Edgar Ætheling, Part 2

For Edgar Ætheling, landing in Scotland in 1068—whether by accident or design—was fortuitous. King Malcolm III took a liking to Edgar's sister Margaret, who was probably in her early 20s. They married in 1070 (see illustration), and had several children, including kings of Scotland David I and Alexander I.

Edgar's new brother-in-law supported Edgar's claim to the throne of England. Edgar's and Malcolm's plans caused the north of England—what is now Yorkshire, Durham, Northumberland, Lancashire—to start a series of local rebellions against Norman rule. This led to the Harrying of the North, William the Conqueror's campaign to subdue the northern territories and stop Edgar's plans. The Harrying was vicious, using scorched earth tactics to starve out the rebels and replacing all English aristocracy with Normans.

Edgar had returned to England to become the focal point for the rebellions, but retreated to Scotland when things got bad. Later that year, King Sweyn of Denmark arrived in the north, triggering a fresh set of uprisings. Edgar, the Northumbrians, and the Danes combined to take York from Norman control. William arrived later, bought off the Danes (they were still susceptible to Danegeld), and caused Edgar and his other followers to, once again, retreat to Scotland.

In 1072, William invaded Scotland, forcing Malcolm to recognize William's overlordship. Part of the agreement was the expulsion of Edgar, who went to Flanders where Robert the Frisian was hostile to Normandy. Edgar returned to Scotland in 1074, but then received an offer from Philip I, King of France. Philip offered him a castle near the Norman border from which he could hassle Normandy. Embarking for France, a storm wrecked his fleet along the English coast, whereupon Normans hunted him down. He fled back to Scotland on foot, after which Malcolm convinced him to give up his dreams of a throne and submit to William.

Edgar tried that route, but felt he deserved better treatment because of his status. The Domesday Book in 1086 lists two estates in Hertfordshire belonging to Edgar, although by that time he was no longer living in England. Dissatisfied, he had gone to Italy to settle in Apulia, which was occupied by Normans. A few years later, however, he returned to England.

After William's death in 1087, Edgar's fortunes seemed to rise a little with William's sons, who clearly had no concerns that this older man was going to try to take their throne. Instead, they involved him in their reigns.

For the happy remainder of Edgar's complicated life, tune in tomorrow.

The Approach to Hastings

William II, Duke of Normandy, had his forces ready to deploy to invade England. He believed he had a legitimate claim to the throne that Harold Godwinson had been given. Harold's armies had been guarding the coasts against William's invasion, but the attack in the north by Harold's brother Tostig and King Harald of Norway had drawn Harold's forces north to deal with them. After initial success by Tostig and his allies, Harold defeated them soundly at the Battle of Stamford Bridge on 25 September.

With Harold's army in the north, William saw his chance: he set sail and landed on the south coast of England on 28 September, in Pevensey Bay. Pevensey had an old Roman fort, abandoned after the 5th century. Harold Godwinson, long before he became king, had rebuilt the place in 1042. It was the location of part of his army in 1066, until they had to leave it to march north to Stamford. After 1066, William gave the fort to his half-brother Robert, Count of Mortain. The stone remains that can be seen now (see illustration) are from Robert's expansion plans.

William did not stay in Pevensey. He marched to Hastings on the coast, about nine miles away, then went several miles inland, to a place now called "Battle" and where there is an Abbey called Battle. William's men quickly built a wooden castle for his dwelling and then started gathering food and provisions from the countryside.

King Harold probably received news of William's landing while he was bringing the army south. It looks like they marched about 27 miles per day, still impressive but not as exhausting as their march north. Harold spent a week at London, resting and preparing for battle. He was unable to surprise the Normans as he had the Norwegians. By the time he got to Hastings, William had taken a defensive position on Battle/Senlac Hill, giving him the advantage of higher ground.

I've written of the battle before. Harold was killed, by an arrow to the eye. William of Jumieges wrote that William killed him. William of Poitiers offered no details about Harold's death. Harold's body was identified the next day. His mother, Gytha, offered the body's weight in gold to William, who refused the offer and ordered the corpse be thrown into the sea. (No one records that this actually happened.) Waltham Abbey, founded by Harold, claimed his body had been secretly buried there. The legend that he secretly fled the battle and became a hermit in Chester can be dismissed.

William thought his way to the throne was now clear, but the witenagamot had another idea. The year 1066 in England was the year of four kings: Edward the Confessor, Harold Godwinson, and William of Normandy were the first's second, and fourth, respectively. There was a descendant of English kings who happened to be available. Tomorrow I'll tell you about Edgar the Ætheling.

Harald Hardrada and Tostig

While William in Normandy was preparing to take over England after the death of Edward the Confessor and the coronation of Harold Godwinson, King Harald III "Hardrada" of Norway decided to attack England himself. Harald had a dream of re-creating Cnut's North Sea Empire, but Denmark resisted Harald's frequent raids on the Danish coast. He had all but given up this dream when a new player entered the scene: Tostig Godwinson.

That's Tostig in the illustration, brawling with his brother Harold at Edward's court. Their sibling rivalry and violent nature didn't end when they got older. Tostig became the Earl of Northumbria in 1055 at the death of Earl Siward. Northumbria was home to Anglo-Saxons and settlers from Danish invasions. He was not well-liked by either group because of his heavy-handed manner. Also, he was from the south, and the cultures of north and south were very different and led to mistrust. Moreover, King Malcolm III "Canmore" of the Scots to the north was a friend of Tostig, and he was negligent in the face of Scots raids over the border. All these points plus heavy taxation to pay for mercenaries when he needed soldiers (because the locals did not readily volunteer when he made the call) led to a general uprising.

