhagen 1979.90f. 9 3 L. RCau, Zconographie de i'Arr Chrktien, iii,Paris 1959, 1357, 1498; Janin, 133. 94 Hethcr~ngton,29. 9 5 Janin, 132-3. 96 The suggestion has been made that Conytantine 1X Monomachos (1042-1 055) sent a medallion of St Andrew to king Andrew I of Hungary (1046-f061), foiinder of a monastery dedicated to St Andrew near Visegrid, Wessel, 104. Cf. f i e &inbridge Medieval History. IV, The Byzantine Empire. Byzantium and its neighbours, Cambridge t 966, 577 (ch, 13. Hungary and Byzantiurn in the Middle Apes). 97 Micklethwaite, 230. 98 Dalton, 508. 99 Letter of 2 / 6 / 8 1 from the Surveyor of the Queen's Worksof Art. loo Wessel, pl. 27b, a small medallion with a bust of St Zachary, father of the Baptist, whose relics were venerated in the Greek capital, Ebersolt, 6 , 5 9 . 101 R e diary o f Ralph Thoreshy (1674-17241, ed. Joseph Hunter, London 1830, 2 vols (inao eessible to me; referred to by Stanley, 30, n.4, 'the gold crucifix and ring f o f Edward] are said to have been on James's person when he was rifled by the Favcrsharn fishermen in 1688, and to

34

Alzglo-Norman Studies V

upon the king when he was kept prisoner in Faversham. One of them wrote, without mentioning explicitly king Edward the King lost a crucifix he much valued. say'd t o have some of the true material cross in it, and offer'd largely t o regain it, but the party that had it broke it in pieces, in greediness of the gold, with which it was only tip't, which the king seem'd much concern'd forio2

L. E. Tanner has done his utmost to retrace our Byzantine encolpion even as far as the Vatican Museum, by following a crosswhich I presume had been in the possession of Charles 11, brother of James 11.1°3 John Evelyn was shown one of the two crosses during a conversation he had with James 11 on the healing power of the True Cross, and in which the two crosses are spoken of. In my opinion he was shown king Edward's cross.lo4 When taking a good look at this passage in the Memoirs it becomes clear that, grammatically speaking, the text is not very precise. It is hard t o decide from the text which e n o l p i o n Evelyn describes tt was of gold, about three inches long, having on one side a crucifix enarnell'd and emboss'd, the rest was grav'd and garnish'd with gotdsrnith's work, and two pretty broad table amethists (as I conceiv7d), and at the bottom a pendant pearl: within was inchas'd a little fragment, as was thought, of the true Crosse, and a Latine inscription in gold and Roman lettersms It seems t o be too much of a coincidence that James I1 possessed two enamelled crosses with the Crucifixion scene. I think that Evelyn's description could well fit with the one given by Taylour. The two precious stones he calls amethysts (their exact location is not given) could perhaps be identified with the rubies mentioned by TayEour on the locket. Varietiesof rubies of a pinkish/lilac/violet colour (probably from Ceylon) can easily be taken for very pale amethysts by an inexperienced eye. In the Roskilde cross (also an Eastern cross), for example, the rubies are also of a very pale variety.Io6 Furthermore Evelyn is not sure of hirnseIf when he defines them as amethysts. The form of the stones confirms thisview: broad table amethysts correspond with the square stones in Taylour's description ('. . . on each side of this locket were set two large square red stones (supposed to be rubies). . .'). Evelyn says that the cross only measures three inches but this may be due to a rough estimate. if my hypothesis is right he adds three elements to the description: (a) the inscription is in gold, in consequence the background was enamelled, (b) part of the cross was embossed, (c) the pendant pearl. If we accept that James I1 had only one enamelled cross, we can more easify solve the problem of king Edward's encc~lpion.One of the have been then taken from him'). Curiously enough there exists at Faversham church a 14th century wall painting, probably representing the Confessor and a pilgrim holding out a ring to him, cf. T. Willement, 'Faversham Church, Kent', Archaeologin Cantlnna, i, London 1858, 150-3, Tanner, Representnffons, 6 , and pl.111. The wall painting was probably covered in the f 7th century. 102 Notes and Queries, 3rd ser., v, 1 864, 392. Cf. Tanner, Quest, 7, and the BritannicMngazine, v, 1797, 85, 103 A descri~tionof Charles It's cross does not exist. A. S. Barnes, 'Twcl Crucifixes', m e Downside ~ e i i e wxtv , (no. 127). 1927, 23-35; cf. Tanner, Quest, 8. 104 This was not the view of Micklethwaite, 228, and Tanner, Quest, 8. W. Bray, the editor of Evelyn's Memoirs, refers in a footnote to Taylour's description, suggesting that Evelyn described king Edward's cross. 105 The editor faithfully copied the original text, cf. Tanner,Quest, 8, n.2. 106 Lindahl, 12 and front cover.

England and Byzanrium on the Eve ofthe Norman Conquest

95

attendants in Faversham tells that the cross was only tipped with gold, suggesting that this was the enamelled cross. There is no need t o use such an expression when speaking of a solid cross of pure gold. The Faversham people were anxious to have even the small amount of gold. Their hatred for what they may have considered an object of Roman Catholic cult may have played its own role. Moreover James 11 himself confirmed that he had lost a cross that had belonged to king Edward. That later sources still call Edward the owner of a cross that probably had belonged to Charles I1 is no wonder.Io7 It must have been a fantastic thought to think one possessed the cross of that pious, medieval, English king. The quest for the Byzantine cross should not continue. The gold has been melted down and the broken pieces of enamel may lie somewhere on the bottom of the sea. The question arises why and how king Edward received such a precious object. Receiving an encolpion was a high honour especially when it contained a splinter of the True Cross. Few people in Constantinople apart from the Patriarch and the Emperor had access to this most venerated relic in C h r i s t e n d ~ m It . ~ismy ~ ~ hypothesis that the Greek cross came to England as an imperial gift to king Edward. In an earlier publication I have ventured the hypothesis that queen Dagmar's cross was sent to Denmark either as a remuneration for the sending of mercenaries or in order to persuade the sovereign to send them.Io9 This may apply to England as well, since the country had no strategic or neighbouring position, nor any political influence upon Byzantium's enemies. The real reason is a mystery still. New material or new facts may confirm my hypothesis. The same goes for the sending of precious goods such as silks and other Byzantine objects that reached the country in that period. We have not yet discussed the influence Byzantine art exerted on the arts in England. Not being an art historian t will not enter this field, but only make a few remarks. Systematic research on this Greek influence has not yet been carried out. One of the main problems is the inexact dating of works of art and the date of arrival of Byzantine objects in England; studies entitled The Byzantine Elemenr in lare Saxon Art and Britain rand the Ryzanrine World look promising enough but are very disappointing and contradictory in their conclusion^.'^^ A first step in thisdirection should be the making of an inventory of all Byzantine objects manufactured in the tenth and eleventh centuries which are IikeIy to have reached the West in that period. This will prove to be a difficult task because the history of many objects is unknown, but it nlay yieId some result^.'^' lo7 Tanner, Quest, 7 f. '08 Bichop Yves of Sees received a fragment of the cross from the emperor, Jumidges, 168 (not included in the inventories of Frolow). 109 Cf. note 79. 'I0 D. Talbot Rice, m e Byzuntine Element in late Saxon Art, London 1947.20 (The William IIemyCharlton Memorial Lecture),'with the Norman conquest of Brita~n,the Byzantine influence which we havc been discussing came almost completely to an end'; idem, Britain and the Byzantirte World, 36, 'with the Norman Conquest of 1066 a marked change came about in English art . . examples [that] show links with the Ryzantine world, are to be found';idem, English Art, passim. Sec also S. Cassan, 'Byzantium and Anglo-Saxon Sculpture', Burlington Magazine, 61, 1932, 265-74, idem, Greece and Britain, London (1943) (hardly of any use) and T. C. Lethbridge, 'Byzantine lnflucnce in Late Saxon England', Proceedings of the CnmbridgeAntiquadan Society, 43, 1949, 1-6. H. Wentzel published articles on Byzantine objects in Gcrrnany and adjacent areas for a hypothesis of the dowry of the Greek princess Theophano who married Otto 11, Aachener Kunsthlitter,40,197t,15f.;43,1972,1If.;44,1973,43f.;Pantheon,30,1972,3f. Cf.A.Effenberger, 'Provenienzgeschichtliche Probleme des byzantiniscilen Kunstbesitzes in der DDR', Byzantinischer Kunstexport, 1 7 1 f.

.

96

Anglo-Noman Studies V

I have tried to show that in all likelihood relations existed between the Byzantine court and the Anglo-Saxon king Edward. That these relations were very highly developed or followed a regular pattern cannot be proved, but does not seem very likely. The Miracle of the Seven Sleepers in Edward's Lgc and the Greek encolpion that was in his possession play the main role in my hypothesis. They are not conclusive evidence, however. They suggest rather than prove that the king had contacts with one or more Byzantine emperors. A number of indications in other sources seem to corroborate this thesis by their cumulative force: references in historical sources (Nicephorus Bryennius, Matthew of Edessa). the presence of silks in Edward's tomb, coins, a seal, and the retention of the title basileus. The presence ofcertain Byzantine objects belonging to the eleventh century (although the date of their arrival is highly uncertain) may have played its own role. Relations were not limited to the royal court. Pilgrims also contributed t o a wider expansion of Greek influence in the British Isles. It is my hypothesis that before 1066 Anglo-Saxons went eastwards t o serve in the Greek army. The only object that, from the date ofitsmaking, could have enabled us to determine when it came to Britain, namely the enamelled cross of Edward, was destroyed by Faversham fishermen in the seventeenth century. We have to wait for the day when new material will turn up to establish theextent of Anglo-Byzantine relations in the period immediately preceding the Norman conquest.

LA DATATION RE L'ABBATIALE DE BERNAY QUELQUES OBSERVATIONS ARCHITECTURALES ET RESULTATS DES FOUILLES R ~ C E N T E S Joseph Decaens L'abbatiale de Bernayest un monument fascinant. Pour celui qui pCn6tre dans I'Cdifice, pour la premibre fois ou meme aprhs une longue famiIiarit6, il est impossible, devant les hautes arcades de la nef et les grands arcs autrepasds de la croide, de ne pas etre saisi par la beaut6 grandiose de cette architecture (Fig. 1). Apr&sle choc, vient Ie desir de mieux connaitre, de percer une partie du mystere, aumoins dans ce qu'I1 a de plus matiriel, c'est-&-dire d'ktudier la construction. De nombreux historiens de I'art et archCologues I'ont fait, plusieursavec bonheur:le chanoine PorCe,' J. B i l ~ o n , ~ L. G r ~ d e c k i ,L.~ Musset? R. L i e s ~ .Cependant ~ I'knigme demeure en grande partie et cela est normal et heureux en presence d'une oeuvre architecturale d'une telle qualit6. Mais le probl6me de la datation fait toujours difficultC. Datation haute dans les premihres decennies du XIe siecle ou datation longue s'ktendant jusque vers 1075. ProbKme connexe: la construction a-t-elle 6tC continue ou y a-t-il eu de nombreuses Ctapes dparees par des pCriodes d'arr6t assez fongues? M&meceux qui insistent sur I'archa~smeet I'unitb de I'abbatiale semblent, au dernier moment, pris de scrupules ou de remords et imaginent souvent des solutions longues et des &apes com~liquCes. I1 Btait donc tentant de penser que ce que n'avaient pu faire tant d'etudes minutieuses, I'arch&ologie contemporaine, fondBe sur I'opCration de fouille et I'Ctude stratigraphique du sol, perrnettrait de faire avancer un peu ces questions de la datation et des Ctapes de la construction. Cela n'a pas Cte compl6tement possible pour les raisons qu'on verra, mais il semble qu'un certain nombre d'observations faites au cours des fouitles m6ritent d'ktre connues. D'autre part, la longue prCsence dans Ie monument, a I'occasion des fouilles, a permis des observations architecturales nouvelles. La charte Divina prapiciante I1 est toujours nkcessaire, s'agissant de I'abbatiale de Bernay, de lire ou de relire attentivement la charte Divina p r o p i ~ i a n t e . ~ On sait que, dans ce texte, dont Chanoine Porke, 'L'klise abbatiale de Bernay', Congre'smchkologiquede France, 1908, Caen, vol. ii, 588-614 et 'Nouvelles observations sur l'dgliseabbatialcde Bernay', BulletinMonumenfaI, Ixxv, 191 1,396-402. 2 John U~lson,'La date et la construction de I'dglise abbatiale de Bernay', Bulletin Monumental, Ixuv, 191 1,403 -22. 3 Louis Grodeeki, 'Les dCbuts de la sculpture romanc en Normandie, Bcrnay', Bulletin Monumental, xviii, 1950, 7-67. Lucien Musset,IVormndieromane,2, 1974, 45-67. 5 Reinhard Licss, Der fhihromanische Kirchenbau des 11. Jahrlzunderts in der Nonnandie, Munrch 1967. 6 Marie Eauroux, RecueildesActesdesDucsde Normandie (911-10661,Cacn 196 1 , 1 3 1 -5, nO35.

98

Anglo-Norman Studies V

personne ne conteste plus la date (10251,le duc de Normandie, Richard 11, rappelle que sa femme Judith avait consacrd une part importante de son douaire a la fondation du monastkre de Bernay. Mais Judith Ctant morte en 1017 , il decide pour continuer son oeuvre de rattacher cette abbaye a celle de Fdcamp et de la confier a Guillaume de Volpiano. Tous les auteurs sont d'accord pour situer la fandation peu avant la mort de Judith autour de l'an 1015. L'expression employ6e dans la charte fundamenta posuit 'elle a p o d les fondations' est ambigui?: s'agit-il de Ia fondation religieuse du monastere comme on le croit le plus souvent ou des premiers Bldments de la construction? I1 semble qu'on puisse raisonnablement pencher pour la seconde solution: le mot fundamenta, au pluriel, a plus de chance d'Ctre pris dans son acception concrete, comme cela est rest6 en franpis. La suite du texte invite d'ailleurs B cette interprdtation presque matdrielle puisqu'il dit preparans ipsa monasterii edtficia rnonastico ordini congma 'prdparant elle-m&me Ies edifices de ce monast6re afin qu'ib conviennent & I'ordre rnonastique'. Judith est morte, nous dit toujours le texte, avant d'avoir achev6 son oeuvre comme elle I'avait sotlhaitC sed cum necdunz ut optaverat perfecisset, piam in Christo accepit dormitionem. L'emploi des temps est parfaitement utilis6 par le rddacteur de la charte et permet de bien suivre la succession des Bvenements it Bernay. Apr&sla mort de Judith, Richard If confie I'abbaye de Bernay ii Guillaume de Volpiano, abbe de F6camp depuis le debut du siecle (tool), le chargeant perficietld~frnd'achever l'oeuvre de son dpouse ddfunte. LB aussi, le g6rondif marque bien le devoir sacr6 du vdne'rable abbd. Pour cela, Richard donne B Bernay des biens consid6rables ou plutbt il confirme les dons de Judith puisqu'on retrouve dans la liste une grande partie des dons d6ja citds dansle Dolilitiurn Jzcdithae au moment de la constitution du douaire entre 996 et 1008.7 11 est possible qu'il y ait un hiatus entre 1017 (mort de Judith) et 1015 (date de la charte), mais ce n'est mcirne pas siir, car la charte Diviizaprupiciante dit que Richard I1 a confid B Guillaume de Volpiano le soin de parfaire la construction en prdcisant exactement confestim corrstitui 'j'ai install6 aussitbt (a Bernay) une communautd de moines' (assiduam . . . habitatio). Et Ie texte fait dire A Richard: cortcedo ergo 'c'est pourquoi je donne'. L'emploi du prksent tranche nettement sur le pass6 du verbe prkcddent. Le texte de la ctlarte est donc relativement clair: avant 1017, la construction de l'abbaye Btait commencke et le chantier s'est immkdiatement poursuivi sous la direction de Guillaume de Volpiano. GuiIIaume de Volpiano II est impossible ici de ne pas kvoquer, en quelques mots, la grande figure de Guillaume de Volpiano. Originaire de I'Italie du Nord, il est nd en 961 dans la petite ile San Giulio au milieu du lac d'0rta B la limite du Pidmont et de la Lombardie. Les circonstances de sa naissance sont extraordinaires puisqu'ii vient au monde pendant que l'empereur Otton le Grand assiege 1e chateau de San Giulio. Son bapt&meaura lieu apres la reddition: l'empereur Otton sera son parrain, I'impdratrice AdCiai'de, sa marraine. Jeune moine a Locedia, il manifeste tr&stbt son gofit pour l'architecture. Be passage dans cette abbaye, l'abb6 de Cluny, Mayeul, le remarque et lui propose de venir en Rourgogne (987). Quelques annCes apr*s, il est abbe de St Benigne de Bijon ou il entreprend bientbt fa construction le l'abbatiale, vaste Bdifice de plan basilica1 termind par une rotonde. Autour de l'an 1000, la demande de Richard 11, Rlarie Faurous. op. cit.. 8 2 -5 , nQl 1 .

Image not available

Fig. 1 Abbafiale de Berrtay: nef

100

Anglo-Norman Studies V

iI vient en Normandie B FBcamp pour y reformer la vie religieuse et monastique mais aussi pour construire des Cglises et des monastdres. Dans ce but, il emmene avec lui des mac;ons bourguignons. C'est alors un de ces personnages etonnants B la culture universelle: theologien et reformateur, architecte et homme d'action. Au moment oh il arrive en Normandie, il se trouve au coeur des divers courants qui ont animk l'art roman naissant: influence lombarde, influence bourguignonne (Cluny), influence rhenane (ottonienne). L,e probldme souvent pose est encore devant nous: I'abbatiale de Bernay est-elle ceHe de Guillaume de Volpiano? Est-il possible d'y repdrer les influences que Yon vient de citer? Est-il possible de mieux la dater? C'est certainement avec St Pierre de Jumidges l'un des plus anciens monuments de la Normandie. Son Btude est absolument capitale pour 6lucider les origines de l'art roman normand et pour essayer de comprendre la genbse de cet art a travers le jeu des influences qui ont pu s'exercer. Essayons une fois de plus d'y regarder de prds, d'abord en observant le monument tel qu'il se pr6sente aujourd'hui, ensuite en y ajoutant les prdcisions apportdes par les fouilles. Plar? Une premiere observation que I'on peut faire en commenqant 1'6tude minutieuse de l'abbatiale de Bernay est la rigueur de son plan. I1 faut pour s'en convaincre faire abstraction des dessins connus presque tous inexacts. Avec l'aide d'un thhodolithe, on peut se rendre compte du caractdre gdometriquement parfait de ce plan (Fig. 2 ) . Nul doute qu'une volontC trQ precise et qu'une unite d'inspiration n'aient preside' B son elaboration. Ce qui frappe aussi, c'est la filiation de ce plan avec ce que l'on sait maintenant de Cluny I1 grdce a K. J. Conant: nef B bas-cat&, transept saillant 2 absidioles profondes, choeur flanqut de bas-cBtbs, chevet a absides BchelonnCes. Seule anomalie: Ie bas-cbtb du choeur est Mggrement plus Btroit que celui de la nef: 3,73m pour 4,23m. Cela aussi pourrait Ctre un heritage de Cluny I1 ou de St Bdnigne de Dijon. La postdrit15 de ce plan est bien connue: toutes les grandes abbatiales de Normandie except6 les quelques exempfes de choeur h dbambulat~ire.~ Couvrement Nef, transept et choeur de Rernay n'ont jamais 6tB voftbs. Les bas-c6tQ l'etaient en revanche: des voittes d'aretes comme celles qui existent encore dans les bas-cbtes du cfioeur, les coupoles du bas-cbte sud de la nef sont du XVIIe sidcle, le collat6ral nord a 6td en partie reconstruit au XVe sigcle et a BtC couvert de voQtessur crois6e d'ogives. On sdit que ce parti de non-volitement des grands vaisseaux romans s'est prolong6 en Normandie jusqu'au debut du XIIe sidcle.

La nef L'61Bvation laterale de la nef prtsente des caractbres trks archai'ques si on la compare B I'Cltvation des nefs &leveesil partir du milieu du XIe sidcle: nef de Jumieges(10401067), nef du Mont Saint-Michel (1060-1080), nef de St Etienne de Caen (10631077). Dans toutes ces nefs, la division architecturale horizontale et verticale est 8

Plan r6alis&avec I'aide de J . R. Faivrc, H. Fayotle-Lussac, D. Levalet, L. James.

Image not available

Anglo-Norman Studies V deja bien organisee: division en trois Ctages bien sCparbs, bien marques par des bandeaux de pierre horizonraux, division en travees marquee par des demi-colonnes montantes depuis le sol jusqu'aux entraits de la charpente. D'autre part, dans ces edifices, la plus grande partie de la surface de 1'61Cvation laterale est 6vidde (sauf B Jumikges oll le mur nu est encore important): au Mont Saint-Michel, B St Etienne de Caen les percCes (arcades, baies, fenetres) I'emportent nettement, le rnur disparait. Rien de tei B Bernay. La rangCe des grandes arcades surprend par sa hauteur, pratiquement la moitid du rnur goutterot de la nef (Fig. 3). Cette rangee des arcades est bien separbe de l'&tage median par un bandeau de pierre,mais cet Ctage des fausses tribunes ouvrant sur tes combles des bas-cdtds et 1'Ctage des fendtres hautes s'interpenetrent. Vbtage median est en effet marque par une alternance de baies geminees dtroites et basses et de fausses fenetres cintrbes, plus hautes que les baies jumelles et placees au droit de chaque pile de la nef. Ces fausses fenCtres qui se prbentent donc comme des niches peu profondes (20cm) rappellent, comme la plupart des auteursl'ont notC,Iesm~daiBons,Bgaiement faits pour ttre peints, que I'on voit 31 St Pierre de Jumibges au-dessus des arcades de cette Cglise. Celle-ci est gendralement datBe de la fin du Xe si6cle. En tout cas, a Bernay, la disposition de ces fausses fenktres au droit de chaque pile de la nef rnontre que I'on n'a absolument pas cherche ou voulu une division en travde comme cela sera la r&gledans toutes grandes dglises romanes de Normandie. Autre caractere de cette tlevation latkrale, qui peut passer aussi pour un archaisme, c'est la minceur du mur: elle peut s'expliquer puisqu'on ne parait pas avoir jamais eu I'intention de vofiter, mais elle entraine I'absence d'un autre BMment classique du roman normand: Ie passage longitudinal pratiqud dans le mur a la hauteur des fenetres hautes. On remarquera I'importance du mur nu, non percd et non decor6 surtout, encore une fois, par rapport aux Bl6vations du Mont Saint-Michel ou de St Etienne de Caen. Un grand appareil fait de pierre calcaire de teinte grisgtre est utilisd jusqu'au niveau des grandes arcades. Les joints tr2s larges itaient recouverts d'un ruban tres soigne qui subsiste encore de place en place. Au-dessus des grandes arcades: on voit nettement un changement, la maqonnerie est plus pauvre faite de silex ou de pierres calcaires de petit module, noyds dans le mortier (Fig. 4). Le probleme pose par ce changement de matdriau est de determiner s'il s'agit 18 de la marque d'un arret dans la construction. Au-dessus du bandeau de pierre a la base de l'etage median, Ies baies gdmindes, les niches et les fenetres hautes sont encadrees d'un appareil moyen de pierre calcaire Bgalement mais dont la teinte blanchitre se distingue nettement du grand appareil de teinte g r i ~ i t r e . ~ Le probleme des piles dans cette dldvation a donne lieu B des controverses. Les supports des grandes arcades sont compos4s de la faqon suivante: le noyau est constitud par un massif de plan rectangulaire sur lequel s'appuie, du cot6 du collatdral un pilastre qui reqoit un large doubleau plat, lequel retombe sur I'autre face du bascdte sur un autre pilastre engage dans le mur goutterot. Ce massif rectangulaire est flanqui, dans l'axe longitudinal, d'un dosseret et d'une demi-colonne engagde supportant un arc moulurC d'un gros tore. I1 est certain, on I'a remarque d8s lespremieres etudes sur I'abbatiale, au XIXe sikle, que les demi-colonnes sur dosseret ne font pas partie du plan primitif et de la construction primitive. A quel moment a-t-on modifit la disposition initiale? Certains auteurs (Bouet, Regnier) pensaient que les demi9 En I'absence de toute dfude gdologique des diffkrentes pierres utilides A Bernay, j'ai prkfkrd

u tiliser eeg distinctions d'apr;? la coulcur du matCxiau.

Image not available

Fig.3 Bernay: nef, Cl@vatintzEaterale sztd

Image not available

Fig. 4 4ert?uy:tzqf, ele'vuti~)~~ laterale sud

Image not available

Fig. 5

Rerizay: nef; socle piirnitif d 'zrn piller rrzontrarzt 1 hdjonction de la demicolonize sur dosserer

La datation de 1'abbatiale de Bernay

Image not available

Fig. 6 Bernaj!: nef, imposf e passanf derriere le tailloir d'un chapiteau

colonnes sur dosseret avaient t t t ajouttes une fois les grandes arcades termintes, peut4tre m6me apres la fin de la construction d'ensemble d'autres, comme le chanoine Poree, John Bilson et plus rdcemment M. Lucien Musset, ont pens6 que ces demicolonnes sur dosseret n'6taient pas trds postbrieures au massif rectangulaire et que leur adjonction avait dii se faire lorsque le noyau primitif sortait B peine de terre. L'argument principal de Bilson est que 'I'addition de cette voussure intCrieure ornte d'un gros tore, sous un arc dej& construit, esi une optration invraisemblable en soi et assez difficile en ex6cution'. P e s t un argument qui me semble un peu terroriste. J'ai interrog6 bien des fois des architectes et des chefs de chantier sur ce point: ils ont toujours dt6 d'accord pour dire que cela est possible a condition, bien sOr, de bien cintrer la voussure pour ex6cuter Ie travail et de remplacer une partie au moins des pierres de l'arc initial afin de lier la voussure primitive B celle que I'an ajoute. Au bas des piles; le socle des massifs rectangulaires est ornb d'un cavet formant

106

A nglo-Noman Studies V

plinthe. On peut voir facilement que cette moulure passe derriere les bases des demicolonnes sur dosseret (Fig. 5). On remarquera dgalement les discordances entre les joints horizontaux des piles et ceux des demi-colonnes sur dosseret. On a moins observ6 le sommet des piles: on peut y voir un bandeau chanfrein6 en cavet qui forme imposte et vient rejoindre le taitloir du chapiteau des colonnes (Fig. 6). En plusieurs endroits, l'imposte passe derriere le tailloir du chapiteau, ce qui montre bien que les piles rectangulaires ont dt6 tlevdes au moins jusque 18 avant leur transformation. Mieux, 1es arcs eux-m&mesportent parfois la marque du travail effectud: Ia voussure externe, la plus ancienne, est aEors en pierre de teintegrisltre, la voussure interne qui porte le gros tore est en pierre blanchatre. On peut surtout observer cetteparticularit6 en regardant Ie revers des arcs 8 partir des bas-cBt6s. Contrairement B ce que pensaient le chanoine Porde et John Bilson et contrairement a ce que montrent les dessins de l'architecte Chauliat, les demi-colonnes reposent sur le sol primitif et non sur des socles de 0,45m. Les conditions de la fouille de 1910 exicutte en faisant des trous de faibles dimensions au pied des piles expliquent sans doute cette erreur. Les derni-colonnes possGdent chacune une base moulur&ecomprenant deux tores de meme taiIle et d'aplomb, sdpardspar une scotie. On sait que des bases de ce type existent 8 la fin de la pdriode carolingienne (on en trouve i~ St Pierre de Jumi&ges), mais disparaissent presque complitement dans la deuxi&memoitid du XIe siGcle. D'autre part, Ie cavet formant plinthe B la base d'un massif barlong peut Ctre rapproch6 des socles de la cath6drale pr6-romane d'OrlBans commencde aprks un incendie en 989 et dttruite par un nouvel incendie en 101O.1° Ddtail curieux 8 Orleans comme B Bernay, sur des massifs carrds ou cmciformes on a dgalement ajoutd des demi-colonnes sur dosseret. Pour caractdriser l'impression produite par cette nef surtout si I'on fait, par la pende, abstraction des demi-colonnes, deux mots viennent a I'esprit: ottonien et lombard: piles rectangulaires, hauteur des grandes arcades, absence de voiite renforcent cette impression.

La croisee du nansept L a croisee du transept est essentiellement constitude par quatre arcs en plein cintre d'une d16vation grandiose. Dans cette partie de 1'6difice on peut aussi observer un changement tr&s net de matdriau, la pierre de teinte grisatre ne dtpasse gukre l'extrados des grands arcs sauf dans les angles. Au-dessus, on utilise encore un grand appareil mais la teinte de la pierre blanchatre tranche clairement (Fig. 7). Ici &galement, les demi-colonnes sur dosseret sont une adjonction rdvt5lde par la discordance des joints horizontaux. Le plan primitif des piliers de la crois6e Ctait donc cruciforme. Le caractere outrepasd des grands arcs est tres net mais il affecte, quoique moins visible, toute la construction, notamment les arcades de la nef et du choeur; il tient surtout, si on I'observe attentivement, l'ajout de I'arc interne et de la moulure torique. L'arc primitif est seulement surhausse. La tour qui sVlevait au-dessus de cette crsisde ne semble pas avoir jamais 6tC trds dlevbe, du moins si I'on se fie aux gravures et dessins du XVIfe ou du XVIIIe si$cle, mais c'itait une tour lanteme qui aujourd'hui est arade 8 un niveau infdrieur aux baies qui devaient 6clairer Ie centre de ]'edifice.

La datation de I'abbatiale de Rerrzay

Image not available

I*&. 7 13ermy: croisee du transept Le transept Le croisillon nord a dtd presque entidrement abattu au debut du XIXe siecle. ZR croisiIIon sud est assez bien conserve sauf le mur du fond, au sud, qui a Ctd compldtement refait au XVIIe sitcle lors de la reconstruction des bltiments conventuels par les b6nddictins mauristes. La face orientale comporte une haute absidiole dont l'archivolte porte sur des colonnes jumelles monolithies reposant sur un soubassement dlevd. John Bilson donnait aussi cette particularit6 comme un archa'isme. Sur cette face, Ie grand appareil en pierres grises monte jwsqu7B I'btage m6dian compris. Audessus, regne un grand appareil de pierres blanches (Fig. 8). Le mur occidental est ornd d'un grand arc de decharge reposant bgalement sur des colonnes monolithes placees sur un bahut surt5levd. Le n u r est ici plus dpais et 1'6tage comporte une galerie de circulation B laquelle on ackdait par un escalier adosse B la tour centrale. On a supposd que cette disposition oii apparait pour la premiere fois ce qui sera une des caractdristiques du roman normand la coursiere dans l'dpaisseur de la muraille n'6tait pas d'origine et que le mur aurait 6th 6paissi a p r h coup pour etablir le passage. En se fiant B l'appareil, il me semble difficiIe d'admettre cette transformation. D'ailleurs

Image not available

Image not available

F'ig. 9 Bernay: transept, croisillon stad, mur ouest

Anglo-Norman Studies V

Image not available

Fig. 10 Benzay: choeur, ele'vation latkrale nord l'impression que donnent les piles carries munies d'impostes en cavet et surmontdes d'arcs simples rappelle 6trangement le schdma des grandes arcades de la nef tel qu'on peut I'imaginer avant l'ajout des demi-colonnes (Fig. 9). Le choeur Ce choeur est sans doute la partie de l'abbatiale la plus mutilie. A la fin du XIVe ou au d6but du XVe sidcle, pendant la guerre de Cent Ans,unincendie ravageral'bdifice mais il semble que le choeur souffrit plus gravement. On dkrnolit, 5 ce moment, la partie haute des murs goutterots du choeur, on obtura ce qui restait des fenttres hautes, B peu prds la moitii de leur hauteur primitive, et l'ensemble du choeur, y compris les collatBraux, fut couvert d'un toit unique. Pour donner du jour, l'abside romane fut remplacie par une abside B cinq pans, Iargement ouverte; des fenetres gothiques furent igalement percies au fond des absidioles des co1latBraux et dans le mur sud. Au XIXe sihcle, I'abside et les absidioles furent d6truites. On ileva alors

La datation de I'abbatiale de Bernay

111

pour fermer 1'6difice h l'est un horrible mur plat en briques qui embarrasse bien aujourd'hui les restaurateurs. Malgrb ces graves dommages, le choeur permet des observations trks interessantes. Tout d'abord on constate que les murs du vaisseau principal, jusqu'h I'arase actuelle, sont constwits en grand appareil primitif (Fig. lo), il en est de m6me des murs goutterots des collat6raux. Dans un mur du bas-c6tC sud apparait Ie gros bloc qui prdsente une inscription romaine en grandes capitales et qui a fait dire qu'une partie au moins des pierres de grand appareil pouvait provenir d'un monument romain. Apparemment la division en travbes existe dans fe choeur puisque les deux grandes arcades qui foment la partie droite du choeur sont sCpar6es par une demi-colonne montante sur dosseret. Cependant on constate vite que Ie noyau primitif des piles du choeur 6tait Bgalement rectangulaire et que sur les quatre faces ont 6tB ajout6es des demi-colonnes sur dosseret. Du c6t6 des collatCraux, on peut mCme preciser qu'existait primitivement un pilastre comme dans tes bas-cbtQ de la nef, ces pitastres ont 6t6 dbrnolis puis remplacks par des dosserets munis de leur demi-colonne afin de mieux r6partir les supports pour btablir les voiites d'arCtes sur un plan presque carr6. Cette mdme n6cessit6 du voCltement a entrain6 aux deux extrbmitbs de chacun des collat&rauxl'adjonction de demi-colonnes supplkrnentaires supportant des doubleaux et permettant aussi de rkduire la surface h couvrir. Ces transformations avaient bien 6t6 de'crites par Bilson d&s1911. Seule la d6molition du pilastre primitif n'avait pas bt6 vue. Ces transformations ont sans doute entrain6 des modifications assez importantes de I'appareil primitif. On voit de multiples traces de reprises et cela explique probablement le decalage de niveau des joints horizontaux de part et d'autre de la colonne montante du pilier nord face au choeur qui avait tant intrigue Bilson. Une preuve supplbmentaire de I'ajout post6rieur des demi-colonnes sur les piliers nord et sud du choeur peut dtre apport6e dans la disposition maladroite de leur emplacement par rapport aux grandes arcades, aux baies gbmin6es de la fausse tribune et des fendtres hautes (Fig. 11). On retrouve dans le choeur la disposition g6n6rale d6jB observbe dans la nef except6 les fausses fendtres ou niches qui n'existent pas. Les baies jumelles sont ici separ6es cornme dans la nef, par des colonnettes trhs courtes surmont6es de hauts chapiteaux t r b Bvads dont l'aspect carolingien rappelle ceux de St Pierre de JumiBges. Dernihre constatation, I'abside principale, les absidioles des colIat6raux du choeur et celles du transept ont 6t6 trBs probablernent construites aprss coup. Les vestiges qui subsistent montrent qu'elfes 6taient construites en appareil moyen dans un matdriau qui semble bien &re de la pierre de Caen. De la construction poste'rieure de I'abside et absidiotes, nous avons une preuve arch6ologique pour l'absidiole du transept, mais on peut penser qu'il 6tait nkcessaire en effet que les murs du chevet soient achevQ avant de pouvoir appuyer sur eux cette abside et ces absidioles. Aujourd'hui encore les restaurateurs ne peuvent reconstruire, mCme en bois, l'abside principale si lemur oriental ne s'Cl6ve pas h une hauteur convenable,

Conclusion des observations architectumles L'examen complet des appareils et Sobservation des structures architecturales permettent de degager, me semble-t-il, une stratigraphie des diffkrentes phases de la construction. Le changement de matiriau, le passage surtout du grand appareil en pierre calcaire de teinte grisPtre ?I I'appareil en pierre de teinte blanchiitre donne la Iimite d'une premitre phase, sans doute de la premiere campagne de constmction.

Anglo-Norman Studies V

Image not available

Fig. 11 Benzay: clzucur, elevation Iaterale sud Cette premibre phase comprend: - 1e choeur jusqu'au sommet des murs, except6 I'abside et les absidioles - la croisCe jusqu'8 l'extrados des grands arcs et le transept jusqu'k 1'Ctage midian compris, except6 les absidioles - la nef jusqu'i I'extrados des grandes arcades. La construction me parait avoir CtC entreprise partout a la fois dans Sensemble de l'bdifice, la hauteur atteinte, B ce stade, dans la nef &ant seulernent un peu inf6rieure. MalgrC le contenu trbs diffdrent que je lui donne, j'assimilerais volontiers cette premiere campagne k la phase I de M. Lucien Musset, dat4e par lui des annCes 1010-1020, je dirais plus volontiers I015 -1 025. Ce serait I'oeuvre de GuiHaume de Volpiano. Une seconde phase, sans arr&t des travaux mais avec un mat6riau diffbrent, comprendrait : - les parties hautes de Ia tour lanterne - les parties hautes du transept - les murs lateraux de la nef B partir du somrnet des grandes arcades.

La datation de l'abbatkzirle de Bernay

113

On pourrait aussi, comme M. L. Musset, appeler cette phase I Bis. Dans la nef, Ies dispositions genkrales de l'e'tage mbdian restent les m&mesque dans le choeur: les baies jumelles, identiques B ceIles du choeur, s6par&s aussi par la m6me colonnette tr&scourte sumontee d'un haut chapiteau tr4s 6vasd. Le changement de materiau et notamment l'utilisation du silex noy6 dans le mortier peut s'expliquerparla prbsence d b n enduit reccuvert de peinture ou par des difficult& tconomiques, par exemple aprh la mort de Richard I1 (1024). La difference la plus importante est dans l'amenagement de ces fausses fenetres au droit des piles. On pourrait dater cette phase I Bis des annees 1025 -1035. Sans hiatus encore, presque dans la foulbe, peut-&trememe avant la fin des travaux des phases I et I Bis, je verrais I'importante campagne de travaux qui comprend la modification des piles, l'adjonction des demi-colonnes sur dosseret et I'apport des chapiteaux sculptes. A ce moment seulement l'eglise aurait r e p son chevet avec la construction de l'abside et des absidioles. Dms le choeur, des demi-colonnes montantes ajoutdes aux deux piliers centraux marquhrent nettement les deux travies. Si de telles demi-colonnes ne purent &treajoutdes aux piliers de la nef, c'est que le mur comprenant les niches de I'itage mbdian, situ6es au-dessus de chacune des piles, Btait d6ja Blev6. Cette campagne, qu'on peut appeler phase 11, debuterait par le choeur vers 1030 pour s'6tendre progressivement vers la nef oii elle s'ach6verait avant 1050. Mon guide sera ici l'article fameux de Louis Grodecki: les Btapes des travaux sont marquees par les differents groupes de chapiteaux: dans Ie choeur, les bas-c6t6s du choeur et le transept, un premier groupe de chapiteaux tronconiques dont 1'Bpannelage est B peine degage du cube dans la moiti6 haute tandis que le bas de la corbeille s'6vase progressivement au-dessus de l'astragale. La sculpture est plate suivant rigoureusement les mouvements du fond. Les decors vegetaux ou animaux sont B la fois precis et souples. Dans la croide du transept et dans la nef, un second groupe dont le type derive du chapiteau corinthien, la corbeille est 6vasbe de l'astragale au tailloir: 5 Ia partie inferieure, des collerettes de feuille, aux angles des volutes Bvoluant vers le crochet. I1 n'est pas possible de reprendre en detail les analyses et les ctassements de Louis Grodecki mais je rappellerai seulement les rapprochements quTl faisait avec des chapiteaux de St Pierre de Jurnieges et de St BBnigne de Dijon." Dans un article recent, MIle Maylis Bayld rzprenant I'dtude de ces chapiteaux dans i'optique, me semble-t-il, de Louis Grodecki propose une datation 'entre 1025 et 1050' pour les deux courants de la sculpture de Bernay. EIle pense que les plaques sculptees recemment mises au jour dans le transept sud 'offrent des motifs prk-romans dbjli discernables dans l'enluminure ottonienne du Xe si&cle'. Quant aux motifs decoratifs des chapiteaux du premier groupe: ils attestent un apport lointain vraisemblablement parvenu en Normandie par des voies complexes ob le r61e de Guillaume de Volpiano et de ses disciples Jean de Ravenne et Thierry fut sans doute determinant et qui rejoint peutetre une tradition regionale dqli ancienne d'ornementation en meplat. I1 s'y ajoute aux bases du choeur et sur un chapiteau du mur ouest du transept un type de sculpture Si entrelacs 'Iornbards' typiquement italienne et dont diverses Bquivalences se rencontrent en Lombardie,en Bourgogne et dans Ia vallde du Rh6ne.I2

*

L. Grodecki, op. cit., 33,54, 5 9 . 6 I , 64. M. Baylb, 'La sculpture dans les abbayes normandes i la finde I'kpoqueromane',Monuments histwiques, l03,1979,49-52 etbSculpturerolnane en Normandie', Archeologia, 144,1980,44-56. 1

12

114

Anglo-Numan Studies V

Du second groupe ddrivd du chapiteau corinthien, eUe approuve la ddmonstration de Grodecki sur les origines et montre la longue postdritd qu'il aura en Normandie. Ces chapiteaux de Ia nef sont encore loin des chapiteaux stirdotype's de St Etienne de Caen. Des dtapes intermddiaires peuvent dtre de'celdes a la crypte de la cathddrale de Bayeux ou la cathddrale romane de Rouen. L'impression Iaissde par la sculpture rdsumde par les mots 'ottonien et lombard', je les adopterai volontiers pour I'architecture. La datation proposde par L. Grodecki et MIle Bayld conforte ma ddmonstration. Vers 1050, l'abbatiale de Bernay dtait, me semble-t-il, terminde. L'abbaye peut recevoir son inddpendance par rapport It Fkcamp et son premier abbe, Vital, qui arrive li Bemay vers 1055. Un demier argument peut dtre utilise' en faveur d'une succession continue des diffdrentes phases qui ont dtd distingudes:il vient de I'analyse chimique et de I'examen granulomktrique des mortiers: Ies mortiers extraits des murs de l7t5dificedans les parties correspondant aux phases I, I Bis et I1 appartiennent & des matdriaux tr6s semblables et pour ainsi dire de mCme facture. Les fouilies L'abbatiale de Bernay si maltraitde par le temps et par les hommes, et pourtant si miraculeusement conservee dans ses parties essentielles, est, depuis qu'eUe a dti btudide, au ddbut du XlXe sikcle, un monument de confusion et de contradiction. Chaque analyse du biltiment apporte des solutions diffdrentes pour expliquer son dtrangetd et sa singularit6 et pour essayer de donner une datation pour le debut de Ia construction ou les differentes phases que l'on imagine. Entre 101Oet 1075, toutes Ies possibilitQ ont dtd tentdes. 11 est vrai que certaines etudes manquent de sdrieux, quelques-unes ont Btd publikes et ont fait grand bruit alors que leur auteur n'avait manifesternent pas vu Ie monument. De plus, l'Ctat de dklabrement et d'encombrement dans lequel iI se trouvait jusqu'en 1965 ne facilitait pas la tlche des arch6ologues ou des historiens de l'art. Il dtait donc tentant de penser que seules des fouilles archdologiques, bien conduites et mene'es avec ies mdthodes et les moyens d'analyse dont nous disposons aujourd'hui, pourraient apporter un peu de clarte et de precision. Mais Ia fouille d'un tel monument n'est pas facile. I1 y avait d'abord cette masse dnorme de remblai d'environ 1,30m de hauteur qui remplissait les parties basses de I'ddifice au-dessus du niveau primitif. De plus, comme il est d'usage dans les dglises anciennes, de nombreuses inhumations avaient 6 t i effectudes jusque dans les niveaux les plus profonds et le creusement de toutes ces tombes avaient ddtruit l'ordonnance des couches. Les endroits oh purent dtre pratiqudes et observdes des coupes stratigraphiques non perturbdes furent tr6s rares. Enfin on devine que dans une dglise, les tessons de poterie et meme les monnaies utiles comme rep6res chronologiques ne sont pas abondants. Intkrieur En 1965, on a procddd a I'enl8vement mtithodique des remblais, ce qui a dtd I'occasion dY6tudierles diffe'rents niveaux d'occupation (Fig. 12). Sous une dpaisse couche de terre, on a rencontrd: - d'abord, un dallage en carreaux hdxagonaux de terre cuite, sans ddcoration, il a dte reconnu comme Ctant le dallage 6tabIi par les bdnddictins de la Congrdgation de Saint-Maur i~ la fin du XVIIe ou au ddbut du XVIIle si&cle.

