Chapter III: Independent Rule, 1087-95 (2)

But with all this fitful energy, the duke’s love of ease and his desire ‘to sleep under a roof’ called him home too often in mid-campaign.[175] He lacked the resolution to carry a difficult and laborious enterprise through to the end. Seeking mere temporary advantages, he was prone to adopt the easy but fatal expedient of allying himself with the turbulent barons whose lawlessness it should have been his first concern to curb. Upon the fall of Saint-Céneri he seemed to be in mid-course of victory over the notorious house of Talvas. The shocking punishment visited upon the surrendered garrison had caused fear and consternation to spread among the supporters of Roger of Montgomery. The garrisons of Bellême and Alençon are said to have been ready to surrender at the mere approach of the ducal forces. Yet to the general amazement the war went no further. The duke suddenly made peace with Roger and released Robert of Bellême from captivity.[176]

And the peace then made with the rebel was a lasting one. Not again, until after his return from the Crusade, did the duke fight against Robert of Bellême. Evidently he had decided that in his future difficulties it would be better to have the house of Talvas for him rather than against him. Not a check was placed hereafter by the duke upon this most notorious tyrant of the age. Robert of Bellême was “a subtle genius, crafty and deceitful.” His ability challenged admiration. But his cruelty, avarice, and lawlessness knew no bounds. Plundering and oppressing all over whom he had power, he came to be regarded by contemporaries as the veritable incarnation of Satan.[177] He built a castle in a dominating position at Fourches, and forcibly transferred the inhabitants of Vignats thither. He also erected Château-Gontier in a strong position on the Orne, and thus placed his yoke upon the district of Le Houlme.[178] Against Geoffrey of Mortagne he waged a war for the possession of Domfront.[179] He did not hesitate to besiege Gilbert of Laigle, the duke’s loyal vassal, at Exmes.[180] His intolerable violence drew down upon him a concerted attack by his neighbors in the Hiémois. But he was able to bring the duke to his aid and to besiege his enemies at Courcy, in January 1091.[181] Later he waged a successful war against Robert Géré of Saint-Céneri and a formidable combination of the lords of Maine. Again on this occasion he gained the assistance of the duke, and so compelled the destruction of a castle which Géré was attempting to fortify at Montaigu.[182] He was said to be the possessor of thirty-four strong castles,[183] and he was, perhaps, more powerful than the duke himself. Indeed, in his dealings with the duke the relation of lord and vassal seems at times almost to have been inverted, as when Robert Curthose acted as his ally in private warfare.

One might perhaps suppose that considerations of policy led the duke to adopt a conciliatory attitude towards Robert of Bellême, his most powerful subject. But in his dealings with other barons Robert showed himself equally weak and vacillating. He made no effort to check the long and desperate war by which William of Breteuil was seeking to bring his rebellious vassal, Ascelin Goël, back to his allegiance.[184] Indeed, he sought rather to gain some temporary financial advantage from it. When Ascelin, in defiance of feudal right and honor, seized Ivry, the castle of his lord, Robert did not scruple to take it from him and to compel William of Breteuil to redeem it by a payment of 1500 livres.[185] And a little later he took the other side in the struggle, and, in exchange for ‘large sums’ joined with Robert of Bellême, King Philip of France, and other hirelings whom William of Breteuil was gathering from every quarter, in the overthrow of Ascelin at the siege of Bréval.[186] When a bitter feud broke out between William of Évreux and Ralph of Conches, Robert sought to avoid becoming involved in the struggle. But his failure to respond to the appeal of the lord of Conches merely drove the latter into the arms of William Rufus.[187]

The expulsion of Prince Henry from the Cotentin and the Avranchin after the siege of Mont-Saint-Michel had been no lasting victory for the duke. In 1092 Henry suddenly reappeared in western Normandy in secure possession of the town and castle of Domfront. The inhabitants had revolted against the intolerable oppression of Robert of Bellême, and, recalling Henry from exile, had accepted him as their lord.[188] Secure in the possession of this impregnable stronghold, Henry set himself to recover the lands from which he had been expelled and to establish himself in an independent position in the southwest. He defied Robert of Bellême,[189] and made war upon the duke with much burning, pillage, and violence.[190] With the aid of Earl Hugh of Chester, to whom he gave the castle of Saint-James, and of Richard de Redvers, Roger de Mandeville, and others, he gradually won back the greater part of the Cotentin.[191]

The pages of Ordericus Vitalis are filled with lamentations over the evil times that had fallen upon the duchy. Through the indolence of a soft and careless duke all that the Conqueror had created by his vigor and ability was allowed to fall into decay and confusion. The whole province was in a state of dissolution. Bands of freebooters overran villages and country, and plundered the unarmed peasantry. The church’s possessions were wrung from her by force. Monasteries were filled with desolation, and the monks and nuns were reduced to penury. Adulterine castles arose on every hand to become the dens of robbers who ravaged the countryside with fire and sword. A depopulated country remained for years afterwards a silent witness to the evil day.[192]

That the indignant outbursts of Ordericus Vitalis are not mere rhetoric, is amply proved by a more prosaic narrative of the nuns of La Trinité of Caen.[193] In the cartulary of their abbey they have tersely recorded the long list of their injuries and losses in men and revenues and lands and cattle. “After the death of King William,” they say, “William, count of Évreux, took from Holy Trinity and from the abbess and the nuns seven arpents of vineyard and two horses and twenty sous of the coinage of Rouen and the salt pans at Écrammeville and twenty livres annually from Gacé and from Bavent. Richard, son of Herluin, took the two manors of Tassilly and Montbouin. William the chamberlain, son of Roger de Candos, took the tithe of Hainovilla. William Baivel took twenty oxen which he had seized at Auberville. Robert de Bonebos plundered the same manor …;” and so the complaint continues through a long list of some thirty offenders, among them such well known names as Richard de Courcy, William Bertran, and Robert Mowbray. Even Prince Henry takes his place in this remarkable catalogue of sinners. It is a little startling to learn that in his government of the Cotentin he was not altogether worthy of the polite compliments which have been paid him by the chroniclers. The nuns complain that he “took toll (_pedagium_) from Quettehou and from all the Cotentin, and forced the men of Holy Trinity in the said vill and county to work upon the castles of his men.” It is significant that in this extraordinary entry in the Caen cartulary the record of violations of right stands alone. We hear nothing of suits for the recovery of the alienated lands and goods. The distressed nuns appear to have been patiently preserving the record of their grievances against the day when there should be a government and courts to which they could appeal with some prospect of obtaining redress.