Yorkshire rose up against him and declared him outlaw. Edward was still king, and sent Tostig's brother Harold (by then Edward's right-hand man) to negotiate with the rebels. Harold realized the situation was too untenable for Tostig to remain in power. Harold returned to Edward and advised him to agree to the rebels' demands and depose Tostig. Having Tostig remain the country would not be advisable, so he was exiled.

Tostig and his family and a few loyal retainers went to Baldwin V of Flanders, who gave him some ships and men for support. He then went to Normandy, but William wanted nothing to do with him. After Edward's death in January 1066, Tostig sailed to the Isle of Wight, taking money and provisions and trying to establish a base from which he could get back into the country, but he sailed away when Harold (now king) sent troops down there. Tostig then sailed northward to raise Norfolk and Lincolnshire but was defeated decisively by the earls Morcar and Edwin. His supporters abandoned him, and he went to Scotland to spend the summer with King Malcolm.

At some point he contacted Harald Hardrada, either by message or by sailing to Norway, and invited Harald to take the throne of England. Their first foray in September led to the Battle of Fulford, in which Tostig wanted revenge against Edwin and Morcar. Let's take a look tomorrow at how that went.

William Prepares to Conquer

With the change of reign in England in 1066, Duke William of Normandy saw his opportunity to become king of a country, believing that it was promised to him.

Edward died in early January, and mounting an invasion in winter, specially if one has to cross the English Channel, was not advisable. Besides, invasions take time to assemble, even if you do not have to provision them because you expect to find food once you enter the new country. It was also important to William to gain moral support in the form of a papal blessing.  William of Poitiers claimed that Pope Alexander's consent came along with a papal banner that could be carried by the army; however, Alexander's consent seems to have come after the conquest was complete. William of Poitiers also claimed that the duke had support from Holy Roman Emperor Henry IV (not likely, since Henry was still only 15), and King Sweyn II of Denmark (also unlikely, since Denmark had problems with Norway and Harold of England was an ally of Denmark's in that regard).

William had months to bring together troops from Normandy, France, Brittany, and Flanders. They were all instructed to gather at Saint-Valery-sur-Somme, a seaport on the River Somme estuary. (Joan of Arc was held there before being taken to Rouen to be burned.) The summer months also included a ship-building campaign.

His numbers of men and ships was likely exaggerated by contemporary chroniclers, but for the sake of argument, let's relate that he was said to have 726 ships (including one paid for and outfitted by his wife, Matilda). Those same writers also claim different numbers for soldiers, as high as 150,000; also, as low as 14,000.  Modern estimates reduce those numbers to maybe 7000-8000 men, of whom 1000 or more were cavalry. The others were archers and foot soldiers.

All his pieces were in place by August, but he delayed the crossing. The assumption is that Harold knew William was planning an invasion and hd troops all along the coast. There would be no surprise attack.

Help for William came from an unlikely source: Harald Hardrada, King of Norway. No, Harald was not an ally of William's or offering support. Harald wanted England for himself, so he attacked in the north, drawing King Harold Godwinson's troops away from the south.

For details on how that went, come back tomorrow.

Edward's Death Leads to Turmoil

When Edward the Confessor died on 5 January 1066, he supposedly made a deathbed statement committing his kingdom into the care of Harold Godwinson, his wife's brother. As the most powerful man in England after the king, he was a natural choice. Whether Edward actually made that statement or not, the witenagemot, the group of wise men who counseled the king, approved Harold as king. He was crowned on the same day Edward was buried. (Some say he crowned himself, as in the illustration.)

When word reached Duke William of Normandy across the English Channel, the response was understandably extreme: William claimed that Edward had named him his heir years earlier. If that happened, perhaps William visited Edward when Edward had exiled the Godwins (and would not have considered a Godwin as his heir), but if so it might not have been that serious an offer. Edward and William were first cousins—William's grandfather was Richard II of Normandy, brother of Emma of Normandy, Edward's mother—and so there was an argument for William being in the line of succession.

Supposedly Harold himself had sworn on a saint's relics two years earlier to recognize William as king of England after Edward, after William saved Harold from capture by Guy of Ponthieu.

William was incensed. The report that Harold had broken a vow made on holy relics was so significant that it enabled William to procure the pope's blessing to depose Harold and take the throne. (Of course, William might have had help: Pope Alexander II was a former student of Lanfranc, who had been first an enemy and then a supporter of William and was not above exercising his influence on his former pupils.) The fact that William's army marched under a papal banner and blessing would have had a demoralizing effect on Harold's forces.

Worse than the psychological effect, however, would have been physical exhaustion. The stories we hear in our grade-school history books about 1066 leave out a third party: Harald Hardrada.

Harald Hardrada, King of Denmark and Norway, also believed he had a claim to England, since Danes had ruled it in times past. Harald landed in the north of England in September of 1066 with 300 longships, 15,000 men, and King Harold's brother, Tostig. On September 20 he defeated the first English forces he encountered. King Harold, however, met Harald five days later at the Battle of Stamford Bridge. Once Harold's forces managed to cross the bridge, he killed Harald and Tostig and defeated the army so soundly that only 24 ships survived to flee back to Denmark. This was not an easy battle, however, and the standoff at Stamford Bridge alone supposedly cost Harold about 20 of his best warriors and closest companions. See more here and here.