Image not available

116

Anglo-Noman Studies V

- sous une nouvelle masse de remblai, un autre dallage fait de grands caneaux de terre cuite glaqurds vert d'oh le nom de 'dallage vert' que nous lui avons donne. Les carreaux dtaient groupds en quartiers s6pards par des bandes de dalles en pierre calcaire. Dans la couche immediatement sous-jacente, on a recueilli des dldments de datation dont les plus recents accusaient le debut du XVlIe siecle. 11sembIe que ce dallage ait 6th Btabli au moment de la restauration qui suivit les destructions dues aux Guerres de Religion. L'abbatiale signalt?ecomme 'en mines' sur certains dessins est amputee de deux travees occidentales tandis que le reste de l'edifice est restaure. sous une nouvelle masse de remblai d'environ 0,40m d'epaisseur, un troisi2me dallage, encore des carreaux ornCs de dessins g&omdtriques et de teintes variCes: brune, rouge, jaune, le brun dominant dans l'ensemble. Ce dallage n'a pas BtC retrouv6 partout mais lorsqu'il a disparu, son niveau de pose reste assez bien marqud. On le voit bien dans les coupes. I1 me semble que cela pounait &re un dallage du XIIIe siicle, car partout oh il existait, iE reposait sur une couche d'incendie faite de charbons de bois provenant de planches ou demadriers. I1 pourrait s'agir de l'incendie signal6 par Eudes Rigaud, le cdlbbre archevdque de Rouen qui au cours de ses visites pastorales visite deux fois le monastBre. Dans ces remarques de 1239, il note ante combustionern 'avant I'incendie', il y avait trente cinq moines, maintenant, il n'y en a plus que quinze. - sous la couche d'incendie, un dallage en grosses dalles de pierre calcaire, assez dtroites (beaucoup plus longues que larges). C'est le dallage primitif du XIe si2cle ou plut6t ce qu'il en restait car il avait disparu en grande partie et n7a6tBretrouv6qu7en Iambeaux (Fig. 13). C'est dvidemment parvenu B ce niveau que les choses devenaient intdressantes et qu'il e6t fallu obtenir dans des couches bien placees des 6lCments de datation pennettant de situer exactement I'origine de I'abbatiale. Malheureusement, aucun tesson de poterie, aucune monnaie ne fut decouvert dans ces couches Ies plus anciennes. Cependant, on peut observer a diffdrentes reprises des surfaces de travail, c'est-a-dire des aires de ggchage de mortier. On constata alors que ces surfaces de travail sur lesquelles dtait post? le dallage du XIe siicle dtaient constituees d'une seule couche tris homoghe, souvent couvertes d'une 16gkre couche de crasse ou de salett?. On peut en dkduire, me sembIe-t-il, l'hypoth6se que le chantier n'aurait pas connu de vgritables campagnes separees par des espaces de temps assez longs. Si cela avait dt6 le cas en effet on aurait trouvd des surfaces de travail multiples skparees par des couches noirdtres marquant les arrdts de la construction. Or nulle part, nous n'avons trouvd des surfaces de travail ainsi feuilletkes. Les fouilles dans les couches profondes de I'abbatiale ont, en tout cas, bien montrk qu'il n'existe pas d'edifice anterleur B celui que nous corvnaissons aujourd'hui.

-

Extirieur Des sondages ont CtC pratiquds ? l'emplacement i du cloitre afin d'observer les fondations. Celles-ci furent examinCes Cgaiement l'inttrieur. Les fondations debordaient Iargement du mur de 0,90menviron de chaque c6tC. Elles Btaient faites de silex noyes dans un mortier tris rdsistant et avaient Cte construites en tranchhes. Elles Btaient extrdmement profondes Q tel point qu'on ne pQt en certains endroits atteindre leur niveau de base (plus de 2m). La profondeur et la largeur des fondationss'expliquent sans doute par le site de l'abbatiale dansle fond de la vallde de la Charentonne 06 le sol n'est guire ferme et oil I'on ne pouvait raisonnablement trouver la roche en place.

ABBATIALE

DE

BERNAY

1965

C o u p e p e r p e n d i c u l a i r e B la face Sud de la deuxihme

p i l e N o r d de l a n e f

Image not available

I Dallage 3-4

-5

en c a r r e a u x

Tranchee

verts

XVle S.

2 Lit

de

pose

pratiqube au pied du mur colrnatbe par

6 Remblai d'argile brune

7

Pierre calcaire

-

4 Chau

8 D a l l a g e de p a v e s d e t e r r e c u i t

9 L i t de pose

10 C o u c h e

12 D a l l a g e e n

p i e r r e c a l c a i r e X l e S 13 L i t de p o s e

d ' lncendie

3 Argile hrune

11 T e r r e

Fig. 13 Bernay: nef, coupe au droir de la deuxikme pile nord

s a l e avec f r a g m e n t s d e t u i l e s mortier blanchlitre.

118

Anglo-Norman Studies V

Une autre fouille executee dans l'abside principale permit de mettre en evidence le plan ancien de cette abside semi-circulaire. Les vestiges du mur roman dtaient encadrds par les fondations de l'abside B cinq pans e t It gros contreforts saillants du XVe siCcIe. A I'intbrieur de I'abside romane, on ddcouvrit les fondations debordantes du m6me type que celles qui avaient Ct6 trouvees ailleurs, Jouxtant ces fondations, trois trous de poteau ont ttC mis au jour, ils sont rkgulierement espacbs, ils pourraient bien Ctre la trace d'un dchafaudage ou d'un dispositif lit5 B la construction de la voiite en cul-de-four recouvrant l'abside (Fig. 2). La dCcouverte la plus intkressante, It I'exterieur de l'abbatiale, fut celle d'un btitiment accole & I'abbatiale, dans l'angle form6 par le mur sud du choeur et Ie transept. I1 s'agit d'un edifice de 10,70m sur 5,OOm pour 1es dimensions interieures comprenant deux parties s6parCes par une marche: - une partie ouest, langue de 8,50m accolCe au collateral sud du choeur et qui communi&ait avec lui par une porte actuellement murde. - une partie est, surd!ev6e de 0,15m et au centre de laquelle se situait ur, socle en pierres calcaires tr$s bien appareilldes e t qui presentait une plinthe en cavet It sa base. Le so1 Ctait en terre battue comportant des traces nombreuses de charbons de bois. Les murs dtaient faits en rognons de silex B l'exception du mur ouest mieux construit: ils portaient un decor d'enduit peint.I3 L'intBret de ce petit btitiment est qu'ici la fouiIIe a fourni quelquesbons eldments de datation. La partie orientale du mur nord du btitiment en question vient se raccorder au chevet-de I'abbatiale: Ies parties basses du choeur Btaient donc d6jh construites. D'ailleurs vers l'ouest, le mur du choeur est utilis6 comme cl6ture nord: une porte fut percde pour faire communiquer les deux ddifices. Le niveau du seuif de cette porte est le mCme que celui du so1 primitif de I'abbatiale. Lemur ouest de ce petit bitiment ne laisse pas de surprendre: il a Ct6 coupe par la construction du mur semicirculaire de I'absidiole du transept sud. Or cette absidiole prdsente manifestement deux p6riodes de construction: une reprise peut Ctre trBs nettement constatee dans le parement interieur au nord ou l'on distingue la ligne despierresen attente. D'autre part, les motifs sculpt4s situes de part et d'autre de I'entree de l'absidiole ont dtd coupds par la pose de chapiteaux et taiHoirs au nord et au sud. Tout se passe donc comme si I'on avait d'abord construit I'arc d'entrde de l'absidiole rnais non I'hdmicycle et la voiite en cul-de-four. Y avait-il une cloison provisoire, ou la communication etait-elle possible entre I'abbatiale en construction et le btitiment accol6? Ces observations permettent donc de penser que ce petit btitiment est B peu pr$s contemporain de la phase primitive de constxuction de l'abbatiale. Trois monnaies fournissent des bidments de datation interessants: la premiere est un denier du Mans decouvert dans une couche qui doit etre tr&sIkgerement anterieure au btitiment; les sp6cialistes l'attribuent au premier tiers du XIe sikcle, plus prdcisCment entre 1015 et 1036.14 La seconde, trouvCe swr le sol m&mede la chapelle, est dgalement un denier du Mans, mais d'un type dbgdn6rB; il appartient It la seconde partie de la periode de circulation de cette monnaie qui a perdure jusqu'au milieu du XIIIe si&cle. Enfin dans la couche de d6molition situde au-dessus du socle qui devait dtre la dbcouverte de ce bztiment est due au\ rccherches minutieuses de Pierre Kounel. D. Levalet a cv&cutCla fouille dont j'utilise ici, avec son accord, les rbuitats. I4 Couche 101 de la fig. 14. Etude dcs monnaies par Jacqueline Lemikre (C.R.A.M.). 13 La

Mo"

Image not available

Fig. 14 Bernay: coupe perpendiculaire au mur oriental du bdtiment dkcouverr au sud du choeur

120

Anglo-Norman Studies V

base d'un autel, il a Ctd dkcouvert un denier de St Martin de Tours, certainement antCrieur A 1204. On peut donc proposer, pour ce petit biltiment, une construction vers 1020 et une durde d'utilisation assez br&ve,se terminant vers la fin du XIIe siecle (Fig. 2). Une fouille mende ii l'extkrieur, B I'est, de ce petit bgtiment a permis d'explorer une Cpaisse couche d'occupation ldgkrement antdrieure B sa construction: elle Ctait compost5e de deux couches de terre noireI5 qui contenaient des ddchets de cuisine et une abondante eramique et qui Ctaient stSpardes par des poches de ddchets de construction (ddchets de taille de pierre et mortier) (Fig. 14). La cdramique tr&s homogene comporte surtout des piltes rouges et prdsente quelques rebords 'en bandeau' et des rebords cards ou rectangulaires. La typologie de cette cdramique est conforme a la datation fournie par la monnaie no 1. On peut raisonnablement penser que cette couche est contemporaine de la construction de I'abbatiale. La ddcouverte de ce petit batiment et de son environnement permet donc de conforter drieusement les hypotheses de datation haute que nous avons admises pour la construction de I'abbatiaIe. Dans son dernier dtat, ce bltiment devait Ctre une chapelle comme 1e laisse supposer la prdsence d'un aurel. Sa situation rappelte Cgalement les petits bltiments qui apparaissent de part et d'autre du choeur 31 Cluny I1 selon les reconstitutions de K . .IConant. .

Conclusion Le resultat des observations architecturales et des fouilles me semble done alIer dans le mZme sens: avec I'abbatiale de Bernay, nous sommes en prQence de I'ddifice roman le plus ancien de Normandie. 11 est I'oeuvre en grande partie de Guillaume de Volpiano. Des influences qui se sont exercdes B Remay, les unes n'auront pas de suite, les autres auront une longue postdritd. En tout cas, ce monument est trop diffgrent par son architecture et par sa sculpture des grands ddifices du milieu du XIe si&cle:Notre-Dame-de-Jumi&ges,le Mont Saint-Michel, St Etienne de Caen pour etre proche d'eux par la date. 11 faut donc le situer franchement dans la premitire moitid du XIe sihcle. l6

l 5 Couches 101 et l03 de la fig. 14. 16 Un projet de fouille de la partie occidentale de I'abbatiale, d6truite au XVIIe s. est

ri I'eitude: if permettrait de voir coniment se terminait l'abbatiale A I'ouest: mur simple, massif occidental, tours? I1 permettrait surtout d'cxaminer devani la faqade des couches d'occupation probablement plus riches qu'au chevet puisqu'on se trouve ici i proximitc! de la ville mkdl6valc.

THE EARLY ROMANESQUE TOWER OF SOMPTING CHURCH, SUSSEX Richard Gem The famous west tower of Sompting church (Fig. 1) is frequently cited as being Anglo-Saxon in style or date (or both). Obviously the tower, with the possible exception of the lowermost stage, is eleventhcentury: but equally clearly it manifests several features of the Romanesque style. It is the purpose of this paper to discuss these Romanesque features in their wider context and t o assess their implications for the dating of the tower as a whole.

History Domesday Book' refers to the church under the entry for the extensive manor of Sompting (Sultinges). In the time of King Edward the manor was held of the King by Lewin: following the Conquest it was granted t o William de Braose as part of his honour of Bra~nberand in 1086 was held of William by Ralph (possibly Ralph de Buci?). Sompting lay in the hundred of Brightford, and within the same hundred the Survey recorded not only the church at Sompting, but also one at Broadwater, one at Durrington and two at Tarring. There is no particular reason to think that Sompting was the main minster church of the hundred.

The Church The church is situated on sloping ground on the south face of the South Downs, not far from the tidal estuary of the River Broadwater (a fact perhaps alluded to in the place name, which refers to marshy ground). The building is constructed largely of mortared flints with ashlar dressings. In plan it comprises an unaisled nave and chancel, with north and south transeptal chapels, a north nave chapel, and a west tower. Most of the fabric, except the west tower, is of twelfth-century and later date, heavily restored in the nineteenth century. The nave, however, appears t o incorporate at least some fabric contemporary with the lowest stage of the tower.

Acknowledgement: I should like to expresv n ~ ygratitude to those who during the course of the conference at Battle talked over some of these problems with me, particularly Mr Jeffrey Weqt, Dr Maylis BayIB and Dr Ann Williams. Needless to say, the errors remain m y own. 1 V.C.H. Sussex, i, 448. l.or the history of the parish see V.C.H. Sussex, vi, i, 1980, 53-64.

122

Anglo-Noman Studies V

Image not available

Fig, 1 Sonzptirzg clzurch: tower from south-wesr The West Tower The tower externally is divided into two stages by a decorated string course and it seems reasonably clear t o the present writer that the fabric above and below this string course is of different dates. The architectural decoration of the two parts is quite different in character, and the vertical elements in no way align either side of the string course. The lower stage is decorated by pilaster strips rising from stepped bases and constructed in long-and-short work: these together with the double-splayed window in the north wall would be unexceptionable in an Anglo-Saxon context. What is unclear is whether this lower stage originally f o n e d a west porticus of the same height as the nave, or whether it was in fact part of the nave (the wall between

The Early Romanesque Tower of Sonapring Churclz

Image not available

Fig. 2 S o l n p t i t ~c/?urclt:~zorrllfuce ot rnx.?r this bay and the nave being, on such an interpretation, a later feature inserted when the tower was raised). The fabric with which this paper is especially concerned begins with the string course, which is decorated with what may be interpreted as an upright-leaf motif. Above the string for a certain height the tower has raised quoins, while in the middle of each face is a half-columnar shaft. The shafts rise from chamfered cubic bases, one of which is decorated with a palmette design. At about half their height the shafts are interrupted by sculptured capitals decorated with motifs similar to those of the tower arch (see below): the north capital has two rows of upright leaves; the west, east and, probably, south capitals have volutes of varying form.

Anglo-Norman Studies V

Image not available

J:ig. 3 Somprirzg chrrrch: north lace oftoruer, tvir~duwa t i~rterrnediate levd There are three levels of window openings in the tower above the string course (Fig. 2). At the Irwest [eve! in the south wall is a simple pedirnentabheaded window with a stepped moulding around it. In the north wall is a twin-light window which uses the main columnar shaft as a central division: the heads of the lights are pedimental, and they and the jambs are surrounded by continuous roll mouldings which terminate below sill level in volutes looking like heraldic clarions. On the interior of the window a human mask is carved at the springing point of the two heads. Above this window, at the inrermediate level, is another window (Fig. 3) with paired lights flanking the central columnar shaft. In this case the lights are round-headed, and

The Early Romanesyite Tower of Sompring Church

125

Image not available

Fig. 4 Sonfpting churclz: tower arch, detail of north side each is outlined by a continuous roll moulding. The top kevcl of the tower has on the east and west faces pairs of pedimental lights flanking tl-te columnar shaft. On both the north and south faces, however, t l ~ eshaft is flanked by pairs of twin-light windows, each with a mid-wall colonnette. The cojonnettes have corbelled capitals, which in the northern openings are decorated with attenuated volutes carved upon them. The heads of a11 the openings at this level of the tower have roll mouldings, but only on the north and east faces of the tower are the rolls continued down the jambs. The tower terminates in fourgables from which rises a low spire, termed a 'FU~enish helm' on account of its similarity to a type common in the later Komanesque architecture of the RIiineIand. Within the church at ground level an archway (Fig. 4) opens from the tower to the nave and is clearly contemporary with the upper part of the tower. The arch has rectangular jambs with attached half colunins that carry a roll moulding round the soffit of the arch. The half columns have double-chamfered bases and sculptured capitals. Each capital has three rows of upright leaves, while the jambs are carved with thick volutes enclosing clusters of berries and separated by frond leaves: the capital and jamb sculptures forrn a contintlous band of ornament. The motifs employed here are closely similar to tttose of the external shaft capitals of the tower, but they are better preserved.

1 26

Ang1~)-NomanStudies V

Character and Context of the Architectural Decoration Many of the architectural forms used in the decoration of the tower are specifically Romanesque in character: i. half-columnar shafts rising up the wall through more than one storey ii. attached half columns on the reveals of the jambs of arches iii. roll mouldings on the soffits of the arches iv. roll mouldings on the arrises of openings. In a Continental context these motifs do not appear before the second quarter of the eleventh century, and when they do appear as early as the second quarter of the century it is only in those buildings which were the pace setters for the development of the Romanesque style. The place where some of them are best exemplified is in the abbey church of Bernay, which must have been constructed for the most part within the period from c.1025 to ~ . X 0 5 0 The . ~ first three featuresin thelist all occur at Bernay, and it should perhaps be added that in the south transept there is also a parallel to the way in which at Sompting the sculpture from the capitals spreads as a band across the jambs (though there is no paralIel in the styles of the sculpture). For the use of roll mouldings on the arrises of openings othersourcesthan Bernay must be sought. The earliest major building surviving with arris roll mouldings is the abbey church of Le-Mont-St-Michel, in the transepts and nave which date from the years c.1048 x 1058 and f ~ l l o w i n g .For ~ the use of roll mouldings which are continuous round an arch and its jambs, without any intervening imposts, there is, however, no real parallel in surviving major buildings until the work of c.1090 at Gloucester and Ely abbeys. An origin for continuous arris rolls a few decades earlier than these dated English examples would, on the other hand, not seem altogether unlikely, especially if it is borne in mind that it is only in the 1090s that the soffit roll makes its appearance in major English buildings (e.g. Durham, Ely), despite the fact that its continental origins go back to the second quarter of the eleventh century. Even were it demonstrable that all the Romanesque features that occur at Sonipting had already been developed by the middle of the eleventh century in a handful of progressive buildings in France, there would yet remain a problem in explaining how and at what date these features reached Sompting. Two hypotheses seem possible. The first is that the mason responsible for building Sompting had travelled on the Continent and had experienced at first hand work on themajorsites at which the Romanesque style was being created. This hypothesis, however, seems highly unlikely, because the mason of Sompting had not understood what Romanesque was really about: he was certainly not in the international class of his profession. Romanesque was in the first instance a technique of construction and its decorative qualities only flowed from this. At Sompting, on the other hand, a few decorative features have been copied, but there has been no assimilation of the underlying technique (the cutting of the ashlar at Sompting has only to be examined to dernonstrate this). The second hypothesis, and the only one that will begin to stand up t o critical 2 See J. Decaens, supra, 97-120. In m y personal view it ir perhaps still open to discussion (a) whether any significant part of the superstructure of the church waq erected before 1025, and (b) when it was erected, whether the piers wcrc of plain rectangular forms to which the half columns e f cetem mere added secondarily, or whether in fact they were not built to a substantially unitary design. 3 For a summary description and b~bl~ography o n LC-Mont-St-MicheIsee R. Liess, fihromanische Kirchenbau des 11. Jahrhunderts in der Normandie, Munich 1967, 252ff.

The Early Romanesque Tower of Sompting Church

127

scrutiny, is that the mason was a local man with little real technical background, but with an eye for some of the decorative features that were appearing in other new Romanesque buildings in the locality In which he worked. If this were the case, then the location and date of such other buildings would need to be examined. The one major Early Romanesque building in England known t o have been begun in the years before the Conquest was Westminster Abbey. But Westminster can probably be ruled out as a source for Sompting, partly because it is geographically far removed, and more importantly because its stylistic sources appear t o have been quite distinct from those exemplified by Bernay - the building which shows, at least in the tower arch, close parallels to Sompting. Bernay itself belongs t o a particular current in Early Romanesque design in Normandy, a current that looked south-eastward towards Burgundy (e.g. there are close parallels with Auxerre Cathedral). These stylistic links are likely to reflect the connexions forged by William of Volpiano between the monastic reform in Normandy, centred on Fdcamp (the mother house of Bernay), and Burgundy. If a Norman source at one remove is postulated for the Romanesque features of Sompting, therefore, we should probably be looking for an English intermediary related directly either to Bernay itself or t o the Fdcamp sphere of influence. It may be significant that Fdcamp itself had landed interests in the vicinity of Sompting. Already before the Conquest (c.1042 x 1047) the abbey may have been granted Steyning by Edward the Confessor: in any case Steyning was certainly confirmed t o Fecamp in 1085 by William the C ~ n q u e r o r The . ~ donation to Fdcamp may have provided a context for a rebuilding of the church - though whether any work under Fdcamp patronagewas undertaken in the pre-Conquest period is unknown (and, perhaps, unlikely?). The existing church of Steyning is substantially of the time of Henry 11, but it retains the west side of the crossing of an earlier building. The sculptured capitals of the earlier work have been dated as early twelfth-century by Zarnecki, who has drawn attention to the Winchester-style acanthus with which they are ~ r n a m e n t e d . ~Closely similar acanthus - with attenuated and leafless tendrils - occurs in a dated context in the crypt of Gloucester c. 1089, so this sculptured feature could well go back to an earlier date than 1 100 (its origins, as Zarnecki has clearly demonstrated, Iie in Winchester manuscript illumination). If the actual start of the work at Steyning could be put back into the late eleventh century this P. H. Sawyer, Anglo-Saxan Charters, Royal Historical Society 1968, no. 1054; D. Matthew, The Norman Monasteries and their English Possessions, Oxford 1962,20-1; M . Chibnali, 'Fecamp and England' and P.Chaplais, 'Une charte originale de GuiIlaume le Conquerant pour I'abbaye de FBcamp', both in L 'abbaye Bknkdictine de FPcamp; ouvroge scientifique du X Z Zcentmaire, ~ 658-1958, i, FBcamp 1959. 5 G. Zarnecki, '1 066 and architectural sculpture', Procs. BA, lii, 1966,101 ;id., 'The Winchester acanthus in Romanesque sculpture', Wallraf-Richartz Jahrbuch, xvii, 1955, 21 1-15. Similar sources in Winchester-school manuscripts to those postulated for Steyning are indicated by Zarnecki for the scuIptures of the new abbey church of FBcamp, started following 1082 and dedicated in 1106 - probably too latc t o have been itself a source of influence Tor Sompting. There are no special architectural similarities betwecn late 1 1th-century Fkcampon the one hand and Steyning and Sompting on the other. However, there is reason to suppose that the architectural tradition of Bernay (and possibly of the earlier building at FCcamp?) continued to be influential in Normandy through the second half of the I1 th century and into the 12th. The catl~edralof Evreux as rebuilt following a f i e in 11 19 shows some close parallels to Bernay, and Bernay may itself have influenced the earlier cathedra1 of Evrcux dedicated in 1076 (see G. Bonnenfant, La azthddrale d ' E v r w , Paris 1925): it may be significant in thisconnexion that the monastery of St-Taurin in Evreux was part of the PBcamp family, though tittle is known of its I l th-century buildings,

128

Anglo-Norman Studies V

might be significant for Sompting. Not only does Sompting(in some ex situ sculpture fragments) display somewhat simiIar Winchester acanthus to S t e ~ n i n g but , ~ also at Steyning there occur in the surviving parts some of the Romanesque features previously described with reference to Sompting: half columns attached to jambs, soffit rolls, arris rolls. Admittedly these features at Steyning are handled in a far maturer way than at Sompting, but whatever the source of Sompting was it must have been a fairly sophisticated building. If an attempt to link Sompting to a Bernay and FBcarnp milieu were abandoned, then the only relevant Romanesque buildings within reasonably local distance of Sompting are: the Cluniac priory of Lewes, founded in 1078; Chichester Cathedral, founded c.1075 x 1091; Arundel Castle, founded c.1067; Bramber Castle, founded before 1073. Of these, Bramber can be ruled out since the surviving castle chapel is distinctly different from the style of Sompting. Arundel and Lewes have not left enough evidence of the relevant phases. Chichester is possible as a source for at Ieast some features, but it does not show the particular combination of Sompting.

Conclusion In view of the gaps in the surviving evidence it seems difficult to be certain of the direct origin of the Romanesque features of the tower of Sompting, and therefore difficult t o be certain as to its date, At the very earliest a date in the 1050s would seem possible, but the protagonists of an early dating would need to show that there were Early Romanesque buildings in England (other than Westminster) that could have served as models. This I think they w l l be hard put to do, since many if not a11 those buildings claimed as pre-Conquest examples of Romanesque are open to similar doubts as Sompting with respect to their dates. At the latest the tower would date from a period during which there were still flourishing masons trained in pre-Romanesque techniques, but during which also there were major Ron~anesquebuildings far enough advanced for their decoration t o be copied. A local mason who was trained in the 1060s, before the great rebuilding started in the 1070s, could still be a man aged in his fifties when those major Romanesque buildings were on their way to completion in the 1090s. If Sompting were indeed as late as the 1080s or 90s then it would in fact correspond precisely to the period at which features comparable to those which characterise this church were also starting to make a significant appearance in various major buildings in England (Gloucester, Ely and Durham have been cited already). in other words, Sompting would not be the forefather of those great buildings but their humble yet spirited village cousin. One avenue perhaps remains open for rcsolvingsome of these problems. It has been claimed that the timber roof structure of the tower iscontemporary with the walls:7 if this is so, then dendrochronological and C14 analysis of the roof timbers might well provide data to help narrow the possible date range of the monument. 6 The acanthus of the fragments h obviously related to that on the capitals of the bell-chamber windows. The capitals of the tower arch and of the wall shafts, however, belong t o a different tradition: they represent an abstraction from the elements of a capital of the Composite order. S o idiosyncratically are these elements handled on the capitals that it is difficult to be sureivhat direct prototype Idy immediately behind them. In conversation Dr Baylt5suggested that shewould regard the three rowsof upright leaveson the capitalsasan English rather than a Norman featu~e. 7 C. A. Hewett, 'Anglo-Saxon carpentry', A n g l o - o n England, vii, 1978.

THE SHERIFFS OF WILLIAM THE CONQUEROR

Judith Green The Norman sheriffs are larger than life characters: powerful and aggressive, their depredations were recorded both by chroniclers and in Domesday Book. Who can forget the story of Urse d7Abetot, who achieved the distinction of being cursed in English for digging up part of the cathedral graveyard in excavations for the castIe at Worcester, 'Hattest thou Urse, have thou God's curse'?' Or Picot of Cambridge, for whom the author of the Liber Hiensis could hardly find language sufficiently vituperative, 'ravening wolf, cunning fox', and who, when accused of robbing St Etheldreda of her lands, replied, 'Etheldreda, who is that Etheldreda of whom you speak?'* Such men made a powerful impression on their contemporaries and on following generations. They held an office then at the height of its influence, for the effects of the Conquest had added to its responsibilities in several respect^.^ As earldoms collapsed after 1066, sheriffs were left as the king's chief officers at the county level, to be employed in a variety of executive and policing tasks. They also had financial duties, collecting royal revenue, though the system may not have been as centralised under their control as it became later. Their military functions in the post-Conquest period may have been more important than often thought, for not only were they still responsible for local levies raised under the old obligations, but in some cases they were also put in charge of the new castles erected in principal county boroughs. Most of aIf, however, their presence in the shire and hundred courts gave them a crucial role, for it was there that many of the disputes arising from the vast transfer of land to the Normans took place. Much depended on the calibre of sheriffs, therefore, for the success of Norman rule in England. Surprisingly little has been written about the Conqueror's sheriffs. W. A. Morris devoted most of one chapter t o them in his book Thc Medieval English Sherigto 1300, and it is on Morris that most modern commentators have based their view of the post-Conquest sheriff. I-le believed that the first generation of Norman sheriffs He thought the period represented 'the golden age of the baronial ~hrievalty'.~ remarkable not only for the power inherent in the office but also for the wealth and status of the men who fiIled it. They were usually great tenants-in-chief of the crown, and they often held office for long periods, indicating that they were trusted adherents of the king. This stereotype of the 'baronial sheriff' created by Morris has been repeated many times byhistorians, often without Morris's cautious qualifications. Yet when the characteristics of Morris's baronial sheriffs are reconsidered, doubts The author gratefully acknowledges financial assistance from the Research Fund of The Queen's University of Belfast, and the helpful discussion$ which followed this paper. Willitlrn of Malrnesbury,De GestisPontifiicum, ed. N. C. S. A. f.+amiltan,KS, 253. 2 Liber Eliensis, ed. C. 0.Blake, Camden Soc., 3rd Series, xcii, 1962, 21 0-22. 3 W. A. Slorris, The Medieval English Sheriff t o 1300, Manchester 1 977, ch. 3. 4 Morris, 41.

130

Anglo-Noman Studies V

begin to creep in. In the first place, though he claims that sheriffs were usually great tenants-in-chief of the crown, it is possible t o find a surprising number who hardly fit into this category. Aiulf the chamberlain, sheriff of Dorset, for example, held lands in chief worth only some &77in 1086, and Eustace, sheriff of Huntingdonshire, lands worth £68. Waleran, probably sheriff of Norfolk, is another who was by no means a great magnate, with lands also worth only some £77. These cases at least suggest that the correlation between landed wealth and the office should be investigated further. Secondly, there is the question of the relationship of these sheriffs t o the king. Is there any information about their background or experience which throws light on their appointment, and in particular is it safe to assume simply on the basis of their status as magnates that they were personal friends or trusted adherents of the king? It is easier to imagine a man Iike Baldwin de Meules, son of Count Gilbert of Brionne in this role than, for instance, Eustace of Huntingdon. But if men like Eustace are not known to have been prominent members of William's entourage before being appointed as sheriffs, how were they chosen? Thirdly, and finally, it is possible to be sceptical about Morris's claim that these sheriffs were usually in office for long periods, even for life. 'The tendency of the age', he wrote, 'was to treat offices like fiefs.'5 He was aware, nevertheless, that in some counties there was a relatively rapid succession of sheriffs, andmy own attempts to compile detailed critical lists of early sheriffs have revealed additional examples, again raising a question mark about length of tenure and the tempo of ~ h a n g e It .~ was partly questions such as these which suggested the need for a reappraisal of the Conqueror's sheriffs. The first point that must be made, and cannot be emphasised too strongly, is that our information about sheriffs in this period isverypatchy. Thiscan be demonstrated by looking at two counties as examples. The sheriff of Staffordshire at the start of William's reign was Turchil (presumably Turchil of Warwick), but it is not at all clear who succeeded him.7 R. the sheriff occurs in a royal notification which has been dated t o the period 1074-85, and he is presumably to be identified with Robert de Tosny or 'de Stafford' as he is known in Domesday Book.8 Was he still sheriff in 1086? He was evidently still living, but the only reference to a sheriff in theaccount for Staffordshire is t o Nicholas, who claimed land as belonging t o the king's farm in Again this was presumably Nicholas de Stafford, son and successor Clifton Carnp~ille.~ of Robert.lo Here assumption rests on assumption, and Staffordshire is by nomeans an isolated case. To take a second example: the only known sheriff of Derbyshire in the reign was Warding, who follows Henry de Ferrers in the address of a notification which can be dated no more precisely than between 1066 and 1086." When was he S Morris. 46. 6 Morris, 52 n.77. it is hoped

my lists of sheriffs will appear in due course, with full references to dates and identities. Meanwhile see PRO Lists and Indexes, no. 9, List o f Sheriffs for England and Wales from the earliest times to A. D, 1831 compiled from documents in the Public Record O f f i e , A. ffughes and J . Jennings, reprinted with calligraphic amendment?, New York, 1963. 7 Regesta, i,no. 2 5 ; for Turchil see E. A. Freeman, m e Norman Conquest, Oxford 1877-9, iv (2nd edn), app. T. See also belou n.18. 8 Regesta, i, no. 210; for Robert de Tosny see GEC xii.i, 168-9. 9 Domesday Book, i, 250 b. 10 GEC xii.i, 168-9. Note, ho\vever, Nicholrts who held at farm the Warwickshire lands of Countess Godiva, Domesday Book, i, 239b. The latter was identified with Nicholas balistarius, by R. I... Lennard, Rural England 1086-1135, Olford 1959,144. 11 Regesta, i, no. 223.

The Shertffsof William the Conqueror

13 1

in office, and for how long? No one called Harding held land in the county by 1086. His name suggests he was English, and the best-known Englishman of that name was Harding, son of Eadnoth the staller, but as his lands lay in the south-west he seems an unlikely candidate as sheriff of Derbyshire.12 Yet if Harding was not sheriff in 1086, who was? The two most powerful men in the county by that time were Henry de Ferrers and William Peverel. The latter was holding a group of the king's manors at farm, which makes it more probable that he was the sheriff.13 Too many of the Conqueror's sheriffs are known only from single references in documents which often exist only in copies;some are identified only by their initials; and the printed texts are badly in need of re-editing. For instance, 0. sheriff of Surrey occurs twice in royal notifications copied into the cartulary of Westminster abbey called the Westminster Domesday; but for these two references, both from the same fourteenth-century cartulary, we should be ignorant of his existence.14 The uneven and problematic nature of the evidence needs emphasis because it vitally affects our view of the sheriffs of the reign. The sheriffs whose careers are relatively well known and whose wealth is made plain in Domesday Book have to be set in a context where many sheriffs are known onIy by their names or initials, and where many gaps in our knowledge remain. Having emphasised the difficulties, however, it is time to see what can be inferred, first about the way the Normans took over, secondly, the subsequent tempo of change, and finally about the men appointed under the new regime. In the years immediately after 1066 the Conqueror was prepared to recognise the authority of some Englishmen in the localities and, more specificalIy, to use them as sheriffs. Tofi occurs in Somerset, Turchil, as we have seen, in Staffordshire, Swawold in Oxfordshire, Edmund in Hertfordshire, and Merlosuein in Lin~olnshire.'~ Soon, however, Normans began to appear in key cities and boroughs: Geoffrey (probably Geoffrey de MandevilIe) was sheriff of London in 1067; Baldwin de Meules was established at Exeter in the following year and was sheriff of Devon if not then soon afterwards, and Urse d'Abetot similarly at Worcester by I069.l6 The great rebellions and campaigns of 1069 to 1071 are rightly regarded as a watershed in the fate of the English. Ef William had indeed dreamed initially of a truly Anglo-Norman dominion, that dream was shattered by the widespread and dangerous resistance to Norman rule in the midlands and the north. Yet these years did not mark such a sharp dividing line for Englishmen as sheriffs as for the English race in general, for men with English names continue to be found as sheriffs as late as Rufus' reign. 'fn addition to Ilarding who has already been mentioned, there is Earnwig who was sheriff after 1075, probably in Nottinghamshire in succession to the Norman Hugh FitzBaldric. Like Harding he is obscure, but his name certainly suggests that he was English." Alwine or Agelwine the sheriff and Turchil his son witnessed a charter of Robert de Stafford said t o date from 1072. Alwine is otherwise known t o have been sheriff of Warwickshire, where he was apparently succeeded by Turchil, though this charter may indicate that he also held Staffordshire,ls Englishmen were needed 12 Freeman, iv (2nd edn), app. N.

13 Domesday Book, I , 272b-273. l4 Westminster Abbey, Muniment Book II, ff.161,648v, calendared Regesto, i, nos. 162,417. Is Regesta, i, nos. 7, 160, 25,18, 16, 8. 16 Rezesta, i,nos. 15, 265; Orderic, ii, 21 4; Regesta, i, no. 58; see also above n.1. 17 Regesta, i, nos. 333, 335.

'The Staffordsldre Chartulary', ed. G . Wrottesfey, Cdleetwns foro History of Staffordshire, ii, pt. 1, 1881, 178; Morris, 43 n.16.

Anglo-Norman Studies V

132

by the Normans for their knowledge of local conditions, and nowhere more so than in the area of land management. At the middIing and lower levels of royal administration there were many English reeves, hundredmen and geld collectors: where there were Norman sheriffs they must necessarily have relied on a largely English staff with knowledge of locat dues and services. But the presence of Englishmen was not confined to the middle and Iower Ievels of local government for, as R. L. Lennard pointed out, where Domesday Rook names those who held blocs of royal land at farm in 1086, these men were often English, and one of them, Godric dapifer, probably became sheriff in East Anglia in the following reign.19 Englishmen may not only have had greater local knowledge, they may also have been prepared t o hold manors at excessively high farms. for the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle relates that the Conqueror 'sold his land as dearly as he c ~ u l d ' .The ~ ~ number of Englishmen found as sheriffs after 1070 is not great, but is significant. Not only isit an indication that they were not necessarily regarded as a security risk in this powerful office, but their presence must have eased the transition to Norman rule. That transition was also assisted by the employment of men linked in various ways with the pre-Conquest past. Robert FitzWymarc, sheriff of Essex in the early years after the Conquest, had been a man of some importance in King Edward's reign, with substantial estates and the office of staller to the king. His name, son of Wymarc, indicates that his mother was Breton."' He was succeeded as sheriff by his son S ~ a i n William . ~ ~ Malet, the first Norman sheriff of Yorkshire, is thought to have had an English mother.23 Me was related to Lucy, herself the kinswoman of Turold, sheriff of Lincolnshire in the 1070s, who may have been established in England before 1066. Lucy's first husband was Ivo Taillebois, sheriff of the same county in 1086.24 Finally, Robert dYOilly,possibly sheriff of as many as three counties is thought to have married the daughter and heiress of Wigod of Wallingford, who Itad an official position of some kind before 1066.25 Intermarriage between Normans and English was an important way of legitimising the succession to land, as Professor l 9 Lennard, 155-6. 20 ASCs.a. 1086. 21 For Robert see E. Barlow, Edward the Confessor, London 1970, 41, 163-5 and referenccs

there cited: R. W. Eyton, 'Robert FitzWymarch and his descendants', Shropshire ArchaeologiMZ and Natuml History Society, ii, 1878, 1-34. 22 Regesta, i, nos. 84,135-7. 23 \Villiam is said to have been 'partly Norman and partly English', &men, 38. His English connexions are discussed in Freeman,Norman Conquest, iv (2nd edn), app. PP. Professor Searle suggested William may also have had an English wife:an alternative possibility, kindly indicated to me by Mrs V. Brown, is that William's wife was Esilia Crispin, mentioned in the genealogy of the Crispin family. She is there described as mother of William Malet, who could Rave been son of William Malet I and brother of Robert, E. Searle, 'Women and fcg~timizationof succession at the Norman Conquest', ante, iii, 1980, 164 and n.24; 'Quo B. Marla subvenit Guillelmo Crispino Seniori .', Patrolog2'ae. . . latinu, ed. J. P. Mipne, Paris 11344-64, ct. 736. 2 4 GEC vii, appendix J. Turold is said to have founded Spalding priory about 105 k,Monasticon, ii, 119; iii, 206-15. Presumably this was the same Turold who was sheriff after the Conquest, Regesta, i, no. 430; ii, 398 no. 288d; J . If. Round, Feudal England, reset edn London 1964, 255-6. Round assumed that if Turold hcld office after 1066 he must have been Norman, but this is not necessarily so. 25 Book of Fees, London 1920.31, i, 116; for Wigod, see F. E. Harmer, Anglo-Saxon Writs, Manchester 1952, 522. Edward of Salisbury is another sheriff who may have had English ancestry, to judge from his name. His predecessor in some estates wasa woman named Wulfwynn (possibly his mother?). A late tradition claimed that his father wa\ Gerold of Roumare, VCH Wiltshire, ii, 99; Monasticon, vi, 501

..

.