Indeed, orderly government and the regular operation of courts of law seem to have been suspended almost entirely during Robert’s reign. With the exception of a fragment of a charter of donation in favor of Saint-Vincent of Le Mans,[194] no single record of an administrative or judicial act by the duke for Maine has been preserved. And for Normandy we have nothing but a few scattered references to the _curia ducis_[195] and one imperfect record of a suit before that court in 1093.[196] The study of Robert’s charters, which have now at last been collected and set in order,[197] reveals a state of disorder and of irregularity hardly conceivable so soon after the reign of the Conqueror. The duke had a chancellor and evidently some semblance of a centralized administration. Yet the chancery seems hardly ever to have performed the most common functions of such an office, viz., the issuing of ducal charters. Most of Robert’s acts were drawn up locally and according to the prevailing forms of the religious houses in whose favor they were issued. Evidence of any systematic taxation is wholly lacking; and the extent to which Robert was neglectful of ducal customs and rights of justice stands patently revealed by the inquest of Caen, held when, for a moment, with the assistance of William Rufus, a more vigorous régime was in contemplation.[198] Rare occasions when the duke asserted himself to compel the destruction of an adulterine castle[199] or the submission of a refractory noble stand out as wholly exceptional in a reign of weakness, indifference, and indecision.[200]

It was, of course, the clergy who suffered most from this reign of lawlessness and who were at the same time able to make their woes articulate. The lamentful narrative of Ordericus Vitalis and the bare record of the nuns of Caen have already been sufficiently dwelt upon. Yet it should in justice be noted that Robert Curthose was not a wilful oppressor of the church. He was no impious tyrant such as William Rufus or Ranulf Flambard. His offences against the clergy were rather the sins of weakness than of malice. His sale of lay rights over the sees of Coutances and Avranches to Prince Henry[201] when he was preparing for the invasion of England was doubtless dictated by the sudden needs of the moment. So, too, in 1089 he granted the manor of Gisors, a property of the church of St. Mary of Rouen, to his overlord, King Philip, “non habens de proprio quod posset dare.”[202] On the other hand, the duke often acted in a perfectly just and cordial coöperation with the clergy. There is every indication of harmony in the relations between Robert and the bishops and abbots at the synod held at Rouen in June 1091, for the election of Serlo as bishop of Séez.[203] So, too, soon after, he gave his willing assent to the election of Roger du Sap as abbot of Saint-Évroul, and “committed to him by the pastoral staff the care of the monastery in worldly affairs.”[204] So, also, upon the election of Anselm, abbot of Bec, as archbishop of Canterbury, he gladly consented to his resignation of the abbey,[205] and afterwards entirely accommodated himself to Anselm’s wishes with regard to his successor at Bec. There is a note of real affection in the words with which Anselm in a letter to the prior and monks of Bec refers to Robert on this occasion: “By the grace of God, our lord the prince of the Normans has sent me a most kindly letter asking pardon if his love of me and his sorrow at my loss have caused him to think or say of me anything unseemly because of my election to the archiepiscopate. In the same letter he has graciously sought my counsel concerning the appointment of an abbot for you, and has promised to accept it gladly not only in this matter but in other things as well.”[206]

Of the duke’s relations with the papacy in this period we know almost nothing, except that his attitude, on the whole, was one of obedience and accommodation. The violence which Robert had done to the property of St. Mary of Rouen in granting the manor of Gisors to King Philip caused Archbishop William to lay the whole province under an interdict. This, in turn, brought on a controversy between the archbishop and the abbey of Fécamp, and in the sequel the Pope suspended the metropolitan from the use of his pallium for having exceeded his authority. At this point the duke intervened, and at the expense of acknowledging himself subject to the jurisdiction of the apostolic see, “saving only the privileges of his ancestors,” he obtained for the archbishop at least a temporary restoration of his pallium, while further investigations were pending.[207] The church and clergy often suffered from Robert’s weakness, or his sudden temptation to gain some temporary advantage, but rarely, if ever, from his ill will.

Inexcusable weakness and the steady disintegration of ducal authority, either through his own rash grants, or through the usurpations of his turbulent subjects, or through the insidious aggressions of William Rufus, these are the outstanding features of Duke Robert’s unfortunate reign.

Two days before Christmas, 1091, Robert had departed from England and returned to Normandy, feeling much vexed because the Red King would not abide by the terms of their alliance.[208] Yet an open breach between the brothers was long delayed. William Rufus had his hands full with domestic affairs in 1092 and 1093, and he had little opportunity either for advancing his own interests in Normandy or for aiding the duke against his enemies as he had agreed to do. Robert, on his part, so far as can be seen, did not fail in his obligations under the provisions of the treaty. In the reservation which he attached to a grant to the abbey of Bec in February 1092 he was careful to guard the rights of William Rufus as well as of himself.[209] The readiness with which he accommodated himself to the king’s wishes in releasing Anselm, abbot of Bec, to become archbishop of Canterbury in 1093 is indicative of a similar spirit of coöperation. But it appears that he sought in vain the king’s promised assistance in Normandy until his patience was exhausted; and when, finally, the rupture came between them, it was the duke who took the initiative in terminating an agreement from which he could no longer hope to derive any good. Towards the close of 1093, he addressed to William Rufus a formal defiance. “This year at Christmas,” says the Chronicler, “King William held his court at Gloucester; and there came messengers to him out of Normandy, from his brother Robert, and they said that his brother renounced all peace and compact if the king would not perform all that they had stipulated in the treaty; moreover they called him perjured and faithless unless he would perform the conditions, or would go to the place where the treaty had been concluded and sworn to, and there clear himself.”[210]

In the spring of 1094, William Rufus took up this challenge and prepared for an invasion of Normandy. It is characteristic of the Red King that we hear more of the vast quantities of money which he gathered in from all sides than of the men whom he brought together for the expedition. The barons were called upon to contribute heavily to the expenses of the campaign, and strong pressure was put upon them in order to insure that their offerings should not be too sparing. Archbishop Anselm thought to make a contribution of five hundred pounds of silver, but the king rejected his offer as being too small.[211] On 2 February the forces were assembled at Hastings for the crossing.[212] But the winds were contrary and the expedition was delayed for more than a month,[213] and it did not succeed in sailing till Midlent.[214]

After the landing in Normandy, active hostilities were still further delayed by negotiations. William and Robert met in a conference, but a reconciliation proved impossible between them. Then a more formal meeting was held at an unidentified place called _Campus Martius_, and the dispute was laid before the great nobles who had confirmed the earlier treaty with their oaths. Unanimously they gave their decision in favor of the duke and laid the whole responsibility for the present discord upon the king. But William Rufus, ‘a fierce king,’ would have none of their condemnation. He would not accept responsibility for the breach, neither would he abide by the terms of the treaty. The conference was accordingly broken off, and the brothers separated in wrath, the king going to his headquarters at Eu, the duke to Rouen.[215]

