The Haskins Society Journal Studies in Medieval History: Volume 1

THE HASKINS SOCIETY JOURNAL STUDIES IN MEDIEVAL HISTORY

This page intentionally left blank

THE RASKINS SOCIETY JOURNAL STUDIES IN MEDIEVAL HISTORY EDITED BY ROBERT B. PATTERSON

VOLUME 1 1989

THE HAMBLEDON PRESS LONDON AND RONCEVERTE

Published by The Hambledon Press, 1989 102 Gloucester Avenue, London NW1 8HX (U.K.) 309 Greenbrier Avenue, Ronceverte WV 24970 (U.S.A.) ISBN1 85285031 0 © The Contributors 1989

A description of this title is available from the British Library and the Library of Congress British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data The Haskins Society journal: studies in medieval history. - Vol. 1 1. England, 1066-1399 2. France, 987-1589 I. Haskins Society 942.02 ISBN As Serial

Printed on acid-free paper and bound in Great Britain by The Camelot Press, Southampton

Contents

Editor's Introduction Abbreviations 1 Painter's King John — Forty Years On An Address to the Raskins Society Conference, 1988 W.L. Warren 2 'Potius Rex quam esse Dux putabatur': Some Observations concerning Ademar of Chabannes* Panegyric on Duke William the Great Bernard S. Bachrach 3 The Sale of Land and the Economics of Power in Early England: Problems and Possibilities James Campbell 4 The Encomium Emmae Regime: A 'Political Pamphlet' of the Eleventh Century? Felice Lifshitz 5 William Bona Anima, Abbot of St. Stephen's of Caen, 1070-79 David S. Spear 6 Images of Queenship in the High Middle Ages Lois L. Huneycutt 1 Aquitanians and Flemings in the Refoundation of Bardney Abbey (Lincolnshire) in the Later Eleventh Century George Beech 8 Ailred of Rievaulx and Walter Espec Derek Baker 9 The Battle Rhetoric of Aelred of Rievaulx John Bliese

ix xiii 1

11

23

39

51

61 73

91 99

10

11 12

13

14

15

Robert Fitz Harding of Bristol: Profile of an Early Angevin Burgess-Baron Patrician and his Family's Urban Involvement Robert B. Patterson Castle Guard and the Castlery of Clun Frederick C. Suppe Counting Those Who Count: A ComputerAssisted Analysis of Charter Witness-Lists and the Itinerant Court in the First Year of the Reign of King Richard I Thomas K. Keefe The Mandeville Inheritance, 1189-1236: Its Legal, Political, and Social Context Ralph V. Turner Intertwined Careers: Hubert de Burgh and Peter des Roches Fred A. Cazel, Jr. French Chivalry Revisited: The Guillaume de Dole of Jean Renart John W. Baldwin

109

123 135

147

173

183

The Haskins Society Officers and Directors

Officerss. President: C. Warren Hollister, University of California, Santa Barbara Vice-President: Ralph V. Turner, Florida State University Conference Director: Sally N. Vaughn, University of Houston Executive Secretary: Victoria Chandler, Georgia College Treasurer: Leah Shopkow, Indiana University Newsletter Editor: David Spear, Furman University Journal Editor: Robert B. Patterson, University of South Carolina

Directors Bernard S. Bachrach, University of Minnesota Edward J. Kealey, College of the Holy Cross Robert B. Patterson, University of South Carolina Eleanor Searle, California Institute of Technology The Haskins Society Journal is produced with financial support and sponsorship of the Department of History, University of South Carolina. Major funding for the production and publication is provided by the University of South Carolina.

This page intentionally left blank

Editor's Introduction

The Charles Homer Haskins Society began a mere seven years ago. Former students of Prof. C. Warren Hollister of the University of California, Santa Barbara, invited students of the late Prof. Sidney Painter of the Johns Hopkins University to 'incorporate', to provide a forum in the United States for the presentation and discussion of their common research interests in the Viking, Anglo-Saxon, Anglo-Norman, and Angevin periods of English history. The Society's name was chosen to honor the great Harvard medievalist who had contributed so significantly to the topical area of the group's interest and to medieval studies in general. Since 1982 the Society has undergone rapid development. Membership has expanded from the original nucleus and has become an international network of contributing scholars and an affiliate of the American Historical Association. The Society holds an international conference in conjunction with its annual meeting, sponsors sessions at other major historical meetings, and provides members with a quarterly newsletter, The Anglo-Norman Anonymous. Given the Society's growth and the volume of papers members produce as participants in various meetings, the Council decided in 1987 to publish a journal to include many of these papers, if a sympathetic institutional sponsor could be found. The University of South Carolina responded, making possible the present volume. The present state of the Society's development could not have been reached without financial assistance from other academic sponsors: Appalachian State University, Furman University, the University of California, Santa Barbara, and especially the University of Houston. By underwriting the cost of the Society's annual conferences, Houston has provided the needed forum for the presentation of research and the single most important source of the papers the Journal will publish. Individuals also have played significant roles in this progress: the Society's first President, Prof. C. Warren Hollister, especially; the first Vice-President, Prof. Thomas K. Keefe; Prof. Sally N. Vaughn, who has organized the annual meetings and served as program Chair; Prof. David S. Spear, the Newsletter editor; and early members of the Council, Profs. Bernard S. Bachrach, James W. Alexander, Victoria Chandler, Charlotte Newman Goldy and Edward J. Kealey. Prof. Josiah C. Russell began a production fund for the Journal through a generous contribution. In the final analysis, however, the University of South Carolina and the

x

Haskins Society Journal

Department of History there have made the production of the Journal possible - in the case of the University, by funding the Journal's production costs, including its two-year development process; in the case of the Department, by making available equipment, materials and various financial allowances associated with my editorial function. The interest and support of the President of the University, Dr. James B. Holderman, has been absolutely crucial in all of this; but the level of funding needed for this venture could not have been sustained without the support of several who have served as Provosts of the University since 1987: Drs. Francis T. Borkowski, Chester W. Bain and presently Arthur K. Smith. Prof. Thomas L. Connelly, Chairman of the Department of History, provided the necessary conditions of local sponsorship of my editorial office with the concurrence of Dean of the College of Humanities and Social Sciences, Dr. Carol McGinnis Kay. The production process of the Journal has benefited from the advice of my colleague, Res. Prof. David R. Chesnutt, and Mr. Martin Sheppard of the Hambledon Press, and from the assistance of Mrs. Polly Brown, the History Department's Computer Resource Information Coordinator. The tireless and dedicated efforts of my editorial assistant, Mr. Timothy D. Tebalt, is responsible for the effectiveness of my editorial work. HSJ has been planned as an annual. Publication will normally occur at the end of each calendar year and issues as a rule will consist of a selection of papers presented by the Society's members at the annual meeting and at sponsored sessions of other societies from the previous year. On occasion however the Editor may solicit manuscripts. This initial volume is dedicated to the great American medievalist, the late Prof. Sidney Painter. With a view to this, the annual meeting of 1988 arid a session of the 1988 annual meeting of the American Historical Association were devoted to topics in which Prof. Painter was interested and many of the papers presented were by his former students. The first essay, a dinner-address by a noted biographer of King John, discusses the work of Prof. Painter within the context of his treatment of King John's reign. Others deal with the people, politics, institutions and ethos of the world Painter loved; several employ methodologies which he would have considered novel. With the exception of the paper on Robert Fitz Harding (no. 10), all others were delivered at the Seventh International Conference of the Society held at the University of Houston, November 11-13, 1988; the Fitz Harding paper was read at the Annual Meeting of the American Historical Association at a Societysponsored session in December 1988. Prof. Painter is a most appropriate scholar to memorialize in this inaugural volume, for his contributions to the Haskins Society's interests were substantial. Painter's numerous publications ranged from the Round and Stentonlike essay cameos of individual baronial families such as the Lusignans, a study of the factor of family in the feudal system, monographic treatments of baronial types, William Marshal and Peter of Dreux, to accounts of their

Editor's Introduction

xi

exploits before and during the crusades. It was Prof. Painter who taught us to appreciate another side of 'the first century of English feudalism' in his description of barons as landlords and as feudal entrepreneurs exploiting an array of feudal and seignorial fiscal resources in his Studies in the History of the English Feudal Barony, my personal favorite among his books. Sprinkled throughout his works are comments on the ethos of feudal aristocracy, a subject he described in some detail in his French Chivalry. Prof. Painter excelled as a careful empiricist, constructing his studies from a wide range of literary sources and public records. An excellent illustration of this can be found in his use of the Pipe Rolls in his discussion of English baronial incomes. He had a genius for discovering coherent motivational patterns behind the variously recorded doings of his subjects. His tales of baronial gesta were never mere catalogues of logically arranged deeds. Much of Prof. Painter's attractiveness as a writer - I would wager at times, his persuasiveness - and his effectiveness as a classroom lecturer was due to his amazing ability to simplify concepts and to present them in marvelously turned phrases seasoned with dashes of his patented dry wit. Thoroughly charmed Hopkins graduate students in my day used to collect cherished samplings from his lectures and writings we called 'Painterisms.' There were those barbarian invaders of western Europe who settled down with 'vigorous minded nuns.' Then there was the 'monk ... whose gratitude [to an aristocratic patron] was stronger than his Latin.' Propaganda poetry written against the Queen Regent of France, Blanche of Castile, was 'musically slung mud.' Prof. Painter's humor always warmed in discussing the aristocratic female. Commenting on romance literature he wrote, 'Courtly or romantic love remained a pleasant literary conceit except for a few gay ladies who allowed their imagination to overcome their judgment.' In commenting on the feudal right of rebellion, he could challenge the political consciences of his Anglo-American contemporaries with the jab, 'Englishmen and Americans have always had a weakness for the right of rebellion against oppression when practised by them instead of against them.' Prof. Painter was the recipient of many academic honors during his career. He also compiled a record of impressive and unselfish service to the historical profession and to his university. He was a staunch defender of academic freedom against McCarthyism. Much of this career record can be gleaned from the sensitive obituary notice which appeared in the July 1960 issue of Speculum and in the vita which can be found in the best literary memorial to him to date, a collection of his essays edited by Prof. Fred A. Cazel, Jr. entitled Feudalism and Liberty (Baltimore, 1961). As a former student of Sidney Painter, one of the 'charmed,' it is my privilege to dedicate this volume to his memory. The University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, May 24, 1989

Abbreviations

Ademar

A-NS Ann. Mon. BF

Cat. Chart. Rolls Cal. Pat. Rolls Chron. Maj. CR

EHR Journ. Med. Hist. Mem. Roll

Mon. Angl.

MS(S). n.s. Orderic P.R.S. RBE

R.S.

Ademar de Chabannes, Chronique, ed. J. Chavanon (Paris, 1897). Anglo-Norman Studies Annales Monastic!, ed. H.R. Luard, 5 vols. (London, 1864-69). Liber Feodorum. The Book of Fees, ed. C. Maxwell Lyte, 3 vols. (London, 1920-31). Calendar of the Charter Rolls, Public Record Office, 6 vols. (London, 1903-27). Calendar of Patent Rolls, Public Record Office, 6 vols. (London, 1901-13). Matthew Paris, Chronica Majora, ed. H.R. Luard, 7 vols. (London, 1872-84). Close Rolls, Public Record Office, 14 vols. (London, 1902-38). English Historical Review Journal of Medieval History Memoranda Roll 14 Henry ///, Pipe Roll Society, n.s. 31, ed. Chalfant Robinson (London, 1933). Memoranda Roll 1 John, Pipe Roll Society, n.s. 21, ed. H.G. Richardson (London, 1943). Memoranda Roll 10 John, Pipe Roll Society, n.s. 31, ed. R. Allen Brown (London, 1957). William Dugdale, Monasticon Anglicanum, eds. John Caley, et. al. 6 vols. in 8 (London, 181730). Manuscript(s) new series The Ecclesiastical History of Orderic Vitalis, ed. Marjorie Chibnall, 6 vols. (Oxford, 1969-80). Pipe Roll Society Red Book of the Exchequer, ed. Hubert Hall, 3 vols. (London, 1896). Rolls Series

1 Painter's King John - Forty Years On An Address to the Haskins Society Conference, 1988 W.L. Warren

When I was a young assistant lecturer - it must have been about 1958 Professor Harry Rothwell asked me what I was working on. I replied that I was writing a book on King John. 'But what,' he said, 'can you possibly say about King John that Sidney Painter has not said already?' I hastened to explain that I was not an expert on the period (having been trained as a fourteenth-century ecclesiastical historian), and did not expect to contradict, correct, or improve upon Painter; but that my purpose was to interpret him to a wider public. For a young lecturer to propose to 'interpret' Sidney Painter's work must have sounded very presumptuous, but Harry Rothwell was a kindly man and did not press the point. If pressed I would have said that Painter's reappraisal of the reign of King John deserved the attention of a wider public reared on a malign myth, but that his book was not readily accessible to the general reader. It is not that his book is in any way difficult to read; it is indeed a model of lucidity (I doubt if Painter ever wrote an opaque sentence); but it does not offer a connected narrative of the reign. It jumps about chronologically. It is a series of linked studies of key aspects of the reign ('The King's Servants,' 'The Royal Administration,' 'King or Tyrant,' 'The Seeds of Revolt'). It is a work of scholarship written primarily for other professional historians; and as the author says in the Preface, 'deals with the subjects that interest him the most.' 1 It is not perhaps easy today to appreciate just how remarkable Sidney Painter's book on King John's reign seemed at the time of its publication in 1949. It was remarkable not so much in offering a dramatically new interpretation as in the author's modus operandi. For a generation previously historians had been questioning and qualifying the Victorian view of the reign as evil made manifest. 2 Many of Painter's conclusions were already well signposted. What is, however, striking and singularly impressive about Painter's book is that he does not rest his argument upon the findings of other authorities (except on some technical points); he comes to the reign completely 1

Sidney Painter, The Reign of King John (Baltimore, 1949). For a convenient review, see C. Warren Hollister, 'King John and the Historians,' Journal of British Studies 1 (1961): 1-19. 2

2

Haskins Society Journal

fresh, apparently unencumbered with assumptions and presuppositions, resting his arguments almost entirely upon contemporary administrative records. He does not often cite chronicles; and when he does it is usually to demonstrate their unreliability. To anyone familiar with the story of John's reign, the magisterial quality of Painter's book is demonstrated in what he chooses to leave out. He is writing, it would seem, a particularly pure form of history, reliable, and, in so far as the surviving records will allow, definitive. In writing almost exclusively from the administrative record, he offers us a unique study of the reign. It cannot be done for any earlier reign, for it was only made possible by the decision in 1199 to enroll chancery documents systematically. It is for John's reign a practicable approach, for the reign was comparatively short and the whole of the surviving administrative records can be absorbed without indigestion. Mastering the voluminous administrative records of the next and much longer reign of Henry III may well seem a superhuman task. The importance of doing so is beyond question, but it is having to be undertaken piecemeal by historians working on one or other facet of it. So whatever we may now say about Painter's interpretation of the reign, his book retains its unique historiographical importance as a practical demonstration of a particular methodology. As such it is a useful casebook for an assessment of the strengths and weaknesses, the advantages and hazards of the method. Painter's book splendidly demonstrates the value of it in cutting through thickets of misunderstanding and establishing a firm footing in secure information; but it does not persuade me that by itself it improves our understanding sufficiently to answer the questions which begin with the word 'why?' My objection is not to the method itself, but to an exclusive reliance on administrative record. I wrote a different kind of book about King John because I thought it necessary to put the chronicle accounts back in.3 Painter gives us the hard facts of the real situation - what we may call the actual; but the actual is only part of the equation of historical understanding. The other part is the perceived. What people at the time believed to be true, however mistakenly, is itself part of the historical situation with which the historian has to deal. In this respect the chronicles are indispensable; their inaccuracies, exaggerations, and prejudices are essential evidence. We should not venture any criticism of Painter's work on King John without reminding ourselves that he gave us, before his regrettably early death, only one volume of a projected two-volume study of the reign. What we have is what he describes as a 'political and administrative history.' What he intended was a further volume on 'England in the Reign of King John,' in which he proposed to include 'military and naval institutions and the common law.' Moreover, we should note that he says in his Preface: 'I have made no attempt in this book to deal with King John's overseas domains, the lordship of Ireland and his continental fiefs because I believe they have been treated adequately 3 W.L. Warren, King John, 1st ed. (London and New York, 1961; 3rd ed. London, Berkeley, and Los Angeles, 1978).

Painter's King John - Forty Years On

3

by other historians.' 4 I intend to confine myself, as Painter did, to the political and administrative history of the reign, and more particularly to what I might call 'the politics of administration.' Within these limits what would I now say that Painter has not said already? It now seems to me that Painter was mistaken in excluding from consideration John's lordship of Ireland, though it was perhaps understandable at the time. I put Ireland into my book; but I accepted Painter's assumption that the topic had already been adequately treated, and based myself on the accepted authorities. It was only much later that I came to realize (using Painter's method of reliance on the administrative records) that the accepted authorities were not only inadequate but seriously misleading. Properly understood, John's dealings with his lordship of Ireland strongly reinforce Painter's contention that he was an intelligent and skillful ruler; but they also prompt us to reflect more deeply on the general problem of John's relations with his barons. I have set out my revised version elsewhere, and do not propose to recount it here except to identify some salient points, in order to pick up a line of argument which I wish to pursue further. 5 In the early years of his reign, particularly during the defense of Normandy, John was heavily dependent upon the support of barons who had major holdings in Ireland as well as in Normandy and Wales, and to a lesser extent in England. They were William Marshal, William de Briouze, and the Lacy brothers, Walter and Hugh. However, after 1206 King John fell out with them. Painter supposed that the reason was John's jealousy of anyone who became too powerful; but the real reason was a fundamental disagreement over royal policy in Ireland. The barons of Ireland were bent upon the intensive exploitation of their Irish estates, without regard to the interests or customary rights of the Irish. John tried to restrain them in defense of a carefully cultivated policy of reassuring the Irish that they were to be partners in and not victims of his lordship. In 1208 the king appointed one of his ablest adminstrators, John de Gray, to be justiciar in Ireland. When the king was advised that the situation was getting out of hand, he mounted a major campaign and in 1210 took an army through the length of Ireland. It was brilliantly conducted and crushingly successful (which we should remember when assessing John as a military commander). It was directed entirely against the chief barons and was actively supported by the Irish. John was deeply respected in Ireland, much more so than he was to be in England. The upshot of his campaign was that William de Briouze was deprived of the lordship of Limerick and hounded into exile, the lordship of Meath was taken from Walter de Lacy, and the lordship of Ulster

4

All the quotations are from Painter, King John, vii. W.L. Warren, 'The Historian as 'Private Eye',' in Historical Studies 9, ed. J. Barry (Belfast, 1974), 1-18; 'John in Ireland in 1185,' in Essays Presented to Michael Roberts, ed. J. Bossy and P.J. Jupp (Belfast, 1976), 11-23; 'King John and Ireland,' in England and Ireland in the Later Middle Ages, ed. J. Lydon (Dublin, 1981). 5

4

Haskins Society Journal

from Hugh de Lacy. William Marshal only just avoided a similar fate, and prudently surrendered his charters for the lordship of Leinster. Yet, throughout the Magna Carta crisis and the civil war in England, John could count on the support of the leading barons in Ireland. Indeed the support of barons with extensive estates in both Ireland and Wales during the civil war tipped the balance to the king's advantage, as Painter recognized.6 It is usual to attribute this to the influence of the honorably loyal William Marshal, but I am skeptical about this as a sufficient explanation. Consider instead the much more significant case of Walter de Lacy. He had for many years been denied his inheritance of Meath by John as lord of Ireland. Even after he had secured it from King Richard, John had denied him control of the important seaport of Drogheda. From the time of King John's campaign in Ireland of 1210 until the eve of the Magna Carta crisis, the lordship of Meath had been taken from him and administered by the king's agents. His wife was the daughter of William de Briouze, and it was her mother and brother who were starved to death in Windsor castle as the king's prisoners. By all the criteria which Painter used to explain the attitudes of the barons, Walter de Lacy should have been a leader of the rebels in 1215, but on the contrary he stood by the king throughout his last years and was named by John as one of the executors of his testament. The explanation for this puzzling state of affairs is that John struck a bargain with the key men in Ireland for their support. As the storm clouds gathered in England after 1212, he had changed tack in Ireland and relaxed the royal policy. John de Gray was replaced as justiciar by Henry of London who became notorious for his identification with settler interests. Why was this so important to the barons of Ireland - so important that they could overlook personal injuries and feelings? The answer lies in the loss of Normandy. It was in the more intensive exploitation of their Irish estates that the barons who had an opportunity to do so sought compensation for the loss of their estates in Normandy. But what about the rest of the barons who did not have that kind of opportunity to compensate themselves? The loss of Normandy and its consequences has not lacked for commentators. Painter made it a cornerstone of his argument in The Reign of King John. J.C. Holt devotes an illuminating chapter to it in The Northerners.1 But the commentaries fasten upon the consequences for the king and for administrative policy. No one has yet followed up the leads given by P.M. Powicke as long ago as 1913 to ask what were the practical consequences for those of the king's subjects whose estates in Normandy were confiscated by the French crown.8 My guess is that the quest for compensation generally among the barons lay behind the increasing demands for concessions, favors, and privileges from King John; and their denial to the less favored was, I suggest, one of the causes of the eventual civil war. 6

Painter, King John, 278. Ibid., 227ff.; J.C. Holt, The Northerners: A Study in the Reign of King John (Oxford, 1961), chapter 9. 8 P.M. Powicke, The Loss of Normandy, 1189-1204 (Manchester, 1913). 7

Painter's Kiny John - Forty Years On

5

The management of royal patronage was crucial to the relations of king and barons. It was, I think, Painter who first recognized this as a staple of the relationship and not simply as a means of buying support.9 As J.C. Holt has put it: 'medieval government depended for its stability on an acceptable distribution of office and influence among the great men of the realm.' 10 The exercise of royal patronage has in recent years attracted much attention; but there are still unanswered questions about its 'distribution.' Who arranged it? Who adjusted the balance to preserve 'stability'? And who was to do it in a situation of absentee kings, as the Angevins were for much of the time? This last question points to the answer. It had to be the justiciar. The management of patronage must have been one of his essential but least observable functions. There were doubtless checks upon the justiciar's exercise of patronage, such as an advisory group of royal ministers to vet proposals, including the chancellor, whose control of the royal seal gave him a power of veto; but it can hardly be doubted that the justiciar was the indispensable intermediary between the great men and the crown. He was out and about in the realm on the eyres, he frequently conferred with the barons, he was to be found presiding at the Exchequer, or sitting with other justices on the Bench. He more than any other of the king's ministers was the one with a finger on the pulse of the body politic. He had to be a special kind of man: to be successful he had to be someone who carried weight with the barons, but was not to be overawed by them. Typically the justiciar was someone raised to baronial status and sharing the interests and concerns of the baronial class, but dependent for both influence and prospects upon the king's trust. The management of the realm through a justiciar only worked successfully when there was a king prepared to act as referee, either to guarantee the justiciar's decisions or to overturn them. Note how rule by a justiciar falters, and how stability lapses into faction struggles when there was no access to an effective king, as in the absence of King Richard on crusade and in captivity, or during the minority of King Henry III. With the justiciar as intermediary and as the natural focus of resentment, the crown could maintain a judicious detachment. We may recall, for example, how Ranulf de Glanville had a young man condemned to death for making off with an heiress whom he coveted for one of his cronies, but was overruled by King Henry II. 1 1 King John was not content to be a referee; he wanted also to be the fixer and manipulator. 'By God's feet, now at last I am king and lord of England': that is what Matthew Paris would have us believe John said on hearing of the death of his chancellor, Hubert Walter, and also on the death of his justiciar,

9 Especially in what seems to me to be Painter's best work, Studies in the History of the English Feudal Barony (Baltimore, 1943). 10 J.C. Holt, King John (Historical Association pamphlet; London, 1963), 26. 11 W.L. Warren, Henry II (London, Berkeley, and Los Angeles, 1973), 554.

6

Haskins Society Journal

Geoffrey Fitz Peter.12 Unreliable though Paris may be, there are grounds for believing that the words he invented represented a genuine sentiment in King John. Painter says that it was in John's nature to be jealous of powerful and influential officials; but we may suspect that the underlying reason was the obstruction that powerful officials represented to the king's desire to take personal control of government. For some time before his death, Geoffrey Fitz Peter's function had in effect been reduced from that of justiciar to that of 'chief justice'; the Bench had been brought under close royal supervision and required to itinerate with the royal household; and the king's personal aides had been put into the Chancery and Exchequer. 13 On Fitz Peter's death John replaced him with Peter des Roches, a member of his household and a Poitevin, adept for John's purposes but an 'outsider' and the 'wrong' kind of man from the baronial point of view. Ralf of Coggeshall, a contemporary chronicler, reports that the magnates grumbled about the appointment; the 'Annals of Waverley' say that its purpose was to subject the barons to the king's will. 14 'John,' says J.C. Holt, 'was not just the power behind the administrative machine. He was often the machine itself.' 15 'Speak with the king,' says a note on the Exchequer's Memoranda Roll, 'about the 20 marks which were demanded from Robert of Creake for having right concerning a manor. The sheriff says that the lord king has prohibited him from proceeding.' 16 It has to be said that one of the least satisfying aspects of Painter's book is his treatment of Magna Carta. Of course, we have to acknowledge that the publication of J.C. Holt's book on Magna Carta in 1965 transformed the way we approach the Charter and vastly broadened the context in which we assess it, so that all earlier work appears in consequence to be less than satisfactory. 17 Even allowing for that, Painter's commentary was even in its own day shallow and somewhat old-fashioned. I suspect that he recognized that he could not avoid surveying it, but did not give much thought to it. It is indicative that he devoted as much space to analyzing the composition of the baronial party upon which he had something new to contribute. His division of Magna Carta into 'feudal,' 'administrative,' 'judicial,' and 'general' clauses obscures its essential purpose. There is a central issue behind almost all its provisions, whether they concern reliefs, marriage and wardship, amercements, purveyance, the forest, unwarranted prosecution, or the denial of judicial remedy. That central issue may be expressed in no more than two words. Those two words are: executive privilege.

12

Matthew Paris, Historia Anglorum, ed. F. Madden, R.S., 3 vols. (London, 1866-69), 2: 104; Chron. Maj., 2: 559. 13 Cf. F. West, The Justiciar ship in England, 1066-1232 (Cambridge, 1966), chapter 5. 14 Radulphi de Coggeshall Chronicon Anglicanum, ed. J. Stevenson, R.S. (London, 1875), 168; Ann. Mon.,2: 281. 15 Holt, The Northerners, 145. 16 Mem. Roll 10 John, 58. 17 J.C. Holt, Magna Carta (Cambridge, 1965).

Painter's King John - Forty Years On

1

This phrase, 'executive privilege,' is not to be found in any book on Magna Carta, and I have not invented it. I first encountered it in what came to be known as the Watergate hearings. President Nixon invoked executive privilege as a defense against accusations that his administration had acted improperly. The United States Supreme Court ruled unanimously that although executive privilege is a valid doctrine warranted by constitutional history it cannot prevail against the rule of law. The first article in the impeachment proceedings against President Nixon was on the obstruction of justice; the second article was about the abuse of power. These, it is interesting to observe, are also the opening provisions of the so-called 'Unknown' charter which preceded the formulation of Magna Carta in 1215.18 We may reasonably suspect that neither King John nor President Nixon ever really appreciated the force of the case against them or recognized wrongdoing. To both of them, it would seem, what was expedient was right - when it had the sanction of their office. 'Surely,' said John, revealingly, 'it is only reasonable that we should do better by those who are for us than those who are against us.' 19 The careers of both men are remarkably similar. Both came from behind, starting as improbable aspirants to supreme office. Both had to claw their way to the top, acquiring in the process unsavory reputations among people who mattered. Both were tainted by early failure: John in Ireland and Richard Nixon in California. By the time they reached the top, both had acquired considerable experience in administration and in political in-fighting. Both brought to the task of ruling a high degree of personal ability and intelligence, though this was not generally recognized and was certainly not the reason for their appointment. Both found themselves with a very difficult inheritance, caught up in wars which they were expected to win, but which, we may say in hindsight, were probably unwinnable. Yet both tackled the awkward inheritance manfully without shuffling off the problems as the fault of their predecessors. Both achieved diplomatic triumphs, which, given their perceived attitudes, were highly unlikely and which certainly no one could have predicted: Nixon's moves toward detente with the Soviet Union and the opening of relations with Communist China, and King John's turning around of Pope Innocent III. Yet for all the competence and boldness one cannot read of their careers without seeing that they were heading for political disaster, not because they were doomed to it, nor because, as both fervently believed, they were the victims of disloyal conspiracy, but because both brought it upon themselves willfully and inexorably. In both cases the culmination was similar: the Magna Carta crisis was a form of impeachment. The similarities go further than the progress of their careers. Both behaved in ways which deny them our sympathy (such as the 'blacklist' of the disfavored who could be hounded by administrative methods, whether by

18

Ibid., 302-03; English Historical Documents, ed. Harry Rothwell (London, 1975) 3: 310. ' Rotuli Litter-arum Clausarum, 1204-27, ed. T.D. Hardy, 2 vols. (London, 1833) 1:81.

19

8

Haskins Society Journal

Exchequer process or the Internal Revenue Service), even though we have to acknowledge that both were confronted by an opposition that could be unreasonable and violent. We might well imagine someone remarking of King John: 'Would you buy a secondhand widow from this man?' Both were the victims of malicious accusations which some of the 'media' wove into portraits of evil incarnate. Neither was allowed to redeem a reputation for past 'unrighteousness' in pursuit of their careerist ambitions: John for having betrayed his father and brother in their hour of need, and Richard Nixon for the prosecution of Alger Hiss. Both had to endure the continuing 'disdain of the Establishment' and lashed out against it. The 'disdain of the Establishment' is a quotation from the memoirs of Henry Kissinger.20 When reading The White House Years and Years of Upheaval I frequently found myself with the feeling of having been there before. The constant suspicion, distrust, and deviousness which characterized the Nixon White House permeated King John's administration. The 'tough' stance followed by sudden retreats was typical of both rulers; Nixon's alternation of moods, now boldly decisive, now lethargic, which Kissinger describes, calls to mind the evidence upon which Charles Petit-Dutaillis based his theory the King John suffered from cyclothymia. Even what Kissinger coyly calls 'the muscular language' (the 'expletive deleted' of the transcripts of the tape recordings) may be equated with what the chroniclers call John's blasphemous oaths: 'by God's feet' or 'by God's teeth.' 21 When Henry Kissinger speaks of 'the dogged desperation' with which President Nixon 'attacked his problems,' I am reminded of words I have myself used about King John. 22 One can see both of them convinced that they were 'beset by enemies,' and turning into reality a situation which they had first conjured up in their minds. As Kissinger puts it: 'The Nixon team drew the wagons around itself from the beginning: it was beseiged in mind long before it was beseiged in fact.' And hence, he goes on to say, it deprived itself of 'the sensitivity to respond to brewing domestic anxieties.' 23 That would be a plausible explanation of the failure of John's administration. Kissinger's portrayal of a Nixon ill-at-ease even with supporters and able to relax only with his cronies chimes with what we know about King John. Nixon's equivocal relationships with heads of departments, whom he had the power to dismiss, but could not bring himself to do so because they had an independent reputation and might rebuff him, have a parallel in John's relations with Hubert Walter and Geoffrey Fitz Peter. When Kissinger tells how President Nixon was able 'to dominate the government through White House assistants, harassing or by-passing the regular bureaucracy,' and of 'the trusted political aides who had been placed in every key department as a 20

H.A. Kissinger, The White House Years (London, 1979); Years of Upheaval (London, 1982). Contemporary views on King John are conveniently summarized in Holt, King John. 21 Kissinger, Years of Upheaval, 1182, and above, note 12. 22 Kissinger, Years of Upheaval, 1183; Warren, King John, 258. 23 Kissinger, White House Years, 20.

Painter's King John - Forty Years On

9

means of keeping an eye on the Cabinet member who was its titular head,' we may think of the similar way in which King John planted his trusted household servants, Peter des Roches, William Brewer, and Richard Marsh in the administrative services headed by the justiciar and the chancellor.24 Is all this pursuit of parallels helpful? Is it not perhaps more interesting than illuminating? We must indeed avoid falling into the trap of thinking that we can explain one mystery by reference to another, equally or even more mysterious ignotum per ignotius. But there is, I think, some illumination to be gained from the comparison. Having encountered a not dissimilar experience in our own lifetime we can find the attitudes of contemporaries to King John more intelligible, or at least we may more readily understand their reactions. Moreover, we may reassure ourselves that our uncertainty or bewilderment in assessing John is not simply because we do not know enough well enough to be able to trust our own judgment. Warren Hollister has accused my book of ambivalence: 'Warren,' he says, 'has difficulty making up his mind about John.' That is a just and perceptive comment; and I am grateful for his further observation that perhaps the problem is that ambivalence is inherent in the situation.25 Henry Kissinger confesses to being ambivalent about Richard Nixon. We may perhaps tentatively go further and relate Kissinger's analysis of Nixon's personality to what we may reasonably suspect but cannot expect to know for certain about John, and see them both as insecure, proud, and tortuously complex. Kissinger writes of the 'various personalities within' Richard Nixon. 'Now one now another personality predominated, creating an overall impression of menace, of torment, of unpredictability, and, in the final analysis, of enormous vulnerability.' 'His maddening aberrations grew out of a desperate conflict of discordant elements so that he was in truth the first victim of his own unharmonious nature.' Those are quotations from Henry Kissinger. 26 He 'remains a curiously twisted and enigmatic figure, a man who possessed great talents in certain areas but was afflicted with fatal shortcomings in others.' That is not Henry Kissinger, that is Warren Hollister on King John. 27 I never met Sidney Painter. I learn from those who knew him that his essential quality was the warmth of his interest in people as individuals. For him people in the past were brought to life by their foibles and fallibilities. It was speaking of their human frailties that would set his eyes twinkling and his moustache twitching. 28 I like to think that, had he lived, he would have relished the comparison I have been making. The Queen's University of Belfast 24

Kissinger, Years of Upheaval, 80; cf. West, Justiciarship, 178ff. Hollister, 'King John and the Historians,' 17-18. 26 Kissinger, Years of Upheaval, 1183, and p. 70. 27 Hollister, 'King John and the Historians,' 16. 28 See F.A. Cazel's Forward to Feudalism and Liberty: Articles and Addresses to Sidney Painter, ed. Fred A. Cazel, Jr. (Baltimore, 1961). 25

This page intentionally left blank

2

'Potius Rex quam esse Dux putabatur': Some Observations concerning Ademar of Chabannes' Panegyric on Duke William the Great Bernard S. Bachrach

Like Charles Homer Haskins, for whom this Society has been named, Sidney Painter also saw the English Channel as a link of Empire rather than as a barrier which separated the British Isles from the rest of the continent. While Haskins devoted his talents to the Norman Empire, a conceptualization of the Anglo-Norman regnum justly made famous by John Le Patourel,1 Painter, to whose memory this first volume of our Society's Journal is dedicated, concentrated his formidable energy and enthusiasm on the Angevin Empire which stretched from the borders of Scotland to the Pyrenees. I will focus here on the kingdom of Aquitaine, one of the two regna which comprised the Angevin Empire. And as Sidney Painter did many times, 2 I will examine the era of one of the duces of the Aquitanians during the period after the regnum Aquitanorum ceased to have its own rex but before it was integrated into the empire of Count Henry of Anjou. Henry obtained Aquitaine from his marriage to Eleanor after his father, Geoffrey, had given him Normandy which he had conquered. Henry was later to conquer England and complete the empire with the personal union of two kingdoms. 3

1

John Le Patourel, The Norman Empire (Oxford, 1976). Sidney Painter, Feudalism and Liberty: Articles and Addresses, ed. Fred A. Cazel, Jr. (Baltimore, 1961), chaps. 2 and 3 are good examples. 3 John Le Patourel, 'The Norman Conquest, 1066, 1106, 1154?' in A-NS 1 (1978): 103-120, 216-220. 4 All references to the Chronicon (unless otherwise indicated) are in Ademar. The MSS. problems inherent in dealing with Ademar's Chronicon are monumental and the magisterial doctoral dissertation of Richard Landes, The Making of a Medieval Historian: Ademar of Chabannes and Aquitaine at the turn of the Millennium,' (Ph.D. dissertation, Princeton University, 1984), may now be considered the basic introduction to these problems with a substantially complete bibliography. Further insights are to be gained from two articles by Landes: 'A Libellus from St. Martial of Limoges Written at the Time of Ademar of Chabannes: "Un faux a retardement," Scriptoria 37 (1983), 178-204; 'The Dynamics of Heresy and Reform in Limoges: A Study of Popular Participation in the 'Peace of God' (994-1033)', in Essays on the Peace of God: The Church and People in Eleventh-Century France, eds. Thomas Head and Richard Landes published by Historical Reflections!Reflexions Historiques 14 (1987), 467-511 (cited hereafter as Essays). 2

12

Haskins Society Journal

The depiction of William the Great by his admiring contemporary Ademar of Chabannes in his Chronicon4 has until recently served as the basis for our understanding of this important figure who was count of Poitou and duke of Aquitaine from 995 to 1030.5 The following passages provide a fair idea of how William is presented in Ademar's Chronicon: Duke of Aquitaine, indeed, count of Poitou, the already mentioned most glorious and most powerful William showed himself friendly to all, was very prudent in his counsel, great in his wisdom, most liberal in his giving of largess, a defender of the poor, a father to the monks, a builder of churches, ardent in his love of them, and above all a passionate supporter of the Holy Church of Rome. Since his youth he had accustomed himself to go to Rome, the seat of the apostles, and when he did not go to Rome he compensated for not doing so by taking the road to Santiago de Compostella in Galicia. Wherever he went he held public courts. As a result of the virtue and the grandeur that flowed from his honor, he is thought to be more a king than a duke ('potius rex quam esse dux putabatur'). Indeed, he not only so completely subjected all Aquitaine to his imperium that no man dared to raise a hand against him, but the king of France also found their relationship mutually favorable. Also indeed Alfonso, king of Spain, Sancho the king of Navarre, and no less a figure than King Cnut of Denmark and England had been won over to show him the highest favor. Thus each year they sent to him delegations with precious gifts and he in his turn sent back ambassadors with even more valuable presents. With the Emperor Henry he was very closely joined in friendship so that they honored each other in turn with gifts. Among the very many gifts that Duke William sent to the Emperor Henry was a sword made of the purest gold and on the sword was inscribed: HENRY, EMPEROR CAESAR AUGUSTUS. The popes welcomed William so reverently when he visited Rome that it was as if he were their Augustus and the entire Roman senate acclaimed him as its father. This duke had been instructed in letters since childhood and had a good knowledge of the Scriptures. He preserved many books in his palatio and when the occurrence of war left him away from home he devoted himself to reading and spent

5

This has now been revised by Bernard S. Bachrach, 'A Study in Feudal Politics: Relations between Fulk Nerra and William the Great, 995-1030,' Viator 1 (1976): 111-122; and ibid., Toward a Reappraisal of William the Great duke of Aquitaine (995-1030),' Journ. Med. Hist. 5 (1979): 11-21. The relative success of Bachrach's reassessment of William is implied by a former adherent of the earlier view, Daniel Callahan, 'The Peace of God and the Cult of the Saints in Aquitaine in the Tenth, and Eleventh Centuries,' in Essays, 448, n. 12, when he writes: 'Bernard Bachrach...is correct in attacking the traditional image of William as a powerful figure, the strongest political force of this period in France.' Then Callahan suggests that Bachrach 'goes too far and leaves us with almost a cipher who could not have functioned for over thirty years as a duke or held the esteem of so many contemporaries, e.g. Fulbert of Chartres.' Whether the esteem or the praise lavished by an 'intellectual' upon a political figure is evidence for the latter's effectiveness is open to question. See, for example, Bernard S. Bachrach, 'The Northern Origins of the Peace Movement at Le Puy in 975,' in Essays, 416-17, where he follows Georges Duby, The Three Orders, Feudal Society Imagined, trans. Arthur Goldhammer (Chicago, 1978), 95-97. It would seem to be the case often if not frequently that ecclesiastical intellectuals presented their wishful thinking or even their fantasies as reality.

'Potius Rex quam esse Dux putabatuf

13

long nights struggling through the books until sleep conquered him. He was an imitator in this as in many other matters of the Emperor Charlemagne and his son, the Emperor Louis. 6

This treatment of William by Ademar may be analysed from a variety of perspectives, but in dealing with any panegyric one desideratum of importance for the historian would seem to focus upon separating what was true from what was false.7 For example, it is clear that claims made by Ademar in the material quoted above and elsewhere in the Chronicon concerning William's prowess which kept anyone from raising a hand against him or that he was strenuissimus in the administration of his principatus^ have recently been shown to be untrue or at the very least to be substantially misleading. 9 By contrast, however, William was a pious son of the Church who was a leader in the 'Peace Movement,' a vigorous opponent of heretics, a supporter of monastic reform, and an open-handed giver to ecclesiastical institutions both at home and abroad. 10 In part the theme of Ademar's praise of William may be summarized in the sentiment that 'he is thought to be more a king than a duke.' Indeed, the thoroughness with which Ademar presses this theme is startling. For example, Ademar works diligently, especially in the panegyric quoted above, to avoid recognizing the king of France as William's superior and finds various locutions to avoid such recognition. 11 Ademar even goes so far as to challenge the legitimate right of King Robert to rule. Thus in describing an episode that putatively pitted Robert against the count of La Marche, Ademar places in the

6 Ademar, Bk. 3, chaps. 41, 54. Note that in MS. A, Ademar reverses the order between Louis the Pious and Charlemagne. This may perhaps mean that the chronicler was calling attention to the fact that Louis was also rex Aquitanorum. For the MS. problems, see Landes (supra n. 4). Daniel Callahan, 'William the Great and the Monks,' Studia Monastica 19 (1977): 322-24, translates and/or paraphrases the greater part of the panegyric but treats it ostensibly as fact. As seen above (n. 5), Callahan has partially altered his position regarding William but does not seem to realize that for the most part it rests upon Ademar's 'evidence.' All one needs to do is construct an account of William's reign without using Ademar's writings or any sources contaminated by them to grasp this point. An exceptionally valuable antidote to Ademar is 'Conventum inter Guillelmum Aquitanorum comes et Hugonem Chiliarchum,' ed. Jane Martindale, The English Historical Review 84 (1969): 528-48, which also includes the editor's analysis. A more extended analysis is provided by George Beech, 'A Feudal Document of Early Eleventh Century Poitou,' Melanges offerts a Rene Crozet (Paris, 1966), 1: 203-213. 7 This is particularly true with regard to Ademar because it is now widely recognized that he produced 'mythomanic inventions' and 'gathering after gathering of historical fiction - his fantasy scenario of current events.' Landes, 'Dynamics,' 471, for the quotations. 8 Ademar, Bk. 3, chap. 36. 9 See the articles by Bachrach cited supra, n. 5. 10 Callahan, 'The Peace of God,' 445-46, represents the orthodoxy here. 11 Ademar, Bk. 3, chap. 41, but alters his views from time to time in response to changing historical demands which have yet to be adumbrated. For example, Bk. 3, chaps. 31, 56, and Appendix, p. 205, and infra, n. 12.

14

Haskins Society Journal

mouth of the latter the rhetorical question, 'Quis te regem constituit?' 12 Significantly, Ademar does not provide an answer of any kind in defense of the monarch. The reader is left to compare Robert, whose possession of the kingship remains undefended, with William, who is elaborately described as exercising the royal prerogatives of investing bishops, 13 restoring monasteries,14 summoning church councils, 15 holding public courts as he itinerated through his lands, 16 keeping the peace,17 looking after the poor, 18 maintaining diplomatic relations with Europe's most prominent rulers, 19 and being received regaliter.2() There seems to be little doubt that when Ademar developed his portrait of William he utilized ideas that were in use by his contemporaries for describing a king. 21 Thus, for example, Abbo of Fleury, writing not long after Hugh Capet was crowned king of France in 987, outlined the duties of the monarch in an expanded version of Jonas of Orleans' De Institutione regia.22 Abbo points out that the king must be a strong Christian who is fundamentally involved in the life of the church. The king must also be firm in doing justice and punishing wrongdoers, but he must not use his power oppressively in carrying out his duties. 23 In addition the king must defend his realm vigorously, protect the church, support the weak, and care for the poor. 12 This text raises some very difficult problems which the forthcoming article by Richard Landes, 'The Aquitanian Response to the Capetian Accession: A Reconsideration of the Narrative and Diplomatic Evidence,' casts considerable light. I would like to thank Professor Landes for giving me the opportunity to read a draft of this study. For the quotation, see Ademar, Bk. 2, chap. 34. It should be pointed out that Ademar follows up this account of Robert's humiliation (in at least one MS. the humiliation of both Hugh Capet and Robert) directly by praising his hero: '... principatum ... strenuissime administravit Willelmus ... ' 13 Ademar, Bk. 3, chap. 57. 14 Ibid., chaps. 41,58. 15 Ibid., 69. 16 Ibid., 41: 'conventum publicum exerceret.' 17 Ibid., 69. 18 Ibid., 41. 'defensor pauperum.' 19 Ibid. 20 Ibid., 57. The royal nature of these prerogatives is not at issue, but historians have debated the legitimacy of a duke's right to exercise these powers independently. See for example, Karl Ferdinand Werner, 'Kingdom and Principality in Twelfth-century France,' The Medieval Nobility, ed. and trans. T. Reuter (Amsterdam, 1979), 252-53, who argues that the duces had a legitimate constitutional right as heirs to the separate regna to exercise these powers. By contrast, Georges Duby, 'L'Image du prince en France au debut du Xle siecle,' Cahiers d'histoire 17 (1972): 211216, emphasizes the usurpation of royal powers. Neglected in this discussion is the question of by whom a duke might be recognized. On this see infra, nn. 44-46. 21 Duby, 'L'Image du Prince,' 215-16, notes that Ademar is portraying William according to the royal image. 22 Abbo of Fleury, 'Collectio Canonum', esp. chaps. 2, 3, 4 in Patrologiae Cursus Completus, Series Latino, ed. J.P. Migne (Paris, 1880), 139, cols. 476-78. 23 Ademar, Bk. 3, chap. 56: 'Et licit serenissimus princeps furore gravi commotus esset pro injuria sua, tamen suam iram et impiorum consilia vicit, et regali more cum ratione prudenti causam pacificavit.' The italics are mine.

'Potius Rex quam esse Dux putabatur'

15

Abbo's contemporary, the chronicler Richer, who was also a cleric, elaborates upon the qualities that a monarch should possess when he discusses the coronation of Hugh Capet. According to Richer it is essential that the king be strong in his religious faith and have a well-developed understanding and knowledge of spiritual matters. No less important is the king's nobilitas: his military prowess, his manliness, his charisma, and his right through inheritance, i.e. blood, to rule. 24 Slightly later Ademar's contemporary, Bishop Fulbert of Chartres, provides this view: 'The king's obligations are to maintain justice and peace, the wellbeing of the kingdom, the honor of the church. He is the highest head of justice and has power to punish malefactors for the good of the state. The king is charged with ruling the church and with aiding her prelates. He should command his subjects to carry out God's business in a suitable manner. Moreover, it is his duty to help Christians and to condemn heretics; and by properly performing the duties of his office, he works out his own salvation.' 25 Ademar, however, was not content simply to identify William as being thought to be more a king than a duke. In the Chronicon a second theme is broached that hints at even greater things. William is called glorissimus and potentissimus, he is said to be welcomed by the pope as though he were Augustus, and by the entire Roman senate as its pater.26 This resonates well with Ademar's description of William as serenissimus21 and the application of the term imperium to describe the nature of his rule. 28 The explicit identification of some aspects of William's admirable behavior with that of Louis the Pious and Charlemagne help to reinforce the imperial image. 29 It is probably not unreasonable to suggest that in the normal course of events William's strong support for the church and especially for monastic reform coupled with his reputation for personal piety would have won him the favorable treatment accorded by Ademar. The question to be addressed, however, is not whether Ademar gave William his due or indeed more than his due as is the case in some secular matters, 30 but why the chronicler chose to press the theme that his hero is thought to be more a king than a duke and perhaps even worthy of consideration within an imperial context. William the Great's most substantial and his most aggressive effort as count of Poitou and duke of Aquitaine was to gain control of the 'Peace Movement' 24 Richer, Histoire de France, Bk. 3, chap. 11, ed. and trans, by Robert Latouche (Paris, 1937), 2: 160. It should be noted that Richer credits Archbishop Adalbero of Rheims with these thoughts. See the discussion by Duby, 'L'Image du prince,' 212. 25 Frederick Behrends, 'Kingship and Feudalism according to Fulbert of Chartres,' Medieval Studies 25 (1963): 94, develops Fulbert's views from the bishop's letters. Concerning heretics, see Ademar, Bk. 3, chap. 69, where he emphasizes William's efforts to deal with Manichaeism. 26 Ibid., chap. 41. 27 Ibid., chap. 56. 28 Ibid., chap. 41. 29 See supra, n. 6. See also, Ademar, Bk. 3, chap. 57, where Ademar uses the word imperavit to denote William giving an order for his son to be made bishop. 30 Bachrach, 'William the Great,' 11-21.

16

Haskins Society Journal

in Aquitaine. 31 William was the first non-royal secular magnate to establish the 'Peace of God' in Aquitaine, 32 when he convoked and presided over a council of bishops, abbots, and lay magnates at Poitiers sometime between 13 January 1011 and 13 January 1014 that met pro restauratione ecclesiae and to restore pax et justitia.33 With the support of those in attendance William established, among other things, that public justice was to be respected and that ecclesiastical immunities were subject to the public power of the duke. In effect, as Bonnaud-Delamare has compellingly argued in considerable detail: 'Le due d'Aquitaine se donne un pouvoir analogue a celui des rois carolingiens.' 34 In taking these actions William also reversed the efforts to limit secular power that had been enacted at the 'Peace Council' held in 989-90 at Charroux under the leadership of the archbishop of Bordeaux. 35 Throughout the remainder of his reign William the Great can be seen to have led the 'Peace Movement' in Aquitaine. 36 Recently it has been maintained that 'there emerged no Peace propagandist more zealous than the monk Ademar of Chabannes.' 37 For Ademar the 'Peace Movement' was, along with winning recognition for the apostolicity of St. Martial, the great passion of his life. 38 Peace and St. Martial became inextricably

31 Roger Bonnaud-Delamare, 'Les institutions de paix en Aquitaine au Xle siecle,' Recueils de la Societe Jean Bodin 14 (1962): 437-51, 455; H.E.J. Cowdrey, The Peace and Truce of God in the Eleventh Century,' Past and Present 46 (1970): 51-52, 59; and Callahan, 'Peace of God,' 448. For a fine review of the literature on this movement see Frederick S. Paxton, 'The Peace of God in Modern Historiography: Perspectives and Trends,' in Essays, 385-404. 32 A role for the duke of Aquitaine at Limoges in 994 may be discounted. See BonnaudDelamare, 'Les institutions de paix,' 429-37. Cf. Ludwig Huberti, Studien zur Rechtsgeschichte der Gottesfrieden und Landfrieden (Ansbach, 1892), 133-44, who confuses the dates; Hartmut Hoffman, Gottesfriede und Treuga Dei (Stuttgart, 1964), 27, who confuses the dukes; and Cowdrey, 'Peace and Truce,' 50, n. 28. 33 Sacrorum conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio, ed. J.D. Mansi (Paris, 1903), 19, cols. 265-68 for the Council of Poitiers. The date of this council has been the subject of considerable discussion. See for example, Hoffman, Gottesfriede und Treuga, 31-32, who does not appear to have taken into consideration the arguments of Bonnaud-Delamare, 'Les institutions de paix,' 437-39. Cowdrey, 'Peace and Truce,' 44, accepts Bonnaud-Delamare's dating but Daniel F. Callahan, 'Ademar de Chabannes et la paix de Dieu,' Annales du Midi 89 (1977): 27, suggests the date 'vers 1010' without discussion. 34 'Les institutions de paix,' 437-47, and p. 441 for the quotation. 35 Ibid., 445. 36 See supra, n. 31. Robert Lee Wolff, 'How the News was brought from Byzantium to Angouleme; or the Pursuit of a Hare in an Ox Cart,' Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 4 (1978): 178, n. 24, correctly calls attention to Bonnaud-Delamare's failure to appreciate the status of the various texts that he uses for his investigation of the later councils but concludes kindly 'The discrediting of the portions of the record dealing with St. Martial, however, do not materially effect Bonnaud-Delamare's efforts to trace the development of the Peace of God.' 37 Cowdrey, 'Peace and Truce,' 45-46. Callahan, 'Ademar de Chabannes,' 22, agrees. 38 Cowdrey, 'Peace and Truce,' 49-51; Callahan, 'Ademar de Chabannes,' 35-38; and Daniel Callahan, 'The Sermons of Ademar of Chabannes and the Cult of St. Martial of Limoges,' Revue Benedictine 86 (1976): 251-95.

'Potius Rex quam esse Dux putabatur'

17

intertwined as the latter was developed by Ademar into the patron of the 'Peace Movement' in Aquitaine. 39 In addition William the Great not only played the leading role in the 'Peace Movement' in Aquitaine during the period, 40 but also lent his influence and wealth in support of St. Martial and recognition of his apostolicity. 41 Just as there were churchmen who vigorously attacked the efforts of Ademar and his confreres at the monastery of St. Martial to have the apostolicity of their patron recognized, 42 so there were ecclesiastics, such as Bishop Gerard of Cambrai and Bishop Adalbero of Laon, who argued that the task of keeping the peace was essentially a royal responsibility. 41 If the views of men such as Gerard and Adalbero were to win the day, what would be the fate of the 'Peace Movement' in Aquitaine, headed by a mere duke and thoroughly permeated both by lower class elements and ecclesiastical participation? It is important to make clear that King Robert in his official acta recognized William only as 'count of Poitou.' Robert has William referred to as comes noster. The latter is described as coming to the king 'humiliter postulans ut regali munificentia tale nostrae auctoritatis' might be granted. 44 There is no diplomatic evidence that King Robert recognized William as duke of Aquitaine. The diplomatic usage of Henry I, Robert's son and successor as king, is fully consistent with that of his father. Henry recognized William the Great's son, also named William, as 'count of Poitou.' 45

39 Cowdrey, 'Peace and Truce,' 51, makes the observation concerning Saint Martial that 'he became the patron par excellence of peace in all its aspects.' 40 See supra, n. 31. 41 Ademar. Bk. 3, chap. 43 and especially chap. 57, for the elaborate description of how the monks of St. Martial customarily received William. For William's support of St. Martial in general, see Callahan, 'The Cult of St. Martial,' 290-91. It is clear that Bishop Jordan of Limoges was a key figure in the process to accept Ademar's arguments for the apostolicity of St. Martial (Callahan, loc. cit., 256). In light of W i l l i a m ' s role in the election of Jordan and in maintaining him against his enemies it seems reasonable that the duke's influence on the prelate in the context of St. Martial would be important if not indeed decisive. For the important role played by William, see Alfred Richard, Histoire des comics de Poitou, 778-1204, 2 vols. (Paris, 1903), 1: 194. 42 See the discussion by Callahan, 'The Cult of St. Martial,' 256-57. 43 Gesta cpiscoporum Cameracensium, ed. Georg H. Pertz, Bk. 3, chap. 27, Monumenla Germaniae Historica: Scriptores (Hannover, 1846), 7: 474. Georges Duby, 'Les laics et la paix de Dieu,' / laid nella 'sodetas Christiana' dci secoli XI e XII (Milan, 1966), 448-61 and reprinted in Georges Duby, Hommes et structures du moyen age (Paris, 1973), 227-40. The latter (p. 231) has been cited here where Duby summarizes the prelate's position as characterizing the work of peace as a 'mission eminemment royale.' Cowdrey, 'Peace and Truce,' 64, calls attention to Gerard's position and makes the point that it was related to the ability of the secular power to keep order. For a fuller statement of the royal position and of Adalbero's views, see Duby, The Three Orders, 39-53; 134-39. 44 Recueil des historiens des Gaules et de la France, ed. Martin Bouquet et. al., 24 vols. (Paris, 1738-1904), 10: 610; with the discussion by William M. Newman, Catalogue des actes de Robert II, roi de France (Paris, 1937), nos. 64 and 133. 45 Olivier Guillot, Le comte d'Anjou et son entourage au Xle siecle (Paris, 1972), 2: 49-50.

18

Haskins Society Journal

This implicit rejection of the legitimacy of the ducal title is found even among William's ov/nfideles in Poitou itself, as indicated in the detailed and carefully crafted conventum made between 'Count' William and his dependent castellan Hugh 'the Chiliarch' of Lusignan. In this lengthy agreement the former is frequently and exclusively referred to as 'count' but never as duke.46 Here, as in the royal diplomatic evidence discussed above, an argument ex silentio is to be considered valid as is the conclusion that at various times there were those both above and below William in the secular political ordo who did not recognize his ducal title. It would seem safe to suggest that if there was serious and widespread doubt about the validity of the 'Peace Movement' in Aquitaine, through the downgrading of its dux to the status of a mere comes by the 'hated Franci' from the north, to use Ademar's phrase,47 then both the significance of its spiritual patron, St. Martial, and the effectiveness of William's conciliar 'Peace legislation' could well have been diminished. The effectiveness of William's support in Ademar's ongoing struggle to obtain recognition for St. Martial's apostolicity would have been lessened if ducal prestige and power were injured.48 Thus Ademar implicitly ignored those who credited William only as comes, assumed the validity of his ducal title, and argued very forcefully that 'potius rex quam esse dux putabatur.'Seen simply in light of the intertwined problems described above, Ademar's efforts to portray William as being thought to be more a king than a duke may well have been formulated with the aim of meeting the criticism of those who argued that the task of keeping the peace was a royal obligation. This explanation for suggesting why the panegyric was couched in terms elevating William's status gains some support from a close examination of the working documents that Ademar edited and/or fabricated to sustain his campaign to have the apostolicity of St. Martial recognized.49 According to Ademar, St. Martial was sent directly by Christ as the 'messenger of Peace' in order to bring the 'Peace of the Lord' to Aquitaine.50 46

'Conventum', ed. Martindale, 541-48, passim. In fact, the only place Aquitaine is mentioned is in the title where William is called 'Count of the Aqutanians.' 47 Discussed by Bachrach, 'Northern Origins,' 409. 48 For example, Ademar, Bk. 3, chap. 41, who strives to place William's relations with Fulk Nerra in such a light that the true situation is obscured. See on this, Bachrach, 'William the Great,' 16-19. It is difficult to be sure what is intended only for Ademar personally and what is intended for a wider audience. In short, Ademar's sense of reality remains to be understood. 49 The key texts are the Aurelian vita of St. Martial and Ademar's sermons. It is largely upon these texts that Callahan based his exceptionally important study The Cult of St. Martial,' 25195. See also Landes, 'Dynamics,' 473-87. 50 From actual autograph manuscripts of Ademar now at the Deutsch Staatsbibliothek, East Berlin, MS. lat. 1664, fols. 106r, 1 lOr, 113r and at the Bibliotheque Nationale, MS. lat. 2469, fols. 51v, 56v, we can obtain a clear picture of this view of St. Martial. In a broader sense see the treatment of Ademar by Hoffman, Gottesfriede und Treuga, 33-40, and more specifically, Cowdrey, 'Peace and Truce,' 51. Most important, however, are the key studies by Callahan, 'The Cult of St. Martial,' 285 and 'Ademar de Chabannes,' 39. Callahan's forthcoming publication of these texts are eagerly awaited.

'Potius Rex quam esse Dux putabatur'

19

Martial's success in accomplishing his mission is attributed in noteworthy part to the loyal and vigorous support provided to him by Stephen who at that time ruled Aquitaine. 51 In the older sources Stephen was traditionally portrayed as a dux, and Ademar even admits at one point 'Rex tamen non vocabatur.' However, Ademar 'inserts the idea that in actuality if not in name, Stephen was the very powerful king of the Gauls.' 52 In another context Ademar makes the observation that peace endured after Martial's death while Stephen ruled the regnum.53 Finally Ademar entitles Stephen Rex Aquitaniae.54 The obvious parallels between William and Stephen in Ademar's presentation extends to praising both men for their deep piety and for their generous support for the building of new basilicas at Limoges.55 More important in the context of this paper is Ademar's portrait of Stephen as a protector of the poor, of pilgrims, widows, and orphans;56 these of course were royal duties and fundamental elements legislated as a result of the 'Peace Movement' which was dominated in Aquitaine by William.57 Ademar's association of William with Stephen may be seen to have had several interconnected purposes. Stephen's work for peace in Aquitaine was legitimized through his close association with St. Martial.58 The latter's authority, as we have seen, came directly from Christ according to Ademar. In this context, William's identification with Stephen helped to provide legitimacy for his leadership of the 'Peace Movement.' 59 Peace itself became the common element that brought those who accepted Ademar's efforts to identify William, Stephen, and Martial. William's connection with Martial through peace brings 51 Most of what we learn about Stephen comes from the Vita of St. Martial which in its various redactions shows how Ademar manipulated the story and thus presented his views on a wide variety of matters that will be discussed below. Callahan, 'The Cult of St. Martial,' 258-60, provides a fine discussion of the relation of the various texts and manuscripts to each other and also of the scholarly literature. Callahan's promised new edition of the Vita in the book he is preparing on pilgrimage to St. Martial at Limoges between 750 and 1250, will be very welcome but for the present the best printed edition is to be found in L. Surius, Vita Prolixior (De probatis Sanctorum Vitis [Cologne, 1618], 6: 365-74). See for example, Vita Prolixior, chap. 16, where Stephen commands that all of the idols in his lands are to be destroyed 'at the order of Martial.' 52 Vita Prolixior, chap. 16, for the quotation and for a discussion of the manuscripts see Callahan, 'The Cult of St. Martial,' 261, n. 3; and Landes, 'Dynamics,' 486. 53 Bibl. Nat., MS. lat. 2469, fol. 72v. 54 Landes, 'Dynamics,' 486, n. 67, for the sources. 55 Callahan, The Cult of St. Martial,' 290-91, collects the evidence and is followed by Landes, 'Dynamics,' 468, but the perspectives are different. 56 Vita Prolixior, chap. 16. 57 Callahan, The Cult of St. Martial,' 262, n. 2, observes parenthetically that these are the people 'protected by the Peace of God,' but cf. Landes, 'Dynamics,' 478. 58 The partnership of Stephen and Martial is made clear in the texts cited by Callahan, The Cult of St. Martial,' 284-85, where the 'Peace Movement' is emphasized and shown to flourish under Stephen following Martial's death. 59 From a different perspective Callahan, 'Ademar de Chabannes,' 39, concludes: 'Prefigurant la basilique du Saint-Saveur, cette eglise de Saint-Pierre fut un des symboles apostoliques de la paix depuis la commandement d'Etienne jusqu'au mouvement de la Paix de Dieu au Xle siecle.' and Landes, 'Dynamics,' 487.

20

Haskins Society Journal

us to associate William and Christ, the Prince of Peace, who, of course, is the ultimate source of legitimacy for the 'Peace Movement.' Ademar was not satisfied by a synecdochical identification of William and Martial through the common element of working for peace. Ademar clearly intended William and Martial to be identified; this is best illustrated by several of the titles that he accorded to the saint. Ademar styles Martial rex; monarchies in Aquitania; caput totius Aquitaniae; princeps; and protodux, among others.60 The similarity of these formulations to titles employed in William's charters is striking. In these documents we find 'Willelmus totius tune Aquitaniae monarchus;' 'Willelmus divina dispensante dementia comes Pictavorum ac totius monarchiae Aquitaniae tenens principatum;' and 'Willelmus Aquitanorum princeps et dux.' 61 Those who are familiar with the process by which Charlemagne was associated through a variety of cultural media with the accomplishments and charisma of Constantine the Great will perhaps see somthing of a parallel with the process by which William was identified with Stephen in the writings of Ademar. Following Charlemagne's association with Constantine, the Prankish ruler came to be identified even more closely with Christ himself. This second step in the process of augmenting the secular authority with a spiritual dimension also seems to have been played out in Ademar's writings as he identified William with St. Martial.62 The well-established role that Ademar played in Charlemagne's literary progress through the politico-religious cursus honorum would seem to suggest that the Aquitanian monk was capable of sustaining an analogous campaign with regard to William, Stephen, and 60

Callahan, 'The Cult of St. Martial,' 282-83, in notes 14, 1, respectively, lists these and other titles which are attributed to Ademar's desire to press the case for Martial's vigilance, to 'convey his religious authority,' and 'to depict succinctly for the adherent of the cult the importance of the saint.' Surely these reasons are important ones but in all likelihood they are not the only ones. See, for example, Ademar, Bk. 3, chap. 56, where in the course of the same chapter Martial is called summus princeps and pater Aquitanorum while William is called gloriosus dux and serenissimus princeps. In the same chapter William is also styled 'servorum Dei defensor...ei in omnibus adjutor.' Cf. Werner, 'Kingdom and Principality,' 252-53, who calls attention to the titles used by what he considers to be the legitimate right of the dukes who rule in their respective regna and in particular mentions Fulbert of Chartres who addresses William as serenissimus princeps. In the latter case Werner fails to indicate that Fulbert was in William's entourage, and if Ademar (Bk. 3, chap. 41) is to be believed on this point the prelate is thought of as one of the many scholars such as Renaud, 'called Plato,' whom the duke collected much in the same way that Charlemagne did. Concerning the use of impressive titles by the dukes of the French kingdom it is clear that Werner does not present evidence that parallels the inflation found either in Ademar's claims or in William's documents. 61 Chartres et documents pour servir a 1' histoire de I'abbaye de Saint-Maixent, ed. A. Richard (Poitiers, 1886), 1: 91, n. 74; Bibl. Nat.: Collection Dom Estiennot, MS. lat.. 12765, pp. 208-9; and Recueil des chartes de I'abbaye de Cluny, ed. A. Bruel (Paris, 1884), no. 2737, respectively. Concerning these charters, see Walther Kienast, Der Herzogstitel in Frankreich und Deutschland (Munich and Vienna, 1968), 205-7. 62 Stephen G. Nichols, Jr., 'Signs of Royal Beauty Bright: Word and Image in the Legend of Charlemagne,' Olifant 4 (1976): 21-47, provides an excellent discussion of this process.

