Chapter XXIV: Appendix: NOTE A. Vol. i. p. 11 (4)

This account is true in a sense; it gives the purely military history, except that the words “impacatus recessit” would hardly suggest Henry’s honourable surrender. But no one would find out from Florence’s version that Henry occupied the Mount simply as the last spot left to him in his dominions. As a matter of warfare, it doubtless may be said that William and Robert besieged Henry because he occupied the Mount, and because he was, as we can well believe, driven to harry the neighbouring lands. But he occupied the Mount and harried the lands only because he was driven out of the rest of his county. That Florence misunderstood the matter is plain from his use of the words “regis terra,” which cannot apply to any land which could be reached from the Mount.

Wace has a long account, very confused in its chronology and in the sequence of events; but I have trusted to his local knowledge for some topographical details. William of Malmesbury twice refers to the siege. He tells it under the reign of Rufus (iv. 308); but seemingly wholly for the purpose of bringing in two famous anecdotes about William and Robert. The second time is in his sketch of Henry’s early life (v. 392). In the first account he at least puts the siege in its right place after the Treaty of 1091. In the second he seems, strangely enough, to make the siege immediately follow the death of Conan, or at least to follow Henry’s driving out of Rouen (see above, p. 512), which he places just after Conan’s death;

“Illud fuit tempus quo, ut supra lectum est, apud montem
sancti Michaelis ambobus fratribus Henricus pro sui salute
simul et gloria restitit.”

And, as Orderic (see p. 294) is careful to insist on the wholesome effect which the season of exile which followed had on Henry’s character, so William insists on the wholesome effect of the siege itself;

“Ita, cum utrique germano fuerit fidelis et efficax, illi
nullis adolescentem possessionibus dignati, ad majorem
prudentiam ævi processu penuria victualium informabant.”

The Red King’s way of schooling a brother was not quite so harsh as that by which Gideon taught the men of Succoth; but it is essentially of the same kind.

Nothing can be more confused than the way in which Wace brings in the story (see Pluquet’s note, ii. 310). I have already (see above, p. 514) mentioned the course of his story up to that point. Robert, without any help from William, has deprived Henry of the Côtentin, while William is angry with Henry for having paid the purchase-money to Robert. Henry then goes to the Mount (14588);

“Por sei vengier se mist el munt
U li muignes Saint Michiel sunt.”

Then, having no place of shelter anywhere, he gathers a large company of nobles and others who serve him willingly (14598);

“N’alout mie eschariement,
Asez menout od li grant gent
Des plus nobles è des gentilz,
Mena od li freres è filz;
E tuit volentiers le servient,
Kar grant espeir en li aveient.”

He thinks of seeking a lasting shelter in Britanny; but he is entertained by Earl Hugh at Avranches, with whom he has much talk, and who one day counsels him to occupy the Mount and to make a castle of the monastery. This is without any reference to the lines just quoted in which Henry is made to have been there already. But the speech of the Earl is well conceived (14624);

“Li munt Saint Michiel li mostra:
Veiz tu, dist-il, cele roche là;
Bel lieu è forte roche i a,
Ke jor ke noit ja ne faldra;
Flo de mer montant l’avirone,
Ki à cel lieu grant force done.”

Henry will do well to get together Bretons and mercenaries, and hold the rock against the Normans (14625);

“Bretuns mandasse è soldéiers,
Ki gaaignassent volentiers,
Mult méisse gent en grant esfrei;
Jà Normant n’éust paiz vers mei.”

Henry adopts Hugh’s advice, rides off at once, occupies the Mount, and sends a defiance to Robert (14646);

“Maiz Henris est sempres monté,
Et el munt est sempres alé.
Del munt Saint Michiel guerréia,
Robert son frere desfia.
Ja mez, ço dist, sa paiz n’areit,
Se son aveir ne li rendeit.”

Henry ravages the neighbouring lands (see above, p. 529, and p. 286); then the King and the Duke come to besiege him, without any hint how William came to be in Normandy, or how the two brothers, who were enemies less than a hundred lines before, have now come to be allies.

It is plain that the striking event of the occupation of the Mount of which he would hear a good deal in his childhood, if it did not actually come within his own childish days, was strong in Wace’s imagination, but that he took very little pains to fit the tale into its right place in the history. It is specially hard to reconcile his picture of the action of Earl Hugh with the facts of the case. There is perhaps no literal contradiction. Hugh, while giving up his castles to Robert (see p. 284), may have given Henry secret advice, and the words of Robert of Torigny in the Continuation of William of Jumièges (see p. 323) may be taken as implying that Henry looked on him as having been on the whole faithful to him. But Wace could hardly have conceived Hugh as giving up the castle of Avranches to Robert.

The ending of the siege is still more thoroughly misconceived than the beginning. The brothers are all reconciled; Henry gets the Côtentin back again (14740);

“De l’acordement fu la fin
K’à Henri remest Costentin,
K’en paiz l’éust tant è tenist,
Ke li Dus li suen li rendist.”

William goes back to England, whereas we know (see p. 293) that he stayed in Normandy for six months. Robert goes to Rouen. Henry pays off his mercenaries――out of what funds we are not told, and the other accounts do not speak of his followers as mercenaries. He then follows Robert to Rouen (14750);

“Henris sis soldeiers paia,
As uns pramist, as uns dona
Al terme k’il out establi;
A li Duc a Roem sui.”

There the Duke imprisons Henry; that is, the imprisonment which happened long before (see p. 199) is moved out of its place. But Wace cannot tell why he was imprisoned, or how it was that he was released and made his way to France (14754);

“Ne voil avant conter ne dire
Par kel coroz ne par kele ire
Henris fu poiz a Roem pris,
E en la tur à garder mis;
Ne coment il fu delivrez,
E de la terre congéez,
E coment il ala el Rei,
Ki en France l’out poiz od sei.”