Then, or more likely even before this, William Rufus turned to that brand of diplomacy in which he was so eminently skilful and which had gained him such successes in his earlier Norman policy. With the treasure which he had brought from England, he began to collect great numbers of mercenaries; and also, by lavish expenditure of gold and silver, and by grants and promises of Norman lands, he succeeded in corrupting more of the Norman baronage and in winning them away from their allegiance to the duke. And as rapidly as he gained possession of their strongholds he filled them with garrisons upon whom he could rely.[216] But he was not content with mere diplomacy and bribery. He also took the field, and laying siege to Bures, a castle of Helias of Saint-Saëns, he reduced it, and took many of the duke’s men captive.[217]

But meanwhile, Robert had not been idle, and the success of his operations suggests that he had not ventured to defy William Rufus without making greater preparations than have been recorded by the contemporary writers. As he had done previously when confronted with an English invasion, he brought in his overlord, King Philip, and a French army.[218] Philip and Robert appear to have opened their campaign in the south and west of Normandy with two remarkable victories. Philip invested Argentan,[219] and, on the very first day of the siege, Roger le Poitevin and an enormous garrison of seven hundred knights and fourteen hundred esquires surrendered without any blood being shed, and were held by the king to ransom. Soon after, the duke won a victory of almost equal importance by the reduction of Le Homme and the capture of William Peverel and a garrison of eight hundred knights.[220]

These reverses came as a staggering surprise to William Rufus. Immediately he sent off to England and ordered the assembling of a great army of English foot soldiers—some twenty thousand, it is said—for the invasion of Normandy. But when they came to Hastings for the crossing, Ranulf Flambard, at the king’s order, took from each of them the ten shillings that he had brought for maintenance during the campaign; and then sent them back home, while he forwarded the money to William Rufus in Normandy.[221] The king had need of this fresh supply of English treasure. For by this time Philip and Robert, after their double victory in the south and west, were advancing on William’s headquarters at Eu,[222] in the very heart of the district which he had controlled since 1089 or 1090. But at Longueville King Philip halted.[223] William Rufus had found a way to repeat the measure which had turned the French king back from La Ferté in 1089, if not from Eu in 1091. “There was the king of France turned back by craft, and all the expedition was afterwards dispersed.”[224] Again the resources of Duke Robert had proved unequal to the greater stores of English treasure which the Red King was able to command.[225]

Yet the strength of Robert’s resistance was by no means broken. William Rufus sent to Domfront to call Prince Henry to his aid, and such was Robert’s strength that it proved impossible for Henry to make his way by land to Eu. The king sent ships to fetch him.[226] But instead of proceeding to Eu, he crossed the Channel, and, landing at Southampton at the end of October, he went to London for Christmas, evidently with a view to meeting the king upon his return from the Continent.[227] Meanwhile, William Rufus remained in Normandy almost to the end of the year. But clearly he met with no great success in his projects. He had spent vast sums of money, yet little or nothing had come of it—so ran the contemporary judgment: “Infecto itaque negotio, in Angliam reversus est.”[228] On 29 December he crossed from Wissant to Dover.[229]

The progress of the Norman war in 1095 is obscure in the extreme. The king’s whole attention was absorbed by pressing affairs within the limits of his own realm; and he seems to have committed his continental interests almost wholly to Prince Henry. Henry remained in England until Lent, and then crossed over to Normandy ‘with great treasure’; and during the months which followed, he waged war against Duke Robert.[230] But in what part of the duchy, or how, or with what success, we have no information.

The close of the year 1095 saw Robert Curthose in a difficult situation, but the issue of the contest had not yet been decided. Meanwhile, the famous sermon of Pope Urban II before the council of Clermont had thrilled all Europe with a new impulse and turned the course of Robert’s life into a new and unexpected channel.

FOOTNOTES

[1] _Interpolations de Robert de Torigny_, in William of Jumièges, p. 268: “Cum igitur in Pontivo apud Abbatisvillam, cum sui similibus iuvenibus … moraretur … audito nuntio excessus patris, confestim veniens Rotomagum, ipsam civitatem et totum ducatum sine ulla contradictione suscepit”; _Chronicon_, in _Liber de Hyda_, p. 298; cf. Ordericus, ii, p. 374; iii, p. 256; _A.-S. C._, _a._ 1086.

[2] “Omnesque thesauros suos ecclesiis et pauperibus Deique ministris distribui praecepit. Quantum vero singulis dari voluit, callide taxavit, et coram se describi a notariis imperavit.” Ordericus, iii, p. 228.

[3] _Ibid._, p. 245.

[4] “Rotbertus in Normanniam reversus, thesauros quos invenerat monasteriis, ecclesiis, pauperibus, pro anima patris sui, largiter divisit; et Ulfum, Haroldi quondam regis Anglorum filium, Duneschaldumque, regis Scottorum Malcolmi filium, a custodia laxatos, et armis militaribus honoratos, abire permisit.” Florence of Worcester, ii, p. 21.

[5] “Donum de manerio de Vain quod idem pater meus in infirmitate qua defunctus est eidem ecclesie fecit.” Haskins, p. 285, no. 1.

[6] _Ibid._, pp. 287-288, no. 4 _a_.

[7] “Mors Guillelmi regis ipso eodem die, quo Rotomagi defunctus est, in urbe Roma et in Calabria quibusdam exheredatis nunciata est, ut ab ipsis postmodum veraciter in Normannia relatum est.” Ordericus, iii, p. 249.

[8] _Ibid._, p. 261.

[9] _Ibid._, pp. 261-262.

[10] Ordericus, iii, p. 256; cf. pp. 262-263.

[11] _Ibid._, pp. 245-248.

[12] “Postquam de carcere liber egressus est, totum in Normannia pristinum honorem adeptus est, et consiliarius ducis, videlicet nepotis sui, factus est.” _Ibid._, p. 263; William of Malmesbury, _G. R._, ii, p. 360.

[13] _Ibid._; cf. Florence of Worcester, ii, p. 21; Henry of Huntingdon, p. 211.

[14] Ordericus, iii, pp. 268-269. The speech is doubtless imaginary, but the argument must surely be contemporary.

[15] _Ibid._, p. 269; William of Malmesbury, _G. R._, ii, p. 360.

[16] Cf. E. A. Freeman, _The Reign of William Rufus_ (London, 1882), i, pp. 9 ff.

[17] Ordericus (iii, pp. 268-270) speaks as though the conspiracy was started late in 1087, but his account lacks convincing precision and definiteness; and the _Anglo-Saxon Chronicle_ (_a._ 1087 for 1088) which is followed by Florence of Worcester (ii, p. 22), makes the positive statement that the plot was formed during Lent. Further, we know from Henry of Huntingdon (p. 211) that the bishop of Bayeux was present at the king’s Christmas court in 1087.

[18] _A.-S. C._, _a._ 1087.

