MEDIEVAL ENGLAND 500–1500 978-1-4426-3465-7 2018

Chapter Two

The Norman Era, 1066–1154

Fig. 7. The Nave of Durham Cathedral. Begun in the late eleventh century, the Romanesque cathedral at Durham remains a dramatic statement of Norman power.

19. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle on the Norman Conquest

From the late ninth century into the twelfth, the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle provides a contemporary record of events in England, updated annually by monks whose identities are unknown to us. The excerpt below tells the story, some of it in alliterative verse (i.e., verse in which common sounds are frequently repeated at the beginnings of words), of the momentous Norman Conquest, from the perspective of the conquered. This version was written at Peterborough Abbey in eastern England. The “hides” referred to in the entry for 1085 are measures of land, but the size of a hide could vary from roughly 60 to 120 acres.

Source: trans. J. Ingram, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle (New York: E.P. Dutton, 1912), pp. 144–54, 162–68; revised.

[A.D. 1065] . . . About midwinter [25 December] King Edward came to Westminster, and had the minster [church] there consecrated, which he had himself built to the honor of God, and Saint Peter, and all God’s saints. This church-hallowing was on Childermas day [28 December]. He died on the eve of twelfth-day [5 January]; and he was buried on twelfth-day in the same minster; as it is hereafter said.

Here Edward king,

of Angles lord,

sent his steadfast

soul to Christ.

In the kingdom of God

a holy spirit!

He in the world here

abode awhile,

in the kingly throng

of council sage.

Four and twenty

winters wielding

the scepter freely,

wealth he dispensed.

In the tide of health,

the youthful monarch,

offspring of Æthelred!

ruled well his subjects;

the Welsh and the Scots,

and the Britons also,

Angles and Saxons—

relations of old.

So apprehend

the first in rank,

that to Edward all

—the noble king—

were firmly held

high-seated men.

Blithe-minded, aye,

was the harmless king;

though he long ere,

of land bereft,

abode in exile

wide on the earth;

when Cnut overcame

the kin of Ethelred,

and the Danes wielded

the dear kingdom

of Engle-land.

Eight and twenty

winters’ rounds

they wealth dispensed.

Then came forth

free in his chambers,

in royal array,

good, pure, and mild,

Edward the noble;

by his country defended—

by land and people.

Until suddenly came

the bitter Death

and this king so dear

snatched from the earth.

Angels carried

his soul sincere

into the light of heaven.

But the prudent king

had settled the realm

on high-born men—

on Harold himself,

the noble earl;

who in every season

faithfully heard

and obeyed his lord,

in word and deed;

nor gave to any

what might be wanted

by the nation’s king.

This year also was Earl Harold consecrated as king; but he enjoyed little peace while he ruled the kingdom.

A.D. 1066. This year King Harold came from York to Westminster, on the Easter after the midwinter when the king (Edward) died. Easter was then on the sixteenth day before the calends of May [16 April]. Then over all England such a sign was seen as no man ever saw before. Some men said that it was the comet-star, which others call the long-haired star. It appeared first on the eve called Litania major, that is, on the eighth before the calends of May [25 April]; and so it shone all the week. Soon after this Earl Tostig came in from beyond the sea into the Isle of Wight, with as large a fleet as he could get; and he was there supplied with money and provisions. From there he proceeded, and committed outrages everywhere by the seacoast where he could land, until he came to Sandwich. When King Harold, who was in London, was told that his brother Tostig had come to Sandwich, he gathered so large a force, both naval and military, as no king before collected in this land; for it was credibly reported that Earl William from Normandy, King Edward’s cousin, would come here and gain this land; just as afterward happened. When Tostig understood that King Harold was on the way to Sandwich, he departed from there, and took some of the boatmen with him, . . . and went north into the Humber with sixty ships; from there he plundered in Lindsey, and there slew many good men. When the Earls Edwin and Morcar understood that, they came here, and drove him from the land. And the boatmen forsook him. Then he went to Scotland with twelve smacks [single-masted boats]; and the king of the Scots entertained him, and aided him with provisions; and he lived there all the summer. There Harald, king of Norway, met him with three hundred ships. And Tostig submitted to Harald, and became his man.

Then came King Harold [of England] to Sandwich, where he awaited his fleet; for it was long before it could be collected: but when it was assembled, he went into the Isle of Wight, and there lay all the summer and the autumn. There was also a land force everywhere by the sea, though it was worth nothing in the end. It was now the nativity of Saint Mary [8 September], when the provisioning of the men began; and no man could keep them there any longer. They therefore had leave to go home: and the king rode up, and the ships were driven to London; but many perished before they came there. When the ships had come home, then came Harald, king of Norway, north into the Tyne, unexpectedly, with a very great sea-force—no small one; with perhaps three hundred ships or more; and Earl Tostig came to him with all those that he had got; just as they had before said: and they both then went up with all the fleet along the River Ouse toward York.

When King Harold was told in the south, after he had come from the ships, that Harald, King of Norway, and Earl Tostig had come up near York, then he went northward by day and night, as soon as he could collect his army. But, before King Harold could get there, the Earls Edwin [of Mercia] and Morcar [of Northumbria] had gathered from their earldoms as great a force as they could get, and fought the enemy. They made a great slaughter, too; but there was a good number of the English people slain, and drowned, and put to flight, and the [invading] Northmen had possession of the field of battle. It was then told Harold, king of the English, that this had thus happened. And this fight was on the eve of Saint Matthew the apostle, which was Wednesday [20 September]. Then after the fight Harald, king of Norway, and Earl Tostig went into York with as many followers as they thought fit; and having procured hostages and provisions from the city, they proceeded to their ships, and proclaimed full friendship, on condition that all would go southward with them, and gain this land. In the midst of this came Harold, king of the English, with all his army, on the Sunday, to Tadcaster; where he collected his fleet. From there he proceeded on Monday throughout York. But Harald, king of Norway, and Earl Tostig, with their forces, had gone from their ships beyond York to Stamford Bridge, because it was given them to understand that hostages would be brought to them there from all over the shire. There Harold, king of the English, came unexpectedly against them beyond the bridge; and they clashed together there, and continued long in the day fighting very severely. There were slain Harald, king of Norway, and Earl Tostig, and a multitude of people with them, both of Norwegians and English; and the Norwegians that were left fled from the English, who slew them hotly behind; until some reached their ships, some were drowned, some burned to death, and thus variously destroyed, so that there were few left, and the English gained possession of the field. But there was one of the Norwegians who withstood the English, so that they could not pass over the bridge, nor complete the victory. An Englishman aimed at him with a javelin, but it achieved nothing. Then came another under the bridge, who pierced him terribly under the coat of mail. And Harold, king of the English, then came over the bridge, followed by his army; and there they made a great slaughter, both of the Norwegians and of the Flemings. But Harold let the king’s son, Edmund, go home to Norway with all the ships. He also spared Olaf, the Norwegian king’s son, and their bishop, and the earl of the Orkneys, and all those that were left in the ships, who then went up to our king and took oaths that they would ever maintain faith and friendship with this land. Whereupon the king let them go home with twenty-four ships. These two general battles were fought within five nights.

Meantime Earl William came up from Normandy into Pevensey on the eve of Saint Michael’s mass [28 September], and soon after his landing was complete, [he and his Normans] constructed a castle at the port of Hastings. This news was then told to King Harold; and he gathered a large force and came to meet him at the estuary of Appledore. William, however, came against him by surprise, before King Harold’s army was collected; but the king, nevertheless, fought very hard against him with the men that would support him, and there was a great slaughter on either side. There were slain King Harold, and Leofwin his brother, and Earl Girth his brother, with many good men: and the Frenchmen gained the field of battle, as God granted them for the sins of the nation. Archbishop Aldred and the corporation of London then wanted to have the child Edgar as king, as he was quite familiar to them; and Edwin and Morcar promised them that they would fight with them. But the more quickly things were done, the worse they were done; and so in the end it turned out. This battle was fought on the day of Pope Calixtus [14 October], and Earl William returned to Hastings and waited there to know whether the [English] people would submit to him. But when he found that they would not come to him, he went up with all his force that was left and that came to him from over sea since the battle, and ravaged all the country that he overran, until he came to Berkhampstead, where Archbishop Aldred came to meet him, with the child Edgar, and Earls Edwin and Morcar, and all the best men from London, who submitted then because they had no choice, although the most harm had already been done. It was very ill-advised that they did not so before, seeing that God would not improve things for our sins. And the English leaders gave William hostages and took oaths: and William promised them that he would be a faithful lord to them; though in the midst of this the Normans plundered wherever they went.

Then on midwinter’s day [25 December] Archbishop Aldred consecrated William as king at Westminster, and gave him possession [of the kingdom] with the books of Christ, and also had him swear, before he would set the crown on his head, that he would govern this nation as well as any before him best did, if the English would be faithful to him. Nevertheless William laid very heavy tribute on men, and in Lent he went over sea to Normandy, taking with him Archbishop Stigand, and Abbot Aylnoth of Glastonbury, and the child Edgar, and the Earls Edwin, Morcar, and Waltheof, and many other good men of England. Bishop Odo and Earl William lived here afterward, and built castles widely through this country, and harassed the miserable people, and ever since then evil has increased very much. May the end be good, when God wills! . . .

A.D. 1067. This year the king came back again to England on Saint Nicholas’s day [6 December]; and on the same day the church of Christ at Canterbury was burned. Bishop Wulfwy also died, and is buried at his see in Dorchester. The child Edric and the Welsh were unsettled this year, and fought with the castlemen at Hereford, and did them much harm. The king this year imposed a heavy geld [tax] on the wretched people, but, notwithstanding, let his men always plunder all the country that they went over, and then he marched to Devonshire, and besieged the city of Exeter for eighteen days. Many of his army were slain there, but he had promised them well, and performed ill, and the citizens surrendered the city because the thegns [English nobles] had betrayed them. . . . This year Githa, Harold’s mother, and the wives of many good men with her, went out to the Flat-Holm, and stayed there some time, and so departed from there over the sea to Saint-Omer. This Easter the king came to Winchester. . . . Soon after this [King William’s wife] the Lady Matilda came here to this land; and Archbishop Aldred consecrated her as queen at Westminster on Whit Sunday [27 May].

Then the king was told that the people in the north had gathered themselves together and would stand against him if he came. Whereupon he went to Nottingham, and built there a castle, and so advanced to York, and there built two castles, and did the same at Lincoln, and everywhere in that region. Then Earl Gospatric and the best [English] men went into Scotland. Amidst this one of Harold’s sons came from Ireland with a naval force into the mouth of the River Avon unexpectedly, and soon plundered over all that region; from there they went to Bristol, and would have stormed the town, but the people bravely withstood them. When they could gain nothing from the town, they went to their ships with the booty which they had acquired by plunder; and then they advanced upon Somersetshire, and landed there; Ednoth, [the king’s] master of the horse, fought with them, but he was slain there, as were many good men on either side, and those that survived departed.

A.D. 1068. This year King William gave Earl Robert the earldom over Northumberland; but the local English attacked him in the town of Durham, and slew him, and nine hundred men with him. Soon afterward Edgar Etheling came with all the Northumbrians to York; and the townsmen made a treaty with him. But King William came from the south by surprise against them with a large army, and put them to flight, and slew on the spot those who could not escape, which were many hundred men, and plundered the town. He desecrated Saint Peter’s minster, and he also despoiled and trampled upon all other places; and the etheling [prince] went back again to Scotland. After this Harold’s sons came from Ireland, about midsummer [24 June], with sixty-four ships into the mouth of the River Taft, where they stealthily landed. Earl Breon came suddenly against them with a large army, and fought with them, and slew there all the best men that were in the fleet; and the others, being small forces, escaped to the ships, and Harold’s sons went back to Ireland again.

A.D. 1069. This year Aldred, archbishop of York died; and he is buried there, at his see. He died on the day of Protus and Hyacinthus [11 September], having held the see with much dignity ten years minus only fifteen weeks. Soon after this three of the sons of King Swein came from Denmark with two hundred and forty ships, together with Earl Esborn and Earl Thurkill, into the River Humber; where they were met by the child Edgar, and Earl Waltheof, and Merle-Sweyne, and Earl Gospatric with the Northumbrians, and all the local English; riding and marching in good spirits with an immense army: and so they all unanimously advanced to York, where they stormed and demolished the castle, and won innumerable treasures. They slew there many hundreds of Frenchmen [the Normans], and led many with them to the ships, but, before the shipmen came there, the Frenchmen had burned the city and entirely plundered the holy minster of Saint Peter and destroyed it with fire. When the king heard this, then he went northward with all the forces that he could collect, despoiling and laying waste the shire everywhere, while the [Danish] fleet lay all the winter in the River Humber, where the king could not come at them. The king was in York on Christmas Day, and so all the winter on land, and came to Winchester at Easter. Bishop Egelric, who was at Peterborough, was betrayed this year, and was led to Westminster; and his brother Egelwine was outlawed. This year also Brand, abbot of Peterborough, died on the fifth before the calends of December [27 November].

A.D. 1070. This year Lanfranc, who was abbot of Caen, came to England; and after a few days he became archbishop of Canterbury. He was invested [officially made archbishop] on the fourth before the calends of September [29 August] in his own see by eight bishops, his suffragans [subordinate bishops]. The other bishops who were not there declared by messenger and by letter why they could not be there. The same year Thomas, who was chosen archbishop of York, came to Canterbury, to be invested there after the ancient custom. But when Lanfranc asked for confirmation of Thomas’s obedience with an oath, Thomas refused, and said that he did not owe an oath of obedience. Whereupon Archbishop Lanfranc was angry, and ordered the bishops, who had come there by Archbishop Lanfranc’s command to do the service, and all the monks to unrobe themselves [to take off the vestments they had put on for Thomas’s investment ceremony]. And they did so at his order. Therefore Thomas departed without consecration for the time being. Soon after this, it happened that Archbishop Lanfranc went to Rome, and Thomas accompanied him. When they arrived there, and had spoken about other things concerning which they wished to speak, then Thomas began his speech: how he came to Canterbury, and how the archbishop required obedience from him with an oath, but he declined it. Then began Archbishop Lanfranc to show with clear distinction, that what he asked he asked by right; and with strong arguments he confirmed the same before Pope Alexander, and before all the council that was collected there; and so they went home. After this Thomas came to Canterbury, and humbly fulfilled all that the archbishop required of him, and afterward received consecration. . . .