'Potius Rex quam esse Dux putabatur'

21

Martial.63 Further, and this takes us manifestly into the realm of speculation, Ademar's special effort to place St. Martial in the mouvance of Christ may perhaps be seen in relation to the chronicler's identification of William with Charlemagne through the use of such terms as imperium and the title Augustus.64 In Ademar's writings both Martial and Charlemagne stand close to Christ,65 and William stands close to and is identified through peace and titles both with the saint and the Prankish emperor. It needed only a small adjustment in an already well established pattern of thinking for Ademar's readers and listeners to identify William with the Prince of Peace himself. In this light the process of legitimizing William's control of the 'Peace Movement' in Aquitaine and increasing the value of the duke's support for St. Martial's apostolicity would be given ultimate authority. William the Great's lack of royal status was a potential threat to the work of the 'Peace Movement' in an Aquitaine that he dominated during his reign. Any diminution of the legitimacy of the legislation of the 'Peace Councils' could be seen as harming the 'Peace Movement' itself and also as hurting Ademar's efforts to obtain recognition for the apostolicity of St. Martial, whose fame became intimately connected with the success of these councils. In light of these potential and perhaps real problems, Ademar set in motion a complex effort to redefine William's position which had its analogue in the redefinition of Martial from confessor to apostle. The technique was to identify William with Stephen; both were called dux but in a higher sense, according to Ademar, they were really like kings. This was done at the same time that Ademar was identifying William with Martial; Stephen had already been identified with Martial, who was Christ's 'messenger of Peace' to Aquitaine. From a methodological point of view this examination of Ademar's panegyric on William strongly suggests that the Chronicon be used with great care as a source. The information included in the Chronicon should be reflected upon in relation to the vast corpus of Ademar's other writings and not considered as a narrative source that managed to escape the religio-ideological machinations of its industrious and highly talented author. University of Minnesota

63 Ibid., 32-34, where Nichols observes (p. 34): 'With Ademar, we undoubtedly begin a long and fruitful development in the iconography of Charlemagne, especially as concerns the parallels with Christ.' 64 See supra, n. 29. 65 This is developed concerning Charlemagne by Nichols, 'Signs of Royal Beauty,' 32-34, and concerning Martial by Callahan, 'The Cult of St. Martial,' 284-87, who provides the evidence but not the conclusions. Callahan was looking at the matter from a different point of view.

This page intentionally left blank

3

The Sale of Land and the Economics of Power in Early England: Problems and Possibilities James Campbell

It can seem somewhat surprising that a considerable proportion of AngloSaxon charters relate not just to the transfer of land, but apparently to its sale, and that this is so even from the time of the earliest charters. The total number of charters, royal and otherwise, genuine and spurious, recorded by Professor Sawyer as surviving from before 901 is 433.' Of these, 72 relate to the sale of land or privileges 2 and the earliest of them, some in whole or part disputed, but all in whole or part accepted by most of those competent to judge, are very early: the first examples are from Kent of 686;3 Sussex c. 692 x c. 770;4 the Hwicce 704 x 709;5 Mercia 675 x 692;6 Wessex 670 x 759.7 Of surviving royal charters for the period up to 901 approximately one-sixth refer to the sale of land or rights. If one divides up the centuries, again including all documents claiming to be of the period concerned and again confining the count to royal charters, the approximate proportions are: seventh century, one-tenth; eighth century, one-tenth; ninth century, just under one-quarter. If one divides up by kingdoms, there are only two (excluding the complicated case of Kent) for which one can make comparisons between all three centuries, Wessex and Mercia. The percentages of royal charters relating to sales of land in these kingdoms century by century are: seventh century, Wessex nil, Mercia (excluding the Hwicce) 20% (two out of eleven); eighth century, Wessex 8%, Mercia 10%; ninth century, Wessex 10%, Mercia 44%. These figures are derived from all charters, good, bad and indifferent. So coarse a means of proceeding might produce coarsely misleading results. Suppose, for example, the sale of land or privileges was established in the 1

Anglo-Saxon Charters: An Annotated List and Bibliography, ed. Peter H. Sawyer (London, 1986); hereafter cited as Sawyer. 2 I am preparing a more detailed analysis of these charters which I hope to publish elsewhere. The bracketed numbers are those of the texts as published in Cartularium Saxonicum, ed. Walter de Gray Birch, 3 vols. and index (London, 1885-99). 3 Sawyer, no. 9 (Birch,o. 7). 4 Sawyer, no. 44 (Birch, no. 145). 5 Sawyer, no. 1177 (Birch, no. 122). 6 Sawyer, no. 1804 (Birch, no. 843). 7 Sawyer, nos. 1164 and 1256 (Birch nos. 107 and 186). The purchase referred to seems to have taken place some considerable time before 759.

24

Haskins Society Journal

ninth century and unconsciously anachronistic forgers have taken it back to an earlier period. This does not seem to be so. Of 21 charters (royal) from the seventh and eighth centuries referring to such sales, three are undeniably spurious,8 four are probably originals or contemporary copies, or printed from such,9 and two are universally doubted, though not with complete confidence. 10 The others are regarded with more confidence. Of the 41 ninth-century charters under consideration, only one has been denounced as completely false; 11 seven are originals or contemporary copies;12 and the large majority of the remainder seem to be acceptable, though some are regarded with suspicion in whole or part.13 There is no case for regarding charters relating to sale as more likely to be of doubtful authenticity than others. If, as may well be the case, some of the apparent originals or contemporary copies are contemporary fakes, that from the present point of view, does not matter. A contemporary fake will describe the kind of thing that happened at the time. In considering these charters, as with Anglo-Saxon charters in general, questions arising from continental comparison are pressing, though not necessarily answerable. First, a general one, only indirectly relevant to my immediate concerns: why are charters so much less common in England than abroad? Sawyer lists 1,875 Anglo-Saxon charters in toto. Compare the numbers surviving from individual abbeys abroad from before 1000: Fulda, 728; St. Gallen, 818; Cluny, 2,532.14 More directly relevant to my present purpose is that the sale of land was quite common, not only by the relatively rich, but also by the relatively poor during much of the Dark Ages and in various parts of the barbarian world.15 There is nothing extraordinary about early evidence for the sale of land. Consideration of the continental documents relating to sale raises many complex questions about the relationship between sale and gift. This distinction was a clear one in classical Roman law and in the Vulgar Law; later it became merged and confused in the development of traditio per cartam. For example, Lemarignier has shown that in the Merovingian charters of St. Berlin 8

Sawyer, nos. 1172, 122, 83 (Birch, nos. 79, 244, 134). Sawyer, nos. 58, 59, 106, 155 (Birch, nos. 203, 293, 201, 202). 10 Sawyer, no. 70 (Birch, no. 60). 11 Sawyer, no. 327 (Birch, no. 502) described as a 'crude forgery' by Alastair Campbell, Charters of Rochester (London, 1973), xxiv. 12 Sawyer, nos. 40, 41, 178, 186, 282, 296, 1510 (Birch, nos. 322, 318, 353, 370, 396, 449, 417). 13 Among the latter are two charters giving particularly detailed accounts of the quid pro quo: Sawyer, nos. 192, 197 (Birch, nos. 430, 454). 14 Jean Fran?ois Lemarignier, 'Les actes de droit prive de Saint-Bertin en haut moyen age. Survivances et declin du droit romain dans la pratique franque,' Melanges Fernand de Visscher 4 Revue Internationale des droits de I'antiquite 5 (1950): 58-61. 15 Renee Doehaerd, Le haut moyen age occidental: Economies et societes (Paris, 1971), 104-5, 160, 168, 192, 211, 229; Lemarignier, 'Les actes de droit prive,' 49-53; Chris Wickham, Early Medieval Italy (1981), 101-3; Paul David King, Law and Society in the Visigothic Kingdom (Cambridge, 1972), 208-9. 9

The Sale of Land and the Economics of Power in Early England

25

the Classical and Vulgar Law distinction between the use of the present tense for disposition by sale and the future tense for disposition by gift was observed; in the abbey's later charters it was not. 16 By the tenth and eleventh centuries it had become in some parts of France by no means easy to distinguish between gift and sale, for a variety of reasons. 17 One might have expected to find parallel circumstances in England. That the Vulgar Law was of consequence in England would seem to be a fair supposition, not least because in the early period cases, or some cases, relating to the tenure of land by charter were determined in synods. 18 So far as I can see, even though the Vulgar Law may have had important effects on the nature of land tenure it does not appear to have affected the wording of documents as it could do across the Channel.19 Thus in early Anglo-Saxon charters variation in the tense of dispositive verbs seems to be connected with the house-style of the monastery involved or with the drafting customs of a particular area, rather than with the nature of the transaction recorded.20 English documents apparently recording sale are not in the form in which they would have, at least in the Merovingian period, appeared on the Continent; rather they are in the form of deeds of gift including a mention of a quid pro quo. 21 The question must arise as to whether early Anglo-Saxon charters apparently relating to the sale of land really do so at all. Might it not be that in all or many cases what appears to be a sale is really an indication of acceptance of the Germanic principle that any gift should be accompanied by a reciprocal counter-gift, though possibly no more than a formal one?22 Alternatively, purchase could have been alleged because it could assist in ensuring security of title. A very late piece of evidence may be relevant here, that of the Ramsey Chronicle (twelfth-century, but drawing on earlier sources) which says of the gifts made by Earldorman Aethelwine: Accordingly the worthy earldorman bestowed on the church many and magnificent gifts in lands ... not from those ... which appeared to have come to him by hereditary right, lest his successors should seize this opportunity to have them reclaimed from

16

Lemarignier, 'Les actes de droit prive,' 56-72; Arnold Ehrhardt, 'Byzantinische Kaufvertrage in Ost und West,' in Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung fur Rechtsgeschichte Romanistische Abteilung 2 (1927), 177-87; Ernst Levy, The West Roman Vulgar Law, in Memoirs of the American Philosophical Society 29 (Philadelphia, 1951), 127-36, 156-58. 17 Francois de Fontette, Recherches sur la pratique de la vente immobiliere dans la region parisienne au moyen age (Paris, 1957), esp. 15-20. 18 Hanna Vollrath, Die Synoden Englands bis 1066 (Paderborn, etc., 1985), 132-40. 19 For the possible influence of the Vulgar Law in England, see Eric John, Land Tenure in Early England (Leicester, 1964). 20 Pierre Chaplais, 'Who Introduced Charters into England? The Case for Augustine,' Journal of the Society of Archivists 3 (1969): 526-42, esp. 536-38. Cf. Heinrich Brunner, Zur Rechtsgeschichte der Romischen und Germanischen Urkunde (Berlin, 1880), 165. 21 Paul Vinogradoff, Collected Papers, ed. Herbert A.L. Fisher, 2 vols. (Oxford, 1928), 1: 154; Harold D. Hazeltine in Anglo-Saxon Wills, ed. Dorothy Whitelock (Cambridge, 1930), xix. 22 De Fontette, Recherches, 15-20.

26

Haskins Society Journal the church, but from those he had acquired in full freedom at open purchase, either by public exchange, or at home by the transfer of his own money.23

This reference to buying in order to give suggests the possibility of a prudential motive for describing a gift as a sale; it could be important, as Mr. Wormald has rightly emphasized, to show that land which was being given had been acquired rather than inherited;24 but, of course, such motives would be at least as likely to lead to sale as to the mere allegation of sale. It cannot be demonstrated that, when an Anglo-Saxon charter says that a grant of land has been made pro suscepta pecunia or the like, such a general statement is more than formal, or that it relates to what may be called, without qualification, 'the sale of land.'25 Nevertheless, such doubts can be pressed too far. It is demonstrable that land and privileges over land were indeed being bought and sold in early England. First, while it is possible that what was in fact a gift could be described as a sale, it is much easier to demonstrate the likelihood that what was really in the nature of a sale was described as a gift. For example, it is only thanks to a macaronic note inserted after the witnesslist that we learn that what otherwise might seem a gift by Egbert to a minister of five sulungs, in fact involved a quid pro quo of fifty mancuses.26 Secondly, there is one charter which is particularly likely to give a price for land which is a 'market' one rather than concessionary or formal; it is one of 872 whereby Werferth, bishop of Worcester, sells a lease of two hides for four lives for twenty mancuses 'because of the tribute which had to be paid to the pagans.'27 It is therefore significant that when prices or apparent prices for land are stated in early chafers, they are sometimes at a level commensurate with that indicated in Werferth's charter.28 That there are such indications of real sales 23

'Siquidem dux venerabilis non de his quidem quae sibi in finibus haereditariae sortis cecidisse videbantur, ne successoribus suis conquerendi adversus ecclesiam praeberet occasionem, sed de his quae veno exposita, seu publica cambitione, seu domestica marsupii familiaris emunctione, libero juri suo acces(s)erant, in praediis, redditibus, piscariis, pratis et molendinis, multa et praeclara ecclesiae contulit beneficia,' Chronicon Abbatiae Ramesiensis, ed. William D. Macray (London, 1886), 44, quoted by J. Ambrose Raftis, The Estates of Ramsey Abbey: A Study in Economic Growth and Organisation (Toronto, 1957), 13. 24 Patrick Wormald, Bede and the Conversion of England: The Charter Evidence (n.p., 1984), 20-31. 25 For the contention that transactions such as those under discussion should be regarded essentially as gift exchanges, Christopher Dyer, Lords and Peasants in a Changing Society (Cambridge, 1980), 31. Something of the ambiguity of the relationship between selling and giving is summed up in the etymological history of the verb 'to sell': the principal Old English meaning is 'to give,' Oxford English Dictionary, s.v. 26 Sawyer, no. 282 (Birch, no. 386), cf. Sawyer, no. 319 (Birch, 538). 27 Sawyer, no. 1278 (Birch, no. 533). 28 Sawyer, no. 1278 (Birch, no. 533). Cf. Sawyer, nos. 40, 41, 178, 186, 332, 1177, 1412 (Birch, nos. 322, 318, 353, 370, 507, 122, 271). Cf. Sawyer, no. 124 (Birch, no. 245), which is almost certainly a fake as we have it. (In listing these charters I have made the rough assumption that the Kentish sulung was not the equivalent of more than a hide.) It has to be borne in mind that it is not easy, or perhaps possible, to distinguish between a going rate and a conventional price. For widely varying conventional values of land in early ninth-century Italy: Wickham, Early Medieval Italy,

The Sale of Land and the Economics of Power in Early England

27

at something like a market price does not of course mean that all transactions where a price is recorded were of this kind. For example, an apparent payment for land may be part of the arrangements for the settlement of a dispute;29 and it has to be borne in mind that the payment was often not so much for land as for privileges over land.30 Further proof of the reality of the transactions lying behind charters apparently relating to the sale of land or privileges lies in many such charters specifying particular objects as the quid pro quo. Such descriptions are interesting for many reasons. Consider one of the very earliest: it comes in a memorandum relating to the earliest acquisitions of the abbey of Medeshampstead. Abbot Haedda is granted 15 hides by Ethelred king of the Mercians; the abbot, says this memorandum, has paid 500 solidi. Before the chink of coin has died from our ears it goes on to explain what is meant by 500 solidi: id est, it says, twelve beds, namely feather mattresses and elaborate pillows together with muslin and linen sheets as is customary in Britain; also a slave, with a slave girl; also a gold brooch and two horses with two wagons. 31 This memorandum gives an admirable indication of how very miscellaneous rich goods could be reckoned in round sums of money of account. Charters such as this support Dodwell's brilliant account of the scale and grandeur of AngloSaxon treasures.32 Particularly striking are the gold rings specified in the charters, annuli, armillae, braciolae: we have references to rings weighing 23, 30, 31, and 75 and 100 mancuses of gold.33 A mancus represented a weight of about four grams.34 So the heaviest of these rings contained about as much gold as the great buckle from Sutton Hoo.35 These arm-ring references are additionally interesting in indicating that the absence of such rings from the English archaeological record is by chance. We have other accounts of splendid 113-14. When, however, a ninth-century document makes provision for estates to be bought, in certain circumstances, 'mid halfe weor5e' (translated by Miss Harmer 'at half their value') the reference could be to a conventional rather than to a market value, though the context suggests the latter, and one can imagine circumstances in which the distinction between a conventional and a market price would be artificial: Select English Documents of the Ninth and Tenth Centuries, ed. Florence E. Harmer (Cambridge, 1914), 14, 47. To the extent that the Vulgar Law may have influenced the land law of early Anglo-Saxon England, the sale of land may have been less frequently recorded in writing than was the transfer of land in other circumstances because, in the Vulgar as in the Classical law, written evidence was not required for sale, Erhardt, 'Byzantinische Kaufvertrage,' 179-82. 29 E.g. Sawyer, no. 155 (Birch, no. 293). 30 E.g. Sawyer, nos. 105, 106, 190 (Birch, nos. 195, 201, 416). 31 Sawyer, no. 1804 (Birch, no. 843). I owe the emendation carris for cannis to Dr. M. Winterbottom. 32 Charles R. Dodwell, Anglo-Saxon Art: A New Perspective (Manchester, 1982). 33 Sawyer, nos. 178, 192, 196, 186 (Birch, nos. 353, 430, 432, 370) of 815, 840, 841, 822 respectively. In addition a Mercian charter of 855 refers to 2 rings of (apparently together) 45 mancuses. And cf. infra, n. 32. 34 Philip Grierson, 'Carolingian Europe and the Arabs: The Myth of the Mancus,' Revue Beige de Philologie et d'Histoire 32 (1954): 1059-74. 35 An alleged charter of Offa's of 786, not acceptable as it stands (Sawyer, no. 124; Birch, no. 245) refers to an armilla of 100 mancuses, i.e., one which is heavier than the Sutton Hoo brooch.

28

Haskins Society Journal

objects: for example, from a charter of 823 a choice vessel of gold and silver weighing five and a half pounds;36 in 864 a precious wine ladle (chiatum) of gold and silver containing 400 solidi and 100 sicli.31 Just at the end of the period, in 901, we have a reference to a gold chalice weighing 30 mancuses.38 The abundance of references to gold and the extent to which they outnumber those to silver is significant. The evidence of the charters tends to contradict that of the archaeology, that gold was running short as the seventh century progressed.39 In short there is adequate evidence for the exchange of land or privileges for money or treasures in late seventh-, eighth- and ninth-century England; and such exchanges would seem to have been fairly frequent. This raises important questions about the functions of gifts of land and of moveable goods and about the relationships between the two. The most important modern discussion of this relationship is that by Dr. Charles-Edwards. He emphasizes the extent to which a clear verbal distinction was drawn between land and treasures etc. and argues that there was a significant difference between the relationships created by the two different kinds of property.40 He maintains that land was essentially given to ensure lifelong service; gifts of land operated only vertically and downwards, from lords to subordinates: such a gift, for example, as that made by a king to a warrior in his service on attaining marriageable age, could mark for the recipient a major change in status. Such gifts were not rewarded by counter-gifts of land. Gifts of moveable wealth had wider social functions, operating in all social directions. Charles-Ed wards's case is subtle, suggestive, and powerful. It depends, however, largely on the interpretation of laws and literature. The implication of the charters under consideration in the present paper would seem to modify his conclusions in certain regards. First, the interchangeability of land and treasure suggests a less sharp distinction in attitude towards them than he suggests; and this possibility is strengthened by certain literary references. There is a reference in Beowulf to a grant of '100,000 in land and interlocked rings' to each of two noblemen; 41 This recalls the way in which the weight of oaths could be reckoned almost indifferently in terms of men of a certain status, of hides, or of money.42 A similar indication of equivalence of attitudes to treasure and estates comes in 'Eddius's' account

36

Sawyer, no. 187 (Birch, no. 373) (823). Sawyer, no. 210 (Birch, no. 509). 38 Sawyer, no. 221 (Birch, no. 587). 39 David A. Hinton, 'Late Saxon Treasure and Bullion,' in Ethelred the Unready, ed. David Hill (Oxford, 1978), 135-58. 40 Thomas M. Charles-Edwards, The Distinction between Land and Moveable Wealth in Anglo-Saxon England,' Medieval Settlement, Continuity, and Change, ed. P.M. Sawyer (London, 1976), 180-90. 41 Beowulf and the Fight at Finnsburg, ed. Frederick Klaeber, 3rd edn. (Lexington, Mass., 1950), 11. 2994-5. 'hund Pusenda / landes ond locrena beaga.' 42 Dorothy Whitelock, The Beginnings of English Society (Harmondsworth, 1966), 140-1. 37

The Sale of Land and the Economics of Power in Early England

29

of Wilfrid's testamentary dispositions. 43 He leaves a quarter share of his treasure to those who had been in exile with him and whom he had not already rewarded with terras praediorum. Treasure, rather than land, could be regarded as the means of securing lifelong loyalty; betrayal in Beowulf is disregarding the obligations created by the gift of treasure and of weapons rather than of land.44 One manuscript of the 'Penitential of Theodore' gives an apparent glimpse of goods, probably rich goods, being used to secure lifelong loyalty in the way in which later land would have been. It says that if anyone who converted from the world to the service of God had any royal specie received from a king, then it should be 'in the power of that king;' but if 'it is from a former king [now] dead ... it is permissible to give it to God.' 45 The interest lies in the first part of the provision, which indicates that the gift of moveables could be, as it were, not absolute but precarious. It is as if a man might be enfeoffed with a treasure and liable to lose it for bad service. Dr. Charles-Edwards emphasizes that 'gifts of land operated only vertically and downwards, from lords to subordinates.' 46 It is worth noticing, however, that just as there is evidence to suggest that the gift of treasure as that of land could create lifelong 'vertical' bonds, so too there is evidence for the 'horizontal' rather than the 'vertical' movement of land. Thus there are charters which give considerable reason to suppose that not only were kings selling lands on a considerable scale but also that similar transactions between lesser individuals were not uncommon. Consider, for example, the strange Sussex charter, Birch no. 145.47 This is an opaque, almost certainly corrupted document. It may well be a conflation of more than one original. It is very difficult to believe it is a fake; for one thing it is impossible to see in whose interest it would have been, at a much later date, to fake it. It refers to a series of transactions relating to an estate in Sussex at dates lying between c. 692 and c. 770. Nunna, king of Sussex, had given an estate to Beohtfrith, famulus Dei; Beohtfrith gave it to Eolla; Eolla transferred it to Wulfhere (pro suscepta pecunia). At some later date, apparently still within the span indicated, Osmund acquired it for a price from a comes called Erran and gave it to a nun. This is a very difficult document and an extreme case; but it seems to belong to a context in which land changed hands often and not infrequently for a consideration. Such 43

The Life of Bishop Wilfrid by Eddius Stephanus, ed. Bertram Colgrave (Cambridge, 1927),

136. 44

Klaeber, 11. 2864-72; though Wiglaf, while emphasizing here how Beowulf had wasted the weapons and treasures which he had given to his followers who proved disloyal, adds that they will lose londriht, but this may mean 'the rights of the land' rather than 'rights in land.' 45 Die Canones Theodori Cantuarensis und ihre Ueberlichterungsformen, ed. Paul W. Finsterwalder (Weimar, 1929), 2: xiv, 8; translation is that of J.T. McNeill and H.M. Gamer, Medieval Handbooks of Penance (New York, 1938), 212. For the meaning of specie see Eduard Wofflin, Archiv fiir lateinische Lexicographic und Grammatik, 11 (1900): 540-44. In legal texts the word could cover almost any kind of goods, including, but not restricted to, gold and silver. (I owe this reference to Dr. Michael Winterbottom.). 46 Charles-Edwards, 'The Distinction between Land and Moveable Wealth,' 187. 47 Sawyer, no. 44.

30

Haskins Society Journal

references to transactions between private individuals are nothing like so common as those to grants by kings, but there are quite a number of them: for example, the early West Saxon charter which shows that land which had been given to one abbot in the late seventh century had been sold to another by the middle of the eighth;48 or an early ninth-century testamentary document from Kent which arranges for an estate to be sold in certain circumstances.49 The relationship between land and treasure is one which is crucial in the consideration of many Dark Age problems, for example those which relate to the introduction of charters and the changes in the tenurial system which may have been brought about by the introduction of bookland. The issues are controverted and the matter very dark. On the one hand it has been suggested that there was no hereditary tenure of land until tenure by book was introduced for the laity, first covertly and then overtly. 50 On the other hand the likelihood that some land was held by hereditary tenure has been maintained. 51 How far tenure by book carried an exemption from royal service is obscure.52 One thing which is certain about tenure by book is that it was worth paying for and could be bought. The key text, Bede's letter to Egbert, is explicit: '...data regibus pecunia emunt sibi sub praetexta construendorum monasteriorum territoria...litteras privilegiorum.' 53 This raises the possibility that the Northumbrian kings had been in effect selling their landed capital, alienating permanently what hitherto had only been let out on precarious tenure. One may well wonder whether, as Mr. Wormald has suggested, the same kind of thing was not happening in ninth-century Mercia, where a high proportion (31 out of 70) grants of land or immunity relate to sales, and where he suggests kings were selling off their power.54 As usual the position is ambiguous. One might well believe that the high proportion of such sales dating from the reign of Berhtwulf, when Mercia was certainly under very considerable stress, indicate weakness. It is not so easy to believe this of the relatively strong King Cenwulf at the beginning of the century, and it looks as if even in the eighth century sales may have been commoner in Mercia than in Wessex. Some of the sales by the kings of Wessex may also have reflected pressure of necessity (so far as our records go much less proportionately numerous). When Ethelbert of Wessex sold eight or nine sulungs in Kent to a minister et princeps for 400 48

Sawyer, nos. 1164 and 1256 (Birch, nos. 107, 186). The sale took place after 670 and before 759, apparently considerably before. For another example of the 'horizontal,' or possibly 'upwards,' transfer of land, Sawyer, no. 1412 (Birch, no. 271). 49 Select English Historical Documents, 10 and 45 (no. 7, 859 x 870, Sawyer, no. 1200). 50 John, Land Tenure, 24-79. 51 E.g., Charles-Edwards, 'The Distinction between Land and Moveable Wealth,' 183-4. 52 Even Nicholas Brooks, 'The Development of Military Obligations in Eighth and Ninth Century England,' in England Before the Conquest, ed. Peter Clemoes and Kathleen Hughes (Cambridge, 1971), 69-84, does not settle all the difficulties. 53 Venerabilis Baedae Opera Historica, ed. Charles Plummer, 2 vols. (Oxford, 1896), 1:418. 54 James Campbell, Eric John, and Patrick Wormald, The Anglo-Saxons (Oxford, 1982), 139; Dyer, Lords and Peasants, 16, comments helpfully.

The Sale of Land and the Economics of Power in Early England

31

mancuses of gold, this may well have been due to the pressures of Viking assault.55 A passage in Widsith, which is commonly thought to be among the oldest Old English poems, suggests further complications in the relationship between tenure and treasure. The poet in describing his visit to the court of Eomanric says: He ... gave me a collar in which there was six hundred coins worth of pure gold, counted by shillings. This I gave to Eadgils, my lord and protector, to keep when I arrived home a reward to the beloved man, because he, the lord of the Myrgingas, gave me land, the ancestral home of my father. 56

This text suggests circumstances in which our sensible questions have to meet complicated answers. Was tenure hereditary? On the Widsith evidence: yes and no. One might hope for one's father's land; but a quid pro quo, a kind of purchase, might be required, though the future provision of this might be accepted on trust. These lines indicate the possibility that, even before the days of charters, something related to purchase may have been involved in a king's providing a nobleman with land. Since Chadwick first saw the implication of Bede's account of Benedict Biscop, it has been thought likely that the normal pattern of an early Anglo-Saxon aristocrat's life was one in which he spent his adolescence and early manhood in warrior service, as what appears in Bede's Latin as a minister, then in his later twenties he would marry and become a comes, being given land to settle down on by his king. 57 The Widsith passage suggests that he may have had in a sense to buy that land, using his winnings from war and service. An obvious question which arises is that of whether there were, as time went on, changes in the extent to which land was bought and sold. Consideration of how such great estates of Ely were acquired by purchase (not infrequently from small proprietors) in the late tenth and early eleventh centuries might suggest that there had been a great increase in sales as time went on.58 However, it has to be borne in mind that English abbeys were obtaining land 55

Sawyer, no. 332 (Birch, no. 507). The Anglo-Saxon Poetic Records, 6 vols. (New York, 1931-42), 3: The Exeter Book, ed. George P. Krapp and Elliott V.K. Dobbie (London, 1936), 152, 11. 90-96. The translation is that of Sidney Arthur J. Bradley, Anglo-Saxon Poetry (London, 1982), 339. 57 Hector M. Chadwick, Studies on Anglo-Saxon Institutions (Cambridge, 1905), 333-40; cf. Charles-Edwards, 'The Distinction between Land and Moveable Wealth,' 182-4. 58 Edward Miller, The Abbey and Bishopric of Ely (Cambridge, 1951), 16; Cyril R. Hart, The Early Charters of Eastern England (Leicester, 1966), 214-30; out of 126 tenth-century (mainly late tenth-century) land transactions relating to the estates of Ely and recorded in the Libellus, 55 relate to the purchase of land, quite often of small areas to be measured in acres rather than in hides. Cf. Raftis, The Estates of Ramsey Abbey, 5, 8-9. The relative frequency of Aethelwold's purchases from what appear to be small proprietors, suggests the relevance of Doehaerd's suggestion (in regard to an earlier period, Le haul moyen age occidental, 160) that it was the means which derived from connection with le pouvoir which enabled big men to buy small out. Cf. Lemarignier, 'Les actes de droit prive,' 66-72, for observations much to the point. 56

32

Haskins Society Journal

by purchase from a very early date. When Ceolfrith exchanged an estate belonging to Monkwearmouth/Jarrow for another, larger and nearer, he did it 'additio pretio digno.'59 Apparent circumstances in northern France are a reminder that there was not an inevitable progress towards more sale as time went on; for it is powerfully argued that there sale was a phenomenon of the earlier rather than of the later Dark Ages.60 The curious history, or lack of history, of the sale of land in England in the generations immediately after the Norman Conquest is a warning of the complexity of the problems. Consider, for example, the interesting recent work of Professor R.C. Palmer, who has argued powerfully that a crucial by-product of the new assizes of Henry II's reign was to increase the saleability and sale of land.61 His case acquires a different dimension when one reflects that right up to 1066 there is abundant evidence for the sale of land in amounts large and small. This, first, limits the extent to which one can associate the increasing evidence for sale c. 1200 with economic as well as legal changes. Second, it raises a question about what happened after the Conquest. Did the sale of land diminish; or did the form of documents change in such a way as to conceal it? Whatever the complications and difficulties, it seems reasonable to suppose that there was a change, not an absolute change, but a significant one, in attitudes towards treasure on the one hand and land on the other, between the earlier Anglo-Saxon and the medieval period. This was a world in which the attitudes towards and distinctions of function between land and moveable goods, in particular rich goods, were not what later in the Middle Ages they became. In, let us say, the fourteenth century, the possessions dearest to the heart of great men and great institutions were their lands. Of course a late medieval nobleman set store by his moveable possessions, his gold and silver plate, his jewelled necklaces, his hundred pound horses, his staggeringly expensive clothes, and his extravagant bed;62 but the thesaurus in which you would have found his cor was his ancestral lands. The urge to maintain and increase the landed inheritance was central.63 Thus a key assumption for a medieval monastery is that it had a landed estate, sometimes threatened, sometimes mismanaged, but which was the guarantee of its existence, which allowed it to assume eternity on earth. When monks wrote the history of their monasteries, it was on their lands that they dwelt above all: not their treasures, though they sometimes had them by the cartload. Confidence in the security of landed tenure and with it a complex emotion in regard to land is basic to much of the history of medieval England. 59

Venerabilis Baedae Opera Historica, 380. Lemarignier, 'Les actes de droit prive,' 66-72; de Fontette, Recherches sur la pratique de vente, 9-18. 61 Robert C. Palmer, 'The Economic and Cultural Impact of the Origins of Property, 11801220,' Law and History Review 3 (1985): 575-96. 62 Kenneth Bruce McFarlane, The Nobility of Later Medieval England (Oxford, 1973), 96-101. 63 George A. Holmes, The Estates of the Higher Nobility in Fourteenth Century England (Cambridge, 1957), 7. 60

The Sale of Land and the Economics of Power in Early England

33

If, however, we consider our sources for early England, meagre and ambiguous though they are, the assumptions are different: the weight of interest and emotion is directed not towards land, but towards treasures. Consider Beowulf, where there are only two references to grants of land or jurisdiction; there are dozens to the gift of rings, arms, and horses.64 Put beside it that remarkable work, the De Abbatibus of Aethelwulf, the poem written in the early ninth century on the history of an unidentified monastery connected with Lindisfarne. One can get glimpses, very interesting glimpses, of a landed economy, but Aethelwulf's heart is not in such things; it is silver lamps, gold and jewels for the altar about which he most cares.65 If one imagines him meeting Jocelin of Brakelond and talking about the interests of monasteries, they could have been to an extent at crosspurposes: the main weight of the institutional concern of one focused on gold; that of the other on acres: even though Anglo-Saxon monasteries could hold some of the same estates through many generations and the gold on the altar could matter a great deal to such a house as Bury. Such a poem as Aethelwulf's brings home the strength of Professor Dodwell's case on the importance of gold and treasures to the Anglo-Saxons. 66 As not infrequently, Bede does not quite bring the reality of the ethos of his day home to us. The qualities which make him accessible to us to an extent distance him from his contemporaries. It is Aldhelm with his description of treasures and golden imagery who takes us nearer to them.67 One may catch a glimpse of an attitude towards land differing from that of later centuries in the well-known provisions of Ine's law code, chapters 63 to 66.68 These envisage a gesithound man's going away and leaving his land. He may take with him his reeve, his smith, and his children's nurse, but must leave a certain proportion of his land gesett. Circumstances in which a nobleman 'left' an estate would, in later centuries, have been not readily conceivable. Leaving particular estates could have been a relatively common phenomenon if the history of settlement was in accordance with the views about it held, at their most extreme, by Professor Robert Fossier. He would see the pre-tenth-century world as one of thin, scattered cultivation, often temporary, of shifting, often unfocused settlements; all this being replaced by the creation of what we may loosely call the Western European countryside as we know it in and after the tenth century. 69 64

Klaeber, 11. 2195-6, 2994-5. Cf. Lemarignier, 'Les actes de droit prive.' Ed. Alastair Campbell (Oxford, 1967), e.g., 35-37, 52-53. 66 Anglo-Saxon Art, 24-43. 67 Thus in the relatively brief space of his De Virginitate, Aldhelm has fourteen or more golden images or references, Aldhelmi Opera, ed. Rudolph Ehwald (Berlin, 1919), 232, 237, 244, 246, 248, 249, 252, 254, 256, 259, 261, 278, 314, while Bede, in the whole of his Historia Ecclesiastica has only ten references to gold, three of which are, significantly, in the twenty-line epitaph of Wilfrid quoted, not composed, by Bede: Putnam F. Jones, A Concordance to the Historia Ecclesiastica of Bede (Cambridge, Mass., 1929), s.v. aurum. 68 The Laws of the Earliest English Kings, ed. Frederick L. Attenborough (London, 1922), 56-7. 69 Robert Fossier, L'Enfance de I'Europe, 2 vols. (Paris, 1982), 1: 143-60. Much that Prof. Fossier says about England is, however, very disputable. 65

34

Haskins Society Journal

That is to say the agricultural world in which a nobleman left his land may have been very different from what it was later. A key to the situation would have been the relative shortage of men in relation to land. Doehaerd sums up the speculation well: 'The low value of land explains its mobility, even at the level of the poorer landholders. One parted with a piece of land to buy a horse or to have some money available. One would buy a piece of land to cultivate it temporarily.'70 The consideration of the issues with which I am concerned raises all kinds of questions about the relationship between the operations of power and the development of the economy. Here, if only to make the darkness visible, a crude model of a change from what one might call a two-tier to a one-tier economy may be helpful. Grant that to have treasures, bullion, and weapons to give was, for an early Dark Age ruler, critical. If all his landed estates could produce was food, rents, and labor services, then the essentials for power had to be got elsewhere, that is, by taking them from those who already had them. In short he had to survive by war, so that retinues attracted by treasure-giving could be used to fight the battles which secured new treasure, thus establishing a kind of beneficent circle which was bound in the end to break. A change to circumstances in which rulers or lords could obtain bullion from their lands at large could produce more stable power, for then a ruler could operate up to a point like a kind of pump, taxing and spending, spending and taxing. It is tempting to see such a change as I am here schematizing as having taken place during the Anglo-Saxon period. I think in some large measure it did, but among the complications and difficulties which arise are these. First, if land was frequently exchanged for treasure, this must very obviously complicate the argument a great deal. Second, it is not easy to know how far down early Anglo-Saxon society bullion went (whether by economic or social means): many aspects of this problem are summed up in the difficulties associated with heavy wergelds and fines of the early laws, apparently indicating the availability (or hypothetical availability) to men in the lower ranks of society of numerous solidi or their equivalent. 71 An obvious question to ask is how far one is looking at an economy where estates which were sold for cash or cash-equivalent were capable of producing cash or cash-equivalent revenues. The earliest of the purchase charters which bears on this is of 786 x 96 whereby the abbot of Medehampstead sells ten hides to a princeps for 1,000 solidi and an annual payment of either one night's pastum or 30 sicli.12 This is, I believe, the earliest English reference to the potential commutation of a render in kind. No less suggestive is the instrument of 801 whereby Ceolwulf of Mercia granted to a comes extensive immunities over a large estate in return for 200 solidi down and 30 every year.73 Several of the immunity charters make it clear that the rights they 70

Le haut moyen age occidental, 168. I hope to discuss this matter in more detail elsewhere. 72 Sawyer, no. 1412 (Birch, no. 271). 73 Sawyer, no. 106 (Birch, no. 201). 71

The Sale of Land and the Economics of Power in Early England

35

dispose of could be seen in cash terms; and it may be that the exercise of jurisdiction was one of the principal means whereby land was made to produce cash or its equivalent. To attempt to consider the circulation of cash and cash-equivalent in the layers of society below the highest would be extravagantly beyond the scope of this paper and of its author. I would, however, point out that one means, and it may have been a very important one, by which bullion moved downwards was by gift. An obvious example is Oswald's distribution (according to Bede) of the fragments of a silver dish to a crowd of pauperes.14 (What were those pauperes supposed to do with their bits of silver?). Another, later, comes from that difficult document, the foundation charter, or alleged foundation charter, of Winchcombe.75 The charter is in large measure concerned with the confirmation of Ceolwulf of Mercia's hereditas: with the steps he had taken to ensure papal and Mercian agreement 'ut mihi meisque heredibus plena libertate hereditas mea eo firmior atque stabilior aeternaliter perduraret.' To this end he has, he says, given gold and silver and choice horses to the great men of Mercia and other kingdoms, to all those who do not have land (he presumably means something like all those noblemen who do not have land) a pound of pure silver, to every priest a mancus of gold, to every servant of God a shilling. It is an odd document, not likely to be entirely genuine as it stands, but Levison convincingly maintained the likelihood of there having been something genuine behind it. 76 It is not easy to find a motive for forgery of the passage in question, which can be compared with one in the (admittedly genuine) will of the Kentish reeve Abba (833 or 836) leaving to every priest in Kent a mancus of gold and to every servant of God a penny. 77 If early Anglo-Saxon society was one in which treasure fulfilled functions later fulfilled by land, then its treasure-law may have been as important as its land-law. Relevant here are what were later called the laws of war. Largely thanks to Dr. Keen, we know a great deal about these in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. 78 It has been suggested by Sir Michael Howard, that the definition of rules about the distribution of booty, for example, are a late creation, something to do with a powerful phenomenon, the commercialization of war, thought to have taken place in the later Middle Ages.79 It may well be that such conventions have a far older history. Such a famous passage as that in which Gregory of Tours tells the story of the Soissons ewer suggests the existence of laws, or something like them, relating to the distribution of booty: after a campaign the booty was gathered together and distributed by lot, though the story itself suggests the possibility of a tension between such a 74

Venerabilis Baedae Opera Historica, 1: 138. Sawyer, no. 167 (Birch, no. 338). 76 Wilhelm Levison, England and [he Continent in the Eighth Century (Oxford, 1946), 253-59. 77 Select English Historical Documents, 4, 41. 78 Maurice H. Keen, The Laws of War in the Later Middle Ages (1965). 79 Michael Howard, War in European History (Oxford, 1976), 3. 75

36

Haskins Society Journal

customary system of distribution and royal power.80 A passage in Felix's Life of Guthlac gives a hint (if not a very broad one) that specific provisions in later medieval laws about booty may have an early ancestry. In those late medieval laws a key element was division by thirds. The actual captor got a third, his captain got a third, and the king got a third.81 Felix's Life of Guthlac says that Guthlac, during his military career, used to give back to their owners a third of the amassed goods 'as if by divine counsel.'82 This provision sounds a shade close-fisted for a Christian man: prima facie returning a third seems less than adequate, say by about two-thirds; but it would make sense in Guthlac's case if the regime of thirds already applied and all Guthlac had at his disposal was a third of his booty. An odd glimpse of what again one might call treasure-law, is provided by the Capitulary of Aachen, 801 x 813: 'Nullus seniorem suum dimittat postquam ab eo acciperit valente solido uno.'83 In the British army, right up to the twentieth century, a recruit was given a shilling (the king's shilling), a solidus indeed; and once he had accepted it, he was fully committed, bound. It is a fair guess that we have here an example of a long, veiled, continuity in the law or ethos (things hardly distinguishable) of treasure-giving. A primary concern of the early Dark Age world was the taking and giving of treasure. Shifts in the distribution of power were reflected in and caused by the redistribution of the European stock of bullion. Such redistribution affected more than naked power. Behind most of the religious and cultural achievements of the age lay the savage wars of plundering kings: behind those of the Carolingian age, the bloody successes of the Franks on three frontiers; behind those of the age of Bede the comparable successes of Northumbrian kings. A successful abbey, with its golden altar vessels, its silver lamps, its silk hangings, its manuscripts, its slaves, was, in an important dimension, the product of successful war. The treasures which war brought were essential to its endowment. The documents which are the starting point for my suggestions in the present paper raise the problems of the relationship between treasures and land, and circumstances in which, while treasure performed some of the functions which later in the Middle Ages one would normally associate with land, conversely land performed some of the functions which later would normally be associated with money. The world with which I have been concerned was one in which war was a major economic activity. It was one in which every man had his price and so did each of his fingers, and it was one which was full of equivalents. There may not (or may) have been many solidi, but it is amazing how many things, from land to life, from oaths to cows, could be valued in terms of solidi. I do 80 Gregoire de Tours, Histoire des Francs, ed. Henri Omont, Gaston Collon, and Rene Poupardin (Paris, 1913), II xix, 27, pp. 58-9. 81 Keen, The Laws of War, 146-51. 82 Felix's Life of Saint Guthlac (Cambridge, 1956), 80. 83 Capitularia Regum Francorum, ed. Alfred Boretius and [Ernst Erwin] Victor Krause, 2 vols. (Hannover, 1883, 1897), 1: 172.

The Sale of Land and the Economics of Power in Early England

37

rather wonder, in considering the exchange of land for treasure, whether one should not understand Anglo-Saxon society as being characterized by a generally wider attitude towards exchange than that which characterized later centuries. The Anglo-Saxons were continually trading lives for money, land for treasure, and land for land to an extent which would have surprised their medieval heirs. Worcester College, Oxford

This page intentionally left blank

4

The Encomium Emmae Reginae: A 'Political Pamphlet' of the Eleventh Century? Felice Lifshitz

The century from Alfred the Great to Edward the Martyr had been arguably the 'golden age' of the Old English kings, 1 but when Ethelred II the 'IllCounselled' ascended the throne in 979, he was both too young and too inexperienced to defend the wealth of England against the redoubled forces of Danish imperialism under the leadership of Svein Forkbeard.2 Ethelred's marriage in 1002 to Emma of Normandy, rather than to a noble English lady, probably intended to strengthen the English position in the military arena of the northern seas, could not prevent the Danish conquest of England, and Emma seems not to have hesitated to marry the son of the conqueror, Cnut, in 1017. The name Encomium Emmae Reginae3 derives from the title given by Duchesne in 1619 to a brief anonymous and untitled panegyric on the house of Svein.4 The Encomium is dedicated to, devoted to the praise of, and, most importantly, written on the command of Queen Emma. The gist of the argumentum is that, just as Virgil's Aeneid was completely devoted to the praise of the Emperor Augustus, so the Encomium is entirely devoted to the praise of Queen Emma, even though much of it concerns her only indirectly. The queen's motives and aims in commissioning the work must, therefore, be at the center of any attempt to understand its value and significance. The most intriguing thing about the text is the Encomiast's (and, by extension, Emma's) treatment of Edward the Confessor and Alfred, the truth of whose parentage is, as it were, 'suppressed.' Ethelred is never mentioned by name in the Encomium. Emma's marriage to that unlucky English monarch is 1 I thank Simon Keynes and Miles Campbell for their thoughtful critiques of earlier drafts of this paper. 2 See Laurence Lawson, Canute the Great (London, 1912), the most recent study of that monarch, for the background to Svein's conquest, and the article by E. Christiansen, 'Canute and his World,' History Today (Nov. 1986): 34-39. 3 Edited and translated by Alistair Campbell, Camden Series Royal Historical Society 72 (1949); hereafter cited as 'Campbell.' 4 Historiae Normannorum Scriptores Antiqui (Paris, 1619). Encomium Emmae Reginae is actually an abbreviation of Duchesne's full title, Emmae Anglorum reginae Richardi I duds Normannorum filiae encomium.

40

Haskins Society Journal

likewise unmentioned, and, therefore, no explicit statement is ever made as to the identity of the father of Emma's sons, Edward and Alfred. To Alistair Campbell and to C.N.L. Brooke the omission was explicable as a matter of 'artistic necessity' and of Emma's personal vanity, the only way to paint a perfect, panegyrical, even hagiographical picture of a queen who had married her dead husband's enemy. 5 Both scholars, however, subscribed to the older view, which afforded the Encomium only literary significance as a panegyric to individual or dynasty, but saw no political import. It was Sten Korner's contribution to raise in 1964, for the first time in the debate, the issue of the immediate political background of the text and to assign a political purpose to everything in it, including the omission of Emma's connection with the old Wessex dynasty. All the literature on the Encomium since then has accepted the political, propagandistic nature of the text.6 Eric John has described the Encomium as 'a political pamphlet for the occasion,' and its author as 'writing for contemporaries in a political crisis.' 7 Barlow, for one, has abandoned his own previous opinion and accepted Korner's view, that is, that the Encomium was written exclusively for Hardacnut, Emma's son by Cnut, and against Edward, to discredit the latter's claim to the throne and to strenghten the former's. 8 Eric John, unlike Barlow, stopped short of total agreement with Korner, and has suggested that the manipulative 'suppression' of Ethelred as the father of Edward and Alfred is not central to the political purpose of the work, simply because the intended audience must have been fully cognizant of the true situation, just as the intended audience of the London Times knows the duke of Edinburgh is the queen's husband. 9 For John, the Encomium is a relatively undisguised polemic in favor of Emma herself, as the 'bearer of legitimacy,' and against the Thorkells, Godwines and potential anarchistic troublemakers of the realm; as he puts it, 'the English were warned they would despise Queen Emma at their peril.' 10 John exposed many of the weaknesses in Korner's anti-Edward thesis, but he did not pursue the implications for Edward of his own insights about Emma's centrality as the 'bearer of legitimacy.' Whether in 1037 or 1041, the greatest possible danger for Emma lay in Hardacnut's death and the rejection 5 Campbell, xlvi; C.N.L. Brooke, 'Historical Writing in England Between 850 and 1150,' Settimane di Studio, 17: La storiografia altomediovale, Centro Italiano Di Studi Sull' Alto Medioevo, 2 vols. (Spoleto, 1970), 1: 237. 6 See Korner's The Battle of Hastings, England and Europe, 1035-1066, Bibliotheca Historica Lundensis 14 (Lund, 1964). 7 See 'The Encomium Emmae Reginae: A Riddle and a Solution,' Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 63 (1980): 65 and 94. 8 Frank Barlow, Edward the Confessor (Berkeley, 1970), 47-49. In a much earlier work on the subject (see infra, n. 36), Barlow had espoused the then unusual view that Emma was not hostile to her sons by Ethelred. 9 John, 'Riddle and Solution,' 62-65. 10 Ibid., 91,94.

The Encomium Emmae Reginae

41

of Edward's claims. The only sensible, forward-looking position for her to assume in the 'political crisis' of the 1030s and 1040s was one which supported and promoted Edward's claim to the English throne directly after that of Hardacnut, who was Cnut's publicly-acknowledged heir. The omissions in the Encomium can be seen as supporting precisely such a policy. The Encomiast gives the impression not that Edward and Alfred were Cnut's biological sons, but that Cnut nevertheless adopted them as his 'legitimate sons,' and would have been perfectly content for either of them to occupy the throne if his preferred heir, his biological son, could not. Or at least that is the impression the author sought to convey to his readers, whatever the 'truth' may have been. For example, when Cnut and Emma designate Hardacnut as heir, they 'alios uero liberates filios educandos direxerunt Normanniae' ('... sent in fact their other legitimate sons to Normandy to be brought up'). 11 As Korner points out, this scenario is not historically accurate; Edward and Alfred were sent to Normandy in 1013 to protect them from Svein, not in 1017 to be raised as the sons of Cnut. 12 Futhermore, and contrary to Korner's treatment of it, the oath allegedly made by Cnut to Emma as a precondition of their marriage by no means excluded Alfred and Edward (only Harold Harefoot) from the succession; Cnut is said to have sworn only that no sons of his by any other woman would succeed.13 Finally, the opening chapter of Book 3, which sets up the conflict over the succession, gives the impression that all three of these 'legitimate sons' are to be considered by the reader as the rightful heirs of Cnut: Mortuo Cnutone rege honorificeque sepulto in monasterio in honore Santi Petri constructo [Wyntonie], domina regina Emma sola remansit in regno dolens de domini sui morte amara et sol(l)icita pro filiorum absentia. Namque unus eorum, Hardecnuto scilicet, quern pater regem Danorum constituit, suo morabatur in regno, duo uero alii in Normanniae finibus ad nutriendum traditi cum propinquo suo degebant Rotberto. Unde factum est, ut quidam Anglorum pietatem regis sui iam defuncti obliti mallent regnum suum dedecorare quam ornare, relinquentes nobiles filios insignis reginae Emmae et eligentes sibi in regem quendam Haroldum .... Quem electus 11

Campbell, 34-35. Korner, Battle of Hastings, 54. For the texts see Charles Plummer, Earle's Two Saxon Chronicles Parallel, 2 vols. (Oxford, 1892), 1: 144, with a translation in The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle: A Revised Translation, ed. Dorothy Whitelock (London, 1961), 93. 13 Campbell, 32-33; Korner, Battle of Hastings, 58-59. The text reads: 'Sed abnegat ilia, se unquam Cnutonis sponsam fieri, nisi illi iusiurando affirmaret, quod numquam alterius coniugis filium post se regnare faceret nisi eius, si forte illi Deus ex eo filium dedisset.' ('But she refused ever to become the bride of Kniitr, unless he would affirm to her by oath, that he would never set up the son of any wife other than herself to rule after him, if it happened that God should give her a son by him.') 12

42

Haskins Society Journal mutuensque futuri aduocat mox archiepiscopum Aelnotum, uirum omni uirtute et sapientia preditum, imperatque et orat se benedici in regem .... Abnegat archiepiscopus, sub iureiurando asserens se neminem alium in regem filiis reg(i)nae Emmae uiuentibus laudare vel benedicere: 'Hos meae fidei Cnuto commisit; his fidem debeo et his fidelitatem seruabo ,..' 14

None of Korner's evidence for Emma and Hardacnut's hostility to Edward is contemporary. On the other hand, the Encomiast, Emma's spokesman, paints throughout a very positive picture of Ethelred's two sons. The Encomium explains Edward's refusal to invade England in order to depose Harold Harefoot, on the grounds that the English nobles had not sworn allegiance to him, but rather to Hardacnut. In Korner's opinion Edward's reticence was meant to imply a renunciation of his claims to the throne.15 Yet, in practical terms, Edward's decision was not unwise, but rather one based on respect for the wishes of the English magnates and the dead king. Not even Hardacnut came to the throne by force of arms. Alfred was rasher, but his tragic end serves to discredit not Edward, as though he 'should have gone himself,' but rather Harold, who had the etheling executed, and the treacherous English who betrayed him. Alfred is even glorified as a martyr whose tomb is graced by miracles, although the Encomiast describes the gloriosi Alfridi martyrium in greatly abbreviated form, since 'Est quippe nullus dolor maior matri, quam uidere uel audire mortem dilectissimi filii,'16 and in any case it was difficult even for the author to linger over the tragedy. There is certainly no hint here that Emma felt anything other than affection for Alfred. Finally, it is well to remember the Encomiast's avowed principle of glory by familial association; Alfred was Edward's brother, and to have a saint for a brother could only redound to the benefit of Edward's own reputation. Emma did not go so far as to try to pass Edward and Alfred off as sons of Cnut, but she did seek to associate them as much as possible with the victorious house of Svein Forkbeard. It is striking that even Emma's own 14

Campbell, 38-41 ('When Kniitr was dead and honorably buried in the monastery built at Winchester in honor of St. Peter, the lady, Queen Emma, remained alone in the kingdom, sorrowing for the bitter death of her lord and alarmed at the absence of her sons. For one of them, namely Hdrthaknutr, whom his father had made king of the Danes, was in his own kingdom, and two others were sent to the country of Normandy to be brought up. And so it came to pass that certain Englishmen, forgetting the piety of their lately deceased king, preferred to dishonor their country than to ornament it, and deserted the noble sons of the excellent Queen Emma, choosing as their king one Haraldr .... Soon after being chosen, this man, fearing for the future, summoned Archbishop Aethelnoth, a man gifted with high courage and wisdom, and commanded and prayed to be consecrated king .... The archbishop refused, declaring by oath that while the sons of Queen Emma lived he would approve or consecrate no other man as king: 'Them Knutr entrusted to my good faith; to them I owe fidelity and with them I shall maintain faith ...."). 15 Campbell, 48-49; Korner, Battle of Hastings, 69. 16 Campbell, 44—45 ('Indeed there is no greater sorrow for a mother than to see or hear of the death of a most dear son.').

The Encomium Emmae Reginae

43

heritage, probably Norwegian, 17 is 'suppressed' in the Encomium in favor of a vague and general association with a conquering race. That conquering race can only be assumed to be Danish, given the closed framework of the text, wherein Norway is no more than a province under Danish rule. Emma, Edward, and Alfred are all associated with the Danish conquerors, Svein and Cnut, and dissociated from the weak, disorganized and conquered English (of whom more anon), who ought to be grateful (we are made to believe) to have at last received some good government. Many of the passages cited above, particularly the opening section of Book 3 quoted at length, were also brought forward as evidence by another student of the text, Miles Campbell. 18 Working independently, we have both arrived at the conclusion that the Tendenz of the Encomium, in so far as it concerns Edward the Confessor, would have supported rather than contravened his claim to the throne. But if we can agree that Edward was not meant to be the target of the Encomium, we are still left wondering who was. Campbell suggested that the target of the work was Svein Estrithson, the son of Cnut's sister Estrith, who Campbell considers a rival to Edward after Hardacnut's death in 1042.19 The most important piece of evidence cited by Campbell for the threat posed by Svein Estrithson to Edward is the account in Adam of Bremen of how Edward, already on the throne but fearful that Svein would challenge him, designated the Danish king as his heir.20 Adam wrote shortly before 1075 and his main informant was the Danish king himself. 21 But must we not be suspicious of claims made by any monarch in the years following 1066 to have been designated heir of Edward the Confessor? Even were we to agree that Emma had the foresight before the death of Hardacnut to protect Edward against Estrithson's eventual claims, we would have to admit that her spokesman, the Encomiast, did a singularly bad job. There is absolutely nothing in the text that would arouse suspicion of or opposition to the Dane's claims. In fact, as a full-blooded Dane and a warrior whose blood relationship to Cnut was of the first order (being the son of his sister), his prestige would have been only increased by the Danish panegyrical tendencies of the work. He would not even have been precluded from claiming the throne by the oath imputed to Cnut on his marriage to Emma, since Cnut swore only that no sons of his own by another woman would ascend the throne. Every one of the above exegeses of the hidden political agenda in the Encomium has begun with the unquestioned premise that the English (either contemporaries or posterity) were the intended audience for the work, whatever 17 See David Douglas, 'Rollo of Normandy,' English Historical Review 57 (1942): 429; the argument is reiterated in his biography, William the Conqueror (1964), 6. 18 'The Encomium Emmae Reginae: Personal Panegyric or Political Propaganda?,' Annuale Mediaevale 19 (1979): 37-41 especially. 19 Ibid., 34-35. 20 History of the Archbishops of Hamburg-Bremen, trans. F.J. Tschan (New York, 1959), 108. 21 Peter Sawyer, Kings and Vikings (London, 1982), 17.

44

Haskins Society Journal

has been said about their likely degree of understanding of its various dissimulations. The purpose of the project has always been assumed to have been to persuade the English political classes to support or oppose one or another party or individual during a period of prolonged crisis over the succession. I would suggest that this very premise, which has treated the Encomium as the equivalent of a twentieth-century political pamphlet, is fallacious. Let us reconsider the question of the intended audience and the nature of political propaganda in the eleventh century. The 1040s are not the 1540s, or the 1640s. Propaganda warfare and political pamphleteering, so important in England during the Reformation and the Civil War, could have had nothing like that later impact before the invention of the printing press, to mention but one of the myriad preconditions for modern-style political action. Not only is the notion of effecting changes in public opinion by means of the written word anachronistic for the eleventh century, the very concept of 'public opinion' is itself anachronistic for that time. Nor does that manuscript history point to a very wide diffusion of the work; three of the four extant manuscripts are early-modern copies;22 their existence affirms only the geneological and antiquarian obsessions of that era, not any widespread knowledge of the work in the Middle Ages. This is not to say that propaganda did not exist before the invention of the printing press, but rather that the target of an obviously polemical work in the eleventh century is likely to have been of another sort altogether. As for the English, they in fact come off very badly in the Encomium. Svein's initial conquest is achieved with ease, as the Danes encounter only minimal resistance, completely unorganized and unled, a 'Great Fyrd' left to its own devices. The natives, we are told, were doomed from the outset, due to the tremendous prowess and valour of the noble Danish forces.23 The conquered land, which is not even a civilized place, boasts no government or nobility, simply ineffectual inhabitants. The portrait of the English is no different when we arrive at the account of Cnut's encounters with renewed resistance, explicitly called a barbaricus furor after Svein's death.24 Once again the overwhelmingly superior military prowess of the Danes takes the day, this time with a little help from the prophetic banner under which they fight, and from divine providence, which removes the upstart princeps Edmund, in order to leave England in peace under the strong and generous rule of the Danish king Cnut. Nevertheless the English repeatedly commit treacherous acts against their lords, for example betraying Alfred, or turning to Harold Harefoot. What else could have been expected from a host that had repeatedly turned and fled to 'dishonorable refuges' (inhonesta refugia),25 not only in the heat of battle, but sometimes even before the battle was joined, or from a host infested with 22

For the manuscripts, see Campbell, xi-xix and 3. "Campbell, 20-21. 24 'Barbarous furor' (Campbell, 16). 25 Campbell, 25-26.

The Encomium Emmae Reginae

45

treacherous lieutenants like Eadric? Cowardice in battle and lack of loyalty to one's lord were roundly despised in this still 'Germanic' cultural universe, if I may be permitted the term. As for Cnut's royal consort, she is chosen specifically because she too sprung from a conquering people, the Viking rulers of Normandy, who 'sibi partem Galliae uendicauera[n]t, inuitis Francigenis et eorum principe.' 26 Finally, absolutely no attempt was made by the Encomiast to heal old wounds by minimizing the devastation and death-toll suffered by the native English in the several skirmishes with the noble Danish conquerors; if anything, these episodes are described in lingering detail.27 Such passages, combined with the suppression of the native Wessex dynasty, would more likely have raised the ire of the English than their support for any advocated programs. It is not that the author manifests any enmity for the English, but simply that the latter clearly do not rate on the scale of those virtues which really matter. Both the limitations imposed by eleventh-century circumstances and the negative portrait of the Anglo-Saxon natives indicate that Emma's aim in commissioning the polemical Encomium could not have been to rally English public opinion to her side, either by frightening them with the spectre of 'the world of Thorkell' (as John proposed),28 or by convincing them that Edward had no right to succeed Hardacnut on the throne (as Korner and Barlow hold), 29 or even by convincing them that Edward had a better claim than Svein Estrithson (as Miles Campbell has most recently suggested).30 Perhaps it would not be amiss to reexamine our other assumptions concerning the Encomium. Since Duchesne first studied the text in 1619 and pronounced his opinion on it, no one has ever questioned his views as to the date of composition and the authorship of the Encomium: 1040-42 by a monk of St. Berlin in Flanders. Taking first the authorship, the fact that the author recounts as an eye-witness the visit of Cnut to that house in 1026 and at the same time refers to himself as the vernula (native or home-born slave) of St. Omer and St. Berlin is certainly very strong evidence in favor of that identification. 31 Furthermore, Ganshof has found that the author can be considered a 'legitimate authority' for things Flemish, and especially for Bruges. 32 As for the date of composition, there can 26

Campbell, 32-33 ('... she was much desired by the king, and especially because she derived her origin from a victorious people, who had appropriated for themselves part of Gaul, in despite of the French and their prince.'). 27 See for example the description of how the English were destined to die at the hands of the noble Danes (Campbell, 20-21). 28 John, 'Riddle and Solution,' 84 and passim. 29 See supra, n. 8. 30 Campbell, 'Panegyric or Propaganda?.' 37-41. 31 For the relevant texts, see Campbell, 36-37, especially the following line: 'Haec et alia his mirificentiora a domno Cnutone gesta vidi ego, vester vernula, Sancte Audomare, Sancte Bertini, cum fierent vestris in caenobiis ....' ('These things and others more wonderful were seen done by the Lord Kniitr by me, who am your servant St. Omer and St. Berlin, when they came to pass in your monasteries!').