The Sheriffs of William the Conqueror

133

Searle has pointed out; it was also significant in enabling a smooth transfer of power at the local Moreover, it is striking to see how some sheriffs not only had links with the preConquest past but also with each other. Even allowing that the Norman aristocracy was relatively small and inter-related, such connexions stand out, suggesting a shared pool of experience which must have aided the Normans in taking over shrieval administration as a going concern. William Mdet's son Robert was sheriff of Suffolk before 1086; Ivo Taillebois' father was Ralph, sheriff of two or possibly three counties; and Ralph's niece married Rannulf, brother of Ilger, a future sheriff of Huntingdon~hire.~"Finally, Ralph himself seems to have been closely connected with Hugh de Beauchamp. Hugh succeeded Ralph as sheriff of Bedfordshire, and also claimed to be Ralph's successor in land.28 Ralph came from Cristot in the Calvados, and Hugh from nearby Tilly-~ur-SeuIes.~~ In the transfer to Norman sheriffs there was also the question of how the new men were to maintain themselves. In at least three counties, Cambridgeshire, Huntingdonshire, and Dorset, Norman sheriffs succeeded to lands held by their English predecessor^.^^ The same may have happened in Kent also, for many of the estates of Qsweard passed to Hugh de Port, who thus has a claim to be considered sheriff of this county as well as H a n ~ p s l ~ i r Such e . ~ ~succession at least gave Norman sheriffs a base of landed power within the county. An alternative was t o provide them with estates elsewhere, and D. C. Douglas drew attention to the way small estates in Wiltshire listed as thegnlands in 1084 were used to provide for men who served the new regime, including two sheriffs, Robert FitzWymarc of Essex and Robert Blund of Norfolk.32 Thus the period of transition from native to Norman sheriffs may not only have been more protracted than previously suspected, but was made less abrupt by inter-relationship and by the succession to land held by English sheriffs. Sooner or later, however, the office was filled by Normans, and it is at this point we move on t o consider, secondly, length of tenure and the tempo of change. The impression usually given is that sheriffs often held office for long periods, even for life, though tenure was strictly speaking during the king's pleasure. Some Norman sheriffs did hold office for many years, BaIdwin de Meules and Urse d'Abetot being two conspicuous examples. On the other hand the number of known sheriffs in several counties is high, considering that the period of time under review was only about twenty years. Essex and tIertfordshire had at least four sheriffs, Lincolnshire four or five, Yorkshire three and Norfolk and Suffolk each had at least Searle, ante, iii, 164. Romesday Book, i, 138'0. VCHHertfordsItire,i, 200-1. L. C. Loyd, The Origins of Some Anglo-Norman Families, Harleian Soc., ciii, 1951, 20-1. Hugh's place of origin is idcntficd from the names of his under-tenants. It is possible that they had been enfeoffed by Ralph de Taillebois, but there is no evidence of this. Rlacuin's lands passed to Picot, Alwin's to Eustace, and Alfred's to Aiulf, Domesday Book, i, 201,206b, 83. 3' Romesday Book, i, 2 b , 7b-10: Dr David bates kindly drew this case to my attention. It was cla~medin the twelfth century that Geoffrey de Mandeville not only succeeded to the lands of Ansger the stalfer, but also to hisoffice,andon thisaccount was sheriff of London and Middlesex, but there is no evidence for the identity of the offices of staller and sheriff, or that Geoffrey succeeded to Ansger's authority as well as his lands, C. N. L. Brooke and G. Keir, London 8001226, London 1975,191-2. 32 D.C. Douglas, FeudalRomments from fheAbbey 0fBw-y St Edmunds, London 1932, xci-iii, 26 27 28 29

134

Anglo-Noman Studies V

three, out of a total of some twenty-nine counties with royal sheriffs. Four other counties, Bedfordshire, Nottinghamshire, Surrey, and Warwickshire, also may have had up to three sheriffs. Overall the rate of turnover is high in contrast with, for example, the earlier part of Henry 1's reign, as Henry showed a marked tendency to keep his experienced sheriffs in office. It is a situation which hardly accords with the view, put forward by Stenton, that William would have been reluctant t o rock the boat by frequent changes.33 On the other hand, it is less surprising in view of the changing problems faced by government, and the scale of the upheaval involved. Precise dating of the changes so that their implications in the context of politics and royal finance can be assessed is unfortunately impossible, but one important trend in appointments which does emerge clearly is that of one sheriff holding several counties, either simultaneously, or in succession. Roger Bigod held both Norfolk and Suffolk, Ansculf of Picquigny Surrey and Buckinghamshire, and Hugh FitzBaldric Yorkshire and Nottinghamshire. Ralph Taillebois and Peter de Valognes are particularly interesting. Ralph was sheriff of Bedfordshire, Hertfordshire, and probably held Buckinghamshire, forming an adjacent group of counties t o the north of London. Peter de Valognes was probably his co-sheriff in Hertfordshire, and he was also sfleriff of Essex in 1086. These are known cases of sheriffs having more than one county, and there are a number of other possibilities. Ralph's son Ivo may have held Bedfordshire as well as Lincolnshire; Hugh de Beauchamp Ruckinghamshire as well as Bedfordshire, Robert d'Oilly Berkshire, Oxfordshire, and Warwickshire, and I-iugh de Port Kent and Nottinghamshire as well as H a m p ~ h i r e . ~ ~ Some of these combinations, Norfolk and Suffolk, Buckinghamshire and Bedfordshire, Essex and Hertfordshire, were customary in the twelfth century, and at least one, Norfolk and Suffolk, dated back to before the Conquest. Some pairings may well reflect earlier arrangements for governing particular areas, thelinking of Norfolk and Suffolk being a case in point, though not all can be so explained.35 Moreover, the use of individual sheriffs in more than one county indicates a degree of flexibility towards appointments. Some pluralism may have been involved. It was to become a prominent feature of appointments in Henry 1's reign, when Hugh of BucMand may have held as many as eight counties, and Richard Basset and Aubrey de Vere jointly held eleven, but the practice may have been developing in the post-Conquest period.36 It meant that the sheriff cannot have been in every case the king's locally resident executive officer, and must already have had to use under-sheriffs. Moreover, not only were some sheriffs key men who could be redeployed in other counties, but they were also used for other administrative tasks. Sheriffs figure prominently in Domesday Book amongst those who held royal manors at farm: Hugh FitzBaldric in Leicestershire, Robert d'Oi1ly in Gloucestershire, Peter de Valognes in Suffolk, and Hugh de Port in Northamptonshire, far away from his base in southern England." A great deal of land fell into the king's hands after the Conquest, and the stock was frequently changing as estates were being acquired and granted out. Royal manors were at farm t o a number of individuals, including the 33 F. M. Stenton, Williem the Conqueror, London 1908,423. 34 Another possible case is Geoffrey de Mandeville, later claimed to have been sheriff of Essex

and Hertfordshire as well as London. 35 For Toli, pre-Conquest sheriff of Morfotk and Suffolk, Morris, 24. Dr Ann Williams kindly pointed out to me an interesting parallel between the counties held by Ralph Taillebois and the pretonquest earldom of Beorn, who died in 1049. 36 Morris, 79,86-7. 37 Domesdqv Book, i, 230,163b, 286b. 219.

The Sheriffs of WiEEiam the Conqueror

135

local sheriff, and also sheriffs or ex-sheriffs of neighbouring counties. Sheriffs were also commissioned t o act as royal justices, or in an executive capacity: at the time of the trial of the bishop of Durham in 1088, for instance, Hugh de Port was sent to order the bishop t o send a representative to the royal court, whilst Ivo Taillebois was one of the men put in charge of the bishop's sequestered estates.38 Such men provided a nucleus of administrative experience; they could be used as sheriffs, justices, or farmers of royal land, and in many respects were the predecessors of a similar better known group under Henry I. One apparent difference between the two groups, however, is that none of the Conqueror's key men at this level can be shown to have been clerks, though clerks were being used as sheriffs from the 1090s. If any of the Conqueror's sheriffs were clerks, perhaps Rannulf of Surrey is the likeliest candidate. His only recorded property in Domesday Book was a house in Guildford which he held of the bishop of B a y e ~ x . ~ ~ The only other reference t o him in the county was in connexion with a lawsuit brought against him by Odo about the tolls from river traffic at a tideway belonging t o Odo's minster at Southwark. The sheriff, seeing that the suit was not being justly conducted to the king's advantage, withdrew from the case."(' Could this have been Rannulf Flambard? He certainly heId property in the county in 1086, and was to be renowned for his desire to secure the king's rights in full .41 At this point we have already moved from discussing tempo of change to the kind of men appointed, and in doing so it is obviously important to assess their relationsl~ipwith William's houus1311ald. Later it was not unconlmon to use as sheriffs curialess,men whose careers had been made in the household, and who were closely tied to the ruler's interests. As far as William's reign is concerned, the problem lies in the relatively small number of royal documents surviving compared with later periods, when curiales are more readily identifiable by their frequent attestations. A few of William's sheriffs had household offices after 1066, though not, apparently, before: Haimo was a steward and Aiulf a chamberlain who had some connexion with Queen I ~ I a t i l d a .Urse ~ ~ d'Abetot and Robert d'Oilly may also have had household offices, for they witness an early notification as nzinistri, and Robert witnesses elsewhere as constable.43 William Malet had been in the duke's entourage on two occasions before the Conquest; he occurs twice as a witness thereafter, and his son Robert three times, but it appears that neither man held office in the Conqueror's household, for Professor Hollister has argued that Robert Malet was not granted the office of chamberlain until Henry 1's reign.44 Few other sheriffs attest for William before 1066; slightly more attest afterwards, of whom Roger Bigod heads the list with ten attestations, followed by Hugh de Grandmesnil with seven, Baldwin 38 Regesta, i, xxxi-xxxii; 'De injusta vexationc Willelmi episcopi' in Symeon of Durham, Operaomnia,ed. T. Arnold, RS, i,193,192. 39 Domesday Book, i, 295 b. 40 Domesday Book, i, 305. 41 R. W. Southern, 'Ranulf Fiambard and carly Anglo-Norman administration', TRHS, 4th ser., xvi, 1933,98-106. 42 Regesta, i, no. 26 and othcr references; for Aiulf, whose brother Htimfrey wasalsoa chamberlain, VCH Dorset, iii, 47; Domesday Book, iv, 18 shows the queen at Aiulf's request remitting geld due from an estate. 43 Regesta, i, nos. 10, 270, p.uxvi. 44 Fauroux, nos. 173, 220: Regesta, i, nos. 8, 22, 147, 207,270. C. W. Hollister, 'Henry l and Robert Malet', Viator, iv, 1973, 115-22. Ivo Taillebois is another sheriff known to have had a l~ouseholdoffice later, as he witnevses for Rufus as steward, Regesta, i, nos. 31 5,319, 326, 328.

FitzGilbert with five, and Hugh de Port with four.45 This relatively small total of men does not in itself suggest an impressive degree ofcontact between the household and the localities, and it is at least a possibility that some of the men appointed as sheriffs made their careers in local government, rather than through association with the household. Certainly by Henry 1's reign it is possible t o identify men who sewed as sheriffs for many years who had relatively little contact with the itinerant royal household: they were in effect professional sheriffs. A connexion with the royal household is one possible clue about the way some sheriffs came to be appointed; another is their connexion with the men closest t o the dukelking. Here it is the influence of William FitzOsbern and Odo of Bayeux that stands out, William seems t o have been particularly important in the counties along the Welsh border, where in 1067 as co-regent he was faced with a dangerous combination of Welsh and English rebels. Roger de Pitres, the first Norman sheriff of Gloucestershire, was given the only valuable manor he is known to have Iiad by Earl William, and Dr Walker has suggested that he may have been one of the earl's f01lower.s.~~RaIf de Bernai. sheriff of Herefordshire, received two riding-men from Earl WilIiam who had previously been attached to the royaI manor of M a r t l e ~ . ~ ~ Gilbert the sheriff mentioned in the Domesday account of Herefordshire may have been Gilbert son of Turold, who gave land to Evesham abbey for the soul of Earl William his lord?8 if? as is argued, Earl William had palatine powers, he may well have controlled the shrievalties of Cloucestershire and Herefordshire as Hugh of Chester and Roger of Montgomery controlled those of Cheshire and Shropshire r e ~ p e c t i v e l y .Again, ~~ control of sheriffs may well have been one of the issues prompting Earl William's son Roger to rebel in 1075. There is a somewhat cryptic allusion in one of Lanfranc's letters t o Roger in that year referring t o the pleas held on his lands by sheriffs, indicating that Roger may not have succeeded to all his father's authority The number of sheriffs who can be linked with Odo is still more striking, though the links were of varying strength and significance. The individuals concerned were evidently royal officials rather than Odo's. and even those who owed most to hun did not rebel in 1082 when he was arrested. Hugh de Port was a man who did spectacularly well out of the Conquest. He was probably sheriffof Hampshire, Kent, and Nottin@~ams!xire;in the fornier county he was the most important tenant-inchief in 1086, and in both J-lampshire and Kent held a number of estates from Odo. In all his lands were worth some £268 in chief and a further £1 8 9 as an under-tenant, putting him in the top 42 magnates outside the royal family. He came from Port-enBessin, where his family held land owing five knight's service to the bishop, and it would appear that this link, established in Nonnandy and strengthened in England,

45 These figures, as those in the preceding note. are based on Regesta, i, using only documents believed by the editor to be authentic. Ivo Tsillebois has not been mentioned as Dr David Bates, who is re-editing the Regesta, informs me that a number of his attestations are probably later interpolations to the documents in question. 4 6 D.Walker, 'The "Honours" of the Earis o f Hereford in the Twelfth Century', Transactions of the Bristol and Cloucestershire Archaeological Society, lsxix, 1960, 178. 47 Domaday Book, i, 180 b. 48 Douglas, Bury St Edmunds. Ilxviii n. 49 W, E. Wigt~tmiin.'The Palatine Earldom of William FitzOsbern in Gloucester~hire and Worcestershire 1066-1071', EHR, luxvii, 1962, 6-1 7 . 5 0 Lanfranc's Letters, no. 31.

The Sherqfs of William the Conqueror did much to assist his career.51 Another sheriff who probably owed a great deal to Odo was Roger Bigod. I4e too came from a minor family in Normandy, holding some land there as the bishop's under-tenant and also possibly some land in chief of the duke. Roger became immensely rich in England, with lands worth some $462 in chief, and like Hugh he also held estates of 0 d 0 . ~ * Two other under-tenants of the bishopric are also found as sheriffs in England. William de Courseulles, sheriff of Somerset, came from Courseulles-sur-Mer, where his family owed five knights' service t o the bishopric.53 Haimo the steward, sheriff of Kent, came from a family with an even larger holding, the honour of Evrecy owing ten knights' service t o the bishopric.s4 it would be much too simple, however, t o suggest that Haimo owed his establishment in England only t o his connexion with the bishop. His family was dready prominent in Norman politics before 1066, his father having been killed at the battle of Val-&-Dunes in 1047, and he himself became William's steward. Yet surely it was not a coincidence that he was appointed sheriff of Kent, of which Odo was earl?55 Two sheriffs not known to have been the bishop's under-tenants in Normandy but with links to him in England after 1066 were Robert d'Oilly and Urse d'Abetot. Robert probably came from Ouilly-Ie-Basset west of F a I a i ~ e .He ~ ~was an undertenant of Odo's in Oxfordshire, of whicll county he was probably sheriff and the ~ ~ we have already seen, Robert is said to have bishop the chief l a n d l ~ o l d e r .As married the daughter of Wigod of WalIingford; at what stage he came into contact with Odo, or how important this was is not clear. Finally, Urse d'Abetot, sheriff of Worcestershire, enjoyed the bishop's patronage, for it was 'by force and favour of Odo' that he acquired at least one estate which had been in the possession of Aethelwig abbot of Evesham before his death in S077.58 This was some years after Urse had established himself in the county, and after his services in helping t o put down the rebellion of Roger, ear1 of Ilereford, in S075.59 Apart from links with WilIiam and Odo, the only other discernible ties of influence were those exercised by the count of iW~rtain.~* The count dominated Cornwall and may also have controlled the sheriff. Turstin, who was his under-tenant.61 William de Cahagnes, who may have been sheriff of Northamptonshire in the later part of the reign, presumably after the death of Earl Waltheof, was closely bound to the count's interests, but if sheriff he was evidently a royal officer. His place of origin, Cahagnes in the Calvados, was later held as one knight's fee of the count, Loyd, 79. Loyd, 14-15. 5 3 Loyd, 33. s4 The Domesday Monachorum of Christ Church, Canterbury, ed. D.C. Doughs, London 1944, 55-6; in the Bayeux inquest at the end of f-lenry 1's reign the family's hold~ngwas represented by the ten knights held by Robert EitzHaimon, Red Book of the Exchequer, ed. 14. Hall, RS, ii, 645. 5s Orderic, ii, 196, 264. 56 W. T. Reedy, 'The First Two Baascts of Weldon', Northamptonshire Past and Present, iv. 1966-72, 243. 57 Domesday Book, i, 1 56. 58 Douglas, Bury St Edmunds, lxxviii n; VCfiWorcestershire, i , 264-5. 59 Worcester, ii, 1 1 . 60 However, there i s also a little evidence about the background of Hugh FitzHaldric wh~ch connects him with Gerold of Rournare, Cal. Docs. France, nos. 87, 88 dnd see above n.25. 61 Morris, 45,n.34. 52

Anglo-Noman Studies V and aln~ostaH his estates both in Northamptonshire and Sussex were held of the count: in the former county he held only one hide in chief.62 In too many cases there is no evidence about an individual's background t o show how he became a sheriff, but such evidence as there is points to the influence of William FitzOsbern and Odo of Bayeux, both men who were instrumental in shaping the Norman settlement of England. In 1067 they were left in charge in England during William's absence, and though William FitzOsbern was killed in 1071, Odo remained a powerful figure till his downfall in 1082, possibly acting as regent again in the late 1 0 7 0 ~ They . ~ ~ were well placed to promote the careers of their men, and influence of this kind was not at all unusual in the following reigns, when sheriffs were often men of moderate standing, whose tenurial interests bound them t o great magnates. As far as the family backgrounds from which the Conqueror's sheriffs were recruited are concerned, most were new men, whose fortunes had been made by the Conquest to a greater of lesser degree. There was a handful of exceptions, like Baldwin de Meules, a distant kinsman of the Conqueror, or Hugh de Grandmesnil, whose family played a prominent part in the foundation of St Evr0u1.~~ Haimo the steward and William Malet should also probably be so regarded, and possibly Geoffrey de Mandeville. He came from Manneville, south of Dieppe, and the distribution of villages from which his tenants came suggests his lands may already have been substantia1.65 Geoffrey was certainly not much in evidence in pre-Conquest Normandy, though he did witness one charter for Duke William and one for William FitzOsbern, but if he was a powerful lord who made a substantial contribution to theexpedition of 1066 it would heIp t o explain why he received an extremely generous grant of land.66 A few sheriffs came from what could loosely be called the middle ranks of the Norman aristocracy. One was William de Mohun, one of the few sheriffs known to have come from western Normandy, whose lands there Eater owed the service of five knights.67 Another was Wateran, probably the first Norman sheriff of Norfolk, who came from a family with property at Caen and in western N ~ r m a n d y Others, .~~ however, seem only t o have had modest estates, like those of Urse at Abbetot near T a n ~ a r v i l l e .One ~ ~ further point: all the sheriffs whose continental origins can be identified were Normans, with only one exception. He was Ansculf of Picquigny, from the neighbourhood of Amiens, who was sheriff of Surrey and BuckinghamOf Bretons and Frenchmen, there are no known examples. It is only a minority of sheriffs whose continental places of origin can thus be identified, however, and the very obscurity of the remainder reinforces the impression that they were truly new men. All that the chronicle of Barnwell priory at Cambridge could find t o say about the origins of its founder Picot was that he was of the 62 L. F. Salzman, 'William de Cahagnes and the family of Keynes', Sussex Archaeolo@crzl Collections, ixiii, 1922, 180-222. 6 3 D. Hates, 'The origins of the justlciarship', ante, iv. 1981, 1-1 2. 64 GIiC iv, 308-9; Orderic, ii. 30ff. 65 Loyd, 57. 6 6 Fauroux, nos. 204, 182.

67 Loyd, 66. Peter de Valognes i s another sheriff who may have come from western Normandy,

if his name derived from Valognes. ddpartement Wanche. 68 GEC xii. ii, app. B. 69 Loyd, I . 70 Loyd, 78.

The Sheriffs of William the Conqueror

139

Norman race.71 If he had come from an illustrious Norman family, surely this would have been remembered? There were new men in every reign, but the Conquest provided unprecedented opportunities for landless men to make their fortunes, and in the uncertainty that surrounds their origins it is difficult to distinguish them from the more famous, or notorious, new men of Henry I. Finally there is the subject of the lands held by William's sheriffs in England, and in particular, the question whether they were in general great magnates. This is an aspect of the Conqueror's sheriffs about which we are relatively well informed thanks to the Domesday evidence. The accompanying table (pp.140-1) plots the evidence for all sheriffs, Norman and English (non-Norman being distinguished by brackets), in terms of total value of lands held in chief, proportion in county held as sheriff, with under-tenancies recorded only where they were financially significant. The values have been divided on the lines of W. J. Corbett's categories, except that class E has been limited to wealth between $50 and £100, and three more classes have been added: F (lands in chief up t o £ 50),G (urban property or under-tenancies), and H (no evidence).72 The table is only an approximate guide because of the usual problems of compiling statistics from Domesday Book, but it doesgive an indication of the range of the sheriffs' lands. And range is the operative word, for they stretch across a wide spectrum of landholding obscured by the use of the umbrella term 'baronial'. At the top end the very great wealth of some sheriffs is shown, both overall and in the counties where they were sheriffs. Moreover, only two men in the first four categories(Hugh de Port and Hairno the steward) held under-tenancies t o any significant extent: the remainder had acquired almost all their land to hold in chief. They were indeed powerfuj local magnates. It is interesting, also, t o see four names from outside Norman ranks in these first four categories, Suain, Merlosuein, Robert FitzWymarc, and TurchiI. As sheriffs, they were among the richer men. The total in these categories may well have been even larger, for it is possible Domesday Book gives only an incomplete picture of the lands of sheriffs who died before 1086, and some of the sheriffs known only by their initials may have been men of substance. In such an exercise it is difficult to know where to draw the line between great magnates and those of middling status, but as we reach categories E and F the ranks of the great are surely being left behind. There are a surprising number in these categories. They were men of substance,clearly, but not necessarily the most powerful in their own counties. The number of sheriffs about whom there is no information, or not enough to enable them to be classified, is also large. Making every allowance for incomplete evidence, it is clear that sheriffs were by no means always men with large estates. However, a table based on Domesday Book inevitably condenses the successes and failures of the preceding twenty years, and it is obviously necessary toget behind the simple totals if possible t o see when and how these men acquired their lands. How many were already great magnates when appointed sheriffs? How many built up their lands over a period of years, possibly by using their offices? Is it possible to discern why some were more successful than others in the quest for land? 71 J. W. Clark, Liber Memorandum de Bemewelle, Cambridge 1907, 38. 72 W. J. Corbett, 'The Deveiopment of the Duchy of Normandy and the Norman Conquest of

England', Clambridge Medieval History, v, ed. J . R. Tanner and others, Cambridge I 926, 50720. It is instructivc to compare sherd'fs' lands with Corbett's total? for all tenants-in-chief in his categories A l o D, which were, 8 in A, 10 in B, 24 in C and 36 in D.

140

Anglo-Norman Studies V

Sheriffs ' Lands In chief

Where sheriff

Hugh de Beauchamp P Peter de Valognes

19815 6 163 1 2

(Robert FitzWymarc Hugh FitzGrip Picot Hugh FitzBaldric (Turchil of Arden I-laimo the steward

14917 143 15 142 9 131 19 127 7 122 9

178 2 3010 35 15 111 7

6 OEss. 4 Herts. 0)

143 15 142 9 71 13 119 7 37 6

0

Under-tenancies

A (f750 plus) Geoffrey de MandeviBe

B (£400 -£650) William Malet Robert Malet Roger Bigod Ralf Baynard Edward of Salisbury

C (f200-£400) Hugh de Grandmesnil P Robert d'Oilly Baldwin FitzGiIbert William de Mohun Hugh de Port P (Suain of Essex Ivo Taillebois (Merlosuein D (£100-£200)

OC 0 0 0 0 6

0 0 OWarw.) 6

76 0 0

E (£50-£100) Durand Waleran P Aiulf

a. Specifically connected only with lands worth 569 1s. 8d., but MrsV. Brown has pointed out to me that William seems to have held the lands in Suffolk which passed to his widow and son. The fiure above consi%tsof all land held by tViIl~am,and that held by Robert and his mother in I086. b. Plus £ 3 3 held by his wife.

141

The Sheriffs o f WilEiam the Canqueror

In chief

Eustace Ralph Taille bois

F (up t o E50) Robert Blund Urse d7Abetot Roger of Pitres Waiter son of Roger William de Cahagnes P

6 8 5 0 61 3 6d

Where sheriff

Under- tenancies

49150 4 7 1 3 6Beds. 13 10 0 Herts.

49 16 4 29 6 0

23 16 0

12 0 0 25 0 0 910 0

12 0 0 1 0 0

-

G (land ar property not held in chief) Rannulf of Surrey Roger of Middlesex

H (no information) (Earnwig) (Edmund) Gilbert of Heref. H. of Lincs. Iiarding Ilbert of Heref. Ilbert of Herts. (successor Geoffrey de Bech, £47 17s. 8d.) Nicholas of Staffs. (possibly son of Robert of Stafford, see below) 0 , of Surrey R. of Staffs. (possibly Robert of Stafford, £232 14s.) (Swawold of Oxon.) Walter of Warwicks. Held land but amount uncertain: Ralf de Bemai William de Courseulles (son Roger E163 1 5s. 6d. Proger Norman Ansculf de Picquigny (son William £208 13s. 7 d . ) Turold of Lincoln

c. Calculated where possible by fiiures given as T.R. E. or post rather tlwn 1086. d. Plus £26 held by wife. Figures in table caIculatcd by 1086 values. P following a name means probably a sheriff. Brackets round an entry indicates that this was not a Nornun sheriff. All figures are expressed in E 5. d.

142

Anglo-Moman Studies V

Examination of a few cases throws light on some of the factors involved. One sheriff who seems t o have been given a substantial amount of land at the outset was William Mallet. He cannot have been sheriff of Yorkshire for very long: the earliest he could have been appointed was in 1068 and it is unlikely he continued in office after the siege in the autumn of 1069.73 His vast estates were thickly concentrated in Suffolk, yet the Domesday returns for Yorkshire show very clearly that William had acquired substantial estates in that county 'before the castle was taken' (i.e. by the Danes and English in 1069).74 They fall into three main groups: first, those t o the west and east of York itself, within easy reach of the castle and clustered round the Roman road leading from York to Tadcaster and on into the West Riding; secondly, the estate at Stokesley with its dependent holdings, situated between the northern slopes of the North York Moors and the river Tees; and thirdly, the estates in Molderness strung out along the east coast. York was a far outpost of the Normans in 1068 and 1069, under threat from both English and Danes, and evidently William Malet was to have a substantial territorial base from which to work. Existing tenurial structure and local distribution of land played an important part in conditioning sheriffsbcquisitions of lands. Haimo the steward, sheriff of Kent, was a man whose English lands put him in the middling ranks of magnates. In Kent those he held in chief amounted only t o some £37, though he held valuable estates as an under-tenant of the archbishop of Canterbury and of Odo of Bayeux. It seems likely that the reason he did not acquire more land in chief in Kent was because his opportunities here were somewhat restricted by the time he became sheriff. The basic outline of the Norman settlement in this area had probably taken shape quite soon after the Conquest. It is very difficult to establish the chronology of the Norman settlement here as elsewhere, but on aprion' grounds an early date is likely, bearing in mind the strategic importance of the south-east, and Dover most of all.7s Odo of Bayeux took a lion's share of what was available in the east, Hugh de Montfort in the south-west, and in the north of the county Richard FitzGilbert, based at Tonbridge. By the time Haimo arrived in the county in the 1070s much of the available land would have been distributed, leaving him to pick up what he could. A different situation presented itself where the church held much of the land in the county, particularly when there was no serious lay rival t o the sheriff. This seems to have been a decisive factor in the rise of Eustace of Huntingdonshire and Picot 7 3 Accounts of events in the north at this time are not wholty in accord: it would appear from Symeon of Durham and Florence of Worcester that King William's first visit t o York was in 1068, when he built two castles. In the autumn of the following year Danes and English took the castles and killed many Normans, sparing a few only, including William Malet and hisfamily. King William marched north and harried the whole region, Symeon of Durham, Opera omnig, ii, 186-8, Worcester, ii, 2-4, and seealso ASC s.a. 1068,1069. Orderic, however, having recorded the building of a castle at York in 1068, relates that King William relieved William Nalet in 1069, built a second castle there and entrusted it to William F~tzOsbern.Thiswasbefore the Danes arrived and captured the crtstles in September, after which King William returned to the north, Orderic, ii. 222. It i s thus not clear when William Malet left York, but Hugh FitzBaldric was sheriff not long afterwards, Symeon of D u r h m , Operaomnia, ii, 201. According t o references in Domesday Book, William Malet died on the king's service, Domesday Book, ii, 2 4 7 , 332b, 133b, and Freeman, N o m n Conquest, iv (2nd edn), app. W. 74 Domesday Book, i, 373 -4. 7s J. H. A. Mason suggested that the distribution of land in the south-east probabfy began in the winter of 1067-8, and that Richard FitzGilbert received Tonbridge at about that time, WiIIiem the First and the Sussex Rapes, Historical Association 1066 Commemoration Series, 1966,9.

The Sheriffs of William the Conqueror

143

of Cambridgeshire. It is not certain when Eustace became sheriff of Huntingdonshire: he is first mentioned in connexion with the Kentford plea of 1080 or 1081.76 He was apparently sheriff in 1086, for he was everywhere described in Domesday Book as Eustace the sheriff. He may have been in the process of being removed from office at that time, for all the king's lands in the county were in the custody of Rannulf brother of Ilger, who is known t o have been sheriff not long afterward^.^' The greatest landholder in the county was Ramsey abbey, and although some of the lay tenants-in-chief were great magnates, the bulk of their estates lay elsewhere. In practice there were no local lay rivals to stop Eustace acquiring lands. By 1086 he had assembled a not inconsiderable holding mainly from the estates of smaIl freeh o l d e r ~ Only . ~ ~ one of his estates was at all valuable (Staughton, worth £10 in I086), and his tenure of this was disputed by Ramsey abbey. He had acquired three other estates claimed by the abbey, and in Huntingdon had taken away some of the abbot's burgesses. He had also taken away the house of Leveve in Huntingdon, and held St Mary's church 'without livery, without writ, and without seisin'. it is hard t o doubt that he had used his office to acquire some of his lands. for no less than nine of his estates owed soke to royal. manors, and in another case he had taken over the land where eight thegns had had sake and soke under the king. It is significant, however, that he had been deprived of this estate by 1086, when it was said to be in the king's hand, and it would appear that the tide of circumstance was beginning to turn against him. The career of Picot of Cambridge was similar in many respects to that of Eustace, most of all in the absence of a powerful local rival t o check his rise. Picot seems to have been appointed not long after the Conquest, possibly as early as 1071, when William besieged Hereward in the Isle of Ely, and certainly by 1075.79 Picot's estates were larger and more valuable than Eustace's, and like Eustace he had profited at the expense of the local abbey, in this case Eiy, which was by far the most important landholder in the county.80 By I086 Picot held abbey land at Quy, Harston, Toft, Willingham, Milton, and Cottenham. He had also benefited from the existing situation where much land was held by small freeholders, for his largest demesne manors, Bourn, Hinxton, liarston, and Guilden Msrden, had been formed by amalgamating sokemen's estates - in the case of Bourn as many as twenty-two. Small free landholders were evidently vulnerable to pressure, and another sheriff who ' abbey was a sterner took over numbers of them was Roger Bigod in N ~ r f o l k . ~An proposition, and Ely fought back tenaciously. Even so, it was only partially successful in recovering its lands, and Picot's incursions had in some cases to be converted into tenancies.82 Part of his lands probably came to him through his office, for they included the estates of a pre-Conquest sheriff and those of sokemen attached to royal manors. As far as the remainder are concerned, though it is impossible to prove he acquired them through being sheriff, it Iooks very much like it, considering his gains outside the county were negligible, tt can be conjectured that his activities were to some extent tolerated because of the need for a strong presence to counter 76 Regesta, i, no, 122, and see E. Miller, 'The Ely Land Pbas in thc reign oi' W i l h m ll,EHR, Ixii, t 947,438-56 for the dating of this document. 77 Regesta, i, nos. 329,413,477, 78 Domesday Book, i, 203,206,206b, 208. 7 9 Regesta, i, no. 47; ii, 392 no. 89a. 80 Domesday Book, i, 189-202 b passim. 81 VCII Suffolk, i, 396-7. 82 E. Miller, The Abbey and Bishopric of Ely , Cambridge 1951,68-9.

144

Anglo-Norman Studies V

the possibility of further native resistance in the fens. Picot may have been given custody of the royal castle at Cambridge, and his chief manor of Bourn, where he himself apparently built a castle, was situated only a mile east of the Roman road, Ermine Street.83 Another sheriff who achieved notoriety as a despoiler of church lands was Urse d'Abetot, who took over a number of estates belonging to the cathedra! church of Worcester. Yet viewed from the Norman angle his gains are less outrageous, for so much land in the county was already held by the church that if Urse was to acquire a substantial estate, it was almost inevitably going to be at the church's expense. He became the bishop of Worcester's greatest under-tenant, and he also held land of the abbeys of Evesham and Westminster. It could be argued that for military reasons a Norman sheriff in this region needed a substantial land base; and from the bishop's point of view there were potential advantages as well as disadvantages in having such a powerful under-tenant. These three sheriffs, Eustace, Picot, and Urse, were not alone in their depredations, but they were the most extreme not least because the church held so much of the land Iocally available. Their careers show how some sheriffs could benefit from the existing territorial structure, and from the shape of the unfolding Norman settlement. They also show how sheriffs were able to use their offices to acquire lands, and raise the suspicion that some of those in categories A t o D wlzo ended up as great magnates had perhaps not been so when they were appointed as sheriffs. It is clear that many sheriffs were not, either at the time of appointment or subsequently, men of more than moderate standing. By no stretch of the imagination could they be regarded as local magnates. A man like Rannulf of Surrey could not have competed in status with Richard FitzGilbert, lord of Tonbridge, and it is the appointment of men such as Rannulf that needs explaining. After all, powerful local magnates in a sense were the natural choice for the job, as men whose wealth and power would enable them to carry out the king's orders, especially in the uncertain early years. Yet the use of men of lesser landed status does not appear out of place when the preceding and following periods are considered. Not a great deal can be discovered about the men in office on the eve of tlte Conquest, but in general they seem to have been men of moderate standing. Similarly in the reigns of Rufus and Henry I the office was increasingly filled by men of similarly modest status. Moreover William's experience of local government in Normandy may also have been influential in conditioning his approach in England. The Normans after a11 had vicecomites and were happy enough to use the same word to translate the English word shire-reeve. The vicecomites of western Norntandy were powerful local lords and they had given William some trouble, most notably in the revolt of 1046-7 in which two of them had been deeply involved.84 It could again be argued that the last thing William would have wanted was to create a group of men who combined territorial wealth with control of county administration in such a way that it would have been very 83 It IS not certain that Picot heid the castle a t Cambridge, but it is interesting that when

castleguard obligations were recorded in the thirteenth century they were mainly owed by tenants of the honour OF Bourn, see W. M. Palmer, Ozmbridge Castle,Cambridge 1928, 8; Clark, Bmewelle, book 6 ; tenants of the honour of Bourn can be identified from W. Farrer, Feudal Cambridgeshire, Cambridge 1920. Picot's charter of foundation for Barnwell priory included the church of Bourn with 'the chapel of the castle', which suggests he built the castle there, <'Lark, 40. *4 Gesta GuifleIrni,14-20, and for the office of vicomte see C. If. Haskins, Norman Institutions, New York 1918,4t-7.

The Shen'jjrs of William the Conqueror

145

difficult t o curb their activities, and would have presented a serious threat if they rebelled. Instead a mixed bag of men was appointed, reflecting a flexible approach where a number of factors, not least the local distribution of power, had always t o be considered. In attempting this study of the Conqueror's sheriffs, a number of points have been made: that the handover from English to Norman rule was marked by a transitional period; subsequent changes in the sheriffs were relatively frequent; within their ranks there was a nucleus of key men; a number of sheriffs can be linked with Odo of Bayeux or William FitzOsbern; and that in terms of their landed status they were a mixed bag. T o a limited extent, therefore, the office saw a modicum ofcontinuity with the prexonquest past, but more significant are the elements foreshadowing the future development of the office, most of all the nucleus of key men, the influence of great magnates over appointments, and the mixed status of men who held the office. These are all elements clearly identifiable by Henry 1's reign, but they have their origins in the post-Conquest period.

THE HOUSE OF REDVERS AND ITS MONASTIC FOUNDATIONS Frederick Hockey If the Redvers family was represented at the Conquest, which seems unlikely, it played no significant part in the settIement of England by Duke William. Richard de Redvers came out of obscurity only because Henry I remembered those who had befriended him when, as lord of the Contentin peninsula, he was fighting against the English king and his brother, Robert. By his will the Conqueror had given Normandy to his eldest son and England to William, while Henry had received only a substantial sum of money with which he purchased the Avranchin and Cotentin. Everything seems to show that the brothers had never accepted this partition. In the Anglo-Norman civil war of 1101, Henry was supported against his brothers particularly by Hugh d'Avranches and Richard de Redvers, with their followers the lords of the Cotentin. When in 1100 he became king as Henry I, he rewarded his supporters with estates in England and sought their counsel, for they were devoted t o the king.' Hugh d'Avranchcs became earl of Chester and defender of thc Welsh marches. Richard de Redvers received the lordship of the Isle of Wight, which Roger, son of William Fitz Osbern, had forfeited after the rebellion of 1075. After the civil war the disorder in Normandy led Henry to invade the duchy in 1104. When driven out of the Cotentin, Henry set out for Domfront, of which he was lord, t o recover the peninsula. In I105 he landed at Barfleur where he had sufficient support to enable him to advance through the Cotentin and win the important battIe of Tinchebrai in I 106, gaining possession of Normandy. Henry'schief supporters here were Hugh d'Avranches and Richard de Redvers. Hugh had taken part in the conquest, being substantial enough t o contribute sixty ships. By comparison Richard de Redvers could only cut a small figure. If he did not receive an earldom, he was rewarded with the lordship of the Ide of Wight, together wit11 the valuable manors of Christchurch Twynham and Breamore on the mainland. The importance of the support of Richard de Redvers t o the king can, however, be judged by the number of charters he witnessed, as found in the Regesta II between the years 1100 and his death in 1107 - as many as twenty-five, and three times as sole witness. From Henry he received precepts and mandates. That these are dated from different parts of the country - only twice at Winchester and as far afield as Norwich, Nottingham and Rouen - indicates that he must have moved closely in the entourage of the king. Richard de Redvers f left no particular mark on his lands, nor did he found any monasteries. The family, which still exists in Normandy, took its name from Reviers in the Bessin. The chief fiefs of Richard de Redvers were at Vernon on the Seine, in the C.Warren Hollister, 'The Anglo-Norman war of 1 101', EHR, txxxviii, 1973, 318-19; Orderic, iv, 221,25l;v, 298,511.

The House of Redvers and its Mo~rasricFoundatbns

147

Vexin, with the caput at Nthou in the peninsula. The ruins of the castle at Nthou lie midway between the churches of NBhou and Sainte-Colombe, just south of Cherbourg. It is unwise to hold, with the memorandum of the family pedigree in the cartulary of Carisbrooke priory, that he was a nepos of William Fitz Osbern, since the pedigree given there is almost a caricature of the truth.2 Also, it is not true that Henry I conferred the earldom of Devon on Richard de Redvers; that the earldom came to Baldwin, his son and heir, in 1 141, can be shown by charter evidence from the cartulary of Christchurch T ~ ~ n h a r Itn .is~ possible, but impossible to prove, thar Baldwin de Redvers joined the revolt against Stephen because he had not as yet received an earldom. Me certainly jeopardised his future by occupying the castle which the Conqueror had built at Exeter. Intending to continue the fight against the king, Baldwin fled to the Isle of Wight, intending to occupy his castle and so recover his possessions. Rut the king drove hitn into exile with the count of Anjou. Returning to England in 1139, he landed near Wareham, and took Corfe castle, where he successfully resisted king Stephen. It was the empress MatiIda who created him earl of Devon in 1 f 41 .4 Apart from the Regesfa and Orderic Vitaiis, this period is not well documented; no historian seems to have attempted a study s f the reign of Henry I. In the isle of Wight William Fitz Osbern had set up his capuf at Carisbrooke, which stands on a high point in a gap between the chalk ridges crossing the Island. It has usually been thought that he was occupying a Roman fortification owing to the amount of Roman building tnateriaj recovered from the site. But no pottery has been found on the site, and building material waseasily available from the abandoned villas; and it is now clear from the recent excavations by Dr C. J . Young, as yet unpublished, that it was not a Roman stronghold but a late Saxon fort, on the site of an earlier seventh-century cemetery. It was this Saxon burh which William Fitz Osbern adapted as his centre for the pacification of the island, because of its strategic situation. Baldwin reconstructed this - the first Norman castle to be mentioned in Domesday, with stone walls, ditches and defences, according to a new model of motte and bailey - as a Norman castle within a Saxon hicrlz. Baldwin's father, Richard de Redvers, had been granted the manor and honour of Plympton (St Maurice) in Devon; there he built the castIe, of which only the earthworks and the motte are still visible. At Tiverton, he built another castle which was to become the chief seat of the Courtenays. There William de Vernon founded the borough, while another earl gave the stream of running water which is a feature of the main street. Henry I also gave to Richard de Redverswhat had been the Roman port for Exeter at Topsham; here his descendants were to constnict weirs in the Exe, obliging the citizens to trade through their port. Just as Henry I had remembered to enrich his supporters, so Richard and Baldwin de Redvers gave Isle of Wight manors to their Cotentin followers. They thus founded the medieval aristocracy of the island, representing a score of names deriving from Manche or Calvados, such as Barneville, St Georges de Bohon, Brtbeuf, Evrecy, Foliot, Lestre, Magneville, Morville, Orglandes, Tracy and Vauville. Of these only the Oglander family survives. It is unlikely that a parallel concentration of names from the Cotentin peninsula is to be found in Devon or around Christchurch. In Normandy the Redvers family were closely linked, not t o the abbey of CaThtlary of CurisBrooke Priory,ed. S . F. Hockey, I. Wight Records Series, 2 , 1981. 239. 3

GEC, Devon, 31011. Regesta, iii, 903 n.