A.D. 1085. In this year men reported, and truthfully asserted, that Cnut, king of Denmark, son of King Swein, was coming in this direction, and was resolved to win this land with the assistance of Robert, earl of Flanders; for Cnut had married Robert’s daughter. When William, king of England, who was then resident in Normandy (for he ruled both England and Normandy), understood this, he went into England with so large an army of mounted troops and footsoldiers from France and Brittany as never before sought this land, so that men wondered how this land could feed all that force. But the king left the army to shift for themselves through all this land among his subjects, who fed them, each according to his quota of land. Men suffered much distress this year, and the king caused the land to be laid waste about the seacoast, so that, if his foes landed, they would not have anything on which they could very readily seize. But when the king truly understood that his foes were impeded, and could not further their expedition, then he let some of his army go home to their own land; but some he held in England over the winter.

Then, at midwinter, the king was in Gloucester with his council, and held his court there for five days. And afterward the archbishop and clergy held a synod for three days. There Mauritius was chosen bishop of London, William bishop of Norfolk, and Robert bishop of Cheshire. These were all the king’s clerks. After this the king had a large meeting, and very deep consultation with his council, about this land—how it was occupied and by what sort of men. Then he sent his men over all England into each shire, commissioning them to find out how many hundreds of hides were in the shire, what land the king himself had, and what livestock upon the land, or what income he ought to have annually from the shire. Also he commissioned them to record in writing, how much land his archbishops had, and his diocesan bishops, and his abbots, and his earls; and though I may be prolix and tedious, [he also wanted to know] what or how much each man had, who was an occupier of land in England, either in land or in livestock, and how much money it was worth. So very specifically, indeed, did he order them to trace it out, that there was not one single hide, nor a yard of land, no, moreover (it is shameful to tell, though he thought it no shame to do it), not even an ox, nor a cow, nor a swine was left, that was not set down in his record. And all the written particulars were afterward brought to him.

A.D. 1086. This year the king wore his crown and held his court in Winchester at Easter, and he so arranged it that he was at Westminster by Pentecost [24 May], and dubbed his son Henry a knight there. Afterward he moved about so that he came to Salisbury by Lammas [1 August], where he was met by his councilors; there all the local English that were of any importance over all England became this man’s [King William’s] vassals, . . . and they all bowed before him, and became his men, and swore him oaths of allegiance that they would be faithful to him against all other men. From there he proceeded into the Isle of Wight, because he wished to go into Normandy, and so he afterward did, though first, according to his custom, he collected a very large sum from his people, wherever he could make any demand, whether with justice or otherwise. Then he went into Normandy, and Edgar Etheling, the relation of King Edward, revolted against him, for he received not much honor from him; but may the almighty God give him honor hereafter. And Christina, the sister of [Edgar] the etheling, went into the monastery of Romsey, and received the holy veil. And the same year there was a very heavy season, and a troublesome and sorrowful year in England, in murrain of cattle, and corn and fruits did not grow, and so much trouble in the weather, as you might not believe; so tremendous was the thunder and lightning, that it killed many men; and it continually grew worse and worse for men. May almighty God improve things whenever he wills it.

A.D. 1087. 1087 winters after the birth of our Lord and Savior Christ, in the twenty-first year after William began to govern and direct England, as God granted him, there was a very heavy and pestilent season in this land. Such a sickness came on men, that nearly every other man had the worst disorder, that is, diarrhea, and that so dreadfully, that many men died from the disorder. Afterward, through the badness of the weather as we mentioned before, such a great famine came over all England that many hundreds of men died a miserable death through hunger. Alas! how wretched and how rueful a time it was! When the poor wretches lay nearly driven to death prematurely, and afterward came sharp hunger and dispatched them altogether! Who will not be full of grief at such a season? Or who is so hardhearted as not to weep at such misfortune? Yet such things happen for folks’ sins, because they will not love God and righteousness. So it was in those days, that little righteousness was in this land with any men except the monks alone, wherever they lived well. The king and the head-men were far too greedy for gold and silver and did not care how sinfully it was acquired, provided it came to them. The king leased out his land at as high a rate as he possibly could; then came some other person, and offered more than the first one gave, and the king leased it out to the man who offered him more. Then came the third, and offered yet more; and the king handed it over to the man that offered him most of all. And he cared not how very sinfully the stewards got it from wretched men, nor how many unlawful deeds they did; but the more men spoke about right law, the more unlawfully they acted. They exacted unjust tolls, and they did many other unjust things that are difficult to reckon.

Also in the same year, before harvest, the holy minster of Saint Paul, the episcopal see in London, was completely burned, with many other minsters, and the greatest and richest part of the whole city. So also, about the same time, almost every major port in all England was entirely burned. Alas! rueful and woeful was the fate of the year that brought forth so many misfortunes.

In the same year also, before the Assumption of Saint Mary [15 August], King William went from Normandy into France with an army, and made war upon his own lord Philip, the king [of France], and slew many of his men, and burned the town of Mantes, and all the holy minsters that were in the town; and two holy men that served God, leading the life of anchorites, were burned therein. This being thus done, King William returned to Normandy. Rueful was the thing he did, but a more rueful befell him. How was it more rueful? He fell sick, and it dreadfully ailed him. What shall I say? Sharp death, which passes by neither rich men nor poor, seized him also. He died in Normandy, on the day after the nativity of Saint Mary [9 September], and was buried at Caen in Saint Stephen’s minster, which he had formerly built, and afterward endowed with manifold gifts. Alas! how false and how uncertain is this world’s wealth! He who was before a rich king, and lord of many lands, had not then of all his land more than a space of seven feet! And he that was formerly clothed in gold and gems, lay there covered with mold! He left behind three sons: the eldest, called Robert, who was earl in Normandy after him; the second, called William, who wore the crown after him in England; and the third, called Henry, to whom his father bequeathed immense treasure.

If any person wishes to know what kind of man [William] was, or what honor he had, or of how many lands he was lord, then will we write about him as well as we understand him: we who often looked upon him, and lived sometime in his court. This King William that we speak about was a very wise man, and very rich, more splendid and powerful than any of his predecessors. He was mild to the good men that loved God, and severe beyond all measure to the men who opposed his will. On that same spot where God granted him that he should gain England, he built a mighty minster [Battle Abbey], and set monks in it, and well endowed it. In his days the great monastery in Canterbury was built, and also very many others over all England. This land was moreover well filled with monks, who modeled their lives after the rule of Saint Benedict. . . . He was also very dignified. He wore his crown three times each year, as often as he was in England. At Easter he wore it in Winchester, at Pentecost in Westminster, at midwinter in Gloucester. And then all the rich men from over all England were with him, archbishops and diocesan bishops, abbots and earls, thegns and knights. So very stern was he also and hot-tempered, that no man dared do anything against his will. He took into custody earls who acted against his will. Bishops he hurled from their bishoprics, and abbots from their abbacies, and thegns into prison. Eventually he did not spare even his own brother Odo, who was a very rich bishop in Normandy. Odo’s episcopal stall was at Bayeux, and he was the foremost man of all to glorify the king. He had an earldom in England, and when the king was in Normandy, then was Odo the mightiest man in England. William confined Odo in prison. But among other things we must not forget the good peace that he made in this land, so that a man of any account might go over his kingdom unhurt with his bosom full of gold [carrying a bag of gold inside his shirt]. No man dared slay another, no matter how much evil he had done to the other; and if any peasant had sex with a woman against her will, he soon lost the limb that he played with. He truly reigned over England, and by his authority so thoroughly surveyed it, that there was not a hide of land in England that he knew not who had it, or what it was worth, and afterward set it down in his book. The land of the Welsh was in his power, and he built castles there, and ruled Anglesey altogether. So also he subdued Scotland by his great strength. As to Normandy, that was his native land, but he also reigned over the earldom called Maine, and if he had yet lived two years more, he would have won Ireland by his valor, and without any weapons.

Assuredly in his time men had much distress, and very many sorrows. He let men build castles and miserably oppress the poor. The king himself was so very rigid and extorted from his subjects many marks of gold and so many hundred pounds of silver, which he took from his people for little need, by right and by unright. He fell into covetousness, and he loved greediness excessively. He made many deer-parks, and he established laws for them, so that whoever slew a hart or a hind [a male or female deer] should be deprived of his eyesight. As he forbade men to kill the harts, so also the boars, and he loved the tall deer as if he were their father. Likewise he decreed that the hares should go free. His rich men bemoaned it, and the poor men shuddered at it. But he was so stern that he did not care about the hatred of them all, for they must follow the king’s will entirely, if they would live, or have land or possessions or even his peace. Alas! that any man should presume so to puff himself up, and boast over all men. May the Almighty God show mercy to his soul, and grant him forgiveness of his sins! These things have we written concerning him, both good and evil that men may choose the good after their goodness, and flee from the evil altogether, and follow the way that leads us to the kingdom of heaven. . . .

Questions: How does the author present Kings Edward, Harold, and William? How did the Norman Conquest affect England, according to this source? Are there any indications of the author’s political sympathies? What events other than national political ones are of interest to the chronicler, and why? What impact did national events have locally?

20. The Text of the Bayeux Tapestry

The Bayeux Tapestry, a unique pictorial narrative, is a series of scenes embroidered on linen with a running Latin commentary above. Although we do not know who designed or executed the embroidery, historians think it was created sometime in the last third of the eleventh century, perhaps at, or in association with, the monastery of Saint Augustine in Canterbury. It presents a Norman version of the story of King Harold and William the Conqueror. The entire text, and some of the scenes, are reproduced here.

Source: trans. E. Amt from The Bayeux Tapestry, ed. D.M. Wilson (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1985), plates 1–73.

King Edward ( figure 8). Where Harold, duke of the English, and his knights are riding to Bosham church ( figure 9). Where Harold sails the sea ( figure 10) and, with sails full of wind, comes to the land of Count Guy [of Ponthieu]. [Here is] Harold. Where Guy is arresting Harold and has led him to Beaurain and has held him there. Where Harold and Guy are conversing.

Fig. 8.

Fig. 9.

Fig. 10.

Here Duke William’s messengers have come to Guy. Turold. William’s messengers. Here a messenger has come to Duke William. Here Guy has brought Harold to William, duke of the Normans. Here Duke William has come to his palace with Harold ( figure 11). Here [is] a certain clerk and Ælfgyva. Here Duke William and his army have come to Mont-Saint-Michel. And here they have crossed the River Couesnon. Here Duke Harold has pulled them out of the sands. And they have come to Dol [to attack Duke Conan of Brittany], and Conan turns and flees. Rennes. Here Duke William’s knights are fighting against Dinan, and Conan has offered them the keys. Here William has given Harold arms. Here William comes to Bayeux, where Harold takes an oath to Duke William ( figure 12).

Fig. 11.

Fig. 12.

Fig. 13.

Here Duke Harold has returned to the land of England and comes to King Edward ( figure 13). Here King Edward, on his deathbed, addresses his trusty friends. And here he has died ( figure 14). Here the body of King Edward is carried to the church of Saint Peter the apostle [Westminster Abbey] (figure 15). Here they have given the king’s crown to Harold.

Fig. 14.

Fig. 15.

Here sits Harold, king of the English (figure 16). (Archbishop Stigand.) These men are marveling at the star [Halley’s Comet]. [Here is] Harold. Here an English ship comes to the land of Duke William. Here Duke William has ordered ships to be built (figure 17).

Fig. 16.

Fig. 17.

Here they are dragging the ships to the sea. These men are carrying arms to the ships. And here they are pulling a cart with wine and arms ( figure 18). Here Duke William, in a great ship, has crossed the sea and comes to Pevensey ( figure 19).

Fig. 18.

Fig. 19.

Fig. 20.

Here the horses are getting out of the ships. And here the knights hurry to Hastings to seize supplies. Here is Wadard. Here meat is being cooked. And here the servants have been preparing, and here they have served, the midday meal ( figure 20). And here the bishop [William’s brother Odo, bishop of Bayeux] blesses the food and drink ( figure 21). [Here is] Bishop Odo. [Here is] William. [Here is] Robert. This man has ordered that a castle be constructed at Hastings. Here reports about Harold have been brought to William. Here a house is being burned.

Fig. 21.

Here the knights have left Hastings and have come to the battle against King Harold. Here Duke William asks Vital whether he has seen Harold’s army.

Fig. 22.

Fig. 23.

Fig. 24.

Fig. 25.

Fig. 26.

This man reports to Harold about Duke William’s army. Here Duke William exhorts his knights to prepare themselves manfully and wisely for battle against the English army ( figures 22, 23).

Here Leofwine and Gyrth, King Harold’s brothers, have been killed.

Here English and French together have been killed in battle ( figure 24).

Here Bishop Odo, holding a staff, encourages the young men. Here is Duke William [showing his face to the troops] ( figure 25). [Here is] Eustace. Here the French are fighting.

And those who were with Harold have been killed. Here King Harold has been killed ( figure 26). And the English have turned in flight.

Questions: Why would the tapestry’s designer(s) have included Harold’s adventures in Normandy? How is the Norman viewpoint evident? Compare this account with that in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle (doc. 19). What does the tapestry reveal about warfare, everyday life, and material culture in the eleventh century?

21. Doing Penance for the Norman Victory

While pro-Norman historians presented the Norman Conquest as a just war sanctioned by the papacy, the eleventh-century Church felt a deep ambivalence about warfare between Christians. Issued by Norman bishops about four years following the Conquest, the following ordinances set forth the spiritual penalties to be paid by followers of Duke William of Normandy, now William I of England (r. 1066–87) for their role in the bloodbath at Hastings and the ravaging of the English countryside in the months afterward.

Source: ed. R. Allen Brown, The Norman Conquest of England: Sources and Documents (Woodbridge: Boydell, 1984; repr. 1995), pp. 156–57.