46

Haskins Society Journal

be little doubt but that the Encomium was completed during the two-year reign of Hardacnut.The obvious villain in the Encomium is the usurper King Harold Harefoot, Cnut's son by an Englishwoman, who succeeded Cnut in 1035, until his sudden death in 1040. The Encomiast tells how the English chose Harold as king: quern esse filium falsa aestimatione asseritur cuiusdam eiusdem regis Cnutonis concubinae plurimorum uero assertio eundem Haroldum perhibet furtim fuisse subreptum parturient! ancillae, impositum autem camerae languentis co[n]cubinae, quod ueratius credi potest.33

Harold was chosen over the rightful heir of Cnut and Emma both, that is, Hardacnut, while the latter was preoccupied with the overseas portion of his paternal inheritance. Harold's status as a usurper is, not incidentally, confirmed by the archbishop of Canterbury's refusal to consecrate him. Finally, Harold reveals his true character as one who hates religion and the Church and as a foul murderer, who executes Hardacnut's brother, Alfred, and forces the rightful king's mother, Emma, to flee to Flanders. Because Harold was already dead and Hardacnut installed on the throne by the time the work was completed, scholars have felt it necessary to look elsewhere for the target of so obviously propagandistic and partisan a tract. But again, consider the evidence. The final paragraphs of the work and the argumentum with which it opens recount how the message of Harold's divinelyordained death was brought to Emma in Flanders and how Hardacnut, Emma, and Edward went on to the peaceful joint rule of England. Neither of these points necessarily rules out the possibility that the inception of the project and most of its execution may date from the reign of Harold, particularly since the argumentum, like most proper introductions, appears to have been written after the rest of the text. Emma was in exile in Flanders with Baldwin V from 1037 to 1040. It seems safer to assume that the author was contacted, commissioned, and informed as to the preferred content of the Encomium during the period of Emma's exile. Are we then to believe that he waited several years, indeed until after the queen had returned to England, to begin writing? With the simple admission that the project was commissioned and begun while Emma was on the spot in Flanders, the entire problem of the purpose of the work evaporates. No subtle exegesis is required to divine the intent behind the clear message of the work: the usurper Harold has no justifiable claim to the English crown. 32

In his response to Brooke's paper (see above note 5), 259. Campbell, 38-41 ('Who is declared, owing to a false estimation of the matter, to be a son of a certain concubine of the above-mentioned King Kmitr; as a matter of fact, the assertion of very many people has it that the same Haraldr was secretly taken from a servant who was in childbed and put in the chamber of the concubine, who was indisposed; and this can be believed as the more truthful account.') 33

The Encomium Emmae Reginae

47

I suggest that the work was composed in 1039 in Flanders, when Hardacnut, finally in control of Denmark, joined his mother in Bruges and undertook to raise a fleet against Harold Harefoot. The Encomium demonstrated above all the legitimacy of Hardacnut's claims and bothered to include nothing about Cnut that did not bear directly on the succession, except his outstanding generosity to Flemish monasteries and his great piety, which led him to undertake a pilgrimage to Rome. Emma's specific aim would have been to gain the support of Count Baldwin the Pious, her protector, for Hardacnut's great enterprise of staking a claim to his father's English domains. However, before the work could be completed, Harold died and the naval venture became unnecessary. Once we conceive of the Encomium as written not for the English but for a foreign court, the issues of subtle factual omissions and the assumptions of the audience which have so puzzled all modern students of the work are cast in an entirely different light. It would be asking a lot to expect either Emma's protector, Baldwin V, or her confidant, the Encomiast himself, or indeed any foreigner, to know the truth about the queen's domestic relations; private matters such as Cnut's feelings and intentions were precisely the sort of thing for which one would have had to take her word. Emma's deception of the intended audience, and I reiterate, most likely of even the author himself, was probably a complete success. The key is to recognize several immediate political aims for the Encomium, rather than any monolithic one: to put Hardacnut on the throne, to position Edward as his heir apparent and to glorify the memory of Emma's third son, the 'martyred' Alfred. It is true that propaganda works backwards as well as forwards and that the Encomium could have been intended as retrospective justification for Hardacnut's rule against the now-dead Harold. But what motivation, what serious need could there possibly have been for such a work once Hardacnut was already on the throne? Harold had no known heirs or partisans and the only possible choice as rallying-point for a 'pro-Harold' party, which would of necessity have been a 'pro-English' party, was Edward the Confessor himself. That would put us right back where we began, with Edward the target of Emma's propaganda. If Emma did not 'hate' her 'first family,' or try to exclude Edward from the succession in favor of Hardacnut, how are we to explain the events of 1043? According to the C text of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle for that year: And soon after this the king brought all the lands his mother owned forcibly into his own control and took from her all that she owned in gold and silver and things beyond description....34

Miles Campbell, here following Korner, adduces in explanation the story that the queen tried to instigate an invasion of England against Edward by Magnus of Norway. This thesis was originally put forward by Goscelin of St. 34

107.

Earle's Two Saxon Chronicles 1: 162-163; The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, trans. Whitelock,

48

Haskins Society Journal

Berlin in his Translatio Mildredi at the end of the eleventh century,35 but most commentators, such as Barlow, have considered the story of the proposed invasion no more than a wild, slanderous rumor.36 Miles Campbell, arguing for the veracity of the account, explains that Emma would have been angered against Edward for permitting Earl God wine, her mortal enemy, to become influential and powerful and would, therefore, have been moved to conspire with the only possible available champion, King Magnus of Norway, to topple Edward and thereby take revenge upon him.37 Although eschewing the older psychological portrait of Emma as an 'unnatural mother,' Campbell is willing to present her as a 'vindictive woman.' While it is certainly not impossible that Emma was vindictive, her comportment throughout these decades of crisis over the succession indicates that she was not politically naive. To encourage the invasion of a country and the toppling of one's own son, the reigning king, by a foreign monarch is at no time an intelligent policy. Such a plot would have harmed not only the country and her son but also herself. What sort of position would she hold if Edward were deposed? She was surely past the child-bearing years by this point and could hardly have hoped to negotiate yet another marriage with a conquering Viking. The evidence of personality and behavior do not lead to the conclusion that Emma would have conspired against her own son. Edward was however eager to believe himself betrayed, not at all surprising given the events of the early years of his life, which could only have been perceived as a rejection by his parents, and he may well have thought his mother was engaged in such activities. The Vita Mildredi preserves the rumor that Emma was in contact with Magnus of Normandy. Adam of Bremen preserves the tradition that Edward suspected Svein Estrithson of planning to seize the English throne. Perhaps what Emma was really up to was this: to encourage and support Magnus in his conquest of Denmark in order to keep Svein busy there and diverted from England. Svein only managed to establish himself in Denmark against Magnus in 1047, and Denmark was his major preoccupation, as it had been Hardacnut's, for it was the core of his paternal inheritance. Having got wind of messages between his mother and Scandinavia in such circumstances, King Edward drew the wrong conclusion. 35

His Translatio Mildredi (Bibliotheca Hagiographica Latina, no. 5961), eds. Hagiographi Bollandiani I-II and Supplements (Brussels, 1898-1911; 1987) describes the translation of the abbess of Thanet's relics to Canterbury, with the permission of Cnut, in 1035. The text is partially published by Thomas Hardy in his Descriptive Catalogue of Materials Relating to the History of Great Britain, 3 vols. in 4, R.S. (London, 1862-71), 1: 380-81, from London, British Library, MS. Cott. Vesp. B. xx, fol. 177v, a manuscript of the twelfth century. 36 Frank Barlow, 'Two Notes: Cnut's Second Pilgrimage and Queen Emma's Disgrace in 1043,' EHR 73 (1958): 649-56; see especially 655-656 for the text of the translatio, which he publishes in toto. There is an illuminating discussion of the point in P.M. Stenton, Anglo-Saxon England (Oxford, 1971), 426-27. 37 The thesis is first developed in 'Emma, Reine d'Angleterre: mere denaturee ou femme vindictive?,' Annales de Normandie (1973): 112-14, and repeated in the conclusion to his more recent article, 'Panegyric or Propaganda?,' 44-45.

The Encomium Emmae Reginae

49

As plausible as this bit of speculation may or may not seem, let us remember that a cause need only be sufficient to create its effect. Had Edward believed that his mother conspired to topple him from the throne and install a Norwegian on it, he would have been justified in a degree of rage that could not have been satisfied merely by stripping Emma of her wealth and leaving her in peace. He might have executed her for treason; he surely would have imprisoned or exiled her. Edward had good reasons to resent his mother, but the Encomium is evidence that, once Cnut had died, she tried to make it up to him. Contemporaries, unlike modern commentators, believed that the Encomium presented the Confessor as Hardacnut's rightful heir. The Flemish illuminator who decorated the only surviving medieval copy of the work, probably the presentation copy for Emma herself, illustrated the frontispiece of the manuscript with a representation of the queen, Hardacnut, and Edward receiving a copy of the Encomium from its kneeling author. 38 The English scribe who updated the Encomium after Edward's accession provided this alternative ending: His itaque fratribus concorditer regnantibus mors media intercidit et regem Hardechnutonem uitalibus auris abstulit. Regem mater et frater maximo cum luctu honorifice sepeliunt. Mortuo Ardechnutone in regnum successit Edwardus, heres scilicet legittimus.... 39

It was too little, too late. Edward was understandably not inclined to accept Emma's deceptive portrait of his own life, as an adopted son of Cnut rather than as a refugee from him, even if she was publishing it 'for his own good.' There is no denying that Emma preferred Hardacnut; when Cnut was alive she most likely had no choice, as Edward and Alfred were nothing to him but the unlucky children of a toppled and weak king. Cnut quite naturally designated his biological son as his heir.40 If Emma continued to prefer Hardacnut in her widowhood, that is because it was still the only possible choice: Hardacnut had Scandinavian forces at his disposal, Edward had only the potential of aid from the child William the Bastard; Cnut had already made his magnates swear oaths to Hardacnut, Edward had no friends or experience in England; Flemish aid in placing Hardacnut on the throne was a distinct possibility, Flemish aid for a Norman prince, given the rivalry that existed between the dukes and the counts, was completely out of the question.But no amount of pragmatic reasons can ease 38

See London, British Library, MS. Add. 33241, fol. 55 and Campbell, xi-xii. Campbell, 52 n. b: Thus while the brothers were ruling together in concord, death intervened and carried king Hardacnut off to heaven. His mother and his brother buried the king honorably, with the greatest sorrow. With Hardacnut dead, Edward succeeded him on the throne, as the legitimate heir ....' The translation is my own. This alternative ending has been preserved only in a sixteenth-century copy, now in Paris, Bibliotheque Nationale, MS. lat. 6235. Campbell believed it might have come from the hand of the Encomiast himself (see xv-xvi). 40 Campbell, 34-35. 39

50

Haskins Society Journal

the pain of a child who feels rejected by a parent. Edward didn't hate his mother, but he did feel hurt by her and that, whatever she had done for him, it wasn't enough. Let us take our cue from a contemporary explanation for Edward's repudiation of his mother, that is, the D version of the Chronicle (s.a. 1043), which tells how Edward and his advisors: genge to Wincestre on unwaer on Pa hlaefdian 7 bereafedan hi aet eallon Pan gaesaman Pa heo ahte. Pa waeron unatellendlice. forP an Pe heo waes aeror Pam cynge hire suna swiSe heard. P heo him laesse dyde Ponne he wolde aer Pam e he cyng waere. 7 eac sy55an 7 leton hi Paer si55an binnan sittan. 41 Trinity College, Hartford

41

Earle's Two Chronicles 1: 163; Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, trans. Whitelock, 107 ('And this year, a fortnight before St. Andrew's Day, the king was advised to ride from Gloucester, together with Earl Leofric and Earl Godwine and Earl Siwand and their retinue, to Winchester. And they came unexpectedly upon the lady, and deprived her of all the treasures which she owned, and which were beyond counting, because she had formerly been very hard to the king, her son, in that she did less for him than he wished both before he became king and afterwards as well. And they allowed her to stay there afterwards.')

5

William Bona Anima, Abbot of St. Stephen's of Caen, 1070-79 David S. Spear

William Bona Anima - William 'Good Soul' - was among the elite clerics of the Anglo-Norman world. He was an intimate of Archbishops Lanfranc and Anselm of Canterbury and Maurilius of Rouen. As archbishop of Rouen himself (1079-1110) he was the metropolitan of the Norman Church. He was advisor to three successive dukes of Normandy, William the Conqueror, Robert Curthouse, and Henry I. Indeed his close association with ducal reform led him to fall out of favor with the Gregorian papacy, for William was censored by Popes Gregory VII, Urban II, and Pascal II. G.H. Williams, in his classic study, The Norman Anonymous of 1100 A.D., has suggested that Bona Anima was the author of the vigorously anti-papal Norman Anonymous tractates. But in spite of Bona Anima's high position, general importance and possible authorship of one of the most intriguing polemics to come out of the Investiture Controversy, there have been no full-blown studies of his life. To be sure, there have been articles in the Gallia Christiana, the Histoire litteraire de la France, and other reference works, but these accounts derive almost exclusively from Orderic Vitalis who is our main source of information about Bona Anima. 1 Unlike Lanfranc and Anselm, Bona Anima has no surviving vita. I have tried elsewhere to deal with William's archiepiscopal career.2 In this paper I would like to turn to William's career before he became archbishop, focusing especially on his role as the second abbot of St. Stephen's of Caen (1070-79). Here no one has trod before and Orderic provides no lantern. A brief word about William's background. He was descended from the Norman aristocracy, being a kinsman of Gerard Fleitel. He was the cousin of William, bishop of Evreux (1046-66), and the son of Radbod, bishop of Sees (1025-32). He was a close associate of Maurilius, archbishop of Rouen (105467), under whom he was a cathedral canon and archdeacon. In 1057 Bona 1 Orderic, 2: 68, 254; 3: 24; 6: 170, and passim; George H. Williams, The Norman Anonymous of 1100 A.D. (Cambridge, Mass., 1951), 102-125; Gallia Christiana (Paris, 1759), 11: cols. 3741, 424 (hereafter cited as GC); Histoire litteraire de la France (Paris, 1750), 9: 496-502; and C. Hippeau, L'abbaye de Saint-Etienne de Caen, (1066-1790) (Caen, 1855), 25-29. 2 'On Stormy Sees: William Bona Anima, Archbishop of Rouen (1079-1110),' a paper delivered at the 101st annual meeting of the American Historical Association, December 30, 1986, in Chicago.

52

Has kins Society Journal

Anima departed upon a pilgrimage to Jerusalem with Thierry, abbot of St. Evroul, and Gundulf, future bishop of Rochester. Upon his return William sought the monastic life under Lanfranc, becoming a monk at Bee and then c. 1063, the instructor of the novices at St. Stephen's at Caen. When Lanfranc, the first abbot of this important ducal foundation, was raised to the archbishopric of Canterbury in 1070, William Bona Anima succeeded him. 3 As abbot of a young monastery, much of William's time was taken in building up an endowment. For St. Stephen's in particular the problem was complicated by the monastery having been sited in a populated suburb of Caen. This necessitated buying numerous houses, fields, mills, vineyards, gardens, and other properties, so that the building of the church and monastic facilities could continue apace. These transactions, mostly outright cash purchases, were conducted vigorously by four of the first five abbots, from Lanfranc to Odo (d. 1140). Such purchases were both time-consuming and aggravating for the abbots: time-consuming because of the detailed nature of such transactions, obtaining the assent of the seller's heirs, haggling over the price; aggravating because of the ill-will which often goes hand-in-hand with massive relocation projects, property owners who sell unwillingly and the litigation which results. The most famous instance of these annoyances took place at Willam the Conqueror's funeral in 1087 at St. Stephen's when a certain Asceline Fitz Arthur denounced the king for having unjustly taken his lands upon which the abbey now sat. The archbishop of Rouen, who was now presiding over the funeral ceremony, along with the other bishops and magnates, was forced to raise 60 solidi on the spot for the claimant and promised to pay another 60 at a later date. The archbishop of Rouen was none other than William Bona Anima, who as abbot almost certainly had an intimate knowledge of Asceline's grievance, for he was engaged in numerous transactions involving Asceline's son, Ranulf. 4 Lucien Musset has directed the attention of Anglo-Normanists to an important but long-neglected record of the purchases made by the abbots of St. Stephen's, called the Emptiones Lanfranci, Willelmi et Gisleberti,5 which shows in minute detail the arduous process of assembling a patrimony for the ducal abbey, as well as the price paid for each transaction. This enables us to state quite categorically that Abbot William was more active in these matters than Lanfranc and Gislebert, for Musset has calculated their expenditures at 97 livres 3 sous for Lanfranc, 163 livres 15 sous for Gislebert, and 197 livres 6 sous for Bona Anima. Nor does this total include an additional set of 16 purchases found in the abbey's cartulary in which Abbot William made further 3 See Orderic in n. 1, supra; Margaret Gibson, Lanfranc of Bee (Oxford, 1978). 23-38, 98-115; and Sally N. Vaughn, 'Lanfranc at Bee: A Reinterpretation,' Albion 17 (1985), 135-48. 4 Lucien Musset, Les actes de Guillaume le Conquerant et de la Reine Mathilde pour les abbayes Caennaises, Memoires de la Societe des Antiquaires de Normandie 37 (Caen, 1967), 4546 has shown how Orderic Vitalis' account of the Conqueror's burial (Orderic, 4: 104-8) is corroborated by the charter evidence. 5 Musset, Actes, nos. 14, 20, and pp. 45-46.

William Bona Anima

53

expenditures amounting to nearly 90 livres.6 Unlike the single purchase of a large and compact estate which even an other-worldly abbot like Thierry of St. Evroul was capable of making, 7 Abbot William is recognized in the text of the resulting charter as a moving force in the activities, and witnesses the charter as well, his sole surviving royal charter attestation as abbot of St. Stephen's. William Bona Anima (and the other abbots at Caen) had to engage in a persistent and sophisticated program of land acquisition. One of the techniques seems to have been transferred to the monastery of Fontenay, just south of Caen, by William Bona Anima himself. An inquest was held by the Conqueror sometime in the 1070s after he found Fontenay's lands were being taken by neighboring barons. The inquest, held at Caen, led to the king's confirmation of the abbey's lands, immunity from all ducal rights, customs, and tolls, and owing to Bona Anima's influence, I believe - the 'power to buy and sell freely and absolutely.' 8 That Bona Anima had such powers of buying and selling as abbot of St. Stephen's is apparent from the records left of his purchases. He faced no limits on his ability to purchase any type of property: land, vineyards, fields, houses, mills, islands, warehouses, even horses. He could pay cash, or make an exchange. 9 His purchases were confirmed by the king and queen. 10 To carry out these transactions Bona Anima appears to have relied upon a small but active group of stewards (there is little evidence of monks working in this area), who witnessed and indeed sometimes set up these transactions. 11 It is difficult to determine how much they owed to Abbot William personally, for some of the men also worked with Lanfranc before, or with Gilbert after, William's abbacy. Nor can all of the witnesses of these purchases be regarded as William's subordinates, for some, like Ranulf Fitz Asceline, were associated with the sellers. In general William relied upon the services of such men as 6 Etienne Deville, Analyse d'un ancien cartulaire de I'abbaye de Saint-Etienne de Caen (Evreux, 1905), 19-20 (originally published in the Revue Catholique de Normandie 14 [1904-05]: 197-209, 269-76, 315-24; 15 [1905-06]: 17-42), used in conjunction with the nineteenth-century copy of the now lost cartulary of St. Stephens. I would like to thank the University of Caen for providing me with a microfilm copy of its MS. 21420. These purchases are not edited by Mussel. 7 Orderic, 2:34. 8 Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum, eds. H.W.C. Davis, H.A. Cronne, and R.H.C. Davis, 4 vols. (Oxford, 1913-69), 1: no. 117; GC 11: instrumenta, cols., 61-65. '... Potestatem vendendi et appretiandi libere et absolute...;' Lucien Musset, 'Actes inedits du Xle siecle. V. Autour des origines de Sainte-Etienne de Fontenay,' Bulletin de la Societe des Antiquaires de Normandie 56 (\96\-66), 11-41. 9 Thus we find scattered in Musset, Acres, no. 14, pp. 107-10, references to: terram; alodium; jugerum', virgates', molendinum; domum: celarium', Roromagi super ripam Seguanae; vineae; insula; duobus optimis equis; and in Deville, 19-21, pratum. Most were cash purchases made in libris or solidis, in other instances we read 'Commutavit Willelmus abbas....' 10 All of the purchases assembled under the rubric 'Emptionibus Lanfranci, Willelmi, et Gisleberti' were approved as a royal confirmation by William the Conqueror and Matilda (Musset, no. 14). Queen Matilda attested the large sale of land to Abbot William by Osmund Aculeo (Musset, Actes. no. 14, p. 108.). 11 Cf. 'Testes: Rannulfus films Oteri, qui hoc mercatum fecit.' (Musset, Actes, no. 14, p. 108).

54

Haskins Society Journal

Anschitile of Allemagne, Gosceline the Cook and his son Hamo, Geoffrey the Furrier, and a certain Warin.12 The records of these transactions suggest reliance upon a regular chancery staff, and indeed one of the purchases records that it was drawn up by the hand of Hubert the monk.13 In a larger context, Lucien Musset has shown how the St. Stephen's scriptorium tended to begin its charters (as opposed to purchases) with the phrase 'Quisquis Deo,' and that, again connecting William Bona Anima to the nearby abbey of Fontenay, a later charter of confirmation began with these same words.14 This is sufficient evidence to show Bona Anima as an active manager, overseeing the various economic, legal, and scribal aspects of St. Stephen's burgeoning patrimony. The legal arena was probably the most bothersome. We have already seen how Asceline Fitz Arthur resented the Conqueror's heavy-handed use of eminent domain. Bona Anima himself was drawn into at least one court suit. The hearing took place on 27 September 1077, two weeks after the dedication of the monastery. The plaintiffs were Osbern Giffard and his wife, Adeguissa, who contested ownership of a house which once belonged to Robert of Avranches. The case was heard by the former abbot, Lanfranc, now archbishop of Canterbury, who was in Caen for the abbey's dedication ceremonies and who had perhaps made the original purchase. The decision, not surprisingly perhaps, went against Osbern and his wife. 15 The avoidance of such litigation seems to have been very much on William's mind when he accepted lands from the family of Robert de Vilers upon the death of Philip de Vilers, a monk of St. Stephen's. The transaction, made in three separate parts, each by a different member of the family, concludes with Abbot William returning a horse which had been given to him 'so that no litigation will be brought against the church by them in the future.' 16 12

Musset, no. 14; Deville, 19-21. Allemagne is to identified as Fleury-sur-Orne. Hubert appears in the sale of Ranulf Fitz Asceline of onejugerum and three virgas for £30 5s. The act is recorded in Deville, 20, but with several omissions which can be recovered from the cartulary of St. Stephen's, University of Caen MS. 21420, p. 26. The relevant section reads: '... quae omnia Willelmus abbas habuerat prius, partim vadio, partim emptionis conventione concesserunt hanc venditionem utrique filii ejus, et in manu Uberti monachi major natu donationem fecit. Testes, Anschitillus de Alamannia, Fulco medicus, Hivolinus.' 14 Musset, Actes, 35-37. 15 The trial is given in part in Deville, 20-21, and in a more accurate but abridged form by Musset, Actes, 15, n. 15. The fult record is given here from the nineteenth century cartulary, p. 27. 'Anno millesimo septuagesimo septimo, indictione quinta decima, mense septembri, tercia decima die mensis, fuit dedicatio monasterii Sancti Stephani. Post quam dedicationem XXVII die ejusdem mensis, placitavit Osbernus Gifardus cum uxore sua Adeguisa, contra abbatem Willelmum in praesentia Lanfranci archiepiscopi, de domo quae fuit Roberti Abrincensis in quo placito omnino quieta dismissa est ab eo et ab ea ab omnibus deinceps calumniis et quaerimoniis. Testes, Lanfrancus archiepiscopus, Ivo Taillebosc, Alveredus de Baiunvilla, Durandus de Diva, Goscelinus cocus, Gausfridus pratarius, Rannulfus films Ascelini, Willelmus filius Tedbaldi, et alii plures.' 16 This act is printed (with omissions) in Deville, 21. The exchange (scambio) mentioned in line 7 is almost certainly that made between Abbot William and Ansfrida, the wife of Robert Doisnel, which appears in Musset, Actes, no. 14, p. 110. The witnesses (found in the nineteenth-century cartulary, p. 27) are identical to those printed in Musset. One must amend Deville to read as follows: 'Philippus filius Roberti de Vileriis' (1. 2); 'cum matre sua et aliis fratribus' (1. 4); and 13

William Bona Anima

55

A less worldly, but no less important part of St. Stephen's patrimony also involved Bona Anima, the acquisition of holy relics. The documentation for William's role is a fifteenth-century record of the relics held by the Caen monastery, namely, a part of St. Stephen's arm, a vial of his blood, a tuft of his (white) hair, and one of the stones (also white) by which Stephen was martyred.17 The report attributes responsibility for acquisition of the relics to William the Conqueror, but beyond noting that the arm was obtained from Besamjon, it does not provide specifics. It also mentions Caen's first three abbots, stating that the relics were acquired during the abbacy of William Bona Anima. Nor was this William's first association with relics of St. Stephen, for his relative Gerard Fleitel had some forty years earlier transported one of Stephen's fingers to the abbey of St. Wandrille.18 In addition to the purchase of land and the acquisition of relics, Bona Anima was also concerned with the building of the abbey church itself. The traditional view is that Abbot Lanfranc and William the Conqueror were responsible for its design and most of its construction. 19 But according to the assessment of Eric Carlson, Bona Anima's abbacy witnessed the lion's share of the church's building campaign. Lanfranc was present to supervise only the chevet, while Abbot William oversaw the building of the transept and most of the nave.20 A notification from William Bona Anima survives which links him to the building projects and at the same time reveals something of his character.21 The document states that all gifts and tithes given to St. Stephen's will be used for the care of pilgrims and the sick. The instrument ends with the exhortations of Matthew 25: 41-2 which encourage charity for 'the least of these' and 'Gauffridus pratarius' (1. 7). Emily Zack Tabuteau, Transfers of Property in Eleventh-Century Norman Law (Chapel Hill, N.C., 1988), 32, asks why certain sales - such as this one involving Bona Anima - reqire special precautions on the part of the purchaser. The answer would seem to me to be that this and many similar purchases were made against the seller's will. 17 Musset, Actes, no. 30. 18 Musset, Actes, 17. 19 Gibson, Lanfranc, 101, and literature cited therein. 20 Eric Gustav Carlson, The Abbey Church of Saint-Etienne at Caen in the Eleventh and Early Twelfth Centuries,' Ph.D. dissertation, Yale University, 1968, 99-115. M. Bayle, based on a study of the abbey's sculpture, has concurred with Carlson's dating of St. Stephen's construction schedule. Maylis Bayle, 'Les ateliers de sculpture de Saint-Etienne de Caen au Xle et au Xlle siecles,' A-NS 10 (1987): 1-23. 21 Deville, 35. I include here a translation of the notification, William's only surviving charter as abbot. I would like to thank Dr. Benny Reece for his help. 'I William, sinner, second abbot of the monastery of Caen, have established, with the mutual consent and counsel of the brothers, tithes for the everlasting support of the pilgrims and the sick. Tithes which are given to us in love and fellowship are a benefit as much for the living as for the dead, be they tithes in gold, silver, or any of those things which are brought by those who have put them aside in order to live with us in the monastic life. If anything will be given for the completion or repair of the monastic building or its fabric, it will be kept for the purpose for which it was given. If anyone wishes to increase his gift, may God so increase His grace upon him. If anyone wishes to hold back his gift or to defraud, let him beware, whoever he is, of God's terrible damnation: Go, you cursed, into everlasting fire, which was prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me not to eat: I was thirsty and you gave me not to drink (Matt. 25: 41-42).'

56

Haskins Society Journal

chastizes those who overlook the poor. It shows an abbot who is concerned with upholding the Christian and monastic virtues of charity and compassion. The document begins in humility: 'I William, sinner, second abbot of the monastery of Caen ....' The document also specifically links Bona Anima to construction there, stating that those who designate gifts exclusively for the completion or restoration of the monastic building (monasterii aedificum) will find their funds used only for those purposes. William's notification perhaps coincided with the abbey's dedication on 13 September 1077, when the church itself was far enough along for attention to be paid to pilgrims who would need food and shelter. The dedication was attended by Archbishop Lanfranc, who went the following month to the dedication of the abbey church at Bee.22 King William and Queen Matilda were in attendance, as were all the Norman (and one English) bishops and numerous barons. At first blush, one notes that Bona Anima's name is omitted from all accounts of the dedication ceremonies. But no abbots attest the charter drawn up on the occasion, suggesting it was the custom not to solicit the signatures of abbots upon such documents;23 and we have already noted that two weeks later William was involved at Caen in a trial against Osbern Giffard: it seems safe to place Bona Anima at St. Stephen's for the dedication. William also was active in building up St. Stephen's library. We glimpse this through Anselm's correspondence. Archbishop Lanfranc asked Anselm to send Bee's copy of the Moralia in Job to Canterbury, but Anselm was unable to meet the request because the book was at that moment being copied under Bona Anima's guidance at Caen.24 The letters show close cooperation between the scriptoria of Bee and Caen. Unfortunately the records allow us to say little else of St. Stephen's library from this period.25 There is the related problem of a school at Caen. It is clear that Lanfranc ran a renowned school while he was Prior of Bee,26 but it is less clear what happened to the school when he became abbot of St. Stephen's. Margaret Gibson suggests that Lanfranc began a school at Caen which vanished with his departure for Canterbury in 1070, but that another school that became the tap root for Oxford University started up again c. 1080.27 This reflects badly on 22

Mussel, Actes, no. 4; A.J. MacDonald, Lanfranc: A Study of His Life and Work (Oxford, 1926), 182-85. For a survey of the numerous church dedications that took place in 1077 and a reconstruction of the royal entourage on these occasions see Jean-Michel Bouvris, 'La dedicace de 1'eglise cathedrale Notre-Dame de Bayeux (14 juillet 1077),' Societe des Sciences, Arts, et Belleslettres de Bayeux 28 (1982): 3-16. 23 Vaughn, 'Lanfranc,' 139-40, points out a similar dearth of attestations for Abbot Lanfranc. See also Tabuteau, Transfers of Property, 359, n. 139. 24 Sancti Anselmi Cantuariensis archiespiscopi opera omnia Epistolae Anselmi, ed. F.S. Schmitt, 6 vols. (Stuttgart-Bad Canstatt, 1963-68), nos. 23, 25 (hereafter cited as AE)\ cf. no. 26 where a certain Abbot O. was also looking for the Moralia in Job which William was copying at Caen. 25 Gibson, 'Lanfranc,' 104, no. 1: 'The Library of St. Etienne has vanished almost completely: only a missal survives from the eleventh century....' 26 Vaughn, 'Lanfranc,' 135^8. 27 Gibson, 'Lanfranc,' 104-5.

William Bona Anima

57

William Bona Anima, implying as it does that the only period Caen was without a school coincided precisely with William's abbacy. There can be no question that St. Stephen's had a school for its own monks: William Bona Anima was its first instructor.28 But did Caen draw students from beyond its own cloister? The case for intellectual activity at Caen rests largely on the careers of Master Arnulf of Rohes (alias of Chocques) and Theobald of Etampes, both colorful characters whose presence in Caen is difficult to date precisely.29 Arnulf, the son of a priest, came to Caen from Flanders. He was the tutor of William the Conqueror's daughter Cecile, was a confidant of Odo, bishop of Bayeux, and went on the First Crusade where he became patriarch of Jerusalem. Theobald, doctor Cadumensis, born in Etampes, went to Oxford after residing in Caen. He, like Lanfranc, engaged in academic debate, writing to defend married priests from the invectives of Rosceline who wanted them branded as bastards. One must also mention the presence in Caen in c. 1084 of a Gerald scolarius.30 It seems that given the fragile nature of the evidence for even distinguished schools like Chartres, Oxford, Bee, Laon, or Rouen in this period, one could argue that Caen was indeed a flourishing educational center.31 Unfortunately we do not know if these masters were operating independently or if they were linked to St. Stephen's monastery. One wonders if there is some meaning to this gathering at Caen of sons of priests, Arnulf, Theobald, William Bona Anima and if it represents some particular Norman bastion of anti-papal reform activities.32 No doubt this is coincidence. But it will be useful nevertheless to survey the relationship of the abbey of St. Stephen's and the papacy. It is well known that St. Stephen's had 28

William was in charge of 'instructionem neophitorum.' Orderic, 2: 254. Raymonde Foreville, 'L'Ecole de Caen au Xle siecle,' Etudes Medievales offertes a A, Fliche (Montpellier, 1952), 81-100. There is also the slightly later Ralph of Caen. 30 Gerald the scholar shows up as a landowner in a list of parishioners of La Trinite of Caen (Mussel, Actes, no. 17b). The appearance at this time of Gerald's sons among the witnesses of Caen charters suggests to me that Gerald was more than merely wandering through the city: he held land and was sufficiently well known there that his sons identified themselves by his position. Rainaldus filius Giraldi scolarii attests a purchase by Abbot Gislebert from Rannulf filius Asceline (Deville, 22) while Godefridus filius Geraldi scholastici witnesses a charter where Abbot Gilbert obtains land from Rannulf filius Herfast (Deville, 24-5). The witness lists for these acta are omitted by Deville but can be found in the cartulary of St. Stephens (U. of Caen, MS. 21420, pp. 28-9, 32-3). 31 On the obscure origins of Oxford, see Richard W. Southern, 'From School to University,' The History of the University of Oxford, in The Early Oxford Schools, ed. J.I. Catto (Oxford, 1984), 110. On Chartres, see Richard W. Southern, The Schools of Paris and the School of Chartres,' Renaissance and Renewal in the Twelfth Century, eds. Robert L. Benson and Giles Constable (Cambridge, Mass., 1982), 113-37. On Laon, see Valerie I.J. Flint, 'The School of Laon: A Reinterpretation,' Recherches de theologie ancienne et medievale 43 (1976): 89-110. On Bee, see Gibson, Lanfranc, and Vaughn, 'Lanfranc.' On Rouen, see Jean-Michel Bouvris, 'L'Ecole capitulaire de Rouen au Xle siecle,' Etudes Normandes 35 (1986): 89-103. 29

32 One could include as well the presence of Serlo the Poet in nearby Bayeux, who also wrote in favor of married priests and against the reform papacy, but he seems not to have liked the monks at St. Stephens. Foreville, 'L'Ecole de Caen,' 94; A. Boutemy, 'Deux poemes inconnus de Serlon de Bayeux, etc.,' Le Moyen Age 41 (1938): 241-69.

58

Haskins Society Journal

papal approval from its very inception, for along with La Trinite, it was founded as atonement from the consanguineous marriage of William the Conqueror and Matilda.33 On 14 January 1068 Lanfranc received from Alexander II a bull granting papal protection for St. Stephen's.34 The monastery was expected to work congenially with the local diocesan, the bishop of Bayeux. In case of litigation, either the archbishop of Rouen or a provincial synod was to arbitrate. Only in the final resort were unresolved cases to be heard at the papal court. The bishop of Bayeux was not allowed to excommunicate or place under interdict any of St. Stephen's monks; further, without the abbot's permission, the bishop could not concern himself;with the abbey's affairs. As J.-F. Lemarignier has pointed out, this document shows cordial relations between Rome and the Conqueror, but the role of the metropolitan and the provincial synod as intermediary powers indicates only a lukewarm recognition of the ideals of the reform papacy.35 Thus, William Bona Anima was able to watch his mentor and abbot, Lanfranc, work on friendly terms with the papacy. Lanfranc had perhaps arranged for the birth of the abbey itself in the late 1050s36 and was well appreciated for his Liber de Corpore et Sanguine which he wrote in the early years of the 1060s.37 He had journeyed to Rome in 1067 to obtain papal approval for the translation of John, bishop of Avranches, to Rouen38 to replace the dead Maurilius and perhaps while there he had negotiated the 1068 bull in favor of St. Stephen's. The papal legate, Ermenfrid of Sion, played a crucial role in Lanfranc's own translation to Canterbury in the Summer of 1070.39 As for Bona Anima's abbacy, on 4 April 1074 Pope Gregory VII wrote to William the Conqueror, urging him to extend or at least uphold the privilege of St. Stephen's.40 In c. 1078 Abbot William was able to follow up on Lanfranc's initial charter of privileges and receive from Odo, bishop of Bayeux, numerous archidiaconal rights for St. Stephen's in most judicial cases, as well as exemption for episcopal visits, synodol dues, and other ecclesiastical customs.41 With the presence of two papal legates in Normandy, Peter and John Minutus in 1074, Bona Anima was not unknown to the papacy, nor it to him, but unlike the Italian Lanfranc, scholar of international repute, visitor to Rome, and defender of orthodoxy, William lacked the personal link to St. Peter's see. For Bona Anima, the papacy was a distant power. 33

David Bates, Normandy Before 1066 (London, 1982), 199-202 rejects this traditional view of the impetus for the Caen abbeys; but cf. Vaughn, 'Lanfranc,' 145-47. 34 Regesta Pontificum Romanorum, ed. Philip Jaffe, 2nd. ed. (Leipzig, 1885), no. 4644 (hereafter cited as J-L). Printed in J.-F. Lemarignier, Etude sur les privileges d'exemption et de juridiction ecclesiastique des abbayes normandes depuis les origines jusqu'en 1140 (Paris, 1937), 144, n. 43. 35 Lemarignier, Etude, 143-45. 36 See above, n. 33. 37 Gibson, Lanfranc, 70. 38 J-L, no. 4643. 39 Gibson, Lanfranc, 114-15. 40 J-L, no. 4850. 41 Musset, Actes, no. 13; Lemarignier, Etude, 162-70, 294-96.

William Bona Anima

59

William did not lose touch with his former teacher. Lanfranc wrote to William in affectionate terms in the autumn of 1070, answering the new abbot of Caen's request for advice with whom to replace Gundulf as the next prior. 42 Lanfranc suggested Ernost, who was indeed elevated to the position. William's deference to Lanfranc in these matters shows a close working relationship between the two men, as well as a certain practicality in resolving the vacancy. Whatever else we can say about Bona Anima, he was not a maverick. We have already observed that Lanfranc was in Caen in September 1077 for the dedication of the abbey church and that a fortnight later he adjudged a dispute involving Bona Anima and Osbern Giffard, deciding in favor of the abbot. Nor did William lose touch with his brothers at Bee. Anselm's letters reveal the friendships and interchanges between the two religious houses. Anselm appears to have been especially close to Gundulf, 43 for example, while he communicated with Bona Anima only on a formal level. In a letter to Helgot, prior of Caen c.1075, Anselm asked to be remembered to Abbot William, his 'dulcem et venerabilem patrem et dominum nostrum,' but the effect is rather perfunctory. 44 In another instance Anselm interceded with William on behalf of the son of a certain Odo whose services Bona Anima could not use.45 The letter, though polite, is trimmed of all unnecessary pleasantries. William would have known other monks besides Anselm, of course, for at Bee and Caen between c. 1060 and 1079, he would have crossed paths with, perhaps even guided, a large number of future abbots and bishops. We may include, in his early years, Guitmund who studied with Lanfranc at Bee c.1060 and went on to become bishop of Aversa in Italy (1088-ante 1097) and William of Rots, in his later years, who arrived at Caen in c. 1078 and who became abbot of Fecamp (1079-1105). Gundulf the future bishop of Rochester we have already mentioned. Ernost, bishop of Rochester (1075-1076), was prior at St. Stephen's under Bona Anima. Lanfranc's nephew, Paul, abbot of St. Albans (1077-93), and the ill-fated Thurstan, abbot of Glastonbury (c. 1077-96), were at Caen at this time. Ivo, later bishop of Chartres (1090-1116), was at Bee until 1062 when he became rector of St. Etienne-le-Vieux in Caen.46 We might also include Herluin, abbot of Glastonbury (1100-1118), Ralph, abbot of Battle (1107-1124), Robert, abbot of Mont St. Michel (1085-1106), and

42

The Letters of Lanfranc Archbishop of Canterbury, trans, and ed. Helen Clover and Margaret Gibson (Oxford, 1979), no. 61. The reply is addressed only to 'Dulcissimo patri W.\ but I agree with the editors in identifying the recipient as William Bona Anima. The internal clues are compelling. 43 AE, no. 46. 44 AE, no. 48. 45 AE, no. 18. 46 Rolf Sprandel, Ivo von Chartres und seine Stellung in der Kirchengeschicte (Stuttgart, 1962), 13; James A. Brundage, 'St. Anselm, Ivo of Chartres, and the Ideology of the First Crusade,' Les mutations socio-culturelles au tournant des XI-XII siecles, ed. Raymonde Foreville (Paris, 1984), 176.

60

Haskins Society Journal

Helgot, abbot of St. Ouen of Rouen (1092-1112), although the exact years when these clerics were at Caen can only be guessed at.47 A close reading of the sources reveals William as a vigorous and competent abbot, a cleric with diverse abilities. He was engaged in all aspects of St. Stephen's inchoate patrimony: lands, relics, buildings, and books. His land purchases show a practical ability in the affairs of this world, yet not at the expense of the pilgrims and the sick, nor of his brethren (whose counsel he sought on the distribution of the monastery's tithes). He served the Conqueror as a troubleshooter for the woes of the abbey of Fontenay. He was exposed to the international movements of reform embodied by his friends Maurilius and Lanfranc. He was cognizant of the power of the papacy, but only as a far off and intermittent presence. It has been William's misfortune always to have stood in the shadow of his predecessor Lanfranc, but some additional light appears if we contrast Bona Anima to his successor at Caen, Abbot Gislebert. For unlike William Bona Anima, Good Soul, Gislebert was depicted as stingy and mean-spirited.48 The ultimate proof of William's success as abbot of St. Stephen's, of course, shines forth with his advancement to the archbishopric of Rouen. Furman University

47

Hippeau, St. Etienne de Caen, 55-59. The 'Invectio Serlonis in Gislebertum, abbatum Cadomi,' is summarized in Hippeau, St. Etienne de Caen, 31-2. See also Boutemy, 'Deux poemes.' 48

6

Images of Queenship in the High Middle Ages Lois L. Huneycutt

Until very recently the medieval queen has been almost ignored both by traditional historians interested in the political, administrative, and institutional development of the kingdoms of Europe and by the new generation of women's historians. Within the last five to ten years, this neglect has diminished. Among others, Pauline Stafford, Janet Nelson, and Suzanne Wemple have done much to demonstrate that neglecting the queen often results in an incomplete picture of the court and the kingdom at large. 1 This focus has been on the early medieval era; the role of the queen in the high and later Middle Ages remains virtually unexplored. This neglect of the queen's role in the high medieval era may stem from too close a reliance on the periodization formulated fifteen years ago by JoAnn McNamara and Suzanne Wemple in their now-classic study, 'The Power of Women through the Family in Medieval Europe, 500-1100.'2 During the early Middle Ages, according to their analysis, women with the power to inherit, control, and dispose of property possessed considerable economic clout and thus considerable power within the family. In an age when the public and private realms were nearly synonomous, the queen's familial role gave her surprising power within royal administration. The comparatively open marriage practices and flexible successions of early medieval monarchs gave increased stautus to women who emerged successfully from often colorful power1 I would like to thank Professor Jeffrey B. Russell and members of his 1988-89 research seminar, especially Heather J. Tanner and Marylou Ruud, for their suggestions, and also to thank Professors C.. Warren Hollister, Sharon A. Farmer, W.L. Warren and A. Mark Smith for their comments on this and earlier drafts of this paper. See Suzanne Wemple, Women in Prankish Society: Marriage and the Cloister, 500-900 (Philadelphia, 1985); Pauline Stafford, Queens, Concubines and Dowagers: The King's Wife in the Early Middle Ages (Athens, Ga., 1983); and Janet Nelson, Politics and Ritual in Early-Medieval Europe (London, 1986). Also see the essays by Stafford, Nelson, Derek Baker, and Bernard Hamilton in Medieval Women, ed. Derek Baker (Oxford, 1978). 2 Their essay, first published in Feminist Studies 1 (1973): 126-41, was reprinted in Clio's Consciousness Raised: New Perspectives on the History of Women, eds. Mary S. Hartman and Lois Banner (New York, 1974) and in a revised form, in Women and Power in the Middle Ages, eds. Mary Erler and Maryanne Kowaleski (Athens, Ga., 1988), 81-101. All citations are to the 1988 revision.

62

Haskins Society Journal

struggles within royal families.3 Church reform, dating from the beginning of the eleventh century, closed down this avenue of queenly advancement by enforcing monogamy and the indissolubility of marriage.4 The concurrent rise of centralized monarchy and concomitant loss of power among noble families brought about a new emphasis on primary lineage that led to the loss of women's economic and political power. Centralized monarchy brought with it a new bureaucratic machinery and, as a new class of professional administrators arose, the queen found her area of responsibility shrinking. Thus, McNamara and Wemple concluded, from the mid eleventh century to the close of the medieval era, 'queens and empresses, as well as ladies on a somewhat more modest level, were excluded from public life.' 5 I agree with the broad outlines of McNamara and Wemple's analysis, but question the assumption that the rise of central authority excluded the queen from any public role whatsoever. This assumption has led many historians of the high medieval period to ignore the queen's continuing importance within the kingdom. Even the one role traditionally conceded to the royal ladies, that of furthering the process of civilization through their patronage of arts and literature, has recently been questioned by C. Stephen Jaeger, who assigns this function to the courtier-bishops of Ottonian Saxony.6 If we allow the sources to speak, we see that both politically and culturally the queen in a newlycentralized monarchy remained highly visible in the public sphere. Jaeger is right to stress the cultural role of the bishop, but far from ignoring the royal ladies, bishops and other churchmen of the high Middle Ages recognized the importance of the queen, and these churchmen began to play an increasingly didactic role in shaping a new and lasting image of an ideal queen. In doing so they created a perception of queenship that stretched far beyond the personality of any individual queen. In looking for high medieval 'queenship' in the abstract, I have focused on four women, chosen because their collective biographies illustrate what, from contemporary sources, I have identified as major themes in high medieval queenship. These queens are: Margaret of Scotland (c. 1070-93), Matilda II (1100-18), wife of Henry I of England, Adelaide of Maurienne, who ruled as queen-consort to Louis VI of France between her marriage in 1115 and Louis' death in 1137, and Melisende of Jerusalem, who actually inherited the throne upon her father's death in 1131 and reigned until 1161. By exploring why 3 These struggles have been well chronicled by medieval as well as modern authors. See especially Pauline Stafford, 'Sons and Mothers: Family Politics in the Early Middle Ages,' in Baker, Medieval Women, 79-100. 4 See Georges Duby, The Knight, the Lady, and the Priest: Two Models of Marriage from Medieval France (New York, 1983). 5 McNamara and Wemple, 'Women and Power,' 97. 6 C. Stephen Jaeger, The Origins of Courtliness: Civilizing Trends and the Formation of Courtly Ideals, 939-1210 (Philadelphia, 1981). He writes: 'I do not find it surprising that in the many texts giving us vivid glimpses into the life of the medieval court in the eleventh and twelfth centuries, there is no trace of the exaltation of women .... The sources tell us much about courtly education, and they do not show women as a mediator of it.' (p. 268).

Images ofQueenship in the High Middle Ages

63

these women were chosen as queens, how they participated in government and formed political alliances, how as mothers they influenced future rulers and what roles they played in the cultural awakening we know as the 'twelfthcentury renaissance,' we can begin to understand the significance of the queen. Contemporary awarness of that significance is apparent in the saint's lives, letters, coronation ordines, and laudatory poetry written during the eleventh and twelfth century. These sources show influential ecclesiastical writers attempting to guide, edify, and instruct these women according to their image of the 'ideal queen.' By 1050 the day was long past when a slave such as Balthild or Fredegund could become the royal consort. Noble birth was now the paramount desideratum. Adelaide of Maurienne, for example, was actually Louis VI's third choice. His first betrothal fell through because of consanguinity, the second because the proposed bride was found to be illegitimate. Adelaide came from the right stock: she was the sister of the count of Maurienne and was also related to the count of Flanders, the marquis of Montferrat, and the count of Champagne.7 Royal bloodlines were particularly valued. Margaret of Scotland, as granddaughter of Edmund Ironside and sister to Edgar Aetheling, may have been attractive because of her blood-ties to the English throne. Anglo-Saxon blood-ties became important again thirty years later, when Henry I of England insisted on marrying Margaret's daughter, Matilda. 8 Particularly revealing is that both Margaret and Matilda arrived in their new kingdoms as refugees seeking asylum from dynastic upheavals in their native lands, bringing neither great wealth nor property into their marriages.9 The last of the queens under consideration here, Melisende, acquired her throne through inheritance rather than marriage and either ruled or participated in the ruling of the kingdom of Jerusalem for thirty years. We know that Melisende, Adelaide of Maurienne and Matilda were elevated to their positions by consecration involving ritual coronation and episcopal anointment. Sadly, we lack reliable details for any of the actual ceremonies. Eadmer refers to Anselm's consecration of Matilda, describing a ceremony on the steps of the church, where the new queen was presented to 'totam regni nobilitatem populumque.' 10 There is considerable scholarly debate surrounding the coronation ordines of the Anglo-Norman monarchs. A revised ritual from the late eleventh or early twelfth century adds three significant phrases to the 7 Andrew W. Lewis, Royal Succession in Capetian France: Studies on Familial Order and the State (Cambridge, Mass., 1981), 54-5. Lewis suggests that the relationship to Count Hugh of Champagne was probably the determining factor, because it was Hugh's cousin whom Louis had agreed to marry before learning of her bastardy. 8 Because Matilda had been fostered in the monasteries of Romsey and Wilton, some perceived her to be a nun, and this perception was an impediment to her marriage. Henry was so determined to marry her that Anselm called a general council to settle Matilda's status. See Eadmer, Historia Novorum in Anglia, ed. Martin Rule, R.S. (London, 1884; repr. 1965), 121-26. 9 R.L. Graeme Ritchie points out that Margaret was provided with moveable wealth which she brought in dowry. See Ritchie, The Normans in Scotland (Edinburgh, 1954), 9, n. 1. 10 Eadmer, Historia Novorum, 125.

64

Haskins Society Journal

queen's ceremonial. Placed by God among the people ('constituit reginam in populo'), she shares in the royal power ('regalis imperii ... esse participem'). According to the rite, the English people are fortunate in being ruled by the power of the ruler and the ability and virtue of the queen ('laetetur gens Anglica imperio regenda et reginae virtutis providentia gubernanda'). 11 While it cannot be shown that this was the specific ordo used at Matilda's coronation, this new articulation of the queen's right to participate in public affairs echoed resoundingly in her influence in Henry's government. Once she was on the throne, a queen's direct participation in the political affairs of the realm was accepted, expected and praised by most commentators during the period under discussion. Melisende, by virtue of her position as queen-regnant, was most visible in this respect. Designated as her father's successor, she began participating in the government as early as 1129, when she witnessed a charter as 'filia regis et regni Hierosolimitani haeres.'12 Another contemporary charter indicates her status with the phrase 'Milissenda filia regis hoc laudat et consentit.' 13 After her father's death in 1131, her husband, Fulk of Anjou, tried to assert his independent power but was quelled by Melisende and her noble faction. William of Tyre reports that Fulk learned his lesson well, becoming so uxorious that 'not even in unimportant cases did he take any action without Melisende's knowledge and assistance.' 14 The charters support William's account. All the surviving royal charters that Fulk issued after this period bear the phrases 'consensu Milisendis uxoris,' 'assensu uxoris Milesendis,' or 'consensu Milisendis reginae.'15 In private charters concerning Fulk's own lands, Melisende is not mentioned. From Fulk's death in 1143 until she was forced from power in 1152, Melisende ruled alone, and, according to William of Tyre, 'by hereditary right.'16 A queen regnant was so unusual in the twelfth century that many may have perceived her to be ruling only as regent for her minor son, later Baldwin III. This misapprehension was cleared up in 1145, when Baldwin came of legal age with no hint that a change in power was imminent. Melisende's 11

Percy Ernst Schramm, A History of the English Coronation (Oxford, 1937), 54-64. See also Raymonde Foreville, 'Le sacre des rois anglo-normands et angevins et le serment du sacre (XleXlle siecles), A-NS 1 (1978): 49-72; and Nelson, 'Rites of the Conqueror,' in Politics and Ritual, 371-402. 12 'Chartes de 1'abbaye de Notre-Dame de la Vallee de Josaphat en Terre-Sainte,' ed. Charles Kohler in Revue de I'orient latin 1 (1900): 108-222; charter no. 18, 128. 13 Hans E. Mayer, 'Studies in the History of Queen Melisende of Jerusalem,' Dumbarton Oaks Papers 26 (1972): 94-182, esp. 99. 14 William of Tyre, A History of Deeds Done Beyond the Sea, ed. and trans. Emily Atwater Babcock and A.C. Krey, 2 vols. (New York, 1943), 2: 76. Key passages have been checked against the Latin version appearing in the Recueil des historiens des croisades: Historiens occidentaux, L'academie Royale des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, 7 vols. (Paris, 1844-95), 1: parts 1 and 2. 15 Regesta Regni Hierosolymitani MXCVII-MCCXCI, ed. Reinhold Rohricht, 2 vols. (1893-94; repr. New York, 1960), nos. 163, 179, and 181. 16 William of Tyre, Deeds Beyond the Sea, 2: 135.

Images of Queens hip in the High Middle Ages

65

policy of generous patronage to the church served her well when young Baldwin demanded to be crowned in 1152. Unable to find any bishop in the entire kingdom willing to perform the ceremony and without access to the crown jewels, Baldwin at one point was reduced to parading through the streets of Jerusalem wearing a self-imposed crown of laurel leaves. Despite the ensuing civil war, which led to Baldwin's accession, Melisende and Baldwin were again issuing royal acta jointly by 1154 and in 1157 Melisende negotiated the return of a military stronghold from the Muslims. 17 None of the other queens under consideration here enjoyed Melisende's constitutional position, yet each was active in the royal administration of their kingdom. Matilda was a member of Henry I's curia, a frequent attestor to his charters and on several occasions served as head of his vice-regal council. She once referred to the Exchequer as 'my court and the court of my husband,' and she may have sealed Exchequer documents with her personal seal. She granted augmentations of fairs, ordered a confiscated ship returned to its rightful owner, appointed an abbot to Malmesbury, and provided safe-conducts - all matters which only the king or someone invested with regal authority could have handled. 18 She exercised broad judicial powers, at one point freeing an accused usurer whom Ralph Basset had imprisoned in London. 19 Herbert Losinga, bishop of Norwich, once wrote the queen for help with a financial problem. Recognizing her control of the government, Herbert praised Matilda's administrative abilities while apologizing for adding another burden.20 His letter, which must have been one of many similar requests, illustrates contemporary perception of the queen's authority in the public sphere. Across the channel, the queen's role in the Parisian court was also increasingly visible. Adelaide of Maurienne stands at what one scholar has termed the 'apogee of Capetian queenship.' 21 Adelaide shared in royal benefactions and ecclesiastical appointments. Her name is associated with Louis in charters granting traditional royal prerogatives such as protection to ecclesiastic foundations, special privileges to towns and permission to hold fairs and use royal mills.22 With Louis, Adelaide swore fealty to Innocent II against the antipope, Anacletus II. She was instrumental in raising William Clito, her

17

Ibid., 2: 269. Mayer's is the most complete modern account of Melisende's reign, but see the correctives in Bernard Hamilton, 'Women in the Crusader States: The Queens of Jerusalem' in Baker, Medieval Women, 119-142. 18 Regesta regum Anglo-Normannorum, ed. H.W.C. Davis, Charles Johnson, H.A. Cronne, and R.H.C. Davis, 4 vols. (Oxford, 1913-69), 2: nos. 1001, 1001 (hereafter cited as RRAN). 19 Liber Eliensis, ed. E.G. Blake, Camden 3rd series 92 (1962), 266-69. See also Orderic, 6: 15. 20 'Pauca dixi, cupiens multa dicere, sed timui videri onerosus regalibus negotiis quae laudibillii sollicitudine administratis.' Epistolae Heriberti de Losinga, primi episcopi Norwicensis, ed. Robert Anstruther, Caxton Society 5 (1846; repr. New York, 1969), epistola no. 25. 21 Marion F. Facinger, 'A Study of Medieval Queenship: Capetian France, 987-1237,' Studies in Medieval and Renaissance History 5 (1968), 29. 22 See Achille Luchaire, Louis VI le Gros: Annales de sa vie et de son regne (1081-1137) (Paris, 1890; repr. Brussels, 1964), entries 193, 199, 204, 310, 569, 570, and 585.

66

Haskins Society Journal

brother-in-law, to the countship of Flanders, and she helped bring about the disgrace of the chancellor, Stephen of Garlande. During Adelaide's reign, the chancery dated royal charters with both the king's and the queen's regnal year, a practice that suggests that the queen was considered to be an integral part of the institution of monarchy. Historians from Achille Luchaire to Andrew Lewis have argued that the Capetian monarchy is best understood as a cooperation between the king, queen, and crown prince, all of whom had been elevated by the ceremony of consecration. 23 Margaret of Scotland's political role is difficult to evaluate. The main source for her reign is her vita, commissioned by her daughter Matilda. It may be less a factual account of Margaret's life than an attempt to impress upon Matilda the qualities of an ideal queen. The author, presumably Margaret's chaplain Turgot, shows Margaret presiding at church councils, serving to correct unjust laws, and working to further commerce. He portrays her busy amidst the 'discord of lawsuits' and the 'manifold cares of state.' 24 Whether Margaret was as busy or as influential as Turgot would have us believe is open to question, but his depiction is not inherently implausible. Clearly the high-medieval queen could and did exert considerable influence in the political arena. Turgot's account is corroborated by Margaret's request to Lanfranc for both spiritual counsel and practical help in establishing a reformed Benedictine monastery within the Scottish kingdom. Lanfranc expressed delight in being chosen as her spiritual adviser. 'Henceforth,' he wrote, 'may I be your father and you be my daughter,' a relationship that continued in the next generation between Anselm and Matilda. 25 Lanfranc and Anselm were among the many churchmen who offered advice and admonition to these queens. Bernard of Clairvaux corresponded regularly with Melisende and when she was widowed urged her: 'You must set your hand to great things and although a woman, 23

See Facinger, 'Medieval Queenship,' 29-30. Also see Luchaire, Histoires des institutions monarchiques de la France sous les premiers Capetiens (987-1180) (Paris, 1891; repr. Brussels, 1964), 133-4, 183-85; and Susan Mosher Stuard, 'Fashion's Captives: Medieval Women in French Historiography,' in Women in Medieval History and Historiography, ed. Mosher Stuard (Philadelphia, 1987), 59-80. 24 Turgot(?), 'Life of Saint Margaret' in Early Sources of Scottish History, ed. Alan Orr Anderson, 2 vols. (Edinburgh, 1922) 2: 59-78, 69-70. The vita is translated from the version appearing in the Acta Sanctorum Bollandiana, Johannes Bollandus Societatis lesu Theologus, 67 vols. (Antwerp, 1643) for June 10. Latin phrases, where quoted, are from the Bollandist edition of the vita. 25 'Dehinc igitur sim pater tuus et tu mea filia esto.' The Letters of Lanfranc, Archbishop of Canterbury, ed. Helen Clover and Margaret Gibson (Oxford, 1979), 160, letter no. 50. For Anselm and Matilda, see Sancti Anselmi opera omnia, ed. Francis Schmitt, 6 vols. (Edinburgh, 1946), letters 243, 321, 329, 385, and 406, addressed to Matilda's filiae carissimae, and 346 to her as filiae dilectissima. Sally N. Vaughn and Richard Southern have contended that Matilda's overwhelming affection was motivated by political considerations (Vaughn) or by Anselm's misgivings over his part in allowing Matilda and Henry to marry (Southern). See Vaughn, Anselm of Bee and Robert of Meulan: The Innocence of the Dove and the Wisdom of the Serpent (Berkeley, 1987), 276-79; and Southern, Saint Anselm and his Biographer: A Study of Monastic Life and Thought, 1059-C.1130 (Cambridge, 1963), 188-89.

Images of Queenship in the High Middle Ages

67

you must act as a man by doing all you have to do in a "spirit prudent and strong." You must arrange all things prudently and discreetly, so that all may judge you from your actions to be a king rather than a queen.' 26 In other letters, Bernard praised Melisende for behaving peacefully and kindly and for ruling herself and her kingdom with the advice of wise men. These, he said, are the attributes of a 'strong woman' (mulierem fortem) and a 'great queen' (sublimem reginam).21 He recommended that the queen follow the example of Christ, who gave redress to the poor and set right the wrongs of the defenseless. 28 Bernard also corresponded with Adelaide of Maurienne, appealing to her 'well-known liberality and kindness' when he wrote in behalf of a royal servant who had fallen from favor. 29 Other churchmen stressed the queen-consort's duty to intercede with the king for the poor and oppressed. Turgot praised Margaret because she 'inclined the king to works of justice, mercy, and alms.' 30 An anonymous poem written for Queen Matilda depicts her as an eighth heavenly body and praises her for persuading Henry to abolish unjust laws in the kingdom. 31 The preface to the Anglo-Norman Voyage of St. Brendan praises her as the queen who seeks and encourages peace.32 Contemporaries were well aware of Matilda's influence. The German Emperor Henry V wrote to thank her for pleading his cause with the king, expressing hope that he could count on her continued goodwill. 33 Pope Paschal II wrote to her, ordering that she 26 Bernard of Clairvaux, in Patrologiae Cursus Completus: Series Latina, ed. J.P. Migne, 221 vols. (Paris), 182, col. 557 (hereafter cited as PL): 'Opus est ut manum tuum mittas ad fortia, et in muliere exhibeas virum, agens ea quae agenda sunt in spiritu consilii et fortitudine. Ita prudenter et moderate oportet cuncta disponere, ut omnes, qui te viderint, ex operibus regem te potius, quam reginam existiment.' 27 Ibid., 182, col. 495. 28 Ibid. 29 The Letters of Saint Bernard of Clairvaux, ed. and trans. Bruno Scott James (London, 1953), 122. 30 Turgot, 'Life of Saint Margaret,' 69-70. 31 Andre Boutemy, 'Notice sur le recueil poetique du manuscrit Cotton Vitellius A xii du British Museum' Latomus 1 (1937; repr. 1964): 278-313, 304-5. See Elisabeth C. van Houts, 'Latin Poetry and the Anglo-Norman Court. 1066-1135: The Carmen de Hastingae Proelio, forthcoming in Journ. Med. Hist. 32 This poem, among the earliest and longest pieces of Anglo-Norman literature, was written in Latin and in French at the request of one of Henry I's two queens. It had long been thought that Adeliza of Louvain was the patron, but internal evidence and paleographical studies have persuaded most scholars that the poem was written for Matilda. See The Anglo-Norman Voyage of St. Brendan by Benedeit, ed. Edwin G.R. Waters (Oxford, 1928). Waters accepted Adeliza as the possible patron. But see Robert L. Ritchie, 'The Date of the 'Voyage of Saint Brendan," Medium Aevum 14 (1960): 64-66; and M. Dominica Legge, "Letre' in Old French,' The Modern Language Review 55 (1961): 333-34 and Anglo-Norman Literature and its Background (Oxford, 1963) for convincing arguments in favor of Matilda. 33 'Et nunc igitur in ea, quam semper erga nos habuisti, benevolentia attentibus perservera; ut in his omnibus, quae domino tuo mandamus, studium tuum experimento cognoscamus.' From 'Udalrici Codex' in Monumenta Bambergensia 5 Bibliotheca rerum Germanicarum (MGH), ed. Philip Jaffe (Berlin, 1969; repr. 1964), entry no. 142.

68

Haskins Society Journal

argue with, chide and beseech (argue, obsecra, increpa) Henry to come to terms over the investiture issue.34 Correspondence between Anselm and Matilda reveals that she did talk the king into restoring some of the Canterbury revenues confiscated during Anselm's exile.35 Matilda's influence over Henry is also indicated in the language of his donation charters, which often indicate that the gifts were given at the queen's instigation.36 In addition to her ability to persuade the king toward his religious duty, the queen herself often had the means to endow and patronize religious foundations. On the advice of Anselm, Matilda established a house of Augustinian canons at Holy Trinity, Aldgate. She also patronized Merton Priory, established at least two hospitals for lepers and made numerous smaller gifts to monasteries throughout the kingdom.37 She sent two elaborate bronze candlesticks to her panegyrist, Hildebert of Lavardin, the poet-prelate of Le Mans. A similar candlestick, which she gave to Cluny, later served as an exemplum for Bernard of Clairvaux during one of his tirades against the lavish lifestyle of the Cluniacs.38 Melisende endowed a convent at Bethany and patronized both the Abbey of St. Mary's and the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. In return, William of Tyre and the patriarch of Jerusalem supported her throughout her reign.39 The relationship between the queen and the churchmen was not purely financial. Often courtly bishops, monastic authors, and royal women shared literary and artistic interests. Margaret's literacy and interest in collecting deluxe books and precious art objects is well-attested. Melisende was a patron of the school of minature painting centered in the scriptorium of the church of the Holy Sepulchre. The Melisende Psalter remains one the finest products of that school.40 During Henry I's reign the Anglo-Norman court became a focus for cultural activities, but it was Henry's queens rather than Henry himself who were the patrons of these activities. Among Matilda's many projects was

34 'Te ergo, filia carissima, rogamus circa eius custodiam solicitius vigilare et cor illius a consiliis pravis avertere, ne tantopere velit dei adversus se iracundiam provocare. Memento quod dicit apostolus: salvabitur vir infidelibus per mulierem fidelem .... Argue, obsecra, increpa, ut et praefacturum episcopum in sede sua recipiat.' In Schmitt, S. Anselmi opera omnia, 5: epistola no. 352. 35 Ibid., epistolae nos. 320, 321. 36 See RRAN 2: nos. 634, 638. The church's recognition of the persuasive power of women is discussed by Sharon Farmer in 'Persuasive Voices: Clerical Images of Medieval Wives,' Speculum 61 (July, 1986): 517-43. 37 For hospitals, see Edward J. Kealey, Medieval Medicus: A Social History of Anglo-Norman Medicine (Baltimore, 1981); and Marjorie B. Honeybourne, 'The Leper Hospitals of the London Area,' Proceedings of the Middlesex Archaelogical Society for 1962, 4-61. 38 See Joan Evans, Monastic Life at Cluny, 910-1157 (Oxford, 1931; repr. 1968), 94. For Hildebert, see PL 171, cols. 160-62. 39 See Hamilton, 'Queens of Jerusalem,' 150-53 and 157; Mayer, 'Queen Melisende,' 108 and 150. 40 The Psalter is now Egerton MS. 1139 at the British Library. See Hugo Buchtal, Manuscript Painting in the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem (Oxford, 1957).

