Chapter XVII: Appendix: B

_DE INIUSTA VEXATIONE WILLELMI EPISCOPI PRIMI_[1]

The anonymous tract _De Iniusta Vexatione Willelmi Episcopi Primi_[2] is worthy of more attention and of a more critical study than it has yet received.[3] Since it gives the only detailed account which we possess of the dispute between William Rufus and William of Saint-Calais, bishop of Durham, and of the trial of the latter before the _curia regis_ at Salisbury upon a charge of treason in connection with the rebellion of 1088, final judgment as to the bishop’s guilt or innocence must in large measure depend upon a just estimate of its value. Freeman was very reluctant to recognize its high authority as compared with his favorite ‘southern writers,’ the Anglo-Saxon chronicler, Florence of Worcester, and William of Malmesbury;[4] but his distrust appears to be unwarranted.

The tract is manifestly made up of two distinct parts: (1) the main body of an original _libellus_, concerned exclusively with the bishop’s ‘vexation,’ and beginning (p. 171), “Rex Willelmus iunior dissaisivit Dunelmensem episcopum,” and ending (p. 194), “rex permisit episcopo transitum”; and (2) introductory and concluding chapters, which contain a brief sketch of the bishop’s career before and after his unfortunate quarrel with the king and his expulsion from the realm. The joints at which the separate narratives are pieced together are apparent upon the most cursory examination. Not only is there a striking contrast between the detailed and documentary treatment found in the body of the _libellus_ and the bare summaries which make up the introductory and concluding paragraphs, but the reader is actually warned of the transition in the last sentence of the introduction by the phrase (p. 171), “quam rem _sequens libellus_ manifestat ex ordine.” The two parts of the tract are evidently derived from different sources and written at different times by different authors.

The _libellus_ properly so called, i.e., the central portion of the tract, is a narrative well supplied with documents; it has all the appearance of being contemporary and by an eyewitness, and is manifestly a source of the greatest value for the facts with which it deals. Liebermann, with his unrivalled knowledge of mediaeval English legal materials, has declared that there is no ground for doubting its authenticity;[5] and Professor G. B. Adams, who also finds abundant internal evidence of its genuineness, points out, as an indication that it was written by an eyewitness in the company of Bishop William, the fact that no attempt is made to tell what went on within the _curia_ while the bishop and his supporters were outside; and further, he considers it more “objective and impartial” than Eadmer’s better known account of the trial of Anselm before the council of Rockingham.[6] The author, it may be conjectured, was a monk of Durham who stood in somewhat the same favored position among the intimates of Bishop William as that occupied by Eadmer with regard to Anselm; and while we know nothing of his personality, it is perhaps worth remarking in passing that he may very well be the ‘certain monk’ (_quendam suum monachum_) who acts on at least two occasions as the bishop’s messenger (pp. 172, 175). The account in the earlier instance is so intimate and personal as strongly to support this hypothesis: “Ipsum quoque monachum episcopi, qui de rege redibat, accepit et equum suum ei occidit; postea peditem abire permisit.”

The introduction and the conclusion of the tract, on the other hand, are not a first-hand narrative; and fortunately we possess the source from which they are derived. The introduction (pp. 170 f.), dealing with the bishop’s career prior to 1088, contains nothing which is not told with much greater fulness in the opening chapters of the fourth book of the _Historia Dunelmensis Ecclesiae_ of Simeon of Durham.[7] It is in fact a mere summary of those chapters; and while the author is no servile copyist, he evidently had no other source of information. It seems safe to conclude, therefore, that he was not identical with the author of the original _libellus_. Judged by style and method, the conclusion of the tract (pp. 194 f.) appears to be by the same author as the introduction. It, too, is clearly an abridgment of certain chapters of the _Historia Dunelmensis Ecclesiae_,[8] though with this notable difference from the introduction, that it contains some matter not to be found in the _Historia_, e.g., the statement that the exiled bishop was intrusted by the duke with the administration of all Normandy, and the notices of the expedition of William Rufus against King Malcolm in 1091, and of the presence of the Scottish king at the laying of the first stones in the foundation of the new cathedral at Durham in 1093. Apparently, for these more recent events, the writer was drawing upon his own first-hand knowledge. The date at which the introductory and concluding chapters were appended to the original Durham _libellus_ cannot be fixed with exactness. The reference to Anselm as “sanctae memoriae” (p. 195) shows that they were written after his death in 1109;[9] and since, as will appear below, they in turn were used in the _Historia Regum_, which is commonly attributed to Simeon of Durham, the _terminus ad quem_ cannot be placed much later than 1129.[10]

The relationship between the above mentioned additions to the Durham _libellus_ and the _Historia Regum_ may be displayed by the following quotations.