This is the institution of penance according to the decrees of the bishops of the Normans, confirmed by the authority of the supreme pontiff by his legate Ermenfrid, bishop of Sion, to be imposed upon those whom W[illiam] duke of the Normans by his command . . . [text missing] and who before this decree were his men and owed him military service as their duty.

1. Whoever knows that he has killed in the great battle is to do one year’s penance for each man slain.

2. Whoever struck another but does not know if that man was thereby slain, is to do forty days penance for each case, if he can remember the number, either continuously or at intervals.

3. Whoever does not know the number of those he struck or killed shall, at the discretion of his bishop, do penance for one day a week for the rest of his life, or, if he is able, make amends either by building a church or by giving perpetual alms to one.

4. Those who struck no one yet wished to do so are to do penance for three days.

5. Clerks who fought, or were armed for the purpose of fighting, because they are forbidden to fight are to do penance according to the institutions of canon law as if they had sinned in their own country. The penance of monks is to be determined according to their rule and the judgment of their abbot.

6. Those who fought motivated only by gain are to know that they owe the same penance as for homicide; but because they fought in a public war the bishops out of mercy have assigned them three years’ penance.

7. Archers who do not know how many they killed or wounded without killing are to do penance for three Lents.

8. That battle aside, whoever before the consecration of the king [William I] killed anyone offering resistance as he moved through the kingdom in search of supplies, is to do one year’s penance for each person so slain. Anyone, however, who killed not in search of supplies but in looting, is to do three years’ penance for each person so slain.

9. Whoever killed a man after the king’s consecration is to do penance as for wilful homicide, with this exception, that if the person killed or struck was in arms against the king the penance shall be as above.

10. Those who committed adulteries or rapes or fornications shall do penance as though they had sinned in their own countries.

11. Similarly concerning the violation of churches. Things taken from a church are to be restored to the church from which they were taken if possible. If this is not possible, they are to be given to some other church. If such restoration is refused, the bishops have decreed that no one is to sell or buy the property.

Questions: In what ways does this text add to our knowledge about the Norman Conquest? What do we learn about the Church’s attitude toward war and related acts of violence? Did the author(s) of this document regard the Conquest as a just war?

22. Castles in Norman England

The Norman kings and their vassals transformed England’s landscape by building hundreds of castles. Most early castles featured a steep-sided motte, or earthen mound surmounted by a wooden or (less commonly) stone keep and protected by a wall, and a lower outer ward, or bailey, also protected by a defensive wall. In the decades after the Conquest, castles served as reminders of Norman might and deterrents to rebels. Many castle sites begun under William I and his sons continued to be defended and expanded for centuries, their wooden towers and palisades replaced by more permanent stone structures and periodically updated with new strategic features such as round towers, fortified gatehouses, and arrow-slits.

The plan below shows the defenses of Corfe Castle in Dorset, begun by William I on a natural hill that commanded the main route through the Purbeck Hills. The site’s strategic importance was such that the original castle (on the hilltop’s northeastern corner) was partially constructed of stone. Henry I had a massive stone keep added to the motte, and the site’s defenses were further expanded in the following centuries. In 1139, Corfe withstood a siege by King Stephen, who raised a siege castle, a motte-and-bailey structure (marked as “The Rings” on the plan), but abandoned the assault when his rival, the empress Matilda, landed in England. We lack a detailed account of this siege, but the story of King Stephen’s successful three-month siege of Exeter Castle in 1136, as told in the anonymous Deeds of Stephen, describes twelfth-century castle warfare and reminds us that the siege of Corfe could have turned out differently.

Sources: E. Armitage, The Early Norman Castles of the British Isles (London: J. Murray, 1912), fig. 13 (facing p. 128); Gesta Stephani, ed. and trans. K.R. Potter (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1976), pp. 33, 39, 41, 43.

Fig. 27. Plan of Corfe Castle.

The Siege of Exeter, 1136

Exeter is a large town, with very ancient walls. . . . There is a castle in it raised on a very high mound surrounded by an impregnable wall and fortified with towers of hewn limestone. . . . In it, Baldwin de Redvers had placed a very strong force, no less than the flower of all England, chosen to resist the king. Bound by fealty and an oath never to yield to the king at all, they were shut up with his wife and children, ready for anything, and encircling the castle in close array with glittering arms they kept on hurling insults at the king and his men. Sometimes, too, sallying unexpectedly from secret posterns, they made violent charges with intent to inflict loss on the king’s army; frequently they shot arrows or flung javelins from the battlements and showed an aggressive spirit in many other ways as occasion required. However, the king, with a number of barons who had either come with him when he arrived or followed him speedily when they had gathered their forces, labored by many means to annoy them. For with a body of foot-soldiers, very completely equipped, he resolutely drove the enemy back and took an outwork raised on a very high mound to defend the castle, and he manfully broke the inner bridge, affording access from the castle to the city, and with wondrous art built great erections of timber as a hindrance to those trying to fight from the battlements. Also, day and night, he vigorously pressed on with the siege of the garrison; sometimes he joined battle with them by means of armed men crawling up the rampart; sometimes, by the aid of countless slingers, who had been hired from a distant region, he assailed them with an unendurable number of stones; at other times he summoned those who had skill in mining underground and ordered them to search into the bowels of the earth with a view to demolishing the wall; frequently, too, he devised engines of different sorts, some rising high in the air, others low on the ground, the former to spy out what was going on in the castle, the latter to shake or undermine the wall. The garrison on its side, offering a resolute and ready defense, cared nothing for all his engines, on which the cunning of the craftsmen had spent vast labor, so that with both parties putting vigor and resource into the struggle it was a great test of their shrewdness and quickness to act. . . .

In the meantime, while it was doubtful whether besiegers or defenders would prevail, and the king had stayed nearly three months there, with an expenditure on various items of as much as fifteen thousand marks, God, the disposer of all things, wishing to put an end to these great toils, so dried up the bountiful springs of the two wells in the castle, which had always bubbled with unfailing rills of water, that whereas formerly they had been fully enough for the daily needs of men and horses they were now hardly equal to allaying one man’s thirst. . . . So, burdened beyond what could be thought possible by undending watchfulness, brought to utter exhaustion by the different kinds of warfare they waged on the enemy from the wall, and finally parched and wasted by violent and unendurable thirst, they took counsel for their common interest. [The defenders agreed to surrender the castle, and chose representatives to seek favorable terms from the king.] At once two of them, the first in rank and dignity of the whole castle, were sent to the king, men already skilled to adorn their speech with charm and give their words, whenever it suited them, the turn that wisdom and eloquence most required. But he, under the persuasion of his brother the bishop of Winchester’s advice, showed them a front of iron. . . . Baldwin’s wife, too, unable to bear this harsh rejection of her companions, came to the king to offer entreaty on their behalf, barefooted, with her hair loose on her shoulders, and shedding floods of tears. He received her kindly, without haughtiness, both on account of the piety he felt for one of her sex in such wretched affliction and because of the high-born woman’s relations and friends who were toiling there with him in the siege, but after listening to her mournful and piteous supplications about the surrender of the castle he hardened his heart inexorably yet again and at last sent her back to her companions with nothing accomplished. [Eventually, Stephen’s advisors convinced him to accept the surrender of the garrison.] The king, encircled by a great number of barons, who not only besought him with entreaties but also influenced him by advice, at last gave way and granted their requests, and that he might win their closer attachment and have them more devoted to his service he allowed the besieged not only to go forth in freedom but also to take away their possessions and be the followers of any lord they willed. When they finally came forth you could have seen the body of each individual wasted and enfeebled with parching thirst, and once they were outside they hurried rather to drink a draught of any sort than to discharge any business whatsoever.

Questions: What are the strengths and weaknesses of Corfe Castle’s defenses? What challenges did attackers and defenders face in the siege of Exeter? How was the castle finally taken? Apart from its military function, what roles (political, social, economic, symbolic) might a castle have served?

23. Domesday Book

In 1086 William the Conqueror ordered a far-reaching census to be taken of the lands and resources in England (as described above in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle entry for the year 1085, the anomaly in years being due to different ways of calculating the “new year” in the Middle Ages). The resulting returns were condensed and compiled into the large volume known to later generations as “Domesday Book,” because its testimony as to certain historical matters of status and tenure was the final authority and judgment. For historians, William’s census is an incomparable snapshot of almost the entire kingdom, providing a wealth of statistical detail that we have for no other part of Europe at this time.

Source: trans. E. Amt from Domesday Book 15: Gloucestershire, ed. J.S. Moore (Chichester: Phillimore, 1982), sections 162a G, 162d [1], 166c 28, 167a, 167b 34.

Gloucestershire

In the time of King Edward the city of Gloucester paid £36 (in counted coin), twelve sesters of honey (by the measure of that borough), 36 dickers of iron, 100 iron rods for nails for the king’s ships, and certain other minor customary payments in the king’s hall and chamber. Now the city itself pays the king £60 at the rate of 20d. per ora. And the king receives £20 from the mint.

In the demesne land of the king, Roger de Berkeley holds one house and one fishery in the town itself, and it is outside the king’s hand. Baldwin held this in the time of King Edward.

Bishop Osbern holds the land and dwellings which Edmar held; he pays 10s. with another customary payment.

Geoffrey de Mandeville holds six dwellings. In the time of King Edward these paid 6s. 8d. with another customary payment.

William Baderon holds two dwellings at 30d.

William the scribe holds one dwelling at 51d.

Roger de Lacy holds one dwelling at 26d.

Bishop Osbern holds one dwelling at 41d.

Berner holds one dwelling at 14d.

William Bald holds one dwelling at 12d.

Durand the sheriff holds two dwellings at 14d.

The same Durand holds one dwelling at 26d. and also one dwelling which renders no customary payment.

Hadwin holds one dwelling which pays rent but keeps back another customary payment.

Gosbert holds one dwelling; Dunning holds one dwelling; Widard holds one dwelling.

Arnulf the priest holds one dwelling which pays rent and keeps back another customary payment.

All these dwellings paid the royal customary payments in the time of King Edward. Now King William receives nothing from them, nor does Robert his official. These dwellings were in King Edward’s farm [his assets producing a fixed income] on the day he was alive and dead. But now they have been removed from the farm and from the king’s customary payments.

In the time of King Edward the king’s demesne in the city supplied all lodging and clothing. When Earl William took it into his farm it continued to supply clothing.

Sixteen houses used to be where the castle stands; now they are gone. And in the borough of the city fourteen houses have been destroyed. . . .

The King’s Land

King Edward held Cheltenham. There were eight and a half hides. One and a half hides belong to the Church; Reinbald holds them. In demesne were three plows, and twenty villeins and ten bordars [unfree peasants] and seven slaves with eighteen plows. The priests had two plows. There were two mills at 11s. 8d. King William’s reeve added to this manor two bordars and four villeins and three mills, of which two are the king’s and the third the reeve’s, and one additional plow there. In the time of King Edward it paid £9 5s., and 3,000 loaves of bread for dogs. Now it pays £20, twenty cows, 20 pigs, and 16s. for loaves of bread.

In King’s Barton King Edward had nine hides. Of these, seven were in demesne, where there are three plows, and fourteen villeins and ten bordars with nine plows. There are seven slaves. Two free men hold two hides from this manor and have there nine plows. They cannot separate themselves or their land from the manor. There was a mill at 4s. King William’s reeve added eight bordars and two mills and one plow. In the time of King Edward it paid £9 5s., and 3,000 loaves of bread for dogs. Now it pays £20, twenty cows, twenty pigs, and 16s. for loaves of bread.

Archbishop Ældred leased Brawn, a part of this manor. There were three virgates of land and three men there. Miles Crispin holds it now.

Alwin the sheriff leased another part, by the name of Upton. There was one hide of land and there are four men. Humfrey holds it now.

The same Alwin leased another part, by the name of Murrells. There are three virgates of land there. Nigel the physician holds it now. . . .

In Botloe Hundred

King Edward held Dymock. There were twenty hides and two plows in demesne there, and forty-two villeins and ten bordars and eleven freedmen having forty-one plows. There is a priest holding twelves acres there. There are four radknights [tenants owing escort duty] with four plows. There is woodland three leagues long and one league wide. The sheriff paid what he wished from this manor in the time of King Edward. King William held it in his demesne for four years. After that Earl William and his son Roger had it; on what terms, the men of the county do not know. Now it pays £21. . . .

Earl Hugh’s Land

In Bisley Hundred

Earl Hugh holds Bisley, and Robert holds it from him. There are eight hides there. In demesne there are four plows, and twenty villeins and twenty-eight bordars with twenty plows. There are six male slaves and four female slaves. There are two priests and eight radknights who have ten plows, and twenty-three other men who pay 44s. and two sesters of honey. There are five mills there at 16s. and woodland at 20s. And in Gloucester there are eleven burgesses who pay 66d. It was worth £24; now it is worth £20.

In Longtree Hundred

The same earl holds Westonbirt. Alnoth held it in the time of King Edward. There are three hides there which pay geld. In this hundred Leofwin held one hide.

In the same place the earl himself holds one hide at Througham. Leofnoth held it from King Edward and could go where he wished. This land pays geld. There are four bordars there with one plow and four acres of meadow. It is worth 20s.

In the same place the earl himself holds half a hide which Roger de Lacy claims at Edgeworth, as the county testifies. It is worth 10s. and pays geld.

In Witley Hundred

The earl himself holds Chipping Camden. Earl Harold held it. Fifteen hides pay geld there. In demesne are six plows, and fifty villeins and eight bordars with twenty-one plows. There are twelve slaves and two mills at 6s. 2d. There are three female slaves there. It was worth £30; now it is worth £20.

In Longtree Hundred

The earl himself holds two manors of four hides which pay geld, and two of his men hold them from him. Alnoth and Leofwin held them in the time of King Edward. There was no one who could answer for these lands, but they are valued by the men of the county at £8. . . .

Land of William Goizenboded

In Chelthorn Hundred

William Goizenboded holds Pebworth from the king. Wulfgeat and Wulfward held it in the time of King Edward as two manors. There are six hides and one virgate there. In demesne there is one plow, and one bordar and one slave. It was worth £7; now it is worth £4 10s.

