Chapter IV: The Crusade (2)

[23] It was perhaps through this Alan that the names of so many Breton crusaders have been preserved in the history of Baldric of Dol, from which they have been copied by Ordericus Vitalis.

[24] They are mentioned in a general way as taking part in the battle with Kerboga at Antioch, 28 June 1098: “In tertia Rodbertus dux Normannorum, cum xv milibus Cenomannorum, Andegavorum, Britonum, et Anglorum.” Ordericus, iii, p. 555. There is a good deal of documentary evidence bearing upon crusaders from Maine, which, however, is in no case quite sufficient to prove that any individual Manceau whom we can identify actually went on the First Crusade. It will be found in Appendix D, nos. 22-24, 27, 30, 38, 47. An anonymous work entitled _Noblesse du Maine aux croisades_ (Le Mans, 1859), pp. 13-14, gives a list of twenty-five noble Manceaux who answered Pope Urban’s call. The list is valueless, however, since no evidence or authority is cited in any case, and the work is obviously based upon no sufficient criticism.

[25] Ordericus, iv, pp. 37-38.

[26] _A.-S. C._, _a._ 1096.

[27] See Appendix E, pp. 231-232.

[28] _G. R._, ii, p. 431.

[29] See Appendix C.

[30] Florence of Worcester, ii, p. 40.

[31] Cf. Ordericus, iv, p. 37: “Ea tempestate qua Rodbertus dux fratri suo Normanniam commisit, et ab eo magnam argenti copiam, ad explendum iter ad sepulchrum Regis nostri, recepit, Helias comes ad curiam regis Rotomagum venit. Qui, postquam diu cum duce consiliatus fuit, ad regem accessit, eique humiliter dixit…” Freeman places the meeting “at some point of the border-land of the Vexin, at Pontoise or at Chaumont,” citing as authority a letter of Ivo of Chartres (_H. F._, xv, p. 82); but he has quite arbitrarily assigned to 1096 a letter which clearly does not belong to that period. _William Rufus_, i, p. 559; cf. _supra_, p. 84, n. 215.

[32] Cf. _supra_, n. 16.

[33] Fulcher of Chartres, _Historia Hierosolymitana_ (1095-1127), ed. Heinrich Hagenmeyer (Heidelberg, 1913), p. 159, and n. 21. Fulcher first wrote ‘September’ and later changed it to ‘October.’ Ordericus Vitalis (iii, p. 483) and William of Malmesbury (_G. R._, ii, p. 402) both place the departure in September. Hagenmeyer probably explains the discrepancy correctly when he remarks that all did not depart at exactly the same time.

[34] Fulcher, pp. 162-163. The passage is highly rhetorical, but Fulcher, it should be remembered, was an eyewitness.

[35] _Ibid._, p. 161.

[36] Hugh of Flavigny, in _M. G. H._, Scriptores, viii, p. 475.

[37] For the stages of this route see the remarkable itinerary of Abbot Nicholas Saemundarson of Thingeyrar (in northern Iceland) who made the pilgrimage to the Holy Land between 1151 and 1154. E. C. Werlauff, _Symbolae ad Geographiam Medii Aevi ex Monumentis Islandicis_ (Copenhagen, 1821), pp. 18-25. It is summarized by Paul Riant, _Expéditions et pèlerinages des Scandinaves en Terre Sainte_ (Paris, 1865), pp. 80 ff.

[38] Fulcher, p. 164; cf. Baldric of Dol, in _H. C. Oc._, iv, p. 20; Ordericus, iii, p. 486.

[39] Fulcher, pp. 164-166.

[40] Petrus Diaconus, _Chronica Monasterii Casinensis_, in _M. G. H._, Scriptores, vii, p. 765; cf. the letter of Emperor Alexius to Abbot Oderisius of Monte Cassino, in _Kreuzzugsbriefe_, pp. 140-141.

[41] Fulcher, p. 166; Petrus Diaconus, _loc. cit._

[42] _G. F._, pp. 147 ff.; Lupus Protospatarius, in _M. G. H._, Scriptores, v, p. 62; cf. Ferdinand Chalandon, _Histoire de la domination normande en Italie et en Sicilie_ (Paris, 1907), i, pp. 301-302. William of Malmesbury (_G. R._, ii, pp. 390, 453), on the other hand, represents the crafty Bohemond as responsible for the inception of the whole crusading movement, a view which is accepted and developed at great length by Sir Francis Palgrave, _History of Normandy and England_ (London, 1851-64), iv, p. 484 _et passim_. H. W. C. Davis is also tempted by it. _England under the Normans and Angevins_ (London, 1905), p. 102. But in the face of the positive testimony of the _Gesta Francorum_ and of Lupus Protospatarius it is untenable.

