Chapter XX: Conclusion (3)

When Exeter stood forth for one moment ... _the chief of a
confederation of the lesser towns of the West_ ... we see that
the path was opening by which Exeter might have come to be
another Lübeck, the head of a Damnonian Hanse, another Bern,
the mistress of the subject-lands of the western peninsula.
Such a dream sounds wild in our ears.[15]

It does indeed. But it does so for the reason that it is founded on a fact which has no historic existence. Yet, for Mr Freeman, with his fertile imagination afire with the glories of ancient Greece and of countless mediaeval Commonwealths, this same 'wild dream' possessed an irresistible fascination. 'It is none the less true', he hastened to add, that

when a confederation of the western towns, with the great city
of the district at their head, suddenly started into life to
check the progress of the Conqueror, it shows that a spirit
had been kindled, etc., etc.... It is worth while to stop and
think how near England once was to running the same course as
other lands, etc., etc.[16]

Returning now to sober fact, let us ask how the city of Exeter came into William's hands. This is the pivotal point on which the whole story revolves. On this point Mr Freeman spoke with no uncertain sound: the city was 'taken by means of a mine'.[17] It was, he wrote, 'by undermining the walls that William at last gained possession of the city', the citizens being thus forced 'to submit unreservedly'.[18] He added, contrasting the success of William with the failure, in 1003, of Swend:

William might have been beaten back from Exeter as Swend had
been, if the military art of Normandy in William's days had
not been many steps in advance of the military art of Denmark
in the days of Swend.

This allusion to 'Swend' involves a perfect tangle of confusion. Turning back a couple of pages, we are reminded that on Penhow, 'sixty-seven years before (1001), Swend, of Denmark, driven back from the city, had found his revenge' (p. 154). Guided by a footnote, we turn for information to the earlier volume to which the author refers us, only to learn that it was not Swegen, but the adventurer Pallig who was driven back from Exeter in 1001 (i. 307), while 'of Swegen himself we hear nothing in English history for nine years (994-1003)'.[19] Moreover, when Swegen did come--in 1003--invading England to avenge the massacre of Saint Brice, he was not 'driven back from the city', but, on the contrary, 'stormed and plundered it' (p. 315), for 'the citizens who had beaten back Pallig had no chance of beating back Swegen' (_Exeter_, p. 27). Moreover, the suggestion that the Danes would not have been able to attack and breach the city wall is in direct conflict with the evidence quoted by Mr Freeman himself. Not only did Pallig, in 1001, direct his attack against the wall,[20] but 'Swegen', we read, in 1003, 'Civitatem Exanceastram infregit'.[21] Now, speaking of 1063, Mr Freeman wrote that 'the expression of Florence "infregit" seems to fall in with' his view that William breached the wall. That is to say that, according to Mr Freeman, 'Swend' was 'beaten back' (which he was not), because he could not breach the walls, which is precisely what, on his showing, Swegen succeeded in doing. Could confusion further go?

For his statement that 'William's mine advanced so far that part of the wall crumbled to the ground, making a practicable breach' (p. 156), Mr Freeman relied on an ingenious combination of Orderic's statement that the Conqueror 'obnixe satagit cives desuper impugnare et subtus murum suffodere' with William of Malmesbury's assertion that he triumphed 'divino scilicet adjutus auxilio, quod pars muralis ultro decidens ingressum illi patefecerit'. He argued that, on the supposition that 'Exonia' is the right reading in William of Malmesbury, his 'story, allowing for a little legendary improvement, fits so well into Orderic's as to support the theory of a breach'. The argument is ingenuous and plausible, nor can it be lightly dismissed. But whether the words of Orderic imply, of necessity, a mine or not,[22] the real point is that he does not mention a breach. He speaks of William's efforts, but he does not say they were successful. It is difficult to suppose that William of Poitiers, of whom Orderic is here the mouthpiece, would not have mentioned his hero's success, had success rewarded his efforts. We are reduced then, as the sole and unconfirmed authority for Mr Freeman's absolute statement--or rather as the legend from which he 'infers' the facts he states--to the words of William of Malmesbury. Now William was classed, by Mr Freeman himself, among those writers whose 'accounts are often mixed up with romantic details', so that 'it is dangerous to trust them' (i. 258); and he pointed out of the murder of Edward that:

In the hands of William of Malmesbury the story becomes a
romance.... The _obiter dictum_ of William of Malmesbury that
Ælfhere had a hand in Edward's death is contrary to the whole
tenor of the history ... (i. 265).

If there is thus, on Mr Freeman's showing, need for accepting with some caution a statement made by William alone, there is further, in this special case, the consideration that even if his story does refer to Exeter, the phrase, '_leviter_ subegit' is justly queried by Mr Freeman;[23] and that William here deals in hyperbole and miracle. Indeed, when we find Mr Freeman writing: 'I infer this from William of Malmesbury', we are reminded of his words on his predecessor's treatment of the legend of Siward: 'Such stuff would not be worth mentioning, had not Sir Francis Palgrave inferred from it the existence of an historical Tostig, Earl of Huntingdon' (iv. 768-9). I will not express an opinion of my own, but will quote from Mr Freeman's able essay on 'The Mythical and Romantic Elements in Early English History'.[24] In it he expressly disclaimed

sympathy with the old pragmatizing or euhemeristic school
of mythological interpretation.... The pragmatizers take
a mythical story; they strip it by an arbitrary process
of whatever seems impossible; they explain or allegorize
miraculous details; and having thus obtained something
which possibly may have happened, they give it out as
something which actually did happen.... It will never
do to take the tale of Troy, to leave out all
intervention of the gods, and to give out the remnant as
a piece of real Grecian history (p. 3).

This criticism would seem to apply to the 'legendary' tale that the walls of Exeter fell down, like those of Jericho, by supernatural intervention. At least, we may say of the breaching of the walls, when given out 'as something which actually did happen', what was said of the possible siege of Oxford, this same year, by Mr Freeman:

The direct evidence for a siege of Oxford is so weak that the
tale cannot be relied on with any certainty (iv. 188).

Having now examined the direct evidence for the statement that the citizens were forced to surrender unconditionally to William by the successful breaching of their walls, I propose to show that the acceptance of this statement does violence not only to the facts of the case, but to all that is known of William's character, to the English Chronicle, and to Domesday; and I shall prove that it rests beyond dispute 'on the foundation of a single error'.