148

Anglo-Noman Studies V

St-Sauveur-le-Vicomte, but to the abbey of Montebourg. The monks considered the Redvers as their founders, though in fact it was yet another foundation of the Conqueror in 1080, which was later to be entrusted by Henry I to the care of its neighbouring lords. Various members of the family were benefactors of Montebourg in donations of land in England. Richard de Redvers was to be buried there in 1 107.5 The benefactions of the family in lands led to the establishment of priories in England. Richard de Redvers had given land on the Isle of Wight in 1090, where the priory of Appuldurcombe was to be set up c.1100. The same Richard founded Loders, in Dorset, shortly before his death; other members of the family made grants in land, churches or tithes. These donations are recorded in the cartulary, the only one of the registers of Montebourg to have been edited before the archives of Saint-Lc) were destroyed in 1944.6 This alien priory was important enough to hold house property in Exetcr and a house in Salisbury, to which foreign monks were sent, t o be away from the coast during the Hundred Years' War. But the Redvers were not narrow in their choice of monastic families on which they bestowed their generosity. There was already on the Isle of Wight the priory of Carisbrooke, which William Fitz Osbern had invited his own foundation of Lyre t o set up, beside the church and close t o the castle. Baldwin de Redvers confirmed the mother-house in the possession of its lands and its considerable spiritual revenue, without adding any personal benefaction; however, Baldwin is considered as the founder of the priory c.1156. The successors of Raldwin continued to confirm charters for Carisbrooke, living it would seem on friendly terms with the priory (like so many of the Norn~anlords in their castles) until the last of the line, Isabella de Fortibus, tried t o act as patron, thus beginning a long series of clashes. But instead of bolstering up the local priory, Baldwin de Redvers, as lord of the Island, wished to make a notable foundation in his own name. To this end he turned to Savigny, an abbey of reformed and rather eremiticalBenedictines, already famous for its observance. Savigny stood where Normandy, Maine and Brittany meet, at the edge of the forest of Savigny. The founder of the monastery, Vitalis de Mortmain, had been born at Tierceville in the Bessin, only five miles from Reviers, and Baldwin could very well have known him personally. It was Geoffrey, the second abbot, who consented t o send a group of monks t o the Isle of Wight and it is worth noting here the friendly relations existing between abbot Geoffrey and king Henry I. The monk Gervase and his dozen companions came t o found Quadraria, Quarreria or Quarr in 1132, to be the fourth Savigniac house in England, taking its name from the quarry less than a quarter of a mile away. The cartulary has disappeared, but a very large number of charters and deeds have survived, including the foundation charter. Reading this document carefully, one is struck by the very considerable share of the endowment which was by grant of Baldwin's barons. These and the witnesses show more than a sprinkling of Cotentin place-names. Similarly, the names of benefactors of Quarr appear also as benefactors of Montebourg. Raldwin and his wife, Adeliza, were both buried at Quarr, where they still lie with Princess Cicely, daughter of Edward IV. Baldwin died in 1153, after the affiliation of the Savigniac houses to Ci'teaux had taken place in t 147. Because of the special principles and organisation of the Cistercian order, the Redvers family were not destined to play any more than an honorary role as patrom7 5 GaZlia Christians, xi, 926; 229. 6 Ci?rttaZaire de Loders. ed. L. Guiiloreau, Evreux 1908. 7

S. F. Hockey, Qunrr Abbey and its Lands, Leicester 1970.

The House o f Redvers and irs Monastic Foundations

149

Some time before 1143 earl Baldwin founded a s~nallpriory for Cluniac monks at Exeter, the priory of St James, for a prior and four monks Cluny was quite accustomed to making such foundations without sufficient manpower. We may note that the endowment from the earl included half the salmon fishery at Topsham and the church of Tiverton, where the Redvers held the castle. It was founded as a daughter-house of St Martin des Qlarnps in Paris, and, like so many Cluniac priories, it was not destined to fame.* At much the same time as king Henry 1 with the heIp of William Pont de I'Arche was founding an Augustinian priory within the walls of Portchester, Baldwin de Redvers with the help of an uncle, Hugh, founded the priory of Breamore for the same order of canons, some time between 1128 and 1133. As well as the profitable manor of Christchurch with its mills and valuable fisheries, Henry I had granted to Richard de Redvers the manor of Lymington, where the salterns were already being developed, and Breamore. The Redvers family seem to have always taken a kindly interest in Breamore, where the last of the line was buried in 1293.9 Of greater significance, if only because there remains for us a splendid church, was the share of Richard de Redvers in the re-foundation of Christchurch Twynham. The manor, the town and the church had been granted to him by Henry I. It was a well-endowed house of secular canons already in the time of the Confessor, being presided over by deans, Richard de Redvers set over them Peter de Orglandes, clearly a man from the Cotentin. The next dean was Hilary, destined to be promoted to Chichester in 1 I47 and later to hold a notorious place in the history of Battle. In 1150, according to the Christchurch cartulary, Hilary, now bishop of Chichester, and Henry of Blois, bishop of Winchester, agreed that, after the destructive rule of Ranulf Flambard, the best future for Christchurch would be to convert the secular college into a monastery of regular canons. Raldwin de Redvers carried this policy through, setting up an Augustinian priory for twenty-five canons. The earliest entries into the cartulary record the grant of the church and its lands to Peter de Orglandes by Richard de Redvers, followed by a fuller document from earl Baldwin to dean HiIary. A grant of land in Apse, in the Isle of Wight, was made by Roger de Lestre - a Cotentin name, in company with many more among the early witnesses. Various members of the Redvers family made small grants to the priory; Baldwin himself gave the churches of Boldre, Brockenhurst and Lymington. By 1 150 the priory of Holy Trinity, Christchurch was Augustinian: the charter of Richard Redvers I1 seems quite reliable, speaking clearly of the canons quos Baldewynus comes parer meus et ego, inspiratzte Deo per horticionem venerabiiis Henrici Wynton' . . . in Christi licclesiarn primus ir~troduximus(No. 5 ; fo. I4r). Such a conversion of a secular college produced a more orderly pattern of observance and discipline. The Redvers family demonstrated its patronage of Christchurch by maintaining the right of sending an officer to guard the house during a vacancy, on the death or resignation of a prior, leaving the canons the right to collect and use their income (Nos. 45, 47).1° More than a century Iater the mother of the last in the Redvers line, Amicia, widow of Raldwin Ill and sixth earl of Devon, founded Buckland abbey in Devon. where there were already four Cistercian houses. For this, the last religious founG . Oliver, Monasticon Diocesis Exondensis, Exeter 1846, 191. VCH Hnnts, ii, 168; but see E. Mason, 'The King, the Chamberlain and Southwick Priory', BZHR, liii, 1980, 1-10. lo J. C. Dickinson, Originsof the Austin Canons, London 1950; Cartulary of Christchurch, RL, Tib. D. Vl, an edition is in preparation for the limrts. Record Series. 8 9

dation of the family. she secured a colony of monks from Quarr in 1278." We can look back at the family of the Redvers to observe that almost all the foundations are the work of the first earl and that they lie evenly distributed among the estates. The second Richard de Redvers did give the manor of Plympton to the canons regular of Ptympton, who were not a Redvers foundation.12 But most of the family maintained a concern for the abbeys and priories, making occasional grants, small though these were. William de Vernon (1 193-121 7) who had outlived his son and his two nephews to become the fifth earl, showed more interest in the abbey of Bec, confirming its possessions as they were at the time of the consecration of their church in October 1077.13 Still, he granted to Christchurch the gift of a swan annually ! It was the first earl Baldwin who was certainly the most outstanding of the family, both by his vigorouschampioning of the cause of the empress Matilda against Stephen, and even in his zeal for monastic foundations. He is responsible for three alien priories, and so for adding to that burden on English monastic life. The descendants of the first earl were to play no significant part in government or in warfare, The last in the male line, Baldwin de Redvers IV, was poisoned at the table of Peter of Savoy in 1262, after he had lost a son in infancy. Of his two sisters, Margaret became a canoness of Lacock, while Isabella married William de Fortibus, earl of Albemarle, who died in t 260. lsabella lived on until 1293, holding dower lands in Holderness, Skipton and Cockermouth and then, after her brother's death in 1262, also the earldom of Devon and the Iordship of the lsle of Wight. Her own children died in their teens, leaving her to express her domineering personality through thirty years of widowhood, the richest lady in the land. Countess 1sabell.a has left her mark on the countryside with Countess Wear, two miles south of the city of Exeter. Perhaps even before her time weirs were built blocking the river and hampering shipping t o the city. The Courtenays completed the work with two more weirs, obliging merchant shipping to use their port of Topsham. That is why the Exeter canal is one of the earliest in the country (1564) and why boys and old men still watch the salmon jumping the weirs.'$ On her death, the Crown was quick to purchase the lordship of the Island with the manors of Christchurch and Lambeth. The Isle of Wight had been a separate administrative county, 'a regality like that of the counties palatine' (Stubbs).16 The lordship of the Isle of Wight was now extinct, but the earldom with the manors of Lymington and Breamore descended to the Courtenay family. Deprived of the Island and the manor of Christchurch the earldom of Devon was henceforward much impoverished. But though it was among the poorest of the earldoms, the Courtenays were still the wealthiest family in Devon. They only came to England in 1152, from Courtenay in the Ga'tinais. in the entourage of Eleanor of Aquitaine, Henry 11's queen; they were only connected with Devonshire when Reginald de Courtenay married Hawise, heiress to the barony of Okeharnpton, the Iargest honour in the county. Their son Robert married Mary de Redvers, daughter of William de Vernon. When, two generations later, the Redvers family became extinct with the

'"

11 C. Gill,BucklandAbbey, Plymouth 1951. 12 Regesta, ii, 1958. 13 M. Gibson, Lanfrrmc of Bec, Oxford 1 9 7 7 , 3 0 , 3 3 .

14 Cart. Christchurch, 37.

E. A. G. Clark, The Ports of the Exe Estuary, Exeter 1968, 21. Denholm-Young, 'Edward I and the salc of the lsle of Wight', EHR, xtiv, 1929.

16 N.

152

AngkrNomzan Studies V

death of countess IsabelIa, the heir was Hugh de Courtenay, great-grandson of Mary de Redvers and Robert de Courtenay. Even if he were the ifejure earl of Devon, the inheritance was disputed with the king as his opponent; hence the title was not granted until 1335." We must not go into the vicissitudes of the history of the Courtenays - the attainders, forfeitures, restorations and executions - except t o say that the Courtenays are still in Devon at Powderham castle (though this was not the ancestral home of the Redvers) and that in thecounty Courtenay is still a popular name to give to boys, whereas 1. can only recall one man with the name Redvers, a famous general. The cartularies and the chronicles, together with the opinions of antiquaries and genealogists, have to be used with much caution for the history of the Redvers family and the earldom. The parentage of Richard, father of the first earl, is obscure, though there exists a charter of 1060 making mention of three Redvers brothers Richard, Baldwin and William; the first of these died in that same year 1060.18This Baldwin could be the father of Richard, for both Robert of Torigny and William of JumiBges mention afivsr Baldwin, as distinguished from a second. Further, it has been customary to connect the Redvers with the family of Baldwin de Brionne, de Meules or de Sap of Exeter. This connection as set out by Dugdale was widely repeated and is found in the French local histories. Baldwin de Meules did have a son, Richard, appearing under the name of Richard Fitz Baldwin, who is provided with a pedigree in Conzplete Peerage, Devon, p.3 17. The chronicle of Ford, however, treats the families de Meules and de Redvers separately. Others, with the cartulary of Carisbrooke (239), have linked the Redvers family t o William Fitz Osbern. Some have confused the Redvers with the Rivers family (de Riveriis), or even with the Insula family. The safe conclusion perhaps is to hold that until Richard de Redvers became attached to the cause of Henry in the Cotentin, and until I-lenry as king rewarded him for his support, the family was of no great importance. But in the confused history of Henry's accession to the throne, we must remain dependent for the events of the Cotentin on information deriving from Orderic Vitalis.

G . A. Holmes, Tke Estates ofthe Higher Nobility in 14th-century England,Cambridge t 957, 10, 32-4. 18 Fauroux, 147, 17

ON SCANNING ANGLO-NORMAN VERSE R. C . Johnston The latest text produced by the Anglo-Norman Text Society is TIte Lqe of St John the Almsgiver, edited by Dr K. Urwin. This is preserved in a single manuscript in the library of Trinity College, Cambridge. It is written in 'a quite good thirteenth-century English hand';' it is the copy of a scribe and not the author's original autograph work; 'it dates from the earliest part of the thirteenth century and perhaps the co~npositionof the L f e may not pre-date the copy by too long a p e r i ~ d ' .The ~ Lfe is in verse and its metre may be called Anglo-Norman octosyllabic. The best scribes are human; the worst can be beastly. No editor expects to find a faultless presentation of an author's work. A prose text offers fewer problems than a verse one. If the prose is preserved in a unique manuscript, an editor reproduces this, omitting or correcting such beastliness as he can detect, punctuates it in the modern fashion, and gives such descriptions and explanations of the scribe'slanguage, orthography, and working habits as are necessary to make the text easily accessible to the readers he has in view. When an editor establishes a text of which two or more manuscripts have survived, we expect him to inform us of all sense variants but not necessarily to provide completely detailed examinations of the orthography and so forth of each scribe. My dealings with the two manuscripts of the short (some fortyseven printed pages) mid-thirteenth-century chronicle of The Crusade and Death of Richard I sllow that these two Anglo-Nomian scribes are capable of reproducing with remarkable accuracy a text composed a hundred years or so before their time, although their spellings are by no means the same. In a prose text it suffices to note that one scribe writes le dit tentpest, defendruit, and finalment, and the other la dire tempeste, defenderoit, and finatement, without trying t o say what differences of pronunciation are involved. Plainly this would not suffice for a verse text like St John. We have the scribe's Anglo-Norman texts (sometimcs referred to by editor's name only). A-NTS = Anglo-Norman Text Society The Life of Saint John the Almsgiver, cd. K . Urwin, 2 vols, A-NTS 1980,1981 The Crusade and Deafh of Richard I , ed. R. C . Johnston, A-NTS 1961 Jordan Fantosme's Chronicle, ed. R. C.Johnston, Oxford 1981; ed. R. Howlett, RS, 82, iii, 1886,202-377;ed. Ph. A. Becker, ZeitschrftfiirmlnanischePhiIoiogie,lxiv(9441,449-556 The Romance ofHorn, ed. M . K . Pope, 2 ~ 0 1 9 , A-NTS 1955, and with T. B. W. Reid, 1964 Le Livre de Sibile, ed. 13. Shields, A-NTS 1979 Le Petit Plet, ed. B. S. Merrilees, A-NTS, 1970 Le Secrd de Secrez, ed. 0.A. Beckerteggc, A-NTS 1944 Matthew Paris, La Vie de Seint Auban, ed. A. R . liarden, A-NTS 1968 Matthew Paris, 77ze Life of S t E d w d the Confessor, ed. K . Wallace, will be vol. 41 of the A-NTS series and appear in 1983 1 Urwin, ii, 4. 2 Urwin, ii, 25-6.

154

Anglo-Norman Studies V

spellings, we cannot hear his pronunciation, nor do we know if either exactly resembled those of the poet or if the poet was meticulous in his prosody. It may be sufficient merely to point out what seem to be inexact rhymes if one believes 'that the author felt able to rhyme together words with markedly different vowels, providing their consonantal endings were identi~al',~ and, of course, one respects the characteristic pairing of what wouldin French be sure and courre (lines 3 15-16). The manuscript's line 3 15 Mettre vne sele pur seer sure, remembering that elsewhere the scribe can write seek and seure, gives an editor much to think about before he decides t o print Mettre sele pur seer sure, and such a line both contributes to and derives from the conviction that the poet intended every Iine to show eight meticulously counted syllables. The manuscript reading could have been allowed t o stand, if the editor had judged it to be one of 'the few in which the fifth syllable is a final r , seemingly not counted among the eighV4 like Iine 1813 E dist lui: 'I;iere,'rnult kurnhlernent, or 2399 A hi venissent e I kmentussent. St John has been edited in a manner entireIy consistent with the opinions of the majority of responsible scholars from the beginning of the study of Anglo-Norman to the present day. The view taken of its scansion is that 'the great majority of the lines are octosyllabics, at least by Anglo-Norman standards, and it is reasonable to assume that the whole poem was originally written in octosyllabic^'.^ I take this to mean that St John does not and did not contain sections written in other metres, and I assume that it infers that the poet's octosyllabics were perfect by any standards, otherwise the second clause could have read 'and it is reasonable to assume that this is what the poet intended'. The authoritative statement of this view is that given by Johan Vising on p. 79 of his Anglo-Nomzan Language and Lirerature, London, 1923, The fundamental principles of French verse are syllabism and rhyme, with accent and caesura as accessory elements. This system of versification was brought over t o England by the Normans, and it is the form adopted in most of the Anglo-Norman poems of the twelfth century. The manuscripts do not always show this perfect state, but 'only slight alterations of manuscript readings are needed in order to arrive at metrical correctness'. This original identity of insular and continental scansion could not be maintained as Anglo-Norman and French diverged in pronunciation especially in regard t o the pronunciation and non-pronunciation of atonic e and the rules of elision and hiatus. Eventually this must result, as Vising states, in a situation where 'a poet was often satisfied if he wrote lines of approximately the same length'. This state was reached, says Vising, by some individuals as early as AD 1 175, when Jordan Fantosme wrote his Otronicle, and is seen 'in most of the poems of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries'. There may be some exaggeration here, and certainly this is not the case with St John, in which Dr Urwin finds 'a high proportion (some 9 4 per cent) of octosyllabic lines which are correct by generally recognised Anglo-Norman standards'. The spelling-system used in Anglo-Norman manuscripts is far from phonetic and the poet's pronunciation and syllable-count have to be sought behind it, and in this Anglo-Norman is not unique. In Milton's English Heaven can have one or two syllables, supreme can be accented on the first or the second syllable, and many an 3 Urwin, ii, 22. 5

Urwin, ii, 21. Urwin, ii, 21.

Oil

Scanning Anglo-Norman Verse

155

editor of an Anglo-Norman poem, observing that in Paradise Lost, Book I , Milton writes 'Hath lost us Heav'n, and all this mighty host' at line 136, '71iir Glory witherd. As when Heavens Firz' at line 612, 'Whom reason hath equald, force hath made supream' at line 248, and 'And sat as Princes, whom the supreme King' at line 735,6 must have been tempted t o massacre Wordsworth and lament: Milton! thou shouldst have lived at that hour: England had need of thee! With no help from a Milton who would write T'wlrom (Bk 11, 968) when To whom counted for only one syllable, the editor of St John has to decide that in 1879 Li uns k vout, li aritre nun there are two cases of li in hiatus, that in 1884 Que li un e li atltre n ?err venu both show elision, and that in 3280 Li un e li autre fud 6atu it may be necessary to pronounce Li ttrz e lhutre, taking the second to be a spelling for an elided feminine form. Similar difficult decisions on identical manuscript spellings give De Egiprc 2347, D'hunzDIc Johan 2408, Que hurnble Johan 2406, Qu 'avilefttd 2026, se eiz merveillerunt 2083, and s kn cunfilrtat 2086. By thus interpreting the extremely unphonetic and conventional scribal orthography, by recognising and correcting errors to which this scribe was particularly prone, by emending lines which show a faulty understanding of the Latin original and possibly due to a misreading of the correct translation in the original, and by substituting alternative doublets used elsewfiere for forms which falsify the metre, the manuscript text has been brought back t o a state where only 72 lines cannot be read as octosyllabics. Such procedures are used by all editors and have common sense behind them.7 Justification is provided by the comparison where two manuscripts exist, one early and one late thirteenth-century, as in the case of Fantosme's Chronicle. If an editor had only the Lincoln MS of about AD 1300and had proposed to read d' for de in de erzgletere line 5,1' for le in ke hurrzage 7, el for el le or e le in el k cors 45 or e le cors 129, avrad for auerad 92, s'il for si il 298, juefnes for geuenes 22, espuente for esponte 240, and so on, Re would have been pleased to have been shown later the Durham MS of about AD 1200 in which these conjectured forms are iustified. . Not alctexts can be restored as easily and with as few recalcitrant lines as St John to a regular syllabicaIly counted form. I have already referred to Vising's statement that Fantosnie's Clrronicle is so far removed from Continental French-style poetry that one must renounce all hope of seeing only twelve-syllable alexandrines and tensyllable decasyltabics in it. 1 think this statement is true, though I do not agree that Fantosme did not care how many syllables he put in all his lines. Ph. A. Becker realised that neither separately nor together could the two manuscripts lead to a French-type text, but that as this must have been its original form sheer conjecture was justified if this original form was to be found. He produced his version fully realising that it had no factual basis. 'Die Mutmassung kann im einzelnen einen sehr hohen Grad von Wahrscheinlichkeit erreichen; sie muss aber jederzeit zuriicktreten, wenn eine bessere Liisung gefunden wird.'% Here for comparison are a number of specimens of passages 'regularised' by Becker and as I edited them in the belief that

6 The examples are taken from the Preface of Helen Darbishire's edition, Oxford 1958. 7 It is intriguing, however, to find that leferencc to a Latin original has been used to guarantee

the authenticity o f 'incorrectly counted' lines; e,g. '. . . a considerable number of lines have an extra syllable at the beginning of the line, frequently affirmed by the Latin', 0.A. Beckerlegge, 'Anglo-Norman Versification - A Synthesis', CompartztiveLiteratureSfudies,11, Cardiff 1941, 12. 8 Becker, 476.

I56

Anglo-Norman Studies V

the Durham manuscript with the help jn a very few places of the Lincoln one preserves the poetry as it was composed by a learned scholarly man. (la). For the first passage I give also the text of MS D as it is printed by Howlett. It correctly represents the MS text with the usual n~odernisationin punctuation, use of capitals, etc., and the addition of two words from MS I, omitted by the scribe of D who has earned a reputation for carelessness. Howlett, lines 833-8 Ore ad Richart de Luci fait cume sent. Tut ad del rei [d'Escoce] quanqu'il ad demand6 De triewes vers Northumberland de si que vers l'est6: E dan Humfrei de Boun s'en est ariere aI6 E maint gentil chevalier d'EngIeterre n&: Si serrunt ainz curt terme vers Flamens acuintk. Becker, laisse 88, lines 826-3 1 Or ad cil de 1-uci n?ult fait cunie sene, tut ad del rei d'Escoce quanqu'il a demandb, friewe en Northumberland de si que vers I'estb. Dan Mumfrei de Boun s'en est ariere a16 e maint gent chevalier ctl Engleterre n6; si semnt ainz curt terme as Flamens acuintd. Johnston, 89,827-32 Ore ad Richard de Luci fait curne sene: Tut ad del rei d'Escoce quanqu'il ad demand6 De triewes vers Northumberland desl que vers l'est6. E dan Humfrei de Bobn s'en est ariere a16 E maint gentil chevalier dlEngIeterre n6, Si serrunt ainz curt tern~e vers Flamens acuint6. The syllable-count of Howlett's tines is 12, 12, 14, 13, 12, 12, assuming epic caesuras with supernumerary unstressed e in the middle of the second and sixth lines. Becker has made changes affecting syllable-count in five of the six lines, which now read as regular French alexandrines, divided 616 and making use of epic caesuras. My editing (except for the misprint Richard for Richart) makes no changes in Howlett's manuscript readings, treats each line as two hemistichs counted 715,616, 816,716,715, and 616, and recognises that the laisse is tripartite on the Old Provengal fruns, cauda, pes model in which frons and pes agree metrically against cauda. In addition we note that the four long initial hemistichs of 7 or 8 syllables have a tonic, masculine syllable (i.e. one ending in a consonant or a tonic vowel) at the caesura, whereas the two short initial hemistichs have an unstressed, supernumerary e after the last tonic syllable before the caesura. The final hemistichs show the usual AngloNorman count of 'about 6' observable throughout the whole poem. That the fives occur in the first lines of both frons and pes, making them identical in both syllable count and caesura-type, is either a bonus or a sign of Fantosme's special care in the construction of this symmetrical, tripartite laisse. A number of laisses of similar type occur in the section, 8 2 to 89, which relates the doings of Bohun and Lucy in Northumberland. 1 give one other example.

Otz Scaitn ir lg A rzglo-Nc)rr?lanVerse

Johnston, 86,800-7 Mult iert de grant affaire dan I-tumfrei de Houn, Li barun de Northumberlant en sunt si cumpaignun. Arstrent tut Berewic a flambe e a tisun E une grant partie de terres envirun. Ke perent en lur marches, cruel curne Ieun. Mes dan Richart de Luci n'ad suin de tel sermun, Si dit en sun language: 'Sire Mumfrei de Boiin, Si Deu n'en prenge cure, n'i frurn si perdre nun.' Here all the final hemistichs have 6 syllables and the initial hemistichs show rauda f 6 rn8, frons m6 f 6 f6, pes m7 f 6 f6. What is significant is the arrangement of caesura1 types, f m // m f f / m f f. In the whole poem short feminine initial heniistichs have 6 or 5 syllables, against the long masculine ones with 8 or 7 or more rarely 6 ~yllables.~ To turn this into an alexandrine iaisse Becker altered Li burun in the second line to dl, suppressed dart in the sixth line, and altered prenge to prcizt in the last line, in which he kept A si of MS 13 where I accepted MS 1,'s variant Si. Of the 217 laisses of the C!tror?iclc more (102) are cornposed in thismetre, which depends on the opposition of masculine initial hemistichs which are long and feminines which are short, than in any other. Most of these are of a less sophisticated. non-tripartite type, which 1 illustrate by lines 200-13, being the end of 19, the whole of 20, and the beginning of 21, in my edition. ( 1 b).

200

210

19 Si li dit I'aventure de sa meisnie fiere, DeI cunte de Cestre, de Raiil de Feulgiere. Dunc I d Deu le glor'ius e te barun saint Piere: 'Descunfit sunt mes enemis! A! Las! yue jo n'i ere!'

Apreste sun barnage en qui il mult se fie; Devers Do1 en Bretaigne ad la veie acuillie. Mes puis qu'il fud la parvenud od sa chevalerie, Del fait a sa meidnee joius se giorifie. Ces qui furent el chaste1 ne s'esjoirent mie: Mult dutent sa venue c criernent sa baiIIie. N'orent tant de vitaille dunk sustiengent 1ur vie. A1 rei I-lenri se sunt renduz, sis tient en sa baillie.

21 'Seignurs,' fait li reis Nenris, 'kar me cunseiiliez! Mis fiz ad tort vers mei, dreiz est que le sachiez, . 9 My abbreviations are to be resolved thus: m = initial hemistich with masculine caesura; f = initial hem~stichwith feminine caesura; m8 = initial llemisticl~of eight syllables wtth masculine caesura; f 6 = initial hemisticli of six syliables plus supernumerary feminine e fi.c. with feminine

caesura). The dominant feature is the caesura1 type, not the syllabic count, in contraqt to Fantosme'~fourth and fifth type\ of vcrs~ficationillustrated later.

158

A ngko-Nomzan Studies V

My text makes no alteration to what MS D offers. Becker, by making conjectures unsupported by either manuscript (e del 201, degbire for leglorfus 202, h i s sunt 203, suppress Mes, alter to yu 'i .fud parvenu 206, Cil qui sunt 208, suppress Henri 21 1, alter to go fait Ei reis, e kar 212) produces his thirteen French alexandrines instead of f 6 f.5 m8 m8 / f6 f6 m7 f 6 m7 f 6 f 6 / 11x7 m6 in the initial hemistichs and, at 21 2, one 5-syllable Anglo-Norman amongst the final hernistichs. (2). When Fantosme writes alexandrines, which he does in around seventy laisses, these resemble those of continental poets more closely than do those of many of Itis compatriots, while nevertheless containing numerous examples of a deficiency or an overplus of a syllable or more in one or both of the 'irregular' hemistichs, of which five-syllable final hernistichs are the comn~onestirregularities. The two short laisses 207 and 209 provide sufficient illustration. In neither of them have I interfered with the syllable-count of MSD; that of MS L is the same except that an unlikely future tense in 1969 gives a 6-syllable final hemistich. 19.50

f 955

Johnston, 207,1950-5 Li reis esteit entr6 en sa chambre demeine, Quant li message vint. Suffert ot mult grant peine: il n'ot beu ne n~angie treis jorz de la semeine, Ne sumeilli6 de l'oil pur la novele certaine; Mes de jorz e de nuiz d'errer se peine. I1 ad fait mult que sage, if avrad bone estreine.

Becker intervenes in 1952 with a pronunciation change to beu and the suppression of 11, both of which changes can be considered unnecessary; in 1593 he suppresses fa: he suppliesfomzet~tafter errer in 1954. 1965

1970

209, 1965-70 E dit li chamberlens: 'Par matin seit l'afaire!' 'Par ma fei.' dist li mes, 'ainz i parlerai en eire! Mun seignur ad el cuer e dolur e cuntraire. Si me laissiez entrer, chamberleng de bon aire!' E dit li chamberlens: 'Ne I'osereie pas faire: Li reis est endormiz, ariere vus estut traire!'

Becker suppresses i in 1966 and pas in 1969. (3). Decasyllabic lines, divided 416 by a caesura and employing the epir caesura, are widely used in the earlier French epics. The 120 lines 645-764, constituting twelve laisses of the Chronicle are in this metre, which Fantosme can handle impeccably, as in laisse 74 which I quote below, but more than 10% of the lines of the whole section are faulty by French standards, though paralleled in other Anglo-Norman texts.

6 80

Johnston, 74,679-82 Mes puis qu'il out la chose si enprise, Nel pot laissier si par grant cuardise. Pais a tenir cumande a Saint' Iglise; Des enfreignurs en fait cruel justise.

(4). The three consecutive laisses 214 to 216, still with epic caesura, display a fourth type of prosody and a maximum of virtuosity involving patterns derived from

On Scanning Anglo-Norman Verse

159

syllable-count and also from caesural types. I illustrate by means of the first of the three, which is, in addition, clearly tripartite. The text is that of MS D with one correction, puis f o r e puis in line 2040. Johnston, 214, 2033 -42 Ignelement prent ses messages sis ad enveiez a Davi Ki iert frere lu rei d'Escoce, unkes rneillur ne vi. I1 esteit en Le'ircestre cum vassal pruz e hardi, 203 5 Mes unc ne fud si dolent quant cest message 01. t i reis li mande dTngleterre que !e plait est or si: N'i ad fors de rendre sei e de venir en sa merci. 11 ne saveit en tut le mund meillur cunseil Davi Fors de rendre le chaste1 puis venir a1 rei Henri. 2040 dede~lzoit jorz fud si basti: Seignurs, tut icest plait Pes ad li reis d7Engleterre, pris sunt tuit si enemi. The tripartite distribution of caesural cuts fffm / fmmm // mf shows identity (three of one type and one of the other) in chiasmus of the frons and pes and opposition to the cauda in the initial hemistichs; the syI1able-count, two 8s and two 7s, exploits the irregularity of the sequerlria or descorr versification, which Fantome uses elsewhere in the poem. The cauda, with 7 6 in its initial hemistichs, is, rightltly, opposed to frons and pes. The arrangement of the final hemistichsis also tripartite, the last 6syllable count of the frons (8 6 7 6) becoming the first of the pes (6 8 6 7); the 8 7 of the caude is on its own and does not repeat the pattern of any two successive Iines of the frons and pes. Needless to say, t o produce French alexandrine lines out of the above, none of which Iines have 12 syllables, Becker's 'reconstitution' is practically a re-building. (5). Fantosme's fifth and final metre is found in 32 laisses, or, as I prefer to call them, stanzas, because the patterning of lines by syllable-count imitates the work of lyric poets and the caesuras are never epic but always either normal or lyric, with a finaI atonic e of the initial hemistich either elided before the first vowel of the final hemistich or syllabic if this hemistich begins with a consonant. I choose one short example, which is tripartite in syllable-count, 8 6 // 7 6 6 7 // 8 6, and in subjectmatter, with frons about the French, cauufa about King Louis, and pes about the Henry the Younger's messengers. Johnston, 22,240-7 Espodnt6 sunt li Franceis de la fiere novele: 240 Le cuer a1 plus hardi en tremble e chancele. Mes icil les cunfort6 ki trestuz les chaele; Irrur ad en sun cuer, li sanc li estencele. A un cunseil en vait a sa gent plus leale. 245 En romanz devise un brief, d'un anel l'enseele. Les messagiers a1 juefne rei, devant lui les apele. g o fud li reis Lowis ki charga la novele. This versification, different as it is in type from the other alleged ajexandrines, goes on Becker? Procrustean bed and comes off with the first hemistich rewritten: Li Franceis s'espoentent; e en before chancele in 24 1 ;epic caesura in 242; brief devise en roman2 245; only the first word of the initial; hemistich remains unchanged in

246 les messages manda; and in the last line the definite article is sacrificed t o make room for Becker's archaic L a h i s for which there is no justification in either rnanuscript anywhere. Such are the bold conjectures needed to make believe that Fantosme wrote nothing but decasyIlabics and alexandrines. There is a great deal more to be said about Fantosme's skill in symmetrical composition and his use of the five kinds of metre t o divide his work into sections befitting the subject-matter, but what I have said amply suffices t o make out a case against considering all Anglo-Norman verse as a more or less successful attempt to write correctly counted lines of six, eight, ten, or twelve syllables on the continental French model. Jordan Fantosme's prosody, if I have analysed it correctly, brings something new and hitherto unsuspected into the discussion of Anglo-Norman verse. Here we have an insular narrative poet who can count. In the initial hemistichs of his Jordanian stanzas (type 5 above) and in both hemistichs of his double stanzas (type 4) he can write syllabic verse with all the precision displayed by a continental French or a Provenqal lyric poet. In the initial hemistichs of his Jordanian laisses (type I b) the various counts of 5, 6, 7, and 8 are not instances of the ability t o hit and more often to miss the normal six syliables required of a French poet, but are seen to be of or below this number, if the caesura is feminine, and above it if the caesura is masculine. These caesuras are so distributed in a sophisticated variant of the Jordanian laisse (type la) as to produce tripartite arrangements, in which, almost invariably, the subject-matter is equally and appropriately divided. On the other hand, both hemistichs of the decasyllabic and alexandrine lines and the final hemistichs throughout the whole poem, except for those of the three 'double stanzas' aIready discussed, show evidence of the merely approximate count, unlike the regular 416 and 616 which obtain in continental French verse. It is, however, reinarkable that Fantosme's alexandrines in considerable stretches are accurately counted and that variations from this accurate count are at times strategically placed. Thus, the final defeat of William the Lion's invasion and harrying of the north-east of England is brought about at a skirmish near Alnwick by the capture of the Scottish king. This episode, simply divided into a beginning, a middle, and an end, is narrated in eighteen alexandrine laisses (nos, 183-200). Two Iaisses bring the English army to Alnwick; ten describe the battle; six its aftermath. Conspicuous lines are therefore the first of the whole section, the first of the actual battle, the last of the battle, and the opening line of the last laisse, and they scan 716 Li reis iert a Audnewic nd sa grant ost banie, 516 E puis le matin quant le jor s 'esclanie, 716 Ne duterent mes Escot ne lur forfrunt rieient, and 816 Seignurs, He vus esmerveillez se il sunt descunfiz. This is very different from the complacency postulated by Visingin hisstatement about satisfaction with lines of approximately the same length. However, the assertion that as syllabic verse the whole poem displays a totally un-French irregularity is surely true. And that handling of the initial hemistichs of Jordanian laisses, making long hemistichs masculine and short ones feminine, is clever and intellectually reasonable - but does the resuIting coIlection of whole lines, which brings in the other irregularity of final hemistichs, when there is no pattern aimed at in the complete Iaisse, produce the recurrence of the equalities demanded by syllabic verse and the rhythm which is the essence of poetry? There is no doubt that to a French ear Fantosme's verse cannot be called in any way satisfactory. The problem is that this untidy scansion is indulged in by a poet who shows irrefutably that he is capable of

On Scanning Arzglo-iVorma~zVerse

161

writing and combining in intricate patterns hemistichs that are in their hundreds accurately counted, and it is certain that he could have con~pliedeasily with the demand to produce faultless 416 and 616 lines. It looks very much as if Fantosme is not failing to get his shots into the bull of a very simply placed target, but that he is not aiming at the target at all.1° Looked at from the French or syllabic viewpoint, the overall impression of Fantosme's versification and that of Matthew Paris in the Vie de St Auhuiz with which it has always been associated is that it comes from the same stable as most of Anglo-Norman poetry, but that its defects and irregularities are considerably worse than average. I agree with this view from that viewpoint. However, the implications of the discovery of order and purpose in much of Fantosme's apparent chaos suggest that the all-embracing syllabic solution for Anglo-Norman poetry needs t o be modified. I return for a moment to Vising's statenlent that the basic elements of Anglo. Norman poetry are the same as those of continental French (see above p.154): The fundamental principles of French verse are syllabisin and rhyme, with accent and caesura as accessory elements. This system of versification was brought over to England by the Normans, and it is the form adopted in most of the Anglo-Norman poems of the twelfth century. The statement as regards French verse may well be true, but in fact we know far more about twelfth-century Anglo-Norman poetry than we do about the poetry of France at this early date, with the result that comparisons purporting to show the greater regularity of French verse are really con~parisonsbetween what actually exists in AngIo-Norman and what is inferred from later states of continental French prosody. But this may be only a debating point. Professor Dominica Legge'sstandard history of Anglo-Noman Literatzire and its Background, while rightly emphasising the precocity of Anglo-Norman literature observes that it is often difficult to differentiate between Norman and Anglo-Norman works. A much more fundamental objection to Vising's view is that he sees French syllabic verse as the onty startingpoint and continuing rnodel for Anglo-Norman poets, when one should at the very least look at Latin poetry of the Classical kind and of the accentual Mediaeval kind, and that one ought to wonder whether every trace of Anglo-Saxon verse disappeared once the Battle of Hastings had bee11 won. In fact the opinion that a good AngloNorman poet wrote correctly scanned French fines, an indifferent one tried to do so but frequently failed t o achieve a good result, while a bad one like Jordan Fantosme or Matthew Paris had no standard of scansion in mind, was rejected almost from the beginning of the study of Anglo-Norman versification by scholars of the eminence of Foerster, Suchier, Stimming, and Koch. It is not my intention to describe, still less to examine, the views of this so-called German school, which wanted t o introduce the accentual element of Anglo-Saxon and MediaevaI Latin verse into the structure of Anglo-Norman lines instead of the exclusively syllabic prosody of Gaston Paris and Paul Meyer, Koschwitz and Tobler, and perhaps above all Johan Vising. The French view has the advantage that it can be applied to all Anglo-Norman works and does accurately describe the external characteristics of the verse. But is it not disquieting that it is a defeatist theory of failure? Would it not be somewhat lo For a suggestion that an accentual explanation of this promdy should be considered see my article 'Matthew Paris, Jordan t:antosn~e and Anglo-Nornian Versification' in MclIanges . . . affertsd Charles Foulan, i, Rennes 1980, 165-75.

162

Anglo-Nonnaa Studies V

remarkable if for three centuries poets and poetry were nourished on the inability t o perform a somewhat simple operation? Does not the explanation depend on the belief that large numbers of scribes systematically botched the job they were trained to do? It is not as if the Anglo-Normans were indifferent performers in general. This is a point made by 0.H. Prior, who, reviving the accentual theory in 1924, as well as noting the importance of the English stress-accent on the development of French in the island, couples the vigour of the verse with the outstanding nature of insular achievements in music. architecture. the illumination of manuscripts, embroidery, sculpture, bookbinding, enamel-work, and the art of our silversmiths and goldsmiths." This, Ixe concludes, should make us a bit suspicious of insistence on subservience to French influence in poetry. Ces quelques arguments: persistance de I'accent, originalit6 dans les arts plastiques et autres, nous paraissent dbjB faire ressortir comme exagdrde l'influence gbnbralement attribube B l'btablisse~nentdes Normands en Angleterre. l2 Since that date the murmur of dissent has never been completely stilled. B. H. Wind seems to me to score some good points in her study of the prosody of Thomas's Tristan.13 one of the texts cited as 'regular' by Vising, and in fact 'regularized' by BCdier in his unregenerate days when he produced an eclectic edition of a poem about half of whose lines in the manuscripts are either too short or too Iong.14 The continual harping on the 'beastliness' of scribes becomes a little self-defeating. introductions to editions usually have to trumpet the fact that though the edition is syllabically regular the manucripts are not. Two examples amongst scores must suffice. Even the best MS of The Romance o f Horn, says Miss Pope, gives her a nuniber of lines which are incorrect in either or both hemistichs but these defects are imputable to the transmitters of the poem.l5 Iiugh Shieldsin his extremely careful edition of Le Livre de Sibile tells us that he has had to remove 'a large amount of syllabic irregularity introduced by the scribes . . . the lines which may be deemed irregular in [the manuscript of1 Sihile amount to only 1 7.5%'.16 Is it inconceivab1e that even if all this is scribal error something other than carelessness is responsible? Perhaps the scribes are not out of step, but are marching t o the sound of a different drum, an insular and not a continental one, which was not impossibly the one which the Anglo-Norman poets were beating. Other editors attribute more authority to what tlze scribes hand on. Of the Petit FIet B. S. Merrilees writes: Approximately 75% of the lines have a stress accent, sometimes rather slight, on the fourth syllable, which tends to divide the line into hemistichs. In those lines where the accent falls on the third syllable, there are often seven, or apparently seven, syllables, and in those where the fifth syllable is accented 0.H . Prior, 'Remarques sur I'anglo-normand', Romania, x l b , 1924, 1-25. 12 Prior, 6 . 13 R. ti. Wind, 'Quelques remarques sur Ia versification du nistan de Thomas', Neophilologus, \.ixiri, 1949, 85-94. See also her editions Les Fragments du Roman de Tristan, Leiden 1950, and in the Textes LittPraires F r a n ~ i s1960. , l4 J . Bid ier, Le R o m n de Tristan par Thomas, 2 vols, Socidtd des Anciens Textes Franqais, t 902,1905. 15 Pope, ii, 32.

16 Shields, 38.

On Scanning Anglo-Norman Verse

163

there appear to be nine. This has led me t o feel that the stress rhythm of the Anglo-Norman line should not be ignored, even where one seeks a syllabic solution. I7 0. A. Beckerlegge in his editioll of Le Secre' de Secrez gives statistics of its highly irregular syllable-count: 38% are octosyllabic according t o 'French' rules; 7% are short, with seven or occasionally six syllables; 55% have nine or more syllables. His discussion of this situation while seeking, like Merrilees, a syIlabic solution, was published in a separate and seemingly little-known article.ls I have no solution to offer and you would not expect it in the few minutes remaining t o me, but there are a few simple ideas that 1 hope to keep in mind as I continue to read Anglo-Norman poetry. There is a certain inevitable relationship between syllables and stress. I think of four two-syllable French words and say: Paris, Nevers, Bordeaux, Bayonne. Is that an octosyllabic line or two hemistichs with two stresses in each one? I say four three-syllable phrases: /I alla epl Espagne et revit sa manrarr. Is that an alexandrine line or again two hemistichs with two stresses in each? (Don't worry about the hiatus. It would not do in modern French verse, but the Old French were more accommodating.) It may be over rash to look for an overall solution. With the possibility of French, Latin, and English influences in varying degrees, I think we should be looking for more subtle rhythmical patterns, and think of something other than shouting 'Wrong' whenever (and of course that is pretty frequently) an Anglo-Norman does not do what a Frenchman would. A very few examples will show what different types of verse at present pass as Anglo-Norman octosylfabics. At one extreme is a set of twelve Iines from St John the Almsgiver whose regular French count is emphasised by the fact that the scribe went out of his way to preserve the eight syllables in line 4023 by adding the -s of sires above the line, when he himself might have been content with the four stresses in a seven-syllable line: 'Cel title ostgz, que mgs n'i sdt'. 401 9 Ostg fud tost quant cfit l'avdt. 4020 Pgs lur redist: 'Tut remug Cel title, e 1%celgrnetgz Que c j ki siresgst e rei4024 Ilc tu_t le mgnd m ~ d par e ma.' Cg a tant d&e avant portgent Un C t r e escrit e ceJ ficherent y t r e la pzrte, mgveant; 4028 Changii fud tut,ediseit tant: 'C'gst la me is^ 2 devreit G g n d r e Johzn I ' e v ~ h ed'sisa-ndre . . .'

Very different are the twenty lines of Matthew Paris's St Edward the C o n f e s s ~ r . ~ ~ Call them Anglo-Norman octosyllabics if you like, but, if one must name them by f 7 Merrilees, xxvii-xxviii. 18 Beckerle~ge,'Anglo-Norman Versification . .'. See note 7 above. l9 These lines were not specially selected from the manuscript and

.

I do not pretend that they are absolutely typical of thc whole poem or identical with any other set of twenty consecutive Iines of the text.

164

Anglo-Noman Studies V

syllable-count, don't they read like heptasyllabics without and with anacrusis, the three stresses of the first line and its six syllables (in spite of the MS spelling Li eveske) being significant and indicating the beginning of a new section, a usage practised also by Jordan Fantosme:

597 600

605

610

615

L'eveske de Wincestre, - Ki veit sesmaus tant surdre e crestre ~ T t t e w o l dki avoit nun Re q&r a r f a i t u n ' ureisun A i e r s s e afliciun ~ a r b ~ n sgn e e teentgnci'~p. 'Ai! Deus, ki misericgrde E T f i C z n t escct recarde, A k i aver p i t i apzn t D z tes serfs, cum lungeme~t 'L=a_nguii-2 la t~ ggnt Kila vgstre grace aten t'! Sire D g s , d e ta faiture Prenge vu_s p i t i e cure, Kar vs suvgnge k'zle atgnt PSC, nun pas jggeingnt. Tot soiupl cheitif p e c h ~ r , Nus vgs clamgm ngstre Seigngr, N'avkm f s a VU,S r e f a En nastre anggsse, en ngstre esng.

My stresses could be discussed, in fact that is why 1 put them forward, but it may be useful t o state that I envisage alternative stresses, English and French, in pite, and that I stress De in 605 to link it with aver pire', and similarly in 609 to link it with pit& e cure. Finally nine lines of Le Petit Pler seem to show maximum dependence on rhyme as the principal characteristic of verse, and perhaps disappearance of unstressed e from pronunciation: 1429 1432

F, n e p o r s k r n acheisuns, ~ Kepor vastre amgr lerr~ns, l . a v ( e ) r - aprts, sacher de veir, Pgr vus tolk vgstre doleir. Mes ~ ( e mei ) dit(es) e rgpruvgz KGjam& tgle ngn av(e)rgz. Querez 12, si-l'av(e)r%z hen, Si vu_s ne demands a t r e rgn F ~ r itgl(e) s cum cgle fs.

So far in the history of Anglo-Norman studies the French have made most of the running. Their sylIabic analyses have probably yieidedall themileage there is in them. I believe it is time for the 'Anglo' side of Anglo-Norman to be studied, wit11 English ideas of rhythm in mind. How welcome it would be if English scholarsmade renewed efforts to get to grips with this part of their English heritage.

