Chapter III: Independent Rule, 1087-95 (3)

[160] Ordericus, iii, p. 330. This gives an important synchronism for dating.

[161] _Ibid._, iii, pp. 331-332; _Actus Pontificum_, p. 393; _Cartulaire de S.-Vincent_, no. 117.

[162] Bishop Hoël and Count Helias join in confirming a charter by Alberic de la Milesse, 11 November 1091. _Chartes de S.-Julien de Tours_, nos. 43, 44. Count Helias attests a confirmation by Fulk le Réchin, 27 July 1092. Halphen, _Anjou_, p. 320, no. 262.

[163] _Supra_, pp. 66-67.

[164] Davis, _Regesta_, nos. 308, 310, 324; Haskins, p. 285, no. 1.

[165] _Supra_, p. 43.

[166] Ordericus, iii, p. 263; _Interpolations de Robert de Torigny_, in William of Jumièges, p. 288.

[167] Ordericus, iii, pp. 321-322.

[168] _Ibid._, pp. 297-298.

[169] Castle of Montaigu. _Ibid._, p. 420.

[170] _Ibid._, p. 333.

[171] Castles of Saint-Saëns, Arques, and Bures. _Ibid._, p. 320. These grants to Helias proved to be a source of strength rather than of weakness.

[172] Ordericus, iii, pp. 291-296.

[173] “Verum deficiente alimonia castrum captum est, et praefatus municeps iussu irati ducis protinus oculis privatus est. Aliis quoque pluribus, qui contumaciter ibidem restiterant principi Normanniae, debilitatio membrorum inflicta est ex sententia curiae.” _Ibid._, p. 297. This is the only instance I have met with where Robert might be charged with cruelty. The distinction between the blinding of Robert Quarrel by the duke’s command and the mutilation of others by sentence of the _curia_ is curious.

[174] _Ibid._, pp. 337-342.

[175] See, e.g., Ordericus, iii, p. 299.

[176] Ordericus, iii, p. 299.

[177] _Ibid._, pp. 299-300.

[178] _Ibid._, p. 358.

[179] _Ibid._, pp. 301-302.

[180] _Ibid._, pp. 333-334.

[181] _Ibid._, pp. 361-366.

[182] _Ibid._, pp. 417-420.

[183] _Ibid._, v, p. 4.

[184] Ordericus, ii, p. 469; iii, pp. 332-333, 335-336, 412-416.

[185] _Ibid._, iii, pp. 332-333, 412.

[186] _Ibid._, pp. 415-416. Robert of Torigny calls this “quamdam rem dignam memoria.” _Interpolations de Robert de Torigny_, in William of Jumièges, p. 290.

[187] Ordericus, iii, pp. 344-348; _supra_, p. 58.

[188] Ordericus, iii, pp. 384-385; _Interpolations de Robert de Torigny_, in William of Jumièges, p. 271; Wace, _Roman de Rou_, ii, p. 413.

[189] _Ibid._, p. 414; Ordericus, iii, p. 418.

[190] “Ille vero contra Rodbertum, Normanniae comitem, viriliter arma sumpsit, incendiis et rapinis expulsionis suae iniuriam vindicavit, multosque cepit et carceri mancipavit.” Ordericus, iii, p. 385.

[191] _Interpolations de Robert de Torigny_, in William of Jumièges, pp. 271-272.

[192] Ordericus, iii, pp. 289, 303, 332, 357.

[193] Haskins, pp. 63-64.

[194] _Cartulaire de S.-Vincent_, no. 532.

[195] Ordericus, iii, pp. 297, 303, 381; Milo Crispin, _Vita Willelmi Abbatis Beccensis Tertii_, in Migne, cl, col. 717.

[196] Round, _C. D. F._, no. 1115; Davis, _Regesta_, no. 342; Haskins, p. 70, no. 36.

[197] Haskins, pp. 66-70.

[198] _Supra_, p. 65.

[199] Ordericus, iii, p. 420; Charter by Duke Robert in favor of La Trinité of Fécamp, in Haskins, p. 289, no. 4 _c._

[200] For a full discussion of Robert’s government, see Haskins, pp. 62-78.

[201] _Gallia Christiana_, xi, instr., col. 221.

[202] _H. F._, xiv, p. 68.

[203] Ordericus, iii, p. 379.

[204] _Ibid._, p. 381.

[205] Eadmer, _Historia Novorum in Anglia_, ed. Martin Rule (London, 1884), p. 37; _Epistolae Anselmi_, bk. iii, no. 10, in Migne, clix, col. 31.

[206] _Epistolae Anselmi_, bk. iii, no. 15, in Migne, clix, col. 39; cf. _ibid._, nos. 8, 14; Milo Crispin, _Vita Willelmi Abbatis_, in Migne, cl, col. 717.