Assuming for the moment the accuracy of Mr Freeman's version, namely, that the city had been placed, by a breach, absolutely at William's mercy, what treatment of its citizens would his character and his whole career lead us to expect? 'At all stages of his life,' as Mr Freeman observed, paraphrasing the famous words of the English Chronicle (1087), 'if he was _debonnair_ to those who would do his will, he was beyond measure stern to all who withstood it' (ii. 167). Again, speaking of his march on Exeter, the Professor insisted on the fact that 'the policy of William was ever severity to those who withstood him, and gentleness to those who submitted to his yoke'.[25] How he applied this principle in practice was shown at Romney and at Dover in 1066. Romney had successfully resisted the landing of a party of Normans,[26] and William was resolved to avenge the deed.

It was his policy now, as ever, to be harsh whenever he met
with resistance, and gentle to all who submitted easily....
Harrying then as he went, William reached Romney. The words
which set forth his doings there are short, pithy, and
terrible. He took what vengeance he would for the slaughter of
his men (iii. 533-4).

Dover, on the contrary, made no resistance, but surrendered before he 'had thrown up a bank, or shot an arrow'. It was, therefore, 'plainly his policy to show himself mild and _debonnair_ as it had been his policy at Romney to show himself beyond measure stark'.[27]

Such being William's settled principle, what might the citizens of Exeter expect? Even before the siege began the fear that they had sinned too deeply for forgiveness made them disown the capitulation their leaders had arranged.[28] The reference is doubtless to conduct similar to that which had brought upon Romney William's merciless vengeance.[29] But how stood the case at its close?

(1) They were rebels. And for these 'rebels, as they were deemed in Norman eyes' (iv. 135), confiscation was the penalty (iv. 127-8).

(2) 'The movement at Exeter' was not merely a rebellion, but one which was 'specially hateful in William's eyes' (iv. 140).

(3) They had been guilty of 'cruel and insulting treatment' to William's earlier emissaries (iv. 138).

(4) They had offered William himself an 'insult as unseemly as it was senseless' (iv. 155).

(5) They had flung to the winds their own capitulation with such audacity that William 'ira repletus est' (iv. 152).

(6) They had offered a prolonged and desperate resistance, costing the lives of many of his men (iv. 156).

Verily, in William's eyes, the cup of Exeter's iniquities must have been exceedingly full.

Even in cases of ordinary resistance his practice, we learn, was so uniform that Mr Freeman could take it for granted, 'after the fall of Exeter', that

the heavy destruction which fell on the town of Barnstaple,
in the north-western part of Devonshire, and the still heavier
destruction which fell on the town of Lidford, might seem to
show that these two boroughs were special scenes of resistance
(iv. 163).[30]

Therefore, in the aggravated case of Exeter, we could but expect him to deal with its citizens as he had dealt with those of Alençon,[31] and as he was to deal, hereafter, with the sturdy defenders of Ely.[32] A fearful vengeance was their certain doom. There was, moreover, as I stated at the outset, a need for sternness at this juncture that might justify William, apart from vengeance, in inflicting such signal punishment as should deter all other 'rebels'.

Yet what do we find? The citizens, we read, were 'favourably received', and 'assured of the safe possession of their lives and goods'. Nay, William even 'secured the gates with a strong guard of men whom he could trust in order to preserve the goods of the citizens from any breaches of discipline'.[33] The dreaded Conqueror, 'post tot iras terribilesque minas', had suddenly become mild as a lamb, and Mr Freeman accepts it all quite as a matter of course.

Such conduct would, surely, have been a positive premium on revolt.

A castle, of course, was raised; but this was inevitable, whether a town submitted peaceably or not. For instance, 'it is plain', Mr Freeman wrote, 'that Lincolnshire submitted more peaceably, and was dealt with more tenderly, than most parts of the kingdom' (iv. 216); but 'a castle was, of course, raised at Lincoln, as well as elsewhere', and 'involved the destruction of a large number of houses' (217-8), very many more than at Exeter.

One 'penalty', however, remains as the price that Exeter was called upon to pay for all her guilt. This, we read, was 'the raising of its tribute to lessen the wealth which had enabled it to resist'.[34] For its wealth is admitted. Now, before criticizing Mr Freeman's view, let us clearly understand what that view was. Taking, as is right, his latest work--though his view had not altered--we read of Exeter in 1050:

The city which had been the morning-gift of Norman Emma
was now, along with Winchester, part of the morning-gift
of English Edith, daughter of Godwine, sister of Harold. At
Exeter she was on her own ground; the royal revenues within
the city were hers.[35]

In 1086, we learn:

The whole payment was eighteen pounds yearly. Of this sum six
pounds--that is the earl's third penny--went to the Sheriff
Baldwin.... The other twelve pounds had formed part of the
morning-gift of the lady, and though Edith had been dead
eleven years, they are entered separately as hers.[36]

So far, all is consistent and clear enough. But we find it immediately added that:

This regular yearly payment of eighteen pounds had taken the
place of various uncertain payments and services.... Thus the
citizens of Exeter, who had offered to pay to William what
they had paid to former kings, found their burthens far
heavier than they had been in the old time. And the lady,
while she lived, reaped her full share of the increased
contributions of her own city.[37]

Or, as expressed in his great work:

The money payment was now raised from an occasional half-marc
of silver to eighteen pounds yearly. The rights of the old
lady were not forgotten, and Eadgyth received two-thirds of
the increased burthen laid upon her morning-gift.[38]

If the 'twelve pounds had formed part of the morning-gift of the lady', and were accordingly received by her, as we learn,[39] in the days of King Edward, how could they possibly form part of a new 'burthen' laid upon Exeter, as a punishment for its resistance, by William? And if the only payment due, under Edward, was an occasional half-marc of silver 'for the use of the soldiers'[40] what were 'the royal revenues' from Exeter that Edith was drawing in 1050? A moment's thought is enough to show that Mr Freeman's statements contradict themselves, as, indeed, he must have seen, had he stopped to think. But this he sometimes failed to do.

The whole source of Mr Freeman's confusion was his inexplicable misunderstanding of the Domesday entry on the city.[41] We must first note that both his predecessors--Palgrave, who was lacking in 'critical faculty', and Ellis, who was 'far from being up to the present standard of historical scholarship'--had read this entry rightly, and given, independently, its gist. It will best enable my readers to understand the point at issue if I print side by side the paraphrases of Exeter's offer given by Palgrave and by our author.