[43] Fulcher, p. 167.

[44] _Ibid._, pp. 167-168; Baldric of Dol, in _H. C. Oc._, iv, p. 20; Ordericus, iii, p. 486.

[45] Fulcher, p. 168.

[46] Ordericus, iii, p. 486.

[47] Fulcher, p. 168. But probably many had only intended to make the pilgrimage to the shrine of St. Nicholas of Bari. Cf. _Miracula S. Nicolai conscripta a Monacho Beccensi_, in _Catalogus Codicum Hagiographicorum Latinorum in Bibliotheca Nationali Parisiensi_, ed. the Bollandists (Brussels, 1889-93), ii, p. 422. Fulcher of Chartres (p. 167) notes that many of the crusaders turned aside to pray at the church of St. Nicholas.

[48] William of Malmesbury, _G. R._, ii, p. 409.

[49] See Appendix D, no. 29.

[50] Fulcher, pp. 168-171.

[51] Fulcher of Chartres (pp. 172-175) gives a full itinerary: “ante urbem praefatam [i.e., Durazzo] transivimus. Itaque Bulgarorum regiones per montium praerupta et loca satis deserta perreximus. Daemonis ad flumen rapidum tunc venimus omnes… Mane autem aurora clarescente, … iter nostrum adripuimus conscendendo montem, quem Bagulatum nuncupant. Postea montanis postpositis urbibusque Lucretia, Botella, Bofinat, Stella, pervenimus ad flumen, quod vocatur Bardarium… Quo transito, sequenti die ante urbem Thessalonicam … tentoria tetendimus nostra… Deinde Macedoniam transeuntes, per vallem Philippensium et per Crisopolim atque Christopolim, Praetoriam, Messinopolim, Macram, Traianopolim, Neapolim et Panadox, Rodosto et Eracleam, Salumbriam et Naturam Constantinopolim pervenimus.” For identification of place names see Hagenmeyer’s notes, _ibid._

[52] Fulcher, pp. 175-176.

[53] _Ibid._, pp. 176-177.

[54] _Ibid._, pp. 175-176.

[55] Letter of Stephen of Blois to his wife Adela, in _Kreuzzugsbriefe_, pp. 138-139; cf. Fulcher, p. 178.

[56] For the relations of Alexius with the crusaders see the admirable discussion by Ferdinand Chalandon, _Essai sur le règne d’Alexis Iᵉʳ Comnène_ (Paris, 1900), ch. vi, especially pp. 175-186.

[57] Fulcher, p. 178; William of Malmesbury, _G. R._, ii, p. 413; Albert of Aix, in _H. C. Oc._, iv, p. 314.

[58] Fulcher, p. 179; letter of Stephen of Blois, in _Kreuzzugsbriefe_, p. 139.

[59] Fulcher, p. 180.

[60] _Ibid._, pp. 182-183; letter of Stephen of Blois, in _Kreuzzugsbriefe_, p. 139; Raymond of Aguilers, in _H. C. Oc._, iii, p. 239; cf. Hagenmeyer, _Chronologie_, no. 153.

[61] Fulcher, p. 181, and n. 4; _G. F._, pp. 186-187.

[62] Albert of Aix reports Robert as taking part in this battle; but he is in direct disagreement with the testimony of eyewitnesses, and is clearly wrong. _H. C. Oc._, iv, p. 320.

[63] See the sources collected in Hagenmeyer, _Chronologie_, no. 160.

[64] Letter of Stephen of Blois, in _Kreuzzugsbriefe_, p. 140; cf. Anna Comnena, in _H. C. G._, i, 2, p. 46.

[65] Fulcher, p. 189, and n. 3.

[66] Hagenmeyer, _Chronologie_, no. 167.

[67] According to the _Gesta Francorum_ (p. 196) the division was accidental and due to darkness; and this appears to be the meaning of Raymond of Aguilers (_H. C. Oc._, iii, p. 240). Fulcher of Chartres (p. 194) confesses that he does not know the cause of the separation. Ralph of Caen (_H. C. Oc._, iii, pp. 620-621) explains that there were two opinions, but leans to the view that the division was accidental. Albert of Aix (_ibid._, iv, pp. 328-329), on the other hand, says that it was intentional. Cf. Hagenmeyer’s note in Fulcher, p. 194; Reinhold Röhricht, _Geschichte des ersten Kreuzzuges_, p. 90.