...and while Harold's army was recovering from their hard-won battle, the message arrived that William's fleet had arrived at Hastings, 300 miles away. The army (not recovered from their battle) had to march quickly south and meet William's fresh forces who had had plenty of time to prepare their defenses and pick the battle site. Who knows what would have happened if Harold's forces had been able to meet William's while at full strength? The years following the Battle of Hastings in 1066 are well-known, but history books too often leave out the crucial three weeks prior to the battle, when Harold and his English army performed herculean tasks to defend their shores.

If Edward died 5 January and Hastings took place in October, what was William doing for ten months? I'll tell you next time.

A Question of Rule in England

In 1051, when King Edward the Confessor was inviting more friendly Normans to join him in England, Duke William of Normandy visited. According to records made after 1066 but before William's death in 1087, William reported that Edward (who was celibate and would have no heirs of his own) told William that William would be his heir to the throne of England.

In 1064 (two years before Edward the Confessor's death), Harold Godwinson (later King Harold; the most powerful lord in England after the king; his sister was married to Edward) was shipwrecked off the coast of Normandy and held captive by Count Guy of Ponthieu. (Note: This is about the only reason why anyone studying history cares about Guy of Ponthieu, but this incident was important enough to justify William's invasion that Guy makes it onto the Bayeux tapestry; that's Guy in the illustration.) Duke William of Normandy told Guy to release him; this was done, and Harold was returned to England, but only after swearing on holy relics that he would recognize William as his king in the future.

This is according to reports written long after the fact by William's chroniclers. No English source relates this arrangement, and the two Norman sources are probably relating it solely to justify what happened in 1066.

When Edward died in 1066, Harold claimed that Edward had made a deathbed pronouncement, naming Harold his heir.

There was also a third claimant to the throne, although the least convincing. King Harald Hardrada of Norway and Denmark believed that he was the proper heir, because Danes had conquered England so many times in the past. A tenuous claim, but strengthened by the fact that he was supported by Tostig, the brother of Harold Godwinson! (Ahh, the days when sibling rivalry had higher stakes!)

The problem with all these claims?

In primarily Anglo-Saxon England, the next king was chosen by the witenagemot, the meeting of wise men. Kings might name a successor, but the witanagemot was needed to approve a ruler.

So who pressed their claim?

All of them.

William's reaction and the events that followed were predictable, but I'll tell you about them anyway tomorrow.

William and Matilda

William wanted to marry the daughter of Baldwin V of Flanders, Matilda, in 1049, but Pope Leo IX did not approve. William was illegitimate (his mother was his father's mistress), and the two were cousins close enough to offend the concerns of consanguinity.

Flanders was a very powerful French territory, so the marriage would actually do more for William's status than Matilda's. According to some stories, Matilda saw this and said she would never marry someone of such lower status, whereupon William road to Bruges, and either 1) forced his way into her bedroom and beat her, or 2) met her on the road, dragged her from her horse by her hair, and "courting her" in the mud. Here father was outraged, but was stayed from getting revenge by Matilda saying she would marry William or no one.

What kind of man was he? The only surviving piece of him is a femur, from which the height of 5'10" can be deduced. This would make him tall for his time. He was considered a great fighter and very strong, able to draw bowstrings that others could not. A contemporary, Geoffrey Martel, Count of Anjou, says he was without equal as a fighter and horseman. Although considered greedy and cruel by contemporaries, he was also praised for his piety.

William turned to the abbot of Bec, Lanfranc, for help with the pope. Lanfranc also opposed the marriage, so William exiled him from Normandy, but at the last minute forgive him if Lanfranc would take on the task of convincing the pope to relent. A pope finally approved the marriage some time in the 1050s, but it was probably post-ceremony: William and Matilda had gone ahead and married without papal approval, it is assumed. One of the persuasions that supposedly worked to get the pope on their side was the founding of two monasteries, one by the groom and one by the bride.

The union produced four sons and several daughters. There is no inkling that William had mistresses on the side. As a mother, she made sure all her children were well-educated.

He trusted Matilda to rule when he was absent, and she was involved in many of the affairs of state. The illustration shows both of their signatures on the Accord of Winchester, which established the primacy of the Archbishop of Canterbury over the Archbishop of York. (It did not go over well with everyone.) After he went to England (and she bought a ship with her own money to contribute to the invasion), she stayed in Normandy until 1068, waiting to be crowned Queen of England until it could take place at Pentecost (11 May 1068). Phrases were added to the ceremony elevating queenship to be equal to kingship in terms of divine authority.

In the summer of 1083 she fell ill, and died on 2 November. William swore to give up hunting (his favorite pastime) as an expression of grief. She was buried under the floor at l'Abbaye aux Dames in Caen. When her skeleton was examined in 1959, it was determined that she was 5' in height, a typical stature for the day.

And now we turn to an earlier moment, when a member on England's royalty visited William and, perhaps, made him a promise.

William's Family

Despite his youth when succeeding his father, despite the turmoil in Normandy, William worked hard to rule Normandy properly and make it a unified duchy. His Truce of God was one smart policy, limiting the opportunities for warfare in the context of religion.