Images of Queenship in the High Middle Ages

69

the commission of William of Malmesbury's Gesta Regum.41 It may well be that the traditional picture of women in the courts and Jaeger's portrayal of courtly bishops as the impetus behind the European civilizing process will yield a new synthesis. In every case where the author of literary works praising or exalting the queens is known, that author is a churchman, often a bishop. The churchmen responsible for exalting the role of the queen also felt responsible to ensure that the women who filled that role not become inflated with pride. Bernard warned Melisende to take care lest 'the glories of the world' hinder her journey to the heavenly kingdom. 42 In Turgot's preface to the Life of St. Margaret, he warned Matilda that, although 'the king of the angels made you the queen of the Angles,' special vigilance was necessary for those who had risen to the 'zenith of earthly dignity.' 43 One of Hildebert of Lavardin's poems for Matilda warns her that 'death makes the sceptre equal to the hoe.' 44 Matilda's lavish spending on poets and minstrels elicited criticism from William of Malmesbury and may have occasioned Anselm's letter criticizing her for ill-treatment of the churches entrusted to her care.45 Unlike other churchmen, Turgot was tolerant of Margaret's fondness of finery. Although admitting that she loved brightly colored clothing and that she decorated the palace with gold, silver, and silken draperies, the hagiographer assures the reader that all this was 'not because she delighted in the honor of the world, but because she was compelled to perform what royal dignity (regia dignitas) demanded of her.' Margaret adorned herself like a second Esther, but beneath it all she knew that she was but dust and ashes.46 No matter how politically successful the queen was, or how culturally influential, her primary duty was to produce a male heir. The mother-image

41

See Rodney M. Thomson, 'William of Malmesbury as Historian and Man of Letters,' Journal of Ecclesiastical History 29 (1978): 387-413; and E. Konsgen, 'Zwei unbekannte Briefe zu den Gesta Regum Anglorum von Wilhelm von Malmesbury,' Deutsches Archiv fur Erforschung des Mittelalters 31 (1975): 204-14. For a general account of the court life in the Anglo-Norman era, see C. Warren Hollister, 'Courtly Culture and Courtly Style in the Anglo-Norman World,' Albion 20 (Spring, 1988): 1-17. 42 James, Letters of St. Bernard, 345. 43 Turgot, 'Life of St. Margaret,' 59-60. 44 Hildebertus carmina minora, ed. A. Brian Scott (Leipzig, 1969) 2: poem 4. 45 William of Malmesbury, De Gestis Rerum Anglorum, 2 vols., R.S. (London, 1866; repr. 1964), 2: 494-95; and Schmitt, Anselmi opera omnia 5: epistola no. 346. 46 Turgot, 'Life of St. Margaret.' 'Et haec quidem ilia fecerat, non quod mundi honore delectabatur; sed, quod regia dignitas ad ea exigebat, persolvere cogebatur. Nam cum pretioso ut reginam decebat cultu induta procederat, omnia ornamenta velut altera Esther mente calcavit; seque sub gemmis et auro nihil aliud quam pulverem et cinerem consideravit.' The use of Queen Esther as a role model for medieval queens stretches back to the earliest coronation ordo, written by Hincmar of Reims for the coronation of Charles the Bald's daughter Judith. See 'Coronatio ludithae Karoli II Filiae' in MGH Capitularia, ed. Alfred Boretius and Viktor Krause, 2 vols. (Hannover, 1883-97), 2: 425-27.

70

Haskins Society Journal

was often foremost in the minds of the ecclesiastical writers and was taken seriously by the queens themselves. What little we know about child-rearing in the royal courts shows these women much more involved in the upbringing of their children than modern discussion has allowed.47 They worked to ensure their children's accession, negotiated marriages, and were actively involved in the education of their offspring. Margaret herself taught her sons the precepts of the Christian faith, 'as far as their age could understand.'48 Karl J. Leyser has speculated that Matilda's correspondence with the Emperor Henry V concerned his proposed marriage to her daughter Maud.49 Matilda was also involved in the training of her young son, William. She took him along when she visited Merton Priory, hoping that his memories of playing on the grounds would serve to kindle a lifelong affection for the site.50 When Gilbert, Merlon's founder, lost his own mother, Matilda asked him henceforth to consider her as his adoptive mother.51 The image of queen as mother extended far beyond her natural or even adoptive offspring. The elderly Bishop Herbert of Norwich invoked Matilda's motherly qualities when writing to Roger of Salisbury about a financial matter: 'Out of her affection, the queen has been a very mother to me.'52 Anselm reprimanded Matilda for abuse of her church lands by suggesting to her that she ought to be known as a mother, a nurse, a kind mistress, and a queen to the churches placed under her care.53 The tropes of peacemaker, mother, nurse, benefactress, and intercessor combined to create a new image for the high-medieval queen. The contemporary churchmen who created that image had recognized, as we often do not, that the high-medieval queen, in a position to influence and sometimes direct royal policy, continued to be an influential political force whose personality and ability could set the tone for the entire court. Through their patronage of both lay and ecclesiastical magnates, queens actively worked to strengthen this recognition. Placed by God at the 'zenith of earthly dignity,' the anointed queen issued charters, sat in judgment, or performed other regal functions. In so doing, she was acting as no one else could or would have 47 Ralph V. Turner points out that although royal mothers were not intimately involved with the everyday care of their young children, they did work to further the careers of their offspring. See Turner, 'Eleanor of Aquitaine and her Children: An Inquiry into Medieval Family Attachment,' Journ. Med. Hist. 14 (1988): 321-35. 48 Turgot, Life of St. Margaret, 66-67. 49 Karl. J. Leyser, 'England and the Empire in the Early Twelfth Century,' Transactions of the Royal Historical Society 5th series 10 (1960): 41-84, reprinted in Leyser, Medieval Germany and Its Neighbors, 900-1250 (London, 1982), 191-214. Matilda III, wife of Stephen, also was involved in her children's marital arrangements. See Heather J. Tanner, 'Matilda of Boulogne and the Exercise of Queenly Authority in England, 1135-52,' paper presented at the Twenty-third International Conference on Medieval Studies, Kalamazoo, Michigan, May 1988. 50 'Latin Texts Concerning Gilbert, Founder of Merton Priory,' ed. M.L. Colker, Studia Monastica 12 (1970): 241-72. 51 Ibid., 253. 52 Anstruther, Epistolae Herberti de Losinga, 50-52. 'Ex sua misericordia mini facta est mater.' 53 Schmitt, Anselmi opera omnia 5: epistola no. 346.

Images of Queenship in the High Middle Ages

11

done. It is increasingly evident that our modern tendency to overlook the high medieval queen is a mistake that would have been made by very few of her contemporaries. Virtually everyone would have known that the queen's proximity to the sources of royal authority and patronage made her a person well worth the attention lavished upon her. University of California, Santa Barbara

This page intentionally left blank

7

Aquitanians and Flemings in the Refoundation of Bardney Abbey (Lincolnshire) in the Later Eleventh Century George Beech

One of the most venerable monasteries of Anglo-Saxon England was the abbey of Saints Peter, Paul, and Oswald at Bardney in Lincolnshire about ten miles east of Lincoln.1 Founded in the late seventh century by King Ethelred of Mercia and his wife Osthryth, it owed much of its renown to the fact that it came to house some of the relics of the young Northumbrian king, St. Oswald, killed in battle in 642. Vikings destroyed the abbey after 870, but since Oswald's relics were transferred to Gloucester and not returned, Bardney was not rebuilt during the monastic revival of the later tenth century and lay vacant until the later eleventh century. 2 It was not until two decades after the Conquest that monastic life resumed at Bardney and then it was at the initiative of a Lincolnshire nobleman, Gilbert of Ghent, a Fleming by origin. A charter of 1087 records his donation of a number of his Lincolnshire estates to support the enterprise, which involved building a new church and other abbatial buildings, attracting monks, appointing an abbot, and re-establishing monastic life at a place where it had lapsed for two centuries.3 Twenty-eight years later in 1115 the project had advanced sufficiently, with the new abbey church under construction and a community of monks settled under their prior, Ralph, that the bishop of Lincoln and King Henry I authorized the transformation of Bardney from a priory into an abbey.4 From this date onward the abbey prospered until well into the later Middle Ages. A number of questions arise in cases of foundations like this where there was no existing monastic community. Who were the new monks; who recruited them; from where; which, if any, was the sponsoring abbey; who persuaded that abbey to assume the responsibility of overseeing the reinstallation of 1

This paper is dedicated to the memory of Sidney Painter (d. 1960), one of the first American medievalists to write on both England and France in the Middle Ages and thus to highlight the advantages of approaching the history of those countries from both sides of the channel. I have here followed that approach on a small scale and owe much to him. 2 A. Hamilton Thompson, 'Notes on the History of the abbey of St. Peter, St. Paul, and St. Oswald Bardney,' Associated Architectural Societies, Reports and Papers 32 (1913-14): 35-36. 3 Ibid., 37-38. 4 Ibid., 40-41.

74

Haskins Society Journal

monastic life; and why was this particular abbey chosen? When Dugdale printed the earliest surviving charters from the Bardney cartulary and surveyed the foundation and history of the abbey in his Monasticon, he did not address those questions, mainly because the Bardney charters themselves shed almost no light on them. The only hint comes from the second extant charter (of 1115) in which Ralph, then the prior, received permission from his abbot, Fulcard Carnotensis, to become the first Bardney abbot.5 Carnotensis is Chartres in France but since there were no further clarifications in the charter about the identity of either Ralph or Fulcard, nor about any possible connection between Bardney and an abbey in Chartres, Dugdale made no comment on the subject at all. Nor did Sister Elspeth take up this question when editing a brief notice about Bardney Abbey for the VCH in 1906.6 She in fact mentioned Ralph, the prior of the 1115 charter, but has him coming from Caroncous, a name she pointedly left without identification. A. Hamilton Thompson wrote what is still the only substantive monograph on Bardney in 1913-14 and gave careful scrutiny to the circumstances surrounding the refoundation. Returning to the Bardney Cartulary (British Library, Cotton MS. Vesp. E. xx), Thompson was able to correct the error of Dugdale and Sister Elspeth. The Latin place name of Abbot Fulcard's mother house was Carrofensis and Thompson identified that as Charroux, a small town in south-central France in the county of La Marche and Poitou, and duchy of Aquitaine (present-day department of the Vienne, arrondissement Montmorillon), which had a Benedictine monastery dedicated to the Holy Saviour. From the fact that the first prior-abbot of Bardney had apparently been a monk of Charroux, Thompson deduced that the Lincolnshire house had in some sense been a dependency of the Poitevin abbey, but beyond that he had nothing more to say. And for good reason, since, as I mentioned earlier, the Bardney records are conspicuously silent about any connection with the Poitevin abbey of Charroux other than the brief reference in the 1115 charter and another in a Papal letter of 1160.7 Thus when Thompson finished his monograph, he, like his predecessors, had left untouched the questions posed earlier - who were the first monks, how had they been chosen, etc. - other than for a tentative identification of a remote Aquitanian abbey as the sponsoring house. But since the two references were so brief and enigmatic and since there seemed to be no independent corroboration of any Aquitanian connection, the accuracy of Thompson's tentative assertion had to be considered questionable. In spite of this, Knowles, Brooke, and London accepted Thompson's identification in their 1972 Heads of Religious Houses, and there the matter has rested until now.8 5

Mon.Angl., 1: 624,629. Victoria History of the Counties of England, Lincoln, ed. William Page, 2 vols. (London, 1906) 2:97-103. 7 Thompson, 'Notes,' 40, 351. 8 Heads of Religious Houses in England and Wales, 940-1216, eds. D. Knowles, C.N.L. Brooke, and V.C.M. London (Cambridge, 1972), 27. 6

Aquitanians and Flemings in the Refoundation of Bardney Abbey

75

But records do survive from the archives of the abbey of Charroux and, although very few in number and enigmatic in character, they do confirm the accuracy of Thompson's identification. It was monks from Charroux who carried out the refounding of Bardney and supervised the reinstitution of monastic life there late in the eleventh century. These sources had been published in 1910, only three years before Thompson brought out his study, and had obviously not come to his attention. 9 It is only fair to add that it probably never occurred to him that the Charroux archives might contain any English records since J.H. Round's Calendar of Documents Preserved in France, with which he would have been familiar, makes no mention of this abbey.10 The Charroux records had long been known to French historians, particularly since their publication in 1910, but the English references in them to Bardney caused as much mystification to the French as did the Charroux references in the Bardney charter to the English. In fact the editor of the 1910 edition, Pere de Monsabert, had no idea of the identity or location of Bardney or its dependencies other than that they were in Lincolnshire. Thus he made no attempt in his edition to suggest any identifications nor did he raise the question: how did Charroux come to acquire possessions in England? Small wonder then that subsequent French historians, like their English counterparts, have left the matter untouched. I had known these charters for a number of years before becoming interested in them recently during the course of an investigation into Aquitanian participation in the Conquest of England in 1066.11 I became curious to see whether the Bardney records could clarify the Charroux charters; thus I put the two together. The purpose of this article is to tell the story which I was able to reconstruct from the two sets of records, the curious story of an act of Aquitanian-Flemish collaboration in the refounding of this once famous monastery. Right at the outset it should be clear that the involvement of monks from Charroux in monastic rebuilding in Lincolnshire calls for the rephrasing of the basic questions. First of all, how did Gilbert of Ghent come to appeal to monks from an abbey so far distant from Lincolnshire to found Bardney? Why did he not settle upon one of the famous abbeys from his native Flanders? Why, moreover, should the monks of Charroux have been interested and willing to take on such a far-flung venture as that in Lincolnshire? Then what kind of a relationship did they have with Bardney? What kind of contribution did they

9

P. de Monsabert, Charles et documents pour servir a I'histoire de I'abbaye de Charroux, Archives Historiques du Poitou 39 (1910). 10 Calendar of Documents Preserved in France Illustrative of the History of Great Britain and Ireland, ed. J.H. Round (London, 1899), 1: 948-1206. 11 George Beech, 'The Participation of Aquitanians in the Conquest of England, 1066-1100,' ANS 10: 1-24. Research for this article brought out that I was in error in my original assumption, as spelled out in the Battle paper (p. 21), that Roger the Poitevin was the refounder of Bardney abbey in the later eleventh century.

76

Haskins Society Journal

make to Bardney: monks, labor, spiritually? How long did their ties with Bardney last, and when and how did they come to an end? Finally, what were the consequences, short range and long, of this Aquitanian presence in England? The fact that Gilbert of Ghent was a Fleming provides the clue which leads to the answer of the first of these questions. The story begins in 1079, eight years before the refoundation, when the abbey of Charroux agreed to send monks and found a monastery at Ham-en-Artois in the diocese of Therouanne and at that time, in the county of Flanders (see map, infra, 77). The same abbey made a similar foundation at a village only a few kilometers distant, La Beuvriere, sometime between 1079 and 1084, and a third and final one at Andres to the north in the county of Guines in 1084. It was Flemish nobility who originated these foundations by making donations of land for the establishment of each of the monastic communities. Enguerrand, castellan of Lillers, established the abbey of Ham in his castellany; Baldwin, count of Guines created the abbey of Andres; several lesser nobles of La Beuvriere, whose names are unknown, collaborated in the foundation in their village. 12 Impressed by the importance of these foundations and struck by the novelty of going so far to the south to find a monastic sponsor, two thirteenth-century Flemish chroniclers, Lambert d'Ardres (writing 1194-1226) and Guillaume d'Andres (writing 1226-34) describe the circumstances leading up to these foundations and help to explain them. 13 During the 1070s Count Baldwin of Guines decided to found a monastery on his lands, possibly as a result of a vow taken after his participation on the winning side with Count Robert the Frisian of Flanders in the battle of Cassel in 1070. In 1079 he undertook a pilgrimage to Santiago with a number of neighboring nobility including Enguerrand of Lillers, founder of Ham. En route south, they stopped at the abbey of Charroux and during their stay they asked the monks there to assume the responsibility for these proposed new foundations by sending monks, constructing the buildings, and administering the new communities. A charter in the Charroux archives issued by Enguerrand of Lillers at Charroux at the time of the stay in 1079 confirms this account. 14 When the Flemings had returned from their pilgrimage, the projects were put into execution and monastic life began in the three houses, one an abbey, the other two priories, by 1084. Thus three years before Gilbert of Ghent issued his foundation charter for Bardney in Lincoln12

A. Verhulst, 'La fondation des dependances de 1'abbaye poitevine de Charroux dans le diocese de Therouanne: Andres, Ham et La Beuvriere,' Le Moyen Age 69 (1963): 169-89. G. Chapeau, 'Un pelerinage noble a Charroux au Xle siecle: la fondation des prieures d'Ham et d'Andres, dependances de Charroux,' Bulletin de la Societe des Antiquaires de I'Ouest, 3e serie, 13 (1942-45): 250-71. Ch. Dereine, 'Gerard, eveque de Therouanne 1083-96 face aux moines exempts. Le cas des prieures de Nieppe, Ardres, et Framecourt,' Memoires de la Societe d'Histoire de Comines-Warneton et de la region 16 (1980): 249-64. 13 Guillaume d'Andres, Chronica, ed. I. Heller, Monumentae Germania Historica, Scriptores (Hannover, 1879), 24: 691-92. Lambert d'Ardres, Historia comitum Ghisnensium, ibid., 575-76. 14 De Monsabert, Charles, 96-98.

Aquitanians and Flemings in the Refoundation ofBardney Abbey

England, Flanders and Aquitaine in the Eleventh Century

77

78

Haskins Society Journal

shire (1087), the monastery of Charroux must have become well known to the population of western Flanders. What neither the two chronicle accounts, nor the charters make clear, is why the Flemings appealed to an Aquitanian monastery so far away rather than to one of their own distinguished Flemish houses such as St. Berlin of SaintOmer, St. Trend, St. Hubert, St. Pierre de Mont Blandin of Gand, St. Bavon, Gembloux and Stavelot-Malmedy, which were so much nearer the scene. Three earlier scholars who looked at the question concluded that most likely it was pure chance.15 The pilgrimage route happened to pass near Charroux where the Flemings fell into conversation with the monks, mentioned their project and found eager takers. I am skeptical of this simply because founding a new monastery was no casual undertaking. It demanded a substantial investment in lands, revenues, and building materials and as such must have called for no small amount of long range planning. Nor could a founder take chances with the sponsoring mother abbey. It had to be a community with a proven reputation for its ability to manage new foundations as well as its own affairs. Having to communicate over very long distances as in a case like this only complicated the problems. I am inclined to believe that the Flemish lords, who approached Charroux in 1079, put their confidence in that abbey because they knew of her already and had strong reasons for preferring her. There is no evidence for the presence of Charroux in Flanders before 1079, but contacts between Poitevins and Flemings clearly existed before that date. A Poitevin contingent fought on the French side (against the Flemings) in the aforementioned battle of Cassel in 1071, the same battle in which Count Baldwin of Guines also participated.16 Quite apart from this, Count Baldwin may have been related to the then count of Poitou/duke of Aquitaine, Guy-Geoffroi (1058-86), and could have learned of Charroux through this contact.17 Even if there is no direct proof of Flemish acquaintance with Charroux before 1079, there is evidence of another kind: the growing fame of the Poitevin abbey precisely at the time of these foundations. Established at the end of the eighth century, Charroux was one of the great royal abbeys of Carolingian France, deriving its fame from Charlemagne, its reputed founder, and from having a fragment of the True Cross which he himself was said to have obtained.18 The destruction of the abbey church in 863 ushered in a time of troubles in the tenth century, though it is noteworthy that the first of the subsequently famous Peace Councils met at Charroux in 989. These difficulties came to a head in the early eleventh century when the count of Poitou called in monks from Saint Savin in Poitou to reform the conventual life and build a new abbey church. 19 The reform was successful in stabilizing the monastery 15

Seen. 12. A. Fliche, Le regne de Philippe I roi de France, 1060-1108 (Paris, 1912), 257. E.-R. Labande, 'Situation de 1'Aquitaine en 1066,' Bulletin de la Societe des Antiquaires de I'Quest, 4e serie, 8 (1966): 344. 17 Chapeau, 'Pelerinage,' 261. 18 De Monsabert, Charles, introduction. 19 Ademar, 184. 16

Aquitanians and Flemings in the Refoundation of Bardney Abbey

79

and led to a century of unprecedented expansion and prosperity with the result that by 1096, when Urban II dedicated its new church, it was once again one of the most distinguished houses in southern France. Part of its renown came from its magnificent church which in design and dimensions stood out as one of the great Romanesque buildings of the eleventh century. It was built in rotunda shape at the same time as was the church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem. A splendid octagonal tower, 37 meters high, constructed to stand at the center of the rotunda to aid in holding up the vaulting, is all that remains of the church today. In the 1070s and 1080s a narthex was added to the rotunda to give the structure a cruciform shape and still other additions came in the twelfth century. When finished it was 112 meters long, in other words substantially larger than the twelfth-century cathedral of Poitiers.20 Yet it was Charroux's relics even more than the huge church which brought it distinction. The .rotunda shape of the early eleventh-century was indeed deliberately chosen to serve as a reliquaire geant (in the words of one art historian) to highlight the famous fragments of the Cross.21 But then in the period 1077-82, the discovery of a new relic called the Sancta Virtus, or Holy Virtue, created a sensation when announced at an important church council in Charroux in 1082.22 Precisely what this relic was has puzzled modern historians because the texts describing it are vague, but the accidental find of a reliquary hidden in one of the surviving pillars of the church in 1856 supports the hypothesis that it was a communion host covered with a cloth to which, it was said, clung drops of blood. This persuaded a German art historian, who made the only detailed architectural study of the abbey in 1963, that the finding of the Holy Virtue is to be seen in relationship to the theological controversy raging at this time over the Eucharist, the question of Real Presence, centering about the condemnation of Berengar of Tours.23 In any case evidence makes clear that in the eyes of contemporaries the Holy Virtue now overshadowed the True Cross in importance. Finally, the French art historian, Jean Cabanot, several years ago found a previously unknown text which reveals that sometime between 1085 and 1100 the church of Charroux could also boast of having a famous figured crucifix similar to the still surviving volto santo, or Holy Face, of Lucca.24 The author of this text from the Perigord, when writing about a 20 G. Schwering-Illert, Die ehemalige franzosische Abteikirche Saint-Saveur in Charroux, Vienne im 11. und 12. Jahrhundert (Dusseldorf, 1963), as cited in Fr. Eygun, 'L'abbaye de Charroux: les grandes lignes de son histoire et de ses constructions,' Bulletin de la Societe des Antiquaires de I'Quest, 4e serie, 10 (1969): 11-25. 21 C. Heitz, as cited in J. Cabanot, 'Le tresor des reliques de Saint-Saveur de Charroux. Centre et reflet de la vie spirituelle de I'abbaye,' Bulletin de la Societe des Antiquaires de I'Quest, 4e serie, 16(1981): l l l , n . 42. 22 On this see Cabanot, ibid., 103-23. 23 Schwering-Illert, Ehemalige Abteikirche, as cited by Cabanot, Tresor,' 114-16. 24 J. Cabanot, 'Deux nouveaux crucifix de la famille du Volto Santo de Lucques: le 'saint Veu' de Charroux et la 'Digne Votz' de Cenac en Perigord,' Cahiers de Civilisation Medievale 24 (1981): 55-58.

80

Haskins Society Journal

similar crucifix in a local church, claims that only the Holy Faces of Lucca and Charroux could match that of Cenac in power and beauty. To summarize: its collection of relics, all focusing on the cult of the Holy Saviour to which Charroux is dedicated, together with its enormous, striking church, and its vast patrimony of well over 200 dependent priories and domaines extending over much of central and southern France elevated Charroux in the later eleventh century to the ranks of the great monastic congregations of the country at the time. When the count of Guines and his fellow Flemish nobles approached the Poitevin abbey in 1079 they can hardly have been unaware of its reputation; on the contrary they must have wanted to bring to their regions some of the spiritual power associated with the cult of the Saviour and the Cross at Charroux. The establishment of monastic ties between Flanders and Charroux from 1079-84 immediately preceded the refoundation of Bardney Abbey by the Fleming, Gilbert of Ghent, in 1087 and helps to explain how monks of Charroux came to this distant Lincolnshire monastery. In his foundation charter of 1087, Gilbert tells how he conceived his project of restoring Bardney Abbey, then 'desolate due to the cruel persecutions of outlandish nations,' after learning of its great destruction in earlier times through the ecclesiastical history of the Venerable Bede.25 Gilbert then adds that his lord, King William, had given him permission, and he follows this with a list of landed donations in order that, as he puts it, 'the monastic order after the rule of St. Benedict may be observed for ever to the honor of God in the same monastery.' Two independent sources provide further information. The Pseudo Peter of Blois' Continuations of the Chronicle of Crowland of the early fifteenth century also credits Gilbert of Ghent with the refounding of Bardney but assigns this, for reasons unknown, to the year 1107.26 William of Malmesbury, however, in his Gesta Pontificum asserts that it was Bishop Remigius of Lincoln who rebuilt Bardney out of the earlier monastery.27 I do not see any serious contradictions in these accounts and would incline toward the following sequence of events. Through his reading of Bede, Bishop Remigius became aware of the earlier renown of Bardney, which was only ten miles from Lincoln, and then saw its ruins during one of his diocesan visitations. He spoke of it, relating Bede's. account, to the lord of those lands, Gilbert of Ghent, a man whom he would have known already, possibly as a comrade in the first expedition to England in 1066 (Remigius was a monk of Fecamp who 25

Mon. Angl., 1: 628; Thompson, 'Notes,' 38. 'Just at this time also, Gilbert de Gaunt, the illustrious and devout earl of Lincoln, refounded the most ancient monastery known as Bardney which had been formerly burnt by the fury of the Danes and had for a period of many years lain utterly deserted,' Ingulph's Chronicle of the Abbey of Croyland with the Continuations by Peter of Blois and Anonymous Writers, trans. H.T. Riley (London, 1854), 262. 27 '...[Remigius]...coenobium monachorum apud S. Mariam de Stou ex novo fecit, alterum apud Bardenei ex veteri favore suo innovabit,' William of Malmesbury, De Gestis Pontificum, ed. N.E.S.A. Hamilton, R.S. (London, 1870), 312. 26

Aquitanians and Flemings in the Refoundation of Bardney Abbey

81

came then or shortly thereafter as did also Gilbert).28 If not then, he would have known him as a great Lincolnshire tenant whose lands included holdings in the town of Lincoln itself.29 Gilbert then requested and received the king's approval before issuing his charter, which the king's three sons confirmed along with the bishop of Lincoln and Archbishop Lanfranc.30 Gilbert of Ghent's 1087 charter is clearly a statement of intentions rather than a recording of a fait accompli. Yet to be decided were who would be the monks, what would be the status of the new house, whether independent or dependent, and in this latter case, which would be the mother house. The lack of any reference to Charroux or to any other monastery in the charter leaves no doubt that Charroux had not yet been approached in 1087. By 1096 Gilbert had made decisions on all these points. He probably cannot have hesitated long in choosing to make Bardney a dependent priory and in calling in a prior and monks from another monastery. After all Bardney lay in ruins, no monks were there at the time, nor had any lived there in over two centuries. No alternative existed but to appeal to a well established, well endowed abbey which was not only willing but economically capable of bearing the large expenses of an enterprise such as this. Similar considerations moved Norman nobility in many other comparable cases to issue calls to mother abbeys of northern France, especially Normandy, to come and supervise the introduction, or reintroduction of monastic life. 31 Nonetheless it is worth noting that in one respect the selection of Charroux as the sponsoring institution differed strikingly from all other examples with which it can be compared. Bardney was Charroux's only monastic possession in England, or to put it another way, Gilbert of Ghent is the only nobleman to have turned to the Aquitanian abbey which stood all alone, far south of the southern territorial limit of the northern French houses to which most monastic possessions in England had been confided. In the 150 years after the Conquest only three abbeys south of the Loire committed themselves to administering English possessions, and Charroux was almost certainly the first to take this

28 English Episcopal Acta, I Lincoln, 1067-1185, ed. D.M. Smith (London, 1980), xxxi. Richard Sherman, 'Continental Origins of the Ghent Family of Lincolnshire,' Nottingham Medieval Studies 22 (1978): 23. 29 The Lincolnshire Domesday and the Lindsey Survey, eds. C.W. Foster and T. Longley, Lincolnshire Record Society 19 (1924): 2-3. 30 Mon. Angl., 1: 628-29. In approving the choice of Charroux as the sponsoring house, William I would have been well aware of the close relationship between this Poitevin abbey and the great Touraine abbey of Marmoutiers to which he himself had entrusted his first monastic foundation in England at Battle. Marmoutiers had almost certainly played a role in the reform of Charroux at the beginning of the eleventh century and the latter monks were observing the usages of the abbey of Tours at the end of the century (de Monsabert, Charles, 90-91). Charroux would thus have been a more than acceptable sponsor for Bardney in the eyes of the king. 31 J. Beauroy, 'La conquete clericale de 1'Angleterre,' Cahiers de civilisation Medievale 27 (1984): 35-48.

82

Has kins Society Journal

step.32 The reasons for this very small number must certainly have been not only that the Norman settlers in England were less well acquainted with southern French abbeys, but also that the distances, expenses, and travelling time were too great to justify the undertaking. Seen in this light, the choice of Charroux was decidedly unusual and one suspects that special circumstances must have played a role. It is also surprising that Gilbert of Ghent, a Fleming, did not automatically appeal to one of the famous Flemish monasteries for the task, particularly St. Pierre de Mont Blandin and St. Bavon of Gand to which he had a close relationship in that his father had been their advocatus or avoue.^ But in avoiding Flemish abbeys Gilbert was not alone; the new Anglo-Norman aristocracy appears to have bypassed systematically the Flemish abbeys when it came to entrusting new foundations to continental houses.34 The reasons why are not clear. None of the surviving sources tells how, or when, or indeed by whom the choice was made to appeal to Charroux. We know only that it was an accomplished fact by 1096, when a charter of Urban II included Bardney monastery and four dependent churches in Lincolnshire among the abbey's possessions.35 That the Charroux archives themselves contain no charter of association (such as exists for Ham-en-Artois) is surprising only until one learns that very little survives today from what was once a huge body of materials. Fires and the Revolution caused the losses, and only a few later copies and a minuscule cartulary of the fifteenth century survive. 36 Yet even though explicit proof of it is missing, Gilbert of Ghent must have been the one who chose Charroux since later charters name him as the refounder, and he chose to be buried at Bardney. 37 How did Gilbert come to know of Charroux? Perhaps one should begin with a more basic question: who was Gilbert of Ghent? A recent American dissertation has cleared up some earlier confusion about the man and his life.38 Richard Sherman has shown that Gilbert descended on his father's side from a family of castellans of Aalst or Alost near Ghent. From his mother, almost 32

The other two were St. Foi of Conque (Rouergue) with the priory of Horsham St. Faith (Norfolk) and La Sauve Majeure (Bordeaux) with the priory of Burwell in Lincolnshire. J.P. Trabut-Cussac, 'Les possessions anglaises de 1'abbaye de la Sauve Majeure, Le Prieure de Burwell, Line.,' Bulletin Philologique et Historique jusqu'a 1715 Congres National des Societes Savantes, Bordeaux, 1957 (Paris, 1958): 138-43. Cartulaire de 1'abbaye de Conque en Rouergues, ed. G. Desjardins (Paris, 1879), cxv-cxvi, 359, 368-72. 33 Sherman, 'Continental Origins,' 31. 34 Conclusion based upon a search in Beauroy, 'Conquete'; R. George, 'The Contribution of Flanders to the Conquest of England 1065-86,' Revue Beige de Philologie et d'Histoire 5 (1926): 81-96; C.W. New, History of the Alien Priories in England to the Confiscation of Henry VII (Chicago, 1916); H. Ellis, A General Introduction to the Domesday Book, 2 vols. (London, 1833), indices. 35 De Monsabert, Chartes, 78-82. 36 Ibid., 1-xlx. 37 Richard Sherman, The Ghents: A Flemish Family in Northern England, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Pennsylvania 1969, 67. 38 See supra, n. 37.

Aijuitanians and Flemings in the Refoundation of Barclnev Ahhe\

83

certainly of the comital family of Luxembourg, he was a ninth generation direct descendant of Charlemagne, a cousin of Count Baldwin V of Flanders, thus a first cousin once removed of Queen Matilda, and by her marriage, a first cousin once removed of William the Conqueror. He was born in the early 1040s as a third son. Presumably lacking a large inheritance he went to England either in 1066 or shortly thereafter (he was at York in 1069) and somehow became a major tenant in Lincolnshire and Yorkshire. 39 Nothing in the surviving record even so much as hints at any contact between Gilbert and Charroux, nor is there any indication that he made a pilgrimage there as did the Flemish nobles described earlier in 1079. He is known to have returned to Flanders at least once, in 1075.40 If Gilbert had not been to Charroux in person, he must have learned about it through others. Thus far I have found no proof that he was related to the Flemish benefactors of Charroux, Baldwin, count of Guines, or Enguerrand of Lillers. 41 Still, he must have known them as members of the Flemish aristocracy and vassals of the count of Flanders. A more likely link existed closer to Gilbert's new home in Lincolnshire. A number of other Flemings had become substantial tenants in the same county and, due to the dispersion of his own lands, most were his neighbors.42 The most important of these was Drogo de Bevrere, or Dru de Bevraria (Domesday Book) - in French, Dreux de la Beuvriere. 43 It will be recalled that one of the Charroux priories founded in Flanders was established precisely in Dreux's native village of La Beuvriere in 1079. From this fact alone Dreux de la Beuvriere becomes a possible source of information about Charroux. 44 But there is an even better one. Another of Gilbert's Lincolnshire neighbors was the Norman, Roger, son of Roger of Montgomery, earl of Shrewsbury, who died in 1093. This Roger was called Roger the Poitevin because of his marriage sometime before 1087 to Aumode, heiress and countess of La Marche in Poitou. 45 The seat of the county of La Marche was none other than Charroux, the home of the abbey. As one who was coming to know Charroux himself but also had a wife native to the place, Roger obviously also could have provided detailed information about the abbey to Gilbert of Ghent and enthusiastically praised its merits. But it is also possible that other native Poitevins could have furnished the information. A contingent of Aquitanians, mainly Poitevins, participated in the Norman campaign at Battle in 1066 and several stayed on afterwards and settled in England. This is clearly the case with two brothers, William and Roger the Poitevin, who held two small 39

Sherman, 'Continental Origins,' 23-35. Ibid., 27. 41 M. Chanteux-Vasseur, 'Etude geographique et historique sur le comte de Guines des origines a 1283,' Positions des theses de I'Ecole des Charles (1935): 59. 42 Foster and Longley, Lincolnshire Domesday, xxviii and index of persons. 43 George, 'Contribution/ 89, 91, 93. 44 Dreux and Gilbert each held houses in the towns of Northampton and Lincoln, Ibid. 45 J.F.A. Mason, 'Roger of Montgomery and his Sons, 1067-1102,' Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 5th ser. 13 (1963): 15. 40

84

Haskins Society Journal

lordships of Ilbert de Lacy and Pontefract in Yorkshire (see map, supra, 77) by 1090. And the William of Partenay at Docking, Norfolk (see map) at the time of the Domesday survey was most likely a Poitevin noble.46 It may not only have been Aquitanian nobility settling down after the Conquest who brought stories of the fame of Charroux. From the records of Evesham Abbey we learn that Aquitanian pilgrims were coming to venerate the shrine of St. Edgwin at that abbey in the years 1058-77.47 Medieval pilgrims were well known transmitters of stories of the relics and miracles, not only of saints at the shrines they visited, but also of their own native saints. This leads one to wonder whether it had to have been foreigners who were the source of stories about Charroux. Could Englishmen themselves have visited the shrine and venerated the relics at Charroux? Was Charroux known in England before the Conquest through returning English pilgrims? Almost certainly this was the case even though explicit proof of it is lacking.48 The preceding provides, I think, convincing evidence that though we cannot know exactly how Gilbert of Ghent learned of Charroux it could have been through a number of different well informed sources. Moreover he would have heard of the Poitevin abbey precisely at the time when its fame was spreading, for, as related above, it was in the 1080s that the monks of Charroux discovered a new relic of Christ at the abbey, the Holy Virtue, a find which created a sensation at the time and increased the attractiveness of the abbey to pilgrims, as also did the completion of the great narthex of the original rotunda church at the same time. Sometime after 1087 Gilbert made his choice and asked the monks of Charroux to accept the charge of refounding Bardney Abbey. To encourage them he almost certainly gave the abbey the four Lincolnshire parish churches which were in Bardney's possession by the time of the pope's confirmation bull of 1096.49 At this juncture it is appropriate to raise the question why the monks of Charroux would have agreed to accept this commission. What could have prompted them to make such a decision? Surely there must have been skeptics in the community since this represented a clean break with the traditional territorial policy of the abbey. The great mass of the abbey's holdings, estates, abbeys, and priories lay in southern France well below the Loire.50 Other than three or four isolated domains in Normandy, Anjou, and the Paris region, the three Flemish monastic houses discussed earlier were the only exceptions to 46

Beech, 'Participation,' 20-22. Chronicon abbatiae de Evesham, ed. W.D. Macray, R.S. 29 (London, 1863), 91. 48 For instance Eric Fernie, The Architecture of the Anglo-Saxons (New York, 1983), 157, noticed the similarities between the rotunda of the abbey church of Charroux consecrated in 1047 and the design of Abbot Wulfric of St. Augustine's Canterbury, for a new church there shortly thereafter. That Wulfric had visited and inspected Charroux seems quite likely. I am in the process of summarizing the evidence on the question of pre-Conquest contacts between England and Aquitaine. 49 De Monsabert, Charles, 78-82. 50 No systematic study of the Charroux holdings has yet been made, but de Monsabert gives a list of all its dependent religious houses, ibid., xxii-xxxv. 47

Aquitanians and Flemings in the Refoundation of Bardney Abbey

85

this, the only substantial Charroux possessions in the north; and now, almost completely isolated, far to the north in a foreign country with the English Channel in between was this new house. The precise explanation for this move cannot be known, but in all possibility it must be seen as part of a full-scale movement of expansion on the part of the abbey of Charroux. For it was during the abbacy of Fulcrad (1077-95) that Charroux's holdings increased more than at any other time in the eleventh and twelfth centuries. 51 This increase can only be interpreted as a deliberate policy to acquire new churches, priories, and estates for the purposes of augmenting income and extending influence. The desire to extend influence was surely related to the growing enthusiasm over the new relics, the cult of the Cross, and the new church. Why be satisfied merely with attracting pilgrims to one's own shrine; why not establish one's own dependencies in the home countries of visitors, particularly when they themselves proposed it? Requests coming from foreign nobles must have been flattering proof of the efficacy of their relics to the monks of Charroux, v/ho must have been powerfully tempted to accept even when it meant taking risks. Such thoughts probably prompted Abbot Fulcrad to accept the call to Flanders about which he had heard from the noble Flemish pilgrims in 1079. Certainly he and his monks had also heard about England, newly conquered a quarter century earlier; some perhaps had travelled there. The call to Lincolnshire may have seemed even more attractive than Flanders, more distant and more foreign as it was. On the other hand, it would not be a case of dealing with total strangers, since Gilbert of Ghent was a Flemish noble and Charroux knew the Flemish nobility through its houses in Flanders. Furthermore, those Flemish houses could be seen as a convenient stopping point on the journey to England. Lincolnshire was a favorite territory for Flemish settlers after 1066 because it was easily accessible by sea. Their priory at Andres, just inland from the coast near Boulogne, would have given Charroux monks travelling up the Channel by boat a friendly place to break the journey. Once the agreement had been concluded, Charroux monks must have travelled to England and begun the work of rebuilding and reintroducing monastic life in Bardney, but the Charroux records are silent on this matter. Two very interesting, and hitherto unknown, charters do reveal that the abbey began almost immediately to seek additional English holdings for itself. 52 The first is a charter drawn up by Roger the Poitevin and his wife, the Countess Aumode, sometime between 1095-1100 at Stradbrook in Suffolk. In it Roger and Aumode endow the abbey of Charroux with three churches and manors in Lincolnshire which Roger had received from King William, and in addition give tithes from three different estates in Suffolk. Not a word is breathed about Bardney in this charter, which leads one to wonder whether the grant had 51 This is based on an analysis of papal letters of confirmation of Leo IX (1050), Alexander II (1061-73), Urban II (1096-98), Anastasius IV (1154), and Innocent III (1211) which show the growth of Charroux's network of territorial holdings. De Monsabert, Charles, xxii-xxxv. 52 Ibid., 112-13.

86

Haskins Society Journal

anything to do with Charroux's presence in Lincolnshire. HacLCharroux in fact already acquired Bardney by this time, or could this endowment have preceded that agreement? This latter seems difficult to believe. Roger and Aumode made their gift because they knew that their Poitevin monks had a commitment to settle in Lincolnshire if they weren't there already. And they knew this because the Charroux monks had come to them as old Poitevin friends and neighbors soliciting such donations. How else can this gift be understood? But then why didn't Charroux request that they make donations to Bardney, why to the Poitevin mother house instead? Probably because the monks realized that, given the nature of their relationship with Bardney (a subject to be dealt with below), their tenure at that monastery was likely to be limited. In view of this, they were intent on acquiring English domains entirely independent of Bardney. A second Charroux charter from slightly later tends to support this interpretation. This is an undated and hitherto unknown writ of King Henry I issued sometime between 1102-5.53 By this document the king made his own grant to Charroux of the church of the Holy Trinity, Ipswich and then confirmed the abbey's possession of the two Lincolnshire manors given earlier by Roger the Poitevin and now to be held from Henry himself. After learning of the confiscation of Roger's lands in 1101, the Poitevin monks presumably sought out the king in order to be reassured that they could continue to hold the manors Roger had given them before 1100.54 Henry granted their request and encouraged them further by adding an endowment of his own in the form of the church at Ipswich. The first documents to provide information about the progress of the new enterprise at Bardney are two charters, the first of Walter of Ghent, the second of Henry I, from the Bardney archives in the years 1115 and 1116, twentyeight years after Gilbert of Ghent's foundation charter.55 It reveals that a community of monks under the leadership of Prior Ralph, a Charroux monk, was in place and that the construction of a new abbey church had begun. In his writ Henry I tells that he has acceded to the request of Gilbert of Ghent's son and successor, Walter of Ghent, and had granted to Prior Ralph that Bardney, previously a priory, be given abbey status. He adds that Fulcard (sic for Fulcald), the abbot of Charroux where Ralph had been a monk, had agreed to this change. Neither Henry nor Walter of Ghent explains the change, but there can be little doubt that it meant the reduction if not the elimination of Charroux's role in the life of Bardney. Yet abbey status did not bring complete independence to Bardney, for the first abbot, Ralph, previously the prior, was a Charroux monk and he continued to rule the abbey until his death sometime in the 1130s. The next abbot was one Ivo gallicus, also obviously a continental and probably another monk of Charroux.56 That Charroux retained some kind 53

Ibid., 125-6. C. Warren Hollister confirmed to me by letter that English historians had not previously known of this writ. 54 Mason, 'Roger of Montgomery,' 24. 55 Mon. Angl., 1: 629; Thompson, 'Notes,' 40-44. 56 Thompson, 'Notes,' 351.

Aquitanians and Flemings in the Refoundation of Bardney Abbey

87

of control over Bardney even after 1115, probably in the selection of abbots, is made clear by a letter of Pope Alexander III of 1160 recording that the then abbot of Charroux, Jordan, and his monks had agreed to give up their rights over the abbey of Bardney. 57 At first glance this is puzzling since the status of the abbey granted in 1115 would seem to have precluded outside influence such as Charroux had and raises the question as to just what kind of canonical relationship had existed between the two houses from the very beginning. The confusion is only apparent. A much fuller documentation on Charroux's relationship with its three new houses in Flanders in the early 1080s brings out that the Aquitanian abbey made very similar if not identical arrangements with its new foundation in Lincolnshire. The priory at Andres in the county of Guines is the best example. Founded as a priory in 1084, it became an abbey in 1093, but Charroux retained the right to choose new abbots, a right which it finally surrendered in 1211.58 Why did Charroux insist on such a relationship in these new foundations? I would infer that the monks of Charroux envisioned their role in these far distant monasteries as being one which demanded from them a heavy investment in personnel, time, and labor in the early critical years when the success of the new house still hung in the balance. Once safely established it was foreseen that the mother house would reduce its involvement drastically, bring to a halt the supply of new monks, and essentially turn affairs over to the new community, retaining only the right of supervision through the right to choose or approve the new abbots. Thus I would see the 1115 granting of abbey status to Bardney as Charroux's recognition that the critical point had passed. The new community was firmly established on a sound base, monks were there, the new abbey church was under construction, an endowment had been created, and there was every expectation that the new community would have a successful future. 59 So it was time for Charroux to withdraw. Such an evaluation, if made in this way in 1115, proved to be fully accurate. Bardney became and remained a stable and prosperous abbey through the rest of the Middle Ages. With their surrender of the right to select Bardney abbots in 1160, the monks of Charroux thus brought to a close a brief venture, not even a century in duration, of Aquitanian involvement in the spread of Benedictine monasticism in eastern England. What had begun as a Flemish-Aquitanian noble and monastic alliance had ended by bringing the monks of a Poitevin abbey first to Flanders and finally much further away to England; one of the more unusual

57 W. Holtzman, Papsturkunden in England. I Bibliotheken und Archive in London (Berlin, 1930), no. 76, pp. 335-36. 58 Verhulst, 'Foundation,' 179-80. 59 Harold Brakspeare, 'Bardney Abbey,' Archaelogical Journal 19 (1922): 2-3, passim. Although apparently no written records survive to date the construction, the author concludes on archaelogical evidence that the great abbey church was begun in the first half of the twelfth century.

88

Haskins Society Journal

episodes in 'the clerical conquest of England' as one French historian put it recently.60 In conclusion it seems only appropriate to attempt to assess the significance of this episode both from the English and Aquitanian viewpoints. Until now English historians (such as Knowles, Barlow, Platt, Owen) have had very little to say about Bardney, doubtless because so little modern research has been carried out on the abbey's history.61 Nonetheless Bardney clearly must be regarded as one of the earliest new monastic foundations in England after the Conquest (certainly one of the first in Lincolnshire) and probably one of the more important in the east-central part of the country. Almost inevitably it invites comparison with the revival of monasticism in the north which led to new communities at Selby (1069), Whitby (before 1077), Durham (1083), and St. Mary's, York (1088). Bardney stands out from these latter in that it was inspired not by native Englishmen, but by a transplanted Fleming and led, at least initially, by monks imported from Aquitaine. Their charters show that both William I and Henry I paid careful attention to the fortunes of this new foundation, which they may well have viewed as an important center for the establishment of Benedictine monasticism in the east-central part of the country. The dimensions of the early twelfth-century church demonstrate that this was a major monastic foundation; asH. Brakspear put it,'... this great building ...' was on 'far too lavish a scale for merely an alien cell.'62 Its rapid success obviously depended in good part on abundant landed donations from the first two generations of the Ghent family, but one wonders what kind of a role the Charroux monks played in the rise of this abbey. This is difficult to measure, given the almost total silence of the Bardney archives, and the mere handful of documents surviving from Charroux. In view of this silence the initial impression could hardly be avoided that Charroux had little if any influence at all, yet the incontrovertible fact that the first prior (then abbot) for the first three decades was a monk of Charroux rules that out. Then why the silence, especially from the Bardney side? It is almost as if the Bardney monks had sought deliberately to erase all records of the early association with Charroux. This could have happened when the early fourteenth-century scribe of the surviving Bardney Cartulary simply chose to exclude from the collection he was compiling all early charters containing references to Charroux save the two referred to earlier. Both of these he copied and preserved precisely because they record agreements by two different abbots of Charroux reducing and then eliminating their authority in Bardney affairs. It was vital to preserve that sort of record, but the rest could be destroyed since they contained painful 60 J. Beauroy, 'La conquete clericale de 1'Angleterre,' Cahiers de Civilisation Medievale 27 (1984): 35-48. 61 David Knowles, The Monastic Order in England, 940-1216, 2nd ed. (Cambridge, 1966); Frank Barlow, The English Church, 1066-1154 (New York, 1979); Colin Platt, Abbeys and Priories of Medieval England (London, 1984); Dorothy Owen, Church and Society in Medieval Lincolnshire, in History of Lincolnshire, ed. Joan Thirsk, vol. 5 (Lincoln, 1971). 62 H. Brakspear, 'Bardney,' 3.

Aquitanians and Flemings in the Refoundation of Bardney Abbey

89

reminders of the early period when the Charroux monks ruled Bardney. 63 Whether this was the case or not, the silence of the Bardney records on the abbey's refoundation stands in sharp contrast to the eloquent narrative accounts of their founding kept by the monks of Selby and Battle Abbey. 64 The conclusion is unavoidable that Bardney had no happy memories of the time when Charroux was there. This could have had a number of different causes, including suspicion or dislike of the Aquitanians with their strange customs, dress, and language. But I am inclined to believe it was brought about by Charroux's reluctance to surrender its authority over Bardney after the latter was firmly established and capable of directing its own affairs. No proof exists of conflict between the two, but Charroux had serious disputes with its Flemish houses almost from the moment of their foundation. For instance, it struggled long with Andres before finally yielding its right to choose new abbots there, even after the latter house had gained abbatial status.65 Charroux appears to have had an identical relationship with both Bardney and its Flemish dependencies, and at exactly the same time; thus it is quite conceivable that the same disputes occurred in England. As a result Charroux may have withdrawn unwillingly, leaving bad feelings on both sides; this would explain the subsequent purging of archives. 66 Even if this was the case it should not color an assessment of Charroux's role at the outset, which must have been substantial. If its better known Flemish experience may be invoked once again, Charroux sent several monks along with its first prior, later abbot, Ralph. 67 Together this nucleus must have attended to all the various tasks facing a new monastic community: lodgings, food, the divine offices, administration of the domain, and recruitment of new monks. Many of these activities would have left no traces in the permanent records of the abbey but the Aquitanian presence could have made itself felt in other ways, such as in the architectural design of the church or in the customs and usages observed by the monks. To the untrained eye of this historian the floorplan of the Bardney abbey church bears no resemblance to the great rotunda church of Charroux, hence there appears to be no suggestion of influence in this regard. Too little is known of Bardney at this time to permit any judgment on possible borrowings in liturgy, monastic usages, or the like. The same seems to be true of any possible Bardney appropriation of relics associated with the cult of the Cross, the Holy Face, or the Holy Virtue. The question of influence must, it seems, remain open. Nonetheless, even though

63 I have seen the Bardney Cartulary in the British Library, but I am relying here on A. Hamilton Thompson's assumption that no early charters survive other than those in the cartulary. 64 R.B. Dobson, The First Norman Abbey in Northern England,' The Ampleforth Journal 74 (1968): 164ff.; The Chronicle of Battle Abbey, ed. Eleanor Searle (Oxford, 1980). 65 Verhulst, 'Fondation,' 179-80. 66 On the gaps in the Charroux records see supra, n. 36. 67 Charroux sent three monks to La Beuvriere at the time of its foundation in 1084. Verhulst, 'Fondation.' 184.

90

Haskins Society Journal

explicit evidence of it is lacking, and even though later generations of Bardney monks were unwilling to acknowledge it, it does not seem unreasonable to conclude that Charroux monks must be given credit for making possible the refoundation of the abbey. Western Michigan University

8

Ailred of Rievaulx and Walter Espec Derek Baker

In north Yorkshire, early on the misty morning of Tuesday August 22, 1138 on Cowton Moor, some eight miles northwest of Northallerton and about three miles south of the River Tees, the large but disparate forces of David I of Scotland met the levies of the English north in battle. In the absence of King Stephen, preoccupied with revolts further south, the English forces had been assembled by the ailing archbishop of York, Thurstan, and were grouped around a mast-like structure from which were suspended the banners of St Peter's, York, St. Wilfrid of Ripon, and St. John of Beverley. This was the 'Standard,' which gave its name to the battle which ensued. 1 Within a few hours the Scots were broken and in headlong, but unpursued, flight. As with so 1

This study was originally part of a more extended paper entitled 'Walter Espec and His Age.' For contemporary, or near-contemporary, accounts of the battle of the Standard see: Richard of Hexham, De Gestis Regis Stephani et de Bella Standardi, in Chronicles of the Reigns of Stephen, Henry II, and Richard I, ed. Richard Hewlett, 4 vols, R.S. 82 (London, 1884-9), 3: 139-78 (hereafter cited as Chronicles); and The Priory of Hexham, ed. J. Raine, 2 vols, Surtees Society 44, 46 (Durham, 1864, 1865), 1: 63-106 (hereafter cited as Hexham); John of Hexham's continuation of Symeon of Durham in Symeonis Monachi Opera Omnia, ed. Thomas Arnold, 2 vols., R.S. 75 (London, 1882-85), 2: 284—332, and Hexham; Henrici Archidiaconi Huntendunensis Historia Anglorum, ed. Thomas Arnold, R.S. 81 (London, 1879), 260-65 (hereafter cited as ////); Ailred of Rievaulx, Relatio de Standardo, in Chronicles, 3: 181-99 (hereafter cited as Relatio); Chronicle of John of Worcester 1118^0, ed. J.R.H. Weaver (Oxford, 1908), 264; William of Newburgh, Historia Rerum Anglicarum, bk. 1, chap. 5 in Chronicles, 1: 34 (hereafter cited as WN). For comment on these sources see R.H.C. Davis, King Stephen (London, 1967), 146-51; Antonia Gransden, Historical Writing in England c.550-c:1307 (New York, 1974), 144-48, 186218, 247-68, 286-95; Nancy F. Partner, Serious Entertainments: The Writing of History in Twelfth-Century England (Chicago, 1977), 11-48, 51-140, 183-236 and the important article by Diana Greenway, 'Henry of Huntingdon and the Manuscripts of his Historia Anglorum,' A-NS 9 (1986): 103-26, which substantially modifies earlier views on the composition of the Historia Anglorum. There are in addition brief notes in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, trans. G.N. Garmonsway (London, 1953), 266 (hereafter cited as ASC); the Chronicle of Melrose, eds. A.O. and M.O. Anderson (Edinburgh, 1936), 70; Orderic, 12: 519, 523-25; Vita Thurstini Archiepiscopi Auctore Anonymo, in The Historians of the Church of York and its Archbishops, ed. James Raine, 3 vols., R.S. 71 (London, 1879-86), 2: 266 (hereafter cited as HCY) and in Chronica de Archiepiscopis Eboracensibus Auctore Anonymo, ibid. 2: 528-29. It is probable that the anonymous Gesta Stephani, one of the most important sources for the reign of Stephen, originally covered the course of northern affairs and the battle of the Standard, but the surviving manuscripts have substantial lacunae for the years 1137-40, (see Davis, 146; Gransden, 188-93). William of Malmesbury's Historia Novella, which gives contemporary coverage for the years 1135-42, makes no mention of

92

Haskins Society Journal

many of the military engagements of the Anarchy there appear to have been few casualties amongst the magnates on either side, but the rout of the Scots was total, the victory of the English complete and spectacular. It was not, however, decisive. In little more than six months, the mediation of the newlyarrived papal legate, Alberic of Ostia, supplemented by the substantial activity and insistent influence of Stephen's queen, Matilda of Boulogne, a niece of David of Scotland, had turned the initial truce arranged at Carlisle into the permanent peace ratified in the Second Treaty of Durham on April 9, 1139. It was a treaty which gave David and his son, Henry, almost everything they had sought in 1138 in return for vaguely expressed promises of peace; it provoked bitter antagonism amongst elements of the English baronage. 2 Amongst contemporaries, however, there was never any doubt as to the extent of the English triumph on the battlefield itself. The battle of the Standard was celebrated and recorded in two poems and six surviving prose accounts of widely differing literary merit and of varying contemporary or nearcontemporary date. Brief comments are to be found in six other texts. The most distinguished, though not the most informative, of these accounts is a brief, quasi-historical work, usually referred to as the Relatio de Standardo, written by the English-born, Scottish-educated northerner Ailred, monk, and later abbot, of the Yorkshire Cistercian abbey of Rievaulx, founded some six years before the battle of the Standard.3 Walter Daniel, the biographer of the battle, nor of earlier events on the Scottish border in Stephen's reign. Besides prose accounts there were, it seems, two poems devoted to the battle. Richard of Hexham preserves the only two surviving lines of one in his account. This poem was ascribed by him to Hugh the Chanter, precentor of York and archdeacon, and historian of its post-Conquest archbishops. Hugh died on July 4, 1139, and his poem must in consequence have been one of the earliest accounts of the battle. A second poem of uncertain attribution, again possibly of early date, is to be found in Dialogi Laurentii Dunelmensis Monachi ac Prioris, ed. James Raine, Surtees Society 70 (1878): 74-76. For Hugh the Chanter, see Donald Nicholl, Thurstan, Archbishop of York 1114^40 (York, 1964), 118-21; York Minster Fasti, ed. Charles Travis Clay, 2 vols., Yorkshire Archaelogical Journal, Record Series, 123-24 (York, 1958-9), 1: 12; English Episcopal Acta 5, York, 10701154, ed. Janet E. Burton (Oxford, 1988), 121-22; Scottish Annals from English Chronicles A.D. 500-1286, ed. A.O. Anderson (London, 1908) prints most of these sources in translation. The contemporary sources for the battle of the Standard are substantial in number and varied in content: in a number of cases significant details lacking in the longer accounts are to be found only in the shorter. Substantial problems surround this body of material: the relationships between the various texts are frequently a matter of supposition rather than demonstration; their dating is for the most part uncertain, their titles traditional, their purpose, beyond that of record, unclear. Perhaps for these reasons there is no wholly adequate description of the battle in all its complexity. The best are to be found in Nicholl, 219-31, R.L.G. Ritchie, The Normans in Scotland (Edinburgh, 1954), 256-70, and John Beeler, Warfare in England, 1066-1189 (New York, 1966), 84-95. Shorter accounts and comments appear in Archibald A.M. Duncan, Scotland: the Making of the Kingdom, in The Edinburgh History of Scotland, gen. ed. Gordon Donaldson (Edinburgh, 1975), 1: 140-41, 219-21, 261, 374; H.A. Cronne, The Reign of Stephen (London, 1970), 180-81; Davis, 38-39. I hope to give further consideration to these problems in a subsequent study. 2 See Davis, 146-51; infra, 101-2. 3 For recent discussion of the Relatio, see Aelred Squire, Aelred of Rievaulx (London, 1969), 72-82; John Bliese, 'The Oration before the Battle of the Standard: A Study of Motives,' Albion, forthcoming; Bliese, The Battle Rhetoric of Aelred of Rievaulx,' infra, 99-107.

Mired of Rievaulx and Walter Espec

93

Ailred, 4 makes no mention of the Relatio in his record of Ailred's other works, but the Relatio is ascribed to Ailred in the surviving manuscripts, one of which is listed in the medieval library catalogue of Rievaulx itself. 5 No indication of the date of composition is given in the text, and though it is usually assigned to the period 1155-57 on the basis of its references in the past tense to its principal character, Walter Espec, this is tentative and speculative and cannot I think be sustained. I am inclined to assign it to an earlier date, much closer to the events which it relates.6 For Ailred, writing in elegant Latin and classically rhetorical form, the battle was less one of military action than of personal interaction between prominent members of a feudality common to both kingdoms: his conflict is not between Scots and English, but between northerners and southerners, unhappily and reluctantly ranged against each other. The treatment of King David and his son, Henry, for both of whom Ailred cherished a lifelong devotion, is measured and sympathetic, a pre-echo of his panegyric in the Genealogia Regum Anglorum, written after their deaths in 1152 and 1153.7 For all his attachment to them it is, however, a southerner on whom the Relatio centers, Walter Espec, the lord of Helmsley, to the north of York and on the flank of the Cleveland Hills, and the founder of Ailred's own abbey of Rievaulx in March 1132.8 It is Espec, in the Relatio, who is appointed commander of the southerners by the elderly Thurstan of York, the absent Stephen's designated deputy; and at the conclusion of the battle Ailred describes the victors crowding round Walter 'whom they revered as the leader and father of that place.' 9 Before the battle, it is to Espec that Ailred assigns the speech to the southerners which forms the principal element in the Relatio. Ailred also prefaces it with a vivid pen-portrait of Espec which is without parallel in contemporary literature, and prompting Walter himself, as his proxy, to supplement the physical description with an anecdotal richness of personal detail in the course of the speech: Espec was 'very tall, with arms and legs of great size, so that no one exceeded or equalled him in height. He had black hair, a profuse beard, and an open, bold brow, large penetrating eyes, a full but drawn face, and a voice like a trumpet, uniting eloquence (which came easily to him) with a certain majesty of

4 Walter Daniel, The Life of Ailred of Rievaulx, ed. and trans. P.M. Powicke, Nelson's Medieval Texts (Edinburgh, 1950); hereafter cited as Ailred. 5 See Squire, 72-82. 6 I intend to return to this topic in a full-length study, edition and translation of the Relatio. It may briefly be said here that a date of 1141/42 is more likely, before Ailred became heavily involved in the York election dispute and left Rievaulx to become first abbot of Revesby. 7 See Ailred, xci-xcii, xcvii. 8 For Espec, see Derek Baker, 'Patronage in the Early Twelfth-Century Church: Walter Espec, Kirkham, and Rievaulx,' Traditio-Krisis-Renovatio aus theologische-Sicht, ed. Bernd Jaspert and Rudolf Mohr (Marburg, 1976), 92- 100, and 'Legend and Reality: The Case of Waldef of Melrose,' Studies in Church History 12 (London, 1975): 59-82, and the references there given; Gransden, 187-88. 9 Gransden, 215; see also Relatio, in Chronicles, 3: 199.

94

Haskins Society Journal sound.'10 As Walter stressed to his audience at the Standard: It will not be a waste of time for you young heroes to listen to an old man who, through the chances of time, the changes of kings, and the variable issues of war, has learned to reflect on the past, weigh up the present, and surmise about the present from the past, the future from the present. I grant you that if all you who are listening to me only knew and understood, and foresaw all that would happen to us today, I should prefer to hold my peace and lie down for my usual sleep, or play at dice or battle with [the] chessmen or, if those seem unsuitable pastimes for a man of my age, then I would occupy myself with histories or, as I often do, lend my ear to a teller of the deeds of our ancestors.11

This is the Espec presented to us only in passing by Geoffrey Gaimar,12 borrowing, it would seem, a copy of Geoffrey of Monmouth's Historia Regum Britanniae from Earl Robert of Gloucester at the request of Constance, the wife of Geoffrey's patron, Ralph Fitz Gilbert, to use in the compilation of his verse history, L'Estoire des Engleis, written shortly before 1140 and at her request, in the vernacular. To Espec the tale of 'the deeds of our ancestors' in romance was not simply of interest as entertainment. It was of overriding and motivating importance and he used his stentorian voice to hammer this home to his troops at the battle of the Standard: Acquit yourselves like Normans. Why should we despair of victory, when victory has been given to our race by the Most High, as though it were our due? Did not our grandfathers invade the greater part of Gaul with a handful of soldiers and wipe out with the people even the name? It is a fact that this island, which once the victorious Julius, not without heavy losses and after many years scarcely at length secured, we speedily subdued, rapidly subjected to our laws and bound to our allegiance. We saw, yes we saw with our very eyes the king of France with his whole army turn their backs on us, the noblest flower of his kingdom taken by us, some to be ransomed, some to be bound in chains, some condemned to prison. We conquered the men of Maine, Anjou and Aquitaine. Remember the deeds of our fathers, at Hastings, in Sicily, Apulia, Calabria. Who tamed Apulia, Sicily, Calabria, if 10 11

Gransden, 214. Squire, 77.