[68] Fulcher, pp. 190-198; _G. F._, pp. 196-205; Raymond of Aguilers, in _H. C. Oc._, iii, p. 240; letter of Anselm de Ribemont, in _Kreuzzugsbriefe_, p. 145; Ralph of Caen, in _H. C. Oc._, iii, 620-622, 625 ff.; Albert of Aix, _ibid._, iv, pp. 329-332.

[69] Guilbert of Nogent, _ibid._, iv, p. 160; Ralph of Caen, _ibid._, iii, p. 622.

[70] See Chapter VIII, pp. 193-194.

[71] Hagenmeyer, _Chronologie_, no. 172.

[72] Albert of Aix, in _H. C. Oc._, iv, pp. 332-333; cf. Hagenmeyer, _Chronologie_, no. 170.

[73] On the route and the events of the march in general see Hagenmeyer, _Chronologie_, nos. 172, 175-179, 181-204, and the sources there collected. At Heraclea the army was divided, Baldwin and Tancred with their followers taking the southern route through the Cilician Gates, Robert and the other leaders with their forces making a long detour to the northward through Caesarea Mazaca, Coxon (the ancient Cocussus), and Marash, and finally approaching Antioch from the northeast. Albert of Aix, in _H. C. Oc._, iv, pp. 357-358: the fact is also implied in the other sources, especially Fulcher of Chartres, who writes in the first person until his separation from the Norman forces at Marash and his departure for Edessa as chaplain of Baldwin.

[74] Hagenmeyer, _Chronologie_, no. 200.

[75] Albert of Aix, in _H. C. Oc._, iv, p. 362.

[76] _G. F._, pp. 239-241; letter of Anselm de Ribemont, in _Kreuzzugsbriefe_, p. 145; Albert of Aix, in _H. C. Oc._, iv, pp. 362-363.

[77] Hagenmeyer, _Chronologie_, no. 203. On the positions taken up by the various contingents see Röhricht, _Geschichte des ersten Kreuzzuges_, p. 110.

[78] Raymond of Aguilers, in _H. C. Oc._, iii, p. 242; cf. _G. F._, pp. 245-247; letter of Anselm de Ribemont, in _Kreuzzugsbriefe_, p. 145.

[79] Hagenmeyer, _Chronologie_, no. 214.

[80] Laodicea ad Mare (modern Latakia), the seaport on the Syrian coast directly opposite the island of Cyprus. For all that follows concerning Laodicea and Robert’s connection therewith see Appendix E.

[81] Tudebode, _Historia de Hierosolymitano Itinere_, in _H. C. Oc._, iii, p. 43.

[82] Hagenmeyer, _Chronologie_, no. 233.

[83] Tudebode, _loc. cit._ Albert of Aix (_H. C. Oc._, iv, pp. 381, 385) and Henry of Huntingdon (pp. 223, 224) erroneously make him lead one of the six divisions of knights under Bohemond.

[84] Hagenmeyer, _Chronologie_, no. 233.

[85] Hagenmeyer, _Chronologie_, nos. 260, 262, 264, 265. According to Bruno of Lucca, Robert Curthose and Robert of Flanders both had a hand in the secret negotiations. Letter of the clergy and people of Lucca, in _Kreuzzugsbriefe_, p. 166. But Bruno, though present at the capture of Antioch, was clearly not well informed about these matters, and great importance cannot be attached to his statement. According to Baldric of Dol (_H. C. Oc._, iv, p. 55) and Ordericus Vitalis (iii, p. 537), Robert was among the chiefs to whom Bohemond confided his plans on the eve of putting them into execution. This is in no way unlikely, but Baldric and Ordericus are not independent, and it must be acknowledged that they are a very uncertain authority for such a point as this. The writers who were on the ground make no mention of Robert Curthose in this connection.

[86] Letter of the clergy and people of Lucca, in _Kreuzzugsbriefe_, p. 166; Ralph of Caen, in _H. C. Oc._, iii, p. 657.

[87] Hagenmeyer, _Chronologie_, nos. 267, 269-274, 276, 278.