Some of his support in political matters came from family members. His mother's brother, Walter, was one of William's protectors during his minority. His half-sister, Adelaide (by a different mistress of Robert's), was married to Enguerrand II, Count of Ponthieu, giving William a powerful ally in upper Normandy (for a time: there were questions of legitimacy of the marriage that became too complex a story for right now). Of course his great-uncle Robert, Archbishop of Rouen, was a powerful support, though only for a couple years until his death.

After his father's death, his mother Herleva married Herluin de Conteville; he was a minor landowner on the banks of the Seine, and the title probably came to him from William after marrying Herleva. They had two sons, Odo and Robert. Odo became Bishop of Bayeux (and was involved in various matters here and here and here) and was one of William's most loyal and relied-upon supporters as well as one of the individuals specifically portrayed on the Bayeux Tapestry (he probably commissioned it). William's other half-brother, Robert of Mortain, was also one of the few individuals known to fight at the Battle of Hastings. In the Domesday Book, he is listed as one of the greatest landholders with 797 manors in his name. All this despite William of Malmesbury's description of him as a man crassi et hebetis ingenii ("of stupid & dull disposition"). (The illustration above shows William on the Bayeux Tapestry, flanked by Odo gesturing and Robert with a sword.)

William had some second cousins, descended from Gunnor, his great-grandfather's mistress/second wife. The three—William fitzOsbern, Roger de Beaumont, and Roger of Montgomery—became such powerful landowners in England and advisors to William that the speculation by Orderic Vitalis that William in his perilous minority was "hidden" among peasants to keep him safe from enemies may have arisen from his absence from court because he was with these distant cousins for safety. He certainly felt close to them and rewarded them greatly once he took over England.

Of course, the most important relative in one's life is one's spouse. William found his spouse in Matilda of Flanders, daughter of Baldwin V with whom William's father had a bit of a clash. Clearly that conflict was over with, but there were more issues with the union, issues that did not prevent the marriage. Let's look at William and Matilda tomorrow.

William the Bastard

When Robert I of Normandy died in 1035, while returning from a pilgrimage to Jerusalem, the rule of Normandy passed to his seven- or eight-year-old son, William. William had a rocky start to his reign, and not just because he was young. William's mother was Herleva of Falaise, Robert's mistress. William's illegitimacy was a problem for some, and his mother's supposed humble origins also raised eyebrows.

He had the support of his great-uncle, the Archbishop of Rouen, Robert. Also, King Henry I of France, to whom Normandy owed fealty, supported William. Against him were his cousin Guy of Burgundy (son of his father's sister Alice), and two other uncles, Mauger and William of Talou, whose father was Richard II but whose mother was Richard II's second wife, a different wife from whom William was descended.

William's uncle Archbishop Robert died in 1037, and Mauger (who was only 18) was named Archbishop of Rouen. He was not supportive of William. This change removed one of William's strongest supporters, and political turmoil followed, culminating in Mauger's brother William of Talou forming a rebellion in 1053; this failed, and the rebel uncle fled to Boulogne. Because they were brothers, suspicion fell on Mauger, who was deposed as archbishop and exiled to the Isle of Guernsey. A Norman poet, Wace (1100-1174) collected stories of Mauger's life many years later, claiming that Mauger had made a pact with the devil, had gone mad, and drowned.

Earlier problems arose when another guardian of William, Alan of Brittany (son of Richard II's sister Hawise) died in 1040. His replacement as guardian of the young duke was Gilbert of Brionne, who was killed by enemies within months along with another guardian, Turchetil. Another guardian, Osbern, was killed in the early 1040s. These stories come to us from Orderic Vitalis, who wrote that Herleva's brother Walter would hide the young duke in peasant's huts. What is true is that three of William's more distant cousins became some of the most powerful magnates in England after 1066 (including the first Earl of Shrewsbury and the first Earl of Hereford), so it is possible that Orderic's report is born from William being kept far away from the traditional ducal seat and sheltered with the cousins.

King Henry of France sheltered William when he had to escape the attempt by his cousin Guy of Burgundy and others to capture him in 1046. In 1047 Henry with William fought the Battle of Val-ès-Dunes (see illustration for a monument marking the spot) that more decisively put William in power, although there were still battles to be fought and won. It was at this time that William declared the Truce of God in Normandy, in an attempt to limit opportunities for battle. Conflicts in Normandy existed almost constantly until about 1060.

There is so much more to William's career than the events of 1066 and following. Tomorrow we'll look deeper into the man and his attempts to unify Normandy.

Robert I of Normandy

Robert I of Normandy's father, Richard II, had made an alliance with England by marrying his sister Emma to King Æthelred. When Cnut attacked England, killing Æthelred, his and Emma's sons Edward and Alfred Ætheling took refuge in Normandy.

The Gesta Normannorum Ducum ("Deeds of the Norman Dukes") by William of Jumièges tells us that Robert put together a fleet to attack England, but the winds were against him, causing much of his fleet to go off course or sink. Robert himself landed in Guernsey. Cnut sent ambassadors to him, offering half the kingdom to Edward and Alfred. Weighing this option—war for all of England versus half of England and peace—Robert decided to postpone his decision until after a pilgrimage.

Robert had been at odds with the Church ever since he first came to power and exiled his uncle, the Archbishop of Rouen, for siding with Robert's brother during Robert's attempted coup. His attitude had changed over the years, however, and he restored the properties he had taken from Fécamp Abbey.