[207] _De Controversia Guillelmi_, in _H. F._, xiv, pp. 68-69; Heinrich Böhmer, _Kirche und Staat in England und in der Normandie im xi. und xii. Jahrhundert_ (Leipsic, 1899), p. 146. According to Böhmer, the suspension of Archbishop William took place towards the end of 1093. There is an unpublished tract by the ‘Anonymous of York’ upon the exemption of the monastery of Fécamp in Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, MS. 415, pp. 264-265. Cf. Karl Hampe, in _Neues Archiv der Gesellschaft für ältere deutsche Geschichtskunde_, xxii (1897), pp. 669-672; Böhmer, _op. cit._, pp. 177, 180.

[208] _Supra_, p. 68.

[209] “This power he reserves for his brother, King William, as well as for himself.” Davis, _Regesta_, no. 327.

[210] _A.-S. C._, _a._ 1094; cf. Florence of Worcester, ii, p. 33, MS. C, in note; Henry of Huntingdon, p. 217.

[211] Eadmer, p. 43.

[212] _A.-S. C._, _a._ 1094; Florence of Worcester, ii, p. 33, MS. C, in note; cf. Eadmer, p. 47.

[213] _Ibid._, cf. Davis, _Regesta_, nos. 347, 348.

[214] _A.-S. C._, _a._ 1094; Florence of Worcester, ii, p. 33, MS. C, in note. In 1094 Lent extended from 22 February to 9 April. If by ‘Midlent’ an exact day is designated, it was probably Sunday, 19 March.

[215] _A.-S. C._, _a._ 1094; Florence of Worcester, ii, p. 33, and MS. C, in note; Henry of Huntingdon, p. 217. Florence of Worcester is the sole authority for ‘Campus Martius’ and for the fact that after the conferences Robert went to Rouen and William Rufus to Eu. Henry of Huntingdon mentions only the final meeting. A phrase in a letter of Bishop Ivo of Chartres makes it not improbable that King Philip was present at this conference: “iturus vobiscum ad placitum quod futurum est inter regem Anglorum et comitem Normannorum.” _H. F._, xv, p. 82, no. 28; cf. Fliche, _Philippe Iᵉʳ_, p. 299. But the letter is undated, and proof is lacking that it refers to the conference of 1094. There is no basis for Fliche’s assumption that the meeting between William and Robert took place at Pontoise or at Chaumont-en-Vexin. Ivo’s letter contains no such evidence. The above mentioned places are named only as a rendezvous for Philip and Ivo preparatory to proceeding to the meeting between Robert and William.

[216] Florence of Worcester, ii, p. 34.

[217] _A.-S. C._, _a._ 1094; Florence of Worcester, ii, p. 34; Henry of Huntingdon, p. 217.

[218] References as in n. 217, _supra_.

[219] Argentan is pretty clearly, though not certainly, the place designated. Florence of Worcester (ii, p. 34), who seems generally best informed on these events, has “Argentinum,” about which there can be no question. The readings of the _Anglo-Saxon Chronicle_ (_a._ 1094) and of Henry of Huntingdon (p. 217) are “castel aet Argentses” and “Argentes,” which might refer to Argentan or Argences. Thomas Stapleton says that the place in question was Argentan. _Magni Rotuli Scaccarii Normaniae sub Regibus Angliae_ (London, 1840-44), ii, p. xxx. I cannot discover that there was any castle at Argences in the eleventh century.

[220] Florence of Worcester, ii, pp. 34-35; _A.-S. C._, _a._ 1094; Henry of Huntingdon, p. 217.

[221] _A.-S. C._, _a._ 1094; Florence of Worcester, ii, p. 35; Henry of Huntingdon, p. 217.

[222] According to Henry of Huntingdon (p. 217), they actually besieged Eu.

[223] _A.-S. C._, _a._ 1094.

[224] _Ibid._, _a._ 1094; Henry of Huntingdon, p. 217.

[225] Fliche sets forth the extraordinary hypothesis that there was no war between William Rufus and Robert Curthose in 1094, though he admits the meeting between them and the unsuccessful attempt at a reconciliation. He bases his hypothesis upon the fact that Ordericus Vitalis makes no mention of the war of 1094, and that the account of the campaign of 1094 as set forth in the English sources bears certain resemblances to that of 1091. He argues that the English writers in their confusion have assigned events to 1094 which really belong to 1091—in brief, that there was only one campaign, that of 1091: “Et alors ne faudrait-il pas reporter toute la campagne racontée ici à l’année 1090-1091?” _Philippe Iᵉʳ_, pp. 298-300. In point of fact there is far less duplication between the events of 1090-91 and 1094 than Fliche supposes, and such resemblances as exist are readily accounted for by the fact that William Rufus had his headquarters at Eu on both occasions and pursued the same general policy throughout his dealings with Robert Curthose and King Philip. It may be admitted as extraordinary that the events of 1094 have escaped the attention of Ordericus Vitalis; but to reject the highly circumstantial accounts of the English writers is to betray a strange lack of appreciation of the range and accuracy of their information.

[226] _A.-S. C._, _a._ 1094.

[227] _Ibid._ According to Henry of Huntingdon (p. 218), the king’s original order had been to proceed to London.

[228] Eadmer, p. 52.

[229] _A.-S. C._, _a._ 1095; Florence of Worcester, ii, p. 35.

[230] _A.-S. C._, _a._ 1095; Henry of Huntingdon, p. 218.