Mired of Rievaulx and Walter Espec

95

it was not your Normans? Remember how great William marched into Scotland, even unto Abernethy, where the warlike Malcolm made surrender and became our man. Scottish spears are long, but their shafts are wood. Our arms are steel and we are clad in mail.... We and our fathers quickly mastered this island, quickly placed it under our laws, subjugated it to our customs. 13

As a speech it is a marvelous example, probably the best example, of its type, but like the shorter speech by Bruce to King David later in the Relatio, it is a type, a twelfth-century rhetorical convention required of historians and panegyrists like Ailred and of pseudo-historians and romancers like Geoffrey of Monmouth, and by the knowledgeable audiences of their times.14 Literati like Henry of Huntingdon and Robert of Torigni no less than men like Espec, and Ailred's pupil, briefly novice master at Rievaulx, who wept over the 'fables' of 'a certain Arthur', were moved and entertained by these episodes, whose nature, place and purpose they understood. In this context I see no need to strain to prove the authenticity of an exhortation which is beyond proof and which is unlikely ever to have been delivered in the form in which we have it. Richard of Hexham, in what is probably the earliest prose account of the battle of the Standard, has nothing whatever to say of any speech, whether in quotation or synopsis. Nor is it necessary to argue, on the dubious basis of Henry of Huntingdon's testimony in one of the later recensions of his History, that it was actually Ralph Nowell, the titular but absentee bishop of Orkney, who delivered the principal speech at the battle:15 that is equally implausible, though it is possible that Nowell, charged with a spiritual ministry, may have preached as the designated, suffragan deputy on the battlefield for the infirm Thurstan. The debate as to who actually was in charge of the southern forces at Cowton Moor is equally misguided. Accounts of the battle may vary in the emphases they place on individuals, Ailred on Espec, Richard of Hexham on William of Aumale, but all the indications are that there was no one leader. Even Ailred presents a plurality of roles and personalities, Bruce and Balliol, for example, in their direct approach to David of Scotland before the battle. The evident need for the reiterated swearing of oaths of loyalty as new contingents arrived to join the southern forces, taken with the decision to inhibit defection by leaving the horses well to the rear, points to a composite leadership rather than a single command at this battle quite as much as it emphasizes that suspicion of treachery, double-dealing and self-preservation which colors all the encounters of the Anarchy. The flight of the earls from Stephen at the battle of Lincoln two and a half years later is an object lesson in 12 Geoffrey Gaimar, L'Estoire des Engleis, ed. A. Bell, Anglo-Norman Text Society 14-16 (London, 1960); for discussion of these circumstances, see Gransden, 208-12. 13 See Ritchie, 263-4; Squire, 79. 14 See the comments of Bliese, infra, 99-102; Gransden, 214-16; Squire, 76-80. 15 See////, 261-5.

96

Haskins Society Journal

this regard.16 As for the battle itself, and whatever the rhetoric, there is no indication that there was any plan or coordination amongst the southerners for it or for its aftermath: there was no pursuit and as Richard of Hexham remarked, the southerners 'speedily disbanded, and all returned to their homes.'17 Shorn of his speech and denied his command, Espec is not, nonetheless, deprived of his prominence and importance. In the Relatio Ailred portrays an Espec who as an individual is physically and personally credible and, as a type, is reliably representative of his class and of its attitudes, given literary expression through an Ailredian articulation to which Espec himself could never have aspired. Further, Ailred's presentation of Espec furnished a finely shaped statement of the purposes and principles which underlay and shaped the rich historical literature of the age and which reflect, proclaim, and elevate the motivation and ethos of Espec and his peers. The span of Espec's active life was marked by a rapid, if sometimes spasmodic, elaboration of the systems and procedures of Anglo-Norman government and administration on which contemporaries remarked, and of which they not infrequently complained. Dislike of the officers of this oppressive and arbitrary royal will was widespread; in expression it often focused on the advancement and pretensions of an upstart class of administrators raised from the dust. Discussion and analysis of those novissimi et vilissimi homines has been and continues to be substantial. Hence it is not my intention to enter into any overall discussion of the composition of the feudality to which Espec and his contemporaries belonged18 except to emphasize one general and superficial characteristic which applies to Walter Espec. In a real sense the whole governing class of the time, the whole feudality, not just in Anglo-Norman England, constituted a new class. They were all novissimi homines, whether in social terms they were the lowest of men or not. In the heartlands of medieval Burgundy, in Brittany, in Aquitaine, the lordships of Champagne and the Loire, in post-Conquest Scotland, in Normandy and England itself, or more dramatically in southern Italy, Sicily, and the crusading states, these were men who in creating medieval Europe made their own fortunes and from service, exploitation, and aggression advanced to assured status and nobility.19 It was a process marked by, and celebrated in, the burgeoning chivalric and romantic literature of the age, but it found more sober and measured expression in contemporary histories as well. When Orderic 16

HH, 273; Orderic, 5: 128; WN, 40; Symeon, 1: 161-2; ASC, 266-67; John of Hexham, 307-8; William of Malmesbury, Historia Novella, ed. and trans. K.R. Potter (London, 1955), 49; Gesta Stephani, ed. and trans. K.R. Potter (London, 1955), 74-75. See Beeler, 114-15 on this incident and on the lack of coordinated command in both armies. 17 Richard of Hexham, 165. 18 See Judith Green, The Government of Henry I (Cambridge, 1986) and Charlotte A. Newman, The Anglo-Norman Nobility in the Reign of Henry I, The Second Generation (Philadelphia, 1988) for an extensive discussion of the 'new men' in Norman government and full bibliographies of the literature relating to them. 19 For comment on this process, see Derek Baker, 'New Frontiers for Old: Internal Frontiers and the Creation of European Society in the Central Middle Ages,' Locus 1 (Denton, 1988), 27-52.

Mired of Rievaulx and Walter Espec

97

Vitalis extols Bohemond and William of Malmesbury and Henry of Huntingdon the Conqueror, their accentuation of the Norman achievement closely resembles the sentiments which Ailred fathered on Walter Espec; like him they reflect a consequent narrow racial exclusivity which diminishes and patronizes other peoples. There is, however, a broader emphasis beyond the racial pride and contempt proclaimed in the great set-piece speeches and gestures which comprises as well the particular, parochial loyalties of these writers to their patrons, their benefactors, their lords, the highly localized pietas which is the staple of their works. It is the whole of this emergent, cosmopolitan feudality, active and decisive on the internal and external frontiers of the Christian West, which was celebrated and legitimized in the histories of the time. Men like Orderic and Ailred, it can be argued, were more effective and influential in the permanent establishment and diffusion of an ethos and mystique for this chivalric class than the authors of the contes, lais and romances with whom it is usually and primarily associated. Writing of Ailred's Relatio, however, Antonia Gransden linked it with two other short and near-contemporary pieces from the English north and termed it outdated. Like the De Obsessione Dunelmense and the De Injusta Vexatione Willelmi Episcopi, she declared, the Relatio 'combines biography with apiece justificative, a tract for the times,' and Ailred, in company with his contemporary, Richard of Hexham, is held to represent an 'oldfashioned historiography,' preserved at Durham but supplanted in the south.20 Ailred and Richard, in her view, 'were members of religious orders, and were more serious and pious, less gossipy and worldly, than [men like Henry of Huntingdon, Geoffrey of Monmouth and Geoffrey Gaimar] further south. They wrote to record and edify, not to amuse, and avoided legend. And they wrote for their religious communities, not for the wider public of educated laymen.' 21 Whatever may be said of Richard of Hexham, this cannot be allowed to stand for Ailred, one of the most cultivated and cosmopolitan representatives of his world. For all its strongly located local focus, the Relatio is not local history: in its language, outlook, and intention, it is a world apart from the saga-related De Obsessione Dunelmense and the narrow parochialism of Bishop William's troubles. Ailred's upbringing had been in the household of David, the king of the Scots who, in Ritchie's terse judgment, 'Normanized Scotland.' It is as Normans that Ailred viewed David and his son Henry, great feudal magnates not simply in the undifferentiated territories of the north, which still lacked any permanent, and artificial, political frontiers, but in the wider Anglo-Norman world. This sense of community transcending racial diversity, allied to a strong sense of historical continuity, is evident in all Ailred's historical works and constitutes (to use Gransden's terminology) a 'legend' in every way as pronounced as those advocated by Geoffrey of Monmouth and more powerful for its greater sophistication. For Ailred, the Saxon saints of Bedan Hexham were still the potent saints of the Anglo-Norman Augustinian community, as the marauding 20 21

Gransden, 214. Ibid., 213.

98

Haskins Society Journal

Scots of 1138 found to their cost. At Hexham this conjuncture between past and present glories was given a peculiarly personal coloring for Ailred by the intermediate role in the historical process played by the hereditary priests of Hexham, of whom Ailred's father, Eilaf, was the last. Above all, however, it is in his Genealogia Regum Anglorum and his life of Edward the Confessor that Ailred's vision is best exemplified. In them the old West Saxon royal line is united with the Norman through the Scottish-born daughter of St. Margaret to culminate in the Angevin heir to all these traditions, Henry II. At the same time David and Henry of Scotland are assigned their places as model representatives of a feudal aristocracy which, in its common attitudes and co-operative partnership, gave a transcendent unity to an emergent world all too easy to characterize in terms of the peculiarities of violent and unprincipled self-interest. When, before the battle of the Standard, Robert Bruce moved King David to tears with his eleventh-hour appeal to the shared endeavors, interests, and friendship of their recent past, he provided a better insight into the essential nature and constitution of the raw feudal society of his time, for which Ailred was such an able propagandist, than the bellicose Espec in the great speech assigned to him.22 For Ailred, with his complex past and antecedents, his commitment to the achievements of Scots, English, and Normans alike, Espec was a man of importance, not simply in the context of the pietas of Rievaulx, but in the wider celebration of the achievement of a cosmopolitan feudality which transcended race and frontier and which had as yet no truly divisive sense of class or status. Ritchie layed some stress upon the need to understand patria, when it is used in writings of this time in a regional or local, rather than a national sense,23 but with men like Ailred - and Espec as he listened to the tales of heroes - patria also evokes the far wider community of this new, frontier feudality. This is a different patrimony, but it was one which they all shared, as Ailred and others emphasized, and it was one which was vanishing. Barrow has written with some asperity about those who presume that the Anglo-Scottish border only became defined in the later thirteenth century,24 and while I think it is clear that there was no border of any reality before the time of Henry II, by then it was becoming defined. With that process the frontier age which Ailred extolled, and which Espec represents, was coming to an end. Walter Espec himself had no direct heirs of his body when he died in c. 1158: symbolically it is a fact which may be taken to characterize his age. University of North Texas

22

For Scottish developments see Duncan, passim; Ritchie, passim; G.W.S. Barrow, The Kingdom of the Scots: Government, Church and Society from the Eleventh to the Fourteenth Century (London, 1973); Derek Baker, "A Nursery of Saints': St. Margaret of Scotland Reconsidered,' Studies in Church History, ed. idem, Subsidia 1, Medieval Women, ed. idem (Oxford, 1978), 119-41. 23 Ritchie, 265. 24 Barrow, 139-61, particularly 140.

9

The Battle Rhetoric of Aelred of Rievaulx John Bliese

When medieval chroniclers describe battle scenes, they frequently claim that before a battle begins the commander exhorts his men, encouraging them to give their all in combat. On many occasions the chroniclers include more or less detailed versions of these orations. Of course these are not verbatim reports of harangues as they were actually given. The chroniclers of the Middle Ages were writing in a tradition of historiography heavily influenced by rhetoric. 1 They were expected to spice up their narratives with all sorts of rhetorical devices, and one of the most common was to put appropriate speeches into the mouths of their characters. This is a well known figure which the ancient rhetoricians often called sermocinatio or prosopopoeia.2 Some kinds of speeches recur often enough to form separate rhetorical genres and perhaps most prominent among these is the battle speech. I have found nearly four hundred of these orations in chronicles written in western Europe between approximately 1000 and 1250.3 These speeches are usually quite short, just a few lines or a brief paragraph. They are largely composed from a relatively short list of motive appeals or rhetorical topoi that recur with some frequency. Typically, the writers select from these a few appropriate appeals that fit the battle situation being described. Other than the selection of suitable topoi, these speeches are largely interchangeable. There is little further attempt to adapt to the situation and almost no effort at ethopoeia: adapting to the specific personality of the speaker.4 1

See, for example, R.W. Southern, 'Aspects of the European Tradition of Historical Writing: 1. The Classical Tradition from Einhard to Geoffrey of Monmouth,' Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 5th ser. 20 (1970): 173-96. John O. Ward, 'Classical Rhetoric and the Writing of History in Medieval and Renaissance Culture,' in European History and its Historians, ed. Frank McGregor and Nicholas Wright (Adelaide, 1977), 1-10. John O. Ward, 'Some Principles of Rhetorical Historiography in the Twelfth Century,' in Classical Rhetoric and Medieval Historiography, ed. Ernst Breisach (Kalamazoo, 1985), 103-65. 2 Rhetorica ad Herennium, 4. 52. 65; Quintilian, Institutio Oratorio, 9. 2. 29. 3 An analysis of the motive appeals in these battle orations will be found in my article on 'Rhetoric and Morale: A Study of Battle Orations from the Central Middle Ages,' Journ. Med. Hist., forthcoming. 4 Rhetorica ad Herennium, 4. 50. 63-5.

100

Haskins Society Journal

Within this genre a few speeches stand out for some particular reason; of these a surprisingly large portion are Norman or Anglo-Norman. For example William of Poitiers' speech for Duke William at the battle of Hastings is quite remarkable; he weaves a marvelously complex texture of many motive appeals into a relatively short speech.5 With appeals for courage and bravery as his basis, William intertwines and blends into them fully seven additional motive appeals in one brief paragraph. Geoffrey Malaterra's oration for Count Roger at the battle of Miselmeri is nearly as good.6 In just a few lines he develops half a dozen separate topoi. But these two are extraordinary only for the ways in which they make maximum use of the typical, generic characteristics of these speeches. Very few battle orations stand out for any unique features, and among those are the ones written by Aelred of Rievaulx. Aelred wrote two battle harangues, one for Walter Espec in his account of the battle of the Standard7 and the other for King Alfred in his Genealogy of the English Kings? Both speeches are outstanding, but in such different ways that they deserve consideration in greater detail. In analyzing them I will be concerned primarily with the rhetorical canon of invention and only briefly with organization and style. I will focus not so much on the battles as on the rhetoric and on Aelred himself as historian and rhetorician. From the pen of the saintly Cistercian abbot we might not expect such rhetorical artifices.9 Aelred was born in 1110, the son of Eilaf, a priest of Hexham. He received his first education in the schools of Hexham, but early in his life he was attached to the court of David, who became king of Scotland in 1124. Aelred advanced at court and became David's steward.10 In 1134 Aelred was sent on an embassy to York and on the way back he stayed with Walter Espec at Helmsley. He visited the new Cistercian monastery Walter had founded at Rievaulx. On the following day he turned aside from his journey home and 5 William of Poitiers, Histoire de Guillaume le Conquerant, ed. Raymonde Foreville (Paris, 1952), 182-84. 6 Geoffrey Malaterra, De Rebus Gestis Rogerii Calabriae et Siciliae Comitis et Roberti Guiscardi Duds fratris eius, ed. Ernesto Pontieri, Rerum Italicarum Scriptores, ed. L.A. Muratori, new ed. (Bologna, 1927-28), 5, 1: 50. 7 Aelred of Rievaulx, Relatio de Standardo, in Chronicles of the Reigns of Stephen, Henry II and Richard I, ed. Richard Hewlett, 4 vols., R.S. (London, 1884-90), 3: 185-89. 8 Aelred of Rievaulx, Genealogia Regum Anglorum, in Patrologiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina, ed. J.P. Migne, 221 vols. (Paris, 1844-64), 195: 721. 9 David Knowles calls Aelred's historical works a 'contravention of both letter and spirit' of the Cistercian statutes, The Monastic Order in England, 2nd ed. (Cambridge, 1963), 644. 10 The titles of dapifer, economus and dispensator have been the subject of much discussion. Apparently Aelred had the duties of supervising the serving of meals at David's table: ibid., 14. See also Douglass Roby, Introduction to Aelred of Rievaulx, Spiritual Friendship, trans. Mary Eugenia Laker (Kalamazoo, 1977), 6; and R.L. Graeme Ritchie, The Normans in Scotland (Edinburgh, 1954), 250. Powicke, however, believes the title indicates a position of high dignity: Life of Ailred of Rievaulx, xl-xli, and his article, 'The Dispensator of King David 1,' Scottish Historical Review 23 (1926): 34-41.

The Battle Rhetoric of Aelred of Rievaulx

101

entered the abbey. Aelred's abilities were quickly recognized; he was sent on embassies to various magnates and once even to Rome. In 1142 he became novice master. When the abbey founded a daughter house at Revesby in 1143, Aelred was chosen to be its first abbot. In 1147 he returned to Rievaulx to become abbot there and, after a long and productive career during which the monastery grew and prospered, he died on 12 January 1167. 11 During his career he wrote many works of the kind one would expect from an outstanding personality with all of the spiritual enthusiasm of the early Cistercians. Indeed he is often referred to as the English Bernard of Clairvaux or Bernard of the North. 12 His Speculum Caritatis13 and a dialogue on spiritual friendship 14 are perhaps his best known works. He also wrote the lives of the saints of Hexham, a manual for the life of a recluse, a treatise on Jesus as a boy of twelve, a dialogue on the soul, and numerous sermons. 15 He also wrote some historical works, including the two referred to earlier. During the wars of King Stephen's reign, David of Scotland invaded the north of England several times. The most serious incursion was in the summer of 1138. Since Stephen was occupied elsewhere the northern barons had to defend themselves. The decisive battle, known as the battle of the Standard, was fought in August, only twenty miles or so from Rievaulx. 16 Some seventeen years later, 17 Aelred wrote an account of the battle. His Relatio de Standardo has come down to us as a fragmentary work, whose purpose is not at all clear. It seems to be related in some ways to Henry of Huntingdon's history; 18 Squire has suggested that Aelred's purpose was to correct Henry's account of the battle. 19 Aelred's patron, Walter Espec, plays a major role in the Relatio, but he is only mentioned as one of the leaders in Henry's history. Henry attributes an exhortation to the army to Bishop Ralph of Orkney; Aelred attributes it to Walter. I have discussed this speech in a previous paper for the

11 For the details of Aelred's life, see Powicke, The Life of Ailred of Rievaulx, xc-xciv; and Squire, Aelred of Rievaulx, passim. 12 William Michael Ducey, 'St. Ailred of Rievaulx and the Speculum Caritatis,' Catholic Historical Review 17 (1931-32): 308. Knowles, Monastic Order in England, 240. 13 Aelred of Rievaulx, De Specula Caritatis, in Aelredi Rievallensis Opera Omnia, Opera Ascetica, ed. A. Hoste and C.H. Talbot, Corpus Christianorum Continuatio Mediaevalis 1 (Turnhout, 1971), 3-161. 14 Aelred of Rievaulx, De Spiritali Amicitia, in Opera Ascetica, ed. Hoste and Talbot, 287-350. 15 Hoste and Talbot's edition of Aelred's Opera Ascetica also includes his De lesu Puero Duodenni, De Institutione Inclusarum, and Dialogus de Anima. Most of the surviving sermons are in Patrologia Latina, 195. 'The Lives of the Saints of Hexham' is in The Priory of Hexham, vol. 1, ed. James Raine, Surtees Society (1864), 173-203. 16 For a detailed account of the battle of the Standard, see John Beeler, Warfare in England, 1066-1189 (Ithaca, N.Y., 1966), 84-95. 17 For the dates of Aelred's works, see Powicke, Life of Ailred of Rievaulx, xcvii. 18 Henrici Archidiaconi Huntendunensis Historia Anglorum, ed. Thomas Arnold, R.S (London, 1879). For the battle of the Standard, see 261-65. 19 Squire, Aelred of Rievaulx, 77.

102

Haskins Society Journal

Haskins Society, so I will only summarize here the most important ways in which this speech is unique.20 Walter's speech, in the first place, is very long - some four and a half pages in the Rolls Series edition. Only one other harangue that I have found is longer.21 Walter's speech contains a very large number of the usual appeals. It is also one of the finest of all the Norman speeches. Walter expands on the conquests of the Normans all over the world. Indeed, victory has been given to the Normans by God 'quasi in feudum.' 22 Even though Aelred was himself of English descent, this speech is a perfect example of R.H.C. Davis' concept of the Norman myth. 23 Rhetorically this speech is particularly interesting as one of the very few where the author makes any use of character delineation (notatio, ethopoeia}.24 This oration fits the person of Walter Espec and him alone. There are also numerous specific descriptions and appeals in the speech that fit the battle of the Standard and no other battle and that apply to the Anglo-Norman army and no other army. This is one of a mere handful of battle orations that are not generic; it is not interchangeable with any other speech. This speech is rhetorically unique in other respects as well. Aelred uses narrative within the speech and even includes an internal quotation within the narrative. The appeals in a typical battle oration seem to be presented at random, but Aelred's has a clear organizing principle. The framework of much of the speech is set up in a series of rhetorical questions, with parallel constructions, and these follow the rhetorical pattern of circumstances (peristasis).25 Finally, some common appeals are developed in unique ways. One of the most frequently used topoi promises the army that God will help them win the battle. Aelred amplifies this promise more than any other battle speech. Where the typical speaker simply promises God's help, Walter claims in great detail that all of the forces of heaven will come to their aid. The speech is by far the bloodiest and goriest of all, as Walter describes in graphic detail the atrocities committed by the barbaric Galwegians in David's army. 26 Aelred knew the leaders on both sides in this battle. He was at Rievaulx at the time and the monks there must have felt themselves in great danger as David's army approached. If we consider both Aelred's own position and the characteristics of Walter's speech that do not conform to the generic norms, we can reasonably conclude that his oration accurately reflects the emotions of the Anglo-Norman army, their fears and desperation, as they faced a most uncertain future. 20

'The Oration Before the Battle of the Standard, A Study of Motives,' presented at the Haskins Society Conference, 1983. 'Aelred of Rievaulx's Rhetoric and Morale at the Battle of the Standard, 1138,' Albion 20 (1988): 543-56 is a revision and expansion of this paper, which includes quotations to illustrate the points merely summarized here. 21 The priest's sermon in The Conquest of Lisbon, ed. and trans. Charles Wendell David (New York, 1936), 146-59. 22 Aelred, Relatio, 185. 23 R.H.C. Davis, The Normans and their Myth (London, 1976). 24 See supra, n. 4. 25 Squire, Aelred of Rievaulx, 79; Quintilian, Institutio Oratorio, 3. 5. 18; 5. 10. 104. 26 Aelred, Relatio, 187-89.

The Battle Rhetoric of Aelred of Rievaulx

103

Aelred's other battle speech is in his Genealogy of the English Kings, written in 1153-54 for Henry Fitz Empress, shortly before he became king. The work is the 'earliest twelfth-century example of the Speculum Regis type of literature,' and expresses 'the expectations of the people whom Henry hoped to rule.' 27 The Genealogy contains a single battle harangue, attributed to King Alfred during his retreat into the marshes around Athelney, shortly before the battle of Edington in 878. The speech is connected to a well known story in which Saint Cuthbert appears to Alfred in a dream and promises victory over the Danes. The earliest account of this story is found in the anonymous History of Saint Cuthbertn and it also appears in the Chapters on the Miracles and Translations of Saint Cuthbert.29 Short versions of the vision are included in Simeon of Durham's History of the Kings3® and his History of the Church of Durham.31 The story also is told by William of Malmesbury.32 Aelred's version of the king's dream seems to be a compilation of and expansion on several of the previous accounts. The morning after his dream, Alfred addresses his few men and encourages them to attack the Danes. There are three versions of his harangue. The History of Saint Cuthbert has Alfred first describe his dream. He then promises that they will conquer and obtain their inheritances by the gift of God and with Cuthbert's aid. Following the teaching of the saint, they are to avoid a whole list of vices: avarice, envy, anger, adultery, perjury, homicide, and all evil. They are to practice an even longer list of virtues: be faithful to God, patient, humble, hospitable, give alms, be merciful, modest and keep among themselves the holy faith, justice, and truth. The king then turns to his son and admonishes him not to fear his enemies, if he wishes to be faithful to God and Cuthbert.33 The Chapters also has the king relate his dream. He then tells his men that their parents, who all perished, were tormented for their sins. As for themselves, 27 Aelred Squire, 'Aelred and King David,' Collectanea Ordinis Cisterciensium Reformatorum 22 (1960): 365-66. See also Squire, Aelred of Rievaulx, 88. 28 Historia de Sancto Cuthberto, in Simeon of Durham, Opera Omnia, ed. Thomas Arnold, 2 vols. R.S. (London, 1882-85), 1: 204-6. The original composition is from the mid tenth century, but the story about Alfred is an interpolation dating from the eleventh century; Edmund Craster, The Patrimony of St. Cuthbert,' EHR 69 (1954): 178, 199. 29 Capitula de Miraculis et Translationibus Sancti Cuthberti, in Simeon of Durham, Opera Omnia, 1: 231-34. The chapter on Cuthbert and Alfred dates from the late eleventh century; Bertram Colgrave, 'The Post-Bedan Miracles and Translations of St. Cuthbert,' in The Early Cultures of North-West Europe, ed. Cyril Fox and Bruce Dickins, H.M. Chadwick Memorial Studies (Cambridge, 1950), 308, 310, 321-22, 326-27. 30 Simeon of Durham, Historia Regum, in Opera Omnia, 2: 111-12. 31 Simeon of Durham, Historia Dunelmensis Ecclesiae, in Opera Omnia, 1: 62-63. 32 William of Malmesbury, De Gestis Regum Anglorum, ed. William Stubbs, 2 vols. R.S. (London, 1887-89), 1: 125. William of Malmesbury, Gesta Pontificum Anglorum, ed. N.E.S.A. Hamilton, R.S. (London, 1870), 269. 33 Historia de Sancto Cuthberto, 206.

104

Has kins Society Journal

there is no safe refuge so they need to bear up in their exile. He asks his men to be obedient to the warnings of Cuthbert, their defender. They are to be faithful to God, flee from sins, love virtue and they will then obtain heavenly aid in the battle.34 Aelred expands greatly on Alfred's harangue. The most noticeable feature of his speech, which sets it distinctly apart from other battle orations, is the fusion of the sermonic with the military. Alfred begins by telling his fellow warriors: I give thanks to my God who has not rejected my prayers and has not withheld his mercy from me. For he himself strikes down and heals, he brings death and life, he impoverishes and he enriches, he humbles and raises up .... God has scourged us thus far for our sins, but he did not give us over to death. He took notice once again of the prayer of the humble and he has not rejected their plea. Behold, since he has pity on us, the remnant of the English will be saved.35

Alfred then offers more reassurances: Our enemies are thrown into confusion ... and dread has seized them. Neither in their bravery nor in the strength of their armies have they prevailed over us .... Behold, the eyes of the Lord are upon us once again, and his ears hear our prayers. So act manfully and let your heart be comforted, since after the many sorrows which we have endured thus far, his consolations will gladden our spirits.36

The last section of the body of the speech is organized according to the circumstances of classical rhetoric, the same ones as in Walter Espec's speech. Aelred even uses them here as devices for forecasting and signposting his points. Alfred says: 'Consider, then, who fights against whom, for what reason we fight, moreover that it is necessary for us to fight.' These circumstances are then discussed in order: 1. Christians against pagans; the pious against the impious; against the haughty we fight with contrite heart and humble spirit. 2. And for what reason. They have destroyed our churches and pierced [suffoderunt] the altars. They have not spared people on account of their age nor their class [ordini] nor even their sex.37

Many battle speeches include various claims that the army is about to fight for a worthy cause. The reasons given are seldom closely related to the legal and theological concepts of the just war.38 But in Alfred's speech there is an appeal that is very close to one of the classic doctrines of just war theory: the 34

Capitula, 233. Aelred, Genealogia, 721. 36 Ibid. 37 Ibid. 38 John Bliese, 'The Just War, Concept and Motive,' paper presented at the International Congress on Medieval Studies, Kalamazoo, 1987. 35

The Battle Rhetoric of Aelred ofRievaulx

105

war to recover lost goods (repetitio rerum).39 In his speech Alfred says: 'We do not seek what belongs to others, but we demand our own goods back.' Alfred's words are close to the legal formula: 'Praeterea non aliena petimus sed nostra repetimus.'40 Alfred closes with a superb summary of all his main points and a somewhat weak promise of divine aid in the coming battle: 'Let us fight securely now that we are proven and tested and cleansed, since we have the more certain faith and the juster cause. Christ summons us; piety arouses us; necessity urges us. Christ is present for us; the angels support us; the saints aid us; the divine prophesies of heaven resound for us.' Alfred then relates to his men the vision of Cuthbert he had received the night before.42 3. It is necessary to fight. Do not let them further scoff irreverently at the Christian name. Do not let them prefer their idols to the true God .... Finally, do not let our wives be taken away, our sons be captured, our young girls raped. Do not let the impious and perverse people carry all the nobility of the English into disgraceful slavery.41

Aelred has greatly expanded on the themes in the earlier accounts and his version is much longer than the other two. Cuthbert plays no role in the harangue itself; in the two earlier versions, references to Cuthbert's vision are integral parts of Alfred's exhortation. 43 When Aelred's speech for Alfred is compared with typical battle orations it stands apart in ways quite different from those that distinguish Walter Espec's. In this case, as with the battle of the Standard, Aelred has taken the earlier versions and made something uniquely his own out of them. Alfred's exhortation is considerably longer than the typical speech, although not nearly as long as Walter's. But what is most striking about Alfred's speech is the sermonic aspect and the ways in which the sermonic and the exhortative elements form a unique blend to produce a strong and stirring oration. By contrast, the speech in the History of Saint Cuthbert is all preaching, plus a promise of victory. 44 In the Chapters it is only a weak mix of the two elements.45 Alfred's speech may also be compared with the very long sermon to the Anglo-Norman crusaders who are about to attack Lisbon during the Second Crusade.46 A battle harangue is merely tacked on at the end of the sermon. The elements are not integrated throughout the speech, as they are in Alfred's. 39 Frederick H. Russell, The Just War in the Middle Ages (Cambridge, 1975), see 62-65 for Gratian and his sources. 40 Aelred, Genealogia, 721. 41 Ibid. 42 Ibid. 43 Historia de Sancto Cuthberto, 206; Capitula, 233. 44 Historia de Sancto Cuthberto, 206. 45 Capitula, 233. 46 Conquest of Lisbon, 146-59.

106

Has kins Society Journal

Alfred's speech, although to a lesser extent than Walter's, goes considerably beyond the typical oration in the ways in which it fits the specific rhetorical situation, even though in this case the author obviously did not know the people involved. Aelred stresses specific circumstances which are unique to the situation. Although Aelred's two battle orations are quite different, there is one unusual approach to motivation in war which they both contain: they both stress the necessity of battle much more than other speeches do. It may be worth noting that necessity was another acceptable reason for fighting in the medieval theory of the just war.47 Finally Aelred's approach to divine aid deserves comment. In Walter's speech divine aid is promised almost as an anticipated miracle: Michael and the angels, Peter and the apostles, the saints, and even Christ himself will rise up to help them.48 In Alfred's speech, on the other hand, divine aid seems to be more strictly psychological, a morale booster for the battle: Christ is present, the angels are favorable and the saints are helpful. 49 This examination of Aelred's battle orations emphasizes his ability as a rhetorician. Aelred did not attend any of the schools of the liberal arts which were so notable in his time. He was largely self-educated50 and commented that he came to the monastery from the kitchens not from the schools.51 Yet he possessed and developed a most remarkable rhetorical talent. His style of writing has often been praised.52 Focusing here more on the rhetorical canon of invention reinforces this judgment and carries it one step further. Not only was Aelred able to develop his rhetorical talents, he utilized them in his own original way. He did not simply follow current literary customs. Few of the hundreds of battle speeches are extraordinary in any way. Both of Aelred's speeches are in their own separate ways outstanding and singular. It is remarkable that any medieval author would write battle orations like Aelred's. It is especially remarkable that an early Cistercian would write them. They are a reminder of the many facets of Aelred's personality. Too often, in dealing with the saintly abbot of Rievaulx, modern scholars focus almost solely on his spiritual career. Even in biographies Aelred as historian

47

Russell, The Just War in the Middle Ages, 38, 61, 128. Aelred, Relatio, 188-89. 49 Aelred, Genealogia, 721. 50 Powicke, Life of Ailred of Rievaulx, Ixxxv and 26-27. Jocelin of Furness writes of Aelred: 'His school learning was slight but as a result of careful self-discipline in the exercise of his acute natural powers, he was cultured above many who had been thoroughly trained in secular learning'; Life of St. Waldef, trans, by Powicke, Life of Ailred of Rievaulx, xxxiii. 51 Aelred of Rievaulx, De Speculo Caritatis, 3. 52 For examples, see: Frank Barlow, Edward the Confessor (Berkeley, 1970), 281; Francis Anthony Mullin, A History of the Work of the Cistercians in Yorkshire, 1131-1300 (Washington, D.C., 1932), 98; John Taylor, Medieval Historical Writing in Yorkshire (York, 1961), 9; Alberic Stacpoole, The Public Face of Aelred,' Downside Review 85 (1967): 195. 48

The Battle Rhetoric of Aelred of Rievaulx

107

and rhetorician seldom gets much attention.53 Writers who trace Cistercian themes and doctrines through Aelred's works leave no hint that he was also the author of the goriest battle speech of the central Middle Ages. Analysis of his battle rhetoric highlights an often overlooked but important side of Aelred's literary career. He was indeed a saintly monk, but he was also a highly skilled and individual rhetorician. It was not mere accident that he turned his hand to history on occasion. C.H. Talbot noted 'the puzzled admiration of Walter Daniel, his biographer, at the fusion in Aelred's personality of religious idealism, administrative efficiency and literary ability.' 54 In the midst of the large number of current studies that concentrate almost exclusively on Aelred's spirituality and theology, a brief look at his battle rhetoric may provide a worthwhile corrective, a perspective that emphasizes that there were many sides to Aelred's personality and career. Walter Daniel's kind of admiration is entirely appropriate. Texas Technical University

53 Squire's biographies are the notable exceptions; Aelred of Rievaulx and his series of three articles in Collectanea Ordinis Cisterciensium Reformatorum: 'Historical Factors in the Formation of Aelred of Rievaulx' 22 (1960): 262-82; 'Aelred and King David,' ibid., 356-77; 'Aelred and the Northern Saints,' ibid. 23 (1961): 58-69. 54 C.H. Talbot, Introduction to Aelred of Rievaulx, Dialogue on the Soul (Kalamazoo, 1981), 25-26.

This page intentionally left blank

10

Robert Fitz Harding of Bristol: Profile of an Early Angevin Burgess-Baron Patrician and his Family's Urban Involvement Robert B. Patterson

Robert Fitz Harding of twelfth-century Bristol was remembered by several medieval traditions as a burgess, knight, and merchant whom Henry Fitz Empress elevated to the rank of tenant-in-chief in part for his financial support during the Angevin war against King Stephen (1135-54).1 My contribution to this celebration in honor of the late Prof. Sidney Painter, who devoted his life to the study of baronial types, will be first to examine the validity of these Fitz Harding traditions, in particular Robert's personal and familial metamorphosis into baronial rank; secondly to consider the Fitz Harding evidence in so far as it reveals tenurial conditions in Bristol unusual in early English boroughs, and thirdly the modus operandi of Robert and his family in the original urban seat of their power. Robert Fitz Harding's family origins were aristocratic. According to several local traditions, he was the son of a royal official, Harding of Baldwin Street, and the grandson of a regionally important thegn. This genealogy can be corroborated by reliable contemporary sources. Somerset holdings of Robert's Saxon grandfather, Eadnoth the Staller, became absorbed into the twelfthcentury honor of Gloucester as a single knight's fee. Robert's brother, Nicholas Fitz Harding, held the land at the time of King Henry II's 1166 inquest of knights' fees.2 1

Metrical Chronicle of Robert of Gloucester, ed. W.A. Wright, 2 vols. (London, 1887), 2: 688; The Maire of Bristowe Is Kalendar By Robert Ricart, ed Lucy Toulmin Smith, Camden Society n.s. 5 (1872), 21-22; Mon.Angl., 6: 365; The Stoneleigh Leger Book, ed. R.H. Hilton, Dugdale Society 24 (1960), 11; see also 'Abbot Newland's Roll of the Abbots of St. Augustine's Abbey by Bristol,' ed. I. H. Jeayes, Bristol and Gloucestershire Archaeological Society Transactions 14, pt. 1 (1889-90): 21. 2 Ricart, 20; see above, n. 1; Berkeley Castle Muniments, 'Cartulary of St. Augustine's Bristol,' fols. 33b-34 shows Robert in possession of Bristol land (this and all subsequent references to the cartulary can be consulted in microfilms of it in Oxford, Bodleian Library MS. Film Dep. 912 and Gloucester Record Office, T.66/M.F.1071); text transcr. in Samuel Seyer, Memoir es Historical and Topographical of Bristol and its Neighborhood, 2 vols. (Bristol, 1821-23), 1: 364; the Domesday survey shows that Harding son of Alnod (Eadnoth the Staller) held land which later belonged to Harding's son (and Robert's brother), Nicholas: Great Domesday, ed. R.W.H. Erskine (London, 1986), Case 1, fols. 98b-99, esp. fol. 98b for Merriott (Som.); RBE, 1: 290; BF, 1: 85; Nicholas also was a tenant-in-chief for 2'/2 knights' fees: RBE, 1: 230; for Harding, see also

110

Haskins Society Journal

Like his brother, Nicholas, Robert also was a Gloucester tenant, but in several different ways. His original status seems to have been that of burgage tenant at Bristol for messuages, some of which probably consisted of inherited family land.3 Bristol was an estate belonging to the earl of Gloucester and was divided for the most part between comital demesne and lands subinfeudated to tenants. Fitz Harding was a mesne tenant of the earl for properties he held of several Gloucester honorial barons, Gilbert de Umfraville, Richard de St. Quintin and Richard Foliot. The land Fitz Harding held of the St. Quintin barony was located on High Street. The burgages he held of the other two barons are not known, but there were other Fitz Harding properties on Broad Street, Wine Street, St. Nicholas Street by St.Werburgh's Church, by the River Frome, between St. John's and St. Giles' Gates, and between Small and Broad Streets. Some of these may have been held by Robert of the earl as a demesne tenant.4 Fitz Harding also held two suburban estates directly of the earldom of Gloucester. Bilswick (Gloucs.), the provenance and service-status of which are unknown, was located northwest of Bristol across the River Frome. Bedminster (Som.; sometimes referred to as Redcliff), south of the borough across the River Avon, was acquired from Earl Robert of Gloucester sometime during his tenure of Bristol (1107+ - 1147). It is possible that this latter acquisition made Fitz Harding a tenurial knight. Later in the twelfth century Robert's heir, Maurice, held Bedminster as a knight's fee, but if Robert held the manor for this service, why was he not listed in the earl of Gloucester's response to the royal inquest of knights' fees in 1166 as such a tenant? A survey of 1285

Willelmi Malmesbiriensis Monachi De Gestis Regum Anglorum, ed. William Stubbs, 2 vols. (London, 1887-89), 1: 313; see also John Smyth of Nibley, The Lives of the Berkeleys, ed. Sir John Maclean, 3 vols. (Gloucester, 1883-85), 1: 19; H.P.R. Finburg, Gloucestershire Studies (Leicester, 1957); R.J.E. Bush, 'Merriott,' in The Victoria History of the County of Somerset, ed. R.W. Dunning (Oxford, 1978), 4: 52-61 (hereafter cited as VCH); Seyer, 1: 310 ignores Nicholas Fitz Harding in discussing the descent of the family from Eadnoth. 3 'Cart. St. Aug.,' fols. 33b-34; Seyer, 1: 364; 4 'Cart. St. Aug.,' fols. 33b-34, 208b; Seyer, 1: 364; since this charter mentions properties both 'in bradestreta' and 'in magno vico,' I have translated the latter as 'High Street'; P.R. 30 Henry II, 109; RBE, 1: 288, 291; Historia et Cartularium Monasterii S. Petri Gloucestriae, ed. W.H. Hart, 3 vols. (London, 1863-67), 1: nos. 46, 252; Cartulary of St. Mark's Hospital Bristol, ed. C.D. Ross, Bristol Record Society 21 (1959), no. 41; Robert's son, Nicholas, held land presumably inherited from his father on St. Nicholas Street ('Cart. St. Aug.,' fol. 37) and by St. Werburgh's Church, located at the corner of Small and Corn Streets: B.C.M., Select Charter Series, no. 61 (all subsequent charter citations are to this series); Descriptive Catalogue of the Charters and Muniments in the Possession of the Rt. Hon. Lord FitzHarding at Berkeley Castle, ed. I.H. Jeayes (Bristol, 1892), no. 61; Robert Fitz Harding's charter in 'Cart. St. Aug.,' fols. 33b-34 (Seyer, 1: 364) mentions two groups of Bristol land: those which he held of the baronies of Richard Foliot, Richard de St. Quintin and Gilbert de Umfraville; and lands on Broad Street and by the River Frome; no landlord is mentioned in connection with these latter lands, so they might have been held of the Gloucester comital demesne.

Robert Fitz Harding of Bristol

111

shows lands held on parts of Redcliff, Fuller's, Temple and St. Thomas Streets in Bedminster.5 Whether or not Fitz Harding became a member of the feudal aristocracy by obtaining Bedminster from Earl Robert, he did so by acquiring knights' fees from other lords. This tenurial transformation was part of a process which began before the end of 1148 and involved Robert's creating a lordship of scattered estates far beyond Bristol. At least one of these estates, Almondsbury (Gloucs.), was won from his lord, the earl of Gloucester.6 Lands worth £20 and £5 respectively at Pawlett and Rowberrow (Som.) also were obtained from Earl Robert of Gloucester's son, Robert, as subinfeudations from an apparent comital appanage, in return for an annual payment of a hawk. 7 Similar payment was due for Fifehead Magdalen (Dors.) which Gloucester's son-inlaw, Rannulf II, earl of Chester, gave Fitz Harding and his son, Maurice.8 Before 1166 another tenant-in-chief, the earl of Warwick, granted Robert one fourth of a knight's fee.9 Several other tenants-in-chief also enfeoffed him with estates at some point: William de Braose gave Robert Bray (Devon) valued at one-fourth of a knight's fee, and Richard, earl of Pembroke, a similarly valued fee at Wellow (Som.).10 In addition, Robert became a mesne tenant of two earls: of the earl of Hereford for an estate he received from Richard Foliot at Acton (Gloucs.); 11 of the earl of Devon for one-half of a knight's fee Richard de Moreville gave him before 1158/59 at Portbury (Som.).12 At some time, one Mahihele Fitz Ansger of Combe (near Wootonunder-Edge, Gloucs.) granted Robert one-fifth of a knight's fee there.13 In the early 1150s Robert Fitz Harding's final social and tenurial metamorphosis occurred. Evidently in part for the financial support already referred to, Henry Fitz Empress made a series of grants to Robert which further 5 B.C.M., no. 5; Jeayes, no. 5; Bristol Records Office, Ashton Court Muniments, AC/D.13/1; Mr. John S. Williams, City Archivist, kindly provided me with photographs of acta mentioned in this paper from the Record Office; see also 'Cart. St. Aug.,' fols. 170b, 192b; RBE, 1: 288-92; The Great Red Book of Bristol, ed. E.W.W. Veale, Introduction (Part I): Burgage Tenure in Medieval Bristol, Bristol Record Society 2 (1931), 164; Earldom of Gloucester Charters: The Charters and Scribes of The Earls and Countesses of Gloucester to A.D. 1217, ed. Robert B. Patterson (Oxford, 1973), nos. 23 & n., 219; Bilswick may have been a suburban membrum of an urban burgage tenure Fitz Harding held of Earl Robert of Gloucester; however, I have been unable to find any evidence to support this speculation. 6 Patterson, EGC, nos. 11, 28. 7 Cat. Pat. Rolls, 1232-1247, 15. 8 'Cart. St. Aug.,' fol. 29b; for the Gloucester-Chester marriage, see Patterson, EGC, 5. 9 RBE, 1: 326. 10 B.C.M., no. 9; Jeayes, no. 9; L(eopold) D(elisle), 'Addition au Recueil de Charles de Henri II Photographiees par Le Rev. H. Salter,' Bibliotheque de I'Ecole des Charles, 69 (1908): no. 117, p. 740. 11 B.C.M., no. 12; Jeayes, no. 12. 12 B.C.M., no. 69; Jeayes, no. 69; 'Cart. St. Aug.,' fol. 34b; P.R. 5 Henry II, 21; Lewis C. Loyd, The Origins of some Anglo-Norman Families, eds. Charles Travis Clay and David C. Douglas, Harleian Society 103 (1951), 70. 13 B.C.M., no. 11; Jeayes, no. 11; transcr. in G.R.O., D.225/F.6/(a); Fitz Harding subinfeudated this to his brother, Elias, as a quarter of a knight's fee.

112

Haskins Society Journal

transformed him into a tenant-in-chief. The estates involved had been seized from another tenant-in-chief and Gloucester honorial tenant, Roger of Berkeley (Gloucs.), whose loyalty to the Angevin party appears to have been suspect and who had refused to pay Henry thefirma due from his lands. It is certainly easy to see Henry's grant of Bitton (Gloucs.) and the right to fortify a castle there in return for the service of two mewed hawks per year as a reward for Robert's help. Another of Henry's grants awarded Robert Berkeley and all of the manor of Berkeley Hernesse (Gloucs.) with rights to a market and mint for the service of one knight or payment of 100s. per year. By 1166, Fitz Harding's holdings as a tenant-in-chief grew to a servitium debitum of five knights.14 The editors of Henry's surviving original ducal acta, which record these grants to Fitz Harding and his family, have regarded most of them as spurious. If this were so, one would have to suspect that Fitz Harding enlisted the services of at least two forgers -to produce records of the territorial gains and privileges favorable to him. R.H.C. Davis and H.A. Cronne attacked the ducal charters' authenticity on the belief, based on apparently imperfect microfilms of the deeds, that they were never sealed. There are in fact, however, traces of sealing on at least two of the acta and in several other cases the ends of the tags are ragged, which suggests the possibility of missing portions to which seals could have been attached. It also is known that seals were removed from some of the acta in the collection to which these charters belong in Berkeley Castle Muniments at the beginning of this century. 15 Most of these ducal acta use the formula, 14 B.C.M., nos. 1, 2, 6, 34; Jeayes, nos. 1, 2, 6, 34; Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum 10661154, 3: Regesta Regis Stephani ac Mathildis Imperatricis ac Gaufridi et Henrici Ducum Normannorum, 1135-1154, eds. H.A. Cronne and R.H.C. Davis (Oxford, 1968), nos. 309-10 (hereafter cited as Regesta 3); Acta of Henry II and Richard 1, eds. J.C. Holt and Richard Mortimer, List and Index Society, Special Series 21 (1986), no. 107; Calendar of the Charter Rolls, Public Record Office (London, 1912), 4: 178-79; RBE, 1: 298; for Berkeley Hernesse, see B.R. Kemp, 'The Churches of Berkeley Hernesse,' BGAST 87 (1968): 96-110; see below, nn. 15- 16; see also IJ. Sanders, English Baronies: A Study Of Their Origin And Descent, 1086-1327 (Oxford, 1960), 13. 15 The editors of Regesta 3 regard B.C.M. nos. 1-3 as 'pretended originals:' Regesta 3, nos. 309 & n., 310 & n., 999 & n.; but their description of several of the acta is inaccurate; the tag of B.C.M., no. 2 has evidence of red wax on it; on B.C.M., no. 3 not only is there a tag, but there is a wax stain on it and an off-white fragment remains in an attached bag; the tag of B.C.M., no. 1 has no seal, but the end is ragged, evidence that a seal could have been cut off or otherwise removed. I have examined actual size photographs of the charters and have received information from Mr. David J.H. Smith, Gloucestershire County and Diocesan Archivist, about the tags and evidence of sealing via a telephone call Sept. 1, 1988. I am indebted to Mr. Smith for providing me with a microfilm of the 'St. Augustine's Cartulary' and photographs of original acta discussed in this article and for the information pertaining to the evidence of sealing in nn. 16 and 18 below. For another charter written in the same hand as Regesta 3, nos. 309-10 and 311 (999), see Diocese of Bristol: A Catalogue of the Records of the Bishops and Archdeacons and of the Dean and Chapter, ed. Isabel M. Kirby (Bristol Corporation, 1970), DC/E: Estate Abbey Records, p. I l l ; this charter is now in B.R.O. and bears the same archival listing; a partial facsimile is in D.E.W. Harrison, Bristol Cathedral (London, 1962), 22; a copy is in 'Cart. St. Aug.,' fol. 17 (without witnesses): Regesta 3, no. 996; see below, n. 16; B.C.M., nos. 1-3 are in the same hand; B.C.M., nos. 6 and 7 are in another hand; no. 7 is a charter of Henry II confirming Berkeley and Berkeley Hernesse (Gloucs.) to Robert Fitz Harding's son, Maurice; I will be discussing the identification of these hands and the authenticity of these acta in a future paper.

Robert Fitz Harding of Bristol

113

Dei gratia in the superscriptions. Recently the authenticity of several royal acta of Henry's has been denied because they employ Dei gratia before the commonly accepted date for the formula's introduction by the royal Chancery, 1172/3. While it is unusual to find Dei gratia in Henry's ducal charters, the formula is found in at least one uncontested original and several copies which do not involve the Fitz Harding family. A precedent, then, existed for using the formula before Henry became king. 16 Thus there are no a.priori reasons, whether based on sealing or the Dei gratia formula, to doubt either the fact or the details of Fitz Harding's newacquisitions as a tenant-in-chief. Sometime in 1153 Fitz Harding received another significant social and tenurial boost which was associated with the transfer of the Berkeley lands to him. This involved the marriage of his son and heir, Maurice, to presumably the eldest daughter (Alice) of the dispossessed Roger of Berkeley. The arrangement in the form of a chirograph between the two fathers appears to have been Henry Fitz Empress' doing. The treaty which was drawn up in Robert Fitz Harding's house in Bristol was enacted in Henry's presence and with his consent; and both parties made Henry security for the agreement. It also brought Fitz Harding's son the manor of Slimbridge (Gloucs.) as his prospective wife's maritagium.11 There is no doubt that this treaty was meant to complement Henry's award of Berkeley land to the Fitz Harding family. The agreement pursued this goal with relentless logic. Maurice was to marry Roger's daughter. Should either of the two parties die before the marriage, his or her place would be taken by the next oldest brother or sister (as the case might be) until each family's supply of sons or daughters had been exhausted. Even a concessionary 'bone' thrown to the Berkeleys favored Robert's family. Roger's son (Roger) was to marry one of Fitz Harding's daughters (Helena), and Fitz Harding was to provide £10 10s. worth of land from the former Berkeley manor of Dursley (Gloucs.) to 16 Holt and Mortimer, nos. 107 & n. (B.C.M., no. 6; Jeayes, no. 6), no. 108 & n. (B.C.M., no. 7; Jeayes, no. 7): for ducal charters which employ Dei gratia in the superscription and do not benefit either the Fitz Harding-Berkeley family or its Eigenkloster, St. Augustine's Abbey, see Regesta 3, nos. 206 (original), 325, 332, 462, 706-7, 810; Recueil des actes de Henri II, eds. Leopold Delisle and Elie Berger, 4 vols. (Paris, 1906-27), 1, no. 74; for ducal acta which benefit St. Augustine's and use Dei gratia, see Regesta 3, nos. 126, 996-8 and above, n. 15; B.C.M., no. 5; Jeayes, no. 5; Regesta 3, no. 1000 (original), in favor of Robert Fitz Harding, does not use Dei gratia; neither does B.C.M., no. 1; Jeayes, no. 1; Regesta 3, no. 309; note that Richard I confirmed Henry II's grant contained in B.C.M., no. 6/Jeayes, no. 6/Holt and Mortimer, nos. 107, 391; B.C.M., no. 51; Jeayes, no. 51; Cal. Charter Rolls, 4: 178-79; Smith, Lives, 1: 24-25; T.A.M. Bishop, Scriptores Regis (Oxford, 1960), 19n., 35 & n. believes that there are authentic original acta of Henry II and accurate copies which contain the formula, Dei gratia, and were issued before 1172/73 when use of the formula became common (Delisle, Recueil des actes, Introduction, 12-38); Mr. Bishop suggests that some of these acta may have been 'renovations' of grants made before the introduction of the formula. For 1 172 as the date Dei gratia was introduced, see Pierre Chaplais, English Royal Documents, King John-Henry VI, 1199-1461 (Oxford, 1971), 13. 17 After Maurice's death (1191), Alice granted Slimbridge to their son, Robert of Berkeley, to be held of her brother, Roger of Berkeley: G.R.O., D.225/F.6/(b); Sanders, English Baronies, 13.

114

Haskins Society Journal

Roger's son as his wife's maritagium; but Roger was to offer Siston (Gloucs.) by Bristol as dower for the bride.18 Even before Fitz Harding became a tenant-in-chief, he undertook a major act of proprietary piety which suited his rise within the aristocracy as well as his commitment to Bristol. He founded an Eigenkloster, St. Augustine's Abbey, on land which he held from the earl of Gloucester in his Bilswick suburb. Robert chose regular canons to staff the house, a sign of his sympathy for the new reformed monastic orders. The foundation may have occurred as early as 1140, but the formal dedication of the church may not have taken place until the 1160s or even slightly later.19 Appropriately, much of the abbey's endowment came from Fitz Harding's holdings which he had acquired during his estate-building campaign.20 Like some other monastic founders and patrons, he retired to the house as a canon before his death in 1171.21 The proprietary patronage St. Augustine's attracted is an indication of the enormous prestige Fitz Harding enjoyed at Bristol and within Gloucester honorial society. The entire spectrum of landholding society became the abbey's sponsors. Henry Fitz Empress, both before and after he became king, and Bristol's lord between 1147 and 1183, Earl William of Gloucester, confirmed the abbey's endowments. In one of his several acta benefiting the abbey, the earl even went so far as to represent himself as the donor of Bilswick, the site of the abbey.22 Gloucester honorial tenants like William de Londres donated local land such as Blackswarth (Som.) and land and parish churches from their manors located elsewhere, including the earldom's Welsh lordships of Glamorgan and Gwynllwg (Mon.).23 Local Bristol burgesses also donated parcels of land.24 What is particularly striking about the pattern of 18

B.C.M., no. 4; Jeayes, no. 4; at the top of the charter is a narrow slit far off-center to the left; a bag holding a fragment of white wax is attached by means of a cord which has been inserted through the slit and knotted. 19 'Cart. St. Aug.,' fols. 37, 106b for references to Robert as the abbey's founder; for some details of the foundation and a discussion of the dating problems associated with the foundation, see ibid., fol. 34b and The Heads of Religious Houses, England and Wales, 940-1216, eds. David Knowles, C.N.L. Brooke and Vera C.M. London (Cambridge, 1972), 155n; Rose Graham, 'Abbey of St. Augustine, at Bristol,' in VCH Gloucestershire, ed. William Page (London, 1907), 2: 75; Kemp, 'Churches of Berkeley Hernesse,' 101; see also Robert of Gloucester, Chronicle, 688; Ricart, 20; Mon. Angl., 6: 365 and Smyth, Lives, 1. 20 'Cart. St. Aug.,' fols. 20-20b, 57-57b; Regesta 3, nos. 126-28, 996-98; Patterson, EGC, nos. 11-13 & n. 23, 28, 31; Rose Graham, 'Abbey of St. Augustine,' 75; see also n. 21. 21 A charter of Robert's son, Maurice, confirms various donations his father made to St. Augustine's when he became a monk, 'Cart. St. Aug.,' fols. 36-36b; Henry II also confirmed a gift of Fitz Harding to his new church upon his entry into the community: ibid., fol. 18b; Ricart, 22. 22 'Cart. St. Aug.,' fols. 17-20b; Regesta 3, nos. 126-28, 996-98; see also charter listed in Kirby, Catalogue in n. 15 above; Patterson, EGC, nos. 11-30. 23 For grants by Gloucester honorial tenants other than Fitz Harding, see ibid., nos. 13-14, 16, 19-20, 27, 29-31; Henry II also confirmed grants by several honorial tenants in 'Cart. St. Aug.,' fols. 18, 19-19b; the 'St. Augustine's Cartulary' contains the texts of the charters of a number of honorial donors issued in favor of the abbey. 24 Patterson, EGC, nos. 17, 28; see also above, n. 23.

Robert Fitz Harding of Bristol

115

eleemosynary giving to Fitz Harding's foundation is that apparently it was not duplicated in comparable support for the neighboring Eigenkloster of Bristol's lords, the earls of Gloucester, St. James' Priory. 25 Nevertheless, for all his new prominence, Robert Fitz Harding remained essentially a local figure devoted to regional interests and to his family. He attested Henry Fitz Empress' charters mainly at Bristol or some other location in the region;26 nor even as a tenant-in-chief did he become a familiaris of Henry as king, although he periodically enjoyed royal fiscal patronage.27 While he was contending for the English throne with Stephen, Henry Fitz Empress showed some favor to Robert by making his son, Henry, his treasurer; Fitz Empress also confirmed to Henry the benefice of Berkeley parish church and other churches of the honor of Berkeley which Henry had received from his father; later as king, Henry attempted to extend more patronage to Fitz Harding's son by supporting his advancement (albeit unsuccessfully) to the bishopric of Exeter.28 But Robert Fitz Harding himself appears politically largely circumscribed within Gloucester honorial society, attending the courts of his lord as a low-ranking familiaris and making rare visits to the courts of other regional lords of importance such as Roger, earl of Hereford.29 Fitz Harding's personal network seems mostly limited to immediate family members like his brothers and sons, his son-in-law, Nigel Fitz Arthur, a possible relative, Jordan La Werre, and other local figures like the Saltmarshes.30 Nonetheless, the marriages of Fitz Harding's children indicate that he had attained a secure niche in the early Angevin aristocracy. In addition to the successful match negotiated for his son, Maurice, another son, Nicholas, 25

Historic Towns: Bristol, eds. M.D. Lobel and E.M. Carus-Wilson (London, 1975), 6. Regesta 3, xlvii, nos. 126, 128, 306. 27 For Fitz Harding's attestations of Henry's ducal charters, see Regesta 3, nos. 126, 128, 306; Robert's name does not appear in the witness-lists of Henry II's original acta found in archives in the United Kingdom: see Holt and Mortimer; also note Robert's absence in Court, Household, and Itinerary of King Henry II, ed. R.W. Eyton (London, 1878) and in Delisle and Berger; for fiscal patronage extended to Fitz Harding, see P.R. 8 Henry II, 23; P.R. 9 Henry II, 26; P.R. 13 Henry II, 68, 145, 150; P.R. 14 Henry II, 140; P.R. 15 Henry II, 2; there is little evidence of royal fiscal favors being extended to his sons during his lifetime: see P.R. 13 Henry II, 148; however Henry II may have considered that he had dispensed fiscal patronage to Robert and his son, Maurice, in classifying Bedminster as a terra data: see above, n. 5 and below n. 36, also RBE, 2: 677; for Maurice, see P.R. 17 Henry II, 11. 28 'Cart. St. Aug.,' fols. 33-33b; Regesta 3, xxxvii, no. 998; Adrian Morey, Bartholomew of Exeter Bishop and Canonist (Cambridge, 1937), 10, 12 & n., 120, 122; W. L. Warren, Henry II (London, 1973), 436; for evidence that Henry supported Robert of Weare in some way, see 'Cart. St. Aug.,' fols. 51b-52. 29 Patterson, EGC, nos. 48, 119, 168, 280; 'Charters of the Earldom of Hereford, 1095-1201,' ed. David Walker, Camden Miscellany, 22 (1964), no. 53. 30 B.C.M., nos. 4, 11, 15; Jeayes, nos. 4, 11, 15; Mon. Angl., 5: 365-66; Ricart, 29n.; Smyth, Lives, 45; Bristol Charters, 1378-1499, ed. H.A. Cronne, Bristol Record Society 11 (1946), 33; for references to the Saltmarsh family, see 'Cart. St. Aug.,' fols. 43, 142; Cart. St. Mark's, 315; Adam, Elias, Ernald, Henry of Saltmarsh, and possibly Elias' son, William, attested a charter of Robert Fitz Harding: G.R.O., D.471/T.1/1; Adam served as seneschal of Fitz Harding's son, Maurice: ibid., D.471/T.1/4; for the La Werre family, see below, n. 33 and 'Cart. St. Aug.,' fol. 42. 26

116

Haskins Society Journal

married Ala, the heiress of Tickenham (Som.). A third son, Robert of Weare, married two important ladies, as Sir Charles Clay demonstrated: first Avice Paynel and after Avice's death, sometime after 1182/85, secondly Hawise, daughter and heiress of Robert de Gournay of Barrow Gurney (Som.). Robert's son by Avice, Maurice de Gaunt, fell heir to the Paynel barony in Yorkshire and Lincolnshire, in addition to Fitz Harding land; his daughter, Eva, by Hawise inherited Barrow Gurney and English Combe (Som.)- Fitz Harding's daughters, Margaret and Aldeva, married respectively Otho Fitz William of Dursley (Gloucs.) and Nigel Fitz Arthur of Clopton (Som.).31 Having seen the evidence of Fitz Harding as a burgess, knight and baron, what can be said of the label merchant later tradition attributed to him? Regrettably, very little. There is a glimmer of Robert in the role of financier in a loan he made to Henry II in the 1160s and an uncertain mortgage of £80 he may have granted to St. Peter's Abbey, Gloucester for five years.32 Robert's most visible business was land, as will be seen shortly. He also was an urban land developer. Bilswick was promoted to a degree by his foundation of St. Augustine's. One of the families to settle in the area were the La Werres who were involved with shipping.33 The abbey itself engaged in trade, for as early as 1189-99 its ships and men were exempted from tolls at Bristol and the other lands of its then comital landlord, John Lackland, on goods bought or sold for the abbey's use or that of its men.34 Robert also must have appreciated the potential revenue which his transpontine fee of Bedminster (Som.) represented, located as it was close to the excellent docking facilities on the Avon River; for he encouraged settlement there by granting to burgesses privileges identical to those of Bristol.35 Already by 115556, the manor was considered to have an annual value of £30.36 By the end of the century, when the royal government levied a tallage on Bristol and on the land held by Maurice's heir, Robert of Berkeley, outside of the borough (presumably 31

Smyth, Lives, 26, genealogical charts compiled by A. S. Ellis; see also Sir Charles Clay, 'The Marriages of Robert Son of Robert Son of Harding,' BGAST 80 (1961): 90-92; for Robert Fitz Harding's son, Nicholas, see Public Record Office, C.I 15/K.2/6683, fol. 47; see also P.R. 7 Richard /, 234; see also below, n. 46; Fitz Harding granted Kingscote (Gloucs.) to his daughter, Aldeva, and her husband, Nigel Fitz Arthur, for the service of !/2 knight: G.R.O., D.471/T.1/1; see also ibid., D. 471/T.1/4; apparently Fitz Harding's daughter, Margaret, received Dursley (Gloucs.): P.R. 4 John, 181. 32 P.R. 13 Henry II, 68; Cart. Gloucester, 1: no. 99; The Letters and Charters of Gilbert Foliot, eds. Adrian Morey and C.N.L. Brooke (Cambridge, 1967), 522-23: the editors suggest that this document may not be an authentic original, but rather a corrupted copy. 33 Jordan La Werre held land in Bilswick which he gave to St. Augustine's Bristol: Patterson, EGC, no. 17; a ship of John La Werre (relationship to Jordan unknown) is mentioned in P.R. 34 Henry II, 14; in King John's reign, John La Werre, probably son of the above mentioned John, appears to have served the king as a vintner-provisioner: Rotuli Litterarum Clausarum in Turri Londinensis Asservati, ed. Thomas Duffus Hardy, 2 vols. (London, 1833), 1: 38b; see also above, n. 30. 34 Patterson, EGC, no. 31. 35 Ricart, 29; Cronne, Bristol Charters, 33-34. 36 P.R. 2, 3, 4, Henry II, 30; Seyer apparently misinterpreted this evidence and believed that Fitz Harding bought Bedminster for £30 blanched: Memoires, 2: 44; others have made the same mistake; that £30 bl. was the firma of the manor is clear from P.R. 6 Richard I, 184 where the firma is listed as £15 bl. for a half year.