PALGRAVE FREEMAN

Tribute or gafol they would We are ready to pay to him the
proffer to their king such as tribute which we have been used
was due to his predecessors.... to pay to former kings.... The
They (1) would weigh out the city paid in money only when
eighteen pounds of silver; (2) London, York, and Winchester
the geld would be paid, if paid, and the sum to be paid was
London, York, and Winchester a single half-marc of silver.
submitted to the tax; and (3) When the king summoned his _fyrd_
if war arose, the king should to his standard by sea or by land,
have the quota of service Exeter supplied the same number of
imposed upon five hydes of men as were supplied by five hides
land.... But the citizens of land.... But the men of Exeter
refused to become the men ... of would not, each citizen personally,
their sovereign; they would become his men; they would not
not ... allow the Basileus to receive so dangerous a visitor
enter within their walls. within their walls.[42]

I have numbered the clauses in Palgrave's paraphrase which render the three successive clauses in the Domesday Book entry. The first refers to the _firma_ of the town, payable to its lord (the king);[43] the second to the 'geld' (tax), payable to the king _qua_ king;[44] the third to its military service.[45] The distinction between the three clauses is admirably seen under Totnes (i. 108, _b_), and the sense of Domesday is absolutely certain to any one familiar with its formulas.[46]

The 'commutation of geldability' (as Mr Eyton termed it) was by no means peculiar to Exeter. Totnes paid, 'when Exeter paid', the same sum of half a marc 'pro geldo'. Bridport paid the same 'ad opus Huscarlium regis' (75), Dorchester and Wareham a marc each, and Shaftesbury two marcs (Eyton's _Dorset Domesday_, 70-72). In these Dorset instances, one marc represented an assessment of ten hides.

What Mr Freeman did was to confuse the first clause with the second, and to suppose that both referred to the 'money payment' of the town, the first under William, the second under Edward. He thus evolved the statement that under William 'the money payment was raised from an occasional half-marc of silver to eighteen pounds yearly'. This is roughly equivalent to saying of a house rented at fifty pounds, and paying a tax of one pound, that its 'money payment' was raised from one pound to fifty.

But this confusion, with all its results, is carried further still. Edith's share of the eighteen pounds is entered in Domesday as 'xii. lib[ras] ad numerum'. This Mr Freeman rightly gave as the amount in 1086;[47] but turning back a few pages, we actually read that

In Domesday twelve houses in Exeter appear as 'liberæ ad
numerum in ministeriis Edid reginæ'.[48]

This is, of course, the same entry, only that here our author changed pounds into houses, and _libras_ into _liberæ_. What idea was conveyed to his mind by a house 'libera ad numerum' I do not profess to explain. But, oddly enough, as he here turned pounds into houses, so in a passage of his _William Rufus_ he turned houses into pence.[49]

The essence of the whole matter is that the 'burdens' to which Exeter was subject were not raised at all, but remained precisely the same as had been paid to former kings. And this fact is the more notable, because, as Mr Freeman had to admit, 'even the tribute imposed by William' [on his own hypothesis] 'was not large for so great a city', and, one may add, a rich one.[50] Indeed, it was so small as to fairly call for increase.[51] Even Lincoln, which, according to Mr Freeman, received 'favourable' treatment from William, had its 'tribute largely raised'[52] in fact, more than trebled.[53] What we have to account for, therefore, is the fact that a city which had defied, insulted, and outraged William, received not only 'a free pardon',[54] but peculiar favour at his hands.

The paradox itself is beyond dispute, whatever may be said of my solution.

For a solution there is. Only it is not to miracles or legends, nor to the flatterings of courtly chaplains that we must look to learn the truth, but, in the words of a memorable essay, to 'the few unerring notices in Domesday and the chronicles'.[55] As yet we have not, it must be remembered, heard the story from the English side. Let us turn, therefore, to the English version, to what Mr Freeman described as 'the short but weighty account in the Worcester Chronicle, which gives hints which we should be well pleased to see drawn out at greater length'.[56] These hints I shall now examine, though I doubt if Mr Freeman's friends will be well pleased with the result.

We have in the Chronicle a straightforward story, not only intelligible in itself, but also thoroughly in harmony with the known facts of the case. The king finds himself compelled to lay formal siege to Exeter ('besæt þa burh'); he is detained before its walls day after day ('xviii. dægas') in the depth of an English winter, 'and þær wearð micel his heres forfaren'. The need for sternness was there indeed; but swiftness was to him, for the moment, a matter of life and death. Held at bay by those stubborn walls, learning the might of those 'two generals'--January and February--in whom the Emperor Nicholas put his trust, William was in sore straits. Take Mr Freeman's own words:

The disaffected were intriguing for foreign help;... there
was a chance of his having to struggle for his crown against
Swend of Denmark;... men were everywhere seeking to shake off
the yoke, or to escape it in their own persons. Even where no
outbreak took place local conspiracies were rife.[57]

Swend was in his rear, half England on his flank; before him reared their head the walls of dauntless Exeter.[58] In that bleak wilderness of frost and snow his men were falling around him, and, in very bitterness of spirit, the Conqueror bowed himself for need. So, at least, I boldly suggest. He fell back on his 'arts of policy', and set himself to win by alluring terms the men whom he could not conquer. In the words of the Chronicle, he promised them well ('ac he heom well behet').

This solution, of course, differs _toto cælo_ from Mr Freeman's narrative. We have seen that he blindly accepted the statements of that 'abandoned flatterer', William of Poitiers (whom Orderic had here 'doubtless followed'[59])--against whom he elsewhere warned us--and combined them with a miracle from William of Malmesbury, which he euhemerized in the style that he himself had ridiculed in Thierry.[60] And as he could not harmonize the courtly version with the 'short but weighty account' in the Chronicle he cut the knot by dismissing the latter, and pronouncing his own version 'the most likely'.[61]

Resuming the narrative, we learn that the thegns--the party of non-resistance from the first--must have seized this opportunity for impressing on their 'concives' the necessity of embracing the offer, whereupon the latter, in the words of the Chronicle, 'gave up the town because the thegns had betrayed them'. It is just possible that the word 'geswicon' may point to some direct treachery, but it seems best and most naturally explained as referring to their unpatriotic advice, which would naturally appear to English eyes a 'betrayal' of the national cause. There can be little doubt, from the admissions of William of Poitiers (through the mouth of Orderic), that the terms of agreement included not only a free pardon for all past offences, and for the city's aggravated resistance, but also security for person and property from plunder by the Norman soldiery. And the witness of 'the great record' implies that 'the Exeter patricians', as Mr Freeman styled them[62]--'the civic aristocracy'[63]--gained their original selfish aim, and secured an undertaking that they should not pay a penny more than their 'tributum ex consuetudine pristina'.