In opposition to all this, Orderic’s account of the siege, its beginning and its ending, is perfectly straightforward, and hangs well together. He alone puts everything in its place, and gives an intelligible reason for everything. Robert of Torigny, in the Continuation (viii. 3), preserves the fact that Henry surrendered on honourable terms, but he is in rather too great a hurry to get him to Domfront;

“Unde accidit ut quadam vice ipsum obsidione cingerent in
monte sancti Michaelis. Sed illis ibidem incassum diu
laborantibus, et _ad ultimum inter se dissidentibus_, comes
Henricus inde libere exiens oppidum munitissimum nomine
Danfrontem sagacitate cujusdam indigenæ suscepit.”

The words in Italics may perhaps refer to the story about the water; but William and Robert were in any case sure to quarrel about something. And it was quite in William’s character to get tired of a fifteen days’ siege, as he is represented both here and by Florence (see p. 292); only Florence is not justified in saying that at once “impacatus rediit.” William of Malmesbury too (iv. 310) tells his story about the water, and then adds;

“Ita rex, deridens mansueti hominis ingenium, resolvit
prælium; infectaque re quam intenderat, quod eum Scottorum
et Walensium tumultus vocabant, in regnum se cum ambobus
fratribus recepit.”

On these last words, which are so startling at first sight, I have spoken in the next Note.

* * * * *

The two anecdotes of William and Robert seem, in William of Malmesbury’s first account (iv. 308), to be his chief or only reason for mentioning the siege at all;

“In ea obsidione præcluum specimen morum in rege et comite
apparuit; in altero mansuetudinis, in altero magnanimitatis.
Utriusque exempli notas pro legentium notitia affigam.”

Then come the two stories “De Magnanimitate Willelmi” and “De Mansuetudine comitis Roberti,” which I have told in the text after him. Both of them are also told by Wace; that is, if the story “De Magnanimitate Willelmi” is really the same story as the corresponding story in Wace. Every detail is different; but both alike set before us the self-confidence of the Red King. In this version he is unhorsed and wounded; but he keeps hold of his saddle, and fights on foot with his sword (14672);

“E li reis i fa abatuz,
De plusors lances fu féruz.
Li peitral del cheval rompi
E li dui cengles altresi;
Od sa sele li reis chaï,
Maiz bien la tint, ne la perdi,
Delivre fu, en piez sailli;
Od s’espée se desfendi,
Unkes la sele ne leissa,
Bien la tint è bien la garda.”

We hear nothing of any discourse with Henry’s followers, nothing of any dealings with the knight who had unhorsed him. But he calls to his vassals, Normans and English, who do not appear in the other story, but who in this press to his help, and, after many blows, take him off safely;

“Tant cria chevaliers léals,
Ke la presse vint des vassals,
E li Normanz le secorurent
E li Engleiz ki od li furent,
Maiz maint grant colp unt recéu
Ainz k’il l’éussent secoru.
Mené l’en unt à salveté.”

Then his own men, not those of Henry, talk merrily with him about his defence of his saddle. He answers in the like strain, telling them that it is a shame if a man cannot keep his own, and that it would have grieved him if any Breton had boasted that he had carried off his saddle;

“Poiz unt li reis asez gabé
De la sele k’il desfendeit,
E des granz colps ke il soffreit.
E li reis diseit en riant
K’il debveit estre al suen garant;
Hunte est del suen perdre è guerpir;
Tant com l’en le pot garantir:
Pesast li ke Brez s’en vantast
De la sele k’il emportast.”

If this is the same story as that in William of Malmesbury, it is a very inferior version of it. Lappenberg (Geschichte von England, ii. 172) takes the two for distinct stories and tells them separately. (See above, p. 503.) But it is strange that his translator (p. 232) should tell both stories after his original, should give the reference to Wace, and should then, at the end of William’s story, remark, giving the same reference again――“Wace gives a version of the occurrence totally different from the above as related by Malmesbury.”

The “Normanz” and “Engleiz” of Wace appear in Lappenberg as “Normannen und Angelsachsen.” This involves the old question about the force of the word “Angli,” which is very hard to answer at this particular stage. In a narrative actually written in 1091, I should certainly understand the words as Lappenberg does, and should see in the “Engleiz” men of the type of Tokig son of Wiggod and Robert son of Godwine. But, as Wace, if he were already born in 1091, did not write till many years after, it is more likely that we ought to take the words “Normanz” and “Engleiz” in the sense which they took in the course of Henry the First’s reign. That is, by “Normanz” we should understand those only who were “natione Normanni,” and by “Engleiz” all who were “natione Angligenæ,” even though many of them were “genere Normanni.” See N. C. vol. v. p. 828.

Whatever we make of the relations between the two stories, the reference to the “Brez” in Wace’s version has a very genuine ring. That name came much more home in Jersey, or even at Bayeux, than it did in Wiltshire.

The story “De Mansuetudine comitis Roberti” connects itself with the fact stated by Orderic――who does not tell either of the anecdotes――that the besieged really did suffer for want of water (see p. 292). William of Malmesbury, whom I have followed in the text, tells the story straightforwardly enough from that point of view. Wace does casually speak of the water, but his main thought is of wine (see p. 291). Henry thus states his case to Robert (14704);

“Quant Henris out lunges soffert,
Soef manda al Duc Robert,
Ke de vin aveit desirier,
D’altre chose n’aveit mestier.”

Robert then sends him the tun of wine, of the best they have in the host, and throws in a truce to take water daily seemingly of his own free will (14712);

“E tot li jor a otréié
E par trièves doné congié,
Ke cil del munt ewe préissent,
E li munt d’ewe garnessissent,
U k’il volsissent la préissent
Séurement, rien ne cremissent.
Dunc veissez servanz errer,
Et à veissels ewe aporter.”

The King is angry at all this, and sets forth his principles of warfare (14729);

“Il les déust fere afamer
E il les faisoit abevrer.”

He is inclined to give up the siege (“Del siege volt par mal torner”); but he listens to Robert’s excuse;

“Torné me fust à félonie,
E joféisse vilanie
De li néer beivre è viande,
Quant il méisme le demande.”