Robert Fit: Harding of Bristol

1 17

in Bedminster), the holding was considered to possess one-fifth of the borough's revenue potential. 37 It seems likely that Fitz Harding planned some division of his estates among his sons, very possibly before his retirement to St. Augustine's, sometime between c. 1166 and his death in 1171. 38 It is clear that he associated his son, Maurice, with him as his heir. Fifehead Magdalen was granted to Robert and Maurice by the earl of Chester. The two jointly prepaid relief for half of the manor of Portbury (Som.) to Richard de Moreville. 39 The marriage treaty with Roger of Berkeley provided for Maurice's tenure of Berkeley (Gloucs.) and the other chirograph-related estates.40 Henry Fitz Empress confirmed Maurice's tenure of the Berkeley land granted to his father shortly after the grant to Robert. 41 Fitz Harding also granted Maurice lands he held in Bristol of the three Gloucester honorial barons.42 Land and a house in which he first lived on Broad Street, possibly near the great stone house he built by the River Frome, he deeded to Maurice as well, although he reserved them for his wife, Eva, along with various benefits until her death. 43 From a confirmation charter of John Lackland as earl of Gloucester we also know that Maurice inherited Bedminster (Som.).44 While Robert left Maurice the bulk of his Berkeley holdings, he distributed some of the lordship's estates among several of his other sons: for example, Hill and Nympsfield (Gloucs.) went to Nicholas for the service of one-half knight; and Beverstone and Kings Weston (Gloucs.) to Robert of Weare. Nicholas also apparently received tenements on St. Nicholas Street by St. Werburgh's Church and on Wine Street.45 Fitz Harding's son, Robert of Weare, also seems to have been provided for with several properties in Bristol and apparently in Bilswick as well as other land his father had collected like Redwick (Gloucs.). 46 Fitz 37

P.R. 10 Richard I , 7; P.R. I John, 26. I would estimate his retirement sometime between the carta he returned to Henry IPs Inquest of 1166 and his death in \\1\\RBE, 1: 298; Sanders, English Baronies, 13. 39 B.CM., no. 13; Jeayes,no. 13; 'Cart. St. Aug.,'fol. 29b; see also B.C.M., no. 15; Jeayes, no. 15. 40 B.C.M., no. 4; Jeayes, no. 4; Sanders, Feudal Baronies, 13. 41 B.C.M., no. 3; Jeayes, no. 3; Regesta 3, no. 999; see also above, n. 15. 42 'Cart. St. Aug.,' fols. 33b-34, 57b; Seyer, 1: 364; see also below, n. 68; for tenants of the Bristol fee at the time of Robert of Berkeley, grandson of Robert Fitz Harding, see 'Cart. St. Aug.,' fol. 45b. 43 'Cart. St. Aug.,' fols. 33b-34; Seyer. 1: 364. There is some uncertainty about the exact meaning of the phrase, 'praeter magnam domum lapideam,' used in Robert's charter. 44 B.R.O., Ashton Court Muniments, AC/D.13/1. 45 'Cart. St. Aug.,' fols. 37, 38b; Smyth, Lives, 1: 45, 65; Patterson, EGC, no. 17; Sanders, English Baronies, 14. 46 'Cart. St. Aug.,' fol. 42b; Patterson, EGC, no. 73; Cart. St. Mark's, xii & n., xiii, xxviii, nos. 2, 34 & n.: Robert's son, Robert de Gournay, gave houses in Bilswick to St. Mark's in an area called Pisa, also a house on Broad Street held by Peter La Werre and Robert Fitz Harding's house (location not identified) held by David La Werre; presumably Robert made these donations as Robert of Weare's heir; Robert de Gaunt was the nephew of Maurice de Gaunt, Robert of Weare's son; estates belonging to Robert of Weare at Bristol, King's Weston, Beverstone, Redwick (Gloucs.) and Leeds (Yorks.) are noted in P.R. 6 Richard I, 3, 12; Seyer, 1: 479 claims that Robert also held the hundreds of Portbury, Bedminster and Haverclive (Som.) plus various properties and the Church of St. Nicholas in Bristol; for St. Nicholas' Church, see 'Cart. St. Aug.,' fols. 39, 42b; Seyer's attributions of Portbury and Bedminster to Robert of Weare are doubtful given the history of the descent of these estates: see above and notes 39 and 44. 38

118

Haskins Society Journal

Harding's son, Henry, who already held the church of Berkeley and the others belonging to the honor of Berkeley (Gloucs.) as a tenant of St. Augustine's Bristol, received houses and a garden opposite the parish church of St. Augustine the Less in Bilswick. 47 One can only guess at the value of the estate Robert Fitz Harding amassed. A single house of Robert's in Bristol later rented for two marks per year.48 What must have been a minor share of Fitz Harding's Bristol properties yielded a possible annual firma of about £4 7s.49 Robert's son, Maurice, was charged and paid 1,000 marks relief in 1190-91 for his share of his father's lands which would not have included the estates given to endow St. Augustine's Bristol.50 Maurice's demesne income, which included the proceeds of his Berkeley manors, yielded about £114 annually when in the hands of royal firmarii; but Maurice's ability to liquidate a debt of 1,000 marks so rapidly argues for considerable financial resources.51 Robert's son, Robert of Weare, enjoyed a demesne income of about £31 from his estates in Bristol and Gloucestershire.52 Apparently William de Ste. Mere Eglise felt it worth his while to fine for 500 marks to have custody of Robert's heir and his inheritance and the right of marriage over him and his vassals' heiresses.53 The heir of Robert's son, Nicholas, owed 500 marks for that share of the Fitz Harding estate plus apparently what had been accumulated through marriage.54 Fitz Harding and his family have left more than a record of tenurial and social progress. Their Bristol charters are remarkable for what they reveal of the feudal tenurial organization of Bristol, of the nature of manorial components of feudal tenures there, and of the presence of feudal incidents attached to these manorial membra. Bristol records also show how family members exploited their holdings in Bristol as landlords. And finally there is evidence of Fitz Harding's heirs' proprietary dealings and their involvement with various agencies of Bristol's governance to gauge what role a family of the Fitz Harding-Berkeley type played in it. We already have seen Robert Fitz Harding's place in the tenurial chain in the Bristol fee of the earls of Gloucester.55 His family's acta are valuable links to even lower levels of dependent tenancy at Bristol. Several charters of his 47

Regesta 3, no. 998; Cart. St. Mark's, no. 86; Robert Fitz Harding's brothers, Jordan and Elias, received respectively land near the Bilswick church of St. Augustine the Less and at Combe (Som.): B.C.M., no. 11; Jeayes, no. 11; G.R.O. D.225/F.6a; Cart. St. Mark's, no. 88 & n.; see also above, n. 31 and G.R.O. D.471/T.1/2. 4 * Cart. St. Mark's, no. 41. 49 P.R. 6 Richard I, 3. 50 Sanders, English Baronies, 13n. 51 To the actual income reported from thefirmae of the estates of Maurice's heir, Robert (P.R. 6 Richard I, 3), should be added the estimated value of £30 bl. for Bedminster (ibid., 183-84); Sidney Painter, Studies in the History of the English Feudal Barony (Baltimore, 1943), 180 underestimated this income. 52 P.R. 6 Richard I, 3. 53 Ibid., 239-40. 54 Ibid., 238. 55 See above, supra, 110.

Robert Fitz Harding of Bristol

119

son, Nicholas, seem to be introducing us to the actual occupants of burgages and their neighbors. In one case, there is the house bought from Nicholas by two clerical brothers, Richard and Matthew, on St. Nicholas Street in front of the house of Affredus, son of Ledbrict; in another, land given to St. Augustine's by St. Werburgh's Church which belonged to one Wlvredus.56 The Fitz Harding charters also show how feudal urban manorial components were at Bristol. Typically, English burgage tenures, as Morley De Wolf Hemmeon has pointed out, were free of most feudal incidents.57 Consider, however, the following. Although Ralph, son of Ralph Coterel of Cardigan, had bought land belonging to the tenure of Robert Fitz Harding by Frome Bridge from one Erkembald furrier, the transaction only was finalized by Fitz Harding's enfeoffment of Ralph and his son with the property for which they owed 5s. for entry; furthermore, annual rent payable to Fitz Harding was to be 2s. and the property was to be subject to payment of relief of a bezant.58 In another case the monks of St. Augustine's Abbey may have received a grant of the Fitz Harding fee from his son, Nicholas, but they were required to pay the heir, Henry, a tercel to recognize the gift.59 Robert's son, Nicholas, also sold property as just mentioned to Richard and Matthew for 15 marks, but they received the land in fee for an annual rent payment of 7!/2d. and a pound of wax for recognition; and the purchasers' heirs were to pay a pound of cumin relief. To gain the purchase, Richard and Matthew had to pay Nicholas' wife a gold bezant and his heir a shilling. Freedom of sale was limited; should the purchasers wish to sell the property, they had to give Nicholas or his heirs first option to buy at a reasonable price.60 In the case of a rental transaction between Fitz Harding's grandson, Robert of Berkeley, and Jordan, son of John Bishop, the tenant owed annual rent, relief of a bezant, and paid a gold bezant, apparently as his father's heir.61 The preceding discussion of feudal incidents has revealed examples of the Fitz Harding family's involvement in Bristol's land market, such as by renting and selling property. Family members also added to their holdings through purchases. Several of these transactions involved the Bristol suburb of Bedminster where Robert Fitz Harding's son, Maurice, and his daughter-in-law, Alice of Berkeley, bought properties on Redcliff Street.62 Robert Fitz Harding's 56

B.C.M., no. 61; Jeayes, no. 61; 'Cart. St. Aug.,' fol. 37. Morley De Wolf Hemmeon, Burgage Tenure in Medieval England (Cambridge, Mass., 1914), 59-60, a summary which points out exceptions; the following information corrects at least one of Veale's notions about the absence of feudal incidents at Bristol: Burgage Tenure, 161-68, esp. 167 n. 5 (relief). 58 Cart. St. Peter's Gloucs., 1: no. 47: 173-74. 59 B.C.M., no. 61; Jeayes, no. 61. 60 'Cart. St. Aug.,' fol. 37. 61 B.C.M., no. 49; Jeayes, no. 49. 62 For the Bedminster purchases, see below, n. 68 and 'Cart. St. Aug.,' fols. 187-187b (Alice of Berkeley); for other purchases, see ibid., fols. 40 (Robert of Weare), 48-48b (Robert of Berkeley), 48b (Robert of Berkeley), 57b (Maurice of Berkeley), 121b-122 (Robert of Berkeley); for a sale of property by Robert of Berkeley, see ibid., fol. 47. 57

120

Haskins Society Journal

known purchases virtually all involved estates away from Bristol. He spent 23 marks for Fifehead Magdalen (Dors.) and bought Portbury and Combe (Som.) for undisclosed amounts.63 He put up 20 marks for Acton (Gloucs.) which its lord, Richard Foliot, was to convey to Robert's son, Maurice.64 Fitz Harding's grandest gesture involved his winning Berkeley and Berkeley Hernesse (Gloucs.) from Henry Fitz Empress. Henry may well have awarded Robert this Berkeley land as a reward for Robert's financial support in the war against King Stephen, but the transfer of title was in effect a sale, since Henry charged Robert 500 marks under the euphemism of 'recognition.'65 It is possible that at least for a time Robert acquired properties in Glamorgan belonging to St. Peter's Gloucester if the mortgage of £80 already mentioned actually occurred.66 What is particularly interesting about this entrepreneurial evidence is the way it suggests family members' estate policies. Fitz Harding's suburban and rural activities predominate among his proprietary dealings because he was intent on building a lordship in the only direction possible, outward and away from Bristol. His heirs apparently treated their Bristol holdings according to their relative importance to their overall estates. Robert's son, Nicholas, had become a rural landlord by marriage and his holdings in Bristol were apparently few, so he sold urban property, retaining residual rights including a modest rent.67 Bedminster (Som.) was the most valuable manor of Robert's son, Maurice, who took the name Berkeley, so in addition to retaining Berkeley estates in demesne, he understandably confirmed his father's charter of liberties to the burgesses of Redcliff (Bedminster, Som.) and added to the demesne there (or possibly established a demesne messuage there) by buying a town house on Redcliff Street by the Avon River from one Ralph Thurmund for his wife, Alice.68 After Maurice's death Alice continued this investment in Bedminster by purchasing another house on Redcliff Street.69 Maurice's son, Robert of Berkeley, was not interested in direct management of his Bristol properties, hence he rented the entire fee he held of Herbert de St. Quintin as Maurice's heir to Jordan, son of John Bishop and ultimately granted all his land within Bristol to St. Augustine's Abbey.70 Robert also continued his family's interest in Bedminster by providing piped water to several sites in the area.71 63

'Cart. St. Aug.,' fols. 29b, 34b; B.C.M., no. 11; Jeayes, no. 11. B.C.M., no. 15; Jeayes, no. 15. 65 B.C.M., no. 2; Jeayes, no. 2; Regesta 3, no. 310; see above, n. 15. 66 See above, n. 32. 67 'Cart. St. Aug.,' fol. 37; see above, nn. 31, 45. 68 See above, n. 51; The Little Red Book of Bristol, ed. Francis B. Bickley, 2 vols. (Bristol and London, 1900), 1: 22; B.C.M., no. 58; Jeayes, no. 58; 'Cart. St. Aug.,' fol. 187; William Barrett, The History and Antiquities of the City of Bristol (Bristol, [1789]), 671; Seyer, 2: 30; see above, nn. 42, 62. 69 Ibid. 70 B.C.M., no. 49; Jeayes, no. 49; 'Cart. St. Aug.,' fols. 45b-46; Robert's mother, Alice, granted him Slimbridge (Gloucs.), her maritagium, to be held of his uncle, Roger of Berkeley: G.R.O., D.225/F/6(b). 71 Lobel and Carus-Wilson, 8. 64

Robert Fitz Harding of Bristol

121

Another aspect of the Fitz Harding family's property management policies toward the Bristol area can be seen in its continued practice of proprietary piety. Following the example of Robert Fitz Harding's foundation of St. Augustine's Abbey, his widow, Eva, founded nearby on St. Michael's Hill an Augustinian nunnery, St. Mary Magdalen c. 1171-73.72 With Robert's son, Maurice, and later family members, pious works took a more socially conscious turn. Maurice and other family members founded almshouses and hospitals among which was at least one leprosarium.73 Among the more prominent of these was St. Mark's Hospital in Bilswick, founded by Fitz Harding's grandson, Maurice de Gaunt, between 1216 and 1230 to feed 100 poor a day.74 The only other evidence of family members' financial activities which involved Bristol in some way was a money-lending venture of Fitz Harding's son, Robert of Weare, which backfired. Robert loaned the borough's lord, William of Gloucester (1147-83), 60 marks. The earl never repaid it, and John Lackland, William's successor as earl of Gloucester, squeezed 20 marks more from Robert for the alleged privilege of being freed from rendering the service due from his lands until the loan was repaid.75 The Fitz Harding-Berkeley family's tenurial standing in Bristol did not give it significant urban administrative roles during the tenure of the castle and borough by the earls of Gloucester. I have found no evidence to support the claim that Robert Fitz Harding ever served as reeve of Bristol. Robert's brother, Jordan, was one of the law-worthy men of Bristol's hundred court on one occasion between 1176 and 1183. Family members chiefly functioned as local members of Gloucester honorial society and as feudal proprietors.76 Fitz Harding's grandson, Robert of Berkeley, is the best documented exception. In 1197 he was both constable of Bristol and keeper of Bristol Castle which the Angevin monarchy had succeeded in recovering from the earl of Gloucester. Between sometime in 1200 and 1204 he farmed the borough for King John. John had held Bristol as earl of Gloucester iure uxoris, but had kept it when he became king.77 Robert also served as constable of Bristol Castle at some point during the years Geoffrey Fitz Peter was royal justiciar (1198-1213). Besides

72

Ricart, 22; Mon. Angl., 6: 589; Rose Graham, 'Priory of St. Mary Magdalen, Bristol,' in VCH Gloucs., 2: 93. 73 Lobel and Carus-Wilson, 8. 74 Cart. St. Mark's, xii. 75 Patterson, EGC, no. 72. 76 Mon. Angl., 6: 363; Smyth, Lives, 1: 7-8, 14, 19, 26, 37-38; Seyer, 1: 364; Smith, 'Rise of the Berkeleys,' 65; David Walker, Bristol in the Early Middle Ages, Historical Association, Bristol Branch (Bristol,1971), 21; The Cartulary of Cirencester Abbey, Gloucestershire, eds. C. D. Ross and Mary Devine, 3 vols. (Oxford, 1964-77), 2: no. 629; Patterson, EGC, nos. 48, 119, 168, 280. 77 P.R. 3 John, 53-54; P.R. 4 John, 80; P.R. 5 John, 64; Patterson, EGC, 4-7; Handbook of British Chronology, eds. Sir F. Maurice Powicke and E.B. Fryde, 2nd edn. (London, 1961), 70; see also Accounts of the Constables of Bristol Castle, ed. Margaret Sharp, Bristol Record Society 34(1982), 79 & n.

122

Haskins Society Journal

having responsibility for the castle, the constable at Bristol also was officer of the borough's hundred court to which was subject a special tribunal of the local Jewish population. In this capacity Robert conceded to one Saphira Jewess, widow of John Bishop, the right to improve and strengthen the town wall by her house and other privileges by the command of the justiciar, Geoffrey Fitz Peter, by his assent as constable, and by the consideration and view of law-worthy burgesses and Jews.78 In retrospect, as an urban patrician Robert Fitz Harding held valuable properties in Bristol and the suburbs to which he added rural estates. In virtue of these tenures Robert was both burgess and knight. He transformed a family of aristocratic Saxon origin, in part with royal assistance, into a regional baronial house. His family's marriage ties were with members of the feudal aristocracy. The Fitz Harding-Berkeley family's dealings involving Bristol, ranging from land development and exploitation through rents and acts of proprietary piety, befit landlords of aristocratic rank. Robert Fitz Harding and his family thus well support A.B. Hibbert's refutation of Henri Pirenne's theory about the origin of medieval urban patricians.79 Unlike Pirenne's supposedly landless types the Fitz Harding-Berkeleys, like Hibbert's patricians, were retooled aristocrats who became successful in a new feudal context. University of South Carolina

78 Cart. St. Peter's Gloucs., 1: no. 45; London, P.R.O., E.210/D.2150; see also P.R. 1 Richard I, 165; P.R. 3-4 Richard I, 98 (inquest in chapter of Jews). 79 A. B. Hibbert, 'The Origins of the Medieval Town Patriciate,' Past and Present 3 (1953): 1527, esp. 23.

11 Castle Guard and the Castlery of Clun Frederick C. Suppe

Clun was the site of an important baronial castle, probably erected in the later 1090s, in western Shropshire close to the Welsh border. Sidney Painter twice drew upon evidence concerning Clun Castle when he wrote on the subject of castle guard service.1 Both times he confined himself to thirteenth-century evidence such as the Hundred Rolls and an Inquisition Post Mortem from 1272. He thus ignored earlier materials which would have permitted him to examine both the circumstances under which this castle and its castle guard system were created and the manner in which the system functioned. It is my purpose to consider the full range of evidence available about Clun in order to answer these questions. The most complete description of the feudal military obligations which provided manpower for Clun castle was compiled upon the death of John Fitz Alan (III) in 1272 and is embodied in two separate versions. The first is an Inquisition Post Mortem to determine and list John's holdings,2 and the second is an enrollment on the Close Rolls of a temporary division of these holdings between a dower portion for his widow and the remainder to be administered by a crown-appointed guardian during the minority of his heir. 3 The Inquisition Post Mortem lists the various holdings held from the lord of Clun which comprise the castlery. It rates these lands at 10!/2 fiefs and notes that in wartime each fief, with the exception of that held by Sir Brian de Brompton, owes the service of a man with a corselet or mail shirt and a horse at Clun Castle for forty days. This armament is not the standard of equipment expected of a knight (miles) in this period, but rather that of a sergeant (serviens), whose military services were usually considered as equivalent to half those of a knight. The inquest goes on to state that this castle guard is worth £6 15s. each year in time of war, and that the services of each esquire (or sergeant) are 1 In 1935 Painter's article, 'Castle Guard' appeared in the American Historical Review 40 (1935), 450-459; it is here cited as printed in Feudalism and Liberty, ed. Fred A. Cazel, Jr. (Baltimore, 1961), 144-56. Painter also addressed this subject in Studies in the History of the English Feudal Barony (Baltimore, 1943), 45-46, 130-36. 2 Calendar of Inquisitions Post Mortem, Public Record Office, 12 vols. (London, 1904-38), 1: 280. 3 CR, 1268-1272, 506-514.

124

Haskins Society Journal

worth 4!/ad. per day. The sum £6 15s. is equivalent to 1,620 pence. Simple calculation shows that this figure exactly represents wages of 4!/2d. per day for nine sergeants for a 40-day term. The Close Roll extent of Clun also states that this castle guard is worth £6 15s. in wartime and adds that it is worth nothing in peacetime.4 The emphasis on wartime as a condition for the rendering of this castle guard strongly suggests that in 1272 garrison duty was still a real and useful military service which had not been commuted. Commenting on this situation, Painter noted that the Hundred Rolls of 1254 listed the amounts of service owed from some of these same feudal holdings and concluded that the £6 15s. mentioned in 1272 was simply 'an evaluation of these services in terms of money.' 5 There is some discrepancy about the total number of fiefs owing military service at Clun. As stated above, the Inquisition Post Mortem extent of Clun states that 9Vi of the 10!/2 fiefs which it lists owe this service. However, the Close Roll extent assigns some of the holdings different feudal ratings, perhaps partly because it divides them into two portions to provide a dower for John Fitz Alan (III)'s widow, Isabella; and these ratings yield a total of 11 fiefs. This account says nothing about de Brompton's fief being excluded from castle guard, but allowing for this exemption still yields ten fiefs owing the guard. Both of these totals conflict with the figure of nine fiefs, each responsible for the service of one sergeant for 40 days, reached by analysis of the monetary evaluation provided in the Inquisition Post Mortem extent. Since the latter number presumably reflects actual wage levels and is also the smallest of the three, it is perhaps safest to assume that the wartime garrison of Clun circa 1272 included at least nine sergeants whose service was the responsibility of feudal tenures in the Clun district.6 The location of these tenures provides further grounds for presuming that the feudal service which they owed was part of a practical and functioning military defense system. All the places are in Shropshire east of Clun.7 The castle there presumably would protect them from Welsh raids originating from the West. Also most of the tenures are within a half dozen miles of Clun. The lordship's feudal tenants could travel this fairly short distance in response to a summons to Clun Castle in a reasonable amount of time. Stenton has estimated that a rider on royal business, one presumably taking care not to exhaust his horse, could accomplish somewhat more than 20 miles per day, and that horsemen in a hurry could manage over 40 miles on a summer day.8 One notes 4

The verb used here, extenditur, means 'is extented,' i.e. is valued at in the official extent or full listing of property. It can thus be interpreted as merely assigning a monetary value without suggesting that the feudal dues involved have necessarily been commuted. 5 Painter, Studies, 134. 6 R.W. Eyton, Antiquities of Shropshire, 12 vols. in 6 (London, 1854-60), 11: 232 also chooses this conservative interpretation of the data. 7 See Map, 'The Castlery of Clun,' infra, 125. 8 P.M. Stenton, 'The Road System of Medieval England,' Economic History Review 1 (November 1936): 16-17; Marjorie Boyer, 'A Day's Journey in Medieval France,' Speculum 26 (1951): 597-608, agrees with these figures on rate of travel.

Castle Guard and the Castlery of Clun

The Castlert of Clun

125

126

Haskins Society Journal

too that those members of the Clun castle guard scheme which were further away from the castle were located along the path of the old Roman road, which ran north and south just east of the River Clun and continued in active use throughout the Middle Ages. Easy access to this road would permit military men based in these places to respond within a few hours to a summons from Clun.There does not seem to have been a castle at Clun when Domesday Book was compiled in 1086.9 Furthermore, there is no evidence that the group of nine fiefs which later provided castle guard was organized at this early date.10 Picot de Say is listed in 1086 as lord of many manors which were not included in this group of nine fiefs and many of which in fact later passed out of control of the de Says and their successors, the Fitz Alans. Also, two of these nine fiefs were not held in 1086 by Picot, the lord of Clun. 11 In the case of two more fiefs, which were each comprised of scattered lands with separate names, major constituents were not held in 1086 by Picot. 12 There were thus considerable differences between the lands held in 1086 by the lord of Clun and the lands which comprised that castlery later on. Therefore the origins and development of the Clun castlery lie between 1086 and 1272. Since the castlery definitely did exist in 1272 and definitely did not in 1086, the sources providing data about the castlery and its system of military service will be considered in reverse chronological order in order to determine at what time the system was established. The Hundred Rolls of 1254 do not discuss the organization of the Clun castlery per se, but treat each feudal holding separately and do not mention some of the constituents of the castlery at all, probably because these lay within the hundred of Clun, which the lords of Clun had declared to be a franchise out of bounds to the royal commissioners compiling the rolls.13 Those holdings which are listed make a total of 74/io fiefs reported as owing castle guard at Clun. 14 Particularly interesting are features which the Hundred Rolls provide about two of the castlery members. The tenant of Hopton, 9

Compare the Domesday Book term used at Clun, curie, with castellum, as used to describe Meresberie (i.e. Oswestry) and Stantune (Castle Holgate). There are several alternative methods of reference to Domesday Book. In the recent Phillimore edition of separate volumes for each county (Domesday Book, gen. ed. John Morris, vol. 25, Shropshire, eds. Frank and Caroline Thorn and trans. Celia Parker. [Chichester, 1986]), which uses a system of numbered chapters, sections, and entries, the appropriate references are: (Clun) 4,20,8; (Oswestry) 4,1,11; and (Castle Holgate) 4,21,6. The equivalent references in the more traditional Vinogradoff system are: fols. 258b, 253c, and 258c. 10 See Table, 'Organization of the Castlery of Clun,' infra, 128. 11 These were Languefelle (modern Cheney Longville), (Morris, Domesday Book, Shropshire, 4,27,32) and Brampton (ibid., 6,23). The equivalent Vinogradoff references are fols. 259d, 260c. 12 These were Wistanestou, Straford, and Marsh, which later combined with Sibdon (see Group 'C'); and Bucknell, which was later combined with Purslow and Myndtown (Group 'G'). 13 Eyton, Antiquities, 11: 228; and George T. Clark, Medieval Military Architecture in England (London, 1884), I, 408. 14 See Table, infra, 128; Rotuli Hundredorum, ed. W. Illingworth and J. Caley, 2 vols. (London, 1812-18), 2: 76-77.

Castle Guard and the Castlery of CInn

127

Bradford, and Coston owed service for two fiefs. For one fief the service of one knight for forty days in wartime sufficed, but with the second fief went responsibility for providing a knight in residence at Clun the year round. One presumes that this knight was left in charge of the castle when raids and war did not threaten. The rolls also describe separately the constituents, Bucknell, Purslow, Acton, and Munede, which in 1272 were lumped together as one fief. In 1254 these constituent members were rated as fractions of a fief. The military service due from Bucknell, for example, was given as that of a sergeant with a horse for eight days, implying that Bucknell was rated as one fifth of a fief. Since each of these members was held by a different feudal subtenant under the lord of Clun in 1254, the question arises of whether these tenures sent their sergeants to Clun in series, so that when a sergeant had served the requisite number of days he was replaced by another to provide continuous service for the forty day term, or if, on the other hand, these details are a precise and bureaucratic formulation which does not exactly reflect the actual workings of the system. Perhaps the tenants of these lands were grouped together and left to make their own informal arrangements as to how they collectively were to provide the military service due from one fief. That one should not rely too heavily upon the detailed information provided in the records of local juries is strongly suggested by the fact that the Bucknell group was rated as one fief in 1272, but its constituent parts totalled 9/io fief in 1254 and l!/2 fiefs in 1242. 15 Such numerical changes may be the result of the vagaries of memory afflicting the presumably knowledgeable local men on an inquest jury. They may also suggest the possibility that feudal ratings on this lowest level were subject to frequent change as a result of political bargains between each lord and his subtenants. Such bargains might reflect changes either in the condition of the lands involved or in local political or personal relationships. Continuing in reverse chronological order, we find that in 1246 the lord of Clun paid scutage for nine fiefs. 16 Since Clun itself was a barony and an independent jurisdiction outside the royal law, Clun manor was not included in these nine fiefs, which must therefore represent the holdings of feudal subtenants under the lord of Clun. An inquest of 1242 concerning tenures held by military service grouped the members of the Clun castlery together under the heading 'Barony of Cloune' (sic) and assigned them feudal ratings which total 91/2 fiefs.17 In 1166 Henry II ordained a major inquest to find out from his barons how many knights they had enfeoffed under them: how many of these knights' fiefs had been in existence during the life of Henry I (who died in 1135); how many were new fiefs created between 1135 and 1166; and how many notional fiefs 15 Calendar of Inquisitions Post Mortem, 1: 280; Rotuli Hundredorum, 2: 76-77; BF, 2: 963. In 1242 Bucknell and Purslow comprised one fief and Munede was rated as !/2 fief. 16 I.J. Sanders, English Baronies (Oxford, 1960), 112. 17 See Table, infra, 128; BF, 2: 963.

128

Haskins Society Journal

Table: Organization of the Castlery of Clun (See explanation of symbols and discussion on next page) Groups of Manors "A" Hopton Shelderton Broadward Corston Tately Hagley "B" Jay Bedstone Beckjay

"C" Sibdon* Witstanstow Broom Strefford

^ > J

1086

1135

1166

P

2

2

P t

1

P

Years 1242

1254

127^

2

2

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

.5

. 5 . 1

§

"D" Edgton Brunslow

P

"E" Clungunford Abcott Rowton

P t

"F" Cheney Longville

§

1

1

.5

.5?

1

"G" Bucknell Purslow

§

1

1

1.5

.9

1

"H" Bromptontf Weston "I"

Down

"J"

Weston

"K" Clunbury Total knights' fiefs reported as part of Clun castlery

.5

§

.5 1?

P

7

.5

.75

1

9.75

9.5

.5 1

7.4

lO.f

Castle Guard and the Castlery of Clun

129

Discussion and Explanation of Table Numbers in the columns refer to the number of knights' fiefs at which each manor or group of manors was rated - that is, the amount of feudal military service in terms of knights which it was obligated to provide in time of war. The capital letters in front of each group of manors are purely arbitrary labels assigned to make it easier to refer to each group. The grouping of manors is that which was reported in 1272. This same pattern of grouped manors occurs in all the earlier sources, with the notable exception of 1086 (Domesday Book), although in some instances a source does not mention some of the manors. In 1086 Picot de Say, then lord of Clun, did not hold all of the manors which later made up the castlery of Clun. Furthermore, many of the manors which he held in 1086 were not part of the castlery later on, being held by lords of other castles. In other words, the pattern of lands owing feudal allegiance to the lord of Clun in 1086 is very different from the pattern which existed during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, when the castle guard system is known to have existed. Symbol Explanation P

The manor in question was held in 1086 by Picot de Sai, lord of Clun in 1086.

t

A tenant named in Domesday Book (probably a knight) held the manor from Picot de Sai in 1086. Lack of such a named tenant implies that the manor did not support a knight to send in defense of Clun.

§

In 1086 the manor was held by some lord other than Picot de Sai. Therefore it could not have been part of a scheme for the defense of Clun, at least not a scheme like the later castlery possessed, in which manors contributing castle guard to Clun were held by feudal tenants of the lords of Clun Castle.

*

In 1086 Picot de Sai held only Sibdon; the other three manors in the group were then held by other lords. By 1135 these four manors were assembled in a group.

#

Although listed among the manors comprising the castlery of Clun 1272, these lands specifically did not owe castle guard at Clun Castle.

130

Haskins Society Journal

super dominum each reporting baron would have to create to bring his total number of subtenant knights up to his assigned servitum debitum if he had not actually subinfeudated a sufficient number of knights on his lands. 18 The baronial responses to these queries collectively constitute the Cartae Baronum. The carta of Geoffrey de Vere, who was second husband to Isabel de Say, the heiress of Clun, and who held the Clun lordship in 1166 by right of that marriage, reports a total of 93/4 fiefs, seven of them dating from at least 1135 and 2% new fiefs created subsequent to that year. 19 Therefore, of the nine fiefs rendering castle guard at Clun in 1272, seven were established sometime between 1086 and 1135 and two were created between 1135 and 1166.20 Six of the seven old fiefs were held in 1166 by tenants bearing the names of the manors in question. 21 Often when a man of no particular previous importance in a district was enfeoffed with a single manor or holding, the name of that place would come to be appended to his Christian name to serve as an identifying epithet. By the time the man's son inherited the manor, the placename was usually functioning as a surname. 22 That so many of the Clun castlery tenants bore the names of their holdings may suggest that they were at least the second generation to hold the lands, although this is certainly not conclusive evidence. Buttressing this interpretation, however, is the fact that two of the fiefs were partitioned among heirs by 1166. According to R.W. Eyton, Henry Fitz Hamelin and Nicholas de Sancto Laurentio shared one knight's fief at Edgeton. 23 That neither of them is named 'de Edgeton' suggests that perhaps they were husbands of two sisters who were only heiresses to some tenant at Edgeton in the previous generation. In a second case, Hugo de Bukwel (i.e. Bucknell), Adam his brother, Osbert de Muneta, and Tudilius de Broma jointly held one fief.24 Here partition of Bucknell between two brothers strongly implies that it was held by their father in the previous generation. That four tenants were holding this fief in 1166, two of them brothers and two presumably not, suggests that the fief may have been in existence at least three generations, being split once among the second generation heirs and again among the third generation ones. A scenario in which the 18

For a detailed dicussion of the Cartae Baronum, see Thomas K. Keefe, Feudal Assessments and the Political Community under Henry II and his Sons (Berkeley, 1983), esp. 6-8, 18-19. 19 RBE, 1:274-75. 20 Refer to Table, supra, 128. Group H did not render castle guard service in 1272. Groups A, B, C, D, F, and G were established between 1086 and 1135. Groups E and J were established between 1135 and 1166. 21 De Opton held Hopton for two fiefs; de Chay held Jay (alias Gay); de Sibbetone held Sibdon; de Langefeld held Cheney Longville (alias Longfelle); and de Bukwel (i.e. Bucknell, de Muneta (Munede), and de Broma held members of one fief. 22 On this point see J.C. Holt, 'Feudal Society and the Family in Early Medieval England: I. The Revolution of 1066,' Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 5th ser. 32 (1982): 200-1; and Holt, What's in a Name? Family Nomenclature and the Norman Conquest (University of Reading, Stenton Lecture, 1981). I am grateful to Professor David Spear for calling this article to my attention. 23 Eyton, Antiquities, 11: 260. U RBE, 1: 275.

Castle Guard and the Castler\ of Chin

1 3!

original tenant had two heirs between whom his fief was divided (the first heir had Hugo and Adam as his sons and heirs, and the second had two daughters who married Osbert and Tudilius) could explain the 1 166 situation. Although not absolutely conclusive, these interpretations of the evidence tend to suggest that the Clun castlery fiefs were created after 1086 and at least a generation or two before 1166, probably during the reign of Henry I. Information about the manor of Longuefelle (modern Cheney Longville) reinforces this thesis. Siward, the Domesday Book tenant of this manor, bequeathed it to Shrewsbury Abbey. During the reign of Henry I, the abbey gave it to Henry de Say, then lord of Clun, as part of an exchange. 25 Henry de Say had succeeded his father. Picot, after the latter's death in 1098 and was still alive in 1129-30, so the exchange presumably occurred sometime during this period. By 1166 Henry de Say's lands had passed to his granddaughter, Isabel;26 in that year the carta of her husband, Geoffrey de Vere, reported that a certain 'Roger Fitz Eustace de Langefeld' held this old fief (i.e., pre-1135) as the feudal tenant. 27 If one reads this name to mean 'Roger, son of Eustace of Langefeld,' it would seem likely that Roger's father, Eustace, was the tenant of this fief as the undertenant of Henry de Say, approximately a generation before 1166, and took his name from it. Thus the evidence relating to Cheney Longville strongly suggests that this fief was incorporated in the Clun castle guard system during Henry I's reign. Implicit in the above attempts to determine the time and circumstances of the creation of the Clun castle ward fiefs is the assumption that this was an event rather than a continuing process. Creation of the system of 'muntatorial' fiefs to garrison Oswestry Castle, also located in the Shropshire Marches, is an example of such an event. 28 While a core group of these fiefs may have been established at one particular time by Henry de Say or his son, Helias, there is evidence to show that the lords of Clun strove to make additions to the system throughout the twelfth century. A charter of Lilleshall Abbey complains that Helias de Say unjustly acquired one of the abbey's prebends and gave it to one Baldwin de Stapleton to hold for the service of one knight. This presumably was either later in Henry I's reign or during that of Stephen. This fief apparently continued to exist for some time, for the charter complains further that Baldwin's son, Philip, held it unjustly and rendered the service of one knight at Clun to Helias' daughter and heir, Isabel. 29 However, there is no record of this fief in connection with Clun Castle during the thirteenth century. Perhaps the Lilleshall monks were able to reassert their claim.

25

Eyton, Antiquities, \ 1: 369. Sanders, English Baronies, 112. 21 REE, 275. 28 For a full discussion of the system of muntatores at Oswestry, see Chapter 4 of my forthcoming monograph, Military Institutions on the Welsh Marches (Boydell & Brewer). 29 Mon. Angl., 6: 262. 26

132

Haskins Society Journal

Having described the constituent parts of the Clun castle guard system and their establishment, one is next confronted with a series of questions about the functioning of this system. Did the tenants of these fiefs actually perform castle guard during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, or did this military obligation soon change into a financial one? Did all nine castle guard tenants perform their ward simultaneously for the same forty-day period, or did they perhaps distribute their periods of service to cover the whole year? If the former was the case, was the castle manned at all during peacetime? Were these nine knights or sergeants an adequate garrison for Clun Castle? Sidney Painter theorized that the lord of a baronial castle could schedule his military tenants to provide his castle either with a small permanent garrison establishment or with a large emergency one. In the former case only a few tenants by castle guard would be on hand in the castle at any one time and, after one group had completed its forty-day term, it would be succeeded by another. In the latter case all the tenants would be summoned to the castle when a pressing military threat appeared.30 Painter tried to fit the thirteenthcentury evidence about Clun provided by the Hundred Rolls and the Inquisition Post Mortem into his model of a permanent garrison scheme. He noted that in 1254 one of the Hopton fiefs owed the service of one knight in Clun Castle year round and calculated that there were 7!/2 more fiefs in the castlery whose service, combined with that of the resident knight, would provide the castle with a garrison of two knights for 300 days of the year.31 Painter does not seem to have paid very close attention to the available data. In 1272 there were 9!/2 fiefs owing ward at Clun, not 81/!. The 1254 Hundred Rolls and the 1272 inquest are also both quite insistent that the castle guard service is due in wartime only. In fact the Close Roll version of the 1272 inquest explicitly states that this service is worth £6 15s. in wartime and nothing in peace.32 Painter's speculation that this sum was merely a valuation of the service, and not evidence that the service had been commuted, is shown to be true by a statement in the Close Roll inquest that the knights holding these fiefs owed their service at Clun in time of war at their own cost.33 It seems quite clear that the tenants of most of these fiefs must have performed their obligation only when a Welsh raid or other military emergency threatened and they were summoned to the castle. The knight from the Hopton fief who was permanently resident at Clun would presumably have been in charge of the castle during peacetime. A letter patent from 1233, when the Clun district was threatened by a series of major Welsh attacks, a letter which instructs the Clun feudal tenants to perform castle guard service under the direction of Baldwin de Vere, then constable of the castle, whenever he summoned them, clearly shows that this 30

Painter, Studies, 132. Painter, 'Castle Guard,' 146. 32 Rotuli Hundredorum, 2: 75-77; Calendar of Inquisitions Post Mortem, 2: 280; CR, 12681272, 506. 33 Ibid., 511. 31

Castle Guard and the Castlery Clun

133

service had real military value at thirteenth-century Clun. 34 Indeed so useful were these feudal castle guards that they continued serving at Clun under royal pay after having completed their forty-day unpaid feudal obligation. 35 The mound of Clun Castle was approximately 60 yards across at its summit and nine men were apparently an insufficient garrison for a fortress of this size,36 for in 1233, 17 sergeants were hired to supplement the feudal garrison.37 An unfortunately damaged document shows that in the mid-1240s the sheriff of Shropshire again hired more sergeants, both mounted and infantry, to deal with Welsh attacks at Clun and Montgomery, although it is impossible to determine how many men were involved. 38 The Pipe Rolls provide evidence of the feudal garrison of Clun being supplemented in the mid twelfth century. Because William Fitz Alan died sometime in 1160, the Pipe Roll for 1159-60 in a separate section dealing with William's lands lists wages of £7 15s. for sergeants at the castles of Clun, Ruthin, and Blancmonasterium 39 (i.e. Oswestry). 40 Under a similar heading, the 1160-61 Pipe Roll shows expenditure of £54 15s. on wages at these three castles.41 In both 1162-63 and 1163-64, the accounts show £36 10s. spent in wages at Clun and Ruthin and £18 5s. at Oswestry. 42 One notes that adding £36 10s. and £18 5s. yields £54 15s. It seems reasonable to conclude, at least tentatively, that £18 5s. was the sum spent at each of these three castles during these full year terms. In 1164 £54 15s. was again spent for the custodia43 of Oswestry, Clun, and Ruffin (sic) castles.44 The sum of £18 5s. is equivalent to 365 shillings. If one accepts J.H. Round's statement that Id. was the daily wage for a military sergeant in the mid twelfth century, 45 then 365s. would constitute wages for twelve such sergeants for a year. Thus mercenaries would seem to have constituted the year-round or 'peacetime' garrison of Clun, when this was required. It seems most likely that the castle guard system at Clun Castle was apparently created early during the reign of Henry I, most probably in reaction 34

Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1232-1247, 32. Eyton, Antiquities, 11: 230, quoting the Pipe Roll of 1233. 36 Clark, Medieval Military, 404-5. 37 Calendar of Liberate Rolls, Public Record Office, 6 vols. (London, 1917-64), 1: 232. 38 Ibid., 3: 98. 39 P.R. 6 Henry II, 27. 40 John Beeler, Warfare in England, 1066-1189 (Ithaca, N.Y., 1966), 415 and 446; and C. Warren Hollister, The Military Organization of Norman England (Oxford, 1965) have erred in supposing Blancmonasterium, one of several names for Oswestry, to refer to Whitchurch, with which the Fitz Alan family had no connection. On the various names for Oswestry, see Eyton, Antiquities, 10: 323; and A.H.A. Hogg and D.J.C. King, 'Masonry Castles in Wales and the Marches,' Archaeologia Cambrensis 116 (1967): 116. 41 P.R. 7 Henry II, 40. 42 P.R. 8 Henry II, 6; and P.R. 9 Henry II, 4. 43 This is a term which can refer to guarding a castle (See Revised Medieval Latin Word List, ed. R.E. Latham [London, 1965], 128). 44 P.R. 10 Henry II, 9. 45 J.H. Round, The King's Sergeants and Other Officers of State (London, 1911), 34. 35

134

Haskins Society Journal

to the major Welsh rising of 1094—95 and subsequent Welsh depredations in the Clun region.46 This system ultimately consisted of at least nine fiefs which were located in a fairly compact group east of Clun and whose feudal tenants were responsible for actual military service at the castle during wartime. This feudal garrison continued to serve during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries and was supplemented by mercenaries as needed. Each British castle was built in a particular spot for particular reasons. As Warren Hollister has observed, the castle guard arrangements at these fortifications do not follow a uniform pattern, but were created in response to particular local conditions.47 Before meaningful general comments can be made about the creation and functioning of castle guard systems in postConquest England, the full range of evidence for many more castles must be carefully analyzed.48 Ball State University

46 The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, eds. Dorothy Whitelock, David C. Douglas, and Susie I. Tucker (London, 1961), 171; The Chronicle of Florence of Worcester, ed. Thomas Forester (London, 1854), 198; and Polychronicon Ranulphi Higden, Monachi Cestrensis, eds. J.R. Lumley and C. Babbington, R.S. 9 vols. (London, 1865-86), 7: 360; Ann. Mon., i, 6. A narrative of the canons of Lilleshall Abbey relates that during this period of warfare between the Welsh and Earl Hugh of Shrewsbury (1094-98), the Welsh penetrated to the district around Cheney Longville and devastated it. See Eyton, Antiquities, 11: 356; and Mon. Angl., 7: 750, item no. 16. 47 Hollister, Military Organization, 145. 48 The 'muntatorial' system at Oswestry mentioned above, for example, was created in 1085-86 and was added to over the next several decades. Other border castles for which there is ample castle guard evidence and which I intend to examine in future work include Montgomery, Shrawardine, and Richard's Castle.

12

Counting Those Who Count: A Computer-Assisted Analysis of Charter Witness-Lists and the Itinerant Court in the First Year of the Reign of King Richard I Thomas K. Keefe

The first year of the reign of King Richard I (1189-90) is remarkable in Anglo-Norman history for many reasons,1 not the least of which is the availability of a rich and varied collection of source materials ranging from Treasury accounts, commonly known as Pipe Rolls, to historical narratives, and numerous royal charters and writs. It is the first occasion that these royal acta are dated by year, month, day, and place of issue,2 enabling one to follow the itinerating court from place to place on a monthly, weekly, even daily basis and observe by means of witness-lists the comings and goings of the king's advisors and patronage seekers. This combination of precisely dated documents supported by detailed narratives, unique for the twelfth century, lends itself to a more comprehensive reading of the historical process. Such a reading well proves the value, if proof is needed, of prosopographical and statistical analyses of charter witness-lists, especially for working out the politics of patronage at the itinerant court. The most immediate impression of Richard I as a new king is the crusader in need of money, a monarch ready to sell anything and everything. 'All things were for sale with him,' writes the author of the Gesta Ricardi, 'powers, lordships, earldoms, sheriffdoms, castles, towns, manors, and suchlike.' 3 Yet, whatever Richard I's needs, money cannot have been the sole factor determining who got what in 1189 and 1190. Take William Marshal, for example:4 1

I would like to thank J.C. Holt and Richard Mortimer for allowing me access to transcripts of Richard I's charters otherwise unavailable at the British Library or Public Record Office, Rose Coley for her computer assistance, Robin Fleming for her encouragement, and the National Endowment for the Humanities and the Deans of the Appalachian State University Graduate School and College of Arts and Sciences for providing me with funds to carry out this research. 2 A typical dating clause reads, 'Given at Canterbury on the 4th day of December by the hand of William de Longchamp, bishop-elect of Ely and our chancellor, in the first year of our reign:' Cambridge, Peterhouse, West Wratting. B . I . 3 The Chronicle of the Reigns of Henry II and Richard I , ed. William Stubbs, 2 vols. (London, 1867), 2:90. 4 Much about William Marshal's life is well-known to historians because of the Histoire de Guillaume le Marechal written in the thirteenth century. Sidney Painter's William Marshal (Baltimore, 1933; repr. Toronto, 1982) remains the standard biography. For a good recent account of the Marshal's career in the 1190s, see David Crouch, 'Strategies of Lordship in Angevin England and the Career of William Marshal,' in The Ideas and Practice of Medieval Knighthood, II. Papers from the Third Strawberry Hill Conference, eds. C. Harper-Bill and R. Harvey (Woodbridge, 1988), 1-25.

136

Haskins Society Journal

a landless knight when Henry II died, the Marshal became a great magnate instantly through a marriage arranged for him by Richard I in the summer of 1189. Shortly before the king's coronation, the Marshal wed Isabel de Clare, daughter of Richard Fitz Gilbert de Clare, earl of Striguil, and heiress to vast estates in England, Wales, and Ireland. Richard I asked no money of the Marshal for this spectacular match, and just as well; he had none. Following the wedding the Marshal's financial troubles were over. On the Pipe Roll for 1189-90, William Marshal is charged with £1,460 for the purchase of one-half the Giffard earldom of Buckingham, one-half the Giffard honor of Longueville in Normandy, custody of Elias Giffard, and the shrievalty of Gloucester.5 The Marshal profited immeasurably from these purchases. He became lord of 103 Giffard knights' fees in England and Normandy, adding the 183 or so English, Welsh, and Irish fees his wife Isabel had brought him. 6 With the Gloucester shrievalty, the Marshal's influence in South Wales and the Anglo-Irish trade center of Bristol surpassed that of his predecessor. If the climb from knight to magnate to sheriff were not enough, Richard I appointed the Marshal an associate-justiciar in England with the duty of sitting at the Exchequer and royal courts, and otherwise advising the chief-justiciar in matters of governance.7 William Marshal's rise in 1189 surely was not based on the depth of his purse, although it had become considerable. Through the Marshal's promotion, Richard gained the loyalty of a knight who had served Henry II with devotion and skill. And while Richard was a crusader in need of money, he also was a concerned king making preparations to leave his dominions on a dangerous and perhaps lengthy expedition. The Marshal's loyalty, past and future, counted as much as his silver, maybe more. Certainly £1,460 was very little for what Richard bestowed upon him. William Marshal is but one clear example from 1189-90 of the important linkage of royal patronage and political standing with charter attestations, for the Marshal heads the list of laymen who frequented the king's court and witnessed the charters. Few gained more this year from royal patronage than he, and no one attested more charters, save Hugh du Puiset, bishop of Durham. Still, some twelfth-century historians remain wary of counting those who count by adding up charter attestations. To the late Christopher Cheney, witness-lists were 'resistant to statistical analysis.' 8 With equal authority, 5

P.R. 2 Richard I, 58, 144. For the totals given here, see T.K. Keefe, Feudal Assessments and the Political Community under Henry II and his Sons (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1983), 147, 173, 180, 190, and G.H. Orpen, Ireland Under the Normans, 1169-1216, 4 vols. (Oxford, 1911-20), 1: 259. 7 Six men are mentioned as having been named associate-justiciars in 1189-90: William Marshal, Hugh Bardolf, William Brewer, Geoffrey Fitz Peter, Roger Fitz Reinfrey, and Robert de Wheatfield: see Roger of Howden, Chronica Rogeri de Hovedene, ed. William Stubbs, 4 vols. (London, 1868-71), 3: 16 and n. 5. 8 English Episcopal Acta II, Canterbury, 1162-1190, eds. C.R. Cheney and B.E.A. Jones, 2 vols. (London, 1986), 1: xxix-xxx. 6

Counting Those Who Count

Name

137

Table 1 The Most Frequent Attestors of Royal Charters, 1189-1190 Attestations Percentage of Attest, by Month Attesting Rank No. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Mar. Apr. Months Days

Hugh b. of Durham William Marshal Walter ab. of Rouen Hubert b. of Salis. Wm. de Mandeville Hugh b. of Coventry Godfrey de Lucy, b. of Winchester Baldwin ab. of Canterbury Geoffrey Fitz Peter John Marshal Reginald b. of Bath HughBardolf Robert de Wheatfield Roger de Preaux Wm.de St. Jean Wm. d'Aubigny e. of Arundel Richard Fitz Nigel b. of London Stephen de Longchamp Robert III, e. of Leicester John, b. of Norwich John ct. of Mortain Wm. de Longchamp, b. of Ely Gilbert b. of Rochester Ralph Fitz Godfrey Wm. duHummet Wm. Fitz Ralph Hugh b. of Lincoln Ranulf de Glanville Richard de Clare Hameline e. Warenne John b. of Evreux Guy de Dive Henry de Longchamp Wm. Fitz Audelin Wm. e. of Salisbury Robert de Harcourt Bertram de Verdun Roger le Bigot, e. of Norfolk John ab. of Dublin Henry b. of Bayeux

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

174 109 77 75 73 70 69

10.9 22.0 18.2 6.7 90.4 24.3 7.2

25.3 8.3 5.2 9.3 4.1 2.9 27.5

29.9 27.5 14.3 38.7 5.5 22.9 27.5

23.6 27.5 10.4 33.3 0.0 31.4 27.5

7.5 10.1 50.6 8.0 0.0 14.3 10.1

2.9 4.6 1.3 4.0 0.0 4.3 0.0

6 6 6 6 3 6 5

66 53 37 36 26 40 34

8

56

48.2

0.0

17.9

21.4

12.5

0.0

4

26

9 10 11 12 13

54 50 47 45 43

7.4 12.0 42.6 4.4 25.6

14.8 35.2 4.0 32.0 2.1 12.8 15.6 31.1 11.6 27.9

35.2 40.0 23.4 37.8 34.9

5.6 10.0 19.1 6.7 0.0

1.9 2.0 0.0 2.2 0.0

6 6 5 6 4

29 31 27 25 39

14 15 16

43 42 36

2.3 2.4 5.6

27.9 31.0 30.6

30.2 35.7 30.6

14.0 26.2 0.0

14.0 0.0 27.8

9.3 2.4 5.6

7 5 5

32 25 26

17

35

11.4

65.7

17.1

2.9

2.9

0.0

5

18

18

30

3.3

33.3

20.0

33.3

10.0

0.0

5

20

19

30

33.3

13.3

23.3

20.0

10.0

0.0

5

19

20 21 22

29 27 26

41.4 22.2 19.2

0.0 0.0 19.2

51.7 14.8 15.4

3.4 40.7 7.7

3.4 14.8 34.6

0.0 3.7 3.8

4 5 6

16 17 18

23

25

44.0

12.0

24.0

8.0

12.0

0.0

5

15

24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38

21 19 19 19 17 15 13 12 12 12 10 10 9 9 8

4.8 0.0 5.3 73.7 76.5 20.0 23.1 16.7 8.3 0.0 10.0 10.0 22.2 22.2 25.0

19.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.7 0.0 16.7 50.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.1 0.0 0.0

23.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 53.3 30.8 25.0 8.3 58.3 10.0 40.0 0.0 11.1 62.5

19.0 0.0 5.3 26.3 0.0 0.0 23.1 0.0 16.7 33.3 70.0 40.0 0.0 44.4 0.0

4.8 63.2 89.5 0.0 17.6 20.0 23.1 41.7 8.3 8.3 0.0 10.0 55.6 22.2 12.5

14.3 26.3 0.0 0.0 5.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.3 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

7 3 3 2 3 4 4 4 5 3 5 4 3 4 3

17 15 12 10 11 11 12 10 8 7 9 7 8 8 7

39 40

7 6

42.9 33.3

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

57.1 0.0

0.0 66.7

0.0 0.0

2 2

6 4

Note: Monthly percentages are not shown for May because so few of the top attestors were active that month.

138

Haskins Society Journal

Emma Mason ends her review of C. Warren Hollister's Monarchy, Magnates and Institutions in the Anlgo-Norman World, where attestation statistics figure prominently, with the admonition: '... yet the mechanisms of any society are based on factors beyond those which can be quantified.' 9 Maybe so, but why reject counting a priori? In an effort to evaluate the significance of attestations in 1189-90, I have ranked the top 15 ecclesiastical and 25 lay witnesses of royal charters this year in Table 1. The columns show their names, their rank and number of attestations, the percentage of these attestations broken down by month, and the number of months in which, and days upon which, they attested. The figures shown come from a computer analysis of some 1,752 separate attestations to 321 royal charters issued during the fall and early winter of 1189 (September, October, November, December) when Richard was in England, and during the late winter and spring of 1190 (March, April, May) when he was on the Continent, largely in Normandy.10 These 321 charters account for 80 per cent of all the acts issued by the Chancery before Richard left his Angevin dominions on crusade in August 1190.11 Almost all of the acts sampled here carry AngloNorman place-dates and were written on behalf of Anglo-Norman beneficiaries. It seems reasonable enough to suppose, then, that they might tell us something about Anglo-Norman governance, and a good deal about the itinerant court. To begin with, a comparison of frequency of attestations with days attesting, the number of days upon which charters were witnessed, for those witnesses listed in Table 1 shows a very strong positive correlation (r=0.95, P <.001>,12 between these two variables. This means that in 95 cases out of 100 a high rate of attestations is explained by a high number of days attesting. Simply put, the rankings do not change measurably if either attestations or days are counted. Bishop Hugh du Puiset's first ranking with 174 attestations is matched by a first ranking as well in days attesting with 66 days. Towards the middle of the list, Earl Robert III of Leicester ranks nineteenth in charters attested, and this is directly comparable to his rank of eighteenth in days attesting. The only individuals who seem to rise noticeably when days are substituted for attestations are Robert de Wheatfield (from thirteenth in attestations to fourth in 9

Medieval Prosopography, 9 (1988): 113. The sample includes the only surviving charter issued prior to Richard's coronation, dateable to August, 1189. The dates of the other charters are 5 September thru 25 December 1189, and 8 March thru 8 May 1190. The August charter and two others - December 17 and 25 - were issued on the Continent; otherwise Richard I's charters from 1189 carry English place-dates, those from 1190 have continental place-dates. 11 Some 401 charters survive from 1189-90, representing about two-thirds of Richard I's extant acts. Most of these acts were calendared by Lionel Landon in his Itinerary of King Richard I, P.R.S. n.s. 13 (1935). Others appear in Acta of Henry II and Richard I, eds. J.C. Holt and R. Mortimer, List and Index Society, Special Series 21 (1986). A more thorough edition of Richard's charters is now being prepared by Professor Holt at Cambridge University. Landon's practice of grouping witnesses into a single daily list of those at court on a given day makes it impossible to count attestations using his Itinerary alone. 12 The statistical test used was a Pearson correlation coefficient. 10

139

Counting Those Who Count

days) and Roger de Preaux (from fourteenth in attestations to eighth in days): the first an associate-justiciar, the second a royal dapifer - both the king's men. The point is that we need worry no longer whether attestations truly are connected with length of service at court: they are. By the late twelfth century there was little administrative or legal use for writing down the names of everyone present every time a charter or writ was issued from the royal Chancery. This is so even in 1189-90, a year in which there was a royal coronation and three major councils - two English, one Norman. This goes far to explain why 92 per cent of the charters in our sample carry lists of 13 or less witnesses, while the average is only five or six. The trend is for bishops, earls, and administrators to appear more frequently in the lists than abbots, barons, or those outside the circle of government. The top 15 ecclesiastical attestors in 1189-90 were all bishops, several of whom -like Hugh, bishop of Durham, the chief justiciar, Richard, bishop of London, the royal treasurer, William, bishop of Ely, the royal chancellor, and Hugh, bishop of Coventry, sheriff of Warwick and Leicestershire - held secular office along with their sees. Looking at the top 25 lay attestors for the year: nine possessed earldoms, eight were justices or royal stewards, three more were sheriffs, one was the Norman seneschal, another the Norman constable, and so on. If the relative exclusivity of witness-lists prevents us from always determining who was at court, the lists do suggest the prominence of those whose presence was recorded. This conclusion is supported by an analysis of the 1189-90 Pipe Roll. Table 2 sets out the attestation records of what might be called the '£1,000 Club,' the 10 men most heavily in debt to the crown from new proffers. 13 Some of these Table 2 New Pleas and New Conventions for 1189-90 Pipe Roll 2 Richard I £1000 Club Total Proffered £ 4,667 3,667* 2,173* 2,000 2,000 1,773* 1,460* 1,333 1 ,333 1,000

Name Geoffrey de Say Godfrey b. of Winchester Geoffrey Fitz Peter Geoffrey ab. of York William de Stuteville Hugh b. of Durham William Marshal William e. of Arundel Richard e. of Hertford Robert Marmion

No. Acts 0 69 54 1 3 174 109 36 15 1

Attesting No. Days 0 34 29 1 3 66 53 26 11 1

Rank

7 9 1 2 16 29 _

*Total of multiple proffers 13 For these charges, see P.R. 2 Richard 7 , 1 1 1 (Say); 136, 151 (Winchester); 101, 111, 122 (Fitz Peter); 74 (York); 68 (Stuteville); 21 (Durham); 144 (Marshal); 129 (Arundel); 102 (Hertford); 24 (Marmion); see Table 1, supra, 137.

140

Haskins Society Journal

men earned their club membership through royal patronage, being allowed to purchase lands and privileges to their profit, others went into debt becauseof royal malevolence. Geoffrey de Say fined for £4,667, or 7,000 marks, to gain the earldom of Essex. The bishop of Winchester, Godfrey de Lucy, made two proffers in 1189: one of £3,000 to have Hampshire manors of Meon and Wargrave restored to his church and the other of £667 to have his family's honor of Ongar after the death of his nephew. Geoffrey Fitz Peter, sheriff of Northamptonshire and an associate-justiciar, paid £173 for two wardships, then proffered £2,000 (3,000 marks) more to replace Geoffrey de Say in the Essex earldom. The £2,000 charged against the king's halfbrother, Geoffrey, archbishop-elect of York, was for regaining his sibling's good will, the York diocese itself and estates granted him by their father, Henry II. William de Stuteville's £2,000 fine also went towards the confirmation of a Henry II grant, Knaresborough in Yorkshire. The bishop of Durham's £1,773 in proffers resulted from fines of £1,333 for the earldom of Northumberland and £400 for the manor of Sadberge. William Marshal's £1,460 in debts, as we have said, bought him half the Giffard lands in England and Normandy, a wardship, and the shrievalty of Gloucester. To continue, the £1,333 charged against William d'Aubigny, earl of Arundel, was for the restoration of the honor of Arundel, confiscated at his father's death in 1176, while Richard de Clare, earl of Hertford, proffered £1,333 for a half share in the Giffard inheritance. Why £1,000 was demanded from Robert Marmion is unclear from the entry in the Pipe Roll. Doubtless the charge was somehow connected with his having been deposed as sheriff of Worcester during Richard I's administrative reorganization. Six of the ten men listed in Table 2, Godfrey, bishop of Winchester, Geoffrey Fitz Peter, Hugh, bishop of Durham, William Marshal, William, earl of Arundel, and Richard, earl of Hertford, were among the top 40 attestors of royal charters in 1189-90 and were granted something valuable or previously unobtainable for their money. It is almost unavoidable seeing a link here between access to patronage and attestations. The archbishop-elect of York's and Robert Marmion's fines just as certainly were punitive. Their singularly low attestation rates are equally suggestive. William de Stuteville's £2,000 fine for an estate he had had in his possession for sixteen years seems out of place if he were wellconnected. But then he had only three attestations in 1189-90. What about Geoffrey de Say, the son of a minor baron with no attestations at all this year? Geoffrey de Say's £4,667 proffer surely was exorbitant: no proffer like it is recorded in any other twelfth-century Pipe Roll. Proffers during the 34-year reign of Henry II never exceeded 1,000 marks or £666. Although it is true that the Pipe Rolls were not an account of all crown debts, the pattern is too well established to be dismissed easily. After the 1189-90 sales, the customary ceiling on proffers shifted from 1,000 marks to about 3,000 marks (£2,000). Even so, the Say proffer stands out. Significantly the sum was never paid. Geoffrey de Say lost possession of the Essex earldom eight months after its grant. How this came about sheds light on the politics of

Counting Those Who Count

141

patronage in the late twelfth century and makes good sense of attestation statistics. The grant of the earldom of Essex was made in the first week of December 1189, three months after Richard's coronation. 14 Prior to this, Hugh du Puiset, bishop of Durham, had fined for 2,000 marks (£1,333) to become earl of Northumberland, while William Marshal and Richard de Clare had proffered 2,000 marks each (£2,666), for shares in the Giffard inheritance, which included the earldom of Buckingham. 15 What, in comparison, caused so large a price to be placed on the earldom of Essex? The answer is a complicated inheritance, complicated further by court politics. When the earl of Essex, William de Mandeville, died in November 1189, he died childless. His closest relatives were his aunt, Beatrice de Mandeville, the widow of William de Say, and her heirs. Which heir ought to inherit was in dispute. The choice was between Geoffrey de Say, Beatrice's younger son, and Geoffrey Fitz Peter, an associate-justiciar like William Marshal, who was married to Beatrice de Say, the elder offspring of Beatrice de Mandeville's eldest son who had died a few years before. Geoffrey de Say was with his mother when they learned of the earl's death. For them there was little question over who should inherit. Beatrice de Mandeville sent her son off after the king straightaway to claim the earldom for himself through her right. The prior of Walden and several Mandeville honorial barons travelled with Geoffrey de Say. They found the king at Canterbury. He had stopped there to hold a Great Council before departing for the Continent. What happened is described for us by the Walden chronicle. When the day came for King Richard to decide the dispute, Geoffrey Fitz Peter is said to have walked into court surrounded by an entourage of friends and well-wishers. He was confident, too confident. The son of a forester, Geoffrey Fitz Peter had moved up rapidly through various local levels of royal administration from a justice of the forest to sheriff of Northampton, to one of the associate-justiciars named by Richard I to oversee English governance in his absence. Geoffrey de Say, on the other hand, was no courtier; he attested no charters in the first year of Richard's reign, even though close to two-thirds of the king's surviving acta were issued this year. Geoffrey de Say didn't count; he shouldn't be an earl. Of course the legal argument was something altogether different. Simply put, the rule of primogeniture called for the elder brother's children to inherit instead of the younger brother. In reality the law governing descent in such cases was not all that clear. This was an intriguing argument, 14

The chronology here and the details for much of what follows are taken from The Foundation Book of Walden Abbey, in Mon. Angl., 4: 144-46. See also, Essex Review, 46 (1937): 92-95 and 227-28 for. a translation of the relevant passages by C.H. Emson. This translation, however, should be approached with caution. 15 Landon, Itinerary, 16-17, nos. 145, 146a, and supra, n. 11. The Chronicle of Richard of Devizes, ed. J.T. Appleby (London, 1963), 6, has the bishop of Durham paying £10,000 for this and other privileges. There is no way to reconcile Devizes' figure with the Pipe Roll entry, although he is correct in reporting other proffers made this year.