THE UMFRAVILLES, THE CASTLE AND THE BARONY OF PRUDNOE, NORTHUMBERLAND Laurence Keen The area of this study, the English upiands and the Northumbrian coastal plain, has a border society with its own peculiarities, so ably studied recently by Philip Dixon,' an area where, in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries 'men have doubted whether thieves or true men do most a b o ~ n d ' The . ~ area in the later medieval period stands apart from the rest of Qle country, perhaps more so than the Welsh Marches. But for earlier periods, when it was just as sparsely populated, the area should be examined to understand the events of the twelfth century. Professor Barrow has shown in his 1966 study of the Anglo-Scottish b ~ r d e r , ~ how before the treaty of York in 1237 there was never 'a sizeable tract of territory (as distinct from small pieces of no man's or debatable land) where the English and Scottish kingdoms as it were shaded off into each other':4 the line of the border on the west was determined by Solway and Esk, and on the east by the river Tweed. Before the decline of Northumbria, however, the region between the rivers Tyne and Forth fonned a culttiral, and frequentIy, a political unity.5 In the seventh and eighth centuries the natural border zone, where the rivers Carron and Avon entered the Forth, formed the frontier with the Celtic world.6 This is well demonstated by the location of such Anglian monasteries as Tynningehanl and Coldingham, and particularly by the earliest estates of Lindisfarne. Barrow has shown how the border Acknowledgements The archaeological aspects of thiq paper could not have been included had it not been for the collaboration and support over many years of Dr David Thackray. More recently we both owe a special debt to Peter Yeoman who has taken the data of ten years of excavation and with masterly cxpertive has sorted and arranged it: Mr Yeoman has afsoprovided the phasing plansincluded here.The excavations were carried out at the request of the Inspectorate of Ancient Monuments, Department of the Environment, through its Inspector John Weaver, and we are grateful for his interest and encouragement. We owe also a debt to his successor, Ian Stuart, and particularly to the interest of local archaeologists, Professor Rosemary Cramp, Barbara Harbottle and Tim Gates. I am gratefulalso to BrianGolding for detailson the Umfravilles, to Terry Ball, of the Department of the Environment, to Dr R. D. H. Gem and to the ~ t a f fof the Northumberland County Record Office. Miss Lindsay Allason-Jones, kindly provided a list of Anglo-Saxon finds. P. Dixon, 'Towerhouses, Pclehouses and Border Society', Arch. Journ., cxxxvi, 1979,240-52. 2 W. Harrison, An historical description o f the I s W s of Rritayne, 2nd edn, London 1587,91, quoted by Dixon, 245. 3 G. W. S. Barrow, 'The Anglo-Scottish Border', reprinted in The Kingdom of the Scots, Government, Church and Sociedy from the eleventh to the fourteenth century, London 1973, f 39-61. The first part of this paper relies heavily on this work. Barrow, 140. 5 Barrow, 149. 6 P. Hunter Blair, 'The Bernicians and their northern frontier', Studies in Early British History, ed. N . Chadwick, 1954,170-1, quoted by Barrow, 149.

166

An&-Norman Studies V

could have meant very little, when in 655, Lindisfarne was given twelve estates by King Oswy. The estates along the upper Bowmont Water included two now in England (Mindrum and Shotton) and seven now in Scotland (Sourhope, Halterburn, Ciifton, Shereburgh, Staerough and Y e t h ~ I m ) . ~ The main impetus of Scandinavian invasion, combined with the failing of Northumbria, occurred at the time when the Scoto-Pictish kingdom, north of the river Forth, managed t o maintain its independence and integrity despite Norwegian and Danish onslaughts. Once Scandinavian invasion and settlement diminished, it was clear that sooner or later Saxon expansion northwards would coincide with the movement of Scots southwards. The river Tweed seems now to assume importance: this is well demonstrated in the History ofsaint Cutl~hert,in which Lindisfarnensis terra is said to extend 'from Tweed to Warenm~uth'.~ The ancient estates of the see of St Cuthbert, whether at Chester-le-Street or at Durham, were maintained if they were located south of the Tweed, but for those north of the Tweed, the see 'had to fight every inch of the way, often without ~uccess'.~ Evidence for the important part ptayed by the Tweed-Cheviot border over a long period is therefore impressive, It is against these circumstances that attempts by the Scottish kings t o annex Northumbria should be considered: King Malcolm 11's great invasion of Northumbria in 1006 when Durham was besieged,I0 the first Scottish invasion for over fifty years; in 1018'l (ox 1016 according to Stenton);I2 and again in 1840, when King Duncan besieged Durham but was defeated by the N~rthumbrians.'~ Then follows Earl Siward's invasion of Scotland in 105414 and a deterioration in border relations. The rule of Earl Tostig did nothing t o calm things down. On the contrary, he turned traditional disquiet and disloyalty into rebeliion and was responsible for creating a political situation that prevented a peaceful extension of Norman ruie over the north.15 Tostig had failed to maintain the northern border and to succeed in administering his earldom. The revolts after 1066 may be seen as much as the result of what happened to Northumbrians before the Norman Conquest, as of what William had actually done. The resistance provoked the harrying of 1069, in which eastern and central Durham, Jarrow itself, and the Tyne valley, as far west as Hexham were plundered.16 But it was not until t 080, after Odo's punitive expedition had stamped on local resistance to Norman rule, that the Conqueror 'could integrate Northumbria more closely into the kingdom than it had been in the past by introducing Normans into the ecclesiastical and secular government of the earldom'." William de St Calais was appointed bishop of D u r l ~ a m ,Aubrey, ~~ earl of N~rthumberland.'~Robert Curthose, the Conqueror's son, needed to consolidate the Norman presence by establishing a base between Durham, where the castle belonged to the bishop, and Ramburgh, the ancient stronghold of the earls. He founded a new castle on the river T ~ n e significantly , ~ ~ perhaps, opposite Gateshead, where bishop Walcher had been 7 Barrow, 32-4, 149-50. 8 Symeon ofDurham, RS,ed. T. Arnold, i , 199, referred to by Barrow, 152. 9 &row, 152.

lo W. E. Kapelle, The Norman Conquest of the North, London 1979, 16, 38, n.30 240; F. M. Stenton, Anglo-Saxon England, Oxford 1947,412. El Kapelle, 38. 12 stenton, ~nglo-saxonEngland, Oxford t947,4i 2 n.2. l3 15 17 l9

Kapclle, 25. Kapelte, 87. Kapelle, 142. Kapelle, 142.

l4 Kapelle, 46-7 '6 Kapelle, 118. 18

EIID, ii, 609.

The Wmfbavilles, the Castle and Barony of Pnldhoe

167

massacred in 1080. Newcastle was intended as the base for this new regime. This was coupled with the beginning of the integration of the free-zone. Guy de Balliol was given upper Teesdale, where he built Barnard C a ~ t l e , ~and ' perhaps now. Robert de Unlfraville was given Redesdale. The castle at Barnard blocked the obvious passage above Richmond from Cumbria into Northumbria, and Redesdale blocked an approach from Scotland. The valley of the river Tyne played a role in many of these events and before examining the evidence for the history of the Umfraville fanlily it may be instructive to review the evidence for settlement in the area to provide a backcloth, not only t o the barony of Prudhoe, but also to settlement on the castle site, which will be considered below. A significant element in the area (Fig. 1) is the Liberty of Hexhamshire, which in 1295 comprised the modern parishes of Hexham, Ailendale, Whitley and St John Lee, together with the chapelry of St OswaId, an area about twenty-four miles north to south, and in breadth between half a mile to eleven miles, giving a total area of about ninety-two square miles.22 Roper does not think it unreasonable that the Liberty corresponded to the estates of the bishops of Hexham in the early ninth century, although its connexion with the regio granted t o Wilfrid is less certain.23 Hexhamshire was granted to Wilfrid c.674 by Queen Wthelthryth but was probably already in existence.24 Eddius does not record the extent of the regio and Richard A11 eviof Hexham refers only to prtedictam uillanz czanz circumjacenre dence considered, however, it is possible that the whole, or at least the greater part, of the Liberty of Hexhamshire as it existed in the thirteenth century corresponded with the original donation of r . E t h e l t h ~ t h . * ~ Archaeological evidence for Anglo-Saxon settlement is slight. There is a beadz7 and Saxon graves from N e ~ c a s t l e ? two ~ ~ brooches, one of the sixth and the other of the seventh century, from B e n ~ e l l , ~ %seventh-century bronze hanging. bowl from a barrow at Capheaton?' a pair of late fifth-century brooches and an urn from Corstopitum by C ~ r b r i d g e and , ~ ~a grave containing a shield-boss with six silver discs, a broad two-edged sword and a knife, from a barrow near B a r r a s f ~ r d . ~ ~ Settlement evidence for this early period is at present lacking. However, it is certain that the seventh-century monastic foundations at Hexham, Jarrow and Wearmouth, all had contemporary settlements within their parochie. Outside these parochie it would be surprising indeed if settlements were not common. The parish of Warden, with seventh-century origins and as a dependency of Hexham, 2O

H. M. Coivin (ed.), m e History of the King's Works, London 1963, ii, 745.

.

21 D. Austin, 'Barnard Castle, Co. Durham . .',Journ. BAA, cxxxii, 1979,SR-6. 22 M. Roper, 'The Donation of Hexham', in D. P. Kirby (ed.), Saint WiIfrid at Hexham,

Newcastle upon Tyne 1974, 169-71. 2 3 Roper, 170. Z4 Barrow, 32, in a consideration of the antiquity of Northumbrian shires. 26 Roper, 170. 25 Roper, 169. Barrow, 32. 27 Mus. of Antiquities. ace. no. 1929.65. North o f England Excavation Committee, 3rd report 1929/30,3-4; Proc. Soc. AntsNewcastle,4th ser., iv, 1929,73. 2% Med. Arch.,23,1979,246. Z 8 Museum of Antiquities. Acc. nos. 1960.4 and 1935.13; A. Meaney, A Gazetteer of Early Anglo-Saxon Burial Sites, London 1964, 198. 2' Museum of Antiquities. Acc, no. 181 3.25; Meaney, 198. 3 O Meaney, 198. 31 Now unlocated. Meaney, 198. 32 For information on the architecture of these churches I am greatly indebted to Dr R. D. H. Gem, who has generously made available to me his notes on dating, on which these sentences are based.

Image not available

The Umfravilles, the Castle and Barony of Prudhoe

169

Corbridge, Bywell (St Peter, and St Andrew), Ovingham, and Heddon-on-the-Wall, all have Anglo-Saxon features, which unfortunately cannot be dated closely. They nonetheless demonstrate the existence of earlier churches, confirmed by sculpture at Bywell and O ~ i n g h a m The . ~ ~ west tower and parts of the nave at Warden are not At C ~ r b r i d g ethe , ~ ~midearlier than the tenth century nor later than the Anglo-Saxon church, perhaps that mentioned in 786, had a west porch added and subsequently a tower similar to those at Bywell, St Andrew, and Ovinghrun, constructed over it. St Peter's church at B y ~ e 1 1has ~ ~a mid-Anglo-Saxon nave and chancel, while St Andrew's37 has a tower with features which could just as we11 be late pre-Conquest as early post-Conquest. The tower at O ~ i n g h a mis~similar ~ and the same dating may we11 apply. Parts of the Anglo-Saxon nave at Heddon-on-theWall survive39 but a precise date for the nave cannot be determined. If a general trend may be inferred from this evidence it seems that several churches had work carried out in the mid to late eleventh century. This activity is paralleled in the monastic houses, where, at Hexham the ruinous church was patched up in the years foUowing 1083, at Jarrow, where in 1074 a start was made in restoring the church damaged in 1069, and at Wearmouth, where the west porticus was heightened into a tower. Where no archaeological finds have been made, or where there is no architectural or sculpture evidence for early ckurches, some indication for dating settlement may be obtained from place-names. There are several place-names which include Old English personal names, such as Kearsley (Cynehere's hi11 or mound)?O Ouston (Ulf's ticn),41 Eltringham (ham of klfhere's people)?2 while Ovingham and Ovington, with the element ingas, 'group of people', have the monothematic name (?Ta?3 Contrasting with this evidence for Old English settlement is unexpected evidence for Scandinavian, far away from the main area of Scandinavian settlement. Professor Bailey has shown that there is a suggestion 'that the area around Hexharn and ~ ~cites a Corbridge may have had a Scandinavian element in its p o p ~ l a t i o n ' .He hogback at Hexham (the only one in the north-east outside the main area of Viking settlement), the settlement at Nafferton, near Ovingham, which contains the Old Norse personal name Nattfari,4s the fact that Ragnald was involved twice in battles near Corbridge, and, significantly, sculpture a t Ovingham which shows a Scandinavian scene. From the evidence reviewed briefly above it is apparent therefore that the area of this study was we11 settled, though not necessarily very densely, by the seventh century, when the monastic houses at Hexham, Jarrow and Wearmouth were established. The rural settlements evidently prospered so that an intricate pattern of parishes was well established by the time of the Conquest. In thislong-settled area the Umfravilles, among several Norman families, were now to exert their influence. An understanding of the Norman Urnfraville family is fraught with problems, 33 R. N. Bailey, Viking Age Sculpfurein Northern Briloin, London 1980, 133. 34 ti. M. and J . Taylor,Anglo-Saxon Architecture, Cambridge 1965,632-4. 35 Taylors, 172-6. 36 Taylors, 122-6. 37 Taylors, 121-2. 38 Taylors, 478-9. 39 TayIors, 292-4. 40

E. Ekwall, Co~tciseOxford Dictionary of English Place-Names, 4th ed., Oxford 1960,269.

41 Ekwall, 354. 42 Ekwall, 165. 43 A. H. Smith, English Place-rwme Elements, English Place-name Society, Ca;mbridge 1956, i,

298,301; ii, 190. 44 Bailey, 133.

45 Smith. ~ i 197-8. ,

170

Anglo-Nomzan Studies V

not least its continental origin. It is thought that Amfreville-la-Campagne, in Normandy, is a likely candidate,46 being near Tours in Vian, mentioned in a document considered below. However, Ritchie has shown that there are no less than seven other places called Arnfreville in Normandy. It has been suggested that two of these might have been the ancestral home of the Umfravilles of Northumbedand; Arnfreville-sur-Tton and Offramville, near D i e ~ p e It . ~has ~ been stated that 'the evidence linking the English Umfrevilles with Offramville near Dieppe might have seemed too ~ ~ matter then must rest, for the weak had the place-name been ~ o m r n o n e r ' .This moment, unresolved. Equally contentious is the earliest record to the family in English sources. The seventeenth-century antiquary Dodsworth found among the records of Charles Dimoke, at South Kyme, Lincolnshire, a charter of 1076 recording the grant of Redesdale by William the Conqueror to Robert de U r n f r a ~ i l l e : ~ ~

. . . know you

that I have given to my kinsman Robert de Umfravill, knight, lord of Tours in Vian, otherwise called Robert with the beard, the lordship, valley and forest of Redesdale with a11 castles, manors, with lands, woods, pastures, pools with all appurtenances and royal franchises, formerly of Mildred son of Akmans, late lord of Redesdale and which came t o our hands by conquest . . .

Round has shown that the deed is a forgery, although, no doubt, an early one.50 However, references in the Book of Fees suggest that the grant of Redesdale was made in the eleventh century. Robert-with-the-beard is mentioned in 1207 when Richard de Umfraville, his great grandson, claimed the wardship of Henry Batail because of a deed made between Robert and one of Henry's ancestors at the time of the conquest. This Richard is the son of Odinel according t o the Pipe Roll for 1187 and in the 1207 suit his grandfather is another Odinel living in the reign of Henry 11 (1 1 54-89).51 Hedley notes that Richard's great grandfather Robert could not have been old enough t o have had the grant of Redesdale from William I, or t o have taken part in the conquest, if this means the battle of Hastings. HodgsonS2 puts two Roberts in his pedigree. the elder living in 1076, and the younger living in 1139: he has only one Odinel in the pedigree. and two Richards, when there is evidence for only one. The County H i s t o y while accepting the 1076 charter as a forgery, maintains the existence of two Roberts, the first of whom was granted the manor of Hambleton in Rutland at some date after 1086. If the 1076 charter is a forgery there would seem to be no need or justification in proposing two Roberts: one is enough t o provide a convincing pedigree. A late fifteenth-century pedigree roll of the UmfravillesS3 does little to clarify matters. It traces the descent of the family from Nured son of Akeman f? the same as him referred to in the 1076 charter), whose daughter and heiress was given with the barony of Prudhoe and the forest of Redesdale t o Robert (alias Robert-with-the-beard). Only one Robert is 46 W. Percy tfedley, Northumberland Families, i, Newcastle upon Tyne 1969, 208. 47 Hedley, 208. 48 A. R. Wagner,EngIishGenealogy, Oxford 1960,55, quoted in Hedley, 208. 49 Hedley, 208. The translation is that given by Hedley. 50 J. H. Round, Peerage and Pedigree, London 19 10, i , 296-8. 51

Northumberland County History, xii, 1926, 81.

52 J . Hodpuon, A History of Northumberland in three parts, ii, I , t 827,6. 5 3 Sotheby's sale, 13 April 1981, Lot 197.1 owe to Brian Golding information on this item.

The Urnfravilles, the Castk and Barony of h d h o e

I71

mentioned and there is only one Odinel listed. Whatever the personality and chron01ogicaI difficulties now facing the historian it seems reasonable that the grant of Redesdale to Robert de Umfraville occurred during the last decades of the eleventh century. It was during this period that the free-zone was integrated, with upper Teesdale being given to Guy de BaUiol in 1095 after Robert Mowbray's revolt. Redesdale could have been granted at the same time to Robert de UmfraviIle, but, although Kapelle has observeds4 that Robert is unlikely to have accepted Redesdale. which he considers was probably valueless, unless it was combined with the grant of Prudhoe, there may have been advantages we can no longer appreciate. The building of a castle at E l s d ~ n at, ~the ~ end of the dale, represents a considerable investment, and this alone may support the suggestion that the grant of Redesdale belongs to the reign of William Rufus. The apparent lack of later works to the castle at Elsdon, in contrast to Prudhoe, may serve to demonstrate the importance of Prudhoe as the caput of the barony, in contrast to the lackofany need to consolidate the stronghold in Redesdale. A grant of the barony of Prudhoe, however, was certainly made to Robert by Henry f for the service of two and an half knights,56 but the archaeological evidence considered below supports the view that Prudhoe was originally granted with Redesdale at the end of the eleventh century. When Hedley's work on the barony was published in 1968 he mentioned only that Robert is referred to in the Pipe Roll for 1130/1, when Robert was pardoned 40s for danegeld by writ of the king. He mentions that Robert seems to have been regularly in the court of David of Scotland, but seems to have overlooked Barrow's first volume of the Regesta Regurn S ~ o t t o r u r nIn . ~the ~ charters edited by Barrow, Robert is found as witness to ten charters, three of which are grants by David I, and six, grants by his son Earl Henry: of c.1124 given at Huntingdon; with Gilbert de Umfraville, most probably his son, at Selkirk in 1139 x 1142; at Huntingdon again in 1136 x 1152, there with Gilbert also, in 1139 x 1141 and I139 x 11 52; three times at Newcastle in 114lx1151;at Earlstonin 1 1 4 2 x l 1 4 7 a n d i n 1161 or 1162 at Roxburgh with Gilbert. Gilbert, constable of Henry, earl of Northumberland, appears as witness to twenty-seven charters in Regesta I, at dates ranging from 1 139 to 1163 x 1165, charters signed at Edinburgh, Selkirk, Huntingdon, Newcastle, Bamburgh, Jedburgh, Roxburgh, St Andrews, Scotby and Les Andelys. In Regesta I1 Gilbert, constable of William, earl of Northumberland, appears as witness to twelve charters between 1153 x 11 57 and 1 173 x 1178, signed at Dunfermline, Edinburgh, Lanark, Stirling and Charleton. Robert's son and heir was Gilbert's brother Odinel de Umfraville I, one of whose sons was also Odinel, which is confusing: it is difficult to decide which Odinel is which in the many witness lists. Odinel I, shortly before 1 158, witnessed Henry 11's grant of the churches of Newcastle and Newburn to the canons of St Mary of Carlisle. Odinel, which one is not clear, failed in 1166 to make a return for his barony, but William de Vesci recorded that Odinel held two knight's s4 Kapelle, 283, n.34. $5 Arch. Joum., cxxxiii, 1976, 177-8 for description and plan. Excavations by Professor

Micl~aeiJarrett failed to elucidate the date of the castfe. I am grateful to Professor Jarrett for discussions about this site. 56 Book of Fees, i (1 198-1242), London 1920,201: Ricardus de Urnfavine tenet in capite de domino rege hroniam de Prudehou per sewicium i j militum et dimidii; omnes vero antccessores sui tenuenrnt per idem servicium post tempus pnmi Regis Henrin'. C . I.1. Hunter-Blair, 'I Baronys and Knights of Northumberland. A.D.1166-c.A.D.1266', Arch. AELiana, 4th ser., xxx, 1952, 19, 13 -14. I owe this reference to Dr C. M. Fraser. 57 G . W. S. Barrow (ed.), Regesta Regum Scottorum, i, Edinburgh 1960.

Aizglo-Noman Studies V fees in the barony of Alnwick - the ten vills of Coquetdale. Jordan Fantosrne makes it clear that it was Odinel I1 whom William the Lion's father, Earl Henry, held dear and brought Odinel's wife was Nice de Lucy, by whom he had four sons and probably four daughters. He died in 1181 and was succeeded by Robert his eldest son. In 1182 Walter Rataille accounted to the sheriff for £29 7s 4d for Odinel's lands in Northumberland for half a year, from which £5 went to sustain Robert the heir in the king's service and £2 went for clothes for Odinel's other children. Odinel's large debts included 223 6s 8d to Aaron the Jew of Lincoln. At Robert's death in 1195 many of the debts were still unpaid.59 It is clear that these members of the Umfraville family were important members of the Scottish court, Odinel I1 being particularly favoured. The family holdings, Redesdale commanding the pass over Carter Fell from Jedburgh down the valley of the river Rede into Northum berland, and the barony of Prudhoe lying across theTyne, contrsIling the route from Carlisle to Newcastle (Fig. I), were strategically placed for David 1's designs on attaching his kingdom to the earldoms of Northumberland and Cumberland. On David's death the two earldoms were restored by Henry II to England, while Malcolm was conlpensated with the earldom of Huntingdon and William with the lordship of north and south Tynedale in Northumberland. This caused bitter resentment and William was never consoled for the loss of his earldom and 'AngIo-Scottish relations were bedevilled by the question of Northumbedand or "the Northern Counties" for the next eighty @ .ye'sar' In 1 173 a turning-point was reached. Thirty-year-old King William disregarded the advice of the earls of Fife and Dunbar and Bishop lngram of Glasgow and

.

allowed his passionate desire to recover the English northern counties. . to push him into a foolish alliance with Louis VII, Queen Eleanor and the Young King against Henry Plantagenet . . . If it had been a mistake on Henry's part to deprive William of Northumbedand, it was surely an even bigger mistake for William to embark on a war for which his resources were inadequate and in which his allies were fickle, self-seeking and above all ridiculously illorganisedL61 The Scots crossed the border three times. First towards the end of the summer of 1173, secondly in March 1 174, and then in the summer of the same year.62 Both Odinel de Umfraville and the castle at Prudhoe were of crucial importance in this campaign. The important role of Odinel to William's campaign rested on his castle at Prudhoe, with probably another at Harbottle. Bearing in mind the Umfraville's close connexion with the Scottish court, William might reasonably have expected Odinel t o take his side. However, the influence which Odinel could exert on English and Scottish affairs had been realised by Henry I1 and his justiciar, Richard de Lucy. Odinel had wed Lucy's daughter Alice, and in bringing the marriage about Richard de Lucy no doubt had political as well as private interest. Richard succeeded in turning Odinel's allegiance away from William of Scotland to Henry of England. Jordan Fantosme, who wrote his Chronicle in 1175 or at the end of 1174, was an eyewitness to the events of 1173.4 and stresses the importance of 58 R. C. Johnston (ed.), Jordon Fantosme's Chronicle, Oxford 1981.1.595. 59 Hedley, 210. Barrow, Regesta, ii, 3-4. GI Barrow,6-7. 62 Barrow. 7.

The Urnfravilles, the Castle and Barony o f Prudhoe

173

Odinel to both kings. Odinel was considered by William as his own man since he had been brought up in his father's court. When Odinel turned against him William swore that there should not be peace as long as Prudhoe castle stood. Jordan Fantosme's description of the rebellion is 'one of the most valuable contemporary accounts of early medieval warfare',63 but for our purposes we must restrict our interest to the role of the castle at Prudhoe. In 11 73 William went to Wark castle. Satisfied with a truce, the Scots moved on to Alnwick, then to Warkworth which they took, then t o Newcastle, which was still being built, then t o Carlisle. The castle at Prudhoe must have been damaged, for Odinel received a grant of £20 out of the rental of the mines of Carlisle on account of the damage done to him by the After Easter of the following year the Scots came south again, first t o Wark, then to Carlisle where they were unsuccessful. From Carlisle they marched to Appleby and Brough, taking both, back t o Carlisle where there was a truce, then to Prudhoe, which they vigorously assaulted. During the siege Odinel escaped from the castIe: Odinel rode night and day on good, brown Bauqan, never slackening speed, until he had collected a fine and valiant host: four hundred knights with shining helms. They will fight with him in the battle, they will relieve Prudhoe with their sharp lances. The siege lasted three days as I know full well. Odinel had some excellent men inside, who defended themselves mightily against the Flemings; inside the castle - and I am stating what I know t o be true - the losses amounted to less than a silver penny's worth, but outside they have lost their fields and their standing crops of wheat, and their gardens were stripped by their evil adversaries; and anyone who could think of nothing worse to do barked the fruit-trees, thus working off his spite.65 William divided his army and marched on Alnwick, where before the castle he was attacked by the English led by Odinel, who came upon them unawares while the king was at dinner, with his helmet off. William, pinned down by his slaughtered horse was captured and led away t o imprisonment in Richmond. The defences of Prudhoe must have been weakened by the two assaults on it, as Odinel levied labour, for rebuilding the castle, from all the district, including Wylam, which belonged to T y n e m ~ u t h In . ~ 1~175 Odinel received £17 10s from the sheriff of Yorkshire. He also received the manor of Etton in Yorkshire and the forfeited estates of the baron of Wo01er.~' This then is the historical background to the castle to which ottr attention should now turn to see how these events are reflected in the structure and to demonstrate how the evidence obtained from archaeological excavation may fill in some of the gaps in the historical record. The castle, which has a commanding site overlooking the river Tyne, has had its Inner Ward (the area to the east of the Georgian house) excavated between 1972 and 1981. The excavations were undertaken by the writer and, since 1973, Dr David Thackray, at the request of the Ancient Monuments 63 R. A. Brown, English Medieval Castles, London 1954, 164. 64 Pip, Roll I9 Hen. 11,Pipe Roll Society xix, 1895, 1 13. 65 Jordan Fantosme's Chronicle, 11.1 163-79. 66 Vita Omoini, Surtees Society viii, 1838, 43: potentissimus Oddnenus de Umfamvilla, ad

castelli sui resarcienda sarta recta indebitis exactionibus vicinos suos compeIIebat. 67 Pipe Roll 21 Hen. II, 173, Wedley, 21 0.

Image not available

The Urnfravilles, the Castle and Barony of Pncdhoe Inspectorate of the Department of the Environment, in whose guardianship the castle is. The brief given by the Department was to establish the extent and survival of medieval buildings in the Inner Ward with the object of learning more about the structural history of the castle, and, if buildings survived, consolidating them for dispIay. The complexity of structures and archaeological deposits in such a small area led to the decision being taken early in the project t o excavate almost the entire area of the Inner Ward. The large series of buildings and wooden structures, the later inevitably interfering with the earlier by demolition, cutting through and general disturbance, showed an apparently continuous occupation of the area, through t o the present day. The burden of this paper is the evidence from the earliest period to the end of the twelfth century, represented by Phases One, Two and Three of the archaeological narrative. The evidence, for the archaeologist, is impressive, but nonetheless infuriatingly meagre and diverse compared with the larger amount of material for the later Phases. Throughout the archaeological exercise the belowground investigation has been combined with a detailed examination of the standing buildings, and it is hoped that the final excavation report will deal with both categories of evidence. Phase One represents the earliest use of the site (Fig. 2). A general clearance of the area is demonstrated, in the southern part of the site, by areas of burning which are not hearths. Also associated with this activity are two hearths (H1 and H2) which were in use before any of the buildings, for which there is evidence, were erected. Archaeomagnetic samples give a date range from the eleventh to thirteenth century; ci4samples give a range from the ninth t o twelfth century. The thirteenthcentury date is too late and the ninth too early. However, a central date of the mideleventh century may be suggested with some confidence. These primary deposits were sealed by three extensive build-ups of clay, compartmentalised into rectangular blocks, and apparently respecting the lines of the structural elements of Building 2, the main building in the south. These clay deposits may suggest the existence of a timber building earlier than Building 2, a post-built structure also of timber. Building 2 was evidently of two bays, evidence for the northern wall represented by only ane surviving post-pit. The two bays were divided by a central east-west partition with two post-pits and a slot. At right-angles to this central partition was a north-south double line of small post-holes, evidence for a cross-wall. The southern side of thc building is represented by an east-west strip of burning with a T at the east end. Within the building were three hearths (HI, H2 and H3), two (HI, H2) surviving from earlier in this Phase, and a small area of paving. The division of the building into two bays, with a central partition suggests that this is the service end of an open hall. To the south of Building 2, six large post-pits, roughly equidistant and arranged in a dight curve, follow the natural contour of the hill. These may be interpreted as part of a palisade enclosing the hill-top and the buiIdings on top of it. The T-shape at the eastern end of Building 2 suggests that there was an external staircase, sandwiched between the building and the palisade. The easternmost post-pit contained a Iarge amount of burnt material, suggesting that the post was burnt in situ. This combined with the presence inside the building of an extensive burnt deposit containing charcoal from large wooden planks suggests that the buifding may have been destroyed, at least partially, by fire. The palisade certainly surrounded the hill-top, but later works destroyed its course along the rest of the southern side, and on the east. On the north, its course

Image not available

The Untfiavilles, the Castle and Barony of Prudhoe

177

is shown by four large post-pits, cut at distances similar to those on the south: two more post-pits may be inferred. The post-pits are set against a substantial linear cut, suggesting that aIong the north the palisade formed a revetment. Against the line of the palisade the fragmentary remains of a building were found (Building 1): one large post-pit, one post-hole and a few stake-holes associated with compacted, partially burnt occupation deposits; also, a large, rectangular north-south trench containing a slot and post-hole, separating two areas of mixed-clay, cobbles and rough mortar. In Phase Two (Fig. 3 ) a dramatic change took pIace. The palisade was replaced by a massive rampart of solid clay and stones, the remains of which were discovered in the sourthern part of the site. Elsewhere, later defences had removed it entirely. The surviving tail of the rampart sealed the earlier palisade post-pits. Along the north, two of the palisade posts were robbed out while two remained in use for some other purpose. Set into the rampart tail were five vertical post-holes which were probably for the supports of a parapet rather than for part of the internal timber lacing. In the south-east area, robbing, carried out in a later phase, indicated a substantial, apparently square, structure. The material filling this robbed-out feature could not be removed entirely for reasons of safety but the feature was over six metres deep. Whatever structure originally occupied this position, whether of stone or timber, it was almost certainly associated with the rampart. This association suggests the existence of a large tower or, more probably, an entrance-tower set into the rampart. We have then substantial evidence for d 'ringwork', the existence of which was postulated, remarkably, by Cathcart King and Leslie A l ~ o c k The . ~ ~entrance-tower may possibly have been of the type found at Pontesbury, which is set with the major part of the structure behind the line of the rampart tail.69 Building 2 of Phase One was retained in this phase, although a few structural changes took place, necessitated mainly by the construction of the ringwork. Building 1, with slight modifications, also continued in use. In the central area, where no structures were located in Phase One, slight remains of Building 3 were found: two long beam-slots and a few post-holes. The precise plan of the building could not be determined, but it seems that the structure was not of any great importance or occupied for any long period of time. Unfortunately, no archaeomagnetic or cI4samples were available from this phase. Its date, therefore, depends on the earlier and subsequent phases. It is perhaps significant that at Barnard Castle a ringwork has been discovered also by excavation, and here it is dated ~ . 1 0 9 5 . ~Undoubtedly O the ringwork at Prudhoe belongs to the first use of the site as a castle and it would not be unreasonable to suggest that it represents the first castle defences constructed by the Umfravilles towards the end of the eleventh century. Phase Three (Fig. 4 ) shows a complete remodelling of the castle defences. The earth and timber defences of the ringwork were dismantled and reduced in heiaht so that a stone gatehouse and stone curtain wall could be built. The gateho;se (Fig. 5) has a solid lower stage with no side chambers and a round-headed arch at either end. The arches have two plain orders, the chamfered edges springing from plain imposts. The passage has a barrel vault with one unmoulded transverse rib, springing on either side from a Iarge corbel with somewhat crudely carved human 6s D. I. Cathcart King and L. Alcock, 'Ringworks o f England and Wales', Chdteau Gailbrd, iii, Chichester 1969, 1 19. 69 Cathcart King and Alcock, 107,108. 70 ex. info. D. Austin.

Image not available

Image not available

-

REAR ELEVATION GATEHOUSE Fig. 5 North elevation of gatei~ouse

Image not available

The Umfavilles, the Castle and Barony of Pnrdhoe

181

heads. There is no portcullis. A long drawbar hole in theeastern half provides evidence for doors in the outer arch. An analysis of the stonework shows that there was an upper chamber over the gateway, but this was reconstructed and heightened in the thirteenth century. T o the west of the gatehouse, but visible only from outside the castle, a large section of contemporary curtain wall survives intact. To the east a very small section remains: this too can be seen from outside. Excavation, however, has revealed a short length of curtain wall immediately against the east side of the gatehouse, its foundations contiguous with those of the gatehouse and cut into the clay and stone rampart of the ringwork. Continuing to the east for some fifteen metres only the cobble foundations of the curtain wall have been found. The foundations survive alongside the robbing-out of the proposed entrance-tower. Since the robbing-out belongs t o a later phase, it seems clear that the tower remained standing in this phase. In the east the curtain wall was completely destroyed by later work. In the northeast, however, the wall-footings were found, together with a 1.5 metre wide passageway through the wall, with one course of ashlar blocks surviving on each side. This passageway is certainly contemporary with the curtain wall and must be a postern gateway. Along the north, only one short length of wall-foundation was found. Although the remains are fragmentary, enough details of the position of the footings have been found to plan the assumed course of the curtain wall. Where the complete width of the wall survives it is 2.25 metres. To the east of thegatehouse, Building 2 was dismantled to makeway for Building 5. The north wail of the new building, however, was on the same line as one wall of the earlier building. Clay and mortar floors, as well as spreads of ash, were found inside the building. Further east a hearth was found (H4) in association with an area of cobbling. In the north-east the line of the southern internal face of the postern gateway was continued to the west by a small stone wall which joined another narrow northsouth wall, apparently the east wall of Building 4. The fragmentary remains of a burnt oven-base suggests that this building ( 6 ) may have been a kitchen. To the south of the line of the curtain wall along the north, and sealing its construction, was a narrow paved area. Immediately to the south of the paving the remains of a narrow east-west wall were found. Within the building (4), which was no doubt a hall, further structural features were found. A long deep trench, 2.5 metres wide, was set six metres to the west of the east wall formed by Building 6. This trench contained two large post-holes, which may have contained posts supporting the roof. Immediately to the east of this trench was an area of paving. To the west extensive mortar floors were found. No remains of the west or south walls of this building were located, and it may be assumed that they were destroyed by the later hall. If the later south wall of the hall covered the earlier southern wall, Building 4 would have been about eleven metres wide. The narrowness of the surviving walls probably indicates that the hall was of timber-frame construction set on stone basewalls. c14 dating for t h s phase comes from two samples which give dates in the thirteenth century: this is clearly too late. The gatehouse may be dated on architectural grounds to the early twelfth century, a date supported by historical evidence which shows it to be extremely unlikely that the timber defences of Phase Two could have resisted successfully the Scottish raids of 1173 and 1174. With some

Image not available

The I/mfravilles, the Cast$ and Barony of Prudhoe

1 83

confidence, therefore, a date in the second quarter of the twelfth century may be suggested for this phase. The keep is the other major feature of the twelfth century, dominating the western part of the castle (Fig. 6 ) . It has only one decorative detail, the fireplace in the firstfloor chamber of the forebuilding. The fireplace has simple capitals of late twelfthcentury date. Since there is no evidence t o indicate that the fireplace is an insertion, the keep may be dated t o the late twelfth century, that is, to the period foIlowing the Scottish raids of 1173 and 1174. The keep is small compared with others (Fig. 7). It has a forebuilding on the east side. The entrance is on the ground floor, through a simple round-headed doorway which leads to two chambers, the northern one vaulted. From the south chamber a newel-staircase rises to the full height of the forebuilding, giving access t o the parapetwalk of the forebuilding. There is no direct access from this staircase to the heated chamber on the first floor: this is reached by a narrow wall-passage in the east wall. Eighteenth-century drawings of the castle show the keep and forebuilding to almost their full original height (Fig. 6). Now, the south-east corner of the keep survives only to the level of the first floor and it is difficult, therefore, to work out how the keep was entered from the staircase. A doorway on the west side of the staircase is above the level of the first floor. It seems likely that this led to a wallpassage in the east wall of the keep, access to the first floor of the keep being from the first-floor chamber of the forebuilding. In its original form the keep had only two floors. An unlit basement was reached from the forebuilding (the entrance through the north wall is modern). The firstfloor chamber had a wooden floor, indicated by joist-holes in the north and south walls. One round-headed window survives, remodelled, in the north wall, but a large ?fifteenth-century window, shown in the south wall on eighteenth-century drawings, may indicate an earIier window in this position. There are no traces of a fireplace, but a chimney above the south wall, shown in a Buck drawing of 1728 and on a drawing of 1786 by Grimm, may indicate an original fireplace in the south wall. From the north-west corner of the first-floor chamber a wall-passage ascends in the thickness of the west wall, giving access t o the roof-space beneath the doublepitched roof, the lines of which are clearly visible on the east face of the west wall, The wall-passage continues t o ascend in the thickness of the south wall, leading, originally, to the parapets. fn the fourteenth century another floor was added to the keep by removing the pitched roof and replacing it by a flat roof just below the level of the parapet walk. The outside of the keep has no decoration. The large areas of masonry are interrupted only by narrow pilaster buttresses, and slightly chamfered string-courses. To summarise the main features of each of these phases: in the mid-eleventh century the site was cleared, timber buildings erected and enclosed within a substantial timber palisade; towards the end of the eleventh century the palisade was replaced by a ringwork with a large entrance-tower - this represents the first use of the site as a castle and probably belongs t o the time of the grant of Prudhoe to the Umfraville family; in the second quarter of the twelfth century the ringwork was replaced by a stone curtain wall, a stone gatehouse was built, but the large entrancetower was retained within the circuit; towards the end of the twelfth century, after the Scottish raids of 1173 and 1174, the keep was built and, probably at the same time, the entrance-tower of Phase Two was demolished. From this small site, therefore, there is a substantial body of evidence t o demon-

1 84

Anglo-Noman Studies V

strate its development from an enclosed settlement in the eleventh century, perhaps the centre of an estate on the south side of the river Tyne, through to a small but well-defended castle in the twelfth century. In this development we can see the physical results and practical responses to the political unrest in the border society which has been reviewed above. Although the castle is small and it lacks the documentation of a royal castle, its owners, its buildings and the archaeological record nevertheless serve to demonstrate, not only its role in international politics, but the particular response to historical events.

THE 'CHRONICON EX CHRONICIS OF 'FLORENCE' OF WORCESTER AND ITS USE OF SOURCES FOR ENGLISH HISTORY BEFORE 1066 The late R. R. Darlington and P. McGurk The death of Florence of Worcester is thus described under the annal for 11 18 of the chronicon ex chronicis: 'oblit Domnus Florentius Wigornensis monachus. Huius subtili scientia et studiosi laboris industria, preeminet cunctis haec chronicarum chronica'. As there is no break in style and approach in the chronicon after 1118, and as its annals from 1102 include passages from Eadmer which could not have been inserted before 1123, Florence's part in its compilation has long been uncertain. Orderic VitaIis on his visit to Worcester reported seeing the monk John a t work on a world chronicle, and a John identifies himself as author ('corrigat ista iegens offendit siqua Iohannes") under the annal for 1138 in the chief manuscript of the chronicon. This manuscript, Corpus Christi, Oxford 157, is the ancestor of the other four surviving chronicon manuscripts, and was written by two main scribes to 1131. Sometime after 1131, the annals for 1128 t o 1131 were erased and rewritten by a distinctive hand which continued the chronicon to 1140. This hand, which has been plausibiy identified as John's, and which can be seen at work in other Worcester manuscripts with a historical content, also corrected and annotated, or caused to have corrected or annotated, the annals before 1128. It is reasonable, therefore, to regard the Corpus manuscript t o 11 28 (originally to 1 13 1) as a fair copy prepared for John, and corrected and annotated by him, and to assign John a major role in the chronicon's compilation. This paper will consider a narrow aspect of the chronicon: its use of sources for English history before 1066 as revealed in the prerevised stage of the Corpus manuscript, in the original fair copy. (For the purposes of this paper, this stage will be referred to as Florence, and the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle as Chronicle.) As a postscript, the use of sources in two further stages of Worcester annalistic writing will be considered: first, the corrections and revisions in the Corpus manuscript, some of which are by John; second, the abbreviated chronicon or self-styled chronicula, Trinity College, Dublin MS. 503, which is based on the chronicon, and which was written by John for the period before 1123.' Under the year 450, which has the first entry dealing with the Anglo-Saxons, 1 Much of what follows is based on the edition of the Chronicon ex chronicis of the late R. R. Darlington which f am preparing for publication, though I alone am responsible for errors, misconceptions and the opinions expressed. The most recent discussion of the authorship of the chroniconand its manuscript tradition is M. Brett, 'John of Worcester and his contemporaries', Tfie Writing of History in the Middle Ages: essays presented to R. W. Soufhern,ed. R . H . C. Davis and J. M. Wallace-Hadrill, Oxford 1981, 101-25. The early copies, whether direct or indirect, of the Corpus Chriqti, Oxtord MS. 157, are Trinity College, Dublin MS. 502 (from Coventry), Lambeth Palace MS. 42 (from Abingdon), Oxford, Bodleian MS. 297 (from Bury St Edmunds) and Corpus Christi, Cambridge 92 (writtcn at Abingdon).

186

Anglo-Norman Studies V

Florence quotes Bede extensively and identifies him as his authority. Bede and the English Chronicle are the only sources identified more than once by Florence, and for the period t o 731 Bede (the Ecclesiasrical History, the lives of the abbots and the prose life of Cuthbert) is his chief authority. He is careful in what he copies and shows skill in extracting information and blending it, altering phrases relativeIy little but often changing their position in newly constructed sentences. Occasionally he knits together in the same sentence phrases from different sections, chapters or books of Bede. Thus, under 651, he describes tersely the murder of Oswine, the death of Aidan, Cuthbert's vision of Aidan's death, and Finan's succession to Aidan with phrases from four different chapters, three from the Ecclesiastical Histmy, and one from the life of Cuthbert. In his concentration on facts he omits descriptions, miraculous illustrations and Bede's comments and assessments. In this way Bede's account of Aidan, largely made u p of miraculous and telling stories, a carefully constructed character sketch and few facts, is reduced t o the bare dates ofhis arrival in Northumbria and death. He is prepared t o include, in the manner of Bede, facts which he cannot date. Thus, under 603, he adds to the victory of Sthelfrith of Northumbria over the Scots at Degsastan, which took place in that year, the same king's victory 'longo post tempore' over the British at Chester. And under 636, he includes various entries relating t o Christianity in East Anglia which he prefaces by Bede's 'interea'. Side by side with Bede, he uses the Chronicle. Disagreements between the two which cannot be reconciled are indicated. Under 672 he relates that on the death of Cenweath, the Chronicle speaks of his wife Seaxburh ruling for one year, Bede of ten years' disputed rule by sub-kings. Where the Chronicle provides a date lacking in Bede, he sometimes accepts it, but not if the date is improbable on the evidence Bede provides. Where their dates conflict, he usually prefers Bede. Very occasionally, he relies on the Chronicle date, though Bede would have provided a date after some sustained quarrying, Thus, to the confusion of other information, he makes the East Anglian bishops start, as the Chronicle does, in 636. He provides dates and information which are found in neither of his sources for the period 450-73 1. In most cases he inferred from Bede. Thus he makes OEthelwald succeed Oswine in Deira in 65 1, which is a fair deduction from Bede's information. He places the synod of Twyford in 684, a date probably derived from the year for the election of Cuthbert as bishop in Bede'slife. The division of the Mercian bishopric, which he is the first to describe, is assigned to 680. He simply states the fact of division, further details are provided by a later marginal addition and by an account which prefuted the work in the Corpus Christi Oxford m a n u ~ c r i p t .A~ division of the Mercian bishopric at some time after 678 is a reasonable inference from Bede, and it is possible that Florence's statement and his date, and the details provided in the marginal and prefatory additions are no more than t h k 3 It is not easy t o press the claims of lost early and unknown sources for many of Florence's dates and facts in this period, and reasonable inference must be the most likely explanation for many of the dates which are traditionally accepted and based upon him. Florence is careful, but on occasion he nods. Bede's account of the career of Wilfrid is a little ambiguous, whether from tact or an inadequate final revision it is not easy to say, and though he does say that Wilfrid received the bishopric of Hexham 2 Marginal addition on p.267, account on p.1. 3 Stubbs discussed this in A. W. Haddan -W. Stubbs, Councils and Ecclesiastical

relating to Great Britain and Ireland, Oxford 1 871, iii, 127-30.