A pilgrimage to Jerusalem was not an easy journey, and for a ruler to do so meant making sure everything at home was secure. Robert had nor formally married, but he had a mistress, Herleva of Falaise, by whom he had a son, William. An anonymous chronicler of Tours claims Robert and Herleva were joined in marriage some time after the birth of their son, but that did not mean that William's sobriquet of "the Bastard" went away. Orderic Vitalis, later contributing to the Gesta mentioned above, wrote that William was born about 1026/7.

Lacking any other heir, Robert named William his successor and left for Jerusalem by way of Constantinople. On his return journey, he fell ill and died at Nicaea on 2 July 1035. William the Bastard was eight years old. William of Malmesbury claimed Robert was poisoned, but that was the usual suspicion any time a young man (especially a ruler) died suddenly. There was no reason to believe anyone on the pilgrimage wanted Robert poisoned.

William the Bastard became Duke William II of Normandy, and about 30 years after succeeding his father in Normandy, he would change England, Western Europe, and the English language. First, however, he had to survive a decade of challenges to his legitimacy. I'll talk about that tomorrow.

William on William

William of Poitiers (c.1020 - 1090) was born into a family of knights, and trained as a knight himself until his late 20s when he decided to turn to the priesthood. He studied in Poitiers and returned home "more learned than all his friends and neighbors" according to Orderic Vitalis. Orderic also says that William was made archdeacon of Lisieux, but his name does not appear in any official documents related to Lisieux, so Orderic's source was likely faulty. Orderic also says that William became chaplain to Duke William of Normandy (aka William the Conqueror), and that is how William of Poitiers is usually described.

Sometime after 1066 (probably in the 1070s), William started writing an account of the deeds of his patron. It is called Gesta Guillelmi ducis Normannorum et regis Anglorum ("The Deeds of William, Duke of the Normans and King of the English"). It is the earliest biography of a decent length of any Norman duke, and gives details on the Battle of Hastings. As a chaplain attached to the duke's household and a trained knight, William was in a unique position to relate the events of the duke's preparations for and execution of the war to conquer England.

To be fair, there are several passages that disproportionately praise or favor the duke' actions. When Orderic used the Gesta Guillelmi as a source for his own history, he left out those sections. William also follows medieval literary tradition by describing Duke William as the perfect embodiment of knighthood, with exploits such as the duke and 50 knights besting 1000 of the enemy. He also compares the duke's conquest of Britain to another famous conquest of Britain, that of Julius Caesar.

There are comments made by William that are unique to his account of the times that modern historians feel are accurate statements. Some are the notion that Harold had abundant treasure, and that a Danish raiding party gained "great booty"; this all suggests why England was such a target for raids in the 10th through early 11th centuries.

William also provides an account of early pre-conquest Norman society, with several rebellions in Normandy, as contrasted with the relative stability of England, where William says the English all showed love of their country and a stronger national identity and unity.

The fractured nature of the Norman culture was explained by a Benedictine monk in the 11th century. Tomorrow we'll look at the origins of Normandy, and why this land south of England was named for "North Men."

Group Projects

Taking sole credit for a written work was not always as important as it is to some authors today. 

William of Jumièges (c.1000 – post-1070) was a monk of Jumièges, a Bénédictine monastery. In the 1050s, he decided to take an earlier historical account to update and extend it. That work was De moribus et actis primorum Normannorum ducum (“Concerning the Customs and Deeds of the First Dukes of the Normans”) by Dudo of Saint-Quentin, completed between 1015 and 1026. As a recording of some of the earliest Norman nobles and their emerging dynasty, it is interesting, albeit inaccurate and interlaced with legend.

William of Jumièges tried to fill in the gaps between Dudo's time and his, and was able to write about William of Normandy invading England in 1066. His work becoming known to others, it is believed that William the Conqueror himself asked that William keep writing a history of his time and deeds. This new version, Gesta Normannorum Ducum ("Deeds of the Norman Dukes"), ends around 1070-71. (The illustration shows William presenting the work to William.)

A few decades later, another took up William's writing and decided to extend it. This was Orderic Vitalis. Orderic was but in Shropshire in 1075 to a priest at a time when clerical marriage was slowly being restricted. He became a Benedictine monk at the Abbey of Saint-Evroul in Normandy, becoming a script master and librarian. He is best known for writing a history of the Church.

His first attempt at writing was picking up the Gesta Normannorum Ducum and filling in the gaps between William and Orderic's own time. He also filled in more from earlier times, borrowing from something called the Gesta Guillelmi ("Deeds of William") by William of Poitiers. (William of Poitiers was a chaplain to William the Conqueror.) Orderic's section of the expanded Gesta is fairly balanced, since he could see things from both the Norman and English perspective.

A third author came along in Robert de Torigni, the abbot of Mont Saint-Michel. Robert was enamored of English kings—descendants of the Norman William, after all—and added much about William after the Conquest, the Abbey of Bec, and an entire volume on Henry I of England. He also borrowed from Henry of Huntingdon's historical work, who was not just an author but also an acquaintance of Robert.

The Gesta Normannorum Ducum was popular in the Middle Ages, being copied and distributed among many monasteries. There are 47 known manuscript copies of it known today. It was an important source for other writes such as Benoît de Sainte-Maure, a historian best known for the 40,000-line poem about the Trojan War. 