What security, it may be asked, could they obtain for the terms they seem to have exacted? Bold as it may seem, I would here venture to read between the lines, and to make the suggestion--it is nothing more--that when there issued from the gates 'the clergy of the city, bearing their sacred books and other holy things' (as Mr Freeman rendered the words of Orderic), the real object of their coming forth was to make the king swear upon their relics[64] to the observance of the terms they had obtained. It was indeed the irony of fate if William, who was ever insisting on the breach of Harold's oath, was driven, by the force of circumstances, to take such an oath himself.

But, it may be urged, should we be justified in treating thus drastically the witness of Orderic, or rather, of William of Poitiers? At Alençon, I reply, in Mr Freeman's words:

William of Poitiers is silent altogether, both as to the
vengeance and as to the insult. Neither subject was perhaps
altogether agreeable to a professed panegyrist (_Norm. Conq._,
ii. 285).

Stronger, however, is the case of Le Mans, and more directly to the point. 'William,' we read, 'followed the same policy against Exeter (1068) which he had followed against Le Mans' (1063);[65] and so, in 1073, we find him 'calling on the men of Le Mans, as he had called on the men of Exeter', to submit peacefully, and escape his wrath.[66] Unlike 'the Exeter patricians', indeed, 'the magistrates of Le Mans' did receive the king peacefully within their walls; they did not incur the guilt of offering armed resistance. But the essential point at Le Mans is that

the Norman version simply tells how they brought the keys of
the city, how they threw themselves on William's mercy, and
were graciously received by him. The local writer speaks
in another tone. The interview between the king and the
magistrates of Le Mans is described by a word often used to
express conferences--in a word, _parliaments_--whether between
prince and prince, or between princes and the estates of their
dominions. They submitted themselves to William's authority
as their sovereign, but they received his oath to observe the
ancient customs and _justices_ of the city. Le Mans was no
longer to be a sovereign commonwealth, but it was to remain a
privileged municipality.[67]

The words 'acceptis ab eo sacramentis, tam de impunitate perfidiæ quam de conservandis antiquis ejusdem civitatis consuetudinibus'[68] would apply exactly to the case of Exeter, and William may well have done there what he actually did, we here read, at Le Mans. There would have been at Exeter even greater need for an oath, in that its 'perfidia' had been so much the worse.

But now comes the curious parallel. Though quoting and scrutinizing so closely the meagre accounts of the Exeter campaign, Mr Freeman seems to have oddly overlooked the significant words of Florence, although, of course, familiar with his narrative. Florence, we find, employs a phrase corresponding with that in the _Vetera Analecta_.

FLORENCE 'VET AN'

Cives autem _dextris acceptis_ _Acceptis ab eo sacramentis_
regi se dedebant. ... sese et sua omnia dederunt.

Mr Freeman argues from the case of Le Mans that _dedere_ in these times did not imply the fulness of a Roman _deditio_.[69] But we are not merely dependent upon this. The words, 'dextris acceptis', I contend, imply a promise and a pledge for its performance, and cannot therefore be reconciled with an unconditional surrender.

Now if it were not for the fortunate preservation of the _Vetera Analecta_ in the case of Le Mans, Mr Freeman would there also, as at Exeter, have been hoodwinked by 'the Norman version'.[70] I am anxious not to employ a phrase which might be deemed offensive or unjust, so I restrict myself to that which he himself applied to his predecessor, Palgrave, when, speaking of the story of Eadric and his brother, he wrote that Sir Francis Palgrave 'swallowed the whole tale'.[71] Whether my solution be accepted or not, it is, I repeat, conjectural. I have, at least, shown that there is a mystery to be solved, that Mr Freeman's version fails to solve it, and that, so far from Domesday recording the punishment inflicted upon Exeter, it actually heightens the mystery of the case by proving that Exeter obtained exceptionally favourable treatment.

It is not merely a question of how Exeter fell. The issue illustrates the policy and affects the character of William. The lame manner in which Mr Freeman accounts for his sudden conversion from fury to lamb-like gentleness is no less unsatisfactory than his treatment of the 'weighty account' in the Chronicle when he found that this, his valued authority, rendered the problem difficult. Even at Le Mans more was needed than merely to print both stories. The fact that we find in 'the Norman version' the truth conveniently glossed over ought to be insisted on and duly applied. Time after time in Mr Freeman's work we find him paraphrasing patches of chronicles, under the impression that he was writing history. The statements of witnesses are laid before us, neatly pieced together, but they are not subjected to more than a perfunctory cross-examination. Even if the accurate reproduction of testimony were all that we sought from the historian, we should not, so far as Domesday is concerned, obtain it in this instance. But the case of Exeter is one where something more is needed, where even accuracy is not sufficient without the possession of that higher gift, the power of seizing upon the truth when the evidence is misleading and contradictory. The paraphrasing of evidence is the work of a reporter; from the historian we have a right to expect the skilled summing-up of the judge.

[Footnote 1: Letter from John Shillingford, Mayor of Exeter,
1447.]

[Footnote 2: _Exeter_ (1887), p. 34.]

[Footnote 3: It was also the subject of a special paper in his
'Historic Towns and Districts' (1883) reprinted from _Arch.
Journ._, xxx. 297, pp. 49 _et seq._, and _Sat. Rev._, xxix.
764-5.]

[Footnote 4: _Sat. Rev._, xxix. 765.]

[Footnote 5: _Norman Conquest_, iv. 123. The metaphor of a
'sea' waiting in an 'island' is sufficiently original to be
deserving of notice.]

[Footnote 6: _Ibid._, iv. 140.]

[Footnote 7: See 'The alleged destruction of Leicester',
_infra_, p. 347.]