Documents

The Chronicon ex Chronicis of 'Nurence' of'Worcester

187

on his second restoration, he simply refers to his recovery of a bishopric on his first. Whichever bishopric this was, it could not have been Mexham. Florence seems to telescope the two expulsions and makes Wilfrid receive Hexharn on his first restoration. This error apart, the annals for the period 450-73 1 impress by their accuracy, clarity and excellent cross-references. Before leaving them, the annals based on the Chronicle for the same period where Bede and the Chronicle supplement each other must be considered. Florence is a helpful editor. He identifies kingdoms, explains the relationship between princes, Stuf and Wihtgar are identified as Cerdic's nepotes on their first appearance, and puts in useful cross-references4 Victories implied are made e x p l i ~ i t If . ~leaders are slain in battle, he assumes that they are not a10ne.~Place-names are explained.' A series of landings or battles are numbered in sequence.8 Inference or the combining of sources lead him to indicate, on the known accession of a king, the death of his predecessor, t o calculate the length of a reign, t o provide dates for the baptism of the West Saxons or the conversion of the Middle Angles9 I-le avoids repetition: he describes the reasons for Cenwealh's exile from Wessex in 645 and uses Bede to do so, and he therefore omits the details when they arc provided by the Chronicle under 658. Where the information in his sources does not tally, sometimes he plays safe. The coming of the Saxons in both Bede and the Chronicle, dated to 449, coincides with the co-emperorship of Martian and Valentinian 111. Florence cannot find Valentinian in his Marianus chronicle, and so he mentions Martian alone in his Bede extract, and his year for the coming of the Saxons is 450, the year Marianus gives for the beginning of Martian's emperorship. The date for Wine's expulsion from Wessex, 666, makes better sense than the 663 implied by the Chronicle. He could have learnt from Bede that Wine was still in Wessex when Chad came to him after the synod of Whitby in search of a bishop who could consecrate him, though this deduction would not have led him to the precise year, 666. The Chronicle says that Ceawlin began to reign in 560, ruled for thirty years and died in 593. Florence preserves the starting and terminal dates and adjusts the length of the reign accordingly. He can be misled by the Chronicle. He repeats the Chronicle statement that there had been no native bishops before 690 when a student of the EccIesiastical Hismry as diligent as Florence should have remembered the West Saxon Deusdedit earlier in the seventh century. He follows the Chronicle in calling the South Saxon king who benefited by his godfather Wulfhere's bequest of tile Isle of Wight and of the Meonware province, ~ t h e l w o l dinstead of the correct Ethelwealh of Bede.lo For his misnaming of the Northumbrian king Aldfrith as Alhfrith and for his date for Wulfhere's accession it is not easy to find an explanation.ll Nowhere in these earliest annals can unknown or unidentified chronicle sources be offered as an explanation for Florence's slight divergences. In the long stretch between the end of Bede and the beginning of Asser, between 734 and 849, the Chronicle is aln~oston its own. A few other sources must have 4 Annals 5 1 4 , 5 4 4 , 5 7 1 , 5 1 4 , 5 3 0 . 5 519,556, but see 584 where this may have caused I hesuppression of the end of the Chronicle's

annai. 15 465,501. 8 473,527.

7 465,485.

61 1 , 6 8 5 , 5 6 0 , 6 3 4 , 6 3 5 , 6 5 3 . 661 N,tl.relwoid,thougl~685 EthelwaU~. l1 691 Alhfrid, 705 Alhfrith, though 686 Alcfrid. 659, Wulfhere's accession.

10

188

Anglo-Norman Studies V

provided some scraps or legends. One provided FIorence with the succession of bishops at Worcester from 743 to 847, which seems plausibly dated if charter evidence can be trusted.'* Information about Winchester and Swithun may have suggested the emergence of Swithun in 827 or in the reign of Egbert, and his accession as bishop ten years later in 837. 837 is an obviously impossible date, and might indicate that here, as elsewhere possibly, the date was one bishop too soon, since 837 could well have been the year in which Swithun's predecessor, Healmstan, was elected and consecrated. In 819, a source as yet unidentified was used for the martyrdom of Kenelm. And Florence was provided with the days of the deaths of the archbishops of Canterbury.I3 At least three annals (754,765 and 838)provide information concerning genealogies or family relationships which is also found in the genealogical trees and accounts prefixed in the Corpus manuscript to the whole work. It is not appropriate to say much here concerning these genealogies and accounts. They are usually treated as part of the Marianus-Florence chronicle, but they are none the less different and employ different sources. Darlington was able t o show that they were derived from the Marianus-Florence chronicle. It is possible to suggest that they were composed after an early stage of Florence and that the passages which they share with William of Malrnesbury's Deeds of the Kings were derived from common s o ~ r c e s . ' ~As always Florence edits carefully and helpfully. He identifies the popes who gave the pallia to the archbishops of Canterbury, probably relying on Marianus for the popes, or, less likely, on a pallium list.15 He identifies kingdoms and bishoprics.16 He assumes royal or episcopal succession in the recorded years of the deaths of their predecessors, or vice versa." He rearranges information. The Chronicle includes details of the reign of Offa's son Ecgfrith under 757. Florence includes them in 794, the year of Ecgfrith's accession. Again the long annal of 755, which spanned some years, he divides into two and places each under itsappropriate year, 755 and 784. He can infer wrongly. Twice in dealing with sees the bishops of which had been expelled or had resigned, he takes the year of these bishops' death later as that of their successors' election or consecration.18 He misunderstands the annal for 785 which implies the creation of the archbishopric of Lichfield when it speaks of archbishop Jznberlit losing part of his province and of Hygeberht being chosen by Offa. A source not known told Florence of the death of Berhthun of Dorchester in this year. Florence makes Hygeberht succeed Berhthun at Dorchester and so misses an important point. Much of what Florence says seems to be translation or adaptation of known or lost sources. It is difficult to suggest places where he is composing afresh. Faint signs of such composition might be the death of Bede in 734 and the brief eulogistic 12 Worcester succession. 775 Milred-Wermund (Sawyer 1255 - i.e. P. H. Sawyer,Anglo-Saxon Charters . . ., Royal Historical Soc., London 1968). 778 Wermund-Tilhere (Sawyer 113). 781

Tilhere-tleathored (Sawyer 116, 1257). 822 Deneberht-Heabe~ht(Sawyer 182, 186). Succession in 798 Heathored-Deneberht at least one year too earIy (Sawyer 155). That in 847 or 848 Heaberht-Alhhun seems wrong if Sawyer I194 is right. 13 Days of death of archbishops of Canterbury in 758, 762 and 790. l4 Among the evidence which led him to his conclusion, Darlington showed that the author of the accounts did not have direct access to Asser and yet used the same mixed text of Asser and the Chronicle found in the main annals. An example of a shared passage is the marginal reference to Wigstan in the Corpus manuscript, p.286, annaf 850. This is also found in the accounts of the Mercian k i n ~ sand in William of MaImesbury, and a11 three may have derived this from a life of Wipstan. 15 764,804,831. 16 799,812,845,746,813,827. 17 765,821,741. 18 740,744.

The Chronicon ex Chronicis of 'Florence'of IVorcesfer

189

phrases devoted t o Ceolwulf in 760 and Cenwulf in 794. If these may be all Florence's own work, some facts suggest contact with a chronicle fuller than those which we now have. Three obscure kings recorded under 758 in Sussex and the avenging invasion of East Anglia by the Mercian Ludecan in 825, may be among such facts and dates; the Iast also occurs in the accounts of the kingdoms already mentioned. An interesting difference from the Chronicle is the description of Egbert of Wessex receiving in 827 at Dore the submission of the Northumbrians after his army had moved beyond the Humber. The Humber is not crossed in the Chronicle, but Roger of Wendover also speaks of a West Saxon invasion of Northumbria and it is unlikely therefore that Florence was mistranslating his source.19 For the years W9 to 887 the main source is Asser's life of Alfred. A central difficulty is the uncertain state of Asser's original text. If, as Stevenson thought, the lost Cotton manuscript of Asser, which was kept and added t o by Archbishop Parker and printed with indeterminate fidelity by Wise in 1722, was used by Florence, it could be argued that any changes in his readings were done deliberately or through c a r e l e s s n e ~ s .It~ ~will always be difficult to prove that Florence used the Cotton manuscript, and there are signs, noted by Professor Whitelock in her Stenton lecture and by Darlington, which argue against this.21 Stevenson thought that the annals of St Neots, which borrow so much Asser, did not use the Cotton manuscript. His case was a good one and can probably be strengthened. If the annals of St Neots did not use the Cotton manuscript, and if these annals and Florence are independent of each other, and they seem to be, any readings which they share with the Cotton manuscript cannot be used to prove Florence's dependence on the Cotton m a n ~ s c r i p t . ~ ~ Building on these arguments a case can be made for saying that many readings in Florence which are different from Cotton are the result of his using a different manuscript. If Florence did not use Cotton, or at the very least cannot be proved to have used Cotton, care must be taken in considering his treatment of Asser since it could be argued that the precise text used is not known. But certain comments can be made, as Stevenson made them, on the basis of Cotton; its later early modern derivatives; the annals of St Neots; and the annals which used to be known as Symeon of 19 Roger of Wendover, ed. k1. 0. Coxc, RS 1841, i, 277. 20 W. H. Stevenson, Asserk Life of King Affred, Oxford 1959, Iv-lvii.

D. Whitelock, The Genuine Asser, Read~ng1968, 18. Among the arguments put forward by Darlington which will be pubtished in the edition are Florence's small variants and additions to the Cotton text which seem unlikely to be his own composition: in 853 (c.8) 'sui patris rogatu'; in 855 (c.13) 'maioribus nostris sic attestantibus' for 'rnaiores illius terre perh~bent'in the text as it has come down to us; in 855 (c.15) 'a quodam lalco' for 'a quodam suae propriae gentis homine'; in 871 the addition to c.38 concerning King Ethelred's devotions; and in 876 (c.49) 'et Terente'. 22 Stevenson, Asser, lvii-lviii, 107-11. C. R. Hart, 'The East Anglian Chronicle', Journal of Medieval Histoiy, 7, 198 1, 261-4 and 268, argues that the Annals of St Neots (called the East Anglian Chronicle by him) wcre dependent an the Cotton text, and that 'when transcribing Asser's Life of Alfred from the Cottonian text' 1710rence'uscd from time to time the abstracts of the Life incorporated in the' Annals of St Neots. (I am grateful tcr Dr Dumville for this reference.) On the f i s t point, see the argument of Whitelock, Asser, 18 n.2 that Hlsfonb Regum 2 and the Annals of St Neots share variants not in Cotton and not fully in the Chronicle and that this might therefore indicate a common wurcc, a Life of Alfred not represented by the Cotton text. On the second, it would seem, at f i s t sight, improbable thitt, even if the Annals of St Neots were En front of Florence, hc would use its excerpts when he had access to his own copy of Asser. 21

190

Anglo-Noman Studies V

Durham I, and which also use A s ~ e r Florence .~~ nowhere refers t o Asser as a source. He prunes rigorously. All references t o a first person witness, or to the writer being a contemporary, are excised (with two exceptions), many rhetorical formulae, beloved of Asser, are removed - he seems particularly averse t o nautical similes and illustrative stories which do not advance the narrative or contribute to it are dropped.24 He leaves out the descriptions of places or sites, and here may be the reason for his onlission of Wantage as Alfred's b i r t h p l a ~ e .He ~ ~ includes British place-name equivalents at first, and then drops them a l t ~ g e t h e r He . ~ ~rearranges parts of Asser not directly concerned with warfare, and which are not chronologically dateable. He reduces considerably Asser's last chapters (89,91,92, 94,98, 99, 1014, 106) which describe Alfred's general achievements in church and kingdom, and places them, inappropriately, at the end of his quotations from Asser under 887. The year of Alfred's death would have been a more suitable place. Chapters 74-6 deal with Alfred's interest in learning and invitations to scholars and he places these after a reference to Bishop Werferth of Worcester, under 872, an appropriate position. He reorders and makes clearer the sequence of Alfred's illnesses and freedom from infirmity, leaving the nature of Alfred's fast illness non-specific under 871 and ignoring Asser's alternative attempts at diagnosis. He identifies the two elder sons of Alfred at a point where they are not identified or identifiable in A ~ s e r . ~His ' crossreferences are precise, showing control over his rearranged text.28 Ile will supplement or correct Asser. He may have added the battle of Meretun to 870 from the Chronicle. He supplements Asser's 876 by a passage translating part of the Chronicle annal 877 concerning Alfred's pursuit of the Danes and his taking of hostages near Exeter. Asser's omission of most of 877 is made good. This omission had made the tracking of the Danish army difficult. It is at Exeter in 876, goes into, and divides, Mercia in 877, and then comes from Exeter to Chippenham in 878. Florence, using the Chronicle, explicitly divides the army in two in 877, one part staying at Exeter, the other going to Mercia, and then in 878 he follows Asser against the Chronicle in making the army come to Chippenham from Exeter. To describe the death of St Edmund in 870, he prefers the Passio by Abbo of Fleury, which makes clear Edmund's martyrdom, to Asser's plain statement that he died in battle. On one occasion when he prolongs Alfred's illness beyond his forty-fifth year, the year when Asser was writing, he makes a reasonable guess.29 From the end of Asser to 1066, Florence like the Chronicle is fuIler and more detailed, and any assessment of their relationship more difficult. Plummer considered the relationship for the years 1049 and 1051 by setting out in tabular form the annals in the different versions of the Chronicle and in F l o r e n ~ e .Here ~ ~ it wid be possible only to comment briefly on Florence and his sources for this long period. 2 3 Stevenson, Asser, Iv-lvii. On Symeon of Durham i, see M. Lapidge, 'Byrhtferth of Ramsey and the early sections of the Historia Regum attributed to Symeon of Durham', Anglo-Saxon England, 10,1981,97-122. 24 855 (c.12/15), 855 (c.14/1), 866 (c.2119-15). 887 (c.91/30-3), 855 (c.15/17-26). 25 855 (c.1412-51,878 (c.5215-6). 26 British names included in 853 (c.9/4), 868 (c.3013-4), and left out in 876 (c.49/7), 878 (c.52/6), 878 (c.5518). 27 855 (c.1617). 2 8 855 ('ut praedixitnus'), 872 ('ut in brevi'), 887 t'ut diximus'). 2 9 871 (c.74 'et co arnplius'), This implies that the illness persisted beyond the forty-fifth year. This coutd be Florcnce's inference or represent, as Darlington thought, use of a revised Asser. 30 C. Plt~mmer,Twoof the Saxon Chroniclespara1lel, Oxford 1892-9, ii, 229-31,235-6.

The Chronicon ex Chronicis of 'Florence ' o f Worcester

191

Armitage Robinson, in discussing the date of Dunstan's birth, showed how Florence, alone among post-conquest historians who discussed the date explicitly, was prudent and cautious about the date, having recourse t o an ambiguous sentence from the B. biographer of D u n ~ t a n .ln~ ~these annals he is as careful and as helpful as earlier, identifying, explaining and ironing out incompatible pieces of information. An example of good inference is his marxying Edward the Elder's sister to the correct Otto in 936. There are assumptions reasonably deduced from the text. In 894, Alfred is described as being angry at his subjects being besieged as well he might be. 'Iniuste' is a favourite adverb, apparently added to his sources, used more frequently and not surprisingly in the reigns of Ethelred and the Danish kings.j2 More obvious in these annals because they are so much longer is editing for the sake of clarity. The Main Chronicle and the Mercian Register are knitted together and in 9 18 a sentence is added t o make the transition easier. 894 is arranged in chronological order. 918 rearranges its extracts from the Main Chronicle and the Mercian Register for its greater benefit. 998, 1004 and 1051 are better ordered. In 895 he makes it clear that a scorched earth policy by the English compelled the Danes t o seek booty in the lands of the North British. The Chronicle is here ambiguous, and does not hold the English responsible for the wasting of corn and cattle. One of the curious understatements in the Chronicle that the Danes by 897 had not caused much damage is changed into a lament over their many depredations. In the annal for 954, he retains ambiguities. It is difficult to tell from the Chronicle whether Wulfstan of York, after his release from custody, was restored to York by a ceremony at Dorchester, or whether he was compensated for the loss of York by the see of Dorchester. Florence renders this: 'Wstano Eboracensi archiepiscopo custodia soluto episcopalis honor apud Dorceceastre restituitur'. When he says that the invading Danish army which came from Brittany in 91 5 was the same which had left nineteen years earlier, one cannot be sure whether additional information or editorial tidying up was responsible. In much of the tenth century, the Chronicle is supplemented and Florence is verbally transformed by saints' lives: the lives of Dunstan by B., Adalard and Osbern, the life of Oswald by Byrhtferth. (Curiously thelives of Ethelwold are not apparently quoted though they may be the source of some scraps of information in 963,970 and 972.) As in his use of Bede, he shows skill in reconstructing sentences from phrases from different passages and from different lives, 959 is a long annal in the Chronicle which relates the death of Eadwig and the succession of Edgar to a united kingdom, and versions D, E and F eulogise the rule of Edgar. Florence does the same, but he identifies Eadwig's burial place, and eulogises Edgar with phrases taken extensively from different sections of Byrhtferth's life of Oswald. He also adds the archiepiscopal succession at Canterbury: the death of AElfsige of Canterbury in the Alps, described in a phrase taken from the R, life, the appointment by Edgar of one of the multitude of Brithelms as his successor, Brithelm's withdrawal and replacement by Dunstan, all described in phrases taken from the B. and Osbern lives of Dunstan. The burial place of Eadwig could have been taken from Florence's version of the Chronicle or from Winchester tradition. The factsofcanterbury succession are taken from the lives, and inserted through deduction into 959, but the insertion was at the wrong place as Brithelm was clearly, if charter evidence can be trusted, archbishop 31 J. Armitage Robinson, m e Saxon Bishops of We&, London 1918,40. 32 976, 1008, 1015 ('occulte'), 1030.

1 92

A nglo-Noman Studies V

before Edgar became king of all Florence's problem was synchronising the undated information from the saints' lives with the Chronicle. He managed this fairly we11 though it was only rarely that he had access t o independently dated information which would have helped pface the events. In the reign of Edgar, Florence adds t o the Chronicle some points which may have come from hisversion: the earthquake of 974, the expulsion of clerics from Romsey in 967 and from Exeter in 968, the dedication of the New Minster in 972 and the deaths and burial places ofealdorman Klfheah of Hampshire and ealdorman Ordgar, father of Edgar's third wife REfthryth in 97 I. With the use of the lives of Dunstan and Oswald, there is a slight change in tone. Prophecies appear verbatim for the first time, those of Dunstan in 943 and 1016, that connected with him in 955. Translations and burials are described in more detail: the translation of Swithun in 970, the burial ofxthelwine in 992. In 1014 the haunting and death of Svein Forkbeard through the unearthly powers of St Edmund is the first long supernatural English tale in Florence. The Marianus annals used by Florence included many miraculous continental stories. In English matters before the lives of tenth-century saints made their presence felt, he made brief use of a Passio of Ethelbert of Hereford in 793 and one of Kenelm of Winchcombe in 819. He records deaths, burials and translations, but he is not as detailed as the main reviser of the work turned out t o be. This selectivity appears in his handling of Bede. Of all the many miracles in Bede, he refers only briefly t o the nocturnal scourging of Laurentius of Canterbury by St Peter. Too much must not be made of this change of tone, though a study of what Florence omits could prove most rewarding, and he does seem more selective earlier than later in his annals. This change of tone could represent a shift of interest on the part of the compiler. It could represent the attitude of the twelfth-century Worcester scriptorium. It could be the result of a different compiler or it could simply reflect a change in the Chronicle. For all his use of Bede and Asser, the Chronicle remained Florence's base and guide. The Chronicle is quite full in the reign of Ethelred. In a footnote t o her translation of the annd for 1006, Professor Whitelock speaks of Florence perhaps drawing from a lost saga about Eadric Streona details concerning the killing of ealdorman Rlfhelm and the blinding of his sons.34 Eadric's raising the head of a slain man has .~~ been seen as a 'wandering folk-tale', appropriated for the battle of S h e r ~ t o n This raises the question not merely of poetic sources for Florence, but also of changes in the character of his writing. In the reign of Ethelred, in particular, he is not merely fuller, he not merely uses poetic or folk sources, but he lapses into what PIummer called 'the pseudo-cIassical style' he adopts 'when writing out of his own head'.36 In most of the annals before the end of the tenth century, there are few signs of Florence writing out of his own head. Perhaps the few euiogies, of Ceolwulf in 760, of Cenwulf in 794, of Alfred in 901, of Edward in 924 and of Edgar in 975 are examples of his own pen at work. In the two longer eulogies, that of Alfred seems based on Asser without using Asser" words, Edgar's is largely based on Osbern, and two of the shorter ones have interesting family detaiis. Even here, Florence does not stray long from a fact or a source. When he uses sources, he quotes them exten33 For episcopal succession at Canterbury, see D. Whitelock, 'The appointment of Dunsfan as archbishop of Canterbury', Otium et Negotium, ed. F. Sandgren, Stockholm 1973,232-47. 34 ASC, 87. 35 Plummer,Snxon Chronicles, ii, 196. 36 Plummer, Saxon Chronicfes,ii, 196.

The Chronicon ex Chronicis of 'Florence bfWorcester

193

sively, and this practice, full quotation rather than echoing phrases or expression, is also found where according to Plummex he appears to be writing out of his own head. Petrie identified passages in Edmund Ironside's speech and battle preparations in the annal for I016 which are lifted from S a l l u ~ t In . ~the ~ annal for 994, the ravages of Olaf Tryggvason and Svein Forkbeard which are eloquentfy described in the Chronicle are well translated in Florence and heightened by a passage from Bede . ~ ~ Florence moves describing the devastation of Northumbria by C a d ~ a l l o n When from a chronicle t o a poetic source, from borrowing Byrhtferth for facts t o reusing Sallust or Bede for effect, he does so in blocks, the demarcation lines of which are easily drawn. It is not easy to see why this pastiche of Chronicle, poetic source and Sallust or Bede is used for the wars of Ethelred, but not for the wars of Alfred or his sons, nor for that matter for the wars of the late eleventh or early twelfth centuries. The battle of Brunanburh in 937 is given less space than in nearly all versions of the Chronicle even though its significance is clear from Florence's words and he provides information not apparently in the Chronicle. It is true that the reign of Ethelred sees a heightening of expression in the Cluonicle not evident earlier. Florence can certainly be said, at the very least, to catch the Chronicle's mood. The sources which can be postulated for the period when the saints' lives have ceased to be used are relatively few. Worcesterclearly: details of episcopal succession, perhaps a lost account of the translation of OswaId in 1002, the passage in 1062 directly translated from the lost Anglo-Saxon life of From Worcester also may have come the post-conquest Latin translation of the letter written by Cnut to his English subjects which is also found in the Deeds of the Kings of William of M a l m e ~ b u r y Sources .~~ common t o William and Florence probably account for the few instances of verbal agreement between the two writers.4Y Florence tells us m u c l ~about Eadric. His reference to him as a smooth talker on the make is lifted bodily from Osbern's life of AElfheaf~.~~ He may have used stories or sagas, but it is certain that he included convincing and telling As is well known, Florence for the reigns of Ethelred and the Danish kings gives information which is not found elsewhere and which can on occasion be confirmed by other sources.44 Of special interest is the information concerning Scandinavia and persons of Scandinavian origin, and concerning Welsh wars and incursions. This could have come from men

. . simul exequebatur', Sallust, Catiline, lix.1-lx.4;'ibi festine triplicibus subsidiis aciem . . . sign0 dato Dan09 invadit', Sallust, Jugurtha, xlix.6-1.3. 38 'per provinclas debachando . . . contradereat rnorti', Ecclesiastical History, ii, 20. 39 Vita WuZfstani,ed. R. R. Darlinpton, London 1928, x-xv~for Coleman. 4 O D. Whiteloek, M. Brett and C. N . L. Rrooke (eds),Councils and Synods with other documents relating to the English Church, 871-1204, i, 506-8. These include 973 ('quod dum intraret, optimatibus fertur dixisse, tune demum qucmque suorum successorum se glorian pose regem AngZomm fore,cum tot regibus sibi obsequcntibus, potiretur pornpa talium honorurn', see Degestisregum, i , 165),975 ('hieme autcnl et vere infra regum usquequaque per omnes provincias Anglorum tranrire et quomodo legurn iura et suorum statuta decretorum a principibus obscrvarentur, neve pauperes a potentibus preiudicium pa5si opprimerentur, diliienter solebat investigare. In uno fortitudine, in altero iustitie studens, in utroque reipublicae et regni utifitatibusconsulens', see Re gestis regum, i, 178) and 1016 where Dunstan's prophecy is given its source in scripture as in Vita Wutfsfani.309. 42 1007, O~bern,Mta Alphegi, PL 149. 380. 43 Fadric's brothers, for instance, who arc named in 1007,can be seen in charters, see S . Keynes, The Diplomas of AEthelred, Cambridge 1980,211-13. 44 e.g. 1016 where the place o f kdmund'~death %ems confirmed by Hermann writing c.1100 (De miraculis S. Edmundi in MernoriaIs of SSfEdmund'sAbbey, ed. T . ArnoId, RS, 1890-6,i, 39) or t 027 where the referenceto Cnut ' s bribes is borne out by the poems o f Sighvat (EHR,i,336-41 1. 37 'Ubi exercitum pro loco et copits.

Anglo-NormanStudies V

194

living in the author's own lifetime, but it is much more probable that, if the Worcestershire fanlilies with Scandinavian connections, and local peoples whose kinsmen participated in operations against the Welsh were the source, they communicated their knowledge to someone compiling a vernacular chronicle before the conquest, Many of the other additions not relating toWelsh or Scandinavian affairs or personages must have come from such a chronicle. The Corpus manuscript was much revised and the stages of this revision have been established in a masterly manner by Dr Brett.45 Here three categories of corrections will be distinguished and only those concerned with English history will. be con~ i d e r e d . ~The 6 first consists of some northern annals for the earliest period from 778 to 803. These were written by the main scribe and fill some of the gaps in northern annak4' The second consists of mostly Lindisfarne entries, some ofwhich were taken from the Histor?,of the Church o.f Durham.48 In the History of the Church of Durham, dates were not always available, and this reviser used such dates as he had from the Chronicle or Bede, and combined these with the dates and information of the Durham history t o provide an acceptable framework, on one occasion avoiding a contradiction in it.49 The information in the Durham history on the life of Rede did not agree with that in Florence, but this conflict was Ieft u n r e ~ o l v e d . ~ ~ Both these categories of information put in by the two correctors are found in all the surviving copies of the Corpus manuscript. The third group is the most numerous and is made up partly of extracts from the Deeds of the Bishops of William of Malmesbury. These are in John of Worcester's hand or were probably entered under his direction. They can be shown t o have been entered in stages.5t They provide for the most part details of episcopal succession and descriptions of monasteries or episcopal towns and their heroes and saints.52 The bishops' lists are either inserted as a block at the year when the first succeeded to the bishopric or individual successions are entered at the appropriate year. There are many errors and misstatements in Malmesbury's lists, and it is unfortunate that they were introduced when recourse t o Bede or other sources already used would have led to their detection in a few casesVs3Some of the information about monasteries - an in some cases it was 45

Brett, 'John of Worcester', 105-1 1.

46 The forthcoming edition will attempt the identification of all the correctors.

Ewan~plesare the northern annals for 790,791,792 printed in Florence, i, 62. Thew were the work of the second main scribe. One example is on p.280, annal 802, the election and consecration of Egbert on the death of Higbald. 49 The History of the Church o f Du?hQm implies that Eadfrith succeeded in 698 and says that he was bishop for twenty-two years. It implies that his successor Ethelwold followed in 721, s he died in 740 after an episcopacy of sisteen years which would place his but also ~ y that election or consecration in 724. Florence had Bede's 698 for the death of Eadfrith'spredecessor Eadberht, and $tuck firmly to 721 For the date of Aihelwold's ~uccession.He resolves a contradiction in History.. Durham on the date of Tilred's death in favour of 928. so The added dates for Bcdc's birth (677 or 678) and for his being thirty in 707 seem based on History. . , Durhum, but do not agreewith thedateof 734for hisdeathat theageof fifty-nine. 5' An example is 741 where the successionof Cuthbert tocanterbury has theadded information that he was the fifth bishop of Hereford, which was probably based on William of Malmesbury. This is found in thc two earliest copies, Trinity College, Dublin 502 and Lambeth 42, which d o not include the further addition that Podda succeeded Cuthbert at Hereford. 52 These additions are not printed in Florence, but examples in the Corpus manuscript are p.296 on Athelney, p.197 on Wenlock and p.289 on the Sherborne succession. 53 That Cuthbert had been bishop of Hereford (741) seems Malmesbury'r misconception. That Cedd was bishop of London (624) also may have come from Matmeqbury and could have been corrected by recourse to Bede. 47 48

.

The Chronicon ex Chronicis of 'Florenck'ofWorcester

195

available in Bede - is inserted in the margin without any clear point of r e f e r e n ~ e . ~ ~ Consolidated episcopal lists, descriptions of monasteries and episcopal towns and monastic anecdotes were departures from the practices of Florence before revision. The rather pell-mell insertion of William might be the result of his hypnotic influence or the consequence of a copy of his work being available only briefly in Worcester. One might add, though here the scope of this paper is being exceeded, that many marginaI additions dealing with continental matters are legendary. John probably composed and certainly wrote the greater part of the chmnicula, Dublin Trinity College 503. He may have done this before he had completed his revisions of the Corpus manuscript. It has been described as a 'perplexing work' as 'baffling and unsuccessful,obscure in purpose and clumsyin e x e ~ u t i o n ' .It~ describes ~ itself as a chronicula taken from the chronica chronicarum with which Florence was connected.56 John covers the period from the birth of Christ t o 1 123 when his hand gives way t o another. The chronicle is arranged under emperors. An emperor's accession is dated, at first according to the Marianus year, later according to the Dionysian, the number and length of the reign of the emperor are given. Events, nearly always undated, are introduced pell-mell in a block, under the appropriate emperor.S7 The sequence of events is sometimes disturbed, occasionally because John wanted t o consolidate particular groups of information, occasionally for no discernible reason.s8 It is difficult to see what principlesguided the selection of items. Many marginal additions in Corpus, particularly relating t o resting places of saints. are included. Much Iegendarymatter is kept, some of it continental: to give two examples, St Edmund's haunting of Svein and Eadric's raising of the head of a dead Englishman and the doggerel verses of appeal t o the English are included in full when many facts are not. It is odd that the only event recorded under Arnulf (887-99) is a Norman entry which happened to be in the margin of Corpus. John sometimes summarises in his own words. Sometimes he misunderstands or ignores Florence. Thus, both the sisters of Ine participate in the building of Wimborne (f. 56r), where Florence and the Chronicle appear to hold Cuthburh only responsible. Dunstan is made to succeed Oda at Canterbury directly (f.74r). It is more than an abbreviation. In the reign of Ethelred it becomes fuller. And new sources are used. For English and continental history, an F version of the chronicle is used as well as some \"clorcestermaterial, and verses for the late English period. There is concentrated use of the genealogical accounts in Corpus. For continental matter, the Royal Frankish annals and a large number oflegendsare introduced. The general effect is confusing. It shows a wild zest, an enthusiasm for newly-found sources without any discernibly clear aim at co-ordination. The final impression is not that which Florence in its earliest stage makes. John's characteristics in the annals which he composed and wrote for the reign Stephen were described many years ago by H. W. C. Davis: S4 The long ~narginaladdition on p.368 concerning Ely conies from MaImesbury. Its opening words werederived from Bcdc and had already beengiven in part under 673 and 679 by I'lorence. 55 J . R. H. Weaver, The Chronicle of John of Worcester 1118-1140, Oxford 1908, 5; Brett, 'John of Worcester', 124. 56 f. 1 l 1 v, 'haec etiam dc ipsa maiori collecta chrunicuIa'. s7 Some entries are placed under different emperors from Corpus (e.g. the succession of Pope Stephen to Lucius under krnilanus in the chronicuk, under Trebonian in Corpus, of Boniface to Zosirnus under Theodosius I1 in the chmnicula, under Iionorius in Corpus), but these may not be errors. 58 Sequence of events disturbed: ff.56r-56v where the two comets come in Corpus before. in the chronicula after, the death of Osric.

1 96

Anglo-Norman Studies V

The objective character of his narrative prevents this partiality (for Stephen) from affecting his value as a historian; he busies himself as little as possible with the motives of political personages; his business is simply to recordevents from day t o day. When he deviates from his task as an annalist, it is that he may record an edifying vision or miracle, the last hours of a fellow-monk or some remarkable natural phenomenon. He has a predilection for doggerel verse and his grammar is defective. He shows some interest in c h r ~ n o l o g y . ~ ~ There is here some praise for John as an annalist of the contemporary scene. It is not fair to judge him by his marginal notes in the Corpus manuscript, a working copy where discrepancies have not been ironed out and of which we do not possess the finished version, nor by the chronicuk until its purpose is more obvious. It is, though, reasonable to suggest that the principles and method of the chronicon ex chronicis t o about 970 or so did show restraint and disciplined coordination, that with the reign of Ethelred and the greater abundance of disparate materials its character changed, if only in becoming fuller and more embroidered, and that some of the additions made by John in the Corpus manuscript and in the Dublin chronicula indicate a shift of interest as well as a new range of sources. Darlington in 1928 suggested that the eulogy of Florence under 11 I8 'should be regarded as a tribute of the author John to an older and highly esteemed monk who had supervised his labours'. Perhaps the influence of FIorence can be seen in the composition and execution of the chrorzicon ex chronicis to about 970, whenever that was composed.

59 Weaver, Chronicle, ii.

STAMFORD THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN ANGLO-SCANDINAVIAN BOROUGH Christine Mahany and David Roffe The main purpose of this paper is t o illustrate those ways in which a detailed study of what is now a small market town may be illuminated by the resuIts of both historical and archaeoiogical analysis. Either approach, undertaken in isolation, would leave serious gaps in our knowledge. On the historical side, the paucity of written evidence in the two centuries before Domesday would bequeath but a sketchy insight into the nature and topography of the early settlement. In archaeological terms, the physical evidence which has emerged from excavation and topographical analysis would be impossible t o interpret taken alone. The integration of both disciplines, however, makes it possible to present a fairly convincing picture of the development of a Scandinavian and pre-Scandinavian settlement into the Norman borough which it became. This is not t o say that there are no problems of interpretation, far from it, but that the questions become, by this approach, easier to define, even if the answers remain stubbornly elusive. Stamford today is a small market town on the north and south banks of the Rtver Welland in South Lincolnshire (Fig. 1). It lies in the promontary formed by the extreme south-western corner of the aptly named extreme south-western wapentake of Ness. Before local government reorganisation it was flanked by RutIand to the north and west, and Northamptonshire and the Soke of Peterborough t o the south. The nucleus of the settlement arose, and remained, on the north bank, but there was at least from the tenth century onwards, a subsidiary settlement on the south in the region which later became known as Stamford Baron. These two settlements are now connected by a bridge, the latest successor of one deriving probably from the first half of the tenth century. East and west of the bridge the limestone ridges on which and of which the town is built diverge t o give wide watermeadows upstream, and gravel terraces downstream, which in prehistoric and Roman times supported a scatter of rural occupation. Half a mile west of the town bridge Ermine Street crosses the meadows by means of a ford, and it is from this that the placename 'Stanford' - the stone ford - is derived.' There is no evidence for any substantial occupation in the middleSaxon or Roman periods. The site bursts into prominence in the second half of the ninth century for two main reasons: firstly as the centre of production of an extremely fine wheelmade and often glazed pottery, and secondly, and by implication, as a focus of Scandinavian settlement. By the middle years of the tenth century we learn that Stamford is one of the Five Boroughs of the Danelaw, with some unusual features not common t o 1 A. M. J. Ferrott, 'The Place-Name Stamford', Stamford Historian, ii, Stamford 1 9 7 8 , 3 8 4 0 . The crossing to the east of the town bridge is identified as the eponymous ford. However, in the light of possibly authentic notices of the early use of the name and the development of the town, it is far more likely to refer to the Roman ford.

Image not available

Stamford: the Development of an Anglo-Scandinavian Borough

199

the other four. In the succeeding two centuries the commercial life of the town prospered, and it had grown by c.1250A.D. into a mercantile centre for trade both local and international, taking its place as one of the foremost boroughs of eastern England. The first unambiguous documentary evidence for settlement in Stamford comes from the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, sub anno 918, when we learn that 'King Edward went with the army t o Stamford, and ordered the borough on the south side of the river to be built; and all the people who belonged t o the more northern borough submitted t o him and sought t o have him as their lord'.2 The relative positions of the two boroughs are made clear in this passage, but the identification of their sites has of necessity t o rest very largely on the results of archaeological investigation. The earliest physical evidence for occupation is provided by the discovery of the kilns and products of a late ninth-century pottery industry, Prosaic as sherds are, they can give unsuspected illumination to the historical record. The products of the kilns discovered on the castle site are noteworthy and important for the fact that they display influences and parallels with Northern France, particularly the Beauvais area. When one considers the movements and inter-relationships of the Scandinavian armies in England and France at this time, it is hard t o avoid the conclusion that the stimulus for the production of the Saxo-Norman pottery industries in such places as Stamford and Thetford derives from the Danish armies and, in Stamford, their French connections. If we indeed have a French potter working in Stamford in the second half of the ninth century, it seems likely that he came over with the armies, either as a commercial venture, or less ~ o l u n t a r i l y .In~ any case, it can be safely argued that the emergence of Stamford is closely associated with the political, economic, and social revoIufion initiated by the Danes; and the establishment de rzovo of Saxo-Norman pottery industries in Danish foci can be seen as but one small indicator of the radically new forces which were to transform the political and mercantile environment of eastern England. The rapid growth of the town in the first two centuries of its history attests not only to its commercial success, but also to its regional and at times national importance as a nodal point in the fluid interplay of Anglo-Scandinavian relationships. Stamford was never just a settlement, to be regarded in isolation, The town must be seen right from the beginning of its history in a wider context - in the context of the complex territorial organisation of which it was a part. Initially its importance was probably derived from its strategic position. The detailed topography of the site provided early settlers with a defensible position on a navigable waterway to the North Sea, although the initial colonisation derived probably from landward expansion consequent on the division of the Mercian lands in the late ninth century.< Subsequently Stamford became an important link in a chain of military centres which secured communication between East Anglia and the North. Although in the early years of the tenth century the threat to such a centre must be thought to emanate from Wessex, it wasnot long before Stamford found itself an integral though not frontline element in the protection of the southern Danelaw against the north. Its geographical situation, at the junction of fenland t o the east, the rich agricultural lands of Leicestershire and Rutland t o the west, the Lincolnshire heathlands ASC, 66. K. Kilmurry, TIze Potteiy Industry ofstamford, Lincs., c.A 0850-1250,Oxford 1980,195; K . Kilmurry,'The Production of Red-Painted Potteryat Stamford Lincs.',Med. Arch., xxi, 1977, 181. Kilmurry,Pottery Industry, 145.

2

Anglo-Norman Studies V

and the forest of Rockingham to the north and south, must have ensured its rise into a major centre for commerce, as it was for administration. These various factors, political, military, adminstrative, and economic, ensured that Stamford emerged into the eleventh century as a quasi county borough with a distinctive character which although modified, survived the Norman Conquest. The town is today, like all historic urban centres, a palimpsest of its own history, and microcosm of its region. Only by studying the one, can we hope t o understand the other. Thus our analysis must begin with an examination of the town itself. Initially the problem of the location of the Danish Borough will be considered. We shall then examine the development of the town and its role in the area, concluding with a consideration of the consequences of the Norman settlement. Stamford is apparently anomalous as a Danish centre. Unlike Lincoln, Leicester, Nottingham and Derby, it has neither Roman antecedents, nor extensive MiddleSaxon or non-Scandinavian Late-Saxon settelement. However, as we shall see, the Danes did not find a tabula rasa, but adapted their needs to a pre-existing territorial organisation, which survived the Scandinavian settlement and had a profound effect on the growth and development of the town. fn considering the problems of the early settlements, the starting point of our analysis must predictably be Domesday Book.5 It is not without reason that Domesday studies have been likened t o an abstruse branch of nuclear p h y ~ i c s .It~ is indeed possible, by means of detailed procedural arguments and complex genealogical analyses, t o reconstruct the institutions of the town and to provide a detailed but somewhat impenetrable topographical description.' But that is not strictly germane to our purpose. Rather, our analysis must be selective and more generalised. Firstly, we must consider that situation which obtained before the coming of the Danes; what elements, if any, might be identified as having an archaic character, essentially an Anglo-Saxon character; and what, if any, is the archaeological or topographical evidence t o support it. The most obvious observation to make is that the text of the account of Stamford is divided into two p a r k 8 These relate broadly to what have been termed customary, and non-customary, tenement^.^ The first section is concerned with those messuages which paid all customs t o the king. It also includes certain privileged townspeople. These are the Abbot of Peterborough, who received toll and land-gable from the sixth ward of the town beyond the bridge, which otherwise rendered all custom; and the 77 sokemen 'who have their lands in demesne, and seek lords where they will; over whom the king has nothing except the fines of their forfeiture, andheriot, and toll'. The second is also concerned with more privileged tenements which were to a greater or lesser degree quit of custom. It includes the land of the lawmen, who had sake and soke over their own houses and their own men; land which belonged to contributory manors; two churches which were in various ways quit; and the estate of Queen Edith 'which belonged to Rotelarzd'. The essential difference between 5 Domesday Book, i, f. 336d; The Lincolnshire Domesday and the Lindsey Survey, eds C . W . Foster and T. LongIey, Horncastle 1924, 9-1 I . This latter edition (hereafter Lincs. DB) is used for Lincolnshi~ereferences to facilitate the identification o f individual entries. 6 Apud signum scaccorum ad Bellum festo Sancti Jacobi anno regni regine Elizabethe senrnde trecesimo primo superauditum. Tor the general method, see D. R. Roffe, 'Rural Manors and Stamford', South Lincolnshire Archaeology, i, Stamford 1977, 12, 13. 8 Lincs. DB, p9/1-4; p9/5 - p 11/16. J . Tait, The Medieval English Borough, Manchester 1936, 89.