[19] Ordericus Vitalis (iii, pp. 268-270) seems to indicate that it was begun in Normandy at some sort of a secret gathering of the barons; but the English writers convey the impression that it originated in England. Cf. William of Malmesbury, _G. R._, ii, p. 360; Florence of Worcester, ii, p. 21; Henry of Huntingdon, p. 214. It may, of course, have had a double origin.

[20] Henry of Huntingdon, p. 211.

[21] William of Malmesbury, _G. R._, ii, p. 360; cf. Florence of Worcester, ii, p. 21; Ordericus, iii, p. 270; Freeman, _William Rufus_, ii, pp. 466-467.

[22] William of Malmesbury _G. R._, ii, p. 360.

[23] The early writers are sharply divided in their account of William of Saint-Calais in connection with the rebellion of 1088. The southern English writers believed him guilty of treason. _A.-S. C._, _a._ 1087; Florence of Worcester, ii, pp. 21-22; Henry of Huntingdon, p. 214; William of Malmesbury, _G. R._, ii, p. 360. But a contemporary narrative by a Durham writer, who was an eyewitness of the bishop’s trial, represents him as the persecuted victim of malicious enemies who had poisoned the king’s mind against him. _De Iniusta Vexatione Willelmi Episcopi Primi_, in Simeon of Durham, _Opera Omnia_, ed. Thomas Arnold (London, 1882-85), i, pp. 170-195. And it should be remembered that his condemnation by the _curia regis_ was not for the treason with which he was charged, but for his refusal to acknowledge the jurisdiction of the court. On the treatise _De Iniusta Vexatione_ see Appendix B.

[24] The _Anglo-Saxon Chronicle_ (_a._ 1087) and Florence of Worcester (ii, p. 22) make the positive statement that the revolt broke out after Easter (16 April); but we know from a more reliable source that William Rufus took the first active measures against the bishop of Durham on 12 March, and it is clear that the rebellion was already under way at this time. _De Iniusta Vexatione_, in Simeon, _Opera_, i, p. 171; cf. p. 189.

[25] Florence of Worcester, ii, p. 21: “pars etenim nobiliorum Normannorum favebat regi Willelmo, sed minima; pars vero altera favebat Rotberto comiti Normannorum, et maxima”; _A.-S. C._, _a._ 1087; Henry of Huntingdon, p. 214. In general on the rebellion of 1088 and all the problems connected with it see Freeman, _William Rufus_, i, pp. 22 ff.; ii, appendices b, c, d, e.

[26] Ordericus, iii, p. 272.

[27] Pevensey, of course, was fundamental because on the coast where Robert’s fleet was expected to make land.

[28] “Per angelos Dei, si ego essem in Alexandria, expectarent me Angli, nec ante adventum meum regem sibi facere auderent. Ipse etiam Willelmus frater meus, quod eum presumpsisse dicitis, pro capite suo sine mea permissione minime attentaret.” _Interpolations de Robert de Torigny_, in William of Jumièges, p. 268.

[29] “Haec primo dicebat, sed, postquam rei gestae ordinem rescivit, non minima discordia inter se et fratrem suum Willelmum emersit.” _Ibid._

[30] This is the plain inference from both the Norman and the English writers. E.g., Ordericus, iii, pp. 269-270; Florence of Worcester, ii, p. 22.

[31] Ordericus, iii, pp. 269-270.

[32] _A.-S. C._, _a._ 1087; Florence of Worcester, ii, p. 22; Henry of Huntingdon p. 215; cf. William of Malmesbury, _G. R._, ii, pp. 362, 468; Ordericus, iii, pp. 272-273; Simeon, _H. R._, p. 216; _Des miracles advenus en l’église de Fécamp_, ed. R. N. Sauvage, in Société de l’Histoire de Normandie, _Mélanges_, 2d series (Rouen, 1893), p. 29.

[33] Ordericus, iii, p. 244; _Interpolations de Robert de Torigny_, in William of Jumièges, pp. 268-269; _A.-S. C._, _a._ 1086; cf. William of Malmesbury, _G. R._, ii, pp. 468, 337, where it is said that the Conqueror bequeathed to Henry “maternas possessiones.”

[34] Ordericus, iii, p. 244.

[35] William of Malmesbury, _G. R._, ii, p. 468.

[36] _Ibid._

[37] _Interpolations de Robert de Torigny_, in William of Jumièges, p. 268. His presence is further proved by his attestation of charters, e.g., 30 March 1088, charter by Ralph Fitz Anseré in favor of Jumièges (Haskins, pp. 290-291, no. 6; also in _Chartes de l’abbaye de Jumièges_, ed. J.-J. Vernier, Paris, 1916, i, no. 37); 7 July 1088, charter by the duke in favor of the abbey of Fécamp (Haskins, pp. 287-289, no. 4 _a_); shortly after September 1087, charter by the duke in favor of Saint-Étienne of Caen (_ibid._, p. 285, no. 1).

[38] Ordericus, iii, p. 267; Henry of Huntingdon, p. 211. Robert of Torigny raises a question as to whether Robert conveyed the Cotentin to Henry outright or whether he only pledged it to him as surety for a loan. _Interpolations de Robert de Torigny_, in William of Jumièges, p. 269.

[39] _A.-S. C._, _a._ 1087; Florence of Worcester, ii, p. 23; Simeon, _H. R._, p. 215; William of Malmesbury, _G. R._, ii, pp. 361, 362; Ordericus, iii, pp. 273, 277-278.

[40] _A.-S. C._, _a._ 1087; Florence of Worcester, ii, pp. 22, 23; William of Malmesbury, _G. R._, ii, p. 362; Henry of Huntingdon, pp. 214-215; Simeon, _H. R._, pp. 215-216.

[41] “Tunc temporis ultra quam virum deceat in Normannia deliciabatur.” _Interpolations de Robert de Torigny_, in William of Jumièges, p. 270.

[42] Florence of Worcester, ii, p. 22; Simeon, _H. R._, p. 216; _Interpolations de Robert de Torigny_, in William of Jumièges, pp. 269-270.

[43] _A.-S. C._, _a._ 1087; Florence of Worcester, ii, p. 23; Simeon, _H. R._, p. 216; Henry of Huntingdon, p. 215.

[44] _A.-S. C._, _a._ 1087; Simeon, _H. R._, p. 216; Henry of Huntingdon, p. 215; William of Malmesbury, _G. R._, ii, pp. 362-363.

[45] _A.-S. C._, _a._ 1087; Simeon, _H. R._, p. 216; Henry of Huntingdon, p. 215; William of Malmesbury, _G. R._, ii, p. 362.

[46] _Supra_, p. 47.