I've mentioned Orderic Vitalis before, and I'd like to talk more about him, especially his commissioned work on the history of the Church. See you tomorrow.

Anselm of Canterbury

Anselm of Canterbury has been referred to in this blog a few times by one of his other names, Anselm of Bec. He was born 1033/34 in the Upper Burgundy (Italy) region. His parents were both from noble families. His father was a Lombard noble, Gundulph; his mother, Ermenberge, was the granddaughter of Conrad the Peaceful, one-time King of Burgundy. Unfortunately, wars in Burgundy caused partitioning and transferring of territory, and Anselm's parents lost many of their estates.

The loss of political power in the family did not matter to Anselm, who at the age of 15 decided to pursue a religious life. His father opposed this, and Anselm fell ill for a time, perhaps psychosomatically, after which he gave up on education and acted the carefree youth. When Ermenberge passed away, possibly when giving birth to Anselm's sister, Gundulph became obsessively religious himself and entered a monastery when Anselm was 23. Anselm left home with a single attendant and spent the next three years wandering through Burgundy and France.

His wandering drew him to the Benedictine Abbey of Bec, whose abbot was the renowned and learned Lanfranc. When Anselm's father died, the young man asked Lanfranc's advice: return home and use the wealth of the family's remaining estates to provide alms for the poor, or give them up altogether and become a monk? Lanfranc, feeling his advice would be a conflict of interest, sent Anselm to Archbishop Maurilius of Rouen. Maurilius told Anselm to become a novice at Bec. Anselm was 27.

Anselm threw himself into his studies at Bec, and in his first year produced his first of many writings, a fictional discussion of grammar that resolves some of the inconsistencies and paradoxes that arise from Latin nouns and adjectives. It begins:

Student. Concerning (an) expert-in-grammar I ask that you make me certain whether it is a substance or a quality, so that once I know this I will know what I ought to think about other things which in a similar way are spoken of paronymously.
Teacher. First tell me why you are in doubt.
S. Because, apparently, both alternatives—viz., that it is and is not [the one or the other]—can be proved by compelling reasons.
T. Prove them, then.
S. Do not be quick to contradict what I am going to say; but allow me to bring my speech to its conclusion, and then either approve it or improve it.
T. As you wish.

S. The premises

(i) Every/Everything expert-in-grammar is a man,

(ii) Every man is a substance,

[link]

It is heavily influenced by Boethius and his writings on Aristotle.  It is not casual reading for anyone today.

In 1063, when Anselm was 30, William the Conqueror asked Lanfranc to become abbot of a new abbey William built at Caen in Normandy. The monks at Bec elected Anselm to become prior, a lesser role but the person in charge in the absence of an abbot. He maintained a strict Benedictine Rule; after 15 years he was finally named abbot.

Bec attracted students from all over due to its reputation for learning during Anselm's time in charge. He continued to write, and he fought for the abbey's independence from secular influence, as well as from religious influence from people such as the archbishop of Rouen. Bec was enhanced by being granted lands in England after 1066. Anselm would sometimes visit England to check on the abbey's estates, to appear before his secular lord, William, and to visit Lanfranc, who by now was Archbishop of Canterbury. Anselm impressed William, and he was probably by then on a "short list" of candidates for Archbishop of Canterbury to succeed Lanfranc.

When Lanfranc died in 1089, however, William was gone and the throne was held by his son, William II "Rufus." Rufus had other plans. I'll tell you about Anselm's rocky path to archbishop next time.

Pontefract Castle

Pontefract Castle, where Richard II was imprisoned by his cousin (although for a very short time), had been begun very shortly after William the Conqueror took over England. He gave lands in 1070 to Ilbert and Walter de Lacy, who followed him from Normandy. Ilbert began Pontefract Castle, represented here by a model. There was a wooden structure there originally, refurbished in stone over time. The Domeday Book on 1086 calls it "Ilbert's castle."

A later de Lacy, Robert, did not support Henry I in his struggle with his brother, so Henry confiscated the castle in the 1100s. Under Richard Lionheart, Roger de Lacy paid 3000 marks for the privilege of inhabiting the castle, but Richard still owned it. When Richard's brother John came to power, he awarded Roger's loyalty by giving him the castle. By this time it was being called Pontefract.

The de Lacy family lived there until the early 1300s, but Henry de Lacy had only one daughter, "Poor" Alice, who married Thomas, the 2nd Earl of Lancaster. Pontefract became a Lancaster possession now. Thomas backed the wrong horse in the never-ending conflict between kings and would-be kings. He was convicted of treason without being allowed to speak in his own defense and executed at Pontefract on 22 March 1322.

Pontefract then passed to Thomas' brother, Henry Grosmont, the 3rd Earl of Lancaster, who was politically more savvy and eventually became one of the most respected and land-wealthy nobles in England. With his death, Pontefract came to his son-in-law, John of Gaunt. John's son Henry Bolingbroke should have inherited it, but at John's death an annoyed Richard II kept it along with all the other properties that should have gone to Henry. Henry mounted a campaign to get back what was rightfully his, but it snowballed into an outright rebellion against Richard, who was deposed and held in the Tower of London for awhile before being sent to Pontefract for incarceration. Not long after, Richard was dead (we are told from starvation).