[Footnote 8: iv. 151. 'It is certain', Mr Freeman had written,
'that what William had to strive against in the West was a
league of towns' (_Sat. Rev._, xxix. 765).]

[Footnote 9: _Cont. Rev._, June 1877, p. 22. See also
Preface.]

[Footnote 10: 'Hi nimirum socios e plagis finitimis inquiete
arcessebant ... alias quoque civitates ad conspirandum in
eadem legationibus instigabant.' _Ord. Vit._, 510 A (quoted in
_Norman Conquest_, iv. 140).]

[Footnote 11: Mr Freeman rendered it 'neighbouring shires',
but I am not at all sure that, taken in conjunction with
the words just before about the accessibility of Exeter from
Ireland and Brittany, and those just after, about 'mercatores
advenas', _plagæ_ does not refer to the shores from which
these merchants came.]

[Footnote 12: The boroughs of Dorset were doubtless among
the towns which had joined in the Civic League. Probably
they stood sieges and were taken by storm (_Norm. Conq._, iv.
151).]

[Footnote 13: Mr Archer deemed it sufficient reply to all
these 'trifling blunders' to admit that 'Mr Freeman did
misread 128 for 100' (_Cont. Rev._, March 1893, p. 337). I
invite comparison of the errors I have corrected, and of all
the edifice built upon them, with this disingenuous attempt to
represent them as unimportant 'slips' (_ibid._, p. 354).]

[Footnote 14: Stubbs' _Const. Hist._, i. 625.]

[Footnote 15: Stubbs' _Const. Hist._, i. 71.]

[Footnote 16: _Ibid._]

[Footnote 17: _Norm. Conq._, iv. xiii, and marginal note on p.
156.]

[Footnote 18: _Ibid._, p. 156.]

[Footnote 19: _Ibid._, i. 289.]

[Footnote 20: 'Dum murum illius destruere moliretur' (quoted
from Florence, on i., p. 309).]

[Footnote 21: Quoted from Florence, on i., p. 315.]

[Footnote 22: It seems possible, at least, that they might
describe a direct attack on the foot of the walls.]

[Footnote 23: I would here compare William's description of
the Conqueror's 'peaceful progress' to London after his great
victory, which better evidence, Mr Freeman observed, 'quite
upsets' (iii. 533).]

[Footnote 24: _Essays_, 1st series.]

[Footnote 25: _Exeter_, p. 36.]

[Footnote 26: _Norm. Conq._, iii. 412.]

[Footnote 27: _Ibid._, iii. 536-7.]

[Footnote 28: 'Supplicia pro reatu nimis metuebant.']

[Footnote 29: 'Militibus crudeliter et contumeliose illuserant
quos ipse de Normannia miserat et tempestas ad portum illorum
appulerat.']

[Footnote 30: So too we read of Torkesey, a little later on,
that it suffered so 'severely as to suggest the idea that
William met with some serious resistance at this point'
(_Ibid._, iv. 217); while speaking of the 'Fall of Chester',
Mr Freeman wrote: 'We know that the resistance which William
met with in this his last conquest was enough to lead him to
apply the same stern remedy which he had applied north of the
Humber. A fearful harrying fell on city and shire, and on the
lands round about' (_Ibid._, iv. 314-5).]

[Footnote 31: 'The Conqueror, faithful to his fearful
oath, now gave the first of that long list of instances of
indifference to human suffering', etc. (_Ibid._, ii. 285).]

[Footnote 32: 'At Ely, as at Alençon, the Conqueror felt no
scruple against inflicting punishments which to our notions
might seem more frightful than death itself' (_Ibid._, iv.
476).]

[Footnote 33: _Ibid._, iv. 160.]

[Footnote 34: _English Towns and Districts_.]

[Footnote 35: _Exeter_ (1887), p. 32.]

[Footnote 36: _Ibid._, pp. 43-4.]

[Footnote 37: _Ibid._, p. 44.]

[Footnote 38: _Norm. Conq._, iv. 162.]

[Footnote 39: _Exeter_, p. 32.]

[Footnote 40: _Exeter_, p. 44; _Norm. Conq._, iv. 147.]

[Footnote 41: This grave confusion, with all that it involves,
was one of the 'trifling slips', as Mr Archer terms them
(_Cont. Rev._, p. 354), exposed in my original article
(_Q.R._, July 1892). Such a description is either dishonest,
or must imply that Mr Archer, who boasts that he has 'a
sterner criterion' than myself (_English Historical Review_,
ix. 606), deems such errors of no consequence.]

[Footnote 42: _Norm. Conq._, iv. 146-7.]

[Footnote 43: 'Hec reddit xviii. lib. per annum' (100).]

[Footnote 44: 'Hæc civitas T.R.E. non geldabat nisi quando
Londonia et Eboracum et Wintonia geldabant, et hoc erat
dimidia marka Argenti ad opus militum' (100).]

[Footnote 45: 'Quando expeditio ibat per terram aut per mare,
serviebat hæc civitas quantum v. hidæ terræ' (100).]

[Footnote 46: The practice in the Survey of Devon was to state
the render in 1086, and, if it had been different formerly,
to add a note to that effect. Thus we read on 100_b_: 'Reddit
xlviii. lib. ad pensam. Ante Balduinum reddebat xxiii. lib.'
So, too, of Totnes: 'Inter omnes redd' viii. lib. ad numerum.
Olim reddebant iii. lib. ad pensam et arsuram' (108_b_).]

[Footnote 47: _Norm. Conq._, iv. 162.]

[Footnote 48: _Ibid._, 139.]

[Footnote 49: Reading 'Eudo Dapifer [tenet] v. denarios',
where Domesday (ii. 106) has, of course, 'v. d[omus]'.]

[Footnote 50: Mr Freeman held that Domesday hinted it might be
classed with London, York, and Winchester (_Norm. Conq._,
iv. 147; _Exeter_, 45), and quotes William of Malmesbury's
description of its wealth and importance. Even in earlier
days, he wrote, 'both the commercial and the military
importance of the city were of the first rank' (i. 308).]

[Footnote 51: The _firma_ of Gloucester had been raised to
£60, and that of Chester to over £70, while at Wallingford,
where the king had about as many houses as at Exeter, it was
£80.]

[Footnote 52: _Norm. Conq._, iv. 213.]

[Footnote 53: 'T.R.E. reddebat civitas Lincolia regi xx.
libras et comiti x. libras. Modo reddit c. libras ad numerum
inter regem et comitem' (D.B., i. 336_b_).]