[88] The brothers William and Alberic of Grandmesnil were among the fugitives. _G. F._, pp. 332-334; Raymond of Aguilers, in _H. C. Oc._, iii, p. 256; Baldric of Dol, _ibid._, iv, p. 64; Ordericus, iii, p. 545; Guibert of Nogent, in _H. C. Oc._, iv, p. 194; Ralph of Caen, _ibid._, iii, p. 662; Tudebode, _ibid._, iii, p. 67; _Historia Belli Sacri_, _ibid._, iii, p. 200. (In citing the last work I follow the practice of Hagenmeyer’s _Chronologie_ in retaining the caption of Mabillon’s edition, though the title given in the Academy edition to which reference is made is _Tudebodus Imitatus et Continuatus_. The author is conjectured to have been a Norman from southern Italy who took part in the Crusade and afterwards settled at Antioch. He wrote after 1131.) William of Grandmesnil did not set out with Robert from Normandy, but went from southern Italy. According to Tudebode, Ralph of Caen, and the _Historia Belli Sacri_, Ivo of Grandmesnil was also among the fugitives. This act of cowardice made a deep impression upon contemporaries. Ralph of Caen writes: “At fratres, pudet, heu! pudet, heu! Normannia misit.” Guibert of Nogent, as a friend of the family, declines to mention the family name in connection with the incident.

[89] _G. F._, p. 340; Guibert of Nogent, in _H. C. Oc._, iv, p. 196; cf. Raymond of Aguilers, _ibid._, iii, p. 256. The purpose of the measure was to restore the morale of the rank and file.

[90] _G. F._, pp. 368-370; Raymond of Aguilers, in _H. C. Oc._, iii, p. 259. Or possibly he led the second division, the count of Flanders leading the third. The two Roberts evidently fought in close coöperation. Letter of Anselm de Ribemont, in _Kreuzzugsbriefe_, p. 160; Fulcher, p. 255; Ralph of Caen, in _H. C. Oc._, iii, p. 666; Albert of Aix, _ibid._, iv, p. 422. During the battle a new division was formed from the forces of Robert Curthose and Godfrey in order to checkmate an attempt of the Turks to outflank the crusaders. _G. F._, p. 373.

[91] _Ibid._, pp. 382-385; Guibert of Nogent, in _H. C. Oc._, iv, p. 208; cf. Hagenmeyer, _Chronologie_, no. 298.

[92] _Kreuzzugsbriefe_, p. 161.

[93] _G. F._, p. 394-395; Tudebode, in _H. C. Oc._, iii, p. 87; cf. Raymond of Aguilers, _ibid._, iii, p. 266; Albert of Aix, _ibid._, iv, p. 448; Hagenmeyer, _Chronologie_, no. 321.

[94] Raymond of Aguilers, in _H. C. Oc._, iii, pp. 261-268; _G. F._, pp. 379-380, 394-395.

[95] At a series of conferences held in the basilica of St. Peter at Antioch. _Ibid._, pp. 394-395; Albert of Aix, in _H. C. Oc._, iv, p. 434; cf. Hagenmeyer, _Chronologie_, no. 323.

[96] _G. F._, pp. 395-396; Raymond of Aguilers, in _H. C. Oc._, iii, pp. 267-268.

[97] Ralph of Caen, in _H. C. Oc._, iii, p. 674; Albert of Aix, _ibid._, iv, p. 448; cf. _G. F._, pp. 402-403, and n. 9.

[98] Hagenmeyer, _Chronologie_, no. 329.

[99] Raymond of Aguilers, in _H. C. Oc._, iii, pp. 270-271; _G. F._, p. 410; Fulcher, pp. 267-268.

[100] _G. F._, p. 411; cf. Hagenmeyer, _Chronologie_, no. 335.

[101] Raymond of Aguilers, in _H. C. Oc._, iii, p. 271.

[102] _Ibid._, p. 278.

[103] This is made probable by the fact that Robert alone of all the important leaders joined Raymond and Tancred in the advance upon Jerusalem. Robert was still in the company of Raymond at Caesarea. Albert of Aix, in _H. C. Oc._, iv, p. 460. But upon the arrival of the crusaders before Jerusalem, the point at which the contract should have terminated, he promptly separated from Raymond; and thereafter during the siege he acted in close association with Godfrey of Bouillon and Robert of Flanders. Cf. _infra_, p. 112.

[104] _G. F._, pp. 414 ff.; Raymond of Aguilers, in _H. C. Oc._, iii, pp. 272-273; cf. Fulcher, p. 268.

[105] Hagenmeyer, _Chronologie_, nos. 341-345. For a detailed study of this itinerary see Hagenmeyer’s notes in _G. F._, pp. 414-419.