[47] _A.-S. C._, _a._ 1087; Simeon, _H. R._, p. 216; William of Malmesbury, _G. R._, ii, p. 362; Henry of Huntingdon, p. 215; _De Iniusta Vexatione_, in Simeon, _Opera_, i, p. 191. At the trial of William of Saint-Calais the king says: “Bene scias, episcope, quod nunquam transfretabis, donec castellum tuum habeam. Episcopus enim Baiocensis inde me castigavit…”

[48] _A.-S. C._, _a._ 1087; William of Malmesbury, _G. R._, ii, p. 362.

[49] _A.-S. C._, _a._ 1087; Simeon, _H. R._, p. 216; William of Malmesbury, _G. R._, ii, p. 362; Henry of Huntingdon, p. 215. Ordericus Vitalis (iii, pp. 273-278) gives a highly embroidered account of the siege of Rochester and of its surrender, making it the outstanding event of the period—he knows nothing of the six weeks’ siege of Pevensey—but Simeon of Durham says that Rochester surrendered “parvo peracto spatio.”

[50] He returned to Normandy and to his see at Bayeux. Ordericus, iii, p. 278; _A.-S. C._, _a._ 1087; William of Malmesbury, _G. R._, ii, p. 362; Henry of Huntingdon, p. 215. According to Simeon of Durham (_H. R._, p. 216) he was intrusted by Duke Robert with the administration of the duchy, but this is an error. See Appendix B, _infra_, pp. 214-215.

[51] _A.-S. C._, _a._ 1087; Simeon, _H. R._, p. 116.

[52] William of Malmesbury, _G. R._, ii, p. 362: “Ceteri omnes in fidem recepti”; Ordericus, iii, pp. 279-280; cf. pp. 276, 291. We are without specific information as to the date of the surrender of Rochester. According to Ordericus (iii, p. 279), it took place “in initio aestatis.” A charter by Duke Robert in favor of La Trinité of Fécamp is dated 7 July 1088, “quando in Angliam transire debui.” Haskins, p. 288.

[53] At the trial of Bishop William of Durham before the _curia regis_ at Salisbury, 2 November 1088, the king refused to allow the bishop to depart from the kingdom unless he gave pledges “quod naves meas, quas sibi inveniam, non detinebit frater meus, vel aliquis suorum, ad dampnum meum.” _De Iniusta Vexatione_, in Simeon, _Opera_, i, p. 190. Some color seems to be given to the king’s fears by a statement in _Des miracles advenus en l’église de Fécamp_: “Adhibuit etiam mari custodes, quos illi _piratas_ vocant, qui naves ab Anglia venientes caperent, captos si redderent, capturam suis usibus manciparent.” Société de l’Histoire de Normandie, _Mélanges_, 2d series, p. 29.

[54] Ordericus, iii, p. 291. William of Malmesbury (_G. R._, ii, 468) is not in agreement, but the statement of Ordericus seems fully confirmed by the fact that Henry attested a charter by William Rufus in favor of the church of St. Andrew at Rochester: “This grant was made to repair the damage which the king did to the church of St. Andrew, when he obtained a victory over his enemies who had unjustly gathered against him in the city of Rochester.” Davis, _Regesta_, no. 301.

[55] “In autumno,” according to Ordericus, iii, p. 291.

[56] Ordericus, iii, pp. 291-292; cf. William of Malmesbury, _G. R._, ii, p. 468; _Interpolations de Robert de Torigny_, in William of Jumièges, p. 269. According to Ordericus, Henry’s place of confinement was Bayeux, under the custody of Bishop Odo; according to William of Malmesbury and Robert of Torigny it was Rouen.

[57] Ordericus, iii, p. 305; William of Malmesbury, _G. R._, ii, p. 468. Ordericus Vitalis recounts the event as if it came just after the death of Abbot Durand of Troarn, 11 February 1088. Cf. Ordericus, iii, p. 303; R. N. Sauvage, _L’abbaye de Saint-Martin de Troarn_ (Caen, 1911), p. 288. But Ordericus has already spoken of Henry’s captivity as beginning “in autumno,” 1088. _Supra_, n. 55. According to William of Malmesbury, he was released after a half-year’s detention. If we could rely upon this statement, and couple it with the earlier statement of Ordericus that the imprisonment began in the autumn of 1088, we could assign Henry’s release to the late winter or spring following (1089).

[58] _Infra_, n. 62.

[59] Ordericus, iii, p. 316. The English writers make no mention of the Winchester council. Ordericus indicates that appeals had been coming to William Rufus from the Norman church: “Ecce lacrymabilem querimoniam sancta ecclesia de transmarinis partibus ad me dirigit, quia valde moesta quotidianis fletibus madescit, quod iusto defensore et patrono carens, inter malignantes quasi ovis inter lupos consistit.” And in a later connection (iii, p. 421) he says specifically that Abbot Roger of Saint-Évroul sought aid from William Rufus.

[60] Freeman, _William Rufus_, i, pp. 225-226.

[61] _A.-S. C._, _a._ 1090; Florence of Worcester, ii, p. 26; William of Malmesbury, _G. R._, ii, p. 363; Ordericus, iii, p. 319.

[62] _Ibid._, pp. 319-320; _De Controversia Guillelmi Rotomagensis Archiepiscopi_, in _H. F._, xiv, p. 68, and in _Gallia Christiana_, xi, instr., col. 18. The work of corrupting the Norman baronage and winning them away from their allegiance to the duke was accomplished in 1089-90. Freeman assumes the Winchester assembly above mentioned to have been the Easter Gemot of 1090. _William Rufus_, i, pp. 222, and n. 1. But Ordericus seems to assign it to 1089—he records the death of William of Warenne, 24 June 1089, immediately after it—and we know from the _De Controversia Guillelmi_ that the struggle had already begun in Normandy in 1089, when Robert Curthose and King Philip besieged La Ferté-en-Bray. Further, the siege of Eu by Duke Robert in 1089 is probably to be connected in some way with the activities of William Rufus against him. Davis, _Regesta_, no. 310.

[63] Ordericus, iii, p. 320.

[64] Davis, _Regesta_, no. 310, a charter of confirmation by Duke Robert for Bishop Odo of Bayeux, dated 1089, “secundo anno principatus Roberti Guillelmi regis filii ac Normanniae comitis, dum idem Robertus esset ad obsidionem Auci ea die qua idem castrum sibi redditum est.” This would necessarily be not later than September.

[65] _Ibid._, no. 308, a confirmation by Duke Robert in favor of Bayeux cathedral, dated 24 April 1089, “dum esset idem Robertus comes apud Vernonem … iturus in expeditionem in Franciam.”

[66] The _De Controversia Guillelmi_ gives the specific date 1089. _H. F._, xiv, p. 68. William of Malmesbury, though vague, is in agreement. _G. R._, ii, p. 363. The _Anglo-Saxon Chronicle_ (_a._ 1090) and Florence of Worcester (ii, p. 26) assign King Philip’s intervention vaguely to 1090.