Richard III, after the death of King Edward IV, had two men beheaded at Pontefract: the son and brother of Edward's wife, Elizabeth Woodville. When Henry VIII accused his fifth wife, Catherine Howard, of adultery with Sir Thomas Culpeper, it was thought that the affair began when the king and queen were staying at Pontefract.

A parliament under Oliver Cromwell decided that Pontefract should be demolished and the materials re-used. Now it is possible to see the cellars, but some renovation has taken place.

Henry Grosmont was, as mentioned respected and wealthy, and his death was mourned throughout England. Let's talk about what made him special next time.

Knight-service

The feudal system could include military duties in exchange for tenancy on the land; forty days was a typical obligation. This might be simply guarding the castle or being an escort, but could also mean going to war. The term for this was "knight-service." A knight in this case refers to a mounted soldier.

The idea was brought to England by William the Conqueror when the value of mounted (and therefore expensive) knights became clear. When William parceled out England to his nobles, who then parceled out their states to their vassals, the smallest unit was kept large enough to furnish the taxes/funds for one knight's fees.

This same system of dividing and sub-dividing the land, called "subinfeudation," was established in Ireland when it was conquered by Henry II. If land was subdivided "too far" then each smaller parcel had to provide the appropriate fraction of a knight's fee to go toward furnishing a knight.

There were other variations over time. In England, only the king was due knight-service, whereas in France other lords could invoke it from those to whom they granted land (giving them opportunities to create their own armies). In the 1100s terms of service were extended, but could also be avoided by scutage, paying a tax to the lord. Scutage made it easier to gather an army, because one could simply collect the money and then hire mercenaries. By 1300, mercenaries were becoming the chief manner of maintaining a military force.

The term for this was routier, and I'll tell you more about them tomorrow.

Alton Castle

The image to the left shows Alton Towers in 1880, designed by Augustus Pugin, near the town of Alton in Staffordshire (not the Alton where the Treaty of Alton was signed). Although what we see now is a magnificent 19th century building designed as part of the Gothic Revival, the place has a much older history.

In the 1st century BCE there was an Iron Age fort on the site, but more continuity started when King Ceolred of Mercia built a wooden fortress there. The place was attacked by King Ine of Wessex in 716 in a battle so bloody that the location was called Slain Hollow (until Pugin turned it into an oriental water garden).

After the Conquest of 1066, the castle was rebuilt and enlarged in stone by the Norman noble Bertram de Verdun, who had been granted land in England by William. It stayed in the Verdun family through three generations of "Bertram de Verdun"s; then, in 1318, Joan de Verdun married Thomas de Furnival. Thomas died crusading in 1348, and the estate went to Sir John Talbot who married Furnival's daughter Maud. Talbot was created the first Earl of Shrewsbury (sort of; I'll explain later). Alton Castle stayed in the Talbot family; the 16th Earl of Shrewsbury was the owner during the 19th century expansion, after which the building was renamed Alton Towers.

In the 20th century the grounds were opened to the public, and now in the UK the phrase "Alton Towers" invokes images of an enormous theme park and resort that has been developed at the site.

But back to the first Earl of Shrewsbury. The first Earl of Shrewsbury was not the first; I'll explain how there were two "firsts" tomorrow.

Anglo-Norman Culture

We have looked at the influence on the language in England when it suffered an influx of Norman-French population and administration. This was inevitable, but was not what you would call deliberate. William of Normandy (more commonly known to modern readers as William the Conqueror) did not decree as the new king "Now we start changing the language!"

There were, however, more overt actions taken that demonstrated to the Anglo-Saxons how different things would be from now on. I am going to give you an example using two pictures.

St. John's Church in Escombe is one of four existing Anglo-Saxon churches in England. Built about 670CE with roughly dressed stones, the nave is 43 feet long and 14 feet wide. Contrast that with the New Romney Church tower of the Church of St. Nicholas. Built mid-12th century, it is a typical Norman church, and towers over any buildings nearby, including any Anglo-Saxon structures. Below you'll see a second photo that gives you a better idea of its size.

During William's reign (1066-1087), in a single generation, at least 15 cathedrals were begun, 13 of which stand today. Imagine the culture shock as the newcomers saw these mammoth structures going up and up, dwarfing their own architectural accomplishments.

Deliberate actions, as I said, but was the reason for the building fervor to intimidate the locals? There are other ways to say "We are in charge" than showing off fine Caen marble from your homeland and saying "We worship God better than you." Why giant cathedrals?

Turns out, William probably had a personal rather than a public reason to make attempts to please God. William was illegitimate (one of his epithets is William the Bastard). That's probably not why he built churches, but it was one reason given initially by Matilda of Flanders for refusing his offer of marriage.  She had a better reason for turning him down: their union would violate current laws of consanguinity.

The laws of consanguinity established by the church at that time forbade unions of people within seven generations of relatedness. William was Matilda's third cousin (once removed). We don't know what arguments he used to overcome her objections, but they did marry about 1051, and the flagship he sailed in to England, the Mora, was a gift from Matilda. Some scholars think his building campaign was motivated by appeasing God for all the death caused in the battle for England, for marrying someone to whom he was closely related, and because of a little guilt over taking the throne of England when there was a person who might have had a better claim.

Was everything the Normans built on such a large scale? No. Many defensive structures were not as grand as the churches. Tomorrow let's look at motte-and-bailey.