[Footnote 54: _Norm. Conq._, iv. 160.]

[Footnote 55: Mr Freeman's 'Pedigrees and Pedigree-makers'
(_Cont. Rev._, June 1887, p. 33).]

[Footnote 56: _Norm. Conq._, iv. 151.]

[Footnote 57: _Ibid._, iv. pp. 103, 118. So too _ibid._, p.
126: 'There was the imminent fear of an invasion from Denmark,
and the threatening aspect of the still independent west and
north. William had need of all his arts of war and policy to
triumph over the combination of so many enemies at once.']

[Footnote 58: 'Cives eam tenebant furiosi, copiosæ
multitudinis, infestissimi mortalibus Gallici generis.'--_Ord.
Vit._]

[Footnote 59: _Norm. Conq._, iv. 146.]

[Footnote 60: It is curious to see how Thierry waters down the
miracle: 'Son cheval, glissant sur le pavé, s'abattit et le
froissa dans sa chute.' Of course this is likely enough to
have been the kernel of truth in the legend, but no man has a
right to tell the tale in this shape as if it were undoubted
fact.--_Norm. Conq._, iv. 291.]

[Footnote 61: _Norm. Conq._, iv. 151-2.]

[Footnote 62: _Ibid._, 146.]

[Footnote 63: _Ibid._, p. 147.]

[Footnote 64: Cf. the familiar phrase, 'Tactis sacris
evangeliis', with Orderic's words here, 'sacros libros'.]

[Footnote 65: _Norm. Conq._, iv. 151.]

[Footnote 66: _Ibid._, 559.]

[Footnote 67: _Ibid._, 560.]

[Footnote 68: _Ibid._]

[Footnote 69: _Norm. Conq._, iv. 560.]

[Footnote 70: 'Edicta regalia suis opportune intimavit, et
urbanis imperiose mandavit, ut prudenter sibi consulerent'
(_Ord Vit._, ii. 255).]

[Footnote 71: _Ibid._, i. 662.]

THE ALLEGED DESTRUCTION OF LEICESTER (1068)

This question was raised and discussed by Mr Freeman in his _History of the Norman Conquest_ (iv. 196-7). We there read as follows:

Is it possible that in the case of Leicester, at least, no
power was left either to follow or to resist? While we have no
evidence either way on which we can rely with confidence, one
of those secondary and local records, which sometimes contain
fragments of authentic tradition, suggests, in a perfectly
casual way, that a doom fell upon Leicester, which might,
doubtless, with some exaggeration, be spoken of as utter
destruction. And this incidental hint may perhaps draw
some indirect confirmation from the highest evidence of
all [Domesday] ... and it may be that Leicester earned its
overthrow by a defence worthy of a borough which was to give
its name to the greatest of England's later worthies.

The 'record' referred to is quoted in a footnote, and is a history of the foundation of Leicester Abbey, one of a class of narratives notoriously inaccurate and corrupt:

Robertus Comes Mellenti, veniens in Angliam cum Willelmo Duce
Normanniæ, adeptus consulatum Leycestriæ, ex dono dicti Ducis
et Conquestoris Angliæ, _destructa prius civitate Leicestriæ_
cum castello et ecclesia infra castellum tempore prædicti
Conquestoris, reædificavit ipsam æcclesiam Sancta Mariæ infra
castellum.

Now, it strikes one in the first place as somewhat unlikely that William, on his arrival at Leicester, should find a castle to destroy. But, further, how could Robert have obtained the 'consulatus' of Leicester from the Conqueror, when he is well known to have first obtained it (under very peculiar circumstances) from Henry I? If this known event has been so glaringly ante-dated, may not the alleged 'destruction' be so likewise? These it may be said are only doubts. But, as it happens, we can not only discredit the suggested 'destruction' in the days of the Conqueror: we can actually fix its date as the reign of Henry I.

We learn from Orderic that the town of Leicester ('urbs Legrecestria') was divided into four quarters, of which Ivo de Grantmesnil possessed two, one in his own right, and one (which was the King's share) as the King's reeve and representative. We also learn that he was among the 'seditiosi proceres', who rebelled against Henry in 1101, and that of these, 'aliqui contra fideles vicinos guerram arripuerunt et gremium almæ telluris rapacitatibus et incendiis, cruentisque cædibus maculaverunt'. Ivo is again mentioned by Orderic in 1102, not only among the 'proditores' of the previous year, who were now called to account, but also as a special ringleader in that internecine conflict to which he had already referred. He tells us that Henry

Ivonem quoque, quia guerram in Anglia c[oe]perat et vicinorum
rura suorum incendia combusserat (quod in illa regione crimen
est inusitatum nec sine grave ultione fit expiatum), rigidus
censor accusatum nec purgatum ingentis pecuniæ redditione
oneravit, et plurimo angore tribulatum mæstificavit.

In short, as Dr Stubbs reminds us, Ivo 'has the evil reputation of being the first to introduce the horrors of private warfare into England'. Bearing in mind the divided authority from which Leicester suffered, and the statement that Ivo, ruling half the town, plundered and made fierce war upon his neighbours, we arrive at the conclusion that the 'destruction', which, in the _Monasticon_ narrative, precedes the accession of the Count of Meulan to the _comitatus_ of Leicester, may be assigned, without a shadow of doubt, to the struggle of 1101.

On Ivo's disgrace, as is well known, the wily Count stepped at once into his shoes, 'et auxilio regis suâque calliditate totam sibi civitatem mancipavit, et inde consul in Anglia factus'. There is no reason to doubt the statement that St Mary 'de Castro' was rebuilt and refounded by Count Robert after his obtaining this position at Leicester.

It is singular that just as the _Monasticon_ seems to have misled Mr Freeman at Leicester, so it is responsible for Thierry's 'story of the fighting monks of Oxford', at about the same time, a story of which Mr Freeman wrote that 'the whole story is a dream', and 'would not have been allowable even in an historical novel' (iv. 779-80).

ELY AND HER DESPOILERS (1072-5)

The elaborate record of this trial is only found, I believe, in the Trinity College (Cambridge) MS., O. 2, 1 (fos. 210_b_-213_b_) from which it has been printed by Mr Hamilton in his _Inquisitio Comitatus Cantabrigiensis_ (pp. 192-5). This 'placitum', therefore, would seem to have remained unknown till the publication of that work (1876).