[67] We learn the name of the castle from the _De Controversia Guillelmi_, in _H. F._, xiv, p. 68. The _Chronicle_ (_a._ 1090) and Florence (ii, p. 26) both refer to it without name.

[68] Florence of Worcester, ii, p. 27; _A.-S. C._, _a._ 1090; cf. William of Malmesbury, _G. R._, ii, p. 363.

[69] Ordericus, iii, p. 351; William of Malmesbury, _G. R._, ii, p. 469.

[70] The name is found in the record of a suit before the court of Henry I in 1111: “in urbe Rothomagensi gravis dissensio inter partes Pilatensium scilicet et Calloensium exorta est que multa civitatem strage vexavit et multos nobilium utriusque partis gladio prostravit.” Haskins, pp. 91-92. Ordericus (iii, p. 252) indicates that the loyalists were clearly outnumbered by the rebels.

[71] Ordericus, iii, pp. 351-353.

[72] This, at any rate, is the account given by Ordericus Vitalis, who seems, however, at this point to feel rather more than his usual rancor towards the duke.

[73] Ordericus, iii, pp. 352-357; William of Malmesbury, _G. R._, ii, p. 469.

[74] Ordericus, iii, pp. 344-346.

[75] According to Ordericus (iii, pp. 365, 377) the crossing was made in the week of 19-25 January 1091; the _Anglo-Saxon Chronicle_ (_a._ 1091) dates it 2 February, while Florence of Worcester (ii, p. 27) more vaguely says “mense Februario.” William Rufus dated a charter at Dover 27 January 1091, probably soon before sailing for Normandy. Davis, _Regesta_, no. 315. The dating clause of this charter, “anno Dominicae incarnationis mill. xc, regni vero mei iiii, indictione xiii, vi kal. Feb., luna iii,” is not consistent throughout; but the year of the reign and of the lunation both compel us to assign it to 1091. Moreover, Ralph, bishop of Chichester, and Herbert, bishop of Thetford, both of whom attest, were not raised to their sees till 1091. Cf. Freeman, _William Rufus_, ii, pp. 484-485. Ralph appears to have been consecrated 6 January 1091. Stubbs, _Registrum Sacrum Anglicanum_.

[76] Ordericus, iii, pp. 365-366, 377; _Interpolations de Robert de Torigny_, in William of Jumièges, p. 270; cf. _A.-S. C._, _a._ 1091; Florence of Worcester, ii, p. 27; William of Malmesbury, _G. R._, ii, p. 363.

[77] Ordericus, iii, pp. 365-366, 377.

[78] _Interpolations de Robert de Torigny_, in William of Jumièges, p. 270.

[79] According to Robert of Torigny (_loc. cit._), “adminiculante Philippo rege Francorum.” It is a plausible hypothesis that William of Saint-Calais, the exiled bishop of Durham, played a part in these peace negotiations. Upon his expulsion from England, between 27 November 1088 and 3 January 1089, he went to Normandy and was received by Duke Robert “rather as a father than as an exile” (Simeon, _H. D. E._, p. 128) and had the administration of the duchy committed to his charge (_De Iniusta Vexatione_, in Simeon, _Opera_, i, p. 194); and he remained in Normandy and enjoyed a position of honor for three years. In 1089 he attested two of Duke Robert’s charters (Davis, _Regesta_, nos. 308, 310), and he also attested with the duke a charter by Hugh Painel [1089-91] (Haskins, p. 69, no. 16). Then in the third year of his expulsion, when the king’s men were being besieged in a ‘certain castle in Normandy’ and were on the point of being taken, he saved them from their peril, and by his counsel the siege was raised (Simeon, _H. D. E._, p. 128. Can this refer to the siege of Eu and to the pacification of February (?) 1091?) See Appendix B, _infra_, p. 215 and n. 14.

[80] Ordericus, iii, p. 366. Robert of Torigny gives Caen as the meeting place. _Interpolations de Robert de Torigny_, in William of Jumièges, p. 270. But may he not have confused the peace negotiations with the general inquest into ducal rights and customs which the brothers held at Caen on 18 July of the same year? For this inquest see Haskins, pp. 277-278.

[81] The date of the treaty is not given specifically, but according to Ordericus Vitalis (iii, p. 378) William and Robert, after they had made peace, besieged Henry at Mont-Saint-Michel for two weeks in the middle of Lent—according to Florence of Worcester (ii, p. 27), during the whole of Lent. The treaty, therefore, could hardly have been concluded later than the end of February.

[82] Ordericus, iii, p. 366.

[83] _A.-S. C._, _a._ 1091; Florence of Worcester, ii, p. 27; William of Malmesbury, _G. R._, ii, p. 363; _Interpolations de Robert de Torigny_, in William of Jumièges, p. 270.

[84] Ordericus, iii, p. 366; _Interpolations de Robert de Torigny_, in William of Jumièges, p. 270; _A.-S. C._, _a._ 1091; Florence of Worcester, ii, p. 27.

[85] Ordericus, iii, p. 366.

[86] Specific mention of all the lordships which we know to have been won over by the king is not made in our accounts of the treaty, but they are all covered by general statements. Henry of Huntingdon, pp. 215-216; and the references given in nn. 83, 84, _supra_.

[87] Florence of Worcester, ii, p. 27; _A.-S. C._, _a._ 1091.

[88] _A.-S. C._, _a._ 1091; Florence of Worcester, ii, p. 27; William of Malmesbury, _G. R._, ii, p. 363.

[89] _A.-S. C._, _a._ 1091; Florence of Worcester, ii, p. 27; Henry of Huntingdon, pp. 215-216.

[90] _A.-S. C._, _a._ 1091; Florence of Worcester, ii, p. 27. Florence and the _Chronicle_ both add here a puzzling provision which seems to indicate that the king undertook to compensate Robert for his losses in Normandy with lands in England: “et tantum terrae in Anglia quantum conventionis inter eos fuerat comiti daret.”

[91] _A.-S. C._, _a._ 1091; Florence of Worcester, ii, p. 27; Henry of Huntingdon, p. 216.

[92] _A.-S. C._, _a._ 1091; Florence of Worcester, ii, p. 27; William of Malmesbury, _G. R._, ii, p. 363; Henry of Huntingdon, p. 216.

[93] _G. R._, ii, pp. 363-364; _Annales de Wintonia_, in _Annales Monastici_, ii, p. 36.

[94] _Supra_, p. 52.

[95] Henry of Huntingdon, p. 211; _Interpolations de Robert de Torigny_, in William of Jumièges, p. 269; William of Malmesbury, _G. R._, ii, p. 468; cf. Ordericus, iii, p. 350.

[96] William of Malmesbury, _G. R._, ii, p. 468.