Here we have nothing of the argument in William of Malmesbury, an argument essentially the same as that which is so thoroughly in place in the mouth of the wife of Intaphernes in Herodotus (iii. 119), and so thoroughly out of place in the mouth of the Antigonê of Sophoklês (892). But the words are very like those which we shall find Wace putting into the mouth of Robert at a later time. (See 15456, and vol. ii. p. 406.)

NOTE P. Vol. i. p. 293.

THE ADVENTURES OF HENRY AFTER THE SURRENDER OF SAINT MICHAEL’S MOUNT.

That Henry was in possession of Domfront in 1094 is certain from the witness of the Chronicle under that year; “Se cyng W. sende æfter his broðer Heanrige, se wæs on þam castele æt Damfront.” But we have no hint when he got possession of it. Florence has no mention of Henry between his account of the siege of Saint Michael’s Mount――from which William “impacatus recessit”――and his election as king. William of Malmesbury (see p. 293) brings him to England with William and Robert in August 1091. As I have already said, such is William of Malmesbury’s carelessness of chronology that I should not have ventured to accept this statement on his showing only. But it has a piece of the very strongest corroborative evidence in the form of the Durham charter of which I have spoken in the text (see p. 305). This is the one which is printed at p. xxii of the volume of the Surtees Society called “Historiæ Dunelmensis Scriptores Tres,” a document which has every sign of genuineness. It is a grant by Bishop William of the churches of Northallerton, Sigston, and Brunton to the convent of Durham, and confirms the picture given by Simeon (see p. 508) of William Rufus as a benefactor to Durham;

“Hæc omnia, præcipiente domino meo Willielmo rege, domini
mei magni regis Willielmi filio, feci, qui Alvertonescire
sancto Cuthberto et episcopis ejus in perpetuum dedit. Has
vero ecclesias monachis sancto Cuthberto servituris pro
salute animæ suæ dedit, et mihi donare præcepit.”

I have shown that the deed must belong to a time after the pacification with Malcolm, but before Christmas, 1091. At no other time could we have had the signatures of Robert and Eadgar, nor probably that of Duncan. And the signature of Henry shows that William of Malmesbury is right, and that Henry was in England at this time. There was then some assembly held in the autumn of 1091, and that seemingly at Durham or somewhere in the North. Its object would probably be to confirm the treaty with Malcolm. Indeed, except a few bishops and abbots, most of the men who sign would naturally be in the camp. The signatures are in two columns. That to the right contains the names of Bishop William, King William (signum Willielmi regis secundi), his brothers (signum Rodberti fratris regis, signum Henrici fratris regis), Robert Bloet (Roberti cancellarii regis cognomento Bloet), Duncan (Dunechani filii regis Malcolmi), Earl Roger, Randolf Flambard (Ranulphi thessarii――thesaurarii?), three local priests, Merewine (Mervini), Eglaf (Ælavi; in another document, p. xx, we get the dwelling-places of these priests, Eglaf of Bethlington and Merewine of Chester――that is of course Chester-le-Street), and Orm, Robert “dispensator regis” (see p. 331), Siward Barn, and Arnold of Percy. The left-hand column contains Archbishop Thomas, the Bishops Remigius of Lincoln, Osmund of Salisbury, and John of Bath, the Abbots Guy of Saint Augustine’s, Baldwin of Saint Eadmund’s, and Stephen of Saint Mary’s at York, Earl Hugh, Philip son of Earl Roger, Earl Robert, “signum Eadgari clitonis,” Roger Bigod, “signum Morealis vicecomitis,” William Peverel, “signum Gileberti dapiferi.”

This list, though singular and startling, is perfectly possible. This cannot be said of some of those in the same volume. Thus in the document just before this one, John Bishop of Bath is made to sign in the time of the Conqueror, and in that which follows (p. xxvii), Lanfranc and Abbot Ælfsige are made to sign in 1093.

The evidence of this charter, combined with the notice in William of Malmesbury, seems conclusive. Henry was in England during part of 1091. We therefore cannot accept the obvious meaning of Orderic’s story which makes Henry a wanderer from the time of the surrender of the Mount till his reception at Domfront. In this version he leaves the Mount, and spends two years, or somewhat less, in a very poor case (697 B);

“Per Britanniam transiit, Britonibus, qui sibi solummodo adminiculum contulerant, gratias reddidit, et confines postmodum Francos expetiit. In pago Vilcassino nobilis exsul non plenis duobus annis commoratus, diversa hospitia quæsivit. Uno tantum milite unoque clerico cum tribus armigeris contentus pauperem vitam exegit.”

In another place (698 C) we find a date given to the occupation of Domfront, and a duration assigned to Henry’s wanderings, which at first sight seems not to agree with this version;

“Anno ab incarnatione Domini MXCII. Indictione XV. Henricus
Guillelmi regis filius Danfrontem oppidum, auxilio Dei
suffragioque amicorum, obtinuit, et inde fortiter
hereditarium jus calumniari sategit. Nam idem, dum esset
junior, non ut frater a fratribus habitus est, sed magis ut
externus, exterorum, id est Francorum et Britonum, auxilia
quærere coactus est, et quinque annis diversorum eventuum
motibus admodum fatigatus est. Tandem Danfrontani nutu Dei
ærumnis tam præclari exsulis compassi sunt, et ipsum ad se
de Gallia accersitum per Harecherium honorifice susceperunt,
et, excusso Roberti de Belesmo, a quo diu graviter oppressi
fuerant, dominio, Henricum sibi principem constituerunt.
Ille vero contra Robertum Normanniæ comitem viriliter arma
sumpsit, incendiis et rapinis expulsionis suæ injuriam
vindicavit, multosque cepit et carceri mancipavit.”

The five years mentioned in the above extract must be meant to take in all Henry’s adventures, lucky and unlucky, from the death of his father in 1087 to his settlement at Domfront in 1092. From his surrender of the Mount in February 1091 to his settlement at Domfront Orderic makes, as we have seen, somewhat less than two years; that is, Henry came to Domfront quite at the end of 1092.

In 706 C (under 1094, see p. 319) he says;

“Henricus Guillelmi Magni regis Anglorum filius Danfrontem
possidebat, et super Robertum [de Belesmo], cui præfatum
castellum abstulerat, imo super fratres suos regem et ducem
guerram faciebat, a quibus extorris de cespite paterno
expulsus fuerat.”