The same William holds Ullington. One thegn held it in the time of King Edward. There are five hides there. In demesne are two plows, and two villeins and one Frenchman hold one and a half hides with one plow. Earl Algar made this manor part of Pebworth. It was worth 100s.; now it is worth 40s.

In Holmford Hundred

The same William holds Farmcote. Alwin held it. There are three hides which pay geld there. In demesne there are two plows, and four villeins with four plows, and thirteen male and female slaves. Geoffrey holds it from William. It was worth £10; now it is worth £3.

The same William holds Guiting Power. King Edward held it and leased it to Alwin his sheriff to have for his lifetime. But he did not give it as a gift, as the county testifies. When Alwin died, King William gave his wife and lands to a young man named Richard. Now Richard’s successor William holds this land thus. There are ten hides, of which nine pay geld. In demesne there are four plows, and four villeins and three Frenchmen and two radknights and a priest, with two bordars; all the men have five plows between them. There are eleven male and female slaves and two mills at 14s. Five salt-houses there pay twenty loads of salt. In Winchcombe two burgesses pay 11s. 4d. It was worth £16; now it is worth £6.

Questions: How is Domesday Book organized? How are people classified? What differences between towns and the countryside are evident? Which properties are most valuable? What kinds of revenue do the king and lords receive? What changes have occurred since the time of King Edward?

24. Orderic Vitalis’s Account of his Life

Orderic Vitalis (1075–ca 1142), one of the great historians of the Anglo-Norman world, ended his lengthy history with the following brief account of his own life. It is included here as an example of the experience of a child born after the Conquest, to an English mother and Norman father, and of a common type of monastic career, that of a child oblate, in the last quarter of the eleventh century.

Source: trans. M. Chibnall, The Ecclesiastical History of Orderic Vitalis, 6 vols. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1969–80), vol. 6, pp. 551, 553, 555, 557.

Now indeed, worn out with age and infirmity, I long to bring this book to an end, and it is plain that many good reasons urge me to do so. For I am now in the sixty-seventh year of my life and service to my lord Jesus Christ, and while I see the princes of this world overwhelmed by misfortunes and disastrous setbacks I myself, strengthened by the grace of God, enjoy the security of obedience and poverty. . . . I give thanks to you, supreme king, who freely created me and ordained my life according to your gracious will. For you are my king and my God, and I am your servant and the son of your handmaid, one who from the beginning of my life has served you as far as I was able. I was baptized on Holy Saturday at Atcham, a village in England on the great river Severn. There you caused me to be reborn of water and the Holy Spirit by the hand of Orderic the priest, and imparted to me the name of that priest, my godfather. Afterward when I was five years old, I was put to school in the town of Shrewsbury, and performed my first clerical duties for you in the church of Saint Peter and Saint Paul the apostles. There Siward, an illustrious priest, taught me my letters for five years, and instructed me in psalms and hymns and other necessary knowledge. Meanwhile you honored this church on the River Meole, which belonged to my father, and built a holy monastery there through the piety of Earl Roger. It was not your will that I should serve you longer in that place, for fear that I might be distracted among kinsfolk, who are often a burden and a hindrance to your servants, or might in some way be diverted from obeying your law through human affection for my family. And so, O glorious God, who commanded Abraham to depart from his country and from his kindred and from his father’s house, you inspired my father Odelerius to renounce me utterly, and submit me in all things to your governance. So, weeping, he gave me, a weeping child, into the care of the monk Reginald, and sent me away into exile for love of you and never saw me again. And I, a mere boy, did not presume to oppose my father’s wishes, but obeyed him willingly in all things, for he promised me in your name that if I became a monk I should taste the joys of Paradise with the Innocents after my death. So with this pact freely made between me and you, for whom my father spoke, I abandoned my country and kinsfolk, my friends and all with whom I was acquainted, and they, wishing me well, with tears commended me in their kind prayers to you, O almighty God, Adonai. Receive, I beg thee, the prayers of these people and, O compassionate God of Sabaoth, mercifully grant what they asked for me.

And so, a boy of ten, I crossed the English Channel and came into Normandy as an exile, unknown to all, knowing no one. Like Joseph in Egypt, I heard a language which I did not understand. But you suffered me through your grace to find nothing but kindness and friendship among strangers. I was received as an oblate monk in the abbey of Saint-Évroul by the venerable Abbot Mainer in the eleventh year of my age, and was tonsured as a clerk on Sunday, 21 September. In place of my English name, which sounded harsh to the Normans, the name Vitalis was given me, after one of the companions of Saint Maurice the martyr, whose feast was being celebrated at that time. I have lived as a monk in that abbey by your favor for fifty-six years, and have been loved and honored by all my fellow monks and companions far more than I deserved. I have labored among your servants in the vineyard of the choice vine, bearing heat and cold and the burden of the day, and I have waited knowing that I shall receive the penny that you have promised, for you keep faith. I have revered six abbots as my fathers and masters because they were your vicars: Mainer and Serlo, Roger and Warin, Richard and Ralph. . . . On 15 March, when I was sixteen years old, at the command of Serlo, abbot elect, Gilbert, bishop of Lisieux, ordained me subdeacon. Then two years later, on 26 March, Serlo, bishop of Séez, laid the stole of the diaconate on my shoulders, and I gladly served you as a deacon for fifteen years. At length in my thirty-third year William, archbishop of Rouen, laid the burden of priesthood on me on 21 December. On the same day he also blessed two hundred and twenty priests, with whom I reverently approached your holy altar, filled with the Holy Spirit; and I have now loyally performed the sacred offices for you with a joyful heart for thirty-four years. . . .

Questions: How does Orderic’s account of his life reflect the times he lived in and his profession? What is his attitude toward his childhood? What does the text suggest about the rationale of child oblation to monastic houses?

25. Anselm of Canterbury on His Feud with William Rufus

In 1070 William I appointed his spiritual advisor, Lanfranc, archbishop of Canterbury and tasked him with the administrative and physical reconstruction of the Anglo-Saxon Church. At Lanfranc’s death in 1089, William I’s son, William II, left the see of Canterbury vacant for years while he pocketed its income. In 1093, believing himself near death, William II consented to the election of Lanfranc’s protégé, the ardent reformer Anselm, as archbishop of Canterbury. William recovered, but he and Anselm soon clashed: they backed different candidates in the ongoing papal schism and disagreed about how much control kings should exercise over the Church. Anselm fled England in 1097 and spent three years on the continent. In this letter the exiled Anselm recounts his falling-out with the king and pleads his case to the newly elected pope Paschal II.

Source: trans. W. Fröhlich, The Letters of Saint Anselm of Canterbury (Kalamazoo: Cistercian Publications, 1993), vol. 2, pp. 156–59.

Anselm to Pope Paschal II (late 1099 or early 1100)

To his reverend lord and father Paschal, supreme pontiff: Anselm, servant of the church of Canterbury, sending due subjection from the bottom of his heart and the devotion of his prayers, for what they are worth.

The reason why I delayed so long sending a message to your highness after we thanked God and rejoiced at the certain news of your elevation [to the papal throne], was that a messenger from the king of the English came to the venerable archbishop of Lyon to discuss our case, yet without offering anything which could be accepted. Having heard the archbishop’s reply he went back to the king, promising to return to Lyon very soon. I awaited him there in order to learn something I could tell you about the king’s intention but he did not come. Therefore I shall state my case to you briefly because, when I was staying in Rome I often spoke about it to the lord Pope Urban [II, Paschal’s predecessor] and to many others, as I expect your holiness knows.

In England I saw many evils which it was my duty to correct, but I could neither correct them nor tolerate them without committing a sin. The king demanded of me that in the name of righteousness I should give my consent to his intentions which were against the law and the will of God. For he was unwilling that the pope should be acknowledged or appealed to in England without his command, or that I should send the pope a letter, or receive one sent by him, or obey his decrees. He has not permitted a council to be held in his kingdom since he became king thirteen years ago. He gave church lands to his own men. When I sought advice on all these and other similar matters, everybody in his kingdom, even my own suffragan bishops, refused to give me any counsel except that which agreed with the king’s will. Seeing these and many other things contrary to the will and law of God, I begged the king’s leave to go to the apostolic see so that there I might receive counsel for my soul and for the office laid upon me. The king replied that I had offended him solely by asking for this leave and demanded that either I should give him satisfaction for doing so, as if for an offense, and an assurance that I would never again ask for this leave or at any time appeal to the pope, or else I should leave his realm forthwith. I chose to leave rather than to consent to such an abominable thing. I came to Rome, as you know, and set the whole matter before the lord pope. No sooner had I left England than the king openly laid a tax on the food and clothing of our monks, invaded the entire archbishopric [of Canterbury] and turned it to his own use. He was admonished and entreated by the lord pope [Urban II] to put this right, but he scorned this and still persists. It is now already the third year since I left England. I have spent the little which I took with me as well as much which I borrowed and which I still owe. Thus, owing more than I have, being detained at the house of our venerable father, the archbishop of Lyon, I am supported by his kind generosity and generous kindness.

I do not say this as if longing to return to England but fearing that your highness may be angry with me if I do not notify you about my situation. Therefore I pray and beseech you, with as much fervor as I can, not to command me to return to England under any circumstances, unless in such a way that I be allowed to place the law and will of God and the apostolic decrees above the will of man, and unless the king restores to me the church lands and whatever he took from the archbishopric because I appealed to the apostolic see, or indeed offers fair compensation to the Church for all those things. Otherwise I would make it appear that I put man before God and that I was justly despoiled for wanting to have recourse to the apostolic see. It is quite obvious what an injurious and detestable example this would be for my successors.

Some ill-informed people inquire as why I do not excommunicate the king; but those who are wiser and have well-advised opinions counsel me not to do that, for it is not up to me both to lodge the complaint and to pronounce the punishment. Moreover, I have been told by my friends who are under that king that my excommunication, if pronounced, would be scorned by him and turned into ridicule. The prudence of your authority needs no advice from us on this matter.

We pray that almighty God may make all your actions pleasing to him and make his Church long rejoice about your rule and your prosperity. Amen.

Questions: What accusations does Anselm make against William II? How did William and Anselm each define the relationship between royal authority and the Church in England? How did each attempt to gain the upper hand in their dispute? What does the document suggest about why kings might have opposed some aspects of Church reform?

26. Gilbert Crispin’s Disputation of a Jew with a Christian

Gilbert Crispin, a Norman monk and scholar, was appointed abbot of Westminster Abbey in 1085. The Disputation was written in the 1090s and inspired by discussions with Gilbert’s friend Anselm of Canterbury, as well as by contact with members of London’s Jewish community. Gilbert’s Jewish interlocutor would have belonged to the first generation of Jews brought by King William I from Normandy. By 1100 Jewish communities were established in several English towns, their members defined as the king’s property, and they were accordingly granted various privileges, including the right to travel without paying tolls and to swear oaths on the Torah rather than the Christian scriptures. The excerpts below give a good sense of the issues commonly raised in theological debates between Christians and Jews.

Source: ed. Joseph Jacobs, The Jews of Angevin England: Documents and Records (London: David Nutt, 1893), pp. 7–12; revised, with additional material trans. K.A. Smith from The Works of Gilbert Crispin, Abbot of Westminster, ed. Anna Sapir Abulafia and G.R. Evans, Auctores Britannici Medii Aevi 8 (London: Oxford University Press for the British Academy, 1986), pp. 8–12, 15, 17–18, 27–29, 39–40, 50–51.

To the reverend father and lord Anselm, archbishop of the holy church of Canterbury, his servant and son, Brother Gilbert, proctor and servant of Westminster Abbey, wishes him happy longevity in this life and blissful eternity in the future one.

I send you a little work to be submitted to your fatherly prudence. I wrote it recently, putting to paper what a Jew said when formerly disputing with me against our faith in defense of his own law, and what I replied in favor of our faith against his objections. I do not know where he was born, but he was educated at Mainz; he was well versed even in our law and literature, and had a mind practiced in the scriptures and in disputes against us. He often used to come to me as a friend both for business and for the pleasure of seeing me, since in certain things I was very necessary to him, and as often as we came together we would soon begin talking in a friendly spirit about the scriptures and our faith. Now on a certain day, God granted both of us more leisure than usual, and soon we began questioning one another as we were accustomed to do. And as his objections were consistent and well-ordered, and as he explained his former objections equally well, and our reply responded to his objections point for point, and by his own admission seemed equally well supported by the testimony of the scriptures, some of the bystanders asked me to preserve our disputation, so that perhaps it might be of use to others in future. . . .

Here begins the disputation of a Jew with a Christian, as set forth by Abbot Gilbert of Westminster.

The Jew: Because Christians are accustomed to speak to you in learned letters and with eloquent speech, I ask you to bear with me in a spirit of tolerance. With what reason or by what authority do you blame us Jews because we observe the law given by God to the lawgiver Moses? For if it is a good law and given by God it should be observed. For whose command is to be observed if the orders of God are not to be obeyed? But if the law should be observed, why do you treat those who observe it like dogs, driving them away with sticks and pursuing them everywhere? . . .

The Christian: First, let us speak of the law which, we argue, is good and given by God. And therefore, everything written in scripture is to be understood in a divine sense and heeded in its season, and we confirm that it is to be observed. Indeed, we hold that the commands of the law are to be understood in a divine sense because, if men understood them in every sense and followed them to the letter, much confusion and contradiction would result. For example, when the creation of the world was complete, as Moses writes: “God saw all the things that he had made, and they were very good” (Genesis 1:31). How, then, can he later write of the separation of the animals into clean and unclean, into those which may be used and those which he orders may not even be touched under penalty of death (Leviticus 5:2, 11:24)? For how can that which is “unclean” be called “very good?” . . .

The Jew: If the word of God is to be observed at one time or another, so that it is annulled at one time and to be observed at another, and thus in the vicissitude of time the divine sanctions are changed, how stands it with the verse, “And God has spoken once” (Psalm 61:12)? Why was it said, “Forever O Lord, your word will stand firm in heaven” (Psalm 118:89)? What difference does it make, I ask, why God judged this animal to be clean and that animal to be unclean, or permitted this one to be used and forbade that one to be used? For “Who has directed the Lord’s spirit, or been his counselor” (Isaiah 40:3)? that he should permit this or forbid that? . . .