[106] _G. F._, pp. 419 ff.

[107] _Ibid._, pp. 425-428; Raymond of Aguilers, in _H. C. Oc._, iii, pp. 275-276.

[108] Ralph of Caen, _ibid._, p. 680.

[109] Hagenmeyer, _Chronologie_, nos. 352-354, 359-360.

[110] For the discovery of the Lance at Antioch and the use to which it was put during the critical days of the struggle between the crusaders and Kerboga, see Hagenmeyer, _Chronologie_, nos. 277, 284, 285, 288, 291, and the sources there cited.

[111] _Ibid._, no. 363.

[112] “Arnulfum, capellanum comitis Normanniae, qui quasi caput omnium incredulorum erat.” Raymond of Aguilers, in _H. C. Oc._, iii, p. 281.

[113] Hagenmeyer, _Chronologie_, nos. 364, 367.

[114] _G. F._, pp. 436-437; Fulcher, pp. 270-271.

[115] Hagenmeyer, _Chronologie_, nos. 371-385. Guibert of Nogent says that Robert Curthose laid siege to Acre during the advance upon Jerusalem; but that he was called away by Godfrey. _H. C. Oc._, iv, p. 257. Ibn el-Athir also reports an attack upon Acre as the crusaders advanced upon Jerusalem. _Kamel-Altevarykh_, in _H. C. Oc._, i, p. 198.

[116] _G. F._, p. 448.

[117] _Supra_, p. 109, and n. 103.

[118] _G. F._, pp. 449-450; Raymond of Aguilers, in _H. C. Oc._, iii, p. 293; Fulcher, p. 297; Ralph of Caen, in _H. C. Oc._, iii, p. 687; Albert of Aix, _ibid._, iv, p. 463.

It was evidently at this point that, according to Ordericus Vitalis, Robert was joined by Hugh Bunel, son of Robert de Jalgeio, the fugitive assassin of Countess Mabel, the cruel wife of Roger of Montgomery. Hugh had been provoked to the crime in 1082 because Mabel had violently deprived him of his lawful inheritance, and he had been obliged to flee for his life. He had gone first to Apulia and Sicily and then to Constantinople. But still being pursued by the spies whom William the Conqueror and Mabel’s powerful family had employed to take his life wherever they might find him, he had fled from Christendom altogether; and for many years had dwelt among the Moslems, whose language and customs he had learned. He now offered his services to Robert Curthose, who received him kindly; and, being an excellent warrior and familiar with all the deceptions and stratagems which the pagans practised against the Christians, he was able to be of great service to the crusaders. Ordericus, iii, pp. 597-598.

[119] Hagenmeyer, _Chronologie_, nos. 388-389, 391.

[120] Raymond of Aguilers, in _H. C. Oc._, iii, p. 297; _G. F._, pp. 461-462.

[121] Albert of Aix, in _H. C. Oc._, iv, pp. 467-468; cf. _G. F._, pp. 462-463; Raymond of Aguilers, in _H. C. Oc._, iii, p. 297.

[122] _Ibid._, p. 298; _G. F._, pp. 462-463; Albert of Aix, in _H. C. Oc._, iv, p. 471; cf. Hagenmeyer, _Chronologie_, no. 399.

[123] _Ibid._, no. 403.

[124] Albert of Aix, in _H. C. Oc._, iv, pp. 476-477.

[125] Ralph of Caen, _ibid._, iii, pp. 692-693.

[126] _G. F._, p. 464; Raymond of Aguilers, in _H. C. Oc._, iii, p. 299; Guibert of Nogent (_ibid._, iv, p. 226) particularizes as to Robert Curthose and Robert of Flanders: “Est etiam mihi non inferiore relatione compertum Rotbertum Northmanniae comitem, Rotbertumque alterum, Flandriarum principem, iunctis pariter convenisse moeroribus, et se cum fletibus uberrimis conclamasse miserrimos, quos suae adoratione Crucis et visione, immo veneratione Sepulchri tantopere Ihesus Dominus iudicaret indignos.”

[127] _G. F._, pp. 464-465, and n. 15.

[128] Raymond of Aguilers, in _H. C. Oc._, iii, pp. 299-300; William of Malmesbury, _G. R._, ii, p. 427.

[129] Hagenmeyer, _Chronologie_, no. 405.

[130] _G. F._, pp. 473-474.

[131] Hagenmeyer, _Chronologie_, no. 407.