Stamford: the Development of an Anglo-Scandinavian Borough

201

these two groups is not one of tenure or status - for both are heterogeneous - but one of sake and soke, that is, the interception of regalian dues. The sokemen may be privileged, but they are stiU in the king's soke, and no one but themselves benefits from their exemptions. In the second section, however, royal dues are siphoned off by various lords and they themselves are responsible for their tenements and men through ruraI manors or otherwise. Their estates are thus not an integral part of the king's borough. The point is crucial, for it casts much light on an anomalous and important entry in the second section. Queen Edith had 70 messuages which belonged to Roteland, with all customs except those touching bread. To these messuages belong two and a half carucates of land, and one ploughing team, and 45 acres of meadow outside the vitl. Now King William has it and it is worth 6 pounds. TRE they were worth 4 pounds.1o This estate is unusual. It is three times larger than any other estate, comprising onefifth of all recorded tenements in the town, and as much as five-sixths of the carucated land. Unlike most of the entries in section two, it did not belong to a 'contributory' manor. It was part of the royal estate of Rotehnd. This estate was somewhat akin to a shire, and included many important royal manors, such as Oakham and Hambleton.'"ts inclusion in the second section suggests that the diversion of custom is at the essence of its status, and this is confirmed by the record of a value. Valuits and valets are extremely rare in the descriptions of Danelaw boroughs, for urban holdings are usually either, as customary, valued en bloc within the borough or, as non-customary, in the manor to which they belonged. But the formula has a specific significance in circuit 6 of Domesday Book as a whole; it generally indicates the point at which dues are collected, and is intimately connected with the term manerium. This term, in itself closely related to the term aula, hall, indicates the point at which dues, soke or custom, are intercepted.I2 The customary nexus of Queen Edith's estate in Stamford, then, appears t o be not a rural manor, nor the king, but the tenement itsetf. In other words, the estate is a manor. In 1066, then, Queen Edith's fee was a manor located close t o the borough, but not part of it. This estate was a very ancient feature of the town. Crucial evidence is provided by the church of St Peter (Fig. 1). The Domesday Book entry is as follows: 'Albert one church, that of St Peter, with two messuages, and 112 carucate of land, which belongs to Hambleton in Roteland. It is worth lO~hillings'.~~ AIbert is Albert of Lotharingia, a churchman of some importance before the Conquest, who nevertheless managed to maintain his position in the reign of King William.14 His fee in Roteland was made up of the churches of Queen Edith's manors of Oakham, Hambleton, Ridlington, and St Peter's in Stamford.ls Just as his church of Oakham was the church of Queen Edith's manor in that settlement, so it seems likely that 10 Lines. L)B,p 1119. 11 C . Phythian-Adams, 'Rutland Reconsidered', MerciarP Studles, ed. A. Tlornier, Leicester

1977,64. D. R. Roffe, The Making of the Lincolnshire Domesday, in preparation; F . M. Stenton, n p e s of Manorial Structure in the Northern Danelaw, Oxford 1910,32-4. '3 Lines. D B , p l I / l 3 . l4 E. A. Freeman, A Hfstoiy o f the N o m n Conquest of England, ii. Oxford 1867, appendix; J . H . Round, The Commune of London and Other Studies, Westminster 1899, 28-38. 1s Domesday Book, i, f . 294a. 12

Image not available

Stavnford: the Development of an Anglo-Scandinavian Borough

203

St Peter's in Stamford was the church of her manor there. If we accept that churches and manorial halls were usually closely associated, the site of St Peter's church may give some indication of the nucleus of Queen Edith's extra-burghal estate.16 If we accept such a nucleus - and the site of St Peter's church is known and exists as a grassy knoll just west of the castle matte - we can begin to ask questions about the extent of the fee. The church and manor between them possessed all the carucated land in Stamford, altogether some three camcates, which suggests a considerabIe amount of land within the context of Roteland. This impression is reinforced by an examination of the ecclesiastical parishes, in origin closely related t o the area of estates (Fig. 2). In the nineteenth century, before enclosure, almost the whole of the fieIds of the town were in the amalgamated parishes of A11 Saints and St Peter.17 It is not now possible to disentangle the lands of each, but Stukely recorded the tradition that St Peter's had large parochial precincts, which he used as an argument to demonstrate that it was the first church of the town.18 We can confirm that the church had indeed extensive glebe in the West Field of Stamford, and that its parish covered a Iarge area of the common fields.19 Other parishes, those of St Mary Bynnewerk, and the pre-Conquest St Clement, were probably carved out of this territory.20 The original parish of A11 Saints is unknown, but was probably substantially a now detached portion of the present parish, enclosed within the bounds of St George. The likely size of the parish of St Peter tends to support the suggestion that it was the 'mother' church of the town, and this in turn would suggest that the estate associated with it is primary. Two independent categories of evidence, archaeological and topographical, support this conclusion by indicating the primary nature of the St Peter's church nucleus. Immediately to the south and east of the site of St Peter's church lies an area which came to be occupied by the Norman castle. It is from here that the earliest evidence for occupation in Stamford comes. During the excavation of the castle, a number of very much earlier features came t o light. In particular part of a double-ditched enclosure with an internal palisade was found (Fig. 3). Badly disturbed to the west and east, the enclosure could nevertheless, if produced, have encircled the knoll on which St Peter's church had stood. There is evidence that it was in use for only a short time, for at least part was quickly back-filled. Clearly it was either defensible, or a very well-marked b ~ u n d a r y . ~In' the filling was a coin of Alfred, and intimately associated with the outer ditch were pottery kilns dated archaeomagnetically t o the second half of the ninth century.22 The nature of the 16 F. Barlow, Z?te Engtish Church 1000.1066, 2nd edn, London 1979,94. In the Lincolnshire Domesday 72%of all recorded churchesoccur in manorial entriesand appear to be eigenkirchen. 17 Dewhurstand Nichols'Map of the Borough of Stamford, t 839, Town klalt, Stamford. 18 Corpus Christi College, Ca~nbridge,MS 618 f.66. 19 J . S. Hartley, A. Rogers, Xhe Religious Foundations of Medieval Stamford, Nottineham 1974, 43; C. N. L. Brooke, M. M. Postan, Corte Nativorum: A Peterborough Ahbey Cartulary of the Fourteenth Centuty, Northants. Ree. Soc. s x , 1960, nos. 397,405,560. 20 A. Rogers, 'Parish Koundsries and Urban History: Two Case Studies', Journ. BAA, 3rd set. xxxv, 1972,59. 21 C. M . Mahany, 'Excavations at Stamford Castle 1971-1976', Chateau Gaillard, vili, Caen, 1976, 232-3. Both ditches had depths of between 4ft 6in and 5ft. The widths at the top were between 6 and 9ft, depending on where the measurements were taken. Due to disturbance of the upper levels, it is possible that the ditches as originally dtrg were somewhat, but not greatly, deeper. 22 The kiln was sampied by A. J. Clarke of the Ancient Monuments Laboratory, Department

204

Anglo-Norman Studies V

Image not available

Fig. 3 Stam ford castle

occupation contained within the ditched circuit is unknown, but the possible association of an early church of a royal estate with a palisaded enclosure, may suggest the presence of an aula. Whatever its function the importance of the site is evident, and its primary nature is supported by the second category of evidence, the topography of the town. The present bridge across the Welland is a nineteenth-century structure, but part of the stonework of a twelfth-century predecessor survives to this day.23 It would be surprising, however, if there were not antecedent structures considerably earlier than that. King Edward the Elder is the most likely candidate as our first bridgebuilder, for it was he who bridged the Trent at Nottingham, in an effort to integrate o f the Environment, and measured in the Department of Geophysics and planetary Physics, University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne. The combined results of archaeomagnetic and radiocarbon dating suggest a date in the second half o f the ninth century. 2 3 me Town of Stamford, Royal Commission on Historical Monuments, London 1977,54.

Image not available

206

Anglo-Norman Studies V

his two boroughs there, and it seems inconceivable that he would fail to link the similarly placed boroughs in Stamford, on either side of the infinitely more insignificant stream of the River WeIland.24 The route to the bridge from the south appears to be a divergence from a more direct, and possibly earlier route, the causeway across the meadows (Fig. 4). This latter route links with Castle Dyke which marked the eastern extemity of the castle, and the parish boundary between All SaintslSt Peter, and St John. We shall return to the Edwardian burh and to the river crossings, but for the moment it is sufficient to note that if the bridge is as early as 918, and if the causeway antedates it, then the fact that the causeway connects with the area round St Peter's, may be some indication that the occupation of this region could go back t o the late ninth century, as does the pottery industry and the enclosure, As we have seen, there is a close association between the St Peter's/All Saints nucIeus, and Roreland. Phythian-Adams has argued that the medieval county of Rutland, arising in the twelfth century, recognised the integrity of a royal estate which split into two between 894 and 91 7 (Fig. 7).25 Witchley Hundred, immediately to the west of Stamford, was appended to Northampton and appears under that heading in Domesday Book. The wapentakes of Martinsley and Alstoe, the Domesday Roteland, maintained their autonomy though they were subsequently associated with Nottinghamshire for the purposes of the geld.26 Queen Edith's 70 messuages were part of this estate of Roreland and her title to this land in Stamford was clearly derived from her title to the area as a whole. Since the fee would appear to be primary to the town, it is thus likely t o be a remnant of the larger estate of Rutland before it split up. This estate was of considerable antiquity and was probably of an archaic structure by the early tenth century, perhaps deriving from middle Saxon or earlier origins,27 In territorial t e n s , then, much of what became the town of Stamford must have belonged to Rutland before the Danish settlement. There is no archaeological evidence of a substantial, or indeed any, Mercian settlement, but it seems clear that an ancient territorial relationship was recognised and accepted by the Danes, for this estate was evidently not part of their borough. This recognition is suggestive. The existence of an early royal church, possibly associated with the palisaded enclosure points to the importance of the estate and its survival suggests the continuity of regalian functions throughout the political instabilities of the Scandinavian occupation, and into the eleventh century when King William used the same site for the establishment of his castle. If this interpretation is correct, it is clear that the Danish Borough must be sought elsewhere, but first it is necessary to look briefly again at the burh of Edward the Elder, south of the river (Fig. 5). The existence of a mint, or at least a moneyer, in this part of the town together with the place-name Burghiey, borough-wood, immediately to the south-east of Migh Street Saint Martins, suggests the existence of something more than a marching camp.28 The location of the site is fraught with problems. It is likely to have commanded the river crossing, either the causeway mentioned above, or the ford which still existsjust downstream of the present bridge. 24 ASC, 67. 2 5 Phythian-Adams, 72-3. 26 Domesday Book, f.219b, c, 293c, d, 294a. 27 Phythian-Adams, 78. 28 The Chronicle o f Hugh Candidus, a Monk o f Peterborough, ed. W . T . Mellows, Oxford 1949,

70; F . Peck, Academia TerfiaArtglicana or the Antiquarian Annals of Stanford, London 1 727, Bk iv, 24: E. Ekwall, The Concise Qxfoml Dictionary of English Place-Names, 4th edn, Oxford 1960.75.

Stamford: the Lkvelopment of an Anglo-Scandinavian Borough

207

Image not available

Fig. 5 Sramfbrd: ropography

It is possible to see High Street Saint Martins as the axial road of a planned complex, post-dating both ford and causeway. The northern limit is perhaps indicated by a curve in the road twenty yards south of the bridge, the eastern and southern boundaries by lanes, and the south-east sector by a parish boundary. A ditch antedating a Saxo-Norman quarry was found on the proposed line, just west of Burghley Lane. The area encompasses the limits of settlement to the south-east and west in the twelfth century, and its axial road is marked by the two churches of St Martin and All Saints-by-the-Water, the latter possibly a pre-Conquest f ~ u n d a t i o n This . ~ ~ rep29 No record survives of the patron of the church of A11 Saints before it was acquired by St Michael's Nunnery, Stamford, but it is one of the few churches in the town in which the lord of Stamford apparently had no interest (Hartley and Rogers, 20). It may thus be one of the two churches held by Eudo Dapifer in 1086 (Lincs. DB, ~ 1 1 1 6 )His . successors, as fords of Wakertey, Northants., to which thc DB fee was appended between 1066 and 1086, held land in Stamford south of the river (Koffe, 'Rural Manors', 12, 13).

Image not available

Stamford: [he Developmen f of an Anglo-Scandinavian Borough

209

presents, from a11 available evidence, not forgetting the distribution of pottery, the most likely site for Edward's burh. Looking now t o the north of the river, we must consider the site of the Danish Borough which Edward found when he came t o Stamford in 918. There are several ways of looking at this problem, but fortunately the various strands of evidence all point in approximately the same direction. They suggest the establishment of a planned town to the east of the All Saints/St Peter's complex, and antedating the bridge. Our earliest map is that of John Speed (Fig. 6) of the early seventeenth century. From it we can see that the street-plan of the town has changed hardly at all in the last three and a half centuries, and we are thus able to draw t o a modern scale (Fig. 1) a base-map incorporating those elements which Speed represents. The next step is simply to subtract from the plan known late features, such as the medieval town walls, and the extra-mural roads(Fig, 4). We are left with what appears t o be a planned nucleus, separated from the castle by a market; in other words exactly what one would expect. As we have seen from the historical evidence, we would predict that the borough would not be in the region of St Peter's church, nor is it. Jt is sited on an adjacent spur overlooking the narrowest part of the river. The detailed topography supports this interpretation and has been extensively argued elsewhere.30 Briefly, there is the matter of the dog-leg performed by what was the Great North Road on its route from the town bridge t o the market place by AII Saints, which suggests that it is skirting a pre-existing complex. Both the street plan and the pattern of tenement plots tend to confirm the suggested nucleus. The opportunity arose in 1969 t o excavate a small site just east of St George's Street, where a possible defensive system might be expected. What was found was indicative of a system of upright and horizontal timbers rather similar to what had been discovered a few years previously on the defences of the Aethelflaedian hurh of Tamworth. Another excavation in the very centre of the proposed borough revealed traces of flimsy timber buildings sited end-on to the High Street - the beginning of a long sequence of occupation on the site. In both cases archaeologica1 evidence suggested a date towards the beginning of the production of Stamford ware, that is the late ninth or, more probably, the early tenth century.31 The evidence from parish boundaries, as argued by Alan Rogers, tends t o support an early nucleus on the site we have suggested.32 We are left then with what appears to be a sub-rectangular early nucleus with High Street as its east-west axis. The western prolongation of High Street joins with the A11 Saintstst Peter's nucleus which we have already suggested antedates the borough, and it may be that this road, too, is earlier than the Danish settlement and was simply utilised in its planning (Fig. 5). Topographically, our planned area would appear t o predate the complex south of the river, if we believe the latter's axial road to be aligned on the bridge. The archaeological record, then, so far as it goes, supports the 91 8 annal, and also the arguments from Domesday Book as t o the siting of the Danish Borough. The discovery of sherds of Stamford ware deriving from the castle kiln under the eastern defences of the proposed borough indicate too that the planned settlement post30 C. M. Mahany, A. Burchard, G . Simpson, Excavations in Stamford Lincolnshire 1963-1969, Med. Arch. mon. ser. no. 9, London 1982, 6-8. 31 C. M. Mahany, Stamford: Castle and Town,Stamford 1978, 1 0 , l l . 32 Rogers, 'Boundaries', 5 6-63.

Image not available

Stamfid: tile Development of an A nglo-Scanditzavian Borough

21 1

dates, if only by a little, the estabIishment of the potteryindustry, and by implication, the digging of the ditched enclosure on the castle site (Fig. 3).33 Whether the Danes were responsible for this minor fortification, or whether it was an essentially Mercian manifestation remains unknown. What is likely is that the Danes took over the site, incidentally establishing a pottery industry there. But their main centre of activities was on a similar knoll further to the east, where a fortified borough was established in the years preceding 918. This planned borough was distinct from the estate of Roteland to the west, and may have been associated, as we shall see, with the areas of Kesteven and Holland to the north-east. We have dealt at some length with the detailed topography of the town because this is an essential preliminary to considering its role in the region. We now come to the very important matter of attempting to place Stamford in its wider context, and the next section is devoted t o a consideration of its territorial affinities in the years preceding the Norman Conquest. An essential element in the functioning of a Danelaw, or indeed a Wessex borough was the territory which it could look to for its sustenance and support, and for Stamford this presents unusual problems. In the case of all the other members of the confederacy of the Five Boroughs, the burghal territory became rationalised into the institution of the shire. Such was not the case with Stamford. Various references have indeed been adduced toprove that 'Stamford-shireYormerly existed, but all the sources are unreliable or of dubious a ~ t h e n t i c i t y .Moreover ~~ the term 'shire' in the context is probabIy anachronistic. C. S. Taylor has argued that the institution of the shire with its separate royal administration was introduced into Mercia in the early years of the eleventh century in response to the need to marshal resources to counter the renewed Danish attacks.35 At this time Stamford was indubitably part of Lincolnshire. The annal for 1016 illustrates that the town was on tlte boundary between Lincolnshire and Northamptonshire and the pattern of administration as revealed by camcation, shows that it was an integral part of the former.36 The notion of 'Stamford-shire' is therefore inappropriate since the town was already attached to Lincoln at the time when the institution of the shire as we know it was introduced. But this is not to say that Stamford did not have a tributary territory before this period. Although it has been argued that all ties at this time were of a personal nature, and that territories were not defined, there must nevertheless have been a relationship between the town and the area required to produce the numbers necessary t o support it.37 The intimate relationship between burghal hidage assessments and the defences of burhs suggests a high degree of territorial organisation in the early tenth century in Wessex and beyond.38 There are clues to suggest a similar organisation in the Danelaw. Thus the 917 annal records that Nortltampton submitted to Edward 'with all those who owed allegiance t o it as far north as the Welland', 33 Kilmuxry, 'The Production of Red-Painted Pottery at Stamford Lines.', 181. s4 R. Butcher, The Survey and Antiquity o f rhe Towne of Stanford, 4, reprinted in Peck;

Symonis DuneEniensis opera et collectanea, i, ed. J. Hodgson I-linde, Surtees Soe. 51, 221, ating the Arundel reading of a list of shires in a section entitled 'Excerpta, historica et topographica'; T. M . Hearne, A Collection of Curious Discourses, Oxford 1720,33. 35 C. S. Taylor, T h e Origins of the Mercian Shires', Gloucestershire Studies, ed. H . P. R. Finberg, Leicester 1957,23-9. 36 ASC, 94-5; D,R. Roffe, 'The Lincolnshire Hundred', Landscape History, iii, 1981,34 -5. 37 Taylor, 30. 38 D. Hill, An Aths of Anglo-Saxon England, Oxford 1981, 85.

Image not available

Fig. 8 Linculnshire: general topography

Stamford: the Development o f art Anglo-Scandinavian Borough

213

while the Florence of Worcester version of the 918 annal records the submission of the more northerly borough at Stamford 'and all those who owed allegiance to it'.39 These and similar references, although not without their difficulties, suggest that there were areas which were dependent on central boroughs.40 The location and extent of the territory of the borough of Stamford can be suggested with some precision. An examination of the boundaries of Stamford shows that its topographical anomalies betoken a second phase in the organisation of territory. The fields of the town overlie an earlier division of Iand within the ancient estate of Rutland, and form an integral part of the wapentake of Ness (Fig. 7).41 This latter term is probably used in an administrative rather than a topographical sense, and it would appear that the town was deliberately appended to it at the time when the earlier division of land was disrupted.42 The town therefore looked to the east far its territorial context at a tilne when its boundaries were first defined. Twelfth-century evidence exists for several points along its line, and since the town is situated at the boundary between hidated and carucated England, the date of carucation provides a remzinusantcquem for its whole course.43 This cannot be later than the early eleventh century. If, as there is evidence to believe, carucation is as early as the mid-tenth century, then Stamford must have been associated with land t o the east, which was later part of Lincolnshire, at the same time.44 However, an earlier date stilt is indicated by the Chronicle evidence. In 91 7 the territory of Northampton extended up to the Welland, and probably also included Witchley Hundred north of the river and to the west of the t~wn.~"n 894 the territory to the west of Stamford was distinct and possibly hostile. Aethelweard records that in that year 'the Danes possessed' (according to Campbell) or 'were ravaging' (according t o Stenton) large territories in the kingdom of the Mercians on 'the western side of the place called S t a r n f ~ r d ' . ~ ~ It seems therefore that from 91 7 the territory of Stamford must have lain t o the east and north. Its northern limit is almost certainly indicated by the southern extent of the kingdom of Lindsey, with which Lincoln was intimately associated (Fig. 8). Stenton has argued that the Ridings of the division and its 'island' topographyindicate that it was in existence in the early Danish period, and it is probably coterminous with the earlier kingdom.47 The contributary manors of Lincoln itself, where discernible, are all in the area and the division between Lindsey and south Lincolnshire marks a very pronounced tenurial boundary in the mid-eleventh c e n t ~ r y . ~ " No western limit can be suggested unless carucation was as eady as the mid-tenth 39 4O

ASC, 66; Worcester, i, 128. See, for example, ASC, 64,66. The Town of Stamford, xxxvii; Rogers, 61.

41 42 A. M. J. Perrott, 'The Piace-Names of Stamford and the Wapentake of Ness, Lincolnshire',

Stamford Historian, iv, Stamford 1980,41. 43 Brooke and Postan, nos. 403-6,560. 44

Roffe, 'Lincolnshirc Hundred', 35.

ASC, 66; C . R. Ilart, The Hidation of Northamptonshire, Leicester 1970,39; F. W. Maitland, Domesday Book and Beyond, Cambridge 1897,458; F . M. Stenton, 'Aethelweard's Account of the Last Years of King Alfred's Reign', Preparatory toAngI6Saxon England, ed. D. M. Stenton, 4s

Oxford 1970, 1 1 . 416 7Be Chronicle of Aethelweard, ed. A. Campbell, London 1962, 51; F. M. Stenton,

'Aethehcard', 10-1 1 . F. M. Stenton, 'Lindsey and its Kings', in D. M. Stenton, 133-4. J . W. F. Hill, Medieval Lincoln, Cambridge 1948, 46-7, 51; Lincs. DB, p3/4, 24/72; p3/8, I7/1; Roffe, Lincs. DB.

47 48

214

Anglo-Norman Studies V

century. If this was the case, then Stamford was closely associated with the area of Kesteven from this time,for it was an integral part of its Iocal government apparatus.49 This area was, like Lindsey, topographically discrete. Holland, to the east, was equally isolated, but was almost certainly associated with Stamford. Its lines of communication are nlostly through Kesteven, and procedurally it was part of that division when the Lincolnshire Domesday was compiled.50 Moreover the customs of king and earl in Strdlincolia, that is Kesteven and Holland, were rendered together amounting to E28. Significantly, Stamford is said to have rendered exactly the same sum, and it is possible that the two figures are one and the same render.51 We may conclude then that the territory of Stamford extended from the Welland t o the Witham. Thus Lincoln and Stamford were situated on the peripheries and to the south of their regions, so that they could control the entrances to the two areas, commanding the main lines of communication between the Danish colonies in the north, and the southern Danelaw and East Anglia. By 1016 Stamford had lost its territory and was part of Lincolnshire. Loyn has argued that it was appended to Lincoln in the late tenth or early eleventh century, consequent upon the renewed Scandinavian attacks from the north.52 The confusion in the Domesday sources between the terms Lindsey and Lincolnshire suggests that the politically dominant partner was, and the initiative for annexation came from, Lincoln.s3 Indeed a very heavy tax assessment was imposed on Kesteven and Holland when compared t o Lindsey.54 But it is possible that close ties between Stamford and Lincoln may be of an earlier date. If carucation can be dated to the mid-tenth century, the two boroughs are closely associated at this period as part of the confederacy. A common quota was imposed on both areas, and this suggests a common a u t h ~ r i t y . ~Again, S if, as suggested by Hill, theMinster ofSt Mary, Lincoln, was built in the mid-tenth century, then the extent of its parochia, the later county of Lincoln, may suggest that Lindsey and Kesteven were closely associated at the ~ precisely now that the threat t o peace also came time of its f o u n d a t i ~ n .It~ was from the north, and the evidence of the 942 annal would suggest that the northern Danelaw was hostile t o the Norwegian kingdom of Y ~ r k . ~It' is probably no coincidence that we first hear of the Five Boroughs at this time.5" By the time of Aethelred they were organised as a confederacy with a common assembly, perhaps t o control a buffer zone set up after the redemption as a marcher area against the north.59 It is perhaps within this context that we ought to understand the reorganisation of 49 Roffe, 'Lincolnshire Hundred', 34. 50 The disputes of Hofland are recorded without rubric and are an integral part of the section

entitled edamores in Chetsteven (Domesday Book, i, f.376d-377d). The wapentake sequence of thissection is found, with only slight modification, throughout the body o f the Lincolnshire text. 51 Lincs. DB,p7/27; ~ 1 1 1 1 6 . 52 H. R. Loyn, 'Anglo-Saxon Stamford', The Making o f Stamfoml, ed. A. Rogers, Leicester 1965, 31. 53 F. M. Stenton, 'Lindsey', 133; Domesday Book, i, f.348a, b, 368a, b. s4 Roffe, 'Lincolnshire Hundred', 34-5. 55 Roffe, 'Llncolnshire Hundred", 34. 56 J . W. F. Hi11 69-73. 5' A. W. Mawer, 'The Redemption of the Five Boroughs', EHR, xxxviii, 1923, 551-7; D. Whitelock, 'The Conversion of the Eastern DaneL~w',Saga Book o f the Viking Society, xii, London 1945,159-76; W. E. Kapelle, TheNorman Conquest o f theNorth, London 1979,14-15. 58 ASC, 7 I . 59 F. Liebermann, Die Gesetre der Angelsachseni, i, Halle 1903, 228; EHD, i, 403; F. M. Stenton, Anglo-Saxon England, 3rd edn, 1971,510-12.

Stamford: the Deirelopment of atz Anglo-Scandinavian Borough

215

territory. Lincoln was a forward position, and Stamford and its territory became appended to it, with a penal tax assessment, to support it. Nottingham and Derby were probably grouped in the same way, for the two counties were very closely associated from the time of c a r u ~ a t i o n . ~ ~ The next major change in Stamford comes of course with the Norman Conquest. The town on the eve of the Conquest was a heterogeneous melange indeed. Both boroughs, north and south of the river, had by this time spread beyond their original bounds. Thus there were suburbs extending down t o both banks of the river, and along most of the approach roads. There was an industrial zone south and east of St George's Street, where iron-smelting had spread outside the borough, and where the pottery industry was flourishing. The old St Peter's nucleus was another suburb.61 As for what was going on on the castle site we have no archaeological evidence. The area of the motte, now under a bus station, has not been available for excavation. A shell-keep was destroyed, and no doubt many underlying layers as well, in 1933.62 Once again we have to turn t o Domesday Book where we Iearn that five mansiones were waste on account of the work at the castle, as compared with 166 at L i n ~ o l n . ~ ~ However, strictly speaking this cannot be taken to indicate the level of land use before the construction of the castle for it does not record the number of structures which were destroyed. The term mansio may have a primarily legal meaning, for frequently contrasted with domus, it refers t o something more than actual physical structure^.^^ Moreover, reference is only made to the wastage of those mansiones which had formerly paid custom. Wasrum itself is a technical term. Although it must frequently imply complete destruction of a tenement, nevertheless land could be waste, and yet still be It is clear in these cases that the term has the primary meaning of loss of revenue. Thus in recording that five mansiones were waste on account of the work of the castle, the commissioners were not noting the destruction of five buiidings, but the loss of revenue which had been owed t o the king from five ill-defined entities. Since, as has been argued, the castle was situated in or adjacent to the nucleus of a large non-custom-paying manor, many other mansion~sand structures may have been destroyed but have gone unrecorded since their destruction did not affect the total customs of the town. The area south of 60 The two shires of Nottinpham and Derby seem to have been closely related at the time of

Domesday Book - there wasapparentlyonlyone sheriff for the two shires before 1086 (Domesday Book, i, f.260b), the account of the borough of Dcrby follows that of Nottingham before the Nottingharn breves (f.28Oa) and there is only one section relating to the customs of the two shires ( 2 8 0 ~ )There . has been no systematic study of the carucation of the two counties. Stenton (VCH Rutkmd, i, 126-8) suggests a quota of 576 carucates for Nottingham and gives a total geld liability for Derbyshire of 679 carucates. Taylor (p.28) saw the combined total of 1246 hides (sic), as reckoned by Maitland, as suggestive of the use of the 1200 hide unit for the combined area of the two hter shires. This does indeed chime well with the use of a 50 twelvecarucate-hundred unit, that is, 600 carucates, in Lincolnshire (Roffe, 'Lincolnshire Hundred', 34-51. But the peculiarities and complexities of carucation in the latter county, notably the apparent separate fiscal administration of royaVcomital lands, should counsel caution. However, if the same arrangement obtained in Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire, a quota of about 500 carucates for each shire is suggested. Again, a common authority is indicated. An examination of the hundredlvillar vtructure in the two counties would go a long way to elucidate the problem. 6' Ma ha ny, Stam ford Gzstle, 9 . 62 Mahany, Stamford Castle, 16, 19. 63 Lincs. DB, p9/2; ~ 7 1 2 5 . 64 See, for example, Domesday Book, i, f. 280a. 'Robert of Busli has 3 mansfonesin Nottingham in which 11 domus are sited, which pay 4s. 7d.' 6 5 See, for example, Lincs. DB, 319; 4/36; 18118; 32/26; 4414.

216

Anglo-Norman Studies V

the motte, which became the castle bailey, was extensively excavated, but the slightly built timber structures which may have existed on the site before 1066 were not found due to extensive later stone-quarrying, and other disturbance^.^^ Even had they been found, they would have been difficult to date, for it has often been said that in regard to pottery studies, there is no evidence forthe Norman Conquest at all! Of the institutional framework found by the Normans we know little, but we have speculated that the royal manor centred on St Peter's maintained its integrity down to 1066. It was probably in 1068 that the Normans chose the nucleus of that very royal estate as the site for their new castle. The reasons for their choice were no doubt concerned as much with military strategy and convenience, as with the conscious perpetuation of a regalian function. Elsewhere they had few qualms about disturbing the status quo. Certainly the military problems facing the Normans were not dissimilar to those which the Danes had encountered some two hundred years previously. Characteristicdly also, the rationalising grip of the Normans can be discerned in the manner in which they solved the problems posed by the antiquated and absurdly anomalous tenurial and administrative arrangements of the town. The existence of a castle is first recorded in Domesday Book. It is likely that it was built in the early years of the Conquest, for the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle records that the king 'went to Nottingham and built a castle there, and so went t o York ~~ and there built two castles, and in Lincoln and everywhere in that d i s t r i ~ t ' .This was in the spring of 1068. Florence of Worcester records that in the same year William ordered a castle to be built in Lincoln after his return from York, and in other places; while Orderic states that castles were also built at Huntingdon and Cambridge.68 Although no specific reference is made to Stamford, it seems likely that it was similarly fortified at this time, since the king seems t o have been concerned not only to secure important centres of population but also the main roads t o the north, a region he had failed to rule through native leaders. The 1068 campaign was designed to dissociate Mercia and Northumberland and prevent an alliance which had troubled King Edward in 1065. It was also intended to be the instrument of introducing Norman rule to the north.69 At any rate, by 1070 the Normans evidently considered the town to be safe, for Thorold, the newly appointed Abbot of Peterborough, took refuge there with 160men, while Hereward ravaged h i s m ~ n a s t e r y . ~ ~ The site of the castle, adjacent to the Danish Borough and on a neighbouring knoll, must have been equally defensible (Figs 4 and 5). The motte required little artificial heightening to enable it to dominate the western approaches to the borough, the early river crossing from the south, and a large triangular area between the borough and St Peter's where there is evidence for a market from at least the twelfth century. Superficially the topography suggests that the fortification fitted into the classic pattern of castle, market and town, which we see at N~ttingham,~' This impression is probably erroneous. Hoskins and Rogers have used a curious reference to Portland in the Northamptonshire Domesday t o argue that the construction of the castle was linked with the creation of a Norman market place between All Saints and St Peter's. The king has in his demesne of Portland 2 carucates and 2 parts of a third carucate of land and twelve acres of meadow. One carucate belongs t o the 66 Mahany, Stamford Castle, 1 8. 68 Worcester, ii, 2; Orderic, ii, 218. 70 ASC, 151-2.

67 ASC, 148. 69

KapeIte, 109-1I. Rogers, 'Boundaries', 5 1-3.

Stamford: the DeveZopinent of an Anglo-Scandinavian Borough

217

church of St Peter, and half a carucate to the church of All Saints. Portland with its meadow rendered 48s. TRE . . .72 This entry is anomalous, since it is the only parcel of carucated land in the whole .~~ the place-name is not found after of the Northamptonshire D ~ m e s d a y Although 1086. Portland can be confidentlv associated with Stamford. it is alater but foreseen addition to the text, but is grouped with those manors which were subsequently in the county of R ~ t l a n d . ~However, " Portland cannot be a Norman innovation, for it is given a TRE value. Moreover it cannot have been situated in the market place. The two churches were not, as Hoskins and Rogers claimed, located in Portland, indeed the use of the iacet ad formula implies quite the opposite, but merely held land there. From the available evidence then, the construction of the castle was probably not accompanied by major topographical replanning. But the Portland reference does provide an understanding of an associated reorganisation of administration. Since it is associated with the Rutland manors, it can be identified with that part ofstamford which wasin the same county in the later Middle Ages, namely the hamlet of Bradcroft and the west field of S t a m f ~ r d . ' ~This was bounded on the east by Ermine Street and was significantly known as 'Sundersoken' - estate apart, Both location and name suggest that Portland had formerly belonged to an estate in Stamford, and, as non-customary land held by the king, it is difficuIt to escape the conclusion that it formerly belonged to the only royal estate of that kind in the town, namely Queen Edith's fee. Domesday Book significantly informs us that her 70 messuages belonged to Roteland, that is, in 1066. In 1086, however, they were part of Stamford in Lincolnshire. It can be suggested, then, that the Normans, faced with the need to build a castle on land administratively not part of the borough of Stamford in Lincolnshire, incorporated the urban element of the fee into the borough. At the same time its agricultural counterpart was appended to the nearest royal manor, either Great Casterton, or Ketton, in Rutland (Fig. 7). The Portland reference, then, provides no evidence for the status of the market place, still Iess that it is of post-Conquest origin. On the contrary it is t o be expected, given the probable pre-Conquest foundation of All Saints, and the town's burghal status from the tenth century onwards, that a niarket place existed in the late Saxon period on the very site proposed by Hoskins and Rogers, between All Saints and St Peter's, that is from the Danish Borough to the possible royal aula which could have provided its institutional basis. Thus the castle was probably inserted into a topographical framework which had been established at least 150 years before its construction, and the administrative arrangements were adjusted to accommodate it. The later history of the castle is inextricably linked with that of the town and its lords, though unfortunately the first hundred years of its historyare the most obscure, both in historical and archaeological terms. No reference is made to its structure 72 W. G . Hoskins, Fieldwork in Locaf Histow, London 1967, 25; Rogers, 'Boundaries', 60; Domesday Book, i, f . 2 1 9 ~ . 73 VCH Northamptonshire, i, 277-8. 7" The d~plomaticof the entry - the use of the rex tenet formula, the record of a vafet and valuit - suggests that Portland was an independent estate. An apparent association with Great Casterton is merly a function of over-compression, the scribe having left insufficient space For the information. 5' Documents illustrative of the Soclaland EconomicHistory of the Danelaw, ed. I". M . Stenton, London 1920, no. 44; Calendar of Ancient Deeds, iii, D174; CIrlendar o f Close Rolls 1302-7, 293, 1333-7, 240-1, 684, 705; Calendar of Patent Rolls 1301-7, 470, 1330-4, 104-5, 404; 02lendar of Charter Rolls, iii, 122; Peck, Rk ix, 56, x, 8, xi, 47, 58, xii, 5.

218

Anglo-Norman Studies V

between 1086 and 1153, when it ultimately failed to withstand a siege from the . ~ ~was its only known military engagement. Writing forces of Henry of A n j ~ u This in the mid-twelfth century, the author of De Gestis Herewardi Saxonis, makes mention of a Great Mall with an inner room, but this work is not themost reliable of chronicles - Hereward is supposed t o have been guided t o Stamford by a wolf." AS far as we know the borough and presumably the castle were in royal hands until 1 1 56.78 Unfortunately nothing is known of the role of the castle in the administration of the town. There is little evidence of how Stamford as a whole fared during the troubles of the anarchy. Evidently the castle was in some state of preparedness prior to the siege of 11 53 and was able to resist, at least for a time. The town capitulated immediately which may indicate lack of defences, or perhaps sympathy with Henry of Anjou. But the effect of the anarchy on the town should not be over-estimated. The deficiencies of the evidence do not allow an exact chronology of development, but evidently the town had grown considerably by the mid-twelfth century.79 Its extent is indicated by the evidence for the existence of churches, and surviving twelfth-century architectural features8@If the sites of the churches can be taken as an indicator of urban development it is clear that there had beenconsiderable expansion in the hundred years after the conquest. But by no means the whole area had been built up: throughout the Middle Ages, there were always open spaces within the town walls. Thus excavations on quite a large scale in the area behind the town walls in West Street, revealed no trace of medieval occupation what~oever.~' The prosperity of the town was based on a number of factors. Firstly, it was a local market for a rich agricuItura1 area with easy communications by water and road, and many religious houses acquired land in the town. Secondly, the town was a centre for industry. In the twelfth century the pottery industry wasstill flourishing and continued t o do so until the mid-thirteenth century. The challenge of the cheaper but nastier rural potteries had not yet been felteg2Much more importantly, Stamford was the centre of production of a high quality wool cloth, which came t o clothe some of the highest in the land, as well as being exported as far afield as Italy.83 The export of raw wool was also a decisive factor in thz town's mercantiIe success.84 Most of the evidence for Stamford's trading connections comes from the thirteenth century, but there is no doubt that this mereIy reflects the later elements in a success story which began at least as early as the eleventh century. This paper is not of course concerned with the thirteenth century, which is outside our terms of reference, but it is worth observing that in Stamford, as in so many English towns, the thirteenth centurywas the time when it took on the characteristics 76 Huntingdon, 288. T7 De GestisHerewardiSaxonfs, trans. W . D.Sweeting, Peterborough 1895.64. '8 W. Dugdale, The Baronage of England, i, London 1675,631; Cn?. Docs. Fronce, i, 5JO;Pipe

Roll for the second year of the reign of Henry I I , 2 . 79 Mahany, Stamford Chstle, 7 . Hartley and Rogers, passim; 'llhe Town of Stamford, 46-7, 128,146. 81 Excavation in the garden of Torkington House, St Peter's Street, directed by C. M. Mahany for Stamford Archaeological Research Committee in 1972. 8 2 Kifmurry, Pottely Indushy, 196-200. 83 E. M . Carus-Wilson, Medieval Merchant Venturers: Collected Studies, London 1954, 198, 209, 21 1-13 , 2 2 0 , 2 3 4 , 2 3 8 ; E. M . Carus-Wilson, 'Haberget, a Medieval Conundrum',Med. Arch., xiii, 1969. 84 A. Rogers, 'MedievaI Stamford', The Mking of Stamford, ed. A. Rogers, Leicester 1965, 43-6,58.

Stamford: the Developmet~tof an Anglo-Scandirtavian Borough

21 9

which we would recognise today; it was a period of change, the substitution of stone for timber in domestic building, in castle building the enlargement and embellishment of existing structures, in church building, wholesale reconstructions which quite sweep away any record of Norman predecessors, and in mural building the reconstruction of the town walls in stone. On the archaeological front there is a veritable explosion of evidence, as there is on the historical. By 1250 the town had taken on the form which it had when Speed drew Itis map in about 1600, and this is the Stamford which, despite more than three centuries of piecemeal alteration, the observant eye can still, in 1982, detect. The purpose of this paper has been, not to weave arabesques around a parish pump, but to serve as a plea for greatly increased co-operation between the exponents of our two disciplines. It is still unhappily not the case that every archaeological excavation is invested with historical significance; nor unfortunately is it always true that the historian welcomes the products of archaeoIogicaI endeavour in a manner wholly flattering to the excavator. Our hope is that by attempting to illuminate the complexities attendant on the examination of a small town in eastern England, we have demonstrated beyond reasonable shadow of doubt that there is no longer any place for a compartmentalised approach to the study of the changing events and landscapes of the past .85

85

Line drawings by R. S. Langley.

CROWN AND EPISCOPACY UNDER THE NORMANS AND ANGEVINS David Walker It used to be a fashionable historical pursuit to examine the nature and structure of the episcopate in different peri0ds.l Wow many were of baronial stock; how many monks, or religious; how many scholars; how many deans, archdeacons, dignitaries and canons; how many local men? Givenenough material, we can make some splendid patterns. In an English setting, one category was very important: how many were curial bishops, men drawn from the king's immediate circle or from the ranks of the royal administration? The pattern is never static; it changes. My purpose in this paper is to examine that changing pattern under the Norman and Angevin kings and t o seek t o understand the scale of the changes and some at least of the underlying causes of change. Take the English kingdom between 1066 and 1216, and take the category of curial bishops: the patterns which emerge are very interesting. I distrust absolute figures. It needs only a slight change to throw the whole sequence out. The figures for England would fall along these lines. There were 136 bishops consecrated and 74 of them were unmistakably curial bishops, court men. Technically, 53 were not in the king's employ, nor were they part of the king's immediate circle before their election, though some of them became curial figures after they had been made bishops. There are 9 bishops about whom very little is known. Over the whole period, from 1066 t o 1216, some 54% of the episcopate were men who had made their way through the royal service, or who belonged t o the king's immediate circle. Perhaps 6Wo of the episcopate were committed royalists. They did not support the king in every decision, but in general they could be relied upon t o back his wishes. The balance of curial and non-curial bishops changes from one reign t o another: we are not dealing with a static pattern. In the reigns of William the Conqueror and his sons there was a preponderance of royal clerks in the episcopate. At one point, in 1121-2, Henry I had 16 such men in the kingdom, and despite changes in policy there were still 9 curial bishops at the time of his death. In Stephen's reign, the number of royal clerks on the bench declined sharply, and in 1154 there was only one former royal servant among the bishops. It might be expected that Henry I1 would revert to an older style, but, in fact, he appointed comparatively few curial bishops; there were 4 in his early years, and even after the Becket controversy had subsided there were only 6. It must be stressed that, whatever their background, Henry 11's bishops were drawn into royal business and became curial figures. At different stages of Richard's reign there were 14 curial bishops, and in John's reign 1 I am much indebted to the British Academy and to the Council of the University College, Swansea, for travel and research grants to enable me to write this paper. At the request of the editor, footnotes have been reduced to a minimum, at the cost of excluding reference to a number of classic studies.