The Christian: It is true that God spoke once, and it is impossible that any word of God can be annulled: the divine sanctions are not changed by any vicissitudes of time, for Christ came not to deliver the law, but to fulfill it. As he says, “I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is fulfilled” (Matthew 5:17–18). How could Christ ever wish to condemn the law, as he threatens that “not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is fulfilled?” For he does not wish to dissolve the law but to fulfill it. The law prohibits homicide, Christ prohibits anger and hatred; the law forbids actual adultery, Christ himself even forbids carnal desire. The law forbids you to use pork, and at that time abstinence from that animal was necessary for you, since it was a symbol of future truth, and a symbol is to be preserved till the truth itself comes. But now it is necessary neither for you nor for us since the truth of the symbol is present. . . .

The Jew: What reason, what scriptural authority is there, that I should believe that God can become a man, or come forth as a man already created? If there is no transmutation in God nor any shadow of change, how could it be believed that so great a change could occur in him that God could become man, the creator a creature, and the incorruptible corrupted? How, I ask, could we accept that “In the beginning, O Lord, you founded the earth, and the heavens are the works of your hands. They shall perish but you remain, and all of them shall grow old like a garment . . . But you are always the same, and your years shall never decline” (Psalm 101:26–28). How could God be always the same if he became a man? If he is infinite how could he be circumscribed in the mean and small dimensions of human limbs? . . .

The Christian: We do not fear any opposition to this revelation, nor are we afraid of finding any disagreement in the scriptures. But meanwhile let us unloose the scriptural authorities, upon which, with God’s help, we will build a proof that God was made man and was seen by men. For openly and without any ambiguity Jeremiah the prophet speaks thus: “This is our God, and none will be likened to him. He has found the whole way of knowledge, and gave it to Jacob his son and Israel his elect: after this he was seen on earth and conversed with men” (Baruch 3:36–38). “After this,” meaning after the law was given, after ‘the way of knowledge was given to Jacob his son and Israel his elect, God was made man “and conversed with men,” born from a virgin, from the closed womb of his mother, with his divinity preserved intact. . . .

The Jew: From that very quotation of yours it can be established that the Christians should be confounded, for they “adore images and rejoice in their idols” (cf. Psalm 96:7). For you portray God himself as a wretch hanging on the beam of the cross transfixed with nails—a horrible sight, and yet you adore it. . . . Other times you depict God sitting on a lofty throne and making signs with an outstretched hand, and around him, as if for greater dignity, an eagle and a man, a calf, and a lion. Christians sculpt and paint images, and they adore them and tend them, though the God-given law forbids this in every way. For it is written in Exodus (20:4–5): “You shall not make for yourself a graven image, nor the likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or in the earth beneath, nor of those things that are in the waters. You shall not adore them, nor serve them.” Therefore the law condemns any graven image and judges it abhorrent.

The Christian: If the law condemns all sculpture and nothing is to be imitated in an effigy, Moses sinned, who figured and painted the likenesses of things; indeed, the Lord himself sinned, who commanded them to be figured and painted. . . . And so, when the Christian adores the cross, with the worship due to the divine religion, he adores the passion of Christ on the cross, who on account of mankind endured the passion in the person of God. . . . The Christian worships no image with divine worship, but he cherishes with honor the representation of sacred things, and honors figures and pictures.

Questions: What does the text tell us about Jewish-Christian interactions in Norman England? What theological issues divided Jews and Christians? How does each debater use reason and scriptural evidence to support his positions? How would you describe the debate’s overall tone?

27. Church Reform: The Council of Westminster

In a process that paralleled the disenfranchisement of the Anglo-Saxon nobility, William I and his successors replaced the majority of Anglo-Saxon bishops and abbots with foreigners. Under the reforming archbishops of Canterbury Lanfranc (r. 1070–89) and Anselm (r. 1093–1109), the English Church was brought into the orbit of the reforming papacy, and new legislation was passed which outlawed simony (the buying and selling of church offices) and clerical marriage and generally required the clergy to live in a manner that distinguished them from, and underscored their spiritual superiority over, the laity. The first general council convened in England by Anselm, the Council of Westminster, echoes the agenda of the Gregorian Reform but expresses concerns particular to the English context.

Source: trans. H. Gee and W.J. Hardy, Documents Illustrative of English Church History (London: Macmillan, 1914), pp. 61–63; revised.

1. The cunning heresy of simony was condemned by the said council. The following were found guilty of this crime and deposed: Guy, abbot of Pershore, Wimund of Tavistock, and Ealdwine of Ramsey. Some others, who had not yet been consecrated, were removed from their abbacies, namely Godric of Peterborough, Hamo of Cerne, and Æthelric of Milton. . . .

2. Bishops are not to undertake the office [of judge] in secular cases, and are not to dress as laymen . . . , and are always and everywhere to have honest persons who may serve as witnesses to their conduct. . . .

5. That no archdeacon, priest, deacon, or canon is to marry or retain a wife, and that any subdeacon who is not a canon, having married after making a vow of chastity, be bound by the same rule.

6. That as long as a priest has illicit intercourse with a woman he is not a lawful priest, and so is not permitted to celebrate mass, and if he does so his mass is not to be attended.

7. That no one is to be ordained to the subdiaconate or a higher office without professing chastity.

8. That the sons of priests are not to inherit their fathers’ churches.

9. That no clerks are to be the agents or proctors of secular men, nor serve as judges in capital cases.

10. That priests are not to go on drinking bouts. . . .

12. That monks or clerks who have forsaken their order must either return or be excommunicated.

13. That clerks must have visible tonsures.

15. That churches and prebends [income from churches] are not to be bought.

16. That no new chapels are to be founded without the bishop’s consent. . . .

18. That abbots do not make knights, and that they eat and sleep in the same house with their monks except when they are prevented from doing so by necessity.

19. That monks impose no penance on any without permission of their abbot, and that abbots can give such permission only to those over whom they have spiritual charge.

20. That monks not be godfathers, nor nuns godmothers. . . .

22. That monks accept no churches except through bishops, and that when these are given to them monks must not so deprive them of their rents that the priests serving there lack what is needed for themselves and the churches.

23. That marriage vows made in secret and without witnesses are to be considered void when denied by either party.

24. That men should wear their hair short enough that part of their ears be visible and their eyes not covered.

25. That relations up to the seventh degree be not married, nor, if they are already married, should they continue to live together; and if anyone be aware of this incest and not declare it, let him know that he is a party to the same guilt.

26. That the bodies of the dead are not to be carried outside their parish for burial, lest the priest of the parish lose his just fee from the burial.

27. That none out of a rash desire for novelty venerate the bodies of the dead, or springs, or anything else, as we have known to be done, without permission from the bishop.

28. That none henceforth presume to practice that wicked trade through which men in England were customarily sold like brute beasts.

29. Those who commit sodomy, and those willingly aiding them in this, were in the same synod condemned with strict anathema, until by penance and confession they might merit absolution. And as for a man detected in this crime, it was ordained that, if he be a member of a religious order, he be promoted to no higher rank, and be deposed from any rank he has; but if a layman, that he be deprived of his lawful condition in the realm of England. . . .

Questions: How do the Norman reformers wish to change the Anglo-Saxon Church and its clergy? Judging from this text, how distinct were the pre-Conquest clergy from the laity, in terms of their appearance, behavior, and domestic arrangements? Which of these reforms do you think would be hardest to enforce, and why?

28. Henry I’s Coronation Charter

To help secure his slightly shaky claim to the throne by enlisting the good will of barons and Church, Henry I (r. 1100–35) issued at the time of his coronation a document often known as the Charter of Liberties. Capitalizing on the unpopularity in church circles of his brother and predecessor, William II (r. 1087–1100), Henry promised to abandon William’s high-handed practices and be in every way a good king by following the good customs of the past. The Coronation Charter was not innovative in its content, but it established a tradition for Henry’s successors, who found that they were expected to issue similar documents when they took the throne, and eventually it was one of the precedents contributing to Magna Carta.

Source: trans. G.C. Lee, Source-Book of English History: Leading Documents (New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1900), pp. 125–27; revised.

In the year of the incarnation of the Lord 1101, Henry, son of King William, after the death of his brother William, by the grace of God, king of the English, to all faithful, greeting:

1. Know that by the mercy of God, and by the common counsel of the barons of the whole kingdom of England, I have been crowned king of the same kingdom; and because the kingdom has been oppressed by unjust exactions, I, from regard for God, and from the love which I have toward you, first make the holy Church of God free, so that I will neither sell nor rent, nor, when archbishop, or bishop, or abbot is dead, will I take anything from the domain of the Church, or from its men, until a successor is installed in that office. And I will take away all the evil customs by which the realm of England was unjustly oppressed, which evil customs I partly set down here.

2. If any of my barons, earls, or others who hold [land] from me shall have died, his heir shall not redeem his land as he did in the time of my brother, but shall relieve it by a just and legitimate relief [payment]. Similarly also the men of my barons shall relieve their lands from their lords by a just and legitimate relief.

3. And if any one of the barons or other men of mine wishes to give his daughter in marriage, or his sister or niece or relation, he must speak with me about it, but I will neither take anything from him for this permission, nor forbid him to give her in marriage, unless he wishes to marry her to my enemy. And if, when a baron or other man of mine is dead, a daughter remains as his heir, I will give her in marriage according to the judgment of my barons, along with her land. And if a wife outlives her husband, and is without children, she shall have her dowry and right of marriage, and I will not give her to a husband except according to her will.

4. And if a wife has survived with children, she shall have her dowry and right of marriage, so long as she shall have kept her body legitimately, and I will not give her in marriage, except according to her will. And the guardian of the land and children shall be either the wife or another one of the relatives as shall seem to be most just. And I require my barons to deal similarly with the sons and daughters or wives of their men.

5. The common tax on money which used to be taken through the cities and counties, which was not taken in the time of King Edward, I now forbid altogether henceforth to be taken. If anyone shall have been seized, whether a moneyer or any other, with false money, strict justice shall be done for it.

6. All fines and debts which were owed to my brother, I remit, except my rightful rents, and except those payments which had been agreed upon for the inheritances of others or for those things which more justly affected others. And if anyone for his own inheritance has stipulated anything, this I remit, and all reliefs which had been agreed upon for rightful inheritances.

7. And if any one of my barons or men shall become feeble, however he himself shall give or arrange to give his money, I grant that it shall be so given. Moreover, if he himself, prevented by arms, or by weakness, shall not have bestowed his money, or arranged to bestow it, his wife, or his children or his parents, and his legitimate men shall divide it for his soul, as shall seem best to them.

8. If any of my barons or men shall have committed an offense he shall not give security to the extent of forfeiture of his money, as he did in the time of my father or my brother, but shall pay according to the measure of the offense, as he would have paid in the time of my father and before, in the time of my other predecessors; so that if he shall have been convicted of treachery or of another crime, he shall pay as is just.

9. Moreover, all murders done before that day on which I was crowned king, I pardon; and those which shall be done henceforth shall be punished justly according to the law of King Edward [the Confessor].

10. By the common agreement of my barons, I have retained the forests in my own hand, as my father held them.

11. To those knights who hold their land by military service, I yield of my own gift the lands of their demesne plows free from all payments and from all labor, so that as they have thus been favored by such a great alleviation, so they may readily provide themselves with horses and arms for my service and for the defense of my kingdom.

12. I establish a firm peace in my whole kingdom and require it to be kept henceforth.

13. The law of King Edward [the Confessor] I give to you again with those changes with which my father changed it by the counsel of his barons.

14. If anyone has taken anything from my possessions since the death of King William [II], my brother, or from the possessions of anyone, let the whole of it be immediately returned without alteration, and if anyone shall have retained anything of it, he who is found [in possession of the stolen property] will pay it heavily to me. Witnesses Maurice, bishop of London, and Gundulf, bishop, and William, bishop-elect, and Henry, earl, and Simon, earl, and Walter Giffard, and Robert de Montfort, and Roger Bigod, and Henry de Port, at London, when I was crowned.

Questions: What message is the king trying to send with this document? Why does he refer several times to King Edward the Confessor? What are the main areas of tension between the king and the Church? Between the king and his barons?

29. Eadmer’s Account of Queen Edith-Matilda

Another of Henry I’s moves to strengthen his hand at the beginning of his reign was his marriage to Edith, a Scottish princess as well as a descendant of the Anglo-Saxon royal house of Wessex. But there was a problem: Edith had spent most of her life in monasteries, and some believed her to be a nun. After a council of bishops convened by Archbishop Anselm ruled that Edith was free to marry, she became Henry’s wife and changed her name to the Norman “Matilda.” The following account of the matter was written by the monk Eadmer, a close associate of Archbishop Anselm, who was keenly aware of the scandal that had attended the marriage.

Source: trans. G. Bosanquet, Eadmer’s History of Recent Events in England: Historia novorum in Anglia (London: Cresset Press, 1964), pp. 126–31.