The introduction to the Durham tract closes with the following sentence (p. 171):

… sed orta inter regem et primates Angliae magna dissensione,
episcopus [i.e., William of Durham] ab invidis circumventus
usque ad expulsionem iram regis pertulit, _quam rem sequens
libellus manifestat ex ordine_;

and the conclusion opens as follows (pp. 194 f.):

_Anno sui episcopatus octavo expulsus est ab Anglia, sed
a Roberto fratre regis, comite Normannorum, honorifice
susceptus, totius Normanniae curam suscepit. Tertio autem
anno, repacificatus regi, recepit episcopatum suum_, ipso rege
cum fratre suo totoque Angliae exercitu, cum Scotiam contra
Malcolmum tenderent, _eum in sedem suam restituentibus, ipsa
videlicet die qua inde pulsus fuerat. Tertio Idus Septembris_,
secundo anno suae reversionis, ecclesiam veterem, quam Aldunus
quondam episcopus construxerat, a fundamentis destruxit.

The account of the rebellion of 1088 in the _Historia Regum_—at this point almost wholly independent of Florence of Worcester—ends with the expulsion, not of Bishop William of Durham, but of Bishop Odo of Bayeux:

… et ita episcopus [i.e., Odo] qui fere fuit secundus rex
Angliae, honorem amisit irrecuperabiliter. _Sed episcopus
veniens Normanniam statim a Rodberto comite totius provinciae
curam suscepit; cuius ordinem causae libellus in hoc descriptus
aperte ostendit. Etiam Dunholmensis episcopus Willelmus, viii.
anno episcopatus, et multi alii, de Anglia exierunt._[11]

And in a later passage the king’s restoration of Bishop William to his see is thus recorded:

_Veniens Dunelmum, episcopum Willelmum restituit in sedem suam,
ipso post annos tres die quo eam reliquit, scilicet iii. idus
Septembris._[12]

Thomas Arnold, the editor of Simeon’s _Opera_, remarks upon the clause “cuius ordinem causae libellus in hoc descriptus aperte ostendit” of the _Historia Regum_, “This ‘libellus,’ describing Odo’s administration in Normandy, appears to be lost.”[13] Taken by itself the passage is obscure, and it is perhaps not surprising that the editor wholly mistook its meaning. But a comparison of it with the clause “quam rem sequens libellus manifestat ex ordine” of the Durham tract at once reveals dependence and resolves the difficulty. The verbal similarities are striking, and the author of course uses the puzzling “causae” because the source from which he drew was in fact the account of a _causa_, viz., the trial of William of Saint-Calais before the _curia regis_. It is clear, therefore, that the _libellus_ to which the author of the _Historia Regum_ refers his readers is not a lost treatise on the administration of Bishop Odo in Normandy—as Arnold supposed—but in fact the Durham tract on the ‘unjust vexation’ of Bishop William, which Arnold had himself already published in the first volume of Simeon’s works. A further comparison of all the passages which have been indicated by italics in the foregoing excerpts fully confirms this conclusion and reveals the extent of the debt of the _Historia Regum_ to the Durham tract. Not only the verbal agreements but the close similarities in thought are so marked as to preclude every possibility of independence.

We are now in a position to see how the author of the _Historia Regum_ worked. Having before him the chronicle of Florence of Worcester—which he regularly followed—with its dark picture of Bishop William’s treason, and the elaborate Durham tract in his defence, he chose to suppress all reference to the bishop of Durham in connection with the rebellion, and substituted for him Odo of Bayeux as a scapegoat. Then at the end of his chapter he added, apparently as an afterthought, and borrowing directly from the Durham tract, that Bishop William ‘departed’ from England in the eighth year of his episcopate. The statement of the _Historia Regum_, therefore, that Odo of Bayeux upon his expulsion from England after the fall of Rochester went to Normandy and had the ‘care’ of the whole duchy committed to his charge, is valueless. If that honor belongs to any one, it is to William of Saint-Calais, bishop of Durham, as set forth in the conclusion of the tract _De Iniusta Vexatione_.[14]

But the author of the _Historia Regum_ was a clumsy borrower, and we have not yet reached the end of the confusion which has arisen as the result of his easy way of juggling with his sources. In a later passage in which he deals with the return of Bishop William to his see at the time of the expedition of William Rufus against King Malcolm in 1091, he explains that the restoration of the bishop took place on the third anniversary of his retirement, “that is, on the 3d before the Ides of September.” Freeman, relying upon this text, but apparently mistaking Ides for Nones, states that the arrival of the king in Durham and the reinstatement of the bishop took place on 3 September.[15] Comparison with the parallel text of the Durham tract, however, makes it clear that the author of the _Historia Regum_ has here again made an unintelligent and altogether misleading use of his source, copying almost verbatim, but detaching the phrase “iii. idus Septembris” from the next sentence, where it properly refers to an event of the year 1093. It is necessary, therefore, to get back to the evidence of the _De Iniusta Vexatione_, which not only says that Bishop William was reinstated on the third anniversary of his expulsion, but fixes that earlier date with exactness: “Acceperunt ergo Ivo Taillesboci et Ernesius de Burone castellum Dunelmense in manus regis, et dissaisiverunt episcopum de ecclesia et de castello, et de omni terra sua xviii. kal. Decembr.” (p. 192). The bishop’s restoration, accordingly, should be dated 14 November 1091. If it cause surprise that William Rufus should have undertaken a campaign in the northern country so late in the season, it may be noted that he previously had his hands full with an expedition against the Welsh,[16] and that Florence of Worcester in describing the campaign makes the significant statement, “multique de equestri exercitus eius fame et frigore perierunt.”[17]