142

Haskins Society Journal

one which would have caught the attention of Richard's own brother, John count of Mortain, who sat at court with other members of the higher nobility. Such an interpretation of the law would place Arthur of Brittany in line to inherit the Angevin dominions, if misfortune befell the king. The Walden chronicler says that influential men, need we guess who, vigorously pressed Geoffrey de Say's side in the dispute. The king was swayed and decided for Beatrice de Mandeville's son. Younger brothers could rest easy for the moment. 16 Forced by necessity to find against the courtier Geoffrey Fitz Peter, Richard used the patronage system to put the Essex earldom beyond Geoffrey de Say's reach. What else explains the prohibitive £4,667 price of succession. Not only this, but the schedule of payments was fixed to cause an early default. Geoffrey de Say had trouble getting pledges to guarantee the proffer. Finding the money would be something else. While Geoffrey de Say stayed in England trying to make good his promise, Geoffrey Fitz Peter followed the king to the Continent. Who had lost and who had won was yet to be determined. As far as Geoffrey de Say was concerned, the situation called for someone with business acumen, corporate financing, and better still, both. Richard of Devizes has this to say about Geoffrey de Lucy, bishop of Winchester, who faced a similar problem after proffering £3,000 in November 1189 for the manors of Meon and Wargave, the shrievalty of Hampshire, and custodianship of Winchester castle and Portchester: When the time for him to pay so much money drew near, since he could not go beyond the day fixed for the payment without risking the whole undertaking and since he could find no nearer help under Heaven, he reluctantly put his hand into the treasure of his church. He bound himself and his successors, however, to repay the money and gave the convent a sealed cyrograph as security.17

Reluctant or not, the bishop's need to pay for his custodianships and shrievalty out of church funds suggests how hard the going was for a Geoffrey de Say with only baronial resources to draw upon. Agricultural rents, grain production, and animal husbandry do not amount to much when large sums of money are payable in a short space of months. Geoffrey de Say could put a manor up for mortgage here, sell a property there, take an aid from demesne lands, knights' fees, and churches, marry off an heiress or two., but would it be enough, soon enough? Geoffrey de Say did his best and met the first payment; a second payment proved impossible. Then he did a very foolish thing. He let himself be manipulated by the chancellor, William de Longchamp, bishop of Ely, into returning the Mandeville earldom to the crown until such time as the estate's revenues covered the outstanding debt. The chancellor assured Geoffrey that when this was done he would freely be given a new charter and the earldom once 16 Count John's likely interest in the dispute over the Mandeville inheritance was first suggested to me by Professor J.C. Holt during a seminar at the University of California at Santa Barbara. 17 Richard of Devizes, 8-9. The Pipe Roll entry does not mention the castles and shrievalty but, given the large amount asked for, their inclusion makes sense.

Counting Those Who Count

143

again would be his. To the Walden chronicler, Geoffrey de Say 'lacked common sense.' It is hard to fault this judgement. All this probably took place in the middle of the Summer of 1190 when the king was in southern France moving towards Marseilles, bound from there for Italy. Geoffrey de Say should have gone after him to seek a reversal of the repossession and ask for an easing of payments. Others sought out Richard there and in Italy when they could no longer stomach the chancellor's imperious behavior. Whatever could have been done wasn't. The time had come for Geoffrey Fitz Peter's turn at Fortune's wheel. Geoffrey Fitz Peter busied himself in the Summer of 1190 with a judicial eyre and other governmental duties. His response to William de Longchamp's repossession of the Mandeville earldom was immediate; he demanded the earldom as his wife's rightful inheritance. Money exchanged hands. More money was promised if the king agreed to the transfer. With this, Geoffrey Fitz Peter took control of the earldom. On the Pipe Roll for 1189-90 he is listed as owing 3,000 marks for having the lands of Earl William, the inheritance of his wife Beatrice de Say.18 Two hundred pounds of the debt was paid into the treasury, another 600 marks was credited as having been given to a colleague, William Brewer, for the king's use. Payments followed in 1191, 1192, and 1193 until the debt finally was cleared.19 Geoffrey de Say's £4,667 (7,000 marks) proffer also appears on the 1189- 90 Pipe Roll without any attempt from the Exchequer clerks to strike it or comment on what had happened.20 The monies he had paid on his debt, or those collected from the pledges after he defaulted, are not given mention. Geoffrey Fitz Peter was after all a baron of the Exchequer and exercised a certain influence on what was and what was not written in the Pipe Roll. It would have been untidy to go into detail, the debt was best listed without comment. What was King Richard's reaction? A royal charter, dated 23 January 1191 at Messina, settled the Mandeville earldom on Beatrice de Say and her husband, Geoffrey Fitz Peter.21 It is worthy of note that as the barons of the Exchequer sat at Westminster in October 1190, going over the Pipe Roll accounts, the king was concluding a treaty with Tancred of Sicily whereby Arthur of Brittany, then three years old, was engaged to Tancred's daughter. The treaty pronounced Arthur heir to the English throne and the Angevin dominions. The offspring of an older brother might indeed inherit before a younger brother. It is difficult to avoid seeing a conspiracy in all this - if not a conspiracy involving the king directly, then one certainly within the network of English 18

P.R.O. E.372/36, rot. 10, mem. 2: the Fitz Peter entry was made at the very bottom of the membrane and thus conveniently separated from the Say entry on the reverse of the membrane (rot. lOd, mem. 1) where the Essex accounts were continued. They do not appear close together as might be supposed from a casual look at the edited Pipe Roll. 19 P.R. 3 & 4 Richard I, 29, 171; P.R. 5 Richard /, 5. 20 A portion of the entry indicating a possible earlier payment into the treasury has, in fact, been struck: P.R.O. E.372/36, rot. lOd, mem. 1. 21 Ancient Charters, Royal and Private, prior to 1200, ed. J.H. Round, P.R.S. 10 (1888), 97.

144

Haskins Society Journal

high officials. While the chancellor, William de Longchamp, held the earldom of Essex in 1190, its revenues, £254 from the sale of grain alone, were assigned to William Pointel, constable of the Tower of London and the chancellor's underling. We know this because a catalogue of monies received by the constable from the Treasury for the operation of the Tower of London was for some reason sewn to the first rotulet of the 1189-90 Pipe Roll, and thus preserved.22 The Tower account suggests where to look for probable co-conspirators. A charter of Geoffrey Fitz Peter's, dateable to this time, granted William Pointel guardianship of the lands and heirs of William de Boville, a wealthy tenant of the Mandeville earls of Essex.23 The charter goes on to state that William Pointel would marry his son to the Boville heiress. This arrangement cost William Pointel 100 marks, money Geoffrey Fitz Peter might put towards retirement of his own debt at the Exchequer. The charter's witnesslist also is interesting. It reads like a gathering of the Exchequer court and the King's Bench: William de Longchamp, bishop of Ely, chancellor and justiciar; Richard Fitz Nigel, bishop of London and treasurer; Godfrey de Lucy, bishop of Winchester, sheriff and justice; Reginald, bishop of Bath and justice; Hugh, bishop of Coventry, sheriff and justice; Richard Barre, archdeacon of Ely and justice; William Marshal, sheriff and associatejusticiar; Walter Fitz Robert de Clare, Essex magnate and justice; John Marshal, baron of the Exchequer and sometime sheriff; Henry de Cornhill, sheriff and keeper of the royal mints; William Mauduit, chamberlain of the Exchequer and sheriff of Rutland; Robert de Wheatfield, associate-justiciar; Reginald de Argentan, justice; Simon de Pattishall, justice; Richard of Windsor, Treasury clerk; Richard Fitz Reinfrey, the son of a justice; and Henry son of Lefston, whose background is obscure. Most of these men figure prominently in Richard I's acta as beneficiaries or witnesses.24 They were deeply involved in government during King Richard's absence. 22

P.R. 2 Richard I, 1-2. The total amount sent to the Tower from the Mandeville earldom was about £353 17s. 3d. Of this, £30 18s. Od. came from an aid placed on the earldom by Geoffrey de Say. Since the royal charter which granted Geoffrey de Say the Mandeville lands was taken away from him by the chancellor and is now lost, the Pipe Roll account is our only conclusive proof that Geoffrey de Say actually had possession of the earldom for part of 1190. The period accounted for covered the Easter term and up through the Nativity of St. John the Baptist (24 June). Geoffrey Fitz Peter probably gained possession near or after the latter date. At the 1190 Exchequer session he received half the third-penny for Essex, (p. 104). 23 William Salt Library, SD (Pearson) 248, as transcribed and edited by Anne Charlton, 'A Study of the Mandeville Family and its Estates,' (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Reading, 1977), 426-27. 24 Eight of the witnesses to this charter, like Geoffrey Fitz Peter himself, were among the top 25 attestors of Richard I's acts in 1189-90: William, bishop of Ely; Richard, bishop of London; Godfrey, bishop of Winchester; Reginald, bishop of Bath; Hugh, bishop of Coventry; William Marshal; John Marshal; and Robert de Wheatfield. Some witnesses, such as Henry de Cornhill, who do not attest very many royal charters, nevertheless held important offices and received a number of royal grants: Acta of Henry II and Richard I, nos. 331, 348, 351, 357, 349.

Counting Those Who Count

145

Geoffrey de Say was not of this ilk; he did not count. This is why he never held on to the Essex earldom. Administrative and patronage networks take care of themselves. In The Northerners, J.C. Holt calls attention to a small inner-clique having taken control of royal patronage by the early 1200s.25 This fed the baronial discontent that led to Magna Carta. In the Pipe Roll of 1189-90, in the favoritism shown William Marshal and Geoffrey Fitz Peter, in the many connections between highly placed administrators, we can observe the beginnings of the trend. It is visible as well from attestations statistics. The top witnesses of Richard I's charters in 1189-90 were, by and large, the chief recipients of the king's patronage and clearly were the heart of his itinerant court and government. One wonders whether this had not been the case all along. What is unique, after all, in the study of the year 1189-90 is the ability to count for the first time 'those who counted' with some precision. All that really changes in the late twelfth century is this very precision of our documents, not the historical process. If much in twelfth-century society remains closed to computer analysis, we ought at least be open to the idea that sometimes the writing of qualitative history begins with working through the quantitative. Appalachian State University

25

The Northerners (Oxford, 1961; repr. 1981). See especially the chapter on 'The King and his Friends.'

This page intentionally left blank

13

The Mandeville Inheritance, 1189-1236: Its Legal, Political and Social Context Ralph V. Turner

Geoffrey Fitz Peter through his marriage to Beatrice de Say gained the Mandeville honor, catapulting him into the highest levels of the English aristocracy by 1191, and by 1199 securing for him the title of earl of Essex. The honor was one of the richest feudal lordships in late twelfth-century England, consisting of 110 knights' fees in ten counties, one of only three with an annual income of over £500.' The story of Geoffrey's acquisition of the Mandeville inheritance and of its fate following his death in 1213 illustrates 'the interplay between inheritance and lordship,' the intertwining of political and legal considerations governing succession to great honors held in-chief of the king. 2 It is, I hope, a very Painteresque topic with its mixture of genealogy, feudal law, politics, and patronage. It brings me back to my doctoral research under Sidney Painter's direction, when I first examined the working of the king's will within the common law courts. By the late twelfth century, the principle that hereditary succession guaranteed title had triumphed, and this threatened lords' rights to choose freely their tenants. 3 Although the common law was drawing up careful rules of seniority for heirs and heiresses, the descent of the Mandeville lands following William de Mandeville IV's death in 1189 and Geoffrey Fitz Peter's in 1213 illustrates the improbability of strict linear succession. The possibility was always present that the direct patrilinear line would fail and that more distant kin would succeed to the lordship.4 The descent of the Mandeville honor touches upon two uncertain points of law: first, the problem of the partition of fees among co-heiresses in case of 1

See my Men Raised from the Dust (Philadelphia, 1988), 55-62; see Appendix A and Appendix B, infra, 169-70. 2 J.C. Holt, 'Feudal Society and the Family in early Medieval England: II. Notions of Patrimony,' Transactions of the Royal Historical Society 5th ser. 33 (1983): 207. 3 Samuel E. Thorne, 'English Feudalism and Estates in Land,' Cambridge Law Journal (1959): 194-209. 4 J.C. Holt, 'Feudal Society and the Family in early Medieval England: III. Patronage and Politics,' Transactions of the Royal Historical Society 5th ser. 34 (1984): 15-16; also Scott L. Waugh, 'Marriage, Class, and Royal Lordship in England under Henry III,' Viator 16 (1985): 183-85.

148

Has kins Society Journal

default of male heirs; and second, the casus regis, or uncertainty about the line of descent when an elder son dies leaving both a child, heir of his body, and a younger brother. While the royal justices may have wanted to spell out strict rules to bind lords in such cases, the king wanted to preserve his own freedom of action. How did royal judges treat these cases, in which the lord was the monarch, greatest of all feudal lords? Or did they have an opportunity to treat them at all? Clearly, in an uncertain situation such as the death of an earl of Essex, without any son to succeed him and with collateral claimants, both male and female, the king insisted on some say in selection of the heir. The personal tie between lord and tenant, a vital element in feudal landholding earlier, was weakening by the end of the twelfth century and lords were losing control over succession to their tenants' holdings. Henry H's assizes separated title to a tenement from lordly acceptance of the tenant when the tenant was a direct descendant of the previous landholder.5 The assizes were providing mesne tenants with security of tenure. When there was an undoubted male heir, no lord could take the land into his own hand to hold until relief was paid. The heir could take possession himself without waiting for the lord to put him into possession.6 While other lords were losing disciplinary power over their tenants, the power to disseize and disinherit unwelcome claimants to fees, the king insisted on maintaining his own power to regulate succession to earldoms and baronies. J.E.A. Jolliffe wrote that the Angevins 'arrogat[ed] to themselves a discretionary power which they denied their vassals.' 7 The king's will, his benevolentia or malevolentia were facts of political life, accepted 'with a curious equanimity,' even seen as a legitimate aspect of royal government.8 The peace settlement between William Longchamp and Count John in 1191, for example, concedes that free tenants should not be disseized at will by royal officers, but it equates disseizin 'by the king's command' with disseizin 'by judgment of the king's court according to lawful customs and assizes of the kingdom.' 9 The king still regarded a personal relationship with his own tenants-in-chief as essential, and he insisted on some role in choosing the tenant whenever uncertainty of hereditary succession allowed him any choice. The Angevin monarchs resisted following rules that their courts were enforcing against other feudal lords in their treatment of tenants. They held to the old view that the heir does not succeed to his ancestor's property automatically; he only has a customary claim to be accepted as tenant, and the king will only take the

5

Robert C. Palmer, 'The Origin of Property in England,' Law and History Review 3 (1985): 22; also Thorne, 'Feudalism and Estates in Land,' 201. 6 S.F.C. Milsom, The Legal Framework of English Feudalism (Cambridge, 1976), 162-63, 171. 7 Jolliffe, Angevin Kingship (London, 1955), 39. 8 Ibid., 56, 95. 9 Memoriale Walteri de Coventria, ed. William Stubbs, 2 vols., R.S. (London, 1872-73), 1: 463 (hereafter cited as Walter of Coventry).

The Mandeville Inheritance

149

heir's homage and place him in possession once he accepts him.10 Glanvill noted that when a baron dies, his barony is taken into the king's hand even if the heir is fully of age; and it is not released until the heir has made arrangements for paying whatever relief the king demands. 11 King John sometimes hesitated long before acknowledging a lawful heir's right to his predecessor's property. The Pipe Rolls record many fines offered the Angevin kings for inheritances, in addition to relief, with the offering increasing whenever the succession was more complicated than simply from father to son. Examples are a 400-mark fine by a nephew for a barony in 1199, a 2000mark fine by a brother for another barony in 1214, and a 2050-mark fine by another brother inheriting an earldom in 1234.12 J.C. Holt, RaGena de Aragon, and Charlotte Newman have looked at succession to baronies in the Anglo-Norman period, and they find that most descended without royal interference. De Aragon's estimate is 80%. Charlotte Newman found more royal interference by Henry I: nine baronies without direct male heirs passing to lateral heirs, and six which had lateral heirs failing to pass to them. Scott L. Waugh's study of baronies' descent, 1200-1330, centers more on baronial group and family interests than on royal intervention in hereditary succession.13 To my knowledge, however, no one has made a study of the king's role in baronial inheritances for the Angevin period. The litigation that arose following the death of William de Mandeville, earl of Essex, and that continued after the death of his successor, Geoffrey Fitz Peter, can be a start. It shows how political circumstances could color legal judgments. Luckily, a chronicle account of the lawsuit survives to supplement the limited evidence of charters, Plea Rolls, and Pipe Rolls. Geoffrey Fitz Peter was one of Henry II's cur tales who appeared out of nowhere around 1184. The son of a forester with only one knight's fee, he quickly won several shrievalties and the post of chief royal forester. He belonged to the council left behind to govern England during Richard I's 10

Milsom, Legal Framework, 163-64. Glanvill, ed. G.D.G. Hall, Medieval Texts (Oxford, 1965), 9: 6, p. 110. 12 E.g. Ralph de Somery offered 400 marks for his uncle Gervase Paynell's barony, P.R. 10 Richard I, 122; P.R. 1 John, 164. William de Webirton and Giles de Muncele offered 500 marks for having the inheritance of Juliana, wife of William fitz Aldulf, 'whose nearer heirs they are, as they say,' P.R. 2 John, 206. Robert de Girros offered twenty marks for his inheritance from his aunt, P.R. 1 John, 75. Five daughters and heirs of Stephen of Turnham offered twenty marks, a palfrey, and promised to pay their father's £100 debt for having his land, P.R. 16 John, 32. Robert de Ver offered 1,000 marks for the inheritance of his brother, Earl Aubrey de Ver, P.R. 16 John, 11. Warin de Montchesney offered 2,000 marks for his inheritance from his brother, P.R. 16 John, 31. Hugh d'Aubigny, brother of the late earl of Arundel, made fine with Henry III for 2,050 marks to have his lands shortly before he came of age, P.R.O. C.60/33, m. 11. 13 J.C. Holt, 'Politics and Property in Early Medieval England,' Past and Present 57 (1972): 30; RaGena de Aragon, 'The Growth of Secure Inheritance in Anglo-Norman England,' Journ. Med. Hist. 8 (1982): 383; Charlotte A. Newman, The Anglo-Norman Nobility in the Reign of Henry 1: The Second Generation (Philadelphia, 1988), 119. Scott L. Waugh examines the descent of 195 baronies, 1200-1330, and he finds 43 (22%) descending to single heiresses and 68 (35%) partitioned among heiresses, 'Marriage, Class, and Royal Lordship,' 184-86. 11

150

Haskins Society Journal

crusade, and he took office as justiciar in 1198, a post he continued to hold until his death in 1213. 14 Geoffrey Fitz Peter shared the ambition of other curiales. As Sidney Painter wrote: 'The dearest ambition of most lay servants of the crown was to build up a barony that would enable them and their descendants to take their places among the magnates of the realm.' 15 Royal patronage soon permitted Geoffrey to fulfill that ambition. Sometime before the compilation of the Rotuli de Dominabus in 1185, Geoffrey had married one of his wards, a common means for royal servants to rise out of obscurity and obtain new lands and higher social status. 16 Geoffrey's bride was Beatrice de Say, elder daughter of William de Say (d. 1177). He undoubtedly had Henry II's consent for the marriage, since heiresses were a valued royal resource, an easy means for the king to reward landless knights in his service. Geoffrey's bride was co-heiress with her younger sister to estates in Norfolk, but more important were her connections with the powerful Mandeville family, which would eventually give Geoffrey the earldom of Essex. 17 Geoffrey and his wife did not divide the Say inheritance equally with her sister, Maud, and her husband, William of Buckland; by their final concord of January 1185, Geoffrey and Beatrice gave up only one manor, the service of two tenants, and a promise of land worth £10 from future acquisitions. 18 In a feudal society, where descent by strict male primogeniture was supposedly the rule, 'The heiress was one of the fluid elements in the social structure.' 19 As early as the time of Henry I's coronation charter, women were eligible for inheritance of fiefs.20 The rule at that time concerning succession of daughters as heirs evidently was that the entire inheritance went to one daughter, with the lord granting it to the husband of one of the daughters, choosing whichever husband he favored. The lord would prefer, of course, a single heiress and an undivided tenement held by a loyal vassal. Although the eldest daughter and her husband acquired a right which the royal courts recognized, gradually their moral obligation to share with her sisters also won recognition. The change in this custom seems due to a specific ruling of the royal court, dating c. 113035. An 1145 charter refers to a statum deereturn by which the daughters are to

14

For Geoffrey's biography, see chapter 3 of my Men Raised from the Dust. Painter, The Reign of King John (Baltimore, 1949), 73. 16 Rotuli de Dominabus et Pueris et Puellis, ed. J.H. Round, P.R.S. 35 (London, 1913), 49-50. 17 G.E. C(okayne), The Complete Peerage of England, Scotland, Ireland, Great Britain, and the United Kingdom, eds. Vicary Gibbs, et. al., new ed., 13 vols. (London, 1910-40), 5: 123. 18 P.R.O., DL 10/29; P.R. 10 Richard I, 139, manor of Bruninton; Richard I's confirmation, 1198, Ancient Charters, Royal and Private, ed. J.H. Round, P.R.S. 10 (1888): 108-9, no. 66. The Walden Chronicle states incorrectly that they divided the inheritance equally, Mon. Angl., 4: 145. 19 Holt, 'Feudal Society and the Family in Early Medieval England: IV. The Heiress and the Alien,' Trans. Royal Hist. Soc. 35 (1985): 1. 20 Select Charters and other Illustrations of English Constitutional History, ed. William Stubbs, 9th ed. (Oxford, 1913), 118. 15

The Mandeville Inheritance

151

share in case of no surviving son to succeed, and the eldest cannot take her younger sisters' share nisi vi et iniuria.21 In short, the custom of parage described by Glanvill developed, by which the husband of the eldest daughter did homage to the chief lord for the whole fee, and the younger daughters and their husbands performed the service through, 'by the hand of,' the eldest daughter and her husband. 22 S.F.C. Milsom likens the manner of the younger daughters' holding to a modern trust or to widow's maritagium; that is, the land is the eldest daughter's, but she has a moral obligation to allow her younger sisters a share. And he sees the influence of the Church, eager to see that younger sisters had an adequate marriage-portion, in securing acceptance for such a provision. 23 By the early years of Henry III, younger sisters seeking their rightful share had available that writ nuper obiit to initiate an action in the royal courts.24 J.C. Holt does not find such lofty motives for the custom of partition among heiresses. He suggests that Glanvill's rule was not yet fixed as the law of the realm at the time of the lawbook's composition, that it was not the only way to settle the descent of land when only daughters survived, but that it was what the author hoped would be the fixed rule. In Holt's view, the king, landless knights in his service, and younger daughters all benefited from division of fees among co-heirs. He points out that by 1236, the law for tenants-in-chief of the crown, at least, was that all daughters did homage to the king, all holding in-chief; and he gives examples of cases where Glanvill's pattern was not followed, where a younger daughter was favored, or where the 1236 rule had been followed earlier.25 A fine was offered in 1213 seeking division of land 'into two equal parts;' it states that such a partition between two sisters is 'according to the custom of England.' Such a division may have been customary, but one sister's husband still found it prudent to proffer 500 marks to King John. What is interesting in this case is what is left unsaid; the rights of an unmentioned third sister were being ignored.26 Usually the Plea Rolls use less precise language, referring to a 'reasonable portion.' Does this imply that exactly equal shares were unnecessary?

21 Holt, 'Feudal Society and the Family: IV,' 2-10; P.M. Stenton, The First Century of English Feudalism, 1066-1166 (Oxford, 1932), 37-41. 22 Glanvill, 7:3, p. 76; Bracton, ed. G.E. Woodbine, trans. S.E. Thorne, 4 vols. (Cambridge, Mass., 1968-77) fol. 66b, 2: 194. 23 On the Laws and Customs of England: Essays in Honor of Samuel E. Thorne, ed. Morris S. Arnold, et al. (Chapel Hill, 1981), 69-78 (hereafter cited as Thorne Festschrift). 24 Ibid., 69, 73-74. 25 Holt, 'Feudal Society and the Family: IV,' 10-11, citing the Statutum Hiberniae de Coheredibus. See also Bracton, fol. 78, 2: 227. 26 Rotuli de Oblatis et Finibus, ed. T. Duffus Hardy, Record Commission (London, 1835), 507 (hereafter cited as Rot. de Obi. et Fin.). Division of the barony of Cavendish, Suff., between two sisters: Mabel, widow of Hugh Bardolf; and Basilia, wife of Hugh de Odingselles. For details, see P.R. 5 Richard I, 124; P.R. 6 Richard I, 92; P.R. 7 John, 34, 197; Mem. Roll 1 John, 54: £16 13s. 4d.

152

Haskins Society Journal

Following the death of William de Mandeville in 1189, Geoffrey laid claim to the vast Mandeville honor through his wife's right. The earl had served Henry II as soldier and diplomat, and Richard I had named him co-justiciar on the eve of his departure on crusade; but Mandeville died in November or December 1189, before he could play any role in the absentee government. 27 William left neither children nor surviving brothers, so that his heir was his aunt Beatrice, who had married William de Say. Glanvill makes clear the line of succession: 'In default of lineal descendants, then brother or brothers succeed, or, if there are no brothers, sisters are called; if they are already dead their children are called. After these, uncles or their children are called, and lastly aunts or their children.' 28 If the earl's aunt were to be bypassed, then succession would pass to her descendants: her surviving younger son, Geoffrey de Say; or the daughters of her eldest deceased elder son, William de Say II. At this point the succession was uncertain: should it pass to a younger son of the aged Beatrice, or to the representatives of her deceased elder son, his two daughters, one of whom was Beatrice, wife of Geoffrey Fitz Peter? Of course, feudal law preferred a male heir over a female, even a remote male relative over a nearer female one. As Bracton wrote, 'In the matter of succession the male sex must always be preferred to the female.' 29 But succession to such a significant honor - one of England's greatest - would not remain simply a legal issue. What Holt wrote of inheritance in the AngloNorman period applies also to the Angevin kings: 'The more distant or debatable the claim, the more substantial would be the overlord's [king's] consent and the more likely would he be concerned with the political impact of the settlement.'30 Also royal finances could be a factor, and the successful claimant might be the one who could offer the king the larger fine for his support.31 The fullest account of the rivalry between Geoffrey de Say and his neice Beatrice de Say for the Mandeville inheritance is found in the Walden Chronicle, an account strongly biased against Geoffrey Fitz Peter and one that occasionally conflicts with the record evidence. Geoffrey's acquisition of the Mandeville honor brought him patronage of Walden Abbey, and he and the monks soon quarrelled. Geoffrey resented William de Mandeville's deathbed grants to Walden of land and privileges, which embroiled him and the monks in a series of lawsuits lasting until King John's accession.32 The chronicler wrote that Geoffrey 'took several properties away from us and gave them to his own men 27

For William de Mandeville's death date as 14 Nov. 1189, see Round, Ancient Charters, 98. Glanvill, 7:4, p. 79; Bracton, fol. 64b, 2: 188-90. 29 Bracton, fol. 65, 2: 190; 191. See a 1220 case where three sisters unsuccessfully defended their right to land from the son of their deceased brother. The justices found that because the boy was de masculo he should have the greater right to the land, Curia Regis Rolls, Public Record Office, 15 vols. (London, 1923-49), 9: 268-69. 30 'Politics and Property,' 22. 31 Ibid., 24. 32 Susan Wood, English Monasteries and their Patrons in the Thirteenth Century (Oxford, 1955), 167-70. 28

The Mandeville Inheritance

153

to hold, and we do not know of any good work to ascribe to him.' The monks also hated Beatrice de Say, source of Geoffrey's power over them; the Walden chronicler labelled her autrix ... malorum.33 It is little wonder that the Walden monks supported Geoffrey de Say's claim to the Mandeville inheritance. According to the chronicle, Beatrice de Say the elder sought to have her younger son, Geoffrey, 'a great and warlike man,' secure the Mandeville barony as her representative, since she was 'now decrepit and of full days.' She must have realized that no monarch was likely to consider seriously the claims of an elderly widow to a great barony.34 Mother and son rushed to Richard I at Canterbury shortly before the king sailed from England in December 1189, and Geoffrey gained seizin of the honor, on condition that he pay a fine of 7,000 marks. The prospect of so much money probably moved Richard I much more than the petition of the widowed Beatrice de Say. According to the Walden chronicler, Geoffrey de Say made an initial payment of seventy marks, but was unable to raise the money for a second one; and when payment was demanded from his pledges, neither could they pay. He then, 'not very wise and not wishing to follow the counsel of the wise,' turned over the barony temporarily to William Longchamp, the justiciar, to take its revenues until they generated a sum equivalent to his fine.35 This account is unsupported by the Pipe Rolls, for the roll of 4 Richard I still records the full debt of 7,000 marks. 36 Geoffrey de Say can have had seizin of the Mandeville honor for only a short time, if he ever fully secured it; the Walden account is contradictory on this. He did hold some part of it long enough, however, to collect an aid from tenants. 37 When Geoffrey Fitz Peter heard of Geoffrey de Say's difficulties in making his payments, he made a claim to the Mandeville inheritance based upon his wife's right as her deceased father's representative. The law's uncertainty gave an excuse for a consideration of her claim, yet it would be treated in extraordinary ways. Since no writ lay against King Richard I, the chief lord, none of the new actions would be applicable. Neither did an assize of mort d'ancestor lie against Geoffrey de Say, the nominal possessor, because the claimant, Geoffey Fitz Peter's wife Beatrice, and the tenant, her uncle Geoffrey de Say, were 'both of the same stock' from which the contested inheritance descended. In GlanvilVs words, such 'blood relationship stops the assize.' 38 Also the claim of Geoffrey Fitz Peter's wife was bound to receive a sympathetic hearing, since he was one of the appares ruling England during the king's 33

Mon. Angl., 6(2): 975. Ibid., 4: 139-46. 35 Ibid., 4: 139, 145; P.R. 2 Richard I, 111; P.R. 3 & 4 Richard I, 171; P.R. 5 Richard I, 5 records Geoffrey's debt of 7,000 marks. 36 />./?. 3 &4 Richard!, 171. 37 Mon. Angl., 4: 145; P.R. 2 Richard I, 2. 38 Glanvill, 13: 3-13, p. 155. Similarly a marginal note in Bracton s Note Book, ed. F.W. Maitland, 3 vols. (Cambridge, 1887), 3: 631, no. 1829, 'Note that the assize of death does not lie between those heirs descending from a common stock, namely between uncles and nephews.' 34

154

Haskins Society Journal

absence, while Geoffrey de Say apparently lacked influential supporters. The entire episode illustrates how a curialis could use his influence and knowledge to further his fortunes, taking advantage of powerful friends at court and a knowledge of the workings of the courts and the Exchequer. If Beatrice de Say had not been married to Geoffrey Fitz Peter, her claim would hardly have been treated seriously. In none of these proceedings was anything said of the right of Geoffrey Fitz Peter's sister-in-law and Geoffrey de Say's cousin, Maud de Say. The case bears some resemblance to the late casus regis, the question of John's claim to the English crown versus that of his nephew, Arthur of Brittany, or the claim of a younger son versus his nephew, an elder son's lineal descendant who stands in his father's stead as his representative. The difference here is that the representatives of the deceased elder son are female not male. At the time Glanvill was written, c. 1187/89, the law governing descent in such cases was not yet clear. The author wrote: 'When ... anyone dies leaving a younger son and a grandson born of an eldest son, a great legal problem (iuris dubitatio) arises as to which is to be preferred to the other in that succession, namely, whether the son or the grandson.' He noted that some favored the younger son, while others felt that the grandson should be preferred to his uncle. The author of Glanvill tended toward the latter view, which accorded with strict linear succession.39 The author of Bracton also seems to have favored the grandson or granddaughter over the uncle, but he dared not say so directly because of the precedent of the casus regis; and he hesitated to suggest any legal remedy for them.40 The uncertainties of casus regis gave rise to much litigation; as J.C. Holt has written: 'Whenever the casus regis was replicated, uncle and nephew (or sometimes uncle and niece) in knightly and lesser families battled it out in the courts.' 41 The Walden Chronicle states that Geoffrey Fitz Peter offered a fine that surpassed Geoffrey de Say's offer, but the Pipe Roll records an oblation of only 3,000 marks. Geoffrey's offer for his wife's inheritance was made 'provided that he will be of such service to the lord king that it shall be in the king's pleasure whether he chooses to accept it or not.' Fitz Peter paid at once 900 marks.42 Richard Lionheart accepted Geoffrey Fitz Peter's fine, and he acknowledged Geoffrey and his wife as juste et propinquior heredes in a charter of January 1191, issued in Sicily, where he had stopped en route to the Holy Land.43 Beatrice had a younger sister, Maud, married to William de Buckland, with whom the inheritance should have been shared according to Glanvill. The lawbook discussed cases in which a tenant left no son, only daughters, but 39

Glanvill, 7:3, pp. 77-78. Bracton, fol. 64b, 2: 189; fol. 267b, 3: 283-84; fol. 374b, 4: 173-74; F. Pollock and F.W. Maitland, A History of English Law, 2 vols. (Cambridge, 1898), 2: 285. 41 'Feudal Society and the Family: III,' 20. 42 P.R. 2 Richard I, 104, 111. 43 Round, Ancient Charters, 97-98, no. 59. 40

The Mandeville Inheritance

155

nieces. Their father had died before 1185 without ever having had possession of the earldom. As seen above, according to Glanvill in cases in which more than one daughter is heir, the custom of parage should prevail: the inheritance to be divided among them, with the chief messuage going to the eldest daughter. The claims of Maud to half the inheritance were ignored however.44 The Mandeville honor with its caput at Fleshy, Essex, carried with it the title 'Earl of Essex' and the third penny of the county. The income was granted to Geoffrey promptly, but he would have to wait until the accession of King John before winning formally the title of earl.45 Apparently John girded Geoffrey with the sword of the earldom of Essex on his coronation day as reward for his support for his claim to the crown over Arthur of Brittany. 46 Geoffrey Fitz Peter paid off the balance of his debt within three years, quickly for a curialis, since royal servants in the king's favor frequently left Exchequer debts unpaid for years on end. 47 Evidently Geoffrey wanted nothing to cloud his claim to the Mandeville lands. Even with his royal charter, Geoffrey could never feel entirely secure in his possession of the earldom; and his unclear title gave King John a weapon for keeping him loyal. One of the reasons that Fitz Peter gave for seeking release from his crusading vow c. 1200-2 was his need to protect the inheritance of his young children from powerful enemies.48 Insecurity of tenure was one of the Angevins' instruments for guaranteeing loyalty and obedience from their servants, and Geoffrey Fitz Peter knew that the dormant De Say claim could be revived whenever the king sanctioned it. 49 Geoffrey de Say may have regretted that he did not follow the king to Marseilles or Messina to argue his case. He did have opportunity to complain to Richard Lionheart about the disposition of the Mandeville inheritance after it was too late, for he was in the king's company a number of times once he returned from the Holy Land. Geoffrey was among those who traveled to the captive king in Germany, accompanying him on his return to England, and he accompanied Richard on his travels about England in April 1194.50 A charter that Geoffrey Fitz Peter issued shortly after securing the Mandeville inheritance possibly sheds some additional light on those proceedings. He granted William Pointel, custodian of the Tower of London, custody of a major Mandeville tenement with the right to marry his son to the heiress in return for payment of 100 marks. This same royal agent had been custodian of 44

See supra, n. 18. Chronica Rogeri de Hovedene, ed. William Stubbs, 4 vols., R.S. (London, 1868-71), 4: 90 (hereafter cited as Roger Howden); P.R. 2 Richard I, 104. 46 Francis West, The Justiciarship in England, 1066-1232 (Cambridge, 1961), 102; Roger Howden, 4: 86-88. 47 Walter of Coventry, 2: 146. 48 The Letters of Innocent 111, 1198-1216, ed. C.R. Cheney and Mary G. Cheney (Oxford, 1967), no. 633. 49 Jolliffe, Angevin Kingship, 70. 50 Itinerary of Richard I, ed. Lionel Landon, P.R.S. n.s. 13 (1935), 80-84, 90-92. He was also with Richard at a great council in Rouen, Oct. 1197, 123. 45

156

Haskins Society Journal

the earldom of Essex for the justiciar, William Longchamp.51 Does this transaction represent Geoffrey's pay-off to one of Longchamp's cronies in return for favorable consideration of his claim to the Mandeville honor?52 Geoffrey de Say would eventually renew his campaign to win the Mandeville barony, bringing suit in 1212, probably with King John's encouragement as a means of harrassing his justiciar.53 The suit would not have been brought without royal sanction, for Geoffrey de Say did not enjoy the king's confidence. That very year he was compelled to hand over his son and heir to the king as a hostage.54 The suit was not heard until 1214 after Geoffrey Fitz Peter's death, when Geoffrey de Say's opponent was yet another Geoffrey, the justiciar's eldest son. This young man linked himself to his mother's distinguished lineage, taking the name Geoffrey de Mandeville (IV). Following his father's death in October 1213, King John installed him with the whole of the Mandeville inheritance and with his father's custodies, although he did not gird the boy with the sword of the earldom of Essex.55 This time Geoffrey de Say claimed that he and his mother, Beatrice de Say, had held the lands in the time of Henry II, but young Geoffrey de Mandeville succeeded in securing dismissal of the case on a technicality. He alleged that the original writ was invalid, 'since he [Geoffrey de Say] seeks by his writ against him [Geoffrey de Mandeville] more than he himself [Mandeville] holds;' and the justices agreed that he ought not respond to the writ, although they gave Geoffrey de Say leave to seek another writ, should he wish.56 Then in July he tried a new route, offering the king an enormous fine of 15,000 marks for recognizing that Richard I had disseized him voluntarie.51 King John had reason to distrust young Geoffrey de Mandeville and to wish to dislodge him from his powerful position as earl of Essex. Geoffrey's father-inlaw, Robert Fitz Walter, had conspired against the king and fled to France in 1212, returning in 1213 to find his castles destroyed by the king's command and by 1215 had become one of the leaders of the rebels. The king accepted Geoffrey's de Say's fine and commanded his new justiciar, Peter de Roches, to take counsel with other financial experts about how this 'might be expedited best for us.' 58

51

Thomas K. Keefe, unpublished paper, 'Two Faces of Indebtedness in Late Twelfth-Century England: Some Observations on the Pipe Roll for 1189-90.' 52 William Salt Library, MS. S.D. (Pearson), 248; I owe this reference to Thomas K. Keefe. 53 Curia Regis Rolls, 6: 270, Easter term. 54 Rotuli Litterarum Clausarum, ed. T. Duffus Hardy, 2 vols., Record Commission (London, 1833-44), 1: 124, 8 Sept. 1214 (hereafter cited as Rot. Lit. Claus.). 55 Rot. de Obi. el Fin., 502-3; 4 Nov.; Rotuli Litterarum Patentium, ed. T. Duffus Hardy, Record Commission (London, 1835), 105 (hereafter cited as Rot. Lit. Pat.); Walter of Coventry, 2: 221. 56 Curia Regis Rolls, 7: 110-11. Geoffrey de Say died sometime in 1214, succeeded by his son also named Geoffrey de Say, Rot. de Obi. et Fin., 535. 57 Rot. Lit. Claus., 1: 168b; 15 July 1214. 58 Curia Regis Rolls, 1: 110-11; also Rot. Lit. Claus., 1: 168b.

The Mandeville Inheritance

157

Young Geoffrey, wounded in a tournament, died in 1216 without any children as heirs. His younger brother, William de Mandeville, was his heir; and William had to fight off another claim to the inheritance, when Maud de Say, younger sister of Beatrice and aunt of these young Mandevilles, put in a claim for her share. This revived claim to the Mandeville inheritance was before the courts from 1217 to 1219. Maud de Say had received nothing in 1191, when Richard I had ignored parage and had granted the entire earldom to Geoffrey Fitz Peter through the right of Maud's sister Beatrice. She came before a great council in August 1217 seeking from William de Mandeville to have her right recognized to her share of the earldom, appointing as her attorney Robert de Ferrers, a brother of Earl William de Ferrers. Robert de Ferrers made homage to Maud that same day in return for her promise that a third of whatever she might gain should go to him and his heirs; in addition, she promised him that she would make no agreement concerning the lands without his counsel and assent.59 Robert de Ferrers was in fact Maud de Say's son-in-law. He had offered King John a fine of 500 marks for marrying her daughter and for having lands of the girl's father, William of Buckland, and her inheritance, saving to Maud her reasonable dower and maritagium.60 Obviously, Robert de Ferrers sought the marriage as a means of securing a claim to part of the Mandeville inheritance, and he had come to some agreement with his prospective motherin-law, who was the key to his claim. Maud de Say's suit against the earl of Essex came before the justices at Westminster in Michaelmas term 1219, only to be postponed until the next term of court, Hilary 1220.61 At that time Maud was unable to pursue her claim, since the king's council declared that it dared not give judgment concerning royal charters, presumably because the king was a minor. In the autumn of 1220 the case was again postponed, and no conclusion to the case was ever recorded.62 In 1227 William de Mandeville also died childless. The two brothers had a third brother, Henry, for whom Geoffrey Fitz Peter had chosen a clerical career, and he failed to succeed to the earldom.63 This meant that the Mandeville inheritance again passed through the female line to their sister Maud (died 1236), who had married Henry de Bohun, earl of Hereford. The vast Mandeville inheritance then passed to the Bohuns, an old baronial family. Geoffrey Fitz Peter had not succeeded in siring a long-lived dynasty that would celebrate his name for centuries. 59 Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1216-1225, 113. For Robert's relationship to the Earl, see Excerpta e Rotulis Finium, ed. Charles Roberts, Record Commission (London, 1835-36), 1: 160 (hereafter Exc. e Rot. Fin.). 60 P.R. 3 Henry III, 57; P.R. 4 Henry III, 6; Exc. e Rot. Fin., 1: 64-65. 61 Curia Regis Rolls, 8: 117. 62 Bracton's Note Book, 2: 6-8, no. 8; Curia Regis Rolls, 8: 117, 236; 9: 247. Robert de Ferrers was dead by Jan. 1226, Exc. e Rot. Fin., 1: 136. 63 Rot. Lit. Pat., 75. King John named him to a prebend at Lincoln in 1207, Fasti Ecclesiae Anglicanae, 1066-1300, 3; Lincoln, ed. Diana Greenway (London, 1977), 126-27.

158

Has kins Society Journal

The justiciar did have another son by his second wife, John Fitz Geoffrey; but John was ineligible for the Mandeville inheritance, and eligible to inherit only acquisitions his father had made in his lifetime. Distinctions between inheritance and acquired lands go back to the Leges Henrici Primi, and Glanvill too recognized that a man could give away his acquired lands as he pleased.64 A younger brother, especially a half-brother, was likely to feel that he was entitled to his father's acquisitions, since only the eldest son could succeed to the patrimony.65 Geoffrey Fitz Peter had acquired wide lands in addition to the earldom of Essex during his lifetime in royal government, and he had designated some of these for his son by his second wife, most notably the great honor of Berkhamstead.66 The tangled succession to the Mandeville earldom shows dramatically the Angevin kings resisting following the rules of inheritance that their judges were laying down for lesser lords. Following William de Mandeville's death in 1189, the male was not preferred; neither was an equal division made between female heirs. To place the story of the Mandeville inheritance in context, it is useful to examine some similar cases from the same period: from Richard I's accession through Henry Ill's early years. 1237, the date for the division of the earldom of Chester among co-heirs, seems a convenient stopping point. I have found some in which partition among co-heirs was an issue and others centering on the casus regis, or principle of representation. Since cases resembling the casus regis are less common, let us turn to them first. In 1193 a situation foreshadowing the later casus regis arose on the death of Robert de Lacy, lord of Pontefract, Yorkshire. When he died that year without heirs of his body and without any surviving brothers, the succession could be traced to descendants of an aunt, his father's sister. The nearest male heir was Roger, Constable of Chester, the great-grandson of Robert's aunt.67 Because Roger feared that his right might not be recognized, his grandmother, who was still living, agreed to release her right to him.68 A rule that Holt laid down proves true in this instance: 'The more distant the succession the more likely it was that the claimant would have to pay a heavy finis terrae or offer a high price for the good will or arbitration of the king.' 69 Roger felt it necessary in 64 Leges Henrici Primi, ed. L.J. Downer (Oxford, 1972), 224, 70, 21: 'The first-born son shall have the father's ancestral fee (feodum); the latter shall give any purchases or subsequent acquisitions of his to whomever he prefers.' Glanvill, 7:1, p. 71. 65 Holt, 'Feudal Society and the Family: III,' 19. 66 Rotuli Chartarum, ed. T. Duffus Hardy, Record Commission (London, 1837), 151b (hereafter cited as Rot. Chart.); Rot. Lit. Claus., 1: 154b; Rot. Lit. Pat., 104. 67 John T. Appleby, England without Richard, 1189-1199 (Ithaca, N.Y., 1965), 182-83; I.J. Sanders, English Baronies (Oxford, 1960), 138; W.E. Wightman, The Lacy Family in England and Normandy, 1066-1194 (Oxford, 1964), 86. 68 Early Yorkshire Charters, ed. William Farrer and Charles Travis Clay, Yorkshire Archaelogical Society Record Series and Extra Series, 12 vols. (1914-65), 3: no. 1522. 69 Holt, 'Politics and Property,' 24.

The Mandeville Inheritance

159

1195 to offer the king a 3,000-mark fine, which he paid off with remarkable speed.70 Even so, Richard I kept the castle of Pontefract in his own hand. Once King John took the crown instead of his nephew Arthur, the royal justices proceeded cautiously in such cases. Fearful of casting a shadow over the royal title, John's and Henry Ill's judges preferred to adjourn them without judgment. A case that raised questions much like the casus regis centers on the Percy honor in Yorkshire, Topcliffe. In 1175 it had descended to two sisters, Maud, wife of the earl of Warwick, and Agnes, married to Jocelin de Louvain. These two sisters died early in John's reign within a short time of one another. Agnes apparently died first in 1203, and her sister Maud's death soon followed in 1204. Since Maud left no children, next in line for the two sisters' lands were the offspring of Agnes: a grandson, William III de Percy, son of her deceased elder son; and Richard de Percy, a younger son.71 William was a minor in the custody of William Briwerre, one of King John's familiares; he later married the boy to one of his daughters. King John, instead of deciding in favor of one or the other claimant, made a division of lands following the sisters' deaths. Possibly John would have preferred to see the entire honor in the hands of his trusted companion William Briwerre, but the similarity of Richard de Percy's claim to Topcliffe to the king's own claim to his throne protected him, at least partially. 72 The king commanded the sheriff of Yorkshire to put Richard in possession of all his mother's lands and all lands in the shire that his aunt had held of the earldom of Chester, and that he should give William Briwerre, custodian of William de Percy, all Maud's lands except those held of Chester.73 This division led to a long series of legal actions, partly because of genuine uncertainty about which lands had belonged to which sister, but also because of both sides' unwillingness to accept the division. In 1212 William Briwerre brought suit against Richard de Percy for intruding on his ward's possessions. Richard offered two palfreys for an inquest to determine whether the property in question belonged to his or his nephew's inheritance, but since he could not deny that Briwerre had seizin as William de Percy's guardian, he lost his suit without the inquest ever being taken.74 In 1214 William de Percy brought suit against Richard for five of the Percy manors, which he claimed he had held while he was in William Briwerre's custody; but the case was dismissed on a technicality: he had named among the manors he sought one that he already held.75 No doubt Richard de Percy's dissatisfaction with the division contributed to his role in the rebellion against King John; he was among its leaders in the 70

P.R. 7 Richard I, 98. He was pardoned £88. Sanders, Baronies, 148; Complete Peerage, 10: 450-53; see Appendix C, infra, 171. 72 J.C. Holt, The Northerners (Oxford, 1960), 21-22. 73 Rot. Lit. Clam., 1: lib. See also P.R. 8 John, 196 (1206); P.R. 9 John, 82 (1207); William Briwerre evidently had control of Agnes' lands, but soon they were in Richard de Percy's hands. 74 Curia Regis Rolls, 6: 321. 75 Ibid., 7: 160. 71

160

Haskins Society Journal

North. William de Percy, on the other hand, saw loyalty to John as the way to win land from his uncle, and in 1214 he served with the king in Poitou.76 Richard's rebellious conduct led to seizure of his estates, which were confided to the custody of William de Percy.77 Henry Ill's counselors in May 1217 returned all Richard's land to William de Percy as his right, 'inasmuch as he is nearer heir who is in our service.' By autumn, however, Richard de Percy had returned to the king's service, and he instituted proceedings to reclaim his possessions.78 Finally, an agreement was reached in 1218 for apportionment of the lands between uncle and nephew, but that did not end the litigation, which continued until 1234.79 If the royal justices should have ruled in favor of a nephew or niece over an uncle, they would have been casting doubt on their king's claim to his crown. To avoid giving judgment in such cases, they often marked them for consultation with the king.80 Until Arthur of Brittany's sister, Eleanor, died in 1241, no English judge could have been expected to follow the representative principle.81 Bracton states that because of the casus regis similar cases could not proceed to judgment, but must remain in suspense unless the parties could reach an agreement.82 An Easter term 1235 case before Henry Ill's justices was similar to the earldom of Essex succession, a dispute between niece and uncle: Maud, daughter of Henry Hose II, versus her uncle, Matthew Hose, who was her father's younger brother.83 Matthew offered the king 70 marks for having his father's lands, claiming that he was the nearer heir; but his claim was challenged by Maud, seeking 'since she is the daughter of Henry the eldest brother ... such seizin of said lands and tenements of said Henry her grandfather as said Henry her father would have held if he had lived.' She offered the king 1,000 marks to have seizin. Matthew countered by challenging the legitimacy of her birth, questioning her parents' marriage, and restating his offer of 70 marks. The justices at Westminster accepted his smaller fine, and they ruled that he should have his seizin, a contrast with the conclusion in the Mandeville case. That was not the end of the matter, however, for the Fine Roll for 1235 records that Matthew Hose had fined with the king in April for 600 marks to have seizin of all his father's lands.84 Evidently Maud had succeeded in having 16

Rot.Lit.Claus., 1:207. Ibid., 250, 308; Holt, Northerners, 67. 78 Rot. Lit. Claus., 1: 308, 339, 360b. 79 Complete Peerage, 10: 450, n. b. 80 E.g., Pleas before the King or his Justices, ed. Doris M. Stenton, 2, Selden Society, 68 (1949): 144, no. 528; Bracton's Note Book, 3: 595, no. 1766. 81 T.F.T. Plucknett, A Concise History of the Common Law, 5th edn. (London, 1956), 718. 82 Bracton, fol. 267b, 3: 283-85; fol. 327b, 4: 46. 83 Curia Regis Rolls, 15: 361-62, no. 1409; Exc. e Rot. Fin., 1: 278, order to the sheriff of Sussex to take into the king's hand and hold until commanded otherwise, 1 April 1225. 84 Exc. e Rot. Fin., 1:279. 77

The Mandeville Inheritance

161

some right to some of her grandfather's lands recognized, for in October 1238 Henry III personally ordered Matthew Hose to return to her one carucate in Wiltshire, 'land of which Henry Hose, grandfather of said Maud, whose heir she is, was seized as of fee on the day on which he died ...,'85 Maud's persistance in her effort to win recognition as heir is remarkable. In early September 1239, she brought another action, seeking three knights' fees at Hastings from Matthew, maintaining once more that she was her grandfather's heir. Matthew raised several extraneous issues to avoid replying to his niece's writ, but without success. Matthew then argued that he had the greatest right because he was the astrarius, or hearth-child, the younger son still at home at the time of his father's death. Maud's response was a statement of the representative principle: Henry her father was her grandfather's eldest son and heir, and the lands should descend to her as eldest daughter and heir of her deceased father. At this point Henry III commanded that the case be removed from the justices at Westminster to his court coram rege.*6 Unfortunately no conclusion to the case is recorded. Several adjournments of days assigned for taking their chirograph hint, however, that the case was settled by a compromise.87 Cases that raised the issue of the casus regis included then fines by the parties, hesitation by the justices, and frequent intervention by the king. Cases concerning partition among heiresses were more likely to go forward without difficulty, but they could offer opportunity for royal intervention in order to favor one of the king's friends. I.J. Sanders' compendium of baronies reveals 37 between the accession of Richard I in 1189 and 1237 that required division among co-heirs. Unfortunately, Sanders' recitation of genealogies often leaves an impression of smooth successions, but a glance beneath the surface can reveal previously undetected royal interventions. A far from thorough examination of the circumstances indicates some royal intervention, at least the king's acceptance of a large oblation, in 45% (17 out of 37) of the cases.88 Thirty-two percent (12 out of 37) of these took place between the deaths of Henry II and John. In few instances would the king be so bold as Richard I was in the Mandeville case. He would rarely ignore entirely an heiress's claim, but he might delay a long time handing the land over, make an unequal distribution, or require a hefty fine. For example, in 1217 following the death of the lord of Odell, each of his sisters offered £100 as fine and relief for half the barony.89 Remember that this is after Magna Carta had fixed £100 as the proper relief for a whole barony. Some cases are worth examining for comparison with the Mandeville one. 85

CR, 1237-1242, 148. Curia Regis Rolls, 16: 183-84, no. 959. 87 Ibid., 16: 267, no. 1410; 304, no. 1572; 356, no. 1762; 359, no. 1779. 88 Baronies: Bulwick, Burgh by Sands, Cavendish, Great Torrington, earldom of Chester, honor of Leicester, Odell, Fleshy, Southoe, Stainton la Vale, and West Dean. Probable baronies: Egremont and Papcastle, Lavendon, Hepple, Odcombe, Pontefract, Stogursey. 89 P.R. 2 Henry III, 63. 86

162

Haskins Society Journal

In several instances of royal interference in partition among co-heirs, William Briwerre was a central character. He was a novus homo similar to Geoffrey Fitz Peter in background, who won wide lands through his skill as an administrator for Richard I and John.90 Uncertainties about the law of inheritance, coupled with royal favoritism and heirs' financial difficulties, enabled him to come into possession of some baronial holdings. Perhaps the most blatant example of royal refusal to recognize the custom concerning co-heirs is the case of John de Bidun's sisters. When John died sometime before 1185, he left five sisters as his heirs to his honor of Lavendon (Bucks).91 An entry on the Memoranda Roll for King John's first year is revealing; it reads, 'It is said that five sisters are sharers in the land of John de Bidun and none of them returns John's debt, and it is found on the roll that the same John had several debts.'92 I could find no record of debts on earlier Pipe Rolls, other than a few pounds for scutages. In April 1204, King John conferred the five and a half fees that comprised the honor on William Briwerre with the sisters' husbands to hold of him rather than in-chief of the king.93 Apparently, John felt justified in doing this because of John de Bidun's unpaid debts. Another case by which William Briwerre managed to win a barony was the succession to the honor of Odcombe (Som. and Devon). Walter Brito III died in 1199, leaving as his heirs two sisters.94 The son of one of the sisters, Walter Croc, had his right challenged soon afterwards. Walter Croc offered a 200mark fine to have an assize of mort d'ancestor to settle his succession to half of Walter Brito's holdings.95 His opponent made an oblation of double that sum to have, instead, an inquest into whether or not his father had been disseized unjustly by King Henry II.96 The assize went forward, and the jurors swore that Walter Brito had died seized of his barony and that Walter Croc was his nearest heir. Somehow, Walter was persuaded promptly to surrender his half of the honor to King John for William Briwerre's son, Richard Briwerre, to hold in-chief of the king. William made certain that Walter's concession was recorded on the Pipe Roll.97 Two years later, William Briwerre won royal consent to take the other half of the honor for his son as part of a 500-mark fine that he was offering for other favors. The husband of Brito's other sister came to the curia regis and conceded her half to William.98 Many 90

See my biographical sketch in chapter 4 in Men Raised From the Dust. P.R. 30 Henry II, 108; Rot. de Dominabus, 43, 45; xlii-xliii. 92 Mem. Roll Uohn, 64-65. 93 The five husbands were Henry de Clinton, Miles and Richard de Beauchamp, Geoffrey Fitz Geoffrey, and Adulf de Gatesden, Rot. Lit. Pat., 41; RBE, 1: 137, 173. See Rot. de Obi. et Fin., 145, 149, 151, for holdings of the sisters' husbands in 1201. 94 Painter, King John, 78; Sanders, Baronies, 132. 95 Pipe Roll 1 John, 238; Rot. de Obi. et Fin., 10. 96 Pipe Roll 1 John, 128; Rot. de Obi. et Fin., 23, 171. Apparently John de Montacute, who brought the action, was an under-tenant, Curia Regis Rolls, 1: 139, Trinity 1200. See a plea of service between John and William Briwerre, Curia Regis Rolls, 12: 115, no. 577. 97 Pipe Roll 2 John, 99-100; Rot. de Obi. et Fin., 184, part of Briwerre's acquisition of the daughters of Hugh de Morvill. 91

The Mandeville Inheritance

163

years afterwards, jurors in an inquisition post mortem recalled what had actually happened; they declared that these lands 'had been alienated from their just heirs through the power of Lord William Briwerre the elder.'99 Whatever jurors of a later generation thought of William's dealings with Walter Croc, the two men remained close, perhaps due to Walter's financial indiscretions. Around 1213 Walter granted Briwerre his land at Draycote (Wilts.) in return for a cash payment and service of two knights.100 Walter Croc had problems with debts. In 1220 he sought to escape paying a 135-mark debt to a moneylender by entering a house of religion.101 At the time of his separation from the secular world, his heir was his brother who renounced his inheritance in favor of his son, whom the king promptly placed in William Briwerre's custody.102 Had Walter's earlier surrender of his inheritance to Briwerre been another attempt to escape creditors? I shall conclude with a wonderfully complicated inheritance, more complex than that of Geoffrey de Mandeville III, that of a predecessor in the justiciarship, Richard de Lucy (d. 1179). Uncertainties about succession to his properties continued into Henry Ill's reign, due to the number of daughters and granddaughters who outlived male heirs, bringing into play the principle of parage. Both Geoffrey Fitz Peter and William Briwerre became involved in the complexities, seeking to profit from them. Geoffrey de Lucy, eldest son of the justiciar Richard, had predeceased him, and Geoffrey's two sons then died in turn without direct heirs early in Richard I's reign. This left as claimants to the Lucy legacy the daughters of Geoffrey de Lucy, Rose (d.1214) and Maud. To complicate matters more, these two girls had three aunts, daughters of Richard de Lucy whose descendants also would claim portions of the Lucy lands.103 And to complicate things even more, the Lucy family proved remarkably unimaginative in its choice of names; the names Rose and Maud, Geoffrey and Richard recur over and over. Richard de Lucy had inherited from his father several fees in Norfolk, Suffolk, and Kent, plus other fees in Normandy. 104 His chief holding and caput of all his lands, however, was the honor of Ongar, which he created for himself. It consisted of some fees as far away as Cornwall. The Lucy barony

98

Pipe Roll 4 John, 256, Richard de Hescombe. Calendar of Inquisitions Post Mortem, Public Record Office, 12 vols. (London, 1904-38), 1: 191, no. 597, following the death of Joan Briwerre. 100 P.R.O., DL 42/2, fol. 200d. 101 Curia Regis Rolls, 8: 135, Michaelmas 1219; 9: 259, Hilary 1220. His creditor was William de St. Michael. Earlier in 1216, he had lost land because of debts to the Jews, Rot. Lit. Claus., 1: 272b. 102 Exc. e Rot. Fin., 1: 41; P.R.O. SC 1/1, no. 184. 103 See J.H. Round, The Heirs of Richard de Lucy,' The Genealogist 15 (1906): 129-33; and The Honour of Ongar,' Transactions of the Essex Archaelogical Society n.s. 7 (1900): 142-52; see Appendix D, infra, 174. 104 RBE, 1: 351-52; 2: 639. His Kent estates included the manor of Lesnes (or Westwood or Erith), half of which he used to endow his abbey of Lesnes. 99

164

Haskins Society Journal

was carved out of three other honors, not held in-chief of the king.105 This honor fell into the hand of Richard de Lucy's second son, Godfrey, bishop of Winchester, to hold as his nephews' guardian.106 The picture is murky because Godfrey held some Lucy lands by his own right of inheritance.107 Since so much of Richard de Lucy's lands consisted of acquisitions, he could have given portions to his younger son and daughters as he chose. In 1194 King Richard I quarrelled with Godfrey de Lucy, and he disseized the bishop of his guardianship of the honor of Ongar. Following Godfrey's fall from royal favor, the widowed Rose de Lucy, now known by her husband's toponymic as Rose of Dover, sought half the honor as her right. She offered the king a fine of £700 to have half her grandfather's honor and for freedom to remarry as she pleased.108 She paid £200 at once, but soon fell behind in her payments and evidently failed to secure seizin. The king then handed over that part of the honor centered in Essex to Geoffrey de Lascelles, who married Rose's sister Maud. He was the son of the seneschal of Poitou, who had come to England with his brother in 1190 to enter Richard I's service.109 By 1206, Geoffrey de Lascelles had either died fighting in Normandy or had remained there after its fall to the French; and custody of Ongar had passed to the justiciar, Geoffrey Fitz Peter.110 The remaining Lucy lands somehow passed once again into the hands of Godfrey de Lucy, bishop of Winchester. Early in John's reign he was holding the Cornwall fees plus land in Essex and the honor of Lesnes (Kent). The bishop of Winchester's death in 1204 reopened the question of the Lucy inheritance. Lawsuits from early Henry III give different versions of what had happened. In one of these suits the tenant of the manor of Lesnes, Richard de Montfichet, grandson of one of Godfrey's sisters, maintained that on the bishop's death Lesnes had passed to his three sisters to hold in proparte sororum, that is, sharing as co-heirs. The claimants, however, held that 105 Round, 'Ongar,' 142, for fees of the honor of Boulogne, of the earldoms of Gloucester and Cornwall. 106 P.R. 1 Richard I (Record Commission edition), 20; P.R. 2 Richard I (P.R.S.), 104; P.R. 6 Richard I, xxi-xxii, 24, 28. 107 See Curia Regis Rolls, 8: 25-26, for a claim that Godfrey had held hi& father's barony of Lesnes, Kent, by inheritance. 108 P.R. 6 Richard I, 250. She had been married to John of Dover, baron of Chilham, Kent, Sanders, Baronies, 111. 109 P.R. 2 Richard I, 4, Geoffrey de Lascelles and his brother, Charles, came to England from overseas. P.R. 7 Richard I, 217, he has Ongar; also P.R. 8 Richard I, 111; P.R. 9 Richard I, 63; P.R. 10 Richard 1, 126; P.R. 1 John, 86; P.R. 2 John, 37; P.R. 3 John, 58; P.R. 4 John, 259; P.R. 5 John, 123. For the honor of Gloucester's fees, see P.R. 1 John, 37; P.R. 4 John, 283; P.R. 5 John, 83; P.R. 6 John, 231; P.R. 7 John, 104. For Cornwall fees, see P.R. 8 Richard I, 142; P.R. 1 John, 186; P.R. 5 John, 83; P.R. 6 John, 40-41. Pipe Rolls for Richard I also mention a William de Lascelles, who held land in Cumberland and of the honor of Peverel of Nottingham. 110 P.R. 8 John, 19. Geoffrey de Lascelles disappears from the Pipe Rolls after this entry. Victoria History of the County of Essex, ed. W.R. Powell (London, 1956), 4: 160n. suggests that he was killed in the fighting in Normandy.