How the Normans Changed Our Language

Many of you already know about the Norman Invasion of 1066 when William the Conqueror became ruler of England and the Anglo-Saxons within. The intersection of two cultures will always cause linguistic borrowing, no matter how protective one of them may be (even the French say "hot-dog"). When major changes in society take place, we can expect major changes in language.

In truth, the injection of Norman French vocabulary probably amounted to fewer than 1000 words. They were not random words, however, but words whose presence "reflect[s] the ‘superiority’ of the French culture" to use the words of one scholar. Words like noble, dame, servant, minstrel come from French, as do estate, government, duke, madam, sir.

Even outside of the upper classes, the Norman French words introduced in England are still with us in all walks of life and careers.

Thanks to the Norman influence, we gave ecclesiastical terms clergy, friar, prayer, and the word religion itself! In the legal profession, court, crime, judge and justice are used daily. The military still uses general, sergeant, army, regiment, and siege. A pupil can go to an art lesson and sit in a chair to learn about color or ornament. 

True, some of the words came through French ultimately from Latin, but we cannot know that English would have ultimately gained them otherwise. Or would they? There were two major French dialects that influenced English at different times; there was a second influx of Central French vocabulary in the 13th century, further adding to—and maybe confusing?— the English language.

For instance, Latin caballus (horse), led to Norman French cavalier, but Central French chevalier, which is why in Modern English we have not only cavalier and chevalier, but also cavalry and chivalry. Latin canalis (channel) turned into Norman French canal and Central French chanel, so now we have both canal and channel.

Another telling set of Anglo-Saxon vs. Norman French terms comes when we look at livestock. Anglo-Saxon peasants (peasant is French, but from the 15th century) raised cattle and pigs, but when those animals become food and are served at a table, they are dined on by Norman masters as beef and pork.

But these were more subtle changes than some deliberate actions taken by the Normans to show superiority. I'll talk about Norman culture tomorrow, and what they did to "show off."

The Hundred Years' War, Part 1

Simply put, the Hundred Years War was an argument over the rightful ruler(s) of England and France. Officially, it ran from 1337 to 1453, making it 116 years long. It was not an ongoing battle, but a series of battles depending on who decided it was time to assert a claim to the other's throne, and a series of truces depending on who thought they could make a deal that was advantageous to their country.

It started with Duke William of Normandy, alias William the Conqueror. He was a vassal to the king of France because he held Normandy and other territories in France, even though he became king of England in 1066. Here's the issue: should a king be subordinate to another king, just because he holds territory in the other king's country?

France did not like having large swaths of territory held by the English king, and would occasionally occupy and "take back" those territories when England's army was busy elsewhere, such as when it was fighting Scotland. The real sticking point came in 1328 when King Charles IV of France died. He had no sons, and no brothers. France held to something called Salic law, that determined only males could inherit, not females. Charles had a sister, Isabella, who had married Edward II of England. Their son, Edward III, was the closest male heir to Charles, and Isabella claimed that Edward should be King of England and France.

France did not want a non-Frenchman ruling their country, and so they went up the family tree instead of down and the throne was offered to Philip VI, Count of Valois, a cousin through Charles' father. Edward fumed, but gave in, offering loyalty to Philip through Edward's possession of Gascony. This might have settled things, but Philip got greedy. In 1337, he called a Great Council in Paris where they decided that Gascony should not belong to the English king.

Edward III was not going to stand for this insult (and confiscation of his lands), so the war was on. Tomorrow we will see how the first phase went.

Marmoutier Abbey

American author Henry James took a six-week tour of France in 1883, in which he mentions the "chatty nun" who guided him through Marmoutier Abbey. By that time, most of it had been demolished or simple fallen into disrepair, after having been "disestablished" in 1799 during the French Revolution. (You can see an artist's rendition from 1819 to the left.)

St. Martin was made bishop of Tours in 371 CE. The job was too conspicuous for his taste, so he founded an abbey in 372 into which he could withdraw from the press of public life. Martin's contemporary, Sulpicius Severus, in his biography of St. Martin, describes the restrictions Martin placed on those who wished to join him:

No one there had anything which was called his own; all things were possessed in common. It was not allowed either to buy or to sell anything, as is the custom among most monks. No art was practiced there, except that of transcribers, and even this was assigned to the brethren of younger years, while the elders spent their time in prayer. Rarely did any one of them go beyond the cell, unless when they assembled at the place of prayer. They all took their food together, after the hour of fasting was past. No one used wine, except when illness compelled them to do so. Most of them were clothed in garments of camels' hair. Any dress approaching to softness was there deemed criminal, and this must be thought the more remarkable, because many among them were such as are deemed of noble rank.

This was prior to the strict set of rules for monastic living formulated by St. Benedict and adopted by so many abbeys.

The abbey fell on had times when the Normans invaded and damaged it in 853, killing over 100 monks. Abbot Majolus of Cluny (Cluny was mentioned here) restored it in 982; a generation later, it was thriving and becoming one of the richest abbeys in Europe. You can read here how a monk of the abbey attended the Battle of Hastings and suggested to William the Conqueror that an abbey be built on the site. That abbey was "seeded" with monks from Marmoutier, which led Marmoutier to claim control over it, but the idea was rejected.

Now it is a Catholic school, the Institution Marmoutier, whose webpage begins Sur les pas de Saint Martin, symbole universel du partage. "In the footsteps of St. Martin, the universal symbol of sharing."

Time to take a closer look at St. Martin, I think.