[132] _Ibid._, nos. 408-409.

[133] Raymond of Aguilers, in _H. C. Oc._, iii, p. 301.

[134] Letter of the leaders to the Pope, in _Kreuzzugsbriefe_, p. 168; _G. F._, pp. 478-480, n. 12.

[135] William of Malmesbury, _G. R._, ii, p. 461; Henry of Huntingdon, p. 236; _Historia Belli Sacri_, in _H. C. Oc._, iii, p. 225; cf. Albert of Aix, _ibid._, iv, p. 485.

[136] Raymond of Aguilers, _ibid._, iii, p. 301.

[137] Hagenmeyer, _Chronologie_, no. 413; cf. _G. F._, p. 481, n. 14.

[138] _Ibid._, pp. 485-486, and n. 21; Raymond of Aguilers, in _H. C. Oc._, iii, pp. 302-303; Albert of Aix, _ibid._, iv, p. 490.

[139] Hagenmeyer, _Chronologie_, no. 420. Robert Curthose with characteristic indolence remained in Jerusalem with Raymond until the enemy was almost at hand, announcing that he would not go out unless he had more certain assurance that a battle was really to take place. He and Raymond did not lead their forces out from Jerusalem till 10 August _G. F._, pp. 486-488; Raymond of Aguilers, in _H. C. Oc._, iii, p. 305; Albert of Aix, _ibid._, iv, p. 491.

[140] _G. F._, pp. 493-494; cf. Albert of Aix, in _H. C. Oc._, iv, p. 494.

[141] Albert of Aix, in _H. C. Oc._, iv, p. 494.

[142] _G. F._, pp. 494-495; Albert of Aix, in _H. C. Oc._, iv, p. 497; cf. William of Malmesbury, _G. R._, ii, pp. 429-430.

[143] _G. F._, pp. 499-501.

[144] _Ibid._, pp. 498-499; Albert of Aix, in _H. C. Oc._, iv, p. 497; Baldric of Dol, _ibid._, p. 110.

[145] Ordericus, iii, pp. 620-621; cf. Albert of Aix, in _H. C. Oc._, iv, pp. 497-498; Ralph of Caen, _ibid._, iii, p. 703. Hagenmeyer studies the whole problem in _G. F._, pp. 500-502, n. 94.

[146] Fulcher, p. 319, and n. 2.

[147] _Ibid._, pp. 319-320; Albert of Aix, in _H. C. Oc._, iv, p. 499; letter of Dagobert, Godfrey, and Raymond to the Pope, in _Kreuzzugsbriefe_, p. 173; Ordericus, iv, p. 69.

[148] Albert of Aix, in _H. C. Oc._, iv, pp. 499-500, 502-503; Ordericus, iv, pp. 70-72; letter of Dagobert, Godfrey, and Raymond to the Pope, in _Kreuzzugsbriefe_, P. 173.

[149] Albert of Aix, in _H. C. Oc._, iv, p. 503; cf. Ordericus, iv, p. 69.

[150] _Alexis Iᵉʳ_, pp. 205 ff.

[151] Albert of Aix, in _H. C. Oc._, iv, pp. 503-504.

[152] _Ibid._, p. 504.

[153] Ordericus, iv, pp. 72-75; Fulcher, pp. 319-320. Though Ordericus knew the work of Fulcher, which he calls “certum et verax volumen” (iii, p. 459), he appears at this point to be entirely independent of it.

[154] Ordericus, iv, pp. 75-76, 77-78.

[155] _Ibid._, pp. 78-79; William of Malmesbury, _G. R._, ii, p. 461; cf. _infra_, pp. 123-124.

[156] William Rufus, i, pp. 560, 564. Palgrave goes so far as to say, “Robert had earned an entirely new reputation. The thoughtless spendthrift was transiently disciplined into prudence, the dissolute idler reformed into a happy and affectionate husband.” _History of Normandy and of England_, iv, p. 673.

[157] Ralph of Caen, in describing the positions at Antioch, says: “Ab altero autem latere Blesensis, Boloniensis, Albamarensis, Montensis, Sancti-Paulensis, et Hugo Magnus; nam omnes his comitis Normanni muneribus, aliqui etiam hominagio obligabantur.” _H. C. Oc._, iii, p. 642.

[158] This favorite characterization of Ordericus Vitalis is confirmed by Ralph of Caen and by Guibert of Nogent. _H. C. Oc._, iii, p. 649; iv, p. 149.