The Mandeville Inheritance

165

Godfrey de Lucy could only have held the land as custodian for his nieces.111 Later it was stated that Godfrey had handed over his holdings to Robert Fitz Walter, son of his sister Maud - not to be confused with his niece Maud - and to Gilbert de Montfichet, husband of another of his sisters.112 Following the bishop's death, his nephew, Robert Fitz Walter, was apparently recognized as his heir; and the knight-service owed to Godfrey in Cornwall and in Kent had gone to him. 113 This is the same Robert Fitz Walter who was young Geoffrey de Mandeville's father-in-law! William Briwerre gained custody of some of the lands that Bishop Godfrey had held before his death. 114 Rose of Dover, upon her episcopal uncle's death in 1204, saw an opportunity to revive her struggle to secure her grandfather's lands; but still widowed, she fell into William Briwerre's custody. He offered King John 800 marks for Rose's custody, for her son's custody, and for right to the boy's marriage. 115 The next year, 1205, Rose remarried without royal permission, and she offered 100 marks and two palfreys to have her dower lands. 116 Two years after that fine, in 1207, she gave the king £100, paid the balance of her £700 fine and also the balance of her 100-mark oblation that he should return to her and her new husband the Lucy barony which her brothers had once held, and which ought to descend to her by hereditary right. Briwerre was Rose's pledge for her new £100 offering, and he witnessed King John's writ to the sheriffs. 117 Rose and her custodian, William Briwerre, began to cooperate in an attempt to win the Lucy lands still held by Robert Fitz Walter. By now they were connected still more closely, for Briwerre married one of his daughters to Rose's son. 118 Robert Fitz Walter's quarrel with King John meant that Rose's chances improved markedly, and in October 1212 the king commanded that all the Lucy lands held by Robert Fitz Walter be turned over to William Briwerre.! 19 The next month the king granted Rose half the Lucy barony. That same day she and her new husband granted to William Briwerre the service of all her eleven knights in Cornwall, which he would hold of her.120 Painter concluded, 'Thus Rose recovered her inheritance at the expense of giving most of it to William Briwerre as a fief.'121 In all this no mention was made of Rose's sister 111

Curia Regis Rolls, 8: 25-26. Bracton's Note Book, 3: no. 1764, dated 1227. 113 Rot. Lit. Claus., 1: 14; RBE, 1: 161; 2: 539, P.R. 13 John, 160, Cornwall, 'Heirs of Richard de Lucy owe 20 marks, but Robert Fitz Walter is quit by king's writ.' Round, 'Heirs of Richard de Lucy,' 132, says that Robert was named by Godfrey heir to Diss (Norf). n * Rot. Lit. Claus., 1: 8b. 115 Rot. de Obi. et Fin., 229; but 321-22, the fine appears as 800 marks; P.R. 7 John, 117. Rose's son was Fulbert II de Dover. 116 P.R. 7 John, 195; Rot. de Obi. et Fin., 261-62, 267. She married Nicholas Fitz Adam. William Briwerre was to have the autumn harvest, however. ni Rot.de Obi. et Fin., 4\4. 118 Sanders, Baronies, 111. Young Fulbert d.s.p. ante 1212. 119 Rot. Lit. Claus., 1: 125, 5 Oct. 120 Rot. Lit. Claus., 1: 126b, 127; Rot. Chart., p. 189, 190; P.R.O. DL 10/61, 10/63; DL 42/2, fol. 225. 112

166

Haskins Society Journal

Maud. No doubt Rose allied with William Briwerre in order to avoid sharing the inheritance with her sister or her heirs. Rose of Dover died sometime before July 1214, by which time her heir, Fulbert of Dover II, her son by her first husband had also died. This left as her heir a granddaughter, also named Rose, married to King John's illegitimate son, Richard Fitz Regis. Half the honor of Ongar should have gone to Rose of Dover's sister, Maud, or her descendants in accord with the principle of parage, but it is unlikely that she received her full share at once. In January 1214 the honor of Ongar was in the king's hand. Richard de Rivers then offered a £500 fine for his marriage to Maud, 'Lady of Ongar,' and for all her lands including the castle of Ongar.122 This Maud must be a niece of Rose of Dover, daughter of her sister Maud.123 Did he offer this sum because Rose had just died, and Maud could claim the Lucy legacy? On 11 July 1214, however, the king commanded that his bastard son be given all his wife, Rose II's, inheritance.124 Nonetheless later lawsuits link the two women together as co-sharers of Richard de Lucy's inheritance.125 Accounts of scutages of 1230 show Maud de Lucy holding three fees in Essex, plus 20!/2 fees of Ongar outside Cornwall, and 9l/2 within Cornwall.126 It is difficult to say what was left for Rose II of Dover, unless the remaining Lucy lands in Kent and East Anglia.127 Rose II and Richard Fitz Regis pursued other Lucy possessions in suits against the descendants of Richard de Lucy's daughters.128 What can all these recitations of descents of estates tell us about law, government, and society in Angevin England? According to Robert Palmer, Henry II's reforms concerning landed inheritance had grown out of 'immediate political-military problems.' The king wished to make it more likely that his magnates would find their tenants' land descending to minor sons, widows, or daughters, reducing their military strength.129 Given the risks of life in the 121

King John, 76. Rot. Lit. Obi., 517-18; P.R. 16 John, l\,P.R. 17 John, 16, he owed scutage on three fees in Ongar and Stanford. 123 Complete Peerage 11: 12, makes the Maud who married Richard de Rivers the daughter of Maud, daughter of Geoffrey de Lucy. It also makes her the widow of Geoffrey de Lascelles, although it seems more likely that she was his daughter by Maud de Lucy. Round, 'Honour of Ongar,' 130, does not include this extra Maud in his genealogy. 124 Rot. Lit. Pat., 118b. 125 Curia Regis Rolls, 9: 227; 13: 271, no. 2703; 14: 186, no. 919; also Br-acton's Note Book, 2: no. 476, 4!^ acres at Newington, Kent. In the first case, Maud is described as 'sister and heir' of Herbert and Geoffrey (?) de Lucy; in the second, she and Maud are described more accurately as 'sisters and heirs' of Herbert and Richard, sons of Geoffrey de Lucy. 126 P.R. 14 Henry HI, 135, 138. Curia Regis Rolls, 13: 471-72, no. 2213, Trinity term 1229, Maud de Lucy.won advowson of the church at Ongar. 127 Rot. Lit. Claus., 1: 230, Oct. 1215, the king gave his son Richard that land in Newington which had been Geoffrey de Lucy's and which belongs to Richard's wife by hereditary right. Curia Regis Rolls, 13: 84, no. 366, shows Rose and Richard holding a manor in Essex. 128 Robert Fitz Walter, Richard de Montfichet, and Richard de Umfraville, Curia Regis Rolls, 8: 25-26; 11: 77-78, no. 416; 12: 23-24, no. 136; Bracton's Note Book, 3: no. 1764. 129 'Origins of Property,' 16-19. 122

The Mandeville Inheritance

167

twelfth and thirteenth centuries, that was quite likely anyway. This recounting of so many genealogies shows clearly that the concept of lignage could not have been so strong in England as Georges Duby thinks that it was on the Continent simply because English lineages were not long-lived enough. We have just recalled the division among heiresses of the honor that Richard de Lucy put together. Geoffrey Fitz Peter's earldom eventually passed to a daughter, even though he had three sons. William Briwerre's patchwork of lands had to be parceled among his five daughters, when his sons failed to produce sons. Henry and his successors certainly insisted on more freedom of action than they wanted to allow their barons. The king might choose to honor strict rules of hereditary succession or not, depending on what man - or woman - the chances of heredity threw up as heir, and depending on whether or not he wished to keep an honor intact. When lordships descended to daughters, the king usually allowed equal division among them to proceed, though not always. Only occasionally was one daughter's right ignored. He had more freedom of action in instances of lateral inheritance, as in the rival claims of Beatrice de Say and her cousin, Geoffrey de Say. Often genuine uncertainty gave scope for royal intervention. The question of descent to a younger son or to the son of a deceased elder son was a tangled one, with or without the precedent of the casus regis. In such doubtful situations, rights of heirs other than undoubted legitimate offspring were not absolute, and considerations other than strict hereditary claims might move the king. Financial inducements such as large fines, need for estates with which to reward faithful curiales, or political considerations such as a wish to prevent a baron from building up too much power, weighed more heavily than purely legal factors in deciding such matters. Rarely were such decisions made by the professional justices who presided over the assizes. These were made by a political process, consultations with counselors of varied ranks and titles, or by a financial process, negotiations for fines at the Exchequer. Clearly the monarch saw uncertainty of succession as an opportunity to find estates with which to reward royal familiares, such as Geoffrey Fitz Peter or William Briwerre. Or, more likely, they saw the opportunity first and then persuaded the king to favor their cause. The role of custodians cannot be overlooked in all this; curiales were eager bidders for custodies of minor heirs. Geoffrey Fitz Peter had an opportunity to obtain the earldom of Essex because he first obtained custody of Matilda de Say, and he lost little time in making her his wife. William Briwerre played a prominent part in the Rose of Dover case because he was her guardian, and probably he was financing her claim. Such new men's aggressiveness at law may have contributed to baronial distrust of them as 'raised from the dust.' The uncertainties surrounding the Mandeville lands made it possible for Richard I to reward a capable curialis, accepting Geoffrey Fitz Peter as heir in preference to Geoffrey de Say, and ignoring any claims of Maud de Say. King

168

Haskins Society Journal

John enjoyed Geoffrey's uncertainty of seizin as a means for keeping him dependent, allowing challenges to his claim to surface. Henry Ill's counselors continued to entertain challenges to the Fitz Peter family's right, yet their rivals, Geoffrey and Maud de Say, never succeeded in making good their claim. Heritability of baronies by women, coupled with feudal rights of wardship and marriage, gave the monarch a valuable resource for rewarding his familiares. Division among heiresses gave him added pieces of land with which to reward his servants, while preventing any one of them from getting too large an amount. A recent study of succession to baronies under Henry III takes note of his use of heiresses for marriages to members of his family and to foreign friends and of the concern this caused the baronage.130 Since I find myself now a historian of bureaucrats, royal financial advantage and patronage opportunities come to my mind most readily as reasons for the king's intervention in the succession of honors. I think that the initiative often came from curiales. No doubt cutting potentially over-mighty aristocrats down to size, reducing their military resources, sometimes motivated the monarch. A look at the fall of the earldom of Chester into the king's hand following the deaths of Ranulf de Blundeville and John the Scot in 1232 and 1237 illustrates well enough such a motive. A recent study of the litigation following the two earl's deaths concludes, 'The rights of collateral heirs were often regarded as negotiable rather than demonstrable in the thirteenth century ,...'131 Old landed families had some basis for their fears that the Angevin kings were trampling underfoot their lawful rights of inheritance. They had as much to fear from rapacious royal servants. Enjoying easy access to the king, his familiares secured custodies of co-heirs, either married them or married them off to their offspring, and launched lawsuits to add as much of the inheritance as possible to their families' holdings. Florida State University

130

Scott L. Waugh, 'Marriage, Class, and Royal Lordship,' 199-205. Richard Bales, 'Henry III and the End of the Norman Earldom of Chester,' in ThirteenthCentury England, Proceedings of the Newcastle upon Tyne Conference, 1985, ed. P.R. Cross and S.D. Lloyd (Woodbridge, Suff., 1986), 100-12. 131

169

The Mandeville Inheritance

Appendix A Genealogical Chart: The Mandevilles Geoffrey de Mandeville I

William de Mandeville (d.1130)

Geoffrey de Mandeville II (d. 1144)

Beatrice (d. 1144)

created earl of Essex by King Stephen

m. William de Say

Geoffrey de Mandeville III (d. 1166)

William de Mandeville (d. 1189)

William de Say (d. 1177)

Geoffrey de Say (d. 1214)

earl of Essex

m. Hawise, countess of Aumale

m. Alice dau. and coheir of William de Chesney

m, (1) Alice, dau. of Hugh de Maminot, of West Greenwich, Kent (2) Alice, dau. of Aubrey de Vere, earl of Oxford (3) Alice, dau. of Henry of Essex, of Rayleigh

Beatrice (d. 1197)

Matilda (d. 1222)

m. Geoffrey fitz Peter

m. William of Buckland (d.ante 1216)

Geoffrey de Mandeville IV

William de Mandeville

Joan

m. (1) Maud, dau. of Robert fitz Walter (2) Isabel, countess of Gloucester

m. Christine, dau. of Robert fitz Walter

m. Robert de Ferrers

Geoffrey de Say II (d. 1230?) m. Margery, dau. of William Briwerre

170

Haskins Society Journal

Appendix B Genealogical Chart: Fitz Peter

Peter, forester of Ludgershall m. Matilda (m. [2] Hugh of Buckland)

Robert (d. 1187?)

Simon fitz Peter?

Geoffrey fitz Peter (d. 1213) i— m. (1) Beatrice de Say (d. ante April 1197 (2) Avelina, dau. of Richard de Clare, earl of Hereford

Geoffrey de Mandeville IV (d. 1216)

William de Mandeville (d. 1227)

m. (1) Matilda, dau. of Robert fitz Walter (2) Isabel, countess of Gloucester (ex-wife of King John)

m. Christine, dau. of Robert fitz Walter

Henry

Matilda (d. 1236)

cleric

m. (1) Henry de Bohun, earl of Hereford

John fitz Geoffrey (d. 1258) m. Isabel, dau. of Hugh Bigod, earl of Norfolk

John fitz John (d. 1275)

(2) Roger de Dauntsey

Ha wise

Cecily

The Mandeville Inheritance

171

Appendix C Genealogical Chart: The Percies of Topcliff, Yorks.

William II de Percy (d. 1174/5)

Maude (d.s.p. 1204)

Agnes (d. 1203)

m. William de Newburgh, earl of Warwick (d.s.p. 1184)

m. Jocelin de Louvain (d. 1180)

Henry de Percy (d. 1198) m. Isabel de Brus

William III de Percy (came of age 1218;d. 1245) m. Joan, dau. of William Briwerre

Richard de Percy (d.s.p. 1244)

172

Haskins Society Journal

Appendix D Genealogical Chart: Lucy

Richard de Lucy (d. 1179)

Walter, abbot of Battle

m. Rose

Gee ffrey Godfrey (d.c. 1171/73) . . . bishop of Winchester (d. 1204)

Richard (d.s.p. ante

i Herbert

1194)

Rose of Dover II m. Richard fitz Regis (illegitimate son of King John)

Ma ud.

Al ice

Ave lina

m. Walter fitz Robert of Du nmow

m. Odinel de Umfraville (d 1188)

m. Gilbert de Montfichet

Ro bert fitz Walter

Robe rt de Umfraville (d 1190/94)

Ric: lard de Montfichet

Rich ard de Umfraville (d. 1226)

Rici lard de Montfichet

I Rose (d. 1214)

M; ud

m. (l)Fulbertde Dover II (d. 1205) (2) Nicholas fitz Alan

m. (1) Geoffrey de Lascelles (2) Richard de Rivers

L__

1 n Maud

| Fulbert III Richard (d.s.p. ante 1212)

m. Isabel, dau. of William Briwerre

14

Intertwined Careers: Hubert de Burgh and Peter des Roches Fred A. Cazel, Jr.

In the year 1237 the papal legate to England, Cardinal Otto, counted as one of his achievements that he made peace between the aged enemies, Hubert de Burgh and Peter des Roches, and their partisans.1 It was none too soon since Peter died the next year and both were spent forces in the political life of England. But for nearly forty years their rivalry, reaching to deadly enmity, had been a major feature of the English political scene, as they became the spokesmen for two conflicting tendencies in government; the leaders of what amounted to two political parties among the small political elite. Both were thoroughly loyal to the Angevin kings, from whom they sought advancement through royal service; but Hubert de Burgh was an Englishman with a deep respect for the law, one who could accept and abide by the Charters of Liberties. Peter des Roches, on the other hand, was a Frenchman, who put the interests and power of the king and his government above the law of the realm. Each had his friends and allies who modified his actions, but no one, except perhaps the king, so affected the lives of each as did the other of these two rivals. Both appear on the historical record in the reign of Richard I and were, therefore, probably born about 1170. Though more is known about Hubert's family than about Peter's, both appear to belong to the first generation of their lineages to reach greatness. Both were brought up in the profession of arms and both knew and were known throughout the Angevin empire from their youth. Both shared many of the experiences, tastes, and values of their generation; but their similarities only emphasize their differences, their rivalry, and their enmity, which so radically shaped their careers as they intertwined.2 So far as we know, their rivalry began in 1199. Hubert had been in Prince John's entourage since early in the 1190s, and by 1198 he was chamberlain of the count of Mortain. When John became king he made Hubert his royal chamberlain. Peter had been employed in King Richard's Chamber for at least two years as the receiver, a very responsible office. Nominally Hubert was 1

Chron. Maj., 3: 403-404. This paper is derived from two doctoral dissertations submitted to The Johns Hopkins University, the subjects of which were provided by Professor Sidney Painter: mine on 'Hubert de Burgh' (1948) and that of James P. Barefield, 'The King's Bishop: The Career of Peter des Roches in the Royal Administration, 1197-1216' (1967). 2

174

Haskins Society Journal

Peter's superior for the next five years, but while Hubert kept the title of chamberlain till 1207, he was rarely to be found acting in Chamber business.3 John had need of trusted knights like Hubert away from court: he was sent to the Welsh Marches to hunt down Fulk Fitz Warin; he was sent to Portugal to negotiate a marriage for John (though the king found his own bride soon after his embassy departed); he was made sheriff of several counties and given custody of their castles; above all, when John captured Arthur and the Lusignans in 1202, a number of the prisoners were entrusted to Hubert's keeping, mostly in his English castles, but Arthur in his own custody at Falaise in Normandy. When John took Arthur away to Rouen and his disappearance, Hubert was sent to Chinon to hold this key to the Loire valley against Philip Augustus. Hubert did so until 1205, when he was captured and held for a huge ransom.4 Meanwhile Peter had become the royal chamberlain in all but the title and had made himself John's trusted and beloved servant. He was rewarded with the priory of Loches in 1199, the treasurership of Poitiers in 1201, and with the rich bishopric of Winchester in 1204. This last office was disputed and Peter had to go to Rome to plead confirmation by the pope. There he so far impressed the redoubtable Innocent III that, despite his lack of learning, he was consecrated by the pope himself. Peter never let the popes or the other English bishops forget this signal distinction. While Hubert was languishing in captivity, Peter was establishing himself as a leader of the English hierarchy and as a leading royal counsellor.5 During John's great conflict with the church from 1206 to 1213, which resulted in an interdict and then in the excommunication of the king, Peter and the bishop of Norwich were the only bishops who stayed in England. Peter claimed a papal indult to stay and advise the king to make peace with the church. Certainly he continued to attend the king and to advise him. When peace was at last made, it was in Peter's cathedral that John was absolved. Peter's ability to straddle the fence had its reward in 1214 when John named him chief justiciar. From April to October of that year, while John led his army to the Continent, Peter was regent of England. Unfortunately his authoritarian views of both his and the royal office caused much complaint. The opposition to John's government, which Archbishop Stephen Langton was carefully building up in John's absence, was well-served by Peter.6 During this decade from 1205 to 1215, while Peter soared to new heights, Hubert was working his way out of eclipse. John seems to have suspected him of some 3

On the Chamber in John's reign, see T.F. Tout, Chapters in the Administrative History of Medieval England, 6 vols. (Manchester, 1920-32), 1: 158-63; J.E.A. Jolliffe, 'The Chamber and the Castle Treasuries under King John' in Studies in Medieval History Presented to P.M. Powicke, eds. R.W. Hunt, W.A. Pantin, and R.W. Southern (Oxford, 1948): 117-42. 4 The only detailed biography is that of Clarence Ellis, Hubert de Burgh: A Study in Constancy (London, 1952), though it is based on printed sources only, as is also Michael Weiss, "The Castellan: the Early Career of Hubert de Burgh,' Viator 5 (1974): 235-52. 5 The only scholarly account of Peter's career as yet in print is that by W.E. Rhodes in the Dictionary of National Biography, 15: 942-46. 6 Ibid.

Hubert de Burgh and Peter des Roches

175

kind of malfeasance in the surrender of Chinon and refused to help him with his ransom. Indeed the king reclaimed all of the castle custodies and shrievalties, as well as most of the lands he had given Hubert. But after John visited Poitou in 1206, he changed his attitude toward his old retainer; Hubert was allowed to recover his honor of Camel and custody of the honor of Beauchamp, he was given the shrievalty of Lincoln in 1208, and in 1210-11, the marriage of the heiress to the barony of Wormegay. From 1208, moreover, he was largely employed by John in Poitou, and in 1214 he was made seneschal of that province, acting as John's second in command during the royal expedition of that year. When the king returned to England, Hubert remained in Poitou as viceroy; in later years he was remembered as a firm governor, not afraid to hang noble malefactors.7 In 1215, when John surrendered to the demands of the barons that he issue a charter of liberties, both Peter, bishop of Winchester, and Hubert de Burgh, seneschal of Poitou, were listed among the king's men who advised him to issue it. But before the meeting at Runnymede ended, Hubert de Burgh had been promoted to the office of chief justiciar of England. 8 He was clearly a compromise candidate, a man who had long served John and was his loyal knight, but also a man who could be trusted by the baronial leaders to be fair and just in his administration of the kingdom. Perhaps, above all, he was English and shared the political values of the English baronage as John and Peter des Roches did not. Hubert had little time to make his mark on the government before the war resumed. He was then given charge in East Anglia, where he came from, and in Kent, where he took personal command of Dover castle. There he repelled two sieges by Louis of France as well as an attempt to buy his surrender. He also commanded the English fleet that won the battle of Sandwich, the event that determined Louis to seek a graceful way out of England. Bishop though he was, Peter des Roches did not hesitate to make use of his military training during the war. He was one of the royalist commanders at the so-called 'fair of Lincoln,' that great victory over the baronial and French forces. The fair of Lincoln caused Louis to raise the second siege of Dover and made possible Hubert's command at Sandwich, but Hubert's constancy at Dover and his courage at Sandwich far outshone Peter's military exploits.9 John's death in October 1216 necessitated a regency during the minority of his son, the young Henry III. The papal legate, Guala, representative of the realm's papal suzerain, recognized the need for an English regent and persuaded 7

Ellis, Hubert de Burgh, 19-23, but cf. Weiss, 'The Castellan,' 245-50. On Hubert as governor, see Royal and Other Historical Letters Illustrative of the Reign of Henry 111, ed. W.W. Shirley, 2 vols. R.S. (London, 1862-66), 1: 94-96. 8 Magna Carta, preamble; Chron. Maj., 6: 65 (Hubert's defense against the king's charges in 1239). 9 Ellis, Hubert de Burgh, 28-45; Sidney Painter, William Marshal, Knight Errant, Baron, and Regent of England (Baltimore, 1933), 214^22; F.W. Brooks, English Naval Forces, 1197-1272 (London, 1962), 217-20.

176

Haskins Society Journal

the aged but universally respected William Marshal to accept the task. At first the Marshal used the title of justiciar, but then the magnates adopted a general rule that all of John's officers should retain their offices and emoluments until the young king came of age. Thus the Marshal took the title of 'Ruler of the King and the Kingdom' and Hubert continued to be justiciar, although, as he later said, he 'was not able to exercise the office of justiciar throughout the war.'10 Only when peace was made, in September 1217, was it possible to reestablish the royal government to any real degree. The Exchequer and the Bench both began operation in November, and Hubert took his rightful place at their first sessions.11 During the following year and a half he was only rarely to be found at Westminster; rather he appears to have been busy enforcing the king's peace in the countryside, especially in the vital eastern counties. Peter des Roches, on the other hand, was assiduous in attendance at the Exchequer, and, when the young king's Great Seal was struck in November 1218, he was the most frequent witness to its use after only the Marshal himself.12 Peter also had won the personal custody of the young king with responsibility for his upbringing. These were critical years in the struggle for power between the rivals; doubtless both were seeking to build up political support against the day when the Marshall should lay down the regency. That day came in April 1219, but because the Marshal knew how divided and jealous the rivals were, he handed over the king and the kingdom to the papal legate, now Pandulf.13 The legate sought to seize control of the machinery of royal government, but was frustrated in this endeavor by an alliance of Hubert and Peter, with the result that the regency was actually exercised by a triumvirate of Pandulf, Peter, and Hubert.14 Pandulf presided, Peter controlled the person of the king, and Hubert headed the administration. The more important decisions they made in concert. The good of the king and the kingdom united them in a most unusual degree of cooperation despite their rivalry. The jealousies that the Marshal knew to be so great, were kept under control, if not forgotten. When the truce with France was renewed in 1220, both Hubert and Peter were guarantors along with the archbishop of Canterbury and the earls of Warenne and Salisbury.15 In 1221 Peter lost his custody of the young king. Deprived of his base .of power, Peter took leave of the court, went on a pilgrimage variously reported as being to Santiago or to Rome, and upon 10

Chron. Maj., 6: 65; cf. Painter, William Marshal, 197-98. On the reestablishment of the Exchequer, Rotuli Htterarum clausarum, ed. T.D. Hardy, 2 vols. (London, 1833), 1: 340b; Public Record Office, L. T. R. Memoranda Roll, 2 Henry III (E.368/1), m. 5; K. R. Memoranda Roll, 2 Henry III (E.159/1), m. 3. The first surviving final concord of Henry's reign is C. P. 25(1)7282/8/5. For all that follows on the reign of Henry III, cf. Robert C. Stacey, Politics, Policy and Finance under Henry HI, 1216-1245 (Oxford, 1987). 12 Rot. claus., 1: 380b-90b passim; Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1216-1225, 177-91 passim. 13 Painter, William Marshal, 276-79. 14 See my article, 'The Legates Guala and Pandulf in Thirteenth-Century England II, ed. Simon Lloyd and Peter Cross (London, 1989): 15-21. 15 Layettes du Tresor des Charles, ed. Alexandre Teulet et. al., 5 vols. (Paris, 1863-1909), 1: nos. 1387-89. 11

Hubert de Burgh and Peter des Roches

111

his return took the Cross.16 Then in July Pandulf resigned his legation under pressure from the English hierarchy, 17 and now, effectively, Hubert de Burgh ruled the king and kingdom. Hubert's government was not without its opposition, however, and two years later he blamed Peter for his troubles. It is certainly true that Peter postponed his crusade when he learned that Damietta had been returned to the Moslems. Peter was host to the king and his court at the great Christmas feast of 1221 in Winchester, where, or soon after, a serious quarrel broke out between on one side, the justiciar and the earl of Salisbury, and on the other the earl of Chester and Falkes de Breaute, custodian of the earldom of Devon and the Isle of Wight. That this conflict was most serious is indicated by the failure of the Chancery to record any writs for the first three weeks of January. Reconciliation only came after Archbishop Langton threatened to excommunicate anyone who broke the peace.18 For the next two years, however, with Langton's support Hubert was able to strengthen the royal government, replacing sheriffs and castellans with men who would do his bidding, even if in so doing he was building up resentment and discontent for the future. Collections at the Exchequer reached a startling peak in 1222, a sure sign of government health. 19 Peter des Roches returned to court frequently in 1222, but less frequently in 1223.20 He remained one of the magnates and his diocese reached to the Thames, but he was not so often employed in the inner workings of the government nor so close to his old pupil, the king, as he had been before 1221. Superficially it appeared that Hubert had definitely superseded his old rival in the political leadership of the realm, but Peter was not a man to give up power without a struggle as long as he had any cards in his hands, and the resentment of and discontent with the justiciar's government gave him a good hand. Further trouble could be expected and it came in November of 1223, when some of Hubert's enemies made an attempt to take the Tower of London. It failed, but the rebels continued to attract adherents and to threaten the government. 21 Hubert reacted manfully, and Stephen Langton again threatened to excommunicate any who broke the peace. He called a conference of the contending parties in hopes of achieving a pacification. Unfortunately, when the rebels gave voice to their grievances against the justiciar, calling him a 16

Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1216-1225, 23, 72, 286, 318-19; Walter of Coventry, Memoriale, ed. W. Stubbs, 2 vols. (London, 1872-73), 2: 250, 259-60; Ralph of Coggeshall, Chronicon Anglicanum, ed. J. Stephenson (London, 1875), 190; Ann. Man., 2: 84 (Winchester), and 3: 75 (Dunstable). 17 Coventry, 2: 250; Flores Historiarum, ed. H.R. Luard, 3 vols. (London, 1890), 2: 172. 18 Chron. Maj., 3: 67; Coventry, 2: 251; Rot. claus., 2: 90; L.T.R. Memoranda Roll, 6 Henry III (E.368/4), m. 4. 19 J.H. Ramsay, A History of the Revenues of the Kings of England, 1066-1399, 2 vols. (Oxford, 1925), 1: 274-75, even omitting the estimated wardrobe receipts. 20 Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1216-1225, 323-420 passim; Rot. claus., 1: 485-580 passim. 21 See the detailed account in Kate Norgate, The Minority of Henry III (London, 1912), 210-14; she did not notice the assignment of the bishops of Bath and Salisbury, though it is very evident on the Chancery Rolls.

178

Haskins Society Journal

spendthrift of the king's treasure and an oppressor of the people, Hubert was angered and broke forth into an attack on Peter des Roches, whom he seems to have suspected of being the fomenter of the revolt and whom he described as the cause of all the trouble in Henry's reign and in that of his father. Peter had not openly participated in the rebellion, but now he was angered in turn and swept out of the conference, swearing that, if it cost him everything he had, he would remove Hubert from power. Peace was made by Langton with a compromise settlement by which all the magnates, Hubert and his friends as well as the rebels, surrendered their castles and counties, and by which the justiciar was subjected to the constant attendance and supervision of the bishops of Bath and Salisbury. Later, the rebels complained that while the losses were originally fair, when new castellans were installed Hubert and his men got their custodies back, whereas the rebels lost theirs permanently. There could be no question, however, that the royal government was greatly strengthened. When the next Summer Falkes de Breaute challenged it, his misdeeds led to the loss of all his wealth and to his exile abroad.22 In his time of trouble, Falkes found the bishop of Winchester and others of his allies willing to speak to the king in his favor but not willing to threaten rebellion. Indeed Peter was forbidden to leave the realm, presumably to prevent his causing trouble in Rome. Not only was he excluded from royal favor but his nephew, Peter d'Orival, was replaced as treasurer of the royal household by Hubert's chaplain, Luke. In time Peter was permitted to resume the Cross, and in the spring of 1227 he and the bishop of Exeter led an English crusade to the Holy Land. Peter was gone from England for four years, and self-exile though it was, his exclusion from power may have been as bitter as Hubert's disgrace in 1205-7.23 Hubert's wings were not clipped very short in 1223. As the rebels complained, he had got his counties and castles back in his custody. The two bishops he seems to have found it easy to work with. In 1225 he and Langton came to another compromise by which the king reissued the Charter of Liberties in return for which the government collected an extraordinary tax of a fifteenth on moveables.24 Then in 1227 they agreed on ending the king's minority, although he was not yet twenty-one. Henceforth the king would rule as well as reign,25 but during the previous six years Henry had fallen deeply under Hubert's influence, and his coming of age was marked by his granting Hubert 22 Falkes' rebellion is well-treated by P.M. Powicke, King Henry HI and the Lord Edward: The Community of the Realm in the Thirteenth Century, 2 vols. (Oxford, 1947), 1: 61-66. 23 Peter's loss of royal favor is the subject of the papal letter printed by William Prynne, An Exact Chronological Vindication, 3 vols. (London, 1665-70), 3: 55. The replacement of his nephew is shown by the first Wardrobe account, Roll of Divers Accounts, ed. Fred A. Cazel, Jr., Pipe Roll Society n.s. 44 (London, 1982), 50. His crusade is well-attested: Chron. Maj., 3: 127, 128, 160, 185, 204, 489-90; Ann. Mon., 1: 76 (Tewkesbury); 2: 85-86 (Winchester) and 303-8, 310 (Waverley); 3: 37 (Margam) and 112, 126-27 (Dunstable); 4: 422 (Worcester). 24 Select Charters, ed. W. Stubbs and rev. H.W.C. Davis (Oxford, 1913), 349-51; S.K. Mitchell, Studies in Taxation under John and Henry 111 (New Haven, Ct., 1914), 160-61. 25 See my article on 'The Last Years of Stephen Langton,' EHR 79 (1964), especially 678 seq.

Hubert de Burgh and Peter des Roches

179

the earldom of Kent with many lands in endowment thereof. Hubert's power appeared to be greater than ever, although it now rested upon the king's favor. Peter des Roches' departure on the crusade doubtless contributed to Hubert's peace of mind, but he had other enemies still in high favor, notably the earl of Chester. Chester had made a treaty of peace with Llewellyn of North Wales which enabled the Welsh prince to expand southwards, a movement Hubert felt obliged to oppose.26 The king accepted his justiciar's Welsh policy, but Henry preferred to dream of the reconquest of those French dominions his father had lost. In 1229 Henry found an ally in the duke of Brittany, who promised to lead a serious rebellion against the boy-king of France and his regent-mother, if Henry would lead an army to France. Hubert opposed this alliance and put as many stumbling blocks in the way of the French expedition as he could, so many that the young king accused him of treason and even threatened his life. 27 Their breach was patched up, but no longer could Hubert expect to mold Henry's mind as he been wont to do. When the king did lead his maiden expedition to France in 1230, the results were as meager as Hubert had foretold, and Hubert got the blame for it. The year 1231 saw Hubert at the zenith of his power, prestige, and wealth, but then the wheel of fortune began its inexorable descent. In May of that year he further alienated the king's brother and heir, Richard of Cornwall, who since 1227 had been no friend of Hubert. 28 Even more dangerous to Hubert was the return to England and the court of Peter des Roches. He was returning not only from the Holy Land but also from some months in Italy where he participated in the reconciliation of the pope and the emperor. Then in France he had been just in time to help in concluding a truce made with the French regent by the duke of Britanny and the earl of Chester, who commanded the English forces there.29 With Peter came the duke and the earl to explain the truce and to win Henry's continued support for their French war. Also with Peter came two new figures upon the English scene: Richard Marshal, claiming the enormous estates of his late brother, the younger William, and Simon de Montfort the younger, claiming the earldom of Leicester. Simon also sought the hand of William Marshal's widow, the king's sister. Though there is no documentary evidence to prove it, the existence of a cabal inspired by Peter des Roches seems a strong possiblity, especially as Hubert was opposed to all their requests: the continuance of the Breton alliance; the granting of the Marshal inheritance to Richard; and the giving of the earldom of Leicester and 26

J.E. Lloyd, A History of Wales, 2 vols. (London, 1911), 2: 654, 657, 661-63, 667-69, which may be supplemented by R.F. Walker, 'Hubert de Burgh and Wales, 1218-1232,' EHR 87 (1972): 465-94, although Walker does not give sufficient weight to Chester's role. 27 Chron. Maj., 3: 190-91, 194-96, 197-200; Sidney Painter, The Scourge of the Clergy: Peter ofDreux, Duke of Brittany (Baltimore, 1937), 55-60; Powicke, King Henry III, 1: 177-85. 28 N. Denholm-Young, Richard of Cornwall (Oxford, 1947), 9-21. 29 Chron. Maj., 3: 204-207; Ann. Man., 2: 86 (Winchester) and 310 (Waverley); 3: 127 (Dunstable); 4: 72 (Osney) and 422 (Worcester); Cat. Pat. Rolls, 1225-1232, 427 ff; CR, 12271231, 541-43. Cf. Powicke, King Henry HI, 1: 75-77; C. Bemont, Simon de Montfort (Oxford, 1930), 1-7.

180

Haskins Society Journal

the king's sister to Simon. The king saw it otherwise, however, and the justiciar was overruled on every point. Now, in addition to his old enemies, Peter des Roches and Ranulf of Chester, he had powerful new, young enemies in Richard and Simon. Also back in favor was Peter's nephew, Peter d'Orival; very probably it was the two Peters who persuaded Henry that Hubert's man in the treasurership of the household, Ranulf Brito, was engaged in some kind of malfeasance.30 In 1231 Hubert was able to get his old clerk reinstated, but Henry's suspicions were aroused. Hubert's fall from grace was now merely a matter of time. It was signalled by the replacement of Ranulf Brito in 1232 by Peter d'Orival, just as Peter's replacement by Luke in 1223 had presaged his uncle's loss of favor.31 But Peter des Roches intended the utter ruin and death of his arch-rival and old enemy. By a variety of charges, some of them laughably contrived, the king was persuaded of Hubert's culpability and demanded his demission. When Hubert fled to sanctuary with the canons of Merton, the London mob threatened his life; Peter des Roches egged them on, but Ranulf of Chester counselled the king to recall them.32 The details of Hubert's persecution must be passed over, but ultimately he surrendered to the king's mercy and was imprisoned in Devizes castle under the guard of four earls.33 A year later Peter des Roches succeeded in getting this guard replaced; in fear of his life Hubert escaped to sanctuary again.34 Thence he was carried off to Wales by partisans of Richard Marshal. The government of the two Peters had quickly become unpopular with the magnates because of its autocracy. In the vacancy of Canterbury the bishops were leaderless, but some of the barons, led by the Marshal, defied the king and engaged in a rebellion of guerilla raids, which the king and his advisers could not stop. After the two Peters compassed the traitorous death of the Marshal, and after a new archbishop demanded their dismissal, they and their government were disgraced in 1234. Now it was their turn to flee to sanctuary, while Hubert and his friends were restored to the king's grace. Peter retired to Winchester in chagrin, and then in 1235-36 left England to fight for the pope in Italy.35 Hubert returned to court for a year or so, but then 30

On Brito's dismissal and restoration, see CR, 1227-1231, 599; CR, 1231-1234, 2, 5, 7, 25, 52-53. 31 Ranulf had been replaced by Hubert's chancellor, Richard de St. John, between 8 May (CR, 1231-1234, 57) and 20 May (Mon. Angl., 2: 81); then while Richard was in Rome (CR, 123134, 122, 202, 250, 431), Peter was given the office by charter (Cal. Chart. Rolls, 1226-1257, 1567, dated 11 June). 32 Chron. Maj., 3: 221-26; Ann. Mon., 1: 86 (Tewkesbury). 33 Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1232-1247, 28-30, printed in full in Rymer's Foedera, 1066-1383, ed. A. Clarke, et. al., 4 vols. in 7 pts. (London, 1816-69), 1: i, 207-8; Chron, Maj., 3: 232-34; Ann. Mon., 1: 88 (Tewkesbury). 34 On Hubert's imprisonment and escape, Chron. Maj., 3: 249-50; Ann. Mon., 1: 91 (Tewkesbury) and 4: 74-76 (Osney); Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1232-1247, 19-20 ter, 30, 274 bis, 325-27; CR, 1231-1234, 180, 234-36, 297, 312, 328-29, 350. 35 Chron. maj., 3: 272-73, 290-96, 309; Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1232-1247, 43^5, 48-49, 75; CR, 1231-1234, 402, 412, 416, 419-20, 509.

Hubert de Burgh and Peter des Roches

181

lost the king's favor again and took an oath never to fight again. 36 Both Hubert and Peter ceased to count in the political arena after 1236. From 1199 to 1236 Hubert de Burgh and Peter des Roches had vied for power and wealth, while their rivalry had rent English political life. Both were able and ambitious men who had won high position and great power through royal service. Each had twice known periods of high favor and periods of disgrace. When one was high in the king's regard, the other was out of favor. Peter's career peaked under John, Hubert's under Henry III. Only during the early years of the minority, under the regencies of the Marshal and the Legate, had Hubert and Peter worked at all well together. Peter's autocratic philosophy of government was fundamentally at odds with Hubert's respect for the laws and traditions of England; Peter's ideas appealed to the kings, Hubert's to the English magnates. The prelates were appalled by Peter's government both in 1214 and in 1232-34, while they worked closely with Hubert in his government. Partly because of Peter's justiciarship, the barons had demanded Magna Carta in 1215, and in 1233 Richard Marshal, who had come to England in alliance with Peter, became his chief enemy. Hubert had his enemies, too - those who lost their castles and shrievalties, those who interpreted the forest charter differently, a few who claimed personal injury, and most of all, the young who were impatient with his preference for Welsh rather than French conquests. What brought down his government was his loss of the king's trust, for after 1227 Henry III ruled England and his ministers were just that. Given this thirteenth-century constitution, Hubert could not be a Whig nor Peter a Tory prime minister of the eighteenth century, much less a Gladstone or Disraeli of the nineteenth, but they represented the bifurcation of English politics in their day as well as being engaged in their rivalry for power and wealth. It is not possible to understand the political history of England in their time without appreciating their rivalry and opposition, the intertwining of their careers. University of Connecticut

36

Chron. Ma]., 3: 386, 475-79.

This page intentionally left blank

15

French Chivalry Revisited: The Guillaume de Dole of Jean Renart John W. Baldwin

Sidney Painter's premature death in 1960 at the robust age of 57 aborted a number of fecund projects which others have seen the wisdom to pursue subsequently. When Volume II of Charles Johnson's and H.A. Cronne's Regesta Re gum Anglo-Normannorum appeared in 1956, Painter started to compile a box of note cards preparatory to a study on the reign of King Henry I comparable to that on King John, a monumental undertaking which Warren Hollister and his school have adopted and amplified. Painter used to look forward to his retirement when he could enjoy the leisure of embarking upon a history of marriage and the family in the Middle Ages, a subject that Georges Duby and other French scholars have exploited. And he cultivated a deep interest in vernacular literature, a taste which he affirmed he had acquired while still an undergraduate at Yale. Not only did it prepare him for his classic biography of William the Marshal, but it also supplied him with fascinating material for his essay on French chivalry. Although unpretentiously written for his own amusement, this latter work has become, in the words of Marie-Luce Chenerie, the most recent French authority, 'son grand ouvrage sur la chevalerie.' 1 To view vernacular literature as a window on the inarticulate medieval aristocracy has remained for medieval historians a temptation fraught with severe risks. Historians have learned from literary critics that no historical narrative is unmediated, innocent of the style, convention, and language of the literary world. Within this context the literature of entertainment is the least transparent of all writing, however, functioning rather as stained glass to color, encode, conventionalize and reshape its contents. Not only did the modes of fictional literature thoroughly infuse the more historical accounts, we must also be prepared for the possibility that they even acted directly upon contemporary conduct. To illustrate this abstract proposition let me turn to the example of the tournament, that veritable theatre of chivalric performance, which enjoyed a 1 Le Chevalier errant dans le romans arthuriens en vers des Xlle et XUIe siecles, Publications romanes et franchises, 172 (Geneva, 1986), 108. See also the appraisal of Jeremy duQuesnay Adams, 'Modern Views of Medieval Chivalry, 1884-1984,' The Study of Chivalry, ed. Howell Chickering (Kalamazoo, 1989), 1, 12, 13.

184

Haskins Society Journal

surge of popularity at the end of the twelfth century in northern France.2 The tournaments of this period were regular melees, scarcely to be distinguished from contemporary battles except for mild constraints against slaying one's opponent. Because churchmen disapproved of the institution from the beginning, the contemporary clerical chroniclers writing in Latin were inhibited from fully describing its functions as it was practiced.3 Gislebert de Mons, for example, enumerated thirteen tournaments in which Count Baudouin V of Hainaut participated from 1168 to 1184, but all were recounted with a bare minimum of detail.4 It is well known that the fullest account may be found not in Latin but in the vernacular Histoire de Guillaume le Marechal, made available in Paul Meyer's edition and so effectively exploited by Sidney Painter and most recently, by Georges Duby. In 2,500 verses eighteen tournaments are described in which William the Marshal took part in the same region of France at the same time between 1166 and 1184. Writing around 1225 in Anglo-Norman French for the aristocratic audience, the author, a trouvere named Jean, shows how a poor knight succeeded in becoming a great English baron through the exercise of chivalric virtue in the arena of the tournament. 5 Rich as is the Histoire for the contemporary scene, it was not alone in furnishing depictions of tournaments. At the time that Baudouin of Hainaut and William were touring northern France, Chretien de Troyes, the greatest, if not the first writer of romance, included detailed descriptions of four fictional tournaments in his Arthurian tales. In Erec et Enide the hero Erec evinces that marriage has not debilitated his knightly prowess at a contest between Evroic 2 From the rapidly burgeoning literature on tournaments the following are the most recent summations: Maurice Keen, Chivalry (New Haven, 1984), 83-101; Joachim Bumke, Hofische Kultur: Literatur und Gesellschaft im hohen Mittelalter (Munich, 1986) 1: 342-79; and the collection of articles in Das ritterliche Turnier im Mittelalter: Beitrdge zur einer vergleichenden Formen - und Verhaltensgeschichte des Rittertums, Veroffentlichungen des Max-Planck-Instituts fur Geschichte 80, ed. Josef Fleckenstein (Gottingen, 1985), of which the chapter by Michel Parisse, 'Le tournoi en France, des origines a la fin du XHIe siecle,' 175-211, exploits the major sources used in the present study. 3 Tournaments were proscribed in the following councils: Clermont (1130), in Sacorum conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio, ed. J.D. Mansi (Florence and Venice, 1759-93), 21: 439; Reims (1131), ibid., 460; Lateran II (1139) ibid., 530; Reims (1148), ibid., 716-17; Lateran III (1179) ibid. 22: 229; and Lateran IV (1215), ibid., 1066. For canonist discussion see Sabine Kru'ger, 'Das kirchliche Turnierverbot im Mittelalter,' Das ritterliche Turnier, 401-22. For theological discussion see John W. Baldwin, Masters, Princes and Merchants- The Social Views of Peter the Chanter and his Circle (Princeton, 1970), 1: 224-26. 4 La Chronique de Gislebert de Mons, ed. Leon Vanderkindere, Commission royale d'histoire, Recueil de textes pour servir a 1'etude de 1'histoire de Belgique (Brussels, 1904), 95-160 (hereafter cited as Gislebert de Mons). 5 L'Histoire de Guillaume le Marechal, ed. Paul Meyer, Societe de 1'histoire de France 255, 268, 304 (Paris, 1891, 1894, 1901) 1: vv. 1201-7238 (hereafter cited as Histoire). The section on tournaments has been commented on successively by Paul Meyer, ibid. 1: xxvi-xliii; Sidney Painter, William Marshal, Knight-Errant, Baron and Regent of England (Baltimore, 1933), 37-49; and Georges Duby, Guillaume le Marechal ou le meilleur chevalier du monde (Paris, 1984), 11134, English translation by Richard Howard, William Marshal: The Flower of Chivalry (New York, 1985), 90-114.

French Chivalry Revisited

185

and Tenebroc shortly after his wedding. In the romance Cliges, King Arthur sponsors a four-day tournament between Oxford and Wallingford that allows the protagonist to fight incognito in four different sets of armor. In the Chevalier de la Charette Queen Guinevere presides over the well-known tournament of Noauz, which enables the ladies to take charge of this male enterprise. The famous Lancelot, for example, must fight well or poorly according to the queen's command. And in the Conte du graal, not Perceval, but Gauvain is the focus of dispute between two damsels that provides him opportunity to display his prowess. 6 Since Chretien and his epigones set the patterns of literary taste for generations, his fictive contests established conventions and stereotypes of the ideal tournament for aristocratic audiences. Not only could his depictions have influenced authors like the trouvere Jean of the Histoire, but they could even have shaped the practices of the actual participants. The problem confronting the historian, therefore, is not so much the disparity between reality and representation as the interaction between the two realms. Although Chretien's stories are well-known to both medieval and modern audiences, a less-exploited but equally rich, contemporary text is Jean Renart's romance, the Guillaume de Dole, composed for an audience in Champagne in the first decade of the thirteenth century. Almost one quarter of the work (1,300 verses) is devoted to a fictive tournament situated at Saint-Trond.7 Singing of armes et amours, the Guillaume de Dole is pure romance in which the hero Guillaume, a mere knight, seeks to demonstrate his chivalric virtue in a tournament and thereby establish the nobility of his lineage so that the Emperor Conrad will feel vindicated in his decision to marry L'ienor, Guillaume's sister. Like all romances, the principal plot is convoluted, but Jean seeks to distinguish himself from the great Chretien in a simple way. Chretien had set his stories in the distant lands of Cornwall, Bretagne, both Grande and 6

Les Romans de Chretien de Troyes, Les Classiques frangais du moyen age: Erec et Enide, ed. Mario Roques (Paris, 1952), vv. 2072-2222 (hereafter cited as Erec); Cliges, ed. Alexandre Micha (Paris, 1957), vv. 4583-4969; Le Chevalier de la charette, ed. Mario Roques (Paris, 1958), vv. 5369-6056; Le Conte du graal, ed. Felix Lecoy (Paris, 1973), vv. 4805-5596 (hereafter cited as Graal L); Le Roman de Perceval on le Conte du graal, ed. William Roach, Textes litteraires fran§ais (Geneva, 1956), vv. 6-211-7033 (hereafter cited as Graal R). On interpreting tournaments in literary sources, Marie-Luce Chenerie, 'Ces curieux chevaliers tournoyeurs ...' Des fabliaux aux romans,' Romania 97 (1976): 327-68; and Le Chevalier errant, 132-35, 327-46, 439-41. The approach of the present study was suggested by Larry D. Benson, 'The Tournament in the Romances of Chretien de Troyes and L'Histoire de Guillaume le Marechal,' Chivalric Literature: Essays on Relations between Literature and Life in the Later Middle Ages, ed. Larry D. Benson and John Leyerle, Studies in Medieval Culture 14 (Kalamazoo, 1980), 1-24. See also John W. Baldwin, Review of Georges Duby, Guillaume le Marechal in Speculum 61 (1986): 640-42. 7 Jean Renart, Le Roman de la Rose ou de Guillaume de Dole, ed. Felix Lecoy, Classiques fran?ais du moyen age (Paris, 1979), vv. 1644-2967 (hereafter cited as Guillaume de Dole). The relevant studies on Jean Renart are Rita Lejeune, L'Oeuvre de Jean Renart: Contribution a I'etude de genre romanesque au moyen age, Bibliotheque de la Faculte de philosophic et lettres de 1'Universite de Liege 61 (Liege, 1935); and 'Le Roman de Guillaume de Dole et la principaute de Liege,' Cahiers de civilisation medievale 17 (1974): 1-24; and Marie-Luce Chenerie, 'L'Episode du tournoi dans "Guillaume de Dole": Etude litteraire,' Revue des langue romanes 83 (1979): 41- 62.

186

Haskins Society Journal

Petite, and in vast legendary forests where he selected his actors almost exclusively from the Arthurian cast of characters.8 Eschewing this never-never land of Arthur, however, Jean Renart frames his principal story in a contemporary setting recognizable to his audience. Saint-Trond was the site of a rich abbey and a flourishing Lotharingian town not far from Liege.9 The participants in the tournament arriving from Poitou, Maine, Lorraine, Perche, Champagne, Ile-de-France, Artois, and Flanders break their journeys at Namur and Mons-en-Hainaut on the major routes to the town. Guillaume himself finds lodgings within the city at a crossroad overlooking the market place that can still be traced in the present topography. 10 These concrete and specific details of where, when, and who that frame Jean Renart's story in a contemporary setting distance him from Chretien de Troyes and the contemporary literary tradition, and also enhance his appeal to the modern historian. How may Jean Renart's fictional tournament at Saint-Trond contribute to our historical knowledge of this chivalric exercise? By placing it within the context of both the romances of Chretien de Troyes and the allegedly historical accounts of the Histoire de Guilluame le Marechal as well as the Latin chronicles, we may be better able to enlarge the field of our understanding of the problem. As we compare the normative romances of Chretien with the seemingly descriptive accounts of the historians, certain inconsistencies and contradictions emerge. As an example of these and the subject of the present paper: were twelfth-century knights content to fight for glory alone, as suggested by the romances, or did they enter for more material gain, as found in the more historical accounts? In other words what importance did booty and prisoners play in the contests? As a fictional romance but one carefully situated within an identifiable, contemporary setting, how does Jean Renart's Guillaume de Dole enable historians to respond to this apparent contradiction? The contest had been announced two weeks in advance, as was customary, and was to be held on 24 April, a Monday, as would have delighted Sidney Painter.'' Most important, although the major characters of the romance are fictional or disguised, all of the participants of the tournament were wellknown to audiences at the turn of the century. They divided into two camps, French and German. The former, led by Michel de Harnes, included Eudes de Ronquerolle, Guillaume de Barres, Enguerran de Coucy, Alain de Rouci, Gautier de Chatillon, and Renaud de Dammartin, whose names can all be found in an inventory of bannerets in the Registers of Philip Augustus. The 8

Chenerie, Le chevalier errant, 143-60. J.L. Charles, La ville de Saint-Trond au moyen age: Des origines a la fin du XlVe siecle, Bibliotheque de la Faculte de philosophic et lettres de 1'Universite de Liege 173 (Liege, 1965) is the authoritative study. 10 Guillaume de Dole, vv. 2100 (Namur), 2 1 1 1 (Mons-en-Hainaut), 2069-73 (Saint-Trond). Lejeune, 'Roman de Guilllaume de Dole,' 13, 14. 11 Guillaume de Dole, vv. 1646-47. Sidney Painter, 'Monday as a Date for Tournaments in England,' Modern Language Notes 48 (1933): 82-83, reprinted in Feudalism and Liberty: Articles and Addresses of Sidney Painter, ed. Fred A. Cazel, Jr. (Baltimore, 1961), 105-6. 9

French Chivalry Revisited

187

Germans, led by Guillaume himself, included the duke of Saxony, the count of Dagsburg, the duke of Limbourg and his son Garan, the count of Bar-le-Duc, the duke of Brabant, the count of Kleve, and the count of Looz, all well-known members of the Guelf party in the Rhine valley. 12 On the principal motive behind participation in the tournament all authors are agreed: all knights, in both romance and the historical accounts, fight for glory. At the end of each day in Chretien's fictive tournaments, the heroes Erec, Cliges, Lancelot, and Gauvain are judged to be the best knight on the field. Although William the Marshal's reputation had been impugned by slanderers towards the end of his tourneying career, when the news of the tournament of Ressons/Gournay was reported to the young King Henry, witnesses unanimously affirmed that the Marshal had won over all others.13 This merely reaffirmed what the author repeatedly proclaimed throughout the Histoire: William was 'le meillor chevalier del monde.' Jean Renart's Guillaume de Dole must fight and win at Saint-Trond in order to prove the nobility of his lineage to the emperor. When the emperor leaves Saint-Trond for the forthcoming assembly at Cologne to announce his marriage to Guillaume's sister Li'enor, he rests convinced that his future brother-in-law is apreudom, of high lineage, and that no one is more worthy in his empire.14 In a well-known diatribe against tournaments, the contemporary preacher, Jacques de Vitry, confirms the priority of glory in the chivalric ethos. Among the seven capital sins of these contests, pride (superbia) was the foremost, because knights in their circuits strove for the praise of men and vain glory. The fifth besetting sin of the tournament was that of avarice or plunder (avaricia vel rapina) whereby one takes the other prisoner for ransom and seeks to despoil his horse and arms.15 Glory was unquestionably the supreme goal in all descriptions of the tournament, therefore, but it did not exclude other motivations of a baser sort. Chretien's heroes exhibit a singular disdain for taking prisoners and horses. At the tournament between Evroic and Tenobroc, while others are busy rounding up captives, Erec refuses to take part. Concerned only with displaying his prowess, he lets Gauvain collect the more material rewards. At the contest between Oxford and Wallingford, Cliges has made heavy investments in three sets of armor from manufacturers in London, but at the end of each of three days of fighting his vanquished opponents are unable to locate him in order to pay their due ransoms. On the last day of the tournament at Tintagel, Gauvain 12 Guillaume de Dole, vv. 2090-2111 (French) and 2118-25, 2315, 2386, 2604 (Germans). Les Registres de Philippe Auguste, ed. John W. Baldwin, Recueil des historiens de la France, Documents financiers et administratifs 7 (Paris, in press), 302-18. A full study of the relationship of Jean Renart to the Guelf party is now in preparation. Meanwhile, see the suggestions in Lejeune, L'Oeuvre de Jean Renart, 107-14 and 'Roman de Guillaume de Dole,' 16-22. K Histoire, \\. 6193-6236. 14 Guillaume de Dole, vv. 2968-77. 15 Jacques LeGoff, 'Realites sociales et codes ideologiques au debut du XHIe siecle: Un exemplum de Jacques de Vitry sur les tournois,' L'Imaginaire medievale: Essais (Paris, 1985), 258-59.

188

Has kins Society Journal

unhorses four knights and gallantly offers their mounts to four lady admirers. 16 Chretien's audiences would have immediately recognized these actions as fulfilling the requisite chivalric virtue of largesse or generosity. Life, however, was more complex for a landless knight like William the Marshal. In one of the contests he was paid a daily wage of 20 shillings by his patron, the young King Henry. Gislebert de Mons also alluded to this practice when he noted specifically for each tournament whether Count Baudouin reimbursed his knights or whether they entered at their own expense. 17 Throughout the Histoire de Guillaume le Marechal, however, the young William paid single-minded attention to taking horses and prisoners for ransom. On occasion the capture was a windfall, such as at Saint-Pierre-sur-Dive, where an injured knight collapsed in front of William while he was lunching with his companions. The unfortunate knight offered the Marshal the means to pay his bill with the innkeeper, but in most cases the prize was won in fair battle. The ultimate trick of the game was to take one's opponent aufrein, that is, by the reins of his horse and lead him off the field. Philippe de Valognes was the first recorded capture of William's career. William took twelve horses in one day at Eu and fifteen knights at Anet. On his deathbed he reckoned that he had captured at least 500 knights throughout his lifetime.18 Normally he worked in groups of four to seven companions, but as he became more proficient, he formed a partnership with a Fleming, Roger de Gaugi. The services of a clerk were secured to keep records, who estimated that 103 prizes had been taken by this pair of knights between Pentecost and Lent. William learned one particularly effective technique from watching Philip of Alsace, the count of Flanders. The count usually waited on the sidelines until the battle was well under way. When parties began to show signs of fatigue, he would sweep down with his men and carry off the exhausted prey. 19 Such efficiency on the tournament field could have made the fortune of knights like William and his companions, but the contrary ideal of generosity urged by romance literature was also at work. Amidst the brief notices of Count Baudouin's expenses while tourneying, Gislebert de Mons occasionally recorded the release of prisoners. In the Histoire de Guillaume le Marechal throughout the evenings after each tournament the participants circulated from 16 Free, vv. 2113-72; Cliges, vv. 4660-72 (for one example). It is true that Gauvain presents three horses to the wife of a vavassor, his host in the castle, and her two daughters, which suggests that he is repaying hospitality. It was not a contractual obligation, however, but a gift, since both parties were noble. Graal L, vv. 5520-28, R 6957-62. 17 Histoire, vv. 4762-67. Gislebert de Mons, 107-9. Robert of Courson discusses the case of a knight who hires other knights to increase his entourage and win more glory in a tournament. Baldwin, Masters, Princes and Merchants 1: 130, 2: 88, 89, n.92. 18 Histoire, vv. 7203-32 (Saint-Pierre-sur-Dive); 1324-41 (Valognes); 3372 (Eu); 4020-21 (Anet); and 18483 (lifetime count). 19 Histoire, vv. 3403-24 (Roger de Gaugi); 2723-35 (Philip of Alsace). William foiled such a tactic at Lagny where Herlin de Vanci, seneschal of Flanders, attempted to capture the young King Henry. Histoire, vv. 4935-70.

French Chivalry Revisited

189

lodging to lodging to settle accounts. As they discussed the events of the day, exchanged horses, paid, and received ransoms, William was depicted as giving most of his prizes away. 20 Like the romance heroes and Count Baudouin of Hainaut, the Marshal's exercise of generosity was underscored by his biographer. At the tournament of Joigny, for example, William not only freed prisoners and gave prizes to crusaders and captured knights, but he also offered an exquisite example of ritualized largesse. While the knights were waiting for the ranks to form at the beginning of the contest, William and his companions amused themselves by dancing with the ladies to the tune of William's singing. A herald took over William's place as singer but changed the song by ending each stanza with the refrain: 'Now, Marshal, give me a good horse.' In response William immediately mounts, rides out to capture the first approaching knight, and presents the herald with a steed, without missing a step. 21 This open-handedness, however, came at a cost. His biographer makes it clear that the Marshal remained a poor knight until the moment of his marriage to Isabel de Clare in 1189. It was not the booty won at tournaments that contributed to the Marshal's fortune, but a reputation of chivalric glory that qualified him to marry a rich heiress. Economic exigencies also enter Jean Renart's depiction of the tournament of Saint-Trond, although his ultimate goal is to portray Guillaume de Dole as the perfect chivalric hero of romance. No wages are mentioned, but Guillaume enters the contest with financial burdens. He has already lost his helmet the week before in a tournament at Rougement in Burgundy, for which he is forced to accept a new one from the emperor. As soon as the contest is announced, he sends money and jewels to his sister to cover expenses at home. Like Cliges, however, he must also procure equipment. He writes a letter to a bourgeois whom he knows in Liege to order 120 new lances and three shields. Having no money, he must ask for credit. 22 These expenses, along with those of his lodging and food at Saint-Trond, therefore, have put him deeply into debt before the start of the tournament. During the course of the melee Jean Renart depicts him first in combat with a Flemish knight, then with eight unidentified opponents, followed by a climactic battle with Michel de Harnes, the champion of the French, whose reins Guillaume seizes, and finally in an inconclusive clash with Eudes de Ronquerolles. By the evening he is accredited with at least fifteen prizes. After the first victory against the Flemish knight, Guillaume sends his opponent's horse off to pay his debts to the bourgeois of Liege. In the second he dispatches the prisoner to his landlord at Saint-Trond to pay his bills and the horse to reward the jongleur Juglet, who had originally introduced him to the emperor.23 20

Gislebert de Mons, 123, 127. Histoire, vv. 3353-62, 4063-67. Histoire, vv. 3455-3520. 22 Guillaume de Dole, vv. 1650-63 (Rougement), 1927-64 (Liege). 23 Guillaume de Dole, vv. 2670-73 (first victory), 2688-93 (second). 21

190

Haskins Society Journal

With his debts settled, Guillaume could finally afford the luxury of largesse. In an exemplary gesture he releases his worthy French opponent, Michel de Harnes, on the field. As he circulates through the town that evening, like William the Marshal he frees the remaining prisoners and gives his horses and arms to the heralds who had announced the battle's results. For all his pains he is left only his battered armor and shredded padding, but on that day no one exceeded his renown. On the morrow Guillaume de Dole takes leave of SaintTrond poorer than he entered, but like Chretien's Erec with more glory than the great Alexander or Perceval.24 On the field of Saint-Trond others act with more mercenary behavior than the hero of the romance. Like the count of Flanders of the Histoire, the count of Boulogne, the famous Renaud de Dammartin, waits in the wings while Guillaume engages with the men of Artois, Wallencourt, and Bailleul. Not until the French champion, Michel de Harnes, has finally been bested does Count Renaud enter with 140 knights shouting: 'au frains, au frains' - 'after the reins.' By sundown the field is so littered with broken lances, it looks as if carpenters have been amusing themselves with lumber. Riderless horses wander aimlessly, reins dangling at their feet. A fortune is to be gained there, the author exclaims.25 Writing in the romance tradition, Jean Renart nonetheless perceives the intrusion of economic necessities into the tableau of tournaments found in the Histoire de Guillaume le Marechal. Although they must demonstrate the generosity of their chivalric heroes, both authors agree that the taking of booty was the necessary business in the tournament. One was obliged to take horses and prisoners to pay one's debts. Despite this Realpolitik, however, the chivalric ideal of largesse played an equally important role in the tournament. The taking of horses and prisoners offered the opportunity and fulfilled the imperative of expressing generosity, thereby contributing to the knight's glory. Both the Histoire and Jean Renart faithfully record in their pages the tension between the romantic ideal and the economic exigencies. We need not doubt that this tension was likewise felt by the contemporary participants on the fields of actual tournaments. How each knight actually resolved the tension can never be fully known, whether he was as generous as the fictional Erec or as ruthless as the historical Philip of Flanders. We may conclude, however, that the tension itself was real and historical, embodying discrepancies between both romance and practice. By reading the romances and the historical accounts together, therefore, the historian comes closer to understanding the tournament as it was practiced in northern France at the close of the twelfth century.

24

Guillaume de Dole, vv. 2760-63 (Michel de Harnes); 2875-79, 2908-28 (liberalities); 295759 (poverty); 2880-81, 2960-61 (comparison to Alexander and Perceval). See also Erec, v. 2214. 25 Guillaume de Dole, vv. 2784-89 (Renaud de Boulogne); 2804-23 (field). Compare with Histoire, vv. 5561-65, 5584-88.

French Chivalry Revisited

191

Fifty years ago, on two occasions in April 1938, Sidney Painter checked out from the Johns Hopkins Library the edition of Guillaume de Dole. He had published a biography of William the Marshal five years earlier and was in the last stages of writing his French Chivalry, which included a passage from Jean Renart. 26 Would that we now had the opportunity to hear him talk about Guillaume de Dole after his masterful reading of the Histoire de Guillaume le Marechal. The Johns Hopkins University

26 His signature is on the library card to Le Roman de la Rose ou de Guillaume de Dole, ed. G. Servois, Societe des anciens textes fran9ais (Paris, 1893). French Chivalry: Chivalric Ideas and Practices in Medieval France (Baltimore, 1940), 165-66.