A few days after this Matilda, the daughter of Malcolm, most noble king of the Scots and of Margaret, who is known to have been descended from the old kings of the English, married this Henry [I], king of England. Now Margaret herself was a daughter of Edward, son of King Edmund, who was a son of King Æthelred, son of that glorious King Edgar mentioned at the very beginning of this work. Although the matter of this union has, as some may perhaps think, no bearing on the intended purpose of this work, yet, as it was handled by Anselm, for he both married them with his blessing and also consecrated her as queen, I think I ought briefly to describe how this came about. I am particularly anxious to do this because quite a large number of people have maligned Anselm, saying, as we have ourselves heard them do, that in this matter he did not keep to the path of strict right. Now it is true that this Matilda was brought up from early childhood in a convent of nuns and grew up there to womanhood, and many believed that she had been dedicated by her parents to God’s service, as she had been seen walking abroad wearing the veil like the nuns with whom she was living. This circumstance, when, long after she had discarded the veil, the king fell in love with her, set the tongues of very many wagging and held back the two from embracing one another as they desired. Accordingly, as all were looking for a sign from Anselm on this question, the girl herself went to him and humbly besought his advice and help in the matter. He, alluding to the rumor which was going about, declared that he was not to be induced by any pleading to take from God his bride and join her in marriage to an earthly husband. She replied denying absolutely that she had been so dedicated. She denied too that she had ever at any time been veiled with her own consent and declared that, if it was necessary to convince him, she would prove it at the judgment seat of the whole English Church. “But, that I did wear the veil,” she said, “I do not deny. For, when I was quite a young girl and went in fear of the rod of my Aunt Christina [the abbess of Romsey], whom you knew quite well, to preserve me from the lust of the Normans which was rampant and at that time ready to assault any woman’s honor, used to put a little black hood on my head and, when I threw it off, she would often make me smart with a good slapping and most horrible scolding, as well as treating me as being in disgrace. That hood I did indeed wear in her presence, chafing at it and fearful; but, as soon as I was able to escape out of her sight, I tore it off and threw it on the ground and trampled on it and in that way, although foolishly, I used to vent my rage and the hatred of it which boiled up in me. In that way, and only in that way, I was veiled, as my conscience bears witness. And if anyone says that I was dedicated, of that too the truth may be gathered from the fact, which is known to many persons still living, that my father, when by chance he saw me veiled snatched the veil off and, tearing it in pieces, invoked the hatred of God upon the person who had put it on me, declaring that he had rather have chosen to marry me to Count Alan [i.e., Alan Rufus, lord of Richmond and companion of William I] than consign me to a house of nuns. That is my answer to the slanders which are spread abroad about me. This I ask your Wisdom to consider and to do for me as your Fatherhood knows should be done.” To cut the story short, Anselm refrained from giving an immediate decision and declared that the case ought to be determined by the judgment of the chief persons of religion in the kingdom. So at his bidding on an appointed day the bishops, the abbots, and all the nobles and the leading men of the religious profession assembled in the manor of Saint Andrew of Rochester, named Lambeth, to which he himself had then come for the treatment of this question.

Fig. 28. Queen Edith-Matilda. King Henry I’s queen, whose decision to leave a convent in order to marry the king is described by Eadmer, is shown here in a nineteenth-century engraving drawn from a statue in the west doorway of Rochester Cathedral.

In due order the case was brought up for discussion. From various sources credible witnesses came forward declaring that the simple truth supported the girl’s story. Besides these came two archdeacons, William of Canterbury and Hambald of Salisbury, whom Father Anselm had sent to Wilton where the girl had been brought up to make enquiries to see what was known with certainty on this matter. They declared in the hearing of the whole assembly that they had made most careful enquiries of the sisters and that they had not been able to gather from them anything at all which was inconsistent with the account given. Accordingly Anselm warned them and charged them all by their Christian duty of obedience that no one of them should let favor or fear pervert his judgment but that each one, realizing that it was indeed God’s cause, should to the best of his ability give help to secure that the matter should be rightly decided, “lest,” he said, “and God forbid that it should be so, there go forth a judicial sentence such that it may be a precedent in the future for either depriving anyone unfairly of his liberty or of wrongly defrauding God of what is rightly his.” With acclamation they all signified that this was what should be done and promised that they would not fail to do so. The father then withdrew from the assembly by himself. This representative assembly of the Church of England then discussed the question of the decision which should be pronounced. When this had been done Anselm was reverently escorted back into the assembly and the finding upon the matter on which they were all agreed, was then declared. They said that, having looked carefully into the matter, it seemed to them established, and of this they stated they were prepared to provide proof, that under the circumstances of her case the girl could not rightly be bound by any decision to prevent her being free to dispose of her person in whatever way she legally wished to do so. “Although,” they said, “we should have no difficulty in proving this by simple reasoning, yet, since this is unnecessary, we refrain from doing so, holding as we do that more reliable than any reasons of ours is a like decision pronounced in a similar case by your predecessor of revered memory, our father and master, Lanfranc. When the great Duke William first conquered this land, many of his men, pluming themselves on so great a victory and considering that everything ought to yield and submit to their wishes and lusts, began to do violence not only to the possessions of the conquered but also, where opportunity offered, to their women, married and unmarried alike, with shameful licentiousness. Thereupon a number of women, anticipating this and fearing for their own virtue, took themselves off to convents of sisters and, by taking the veil, protected themselves in their company from such infamy. Thus, when after a time this violence had quieted down and, considering the nature of the times, comparative peace had been restored in the land, Father Lanfranc was asked what view he took of the treatment of those who had safeguarded their chastity by taking such refuge, that is, whether or not they should be bound to remain in the convent and keep the veil which they had taken. This question he resolved with the advice of a general council, by giving judgment that to those women who had by their conduct so clearly testified their devotion to virtue should be accorded the honor due to them for their chastity rather than that they should be forced to keep to the life of the convent, unless they chose it of their own free will.” The speakers added: “We took part in these proceedings and have also heard this judgment approved by men of wisdom. We are anxious that this decision should hold good in the present case and ask that it be confirmed.” . . .

Then Anselm, referring to these findings, said: “You know the warning and the charge which I gave you and the promise that you made. Seeing, then, that you have unanimously given judgment as seemed to you to be most just, as you assure me you have, I do not reject your judgment. I accept it with all the more confidence, as I am told that it is supported by the authority of so great a father.” Then the girl was brought into the assembly. Calmly she heard and appreciated what had taken place and petitioned that she be given audience to make a brief statement. Then, speaking aloud, she offered to prove by oath or by any other process of ecclesiastical law that her story as already described was in accordance with the real truth of the matter. This she declared that she would do, not thinking that they did not believe her, but to remove any opportunity for ill-affected persons to utter any scandal in the future. They replied that there was no need for any such thing, since, if an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart brought forth evil things, he would immediately be silenced, as the truth had been proved and established by the consensus of opinion of so many persons of position. After this, having obtained an interview with Anselm and his blessing, she departed and a few days later became, as I have said, wife and queen.

Questions: What is the author’s purpose in recounting this story? What does Edith-Matilda’s testimony tell us of conditions immediately after the Norman Conquest? What was her adolescence like, and how did she escape from that world? What does the story reveal about attitudes toward the monastic life and toward marriage? What were the concerns of the investigators?

30. The Founding of the Gilbertine Order

The twelfth century was a period of reform and spiritual renewal, characterized by new models of religious life modeled on the life of Christ and the apostles. In England, as on the continent, women were actively engaged in religious reform; in fact, the century saw the most rapid proliferation of nunneries in English history. The only native English religious order, the Gilbertines, was founded by Gilbert of Sempringham, a Norman knight’s son-turned-priest and charismatic preacher. The order’s first members were women who sought to live as nuns under Gilbert’s direction at Sempringham in Lincolnshire; later, Gilbert appointed lay-sisters to serve the nuns, then lay-brothers to do the manual labor necessary for the community to be self-sufficient, and finally canons (priests who lived in community under a rule) to serve the spiritual and administrative needs of his order, which continued to expand. The following account of the order’s foundation was written in the early thirteenth century, by which time expansion had come to a halt and scandals—most infamously, an episode in which a nun was impregnated by a lay-brother at the priory of Watton—threatened the reputation of the Gilbertines.

Source: trans. R. Foreville and G. Keir, The Book of St Gilbert (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987), pp. 31, 33, 35, 37, 39, 41, 43, 45, 47, 49.

At that time, when Henry I reigned in England . . . there were in the village of Sempringham some girls living a secular life; their minds had received the seed of God’s word, which he had constantly supplied to them, and, with the help of moisture and warmth, they grew until white and ready to harvest. Wishing to overcome the temptations of their sex and of the world, these girls longed to cling without hindrance to a heavenly bridegroom. Holy Gilbert, filled with God’s charity, had arranged to devote to his service the churches of Sempringham and West Torrington . . . and to distribute his own possessions to the needy. When he found no men willing to lead such strict lives for God’s sake, Gilbert thought it right to make over everything he owned to the use of such girls as, being truly poor in spirit, could obtain the kingdom of heaven for themselves and for others. . . . From their number he consecrated seven virgins aflame with desire for heaven as temples to the sevenfold spirit, so that if adorned by virtue their virginity might win merit. . . . And since to obtain salvation it is not enough to desist from evil unless this is followed by the performance of good works, he dictated for them and taught them the law of holiness, by which they might please their heavenly bridegroom and, when they had become beloved, always remain in his chaste embrace. He gave them instructions concerning their life and discipline, urging and ordering them to preserve chastity, humility, obedience, charity, and the other rules of life, all of which they willingly accepted and devoutly kept.

In the minds of these women there gleamed the image of a valuable pearl, which they bought, giving themselves and their possessions for it. Further, although they lived in the flesh, their life transcended it; but because they did live in the flesh and could not exist outside it, he made available for their use all that the condition of fleshly need requires in the form of food, clothing, shelter, and the other necessities of life according to the degree judged right by his prudence. In this way dwellings suitable for the religious life were duly built, together with an enclosure sealed on every side. Then, with the aid and counsel of the venerable bishop Alexander, he enclosed the handmaidens of Christ to live a solitary life under the wall on the northern side of the church of Saint Andrew the Apostle in the village of Sempringham. Only a window was preserved which could be opened so that necessaries could be passed in through it. They lived in the world but he sought to set them apart from it. . . . And as the women were not allowed to go out anywhere, even to perform or obtain necessities, he appointed to their service some poor girls, who served them dressed in secular attire; they were to transfer whatever had to be given or received through the window in a proper fashion. He had left this single opening to be used only at a suitable time; in fact, he would have fastened it permanently if human beings could live without human things. There was a door, but it was never unlocked except by his command, and it was not for the women to go out but for him to go in to them when necessary. He himself was the keeper of this door and its key. For wherever he went and wherever he stayed, like an ardent and jealous lover he carried with him the key to that door as the seal of their purity.

Further, he took care that no trouble from outside should break in upon the peace and quiet of these women, because he learned from wise religious men that it is not safe for young girls in secular life who wander about everywhere to serve those in religious orders. Since evil conversation destroys good behavior, he was anxious that they should not report or perform any worldly deed which might offend the nuns’ minds. And so, on the persuasion and advice of such men, it came about that these serving women asked, along with the life of religion, for a habit to be granted to them in which they could minister to the handmaidens of Christ, leading a poor but honorable existence. See how the grain of corn produced another shoot as it fell to the earth! When blessed Gilbert saw this, his heart was filled with joy because of their zeal for the faith. . . .

Now because women’s efforts achieve little without help from men, he took on men, and put those he kept as servants about his house and on his land in charge of the nuns’ external and more arduous tasks; some of them he had raised from childhood at his own expense, others were fugitives from their masters, freed in the name of religion, and others again were destitute beggars. For he was the true servant of the Gospels who, following his Lord’s command, went out into the streets and open spaces of the city and forced all those that he found poor, weak, blind, and lame, to enter, that the Lord’s house might be filled. Because all these men, spurred both by the poverty of their human life and by their longing for the life of heaven, wanted exactly what the lay sisters desired and requested, he took the same course of action in their case as in the women’s, and finally bestowed the habit upon both in token of humility and renunciation of the world. He imposed on them many heavy tasks and a few light ones, which we have recorded above, as well as spiritual qualities like humility, obedience, and patience and the like, which are difficult to perform but are greatly rewarded; all these they accepted most willingly and promised under oath to observe.

[After seeking unsuccessfully to have the Cistercian order take over the leadership of his religious houses, Gilbert recruited canons to serve the order’s spiritual needs.] And so he was instructed by what we should properly consider a divine destiny and forced by this crisis to summon men to share pastoral care who were educated and distinguished by ecclesiastical orders; these he set to govern all those he had gathered together. He chose men for their ability, scholars for their skill in ruling others, clerks in order to exercise authority over the Church in accordance with law; men to look after women, scholars to open the way of salvation to both men and women, and clerks to supply the pastoral office to all. This he did observing God’s will and the counsel of holy and prudent men, for as is laid down in the decrees of the fathers it is essential that communities of maidens be controlled through the support and administration of monks and clerks. For it is beneficial for virgins who have given themselves to Christ if spiritual fathers are chosen for them so that they may not only be protected under their direction but also be fortified by their teaching.

The sacred canons of the Church declare that monks and clerks must not live in the company of women, but apart from all contact with them; nor should they commonly receive permission to approach even as far as their threshold. For this reason, Master Gilbert, than whom no one ever labored more strenuously in the cause of chastity, observed this ruling. He ordered dwellings for the clerks to be established far away from the houses of nuns, as if there were in one village or one city various households of religious, so that the canons lived a long way distant from the women and had no access to them except for administering some divine sacrament when there were many witnesses present. Only the church where divine service is celebrated is common to all, but then only for the solemn rite of the mass, once or twice a day, and there is a wall which blocks it throughout so that the men cannot be seen or the women heard. For the canons have an oratory of their own in which they perform the divine offices. But whenever a very pressing reason forces them to enter the nuns’ quarters, no one, not even the priest who attends them all, is allowed to go in to visit them unless observed by several companions. Yet even then the nuns who are speaking can be heard, but in no circumstances can they be seen with uncovered faces by any man. If any message from outside needs to be given inside, or any from inside without, four persons are appointed especially to do this: from outside two older men, of known integrity, and from within two of the older sisters. Everything necessary is passed on by these four, who may only hear and not see one another.

When all these arrangements had been made and he had called them all, both men and women, into the unity of fellowship and the bond of peace, that through and in the One he might lead them all to the One, then he made from the multitude one heart and one soul in God.

Questions: What ideals inspired Gilbert and his earliest followers? What practical problems did they face? Why was it deemed necessary to separate men and women within Gilbertine communities? How would you characterize the author’s view of women’s spirituality?