It remains to raise a question as to the authorship of the _Historia Regum_. As is well known, the evidence on which both it and the _Historia Dunelmensis Ecclesiae_ are attributed to Simeon of Durham is not contemporary and not conclusive,[18] though a better case can be made out for the latter than for the former. Without discussing this evidence anew, and without entering at this time upon the more extended inquiry as to whether it is credible that two works of such different character and of such unequal merit can be by a single author, it is still pertinent here to remark their striking difference in point of view with regard to the controversy between William Rufus and the bishop of Durham. The _Historia Dunelmensis Ecclesiae_ speaks of the quarrel and of the bishop’s expulsion and exile without any reserve; and, moreover, it contains remarkably full information concerning his fortunes while in exile.[19] In all this it is freely reproduced in the additions to the Durham _libellus_ (pp. 171, 194 f.). And they in turn are used by the author of the _Historia Regum_.[20] Yet with these additions and the original _libellus_ and Florence of Worcester all before him, he suppresses every reference to the alleged treason of Bishop William, persistently declines to use such words as expulsion and exile in connection with him, and steadily ignores the quarrel. For him the bishop ‘went out’ of England, although he unconsciously slips into an inconsistency in a later passage when he notes that the bishop was ‘restored’ to the see which he had ‘left.’[21] If the _Historia Dunelmensis Ecclesiae_ and the _Historia Regum_ are by one and the same author, then assuredly he had a bad memory for what he had himself previously written, and his point of view had curiously shifted during the intervening years.

FOOTNOTES

[1] Reprinted with slight revision from _E. H. R._, xxxii (1917), pp. 382-387.

[2] Published in William Dugdale’s _Monasticon Anglicanum_, new ed. (London, 1817-30), i, pp. 244-250, and in Simeon of Durham, _Opera Omnia_, ed. Thomas Arnold (London, 1882-85), i, pp. 170-195. References are to the latter edition.

[3] Professor G. B. Adams has recently made it the basis of an admirable article entitled “Procedure in the Feudal Curia Regis” (_Columbia Law Review_, xiii, pp. 277-293); but he has confined his attention in the main to forms of procedure, and has dealt only incidentally with the critical problems involved.

[4] _William Rufus_, i, pp. 28 ff.; ii, pp. 469-474.

[5] _Historische Aufsätze dem Andenken an Georg Waitz gewidmet_ (Hanover, 1886), p. 159, n. 10.

[6] _Columbia Law Review_, xiii, pp. 277 f., 287, 291.

[7] Simeon, _H. D. E._, pp. 119-122, 127 f.

[8] Simeon, _H. D. E._, pp. 128 f., 133-135.

[9] Cf. Arnold’s introduction, p. xxv. The _Historia Dunelmensis Ecclesiae_ which they abridge was composed between 1104 and 1109. _Ibid._, p. xix.

[10] On the date of the composition of the _Historia Regum_ see Simeon, _H. R._, pp. xx-xxi; cf. Simeon, _H. D. E._, p. xv.

[11] Simeon, _H. R._, pp. 216-217.

[12] _Ibid._, p. 218.

[13] _Ibid._, p. 217, n. _a_.

[14] Cf. Simeon, _H. D. E._, p. 128: “quem comes Normannorum non ut exulem, sed ut patrem suscipiens, in magno honore per tres annos, quibus ibi moratus est, habuit.” The charters also bear evidence of the honored position which he enjoyed in Normandy during his exile. See Haskins, p. 76.

[15] _William Rufus_, i, p. 300.

[16] William of Malmesbury, _G. R._, ii, p. 365.

[17] Vol. ii, p. 28. It is also clear from Florence that the king did not arrive in Durham until after the destruction of the English fleet, which took place a few days before Michaelmas; cf. _A.-S. C._, _a._ 1091. A reference to these events in the _miracula_ of St. Cuthbert makes mention of the summer heat (_tempus aestatis fervidum_), but this evidently is to be connected with Malcolm’s raid of the previous summer and not with the later expedition of William Rufus against him. Simeon, _H. R._, p. 340.

[18] For the evidence see Arnold’s introductions, i, pp. xv-xxiii; ii, pp. x-xi, xx-xxi.

[19] Simeon, _H. D. E._, p. 128.

[20] Simeon, _H. R._, pp. 216 f.

[21] _Ibid._, pp. 217 f.