The date of this important document can be fixed within a few years. It mentions Earl Waltheof among those before whom the plea was held, so that it cannot be later than 1075; and as it also mentions 'Rodulfus comes', it is evidently previous to the revolt of the earls in that year. On the other hand, it is later than the death of William Malet, for it mentions his son Robert as in possession, and later, therefore, than the restoration of Waltheof at the beginning of 1070. Moreover, it is subsequent to the death of Stigand ('post obitum illius'). Now Stigand was not even deposed till the spring of 1070; and we know from Domesday and other sources that he lived some time afterwards. We may safely say, therefore, that this 'placitum' did not take place till after the suppression of the Ely revolt in the autumn of 1071. Practically, therefore, our document belongs to the years 1072-1075. Now, as Abbot Thurstan did not die till 1076--the date given in the _Liber Eliensis_, and accepted by Mr Freeman--it follows that this great act of restitution in favour of the Abbey took place under Abbot Thurstan himself, a fact unmentioned by the chroniclers, and unsuspected by Mr Freeman, who held that he found no favour in William's eyes.

The great length of this document--so important for its bearing on Domesday--precludes its discussion in detail. But its opening clause must be given and some of its features pointed out.

Ad illud placitum quo pontifices Gosfridus et Remigius, consul
vero Waltheuus, necnon vicecom[ites] Picotus atque Ilbertus
jussu Willelmi Dei dispositione Anglor[um] regis, cum omni
vicecomitatu sicut rex preceperat, convenerunt, testimonio
hominum rei veritatem cognoscentium determinaverunt terras que
injuste fuerant ablate ab ecclesia sancte Dei genitricis
Marie de insulâ ely ... quatinus de dominio fuerant,
tempore videlicet regis Ædwardi, ad dominium sine alicujus
contradictione redirent quicunque eas possideret.

The mention of Count Eustace among those withholding lands proves that at the date of this document he was already restored to his possessions. Another individual whose name occurs several times in this document is Lisois ('De Monasteriis'), the hero of the passage of the Aire. Collating its evidence with that of Domesday, we find that Lisois had been succeeded, at the date of the great record, by the well-known Eudo Dapifer in a fief, ranging over at least five counties--Cambridgeshire, Bedfordshire, Norfolk, Suffolk, and Essex--in all of which Domesday records his name as the predecessor of Eudo. This is of the more interest because Mr Freeman wrote:

The only notice of this Lisois which I can find in Domesday
is in ii. 49_b_, where he appears in possession, but seemingly
illegal possession, of a small holding in Essex.

So again we have in our document this passage relating to Stigand:

He sunt proprie ville monasterii insule Ely quos Stigandus
archipresul tenebat, unde per annum victum fratribus reddidit
tantum quantum pertinet ad hoc. Has vero tenet rex noster W.
post obitum illius, Methelwald et Crokestune et Snegelwelle et
Dictun.

Now Stigand, according to the _Liber Eliensis_ 'quasdam illius optimas possessiones sicut Liber Terrarum insinuat, ad maximum loci dispendium retinuit'. Our document identifies these 'possessiones' with Methwold and Croxton in Norfolk, Snailwell and Ditton in Cambridgeshire, and thus disposes of Mr Freeman's very unfortunate suggestion--advanced, of course, to justify Stigand--that the _Liber Eliensis_ here referred to a tiny Hampshire estate, which the Abbey had held under Stigand T.R.E.[1]

In my paper on Domesday I have pointed out the importance of this document in its bearing on socmen and their services, while we saw in investigating knight service that its language affords, in this matter, a valuable gloss on that of Domesday. Close examination of its details shows that the aggressions on the Abbey's property which it records, were, in spite of the verdict on this occasion, persisted in, if not increased. Those, for instance, of Hardwin may be recognized in the duplicate entries in Domesday Book, representing the conflicting claims.[2] On persons as on lands we have some fresh information. Ilbert the Sheriff was, I believe, identical with that 'Ilbert de Hertford', who is alluded to in Domesday (i. 200), and would thus be a pre-Domesday Sheriff of Herts.[3] The entry, 'tenet Rotbertus homo Bainardi in Reoden de soca', when compared with the holding of 'Rienduna' by Ralf 'Baignardi' in Domesday (ii. 414), suggests that we have in Bainard the father (hitherto unknown) of this Domesday tenant-in-chief. Bainard would thus be a Christian name, as was also Mainard, which occurs in this same document.

[Footnote 1: D.B., i. 40_b_.]

[Footnote 2: See p. 32 _supra_.]

[Footnote 3: Domesday (i. 200_b_) styles him, 'Ilbertus de
Hertford', and connects him with 'Risedene', a Hertfordshire
Manor. On the other hand, the I.C.C. makes him 'Ilbertus de
Hereforda' (p. 56), and 'Ilbertus vicecomes' is actually found
in Herefordshire (D.B., i. 179_b_). But what could he be doing
in Cambridgeshire?]

THE LORDS OF ARDRES

In the _History of the Norman Conquest_ (2nd ed.) we read of Eustace of Boulogne:

An incidental notice of one of his followers throws some light
on the class of men who flocked to William's banners, and on
the rewards which they received. One Geoffrey, an officer of
the Abbey of Saint Bertin at Saint Omer, who had the charge of
its possessions in the County of Guines, sent his sons, Arnold
and Geoffrey, to the war ... and in the end they received
a grant of lands both in Essex and in the border shires of
Mercia and East-Anglia, under the superiority of their patron
Count Eustace (iii. 314).

In an Appendix on 'Arnold of Ardres', which Mr Freeman devoted to this subject (iii. 725-6), he gave the 'Historia Comitum Ardensium' (of Lambert of Ardres) for his authority, and he verified, by Domesday, the Manors which Lambert assigns to 'these adventurers', holding that a Bedfordshire estate was omitted, while 'Stebintonia', which he identified with Stibbington, Hunts, was wrongly included, as it was 'held of Count Eustace by Lunen'.

The first point to be noticed here is that 'these adventurers' were the sons (as Lambert explains) not of any 'Geoffrey', a mere Abbey officer, but of a local magnate, Arnold, Lord of Ardres. The next is that Lambert was quite correct in his list of Manors.