In 722 D he says;

“Henricus frater ducis Danfrontem fortissimum castrum
possidebat, et magnam partem Neustriæ sibi favore vel armis
subegerat, fratrique suo ad libitum suum, nec aliter,
obsecundabat.”

This is in 1095, and it is meant as a summary of Henry’s course up to that year. Lastly, the promise of Henry never to give up Domfront to any other master comes quite incidentally in Orderic’s account (788 B) of the treaty between Robert and Henry in 1101 (see vol. ii. p. 413). By that treaty Henry ceded to Robert everything that he held in Normandy “præter Danfrontem.” The reason for the exception is added;

“Solum Danfrontem castrum sibi retinuit, quia Danfrontanis,
quando illum intromiserunt, jurejurando pepigerat quod
numquam eos de manu sua projiceret nec leges eorum vel
consuetudines mutaret.”

This is Orderic’s account, in which I see no difficulty at all in accepting all that concerns Domfront. Henry was in England late in 1091; but he may have been in France or anywhere else late in 1092. And Henry may have had a time of distress and wandering in the Vexin, either between March and August 1091 or at any time in 1092. Where Orderic goes wrong, it is through forgetting Henry’s visit to England in 1091, which was of no importance to his story. He therefore naturally spreads the season of wandering in the Vexin over the whole time from the surrender of the Mount early in 1091 to the occupation of Domfront late in 1092.

* * * * *

Robert of Torigny, in the Continuation of William of Jumièges (viii. 3), is in a still greater hurry to get Henry to Domfront (see above, p. 532). The passage, as far as it concerns the relations between Henry and Domfront, runs thus;

“Comes Henricus, inde [from the Mount] libere exiens,
oppidum munitissimum nomine Danfrontem sagacitate cujusdam
indigenæ suscepit. Indignabatur enim prædictus indigena,
utpote vir nobilis et dives, oppressiones amplius perpeti
quas Robertus de Belismo, homo ferox et mentis inhumanæ,
sibi et aliis convicaneis inferebat, qui tunc temporis illud
castrum possidebat. Quod tanta diligentia Henricus exinde
custodivit ut usque ad terminum vitæ illius in suo dominio
habuerit.”

The “indigena nobilis et dives” of this account is of course the same as the Harecherius of Orderic. And the statement that Henry kept Domfront all his days agrees with Orderic’s statement about his promise. Wace (14762-14773) gives us some, perhaps legendary, details of the way in which Henry was brought from Paris――from the French Vexin, one would have thought, from Orderic’s account――to Domfront; but he is clearly wrong in making any Robert, whether the Duke or him of Bellême, turn Henry out of Domfront;

“Ne coment Haschier le trova
A Paris donc il l’amena,
_Ki se fist un des oilz péier,
Ke l’en nel’ péust encercier_,
Ne voil dire par kel savoir
Haschier li fist Danfront aveir,
Ne coment il fu recéuz
Quant il fu à Danfront venuz,
Ne coment il cunquist Passeiz
E le toli as Belesmeiz;
Ne coment Robert le cunquist,
E de Danfront partir le fist.”

The covering of one of Henry’s eyes with pitch by way of disguise may be believed or not; but the “savoir” of Haschier answers to the “sagacitas” of the “indigena nobilis et dives.” Passeiz, Passais (see Pluquet, Wace, ii. 319; Neustria Pia, p. 423), is the district which contains Domfront and the abbey of Lonlay, a district which lay in the ancient diocese of Le Mans, but which was added to Normandy by William’s conquest.

This name “Haschier” or “Harecherius” is supposed by Le Prévost (Pluquet, ii. 319) to be the same name as “Achardus,” the name of one of the witnesses to the foundation charter of Lonlay abbey in 1026. He signs as “Achardus dives, miles de Donnifronte.” This document is contained in an _inspeximus_ of Peter, Count of Alençon (1361-1377), contained in an _inspeximus_ of Henry, King of France and England about 1423 (Neustria Pia, p. 424). The founder is the old William of Bellême, father of William Talvas and grandfather of Mabel. There is a certain interest in a document relating to Domfront and Lonlay before they became Norman, when lands there could be granted “usque in Normaniæ commarchiam.” Among the signatures are those of the founder’s brother Avesgaud Bishop of Le Mans (994-1036, see N. C. vol. iii. p. 191), Siegfried Bishop of Seez (1007-1026), the founder and his wife, “Guillelmus princeps [in the body of the document he is “Guillelmus Bellismensis, provinciæ principatum gerens”] et Mathildis uxor ejus,” and this “Achardus _dives_” whom Le Prevost takes for a forefather of the “indigena nobilis et _dives_.”

Orderic says that Henry obtained Domfront “suffragio amicorum.” Robert of Torigny, in the next chapter of his Continuation (viii. 4), tells us who his friends a little later were. He is established at Domfront; then we read;

“Redeunte Willelmo rege in Angliam, Henricus haud segniter
comitatum Constantiniensem, qui sibi fraudulentia ante
præreptus fuerat, _consensu Willelmi regis_ et auxilio
Richardi de Revers et Rogerii de Magna-villa, ex majori
parte in ditionem suam revocavit.”

He then goes on with the passage about Earl Hugh and the grant of Saint James to him, quoted in p. 323.

I think that this distinct assertion that Henry was now in William’s favour outweighs the vague expressions of Orderic about Henry making war on both his brothers. By 1093, the earliest date for these exploits, William was again scheming against Robert, and his obvious policy would be to ally himself with Henry.