31. William of Malmesbury on the Civil War between Stephen and Matilda

Although he had literally dozens of illegitimate children, Henry I left no legitimate son, and after his death his daughter and heir Matilda was shouldered aside by her cousin Stephen (r. 1135–54), against whom she then waged a lengthy civil war. The following account, by one of twelfth-century England’s finest chroniclers, was dedicated to Matilda’s illegitimate half-brother Robert, earl of Gloucester, who emerges as the hero in this version. This excerpt covers the period in which Matilda came closest to deposing Stephen and becoming England’s first queen regnant. Matilda is known as “the empress” because her first marriage was to the German emperor; after his death, she married Count Geoffrey of Anjou.

Source: trans. J.A. Giles, William of Malmesbury’s Chronicle of the Kings of England, from the Earliest Period to the Reign of King Stephen (London: Henry G. Bohn, 1847), pp. 481–83, 490–93, 498, 505–7, 509–11, 515–25; revised.

In the twenty-seventh year of his reign, in the month of September, King Henry [I] came to England, bringing his daughter [the empress Matilda] with him. But, at the ensuing Christmas, convening a great number of the clergy and nobility at London, . . . he turned his thoughts to a successor to the kingdom. On which subject, having held much previous and long-continued deliberation, he now at this council compelled all the nobility of England, as well as the bishops and abbots, to take an oath that, if he should die without male issue, they would accept his daughter Matilda, the former empress, as their sovereign without delay or hesitation, observing how, prejudicially to the country, fate had snatched away his son William, to whom the kingdom had pertained by right, and that his daughter still survived, to whom alone the legitimate succession belonged, from her grandfather, uncle, and father, who had been kings, as well as from her maternal descent for many ages back. . . . All those persons of any note in this council therefore took the oath: first of all William, archbishop of Canterbury, followed by the other bishops and the abbots. The first of the laity who swore was David, king of Scotland, uncle of the empress, followed by Stephen, earl of Moreton and Boulogne, nephew of King Henry by his sister Adela, then Robert, the king’s [illegitimate] son, who was born to him before he came to the throne, and whom he had created earl of Gloucester, bestowing on him in marriage Mabel, a noble and excellent woman, a lady devoted to her husband, and blessed by numerous and beautiful offspring. There was a singular dispute, as they relate, between Robert and Stephen, who contended with rival virtue about which of them should take the oath first, with one alleging the privilege of a son, the other the dignity of a nephew. . . .

[After King Henry’s death in 1135,] Stephen, earl of Mortain and Boulogne, nephew of King Henry, as I have before said, who, after the king of Scotland, was the first layman who had sworn fidelity to the empress, hastened his return into England by Whitsand. The empress, from certain causes, as well as her brother, Robert, earl of Gloucester, and almost all the nobility, delayed returning to the kingdom. However, some castles in Normandy, the principal of which was Domfront, espoused the party of the heiress. Moreover, it is well known that on the day on which Stephen disembarked in England there was, very early in the morning, contrary to the nature of winter in these countries, a terrible peal of thunder and most dreadful lightning, so that the world seemed well-nigh about to be destroyed. He was received, however, as king, by the people of London and of Winchester, and also won over Roger, bishop of Salisbury, and William Pont de l’Arche, the keepers of the royal treasures. Yet, not to conceal the truth from posterity, all his attempts would have been vain had not his brother, Henry, bishop of Winchester, who is now legate of the papal see in England, granted him his entire support, allured indeed by the fullest expectation that Stephen would follow the example of his grandfather William [I] in the management of the kingdom, and more especially in the strictness of ecclesiastical discipline. In consequence, when Stephen was bound by the rigorous oath which William, archbishop of Canterbury required from him, concerning restoring and preserving the liberty of the Church, the bishop of Winchester became his pledge and surety. . . .

Stephen, therefore, was crowned king of England on Sunday [22 December,] the eleventh before the kalends of January, the twenty-second day after the decease of his uncle, the year of our Lord 1135, in the presence of three bishops, that is, the archbishop, and the bishops of Winchester and Salisbury; but there were no abbots, and scarcely any of the nobility present. He was a man of activity, but imprudent, strenuous in war, of great mind in attempting works of difficulty, mild and compassionate to his enemies, and affable to all. He was kind, as far as promises went, but sure to disappoint in their truth and execution. Whence he soon afterward neglected the advice of his brother, by whose assistance, as I have said, he had supplanted his adversaries and obtained the kingdom. . . .

After Easter in the same year, Robert, earl of Gloucester, of whose prudence Stephen chiefly stood in awe, came to England. While he was yet resident in Normandy, he had most earnestly considered what line of conduct he should determine upon in the present state of affairs. If he became subject to Stephen, it seemed contrary to the oath he had sworn to his sister; if he opposed him, he saw that he could not benefit her nor his nephews, though he must grievously injure himself. For the king, as I said before, had an immense treasure, which his uncle had been accumulating for many years. His coin, and that of the best quality, was estimated at £100,000; besides which there were vessels of gold and silver, of great weight and inestimable value, collected by the magnificence of preceding kings, and chiefly by Henry. A man possessed of such boundless treasures could not lack supporters, more especially as he was profuse, and, what by no means becomes a prince, even prodigal. . . . Stephen, indeed, before he came to the throne, from his complacency of manners, and readiness to joke and sit and regale, even with low people, had gained so much of their affection as can hardly be conceived, and already all the nobility of England had willingly acknowledged him. The most prudent earl, therefore, was extremely anxious to convince them of their misconduct, and recall them to wiser sentiments by his presence, for he was unable to oppose Stephen’s power, from the causes aforesaid; indeed he was not free to come to England unless, appealing as a partaker of their revolt, he concealed his secret intentions for a time. He did homage to the king, therefore, on the condition that he should preserve his rank entire, and maintain his engagements to him, for having long since scrutinized Stephen’s disposition, he foresaw the instability of his faith. . . .

In the year 1139, the venom of malice long nurtured in Steven’s breast finally burst forth openly. Rumors were prevalent in England that Earl Robert was on the very eve of coming from Normandy with his sister; and when, under such an expectation, many persons revolted against the king, not only in inclination but in deed, he avenged himself for this injury at the cost of numbers. He also, contrary to the royal character, seized many nobles at court, through mere suspicion of hostility to him, and obliged them to surrender their castles, and accede to any conditions he prescribed. . . .

[In late September of that year,] Earl Robert, having at length surmounted every cause of delay, arrived with the empress his sister in England, relying on the protection of God and the observance of his lawful oath, but with a much smaller military force than any other person would have required for so perilous an enterprise; for he had with him no more than one hundred and forty horsemen . . . [and] proceeded through the hostile country to Bristol accompanied, as I have heard, by scarcely twelve horsemen, and was joined in the midst of his journey by Brian Fitz-Count of Wallingford. . . . [He] committed the empress to Henry, bishop of Winchester and Waleran, count of Meulan for safe conduct, a favor never denied to the most inveterate enemy by honorable soldiers. Waleran, indeed, declined to go further than Calne, but the bishop continued his route. The earl, therefore, quickly collecting his troops, came to the boundary appointed by the king, and placed his sister in safe quarters at Bristol. She was afterward received into Gloucester by Miles, who held the castle of that city under the earl in the time of King Henry, doing him homage and swearing fidelity to him; for this is the chief city of his county. . . .

The whole country then around Gloucester to the extremity of Wales, partly by force, and partly by favor, gradually joined the party of their sovereign the empress during the remaining months of that year. The owners of certain castles, securing themselves within their strong walls, awaited the outcome of events. The city of Hereford was taken without difficulty, and a few soldiers, who, determined on resistance, had thrown themselves into the castle, were besieged. The king drew near to devise means for their assistance, if possible; but frustrated in his wishes, he retired with disgrace. He also approached Bristol, and going beyond it, burnt the neighborhood around Dunstore, leaving nothing, as far as he was able, which could furnish food to his enemies, or advantage to anyone. . . .

The whole of this year [1140] was embittered by the horrors of war. There were many castles throughout England, each defending its own neighborhood, but, more properly speaking, laying it waste. The garrisons drove off from the fields both sheep and cattle, nor did they abstain either from pillaging churches or churchyards. Seizing those country people who were said to be possessed of money, they compelled them, by extreme torture, to promise whatever they thought fit. Plundering the houses of the wretched husbandmen, even to their very beds, they cast them into prison; nor did they liberate them until after they had given all they possessed or could scrape together any means for their release. Many calmly expired in the midst of torments inflicted to compel them to ransom themselves, bewailing their miseries to God (which was all they could do). And, indeed, at the instance of the earl, the legate, with the bishops, repeatedly excommunicated all violators of churchyards and plunderers of churches, and those who laid violent hands on men in holy or monastic orders, or their servants, but this profited them little. It was distressing, therefore, to see England, once the fondest cherisher of peace and the receptacle of tranquility, reduced to such a pitch of misery that not even the bishops, nor monks, could pass in safety from one town to another. Under King Henry, many foreigners, who had been driven from home by the commotions of their native land, were accustomed to resort to England, and rest in quiet under his fostering protection: in Stephen’s time, numbers of free-booters from Flanders and Brittany flocked to England in expectation of rich pillage. Meanwhile, the earl of Gloucester conducted himself cautiously, and focused his efforts on making conquests with the smallest possible loss to his supporters. He thought it enough to restrain those English nobles who disregarded their oath [to the empress]; this way, even if they did not assist [the empress’s] cause, they would not harm it. . . . But when he saw the opportunity present itself, he strenuously performed the duty both of soldier and of general; more especially, he valiantly subdued those strongholds which did great damage to his cause; that is to say, Harptree, which King Stephen had taken from certain soldiers of the earl before he came to England, and many others: Sudley, Cerney, which the king had garrisoned, as I have said, and the castle which Stephen had fortified over against Wallingford, he leveled to the ground. He also, in these difficult times, made his brother Reginald earl of Cornwall. Nor indeed did the king show less spirit in performing the duties of his station, for he omitted no occasion of repeatedly beating off his adversaries, and defending his own possessions. But he failed to succeed, and all things declined for lack of justice. Dearth of provisions, too, increased by degrees, and the scarcity of good money was so great, from its being counterfeited, that sometimes out of ten or more shillings hardly a dozen pence would be received. The king himself was reported to have ordered the weight of the penny, as established in King Henry’s time, to be reduced because, having exhausted the vast treasures of his predecessor, he was unable to provide for the expense of so many soldiers. All things, then, became venal in England, and churches and abbeys were put up for sale, no longer secretly but even publicly. . . .

At length, on [2 February,] the day of the Purification of the blessed Mary, [the earl of Gloucester and his army] arrived [in Lincolnshire] at the river flowing between the two armies, called the Trent, which, from its springs, together with floods of rain, had risen so high that it could not possibly be forded. Here, at last, disclosing his intentions to his son-in-law, who had joined him with a strong force, and to those he had brought with him, he added that he had long since made up his mind never to be induced to flee, whatever might happen; if they could not conquer, they must die or be taken. All encouraged him to hope the best; and, wonderful to hear, though on the eve of hazarding a battle, he swam across the rapid river I have mentioned, with the whole of his party. So great was the earl’s ardor to put an end to calamity that he preferred risking extremities to prolonging the sufferings of the country. The king, too, with many earls and an active body of cavalry, abandoned the siege and courageously presented himself for battle. The royalists began the prelude to the fight, which they call the ‘joust,’ as they were skilled in that exercise, but when they saw that the earl’s party, if it may be so called, did not attack from a distance with lances, but at close quarters with swords, and broke the king’s ranks with violent and determined onset, all six of the [king’s] earls, together with the king, attempted to ensure their safety by flight. A few barons, of laudable fidelity and valor, who would not desert him, even in his necessity, were taken captive. The king, though he by no means lacked the spirit to defend himself, being at last attacked on every side by the earl of Gloucester’s soldiers, fell to the ground by a blow from a stone (but who was the author of this deed is uncertain). Thus, when all around him were either taken or dispersed, he was compelled to yield to circumstances and become a captive. The truly noble earl of Gloucester commanded the king to be preserved uninjured, nor suffered him to be molested even with a reproach; the person whom he had just before fiercely attacked when dignified with the sovereignty, he now calmly protected when subdued, so that now that the tumults of anger and of joy were quieted he might show kindness to his kinsman, and respect the dignity of the captive’s diadem. The citizens of Lincoln were slaughtered on all sides by the just indignation of the victors. . . .

The king, according to the custom of captives, was presented to the empress at Gloucester by her brother, and afterward conducted to Bristol. Here, at first, he was kept with every mark of honor, except the liberty of going at large: but later, through the presumption of certain persons, who said openly and falsely that it did not become the earl to treat the king otherwise than they chose, and also because it was reported that having either eluded or bribed his keepers, he had been found, more than once, beyond the appointed limits, more especially in the night-time, he was confined with fetters.

In the meanwhile, both the empress and the earl dealt by messengers with the legate his [King Stephen’s] brother, that he should forthwith receive her [as queen] into the Church, and to the kingdom, as the daughter of King Henry, to whom all England and Normandy had sworn allegiance. . . . By means of negotiators on either side, the business was so far advanced that they agreed to meet in conference on an open plain on this side of Winchester. They assembled therefore on the third Sunday in Lent [2 March], a day dark and rainy, as though the fates would portend a woeful change in this affair. The empress swore, and pledged her faith to the bishop, that all matters of importance in England, and especially the bestowing of bishoprics and abbeys, should await his decision, if he, with the holy Church, would receive her as sovereign and observe perpetual fidelity toward her. Her brother Robert, earl of Gloucester, swore as she did, and pledged his faith to her, as did also Brian fitzCount, marcher lord of Wallingford, and Miles of Gloucester, afterward earl of Hereford, with some others. Nor did the bishop hesitate to receive the empress as sovereign of England, and, together with certain of his party, to pledge his faith that, so long as she did not infringe the covenant, he would observe his fidelity to her. On the morrow, which was the fifth before the nones of March [3 March], a splendid procession being formed, she was received in the cathedral of Winchester, with the bishop-legate conducting her on the right side, and Bernard, bishop of Saint David, on the left. There were present also Alexander, bishop of Lincoln, Robert of Hereford, Nigel of Ely, Robert of Bath, the abbots Ingulf of Abingdon, Edward of Reading, Peter of Malmesbury, Gilbert of Gloucester, Roger of Tewkesbury, and some others. In a few days, Theobald, archbishop of Canterbury, came to the empress at Winchester, by invitation of the legate, but he deferred promising fidelity to her, deeming it beneath his reputation and character to change sides until he had consulted the king. In consequence, he and many other prelates, along with some few of the laity, were allowed to visit Stephen and converse with him; then, graciously obtaining leave to submit to the exigency of the times, they embraced the sentiments of the legate. The empress passed Easter, which happened on [30 March,] the third before the kalends of April, at Oxford; the rest returned to their respective homes.