[97] “Comes Henricus pedagium accepit de Chetelhulmo et de omni Constantino et super hoc facit operari homines Sancte Trinitatis de eadem villa et patria ad castella suorum hominum.” Cartulary of La Trinité of Caen, extract, in Haskins, p. 63.

[98] Ordericus, iii, pp. 350-351, 378.

[99] _Ibid._, p. 350; cf. pp. 318, 378; cf. also William of Malmesbury, _G. R._, ii, p. 468.

[100] _Ibid._

[101] Ordericus, iii, p. 378; William of Malmesbury, _G. R._, ii, p. 363-364; Florence of Worcester, ii, p. 27; _Interpolations de Robert de Torigny_, in William of Jumièges, p. 270.

[102] Ordericus, iii, p. 378.

[103] William of Malmesbury, _G. R._, ii, p. 364; Ordericus, iii, p. 378; Florence of Worcester, ii, p. 27.

[104] Ordericus, iii, p. 378.

[105] Florence of Worcester, ii, p. 27.

[106] Ordericus, iii, p. 378. Lent in 1091 extended from 26 February to 13 April. According to Florence of Worcester (ii, p. 27) the siege continued through the whole of Lent.

[107] Ordericus, iii, p. 378; _Interpolations de Robert de Torigny_, in William of Jumièges, pp. 270-271; _Annales de Mont-Saint-Michel_, in _Chronique de Robert de Torigni_, ed. Léopold Delisle (Rouen, 1872-73), ii, pp. 222, 232; William of Malmesbury, _G. R._, ii, pp. 364, 469-470; Florence of Worcester, ii, p. 27; _Annales de Wintonia_, in _Annales Monastici_, ii, p. 36; Wace, _Roman de Rou_, ed. Andresen, ii, p. 409.

[108] _Ibid._ Freeman remarks, “We may trust the topography of the Jerseyman.” _William Rufus_, i, p. 286, n. 1.

[109] Wace, _Roman de Rou_, ii, p. 409; cf. Florence of Worcester, ii, p. 27.

[110] William of Malmesbury, _G. R._, ii, p. 364; Wace, _Roman de Rou_, ii, p. 410.

[111] William of Malmesbury, _G. R._, ii, p. 365; Wace, _Roman de Rou_, ii, p. 411.

[112] _Ibid._

[113] William of Malmesbury, _G. R._, ii, p. 365; Wace, _Roman de Rou_, ii, p. 412; _Interpolations de Robert de Torigny_, in William of Jumièges, p. 271; cf. Florence of Worcester, ii, p. 27. These sources do indeed indicate an abandonment of the siege before its object was accomplished; but against them stands the very positive statement of Ordericus Vitalis, which is confirmed by the Annals of Winchester (_infra_, n. 114). Robert and William evidently did not enjoy a very complete triumph. Still there seems no doubt of Henry’s expulsion from the Cotentin.

[114] Ordericus, iii, pp. 378-379; _Annales de Wintonia_, in _Annales Monastici_, ii, p. 36; _Interpolations de Robert de Torigny_, in William of Jumièges, p. 271.

[115] Ordericus, iii, p. 379.

[116] William of Malmesbury, _G. R._, ii, p. 365. He attests a charter of confirmation by William Rufus for the bishop of Durham, evidently while on the Scottish expedition late in 1091. Davis, _Regesta_, no. 318.

[117] “Fereque duobus annis a bellis Normannia quievit.” Ordericus, iii, p. 379.

[118] Haskins, pp. 277-284.

[119] William of Malmesbury, _G. R._, ii, p. 365; Ordericus, iii, pp. 381,394; _A.-S. C._, _a._ 1091; Florence of Worcester, ii, p. 28; Henry of Huntingdon, p. 216.

[120] Florence of Worcester (ii, p. 28) gives the date of the crossing as “mense Augusto”; and Ordericus Vitalis (iii, pp. 366, 377) indicates that 1 August was the date. Roger du Sap was elected abbot of Saint-Évroul on 21 July. Apparently he went immediately to the duke to seek investiture and found that the latter had already departed. _Ibid._, p. 381. The _Rotulus Primus Monasterii Sancti Ebrulfi_ dates the crossing of William and Robert in 1090. _Ibid._, v, p. 189. But this is evidently the error of a copyist.

[121] _Supra_, p. 65, and n. 116.

[122] “Ambo fratres de Neustria in Angliam ex insperato tranfretaverant, mirantibus cunctis.” Ordericus, iii, p. 381.

[123] William of Malmesbury, _G. R._, ii, p. 365. Freeman rejects the testimony of William of Malmesbury regarding this Welsh campaign of 1091. _William Rufus_, ii, pp. 78-79. But I see no reason for so doing—especially since the statements coupled with it regarding Henry and the Scottish expedition are demonstrably accurate—; and how else explain the lateness of the Scottish campaign? William of Malmesbury says specifically: “Statimque primo contra Walenses, post in Scottos expeditionem movens.”

[124] Ordericus, iii, p. 394; Florence of Worcester, ii, p. 28; _A.-S. C._, _a._ 1091.

[125] _Ibid._

[126] See Appendix B, _infra_, pp. 215-216.

[127] _De Iniusta Vexatione_, in Simeon, _Opera_, i, p. 195. The bishop was believed to have regained the king’s favor through services which he rendered him in Normandy. Simeon, _H. D. E._, p. 128. In any case, under the amnesty provision of the treaty between Robert Curthose and William Rufus he was entitled to a restoration of his estates and honors in England.

[128] _A.-S. C._, _a._ 1091; Florence of Worcester, ii, p. 28. For the reading ‘Lothian,’ instead of Leeds, see Freeman, _William Rufus_, ii, p. 541. Ordericus (iii, p. 394), in an obviously embroidered account, represents the two kings as facing one another from opposite sides of the Firth of Forth. But the English writers say specifically that Malcolm had advanced into Lothian to meet the English forces.

[129] _Supra_, p. 31.

[130] _A.-S. C._, _a._ 1091; Florence of Worcester, ii, p. 28; William of Malmesbury, _G. R._, ii, p. 366; Ordericus, iii, pp. 394-395.

[131] We have no other record of this homage. Can it have taken place in 1080, when Malcolm made his submission to Robert, who was then leading the Conqueror’s army against him?

[132] Ordericus, iii, pp. 394-396.

[133] Florence of Worcester, ii, p. 28; _A.-S. C._, _a._ 1091.

[134] Florence of Worcester, ii, p. 29; _A.-S. C._, _a._ 1091. At some point on the homeward march the three brothers joined with a distinguished company of nobles and prelates in the attestation of a charter of the lately restored Bishop William of Durham. Davis, _Regesta_, no. 318; cf. Freeman, _William Rufus_, i, p. 305; ii, p. 535.