Henry, as we have seen in the extracts from Orderic, carried on war in the usual fashion. But he at least treated his prisoners better than Robert of Bellême did. We have (698 D) a picture of one Rualedus――a Breton Rhiwallon, or what?――who is carried off from the lands of Saint Evroul to the castle of Domfront. It was winter; but he was not left to die of cold and hunger for Count Henry’s amusement; we see him sitting comfortably by the fire (“quum sederet ad focum; hiems enim erat”). On the road he had fallen from the horse on which he was tied, and had suffered some hurt. But, after prayer to Saint Evroul, followed by a comforting dream, he wakes, and, as his keeper’s back is turned, he gets up, unbars the door, walks into the garden, and, after some further adventures, gets back to Saint Evroul. He was a man “legitimus et laudabilis vitæ;” so Orderic, who heard the story from his own mouth, believes it. There seems no reason why anybody should disbelieve it; as the only part of the tale which sounds at all incredible is the very bad guard which Henry’s men kept over their prisoner.

NOTE Q. Vol. i. p. 302.

THE HOMAGE OF MALCOLM IN 1091.

The account of Malcolm’s homage to William Rufus which is given by Orderic (701 A) is treated with some contempt by Mr. E. W. Robertson (Scotland under her Early Kings, i. 142), while it is naturally not forgotten by Sir Francis Palgrave (English Commonwealth, ii. cccxxxii). The main fact of the homage itself, paid to the second William on the same terms on which it had been paid to the first, is abundantly proved by the Chronicle. Nothing is gained by disproving at this stage the exaggerated account of Robert’s expedition in 1080 which is to be found in the local History of Abingdon (see N. C. vol. iv. pp. 671, 790). The only question is, whether, accepting the general fact from the Chronicle, we can or cannot accept any of the very curious details with which Orderic tells the story.

First of all, while Orderic’s geography is right, his topography is wrong. The mention of the “magnum flumen quod _Scotte watra_ dicitur” must come from some genuine source. “Ordericus Angligena” heard the tale from some one who told it him in English. And, if there could be the shadow of a doubt, this shows that “Loðene” in the Chronicle means Lothian, and nothing else. Mr. Burton (Hist. Scot. i. 412) insists on carrying Malcolm to Leeds; but he cannot make the Aire to be the “Scotte watra.” But Orderic, who plainly got his account from some quite different source from the Chronicler, failed to take in the actual position of the two armies. He failed to see that Malcolm, having crossed the Scots’ Water into Lothian and therefore into England, was necessarily on the south side of the Scots’ Water. He fancied that the two kings were on opposite sides of the firth. William reaches the Scots’ Water; “sed, quia inaccessibilis transitus erat, super ripam consedit. Rex autem Scottorum e regione cum legionibus suis ad bellandum paratus constitit.” So he doubtless did; only they were both south of the water. The Chronicle shows plainly that Malcolm, as soon as he heard of William’s coming, determined that the invader should not, as his father had done, cross into the proper Scotland to Abernethy or elsewhere, but that he would meet him, for peace or for war, in the English part of his dominions.

This topographical confusion does not affect the main story, nor does it greatly matter whether the picturesque details of Robert’s visit to Malcolm literally happened or not. It is further plain that Orderic has left out one of the two mediators, namely Eadgar. But he records the main fact of the homage no less than the Chronicler. The question is whether we can accept the curious conversation between Robert and Malcolm, in which Malcolm makes two statements, which are perhaps a little startling in themselves, which are not mentioned elsewhere, but which certainly do not contradict what we find elsewhere.

First, Malcolm asserts that King Eadward gave him the earldom of Lothian, seemingly as the dowry of Margaret; “Fateor quod rex Eduardus, dum mihi Margaritam proneptem suam in conjugium tradidit, Lodonensem comitatum mihi donavit.” Now it is certainly true that King Eadward, or Earl Siward in his name, gave Malcolm the earldom of Lothian; only he gave him something else too, namely the kingdom of Scotland. And I have mentioned elsewhere (see N. C. vol. iv. p. 785) that a betrothal of Margaret to Malcolm, when Malcolm received the kingdom from Siward, though recorded nowhere else, is perfectly possible.

Secondly, Malcolm’s strong point is that he does owe a homage to Robert, but that he owes none to William. This he asserts in his first message; “Tibi, rex Guillelme, nihil debeo, nisi conflictum si a te injuriis lacessitus fuero. Verum si Robertum primogenitum Guillelmi regis filium videro, illi exhibere paratus sum quicquid debeo.” Afterwards, in his conference with Robert, he is made to say, after mentioning Eadward’s grant of Lothian, “Deinde Guillelmus rex quod antecessor ejus mihi dederat concessit, et me tibi primogenito suo commendavit. Unde quod tibi promisi conservabo. Sed fratri tuo nihil promisi et nihil debeo. Nemo, ut Christus ait, potest duobus dominis servire.” To this Robert agrees; “Ut asseris, ita est. Sed mutationes rerum factæ sunt, et statuta patris mei a pristina soliditate in multum vacillaverunt.” I do not know that a homage of Malcolm to Robert is recorded anywhere else, unless we so understand the confused Abingdon story about the expedition of 1080. But nothing was more likely than that William the Conqueror should at Abernethy call on Malcolm to pledge himself, as was so often done, not only to himself but to his son after him. In 1072 there could have been no reason for looking to any one but Robert as the probable successor; least of all could any one have thought of William the Red. He was not even the second son, as Richard was still alive. And the time when King William renewed the gift of his predecessor Eadward must surely be the day of Abernethy, and none other.

There is then really nothing in Orderic’s story which gainsays any known facts, and it is hard to see what should have made him think of a betrothal of Margaret, a homage to Robert, and the rest, unless he had some ground for them. And the general argument put into Malcolm’s mouth seems exactly in place. It is of a piece with the arguments of Scottish disputants long after Orderic’s day. Something is admitted, that something is perhaps specially insisted on, in order to avoid the admission of something else. Lothian is the special personal gift of Eadward to Malcolm himself, though it is certain, on any view of the cession of Lothian, that predecessors of Malcolm had held it of predecessors of Eadward. That gift of Eadward, renewed by William the Great, is allowed to carry with it a personal duty to William the Great and to his personal heir. But the denial of any duty to William the Red implicitly denies any duty to the King of the English as such. Still this question is in words left open; so is all that relates to the proper Scotland left open. Malcolm at last consents to do homage to William for something; but, in Orderic’s story at least, it is not very clear for what. (The Chronicler, we may be sure, felt so certain of its being for Scotland that he did not think it needful to say so.) All this is exactly like later controversies on the same subject. When the two kingdoms were on friendly terms, it often suited both sides that the homage should be general, leaving it open to each side to assert its own doctrine the next time there should be any dispute (see N. C. vol. v. p. 209). And we must remember that by this time it is quite possible that Rufus might make claims which Malcolm would, on the principles of an earlier time, do quite right in refusing. Strictly feudal ideas were growing, and when a King of the English demanded homage for the kingdom of Scotland, he may well have meant more than had been meant when the king and people of the Scots sought Eadward the Unconquered to father and lord. Certainly, when the whole thing had stiffened into a question of ordinary feudal law, Edward the First, if judged by the standard of the tenth century, asked more than his historic rights over Scotland, less than his historic rights over Lothian. See Historical Essays, Series I. p. 65; N. C. vol. i. p. 128.