On [8 April,] the day after the octave of Easter, a council was opened with great fanfare at Winchester, consisting of Theobald, archbishop of Canterbury, all the bishops of England, and many abbots, and with the legate presiding. Such as were absent accounted for it by messengers and letters. As I was present at the holding of this council, I will not deny to posterity the truth of every circumstance; for I perfectly remember it. On the same day, . . . the legate called the bishops apart, and discoursed with them in secret of his design; then the abbots and, lastly, the archdeacons were summoned. Of his intention nothing transpired publicly, though what was to be done engrossed the minds and conversation of all. . . .

On the fourth day of the week the Londoners came: and being introduced to the council, urged their cause, so far as to say that they were sent from the fraternity, as they call it, of London, not to contend but to entreat that their lord the king might be liberated from captivity. . . . The legate answered them copiously and clearly and, so that their request might be the less complied with, repeated his speech of the preceding day [in favor of making the empress queen], adding that it did not become the Londoners, who were considered as the chief people of England, in the light of nobles, to side with those persons who had deserted their lord in battle, by whose advice the king had dishonored the holy Church, and who, in fact, only appeared to favor the Londoners in order to drain them of their money.

In the meantime, a certain person, whose name, if I rightly remember, was Christian, a clerk belonging to the queen [Matilda of Boulogne, Stephen’s wife], as I heard, rose up, and . . . read [a] letter in their hearing: of which this was the purport. “The queen earnestly entreated the whole clergy assembled, and especially the bishop of Winchester, the brother of her lord, to restore the said lord to his kingdom, whom abandoned persons, and even such as were under homage to him, had cast into chains.” To this suggestion, the legate answered to the same effect as to the Londoners. . . .

It was now a work of great difficulty to soothe the minds of the Londoners: for though these matters, as I have said, were agitated immediately after Easter, yet it was only a few days before the nativity of Saint John [24 June] that they would receive the empress. At that time a great part of England readily submitted to her government. . . . The lord legate, too, appeared of laudable fidelity in furthering the interests of the empress. But, behold, at the very moment when she imagined she should get possession of all England, everything was changed. The Londoners, ever suspicious and murmuring among themselves, now burst out into open expressions of hatred, and, as it is reported, even laid in wait for their sovereign and her nobles. Aware of and escaping this plot, they gradually retired from the city, without tumult and in a certain military order. . . . The Londoners, learning of their departure, rushed to their residence and plundered everything which they had left in their haste.

Not many days after, a misunderstanding arose between the legate [Henry, bishop of Winchester and King Stephen’s brother] and the empress which may be justly considered as the melancholy cause of every subsequent evil in England. . . . Offended at [her refusal to take his advice], he [the legate] kept away from her court for many days, and though he was repeatedly sent for, persisted in refusing to go there. Meanwhile, he held a friendly conference with the queen, his brother’s wife, at Guildford, and being wrought upon by her tears and concessions, bent his mind to the liberation of Stephen. He also [spoke against the empress:] that she wished to seize his person; that she observed nothing which she had sworn to him; and that all the barons of England had performed their engagements toward her, but that she had violated hers, as she knew not how to use her prosperity with moderation.

To allay, if possible, these commotions, the earl of Gloucester, with a retinue not very numerous, proceeded to Winchester, but, failing in his endeavors, he returned to Oxford, where his sister had for some time established her residence. She, therefore, understanding, both from what she was continually hearing and from what she then learned from her brother, that the legate had no friendly dispositions toward her, proceeded to Winchester with such forces as she could muster. . . . [Meanwhile the legate] sent for all whom he knew were well-disposed to the king. In consequence, almost all the earls of England came, for they were full of youth and levity, and preferred military enterprise to peace. Besides, many of them were ashamed at having deserted the king in battle, as has been said before, and thought to wipe off the ignominy of flight by attending this meeting. Few, however, attended the empress . . . [and] the roads on every side of Winchester were watched by [King Stephen’s] queen and the earls who had come with her, lest supplies should be brought in to those who had sworn fidelity to the empress. The town of Andover also was burned. On the west, therefore, necessities were procured but scantily and with difficulty, . . . as the Londoners were lending every possible assistance [to the legate], and omitting no circumstance which might distress [the empress]. The people of Winchester were, albeit secretly, inclined to her side, regarding the faith they had before pledged to her, although they had been in some degree compelled by the bishop to such a measure. Meanwhile combustibles were hurled from the bishop’s castle on the houses of the townspeople (who, as I have said, rather wished success to the empress than to the bishop), which caught fire and burned the whole abbey of nuns within the city, and the monastery called Hyde. . . . The abbey of nuns at Wherwell was also burned by one William de Ypres, an abandoned character who feared neither God nor man, because some of the partisans of the empress had secured themselves within it.

In the meantime, the earl of Gloucester, though suffering with his followers in daily contests with the royalists, and though circumstances turned out far beneath his expectations, yet ever abstained from the burning of churches. . . . But unable to endure any longer the disgrace of being almost besieged with his party, and seeing fortune inclining toward the enemy, he deemed it expedient to yield to necessity, and so he marshaled his troop and prepared to depart. Sending his sister, therefore, and the rest, in the vanguard, that she might proceed without interruption, he himself retreated gradually with a chosen few who had spirit enough not to be alarmed at a multitude. The earls immediately pursuing him, as he thought it disgraceful, and beneath his dignity to fly, and was the chief object of universal attack, he was made captive. The rest, especially the chiefs, proceeded on their destined journey, and, with the utmost precipitation, reached Devizes. . . . [The earl] never consented to negotiate his liberation, except with the knowledge of his sister. At last the affair was thus decided: that the king and himself should be liberated on equal terms, no condition being proposed except that each might defend his party to the utmost of his abilities, as before. . . . [On the appointed] day, the king, released from his captivity, left his queen, son, and two nobles at Bristol as sureties for the liberation of the earl, and came with the utmost speed to Winchester, where the earl, now brought from Rochester, where he had first been taken, was then confined. The third day after, when the king came to Winchester, the earl departed, leaving there on that day his son William, as a pledge, until the queen should be released. Performing with quick dispatch the journey to Bristol, he liberated the queen, on whose return, William, the earl’s son, was set free from his detention. It is, moreover, sufficiently well known that, although he was enticed by numberless and magnificent promises to revolt from his sister throughout his captivity and in the following months up to Christmas, yet he always deemed his fraternal affection more important than any promise which could be made him. For leaving his property and his castles, which he might have quietly enjoyed, he continued unceasingly to remain near the empress at Oxford, where, as I have said before, she held her court. . . .

Questions: What factors caused the civil war of Stephen’s reign? How does the author describe the conditions of warfare? What rules of noble conduct do we see in operation here? How does the author defend the earl of Gloucester’s actions? How are King Stephen and Matilda the empress depicted here? Why, when Matilda had come so close to the throne, did she lose her chance?

32. The Battle of the Standard

England’s border with Scotland remained unstable through the twelfth century. In 1138, King David I of Scotland, the uncle and sworn supporter of the empress Matilda, launched three invasions of northern England with the aim of cementing his claim to Northumbria and Cumbria. The third of these invasions culminated in the English victory at the Battle of the Standard, where an English force led by local barons (many with ties on both sides of the border) confronted a significantly larger Scottish army in North Yorkshire. This account of the battle is by Richard of Hexham, a monastic chronicler writing shortly afterward.

Source: trans. A.E. Bland, The Normans in England (1066–1154) (London: G. Bell and Sons, 1914), pp. 97–101; revised.

Passing by Durham with his army, the king [David I of Scotland] wasted the crops as far as the River Tees, and as was his custom broke into, plundered, and burned the towns and churches which he had earlier left untouched; then, crossing the Tees, he began to work the same havoc further afield. But the pity of God, stirred by the tears of innumerable widows, orphans and wretched men, would no longer allow him to practice such great impiety without punishment. The preparations made by the king and his men for such wickedness, their supplies, and their intended plan, did not escape the men of Yorkshire. So the barons of that county, namely, Archbishop Thurstan [of York], who, as will appear later, was a prime mover in these events, and William de Aumale, Walter de Ghent, Robert de Bruce, Roger de Mowbray, Walter Espec, Ilbert de Lacy, William de Percy, Richard de Courcy, William Fossard, Robert de Stuteville, and the other mighty and learned men, assembled at York and eagerly discussed what plan to adopt in this crisis. And since many hesitated, suspecting the treason of others and mutually distrustful, and since they had no commander and leader in war, for their lord King Stephen was then overwhelmed with equal difficulties in the south of England and could not come to them at present, and since they feared to oppose their slight forces to such superior numbers, it seemed as if they would have to abandon the attempt to defend themselves and their country.

But Thurstan, their archbishop, a man of great persistence and worth, encouraged them with his speech and counsel. . . . He faithfully admonished them not to allow themselves through cowardice to be overthrown in a single day by the worst sort of barbarism. . . . He also promised them that he would cause the priests of his diocese to march together with them to battle, with their crosses and their parishioners, and proposed that he himself, God willing, would be present at the fight. At the same troubled season Bernard de Balliol, one of the chief men of that district, came to them from the king with a large body of knights, and both on the king’s and his own behalf inflamed their hearts to the same purpose. Urged on, therefore, by the commands both of their king and their archbishop, they were all with one accord confirmed in one same purpose, and each returned to his home. Soon afterward, they all reassembled at York with their munitions and arms ready for war. When they had done penance privately, the archbishop enjoined on them a three-day fast with alms, and thereafter solemnly gave them absolution and God’s and his own blessing, and though, by reason of great infirmity and the weakness of old age, he had to be carried in a litter wherever he was needed, yet he determined to go with them to arouse their courage. But they forced him to remain, beseeching him to be content to intercede for them by prayer and alms. . . . Thereupon he delivered to them his cross and the banner of Saint Peter and his own men, and the army went on to the town of Thirsk. From there they sent Robert de Brus and Bernard de Balliol as messengers to the king of Scotland, who was now wasting the land of Saint Cuthbert, as was said above. They begged the king, with the greatest deference and friendliness, to desist from such cruelty, and promised faithfully that they would ask the king of England to confer on Henry, son of the king of Scotland, the county of Northumberland, which that king had demanded. But he and his men hardened their hearts, rejected the messengers’ overtures, and treated them with scornful contempt. . . . Thereupon all the chief men of that county, and William Peverel and Geoffrey Halsalin from Nottinghamshire, and Robert de Ferers from Derbyshire, and other weighty and wise men, bound and fortified themselves in turn with oaths, that none of them would desert the others in this business, so long as they could each render mutual aid, and so all would either die or conquer together. . . .

While, then, they were awaiting the coming of the Scots, the scouts whom they had sent in advance returned, reporting that the king had already crossed the River Tees with his army, and after his custom was now devastating their district. So they went to meet him in the greatest haste, and passing through the town of Northallerton, at dawn reached a field two miles away. Immediately some of them set up the mast of a ship in the middle of a scaffold which they had brought, and called it the Standard. . . . On the top of the mast they hung a silver box containing the body of Christ, and the banners of Saint Peter the Apostle, and of Saint John of Beverley and Saint Wilfred of Ripon, confessors and bishops. They did this so that Jesus Christ our Lord, by the presence of his body, might be their leader in the war which they had undertaken for the defense of his Church and their country, at the same time thus providing that, if any of them should be by chance separated from their fellows and scattered, they would have a sure landmark by which to return to them and there find assistance. They had hardly equipped themselves with arms for the fight, when the king of Scotland was reported to be at hand with the whole of his army, ready and arrayed for battle.

Therefore a great part of the knights left their horses and became footsoldiers, and the ablest of them were arrayed with archers and set in the front rank, the rest, except the directors of the battle, being packed about the Standard in the center of the army, while the remainder of the troops were massed around them on every side in a dense rampart. The band of horsemen and the horses of the knights were withdrawn a little farther, so that they would not take fright at the noise and clamor of the Scots. In the same manner, among the enemy the king himself and almost all his men became footsoldiers and their horses were kept back toward the rear. In the forefront of the battle were the Picts, in the middle the king with his knights and Englishmen; and the rest of the barbarous horde pressed around on all sides. While they marched to battle in such order, the Standard with its banners was seen not far away, and at once the hearts of the Scottish king and his followers were struck with a mighty fear and terror. But hardened in their malice, they still strove to fulfil the evil work they had begun. So on the octave of the Assumption of Saint Mary [22 August], between the first and third hours of the day, the strife of this battle began and ended. For at the first clash innumerable Picts were slain, and the rest threw down their arms and basely took to flight. The field was choked with corpses, large numbers were captured, and the Scottish king and all the remaining troops fled. Of that great army, all were either killed or captured or scattered like sheep whose shepherd is slain, and in a wondrous way, as if gone mad, as many of them fled away from their own land into the neighboring parts of their enemies’ country, as toward their native land. But wherever they were found, they were killed like sheep for slaughter. And so, by the righteous judgment of God, those who had woefully slain and left the dead unburied were themselves more woefully cut to pieces, and found no burial after the fashion of their own or the foreigners’ land, but were exposed to dogs, birds and wild beasts, or torn and dismembered, or left to decay and putrefy under the open sky. Their king, who a short time before, in his excessive pride of heart and in the magnitude of his army, seemed to have raised his head among the stars of heaven, and therefore threatened to destroy utterly the whole or the greatest part of England, was now shorn of his glory, and accompanied by only a few, and covered with the utmost shame and disgrace, scarcely escaped alive.

Questions: How did the ongoing civil war between Stephen and Matilda affect the north of England in 1138? Why were the English victorious? How does Richard distinguish between the Scots and English?