In the fourth series of his historical essays Mr Freeman included a paper on 'The Lords of Ardres', for which he availed himself of Dr Heller's edition of Lambert in the _Monumenta_ (vol. xxiv). In this edition the passage runs:

Feodum Stevintoniam et pertinencias eius, Dokeswordiam,
Tropintoniam, Leilefordiam, Toleshondiam, et Hoilandiam (cap.
113, p. 615).

Dr Heller, on this, notes:

Secundum 'Domesday Book' recepit Ernulfus de Arda Dochesworde,
Trupintone (com. Cantabrig.) et Stiventone (comit. Bedford)
a comite Eustacio ... e contra Toheshunt [_sic_] Hoiland,
Leleford recepit ab eodem comite Adelolfus de Merc (prope
Calais).

This note enabled Mr Freeman to identify 'Adelolfus' (which he had failed to do in the _Norman Conquest_), though he must have overlooked the identification of 'Stevintonia' (namely Stevington, Beds.), for we find him still writing:

But of the English possessions reckoned up by our author two
only ... can be identified in Domesday as held by Arnold ...
The local writer seems to have mixed up the possessions of
Arnold with those of a less famous adventurer from the same
reign, Adelolf--our Athelwulf--of Merck (pp. 184-5).

And he again insisted that 'Arnold had other lands in Bedfordshire'.

We will now turn to an entry in the _Testa de Nevill_ from the 'milites tenentes de honore Bononie':

Comes de Gines tenet xii. milites, scilicet--in
Bedefordescire, in _Stiveton_ et Parva Wahull III milites,
in Cantabr' in _Dukesword_, et _Trumpeton_ III milites ... in
Essex, _Tholehunt_ et Galdhangr' III milites, in _Hoyland'_ et
_Lalesford_ ibidem III milites.

Here we have all the Manors mentioned by Lambert (with their appurtenances) assigned to the Count of Guines, the heir of Arnold of Ardres; and we can thus believe the _Testa_ entry (p. 272) of Tolleshunt and Holland, 'quas idem comes et antecessores sui tenuerunt de conquestu Angliæ'. But the _Testa_ does more than this; it informs us that Holland and Lawford were held of the Count by 'Henry de Merk'. Now, 'Adelolf' de Merk is found in Domesday holding many Manors direct from Eustace of Boulogne, and these Manors are divided in the _Testa_ between his descendants Simon and Henry de Merk.[1] It is, therefore, possible that he held the three Essex Manors in 1086, not directly from Count Eustace, but, like his descendant, from their under-tenant (Arnold). This raises, of course, an important question as to Domesday.[2]

It is interesting to observe that the village of Marck in the Pas de Calais has, through Adelolf and his heirs, transferred its name to the Essex parish of Mark's Tey, though not to that of Marks Hall (so named in Domesday).

While on the subject of the Lords of Ardres, it may be convenient to give the reference to a letter of mine to the _Academy_ (May 28, 1892), explaining that Lambert's 'Albericus Aper', who puzzled Dr Heller and Mr Freeman, was our own Aubrey de Vere, first Earl of Oxford, and that Lambert's statement (accepted by Mr Freeman) as to the parentage of Emma, wife of Count Manasses, had been disproved by Stapleton.

[Footnote 1: An interesting charter belonging to the close of
Stephen's reign shows us Queen Matilda compensating Henry 'de
Merch' for his land at Donyland (one of these Manors)--which
she was giving to St John's, Colchester--'de redditibus
transmarinis ad suam voluntatem'. Another and earlier charter
from her father and mother (printed by Mr E. J. L. Scott in
the _Athenæum_ of December 2, 1893) has Fulco de merc and M.
de merc among the witnesses.]

[Footnote 2: The non-appearance of Arnold's brother,
'Geoffrey', in Domesday which has been deemed a difficulty,
is accounted for by Lambert's statement that he made over his
English possessions to Arnold.]

EARLY IRISH TRADE WITH CHESTER AND ROUEN[1]

The eighth report of the Royal Commission on Historical Manuscripts speaks of the records of the city of Chester as 'beginning with Henry the Second's writ of licence to the citizens of Chester to trade in Durham [_sic_] as they were wont to do in the time of Henry the First' (p. xv). The records themselves are similarly described in the actual report on them (pp. 355-403) as 'beginning with a curious writ, addressed by Henry the Second to his bailiffs of the city of Durham' [_sic_]. This, which is among those items spoken of as 'especially interesting and important', figures thus as the head of the calendar:

(1) Henry II. Licence to the burgesses of Chester to buy and
sell at Durham [_sic_] as they were wont to do in the time of
Henry I--'Henricus Dei gratia Rex Anglie et Dux Normannie
et Aquitanie et Comes Andegavie balluis [_sic_] de Dunelina
[_sic_] salutem:--Precipio quod Burgenses Cestrie possint
emere et vendere ad detaillum [_or_ doraillum] apud Dunelinam
[_sic_] habendo et faciendo easdem consuetudines quas
faciebant tempore Regis Henrici avi mei et easdem ibi habeant
rectitudines et libertates et liberas consuetudines quas
tempore illo habere solebant, teste, Willelmo filio Ald'
dapifero Apud Wintoniam.

Durham is not only a most improbable place for such a writ to refer to, but is also an impossible rendering of the Latin name. The interest and importance of this 'curious writ' has, in short, been obscured and lost through the ignorance of Mr J. C. Jeaffreson, to whom the report was entrusted. The charters which follow the writ, and which are printed on the same page, refer to this writ as relating to Ireland; and the town, of course, to which it refers is not Durham but Dublin (_Duuelina_).

We have, therefore, in this writ an almost, if not quite, unique reference by Henry II to Dublin in the days of his grandfather, and a confirmation of the 'libertates', etc., which the men of Chester had then enjoyed there, just as if his grandfather had been in his own position. Secondly, we have here record evidence, not merely of a recognized connection, but of what might be termed treaty relations between the traders of Chester and the Ostmen of Dublin, long previous to the Conquest of Ireland, thus confirming Mr Green's observation, 'the port of Chester depended on the trade with Ireland, which had sprung up since the settlement of the Northmen along the Irish Coasts'.[2] And this has, of course, a bearing on the question of 'a Danish settlement' at Chester. Thirdly, we learn from this document that at the date of its issue Dublin was governed by bailiffs of the King (_ballivi sui_).