* * * * *

I am therefore inclined to believe that Orderic has, in this case, as in some others, incidentally preserved facts of which we have no record elsewhere. But I am not anxious strongly to insist upon this. The general course of the history is the same, whether Margaret had or had not been betrothed to Malcolm before his marriage――or whatever it was――with Ingebiorg; it is the same whether Malcolm had or had not done an act of homage to Robert. And I must allow that, as Orderic has misunderstood some points at the beginning of the story, so he has more thoroughly misunderstood some points at the end of the story. For he makes Malcolm go into England――Florence would have said into Wessex――with William and Robert; “Deinde reges agmina sua remiserunt, et ipsi simul in Angliam profecti sunt.” This comes, as we shall presently see, from rolling together the events of the years 1091 and 1093.

* * * * *

The twelve “villæ” which, according to Florence, were to be restored to Malcolm are, I suppose, the same as the “mansiones” which the kings of Scots are said to have held in England in times both earlier and later than those with which we are dealing. This comes from Roger of Wendover’s account (i. 416; cf. N. C. vol. i. p. 584) of the grant of Lothian by Eadgar to Kenneth. It was given “hac conditione, ut annis singulis in festivitatibus præcipuis, quando rex et ejus successores diadema portarent, venirent ad curiam, et cum cæteris regni principibus festum cum lætitia celebrarent; dedit insuper ei rex mansiones in itinere plurimas, ut ipse et ejus successores ad festum venientes ac denuo revertentes hospitari valuissent, quæ usque in tempora regis Henrici secundi in potestate regum Scotiæ remanserunt.” The slighter mention in Florence gives some confirmation to the story in Roger. And though it was not likely that the King of Scots, or even the Earl of Lothian, should regularly attend at the great festivals, yet it was doubtless held that it was the right thing that he should do so; and we find Malcolm himself coming to the King’s court not long after (see vol. ii. p. 13), and his son Eadgar after him (see vol. ii. p. 265).

* * * * *

There is not much to be got from the other writers. William of Malmesbury twice refers to the matter, but as usual without much regard to chronology. It is seemingly this submission of Malcolm to which he refers in iii. 250, where, having said that Malcolm, in the days of the elder William, “incertis et sæpe fractis fœderibus ævum egit,” adds “filio Willelmi Willelmo regnante, simili modo impetitus, falso sacramento abegit.” He must also refer to this time in iv. 310-311, where he says that, after the siege of Saint Michael’s Mount, he went back to England, “quod eum Scottorum et Walensium tumultus vocabant.” There was (see vol. ii. pp. 78, 79) a considerable “Walensium tumultus” this year; but it does not seem that the King himself did anything in those parts till later in his reign. William however says;

“Primo contra Walenses, post in Scottos, expeditionem
movens, nihil magnificentia sua dignum exhibuit, militibus
multis desideratis, jumentis interceptis.”

He then goes on to speak more at large of Welsh matters, and comes back to speak of the action of Robert in Scotland (see p. 301). The old friendship which he there speaks of between Malcolm and Robert falls in with Orderic’s story, and specially with Orderic’s way of telling it. We shall hear of it again in Notes BB, EE.

Henry of Huntingdon (vii. 2, p. 216) tells the story thus;

“Interea Melcolm rex Scotorum prædatum veniens in Angliam
validissime vexavit eam. Venientes igitur in Angliam rex, et
cum eo Robertus frater suus, direxerunt acies in Scotiam.
Itaque Melcolm, nimio terrore perstrictus, homo regis
effectus est et juramento fidelitatis ei subjectus.” Matthew
Paris (Hist. Angl. i. 40) has a wonderful version in which
the invasion is altogether left out. Malcolm, hearing of the
peace between the brothers, begins to fear for his own
kingdom. He therefore comes to William and makes a very
humble homage indeed; “Veniens ad regem Angliæ Willelmum,
humilitate sua regis flexit ferocitatem, asserens se nullum
hostium suorum receptasse vel recepturum fore, nisi tali
intentione, ut ipsos dominum suum recognoscentes, regi,
persuasionibus suis mediantibus, redderet pacificatos et
fideliores.”

NOTE R. Vol. i. p. 313.

THE EARLDOM OF CARLISLE.

It is certainly a singular fact that, so lately as 1873, a long controversy raged in the Times newspaper as to the reason why Cumberland and Westmoreland were not surveyed in Domesday. The dispute was kept up for some time among men who seemed to have some local knowledge; but, till Dr. Luard kindly stepped in to set them right, every reason was guessed at but the true one. No one seemed to grasp the simple facts, that no part of England was known at the time of the Survey by the name Cumberland or Westmoreland――that so much of the shires now bearing those names as then formed part of the kingdom of England is surveyed under the head of Yorkshire――that the reason why the rest is left unsurveyed is because it formed no part of the kingdom of England. The whole matter had long before been thoroughly sifted and set right by two local writers, who, I am tempted to suspect, were only one writer; yet the received local confusions were just as strong as ever.