Crown and Episcopacy under the Normans and Angevins

22 1

there were 18, though the complexities of the interdict make any claims unrealistic for the later years of the reign. The presence of such bishops scarcely needs e ~ p l a n a t i o n Royal .~ influence, and a Iong-standing custom of drawing upon the cadre of royal clerks are the basic explanations. Conquest and the need to work with trustworthy men who could speak French were clearly important factors in the Conqueror's reign. With Rufus, some bishops shared his cynical view of the church, and one or two shared his particular sexual proclivities. In his early years, Henry I had to hold on t o power and to use loyal supporters with great economy. To lose the chance of placing a trustworthy agent in an English bishopric was a luxury he could ill afford. Then, the tragedy of the White Ship, and the loss of his son, introduced a new note, and Henry, the materialist and cynic, found need for piety, and that broadened his patronage. The political pressures associated with his attempt to secure recognition for Matilda may also have affected the range of experience from which he drew his bishops in his later years. For Stephen, patronage lay partly in the hands of his brother, Henry of Winchester, and later of Theobald, archbishop of Canterbury, who was not without influence in the first years of Henry If's reign. Henry had also to take some account of Adrian IV's ruling that nominations made by secular rulers were not to be upheld by those electing a b i ~ h o p For . ~ Henry the critical event was the death of Becket. After the immediate crisis had been weathered, he needed bishops of royalist sympathies, and he made some attempt, especially in what has been called the reconstruction of the English episcopate in 1173, to ensure their a p p ~ i n t m e n t .Reginald ~ fitz Jocelin went t o Bath, Geoffrey Ridel to Ely, Richard of Ilchester to Winchester, and perhaps we should add Henry's bastard, Geoffrey, elected to Lincoln but not consecrated. Two years later, John of Oxford was appointed t o Norwich, and in the ten years which followed a handful of similar appointments were made. In 1183, Walter of Coutances went briefly t o Lincoln before he was translated to Rouen, and in 1185 Hugh Nonant became bishop of Lichfield. Some promising administrators were still waiting for their rewards when the king died in July, 1189, and three more had reached the bench by the end of the year. These curiales must be matched by men like Gilbert Glanville of Rochester, Seffrid of Chichester, and William de Ver of Hereford, who passed into the king's service and were prominent in the king's business after consecration. In England, the pattern of the episcopate can be worked out in considerable 2 The paragraph which follows owes much to Frank Barlow, The English Church 1066-11.54,

London 1979. For changing views on William Rufus' sexuality see Emma Mason, 'William Rufus: myth and reality', Journal of Modem Eiistory, 3, 1977, 3-4. For different views of Henry I's religious motivation see M. Brett, The English Church under Henry I, Oxford 1975, especially 112, and Emma Mason, 'Pro Statu et Incolumnitate Regni Mei: Royal Monastic Patronage 1066-1 154', Religion and National Identity, Studies in Church Ilistory, 18, 1982, 1 1 0. David Spear's 'The Norman Empire and the Secular Clergy, 1066-1204', Journal of British Studies, xxi, 1982, 1-10, appeared after this paper had been completed. He is chiefly concerned w ~ t h links between England and Normandy, and we have parallel discussions of appointments in Normandy. 3 Regesta Pontificum Romanorurn, ii, no. 10139, quoted in W. L. Warren, Henry II, London 1973,453. 4 These appointments have often been discussed. Cf. Raymonde Foreville, L'Eglise et la Royaute! en Angleteve sous Henri 11 Plantagenet (1154-89)- Paris 1943, 373 84; Bernard Guillemain, 'Les Origines des Ev6ques en France aux XIe et XIIe si8cfes'. Le IstituzioniEcclesiastiche della "Societas Christians" dei Secoli XI-XII: Papato, Gzrdinalato ed Episcopate, Miscellanea del Centro di Studi Medioevali, vii, Milan 1974, 3 83.

-

222

A nglo-Nonnan Studies V

detail, and the element of royal control over appointments and, by inference, over individuals, can be assessed in clear terms. When we turn t o France, precision of this order is not possible, for too many bishops are shadowy, if not unknown, figures. The scale of uncertainty may be gauged in terms of the attempts which have been made to determine one factor, the ecclesiastical background of bishops in the eleventh and tweIfth centuries. Marcel Pacaut listed 297 bishops for the reign of LouisVII, and where possible he identified them as seculars, Benedictines, Cluniacs or Cistercians. For 186 bishops he could provide this basic information; for 111 bishops, that is t o say for 37%, he could not do so. The proportion of bishops whose background cannot be established varies widely from one province to another: for Rouen, 9%; Reims, 11%; Sens, 12.5%; Lyon, 26.5%; Bordeaux, 28%; Narbonne, 46%; Tours, 51%; Bourges, 61 5%;Auch, 70%.5 Younger scholars have extended Pacaut's studies to cover the eleventh and twelfth centuries, and Bernard Cuillemain has provided us with an interim assessment of their findings. With the exception of Rouen, the figures for individual provinces are lower for the whole period than Pacaut's figures for the reign of Louis VII. If we confine our attention to the twelfth century, an ecclesiastical backgroundcannot be determined for 32.34% of the bishops in the reign of Louis VI, 3 1.74% for the reign of Louis VII (refining Pacaut's figures), and 22.59% for the period 1 180-1200. With good cause, M. Guillemain warns us that the interpretation of statistics in these circumstances demands la p v u d ~ n c e ! ~ It must also be said that the degree of control exercised by king or magnate in different provinces varied widely in the late eleventh and early twelfth centuries. Even t o establish a common starting point is a problem, and aH too often basic information is tacking. It is a commonplace t o speak af the Capetians controlling, or exercising influence over 23 bishoprics in the eleventh century and 26 (or perhaps 31) in the middle of the twelfth century. It is easy to speak of 27 dioceses within the Angevin sphere of influence. Yet, for Imbart de la Tour and Rcaut and many others, there is a literary problem, if not an historical problem, t o be resolved: how t o find sufficient variants for the basic statement that there is no evidence for this particular bishopric at this particular time! We have to use well-tried methods: t o deal with those cases about which we may speak with some security, and to identify trends and changes in policy. Normandy provides a valuable bridgehead. The duchy demonstrates a blend of curial bishops with bishops drawn from the greater Norman families. Appointments were made by ducal authority, and it was by no means uncommon for bishops t o move into the ducal circle, if not the ducal service, after consecration. As duke and king, the Conqueror made fourteen appointments. Baldwin of Evreux (1066), Michael of Avranches (1067) and Gilbert Maminot of Lisieux (1077) were curial figures. Gilbert fitz Osbern of Evreux (1070) was a member of a distinguished family long associated with ducal administration. Robert of Shes (1072) was the brother of Eudes the steward. Odo of Bayeux (10491, the Conqueror's half-brother, wasprominent as a leading figure in William's inner circle and as an administrator until his fall in 1082. Geoffrey de Mowbray acquired Coutances in unsavoury circumstances when his brother purchased the see for him. In maturity, he moved into the king's 5 These figures are based on Pacaut, 149-54, Annexes 1 and 2. The political Implications OF episcopal appointments in France are brought out clearly in Elizabeth Hallam's Capetian Fronce 987-1328, London 1980. 6 Guilbmain, 374, 396-8, Tables I-111.

Cmwn and Episcopacy under the Normans and Angevins

223

circle and played an important part in the Norman settlement in England. Five bishops were appointed while Robert Curthose was duke of Normandy. Robert himself appointed three, two of whom were curiales. Turgis of Avranches (1094) was a ducal clerk. Serlo, elected t o Sees in 1091, was much harassed by Robert of Belleme and was relieved from this pressure by Henry I, and as a consequence he was drawn into the king's circle after 1106. Turold of Bayeux was given the bishopric by William Rufus in 1097; he had been a ducal clerk. The limitations of Duke Robert's control were made manifest at Lisieux. Rannulf Flambard, the exiled bishop of Durham, lived at Lisieux u t princeps in urbe, and in 1102 he secured the bishopric for his semi-literate brother, Fulcher, who survived for seven months7 In the sequel, Flambard's attempts to dominate the see caused havoc: he tried to establish his young son, Thomas, as bishop, and ruled the see 'not as bishop but as guardian' for three years. William, archdeacon of Evreux, contested the bishopric, and Flambard then tried to have one of his clerks, William de Pacy, elected. An attempt by Henry I to have HervB, exiled bisl~opof Bangor, translated to Lisieux failed, and stability only returned to the see in 1 I07 with the election of John, head of Henry 1's Norman exchequer. John of Lisieux was one of eleven appointments made by Henry I. One of these illustrates very clearly the problem of defining what made a bishop a curial figure and so the difficulty of determining a statistical pattern. Richard, elected t o Bayeux in 1135, was the son of Earl Robert of Gleucester and agrandsonof Henry I himself. Few might have stronger claims to be a familiar figure in the royalcircle. His brother, Roger, was made bishop of Worcester in 1163, and by the same token might be seen as a curial bishop. Yet Roger was consistently loyal t o Recket and showed no sign of supporting Henry 11. Royalist by birth, he was not royalist in policy or outlook, and it would stretch the concept of a curial bishop to include him in any list. Two other bishops were drawn from curial families: Richard of Dover, bishop of Bayeux (1 107) and John of Sees (1124) the brother of Arnulf of Lisieux. How strong was family influence in securing their election? Very quickly after his appointment, John was to be found in attendance on Henry I. The interval between the death of Henry in 1135 and the assumption of ducal authority by Henry fitz Empress in I 149 was another period of instability. Stephen appointed Rotrou de Beaumont to Evreux in 1139, and his election must be linked with the king's patronage of the Beaumont family in England. In later life, Rotrou served Henry I1 as justiciar and seneschal of Normandy and was translated to Rouen in 1165. While Geoffrey of Anjou was active in Normandy four bishops were appointed, of whom two were curiales, but their appointments can scarcely be regarded as rewards for past services, nor as attempts to strengthen ducal influence. One was overtly political. Philip d'Harcourt, Stephen's chancellor, was prevented from taking the bishopric of Salisbury in 1140, and he then followed the example of his patron, Waleran de Meulan, and transferred his allegiance to the Ernpres8 His appointment t o Bayeux in I142 was clearly a reward for this useful political volte face. The other curial bishop was Arnulf of Lisieux who was elected without the knowledge of Count Geoffrey, and as a consequence Geoffrey refused to recognise him. As duke of Normandy, Henry fitz Empress appointed two bishops, both of them curial figures. Richard de Bohon, who had sewed Geoffrey and Henry as chancellor, Orderic, vi, 142, and for the sequence of events, v, 322 and note 4. 8 Regesta, iii, x.

went t o Coutances in 1 15 I , and in 1 154 Henry imposed his almoner, Froger, o n the electors of SBes. After his accession as king in 1 154, Henry made twelve appointments in Normandy. Six were already curial figures; five more were actively engaged in the service of Henry and Richard 1. The twelfth bishop, Achard, had been rejected at Sies on Henry's instructions in 1 ;54 and was appointed t o Avranches, on Henry's explicit direction, in 1 16 1. The four bishops appointed by Richard were all closely linked with the king. William Toleran of Avranches (I 198) was a clerk of the seneschal of Normandy, and William of Lisieux (I 192) was frequently with Richard. Wann de Cierney, appointed to Evreux in 1193, was nominated by Richard during his captivity in Germany and he was employed in the royal service. William de ChemillB, whose name identifies him as a man of Anjou, was made bishop of Avranches by Richard in 1196 and was translated t o Angers, again by Richard's instruction, in 1 198. The bishops appointed during John's brief tenure of Normandy add little t o the story, but his refusal t o accept Silvester as bishop of S&esin 1202 was the occasion of sharp conflict with Innocent Ill. Perhaps it is worth noting that curial bishops were rare at Sies and exceptional at Coutances. The consistency with which ducal control over episcopal elections was maintained is a notable, though not an unexpected f e a t ~ r eHenry . ~ It and Richard were especially careful to appoint and exploit Norman bishops for their own interests. There is, in particular, a very marked contrast between the difficulty with which Henry managed to secure the appointment of his nominees in England and the ease with which he achieved his aims in Normandv. The firmness with which ducal control was maintained may be seen in the determination which Count Geoffrey displayed over the appointment of Gerard to SBes in 1144, or which Henry 11 showed over the election of Froger to SBes in 11 54 and of Walter of Coutances to Rouen in 1184. On that occasion the chapter wanted Robert of Newburgh as archbishop and, as it seems, king and chapter tried to make use of the archaic method, abandoned by Henry in Anjou thirty years earlier, of nominating three possible candidates from which the final choice could be made. The chapter resisted Henry as long as possible, but in the end he had his way.'@ Elsewhere, Henry I1 and his sons could not take for granted the easy control which they could exercise over the church in England and Normandy. Local baronial power, long entrenched, was still strong. Local episcopal dynasties, reminiscent of the Belldme succession at Le Mans, were still t o be found, especially in the southern provinces of Bordeaux and Auch. But it would be wrong to emphasise limitations. In Anjou and Aquitaine, Henry was heir to a strong tradition. The counts of Anjou had secured acceptable and amenable bishops, some linked with the great families of their county, all of them local rnen.ll They were not necessarily subservient. Ulger, bishop of Angers (1 122-49) was an effective and vigorous bishop who reclaimed rights and possessions for his see. The charters of the cathedral church bear eloquent witness to the forcefulness of his administration. At Angers he was one of a 9 Pacaut, 79. 10 EC, xi, 26,27; I:oreville, L'EgEiseet la Royautd, 98. I t Geoffrey of Tours, brother of Hugh, lard of Langeais; Geoffrey de Mayenne, son of Hugh,

lord of Mayenne; and Reginald de Martignt, son of Brian, lord of MartignC. L. Halphen, Le Comtk d'Anjou au XF sie'cle, Paris 1906, 114-15; 0.Guiilot, LeCornted'dnjouetson entourage au X F siecle, Paris 1972, i, 252-60; Cartuluire Nuir de la Cathkdrale d'rlngers, ed. C. Urseau, Angers 1908, xix, xx.

O o w n and Episcopacy under the Nonnans and Angeltins

225

series of comital appointments which was unbroken between 1083 and E 162. There were indications in plenty that the count's will was t o be dominant.12 Fulk Recliin had insisted in 1082 that Bishop Geoffrey should surrender pleas of adultery and usury to the count's court. Geoffrey the Fair reserved the full weight of his displeasure for bishops subject to his authority outside Anjou. Hugh, bishop of Le Mans, was driven into exile for nine months in 1135 and his bishopric was plundered. In I144 there was a disputed election at %es where Norman bishops had been brought in to strengthen the electoral group. Gerard, who was elected, was not a supporter of the Angevin cause, and Count Geoffrey showed him little mercy. In Aquitaine ducal authority could be equally violent. When the disputed election to the papacy occurred in 1 130, Duke William X supported Anacletus 11. Hisloyalty was reflected in a charter dated by reference to Anac!etus in 113 1, and it was demonstrated in more practical terms by the strong measures which the duke took against those bishops who supported Innocent 1I.I3 The bishops of P6rigueux and Saintes suffered material Loss. William, bishop of Poitiers, and Eustorge, bisllop of Limoges, were expelled from their sees and the duke sought to replace them. Gerard de Blaye, bishop of Angoul&me,was imposed on Bordeaux. Bernard of Clairvaux won over Duke William to the cause of Innocent fT, and by 1135 the whole episode was over. In mare normal times a forceful duke could do much. but he must be circumspect, for the mechanics of appointment did not favou; him. Canonical election was the norm: the regularity with which local men, often dignitaries from local dioceses, were elected as bishops is clear enough evidence of that. In 1137, Louis VII strengthened the church in the south by issuing a formal edict granting the bishops of the duchy exemption from regalia. It was a privilege which bishops elsewhere in France could still not take for granted at the beginning of the thirteenth century. The southern limits of Angevin power in the duchy of Aquitaine were fairfy clear, though the frontier, if such it can be called, was fluctuating rather than static.I4 Some bishoprics nominally subject to the duke of Aquitaine lay beyond the effective control of Henry I1 and his sons. Comminges and Couserans are the best-documented, and in each case the fortunes of the diocese were closely linked with the political power of the count of Comminges. For a brief period, Couserans was in the hands of the count of Foix but was contested and eventually acquired by Bernard I, count of Comminges. His ambitions brought him into sharp conflict with the bishop of Couserans, Peter (1 120-55), whose cathedral city of St Lizier was pillaged and left uninhabited for seven years, while he himself was imprisoned until he yielded to force rnajeure. At the end of his life, about 1144, Bernard restored t o the bishop his rights over the city and gave him twenty horses by way of reparation, but the conflict of interest between count and bishop continued through successive generations until Simon de Montfort attempted to impose a settlement as late as 1214. Throughout, this issue seems to have been a matter of local politics in which no magnate greater than the count of Comminges was in~olved.'~ If Couserans was brought forcibly under the control of the count of Comminges,

.

12 Pacaut, 109; GC, xiv, 562; Cartulaire N o i r . . dXngers, xx. 13 GC, ii,Instrurnenta,470,and see 521,811,1000-1. '4 J . Boussard, Le Gouvemement d7HenriII Plantapaft, Paris 1956,3 1 . 1 5 C. Iiigounct, Le Comtk de Cornmingesde sesoriginesason annexion a'la Cauronne,Toulouse, Paris 1949, i, 37, 4 3 -4 , 100; for the bisiiops of Comminges see J . Contrasty, Les Eviques de Comrninges, Toulouse f 940.

226

Anglo-Noman Studies V

the bishopric of Comminges was never removed from his sphere of influence. Bishop Bertrand (1083-1 123) restored the vitality of cathedra1 and diocese alike. There were close links with the archbishop's see of Auch. One baronial family, de Montaut, provided a bishop for Comminges, Roger de No6 (1 125-52), and an archbishop of Auch, William d'Andozille (1 126-70), while Bertrand de Montaut was bishop of Lectoure (1 162-3) and archbishop of Bordeaux (I 163-70). The family ofthecounts of Colnminges produced two bishops in the eleventh century, and another, ArnoldRoger, between 1 153 and 1177. Local influence was paramount. In the dating clauses of charters, especially those of Bonnefont abbey, there is a clear pattern: in some the count and bishop of Toulouse are named, and in others the count and bishop of Comminges. That close relationship between count and bishop reflects the political realities of the situation. There is no hint of a direct link between the bishopric and the duchy of Aquitaine.16 On the westward Iimit of the Pyrenees, the position was very different. The links between the dukes of Aquitaine and the bishops of Bayonne were strong. Duke William confirmed grants in the diocese and gave Bishop Raymond 111 half the city of Bayonne. Two generations later, Richard I confirmed the grant. Bishop Peter Bertrand attested one of Richard'scharters and secured confirmation of the privileges of his see. Bernard de Lescar, appointed bishop of Bayonne by Richard in 1185, travelled east with the king as one of the commanders of his fleet, and was with him at Messina and Acre.I7 Firm contact was also maintained at Dax. The bishop wcs in the entourage of Duke William IX in 11 20, and the duke of Aquitaine was named in a dating clause in I 15 I. In the struggles of the later twelfth century, Richard invested Dax (and Bayonne) in 1176 and he was active in Dax again in 1178. Bishop John was said to have been on campaigns with Richard before his consecration, and Bishop William I1 acted for King John in the treaty which he concluded with Sancho of Navarre in 1201 .I8 The key to much af the south was the archbishopric of Auch. The archbishops were frequently drawn from local comital and episcopal dynasties, and ducal influence sat lightly on the see; so much so that Pacaut believed it to be free from secular influence. Nominal acknowledgement, if nothing more, was to be found in the occasional association of the duke of Aquitaine in dating clauses ranging from the late eleventh century to 11 18, and then to Henry I1 in 1 178 and Richard in 1 181. The one archbishop who had strong personal links with the Angevin dynasty was Gerard de la Barthe, a member of a local family, who was with Richard at La R&ole in 1190 and was frequently in attendance after that date, sewing as one of the co~nn~anders of Richard's fleet. He was with the king at Messina, assisted at the coronation of Berengaria in 1191, and was at Acre. He died in the east.I9 Auch was never outside the orbit of the duke of Aquitaine; whether the diocese was affected by, or brought more closely under ducal supervision because of the personal link between Richard and Gerard is an open question. I6 Boussard, 27, 28 n.4, 29 nn.1-1 I; Comminges, i, 4 5 , 4 7 ; Recueil des Actes de I'Abbaye de Bonnefont en Comminges, ed. Charles Samarin and C. Higounet, Paxis 1970. l 7 GC,i, 1313-14; Pacaut, 128 n.7; Itinerary of KingRichardI, ed. L. Landon, PRS,NS xiii, 1935, 34,42-4,49. Boussard, 30; GC, i, 1046; F. M. Powicke, Loss of Normarrdy, Manchester 1913, 215. The liniited influence of the dukes of Aquitaine in the diocese of Auch can best be seen in the Cartulaire du Chapifre de Z'dglise M&tropolitaine Saint-Marie d'Auch, ed. C . Lacave la PIayne Barris, SocietC Historique de Gascogne, Paris, Auch 1899. l 9 Itineraty of Richard I, 2 5 , 4 2 - 4 , 4 9 , 51.

Crown and Episcopacy under the Normans and Angevins

227

It is a matter of conjecture to assess how effective ducal authority might have been in the remaining bishoprics of the province. Unlike Comminges and Couserans, they were included within the duke's sphere of influence. A duke of Aquitaine confirmed a grant in Aire in 1084; his successors were associated in dating clauses in charters from Lectoure in 109 I , and Lescar in 1 101, from Tarbes in the reign of Louis VI, and from Oloron in 1150. At Bazas, Louis VTl's name was used in 114 1. Henry 11's in 1170, and Richard's in 1192. Bertrand de Montaut, bishopof Lectoure, was translated to Bordeaux in 1163 and was then associated with Henry 11, while a later bishop of Lectoure, Bernard 11, was in attendance on Eleanor of Aquitaine in 1199.20 The tentacles of Angevin power stretched far south. Nominal control certainly, and perhaps effective control, was widespread in the province of Auch. When Henry 11 assumed control of Anjou and Aquitaine he stood in need of sound men who could exercise poIitical and administrative influence. Local men with these talents could not easily be identified, though some, like Bertrand de Montaut, were used. Outsiders, men from Normandy and England, were not likely to win support in open elections. Until 1162, bishops of Angers had been acceptable to the counts of Anjou. Henry was anxious to continue the tradition, and he wished to adopt the familiar practice of securing from the chapter three names from which he could choose the new bishop. When the chapter rejected this procedure, he was scrupuIous, though politically unwise, to seek a ruling from the papacy. Not surprisingly, the decision went against him, and in the future indirect methods would have to be employed.21 In 1162 the vacant bishopric was given to Geoffrey Moschet, a Norman who served in Henry's chancery, and he remained active in the king's service until his death in 1178. He was succeeded by Ralph de Beaumont, a grandson of Henry I: hence the terms in which Henry 11 described him, charissimun~cognatum nostrum. He attested charters of Henry I 1 and Richard, and was entrusted with the execution of Henry's legacies in A n j ~ u In . ~11 ~ 97, Richard I arranged the translation of William de Chemilld from Avranches to Angers andemployed him as an ambassador to Cologne. Bishop William was to take part in Richard's funeral two years later.23 In similar fashion, Henry It secured the election of 'northerners' elsewhere, with John d'Asside at Pkrigueux in 11 59 and John aux Belles Mains, treasurer of York, at Poitiers in 1162. The latter was an interesting mixture. He had been trained by Theobald of Canterbury, and he was a royalist bishop; Becket disliked him, yet he was not afraid to clash with Henry I1 in defence of the rights of his church. With it all, he kept the king's confidence. He had twenty years at Poitiers before he was elected as archbishop of Narbonne and then translated t o Lyon in 1183. There were, of course. other successes and other failures. he' classic case which demonstrates both sides of this appointments game was 20 GC, i , 1075, 1197-9, 1268, 1290, and Instrurnenta, 188-9; four of the twelfth-century bishops of Aire are known only from obit rolls (A. Degert, 'Listt: Critique des Evt?ques d'Aire', Revue d e Gascogme, 1901, 297-31 3). Pacaut could find no indication whether T a r h s was under the influence of Barcelona, the family of St Gilles, the vicomte of Bdarn,or the dukeof Aquitaine (Pacaut, 7 9 ) . 21 J. Boussard, Le ComtP d'Anjou sous Henri PlanfagenPt e t ses FiXs (1151-12041, Paris 1 938,

97-8. 22 For Geoffrey Moschet see Pacaut, 109; Recueil des Actes dYUenriN,ed. L. Defisle and E.

Berger, i, Paris 1916, 401, 422, 489, 510, 523; ii, 1920, 65, 541. ]:or Ralph de Beaumont, Recueilde~Actes dlHenriII, ii, 219-21, 227, 244-5, 254-5, 357-8; R. W . Eyton,Itineraiy of Hen? 11, London 1878, 247,283, 293;Itinermy ofRichwd1, 24, 2 6 , 3 f - 2 . 2 3 GC, xiv, 572;ltinern~y ofRichard 1,145; Guillemain, 391.

228

Anglo-Noman Studies V

the election of a new archbishop at Bordeaux in 1 158, when Henry tried unsuccessfully t o impose his own candidate, John d'Asside. When Archbishop Geoffrey du Lauroux died, the canons of Bordeaux could not agree upon a successor and the suffragan bishops were asked t o elect a primate. Henry11 was on the spot and joined the bishops as they met to make their choice. It was a difficult moment for them, but they were not t o be overawed. Hugh, bishop of Angoul&me,took the lead and made it clear that the bishops would not proceed while he was present. Henry cum rnaximo rancore tristis ~ b s c c s s i t Hiscandidate .~~ was not elected: instead, Raymond, bishop of Perigueux, was translated to the archbishopric. He scarcely lived long enough t o discover whether the king would offer him friendship or enmity, for he died within the year. John d'hsside, repulsed at Bordeaux, was elected t o succeed him at Perigueux. There was no hint that royal influence had been used, though dearly it must have been a factor. A victoryon one front was matched by a timelyconcession elsewhere. John had nine years at Pdrigueux. Henry I1 may have been baulked at Bordeaux in 1158, but between 1160 and 1188 he secured a succession of useful archbishops. Hardouin (1 160-62) was dean of Le Mans, and must count as an outsider.z5 Bertrand de Montaut, translated from Lectoure in 1163, was an appointment in a traditional mould. He had family links with Roger, bishop of Comminges (1120-52), Arnold d'odon, bishop of Tarbes (c.l177), and William, archbishop of Auch (1 126-70), and he was translated from a lesser see t o the archbishopric.26 Whether he had formal links with the ruling dynasty and was a ducal appointnient, it is impossible to say, but he was with Henry 11 and attested charters regularly until 1172. His successor, William the Templar, was . ~ ~was abbot of Reading, and the king was unmistakably a curial a p p ~ i n t m e n t He present at his consecration at Limoges in 1173. He, too, was a familiar figure in Henry's entourage after his election. Eiias de Malemort, who became archbishop in 1188, is best known because he incurred the grave displeasure of Innocent 111. He had the support of Richard I, but it is not clear that he was a royalist a p p ~ i n t r n e n t . ~ ~ At Bordeaux, the canons elected a sequence of acceptable bishops who proved their worth in the ducal service. That can hardly have been mere coincidence. Bordeaux is a clear illustration of the fact that Henry 11's political instinct was sound: control over a primatial see was a factor of the first importance. Henry was also aware that Tours was a key bishopric for the Angevins. The province covered Anjou, Maine and Brittany. It was clearly in the Angevin interest that the archbishop should be subject to their political influence, and the conquest and absorption of Touraine by the counts of Anjou might be thought to have ensured that. Yet the affiliation of Tours is difficult t o establish. Imbard de la Tour could not determine whether the Capetians had kept control of elections t o the archbishopric in the tenth century." Pacaut surmised that the Capetianshad retained the right of receiving homage from the archbishop, and, with that, patronage over appointment^.^^ That 24 GC, ii, 1005. 2 5 Recueil des Actes d8HenriII, ii, 84. 26 Recueil des Acres d'ffmri II, i, 401,432; Itinerary ofHenry 11,125-6,128,134;Letters of John of Salisbury, ii, The Later Letters (1163-11801, ed. W . J . Millor and C. N. L. Brooke,

Oxford 1979. 708n. z7 Pacaut, 78; Recueil des Actes d1ffendII,ii, 84; Itinerary of Henry 11,171 and n, 204 and n, 221, 237. 28 Itinera~of Richard I, 39,49;Raymonde Foreville, Latran I, II, IIIet Latran IV, 237,243. *9 Pierre Imbart de la Tour, Les Elections Episcopales duns IEgIise de France du XIe mr XIIe siticles, Paris 1891, reprint Geneva 1974,224. 3O Pawut. 65.

Crown and Episcopacy under the Nomans and Angevins

229

is not easily reconciled with the election of bishops from Angevin territories, from Chinon, Langeais, Le Mans, La Fertd Be~nardand P r e ~ i l l y .From ~ ~ the end of the eleventh century, contact between king andarchbishop seems to have been occasional and sporadic, with rare signs of formal adherence t o the French crown. 'fie appointment of Hildebert of Lavardin was said t o have been confirmed by letters of the pope and the king; perhaps the fact of translation from Le Mans is the key t o that confirmation. Hildebert found both the kings of France and England dangerous neighbours, and he had to quash the pretensions of Louis VI who nominated candidates as dean and archdeacon of Tours. The archbishop regarded that as an affront, and acted independently, appointing his own dean after the king's candidate had been removed from the scene. Hugh de la Fertd, elected in 1133, was challenged unsuccessfulIy by a rival candidate supported by the French king, though he became persona grata at the French court in the later years of his e g i s ~ o p a t e Archbishop .~~ Joscius was regarded as, and perhaps courted as, a useful ally by Alexander Ilf, Louis VII, Henry I1 and Becket. When Alexander held a council at Tours, English bishops attended with the king's full consent, and Alexander recognised that this should not be the occasion of any diminution of Henry's privileges in the future. At the same time, in a dispute over the appointment of an abbot, Joscius sought justice from Louis VII.33 The ambiguity continued into the critical years of conflict between Capetian and Angevin. In the early years of his episcopate, Archbishop Bartholomew de Vendame leaned towards Louis VI1 and Philip Augustus, and then, in the late 1180s, his attitude changed. He was with Henry I1 in I 188 at Le Mans, and he buried the king in the following year. Tours itself was a primary target for Richard and Philip Augustus in their final struggle with Henry II, and in 1190 they reached formal agreement settling the respective rights which they and the abbot of St Martin's could claim in the city. Richard also came t o terms with BarthoIomew over long standing causes of dispute between the archbishops of Tours and the counts of Anjou. From that point on, Bartholomew was a close associate of Richard The clearest indication of firm Angevin control of Tours is to be found in the way in which the Capetians made use of the rivalry between the cathedral and the basilica of St Martin, and exploited minor opportunities to intervene in the city. tn the 1 150s, a brother of Louis VII was abbot of St Martin's, andin the early thirteenth century a son of Philip Augustus, Peter, was treasurer and held a prebend in St Martin's. There was a prebend known as the prebend of the count of Anjou which Philip Augustus gave t o St Martin's in 121 8.35 By small grants and confirmations, Louis VII and Philip Augustus maintained a constant association with Tours. Overall, these do not look like the activities of a lord who has homage, nor of a king with claims to patronage. They have the appearance of guerilla attacks on established usage, if not established right. A second archbishopric, this time in the north-west, promised much, though here 31 Bartholomew of Chinon, 1052; Ralph of Langcais, 1072; Hildebert de Iavardin, translated from Le Mans, 1125; Hugh de la Fert6,133; and Ikjubaud de Preuilly, 1147. 33 GC, xiv, 89. 32 GC, xiv, 82,84,86. sa Ztinemry of Richard I , 35, 36, 109-10, 126; Richard feared the dangers of espionage as the French king sought information about the movements of the Engliqh forces from churchmen in Tours. GC, xiv, 176; John Gillingham, Richard the Lionheart, London 1978, 127. 35 Catalogue des Actes de Phtlippe-Auguste, ed. L. Delisle, Paris 1856, reprint Brussels 1968, 1749,1794.

230

Anglo-Norman Studies V

Henry 11 was able to accomplish very little. The bishop of Do1 had claimed t o be a metropolitan since the ninth century.36 Gregory VII, hoping to encourage reform in Brittany, accorded the status of archbishop to Yves of DoI, and gave him his palliurn. There ensued a century of bad feeling as successive archbishops of Tours sought to quash this decision and to recall Do1 and the Breton church to its subservience to Tours. Hildebert of Lavardin moved suits at Rome against Archbishop Baldric in 1127 and Archbishop Geoffrey le Roux in 1132. He had greater success through the use of his own metropolitan authority in France. In 11 27 he convened a provincial council and, in open provocation, summoned it to meet at Nantes. Doubly affronted, Archbishop Baldric refused to attend. The legislation issued at Nantes was not political and the Breton bishops who attended the council were able t o give their assent to the promulgation of its statutes. At Tours, Hugh de la Fert6 revived the case in 1135, but the decision, delayed until 1144, went in favour of Dol. It was an important success, but it was thrown into jeopardy when Hugh le Roux, elected to Dol in 1 154, chose to be consecrated by the archbishop of Tours. The dispute already had a long history when, at this point, Henry I1 intervened, and secured from Adrian IV a confirmation of Dol's privileges and of the standing of its archbishop as metropolitan. A Breton church under local leadership offered great advantages to the Angevin king. Nantes, Vannes and perhaps Quirnper might be managed from a base in the Loire valley; Rennes, Do1 and St Malo were very close - uncomfortably close, from a Breton point of view - to the Norman border. St Brieuc, Trbguier and St Pot de U o n were still within the sphere of influence of local magnates. The unity of the Breton church might compensate for the political disunity of the county. Do1 was worth the king's attention. Archbishop Hugh was rejected by the Breton church, and at Le Mans, in the presence of the king and of two papal legates, the archbishop, now suffering from blindness, resigned his see. Under Henry 11's direct influence, the chapter of Dol, reinforced by Norman bishops, proceeded to elect Roger de Hommet as metropolitan. Thirty years of uncertainty were to be put aside, and clear definition and firm action were to open the way t o greater cohesion in Brittany. Henry'svictory wasspectacuIar but it proved to be very limited. Alexander I11 ordered Roger de Hommet to go to Tours for consecration, but he refused to do so. Neither he, nor his successors for the next forty years, would accept consecration on those terms. Rather than invite an immediate crisis, the matter was allowed to drag on, with some hint of action at the council of Avranches in 1172, and with a Formal enquiry inaugurated at Rome in 1176. Presumably Henry II did not realise how long the decision could be delayed; there is no reason to suppose that Alexander was deliberately devious. What is clear is that the intervening years were used to good advantage by Louis VII and Philip Augustus t o press the claimsof the archbishop of Tours and to denigrate the defenders of Dol. The decision did not come until 1199 when Innocent 111 finally quashed Dol's claims and the Breton church was once more made a dependency of Tours. The third archbishopric which Henry 11 plainly wished to secure lay always beyond his grasp. That was B ~ u r g e s .it~was ~ significant in three respects. It covered

s6 For a brief summary see Raymonde t:orevilIe, 'Royaumes, MBtropoIitaines et Conciles Provinciaux', Miscellanea del Centro di Studi Medioevali VKI, Milan 1974, 283-5, reprinted in Gouvernement et vie de I 'Eglise au Moyen-Age, London 1979. The earliest phase of the story has been discussed by Jttlia Smith, 'The Archbishopric of Dol and the Ecclesiasticdl Politics o f Ninth-Century Brittany', ReligionandNatio~lldenti@,Studiesin Church History, 18,59-70. 37 For Bourges see G. Devailly, Le Beny du Xe siecle jusqu'au milieu du XKIesit?cIe, Paris 1973;

Crown and Episcopacy under the Normans and Angevins

23 1

territory in Berry and Auvergne of which the duke of Aquitaine was overlord, or which Henry 11 and Richard had acquired by conquest. It included one bishopric of direct importance for the duke, L i o g e s , where the dukes of Aquitaine were crowned. In addition, the archbishop claimed authority as metropolitan over the provinces of Auch and Bordeaux. It was a particularly sensitive nerve centre, and it lay firmly within the territory of the king of France. Devailly has argued that Henry Il's ambitions were clear in the 1160s: to reunite Berry with Aquitaine and to take possession of B ~ u r g e s . ~CertainIy, * his am bition wasmade clear early in the seventies. Peter de la Chiitre, archbishop of Bourges, was a man of saintly reputation, and his death in f 171 was made the occasion for a bold stroke of royal policy. Henry claimed that, as he was dying, Archbishop Peter declared 'that this city of Bourges belongs to the duchy of Aquitaine and owes full right there'. He was said to have begged those around him, 'If ever the question arises between the king of France and the house of Poitiers, bear witness t o the Peter was never obviously a friend to Henry 11; he was consistently loyal t o Louis VII, and he gave firm support t o Becket. We may be dealing with a bold piece of propaganda. Whatever the strength of his cfaims, Henry was prepared to attempt a major coup. He marched into Berry; he set out from Loches, not taking the obvious route through Issoudun but moving to Montluc;on, with some sixty miles still t o travel along the line of the river Cher. Then he learned that Louis VII was in the threatened city and ready to defend it. His chance had gone; he and Louis made terns, and Bourges remained tantalisingly out of reach. In strategic terms, the city was always outside his range of effective manoeuvre. The centre of Angevin power in Berry was the lordship of the DBols family, with Its principal castle at Chsteauroux; there, Henry was secure. Issoudun, at one time a dependency of ChSiteauroux, was much more of an outpost. Henry and Richard could contest the castle with the Capetian king; they were more secure if they held it, but they were not seriously at a disadvantage if it passed out of their hands. The area of dispute, in which success might be won or lost, was here at Issoudun rather than further east at B o u r g e ~ . ~ That leads me to two points which I should like to make by way of conclusion. To use a modern phrase, what the Angevins most needed in the twelfth century, especially in the heartland of Anjou and northern Aquitaine, was a political solution to the problem of power. Henry I1 understood that clearly enough; John Gillingham has argued persuasively that Richard grasped that fact with the same sense of realism;41 and Philip Augustus needed no lessons when, in due course, his opportunity to intervene occurred. The balance between political, diplomatic and military activity was always critical, and increasingly the military factor was allowed t o become dominant. It promised quick results even though, in fact, it could only postpone the political answers on which stability must ultimately be based. The use of mercenaries, the long catalogue of campaigns and sieges, and above all the careless abandon with which Henry 11's sons were prepared t o raid and ravage in what was essentially their own patrimony, created havoc in the Angevin heartland. To control Louig de Lagger, 'La Primatie d'Aquitaine du VIIIe au X I V sikcles', Reme d'Histoirede6'EgEise de France, xxiii, 1937, 29-50, 38 Devailly, 404-6. 39 Devailly, 407. 40 Was that, perhaps, the explanation of Henry's move to Montluqon, which he had acquired about a year earlier; did he hope for success from a surprise attack from a different direction? 41 Richard the Lionheart, 1 , 70-98; the case is clearly established in John GiUingharn's paper on 'Richard 1 and Berengaria of Navarre', BIHR, 53, 1980, 157-73.

23 2

Anglo-Nomzan Studies V

bishoprics and to have influential figures as bishops became less and less important, and the relationship of duke and episcopate seemed to be a marginal issue. Once Henry 11 was removed from the scene - or, to be more precise, once Richard had left France for the Holy Land - another element had t o be taken into account: the frequent absence of the kingtduke left a vacuum in the Angevin territories. Richard, on crusade and in captivity in Germany, might have southern bishops with him, but that was a poor substitute for holding the ducal court regularly in Aquitaine. After leaving Poitou in 1206, John stayed away from France until his ill-fated campaign of 1214. A powerful element in formulating and publicising ducal policy was now lacking, and the bishops of Anjou and Aquitaine, eclipsed by military commanders, could only play a shadowy and ineffectual role. The inference is that they became essentially local figures working for their own interest. There is a strong case t o argue that their military potential was seriously and consistently underrated from the 1170s until the early thirteenth century. The Angevins and Capetians alike were primarily concerned with raising and paying armies, and then with capturing and hoIding the castles of their enemy of the m o n ~ e n t Castles . ~ ~ held by bishops were much undervalued, and the use whichmight be made of them was underestimated. The tenure and use of episcopal castles in France is a field in much need of careful study. M. Limouzin-Lamothe's study of the diocese of Limoges established that the bishops had castles at St-Junien, Limoges itself, Solignac, St-Ldonard-de-Noblat, and Eymoutiers, with a northern outpost at Razes, and with estates, though not castles, to the south at Uzerche, Objat and V i g n o l ~ It . ~ was ~ a compact network of castles which might have been a stabilising element. Elsewhere, there are hints of similar strength. In the eleventh century, the bishop of Poitiers had a major castle at Chauvigny, a cmciaI sitelater to be exploited by secular lords. The bishop of Cahors controlled a sector of the valley of the Lot with a series of fortified sites as far west as Puy 1'Eveque. One diocese which demonstrates very clearly the military potential of the bishop is Auxerre, lying firmly within Capetian territory. There, the Lives of the bishops, used t o good advantage by Dr Bouchard, make it possible not only to identify the episcopal castles but t o date developments in the building and tenure of these fortification^.^^ We have to wait for the thirteenth century before the full value of such a network of casttes was realised. A new approach can be seen in the reign of Philip Augustus. In his early years, he was concerned to strengthen the political control of the archbishop of Lyon, to insist on feudal service from Reims, to keep a watching brief on the tenure of the castle of the bishop of Paris at Tournau (and of Ch3teauneufSt-Denis, or Chdteau-sur-Epte, once held by the abbey of St Denis). He handed over 42 The study of mercenary armies has advanced a long way from Edouard Audouin's Essaisur L'Amee Royale au temps de Phitippe Auguste, Paris 19 1 3 , but the emphasis is stilt on the mobile, professional force which gave the Angevins the advantage until Philip Augustus matched their resources. In the central core of his Richard the Lionheart, John Gillingham has sharpened discussion of the importance of sieges in the conflict. 43 R. L~mouzin-Lamothe,Le Diocese de Limoges des originesa la fin d u Moyen Age, Paris 195 1 ; see especially, 76-8. One of the few technical studies of the castles of a single bishopric is H. L, Janssen, 'The castles of the bishop of Urrecht and their function in the political and administrative development of the bishopric', Chdteau Gaillard, viii, 1977, 135-57. Robert Hajdu hasdiscussed the changing pattern of control of the castles of Poitou, but he does not raise the question of episcopal influence in this context, 'Casttcs, castellans and the structure of politics in Poitou, 1152-1 271', Journalof Medieval History, 4 , 1 9 7 4 , 2 7 4 4 44 Constance B. Bouchard, Spirituality and Adminishmfion: 7Re Role of the Bishop in TwelfthCentury Auxerre, Medieval Academy of America 1979.

Crown and Episcopacy under the Normans and Angoins

233

the castle of Formerie to the bishop of Beauvais, and safeguarded the rights of the bishop of Angers when he disposed of the castles of Brissac and Chemil16.45 The bishoprics of Clermont and Le Puy suggest a change to a more aggressive policy. In 1205, the castle of Vertaizon was adjudged to the bishop of Clermont ;within three years he had the castle and fief of Mauzun, largely on the initiative of the count of Clermont, and in 121 2 and 1214, in two separate grants, Philip Augustus gave him another eight castles. The power of the bishop of LE Puy was enhanced in the same way between 121 2 and 1219, with grants of castles at Arzon, Chalenqon, RocheBacon, Chapteuil and Glavenas, and with permission to extend and use his castle at C h a r b ~ n i e r Hints . ~ ~ pointing in the same direction may be found in the duchy of Gascony. Jacques Gardelles could trace documentary evidence relating t o 1 10 castles for the period before 1200; for the thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries he could discuss almost 1000 castles.47 The tenurial problenls are much more complex, but even so, it is clear that the power of the archbishop of Bordeaux was built up as a matter of policy, and that this was being done in the early decadesof the thirteenth century. His lordships and castles included Belds, Bigaroque, Couze and LamotheMontravel; castles, lordships and rights of regalia made the archbishop a significant figure in the politics of the duchy. We are watching a new policy emerging and gaining momentum. My intention has been t o look for changing patterns in the relationship of crown and episcopacy under the Normans and Angevins. Whether we attempt a statistical approach, as I think we may for England and Normandy, or examine individual episodes and crises, as we must do for Anjou and Aquitaine; whether we impose an arbitrary barrier at the end of John's reign or look forward to the conditions of the thirteenth century; we are dealing with a fluid and flexible pattern. Royal and ducal policy, the type of bishops appointed, the value of the man, his estates, and his castles: a11 these are variable factors. Even as we seek to generalise, we find that a new game is being set up - 'Change and decay in all around I see'? Well, change certainly: and that in itself is fascination enough.

45 Catalogue desdctes de Philippe-Auguste, 783, 894, 1043, 1056, X 207-8, 1308. 46 Catalogue des Actes de Phitfppe-Auguste, 1830, 1831,1933-5. 47 Jacques Gardelles, Les Chciteaux du Moyen Age dans la France du Sud-Quest: la Gascogne

angluisede 1 2 1 6 d 1327,Geneva 1972,18,96,100,127,152.