[135] Henry of Huntingdon, p. 216.

[136] _A.-S. C._, _a._ 1091; Florence of Worcester, ii, p. 29.

[137] “In illis namque diebus, Willelmus, Anglorum rex strenuus, mortuus est, eiusque morte tota Cenomannorum regio perturbata.” _Actus Pontificum_, p. 385.

[138] _Interpolations de Robert de Torigny_, in William of Jumièges, p. 273: “Unde factum est, ut paulo post mortem ipsius regis idem dux Robertus, de quo nunc sermo est, in principio sui ducatus, iam tunc rebellionis contumaciam attentantes in ipsis suis finibus ducto exercitu Normannorum, eos compescuit”; Ordericus, iii, p. 327: “ipso [i.e., the Conqueror] mortuo statim de rebellione machinari coeperunt.” The statement of the _Actus Pontificum_ (_supra_, n. 137) is not convincing because the next sentence opens with the rebellion of 1090. Robert of Torigny shows himself poorly informed in these matters. The statement of Ordericus is vague, and his record elsewhere does not point to any serious disturbances till later in the reign.

[139] Ordericus, iii, pp. 293, 296.

[140] _Ibid._, pp. 289, 292.

[141] _Ibid._, p. 293.

[142] Ordericus, iii, p. 296. The fragment of a charter by Robert “Normannie princeps et Cenomannorum comes,” granting the tithe of his customs and rents at Fresnay to Saint-Vincent of Le Mans, should probably be assigned to this visit. _Cartulaire de S.-Vincent_, no. 532.

[143] Ordericus, iii, p. 269.

[144] Osmond de Gaprée was killed at the siege on 1 September. Ordericus, iii, p. 297: Ordericus was probably well informed, since Osmond was buried at Saint-Évroul. This date makes it possible to say definitely that this expedition into Maine did not take place in 1087, for William the Conqueror did not die till 9 September of that year. It is not so clear that it did not take place after 1088; yet between this and the successful rebellion of 1090 there were the threatened disturbances which Fulk is said to have repressed for a year. Cf. Latouche, _Maine_, p. 40, n. 2.

[145] Ordericus, iii, pp. 296-297.

[146] _Ibid._, iii, p. 297.

[147] _Supra_, p. 55.

[148] Ordericus, iii, p. 320.

[149] _Ibid._, pp. 320-323.

[150] He granted Bavent, Noyon-sur-Andelle, Gacé, and Gravençon to William of Évreux, and Pont-Saint-Pierre to William of Breteuil, his nephew. Ordericus, iii, pp. 321-322.

[151] Ordericus, iii, pp. 327-332; _Actus Pontificum_, pp. 385 ff.; _Interpolations de Robert de Torigny_, in William of Jumièges, pp. 272-273.

[152] _Actus Pontificum_, p. 385.

[153] Ordericus, iii, pp. 328-329; _Actus Pontificum_, pp. 385-386.

[154] He was the son of Azzo II, marquis of Este, and Gersent, eldest daughter of Herbert Éveille-Chien.

[155] _Actus Pontificum_, p. 386; Ordericus, iii, pp. 327-328.

[156] “Ipse autem Rotbertus, ultra modum inertie et voluptati deditus, nichil dignum ratione respondens, que Cenomannenses fecerant, pro eo quod inepto homini nimis honerosi viderentur, non multum sibi displicuisse monstravit.” _Actus Pontificum_, p. 386. This is a remarkable corroboration of Ordericus Vitalis in his view of Robert’s character.

[157] _Actus Pontificum_, pp. 387-390. Hoël’s presence in England early in 1091 is proved by his attestation of two charters by William Rufus, at Dover (27 January) and at Hastings. Davis, _Regesta_, nos. 315, 319. It is not unlikely that Hoël returned to Normandy with the king, who was evidently about to sail at the time the Dover charter was issued.

[158] _Actus Pontificum_, pp. 391-392. He celebrated Easter (13 April) and Pentecost (1 June) at Solesmes; and arriving at La Couture 28 June, he observed the day of the Apostles on the 29th; and the ceremony in the cathedral church took place the day following. _Chartularium Insignis Ecclesiae Cenomanensis quod dicitur Liber Albus Capituli_ (Le Mans, 1869), no. 178; cf. _Cartulaire de S.-Vincent_, no. 117. The year in which these events occurred requires some further discussion. Latouche, though admitting with Ordericus Vitalis (iii, p. 327) that the revolt began in 1090, still believes that Hugh did not arrive in Maine until after Easter 1091, that Hoël was in England from November to March 1091-92, and that his return and reconciliation with Hugh took place at the end of June 1092. _Maine_, pp. 41-44. Latouche bases his chronological deductions upon a charter by Hugh in favor of Marmoutier, given at Tours, according to Latouche, on 13 April 1091. Bibliothèque Nationale MSS., Collection Baluze, 76, fol. 14. Since Hugh does not bear the title of count in this document, Latouche argues that he had not yet arrived in Maine, and, therefore, that the subsequent events of the revolution must be carried forward through 1091 into 1092. The dating clause of the charter in question, as kindly furnished me by M. Henri Omont, is as follows: “Factum hoc mᵒ anno et lxxxxi. ab incarnatione Domini, indictione xiiii. anno xxxiiii. Philippi regis, primo anno R. archiepiscopatus, secundi Aurelianensis. Aderbal scolae minister secundarius scriptsit.” Granting that this is a document of the year 1091—which is by no means likely, in view of the year of the reign and of Ralph, archbishop of Tours—there still appears to be no reason why Latouche should assign it to the Easter date (13 April); and upon other evidence it is clear that Hugh arrived in Maine at a much earlier period: (1) It is not clear from the _Actus Pontificum_ (pp. 386-387), as Latouche supposes (p. 42, n. 6), that Hoël was already in Normandy upon Hugh’s arrival in Maine, but quite the contrary. (2) Ordericus Vitalis (iii, pp. 328, 330) indicates that Hugh was induced to come to Maine because Robert Curthose and William Rufus were at war, and that a strong argument in favor of his return to Italy was the fact that they had recently made peace and were meditating an attack upon Maine. This we know to have been in the spring and summer of 1091, and not in 1092 after William Rufus had returned to England. (3) A charter by William Rufus proves the presence of Hoël in England 27 January 1091, and not November-March 1091-92, as Latouche supposes. Davis, _Regesta_, no. 315. (4) Finally, two charters in favor of Saint-Julien of Tours, dated 11 November 1091, prove that Helias was already at that time count of Maine with Hoël’s approval, and incidentally show that Hoël was not then in England. _Charles de S.-Julien de Tours_, nos. 43, 44.

[159] Ordericus, iii, pp. 329-330; cf _Actus Pontificum_, p. 393.