The general history of Cumberland, and of this part of it in particular, was very minutely examined in the Introduction to the volume published in 1847 by the Society of Antiquaries of Newcastle-upon-Tyne under the name of “The Pipe-Rolls or Sheriffs’ Annual Accounts of the Revenues of the Crown for the Counties of Cumberland, Westmorland, and Durham, during the Reigns of Henry II, Richard I, and John.” After this, in 1859, a paper was read by Mr. Hodgson Hinde at the Carlisle meeting of the Archæological Institute, “On the Early History of Cumberland,” which appeared in the Archæological Journal, vol. xvi. p. 217. These two essays have pretty well exhausted the piece of Cumbrian history with which I have now to deal, and they contain a great deal more with which I am not concerned.

* * * * *

The word _Cumberland_, I need not say, is a word of many meanings, and at the present moment we have not to do with any of them. We have to do only with the city and earldom of _Carlisle_, which does not answer to Cumberland in either the older or the later sense. The confusion which has immediately to be got rid of is the notion that Carlisle and its district already formed an English earldom in the time of the Conqueror. Thus we read in Sir Francis Palgrave (English Commonwealth, i. 449);

“‘Cumberland’――for we must now call the Dominion by its
modern appellation――was, as I have observed, retained by the
Conqueror; Malcolm had invaded the country; but he could not
defend the territory against William, who granted Cumberland
to Ranulph de Meschines, one of his Norman followers; and
the border Earldom became wholly assimilated, in its
political character, to the other great baronies of
England…. Carlisle was always excepted from these grants.
The city, and the territory of fifteen miles in circuit, had
become English by Ecgfrid’s donation, and probably was
always held, either by the Kings or Earls of Bernicia or of
Northumbria. Little further is known concerning ‘merry
Carlisle,’ the seat of Arthur’s chivalry. Until the reign of
William Rufus, this city, desolated by the Danes, was almost
void of inhabitants. William completed the restoration of
its walls and towers, which his father had begun.”

This comes primarily from a passage in the so-called Matthew of Westminster under the year 1072;

“Rex Gulihelmus cum grandi exercitu Scotiam ingressus est,
et obviavit ei pacifice Malcolmus rex Scotorum apud Barwicum
et homo suus devenit. His temporibus regebat comitatum
Carleoli comes Ranulphus de Micenis, qui efficax auxilium
præbuit regi Gulihelmo in conquestu suo Angliæ. Hic urbem
Carleoli cœpit ædificare, et cives ejusdem plurimis
privilegiis munire. Sed rediens rex Gulihelmus a Scotia per
Cumbriam, videns tam regale municipium, abstulit illud a
Ranulpho comite, et dedit illi pro eo comitatum Cestriæ,
multis honoribus privilegiatum. Carleolum vero precepit rex
Gulihelmus turribus propugnaculisque muniri firmissimis. Rex
vero Gulihelmus Conquestor in redeundo de Scotia apud
Dunelmum novum ibidem construxit castellum contra
irruptiones Scotorum.”

There is also printed in the Monasticon, vol. iii. p. 584, a genealogical document called “Chronicon Cumbriæ,” which comes from the Register of Wetheral priory. This begins by saying that

“Rex Willielmus, cognomine Bastardus, dux Normanniæ,
conquestor Angliæ, dedit totam terram de comitatu Cumbriæ
Ranulpho de Meschines, et Galfrido fratri ejusdem Ranulphi
totum comitatum Cestriæ, et Willielmo fratri eorundem terram
de Copland, inter Duden et Darwent.”

The source of error here is that Matthew of Westminster, so to call him, mixed up the Scottish expedition of the Conqueror in 1072 with the Scottish expedition of William Rufus in 1091, and made the restoration of Carlisle a work of the father and not of the son. He also brings in Earl Randolf, with whom we are not as yet concerned; but it is to be noticed that he says nothing about an earldom of _Cumberland_, but speaks only of an earldom of _Carlisle_. It is only in the Wetheral document that an earldom of _Cumberland_ is carried back to the days of the Conqueror. Sir Francis Palgrave failed to notice this distinction; but he knew his books far too well to pass by the entries in the Chronicle and Florence under 1092. He therefore tried to reconcile them with the passages in Matthew of Westminster and the Wetheral chronicle by supposing an earldom of Cumberland which did not take in Carlisle and its district. The error and its source were first pointed out by Lappenberg (ii. 175 of the German original, p. 234 of Mr. Thorpe’s Anglo-Norman Kings, where, as usual, some of Lappenberg’s notes and references are left out). Lappenberg notices the difference between Matthew’s story and Palgrave’s; he suggests that Matthew has further confounded the events of 1072 and 1092 with those of 1122; and he gives a summary of the whole matter in the words;

“Wichtig aber ist es wahrzunehmen, dass erst Rufus und nicht
sein Vater Cumberland zu einer wirklichen Provinz des
normannischen Englands machte.”

Here is the root of the matter, so far as we have got rid of the notion of the Conqueror having done anything at Carlisle or thereabouts. Still Lappenberg should not have spoken, as I myself ought not to have spoken (N. C. vol. v. p. 118), of _Cumberland_ now becoming an English earldom. The district with which we are concerned forms only a very small part of the old kingdom of Cumberland, while it does not answer to the modern county of Cumberland, which does not appear by that name till 1177 (see Pipe Rolls of Cumberland, p. 18; Archæological Journal, xvi. 230). The land with which we are concerned bears the name of the city. It is the land and earldom, not of _Cumberland_, but of _Carlisle_.

The point to be clearly taken in is that the district with which we are concerned was not part of England till 1092; more accurately still, it ceased to be part of England in 685, and became so again in 1092. For those four centuries, Carlisle, city and district, had as much or as little to do with England as the lands immediately to the north of it, the lands which formed that part of Cumberland in the wider sense which became in the end part of the kingdom of Scotland. This district of Carlisle does not answer to any modern shire, and it is of course not surveyed in Domesday. But it does answer to the diocese of Carlisle, as it stood before late changes. That diocese took in part of modern Cumberland and part of modern Westmoreland. The rest of those shires, with Lancashire north of Ribble and the wapentake of Ewecross (Pipe Rolls, p. xlii), formed the Domesday district of Agemundreness (see Domesday, 301 _b_), forming part of Yorkshire, as it formed part of York diocese till the changes under Henry the Eighth. Mr. Hinde suggests (Arch. Journal, xvi. 227) that this district was conquered by Earl Eadwulf, the great enemy of the Britons (see N. C. vol. i. p. 526), a position which it might be hard either to prove or to disprove. Before the death of Henry the First, the Carlisle district was divided into two shires, Carlisle and Westmoreland (_Chaerleolium_ and _Westmarieland_, Pipe Roll Hen. I. pp. 140, 143). This last consisted of the barony of Appleby, specially known as Westmoreland. Enlarged by the barony of Kirkby Kendal in Yorkshire, it became the modern county of Westmoreland. So the shire of Carlisle took the name of _Cumberland_ in 1177, and, enlarged by the part of Yorkshire north of the Duddon, it became the modern county of Cumberland. But these added lands remained part of the diocese of York, till Henry the Eighth removed them to his diocese of Chester. This last diocese must not be confounded with the diocese of Chester――otherwise of Lichfield or Coventry――with which we have to do in our story. That diocese did not reach north of the Ribble, and its seat at Chester was in Saint John’s minster, while the new see of Henry the Eighth was planted in Saint Werburh’s.

The earldom of Carlisle brings us among old acquaintances. It was granted early in the reign of Henry the First (see Arch. Journal, xvi. 230, 231) to Randolf called Meschines, _de Micenis_, and other forms, who in 1118 became Earl of Chester, on the death of Earl Richard in the White Ship (see N. C. vol. v. p. 195), on which he gave up Carlisle. He died in 1129, being the second husband of the younger Lucy (see N. C. vol. ii. p. 682; vol. iii. p. 778), daughter of Ivo Taillebois. Ivo himself, at some time after the drawing up of Domesday (Carlisle Pipe Rolls, p. xliii) appears in the same part of the world as lord of Kirkby Kendal. After 1118 the earldom of Carlisle or Cumberland remained in the crown, till it was granted to David of Scotland in 1136 (see N. C. vol. v. p. 259).

The name of the city and earldom of Carlisle is the best comment on its history. Alone among the names of English cities, it remains purely British, not only in its root, but, so to speak, in its grammar. The British idiom, I need hardly say, places the qualifying word second; the Teutonic idiom places it first. Thus _Caer Gwent_ and _Caer Glovi_ have become _Winchester_ and _Gloucester_. But _Caer Luel_ has not changed; it remains _Carlisle_, and has not become something like _Lilchester_. The reason is doubtless because the first English occupation of Caer Luel did not last long enough to give it a lasting English name. In 1092 nomenclature had lost the life which it had in 685, and a foreign tongue moreover had the upper hand. No one then thought of turning the name of Carlisle about, any more than of doing so by the names of Cardiff (Caerdydd), Caermarthen, or the Silurian _Caerwent_ and _Caerleon_.

* * * * *

As for the colonists brought from the south, I have assumed them to be a strictly Saxon element added to the already mixed population of the border. And there may have been a Flemish element too, as I was inclined to think when I wrote N. C. vol. v. p. 119. The point is not of much importance, as the two kindred elements would easily fuse together; but it strikes me now that, if any part of the settlers had come from beyond sea, the Chronicler would not have so calmly spoken of them as churlish folk from the south. That phrase however is one well worthy of notice. The words “hider suð” can hardly have been written at Peterborough. That abbey certainly lies a long way south of Carlisle; but Peterborough would hardly speak of itself in this general way as “south.” (In 1051 Worcester, which lies south of Peterborough, counted itself to be “at this north end”――“ofer ealre þisne norð ende” says the Worcester Chronicle. See N. C. vol. ii. p. 620.) The suggestion that these “churlish folk” (“multi villani” in the translation in the Waverley Annals) were the men who had lost their lands at the making of the New Forest has high authority in its favour. It seems to have been first made by Palgrave (English Commonwealth, i. 450), and it is supported by Lappenberg (ii. 175, Thorpe 235). Still it is a simple guess, and I cannot say that to my own mind it has any air even of likelihood. It arises, it seems to me, from an exaggerated notion of the amount of havoc done at the making of the New Forest, combined with a forgetfulness of the time which had passed since that event. We cannot fix its exact date, but the Survey shows that whatever was done in the New Forest, much or little was fully done before 1085, and we are now in 1092.

* * * * *

The earliest official notice of Carlisle and Westmoreland, the Pipe Roll of the 31st year of Henry the First, contains several interesting entries. The city wall was building. There are entries, “in operationibus civitatis de Caerleolio, videlicet in muro circa civitatem faciendo” (p. 140), “in operatione muri civitatis de Caerleolio” (p. 141), and (p. 142) “in liberatione vigilis turris de Penuesel,” which needs a local expounder. Both in this roll and in the rolls under Henry the Second we notice a mixture of personal nomenclature, Norman, Danish, English, and Scottish, which is just what we should look for. Distinctly British names I do not see. In the first few pages of the roll of 1156 we find at least three Gospatrics. One is very fittingly the son of Orm; another is the son of Beloc (6), whose nationality may be doubted; a third is the son of Mapbennoc, a clear Pict or Scot. So again we have Uhtred son of Fergus (p. 5), William son of Holdegar, Æthelward [Ailward] son of Dolfin, hardly the dispossessed prince. Swegen son of Æthelric [Sweinus fil. Alrici] in the roll of Henry the First (142) is a local man; but Henry son of Swegen, who comes often under Henry the Second, is the unlucky descendant of Robert son of Wymarc. See N. C. vol. iv. p. 735. There are a good many entries about the canons of Saint Mary of Carlisle who were founded before the bishopric, in 1102 (see Haddan and Stubbs, ii. 13). There is a notice in 1156 (p. 3) of the Bishop of Candida Casa or Whithern. That see was (Haddan and Stubbs, ii. 25) revived about 1127, as suffragan of York, and 1156 is the date of the death of Æthelwulf the first Bishop of Carlisle.

NOTE S. Vol. i. p. 329.

THE EARLY LIFE OF RANDOLF FLAMBARD.